D5.2b – Data Collection Report from the pilot sites (Final) D5.3b ... · D5.2b – Data...

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928

Sustainable Transport for Areas with Tourism through Energy Reduction

D5.2b – Data Collection Report from the

pilot sites (Final) D5.3b – Final evaluation report

Task No.: 5.2, 5.3 WP Reference: WP5

Lead Author: CERTH/HIT Other Authors: all

Rev. No.: 1.0 Issue Date: December 5th, 2014

Nr. pages: 122 Availability: Public

Status: Final

KEYWORDS: evaluation, data collection, final state analysis, IEE Common Performance Indicators

ABSTRACT This deliverable contains the methodology, activities, results and conclusions from the final evaluation of the implementation activities that took place in all STARTER pilot sites during the project’s lifetime. In particular, it provides an overview of the methodology adopted, the assessment of the operation of the LTPNs established in each site and the evaluation of the measures implemented in each site.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928

Data collection report from the pilot sites (final)

Final evaluation report

Rev. 1.0

Issue Date: 05-12-2014

of 113

COPYRIGHT This document may not be copied, reproduced, or modified in whole or in part for any purpose without written permission from the STARTER Consortium. In addition, an acknowledgement of the authors of the document and all applicable portions of the copyright notice must be clearly referenced.

All rights reserved.

This document may change without notice.

The STARTER Consortium:

• Mobycon, The Netherlands

• Municipality of Noordwijk, The Netherlands

• Centre for Research and Technology Hellas/HIT, Greece

• Municipality of Kos, Greece

• Consulting Formaplan SL, Spain

• UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserve of Fuerteventura, Spain

• Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary

• KTI Institute for Transport Sciences Non-profit Ltd., Hungary

• Herry Consult GmbH, Austria

• Municipality of Werfenweng, Austria

Disclaimer The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

The STARTER project (IEE-11-787) is co-funded by the European Commission, through the Executive Agency for Competitiveness & Innovation (EACI) under its “Intelligent Energy – Europe” (IEE) programme. The authors wish to acknowledge the Commission for their support of the project, the efforts of the partners and the contributions of all those involved in the STARTER initiative.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 7!

1.! INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 8!1.1! OVERALL DESCRIPTION OF THE STARTER PROJECT ................................................................... 8!1.2! OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT ..................................................................................................... 9!1.3! STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT ...................................................................................................... 9!

2.! METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 10!2.1! METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH .................................................................................................. 10!2.2! IEE COMMON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ................................................................................. 13!

3.! DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................... 16!3.1! PHASES OF DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................................. 16!3.2! DATA COLLECTION METHODS .................................................................................................... 16!3.3! DATA COLLECTED PER SITE ....................................................................................................... 20!3.4! KEY FINDINGS OF THE INTERIM EVALUATION ............................................................................... 20!

4.! FINAL IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 24!4.1! KOS ........................................................................................................................................ 24!

4.1.1! Tourists survey ............................................................................................................ 24!4.1.2! LTPN Coordinator and members ................................................................................. 36!4.1.3! Local stakeholders ....................................................................................................... 39!

4.2! FUERTEVENTURA ..................................................................................................................... 40!4.2.4! Tourists survey ............................................................................................................ 40!4.2.1! LTPN Coordinator and members ................................................................................. 43!

4.3! NOORDWIJK ............................................................................................................................. 47!4.3.1! Tourists survey ............................................................................................................ 47!4.3.2! LTPN Coordinator and members ................................................................................. 56!4.3.3! Local stakeholders ....................................................................................................... 57!

4.4! LAKE BALATON ........................................................................................................................ 59!4.4.4! Tourists survey ............................................................................................................ 59!4.4.5! LTPN Coordinator and members ................................................................................. 74!4.4.6! Local stakeholders (if applicable) ................................................................................ 79!

4.5! WERFENWENG ......................................................................................................................... 80!4.5.1! Tourists survey ............................................................................................................ 80!4.5.2! LTPN Coordinator and members ................................................................................. 87!4.5.3! Local stakeholders (if applicable) ................................................................................ 92!

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

5.! CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 93!5.1! ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT’S TARGET ....................................................................................... 93!

5.1.1! Overview of STARTER evaluation – pilot site level ..................................................... 93!5.1.1.1! Kos ............................................................................................................... 93!5.1.1.2! Fuerteventura ............................................................................................... 96!5.1.1.3! Noordwijk ...................................................................................................... 98!5.1.1.4! Balaton ....................................................................................................... 101!5.1.1.5! Werfenweng ............................................................................................... 104!

5.1.2! Overview of STARTER evaluation – cross-site level ................................................. 106!5.1.3! Overview of STARTER evaluation - project level ...................................................... 108!

5.2! FINAL CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................................................................. 111!

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1! Questionnaire approach for the evaluation of the measures ................................................. 12!Figure 4-1! Transport mode choice per group of age .............................................................................. 25!Figure 4-2! Portal’s users and page views for May-October 2014 ........................................................... 29!Figure 4-3! Transport mode choice per group of age (Fuerteventura) ..................................................... 41!Figure 4-4! Transport mode choice per group of age (Noordwijk) ........................................................... 48!Figure 4-5! Reasons for not using the beach shuttle ............................................................................... 52!Figure 4-6! Transport mode choice per group of age (tourists - Balaton) ................................................ 61!Figure 4-7! Transport mode choice per group of age (daily commuters - Balaton) ................................. 61!Figure 4-8! Transport mode choice per group of age (frequent commuters - Balaton) ............................ 62!Figure 4-9! Awareness and use of the GfC among bicycle users ............................................................ 64!Figure 4-10! Transport mode choice per group of age (Werfenweng) ..................................................... 81!Figure 4-11! Walking combined with other transport modes (Werfenweng) ............................................ 82!

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1! Target groups approached in each evaluation phase ............................................................. 17!Table 3-2! Data collected per site ............................................................................................................ 20!Table 4-1! Use of transport modes during stay (Kos) .............................................................................. 25!Table 4-2! Key evaluation indicators for the Portal .................................................................................. 26!Table 4-3! Motorized trips replaced by sustainable modes of transport (bicycle, PT, walking) due to the Portal 27!Table 4-4! Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the implementation of the Portal ............... 29!Table 4-5! Key evaluation indicators for the information signs ................................................................ 30!Table 4-6! Motorized trips replaced by sustainable modes of transport (bicycle, PT, walking) due to the signs 31!Table 4-7! Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the implementation of the pedestrians’ map 32!Table 4-8! Key evaluation indicators for the new PT timetables .............................................................. 32!Table 4-9! Motorized trips replaced by PT due to the new timetables ..................................................... 33!Table 4-10! Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the adjustment of the PT timetables ....... 34!Table 4-11! Total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures ............................... 35!Table 4-12! Evolution of LTPN membership in Kos ................................................................................. 36!Table 4-13! LTPN meetings (Kos) ........................................................................................................... 37!

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-14! Use of transport modes during stay (Fuerteventura) ............................................................ 40!Table 4-15! Key evaluation indicators for the “Salt Route by bike” promotional measures ..................... 42!Table 4-16! Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the promotional measures ...................... 43!Table 4-17! Evolution of LTPN membership in Fuerteventura ................................................................. 43!Table 4-18! LTPN meetings (Fuerteventura) ........................................................................................... 44!Table 4-19! Use of transport modes during stay (Noordwijk) ................................................................... 47!Table 4-20! Key evaluation indicators for the new parking policy ............................................................ 49!Table 4-21! Motorized trips potentially replaced by sustainable modes of transport (bicycle, PT, walking) due to the new parking policy ..................................................................................................................... 50!Table 4-22! Potential energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the implementation of the new parking policy ............................................................................................................................................. 51!Table 4-23! Key evaluation indicators for the Beach Shuttle service ....................................................... 51!Table 4-24! Key evaluation indicators for the Beach Shuttle’s promotional measures ............................ 53!Table 4-25! Car trips potentially replaced by the beach shuttle due to the promotional measures ......... 54!Table 4-26! Potential energy use and CO2 emissions reduction before and after the implementation of the promotional measures .......................................................................................................................... 54!Table 4-27! Actual total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures (Noordwijk) .. 55!Table 4-28! Potential total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures ................. 55!Table 4-29! Evolution of LTPN membership in Noordwijk ....................................................................... 56!Table 4-30! Parking hours (x1,000) in tariff areas .................................................................................... 58!Table 4-31! Change in production of parking hours from July 2013 till April 2014 compared to the same months in 2012-2013 ................................................................................................................................. 58!Table 4-32! Use of transport modes during stay (Balaton - tourists) ....................................................... 60!Table 4-33! Use of transport modes during stay (Balaton – daily commuters) ........................................ 60!Table 4-34! Use of transport modes during stay (Balaton – frequent commuters) .................................. 60!Table 4-35! Key evaluation indicators for the Guide for Cyclists ............................................................. 63!Table 4-36! Key evaluation indicators for the bus-to-train timetable ........................................................ 66!Table 4-37! Key evaluation indicators for the bus-to-bus timetable ......................................................... 68!Table 4-38! Key evaluation indicators for the promotional actions .......................................................... 70!Table 4-39! Motorized trips of tourists replaced by bicycle and/or PT due to the promotional measures 71!Table 4-40! Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the implementation of the promotional measures (tourists) .................................................................................................................................... 72!Table 4-41! Total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures (tourists) ................ 73!Table 4-42! Total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures (daily commuters) . 73!Table 4-43! Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the implementation of the promotional measures (frequent commuters) ................................................................................................................ 74!Table 4-44! Evolution of LTPN membership in Balaton ........................................................................... 74!Table 4-45! LTPN meetings (Balaton) ..................................................................................................... 75!Table 4-46! Use of transport modes during stay (Werfenweng) .............................................................. 80!Table 4-47! Key evaluation indicators for the SAMO-APP ....................................................................... 82!Table 4-48! Key evaluation indicators for the new webpage for SAMO-card .......................................... 83!Table 4-49! E-vehicle rentals for years 2011 - 2014 ................................................................................ 85!Table 4-50! Use of capacity of the electric cars SMILE - E ...................................................................... 86!Table 4-51! Use of the e-taxi ELOIS ........................................................................................................ 86!Table 4-52! Modal shift towards e-vehicles, bicycle and shuttle service .................................................. 86!Table 4-53! Energy use and CO2 emissions reduction due to the existence of the e-fleet and the shuttle services 87!Table 4-54! Type of organizations/members of the LTPN (Werfenweng) ................................................ 87!Table 4-55! LTPN meetings (Werfenweng) ............................................................................................. 88!Table 5-1! Overview of STARTER evaluation in Kos ............................................................................... 95!Table 5-2! Overview of STARTER evaluation in Fuerteventura .............................................................. 97!Table 5-3! Overview of STARTER evaluation in Noordwijk ................................................................... 100!Table 5-4! Overview of STARTER evaluation in Balaton ....................................................................... 103!Table 5-5! Overview of STARTER evaluation in Werfenweng ............................................................... 105!Table 5-6! Modal split (%) – cross-site overview ................................................................................... 106!

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 5-7! Pure sustainable mobility (%) and pure conventional mobility (%) – cross-site overview .... 107!Table 5-8! LTPN’s membership ............................................................................................................. 108!Table 5-9! Overview of STARTER evaluation (project level) ................................................................. 109!

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Executive summary

The goal of the project STARTER (Sustainable Transport for Areas with Tourism through Energy Reduction) is to promote energy efficient and sustainable mobility policies and practices across the EU through the cooperation of all local interested parties. Within the project’s lifetime Local Travel Plan Networks (LTPNs) and Local Travel Plans (LTPs) were formulated in each one of the 5 participating touristic sites (Kos, Fuerteventura, Noordwijk, Lake Balaton and Werfenweng). The LTPs included a list of potential site-specific mobility measures to be implemented, from which three measures were selected and finally implemented, monitored and evaluated in each.

The goal of the current document is to provide the results from the final evaluation of both the LTPNs and of all measures that have been implemented during the project’s lifetime. The aim is to present in detail the results, findings and conclusion from the implementation of the measures as well as the experiences from the establishment of the LTPNs in the various sites and their contribution to the measures definition and implementation.

Within STARTER 15 measures have been implemented in total (3 in each pilot site) that have a clear target towards the reduction of car pollutant emissions and the modal shift to environmental friendlier transport modes.

In some cases, delays in implementation, leading to short times of measures’ operation before the final data collection, caused low percentages of awareness and use among the tourists (i.e. the on-line tools in Werfenweng), while in other cases, local conditions and other projects running in parallel, also affected the measures’ impact (i.e. harmonized PT timetables in Balaton).

Despite the fact that real site conditions created problems in implementation and evaluation (data collection), the five regions managed (to one extent or another) to display or at least to imply positive and promising impacts in favour of sustainability.

All sites are willing to continue evaluation of their measures (in one way or another) beyond STARTER’s lifetime.

The LTPN participation in the measures’ implementation was very strong in terms of decision making, but differed significantly between sites, and even between measures in each site, in terms of actual involvement in the financing and implementation. Good examples are displayed in the cases of Noordwijk (LTPN members actually created the combination voucher), Fuerteventura (LTPN members provided bike parking and bike-rental facilities) and Werfenweng (LTPN members collecting the necessary budget).

Experiences from the LTPN coordination indicate that special coordination skills are required for controlling “for-benefit” behaviour of the members and a strong personal commitment by all participants.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

1. Introduction

This section provides a brief summary of the STARTER project’s overall objectives and those of the task that produced this deliverable. The structure of the rest of this document is then presented.

1.1 Overall description of the STARTER Project

There are a vast number of touristic regions in Europe, all of them attracting many tourists from Europe and around the world. These regions include islands and seaside resorts visited during the summer, mountainous regions, lakes and lakesides, historical and religious sites as destinations of cultural or religious visits, and many others. Despite the different characteristics of these places and the different type of tourists that they attract, they all share a common feature, which is the fact that the touristic activity is, to a higher or lower degree, concentrated during a specific season.

The seasonality of tourism demand leads to a rising demand for transport and mobility services during the high season, which has a large effect on the traffic situation in the specific touristic regions. In other words, seasonality of transport demand occurs in touristic areas during high seasons and is caused by the variations observed in the demand of the touristic industry. The immediate effect of the seasonality of transport demand is the high traffic congestion in the main road networks. Side effects of this include high energy use (mainly fossil fuels), traffic noise and air pollution leading to negative health and environmental effects, increased risk of traffic accidents, low quality of transportation services and damage to the transport infrastructure.

Based on the above, it is clear that there is a great need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of local transport systems in order to cope with the growing problems and most importantly to put emphasis on the use of alternative sustainable transport modes and/or mobility measures. On the other hand, sustainable transport is also a market opportunity for the touristic sector, since consumers are becoming more and more conscious of the need for sustainability. The problem however is that ‘greening’ seasonal traffic is not simply the task of the authorities: the main players of the transport sector, the environmental organisations and the economic/touristic sector should join forces with local/regional authorities to ensure sustainable seasonal traffic.

For this reason STARTER (Sustainable Transport for Areas with Tourism through Energy Reduction) aims to promote energy efficient and sustainable mobility policies and practices across the EU through the cooperation of all local interested parties.

The main outcome of the project is the implementation of Local Travel Plan Networks (LTPNs)1 and innovative mobility measures in 5 regions suffering from a steep seasonality of transport demand, which will contribute to achieve a less energy consuming transport system and less car-dependant ‘lifestyles’. Increased awareness of LTPNs and mobility management measures by policy shapers, makers, implementers and users through the project website, reports, journal articles, and workshops / conferences will also be a key result of the project.

1 A Local Travel Plan Network (LTPN) is: “A group, or network, of organisations that have come together to share resources and ideas for developing and implementing a travel plan in their local area.” Where a travel plan is: “A package of measures tailored to the needs of individual organisations and aimed at promoting greener, cleaner travel choices and reducing reliance on the car.”

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

1.2 Objectives of this report

As already mentioned, the main goals of the STARTER project are to shift residents and tourists towards more environmentally friendly and energy efficient modes of transport by creating and sustaining Local Travel Plan Networks at a series of pilot sites to identify and implement packages of soft mobility measures.

After discussion among the project partners, but, most importantly, after discussion with the LTPN members, each pilot site has selected and implemented 3 measures that aim at encouraging the use of sustainable transport modes in the area of interest. These measures are presented in detail within the final implementation report (STARTER deliverable 4.2), which is a publicly available document on the project’s official website (http://www.starter-project.eu/).

Upon finalization of the STARTER project it is necessary to evaluate the performance of the measures and the achieved decrease in energy use and CO2 emissions, as well as to assess the potential impact that these measures may have on the travel behaviour of tourists and on mobility management.

With regards to the establishment of the LTPNs, it is also necessary to evaluate their operation and the degree of involvement achieved by the local stakeholders, as well as to investigate their potential for independent functioning beyond the project’s lifetime.

Based on the above, the scope of the present document is to present the results of the final evaluation that took place in each of the five pilot sites. The report aims at presenting the impacts of the implemented measures (in transport and energy), but also at providing information on the operation of the Networks in each region.

1.3 Structure of this report

In addition to the current introductory chapter, the contents of this deliverables have been structured and organized in five chapters:

The second chapter briefly describes the methodology that was formulated and applied for the data collection and analysis, as well as the process and algorithms that were used for the calculation of the IEE Common Performance Indicators (CPI).

The third chapter describes the data collection phases that have taken place throughout the course of the STARTER project, as well as the methods that were used for the data collection. Furthermore, it summarizes the collected data of the final evaluation, in terms of completed questionnaires that were selected by each site. Finally, it also provides a quick overview of the results of the previous evaluation phase (interim).

Chapter 4 presents the results of the final evaluation of both the implemented measures and the LTPNs. Analysis of the collected data and presentation takes place per site. The CPI are also estimated.

Finally, the concluding chapter (Chapter 5) consolidates the analysis results from each site (overview). It also summarizes the main achievements of the measures’ implementation throughout the whole duration of the project (evaluation on the project level). Final concluding remarks on the results are also provided.

The annexes are included in a separate document.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

2. Methodology

2.1 Methodological approach

The evaluation within STARTER rests in the following two main pillars:

A. The evaluation of the LTPN aims at investigating the degree to which the LTPNs were introduced and accepted in each pilot region. For that purpose, specific indicators are defined, which are measured through questionnaires addressing the LTPN Coordinator and the LTPN members. These questionnaires can be found in Annex I and include the following indicators:

• Number of LTPN members (quantitative)

• Number of organized LTPN meetings (quantitative)

• Type of members (qualitative)

• Initiatives undertaken (quantitative/qualitative)

• Dissemination actions (quantitative/qualitative)

• Main problems during operation and main actions to tackle them (qualitative)

• Actions for guarantying the continuity of the LTPN (qualitative)

• Requirements for continuity of the LTPN (qualitative)

• Reason(s) for joining the LTPN (qualitative)

• Number of participations in the LTPN meeting (quantitative)

• Assess the network as added value for the region (qualitative)

• Satisfaction related to specific activities of the LTPN (identification of local mobility problems; definition of sustainable mobility measures’ contribution to tourist-transport cooperation; raising the awareness of the local stakeholders towards transport sustainability) (quantitative/qualitative)

• Benefits of the LTPN (as perceived by the members) (qualitative)

• Suggestions for improvement of the LTPN (qualitative)

• Interest in continuing membership in the LTPN (qualitative)

Questionnaire for LTPN Coordinator

Questionnaire for LTPN members

Questionnaire for LTPN members

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

The questionnaire for the LTPN Coordinator was common for all the pilot sites. The questionnaire for the LTPN members was common for Kos, Fuerteventura and Balaton, but slightly different for Noordwijk and Werfenweng, in order to better address the local characteristics of the Network (see also Section 3.2 “Data Collection Methods).

B. The evaluation of the measures aims at assessing the acceptance of the measures that have been implemented in each site by the visitors and investigating the degree to which these measures lead to the achievement of predefined goals, namely the achievement of modal shift to sustainable modes of transport (bicycle, e-vehicles, Public Transport, walking), thus the reduction of energy use and CO2 emissions. In order to reach this goal, specific indicators/variables were defined and measured in all three phases of data collection through questionnaires addressing tourists (see also Section 3.1 “Phases of data collection”). Indicators and variables that commonly apply to all pilot sites include:

• Mode of transport used during stay (qualitative)

• Characteristics of daily trips during stay (i.e. number of trips undertaken by each transport mode that was used, average distance travelled per each trip, etc.) (quantitative)

• Awareness of the implemented measure (qualitative)

• Use of the implemented measure (if applicable) (qualitative)

• User’s satisfaction with the implemented measure (qualitative)

• Influence of the measure as per the decision of the respondent to use sustainable transport modes (qualitative)

A main characteristic of all the questionnaires of the final evaluation is that they contain “controllers” (i.e. “If your answer is No, please go to question #”) that created specific levels of sub-groups of respondents for each question. Given that each questionnaire contained measures of different nature, this was necessary for the logical consistency of the majority of the questions. For example, when evaluating a guide for cyclists (like the one developed for the region of Balaton), the target group is bicycle users, who, at the same time, are aware and have used the guide. For the measure of the harmonized PT timetables in Balaton, which was also included in the same questionnaire with the guide for cyclists, it is important to reach out to bus users.

This approach led to different levels of sub-samples per question. The questionnaires are structured in such a way that, while the respondent evaluates a specific measure, he/she moves from one level to another. A nested chart is presented in Figure 2-1.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Figure 2-1 Questionnaire approach for the evaluation of the measures

The question regarding the awareness of the measures results in two sub-groups of respondents: the awareness (“A”) sub group and the non-awareness (“non-A”) sub group.

In those cases where the measure can actually be used (i.e. being an application or a Portal), the “A” group is asked whether it has actually used the measure. Those who have used it (“U” group) are further asked about their satisfaction with the characteristics of the service/measure.

The next methodological step requires the identification of the sustainable transport mode (bicycle and/or PT and/or walking) users (“SM users”) among the “A+(U)” group and the identification of non-users of sustainable transport modes (“non-SM”) among the “non-A” group.

The influence that a measure had on the decision of the visitor to use sustainable transport modes is investigated among the “A+(U)+SM” group, namely those who are aware of the measure (and have used it, if applicable) and at the same time are users of sustainable transport modes. In some cases (i.e. Noordwijk) the potential influence is investigated among the “non-A+non-SM” group, namely those who are not aware of the measure and, at the same time, are not users of sustainable transport modes. This approach was considered necessary, since, on one hand, those who are aware of the measures and, at the same time, are not SM users have already made their decision and, on the other hand, those who are not aware of the measure but already use SM are already sustainable transport mode users.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Finally, out of the influenced (“I”) group and the potentially influenced group, the actual and potential, respectively, modal shift, energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction are estimated (see also Section 2.2).

Despite the fact that the above-mentioned methodological approach enables the logical consistency of the questions, it is important to highlight that the controllers often led to questions with very few responses. For questions that demanded more than one controller (i.e. the indicator of the user satisfaction is only investigated among those who are aware and have used the measure), this often led to such a few responses (2-5) that did now allow certain conclusions to be drawn.

Two final groups that should be considered by the reader are the groups “P” and “R”. The first one refers to the tourists that participated (P) in each questionnaire survey, while the second one refers to those survey participants that responded (R) to the questions. By definition, the “R” group could be applicable to each question, as the participants are not obliged to answer a question if they do not wish to do so. However, if all participants give their answer to a question then “R” group = “P” group.

