Willingness to pay for attributes of Templestay and implications on marginal utility of different meditation forms

Abstract

Templestays are a form of cultural tourism in which participants visit a Buddhist temple to experience their culture. Using a choice experiment, the marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) is estimated for various attributes of Templestay programs of location, accommodations, and type of meditation. Respondents are willing to pay a premium for private accommodations and to experience the natural mountain settings over an urban setting. The MWTP varies by type of meditation and by how often respondents have participated in a Templestay. For the most physically demanding form of meditation, 108 prostrations, there is weak evidence marginal utility decreases with increasing number of visits. Brewing tea and talking to a monk do not lead to a change in marginal utility. The most spiritually demanding meditation, Seon meditation, shows increasing marginal utility. Seon meditators could benefit from additional stays, as the benefits of this form of meditation can only be achieved through practice and learning from experienced meditators. It is expected that these results will provide information for the diversification of Templestay experience programs.

Keywords

Templestay Seon meditation 108 prostrations tea with a monk marginal utility willingness to pay choice experiment

Introduction

Buddhist temples are unique vacation destinations in many Asian countries with both domestic and foreign tourists seeking unforgettable experiences (Bendle et al., 2014; Song et al., 2015). One type of temple visit is Templestays which are increasing in importance as a tourist cultural experience. Templestays involve tourists staying at Buddhist temples and participating in monastic activities to gain exposure to unique experiences (Song et al., 2015). OECD (2009) reports Templestays are successfully influencing tourism by allowing participants to experience cultural resources. In South Korea (hereafter Korea), 137 temples provided Templestay programs in 2019, with 247,783 Koreans and 47,058 foreigners participating (Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism, 2020a).

Templestays provide experiential opportunities by allowing the tourist to immerse themself in mind–body healing and traditional Buddhist cultural life based on exposure to both tangible and intangible cultural resources (Chun et al., 2017). By experiencing Buddhist spiritual culture firsthand, Templestay participants experience self-reflection, a heightened sense of self-identity, and inner growth (Chun et al., 2021). Templestays involve experiencing cultural activities of Yebul Buddhist ceremony, Seon meditation, Monastic Meals, the practice of 108 prostrations, and conversation over tea with a monk. These forms of Templestay experiences differ in their make-up, duration, and human capital accumulation.

Templestay participants have choices such as location and room accommodations when choosing a temple. Given choices of Templestays are available to participants, the primary objective is to analyze the utility of Templestay participants through their marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for Templestay attributes of course (meditation form), room accommodations (stay type), and temple location. Wright and Eppink (2016: p. 281) conclude from conducting meta-analysis there are “… facets of heritage value that our models do not capture very well” and more research is necessary to improve our understanding of the drivers of cultural heritage value. This study adds to our knowledge of the drivers of values for cultural heritage sites by valuing attributes of Templestays.

Related to MWTP is how marginal utility evolves as the number of Templestays increases. Increasing or decreasing marginal utility has implications for policy, because Templestays are subsidized by the Korean government, and marketing of Templestays. A second objective, therefore, is to examine marginal utility associated with different levels of participation (number of times a person has participated in a Templestay) and the three different meditation types. Given meditation types have the same goals but differ in how the goals are met in terms of physical and mental stimulation, the question is “does marginal utility increase or decrease based on the number of times one participates?” Usual economic interpretation is the law of diminishing marginal utility applies. Theories and empirical evidence, however, suggest that marginal utility may increase for some activities, including cultural activities, over some range of consumption. Although theories exist as to why increasing and decreasing marginal utility may occur, to our knowledge no one has been able to provide a generalization of why goods or services may experience different marginal utilities. Marginal utility of a particular good remains an empirical issue. Different forms of meditation may show differing directions for marginal utility. The law of decreasing marginal utility may not initially be met in activities such as meditation. To achieve these objectives, a choice experiment is conducted of people who have just completed a Templestay.

Literature review

Templestays and meditation

Holding most of the cultural properties in Korea, Buddhist temples are important historical places not only religiously but also in artistic objects and cultural heritage. In Templestays, a form of cultural tourism, tourists stay at a Buddhist temple to experience and better understand Korea Buddhism (OECD, 2009). Templestays range from day visits to overnights stays (Bae et al., 2019; Kaplan, 2010). Chun et al. (2021) note the success of Templestay programs as a tourist destination depends not only on the personal growth experiences but also the quality of services and facilities provided. A prominent factor in Templestays for personal growth is meditation, the primary focus of this study. In most temples, Templestay programs include the Yebul Buddhist ceremony, Monastic meals, 108 prostrations, conversation over tea with a monk, and Seon meditation. These programs make Korean temples more familiar to non-Buddhists and help satisfy people’s curiosity about monastic life (Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism, 2018).

Seon Meditation (Chamseon) is about turning one’s attention inward and illuminating one’s true self. If one maintains this perspective, then regardless of where they are or what they do, they will never be separate from one’s true self, and they can live their lives in harmony with all (Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism, 2018). Seon meditation is a form of sitting meditation where the meditator sits cross-legged with each leg on top of the other leg’s thigh, back straight, right hand on the left foot, and left hand on top of the right hand with thumbs touching (Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism, 2014a). This position is maintained during meditation which involves breathing and cleansing one’s mind. Although one should not be bound by time, after setting for 50 min one walks for 10 min (Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism, 2014a). Seon meditation is to cut off all thoughts (Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism, 2016).

The practice of 108 prostrations (Baekpalbae) is an act of repentance for one’s 108 different desires. By physically bowing and humbling one’s selfish egos, the meditator realizes he/she is not separate from the world. Performing 108 prostrations, a way towards realizing one’s true self is an effective form of moving meditation (Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism, 2018). The activity involves bowing while 108 repentances are repeated usually by a recording. Although there are variations to the bow (O’Brien, 2018), a single full bowing usually involves an initial bow, then dropping to one’s knees touching one’s forehead to the floor with hands turned upward (Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism, 2014b). The physical activity takes 15–20 min which may be taxing to some participants (Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism, 2014b). In addition to full bows, based on a person’s ability, bows can be done kneeling, standing, or sitting in a chair. Physical actions of bowing connect the body and mind by burning off restless energy and may be more efficient than sitting meditation.

