Economic Valuation of Recreation Benefits in Chamang Forest Recreation Area, Bentong, Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia AWANG NOOR A.G.

1, MOHD YUSRIZAL H.,2 TUAN MARINA T.I.2, MOHD SYAUKI M.S.2 Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia 2 Economic Unit, Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia, Jalan Sultan Salahuddin, 50660 Kuala Lumpur Keywords: forest recreation, recreation demand curve, travel cost method, consumer surplus, regression analysis ABSTRACT Forest recreation areas provide many benefits to the community, which are difficult to measure using normal market approach. This study used an individual travel cost method (ITCM) to estimate the economic value of recreation benefits of Chamang Recreational Forest (CRF) in Bentong, Pahang. The activities involved include surveys on visitors to the forest recreation areas, derivation of recreation-demand function and computation of consumer surplus associated with the recreation demand curve. A total of 307 visitors were interviewed in Chamang Recreational Forest. Three recreation-demand models were used: semi-log, Tobit and Poisson. The average consumer surplus per visit according to each model was RM75.87 for semi-log, RM106.40 for Tobit and RM67.18 for Poisson. The total consumer surpluses per year based on 10,000 visitors were RM758,700, RM1,064,000 and RM671,800 for the semi-log, Tobit and Poisson models, respectively. Using a 10% discount rate with an assumption of no further change in future recreation demand, the total discounted present values of forest recreation in CRF were from RM6.7 million to RM10.6 million. Because the economic value of CRF was found to be substantial, this area should be conserved for recreation purposes. Conversion of this forest recreation area to other uses will involve opportunity cost which will burden the society.
1

I TRODUCTIO Malaysian forest is considered as one of the most complex ecosystems in the world. Its uniqueness is suitable for recreation and ecotourism development. The development of forest recreation areas (FRAs) began in the last four decades and by the end of 2003 a total of forest 125 FRAs have been developed in Peninsular Malaysia. In Pahang, there are 26 forest recreation areas that have been developed since 1980 (Table 1). The FRAs are located in various districts which are accessible to all visitors by road. The distance from the nearest town to the FRAs varies depending on the location of the area. Various facilities are available to FRAs for visitors such as camping ground, jungle trekking, picnic area, sight seeing tower, bird watching, and so on. The area allocated for each FRA ranges from 1 to 1383 ha. However, two areas namely Taman Rimba Kenong and Taman Negeri Endau Rompin have larger areas because these area were not classified as forest recreation area, instead they are considered as state parks. The increasing number of forest recreation areas has been in line with economic development of the country. Over time, increasing demand for FRAs in Peninsular Malaysia has driven up

the need for development of FRAs and thus raised the opportunity cost of maintaining the areas. Undoubtedly, however, the recreational value of the forest recreation areas has also increased due to increasing demands for recreational amenities. This is so because forest recreation areas provide many benefits to the community, which are difficult to measure using normal market approach. Many studies have been carried out to value the benefits of FRAs in Malaysia using various methods such travel cost method (TCM) and contingent valuation method (CVM). For example, a comprehensive study covering 20 FRAs in Malaysia was carried out by Willis et al. (1998). Other studies that employed travel cost method include (Abas, 1983; Abdullah, 1995; Duraitah, 2007; Mohd. Khidir, 1995; Mohd. Shahwahid et al., 1998; Norlida Hanim and Jamal, 2000; Rusmaini, 2001; Tee, 2002). It should be pointed out that the values estimated from these studies are site specific and are not transferable to other sites as each site has its own unique characteristics. This paper estimates the economic value of Chamang Recreational Forest (CRF) in Bentong, Pahang using individual travel cost method (ITCM). This study was conducted as part of the project on Economic Valuation of Forest Resources which was commissioned to UPM by Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia.

METHODS Study site The approach of the study was to employ the individual travel cost method (ITCM) to estimate the economic value of forest recreation benefit (Haab and McConnel, 2002). The study was conducted in Chamang Recreational Forest (CRF), Bentong, Pahang. The CRF is easily accessible and have many facilities available to visitors. To measure the value of forest recreation areas, the following activities were carried out: a. surveys on visitors to the forest recreation area b. a demand function for the services of the forest recreation areas was estimated c. the value of consumer surplus associated with the demand curve was computed using regression model to represent the value of forest recreation areas in the previous year of the study The surveys were carried out in late 2005 and continued to 2006. A total of 307 visitors were interviewed. The instrument used in the study was a structured questionnaire which contains information regarding the basic information of visitors and travel characteristics (mode of transport, distance travelled, travelling time, travelling expenses, number of visits in 2004, length of time spent at the site), perception and satisfaction level of the recreation activities, and socio-economic background of visitors. Analyses were carried out to estimate descriptive and frequency statistics of visitors profile and the economic value was estimated using the three recreation demand models: semilog, Tobit and Poisson.

