Skip to main content
Log in

Contingent valuation and biodiversity: measuring the user surplus of Kenyan protected areas

  • Papers
  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

The financial returns to Kenyan tourism demonstrate the importance of the country's tourist potential to its economic development. Protected areas and their inhabitants are the principal focus of the tourist industry, the nations's main foreign exchange earner, and a source of wonder and value for a global population of non-users. It might be expected that such assets would be accorded some degree of security with sufficient funding to safeguard current and potential economic benefits. Yet park use is haphazard, and there is frequently little coincidence between those that benefit and those that pay for the continued existence of such areas. Growing economic and demographic pressures which threaten to swamp protected areas only emphasize the implicit subsidy currently paid by Kenyans to support conservation for the benefit of the world at large. In this climate the case for conservation depends on the measurement and capture of economic benefits. Using a contingent valuation survey of expressed preference this study estimates the consumer surplus attached to current non-consumptive use of protected areas by foreign visitors at some $450 million per annum. This sum alone is more than double the best available estimate of opportunity cost and appears to justify current resource use. The estimate is additional to current financial returns from tourism and makes no allowance for other direct and indirect benefits and potential returns from consumptive uses. Measured consumer surplus contains some margin of willingness to pay that could be captured through the current fee structure. Moreover, park fees represent the most accessible market mechanism to finance revenue sharing and additional park investment before potential recourse to emerging global market institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R. and Schuman, H. (1993) Report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration panel on Contingent Valuation. US Federal Register January 15, 1993, Vol 58, No. 10, 4602–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, J.C., Stoll, J.R., Titre, J.P. and Wright, V.L. (1990) Economic Value of Wetlands-Based Recreation. Ecol. Econ. 2, 129–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R.C. and Heberlein, T.A. (1979) Measuring values of extra-market goods: Are indirect measures biased? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 61, 926–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, P.V., Staubo, C. and Grootenhuis, J.G. (1993) The economics of living with wildlife: the case of Kenya. Nairobi: Capricorn Consultants Ltd., World Bank Environment Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R.T., Mitchell, R.C., Hanemann, W.M., Kopp, R.J., Presser, S. and Ruud, P.A. (1992a) A contingent valuation study of lost passive use values resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. A Report to the Attorney General of the State of Alaska.

  • Carson, R.T., Conway, A., Alberini, A., Flores, N., Riggs, K., Vencil, J. and Winsen, A. (1992b) A bibliography of contingent valuation studies and papers, La Jolla CA: NRDA Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. (1978) Mail and Telephone Surveys. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M.A.I. (1993) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Washington, DC: Resources For the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. (1992) LIMDEP. Version 6.0. New York.

  • Greene, W. (1993) Econometric Analysis, New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gujarati, D.N. (1988) Basic Econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, M. (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation: experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66, 332–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, M. (1989) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 71 (Nov), 1057–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann, W.M., Loomis, J. and Kanninen, B. (1991) Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am. J. Agric. Econ 73, 1255–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, N. and Spash, C. (1993) Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Discussion papers in Economics, 93/12. Department of Economics: University of Stirling.

  • Henry, W., Waithaka, J. and Gakahu, C. (1992) Visitor attitudes, perceptions, norms and use patterns influencing visitor carrying capacity. In Tourist attitudes and use impacts in Maasai Mora National Reserve (C.G.Gakahu, ed.). Nairobi: Wildlife Conservation International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, P., Kriström, B. and Mäler, K. (1989) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: comment. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 71 (Nov), 1054–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, K. (1993) Incremental cost as an input to operational decision-making: the role of the incremental cost principle in making operational decisions about the financing of projects that protect the global environment. Paper presented at a special workshop for GEF participants on the topic of incremental cost. Washington, DC.

  • Koutsoyiannis, A. (1979) Modern Microeconomics. Second Edition. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriström, B. (1993) Comparing continuous and discrete contingent valuation questions. Envir. Resource Econ. 3, 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenya Wildlife Service (1990) A Policy Framework and Development Programme 1991–1996. Nairobi.

  • Langford, I.H. and Bateman, I.J. (1993) Welfare measures for contingent valuation studies: estimation and reliability. In Global Environmental Change working paper 93-04, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment: University College London and University of East Anglia.

  • Langford, I.H., Bateman, I.J. and Langford, H. (1994) Multilevel modelling and contingent valuation, Part 1: A triple bounded dichotomous choice analysis. Global Environmental Change, working paper, forthcoming, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment: University of East Anglia and University College London.

  • Loomis, J.B. (1988) Contingent valuation using dichotomous choice models. J. Leisure Res. 20, 46–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1976) Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5/4, 363–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, E., Kramer, R. and Sharma, N. (1993) Estimating the Nature tourism benefits of establishing the Manatadia National Park in Madagascar, draft mimeo. Durham, NC: Centre for Resource and Environmental Policy Research, Duke University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (1989) Using surveys to value public goods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1994) Proposed regulations for natural resource damage assessments (included in CVM Network Newsletter; January).

  • Norton-Griffiths, M. and Southey, C. (1993) The opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation: A case study of Kenya. In Global Environmental Change Working Paper, pp. 93–21. University College London and University of East Anglia: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.

  • Noss, R.F., Cline, S.P., Csuti, B. and Scott, M.J. (1992) Monitoring and assessing biodiversity. In Achieving environmental goals: the concept and practice of environmental performance review (E.Lykke, ed.) pp. 67–85. London: Belhaven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overseas Development Administration (1988) Appraisal of projects in developing countries: a guide for economists. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D.W., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. (1989) Blueprint for a green economy. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D.W. (1994) Capturing global environmental value, mimeo. University College London and University of East Anglia: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment.

  • Pearce, D.W. and Moran, D. (1994) The economic value of biodiversity. London: Earthscan. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, A. and Stoll, J.R. (1983) Existence value in a total value framework. In Managing air quality and scenic resources at National Parks (R.Rowe and L.Chestnut, eds). Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Republic of Kenya Ministry of Planning and National Development (1993) Economic Survey 1993. Nairobi.

  • Republic of Kenya Statistical Abstract (various years).

  • Schkade, D. and Payne, J.W. (1994) How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 26, 88–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, T.H., Echeverria, J., Glass, R.J. and More, T.H. (1991) Measuring the existence value of wildlife: what do CVM estimates really show? Land Econ. 67, 390–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southey, C. (1992) Game parks and tourism: an examination of patterns of usage. Technical paper 92–08. Nairobi: Republic of Kenya, Ministry of Planning and National Development. Long Range Planning Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity. Nairobi.

  • Wells, M.P. (1993) Neglect of biological riches: the economics of nature tourism in Nepal. Biodiver. Conserv. 2, 445–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winpenny, J. (1991) Values for the Environment: A Guide to Economic Appraisal. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moran, D. Contingent valuation and biodiversity: measuring the user surplus of Kenyan protected areas. Biodivers Conserv 3, 663–684 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126859

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126859

Keywords

Navigation