Capturing Tourists’ Preferences for the Management of Community-Based Ecotourism in a Forest Park
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Area and Method
2.1. National Forest Recreation Areas in Taiwan
2.2. The Choice Experiment Model
3. Literature Review
3.1. Preference Evaluation on Community-Based Ecotourism
3.2. The Attribute Context for the Community-Based Ecotourism
4. The Choice Experiment Design for Community-Based Ecotourism in the Forest Park
4.1. The Attribute Design of the Community-Based Ecotourism
4.1.1. Tour Guide Interpretation
4.1.2. Experience Activity
4.1.3. Travel Information
4.1.4. Local Meals
4.1.5. Accommodation Style
4.1.6. Package Tour Fee
4.2. Choice Experiment Design for the Community Ecotourism in the Forest Park
4.3. Different Hypothetical Scenarios of Community-Based Ecotourism in the DFP
- Scenario I—Basic experiential tour: This scenario focuses on the experience activity and tasting the local dish, so we integrated the enjoyment of three experience activities, having a visitor center set up, and tasting three local meals in Scenario I. However, Scenario I retains the current status of tour guide interpretation and does not include a stay in a characteristic B&B.
- Scenario II—Profound and experiential tour: The second scenario focuses on combining the deep and the experiential, and thus is comprised of one tour guide for 10 tourists, the enjoyment of three experience activities, a visitor center, and the opportunity to taste three local meals. Scenario II does not include a characteristic B&B.
- Scenario III—Integrated package tour: This scenario integrates all characteristic community-based ecotourism aspects into one program. Thus there is one tour guide for 10 tourists, the enjoyment of three experience activities, a visitor center, the opportunity to taste three local meals, and a stay in a characteristic B&B.
4.4. Sample Design and Data
5. Empirical Results
5.1. Estimating Results of the Preferences for Community-Based Ecotourism
5.2. Welfare Results for Community-Based Ecotourism in the DFP Area
5.3. Tourists’ Heterogeneity Test for Community-Based Ecotourism
5.4. Welfare Effects under Different Community-Based Ecotourism Scenarios in DFP
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Supplementary File 1Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- 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]
- World Tourism Organization. World Ecotourism Summit Final Report; World Tourism Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme: Madrid, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Munthali, S.M. Transfrontier conservation areas: Integrating biodiversity and poverty alleviation in Southern Africa. Nat. Res. Forum 2007, 31, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spenceley, A. Tourism in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. Dev. S. Afr. 2006, 23, 649–667. [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]
- Train, L.; Walter, P. Ecotourism, gender and development in northern Vietnam. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014, 44, 116–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynch, M.F.; Duinker, P.N.; Sheehan, L.R.; Chute, J.E. The demand for Mi’kmaw cultural tourism: Tourist perspectives. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 977–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Notzke, C. Indigenous tourism development in southern Alberta, Canada: Tentative engagement. J. Sustain. Tour. 2004, 12, 29–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butcher, J. Can ecotourism contribute to tackling poverty? The importance of ‘symbiosis’. Curr. Issues Tour. 2011, 14, 295–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sekar, N.; Weiss, J.M.; Dobson, A.P. Willingness-to-pay and the perfect safari: Valuation and cultural evaluation of safari package attributes in the Serengeti and Tanzanian Northern Circui. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 97, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wall, G.; Mathieson, A. Tourism: Change, Impacts and Opportunities; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Hearne, R.; Santos, C. Tourists’ and locals’ preferences toward ecotourism development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2005, 7, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanley, N.; Mourato, S.; Wright, R.E. Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation. J. Econ. Surv. 2001, 15, 435–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerda, C.; Ponceb, A.; Zappic, M. Using choice experiments to understand public demand for the conservation of nature: A case study in a protected area of Chile. J. Nat. Conserv. 2013, 21, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Llorente, M.; Martín-López, B.; Nunes, P.A.L.D.; Castro, A.J.; Montes, C. A choice experiment study for land-use scenarios in semi-arid watershed environments. J. Arid Environ. 2012, 87, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guimarães, M.H.; Madureira, L.; Nunes, L.C.; Santos, J.L.; Sousa, C.; Boski, T.; Dentinho, T. Using Choice Modeling to estimate the effects of environmental improvements on local development: When the purpose modifies the tool. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 108, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, C.T.; Lee, C.H.; Ho, Y.J. Establishing the Framework of Ecotourism Multiple Attributes and Estimating the Value: A Case of Meqmegi in Hualien. J. Tour. Leis. Stud. 2017, 23, 1–31. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Kinghorn, N.; Willis, K. Valuing the components of an archaeological site: An application of choice experiment to Vindolanda, Hadrian’s Wall. J. Cult. Herit. 2008, 9, 117–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobsen, B.; Thorsen, B. Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1532–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.F.; Chen, P.C. Estimating recreational cyclists’ preferences for bicycle routes—Evidence from Taiwan. Trans. Policy 2013, 26, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sini, M.; Peter, T.; Caroline, S. Estimating indigenous cultural values of freshwater: A choice experiment approach to Māori values in New Zealand. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 118, 207–214. [Google Scholar]
- Tai, H.S. Cross-Scale and Cross-Level Dynamics: Governance and Capacity for Resilience in a Social-Ecological System in Taiwan. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2045–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.-H.; Lo, Y.-H.; Blanco, J.; Chang, S.-C. Resilience Assessment of Lowland Plantations Using an Ecosystem Modeling Approach. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3801–3822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lienhoop, N.; Brouwer, R. Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Policy 2015, 42, 568–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forest Bureau. Available online: http://recreation.forest.gov.tw/English/FP_01.html (accessed on 25 July 2017).