Recreation demand model The number of visits taken in year 2004 is measured as a count of integers to estimate the recreation demand model. The recreation demand model can be specified as follows: VISIT = f(TC, AGE, INCOME) (1)

where VISIT is the number of visits in 2004, TC is the trip cost per visit (RM), AGE is the age of visitor (years) and INCOME is the monthly income of the visitor (RM/month). The equation postulates that the number of visits to the recreation site (VISIT) is a function of trip cost (TC), age of respondent (AGE) and income (INCOME). Various functional forms of the recreation demand models can be considered to estimate consumer surplus (Haab and McConnel, 2002; Champ et al., 2003; Garrod and Willis, 1999). In this study, the semi log recreation demand model was considered. Mathematically, the model can be written as follows: VISITi = e ( + 1TCi + 2AGEi + 3INCOMEi + i ) (2)

The model can be transformed into a semi log linear model by taking natural logarithm (Ln): LnVISITi = + 1TC i + 2 AGE i + 3INCOME i + i The estimated model is written as follows:
LnVISITi = + 1TC i + 2 AGE i + 3 INCOME i

(3)

(4)

The economic value of forest recreation area based on the above model can be estimated by integrating the demand curve and this yields the following:

CS =

1 ( +1 TC + 2 AGE + 3 INCOME ) e
1

TC* TC

(5)

where TC* is maximum value of travel cost (known as choke price) and TC is mean travel cost. Two other models were also considered as suggested by Haab and McConnel (2002) and Champ et al. (2003) to estimate the demand model for recreation based on count dependent variable. The two models are Tobit and Poisson recreation demand models. Since the number of visits to the recreation site consists of zero visits (i.e. people who made no trips in 2004). Thus, the observations are censored at zero for people who did not visit to the site. The censoring means that the complete distribution of the visit is not observable and the unobservable portion of the distribution is concentrated at zero. However, the independent variables are observed. This allows us to use Tobit regression model, which is specified as follows: VISITi = + 1TC i + 2 AGE i + 3INCOME i + i for VISITi > 0 (6)

VISITi = 0 for VISITi 0

(7)

The consumer surplus is calculated for each observation in the sample, and then the sample mean is calculated as follows (Haab and McConnel, 2002):
n

Mean CS =
i

(VISITi ) 2 / 2 * TC n

(8)

where TC is the parameter estimate for trip cost.

Another regression model to estimate the count model of regression is Poisson regression model. Count model is more appealing for recreational demand because they deal with nonnegative integer valued dependent variable, i.e. the number of visits. The count model specifies the quantity demanded, visits, as a random non-negative integer with a mean that is dependent on exogenous independent variables. The Poisson model is specified as followed: PR(VISITi = n) = e i in n=0,1,2,. n! (9)

The parameter i is both the mean (expected number of visits) and the variance of the distribution. The i is specified as exponential function:

i = e( + TC +
1 i

2 AGE i

+ 3 I COME i + i )

(10)

To ensure nonnegative probabilities, usually takes a log linear form which is written as follows:
Lni = + 1TCi + 2 AGEi + 3 I COMEi + i

(11)

Substituting equation (11) into (9) gives and expression for the probability of observing and individual take n trips as a function of trip cost, age of respondents and monthly income. Equation (11) is the Poisson form of the recreation demand specified in equation (1). The mean consumer surplus is calculated as follows:
Mean CS = VISIT , where VISIT is the mean of visit.
TC

All of the models were estimated using STATA version 8 to estimate the parameters. The semi log linear model was estimated using OLS. To test for the homoskedastic assumption of error term for OLS (Greene, 1993; Wooldridge, 2003; Gujarti, 2003), the Breusch-Pagan test was carried out. The result showed that hypothesis of homoskedasticity was not rejected at the 0.05% level (p>0.05), with a test statistic of 3.16, 3 degree of freedom and p =.078. The Tobit and Poisson model were estimated by maximum likelihood methods.

