Analysing leisure cards from a buyers’ perspective – a case study for the leisure card Tyrol

ABSTRACT

Purpose: While tourism cards are quite common, leisure cards are less popular, especially with respect to scholarly research. This study sheds light on leisure cards by analysing a card covering a wide choice of leisure activities in the most populated area in Tyrol, Austria.

Methodology: As research lacks insight particularly into the buyers’ perspective, an explorative approach including qualitative interviews (n = 7) and an online survey (n  =  2391) was chosen.

Findings: Data raised suggests the main reasons for purchasing the card include easier access to sports and low price compared to single tickets for attractions.

Practical implications: The perceptions of buyers and suppliers basically coincide in terms of the card's added value. Overall, the results lend themselves as an initial point of reference for future deliberations.

Research Contribution: This study provides a first insight into the added value of a possibly sustainable and arguably (economically) stable card scheme and thus opens further research opportunities.

KEYWORDS:

• leisure card
• buyers’ perspective
• added value
• Tyrol

Introduction

Destination cards are frequently used to generate additional demand by aggregating attractions in tourist regions (Borchert, 2006). They usually include transport, admissions and/or further services for tourists at appropriate prices in order to promote local tourism products. In contrast to such comprehensively researched objects, similar products targeting locals rarely invite scientific research. This may be due to the fact that such schemes have – until now – been rather unpopular. Moreover, such leisure cards are generally part of social marketing with a view to increasing social welfare. In this sense, they often focus on deprived social classes and thus pursue other aims than profit-orientated tourist cards. Unsurprisingly, past analyses have concluded that leisure cards of this sort are often linked to problematic issues: Besides underinvestment in management and a lack of professional marketing, too few schemes include both private and public suppliers (Collins, 2011). Recently, Schnitzer et al. (2018) showed that their research object may have overcome such issues. They analysed a super-regional alliance of local leisure and tourism suppliers which was established in 2005 in the same regional context as this study. They summarise that “[…] a super-regional year-around pass may be a sustainable model for increasing a local community’s welfare by providing affordable leisure activities” (Schnitzer et al., 2018, p. 1). This would be a promising novum, as it is neither a classic leisure card nor a tourist card but may combine the advantages of both. Thus, the study in hand is based on the assumption that a leisure card offered by government and private corporations combined could represent a functioning model benefitting local residents. However, Schnitzer et al. (2018) only focused – like previous research (compare Angeloni, 2016) – on the suppliers’ side, i.e. governmental and private corporations and their achievable objectives. This implies that the actual perceptions of possible beneficiaries – i.e. tourists and/or in the present case local residents – remain unknown. Previous, mostly destination-card-oriented research (c.f. Pechlaner & Zehrer, 2005) has not contributed to this issue even though it is essential if comprehensive conclusions are to be drawn. After all, the perception of mutual and individual benefits emerging from a network (here card network) and the involvement of key stakeholders are necessary conditions for effective collaboration (Jamal & Getz, 1995). Furthermore, in the case under consideration, both the increasing demand for this leisure card and its remarkable penetration rate (8% of Tyrol’s and 20% of greater Innsbruck’s overall population) provide further reasons for our approach. Therefore, in a first step, a general question has to be answered: Who buys these leisure cards? The corresponding objective is as follows:

• I. General analysis of the buyer group (quantitative online survey).

This information is necessary for two main reasons. Firstly, it helps in estimating the range of such cards in terms of the groups buying them. Secondly, it allows a proper interpretation of the second objective:

• II. Buyers’ perceptions: examining the added value of private-governmental leisure cards (qualitative interviews, quantitative online survey).

The added value, an intentionally chosen vague term from a scientific perspective, functions as a placeholder. Our approach is intended to reify it by elaborating positively perceived features and benefits of the investigated card. To do so, a qualitative starting point seems appropriate.

