به‌کارگیری الگوی قیمت‌گذاری پویای بیزین افق محدود (FHBD) در تعیین دامنه تمایل به پرداخت برای منابع طبیعی منطقه‌ای غیر بازاری؛ (مطالعه موردی: مجموعه گردشگری چالیدره مشهد)

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• مهدی قائمی اصل ¹
• صادق بافنده ایماندوست ²
• الهام دشتی ³

¹ دانشگاه خوارزمی

² دانشگاه پیام‌نور

³ دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد علوم اقتصادی، دانشگاه پیام‌نور

https://doi.org/10.22067/erd.v24i14.64896

چکیده

ارزش‌گذاری کمتر از حد خدمات گردشگری منطقه‌ای در دنیای کنونی، منجر به تخصیص غیربهینه منابع و برنامه‌ریزی‌های ناصحیح می‌شود. در این پژوهش با محوریت مجموعه گردشگری چالیدره مشهد، از یک الگوی پویای بیزین افق محدود (FHBD) برای تعیین دامنه تمایل به پرداخت برای منابع طبیعی منطقه‌ای غیر بازاری استفاده شده است. بدین منظور در این پژوهش از داده‌های پرسشنامه‌ای، الگوی لاجیت و پیشین‌های Gamma و Two-Point با توزیع‌های تمایل به پرداخت نمایی و نرمال استفاده شده است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که متوسط تمایل به پرداخت برای بهره‌برداری عمومی از این مجموعه در دامنه حداقلی 12230 ریال در پیشینGamma و دامنه حداکثری 45270 ریال، در پیشین Two-Point قرار دارد و در الگوی غیربیزین نیز، رقم تمایل به پرداخت به 10632 ریال کاهش پیدا می‌کند. بنابراین به‌کارگیری الگوریتم FHBD در قیمت‌گذاری می‌تواند راه‌کار مناسبی برای تعیین مبلغ آستانه‌ای تمایل به پرداخت برای بهره‌برداری از منابع طبیعی باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• قیمت گذاری پویا
• الگوی بیزین
• گردشگری منطقه ای
• منابع طبیعی غیربازاری

عنوان مقاله [English]

Finite-Horizon Bayesian Dynamic Pricing Model in Determining the Willingness to Pay for Non-Market Regional Natural Resources (Case Study: Chalidareh Tourism Complex in Mashhad)

نویسندگان [English]

• mahdi ghaemiasl ¹
• Sadegh Bafandeh Imandoust ²
• Elham Dashti ³

¹ Kharazmi University

² Payame Noor University

³ payame Noor University of mashhad

چکیده [English]