RESULTS
Visitor Profiles Selected socio-economic variables of visitors area presented in Table 2. There were more male (87%) than female visitors among the 307 surveyed visitors. Their ages ranged from 14 to 65 years old with the mean age of visitors was 27.8 years old. The visitors were mostly young adults below 35 years old (78%). The majority of them were college and university graduates (37%). About 65% of the visitors were single and this may be related to the higher proportion of young adults to the site. About 40% of the visitors were private employees and 27% working in other categories that were not listed in the survey. The other 33% were working in the government sector (19%), have their own business (8%), factory workers (4%) and labourers (2%). The majority of the visitors were Malays (more than 85%) and this is not surprising because the majority of the population in the district is Malays. About 99% of the visitors use their own transport either such as car or motorcycles to visit the site. The mean monthly income of the visitors was RM1,547.5 per month. The mean round trip distance from their hometown to the site was 58.9 km with the average travel time of about one hour (one way) regardless of transportation mode. The mean trip cost was estimated at RM39.2 per visit and the mean visit was 3.5. Costs incurred for a trip to the site include food, transportation, and other expenses (Table 2). The majority of the visitors (73%) spent less than RM50 for a trip to the CRF. The table indicates that the distribution of the total trip cost decreases as the trip cost increase. This situation is related to the origin of the visitors where the majority of the visitors (87%) are living within less than 50 km from the site.

Reasons for Visit Many visitors came to the site for varied purpose, but they liked resting and relaxation most followed by other reasons such as camping, social activities and environmental education program (Table 3). Although the site is considered attractive by respondents, many complained that the access road is narrow and dangerous, the site lacks of common facilities such as toilet, public phone, dust bin, sign boards, food stalls, parking areas, poor landscaping and lack of cleanliness. Perception on Forest Recreation Areas The respondents were also asked about their perception on forest recreation area in general the results are presented in Table 4. The perception was rated based on the the degree of importance using likert scale (1=not important, 2=important, 3=very important). The two most important functions of forest recreation area from the visitors perspective, were to protect water quality and its ecological function as green lung area. This shows that the present community is concerned about environmental aspects on the role of the forest. Protecting wildlife habitat and conserving natural areas for educational and scientific studies were also rated very important by respondents.

Results of Regression Analysis The summary statistics of the variables used in the regression analysis for the three models are given in Table 5. It should be noted the number of observation in semi-log model is 121 compared the number of observations used in the Tobit and Poisson models (234). This is because of missing values for variable LNVISIT when there was no visit reported by respondents in 2004. The results of the regression analysis for the three models are presented in Table 6. The coefficient on own trip cost (TC) is negative and significant in all models, so the demand function is downward sloping. This implies that people living closer to the recreation area face a lower trip cost of reaching the site and take more visits. The coefficient on age is negative and significant at the 5% level (p<0.05). Older generation will less likely to visit the recreation site. The coefficient on income is positive but not significant in all models (p>0.05). A positive coefficient on income is expected because the number of visits made increases with income as recreation is considered a normal good. The R2 in semi log model shows that 13.2% of the variation in the number of visits is explained by three independent variables (TC, AGE and INCOME). It should be pointed out that demand for recreation also depends on other factors such gender, marital status, education level, taste and preference, facilities provided, uniqueness characteristics of the area and availability of substitutes. These factors that were not included in the regression may have greater influence. However, analysis was also carried out to include other variables such as education level, marital status and gender but these variables were all not significant and the contribution to the R2 is very low (1%). The F value of the semi log model and log likelihood values indicate that the overall regression is significant at the 5% level (p<0.05). For the Tobit and Poisson models, the test for joint significance of all variables derives from the statistics -2Ln(LR/LU) was conducted, which is distributed as a Chi-squared variable with the number of parameters associated with independent variables as the degrees of freedom. LR is the likelihood function value when all parameters associated with independent variables equal zero ( 1 , 2 , and 3 ) . LU is the
2 unrestricted maximized likelihood function value. The tabled value of the 0.95 (3) =7.815, so the hypothesis that all of the coefficients are zero can be rejected.

The results obtained from the three models were then used to estimate recreation value. The average consumer surplus per-visitor-per-trip values using the models above were RM230.186 (semi-log model), RM198.665 (Tobit model) and RM96.280 (Poisson model) (Table 10). The average consumer surplus per visit was calculated by dividing the total consumer surplus per visitor by the annual sample average number of visits. The total average willingness to pay (WTP) was calculated summing up the average consumer surplus per visit and the average travel cost per visit. Based on three models, the average consumer surplus per visitor was estimated at RM75.87 for semi log model, RM106.40 for Tobit model and RM67.18 for Poisson model.