Literature review

Destination/leisure cards

There are a variety of destination cards providing numerous leisure services and benefits for holders. “Tourist cards” on the one hand are intended to be flexible and inviting, encouraging visitors to cover more touristic attractions and thus enhancing profitability for the private tourism sector. They mainly pursue economic objectives and are provided by private organisations (Zoltan & Masiero, 2012). Steinbach (2003) considers them as territorial offerings that play a role in promoting regional and local tourism products by linking different services and providing certain discounts to generate further demand at the destination. Overall, these tourist cards, also referred to as “destination cards”, “city cards”, “city passes”, “tourist cards”, “guest cards”, “welcome cards” or “visitor cards” (Angeloni, 2016), have received some attention in research: Various studies have investigated the phenomenon of destination cards from different perspectives (D'Angella & Go, 2009; Figini & Vici, 2012; Guiver & Stanford, 2014; Pechlaner & Zehrer, 2005).

“Leisure cards”, on the other hand, offer a vast range of services and benefits to the local population and are provided by governmental institutions. Since these services are predominantly under state control, they primarily aim to improve the well-being of minorities and provide all social groups with these freedom offers (Collins & Kennett, 1998). With regard to “leisure cards”, Collins sums up: “Leisure Cards are a mechanism that can bring social benefits and help to private quasi-commercial providers by sharing common marketing and promotion mechanisms that small businesses find difficult to organize individually.” (Collins, 2011, p. 28). However, the combination of these two types of cards has barely been researched. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, with the exception of Schnitzer et al. (2018), no scientific attention has been given to specific leisure cards such as the LCT, which constitute a combination of leisure card (residential orientation) and tourist card (economic orientation) covering a wide range of sports, culture, leisure and tourist offers (referred to hereinafter as coopetitive leisure cards, compare Schnitzer et al., 2018).

Added value of destination/leisure cards

The added value of destination cards for suppliers and/or destination management organisations (DMOs) is well researched – in contrast to leisure cards. Angeloni’s overview (2016) provides a corresponding insight. However, added value for suppliers is not inevitably translatable into added value for customers and the listed achievable objectives are rather general ones. As mentioned earlier, concrete evidence is missing in this regard. Nevertheless, literature, supplemented by the statements of suppliers, (Schnitzer et al., 2018) yields some starting points.

Firstly, such cards provide access to a desirable merit good (i.e. physical activity and potentially education). According to Hills and Argyle (1998) leisure-time activities can trigger a sense of pleasure and positive emotions. Especially sporting activities tend to positively and significantly correlate with happiness (Hills & Argyle, 1998). As the LCT includes a broad range of offers (see contextual background) including physical activity – which itself is linked to quality of life (see e.g. Bize et al., 2007) and several other benefits, the card may be a helpful tool in terms of profiting from this connection. Additionally, the effect may be strengthened by the advance sale leading to a sunk cost effect: In fact, “[…] paying for the right to use a good or service will increase the rate at which the good will be utilized, ceteris paribus” (Thaler, 1980, p. 47). Moreover, previous research has shown that buying season cards leads to a rise in activity (Crompton, 2016). Thus, decisive from a buyer's perspective is whether the card actually motivates people to engage in more sports. Indeed, this would be considered as the first (potential) manifestation of added value. In this respect, the statements of the suppliers are promising: “The customer often comes spontaneously for two hours only, even if the weather or the slopes are not so good. This would not happen without the LCT” (Schnitzer et al., 2018, p. 9).

Secondly, the card is, according to the suppliers’ statements, comparatively low-priced resulting from coopetition between welfare- and profit-orientated corporations (Schnitzer et al., 2018). This, in turn, may be a promising way to reduce social exclusion in terms of physical leisure activities, a fairly widely studied research field (c.f. Collins (2014); Parker and Vinson (2013) with regard to youth sport; Glyptis (1989) with respect to unemployment; Amara et al. (2005) regarding asylum seekers and Thomas and Smith (2008) on disability). Overall, we consider financial advantages and/or a comparatively low price as the second (potential) manifestation of added value for buyers.