Tea ceremony (Dado) is a meditation practice involving brewing and drinking tea with a monk (Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism, 2016). Having a conversation with a Buddhist monk is a special experience Templestays offer. The subtle fragrance wafting from the well-brewed tea will relax the body and clear the mind. The hustle and bustle of urban life fades away as one calmly chats with the monk (Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism, 2018).

Monastic meals (Baru Gongyang) are traditional ways of serving meals practiced by Buddhist monks (Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism, 2018). Barus (“bowl”) are special dishes used in temples, whereas temple meals are called Gongyang, which means “offering.” Participants eat the Baru Gongyang in a large room. Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism (2018) explains Baru Gongyang as “The meal is taken with gratitude for the gift of the food and with a strong determination to manifest behavior worthy of the offering…. All food taken is consumed without wasting a single grain of rice. The meal concludes by offering the last remaining water in the bowls to hungry spirits. This act embodies the great compassion of the Buddha for the suffering of all beings” (Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism, 2018: p. 19–20).

The Buddhist ceremonies (Yebul) are the most basic rituals that start and end the day (Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism, 2018). When the temple bell is sounded, participants to pay homage to all Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and other enlightened beings and pray for world peace. Early morning chanting can begin as early as 4 a.m.

Marginal utility

William Stanley Jevons, Leon Walras, and Carl Menger independently developed the idea of marginal utility (Henderson, n.d.). Since this development, marginal utility has become a mainstay of economic valuation of goods and the basis of consumer theory. The law of diminishing marginal utility, the increase in utility obtained by consuming one more unit of good decreases as the consumption of that good increases, is widely accepted. This law was formalized by the German economist Gossen in 1854 and is widely used to explain consumer behavior in almost all situations in daily life. Empirical studies and theory, however, suggest for some goods, marginal utility may be increasing in some range of consumption of the good. Kerr (2019), for example, states in cultural, hobby, and recreational contexts empirical evidence suggests the law of diminishing marginal utility may not always hold. With decreasing marginal utility, social welfare may be increased by increasing the number of hunters bagging a deer, whereas with increasing marginal utility the opposite may be true, that is, bag limits may decrease social welfare.

Festjens and Janiszewski (2015) state much of the evidence for increasing marginal utility comes from the literature on people’s willingness to accept small gambles. In this literature, subjective expected utility is often used to explain increasing marginal utility. Festjens and Jaiszewski (2015) provide arguments against risky choices illustrating increasing marginal utility which include: the argument assumes risk attitude is determined by the utility function, resource valuation often occurs in riskless environments, or individuals misinterpret probabilities. Festjens and Janiszewski (2015) then provide another argument for increasing marginal utility. They argue because time is a unique resource that cannot be stored, unlike many resources, time may show increasing marginal utility. They postulate a double kinked model because of two opposing of valuation of having more time: (1) increasing value associated with having better opportunities for use and (2) the decreasing value associated with increase in the time resource. These two opposing valuations gives a double kinked value function including sections of indifference, increasing, and decreasing marginal utility.

A third theory used to explain increasing marginal utility is the theory of rational addiction. In this theory, “… a good is potentially addictive if increases in past consumption raise current consumption” (Becker and Murphy, 1988: p. 694). The addictive theory explains increasing marginal utility as people consume more of a good as their cultural stock increases which increases future appreciate of the good (Alderighi and Lorenzini, 2012). This explanation is sometimes known as the cultural capital accumulation approach (Alderighi and Lorenzini, 2012). They indicate the need for further research on cultural goods and marginal utility.

Given there are several potential explanations for increasing marginal utility, the question becomes what do empirical studies suggest? Using experimental data, Festjens and Janiszewski (2015) find evidence of increasing and decreasing marginal utility based on if time is a deficit or surplus resource concluding this may have implications for other resource valuations. Studies using the addictive behavior concept to explain empirical evidence of increasing marginal utility in participation in cultural and sporting activities include Alderighi and Lorenzini (2012), Castiglione and Infante (2019), and Lee and Smith (2008). Alderighi and Lorenzini (2012), postulate the relationship between tourists’ satisfaction and cultivation of tastes may differ. If capital accumulation matters, the relationship may be convex; whereas if learning by consuming cultivates tastes, the relationship is concave. They present empirical evidence using survey data that suggests a convex link may be relevant in some cases, indicating increasing marginal utility. Both Castiglione and Infante (2019) and Lee and Smith (2008) illustrate the theory of addictive behavior applies to not only harmful addictions but beneficial addictions.

Increasing marginal utility is empirically suggested in sporting activities for some groups of hunters or fishers including fish size (Powers and Lackey, 1976), number of bagged birds per day (Wam et al., 2012), and harvest number of red deer (Kerr, 2019). Powers and Lackey (1976) use survey data to estimate parameter values for a utility function. The estimated function shows decreasing marginal utility for number caught but increasing marginal utility for fish size. Both Wam et al. (2012) and Kerr (2019) use survey data to estimate WTP for different classes of hunters. Increasing WTP for an attribute may be an indication of increasing marginal utility (it should be noted Wam, Pedersen, and Hjeljord do not mention marginal utility).

This brief review of the literature shows both theoretical considerations and empirical studies suggest for some goods, marginal utility may be increasing in some range of consumption of the good. Empirical studies use various data sources from market panel data to survey data. Google scholar search of “increasing marginal utility” and “economics” provided 2000 hits. Many of these studies, such as Filipić (2010) and Adib and Yoko (2020) argue for increasing marginal utility for some goods. The reality is marginal utility in many cases may follow a function such as presented by Festjens and Janiszewski (2015) in which there are ranges of increasing and decreasing marginal utility.

