Development of Narva River Water Tourist Routes
Stage 2 (Routes Development): Key Findings
25.10.07
The present document is developed within the „Narva River Water Routes” project financed by the European Union
2
Today’s Objectives
Present key findings of Routes Development stage
– Route development criteria
– Initial route options (5)
– Demand assessment: stakeholder focus groups
– Route evaluation and prioritization (scorecard method)
– Initial requirements (incl functional, technical) for river tourism vessel
Identify additional information / analysis needs
Agree on direction for next stage
3
Route evaluation criteria
Expected demand
– Tourists• Domestic
• Foreign
• Corporate / conference
• Excursion groups (leisure)
• Individual tourists (leisure)
– Narva residents Value added
– Visual and aesthetic appeal
– Educational and informational value
– Contribution to social environment
– Place marketing / Image-building value (for Narva)
4
Route 1: Silhouettes of Narva
Route: Narva Harbor – Hermann Castle – Narva Harbor - Väikesaar – Tank T-34 - Narva Harbor
Stopover: No
Duration: 45 - 60 min
Purpose / content:
City excursion
Relaxation / entertainment
Snack food / bar
1
2
3
4
78
9
10
11
12
13
1415
1617
18
19
20
5
6
1
2
3
4
78
9
10
11
12
13
1415
1617
18
19
20
5
6
5
Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express Route: Narva Harbor –
Narva-Jõesuu – Narva Harbor
Stopover: Yes (Narva-Jõesuu)
Duration: 30 – 45 min
Purpose / content:
Fast and convenient regular connection between Narva and Narva-Jõesuu
Several trips a day
Snack food / bar
Excursion possibility
Bicycle storage
1
2
3
4
78
9
10
11
12
13
1415
1617
18
19
20
5
6
1
2
3
4
78
9
10
11
12
13
1415
1617
18
19
20
5
6
6
Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise Route: Narva Harbor –
Narva-Jõesuu – Narva Harbor
Stopover: No
Duration: 2 hours
Purpose / content:
Cultural events (concerts, theater, etc.)
Parties and other entertainment events (public, private)
Catering, bar
Excursion possibility
1
2
3
4
78
9
10
11
12
13
1415
1617
18
19
20
5
6
1
2
3
4
78
9
10
11
12
13
1415
1617
18
19
20
5
6
7
Route 4: Narva Bay Cruise Route: Narva Harbor –
Narva-Jõesuu – Narva – Narva Bay – Narva-Jõesuu - Narva Sadam
Stopover: No
Duration: 3-4 hours
Purpose / content:
Cultural events
Parties and other entertainment events (public, private)
Catering, bar
Excursion possibility
Special package: sunset cruise
1
2
3
4
78
9
10
11
12
13
1415
1617
18
19
20
5
6
1
2
3
4
78
9
10
11
12
13
1415
1617
18
19
20
5
6
8
Route 5: Robinson Cruise
Route: Narva Harbor – Väikesaar – Narva Harbor
Stopover: Yes (Väikesaar)
Duration: 10 – 15 min (1 way)
Prerequisite: active recreation possibility on Väikesaar (e.g., children’s theme park)
1
2
3
4
78
9
10
11
12
13
1415
1617
18
19
20
5
6
1
2
3
4
78
9
10
11
12
13
1415
1617
18
19
20
5
6
9
Demand assessment: focus groups
8 participants Age range: 16–59 years, average age: 34 63% male, 37% female Diverse educational and professional backgrounds
Narva Residents
(10.10.07)
Local Tourism
Enterprises (11.10.07)
Tallinn Tourism
Enterprises (12.10.07)
10
Narva Residents: Situation Assessment
Representative quotes:
– ‘Selection is extremely poor for all groups and all possibilities are used up’
– ‘There are very few places for families with children’
– ‘There is no entertainment for middle-aged people’
– ‘Tourists have no reasons for returning to Narva – new events take place so rarely’
Evaluation of Leisure / Recreation Opportunities in Narva and Vicinity
3,00 2,75 2,75 2,75 2,63
3,50
-
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
Young adults Families w ithchildren
Teenagers Middle-Aged Seniors Comparison:tourists
Ev
alu
ati
on
(1
=p
oo
r, 5
=e
xc
ell
en
t)
11
Narva Residents: Situation Assessment Unmet Needs Regarding Leisure / Recreation Opportunitis in Narva
and Vicinity
2,38
2,38
2,57
2,75
2,88
2,88
3,00
3,19
3,50
3,57
4,25
4,25
4,50
4,75
- 1 2 3 4 5
Restaurants
Cinema
Playing areas for children
Public parties (discos, dance evenings)
Bars and Pubs
Sports
Walking parks
Facilities for private parties (e.g., birthdays)
Concerts: open-air
Concerts: indoor
Theater
Theme parks (all-family activities)
Boat rides on Narva River
Water center / Water park / Spa
Unmet Need (1=Very Low, 5=Very High)
12
Unmet Needs: Sample Quotes
‘There are no pubs or restaurants in Narva which I could recommend to a visitor as something different. Everything is just the same.’
