A Survey-based Analysis of Traffic Behaviour of Short Vacationers and Same-day Visitors

Abstract

Traffic performance of leisure traffic has increased over the last years. Leisure traffic can be distinguished into common and uncommon leisure traffic. Common leisure traffic includes regular and routinised mobility whereas uncommon leisure traffic, for example, is represented by day trips or (short-time) vacations. The performance of uncommon leisure traffic is harmful to the environment due to its high share of motorised private transport (MPT) in the transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination as well as for the mobility during the vacation, is harmful to the environment. Thus, the inspection of uncommon leisure traffic is gaining importance to achieve environmental and climate change objectives. Therefore, traffic concepts targeting visitors become more important.

Full text

Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 3228 – 3237
2352-1465 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Road and Bridge Research Institute (IBDiM)
doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.266
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
6th Transport Research Arena April 18-21, 2016
A survey-based analysis of traffic behaviour of short vacationers
and same-day visitors
Dominik Bieland a,*, Carsten Sommer b, Claudia Witte a
aUniversity of Kassel, Chair of Transportation Planning and Traffic Systems, Mönchebergstraße 7, 34125 Kassel, Germany
bProfessor Dr.-Ing. Carsten Sommer, University of Kassel, Head of Chair of Transportation Planning and Traffic Systems,
Mönchebergstraße 7, 34125 Kassel, Germany
Abstract
Traffic performance of leisure traffic has increased over the last years. Leisure traffic can be distinguished into common and
uncommon leisure traffic. Common leisure traffic includes regular and routinised mobility whereas uncommon leisure traffic, for
example, is represented by day trips or (short-time) vacations. The performance of uncommon leisure traffic is harmful to the
environment due to its high share of motorised private transport (MPT) in the transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination
as well as for the mobility during the vacation, is harmful to the environment. Thus, the inspection of uncommon leisure traffic is
gaining importance to achieve environmental and climate change objectives. Therefore, traffic concepts targeting visitors become
more important.
The current empirical database for holiday traffic required for optimal adopted concepts has limitations. This article relates to
uncommon leisure traffic. Essential characteristics of traffic behaviour of visitors, such as choice of transport mode for the trip to
the vacation destination and the mobility during vacation, preferences for innovative tariffs and causes regarding choice of transport
mode, are presented based on a survey conducted in 2013.
© 2016The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V..
Peer-review under responsibility of Road and Bridge Research Institute (IBDiM).
Keywords: Uncommon leisure traffic; traffic behaviouir; sustainable mobility; traffic concepts for vacation destination
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 -561-804-3019; fax: +49-561-804-7382.
E-mail address: d.bieland@uni-kassel.de
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Road and Bridge Research Institute (IBDiM)

3229
Dominik Bieland et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 3228 – 3237
1. Term: uncommon leisure traffic
Leisure time can be negatively defined as the time that does not include time for work, study or regeneration (sleep,
eat, disease). What remains is the spare time of a person that can be further divided into bound and unbound leisure
time. The unbound leisure time is not used for shopping, trips to work or household chores (Freyer 2011).
According to the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), leisure traffic comprises all journeys or routes
for passenger traffic which are not allocated to commuter traffic, school traffic, business traffic, shopping traffic or
traffic due to escort (DIW 2011). Leisure traffic includes routes without a direct target like short leisure rides. Leisure
traffic can be just a short ride or vacations of up to several weeks.
With leisure traffic, a distinction can be made into common and uncommon leisure traffic (Jain 2006). Common
leisure traffic is characterised by behavioural routines, which means that transport mode and route are often chosen
habitually without reflection. Common leisure traffic includes,for instance, frequent sports activities or cultural
activities as well as frequent private visits to family or friends. Uncommon leisure traffic, by contrast, includes
sporadic private visits or leisure events as part of short vacationsor same-day visits. It should be noted that this
definition is not distinct. Even frequent tours at weekends with different destinations might reveal habitualised
behaviour. Tourism is usually part of uncommon leisure traffic (Freyer 2011). This paper concentrates on uncommon
leisure traffic with afocus on short vacations and same-day visits.
Nomenclature
MPT motorised private transport
NMPT non-motorised private transport
PT public transport
pkm passenger kilometres
nsample size
2. Importance of leisure traffic for an environment friendly traffic management
In essence, the environmental compatibility of uncommon leisure traffic depends on:
xmodal split,
xspecific traffic volume of vehicle traffic, flight performance in the aviation sector and
xautomotive technology and drive system of the vehicle and aircraft.
According to ifmo (2014), uncommon leisure traffic accounts for about one third of the traffic volume in Germany.
In view of the long travel distances, the car and the airplane are the preferred transport mode for sv and pdat.
For their (main) vacations, the German population uses the airplane for more than 70% of the transport performance
(arrival and departure). On the other hand, private cars are used for approximately 60% of transport performance for
short vacations and day trips. Cars and airplanes have a higher specific energy consumption compared to busses and
trains and cause more air pollution and CO2emissions. For an environment friendly traffic management, a shift in
transport performance to environmental alliance is necessary.
Figure 1 illustrates the current transport performance as well as its future development in different segments of
long-distance mobility. Long-distance mobility covers trips with a length of at least 100 km. Transport performance
in uncommon leisure traffic (vacations, short vacations, other private overnight trips, private day trips) has grown in
the period from 2000 to 2010 –private day trips even disproportionately. In the future, a further growth of transport
performance is expected.

