BIODIVERSI TAS ISSN: 1412-033X

Volume 18, Number 3, July 2017 E-ISSN: 2085-4722

Pages: 1026-1034 DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d180321

Economic valuation of whale shark tourism in Cenderawasih Bay

National Park, Papua, Indonesia

ZUZY ANNA♥, DICKY SURYA SAPUTRA

Department of Fisheries and Marine Socio-Economics, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Universitas Padjadjaran. Jl. Raya Bandung-Sumedang
Km 21, Jatinangor, Sumedang 45363, West Java, Indonesia. Tel. +62-22-87701519. Fax. +62-22-87701518. ♥email: [email protected]

Manuscript received: 23 January 2017. Revision accepted: 8 June 2017.

Abstract. Anna Z, Saputra DS. 2017. Economic valuation of whale shark tourism in Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Papua,
Indonesia. Biodiversitas 18: 1026-1034. The whale sharks aggregation in the waters of Cenderawasih Bay has an impact on improving
the marine tourism industry in the region. On the other hands, Whale Shark is one of the species listed in the Red List of Threatened
Species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the vulnerable status, means that a whale shark populations have
been reduced by 20% to 50% within 10 years or three generations. The decline numbers of whale sharks caused by human activities that
damage the fish and the habitat, such as fishing and tourism activities. This is due to the lack of public awareness about the function and
value of these resources and its habitat. The whale shark has inherent value as marine resources, and has an environmental services
value, in relation to tourism activities. This paper measures the economic value and environmental services of the whale shark and its
habitat. The method of Travel Cost is used to calculate the value of expenditures incurred by both foreign and local tourists. The study
also measured the value obtained by tourist operators, the value of fishing activities, and the value of the habitat, through the people's
Willingness to Pay (WTP), using Contingent Valuation Method (CVM). From the result of the overall economic valuation can be
determined the estimated value of whale shark tourism, as well as Cenderawasih Bay National Park area, amounted to IDR 35.5 trillion.
The policy implication of this research is the need for appreciation of the whale sharks value, as well as its habitat, by managing and
developing conservation areas, and community capacity building on the understanding of the importance of whale sharks and its
conservation.

Keywords: Whale shark tourism, economic valuation, Travel Cost Methods, Contingent Valuation Methods, Willingness To Pay

INTRODUCTION The whale shark (Rhincodon typus), is one of the rare

species with the largest size among other fish in the sea
Indonesian economic condition that has not much been (Last and Stevens 1994; Chen et al. 1997; Compagno 2001;
improving in recent decades, coupled with the depletion of Andrzejacze et al. 2017). This species has the high
natural resources and environmental degradation which is migratory capability and has their habitat in tropical and
also worsened, prompting the need for more innovative warm seas (Colman 1997; Colman 1997b). These species
thought, to develop more environmentally sound and included in the red list of the International for the
sustainable economic activities, and reduce the pressure of Conservation of Nature (IUCN 2017), as a species whose
exploitation of natural resources and the environment. One status is particularly vulnerable because its population
of the activities that are considered to provide a significant reduced by between 20-50%, for 10 years or three
economic contribution to the future, when the exploitative generations of the whale shark. This fish is also included in
of nonrenewable natural resources, such as oil, gas, and the list of Appendix II of the Convention on International
minerals were already short, is tourism (WTTC 2015) Trade in Endanger Species (CITES 2017), which requires
A wealth of natural resources and the environment with regulations to be more cautious in the trade of products of
an incredible potential, which can be relied upon for the this species, to prevent population decline. The population
tourism development in Indonesia, is a coastal and marine decline can also be indicated by the decrease in the total
resource. Those resources are storing wealth and natural catch, reported by several studies including Watts (2001),
beauty, which can be benefited to be developed Theberge and Dearden (2006), and Myers et al. (2007).
sustainably, as a tourism industry. One of the areas, now of The decline of the whale shark population is due to
concern and have a high demand to be developed as a their habitat in coastal waters, which is vulnerable to
marine tourism destination in Indonesia, is Cenderawasih anthropogenic activities, including illegal, unreported and
Bay. This area has an extraordinary wealth of biodiversity unregulated (IUU) fishing. The whale shark caught a lot in
and natural beauty that is difficult to surpass by other some areas because it is believed to have various benefits
coastal areas in Indonesia. One particular biodiversity in for health, so the demand for this species is quite high,
this area, which is hard to find in other coastal areas in especially in China and Taiwan. The scarcity of whale
Indonesia, is the species aggregation of Whale sharks that shark is also due to the whale shark habitat in the coastal
can be seen throughout the year, as the region is a habitat waters which is susceptible to many human disturbances,
for the species (Stacey et al. 2008; Mangubhai et al. 2012). including tourist’s activity and water transportation. Whale
 ANNA & SAPUTRA et al. – Whale shark tourism in Cenderawasih Bay, Indonesia 1027