2.2 IEE common performance indicators

The STARTER project aims to demonstrate a local reduction of 10% primary energy savings compared to projections of end-users (= tourists) targeted by the specific measures by the LTPN members.

During the project’s proposal phase, a rough estimation has been done on the IEE Common Performance Indicators (CPI). During the course of the project, though, an update of the calculation methodology was done (new algorithms were defined) and the IEE Common Indicators were measured for each site by using the data collected from the questionnaire results (final evaluation). The methodology that was used for calculating the energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction due to the measures’ impacts is based on the trips that the tourists have undertaken during their stay in the region and the characteristics of those trips, namely:

• Mode of transport used during stay

• Number of trips done during the week

• Average days of travel per week

• Average weeks of travel per year

• Average distance travelled

The methodological approach considers only the trips within the region, thus making the basic assumption that the measures only affect the within-the-region travel behaviour (this, of course, is not always the case: for example, in Balaton, the new harmonized bus time tables can also have a positive effect on the travel behaviour to/from the region). Furthermore, the methodology considers vehicle kilometres and not passenger kilometres, and the trips with Public Transport are assumed to produce zero emissions and use zero energy.

The CPI methodology is based on the calculation of the actual car/taxi/motorcycle kilometres travelled within the region that have been replaced by kilometres travelled by sustainable transport modes (bicycle, PT, walking, electric vehicles) due to the implemented measures (actual modal shift from car/taxi/motorcycle to bicycle/PT/walking/e-vehicles). The percentage of actual modal shift is estimated through the question: “Has the measure influenced your decision

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

to use sustainable transport modes?”, which refers to the Sustainable Mode (SM) sub-group for respondents, who at the same time are aware (A-group) of or have used the measure (U-group) (see also Section 2.1 above). For some pilot sites (i.e. Noordwijk), a potential modal shift is also estimated through the question: “Could this measure encourage you to use sustainable transport modes”, which refers to non-users of Sustainable Modes (non-SM), who are not aware of or haven’t used the implemented measure (non-A + non-U). Therefore, the modal shift is considered for two sub-groups of the tourist’s sample:

1 Awareness group (A group) + Sustainable Mode users (SM group)

2 Non-awareness group (non-A group) + Non-Sustainable Mode users (non-SM group),

This was considered necessary, since those who are aware of the measure and at the same time do not use sustainable modes and those who are not aware of the measure but use sustainable modes have already made their choices without being influenced by the measure.

After estimating the percentages of modal shift, the actual car/taxi/motorcycle kilometres that have been replaced by “sustainable” kilometres are estimated by the question: “What percentage of your trips have been replaced by sustainable transport modes?”. This question refers to those who were influenced by the measure as per their decision to use sustainable transport modes (I-group). The potential car/taxi/motorcycle kilometres that could have been replaced by “sustainable” kilometres are estimated through the question: “What percentage of your car/taxi/motorcycle trips would you be willing to replace by sustainable transport modes?”

Exceptions are the measures of the beach shuttle in Noordwijk and the new bike lane in Fuerteventura. For these measures, the replaced kilometres are a priori defined, since both the beach shuttle route and the new bike lane are of specific length.

Furthermore, the following parameters have been used across all sites:

• Fuel consumption:

a. car/taxi: 1 litre per 15 kilometres – assumption

b. motorcycle: 1 litre per 25 kilometres

• Primary energy use: 0,884 toe (tons of oil equivalent) per 1000 litre, based on 80% gasoline and 20% diesel engines (Source: EUROSTAT)

• Emissions: 2,383 ton CO2e per 1000 litre, based on 80% gasoline and 20% diesel engines (Source: Carbon Trust).

The methodology applied in order to perform the calculation of the CPI lies beneath the following steps:

Step 1 – calculation of the car/taxi/motorcycle kilometres “after” The car/taxi/motorcycle kilometres that are driven after the implementation of the measure are estimated for each respondent who has been influenced by the measure by the characteristics of his/her daily trips:

!(!"#$%!!"#$%×!"!!"!!"#$!!"#!!""#×!"#$%&!!"!!""#$!!"#!!"#$×!"#$!%#!!"#$%&'(!!"#!!"#$)

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Step 2 – calculation of the car/taxi/motorcycle kilometres “before” The car, taxi and motorcycle kilometres before the implementation of the measure are estimated for each respondent that was influenced by the measure as:

!"#, !"#$,!"#"$%&%'(!!"#!"!"#$%"1 − !"#$"%&'("!!"!!"#$%&"'"()

Step 3 – calculation of the replaced car/taxi/motorcycle kilometres The car/taxi/motorcycle kilometres that have been replaced by “sustainable” kilometres (bicycle, PT, walking, e-vehicles) are calculated for each respondent who has been influence by the measure as:

!"#, !"#$,!"#"$%&%'(!!"#!!"#$%" − !"#, !"#$,!"#"$%&%'(!!"#!!"#$%

Step 4 – calculation of the total car/taxi/motorcycle kilometres “after” The total car/taxi/motorcycle kilometres that are driven after the implementation of the measure are estimated for all cars, taxi and/or motorcycle users as:

(!"#$%!!"#$%×!"!!"!!"#$!!"#!!""#×!"#$%&!!"!!""#$!!"#!!"#$×!"#$!%#!!"#$%&'(!!"#!!"#$)!!

!!!

Where n: the number of car, taxi and motorcycle users

Step 5 – calculation of the fuel consumption (“after” and “before”) The fuel consumption of is calculated, based on the assumption that average fuel consumption for cars and taxis is 15 km/litre and for motorcycles 25 km/litre:

!"#$!!"#$%&'()"# "after" = !"!#$!(!"# + !"#$)!!"#!"!"#$%"15 + !"!#$!!"#"$%&%'(!!"#!"!"#$%"25

!"#$!!"#$%&'()"#!"before"= !"!#$! !"# + !"#$ !"#!!"#$% + !"#!!"! !!" + !"#$ !"#!!"#$%&"' !

15+ !"!#$!!"#"$%&%'(!!"#!!"#$% + !"#!!"!!"#"$%&%'(!!"#!!"#$%&"'

25

Step 6 – calculation of the energy use and CO2 emissions (after and before) The use of toe and CO2 production is estimated for each category of average user, based on the following parameters:

• 1000 litre of fuel produce 0,884 toe (Source: EUROSTAT)

• 1000 litre of fuel produce 2,383 tons of CO2 (Source: Carbon Trust).

!"!#$%!!"#!(!"#)!(!!"#$!!!"!!"#$%) = !"#$!!"#$%&'()"#! !"#$%"!!"!!"#$%1000 ×0,884

!"2!!"#$$#%&$!(!"#$)!(!"#$%"!!"!!"#$%) = !"#$!!"#$%&'()"#! !"#$%"!!"!!"#$%1000 ×2,383

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

3. Data collection

3.1 Phases of data collection

During the course of the project, three distinct phases of data collection are recognised:

• The first round (‘zero’ or current measurement) that took place at the beginning of the project (summer 2012), before the implementation of the measures and during the establishment of the LTPNs. The analysis, which was based on the data collected during this round, investigated the conditions in the five pilot sites before any interventions were made.

• The second round of data collection (interim measurement) took place during summer 2013, a while after the completion of the 1st implementation phase. Its goal was to report on the process of the measures implementation and provide a first assessment of the measures.

• The final round of data collection (final measurement) took place during summer – autumn 2014, after the completion of the 2nd (final) implementation phase. As already mentioned, the current report covers the final round of data collection and evaluation and aims at providing concrete conclusions regarding both the implemented measures and the operation of the LTPNs upon finalization of the STARTER project.

3.2 Data collection methods

The necessary data for the analysis were collected mostly through questionnaires that have been formulated for that purpose. The following table presents the target groups that were approached in each phase (first, interim, final) with different questionnaires dedicated to each target group. The questionnaires of the 3rd phase (final) are presented in Annex I of the current document and include three types: for the LTPN Coordinator, the LTPN members and the tourists.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 3-1 Target groups approached in each evaluation phase

Kos Fuerteventura Noordwijk Balaton Werfenweng

Pha

se 1

Pha

se 2

Pha

se 3

Pha

se 1

Pha

se 2

Pha

se 3

Pha

se 1

Pha

se 2

Pha

se 3

Pha

se 1

Pha

se 2

Pha

se 3

Pha

se 1

Pha

se 2

Pha

se 3

Tourists x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Residents x x x x x

Employees working in the tourism sector

x x x x

LTPN Coordinator x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Local authorities x x x x x x

LTPN Members x x x x x

The questionnaires that addressed the tourists included indicators that were common for all sites (for example, mode of transport during stay, characteristics of daily trips, etc.), as well as measure-specific indicators for each site. Therefore, five different questionnaires for tourists were created, one for each site.

The questionnaire for the LTPN Coordinator was common for all sites, while the questionnaire for the LTPN members was common for Kos, Fuerteventura and Balaton and slightly different for Noordwijk and Werfenweng. This was requested by the pilot site leaders in order to better address the characteristics of the LTPN in their region. For Noordwijk it was necessary to substitute the term “LTPN” with the term “STARTER cooperation”, because the members of the LTPN did not fully perceive the term. For Werfenweng, the indicator related to the interest of the members to continue their participation in the LTPN was not relevant, since the LTPN is established many years now and members are already dedicated to their membership.

Once completed, all questionnaires were delivered to the WP leader and analysed. An excel file was also created and distributed among all partners for the archiving of the completed questionnaires by tourists, residents and employees.

The completion of the LTPN questionnaire in each site for all phases was done by the coordinator of the LTPN (local partner). The LTPN members had the opportunity to express their opinion on the operation of the network, existing difficulties and ways of improvements, through open discussions organized both during the LTPN meetings but also through the questionnaire for LTPN members. The data collected through the questionnaires for LTPN Coordinator and members were used for the evaluation of the LTPNs.

Following, a more detailed description of the data collection methods that were used for the final evaluation round in each pilot site is provided per site, along with problems encountered during data collection:

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Kos

The data collection that took place in Kos referred to all three measures implemented for both implementation stages of the project. A questionnaire was formulated by the WP leader that contained three core sections, one for each measure. The questionnaire survey was conducted under the responsibility of the Municipality of Kos. The survey took place from August 11 until September 26, 2014 and in various time periods of the day. The questionnaires were completed in various place of the city centre of Kos depending on the measure to be assessed. Such locations were bus stops where the timetables were placed, POIs where the signs were located, as well as other places with high degree of tourists’ concentration. In total, 126 questionnaires were completed.

Fuerteventura

The target group of tourists was reached through a questionnaire survey that took place in Museum of Salt, along the new bike lane, in the harbour of Corralejo and the Isla de Lobos (Lobos Island). The survey was conducted by employees of Biosphere Reserve of Fuerteventura, while some questionnaires were also collected by the employees of the Salt Museum. In total 48 completed questionnaires were collected. The small number of the survey participants is due to the fact that the new bike lane was fully operational only at the end of August 2014 (some problems that occurred in the bridge section of the bike lane delayed the construction of the lane in its full length), therefore the questionnaire survey was delayed as well.

Noordwijk

On Friday September 5, the final round of data collection was held. On four spots, close to Noordwijk’s beach and the stops of the Beach Shuttle, fieldworkers interviewed visitors. The interviewers were recognizable as fieldworkers with a vest. The interviewers picked random people who passed by and asked whether they are visitors or not. Visitors were asked to participate and if they decided to participate, the questions were asked. The interviewers asked the questions orally and wrote the answers of the participants on paper. Unfortunately, on the day of data collection, the weather was not warm and sunny enough to run the Beach Shuttle. This is depicted in the indicators of awareness and use.

The final round of data collection was organised by the Municipality and held by a research company. This research company also took care of the previous rounds of data collection, so they knew what was needed. The questionnaire was fine-tuned by telephone and agreements were made on other aspects related to the data collection. There were no members of the LTPN involved on the data collection nor to reach the target groups. There were also no discussions with other stakeholders.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Balaton

In the final phase of the STARTER evaluation, project related data were collected through the tourist questionnaire surveys and interviews (over the telephone) with hoteliers, leaders of tourist offices and associations, who also completed the questionnaire for the LTPN members.

The final tourists’ questionnaire collection took place through personal interviews on site (railway station, bus stops and hotels), carried out by staff of KTI and BME. It resulted in total 124 records from which 56 came from tourists, 37 from daily commuters and 31 from frequent commuters (“semi tourists”)

Werfenweng

Since it was not possible to implement the booking app in time (before the start of the summer season 2014), due to budget discussions within the LTPN and with the app-provider it was necessary to change the collection method to be able to collect enough questionnaires in time.

The app went online on October 1st. At October 4th the final time section of the “summer season” in Werfenweng started with the autumn holidays in two federal countries of Germany. Usually guests arrive on Saturday, “look around” on Sunday and come to tourist info to get the SAMO-card on Monday. Therefore, it was useful to start the survey on Monday, October 6th. To be able to provide the collected data as soon as possible to meet the overall project time planning it was necessary to collect enough questionnaires within only a few days. Therefore, three interviewers travelled to Werfenweng to conduct personal interviews with the tourists. This method enabled the collection of the relevant number of questionnaires (117 completed questionnaires) within two days. The interviewers have been instructed (target group, functionality of the app) and made the surveys in the three biggest hotels in Werfenweng, at the tourist office and at the rental station. They used the questionnaires developed within WP5 (German, English and Netherland versions) for the personal interviews and had smart phones to show the app in case of tourists who have not been familiar with the app (which was almost in all cases because there was no possibility yet to promote the app on several relevant homepages and at the hotels). The fact that the measure had only a few days of operation before the survey took place had, of course, influenced the relevant evaluation indicators of awareness and use.

The collection of the questionnaire for the LTPN members was rather hard due to a questionnaire overload within the last year (beside STARTER also for the development projects on national and regional levels different questionnaires have been distributed to the LTPN members. The questionnaire for LTPN members was sent to the members per email at first (in September 2014). To motivate the members to answer the STARTER questionnaire, the tourist office contacted the members several times per telephone during September and beginning of October. Finally, 11 questionnaires were collected.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

3.3 Data collected per site

The response of the LTPN members in Noordwijk to the questionnaire was quite poor, due to a low acceptance of the LTPN as a stand-alone Network (see also sections 4.3.2 and 5.1.1.3).

presents the data collected per site. The following points should be mentioned:

• The tourists’ sample in Noordwijk was “cleaned” of the daily commuters (there were a few cases reported).

• The Balaton region had a peculiarity that affected the data collection. Apart from the group of tourists, two groups travelling within the region were recognized as important target groups of the STARTER measures. These are: daily commuters, namely employees and seasonal workers travelling more than 30 weeks per year in the region, and frequent commuters, namely people visiting the region for medical reasons or owners of holiday family cottages (“semi tourists”), who travel 5-25 weeks per year to/from the region. These groups held a significant percentage of the overall respondents (37 daily commuters and 31 frequent commuters – 55% of all respondents). Therefore, the questionnaire analysis for the region of Balaton took place separately for tourists, daily commuters and frequent commuters.

• The response of the LTPN members in Noordwijk to the questionnaire was quite poor, due to a low acceptance of the LTPN as a stand-alone Network (see also sections 4.3.2 and 5.1.1.3).

Table 3-2 Data collected per site

No. of questionnaires collected per site and per target group

Tourists Daily commuters

Frequent commuters

LTPN Coordinator

LTPN members

Kos 126 1 13 Fuerteventura 48 1 6 Noordwijk 165 1 1 Balaton 56 37 31 1 6 Werfenweng 117 1 11

3.4 Key findings of the interim evaluation

The interim evaluation took place after the 1st implementation phase, namely after summer 2013. At that time, in total 8 measures were implemented (1 in Kos and Fuerteventura, 2 in Noordwijk, Balaton and Werfenweng). The questionnaire survey among tourists for the evaluation of the implemented measures, did not take place in the pilot sites of Kos and Fuerteventura, due to the delay of the measures’ implementation. However, for the rest of the sites as well, the short period of the measures’ operation before the conduction of the tourists surveys is depicted in the evaluation’s results (i.e. rather low percentages of measures’ awareness).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

The local partners that were responsible for the measure implementation have reported several local drivers that facilitated the decision making and implementation in their regions (i.e. lack of web-based tourist guide in Kos, need for sustainability as an overall target for Fuerteventura, prioritization of the promotion of cycling by the National Transport Policy in Balaton) but also several barriers that caused unexpected delays and difficulties in the implementation (i.e. limited support of the Department of transport in Fuerteventura, dependence of the beach shuttle operation on the willingness of local stakeholders to invest, lack of interest of the Municipalities in Balaton, etc.).

The LTPNs that were established in the STARTER regions at the very beginning of the project (exception: Werfenweng having already an LTPN established in its region with a significant membership of 49 local stakeholders) provided a valuable insight on the local transport needs and the identification of local mobility problems. Equally important was the LTPN’s contribution to the identification of possible measures that could be undertaken to address these problems. The LTPNs were the local “bodies” that (along with the project Consortium) formulated the list with potential (soft) mobility measures to be implemented in their region during the course of the project and they undertook the decision (again with cooperation of the project partners) on which measures will be finally implemented. For Noordwijk and Werfenweng, the LTPN members were involved in the measures’ implementation as well (as contractors of the beach shuttle service in Noordwijk and financers of the SAMO measures in Werfenweng).

Nonetheless, the LTPN operation did encounter some problems, which differ between the pilot sites according to the local conditions. Indicatively, the following are mentioned:

• Conflict of interest – competition between stakeholders

• Difficulty in reaching the LTPN members and communicating with them between the LTPN meetings.

• Difficulty in convincing other local stakeholders to become LTPN members.

• Lack of confidence that the mobility measures could have a positive effect.

• Lack of funding.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Further to the above, some key findings from the interim evaluation of the measures are presented below per site:

Kos

The Portal that has been released during August 2013 was appreciated by the local stakeholders as a tool that will give a boost to the local economy and promote sustainable tourism. The need to have an internet-based tourist guide was recognized not only by the local stakeholders and the LTPN members, but by the tourists as well (during the zero state survey).

Fuerteventura

The measure of promoting the new bike lane between Caleta de Fuste and the Salt Museum as a new touristic product was proposed by the LTPN as an answer to the limited use of the existing bike lane. A first feedback provided by the Salt Museum revealed an increase of pedestrians and cyclists visiting the museum.

Noordwijk

The interim tourists’ survey revealed a low percentage of awareness of the new parking policy (18%) and a rather satisfying percentage of awareness of the beach shuttle service (40%). Dissemination among tourists was further needed in the case of the new parking policy, but further dissemination actions were proposed for the beach shuttle as well. Changing the strong habitual preference that tourists have revealed in favour of their private car (especially daily visitors) is a major challenge for Noordwijk.

Balaton

The tourists that participated in the interim evaluation phase, revealed a rather low awareness of the Guide for Cyclists and the harmonized PT timetables and a rather rigid habitual choice in favour of the private car. Nonetheless, willingness for modal shift towards sustainable transport modes was expressed and the challenge for Balaton is to accommodate this potential modal shift through sustainable transport services of good quality. The high modal split for public transport in Hungary and in the region West-Balaton also reduced the willingness to change mode.

Werfenweng

The SAMO concept is a service to which the Municipality of Werfenweng has highly invested and of which tourists are highly aware. The improvement of the communication of the SAMO concept is part of the Municipality’s efforts to further increase the recognition of the service and make its benefits widely known. During the interim evaluation phase, the measure was on-going, so no conclusions were drawn. On the other hand, the need to expand the existing e-fleet was supported from the STARTER pre-evaluation phase (zero state analysis), as many visitors stated that they had problems in finding an available e-vehicle. The expansion of the e-fleet, though, was not highly perceived by all visitors, due to the fact that the Municipality faces an even higher demand for e-vehicles and many visitors continued to have difficulties in finding an available vehicle.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

During the interim evaluation phase (summer 2013), not all measures were implemented or finalized (i.e. the late implementation of the portal in Kos and the bike lane Fuerteventura did not allow for the tourist’s survey to take place). For the measures that were actually implemented, their short time of operation before the evaluation only allowed a first, mostly qualitative, evaluation analysis. The lack of familiarization/acquaintance of the target groups (tourists) with the new measures was clearly depicted through the questionnaire survey. The fact that all the measures that were implemented demand, more or less, a period of time before they are well known, well established, smoothly operated and their benefits fully exploited, was recognized in all pilot sites.

The short period of the measures’ operation before their evaluation, led to the formulation of questionnaires that aimed at mapping the willingness of the tourists to shift towards more sustainable transport modes, rather than their actual modal change. The conclusions that were drawn for each site were different: for example, a significant majority of the Tourists in Balaton and Noordwijk seemed either neutral or leaned towards “not very likely” when asked whether the implemented measures could affect their decision to use sustainable transport modes. The situation in Werfenweng was quite different, since the majority of tourists stated that it is very likely to do so, due to the existence of the electric-vehicle services. This highlights the difference between “new-born” measures (the case of Balaton and Noordwijk) and measures that have been established a time ago and enhanced in the context of STARTER (the case of Werfenweng).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

4. Final implementation assessment

This chapter includes the results of the 3rd and final round of data collection (final assessment of the measures that have been implemented in each pilot site). Analysis and reporting is made per pilot site and based on the input (questionnaires) provided by each site.

4.1 Kos

4.1.1 Tourists survey

The island of Kos has implemented and evaluated the following measures within STARTER:

• New online information Portal for tourists, aiming to facilitate their visit in Kos and promote sustainable mobility.

• On-street information signs, located in the city centre and indicating outstanding POIs and walking times towards them, as well as bike rental stations and PT station locations.

• Rescheduling of the timetables of two bus lines (bus lines 1 and 5) for the summer season, in order to better adjust them to the needs of the tourists. Rescheduling included the increase in the number of departures, as well as the extension of the daily operating period.

The tourist survey that took place in the region of Kos included 126 participants, who answered the questionnaire prepared for the region (provided in Annex I of the current document). Demographic information on the survey sample (age and sex) is provided in Annex II of the current document.

Results on the transport mode that tourists used during their stay in Kos are provided in Table 4-32. Since the question was a multiple response one, the results are given in frequency, percentage of this frequency and unduplicated percentages: frequency divided by the number of the survey participants.

Figure 4-1 presents the transport mode choice per age group.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-1 Use of transport modes during stay (Kos)

Mode of transport Frequency Percent Unduplicated reach

Car 76 25% 60%

Walking 59 19% 47%

PT 55 18% 44%

Bicycle 53 17% 42%

Motorcycle 34 11% 27%

Taxi 28 9% 22%

Total 305 100%

Figure 4-1 Transport mode choice per group of age

As can be seen, car is the most popular transport mode among the visitors who participated in the survey (especially among the ages of 46-55). The average car occupancy rate is 3.

Car is followed by walking (mostly preferable by ages 46-55), Public transport (PT) (almost equally preferable among ages 36-45 and 46-55) and bicycle (equally preferable among younger ages of 18-25 and 26-35). Almost all of those who have chosen walking have also used another transport mode, which was something anticipated given that large size of the island. The same applies with bicycle: almost all bicycle users have also used another transport mode for their travel within the island.

