Bunaken Report

7/31/2019 Bunaken Report

1/61

Bunaken National Park

Visitor Survey

Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia


2/61

Bunaken National Park:Visitor Survey

Prepared by:

Peter G. Whiting, Natural Resources Accounting Advisor, CEPI

and

Dr. Irham, University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta

June, 2002


3/61

(Cover photo courtesy of Two Fish Divers, Bunaken Island)

Foreword

This visitor survey of Bunaken National Park was initiated in 1999. It was conceived as a

case study which examined economic aspects not normally included in other studies.

The study was a collaboration between the Natural Resources Accounting Advisor of the

Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia (CEPI) and an advisor to the CEPI natural

resources accounting - environmental economics program being implemented at the

Environmental Study Centre, University of Gadjah Mada in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. In an

attempt to collaborate with other universities who were active with the CEPI, the assistance

of the University of Sam Ratulangi (UNSRAT) in Manado was sought and obtained.Primary data collection was initiated in 1999 through the Faculty of Fisheries and Marine

Sciences. However, for a variety of reasons this survey was not completed and the study was

held in abeyance.

In October 2000 the survey was resurrected when Mr. Alvon Jusuf was contracted to

undertake the survey. Mr. Jusuf had collected approximately 200 questionnaires when a

natural disaster occurred - his house was flooded during a flash flood in December and all

the questionnaires were lost. Again, the research was put on hold.

In May, 2001 a third and final attempt was made to complete the survey. Mr. Yustinus SaptoHardjanto, a consultant in Manado, was contracted to undertake the survey. In September

of 2001 a total of 302 completed questionnaires were delivered to the University of Gadjah

Mada. With the delivery of these questionnaires, the study was definitely back on again, but

approximately two years behind schedule.


4/61

Acknowledgements

This study owes much to many people. It is impossible to identify them all, but some of the

key individuals can be recognized.

Meetings with Park staff were important. The prime contact there was Reinhart Paat, whose

English was good and whose support was needed. Pak Dominggus, Superintendent of the

park gave approval for the survey in the park.

Dr. Siegfried Berhimpon, Dean, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, UNSRAT and Dr.

Laurentius T.X. Lalamentik of the same faculty, were instrumental in early attempts to

implement the survey. They also gave some perspective to the study for the researchers.

Virza Sasmitawidjaja, NRM project, was instrumental in assisting the researchers by helping

identify possible collaborators and through his involvement in preparatory meetings. His

enthusiasm for the research and its results was very supportive. Also Zulhan Harahap, NRM

Field Officer, assisted with field work organization. Dr. Mark V. Erdmann assisted with our

initial understanding of the dynamics of the park, and was also instrumental in providing

visitor numbers and park revenues later in the study.

Alvon Jusuf was the second person agreeing to undertake data collection activities. It was

with regret that we learned of his personal disaster with the flooding in Manado, and our

research disaster.

Yustinus Sapto Hardjanto was successful where others had failed and completed the survey

of visitors to Bunaken. This is regarded as a major achievement.

Other people whose contribution should be acknowledged include Dr. Dwight Watson who

suggested the research initially; Dr. Tim Babcock who provided many suggestions on

collaboration partners and to CIDA for the funding. Vicki Lee, graduate student from the

University of Waterloo, Ontario Canada, who was also conducting research in Bunaken,

provided some valuable insights.

The authors acknowledge that all errors and omissions are their responsibility. The authors

also acknowledge that the views expressed in this report are not necessarily endorsed by the

University of Gadjah Mada, Canora (Asia) Ltd. or the Canadian International Development

Agency.

Peter Whiting, CEPI Natural Resources Accounting Advisor, and

Dr. Irham, University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia


5/61

Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Bunaken National Park 2

3. Research Approach 6

3.1 Types of Socio-Economic Benefits 6

3.2 Why Adopt a Framework? 7

3.3 Economic Benefits Framework 8

3.4 Bunaken Research Design 10

4. Survey Results 12

4.1 Respondent Characteristics 12

4.2 Trip Characteristics 13

4.3 Conflicting Activities 14

4.4 Willingness to Pay 16

4.5 Fee Assessment 17

5. Economic Analysis 19

5.1 Park Visitor Numbers 19

5.2 Preservation Values 20

5.3 Commercial Benefits 21

5.4 Exported Personal Benefits 25

5.5 Societal Benefits 29

5.6 Summary of Economic Benefits 34

References 35

Appendices 371. Generalized Economic Benefits Framework

2. 2001 Survey Form

3. Exchange Rates

4. Preliminary Survey Results


6/61

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Respondents Awareness of Conflicting Activities

