Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for the Non-use Values of Ecotourism Resources in a National Forest Park

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2023.02.011

Abstract

Abstract:

National forest parks are important ecotourism destinations for locals and out-of-town visitors worldwide. The increase in protected areas is accompanied by challenges. The major challenge is the tension between conservation and exploitation. However, over-exploitation is causing irreversible damage to tourism resources by neglecting to accelerate conservation and satisfying the needs of only tourists. Therefore, it is a prerequisite to evaluate the value of ecotourism resources, especially non-use values. Liugong Island National Forest Park is a seaside forest park in Shandong Province, China. Tourist activities have negatively impacted the amenity and values of the park and increased management and maintenance costs. This study aimed to enhance the protection awareness of ecotourism resources by evaluating non-use values with the contingent valuation method (CVM). Ecotourism attitude factors were extracted by factor analysis, and the ecotourism market was segmented by cluster analysis. Then, an empirical assessment model was designed. Furthermore, through a double-bounded dichotomous choice model of the CVM, non-use values of ecotourism resources were estimated, and differences in non-use values among the groups with different attitudes were discussed. The results indicated that (1) Tourists with conservation backgrounds tended to pay more for general non-use values, while high-income tourists were willing to pay more for the Altruistic value; (2) The willingness to pay (WTP) of tourists was highest for the Bequest value, followed by the Existence value or Altruistic value, and finally the Option value; (3) The WTP was highest for the group valuing pluralism, followed by the group concerning resources, and lowest for the group concerning the environment. This study can provide valuable information for ecotourism planning and management that corresponds to current issues and tourist needs.

Key words: non-use value, ecotourism resource, willingness to pay, contingent valuation method

SHEN Hanli, ZHENG Xin, LEE Chunhung, JIA Jingbo, KHATTAK Romaan Hayat. Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for the Non-use Values of Ecotourism Resources in a National Forest Park[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2023, 14(2): 331-343.

