Value and Heterogeneity: Using a Choice Experiment to Evaluate the Coastal Recreational Environment

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.01.008

Abstract

Abstract:

The management of the coastal park environment is a major ecological and economic development issue. In developing effective policies, relevant information is essential, especially the economic valuation of various recreation-related environmental attributes. This study used Dalian coastal parks as a pilot study area and estimated the willingness to pay (WTP) of tourists using three different discrete choice models. In this study, we analyzed the preference heterogeneity among the respondents regarding a combination of park attributes, and the individual respondent’s WTP values were estimated for each attribute. The results indicate that water quality amelioration and trash reduction had the highest economic values among the given attribute factors. In addition, the estimated tourist WTP varied considerably among different segments, such as among the visitors who preferred different recreational activities. These findings provide valuable information that will allow coastal park managers to develop policies which maintain a balance between tourism development and improvement of the coastal environment.

Key words: choice experiment, improvement of the coastal environment, tourism experience utility, random parameter logit

WEI Jianhua. Value and Heterogeneity: Using a Choice Experiment to Evaluate the Coastal Recreational Environment[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(1): 80-90.

Figures/Tables 7

References 34

[1]	Adamowicz W L, Boxall P, Williams M, et al. 1998. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1):64-75. DOI URL
[2]	Adamowicz W L, Louviere J, Williams M. 1994. Combining stated and revealed preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(3):271-292. DOI URL
[3]	Beharry-Borg N, Scarpa R. 2010. Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors. Ecological Economics, 69(5):1124-1139. DOI URL
[4]	Carlsson F, Frykblom P, Liljenstolpe C. 2003. Valuing wetland attributes: An application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 47(1):95-103. DOI URL
[5]	Crouch G I, Oppewal H, Huybers T, et al. 2007. Discretionary expenditure and tourism consumption: Insights from a choice experiment. Journal of Travel Research, 45(3):247-258. DOI URL
[6]	DeShazo J R, Fermo G. 2002. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(7):123-143. DOI URL
[7]	Díaz M R, Rodríguez T F E. 2016. Determining the sustainability factors and performance of a tourism destination from the stakeholders’ perspective. Sustainability, 8(9):951-968. DOI URL
[8]	Eggert H, Olsson B. 2009. Valuing multi-attribute marine water quality. Marine Policy, 33(2):201-206. DOI URL
[9]	Gelo D, Koch S F. 2012. Does one size fit all? Heterogeneity in the valuation of community forestry programs. Ecological Economics, 74(2):85-94. DOI URL
[10]	Hanley N, Moutato S, Wright R E. 2001. Choice modeling approaches: A superior alternative for environment valuation. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(7):436-462.
[11]	Holmes T P, Boyle K J. 2005. Dynamic learning and context dependence in sequential, attribute-based, stated-preference valuation questions. Land Economics, 81(1):114-126.
[12]	Liu X Z, Song L L, Chen S Y, et al. 2019. Assessment of environmental value loss of coastal tourism under the influence of red tide. Ocean Development and Management, 36(11):53-58.
[13]	Louviere J J. 2001. What if consumer experiments impact variances as well as means? Response variability as a behavioural phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(12):506-511.
