Assessing Tourists’ Preferences for Recreational Trips in National and Natural Parks as a Premise for Long-Term Sustainable Management Plans
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Design
2.2. The Choice Experiment Method
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Estimation Results
3.3. Marginal WTP Estimates
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Eagles, P.E.J.; McCool, S.F. Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning and Management; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). Making Tourism More Sustainable: A Guide for Policy Makers; UNEP/UNWTO: Paris/Madrid, France, 2005; Available online: http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0592xPA-TourismPolicyEN.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2017).
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Eagles, P.F.J.; McCool, S.F.; Haynes, C.D.A. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Beeton, S. Community Development through Tourism; Landlink Press: Collingwood, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Borges, M.A.; Carbone, G.; Bushell, R.; Jaeger, T. Sustainable Tourism and Natural World Heritage—Priorities for Action; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Juutinen, A.; Mitani, Y.; Mantymaa, E.; Shoji, Y.; Siikamaki, 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]
- Kaffashi, S.; Radam, A.; Shamsudin, M.N.; Yacob, M.R.; Nordin, N.H. Ecological conservation, ecotourism, and sustainable management: The case of Penang National Park. Forests 2015, 6, 2345–2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prato, T.; Fagre, D. National Parks and Protected Areas: Approaches for Balancing Social, Economic and Ecological Values; Blackwell Publishing: Ames, Iowa, USA, 2005. [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]
- Hardy, A.; Pearson, L.J. Determining sustainable tourism in regions. Sustainability 2016, 8, 660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, C.O.; Draper, J.; Dixon, A.W. Comparing resident and tourist preferences for public beach access and related amenities. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2010, 53, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kajala, L.; Almik, A.; Dahl, R.; Diksaite, L.; Erkkonen, J.; Fredman, P.; Jensen, F.S.; Karoles, K.; Sievänen, T.; Skov-Petersen, H.; et al. Visitor Monitoring in Nature Areas: A Manual Based on Experiences from the Nordic and Baltic Countries; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007.
- DeShazo, J.R.; Fermo, G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2002, 44, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hearne, R.R.; Santos, C.A. Tourists’ and locals’ preferences toward ecotourism development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2005, 7, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaminuka, P.; Groeneveld, R.; Selomane, 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]
- Morey, E.R.; Buchanan, T.; Waldman, D.M. Estimating the benefits and costs to mountain bikers of changes in trail characteristics, access fees, and site closures: Choice experiments and benefits transfer. J. Environ. Manag. 2002, 64, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koemle, D.B.; Morawetz, U.B. Improving mountain bike trails in Austria: An assessment of trail preferences and benefits from trail features using choice experiments. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2016, 15, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- L, C.; Kuuluvainen, J.; Pouta, E.; Rekola, M.; Tahvonen, O. Using choice experiments to Value the Natura 2000 nature conservation programs in Finland. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2004, 29, 361–374. [Google Scholar]