Figures/Tables 6

References 85

[1]	Aabø S, Strand J. 2004. Public library valuation, nonuse values, and altruistic motivations. Library & Information Science Research, 26(3): 351-372.
[2]	Afroz R, Masud M M. 2011. Using a contingent valuation approach for improved solid waste management facility: Evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Management, 31(4): 800-808.
[3]	Alberini A. 1995a. Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: Single-bound, double-bound, and bivariate models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(3): 287-306.
[4]	Alberini A. 1995b. Testing willingness-to-pay models of discrete choice contingent valuation survey data. Land Economics, 71(1): 83-95.
[5]	Amirnejad H, Khalilian S, Assareh M H, et al. 2006. Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecological Economics, 58(4): 665-675.
[6]	Aseres S A, Sira R K. 2020. Estimating visitors’ willingness to pay for a conservation fund: Sustainable financing approach in protected areas in Ethiopia. Heliyon, 6(8): e04500. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04500.
[7]	Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K. 2009. Tourists’ support for conservation messages and sustainable management practices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tourism Management, 30(5): 658-664.
[8]	Bamwesigye D, Hlavackova P, Sujova A, et al. 2020. Willingness to pay for forest existence value and sustainability. Sustainability, 12(3): 891. DOI: 10.3390/su12030891.
[9]	Bandara R, Tisdell C. 2003. Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian elephants in Sri Lanka: Empirical evidence. Biological Conservation, 110(3): 327-342.
[10]	Baral N, Gautam R, Timilsina N, et al. 2007. Conservation implications of contingent valuation of critically endangered white-rumped vulture Gyps bengalensis in South Asia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management, 3(3): 145-156.
[11]	Bhat M Y, Sofi A A. 2021. Willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation in Dachigam National Park, India. Journal for Nature Conservation, 62: 126022. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2021.126022.
[12]	Börger T. 2013. Keeping up appearances: Motivations for socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews. Ecological Economics, 87: 155-165.
[13]	Buultjens J, Ratnayake I, Gnanapala A, et al. 2005. Tourism and its implications for management in ruhuna National Park (yala), Sri Lanka. Tourism Management, 26(5): 733-742.
[14]	Cameron T A, Quiggin J. 1994. Estimation using contingent valuation data from a “dichotomous choice with follow-up” questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(3): 218-234.
[15]	Cameron T A, Shaw W D, Ragland S E, et al. 1996. Using actual and contingent behavior data with differing levels of time aggregation to model recreation demand. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 21(1): 130-149.
[16]	Cardoso de Mendonça M J, Sachsida A, Loureiro P R A. 2003. A study on the valuing of biodiversity: The case of three endangered species in Brazil. Ecological Economics, 46(1): 9-18.
[17]	Carrier J G, MacLeod D V L. 2005. Bursting the bubble: The socio-cultural context of ecotourism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11(2): 315-334.
[18]	Cerda C, Losada T. 2013. Assessing the value of species: A case study on the willingness to pay for species protection in Chile. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 185(12): 10479-10493.
[19]	Chen W Y, Jim C Y. 2008. Cost-benefit analysis of the leisure value of urban greening in the new Chinese City of Zhuhai. Cities, 25(5): 298-309.
[20]	Chen B X, Qi X H. 2018. Protest response and contingent valuation of an urban forest park in Fuzhou City, China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 29: 68-76.
[21]	Choi A S, Ritchie B W, Papandrea F, et al. 2010. Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach. Tourism Management, 31(2): 213-220.
[22]	Cohen E. 2002. Authenticity, equity and sustainability in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(4): 267-276.
[23]	Cong L, Zhang Y, Su C H, Chen M H, et al. 2019. Understanding tourists' willingness-to-pay for rural landscape improvement and preference heterogeneity. Sustainability, 11(24): 7001. DOI: 10.3390/su11247001.
[24]	Cooper J C, Hanemann M, Signorello G. 2002. One-and-one-half-bound dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4): 742-750.
[25]	Deere N J. 2011. Exploitation or conservation? Can the hunting tourism industry in Africa be sustainable? Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53(4): 20-32.
[26]	do Valle P O, Pintassilgo P, Matias A, et al. 2012. Tourist attitudes towards an accommodation tax earmarked for environmental protection: A survey in the Algarve. Tourism Management, 33(6): 1408-1416.
[27]	Farber S C, Costanza R, Wilson M A. 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41(3): 375-392.
[28]	Flower E K, Burns G L, Jones D N, et al. 2021. Does the experience make a difference? Comparing tourist attitudes pre- and post-visit towards the elephant tourism industry. Annals of Tourism Research Empirical Insights, 2(2): 100025. DOI: 10.1016/j.annale.2021.100025.
