A Project Report on

Economic Valuation of Manimukunda Sen Park

Butwal, Rupandehi

A project work Submitted to

Department of Environment Science
Saptagandaki Multiple Campus
Bharatpur, Chitwan, Nepal

In a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for B.Sc. in the subject of Environment

Submitted by
Aashish Dhakal
Exam roll no: 502400001
T.U.Regd.No:5-2-240-482-2017

April, 2022
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the work presented in this project work is a genuine work done
originally by me and has not been submitted anywhere for the award of any degree. All
the sources of information have been specially acknowledged by reference to the
author(s) or institutions(s).

……………………

Aashish Dhakal
aasisdhakal321@gmail.com
Date: 2022/../…

ii
 LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION

This is to certify that Mr. Aashish Dhakal has completed this project work entitled
“Economic Valuation of Manimukunda Sen Park Butwal, Rupandehi’’ as a partial
fulfillment of the requirements of B. Sc.in Environmental Science under my
supervision and guidance. To my knowledge, this research has not been submitted for
any degree, anywhere else.

I therefore, recommend the dissertation for acceptance and approval.

…………………..
Mr. Narayan Niraula, M.Sc.
Assistant Lecturer
Saptagandaki Multiple Campus
Supervisor
Bharatpur, Chitwan, Nepal
Date: 2022/../..

iii
 LETTER OF APPROVAL

On the recommendation of supervisor “Assistant Lecturer Mr. Narayan Niraula”

this project work submitted by Mr. Aashish Dhakal entitled “Economic Valuation of
Manimukunda Sen Park Butwal, Rupandehi” has been approved for the
examination and submitted to the Saptagandaki Multiple Campus in partial fulfillment
of the requirements of B.Sc. in Environmental Science.

……………………….

Mr. Rabi Raj Subedi

Lecturer and Head of Department
Saptagandaki Multiple Campus
Tribhuvan University

iv
 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE

This project work entitled “Economic Valuation of Manimukunda Sen Park

Butwal, Rupandehi” submitted by “Mr. Aashish Dhakal’’ has been examined and
accepted as a partial fulfillment of the requirements of B.Sc. in Environmental Science.

Evaluation Committee

…………………………… ……………………………

Mr. Narayan Niraula, M. Sc. Mr/Ms …………. ………., M. Sc.

Supervisor, External Examiner,
Assistant Lecturer, Assistant Lecturer,
Saptagandaki Multiple Campus,TU
…………….………….………, TU

…………………………… ……………………………
Mr. Rabi Raj Subedi, M. Sc. Mr. ………………… ……..., M. Sc.
Lecturer and Head of Department, Assistant Lecturer,
Saptagandaki Multiple Campus, TU Internal Examiner
Saptagandaki Multiple Campus, TU

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It was my great opportunity to complete this project report under the supervision of Mr.
Narayan Niraula, Assistant Lecturer, Saptagandaki Multiple Campus and I am very
much thankful to him for his guidance, precious advice, encouragement and continuous
help and support for the betterment of project work. This form of the report is outcome
of his continuous encouragement, helpful suggestions and comments. I am very much
indebted and no words can fully express my feeling of gratitude to him.

I would like to express heartily thanks to Kamal Sharma Acharya, Yesodha Dhakal,
Prakash Dhakal and Manish Poudel who helped me by providing various materials
relevant to the preparation of this Project Report, they deserve much more
appreciations for effort during survey time.

Likewise, I am very thankful to Mr. Maniraj Mahato, Campus Chief and Mr. Rabiraj
Subedi, Head of Science Department, my closest friends and all batch mates and whole
Saptagandaki Multiple Campus family for help and support throughout the work.

Last but not the least; I would like to thank my family for the great appreciation and
support.

Aashish Dhakal
aasisdhakal321@gmail.com
Date: 2022/../…

vi
 ABSTRACT

Economic valuation is a measure of resource conservation that assigns a value to

ecosystems and primarily focuses on determining the function and significance of
specific resources as well as estimating their quantities. There has been a major
problem in valuing environmental resources and other public goods such as recreational
sites since there are no markets and no real transactions for ecosystem services in the
market. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the cost of time and travel to define the
value, individuals place on something in the absence of a market price. Thus, this
research was intended to assess the economic valuation of recreation using the travel
cost method. This study estimates the recreational value of Manimukunda Sen Park in
Rupandehi district using the individual travel cost method. The variables such as travel
expenses, income, distance, family size, and visitor’s age were effective factors in the
recreational use of the park. The required data was collected using questionnaires.
Therefore, 100 visitors from the park were interviewed randomly using a questionnaire
survey. Results showed that the net consumer surplus of the park was 11842291.5 USD
and the annual recreational value of the park was 167264003.9 USD. According to the
findings, the willingness to pay decreased by increasing the entrance fee. Results of this
study can improve the quality of environmental services provided by the park and could
expand the variety of services based on the demand of the people.

Keywords: Economic Valuation, Consumer Surplus, Recreational Value, Travel Cost

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION..............................................................................................................ii

LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION............................................................................iii

LETTER OF APPROVAL..............................................................................................iv

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE...............................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................vi

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................viii

LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................xi

LIST OF TABLE............................................................................................................xii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................xiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................1

1.2 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY............................................................................3

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION......................................................................................3

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH....................................................................3

1.5 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY...........................................................................3

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................4

2.1 ECOSYSTEM VALUES........................................................................................4

2.2 VALUATION.........................................................................................................4

2.3 NATURAL RESOURSE VALUATION TECHNIQUES.....................................5

2.4 TRAVEL COST METHOD...................................................................................6

2.5 MODLES OF TRAVEL COST MTHOD..............................................................7

2.6 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF TRAVEL COST METHOD............8

2.7 GLOBAL AND NATIONAL SCENARIO OF ECONOMIC VALUATION.......9

viii
CHAPTER III: METHODS AND METHODOLOGY..................................................12

3.1 STUDY AREA.....................................................................................................12

3.2 RESESRCH DESIGN..........................................................................................13

3.3 RESEARCH PROCESS.......................................................................................13

3.4 SAMPLE SIZE.....................................................................................................13

3.5 FIELD METHODS...............................................................................................14

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS..............................................................................................14

CHAPTER IV: RESULT AND DISCUSSION.............................................................15

4.1 GENERAL INFORMATION OF RESPONDENTS...........................................15

4.1.1 Gender of Visitors.........................................................................................15

4.1.2 Nationality of Visitors...................................................................................15

4.1.3 Age Structure.................................................................................................16

4.1.4 Arrival of Visitors According to State...........................................................17

4.1.5 Arrival of Visitors According to District.......................................................19

4.1.6 Family Size....................................................................................................19

4.2 SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS OF RESPONDENTS........................................19

4.2.1 Education of Respondents.............................................................................19

4.2.2 Employment Status........................................................................................20

4.2.3 Monthly Income............................................................................................21

4.3 INFORMATION REGARDING VISIT..............................................................22

4.3.1 Frequency of visit..........................................................................................22

4.3.2 Means of Transport........................................................................................23

4.3.3 Travel Time of Respondents..........................................................................23

4.3.4 Travel Distance..............................................................................................23

4.3.5 Purpose of Visit.............................................................................................24

4.3.6 Duration of Visit............................................................................................24

4.4 RESPONDENTS’ SITE PERCEPTION AND RATINGS..................................24

ix
 4.4.1 Facility of Zoo in the Park.............................................................................25

