4.6 Article

Tourists' willingness to pay for restoration of Sundarbans Mangrove forest ecosystems: a contingent valuation modeling study

期刊

ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 2443-2464

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02140-w

关键词

Contingent valuation; Dichotomous choice; Willingness to pay; Mangrove restoration; Non-market valuation; Stated preference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study measures tourists' willingness to pay and revenue stream in response to the restoration schemes of the Sundarbans mangrove forest ecosystems. It finds that age, monthly income, and years of schooling are influential factors in determining tourists' willingness to pay. The estimated willingness to pay amount is BDT 64.54, with an annual revenue stream of BDT 11.81 billion from the investment in restoration schemes.
The decaying trend of the Sundarbans due to loss of habitat, lack of provision of entrance fee, absence of tourism tax, and destruction of the resource base may restrict restoration of the Sundarbans mangrove forest ecosystems. We measure tourists' willingness to pay (WTP) and revenue stream in response to the policy change of restoration schemes on a sample of (n = 607) observations. Following the random sampling technique, well-designed dichotomous choice questions were employed to elicit stated preference (SP) data toward restoration schemes of the Sundarbans mangrove forest ecosystems in selected tourist spots in the Sundarbans. It is found that age, monthly income, and years of schooling are influential factors in determining tourists' WTP for the restoration schemes of the Sundarbans ecosystems. The estimated WTP for the restoration schemes is Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) 64.54. Investment in restoration schemes creates a guarantee to earn BDT 11.81 billion per annum. It ensures scope to collect revenue from tourists and mobilize it for the restoration schemes. This finding is robust to various alternative data, sample, and model specifications.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据