IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arz/wpaper/eres2018_21.html

Willingness to Pay for Senior Wellness Center

Author

Listed:
  • Kornprom Satraphand
  • Supeecha Panichpathom

Abstract

Although Thailand is a developing country, it is well equipped for medical care. Nowadays, Thai people have a better quality of life and step into senior society, which makes it necessary to study the needs of the elderly in various aspects including their preferences of using wellness center. Past studies have focused on medical therapeutic health care rather than preventive health care. Therefore, it is crucial to study wellness center characteristics preferred by the elderly as well as willingness to pay of each group. Location, staffs, facilities, design, and accessibility are the main senior wellness center attributes extracted from triangulation. Willingness to pay analysis of 471 respondents from 50 to 79 years old shows that recreational center with safety concern design, skillful staffs, located in quality environment, and accessible via public transportation are the most valued characteristics of senior wellness center. There are 3 groups of the respondents: (1) Fit & Cozy Pre-Senior (2) Recreation & Cozy Senior (3) Recreation & Green Pre-Senior. For future research, data collection in different seasons can be useful to test the validity of senior wellness center attributes and levels. Exploring the needs and willingness to pay of LGBTQ elderly and senior consumer behavior in health care services can be valuable information for real estate developers.

Suggested Citation

  • Kornprom Satraphand & Supeecha Panichpathom, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Senior Wellness Center," ERES eres2018_21, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    • Handle: RePEc:arz:wpaper:eres2018_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://eres.architexturez.net/doc/oai-eres-id-eres2018-21
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://eres.architexturez.net/system/files/P_20180110161259_1617.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mei Wang & Yajing Zuo & Xianhua Lin & Yunlan Ling & Xiaofeng Lin & Mingge Li & Ecosse Lamoureux & Yingfeng Zheng, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Cataract Surgery Provided by a Senior Surgeon in Urban Southern China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-9, November.
    2. Lawrence M. Ausubel, 2004. "An Efficient Ascending-Bid Auction for Multiple Objects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1452-1475, December.
    3. Lam, K.Y. & Koning, A.J. & Franses, Ph.H.B.F., 2010. "Ranking Models in Conjoint Analysis," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2010-51, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    4. Timothy Townshend & Amelia Lake, 2011. "Relationships between ‘Wellness Centre’ Use, the Surrounding Built Environment and Obesogenic Behaviours, Sunderland, UK," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(03), pages 351-367.
    5. Jan Abel Olsen & Richard D. Smith, 2001. "Theory versus practice: a review of ‘willingness‐to‐pay’ in health and health care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 39-52, January.
    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. Johnson, F. Reed & Ozdemir, Semra & Phillips, Kathryn A., 2010. "Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 183-190, January.
    2. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    3. Le, Phuong, 2018. "Pareto optimal budgeted combinatorial auctions," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    4. Shrestha, Ratna K., 2017. "Menus of price-quantity contracts for inducing the truth in environmental regulation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-7.
    5. Marc Fleurbaey & Stéphane Luchini & Christophe Muller & Erik Schokkaert, 2013. "Equivalent Income And Fair Evaluation Of Health Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 711-729, June.
    6. Richard D. Smith, 2006. "It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(3), pages 281-293, March.
    7. Mishra, Debasis & Parkes, David C., 2007. "Ascending price Vickrey auctions for general valuations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 335-366, January.
    8. Ingebretsen Carlson, Jim, 2015. "An Approximate Auction," Working Papers 2015:19, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    9. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    10. Robert W. Paterson & Kevin J. Boyle & Christopher F. Parmeter & James E. Neumann & Paul De Civita, 2008. "Heterogeneity in preferences for smoking cessation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(12), pages 1363-1377, December.
    11. Loertscher, Simon & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2021. "A dominant strategy, double clock auction with estimation-based tatonnement," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 16(3), July.
    12. Samuel D. Bell & Nadia A. Streletskaya, 2019. "The Random Quantity Mechanism: Laboratory and Field Tests of a Novel Cost-Revealing Procurement Mechanism," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 899-921, July.
    13. Olsen, Jan Abel & Kidholm, Kristian & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2004. "Willingness to pay for public health care: a comparison of two approaches," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 217-228, November.
    14. George Van Houtven & John Powers & Amber Jessup & Jui‐Chen Yang, 2006. "Valuing avoided morbidity using meta‐regression analysis: what can health status measures and QALYs tell us about WTP?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 775-795, August.
    15. SaÄŸlam, YiÄŸit & Ho, Phuong & Daglish, Toby, 2012. "Auctioning the Digital Dividend: a Model for Spectrum," Working Paper Series 4129, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    16. Dan Levin, 2005. "Demand Reduction in Multi-Unit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 467-471, March.
    17. Iftekhar, M.S. & Tisdell, J.G. & Connor, J.D., 2013. "Effects of competition on environmental water buyback auctions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 59-73.
    18. van der Star, Sanne M. & van den Berg, Bernard, 2011. "Individual responsibility and health-risk behaviour: A contingent valuation study from the ex ante societal perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 300-311, August.
    19. Andrea Attar & Thomas Mariotti & François Salanié, 2021. "Entry-Proofness and Discriminatory Pricing under Adverse Selection," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(8), pages 2623-2659, August.
    20. Nathalie Havet & Magali Morelle & Alexis Penot & Raphaël Remonnay, 2012. "The information content of the WTP-WTA gap: An empirical analysis among severely ill patients," Working Papers 1213, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • R3 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location

    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:arz:wpaper:eres2018_21. 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: Architexturez Imprints (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eressea.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.