- Bienabe, E.; Hearne, R.R. Public preferences for biodiversity conservation and scenic beauty within a framework of environmental services payments. For. Policy Econ. 2006, 9, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- León, C.J.; de León, J.; Araña, J.E.; González, M.M. Tourists’ preferences for congestion, residents’ welfare and the ecosystems in a national park. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 118, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansfield, C.; Phaneuf, D.J.; Johnson, F.R.; Yang, J.C.; Beach, R. Preferences for public lands management under competing uses: The case of Yellowstone National Park. Land Econ. 2008, 84, 282–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumitras, D.E. Estimation of Welfare Measures in the Rural Area. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Dumitras, D.E.; Arion, F.H.; Merce, E. A brief economic assessment on the valuation of national and natural parks: The case of Romania. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. 2011, 39, 134–138. [Google Scholar]
- Popa, B.; Coman, C.; Borz, S.A.; Nita, D.M.; Codreanu, C.; Ignea, G.; Marinescu, M.; Ioras, F.; Ionescu, O. Total economic value of natural capital—A case study of Piatra Craiului National Park. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. 2013, 41, 608–612. [Google Scholar]
- Hanley, N.; Wright, R.E.; Alvarez-Farizo, B. Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: An application to the water framework directive. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 78, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, P.S.L. The Application of Choice Modelling to Determine the Economic Values of Non-Market Goods and Services: A National Park Case Study. Master’s Thesis, Massey University, Manawatu, New Zealand, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods—Analysis and Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Kanninen, B. Valuing Environmental Amenities Using Stated Choice Studies: A Common Sense Approach to Theory and Practice; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Lancaster, K. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Political Econ. 1966, 74, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanley, N.; Wright, R.E.; Adamowicz, V. Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 11, 413–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Champ, P.A.; Boyle, K.J.; Brown, T.C. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dorfrecht, The Netherlands, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Bech, M.; Gydr-Hansen, D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2005, 14, 1079–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Alpizar, F.; Carlsson, F.; Martinson, P. Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Econ. Issues 2003, 8, 83–110. [Google Scholar]
- Dinu, T.A.; Vlad, I.M.; Stoian, E.; Condei, R.; Niculae, I. Dynamics of touristic accommodation establishments in Romania. In Proceedings of the 23rd IBIMA Conference on Vision 2020: Sustainable Growth, Economic Development, and Global Competitiveness, Valencia, Spain, 13–14 May 2014; Volume 1–5, pp. 515–526. [Google Scholar]
