Despite the economic valuation of forest park resources has triggered a great deal of interest to the research community and park management, up to now no attention has been paid to the effect of psychological factors such as tourist satisfaction, which could potentially play a considerable role in contributing to the park resource valuation. This article attempts to fill this niche by carrying out a study on the economic valuation of the Xian-Ren-Tai National Forest Park in China, taking consideration of the tourist satisfaction. In the process, the choice experiment survey was used for data collection. Then, both conditional logit (CL) and random parameter logit models were used in parameter estimations to examine the factors that could potentially impact on the tourists’ willingness to pay. Results indicate that the tourists attach the greatest importance to the park’s natural environment and traffic conditions, and yet the level of tourists’ satisfaction on their tourism experience plays a big part in explaining the valuation results. Tourists who uphold a high level of satisfaction tend to pay more for the park attribute improvement than those with less satisfaction ones. The estimated compensating variation of the overall current park attributes has reached ¥184.95 per person per trip, of which 12.83% shall be attributable to the tourist satisfaction.
AdamowiczWGlenkKMeyerhoffJ (2014) Choice modelling research in environmental and resource economics. In: HessSDalyA (eds) Handbook of Choice Modelling. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 661–674.
ArmbrechtJ (2014) Use value of cultural experiences: A comparison of contingent valuation and travel cost. Tourism Management42(3): 141–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.010.
4.
ArrowKSolowRPortneyP. (1993) Report to the national oceanic and atmospheric administration panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register58: 4601–4614.
5.
BakerDCromptonJ (2000) Quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Annals of Tourism Research27(3): 425–439.
6.
BarbaraM (1997) The service profit chain: How leading companies link profit and growth to loyalty, satisfaction, and value. International Journal of Service Industry Management9(3): 312–313.
7.
BennettJAdamowiczV (1999) Some Fundamentals of Environmental Choice Modelling. Canberra: School of Economics and Management, University College, The University of New South Wales.
8.
BennettRMBlaneyRJP (2015) Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method. Agricultural Economics29(1): 85–98. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5150(03)00037-9.
9.
BlameyRGordonJChapmanR (1999) Choice modelling: Assessing the environmental values of water supply options. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics43(3): 337–357.
10.
CarlssonFMartinssonP (2008) Does it matter when a power outage occurs? — A choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to avoid power outages. Energy Economics30(3): 1232–1245. DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2007.04.001.
11.
CarsonRT (2012) Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. Journal of Economic Perspectives26(4): 27–42.
12.
CarsonRTLouviereJJ (2011) A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environmental and Resource Economics49(4): 539–559.
13.
CastellaniMPattitoniPViciL (2015) Pricing visitor preferences for temporary art exhibitions. Tourism Economics21: 83–103.
14.
ChampPABoyleKJBrownTC (2003) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Berlin: Springer Netherlands.
15.
ChenCFChenFS (2010) Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management31(1): 29–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.008.
16.
ChenCFChenPC (2012) Research note: Exploring tourists’ stated preferences for heritage tourism services - the case of Tainan city, Taiwan. Tourism Economics18(2): 457–464.
17.
ChoiAS (2013) Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay. Ecological Economics88(7): 97–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.014.
18.
ChoiASRitchieBWPapandreaF. (2010) Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach. Tourism Management31(2): 213–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.014.
19.
ChristieMHanleyNHynesS (2007) Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. Journal of Forest Economics13(2): 75–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2007.02.005.
DalyAHessSTrainK (2012) Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models. Transportation39(1): 19–31. DOI: 10.1007/s11116-011-9331-3.
22.
D’AmatoDRekolaMLiN. (2016) Monetary valuation of forest ecosystem services in China: A literature review and identification of future research needs. Ecological Economics121: 75–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.009.
23.
DavisRK (1963) Recreation planning as an economic problem. Nature Resources Journal3(2): 239–249.
24.
EkKPerssonL (2014) Wind farms — Where and how to place them? A choice experiment approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm establishments in Sweden. Ecological Economics105(9): 193–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.001.
25.
FerriniSScarpaR (2007) Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management53(3): 342–363.
26.
