An Economic Analysis of Phu Kradueng National Park

Authors: Chutarat Boontho

Abstract:

The purposes of this study were as follows to evaluate the economic value of Phu Kradueng National Park by the travel cost method (TCM) and the contingent valuation method (CVM) and to estimate the demand for traveling and the willingness to pay. The data for this study were collected by conducting two large scale surveys on users and non-users. A total of 1,016 users and 1,034 non-users were interviewed. The data were analyzed using multiple linear regression analysis, logistic regression model and the consumer surplus (CS) was the integral of demand function for trips. The survey found, were as follows: 1)Using the travel cost method which provides an estimate of direct benefits to park users, we found that visitors- total willingness to pay per visit was 2,284.57 bath, of which 958.29 bath was travel cost, 1,129.82 bath was expenditure for accommodation, food, and services, and 166.66 bath was consumer surplus or the visitors -net gain or satisfaction from the visit (the integral of demand function for trips). 2) Thai visitors to Phu Kradueng National Park were further willing to pay an average of 646.84 bath per head per year to ensure the continued existence of Phu Kradueng National Park and to preserve their option to use it in the future. 3) Thai non-visitors, on the other hand, are willing to pay an average of 212.61 bath per head per year for the option and existence value provided by the Park. 4) The total economic value of Phu Kradueng National Park to Thai visitors and non-visitors taken together stands today at 9,249.55 million bath per year. 5) The users- average willingness to pay for access to Phu Kradueng National Park rises from 40 bath to 84.66 bath per head per trip for improved services such as road improvement, increased cleanliness, and upgraded information. This paper was needed to investigate of the potential market demand for bio prospecting in Phu Kradueng national Park and to investigate how a larger share of the economic benefits of tourism could be distributed income to the local residents.

Keywords: Contingent Valuation Method, Travel Cost Method, Consumer surplus.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1061242

References:

[1] J. B. Loomis, Contingent valuation using dichotomous choice model. J. Leisure Res. 20, 45-56.1988.
[2] R. C. Mitchell, and Richard T. Carson. "Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method." Resource for the Future. Washington, D.C. 1989.
[3] B. Michael, Environment Resource Valuation: Some Problems of Specification and Identification. Flinders University of South Australia and Carleton University. 1999.
[4] D. W. Hosmer, and S. Lemeshow Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley. 1989.
[5] E. N. Bockstael, I. E. Strand, and W. M. Hanemann. "Time and the Recreation Demand Model. "American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1987.
[6] H. R. Neill, The Context for Substitutes in CVM Studies: Some Empirical Observations. Journal of Environmental Economics a Economic and Management 29(3),393-397.1995
[7] H. Atakelty, Wiktor L. Adamowicz, Peter C. Boxall. Complement, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation. Environmental and Resource Economics 16:51-68, 2000.
[8] I. H. Langford, and Bateman, I. J. Welfare measures for contingent valuation studies: estimation and Reliability. In Global Environmental Change working paper 93-104, Centre for social and Economic Research on the Global Environment: University College London and University of East Anglia. 1993.
[9] J.P. Hoehn, and J.B. Loomis, ÔÇÿSubstitution Effects in the valuation of Multiple Programs- J. Environ. Econ. Management 25, 56 - 75. 1993.
[10] K. Arrow, Robert Solow, Paul R. Portney, Edward E. Leamer, Roy Radner, and Howard Schuman. "Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation." Resource for the Future, Washington, D.C. 1993.
[11] K. J. Boyle, R.C. Bishop, and M.P. Welsh. ÔÇÿStarting Points Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys-. Journal of Land Economics. 1985.
[12] M. B. Luke., Raymond J.G.M. Florax and Jan E. Vermaat, The Empirics of Wetland Valuation: A Comprehensive Summary and a Meta - Analysis of the Literature, Environmental & Resource Economics (2006) 33: 223 - 250. 2006.
[13] M. Dominic, Contingent valuation and biodiversity: measuring the user surplus of Kenyan protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 3, 663-684 1994.
[14] Natural Resources and Environment Program Thailand Development Research Institute and Harvard Environment Institute for International Development .A Case Study Khao Yai National Park (KYNP), FAO Corporate document repository. 1995.
[15] P. Johansson., Kristrom, B and Maler, K .Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: comment .Am J. Agricultural Economic.71(Nov), 1054-56. 1989.
[16] P. C. Jack. Kleijnen, Antonic Vonk Noordegraaf, and Mirijam Nielen. Sensitivity Analysis of Censored Output Through Polynomial, Logistic, and Tobit Regression Meta - Models: Theory and Case Study. Department of Information Systems (BIK)/Center for Economic Research (Cent ER) Tilburg University (KUB). 2001 Winter Simulation Conference (December 9-12, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 2001.
[17] R. Mary, and John Loomis .Joint Estimation of Multiple CVM Scenarios under a Double Bounded Questioning Format. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523, U.S.A. Environmental and resource Economics 12:77-98, 1998.
[18] R. T. Carson, ÔÇÿConstructed Markets-, in J.B. Braden and K.C. Kolstad, eds., Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. North - Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. 1991.
[19] R. T. Carson, and R. C. Mitchell. ÔÇÿSequencing and Nestin g in Contingent Valuation Surveys- J. Environ. Econ. Management 28, 155 - 173. 1995.
[20] W.H.Greene, Econometric Analysis; Third edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International. 1997.