(Percentage) 15

Table 2 Effect of Conflicting Activities on Enjoyment of

the Park (Percentage) 15

Table 3 Effect of Conflicting Activities on Enjoyment

of the Park by Respondents Who Were

Aware of the Activities (Percentage) 16

Table 4 Awareness and Effects of Conflicting Activities

on Visitor Experience/Enjoyment 22

Table 5 Summary of Exported Personal Benefits, BNP, 2001 28

Table 6 Sources and Values of Selected Marine and

Terrestrial Ecosystem Services (1994 US dollars) 30

Table 7 Summary of Calculated Societal Benefits, BNP, 2001 33

Table 8 Summary of Calculated Benefits, Bunaken

National Park, 2001 34

List of Figures

Figure 1 Eastern North Sulawesi 3


7/61

Page 1Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia

Visitor Survey of

Bunaken National Park

1. Introduction

With the increasing demand for economic rationalization of public institutions and public

assets, government expenditures are coming under close scrutiny. One way of assessing

these assets is to estimate the benefits which they produce, or to assess the extent to which

they contribute to society's welfare. Provision of a public service can be measured from the

perspective of benefits received on a personal, business or societal level, as well as fromdifferent geographical perspectives.

The benefits associated with protected areas are not effectively covered by established market

mechanisms commonly used to reflect value. Many of the benefits are not valued by

conventional market forces and require the application of special methods for their

estimation. As a consequence, special surveys are used to gather information on these

benefits.

Protected areas such as national parks are frequently considered as drains to local

development because they take resources out of production for what are thought to beproductive uses. Consequently, protected areas are often viewed as luxuries which are of

not much value locally. Bunaken National Marine Park is one such protected area which is

under considerable pressure from internal and external sources, which tends to suggest that

it is not held to be valuable as a protected area.

The purpose of this study is to illustrate and quantify in economic terms some of the broad

range of benefits Bunaken produces as a national marine park. The study intended to provide

park managers with some perspectives from the park visitors point of view. The survey was

undertaken to gather information on activities in the park and to gain an understanding of

how visitors value their visit. The report provides a brief description of the park, describes

the assessment framework adopted, discusses the research methods used, presents the results

of the survey, and provides a brief economic analysis of benefits measured. A brief

conclusion is also presented.


8/61

Bunaken Visitor Survey

Page 2 Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia


9/61



2. Bunaken National Park

Bunaken National Park (Taman Nasional Bunaken) is located in North Sulawesi province

on the island of Sulawesi in eastern Indonesia. Designated as a national park in 1989, the

park consists of two parts. The larger northern part (62,150 ha) is comprised of the islands

of Bunaken, Manado Tua, Mantehage, Siladen and Nain and the coastal Pisok Point to the

north of Manado city. Although each of these islands has a special character, it is the aquatic

ecosystem that attracts most naturalists. The southern section (16,906 ha) consists of reefs

and mangroves of the Arakan-Wowontulap peninsular on the southeast of Manado (Figure

1).

Bunaken National Park (BNP) has been internationally recognized as one of the prominent

tourist destinations in Indonesia. Beaches, coral reefs, tropical fish and other tropical

features are prime attractions of the park. Underwater scenery associated with the coral reefs

is the most attractive feature the BNP provides visitors. Divers from around the world

acknowledge that the diving sites at Bunaken National Park are unique; especially

considering not only their beauty but also their close proximity to the provincial capital city

of Manado (a distance of only 15 km or about 30 minutes by motorized outboard).

Beside its diving and snorkeling sites, many other attractions are also available: sailing (by

glass bottomed boat) across coral reefs; camping; climbing Mt. Manado Tua; local cultural

adventures (such as visiting various villages to witness the daily life of the community);boating at coral reefs and precipices around Liang Beach, scenery of open sea from Liang

Beach; observing birds (such as water biros (merandai) at mangrove forests around Liang

Beach or other birds at higher elevations on Bunaken Island); photography; sunbathing on

the beach; enjoying sea food at the cottages situated at Liang Beach; and other activities.

