Development of Narva River Water Tourist Routes Stage 2 (Routes Development): Key Findings

1. Development of Narva River Water Tourist Routes Stage 2 (Routes Development): Key Findings 25.10.07 The present document is developed within the „Narva River Water Routes” project financed by the European Union

2. Today’s Objectives • Present key findings of Routes Development stage • Route development criteria • Initial route options (5) • Demand assessment: stakeholder focus groups • Route evaluation and prioritization (scorecard method) • Initial requirements (incl functional, technical) for river tourism vessel • Identify additional information / analysis needs • Agree on direction for next stage

3. Route evaluation criteria • Expected demand • Tourists • Domestic • Foreign • Corporate / conference • Excursion groups (leisure) • Individual tourists (leisure) • Narva residents • Value added • Visual and aesthetic appeal • Educational and informational value • Contribution to social environment • Place marketing / Image-building value (for Narva)

4. Route 1: Silhouettes of Narva • Route: Narva Harbor – Hermann Castle – Narva Harbor - Väikesaar – Tank T-34 - Narva Harbor • Stopover: No • Duration: 45 - 60 min • Purpose / content: • City excursion • Relaxation / entertainment • Snack food / bar

5. Route 2: Narva-Jõesuu Express • Route: Narva Harbor – Narva-Jõesuu – Narva Harbor • Stopover: Yes (Narva-Jõesuu) • Duration: 30 – 45 min • Purpose / content: • Fast and convenient regular connection between Narva and Narva-Jõesuu • Several trips a day • Snack food / bar • Excursion possibility • Bicycle storage

6. Route 3: Narva-Jõesuu Cruise • Route: Narva Harbor – Narva-Jõesuu – Narva Harbor • Stopover: No • Duration: 2 hours • Purpose / content: • Cultural events (concerts, theater, etc.) • Parties and other entertainment events (public, private) • Catering, bar • Excursion possibility

7. Route 4: Narva Bay Cruise • Route: Narva Harbor – Narva-Jõesuu – Narva – Narva Bay – Narva-Jõesuu - Narva Sadam • Stopover: No • Duration: 3-4 hours • Purpose / content: • Cultural events • Parties and other entertainment events (public, private) • Catering, bar • Excursion possibility • Special package: sunset cruise

8. Route 5: Robinson Cruise • Route: Narva Harbor – Väikesaar – Narva Harbor • Stopover: Yes (Väikesaar) • Duration: 10 – 15 min (1 way) • Prerequisite: active recreation possibility on Väikesaar (e.g., children’s theme park)

9. Demand assessment: focus groups Narva Residents (10.10.07) • 8 participants • Age range: 16–59 years, average age: 34 • 63% male, 37% female • Diverse educational and professional backgrounds Local Tourism Enterprises (11.10.07) Tallinn Tourism Enterprises (12.10.07)

10. Narva Residents: Situation Assessment • Representative quotes: • ‘Selection is extremely poor for all groups and all possibilities are used up’ • ‘There are very few places for families with children’ • ‘There is no entertainment for middle-aged people’ • ‘Tourists have no reasons for returning to Narva – new events take place so rarely’

11. Narva Residents: Situation Assessment

12. Unmet Needs: Sample Quotes • ‘There are no pubs or restaurants in Narva which I could recommend to a visitor as something different. Everything is just the same.’ • ‘The main drawback is that we don’t have a theater’. • ‘There are no experiential/educational possibilities for children’ • ‘There are no bicycle paths’ • ‘There is a lack of places where to organize private events for children – which would be fun and where alcohol would not be sold’

13. What kind of experience / ship? • ‘Event ship’ rated as most attractive (4,75), followed by ‘river tram’ (4,5) and ‘restaurant ship’ (3,5) • Sample quotes: • ‘It would be nice for the ship to combine catering and entertainment functions’ • ‘Possibility of live music on the ship is a must! Various kinds of entertainment activities for residents of Narva could be held on the ship’ • ‘Events on the open deck – for local residents and tourists’ • ‘Historical ship, live music, fast food – this is what residents are interested in’