It is worth mentioning that a significant percentage of all participants (86%) shows sustainable travel behaviour, having chosen at least one sustainable transport mode (PT, bicycle, walking) for their trips within Kos. The percentage of the “pure sustainable users” (those who used only PT and/or bicycle and/or walking during their stay) is 11%.

Measure 1: Online Portal for tourists

The following table summarizes key indicators from the evaluation of the Portal. Columns (1) and (2) define the indicator that has been measured and its value respectively. Column (3) defines the questions’ sub-group of reference (number of participants to which the indicator’s

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

value refers), indicating within brackets the level of sub-group, as was presented in section 2.1 (Methodological approach). Finally, column (4) provides the number of participants that were considered “eligible” to answer the respective question. Again, the respective level of sub-group is provided within brackets.

Table 4-2 Key evaluation indicators for the Portal

(1)

Indicator

(2)

Indicator’s value

(3)

Size of sub-group of reference

(4)

Number of respondents

Awareness 57% 126 (P=R) 126 (P=R)

57% 108 (R+SM)

Use of the Portal

21% 126 (P=R)

72 (R+A) 37% 72 (R+A)

32% 62 (R+A+SM)

User’s satisfaction Usefulness of

information Easiness to

use Easiness to understand

27 (R+A+U) 27 (R+A+U)

Completely 30% 19% 19%

Very 33% 48% 37%

Moderately 26% 33% 41%

Slightly 11% 0% 4%

Not at all 0% 0% 0%

Modal shift towards sustainable modes

14% 126 (P=R) 20 (R+SM+A+U)

Based on the above table and the questionnaire analysis, the following can be mentioned:

• Out of the overall sample of 126 respondents (Level P=R), a 57% is aware of the Portal. Out of the visitors that have used sustainable transport modes during their stay (108 persons), also a 57% is aware of the Portal.

• From the 72 respondents that are aware of the Portal, a 37% has used it for acquiring information for their trips. The percentage of Portal users among the overall tourist sample (126 persons) is 21%. The percentage of the Portal use among the sustainable users that are aware of the Portal (62 persons) is 32%.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

• In their majority, the users (27 persons) consider that the Portal is easy to use, although a significant percentage (33%) attributes a moderate level of satisfaction regarding the Portal’s use. When it comes to the information provided by the Portal, a significant percentage (45%) had a moderate or significant difficulty in understanding it, while a 37% found it moderately or slightly useful. Suggestions for improving the information content include provision of:

o Local news

o Night activity suggestions

o Events calendar

o Weather information

o Weather information for surfers

• The modal shift towards sustainable modes of transport (bicycle, walking, PT) was estimated through the questions: “Has the information provided by the Portal somehow influenced your decision to use sustainable modes of transport?” and if yes, “Please give us an estimation on the percentage of your car, taxi and/or motorcycle trips that have been replaced by sustainable transport modes”. The questions addressed only those tourists, who, at the same time, where users of sustainable transport modes (SM), were aware of the Portal (A) and have used it (U): in total 20 persons. Extrapolating their answers to the overall tourist sample provides a 14% of modal shift towards sustainable transport modes due to the use of the Portal. It should be noticed, however, that the influenced group has not totally abandoned its trips by motorized transport mode, but only a percentage of them. The percentage of the motorized trips that each influenced user had replaced by sustainable transport modes is presented in Table 4-3 (per influenced respondent). The type of motorized mode that has been replaced is also presented, as well as the type of sustainable mode that replaced it. An estimation of the actual motorized kilometres that have been replaced by sustainable transport modes is also provided. In some cases, the influenced person has replaced two motorized transport modes by sustainable transport modes. This is indicated in a different row under the same respondent’s ID.

Table 4-3 Motorized trips replaced by sustainable modes of transport (bicycle, PT, walking) due to the Portal

Influenced respondent’s ID

Percentage of replacement Replacement (from) → (to) Motorized vehicle kms

replaced 1 50% motorcycle → PT 100 2 35% car → walking 15 3 30% motorcycle → bicycle 86 4 40% motorcycle → bicycle 107 5 20% motorcycle → bicycle 60 6 20% car → walking 36 7 20% motorcycle → walking 14 8 35% car → PT 27

9 70% motorcycle → bicycle 70 30% motorcycle → PT 30

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113


Percentage of replacement Replacement (from) → (to) Motorized vehicle kms

replaced

10 20% car → walking 15 15% car → PT 12

11

10% motorcycle → walking 10 40% motorcycle → bicycle 40

12

60% car → bicycle 125 25% car → PT 125

13

40% car → bicycle 140 20% car → walking 36

14

20% motorcycle → walking 16 45% motorcycle → bicycle 125

15 100% motorcycle → bicycle 150 16 50% car → walking 7

17 10% motorcycle → walking 8 40% motorcycle → bicycle 32

18 25% car → PT 150 60% car → bicycle 75

Total car vehicle kms replaced 763 Total motorcycle vehicle kms replaced 848

Total motorized kms replaced 1611

An estimation of the energy savings and reduction of CO2 emissions due to the measure’s impact is provided in the following table. Calculation of the car and motorcycle kilometres “after” is done for the whole sample of participants. Percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although achieved by the influenced group (18 persons). In addition, the following parameters have been used:

• Fuel consumption (assumption): car/taxi: 1 litre per 15 kilometres, motorcycle: 1 litre per 25 kilometres.

• Primary energy use: 0,884 toe (tons of oil equivalent) per 1000 litre, based on 80% petrol and 20% diesel engines (Source: EUROSTAT)

• Emissions: 2,383 ton CO2e per 1000 litre, based on 80% petrol and 20% diesel engines (Source: Carbon Trust).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-4 Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the implementation of the Portal

Before After Saving Percentage of saving

Total car kms 21927 21164 763 3,5%

Total motorcycle kms 8118 7270 848 10,4%

Total taxi kms 556 556 0 0%

Total fuel consumption (lit) 1787 1739 48

2,7% Primary energy use (toe) 1,58 1,54 0,04

Emissions (ton CO2e) 4,26 4,14 0,12

Log file data for the Portal

Further to the indicators mentioned above, it is interesting to present the Portal’s traffic, based on the log files provided by the system administrator. For months May – October 2014, the number of users and page views is provided in the following figure. Percentages of new visitors and returning visitors do not vary a lot between months May to October and are estimated to be, on average, 69% and 31% respectively.

Figure 4-2 Portal’s users and page views for May-October 2014

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Measure 2: On-street information signs

The following table summarizes the key indicators from the evaluation of the information signs.

Table 4-5 Key evaluation indicators for the information signs

(1)

Indicator

(2)

Indicator’s value

(3)


(4)


Awareness 42% 126 (P=R) 126 (P=R)

40% 108 (R+SM)

Use of the signs

16% 126 (P=R)

53 (R+A) 38% 53 (R+A)

37% 43 (R+SM+A)

User’s satisfaction

Usefulness of information Readability Positioning

20 (R+A+U) 20 (R+A+U)

Completely 0% 10% 5%

Very 5% 50% 40%

Moderately 65% 30% 40%

Slightly 25% 10% 15%

Not at all 5% 0% 0%

Modal shift towards sustainable transport modes

8% 126 (P=R) 16 (R+SM+A+U)

As can be seen from the table:

• Out of the overall sample of 126 respondents (Level P=R), the 42% is aware of the signs. Awareness among sustainable transport modes users (108 persons) is estimated at 40%.

• From the 53 respondents that are aware of the signs, a 38% has used it for acquiring information. The percentage of use among the overall tourist sample is 16%. The use among the respondents who are aware of the signs and at the same time used sustainable transport modes (43 persons) is 37%.

• In their majority, the users of the signs (20 persons) had a moderate satisfaction with the usefulness of the provided information and this is something that should be considered by the Municipality. Users’ satisfaction regarding the readability is high for half of the users, but moderate or slight for a 40% of them. Although the questionnaires analysis indicates that there might be a relation with the age (the unsatisfied group is mostly of ages 36-45 and 46-55), this is probably something that has to be considered for

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

improvement as well. Finally, in terms of positioning, the majority of the users is moderately or slightly satisfied. A few suggestions were made for placing the signs in more spots around the city centre.

• Similar with the Portal, the users of sustainable transport modes, who, at the same time had used the signs (16 persons), were asked if the information provided by the signs had somehow influenced their sustainable choices. If their answer was positive, they were further asked to estimate the percentage of their car, taxi and/or motorcycle trips that have been replaced by bicycle, PT and or walking. Extrapolating the answers of 16 persons (R+SM+A+U group), a 8% of modal shift is reported. The percentage of the motorized trips that each influenced user had replaced by sustainable transport modes is presented in Table 4-3 (per influenced respondent). The type of motorized mode that has been replaced is also presented, as well as the type of sustainable mode that replaced it. An estimation of the actual motorized kilometres that have been replaced by sustainable transport modes is also provided. In some cases, the influenced person has replaced two motorized transport modes by sustainable transport modes. This is indicated in a different row under the same respondent’s ID.

Table 4-6 Motorized trips replaced by sustainable modes of transport (bicycle, PT, walking) due to the signs


Percentage of replacement

Replacement (from) → (to)

Motorized vehicle kms replaced

1 40% car → walking 15

2 20% car → PT 130

40% car → walking 32

3 25% car → PT 130


4 55 car → bicycle 7

5 10% car → PT 9


6 15% car → PT 28

7 30% car → PT 175


8 15% car → PT 12


9 30% car → PT 69


Total car kms replaced 738

An estimation of the energy savings and reduction of CO2 emissions due to the measure’s impact is provided in the following table. Calculation of the car, taxi and motorcycle kilometres

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

“after” is done for the whole sample of participants. Percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although achieved by the influenced group (10 persons).

Table 4-7 Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the implementation of the pedestrians’ map


Total car kms 21902 21164 738 3,3%

Total motorcycle kms 7270 7270 0 0%





Measure 3: New timetables for public transport

The following table summarizes the key indicators from the evaluation of the new timetables for public transport.

Table 4-8 Key evaluation indicators for the new PT timetables

(1)

Indicator

(2)

Indicator’s value

(3)


(4)


Use of bus lines 1 and 5 62% 52 (R+SM) 52 (R+SM)

User’s satisfaction

Frequency Extension of operating hours

20 (R+SM+U) 20 (R+SM+U)

Line 1 Line 5 Line 1 Line 5

Completely 14% 5% 14% 10%

Very 14% 43% 24% 33%

Moderately 52% 33% 57% 29%

Slightly 19% 19% 5% 29%

Not at all 0% 0% 0% 0%

Modal shift towards PT 16,5% 126 (P) 32 (R+SM+U)


IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

• Out of the 52 people who used PT during their stay in Kos, a 62% (32 persons) has particularly used bus lines 1 and 5.

• Twenty people answered the question regarding the satisfaction with the frequency and operating hours, as presented within the new timetables. In their majority, respondents are moderately or slightly satisfied with the frequency and operating hours of Line 1, therefore this is something that should be considered for improvement. The new timetable for Line 5 seems to get a better approval from the travellers, although some improvements could be made in the operating hours. Suggestions for the improvement of the new timetables mostly include the increase of the frequency, but a few suggestions were also made to further extend the operating hours.

• The 32 people that used bus lines 1 and 5 were asked to state whether the rescheduling of the bus lines has influenced their decision to use the bus. Extrapolating their answers to the overall tourist sample, a 16,5% of the overall tourist sample has indeed been influenced by the new timetables as per their decision to use public transport. Nonetheless, it should be noted that a 70% of those who haven’t used bus lines 1 and 5, stated that a better timetable would encourage them to do so.

• The modal shift towards public transport due to the impact of the measure and the total motorized vehicle kilometres that were replaced due to this impact are estimated out of the 21 persons that were indeed influenced by the measure. Modal shift is extrapolated to the overall tourist sample and is estimated 16,5%. The percentage of the motorized trips that each influenced user had replaced by public transport (bus) is presented in Table 4-9 (per influenced respondent). The type of motorized mode that has been replaced by PT is also presented.. An estimation of the actual motorized kilometres that have been replaced by PT kilometres is also provided.

Table 4-9 Motorized trips replaced by PT due to the new timetables



Replacement (from) → PT


1 10% car → PT 75

2 30% car → PT 19

3 30% car → PT 21

4 10% car → PT 75

5 100% motorcycle → PT 175

6 20% car → PT 65

7 15% car → PT 9


9 30% car → PT 30


11 45% car → PT 33

12 15% car → PT 87


IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113



Replacement (from) → PT


14 30% car → PT 69

15 45% car → PT 33

16 40% car → PT 43

17 30% car → PT 100


19 25% car → PT 60

20 15% car → PT 8

21 30% car → PT 21


Total motorcycle kms replaced 750

Total motorized kms replaced 1498

An estimation of the energy savings and reduction of CO2 emissions due to the measure’s impact is provided in the following table. Calculation of the car, taxi and motorcycle kilometres “after” is done for the whole sample of participants. Percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although achieved by the influenced group (21 persons).

Table 4-10 Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the adjustment of the PT timetables


Total car kms 21912 21164 748 3,4%






Total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures

Table 4-11 presents the total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction due to the impacts of all three measures implemented in Kos. Percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although achieved by the influenced group (in total 45 persons - this does not sum up from each measure because some influenced persons were influenced by more than one implemented measure).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-11 Total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures


Total car kms 23413 21164 2249 9,6%

Total motorcycle kms 8868 7270 1598 18 %





IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

4.1.2 LTPN Coordinator and members

LTPN Coordinator

As in the previous evaluation, a questionnaire was formulated by CERTH and completed by the LTPN Coordinator, with the scope to evaluate the overall operation and performance of the LTPN from the coordinator’s point of view.

The evolution of the LTPN membership in Kos, from the very beginning of its operation in summer - autumn 2012 until the summer of 2014, is shown in the following table.

Table 4-12 Evolution of LTPN membership in Kos

Type of organization Number of participating companies/organizations

2012 2013 2014

1. Local Authority 1 1 1

2. Public Transport Provider 2 2 2

3. Hotel Associations - 2 2

4. Associations of touristic businesses

1 1 1

5. Owners of touristic businesses

- 1 2

6. Tourists operators 1 1 2

7. Associations of tourist operators

- 1 1

8. Association of taxi drivers 1 1 1

9. Association of bike friends 1 1 1

10. Policy Authority - 1 1

Total 7 12 14

The LTPN meetings that have taken place in Kos throughout the whole duration of the STARTER project are shown in the following table.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-13 LTPN meetings (Kos)

Date Venue No of participants

(organizations)

No of participants

(persons)

1st Meeting 19/09/2012 Hall of Business Association 7 14

2nd Meeting 15/02/2013 Kos Municipality 12 18

3rd Meeting 20/09/2013 Kos Municipality 11 15

4th Meeting January 2014 Kos Municipality 6 11

Several initiatives were undertaken for the establishment of the LTPN in Kos (i.e. initial list of potential members, signing a Memorandum of Understanding), which are described in the interim evaluation report. Initiatives under the operation of the LTPN throughout the STARTER project include:

• Organization of the LTPN meetings.

• Enrichment of the members’ mail list with more organizations and persons.

• Bilateral meetings with members of the LTPN in order to inform them about the status of the project and discuss issues related to the implementation of the measures.

When it comes to the dissemination of the Network and its goals, the following initiatives have been undertaken:

• Press release in the local newspapers at the very beginning of the project.

• Live broadcasting of the kick off meeting of the Network by the Municipal TV.

• Press releases after each meeting and interview in the local TV after the 3rd meeting in September

Upon finalization of the STARTER project, the LTPN Coordinator of Kos was further asked to share the main problems that he faced during the operation of the LTPN, the main actions undertaken in order to tackle these problems, the way(s) he envisages the continuity of the LTPN in his region and the requirements to achieve this continuity:

• One of the main problems the Municipality of Kos (Coordinator) has faced, was the change of the Municipal Authority (summer 2014), which caused a problem mainly in the continuation of the activities of the Network. However, the person responsible for the project on behalf of the Municipality remained the same.

• Another problem was related to the heavy schedule of the LTPN members (they were quite busy, especially during the summer period), thus it was not easy to find them, inform them about the developments of the project and engage their participation in the LTPN meetings. This was tackled through continues contacts (e-mails, phone calls).

• Regarding the existence of the LTPN beyond the scope of the STARTER project, the new Municipal authority will examine the possibility to continue the LTPN. Political will has been provisionally expressed, but no concrete plans have been devised yet.

• The LTPN Coordinator in Kos considers that the most important issue related to the continuity of the LTPN in his region is funding. Moreover, the Municipality has to play

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

and active role in maintaining the interest of the stakeholders. Some events and meetings must take place that will promote this idea. Finally, it would be preferable if a specific unit was established in the organogram of the Municipality, with subject the operation of the LTPN and its direct relation with the various mobility measures implemented by the Municipality.

LTPN Members

In Kos 13 out of the 14 members of the LTPN, completed the questionnaire for the evaluation of the LTPN (see Annex I).

The members of the LTPN in Kos were actively involved in the meetings, despite the fact that reaching them was not always easy. All the members that completed the questionnaire evaluate the LTPN in their region as an added value and would be very interested in continuing their participation in it. The LTPN was considered important from the majority of the members for identifying local mobility problems and defining sustainable solutions. Nonetheless, the LTPN’s contribution to tourist-transport cooperation and to raising the awareness of the local stakeholders towards transport sustainability was not highly recognised. The majority of the respondents consider that the LTPN could bring benefits further to the ones related to mobility, and these include:

• Added-valued to the tourist product of the island

• Environmental related benefits plus more attractive image

• Reduction of the number of car and motorbike accidents that occur every summer

• Make the island more friendly for visitors

• Attract more cruise ships

• Attract more visitors

• Increase the number of tourists that visit city centre. This is considered of high importance for the local tourist economy in the city centre, since in the last years the “all-inclusive” touristic packages have become very popular, thus leading to reduced visitors traffic in and around the city centre.

However, several suggestions were made for the improvement of the LTPN operation. These include:

• Funding is needed both for operational and functional costs, but also for the implementation of more measures.

• The LTPN needs a fixed organization scheme and fixed funding.

• The LTPN should find a self-financing scheme (mainly from the members) and involve more members.

• The Municipality of Kos should finance the Network.

• The LTPN should be more effective and force local authorities to act.

• The Network should focus more on public transport and the extension of the time schedule.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Finally, it is interesting to share the reasons for which the LTPN members joined the Network. As expected, these vary according to the each member’s field of interest:

• The Municipality of Kos seeks to a general promotion of sustainable mobility, which will make the island more attractive to tourists and friendlier to residents. The same applies for the Municipality of Kos Port Fund, nonetheless with a clear focus on the special mobility measures that need to be taken for the port when cruise ships arrive.

• Public transport providers were motivated from the need to promote the use of Public transport.

• The Commerce Chamber of Dodecanese and the Local Commerce Union are highly interested in solving the parking issues in the city centre, thus making the city centre more easily accessible.

• Kos Bicycle Club is interested in the promotion of cycling.

• The Taxi Association of Kos is motivated from their need to identify and communicate the mobility issues related to taxi and define the role of the particular transport mode in transport sustainability.

• The Police Department is interested in sharing the mobility issues the department runs into everyday on the streets.

4.1.3 Local stakeholders

A presentation of the Portal to the tourism and commercial sector of Kos has taken place after the release of the Portal (August 2013). Generally, the Portal received positive reviews and it was well appreciated by the participants. The Portal currently accommodates the presence of more than 500 companies operating in the entire range of tourism services, transportation and business, thus providing a significant advertising platform for the local economy.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

4.2 Fuerteventura


The island of Fuerteventura has implemented and evaluated the following measures within STARTER:

• Promotion of the “Salt Route by bike”, which refers to the promotion of a new, 2-km bike lane that has been constructed between Caleta de Fuste (one of the most important touristic areas in Fuerteventura) and the Salt Museum. Promotional measures included: the offering of a small gift to tourists that visit the Salt Museum by bike; bike parking facilities provided by the Salt Museum; rent-a-bike services provided by hotels in the region; leaflet distributed in the hotel receptions and information available on the internet.

• Sustainable mobility in the Lobos Islands, which refers to measures for creating a 100% sustainable mobility in one of the most famous touristic spots of Fuerteventura. The measure that has been implemented during the course of the STARTER project refers to the replacement a conventional vehicle used for the restoration and cleaning of the island by an electric one. Although the measure does not address tourists, an estimation of the energy saving and CO2 reduction was done on the basis of real data provided by the pilot site.

The tourist survey that took place in Fuerteventura included 48 participants, who answered the questionnaire prepared for the region (provided in Annex I of the current document). The small number of participants is due to the fact that the new bike lane was fully operational only at the end of August 2014 (some problems that occurred in the bridge section of the bike lane delayed the construction of the lane in its full length), therefore the questionnaire survey delayed as well.

Demographic information on the survey sample (age and sex) is provided in Annex II of the current document.

Results on the transport mode that the participant tourists used during their stay in Fuerteventura are provided in Table 4-14. Since the question was a multiple response one, the results are given in frequency, percentage of this frequency and unduplicated percentages: frequency divided by the number of the survey participants. Figure 4-3 presents the transport mode choice per age group.

Table 4-14 Use of transport modes during stay (Fuerteventura)


Car 41 57% 85%

Walking 6 21% 31%

Bicycle 15 14% 21%

Tour operator bus 10 8% 13%

Total 72 100%

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Figure 4-3 Transport mode choice per group of age (Fuerteventura)

As can be seen from the table and figure above, car is the most popular transport mode among the visitors who participated in the survey (especially among the ages of 46-55). The average car occupancy rate is 3,1.

Car is followed by walking (mostly preferable by ages 36-45), tour operator bus (almost equally preferable among ages 36-45 and 46-55) and bicycle (mostly preferable by ages 46-55). The majority of those who have chosen bicycle have also used another car, which was something anticipated given the large size of the island.

The percentage of the “pure sustainable users” (those who used only bicycle and/or walking during their stay) is 13%.

Measure 1: Promotion of “Salt Route by bike”

The following table summarizes key indicators from the evaluation of the promotional measures for the new bike lane. Columns (1) and (2) define the indicator that has been measured and its value respectively. Column (3) defines the questions’ sub-group of reference (number of participants to which the indicator’s value refers), indicating within brackets the level of sub-group, as this presented in section 2.1 (Methodological approach). Finally, column (4) provides the number of participants that were considered “eligible” to answer the respective question. Again, the respective level of sub-group is provided within brackets.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-15 Key evaluation indicators for the “Salt Route by bike” promotional measures

(1)

Indicator

(2)

Indicator’s value

(3)


(4)


Awareness 98% 47 (R) 47 (R)

87% 15 (R+SM)

Use of the new bike lane 33% 47 (R) 16 (R+SM+A)

Modal shift towards bicycle

Car to bicycle → 27% 48 (P) 16 (R+SM+A+U)

Tour operator bus to bicycle → 6%

Based on the table and the questionnaire analysis, the following can be mentioned:

• Forty seven (47) participants (Level R) gave an answer when asked if they are aware of the promotional measures. Almost all of them (98%) gave a positive answer. The percentage of awareness among bicycle users (15 persons) is also significant (87%).

• A 33% of the overall respondents have used the new bike lane (the question was addressed to the bicycle users or those who walked – SM group – who, at the same time, were aware of the new bike lane – A group).