‘The main drawback is that we don’t have a theater’.
‘There are no experiential/educational possibilities for children’
‘There are no bicycle paths’
‘There is a lack of places where to organize private events for children – which would be fun and where alcohol would not be sold’
13
What kind of experience / ship?
‘Event ship’ rated as most attractive (4,75), followed by ‘river tram’ (4,5) and ‘restaurant ship’ (3,5)
Sample quotes:
– ‘It would be nice for the ship to combine catering and entertainment functions’
– ‘Possibility of live music on the ship is a must! Various kinds of entertainment activities for residents of Narva could be held on the ship’
– ‘Events on the open deck – for local residents and tourists’
– ‘Historical ship, live music, fast food – this is what residents are interested in’
14
Residents: Route Evaluation
Route 1: ‘More interesting for tourists and schoolchildren’
Route 2: ‘Greatest practical utility’
Route 3: ‘Appropriate for various kinds of events’
Route 4: ‘Attractive only when accompanied by entertainment program’
Route 5: ‘With appropriate infrastructure this could be a great recreation opportunity for families with children’
Evaluation of 5 River Tourism Routes by Narva Residents
4,05
4,784,23 4,33 4,20
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
Route 1:Silhouettes of
Narva
Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express
Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise
Route 4: NarvaBay Cruise
Route 5:Robinson
Cruise
Att
ract
iven
ess
(1=
no
t at
all
attr
acti
ve,
5=ve
ry a
ttra
ctiv
e)
15
Residents: Route Evaluation
Attractiveness of 5 River Tourism Routes By Demographic Segments
-
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
Familie
s with
child
ren
Teen
ager
s
Youn
g ad
ults
Mid
dle-
Aged
Senio
rs
Att
rac
tiv
en
es
s (
1=
no
t a
t a
ll a
ttra
cti
ve
, 5
=v
ery
att
rac
tiv
e)
Route 1: Silhouettes of Narva
Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express
Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise
Route 4: Narva Bay Cruise
Route 5: Robinson Cruise
16
Demand assessment: focus groups
8 participants Age range: 16–59 years, average age: 34 63% male, 37% female Diverse educational and professional backgrounds
Narva Residents
(10.10.07)
Local Tourism
Enterprises (11.10.07)
Tallinn Tourism
Enterprises (12.10.07)
10 participants from Narva and nearby
– Accommodation enterprises (Narva, Inger, King, Vana-Olgina Manor, Narva-Jõesuu Sanatorium)
– Travel Agencies (Adali, Silver Dream Travel)
– Events & Entertainment (Geneva Center)
– Tour guide
17
Demand assessment: local tourism enterprises
Evaluation of Unmet Needs Among Different Tourist Segments in Narva
3,44
2,50 2,67
3,33 3,57
-
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
Foreign tourist Domestic tourist Individual tourist Excursion Groups Corporate /Conference
Un
met
Nee
d (
1= n
o u
nm
et n
eed
, 5=
very
hig
h u
nm
et n
eed
)
‘ There is potential among all customer segments. In Narva there is no supply (of tourism products), therefore no demand either’
18
Unmet needs: local tourism enterprises
‘There is no river tourism, nothing for children’
‘There are no tourism products for children’
‘We perceive demand for new tourism products, incl water tourism, active recreation, products for children’
‘Nature tourism oriented at children’
‘Dining for transit groups’
‘Water tourism for local population and individual tourists’
‘Nature tourism, water tourism products’
‘Comfortable accommodation’
19
Demand assessment: local tourism enterprises
River Tourism Product Potential Among Various Tourist Segments
4,40
3,60
4,40 4,20 4,14
-
1
2
3
4
5
Foreign tourist Domestic tourist Individual tourist Excursiongroups
Corporate /Conference
Po
ten
tial
(1=
very
lo
w,
5=ve
ry
hig
h)
20
What kind of experience / ship? ‘Event ship’ rated as most attractive (4,08), followed by ‘restaurant ship’
(3,76) and ‘river tram’ (3,5)
Sample quotes:
– ‘River tram would be oriented at local residents, it will not impress tourists.’
