4.7 Article

Willingness to pay and preferences for rural tourism attributes among urban residents: A discrete choice experiment in China

期刊

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND POLICY
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 460-471

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eap.2022.11.020

关键词

Emerging rural tourism; Choice experiment; Urban resident; Willingness to pay; Preference heterogeneity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a choice experiment in six Chinese cities to examine urban residents' willingness to pay and preferences for rural attributes. The results showed that respondents are willing to pay for attributes such as friendly service, traditional culture, local style accommodations, and exposure to nature. Higher income individuals exhibited a higher willingness to pay. The study also found that the transformation of rural areas into diversified consumption spaces with an emphasis on rurality conservation is important.
Rural development policy creation should consider recent significant changes in emerg-ing sectors such as rural tourism. This study conducts a choice experiment (CE) in six Chinese cities to examine two things: urban residents' willingness to pay (WTP) and their heterogeneous preferences for rural attributes. Results indicate that respondents are willing to pay for the attributes such as friendly service, traditional culture, local style accommodations, and exposure to nature, with those having higher income also exhibit a higher WTP. Subsequent simulation reveals that the change of rurality greatly impacts the WTP for alternatives. Socio-demographic characteristics are found to be important sources of preference heterogeneity. Using the latent class model (LCM), respondents are divided into rural-comfort seekersand rural culture and amusement lovers. These findings suggest the transformation of rural areas into diversified consumption spaces with a heightened emphasis on rurality conservation.(c) 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Economic Society of Australia, Queensland.

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

4.7
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