14. Residents: Route Evaluation • Route 1: ‘More interesting for tourists and schoolchildren’ • Route 2: ‘Greatest practical utility’ • Route 3: ‘Appropriate for various kinds of events’ • Route 4: ‘Attractive only when accompanied by entertainment program’ • Route 5: ‘With appropriate infrastructure this could be a great recreation opportunity for families with children’

15. Residents: Route Evaluation

16. Demand assessment: focus groups Narva Residents (10.10.07) • 8 participants • Age range: 16–59 years, average age: 34 • 63% male, 37% female • Diverse educational and professional backgrounds • 10 participants from Narva and nearby • Accommodation enterprises (Narva, Inger, King, Vana-Olgina Manor, Narva-Jõesuu Sanatorium) • Travel Agencies (Adali, Silver Dream Travel) • Events & Entertainment (Geneva Center) • Tour guide Local Tourism Enterprises (11.10.07) Tallinn Tourism Enterprises (12.10.07)

17. Demand assessment: local tourism enterprises • ‘ There is potential among all customer segments. In Narva there is no supply (of tourism products), therefore no demand either’

18. Unmet needs: local tourism enterprises • ‘There is no river tourism, nothing for children’ • ‘There are no tourism products for children’ • ‘We perceive demand for new tourism products, incl water tourism, active recreation, products for children’ • ‘Nature tourism oriented at children’ • ‘Dining for transit groups’ • ‘Water tourism for local population and individual tourists’ • ‘Nature tourism, water tourism products’ • ‘Comfortable accommodation’

19. Demand assessment: local tourism enterprises

20. What kind of experience / ship? • ‘Event ship’ rated as most attractive (4,08), followed by ‘restaurant ship’ (3,76) and ‘river tram’ (3,5) • Sample quotes: • ‘River tram would be oriented at local residents, it will not impress tourists.’ • ‘Without on-board events – a kind of a ‘hook’, there would be no demand’ • ‘Tourists need a combination of catering and events’ • ‘Large carrying capacity is most important – for organizing events in the evenings and excursions/relaxation events during the day’ • ‘Best would be if tourists come to Narva, visit castle, learn about history and then ride on a modern ship to Narva-Jõesuu’ • ‘There is no need to exaggerate. There are already many historical objects in Narva, we need to create something modern as well.’

21. Route evaluation: local tourism enterprises • ‘Narva Bay Cruise could be used for both daytime and evening events’ • ‘Routes 3 or 4 are interesting for all segments and simply obligatory for further development’ • ‘Not particularly interested in ‘Silhouettes of Narva’ – not sure which customers would want it’ • ‘Why not extend the route to Sillamäe and Toila?’ • ‘There should also be routes for yachts and small vessels (e.g., canoes)

22. Demand assessment: local tourism enterprises

23. Demand assessment: focus groups Narva Residents (10.10.07) • 8 participants • Age range: 16–59 years, average age: 34 • 63% male, 37% female • Diverse educational and professional backgrounds • 10 participants from Narva and nearby • Accommodation enterprises (Narva, Inger, King, Vana-Olgina Manor, Narva-Jõesuu Sanatorium) • Travel agencies (Adali, Silver Dream Travel) • Events & Entertainment (Geneva Center) • Tour guide Local Tourism Enterprises (11.10.07) • 5 participants from leading Estonian tourism enterprises • Incoming travel agencies (Baltic Tours, Estonian Holidays, Restling, Con-Ex/Latvian Tours) • Event marketing / incentive agency: East Express Tallinn Tourism Enterprises (12.10.07)

24. Unmet needs re: Narva • Lack of attractions and highlights in addition to Hermann Castle • Specifically, demand for 1 – 3 h activities (excursions, etc.) • Lack of catering options – e.g., group lunches while in transit between Tallinn and St. Petersburg • Lack of tour guides – esp. German language • Narva’s location makes it difficult to bring incentive/corporate groups – convenient air access would improve situation • However, general agreement that Narva’s tourism potential is high and so far mostly unrealized • Cultural-historical tourism products • Narva as EU’s Eastern border, East-West meeting point

