IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/zfwige/v58y2014i1p144-163n10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of protected areas in destination choice in the European Alps

Author

Listed:
  • Pröbstl-Haider Ulrike

    (Wien/Vancouver)

  • Haider Wolfgang

    (Wien/Vancouver)

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of protected areas (PA) for destination choice in the European Alps. It is based on the analysis of the most relevant types of PA (national park, nature park, biosphere reserve), constituting part of the supply of tourism development, and a representative survey of the German population interested in holidays in the alpine area, representing the demand. Our analysis of the legal framework showed that all three types of PA facilitate tourism development, albeit in different ways. The survey included a generic choice experiment of alpine destinations with 17 attributes. Its location in or close to a PA was included as one variable. This destination demand study in an area of origin provided a different perspective on the preference for PA compared to other studies, and revealed significant differences between respondents with and without previous experiences in the Alps. The alpine experienced tourist is more likely to distinguish between the various types of PA such as national park and nature park. For the inexperienced alpine tourist, representing latent demand, the branding effect of PA is rather limited. For nearly all tourists, experienced and inexperienced, and across all segments, offers that include a nature experience are important. Nature experience, which is offered by all types of PA, is of high relevance within the destination choice and should therefore be used more intensely in destination marketing based on PA. Overall, this study shows that the role of PA for destination choice is not as strong as is reported by most of the published literature, as most of these studies are based on surveys in the destination and use single item scaling questions, which overvalue the role of PA.

Suggested Citation

  • Pröbstl-Haider Ulrike & Haider Wolfgang, 2014. "The role of protected areas in destination choice in the European Alps," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 58(1), pages 144-163, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:zfwige:v:58:y:2014:i:1:p:144-163:n:10
    DOI: 10.1515/zfw.2014.0010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw.2014.0010
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/zfw.2014.0010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rinaldo Brau & D. Cao, 2005. "Uncovering the macrostructure of tourists' preferences. A choice experiment analysis of tourism demand to Sardinia," Working Paper CRENoS 200514, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    3. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    7. Bruno Zanon & Davide Geneletti, 2011. "Integrating ecological, scenic and local identity values in the management plan of an Alpine Natural Park," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(6), pages 833-850.
    8. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Tomás O’Leary & Art McCormack & Brendan Riordan, 2006. "Quantifying the landscape benefits arising from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme: results from a public survey," Working Papers 0608, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    4. Kim, Do-hun & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2024. "Psychological distances to climate change and public preferences for biodiversity-augmenting attributes in family-owned production forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    5. repec:ags:aare05:139316 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    7. Choi, Andy S., 2011. "Implicit prices for longer temporary exhibitions in a heritage site and a test of preference heterogeneity: A segmentation-based approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 511-519.
    8. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    9. Hocheol Jeon & Joseph A. Herriges, 2017. "Combining Revealed Preference Data with Stated Preference Data: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1053-1086, December.
    10. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    11. Bakti Hasan-Basri & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim & Normizan Bakar, 2015. "Willingness To Pay For Recreational Attributes Of Public Parks: A Choice Experiment Approach," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 60(05), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    13. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Dias, Vitor & Belcher, Ken, 2015. "Value and provision of ecosystem services from prairie wetlands: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 35-44.
    15. Francisco Guijarro & Prodromos Tsinaslanidis, 2020. "Analysis of Academic Literature on Environmental Valuation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-14, March.
    16. Andy S. Choi & Kelly S. Fielding, 2016. "Cultural Attitudes as WTP Determinants: A Revised Cultural Worldview Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-18, June.
    17. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    18. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    19. Venus, Terese E. & Sauer, Johannes, 2022. "Certainty pays off: The public's value of environmental monitoring," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    20. Siti Aznor Ahmad* & Shamsul Bahrain Rawi & Bakti Hassan Basri & AmizamArzemi, 2018. "Crop Insurance Scheme Among Paddy Farmers in Kedah, Malaysia: Are They Willing to Pay?," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 1167-1173:6.
    21. Franceschinis, Cristiano & Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John & Moretto, Michele & Cavalli, Raffaele, 2017. "Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 313-326.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:zfwige:v:58:y:2014:i:1:p:144-163:n:10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.