IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i3p2547-d1052617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Tourists’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Artificial Beach Park Development and Management: A Choice Experiment Method

Author

Listed:
  • Qi Chen

    (School of Business, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China
    Marine Economic Research Center, Donghai Academy, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China)

  • Yun Zhang

    (School of Business, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China)

Abstract

Artificial beaches have made a significant contribution to the expansion of coastal tourism. Obtaining information on tourists’ preferences for artificial beach tourism can help managers to better balance the relationship between the satisfaction of recreational needs and environmental protection. The Meishan Bay Beach Park in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China was used as the study site, and the tourists’ preferences for the artificial beach park development and management were evaluated using the choice experiment method. The results revealed that tourists were generally more interested in improving the governance level of the existing landscape than in further expanding the scale of artificial beach development. Among all attributes, significantly reducing the amount of garbage was the most preferred attribute, with a willingness to pay of 39.75 CNY, while willingness to increase beach area was the lowest attribute. The result of the preference heterogeneity analysis showed that tourists with higher education levels were more willing to pay to obtain a better recreational experience, while local tourists were more concerned about reducing congestion. Moreover, we found a clear and relevant segmentation of tourists’ choice behavior, with the strong sensitivity for raising the ticket price being driven by the smallest group of the sample.

Suggested Citation

  • Qi Chen & Yun Zhang, 2023. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Artificial Beach Park Development and Management: A Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2547-:d:1052617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2547/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2547/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    2. André Samora-Arvela & Eric Vaz & João Ferrão & Jorge Ferreira & Thomas Panagopoulos, 2018. "Diversifying Mediterranean Tourism as a Strategy for Regional Resilience Enhancement," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Hugo Pinto & Teresa Noronha & Eric Vaz (ed.), Resilience and Regional Dynamics, chapter 0, pages 105-127, Springer.
    3. Anfuso, G. & Williams, A.T. & Cabrera Hernández, J.A. & Pranzini, E., 2014. "Coastal scenic assessment and tourism management in western Cuba," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 307-320.
    4. Zhang, Fan & Wang, Xiao Hua & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D. & Ma, Chunbo, 2015. "The recreational value of gold coast beaches, Australia: An application of the travel cost method," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 106-114.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Halkos, George & Matsiori, Steriani, 2012. "Determinants of willingness to pay for coastal zone quality improvement," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 391-399.
    7. Kim, Dohee & Park, Byung-Jin (Robert), 2017. "The moderating role of context in the effects of choice attributes on hotel choice: A discrete choice experiment," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 439-451.
    8. Gill, David A. & Schuhmann, Peter W. & Oxenford, Hazel A., 2015. "Recreational diver preferences for reef fish attributes: Economic implications of future change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 48-57.
    9. Barbara Cavalletti & Matteo Corsi & Elena Lagomarsino, 2021. "Marine Sites and the Drivers of Wellbeing: Ecosystem vs. Anthropic Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Duke, Joshua M. & Borchers, Allison M. & Johnston, Robert J. & Absetz, Sarah, 2012. "Sustainable agricultural management contracts: Using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 95-103.
    11. Caridad Ballesteros & José A. Jiménez & Herminia I. Valdemoro & Eva Bosom, 2018. "Erosion consequences on beach functions along the Maresme coast (NW Mediterranean, Spain)," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 90(1), pages 173-195, January.
    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. Ruikun An & Feng Wang & Jiro Sakurai & Hideki Kitagawa, 2024. "Willing or Not? Rural Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Conservation in Economically Underdeveloped Regions: A Case Study in China’s Qinling National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-17, March.

    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. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    3. Crastes, Romain & Beaumais, Olivier & Arkoun, Ouerdia & Laroutis, Dimitri & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Rulleau, Bénédicte & Hassani-Taibi, Salima & Barbu, Vladimir Stefan & Gaillard, David, 2014. "Erosive runoff events in the European Union: Using discrete choice experiment to assess the benefits of integrated management policies when preferences are heterogeneous," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 105-112.
    4. Jerrod Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2021. "Travelers’ value of protective measures against bed bugs in hotels," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(7), pages 1398-1416, November.
    5. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    9. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    10. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Danny Campbell, 2019. "Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 133-162.
    11. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    12. Juan Carlos Martín & Concepción Román & Cira Mendoza, 2018. "Determinants for sun-and-beach self-catering accommodation selection," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(3), pages 319-336, May.
    13. Zander, K. & Janssen, M., 2013. "Präferenzen deutscher Öko-Konsumenten für Wein," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 48, March.
    14. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Mandy Ryan & Paul McNamee, 2011. "Using discrete choice experiments to value informal care tasks: exploring preference heterogeneity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 930-944, August.
    17. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Meressa, Abrha Megos & Navrud, Stale, 2020. "Not my cup of coffee: Farmers’ preferences for coffee variety traits – Lessons for crop breeding in the age of climate change," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(3), December.
    19. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.

    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:3:p:2547-:d:1052617. 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.