Visitors’ Perceived Place Value and the Willingness to Pay in an Urban Lake Park
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Perceived Place Value
2.2. WTP and Perceived Value of Parks
3. Method and Materials
3.1. Study Area
3.2. The Measurement of Values and Attributes
- Scenario I—Maintain current basic infrastructure, services, and activities (Level 1).
- Scenario II—Supplement additional infrastructure, services, and activities (Level 2).
- Scenario III—Develop the ideal infrastructure, services, and activities (Level 3).
3.3. Questionnaire Design
3.4. Data Collection and Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Willingness to Pay in GLP
4.2. Segmentation of GLP Visitors Based on Perceived Values
4.3. Willingness to Pay and Types of Visitors
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Andrews, B.; Ferrini, S.; Bateman, I. Good parks? bad parks: The influence of perceptions of location on WTP and preference motives for urban parks. J. Environ. Econ. Policy 2017, 6, 204–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bedimo-Rung, A.L.; Mowen, A.J.; Cohen, D.A. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2005, 28, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cottrell, S.P.; Raadik, J. Socio-cultural benefits of PAN Parks at Bieszscady National Park, Poland. Finn. J. Tour. Res. 2008, 4, 56–67. [Google Scholar]
- Henderson-Wilson, C.; Sia, K.L.; Veitch, J.; Staiger, P.K.; Davidson, P.; Nicholls, P. Perceived health benefits and willingness to pay for parks by park users: Quantitative and qualitative research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Milfont, T.L.; Duckitt, J.; Wagner, C. A cross-cultural test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 40, 2791–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Berg, M.; Wendel-Vos, W.; van Poppel, M.; Kemper, H.; van Mechelen, W.; Maas, J. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 806–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G. Mapping Spatial Attributes in Survey Research for Natural Resource Management: Methods and Applications. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2005, 18, 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Raymond, C. The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Appl. Geogr. 2007, 27, 89–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beverly, J.L.; Uto, K.; Wilkes, J.; Bothwell, P. Assessing spatial attributes of forest landscape values: An internet-based participatory mapping approach. Can. J. For. Res. 2008, 38, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assael, H. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action; South-Western College Publishing: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Homer, P.M.; Kahle, L.R. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1988, 54, 638–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demirgüneş, B.K. Relative importance of perceived value, satisfaction and perceived risk on willingness to pay more. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2015, 5, 211–220. [Google Scholar]
- Reynolds, T.J.; Olson, J.C. Understanding Consumer Decision Making: The Means-End Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy; Psychology Press: Portland, OR, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Spash, C.L.; Urama, K.; Burton, R.; Kenyon, W.; Shannon, P.; Hill, G. Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 955–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mowen, A.; Graefe, A.; Ferguson, M.; Graefe, D. Pennsylvania State Forest/Park Visitor Use Monitoring (VUM) Study; Department of Conservation and Natural Resources of Pennsylvania: Harrisburg, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, C.K.; Yoon, Y.S.; Lee, S.K. Investigating the relationships among perceived value, satisfaction, and recommendations: The case of the Korean DMZ. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 204–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.; Pfueller, S.; Whitelaw, P.; Winter, C. Spatial differentiation of landscape values in the Murray River region of Victoria, Australia. Environ. Manag. 2010, 45, 896–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chaminuka, P.; Groeneveld, R.A.; Selomane, A.O.; Van Ierland, E.C. Tourist preferences for ecotourism in rural communities adjacent to Kruger National Park: A choice experiment approach. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, L.T.; Fok, L.; Fang, W. Understanding geopark visitors’ preferences and willingness to pay for global geopark management and conservation. J. Ecotour. 2014, 13, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, L.T.; Jim, C.Y. Expectations and willingness-to-pay for ecotourism services in Hong Kong’s conservation areas. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World 2014, 21, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hearne, R.R.; Salinas, Z.M. The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa Rica. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 65, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herath, G.; Kennedy, J. Estimating the economic value of Mount Buffalo National Park with the travel cost and contingent valuation models. Tour. Econ. 2004, 10, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Recreation–amenity use and contingent valuation of urban greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumakawa, T. Contingent valuation of scenic lakes: A field survey in Mikatagoko, Japan. Tour. Econ. 2016, 22, 1121–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Mosquera, N.; Sánchez, M. Cognitive and affective determinants of satisfaction, willingness to pay, and loyalty in suburban parks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nandagiri, L. Evaluation of economic value of pilikula lake using travel cost and contingent valuation methods. Aquat. Procedia 2015, 4, 1315–1321. [Google Scholar]