- Bakhtiari, F.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Jensen, F.S. Willingness to travel to avoid recreation conflicts in Danish forests. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 662–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veisten, K.; Haukeland, J.V.; Baardsen, S.; Degnes-Ødemark, H.; Grue, B. Tourist segments for new facilities in national park areas: Profiling tourists in Norway based on psychographics and demographics. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2015, 24, 486–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muresan, I.C.; Arion, F.H.; Harun, R. Study regarding rural guesthouse and tourists’ satisfaction. Bull. UASMV Hortic. 2013, 70, 362–367. [Google Scholar]
- Mueller, J.M.; Lima, R.E.; Springer, A.E. Can environmental attributes influence protected area designation? A case study valuing preferences for springs in Grand Canyon National Park. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnberger, A.; Eder, R.; Allex, B.; Sterl, P.; Burns, R.C. Relationships between national-park affinity and attitudes towards protected area management of visitors to the Gesaeuse National Park, Austria. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 19, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milanovich, J.R.; Hocking, D.J.; Peterman, W.E.; Crawford, J.A. effective use of trails for assessing terrestrial salamander abundance and detection: A case study at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Nat. Area J. 2015, 35, 590–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagleston, H.; Marion, J.L. Sustainable campsite management in protected areas: A study of long-term ecological changes on campsites in the boundary waters canoe area wilderness, Minnesota, USA. J. Nat. Conserv. 2017, 37, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bann, C.; Pop, B. An Assessment of the Contribution of Ecosystems in Protected Areas to Sector Growth and Human Well Being in Romania; United Nations Development Programme: Bucharest, Romania, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Mayer, M.; Müller, M.; Woltering, M.; Arnegger, J.; Job, H. The economic impact of tourism in six German national parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredman, P.; Romild, U.; Yuan, M.; Wolf-Watz, D. Latent demand and time contextual constraints to outdoor recreation in Sweden. Forests 2012, 3, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attribute | Description | Levels | Variable Name |
---|---|---|---|
Distance (one way) | One-way distance traveled from home to the park (kilometers) | Less than 150 km BL | |
150–300 km | distance 2 | ||
301–450 km | distance 3 | ||
More than 450 km | distance 4 | ||
Nature observation | Opportunity to observe the nature accompanied by an authorized guide | Without guide BL | |
With guide | guide 2 | ||
Information | The type of information available during the trip | Marks BL | |
Marks and visitor center | information 2 | ||
Marks and map | information 3 | ||
Marks and visitor center and list with protected species | information 4 | ||
Campsites | Location of the campsites | Not inside the parks BL | |
Inside the parks, in unorganized campsites | camping 2 | ||
Inside the parks, in organized campsites | camping 3 | ||
Groups at campsites | Number of groups at campsites | 1–5 groups BL | |
5–10 groups | congestion 2 | ||
More than 10 groups | congestion 3 | ||
Fuel price | The price of fuel | Actual price 5.5 RON (1.86 USD) * | price |
10% more expensive | |||
20% more expensive |
Attribute | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Distance from home (one way) | 150–300 km | >450 km | I will not visit any place |
Nature observation | Without guide | Without guide | |
Information available | Marks and map | Marks and visitor center | |
Campsites | Inside the park, in unorganized campsites | Inside the park, in organized campsites | |
Number of groups at campsites | 5–10 groups | >10 groups | |
Fuel price | 10% more expensive | 20% more expensive | |
Your choice (Please check one box) | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Visitor Characteristics | All (n = 756) | Group 1 Secondary Destination (n = 169) | Group 2 Main Destination (n = 587) | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | Group 2 Main Destination-Short Trip (n = 458) | Group 2 Main Destination-Long Trip (n = 129) | Group 2: Short vs. Long Trip | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | % | N | % | N | % | p-Value | N | % | N | % | p-Value | ||
Gender | Male | 364 | 48.15 | 82 | 48.52 | 282 | 48.04 | χ2 = 0.01 df = 1 p = 0.912 | 217 | 47.38 | 65 | 50.39 | χ2 = 0.36 df = 1 p = 0.546 |
Female | 392 | 51.85 | 87 | 51.48 | 305 | 51.96 | 241 | 52.62 | 64 | 49.61 | |||
Age groups | 18–29 years | 311 | 41.14 | 99 | 58.58 | 212 | 36.12 | χ2 = 29.97 df = 3 p = 0.000 | 175 | 38.21 | 37 | 28.68 | χ2 = 27.50 df = 3 p = 0.000 |
30–39 years | 196 | 25.93 | 24 | 14.20 | 172 | 29.30 | 143 | 31.22 | 29 | 22.48 | |||
40–49 years | 164 | 21.69 | 29 | 17.16 | 135 | 23.00 | 103 | 22.49 | 32 | 24.81 | |||
50–68 years | 85 | 11.24 | 17 | 10.06 | 68 | 11.58 | 37 | 8.08 | 31 | 24.03 | |||
Education level | Less than 9 grades | 5 | 0.66 | 0 | 0.00 | 5 | 0.85 | χ2 = 16.71 df = 3 p = 0.001 | 5 | 1.09 | 0 | 0.00 | χ2 = 1.48 df = 3 p = 0.688 |
High school | 199 | 26.32 | 59 | 34.91 | 140 | 23.85 | 108 | 23.58 | 32 | 24.81 | |||
College/University | 364 | 48.15 | 60 | 35.50 | 304 | 51.79 | 237 | 51.75 | 67 | 51.94 | |||
Graduate school | 188 | 24.87 | 50 | 29.59 | 138 | 23.51 | 108 | 23.58 | 30 | 23.26 | |||
Average monthly income 1,2 | <219.60 USD | 16 | 2.12 | 2 | 1.18 | 14 | 2.39 | χ2 = 15.74 df = 5 p = 0.008 | 12 | 2.62 | 2 | 1.55 | χ2 = 14.88 df = 5 p = 0.011 |
219.61–337.84 USD | 42 | 5.56 | 4 | 2.37 | 38 | 6.47 | 36 | 7.86 | 2 | 1.55 | |||
337.85–675.67 USD | 157 | 20.77 | 28 | 16.57 | 129 | 21.98 | 94 | 20.52 | 35 | 27.13 | |||
675.68–1013.51 USD | 176 | 23.28 | 33 | 19.53 | 143 | 24.36 | 103 | 22.49 | 40 | 31.01 | |||
1013.52–1351.35 USD | 148 | 19.58 | 37 | 21.89 | 111 | 18.91 | 94 | 20.52 | 17 | 13.18 | |||
>1351.35 USD | 210 | 27.78 | 63 | 37.28 | 147 | 25.04 | 117 | 25.55 | 30 | 23.26 |
Visit Characteristics | All (n = 756) | Group 1 Secondary Destination (n = 169) | Group 2 Main Destination (n = 587) | Group 1 vs. Group 2 | Group 2 Main Destination-Short Trip (n = 458) | Group 2 Main Destination-Long Trip (n = 129) | Group 2: Short vs. Long Trip | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | % | N | % | N | % | p-Value | N | % | N | % | p-Value | |
Accommodation | ||||||||||||
Guesthouse/Hotel | 560 | 74.07 | 132 | 78.11 | 428 | 72.91 | χ2 = 3.01 df = 2 p = 0.222 | 316 | 68.99 | 112 | 86.82 | χ2 = 24.11 df = 2 p = 0.000 |
Camping/Mountain refuge | 116 | 15.34 | 25 | 14.79 | 91 | 15.50 | 74 | 16.16 | 17 | 13.18 | ||
No overnight staying | 80 | 10.47 | 12 | 7.10 | 68 | 11.58 | 68 | 14.85 | 0 | 0.00 | ||
Size of group | ||||||||||||
