41
removal activities if they received a 988 JPY discount for a tour. This finding suggests that an additional IAS management option could decrease the number of tourists without any discounts, although preference heterogeneity should be discussed
in more detail, which is described as follows. On the other hand, given the preference heterogeneity concerning the carp removal option by RPL models, 35.8% of
tourists were willing to work for carp removal owing to their own motivations.
Some tourists regarded carp removal as a tour activity, even when they were not
provided with any ecological information (Fig. 3.3, Blue). This implies that a part
of their preference heterogeneity could be derived from their original knowledge of
and interests in nature and invasive management. This result also supports the view
that tourist involvement could help to overcome the cost challenges of IAS
management.
Although few studies have addressed IAS management as a tour activity, our
finding is contrary to previous studies which have shown positive public support for
IAS management. For example, Nishizawa et al. (2006) estimated the WTP for an
eradication program of black bass (Micropterus salmoides and Micropterus dolomieu) as loading tax in Japan at about 2000 JPY. McIntosh et al. (2010) also showed
that the WTP for invasive fish as a donation was about 50 USD. Mejía and Brandt
(2015) showed that tourists had a positive WTP for a tour that enhanced IAS management. This contradiction indicates that the public, including tourists, has a motivation for financial support of IAS management; however, most of them are not
willing to participate in IAS management, which suggests that human resources
could become insufficient compared to financial resources in general.
How do we then engage the public in IAS management? The present study supports the views of previous literature by showing that the provision of ecological
information affects tourists’ preference for carp removal activities in a tour
(Bremner and Park 2007; Marzano et al. 2015). Tourists who received ecological
information have a positive WTP (99.3 JPY) for participation in carp removal
activities, which is 1087 JPY more than tourist who had no ecological information.
In other words, provision of ecological information enables tour operators to
receive a tour premium for including IAS management opportunities. This suggests that information provision leads to a win-win situation by enhancing IAS
management while satisfying tourists’ demands and increasing tour operators’
profits. Recent tourism literature highlights that balancing conservation and the
local economy through nature-based tourism is becoming increasingly important
(Kubo et al. 2019). We demonstrated that this approach can even succeed in IAS
management by sharing ecological knowledge with the public, as described in conservation literature (Akiba et al. 2012; Bremner and Park 2007; Dunn et al. 2018;
Mameno et al. 2017; Marzano et al. 2015).
The other attributes concerning canoe tour design are also important for tourists’
decision-making and their involvement in carp removal activities. As shown in
Table 3.2, tourists prefer to participate in tours of intermediate duration (i.e., about
120 min), and in tours that offer a pick-up option. These findings indicate that tourists are more encouraged to participate in a tour by adjusting the levels of the attributes of tour time and pick-up options, regardless of a carp removal option. Previous
3 How to Engage Tourists in Invasive Carp Removal: Application of a Discrete Choice…
removal activities if they received a 988 JPY discount for a tour. This finding suggests that an additional IAS management option could decrease the number of tourists without any discounts, although preference heterogeneity should be discussed
in more detail, which is described as follows. On the other hand, given the preference heterogeneity concerning the carp removal option by RPL models, 35.8% of
tourists were willing to work for carp removal owing to their own motivations.
Some tourists regarded carp removal as a tour activity, even when they were not
provided with any ecological information (Fig. 3.3, Blue). This implies that a part
of their preference heterogeneity could be derived from their original knowledge of
and interests in nature and invasive management. This result also supports the view
that tourist involvement could help to overcome the cost challenges of IAS
management.
Although few studies have addressed IAS management as a tour activity, our
finding is contrary to previous studies which have shown positive public support for
IAS management. For example, Nishizawa et al. (2006) estimated the WTP for an
eradication program of black bass (Micropterus salmoides and Micropterus dolomieu) as loading tax in Japan at about 2000 JPY. McIntosh et al. (2010) also showed
that the WTP for invasive fish as a donation was about 50 USD. Mejía and Brandt
(2015) showed that tourists had a positive WTP for a tour that enhanced IAS management. This contradiction indicates that the public, including tourists, has a motivation for financial support of IAS management; however, most of them are not
willing to participate in IAS management, which suggests that human resources
could become insufficient compared to financial resources in general.
How do we then engage the public in IAS management? The present study supports the views of previous literature by showing that the provision of ecological
information affects tourists’ preference for carp removal activities in a tour
(Bremner and Park 2007; Marzano et al. 2015). Tourists who received ecological
information have a positive WTP (99.3 JPY) for participation in carp removal
activities, which is 1087 JPY more than tourist who had no ecological information.
In other words, provision of ecological information enables tour operators to
receive a tour premium for including IAS management opportunities. This suggests that information provision leads to a win-win situation by enhancing IAS
management while satisfying tourists’ demands and increasing tour operators’
profits. Recent tourism literature highlights that balancing conservation and the
local economy through nature-based tourism is becoming increasingly important
(Kubo et al. 2019). We demonstrated that this approach can even succeed in IAS
management by sharing ecological knowledge with the public, as described in conservation literature (Akiba et al. 2012; Bremner and Park 2007; Dunn et al. 2018;
Mameno et al. 2017; Marzano et al. 2015).
The other attributes concerning canoe tour design are also important for tourists’
decision-making and their involvement in carp removal activities. As shown in
Table 3.2, tourists prefer to participate in tours of intermediate duration (i.e., about
120 min), and in tours that offer a pick-up option. These findings indicate that tourists are more encouraged to participate in a tour by adjusting the levels of the attributes of tour time and pick-up options, regardless of a carp removal option. Previous
3 How to Engage Tourists in Invasive Carp Removal: Application of a Discrete Choice…