- Travelking. Available online: http://www.travelking.com.tw/ (accessed on 8 July 2017).
- Shoyama, K.; Managi, S.; Yamagata, Y. Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and climate-change mitigation: A choice experiment using ecosystem services indicators. Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perelet, A.; Mason, R.; Taylor, P.; Markandya, A. Dictionary of Environmental Economics; Earthscan Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Pookhao, N. Community-based ecotourism: The transformation of local community. In SHS Web of Conferences; EDP Science: Kola Kinabalu, Malaysia, 2014; Volume 12. [Google Scholar]
- Fiorello, A.; Bo, D. Community-based ecotourism to meet the new tourist's expectations: An exploratory study. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2012, 21, 758–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Semeniuk, C.A.D.; Haider, W.; Beardmore, B.; Rothley, K.D. A multi-attribute trade-off approach for advancing the management of marine wildlife tourism: A quantitative assessment of heterogeneous visitor preferences. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2009, 19, 194–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W.L.; Swait, J.; Williams, M.; Louviere, J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- César, V.M.; Sylvia, B. Managing tourism in the Galapagos Islands through price incentives: A choice experiment approach. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 117, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
Community | Mafo * | Fuhsing | Daho | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Attributes | ||||
Tour Guide Interpretation | ⦾ One tour guide for 20 tourists | |||
Experience Activity | ⦾ Agricultural Experience (Vegetable, peanut)
⦾ Learning Pottery ⦾ Pounding Mochi ⦾ Riding a Bicycle | ⦾ Agricultural Experience (Crops, Cutting sugar cane)
⦾ Night Sky Watching | ⦾ Agricultural Experience (Fried brown sugar)
⦾ Riding a Bicycle ⦾ Night Sky Watching | |
Travel Information | ⦾ Each community has its own travel information | |||
Local Dining | ⦾ Agricultural Style Meals | ⦾ Agricultural Style Meals
⦾ Indigenous Style Meals | ⦾ Agricultural Style Meals
⦾ Hakka Style Meals | |
Accommodation Style | ⦾ Living in a farm house | ⦾ Living in a farm house z | ⦾ Camping | |
Package Tour Fee | ⦾ Tour Guide Interpretation: $1000 NTD ** for a 2 h tour
⦾ Experience Activity: $150 NTD per person ⦾ Meals: $200 NTD per person | ⦾ Tour Guide Interpretation: $100 NTD per person
⦾ Experience Activity: $50 NTD per person ⦾ Meals: $150 NTD per person ⦾ Lodging: $300 NTD per person | ⦾ Tour Guide Interpretation: $1000 NTD for a 2 h tour
⦾ Experience Activity: 150 NT dollars per person ⦾ Meals: $1500 NTD for 10 person group ⦾ Lodging: $600 NTD for 4 people |
Attributes | Levels | Variable Name |
---|---|---|
Tour Guide Interpretation | 1. Stays at the present state: one tour guide for 20 tourists | TG± |
2. Increasing quality: one tour guide for 10 tourists | TG1 | |
3. Increasing quality: one tour guide for 5 tourists | TG2 | |
Experience Activity | 1. Stays at the present state: one experience activity | EA± |
2. Experience more: two experience activities | EA1 | |
3. Experience more: three experience activities | EA2 | |
Travel Information | 1. Stays at the present state: each community has its travel information | TI± |
2. Integrate the travel information: set up a visitor center | TI1 | |
3. Integrate the travel information: set up a visitor center and integrated in one website | TI2 | |
Local Meal | 1. Stays at the present state: enjoy one local meal | LM± |
2. Enjoy more: two local meals | LM1 | |
3. Enjoy more: three local meals | LM2 | |
Accommodation style | 1. Stays at the present state: living in an agricultural house | AS± |
2. Camping experience | AS1 | |
3. Living in a characteristic bed & breakfast (B&B) | AS2 | |
