Economic evaluation of wildlife preservation in the Sohoton Natural Bridge National Park, Samar, Philippines

The study successfully implemented contingent valuation study for measuring WTP [willingness to pay] and WTA [willingness to accept] compensation for the preservation of wildlife resources. The logistic regression analysis showed that off-site respondent's decision to pay for the preservation of wildlife is significantly affected by income and awareness to the wildlife species in the national park. Likewise, respondents' age, household size and membership in organization are the factors that significantly affect the on-site respondents' decision to accept compensation. The decision on how much the respondents are willing to pay and willing to accept compensation for the preservation of wildlife resources was done using the linear regression analysis. Sex, income, education and occupational group are among the factors that influenced the amount of the respondents' WTP for the wildlife preservation. For on-site respondents, the factors that significantly affected the amount of the respondents' WTA compensation are farm income and age. CVM [contingent valuation method] also performed well in estimating use and non-use values of wildlife preservation. Linear regression was employed to determine the factors affecting willingness to pay. For use values, WTP for direct use values was significantly affected by sex, income, and age. Income, education and occupational group are among the significant factors that affected WTP for indirect use values, while WTP for option value was related to income and education. Likewise, in estimating non-use values, WTP for existence values was significantly affected by income and awareness of the wildlife resources while income and education were among the significant variables that affect WTP for bequest values. Result of the benefit-cost analysis showed that preserving wildlife resources for the next 30 years is not economically feasible based on the computed NPV [net present value] and BCR [benefit cost ratio] at 10.25% of (108, 750, 108.37) and 0.68, respectively. The low NPV and BCR values are attributed to the limited wildlife species studied and the relatively high WTA bids. Based on the result of the study, suggested policy recommendations are given