FiroozanAHAbedMHBahmanpourH. (2012) Estimated recreational value of Lahijan forest using by contingent valuation method. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science. Available at: http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20123393087.html(accessed 6 November 2017).
27.
GenevskyAVästfjällDSlovicP. (2013) Neural underpinnings of the identifiable victim effect: Affect shifts preferences for giving. Journal of Neuroscience the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience33(43): 17188.
28.
GiergicznyMCzajkowskiMŻyliczT. (2015) Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes. Ecological Economics119: 8–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.032.
29.
HaabTCInterisMGPetroliaDR. (2013) From hopeless to curious? Thoughts on Hausman’s “dubious to hopeless” critique of contingent valuation. Working Papers35(4): 593–612.
30.
HanleyNWrightREAdamowiczV (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics11(3–4): 413–428. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008287310583.
31.
HarrisonGW (1992) Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: A critique of Kahneman and Knetsch. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management23(23): 248–257. DOI: 10.1016/0095-0696(92)90003-F.
32.
HasanbasriBKarimMBakarN (2015) Willingness to pay for recreational attributes of public parks: A choice experiment approach. Singapore Economic Review60(05): 1550048-1–1550048-18. DOI: 10.1142/S0217590815500484.
33.
HensherDAGreeneWH (2003) The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation30(2): 133–176.
34.
HensherDARoseJGreeneWH (2005) Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
HoyosD (2010) The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics69(8): 1595–1603. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011.
36.
HoyosDMarielPPascualU. (2012) Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country. Journal of Forest Economics18(4): 329–344. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2012.05.002.
37.
JabarinASDamhoureyehSA (2006) Estimating the recreational benefits of Dibeen national park in Jordan using contingent valuation and travel cost methods. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences9(12): 2198–2206.
38.
JarvisDStoecklNLiuHB (2016) The impact of economic, social and environmental factors on trip satisfaction and the likelihood of visitors returning. Tourism Management52: 1–18.
39.
JimCYChenWY (2006) Recreation-amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning75(1): 81–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.08.008.
40.
JinJWangZRanS (2006) Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecological Economics57(3): 430–441. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.020.
41.
JinYCKyleGT (2011) Fairness of prices, user fee policy and willingness to pay among visitors to a national forest. Tourism Management32(5): 1038–1046. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.08.016.
42.
JuutinenAKoseniusAKOvaskainenV (2014) Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment. Journal of Forest Economics20(4): 396–412. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2014.10.003.
43.
KahnemanDRitovISchkadeD (1999) Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty19(1/3): 203–235. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007835629236.
KnutsonBGreerSM (2008) Anticipatory affect: Neural correlates and consequences for choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences363(1511): 3771–86. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0155.
46.
KozakM (2001) Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two nationalities. Tourism Management22(4): 391–401. DOI: 10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00064-9.
47.
KrinskyIRobbAL (1986) On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and Statistics68(4): 715–719.
48.
KuhfeldWFTobiasRDGarrattM (1994) Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. Journal of Marketing Research31(4): 545–557.
49.
LaitilaTPaulrudAFredmanP. (2008) Anglers’ valuation of water regulation dam removal for the restoration of angling conditions at Storsjö-Kapell. Tourism Economics14(2): 283–296. Available at: http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20083144145.html(accessed 19 June 2018).
50.
LatinopoulosD (2014) The impact of economic recession on outdoor recreation demand: An application of the travel cost method in Greece. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management57(2): 254–272.
51.
LayardR (2006) Happiness and public policy: A challenge to the profession. Economic Journal116(510): C24–C33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01073.x.
52.
LazariAGAndersonDA (1994) Designs of discrete choice set experiments for estimating both attribute and availability cross effects. Journal of Marketing Research31(3): 375–383.
53.
LeithamSMcquaidRWNelsonJD (2000) The influence of transport on industrial location choice: a stated preference experiment. Transportation Research Part A Policy and Practice34(7): 515–535. DOI: 10.1016/S0965-8564(99)00030-0.
54.
LeónCJArañaJEHanemannWM. (2014) Heterogeneity and emotions in the valuation of non-use damages caused by oil spills. Ecological Economics97(3): 129–139. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.10.010.