shark population decline was also due to the slow growth fishing activities in the region, which is calculated directly
rate of these fish (Norman and Catlin 2007). from the survey to the fishermen of their net income.
However, tourism activities aimed to see a whale shark Whale sharks habitat in Cenderawasih Bay National
sightings, considered to be less destructive and provide Park (CBNP) region, located in the waters of Kampung
greater economic benefits than the hunting of the whale Akudiomi or commonly known as Kwatisore, Subdistrict
shark (Davis et al.1997; Bentz 2013; O 'Malley et.al 2013; of Yaur, Nabire District, Papua Province, Indonesia. The
Cagua et.al. 2014). Study of economic valuation of study was conducted in Cenderawasih Bay, using the
O'Malley et al. (2013), which is supported by Wild Aid, questionnaires to fishermen, tourists and tourist operator, to
found that fish Manta Ray, worth the US $ 1 million dollars determine the value of revenue from capture fisheries,
in tourism activities, compared with earned income for expenditure of tourists and other costs to be incurred by
only $ 40- $ 500 USD if fish captured and killed. Thus the tourists through tourist operators, as well as the tourists'
value of Manta Ray of life, 2000 times greater than when WTP to manage the CBNP.
captured and died. The number of respondents interviewed during the
Whale shark tourism activity became popular in study includes 71 respondents, comprised of 20 fishermen,
Indonesia, and Cenderawasih Bay became one of the 1 tourist operator, 36 local tourists, and 14 foreign tourists.
destinations that are quite promising to be developed. Analysis of revealed preference can be obtained from
Cenderawasih Bay National Park (CBNP), is a tourist's expenditures, using the Travel cost methods
conservation area, which consists of the land area of 68,000 (Wood and Trice 1958; Clawson and Knetsh 1966; Carr
ha, includes the coastal plains, around 12,400 ha, and land and Mendelson 2003).
on the islands of 55 800 ha, as well as extensive water/sea The method is used to analyze the demand for outdoor
with an area of 1.3853 million ha, covering the coral reef recreation, in this case, enjoy the attractions of whale
area of 80,000 ha, and the sea of 1.305 million ha sharks in CBNP. This study uses the individual travel cost
(Pattiselanno 2005; Pattiselanno and Jimmy 2014). The methods. The method examines the cost of each, to come to
purpose of the enactment of CBNP, is to maintain and tourist's destination. By knowing the pattern of consumer
preserve the function of the region and to preserve the expenditure, then the value of consumers for environmental
diversity of flora, fauna, and ecosystems found in the services can be known. To understand the relationship
region. between the number of visits to several economic and
Information on the economic value of tourism whale socio-demographic variables, we use a simple regression
shark is very important to note for management purposes. (OLS). The equation is built with the hypothesis that a visit
Decision-making regarding the development of the area is to the tourist attractions, will be greatly influenced by the
one that should be executed by the government. An cost of travel, and it is negatively correlated. Thus the
economic valuation is a tool that can be used to calculate demand curve has a negative slope. The demand function
the benefits and costs of trade-off, of the policies to be equation is a formula:
taken. This study is expected to be a valuable input for the
decision-making process, therefore good for biodiversity Vij = f(Cij, Iij, xij)
conservation of whale shark, the continued of tourism
development and management of the marine park area. Where:
Vij = No of visit per year
Cij = Tourist’s Cost/ Expenditure per visit
MATERIALS AND METHODS Iij = Income
xij =Other sociodemography variables, such as age,
To understand the development of tourism whale sharks education, dummy gender and dummy tourist origin (local
in Cenderawasih Bay, this study concentrates on the non- and foreign).
market value of the whale sharks in Cenderawasih Bay, as
seen from the value of tourism whale sharks, using the From the regression equation, obtained the demand
value of consumer surplus (CS) derived from the function for the average visitor comes, and the area under
community's reveal preferences, through their pattern of the demand curve is the average of the consumer surplus.
expenditures, in visiting CBNP, to see the whale sharks. The demand curve is constructed with the following
The CS value is a proxy of Willingness to Pay (WTP) of assumptions: (i) The cost of travel and time costs are used
the society, in watching these species in their habitat, as a proxy for the price of recreation. (ii) The travel time is
which in this case can be interpreted as a willingness to neutral, meaning not producing utility and disutility. (iii)
conserve value (let the whale sharks live in the wild) and The visit is a single travel (not multi trips).
enjoy the environmental services of the species. The study
also calculated the value of the region of CBNP, using In a linear model, the demand function is written as:
economic valuation techniques for non-use value, state
preference. Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is hired V = α0 + α1 C + α2 I + α3 xij
to obtain the value of the community per ha per year
(WTP) of CBNP, towards conservation, so that the region's For semi-log model the demand function is:
biodiversity is maintained. In addition, to assess the market
value of the CBNP region, it is also calculated the value of ln V = α0 + α1 C + α2 I + α3 xij
 10 BIODIVERS I TAS 18 (3): 1026-1034, July

The equation can be obtained from the value of Where:

consumer surplus, which is a proxy of the tourist’s Y = WTP
willingness to pay for tourist destinations, which is I = Income
obtained through the formula for a linear function as A = Age
follows: E = Education
G = Gender
  C
WTP  CS   T = Tourist origin (local and foreign)

2

0 WTP’s value is obtained from the average or median, or

21
While for the semi-log function, use the formula as modus in the condition where the data has a high range
follows: offer. From all the above calculations, the value of
 1TC  Cenderawasih marine park areas, obtained from the total
WTP  CS  V  e
0

economic value as follows:

21 21
TEV = (DUV + IUV + XV)
Where:
WTP = Willingness to Pay Where:
CS = Consumer Surplus TEV =Total Economic Value
α0 = Constanta DUV = Direct use Value
α1 = Cost coefficient IUV = Indirect Use Value
Tcbar = Choke price, or the maximum cost which can XV = Existence Value
decline the visit to zero (v=0).
In this study, direct use value and indirect use value is
To obtain the data structure of tourist expenditures, represented by the value of the utilization of the tourism
conducted the interview. Tourist expenditure consists of the activities (from tourist expenditure) and direct utilization of
cost of transportation, expenses for tourism at the site, fishery activities. For non-use value is represented by
including the cost of accommodation and food. existence value of WTP of tourists to the conservation of
Expenditure data can also be seen from interviews with whale sharks.
tour operators, to determine the cost of the package tour.
The value of CBNP, one of which is calculated from the
value of the fishery in Cenderawasih Bay, by way of RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
interviews with fishermen at the sites. The value of the
fishery is the production per gear per trip per year Results
multiplied by the price per kg, reduced by the cost per trip Kampung Akudiomi or commonly known as Kwatisore,
per year. The average value per fisherman revenue is then in Cenderawasih Bay National Park Region (CBNP), where
multiplied by the number of fishermen population. whale sharks habitat is located has a wonderful natural
The intrinsic value of the whale shark obtained using potential, but infrastructure conditions in Kwatisore and
the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), following surrounding areas are still limited. There are two
Bateman et al. 2002; Boyle 2003; Smith et al. 2016. The accommodations infrastructure provided around Kwatisore,
hypothetic market made to get the value of WTP is the namely: Kali Lemon Resort, which can accommodate
willingness to pay of the respondents to be able to see the about ten people and home stay of DKPOP Nabire, which
whale sharks in the wild, which is a proxy of the value of can hold about four people. To achieve Kwatisore of
environmental services conservation of whale sharks. Nabire, visitors can use two alternative paths, sea and land.
Respondents were comprised of local tourists and Regular sea route, using engine speedboat 2x40 PK, it
international tourists. CVM method is also used to see the takes 1 hour. Meanwhile, a landline can be reached by car
relationship between the willingness to pay of tourists to for 2.5 hours trip. Unfortunately, public transportations
the community socio-economic variables. The relationship from Nabire to Kwatisore and vice versa are not yet
model analyzed by simple linear regression (OLS), available, so tourists have to rent a speed boat or a car to
formulated as follows: get to the location. The line for mobile phones and the
internet connection are also not available on site. Similarly,
Vij = f(Iij, Aij, Eij, Gij, DTij) for the electricity, so it must use an electric generator. In
terms of tourism development in the region, some of the
While the WTP Function is: institutions involved are the Office of Cenderawasih Bay
National Park (BBCBNP); Local Office of Culture, Youth,
Y = α0 + α1 I + α2 A + α3 E + α4 G + dummyα4 T Sports, and Tourism (DKPOP) Nabire district; tour
operators; fishermen, and local communities.
While the semi-log model formula is: The lack of infrastructure in the region did not deter the
tourists to come and see the attractions of whale sharks.
ln Y = α0 + α1 I + α2 A + α3 E + α4 G + dummyα4 T Data from BBNTC (2016), the number of visitors in CBNP
increased significantly in 2011 (19 times more than in
 ANNA & SAPUTRA et al. – Whale shark tourism in Cenderawasih Bay, Indonesia 1029

2010) and continued to increase until the year 2015. The data on how the numbers of visitors who use the travel or
increase in the number of tourist arrivals, continue, as there tour package so no calculation of the package.
is growing recognition of whale sharks in CBNP globally. The structure of expenditure of local tourist and foreign
The majority of tourists who visit CBNP are foreign tourist respondents, including fees ranging from
tourists (except the years 2012 and 2015). Increasing the transportation costs incurred by the respondents to visit
number of visitors also has an impact on improving the tourist sites, both going and returning home, admission fee,
Non-Tax State Revenue (Table 1). By taking a random the cost of consumption, the cost of souvenirs and other
sample through the field survey, and interviews with a expenses (rent a boat, diving equipment, etc.). From the
structured questionnaire, descriptive statistics obtained interviews, it is revealed that the average total cost of local
from the local tourist respondents as Table 2. As for tourists is IDR 4,1 million per visit, while foreign tourists
foreign tourists, the structure of the respondent descriptive amounted to IDR 18.9 million per visit. Thus the total
statistics can be seen in Table 3. economic value of Whale sharks tourism in CBNP reached
In order to achieve CBNP, and enjoy the whale sharks IDR 142.35 billion per year or US$ 10.54 Million (using
attractions, tourists can go directly to Nabire, using aircraft the tourist data 2015). The contribution of foreign tourists
from several major cities in Indonesia. Tourists can take a reached 82.4%, while only 17.6% of local tourists.
tour package for IDR 5.000.000 per day, covering Nabire Analysis of Travel Cost Method (TCM) is hired for the
airport pickup, transportation from Nabire to Kwatisore entire respondent (local tourists and foreign tourists). The
(return), consumption (3 meals and 2 snacks), the use of function derived from regression analysis between the
diving equipment and snorkel, accommodations, and number of visits to the total costs incurred, and other socio-
activities in the field. Tourists placed in an inn, near the demographic variables, as follows:
village, which is named Kali Lemon Resort, which was
built by the community with the assistance of organizations Linear Model:
Papua Pro. Thus, if seen from the number of foreign No of Visit = 0.26 + 0.00581Age + 1.18Gender - 0.059
tourists there (the average foreign tourist arrivals recorded Education - 0.00000014 Cost+0.00000019 Income -
using this package) assuming local tourists not to use a 0.000096 Distance - 0.30 Local tourist.
package tour, the tour operator has a turnover of IDR
3,107,000,000 per year or IDR 6,410,000,000 in 2015. Table 1. Number of tourists in Cenderawasih Bay National Park,
Some of the tourists come to CBNP using Phinisi (live Papua, Indonesia, and the value of non-tax state revenue
aboard), which originated from Bali and Sorong. Live (PNPB)
aboard usually go into CBNP region through Manokwari,
Number of Tourists /Year Non-Tax National
Nabire, or Biak. As live board meaning, which is living on Year
Local Foreign Total Revenue (PNPB) IDR
the boat, so, all the needs of tourists (accommodation,
2011 408 339 747 80.250.000
transportation, consumption, diving equipment, etc.), have 2012 933 831 1764 221.605.000
been fulfilled in it, at a price of IDR 7 million per day. 2013 756 1046 1802 249.793.000
Because of all the activities and needs of tourists are on 2014 872 1434 2306 369.999.000
board, so that the interaction between tourists and local 2015 3144 2564 5708 586.160.000
communities are usually very limited. However, there is no Total 6113 6214 12327 1.507.807.000