Thirdly, according to Schnitzer et al. (2018), the LCT has some card-specific features. In fact, the LCT comes with a comprehensive “application area” possibly leading customers to visit otherwise disregarded or overlooked places. Admittedly, this is a known intention behind destination cards (Kuhn, 2000, etc.). However, only an examination of the buyers’ perceptions will bring clarification as to whether this is also desirable from their perspective. Hence, we consider this as the third (potential) manifestation of added value for buyers.

Fourthly, the suppliers see the all-season / all-weather usage as a central benefit and a clear distinguishing feature for buyers when compared to regular day passes (Schnitzer et al., 2018). Again, reducing seasonality is a common goal of destination cards (Figini & Vici, 2012). If, in turn, the buyers share this opinion, it needs to be highlighted, i.e. all-season / all-weather usage is the fourth (potential) manifestation of added value.

Fifthly, the suppliers believe the LCT reduces pressure on buyers in comparison to day passes: unlimited access translates into less regret in cases where the activity is prematurely abandoned, e.g. in the case of bad weather. Finally, the combination of sports and cultural offers may bring added value for the buyers (Schnitzer et al., 2018). The last two aspects are considered the fifth and the sixth manifestations of added value.

Contextual background

The LCT has been available in Innsbruck and surroundings since 2005, providing access to various museums, ski regions, swimming pools (both outdoor and indoor), or in other words: to various leisure attractions. Furthermore, it offers discounts from selected bonus partners, for example, sports equipment providers or the possibility to watch football matches starring Wacker Innsbruck. However, attendance at the latter is limited to three matches per year. In 2018/2019, the LCT was purchased by about 60,000 residents. The LCT is valid from October to the following September, i.e. for one year. The regular price (2018/2019) is € 531 for adults and € 266 for children under 14. Additionally, several discounts are available. e.g. advance sale, tickets for youths and senior citizens, as well as family tickets. If one of the parents buys the card, children under the age of 14 pay € 71 (advance sale: € 66) and children under the age of six do not have to pay at all. Overall, the LCT is considerably cheaper than the standard tickets (for season passes) particularly in consideration of the large area it covers (application area). The LCT’s management is based in Innsbruck. It is administrated by the Innsbrucker Nordkettenbahnen, i.e. one of the mountain railways.

The special feature of the LCT is its coopetitive structure (c.f. Schnitzer et al., 2018) as coopetition allows the suppliers to create a product they could not develop on their own (Walley, 2007). Indeed, it generates value in two ways as “[…] the interests of both the companies and the customers that they supply are best served by a coopetitive balance of both competition and cooperation” (Walley, 2007, p. 16). Having said that, the second part of this statement has yet to be proven.

The LCT can probably only survive at the current price due to the inclusion of governmental corporations – which do not necessarily need to be in the black (Schnitzer et al., 2018). This feature could also be seen as an indication; the LCT is sold more cheaply than it could be by sole private suppliers, trying to prevent losses. Despite the fact that there is no direct governmental subsidy for the LCT, tolerance of (possible) losses on the part of the governmental suppliers requires knowledge about its buyers: even a comparatively low price does not necessarily lead to the absence of social exclusion. Furthermore, governments are arguably interested in offering attractive leisure opportunities. Therefore, if one goes by the assumption that the LCT is a desirable good from a governmental perspective, then the card has to undergo further examination as the evaluation will help governments to estimate the perceived added value of such cards and, thereby, contribute as a point of reference in the weighting of potential future card schemes. Depending on the outcomes, other regions may be interested in fostering comparable partnerships between governmental and private suppliers.

Methods

The scholarly literature provides some suggestions in answering the “why” and “how” issues such as the second objective. Firstly, an exploratory, qualitative method is considered highly relevant (Maxwell, 2013). Secondly, a case-study design is in all probability suitable for such questions while the single-case design is justifiable if the investigated case represents unique or rare circumstances or is revelatory (c.f. Yin, 2014). We believe these conditions prevail in the context of our study. On the one hand, it is a rare case due to the uncommon card having a residential orientation but a private management. On the other hand, the case is revelatory in nature as little is known about the added value perceived by the demand side.