[29]	Forje G W, Tchamba M N, Eno-Nku M. 2021. Determinants of ecotourism development in and around protected areas: The case of Campo Ma’an National Park in Cameroon. Scientific African, 11: e00663. DOI: 10. 1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00663.
[30]	Gaglias A, Mirasgedis S, Tourkolias C, et al. 2016. Implementing the Contingent Valuation Method for supporting decision making in the waste management sector. Waste Management, 53: 237-244.
[31]	Ghazvini S A M, Timothy D J, Sarmento J. 2020. Environmental concerns and attitudes of tourists towards National Park uses and services. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 31: 100296. DOI: 10.1016/ j.jort.2020.100296.
[32]	Gössling S. 1999. Ecotourism: A means to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem functions? Ecological Economics, 29(2): 303-320.
[33]	Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4): 1255-1263.
[34]	Hair Jr J F, Black W C, Babin B J, et al. 2010. Multivariate data analysis:A global perspective(7th Edition). New York, USA: Pearson Education.
[35]	Halkos G, Leonti A, Sardianou E. 2020. Assessing the preservation of Parks and natural protected areas: A review of contingent valuation studies. Sustainability, 12(11): 4784. DOI: 10.3390/su12114784.
[36]	Hearne R R, Santos C A. 2005. Tourists’ and locals’ preferences toward ecotourism development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(3): 303-318.
[37]	Hedlund T. 2011. The impact of values, environmental concern, and willingness to accept economic sacrifices to protect the environment on tourists’ intentions to buy ecologically sustainable tourism alternatives. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(4): 278-288.
[38]	Herrera-Silveira J A, Cebrian J, Hauxwell J, et al. 2010. Evidence of negative impacts of ecological tourism on turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum) beds in a marine protected area of the Mexican Caribbean. Aquatic Ecology, 44(1): 23-31.
[39]	Jala, Nandagiri L. 2015. Evaluation of economic value of Pilikula Lake using travel cost and contingent valuation methods. Aquatic Procedia, 4: 1315-1321.
[40]	Ji S Y, Choi Y, Lee C K, et al. 2018. Comparing willingness-to-pay between residents and non-residents using a contingent valuation method: Case of the Grand Canal in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 23(1): 79-91.
[41]	Jia J B. 2011. Conservation biology. Beijing, China: Higher Education Press. (in Chinese)
[42]	Jia Y Q, Bao G M. 2008. The effect of nationality on the multidimensionality of tourist destination image: A case of Hangzhou. 2008 International Workshop on Education Technology and Training & 2008 International Workshop on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. Shanghai, China: IEEE.
[43]	Jin J J, Wang Z S, Liu X M. 2008. Valuing black-faced spoonbill conservation in Macao: A policy and contingent valuation study. Ecological Economics, 68(1-2): 328-335.
[44]	Kafyri A, Hovardas T, Poirazidis K. 2012. Determinants of visitor pro-environmental intentions on two small Greek Islands: Is ecotourism possible at coastal protected areas? Environmental Management, 50(1): 64-76.
[45]	Kim A K, Weiler B. 2013. Visitors’ attitudes towards responsible fossil collecting behaviour: An environmental attitude-based segmentation approach. Tourism Management, 36: 602-612.
[46]	Kotchen M J, Reiling S D. 2000. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics, 32(1): 93-107.
[47]	Lal P, Wolde B, Masozera M, et al. 2017. Valuing visitor services and access to protected areas: The case of Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda. Tourism Management, 61: 141-151.
[48]	Lawless J F. 2003. Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data. Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc..
[49]	Lee C H, Chen Y J, Huang Y S, et al. 2019. Incorporating integrative perspectives into impact reduction management in a reef recreation area. Water, 12(1): 111. DOI: 10.3390/w12010111.
[50]	Lee C H, Wang C H. 2017. Estimating residents’ preferences of land use program surrounding forest park, Taiwan. Sustainability, 9(4): 598. DOI: 10.3390/su9040598.
[51]	Lee C K, Han S Y. 2002. Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks’ tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tourism Management, 23(5): 531-540.
[52]	Lee C K, W Mjelde J. 2007. Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: The case of the Korean DMZ. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3): 511-520.
[53]	León C J, Araña J E, et al. 2015. Tourists’ preferences for congestion, residents’ welfare and the ecosystems in a national park. Ecological Economics, 118: 21-29.
[54]	Lin Y H, Hong C F, Lee C H, et al. 2020. Integrating multiple perspectives into an ecotourism marketing strategy in a marine national park. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25(9): 948-966.
[55]	Liugong Island Administrative Office, 2021. www.Liugong Island. com.cn. Viewed on 27 January 2021.
[56]	Lo A Y, Jim C Y. 2010. Willingness of residents to pay and motives for conservation of urban green spaces in the compact city of Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2): 113-120.
[57]	Lockwood M, Tracy K. 1995. Nonmarket economic valuation of an urban recreation park. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(2): 155-167.
