IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i24p7001-d295467.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Li Cong

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Yujun Zhang

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

  • Ching-Hui (Joan) Su

    (Department of Apparel, Events, and Hospitality Management, College of Human Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1078, USA)

  • Ming-Hsiang Chen

    (School of Hospitality Business Management, Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4742, USA
    College of Tourism and Landscape Architecture, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin 541006, China
    School of Business Administration, Anhui University of Finance and Economics, Bengbu 233030, China)

  • Jinnan Wang

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China)

Abstract

With the vigorous development of urbanization and rural tourism, the landscape of villages and towns has undergone tremendous changes under the influence of policies and industries. In order to avoid irreversible changes in the local heritage landscape and promote local sustainable development, it is necessary to strengthen the attention and research on the rural recreation landscape. This research examines the value of rural landscape recreation by applying the choice experiment method (CEM) to a suburban area in Sichuan, China. Mixed logit models were adopted in examining tourists’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for rural landscape improvement and preference heterogeneity. An assessment of the rural landscape’s recreational value was made using the compensating surplus calculation method. Results reported are of four important landscape elements: ecological environment, rural life and associated productive landscape, rural housing, and service landscape, ranked by tourists from high-to-low. A major finding of the research is that an increase in rural tourism is dependent upon improvements to landscape elements. The results of this research can provide policymakers with valuable information necessary to develop a successful plan to attract and increase tourism in rural areas of China.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Cong & Yujun Zhang & Ching-Hui (Joan) Su & Ming-Hsiang Chen & Jinnan Wang, 2019. "Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7001-:d:295467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7001/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7001/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Howley, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ rural landscape preferences," Working Papers 1105, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    2. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Using mixed logit models to derive individual-specific WTP estimates for landscape improvements under agri-environmental schemes: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0607, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    3. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    4. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    5. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    7. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Derive Individual-Specific WTP Estimates for Landscape Improvements under Agri-Environmental Schemes: Evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Irel," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12220, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. Park, Duk-Byeong & Lee, Kwang-Woo & Choi, Hyun-Suk & Yoon, Yooshik, 2012. "Factors influencing social capital in rural tourism communities in South Korea," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1511-1520.
    9. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    10. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    11. Kim, Dohee & Park, Byung-Jin (Robert), 2017. "The moderating role of context in the effects of choice attributes on hotel choice: A discrete choice experiment," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 439-451.
    12. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    13. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2008. "How Can We Reduce the Errors from Benefits Transfer? An Investigation Using the Choice Experiment Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 128-147.
    14. 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.
    15. Danny Campbell, 2007. "Willingness to Pay for Rural Landscape Improvements: Combining Mixed Logit and Random‐Effects Models," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 467-483, September.
    16. Kuminoff, Nicolai V. & Parmeter, Christopher F. & Pope, Jaren C., 2010. "Which hedonic models can we trust to recover the marginal willingness to pay for environmental amenities?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 145-160, November.
    17. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    18. Bronnmann, Julia & Asche, Frank, 2017. "Sustainable Seafood From Aquaculture and Wild Fisheries: Insights From a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 113-119.
    19. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Integrating landscape improvement indices and discrete choice experiments: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0609, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    20. Devesa, María & Laguna, Marta & Palacios, Andrés, 2010. "The role of motivation in visitor satisfaction: Empirical evidence in rural tourism," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 547-552.
    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. Joana Gonçalves & Ricardo Mateus & José Dinis Silvestre & Ana Pereira Roders, 2020. "Going beyond Good Intentions for the Sustainable Conservation of Built Heritage: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-28, November.
    2. Muyan Tang & Hongzhang Xu, 2023. "Cultural Integration and Rural Tourism Development: A Scoping Literature Review," Tourism and Hospitality, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Ziyan Wang & Cheng Wang & Zehui Jiang & Tao Hu & Wenjing Han & Chang Zhang & Jiali Jin & Kaiyue Wei & Jiao Zhao & Xinyu Wang, 2020. "Relationship between Rural Settlements’ Plant Communities and Environmental Factors in Hilly Area of Southeast China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Andra Poruțiu & Olivia Paula Tirpe & Camelia Oroian & Valentin C. Mihai & Gabriela O. Chiciudean & Daniel I. Chiciudean & Crina Poruțiu, 2021. "Analysis on Tourists’ Preferences for Rural Tourism Destinations in Romania," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Rosny Jean & Kozma Naka & Colmore S. Christian & Buddhi Raj Gyawali & Troy Bowman & Sampson Hopkinson, 2023. "Outdoor Recreation in Southeastern United States National Forests: An Investigation of the Influence of Ethnicity and Gasoline Price on Individual Participation," Tourism and Hospitality, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Hwasung Song & Miseong Kim & Chanyul Park, 2020. "Temporal Distribution as a Solution for Over-Tourism in Night Tourism: The Case of Suwon Hwaseong in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-14, March.
    7. Li, Yuxin & Yao, Zili & Guo, Zhanfeng, 2023. "Willingness to pay and preferences for rural tourism attributes among urban residents: A discrete choice experiment in China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 460-471.

    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. De Ayala Bilbao, Amaya & Hoyos Ramos, David & Mariel Chladkova, Petr, 2012. "Landscape valuation through discrete choice experiments: Current practice and future research reflections," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    2. 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.
    3. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    4. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    5. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2014. "Spatially-Referenced Choice Experiments: Tests of Individualized Geocoding in Stated Preference Questionnaires," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170191, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Morey, Edward & Thiene, Mara & De Salvo, Maria & Signorello, Giovanni, 2008. "Using attitudinal data to identify latent classes that vary in their preference for landscape preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 536-546, December.
    8. Bujosa, Angel & Torres, Cati & Riera, Antoni, 2018. "Framing Decisions in Uncertain Scenarios: An Analysis of Tourist Preferences in the Face of Global Warming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 36-42.
    9. Ghanem, Samar & Ferrini, Silvia & Di Maria, Corrado, 2023. "Air pollution and willingness to pay for health risk reductions in Egypt: A contingent valuation survey of Greater Cairo and Alexandria households," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    10. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 667-677.
    11. Schipmann, Christin & Qaim, Matin, 2011. "Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: the case of sweet pepper in Thailand," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 108349, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    12. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    13. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    14. Hyo-Jin Kim & Se-Jun Jin & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Public Assessment of Releasing a Captive Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin into the Wild in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-8, September.
    15. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
    16. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    17. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    18. Zhu, Zhanguo & Zhang, Tong & Hu, Wuyang, 2023. "The accumulation and substitution effects of multi-nation certified organic and protected eco-origin food labels in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    19. Ju-Hee Kim & Ga-Eun Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "A Valuation of the Restoration of Hwangnyongsa Temple in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-7, January.
    20. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7001-:d:295467. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.