Bunaken National Parks surface area is 97% overlain by sparkling clear, warm tropical

water. The remaining 3% of the parks area is terrestrial. The waters of Bunaken National

Park are extremely deep (1,566 m in Manado Bay), clear (up to 35-40 m visibility),

refreshing in temperature (27-29 C) and harbor some of the highest levels of biodiversity in

the world. For any group of interest - corals, fish, echinoderms or sponges - the number offamilies, genera or species is bound to be astonishingly high. For example, 7 of the 8 species

of giant clams that occur in the world, occur in Bunaken. The park has around 70 genera of

corals. Although the exact number of fish species is unknown, it may be slightly higher than

in the Philippines, where 2,500 species, or nearly 70% of all fish species known to the Indo-

western Pacific, are found.


10/61



Figure 1 - Eastern North Sulawesi

Oceanic currents may explain, in part, why Bunaken National Park is such a biodiversity

treasure. Northeasterly currents range through the park while significant counter currents and

gyros related to lunar cycles are believed to trap free swimming larvae. This is particularly


11/61



true on the south side of the crescent-shaped Bunaken Island. Persons snorkeling or diving

may spot over 33 species of butterfly fish and numerous types of groupers, damsels, wrasses

and gobies. The gobies, smallish fish with bulging eyes and modified fins that allow them

to attach to hard surfaces, are the most diverse but least known group of fish in the park.

Biologists believe that the abundance of hard corals is crucial to the maintenance of the high

levels of diversity in the park. Hard corals are the architects of the reefs; without them,

numerous marine organisms would be homeless and hungry. Many species of fish are

closely associated with particular types of corals (folious, branching, massives, etc.) for

shelter and egg-laying. Others, like the enormous Bumphead Parrotfish, Balbometopon

muricatum, are "coralivores" and depend on hard corals for their sustenance. Bony mouth

parts fused into an impressive "beak" allow these fish to crunch corals.

The management approach to national parks in Indonesia is not the same as management ofnational parks in some other parts of the world, notably North America. In Indonesian parks,

including Bunaken National Park, commercial or non-conservation oriented activities and

use of the park's resources is permitted, so that managers are powerless to stop these types

of activities. Nonetheless, in view of BNPs preservation objectives, this practice of

allowing incompatible uses appears to be absolutely contradictory. The types of activities

BNP allows to occur within the park, some of which are incompatible with strict preservation

objectives, includes: commercial and subsistence fishing, seaweed cultivation and harvesting,

housing for local (indigenous) people and tourism industry facilities (accommodation,

restaurants, dive centres).

Some 20,000 people live on the natural resources of Bunaken National Park. Although there

are inevitable conflicts between resource protection and use by people, the Indonesian

government is taking a fairly unusual and pragmatic approach to park management. The idea

is to promote wise resource use while preventing exploitation. Concerned local communities,

government officials, dive resort operators, local nature groups, tourists and scientists have

played an active role in developing exclusive zones for diving, wood collection, fishing and

other forms of utilization. If successful, Bunaken National Park may be an example of how

Sulawesi, and other parts of Indonesia, can work toward sustainable and multiple use of its

natural resources.

Around 1998, dive centres in North Sulawesi formed the North Sulawesi Watersports

Association, NSWA. The NSWA has made significant strides in improving the management

and conservation of Bunaken National Park and surrounding marine ecosystems, and in

conferring the concrete benefits of tourism to the villagers living within the park. Many of

its members have spent a lot of their money and time for various ecological and social


12/61



achievements within the park. Visitors are encouraged to support these activities and to dive

only with operators which are members of the NSWA.

On March 15, 2001 a user fee was instituted for visitors to BNP. The fees were establishedas follows:

Indonesians Rp. 2,500

Foreigners Rp.75,000

However, the fee for Indonesians was a daily fee while the fee for international visitors was

for a pin which allowed a full years access to the park.

In late 2001, the North Sulawesi Provincial Government announced an increase in the

Bunaken National Park Entrance Fee for foreigners for 2002 to Rp 50,000 per daily ticket(approximately US$5) or Rp 150,000 (approximately US$15) for a waterproof plastic

entrance tag valid for all of 2002. Tags (or tickets) must be carried at all times the guest is

within park boundaries and can easily be affixed to guests' diving or snorkeling gear or on

backpacks. The entrance fee system was successful in raising nearly US$40,000 for

conservation programs in Bunaken during 2001. It is hoped that the current increase in the

entrance fee will continue to enable the funding of conservation activities in the park.


13/61


Whiting, Peter. 2000. Benefits of Protected Areas, The Outspan Group for Parks Canada. Department of1

Canadian Heritage, Strategic Research and Analysis Branch, Ottawa.

