architecturalwwwdyttinfo

SuupohjanbiokaasustrategialuosuuntaviivojaSuupohjanjaSuupohjanrannikkoseudunbiokaasuntuotannonjakytnedistmiseksialueella.
Visionlhtkohtinaovatolemassaolevanelinkeinoelmnkilpailukyvynkehittminen,jte-jaenergiahuollonyhteensovittaminenteollisuudenjtteidenksittelynkanssasekelinkeinojenhydyttminenluomallaenergiantuotantokapasiteettiamolempienseutukuntienalueelle:"BiokaasumuodostaaSuupohjanjaSuupohjanrannikkoseudunalueillamerkittvnelinkeinoelmnsektorin,johonliittyvtteollisuusjamaataloussekraaka-aineidentuottajinaettloppuenergiankyttjin.
Jtteidenjamateriaalienksittelyssbiokaasuntuotantojakyttedistvtosaltaanenergiaomavaraisuudentoteuttamistajaedistvtaluetalouttaluodenkilpailukykykahdenseutukunnanalueella.
"Vaasanyliopisto.
Levón-instituutinjulkaisuja134.
ISSN1457-8913ISBN978-952-476-433-9VaasanyliopistoLevón-instituuttiTIMOHYTTINEN–PATRIKSJHOLM–PEKKAPEURA–MERJAPAKKANENKaasua,Suupohja—BIOKAASUATIMOHYTTINEN–PATRIKSJHOLM–PEKKAPEURA–MERJAPAKKANENKaasua,Suupohja—BIOKAASUA4HANNUPIEKKOLAOTTOSUOJANENARTTUVAINIOEconomicimpactofmuseumsHannuPiekkola–OttoSuojanen–ArttuVainioEconomicimpactofmuseumsHannuPiekkola–OttoSuojanen–ArttuVainioEconomicimpactofmuseumsUniversityofVaasaLevónInstitutePublication139aToimittaja/Editor:PekkaPeuraTaitto/Layout:WaasaGraphicsOyOsoite/Address:Vaasanyliopisto,Levón-instituutti/UniversityofVaasa,LevónInstitutePL700/P.
O.
Box70065101Vaasa,FinlandUniversityofVaasa.
LevónInstitute.
Publication139a.
Vaasa2014.
ISBN978-952-476-524-4ISSN2341-6238UniversityofVaasa,LevónInstitutePrefaceThetouristindustryisgrowinginFinlandandelsewhereintheworldclearlyfasterthantheothersectorsoftheeconomy.
Thegrowthpos-sibilitiesoftourismarealsocloselyconnectedoutsidetheactualtou-rismindustryitself.
Upwardtrendshavebeen,interalia,culturalandnaturaltravelinwhichtheenvironment,eitherbuiltornatural,hasanimportantpartincreatingtraveldecisions.
Museumshaveasubstantialroleinthegrowthpossibilitiesofcul-turaltravel.
Theyareimportantdestinationsformanytravellersandcreatepossibilitiesforthegrowthofthetouristindustryitself.
ThetouristindustryemploystensofthousandsofFinnsanditseconomicimpactissignificant.
Asagrowingandlabour-intensiveindustry,ithasgreatimportancebothregionallyandforthewholeFinnisheconomy.
Thisstudyexaminestheeconomicimpactofmuseumsontheiroperationalenvironment.
Ithasbeenobservedthatmuseumvisitorsspendamultipleamountofmoneyoutsidethemuseumcomparedwiththeirspendinginthemuseum.
Thesemoneyflowssupportcon-siderablytheregionaleconomyofmuseumlocations.
Restaurants,hotels,transportservices,andtheretailtradearetheprimarybenefi-ciaries,butindirectlyalsomunicipalitiesreceivetheirshare.
Increasesintaxrevenuesandbetteremploymentbenefittheactorsinthelocalcommunitiesevenmorewidely.
EventhoughtheprimarytaskofFin-nishmuseumsrelatestoculturalvaluesandtheydonotmakeaprofitfromtheirownoperation,theeconomicimpactprovidedbythemu-seumsissignificant.
ThisstudywascommissionedbytheFinnishMuseumsAssociationanditwasimplementedincooperationwithmuseumsoperatinginFinland.
ThemuseumscollectedthequestionnairedatausedinthisstudybetweenMayandSeptember2013.
FromtheUniversityofVaasa,ProfessorHannuPiekkolaandResearchManageroftheLevónInstituteArttuVainiowereinvolvedincarryingoutthestudy.
MrOttoSuojanen,astudentofEconomics,contributedtotheresearch.
Iwishtoacknow-ledgethemuseumswhichacquiredtheresearchdata,theresearchersattheUniversityofVaasaandthemuseumvisitorswhoansweredthequestionnairefortheirvaluableinput.
ThispublicationwasoriginallyissuedintheFinnishlanguage.
IwishtothankMsJaanaHokkanen,M.
A.
,fortheexcellentEnglishtranslationofthereport.
Vaasa,March2014JukkaPeltoniemiDirector,LevónInstituteContentsContents.
51.
Introduction81.
1Backgroundofstudy.
81.
2Aimofstudy.
92.
Tourismandmuseums.
112.
1Tourismasindustry.
112.
2Importanceoftourismforeconomy.
122.
3Culturaltourismintourismsupply.
142.
4Museumsassub-sectorofculturaltourism.
15Museumasculturalinstitutionandservicefortourists15Impactofmuseumsonregionaleconomies.
16Museumsaseconomicagents.
17MuseumvisitsinFinland.
19Profileofmuseumvisitors.
203.
Assessingthetotaleconomicimpactoftourism.
213.
1Assessmentmethods.
21Input-outputanalysis,regionalmultipliersandothermethods.
21Collectingdataonspending.
223.
2Multipliereffectandleakagesofspending.
223.
3Factorsdecreasingmultipliereffect.
24Consideringfactorsdecreasingmultipliereffectinthisstudy.
254.
Centralobservationsrelatedtoenquiryinthisstudy.
264.
1Backgroundinformationofrespondents.
264.
2Traveldecisionrelatedtomuseumvisit.
284.
3Tripdurationandtransportmeans.
295.
Assessingeconomicimpactofmuseumvisits.
305.
1Regionaleconomicimpactofmuseumvisitors'spending(minimum)305.
2Regression-basedestimationonmuseumvisitors'spending.
336.
Activityofmuseumsandimpactofmuseumvisitorsonregionaleconomies.
406.
1Activityofmuseumsthemselves.
406.
2Regionaleconomicimpactofmuseumvisitors.
416.
3ImpactofforeignmuseumvisitorsonFinnisheconomy.
447.
Summaryandconclusions.
46REFERENCES.
49APPENDICES.
53APPENDIX1:ResponsedistributiontablesA–L.
53APPENDIX2:Questionnaire.
576AbstractMuseumsare,aboveall,culturaldestinationsbuttheyarealsotouristdestinationsandthushaveanimpactoneconomicactivity.
Thisstu-dyfocusedonexaminingtheeconomicimpactofmuseums.
Theaimwastofindwhatkindofeconomicimpacttheactivityofthemuseumsthemselvesand,moreover,thespendingofmuseumvisitorshave.
Mu-seumvisitorsusetheservicesofpassengertransport,hotels,shops,andrestaurantsforsumsconsiderablylargerthanthepriceofamuse-umticket.
Thisstudyestablishedhowthisspendingaffectstheregio-naleconomyinthelocalitiesofmuseums.
TheempiricaldataofthisstudywerecollectedinFinnishmuseumsbyasurveywhichenquiredparticularlyaboutthespendingofmuse-umvisitorsandtheirtravellingmotives.
Over6,500museumvisitorsrespondedtotheenquirybetweenMayandSeptember2013.
Theaimwastofindoutspendingoccurringonthetriprelatedtothemuseumvisitanditsallocationfordifferentgoodsandservices.
Bymeansofthesurvey,wealsodeterminedthereasonsforthetripandtheroleofthemuseuminthetraveldecision.
Basedondatathusacquired,weexcludedfromthespendingtheshareonwhichthemuseumwasnotconsideredtohaveanimpact.
Museumvisitorshavebetterincomeandhighereducationthantheaverageperson.
Furthermore,onlyasmallishportionofthecountry'spopulationvisitmuseumsbuttheyvisitmuseumsseveraltimesayear.
Accordingtothefindingsofthisandpreviousstudies,thevisitorgroupisbiasedtowardsthemiddle-aged,managerialemployees,clericalemployees,andexperts.
Formanypersonsbelongingtothesegroups,itistypicaltohavehigherincomesthantheaverage.
Thisstudycon-cludedthathigherincomesalsomeanlargerspendinginconnectionwiththetrips.
Forthisreason,theeconomicimpactoftripsmadebymuseumvisitorswasgreaterthanthatoftouristsonaverage.
Theeconomicimpactofmuseumvisitswasfirstevaluatedatamu-seumvisitorlevel.
Inasimpleminimumassessmentofimpact,wetotallyexcludedlocalinhabitantswhowouldspendtheirmoneyintheregioneventhoughtheynevervisitedthemuseum.
Inthismodel,wedecreasedtheregionaleconomicimpactofsumsstatedbythemu-seumvisitorsconsiderably,interalia,basedonfactorsrelatedtothemotiveofthetrip.
Additionaldemandcalculatedforeachmuseumvi-sitorintheregionwas32.
80inthisminimummodel.
Thissumcanbeusedasthebasisfortheassessment.
Itshowstheminimumspendingcausedbyeachmuseumvisitintheregionofthemuseum.
Analternativeassessmentemployedstatisticalanalyses.
Here,wealsoexcludedspendingwhichisnotallocatedtotheregion.
Byme-ansofthemodel,wedeterminedtourists'decision-makingrelatedtospendingandexaminedday-visitorsandovernighttouristsseparately.
7Theaveragespendingofday-visitorswasestimatedtobe15.
20andthatofovernighttourists73.
80pervisitor.
Theaveragespendingofallmuseumvisitorswasestimatedtobe49.
40pervisitor.
Theestimateishigherthanthatoftheminimumassessment,whichisaresultofdifferencesinthestartingpointsoftheassessments.
InthescaleofthewholeFinnisheconomy,museumswiththeirmultipliereffectsprovideanadditionaldemandbetween340and500millionintheirlocalregions.
Thisisasignificantamountofmo-neyforregionsas,forexample,thetotalinputofmunicipalitiesinfi-nancingthemuseumsisabout75million.
Theincreaseintotalde-mandprovidedbymuseumsintheregionisthusatleastaboutfivetimeslargerthanthis.
Theshareofforeigntouristsofthetotalimpactisaboutonefifth.
Theactivityandroleofmuseumsareoftenconsideredthroughtheircentralobjectivesrelatedtoculturalvalues.
Thisstudyestablishedthatmuseumsalsohaveanimportantrolefortheregionaleconomyoftheirlocalities.
Thisimpactisprimarilybasedonspendingoccurringoutsidethemuseumsandtheadmissionfeesofmuseumshaveminorimportance.
81.
Introduction1.
1BackgroundofstudyAccordingtoadefinitionbytheInternationalCouncilofMuseums(ICOM),"amuseumisanon-profit,permanentinstitutionintheservi-ceofsocietyanditsdevelopment,opentothepublic,whichacquires,conserves,researches,communicatesandexhibitsthetangibleandintangibleheritageofhumanityanditsenvironmentforthepurposesofeducation,studyandenjoyment".
Museumssystematicallycollectmaterialrelatedtoart,culturalhistoryornaturalscience.
(ICOM2013)Eventhoughtheprimarytaskofmuseumsisrelatedtoculturalva-lues,thereisaconnectionbetweenmuseumactivitiesandthefor-mationofregionaltourismincome.
Thisconnectionisbasedonthefactthatthetripsofmuseumvisitorstomuseumsgenerateeconomicactivitywhichisrelatednotonlytomuseumsbutalsotoenterprisesinthetouristindustry,retailbusinessandmanyotherdestinationsinthelocalityofmuseums.
Oftentripshavemanypurposes:meetingfriends,goingtoafunparkoratheatre,visitingamuseum,relaxinginadiffe-rentenvironment,andsoon.
Eventhoughthemotivesforthetripcanbevarious,museumvisitsaremostoftenconnectedwithleisuretime.
Centralmotivesofleisuretourismarethedesiretoexperienceso-methingnewanddifferentandtheneedtodetachfromdailyroutinesandsurroundings.
Tourismcanbeconsideredasortofluxuryspen-ding.
Itischaracterisedbyaspeedyincreaseindemandwhendisposa-bleincomeincreases.
Inthepastdecades,thequantityoftravelanditseconomicimpacthaveincreasedalongwiththeimprovementofthestandardofliving.
(Laakkonen2002)Theincreaseoftourismincomeprovidedbymuseumsisrelatedtothetourists'versatileuseofservices.
Theincomereceivedbytheloca-lityofthemuseumconsistsofincomereceivedbythemuseumand,aboveall,oftourists'otherspendingwhichisamultipleofthespendontheticketreceiptsofthemuseum.
Spendingrelatedtotourismcaninclude,interalia,accommodation,foodandbeverages,passengertransport,andretailtrade.
Theseservicesformanentityinwhichmu-seumsplaytheirownsmallbutimportantpart.
ThisstudywasimplementedattheLevónInstituteoftheUniver-sityofVaasabetweenthespringandautumnof2013.
ThestudywascommissionedbytheFinnishMuseumsAssociationandcarriedoutbyProfessorHannuPiekkola,ResearchManagerArttuVainioandMrOttoSuojanen,astudentofEconomicSciences.
91.
2AimofstudyThisstudyexaminedtheeconomicimpactofmuseums.
Theobjectofthestudywastheimpactwhichthemuseumshavetotheirsurroun-dingregionaleconomyand,partially,tothewholenationaleconomy.
Thesearevisibleinindustriesdirectlyrelatedtotourismbutalsoe.
g.
inthedemandofretailtradeandrestaurants.
Furthermore,weexa-minedtheimpactoftheactivityofthemuseumsthemselvesandallmultipliereffectsoftheactivityontheregionaleconomy(Figure1).
Themotivesofmuseumvisitors'activityand,therefore,theirac-tivitiesasconsumersdifferfromeachothergreatly.
Somemuseumvisitorstraveldirectlytoandfromthedestination.
Still,mostvisitorsactinadifferentway.
Often,day-visitorsalsousetheservicesofpas-sengertransport,retailtradeorfoodandbeveragesectorwithasumwhichislargerthanthepriceofanadmissionticket.
Ifthetouristlivesfarfromthemuseum,he/shealsousesaccommodationandrestau-rantservices.
Thecombinedmonetaryvalueoftheseservicesisclearlygreaterthanthepriceofthemuseumticket.
Evaluatingthemagnitudeofthisspendingandtheirtotalimpactontheregionalandnationaleconomyisacentralaimofthisstudy.
Figure1.
Divisionofeconomicimpactofmuseumsbymaingroups.
Theanalysisoftheeconomicimpactofmuseumslocally,regionallyandforthewholenationaleconomyinvolvesmanyfactorsthemostcentralofwhichisrelatedtothetourismindustry.
Previousstudiesconcludedthattheamountofmoneyspentfortheadmissionticketisonlyasmallpartofthetotalcostsofthetripdestinedforthemuseum.
Mostofthemoneyisusedforacquiringservicesoutsidethemuseum.
Inadditiontotheabovetourismspending,thisstudyconsideredtheregionaleconomicimpactoftheactivityofthemuseumsthemsel-MuseumvisitsUseoffoodandbeverageservices()Useofaccommodationservices()Useoftransportservices()Impactsofmuseum'sownactivity()Useofotherservices()(Regional)totaleconomicimpactanditsmultipliereffects10veswithitsmultipliereffects.
Museumspay,interalia,salariestotheiremployeesandcompensationsforfacilitiesandservicesused.
Foritsmostpart,thisspendingissuppliedtotheeconomyofthelocality.
Themultipliereffectisbasedonthefactthatadditionalincomebroughtbytouriststothedestinationareaincreasesthesalesofen-terprisesinthelocalitywhich,inturn,circulatestothedemandintheareaasincreasedincome.
Thespendingofthemuseumsthemselveshasasimilareffect.
Furthermore,thepublicsectorcollectstaxesfromtheenterprisesandfromemployeesinthetouristindustrywhicharemostlyusedforproducingpublicserviceslocally.
Thisstudyparticularlyexaminesthefollowingissues:1.
Howmuchmoneyisspentontripsdestinedformuseums2.
Howisthisamountofmoneyallocatedbetweenvariousservicesandmuseumactivities3.
Whatkindoftotaleconomicimpacttheactivitiesofmuseumshaveonregionaleconomies4.
Whatistheeconomicimpactprovidedbymuseumactivitieswithitsmultipliereffects112.
Tourismandmuseums2.
1TourismasindustryThereisnounambiguousdefinitionforthetouristindustry.
Manyqui-tedifferentindustriesarelinkedtotourismanditsdevelopment.
Fi-gure2illustratesthediversityofthetouristindustryasanobjectofstudy.
Often,tourismspendingisdividedintoproductsspecificandcharacteristicoftourismandonesconnectedwithtourism.
Industriesspecifictotourismaretotallydependentontourism.