- Reynisdottir, M.; Song, H.; Agrusa, J. Willingness to pay entrance fees to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 1076–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wuepper, D. What is the value of world heritage status for a German national park? A choice experiment from Jasmund, 1 year after inscription. Tour. Econ. 2017, 23, 1114–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zong, C.; Cheng, K.; Lee, C.H.; Hsu, N.L. Capturing Tourists’ Preferences for the Management of Community-Based Ecotourism in a Forest Park. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riera, P.; Signorello, G.; Thiene, M.; Mahieu, P.A.; Navrud, S.; Kaval, P.; Rulleau, B.; Mavsar, R.; Madureira, L.; Meyerhoff, J.; et al. Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines. J. For. Econ. 2012, 18, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuan, Y.F. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Relph, E. Geographical Experiences and Being-in-the-World: The Phenomenological Origins of Geography. In Place and Environment; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1985; pp. 15–31. [Google Scholar]
- Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaltenborn, B.P. Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts: A study among residents in Svalbard in the Norwegian high Arctic. Appl. Geogr. 1998, 18, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutson, G.; Montgomery, D.; Caneday, L. Perceptions of outdoor recreation professionals toward place meanings in natural environments: A Q-method inquiry. J. Leis. Res. 2010, 42, 417–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huh, J.; Riggs, N.R.; Spruijt-Metz, D.; Chou, C.P.; Huang, Z.; Pentz, M. Identifying patterns of eating and physical activity in children: A latent class analysis of obesity risk. Obesity 2011, 19, 652–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adamowicz, W.; Louviere, J.; Swait, J. Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods; NOAA—National Oceanic Athmospheric Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Baral, N.; Stern, M.J.; Bhattarai, R. Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bullock, S.D.; Lawson, S.R. Managing the “commons” on Cadillac Mountain: A stated choice analysis of Acadia National Park visitors’ preferences. Leis. Sci. 2008, 30, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juutinen, A.; Mitani, Y.; Mäntymaa, E.; Shoji, Y.; Siikamäki, P.; Svento, R. Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1231–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majumdar, S.; Deng, J.; Zhang, Y.; Pierskalla, C. Using contingent valuation to estimate the willingness of tourists to pay for urban forests: A study in Savannah, Georgia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, J.M.; Bliemer, M.C. Constructing efficient stated choice experimental designs. Transp. Rev. 2009, 29, 587–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D.L. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics; Zarembka, P., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974; pp. 105–142. [Google Scholar]
- Bergman, L.R.; Trost, K. The person-oriented versus the variable-oriented approach: Are they complementary, opposites, or exploring different worlds? Merrill-Palmer Q. 2006, 52, 601–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magidson, J.; Vermunt, J. Latent class models for clustering: A comparison with K-means. Can. J. Mark. Res. 2002, 20, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
- McCutcheon, A.C. Latent Class Analysis; Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Pastor, D.A.; Barron, K.E.; Miller, B.J.; Davis, S.L. A latent profile analysis of college students’ achievement goal orientation. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 32, 8–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krinsky, I.; Robb, A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 715–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houessionon, P.; Fonta, W.M.; Bossa, A.Y.; Sanfo, S.; Thiombiano, N.; Zahonogo, P.; Yameogo, T.B.; Balana, B. Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Small-Scale Agricultural Management Interventions in Burkina Faso: A Discrete Choice Experiment Approach. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.H.; Wang, C.H. Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan. Sustainability 2017, 9, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Value | Brown [1] | Brown & Raymond [2] | Beverly et al. [3] | Zhu et al. [4] |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aesthetic/Scenic value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ |
Economic value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ |
Recreation value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ |
Life Sustaining value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | |
Learning value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ |
Biological diversity value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ |
Spiritual value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ |
Intrinsic value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | |
Historic value | ◎ | ◎ | ||
Future value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | |
Subsistence value | ◎ | ◎ | ||