Using the estimated annual total number of visitors per year to the respective recreation area, this enables us to calculate the annual total benefits from the recreational services of the

forest ecosystems. The estimated annual value can be discounted to obtain the asset value contribution of the recreational function to the total value of forests. It was estimated that the total visitors to the recreation forest per year for CRF is 10,000. The total economic benefit (TEB) and net present value at 10% discount rate and assumed no future change in the use of the forest recreation area for each model are presented in Table 8. The total discounted present values of forest recreation in CRF range from RM6.7 million to RM10.6 million. Selected results obtained from previous studies as shown in Table 9 indicate that the value estimated from this study is comparatively high. However, other forest recreation areas which have special natural settings show higher economic value such as Sungai Chongkak Recreational Forest in Selangor and Lentang Recreational Forest in Pahang. It should be noted that the estimated economic value using travel cost method is site specific and this value depends on many factors including natural characteristics of the forest area, socioeconomic variations of visitors, location and accessibility of the area and availability of facilities.

CO CLUSIO
The increasing number of forest recreation areas has been in line with economic development of the country. Increasing demand for forest recreation areas in Peninsular Malaysia has driven up the need for development of forest recreation areas and thus raised the opportunity cost of maintaining the areas. Since forest recreation is considered as nonmarket good, the benefits of forest recreational services can be evaluated using travel cost method. The individual travel cost method that was applied in this study based on three recreation demand models all of which showed that the economic value of CRF is substantial and that its discounted net present value range from RM6.7 million to RM10.6 million. Since the benefit is likely to exceed cost, safeguarding forest recreation to meet recreation demand is economically justified. Forest recreation areas also help to maintain forest ecological functions and provide social implications in terms of employment opportunities and create multiplier effect in the economy.

REFERE CES
ABAS SAID. 1983. Economic Evaluation of Recreation Area Usage in Selangor. B.S. Project. Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia. Serdang, Selangor. ABDULLAH MOHD. 1995. Recreation use valuation, management and policy implications of Taman Negara, The National Park in Peninsular Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen. CHAMP, P.A. BOYLE, K.J. AND BROWN. T.C. 2003. A primer on nonmarket valuation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. DURAITAH BINTI LIKIT. 2007. Valuation of recreation benefits using travel cost method in Leantang Forest Recreation Area, Pahang. B.For.Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Serdang, Selangor. GARROD, G. and WILLIS, K.G. 1999. Economic valuation of the environment: Methods and case studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. HAAB, T.C., AND MCCONNEL, K.E. 2002. Valuing environmental and natural resources: the econometrics of non-market valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. MOHD. KHIDIR MAJID. 1995. Economic valuation of Ulu Bendul recreational forest in Negeri Sembilan. B.S. Project. Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia. Serdang, Selangor. MOHD. SHAHWAHID HJ. OTHMAN, AWANG NOOR ABD. GHANI, RUSLI MOHD, SHUKRI MOHAMED, FARIDAH HANUM IBRAHIM and MOHAMED ZAKARIA HUSSIN. 1998. Valuing the recreational benefits of the Air Hitam Forest Reserve, Selangor. The Malaysian Forester. 61(1):38-48. NORLIDA HANIM MOHD. SALLEH and JAMAL OTHMAN. 2000. Evaluation Of Forest Recreational Resource: Case Of Taman Negara, Malaysia, Paper Present At The First Conference Of Resource And Environmental Economics 29-31 July, 2000, Ayer Keroh, Malacca. RUSMANI MUSA. 2001. Penilaian Khidmat Persekitaran: Kes Rekreasi Kelip-Kelip Kg. Kuantan, Kuala Selangor, Selangor. M.S. thesis. Faculty Of Economics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. TEE SHY SHAN. 2002. Economic Valuation Of Forest Recreation Benefit Of Sungai Congkak Recreation Forest, Selangor Using Travel Cost Method BSC. Thesis. Faculty Of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang. WILLIS, K.G., G.D. GARROD and CHEE TONG YIEW. 1998. Valuation and analysis of consumer demand for recreation areas in Peninsular Malaysia. In Proceedings of the Malaysia-United Kingdom on Conservation, Management and Development of Forest Resources, ed. Lee Su See, Dan Yit May, I.D. Gauld and J. Bishop, p. 300-319. Kepong: Forest Research Institute Malaysia.