These different geographic perspectives are termed "account registers."2


3. Research Approach

Many approaches and methods have been applied to the valuation of benefits derived from

parks and protected areas - marine and terrestrial. These approaches generally recognize that

the financial revenues obtained from visitors or from other uses does not reflect the value

inherent in the park or protected area. In the recent past, economic impact assessment has

frequently been the main measure of value; other approaches have also been attempted, some

with more success than others. The economic benefits framework applied in this study of

Bunaken National Park is the one developed in Canada and currently being used in Canada

by the Federal-Provincial Parks Council .1

The Canadian economic assessment framework for protected areas has the advantage ofidentifying and categorizing all economic benefits. It offers many advantages: in addition

to allowing each benefit component to be added to the others, it shows the relationship

between different sources of benefits, and it allows the user to appreciate the breadth of

influence that protected areas have on the people, businesses and society within the area in

which they are located. The economic assessment framework also integrates economic

impacts within an economic benefits framework, thereby providing a descriptive and

analytical tool for managers to illustrate the financial value of a protected area within the

community, region, province or country . One of the important advantages of the framework2

is that it is understandable by non-economists and enables protected areas managers to see

where they have information and where they lack information on the value of their area.

3.1 Types of Socio-Economic Benefits

There is a multitude of ways to express the benefits associated with parks and protected

areas. In general, two overall approaches appear to predominate: those which attempt to

show the economic/commercial linkages (economic impacts) of parks and protected areas;

and, secondly, those which dwell more on the amorphous attributes of such areas through

their contributions to quality of life, personal health and fitness, personal improvement, the

appreciation of natural beauty, and, of course, ecological integrity and ecosystem services.


14/61



Economic analysis has predictably concentrated on the former types of benefits.

Although there are many types of economic analysis and many different ways of using

economic information, one of the areas where insufficient attention has been paid is theorderly and full elaboration of benefits derived from parks and protected areas, and, in

particular, how to account for them. Many reports have been published on the benefits of

parks, but the park manager is inclined, understandably, to find these perplexing and

confusing. Managers are frequently left with the feeling that not all benefits of his/her park

have actually been identified, described or put into monetary terms. Further, they believe

there is no easy way of knowing when the total economic value of their park or protected

area has been quantified in any manner to which they can relate or understand. An analytical

framework is needed where all values and benefits can be accounted for - even the fuzzy-

good feeling benefits and even if they cannot all be put in monetary terms.

It is clear from the recent literature, however, that there is a lack of unanimity on how to

classify and categorize the benefits derived from parks and protected areas. There is

frequently agreement on the types of benefits, but (with the notable exception of the total

economic value approach) a classification system or typology has eluded researchers.

3.2 Why Adopt a Framework?

There are many issues and concerns about socio-economic analysis which serve to emphasize

the need for a commonly agreed upon framework for assessing the benefits derived from

parks and protected areas. One of these is clear from the variety of benefits and values

commonly associated with parks and protected areas but the absence of a systematic

reference. In addition to this, confusion about economic analysis related to park benefits

arises from common errors and a variety of other reasons:

C much of the quantitative economic analysis has focussed on economic impacts, and

economic impacts are frequently and erroneously thought to be the same as economic

benefits;

C the perspective of assessment and valuation gets confused so that serious questions

of what constitutes a benefit and what is a cost arise;

C components included in assessments are inconsistent - e.g. quantitative/non-

quantitative, use/non-use, direct/indirect, monetary/non-monetary, consumptive/non-

consumptive - and how they are all related is unclear or poorly understood and


15/61



specified;

C frequently the notion of net benefits is used - what is gross and net of what?

C specification of the subject areas (products, experiences, goods, services, etc.) covered

by the assessment is often unclear: frequently they are too broad or undefined;

C some assessments describe benefits, others uses - are they the same?

C unknowingly inappropriate methods are applied to obtain benefit estimates.

With these points of frequent confusion and the myriad values reported in the literature, there

is obvious potential for muddled thinking and generation of questionable results. As notedearlier, a park manager has no way of knowing when total benefits are being assessed or what

sub-set of benefits are being assessed. A consistent and easily applied framework for

economic assessments is therefore necessary for both analysts and managers.

3.3 Economic Benefits Framework

The economic benefits framework used in this study one which attempts to systematically

incorporate all benefits derived from parks and protected areas. Appendix 1 summarizes the

framework in a table. While the framework is generalized, in theory it should be possible

to fit any benefit derived from a protected area into one of its categories.