Therapeutic value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | |
Cultural value | ◎ | |||
Wilderness value | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ | ◎ |
Heritage value | ◎ | ◎ | ||
Existence Value | ◎ |
Attributes | Levels | Variable Name 1 |
---|---|---|
Basic Infrastructure | 1. Basic seating areas | BI1 |
2. Additional trails and bike paths | BI2 | |
3. Improvements on infrastructure and scenic views | BI3 | |
Advanced Services | 1. Basic service facilities | AS1 |
2. Additional service facilities | AS2 | |
3. Improvements on service facilities including transportation, campground, and guide interpretation | AS3 | |
Ecological Activities | 1. Basic sights and events | EA1 |
2. Ecological experience and learning, various waterside activities | EA2 | |
3. Additional attractions and activities including connections to nearby leisure sites | EA3 | |
Payment | 1. 5000 KRW per household and year | PAY |
2. 10,000 KRW per household and year | ||
3. 20,000 KRW per household and year | ||
4. 30,000 KRW per household and year |
Attributes | Alternatives | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Card 1 | Card 2 | Card 3 | Card 4 | |
Basic Infrastructure | 1. Basic seating areas | 1. Basic seating areas | 3. Improvements on infrastructure and scenic views | 2. Additional trails and bike paths |
Advanced Services | 1. Basic service facilities | 2. Additional service facilities | 1. Basic service facilities | 2. Additional service facilities |
Ecological Activities | 1. Basic sights and events | 2. Ecological experience and learning | 2. Ecological experience and learning | 1. Basic sights and events |
Payment | 0 KRW | 30,000 KRW | 10,000 KRW | 5000 KRW |
Attribute and Level | Coefficient 1 | Standard Error | MWTP 2 | 90% CI of MWTP 3 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |||||
PAY | −5.5 × 10−5 *** | 2.54 × 10−6 | - | - | - | |
Basic Infrastructure | BI2 | 0.585 *** | 0.053 | 10,669 | 9016 | 12,259 |
BI3 | 1.002 *** | 0.052 | 18,261 | 16,720 | 19,838 | |
Advanced Services | AS2 | 0.507 *** | 0.052 | 9252 | 7684 | 10,882 |
AS3 | 0.766 *** | 0.052 | 13,965 | 12,348 | 15,632 | |
Ecological Activities | EA2 | 0.726 *** | 0.053 | 13,235 | 11,670 | 14,909 |
EA3 | 0.696 *** | 0.055 | 12,683 | 11,231 | 14,256 | |
Number of observations = 12,949 | Log likelihood = −4092.9 |
Number of Classes (k) | AIC | BIC | Entropy | LMR LRT p Value | Adjusted LMR LRT p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 20,660.100 | 20,812.422 | 0.867 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
3 | 19,454.549 | 19,660.631 | 0.897 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
4 | 19,146.667 | 19,406.510 | 0.859 | 0.0786 | 0.0790 |
Items | Local Seeker; LS (11.9%) | Ecology Seeker; ES (42.6%) | Recreation Seeker; RS (45.6%) |
---|---|---|---|
Residential value | 3.40 | 3.61 | 2.17 |
Cultural value | 2.92 | 4.09 | 2.52 |
Local activity participative value | 2.69 | 4.14 | 2.84 |
Spiritual value | 2.64 | 4.21 | 2.85 |
Biological diversity value | 2.87 | 4.16 | 2.86 |
Wilderness value | 2.62 | 4.38 | 3.25 |
Learning value (knowledge) | 2.65 | 4.51 | 3.16 |
Intrinsic value | 2.08 | 4.82 | 4.07 |
Aesthetic value | 2.06 | 4.67 | 4.07 |
Recreation value | 1.99 | 4.67 | 4.19 |
Therapeutic value | 2.19 | 4.84 | 4.33 |
Average | 2.56 | 4.37 | 3.30 |
N | 78 | 278 | 297 |
Attribute and Level | Type of Visitors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Local Seeker | Ecological Seeker | Recreational Seeker | ||
PAY | −5.9 × 10−5 *** (7.6 × 10−6) | −5.3 × 10−5 *** (3.9 × 10−6) | −5.6 × 10−5 *** (3.8 × 10−6) | |
Basic Infrastructure | BI2 | 0.594 *** (0.154) | 0.530 *** (0.082) | 0.646 *** (0.079) |
BI3 | 0.824 *** (0.159) | 0.943 *** (0.080) | 1.105 *** (0.077) | |
Advanced Services | AS2 | 0.174 (0.157) | 0.570 *** (0.077) | 0.532 *** (0.078) |
AS3 | 0.648 *** (0.145) | 0.746 *** (0.081) | 0.827 *** (0.077) | |
Ecological Activities | EA2 | 0.657 *** (0.154) | 0.714 *** (0.082) | 0.758 *** (0.077) |
EA3 | 0.579 *** (0.150) | 0.810 *** (0.085) | 0.625 *** (0.081) | |
Log likelihood | −491.6 | −1723.0 | −1868.7 | |
Number of observations | 1540 | 5423 | 5986 |
Attribute and Level | Type of Visitors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Local Seeker | Ecological Seeker | Recreational Seeker | ||
Basic Infrastructure | BI2 | 10,111 | 10,078 | 11,466 |
[5838, 14,328] | [7413, 12,670] | [9079, 13,784] | ||
BI3 | 14,031 | 17,947 | 19,611 | |
[10,093, 18,046] | [15,454, 20,531] | [17,392, 21,999] | ||
Advanced Services | AS2 | 2968 | 10,842 | 9440 |
[−1540, 7429] | [8352, 13,457] | [7149, 11,836] | ||
AS3 | 11,038 | 14,185 | 14,677 | |
[6918, 15,303] | [11,541, 17,020] | [12,363, 17,176] | ||
Ecological Activities | EA2 | 11,200 | 13,580 | 13,460 |
[7288, 15,846] | [11,070, 16,283] | [11,263, 15,855] | ||
EA3 | 9862 | 15,407 | 11,099 | |
[6135, 14,142] | [13,071, 18,070] | [9065, 13,396] |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Park, C.; Song, H. Visitors’ Perceived Place Value and the Willingness to Pay in an Urban Lake Park. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2518. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112518
Park C, Song H. Visitors’ Perceived Place Value and the Willingness to Pay in an Urban Lake Park. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(11):2518. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112518
Chicago/Turabian StylePark, Chanyul, and Hwasung Song. 2018. "Visitors’ Perceived Place Value and the Willingness to Pay in an Urban Lake Park" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 11: 2518. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112518