3230 Dominik Bieland et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 3228 – 3237
Fig. 1. Status quo und developments of long distance mobility (ways >100 km) ; Source: Bieland 2015 based on IFMO 2014, pp. 16 –28.
The increase in traffic performance is partly due to the increasing proportion of regularly travelling persons among
the group of all travellers,while the proportion of rarely travelling persons declines. Thus, the average number of trips
per person increases (Figure 2). Moreover, Larsen (2008) and LaMondia and Bhat (2010a) indicate that long-distance
leisure trips have become commonplace for many people over the past decade. Thus, households increasingly consider
tourism travel as an extension of people’s daily activities making them part of their everyday life. In addition, studies
have shown that the average duration per trip decreases. A trend towards city trips and short vacations can be
determined in Germany. City trips and short vacations frequently occur inland. The transport mode is primarily based
on private cars (FUR 2014b). The significance of the car as transport mode is not limited to Germany but is also found
in studies from Great Britain, Scotland or the USA (Thompson & Ferguson 2006, Guiver, Lumsdon & Weston 2008,
Buehler 2010). Other studies do support the fact that the number of short vacation close to home is increasing due to
less expenditure, less pre-planning and particularly less time investment (LaMondia, Snell & Bhat 2009, LaMondia
& Bhat 2010b).
Especially agglomeration areas experience difficulties in complying with the stipulated limitsfor air polluting
emissions (annual average). The report for the resolution of the European Commission (2013) identifies traffic as the
main cause of pollution in several German agglomeration areas leading to high concentrationsof NO2. Opaschowski
indicated in 1999 that leisure and holiday traffic is responsible for about half of the air pollution produced by passenger
cars (Opaschowski 1999). Due to their importance, visitor attractions generate a huge volume of traffic, and thus,
cause a negative impact on the environment.
It has been shown that an analysis of negative environmental effects of the whole traffic sector due to uncommon
leisure traffic is gaining importance to achieve environmental and climate change objectives. For that matter,visitors
realise their responsibility as consumersand take a closer look at aspects of sustainability and climate protection before
and during their trip. Furthermore, fromtheir point of view the nation has to create a sustainable offer that meets the
needs of visitors for sustainable vacations. According to the results of an FUR study, visitors are willing to travel more
environment friendly in their vacations (FUR 2014b, WWF 2009). There is a huge potential for protecting the cultural
and natural heritage as well as increasing the quality of stay and leisure value by influencing uncommon leisure traffic
in terms of environment friendliness.

