IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-02148-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Family tourism development in the new era of tourism: Korean tourists’ domestic trip preferences for accommodation, travel duration, destination, and natural environment

Author

Listed:
  • Soyeun (Olivia) Lee

    (Macau University of Science and Technology)

  • JooHyang Kim

    (Hannam University)

  • Heesup Han

    (Sejong University)

Abstract

This study identifies the main selection attributes of potential Korean domestic family tourists using a choice experiment (CE) and then figures out how much money they are willing to pay for each attribute. This paper uncovered that there are differences in preference patterns across income level and the presence of children. The family travelers preferred shorter travel times, two nights and 3 days for travel duration, resort/condominium, low media/SNS exposure places, and natural scenery or relaxing. In addition, a strong preference for natural scenery or relaxing induces the highest marginal-willingness-to-pay (MWTP) regardless of the income level and the presence of children. This study has academic significance as it presents the appropriate value estimation for each attribute through MWTP assessment, offering essential foundational data for establishing reasonable pricing for tourism products.

Suggested Citation

  • Soyeun (Olivia) Lee & JooHyang Kim & Heesup Han, 2023. "Family tourism development in the new era of tourism: Korean tourists’ domestic trip preferences for accommodation, travel duration, destination, and natural environment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-02148-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-02148-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-02148-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-02148-1?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. Davis, Harry L, 1976. "Decision Making within the Household," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 2(4), pages 241-260, March.
    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. Guangmei Jia & Yanbo Yao & Daisy X. F. Fan, 2023. "Travel in your way or in my way? Resolution of conflict between young adult children and their parents during family vacation decision-making," Current Issues in Tourism, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 664-680, February.
    4. Hensher, David A. & Johnson, Lester W., 1981. "Behavioural response and form of the representative component of the indirect utility function in travel choice models," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 559-572, November.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    6. So Young Bae & Po-Ju Chang, 2021. "The effect of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) risk perception on behavioural intention towards ‘untact’ tourism in South Korea during the first wave of the pandemic (March 2020)," Current Issues in Tourism, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(7), pages 1017-1035, April.
    7. Asad A. Aburumman, 2020. "COVID-19 impact and survival strategy in business tourism market: the example of the UAE MICE industry," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Jos Van Ommeren & Gerard J. Van Den Berg & Cees Gorter, 2000. "Estimating the Marginal Willingness to Pay for Commuting," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 541-563, August.
    9. Amina Chebli & Foued Ben Said, 2020. "The Impact of Covid-19 on Tourist Consumption Behaviour : A Perspective Article," Journal of Tourism Management Research, Conscientia Beam, vol. 7(2), pages 196-207.
    10. Amina Chebli & Foued Ben Said, 2020. "The Impact of Covid-19 on Tourist Consumption Behaviour : A Perspective Article," Journal of Tourism Management Research, Conscientia Beam, vol. 7(2), pages 196-207.
    11. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    12. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    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. 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).
    2. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    3. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    4. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    5. Line Bjørnskov Pedersen & Astrid Kiil & Trine Kjær, 2011. "Soccer Attendees’ Preferences for Facilities at the Fionia Park Stadium: An Application of the Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 179-199, April.
    6. Hye-Min Kim & In-Gyum Kim & Byunghwan Lim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2021. "Estimating the Economic Value of Improving the Asian Dust Aerosol Model in the Korean Household Sector: A Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-11, November.
    7. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    8. Vidale, E & Pettenella, D & Gatto, P & Secco, L, 23. "What can we sell behind timber production?," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 44, May.
    9. Namhee Kim & Miju Kim & Sangkwon Lee & Chi-Ok Oh, 2023. "Comparing Stakeholders’ Economic Values for the Institution of Payments for Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Wan Norhidayah W Mohamad & Ken Willis & Neil Powe, 2019. "The Status Quo In Discrete Choice Experiments: Is It Relevant?," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 65(02), pages 507-532, March.
    11. Caporale, Diana & De Lucia, Caterina, 2015. "Social acceptance of on-shore wind energy in Apulia Region (Southern Italy)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1378-1390.
    12. 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.
    13. Kim, Kyungah & Moon, Sungho & Kim, Junghun, 2023. "How far is it from your home? Strategic policy and management to overcome barriers of introducing fuel-cell power generation facilities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    14. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Le Goffe, 2020. "Economic evaluation of catch-and-release salmon fishing: impact on anglers’ willingness to pay," Working Papers hal-02441505, HAL.
    16. Daniel Lew & Kristy Wallmo, 2011. "External Tests of Scope and Embedding in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: An Application to Endangered Species Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 1-23, January.
    17. Sharma, Sadikshya & Kreye, Melissa M., 2022. "Social value of bird conservation on private forest lands in Pennsylvania, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    18. Upton, Vincent & Dhubháin, Áine Ní & Bullock, Craig, 2012. "Preferences and values for afforestation: The effects of location and respondent understanding on forest attributes in a labelled choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 17-27.
    19. 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.
    20. Hasler, Berit & Lundhede, Thomas, 2005. "Are Agricultural Measures for Groundwater Protection Beneficial When Compared to Purification of Polluted Groundwater?," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24587, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    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:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-02148-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.