The framework of benefits is based upon two fundamental principles. First, there are three

categories of beneficiaries of the goods, services, products and experiences derived from

parks and protected areas. Secondly, the value of the benefits within these benefit categories

changes with different perspectives of valuation (or different account registers). The

benefits and account registers are briefly described here.

Benefits - The framework identifies all benefits generated by the park or protected area. The

three categories cover as many different types of benefits as possible, and, it is assumed that

all benefits can be fitted into the categories described. Determining into which category any

benefit should fall is dependent upon an understanding of who to ask about the benefit

received.

The personal category identifies all benefits accruing to stakeholders, whether they are


16/61



direct users, indirect users or non-users of the particular area being assessed. This category

includes benefits received by those who actually visited or used the site (direct users), those

who have enjoyed the asset through some indirect means (e.g. photographs, movies, books,

etc.), and those who have a knowledge of and/or interest in the area but have not used it inany way (non-users). Non-users also include the benefits received by persons who may not

know about the specific area but receive benefits from the knowledge that these types of

areas exist as a matter of public policy. Certain expenditures (e.g. entry fees) and consumer

surplus values are the main sources of value in this category.

The commercial category of benefits exists when valuing the benefits of a park from the

perspective of a defined area (e.g. local community). These are the benefits to business

within the defined area. The economic impacts of spending within the area from sources

outside the area (e.g. visitors) produced as a result of the protected area can be considered

a net commercial benefit for that community or area. It represents income and employmentthat would not otherwise have existed without the spending of agencies and people from

outside the defined area.

The societal category is at once the most comprehensive, and most nebulous. Societal (or

public) benefits are all those benefits which accrue to society as a whole (over and above

those to stakeholders and businesses). While there is inevitably some overlap with the

personal category of benefits, these benefits to society go beyond the personal: the country,

region, or area is seen to be a better place because of the benefits derived from the protected

area. They range from the extremely practical, such as ecological functions/services upon

which our survival depends, to more subjective benefits such as increases in workerproductivity. The benefits are nonetheless real and many are measurable.

Account Registers - the perspective adopted for any analysis is critical to understanding the

results of the analysis. In the generalized framework there are conceptually two types of

perspectives for the valua tion of benefits: 1) society in general (mankind), where borders are

irrelevant; and 2) defined areas, where residency is an important consideration. These two

types of account registers reflect situations where in one case the source of funds is not a

factor - where benefits accrue to mankind generally; and one in which benefits are

determined in relation to some defined area or areas (e.g. country, province, region, local

area), making the source of funds a key determinant of the distribution of benefits and costs.The second type (benefits in relation to a defined area) is more commonly applied especially

by parks management agencies.

The account registers (perspective of assessment) are important from the point of view of

determining what benefits remain within the area of assessment. When assessing a protected


17/61



area from a provinces perspective, for example, any park benefit obtained by residents from

outside the province must be treated as an export. They would be considered personal

benefits attributable to the protected area but not retained in the province. The world is

better off, but the benefits to the province cannot include this portion of personal benefitsobtained by non-residents because they were not retained in the province. As another

example, if the account register is Indonesia, then the personal benefits derived by non-

Indonesians from Bunaken would be treated as non-retained benefits within Indonesia and

not included in any calculations of overall benefits to Indonesia from its protected areas.

Naturally, all benefits obtained by Indonesians would be included in the calculations. Note,

however, that Indonesia benefits in other ways from the foreign visitors: most notably

commercially.

3.4 Bunaken Research Design

As noted earlier, the purpose of this study was to illustrate and quantify in economic terms

some of the broad range of benefits Bunaken produces as a national marine park. The study

intended to provide park managers with some perspectives on the park from the visitors

point of view. More specif ically, this survey was designed to gather information on visitors,

their trips, their Bunaken experience and their willingness to pay for the experience. This

information helps park managers understand their customers and allows them to make better

informed management decisions.

The research design for Bunaken National Park is based upon the economic framework

described above as a guide for the economic analysis. As comprehensive as possible an

approach to information collection was employed. However, limitations of time and the

burden placed on the respondents did not allow for all data collection necessary to complete

the calculation of economic values described in the framework.

Importantly, the purpose of the assessment was not to value all park uses. Rather, the

purpose was to value those that were derived from the conservation of the marine resources

and ecosystem. Since it was by no means certain that the non-conservation related activities

occurring in the park contributed to the experiences of visitors, these could not be included.

