IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i6p1789-d216922.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sociopsychological Aspects of Butterfly Souvenir Purchasing Behavior at Bantimurung Bulusaraung National Park in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Fajri Ansari

    (Environment and Forestry Research and Development Institute of Makassar, Jl, Perintis Kemerdekaan Km 16, PO BOX 1560, Makassar, South Sulawesi 90243, Indonesia)

  • Yoonjeong Jeong

    (Department of Forest Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Indra ASLP Putri

    (Environment and Forestry Research and Development Institute of Makassar, Jl, Perintis Kemerdekaan Km 16, PO BOX 1560, Makassar, South Sulawesi 90243, Indonesia)

  • Seong-il Kim

    (Department of Forest Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea
    Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea)

Abstract

Utilizing butterflies in souvenirs escalates their exploitation, which occurs even with protected species. Visitors affect both tourism sustainability and butterfly populations. Thus, parks must establish visitor management practices to secure tourism, including butterfly-trading activities to provide social and economic benefits, while still maintaining butterfly populations and environmental sustainability. This research examined the relationships between visitors’ motivations, environmental attitudes (deontological status, legal compliance, and political activism), and preference regarding butterfly souvenirs. Data were collected using an on-site survey of 455 respondents at Bantimurung Bulusaraung National Park in Indonesia and analyzed using factor analysis, correlation, and logistic regression. Results showed that visitors’ motivations were divided into four categories: challenge and freedom, nature appreciation, social relationships, and escape from routine. Visitors showed high deontological status, legal compliance, and political activist attitudes, valued the attributes of butterfly souvenirs highly, and strongly preferred souvenirs with authenticity value. Significant correlations existed among motivation, attitude, and preference for butterfly souvenir attributes. Logistic regression results revealed that with more frequent visits, better souvenir quality, and higher education levels, the possibility of visitors purchasing butterfly souvenirs increased. Prior knowledge regarding regulations prohibiting protected butterfly trading diminished this possibility. This study further discusses how visitors’ sociopsychological information can be used to minimize negative impacts caused by overtourism.

Suggested Citation

  • Fajri Ansari & Yoonjeong Jeong & Indra ASLP Putri & Seong-il Kim, 2019. "Sociopsychological Aspects of Butterfly Souvenir Purchasing Behavior at Bantimurung Bulusaraung National Park in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1789-:d:216922
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1789/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1789/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patricia S. Sánchez-Medina & Jack Corbett & Arcelia Toledo-López, 2011. "Environmental Innovation and Sustainability in Small Handicraft Businesses in Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(7), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Kim, Aise KyoungJin & Weiler, Betty, 2013. "Visitors' attitudes towards responsible fossil collecting behaviour: An environmental attitude-based segmentation approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 602-612.
    3. Swanson, Kristen K. & Timothy, Dallen J., 2012. "Souvenirs: Icons of meaning, commercialization and commoditization," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 489-499.
    4. Juvan, Emil & Dolnicar, Sara, 2016. "Measuring environmentally sustainable tourist behaviour," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 30-44.
    5. Rid, Wolfgang & Ezeuduji, Ikechukwu O. & Pröbstl-Haider, Ulrike, 2014. "Segmentation by motivation for rural tourism activities in The Gambia," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 102-116.
    6. Slone, Thomas H. & Orsak, Larry J. & Malver, Olaf, 1997. "A comparison of price, rarity and cost of butterfly specimens: Implications for the insect trade and for habitat conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 77-85, April.
    7. Ando, Amy Whritenour, 1999. "Waiting to Be Protected under the Endangered Species Act: The Political Economy of Regulatory Delay," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(1), pages 29-60, April.
    8. Daniel James Klooster, 2002. "Toward Adaptive Community Forest Management: Integrating Local Forest Knowledge with Scientific Forestry," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 78(1), pages 43-70, January.
    9. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    10. Yoonjeong Jeong & Seweryn Zielinski & Ji-soon Chang & Seong-il Kim, 2018. "Comparing Motivation-Based and Motivation-Attitude-Based Segmentation of Tourists Visiting Sensitive Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, 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. Huixian Shen & Ivan Ka Wai Lai, 2022. "Souvenirs: A Systematic Literature Review (1981–2020) and Research Agenda," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, June.

    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. Cristinel Petrișor Constantin & Vasile Papuc-Damașcan & Andrei Blumer & Ruxandra-Gabriela Albu & Titus Suciu & Adina Nicoleta Candrea & Ana Ispas, 2021. "Profiling Visitors to Romanian Ecotourism Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Adongo, Charles A. & Taale, Francis & Adam, Issahaku, 2018. "Tourists' values and empathic attitude toward sustainable development in tourism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 251-263.
    3. Wookhyun An & Silverio Alarcón, 2021. "Inferring customer heterogeneity for rural tourism: A latent class approach based on a best-worst choice modelling," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(7), pages 266-276.
    4. Yoonjeong Jeong & Seweryn Zielinski & Ji-soon Chang & Seong-il Kim, 2018. "Comparing Motivation-Based and Motivation-Attitude-Based Segmentation of Tourists Visiting Sensitive Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    6. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    7. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.
    8. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    9. Lai, John & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Gunderson, Michael A. & Widmar, David A. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Prioritization of farm success factors by commercial farm managers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    10. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2006. "Using Continuous and Finite Mixture Models to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in a group of Outdoor Recreationalists," Working Papers 0602, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    11. Christoph, Inken B. & Roosen, Jutta & Bruhn, Maike, 2006. "Willingness to pay for genetically modified food and non-food products," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21303, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    13. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    14. D Rigby & M Burton, 2003. "Capturing Preference Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Models: A Random Parameter Logit Model of the Demand for GM Food," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0319, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    15. Michael K McCall & Noah Chutz & Margaret Skutsch, 2016. "Moving from Measuring, Reporting, Verification (MRV) of Forest Carbon to Community Mapping, Measuring, Monitoring (MMM): Perspectives from Mexico," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, June.
    16. Andy Choi & Franco Papandrea & Jeff Bennett, 2007. "Assessing cultural values: developing an attitudinal scale," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 31(4), pages 311-335, December.
    17. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Alexandros Dimitropoulos, 2014. "The Influence of Environmental Concerns on Drivers’ Preferences for Electric Cars," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-128/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    19. Charity, Nabwire Ephamia Juma, 2016. "Economic Analysis Of Consumers’ Awareness And Willingness To Pay For Geographical Indicators And Other Quality Attributes Of Honey In Kenya," Research Theses 265574, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    20. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.

    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:6:p:1789-:d:216922. 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.