IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i9p1596-d111248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Tourists’ Preferences for Recreational Trips in National and Natural Parks as a Premise for Long-Term Sustainable Management Plans

Author

Listed:
  • Diana E. Dumitras

    (Department of Economic Sciences, Faculty of Horticulture, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

  • Iulia C. Muresan

    (Department of Economic Sciences, Faculty of Horticulture, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

  • Ionel M. Jitea

    (Department of Economic Sciences, Faculty of Horticulture, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

  • Valentin C. Mihai

    (Department of Economic Sciences, Faculty of Horticulture, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 3-5 Manastur Street, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

  • Simona E. Balazs

    (Community and Economic Development Initiative of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Kentucky, 414 C. E. Barnhart Bldg, Lexington KY 40546, USA)

  • Tiberiu Iancu

    (Department of Management and Rural Development, Faculty of Agricultural Management, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Timisoara, 119 Calea Aradului, 300645 Timisoara, Romania)

Abstract

Sustainable tourism management plans rely on relevant and consistent information about factors that can influence the decision to visit a protected area. This paper uses the choice experiment method to investigate tourists’ preferences with regard to recreational trip characteristics in national and natural parks in Romania. An on-site survey questionnaire was administered to visitors. The multinomial logit model was employed to investigate the preference orderings of the identified groups of recreational users. Overall, results indicate that tourists gain benefits after visiting the parks. Main preference differences were found for information sources and location of campsites. Visitors who stated that the park was the main trip destination were willing to have access to more information sources, the marks on trails being insufficient. Camping is preferred only in organized places, expressing the concern for environmental protection. The results of this study have management implications, highlighting the importance of assessing tourists’ preferences as a foundation for developing sustainable tourism strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Diana E. Dumitras & Iulia C. Muresan & Ionel M. Jitea & Valentin C. Mihai & Simona E. Balazs & Tiberiu Iancu, 2017. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences for Recreational Trips in National and Natural Parks as a Premise for Long-Term Sustainable Management Plans," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1596-:d:111248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1596/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/9/1596/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arnberger, Arne & Eder, Renate & Allex, Brigitte & Sterl, Petra & Burns, Robert C., 2012. "Relationships between national-park affinity and attitudes towards protected area management of visitors to the Gesaeuse National Park, Austria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 48-55.
    2. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    3. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.
    6. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    9. DeShazo, J. R. & Fermo, German, 2002. "Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 123-143, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Chaminuka, P. & Groeneveld, R.A. & Selomane, A.O. & van Ierland, E.C., 2012. "Tourist preferences for ecotourism in rural communities adjacent to Kruger National Park: A choice experiment approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 168-176.
    12. Robert Hearne & C. Santos, 2005. "Tourists‘ and Locals‘ Preferences Toward Ecotourism Development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 303-318, September.
    13. Carol Mansfield & Daniel J. Phaneuf & F. Reed Johnson & Jui-Chen Yang & Robert Beach, 2008. "Preferences for Public Lands Management under Competing Uses: The Case of Yellowstone National Park," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 282-305.
    14. 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.
    15. Bienabe, Estelle & Hearne, Robert R., 2006. "Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 335-348, December.
    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. Yen E. Lam-González & Carmelo J. León & Javier de León & Chaitanya Suárez-Rojas, 2022. "The Impact of Degradation of Islands’ Land Ecosystems Due to Climate Change on Tourists’ Travel Decisions," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Asyma Koshim & Aigul Sergeyeva & Yerkin Kakimzhanov & Aliya Aktymbayeva & Mereke Sakypbek & Akmaral Sapiyeva, 2023. "Sustainable Development of Ecotourism in “Altynemel” National Park, Kazakhstan: Assessment through the Perception of Residents," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Francisco Javier Castellano-Álvarez & Rafael Robina-Ramirez, 2024. "Relevance of Territorial Identity in the Rural Development Programs—The Case Study of Tajo-Salor (Extremadura, Spain)," Economies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.
    4. Dana Badau & Adela Badau, 2018. "The motric, Educational, Recreational and Satisfaction Impact of Adventure Education Activities in the Urban Tourism Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    5. Cristiano Franceschinis & Joffre Swait & Akshay Vij & Mara Thiene, 2021. "Determinants of Recreational Activities Choice in Protected Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Iulia C. Muresan & Rezhen Harun & Felix H. Arion & Camelia F. Oroian & Diana E. Dumitras & Valentin C. Mihai & Marioara Ilea & Daniel I. Chiciudean & Iulia D. Gliga & Gabriela O. Chiciudean, 2019. "Residents’ Perception of Destination Quality: Key Factors for Sustainable Rural Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, May.
    7. Georgică Gheorghe & Petronela Tudorache & Ioan Mihai Roşca, 2023. "The Contribution of Green Marketing in the Development of a Sustainable Destination through Advanced Clustering Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-24, September.
    8. Diana E. Dumitras & Valentin C. Mihai & Ionel M. Jitea & Delia Donici & Iulia C. Muresan, 2021. "Adventure Tourism: Insight from Experienced Visitors of Romanian National and Natural Parks," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-11, May.
    9. Weiwei Zhang & Lingling Jiang, 2021. "Effects of High-Speed Rail on Sustainable Development of Urban Tourism: Evidence from Discrete Choice Model of Chinese Tourists’ Preference for City Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-19, 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    5. Chaminuka, P. & Groeneveld, R.A. & Selomane, A.O. & van Ierland, E.C., 2012. "Tourist preferences for ecotourism in rural communities adjacent to Kruger National Park: A choice experiment approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 168-176.
    6. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    7. Grafeld, Shanna & Oleson, Kirsten & Barnes, Michele & Peng, Marcus & Chan, Catherine & Weijerman, Mariska, 2016. "Divers' willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: An untapped source of funding for management and conservation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 202-213.
    8. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    9. 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").
    10. 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).
    11. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    12. Mingie, James C. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Bowker, J.M. & Mengak, Michael T. & Siry, Jacek P., 2017. "Big game hunter preferences for hunting club attributes: A choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 98-106.
    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. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    15. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    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. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    19. 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.

    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:9:y:2017:i:9:p:1596-:d:111248. 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.