Ontheotherhand,theyarealsocrucialforthedevelopmentofthetouristindustry.
Sucharee.
g.
accommodationandtransportservices.
Industriesconnectedwithandnon-specificoftourismare,interalia,theretailsaleoffuelsandotherretailactivitieswhichwouldalsoexistwithouttourismbutonwhichtourismmakesaconsiderableimpact.
Tourismis,indeed,connectedwiththeoperationsofmanyindustriesandenterprises.
Forthisreason,itisdifficulttodistinguishtourismclearlyfromotherserviceindustries.
(Seee.
g.
Vanhove2005)Figure2.
Tourists'demandforproductsspecificandcharacteristicoftourismandforproductsconnectedwithtourism(e.
g.
Vuoristo&Arajrvi1990).
TotalspendingoftouristsProductsspecificandcharacteristicoftourismProductsandservicesaimedattourists,suchasaccommodationandtransportservicesProductsconnectedtotourismProductsandservicesproducedforothersthantourists,e.
g.
retail,fuelsExistenceofproductsisbasedontourismTourismincreasesdemandforproducts12Forthereasonsdescribedabove,thereisnocommonlyacceptedandunambiguousdefinitionfortourism.
Thefollowingcharacteristicswerefoundtobeassociatedwithit(seee.
g.
Burkart&Medlik1974,Karppinen&Vhsantanen2011):tourismconsistsofpeople'sjourney–trip–fromtheirnormallivingandworksurroundingstoadestinationandspendingtimeinthedestination;tourismspendingisshort-termandseasonal;incomeelasticityoftourismdemandistypicallyhigh(i.
e.
changeinincomecreatesagreaterandparallelchangeintourismde-mand);tourismisagrowthindustry(growsfasterthantotalproduction)and,particularlyindevelopedcountries,thetouristindustryislabour-intensiveinrelationtotraditionalindustries;tourismsupplyistypicallythelocalserviceactivityofsmall-andmedium-sizedenterprisesinwhichtheinterdependencyoftou-rismproductsandtouristdestinationsisconsiderableandcon-sumerscontributedirectlytoaserviceevent.
Mostimportantcostsrelatedtotourismarethecostsoftheactualtrip(i.
e.
journey)andthoseofaccommodationandfoodandbeverages.
Thepartofothergoodsandservicesacquiredbytouristsfromthetotalspendingissmallerthanthoseoftheabovebutnotnegligible2.
2ImportanceoftourismforeconomyTourismisagrowingindustryand,beinglabour-intensive,itisanimportantemployer.
Asanindustry,ithasgrownfasterthantotalproductionfordecades.
Currently,theshareoftotaltourismincome(directandindirectimpacts)isonaverage11%ofthegrossnationalproduct(GNP)ofOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelop-ment(OECD)countriesandtheshareoftouristindustryandactivitiesrelatedtoitfromtotalemploymentisevenbiggerthanthis.
(Karppi-nen&Vhsantanen2011)ThetourismoftheFinnsthemselveshasincreasedforthepastfewyearsandalsoforthepastfewdecades(Figure3).
Theannualtotalnumberoftripsindomestictourismhasalreadyexceeded40million.
Thenumberofworkandconferencetripshasbeenestablishedtobeabout5million.
Thegrowthoftourismhasbeenallocatedtobothdo-mesticleisuretourismandtourismabroad.
Bynumbers,mostdomes-tictripsaredestinedtoholidayhousesorarevisitstoacquaintancesandrelatives.
Paidaccommodationisusedonaboutaquarterofalltrips.
ThemostpopulardestinationsinFinlandarelocatedinUusimaa,PirkanmaaandVarsinais-Suomi(StatisticsFinland2013b).
However,13therelativeimportanceoftourismonregionaleconomiesisthegre-atestinlocalitieswheretourismisacentralindustry.
Atprovincele-vel,tourismisrelativelymostimportantinLapland,thelandIslands,Kainuu,Uusimaa,andsouthernSavo.
(Konttinen2006:40)Figure3.
DomestictourismofFinnsin1991–2011.
Ontheverticalaxis,totalnumberoftripsasthousands.
DatabasetablesbyStatisticsFinlandwww.
stat.
fi.
In2012,7.
6millionforeigntravellersvisitedFinland.
ThenumberofforeignvisitorsinFinlandhasincreasedatleastatthesamerateasthetouristindustryhasgenerallygrown.
Foreigntouristsspentatotalof2.
3billioninFinlandin2012.
Russiantravellerswerethelargestgroupofforeignvisitors,constitutingalmosthalfofalltourists.
ThesecondlargestvisitorgroupwasfromEstoniaandthethirdlargestfromSweden.
(StatisticsFinland2013a)MostforeigntravellerstoFinlandwereonaleisuretrip.
Slightlyoverafifthofallforeignvisitorswereonabusinesstripandaboutatenthwereonatransittrip.
Abouthalfoftheforeignersstayingover-nightinFinlandin2012wereaccommodatedinahoteloramotel.
Theshareofday-tripswasabout45%ofallarrivalsandmostday-visitorswerefromRussia.
Ontheirvisit,foreigntravellersspent300onaveragein2012.
Thesumspentforatripcouldbelargeras,e.
g.
intheNetherlands,visitorsspentabout544perstay(Aarsmanetal2012).
Pertravelday,foreignvisitorsinFinlandspent59onaverage.
(StatisticsFinland2013a)Thetotalexpenditureofdomesticandforeigntouristsin2012wasaltogetherabout15billion.
Theshareofforeigntouristsofthetotalexpenditureoftourismwas29%,thatis,about4.
4billion.
Theappre-ciationi.
e.
valueaddedprovidedbytourismin2012wasabout5bil-lion,whichisabout3%ofFinland'sgrossnationalproduct.
According19911996200120062011050001000015000200002500030000350004000045000MATKATYHTEENSVapaa-ajanmatkatTy-jakokousmatkatTRIPS,TOTALLeisuretripsWorkandconferencetrips14toTourismAccount(StatisticsFinland2009),thetotalemploymentofthetouristindustryin2007wasabout64,000persons.
Thesectoralsoemploysaboutdoublethisnumberofpersonsaspart-timeemplo-yees.
Thus,tourismhasanimportantimpactontheFinnisheconomybothasanemployerandaproducerofproductivevalueadded.
TheWorldTravelandTourismCouncilestimatesthatthetouristindustrywillgrowfurther(WTTC2010).
Tourismdemandissensitivetochangesineconomicdevelopment,buttheindustryhasproventorecoverfromcrisesquitefast(OECD2010:52).
TheUnitedNationsWorldTourismOrganizationUNWTO(2010:11)hasestimatedtourismtogrowinthenearfuturegloballyattheaverageannualrateof4%andinEuropeonaverageabout3%annually.
(Puhakka2011)TheWorldTravelandTourismCouncil(WTTC,2010)estimatedthattourismdemandandtheeconomicandemploymentimpactsoftheindustrywillalsogrowinFinlandbytheyear2020.
Accordingtoexperts,domestictravelremainsthebasisoftourisminFinland.
Atthemoment,itsshareofthetotaltourismdemandisover60%.
Safetybecominganimportantfactorintourismproducts(Yeoman2008:35),thepopularityofFinlandcanstillincreaseasthedestinationoffo-reigntravellers.
(Puhakka2011)2.
3CulturaltourismintourismsupplyAccordingtotheFinnishTouristBoard,culturaltourismincludesallsuchtourismthemotivationofwhichisthedesiretoobservethecul-turalresourcesofthedestination,tolearnfromthemortoparticipateinthem.
Suchaculturalresourceisanyplace,structure,handiworkoreventtheexperienceofwhichincreasesthevisitor'sappreciationoftheorigins,customs,tastes,habits,andskillsofthehostcountry.
ThedefinitionbytheFinnishNationalBoardofAntiquitiesalsoemphasi-sestherespectofthepreservabilityofthedestinationandofhistoricalandculturalvalues(FinnishTouristBoard2005).
Culturaltouristdestinationsincludemuseums,artgalleries,chur-ches,fortresses,lighthouses,milieuswithwoodenhouses,statelyho-mes,theatres,culturalcentres,settingshavingculturalhistory,andculturalevents.
ThemuseumdatabaseoftheFinnishMuseumsAsso-ciationcontainsoverathousandmuseums.
AboutaquarterofthemislocatedinUusimaaandVarsinais-Suomi.
AbouthalfofallFinnishmu-seumsarecultural-historymuseums.
AccordingtoStatisticsFinland(2012b),thesignificanceofculturalsectorsasanemployerinFinlandisbyfargreatestinUusimaa.
AccordingtoaborderinterviewsurveybyStatisticsFinlandandtheFinnishTouristBoard(StatisticsFinland2012a,FinnishTouristBoard2013a,2013b),about35%oftouristshavingarrivedinFinlandonavisitwithatleastoneculturaldestinationoreventinmind.
IntheNether-15lands,thecorrespondingfigureis41%(Aarsmanetal2012:66)and,inSweden,about20%(Armbrecht2013:3).
IntheNetherlandsabout8%andinSwedenabout5%oftouristshavearrivedinthecountrytovisitmuseumsastheirmaindestination.
Allinall,about15%oftouriststraveltovisitculturaldestinations(Armbrecht2013:3).
InFinland,cul-turaltourismismainlyconcentratedinmuseums,exhibitions,cultu-ralheritagevenuesandarchitecturaldestinations(FinnishMuseumsAssociation2007).
AccordingtoadecisioninprincipleontourismpolicymadebytheFinnishGovernment,tourismisasignificantindustrycreatingecono-micgrowthandemploymentwhichmustbedeveloped.
TheEurope-anUnion(EU)hasforlongtimesupportedculturaltourismprojectsinFinland.
CulturaltourismisoneofthefocusareasoftheFinnishTouristBoard.
Culturaltourismutilisesregionalandlocalcultureincreatingexpe-riencesfortourists.
Atthesametime,thetouristcanlearnsomethingoftheculture,historyorwayoflifeofthedestinationregion.
Anattrac-tionfactoristhereforethecultureofthedestinationorthedestinationshowingit.
(StatisticsFinland2003,MacDonald&Jolliffe2003)2.
4Museumsassub-sectorofculturaltourismMuseumasculturalinstitutionandservicefortouristsMuseumsaccumulate,manageandpresentcultural-historicalna-tionalheritageandrecord,produceandcommunicateinformation.
TheFinnishMuseumsAct(887/2005)definesthetaskofmuseumsaspromotingtheavailabilityofinformationonculturalandnaturalheritage.
Withinthistask,museumsdocumentandconserveculturalheritage,conductresearch,educationandcommunicationrelatedtoitandcarryoutexhibitionandpublicationactivities.
Amuseumisaculturalandresearchinstitutionaswellasaprotectionauthoritywhichprovidesversatileservicesforitscustomers.
(FinnishMuseumsAssociation2009)Inadditiontocarryingouttheaboveprimarytaskofamuseum,amuseumoperatesaspartofeconomy.
Itsserviceisprimarilyrelatedtotheconservationandpresentationofculturalheritage,butitcanalsohaveothertasks,targetsandeffects.
Manymuseumsaresignificanttourismdestinationsand,therefore,theyprovideimpactsrelatedtothetouristindustryandretailtrade.
(Travers2006,Frey&Meier2006)Inmostcases,museumscannotbeconsideredpartofthetouristindustrybut,still,theyhaveaconsiderableimpactonengaginginthetouristindustryanditslocation.
Formanytourists,museumsarethemostimportantattractionsand,withoutthem,manyatripwouldnotberealisedoritwouldbeshorter(Aarsmanetal.
2012).
Hence,mu-seumsplayaroleinincreasingtourismandaffectthetouristindustry16intheirhomelocalitiesandtheeconomicimpactsprovidedbyit.
Accordingtopreviousstudies,museumsgenerateamultipleofthespendingofitsownsales(admissionfees,cafeterias,secondarysalesandotherservices)outsidethedestinationitself(Travers2006).
Thisiscreatedbyvisitorspendingonatriptothemuseumwhichmosttypicallyconsistsoffoodandbeverages,directtravelexpensesandaccommodationexpenses.
Onmuseumtrips,thereisalsootherspen-dingasvisitorsshoponthehomelocalityofthemuseumforgoodswhichtheywouldotherwiseshopathomeoratsomeotherlocation.
Itislikelythatthemuseumtripdoesnotincreasetotalspendingbutitaffectsitsallocationatleastinaregionalreview(Armbrecht2013).
ImpactofmuseumsonregionaleconomiesMuseumshaveasignificantroleinthedevelopmentofthetourismindustry.
Touristsspendmoneybothinmuseumsandespeciallyout-sidethem.
Thisspendinghasagreatimportanceforlocaleconomiesparticularlyinpopulardestinations(Frey&Meier2006:1019,Aarsmanetal:65).
Inadditiontodirecteconomicimpacts,museumscanhaveimpactsontheimageoftheirhomelocalities(Aarsmanetal.
2012:62)whichcanaffectbothtourismandhappinessoflocalinhabitantsand,accordingtosomeopinions,thelocationdecisionofenterprises.
Howe-ver,thesignificanceofthelastimpactisdoubtful(Armbrecht2013:6).
Theattractivenessofmuseumsismostoftenbasedonthecontentsoftheirexhibitionsbutalsoontheirage,sizeandreputationasacul-turaldestination.
Animportantcharacteristicofthedestinationcanbethemuseumbuildingwhichisconsideredinterestingassuch.
Examp-lesofsuchFinnishmuseumdestinationsaretheNationalMuseumofFinlandandtheMuseumofContemporaryArtKiasma.
Particularlyoldandlargemuseumsareknownsowidelythatvisitingthemisconsi-deredpartofall-roundeducation.
Interestrelatedtosuchmuseumsattractsmanykindsofvisitorsandtheyareculturaldestinationsbutalsosignificantcreatorsoftouristflows(Frey&Meier2006:1022).
Recentlyestablishedandlessknownmuseumsacquiretheirrepu-tationbyvariousmeansofcommunication.
Inpart,theyuseconven-tionalmarketingcommunicationsbutoftenutilisethemediabypro-vidingthemwith,forexample,informationoninterestingexhibitionsorchangedofferings.
Accordingtoearlierreports,itispossibletoac-quirenewvisitorsbymeansofvaryingandallocatingexhibitions,byattractingattentionandbyofferingwiderculturalexperiences.
Inthepastfewyears,somemuseumshaveutilisedsocialmediaeffectively.
Itseemstobeessentialtoattractattentionforthemuseumandtomaintaintheinterestcreated(Aarsmanetal2012).
Thepriceofthemuseumticketseemstohavealmostnoimpactonthevisitornumbers,atleastininternationalreports.
Iftheadmissioncostsafeweuro,variationofoneeuromoreoroneeurolessdoesnotaffectthevisitornumbersaccordingtoFreyandMeier(2006).
Some17studiesobservedthatthevisitorswouldhavebeenwillingtopayevenmoreoftheirticketsthanthecurrentprice.
Completelyfreeadmissionseemstoonlyincreasethenumberofsuchvisitorswhovisitthesameexhibitionseveraltimes.
Theresultsofearlierreportssupportthisob-servation.
InapreviousstudybytheFinnishMuseumsAssociation,only7%ofrespondentswishedthattheadmissionwerecompletelyfree.
Thesuitableticketpricewascommonlyasumbetween4and7(anaverageof5.
28).
Over70%ofrespondentsthoughtthatthepriceofabout4–10wassuitable.
(FinnishMuseumsAssociation2012:13–14)Anexplanationforthevisitors'willingnesstopaycanbethetotaltripbudgetofmuseumvisitors.
Touristscomingfromfarspendparticu-larlysomuchmoneyforotheractivitiesthatthepriceofthemuseumticketismarginalwhencomparedwithit.
Here,aticketcostingafeweuroisnotaconsiderableitemofexpenditure.
(Frey&Meier2006:1040)MuseumsaseconomicagentsInFinlandaswellaselsewhereinEurope,theeconomyofmuseumsismostlybasedonincomeotherthanthoseofadmissionandsecondarysalesatthemuseum.
InFinland,independentfundingofmuseumscoveredabout13.
5%in2011andabout15%in2012ofthetotalfunding.
Theshareofthepublicsectorwasalittlebelow80%(NationalBoardofAntiquities2012and2013).
Thesharesweresimilare.
g.
inGreatBritainwhereindependentfundingisabout18%ofthetotalincomeofmu-seums(Travers2006:24–33).
ThefundingofFinnishmuseumsismainlybasedongovernmentandmunicipalfunding.
Thegovernmentshareofthetotalfundingisabout45%andthatofthemunicipalitiesisabout34%.
Slightlylessthan20%isobtainedfromothersources,suchasadmissionfeesandothersalesaswellasgrantspaidbyfoundationsandassociations.
Mu-seumoperationsareverylabour-intensiveoftheircosts.
Almostahalfofallexpenditureisspentonthesalariesofpersonnelandlessthanathirdonpropertycosts.
Otherexpensescometoaboutafifthandcol-lectionspurchasesslightlyover1%ofallexpenses.
(NationalBoardofAntiquities2012:4–8,NationalBoardofAntiquities2013:7–9)Ononehand,theeconomicimpactofmuseumscanbestudiedfromtheviewpointofspendinggeneratedbythemor,ontheotherhand,fromtheviewpointoftheirreturnsandincreaseineconomicactivitycausedbymuseums.
