IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/toueco/v20y2014i6p1199-1213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing Natural and Non-Natural Attributes for a National Forest Park Using a Choice Experiment Method

Author

Listed:
  • Erda Wang

    (Institute of Human Resource and Tourism Management, School of Business Management, Dalian University of Technology, No 2 Linggong Road, Dalian 116023, PR China)

  • Jianhua Wei

    (School of Business Management, Dalian University of Technology, PR China)

  • Huiyuan Lu

    (School of Business Management, Dalian University of Technology, PR China)

Abstract

With demand increasing for nature-based tourism, forest park authorities and site managers need to understand the trade-off between the level of natural wilderness protection and the visitor experience. The authors use a choice experiment to examine which kind of development profiles are worth considering and which paths not to follow. They focus on the mixed attributes of natural resources and historical relics, and the management services provided by Lushunkou National Forest Park in China, which is a popular recreation site attracting a large number of visitors annually. The results indicate that the expected number of visitors to the park is the most important characteristic for visitors. However, a large increase or decrease in the number of visitors causes visitors' welfare losses. Additionally, increasing the protection of the cultural and historical relics on the site is the second most highly valued feature for its visitors. Thus, the results show that the protection of forest wilderness and the recreational use of national parks can cause conflicting welfare effects if managed in inappropriate ways.

Suggested Citation

  • Erda Wang & Jianhua Wei & Huiyuan Lu, 2014. "Valuing Natural and Non-Natural Attributes for a National Forest Park Using a Choice Experiment Method," Tourism Economics, , vol. 20(6), pages 1199-1213, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:20:y:2014:i:6:p:1199-1213
    DOI: 10.5367/te.2013.0329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5367/te.2013.0329
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5367/te.2013.0329?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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    2. Damania, Richard & Hatch, John, 2005. "Protecting Eden: markets or government?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 339-351, May.
    3. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2010. "Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1532-1544, May.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    5. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    6. Christie, Michael & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen, 2007. "Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 75-102, August.
    7. George R. Parsons & Mary Jo Kealy, 1992. "Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Lake Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(1), pages 93-106.
    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. Kularatne, Thamarasi & Wilson, Clevo & Lee, Boon & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Tourists’ before and after experience valuations: A unique choice experiment with policy implications for the nature-based tourism industry," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 529-543.
    2. Fedrigotti Valérie Bossi & Troiano Stefania & Fischer Christian & Marangon Francesco, 2020. "Public Preferences for Farmed Landscapes: the Case of Traditional Chestnut Orchards in South Tyrol," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 99-118, March.
    3. Renato Perez Loyola & Erda Wang & Nannan Kang, 2021. "Economic valuation of recreational attributes using a choice experiment approach: An application to the Galapagos Islands," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 86-104, February.
    4. Nannan Kang & Erda Wang & Yang Yu, 2019. "Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction," Tourism Economics, , vol. 25(5), pages 711-733, August.

    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. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    2. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    3. Carson, Richard T. & DeShazo, J.R. & Schwabe, Kurt A. & Vincent, Jeffrey R. & Ahmad, Ismariah, 2015. "Incorporating local visitor valuation information into the design of new recreation sites in tropical forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 338-349.
    4. León, Carmelo J. & de León, Javier & Araña, Jorge E. & González, Matías M., 2015. "Tourists' preferences for congestion, residents' welfare and the ecosystems in a national park," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 21-29.
    5. Yi-Hsing Lin & Chun-Hung Lee & Chun-Fu Hong & Yen-Ting Tung, 2022. "Marketing Strategy and Willingness to Pay for Sport Tourism in the Kinmen Marathon Event," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, September.
    6. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    7. Cheng Zong & Kun Cheng & Chun-Hung Lee & Nai-Lun Hsu, 2017. "Capturing Tourists’ Preferences for the Management of Community-Based Ecotourism in a Forest Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    8. Fedrigotti Valérie Bossi & Troiano Stefania & Fischer Christian & Marangon Francesco, 2020. "Public Preferences for Farmed Landscapes: the Case of Traditional Chestnut Orchards in South Tyrol," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 99-118, March.
    9. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    10. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2015. "Multifunctional recreation and nouveau heritage values in plantation forests," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 131-151.
    11. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2013. "The effects of current income and expected change in future income on stated preferences for environmental improvements," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 206-219.
    12. Tyrväinen, Liisa & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 4-13.
    13. Estifanos, Tafesse & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2018. "Protection of the Ethiopian Wolf: What are tourists willing to pay for?," Working Papers 272805, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    15. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    17. Kermagoret, Charlène & Levrel, Harold & Carlier, Antoine & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2016. "Individual preferences regarding environmental offset and welfare compensation: a choice experiment application to an offshore wind farm project," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 230-240.
    18. Chun-Lin Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang & Chun-Hung Lee & Supasit Sriarkarin, 2019. "Evaluating the Public’s Preferences toward Sustainable Planning under Climate and Land Use Change in Forest Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, June.
    19. Kim, Hyerin & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Aikoh, Tetsuya & Kuriyama, Koichi, 2020. "Understanding services from ecosystem and facilities provided by urban green spaces: A use of partial profile choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Erda Wang & Jianhua Wei & Jiawei Zhu, 2017. "The effects of improving coastal park attributes on the recreation demand—A case study in Dalian China," Tourism Economics, , vol. 23(1), pages 133-149, February.

    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:sae:toueco:v:20:y:2014:i:6:p:1199-1213. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.