4.4.2 Condition and Care of Species......................................................................25

4.4.3 Condition of Green Space & Surrounding for Species..................................25

4.4.4 Perception on Environmental Quality...........................................................25

4.4.5 Recreational Experience of Respondents......................................................26

4.4.6 Substitute Site................................................................................................27

4.5 FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE VISIT............................................................27

4.5.1 Entry Fee........................................................................................................27

4.5.2 Travel Expenses.............................................................................................27

4.5.3 Willingness to Pay under Same Scenario......................................................28

4.5.4 Willingness to Pay under Better Scenario.....................................................28

4.5.5 Consequence of Change in Visit on Increasing Entry Fee............................28

4.6 ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE PARK................................................................29

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................31

5.1 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................31

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................31

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................32

APPENDICES...................................................................................................................I

APPENDIX-I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR VISITORS..................................................I

APPENDIX-II: PHOTO PLATES.............................................................................IV

x
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location map of the study area.......................................................................12
Figure 2: Chart showing research process......................................................................13
Figure 3: Gender of the respondents...............................................................................15
Figure 4: Nationality of Respondents.............................................................................16
Figure 5: Respondents Classification According to Age Group....................................17
Figure 6: Classification according to state.....................................................................18
Figure 7: Classification according to district..................................................................18
Figure 8: Education of respondents................................................................................19
Figure 9: Employment status of respondents.................................................................20
Figure 10: Monthly income of respondents....................................................................21
Figure 11: Respondents means of transport...................................................................22
Figure 12: Respondents purpose of visit........................................................................23
Figure 13: Respondents perception on environmental quality.......................................25
Figure 14: Respondents quality of recreational experience............................................25
Figure 15: Name of the substitute sites..........................................................................26
Figure 16: Graph showing number of visits on increasing entry fee..............................27
Figure 17: Graph showing number of visitors per year..................................................28

xi
 LIST OF TABLE
Table 1: Regression model between number of visits and monthly income..................22

xii
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AATC Average Annual Travel Cost

ATTC Annual Total Travel Cost

BNP Bardiya National Park

CNP Chitwan National Park

DR Discount Rate

HIID Harvard Institute for International Development

IR Inflation Rate

KINAPA Kilimanjaro National Park

SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation

TBR Treasury Bills Rate

TDRI Thailand Development Research Institute

TEV Total Economic Value

TCM Travel Cost Method

xiii
 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
Outdoor recreation has long been a popular and vital activity in many parts of the world.
It is a practice that promotes relaxation among tourists and has become increasingly
popular as the population has expanded. Throughout the world, nature-based recreation
and tourism is considered as a sustainable means of preserving natural resources while
providing a diversity of economic benefits to local communities and national economies
(Wood, 2002). If we consider the history of tourism development, humans have travelled
since the dawn of time. The purposes of travel were trade, religious obligations, economic
benefits, war, migration, and many others. According to Theobald, in the Roman period,
wealthy aristocrats and high government officials also travelled for pleasure (Theobald,
2005).

Forests, flora and fauna, lakes, wetlands, scenic views, valuable stones, to name a few are
examples of natural resources bestowed upon us by mother nature and are self-sustaining
that are used for recreational purpose. Natural resource is made up of biodiversity as a
component. Omunga (2001) defines the term biodiversity as denoting biological diversity
which is used to describe the number; variety and variability of living organisms in a
given assemblage. Biodiversity has several levels; genetic diversity, species diversity, and
ecosystem diversity amongst others. The scope of such biodiversity ranges from intra-
species through inter-species to other inter-relations.

In general, the Total Economic Value (TEV) approach introduced by Pearce and Warford
(1993) is the main framework used to classify the various values of an environmental
resource. This framework posits that the TEV of an environmental resource can be
classified as use value which can further be divided into direct, indirect and option values
and the non-use value which include existence value and bequest values. The importance
of assessing environmental damage, establishing green national accounts, imposing taxes
and levies for managing and preventing the destruction of recreational places are all
reasons why the economic valuation of environmental resources is vital nowadays.

Forests and forest parks are important environmental resources for human welfare.
Recreational values, which serve as a part of the consumption values of forest parks,

1
include using parks for recreation, leisure, entertainment, aesthetic aspects and many
others. In addition to the supply of wood, forests provide many services to humans in
terms of climate regulation (e.g. carbon sequestration), air purification, recreation and
tourism, fresh water supply, soil protection, biodiversity (habitat and gene pool
protection) and many others (MAES, 2014).Options for recreation are one of the cultural
services provided by forest ecosystems. Valuation of environmental resources, and among
them, forests and forest parks, seem to be very effective and important for policy-making
in order to enhance public welfare (Pajooyan & Falihi, 2008). Markets and prices
for ecosystem services do not exist, thus valuing services like recreation opportunities in
forest parks can be difficult. Economists must utilize new methods to measure the worth
of recreational experiences rather than relying on market data. The Travel Cost Method
(TCM) is one such valuation approach (Mitchell-Nelson & Schaffer, 2015).

The TCM is one of the revealed preference approaches to calculate the economic value of
nature-based recreation. Using the opportunity cost of travel time as an implicit price for
the trip, demand functions are estimated relating trip costs and trip frequency (Whitehead
et al., 2000). It is an economic valuing approach for products and services that cannot be
obtained through market prices such as forest parks, ecosystems, beaches, and so on. It
assumes that a site's worth is determined by how much people are willing to pay to see it.
Because actual behavior and choices are used to account for environmental values, it is
called a revealed preference method. This method was initially introduced by Clawson
(1959) and has been modified by a number of researchers. The method relies on
observing quantities and imputing prices. There is a significant benefit that appropriate
valuation techniques for valuing recreational sites holds the key to strategic allocation and
conservation of recreation sites leave alone guiding allocation of financial resources for
such purposes (Kowuor, 2005).

Economic valuation of environmental goods or services is an important tool for public

policy making and has become an important source of information which helps to
provides estimate of the recreation use value of parks & national parks and plays a crucial
role in many areas of marketing management like pricing decisions (Champ et al., 2003).
Lusambo (2009) reported that travel cost method is an important technique of evaluating
demand for recreation facilities and it have improved considerably since the earliest
studies were carried out both from an empirical and theoretical point of view.

2
1.2 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
The economic valuation can be used to undertake a cost-benefit analysis for future
initiatives in order to minimize degradation and develop the site so that it can deliver
value-added services i.e. tourism (Nguyen, 2017). Manimukunda Sen Park is one of the
famous park and center of attraction of Butwal city. Economic valuation of recreation
provided by such urban parks is important to understand the willingness to pay for
ecotourism and ecosystem services provided by them. However, such researches are very
limited in Nepal. Thus, the study is carried to estimate the value of recreation and other
activities based on the park by using travel cost method. Also, the study focuses on the
facilities, management, environmental quality and recreational experience of the visitors
on the park. As a result, doing an economic valuation of such areas or parks is critical in
educating the general public about their economic worth, importance of ecosystem and
its' services.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION

The research question of this work is:

- What is the current economic valuation of Manimukunda Sen Park?

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

The general objective of the research was to estimate the economic value of the park by
applying individual travel cost method.

The specific objectives of the study were:

- To explore the nature and structure of the visitors;

- To assess the current status of the park;
- To determine the park's economic valuation.

1.5 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The limitation of the study was:

- Park's maintenance cost was not included in the analysis.

3
 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 ECOSYSTEM VALUES

King et al. (2000), describes two main categories of ecosystem values. They are use
values and non-use values. The use value of an environmental good or service, such as
fishing, hunting, or wildlife watching, is derived from the actual usage of that good or
service. Direct use values, indirect use values, and option values are considered the
subcategories of use values. Similarly, Non-use values, often known as "passive use"
values are unrelated to actual use or even the opportunity to utilize an environmentally
friendly product or service. Existence value and bequest value are two subtypes of non-
use values.

