IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envpol/v28y2026i2d10.1007_s10018-024-00436-x.html

Analyzing tourists’ preferences and willingness to pay for wildlife conservation using choice experimental modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Riyaz Alam

    (Prestige University, School of Management)

  • Diptimayee Nayak

    (Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences)

Abstract

The rapid loss of biodiversity due to anthropogenic activities underscores the need to understand the factors responsible for biodiversity loss and explore innovative mechanisms to address this problem. Part of the problem is the inadequate financial resources for the implementation and management of biodiversity conservation plans. To this end, the present study analyzes tourists’ preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife conservation in India’s oldest national park, Jim Corbett Tiger Reserve. The primary data from a random sample of 273 tourists was collected and analyzed using different econometric methods of choice experiment modeling, namely, conditional logit and mixed logit models. The study finds that tourists prefer and exhibit statistically significant and positive WTP of ₹12.767/time/tourist for reducing crowding to 20–25 vehicles, ₹57.552/time/tourist for awareness programs, ₹61.491/time/tourist and ₹143.469/time/tourist for increasing management staff to 307 employees and 461 employees, respectively, while revealing negative WTP of ₹48.333/time/tourist for allowing human settlements. The study offers implications for restructuring tourists’ entry fees.

Suggested Citation

  • Riyaz Alam & Diptimayee Nayak, 2026. "Analyzing tourists’ preferences and willingness to pay for wildlife conservation using choice experimental modeling," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 28(2), pages 517-541, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envpol:v:28:y:2026:i:2:d:10.1007_s10018-024-00436-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10018-024-00436-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10018-024-00436-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10018-024-00436-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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    3. Vilela, Thais & Malky Harb, Alfonso & Mendizábal Vergara, Carla, 2022. "Chileans' willingness to pay for protected areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    4. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    7. Renato Perez Loyola & Erda Wang & Nannan Kang, 2021. "Economic valuation of recreational attributes using a choice experiment approach: An application to the Galapagos Islands," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 86-104, February.
    8. Florian Heiss, 2002. "Structural choice analysis with nested logit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 2(3), pages 227-252, August.
    9. Ruchi Badola & Syed Ainul Hussain & Bidyut Kumar Mishra & Bidyarani Konthoujam & Sneha Thapliyal & Parag Madhukar Dhakate, 2010. "An assessment of ecosystem services of Corbett Tiger Reserve, India," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 320-329, December.
    10. Robert Hearne & C. Santos, 2005. "Tourists‘ and Locals‘ Preferences Toward Ecotourism Development in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 303-318, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    3. George E. Halkos & Panagiotis‐Stavros C. Aslanidis, 2026. "The Socio‐Cultural and Spiritual Dimensions on Non‐Marketed Environmental Valuation," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(S1), pages 407-426, January.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    7. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    9. Maina, Milkah Wanjiku & Mburu, John & Chimoita, Evans Ligare & Maina, Fredah Wangui, 2023. "Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Honey Quality Attributes in Nyandarua County, Kenya," 2023 Seventh AAAE/60th AEASA Conference, September 18-21, 2023, Durban, South Africa 364816, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    10. Mulatu, Dawit Woubishet & Alvsilver, Jessica & Siikamäki, Juha, 2019. "Valuing Residents’ Preferences for Improved Urban Green Space Ecosystem Services in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia," EfD Discussion Paper 19-2, Environment for Development, University of Gothenburg.
    11. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Tu, Gengyang, 2020. "Conveyance, envy, and homeowner choice of appliances," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    12. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    13. Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim & Tu, Gengyang & Whitmarsh, Lorraine & Whittle, Colin, 2022. "Household acceptability of energy efficiency policies in the European Union: Policy characteristics trade-offs and the role of trust in government and environmental identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    14. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    16. Azita Varziri & Shuoli Zhao & Timothy A. Woods & Favour Esene, 2025. "Consumer Preferences Toward Local Versus Carbon: A Study of Value‐Added Dairy Products," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 56(6), pages 961-975, November.
    17. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    18. Carole Ropars-Collet & Philippe Goffe & Qods Lefnatsa, 2021. "Does catch-and-release increase the recreational value of rivers? The case of salmon fishing," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 393-424, December.
    19. Tu, Gengyang & Faure, Corinne & Schleich, Joachim & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte, 2021. "The heat is off! The role of technology attributes and individual attitudes in the diffusion of Smart thermostats – findings from a multi-country survey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    20. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:envpol:v:28:y:2026:i:2:d:10.1007_s10018-024-00436-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.