Thespendingofmuseumsincreaseseco-nomicactivitythroughthesalariesoftheirpersonnel,themaintenan-ceoftheirbuildings,publicrelationsandotheractivitiesrelatedtomanagingthemuseums.
Thesoleexistenceofmuseumsthusprovideseconomicimpacts.
Inadditiontothis,museumvisitorsincreasetheimpactofmuseumswiththeirownspendingdecisions.
Expenditureoutsidethemuseumincludestheuseofrestaurantandaccommodati-onservices,purchasesinshopsandkiosks,purchasesoftravelticketsandfuelandmanymoretypicaltouristspendingdecisions.
Hoteland18restaurantservices,inparticular,werefoundtobenefitfromthespen-dingoftouristsattractedbyculturaldestinations.
(Frey&Meier2006:1022.
Travers2006:17,Armbrecht2013:6)Despitemuseumshavingasignificantroleinincreasingeconomicactivity,theirexistencecanrarelybejustifiedbyeconomicfactorsalo-ne.
Museumsare,aboveall,providersofculturalexperiencesandtheobjectoftheirestablishmenthasrarelybeentoincreaseeconomicac-tivity(Frey&Meier2006:1024).
However,theeconomicimportanceofmuseumsisoftenconsiderableand,inthepastdecades,ithasfurtherincreased(Travers2006:17–19).
Museumshavesomelong-termeconomicimpacts,forwhich,itisnotpossibletoplaceamonetaryvalue.
AccordingtoArmbrecht,suchimpactsareonthevisitors'self-knowledge,conceptionofidentityandpersonalityaswellasattitudesandworkmotivation.
Throughthis,museumsincreasecreativityandcanalsosupporttheproducti-onofinnovations.
Withtheiractivity,themuseumsproducewellbeingwhichalsohaslong-termeconomicimpacts(Armbrecht2013:7).
Thelargestregionaleconomicimpactiswithsuchmuseumswhichhavealargenumberofvisitors.
Largeandwell-knownmuseumsat-tractmorevisitorsthansmallmuseumsalsoinrelationtotheirsizeandemployeenumber.
Forthisreason,theymakethemostprofitbe-causeanincreaseinthevisitornumberincreasesthemaintenancecostsofthemuseumonlyinnamebutcanhaveaconsiderableimpactonthemuseumincome.
Thespecialimpactoflargemuseumsisexp-lainedbythefactthatthefixedcostsofamuseumareinanycasehigh.
Expenditureonbuildings,exhibitionitemsandpersonnelsalariesisinshort-terminvariableandoftenquitehigh.
Instead,variablecostsdonotvaryeventhoughthevisitornumberweretoincreasesignificantly,thatis,museumscaninthissenseavailfromeconomiesofscale.
Thus,increasingthenumberofmuseumvisitorsgrowstheeconomyofboththemuseumanditsoperationalenvironmentwithoutcausingconsi-derableadditionalcosts(Frey&Meier2006:1025–1026).
Despitetheabove,manymuseumsdonotactivelyattempttoin-creasetheirvisitornumbersbut,instead,havechosenanapproachwhichminimisescostsandrisks.
Often,thishasbeenconsideredtobecausedbythesituationofmuseummanagement,asmuseumsaremostlyfundedbypublicfunds.
Overspendingcausesproblemsbutthemuseumreceivesnocorrespondingbenefitfromincreasedincome.
Then,itiseasiesttoleanonthestablepublicfunding(Frey&Meier2006:1029).
Hence,visitornumbersandtheeconomicimpactofthemuseumcanremainsmallerthanthoseofamuseumwhichactivelyaimsatincreasingitsvisitornumbers.
Museumsmaketheirdecisionsbycombiningtargetsrelatedtoculturalvalueswitheconomicbounda-ryconditionsofoperation.
Aseconomicagents,museumsareincompetitionwithothersocialandrecreationalactivities.
Increasingleisuretimehasalsoincreased19otherofferings,butmuseumsarestillsignificantprovidersoffree-timeactivitiesandtouristdestinations.
Themuseumsectorhasmaintaineditsearliersignificanceand,inplaces,thevisitornumbershaveevenin-creased.
Therehasbeenvariouswaystoreacttothenewcompetition.
Manymuseumshaveincreasedtheirinterestfactorbyspecialexhi-bitionsattractingnewvisitorgroups,andbyamoreattractiveformatandsolutionsrelatedtotheuseofthemuseumspace.
Often,museumvisitorsareofferedachanceto'touchorexperience'insteadofjustlooking.
Thisaimsatincreasingtheattractivenessofmuseumsandmakingthemmoreapproachable.
(Travers2006)Museumsattractlargenumbersofforeigntouristse.
g.
intheNet-herlandsandGreatBritain(Aarsmanetal.
2012,Travers2006:38,80).
Formany,museumsareeitherthemostimportantoratleastanim-portantfactoraffectingthetraveldecision.
AccordingtoaSwedishstudy,about16%ofalltouristshavingvisitedamuseumconsideredthemuseumvisitthemainreasonforthetrip(Armbrecht2013:7)andabout5%ofalltripswerearesultoftouristswishingtovisitmuseumsandotherculturalattractions.
Thesedatagivereferencetothefactthatthemoreactiveoperationofmuseumsandotherculturaltouristdestinationscansupporteconomicdevelopmentbothregionallyandnationally.
MuseumvisitsinFinlandInFinland,thevisitornumberstomuseumshavebeenalmostinva-riableforadecade.
Thetotalnumberofmuseumvisitsisaboutfivemillion.
In2011,4.
9millionvisitswererecorded(NationalBoardofAn-tiquities2012:12–13)and,in2012,about5.
3millionvisits(NationalBo-ardofAntiquities2013:14).
Annualvisitornumbershavevariedalittlee.
g.
duetoexhibitionrenovationsandextremelypopularexhibitions.
Thevisitornumbershavestillremainedatthesameleveleventhoughthenumberofmuseumshasincreasedandmanymoremuseumshavenoadmissionfee.
Atleastpartially,thisisduetothefactthatmuseumscompete,ononehand,forpublicfundingand,ontheotherhand,forvisitorsinasituationinwhichtheofferingsofotherpossibilitiestospendleisuretimehasincreasedfordecades(Travers2006).
In2012,themostpopularFinnishmuseumsweretheAteneumArtMuseum(about400,000visits),theMuseumofContemporaryArtKias-ma(182,000),theFinnishMuseumofNaturalHistory(152,000)andtheNationalMuseumofFinland(105,000).
InFinland,thereare158pro-fessionalmuseums,ofwhich,50%areculturalhistorymuseums,27%specialisedmuseums,17%artmuseums,4%naturalhistorymuseums,and3%combinationmuseums.
(NationalBoardofAntiquities2013,FinnishMuseumsAssociation2012)Thetotalnumbersofvisitorstomuseumsperinhabitantareconsi-derablylargerinotherNordiccountriesthaninFinland.
Calculatedperinhabitant,therearetwiceasmanymuseumvisitsinSweden,Den-20markandNorwaycomparedwithFinland.
WithotherEuropeancount-ries,thedifferencesaresmaller.
ForexampletheDutch,theBritish,theGermans,andtheHungariansvisitmuseumsonlyslightlymoreof-tenthantheFinns.
InmanycountriesofsouthernandeasternEurope,thereareclearlyfewermuseumvisitsperinhabitantthaninFinland.
(EGMUS2004:152)ProfileofmuseumvisitorsTheestablishednumberofmuseumvisitsseemstoofferastablebaseformuseumoperations.
Itshouldstillbenoticedthatthestabilityofvisitornumbersalsomeansthatnonewvisitorgroupshavebeenat-tracted.
BothFinnishandforeignstudiesfoundthatmuseumvisitorsaremostlywomen,middle-agedandwell-educatedwhencontrastedwiththewholepopulation.
Thisgrouphasabetterincomethantheaverageandseemstospendmoremoneyontheirtravelsthanthoselesseducatedorhavingsmallerincome.
Thevisitorprofileaswellasthevisitornumbersofmuseumsseemtoremainsimilarfromoneyeartotheother.
Inadditiontothemuseumvisitors'visitorprofilebeingsimilar,mu-seumvisitsalsoaccumulate.
Aboutathirdofmuseumvisitorsvisitmuseumsmorethanfivetimesayear.
Respectively,alargegroupofpeoplevisitsmuseumsalmostnever.
OfallFinns,onlyslightlyover40%visitmuseums.
ThesituationisthesameelsewhereinEurope,forexampleinGreatBritain,thecorrespondingshareisabout43%and,inItaly,slightlylessthan30%.
Thesameage,educationandoccupationalgroupsseemtobethemostactivemuseumvisitorsalloverEurope(EG-MUS2004).
Manystudiesandparticularlythedailyworkatmuseumsaimatincreasingvisitornumbersandattractingnewvisitorgroups.
Themeansincludemakingtheexhibitionsmoreinteractive,increasingactivitiesandchangingtheformatofthemuseummoreattractive.
Inadditiontothese,marketinghasutilisedbothtraditionalmethodsandneweronesofelectroniccommunicationandsocialmedia.
AccordingtotheNationalVisitorSurvey2011,14%ofnon-localvisi-torsofFinnishmuseumstravelledtothelocalityspecificallytovisitthemuseum(FinnishMuseumsAssociation2012).
Thispieceofdataissimi-lartoobservationsinSweden,accordingtowhich,about16%ofmuseumvisitorstravelsprimarilytovisitmuseumsandotherculturalattractions(Armbrecht2013).
Anenquiryimplementedinconnectionwiththisstu-dyfurthersupportstheseobservationsbecause,ifweexcludelocalin-habitantsfromthosewhohavetravelledspecificallyforthemuseumvisit,theshareofthosehavingtravelledtothelocalityforthemuseumvisitis17.
9%.
Itcanberoughlygeneralisedthatabouteverysixthoreveryseventhmuseumvisitortravelsprimarilytovisitamuseum–forothervisitors,themuseumvisitispartofalargertravelitinerary.
213.
Assessingthetotaleconomicimpactoftourism3.
1AssessmentmethodsTherearevariousapproachestomeasuringtheeconomicimpactoftourism.
Methodsusedincludeinput-outputanalysisandtheNordicincome-expendituremodel(Huhtala2006:11).
Theimportanceofthewholetourismsectororlargerentitieswasalsoexaminedbymeansofsatelliteaccountsandtheeconomicbasemethod.
Thelatteronesarenotwellsuitedforstudyinganarrowsub-sectorsuchasthemu-seumsector.
Furthermore,thelogicofmuseumoperationsisdifferenttothatofcommercialtouristservices,becauseofwhich,thesuitableapproachtotheissueisdirectlytheviewpointofserviceusersi.
e.
mu-seumvisitorsandtheeconomicactivityprovidedbythem,notsolelytheviewpointofmuseumsales.
(Huhtala2006:11–14)TheNordicincome-expendituremodeliswellsuitedforassessingtheregionaleconomicimpactsoftourism.
Itdetermines,ononehand,visitors'spendingand,ontheotherhand,regionaltourismreceiptsandtheirmultipliereffects.
TheNordicmodelwasfoundafeasiblewaytoexaminetheeconomicimpactsoftourism.
Themodelisbasedonempiricaldatacollection:visitors'expenditureanditsallocationaredeterminedandgeneralisedtoapplytothewholevisitorbase.
Themethodhasitsshortcomingswhich,forexample,VuoristoandAra-jrvi(1990)havediscussed.
Internationally,themethodisnotpopularbut,globally,assessmentmethodsbasedontheinput-outputanalysisorsolemultipliersdescribingthemultipliereffectsarefavoured.
(Huh-tala2006:11–14)Input-outputanalysis,regionalmultipliersandothermethodsTheregionaleconomicimpactofactivitycanbeassessedbycombi-ningvisitorsurveydataandregionalinput-outputtables(Stynes&White2006).
Inthismethod,dataonthevisitorsintheregionandtheirspendingarecollectedbyvisitorsurveyssimilarlyasintheNordicincome-expendituremodel.
Thus,itispossibletoobtaininformationonvisitors'averagespendingintheregionwhichcanbemultipliedbymultipliersdeducedfromaninput-outputmodeldescribingtheeconomyoftheregionand,hence,assessthedirectimpactofvisitors'spendinganditsmultipliereffects.
Examplesonstudiesbasedontheso-calledmultiplieranalysisincludethosebyMilne(1992)andKhanetal.
(1990)ontheimpactsoftourismincome.
Themultipliersusedasthebasisofassessmentcanalsobeobtainedfrompreviousstudies,buttheyshouldbeusedverycautiously.
22Theregionaleconomicimpactshavealsobeenexaminedbyaso-cialaccountingmatrixwhichparticularlyenablesthestudyofderiveddemandimpacts.
Thematrixisanextensionoftheinput-outputmo-delwhichincludesbothproductionandunproductiveareas.
However,theseapproacheswerenotappliedforassessingtheeconomicimpactofmuseumsordestinationscomparabletothem.
(Huhtala2006:11–14)CollectingdataonspendingThisstudyexaminestheeconomicimpactofmuseumsbasedonthespendinginformationofmuseumvisitors.
Spendingdatacanbecol-lectedbyquestionnaires,interviewsorspendingdiaries(Karppinen&Vhsantanen2011).
Themostcommonmethodisthequestionnairewhosebenefitsarecost-effectiveness,easinessandquicknesscompa-redwithinterviewsorspendingdiaries.
Itsshortcomingisinaccuracywhichisduetothefactthattherespondentforgetstorecordspendingorcannotestimateit.
ForexampleaccordingtoSilbersteinandScott(1991),bothquestionnairesanddiarymethodsunderestimaterespon-dents'spendingbut,inquestionnaires,forgetfulnessismoreextensiveandunderestimatesthusmorecommon.
Duetotheextensivenatureoftheobjectofthisstudy,interviewsandspendingdiariescouldnotbeused.
Hence,datawerecollectedbymeansofquestionnaires.
Thisoptionproducesanunderestimationoftheactualspendingdifficulttocalculate.
Theunderestimatethuspro-ducedcanstillbeutilisedasabasisforasortofaminimumimpactand,basedonit,itispossibletocontemplatetheprobablespendingbyutilisingdataontourists'spendingobtainedfromothersources.
(Huhtala2006:14–15)3.
2MultipliereffectandleakagesofspendingThetotaleconomicimpactsoftourismconsistoftheactualspendingandthemultipliereffectsofspendingoccurred(e.
g.
Huhtala2006:8).
Thetourist'samountofmoneyspentleadstodirectincomeeffects,i.
e.
agrowthofdemandintouristindustryenterprises.
Atthesametime,thegrowthofdemandleadstoindirectincomeeffectsinenterprisesservicingtourismenterprisesandincreasesthetotaldemandduetoitsemployment-improvingimpact.
Alongwiththegrowthofearnedincome,theeconomicimpactsoftourismfurthertransferdownstreamtootherenterprisesduetoincreaseddemandandtothepublicsectorasincreasedtaxrevenues.
Intheregionaleconomy,growingdemandleadstodirect,indirectandderivedimpacts(Figure4).
Someoftheimpactsescapetheregionthroughpurchasesoccurredelsewhere.
Theseareleakagesofthere-gionaleconomywhicharecreatedwhentourismenterprisespurchasegoodsorservicesfromoutsidetheregion.
Partofthegrowingdemand23stillremainstocontributetotheregionandprovidesamultiplieref-fectwhichincreasestheimpactoftheoriginalgrowingdemand.
Thismultipliereffectcanbequitelarge,particularlyingeographicallyorpoliticallyisolatedregions.
Forexampleonislandshavingpoortran-sportconnectionorincountriessuchasSingapore,themultiplieref-fectcanalmostdoubletheimpactoftheoriginaltourismincome(e.
g.
Khanetal.
1990).
Inthisstudy,theterm'region'mainlyreferstoanentityofsub-regionallevelwhichoftencorrespondstothesizeofanemploymentarea.
Wesettledonthetermbecause,ononehand,municipalitiesdonotdescribethefunctionalentityinameaningfulwayand,ontheot-herhand,provincesaretoolargeentitiesforthisreview.
Asub-regionisclosesttotheregionalleveltowhichtheregionaleconomicimpactsofactivitiesexaminedhereapply.
Thedefinitionofaregionwasearlierconsidered,forexample,byAro(2013:5)Figure4.
Allocationofregionaleconomicimpactsoftourism(Huhtala2006:8,Vuoristo&Arajrvi1990,Armbrecht2013).
LeakagesTouristsspendmoneyintheregionDirectincomeeffectsSalesoftourismenterprisesincreaseIndirectincomeeffectsSalesofenterprisesservicingtourismenterprisesincreaseDirectemploymenteffectsTourismenterprisesemploymorepeopleIndirectemploymenteffectsEnterprisesservicingtourismenterprisesemploymorepeopleDirectandindirectearnedincomeeffectsDerivedeffectsEffectsofincreasedincomeonincomeinthewholeregionTaxrevenuesincreaseintheregionLeakagesLeakages24InFinland,theregionalimpactoftourismremainsalotsmallerthandescribedabove.