25. Unmet needs by tourist segments

26. Unmet needs by tourist segments

27. What kind of experience / ship? • ‘Event ship’ rated as most attractive (3,6) compared to ‘restaurant ship (3,18) and ‘river tram’ (2,65) • Sample quotes: • ‘The ship should combine catering function (even if simple coffee breaks) with a quality tourism experience – to get the most out of the limited time tourists spend in Narva • ‘Restaurant ship would be appropriate for foreign tourists while ‘event-ship’ for domestic tourists’ • ‘There is huge potential for an event ship where Estonian companies could hold summer days (100-150 persons) • ‘In Narva it would be great to combine history, culture and events in river tourism’ • ‘The ship should certainly have a historic character,preferrably 30’s style’ • ‘More important than style (historical vs modern) is quality of service and carrying capacity’ • ‘I see little potential for a river tram: for local residents or tourists’ • ‘A decent ship in an attractive area like Narva could be a commercial hit’

28. Route evaluation: national tourism enterprises • ‘Narva Bay Cruise sounds most exotic and and interesting. Something that can be really exciting.’ • ‘A shorter cruise (Route 1) could be suitable for coffee breaks / lunches’. • ‘Route 1 for transit tourists, Route 4 for overnighting tourists’

29. Demand assessment: national tourism enterprises

30. Focus groups: Summary • ‘Event ship’ rated highest by all stakeholders

31. Focus groups: Summary • Route 4 tourists’ favorite, Route 2 rated highest by residents

32. Focus groups: Conclusions • Expected demand in river tourism development high among all customer segments (incl tourists, residents) – whereas unmet need appears to be highest among residents • All focus groups pointed at ‘event ship’ as the most exciting type of ship; for residents, ‘river tram’ came as a close second. • As a result, Route 4 (Narva Bay Cruise) emerged as the combined favorite route: • No. 1 for local and national tourism enterprises • No. 2 for residents • However, high ratings of other routes imply that there is demand for multiple river tourism routes, depending on target customers and their specific needs • Shorter route (Route 1) for transit tourists, longer route (Route 4) for overnighting tourists • Route 5 as a potential ‘hit’ for local residents (families with children)

33. Route evaluation criteria: relative weights Tourist demand: 40% Resident demand: 20%

34. Scorecard: Data

35. Scorecard: Results • Route 4 (Narva Bay Cruise) highest rated; however other routes not far behind • Recommendation to develop master route network rather than single route

36. Narva River Tourism Route Network: Draft Russian Federation Control line 4 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 1 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 2 3 4 5 1 5 2 Väikesaar 2 3 5 1 4 4 Narva - Jõesuu Harbour Narva Harbour Narva Bay Tank T-34 Hermann Castle Republic of Estonia

37. Functional requirements: ship • Parameters which facilitate events and contribute to memorable experiences received highest ratings (incl sundeck, spacious inner deck, live music possibility) • Full-scale restaurant not an obligatory product feature, but catering capability is a must • Other things equal, stakeholders prefer an historical type of ship, however historical ‘feel’ should not come at the expense of convenience and quality of service

38. Technical requirements: ship • Meets requirements for river (Narva) AND coastal sea (Narva Bay) navigation • Inner deck carrying capacity: 70 - 100 persons • Possibility to use sundeck for open-air events • Sufficient supporting infrastructure for recreational use (e.g., toilets) • Capability of off-season navigation / use (e.g., heating)

39. Outstanding Questions • How to prioritize between ‘event ship’ and ‘river tram’ ? • Which routes should be included in feasibility study? • Option 1: Routes 1, 3, 4 • Option 2: Routes 1-4 • Option 3: Routes 1-5 • How to address interests/needs of small vessels (e.g., yachts, canoes)?

40. Next Steps • Adjust Stage 2 findings based on today’s discussion • Conduct Narva River inspection: Oct. 30, 2007 • Finalize Stage 2 conclusions (Nov. 2), submit presentation (PPT) • More detailed route definition • Updated scorecard and route ratings • Begin work on Stage 3 (viability / feasibility study) • Schedule next working meeting (review of feasibility study 1st draft)