Choice experiments

The two most common stated preference methods to value goods that do not have a direct or correct market price are contingent valuation and choice experiment. Rudd (2008) and Hanley et al. (1998) note although both methods share common theoretical and statistical basis, each has its specific advantages. Contingent valuation methods value hypothetical increases or decreases in the consumption of a good; whereas, choice experiments value consumption bundles that vary in their attributes (Hanley et al., 1998). To achieve the objective of valuing different attributes, choice experiment methodology is employed. Within the tourism literature, choice experiments have been used to value cultural heritage and/or vacation attributes (Chen and Chen, 2012; Lee et al., 2019; Wright and Eppink, 2016). Boto-García et al. (2020), however, note most choice experiments examining leisure recreation have focused on nature-based tourism.

Although the literature on vacation attributes and cultural heritage is voluminous, no study was found using choice experiment examining Templestays. Characteristics of both cultural heritage amenities and vacation accommodations make-up Templestays. The importance of amenities at cultural or heritage sites are illustrated by tourist preferring sites that provide amenities such as food and beverages (Chen and Chen, 2012) and security and quality exhibits (Gómez-Zapata et al., 2018). Further, Chiabai et al. (2014) show people are willing to pay for proposed e-services, such as booking services, journey planner, and virtual tours, for cultural heritage site which are important for the development of cultural tourism platforms.

Valuation of vacation and lodging attributes have received attention in the literature. Masiero et al. (2019) in reviewing previous studies on accommodations indicate location is one of the most important attributes. For family travelers, the environment surrounding the accommodation is important. Along this line, Masiero et al. (2019) find the attribute with the largest WTP in their study is having a waterfront promenade. In another choice experiment study, Boto-García et al. (2020) show tourists place positive utility on high-quality accommodations. Song et al. (2021) find respondents place the heaviest weight on resort facilities for integrated resorts. The most important attribute is location in Lee et al.’s (2018) choice experiment involving capsule hotels. This brief review illustrates choice experiments are used in the literature to value cultural/heritage site attributes and accommodations, two aspects of Templestays. As noted, no study uses choice experiment to value attributes of Templestays or different forms of meditation.

Like all methodologies, choice experiments have limitations or disadvantages (Hanley et al., 2001; Johnson and Desvousges, 1997). Difficulties may arise in choosing between choices that have multiple attributes and levels. Fallacy of composition may arise where the value of the whole may not equal sum of the value of attributes. Further welfare estimates obtained are sensitive to the study design. Despite these limitations, choice experiments provide information to policy makers, decision makers, and academics.

Methods

Choice experiment design

Choice experiments are based on the value characteristic theory of Lancaster (1966). Participants in such experiments select one set from several choice sets that provides them the largest satisfaction. This methodology allows for estimation of participants’ WTP for attributes in the choice sets. For the Templestay experiment, the choice design varied the type of course (meditation), room accommodations (stay), location of the temple, and cost (fee) of the stay (Table 1). Four courses were included (Figure 1). Course A, the most basic course, included experiencing a Monastic meal and Yebul Buddhist ceremonies. The other three courses varied in the type of meditation. Course B added Seon meditation, Course C added 108 prostrations meditation, and Course D added brewing tea and conversation with a monk (tea meditation) to Course A. Two types of accommodations were private or shared room. Temple locations were either urban or mountain. Six different fees per person for Templestays were used; these fees ranged 30,000 KRW to 130,000 KRW (US$1 is equivalent to approximately 1,160 KRW). With four attributes with one having four levels, two having two levels, and one having six levels, there are (4×2×2×6)² = 9,216 possible choice sets in a full-factorial design. Because it is not feasible to develop a questionnaire design containing all possible choice sets, the number of choice sets was reduced using an orthogonal fractional factorial design. Forty-five choice sets were chosen to be included in the experiment based on D-efficiency (Kunfeld, 2005).

Table 1.

Attributes and levels of experience programs of Templestays.

Attributes	Description	Level
Course	A - monastic meal + Buddhist ceremony	Course A^b
	B - monastic meal + Buddhist ceremony + Seon meditation	Course B
	C - monastic meal + Buddhist ceremony +108 prostrations	Course C
	D - monastic meal + Buddhist ceremony + conversation over tea with a monk	Course D
Stay	Share room	Yes^b
Stay	Private room	Yes
Location of the temple	Urban	Yes^b
Location of the temple	Mountain	Yes
Fee (Won^a)	Experience of Templestay	30,000^b
		50,000
		70,000
		90,000
		110,000
		130,000

^aUS$1 is equivalent to approximately 1,160 Korean Won (KRW).

^bReference level.

Survey instrument and data collection

Before respondents were presented the choice experiment questions, the questionnaire contained necessary background information on Templestays. This information was presented in tabular form The definition of Templestays was provided, then the attributes of a Templestay were defined.

Figure 1.

Description of the Templestay attributes as described in the questionnaire. Source: Pictures are adapted from Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism (2021b).

The questionnaire contained five choice experiment questions with each question containing three choice alternatives. An example of a choice question in presented in Figure 2. In this choice question, Alternatives ① and ② consist of choices that have various levels of the different attributes. Alternative ③ consists of the basic program of monastic meal and Yebul. Respondents were asked to choose the alternative that provides them the largest satisfaction. After the choice questions, respondents were asked socio-demographic questions of age, gender, education, and income and the number of times they have participated in a Templestays.

Figure 2.

Example of a choice experiment question. Source: Pictures are adapted from Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism (2021b).

Onsite surveys of Korean Templestay participants were conducted at five urban temples and four mountain area temples based on recommendations from the Korean Buddhist Cultural Foundation. The survey was administered from August 5 to September 30, 2020. One hundred questionnaires were distributed to each of the nine temples and the questionnaire was distributed to all Templestay visitors during the survey period. A total of 597 out of 900 questionnaires were collected with a response rate of 66.3%.

