With demand increasing for nature-based tourism, forest park authorities and site managers need to understand the trade-off between the level of natural wilderness protection and the visitor experience. The authors use a choice experiment to examine which kind of development profiles are worth considering and which paths not to follow. They focus on the mixed attributes of natural resources and historical relics, and the management services provided by Lushunkou National Forest Park in China, which is a popular recreation site attracting a large number of visitors annually. The results indicate that the expected number of visitors to the park is the most important characteristic for visitors. However, a large increase or decrease in the number of visitors causes visitors' welfare losses. Additionally, increasing the protection of the cultural and historical relics on the site is the second most highly valued feature for its visitors. Thus, the results show that the protection of forest wilderness and the recreational use of national parks can cause conflicting welfare effects if managed in inappropriate ways.
BullockS.LawsonS. (2008), ‘Managing the commons on Cadillac Mountain: A stated choice analysis of Acadia National Park visitors' preferences’, Leisure Sciences, Vol 30, pp 71–86.
2.
CarlssonF.FrykblomP.LiljenstolpeC. (2003), ‘Valuing wetland attributes: An application of choice experiments’, Ecological Economics, Vol 47, pp 95–103.
3.
ChapeS.SpaldingM.JenkinsM. (2008), The World's Protected Areas. Status, Values and Prospects in the 21st Century, UNEP/ University of California Press, Oakland, CA.
4.
ChristieM.HanleyN.HynesS. (2007), ‘Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behavior methods’, Journal of Forest Economics, Vol 13, pp 75–102.
5.
Commercial Channel of China Radio Network (2013), ‘Forest park crisis in China: A story of Guanyin-shan national forest park’ (http://news.baidu.com, accessed 2 February 2013).
DengJ.KingB.BauerT. (2002), ‘Evaluating natural attractions for tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 29, pp 422–438.
8.
GilliganB.DudleyN.de TejadaA. FernandezToivonenH. (2005), ‘Management effectiveness evaluation of Finland's protected area's, Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus A 147 (http://www.metsa.fi/mee, accessed 2 February 2013).
9.
HammittW.E.ColeD.N. (1998), Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
10.
HockingsM.StoltonS.LeveringtonF.DudleyN.CourrauJ. (2006), Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas, 2nd edn, IUCN, Cambridge.
11.
JacobsenB.ThorsenB. (2010), ‘Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks’, Ecological Economics, Vol 69, pp 1532–1544.
12.
JacobsenB.BoiesenJ.ThorsenB.StrangeN. (2008), ‘What's in a name? The use of quantitative measures versus iconized species when valuing biodiversity’, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol 39, pp 247–2623.
13.
JuutinenA.MitaniY.MantymaaE.ShojiY.SiikamakiP.SventoR. (2011), ‘Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application’, Ecological Economics, Vol 70, pp 1231–1239.
14.
KangasK.LuotoM.IhantolaA.TomppoE.SiikamäkiP. (2010), ‘Recreation induced changes in boreal bird populations in protected areas’, Ecological Applications, Vol 20, pp 1775–1786.
15.
LawsonS.ManningR. (2001), ‘Solitude versus access: A study of tradeoffs in outdoor recreation using indifference curve analysis’, Leisure Sciences, Vol 23, pp 179–191.
16.
LiddleM.J. (1997), Recreation Ecology: The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation and Ecotourism, Chapman and Hall, New York.
17.
LouviereJ.HensherD. (1982), ‘On the design and analysis of simulated or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling’, Transportation Research Record, Vol 890, pp 11–17.
18.
LouviereJ.J.HensherD.SwaitJ. (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications in Marketing, Transportation and Environmental Valuation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19.
MallordJ.W.DolmanP.M.BrownA.F.SutherlandW.J. (2007), ‘Linking recreational disturbance to population size in a ground-nesting passerine’, Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol 44, pp 185–195.
20.
ManningR. (1999), Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.
21.
ManningR. (2005), ‘The limits of tourism in parks and protected areas: Managing carrying capacity in the US national parks’, in RyanC.PageS.AitkenM., eds, Taking Tourism to the Limits: Issues, Concepts and Management, Practice, Pergamon Press, New York.
22.
McFaddenD. (1974), ‘Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour’, in ZarembkaP., ed, Frontiers of Econometrics, Academic Press, London, pp 105–142.
23.
McFaddenD.TrainK. (2000), ‘Mixed MNL models of discrete response’, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol 15, pp 447–470.
24.
National Forest Department (2009), Year Book of China Forest Statistics, 2008, China Forest Press, Beijing.
25.
National Forest Department (2012), Year Book of China Forest Statistics, 2011, China Forest Press, Beijing.
26.
NeutsB.NijkampP.LeeuwenE. (2012), ‘Crowding externalities from tourist use of urban space’, Tourism Economics, Vol 18, No 3, pp 649–670.
27.
ParsonsG.KealyM. (1992), ‘Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation’, Land Economics, Vol 68, No 1, pp 93–106.
28.
PratoT. (2001), ‘Modeling carrying capacity for national park’, Ecological Economics, Vol 39, pp 21–331.
29.
PuhakkaR. (2008), ‘Increasing role of tourism in Finnish national parks’, Fennia, Vol 186, pp 47–58.
30.
RigantiP.NijkampP. (2008), ‘Congestion in popular tourist areas: A multi-attribute experimental choice analysis of willingness-to-wait in Amsterdam’, Tourism Economics, Vol 14, No 1, pp 25–44.
31.
SatersonK.ChristensenN.JacksonR. (2004), ‘Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies’, Conservation Biology, Vol 18, pp 597–599.
32.
ShojiY.YamakiK. (2004), ‘Visitor perceptions of the inscription on the World Heritage List: The use of stated choice methods’, Working papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute (http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2004/mwp002–44.pdf, accessed 5 May 2010).
33.
TrainK. (2009), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
