There seems to be a virtuous cycle that starts with the low quality of infrastructure / lack of infrastructure in some cases, which prevents tourists from reaching the sites. Apart from this, many possible touristic attractions do no offer any accommodation possibilities except for camping. This excludes, on its turn, some categories of tourists. The low number of tourists leads to limited income, which prevents the development of infrastructure and the preservation of the nature attractions.
Furthermore, let's consider how these touristic attractions could be leveraged by defining the consumer needs that they appeal to.
1. First, there are those tourists who are very active, they go hiking every week and they are willing to pay only a small amount of money in order to visit a certain touristic attraction. This category is the oldest segment, comprised primarily of retired, active people, with relative limited financial resources.
2. The second segment are the families with children. They will usually spend more than one day to visit a site and are willing to spend a significant amount of money. They are looking for family-friendly accommodations (chalets, agritouristic hotels, pensions) and they will only visit those site which have offer a good transportation infrastructure.
3. There are the professional hikers, geologists, other scientists, who don't care about the quality of the access to the sites, nor about the accommodation offered at the sites. This segment is the only one currently targeted.
4. There are the people in their 20-ies to mid 30-ies, married or unmarried, without children, who choose a natural touristic attraction as an escaping place from their daily businesses. They are looking for a good quality of access infrastructure, various types of accommodations, coupled with spas or wellness centers. They are the main revenue source in addition to the family segment.
At this point, I see only these four main consumer segments based on the needs reached and financial power.
A next step would involve the investments and construction of facilities and a targeted marketing.
How do you see the potential of nature beauty?
See below a best practice example from the Rhein waterfalls in Switzerland.
Posts
2 comments:
Poor infrastructure! maybe that's the advantage to experience the wildness of the nature.
I would say "on stormy weather, some people ar building walls to protect themselves, other people are building windmills"
Of course there have to be a minimum of infrastructure available. And I think that in Romania, you could make excellent Biketrails for example, utilising this low infrastructure (or bad infrastructure).
My chef said one day to me (he is an architect) "nowadays, a building is not a challange any more. A challenge is HOW NOT TO BUILD"
I think Romania has today the opportunity, to make itelligent, minimum infrastructure investments, avoiding the damage of it's precious nature.
Preserving wild nature could be a distinctive positioning strategy. Take the examples of the excursions offered to the CEOs in the Amazon Delta or in Amazon Forests. The tourist agencies demand huge prices. What they offer instead,is an experience of living in wild. However, you need to keep in mind that it is only a facade and that behind the scenes, they need to ensure minimal safety and other conditions which tourists don't notice.
Post a Comment