The Mount Buffalo National Park is the oldest national park in Victoria, Australia. There has been a rapid increase in the number of visitors to the park during the last decade and park management has been a concern, especially in the light of declining budgetary allocations and potential damage due to the increased visitor numbers. Policy options to increase park revenue remain unclear because of a lack of information on demand parameters and user costs. This study estimates the economic value of the park using the travel cost method (TCM) and the contingent valuation method (CVM). The TCM gives higher consumer surplus (CS) than the CVM. The CS shows that the economic value of the park is high and that there are opportunities to introduce innovative fee schemes to enhance its revenue. Present entry fee systems do not capture the economic value of the park.
AllisonL. (1998), Access to Heritage: User Charges in Museums, Art Galleries and National Parks, Report of the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
2.
ArrowK.SolowR.PortneyP.LeamerE.RadnerR.SchumanH. (1993), ‘Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation’, Federal Register, Vol 58, pp 4601–4614.
3.
BealD.J. (1995a), ‘Estimation of the elasticity of demand for camping visits to a national park in south-east Queensland by the travel cost method’, Australian Leisure, Vol 7, pp 21–26.
4.
BealD.J. (1995b), ‘A travel cost analysis of the value of Carnarvon Gorge National Park for recreation use’, Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Vol 63, pp 292–303.
5.
BennettJ.W. (1996), ‘Estimating the recreation use value of national parks’, paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, University of Melbourne.
6.
BockstaelN.E.StrandI.E.HamemannW.M. (1987), ‘Time and the recreational demand model’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 69, pp 293–302.
7.
CameronT. (1992), ‘Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of non-market goods’, Land Economics, Vol 68, pp 302–318.
8.
CarsonR.T.FloresN.E.MartinK.M.WrightJ.L., (1996), ‘Contingent valuation and revealed preference methodologies: Comparing the estimates for quasi-pubic goods’, Land Economics, Vol 72, pp 80–200.
9.
CummingsR.G.BrookshireD.S.SchultzW.D. (1986), Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ.
10.
DesvougesW.SmithV.K.McGivneyM. (1983), A Comparison of Alternative Approaches for Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvement, A report to the EPA by Triangle Research Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.
11.
DrimlS.CommonM. (1995), ‘Economic and financial benefits of tourism in major protected areas’, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 2, pp 19–29.
12.
GrandstaffS.DixonJ.A. (1986), ‘Evaluation of Lumpinee Public Park in Bangkok, Thailand’, in DixonJohn A.HufschmidtM.M. (eds), Economic Valuation Techniques for the Environment, East West Center, Honolulu, HI.
13.
GreenleyD.A.WalshR.G.YoungR.A. (1981), ‘Option value: Empirical evidence from a case study of recreation and water quality’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 96, pp 657–672.
14.
HanemannW.M. (1989), ‘Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: Reply’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 71, pp 1057–1061.
15.
HerathG. (1999), ‘Estimation of community values of lakes: A study of Lake Mokoan in Victoria, Australia’, Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol 29, pp 30–44.
16.
JacobsP. (1998), ‘Mount Buffalo National Park: An historical perspective’, The Victorian Naturalist, Vol 115, pp 245–254.
17.
JakobssonK.M. (1994), Methodological Issues in Contingent Valuation: An Application to Endangered Species, unpublished PhD thesis, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
18.
JenkinsB. (1993), ‘Putting valuation to work: Practical applications’, paper presented at the Environmental Economics Conference: Moving to Sustainability, Canberra.
19.
KnapmanBStanleyO. (1991), A Travel Cost Analysis of the Recreation Use Value of Kakadu National Park, Resource Assessment Commission Inquiry into the Kakadu Conservation Zone, RAC, Canberra.
20.
LockwoodM.TracyP. (1995), ‘Nonmarket economic valuation of an urban recreation park’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol 27, pp 155–167.
21.
LoomisJ.B. (1987), ‘The economic value of instream flow: Methodology and benefit estimates for optimum flows’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol 24, pp 169–179.
22.
McClellendW.SchultzJ.LazoD.WalurangJ.DoyleS.IrwinJ. (1992), Methods for Measuring Non-use Values: A Contingent Valuation Study of Groundwater Cleanup, Center for Economic Analysis, Boulder, CO.
MitchellR.C.CarsonR.T. (1989), Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
25.
Queensland Department of the Environment (1996), Benchmarking and Best Practice Program: User Pays Revenue, unpublished report, Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.
26.
SappideenB. (1992), ‘Valuing the recreational benefits of Sale Wetlands using contingent valuation’, in LockwoodM.DeLacyT., eds, Valuing Natural Areas, The Johnstone Centre of Parks, Recreation and Heritage, Charles Sturt University, Albury.
27.
SchultzW.D.BrookshireD.S.ThayerM.A. (1981), ‘National parks and beauty: A test of existence values’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Economics Association, Washington, DC.
28.
SindenJ.A. (1988), ‘Empirical tests of hypothetical bias in consumers' surplus’, Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 32, pp 98–112.
29.
SindenJ.A. (1990), Valuation of Unpriced Benefits and Costs of River Management, Office of Water Resources, Victorian Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne.
30.
SindenJ.A. (1994), ‘A review of environmental valuation in Australia’, Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Vol 62, pp 337–368.
31.
SmithV.K.DesvougesW.H.McGivneyM.P. (1983), ‘The opportunity cost of travel time in recreation demands’, Land Economics, Vol 59, pp 259–277.
32.
SorgC.LoomisJ. (1984), Empirical Estimates of Amenity Forest Values: A Comparison Review, General Technical Report RM 107, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
33.
SutherlandR.J.WalshR.G. (1985), ‘Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality’, Land Economics, Vol 61, pp 281–291.
34.
ThomasL.CurtisR.DixonJ.HughesG.SheppardD.RosabalP.VorhiesF.BagriA. (2000), Financing Protected Areas: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers, World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN, World Conservation Union, Gland.
35.
UlphA.M.ReynoldsJ.K. (1981), An Economic Evaluation of National Parks, Monograph 4, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
36.
WellsM.P. (1997), Economic Perspectives on Nature Tourism, Conservation and Development, Environment Department Paper No 55, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
