IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i10p2953-d233881.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Tourists’ Preferences of Negative Externalities of Environmental Management Programs: A Case Study on Invasive Species in Shei-Pa National Park, Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Tzu-Ming Liu

    (Graduate Institute of Marine Affairs, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan)

  • Chia-Mei Tien

    (Marketing and Sales Department, Queena Plaza Hotel Tainan, Tainan 71081, Taiwan)

Abstract

This study uses discrete choice experiments to evaluate and reduce the environmental impact of negative externalities of managing invasive alien species (IAS), such as “ecological shock”, “health risk”, “waiting time” “tour range” and “prevention and control fee”, on the support of IAS prevention and control. We used data from Taiwan’s Shei-Pa National Park and its visitors for the case study and obtained 602 valid questionnaires. The results indicate that visitors consider that each unit of externality of IAS prevention and control measures significantly reduces their utility, and the magnitude equals the estimated value of externality. However, although negative externalities are inevitable, the support for IAS prevention and control measures could be maximized by adjusting the types and proportions of negative externalities. For example, visitors are willing to sacrifice up to 1.41% of the tour range in exchange for a 1% reduction in ecological shock. This study summarizes the negative externalities of IAS prevention and control measures and proposes to adjust the combination of negative externalities to reduce the shocks of those IAS prevention and control measures on the public, so as to increase the public support for IAS policies and increase the sustainability of tourism.

Suggested Citation

  • Tzu-Ming Liu & Chia-Mei Tien, 2019. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences of Negative Externalities of Environmental Management Programs: A Case Study on Invasive Species in Shei-Pa National Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-11, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:2953-:d:233881
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2953/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2953/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    2. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    3. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Perrings, Charles, 2005. "Mitigation and adaptation strategies for the control of biological invasions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 315-325, February.
    5. Adams, Damian C. & Bwenge, Anafrida N. & Lee, Donna J. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2011. "Public preferences for controlling upland invasive plants in state parks: Application of a choice model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 465-472, July.
    6. Andrew Balmford & Jonathan M H Green & Michael Anderson & James Beresford & Charles Huang & Robin Naidoo & Matt Walpole & Andrea Manica, 2015. "Walk on the Wild Side: Estimating the Global Magnitude of Visits to Protected Areas," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-6, February.
    7. Liu, Tzu-Ming, 2017. "Testing on-site sampling correction in discrete choice experiments," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 439-441.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yao, Richard T. & Wallace, Lisa, 2024. "A systematic review of non-market ecosystem service values for biosecurity protection," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    2. Li-Yao Shien & Chih-Hsing Liu & Yi-Min Li, 2022. "How Positive and Negative Environmental Behaviours Influence Sustainable Tourism Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Dan He & Ke Chen & Tingting Zhang & Mingfang Yin & Xiaoliang Shi & Zhe Xu, 2021. "Regional CO 2 Budget and Abatement Countermeasures for Forest Scenic Spots: A Case Study of the Shenyang National Forest Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Tzu-Ming Liu & I-Jean Chen & Ho-Ching Jenny Yuan, 2021. "Using Stated Preference Valuation to Support Sustainable Marine Fishery Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, April.
    5. Tzu-Ming Liu, 2019. "Using RPL Model to Probe Trade-Offs among Negative Externalities of Controlling Invasive Species," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, November.

    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. Tzu-Ming Liu, 2019. "Using RPL Model to Probe Trade-Offs among Negative Externalities of Controlling Invasive Species," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, November.
    2. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    3. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    6. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    8. Guimarães, Maria Helena & Nunes, Luís Catela & Madureira, Lívia & Santos, José Lima & Boski, Tomasz & Dentinho, Tomaz, 2015. "Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-113.
    9. Achtnicht, Martin & Madlener, Reinhard, 2014. "Factors influencing German house owners' preferences on energy retrofits," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 254-263.
    10. Tomás del Barrio Casto & William Nilsson & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo, 2013. "How wrong can you be, without noticing? Further evidence on speci?cation errors in the Conditional Logit," Working Papers 1318, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    11. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 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 Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    12. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    14. Cardona, Tur J. & Speelman, S. & Sanou, E., 2018. "Farmers attitudes towards GMO crops: comparison of attitudes towards first and second generation crops in Burkina Faso," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276968, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Dong-Hyeon Kim & Byeong-Il Ahn & Eui-Gyeong Kim, 2016. "Metropolitan Residents’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for a Life Zone Forest for Mitigating Heat Island Effects during Summer Season in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    16. Baert, Midas & Kervyn, Matthieu & Kagou, Armand Dongmo & Guedjeo, Christian Suh & Vranken, Liesbet & Mertens, Kewan, 2020. "Resettlement preferences from landslide prone areas in Cameroon: Willingness to move, reasons to stay," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    17. Tzu-Ming Liu & I-Jean Chen & Ho-Ching Jenny Yuan, 2021. "Using Stated Preference Valuation to Support Sustainable Marine Fishery Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, April.
    18. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    19. 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.
    20. Castillo-Eguskitza, Nekane & Hoyos, David & Onaindia, Miren & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2019. "Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to biosphere reserve management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:10:p:2953-:d:233881. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.