1–5 people | 501 | 66.27 | 101 | 59.76 | 400 | 68.14 | χ2 = 4.12 df = 1 p = 0.042 | 321 | 70.09 | 79 | 61.24 | χ2 = 3.62 df = 1 p = 0.057 |
>5 people | 255 | 33.73 | 68 | 40.24 | 187 | 31.86 | 137 | 29.91 | 50 | 38.76 | ||
Distance (one way) | ||||||||||||
<150 km | 197 | 26.06 | 35 | 20.71 | 162 | 27.60 | χ2 = 7.32 df = 2 p = 0.026 | 147 | 32.10 | 15 | 11.63 | χ2 = 63.87 df = 2 p = 0.000 |
150–300 km | 339 | 44.74 | 91 | 53.85 | 248 | 42.25 | 209 | 45.63 | 39 | 30.23 | ||
>300 km | 220 | 29.10 | 43 | 25.44 | 177 | 30.15 | 102 | 22.27 | 75 | 58.14 | ||
Main activity | ||||||||||||
Hiking | 437 | 57.80 | 74 | 43.79 | 363 | 61.8 | χ2 = 58.29 df = 9 p = 0.000 | 307 | 67.03 | 56 | 43.41 | χ2 = 30.85 df = 8 p = 0.000 |
Climbing | 2 | 0.26 | 2 | 1.18 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | ||
Cycling | 14 | 1.85 | 2 | 1.18 | 12 | 2.04 | 10 | 2.18 | 2 | 1.55 | ||
Horse riding | 2 | 0.26 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.34 | 2 | 0.44 | 0 | 0.00 | ||
Rest and relaxation | 204 | 26.98 | 50 | 29.59 | 154 | 26.24 | 103 | 22.49 | 51 | 39.53 | ||
Medical treatment | 12 | 1.59 | 2 | 1.18 | 10 | 1.70 | 6 | 1.31 | 4 | 3.10 | ||
Nature observation | 17 | 2.25 | 6 | 3.55 | 11 | 1.87 | 7 | 1.53 | 4 | 3.10 | ||
Photography | 13 | 1.72 | 2 | 1.19 | 11 | 1.87 | 6 | 1.31 | 5 | 3.88 | ||
Scientific activities | 15 | 1.98 | 11 | 6.51 | 4 | 0.68 | 4 | 0.87 | 0 | 0.00 | ||
Visiting touristic attractions | 40 | 5.29 | 20 | 11.83 | 20 | 3.41 | 13 | 2.84 | 7 | 5.43 |
Attributes and Levels | Model 1. (All) | Model 2. (Group 1 Secondary Destination) | Model 3. (Group 2 Main Destination) | Model 4. (Group 2 Main Destination-Short Trip) | Model 5. (Group 2 Main Destination-Long Trip) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | S.E. | Coefficient | S.E. | Coefficient | S.E. | Coefficient | S.E. | Coefficient | S.E. | ||
Distance (one way) | <150 km BL | 0.0528 | 0.0730 | 0.0515 | 0.0710 | −0.0512 | |||||
150–300 km | 0.3899 *** | 0.0462 | 0.3451 *** | 0.0987 | 0.4016 *** | 0.0525 | 0.4502 *** | 0.0602 | 0.2610 ** | 0.1103 | |
301–450 km | −0.3033 *** | 0.0520 | −0.2458 ** | 0.1076 | −0.3216 *** | 0.0597 | −0.3789 *** | 0.0681 | −0.1357 | 0.1270 | |
>450 km | −0.1394 *** | 0.0543 | −0.1723 | 0.1239 | −0.1315 ** | 0.0608 | −0.1423** | 0.0684 | −0.0741 | 0.1365 | |
Nature observation | Without guide BL | 0.2804 | 0.1992 | 0.3054 | 0.3317 | 0.2245 | |||||
With guide | −0.2804 *** | 0.0294 | −0.1992 *** | 0.0608 | −0.3054 *** | 0.0338 | −0.3317 *** | 0.0379 | −0.2245 *** | 0.0768 | |
Information | Marks BL | −0.3771 | −0.2954 | −0.4055 | −0.4226 | −0.3651 | |||||
Marks, visitor center | 0.0079 | 0.0594 | 0.0657 | 0.1279 | −0.0120 | 0.0677 | 0.0124 | 0.0773 | −0.0967 | 0.1442 | |
Marks, map | 0.1943 *** | 0.0513 | 0.0826 | 0.1121 | 0.2292 *** | 0.0583 | 0.2516 *** | 0.0669 | 0.1798 | 0.1222 | |
Marks, visitor center, species list | 0.1749 *** | 0.0558 | 0.1471 | 0.1169 | 0.1883 *** | 0.0639 | 0.1586** | 0.0721 | 0.2820 * | 0.1419 | |
Campsites | Not inside the park BL | 0.0219 | 0.1370 | −0.0160 | −0.0765 | 0.2048 | |||||
Inside, unorganized | −0.1305 *** | 0.0407 | −0.2336 *** | 0.0842 | −0.1012 ** | 0.0496 | −0.0999* | 0.0528 | −0.1362 | 0.1073 | |
Inside, organized | 0.1086** | 0.0456 | 0.0966 | 0.0957 | 0.1172 ** | 0.0524 | 0.1764 *** | 0.0595 | −0.0686 | 0.1147 | |
Groups at campsites | 1–5 groups BL | −0.4405 | 0.2874 | 0.4984 | 0.5035 | 0.6087 | |||||
5–10 groups | −0.0039 | 0.0399 | 0.0417 | 0.0857 | −0.0242 | 0.0455 | −0.0412 | 0.0513 | −0.0522 | 0.1013 | |
