Vara ind for recreation article

Indian Forester, 143 (11) : 1177-1182, 2017 http://www.indianforester.co.in ISSN No. 0019-4816 (Print) ISSN No. 2321-094X (Online) RECREATIONAL DEMAND FOR KOVAI KUTRALAM ECOTOURISM CENTRE: A TRAVEL COST METHOD S. VARADHA RAJ, C.D. KAVIGEETHA, K.R. ASHOK AND M. CHINNADURAI Department of Agriculture Economics, TNAU, Coimbatore-3 (Tamil Nadu) E-mail: varadharajs@rediffmail.com ABSTRACT Kovai Kutralam Ecotourism Centre (KKE) provides economic prosperity, ecological stability and social equity in the tribal area. The aim of the study was to measure the recreational value of the KKEC. Nearly 53 per cent of the visitors were 22 to 45 years age group with average annual household income of ` 3.75 Lakh and coming from 51.81 km range at the rate of 1.91 times in a year. About 52 per cent of ecotourists visited mainly for recreational purpose. The recreational demand of the KKEC was estimated by Travel Cost Method (TCM). The total travel cost and distance were negatively significant and education was positively significant. The value of individual consumer surplus per visit was about ` 215 and total consumer surplus of the KKEC was ` 7.52 crore per year which captured the recreational value of the site. Hence, an existing entry fee may also be hiked from ` 50 to 100 for an adult and ` 75 for a non-adult per trip to maximize the profit and further investment in the KKEC. Key words: Ecotourism, Recreational demand, Travel cost method, Consumer surplus Introduction Tourism is one of the largest growing industries in the world, which is contributing to GDP by 9.8 per cent or a value over US $ 7.6 trillion and generating 277 million jobs. In the next ten years, the tourism industry is expected to grow by an average of 3.8 per cent annually, taking into 9.8 per cent of the total Global GDP. By 2022, it is globally anticipated to provide 328 million jobs (WTTC, 2014). India is ranked third in the tourism industry. India's tourism industry plays tour de force a decisive role in the country's economy and is bestowed to the worth of US $ 113.2 billion, i.e. 5.35 per cent of the India's total GDP in 2014. The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) predicted the annual growth of the tourism was at the rate of 6.4 per cent per annum during 2014-24 in India (WTTC, 2014). It is evidenced that there is a significant growth and contribution of tourism to the Indian economy. Ecotourism considers the integrity of the ecosystem, while creating economic opportunities that make conservation and protection of natural resources which will be beneficial to the local people. The concept of ecological sustainability subsumes the environmental capacity of a given area (Christ et al., 2003; Honey, 2006). The value of the ecotourism market in developing countries was nearly US $ 400 billion annually in 2010 (Enviado, 2010). At the national level, there are many legal and policy frameworks such as Wildlife Protection Act (1972), Forest Conservation Act (1980), Environmental Protection Act (1986), National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2004), National Environment Policy (2006), Ecotourism Policy and Guidelines (1998) and Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers Recognition of Forest Rights Act (2006) that have the potential to regulate ecotourism. The 73rd and 74th Amendment of Indian constitution also emphasized the development of the ecotourism in India. In 2014, Tamil Nadu ranked first in domestic tourism in the country. The number of domestic and foreign tourists was 244.2 and 3.99 million respectively. Kovai Kutralam Ecotourism Centre (KKEC) was officially established by forest department with local tribal members at Kovai Kutralam, Bolampatti Forest Range (BFR) in 2009. There are 172 registered tribal members in the KKEC. Out of which, 30 members regularly work as salaried staff and the remaining members contribute their labour based on the requirements of the KKEC. The entry fee for an adult is ` 50, while it is categorized as ` 35 for ecotourism and ` 15 for forest department and also a separate fee for vehicle parking. The triennium average of the visitors' to the KKEC was 1,83,250 during 2012-14 (Bolampatti Forest Range office, 2014). The month of May There is a huge recreational demand for the KKEC. Nearly 2 Lakh ecotourists visit in a year. The value of individual consumer surplus per trip to the ecotourism centre is ` 215 and total consumer surplus for the centre is ` 7.52 crore. 