Hypothetical bias and internal consistency are important concerns in conducting choice experiments (Mangham et al., 2009). Mangham et al. (2009) suggest using one or two choice questions in which one option should be superior to the others to address these issues. Here, such a question denoted as an “illogical question” was added to each questionnaire. An example of an illogical question is given in Figure 3. In this choice set, attributes are the exact same except admission fee. Given the attributes are the same and the admission fee is one-third of the fee in choice ③ compared to choice ①, a rational respondent should prefer ③ over ①. Respondents who choose over ① are deemed either illogical or did not understand the task. One hundred and twenty-two respondents’ responses were deemed illogical. In addition, 63 respondents did not completely respond to demographic variables. Fifty-five of the 63 respondents failed to complete the income question. After removing incomplete and illogical responses, the dataset contained 412 respondents. Because Lancsar and Louviere (2006) suggest that deleting responses may reduce statistical efficiency and introduce bias and to provide robustness checks, models are estimated using four different subsamples of the dataset: All—all observations are used; IIR—internally inconsistent removed; Final—internally inconsistent and incomplete observations removed; and Female—only female respondents with the internally inconsistent and incomplete observations removed.

Figure 3.

Example of a question to find illogical choices.

Model specification of choice experiment

The conditional logit model is used to estimate the WTP for each attribute of the Templestay experience. It is assumed participants choose the choice set alternative that maximizes their utility. Choice experiments further assume the participant’s utility is explained by a random utility model consisting of a non-stochastic part and a stochastic variable (Louviere, 2001). Being a utility difference model for individuals, socio-economic variables are not included in the model.

The probability of participant i selecting choice set j is $P_{i j}$ and ρ takes on a value of 1 as a scale parameter. If a given alternative satisfies the IIA (independence of irrelevant alternatives) assumption and the distribution of the error term follows the type I extreme value distribution, then the probability can be expressed as a conditional logit model (Maddala, 1983)

P_{i j} = \frac{\exp (ρ V_{i j})}{\sum_{k = 1}^{k} \exp (ρ V_{i k})}

(1)

where

V_{i j}

is the non-probabilistic part of the participant’s utility. Assuming a linear utility function in the K attributes,

V_{i j}

can be expressed

V_{i j} = \sum_{t = 1}^{T} β_{t} X_{i j t}

(2)

where

X_{i j t}

is the t^th attribute variable of the j choice set and

β_{t}

is a parameter. Under these assumptions, the probability in equation (1) can be estimated using the conditional logit model (McFadden, 1973) by maximum likelihood estimation. The log-likelihood function is

lnL = \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \sum_{j = 1}^{k} [C_{i j} \ln (P_{i j})]

(3)

where

C_{i j}

is an indicator variable. If respondent i selects choice set j,

C_{i j}

is 1, otherwise 0 (Greene, 2012). Equation (2) is assumed to be a linear function of the attributes of the Templestay experience. Under this assumption the utility function becomes

V_{i j} = β_{1} X_{i j 1} + β_{2} X_{i j 2} + β_{3} X_{i j 3} + β_{4} X_{i j 4} + β_{5} X_{i j 5} + β_{6} X_{i j 6} + γ_{1} (X_{i j 1} \cdot P t e m p l e) + γ_{2} (X_{i j 2} \cdot P t e m p l e) + γ_{3} (X_{i j 3} \cdot P t e m p l e) + ε_{i j}

(4)

where:

X_{i j 1}

—represents the Templestay experience program, Seon meditation (

X_{i j 1}

= 1 for monastic meal + Yebul Buddhist ceremony + Seon meditation, otherwise = 0);

X_{i j 2}

—represents the Templestay experience program 108 prostrations (

X_{i j 2}

= 1 for monastic meal + Yebul Buddhist ceremony +108 prostrations, otherwise = 0);

X_{i j 3}

—represents the Templestay experience program brewing tea and conversation with a monk (

X_{i j 3}

= 1 for monastic meal + Yebul Buddhist ceremony + conversation over tea with a monk, otherwise = 0);

X_{i j 4}

—represents the type of stay during the Templestay experience (private room = 1 and shared room = 0);

X_{i j 5}

—represents the location of temple (mountain = 1 and urban = 0);

X_{i j 6}

—is the cost of the stay; and

X_{i j 1} \cdot P t e m p l e

and

X_{i j 2} \cdot P t e m p l e

and

X_{i j 3} \cdot P t e m p l e

—are interaction terms between the number of previous times the respondent has experiences a Templestays. In the above specification, Course A is the reference experience and is dropped to avoid perfect multicollinearity.

Estimation of the marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) using the choice experiment involves trade-offs between the attributes and cost. For the type of accommodations and the location of temple attributes, MWTP_k for the k attribute is calculated by dividing the estimated coefficient of the k attribute variable $({\hat{β}}_{k})$ by the estimated coefficient of cost $({\hat{β}}_{6})$ and multiplying by (−1). In the case of the course, however, the calculations must also involve the interaction term between course and number of Templestays. MWTP is calculated using equation (5). In this case, ${\hat{γ}}_{k}$ is the coefficient estimate of the interaction of the course attribute variable given by k and Ptemple where the number of previous visits goes from one to four.

M W T P_{k} = \frac{{\hat{β}}_{k} + {\hat{γ}}_{k} \cdot P t e m p l e}{{\hat{β}}_{6}}, k = 1,2, or 3

(5)

Results

Descriptive statistics of respondents

A summary of the socio-economic characteristics for the four data sets are presented in Table 2. Ignoring the obvious percentage differences in gender associated with the Female data subset and using the Final subsample as the base, only three differences in percentages are less than 2 percentage points. One difference is in education with college educated respondents in the All subsample being 6.4 percentage points larger than in the Final subsample. The other two differences pertain to no responses for income in the IIR and Final subsamples. In the IRR and All subsamples, no responses for income are 9.5% and 9.2% which by design are larger than in the Final subsample in which the no responses are removed before obtaining the sample percentages. Given similarities between the subsamples only the Final subsample is discussed to save space.

Table 2.

Socio-demographic characteristics and participation in Templestays of respondents.