ThesmallertheFinnisheconomiczoneis,thesmallerthemultipliereffectis.
Leakagesarelarge,duetowhich,theregionalmultipliereffectwasestimatedtobeintherangeof1.
2–1.
5inmostpreviousstudies(insomecases,themultiplierwaseven1.
65).
Thismeansthatanadditionaltourismincomeof100makestheregionaleconomygrowbyatotalof120–150.
Inprinciple,itispossibletocalculatethismultiplierforeachregionseparatelybut,becausethemultipliereffectandparticularlythedifferencebetweenmultipliersindifferentregionsremainquitesmall,thisstudyemploysearlierre-portsrelatedtothetotalimpactoftourismincome.
Suchregionalre-portsincludeassessmentofthetotalimpactsoftourismincomeintheFinnishregionsofSatakunta,southernSavo,northernPohjanmaa,LaplandandKainuu(e.
g.
Kauppila&Ervasti2001,Karppinen&Vh-santanen2011,Tahvanainenetal.
2011aand2011b,Hietalaetal.
1999).
Themultipliereffectvariesbetweendifferentregions.
Themoretheregionaleconomyutilisesworkandproductiondoneinitsownarea,thelargerthemultiplierisandthusalsothetotalimpact.
Inpractice,theFinnishregionsareinsocloseaconnectionwitheachotherthatgrowndemandintheregionquicklyleadstoincreasingpurchasesalsofromoutsidetheregion.
Theterm'leakages'mentionedinFigure4alsorelatestothisphenomenon.
Thus,moneyenterstheregionaleconomywithtouristswhichthencomesacrosstotheearnedincomeofpeoplelivingintheregionandalsoincreasesthedemandoflocalenterprises.
Workingpeopleusetheirincreasedincomepartiallytotheproductsoflocalenterprisesbut,forthemostpart,themoneyisspentfortheproductsofenterprisesoperatingoutsidetheregion.
Thisdemanddi-rectedoutsidetheregionleadstoleakagesintheregionaleconomy,duetowhich,themultipliereffectintheregionaleconomyremainsquitesmall.
However,theimpactineuroisgreat.
Whentalkingofthousandsoftourists,themultipliereffectof20%–50%issignificant.
3.
3FactorsdecreasingmultipliereffectWhenassessingimpacts,itisgoodtocriticallyexaminethecreati-onofincomeeffectsinadditiontoleakages.
Mostofmuseumvisitorsarelocalinhabitants.
Thus,theirspendingdoesnotincreasethetotalspendingintheregionassuch(Cromptonetal.
2001:79,Drengneretal.
2009:73–74,Armbrecht2013),butitcanbeassumedthattheyspendmostoftheirincomelocallyinanycase.
Inthelong-term,propensitytoconsumeseemstobeabout1,thatistosay,allincomeisspentforsomethinginanycase(e.
g.
Hiilamoetal.
2012:61).
Itisstillpossiblethatmoneyspentbythelocalinhabitantsmightbespentinsomeot-herlocation,andthus,theeconomicimpactwouldbedirectedelsew-here.
Then,itispossibletoseethatspendinginthehomelocalitycan25havesomekindofanimpactintheactivityoftheregionaleconomy.
Defininglocalityorlocalinhabitantsisanuancedissue.
Thelimitoflocalitycanbeconsiderede.
g.
anemploymentarea,anadministrativeareaoranareawherepeoplemoveonweekdays.
Themostnaturaldefinitioncouldberelatedtothedailytravelhabitsofpeople.
Suchcanbee.
g.
averagedistancesbetweenhomeandtheworkplaceoravera-gedailytravelperformances.
Thelattershowshowlongajourneyiswhichtheinhabitantstraveldailyusingdifferentmeansoftransport.
AccordingtotheNationalTravelSurveybytheFinnishTransportAgen-cy(2012),thisisabout40kmwhichcanbeconsideredcorrespondingtoaroundtripof20km.
AccordingtoStatisticsFinland,theaveragejourneytoworkisalsoabout20kminonedirection(distanceasthecrowflies14km).
Thisdistanceofabout20kmisthusagoodbasisfordefiningthelocalityofamuseumvisitor.
Inmanycases,italsocorres-pondstothedistancebyroadtothenearestcentre.
Furthermore,thedistanceofrunningerrandsislessthan10kmand93%oferrandsarerunatthedistanceoflessthan20km(FinnishTransportAgency2007).
Inadditiontolocalinhabitants,museumshavesuchvisitorgroupstheeconomicimpactsofwhosevisitsmustbeconsideredwithlimita-tions.
Sucharetouristswhowouldhavevisitedtheregionortheloca-lityirrespectiveoftheexistenceofthemuseum,butwhohaveexten-dedtheirstayorchangedtheirplansforthemuseumvisit.
Crompton(2001:81,2006)referredtothemas'time-switchers'or'casuals'.
Thetouristgroupsdescribedabovearequitecommon.
Theytypi-callyvisitmanydifferentdestinations.
Fromtheviewpointoftheeco-nomicimpactofmuseumvisits,itcanbeconsideredthattheywouldhavecometothelocalityanywaybut,ontheotherhand,themuse-umhasofteninfluencedtheirtraveldecision.
Inadditiontothese,itshouldbenotedthatthejourneyshavemanytargets.
Themuseumvisitcanbecombinedwithe.
g.
avisittoatheatre,someotherdesti-nationrelatedtoleisuretimeoreventorelatives.
Then,noneofthedestinationscanbeconsideredperipheral;theyhaveallaffectedthetraveldecisionbutnoneofthemwasdeterminingonitsown.
ConsideringfactorsdecreasingmultipliereffectinthisstudyInthisstudy,weconsiderthemotiveoftheabovegroupstoarriveinthelocalityortheregionwhenassessingtheimpactprovidedbythemuseum.
Eventhoughpartofspendingoccurringintheirregionweredoneinanycase,partofspendingcanbeconsideredtoberelatedtothemuseumvisit.
Inthisstudy,costsrelatedtothetripareincludedwhenexaminingtheregionaleconomicimpactinitstotalityforsuchmuseumvisitorswhoseprimarydestinationisthemuseuminquesti-onandwhohavetravelledadistanceofatleast20kmandarenotthusconsideredlocalinhabitants.
Furthermore,partofspendingisinclu-dedforsuchtouristswhosetravelitinerarythemuseumhasaffectedbutwhohavealsoothertargetsontheirtrip.
Aquestioninthequesti-26onnaireofthisstudyexaminedtheimportanceofthemuseumwhenmakingthetraveldecision.
Itasksthetouristtosayifthemuseumistheprimarydestinationofthetrip,oneofthemostimportantorifithasalesserimportance(Appendix2).
Spendingoftouristsotherthanthosewhoconsideredthemuse-umtheirprimarydestinationincreasesthedemandoftouristservicesandactivitiesrelatedtothem,butthisspendingisconsidered'inastreamlinedway'forthepartofitsregionaleconomicimpact.
Hence,e.
g.
spendingofsuchatouristwhosetravelitinerarycontainsmanydestinationsisonlypartiallyincluded.
Inpractice,thisoccurssuchthat,whenassessingtheeconomicimpacts,weincludedthetotalspendingfortouristswhoconsideredthemuseumtheirprimarydestination,75%ofspendingforthoseforwhomthemuseumwasaconsiderablefactor,50%ofspendingfortho-sewhoconsideredthemuseumoneoftheaffectingfactors,and25%ofspendingforthosewhoconsideredthemuseumalesserfactor.
Ifthemuseumwasnotafactorinthetraveldecision,thevisitorisconsi-deredtohavenoeconomicimpactbeyondtoticketpurchaseandanyotherspendingatthemuseum.
ThismatterwillbediscussedinmoredetailinChapter5.
1.
4.
Centralobservationsrelatedtoenquiryinthisstudy4.
1BackgroundinformationofrespondentsInconnectionwiththisstudy,weimplementedanenquiryparticularlyrelatedtothespendingofmuseumvisitors(Appendix2).
Wedelive-redatotalof29,200questionnairesinFinnish,SwedishandEnglishtothemembermuseumsoftheFinnishMuseumsAssociation(196museums).
Somewhatover6,500ofthequestionnaireswerereturneddulycompleted.
Abouttwothirdsofthemuseumsparticipatedinthecollectionofthequestionnaires.
Somemuseumsnotifiedofanobstac-leincollectingthequestionnaires,suchasrenovationsetc.
Some85%ofrespondentswereFinnishinhabitants.
Intheshareofforeignrespondents(15%),themostcommoncountriesoforiginwerethecountriesoftheEuropeanUnion(Sweden,GreatBritain,Germany,France,theNetherlands),thenRussiaandtheUnitedStatesofAmeri-ca(Appendix1:TableK).
MuseumvisitorslivingabroadwereslightlyyoungerthantheFinnishvisitorsandusedconsiderablymoremoneyforthewholetripthandomesticvisitors.
Underotherheadings,theycorrespondedwiththeaveragemuseumvisitoroftheirbackground.
27Asforbackgroundinformation,thedistributionoftheenquirycor-respondedtothatofanearlierstudy,theNationalVisitorSurvey2011.
Backgroundinformationon,interalia,age,genderandeducationsup-porttheviewthattherespondentsofthisenquiryrepresenttypicalmuseumvisitors.
TablesA–LintheAppendixshowthedistributionoftherepliesinrelationtobackgroundvariablesand,asacomparison,weincludedthecorrespondingdistributionsofthosereceivedfromtheNationalVisitorSurvey2011(FinnishMuseumsAssociation2012).
Observationsofpreviousdomesticandforeignstudiesonthemu-seumvisitors'educationandincomelevelbeinghigherthantheave-ragearerepeated.
Theageandgenderdistributionsalsocorrespondtoearlierfindings.
Asfigures,thiscanbesimplifiedbystatingthat,inthisstudy,64%ofmuseumvisitorswerewomen,thelargestsinglerespondentagegroupwasthatof56–65years,60%hadahigher(40%)orlower(20%)academicdegreeand43%ofrespondentsweremanage-rial,expertorclericalemployees(Appendix1,TablesA–L).
Accordingtosomepreviousstudies,thehigheducationlevelpro-videsagoodopportunitytobenefitfromandenjoytheexhibitioninthemuseum.
Thelowereducationlevel,again,wasconsideredtobeconnectedwithlesserinterestinculture(e.
g.
Klein1990,Blau1989).
Thehigheducationlevelalsorelatestothehigherincomelevelthantheaverage,whichfurtherleadstospendinggreaterthantheaverageduringthetrip(Aarsmanetal.
2012:60).
Basedonthis,touristsinter-estedinmuseumvisitsaremorelikelytospendmoremoneyduringtheirtripthanothers.
Onthebasisoftheenquiryimplementedinconnectionwiththisstudy,educationandprofessionalstatushaveaverylargeeffectonspendingduringatrip.
Ontheirmuseumtrips,personshavingahigheracademicdegreespendamultipleoftheamountofmoneycomparedwiththoselesseducated.
Table1providesageneralviewontheeffectofeducationonspendingduringthemuseumtrip.
Similarfindings,butpartiallywithmoreextremedifferences,areshowninTableJattheendofthisreport(cf.
Appendix1).
Thesedataonspendingarenotverysurprisingassuch,buttheirimportancetothemuseumsandservicesupplierscanbesignificant.
Museumvisitorseducatedbetterandha-vingprofessionswithbetterincomethantheaveragepersonprovidemanypossibilitiesforactorsinthetouristindustry.
28Table1.
Respondents'spendingduringthetriprelatedtomuseumvisitaccordingtoeducationbackground.
EducationSpendingonaverageperresponseRespondentsComprehensiveschool140,52481Vocationaltraining181,10581Secondaryschool277,32594Uppersecondaryschoolgraduate218,32877Loweracademicdegree365,841340Higheracademicdegree436,842612Allonaverage333,126485MostoftherespondentslivedinthetownsofsouthernFinland,whichalsocorrespondstothegeneraldistributionofpopulation.
Ofthem,30%livedatadistanceoflessthan20kmfromthemuseumand40%atadistanceoflessthan50km.
Slightlyover40%ofrespondentslivedatadistanceofover150km.
Some17%ofrespondentsarrivedinthemu-seumalone.
Some78%travelledwithfriends,acquaintancesorfamilymembers.
Onlyabout5%ofrespondentswereonagrouptrip,withcolleaguesorothercompanions.
Thesedistributionsalsocorrespondtotheonesinpreviousstudies.
Overall,98%ofrespondentswerecon-tentwiththeirmuseumvisit.
ThefigureintheNationalVisitorSurvey2011was99%.
4.
2TraveldecisionrelatedtomuseumvisitAninterestingfindingfromthebasicdistributionsoftherepliesisthereasonforthemuseumvisit.
About22%ofrespondentsstatedthatthereasonfortheirtripwasthemuseumvisit.
Mostrespondentshadmanyreasons,but29%ofrespondentssaidthatthemuseumvisithadnoimportancewhenmakingthetraveldecision(Table2).
Intheseca-ses,thevisittothemuseumwasnotprearrangedandthemuseumvisitonlysupplementedtheothertravelitinerary.
Table2.
Importanceofmuseuminmakingtraveldecision.
ImportanceofmuseuminmakingtraveldecisionShare(N=6,430)Museumwasthemostimportantfactor22%Museumwasoneofthemostimportantfactors17%Museumvisitwasonefactor,butnotthemostimportant13%Museumvisitwaspartoftravelitinerary19%Museumvisitdidnotaffectthetraveldecision29%Total100%29Thecontentsoftheothertravelitineraryaredescribedbythedistri-butionofresponsesinthequestionpertainingtocombiningmuseumvisitsandothertypesoftourism.
Almostathirdoftherespondentssaidthattheyhadvisitedrelativesduringthetrip(30%).
Justovereveryfifthrespondentwasonacitybreak(21%)oraroundtrip(18%)whichincludedmanydestinationsorvisitstomanymuseumsduringthetrip(17%).
Avisittosomeotherculturaldestination(9%),atriptothesum-merhouse(7%)andavisittoafunparkortoaspa(4%)wasrarerthantheaboveaswellasmuseumvisitsonawork-relatedtrip(7%).
4.
3TripdurationandtransportmeansFewerthaneverysecondmuseumvisitorwasonaday-triptothemu-seum(Table3).
Afifthofrespondentsspentashortbreakorawee-kendatthelocationand26%ofrespondentswereonalongertrip.
Thespendingofday-visitorswassmallerthanthatofotherrespondents.
Thelargestspendingperdaywasthatofmuseumvisitorswhosetriplasted1–3days.
Itseemsthat,onweekendtripsorotherwiseshorttrips,thedailyspendingwasgreaterduetoaccommodationandfoodandbeveragesratherthanthatofday-visitors,butstilllessthanontripslastingmorethanfourdays.
Onlongertrips,thedailyaccommo-dationcostsseemtobesmallerthanthoseofweekend-visitors,mostlikelybecausesoastosaveoncosts,peoplecompromiseinaccom-modationwheninlong-termaccommodation.
Anotheroptionisthat,onlongertrips,partofaccommodationcostsareforgottenortheyarehardtoestimatewhencompletingthequestionnaire.
Probably,thisisthecaseofboth.
Table3.
Distributionofmuseum-visitorrespondentsaccordingtototaltripduration.
Distributionofmuseum-visitorrespondentsaccordingtototaltripdurationShare(N=6,343)Day-trip54%Tripduration1–3days19%Tripduration4–7days12%Tripdurationoveraweek14%Total100%Mostofmuseumvisitors(56%)hadusedacarontheirtrip.
Athirdofrespondentshadusedabusoratrainand17%ofrespondentshadar-rivedbybicycleorwalked.
Some9%ofrespondentshadusedaplaneoraship.
Thefrequencyofcaruserswasexpectedwhenknowingthelargepartithasinthetotalamountofpassengertransport(FinnishTransportAgency2012).
Infact,bus,trainandbicyclevisitorswereabitoverrepresentedcomparedwiththecarvisitorsinthevariouscho-icesoftransportmeansusedbythemuseumvisitors.
305.
AssessingeconomicimpactofmuseumvisitsCromptonetal.
(2001:80)statedthatiffiveresearchersofregionaleconomywereaskedtoevaluatetheeconomicimpactsoftourism,theywouldgivefivedifferentresponses(eventhoughofthesameor-der)whichwouldbeallequallyreasoned.
Thisreportsupportsthisviewastwodifferentapproachesutilisingthesamedataproducedif-ferentresults.
Chapter5.
1dealswithaconservativeassessmentofmu-seumvisitors'spendinginthelocalitycalculatedbyusingallpossibledeductionmultipliers.
InChapter5.
2,thesamedataisapproachedbymeansofstatisticalmodelswhichgiveslightlylargerestimationsthantheaboveonspendingrelatedtothemuseumvisitors'trip.
Ononehand,thedifferenceisbasedonthedifferentapproach;ontheotherhand,onthedifferentmethods.
Chapter5.
2alsodiscusseswhatkindoffactorsaffectthespendingofmuseumvisitors.
Throughtheseapproaches,itispossibletoassesstheeconomicim-pactthemuseumvisitshaveonregionaleconomies.
Itisnotpossibletocalculateanexactfigurebecause,inadditiontodefiningmotives,aproblemliesintheconceptuallimitationoftourism,aquestionwhichwasdiscussedinChapter2.
