Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Travel: Assessing the Recreational Benefits from Dartmoor National Park

Heyes, C.; Heyes, Anthony

doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00799.x

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence from WTP studies (e.g. Heyes and Heyes 1999; Shackley and Donaldson 2002) reveals that a priori statements about individuals’ WTP do not always translate into actual decisions. This has implications for WTT in two ways.…”

Section: Evidence Of Access Relating To Willingness To Travelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access, Choice and Travel: Implications for Health Policy

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The UK National Health Service is introducing policies offering patients a choice of the hospital where they would like to be treated. 'Patient choice' policies form part of a wider debate about the access to health care and the interaction between providers (including information, provision, performance and reputation) and patients (including knowledge, resources and willingness to travel). As the hospital of 'choice' might not necessarily be the 'local' provider, such policy developments are predicated on an assumption that some patients will be willing to travel further. This will, in turn, affect patients' access to services. In general, use of services decreases with distance but this is dependent on accessibility to services, the organization of those services, the socio-economic characteristics of the patient, perceptions of the provider and the condition for which they are to be treated. This article reviews the evidence on patients' willingness to travel in terms of access to health care and assesses the emerging implications of and for current UK policy on patient choice.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Of Access Relating To Willingness To Travelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Access, Choice and Travel: Implications for Health Policy

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, most of this research has been conducted from the perspective of external stakeholders, such as visitors and communities (Heyes & Heyes, 1999;MacKenzie, 2012), rather than the perspective of internal stakeholders, namely park staff. As a result, there is limited understanding of how managers and employees of parks agencies perceive the benefits of parks.…”

Section: Research On the Benefits Of Providing Visitor Experiences Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are your ducks in a row? External and internal stakeholder perceptions of the benefits of parks in New South Wales, Australia

Torland

Weiler

Moyle

et al. 2015

Managing Sport and Leisure

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines the strategic alignment between external and internal stakeholders' perceptions of the benefits of parks. To achieve this objective, surveys were distributed to park agency staff, as well as a sample of residents in New South Wales, Australia. Findings revealed alignment between external and internal stakeholders, with executive managers' perceptions being generally more favourable than staff and community. The paper pays particular attention to the alignment of internal stakeholders' (staff) perceptions, which is important for establishing and defending the market position of parks. A high degree of strategic alignment was found between executive and staff for personal benefits. However, results revealed incongruence between perceptions of lower level and executive staff for community-wide benefits. Gender, age, frequency of interaction with visitors, and visitation to parks outside of work hours were found to influence staff perceptions of park benefits. This research provides valuable insights into how park management agencies can build strategic alignment among internal stakeholders, and in turn external stakeholders, critical for building support for parks and associated conservation.

show abstract

“…For example, respondents may respond strategically when they anticipate increases in prices as a result of their survey responses (Whitehead et al, ). Protest responses occur when respondents report that they are not willing to pay anything even though their true valuation of the nonmarket good or service in question is higher (Heyes & Heyes, ). Both types of behavior would lead to biased results, supporting the idea of favoring WTT over WTP for the assessment of consumer preferences.…”

Section: Conceptual Framework and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Whitehead

Wicker

2018

Journal of Tourism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Travel: Assessing the Recreational Benefits from Dartmoor National Park

Cited by 16 publications

References 27 publications

Access, Choice and Travel: Implications for Health Policy

Access, Choice and Travel: Implications for Health Policy

Are your ducks in a row? External and internal stakeholder perceptions of the benefits of parks in New South Wales, Australia

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About