IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i24p16736-d1298035.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tourist Preferences for Revitalizing Wellness Products and Reversing Depopulation in Rural Destinations

Author

Listed:
  • George Ekonomou

    (Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, 38334 Volos, Greece)

  • Dimitris Kallioras

    (Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, 38334 Volos, Greece)

  • Angeliki N. Menegaki

    (Department of Economic and Regional Development, Agricultural University of Athens, Amfissa Campus, 33100 Amfissa, Greece)

  • Sergio Alvarez

    (Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32819, USA)

Abstract

Wellness tourism is a growing segment that destinations can rely on to increase tourism flows and revive underdeveloped rural areas. This study elicits tourists’ preferences for wellness tourism products and the redevelopment of a wellness destination in a depopulated rural area. The research included 595 participants in Central Greece using on-site, face-to-face surveys. The survey data were analyzed using a two-step process. First, conjoint analysis was applied to determine the combination of wellness tourism product attributes that maximize visitors’ utility. In the second step, we elicited visitors’ willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements in tourism product attributes using the contingent valuation method. The findings indicate that the combination of attributes that maximizes the preference structure of respondents includes time of visit from September to October, duration of visit from 1 to 7 days, wellness tourism as the primary purpose of the visit, and wellness activities that contain both physical activities and training as well as spiritual and emotional enhancement. Using binary logistic regression, the analysis indicates that respondents are willing to pay EUR 47.33 per visit on average further to develop wellness tourism products in the study area. Empirical results confirmed that sustainability issues, quality, and entrepreneurship factors positively impact visitors’ WTP for revitalizing wellness products. In contrast, a longer duration of stay in the area and respondents’ age negatively impact their WTP. These findings suggest that structuring a customer-driven tourism product will enhance the rural destination’s efforts to attract high-yield visitors and advance the rural economy. Furthermore, practical implications reveal that Destination Management Organizations will benefit from research results to foster targeted management plans.

Suggested Citation

  • George Ekonomou & Dimitris Kallioras & Angeliki N. Menegaki & Sergio Alvarez, 2023. "Tourist Preferences for Revitalizing Wellness Products and Reversing Depopulation in Rural Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-31, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:24:p:16736-:d:1298035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16736/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16736/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diana Foris & Adriana Florescu & Tiberiu Foris & Sorin Barabas, 2020. "Improving the Management of Tourist Destinations: A New Approach to Strategic Management at the DMO Level by Integrating Lean Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Huang, Rong & Sarigöllü, Emine, 2008. "Assessing satisfaction with core and secondary attributes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 942-949, September.
    3. M. Genius & E. Hatzaki & E. Kouromichelaki & G. Kouvakis & S. Nikiforaki & K. Tsagarakis, 2008. "Evaluating Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Improved Potable Water Quality and Quantity," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 22(12), pages 1825-1834, December.
    4. Sayadi, Samir & Gonzalez Roa, M. Carmen & Calatrava Requena, Javier, 2005. "Ranking versus scale rating in conjoint analysis: Evaluating landscapes in mountainous regions in southeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 539-550, December.
    5. Halkos, George, 2011. "Economic valuation of coastal zone quality improvements," MPRA Paper 35395, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Elisabetta Strazzera & Margarita Genius & Riccardo Scarpa & George Hutchinson, 2003. "The Effect of Protest Votes on the Estimates of WTP for Use Values of Recreational Sites," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(4), pages 461-476, August.
    7. Togridou, Anatoli & Hovardas, Tasos & Pantis, John D., 2006. "Determinants of visitors' willingness to pay for the National Marine Park of Zakynthos, Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 308-319, November.
    8. Xumei Pan & Zhaoping Yang & Fang Han & Yayan Lu & Qin Liu, 2019. "Evaluating Potential Areas for Mountain Wellness Tourism: A Case Study of Ili, Xinjiang Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-15, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Carlos Jurado-Rivas & Marcelino Sánchez-Rivero, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for More Sustainable Tourism Destinations in World Heritage Cities: The Case of Caceres, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Huang, Ju-Chin & Haab, Timothy C. & Whitehead, John C., 1997. "Willingness to Pay for Quality Improvements: Should Revealed and Stated Preference Data Be Combined?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 240-255, November.
    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. Torres-Miralles, M. & Grammatikopoulou, I. & Rescia, A.J., 2017. "Employing contingent and inferred valuation methods to evaluate the conservation of olive groves and associated ecosystem services in Andalusia (Spain)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 258-269.
    2. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. 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.
    4. Jakus, Paul M. & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Davis, George C., 2003. "Revenue Impacts of MPP Branded Funds: A Firm-Level Analysis," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 184-197, October.
    5. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    6. Brouwer, Roy & Martín-Ortega, Julia, 2012. "Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 151-166.
    7. Zhang, Fan & Fogarty, James, 2015. "Nonmarket Valuation of Water Sensitive Cities: Current Knowledge and Issues," Working Papers 207694, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    8. Koo, A Mi & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Household willingness to pay for a smart water metering and monitoring system: The case of South Korea," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    9. Kovacs, Kent F. & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Recreation at open space and residential development patterns," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 271502, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Won-Seok Lee & Seung-Hoon Yoo & Jeehyeong Kim, 2013. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of the Tap Water Supply Service in Urban Areas: The Case of Korea," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(2), pages 619-627, January.
    11. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    12. Voltaire, Louinord & Pirrone, Claudio & Bailly, Denis, 2013. "Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 76-85.
    13. Eom, Young-Sook & Larson, Douglas M., 2006. "Improving environmental valuation estimates through consistent use of revealed and stated preference information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 501-516, July.
    14. Stithou, Mavra, 2009. "Respondent Certainty and Payment Vehicle Effect in Contingent Valuation: an Empirical Study for the Conservation of Two Endangered Species in Zakynthos Island, Greece," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2009-21, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    15. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    16. Sydorovych, Olha & Wossink, Ada, 2008. "The meaning of agricultural sustainability: Evidence from a conjoint choice survey," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 10-20, July.
    17. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    18. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    19. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    20. 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.

    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:15:y:2023:i:24:p:16736-:d:1298035. 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.