[58]	Müller M, Job H. 2009. Managing natural disturbance in protected areas: Tourists’ attitude towards the bark beetle in a German National Park. Biological Conservation, 142(2): 375-383.
[59]	Nunnally J C. 1978. Psychometric theory (2nd edition). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
[60]	Nuva R, Shamsudin M N, Radam A, et al. 2009. Willingness to pay towards the conservation of ecotourism resources at Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park, west Java, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(2): 173-186.
[61]	O’Connor E, Hynes S, Chen W T. 2020. Estimating the non-market benefit value of deep-sea ecosystem restoration: Evidence from a contingent valuation study of the Dohrn Canyon in the Bay of Naples. Journal of Environmental Management, 275: 111180. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111180.
[62]	Petrosillo I, Zurlini G, Corlianò M E, et al. 2007. Tourist perception of recreational environment and management in a marine protected area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(1): 29-37.
[63]	Rajapaksa D, Islam M, Managi S. 2018. Pro-environmental behavior: The role of public perception in infrastructure and the social factors for sustainable development. Sustainability, 10(4): 937. DOI: 10.3390/su10040937.
[64]	Reihanian A, Mahmood N Z B, Kahrom E, et al. 2012. Sustainable tourism development strategy by SWOT analysis: Boujagh National Park, Iran. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4: 223-228.
[65]	Rodella I, Madau F A, Carboni D. 2020. The willingness to pay for beach scenery and its preservation in Italy. Sustainability, 12(4): 1604. DOI: 10.3390/su12041604.
[66]	Sadikin P N, Mulatsih S, Pramudya B, et al. 2017. Analysis of willingness to pay on ecotourism in Mount Rinjani National Park. Journal of Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 14(1): 31-46.
[67]	Shen H L, Lee C H, Zhang B, et al. 2013. Study on non-use values of ecotourism resources of Taiwan Taroko National Park. Journal of Anhui Agriculture Science, 41(5): 2104-2109. (in Chinese)
[68]	Shrestha R K, Stein T V, Clark J. 2007. Valuing nature-based recreation in public natural areas of the Apalachicola River region, Florida. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(4): 977-985.
[69]	Smith M D, Krannich R S. 1998. Tourism dependence and resident attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4): 783-802.
[70]	Spiteri A, Nepal S. 2006. Incentive-based conservation programs in developing countries: A review of some key issues and suggestions for improvements. Environmental Management, 37(1): 1-14.
[71]	Sriarkarin S, Lee C H. 2018. Integrating multiple attributes for sustainable development in a national park. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28: 113-125.
[72]	Strickland-Munro J, Moore S. 2013. Indigenous involvement and benefits from tourism in protected areas: A study of Purnululu National Park and Warmun Community, Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1): 26-41.
[73]	Thapa S, Wang L H, Koirala A, et al. 2020. Valuation of ecosystem services from an important wetland of Nepal: A study from begnas watershed system. Wetlands, 40(5): 1071-1083.
[74]	Tian S G, Peng C. 2019. The problems and measures of forest fire prevention in Liugong Island National Forest Park. Agricultural Catastrophology, 9(6): 101-102. (in Chinese)
[75]	Tran D T T, Nomura H, Yabe M. 2015. Tourists’ preferences toward ecotourism development and sustainable biodiversity conservation in protected areas of Vietnam—The case of Phu My Protected Area. Journal of Agricultural Science, 7(8): 81-89.
[76]	Wang P W. 2021. Study on the value of ecotourism resources in nature reserve. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press. (in Chinese)
[77]	Wang P W, Jia J B. 2012. Tourists’ willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation and environment protection, Dalai Lake protected area: Implications for entrance fee and sustainable management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 62: 24-33.
[78]	Wang P W, Zhong L S. 2018. Application of deliberative monetary valuation in ecosystem value evaluation and inspirations. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 38(15): 5279-5286. (in Chinese)
[79]	Wang Y, Zhang Y S. 2009. Air quality assessment by contingent valuation in Ji’nan, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2): 1022-1029.
[80]	Wilson J J, Lantz V A, MacLean D A. 2010. A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(2): 94-103.
[81]	World Tourism Organization. 2002. World ecotourism summit final report. Madrid, Spain:World Tourism Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9468500.
[82]	UNWTO(World Tourism Organization). 2017. UNWTO tourism highlights. Madrid, Spain: UNWTO. DOI: 10.18111/9789284419029.
[83]	Yip W, Subramanian S V, Mitchell A D, et al. 2007. Does social capital enhance health and well-being? Evidence from rural China. Social Science & Medicine, 64(1): 35-49.
[84]	Zambrano-Monserrate M A. 2020. The economic value of the Andean Condor: The national symbol of South America. Journal for Nature Conservation, 54(6389): 125796. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125796.
[85]	Zong C, Cheng K, Lee C H, et al. 2017. Capturing tourists’ preferences for the management of community-based ecotourism in a forest park. Sustainability, 9(9): 1673. DOI: 10.3390/su9091673.