Underestimation of this high-demand services in today's world has resulted in the non-optimal allocation of resources and incorrect management and planning. In this research, focusing on Chalidareh Tourism Complex in Mashhad, a finite-horizon bayesian dynamic pricing model has been used to determine the extent of willingness to pay for non-market regional natural resources. In so doing, based on Chen and Wu (2016), Gamma and Two-Point priors with exponential and normal WTP (Willingness to Pay) distribution have been used. The results showed that the average WTP for general exploitation of this complex is within the extent of 12230 IRR (as minimum) in Gamma prior and exponential distribution and 45270 IRR (as maximum) in the Two-Point prior and exponential distribution. Also, the average of WTP is 28750 IRR, while the WTP is 10623 IRR in non-Bayesian approach, which is lower than any of Bayesian estimations. Therefore, the application of Finite-Horizon Bayesian Dynamic Pricing (FHBD) algorithm in dynamic pricing can be an appropriate way to determine the threshold amount of WTP for the exploitation of natural resources.
Introduction
An important insight from the literature on dynamic pricing is that the optimal selling price of such products depends on the remaining inventory and the length of the remaining selling season (see e.g., Gallego & Van Ryzin, 1994). The optimal decision is, thus, not to use a single price but a collection of prices: one for each combination of the remaining inventory and the length of the remaining selling season. To determine these optimal prices it is essential to know the relation between the demand and the selling price. In most literature from the 1990s on dynamic pricing, it is assumed that this relation is known to the seller, but in practice, the exact information on the consumer behavior is generally not available. It is, therefore, not surprising that the review on dynamic pricing by Bitran and Caldentey (2003) mentions dynamic pricing with demand learning as an important future research direction. The presence of digital sales data enables a data-driven approach of dynamic pricing, where the selling firm not only determines optimal prices, but also learns how changing prices affects the demand. Ideally, this learning will eventually lead to optimal pricing decisions.
Theoretical Framework
In this paper, we focus on the dynamic pricing problem of selling a limited amount of inventory over a short selling horizon. In this regard, dedicating a certain number of periods for exploratory experimenting may be costly due to the limited time and inventory. Instead, a simultaneous optimization of pricing and learning is desired, which can be achieved by formulating the problem as a Bayesian dynamic program. However, computing the optimal policy for the dynamic program can be difficult, if not intractable due to the high dimensionality. Moreover, the binary customer choice model described above gives a rise to a two-sided censoring effect, that is, the observation of the customer’s WTP is censored either from the left or from the right side by the posted price. Because no simple conjugate prior distribution exists under the two-sided censoring (Braden & Freimer, 1991), one cannot resort to the conjugate prior technique to reduce the problem dimensionality.
Methodology
Consider a finite-horizon dynamic pricing problem for a single product. Inventory replenishment is not possible during the selling horizon, and the terminal value at the end of the horizon is zero. At the beginning of each period, given the available inventory quantity q, the seller determines the unit price p for the product. The goal is to maximize the expected total revenue over the finite horizon. Specifically, we divide the finite selling horizon into T periods to guarantee that there is one customer arrival in each period (e.g., Broder & Rusmevichientong, 2012; Talluri & Van Ryzin, 2004). Time periods are indexed in reverse order, with the first selling period being period T and the last period being period 1. The customer arriving in period t has WTP Xt, which is a random draw from an i.i.d. distribution with a continuous density f (x|θ), where x ≥ 0 is the actual WTP and θ ∈ Θ is an unknown parameter of the distribution. At the beginning of period t, the seller has a prior belief concerning the value of θ, denoted by πt (θ). For the ease of exposition, we assume that Θ is a continuous set and that πt (θ) is a density over this set. When Θ is a discrete set, all our analysis will carry through by treating πt (θ) as a probability mass function. We shall use πt (θ) and πt (θ) interchangeably and suppress the subscript t whenever appropriate within the context.
Results and Discussion
A Finite-Horizon Bayesian Dynamic Pricing Model base on Chen and Wu (2016), Gamma and Two-Point priors with exponential and normal WTP distribution have been used. Results showed that the average WTP for general exploitation of this complex is within the extent of 12230 IRR (as minimum) in Gamma prior and exponential distribution and 45270 IRR (as maximum) in Two-Point prior and exponential distribution. Also, the average is 28750, while the WTP is 10623 IRR in non-Bayesian approach, which is lower than all the Bayesian estimation results. Therefore, the application of FHBD algorithm in dynamic pricing can be an appropriate way to determine the threshold amount of WTP for the exploitation of natural resources.
Conclusions & Suggestions
In sum, we study the Bayesian dynamic pricing problem under two-sided censoring with a short time horizon and limited inventory. Upon comparing it with the exact-observation system, we found that having better information always improves the revenue performance, while the optimal price under the exact-observation system can be either higher and lower than that under the two-sided censoring system. When comparing the above two systems with the no-learning system, we discover a surprising result that learning can bring a negative value when the inventory is scarce due to the biased learning effect. A derivative approximation heuristic is then devised to numerically solve the two-sided censoring problem. We further develop a performance bound to compare our proposed heuristic with other benchmark heuristics. Numerical experiments demonstrate that our heuristic consistently outperforms others and is robust with respect to WTP distributions. The two-sided censoring effect in our problem is a result of the binary customer choice model. When a customer faces a choice among multiple products, a more general choice model that surveys in the substitution effect is needed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Dynamic Pricing
• Bayesian Model
• Regional Tourism
• Non-Market Natural Resources

مراجع

[1] Amirnejad, H, Khalilian S & Assareh, M. H. (2006). The preservation and use values determination of Sisangan Forest Park, Nowshahr by using individual’s willingness-to-pay, Pajouhesh & Sazandegi No: 72 pp: 15-24 (in Persian).