Characteristic	Data subsample
Characteristic	Final (N = 412)	Female (N = 315)	IIR (N = 455)	All (N = 597)
Gender
Male	23.5	—	22.6	22.8
Female	76.5	100.0	75.4	74.9
No response	—	—	2.0	2.3
Age
20–29	32.8	35.2	34.3	32.5
30–39	32.5	31.4	31.0	29.6
40–49	12.9	11.8	12.1	12.2
50–59	14.6	14.6	13.6	16.2
≥60	7.3	7.0	7.0	7.0
No response	—	—	2.0	2.3
Highest education level attended
High school	13.3	12.7	14.7	15.2
College/university	75.5	75.9	72.5	81.9
Graduate	11.2	11.4	10.1	10.6
No response	—	—	2.6	2.8
Monthly household income (1,000 Korean Won^a)
<2000	4.4	4.8	4.0	3.5
2000–3999	26.5	25.7	24.0	23.6
4000–5999	22.8	23.2	20.7	22.3
6000–7999	14.6	14.6	13.2	13.7
8000–9999	14.3	14.9	13.0	12.6
≥10,000	17.5	16.8	15.8	15.1
No response	—	—	9.5	9.2
Participation of Templestay (Ptemple)
1 visit	78.9	79.1	78.2	77.2
2 visits	13.8	14.6	14.1	12.2
3 visits	3.9	3.5	4.4	4.9
≥4 visits	3.4	2.9	3.3	5.2
No response	—	—	—	0.5

^aUS$1 is equivalent to approximately 1,160 Korean Won.

Many more females (76.5%) than males (23.5%) answered the survey, thus the reason for the Female subsample. Most respondents are in age groups of 20–29 (32.8%) and 30–39 (32.5%) years old, followed by age groups of 50–59 (14.6%), 40–49 (12.9%), and 60 and older (7.3%). Education level of either 2-years or 4-years of college accounted for the highest proportion of respondents (75.5%). As for monthly household income, 26.5% are in the 2–4 million KRW, followed by 4–6 million KRW (22.8%), more than 10 million KRW (17.5%), and 6–8 million KRW (14.6%). Seventy-nine percent the respondents indicate they had just completed their first visit, followed by respondents indicating they had participated in Templestays twice (13.8%). Fewer respondents had participated three times (3.9%) or four or more times (3.4%).

Statistics on the population of Templestay participants are not available. The proportion of females in the Templestay sample, however, is similar to the proportion of females reported in Chun et al. (2018) and Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism (2020b, 2021a) which ranges from 69.1% to 73.6% of the domestic participants. In Chun et al. (2018), 72.2% of respondents were between 20 and 49 years of age, whereas in this study 74% of respondent fall in this age group.

Estimated logit model coefficients

Estimation results associated with the attributes of Templestay experience are presented in Table 3 for the four different subsamples and two specifications for the Final subsample. The specifications differ in the inclusion or exclusion of interactions between the number of visits and meditation type. Estimated coefficients’ sign and significances are robust with respect to subsample for all coefficients associated with the noninteraction terms except for private rooms in Female model. All the noninteraction term coefficients are significant as the 1% level except the aforementioned private room coefficient. The coefficient associated with private rooms in the Female Only model is but not significant (p-value = .14). Coefficients associated with fee are negative, indicating a larger probability of accepting a choice set with a smaller fee. This is consistent with economic theory. Coefficients of courses B, C, and D are positive, indicating respondents prefer Courses B, C, or D over Course A for a given number of visits. Recall Course A consists of a monastic meal and Yebul Buddhist ceremony and Courses B, C, and D include different meditations. Respondents prefer both private rooms and mountain settings over shared accommodations and urban settings.

Table 3.

Estimated parameters using conditional logit model for various subsamples.

	Removing observations that are not complete or internally inconsistent						Including incomplete responses
	No interactions		With interactions		Females only		Internally inconsistent removed		All observations
Variable (parameter)	Coefficient	Pr >χ²	Coefficient	Pr >χ²	Coefficient	Pr >χ²	Coefficient	Pr >χ²	Coefficient	Pr >χ²
Course B (β₁)	0.9241	<0.0001	0.6099	0.001	0.7598	0.001	0.5335	0.003	0.8748	<0.0001
Course C (β₂)	0.9134	<0.0001	1.1675	<0.0001	1.4367	<0.0001	1.0091	<0.0001	0.7640	<0.0001
Course D (β₃)	1.1459	<0.0001	1.1217	<0.0001	1.3598	<0.0001	1.0490	<0.0001	1.1732	<0.0001
Private room (β₄)	0.2422	0.001	0.2428	0.001	0.1202	0.148	0.2046	0.003	0.2218	<0.0001
Located in mountain (β₅)	0.9619	<0.0001	0.9646	<0.0001	1.0381	<0.0001	0.9804	<0.0001	0.9427	<0.0001
Fee (β₆)	−0.0262	<0.0001	−0.0262	<0.0001	−0.0281	<0.0001	−0.0263	<0.0001	−0.0226	<0.0001
Course B*Ptemple (γ₁)	—	—	0.2336	0.042	0.2304	0.105	0.2652	0.015	0.0814	0.338
Course C*Ptemple (γ₂)	—	—	−0.1959	0.081	−0.3174	0.022	−0.0795	0.444	0.1237	0.119
Course D*Ptemple (γ₃)	—	—	0.0181	0.871	−0.1301	0.337	0.0470	0.655	0.0082	0.922
Likelihood ratio	−1913.944	—	−1909.63	—	−1433.91	—	−2111.58	—	−2756.09	—
Wald Test^a	698.39	—	707.02	—	592.80	—	755.54	—	861.97	—
No. of observations	6,180	—	6,180	—	4,725	—	6,825	—	8,703	—

^aTest of joint significance of all variables except the intercept.

The results of the interactions between Course and the number of Templestay visits are summarized as follows. In the case of Course B, where Seon meditation is added to Course A, the estimated coefficients are positive in all subsamples and With Interactions and Internally Inconsistent Removed are statistically significant at 5% level. In the “Female Only” model, the coefficient is not significant (p = .11). When 108 prostrations are added to Course A giving Course C, the estimated coefficients are negative in all subsamples except All subsample. In the With Interactions and Female Only subsamples, the coefficients are statistically significant at the 10% level for Final subsample and 5% level for the Female Only subsample. Course C coefficient is positive, but not significant in the All subsample. Coefficients associated with Course D, brewing tea and conversation with a monk, are not statistically significant at any reasonable level. Although not as robust as the noninteraction coefficients, coefficients associated with interactions are generally robust except for coefficients associated with the interactions with Courses B or C in the All subsample. Wald tests of the joint significance of the course variable and its associated interaction variable indicate jointly the coefficients are significantly different from zero at p-values of 0.000.

