Journal of Resources and Ecology >
Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for the Non-use Values of Ecotourism Resources in a National Forest Park
SHEN Hanli, E-mail: shenhanlili@163.com |
Received date: 2021-08-17
Accepted date: 2022-01-06
Online published: 2023-02-21
Supported by
The Taiwan Science Council Special Research Grant(98-2621-M-002-012)
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.
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 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2023.02.011
Fig. 1 Map of the location of Liugong Island National Forest Park |
Table 1 Factor analysis of dimension research of WTP for non-use values |
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 |
Note: The mean is derived from the agreement degree of visitors’ answers, using Likert measurement from “strongly agree = 5” to “strongly disagree = 1”. |
Table 2 Cluster analysis of tourists’ attitudes |
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 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 | *** |
Note: *** means significance at the 1% level; n/a means not statistically significant. |
Table 3 Frequency distribution of tourists’ WTP for non-use values in ecotourism resources |
Value type | WTP (yuan yr-1) | Number | YY2 | YN3 | NY4 | NN5 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First quote | Second quote | ||||||
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) |
Note: 1. The second quote: if the tourist rejects the first quote, then the second quote will decrease (before the slash); conversely, the second quote will increase (after the slash). Unit: yuan. 2. YY = answer both “yes” in double quotes. 3. YN = answer “yes” in the first quote and “no” in the second quote. 4. NY = answer “no” in the first quote and “yes” in the second quote. 5. NN = answer both “no” in double quotes. 6. The number in the brackets represents the percentage of the number of this group in the total (frequency). |
Table 4 Significance of the factors affecting WTP |
Variable category | Variables | Valuation coefficient | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Option value | Existence value | Bequest value | Altruistic value | ||
Socio-economic variables | Age | 4.25E-04(0.01) | 1.16E-01(1.57) | 9.34E-02(0.88) | 5.38E-02(0.55) |
Lnincome | 1.91E-01(1.55) | 2.58E-01(1.80) | 1.63E-02(0.09) | 2.99E-01(1.96)** | |
Tourists’ attitude variables | M1 | 4.51E-01(1.85)* | 5.64E-01(2.51)*** | 4.08E-01(1.41) | 1.76E-01(0.61) |
Clus1 | 1.41E-01(0.42) | 4.14E-01(1.26) | 3.65E-01(0.90) | 2.65E-01(0.70) | |
OP | 4.83E-01(3.49)*** | 8.38E-02(0.66) | 1.14E-01(0.66) | 5.52E-01(3.54)*** | |
Environmental cognition variable | Group | 4.99E-01(3.57)*** | 5.66E-01(4.51)*** | 4.16E-01(2.45)*** | 5.59E-01(3.67)*** |
Foundation recognition variables | f1/f2/f3/f4 | 1.12E-01(0.74) | 3.27E-01(2.47)*** | 4.09E-01(2.19)*** | 1.80E-01(1.08) |
Constant term | 4.78(3.12) | 4.36(2.79) | 4.07(2.05) | 6.68(3.66) | |
Scale | 9.65E-01(11.83) | 8.90E-01(14.2) | 1.33(14.35) | 1.05(15.06) | |
Log-likelihood | -347.08 | -311.92 | -307.54 | -314.79 | |
Log-likelihood ratio | 34.43*** | 36.77*** | 12.03* | 28.52*** |
Note: 1. Data outside the brackets are probability distribution coefficients and data inside the brackets are t-test values. 2. ***, **, and * mean significance at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels. 3. Log-likelihood ratio = (-2) × (Restricted log-likelihood-log-likelihood). 4. x2(7,0.1) = 12.02; x2(7,0.05) = 14.07; x2 (7,0.01) = 18.48. |
Table 5 WTP of different groups for different non-use values |
Non-use values | Total (n = 590) | The group concerning the environment (n = 71) | The group valuing pluralism (n = 450) | The group concerning resources (n = 69) | F-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total mean | 2113(2044-2181) | 1929(1742-2118) | 2161(2083-2242) | 1978(1795-2160) | 4.05** |
Option value mean | 371(358-383) | 335(305-367) | 379(365-394) | 351(317-385) | 3.13** |
Existence value mean | 466(451-481) | 436(391-482) | 475(458-493) | 437(397-476) | 2.25 |
Bequest value mean | 894(866-922) | 801(722-879) | 918(886-950) | 831(758-904) | 4.93*** |
Altruistic value mean | 382(369-395) | 357(324-390) | 389(374-405) | 359(323-395) | 2.01 |
Note: 1. Data inside the brackets represent capita WTP annually and a 95% confidence interval. The unit is yuan. 2. *** and ** mean significance at 1% and 5% levels, respectively. |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
Cardoso de Mendonça M J,
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[39] |
Jala,
|
[40] |
|
[41] |
|
[42] |
|
[43] |
|
[44] |
|
[45] |
|
[46] |
|
[47] |
|
[48] |
|
[49] |
|
[50] |
|
[51] |
|
[52] |
|
[53] |
|
[54] |
|
[55] |
Liugong Island Administrative Office, 2021. www.Liugong Island. com.cn. Viewed on 27 January 2021.
|
[56] |
|
[57] |
|
[58] |
|
[59] |
|
[60] |
|
[61] |
|
[62] |
|
[63] |
|
[64] |
|
[65] |
|
[66] |
|
[67] |
|
[68] |
|
[69] |
|
[70] |
|
[71] |
|
[72] |
|
[73] |
|
[74] |
|
[75] |
|
[76] |
|
[77] |
|
[78] |
|
[79] |
|
[80] |
|
[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] |
|
[84] |
|
[85] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |