IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

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


  • Baral, Nabin
  • Stern, Marc J.
  • Bhattarai, Ranju


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.

Suggested Citation

  • Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:66:y:2008:i:2-3:p:218-227

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    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. G. C. van Kooten & Andrew Schmitz, 1992. "Preserving Waterfowl Habitat on the Canadian Prairies: Economic Incentives versus Moral Suasion," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(1), pages 79-89.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    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. repec:eee:touman:v:50:y:2015:i:c:p:1-12 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:6:p:930-:d:100351 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Halkos, George E. & Jones, Nikoleta, 2012. "Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 90-99.
    5. repec:eee:touman:v:36:y:2013:i:c:p:552-566 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Maria Bonaventura Forleo & Nicola Gagliardi & Luca Romagnoli, 2015. "Determinants of Willingness to Pay for an Urban Green Area: A Contingent Valuation Survey of College Students," International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, International School for Social and Business Studies, Celje, Slovenia, vol. 4(1), pages 7-25.
    7. repec:eee:touman:v:37:y:2013:i:c:p:58-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Baral, Nabin & Dhungana, Anal, 2014. "Diversifying finance mechanisms for protected areas capitalizing on untapped revenues," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 60-67.
    9. Voltaire, Louinord & Pirrone, Claudio & Bailly, Denis, 2013. "Dealing with preference uncertainty in contingent willingness to pay for a nature protection program: A new approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 76-85.
    10. Roberto Ponce & Felipe Vásquez & Alejandra Stehr & Patrick Debels & Carlos Orihuela, 2011. "Estimating the Economic Value of Landscape Losses Due to Flooding by Hydropower Plants in the Chilean Patagonia," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(10), pages 2449-2466, August.
    11. Louinord Voltaire & Abdelhak Nassiri & Denis Bailly & Jean Boncoeur, 2011. "Effet d’une taxe et d’un droit d’entrée sur les consentements à payer des touristes pour de nouvelles réserves naturelles dans le golfe du Morbihan," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 92(2), pages 183-209.
    12. Kaffashi, Sara & Yacob, Mohd Rusli & Clark, Maynard S. & Radam, Alias & Mamat, Mohd Farid, 2015. "Exploring visitors' willingness to pay to generate revenues for managing the National Elephant Conservation Center in Malaysia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 9-19.
    13. repec:eee:touman:v:60:y:2017:i:c:p:130-139 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Onofri, Laura & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2013. "Beach ‘lovers’ and ‘greens’: A worldwide empirical analysis of coastal tourism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 49-56.
    15. Mahadev Bhat & Ramachandra Bhatta & Mohamed Shumais, 2014. "Sustainable funding policies for environmental protection: the case of Maldivian atolls," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(1), pages 45-67, January.
    16. repec:eee:touman:v:32:y:2011:i:4:p:875-889 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. repec:eee:touman:v:61:y:2017:i:c:p:141-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Halkos, George & Jones, Nikoleta, 2011. "Social factors influencing the decision to pay for the protection of biodiversity: A case study in two national parks of Northern Greece," MPRA Paper 34581, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Voltaire, Louinord & Nassiri, Abdelhak & Bailly, Denis & Boncoeur, Jean, 2011. "Testing for Consistency in Tourists' Willingness to Pay for New Nature Reserves in the Gulf of Morbihan (France)," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114378, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. repec:eee:ecolec:v:144:y:2018:i:c:p:124-128 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Voltaire, Louinord, 2017. "Pricing Future Nature Reserves Through Contingent Valuation Data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 66-75.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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: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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.