– ‘Without on-board events – a kind of a ‘hook’, there would be no demand’
– ‘Tourists need a combination of catering and events’
– ‘Large carrying capacity is most important – for organizing events in the evenings and excursions/relaxation events during the day’
– ‘Best would be if tourists come to Narva, visit castle, learn about history and then ride on a modern ship to Narva-Jõesuu’
– ‘There is no need to exaggerate. There are already many historical objects in Narva, we need to create something modern as well.’
21
Route evaluation: local tourism enterprises
Evaluation of 5 River Tourism Routes by Narva Tourism Enterprises
2,823,45
3,97 4,193,63
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
Route 1:Silhouettes of
Narva
Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express
Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise
Route 4: NarvaBay Cruise
Route 5:Robinson Cruise
Att
ract
iven
ess
(1=
no
t at
all
at
trac
tive
, 5=
very
att
ract
ive)
‘Narva Bay Cruise could be used for both daytime and evening events’ ‘Routes 3 or 4 are interesting for all segments and simply obligatory for further development’ ‘Not particularly interested in ‘Silhouettes of Narva’ – not sure which customers would want it’ ‘Why not extend the route to Sillamäe and Toila?’ ‘There should also be routes for yachts and small vessels (e.g., canoes)
22
Demand assessment: local tourism enterprises
Attractiveness of 5 River Tourism Routes By Tourist Segments
-
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
Forei
gn to
urist
Domes
tic to
urist
Indi
vidua
l
Excur
sion
Group
s
Corpo
rate
/Con
fere
nce
Att
rac
tiv
en
es
s (
1=
no
t a
t a
ll a
ttra
cti
ve
, 5=
ve
ry
att
rac
tiv
e)
Route 1: Silhouettes of Narva
Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express
Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise
Route 4: Narva Bay Cruise
Route 5: Robinson Cruise
23
Demand assessment: focus groups
8 participants Age range: 16–59 years, average age: 34 63% male, 37% female Diverse educational and professional backgrounds
Narva Residents
(10.10.07)
Local Tourism
Enterprises (11.10.07)
Tallinn Tourism
Enterprises (12.10.07)
10 participants from Narva and nearby
– Accommodation enterprises (Narva, Inger, King, Vana-Olgina Manor, Narva-Jõesuu Sanatorium)
– Travel agencies (Adali, Silver Dream Travel)
– Events & Entertainment (Geneva Center)
– Tour guide 5 participants from leading Estonian tourism
enterprises
– Incoming travel agencies (Baltic Tours, Estonian Holidays, Restling, Con-Ex/Latvian Tours)
– Event marketing / incentive agency: East Express
24
Unmet needs re: Narva
Lack of attractions and highlights in addition to Hermann Castle
– Specifically, demand for 1 – 3 h activities (excursions, etc.)