Thus,tourismalsohasanimpactonin-dustriesotherthanthosederivingtheirlivingfromtourism.
5.
1Regionaleconomicimpactofmuseumvisitors'spending(minimum)DistributionsshowninTables1–3aboveandTablesA–L(Appendix1)andtheabove-mentioneddistancefromhometothemuseumwereusedwhenassessingtheregionaleconomicimpactsofmuseumvisi-tors.
First,themuseumvisitsoflocalinhabitants(distancefromhomelessthan20km)weretotallyexcludedfromthisminimumcalculation.
Thereareseveralviewsthatthemuseumvisitsbylocalinhabitantshavenoimpactinincreasingtheregionaldemand,becausetheinha-bitantsspendmostoftheirincomeregionallyinanycase(Armbrecht2013,Crompton2006).
Forthosevisitorswhosetraveldecisionwasnotaffectedbythemu-seumvisit,theirspendingisalsonotincludedotherthanforthepartoftheirspendinginthemuseum.
Ifthemuseumvisitwasthemostimportantfactoraffectingthetrip,thespendingofthevisitorwascon-sideredtobetotallyinducedbythemuseumvisit.
Forotheroptions,wedecidedtoutiliseequidistantpercentagesof75,50and25.
Proportioningspendingtodifferenttargetsissomewhatarbitrary,becauseunderstandingpersons'motivesandgeneralisingthemtoapplytothegroupofmillionsofmuseumvisitorsisimpossible–orat31least,givinganexactnumericalvalueisextremelydifficult.
Theabovesimplificationaimsatajustifiedassessmentonthetotalimpactofmuseum-visitingtouristsontheregionaleconomy.
Furthermore,wetrytoavoidthepossibilityofevaluatingtheimpacttoogreat.
Figure5explainsapproachestotheassessmentofthespendingofmuseumvisitorsanddecisionsmadeintheassessment.
Figure5.
Evaluatingregionaltotalimpactofthespendingofmuseumvisitorsbasedondataacquiredinenquiry.
TotalspendingofmuseumvisitorsTourists(over20km)a)especiallyarrivedinthemuseumb)themuseumisanimportantdestinationc)themuseumisoneofdestinationsd)themuseumispartoftravelitinerarye)themuseumdidnotaffecttraveldecisionLocalinhabitantsf)theirspendingdoesnotincreaseregionaltotaldemandShareofmuseumvisitors'totalspendingwhichincreasesregionaltotaldemanda)100%ofspendingrelatedtothemuseum,5%oftotalspending(totallevel)b)75%ofspendingrelatedtothemuseumtrip,11%oftotalspendingc)50%ofspendingrelatedtothemuseumtrip,12%oftotalspendingd)25%ofspendingrelatedtothemuseumvisit,31%oftotalspendinge)onlyspendingatthemuseumincluded,41%oftotalspendingf)spendingrelatedtothemuseumvisitexcludedtotallyErrorcausedbyforgetfulnessanddifficultiesinevaluatingcostsDeductingspendingallocatedoutsidetheregion(travelticketsetc.
).
Impactincreasingtheregionaleconomycalculatedpermuseumvisitorisabout32.
80.
Thiscanbemultipliedbytheregionalmultipliereffectof1.
2–1.
5.
32Theexactnessofassessingspendingisweakenedbyforgetfulness(seeChapter3.
1).
Therespondentsdonotrememberallcostsincurreddu-ringthetrip.
Furthermore,itispossiblethat,onthesameorthefollo-wingday,somecostsincurwhicharerelatedtothemuseumtripbutarenotknownduringthemuseumvisititselforcannotbeestimatedintotal.
Thiserrorcanbetensofpercentagesintheoverallrespondentgroupand,insingleresponses,itcanbeevengreaterthanthis.
Anothercentralproblemofthereliabilityofthedataisrelatedtothefacthowgreatanimportancethemuseumvisithadintheendtothetraveldecisionandhowwellthegeneralisationmadebythere-searchersontheresponsescoincidewithreality.
Itcanbeconsideredpossiblethattheimportanceofthemuseumasabackgroundfactorinthetraveldecisionhasbeenabitoverestimatedwhenreplyingtotheenquiry,butthisproblemofoverestimationcanbeassumedsmallerthantheproblemofforgettingcosts.
Becausetherespondentscomp-letedthequestionnairesalone,withoutaresearcherorinterviewerpresent,no'pleasingoftheinterviewer'sometimescharacteristicofpersonalinterviewsoccurredinthiscase(e.
g.
Muurimki2010).
WhenthedataareexaminedinawayshownaboveinFigure5,wehaveanassessmentofwhattheeconomicimpactofanindividualmu-seumvisitorisinthelocalityofthemuseum.
Spendinginformationofrespondentsintheenquiryareexaminedherewiththeresultthat,basedonthem,wegetaconservativeminimumassessmentoftheimpactofmuseumvisits.
Intheexamination,wedeductedfromthetotalspendingthesharewhichcanbeconsideredtotakeplaceinanycaseorwhichisallocatedbasedonseveralfactorsaffectingthetraveldecision.
Museumvisitorshavingrespondedtotheenquirysaidtheyhadspentduringtheirtripsatotalofabout2,164,000,thatis,about333perrespondent.
About3%oftherespondents'spendingconsistedofpurchasesmadebylocalinhabitants.
Thissharewastotallyexcluded,becausethelocalinhabitantscanbeassumedtospendtheirmoneyinthelocalregionofthemuseuminanycase.
Also,suchcostsrelatedtothetripwereexcludedwhichweredirectedatpurchasesoutsidethelocalityofthemuseum,suchastravelticketsandmainlyalsofuels.
Thetravelticketsweretotallyconsideredacostitemrelatedoutsidetheregion,eventhoughe.
g.
theticketsoflocaltrafficaredemanddi-rectedatthelocaleconomy.
Thelocalshareoffuelcostswasestima-tedtobe10%.
ThelargestdeductionofthespendingofmuseumvisitorswasdonebasedonthetravelmotivesstatedaccordingtoFigure5.
Ifthetripwouldhavebeenmadewithoutthemuseumvisit,theincreaseofthelocaldemandwasonlytheadmissionfeeandotherspendinginthemuseum.
Ifthemuseumvisitwasconsideredimportantforthetra-veldecision,themultiplierwasincreasedaccordingtoFigure5.
Ifthemuseumvisitwastheonlyormostimportanttargetofthetrip,the33spendingwascalculatedtotallycausedbythemuseumvisit(100%)andfromthatfurtherdecreasingthemultiplieraccordingtothemo-tiveforthetrip.
Basedonthesecalculations,thetotalspendingofrespondentswas72.
20perquestionnairecompleted.
Whenthissumwasdividedbythefigureof2.
2(thenumberofvisitorstheresponseincluded),weobtainedvisitor-specificspendingrelatedtothemuseumvisit,i.
e.
32.
80Theimpactevaluatedperamuseumvisitor,growingtheregio-naleconomywascalculatedsuchthatitrevealstheamountofmoneyforwhichthemuseumvisithasanimpactonthelocality.
Fromit,weexcludedlocalvisitors,theimpactofotherresortsandspendingoutsidetheregion.
Furthermore,whenwerealisethatthemuseumvisitorsdonotrememberallcostsrelatedtothetripwhencompletingthequestionnaire,wecanstatethattheevaluationmentionedhereisprobablyanunderestimation.
Itcanstillbeusedasasortofminimum,basedonwhich,itispossibletoassesstheimpactofmuseumsintheeconomicdevelopmentoftheirlocality.
5.
2Regression-basedestimationonmuseumvisitors'spendingThischapterassessesthespendingofmuseumvisitorsbymeansofastatisticalmodel.
Themodelisanalternativetothecalculationsabovewhichcatersforvariousbackgroundfactorsinamoreversatileway.
InChapter5.
1,thecalculationswereparticularlyaffectedbythepercei-vedimportanceofthemuseumvisitandthetraveldistancefromthevisitor'shometothemuseum.
Furthermore,weadjustedtravelandfuelcoststoaccountforthosecostsrelateddirectlytothemuseumvi-sit.
Thisfurtherrefinedestimationalsotakesintoaccountthetripdu-ration,thevisitor'ssatisfactionwiththemuseumvisit,theeducationbackgroundofthemuseumvisitor,andotherbroaderreflectiveeffects.
Thedependentvariableisthemuseum-visitspendingofrespondentswhichwasanalysedseparatelyforday-visitorsandovernight-stayingvisitors.
Afterpreliminaryestimations,wedecidedtoselectthefollo-wingindependentvariablestoexplainthespending:museumvisitor'seducationdistancefromvisitor'shometothemuseumsatisfactionwithmuseumvisitimportanceofthemuseumwhenmakingthetraveldecisionregionwherethemuseumislocatedmuseumvisitor'stravellingcompanion(alone/withsomeone)Intheregressionmodelling,wedecidedtodividetherespondentsintotwogroupsbasedonthembeingday-visitorsorbeingovernight-34stayingvisitors.
Table4showstheresultsoftheordinaryleastsquares(OLS)estimationswhentheabovevariablesareincludedintheregres-sionequations.
1Table4.
RegressionanalysesoffactorsaffectingspendingonmuseumtripVariablesDay-tripLongertripSecondaryeducation0.
255***0.
148(3.
45)(1.
24)Loweracademicdegree0.
403***0.
0471(5.
15)(0.
40)Higheracademicdegree0.
565***0.
340**(8.
20)(3.
19)Tripduration0.
298***0.
474***(19.
82)(20.
95)Verysatisfied0.
227***0.
0247(4.
47)(0.
34)Museumimportant0.
528*1.
835*(2.
20)(2.
51)Museumveryimportant0.
2721.
630*(1.
15)(2.
23)Metropolitanarea(museumlocation)0.
09740.
464***(1.
44)(5.
22)Tampere,Turku,Oulu,Lahti(museumlocation)0.
198*0.
423***(2.
22)(4.
00)Medium-sizetown(museumlocation)i)0.
1250.
0816(1.
69)(0.
90)Severalmuseumvisitors0.
288***0.
144(4.
62)(1.
57)Constant1.
147***0.
417(4.
56)(0.
56)Numberofobservations23071472MultiplecoefficientofdeterminationR20.
2050.
270*significance5%,**significance1%,***significance0.
1%;absolutet-valuesinparentheses1Thedependentvariableofspendingandtheindependentvariableoftriplengthareinthelogarithmicform.
Otherindependentvariablesareindicatorvariables.
Theircoeffi-cientsrevealtherelativechangeinspendingcomparedwiththecontrolgroup.
Inedu-cation,thecontrolgroupiscomprehensiveschooland,intheregionindicator,ruralarea.
Intheirorderbypopulationdensity(population/km2),medium-sizeFinnishtownsub-regionsareKuopio,Lohja,Porvoo,Jyvskyl,Kotka-Hamina,southernPirkanmaa,Riihi-mki,Pori,Rauma,Vaasa,andHmeenlinna.
35ThefirstcolumnofTable4includestheindependentvariables,these-condcolumnthecoefficientsproducedbytheregressionforday-visi-torsandthethirdcolumnthecoefficientsproducedbytheregressionforthosebeingonalongertrip.
Basedonthecoefficientofdetermina-tionofthemodel,theindependentvariablesexplain20%–27%ofvaria-tioninspending.
Table5includesvaluesgivenforthevariablesbasedontheestimationresultswhichmeasuretheirimpactonspending.
Theyarevaluesbywhichthespendingofvisitorsineuroismultipliedinordertoapproachthetotalregionalimpactofspendingonthebasisofreasoningbelow.
Accordingtotheempiricalanalysis,thelargerthespendingis,thehighertherespondent'seducationis.
Thisismostlyaffectedbytheincomelevelofpersonshavinganacademicdegreebeinghigherthanthatoftheaverageperson.
InTable4(day-trip),thecoefficient0.
565ofthehighestacademicdegreemeansthat,whiletheotherindepen-dentvariablesareheldfixed,museumvisitorshavingahigheracade-micdegreeuse56.
5%moremoneythanthosehavingacomprehensiveeducation(thereferencegroup).
Fortheloweracademicdegree,thecorrespondingfigureis40.
3%andthatofthesecondaryeducationis25.
5%.
Thehigheracademicdegreewasgiventhecoefficientof1and,fromitdownwards,thecoefficientsweredecreasedaccordingtotheregression.
Thevalueoftheloweracademicdegreewassetto0.
85andthevalueofsecondaryeducationwassetto0.
75.
Forpersonsonalon-gertrip,thereisnodifferenceinspendingbasedontheregressioniftherespondenthasaloweracademicdegreeorsecondaryeducation,wherebytheircoefficientisthesame,0.
8.
Asstatedabove,educationcanimprovethevisitor'sopportunitytounderstandthemeaningofthemuseumandtoappreciatethemuseumvisitabove'thecostoftheticketandacupofcoffee'.
Inadditiontotheirhighereducationlevel,thelargerspendingoftheeducatedcanbeexplainedbythemuseumaddingtotheattractivenessoftheregionandattractingmoreeduca-tedpeoplehavingasolidfinancialstandingtothelocality.
Satisfactionwiththemuseumvisitincreasesspendinginconnec-tionwiththemuseumvisitandtheprobabilitytovisitthemuseumagain.
Basedontheregression,day-visitorstravellingalonewhowereverysatisfiedwiththemuseumvisitspentclearlymoremoneydu-ringtheirvisit(theestimatedcoefficientis0.
227i.
e.
thosebeingverysatisfiedwiththeirvisitspend22.
7%moremoneyduringtheirtripthanthosenotsosatisfied).
Thevaluecorrectionoftheverysatisfiedrespondentswassetto1.
23.
Thesamewasnotobservedinthegroupofthoseverysatisfiedovernight-stayingmuseumvisitors(estimatedcoefficient0.
0247).
Theirsatisfactionseemstohavenoeffectonspen-dingduringmuseumvisits.
36Table5.
Impactofmuseumvisitonspendingandfactorsaffectingit.
COEFFICIENTSDay-visitorsOvernightersEducationHigheracademicdegree11Loweracademicdegree0,850,8Secondaryeducation0,750,8SatisfactionwithvisitVerysatisfied1,231Otherdegreesofsatisfaction11ImportanceofmuseumintraveldecisionMuseumveryimportant11Museumimportant0,670,67Museumhadnoimportance00MuseumlocationMetropolitanarea0,91Tampere,Turku,Oulu,Lahti11Medium-sizetown0,90,6Others0,90,6Travellingcompanion(s)Alone11Severaltravellers0,40,4FuelcostsLessthan20km0,50,520-50km0,30,350-200km0,20,2>200km0,10,1TravelticketcostsLessthan20km0,50,520-50km0,30,350-200km0,20,2>200km0,10,1Theimportanceofthemuseumwhenmakingthetraveldecisionwasreplacedbythreecategoriesinthismodel.
Thefollowingcoefficientsweregiven:museumveryimportant=1,museumimportant=0.
67andmuseumhadnoimportance=0.
Inthiscase,theestimationre-sultsgivealargerspendingcausedbythemuseumvisitthanthefive-categorydivisionofChapter5.
1.
Thissmallerdownwardcorrectionofspendingbasedontheimportanceofthemuseumvisitcanbejus-tifiedbythefactthatthoseday-visitorswhoconsiderthemuseum37visitimportantactuallyspendmoremoneyonthetripthanthosewhoconsiderthemuseumvisitveryimportant.
Forthespendingofthosewhostatedthatthemuseumhadnoimportancewhenmakingthetraveldecision,thevaluewasstillsettozeroinorderforthemnottoincreasethetotalspendingofthosewhoarrivedintheregionbecauseofthemuseum(Table5).
Thelocationofthemuseumaffectsspendingparticularlyonlongertrips.
Thisisdependentonhowmanyotherattractivedestinationstheregionhas.
Inthemetropolitanarea,thespendingwas46.
5%and,inotherlargetowns(Tampere,Turku,Oulu,Lahti),42.
3%largerthanthatinsmallertowns.
Amuseumvisitonlongertripsinlargesub-regionsthusincreasesspendingconsiderablymorethaninsmallerlocalities.
Forthisreason,thevalueoflargetownsis1andthatofmedium-sizetownsub-regionslower(0.
6).
Onday-trips,theestimatesofTampere,Turku,OuluandLahtiareslightlylarger(estimationcoefficient0.
210)thanthoseofothersub-regions(0.
101and0.
126).
Thisiswhytheirva-luewassetto1andthatoftheothers0.
9.
Onday-trips,itisthusassu-medthatthemuseumvisitbenefitstheactualmuseumlocationmorewhenthemuseumislocatedinTampere,Turku,OuluorLahti.
Whenconsideringthenumberofvisitors,itshouldbenoticedthat,infact,therearemorevisitorswhosespendingisstudiedthanthe-rearequestionnairescompleted.
Thecoefficientofpersonstravellingaloneis1and,ifthereareseveralpersonsonthetrip,thecoefficientisdeceasedsoastobeabletoincludethespendingofonerespondent.
Thespendingofchildrenisassumedtobehalfthatofthespendingofanadult.
Thus,twochildrenequaloneadulthere.
Thevalue0.