Marginal willingness to pay and the law of diminishing marginal utility

Given the robustness of the estimated coefficients, similarity in the socio-demographic percentages, and potentially internally inconsistent answers by the respondents, only MWTP for the two different specifications for the Final subsample are presented (Tables 4 and 5). Similar point estimates for MWTP for the attributes are obtained for the subsamples not presented.

Table 4.

Marginal willingness to pay for Templestay program attributes and 95% confidence intervals in Korean Won for the No interactions specification.

Attributes	WTP*	95% confidence interval
Course A→Course B (Seon meditation)	35,236	28,245–42,227
Course A→Course C (108 prostrations)	34,827	28,543–41,112
Course A→Course D (conversation over tea with a monk)	43,691	37,222–50,160
Share room→Private room	9,233	4,017–14,450
Urban→Mountain	36,678	31,302–42,054

Participants’ MWTP for a private room over a shared room is 9,233 KRW in the No Interaction specification and 9,252 KRW in the With Interactions specification (approximately US $8 based on US$1 = 1,160 KRW). The MWTP for visiting a mountain temple over an urban temple is 36,678 for the No Interaction specification and 36,765 KRW for the With Interaction specification (approximately US $32). These values can be interpreted that participants prefer private rooms and mountain locations which suggest the pricing strategies for various temples may vary. The MWTPs for Courses B, C, and D over Course A do not vary by the number of visits in the No Interaction specification. These MWTP are 35,236, 34,827, and 43,691 KRW US ($30, $30, and $37) for Courses B, C, and D. Participants prefer either of the three meditation types over the most basic course of a Monastic meal and a Yebul Buddhist ceremony.

The MWTP for each Templestay experience course varies according to the number of visits for the With Interaction specification (Table 5). For Course B the MWTP for respondent’s first visit is 32,148 KRW (US $28), increasing to 41,052 KRW (US $35) for the second visit, 49,955 KRW (US $43) for the third visit, and 58,858 KRW (US $51) for the fourth visit. Course C shows a decrease in MWTP from 37,029 KRW (US $32) for the first visit to 14,629 KRW (US $12) for the fourth visit. MWTPs for additional visits for Course D shows little change as the number of visits increase. As expected, the MWTPs from the No Interaction specification are approximately equal to the weighted average (weighted by the number of visits), differing by less than one percent.

Table 5.

Marginal willingness to pay for Templestay program attributes and 95% confidence intervals in Korean Won for the with interactions specification.

Attributes	Number of visits	WTP*	95% confidence interval
Course A→Course B (Seon meditation)	1	32,148	24,534–39,763
	2	41,052	32,019–50,084
	3	49,955	34,000–65,910
	4	58,858	34,838–82,878
Course A→Course C (108 prostrations)	1	37,029	30,306–43,753
	2	29,563	20,858–38,267
	3	22,096	6,377–37,815
	4	14,629	−9,018–38,277
Course A→Course D (conversation over tea with a monk)	1	43,442	36,529–50,355
	2	44,133	35,365–52,901
	3	44,824	29,151–60,497
	4	45,515	21,976–69,054
Share room→Private room	—	9,252	4,029–14,476
Urban→Mountain	—	36,765	31,381–42,149

Note: US$1 is equivalent to approximately 1,160 KRW (Korean Won).

Changes in MWTPs can be interpreted in light of increasing or decreasing marginal utility (Kerr, 2019). Before proceeding, in line with the limitation mentioned by Alderighi and Lorenzini (2012), the small number of participants visiting temples multiple times limits interpretation. With this limitation stated, the different meditation types may show differing marginal utilities associated with the number of visits. Brewing tea and a conversation with a monk may be the least taxing meditation type in terms of mental and physical exertion. Because the estimated coefficient associated with the interaction of the tea course and the number of visits is not statistically significant, there is no difference in utility as visits increase. The 108 prostrations form of meditation requires the most physical exertion but may require less mental exertion than Seon meditation because of the chants. There is weak evidence (the coefficient is significant at a p-value of 0.08) that marginal utility decreases with increasing number of visits for this type of meditation. The marginal utility of a Templestay with Seon meditation appears to increase as the number of visits increase. Seon meditation is the most mental taxing form of the three meditation forms examined. These results are for a limited number of visits and do not imply that marginal utility is increasing for number of visits beyond four visits.

A graphical representation of the mean MWTP and confidence intervals are presented in Figure 4. As expected, clearly all MWTPs associated with brewing tea and conversation with a monk are contained in all four confidence intervals. For the other two meditation types, the MWTP of the second visit is not within the confidence interval of the first visit. For the third and fourth visits, the MWTP of the higher number of visits is contained in the confidence of the smaller number of visits. The MWTP for a third visit with Seon meditation (49,955 KRW, US $43) is just barely in the confidence interval for the second visit (32,019–50,084 KRW, US $27–$43). These observations provide a weak suggestion that curvature may exist in MWTP.

Figure 4.

Mean marginal willingness to pay as given by the horizontal line and confidence intervals as given by the vertical lines for the number of visits and course type.

Conclusions and discussion

Are the estimated MWTPs reasonable? Lee et al. (2021), using contingent valuation, estimate the WTP for Templestays for the average visitor is approximately 85,000 KRW (US $73) (this is the only study the authors are aware that values Templestays, their survey was conducted before the current study, and they use contingent valuation, not choice experiment). Their value is for the entire experience and not MWTP for attributes. In the present study, the MWTP for Course B (Monastic meal + Yebu Buddhist ceremony + Seon meditation) over A (Monastic meal + Yebul Buddhist ceremony), private room in a mountain setting is approximately 55,000 KRW (US $47). This number does not include the value of Course A but MWTP for Course B over Course A. Nevertheless, the estimated values are in the same ballpark when total value is included, indicating the values are reasonable. Further, the estimation results are robust with respect to various subsamples of the dataset.