4. Living in a characteristic villa | AS3 | |
Package Tour Fee | 1. Stays at the present state: $600 NTD for half a day | PTFEE |
2. $600 NTD for two days (trip/tourist) | ||
3.$1200 NTD for two days (trip/tourist) | ||
4. $2400 NTD for two days (trip/tourist) | ||
5. $3600 NTD for two days (trip/tourist) |
Attributes and Levels | Random Parameter Logit Model | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | t Value | Coefficient Std. | t Value | MWTP | |
ASC | −0.269 | −1.50 | 1.166 | 6.96 *** | — |
TG1 | 0.309 | 5.54 *** | 0.094 | 0.50 | 2577 |
TG2 | −0.179 | −2.40 ** | 0.476 | 3.28 ** | −1467 |
EA1 | −0.052 | −0.94 | 0.105 | 0.37 | — |
EA2 | 0.272 | 3.95 *** | 0.375 | 2.49 *** | 2241 |
TI1 | 0.105 | 1.88 * | 0.222 | 1.57 | 846 |
TI2 | −0.011 | −0.16 | 0.074 | 0.36 | — |
LM1 | −0.069 | −1.25 | 0.262 | 1.99 ** | — |
LM2 | 0.193 | 2.99 *** | 0.190 | 0.91 | 1631 |
AS1 | −0.484 | −6.40 *** | 0.004 | 0.04 | −4036 |
AS2 | 0.429 | 5.92 *** | 0.023 | 0.20 | 3581 |
AS3 | 0.145 | 2.03 ** | 0.084 | 0.59 | 1233 |
PTFEE | −0.00012 | −3.10 *** | — | — | — |
Total Values | 6606 | ||||
NTD(trip/tourist) and 95% confidence interval | (6434~6778) | ||||
Number of choice sets | 5670 | Log-likelihood | −1933 |
Attributes and Levels | Class 1 | Class2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | t Value | MWTP **** | Coefficient | t Value | ||
Constant | −0.377 | −0.98 | − | −16.783 | −0.07 | |
TG1 | 0.545 | 5.74 *** | 3406 | 0.833 | 0.09 | |
TG2 | −0.172 | −1.62 | − | −7.287 | −0.06 | |
EA1 | 0.145 | 1.88 * | 906 | −7.049 | −0.08 | |
EA2 | 0.202 | 1.93 * | 1262 | 5.400 | 0.06 | |
TI1 | −0.086 | −1.09 | − | 5.508 | 0.03 | |
TI2 | 0.240 | 2.73 *** | 1500 | −14.795 | −0.04 | |
LM1 | 0.085 | 1.17 | − | −7.220 | −0.07 | |
LM2 | 0.118 | 1.38 | − | −3.636 | −0.06 | |
AS1 | −0.691 | −5.98 *** | −4319 | 9.112 | 0.06 | |
AS2 | 0.574 | 5.32 *** | 3588 | −2.309 | −0.05 | |
AS3 | 0.360 | 3.86 *** | 2250 | −16.404 | −0.06 | |
PTFEE | −0.00016 | −2.65 *** | − | 0.0016 | 0.06 | |
Class membership parameters: class 1 | Coefficient | t value | ||||
Constant | 0.723 | 1.15 | ||||
Local | 0.473 | 2.61 *** | ||||
Male | 0.277 | 1.65 * | ||||
College and above | 0.265 | 1.15 | ||||
Income over 40,000 NT dollars per month | −0.522 | −2.92 *** | ||||
Visit other forest park(s) | 0.020 | 0.10 | ||||
Join the ecotourism group | −0.112 | −0.66 | ||||
Join other community tourism | 0.811 | 2.62 *** | ||||
Trips over three times | −0.499 | −0.94 | ||||
Number of choice sets | 5670 | |||||
Log-likelihood ratio | 331.9 | |||||
Chi Squared | 0.01[35] = 57.3 |
Attributes & Levels | Hypothetical Future Scenarios | ||
---|---|---|---|
Basic Experiential Tour(I) | Profound & Experiential Tour (II) | Integrated Package Tour (III) | |
Tour Guide Interpretation | − | One tour guide for ten tourists | One tour guide for ten tourists |
Experience Activity | Enjoy three experience activities | Enjoy three experience activities | Enjoy three experience activities |
Travel Information | Set up a visitor center | Set up a visitor center | Set up a visitor center |
Local Meal | Taste three local meals | Taste three local meals | Taste three local meals |
Accommodation Style | − | − | Staying in a characteristic B&B |
Package Tour Fee * | 4718 | 7295 | 10,876 |
Mean and 95% Conference Interval | (4622~4814) | (7197~7393) | (10,777~10,975) |
© 2017 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
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. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091673
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(9):1673. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091673
Chicago/Turabian StyleZong, Cheng, Kun Cheng, Chun-Hung Lee, and Nai-Lun Hsu. 2017. "Capturing Tourists’ Preferences for the Management of Community-Based Ecotourism in a Forest Park" Sustainability 9, no. 9: 1673. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091673