[2] Araman, V. F., & Caldentey, R. (2009). Dynamic pricing for nonperishable products with demand learning. Operations research, 57(5), 1169-1188.

[3] Aviv, Y., & Pazgal, A. (2005). A partially observed Markov decision process for dynamic pricing. Management Science, 51(9), 1400-1416.

[4] Azadi, A, Emamimobidi, A, Azadi, F, Khaksar, M, (2014). Taq Bostan estimate the economic value of using contingent valuation method, Modiriat gardeshgari No: 26 pp: 77-96 (in Persian).

[5] Asgari. A & Mehregan, N. (2001). Willingness to pay estimates cultural heritage using the method (CVM): Ganjnameh complex of Hamedan. University Tarbiyat Modares No: 2 pp: 93-115 (in Persian).

[6] Asheim, G. B. (2000). Green national accounting: why and how? Environment and Development Economics, 5(1), 25-48.

[7] Besbes, O., & Zeevi, A. (2009). Dynamic pricing without knowing the demand function: Risk bounds and near-optimal algorithms. Operations Research, 57(6), 1407-1420.

[8] Besbes, O., & Zeevi, A. (2011). On the minimax complexity of pricing in a changing environment. Operations research, 59(1), 66-79.

[9] Bensoussan, A., Çakany, M, & Sethi, S. P. (2009). A note on “The censored newsvendor and the optimal acquisition of information”. Operations Research, 57(3), 791-794.

[10] Bertsimas, D., & Parekis, G. (2003). Dynamic pricing: A learning approach. Mathematical and Computational Models for Congestion Charging, Applied Optimization 101: 45-79.

[11] Bisi, A., & Dada, M. (2007). Dynamic learning, pricing, and ordering by a censored newsvendor. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 54(4), 448-461.

[12] Braden, D. J., & Freimer, M. (1991). Informational dynamics of censored observations. Management Science, 37(11), 1390-1404.

[13] Braden, D. J., & Oren, S. S. (1994). Nonlinear pricing to produce information. Marketing Science, 13(3), 310-326.

[14] Broder, J., & Rusmevichientong, P. (2012). Dynamic pricing under a general parametric choice model. Operations Research, 60(4), 965-980.

[15] Carson, R. (1985). Three essays on contingent valuation (welfare economics, non-market goods, water quality (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D dissertation, Department of agricultural economics and resource economics, University of California, Berkeley).

[16] Chatterjee, S., and Price, B. (1991), Regression Diagnostics, New York: John Wiley.

[17] Chen, L. (2010). Bounds and heuristics for optimal Bayesian inventory control with unobserved lost sales. Operations research, 58(2), 396-413.

[18] Chen, L., & Plambeck, E. L. (2008). Dynamic inventory management with learning about the demand distribution and substitution probability. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10(2), 236-256.

[19] Cherry I & Allan A.(2014), Economic Valuation of Recreation Benefits of White Beach Resort in the University Of Eastern Philippines, International Journal of Humanities and Management Sciences (IJHMS), 2(3), 42-53.

[20] Chen, L., & Wu, C. (2016). Bayesian Dynamic Pricing with Unknown Customer Willingness-to-Pay and Limited Inventory, (March 1, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2689924.

[21] Cook, J. M. (2011). Valuing protected areas through contingent valuation: a case study of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Tesis de grado para optar por el titulo de Magister en Ciencias Aplicadas, Wilfrid Laurier University.

