The main attractions of national parks include their scenic beauty, security, wildlife and trees. For preserving and maintaining national parks, an appropriate pricing policy can be used. The current study focuses on using the travel cost method (TCM) and contingent valuation method (CVM) as a non-market valuation technique to value the National Botanical Garden in Bangladesh, a developing country where little or no previous works of this kind has been conducted before. The main objective of the paper was to suggest an appropriate entrance fee for the park by assessing the willingness to pay (WTP) from the TCM and CVM; by determining a revenue maximizing entrance fee from the CVM; and by considering socio-demographics, the characteristics of visits and the motivation of the visitors to preserve the National Botanical Garden. The study sampled 100 visitors. These visitors participated in a survey which consisted of closed questions followed by a semi structured in-depth interview. For data processing, SPSS and Microsoft Excel were used. Based on the travel cost demand function using the TCM, the study found that the amount respondents were willing to pay for entrance was 0.955 US dollars and yearly consumer surplus was 593634.5 USD. From the CVM, it was estimated that the WTP was 0.225 USD for the entrance and revenue maximizing entrance fee was 0.376 USD. Finally, the entrance fee suggested for National Botanical Garden was around 0.225 USD.
Bharali A. Mazumder R. 2012. Application of travel cost method to assess the pricing policy of public parks: The case of Kaziranga National Park. Journal of Regional Development and Planning 1(1): 41–50.
Blakemore F. William A. 2008. British Tourists' Valuation of a Turkish Beach Using Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Methods. Journal of Coastal Research 24 (6): 1469–1480.
Chen W. Hong H. Liu Y. Zhang L. Hou X. Raymond M. 2004. Recreation demands and economic value: an application of travel cost method for Xiamen Island. China Economic Review 15 4: 398–406.
Clawson M. 1959. Methods of Measuring the Demand for a Value of Outdoor Recreation. Washington DC Resources for the Future: 36.
Dwyer J.F. Peterson G.L. Darragh A.J. 1983. Remove from marked records estimating the value of urban forests using the travel cost method. Journal of Arboriculture 9: 182–185.
Enyew S. 2003. Valuation of the Benefits of Out-door Recreation Using the travel Cost method: the case of Wabi-Shebelelangano Recreational Site. Adis Ababa University.
Garrod G. Pickering A. Willis K. 1993. The Economic Value of Botanic Gardens: a Recreational Perspective. Geoforum 24 (2): 215–224.
Greenstone M. Jack B.K. 2013. Envirodevonomics: A Research Agenda for a Young Field. NBER working paper (19426).
Hanley N. Spash C. 1993. Cost benefit Analysis and the Environment. London: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Herath G. Kennedy J. 2004. Estimating the economic value of Mount Buffalo national park with the travel cost and contingent valuation models. Tourism Economics 10: 63–78.
Indrila G.I. Ghosh S. 2009. Glimpse of the Tiger: How much are Indians willing to pay for it? (Working Paper No. 39-09). Retrieved from SANDEE economics and environment. http://www.sandeeonline.org/uploads/documents/publication/846_PUB_Working_Paper_39.
Islam K. Majumder S.C. 2015. Economic Evaluation of Foy's lake Chittagong using travel cost method. Indian Journal of Economics and Development 3(8): 1–6.
Jabarin A.S. Damhoureyeh S.A. 2006. Estimating the Recreational Benefits of Dibeen National Park in Jordan Using Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Methods. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 9 (12): 2198–2206.
Karen M. Sue S. Richard S.J. T. 2007. Comparing the Travel Cost Method and the Contingent Valuation Method – An Application of Convergent Validity Theory to the Recreational Value of Irish Forests. The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) Dublin No. 190.
Kawsar M.H. Pavel A.A. Uddin M.B. Rahman S.A. Mamun M.A.A. Hassan S.B. Alam M.S. Tamrakar R. Wadud M.A. 2015. Quantifying Recreational Value and the Functional Relationship between Travel Cost and Visiting National Park. International Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1 (3): 84–89.
Knapman B. Stanley O. 1991. A Travel Cost Analysis of Recreation Use Value of Kadau National Park. Canberra Resource Assessment Commission Inquiry: 42.
Limaei S.M. Ghesmati H. Rashidi R. Yamini N. 2014. Economic Evaluation of natural forest park using the travel cost method. Journal of Forest Science 60(6): 254–261.
Loomis B.J. Yorizane S. Larson D. 2000. Testing significance of multi-destination and multi-purpose trip effects in a travel cost method demand model for whale watching trips. Agricultural Resource Economics Review 29: 183–191.
Mwebaze P. Bennett J. 2011. Valuing Botanic Collections: A Combined Travel Cost Collections: A Combined Travel-Cost and Contingent Valuation Survey in Australia. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/100688/2/Mwebaze.pdf
Rolfe J. Gregg D. 2012. Valuing beach recreation across a regional area: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management 69: 282–290.
Shammin R.M. 1999. Application of the travel cost method (TCM): A case Study of Environmental valuation of Dhaka Zoological Garden. IUCN Switzerland.
Stevens T.H. Allen P.G. 1980. Estimating the benefits of recreation under conditions of congestion congestion. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 7: 395–400.
Tang T. 2009. An Application of Travel Cost Method to Yuelu Mountain Park in Changsha China. (Master's Thesis University of Helsinki).
Timah P.N. 2011. Non-market Valuation of Beach Recreation using the Travel Cost Method (TCM) in the Context of the Developing World: An Application to Visitors of the Ngoé Beach in Kribi Cameroon. (Master's Thesis Swedish University of Agricultural science).
Weikard H.P. 2005. Why non-use values should not be used. Mansholt Graduate School working paper (22).
Zaiton S. 2008. Willingness to pay in Taman Negara: A contingent Valuation Method. International Journal of Economics and Management 2 (1): 81–94.