• The modal shift towards bicycle due to the impact of the promotional measures was estimated through the questions: “Has the promotional actions somehow influenced your decision to use the new bike lane?” and if yes, “Which transport mode have you replaced by bicycle for your trips between Caleta de Fuste and the Las Salinas?” The questions addressed only those tourists, who, at the same time, used bicycle and/or walked (SM group), were aware of the promotional measures (A group) and have used the bike lane (U group) (in total 16 persons). Extrapolating their answers to the overall tourist sample provides a 27% of modal shift from car to bicycle due to the promotional measures. To this percentage, another 6% should be considered as modal shift from tour buses to bicycle. Nonetheless, the calculation of the motorized vehicle kilometres that have been replaced by bicycle or walking kilometres are estimated only for the car trips.

The estimation of the energy savings and reduction of CO2 emissions due to the above mentioned modal shift is done considering that the new bike lane has a length of 2 kms. Those who were influenced by the promotional measures as per their decision to use the bike lane, where asked how many trips did they undertook with their bike (or walking), which they would have otherwise undertaken with their cars. Based on their answers and the following parameters, the energy and CO2 savings are presented in Table 4-16. Percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although achieved by the influenced group (13 persons).

• Fuel consumption (assumption): car: 1 litre per 15 kilometres

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113



Table 4-16 Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the promotional measures


Total car kms 122500 122440 60 0,5%




Measure 2: Energy savings by the replacement of the conventional quad with an electric vehicle

The conventional quad spent 2.920 litres of gasoline per year (real figure, provided by the site).

Considering (as above):



The replacement of the quad has resulted in 2,58 toe and 6,96 ton CO2e saved per year.


LTPN Coordinator

The evolution of the LTPN membership in Fuerteventura, from the very beginning of its operation in winter 2012 until the summer of 2014, is shown in the following table.

Table 4-17 Evolution of LTPN membership in Fuerteventura


2012 2013 2014

1 Local Authority 3 5 6

2 Hotel Associations 1 1 1

3 Owners of hotels 2 7 6

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

4 Owners of touristic businesses

1 1 1

5 Bike rentals 1 3 2

6 Tourist operators - - 3

Total 8 17 19

The LTPN meetings that have taken place in Fuerteventura throughout the whole duration of the STARTER project are shown in the following table.

Table 4-18 LTPN meetings (Fuerteventura)

Date Venue No of participants

(organizations)

No of participants

(persons)

1st Meeting (kick-off) 3/10/2012

Hotel Jandía Princess (Morro Jable, Pajara)

11 14

2nd Meeting 27/11/2012 La Lajita Oasis Park 5 15

3rd Meeting 29/11/ 2012 R2 Hotels Costa Calma 5 16

4th Meeting 10/09/2013

Puerto del Rosario Cabildo

de Fuerteventura

7 9

5th Meeting Caleta de Fustes

7 16

6th Meeting Caleta de Fustes

8 10

7th Meeting Corralejo 2 2

Several initiatives have been undertaken in the framework of the Network’s operation, the most important of which can be summarized as follows:

• Individual meetings and interviews with potential members of the LTPN.

• Organization of the LTPN meetings

• Preparation of an initial list of potential measures to be implemented in Fuerteventura during the course of the project.

• Process of public information and open consultation (open in a Facebook page of the project). A period of public information and consultation was opened after the kick-off meeting among the Forum members and other potential stakeholders and the general public. The goal was to disseminate the objectives of the project and to discuss the initial

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

list of proposed measures, as well as to gather proposals for additional measures to improve the sustainability of the touristic mobility in the island.

• Implementation of the bicycle route between Caleta de Fuste and the Salt Museum and promotion of the new product “Salt Route by bike”.

• Development of a web site that includes information on the “Salt route by bike”, as well as information on the public transport (timetable) of the island, the available cycling routes and initiatives that have been undertaken Europe-wide in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

• Monitoring of the infrastructural works related to the construction of the cycling paths of the island (improved connections to the town centre, new bridge for pedestrians and cyclists to connect the Salt Route bike lane to the commercial shopping mall).

• Promoting 100% renewable mobility to the Lobos Island, by replacing the existing petrol quad with an electric vehicle and by planning the purchase and use of electric bicycles for the visitors.

• Plans for promoting bicycle among cruise visitors, by reinforcing bike tours offers. This initiative was delayed because of the works of enhancing the harbour of Puerto del Rosario (no cruises arrived to the island during the last summer period).

Several dissemination actions have been organized in the framework of the LTPN’s operation, the most important of which are the following:

• Introduction of the STARTER project in the Atlantic Conference on Environment (Puerto del Rosario,5 May 2012.

• Presentation of STARTER in the web portal of the Biosphere Reserve.

• Open session of STARTER presentation (Hotel Jandía Princess, 1 October 2012).

• Production of dissemination materials. A leaflet in Spanish and English, a Flag-Poster and some t-shirts were produced for promoting STARTER among the different events related to mobility or environment organized in Fuerteventura.

• Creation of a Facebook page of the project (https://www.facebook.com/StarterMovilidadSostenible).

• Presentation of STARTER in AFRICACUA 2012, International Business Workshop. (Fuerteventura, 15-16 November 2012).

• Doha Climate Change Conference. Inclusion of the STARTER project progress and lessons learnt in the information system of UNESCO’s programmes and of other agencies of the UN system, as well as support through presentation in international forum such as the case of Doha Climate Change Conference (where STARTER will be presented in the informative sessions).

• Presentation of STARTER in several digital and printed local media (Canary Island TV , two of the Canary Island main papers, main digital news of the island)

• Article in FITUR magazine (International touristic Exhibition of Spain - more than 2000 distributed).

• Brochure of the salt route initiative and banner, available at: http://gestion.cabildofuer.es/fuerteventurabiosfera/

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

• Banner in the Biosphere reserve official web site available at http://gestion.cabildofuer.es/fuerteventurabiosfera/ and banner in the BiosphereSmart platform (official initiative of UNESCO) available at: www.biospheresmart.org.

• Bilateral meeting with general Director of the Barcelo Catillo Resort to implement a video for the internal Canel TV in the rooms.

• Participation in the parallel exhibition in the hall of the RENISLAS 2014 with a banner and brochures of STARTER.

Upon finalization of the STARTER project, the LTPN Coordinator of Fuerteventura was further asked to share the main problems that he faced during the operation of the LTPN, the main actions undertaken in order to tackle these problems, the way(s) he envisages the continuity of the LTPN in his region and the requirements to achieve this continuity:

• The main problem that the LTPN Coordinator faced in Fuerteventura was the involvement of the transport operators in the LTPN. The transport operator sector is highly regulated in Fuerteventura and not willing to make any changes, especially at this period of economic crisis. The LTPN in Fuerteventura proceeded with proposing a measure that mostly involved hoteliers and bike rentals, who were very enthusiastic with and active within the LTPN.

• For the continuity of the LTPN beyond the STARTER project, Biosphere Reserve plans using the LTPN as a tool in order to reach the general goal of promoting sustainable mobility in the region. Biosphere Reserve intents to integrate the LTPN in the Participation Council of the Reserve, thus guarantying its continuity.

LTPN Members

In Fuerteventura, 6 out of the 19 members of the LTPN, completed the questionnaire for the evaluation of the LTPN (see Annex I).

All the members that completed the questionnaire evaluate the LTPN in their region as an added-value and would be very interested in continuing their participation in it. The LTPN was considered very important by all the members for identifying local mobility problems and raising the awareness of local stakeholder. The majority of the LTPN members that completed the questionnaire also evaluated the Network as an important cooperation for defining sustainable mobility measures and contributing to the tourist – transport cooperation. A suggestion that was made for improving the Network’s operation included a proposal for undertaking more dissemination activities with cultural content. Finally, all participating members considered that the LTPN can bring other benefits as well, further to the ones related to mobility. These are:

• Creating a better image for Fuerteventura in its whole

• Provide a linkage between cultural heritage and good practices in sustainable mobility

• Advertise Fuerteventura as a sustainable destination – combining cultural, natural and ecological tourism

• Raise environmental awareness

• Improve offers to tourists.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

4.3 Noordwijk


The measures that have been implemented in Noordwijk include:

• A new parking policy, which increased the parking price for private cars in the residential area and decreased them along the beach.

• A beach shuttle service that allows tourists to use it for their trips to and from the beach instead of using their private car. The service is combined with a parking space, where visitors can park their cars for free and ride the shuttle.

• Promotional measures for the beach shuttle, in order to make it more visible and more attractive, including: combination vouchers displaying the shuttle route; signs located by the road at the entrance of Noordwijk that inform visitors on the availability of the beach shuttle; a host working in the parking lot, who facilitates visitors in their transfer from car to the beach shuttle and “moving art’ posters placed on the beach shuttle to make it more recognizable.

The tourist survey that took place in Noordwijk included 165 participants, who answered the questionnaire prepared for the region (provided in Annex I of the current document). Demographic information on the survey sample (age and gender) is provided in Annex II of the current document, along with information on the nights of stay and the country and city of origin.

Results on the transport mode that tourists used during their stay in Noordwijk are provided in Table 4-19. Since the question was a multiple response one, the results are given in frequency, percentage of this frequency and unduplicated percentages: frequency divided by the number of the survey participants. Figure 4-4 presents the transport mode choice per age group.

Table 4-19 Use of transport modes during stay (Noordwijk)


Car 138 56,3% 84%

Walking 55 22,4% 34%

PT 14 5,7% 9%

Bicycle 36 14,7% 22%

Motorcycle 1 0,4% 1%

Taxi 1 0,4% 1%

Total 245 100%

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Figure 4-4 Transport mode choice per group of age (Noordwijk)

As can be seen from the table and the figure above, car is the most popular transport mode among visitors (highly preferable by ages 46-55). The average car occupancy rate is 2,5.

Car is followed by walking (mostly preferable by ages 46-55 and 56-65) and bicycle (equally preferable among ages of 36-45 and 56-65). It should be noted, however, that ages younger than 18 were not represented in the sample, as well as that ages 26-35 were represented only in a percentage of 10% (see also Annex II – age distribution, Noordwijk). Public transport holds a low share in the tourists’ modal choices. This can be explained by considering the high percentage of car use and the fact that most of the tourists (52%) are same-day visitors (mostly arriving from The Netherlands).

It is also worth mentioning that a 60% of all respondents reveals a sustainable travel behaviour, having used PT, bicycle and/or walking during their stay in Noordwijk. Nonetheless, it should be noted that almost all respondents (96%) who have chosen “walking” among their answers, have combined it with one or two motorized modes (car, taxi and/or PT). The same applies to bicycle, although in a smaller percentage (64%). The majority of PT users (79%) have chosen only PT as their transport mode. Finally, the percentage “pure sustainable mobility” (those who have only used PT, bicycle and/or walking during their stay) is 15%.

Measure 1: New parking policy

The following table summarizes key indicators from the evaluation of the new parking policy. Columns (1) and (2) define the indicator that has been measured and its value respectively. Column (3) defines the questions’ sub-group of reference (number of participants to which the indicator’s value refers), indicating within brackets the level of sub-group, as this presented in section 2.1 (Methodological approach). Finally, column (4) provides the number of participants that were considered “eligible” to answer the respective question. Again, the respective level of sub-group is provided within brackets.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-20 Key evaluation indicators for the new parking policy

(1) Indicator

(2) Indicator’s value

(3) Size of sub-group

of reference

(4) Number of respondents

Awareness 10% 164 (P=R) 164 (P=R)


The indicator is not considered due to the low number of respondents

164 (P=R) 8 (R+SM+A)

Potential modal shift towards sustainable transport modes

8,5% 164 (P=R) 54 (R+non-SM+non-A)

Based on the table above and the questionnaire analysis, the following could be mentioned:

• Out of the overall sample of 164 respondents (Level P=R), only 10% is aware of the new parking policy. That percentage was also quite low during the interim evaluation phase, so it could be stated that the measure has a low visibility among tourists.

• The tourists that are aware of the new parking policy and, at the same time, are users of sustainable transport modes, were asked whether the measure has influenced their decision to park their cars along the beach and then use another mode of transport (bicycle, PT and/or walking for their trips within Noordwijk). If their answer was “Yes”, they were further asked what percentage of their car/motorcycle and/or taxi trips have been replaced by sustainable transport modes due to that influence. Due to the low number of respondent’s group (8 persons) and the even lower number of positive answers (2 persons), the indicator of modal shift is not considered within the current evaluation. Nonetheless, energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction was a measurable impact, achieved by a small group of participants: 3 out of the 164 persons have achieved, in total, 676 car kilometres reduction, which corresponds to 0,04 toe of energy saved and 0,11ton CO2e of CO2 emissions reduction (6,2% savings in relation to the overall tourist sample).

• Non-users of sustainable transport modes (non-SM), who at the same time were not aware of the new parking policy (non-A), were provided with information on the measure (short description of the measure) and were asked whether this new parking policy could encourage them to leave their cars along the beach and use sustainable transport modes for their trips within Noordwijk. A significant percentage of them (26%) answered positively and this should be considered as potential sustainable users. Again, the potential modal shift is estimated with reference on the whole tourist sample as 8,5%. The percentage of the car trips that each potentially influenced user could have replaced by sustainable transport modes is presented in Table 4-21 (per influenced respondent). The type of sustainable mode that replaced the use of the car is also provided, along with an estimation of the actual car kilometres that have been replaced by sustainable transport modes. In some cases, the influenced person has replaced his/her car trip by more than one sustainable transport mode. This is indicated in a different row under the same respondent’s ID.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-21 Motorized trips potentially replaced by sustainable modes of transport (bicycle, PT, walking) due to the new parking policy

ID of potentially influenced respondent

Potential percentage of replacement

Potential replacement car → (to)

Motorized vehicle kms potentially replaced

1 50% car → bicycle 10




4

20% car → bicycle 12

50% car → PT 30



6 100% car → PT 80



8


40% car → PT 8


9


20% car → PT 6


10


40% car → PT 8



40% car → PT 128

12


30% car → PT 6



14 30% car → PT 12

Total potential car vehicle kms replaced 663

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

An estimation of the energy savings and reduction of CO2 emissions due to the measure’s potential impact is provided in the following table. Calculation of the car and taxi kilometres “after” is done for those car and taxi users who provided information on the trips within the region (148 participants). The percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although achieved by the potentially influenced group (14 persons). In addition, the following parameters have been used:

• Fuel consumption (assumption): car/taxi: 1 litre per 15 kilometres



Table 4-22 Potential energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the implementation of the new parking policy

Before After Potential saving

Percentage of potential saving

Total car kms 10369 9706 663 6,3%



6% Primary energy use (toe) 0,64 0,6 0,039


Measure 2: Beach shuttle

The following table summarizes key indicators from the evaluation of the beach shuttle. Columns (1) and (2) define the indicator that has been measured and its value respectively. Column (3) defines the questions’ sub-group of reference (number of participants to which the indicator’s value refers), indicating within brackets the level of sub-group, as this presented in section 2.1 (Methodological approach). Finally, column (4) provides the number of participants that were considered “eligible” to answer the respective question. Again, the respective level of sub-group is provided within brackets.

Table 4-23 Key evaluation indicators for the Beach Shuttle service

(1) Indicator


(3) Size of sub-group of

reference


Awareness 23% 164 (P=R) 164 (P=R) Use of beach shuttle 1,2% 164 (P=R)

37 (R+A) 5% 37 (R+A)

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

As can be seen from the table, the visitors of Noordwijk who participated in the survey have a low awareness and an even lower use of the beach shuttle. This is because during the questionnaire survey, the beach shuttle did not run due to bad weather. The 2 persons who have actually used the beach shuttle, have done it previously. The indicator “User satisfaction” is excluded from the analysis due to the low number of responses.

It is worth mentioning, however, that out of the 37 persons who were aware of the beach shuttle, the 67% were same-day visitors. This reveals a significant visibility of the beach shuttle, even to daily visitors. However, when asked for the reason for not using the beach shuttle, this group provided the answers shown in Figure 4-5. A strong preference to the private car is revealed and perhaps in order to attract those people from their cars to the beach shuttle (although in most cases this is not an easy task), more incentives should be provided (for example, special offers from the tourist’s shops/restaurants, etc. to those who use the beach shuttle). On the other hand, there are some issues that the Municipality could easily address, thus addressing some of the reasons provided below. Frequency of the service and operational hours could be improved and the information on the days when the beach shuttle is on service could be clearer.

Figure 4-5 Reasons for not using the beach shuttle

An estimation of the energy savings and reduction of CO2 emissions due to the operation of the beach shuttle is done considering that the beach shuttle route covers 8 kilometres round-trip and the assumption that these 8 kilometres would have otherwise been travelled by car. This means savings of 8 kms per car per day. For the two (2) daily visitors that have used the beach shuttle this means 160 car kms replaced. This number corresponds to 0,01 toe of energy saved and 0,02 ton CO2e of CO2 emissions reduction (1,4% savings in relation to the overall tourist sample).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Measure 3: Promotion of the beach shuttle

The following table summarizes key indicators from the evaluation of the beach shuttle’s promotional measures.

Table 4-24 Key evaluation indicators for the Beach Shuttle’s promotional measures

(1) Indicator


(3) Size of sub-group of

reference

(4) Number of eligible

respondents

Awareness of the promotional measures

9% 164 (P=R) 37 (R+ beach shuttle A) 38% 37 (R+ beach shuttle A) 37 (R+ beach shuttle A)

Modal shift towards beach shuttle due to the impact of the promotional measures

Indicator not considered due to the low number

of respondents 164 (P=R) 2 (R+A+U)

Potential influence among non-aware visitors and non-users of the beach shuttle

5,5% 164 (P=R) 23 (R+non-SM+non-A)

Based on the table above and the questionnaire analysis:

• The awareness of the beach shuttle’s promotional measures was investigated among those visitors who were aware of the beach shuttle. A 38% of them (14 persons), namely a 9% of the overall tourist sample answered positively.

• Visitors who were not aware of the promotional measures (non-A) and, at the same time, they did not use the beach shuttle (non-SM), were asked whether the promotional measures could encourage them to use the beach shuttle. A significant percentage of them (39% - 9 persons) answered positively and these should be considered as potential beach shuttle users. The potential modal shift was estimated 5,4% among the overall tourist sample. The percentages of the car kilometres that could have been replaced by the beach shuttle are presented in Table 4-25, per potentially influenced respondent. An estimation of the car kilometres that have been replaced by the beach shuttle is done based on the fact that the beach shuttle route covers 8 kilometres round-trip and the assumption that these 8 kilometres would have otherwise been travelled by car.

• Finally, what is worth mentioning is that the majority of the potential beach shuttle users stated that they would be more encouraged to use the beach shuttle due to the signs located at the entrance of Noordwijk, while the remaining 33% stated that the combination voucher seemed the most attractive promotional measure to them.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-25 Car trips potentially replaced by the beach shuttle due to the promotional measures

ID of potentially influenced respondent

Potential percentage of replacement

Potential replacement car → beach shuttle

Motorized car kms potentially replaced

1 100% car → beach shuttle 8









Total potential car kms replaced 120

An estimation of the energy savings and reduction of CO2 emissions due to the measure’s impact is provided in the following table. Calculation of the car and taxi kilometres (“after”) is done for those car and taxi users who provided information on their trips within the region (148 participants). The table only included the potential modal shift due to the measures’ impacts, the actual modal shift was not considered due to the very low number of respondents. Percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although achieved by the potentially influenced group (9 persons)

Table 4-26 Potential energy use and CO2 emissions reduction before and after the implementation of the promotional measures

Before After Potential saving Percentage of potential saving

Total car kms 9826 9706 120 1,2%

Total taxi kms 492 492 n/a 0%




IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Actual and potential total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures

Table 4-27 presents the actual total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction due to the impacts of all three measures implemented in Noordwijk. Percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although achieved by four (4) persons in total.

Table 4-28 present the potential total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction due to the impacts of all three measures implemented in Noordwijk. Percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although achieved by the potentially influenced group (in total 14 persons).

Table 4-27 Actual total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures (Noordwijk)


Total car kms 10542 9706 836 8%

Total taxi kms 492 492 0



Emissions (ton CO2e) 1,75 1,62

Table 4-28 Potential total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures


Total car kms 10489 9706 783 7%

Total taxi kms 492 492 0




IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113


LTPN Coordinator

As in all STARTER pilot sites, the LTPN in Noordwijk has been established during autumn-winter 2012. In Noordwijk, the LTPN’s membership has remained fixed from the beginning of its operation and is shown in the following table. Several members were approached by the LTPN Coordinator in order to become members of the LTPN, but the majority of them were not interested because they are already members of several other networks and they see no reason for joining the STARTER Network as well.

Table 4-29 Evolution of LTPN membership in Noordwijk


1 Local Authority 1

2 Owners of touristic businesses 2

3 Bus company 1

4 Associations of touristic businesses 1

Total 5

The kick off meeting of the LTPN in Noordwijk took place during September 2012 and a second meeting took place in March 2014. A third meeting is scheduled to take place in December 2014.

The initiatives that have been undertaken in the framework of the Network’s operation (throughout the whole duration of the STARTER project) include:

• Defining the types of visitors and brainstorming about possible measures that would fit within the framework of the LTPN;

• Meeting with Province of Zuid-Holland to discuss the possibilities of a grant in order to implement measures for the STARTER project.

• LTPN members were invited to give their opinion about the new parking policy.

• Two of the LTPN members were invited to make an offer to operate the beach shuttle. Eventually an agreement was reached between the LTPN Coordinator (Municipality) and members of the LTPN that enable the continuity of the beach shuttle operation for two more years (starting from 2013).

• A combination voucher for the promotion of the beach shuttle has been created based on the initiative of the LTPN Coordinator and due to the active involvement of LTPN members and other local stakeholders.

Dissemination actions have been organized in the framework of the LTPN’s operation include:

• Adjustment of the touristic website of the local government, in order to focus more on alternative transport modes in the area.

• A meeting with employees of the Province of Zuid-Holland.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

• Information meetings for the general public, information meetings for local companies, information meetings for neighbourhood associations, etc.

• Meeting with the two companies and the responsible alderman, a meeting with representatives of the two companies to discuss terms and conditions, letters describing the conditions, etc.

• Distribution of the combination voucher

• Press releases about the beach shuttle

Creating and maintaining an LTPN in Noordwijk was not considered an easy task from the coordinator’s point of view. Several members were approached in order to become members of the LTPN, but the majority of them were not interested because they are already members of several other networks and they could not see the added value of an additional network such as the LTPN. Unfortunately, this attitude turned out too rigid to change. The existing cooperation within the LTPN will continue through the continuity of the beach shuttle operation. For the involvement of further members, though and the better establishment of the tourist-transport cooperation more should be done. Given the situation in Noordwijk, the Coordinator proposed that the LTPN connects to an existing network. It is considered necessary, as well, that the Municipality remains a financial and framework partner.

