Variations in Tourist Price Sensitivity: A Stated Preference Model to Capture the Joint Impact of Differences in Systematic Utility and Response Consistency

Dellaert, Benedict G. C.; Lindberg, Kreg

doi:10.1080/01490400306557

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With the use of utility theory, Dellaert and Lindberg (2003) examined differences in day trippers' price sensitivity. They found that as hotel visitors' utility of a day trip increased, and/or the price decreased, respondents' price sensitivity decreased.…”

Section: Review Of Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Segmenting cruise passengers with price sensitivity

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Review Of Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Segmenting cruise passengers with price sensitivity

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Tourists engaging in environmental activities are often sensitive to excursion prices (Dellaert and Lindberg, 2003;Saayman and Saayman, 2014). We found that this was not the case for divers.…”

Section: Heterogeneity Of Preferences Among Reef Touristsmentioning

confidence: 66%

Heterogeneous Attitudes of Tourists toward Lionfish in the Mexican Caribbean: Implications for Invasive Species Management

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles) are invasive predators established throughout the Wider Caribbean. They have already caused significant ecological impacts and have the potential to affect local economies that depend on coral reefs. Snorkeling and scuba diving are important activities that rely on esthetically pleasant reefs. We asked whether lionfish-invaded reefs have lower esthetic value and whether fees to help control the invasion might be acceptable to recreational divers and snorkelers in the Mexican Caribbean. To do so, we conducted a choice experiment in which tourists were asked to indicate their preferences for coral reef images with varying attributes that can be affected by lionfish. We specified a priori two classes of respondents, i.e., snorkelers and divers, but two latent classes of recreational divers (casual vs. committed) emerged on the basis of their preferences. Tourist age, commitment to snorkeling/diving, and lionfish awareness explained class membership. Casual divers and snorkelers preferred reefs with lionfish and accepted their impacts on the reefs. In contrast, committed divers disliked lionfish and associated impacts, and would elect to dive elsewhere if such impacts were high. Casual divers and snorkelers preferred options with low lionfish control fees, while committed divers were willing to pay high fees. Our results indicate potential economic impacts of the lionfish invasion in regions that depend on reef-related tourism, and that lionfish control fees might be acceptable to some but not all recreational users. However, because all tourists favored to a greater extent reef features that can be affected detrimentally by lionfish than they favored lionfish themselves, we predict that managing the lionfish invasion should be beneficial to the local reef tourism industry.

show abstract

“…Given this to understand the cognitive structure of intention formation, which has implications for visitor retention in the tourism industry (Petrick et al, 2001) tion to return is a measure of potential repeat patronage in arch (Lee et al, 2007;Petrick et al, 2001). research linking intention to behavior has been conducted in destination choice (Haider & Ewing, 1990;Klenosky et al, 1993;Um & Crompton, 1990), travel mode (Bamburg, et al 2003), travel choice (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991;Hu & Ritchie,1993), destination image (Gartner & Shen, 1992;Pizam & Milman, 1993) price and education (Dellaert & Lindberg, 2003), perceived value (Petrick, 2002 ty , future travel behaviors (Ajzen & , wine tourism planning (Sparks, 2007), ecotourism resort Moscardo, 2005), tourism services consumption (March & the hotel/motel market (Casalo et al, 2010;Han et al, Kim et al, 2008). The theory refers to , 1985; 1991).…”

Section: Figure 1 Theory Of Planned Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ajzen (1985 intentions, but not all intentions are carried out; some [intentions] are abandoned altogether, some are revised to fit c important to understand the cognitive struct implications for visitor retention in the tourism industry (Petrick et al, 2001) A visitor's intention to return is travel and tourism research (Lee et al, 2007;Petrick et al, 2001). research linking intention to behavior has been conducted in (Haider & Ewing, 1990;Klenosky et al, 1993;Um & Crompton, 1990), travel mode (Bamburg, et al 2003), travel choice (Fa Ritchie,1993), destination image (Gartner & Shen, 1992;Pizam & Milman, 1993) price and education (Dellaert & Lindberg, 2003), perceived va expectations and quality (Anderson et al Fishbein, 1980), wine tourism planning (Sparks, 2007), ecotourism resort experiences (Lee & Moscardo, 2005), tourism Woodside, 2005), and the hotel/motel market (Casalo et al, 2010;Han et al, 2010;Huh et al, 2009;Kim et al, …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%