1178 The Indian Forester [November was the peak season which attracts more ecotourists. The graphical representation of the number of annual visits of an individual in the KKEC is presented in Fig. 1. visitors in the month of May in 2014 were selected as sample ecotourist respondents and the total sample was fixed as 95. Conceptual Framework of the Study The primary data required for the study were collected during the peak season through personal interview method with the help of the comprehensive interview schedule. Individual visitors were asked about the collection of information on travel cost, number of visits to the site, distance, purpose of the visit and also on other socioeconomic variables like age, gender, household size, education, occupation and income. The secondary data on the number of visitors per month and peak season were collected. In order to assess the demand for the Kovai Kutralam Ecotourism Centre, economic valuation of nonmarket goods and services from forests and indirect use value method of travel cost approach was used. The conceptual framework of the study is depicted in fig. 2. It involves community based ecosystem services and zero negative effects to the environment. The Forest department creates the furor of both forward and backward linkages with indigenous and residential tribal members in the ecotourism centre. The ecotourism centre provides enormous non-market goods and services. Evaluation of the non-market goods and services in the ecotourism will be assessed by estimating the demand for ecotourism centre based on Travel Cost Approach, number of visits shall be decided by the travel cost and socioeconomic parameters like age, education, household size, travel distance, income and purpose of the visit. Hitherto, there were no such detailed studies for estimating the demand for the KKEC. Hence, this study is mostly warranted to explore the recreational value of the KKEC. Methodology The individual visitors were randomly chosen as respondents for interviews in the month of May, which served as a good eco-tourist month that attracted all types of visitors in the KKEC. About 0.3 per cent of the total Travel Cost Method (TCM) The travel cost method is used to estimate economic use values associated with an ecosystem or sites that are used for recreation. The basic premise of the travel cost method is that the time and travel cost expenses will affect the 'price' of access to the site. Thus, people's Willingness to Pay (WTP) to visit the site can be estimated based on the number of trips that they make at different travel costs. This study employed the TCM to assess the benefits associated with recreation in the KKEC. Theoretical Framework This method has been applied to estimate the demand and consumer surplus for ecotourism at the recreation site. The demand for a park is estimated by determining the change in visits and also changes in the cost per visit (Aznor, 2009). TCM studies revealed that the increase in the price of access or cost of travel would affect the rate of visits to the site (Garrod and Willis, 1999). The TCM simple model is usually estimated as a trip generating function as below. [Equation-(1)] Source: Bolampatti Forest Range office, 2014. Fig. 1: Number of annual visitors in the KKEC, 2014. Forward Linkages Forest Department Ecotourism Centre Backward Linkages Ecotourist Factors Recreational demand (Travel Cost Method) · · · · · · Fig. 2: Conceptual framework of the study. Age Education Travel Distance Travel cost Income Purpose of visit V = f (C, X) ....................................................................... (1) Where, V = Number of visits to a recreation site; C = Costs per visit; X = Other socioeconomic variables which significantly explain V. There are two types of travel cost methods viz., Zonal and Individual TCM. For the first one, the visitors are grouped into different categories or zones based on certain similar characteristics such as geographical origin. This is the oldest form of the TCM (Timah, 2011). The second was the precise number of site visits made by each visitor over a specific period. The ITCM (Individual Travel 2017] Recreational demand for Kovai Kutralam ecotourism centre: A travel cost method Cost Method) uses survey data from individual visitors in the statistical analysis, rather than data from each zone. However, the ZTCM has been under serious criticism for its vagueness as a non-market valuation tool. For this reason, the most researchers and economists have now turned to the ITCM as a better option (Bell and