IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/assjnl/v12y2016i9p149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to Pay for Maintenance of a Nature Conservation Area: A Case of Mount Wilhelm, Papua New Guinea

Author

Listed:
  • Eugene Ezebilo

Abstract

Ecosystem services that are not traded on markets contribute to human wellbeing however their economic value is not well known and research is required to reveal it. This paper reports on a study of willingness to pay (WTP) for the maintenance of Mount Wilhelm by urban residents and socio-economic factors influencing it. The possibility of developing an ecotourism strategy that could generate benefits for local are discussed. The data were obtained from questionnaire and personal interviews of residents of Kundiawa, which is the capital of Simbu Province, Papua New Guinea. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logit regression model. The results showed that 92% of the respondents were willing to pay for maintenance of Mount Wilhelm and they would pay an average of 7.4 Papua New Guinea Kina (US$ 2.5) each year. The respondents who belonged to high income group had the highest WTP, followed by those who were willing to give out part of their land for conservation. Approximately 62% of the respondents would pay ≥10 Papua New Guinea Kina (PGK), which is equivalent to the amount charged as access fee to Mount Wilhelm by the locals living around it. The willingness to pay ≥10 PGK was influenced by income, education, importance of forests and willingness to give up land for conservation. The findings will contribute to land use planning and design of nature-based recreation that meets societal demands.

Suggested Citation

  • Eugene Ezebilo, 2016. "Willingness to Pay for Maintenance of a Nature Conservation Area: A Case of Mount Wilhelm, Papua New Guinea," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(9), pages 149-149, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:assjnl:v:12:y:2016:i:9:p:149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/download/60907/33556
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/60907
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eugene Ezebilo, 2014. "Maintenance of public amenity to improve access to nature area: does distance and expected economic benefits matter?," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(3), pages 240-249, September.
    2. Wan-Jiun Chen & Shyue-Cherng Liaw, 2012. "What is the Value of Eco-Tourism? An Evaluation of Forested Trails for Community Residents and Visitors," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(4), pages 871-885, August.
    3. Andrea Báez-Montenegro & Ana María Bedate & Luis César Herrero & Jose Ángel Sanz, 2012. "Inhabitants' Willingness to Pay for Cultural Heritage: A Case Study in Valdivia, Chile, Using Contingent Valuation," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 235-258, November.
    4. Andreas Pondorfer & Katrin Rehdanz, 2018. "Eliciting Preferences for Public Goods in Nonmonetized Communities: Accounting for Preference Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 73-86.
    5. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Valuing Australian botanic collections: a combined travel-cost and contingent valuation study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(4), pages 498-520, October.
    6. Randall, Alan & Ives, Berry & Eastman, Clyde, 1974. "Bidding games for valuation of aesthetic environmental improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 132-149, August.
    7. Ezebilo, Eugene E. & Mattsson, Leif, 2010. "Socio-economic benefits of protected areas as perceived by local people around Cross River National Park, Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 189-193, March.
    8. Pandit, Ram & Dhakal, Maheshwar & Polyakov, Maksym, 2015. "Valuing access to protected areas in Nepal: The case of Chitwan National Park," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-12.
    9. Eugene E. Ezebilo & Mattias Boman & Leif Mattsson & Anders Lindhagen & Werner Mbongo, 2015. "Preferences and willingness to pay for close to home nature for outdoor recreation in Sweden," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 283-296, February.
    10. Guy Garrod & Kenneth G. Willis, 1999. "Economic Valuation of the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1368.
    11. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bockarjova, Marija & Botzen, Wouter J.W. & Koetse, Mark J., 2020. "Economic valuation of green and blue nature in cities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    2. Xaysompheng Sengkhamyong & Helmut Yabar & Takeshi Mizunoya, 2022. "Assessing Household Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of the Phou Chom Voy Protected Area in Lao PDR," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fernanda Oliveira & Pedro Pintassilgo & Patrícia Pinto & Isabel Mendes & João Albino Silva, 2017. "Segmenting visitors based on willingness to pay for recreational benefits," Tourism Economics, , vol. 23(3), pages 680-691, May.
    2. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    3. Gurluk, Serkan, 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, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 209-218, December.
    4. Tanya O’Garra & Susana Mourato, 2007. "Public Preferences for Hydrogen Buses: Comparing Interval Data, OLS and Quantile Regression Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 389-411, April.
    5. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    6. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    7. Meryem Hayir-Kanat & Jürgen Breuste, 2020. "Outdoor Recreation Participation in Istanbul, Turkey: An Investigation of Frequency, Length, Travel Time and Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, January.
    8. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.
    10. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Abbie McCartney, 2006. "The Social Value of Seascapes in the Jurien Bay Marine Park: An Assessment of Positive and Negative Preferences for Change," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 577-594, September.
    12. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    13. Estifanos, Tafesse & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2018. "Protection of the Ethiopian Wolf: What are tourists willing to pay for?," Working Papers 272805, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. Wan-Yu Liu & Yen-Yu Lin & Han-Shen Chen & Chi-Ming Hsieh, 2019. "Assessing the Amenity Value of Forest Ecosystem Services: Perspectives from the Use of Sustainable Green Spaces," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-23, August.
    15. Chen, Pin-Zheng & Liu, Wan-Yu, 2019. "Assessing management performance of the national forest park using impact range-performance analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 121-138.
    16. Sara Sousa & Anabela Botelho & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Marieta Valente, 2019. "How Relevant Are Non-Use Values and Perceptions in Economic Valuations? The Case of Hydropower Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Wiśniewska Aleksandra, 2019. "Quality attributes in the non-market stated-preference based valuation of cultural goods," Central European Economic Journal, Sciendo, vol. 6(53), pages 132-150, January.
    18. Natalie Stoeckl & Alastair Birtles & Marina Farr & Arnold Mangott & Matthew Curnock & Peter Valentine, 2010. "Live-Aboard Dive Boats in the Great Barrier Reef: Regional Economic Impact and the Relative Values of Their Target Marine Species," Tourism Economics, , vol. 16(4), pages 995-1018, December.
    19. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    20. Tafesse Estifanos & Maksym Polyakov & Ram Pandit & Atakelty Hailu & Michael Burton, 2021. "What are tourists willing to pay for securing the survival of a flagship species? The case of protection of the Ethiopian wolf," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 45-69, February.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:assjnl:v:12:y:2016:i:9:p:149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.