4revealsthat,inthequestionnairesofseveralvisitors,thereareonaverage2.
5respondentsperquestionnaireorthatthisisafamilyofparentsandonechild.
Whenthevaluesofallcoefficientsarecombined,theresultis0.
45.
Whenthetotaldataareconsidered,eachquestionnairecorres-pondswiththesameassumptionof2.
2personsperreplyasintheas-sessmentofChapter5.
1.
Thisvalueisusedforcorrectingthespendingproducedbyothervariables.
Fuelandtravelexpenseswerealsoseparatelyconsideredinthiscalculation.
Thesearevariablesembeddedintheregressionwhichcor-rectthespendingbyexcludingfuelandtravelcostswhichareallo-catedoutsidetheregion.
Thefuelandtravelexpenseswereincludedsuchthat50%wasincludedfromthosehavingtravelledlessthan20km,50%fromthosehavingtravelled20–50km,20%fromthosehavingtravelled50–200km,and10%fromthosehavingtravelledmorethan200km(Table5).
Whentheseassumptionsarecomparedwiththeto-talspending,theresultisthat,onaday-trip,83%and,onalongertrip,72%ofcostsareallocatedtotheregionaleconomy.
Aftersettingthecoefficients,wecalculatedforeachitemseparatelyhowthevaluecor-rectionsaffectspendinganditsallocation.
ThecoefficientsofTable5canbeappliedforeachreply.
Aftersetting38thecoefficients,wecalculatedhowthevaluecorrectionsaffectspen-dinganditsallocationperonemuseumvisitor.
Table6showsthesecalculationsforday-visitorsandTable7forovernight-stayingvisitors.
Table6.
Spendingofday-visitorspermuseumvisitoraftervaluecorrections.
Day-tripValuecorrectionSpendingNAllocationofspendingPervisitorTravellingAlone3176598912%9,66Severaltravellers188504290988%16,44EducationHigheracademicdegree97248132551%20,97Loweracademicdegree3981770416%12,53Secondaryeducation4814189820%12,25Comprehensiveschool3424197112%10,30SatisfactionVerysatisfied145003235675%17,45Otherdegreeofsatisfaction75266154225%10,89ImportanceMuseumveryimportant114579199971%18,85Museumimportant6732978929%19,70Museumhadnoimportance3836111100%0MuseumlocationMetropolitanarea95944163242%14,13Tre,Turku,Oulu,Lahti2734648214%16,66Medium-sizetown5692890929%17,98Others4405187516%13,00Moneyspent15,20Table6describesthespendingofday-visitors.
First,wecalculatedtherespondents'spending.
Forexample,respondentshavingahigheraca-demicdegreeonaday-tripspent97,248.
Thenextcolumnshowsthenumberoftheseobservations.
Thefollowingcolumnshowshowlar-geapartofspendingthevariableinquestioncomprises,consideringthevaluecorrectionssetabovebasedontheregressions.
Forexample,museumvisitorshavingahigheracademicdegreeareresponsibleforahalf(51%)ofallmoneyspent.
Thelastcolumnshowstheaveragespendingpervisitorwithinthevariableinquestion.
Thebottomrowshowsthespendingwhenallvariableswereincludedsimultaneously.
Basedonthis,theoutcomeisthateachday-visitorbringsonaverage15.
20totheregionofthemuseum.
Table7employsexactlythesameprincipleasTable6.
Theonlydifferenceisthatitconcernsrespondentsonalongertrip.
39Table7.
Spendingofvisitorsonatriplongerthan24hourspermuseumvisitoraftervaluecorrections.
OvernighttouristsValuecorrectionSpendingNDistri-butionofspendingPervisitorTravellingcompanion(s)Alone26914478116%75,34Severaltravellers1688632256684%73,50EducationHigheracademicdegree912268133658%99,42Loweracademicdegree45350666619%63,37Secondaryschool30848662115%55,55Comprehensiveschool1393687247%38,30SatisfactionVerysatisfied1161057195766%75,56Otherdegreeofsatisfaction796719139034%70,63ImportanceMuseumveryimportant25962556531%122,94Museumimportant851301127069%119,55Museumhadnoimportance84685015120%0RegionMetropolitanarea78954496546%116,10Tre,Turku,Oulu,Lahti33178750122%102,85Medium-sizetown39638086216%42,66Others440066101916%42,56Moneyspent73,80Valuesusedarecoefficientsforvisitorsonalongertripjustifiedabo-veinthischapter.
Whenallmoneyspentconsideringthevaluecoef-ficientshasbeencalculated,theresultisthateachvisitoronalongertripbringsonaverage73.
80totheregion.
InChapter5.
1,wedidnotseparateday-visitorsfromthoseonalongertrip.
Wehavedoneitinthischapterinordertoobtainamoreaccurateideaonhowthedurationofthetripaffectsspending.
Wit-houtdividingtherespondentsintoday-visitorsandovernight-stayingvisitors,theaverageamountofmoneybroughtbyeachvisitortotheregionwas49.
40.
406.
Activityofmuseumsandimpactofmuseumvisitorsonregionaleconomies6.
1ActivityofmuseumsthemselvesIn2012,thetotalfundingofFinnishmuseumswas219million.
Ofthis,theshareofgovernmentfundingwasabout93millionwhichisabout43%ofthetotalfundingofmuseums.
Othercentralfinanciersweremunicipalitieswhoseshareinfundingwas75million(34%).
Withtheirownindependentfunding,museumswereresponsibleforabout15%ofoverallfunding,andtheshareofotherfinancierswasabout8%(NationalBoardofAntiquities2013).
Some48%ofthespendingbymuseumswasallocatedtosalariesand31%topropertycosts.
Othercostsclaimedabout20%ofthetotalexpenditure.
Theshareofcollectionspurchaseswasabout1%ofthetotalexpenditure.
Thesalariesandpropertycoststhereforecametoabout80%oftheexpenditureofmuseums.
Thisisasignificantpieceofinformationasparticularlylabourandpropertycostsaremostlyallo-catedtotheregionaleconomyand,duetothis,theyhaveconsiderableregionaleconomicimpactsassuch.
Figure6.
Channellingofactivityofmuseumsthemselvesinregionaleconomy.
Anexampleofthetransferofmuseumexpenditureintotheactivityofaregionaleconomy.
Percentagesofcostallocationarebasedonapreviousstudydealingwithapublic-sectoragent(Vainio2012).
Thestudyassessedtheallocationoftaxes,rents,servicepurchasesandotheracquisitionswithintheregionandoutsideit.
TheincomeandexpendituredataofmuseumswerecollectedfromtheMuseumStatistics2012(NationalBoardofAntiquities2013).
Museumexpenditure219.
2MIndependentfunding33.
3MMunicipalfunding75.
1MOtherfunding18.
0MPersonnelexpenditure105.
5Mtoregion65%Propertyexpenditure66.
8Mtoregion50%Otherexpenditure44.
2Mtoregion20%Collectionsacquisitions2.
7Mtoregion0%Incomestreamtoregionaleconomies,total110.
4MperyearSalariesandlocaltaxes68.
6MRentsandtaxes33.
4MServiceproviders8.
4MSuppliers0.
0MGovernmentfunding92.
8M41Asunitswhicharemostlyfundedbythegovernment,museumshaveamoderatelylargeimpactontheirlocalregions,becausemostpartofmuseumincomeisusedregionally.
Ifmuseumsarestudiedasoneentity,itcanbestatedthattheiractivitybringsanadditionalincomeofover100millionasdirecteconomicimpactstotheregionsofthemuseums.
Themultipliereffectoftheregionaleconomyincreasesthisimpacttobetween22and55millionatanationallevel.
6.
2RegionaleconomicimpactofmuseumvisitorsWehavethreedifferentapproachestotheregionaleconomicimpactofmuseums.
Impactsrelatedtotheactivityofthemuseumsthemsel-vesareformedinthewaydescribedinChapter6.
1.
Fromthetotalex-penditureofmuseums,weseparatedashareallocatedtotheregionaleconomywhichisstudiedassuchandthroughitsmultipliereffectsontheregionaleconomy.
Here,museumvisitors'spendingoutsidethemuseumwastotallyexcluded.
Weaddedtotheevaluationthusacquiredtheincreaseindemandbroughtbymuseumvisitorsinthelocationofthemuseum.
Wedidthisbyusingtheresultsoftwodifferentmethodsandobtainedacon-servativeassessmentofminimumspendingandaslightlylargeresti-mationbasedonstatisticalanalysesonthetotaleconomicimpactofmuseums.
Table8.
Impactofactivityofmuseumsthemselvesontotaldemandofregionalecono-mies.
Demandoutsidetheregionisexcludedfromtheexpenditureofmuseums.
ThisisexplainedinmoredetailinChapter6.
Increaseintotaldemandintheregionismultip-liedbytheminimumvalue1.
2andthemaximumvalue1.
5ofregionalmultipliereffect.
ExpenditureofmuseumsETotalexpenditure219000000Expenditureallocatedtoregion110400000Increaseintotaldemandmultipliedbyregionaleconomymultiplier1.
2132480000Increaseintotaldemandmultipliedbyregionaleconomymultiplier1.
5165600000AccordingtoTable8,theactivityofthemuseumsthemselvesincrea-sesthespendingallocatedtothelocationofthemuseumsbyatotalof110millionannually.
AccordingtoChapter6.
1,thespendingisallo-catedmainlyassalaries,taxesandpaymentsreceivedbyotherserviceproviderstothelocationofthemuseum.
Thisincreaseindemandhasmultipliereffectsthemagnitudeofwhichincreasesthetotalimpactby20%–50%.
Hence,theactivityofmuseumsincreaseseconomicacti-vityinthelocationsofmuseumsbyabout132–166millionannually.
42Table9showstheevaluationaccordingtotheminimumcalcula-tion(seeChapter5.
1)onthetotalimpactofmuseumsintheregionaleconomyoftheirlocations.
In2012,thetotalvisitornumberofmu-seumswas5.
3million.
Aconservativeevaluationontheaveragetotalspendingofmuseumvisitorswas32.
80pervisitor.
Basedonthesefigures,weobtainthetotaleconomicimpactprovidedbymuseumvi-sitorswhichisabout174million.
Whenweaddthemultipliereffectofregionaleconomytothissum,thetotalimpactofmuseumvisitorsisbetween209and261million.
Thistotalassessmentisprobablybelowtheactualincreaseindemand,becausethemuseumvisitors'spendingwasevaluatedhereconservativelytoshowtheminimumimpactsofmuseumvisits.
Table9.
Increaseintotaldemandcreatedbymuseumvisitorsinthelocationofmu-seums.
Thisevaluationisbasedonaconservativeassessmentinwhichallsuchspen-dingwhichcanbeallocatedtosomeotherregionorcouldbeallocatedtotheregionaleconomywithouttheactivityofthemuseumwasexcludedfromthespendingdata.
ThisisdescribedinmoredetailinChapter5.
1.
Totaldemandallocatedtotheregionismultip-liedbytheminimumvalue1.
2andthemaximumvalue1.
5ofregionalmultipliereffect.
Regionaleconomicimpacts(minimumcalculation)eMuseumvisitors'spending/visitor32,80Visitornumber5300000Increaseintotaldemandonlocalitiesofmuseums173840000Increaseintotaldemandmultipliedbyregionaleconomymultiplier1.
2208608000Increaseintotaldemandmultipliedbyregionaleconomymultiplier1.
5260760000InTable10,weviewtheincreaseintheregionaltotaldemandcrea-tedbytheactivityofmuseumsbymeansofregressions.
WeestimatedspendinginthewaydescribedinChapter5.
2andobtainedevaluationsabitlargerthanthoseoftheminimumcalculationabove.
Inthismo-del,weseparatedday-visitorsandovernight-stayingtouristsintotheirowngroupsand,furthermore,weevaluatedtheallocationofspendingtodifferenttargetsbasedonvariousbackgroundfactors.
Thespendingwasmostlyaffectedbyeducationandprofessionalstatus(andincomelevelrelatedtothem).
ThisclassificationisdescribedinmoredetailinChapter5.
2Thespendingofmuseumvisitorsonaday-tripwasabout15andthatofovernight-stayingvisitorswasabout74.
BasedonfiguresshowninTable10,itispossibletostatethatthetotaleconomicim-pactofmuseumssolelyduetothemuseumvisitors'spendingisintotalbetween266millionand333million.
Evaluationsdoneinthiswayaresomewhathigherthanintheminimummodelabove.
Basedonthisevaluation,theaveragemuseumvisitor'stotalspendingintheregionofthemuseumisintotalabout49(seeChapter5.
2),whilethefigureintheminimummodelisabout33(seeChapter5.
1).
Theactual43spending,andthustheregionaleconomicimpact,isprobablyclosertothefiguresofTable10.
Inthisevaluation,weincluded,interalia,localinhabitants'spendingwhich,intheabsenceoflocalmuseumsupply,couldbeallocatedtosomeotherregion.
Table10.
Increaseintotaldemandcreatedbymuseumvisitorsinthelocationofmu-seums.
TheevaluationisbasedonaregressionmodelwhichincludedfactorsaffectingtheamountofspendingaccordingtoChapter5.
2.
Totaldemandallocatedtotheregionismul-tipliedbytheminimumvalue1.
2andthemaximumvalue1.
5ofregionalmultipliereffect.
Regionaleconomicimpact(regressioncalculation)EMuseumvisitors'spending/day-visitor15,20Day-visitornumber2880000Day-visitors'spendingintotal43776000Museumvisitors'spending/overnight-stayingvisitor73,80Overnight-stayingvisitornumber2420000Overnight-stayingvisitors'spendingintotal178596000Increaseintotaldemandintotal222372000Increaseintotaldemandintotalmultipliedbyregionaleconomymultiplier1.
2266846400Increaseintotaldemandintotalmultipliedbyregionaleconomymultiplier1.
5333558000WhenthefiguresofTables8–10abovearetransferredtotheevaluationofthetotalregionaleconomicimpactofmuseums,itispossibletostu-dytheeconomicimpactofmuseumsinthelocationsofthemuseums.
Intheevaluationaccordingtotheminimumcalculation,themuseumsprovidetheirlocationsatleasttheadditionaldemandof341millionintotal.
Dependingonthemultiplierofregionaleconomyused,theim-pactinthiscalculationmodelcanbeatitsmost426million(Table11).
Table11.
Increaseintotaldemandcreatedbymuseumvisitorsinthelocationofmu-seums.
Thefiguresarebasedonaconservativeevaluation.
ThisisexplainedinmoredetailinChapter5.
1andinChapter6.
1.
Totaldemandallocatedtotheregionismultip-liedbytheminimumvalue1.
2andthemaximumvalue1.
5ofregionalmultipliereffect.
(M=millionsofeuro)ImpactofmuseumactivitytoregionImpactofvisitorstoregionIntotalMDirectspendingM110,4173,8284,2Multipliereffect1,21,51,21,51,21,5TotalimpactM132,5165,6208,6260,8341,1426,4LikeTable11,Table12showsthetotalimpactofmuseumsbuttheevaluationemployedstatisticalanalysesinthewaydescribedabove.
Basedonthisapproach,theestimatedtotaleconomicimpactwithits44multipliereffectsisbetween400and500millionannually.
Depen-dingontheapproach,thetotalimpactisthusbetween341and500million(Tables11and12).
Table12.
Increaseintotaldemandcreatedbymuseumvisitorsinthelocationofmu-seums.
Theevaluationisbasedonstatisticalanalyses.
ThisisexplainedinmoredetailinChapter5.
2andinChapter6.
1.
Totaldemandallocatedtotheregionismultipliedbytheminimumvalue1.
2andthemaximumvalue1.
5ofregionalmultipliereffect.
(M=millionsofeuro)ImpactofmuseumactivitytoregionImpactofvisitorstoregionIntotalMDirectspendingM110,4222,4332,8Multipliereffect1,21,51,21,51,21,5TotalimpactM132,5165,5266,8333,6399,3499,26.
3ImpactofforeignmuseumvisitorsonFinnisheconomyFromtheviewpointoftheFinnishnationaleconomy,economicim-pactofmuseumsbeingcomparablewithexportrevenuesarecreatedbythespendingofforeignvisitors.
About15%ofmuseumvisitorsareforeignand,formanyofthem,museumvisitsareacentralpartofthetravelitinerary.
Forforeignvisitors,theimportanceofthemuseumasadestination(movingspirit)issmallerthanfordomesticvisitors.
Whene.
g.
over20%ofdomesticmuseumvisitorsconsideredthemuseumastheirprimarydestination,therewasonlyabout6%oftheforeignres-pondentswhohadtravelledtoFinlandprimarilytovisitthemuseum.
About11%ofthemconsideredthemuseumhavinghadaconsiderableeffectonthetraveldecision.
Theseresultswereexpected,becauseatripabroadprobablycontainsmanydifferenttargetsanddestinations.
Hence,theimportanceofmuseumsassingledestinationsoftripstoFinlandissmallerthanasdestinationsfordomestictravel.
Despitetheabove,theeconomicimpactofforeignvisitorsisquitesignificant.
Thespendingofforeigntouristsperrespondentisconside-rablylargerthanthatofdomesticmuseumvisitors.