Table 1. Forest Recreation Areas in Pahang as at 2007

Area (ha) Nearest Town Distance (km) Accessibility to Forest Recreation Areas Hutan Diptrokarp Bukit Hutan Diptrokarp Bukit Forest Type Facilities

No

Year established 5 24 Bentong 48 km from Kuala Lumpur 35 km from Pekan Raub and 251 km from Kuantan Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah Bentong 9 km from Bentong

Forest Reserve

Name of Forest Recreation Chamang

1986

H. S. Bukit Tinggi

Lentang

1983

H. S. Lentang

Camping, trekking, jogging and picnic Camping, trekking, jogging, picnic and hut Camping, trekking picnic,

Lata Jarum

1982

H. S. Ulu Dong

10

Raub

Own transport or taxi from Bentong town Own transport, taxi or bus from Bentong and Kuala Lumpur Own transport or taxi from Raub Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah Hutan Diptrokarp Bukit

4 10 Maran

1981

H. S. Berkelah

20

Kuantan

Sungai Pandan Berkelah

1993

H. S. Berkelah

25 km from Kuantan 35 km from Maran or Kuantan Own transport or taxi from Jerantut Own transport or taxi from Jerantut

Own transport or taxi from Kuantan Own transport, taxi or bus from Maran anad Kuantan

Camping, picnic, trekking, jogging Camping, picnic, trekking, jogging Camping,picnic, seeing sight

Som

1990

H. S. Som

Jerantut

Hutan Diptrokap Bukit

Ulu Tembeling

1997

H. S. Tekai

Jerantut

16 km from Jerantut, 210 from Kuantan 110 km from Jerantut, 270 km from kuantan 16 km from Jerantut, 210 km from Kuantan 16 km from Rompin, 160 km from Kuantan 36 km from Felda Kumai, 190 km from Kuantan 45 km from Temerloh, 88 km from Kuantan Own transport or taxi from Jerantut

Hutan Diptrokap Bukit

Lata Meraung

1990

H. S. Jerantut

Jerantut

Hutan Diptrokap Bukit

Menchali

1980

H. S. Menchali

163

Rompin

Own transport or taxi from Rompin and Muadzam Shah Own transport or taxi from Maran Own transport, bus or taxi from Temerloh

Hutan Diptrokarp Bukit Pantai dan Hutan Paya Gambut Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah

Bathing, picnic, camping, swimming, trekking, fishing and bird watching Bathing, picnic, camping, swimming, trekking and bird watching Camping, jogging and sight seeing bathing, camping Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah rest picnic and

10

Bukit Bertangga 164 Temerloh

1996

H. S. Chini

1383

Felda Kumai Maran

11

Paya Pasir

1999

H. S. Paya Pasir

No

Year established 218 Own transport, bus or taxi from Temerloh or Kuantan, also crossing river from Kuala Krau Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah Own transport or taxi from Kuala Lipis Own transport or taxi from Kuala Lipis or Raub Four wheel drive from Kuala Lipis or boat from Jerantut Own transport or taxi from Maran Own transport, bus or taxi from Kuantan Own transport, bus or taxi from Bentong or Kuala Lumpur Own transport, bus or taxi from Tanah Rata or Kuala Lumpur Own transport, bus or taxi from Mentakab or Temerloh Own transport or boat from Kuala Tembeling Hutan Diptro karp Bukit Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah Jengka 20 km from Jengka, 40 km from Temerloh Camping, trekking, caving, picnic

Forest Reserve

Area (ha)

Nearest Town

Distance (km)

Accessibility to Forest Recreation Areas

Forest Type

Facilities

12

Name of Forest Recreation Gunung Senyum

1990

H. S. Jengka

jungle jogging,

13

Terenggun

1982

H. S. Terenggun

23

Kuala Lipis

camping, kayaking, sight seeing and jogging camping, swimming, picnic, sight seeing, bird watcing Camping, treking, bathing, caving

14

Jerangsang

1997

H. S. Bukit Taching

Kuala Lipis

9 km from Kuala Lipis, 256 from Kuantan 37 km from Kuala Lipis, 220 km from Kuantan 32 km from Kuala Lipis, 302 from Kuantan Hutan Diptrokarp Bukit