However, the extent to which these non-consistent activities increased or decreased visitor

enjoyment was assessed, and a quantitative monetary value was placed on this effect. For

example, although the commercial fishing within the park produces a measurable value, since

this activity was inconsistent with the preservation of marine resources and the natural

dynamics of the ecosystems involved, this value was not included as a park generated value.

The fact is that it is not a park-related value; this value would exist even without a park


18/61


Courtesy of Dr. Mark Erdmann.3

Append ix 4 presents some summary information extracted from the first survey which did not lead to4

substantial results.


designation. What is a park-related value is the possible loss of pleasure or diminished

experience by visitors because of this type of activity. Information on visitors perceptions

of all inconsistent activities was obtained through the survey.

A survey of park visitors was conducted between the beginning of July and October 2001.

The survey was conducted by a private contractor to CEPI. The survey logistics involved

doing personal interviews with park visitors at the end of their visit for the day into the park.

This meant conducting interviews on the docks (where day-trippers return), at hotels where

visitors stayed, and on Bunaken island where there are accommodations for visitors. A target

number of 300 interviews was sought; a total of 302 completed questionnaires was achieved.

Data on the park and its levels of use were obtained from the park management board in

Manado . This data was necessary to supplement the survey of park visitors which was3

conducted

The study was interested in the values which non-residents of the local Manado area place

upon the park. As a consequence, local residents were excluded from the interview process.

Local area residents were defined as anyone living in North Sulawesi Province.

The questionnaire was generally divided into several sections. The first section gathered

information on the trip characteristics of the respondent. Next the characteristics of resource

use in the park and how this affected visit enjoyment was covered. The third general section

was concerned with preservation values, while the fourth area gathered data on respondents

views of the fees. The questionnaire ended with some personal information on the

respondent. The survey instrument used is contained in Appendix 2.

Since respondents were from a variety of countries, and since questions involving currency

were asked, respondents were given the choice of currency to use in responding to the

questions on value. Appendix 3 contains the exchange rates used to standardize the different

currencies in which respondents gave their responses. Respondents answered the questions

in several currencies - US dollars, German marks, British pounds, Japanese yen, etc. These

currencies were standardized to the Indonesian Rupiah for the period of the survey.

A reasonably simple tabulation of the results of the survey are presented in the next chapter.4


19/61




20/61


Note: Loca l residen ts (North Sulawesi) were excluded from the survey5


4. Survey Results

The survey provided a great deal of information. In this chapter an overview of the results

from the 302 responses received is presented. In overall terms, of the 302 respondents to the

survey, 99 were residents of Indonesia and 203 were foreign visitors. In the following

presentation of survey results only unweighted percentages and, where appropriate , average

values, are given as quantitative results.

4.1 Respondent Characteristics

The following tables summarize the data gathered on the respondents themselves.

Visitor Origin -5

Indonesia 32.8%

United States 10.6%

Philippines 8.3%

Australia 6.6%

Germany 6.0%

Japan 6.0%

England 5.3%

Switzerland 3.6%Taiwan 3.6%

France 3.0%

All other countries 14.2%

Indonesians came from the following areas in the percentages indicated:

Indonesians Residence

Jakarta 31.3%

West Java 13.1%East Java 10.3%

South Sulawesi 6.1%

All other locations 39.2%


21/61



Clearly most Indonesian visitors to Bunaken come from the island of Java; it accounted for

54.7% of Indonesians visiting Bunaken.

Respondents SexMale 60.0%

Female 40.0%

Over half of those interviewed were male.

Age of Respondent

under 18 years 1.7%

18 - 25 years 19.7%

26 - 50 years 73.6%

over 50 years 5.0%

Almost three-quarters (73.6%) of those interviewed were between 26 and 50 years of age.

The next largest age group was the 18 to 25 years of age group.

4.2 Trip Characteristics

Respondents were on a variety of trips. While most were visiting Bunaken for tourist type

activities, their trips varied. This section provides a closer look at these trip characteristics.

Purpose of Visit

diving and snorkelling 59.5%

sightseeing 30.2%

relaxation 10.0%

Virtually all visitors came to Bunaken for tourist-related activities based on the ocean and

other resources of the park.

Length of Stay Mean: 3.24 days

Mode: 3 days

The length of stay refers to the number of days spent in the Bunaken area on this trip. As

indicated, the average trip lasted a little over three days with the most often reported (mode)

stay being 3 days.


22/61



Average Party Size Mean: 3.64 persons

Mode: alone

The average party size visiting the park was just under 4 persons, but the single largestcategory of party size was people travelling alone.

