IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae12/126888.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Recreationists Willingness to Pay for Conservation of a Forest ecosystem: An Economic study of Basavana Betta State Forest, Karnataka state, India

Author

Listed:
  • Yashoda
  • Reddy, B.V. Chinnappa

Abstract

An economic study on willingness to pay by general recreationists’ who visited Basavana Betta State Forest, Karnataka, India, for water recreation revealed that average WTP for conservation of the forest ecosystem, based on the double bounded dichotomous contingent valuation method, was Rs. 846 ($17.63) per visitor as onetime payment. On the contrary WTP of recreationists of a well developed recreation spot (resort) was higher at Rs. 2367 (US$ 49.31) per visitor. There was a negative relationship between the bid amount and WTP and a positive relationship between income and WTP in both the cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Yashoda & Reddy, B.V. Chinnappa, 2012. "Recreationists Willingness to Pay for Conservation of a Forest ecosystem: An Economic study of Basavana Betta State Forest, Karnataka state, India," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126888, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae12:126888
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.126888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/126888/files/Reddy.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.126888?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Nancy E. Bockstael & Ivar E. Strand, Jr., 1987. "The Effect of Common Sources of Regression Error on Benefit Estimates," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(1), pages 11-20.
    3. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    4. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Timothy Park & John B. Loomis & Michael Creel, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Evaluating Benefits Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(1), pages 64-73.
    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. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    2. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    3. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    4. Coyne, Alison & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 1989. "Economic Effects of Environmental Quality Change on Recreation Demand," Project Report Series 232082, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    5. John Loomis & Cynthia Pierce & Mike Manfredo, 2000. "Using the demand for hunting licences to evaluate contingent valuation estimates of willingness to pay," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(7), pages 435-438.
    6. Mandy Ryan, 2004. "A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 291-296, March.
    7. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    8. John C. Whitehead & William P. Anderson, Jr & Dennis Guignet & Craig E. Landry & O. Ashton Morgan, 2024. "Sea-Level Rise, Drinking Water Quality and the Economic Value of Coastal Tourism in North Carolina," Working Papers 24-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    9. Kelly Giraud & John Loomis & Joseph Cooper, 2001. "A Comparison of Willingness to Pay Estimation Techniques From Referendum Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(4), pages 331-346, December.
    10. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.
    11. Stephanie A. Snyder & Robert A. Smail, 2009. "Are All-Terrain Vehicle Riders Willing to Pay Trail User Fees to Ride on Public Lands in the USA?," Tourism Economics, , vol. 15(2), pages 437-451, June.
    12. Lockwood, Michael & Carberry, David, 1999. "Stated preference surveys of remnant native vegetation conservation," 1999 Conference (43th), January 20-22, 1999, Christchurch, New Zealand 123831, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Seung-Jun Kwak & Seung-Hoon Yoo & Sang-Yong Han, 2003. "Estimating the Public's Value for Urban Forest in the Seoul Metropolitan Area of Korea: A Contingent Valuation Study," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(11), pages 2207-2221, October.
    14. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    15. John C. Whitehead & William P. Anderson, Jr. & Dennis Guignet & Craig E. Landry & O. Ashton Morgan, 2023. "Sea-Level Rise, Drinking Water Quality and the Economic Value of Coastal Tourism in North Carolina," Working Papers 23-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    16. Poe, Gregory L. & Lossin, Eric K. & Welsh, Michael P., 1992. "A Convolutions Approach to Measuring the Differences in Benefit Estimates from Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Studies," Staff Papers 200545, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    17. Foster, Vivien & Mourato, Susana, 2002. "Testing for Consistency in Contingent Ranking Experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 309-328, September.
    18. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    19. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    20. Kai-Lih Chen, 1999. "Measuring values of wetlands in Taiwan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 2(1), pages 65-89, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Environmental Economics and Policy; Public Economics;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:iaae12:126888. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.html .

    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.