LTPN Members

The bus company that operated the beach shuttle in 2014 completed the questionnaire for the LTPN members that have been formulated for the evaluation of the LTPN. The company joined the network as the beach shuttle operator and participated in both the LTPN meetings that took place. The bus operator considers that the LTPN could have an added value for the region as far as the improvement of the beach shuttle service is concerned. He does not consider, though, that the LTPN could bring other benefits further to the ones related to mobility issues, since there are already several other network organizations. Finally, the bus operator evaluated very positively the activities of the LTPN in Noordwijk (identification of local mobility problems; definition of sustainable mobility measures; contribution to tourist-transport cooperation; raising the awareness of the local stakeholders towards transport sustainability), but he suggested that the mobility-related problems and opportunities should be made clearer to the local stakeholders. Connecting the LTPN with an existing network might actually work towards this direction.

4.3.3 Local stakeholders

The Municipality of Noordwijk has conducted an evaluation of the new parking policy further to the STARTER evaluation. Some interesting findings are presented below:

• Although the tariff areas had changed and the parking lots near the beach were assigned a lower tariff in comparison to the ones nearby the residential area, the Municipality’s income has not changed. In total, the hours of paid parking have not decreased; instead they increased by around 30%. This is probably due to the fact that the people who pay per hour have moved to the areas with a lower parking tariff.

• The hours parked in the areas with the high tariff decreased by 16% while the hours parked in the low tariff areas increased by 38% (Table 4-30). It can be stated that the parking lots with the low tariff are now much better used. The reason for the increase in

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

the total number of parked hours is unclear. It might be that more visitors have come to Noordwijk or average parking time has increased. The parking policy did what it supposed to do. In the residential areas with the high tariffs, parking has decreased while parking on the cheaper larger parking lots near the beach has increased.

• Further research results show that residents are happy with the new parking policy. Rules and regulations are clearer and the nuisance of visitors has decreased significantly.

Table 4-30 Parking hours (x1,000) in tariff areas

Area Total June 2012-May 2013 Total June 2013-May 2014

High tariff 218,89 184,51

Low tariff 1094,52 1515,86

Total 1313,4 1700,38

Table 4-31 Change in production of parking hours from July 2013 till April 2014 compared to the same months in 2012-2013

Month Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Average

High tariff -35% -41% -47% -49% -43% -40% -42% -42% -22% -42% -40%

Low tariff 8% 10% 10% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 4% 8% 8%

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

4.4 Lake Balaton


Within the STARTER project, the region of Balaton has developed the following measures:

I. A “Guide for cyclists” for the West-Balaton region, developed on the basis of Google map api that informs tourists on road conditions and accidents and plans their bicycle trips in a sightseeing friendly way.

II. An integrated periodic time table for Public transport, which harmonizes time tables between bus and rail transport (bus-to-train timetable) and also between buses (bus-to-bus timetable).

III. Promotional measures for cycling and public transport, including: brochures distributed in the hotels and tourist information points; information provided beside the timetables at the terminals and on the buses; roll banners; and film displayed in the room TV and the city cable TV.

The questionnaire survey that took place in the region of Balaton included 124 participants, who answered the questionnaire prepared for the Balaton region (provided in Annex I of the current document). As already mentioned, the site of Balaton had included in the survey not only tourists but also daily (employees and seasonal workers) and frequent (visitors arriving at the region for medical/treatment reasons). The three target groups present the following characteristics:

• Tourists arrive 1-4 weeks per year from a distance of 100-200 km and more.

• Daily commuters are employees and seasonal workers, as well as students. These are travelling in the region more than 30 weeks per year.

• Frequent commuters travel 5-25 weeks per year in the region. This group includes people who travel for medical/treatment reasons (due to the spas in the region), but also local holiday home owners. This sector constitutes a special Hungarian circumstance. Almost whole lake Balaton is surrounded by family cottages. Sometimes the owners travel a long distance (more than 200 kms each time) and locally they can use bicycles.

Having three different target groups for Balaton was something not planned from the beginning (therefore no dedicated questionnaires were created for the daily and frequent commuters), rather than came up during the survey itself, since both daily commuters and frequent commuters are groups that could be also affected by the implemented measures. The three groups were treated as three different samples and the analysis within STARTER (evaluation of the measures) was done separately for each group.

Demographic information on the survey samples (age and gender) is provided in Annex II of the current document.

Results on the transport mode that tourists and commuters used during their stay in Balaton are provided in the following tables. Since the question was a multiple response one, the results are given in frequency, percentage of this frequency and unduplicated percentages: frequency divided by the number of the survey participants.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-32 Use of transport modes during stay (Balaton - tourists)


Car 37 32% 66%

Walking 35 30% 63%

PT 18 15% 32%

Bicycle 18 15% 32%

Motorcycle 5 4% 9%

Taxi 2 2% 4%

Taxi/tourist boat 1 1% 2%

Other (segway) 1 1% 2%

Total 117 100%

Table 4-33 Use of transport modes during stay (Balaton – daily commuters)


Car 13 21% 35%

Walking 14 23% 38%

PT 20 32% 54%

Bicycle 12 19% 32%

Motorcycle 3 5% 8%

Total 62 100%

Table 4-34 Use of transport modes during stay (Balaton – frequent commuters)


Car 21 45% 68%

Walking 6 13% 19%

PT 11 23% 35%

Bicycle 5 11% 16%

Motorcycle 2 4% 6%

Taxi/tourist boat 1 2% 3%

Other (quad) 1 2% 3%

Total 47 100%

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Figure 4-6, Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8 present the transport mode choice of each group per group of age.

Figure 4-6 Transport mode choice per group of age (tourists - Balaton)

Figure 4-7 Transport mode choice per group of age (daily commuters - Balaton)

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Figure 4-8 Transport mode choice per group of age (frequent commuters - Balaton)

As can be seen from the tables and the figures above:

• In their majority, tourists prefer car (with an average ridership of 1,86) and walking for their trips within Balaton, followed by PT and bicycle. Car is particular popular in older ages (56-65 and older than 65), but walking is almost equally preferable among all ages. A 69% of those who have chosen walking have combined it with one or more motorized transport modes (car, motorcycle or taxi). It is interesting to notice, though, that 70% of all tourists had revealed a sustainable travel behaviour, having used at least on sustainable transport mode (PT, bicycle or walking) during their stay. The percentage of “pure sustainable users” (those who have only used PT, bicycle and/or walking) is 21%.

• The picture is quite different for daily commuters, who chose to travel mostly by PT. Car, bicycle and walking present similar percentages of choice, although it seems that car is mostly preferable by ages of 46-65. The majority of those who use their car travels alone, with an average ridership being 1,30. Sustainability holds a bigger percentage among daily commuters in relation to tourists, with a 73% of daily commuters choosing to travel with one or more sustainable transport modes. “Pure” sustainability holds a percentage of 57%.

• Frequent commuters, on the other hand, mostly prefer car for their trips (average ridership equals to 1,63), followed by PT. As anticipated from this target group, car is most popular in younger ages (18-25 and 26-35). On the other hand, PT is mostly preferable by ages of 46-55, while sustainability of the whole target group does not hold such a high percentage in comparison to the other target groups (48%). The percentage of “pure sustainable users” (those who have only used PT, bicycle and/or walking) is 29%.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Measure 1: Guide for Cyclists (GfC)

The following table summarizes key indicators from the evaluation of the GfC for all target groups. Columns (1) and (2) define the indicator that has been measured and its value respectively. Column (3) defines the questions’ sub-group of reference (number of participants to which the indicator’s value refers), indicating within brackets the level of sub-group, as this presented in section 2.1 (Methodological approach). Finally, column (4) provides the number of participants that were considered “eligible” to answer the relative question. Again, the relative level of sub-group is provided within brackets.

Table 4-35 Key evaluation indicators for the Guide for Cyclists

(1)

Indicator

(2)

Indicator’s value

(3)

Sub-group of reference

(4)


Tourists


Use of the Guide

15% 47 (R) 10 (R+SM+A)

70% 10 (R+SM+A) 10 (R+SM+A)


Indicator not considered due to the low number of respondents

47 (R) 7 (R+SM+A+U)

Daily commuters


Use of the Guide

6% 33 (R) 3 (R+SM+A)

67% 3 (R+SM+A) 3 (R+SM+A)



33 (R) 2 (R+SM+A+U)

Frequent commuters


Use of the Guide

10% 30 (R) 4 (R+SM+A)

75% 4 (R+SM+A) 4 (R+SM+A)



30 (R) 3 (R+SM+A+U)

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Based on the above table and the questionnaire analysis the following can be mentioned:

Tourists:

• Out of the overall tourist sample of 47 respondents, 21% is aware of the Guide for cyclists.

• The question regarding the use of the guide, addressed those people who used bicycle and at the same time were aware of the guide, namely 10 respondents (Level R+SM+A). A 70% of those you were aware of the Guide actually used it (7 persons). The percentage of users among the overall sample of tourists is 15%. The majority of the users consider the Guide very easy to use and understand and very useful in terms of the information provided. However, based on the answers provided, improvements related to the information provided and the easiness to use could include:

o The extension of the Guide’s area of reference

o The improvement of Points of Interests (POI)

o Optimization of the Guide’s interface for mobile phone users.

Further to the above, it is interesting to observe the awareness and use of the Guide among the bicycle users specifically. This is depicted in the following figure:

Figure 4-9 Awareness and use of the GfC among bicycle users

The percentage of use among the bicyclists is satisfying, although a significant percentage of highly potential users (16%) has not been persuaded to use the Guide. This could, of course, be attributed to personal choices (visitors that they do not rely in “information-in-the-pack”), but also to lack of attractiveness of the provided information tool. Bike users who are not aware of the guide at all, also hold a significant percentage and this group should be targeted through more focused dissemination actions.

• The modal shift towards bicycling due to the measure’s impact is estimated by the questions: “Has the information provided by the Guide for cyclists somehow influenced your decision to use bicycle?” and if yes, “What percentage of your car/motorcycle and/or taxi trips have been replaced by bicycle?”. The questions addressed the bicyclists that have actually used the guide (7 persons). Due to the low number of respondent’s group (7 persons) and the even lower number of positive answers (3 persons), the indicator of modal shift is not considered within the current evaluation. Nonetheless,

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction was a measurable impact, achieved by a small group of participants: 3 persons out of the 47 tourists have achieved, in total, 105 car kilometres and 4 motorcycle kilometres reduction, which corresponds to 0,01 toe of energy saved and 0,12 ton CO2e of CO2 emissions reduction (1,3% savings in relation to the overall tourist sample).

Daily commuters:

• Out of the overall sample of 33 respondents, only a 9% is aware of the Guide for cyclists, which was somehow anticipated, as the GfC mainly targets the tourists’ group.

• Out of the 3 persons that were aware of the Guide, only 2 have used it (a 6% of the overall sample), who were moderately satisfied with its usability and comprehensibility. For these 2 persons, the information provided by the Guide did not influence their decision to use bicycle. This was also anticipated, as this group travels almost daily for work related purposes and has already made its sustainable or non-sustainable travel choice. Nonetheless, the low number of respondents does not allow for any safe conclusions to be drawn on the modal shift and the energy savings caused due to the implementation of the GfC.

Frequent commuters:

• Thirty (30) frequent commuters participated in the survey and 17% of them (5 persons) was aware of the Guide for cyclists (one of them not being a cyclist).

• Out of the 4 persons that were aware of the Guide and are using a bicycle for their trips, 3 have also used it (10% of the overall sample). These users found the information provided very to completely useful and only one of them seemed to find the information moderately easy to understand. Two users, though, thought that the Guide is moderately easy to use and one of them made the suggestion to extent the Guide’s area of reference.

• With regards to the modal shift indicator, due to the low number of respondent’s group (2 persons) and the even lower number of positive answers (2 persons), the indicator of modal shift is not considered within the current evaluation. Nonetheless, energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction was a measurable impact, achieved by one (1) person out of the 30 frequent commuters: this person saved 120 car kilometres, which corresponds to 0,01 toe of energy saved and 0,02 ton CO2e of CO2 emissions reduction (0,2% savings in relation to the overall tourist sample).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Measure 2a: Integrated periodic timetable: bus-to-train connection

The following table summarizes the key results from the evaluation of the integrated periodic timetable (bus-to-train connection). Relevant graphs can be found in Annex II of the current document.

Table 4-36 Key evaluation indicators for the bus-to-train timetable

(1)

Indicator

(2)

Indicator’s value

(3)


(4)


Tourists

Arrival by train 22% 27 (R) 27 (R)

Use of bus from/to the railway station 15% 27 (R) 6 (R+ train SM)

Modal shift towards bus


27 (R) 4 (R+ train SM+U)

Daily commuters





29 (R) 2 (R+train SM+U)

Frequent commuters





24 (R) 2 (R+train SM+U)

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

The table presents the following questionnaire analysis outcomes:

Tourists:

• Out of the 27 tourists that answered the question, only a 22% (6 persons) arrived to Balaton by train. However, two points should be considered here:

o Additional infrastructure developments are running in the West Balaton Region, including the rail re-construction on the southern Balaton line and the construction of Keszthely’s multimodal PT terminal. Therefore, the train connection between Budapest and Keszthely is not that attractive for the time being.

o The car’s share in the modal split in Hungary is generally high1 and it’s not easy to convince people not to use their cars. The construction sites in the Balaton region make it even harder.

• Out of those who arrived by train 67% (4 persons), namely the 15% of the tourist sample, used the bus for their trips to/from the railway station.

• Three (3) persons answered the question regarding the satisfaction with the bus-to-train timetable characteristics. The low number of responses does not allow for any conclusions to be drawn.

• A couple of suggestions are made for further improving the train-to-bus and bus-to-train waiting times at the bus station.

• The modal shift towards buses due to the measure’s impact is estimated by the questions: “Has the timetable influence your decision to use bus transit for your trips from/to the railway station?” and if yes, “What percentage of your car/motorcycle and/or taxi trips from/to the railway station have been replaced by bus?”. Due to the low number of respondent’s group (4 persons) and the even lower number of positive answers (3 persons), the indicator of modal shift is not considered within the current evaluation. Nonetheless, energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction was a measurable impact, achieved by a small group of participants: 3 persons out of the 47 tourists have achieved, in total, 80 car kilometres and 120 taxi kilometres reduction, which corresponds to 0,01 toe of energy saved and 0,03 ton CO2e of CO2 emissions reduction (2% savings in relation to the overall tourist sample).

Daily commuters:

• Out of the 29 daily commuters that answered the question, only a 14% (4 persons) arrived to Balaton by train. Unattractiveness of the train connection to Balaton is also obvious for this target group. The reasons for that should be search to what has been said above.

• Out of those who arrived by train 50% (2 persons), namely 7% of the sample, used the bus for their trips from/to the railway station, but only one answered the question related to the satisfaction with the bus frequency and operating hours. Again, due to the very

1 Approximately 51% in 2011 (Source: National Transport Strategy, based on the data of Central Bureau of Statistics

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

small number of answers provided, the indicator of user’s satisfaction is not considered in the current evaluation.

• For the answers of those few who arrive by train and use the bus lines for their trips to/from the railway station it appears that their travel choices were not influenced by the harmonized timetables. The low number of respondents, though, does not allow for any further conclusions to be drawn.

Frequent commuters: Frequent commuters also present a low percentage of train use (8%) for their arrival to Balaton. The few who arrive by train, though, use the bus lines for their trips to/from the railway station. From their answers, it appears that their travel choices were not influenced by the harmonized timetable. The low number of respondents, though, does not allow for any further conclusions to be drawn.

Measure 2b: Integrated periodic timetable: bus-to-bus connection

The following table summarizes the key results from the evaluation of the integrated periodic timetable (bus-to-bus connection).

Table 4-37 Key evaluation indicators for the bus-to-bus timetable

(1)

Indicator

(2)

Indicator’s value

(3)


(4)


Tourists

Use of bus within Balaton 38% 29 (R) 29 (R)

Change between bus lines 31% 29 (R) 11 (R+ SM)


Indicator not considered due to low number of respondents

29 (R) 9 (R+SM+U)

Daily commuters





30 (R) 3 (R+SM+U)

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

(1)

Indicator

(2)

Indicator’s value

(3)


(4)


Frequent commuters





24 (R) 2 (R+SM+U)


Tourists:

• Out of the 29 tourists who provided a response, a 38% (11 persons) used the bus for their trips within the Balaton region.

• Out of the 11 bus users, a 82%, namely 31% of the tourists sample changed at least one time from one bus to another. Their satisfaction with the bus-to-bus timetable is rather high, although some improvements could be made regarding the operating hours of the bus lines.

• It is interesting to notice here that, those who used the bus lines but did not change in between (2 persons), stated that a better timetable would not encourage them to continue their trips using the bus.

• The modal shift towards buses due to the measure’s impact is estimated by the questions: “Has the timetable influenced your decision to make the bus-to-bus change?” and if yes, “What percentage of your car/motorcycle and/or taxi trips within Balaton have been replaced by bus?”. Due to the low number of respondent’s group (9 persons) and the even lower number of positive answers (5 persons), the indicator of modal shift is not considered within the current evaluation. Nonetheless, energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction was a measurable impact, achieved by a small group of participants: 5 persons out of the 47 tourists have achieved, in total, 216 car kilometres,80 taxi kilometres and 76 motorcycle kilometres reduction, which corresponds to 0,02 toe of energy saved and 0,07 ton CO2e of CO2 emissions reduction (4% savings in relation to the overall tourist sample).

Daily commuters:

• Out of the 30 daily commuters that responded, a 43% (13 persons) use the bus for their trips within the Balaton region.

• Out of the 13 bus users, only a 23%, namely 10% of the sample, changed at least one time from one bus to another. The indicator of the user’s satisfaction is not taken into consideration, due to the very small number of responses.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

• A 40% of the ten bus users who do not change from one bus to another, stated that a better timetable could encourage them to continue their trips using the bus and they suggested the increase of the frequency of the bus services. The remaining 60% stated that their decision not to continue their trips using the bus is not related to the timetable. They suggested, though, that the waiting times at the bus station should be improved as per the bus-to-bus connection.

• With regards to the modal shift towards bus caused by the influence the measure had on the bus users, the low number of respondent’s group (3 persons) does not allow for any estimations to be done.

Frequent commuters:

• Frequent commuters attribute a 42% of bus use for their trips within Balaton.

• A 20% of the bus users, namely a 8% of the overall sample changed at least one time from one bus to another. The indicator of the user’s satisfaction is not taken into consideration, due to the very low number of respondents.

• Due to the low number of respondent’s group (2 persons) and the even lower number of positive answers (1 person), the indicator of modal shift is not considered within the current evaluation. Nonetheless, energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction was a measurable impact, achieved by 1 person, who has saved 11200 car kilometres. These corresponds to 0,66 toe of energy saved and 1,78 ton CO2e of CO2 emissions reduction (16% savings in relation to the overall tourist sample).

Measure 3: Promotion of cycling and public transport

The key results from the evaluation of the promotional actions are summarized in the table below.

Table 4-38 Key evaluation indicators for the promotional actions

(1) Indicator


(3) Sub-group of

reference

(4) Number of

respondents

Tourists


Modal shift towards bicycle and/or PT 17,5% 57 (R) 17 (R+SM+A)

Maximum influence caused by:

Brochures (50%), Information beside the time tables (50%) 8 (R+SM+A+I) 8 (R+SM+A+I)

Daily commuters


IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Modal shift towards bicycle and/or PT

Indicator not considered due to low number of respondents 37 (R) 9 (R+SM+A)


Information beside the time tables (100%) 4 (R+SM+A+I) 4 (R+SM+A+I)

Frequent commuters


Modal shift towards bicycle and/or PT

Indicator not considered due to low number of respondents 31 (R) 9 (R+SM+A)


Information beside the time tables (100%) 4 (R+SM+A+I) 4 (R+SM+A+I)


Tourists:

The awareness percentage of the new promotional measures is high among tourists. A significant percentage (17,5%) of the sample was influenced by the promotional measures as per the decision to use bicycle and/or public transport. The percentage of the motorized trips that each influenced user had replaced by sustainable transport modes is presented in Table 4-39 (per influenced respondent). The type of motorized mode that has been replaced is also presented, as well as the type of sustainable mode that replaced it. An estimation of the actual motorized kilometres that have been replaced by sustainable transport modes is also provided. In some cases (i.e. ID 1 and 2), the influenced person has replaced two motorized transport modes by sustainable transport modes. This is indicated in a different row under the same respondent’s ID.

Table 4-39 Motorized trips of tourists replaced by bicycle and/or PT due to the promotional measures

Influenced respondent’s’ ID

Percentage of replacement Replacement (from) → (to) Estimated motorized

kms replaced


5% car → PT 11


15% car → PT 65

3 10% car → PT 89

4 10% car → PT 16

5 33% car → PT 80

6 100% car → PT 200

7 100% car → PT 60

8 2% motorcycle → bicycle 4

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

9 100% taxi → PT 240


Total taxi kms replaced 240

Total motorcycle kms replaced 4

Total kms replaced 882

Tourists that gave a positive answer as per their influence by the promotional measures were asked which of the measures has influenced them the most. Their answers included:

• the brochures distributed in the hotels and the tourist information points (chosen by 50% of the respondents)

• information beside the time tables at terminals and on the buses (chosen by 50% of the respondents)

An estimation of the energy savings and reduction of CO2 emissions due to the measure’s impact is provided in the following table. Calculation of the car, motorcycle and taxi kilometres “after” is done for the whole sample of tourists. Percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although achieved by the influenced group (9 persons).

Table 4-40 Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the implementation of the promotional measures (tourists)


Total car kms 7248 6610 638 9%






Daily commuters:

Daily commuters were not so aware of the promotional measures in relation to the tourists. This was somehow anticipated, since most of the promotional material was distributed or displayed in places of touristic interest (information points, hotels, spa, etc.). However, the measures seem to have a positive impact to the sustainable travel behaviour of daily commuters, since 3 persons have been influenced as per their decision to use bicycle and/or PT. The low number of respondent’s group, though, does not allow for any further safe conclusions to be drawn regarding modal shift. Nonetheless, energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction was a measurable impact, achieved by this small group of influenced respondents: 3 persons out of the 37 daily commuters have achieved, in total, 15791 car kilometres reduction, which corresponds to 0,93 toe of energy saved and 2,51 ton CO2e of CO2 emissions reduction (11% savings in relation to the overall sample).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

The measure that has influenced daily commuters the most is the information beside the timetables at terminals and on the buses, which was also anticipated for the same reason mentioned above.

Frequent commuters:

A 29% of frequent commuters is aware of the promotional actions, while 3 persons have been influenced as per the decision to use PT or bicycle. The low number of respondent’s group, though, does not allow any further conclusions to be drawn regarding modal shift. Nonetheless, energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction was a measurable impact, achieved by this small group of influenced respondents: 3 persons out of the 31 frequent commuters have achieved, in total, 1848 car kilometres reduction, which corresponds to 0,11 toe of energy saved and 0,30 ton CO2e of CO2 emissions reduction (3% savings in relation to the overall sample).

The measure that had the most influence on this target group was the brochures distributed in the hotels and the tourist information points. This could be easily explained should someone considers that frequent commuters in the region might also be seasonal employees working in the touristic sector.

Total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures

The following tables present the total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction per target group due to the impacts of all three measures implemented in Balaton. Percentages of savings refer to the whole sample, although actually achieved by few persons.

