IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p6468-d570112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Will the Cost Change after Transformation in Public Nature-Based Attractions? A Framework and Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Jun-Ya Liu

    (College of Business, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai 200433, China)

  • Qun-Ji Li

    (School of History, Culture and Tourism, Huaiyin Normal University, Huai’an 223300, China)

  • Gary Sigley

    (Faculty of Geographic Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Hua Quan

    (School of Convention and Exhibition and Tourism, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics, Shanghai 201620, China)

Abstract

Financial viability is crucial for public nature-based attractions, especially in the context where many are seeking to transform their business model and goals in order to survive because of the heavy hit by COVID-19 and pressure from Chinese central government policies to lower entrance fees in state-owned attractions. However, there is little literature relating to the relationship between finance and transformation. To fill the gap, the framework “resource–function–transformation–cost” was proposed to explain the relationship between transformation and cost structure change by combining resource-based theory and function analysis. A case study of Shanghai Sheshan National Forest Park (SNFP) tested the framework and further revealed that (a) transformation happened because of the recombination of resources, followed by the change of functions, leading to capital expenditure being more prominent during the early stages and management costs more so in the latter stage. Further, we conclude that the elasticity of the cost structure is low; (b) the structure of functions tended to be stable over the years; and (c) the cost structure of the management, production and business, and tourism and leisure functions did not change much, while that of ecological protection functions changed significantly from capital expenditure to management costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jun-Ya Liu & Qun-Ji Li & Gary Sigley & Hua Quan, 2021. "How Will the Cost Change after Transformation in Public Nature-Based Attractions? A Framework and Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6468-:d:570112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6468/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6468/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCrea-Strub, Ashley & Zeller, Dirk & Rashid Sumaila, Ussif & Nelson, Jay & Balmford, Andrew & Pauly, Daniel, 2011. "Understanding the cost of establishing marine protected areas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-9, January.
    2. Buckley, R.C. & Guitart, D. & Shakeela, A., 2017. "Contested surf tourism resources in the Maldives," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 185-199.
    3. Onil Banerjee & Martin Cicowiez & Thomas Ochuodho & Michel Masozera & Bernabas Wolde & Pankaj Lal & Sebastian Dudek & Janaki R.R. Alavalapati, 2017. "Financing the Sustainable Management of Rwanda’s Protected Areas," CEDLAS, Working Papers 0211, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
    4. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    5. Tracey J. Dickson & Simon Darcy & Chelsey Walker, 2020. "A Case of Leveraging a Mega-Sport Event for a Sport Participation and Sport Tourism Legacy: A Prospective Longitudinal Case Study of Whistler Adaptive Sports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Gautam Ahuja & Riitta Katila, 2004. "Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 887-907, August.
    7. Hueting, Roefie & Reijnders, Lucas & de Boer, Bart & Lambooy, Jan & Jansen, Huib, 1998. "The concept of environmental function and its valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 31-35, April.
    8. Andersson, Mats, 2012. "Assessing non-industrial private forest owners’ attitudes to risk: Do owner and property characteristics matter?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 3-13.
    9. Bruce Knapman & Natalie Stoeckl, 1995. "Recreation User Fees: An Australian Empirical Investigation," Tourism Economics, , vol. 1(1), pages 5-15, March.
    10. Carmen Camarero & Mª Garrido & Eva Vicente, 2011. "How cultural organizations’ size and funding influence innovation and performance: the case of museums," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 35(4), pages 247-266, November.
    11. Sanjay Kallapur & Leslie Eldenburg, 2005. "Uncertainty, Real Options, and Cost Behavior: Evidence from Washington State Hospitals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 735-752, December.
    12. Notaro, Sandra & Paletto, Alessandro, 2012. "The economic valuation of natural hazards in mountain forests: An approach based on the replacement cost method," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 318-328.
    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. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    3. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    4. Capriolo, A. & Boschetto, R.G. & Mascolo, R.A. & Balbi, S. & Villa, F., 2020. "Biophysical and economic assessment of four ecosystem services for natural capital accounting in Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    5. Lima, Guilherme Theodoro Nascimento Pereira de & Hackbart, Vivian Cristina dos Santos & Bertolo, Lidia Sanches & Santos, Rozely Ferreira dos, 2016. "Identifying driving forces of landscape changes: Historical relationships and the availability of ecosystem services in the Atlantic forest," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 11-17.
    6. Bianchi, Ettore & Accastello, Cristian & Trappmann, Daniel & Blanc, Simone & Brun, Filippo, 2018. "The Economic Evaluation of Forest Protection Service Against Rockfall: A Review of Experiences and Approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 409-418.
    7. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    8. Stefan Liehr & Julia Röhrig & Marion Mehring & Thomas Kluge, 2017. "How the Social-Ecological Systems Concept Can Guide Transdisciplinary Research and Implementation: Addressing Water Challenges in Central Northern Namibia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    10. Breffle, William S. & Muralidharan, Daya & Donovan, Richard P. & Liu, Fangming & Mukherjee, Amlan & Jin, Yongliang, 2013. "Socioeconomic evaluation of the impact of natural resource stressors on human-use services in the Great Lakes environment: A Lake Michigan case study," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 152-161.
    11. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. André de Abreu Saraiva Monteiro Alves & Fernando Manuel Pereira de Oliveira Carvalho, 2022. "How Dynamic Managerial Capabilities, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Operational Capabilities Impact Microenterprises’ Global Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.
    13. Zhou, Dan & Yan, Tingting & Zhao, Lilong & Guo, Jingjing, 2020. "Performance implications of servitization: Does a Manufacturer's service supply network matter?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 31-42.
    14. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    15. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    16. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    18. Chang, Yuan-Chieh & Chen, Min-Nan, 2016. "Service regime and innovation clusters: An empirical study from service firms in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1845-1857.
    19. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    20. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.

    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:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6468-:d:570112. 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.