Variables	Factor loading	Eigenvalue	Cumulative explained variance (%)	Cronbach’s α
Factor 1: Maintaining natural and cultural resources		2.787	18.577	0.759
1 Strengthen the concept of natural heritage preservation	0.772
2 Combine with the protection of historical and cultural sites	0.757
3 Protect flora and fauna resources	0.656
4 Learn cultural heritage knowledge	0.581
5 Contribute to the protection of natural ecosystems	0.572
6 Provide education and training programs for local communities	0.490
Factor 2: Promoting sustainable community development		2.168	14.454	0.727
7 Promote the communication of relevant stakeholders	0.773
8 Increase employment opportunities	0.748
9 Seek support from local residents	0.715
Factor 3: Reducing recreation impacts		2.087	13.911	0.732
10 Reduce waste	0.870
11 Reduce the mess from tourists	0.862
12 Reduce the crowding from visitors	0.514
Factor 4: Strengthening recreational control (Lee et al., 2019)		1.848	12.323	0.607
13 Limit recreational activities	0.780
14 Set recreational carrying capacity	0.704
15 Decrease the investment in mass tourism moderately	0.554
Total cumulative variance explained (%)			59.244

Variables	Factor loading	Eigenvalue	Cumulative explained variance (%)	Cronbach’s α
Factor 1: Maintaining natural and cultural resources		2.787	18.577	0.759
1 Strengthen the concept of natural heritage preservation	0.772
2 Combine with the protection of historical and cultural sites	0.757
3 Protect flora and fauna resources	0.656
4 Learn cultural heritage knowledge	0.581
5 Contribute to the protection of natural ecosystems	0.572
6 Provide education and training programs for local communities	0.490
Factor 2: Promoting sustainable community development		2.168	14.454	0.727
7 Promote the communication of relevant stakeholders	0.773
8 Increase employment opportunities	0.748
9 Seek support from local residents	0.715
Factor 3: Reducing recreation impacts		2.087	13.911	0.732
10 Reduce waste	0.870
11 Reduce the mess from tourists	0.862
12 Reduce the crowding from visitors	0.514
Factor 4: Strengthening recreational control (Lee et al., 2019)		1.848	12.323	0.607
13 Limit recreational activities	0.780
14 Set recreational carrying capacity	0.704
15 Decrease the investment in mass tourism moderately	0.554
Total cumulative variance explained (%)			59.244

Factors	The group concerning the environment (I) (n = 71)	The group valuing pluralism (II) (n = 450)	The group concerning resources (III) (n = 69)	F-value	Scheffe tests
Factors	The group concerning the environment (I) (n = 71)	The group valuing pluralism (II) (n = 450)	The group concerning resources (III) (n = 69)	F-value	I-II	I-III	II-III
Maintaining the natural and cultural resources	3.74	4.82	4.48	461.4***	***	***	***
Sustainable community development	3.60	4.51	3.64	85.6***	***	n/a	***
Reducing recreation impacts	4.17	4.82	3.24	445.3***	***	***	***
Setting recreational carrying capacity	3.71	3.87	3.44	6.87***	n/a	n/a	***

Factors	The group concerning the environment (I) (n = 71)	The group valuing pluralism (II) (n = 450)	The group concerning resources (III) (n = 69)	F-value	Scheffe tests
Factors	The group concerning the environment (I) (n = 71)	The group valuing pluralism (II) (n = 450)	The group concerning resources (III) (n = 69)	F-value	I-II	I-III	II-III
Maintaining the natural and cultural resources	3.74	4.82	4.48	461.4***	***	***	***
Sustainable community development	3.60	4.51	3.64	85.6***	***	n/a	***
Reducing recreation impacts	4.17	4.82	3.24	445.3***	***	***	***
Setting recreational carrying capacity	3.71	3.87	3.44	6.87***	n/a	n/a	***

Value type	WTP (yuan yr^-1)		Number	YY²	YN³	NY⁴	NN⁵
Value type	First quote	Second quote	Number	YY²	YN³	NY⁴	NN⁵
Option value	50	25/100¹	173	66(38.2)⁶	26(15.0)	11(6.4)	70(40.5)
	130	65/260	124	33(26.6)	20(16.1)	16(12.9)	55(44.4)
	300	150/600	144	21(14.6)	23(15.9)	20(13.9)	80(55.6)
	500	250/1000	149	13(8.7)	27(18.1)	14(9.4)	95(63.8)
Existence value	100	50/200	143	34(23.8)	25(17.5)	10(6.9)	74(51.8)
	150	75/300	173	41(23.7)	28(16.2)	17(9.8)	87(50.3)
	450	225/900	142	16(11.3)	22(15.5)	17(11.9)	87(61.3)
	800	400/1600	132	12(9.1)	10(7.6)	23(17.4)	87(65.9)
Bequest value	100	50/200	142	40(28.2)	15(10.6)	7(4.9)	80(56.3)
	250	125/500	153	31(20.3)	25(16.3)	12(7.8)	85(55.6)
	600	300/1200	145	14(9.7)	28(19.3)	19(13.1)	84(57.9)
	1300	650/2600	150	20(13.3)	16(10.7)	12(8.0)	102(68.0)
Altruistic value	50	25/100	155	43(27.7)	16(10.3)	13(8.4)	83(53.6)
	130	65/260	155	41(26.5)	24(15.5)	10(6.5)	80(51.6)
	300	150/600	145	26(17.9)	17(11.7)	24(16.6)	78(53.8)
	500	250/1000	135	15(11.1)	10(7.4)	21(15.6)	89(65.9)