Direct use values are derived from the actual use of the resource. Indirect use value refers
to the benefits derived from ecosystem functions, such as forest’s function in protecting a
watershed, or as a carbon sink against global warming. And a value approximating an
individual’s willingness to pay to safeguard an asset for the option of using it at a future
date is an option value (Omunga, 2001).Actual uses are derived from indirect uses. We
may view indirect uses as the foundation stones of actual uses of environmental goods
and services. An indirect use may be in form of an input that helps to produce something
else (good or service) that people use directly (King et al., 2000). Omunga (2001) views
option value as a value approximating an individual’s willingness to pay to safeguard an
asset for the option of using it at a future date.

Omunga (2001) explains that existence value derive essentially from the simple fact of
the existence of the resources. King et al. (2000) concurs with Omunga by explaining that
it is the non-use value that people place on simply knowing that something exist, even if
they will never see it or use it. And bequest is the value that people place on knowing that
future generations will have the option to enjoy something. It is measured by people’s
willingness to pay to preserve the natural environment for future generations.

2.2 VALUATION
The system of representing products and services in economic terms is known as
valuation. Economic value is one of several ways to define and assess a product's or
service's performance. The total economic value of a resource consists of its use values

4
and non-use values. These values are difficult to estimate, even though several theoretical
methods are available. Direct valuation methods include the contingent valuation, hedonic
pricing and Travel Cost Method (TCM) while indirect valuation methods include
estimating dose-response relationships (Tiwari, 1998).

Miller (2002) explains that Conservation biologists and ecologists contend that wild
species, natural ecosystems, and the earth’s overall biodiversity have two types of values,
intrinsic (species or ecosystem centered) and instrumental (human centered) values.
Instrumental value is further classified as Utilitarian (goods, ecological services,
information, option, and recreation) and Non-utilitarian (existence, aesthetic and bequest).

Mahat (2004a) has explained economic valuation, which includes cost of tangible as well
as intangible benefits together, as an excellent idea for the investigation and realization of
the true value of environmental resources. He has suggested that community efforts with
optimum allocation of resources could solve the problem of “Tragedy of the commons” (a
situation in which free access resources are degraded due to over exploitation) and it leads
the way for sustainable resource management. He further adds moral, market and legal
forces together can bind people to manage it.

Finally, economic valuation is concerned with the allocation of resources to improve

human welfare. As a result, a variety of environmental benefits are evaluated in terms of
their contribution to the provision of valuable products and services to humanity.

2.3 NATURAL RESOURSE VALUATION TECHNIQUES

King et al. (2000) has described three widely accepted approaches to estimating dollar
values of a resource provided services. Each approach includes several methods. They are
Market prices - Revealed willingness to pay, Circumstantial Evidence - Imputed
willingness to pay and Surveys - Expressed willingness to pay.

Market pricing can be used to determine the value of various ecosystem commodities and
services. Some ecological or environmental services, such as scenic views or various
recreational activities, may not be directly purchased or sold in marketplaces. People's
willingness to pay in markets for similar items, on the other hand, can be used to evaluate
their values. People, for example, are willing to spend more for a property with a greater
view and more amenities. These methods include:

5
  Market Price Method
 Productivity Method
 Hedonic Pricing Method
 Travel Cost Method

Some ecosystem services can be valued by calculating what individuals are willing to
pay, or the cost of activities they are willing to undertake, to avoid or replace the negative
consequences that would occur if these services were lost. Wetlands, for example,
frequently provide a variety of ecological benefits. The amount of money people are
willing to pay to prevent damage in areas similar to those protected by wetlands can be
used to assess willingness to pay for wetland protection services. These methods include:

 Damage Cost Avoided

 Replacement Cost
 Substitute Cost Methods

When consumers are unable to "reveal" their willingness to pay for ecosystem services
through market purchases or activities, surveys can be used in these situations to ask
individuals directly what they are willing to pay based on a hypothetical scenario. People
can also be asked to make choices between several options from which their willingness
to pay can be evaluated. These methods include:

 Contingent Valuation Method

 Contingent Choice Method

2.4 TRAVEL COST METHOD

Economic values associated with ecosystems or sites that are used for recreation are
generally measured with the application of the TCM. Credit for the TCM is attributed to
Harold Hotelling, who proposed the basic notion of the method to a park service director
in a 1947 letter. It was not put into practice extensively until the late 1960’s, and has only
reached a more refined state in relatively recent years. Jack Clawson and Marion Knetsch
are widely regarded as two of the most important figures in the early development of the
TCM. The basic premise of the TCM is that time and travel cost expenses that people
incur to visit a site represent the “price” of access to the site. Thus, peoples’ willingness
to pay to visit the site can be estimated based on the number of trips they make at
different travel costs (Mahat, 2004).
6
Travel cost method imputes price of recreation as the full cost of using the recreational
facility including the vehicle related travel costs, access charges, onsite time costs,
incremental costs of equipment and supplies etc. i.e. directly related to activities (Smith,
1996). According to Syagga (2002) consuming recreation by an individual involves three
main cost elements which involves travel cost-transport cost to and from the recreation
site, time cost- money value of the hours spent on recreation experience, entry and meal
cost-expense incurred in gate fees (if any) and extra food costs over and above what
would have been spent on the same at home.

2.5 MODLES OF TRAVEL COST MTHOD

There are three different variations or models to travel cost method. They are zonal travel
cost model, individual travel cost model and random utility model.

The zonal travel cost method is the simplest and least expensive approach. It is a travel
cost model based on data relating to the zones of origin of site visitors. This approach is
best suited for estimating consumer surplus for recreation at sites where visitor origins are
relatively evenly distributed. It is applied by collecting information on the number of
visits to the site from different distances.  Because the travel and time costs will increase
with distance, this information allows the researcher to calculate the number of visits
"purchased" at different "prices". This information is used to construct the demand
function for the site, and estimate the consumer surplus, or economic benefits, for the
recreational services of the site (King et al., 2000).

The individual travel cost approach is similar to the zonal approach, but uses survey data
from individual visitors in the statistical analysis, rather than data from each zone. This
method thus requires more data collection and slightly more complicated analysis, but
will give more precise results (King et al., 2000). Garrod (1999) observes that the
approach has been successfully applied to a variety of recreational sites since mid 1980s.

The random utility approach is the most complicated and expensive of the travel cost
approaches.  It is also the "state of the art" approach, because it allows for much more
flexibility in calculating benefits.  It is the best approach to use to estimate benefits for
specific characteristics, or quality changes, of sites, rather than for the site as a whole.  It
is also the most appropriate approach when there are many substitute sites (King et al.,
2000). This approach presumes that people will choose their favorite spot out of all the
options. Individuals make compromises between the quality of a site and the cost of

7
getting there. As a result, this model requires data on all possible sites that a visitor might
visit, as well as information on their qualitative attributes and trip costs to each site.

2.6 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF TRAVEL COST METHOD

Kowuor (2005) outlined some of the benefits and drawbacks of the travel cost method, as
well as the importance and challenges of conducting the study, which are given below.

Some of the advantages of travel cost method are as follows:

a) The results are relatively easy to interpret and explain.

b) The method is relatively inexpensive to apply.
c) The method is closely similar to the conventional empirical techniques for
estimating economic values based on market prices.
d) The onsite surveys provide opportunities for large sample sizes, as most visitors
are interested in participating.
e) The method is based on actual behavior i.e. what people actually do in contrast to
“stated willingness to pay” based on hypothetical situation.