Temples located in mountain areas enable Templestay participants to experience traditional Korean Buddhist culture while surrounded by a magnificent natural environment. Templestay programs located in the mountains can take advantage of the natural setting by charging a larger fee of approximately 36,000 KRW (US $32). Concerning accommodations, temples can charge approximately 9,000 KRW (US $8) more for a private room than a shared room. This increase in revenue must be compared to the decrease in revenue associated with going from shared to private rooms to determine what would happen to net revenue associated with changing to private rooms from shared rooms. Results support the findings of previous studies that location and accommodations are important in cultural and other tourism settings. Although not new or unexpected findings, the MWTPs provide guidance in determining fees temples can charge.

Previous theoretical and empirical studies provide evidence that for certain goods marginal utility may be increasing in at least some range of consumption of the good, especially for cultural and recreation goods. The current study adds to this literature by comparing MWTP for consumption of Templestays with different forms of meditation. Seon meditation, 108 prostration, and brewing tea and conversation with a monk. Weak empirical evidence is provided that increasing or decreasing marginal utility depends on the form of meditation. Brewing tea and conversation with a monk showed no increase or decrease in marginal utility. No change in marginal utility may be because brewing and conversing with the monk is perceived similar in each additional visit. Brewing tea and conversation with a monk are seen as intermediate stage between mental and physical activities. On the physical taxing side, 108 prostrations show weak evidence of decreasing marginal utility, whereas on the mental side, Seon meditation had somewhat stronger evidence of increasing marginal utility as the number of visits increase. Increasing marginal utility of Seon meditation may be related to a need for accumulation of mental capital to gain the full benefits of this form of meditation over the other two forms. Considering Seon meditation, the results are in line with support for Castiglione and Infante (2019: p. 187) that “… theatergoers recognize the reinforcing character of past and future consumption.” Such a recognition has implications for temples and for policy (Castiglione and Infante, 2019) because Templestays are subsidized by the Korean government. The finding that the marginal utility differs in direction as the number of visits increases by the form of meditation makes it possible to potentially alter the Templestay experience based on the number of visits. To encourage repeat visits stressing brewing tea and a conversation with a monk and 108 prostrations, it may be necessary to alter the programs based on number of visits. For Templestays stressing Seon meditation, repeat visits may be encouraged by stressing to fully reap the benefits of this form of meditation, practice with experienced meditators and time are necessary.

The law of diminishing marginal utility remains an empirical issue. Unlike some of the previous goods that were shown to have increasing marginal utility, Templstays are a consumption good with relatively large costs both monetary and time. From a theoretical/empirical standpoint, the results provide further evidence supporting the theory of rational addiction or the cultural capital accumulation which was also suggested by Alderighi and Lorenzini (2012). Further, goods where time is involved may show increasing marginal utility like Festjens and Jaiszewski (2015). Weak evidence also suggests the pleasing result of curvature to the marginal utility curve supporting Festjens and Jaiszewski (2015) double kinked value function. As noted, Templestays receive some financial support from the Korean government. Increasing and decreasing marginal utility have implications for social welfare. If the goal is to increase societal welfare, with decreasing marginal utility the government may consider policies (for a given cost) directed toward increasing the number of first time Templestay participants. With increasing marginal utility, the government may consider policies directed toward increasing the number of Templestays for participants rather than just increasing the number of participants.

Further research on both empirical and theoretical aspects into the types of goods that may show increasing marginal is necessary. Increasing marginal utility appears to be a reality at least for consumption levels at smaller numbers of visits. Question is how many visits experience increasing marginal utility before marginal utility starts to decrease. This study does not suggest marginal utility of Seon meditation will always be increasing, there is no doubt that at some point marginal utility will decrease. Finally, the authors do not want to imply one form of meditation is more important than another. All meditation forms are important not only in Templestays but in everyday life.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Se-Hyuk Kim

Tae-Kyun Kim

Choong-Ki Lee

Author biographies

Dr. Se-Hyuk Kim is a postdoctoral researcher in the Institute of Regional Development at Kyungpook National University, South Korea. He is interested in valuation of agricultural products and technological approach on agricultural products.

Dr. James W. Mjelde is a professor in Department of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA. His research areas include energy economics and valuation of natural resources using nonmarket valuation methods.

Dr. Tae-Kyun Kim is a professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Kyungpook National University, South Korea. He currently serves as the director of Institute of Regional Development at Kyungpook National University. His research areas include valuation of agricultural products and ecotourism resources using contingent valuation method and choice experiment.

Dr. Choong-Ki Lee is a professor in the College of Hotel and Tourism Management at Kyung Hee University, South Korea. His research includes valuation of ecotourism resources, economic impact of tourism, and corporate social responsibility. He currently serves on the editorial boards of Tourism Management, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, International Gambling Studies, and International Journal of Tourism Research.

Dr. Byunggil Chun is a professor in the Division of Hotel, Tourism and Food-service Management at Dongguk University-Gyeongju, South Korea. He is interested in Templestay programs and currently, he serves as a member of the Templestay Expert Committee at the Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism.

References

Adib

Yoko

(2020) On the economic value of signals. The BE Journal of Theoretical Economics 20(1): 20180191.

Alderighi

Lorenzini

(2012) Cultural goods, cultivation of taste, satisfaction and increasing marginal utility during vacations. Journal of Cultural Economics 36: 1–26.

Bae

Lee

C-K

Chick

(2019) A multicultural retreat in exotic serenity: interpreting Temple Stay experience using the mandala of health model. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 24(8): 789–804.

Becker

Murphy

(1988) A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy 96(4): 675–700.

Bendle

Lee

C-K

Choi

J-J

, et al. (2014) A Buddhist temple and its users: the case of Bulguksa in South Korea. Contemporary Buddhism 15(2): 199–215. DOI: 10.1080/14639947.2014.977547.

Boto-García

Mariel

Pino

, et al. (2020) Tourists’ willingness to pay for holiday trip characteristics: a discrete choice experiment. Tourism Economics 28(2): 349–370. DOI: 10.1177/1354816620959901 .