Table 4-41 Total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures (tourists)


Total car kms 7649 6610 1039 13%






Table 4-42 Total energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction from all measures (daily commuters)


Total car kms 125951 110160 15791 12,5%


Total fuel consumption 9802 8749 1053 11%

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

(lit)

Primary energy use (toe) 8,66 7,73 0,93


Table 4-43 Energy use and CO2 emissions before and after the implementation of the promotional measures (frequent commuters)


Total car kms 68808 55640 13168 19%






LTPN Coordinator

As in the previous evaluation, a questionnaire was formulated by CERTH and completed by the LTPN Coordinator in Balaton, with the scope to evaluate the overall operation and performance of the LTPN from the coordinator’s point of view. In total 32 organizations have expressed their interest in becoming members of the LTPN from the beginning of the STARTER project.

The evolution of the LTPN membership in Balaton, from the very beginning of its operation in summer - autumn 2012 until the summer of 2014, is shown in the following table.

Table 4-44 Evolution of LTPN membership in Balaton


2012 2013 2014

1. Local Authority 6 9 6∗

2. Public Transport Provider 1 1 1

3. Hotel Associations 1 2 2

∗!Some Municipalities expressed their interest but showed moderate presence because of the parliamentary and municipal elections in the year 2014.!

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

4. Associations of touristic businesses

1 1

5. Owners of touristic businesses

1

6. Tourists operators 2

7. Executive bodies 4 4

8. Bike rentals 1 1

9. Transport organizer 1

10. Bike sport club 1

Total 12 19 15

The meetings of the Network that have taken from the very beginning of the project are provided in Table 4-45.

Table 4-45 LTPN meetings (Balaton)

Date Venue No of participants (organizations)

No of participants

(persons)

1st Meeting 25.10.2012. Heviz 6 11

2nd Meeting 20.11.2012. Zalakaros 3 4

3rd Meeting 29.11.2012. Zalakaros 15 15

4th Meeting 26.07.2013. Keszthely 2 PT operator 4

5th Meeting 15.10.2013. Zalakaros 6 9



8th Meeting 13.08.2014. Zalakaros 3 hotels 4

9th Meeting 16.10.2014. Heviz 5 11

In addition to the LTPN-meetings LPT (Local Project Team) discussion and decision makings were held several times (27.04; 26.07; 11.09; 17.12 in 2012. and 06.02; 10.04; 29.05; 18.09; 31.10 in 2013. and 22.01; 28.05; 10.09; 29.09 in 2014.) with BME, KTI and project members.

The initiatives that have been undertaken so far with respect to the operation of the Network are summarized below:

• Analysis of the bicycle network, identification of network-specific endowments, identification of missing links in the network, direct promotion of bicycle use (hotels),

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

exploring new routes have been done, development of a portal for cyclists named “Guide for cyclist” (1st measure).

• Development of the PT network and regular services, harmonizing the long distance bus and rail services in arrival transport, harmonizing long distance, suburban and local bus transport. Analysis of the peak load and the rush hour services of bus transport, staggered timing, aiming to offer a highly integrated periodic time table in the interurban transport (2nd measure).

• Promotion of public transport and cycling (3rd measure).

Dissemination actions that were organized during the operation of the LTPN from the very beginning of the project focused on three target groups: i) Municipalities and Mayors, ii) hoteliers and iii) National Authority of Transport Organization (KKK):

• 1st Action: reaching the target group of Municipalities and Mayors.

The first dissemination actions initiated with the LTPN kick off meeting at 29.11.2012. Until now at least 20 mayors and his/her staffs were informed about STARTER, the Guide for Cyclists and the new PT time tables. Experts of the Hungarian project partner (KTI) informed regularly all the regional Municipalities and other authorities about transport changes through multilateral meetings in districts (earlier “micro-regions”).

The final meeting organized for the Municipalities had a minor success because of the national, parliament and local elections that took place within 2014. The date of the meeting was too close to the elections (16.10.2014.)

• 2nd Action: reaching the target group of hoteliers

The first interviews with hoteliers (20.11.2012) have shown that only a very modest cooperation could be reached with this particular target group. Readiness of cooperation is based on common interest, but the problem is the strong competition that exists among them. For this reason, the leader of the Touristic Association in Zalakaros was asked to communicate any information related to the LTPN.

The meetings with the hoteliers were firstly organized in the framework of the LTPN (15.10.2013) for two participants. On 08.04.2014 hoteliers were represented again by two persons. To achieve a bigger participation, KTI organized a personal visit in the most important hotels in Zalakaros. Four successful meetings took place.

The final LTPN meeting has shown a significant loss of interest, as three participants were only registered.

• 3rd Action: reaching the National Authority of Transport Organization (KKK)

The National organization for transport planning (Coordination Centre for Transport Planning KKK) was interviewed to support GfC in two stages.

On 03.10.2013 an expert representing KKK was informed about the project in detail with a supporting resolution. On 03.04.2014 a leader of KKK expressed that there is no conflict of interests between the GfC and the national cyclist strategy (that has since been adopted).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

• 4th Action: Newsletter

The Newsletter had over 100 recipients, thus reaching a significant group of local stakeholders that might be interested in the project and LTPN activities.

Upon finalization of the STARTER project, the LTPN Coordinator of Balaton was further asked to share the main problems that he faced during the operation of the LTPN, the main actions undertaken in order to tackle these problems, the way(s) he envisages the continuity of the LTPN in his region and the requirements to achieve this continuity:

• 1st problem and corrective actions: In Hungary, European, national parliament and local municipal elections were held within a 6 month period in 2014. This caused some internal changes in the Hungarian project partner. It was necessary to further strengthen the local connections and communication and to harmonize STARTER measures to local and national development plan.

• 2nd problem and corrective actions: Reconstruction of state administration and changes in personnel. The former “micro regions” have been reorganized in a district form. Former working organizations with their contacts also disappeared. Adjusting to the new structure was necessary for KTI in the cases of Keszthely district and Hungarian Tourism Plc.

• 3rd problem and corrective actions: Financial interest. The basic problem for the LTPN operation was to achieve a win-win cooperation under local competition. The limited budget was always a question, causing, among other things, the disinterest of hoteliers. Strengthening the personal contact and commitment on the basis of sympathy is the only way to tackle this problem. Situation can be improved, if there are strong patriots.

In relation to the continuity of the LTPN in Balaton, the LTPN Coordinator recognized that the most important is to continue the contacts with the LTPN members and other partners. There is also the need for a local transport organizer entity, especially because local governments suffer from a lack of specific knowledge. A possible solution might be the support of these demands by “LTPN clubs”, where the professional partners moderate the local forces. The best solution, however, would be to establish a more important project for relevant measures.

What is needed to ensure continuity:

• Enlightening of politicians and decision makers about local endeavour and its benefits.

• Structural commitment from the beneficiaries. Without structural (and legal) commitment the whole concept is only a “wishing list”.

• Creation of a central fund in the framework of IKOP (integrated transport development operative program). That enables consortia to apply significant resources for important steps.

LTPN Members

In Balaton, six (6 members of the LTPN, completed the questionnaire for the evaluation of the LTPN (see Annex I).

The LTPN in Balaton had both frequent and not so frequent meeting participants (although several multilateral meetings and communication took place between KTI and LTPN members). All the members that completed the questionnaire evaluate the LTPN in their region as an

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

added-value and would be very interested in continuing their participation in it. The LTPN was considered important from the majority of the members for defining sustainable solutions and contributing to tourist-transport cooperation. Nonetheless, the majority of the LTPN members seemed rather sceptic when it came to raising the awareness of the local stakeholders towards transport sustainability and to the identification of local mobility problems. It was a general remark of the LTPN Coordinator that the members accepted and supported the STARTER measures, although in some cases there were conflicting interests. Regarding the local mobility problems, some of the members identified mobility issues, for which they would like the involvement of the LTPN. These are:

• The need for a more extended bus service, which would increase the guest nights.

• The need for a better (more frequent) connection to Keszthely, which would improve the bilateral benefits for both cities. Also, the need for more frequent bus services towards Badacsony.

• The need to develop the cyclist infrastructure in the region.

All the respondents consider that the LTPN could bring benefits further to the ones related to mobility, and these include:

• A greater commitment of the LTPN members towards the city and other touristic attractions in the Zalakaros area.

• The LTPN is a good basis for further developments in the region.

• The LTPN could focus on the resources, measures and benefits, thus providing synergy among the several entrepreneurs (who have different interests and benefits) for the various developments.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that all the respondents considered that their organizations have a high eligibility and interest for joining the Network. Local authorities, tourists’ operators, hotel associations, associations of touristic businesses and public transport providers who answered the questionnaire, all have a high share in the regional touristic market and share a high interest in promoting their touristic product in a sustainable manner. Therefore, their interest to continue their participation in the LTPN is unanimous.

Evaluation of the Guide for cyclists by the LTPN members

The current status of Guide for cyclists has been presented in detail to all LTPN members on 15th of October, 2013. The LTPN group expressed its view about the development. They were satisfied with the analysis of the bicycle lane network and the service level of the Guide. Tourist Association expressed readiness to assist in collection of Points of Interest. LTPN got information from existing traditional information systems (brochures, signs, information tables). They expressed the demand to explore new routes and also the risk of disinterest of hoteliers and bike sport clubs.

The development of the website continued with upload of POIs, new routes and development of the content. Till the start of the touristic season (June of 2014) the development has been finished. To test the cyclists associations’ opinion some partners were asked about their view. They unanimously supported the introduction of the measure and offered a special partnership.

There were two critical points of the measure. First was the capacity of the webserver. This gave a maximal territorial limitation and it was finalized until end of June. Second bottleneck was to obtain the consent of the Hungarian transport planning centre (KKK). This happened in

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

two stages (03.10.2013 and 03.04.2014.). KKK expressed the opinion that the project will coincide with the plans of KKK and Hungarian transport policy.

4.4.6 Local stakeholders (if applicable)

Some general remarks regarding the reaction of local stakeholders (not LTPN members) to the STARTER project and its measures are provided below:

• Municipalities, transport operator(s) and cyclist undertakings out of the LTPN circle were moderately sceptic.

• Most of the hoteliers did not show interest.

• Partners of the local STARTER messenger (KTI) expressed their private opinion as a resident or employees: most of them would remain on private car. But development of cyclists’ infrastructure is generally necessary by all (not only LTPN member) stakeholders.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

4.5 Werfenweng


The measures that have been implemented in Werfenweng by the Municipality and evaluated within the STARTER project include:

• SAMO-APP for booking vehicles: a new electronic booking system for SAMO-services, such as vehicles, has been introduced, also in combination with an APP. With this, the potential users are able to check the availability of the vehicles online with their smart phones and to book one of the disposable vehicles without visiting the rental station physically.

• New webpage for SAMO-card: a new web page has been introduced in order to inform potential users of the SAMO-card about their sustainable travel choices (also already before reaching Werfenweng) and to provide them the possibility to book one of the vehicle of the rental fleet through the web.

• Expansion of the e-fleet.

The first two measures are part of the overall project of improvement of the SAMO communication (Sanfte Mobilität), which is an on-going project for Werfenweng. Their final evaluation is based on the final questionnaire survey that was conducted among tourists. The expansion of e-fleet is a continuous activity for the region. The latest expansion occurred within the first implementation of STARTER (summer 2013). The evaluation of the third measure is done on the basis of comparing the real rental activity between 2012 and 2013 and between 2013 and 2014, as this was provided by the pilot site leader.

The tourist survey in Werfenweng included 117 participants, who answered the questionnaire prepared for the region (provided in Annex I of the current document). Demographic information on the survey sample (age and sex) is provided in Annex II of the current document.

The travel choices of the respondents are given in Table 4-46. Once again, the respondents were given the choice of multiple answers, so their preferences are presented as frequency of responses, percent of that frequency and unduplicated reach (frequency to the number of participants). Figure 4-10 presents the transport mode choices per age group.

Table 4-46 Use of transport modes during stay (Werfenweng)


Car 35 16% 30%

Electric car 27 13% 23%

PT 3 1% 3%

Walking 76 35% 65%

Shuttle service 24 11% 21%

Bicycle 7 3% 6%

Electric bicycle 13 6% 11%

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Taxi 3 1% 3%

Electric taxi 7 3% 6%

Electric moped 8 4% 7%

Other (fun bikes) 13 6% 11%

Total 216 100%

Figure 4-10 Transport mode choice per group of age (Werfenweng)

The above table and figure support the sustainable character of the region, as a high percentage of respondents have chosen to move around the region by walking, electric car and/or shuttle service. Although it should be noted that the 34% of those who have selected walking, have combined it with a conventional motorized transport mode (car or taxi), a significant percentage of walking trips are combined with either with PT and/or bicycle, either with electric vehicles (Figure 4-11). The percentage of those who used one or more electric vehicles (electric car, electric bicycle, electric taxi and/or electric moped) during their stay is remarkable (34%). Even more remarkable is the percentage (80%) of respondents that have chosen bicycle (including electric ones), PT, shuttle service and/or walking for their trips.

Conventional car still holds a high percentage in tourists’ preferences, holding the highest percentages per age group in the ages of 18-25 (33% of all tourists of age 18-25) and 56-65 (24% of all tourists of age 56-65).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Figure 4-11 Walking combined with other transport modes (Werfenweng)

Measure 1: SAMO-app for booking vehicles

The following table summarizes key indicators from the evaluation of the SAMO-app. Columns (1) and (2) define the indicator that has been measured and its value respectively. Column (3) defines the questions’ sub-group of reference (number of participants to which the indicator’s value refers), indicating within brackets the level of sub-group, as this presented in section 2.1 (Methodological approach). Finally, column (4) provides the number of participants that were considered “eligible” to answer the relative question. Again, the relative level of sub-group is provided within brackets.

Table 4-47 Key evaluation indicators for the SAMO-APP

(1) Indicator


(3) Size of sub-group of reference


Awareness 17% 115 (R) 115 (R)

Use of the app 2% 115 (R) 19 (R+A)

11% 19 (R+A)

Modal shift towards electric vehicles or bicycle


115 (R) 2 (R+A+U)


• Out of the 115 respondents, only 17% was aware of the new SAMO-app.

• Out of the 19 tourists that were aware of the new SAMO-APP only 2 of them used it (one tourist stated that although we knew about the APP, he could not use it on his i-Phone).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

• Both users were very satisfied with the app’s usability, content and information provided. However, they stated that the new SAMO-APP had not influenced somehow their decision to rent a vehicle.

• Conclusions on the modal shift towards electric vehicles and/or bicycle that has been achieved due to the operation of the new SAMO-APP cannot be drawn due to the low number of respondents.

It is important to highlight that the SAMO-app had only operated for a short time before the tourists’ survey took place. This probably explains the low percentages of its awareness and use. Within this final survey, the SAMO-APP could not “prove” a positive value in terms of energy savings and CO2 reduction, most likely due to the time constraints posed by the STARTER evaluation time plan. Evaluating the measure within this context after a sufficient period of operation could be an interesting field for the Municipality, however beyond STARTER’s lifetime.

Measure 2: New webpage for SAMO-card

The key indicators from the evaluation of the new webpage for SAMO-card are presented in the following table.

Table 4-48 Key evaluation indicators for the new webpage for SAMO-card

(1) Indicator


(3) Sub-group of reference


Awareness 22% 114 (R) 114 (R)

Use of the webpage 11% 114 (R) 25 (R+A)

48% 25 (R+A)

Modal shift towards electric vehicles or bicycle

1% 114 (R) 12 (R+A+U)

Based on the table above and the questionnaire analysis, the following can be mentioned:

• Out of the 114 respondents, a 22% is aware of the new web page.

• Out of the 25 tourists that were aware of the new web page a 48% (11% of the overall tourist sample) has also used it. The majority of the users were very or completely satisfied with the information provided and they found the web page very or completely easy to use and understand. Some suggestions for the improvement of the web page include:

o Improve the information provided for the prices of rental

o Provide better information about the SAMO card and its benefits.

o Include more vehicles available for rental and with more flexibility (eg. shuttle to Salzburg).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

o Provide more details both on the vehicles and places of rental.

• Out of the 12 users of the web page that provided their answer, only one person stated that the information provided by the web page has indeed influenced his decision to rent electric vehicle. This user has totally replaced his conventional car kilometres (65kms in total) with electric vehicle car kilometres, which corresponds to 0,003 toe of energy saved and 0,01 ton CO2e of CO2 emissions reduction (1,2% savings in relation to the overall sample).

The tourists’ survey has indicated low percentages of awareness and influence of the new measure, although it presents a satisfying percentage of its use. Again, this could be explained by the short time of availability of the web page before the conduction of the survey. In order to correctly evaluate site-specific measures as per their acceptance, use and influence on the travellers’ mobility behaviour, it is necessary to have them up and running for a sufficient time before any questionnaire survey takes place. Evaluating the new web page for the SAMO-card after at least one year of operation could be, again, a suggestion and a challenge for future activities of the Municipality.

Measure 3: Expansion of the e-fleet

Estimating the energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction due to the expansion of the e-fleet was not applicable, due to the fact that visitors do not perceive the expansion of the e-fleet rather than only the availability of the e-fleet. Therefore, the evaluation of this measure was done on the basis of comparing the real rental activity between 2012 and 2013 and between 2013 and 2014, as this provided by the pilot site leader (actual data).

The following table provides an overview of the e-vehicle rentals for the years 2011 – 2014 (real data provided by the pilot site leader). The difference between years 2013 and 2014 is presented in the last column.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-49 E-vehicle rentals for years 2011 - 2014

Vehicle rental (rental acts) Difference 2012-2013

Difference 2013-2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 (*)

Gaudi Rad 47 35 49 72 40% 47% Liegerad 989 1.262 -100% Gokart 523 1.122 942 1.672 -16% 77% Firstbike 79 58 71 53 22% -25% Kinder rad 448 775 475 502 -39% 6% Evo Car 707 825 1.245 17% 51% E-Moped 222 233 548 5% 135% Biga 449 317 406 197 28% -51% Arrow 540 923 682 845 -26% 24% Segway 841 950 1.431 1.240 51% -13% Milano 520 827 624 385 -24% -38% Grasshupfer (biogas) 505 506 Touran/Zafira (biogas) 90 108 802 100% Vivaro 69 16 -77% Smile E 481 842 1.340 1.411 59% 5% Grasshupfer (biogas) 505 506 Touran/Zafira (biogas) 90 108 802 100% Vivaro 69 16 -77% Smile E 481 842 1.340 1.411 59% 5% E-cross 1.432 1.239 100% -13% Fun Scooter 1.050 966 100% -8% Twizy (fun vehicle) 454 522 100% 15% Flash 5 (fun vehicle) 668 380 100% -43% SMART Fahrrad 158 100%

TOTAL RENTALS 6.588 10.248 12.054 14.450 TOTAL DIFFERENCES 17,6% 19,9%

* Until 31.10.2014

The use of capacity of the SMILE-E electric cars is shown in the following table for years 2011 - 2013.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 4-50 Use of capacity of the electric cars SMILE - E

Year Use of capacity Fleet size 2011 91% 5 cars 2012 84% 8 cars until August, then 10 cars 2013 87% 7 cars until July, then 12 cars

Since August 2012, there is an electric taxi (ELOIS) constantly available in Werfenweng. As can be seen from the table below, its use for years 2012 and 2013 has a positive evolution.

Table 4-51 Use of the e-taxi ELOIS

Year km per year Passengers per year 2012 4.312 2.618 2013 5.840 3.211

Difference 35% 23%

Energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction attributed to the provision of the electric vehicles and the shuttle services

In order to estimate the energy savings and the CO2 emissions reduction in the region due to the availability of the e-fleet, the visitors were asked what percentage of their car trips have been replaced by “sustainable” trips with the vehicles of the rental fleet. Their answers revealed a modal shift of 7% towards e-vehicles. The percentage of the conventional car trips that each respondent had replaced by electric vehicles and/or bicycle is presented in Table 4-52 (per respondent). The type of electric vehicle that has replaced car is also provided, along with an estimation of the actual car kilometres that have been replaced by electric vehicle kilometres. In some cases (respondents ID 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8), the respondent had replaced his/her car trips with more than one electric vehicle. This is indicated in a different row under the same respondent’s ID.

Table 4-52 Modal shift towards e-vehicles, bicycle and shuttle service

Respondent’s ID Percentage of replacement

Replacement (from) → (to)

Estimated motorized kms replaced

1 50% car → e-car 163

50% car → e-taxi 163

2 100% car → e-car 65

3 50% car → e-moped 40

50% car → PT 40

4

17% car → e-car 20

17% car → e-bike 20

17% car → e-moped 20

17% car → bike 20

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113


5 100% car → e-moped 240

6

25% car → e-car 40

25% car → e-moped 40

50% car → shuttle service 80

7 30% car → e-car 26


8 30% car → e-car 26


Total conventional car kms replaced 1160

Table 4-53 Energy use and CO2 emissions reduction due to the existence of the e-fleet and the shuttle services


Total car kms 5825 4665 1160 20%





LTPN Coordinator

As in the previous evaluation, a questionnaire was formulated by CERTH and completed by the LTPN Coordinator, with the scope to evaluate the overall operation and performance of the LTPN from the coordinator’s point of view.

The LTPN cooperation in Werfenweng has already many years of existence. Currently, the LTPN accounts 49 members (Table 4-54).

Table 4-54 Type of organizations/members of the LTPN (Werfenweng)


1. Local Authority 1

2. Public Transport Provider 1

3. Hotel Associations 1

4. Owners of Hotels 38

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

5. Associations of touristic businesses 1

6. Tourists operators (‘mobilito’ – mobility management centre) 1

7. Car rentals 1

8. Bike rentals 1

9. sport shops/outfitter 2

Total 49

The LTPN meetings that have taken place in Werfenweng during the course of the STARTER project are shown in the following table.

Table 4-55 LTPN meetings (Werfenweng)

Meetings Date Venue No of participants (organizations)

No of participants (persons)

1st

2012-06-27 Festsaal Werfenweng 14 16

2nd 2012-07-03 Festsaal Werfenweng 22 22

3rd 2012-11-06 Travel Charme Bergresort 27 27

4th 2013-04-03 Festsaal Werfenweng 20 24


6th 2013-05-08 Gemeindeamt Werfenweng 9 14



9th 2013-12-10 Sitzungssaal Gemeinde Werfenweng

26 26

10th 2013-12-11 Festsaal Werfenweng



13th 2014-07-08 Sitzungssaal Gemeinde Werfenweng

8 8

14th 2014-08-25 Dorfplatz Werfenweng, Samo Verleih 13 14

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Initiatives under the operation of the LTPN throughout the STARTER project include:

• Development of a brief description of the STARTER project to inform all organizations and (tourism) businesses. Planning of the LTPN network Werfenweng, agreement with HERRY to focus on communication and implementation.

• Kick-off meeting of the LTPN in Werfenweng. Information about the project and the IEE programme was provided by the partners. Discussion and development of specific measures at Werfenweng.

• 2nd meeting of the LTPN. Specific Workshop LTPN Werfenweng concerning the intention for equalization of peak demands and peak seasons. Main objective of the workshop was to identify target groups that can be responded to spend their holiday outside the peak seasons. Every season has its “own target group”, the question is: how can this target groups be achieved, which touristic offers have to be put up for them? To achieve the objective, new partnerships have to be entered (cross-selling). Which partnerships that could be, should be developed in the scope of the further work of the STARTER LTPN.

