IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9489-d445183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visitors’ Preferences on the Characteristics of Bogor Botanical Gardens

Author

Listed:
  • Sigit Dian Affandi

    (Master Program of Economic Planning and Public Policy, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta City 10430, Indonesia)

  • Alin Halimatussadiah

    (Department of Economics, Universitas Indonesia, Depok City 16424, Indonesia)

  • Farha Widya Asrofani

    (School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta City 10430, Indonesia)

Abstract

This study aims to estimate the economic benefits of the Bogor Botanical Gardens (BBG) in terms of willingness to pay (WTP) and, using the estimation, to make a scenario of the entrance fee. Data were collected through a survey among 414 local visitors using the travel cost method (TCM) and choice modeling method (CM). The result from the TCM reveals that travel cost, gender, and education significantly affect the number of visits to the BBG. The value of consumer surplus amounts to IDR 582,072 (USD 40.90) and the total value of benefits obtained is IDR 728.8 billion (USD 51.21 million) per year. Meanwhile, the CM result shows that compensating surplus is estimated at IDR 19,704 (USD 1.38) and the total value of benefits is IDR 24.67 billion (USD 1.73 million) per year. The CM shows that the attributes of service cars as well as information and environmental educational tools and infrastructure have positive and significant values to the visitors. Thus, there is a potential to increase the entrance fee for tourists to become IDR 20,629 (USD 1.45) per visit. Through the increase in entrance fee, the BBG could generate a potential revenue of IDR 25.83 billion (USD 1.81 million) per year, which can improve the number of plant species, information and environmental educational tools and infrastructures, and service cars inside the BBG.

Suggested Citation

  • Sigit Dian Affandi & Alin Halimatussadiah & Farha Widya Asrofani, 2020. "Visitors’ Preferences on the Characteristics of Bogor Botanical Gardens," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9489-:d:445183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9489/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9489/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.
    2. van Zanten, Boris T. & Verburg, Peter H. & Scholte, S.S.K. & Tieskens, K.F., 2016. "Using choice modeling to map aesthetic values at a landscape scale: Lessons from a Dutch case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 221-231.
    3. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Valuing Australian botanic collections: a combined travel-cost and contingent valuation study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(4), pages 498-520, October.
    4. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    5. Estifanos, Tafesse Kefyalew & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2020. "Managing conflicts between local land use and the protection of the Ethiopian wolf: Residents’ preferences for conservation program design features," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    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. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Fernández-Macho, Javier, 2009. "The influence of cultural identity on the WTP to protect natural resources: Some empirical evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2372-2381, June.
    2. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    4. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Amy W. Ando, 2014. "Valuing Grassland Restoration: Proximity to Substitutes and Trade-offs among Conservation Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 237-259.
    5. Sophal Chhun & Viktoria Kahui & Henrik Moller & Paul Thorsnes, 2015. "Advancing Marine Policy Toward Ecosystem-Based Management by Eliciting Public Preferences," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(3), pages 261-275.
    6. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    7. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    8. Sophal Chhun & Paul Thorsnes & Henrik Moller, 2013. "Preferences for Management of Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems: A Choice Experiment in New Zealand," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-33, September.
    9. Sung-Kwon Hong & Ju-Mi Kim & Hyun-Kil Jo & Sang-Woo Lee, 2018. "Monetary Valuation of Urban Forest Attributes in Highly Developed Urban Environments: An Experimental Study Using a Conjoint Choice Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-22, July.
    10. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    11. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    12. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    13. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    14. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    15. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    16. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    18. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    19. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9489-:d:445183. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.