3231
Dominik Bieland et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 3228 – 3237
Fig. 2. Change of frequency of trips in the period 1972 –2014 ; Source: Bieland 2015 based on FUR 2014a, p. 2.
3. Traffic behaviour in uncommon leisure traffic
In order to develop measures regarding the environmental compatibility of uncommon leisure traffic, knowledge
of the existing traffic behaviour of visitors as well as the determinants and backgrounds of their behaviour isessential.
However, as Haberl et al (2012) state, leisure trips in general are heterogeneous and show a high variability, which
makes leisure traffic difficult to handle. Tourism travel in particular has a high complexity, since individuals tend to
combine activities to a greater extent (LaMondia and Bhat 2010b). Furthermore, visitor attractions undertake little
activity in monitoring the traffic behaviour of their visitors since it is considered peripheral to their core activity of
maintaining or increasing the number of customers. At the same time, only those site-based activities for changing the
traffic behaviour can be concerned, which do not interfere with their core activity (Guiver, Lumsdon, Weston 2008).
Therefore, the Chair of Transportation Planning and Traffic Systems of the University of Kassel carried out several
visitor surveys in Kassel as part of the FREE research project. By interviewing a total of 797 randomly selected visitors
at their place of activity (Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe), various kinds of data were gathered, including mode of transport
for the trip to the vacation destination, mobility during vacation, everyday mobility, attitude towards electric mobility
and socio-demographc data of visitors. The survey provides a cross section of visitors.
The objective of the FREE research project is to make sustainable mobility services available from a single
provider. With the additional option of using electric vehicles and pedelecs as a means of transport, overnight visitors
can arrive in Northern Hesse without their own car and still remain flexible.Under these conditions, public transport
can form the backbone of mobility. To simplify the use of the new services, aprovider-wide information and booking
system will be established,integrated ticket solutions will be developed and the charging infrastructure expanded. The
german federal ministry of transport and digital infrastructure funds the project. NOW GmbH Nationale Organisation
Wasserstoff-und Brennstoffzellentechnologie is responsible for coordinating the programme.
The choice in favour of or against a destination is based on available leisure activities. The city of Kassel is
apopular destination for short vacationers and same-day visitors due to its wide range of cultural activities. Especially
Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe (World Heritage Site) as the most important and famous destination attracts many visitors.
The visitors surveyed can be classified based on their duration of stay in overnight guests (visitors who stay overnight)
and same-day visitors (visitors who do not stay overnight). Same-day visitors are, in terms of their permanent
24 32 46 51 6264
32
36
36 33 2624
44 32 18 16 1312
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
[%]
rarely travelling persons
no vacation in the last three years
interval-travelling persons
at least one vacation in the last three years
regularly travelling persons
at least one vacation every year over the past three years