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for local tourist respondent in Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Papua, Indonesia

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Total Cost/Visit (Rp) 1600000.00 8000000 4096666.67 1771117.48
Age (Year) 20.00 55 32.2500 8.81030
Distance (Km) 90.00 3181 292.639 510
Income/month (Rp) 1000000 10000000 4438888.889 2038245
Education 12 18 13.58 2.05
No of Visit 1 15 2.0000 2.52982

Table 3. Descriptive statistic foreign tourist respondents in Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Papua, Indonesia

Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Total Cost/visit (Rp) 5650000 25000000 18878571.43 5982272.35
Age 25 78 45 16.69
Distance 5.02 29.43 20.7756 11.61411
Income/month (Rp) 5000000.00 22000000.00 17142857.1429 5347280.29
Education 18 18 18 .00000
No of Visit 1 3 1.2857 .72627
 10 BIODIVERS I TAS 18 (3): 1026-1034, July

Semi Log Model: the total WTP of whale shark conservation value is IDR
Ln No of Visit= 0.017 + 0.0126 Age + 0.3136 Gender - 770.16 million per year (data in total tourist arrivals in
0.0034 Education - 0.00000005 Cost+ 0.00000003 Income 2015). While using a semi-log model, the total value of
- 0.000014 Distance - 0.1242 Local tourist. Whale shark environmental services is IDR 704.29 million
per year. This value is of course still very small compared
The performance of statistical regression analysis to to the existing potential. This value can be increased for
model the linear and semi-log can be seen in Table example by managing price uncertainty and tourist fees due
4. From Table 4 can be seen that the linear and semi-log to transaction costs, which has been the issue that is
regression model, has an R2 45.7% and 48.6%, which relevant in this area, which make tourists reluctant to come
means the number of visits can be explained by the to this region.
explanatory variables as much as 45.7% and 48.6%, the The analysis conducted further is the WTP calculations
rest by other variables. The condition of the low value of to determine the respondents (tourists) willingness to pay,
R2 is not an issue as the criteria of a good model in the for the management of CBNP per ha per year. The features
regression as TCM (Maille and Mendelson 1993; Hanley of local respondents WTP values, shown in Table 5. Based
and Spash 1995; Khan 2006; Khan et al. 2014, Fauzi on data in the table, the value of the average WTP local
2014). For the linear model, the variables age, gender, have respondents IDR 2,513.89. As for foreign tourist’s WTP
significant value with 90% confidence level, while for distribution is as Table 6. Based on data in the table, the
costs and income, have a significant value of 95% value of the average WTP of foreign respondents is IDR
confidence level. As for the model semi-log, the variables 6,428.57. The average value of the respondent’s WTP, can
are significant at the level of 90% is a variable of gender be used as a reference in determining the value of the price
and cost. per hectare which can then be used as funds to implement
Furthermore, to determine the effects of all variables on the conservation and utilization of the National Park.
the dependent variable can be seen from the value of F at Furthermore, to obtain a total value WTP (TWTP)
the table has a probability of less than 0.05 or 5% for both respondents, calculated based on the distribution of
models, meaning that all the variables jointly affect the respondents WTP local / foreign. WTP value in each class
dependent variable number of visits. Value Durbin-Watson multiplied by the relative frequency (ni/N) is then
statistic (DW) at 1.57 and 1.41 (-2 <DW <2), indicating multiplied by the population of each class WTP. The
that there is no interference autocorrelation on both models. multiplication result is then summed, to obtain the value of
And VIF value below 10 indicates no multicollinearity. total respondents WTP. Calculation results can be seen in
From the above models, can be calculated consumer Table 7.
surplus value, which is basically is a proxy of Willingness Based on the results of these calculations, the value of
to Pay (WTP) society, from the cost side. Assuming chock total respondent's WTP for local tourists of CBNP,
price of IDR10 million rupiah, the maximum monthly amounting to IDR 7,903,666.67, per ha per year, where the
income of the respondents, the results show the value of the population is the number of visitors to National Parks.
consumer surplus of IDR 134,926.81 per visit for linear While for Foreign Respondents, the total value of WTP per
models, and IDR 123,385.96, for semi-log models. Thus ha per year can be seen in Table 8.