15

Taman Rimba Kenong 5 Maran

1988

H. S. Yong / H. S. Yong Tambahan

12625

Kuala Lipis

16

Teladas

1985

H. S. Berkelah

Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah

17 200 Bentong 6.5 km from Genting Sempah 1 km from Tanah Rata, 459 km from Kuantan 9 km from Mentakab, 140 from Kuantan 25 km from Jerantut

Bukit Pelindung

1994

H. S Beserah

Kuantan

2 km from Maran, 55 km from Kuantan 5 km from Kuantan

Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah Hutan Diptrokarp Bukit dan Hutan Pine Hutan Diptrokarp Bukit

Camping, Trekking, bathing, jogging, sight seeing Jogging, Trekking bathing, picnic, camping, trekking and jogging picnic, camping, trekking, jogging Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah bathing, camping, picnic, trekiing, jogging Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah bathing, camping, picnic, trekking,

18

Konifer

1990

H. S. Bukit Tinggi

19

Parit Falls

1983

H. S. Ulu Bertam

40

Tanah Rata

20

Kemasul

1987

H. S. Kemasul

Mentakab

21 429 273 Maran Raub

Kem Nusa

1989

H. S. Tekai Tembeling

35

Jerantut

22

1986

H. S. Rotan Tunggal

23

Lata Berembun Jerangkang

1992

H. S. Berkelah

51.5 km from Kuantan / Maran 35 km from Rompin, 160 km

Own transport, bus or taxi from Maran or Kuantan Own transport or taxi from Rompin

Hutan Diptrokarp Bukit

swimming, jungle trekking, camping Hutan Diptrokarp Bukit swimming, trekking, jungle camping,

24

Taman Negeri Endau

1999

H. S. Lesong

31797

Rompin

10

No

Name of Forest Recreation Rompin from Kuantan 2 / 200 Maran Kuantan Own transport, bus or taxi from Kuantan Hutan Diptrokarp Pamah chalet

Year established

Forest Reserve

Area (ha)

Nearest Town

Distance (km)

Accessibility to Forest Recreation Areas

Forest Type

Facilities

25

Beserah

1980

H. S Beserah

26

Lubuk Yu

2005

H. S. Berkelah kompt 57

11

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of socio-economic profiles of visitors

Variable Gender Age (years) (Mean: 27.8) N 307 307 Socio-economic characteristic Female Male < 20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 >51 Married Single Government employee Private employee Own business Labour Factory workers Others Primary school Lower secondary school Upper secondary school College graduate /vocational training institute University graduate Malay Chinese Indian Others Car Motorcycle Bus Bicycle Walking Frequency 41 266 90 76 53 20 21 22 13 12 107 198 57 122 25 6 13 84 8 29 158 53 59 262 33 9 3 199 103 2 2 1 Percentage 13.4 86.6 29.3 24.8 17.3 6.5 6.8 7.2 4.2 3.9 35.1 64.9 18.6 39.7 8.1 2.0 4.2 27.4 2.6 9.4 51.5 17.3 19.2 85.3 10.7 2.9 1.0 64.8 33.6 0.7 0.7 0.3

Marital status Occupation

305 307

Education level

307

Race

307

Mode of transport

307

Trip cost (RM)

307

Distance (km)

307

< 50 51-100 101-150 151-200 >251 < 50 51 100 101 -150

224 69 9 3 2 182 87 29

72.96 22.48 2.93 0.98 0.65 59.28 28.34 9.45

12

151-200 251-300 >301

Variable Income (RM/month) Total distance (km) Trip cost (RM) Time travel (min.) Number of vacations per year Number of visits (2004) N 234 307 307 307 307 307

4 2 3
Mean 1547.5 58.5 39.2 63.0 14.3 3.5

1.30 0.65 0.98

Std. deviation 1480.8 54.9 38.3 52.2 12.6 6.2

Table 3. Main reason for visiting the site Frequency 278 6 4 2 17 307 Percent 90.6 2.0 1.3 0.7 5.5 100.0

Rest and relaxation Camping Social activities Environmental education program Other reasons Total

Table 4. Perception on forest recreation area based on degree of importance (1=not important, 2=important, 3=very important)
Item n Not important 1.63 0.98 3.26 0.33 Percent Important 7.17 4.23 13.36 19.22 Mean Very important 91.21 94.79 83.39 80.46 Std. deviation 0.36 0.28 0.47 0.41