Lack of catering options – e.g., group lunches while in transit between Tallinn and St. Petersburg
Lack of tour guides – esp. German language
Narva’s location makes it difficult to bring incentive/corporate groups – convenient air access would improve situation
However, general agreement that Narva’s tourism potential is high and so far mostly unrealized
– Cultural-historical tourism products
– Narva as EU’s Eastern border, East-West meeting point
25
Unmet needs by tourist segments
Evaluation of Unmet Needs Among Different Tourist Segments In Narva
3,44
4,5
3,75
3
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
5
Foreig
n Tou
rist
Domes
tic To
urist
Indiv
idual
Tour
ist
Excur
sion
Group
s
Corpo
rate
/Con
fere
nce
Un
met
Nee
d (
1=n
o u
nm
et n
eed
, 5=
very
hig
h
un
met
nee
d)
26
Unmet needs by tourist segments
River Tourism Product Potential Among Various Tourist Segments
3,64,2 4 4
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
Foreig
n Tou
rist
Domes
tic To
urist
Indiv
idual
Tour
ist
Excur
sion
Group
s
Corpo
rate
/Con
fere
nce
Po
ten
tial
(1=
very
lo
w,
5=ve
ry h
igh
)
27
What kind of experience / ship? ‘Event ship’ rated as most attractive (3,6) compared to ‘restaurant ship (3,18)
and ‘river tram’ (2,65)
Sample quotes:
– ‘The ship should combine catering function (even if simple coffee breaks) with a quality tourism experience – to get the most out of the limited time tourists spend in Narva
– ‘Restaurant ship would be appropriate for foreign tourists while ‘event-ship’ for domestic tourists’
– ‘There is huge potential for an event ship where Estonian companies could hold summer days (100-150 persons)
– ‘In Narva it would be great to combine history, culture and events in river tourism’
– ‘The ship should certainly have a historic character,preferrably 30’s style’
– ‘More important than style (historical vs modern) is quality of service and carrying capacity’
– ‘I see little potential for a river tram: for local residents or tourists’
– ‘A decent ship in an attractive area like Narva could be a commercial hit’
28
Route evaluation: national tourism enterprises
‘Narva Bay Cruise sounds most exotic and and interesting. Something that can be really exciting.’
‘A shorter cruise (Route 1) could be suitable for coffee breaks / lunches’.
‘Route 1 for transit tourists, Route 4 for overnighting tourists’
Evaluation of 5 River Tourism Routes By Estonian Tourism Enterprises
3,65 3,60 3,83 4,35
2,80
-
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
Route 1:Silhouettes of
Narva
Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express
Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise
Route 4: NarvaBay Cruise
Route 5:Robinson
Cruise
Att
ract
iven
ess
(1=
no
t at
all
at
trac
tive
, 5=
very
att
ract
ive)
29
Demand assessment: national tourism enterprises
Attractiveness of 5 River Tourism Routes by Tourist Segments
-
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
Foreig
n to
urist
Domes
tic to
urist
Indiv
idual
tour
ist
Excur
sion
Gro
ups
Corpo
rate
/Con
fere
nce
Att
ract
iven
ess
(1=
no
t at
all
attr
acti
ve, 5
=ve
ry
attr
acti
ve)
Route 1: Silhouettes of Narva
Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express
Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise
Route 4: Narva Bay Cruise
Route 5: Robinson Cruise
30
Focus groups: Summary
Evaluation of River Ship Types
0
1
2
3
4
5
Residents Local tourism enterprises National tourismenterprises
Event ship
Restaurant ship
River tram
‘Event ship’ rated highest by all stakeholders
31
Focus groups: Summary
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
Route 1:Silhouettes
of Narva
Route 2:Narva-JõesuuExpress
Route 3:Narva-JõesuuCruise
Route 4:Narva Bay
Cruise
Route 5:Robinson
Cruise
Residents
Tour. Enterprises: local
Tour. Enterprises: national
Route 4 tourists’ favorite, Route 2 rated highest by residents
32
Focus groups: Conclusions Expected demand in river tourism development high among all customer
segments (incl tourists, residents) – whereas unmet need appears to be highest among residents
All focus groups pointed at ‘event ship’ as the most exciting type of ship; for residents, ‘river tram’ came as a close second.