Table 4. Statistical regression analysis performance number of visit with sociodemography variables for linear and semi-log model

Model linear Model semi-log

Predictor
Coefficient P Value VIF Coefficient P Value VIF
Constant 0.256 0.951 0.017 0.988
Age 0.05815** 0.097 2.278 0.0126 0.177 2.278
Gender 1.1816** 0.075 1.262 0.3136** 0.076 1.262
Education -0.0593 0.735 2.576 -0.00342 0.942 2.576
Cost -0.00000014* 0.013 5.820 -0.00000005** 0.063 5.820
Income 0.00000019* 0.011 7.314 0.00000003 0.344 7.314
Distance -0.00009637 0.169 6.851 -0.00001398 0.450 6.851
Tourist Local -0.298 0.880 9.419 -0.1242 0.814 9.419
R2 45.7% 48.6%
Adj R2 34.4% 38%
F Statistic 2.12 2.26
Prob F stat 0.043 0.048
Durbin-Watson 1.57 1.41
Notes: * significant at the interval confidence 95 %, ** significant at the interval confidence 90%
 ANNA & SAPUTRA et al. – Whale shark tourism in Cenderawasih Bay, Indonesia 1031

Table 5. Value distribution of local tourists respondent

Willingness to Pay of Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Papua,
Based on the results of these calculations, the value of
Indonesia total WTP of foreign respondents in CBNP is amounting to
IDR 16,482,857, where the population is the number of
foreign visitors to the National Park. Thus, if calculated for
Number of Percenta the whole CBNP region with the total area of 1,453,500
WTP (Rp) respondents ge (%) Ha, the value of the region is IDR. 35,445,812,154,345.00
1000 10 28% (US$ 2.6 billion). As a comparison study with the
1500 2 6%
2000 8 22% Continent Valuation Methods from Carr and Mendelsohn
2500 4 11% (2003) found that the best estimates of the annual
3000 3 8% recreational benefits of the Great Barrier Reef is in the
3500 1 3% range between US$ 700 million to 1.6 billion, and the
4000 1 3% domestic value to Australia is about US$ 400 million.
5000 7 19% Regression analysis was conducted to see the
relationship between WTP of respondents with socio-
economic variables such as age, gender, education, income
and also the origin of tourists, the result, as Table 9.
The function derived from regression analysis between
Table 6. Value distribution of foreign tourist’s Willingness to Pay WTP with socioeconomic variables such as income, age,
in Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Papua, Indonesia education, gender and origin of tourists showed the
following equation:
Number of Percenta
WTP (Rp) respondents ge
Linear Model:
5000 6 43% WTP = 5430 - 0.000048 Income - 4.8 Age + 98
6000 3 21% Education + 621 Male - 4250 Local.
7000 2 14%
8000 1 7%
10000 2 14% Semi-log Model:
Ln WTP = 7.98 - 0.000000 Income - 0.00022 Age +
0.0467 Education + 0.139 Male- 0.991 Local

From the statistical performance, it can be seen that the

Table 7. Willingness to Pay total of local respondents in linear regression model and semi-log, has an R 2 60.9% and
Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Papua, Indonesia 50.1%, which means the number of visits can be explained
by the explanatory variable as the value, and the rest by
Frequency Total Value other variables. For both linear and semi-log models, only
WTP (IDR) (Total Population (IDR) constant variable and origin of tourists, that have
respondents)
significant value, with 90% confidence level. Furthermore,
A B c= (b/d) x e axc to determine the effects of all variables on the dependent
1000 10 1702 873,333.33 variable can be seen from the value of F in the table, which
1500 2 340 262,000.00
has a probability of less than 0.05 or 5% for both models,
2000 8 1362 1,397,333.33
2500 4 681 873,333.33 meaning that all variables jointly affect the dependent
3000 3 511 786,000.00 variable number of visits. Value Durbin-Watson statistic
3500 1 170 305,666.67 (DW) of 1.97 and 2: 12 (-2.2 <DW <2.2), indicating that
4000 1 170 349,333.33 there is no interference autocorrelation on both models.
5000 7 1191 3,056,666.67 And VIF value below 10 indicates no multicollinearity.
Total 36 d) 3144e) 7,903,666.67 Values CBNP region in artisanal fisheries activities,
calculated based on data from interviews with fishermen
respondents as many as 20 people from a total population
of 94 fishermen in Cenderawasih Bay. With the number of
Table 8. Willingness to Pay total of foreign Tourists in fishing per year on average of 300 days (fishermen conduct
Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Papua, Indonesia one day trip fishing), the average production per trip is 5
kg, the average price per kg is IDR 77.828, and the cost per
WTP Frequency (No. of Total Value trip on average is IDR 297.725, the value of economic rent
Population per fisherman per year is IDR 27.4 million, and the total
(IDR) respondents) (IDR)
A B c= (b/d) x e axc value of fisheries in CBNP region, is IDR 2.6 billion per
5000 6 2663 5,494,286 year (US$ 192,592.59).
6000 3 1332 3,296,571 From the result of the overall economic valuation, can
7000 2 888 2,564,000 be determined the estimated value of Cenderawasih Bay
8000 1 444 1,465,143
10000 2 888 3,662,857 National Park, by some of the benefits that are calculated in
2564e) this study, amounted to IDR 35.5 trillion or US$ 2.6
Total 14d) 16,482,857
Billion, with the details as Table 10.
 10 BIODIVERS I TAS 18 (3): 1026-1034, July

