4.6 Article

Choice Experiment Method for Sustainable Tourism in Theme Parks

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13137146

关键词

theme parks; random utility theory; willingness to pay; tourist preferences; Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores tourists' preferences for theme park attributes and willingness to pay using Choice Experiment and Logit models. The research findings suggest that consumers value recreational facilities the most, followed by theme characteristics and fast pass drawing.
Previous relevant studies on theme parks lack an exploration of various tourism attributes, e.g., recreational facilities, themes, wait times, fast pass drawings, and pricing, etc., all of which inspired the research motivation of this study. First, the Choice Experiment (CE) method explores tourists' preferences for theme park attributes. Second, the Conditional Logit (CL) and Random Parameter Logit (RPL) models explore the differences in tourists' willingness to pay (WTP) for various attributes from the perspective of their socioeconomic background. We used purposive sampling to survey questionnaire answers face-to-face in Taiwan, and a total of 680 questionnaires were issued, of which, 549 copies are valid, with an effective recovery rate of 80.7%. The research findings suggest the following: (1) The most valued theme park attributes for consumers are the recreational facilities, followed by theme characteristics, and fast pass drawing. (2) Regarding the respondents' WTP for various attributes, they are willing to pay the highest price for thrilling recreational facilities, then for unlimited fast pass services, and cartoon character themes. (3) Respondents believe that if thrilling recreational facilities and fast pass drawing are available at the same time, then the overall effectiveness will be improved. (4) Respondents relatively have no purchase intention for fast pass drawing. It is hoped that the research findings can provide theme park operators reference basis for making plans and decisions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据