應用條件評估法評估藤枝國家森林遊樂區之遊憩效益

Valuing Recreational Benefits of Tengjhih National Forest Recreation Area with Contingent Valuation Method

江治軒(Chih-Hsuan Chiang)

指導教授 ： 羅凱安

國立屏東科技大學/農學院/熱帶農業暨國際合作系所/碩士(2010年)

https://doi.org/10.6346/NPUST.2010.00023

摘要

隨著近十年來休假制度的建立與人們所得的增加，世人因而對於體驗森林遊憩的需求與頻率也與日俱增。若想要提供最佳的服務品質及最少的資源破壞，使參與者或遊客能獲得良好的遊憩體驗，以及提高遊憩滿意度，遊憩資源效益評估是首要重要的。由於遊憩資源所產生之經濟效益大多為無形(如心靈、精神、美質之滿足)，將無形效益以貨幣單位來加以計量，無論在學術上，或在資源與環境的管理政策上，都有其必要性與重要性。評估價值之高低必會受某些因素所影響，例如受訪者的個人屬性等。本研究擬以藤枝森林遊樂區為範圍，對其區域內之遊憩資源作經濟效益評估，並將結果與其它森林評估實例做討論，探討影響其價值差異之因素。
本研究以條件評估法做為藤枝森林遊樂區遊憩資源效益評估之方法，並以人員問卷調查蒐集所需資料，共調查一般遊客414位與潛在遊客402位。以SPSS統計軟體將資料分析，結果顯示，20~65歲之受訪者每人每次對遊憩使用效益的平均願付價格約為124.6~140.0元。而推算至全台灣之遊憩使用總價值則每次約為31,148,197~35,001,803元。並且五年內藤枝森林遊樂區可產生的總遊憩效益約為195,465,212.4~219,647,867.1元。此外，保育效益方面，20~65歲之一般遊客每人每年的平均願付價格約為146.4~190.0元，其中選擇價值45.8元，遺贈價值66.7元，存在價值55.9元，總價值每年約36,608,045~47,491,955元；另外，20~65歲之潛在遊客每人每年的平均願付價格則約為142.3~203.1元，其中選擇價值46.9元，遺贈價值60.5元，存在價值65.6元，總價值每年約為35,583,338~50,766,662元。影響受訪者願付價格差異之因素則包括停留時間、動機需求程度、每月個人可支配收入、使用者付費觀念、曾否對環保組織捐款與是否(再)前往遊玩等。

關鍵字

條件評估法 ； 願付價格 ； 遊憩資源 ； 非市場價值 ； 國家森林遊樂區

並列摘要

People are increasing the demand and frequency to experience forest recreational activities with the establishment of holiday system and the increment of capita income in recent decade. Valuation of recreational resources benefits is the first important if the best quality of service would be offered and the least resource be brocken, and raise recreational satisfaction to make participants or tourists could have a nice recreational experience. It is necessary and important to monetize the invisible economic benefits (such as interior, spirit, and esthetics) that are produced from recreational resources whatever on academic or resource and environmental mangement policy. The high and low of valuation may be affected by certain factors, interviewee’s background for example. The study value the benefits of recreational resources in Tengjhih forest recreational area, and explore the affecting factors of valuing difference.
The contingent valuation method was used to value the benefits. We surveyed 414 normal tourists and 402 potential tourists with personal questionnaire interview. The analyzed results displayed, NTD 124.6~140.0 person-time for the average WTP of recreational use value, and NTD 31,148,197~35,001,803 for the people in Taiwan. And Tengjhih forest recreational area will produce the total recreational use benefit of NTD 195,465,212.4~219,647,867.1 in five years. Furthermore, for the conservative benefits, the average WTP of normal tourists is NTD 146.4~190.0 per person and per year, NTD 45.8 for option value, NTD 66.7 for bequest value, NTD 55.9 for existence value, and NTD 36,608,045~47,491,955 per year for the people in Taiwan; otherwise, the average WTP of potential tourists is NTD 142.3~203.1 per person and per year, NTD 46.9 for option value, NTD 60.5 for bequest value, NTD 65.6 for existence value, and NTD 35,583,338~50,766,662 per year for the people in Taiwan. The affecting factors of different WTP are the duration of stay, the level of motive demand, personal monthly income, the conception of user payment, ever donated to the organization of environment and protection or not, and recreating again.

並列關鍵字

Conting Valuation Method(CVM) ； Willingness To Pay (WTP) ； Recreational resource ； Non-market value ； National forest recreational area

參考文獻

汪大雄、王培蓉、林振榮 (1999) 扇平自然教育區遊憩效益之經濟評估。台灣林業科學 14(4)：457-468。

李明宗 (1994) 休閒、觀光、遊憩論文集─戶外遊憩名詞釋義。台北，地景。5-7頁。

Bartczak, A., H. Lindhjem, S. Navrud, M. Zandersen, and T. Zylicz (2008) Valuing forest recreation on the national level in a transition economy: The case of Poland. Forest Policy and Economics 10: 467–472.

Bateman, I. J., and I. H. Langford (1997) Non-users’ willingness to pay for a National Park: An application and critique of the contingent valuation method. Regional Studies 31: 571-582.

Bernard, F., R. S. de Groot, and J. J. Campos (2009) Valuation of tropical forest services and mechanisms to finance their conservation and sustainable use: A case study of Tapantí National Park, Costa Rica. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 174-183.