The study was conducted in several stages. Firstly, interviews (taking place between 1 June 2018 and 6 June 2018) were conducted with LCT holders. Table 1 gives an overview of the interviewees for the interviews. The intention behind the sample selection for the interviews was to find a balanced mix of old and young, male and female. After conducting seven interviews, a sufficient saturation had been achieved. Thus, the underlying interview guideline was twofold. In a first step, an open question was proposed to guarantee unbiased directions and answers: What do you associate with the LCT? In a second step, questions based on the literature were asked. For that purpose, the (potential) manifestations of added value, derived in the second part of the literature review were taken into account. Subsequently, interviewees were asked to take a stand on the corresponding aspects. The corresponding results were evaluated by using the qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2010).

Table 1. Interview sample.

Acronym	Gender	Age	Professional Activity
B1	f	56	employed
B2	m	56	employed
B3	m	22	employed
B4	f	26	student
B5	f	22	student
B6	m	64	pensioner
B7	m	27	employed

Secondly, the inductive categories resulting from the open question and the deductive categories derived from the literature were merged into one category system. In a next step, the content of each category was paraphrased and used for the development of a buyer-orientated questionnaire. In other words, participants were asked to rate each single category on a Likert scale from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (totally agree), i.e. to evaluate where in their estimation the added value is to be predominantly found. In addition to this part of the questionnaire, a second part was added asking demographic and general questions regarding the buyers (e.g. financial situation on a Likert scale from 1 (great financial problems) to 4 (comfortable financial situation)).

Thirdly, the online survey was made accessible to quantitatively answer the first research question and to substantiate the qualitative data from the interviews from 1 October to 10 December 2018. As the LCT 2018/2019 was valid from 1.10.2018 until 30.09.2019 most of the buyers purchased their tickets within the chosen survey period. A QR Code leading to the online questionnaire was supplied with every purchase. Of the 60,000 buyers, 2391 probands completed the survey (ratio 5%). Additionally, the results were complemented by the official sales figures for the LCT. This allowed the sample (n = 2391) to be checked for its representativity.

Fourthly, a statistical evaluation of the retrieved data was conducted. After a descriptive analysis, a comparison between the groups was performed (Kruskal–Wallis Test, Dunn-Bonferroni Tests).

Results

General analysis of the buyer groups

95.7% (n = 2008) of the sample currently lives in Innsbruck or in “greater Innsbruck” known as “Innsbruck Land”, an area limited by the border to Italy in the south and by the border to Germany in the north, extending as far as Telfs (∼30 km to the west of Innsbruck) and Weer (20 km to the east of Innsbruck). Table 2 shows the sample on the basis of the different ticket types.

Table 2. Overview leisure card buyers.

Ticket Type	Age Group	n	%	n	%
Adult	18–64	1450	70	33,287	56
Child	5–15	37	2	12,749	33
Youth	15–18	38	2	1926	3
Student	18–27	331	16	5640	10
Senior	64+	195	9	4923	8
Invalid	–	28	1	619	1
Sum			100	59,144	100

Due to an underrepresentation of children (Child + Fam. Child) in the sample (2%) in comparison to the sales figures (c.f. Table 2) and their small sample size, they are no longer considered in the subsequent sections. Since children in general do not buy their own tickets, this was a foreseeable limitation. Subsequently, for a more precise evaluation, the sample was split into three age groups: Young Adults (18–35; mean = 26.5 ± 4.7; n  =  1041), Adults (36–63; mean = 47.5 ± 7.8; n = 1046) and Seniors (64+; mean = 70.1 ± 4.8; n = 224).