Partoftheirspen-dingisallocatedtotravelexpenses,whichhaveonlyapartialimpactontheFinnisheconomy,buttheirhotelandrestaurantexpensesseemtobeslightlyhigherthanthoseofdomesticovernight-stayingtourists.
Duetotheabovereasons,itisdifficulttoassesstheimpactoffo-reignmuseumvisitorsexactly.
Astartingpointofaconservativeeva-luationcanbethattheirspendingisatleastatthesamelevelasthespendingofanovernight-stayingdomesticvisitor.
Withtheseassump-tions,theincreaseintotaldemandbroughtbyforeigntouristsvisitingmuseums,relatedtotheactivityofthemuseumswouldbewithits45multipliereffectsbetween70and90million.
Thisevaluationisin-cludedintheaboveevaluationrelatedtoregionaleconomies.
There-fore,about15%–25%oftheeconomicimpactofmuseumsseemtobeprovidedbyforeignvisitors467.
SummaryandconclusionsMuseumsaresignificantculturaldestinations.
Theireconomicim-pactrelatesbothtomuseumsthemselvesandtoregionssurroundingthem.
Itwasalreadyknownpreviouslythatmostpartofmuseumvisitors'spendingrelatesoutsidethemuseumsthemselves.
Acentralobjectofthisstudywastofindouthowthemuseumvisitors'spen-dingaffectsregionaleconomiesandthewholenationaleconomyinFinland.
Basedonearlierstudies,thevisitorbaseofmuseumscontainsabout40%ofthewholepopulation.
Museumvisitorshavebetteredu-cationthattheaverageandtheyworkmoreoftenthattheaverageinmanagerial,expertorclericalprofessions.
Theirincomelevelishigherthantheaverage.
Theseobservationswererepeatedinaques-tionnaireimplementedinconnectionwiththisstudy.
Whenexamin-edbybackgroundvariables,therespondentgroupissimilarasinpre-viousquestionnairesformuseumvisitorsrealisedinFinland.
Forthisreason,wecanassumethatthequestionnairegivesarealisticpictureoftheactivityofatypicalmuseumvisitorinconnectionwiththetriprelatedtothemuseumvisit.
Theregionaleconomicimpactofmuseumsisbasedontheeco-nomicactivityofthemuseumsthemselvesandthespendingofthevisitorswhenonamuseumtrip.
Inthisstudy,weobservedthatabout3%–4%ofspendingoccurringinthemuseumvisitisallocatedtothemuseumitself.
Themainpartofmoneyonamuseumtripisspentfortravelling,eating,accommodation,shoppingetc.
Fromthis,wecan-notdrawsuchaconclusionthat96%ofspendingallocatedelsewherewasadditionalspendingcreatedbymuseumsintheregionsofthemuseumlocality.
Mostspendingrelatestoarrivinginthedestination,duetowhich,additionalspendingispartiallyallocatedoutsidetheregion.
Furthermore,museumtripshave,asitisthecaseinlifegene-rally,manyparalleltargets.
Suchtargetsincludedesiretospendfree-timeinthevicinityofthemuseum,meetingrelativesorfriendsoravisittosomeotherdestination.
Hence,itwouldbeerroneoustoclaimthatthewholespendingrelatedtothemuseumvisitwascreatedbythemuseum.
Tomeasuretheregionaleconomicimpact,weexcludedtheshareofmuseumvisitors'spendingwhichisallocatedoutsidetheregionandproportionedthespendinghavingoccurredonthemuseumtripaccordingtotheprimarymotiveofthetrip.
Travelticketsandfuelexpenseswereincludedintheassessmentonlyinalimitedway.
Weexaminedthemotivesofthetripsothat,ifthemuseumhadnoeffectonthetraveldecision,thespendingwasnotconsideredtohavebeencreatedbythemuseum.
Again,ifthemuseumwastheprimarydes-tinationandtravellingmotiveofthetrip,thewholespendingrelated47totheregionwasincludedintheassessment.
Inothercases,thevisi-tors'spendingwasconsideredpartiallyduetothemuseumvisit.
Theregionaleconomicimpactofmuseumvisitorswasexaminedbymeansoftwoapproaches.
Inasimpleminimummodel,wetotallyexcludedlocalinhabitantswhowouldspendmostoftheirmoneyintheregioneventhoughtheregionhadnomuseum.
Inthismodel,wedecreasedtheregionaleconomicimpactofsumsstatedbythemuse-umvisitorsconsiderably(seeChapter5.
1)usingreductioncoefficientsbasedon,interalia,factorsrelatedtothetripmotive.
Accordingtothisassessment,themuseumvisitorcreatesadditionaldemandaf-fectingtheregionaleconomythequantityofwhichisonaverage32.
80.
Thisfigureistheaverageofthespendingofday-visitorsandovernight-stayingtouristsanditdescribestheincreaseindemandintheregionaleconomycreatedbyonemuseumvisitor.
Inaalternativemodeltothepreviousone,datawerestudiedbymeansofstatisticalanalyses.
Alsointhisevaluation,weexcludedsuchspendingwhichwasallocatedoutsidethelocationofthemuse-umorinwhichthemuseumvisitdidnotaffectthetraveldecision.
Bymeansofthemodel,wedeterminedtourists'decision-makingrelatedtospendingandexaminedday-visitorsandovernighttouristssepara-tely(seeChapter5.
2).
Factorsincreasingspendingwere,interalia,thevisitor'seducation,tripduration,satisfactionwiththemuseumvisit,thelocationofthemuseum,andtravelcompanions;thespendingofthosetravellingalonewassmallerthanthosetravellingwithothers.
Accordingtotheassessmentutilisingstatisticalmodelling,theday-visitors'averagespendingintheregionwasestimatedtobe15.
20andthatofovernight-stayingtouriststobe73.
80.
Theavera-gespendingofallmuseumvisitorswasestimatedtobe49.
40.
Thisfigureishigherthanthatoftheaboveminimumassessment.
Thedifferenceisaresultofdifferencesinthestartingpointsoftheas-sessments.
Thestatisticalmodelalsoassessedanticipatedlong-termutilitiesofthemuseumvisit,suchashowsatisfactionwiththevisitaffectstheprobabilitytovisitthemuseumagainorhowtheimpactofthemuseumvisitofavisitorhavingahigherlevelofeducationcanbeestimatedtobegreaterthanthatofavisitorhavingalowerlevelofeducation.
Furthermore,theassessmentalsoconsideredthefactthatthespendingrelatedtovisitsinmuseumsinlargertownswillmoreprobablybenefittheregionaleconomythanthespendinginsmalltownswherethevisitdoesnotasprobablyincludeaccommo-dationorotherspending.
Allthesecalculationwerebasedontheeva-luationonhoweducation,satisfactionwiththemuseum,theimpor-tanceofthemuseumasadestinationorthelocationofthemuseumaffectthespending.
Whenassessingtheregionaleconomicimpactofasinglemu-seum,itisequallyjustifiabletouse(1)aminimummodelwhichproducesanevaluationbasedonminimumleveloftheimpactof48themuseumvisitors'spendingintheregionaleconomyor(2)anes-timationbasedonregressionsinwhichtheimpactisassessedmorebroadly.
Basedontheevaluationaccordingtotheregressionmodel,itwouldbepossibletopredictspendingifthebackgroundofthevisitorbaseofthemuseumwerewell-known.
Itshouldbestillnoticedthatthemodelexplainsonlyabitmorethanaquarterofthevariationinspending,whichispartiallyduetothefactthatthecontentsorquali-tyofthemuseumofferingswerenotconsideredintheassessment.
Inadditiontosinglemuseumvisitorsormuseums,itispossibletoassesstheeconomicimpactatanationallevelandexamine,basedonit,theutilitiesrelatedtomuseumactivityreceivedbyregionaleco-nomies.
Whenweknowthattheshareofmunicipalitiesofthetotalfundingofmuseumsisabout75millionandthetotalimpactofmu-seumvisitorsintheregionaleconomieswithmultipliereffectsisbet-ween340and500million,itcanbegeneralisedthatthemuseumsproducetotheirlocationsalmostsolelyastaxrevenuesthesumthemunicipalitieshaveinvestedinthem.
Furthermore,theyimprovetheemploymentandincomelevelintheregionandcreatewellbeingthroughthisinmanydifferentways.
Thisutilityisbothintellectualandeconomicanditislinkedwithimpactsrelatedtotheimageandreputationoftheregion.
Fromtheviewpointofregionaleconomy,amuseumisagoodinvestmentsolelyfinancially.
Theeconomicutilityprovidedbymuseumsconsistsoftheaddedvaluecreatedbythem,theallocationofaddedvalueandinterme-diateconsumptionregionallyandspendingbroughtbyforeignvisi-torswiththeirmultipliereffects.
Thespendingofforeignvisitorscanbeconsideredhereasortofexportrevenues.
Forforeignmuseumvisitors,thesamereservationsrelatedtothetripmotivemustbeusedasfordomesticvisitors.
Onlyinafewcases,themuseumisthesoledestinationofatripabroadand,onmosttrips,itisnotthemostimportantdestinationofthetrip.
However,theimpactofmuseumsontraveldecisionsshouldnotbeunderestimated,because40%oftouristsvisitmuseumsontheirtravels.
Basedonthis,museumshavesomesortofaroleinthetraveldecisionsofforeigntourists,eventhoughonly5%–8%ofallthosetravellingabroadconsiderculturaldestinationsthemostcentralfactoraffectingthetraveldecision.
Ac-cordingtoaroughestimate,theeconomicimpactofforeigntouristssolelyrelatedtomuseumsandcreatedbythemisbetween70and90millionannually.
Thissumisincludedintheaboveincreaseintotaldemandofbetween340and500million.
49REFERENCESAarsman,H.
,vanderHorst,A.
,deGroot,M.
&Lagendijk,E.
(2012).
MoreThanWorthIt.
SocialSignificanceofMuseums.
DSP-groepandtheNether-landsMuseumsAssociation.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
museum-vereniging.
nl/Portals/0/NMV%20'More%20than%20worth%20it'.
pdfAlanen,A.
(2012).
Helpompiperustaakuinpyritt.
Tieto&trendit3/2012,pp.
28–33.
(InFinnish)Armbrecht,J.
(2013).
Svenskamuseersekonomiskaeffekter.
EnbeskrivningochskattningavsvenskamuseerspverkanpdenutlnskaturismentillSverige.
RiksfrbundetSverigesmuseer.
Gteborg.
(InSwedish)Aro,T.
(2013).
Kuudensuurenkaupunkiseudundemografinenkilpailukyky.
Muuttoliikkeenmrjarakennesuurillakaupunkiseuduilla2000-lu-vulla.
AccessedNov152013.
http://www.
vm.
fi/vm/fi/04_julkaisut_ja_asiakirjat/03_muut_asiakirjat/Kuusi_kaupunkiseutua_raportti_ARO_fi-nal.
pdf(InFinnish)Blau,J.
R.
(1989).
HighCultureasMassCulture.
InFoster,A.
W.
&Blau,J.
R.
(eds.
).
Artandsociety:readingsinthesociologyofthearts.
Albany,NY:SUNYPress,pp.
430–439.
Burkart,A.
J.
&Medlik,S.
(1974).
Tourism:Past,Presentandfuture.
Heinemann,London.
Crompton,J.
L.
,Lee,S.
&Shuster,T.
J.
(2001).
AGuideforUndertakingEconomicImpactStudies:TheSpringfestExample.
JournalofTravelResearch40(1),pp.
79–87.
Crompton,J.
L.
(2006).
EconomicImpactStudies:InstrumentsforPoliticalShen-anigansJournalofTravelResearch45,pp.
67–82.
Drengner,J.
,Khler,J.
&Geissler,M.
(2009).
Criticalissuesandpitfallswithineconomicanalysesofmajorsportsevents:ThecaseoftheBobandSke-letonWorldChampionships2008.
ConferenceproceedingsEASM2009.
17thEASMConference.
EGMUS(2004).
AGuidetoEuropeanMuseumStatistics.
MaterialienausdemInstitutfürMuseumskunde;Sonderheft3.
Berlin,December2004.
FinnishMuseumsAssociation(2009).
ICOMinmuseomritelm.
www.
muse-ot.
fi/mikamuseo/icomFinnishMuseumsAssociation(2012).
Museokvij2011.
AccessedOct232013.
http://www.
museoliitto.
fi/doc/SML_Museokavija_2011_uusi.
pdf(InFin-nish,Summary:NationalVisitorSurvey2011)FinnishMuseumsAssociation(2013).
Museotkulttuurimatkailunkrkeen.
Ac-cessedOct152013.
http://www.
museoliitto.
fi/index.
phpk=11228(InFinnish)FinnishMuseumsAssociation(2013).
Vuosikertomus2012.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
museoliitto.
fi/doc/vuosikertomus2013.
pdf(InFinnish)FinnishTransportAgency(2007).
Ostos-jaasiointimatkat.
Tammikuu2007.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www2.
liikennevirasto.
fi/hlt20042005/os-tos_asiointi.
pdf(InFinnish)50FinnishTransportAgency(2012).
Henkilliikennetutkimus2010–2011.
Suoma-laistenliikkuminen.
Liikennevirasto,Helsinki.
KopijyvOy,Kuopio.
(InFinnish,Abstract:NationalTravelSurvey2010–2011)FinnishTouristBoard(2009).
Kulttuurimatkailunkehittmisstrategia.
AccessedOct152013.
http://mek.
fi/w5/mekfi/index.
nsf/730493a8cd104eacc22570ac00411b4b/1160539e6f69c548c22575ba00202c2f/$FILE/Kulttuurimatkai-lun%20kehitt%C3%A4msstrategia_2009.
pdf(InFinnish)FinnishTouristBoard(2013a).
MatkailullaonsuurimerkitysSuomenkansan-taloudelle.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
mek.
fi/tutkimukset-ja-ti-lastot/matkailun-taloudelliset-vaikutukset/(InFinnish)FinnishTouristBoard(2013b).
Infographic–TourisminFinland–keyfactsandfigures.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
mek.
fi/wp-content/uplo-ads/2014/02/oske_infographic_2012_print_500x700.
pdfdlFinnishTouristBoard(2005).
Kulttuurimatkailunkehittmisstrategia.
AccessedOct152013.
http://mek.
fi/w5/mekfi/index.
nsf/730493a8cd104eacc22570ac00411b4b/1160539e6f69c548c22575ba00202c2f/$FILE/Kulttuurimatkai-lun%20kehitt%C3%A4msstrategia_2009.
pdfFrey,B.
S.
&Meier,S.
(2006).
TheEconomicsofMuseums.
HandbookoftheEco-nomicsofArtandCulture,Volume1.
ElsevierB.
V.
Amsterdam.
Hietala,M.
,Jtl,E.
&Kauppila,P.
(1999).
Koillismaanseutukunnanelinkei-noelmnkehittminen.
NordiaTiedonantoja.
Numero2/1999.
OulunyliopistonmaantieteenlaitoksenjaPohjois-Suomenmaantieteellisenseuranjulkaisuja.
(InFinnish)Hiilamo,H.
,Niemel,H.
,Pykl,P.
,Riihel,M.
&Vanne,R.
(2012).
Sosiaaliturvajaelmnvaiheet.
Suomensosiaaliturvankehitysesimerkkienjatilas-tojenvalossa.
Kelantutkimusosasto,Helsinki.
JuvenesPrint,Tampere.
(InFinnish)Huhtala,M.
(2006).
Pallas-Ounastunturinkansallispuistonkvijidenrahan-kyttjasenpaikallistaloudellisetvaikutukset.
Metlantyraportteja35.
AccessedSep152012.
http://www.
metla.
fi/julkaisut/workingpa-pers/2006/mwp035.
htm(InFinnish)InternationalCouncilofMuseumsICOM(2013).
MuseumDefinition.
AccessedOct152013.
www.
icom.
museum/the-vision/museum-definitionKarppinen,A.
&Vhsantanen,S.
(2011).
Matkailutuloja-tyllisyysSatakun-nassa,Porinseutukunnassajasenkunnissa2009ja2010.
Turunyliopis-tonkauppakorkeakoulunPorinyksiknjulkaisusarjaA.
NroA38/2011.
(InFinnish)Kauppila,P.
&Ervasti,P.
(2001).
MatkailuntaloudellisetvaikutuksetKuusamonkaupungissavuonna1999.
NaturpolisKuusamokoulutus-jakehitt-mispalvelut.
Typapereita1/2001.
(InFinnish)Khan,H.
,Seng,C.
F.
&Cheong,W.
K.
(1990).
TourismMultiplierEffectsonSinga-pore.
NationalUniversityofSingapore.
AnnalsofTourismResearch,volu-me17,pp.
208–218.
Klein,H.
-J.
(1990).
DerglserneBesucher:PublikumsstruktureneinerMuseum-landschaft.
GebrüderMannVerlag,Berlin.
(InGerman)Konttinen,J.
-P.
(2006).
Matkailunaluetaloudellisetvaikutukset–matkailunalueellinentilinpito.
KTM.
Rahoitetuttutkimukset9/2006.
Kauppa-jateollisuusministeri.
EditaPublishingOy.
(InFinnish)51Laakkonen,S.
(2002).
Matkailunaluetaloudellisetvaikutukset.