As the saying goes "whatever has advantages must have disadvantages as nothing is
perfect", this method no doubt has some limitations as explained below:

a) The simplest models assume that individuals take trips for single purposes to visit
specific recreational sites. However, trips may be taken for more than one purpose
and in such cases, value for site may be overestimated and it can be quite difficult
to apportion the travel costs among the purposes.
b) Traveling may also be a benefit and not a cost if those traveling enjoy the same as
a hobby, and the value of the site will be overestimated.
c) Those who have high value for certain sites may choose to live nearby resulting in
failure to capture such values due to negligible or no travel costs.
d) Interviewing visitors on site can introduce sampling biases to the analysis. As in
all statistical methods, certain statistical problems can affect the results.
e) The availability of substitute sites will affect values.
f) Measuring recreational quality and relating recreational quality to environmental
quality can be difficult.

8
2.7 GLOBAL AND NATIONAL SCENARIO OF ECONOMIC VALUATION
According to Khan (2004), there are many studies on environmental valuation, but only a
few have employed an economic approach to quantify welfare measurement. Two major
studies in Thailand that used economic valuation methodologies were The Lumpinee Park
study in 1986 and the TDRI/HIID research on Khao Yai National Park in 1995. In order
to estimate willingness to pay, both research combined the TCM with the open ended
contingent valuation approach.

Mahat (2004b) conducted research on the economic valuation of environmental

resources, a case study of Nepal's central zoo to determine the zoo's economic value and
the degree of association between travel costs and zoo visits. He also wanted to look into
the zoo's management and financial situation in order to come up with long-term
solutions to improve the facilities. The travel cost approach was used to determine the
economic value, and numerous additional methods were used to gather data. It was
discovered that travel costs and the number of zoo visits were inversely related. The zoo's
economic value per capita was calculated to be NRs. 226.286 (US $3.15). He also
determined that environmental hygiene, space extension, greenery, peace, animal
additions, and the availability of appropriate resting spots were all key areas in need of
development.

In Bardiya National Park (BNP), Basnyat et al. (2012) used a TEV approach for monetary
measurement of ecological products and services. They calculated the park's total
economic value, as well as financial returns and social benefits. The entire annual
economic value of the BNP was estimated to be NRS 379 million, with tourism,
provisioning, and carbon sequestration being the primary sources. The government's
revenue was less than 3% of the BNP's overall economic worth. According to a financial
study, BNP was only able to earn 39% of the government's expenditure, but economic
analysis demonstrated that society gained about NRS. 8 for every rupee spent on BNP.

KC et al. (2013) investigated the value of ecosystem services in Nepal's Baghmara Buffer
Zone Community Forest, assessing local users' and tourist's willingness to support
sustainable management and conservation of natural resources, as well as recreational and
aesthetic services. 95 users and 100 tourists took part in the contingent valuation survey.
Users' willingness to pay appeared to be influenced by criteria such as distance to forest,
family size, nature of residence, gender and size of land holding. The projected average

9
willingness to pay by all users for recreational and aesthetic services was NRs. 33,347
(about US$ 460) per year. Domestic tourists' willingness to pay was influenced mainly by
their income, whereas international tourists' willingness to pay was influenced by gender,
travel group, and education in addition to their income. The average projected willingness
to pay by all tourists was US$ 3,806,468 per year.

Limaei et al. (2014) assessed the recreational and socioeconomic values of Masouleh
Forest Park in Iran's northwestern region. For the evaluation, the Travel Cost Approach
(TCM) or Clawson method was utilized. The visitors were given 96 questionnaires to fill
out. The findings revealed that criteria such as journey time to the park, travel
expenditures, age, and education were useful in determining whether or not to use the
park. It was found that the average willingness to pay was 12,500 Iranian Rials per visit.
The average round-trip travel expense was also 85.5 dollars (10,000 Iranian Rials).
According to the findings, the willingness to pay dropped when the entrance fee was
raised.

Aryal et al. (2015) studied the influence of tourism and visitors' willingness to pay in
Chitwan National Park (CNP). Eighty tourists were chosen at random to assess the
recreational value of Chitwan National Park in order to protect the biodiversity of the
park's buffer zone area. The Travel Cost Method was used to determine a visitor's
willingness to pay. The survey found that only public infrastructure development was
prioritized over sensitizing members to protected area conservation challenges. The
overall annual consumer surplus generated by park recreation was around USD 233
million. They also found that visitors were impacted by a number of factors, including
travel costs, household income, and the park's quality.

Zella Adili & Ngunyali (2016) used the Travel Cost Method to value the recreation of
Kilimanjaro National Park. Questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews, and
secondary materials were used to obtain data. The survey questionnaire was created to
collect socio-demographic information about visitors as well as data on visitors
perceptions of the quality of services offered during their visit to KINAPA. Based on this
econometric results Consumer Surplus per day of stay in the park was 925 182 TZS (USD
571.10), the mean visitor Willingness to Pay was per one day of a visit is 837 280.80 TZS
(USD 516.84), the total recreation value of the park was estimated to be 314 165 955 200
TZS (USD 193 929 602) per one calendar year and the revenue maximizing entry fee for

10
the park was estimated to be 90 396 TZS (USD 55.8). Furthermore, the findings revealed
that factors like travel costs, available recreation income, age, work status, and quality
perception were relevant and influenced the number of days a visitor stayed at the park.

Zandi et al. (2018) calculated the recreational value of Ghaleh Rudkhan forest park in
northern Iran using the individual travel cost method. The visitors of the recreational site
were given 271 questionnaires at random. A linear function was employed in the study to
assess the influence of explanatory variables such as economic and social variables on the
number of visitors in order to estimate the forest park's recreational value. The results
revealed that each person's consumer surplus for their visit was 21500 Rials, and the
park's yearly recreational value was 78390595 Rials per hectare. Furthermore, factors
such as travel expenses, income, distance, family size, and tourist age had a role in the
park's recreational use.

11
 CHAPTER III: METHODS AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 STUDY AREA

Manimukunda Sen Park, commonly known as Phool Bari, is a forest park located in
Butwal Sub-Metropolitan City, Rupandehi district. It is located at 742262 E and 3067064
N, which is 268 km from the Kathmandu Valley, 158 km from Pokhara, and 28 km from
the India-Nepal border, Sonauli. It lies in the Terai region of Nepal at an elevation of 100
to 1229 m above sea level with a tropical and humid climate where summer temperature
range from 23 to 45 °C and winter temperature vary from 7 to 23 °C. The park is
considered to be historically, religiously, and archeologically significant because it used
to be the garden of Palpali King Manimukunda Sen. It was established in 2036 B.S. and
later registered as Manimukunda Sen Park in 2054 B.S.

Figure 1: Location map of the study area

The area of the park is around 7 hectors which primarily contains a variety of flora, fauna,
gardens and other aesthetic aspects as well as picnic areas and a small playzone. Park
consists of a small zoo which is occupied by important faunas such as Leopard (Panthera
pardus), Indian rock python (Python molurus), Black Monitor Lizard (Varanus

12
albigularis ionidesi), Himalayan Black Bear (Ursus thibetanus), Turtles (Testudines),
Spotted Deer (Axis axis), Golden Jackal (Canis aureus) and few others. Also the
vegetation species found around the park are Sal (Shorea robusta), Asana (Terminalia
tomentosa), Harro (Terminalia chebula), Barro (Terminalia bellirica), Jamun (Syzygium
cumini), Satisal (Dalbergia latifolia), Simal (Bombax ceiba), Neem (Azadirachta indica),
Kusum (Schleichera oleosa), Teak (Tectona grandis), Ipilipil (Leucaena leucocephala),
Peepal (Ficus religiosa) and Chilaune (Schima wallichii).

