IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/toueco/v21y2015i2p387-407.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneous Preferences for Winter Nature-Based Tours in Sub-Frigid Climate Zones: A Latent Class Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Yasushi Shoji

    (Research Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Kita 9 Nishi 9, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-8589, Japan)

  • Takahiro Tsuge

    (Faculty of Economics, Konan University, Okamoto 8-9-1, Higashinada-ku, Kobe, Hyogo 658-8501, Japan)

Abstract

This study investigates off-season tours by examining people's heterogeneous preferences for nature-based tours in sub-frigid climate zones. To explore heterogeneous preferences for winter nature-based tours in Shiretoko, Japan, the authors conducted a discrete choice experiment with a latent class model. Even though the visitors' preferences were different, it was possible to segment them into three groups based on the results. The first segment clearly preferred a wildlife observation tour and considered the possibility of finding rare eagles and detailed interpretation highly important. At the other extreme, the second segment preferred an adventure-based drift ice tour and were not interested in eagles or detailed interpretation. The final segment comprised those visitors whose preferences were between these two extremes. The findings show that, for satisfactory and profitable tours, tourist agents should provide specific recreation experiences to cater to these heterogeneous preferences rather than experiences thought to be acceptable to all visitors.

Suggested Citation

  • Yasushi Shoji & Takahiro Tsuge, 2015. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Winter Nature-Based Tours in Sub-Frigid Climate Zones: A Latent Class Approach," Tourism Economics, , vol. 21(2), pages 387-407, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:21:y:2015:i:2:p:387-407
    DOI: 10.5367/te.2013.0350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5367/te.2013.0350
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5367/te.2013.0350?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. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    3. Peter Fredman, 2008. "Determinants of Visitor Expenditures in Mountain Tourism," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(2), pages 297-311, June.
    4. Batabyal, Amitrajeet A. & Beladi, Hamid, 2011. "An alternate approach to modeling the slack season provision of guided tours to tourists," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 1047-1049.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    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. 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.
    8. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    9. 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.
    10. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    11. Echeverria, Jaime & Hanrahan, Michael & Solorzano, Raul, 1995. "Valuation of non-priced amenities provided by the biological resources within the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 43-52, April.
    12. Trevor Mules, 2005. "Economic Impacts of National Park Tourism on Gateway Communities: The Case of Kosciuszko National Park," Tourism Economics, , vol. 11(2), pages 247-259, June.
    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. Meleddu, Marta & Pulina, Manuela, 2016. "Evaluation of individuals’ intention to pay a premium price for ecotourism: An exploratory study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 67-78.
    2. Francisco Rejón-Guardia & María Antonia García-Sastre & Margarita Alemany-Hormaeche, 2018. "Motivation-based behaviour and latent class segmentation of cycling tourists," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(2), pages 204-217, March.
    3. Takahiro Tsuge & Nisikawa Usio & Makiko Nakano, 2023. "Assessing the attractiveness of tourism resources in Noto using the best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiment methods: further utilization of satoyama and satoumi for tourism," International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 421-446, August.
    4. Chun-Hung Lee & Yun-Ju Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Assessment of the Economic Value of Ecological Conservation of the Kenting Coral Reef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Wookhyun An & Silverio Alarcón, 2021. "Inferring customer heterogeneity for rural tourism: A latent class approach based on a best-worst choice modelling," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(7), pages 266-276.
    6. David Boto-García & Petr Mariel & José Baños Pino & Antonio Alvarez, 2022. "Tourists’ willingness to pay for holiday trip characteristics: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Tourism Economics, , vol. 28(2), pages 349-370, March.

    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Venus, Terese E. & Sauer, Johannes, 2022. "Certainty pays off: The public's value of environmental monitoring," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    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. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    7. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    8. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    9. Catalina M. Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," DEA Working Papers 65, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. Beharry-Borg, Nesha & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2010. "Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1124-1139, March.
    13. Baskaran, Ramesh & Cullen, Ross & Colombo, Sergio, 2010. "Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1010-1022, March.
    14. Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas & Torres, Cati, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2011-02, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    15. 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.
    16. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    17. Giovanni B Concu, 2009. "Measuring Environmental Externality Spillovers through Choice Modelling," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(1), pages 199-212, January.
    18. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    19. Nicolau, Juan Luis, 2011. "El efecto de la participación en actividades de ocio sobre la influencia de la distancia en la elección de destinos/When the Enrollment in Recreational Activities Changes Distance Sensitivity to Desti," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 29, pages 803-824, Diciembre.
    20. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(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:sae:toueco:v:21:y:2015:i:2:p:387-407. 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.