IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/hohdps/092018.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

WeChat - using social media for the assessment of tourist preferences for environmental improvements in China

Author

Listed:
  • Ahlheim, Michael
  • Neidhardt, Jan
  • Siepmann, Ute
  • Yu, Xiaomin

Abstract

Environmental valuation studies with tourists have been very popular already over a long period of time. Tourists are an important stakeholder group with respect to the decision if some environmental project in a tourist region should be realized or not. Typically such studies are organized as face-to-face surveys conducted in the respective vacation areas. Tourists are asked their willingness to pay (e.g. in terms of higher entrance fees for certain amenities on site or a mark-up on accommodation prices etc.) for the implementation of an environmental project or preservation measure in that area. Based on theoretical considerations we argue that in the special case of tourist surveys internet-based surveys are preferable to face-to-face surveys under validity aspects as well as under the aspect of the representativeness of the survey results. Based on an empirical valuation study we conducted in Southwest China we illustrate the practical problems arising in the context of internet surveys in developing or threshold countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Ahlheim, Michael & Neidhardt, Jan & Siepmann, Ute & Yu, Xiaomin, 2018. "WeChat - using social media for the assessment of tourist preferences for environmental improvements in China," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 09-2018, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:hohdps:092018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/178508/1/1020781289.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeff Bennett (ed.), 2011. "The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13490.
    2. Choong-Ki Lee & Tae-Kyun Kim & James W. Mjelde, 2016. "Comparison of preservation values between Internet and interview survey modes: the case of Dokdo, South Korea," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(1), pages 22-43, January.
    3. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Are Internet surveys an alternative to face-to-face interviews in contingent valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1628-1637, July.
    4. Marta-Pedroso, Cristina & Freitas, Helena & Domingos, Tiago, 2007. "Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 388-398, May.
    5. Chen, Bixia & Nakama, Yuei & Zhang, Yaoqi, 2017. "Traditional village forest landscapes: Tourists' attitudes and preferences for conservation," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 652-662.
    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. David E. Bloom & Victoria Y. Fan & Vadim Kufenko & Osondu Ogbuoji & Klaus Prettner & Gavin Yamey, 2021. "Going beyond GDP with a parsimonious indicator: inequality-adjusted healthy lifetime income," Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, Vienna Institute of Demography (VID) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, vol. 19(1), pages 127-140.

    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. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikotaj, 2017. "Are preferences stated in web vs. personal interviews different? A comparison of willingness to pay results for a large multi-country study of the Baltic Sea eutrophication reduction," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 258604, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    2. Börger, Tobias, 2013. "Keeping up appearances: Motivations for socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 155-165.
    3. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Ewa Zawojska & Norman Meade & Ronaldo Seroa da Motta & Mike Welsh & Ramon Arigoni Ortiz, 2022. "On the inference about willingness to pay distribution using contingent valuation data," Working Papers 2022-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Stephanie F. Stefanski & Jay P. Shimshack, 2016. "Valuing Marine Biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico: Evidence from the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 211-232.
    5. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    6. Paul Dolan & Georgios Kavetsos, 2012. "Happy Talk: Mode of Administration Effects on Subjective Well-Being," CEP Discussion Papers dp1159, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    7. Erin Baker & Valentina Bosetti & Karen E. Jenni & Elena Claire Ricci, 2014. "Facing the Experts: Survey Mode and Expert Elicitation," Working Papers 2014.01, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Zhifeng Gao & Lisa A. House & Jing Xie, 2016. "Online Survey Data Quality and Its Implication for Willingness-to-Pay: A Cross-Country Comparison," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(2), pages 199-221, June.
    10. Kiriaki M. Keramitsoglou & Katja Lozar Manfreda & Charalampia Anastasiou & Knut Kalgraff Skjak & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2018. "Mode comparison study on willingness to buy and willingness to pay for organic foods: paper-and-pencil versus computerized questionnaire," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 587-603, September.
    11. Guimarães, Maria Helena & Nunes, Luís Catela & Madureira, Lívia & Santos, José Lima & Boski, Tomasz & Dentinho, Tomaz, 2015. "Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-113.
    12. Punel, Aymeric & Stathopoulos, Amanda, 2017. "Modeling the acceptability of crowdsourced goods deliveries: Role of context and experience effects," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 18-38.
    13. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Does the use of mobile devices (tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 17-31.
    14. Jed J. Cohen & Johannes Reichl, 2022. "Comparing Internet and phone survey mode effects across countries and research contexts," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(1), pages 44-71, January.
    15. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2018. "Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland – The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 97-108.
    16. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    17. Pamela Wicker & John C. Whitehead & Bruce K. Johnson & Daniel S. Mason, 2016. "Willingness-To-Pay For Sporting Success Of Football Bundesliga Teams," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(3), pages 446-462, July.
    18. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    19. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2014. "Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 481-519.
    20. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    environmental valuation; reforestation; Contingent Valuation Method; internet surveys; tourist preferences; China;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D6 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects

    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:zbw:hohdps:092018. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwhohde.html .

    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.