3.2 RESESRCH DESIGN

The project was carried out in Manimukunda Sen Park which lies in Butwal, Rupandehi
district. At first, the information on economic valuation was gathered and desk
preparation was completed by determining the appropriate valuation factors that were
needed for the study. A literature review was conducted using published articles
concerning previous research and studies. For the proper sample size of visitors, a
questionnaire survey was the best way to collect data on the required parameters. Mitchell
et al. (2012) reported that surveys are valuable since it is a fast and inexpensive way to
collect a lot of information about sample’s attitudes, beliefs and self-reported behaviors.
As a result a questionnaire was created and relevant data was collected, which was then
examined in order to draw appropriate conclusions.

3.3 RESEARCH PROCESS

The entire research work was completed in an order, systematically as shown below,

Figure 2: Chart showing research process

13
3.4 SAMPLE SIZE
For the purpose of study, 100 visitors were randomly selected for questionnaire survey to
find out the linkage between the visitors willingness to pay and the services provided by
the park. Aryal et al. (2015) also selected 80 tourists randomly to evaluate willingness to
pay, recreational value, biodiversity conservation and recreational benefits of Chitwan
National Park

3.5 FIELD METHODS

A semi-structured questionnaire was developed and the survey was conducted with the
visitors. Interviews with significant informants were also conducted, and the necessary
data was gathered. The process of data collection started in November 2021. For the
survey, a list of questionnaires covering all aspects of the study's objectives was prepared
and asked to 100 visitors inside the park. Their languages and willingness to participate
were taken into account while asking questions. The information related to park facilities,
cash inflow, number of visitors etc. was collected from the key informants and records of
the park. Mr. Bikram Bashyal, who was the manager of the park, was the main informant
of the study.

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS

Methodologically, this study applies the travel cost method, incorporating different
dependent and independent variables for the analysis of data. The survey data was coded
and categorized in accordance with the requirements. To evaluate the acquired data, MS-
Excel was used. Bar graphs, pie charts and statistical operations were performed
whenever needed. The analysis was primarily focused on meeting the requirements of the
specific objectives that would validate the title of the research work.

Questionnaires were used to acquire the information needed from the visitors. The total
time spent traveling to the site, time spent on site, visitor's income level, travel cost and
site costs were calculated as reported by each respondent during the survey. Thus,
Average Annual Travel Cost (AATC), Annual Total Travel Cost (ATTC) and Consumer
Surplus was calculated by using the formula (Kowuor, 2005).

Travel expenses+Time Cost + On Site Expenses + Entry Fee

AATC=
Sample ¿ ¿ ¿

ATTC=AATC∗Annual Visits

14
And finally, recreational value for the site was obtained by capitalizing the Consumer
Surplus at a Discount Rate (DR) equal to Treasury Bills Rate (TBR) plus Inflation Rate
(IR).

RV =DR∗CS

15
 CHAPTER IV: RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 GENERAL INFORMATION OF RESPONDENTS

4.1.1 Gender of Visitors

Figure 3 shows that 75% of the respondents were male and 25% were female. The park
was discovered to have the greatest number of males. This is due to the fact that the males
are provided with more freedom than female in our society (Ridgeway, 2011). Also the
males are found more likely to travel in comparison to females.

Male Female

25%

75%

Figure 3: Gender of the respondents

4.1.2 Nationality of Visitors

Figure 4 depicts that internal or local tourists were in high demand accounting for 96% of
all visitors and 4% of all visitors from India. With the exception of India and Nepal, no
visitors from (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) SAARC nations were
seen. Many visitors from SAARC nations used to visit the park according to the study,
but the survey was conducted during the global pandemic, therefore we found few
international travelers to question.

16
 Nepali Indian

4%

96%

Figure 4: Nationality of Respondents

4.1.3 Age Structure

Respondents in the questionnaire survey include different age groups as given in figure
5. The majority of respondents were from the economically active category, as shown
in the table above. There was modest number of visitors aged 0 to 18 and a smaller
proportion of people aged over 50. The dominant visitor age group was found to be 19
to 50. One probable explanation for elderly and lower age group people having less
social engagement and fewer travel activities is that they engage in different activities
than younger ones (Feld, 1981). Jenkins et al., (2007) and Grebner (2012) concluded
that age is a significant factor that determines involvement in recreational activities,
stating that participation in recreational purpose declines with age and people slow
down and become less physically active as they grow older.

17
 100
90
80

Number of Respondents
70
60
50
87
40
30
20
10
8 5
0
0-18 19-50 Above 50
Age group

Figure 5: Respondents Classification According to Age Group

4.1.4 Arrival of Visitors According to State

The arrival of several visitors from various states was seen. The number of visitors
according to state is depicted in figure 6 which shows the majority of the visitors came
from Lumbini Province, i.e., 82%. Similarly, 9% and 5% visitors arrived from the
provinces Gandaki and Bagmati, respectively. In addition, four percent of international
tourists from India's Uttar Pradesh state were sighted. Because the park is located in
Lumbini province, a large number of local tourists were seen. Visitors from
neighboring provinces were also spotted because the location offers excellent
transportation connections. Due to the global COVID outbreak, the number of
international visitors was quite low (Khanal, 2020).

18
 90
80

Number of respondents
70
60
50
40 82

30
20
10
9 5 4
0
Lumbini Gandaki Bagmati UP
Name of the State

Figure 6: Classification according to state

4.1.5 Arrival of Visitors According to District

Figure 7 represents the arrival of visitors according to different districts. Rupandehi
district had the most visitors, followed by Kapilvastu, Gulmi, Palpa, Argakhanchi,
Syangja, and so on. The total number of visitors from Rupandehi, Kapilvastu, Gulmi,
Palpa, Argakhanchi, Syangja, Chitwan, Parasi, Baglung, Gorakhpur, Nawalpur, Kaski,
Dang, Kathmandu, Dhading, Sitapur and
Siddharthnagar were 49,10,8,6,5,5,3,3,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 respectively.

60

50

40
Number of respondents

30
49
20

10
10 8 6 5 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
i i i an g ur ar
eh l m ch un p ng i ng g
an
d
Gu kh
a
h i tw gl wa
l Da ad na
p a Ba a h th
Ru g h C N D ar
Ar d dh
Si
Name of districts

Figure 7: Classification according to district.

19
4.1.6 Family Size
Out of the 100 people who visited the park, the smallest family size was discovered to
be two members, and the largest family size was discovered to be eleven members. The
average family size of the respondents was found to be 5.05±1.52. This was based on
the maximum and minimum family sizes.

4.2 SOCIO ECONOMIC STATUS OF RESPONDENTS

4.2.1 Education of Respondents

Figure 8 shows different education levels of the respondents. The maximum population
(49%) had university level education followed by higher secondary (33%), secondary
(15%) and primary (3%) which shows that educated people are interested on visiting
new places, participating and exploring new culture, environment and natural beauty
(Jha, 1999). Also, it shows that university educated people were more interested to visit
this park. This result is similar to the results of (Enyew, 2003) and (Limeai et al.,
2014).

