IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development

  • Baral, Nabin
  • Stern, Marc J.
  • Bhattarai, Ranju
Registered author(s):

    To determine willingness to pay (WTP) for candidate entry fees, contingent valuation surveys were administered to 315 foreign visitors to the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal, during April and May of 2006. The results of logit regression showed that the bid amount, family size, visitors' satisfaction, the use of a guide, and group size were the most significant predictors of WTP. Results suggest that most visitors would be willing to pay an entry fee considerably higher than the current fee of 27 U.S. dollars (USD). The mean and median WTP were 69.2 and 74.3 USD, respectively. The most common explanation for WTP by respondents was a desire to better protect the environment. The most common explanation for unwillingness to pay was that the bid was simply too expensive. Two models were developed based upon different predictions of visitor numbers (an optimistic case and pessimistic case) to calculate the expected revenue production and likely gross local economic impact of candidate entry fees. Based on this analysis, we recommend an increase in the entry fee to USD 50. In the optimistic scenario, this higher entry fee leaves a budget surplus. In the pessimistic scenario, it would reduce current budget deficits.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDY-4S1BX46-3/1/8124fc885f000a3cac5c220c165bdb1a
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

    Volume (Year): 66 (2008)
    Issue (Month): 2-3 (June)
    Pages: 218-227

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:66:y:2008:i:2-3:p:218-227
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Salafsky, Nick & Wollenberg, Eva, 2000. "Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs and Biodiversity," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(8), pages 1421-1438, August.
    2. Shultz, Steven & Pinazzo, Jorge & Cifuentes, Miguel, 1998. "Opportunities and limitations of contingent valuation surveys to determine national park entrance fees: evidence from Costa Rica," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(01), pages 131-149, February.
    3. S. Akbar Zaidi, 1999. "NGO failure and the need to bring back the state," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 259-271.
    4. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Wilson, Mathew A. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 2001. "Fairness in the contingent valuation of environmental public goods: attitude toward paying for environmental improvements at two levels of scope," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 133-148, January.
    5. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 1998. "A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 315-322, June.
    6. Cardoso de Mendonca, Mario Jorge & Sachsida, Adolfo & Loureiro, Paulo R. A., 2003. "A study on the valuing of biodiversity: the case of three endangered species in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 9-18, August.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    8. Togridou, Anatoli & Hovardas, Tasos & Pantis, John D., 2006. "Determinants of visitors' willingness to pay for the National Marine Park of Zakynthos, Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 308-319, November.
    9. Hadker, Nandini & Sharma, Sudhir & David, Ashish & Muraleedharan, T. R., 1997. "Willingness-to-pay for Borivli National Park: evidence from a Contingent Valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 105-122, May.
    10. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Reiling, Stephen D., 2000. "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 93-107, January.
    11. Farber, Stephen C. & Costanza, Robert & Wilson, Matthew A., 2002. "Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 375-392, June.
    12. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    13. Andrew S. Laughland & Wesley N. Musser & James S. Shortle & Lynn M. Musser, 1996. "Construct Validity of Averting Cost Measures of Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(1), pages 100-112.
    14. Turpie, Jane K., 2003. "The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 199-216, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:66:y:2008:i:2-3:p:218-227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.