3232 Dominik Bieland et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 3228 – 3237
residence, further distinguished into residence-trippers and same-day visitors whose permanent residence is outside
the city of Kassel.
As with every survey, survey design and interview situation have to be taken into consideration when interpreting
the data. Visiting the water games in Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe (Kassel, Germany) is a time-consuming activity.
It is therefore often the only activity of same-day visitors since they have to arrive and depart as well. On the other
hand, there are overnight visitors who do not arrive and depart on the day of their visit to the water features. Hence
they have more time for further activities on the key date. As expected, overnight visitors (3.16 trips per day) conduct
more trips per day than same-day visitors (2.85 trips per day). Furthermore, only ways by foot in Bergpark
Wilhelmshöhe that lead to an activity in addition to that of visiting the water feature (e.g. museum, gastronomy) were
surveyed.
A typical visitor to Kassel can be described as follows: age of over 40 years, a high level of education and a high
income, mostly travelling accompanied by a partner. Thus, adult couples and seniors can be identified as primary
target groups in Kassel. They are characterised by a high purchasing power and high demands for service and quality
of offers.
Representative surveys have already characterised different subgroups of (short) vacationers. Examples are the
joint INVENT project (Öko-Institut e.V. 2005), funded by the German federal ministry of education and research as
well as the manual of target groups prepared by the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia (Tourismus NRW e.V.
2009). The target groups mentioned in these reports are used by various other cities and regions and were slightly
adapted (Thüringer Tourismus GmbH 2011, Sauerland Tourismus e.V. 2013). (Short) Vacationers are summarised by
demographic and socioeconomic attributes, preferences, likings and behaviour. The above mentioned target groups
can also be applied to visitors of Kassel. Depending on their age and travel companions, the interviewees were
assigned to the target groups: “Young singles and couples”, “Families”, “Adult couples”, “Seniors” and “Adult single
travelers”.
About 66%of all visitors use MPT for their trip to Kassel and their local mobility. Only about one in five uses
public transport to get to Kassel. Figure 3and Figure 4show the modal split of overnight visitors and same-day visitors
for their trip to Kassel and the local mobility. Since residence trippers do not belong to the target group of the
investigation they are not considered.
Figure 3reveals that 79%of the overnight visitors use MPT as the mode of transport for their trip to Kassel,whereas
only every fifth overnight visitor usesPT. Overnight visitors arriving by MPT also show anMPT-oriented traffic
behaviour for their local trips. On the other hand, overnight visitors arriving by PT mainly use PT for their trips during
vacation.
Further analysing the data, the Chi-square test of independence was used to assess the probability of association or
independence of facts. The Chi-square test of independence is a nonparametric statistical analysing method,which
determines the relation of two attributes(Zibran 2012 ). Since the data do not meet the requirements of an analysis of
variance –homoscedasticity in particular –the analysis is based on the Chi-square test of independence. The test
shows whether attributes are stochastically independent or not. The test confirms with high significance that the choice
of transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination affects the choice of transport mode for the trips during
vacation.Overnight visitors who choose PT as transport mode for their trip to Kassel have a five times higher
probability of using PT in Kassel (> 50%of ways in Kassel) in comparison to overnight visitors choosing MPT.
Trends are similar for same-day visitors (Figure 4). 85% of same-day visitors arrive at their vacation destination
by MPT and mainly use MPT for their local mobility. In contrast, 14% arrive by PT and primarily use PT at their
place of destination as well.

3233
Dominik Bieland et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 3228 – 3237
Fig. 3. Choice of transport mode of overnight visitors in Kassel depending on the choice of transport mode for the trip to Kassel ; Source: Bieland
2015 (data basis: visitor survey Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 2013).
Fig. 4. Choice of transport mode of same-day visitors in Kassel depending on the choice of transport mode for the trip to Kassel ; Source: Bieland
2015 (data basis: visitor survey Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 2013)
Moreover, the analysis of the whole group of visitors reveals highly significant correlations between everyday
mobility and choice of transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination. Figure 5 demonstrates that the higher
frequency of using public transportation, the higher the probability of choosing public transport as transport mode for
vacations. Regular and occasional users of PT are seven times more likely to use the bus or train than rare and non-
users of PT.

3234 Dominik Bieland et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 3228 – 3237
Fig. 5. Choice of transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination depending on the user frequency of PT in everyday mobility (residence
trippers are not considered) ; Source: Bieland 2015 (data basis: visitor survey Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 2013).
Further research aims at the determinants of the choice of transport mode. The causes for the choice of transport
mode for the trip to Kassel were surveyed by an open question and the option of multiple answers (Table 1). Since
open questions induce a wide range of answers, the answers had to be categorised afterwards. Table 1 shows the
percentage share of the respective category in relation to all answers given. Categories with very few entries (< 10%
of the specific target group) are not mentioned in this table. Flexibility describes the possibility for spontaneous
activities, independence or unrestricted mobility by the visitors. Transport offer, on the other hand, describes mainly
benefits of travel time as well as accessibility, and the quality of public transport connections (e.g. switchover).
Table 1. Determinants of choice of transport mode of overnight and samy-day visitors differentiated by transport mode for the trip to Kassel ;
Source: Bieland 2015 (data basis: visitor survey Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 2013).
Overnight visitors Same-day visitors
MPT
(n = 124)
PT
(n = 33)
MPT
(n = 336)
PT
(n = 58)
Convenience 31% 24% 35% 47%
Transit 9% 0% 7% 0%
Flexibility 23% 0% 14% 2%
Costs 14% 33% 6% 22%
Transport offer (e.g. travel time) 15% 18% 30% 9%
Need to transport luggage 13% 0% 4% 2%
Travelling in company 6% 0% 6% 7%
Attached to a mode of transportation 2% 21% 5% 17%
It is remarkable that convenience is stated by interviewees getting to Kassel by MPT as well as by PT. Transport
offer is stated regardless of the choice of transport mode. While visitors arriving by MPT name flexibility, the need to
transport certain luggage and transit as decision regarding the transport mode, PT is primarily chosen because of costs.
In total, same-day visitors use MPT more often (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Costs are stated less often in comparison
to overnight visitors. Therefore, the transport offer gains importance. Since same-day visitors arrive, depart and do
their activities in just one day, depending on the distance travelled, they primarily need these attributes (flexibility,