60

50
Number of Respondents

40

30
49
20
33
10
15
0 3
University Higher Secondary Primary
secondary
Education level

Figure 8: Education of respondents

4.2.2 Employment Status

Figure 9 shows the five alternatives used to record the employment status of
respondents in recreational activities. According to the findings, 33% of respondents
were students, followed by 29% who were completely employed, 17% who were
unemployed, 14% who were self-employed, and finally 7% who were engaged in part-

20
time activities. This pattern of visitor employment status indicates that a substantial
percentage of recreation activity participants were students, followed by employed and
unemployed people, respectively. According to Kyle et al., (2003), a salaried
occupation generally influences participation in recreation activities and thus the
visitation rate, whereas in an unemployment situation, recreation experiences may be
diminished and so the number of participants may be reduced.

35

30
Number of respondents

25

20
33
15 29

10
17
14
5
7
0
student full time unemployed self employed part time
Employment status

Figure 9: Employment status of respondents

4.2.3 Monthly Income

The monthly income status of respondents who participate in recreational activities is
summarized in figure 10. According to the findings of this study, half of the
respondents had no source of income, as the majority of them were students and some
were unemployed. 19% of employed respondents earn between 20,000 and 40,000 per
month, followed by 14% of respondents earning less than 20,000 per month, 9% of
respondents earning between 40,000 and 60,000, 5% earning between 60,000 and
80,000, and 3% earning more than 80,000 per month. This indicates that majority of the
respondents are in the middle income level of the workforce from the distribution by
age. Torkildsen (2012) clarifies that recreation activity which require investment
reflects a direct relationship between the level of income and amount of participation,
such recreation includes travelling, camping, hiking etc.

21
 60

50

Number of respondents
40

30
50
20

10 19
14
9
5 3
0
0 20-40 0-20 40-60 60-80 80 above
Monthly income in thousand

Figure 10: Monthly income of respondents

Regression analysis was done between the number of visits and the monthly income of
the respondents, where a significant relationship was seen between the dependent and
independent variables. The p-value was found to be 0.000019. This shows that the
result is significant and implies the acceptance of alternative hypothesis. Also, the R 2-
value being 0.99 defines the stronger relationship between the number of visits and
monthly income as shown in table 1. Since the higher number of respondents were not
employed, number of visit was found to be inversely affected.

Table 1: Regression model between number of visits and monthly income

ANOVA
Significance
df SS MS F F
19500.4
Regression 1 19500.48 8 551.1762 1.95135E-05
35.3797
Residual 4 141.519 6
Total 5 19642

4.3 INFORMATION REGARDING VISIT

4.3.1 Frequency of visit

Out of 100 visitors, the minimum number of visits was found to be 1, as many of them
were visiting the park for the first time. The number of people who visited the park for
the first time was 24, followed by the number of visitors who visited the park on a

22
regular basis. The maximum number of visits was 15 times, with an average of
3.78±3.05.

4.3.2 Means of Transport

Figure 11 illustrates that less than 10% of visitors traveled by private vehicle (cars,
jeeps, etc.), whereas public transportation was used by 48% of visitors, and
motorcycles by 43% of visitors. It obviously indicates the easier accessibility of public
transportation, as well as the fact that the motorcycle appeared to be the simplest and
fastest mode of mobility.

public vehicle motorcycle private vehicle

9%

48%

43%

Figure 11: Respondents means of transport

4.3.3 Travel Time of Respondents

According to the study, the minimum time required for visitors to arrive at the park was
10 minutes, and the maximum time required was 8 hours. Thus, the average travel time
was found to be 2.1988±2.34 hours. The result reveals that the number of visitors
decreases as travel time increases.

4.3.4 Travel Distance

The minimum distance from where the visitors arrived was 2 km, and the maximum
distance was 260 km. Based on findings respondents travel distance had an average of
50.55±51.40 km. Similar result was observed that the number of visitors seemed to
decrease with the increase in distance. This result is in line with the result of Limaei et
al., (2014) in a study at Masouleh forest park in the north of Iran using TCM found that

23
the number of visits, travel duration and distance were significantly correlated whereas
with increasing travel distance and cost, the number of visitors will be reduced.

4.3.5 Purpose of Visit

Figure 12 shows that, out of total respondents, the majority of them came for
recreational purposes. 94% of the people came for recreational purposes, whereas 2%
each were seen for official visits, studies, and other purposes. It is so because the park
offers good environmental conditions along with many facilities like a zoo, picnic
spots, playzone etc. for recreation, through which visitors experience a great time in
their leisure activities.

Recreation Official visit Study purpose Other

2% 2%
2%

94%

Figure 12: Respondents purpose of visit

4.3.6 Duration of Visit

According to the length of time visitors wanted to spend on the site, a minimum of 1
hour and a maximum of 4 hours were observed. The average duration was found to be
2.205±0.65 hours. The majority of visitors came from the nearby area and were found
to spend the most time at the park. Results indicated that visitors were likely to stay
longer in the park if the park's facilities were enhanced.

4.4 RESPONDENTS’ SITE PERCEPTION AND RATINGS

Respondents were asked to rate the park's facilities based on their view of the zoo,
species care and condition, and green space for animals. Ratings were based on a scale
of one (1) to five (5), where one (1) is below average, and five (5) is above average.

24
4.4.1 Facility of Zoo in the Park
Out of 100 respondents 23% rated for 5, 48% rated for 4 followed by 24% for 3 and 5%
for 2. None of the respondents rated 1 which indicates that they found the facility of
zoo quite interesting and main attraction of the park. However, while the zoo appeared
to be the main attraction, some of the respondents claimed that the freedom of species
should be considered, and releasing them in their natural habitat is the best alternative
for them.

4.4.2 Condition and Care of Species

Similarly, 88% of the respondents rated 3 and 4 for the condition and care of species in
the zoo, while 8% of them rated 2, followed by 2% each for 1 and 5. This indicates that
species care is about average to slightly above average. However, in light of the
findings, species care and protection should be given greater consideration.

4.4.3 Condition of Green Space & Surrounding for Species

35% and 36% of respondents rated the condition of green space and surroundings for
the species as 3 and 4, respectively. 22% of them rated 2, along with 6% for 5 and 1%
for 1. This clearly suggests that the species space and environment should be expanded,
and they should be supplied with improved living conditions.

4.4.4 Perception on Environmental Quality

Findings reveal that a park offers a better environmental quality, attracting more
visitors. Figure 13 represents that the park's environmental quality was rated good by
72% of visitors, with 25% rating it very good. Only 3% of visitors gave it an average
rating. This indicates that visitors are pleased with the surroundings and are more
inclined to revisit for recreational activities. Hsieh (2012) provides evidence that
although the tourist attraction is the important driving force behind the tourism system,
the quality of activities, service, and value of the product at the site have an impact on
the future willingness to revisit or recommend the site to others.

25
 good very good average
3%

25%

72%

Figure 13: Respondents perception on environmental quality

4.4.5 Recreational Experience of Respondents

Figure 14 shows that 51% of respondents had a good experience and enjoyed their time
at the site for recreational purposes. Similarly, 36% of respondents said they had a very
good recreational experience, while 13% said they spent an average amount of time
during their visit.

good very good average

13%

51%

36%

Figure 14: Respondents quality of recreational experience

4.4.6 Substitute Site

Visitors were asked a question about a substitute site they would want to visit instead of
this one, or if the site was closed. As a result, figure 15 shows the names of the
26
substitute sites in decreasing order of size based on the visitor's preference. The site
with the largest size is the most preferred, while the site with the smallest size is the
least preferred. Banbatika followed by Hill Park, Lumbini, Peace Park, Siddhababa,
Milan Park, Jagdispur Tal, Gajadi Tal, Jitgadhi, Charange, and Keuli, were the most
popular substitute sites among respondents according to their preference.