Castiglione

Infante

(2019) Rational addiction and cultural goods: the case of the Italian theatregoer. Journal of Cultural Economics 40: 163–190.

(2012) Exploring tourists’ stated preferences for heritage tourism services - the case of Tainan City, Taiwan. Tourism Economics 18(2): 457–464.

Chiabai

Platt

Strielkowski

(2014) Eliciting users’ preferences for cultural heritage and tourism-related e-services: a tale of three European cities. Tourism Economics 20(2): 263–277.

(2017) Living like a monk: motivations and experiences of international participants in Templestay. International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage 5(1): 39–55.

, et al. (2018) Predictors of templestay satisfaction: a comparison between Korean and international participants. Leisure Sciences 40(5): 423–441. DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2017.1296390 .

, et al. (2021) Personal growth leisure experience in Templestay: international tourist outcomes, satisfaction, and recommendation. Journal of Leisure Research 52(1): 77–96. DOI: 10.1080/00222216.2020.1746936 .

13.

Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism (2016) Introduction to Templestay activities. Available at https://eng.templestay.com/page-templestay-program.asp (accessed on 28 October 2021).

14.

Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism (2018) A Journey to Find True Self, Templestay. Seoul: Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism.

15.

Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism (2020a) Report on Temple Stay Participants in 2019. Seoul: Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism.

16.

Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism (2020b) 2019 Templestay Survey: Customer Satisfaction. Seoul: Gallup Korea.

17.

Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism (2021a) 2020 Templestay Survey: Customer Satisfaction. Seoul: Gallup Korea.

18.

Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism (2021b) Internal Materials. Seoul: Cultural Corps of Korean Buddhism.

19.

Festjens

Janiszewski

(2015) The value of time. Journal of Consumer Research 42(2): 178–195.

20.

Filipic

(2010) The legitimacy of increasing marginal utility in social services: the case of university examinations. Ekonomski Anali 55(186): 67–87. DOI: 10.2298/EKA1086067F.

21.

Gómez-Zapata

Espinal-Monsalve

Herrero-Prieto

(2018) Economic valuation of museums as public club goods: why build loyalty in cultural heritage consumption? Journal of Cultural Heritage 30: 190–198.

22.

Greene

(2012) Econometric Analysis. 7th edition. Boston: Prentice-Hall.

23.

Hanley

MacMillan

Wright

, et al. (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49(1): 1–15.

24.

Hanley

Mourato

Wright

(2001) Choice modeling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15(3): 435–462.

25.

Henderson

(n.d.) Willian Stanley Jevons. Available at: https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Jevons.html (accessed on 27 October 2021).

26.

Johnson

Desvousges

(1997) Estimating stated preferences with rated-pair data: environmental, health, and employment effects of energy programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34(1): 79–99.

27.

Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism (2014a) Method of sitting in meditation. Available at http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=3020&wr_id=60 (accessed on 28 October 2021).

28.

Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism (2014b) The 108 prostrations of repentance. Available at http://koreanbuddhism.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=2010&wr_id=5 (accessed on 10 October 2021).

29.

Kaplan

(2010) Images of monasticism: the Temple Stay program and the re-branding of Korean Buddhist temples. Korean Studies 34(1): 127–146.

30.

Kerr

(2019) Efficiency of a recreational deer hunting bag limit. European Journal of Wildlife Research 65(1). DOI: 10.1007/s10344-018-1250-6.

31.

Kunfeld

(2005) Marketing Research Methods in SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

32.

Lancaster

(1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74(2): 132–157.

33.

Lancsar

Louviere

(2006) Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Economics 15(8): 797–811.

, et al. (2019) Willingness-to-pay for whale tour attributes using a choice experiment. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 24(6): 606–617.

, et al. (2021) Estimating willingness-to-pay for templestays as tourism resources using contingent valuation method. Working paper, Kyung Hee University, Seoul.

(2018) Study on the preference for capsule hotel attributes using a choice experiment. Tourism Economics 24(4): 492–499.

37.

Lee

Smith

(2008) Why are Americans addicted to baseball? An empirical analysis of fandom in Korea and the United States. Contemporary Economic Policy 26(1): 32–48.

38.

Louviere

(2001) Choice experiments: an overview of concepts and issues. In: Bennett

Blamey

(eds) The Choice Modeling Approach to Environmental Valuation. Northampton, MA, USA: E. Elgar.

39.

Maddala

(1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. NY: Cambridge University Press.

(2009) How to do (or not to do) … designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy and Planning 24(2): 151–158. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czn047 .

(2019) Understanding hotel location preference of customers: comparing random utility and random regret decision rules. Tourism Management 73: 83–93.

42.

McFadden

(1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka

(ed) Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 105–142.

43.

O’Brien

(2018) Bowing as a Buddhist practice. Learn Religions Available at: https://www.learnreligions.com/bowing-as-a-buddhist-practice-450057 (accessed on 28 October 2021).

44.

OECD (2009) Chapter 8: Templestay programme, Korea. In: The Impact of Culture on Tourism. Paris: OECD, pp. 115–127. Available at https://www.oecd.og/cfe/tourism/theimpactofcultureontourism.htm (accessed on 28 October 2021).

45.

Powers

Lackey

(1976) A multiattribute utility function for management of a recreational resource. Virginia Journal of Science 27(4): 191–198.

46.

Rudd

(2008) Contingent valuation method (CVM). In: Lück

(ed) The Encyclopedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, p. 112.

47.

Song

Lee

C-K

Park

, et al. (2015) The influence of tourist experience on perceived value and satisfaction with temple stays: the experience economy theory. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32(4): 401–415.

48.

Song

Wang

Lyu

(2021) Willingness to pay for casino-based integrated resorts: a choice experiment. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 19: 100555. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdmm.2021.100555.

49.

Wam

Pedersen

Hjeljord

(2012) Balancing hunting regulations and hunter satisfaction: an integrated biosocioeconomic model to aid in sustainable management. Ecological Economics 79: 89–96.

50.

Wright

WCC

Eppink

(2016) Drivers of heritage value: a meta-analysis of monetary valuation studies of cultural heritage. Ecological Economics 130: 277–284.