Table 9. Performance statistics regression analysis of Willingness to Payof tourists with sociodemographic variables linear models and
semi-log models

Linear Model Semi-log Model

Predictor
Coefficient P Value VIF Coefficient P Value VIF
Constant 5430* 0.056 7.98* 0.000
Age -4.8 0.836 1.759 -0.000223 0.978 1.759
Gender 621 0.194 1.146 0.139 0.391 1.146
Education 98 0.456 2.436 0.0467 0.300 2.436
Income -0.000048 0.541 5.442 -0.00000001 0.769 5.442
Local -4250* 0.001 6.328 -0.991* 0.022 6.328
R2 2 60.9% 50.1%
Adj R 56.5% 44.4%
F Statistic 13.2 8.82
Prob F-stat 0.000 0.000
Durbin-Watson 1.97 1.98

Table 11. Total value of Cenderawasih Bay National Park, Papua, Indonesia

Utilization Methods Values (IDR)

Proxy WTP tourism environmental services (Tourists Travel Cost Methods 770,162,239.63
perception)
CBNP Value (Tourist’s WTP to the CBNP) Contingent Valuation Methods (CVM) 35,445,812,154,345.00
Artisanal Fisheries in CBNP Productivity Approach/Market Value 2,578,036,578.95
Resources rent (PNPB) Secondary Data 586,160,000.00
Tour operator Interview/Market price 400,000,000.00
Total Value of CBNP 35,450,146,513,163.60

Table 10. The value of artisanal fisheries in Cenderawasih Bay

National Park, Papua, Indonesia
spend as the primary proxy of whale shark tourism, in 2012
and 2013, estimated accounted for US$7.6 and $9.4 million
respectively. These expenditures are based on an estimate
Economic Per Fishermen Total CBNP Fisheries of 72,000-78,000 tourists who have involved in whale
Value per year Value per year (IDR) shark excursions annually. While in Donsol Philippines,
(IDR)
Total Revenue 116,743,421.50 10,973,881,578.95 Norman and Catlin (2007) reported that at the early records
Total Cost 89,317,500.00 8,395,845,00.00 show 800 visitors in 1998 with a total income of
Rent 27,425,921.05 2,578,036,578.95 US$10500, generated from registration fees and boat
rentals, and the number of visitors increased to
approximately 7200 in 2005, generating an estimated
income of US$208,000. Study by Anna (2008), revealed
Discussion that the gross value generated from tourisms in Seribu
This study provides a good overview of some of the Island Marine Park is more than US$ 9 million per year.
benefits of environmental services whale sharks, as well as This is an average value of ten years gross revenue
its habitat, including other economic activities such as generating from average spending by tourists visiting
fishing, as mentions by Balmford et al. (2011) and Laurans Seribu Island resorts.
(2013), this knowledge can be used as a tool that has the Estimated total value of Cenderawasih Bay National
potential to improve our collective choice of ecosystem Park, Whale Sharks environmental services, and the
services. The value of each such utilization is very economic value of fisheries was IDR 35.5 trillion or US$
significant for the economy of local communities and 2.6 billion. The estimated value does not include the total
governments. value of both natural resources and other environmental
From the study revealed that economic value of Whale services that have not been counted. Estimated value of the
sharks tourism in CBNP reached IDR 142.35 billion per CBNP, somehow increases our awareness of the high value
year or US$ 10.54 Million (using the tourist data 2015). of whale sharks environmental services, and also CBNP as
The value is higher compared to other direct value on a whole, when compared with the value of its extractive.
Whale sharks tourism, such as in South Ari Marine The value also implies the cost of restoration to be
Protected Area, Maldives (Cagua et al. 2014), with direct projected if the resources are damaged.
 ANNA & SAPUTRA et al. – Whale shark tourism in Cenderawasih Bay, Indonesia 1033

