The objective of this paper is to show how surveys are used to elicit users' preferences and willingness to pay for novel packages of e-services used in commercial tourism. The authors analyse data gathered from 5,100 questionnaire survey responses by residents, visitors and service providers in three European cities – Amsterdam, Genoa and Leipzig. The results show that people are willing to pay for some of the proposed e-services, while other services clearly represent a cost. The findings are important for the improvement of decisions in the tourism industry, which often uses various combinations of e-services to promote cultural heritage, enhancing visitors' experiences. In addition, the results may help to identify eventual prices that could be charged for the use of e-services in cultural heritage.
AlberiniA.LongoA. (2006), ‘Valuing environmental resources using stated preferences’, in AlberiniA.RosatoP.TurvaniM., eds, Valuing Complex Natural Resource Systems: The Case of the Lagoon of Venice, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–22.
2.
AlberiniA.LongoA.VeronesiM. (2005), ‘Basic statistical models for conjoint choice experiments’, in KanninenB., ed, Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Choice Experiments: A Common Sense Guide to Theory and Practice, Springer, Dordrecht, pp 203–227.
3.
ApostolakisA.JaffryS. (2006), ‘Correcting for sample selection bias in stated preference tourist surveys’, Tourism Economics, Vol 12, No 3, pp 451–468.
4.
BatemanI.DayB.JonesA.JudeS. (2009), ‘Reducing gain/loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol 58, No 1, pp 106–118.
5.
DaviesA.LaingR.A.MacmillanD.C. (2000), ‘The use of choice experiments in the built environment: An innovative approach’, Proceedings of Transitions Towards a Sustainable Europe: Ecology, Economy, Policy, 3rd Biennial Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, May, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Vienna.
6.
EarnhartD. (2002), ‘Combining revealed and stated data to examine housing decisions using discrete choice analysis’, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol 51, pp 143–169.
7.
FawcettW.EllinghamI.PlattS., (2008), ‘Reconciling the architectural preferences of architects and the public: The ordered preference model’, Environment and Behaviour, Vol 4, No 5, pp 599–618.
8.
FinnA.LouviereJ.J.TimmermansH.HutchinsonW. (1992), ‘International generalisability of shopping centre choice and consideration models’, paper presented at Marketing Science Conference, London.
9.
GegaxD.StanleyL. (1997), ‘Validating conjoint and hedonic preference measures: Evidence from valuing reductions in risk’, Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, Vol 35, No 2, pp 31–35.
10.
GreenP.SrinivasanV. (1978), ‘Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 5, pp 103–123.
11.
HanleyN.MouratoS.WrightR. (2001), ‘Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental evaluation?’, Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol 15, No 3, pp 453–462.
12.
HensherD. (1994), ‘Stated preference analysis of travel choices: The state of practice’, Transportation, Vol 21, pp 107–133.
13.
KatoshevskiR.TimmermansH. (2001), ‘Using conjoint analysis to formulate user-centered guidelines for urban design: The example of new residential development in Israel’, Journal of Urban Design, Vol 6, No 1, pp 37–53.
14.
LancasterK. (1966), ‘A new approach to consumer theory’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol 84, pp 132–157.
15.
LeeJ.ChoY YoungsangLeeJ.D.LeeC.J. (2006), ‘Forecasting future demand for large-screen television sets using conjoint analysis with diffusion mode’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 73, No 4, pp 362–376.
16.
LouviereJ.J.HensherD. (1982), ‘On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling’, Transportation Research Record, Vol 890, pp 11–17.
17.
LouviereJ.J.TimmermansH. (1990), ‘Hierarchical information integration applied to residential choice behaviour’, Geographical Analysis, Vol 22, pp 127–144.
18.
LouviereJ.J.WoodworthJ. (1983), ‘Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice of allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregated data’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 20, pp 350–367.
19.
LouviereJ.J.HensherD.A.SwaitJ.D. (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20.
LuceD.TukeyJ. (1964), ‘Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol 1, No 64, pp 1–27.
21.
MazzantiM. (2003), ‘Discrete choice models and valuation experiments: An application of cultural heritage’, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol 30, No 6, pp 584–604.
22.
MooreW.LouviereJ.J.VermaR. (1999), ‘Using conjoint analysis to help design product platforms’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol 16, pp 27–39.
23.
OppewalH.TimmermansH. (1999), ‘Modelling consumer perceptions of public spaces in shopping malls’, Environment and Behaviour, Vol 31, No 1, pp 45–65.
24.
OrzechowskiM.ArtenzieT.BorgesA.TimmermansH. (2005), ‘Alternate methods of conjoint analysis for estimating housing preference functions: Effects of presentation style’, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol 20, pp 349–362.
25.
RigantiP.StrielkowskiW.WangJ. (2012), ‘Tourism, cultural heritage and e-services: Using focus groups and in-depth interviews to assess consumers' preference’, TOURISMOS: An International Multidisciplinary Refereed Journal of Tourism, Vol 8, No 1, pp 41–59.
26.
San MiguelF.RyanM.McIntoschE. (2000), ‘Demonstrating the use of conjoint analysis in health economics’, Applied Economics, Vol 32, pp 823–833.
27.
StrielkowskiW. (2012), ‘Czech experience with using culture satellite account’, Czech Journal of Social Sciences, Business and Economics, Vol 1, No 1, pp 60–67.
28.
ThurstoneL.L. (1927), ‘A law of comparative judgment’, Psychology Review, Vol 34, pp 278–286.
ThurstoneL.L. (1959), The Measurement of Values, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
31.
TuanT.T.NavrudS. (2007), ‘Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: Comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates’, Environmental Resource Economics, Vol 38, pp 51–69.
32.
Van LeeuwenE.NijkampP. (2010), ‘A microsimilation model for e-services in cultural heritage tourism’, Tourism Economics, Vol 16, No 2, pp 361–384.
33.
WangD.LiS. (2004), ‘Housing preference in a transitional housing system: The case of Beijing, China’, Environment and Planning AVol 36, No 1, pp 69–87.
