IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v56y2012i4p498-520.html

Valuing Australian botanic collections: a combined travel-cost and contingent valuation study

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Mwebaze
  • Jeff Bennett

Abstract

Economic values of biological collections in three Australian botanic gardens in Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney were estimated using the travel-cost method (TCM) and the contingent valuation method (CVM). The TCM component of the study produced average per-trip consumer surplus (CS) values of $39 and $18 for single- and multiplesite visitors, respectively, for each botanic garden, resulting in an estimate of approximately $194 million for the total social welfare generated by trips to the three sites. Marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for access to botanic gardens was also investigated through payment vehicles of entry fees or higher parking charges using the CVM component. The analysis revealed a positive mean WTP of between $3 and $5 per trip per person. The difference between the CVM and TCM results reflect the different underlying concepts of value under investigation: average CS per visit for the TCM and the utility arising from a marginal visit for the CVM. Marginal changes in CS from the TCM were derived. The confidence intervals from the TCM marginal values overlap the WTP estimates from the CVM. These findings will be useful for resource management decisions in the botanic gardens collection in Australia.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:56:y:2012:i:4:p:498-520
    DOI: j.1467-8489.2012.00595.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2012.00595.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/j.1467-8489.2012.00595.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sigit Dian Affandi & Alin Halimatussadiah & Farha Widya Asrofani, 2020. "Visitors’ Preferences on the Characteristics of Bogor Botanical Gardens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Schweinsberg, Stephen & Darcy, Simon & Cheng, Mingming, 2017. "The agenda setting power of news media in framing the future role of tourism in protected areas," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 241-252.
    5. 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.
    6. Saúl Torres-Ortega & Rubén Pérez-Álvarez & Pedro Díaz-Simal & Julio Manuel De Luis-Ruiz & Felipe Piña-García, 2018. "Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage: Application of Travel Cost Method to the National Museum and Research Center of Altamira," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.

    More about this item

    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:bla:ajarec:v:56:y:2012:i:4:p:498-520. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.