Figure 15: Name of the substitute sites

4.5 FINANCIAL ASPECTS OF THE VISIT

4.5.1 Entry Fee

The park's entry fee was Rs. 50 per person. As a result of the participation of 100
respondents in the survey, the total entry cost estimated in the survey was Rs. 5000.

4.5.2 Travel Expenses

The total travel expense for the visit was found to be Rs. 59665, with visitors spending
a minimum of Rs. 50 and a maximum of Rs. 4000 based on the lowest and highest
amounts spent. The average amount was found to be Rs. 596.65±709.02. The cost of
travel was discovered to be directly proportional to the distance traveled. As the
distance between two points increases, so does the cost.

27
4.5.3 Willingness to Pay under Same Scenario
In the same scenario, several respondents declined to pay an additional amount, so the
minimum value that resulted was 0. However, the greatest sum that visitors intended to
spend in the same circumstance varied from Rs. 5 to Rs. 50, depending on their point of
view and financial situation. Thus, the average additional amount that tourists are
willing to pay under similar conditions is Rs. 11.75±8.97, based on maximum and
minimum values.

4.5.4 Willingness to Pay under Better Scenario

If the park offers better facilities with better management, then the minimum amount to
be added that visitors are willing to pay is Rs. 10, ranging to the maximum amount of
Rs. 100. The average amount that can be raised results to Rs. 28.6±16.36. This suggests
that if better management of the park is done, the visitors are willing to pay a certain
extra amount for the facilities provided to them.

4.5.5 Consequence of Change in Visit on Increasing Entry Fee

80

70

60
Number of visits

50

40

30

20

10

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Rise in entry fee

Figure 16: Graph showing number of visits on increasing entry fee

Visitors were asked a hypothetical question to see how varying access fees affect
consumer surplus and visitation rates at the park. Different entry rates were added into
the question to examine the number of visits if the entry charge was raised by Rs
10,20,30,40, and 50 on the basis of 12 visits per year. Despite the fee increment of Rs.
10, 72% of visitors said they would visit the park at the same rate. With an increase of
Rs. 20, the rate of visitors visiting at the same rate was reduced to 45%. Similarly,

28
when the price was raised by Rs. 30, the number of visitors fell to 23%, and when the
price was raised by Rs. 40 and 50, the number of visitors fell to 13%. Thus, according
to a survey, only 13% of visitors were unaffected by the increase in entry fee because
their visit rates remained unchanged. However, the rate of visitation fell by 28% with a
rise of Rs. 10, 55% with a rise of Rs. 20, 77% with a rise of Rs. 30, and 87% with a rise
of Rs. 40 and 50 respectively. This indicates that the number of visitors visiting the
park decreases continuously with the increase in entry fee under current scenarios.

4.6 ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE PARK

During the study, related data was collected in order to conduct an analysis to
determine the park's economic value. The number of visitors in previous years was
examined, where the fluctuation in the visitor number was seen as represented in the
figure 17. As seen from the year 2070 B.S., a progressive increase in the number of
visitors was observed, but it decreased in the years 2073/74 B.S. because of the
recovery phase following the major earthquake in 2072 B.S. (Ulak, 2015). Again, the
flow of visitors increased, and then declined in 2076/77 due to the influence of the
global COVID pandemic. As a result, the most recent visitation data was employed to
evaluate the park's economic value.

1600000

1400000

1200000
Number of visitors

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0
2070/71 2071/72 2072/73 2073/74 2074/75 2075/76 2076/77
Year in B.S

Figure 17: Graph showing number of visitors per year

The Average Annual Travel Cost (AATC) was calculated to be 1232.73 NRS. And
based on the product of AATC to annual visitors (2076/77 B.S) of the park, the Annual
Total Travel Cost (ATTC) was estimated to be 1444759560 NRS, which equals

29
11842291.5 USD. Thus, the total annual recreational value obtained for the park was
167264003.9 USD, with a consumer surplus of 11842291.5 USD.

30
 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSION
The economic value of Manimukunda Sen Park was determined using the individual
travel cost approach. This method is considered to be a substitute approach for the
market therefore it was used to estimate the monetary value of the mentioned
recreational site. Monthly income and number of visit were significant factors in the
park's recreational use. Results showed that the net consumer surplus of the park was
11842291.5 USD and the annual recreational value of the park was 167264003.9 USD.
Furthermore, the data reveals that visitor experience, which includes park
administration, guiding and interpretation, the quantity and quality of facilities, and the
park's attractiveness, plays a greater influence and is a major factor of tourist
satisfaction.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The park has a great potential as a holiday and recreational site and is a safe place for
young couples along with families. So based on the study, I suggest following
recommendations for the betterment of the park in tourism activities:

1. Entry fee may be raised by NRS 5 to 10 which would generate additional

revenue for the development of the park as the study suggests that people would
be willing to pay more if environmental hygiene and facilities were maintained.
2. Care of species and their space in the zoo should be increased if possible
because it is the main attraction of the park.

31
 REFERENCES

Aryal, M., Dutta, J. P., Regmi, P. P., and Pandey, K. R. (2015). Willingness to pay by
using travel cost method in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Journal of the
Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, 1-10.

Basnyat, B., Sharma, B. P., Kunwar, R. M., Acharya, R. P., & Shrestha, J. (2012). Is
current level of financing sufficient for managing protected area? A case study
of economic valuation of Bardia National Park, Nepal.

Breidert, C., Hahsler M., Reutterrer T. (2006). A review of methods for measuring
willingness to pay. Innotive marketing 2.

Bromley, D.W. (1995). The Handbook of Environmental Economics: Blackwell

publications Ltd: London.

Champ, PA., Boyle Kevin, J., Brown Thomas, C. (2003). A primer on nonmarket
valuation: The economics of nonmarket goods and resources. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Netherlands.

Clawson, M. (1959): Methods of Measuring the Demand for Value of Outdoor

Recreation. Washington, DC, Resources for the Future: 36.

Enyew, S. (2003). Valuation of the benefits of out-door recreation using the travel cost
method: The case of Wabi-Shebele Langano recreation site. Unpublished MSc
thesis. University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Feld, SL. (1981).The focused organization of social ties.  American Journal of

Sociology. 1981;86:1015–1035.

Garrod, G and K.G. Willis (1999). Economic Valuation of the Environment-Methods &
Case studies. Edward Elgar, UK.

Grebner, DL. , Bettinger, P., Siry. JP. (2012) Introduction to Forestry and Natural
Resources. Academic Press.

32
Hsieh, W. (2012). A study of Tourists on Attraction, Service quality, Perceived Value
and Behavioral Intention in the Penghu Ocean Firework Festival. The Journal of
International Management Studies 2: 1993-1034.

Jenkins, JM., Pigram JJ. (2007) Outdoor Recreation Management. 2nd edn, Routledge,
USA.

Jha, P. K. (1999). Ecotourism: Nepal Nature’s Paradise (et al) TC Majupuria and
Rohit. Kunwar, Kathmandu.

KC, B., Kandel, P. N., and Adhikari, S. (2013). Economic valuation of ecosystem
services in protected areas: A case study from Nepal. Banko Janakari, 23(1),
42-50.

Khanal, B.P. (2020). Impact of the COVID-19 in tourism industry in Nepal and policy
recommendation. Journal of Tourism & Adventure, 3(1), 76-91.