Leeworthy, 1990). In this study, the ITCM was applied to evaluate the recreational value of the study area. The equation (1) can be rewritten as [equation - (2)] Vij = f (Cij, Xi) (2) Where, Vij = Number of visits made per year by the individual (i) to the recreation site (j); Cij = Visit cost by the individual (i) to the recreation site (j); Xi = All other socioeconomic variables determining individual visits. The demand curve produced by the ITCM relates individual's annual visits to the costs of the visit. Integrating under this curve gives the Consumer Surplus per Individual (ICS). Multiplying the ICS by the number of individuals visiting the site annually helps to estimate the consumer surplus for the recreation site (Bekkay et al., 2013) as expressed by equation (3) TCS = Nj.òf(Cij,Xi).dCij ..................................................... (3) Where, TCS = Total Consumer Surplus (` per year) Nj = Number of individual visits to the recreation site (j) per year; Cij and Xi are defined as in the equation (2). (Bateman, 1993). Individual Consumer Surplus could be obtained with the help of the following formula (Willis and Garrod, 1991) [equation-(4)] ICS = - 1 / βij .................................................................... (4) Where, ICS = Individual Consumer Surplus (` per head per trip); = Coefficient of travel cost Cij. The total annual consumer surplus obtained from the recreation site can be calculated by multiplying the ICS with the number of visits made in a year. Empirical Framework In this model, the number of visits demanded by the individual was specified as a function of the average cost of travel per visitor and other socioeconomic variables. The Individual Travel Cost Method (ITCM) was used to measure the recreational demand that reflected the individual's willingness and ability to pay for visiting the recreation 1179 site. In case of linear form, it was given by Consumer Surplus (CS) equal to frequency of visit per annum divided by travel cost per visit. The linear functional form implies the finite number of visits at zero cost and has a critical cost above which the model predicts negative visits (Garrod and Willis, 1999). The consumer surplus in case of the loglinear functional form implies a finite number of visits at the zero cost and never predicts negative visits, even at a very high cost (Ross and Walls, 1999). Having tried various functional forms, it was decided that the log-linear functional form was the best fit for the study. The basic model in this study depicted the number of visits to the KKEC as a function of factors such as the age, education, household size, and distance from home to the KKEC, travel cost, household income and purpose of the visit. Thus, the model was specified as given in euation (5). In V = b0 + b1TTC + b2AGE + b3EDN + b4INC + b5DIS + ut .......(5) Where, V = Number of visits made by the ith individual visitor to the KKEC, TTC = Total travel cost (` per head per trip), AGE = Age (Years), EDN = Education in categorical variables, INC = Household income (`/ year), DIS = Distance travelled (km per trip) ut = Error term. b0 ® constant; b1 ... b5 ® parameters to be estimated The definition and units of measurement of the variables are presented in Table1. Table 1: Definition and units of measurement of the variables. Variables Expected sign Dependent Variable V Explanatory Variables TTC Negative AGE Positive // or negative EDN Positive INC Positive DIS Negative Description Number of visits made by the ith individual visitors to the KKEC in a year. As the price of access (cost of travel) (`/head/trip) increases, the visitation rate to the KKEC will decrease. Age (Years) of the visitors at the time of interview. The age may affect the number of visits to the KKEC. Education influences the number of visits to the KKEC (School = 1, Degree = 2, Professional = 3 and Vocational = 4). Household income ( / year) influences the number of visits to the KKEC. Distance (km per trip) travelling from home to the KKEC may influence the number of visits to the KKEC. 1180 The Indian Forester Result and Discussion General characteristics of ecotourist respondents Nearly 53 per cent of ecotourists were in the age group of 25 to 45 years. The people with more than 45 years of age were accounted for 10.53 per cent. The average age of the visitors was nearly 30 years. About 59 per cent of the visitors were male, while the rest were female (41 per cent). The majority of the visitors were professional (77.89 per cent), followed by degree