As a result, Route 4 (Narva Bay Cruise) emerged as the combined favorite route:
– No. 1 for local and national tourism enterprises
– No. 2 for residents
However, high ratings of other routes imply that there is demand for multiple river tourism routes, depending on target customers and their specific needs
– Shorter route (Route 1) for transit tourists, longer route (Route 4) for overnighting tourists
– Route 5 as a potential ‘hit’ for local residents (families with children)
33
Route evaluation criteria: relative weights
Relative Weights of Route Evaluation Criteria
8%
8%8% 8%
8%
20%
10%10%10%
10%
Tourists - Domestic
Tourists - Foreign
Tourists -Corporate/ConferenceTourists: Excursion groups
Tourists: Individual
Narva Residents
Aesthetic / visual appeal
Educational / informationalvalueContribution to socialenvironmentPlace marketing / image-building value
Tourist demand: 40%
Resident demand: 20%
34
Scorecard: Data
Weight (%) Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 51. Expected demandTourists (Weighted average) 40% 3,24 3,54 3,90 4,27 3,21Narva Residents 20% 4,05 4,78 4,23 4,33 4,2
2. Value-addedAesthetic / visual appeal 10% 4 4 4 5 3Educational / informational value 10% 5 3 3 3 3Contribution to social environment 10% 3 5 4 4 5Place marketing / image-building value 10% 5 4 4 4 3
35
Scorecard: Results
Composite Ratings of 5 River Tourism Routes
3,80 3,97 3,91 4,17
3,53
-
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
Route 1:Silhouettes of
Narva
Narva-JõesuuExpress
Narva-JõesuuCruise
Narva Bay Cruise Robinson Cruise
Route 4 (Narva Bay Cruise) highest rated; however other routes not far behind
Recommendation to develop master route network rather than single route
36
Narva River Tourism Route Network: Draft
Hermann Castle
Narva Harbour
Väikesaar
Tank T-34
Narva - Jõesuu Harbour
Russian Federation
Republic of Estonia
Narva Bay
Control line
1 2 3 4 5
1
1
2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1
1 2 3 4 55
2 3 44
4
42
2 3 4
2 3 15
37
Functional requirements: ship
Parameters which facilitate events and contribute to memorable experiences received highest ratings (incl sundeck, spacious inner deck, live music possibility)
Full-scale restaurant not an obligatory product feature, but catering capability is a must
Other things equal, stakeholders prefer an historical type of ship, however historical ‘feel’ should not come at the expense of convenience and quality of service
Importance of River Ship Parameters (Average ratings from 3 focus groups)
4,12 3,98 3,96 3,92 3,74 3,73 3,61 3,22 3,05
-
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
Sunde
ck
Inne
r dec
k
Histor
ical s
hip Bar
Live
mus
ic
Cater
ing -
fast
food
Cater
ing -
rest
aura
nt
Mod
ern
ship
Luxu
rious
inte
rior
Att
ract
iven
ess
(1=
no
t at
all
im
po
rtan
t, 5
=ve
ry i
mp
ort
ant)
38
Technical requirements: ship
Meets requirements for river (Narva) AND coastal sea (Narva Bay) navigation
Inner deck carrying capacity: 70 - 100 persons
Possibility to use sundeck for open-air events
Sufficient supporting infrastructure for recreational use (e.g., toilets)
Capability of off-season navigation / use (e.g., heating)
39
Outstanding Questions
How to prioritize between ‘event ship’ and ‘river tram’ ?
Which routes should be included in feasibility study?
– Option 1: Routes 1, 3, 4
– Option 2: Routes 1-4
– Option 3: Routes 1-5
How to address interests/needs of small vessels (e.g., yachts, canoes)?
40
Next Steps
Adjust Stage 2 findings based on today’s discussion
Conduct Narva River inspection: Oct. 30, 2007
Finalize Stage 2 conclusions (Nov. 2), submit presentation (PPT)
– More detailed route definition
– Updated scorecard and route ratings
Begin work on Stage 3 (viability / feasibility study)
Schedule next working meeting (review of feasibility study 1st draft)