IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v117y2015icp1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing tourism in the Galapagos Islands through price incentives: A choice experiment approach

Author

Listed:
  • Viteri Mejía, César
  • Brandt, Sylvia

Abstract

This study analyzes nature-based tourism in Ecuador's Galapagos National Park, which faces great risks of invasive species due to visitor contacts. The analysis uses visitors' preference data to evaluate the potential impacts of various pricing strategies on revenues. Data come from choice experiment surveys conducted in 2009, regarding four characteristics of a tour to the Galapagos: length of stay, depth of experience in the islands' ecosystem, level of protective measures taken against invasive species, and price. We found that the typical tourist would be willing to pay 2.5 times more for a tour with high-level of protection against invasive species than for a tour with the current level of protection and otherwise similar characteristics. The mean marginal willingness to pay for a tour with an in-depth natural experience is 1.8 times more than for a similar tour providing only an overview of the Galapagos' ecosystem. Further, we determined that differences in elasticity of demand between long and short tours suggest that a pricing strategy may be used to encourage tourists to take longer tours without affecting total revenue. Such a pricing strategy would decrease the number of unique island visitor contacts per year, thereby reducing the threat to the islands' unique ecosystem.

Suggested Citation

  • Viteri Mejía, César & Brandt, Sylvia, 2015. "Managing tourism in the Galapagos Islands through price incentives: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:117:y:2015:i:c:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915002293
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.014?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lisa C. Chase & David R. Lee & William D. Schulze & Deborah J. Anderson, 1998. "Ecotourism Demand and Differential Pricing of National Park Access in Costa Rica," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(4), pages 466-482.
    2. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    3. Macmillan, Douglas & Hanley, Nick & Buckland, Steve, 1996. "A Contingent Valuation Study of Uncertain Environmental Gains," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 43(5), pages 519-533, November.
    4. Nir Becker, 2009. "A Comparative Analysis of the Pricing Systems of Nature Reserves," Tourism Economics, , vol. 15(1), pages 193-213, March.
    5. Grigolon, Anna B. & Borgers, Aloys W.J. & Kemperman, Astrid D.A.M. & Timmermans, Harry J.P., 2014. "Vacation length choice: A dynamic mixed multinomial logit model," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 158-167.
    6. Naidoo, Robin & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2005. "Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 159-178, May.
    7. Schwartz, Zvi & Stewart, William & Backlund, Erik A., 2012. "Visitation at capacity-constrained tourism destinations: Exploring revenue management at a national park," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 500-508.
    8. 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.
    9. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    10. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February.
    11. K. G. Willis, 2003. "Pricing Public Parks," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(1), pages 3-17.
    12. Juan L. Nicolau & Francisco J. Más, 2006. "Simultaneous analysis of whether and how long to go on holidays," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(8), pages 1077-1092, November.
    13. Dale Whittington, 2002. "Improving the Performance of Contingent Valuation Studies in Developing Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 323-367, June.
    14. Navrud, StAle & Mungatana, E. D., 1994. "Environmental valuation in developing countries: The recreational value of wildlife viewing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 135-151, November.
    15. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    16. Kenneth Train, 1980. "A Structured Logit Model of Auto Ownership and Mode Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(2), pages 357-370.
    17. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    18. Yang, Chih-Wen & Sung, Yen-Ching, 2010. "Constructing a mixed-logit model with market positioning to analyze the effects of new mode introduction," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 175-182.
    19. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    20. Warziniack, Travis W. & Finnoff, David & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Public economics of hitchhiking species and tourism-based risk to ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 277-294.
    21. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    22. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2010. "Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: The Case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 528-538, January.
    23. 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.
    24. Hess, Stephane & Rose, John M., 2009. "Allowing for intra-respondent variations in coefficients estimated on repeated choice data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 708-719, July.
    25. Timar, Levente & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2009. "Modeling the human-induced spread of an aquatic invasive: The case of the zebra mussel," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 3060-3071, October.
    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. Han-Shen Chen, 2020. "The Construction and Validation of a Sustainable Tourism Development Evaluation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Han-Shen Chen & Chu-Wei Chen, 2019. "Economic Valuation of Green Island, Taiwan: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    3. 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.
    4. Riccardo Scarpa & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2017. "A Monte Carlo Evaluation of the Logit-Mixed Logit under Asymmetry and Multimodality," Working Papers in Economics 17/23, University of Waikato.
    5. Min-Yen Chang & Yi-Sheng Hsu & Han-Shen Chen, 2021. "Choice Experiment Method for Sustainable Tourism in Theme Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-16, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Han-Shen Chen, 2019. "Establishment and Application of an Evaluation Model for Orchid Island Sustainable Tourism Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Francisco Benitez-Capistros & Paulina Couenberg & Ainoa Nieto & Freddy Cabrera & Stephen Blake, 2019. "Identifying Shared Strategies and Solutions to the Human–Giant Tortoise Interactions in Santa Cruz, Galapagos: A Nominal Group Technique Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, May.
    10. Matthew Oliver Ralp Dimal & Victor Jetten, 2020. "Analyzing preference heterogeneity for soil amenity improvements using discrete choice experiment," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 1323-1351, February.
    11. Forbes Kabote & Patrick Walter Mamimine & Zororo Muranda, 2017. "Domestic Tourism For Sustainable Development In Developing Countries: A Conceptual Paper," Revista de turism - studii si cercetari in turism / Journal of tourism - studies and research in tourism, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 23(23), pages 1-3, June.
    12. Kubo, Takahiro & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Kuriyama, Koichi, 2018. "Voluntary Contributions to Hiking Trail Maintenance: Evidence From a Field Experiment in a National Park, Japan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 124-128.
    13. Jamie M. Chen & Junzhou Zhang & Peter Nijkamp, 2016. "A regional analysis of willingness-to-pay in Asian cruise markets," Tourism Economics, , vol. 22(4), pages 809-824, August.
    14. Onozuka, Mizuki & Osawa, Takeshi, 2022. "Utilization potential of alien plants in nature-based tourism sites: A case study on Agave americana (century plant) in the Ogasawara Islands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).

    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. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Ozbafli, Aygul & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2016. "Estimating the willingness to pay for reliable electricity supply: A choice experiment study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 443-452.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    6. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.
    7. Ekin Birol & Sukanya Das, 2010. "The Value of Improved Public Services : An Application of the Choice Experiment Method to Estimate the Value of Improved Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure in India," Development Economics Working Papers 23062, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    8. 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).
    9. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2013. "Valuing Local Environmental Amenity with Discrete Choice Experiments: Spatial Scope Sensitivity and Heterogeneous Marginal Utility of Income," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(1), pages 105-130, September.
    11. Falck-Zepeda, José & Kilkuwe, Enoch & Wesseler, Justus, 2008. "Introducing a genetically modified banana in Uganda: Social benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions," IFPRI discussion papers 767, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Sonja S. Teelucksingh & Paulo A.L.D. Nunes, 2010. "Biodiversity Valuation in Developing Countries: A Focus on Small Island Developing States (SIDS)," Working Papers 2010.111, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. Michael Brock & Grischa Perino & Robert Sugden, 2017. "The Warden Attitude: An Investigation of the Value of Interaction with Everyday Wildlife," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(1), pages 127-155, May.
    16. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    17. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:117:y:2015:i:c:p:1-11. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.