The oldest respondent is already 88. The proportion of females among the Young Adults amounts to 59.2% (n = 1036), among the Adults to 51.3% (n = 1038) and among the Seniors 32.1% (n = 224). 5.7% of the young adults have parents who (both) do not originate from Austria (n = 1041). Among the adults, the share is 8.5% (n = 1044) and among the seniors, 12.2% (n = 222) of the probands have parents who do not originate from Austria. On a scale from 1 (great financial problems) to 4 (comfortable financial situation), 10.7% of the young adults (n = 1032) mentioned (great) financial problems. This compares with 6.25% of adults (n = 1036) and 3.6% of seniors (n = 220) stating they were experiencing (great) financial problems. The share of people who had bought the ticket at least for the second time amounted to 64.8% of the young adults (n = 1033), 82.1% (n = 1036) of the adults and 92.6% (n = 224) of the seniors.

Buyers’ perceptions: examination of the added value of coopetitive leisure cards

The results are split into two different approaches. Firstly, the key results of the interviews are presented, followed by the results of the online questionnaire.

Part A – interviews

The statements from the interviewees suggest the LCT is expected to be financially advantageous: “[…] because it is simply a good offer in terms of money. If I sum up the amount of money I would have paid for standard tickets and compare the amount to the LCT-price, the LCT is cheaper.” (B5). However, simultaneously, the price is one of the rare negative points stated: “[…] but it gets more and more expensive each year and this development annoys me.” (B4). According to the interviewees, added value also results from the higher levels of leisure activity, associated with the LCT: “One simply is more active in comparison if one owns the ticket.” (B1). In line with this, one interviewee states that the LCT “[…] makes [me] feel more sporty” (B2). Furthermore, a strong appreciation of the freedom to engage in leisure activities was evident. In other words, arguably due to a payment depreciation effect, negative thoughts about the purchase shrink and the pressure to utilise day tickets disappears. “[…] that I am able to go skiing for a few hours without distracting thoughts.” (B5). “If I would have to purchase a day ticket each single time I want to go skiing, I would go decisively less as the question arises: Do I really want to spend the money right now?” (B3). In this context, another advantage was mentioned: “What’s really great is that you don’t have to queue anywhere” (B1). In addition, the probands associate the LCT with a large area, resulting in new experiences: “Having the freedom to do things spontaneously which I would not do otherwise […].” (B7). Especially the all-season usage is appreciated: “What’s special about it? […] that it can also be used during the summer” (B1). Finally, another key result from the interviews is the tendency to link the LCT with a broader social environment: “[…] That one goes skiing with lots of different groups. In one go, one has the ticket and starts skiing with all kinds of people who are skiing at the same time.” (B5). In total, three manifestations of added value can be derived from the interviews, complementing the deductive categories deduced from the literature. Namely, a social aspect (easier to socialise), the time-saving aspect and the feeling of being more sporty.

Part B – online survey

The following table illustrates the quantitative results of the online questionnaire regarding the second research aim (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of the groups.

Added Value	Young adults [Y] (n = 926)			Adults [A] (n = 934)			Senior adults [S] (n = 192)			Kruskal–Wallis Test				p adj.
	Mean	Median	Std Dev	Mean	Median	Std Dev	Mean	Median	Std Dev	Chi-Square	df	Asymp. Sig.	r	Y - A	Y - S	A - S
Enables all-season activity	4.62	5	0.86	4.68	5	0.81	4.80	5	0.65	12.57	2	0.002	0.29	0.04	0.00
Large application area	4.36	5	1.01	4.26	5	1.03	4.46	5	0.89	9.48	2	0.009	0.22	0.04		0.04
Financial advantage	4.33	5	1.08	4.15	5	1.19	4.27	5	1.09	11.10	2	0.004	0.25	0.00
Less pressure in comparison to day passes	3.91	4	1.35	3.94	5	1.34	4.02	5	1.40	2.57	2	0.277
Time savings (queues)	3.76	4	1.45	3.73	4	1.41	3.78	4	1.47	0.64	2	0.726
Easier to socialise	3.48	4	1.33	3.47	4	1.39	3.67	4	1.25	2.58	2	0.275
More motivation for sports	3.47	4	1.49	3.73	4	1.37	4.12	5	1.15	33.64	2	0.000	0.75	0.00	0.00	0.00
Unites sports and cultural activities	3.19	3	1.30	3.28	3	1.32	3.61	4	1.29	14.56	2	0.001	0.35		0.00	0.01
Makes me feel more sporty	2.47	2	1.39	2.63	3	1.39	3.16	3	1.53	29.75	2	0.000	0.71		0.00	0.00