3235
Dominik Bieland et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 3228 – 3237
(temporal) short ways) to save time. The PT offer is often not sufficient to cover this demand, especially where and
when there is a generally a low demand for public transport.
A supplementary survey (n = 121) was conducted at the tourist office of Kassel (city center). In addition to the
features mentioned above, the tariff preferences of the interviewees were surveyed. The study implies that the
interviewees do not just look for a place to stay during their vacation,but prefer a comprehensive offer, composed of
accommodation, transport service and leisure activities (Figure 6). Visitors are willing to pay larger amounts of money
for these additional services, for example the use of local public transport on-site. Merely 11%of the visitors would
choose a simple and cheap hotel accommodation. The majority of respondents,however,prefer higher-priced all-
inclusive offers, such as the KONUS Guest Card (Hochschwarzwald Tourismus GmbH 2015). Accordingly, 61%
would most likely opt for a hotel offering an all-inclusive card without electromobile transport offers. Yet, another
12%of the respondents favour the addition of electric vehicles (e-car sharing and pedelec) to the all-inclusive offer.
The advance of electric mobility seems to be well on its way. Even though the general public is not familiar with
electric vehicles, there is a fundamental interest in using electric traffic offers during vacation. As a result, appropriate
models have been developed to combine the basic hotel accommodation with traffic and leisure offers. Ideally, these
models combine the use of PT for arrival and departure since this offers the greatest potential to influence the choice
of transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination. Such an offer is already available in Garmisch-Partenkirchen
(Germany) (Garmisch-Partenkirchen Tourismus 2014).
Fig. 6. Tariff preferences of visitors ; Source: Bieland 2015 (data basis: visitor survey Touristeninformation Kassel 2013, n = 120).
Integrated services, including hotel accommodation and the use of traffic and leisure offers, have become popular
among customers. Models that offer all services at a flat rate are preferred. Similar to the choice of transport mode for
the trip to the vacation destination,visitors put great emphasis on a simple and convenient access to local leisure and
traffic offers.
4. Conclusions regarding traffic offers of holiday regions
The investigations have shown highly significant correlations between traffic behaviour in everyday life and the
choice of transport mode for the trip to Kassel. Moreover, the transport mode chosen for the trip to Kassel largely
determines the choice of local transport. These findings are not limited to the city of Kassel nor to Germany. As seen
above, other studies demonstrate the significance of the private car as transport mode for the trip to and trips within
the vacation destination, too. The use of private cars, combined with an increasing number of travellers and vacations
per person can lead to increased emissions and air pollution as well as destruction of natural environment due to
infrastructure development in any city or region with tourism. Therefore uncommon leisure traffic may influence
10% 1%
5%
12%
11%
61%
Hotel ticket with seperatet
electromobile offers
Hotel ticket with various
optional tour packages
Discount card
All-inclusive card with
electromobile traffic offers
Accomodation (without
further offers)
All-inclusive card without
electromobile traffic offers