Khan, H. (2004). “Demand for Ecotourism: Estimating Recreational Benefits from the
Margalla Hills National Park in Northern Pakistan”, South Asian Network for
Development and Environmental Economics, Kathmandu, Nepal.

King, D.M., Markowitz, J. Kenneth and Mazzotta, M. (2000), “Ecosystem Valuation”,

www.ecosystemvaluation.org/index.html Retrieved date: 2022-04-21

Kowuor, C. O. N. (2005). An application of travel cost method in the valuation of

recreational properties case study of Nairobi arboretum (Doctoral dissertation).

Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., Bacon, J. (2003). An Examination of the
Relationship between Leisure Activity Involvement and Place Attachment
among Hikers along the Appalachian Trail. J Leisure Res 35: 249-273.

Limaei,S. M., Ghesmati, H., Rashidi, R., and Yamini, N. (2014). Economic evaluation
of natural forest park using the travel cost method (case study; Masouleh forest
park, north of Iran). Journal of Forest Science, 60(6), 254-261.

Lusambo, L.P. (2009). Economics of household energy in Miombo woodlands of

Eastern and South Tanzania. University of Bangor, UK.

33
MAES (2014). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their services- Indicators
for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to
2020. Publications office of the European Union, Technical Report ‐ 2014 ‐
080, Luxembourg.

Mahat, T. J., April/May (2004a). “Economic Valuation: Managing commons with

common efforts”, Editorial published in Green Herald (a monthly magazine
published by Central Department of Environmental Science, TU, Kathmandu,
Nepal).

Mahat, T.J., December (2004b). "Economic valuation of environmental resources: a

case study of the central zoo of Nepal", Central Department of Environmental
Science, TU, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Miller Junior, G.T. (2002) (12th edition). “Living in the Environment: Principles,
Connections and Solutions”, Brooks/Cole, Thomson Learning, USA (P 560)

Mitchell, M.L., Jolley, J.M. (2012). Research Design Explained. 8th edn, John-David
Hague.

Mitchell-Nelson, J. and Schaffer, P. (2015). Estimating the recreational value of

Portland’s Forest Park. Portland State University, Report Prepared for the
Forest Park Conservancy.

Nguyen, B. H. (2017). Using the Travel Cost Method to Estimate Fresh-Water Based
Recreation in North Central Florida.

Omunga, P.M. (2001). Valuation of Natural Resources: A Critical Examination of

Economic Valuation Approaches used in Estimating the Value of Biodiversity.
Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Department of Land Development, University
of Nairobi.

Pajooyan J., Falihi N. (2008). Economic valuation of recreational services of

environmental resources: Case study in Anzali lagoon. Journal of Economic
Research, 8(1): 147–171.

Pearce D.W., Warford J.W. (1993). “World without End: Economics, Environment,
and Sustainable Development”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the
modern world. Oxford University Press.

Syagga, P .M. (2002). Valuation of outdoor recreation. Unpublished article. Dept of

Land Development, University of Nairobi.

Theobald, W.F. (2005). Global Tourism (3rded.). The meaning, scope and measurement
of travel and tourism. Elsevier Science, Burlington.

Tiwari, B. N., (1998). “Environmental Economics Initiatives in Nepal”, Tribhuvan

University, paper prepared for the Workshop on Environmental Economics
Initiatives held on 6 September 1998 in Kathmandu, Nepal.

Torkildsen, G. (2012). Leisure and Recreation Management. 5th edition, Tailor and
Francis e-library.

Ulak, N. (2015). Nepal's earthquake-2015: Its impact on various sectors. The Gaze:

Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, 7, 58-86.

Whitehead, J.C., Haab, T.C., and Huang, J. (2000). Measuring recreation benefits of
quality improvements with revealed and stated behavior data. Resource and
Energy Economics, 22(4), 339-354. doi: 10.1016/s0928-7655(00)00023-3.

Wood, M.E (2002). “Ecotourism: principles, practices, and policies for sustainability”,
United Nations Environmental Program, Tour Mirabeau, France and The
International Ecotourism Society, Burlington, VA, USA.

Zandi, S., Limaei, S. M., & Amiri, N. (2018). An economic evaluation of a forest park
using the individual travel cost method (a case study of Ghaleh Rudkhan forest
park in northern Iran). Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, 6(2), 48-55.

Zella Adili, Y., and Ngunyali Robert, H. (2016). Economic valuation of recreation use
value of Kilimanjaro National Park. Tanzania. J Ecosys Ecograph, 6(220), 2.

35
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX-I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR VISITORS

Date: _________

We have a few questions about your visit to the park and we would let you know that
your data are anonymous and confidential.

Name:_________ ____________ Age: ____ Years

Sex: Male/Female/Other
Nationality: ________ State: ________ District: _________ Education: ______
Family size: ____ Members
1. How many times did you visit the site?
a.1 b. 2 c.3 d.4 e.5 f. above5 (try to get the exact number
if possible …. Times)
2. What means of transport did you use to travel to the site?
a. private vehicle b. public vehicle c. on foot d. bicycle
e. motorcycle
3. How long did it take you to travel from the place to the site?
a. less than 1 hr b. 1-2 hrs c.2-3 hrs d.3-4 hrs e. more than 4 hrs
4. What was the length of your trip?
a. less than 1km b.1-5km c. 5-10km d.10-15km e. more than 15 km
(take exact distance if they know ______ km)
5. What was your exact travel expenses? __________________ NPR/$/___
6. Did you visit any other location during same trip? If yes, what was the time spent on
it?
__________________
7. What is your reason for visiting the site?
a. recreational purpose b. study purpose c. official visit d. other e. all of above
8. How much did you pay to see the attraction or entry fee? __________________

I
9. Suppose, the management authority of this park decides to raise the entry fee under
the same scenarios, how much will be the justifiable amount to be added to the current
fee? _____ NPR/$/_____

10. Suppose you normally visit the park 12 times in a year and the entry fee is raised by
the following amounts, how many times will you visit the park in a year?

Raised fee Number of visits

+10 NPR or 0.084USD
+20 NPR or 0.17 USD
+30 NPR or 0.25 USD
+40 NPR or 0.34 USD
+50 NPR or 0.42 USD

11. If the authority raises entry fee for the better management of the park then the
current, how much should be the raised amount to the current fee? _____ NPR/$/___

12. How long did you stay or want to stay at the site?

a. less than 1hr b.1-2 hrs c.2-3hrs d. 3-4hrs e. more than 4 hrs
13. Using scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is below average and 5 is above average please tell
us how you would rate the following characteristics and condition of park.
1 2 3 4 5

a. facility of zoo in the park

b. condition and care of species in the zoo
c. condition of green space & surrounding
for the species
14. If you have spent any amount inside the park (after entry), do mention the amount.
____________ NPR/$/____
15. What is your employment status? If you are employed than go to question no 16 &
if not go to question no17.
a. employed full time b. employed part time c. self-employed d. unemployed e.
student f. other
16. What is your approximate monthly income?
a. up to 20,000 b.20,000-40,000 c.40,000-60,000 d.60,000-80,000

II
e. above 80,000
17. What is your quality of recreational experience at the site?
a. good b. very good c. average d. bad

18. What is your perception towards environment quality at the site?

a. good b. very good c. average d. bad
19. What may be the substitute site that you want to visit instead of this site? (Say if
this place was closed)
_________________________

Duration of interview: __________

Survey is completed. Thank you very much for your time and participation.

III
APPENDIX-II: PHOTO PLATES

Photograph 1: Manimukunda Sen Park

Photograph 2: Questionnaire Survey

IV
Photograph 3: Questionnaire Survey

Photograph 4: Animals in the Zoo