The value of the whale shark which is the value of directed to the economic utilization of traditional fisheries
biodiversity is, of course, related to the intrinsic value of and tourism as well since both provide significant value
these species, which may be higher than the value when it benefits.
is consumed (anthropogenic value). Sandler (2012) states Policy development in tourism is an option because
that the benefits we can get from the intrinsic value of right now, tourism is becoming one of the principal exports
biodiversity, including ecosystem services, such as the for developing countries and least developed countries
purification of air and water, climatic settings, producing (LDCs): it is growing rapidly and is the most significant
oxygenated and maintain moisture. Studies on the source of foreign exchange, after petroleum (The World
economic valuation of the whale shark, whale shark Tourism Organization 2002). Besides marine tourism can
tourism activities, as well as marine park conservation area be a major source of growth and jobs. However, these
for whale shark habitat, yet many do. Some of these studies activities require planning and development of integrated,
were performed to calculate the value of whale shark inter-sectoral, inter-regional, inter-various disciplines.
tourism and whale sharks (Cesar 2004; Soliman 2004; For the purpose of integrated management of the whale
Norman 2005; Padilla 2005; Norman and Caitlin 2007; shark and the conservation area, some suggestions may be
WWF 2007; Catlin 2010; DMTO 2011; Cisneros 2013; implemented relating to continued research and
Cagua 2014). Most of the results showed that the value of management to the future of the region, such as conducting
whale sharks alive in nature, and value of environmental an assessment of the economic valuation of other tourism
services of tourism, is much greater than the value if activities, which are not recorded, such as tourism live
captured and consumed. Other studies related to the value aboard, which also contributes significantly to the national
of such protected areas, conducted by Sanchirioet al. economy. In addition, the economic valuation needs to be
(2002), Thurs (2010), Reuchlin and McKenzie (2015), done on natural resources and other environmental services
revealed that the construction of a marine conservation area in the area of CBNP, to provide a more comprehensive
is an investment that is priceless, and contribute to the view of value.
Community directly and indirectly. Furthermore, to get a more competitive tourism, the
Economic valuation of ecosystem services is often used development of CBNP, require tourism product
as a tool that has the potential to improve our collective diversification and distribution of tourist destination, as
choice of ecosystem services, as a factor in the costs and well as the need of investment breakthroughs to develop
benefits, associated with degradation (Balmford et al. 2011; remote areas outside the CBNP, that have tourism
Laurans 2013). For the case of Cenderawasih Bay, for potential, in addition to whales sharks regional
example, the utilization of the fisheries and tourism destinations, including cultural tourism. To do so, It is
activities is a choice to be made, although it does not necessary to have public awareness and education for
always have a binary choice, however, because local social engineering, behavioral changes of local
people still need to take advantage of fisheries activities, communities, so that the existing transaction costs can be
both for economic activity as well as for food security. eliminated or minimized, so that the certainty becomes
Understanding of the economic value can also provide higher and more and more tourists are interested, come to
policy direction to overcome the degradation, accelerate the area CBNP. It needs the involvement of local
ecosystem services and biodiversity, to change individual communities in tourism governance and tourism
and collective choices in terms of management decisions development as well as networking. Development of a
utilization of natural resources, and a better and sustainable responsible marine tourism, one of which is the need of
environment (NRC 2005; Randall 1988; Daily et al. 2009). quantifies the tourism carrying capacity in CBNP region.
It is also strongly associated with the assumption that we
do not protect what we do not value (Myers and Reichert
1997). Thus we usually do not value if we do not know the
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
benefits, so an economic valuation is a process of
understanding the benefits and measure of value, for the
The author would like to thank the WWF Indonesia, for
purpose of protecting and managing the resources and
funding the research in 2016.
environmental services.
The value of this area can also be a proxy for the cost of
management and mitigation of the damage or the cost of
damage compensation that has been or will be occurred. REFERENCES
The value also implies the cost of restoration to be
Anna, S. 2008. Marine protected area and its socio-economic impact on
projected if the resources are damaged. This value, also the communities of Seribu Island, Indonesia. Proceeding of 14th
become a factor for the application of payment for International Institute of Fisheries Economic and Trade (IIFET)
environmental services instruments, through entrance fees, Conference. Nha Trang, Vietnam July 22-25, 2008.
for example. Value services of the region and also the Andrzejaczek S, Meeuwig J, Rowat D, Pierce S, Davies T, Fisher R,
Meekan M. 2017. The ecological of whale shark aggregations in
value of whale sharks environmental services can also be Indian ocean: a photo-identification approach. R Soc Open Sci 3
used as a base direction of trade off, extractive or (11): 160455. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160455
conservative policies. From the results of the assessment Balmford A, Fisher B, Green RE, Naidoo R, Strassburg B, Turner RK,
can be seen that conservative policies are an option for Rodrigues ASL. 2011. Bringing ecosystem services into the real
world: an operational framework for assessing the economic
utilization of whale sharks, while for CBNP region can be consequences of losing wild nature. Environmental and Resource
Economics 48: 161-175.
 10 BIODIVERS I TAS 18 (3): 1026-1034, July