Note: For all three groups and all nine categories the following holds: minimum = 1, maximum = 5 and IQR = 4, p adj. derived by Dunn-Bonferroni Test.

Results suggest that financial advantage, all-season activities and the large application area are particularly relevant for all three groups. To control for differences between the groups, a Kruskal–Wallis Test was preferred to a parametric one-way ANOVA due to the abnormal distribution or the skewness of the data. The subsequent pairwise comparisons were conducted by using the Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc approach.

Discussion

General analysis of the buyer groups

One main outcome of this study is that the LCT is generally able to address a large range of age groups. Starting with small children, people aged up to 88 are obviously interested in buying the LCT. In addition, total sales figures (i.e. about 59,000) indicate a high penetration rate in Innsbruck and its surroundings (roughly 300,000 inhabitants). Furthermore, the yearly increase in purchases suggests the card system has become a fixed component of the locals’ leisure activities. Interestingly, among students and adults, the sample shows a higher share of females than males. At first glance, this may be seen as an indication that the LCT appeals to women rather than men. However, since there are other card schemes in Tyrol providing comparable offers, this has to be interpreted carefully. The fact that the LCT reaches male but not female seniors raises questions. Aside from that, the LCT seems to be an appropriate tool to appeal not only to a broad range of people, both male and female, old and young, but also rather physically inactive groups. In terms of finance, a large share of all groups, especially among seniors, claims not to suffer from financial problems. In fact, financial factors can influence leisure and physical activity, i.e. lead to disadvantages for economically weak individuals (Costello et al., 2011; Juniu, 2009). Therefore, in contrast to the previous parameters, this may indicate that the LCT is unaffordable for some consumers. However, a more in-depth analysis, comparing non-buyers to buyers, is necessary to evaluate this outcome accurately.

Overall, one could consider these findings as indicators; there is no lack of professional marketing for the LCT – the first issue mentioned by Collins (2011), limiting previous leisure cards. Especially with respect to social exclusion, it would be interesting to investigate the financial aspect. Indeed, given the large share of profit-orientated corporations, the LCT does not seek to avoid social exclusion. Still, from a governmental perspective, the card scheme should minimise social exclusion, especially if it seeks to be a societally debatable model.

Buyers’ perceptions: examination of the added value of coopetitive leisure cards

With respect to manifestations of added value associated with the LCT, three key outcomes should be emphasised. Firstly, the potential financial benefits of the LCT are highly appreciated. Besides the positive value-for-money ratio mentioned by the interviewees, the quantitative data also supports this assumption. In fact, a majority in all three groups (median 5) is convinced the LCT provides financial advantages for them. This outcome underpins the assumption that an alliance of private and public suppliers offering the card arguably below market price is highly appreciated. This aspect seems even more relevant to the young group than to the adults (p<0.01). Furthermore, in this context, the sunk cost (Thaler, 1980) effect seems to play an interesting role. As it usually describes the “[…] greater tendency to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been made.” (Arkes & Blumer, 1985, p. 124), the LCT obviously succeeds in encouraging this behaviour – in a positive way. Indeed, the financial advantage and the reduced stress in comparison with regular day tickets stated by a majority of the sample reflects previous research: Multi-use passes not only led to a full utilisation of the offerings in the study of Crompton (2016) but also to a discount of at least 42% in comparison to skiing day tickets (Holmgren et al., 2016). The fact that awareness of high sunk cost can decisively shrink the enjoyment of a service (Robbert et al., 2013) does not hold true for the LCT according to the interviews – on the contrary: payment depreciation (Gourville & Soman, 1998), describing the effect of a “felt-free” consumption due to a temporal deferral between buying and using the product is observable. This could increase the levels of leisure-time exercise, which, in turn, may encourage healthier lifestyles (Mensink et al., 1997). Interesting in this connection is the evaluation by the seniors who obviously consider the LCT to hold a lot of promise. Especially the aspects “to feel more sporty” and “more motivation for sports” differ significantly between seniors and the other two groups – in favour of the seniors (p<0.01). This is a gratifying outcome, as seniors generally rank among the more physically inactive groups (Guthold et al., 2008). However, feel does not replace actual activity.