55.
LimKHHuWMaynardLJ. (2013) U.S. consumers’ preference and willingness to pay for country-of-origin-labeled beef steak and food safety enhancements. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/revue Canadienne Dagroeconomie61(1): 93–118. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01260.x.
56.
LiuCHHorngJSChouSF. (2016) An empirical examination of the form of relationship between sustainable tourism experiences and satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research (7): 1–24.
57.
LoAYJimCY (2015) Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for contingent valuation method. Ecological Economics114: 58–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.012.
58.
LoewensteinG (2000) Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. American Economic Review90(2): 426–432.
LópezmosqueraNSánchezM (2011) Emotional and satisfaction benefits to visitors as explanatory factors in the monetary valuation of environmental goods. An application to Periurban green spaces. Land Use Policy28(1): 151–166. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.05.008.
61.
LouviereJJHensherDASwaitJD (2001) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62.
LuoSFHuangYLChengDP. (2011) Study on the effect of affective factors on tourist experience and satisfaction——taking the performance” impression of liusanjie” in Guilin as an example. Tourism Tribune26(1): 51–58.
63.
LuskJLNorwoodFB (2005) Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics87(3): 771–785.
64.
LuskJLSchroederTC (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics86(2): 467–482.
65.
LyuSO (2017) Which accessible travel products are people with disabilities willing to pay more? A choice experiment. Tourism Management59: 404–412. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.002.
66.
ManningRE (2003) What to do about crowding and solitude in parks and wilderness? A reply to Stewart and Cole. Journal of Leisure Research35(1): 107–118.
67.
McfaddenD (1974) Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
68.
MitchellRCCarsonRT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future /Johns Hopkins University Press.
69.
NeutsB (2016) An econometric approach to crowding in touristic city centres: Evaluating the utility effect on local residents. Tourism Economics22(5): 1055–1074.
70.
OlesonKLLBarnesMBranderLM. (2015) Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods. Ecological Economics114: 104–116. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2516507.
71.
PetroliaDRInterisMGHwangJ (2014) America’s Wetland? A national survey of willingness to pay for restoration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. Social Science Electronic Publishing29(1): 17–37. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2054867.
72.
RahimiM (2011) Estimated value of forest recreation parks and identify factors influencing willingness to pay Bonab Arsanjan visitors (tourists). Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences5(12): 1802–1805.
73.
ReveltDTrainK (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics & Statistics80(4): 647–657.
74.
ReveltDTrainK (2000) Customer-specific taste parameters and mixed logit: Households’ choice of electricity supplier. Economics Working Papers19(9): 934–938.
75.
ReynisdottirMSongHAgrusaJ (2008) Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tourism Management29(6): 1076–1083. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.016.
76.
SaweN (2017) Using neuroeconomics to understand environmental valuation. Ecological Economics135: 1–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.018.
77.
SianoASiglioccoloM (2011) Rubbish emergency impact on in-bound tourism demand and on the number of visitors to museums. International Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research5(1): 69–79.
78.
SpashCLUramaKBurtonR. (2009) Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecological Economics68(4): 955–964. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.013.
79.
SubadeRFFranciscoHA (2014) Do non-users value coral reefs?: Economic valuation of conserving Tubbataha Reefs, Philippines. Ecological Economics102(102): 24–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.03.007.
80.
TrainKE (1999) Mixed logit models for recreation demand. In: Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
81.
TrainKE (2003) Discrete Choice: Methods with Simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
82.
VandermerschMMathijsE (2004) Consumer Willingness to Pay for Domestic Milk. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
83.
VenkatramanVDimokaAPavlouPA. (2015) Predicting advertising success beyond traditional measures: New insigh. Journal of Marketing Research52: 436–452.
84.
WangEDWeiJHLuHY (2014) Valuing natural and non-natural attributes for a national forest park using a choice experiment method. Tourism Economics20(6): 1199–1213.
85.
WuepperD (2017) What is the value of world heritage status for a German national park? A choice experiment from Jasmund, 1 year after inscription. Tourism Economics23(5): 1114–1123.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
