Valuing nonmarket benefits of participatory sport events using willingness to travel: Payment card versus random selection with mitigation of hypothetical bias

Abstract

This study estimates the monetary value of nonmarket benefits to participants of a cycling event using a willingness to travel question. It compares different question formats and types of data. Using 3 years of data (2014-2016) from a postrace survey (n = 976), the results show that the random selection format produces 2.1 (stated preference data) and 2.5 times (revealed preference data) higher monetary values than the payment card. The magnitude of hypothetical bias, that is, the extent to which respondents overestimate their return visitation, is 21%. Hence, monetary values are highly sensitive to question formats and types of data. KEYWORDS contingent behavior method, intention to revisit, sport tourism, tourism economics, travel cost, willingness to pay

Willingness-to-Pay for Environmental Measures in Non-Profit Sport Clubs

“…One major limitation of CVM is a potential hypothetical bias, as the hypothetical nature of the method can result in differences between stated WTP and actual WTP [26]. However, the literature has documented inconsistent findings for hypothetical bias and has suggested several ways to mitigate it [27].…”

“…Different financial values were provided depending on the type of sport and the respective membership fee structure. The payment card was preferred over other answer options such as random selection formats as it reduces the possibility of hypothetical bias [27]. To further mitigate hypothetical bias, the payment card format was converted into a continuous variable by only considering those values where respondents clicked on 5 = very likely [66].…”

Environmentally-Friendly Stadium Travel of Football Fans: A Stated Preferences Study

“…CBM assesses behavioral changes based on changing circumstances (i.e., infrastructural enhancement, changing travel distances) (Whitehead & Wicker, 2018). In existing sport travel research, the contingent behavior method has been applied to league game day travel (Whitehead et al, 2013) and participatory sport events like cycling and running events (Whitehead & Wicker, 2018; 2019). However, CBM has not yet been applied to pro-environmental travel behavior.…”

“…Also, passengers who decided between multiple railway alternatives (speed or common) tended to choose the alternative with lower ticket prices and shorter travel time (Li et al, 2019). In previous sport research, rational choice theory was used to investigate the demand for hockey game day travel (Whitehead et al, 2013), benefits and costs of participation in a long-distance triathlon competition (Maxcy et al, 2019), and the likelihood of return visitation of sport event participants (Whitehead & Wicker, 2019). The perceived costs and benefits of pro-environmental travel behavior have not yet been studied.…”

Social benefits valuation of hosting non-mega sporting events

“…Nevertheless, accurate social impact assessments of NMSEs, and valuations of these impacts, are lacking. Even though there are significant number of studies on monetary valuation in sports (Owen, 2006; Santo, 2008; Hakes et al , 2011; Kiefer, 2015; Interis and Taylor, 2017; Wicker and Orlowski, 2019), the research conducted so far in terms of “events” referred almost exclusively to MSEs and for the most part was based on the use of the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) (Heyne et al , 2007; Atkinson et al , 2008; Walton et al , 2008; Preuss and Werkmann, 2011; Zawadzki, 2016) and to a lesser extent, the hedonic pricing method (Kavetsos, 2012), Opportunity Cost Approach (Solberg, 2003) and Travel Cost method (Whitehead and Wicker, 2018, 2019).…”