[14]	Louviere J J, Hensher D A, Swait J. 2000. Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications in marketing, transportation and environmental valuation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[15]	Louviere J J, Street D, Carson R, et al. 2002. Dissecting the random component of utility. Marketing Letters, 13(3):177-193.
[16]	Juutinen A, Mitani Y, Maentymaa E, et al. 2011. Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application. Ecological Economics, 70(6):1231-1239.
[17]	Kafle A, Swallow S K, Smith E C. 2015. Does public funding affect preferred tradeoffs and crowd-in or crowd-out willingness to pay? A watershed management case. Environmental & Resource Economics, 60(3):471-495.
[18]	Kubo T, Uryu S, Yamano H, et al. 2020. Mobile phone network data reveal nationwide economic value of coastal tourism under climate change. Tourism Management, 77:104010. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104010. DOI URL
[19]	McFadden D, Train K. 2000. Mixed MNL models of discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(5):447-470.
[20]	Mendoza-González G, Martínez M L, Guevara R, et al. 2018. Towards a sustainable sun, sea, and sand tourism: The value of ocean view and proximity to the coast. Sustainability, 10(4):10-12.
[21]	Mogas J, Riera P, Brey R. 2009. Combining contingent valuation and choice experiment: A forestry application in Spain. Environmental and Resources Economics, 43(4):535-551.
[22]	Nie X, Chen Q, Xiao T, et al. 2019. Willingness to pay for ecological function regions protection based on a choice experiment method: A case study of the Shiwandashan Nature Reserve. Quality & Quantity, 53(2):813-829.
[23]	Parsons G, Kealy M. 1992. Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Economics, 68:93-106.
[24]	Petrosillo I, Zurlini G, Corlianò, et al. 2007. Tourist perception of recreational environment and management in a marine protected area. Landscape & Urban Planning, 79(1):29-37.
[25]	Rodrigues L C, Jeroen C J M, van den Bergh, et al. 2016. The cost of mediterranean sea warming and acidification: A choice experiment among scuba divers at medes islands, Spain. Environmental & Resource Economics, 63(2):1-23.
[26]	Street D J, Burgess L, Louviere J J. 2005. Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(4):459-470. DOI URL
[27]	Termansen M, Colin J, McClean, et al. 2013. Modeling and mapping spatial heterogeneity in forest recreation services. Ecological Economics, 92(8):48-57.
[28]	Train K E. 1998. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics, 74(2):230-239.
[29]	Train K E. 2009. Discrete choice: Methods with simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[30]	Wang E D, Wei J H, Zhu J. 2017. The effects of improving coastal park attributes on the recreation demand—A case study in Dalian, China. Tourism Economics, 23(1):133-149. DOI URL
[31]	Yang X P, Weng G M, Li J, et al. 2019. Optimization of tourism environment carrying capacity in coastal cities: A case study of Qinhuangdao City. Geography and Geo-Information Science, 35(4):134-140.
[32]	Yatchew A, Griliches Z. 1985. Specification error in probit models. Review of Economics and Statistics, 67(1):134-139.
[33]	Zhang K X, Wang X L, Shi J Y, et al. 2020. Residents’ perception of the recreational value of forest parks: A case study in Shanghai, China. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 11(4):425-434.
[34]	Zhong L S, Deng J Y, Song Z W, et al. 2011. Research on environmental impacts of tourism in China: Progress and prospect. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(11):2972-2983. DOI URL PMID

