IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/toueco/v29y2023i4p1100-1120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to pay for attributes of Templestay and implications on marginal utility of different meditation forms

Author

Listed:
  • Se-Hyuk Kim
  • James W Mjelde
  • Tae-Kyun Kim
  • Choong-Ki Lee
  • Byunggil Chun

Abstract

Templestays are a form of cultural tourism in which participants visit a Buddhist temple to experience their culture. Using a choice experiment, the marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) is estimated for various attributes of Templestay programs of location, accommodations, and type of meditation. Respondents are willing to pay a premium for private accommodations and to experience the natural mountain settings over an urban setting. The MWTP varies by type of meditation and by how often respondents have participated in a Templestay. For the most physically demanding form of meditation, 108 prostrations, there is weak evidence marginal utility decreases with increasing number of visits. Brewing tea and talking to a monk do not lead to a change in marginal utility. The most spiritually demanding meditation, Seon meditation, shows increasing marginal utility. Seon meditators could benefit from additional stays, as the benefits of this form of meditation can only be achieved through practice and learning from experienced meditators. It is expected that these results will provide information for the diversification of Templestay experience programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Se-Hyuk Kim & James W Mjelde & Tae-Kyun Kim & Choong-Ki Lee & Byunggil Chun, 2023. "Willingness to pay for attributes of Templestay and implications on marginal utility of different meditation forms," Tourism Economics, , vol. 29(4), pages 1100-1120, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:toueco:v:29:y:2023:i:4:p:1100-1120
    DOI: 10.1177/13548166221095796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13548166221095796
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/13548166221095796?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. Anouk Festjens & Chris Janiszewski, 2015. "The Value of Time," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 42(2), pages 178-195.
    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. Young H. Lee & Trenton G. Smith, 2008. "Why Are Americans Addicted To Baseball? An Empirical Analysis Of Fandom In Korea And The United States," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(1), pages 32-48, January.
    4. Bagh Adib & Kusunose Yoko, 2020. "On the Economic Value of Signals," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Petar Filipic, 2010. "The Legitimacy Of Increasing Marginal Utility In Social Services – The Case Of University Examinations," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 55(186), pages 67-88, July – Se.
    6. Won Seok Lee & Joon-Kyu Lee & Joonho Moon, 2018. "Study on the preference for capsule hotel attributes using a choice experiment," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(4), pages 492-499, June.
    7. Bagh Adib & Kusunose Yoko, 2020. "On the Economic Value of Signals," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Johnson, F. Reed & Desvousges, William H., 1997. "Estimating Stated Preferences with Rated-Pair Data: Environmental, Health, and Employment Effects of Energy Programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 79-99, September.
    11. Ching-Fu Chen & Pei-Chun Chen, 2012. "Exploring Tourists' Stated Preferences for Heritage Tourism Services – the Case of Tainan City, Taiwan," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(2), pages 457-464, April.
    12. Wright, William C.C. & Eppink, Florian V., 2016. "Drivers of heritage value: A meta-analysis of monetary valuation studies of cultural heritage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 277-284.
    13. Wam, Hilde Karine & Pedersen, Hans Chr. & Hjeljord, Olav, 2012. "Balancing hunting regulations and hunter satisfaction: An integrated biosocioeconomic model to aid in sustainable management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 89-96.
    14. Marco Alderighi & Eleonora Lorenzini, 2012. "Cultural goods, cultivation of taste, satisfaction and increasing marginal utility during vacations," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 36(1), pages 1-26, February.
    15. Becker, Gary S & Murphy, Kevin M, 1988. "A Theory of Rational Addiction," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(4), pages 675-700, August.
    16. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    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. Angeliki N. Menegaki & Aviral Kumar Tiwari, 2024. "Willingness to Pay for New Technologies and Environmental Technologies in Hotels: A Multinomial Logit Approach," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 14902-14934, September.

    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. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    2. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    5. Mandy Ryan & Angela Bate, 2001. "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 59-63.
    6. 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.
    7. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Antoni Riera Font, 2009. "Defining environmental attributes as external costs in choice experiments: A discussion," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2009/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    8. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.
    9. Baselice, Antonio & Colantuoni, Francesca & Lass, Daniel A. & Nardone, Gianluca & Stasi, Antonio, 2014. "EU Consumers’ Perceptions of Fresh-cut Fruit and Vegetables Attributes: a Choice Experiment Model," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170527, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Ulrich, Volker, 2013. "You can't always get what you want - East and West Germans' attitudes and preferences regarding the welfare state," MPRA Paper 47240, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    12. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    13. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    14. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    15. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    16. Anabela Botelho & Lina Sofia Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Accounting for local impacts of photovoltaic farms: two stated preferences approaches," NIMA Working Papers 64, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho.
    17. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:29:y:2023:i:4:p:1100-1120. 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.