IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa06p678.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Tourists’ Satisfaction Vs. Residents’ Quality of Life in Medium Sized European Cities: A Conjoint Analysis Approach for Cultural Tourism’s Impact Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Patrizia Riganti

Abstract

This paper discusses the use of conjoint analysis to assess the non market impacts of tourism presence in small and medium sized European cities. It presents the methodological approach developed to this purpose within the EU funded project PICTURE (Pro-active management of the Impact of Cultural Tourism upon Urban Resources and Economies) and its application to the case of the city of Syracuse, Italy. Tourism is one of Europe’s largest economic sectors and features among the largest key industries of the 21st century and cultural tourism is one of the forms of tourism that is expected to witness the most important growth in the future. Sustainable cultural tourism strategies have the potential to assist the conservation of local identities, embedded in their respective cultural heritage, while supporting economic growth. However, tourism in cultural sites can also bring negative impacts, which need to be analyzed and assessed. Economic valuation can support decision making in this sector. This paper first discusses to what extent is possible to value in economic terms the positive and negative externalities brought by cultural tourism to heritage destinations, and which are the currently available valuation techniques. Then it focuses on how to manage destinations in a way to limit negative impacts whilst spreading the positive ones in the region. Then it reports the results of a conjoint analysis study on the city of Syracuse, Italy, carried out on a sample of residents and tourists. In particular it looks at the marginal utility associated to attributes interpreting the carrying capacity of the site. Finally, the paper focuses on the potential and limitations of conjoint analysis studies for the above purposes. Conjoint analysis is a non market valuation technique frequently used to place a value on a good. It is a stated-preference method, in the sense that it asks individuals what they would do under hypothetical circumstances, rather than observing actual behaviors on marketplaces, simulating a hypothetical market and analysing stated preferences rather than observing actual market behaviour. In a typical conjoint analysis choice individuals are asked to choose among alternative variants of a good described by a number of attributes. The alternatives differ from one another in the levels taken by two or more of the attributes. The technique assumes the choice between the alternatives is driven by the respondent’s underlying utility. Conjoint choice experiments were initially developed by Louviere and Hensher (1982) and Louviere and Woodworth (1983). Conjoint choice experiments have been widely used to value environmental and natural resources, and more recently cultural heritage. Previous research seems to confirm that the technique is flexible enough and can be successfully adapted to the assessment of policy strategies. The paper discusses the steps that should be considered when developing a conjoint choice experiment for similar purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrizia Riganti, 2006. "Tourists’ Satisfaction Vs. Residents’ Quality of Life in Medium Sized European Cities: A Conjoint Analysis Approach for Cultural Tourism’s Impact Assessment," ERSA conference papers ersa06p678, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa06p678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa06/papers/678.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ugo Colombino & Annamaria Nese & Patrizia Riganti, 2005. "Eliciting Public Preferences For Managing Cultural Heritage," Public Economics 0501004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. McConnell, K. E., 1988. "Heterogeneous preferences for congestion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 251-258, September.
    3. Douglas Noonan, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Cultural Resources: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 159-176, November.
    4. Marilena Pollicino & David Maddison, 2001. "Valuing the Benefits of Cleaning Lincoln Cathedral," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 25(2), pages 131-148, May.
    5. Dorfman, Robert, 1984. "On optimal congestion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 91-106, June.
    6. Boxall, Peter & Rollins, Kimberly & Englin, Jeffrey, 2003. "Heterogeneous preferences for congestion during a wilderness experience," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-195, May.
    7. David Maddison & Terry Foster, 2003. "Valuing congestion costs in the British Museum," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 55(1), pages 173-190, January.
    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. Tuan, Hun Tran & Navrud,Stale, 2012. "Capturing the Benefits of Preserving World Heritage Cultural Heritage Sites," EBLA Working Papers 201202, University of Turin.
    2. Kimberly Rollins & Diana Dumitras & Anita Castledine, 2008. "An Analysis of Congestion Effects Across and Within Multiple Recreation Activities," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(1), pages 95-116, March.
    3. Eugenio-Martin, Juan L., 2011. "Assessing social carrying capacity of tourism destinations with random utility models/Evaluación de la capacidad de carga social de los destinos turísticos con modelos de utilidad aleatoria," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 29, pages 881-902, Diciembre.
    4. Douglas S. Noonan & Ilde Rizzo, 2017. "Economics of cultural tourism: issues and perspectives," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 41(2), pages 95-107, May.
    5. Choi, Andy S. & Ritchie, Brent W. & Papandrea, Franco & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-220.
    6. Felipe Vásquez & Michael Hanemann, 2008. "Taste Indicators and Heterogeneous Revealed Preferences for Congestion in Recreation Demand," Working Papers 10-2008, Departamento de Economía, Universidad de Concepción.
    7. Boxall, Peter & Rollins, Kimberly & Englin, Jeffrey, 2003. "Heterogeneous preferences for congestion during a wilderness experience," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-195, May.
    8. van der Ploeg, Frederick, 2006. "The Making of Cultural Policy: A European Perspective," Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, in: V.A. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 34, pages 1183-1221, Elsevier.
    9. Ricky N. Lawton & Daniel Fujiwara & Ulrike Hotopp, 2022. "The value of digital archive film history: willingness to pay for film online heritage archival access," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 46(1), pages 165-197, March.
    10. Mirko Moro & Karen Mayor & Seán Lyons & Richard S J Tol, 2013. "Does the Housing Market Reflect Cultural Heritage? A Case Study of Greater Dublin," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(12), pages 2884-2903, December.
    11. Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo & Patrizia Riganti, 2006. "Using Surveys to Compare the Public’s and Decisionmakers’ Preferences for Urban Regeneration: The Venice Arsenale," Working Papers 2006.137, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    12. Jaap Boter & Jan Rouwendal & Michel Wedel, 2005. "Employing Travel Time to Compare the Value of Competing Cultural Organizations," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 29(1), pages 19-33, February.
    13. Alberini, Anna & Longo, Alberto & Riganti, Patrizia, 2006. "Using Surveys to Compare the Public's and Decision-makers' Preferences for Urban Regeneration: The Venice Arsenale," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12221, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    14. Wiśniewska Aleksandra, 2019. "Quality attributes in the non-market stated-preference based valuation of cultural goods," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 6(53), pages 132-150, January.
    15. Patrizia Riganti & Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo, 2005. "Public Preferences for Land usesÂ’ changes - valuing urban regeneration projects at the Venice Arsenale," ERSA conference papers ersa05p756, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Ugo Colombino & Annamaria Nese, 2009. "Preference Heterogeneity in Relation to Museum Services," Tourism Economics, , vol. 15(2), pages 381-395, June.
    17. Aleksandra Wiśniewska, 2019. "‘Quality food’ for cultural policies. Quality attributes in the non-market stated-preference based valuation of cultural goods," Working Papers 2019-03, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    18. Boter, Jaap & Rouwendal, Jan & Wedel, Michel, 2004. "Employing Travel Costs to Compare the Use Value of Competing Cultural Organizations," Serie Research Memoranda 0011, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    19. Andersson, Tommy D. & Lundberg, Erik, 2013. "Commensurability and sustainability: Triple impact assessments of a tourism event," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 99-109.
    20. Durán, Roi & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María Xosé, 2015. "Conservation of maritime cultural heritage: A discrete choice experiment in a European Atlantic Region," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 356-365.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa06p678. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.