holders (15.79 per cent) which indicates that the education might have led to a higher level of awareness about the quality of the site which can make them to visit the KKEC. The educated people impersonated to visit the naturally constituted KKEC. Nearly 33 per cent of the ecotourist respondents were belonging to the annual household income group of `1.5 to 3.0 Lakh, followed by 27.37 per cent of them were under the income group of ` 3.0 to 5.0 Lakh which implied that the higher monthly income of the ecotourists could make them to have frequent visits to the KKEC. More than ` 5 Lakh income group of ecotourists accounted for 25.26 per cent. The average annual household income of the ecotourists was ` 3.70 Lakh per year. Approximately 48 per cent of the visitors were students, followed by private sector (15.79 per cent) and business (13.68 per cent). It was also interesting to note that 8.42 per cent of the ecotourists were farmers. The professionals like doctors, engineers and others were accounted for 7.37 per cent of the total ecotourist respondents. About 52 per cent of ecotourists visited mainly for the recreation purpose, followed by leisure (37.89 per cent) and environment and education (10.53 per cent). It connoted that nearly 89 per cent of ecotourists interested in the environment and education utilities. Close to 65 per cent of the visitors arrived through the public transport and nearly 31 per cent of the visitors used their own vehicles. Hence, the people who travelled by the own and public transport had a higher visitation rate than those travelling by hired vehicles owing to the cost. The majority of the visitors visited the KKEC only once in a year i.e., 48.42 per cent, 22.11 per cent of the visitors visited to the KKEC twice in a year and 28.42 per cent of visitors visited three times in a year. A little chance of visitors to visit the KKEC was four times in a year (1.05 per cent). On an average, the frequency of visit to the KKEC was 1.91 times in a year. Around 43 per cent of the visitors were travelling the distance of less than 40 km, followed by 24.21 per cent of visitors from a range of 40 to 60 km, more than 60 km of [November ecotourist respondents accounted for 32.63 per cent. The average distance of travelling from home to the KKEC was about 51.81 km per trip. Almost 85 per cent of the ecotourists spent their time of 3 to 5 hours in the KKEC. Only 8.42 per cent of the visitors spent more than 5 hours in the KKEC. It is clearly evidenced that the visitors spend more time in the waterfalls, an attractive scenic spot, greenish landscaping, respires pure air and viewing wild animals in the KKEC. The average time spent in the KKEC was 4.26 hours per head per trip. About 49.47 per cent of visitors incurred the travel expense of more than ` 1000 per trip and 47.37 per cent of visitors spent in the range of ` 500 to 1000 per trip. Only 3.16 per cent of visitors were not spending much amount. (the average travel expense per head per trip was ` 217). Recreational value of the KKEC The recreational benefits are estimated using Travel Cost Method (TCM). This method is widely used to estimate the demand and consumer surplus of the recreational sites. In this study, the expenditure incurred on visiting a site is treated as a revelation of the consumer's preference for the environmental services produced by it and derives the value placed on those services. The quantity demanded of a person is the number of trips taken to a recreation site in a season and the price is the trip cost of reaching the site which includes all expenses. The variation of the price is due to the distances of the ecotourists. The price is low for the ecotourists those who have a close proximity of the site. The demand function slopes downward if trips decline with distance to the site. The purpose of this research is to determine the use value of recreation site of the KKEC through the consumer surplus approach. The semi-log function was used by specifying the number of visits per head per year as the dependent variable. Total expenses of the trip per visit, age, education, income and distance travelled to visit the KKEC are the independent variables. The estimates of TCM to the KKEC are presented in Table 2. It could be inferred from the table that the coefficient of multiple determination (R2) was 0.76, which would indicate that 76 per cent of the variation in the dependent variable was explained by the selected relevant explanatory variables. The calculated F value was 58.17 and