>10 groups | −0.4444 *** | 0.0509 | −0.3291 *** | 0.1140 | −0.4742 *** | 0.0572 | −0.4623 *** | 0.0639 | −0.5565 *** | 0.1338 | |
Fuel price | −0.0419 *** | 0.0055 | −0.0416 *** | 0.0125 | −0.0414 *** | 0.0062 | −0.0349 *** | 0.0070 | −0.0609 *** | 0.0135 | |
Alternative specific constant | −2.6264 *** | 0.0725 | −2.4043 *** | 0.1395 | −2.699 *** | 0.0849 | −2.7901 *** | 0.1000 | −2.4235 *** | 0.1609 | |
No. choice sets | 9072 | 2028 | 7044 | 5496 | 1548 | ||||||
Log-likelihood | 1715.97 | 360.70 | 1363.38 | 1087.41 | 285.84 |
Attributes and Levels | Model 1. (All) | Model 2. (Group 1 Secondary Destination) | Model 3. (Group 2 Main Destination) | Model 4. (Group 2 Main Destination-Short Trip) | Model 5. (Group 2 Main Destination-Long Trip) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MWTP | S.E. | MWTP | S.E. | MWTP | S.E. | MWTP | S.E. | MWTP | S.E. | ||
Distance (one way) | <150 km BL | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | |||||
150–300 km | 3.14 *** | 0.54 | 2.80 *** | 1.11 | 3.27 *** | 0.64 | 4.35 *** | 1.04 | 1.45 ** | 0.67 | |
301–450 km | −2.44 *** | 0.52 | −2.00 * | 1.10 | −2.62 *** | 0.61 | −3.66 *** | 0.97 | n.s. | ||
>450 km | −1.12** | 0.45 | n.s. | −1.07 ** | 0.51 | −1.38 * | 0.70 | n.s. | |||
Nature observation | Without guide BL | 2.26 *** | 0.35 | 1.61 *** | 0.66 | 2.49 *** | 0.42 | 3.20 *** | 0.70 | 1.25 *** | 0.44 |
With guide | −2.26 *** | 0.35 | −1.61 *** | 0.66 | −2.49 *** | 0.42 | −3.20 *** | 0.70 | −1.25 *** | 0.44 | |
Information | Marks BL | −3.03 *** | 0.60 | −2.40 ** | 1.17 | −3.30 *** | 0.72 | −4.08 *** | 1.11 | −2.02 ** | 0.82 |
Marks, visitor center | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | ||||||
Marks, map | 1.56 *** | 0.45 | 0.67 | 0.91 | 1.87 *** | 0.54 | 2.43 *** | 0.79 | n.s. | ||
Marks, visitor center, species list | 1.41 *** | 0.50 | 1.19 | 1.04 | 1.53 *** | 0.59 | 1.53 * | 0.78 | 1.56 * | 0.89 | |
Campsites | Not inside the parks BL | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | 1.14 ** | 0.53 | ||||
Inside, unorganized | −1.05 *** | 0.36 | −1.90 * | 0.95 | −0.82 ** | 0.40 | −0.96 * | 0.55 | n.s. | ||
Inside, organized | 0.87 *** | 0.41 | n.s. | 0.96 ** | 0.48 | 1.70 ** | 0.73 | n.s. | |||
Groups at campsites | 1–5 groups BL | 3.61 *** | 0.50 | 2.33 *** | 0.82 | 4.06 *** | 0.63 | 4.86 *** | 0.99 | 2.80 *** | 0.72 |
5–10 groups | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | ||||||
>10 groups | −3.58 *** | 0.52 | −2.67 *** | 0.95 | −3.86 *** | 0.63 | −4.47 *** | 0.94 | −3.09 *** | 0.84 |
© 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
Dumitras, D.E.; Muresan, I.C.; Jitea, I.M.; Mihai, V.C.; Balazs, S.E.; Iancu, T. Assessing Tourists’ Preferences for Recreational Trips in National and Natural Parks as a Premise for Long-Term Sustainable Management Plans. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091596
Dumitras DE, Muresan IC, Jitea IM, Mihai VC, Balazs SE, Iancu T. Assessing Tourists’ Preferences for Recreational Trips in National and Natural Parks as a Premise for Long-Term Sustainable Management Plans. Sustainability. 2017; 9(9):1596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091596
Chicago/Turabian StyleDumitras, Diana E., Iulia C. Muresan, Ionel M. Jitea, Valentin C. Mihai, Simona E. Balazs, and Tiberiu Iancu. 2017. "Assessing Tourists’ Preferences for Recreational Trips in National and Natural Parks as a Premise for Long-Term Sustainable Management Plans" Sustainability 9, no. 9: 1596. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091596