ArticleScientific reports2024
Exploring tourists' preferences and willingness to pay for national park recreation improvements based on regret and utility comparison.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research on the improvement of national park recreation policies has attracted much attention to discrete choice experiments to obtain tourists' preferences and willingness to pay. However, individual choice behavior is extremely complex, and the single Random Utility Maximization (RUM) model ignores anticipated regret and is insufficient to explain individuals' actual choice behavior. To investigate whether regret influences tourists' choices regarding the improvement of national park recreation attributes, this study introduces the Random Regret Minimization (RRM) model and explores the performance of polynomial logit models and hybrid latent class models in analyzing discrete choice models based on utility and regret. By constructing a hybrid utility-regret model, we examine how tourists trade off between attributes such as vegetation coverage, water clarity, amount of litter, and level of crowding in national park recreation. Results indicate that the RRM model has better goodness-of-fit and predictive ability than the RUM model, indicating that regret is a significant choice paradigm, and the hybrid model better explains respondents' choices. Specifically, 62.5% of tourists' choices are driven by regret, and regret-driven respondents are more inclined to increase vegetation coverage and improve water clarity, while utility-driven respondents are more inclined to reduce litter and crowding. This study not only provides a reference for managers to develop more optimal recreation improvement strategies but also offers theoretical insights for national park recreation improvement policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.