3236 Dominik Bieland et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 3228 – 3237
living conditions negatively. There are different (theoretical) chances in order to remedy these negative impacts on
the environment, for example modal shift in favour of environmental friendly transport modes or reducing the traffic
volume of private cars.
As the findings suggest, there are two options for an environment friendly traffic management of uncommon
leisure: Influencing everyday mobility or influencing the transport mode for the trip to the vacation destination.
Vacation destinationshave –if any –only a marginal impact on everyday mobility of visitors. Besides, the core
activity of visitor attractions is to increase the number of visitors as well as offering a convenient accessibility, whereas
the choice of transport mode of visitors is secondary. Measures that restrict the accessibility or restrict certain transport
modes, such as parking management, are only supported by the visitor attractions, if they do not interfere with the
primary goal of increasing the number of visitors. Thus, the provider at the vacation destinations should focus on
developing offers and measures that influence the choice of transport mode of the visitors for their trip to the vacation
destination.
Offers combining the arrival, accommodation and traffic and leisure offers hold a great potential in terms of
environmental benefits. Offers including the trip to the vacation destination by PT with the accommodation –which
is what is available in Garmisch-Partenkirchen (Germany) –may contribute to an effective influence on the traffic
behaviour of visitors. This shall presume a target-oriented product design and pricing. The preference of customers
for integrated offers suggests that there is actually such a demand. For developing and communicating these offers in
Germany it is not only important to cooperate with stakeholders in the tourist sector, but also with railway and long-
distance bus companies as well as tour operators.
The survey results as well as findings from other holiday destinations show that visitors expect simple, convenient
and flexible offers. The static offer of public transport with timetable for arrivals and departures plus fixed routes is
often not sufficient. Points of interest of leisure activities beyond the core area of PT are difficult to reach. This means
that the possibilities for activities of visitors arriving by PT are limited. Moreover, it should be noted that using PT in
regions away from home is especially difficult for persons who are MPT-affine since they have to face cognitive and
practical challenges.
Including bicycles, pedelecs and (e-)cars for rent in the public transportation offer ensures flexible mobility of the
visitors even when travelling without their own car. The extended service offers visitors the possibility to easily reach
points of interest also during times and in areas with poorly developed connections to public transport. In this context,
a simple distribution, anintegrated customer medium and anintegrated tariff, which is oriented towards the above
mentioned model of an all-inclusive-card, is important.
Communicating these offers increases the visitors’ awareness. An information and booking system, which points
out these integrated offers before the trip to the vacation destination, can contribute to this objective. In particular,
regular and occasional customers of PT show a great potential for using integrated offers based on PT. Cooperation
partnerships between holiday destinations and various transport companies can therefore be regarded as highly
promising marketing strategies.As described above, the likelihood of sustainable mobility at the vacation destination
is higher among regular and occasional customers of PT than among rare and non-users.
5. Summary
Developing new mobility concepts requires specific knowledge of the mobility behaviour of visitors. Due to the
high share of MPT upon arrival and departure as well as local mobility,uncommon leisure traffic is not environment
friendly so far. With an increasing traffic volume,the importance of uncommon leisure traffic increases in terms of
environmental and climate protection objectives. Measures to change the transport mode for the trip to the vacation
destination of visitors in favour of public transportation have a great potential to influence local mobility as well.
Integrated offers that combine traffic and touristic services can make a considerable contribution to environment
friendly uncommon leisure mobility. Not only the local public transport should be considered, but especially PT offers
for arrival and departure. Furhermore, the whole integrated service should be developed regarding the needs of the
visitors (simplicity, convenience, flexibility), from information to booking and payment.