Primary Destination in Indonesia

Yes 6.0%

No 94.0%

Non-Indonesian visitors were asked if Bunaken was their primary destination in Indonesia.

As indicated, very few visitors from outside the country identified Bunaken as their primary

destination in Indonesia - only 6%. On the other hand, Bunaken was the primary destination

in Sulawesi for just over half of all (Indonesian and foreign) visitors - 52.5%.

Primary Destination in Sulawesi

Yes 52.5%

No 47.5%

Respondents were asked about their spending in the park, in Manado and in Indonesia (if

they were foreign visitors). The spending had to be related to their visit or use of Bunaken,

so that only spending directly attributable to the park was to be included. In response to this

question, it was found that fairly significant expenditures attributable to Bunaken were madeduring the survey period.

Trip Spending Attributable to BNP

Average expenditure per respondent -

In and around Bunaken NP Rp. 569,778 (8.0%)

In and around Manado Rp. 4,531,257 (63.6%)

In Indonesia Rp. 7,121,237 (100.0%)

4.3 Conflicting Activities in BNP

Respondents were asked if they were aware of a series of activities which are in conflict with

the preservation objective of the national park. The percentage responses to this question are

shown in Table 1.


23/61



Table 1

Respondents Awareness of Conflicting Activities

(Percentage)

Awareness Fishing Seaweed

Cultivation

Plantations Housing

Tourism &

Business

Facilities

Yes 41.1 11.0 48.8 86.1 93.4

No 20.5 48.8 17.6 3.0 0.7

Not Sure 38.4 40.2 33.6 10.9 5.9

All respondents (no matter how they responded to the awareness question) were asked how

such an activity would (or did) effect their enjoyment of the park. The percentages of

respondents who found the activity increased, decreased or had no effect upon their

enjoyment are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Effect of Conflicting Activities on Enjoyment of the Park

(Percentage)

Effect on

Enjoyment

Fishing Seaweed

Cultivation

Plantations Housing

Tourism &

Business

Facilities

Decreased 21.2 38.2 3.7 1.7 2.3

Increased 33.1 7.9 10.6 29.9 42.7

No Effect 45.7 53.9 85.7 68.4 55.0

A further analysis was made on the enjoyment for those respondents who indicated that they

were aware of these conflicting activities. The responses to this question for this subset of

the overall population are presented in Table 3.


24/61



Table 3

Effect of Conflicting Activities on Enjoyment of the Park by Respondents Who Were

Aware of the Activities (Percentage)

Effect on

Enjoyment

Fishing Seaweed

Cultivation

Plantations Housing

Tourism &

Business

Facilities

Decreased 17.0 39.4 2.7 1.5 2.5

Increased 54.0 39.4 15.6 33.0 44.7

No Effect 29.0 21.2 81.6 65.4 52.8

Within the total population of respondents only 3.0% indicated a lack of awareness for any

and all indicated conflicting activities. The vast majority of respondents were aware of

housing and tourism/business facilities within the park while a majority were either unsure

or unaware of the existence of plantations, seaweed cultivation and/or fishing within the

park. In other words, most respondents (97%) were aware of at least one of the activities

occurring within the park.

Finally, respondents were asked if park managers had to stop some or all of these activities

in order to maintain the parks ecosystem integrity, would they be willing to pay an amountto help the affected local people to relocate, be retrained or supported in some other manner.

The response to this question was generally negative: 52.0% said they were not willing to pay

anything; 34.1% said they were willing to pay some amount; and 13.9% indicated they were

unsure if they would be willing to pay anything.

When those who answered that they would be willing to pay some amount were asked what

they would be willing to pay, the average amount was found to be Rp.52,351. The average

amount over all respondents (those willing and un-willing to pay) was calculated to be Rp.

25,135.

4.4 Willingness to Pay

Respondents were asked if they considered the natural resources and overall ecosystem of

Bunaken worth preserving. In response to this question an overall ambiguous answer


25/61



emerged: just over one third (38.7%) answered yes, whereas virtually half (49.3%) of

respondents answered no. The remaining 11.9% answered they didnt know. This

response seems to indicate a reluctance to support the preservation objective of the park.

There could be many reasons for this somewhat unexpected result, not least of which is theperception that there is already extensive conflicting use of the area and so little rationale (or

perceived ability) to preserve what is lef t. Unfortunately the researchers did not an ticipate

such an ambiguous result to this question and did not include questions which might help

explain this response.