significant at one per cent level of probability that indicated the goodness of the fit of the model of the study. The variables such as the total travel cost (TTC) and the travel distance were negatively significant at 1 per cent level of probability, whereas education was positively significant at 5 per cent level. This implied that an increase 2017] Recreational demand for Kovai Kutralam ecotourism centre: A travel cost method Table 2: Estimates of TCM in the KKEC. Variables Intercept TTC AGE EDN INC DIS R-square Adjusted R-square F-Value N Coefficients 't' value 2.316 -0.002*** -0.004 0.129** 7.74 -0.015*** 9.15 3.93 0.76 2.33 0.30 9.76 0.76 0.75 58.17 95 1181 The total annual consumer surplus obtained from the site visitors (KKEC) could be calculated by multiplying the individual's consumer surplus by the number of visitors to the KKEC. Total Consumer Surplus (TCS) = 215.05 x 183249 x 1.91 = ` 75268976. The value of individual consumer surplus per visit was about ` 215 and total consumer surplus of the KKEC was nearly ` 7.52 crore per year. Griffiths and Southey (1995) and Buren et al. (1996) estimated an individual and total consumer surplus in the same procedure and got the similar type of the results. Note: ***significant at p < .01 and **significant at p < .05 Conclusion in TTC by one rupee over the mean value, ceteris paribus the number of visits would decrease by 0.2 per cent. An increase in travel distance by one kilometre over the mean value, keeping all other variables held as constant, the number of visits would decrease by 1.5 per cent. If the educational status is improved from one year over the mean value, ceteris paribus, the number of visits would increase by 13 per cent. Nearly 52 per cent of ecotourists visited the KKEC mainly for the recreational purposes. The total number of visitors and average frequency of visit to the KKEC was 183249 and 1.91 times in a year. The individual consumer surplus was ` 215 per head per trip. The total consumer surplus of the KKEC was nearly ` 7.52 crore per year. The average distance of the ecotourists was 51.81 km per trip and mostly they spent 4.26 hours per trip in the KKEC. This study rejects the null hypotheses of no recreational demand for the KKEC. The functional form of the model is written in the equation (6), Ln V = 2.316-0.002 TTC***- 0.004 AGE+0.129 EDN**+7.74 INC – 0.015 DIS*** .. (6) (0.252) (0.000) (0.005) (0.055) (0.000) (0.001) (Figures in parenthesis indicate Standard Error) The sign of the coefficient of the variable “total travel cost” (TTC) was negative and therefore, it was inversely proportional to the number of annual visits, which was consistent with results of Individual Travel Cost Method (ITCM) found in the literatures. Bell and Leeworthy (1990); Willis and Garrod (1991); Connel (1992); Englin and Shonkwiler (1995); Heyes and Heyes (1999); Sohngen (2000) and Gurluk and Rehber (2008) estimated the recreational value of the ecotourism sites using the travel cost method. The above mentioned studies reflected the similar findings of this study. Consumer surplus of the KKEC This study concludes that it creates a huge demand from the ecotourists all around the district and nearby districts within the radius of 50-60 km. The individual consumer surplus was more than the entry fee. This is also reflecting the vast recreational demand of the site. Policy Implications · The Kovai Kutralam Ecotourism Centre has a huge potential for recreation purpose. The peak season of the KKEC is only 3-4 months in a year. The KKEC should not aim to maximize utilities in the waterfalls, but also should provide a nature based Animal Park and ecofriendly children's park to attract more ecotourists throughout the year. · There is high individual and total consumer surplus and WTP for improving the quality of ecosystem services in the KKEC. Hence, an existing entry fee may also be hiked from ` 50 to 100 for an adult and ` 75 for a non-adult per trip to maximize the profit and further investment in the KKEC. · Travel cost is higher for long distant ecotourists and naturally, it will affect the visitation rate. Indeed, the government can give free pass or subsidized bus fair for the students' community to educate and entertain in a greater extent. For correcting the model of the demand curve in order to maintain the TTC as a main explanatory variable, the equation (6) was modified into the equation (7). Ln V = 1.8917 – 0.00465 TTC*** .................................................................... (7) (0.144) (0.000) (Figures