Customer Value Assessment towards Transport Modes of Tourism after a Natural Disaster of Scenic Spots - The Analysis Based on Choice Experiment

Abstract:

This study explores marginal utility of different attributes of means of transportation after a natural disaster in scenic spots and the corresponding marginal value using an analysis method of choice experiment based on marketing strategies of traffic cost. Different from prior studies, this study will first divide traffic cost attributes into three categories, including money cost, time cost, and perceived benefits. Then, to design experiments based on different cost attributes and attribute levels to combine different means of transportation, namely marketing strategies. And this study obtains scores of customers’ willingness to travel for marketing strategies by questionnaires; questionnaire asking way through and transform by questionnaire survey to combine to be two different experimental selection sets. The authors employ choice experiment to establish econometric model to regress. The paper draws the following important conclusions. Firstly, time cost and monetary cost only will affect people's choices of means of transportation. The marginal probability of time cost and monetary cost is 4.9 percent and 0.03 percent. Simultaneously, we estimate that the monetary value of the cost per unit time is 163 yuan. Secondly, for the perceived benefits variable, although the regression coefficient is not significant, We can’t come to a conclusion that whether there is new attractions does not affect customers’ choice. Meanwhile, this study shows the nature of various new attractions may affect customers’ choice for means of transportation. Finally, in addition, for other family variables, including respondent gender, age, education and monthly living expenses, their regression coefficients are not significant. The conclusion is prompted to develop the marketing strategy that discriminatory pricing policy might not effectively improve marketing benefits.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volumes 423-426)
• Pages: 2154-2160
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.423-426.2154
• Online since: September 2013
• Authors: Jiang Liu, Wei Li, Li Huang
• Keywords: Choice Experiment, Monetary Cost, Perceived Benefits, Time Cost

References

[1] Braden, J. and C. Kolstad (1991). Measuring the Demand for an Environmental Improvement. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

[2] Bateman, I. and K. Willis (1999) Valuing Environmental Preferences. Oxford University Press.

[3] Lancaster, K. (1966) A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy 74, 132-157.

[4] Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 271-292.

DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1994.1017

[5] Nick Hanley, Robert E. Wright and Vic Adamowicz. Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment Environmental and Resource Economics 11(3–4): 413–428, (1998).

DOI: 10.1023/a:1008287310583

[6] Ekin Birol, Katia Karousakis and Phoebe Koundouri. Using a Choice Experiment to Account for Preference Heterogeneity in Wetland Attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Paper to be presented at the Third World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists July 3rd-7th, 2006, Kyoto, Japan.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.06.002

[7] Guoliang Zhai, Shiqiu Zhang, Kontoleon Andreas, Grosjean Pauline. Theory and Practice of Choice Experiment: A Case Study on China's Sloping Land Conversion Program [J]. Journal of Peking University (Natural Science Edition ) , 2007, 43 ( 2 ) : 235 -239.

[8] Xuxuan Xie, Shiqiu Zhang. Value of Health: methods of Assessing environmental benefits of and strategies of controlling urban air pollution [D]. ​​Peking University, (2011).

[9] Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams and J. Louviere (1998a) Stated preferences approaches to measuring passive use values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 64-75.

DOI: 10.2307/3180269

[10] Boxall, P., W. Adamowicz, J. Swait, M. Williams and J. Louviere (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 18, 243-253.

DOI: 10.1016/0921-8009(96)00039-0

[11] Layton, D. and G. Brown (2000) Heterogenous preferences regarding global climate change. Review of Economics and Statistics 82, 616-624.

DOI: 10.1162/003465300559091

[12] Ryan, M. and J. Hughes (1997) using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Economics 6, 261-273.

DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199705)6:3<261::aid-hec262>3.0.co;2-n

[13] Vick, S. and A. Scott (1998) Agency in health care: Examining patients' preferences for attributes of the doctor-patient relationship. Journal of Health Economics 17, 587-605.

DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6296(97)00035-0

[14] Philip Kotler Reconceptualizing marketing: An interview with PhilipKotler [J]. European Management Journal, 1994, 12, (4), 353-361.

DOI: 10.1016/0263-2373(94)90021-3

[15] Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I., Gross, B.L. Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values [J]. Journal of Business Research, 1991, 22: 159-170.

DOI: 10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8

[16] Jillian C. Sweeney, Geoffrey N. Soutar. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale[J]. Journal of Retailing, 2001, 77 , 203–220.

DOI: 10.1016/s0022-4359(01)00041-0