As green lung area Protecting water quality Protecting wildlife habitat Conserving natural areas for educational and scientific study Providing scenic beauty Preserving unique plant and animal ecosystems and genetic strains Providing recreation opportunities (hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing) Providing environmental education activities Visiting the site in the future Sustainable use by indigenous community

307 307 307 307

2.90 2.94 2.80 2.80

307 307

0.65 0.98

16.94 16.94

82.41 82.08

2.82 2.81

0.40 0.42

307

2.61

18.57

78.83

2.76

0.48

307 307 307

0.33 0.98 7.17

20.20 13.68 28.34

79.48 85.34 64.50

2.79 2.84 2.57

0.41 0.39 0.62

13

Table 5. Summary statistics of variables used in the regression analysis (a) Semi-log model Variable VISIT TC AGE INCOME n 121 121 121 121 Mean 1.159 33.777 30.091 1434.653 Std. deviation 0.909 30.325 10.396 1569.743

Note: The number of observation in semi-log model is less than that of the Tobit and Poisson models due to missing values on natural log of variable VISIT when no visits made in 2004.

(b) Tobit and Poisson models Variable VISIT TC AGE INCOME n 234 234 234 234 Mean 2.611 42.205 30.637 1547.457 Std. deviation 5.262 38.490 10.369 1480.805

Table 6. Results of regression analysis for each recreation demand model Variable Constant Parameter

Semi Log 1.8857** (0.250) -0.01069** (0.002813) -0.01544** (0.00779) 0.000069ns (0.0000562) 121 0.1364

Tobit 4.6644** (1.874) -0.08655** (0.02185) -0.07204ns (0.05917) 0.0002148ns (0.000445) 234 0.0224 (Pseudo R2)

Poisson 2.2322** (0.12943) -.02712** (.00229) -.01629** (.00452) .0000397ns (0.000044) 234 0.1369 (Pseudo R2)

TC

AGE

INCOME

N R2

F Log likelihood -2 Ln(LR/LU)

Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors ** significant at the 5% level (p < 0.05) ns not significant at the 5% level (p>0.05)

6.16 -491.97 22.59 -767.85968 243.67

14

Table 7. Individual travel cost method (ITCM): Average individual consumer surplus (CS) per visit and average total willingness to pay (WTP) per visit for each model Model Average visits per year in the sample a 5.05 2.61 2.61 Average travel cost b 30.29 30.29 30.29 Average individual CS c 230.186 198.665 96.280 Average CS/visit d=c/a 45.58 76.11 36.89 Total WTP per visit e=b+d 75.87 106.40 67.18

Semi-log Tobit Poisson

Table 8. Total Consumer surplus of Chamang Forest Recreation, Bentong, Pahang Model Total WTP per visit (RM/visit) A 75.87 106.40 67.18 Total visits (2004) B 10,000 10,000 10,000 Total CS (RM) c=a*b 758,700 1,064,000 671,800 NPV (RM) C=d/0.1 7,587,000 10,640,000 6,718,000

Semi-log Tobit Poisson

15

Table 9. Previous estimates of recreation and tourism benefits using travel cost method (TCM) in Peninsular Malaysia
Year of assessment 1982 1982 1995 1995 Abas (1982) Mohd. Khidir (1995) Willis et al. (1998) Source Rashpal Kaur Sidhu (2000)

State Selangor

Name of Forest Recreation Area Sungai Chongkak

Selangor Negeri Sembilan Various states

Kanching Ulu Bendul 20 Forest Recreation Areas

Penang 2007

2003

Tuan Marina et al. (2003) Duraitah (2007)

Pahang

Telok Bahang, Bukit Mertajam, Bukit Panchor Lentang

Unit Value RM/visit RM/yr RM/yr RM/yr RM/visit RM/visit RM million RM/person RM/visit RM/visit RM miliion RM million RM/entrance RM million 1999 2002 Tee (2002) Lim (1999)

Selangor

Sungai Congkak

Kedah

Bukit Hijau

Value Estimated CS: 19.40 Total CS: 582,000 CS: 300,000 CS: 61,005 WTP: 1.03-1.46 CS: 0.67-3.74 Total CS: 53.06 (20 FRAs) WTP : 1-2 Mean cost of visit : 10 40 CS: 110.54 Total CS: 11.05 (NPV at 10% discount rate) CS: 24.7 (NPV at 10% discount rate) WTP: 1 Total CS: 1.57

16