• 3rd meeting of the LTPN. Further admission of members to the LTPN. Workshop for the further development of the specific measures, assignment of priorities (measures). In this workshop, the group came to the decision, that the measure 1 (KOMM.SAMO – improvement of the ‘soft-mobile’ communication) has the top priority and has to be implemented until June 2013.

• 4th meeting of the LTPN. Meeting with the jury of WP4 actions, final planning of briefing and arrangement of competition.

• 5th meeting of the LTPN. Meeting with invited 3 communications agencies to a briefing (presentation of content and ideas for the SAMO card)

• 6th meeting of the LTPN. Presentation of the concepts in front of jury by the 3 enterprises which took part in the competition organized by the LTPN.

• 7th meeting of the LTPN. Information about SaMo developments and touristic trends at Werfenweng, Overview: status quo STARTER project, cooperation with communication agency “Stockwerk2”. Outlook to the STARTER-communication-implementation-workshop 29.11.2013.

• 8th meeting of the LTPN. KOMM.SaMo kick-off workshop with “Stockwerk2”:

o Step 1: clarification expectations of LTPN members, objective of workshop

o Step 2: short impulse marketing strategies (in general)

o Step 3: learning from others: best-practice of touristic destination marketing

o Step 4: SWOT analysis and objectives of Werfenweng (focus on SaMo)

o Step 5: design analysis, key visuals, recommendations for an action plan

• 9th meeting of LTPN working group “daily visitors”. First meeting of the working group for the new SaMo concept for daily visitors at Werfenweng, guided by a traffic planner (Helmut Koch, komobile.at)

• 10th meeting of the LTPN. Plenary meeting Werfenweng tourism board. Annual general meeting with all tourism related actors of Werfenweng (not only LTPN-members).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Presentation of STARTER status quo, chances and opportunities of further SaMo development by STARTER subsidies

• 11th meeting of LTPN working group “daily visitors”. Second Meeting of the working group for the new SaMo concept for daily visitors at Werfenweng, guided by traffic planner (Helmut Koch, komobile.at)

• 12th meeting of LTPN. Information about SaMo developments and touristic trends at Werfenweng, discussion about measures and possibilities of STARTER (redesign e-vehicle rental services, improvement of communication), new SaMo measures for 2014/2015 (marketing for train travelling guests), new cooperations, new touristic packages

• 13th meeting of LTPN. Presentation status quo STARTER and working progress “Stockwerk2” (SaMo App); SaMo marketing concept: cross selling actions with ÖBB and “Club Salzburg” (union of people from the province of Salzburg living at Vienna)

• 14th meeting of the LTPN. Presentation of new rental service Team of Werfenweng and new e-vehicle fleet (12 e-cars ~ Smilies, Peugeot IOS, Renault Zoe, Smart electic; 2 biogas cars). Mid-season overview (between end of April until 25.08.2014: 7.013 rental activities). Discussion about upcoming marketing-events at Vienna.

When it comes to the dissemination of the Network and its goals, the following initiatives have been undertaken:

• Newsletter regional management organisation of the Pongau district (350 addresses).

• Pressmeeting (newspaper page Pongauer Nachrichten, print run: 28.500).

• Tourist information and rental station in the centre of Werfenweng actively promote the possibility to rent these new vehicles.

• Tourist and other customers of the vehicle - rental station on the village square are constantly informed (written and orally) regarding the new acquisitions of vehicles.

• Various presentations

• press report Himbeer Magazin (magazine for families with children) (http://himbeer-magazin.de/leben-mit-kindern/reisen-online/familienurlaub-gut-wenghof/)

• press report guest journal

• release website: new SaMo App (http://www.werfenweng.eu/de/home/?artikel=479)

• SaMo booklet: advantages for car free guests (http://www.werfenweng.eu/c_medien/1374-samo-vorteilsheft-2014-web.pdf)

• Guest information brochure 2014 (last side) (http://www.werfenweng.eu/c_medien/1375-gaestefuehrer-sommer-2014-web.pdf)

• documentary movie: BR 3 (Bavarian broadcast company), 45 min. sustainable mobility at Werfenweng (http://www.br.de/fernsehen/bayerisches-fernsehen/sendungen/unter-unserem-himmel/sanfter-tourismus-alpen-134~_image-3_-7f14f0c36170bc3100407e2bbd606c6af0d868fb.html)

• advertising LTPN-STARTER-workshop 27.10.2014 (example), Austrian national tourism board (http://www.austriatourism.com/kalender/nachhaltige-mobilitaet-in-attraktiven-urlaubsregionen/)

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Upon finalization of the STARTER project, the LTPN Coordinator of Werfenweng was further asked to share the main problems that he faced during the operation of the LTPN, the main actions undertaken in order to tackle these problems, the way(s) he envisages the continuity of the LTPN in his region and the requirements to achieve this continuity:

• One of the problems is the limited time of the LTPN members. The peak season in Werfenweng is a long one and members are in business the hole time. Most of the LTPN-meetings happen in the late afternoon/early evening, when the guests are at the hotel or other accommodation. On the other hand, there are LTPN members that run a part-time guesthouse (further to their morning jobs). Every meeting has to be efficient and short, so that minimum time is spent for discussion and work.

• Another problem is related to the limited personal resources available for the operation of the LTPN and the absence of corrective actions possible due to financing problems. The large number of members needs additional time until consensus is reached within the whole group. Financial restrictions to develop additional measures lead to additional time delays. To tackle this problem, it is necessary to take enough time for the development and implementation of measures.

• Regarding the existence of the LTPN beyond the scope of the STARTER project, no specific plans are required for Werfenweng, because the LTPN is an active, in the tourism development integrated and “living” network, carried by enterprises or tourism operators. Along that way, the LTPN is successful in a commercial way. Therefore, its existence can be guaranteed.

• The requirements to achieve continuity of the LTPN in Werfenweng are related to the SaMo activities and the infrastructure of the fleet of e-vehicles. The LTPN that has been established in Werfenweng will only work (in this way) in the specific region, where the SaMo activities and e-vehicles infrastructure have been built over more than 15 years.

• Supplementary subsidies to finance the infrastructure (e-vehicles, new people mover system, rental infrastructure) and further measures are essential to enhance usage of climate friendly possibilities of mobility and to preserve the economic success of sustainable mobility at Werfenweng.

LTPN Members

In Werfenweng, 11 out of the 49 members of the LTPN (most of them being hotel owners), completed the questionnaire for the evaluation of the LTPN (see Annex I). Despite the efforts of the local STARTER partner to achieve a larger participation in the STARTER survey, members did not response as anticipated because a number of surveys have already taken place among them for other projects, therefore the members displayed a participation “fatigue”. As already mentioned, the indicator related to the interest of the members to continue their participation in the LTPN was not relevant for Werfenweng, since the LTPN there is not newly established and members are already dedicated to their membership.

All the members of the LTPN in Werfenweng that completed the questionnaire evaluate the LTPN in their region as an added-value. The LTPN was considered important from the majority of the members for defining sustainable mobility solutions and contributing to tourist-transport cooperation. Nonetheless, many of the respondents evaluated moderately the LTPN’s contribution to the identification of local mobility problems and to raising awareness of local stakeholders. Concerning the latter, suggestions were made for more and effective networking between accommodations and transport operators, more cooperation in general and that all

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

accommodations joined the LTPN. Further suggestions for improving the operation of the LTPN include the formulation of a new working group that would modify the SaMo offers in general, provision of more e-vehicles, higher contribution of guests for the SaMo card and provision of more public transport services.

Benefits further to the ones related to mobility that the LTPN could bring include:

• Increase of guest bookings

• Provide a clear touristic profile, thus achieving competitiveness

• Achieve a unique cooperation (even among touristic players) and a USP (Unique Selling Proposition) in tourism

• Contribute to environmental care

• Promote and advertise the region through SaMo concept

Finally, it is interesting to share the reasons for which the LTPN members joined the Network. Hotel owners, owners of tourist businesses and hotel associations see an opportunity for: addressing new target groups; marketing the SaMo concept; increasing guests’ bookings; providing supplementary touristic offers to guests; protecting the environment; advertising their business. On the other hand, public transport providers (further from being the Shuttle and Elois providers) are motivated from the communication opportunities with local touristic players and local stakeholders that the Network offers.

4.5.3 Local stakeholders (if applicable)

SaMo is not only a concept for guests travelling without a car (or leaving their car in front of the hotel), it is also a project for inhabitants to provide public and sustainable mobility without having a (second) car. This is why the “inside” communication of SaMo to the inhabitants of Werfenweng is important. For the inhabitant using the SaMo possibilities it is essential to get the type of mobility (e. g.: e-bike, e-car, shuttle-system etc.) they need at the appropriate time for the appropriate purpose. But the demand of the guests is very high and the supply of vehicles is sometimes insufficient. Sometimes the opinion is, that all efforts and measures concerning the sustainable mobility is only made for guests. One answer might be to increase the number of rentable vehicles and public transport possibilities, but this is always also a question of how to finance measures like them.

Accommodations, which did not join the LTPN (for whatever reason), see that a predominant part of the financing possibilities of the Werfenweng tourism board and the municipality of Werfenweng is invested in the SaMo concept and thus not invested for the Werfenweng tourism at all. That sometimes leads to differences between LTPN-members and non-members (feeling of “unequal treatment”).

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

5. Conclusions

5.1 Achievement of project’s target

5.1.1 Overview of STARTER evaluation – pilot site level

The following sections summarize the key outcomes of the final evaluation for each site. Key points from the measure’s evaluation are provided, along with key findings from the evaluation of the LTPNs. The tables for each site (overview of STARTER evaluation per site) present the impact indicators defined for the measures in a tabular form, as well as the local context in terms of main drivers and barriers that facilitated and hindered the measures’ implementation/operation.

5.1.1.1 Kos Within the STARTER project, the Municipality of Kos implemented on-line information tools (Portal), promotional measures for sustainable mobility (on-street information signs) and promotional measures for public transport (new timetables for PT).

The tourists in Kos present a satisfying preference in sustainable transport modes (walking, PT and bicycle), but car still holds a significant percentage of use. Given that for the majority of car users combine their trips with car with other modes of transport, therefore not appearing to be committed to their cars, the challenge for the Municipality is to minimize the car trips by offering door-to-door sustainable transport solutions of high quality.

The evaluation of the implemented measures in Kos reveals promising impacts in terms of modal shift towards bicycle and public transport. It appears that even soft improvements in the public transport (increase of frequency and extension of the operating hours) can bring significant benefits even within a short time of application. On the other hand, information measures (on-line Portal and on-street information signs) do have a positive impact in sustainable travel behaviour, but need more time to mature.

The operation of the Portal the last year mostly caused a modal shift towards bicycle and walking and to a smaller degree towards public transport. This is the reason why the energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction do not appear so significant in relation to what would have been expected by the 14% of modal shift. This is something to be considered by the Municipality: improvement of the PT information within the Portal might be the issue, but an overall improvement of the PT quality (even in the basis of soft improvements in the timetables) might really make the difference.

On the other hand, the on-street information signs almost exclusively caused a modal shift towards walking and PT. Making the information on bicycle rentals more visible is also a point to be considered for further improvements of the measure.

In regards to the LTPN’s establishment and operation in Kos, the results from the STARTER evaluation are quite promising. The LTPN membership was doubled within the STARTER lifetime (from 7 members in 2012 to 14 members in 2014), despite the fact that the local stakeholders were not always so easy to reach. Personal commitment was required and several bilateral meetings took place in order to keep the LTPN members updated on the STARTER

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

activities. The LTPN concept was a new concept and much effort was required to convince the stakeholders about the benefits expected from it.

The LTPN members were very active in identifying the local mobility problems and possible solutions to them, but they were kept rather sceptic when it came to the contribution of the LTPN to the local tourist-transport cooperation. Conflict of interest is an issue and - especially during a period of economic crisis – stakeholders/owners of businesses have a tendency to be suspicious when their involvement is required.

Continuity of the LTPN is within the political willingness of the new Municipal Authority as well (a change of the Authority occurred in summer 2014), but the Municipality also recognises that the most important issue related to this continuity is funding.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 5-1 Overview of STARTER evaluation in Kos

IMPLEMENTED MEASURES M1. Online portal for tourists M2. On-street information signs M3. New timetable for public transport

IMPACT INDICATORS AND LOCAL CONTEXT

Awareness 57% 42%

Use 21% 16% 62% use of bus lines 1 and 5

Satisfaction

The majority is very or completely satisfied with the usefulness of information and the easiness to use and understand the context. A significant percentage (41%) would require improvements in the context

Modal shift towards sustainable transport modes 14% 8% 16,5%

Energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction 2,7% 2,7% 4,3%

Drivers Lack of an official website for Kos; high acceptance by the local community

Recognized need to guide visitors (especially new arrivals by ships)

Increased traffic between the hotels that are serviced by the bus lines, the nearby beaches and the city centre

Barriers

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

5.1.1.2 Fuerteventura During the course of the STARTER project, Biosphere Reserve of Fuerteventura has implemented and evaluated promotional measures for bicycling (creating and promoting a new touristic product: the “Salt Route by bike”) and fleet-related measures (replacement of a conventional quad used for the maintenance of the park in the Lobos Island with an electric one).

The tourist’s questionnaire survey in Fuerteventura revealed a high dependence on private car, which could be attributed to the large size of the island. Walking and bicycle trips hold a significant percentage, but, in their majority, are combined with car.

The local project partner has a promising vision for sustainability and special efforts have been placed on promoting and guarantying sustainable mobility as well. The new touristic product of the new, 2-km bike lane between Caleta de Fuste and the Salt Museum is part of that vision, highly supported by the local tourist stakeholders (hoteliers and Museums) and the local environmental authorities.

Promotional measures to support the use of the new bike lane are highly known to the visitors of the island. The promotional measures of the new bike lane reached a 98% of awareness, while the bike lane itself reached a 33% use. Modal shift achievement towards bicycle and walking is also remarkable (27%). On the other hand, percentages of energy savings and CO2 reduction are not so high, but that could easily be explained from the fact that the new bike lane only covers a small trip length (2kms one-way trip) among the overall length of trips that the visitors undertake on the island.

The local authorities of Fuerteventura have also implemented other bicycle routes, connecting points of interest within the island, and, given the positive effect that the “Salt Route by bike” had on the tourists’ travel behaviour, energy savings are expected to be much higher.

The replacement of a conventional quad in the Lobos Island is part of an overall sustainable plan for creating transport facilities and choices fully covered by renewable energy, but, currently, the measure only addresses the mobility of the island’s staff and not of the visitors. Further measures with a clear focus on tourists are foreseen for the near future, nonetheless could not be implemented within the STARTER project due to regulatory issues. This measure was evaluated on the basis of real energy savings and CO2 reduction, based on the actual vehicle kilometres that the conventional quad travelled per year.

As far as the LTPN operation in Fuerteventura is concerned, the LTPN membership had also a positive evolution from the beginning of the STARTER project until now (counting 8 members in 2012 and 19 members in 2014). The LTPN members were highly involved not only in decision making, but also in the actual implementation of the promotional measures (distribution of promotional material, provision of bike parking and bike rental facilities, etc.). Local stakeholders were very interested in joining the Network from the very beginning, with the exception of local transport operators. Therefore, the selection and implementation of the measures in Fuerteventura mostly involved those stakeholders that were very enthusiastic from the very beginning (hoteliers and bike rental companies). The continuity of the Network is considered guaranteed via its integration in the Participations Council of the Biosphere Reserve.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 5-2 Overview of STARTER evaluation in Fuerteventura

IMPLEMENTED MEASURES M1. Promotion of Salt Route by bike M2. Sustainable mobility in the Lobos Island


Awareness 98% n/a

Use 33% n/a

Modal shift towards sustainable transport modes 27% modal shift to bicycle and walking n/a

Energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction 0,5% 2,58 toe of energy savings and 6,96 ton CO2e reduction due to the replacement of the conventional quad

Drivers

Joint effort between Reserva de Biosphere, the Museum Network, the hoteliers and the tourist and environmental authorities – high involvement of LTPN members in implementation

Sustainable mobility as part of an ambitious project for making the Lobos Island a 100% renewable energy island

Barriers

Highly regulated transport sector (no interest in being involved with other stakeholders and sectors)

Difficulty in reaching transport operators

Delays in civil engineering works

Strict regulations applying in the Island for mobility

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

5.1.1.3 Noordwijk During the course of the STARTER project, the Municipality of Noordwijk had implemented policy measures (new parking policy), fleet-related measures (change in the operational structure of the beach shuttle service that allowed the continuity of the service) and promotional measures (promotion of the beach shuttle service).

Tourists in Noordwijk, and especially daily visitors, continue to have a high dependency from their private cars (as revealed in the first and second evaluation phase as well). As significant percentage (52%) of Noordwijk’s visitors are daily visitors and the vast majority of them (81%) arrive in Noordwijk with their cars. A major challenge for Noordwijk, recognized also from the interim evaluation phase, is to improve the region’s accessibility with public transport, thus reducing the car trips from/to the region.

However, the beach shuttle could be a very effective measure for mitigating the negative effects of the increased car use within the region, in the sense that, daily visitors who arrive by their cars have the alternative to park them outside the village and continue their trips in a sustainable manner. The final questionnaire survey does not allow for safe conclusions to be drawn regarding the awareness and use of the beach shuttle, since the service did not operate the day of the survey (during summer 2014 Noordwijk had a real bad weather and the beach shuttle did not operate so frequently). Despite that, the percentage of the visitors that were aware of the service was rather high (23%). For the same reason, the vast majority of tourists were also not aware of the beach shuttle’s promotional measures. Nonetheless, a 5,4% of potential modal shift was estimated, which means that a 5,4% of the visitors would be willing to use the beach shuttle should they were aware of the promotional measures.

What should be taken into consideration by the Municipality are the reasons for which people stated they do not use the beach shuttle. Improving the frequency of the service and its operational hours and providing clearer information on the days when the beach shuttle is on service are some suggestions for further improvement. Preference of the private car seems to be a characteristic of the visitors’ profile, but more incentives for the use of the beach shuttle could be provided, with participation and cooperation of the local entrepreneurs as well (i.e. special offers from the tourist’s shops/restaurants, etc. to the users of the beach shuttle).

Regarding the new parking policy, the final evaluation phase reveals positive figures of modal shift and energy savings, although the measures’ awareness among visitors is quite low. The Municipality has undertaken several dissemination actions in order to reach the target group of residents (dissemination of leaflets door-to-door, meetings with residents and residents’ associations), but it did not manage to widely reach the target group of visitors as well. The importance of successfully disseminating the new parking policy among visitors can be seen in the potential modal shift and saving percentages, which theoretically would have been achieved if those people were aware of the new parking policy. Potential modal shift is observed mostly towards bicycle and equally towards PT and walking.

The evaluation of the new parking policy that the Municipality of Noordwijk has undertaken further to the STARTER activities reveals positive findings in terms of parking place use and total income from the tariffs. A major finding was that although the parking lots near the beach were assigned a lower tariff, the total income of the Municipality was not reduced. This was due to the increase in the hours parked in the low tariff areas (a decrease in the hours parked in the areas with the high tariff was also reported). Generally, the parking lots near the beach are now better used and residents seem satisfied with the measure.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Regarding the LTPN operation in Noordwijk, the general impression was that its concept was not so welcomed by the local stakeholders. Several members were approached by the LTPN Coordinator in order to become members of the LTPN, but the majority of them were not interested because they are already members of several other Networks and they see no reason for joining the STARTER Network as well. In general, LTPN members seem to have a need for a certain personal experience before participating in a new network organisation. Therefore, they considered the existence of the LTPN more realistic if integrated in an existing network. It was also concluded that there must be a concrete need for local cooperation: either a problem needs to be experienced, or the entrepreneurs must feel threatened by external developments, or the entrepreneurs need to be curious or attach value to the status that the network gives. Finally, for a successful LTPN, a prominent, dedicated charismatic person (travel plan coordinator) who enthuses others needs to be part of the network. This shows the importance of the network and can attract new members. Unfortunately, this was not the case in Noordwijk.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 5-3 Overview of STARTER evaluation in Noordwijk

IMPLEMENTED MEASURES M1. New parking policy M2. Beach shuttle (change in the operation structure) M3. Promotion of the beach shuttle


Awareness 10% 23% 9%

Use n/a 1,2% n/a


Indicator for actual modal shift not considered due to low number of respondents

8,5% of potential modal shift


Indicator for actual modal shift not considered due to low number of respondents

5,5% of potential modal shift

Energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction 6,2% (+6% of potential savings) 1,4% 0% (1,2% of potential savings)

Drivers Strong support by local stakeholders

General dissatisfaction among tourists/residents with the old policy

Support by a bus company (LTPN member)

Political willingness

An enthusiastic graphic designer

Support by the bus company operating the beach shuttle and the Noordwijk Marketing

Barriers Change of status-quo (reactions from residents)

Limited budget – dependency on political budget allocation

Operation depends on the willingness of local stakeholders to invest – continuous discussions are necessary

Limited budget

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

5.1.1.4 Balaton Within STARTER, the region of Balaton has implemented on-line information tools (Guide for Cyclists), measures related to PT and mode interfaces (integrated periodic timetables for PT) and promotional measures for PT and bicycling (leaflets, brochures, information beside the time tables at terminals and on the buses).

The travel behaviour of the three target groups approached by the STARTER evaluation (tourists, daily commuters and frequent commuters) appears different for each group. Tourists, in their majority prefer car, but a significant percentage (21%) has a “pure” sustainable behaviour, meaning that they have only used PT, bicycle or walking during their stay in the region. Daily commuters mostly travel by PT and those who travel by car usually travel alone (average ridership: 1,3). Frequent commuters, on the other hand, prefer their own car (average ridership is also quite low: 1,63).

The Guide for Cyclists (GfC) was mostly known among tourists, which was somehow anticipated as the GfC mainly targets this group. Awareness of the GfC among tourists could reach better levels through more concrete dissemination activities. This way, the percentage of use among the overall tourist’s population could also increase. It is important to reach out to bicycle users who are currently not aware of the GfC (who hold a significant percentage among all bicycle users), but also to further investigate what was the reason for non-use among the bicycle users who were aware of the GfC (was it because of personal choice or because the provided information is not attractive?). The final evaluation within STARTER has not revealed dissatisfaction in terms of un-easiness of use and un-usefulness of provided information, although some suggestions are made for improving the Points of Interest and expanding the Guide’s area of reference.

Regarding the integrated periodic timetable (bus-to-train and bus-to-bus connections), although there is high interest among all stakeholders to harmonize the PT connections (thus improving the overall quality of the PT services) projects of higher importance (re-construction of the railway line in southern Balaton, construction of Keszthely’s multimodal PT terminal) running in parallel with the PT timetable harmonization have hindered the full potentials of the measure. Percentages of use of the bus lines for trips from/to the railway station are rather low and this could be attributed to the low percentage of train arrivals due to the above mentioned developments. On the other hand, the percentages of use of the bus lines for trips within the Balaton region are better for all target groups.

Promotional measures for PT and bicycle have a high awareness percentage among tourists, but not so high among daily and frequent commuters. This is perhaps due to the fact that the promotional material reached tourists more easily (through the hotels’ receptions and the tourist information points). The information provided beside the time tables at terminals and on the buses, though, was considered useful for tourists and daily commuters, while the brochures distributed in the hotels and the tourist information points were considered useful for tourists and daily commuters (the latter ones probably working in the touristic section as seasonal employees).