Secondly, as suggested by the suppliers (Schnitzer et al., 2018), the probands cherish the large application area. A reason for this may be the link between free organisation of leisure activities and quality of life (Juniu, 2009). This implies that the objective of managers to make buyers visit otherwise unlikely places (c.f. Puhe, 2014) is appreciated – mostly by seniors (p<0.05).

Thirdly, the all-season / all-weather validity decisively contributes to the added value of the LCT. This finding, which again is a desirable outcome for managers wanting to reduce (touristic) seasonality (c.f. Figini & Vici, 2012) is highly valued by the buyers. However, it remains unclear if the LCT actually leads to a rise in activity. Nevertheless, the possibility to use a ticket independently of the weather (e.g. indoor and outdoor swimming pools) and independently of the season appears inviting.

Overall, these results are supported by the fact that about 80% of the respondents had not bought the ticket for the first time – thus, expectations may have already become experience. This result may be explained by loyalty, associated with such cards (c.f. Crompton, 2009). However, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the combination of culture and sports seems to play a subordinate role. In other words, it may be a feature that does not have to be part of future card schemes.

The study at hand has certain limitations. Firstly, only the positive aspects of the card were elaborated and only recent buyers were considered. Thus, future research should take the downsides into account to complement the picture and avoid distortions. This is especially important as the majority of probands had bought the ticket more than once and were thus obviously satisfied. Former, possibly dissatisfied buyers or customers unable to purchase the card, were excluded. Secondly, the insights were acquired using a case-study design (Tyrol, LCT) and hence are only transferable to a certain degree. Thirdly, the values derived for the quantitative answer of the second objective show tendencies towards a ceiling effect. This underlines that the results should only be considered as starting points.

Conclusions and implications

While the achievable objectives for the managers of a destination card had received some scientific attention in the past, the potential beneficiaries on the other side – tourists and, in this case, local residents – have been excluded. Thus, this study contributes to the state of research by providing an initial insight into a possible sustainable and arguably (economically) stable card scheme from the demand side. The twofold approach suggests that residents consider the card – despite its price – to be more than just low-cost. This outcome not only has some practical implications but also opens several research fields. In fact, on the one hand, it is interesting for managers as the exposed added value basically coincides with the suppliers’ perceptions. In other words, the created product is perceived as desirable by the management. Consequently, the results may be considered a point of reference for future card schemes, which, after summing up both the perceptions of suppliers and buyers, seem worth promoting – especially as the card appeals to a comprehensive clientele. On the other hand, given that the majority of surveyed buyers associate the card with several aspects (i.e. more motivation for sports) linked with quality of life, future investigations should examine this aspect in greater depth. In fact, since our study only shows the (perceived) manifestations of added value, the actual magnitude of the impact remains unknown. From a governmental perspective, it would be highly relevant to find out whether these perceptions could be translated into real effects: Can such cards really make people practice more sport and subsequently increase welfare? Future research should thus embed the phenomenon of innovative schemes in a more generalised context. Currently, as a result of the case-study design, insights are limited.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).