An Economic Analysis of Phu Kradueng National Park
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.
[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.
[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.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:54634", author = "Chutarat Boontho", title = "An Economic Analysis of Phu Kradueng National Park", 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.", volume = "2", number = "3", pages = "149-5", }