The promotional measures for bicycle and PT caused a significant modal shift for tourists, mostly, though, towards PT. This means that perhaps more emphasis could be placed for the promotion of bicycling. Percentages of energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction due to this modal shift also appear very promising.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Although, for the most cases, the low number of respondents group in the questions related to the modal shift (and the even lower number of those who answered that indeed the measures had caused their modal shift towards sustainable transport mode), did not allow for the modal shift percentages to be estimated for all target groups, there were some positive measurable energy savings and CO2 emissions reductions presented in the table below.

The LTPN was successfully established in Balaton, currently counting for 15 members, although some barriers to its operation were posed, due to: the national and local elections that took place in 2014 (thus minimizing the interest of participation of local authorities); the reorganization of the former “micro regions” into a district form (contacts were lost) and the limited budget and lack of financial interest (causing, among other things, the disinterest of hoteliers).

Local partners have shown major interest in the STARTER measures and they do believe that a win-win result is achievable. The current LTPN members are willing to continue their participation in the LTPN and they consider the LTPN important for defining sustainable solutions and contributing to tourist-transport cooperation. Nonetheless, conflict of interest was always an issue and “for-profit” behaviour required different LTPN guidance for almost each partner.

On the other hand, the LTPN club, as established in Balaton, has no legal commitment, therefore an uncertainty is created when the long-term cooperation is concerned. As far as the LTPN continuity is concerned, the LTPN Coordinator recognized that a major challenge is to continue the contacts with the LTPN members and other partners and to establish the LTPN as a legal entity. The need for a local transport entity that will organize the LTPN cooperation is also recognized, because local governments cannot undertake this role due to lack of specific knowledge. Professional partners of the LTPN should moderate the local – political – forces. The issue of funding could be addressed through the creation of a central fund within the transport development operative program, which will be used for the implementation of soft mobility measures within the LTPN operation. But, even if an external funding could decrease the “for-profit” behaviour, what is needed, finally, for a successful LTPN, are local leaders with strong commitment.

The experience from the LTPN operation in Hungary shows that the concept of the LTPN was a completely unknown concept in Hungary and local stakeholders would have greater confidence in the central management and tenders. Nevertheless, they finally expressed their interest to participate in further steps and cooperation unanimously.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 5-4 Overview of STARTER evaluation in Balaton

IMPLEMENTED MEASURES M1. Guide for Cyclist M2. Harmonized PT timetables M3. Promotion of PT and bicycling

Tourists Daily commuters

Frequent commuters Tourists Daily commuters Frequent commuters Tourists Daily

commuters Frequent

commuters


Awareness 21% 9% 17% n/a n/a n/a 44% 24% 29%

Use 15% 6% 10%

15% use of the bus from/to railway



n/a n/a n/a 38% use of the bus

within the region 43% use of the bus

within the region 42% use of the bus

within the region


Indicator not considered due to low number of respondents Indicator not considered due to low number of respondents 17,5%

Indicator not considered due to low number of

respondents

Energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction

1,3% - 0,2%

2% (due to bus-to-train timetables) - -

10% 11% 3% 4% (due to bus-to-

bus timetables) - 16% (due to bus-to-bus timetables)

Drivers Underdeveloped cycling infrastructure; National transport policy; win-win option

Common interest of all stakeholders; professional support of KTI; real tourists’ demand Common interest of all stakeholders

Barriers Technical barriers; competition with existing cycling services; lack of support by national authorities

Parallel investments of higher importance; problems in decision making of the authority; political sensitiveness due to elections; changes in national administration

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

5.1.1.5 Werfenweng The pilot site in Werfenweng has implemented on-line information tools (SAMO-app and new website for SAMO) and fleet-related measures (expansion of the e-fleet) within the lifetime of the STARTER project.

Based on the final questionnaire survey among the tourists, walking, electric car and shuttle services have a high percentage of use among visitors (35%, 13% and 11% respectively). A significant percentage of walking trips (42%) is combined either with PT and/or bicycle and/or electric vehicles, thus revealing significant “pure” sustainable patterns. Nonetheless, conventional car still holds a high percentage (16%) in tourists’ preferences, which can be attributed to the high percentage (88%) of arrival by car.

The final data collection and evaluation of the on-line information tools in Werfenweng had a serious delay due to the delay of the SAMO-app implementation. Data collection took place only a few days after the release of the SAMO-app, therefore the measure could not prove its expected positive impact in terms of energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction. The estimated indicators of awareness and use were also very low. The situation is slightly better for the new webpage for SAMO-card, but still no safe conclusions can be drawn. Evaluating both the SAMO-app and the new website for the SAMO-card in a one-year time of operation is a suggestion for future activities of the Municipality.

Evaluation of the expansion of the e-fleet was done on the basis of comparing the real rental activities between years 2012 and 2013 and between years 2013 and 2014 (the latest expansion occurred during 2013). An increase in the rentals is reported for both the time periods. An increase in the use of the e-taxi is also reported between years 2012 – 2013.

Estimating the energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction due to the expansion of the e-fleet was not applicable, due to the fact that visitors do not perceive the expansion of the e-fleet rather than only the availability of the e-fleet. For this reason, they were asked what percentage of their car trips have been replaced by “sustainable” trips with the vehicles of the rental fleet. Their answers revealed a 7% modal shift towards e-vehicles and bicycle, leading to a 20% energy saving and CO2 emissions.

Regarding the operation of the LTPN in Werfenweng, the situation is different in relation to the other sites, due to the fact that the LTPN has been established many years ago and has already reached its maturity. The LTPN members are not only involved in decision making but also in the funding of the implemented measures and the various dissemination activities. Continuing the existence of the LTPN, as well as the active participation of the LTPN members is considered as a given. The operation of the LTPN in Werfenweng faces other problems related to the large number of members and the time needed to reach consensus. The experience from the 2nd STARTER implementation round showed that it is necessary to predict and include in the implementation phase some starting time that is adequate for the problems to occur, for discussion to be made and for mitigation plans to be developed. Otherwise, delays and/or technical failures may occur, which will not only affect the mobility management in the region but the experience of the visitor as well.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 5-5 Overview of STARTER evaluation in Werfenweng

IMPLEMENTED MEASURES M1. SAMO-app M2. New webpage for the SAMO-card M3. Expansion of e-fleet


Awareness 17% 22% n/a

Use 2% 11%

18% rentals’ increase between 2012-2013

20% rentals’ increase between 2013-2014

23% increase between 2012 -2013 for passengers per year (e-taxi )


Indicator not considered due to low number of respondents 1% 7% due to the availability of the e-fleet

Energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction - 1,2% 20% due to the availability of the e-fleet

Drivers • High priority among the LTPN members; • Economic success of the SAMO card

• Increasing demand for new e-vehicles (reported in the STARTER zero state analysis) and new technical innovations for higher autonomy;

• economic success of the SAMO card

Barriers

• Large number of LTPN members, which makes it difficult and time consuming to reach consensus; • high amount of finance, which requires search for funding sources; transport systems have to be planned for peak demands, which

further increases the necessary budget • requirement for adequate personnel resources, which are not always available • Delay in developing the SAMO-app, due to intensive discussions with the advertising agency that took longer time than expected

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

5.1.2 Overview of STARTER evaluation – cross-site level

Tables 5-6 and 5-7 summarize some basic transport – related characteristics of the regions, thus providing a cross-site overview of:

• Modal split percentages. The values outside the brackets refer to the “after” situation, namely the situation after the implementation of the measures. The positive (+) and negative (-) differences, in relation to the situation “before”, are provided within brackets. Their estimation is based on the modal shift percentages that were reported for the sample of tourists in each pilot site. For Fuerteventura, the modal split changes are not considered due to the nature of the measure (the new bike lane has mostly led to an increase in the use of the bike along a very specific route, rather than to a modal shift. Distances are quite long, therefore the visitors haven’t abandoned their cars).

• Percentages of “pure sustainable mobility” (percentages of tourists undertaking trips exclusively by PT and/or bicycle and/or walking and/or electric vehicles), compared to the percentages of pure conventional motorized mobility (percentages of tourists undertaking trips exclusively by car and/or taxi and/or motorcycle).

Table 5-6 Modal split (%) – cross-site overview

Pilot site Kos Fuerteventura Noordwijk Balaton Werfenweng

Mode of transport

Car 25 (-5) 57 56 (-1) 32 (-4) 16 (-5)

PT 18 (+10) - 6 (+1) 15 (+6) 1 (-)

Bicycle 17 (+1) 14 15 (+1) 15 (+4) 91 (-)

Walking 19 (+2) 21 22 (-) 30 (-3) 35 (-2)

Taxi 9 (-2) - 0,4 (-) 2 (-2) 1 (-)

Motorcycle 11 (-5) - 0,4 (-) 4 (-) -

Electric car - - - - 13 (+3)

Electric taxi - - - - 3 (+2)

Electric moped 4 (+2)

Shuttle services - - - - 11 (-)

Other - 82 23 (-) 114 (-) 1including 6% electric bicycle; 2 tour operator bus; 3 boat and segway; 4fun bikes

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

The modal split percentages in the pilot sites reveal the different travel characteristics of their visitors. Conventional cars are used from the majority of the visitors in Fuerteventura and Noordwijk, due to the long island distances of Fuerteventura and the increased daily visits of tourists to Noordwijk. The regions of Kos and Balaton are quite similar, in terms of distributing the visitors’ trips more evenly between the various transport modes, although the high use of conventional car still remains a characteristic (the size of the regions is, again, one reason for that). The case in Werfenweng is quite different, but so are the mobility options provided. Having a significant fleet of electric vehicles of various types available, adds up to more sustainable modal split percentages, since tourists seem to be very willing to leave their cars and enjoy the sustainable options provided.

All pilot sites are reporting positive changes in the modal split due to the implementation of the measures. Decrease in the use of the conventional car, taxi and motorcycle and increase in the use of PT, bicycle and walking are reported among the tourists that participated in the survey for all the pilot cases. Kos and Balaton tourist samples present a remarkable increase in the use of PT and more could be expected among a wider population when the measures become well established. On the other hand, Werfenweng’s investments on electric mobility seem to pay off, since the visitors that participated in the STARTER survey showed a clear preference in electric vehicles compared to their conventional cars. Finally, the figures in Noordwijk, although capturing the reported problems in data collection, are still promising.

Table 5-7 Pure sustainable mobility (%) and pure conventional mobility (%) – cross-site overview

Pilot site Pure sustainable mobility Pure conventional mobility

Kos 11 14

Fuerteventura 13 43

Noordwijk 15 40

Balaton 21 29

Werfenweng 68 8

The above table presents a picture of the balance between pure sustainable mobility (use only PT and/or bicycle and/or walking and/or electric vehicles) and pure conventional motorized mobility (use only car and/or taxi and/or motorcycle). Again, the figures reveal the tourists mobility profile in each regions, but they also imply availability or not of sustainable mobility options. The situation in Kos and Balaton is quite balanced, but the other sites present significant differences: Fuerteventura and Noordwijk in favour of conventional mobility, while Werfenweng in favour of sustainable mobility. The significant percentage of pure sustainable mobility in Werfenweng, in combination with the mobility options provided there, inevitably leads to the conclusion that a remarkable change in favour of sustainability could be achieved when the right options are well provided.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

The table below summarizes some basic figures related to the LTPN operation, namely:

• LTPN membership evolution

• Number of LTPN meetings

Table 5-8 LTPN’s membership

Pilot site Number of members LTPN meetings

2012 2013 2014

Kos 7 12 14 4

Fuerteventura 8 17 19 7

Noordwijk 5 5 5 3

Balaton 12 19 15 9

Werfenweng 49 49 49 14

The establishment and operation of the LTPN in each site was, of course, highly dependent on the local conditions. The evolution of the LTPN membership was positive for the majority of the sites and the LTPN coordinator managed to reach out to the relevant local stakeholders in a satisfying level. Exception was Noordwijk, where, as already mentioned, the local stakeholders did not appreciate the initiative as a stand-alone initiative (they would prefer if the LTPN was integrated in an existing Network). This was also depicted in the number of the LTPN meetings that took place.

Werfenweng, on the other hand, had already a network of relevant stakeholders working together in the local mobility context, therefore the frequent organization of meetings and the active participation of the members was something anticipated.

Kos, Fuerteventura and Balaton managed to integrate a significant number of local stakeholders in their local networks, although bringing them together for discussion and decision was not always easy (i.e. in Kos). Nonetheless, several bilateral meetings took place in these three sites and many personal contacts were made besides the LTPN meetings.

5.1.3 Overview of STARTER evaluation - project level

The following table summarizes the main achievements reached from the sites (at a project level) mapped against the SMART performance indicators as these were defined in the Technical Annex of the project.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Table 5-9 Overview of STARTER evaluation (project level)

LTPN evaluation Measures impacts

SMART PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

LTPN kick-off meeting in each site at the latest 6 months after the start of the project

At least one network meeting in each site per quarter

At least 80% of the stakeholders assess the network as an added value

50% of the targeted tourists are aware of the sustainable mobility measures

10% primary energy savings targeted by specific measures by the LTPN members

Measure 1 Measure 2 Measure 3 Total for all measures

PILOT SITE

Kos √ √ 100% 57% 42% n/a 11%

Fuerteventura √ √ 100% 98% n/a - 0,5%

Noordwijk √ 3 meetings held 1 member responded 10% 23% 9% 8% (+7% potential)

Balaton √ √ 100% 21% n/a 44% 16%

Werfenweng √ √ 100% 17% 22% n/a 1,2%

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

The STARTER LTPN evaluation showed a successful initiation of cooperation between the transport and the tourist sector in the majority of the sites. The local partners managed to reach out local stakeholders and invite them to participate in discussion and decision making process. The LTPNs were successfully established in all pilot sites and their kick-off meetings took place within the first six months after the start of the project. The operation of the LTPNs continued with several LTPN meetings, but also with several bilateral meetings and personal contacts (especially in Kos, Fuerteventura and Werfenweng). Bringing the local stakeholders/members together was not always an easy task (especially during the high touristic seasons) and, in the case of Noordwijk, the local stakeholders’ reluctance to join the network was also obvious in the number of organized LTPN meetings, but also in the response of the LTPN members to the Network’s evaluation (only one member responded to the relevant STARTER questionnaire). On the other hand, the problem of the LTPN coordination in Werfenweng was mainly to handle the high participation in the LTPN meetings, in terms of organizing time-efficient and focused meetings and accommodating all different opinions and proposals.

The LTPN evaluation also revealed a high appreciation of the LTPN initiative by its members. This was quite important, especially for the “newly-born” networks of Kos, Balaton and Fuerteventura (Noordwijk is not considered, since only one member evaluated the network), as it is accompanied by the willingness of the members to continue the cooperation (in the case of Werfenweng this is – a priori – guaranteed). The challenge now is to bring on-board more stakeholders and for some sites (i.e. Fuerteventura and Balaton) to bring on-board crucial stakeholders (i.e. transport operators and local authorities respectively), who were currently absent. The coordinators in all STARTER sites have expressed their willingness to continue the LTPN operation in their region after the end of the project and have already identified critical points that should be addressed for successfully doing so.

Despite the specific problems that were reported by each pilot site as per the LTPN operation (see also the analysis in a pilot-site level), new mobility options were discussed and agreed among the LTPN members in each site. These options were finally realized through the implementation of three pilot-site-oriented soft mobility measures in each site, covering a variety of types of activities, namely: on-line information; policy and promotion measures; fleet-related measures and promotional measures for public transport.

All the measures have a clear target towards the modal shift to sustainable modes of transport (bicycles, e-vehicles, public transport and walking), thus towards the reduction of car pollutant emissions and the gaining of energy savings.

The STARTER evaluation that took place in the pilot sites showed that soft measures could influence significantly the tourists’ travel behaviour towards sustainable transport modes. Energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction, as a product of this modal shift, are significant for modal shifts towards PT (especially in large regions were the tourists’ vehicle kilometres sum up to large figures - i.e. the case of Kos and Balaton) and less significant, but equally important, for bicycle and walking (as, by default, bicycle and walking cannot cover great distances – i.e. the case of Fuerteventura). Dissemination actions and promotional measures could make the difference, but require concrete dissemination plans in order to successfully reach the target groups with the less amount of time and money.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

The tourists in all pilot sites that were influenced by the implemented measures as per their decision to use sustainable transport modes have saved approximately 0,4 toe of energy and have reduced CO2 emissions by 1,1 ton CO2e. In percentages of savings - among the sample of tourists - this is interpreted in 11% for Kos, 8% for Noordwijk, 16% for Balaton, 0,5% for Fuerteventura and 1,2% for Werfenweng. The low percentage for Fuerteventura can be easily explained by the limited geographical coverage of the measure (2-km bike lane) and the fact that the total car kilometres travelled by the tourists are very high due to the long distances in the island (savings due to 4 km round trip by bicycle are not significant when compared to the total car kilometres). The low percentage for Werfenweng is clearly attributed to the unacquaintance of the visitor with the new measures, since the latter ones were released shortly before the survey took place.

Increased awareness (50%) of the site-specific measures was not achieved for the majority of the measures, but the first impression implies that the situation would have been different if more time was available in order for the tourists to get acquainted with the local sustainable mobility offers (this was clearly the problem with Werfenweng). On the other hand, some measures (i.e. new parking policy in Noordwijk, guide for cyclists in Balaton) suffered a low visibility despite the fact that they had at least one year of establishment and operation. This means that more concrete dissemination actions are required, specifically targeting the tourists.

5.2 Final concluding remarks

STARTER has concluded its second phase of (soft) mobility measures implementation in each site and, upon the project’s finalization, the final data collection and evaluation took place during summer-autumn 2014. The 2nd implementation phase was not an easy task, in terms of harmonizing the real conditions and the project’s timeplan. Several delays occurred (especially in Werfenweng, but also in Fuerteventura) that also had an impact in the measures’ evaluation. An important lesson communicated by the local partner in Werfenweng was that planning and implementation should be set within a well-defined timeplan, which:

! Includes time for decision making, especially when many local stakeholders and long discussions are involved (as in the case of Werfenweng).

! Ends up before the high touristic season in order to have the services ready to use.

! Predicts time for problems to be identified and mitigation plans to be developed and applied.

! Includes enough time for testing of the services and quality control, as tourists might not easily “forgive” failures.

Evaluating a mobility measure is of high importance in order to support decision making and justify future investments. A robust evaluation plan is necessary that would specify concrete evaluation steps and clearly define the targets groups and the ways to reach them. What the STARTER experience has clearly showed is that measures need to be mature enough and widely promoted before being evaluated. This means that an adequate time of operation should pass before the target groups are reached through the evaluation process.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

The importance of applying an evaluation process after the application/implementation of a measure, in order to investigate the measure’s impacts and examine whether predefined goals are reached, was a common understanding among all project partners. Dissemination of the evaluation results to a wider audience is very important in order for the local community to be informed about the measures’ added value, but also in order for the measure itself to become a “best-practice”, potentially adopted by other region(s) as well.

For the STARTER measures’ evaluation, a questionnaire survey among tourists has taken place in all pilot sites. Nonetheless, some problems with the data collection were obvious due to the delays in implementation mentioned above, but also due to external reasons (i.e. bad weather in Noordwijk that did not allow the operation of the beach shuttle). The analysis of all collected questionnaires (tourists’ questionnaires, LTPN members’ questionnaire and LTPN Coordinator’s questionnaire) concluded in the evaluation of the measures’ impacts and the LTPNs’ operation. Some interesting and positive findings were identified, but in many cases no final concrete conclusions on the measures’ impacts could be drawn for a variety of reasons, such as: small tourists sample size in Fuerteventura; additional target groups addressed in Balaton, which also led to small samples; no operation of the beach shuttle during the days of the survey; the SAMO-app was released only a few days before the questionnaire survey etc. It should be highlighted, though, that all pilot sites are interested in continuing (to one extent or another) the evaluation of their measures: Noordwijk has already evaluated the new parking policy among residents and is interested in continuing the evaluation of the beach shuttle; the on-line tools developed in Kos, Balaton and Werfenweng enable the monitoring of the website-visits or application downloads through their log files (and this is something that will be done by the local partners) and Fuerteventura is interested in preparing on-line questionnaires for the evaluation of the Salt Route by bike.

From the evaluation of the measures that did produce more concrete results and from the general evaluator’s impression (even for the measures that could not prove their potential benefits), it could be said that soft measures could influence significantly the tourists’ travel behaviour towards sustainable transport modes. Energy savings and CO2 emissions reduction, as a product of this modal shift, are significant for modal shifts towards PT (especially in large regions were the tourists’ vehicle kilometres sum up to large figures) and less significant, but equally important, for bicycle and walking (as, by default, bicycle and walking cannot cover great distances). Dissemination actions and promotional measures could make the difference, but require concrete dissemination plans in order to successfully reach the target groups with the less amount of time and money.

Involving the LTPN members in the measures’ implementation appeared to be an easier task for dissemination and promotional measures (an excellent example is provided by the combination voucher in Noordwijk, where the LTPN members actually created the material, but also in Fuerteventura, where local stakeholders provided bike parking and rental facilities at their own cost), but requires greater effort for other types of measures (especially those involving a significant funding). A general impression from all sites was that, even though the LTPN members agree with the ideas and value the LTPN as an added value for their region, they are not willing to take part in implementation, let alone to pay for it. Exception is Werfenweng, where the LTPN members collect the necessary budget, thus actually financing the measures.

IEE /11/787/SI2. 615928



Rev. 1.0


of 113

Regarding the LTPN establishment and operation itself, it got clear that:

! Sometimes it is difficult to persuade local stakeholders to join the Network (i.e. Noordwijk, transport operators in Fuerteventura) and that local stakeholders require the identification of a concrete need in order to cooperate: i) problem(s) need to be experienced, or ii) the entrepreneurs must feel threatened by external developments, or iii) the entrepreneur need to be curious or attach value to the status that the network gives.

! A prominent and experienced local stakeholder, who encourages others needs to be part of the network and/or coordinate it. This leader should be able, inter alia, to “smooth” conflict of interests and control “for-profit” behaviour even if that means different guidance for each partner.

! Funding is always an issue (even for well-established Networks, such as the one in Werfenweng), as well as dedicating personal resources (that is the case especially for the LTPN Coordinator). Possibilities for external co-investments for implementing measures should be always investigated in order to overcome the possible unwillingness or inability of the LTPN members to invest.

! LTPN meetings should have a clear goal and a clear agenda, and be as effective as possible within the minimum required time. Crucial meetings should, preferable, not take place during peak seasons, in order to be easier for the local stakeholders to actively participate.

The STARTER pilot sites’ leaders have gained a significant experience on how to explore and achieve cooperation with the local stakeholders for the implementation and promotion of soft mobility measures, which they intend to use in their plans for future developments. The measures’ evaluation was recognised as an important tool for supporting the local decisions and for justifying future sustainable interventions, and all STARTER pilots’ coordinators are willing to continue it one way or another in the future.

D5.2b – Data Collection Report from the pilot sites (Final) D5.3b ... · D5.2b – Data...

Documents

Transcript of D5.2b – Data Collection Report from the pilot sites (Final) D5.3b ... · D5.2b – Data...