in parenthesis indicate Standard Error) Firstly, consumer surplus per person per visit was estimated then, the total consumer surplus was estimated by using the formula referred to the equation (4). Individual Consumer Surplus (ICS) = - 1 / (- 0.00465) = `215.05 1182 The Indian Forester [November dksokbZ dqVjkye ikfji;ZVu dsUnz ds fy, euksjatukRed ek¡x % ,d ;k=kk ykxr fof/ ,l- oj/k jkt] lh-Mh- dfoxhFkk] ds-vkj- v'kksd ,oa ,e- fpUuknqjbZ lkjka'k dksokbZ dqVjkye ikfji;ZVu dsUnz tutkrh; {ks=k esa vkfFkZd lEiUurk] ikfjfLFkfrdh; LFkk;hRo ,oa lkekftd lekurk miyC/ djkrk gSA bl vè;;u dk mn~~ns'; dksokbZ dqVjkye ikfji;ZVu dsUnz ds euksjatukRed egRo dk ifjek.k fu/kZfjr djuk FkkA yxHkx 53 izfr'kr i;ZVd #i;s 3-75 yk[k dh vkSlr lkykuk ikfjokfjd vk; ds lkFk 22 ls 45 vk;q oxZ ds Fks rFkk lky esa 1-91 xquk dh nj ij 51-81 fd-eh- jsat ls vk,A djhc 52 izfr'kr ikfji;ZVdksa us eq[;r% euksjatukRed iz;kstu ls Hkze.k fd;kA dksokbZ dqVjkye ikfji;ZVu dsUnz dh euksjatukRed ek¡x dks ;k=kk ykxr fof/ ls vkdfyr fd;k x;kA dqy ;k=kk ykxr vkSj nwjh udkjkRed :Ik ls egRoiw.kZ Fkh rFkk f'k{kk ldkjkRed :Ik esa egRoiw.kZ FkhA izfr Hkze.k ,dy miHkksDrk vf/'ks"k dk eku djhc #i;s 215 Fkk vkSj dksokbZ dqVjkye ikfji;ZVu dsUnz dk dqy miHkksDrk vf/'ks"k izfr o"kZ #i;s 7-52 djksM+ Fkk] ftlus LFky ds euksjatukRed eku dks vfHkxzg.k fd;kA vr% dksokbZ dqVjkye ikfji;ZVu dsUnz esa vf/d fuos'k djus vkSj ykHk dks vf/dre djus ds fy, orZeku izos'k 'kqYd dks o;Ldksa ds fy, #i;s 50@& ls #i;s 100@& rd vkSj xSj o;Ld ds fy, #i;s 75@& izfr Hkze.k rd c<+k;k Hkh tk ldrk gSA References Aznor A. Siti. (2009). Visitors Willingness to Pay for an Entrance Fee: A Case Study of Marine Parks in Malaysia. University of Leeds, UK, pp: 289. Bateman I.J. (1993). Valuation of the Environment, Methods and Techniques: Revealed Preferences Methods, Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management, Bellhaven Press, London, pp: 194-265. Bekkay E. Mohammed, Abedellatif Moukrim and Facial Benchakroun (2013). An Economic Assessment of the Ramsar Site of Massa (Morocco) with Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Methods, African J. Environmental Science and Technology, 7(6): 441-447. Bell F. and. Leeworthy V. R. (1990). Recreational Demand by Tourists for Salt Water Beach Days, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 18: 189-205. Buren, Von., M.S., Linder R.K. and Mc. Leod.(1996).Towards an Analytical Framework for Resource Allocation in Fisheries with Multiple Users, Paper Presented to the 40th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Melbourne. Christ C., Hillel O., Matus S. and Sweeting, J. (2003). Tourism and Biodiversity: Mapping Tourism's Global Footprint, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Washington, DC. Connel (1992). An Economic Evaluation of National Parks, Monograph, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. Englin J. and Shonakwiler J.S. (1995). Modeling Recreation Demand in the Presence of Unobservable Travel Cost: Towards A Travel Price Model, J. Environmental Economics and Management, 17: 213-229. Enviado (2010). Life as Commerce - Ecotourism as a Market Based Mechanism- A Case Study, Fecha De Publication. Garrod G. and Willis K.G. (1999). Economic Valuation of the Environment, Edward Elgar Publishing Inc, Northampton Massachusetts. Griffiths M.R. and Southey C. (1995). The Opportunity Cost of Biodiversity Conservation in Kenya, Ecological Economics, 12: 125-139. Gurluk S. and Rehber E. (2008). A Travel Cost Study to Estimate Recreational Value for A Bird Refuge at Lake Manyas, Turkey, J. Environmental Management, 88: 1350–1360. Heyes C.L. and Heyes A. (1999). Recreational Benefits from the Dartmoor National Park, Journal of Environmental Management, 55: 69-80. Honey M. (2006). Foreword in Le Guide Des Destinations Indigenes, Indigene Editions, France, Montpellier. Ross S. and Walls G. (1999). Ecotourism towards Congruence between Theory and Practice, Tourism Management, 20 (1): 123-132. Sohngen B. (2000). The Value of Day Trips to Lake Erie Beaches, Unpublished Report, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, Ohio State University. Timah P. (2011). Non-Market Valuation of Beach Recreation using the Travel Cost Method in the Context of Developing World: An Application to Visitors of the Naoe Beach in Kribi. Cameroon, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, pp: 88-89. Willis K.G and Garrod G. (1991). An Individual Travel Cost Method of Evaluating Forest Recreation, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 42 (1): 3342.