Bateman I, Carson RT, Day BH, Hannemann M, Hanleys N, Hett T,

Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Bille R, Pirard R, Mermet L. 2013. Use of
Jones-Lee M, Loomes G, Mourato S, Ozdemiroglu E, Pearce
ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making:
D, Sugden R, Swanson J. 2002. Economic valuation with stated
questioning a literature blind spot. Journal of Environmental
preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd;
Management 119: 208- 219.
Cheltenham. p. 458.
Maille P, Mendelson R. 1993. Valuing ecotourism in Madagascar. Journal
BBTNTC. 2016. Anual Report Balai Besar Taman Nasional Teluk
of Environmental Management (JEM) 38: 213-218.
Cenderawasih. Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan
Myers JP, Reichert JS. 1997. Perspectives on Nature’s Services. In: Daily
[Indonesian].
GC (Ed.), Nature’s Services. Societal Dependence on Natural
Bentz J, Dearden P, Calado H. 2013. Strategies for marine wildlife
Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C.
tourism in small islands: the case of the Azores. Journal of Coastal
Norman B. 2005. Whale hark ecotourism: the sustainable option. In:
Research 65: 874-879.
International workshop on whale shark ecotourism. Taipei, Taiwan,
Boyle KJ. 2003. Contingent valuation in practice. In: Champ A, Boyle KJ,
51-55.
Brown TC, eds. A primer on non-market valuation. London: Kluwer
Norman B, Catlin J. 2007.Economic Importance of Conserving Whale
Academic Publishers, 111-169.
Sharks. Report for the International Fund for Animal Welfare
Cagua EF, Collins N, Hancock J, Rees R. 2014. Whale shark economics: a
(IFAW), Australia.
valuation of wildlife tourism in South Ari Atoll, Maldives. Peer J 2: NRC. 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Towards Better Environmental
e515. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.515. Decision Making. National Academies Press, Washington D.C
Carr L, Mendelsohn R. 2003. Valuing coral reefs: a travel cost analysis of O’Malley MP. 2013. The global Economic Impact of Manta Ray
the Great Barrier Reef. Ambio 32 (50): 353-357. Watching Tourism. Plos One Journal 8 (5): 1-11. http:
Catlin J, Jones R. 2010. Whale shark tourism at Ningaloo Marine Park: a //dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065051
longitudinal study of wildlife tourism. Tourism Management 31 (3): Padilla J, Tolosa M .2005. Towards A Business Plan for Donsol
386-394. Community-Based Ecotourism and Coastal Resources Management
Cesar H, Van Beukering P, Payet R, Grandourt E. 2004. Evaluation of Project. Report Submitted to WWF Philippines
The Socio-Economic Impacts of Marine Ecosystem Degradation in Pattiselanno F. 2005. Digging the biological potential and ecotourism
The Seychelles. Technical Report March. Ministry of Environment, potential of Cenderawasih Bay National Park. Warta Konservasi
Victoria, Seychelles. Lahan Basah13 (1): 6-7. [Indonesian].
Chen CT, Liu KM, Joung SL. 1997. Preliminary Report on Taiwan's Pattiselanno F, Jimmy FW. 2014. Concern on small Islands: Protect
Whale Shark Fishery.TRAFFIC Bulletin17 (1): 53-57. cuscus (Phalangeridae) habitat in Cenderawasih Bay. Warta
Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Barnes-Mauthe M, Al-Abdulrazzak D, Konservasi Lahan Basah 22 (3): 1-4. [Indonesian].
Navarro-Holm E, Sumaila UR. 2013. Global economic value of shark Randall A. 1988. What Mainstream Economists Have to Say About The
ecotourism: implications for conservation. Oryx 47 (03): 381-388. Value Of Biodiversity. In: Wilson EO (ed.), Biodiversity. National
DOI 10.1017/S0030605312001718. Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Clawson M, Knetsch J. 1966. Economic of Outdoor Recreation. John Reuchlin HE, McKenzie E. 2015. Marine Protected Areas: Smart
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA. Investment in Ocean Health. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.
Colman JG.1997. A review of the biology and ecology of the whale Sanchirico JN, Cochran KA, Emerson PM. 2002. Marine Protected Areas:
shark. Journal of Fish Biology 51: 1219-1234. Economic and Social Implications. Discussion Paper 02-26.
Colman JG.1997b. Whale Shark Interaction Management, with Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Particular Reference to Ningaloo Marine Park. Department of Sandler R. 2012. Intrinsic value, ecology, and conservation. Nature
Conservation and Land Management. Perth,Western Australia. 66 Education Knowledge 3 (10): 4.
pp. Smith AEK, Wheeler PM, Johnson ML. 2016. Artificial reefs and marine
Compagno L.J.V. 2001. Shark of the World: An Annotated and protected areas: a study in willingness to pay to access Folkstone
Illustrated Catalogue of Shark Species Known to Date.Food and Marine Reserve, Barbados, West Indies. PeerJ 4:
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. e2175;DOI10.771/Peerj.2175.
DMTO (Donsol Municipal Treasurer’s Office). 2011. Report for the 2010 Soliman VS. 2004. Assessment of the Municipal Capture Fisheries of
whale shark season presented during the planning and evaluation Donsol, Sorsogon: Analysis of Fishing Gear Inventory, Catch and
workshop on July 7-8, 2011 in Legazpi City, Philippines. Effort and Economics. [Progress Report]. WWF-KKP, Jakarta.
Fauzi A. 2014. Economic Valuation and Damage Assessment of Theberge MM, DeardenP. 2006. Detecting a decline in whale shark
Resources and Environmental. IPB Press, Indonesia. Rhincodon typus sightings in the Andaman sea, Thailand, using
Hanley N, Spash CL. 1995. Methodological and ideological options, ecotourism operator - collected data. Oryx 40: 337-342.
preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecological The World Tourism Organization. 2002. Tourism and Poverty Alleviation.
Economics12: 191-208. DOI: 10.18111/9789284405497.
Hugenholtz RE, McKenzie E. 2015. Marine Protected Area Smat Thur SM. 2010. User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine
Investments in Ocean Health. John Tanzer (Ed). WWF, Gland, protected areas: an application to the Bonaire National Marine Park.
Switzerland. Mar Pol 34 (1): 63-69. DOI 10.1016/j.marpol.2009.04.008.
Khan H. 2006. Willingness to pay for Margalla Hills National Park: Watts S. 2001.The End of the Line: Global Threat to Sharks.WildAid,
evidence from the travel cost methods. The Lahore Journal of San Francisco.
economics11 (2): 43-70. Wood S, Trice A. 1958. Measurement of recreational benefits. Land Econ
Khan H, Ali F, Khan H, Shah M, Shoukat S. 2014. Estimating 34: 195-207.
willingness to pay for recreational services of two public parks in Davis D, Banks S, Birtles A, Valentine P, Cuthill M. 1997 Whale sharks
Peshawar pakistan. Environmental Economics 5 (1): 21-26. in Ningaloo Marine Park: managing tourism in an Australian marine
Last PR, Stevens JD. 1994. Sharks and Rays of Australia.CSIRO, protected area. Tourism Management 18(5):259–271.
Melbourne,Australia.513pp.