3237
Dominik Bieland et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 14 ( 2016 ) 3228 – 3237
References
Bieland, D. (2015): Fachgebietsinterne Präsentation von Ergebnissen der Besucherbefragungen im Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe und der
Touristeninformation Kassel. Kassel.
Buehler, R. (2010): Determinants of transport mode choice: a comparison of Germany and the USA. In: Journal of Transport Geography, pp. 644
–657.
DIW (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung) (2011): Verkehr in Zahlen 2011 / 2012, Hamburg.
Europäische Kommission (2013): BESCHLUSS DER KOMMISSION vom 20.2.2013 betreffend die Mitteilung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
über die Verlängerung der Frist für das Erreichen der NO2-Grenzwerte in 57 Luftqualitätsgebieten, Brüssel.
Freyer, W. (2011): Tourismus –Einführung in die Fremdenverkehrsökonomie, Oldenburg.
FUR (2014a): RA 2014 -erste Ergebnisse, <http://www.fur.de/fileadmin/user_upload/RA_2014/ITB_2014/RA2014_Praesentationscharts-
Auswahl.pdf> (03/31/2015).
FUR (2014b): RA 2014 –erste ausgewählte Ergebnisse der 44. Reiseanalyse zur UTB 2014,
<http://www.fur.de/fileadmin/user_upload/RA_Zentrale_Ergebnisse/RA2014_ErsteErgebnisse_DE.PDF> (05/11/2015).
Garmisch-Partenkirchen Tourismus (2014): Perfekt kombiniert! Unsere Arrangements 2014, <http://www.gapa.de/download/2014_arrangement-
broschuere.pdf> (06/11/2015).
Guiver, J., Lumsdon, L. and Weston R. (2008): Traffic reduction at visitor attractions: the case of Hadrian’s Wall. In: Journal of Transport
Geography, pp. 142 –150.
Haberl, M. et al (2012): Modelling the demand of leisure traffic in the province of Salzburg.
<http://abstracts.aetransport.org/paper/index/id/3977/confid/18> (08/12/2015).
Hochschwarzwald Tourismus GmbH (2015): KONUS-Gästekarte, http://www.hochschwarzwald.de/KONUS (06/15/2015).
Ifmo –Institut für Mobilitätsforschung (2014): Langstreckenmobilität –Aktuelle Trends und Zukunftsperspektiven,
<http://www.ifmo.de/tl_files/publications_content/2014/ifmo_2014_Langstreckenmobilitaet_de.pdf> (11/11/2014).
Jain, A. (2006): Nachhaltige Mobilitätskonzepte im Tourismus, in: Blickwechsel – Schriftenreihe des Zentrum Technik und Gesellschaft der TU
Berlin, Bd. 5, Berlin.
LaMondia, J. and Bhat, C.R. (2010a). A conceptual and methodological framework of leisure activity loyalty accommodating the travel context:
application of a copula-based bivariate ordered-response choice model. Technical paper, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin.
LaMondia, J. and Bhat, C.R. (2010b): A Study of Visitors’ Leisure Travel Behavior in the Northwest Territories of Canada,
<http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/bhat/abstracts/combinations_leisureactivities_rev_1nov2010.pdf> (08/12/2015).
LaMondia, J., Snell, T. & Bhat, C. R. (2009) : Traveler Behavior and Values Analysis in the Context of Cavation Destination and Travel Mode
Choices: A European Union Case Study.
<https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/23803/TRR_Vacation_destination_15March2010.pdf?sequence=2> (08.12.2015).
Larsen, J. (2008). De-exoticizing leisure travel. In: Leisure Studies, Vol. 27, pp. 21-34.
Öko-Institut e.V. (2005): Zielgruppenmodell <http://www.invent-tourismus.de/html/projekt02.htm> (03/21/2013).
Opaschowski, H. (1999): Umwelt. Freizeit. Mobilität. Konflikte und Konzepte, Opladen.
Sauerland Tourismus e.V. (2013): Zielgruppen <http://www.sauerland-tourismus.com/Themenmanagement/Zielgruppen> (03/21/2013).
Thompson, K. & Ferguson, N. S. (2006): Investigation of travel behaviour of visitors to scotland. Edinburgh.
Thüringer Tourismus GmbH (2011): Zielgruppe und Gästepotential. <http://fachpublikum.thueringen-tourismus.de/kooperationen-partner-
downloads/zielgruppe-und-gaestepotenzial-131642.html> (03/26/2013).
Tourismus NRW e.V. (2009): Zielgruppenhandbuch -Masterplan Tourismus Nordrhein-Westfalen http://www.touristiker-nrw.de/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/Zielgruppenhandbuch-Tourismus-NRW.pdf (11/11/2014).
WWF (2009): Der touristische Klima-Fußabdruck –WWF-Bericht über die Umweltauswirkungen von Urlaub und Reisen,
<http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/Der_touristische_Klima-Fussabdruck.pdf>(11/11/2014).
Zibran, M. H.(2012): CHI-Squared Test of Independence. <http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/CPSC681/topic-fahim-CHI-
Square.pdf> (08.12.2015).