IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rnd/arimbr/v16y2024i3p359-371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Tourists' Willingness to Pay for Community-Based Ecotourism: Enhancing Sustainability and Local Involvement

Author

Listed:
  • Siti Mariam Mellisa Binti Abdullah
  • Mohd Shahwahid Bin Haji Othman
  • Nurhidayah Binti Zakaria
  • Fatin Farazh Binti Ya’acob
  • Rabiatul Munirah Binti Alpandi

Abstract

Malaysia’s captivating attractions are increasingly promoted through community-based ecotourism (CBE) initiatives. These efforts aim to empower local communities, conserve nature, and generate income by involving locals in managing ecotourism resources and activities, ensuring both economic benefits and sustainability of protected environments. CBE highlights diverse customs and cultures, enhancing ecotourism experiences through local resources. Understanding tourists' attitudes and preferences is crucial for developing sustainable cultural tourism packages. Key inquiries involve measuring local community participation, artistic elements, and tourism offerings in CBE management around protected parks. Evaluating tourism preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for attributes provided by local businesses is essential for effective CBE management strategies in rural areas. This study employs the Choice Experiment model to analyze tourists' preferences for CBE activities and their marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for management attributes at Min House Camp (MHC) in Kubang Kerian, Kelantan. The attributes examined include local community involvement, activity packages, accommodation facilities, and information provided. The study found 'super' package activity, increased local participation and employment, excellent accommodation, and adequate information to be the most important attributes. The study suggests that business owners and local managers adopt the CBE concept and focus on the key qualities that have been identified. Local communities and stakeholders should implement new tour packages at MHC, combining desirable features to meet market demand. Future studies could use a mixed logit model to account for multiple attributes of community ecotourism tours in protected parks.

Suggested Citation

  • Siti Mariam Mellisa Binti Abdullah & Mohd Shahwahid Bin Haji Othman & Nurhidayah Binti Zakaria & Fatin Farazh Binti Ya’acob & Rabiatul Munirah Binti Alpandi, 2024. "Assessing Tourists' Willingness to Pay for Community-Based Ecotourism: Enhancing Sustainability and Local Involvement," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 16(3), pages 359-371.
    • Handle: RePEc:rnd:arimbr:v:16:y:2024:i:3:p:359-371
    DOI: 10.22610/imbr.v16i3(I)S.4065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/imbr/article/view/4065/2629
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/imbr/article/view/4065
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22610/imbr.v16i3(I)S.4065?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, Enero-Abr.
    3. Bush, Glenn & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas, 2008. "Measuring the demand for nature-based tourism in Africa: a choice experiment using the "cut-off" approach," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-06, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    4. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    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. Estifanos, Tafesse & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2018. "Protection of the Ethiopian Wolf: What are tourists willing to pay for?," Working Papers 272805, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    3. Tyrväinen, Liisa & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 4-13.
    4. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    7. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    8. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    9. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    10. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Ngo, Mai Thanh & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Examining ordering effects and strategic behaviour in a discrete choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 394-413.
    11. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    12. Robert Turner, 2013. "Using contingent choice surveys to inform national park management," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 120-138, June.
    13. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    15. Gallardo, Rosa Karina & Olanie, Aaron, 2012. "The Use of Wireless Capability at Farmers Markets: Results from a Choice Experiment Study," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124891, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. 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.
    17. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    18. Anders Dugstad & Kristine Grimsrud & Gorm Kipperberg & Henrik Lindhjem & Ståle Navrud, 2020. "Scope elasticity and economic significance in discrete choice experiments," Discussion Papers 942, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    19. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    20. Vaiknoras, Kate & Norton, George & Alwang, Jeffrey, 2015. "Farmer preferences for attributes of conservation agriculture in Uganda," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16.

    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:rnd:arimbr:v:16:y:2024:i:3:p:359-371. 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: Muhammad Tayyab (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/imbr .

    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.