Attributes	Description	Level	Variable type	Variable names
Beach type	The material of beach	Cobblestone	Dummy variable	BT_Stone
		Gravel	Dummy variable	BT_Gravel
		Sand	Dummy variable	BT_Sand
Beach garbage	The amount of garbage on the coastline in the view	< 2 pieces	Dummy variable	Garbage_low
		4-8 pieces	Dummy variable	Garbage_med
		> 10 pieces	Dummy variable	Garbage_high
Beach crowding	Number of people in the view	50, 100, 300, 500, 800 persons	Continuous variable	Crowding
Water quality	Visibility depth of the water on the seaside	< 1 foot	Dummy variable	WaterQ_low
		2-3 feet	Dummy variable	WaterQ_med
		3-5 feet	Dummy variable	WaterQ_high
Cost	Contribution fee to beach authority	0, 10, 20, 50, 70, 100 yuan	Continuous variable	Cost

Attributes	Description	Level	Variable type	Variable names
Beach type	The material of beach	Cobblestone	Dummy variable	BT_Stone
		Gravel	Dummy variable	BT_Gravel
		Sand	Dummy variable	BT_Sand
Beach garbage	The amount of garbage on the coastline in the view	< 2 pieces	Dummy variable	Garbage_low
		4-8 pieces	Dummy variable	Garbage_med
		> 10 pieces	Dummy variable	Garbage_high
Beach crowding	Number of people in the view	50, 100, 300, 500, 800 persons	Continuous variable	Crowding
Water quality	Visibility depth of the water on the seaside	< 1 foot	Dummy variable	WaterQ_low
		2-3 feet	Dummy variable	WaterQ_med
		3-5 feet	Dummy variable	WaterQ_high
Cost	Contribution fee to beach authority	0, 10, 20, 50, 70, 100 yuan	Continuous variable	Cost

Demographics	level	Percent (%)	Demographics	level	Percent (%)
Individual income	< 2000 yuan	33.7	Education background	Junior high school or below	8.3
	2000-2999 yuan	14.0		High school
	3000-3999 yuan	17.1		Technical school	24.8
	4000-4999 yuan	10.5		B.S.	34.9
	5000-5999 yuan	11.1		M.S. and PhD	11.7
	6000-6999 yuan	5.1	Residence	Dalian City (local)	55.2
	> 7000 yuan	8.6		Other city of Liaoning Province (Non-local)	17.8
Gender	Male Female	49.2 50.8		Other provinces of China (Non-local)	27.0
Sites (sample from)	Golden pebble Beach Xinghai Bay Fujiazhuang Park Xinghai Beach	26.0 19.4 28.6 26.0
			Age	19-25 26-35 51-60 > 60	40.6 30.8 10.5 1.9

Demographics	level	Percent (%)	Demographics	level	Percent (%)
Individual income	< 2000 yuan	33.7	Education background	Junior high school or below	8.3
	2000-2999 yuan	14.0		High school
	3000-3999 yuan	17.1		Technical school	24.8
	4000-4999 yuan	10.5		B.S.	34.9
	5000-5999 yuan	11.1		M.S. and PhD	11.7
	6000-6999 yuan	5.1	Residence	Dalian City (local)	55.2
	> 7000 yuan	8.6		Other city of Liaoning Province (Non-local)	17.8
Gender	Male Female	49.2 50.8		Other provinces of China (Non-local)	27.0
Sites (sample from)	Golden pebble Beach Xinghai Bay Fujiazhuang Park Xinghai Beach	26.0 19.4 28.6 26.0
			Age	19-25 26-35 51-60 > 60	40.6 30.8 10.5 1.9

Variables	Model-1 (CL)		Model-2 (HCL)		Model-3 (RPL)
Variables	Coef.	P>z	Coef.	P>z	Coef.	P>z （for Coef.）	Coef.SD.	P>z （for Coef.SD.）
BT_Gravel	-0.264	0.033	-0.221	0.176	-0.352	0.095	0.102	0.879
BT_Sand	0.067	0.656	0.037	0.751	-0.201	0.564	2.071	0.066
Garbage_med	0.497	0.000	0.376	0.053	0.899	0.014	1.403	0.049
Garbage_low	0.695	0.000	0.506	0.045	1.436	0.004	0.153	0.806
Crowding	-0.002	0.000	-0.001	0.039	-0.002	0.000	0.003	0.016
WaterQ_med	0.202	0.182	0.089	0.465	0.264	0.319	-1.257	0.110
WaterQ_high	0.695	0.001	0.457	0.063	0.828	0.053	-2.894	0.038
Cost	-0.016	0.000	-0.011	0.027	-0.020	0.000	-	-
Age	-	-	0.019	0.766	-	-	-	-
Gender	-	-	-0.030	0.853	-	-	-	-
Education	-	-	0.033	0.625	-	-	-	-
Income	-	-	0.086	0.005	-	-	-	-
Address	-	-	-0.068	0.479	-	-	-	-
No. params.	-	8.000	-	13.000	-	15.000	-	-
LR	-	231.320	-	10.110	-	12.360	-	-
Prob > chi2	-	0.000	-	0.072	-	0.089	-	-
Log likelihood	-	-576.470	-	-561.410	-	-560.290	-	-
AIC	-	1168.940	-	1148.820	-	1150.580	-	-