Seurantaindi-kaattoritjavuoden2000tulokset.
Kauppa-jateollisuusministerinker-tomuksiajaselvityksi4/2002.
Markkinaosasto,Helsinki.
(InFinnish)MacDonald,R.
&Jolliffe,L.
(2003).
CulturalRuralTourism:EvidencefromCanada.
AnnalsofTourismResearch30(2):307–322.
Mackoy,R.
D.
&G.
E.
Milne,S.
(1992).
TourismanddevelopmentinSouthPacificmicrostates.
AnnalsofTourismResearch,Volume19,issue2,pp.
191–212.
MinistryofEmploymentandtheEconomy(2013).
Matkailunalueellisettulo-jatyllisyysselvitykset–suosituskytettvistmritelmistjaluokituk-sista.
Suositus20.
5.
2013.
(InFinnish)Muurimki,M.
(2010).
Saahaastatella!
Haastatteluasetelmanrakentamisesta.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
fng.
fi/arvoisayleiso/yleisojenjakavi-joidentutkiminen/saahaastatella(InFinnish)NationalBoardofAntiquities(2012).
FinnishMuseumStatistics2011.
Acces-sedOct222013.
http://www.
museotilasto.
fi/user_files/Museotilasto%202011/Museotilasto2011.
pdf(InFinnish,Englishsummary)NationalBoardofAntiquities(2013).
FinnishMuseumStatistics2012.
AccessedOct222013.
http://www.
museotilasto.
fi/user_files/Museotilasto2012.
pdf(InFinnish,Englishsummary)OECD(2010).
OECDTourismTrendsandPolicies2010.
OECD.
AccessedOct152013.
http://browse.
oecdbookshop.
org/oecd/pdfs/product/8510011e.
pdfPuhakka,R.
(2011).
Matkailukysynnntrenditvuoteen2030menness.
Lahdenammattikorkeakoulu,Matkailunala.
TULEVA–Tulevaisuudenmatkaili-jat-projekti.
(InFinnish)Silberstein,A.
&Scott,S.
(1991).
Diarysurveysandtheirassociatederrors.
InBiemer,Groves,Lyberg,Mathiowetz&Sudman(eds.
).
Measurementerrorsinsurveys.
NewYork.
Wiley,pp.
303–326.
StatisticsFinland(2003).
Suomikinonkulttuurimatkailumaa.
Tietoaika-lehti.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
stat.
fi/tup/tietoaika/tilaajat/ta_12_03_kulttuuri.
html(InFinnish)StatisticsFinland(2009).
Matkailutilinpito2007.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
stat.
fi/til/matp/2007/matp_2007_2009-04-03_fi.
pdf(InFinnish)StatisticsFinland(2012a).
Rajahaastattelututkimus2012.
Talvi2011–2012.
AccessedOct152013.
http://tilastokeskus.
fi/til/rajat/2012/01/ra-jat_2012_01_2012-09-19_fi.
pdf(InFinnish)StatisticsFinland(2012b).
Kulttuurintuotantomaakuntatasolla2008–2009,yleistilanteenesitys.
Muistio1.
Alueellinenkulttuurisatelliitti2008–09.
AkuAlanen.
(InFinnish)StatisticsFinland(2013a).
Rajahaastattelututkimus2012.
MatkailuulkomailtaSuomeenkasvoivuonna2012.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
stat.
fi/til/rajat/2012/rajat_2012_2013-05-30_fi.
pdf(InFinnish)StatisticsFinland(2013b).
Matkailutilinpito.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
stat.
fi/meta/til/matp.
html(InFinnish)Stynes,D.
J.
&White,E.
M.
(2006).
ReflectionsonMeasuringRecreationandTra-velSpending.
JournalofTravelResearch200645:8.
AccessedOct152013.
http://jtr.
sagepub.
com/content/45/1/852Tahvanainen,N.
,Komppula,R.
&Vatanen,E.
(2011a).
Matkailunaluetaloudel-lisetvaikutuksetSavonlinnanseudullavuonna2010.
Osa1.
Matkailijoi-denpivittinenrahankytt.
It-Suomenyliopisto.
Matkailualanope-tus-jatutkimuslaitos.
(InFinnish)Tahvanainen,N.
,Vatanen,E.
&Komppula,R.
(2011b).
MatkailuntaloudellisetvaikutuksetSavonlinnanseudullavuonna2010.
Loppuraportti(osa2).
Tulo-jatyllisyysvaikutukset.
It-Suomenyliopisto.
Matkailualanope-tus-jatutkimuslaitos.
(InFinnish)Travers,Tony(2006).
MuseumsandGalleriesinBritain.
Economic,socialandcreativeimpacts.
LondonSchoolofEconomics2006.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
nationalmuseums.
org.
uk/media/documents/publica-tions/museums_galleries_in_britain_travers_2006.
pdfUNWTO(2010).
TourismHighlights2010Edition.
WorldTourismOrganization.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
unwto.
org/facts/eng/pdf/highlights/UNWTO_Highlights10_en_HR.
pdfVainio,A.
(2012).
Vaasankeskussairaalanaluetaloudellisetvaikutukset.
VaasanyliopistonLevón-instituutinpalvelututkimus.
(InFinnish)Vanhove,N.
(2005).
TheEconomicsofTourismDestinations.
ElsevierInsights.
Vuoristo,K.
-V.
&Arajrvi,T.
(1990).
Methodologicalproblemsofstudyinglocalincomeandemploymenteffectsoftourism.
Fennia168:2,153177WTTC(2010).
Travel&TourismEconomicImpact2010.
ExecutiveSummary.
WorldTravel&TourismCouncil.
AccessedOct152013.
http://www.
wttc.
org/bin/pdf/original_pdf_file/2010_exec_summary_final.
pdfYeoman,I.
(2008).
Tomorrow'sTourist:Scenarios&Trends.
Butterworth-Heine-mannLtd,Oxford.
53APPENDICESAPPENDIX1:ResponsedistributiontablesA–LTableA.
GenderdistributionofrespondentsinthisstudyandinNationalVisitorSurvey2011GenderRespondents(N=6,478)NationalVisitorSurvey2011(N=12,626)Male36%38%Female64%62%Total100%100%TableB.
AgedistributionofrespondentsinthisstudyandinNationalVisitorSurvey2011AgeRespondents(N=6,431)NationalVisitorSurvey2011(N=12,735)15orbelow3%5%16-2510%13%26-3517%15%36-4516%17%46-5518%19%56-6520%19%66-7513%10%76orover2%3%Total100%100%TableC.
EducationdistributionofrespondentsinthisstudyandinNationalVisitorSur-vey2011*Notabene:LoweracademicdegreewasnotanoptionintheNationalVisitorSurvey2011.
Inthepreviousstudy,partstatedtohaveacollegedegreeandpartanaca-demicdegree.
.
EducationRespondents(N=6,485)NationalVisitorSurvey2011(N=12,260)Comprehensiveschool7%12%Vocationaltraining9%11%Collegedegree9%20%*Secondaryschoolgraduate14%12%Loweracademicdegree21%-%*Higheracademicdegree40%44%*Total100%100%54TableD.
Professionaldistributionofrespondentsinthisstudy.
TheprofessionaldivisionintheNationalVisitorSurvey2011wasdifferentsowecannotmakeanexactcomparison.
ProfessionShareofrespondents(ifapplicable,comparisondataof2011inparentheses)N=6,459Managerialtasksorentrepreneur11%Clericalemployeeorexpert32%Employedinservices10%Industrialworker2%Employedinfarmingorforestry1%Pensioner19%(19%)Student14%(12%)Unemployedoroutsidelabourmarket4%Other7%(5%)Total100%TableE.
Distancefromrespondents'hometothemuseumwheretheycompletedthequestionnaire.
DistanceRespondents(N=5,913)NationalVisitorSurvey2011(N=12,387)50kmorless45%44%51–150km16%16%Morethan150km39%40%Total100%100%TableF.
DistributionofrespondentsinthisstudyandinNationalVisitorSurvey2011accordingtotheircompanion(s)onthismuseumvisitCompanion(s)Respondents(N=6,512)NationalVisitorSurvey2011(N=13,137)Alone18%15%Friends,acquaintances27%25%Familyorspouse50%53%Colleagues2%-Grouptrip2%7%Other2%-Total100%100%55TableG.
Distributionofrespondentsinartmuseumsandothermuseumsandaveragespendingofrespondentsduringthewholetrip.
MuseumtypeDistributionsofreplies(N=6,500)SpendingperreplyArtmuseum2313(35%)328Othermuseum4204(65%)343Total6517(100%)333TableH.
DistributionofrespondentsinthisstudyandinNationalVisitorSurvey2011accordingtotheirsatisfactionwiththismuseumvisit*Notabene:Inthesurveyof2011,thephrasingofthequestionwassomewhatdifferent(astatement).
Thiscausesdeviati-oninthedistributionofreplies.
SatisfactionwithmuseumvisitRespondents(N=6,460)NationalVisitorSurvey2011(N=12,423)Verysatisfied65%79%Quitesatisfied33%19%Quiteunsatisfied1%1%Veryunsatisfied1%0%Total100%100%TableJ.
Averagespendingofrespondentsbyprofession(N=6,079)ProfessionAveragespendingperrespondent(wholetrip)Managerialtasksorentrepreneur573,15Clericalemployeeorexpert303,96Employedinservices350,25Industrialworker366,64Employedinfarmingorforestry299,16Pensioner271,72Student210,70Unemployedoroutsidelabourmarket147,07Other611,68Total333,5756TableK.
Distributionofforeignrespondentsaccordingtohomecountry.
Respondent'shomecountryNumberofforeignrespondents/shareofforeignersSweden122/12%UnitedStatesofAmerica110/11%GreatBritain107/11%Germany97/10%France67/7%Russia65/7%Australia47/5%Netherlands43/4%Other346/35%Total(20countries)1004/100%TableL.
Distributionofspendingofallrespondents(N=6,079).
Respondents'spendingShareoftotalspending,%Spendinginmuseum3,6%Travelticketsetc.
20,3%Fueletc.
9,6%Accommodation(hotels,cottages,campingetc.
)20,7%Restaurants,otherfoodandbeverage19,9%Entertainment(spas,funparksetc.
)2,3%Culture(theatre,othermuseumsetc.
)2,6%Shopping11,0%Otherspending10,1%Total100%57APPENDIX2:QuestionnaireCode:TheeconomiceectsofmuseumsDearmuseumvisitorTheFinnishMuseumAssociationisexaminingtheeconomiceffectsofmuseumstogetherwithTheUniversityofVaasa.
Thesurveywillpro-videinformationaboutthemuseumsvisitors'nancialspendinginthemuseumsthemselvesandduringthetripsrelatedtothemuseumvisits.
WeaskYoutoanswerthequestionsbelow.
Youcanalsollouttheformontheinternetattheaddressuva.
/levon/museo58BasicinformationYourplaceofresidenceinFinlandInwhichcountrydoyoulive,ifnotinFinlandGendermanwomanYearofbirthThetotallengthofyourtripfromyourplaceofresidenceinFinlandtothismuseumkmEducationComprehensiveschoolVocationaltrainingSecondaryschoolUppersecondaryschool/matriculationexaminationBachelor'sdegreeMaster'sdegreeoraboveProfessionEntrepreneurorinaleadingpositionOfcialorexpertEmployeeintheservicesectorEmployeeintheindustrialsectorAgriculturalentrepreneurorworkingintheagriculturalsectorRetiredStudentUnemployedoroutsidethejobmarket(e.
g.
onmaternityleave)Other,what59QuestionsaboutthemuseumvisitIamvisitingthemuseumAloneTogetherwithfriendsoracquaintancesTogetherwithmyfamilyorspouseTogetherwithmycolleaguesOnagrouptourInothercompanyHowpleasedwereyouwiththismuseumvisitVerypleasedQuitepleasedQuitedispleasedVerydispleasedHowsignicantlydidthemuseumvisitaffectyourdecisiontotravelThemuseumwasthemostimportantreasonforthetrip.
Themuseumoneofthemostimportantreasonsforthetrip.
Themuseumvisitwasafactorwhichaffectedthedecisionbutnotthemostimportantone.
Themuseumvisitwaspartofalargertravelprogram.
Themuseumvisitdidnotaffectthedecisiontotravelbutthevisitwasmadeduringthetripwithoutanyplanninginadvance.
WhichofthefollowingalternativesappliestoyourvisittothismuseumYoucanchooseseveralalternatives.
Itraveledfrommyplaceofresidencetothismuseum.
Icombinedthemuseumvisitwithoneorsomeofthefollowingthings(chooseoneorseveral):MeetingrelativesorfriendsAvisitthesummerhouseGoingtoaconcertorthetheatreoranotherculturalevent/sightAvisittoanamusementpark,aspaoranequivalentplaceTakingacityvacationAtourtomanydifferentplacesAvisittoothermuseumsWorkmatters60QuestionsaboutfinancialspendingThetotaldurationofyourtrip(fromyourplaceofresidenceandback)Adaytrip(lessthan24hours)1–3days4–7daysOveraweekMode(s)oftransportationduringthetrip(chooseoneorseveral)MyowncarormotorbikeTrain,bus,taxiorotherformofpublictransportaswellascombinationsoftheseShiporairplaneOnfootorbybikeOther,whatFinancialspendingduringthetripHowmuchmoneydidyouspendonthismuseumrelatedtripIfyoucannotrememberexactsums,weaskyoutoestimateyourspending.
Ifyourtriphaslastedorwilllastforseveraldays,weaskyoutoestimateyourconsumptionfortheentiretrip.
Respondentswithfamiliesarerequestedtoestimatetheirwholefamily'snancialspending.
TheentrancetickettothismuseumandotherconsumptioninthemuseumTraveltickets(train/bus/ship/otherTheuseofmycar(fuel)Lodging(hotelorotherlodging)ortourpackageRestaurants,cafés,groceryshopsEntertainment(amusementparks,spasetc.
Culturalservices(concerts,theatres,etc.
Shopping(e.
g.
clothesandconsumergoods)Othernancialspending,whatThankyouforyourvisitandyourreply!
TIMOHYTTINEN–PATRIKSJHOLM–PEKKAPEURA–MERJAPAKKANENKaasua,Suupohja—BIOKAASUAHYTTINEN–SJHOLM–PEURA–PAKKANEN:KAASUA,SUUPOHJA—BIOKAASUALEVN134HYTTINEN–SJHOLM–PEURA–PAKKANEN:KAASUA,SUUPOHJA—BIOKAASUALEVN134SuupohjanbiokaasustrategialuosuuntaviivojaSuupohjanjaSuupohjanrannikkoseudunbiokaasuntuotannonjakytnedistmiseksialueella.
Visionlhtkohtinaovatolemassaolevanelinkeinoelmnkilpailukyvynkehittminen,jte-jaenergiahuollonyhteensovittaminenteollisuudenjtteidenksittelynkanssasekelinkeinojenhydyttminenluomallaenergiantuotantokapasiteettiamolempienseutukuntienalueelle:"BiokaasumuodostaaSuupohjanjaSuupohjanrannikkoseudunalueillamerkittvnelinkeinoelmnsektorin,johonliittyvtteollisuusjamaataloussekraaka-aineidentuottajinaettloppuenergiankyttjin.
Jtteidenjamateriaalienksittelyssbiokaasuntuotantojakyttedistvtosaltaanenergiaomavaraisuudentoteuttamistajaedistvtaluetalouttaluodenkilpailukykykahdenseutukunnanalueella.
"Vaasanyliopisto.
Levón-instituutinjulkaisuja134.
ISSN1457-8913ISBN978-952-476-433-9VaasanyliopistoLevón-instituuttiHYTTINEN–SJHOLM–PEURA–PAKKANEN:KAASUA,SUUPOHJA—BIOKAASUALEVN134SuupohjanbiokaasustrategialuosuuntaviivojaSuupohjanjaSuupohjanrannikkoseudunbiokaasuntuotannonjakytnedistmiseksialueella.
Visionlhtkohtinaovatolemassaolevanelinkeinoelmnkilpailukyvynkehittminen,jte-jaenergiahuollonyhteensovittaminenteollisuudenjtteidenksittelynkanssasekelinkeinojenhydyttminenluomallaenergiantuotantokapasiteettiamolempienseutukuntienalueelle:"BiokaasumuodostaaSuupohjanjaSuupohjanrannikkoseudunalueillamerkittvnelinkeinoelmnsektorin,johonliittyvtteollisuusjamaataloussekraaka-aineidentuottajinaettloppuenergiankyttjin.
Jtteidenjamateriaalienksittelyssbiokaasuntuotantojakyttedistvtosaltaanenergiaomavaraisuudentoteuttamistajaedistvtaluetalouttaluodenkilpailukykykahdenseutukunnanalueella.
"Vaasanyliopisto.
Levón-instituutinjulkaisuja134.
ISSN1457-8913ISBN978-952-476-433-9VaasanyliopistoLevón-instituuttiPIEKKOLA–SUOJANEN–VAINIO:ECONOMICIMPACTOFMUSEUMS139aUniversityofVaasa.
LevónInstitute.
Publication139a.
Vaasa2014.
ISBN978-952-476-524-4ISSN2341-6238UniversityofVaasa,LevónInstitute