[22] Cope, E. (2007). Bayesian strategies for dynamic pricing in e‐commerce. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 54(3), 265-281.

[23] Ding, X., Puterman, M. L., & Bisi, A. (2002). The censored newsvendor and the optimal acquisition of information. Operations Research, 50(3), 517-527.

[24] Elmaghraby, W., & Keskinocak, P. (2003). Dynamic pricing in the presence of inventory considerations: Research overview, current practices, and future directions. Management science, 49(10), 1287-1309.

[25] Farias, V. F., & Van Roy, B. (2010). Dynamic pricing with a prior on market response. Operations Research, 58(1), 16-29.

[26] Gallego, G., & Van Ryzin, G. (1994). Optimal dynamic pricing of inventories with stochastic demand over finite horizons. Management science, 40(8), 999-1020.

[27] Gürlük, S. (2006). The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(3), 209-218.

[28] Hanemann, W. M. (1985). Some issues in continuous and discrete response contingent valuation studies. Northeastern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 14(1), 5-13.

[29] Harrison, J. M., Keskin, N. B., & Zeevi, A. (2012). Bayesian dynamic pricing policies: Learning and earning under a binary prior distribution. Management Science, 58(3), 570-586.

[30] Ikeuchi, A., Tsuji, K., Yoshikane, F., & Ikeuchi, U. (2013). Double-bounded Dichotomous Choice CVM for Public Library Services in Japan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 73, 205-208.

[31] Kavoosi.M, Shabazi. H & Mlekian A. (2009), Estimating The Recreational valuation of promenades whit The use of Hackman two stage approach, case study of Mohtasham park of Rasht, Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 1 (1), 137 – 149.

[32] Kandel, E. (1990). Essays on pricing under uncertainty (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business).

[33] Keskin, N. B., & Zeevi, A. (2014). Dynamic pricing with an unknown demand model: Asymptotically optimal semi-myopic policies. Operations Research, 62(5), 1142-1167.

[34] Kiani, S. (2015). Estimation of recreation value and recognition of effective factors for Willingness to Pay for urban natural parks by using Contingent valuation method (CVM). Modiriat Shahri No: 26 pp: 1-12 (in Persian).

[35] Kleinberg, R., & Leighton, T. (2003, October). The value of knowing a demand curve: Bounds on regret for online posted-price auctions. In Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings. 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on (pp. 594-605). IEEE.

[36] Lariviere, M. A., & Porteus, E. L. (1999). Stalking information: Bayesian inventory management with unobserved lost sales. Management Science, 45(3), 346-363.

[37] Lazear, E. P. (1986). Retail Pricing and Clearance Sales, 76 AM. Econ. Rev, 14.

[38] Lu, X., Song, J. S., & Zhu, K. (2005). On “The censored newsvendor and the optimal acquisition of information”. Operations Research, 53(6), 1024-1026.

[39] Lu, X., Song, J. S., & Zhu, K. (2008). Analysis of perishable-inventory systems with censored demand data. Operations Research, 56(4), 1034-1038.

[40] Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., & Vining, G. G. (2012). Introduction to linear regression analysis (Vol. 821). John Wiley & Sons.

[41] Mousavi, S. (2015). The estimated economic value of recreational and entertainment waterfall and landscaping Khafr and factors affecting willingness to pay using contingent valuation method (CVM). Barnamerizi Mantaghey, No: 18 pp: 157-170 (in Persian).

[42] Pagiola, S. (2001, October). Valuing the Benefits of investments in cultural heritage: The historic core of split. In international conference on economic valuation of cultural heritage, Cagliari (pp. 19-20).

[43] Rolfe, J., & Gregg, D. (2012). Valuing beach recreation across a regional area: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Ocean & coastal management, 69, 282-290.

[44] Talluri, K. T., & Van Ryzin, G. J. (2004). The Theory and Practice of Revenue Management. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, vol. 68.