Those who indicate Bunaken was worth preserving, by answering yes or didnt know,

were asked an additional question about their willingness to make a one-time payment as a

contribution to ensure the preservation of the natural area. The average amount willing to

be paid in this simple willingness to pay question was Rp. 81,051.

4.5 Fee Assessment

All respondents were asked if they believed park users should contribute towards park

operation and conservation costs. All (100%) of respondents agreed that users should

contribute to these costs.

As noted earlier, Indonesian visitors to Bunaken are charged Rp. 2,500 per day for park

entry. Foreign visitors must purchase a pin for Rp. 75,000 which allows entry for an entire

year. In terms of these current user fees, visitors were asked if the fee was too low, just

right or too high. The response to this question by Indonesians was as follows:

Too low 61.2%

Just right 38.8%

Too high 0.0%

When Indonesians who indicated the fee was too low were asked what amount they would

be willing to pay per visit, the average response was Rp.8,474.

The response to the question on the fee level from foreign visitors was as follows:

Too low 7.9%

Just right 72.9%

Too high 19.2%


26/61



Foreigners who said the fee was too low indicated the amount they would be willing to pay,

on average, was Rp.108,741. However, the interesting result of this question was that almost

three-quarters of foreign respondents thought that the fee was just right and that almost 1

in 5 thought that the fee was too high. The lowest percentage of foreign visitors believedthe fee to be too low.

Foreign visitors were also asked if the annual fee was changed to a daily entrance fee, what

amount would they be willing to pay. Those who responded to this question gave an average

value of Rp.20,415 per day.

In the next chapter some of these results are amplified and used to calculate several economic

values associated with park use and preservation.


27/61



5. Economic Analysis

This survey asked a number of specific questions which allow some economic values to be

calculated. These economic questions along with others are examined in more detail in this

chapter. Initially, however, a better description and understanding of visitor numbers is

required.

5.1 Park Visitor Numbers

Based on the sales of entry fees and annual pins in 2001, during the survey period (Junethrough September), there were 8,106 visitors to the park of which 2,756 were foreign and

5,350 were Indonesians.

Unfortunately no data is available on the origins of Indonesian visitors - the proportion from

the local area (North Sulawesi) and those from outside the local area. In order to estimate

these numbers, it has been assumed that non-local Indonesian visitors are reflected in the

proportions found by this survey, i .e. 32.7% of all non-local visitors interviewed were from

Indonesia, or their numbers are represented by 48.8% of foreign visitor numbers. Using this

assumption the number of non-local Indonesian park visitors for the survey period is

estimated to be 1,345 visitors. The calculated visitor numbers for the survey period aresummarized as follows:

Indonesians

- local 4,005

- non-local 1,345

Foreigners 2,756

TOTAL 8,106

Park statistics also indicate that there were 15,055 visitors to the park from the middle of

March through to the end of the year - 9,872 Indonesians and 5,183 foreigners. Using the

same assumption as above the number of non-local Indonesian park visitors for this part of

the year is estimated to be 2,530 visitors. (This implies that 7,342 visitors to the park were


28/61



local residents during this period of the fees.) The calculated visitor numbers for that part

of the year when fees were required are summarized as follows:

Indonesians- local 7,342

- non-local 2,530

Foreigners 5,183

TOTAL 15,055

Total visitor numbers for the entire 2001 year are not known. However, using monthly

averages the following annual figures are put forward:

Indonesians

- local 11,773

- non-local 3,035

Foreigners 6,220

TOTAL 21,028

The survey period represents 38.5% of the total visitors to Bunaken NP during 2001. The

population covered by the survey (foreigners and non-local Indonesians), based on these

estimated year totals, is 9,255 visitors. These numbers of visitors will be assumed to

represent the population for further analytical purposes.

5.2 Preservation Values

The questions on conflicting activities were asked because in most other countries many of

the types of activities allowed in Bunaken are not allowed in National Parks. They tend to

be in direct conflict with preservation objectives associated with the designation and mandate

of National Parks. The question therefore was to see how visitors reacted to these activities

(positively or negatively) and secondly to see what level of value is being lost/compromised

from their existence. These values could then be compared to the value of the activity itself

if we wanted to continue the analysis of alternatives, or determine the optimum mix of these


29/61



activities, including resource preservation.

The basic question to be asked concerning these conflicting activities is: do these activities

have a negative impact upon visitors enjoyment of the park? The simple response to thisis no - as evidenced in the previous chapter (Table 2). Table 4 provides a more detailed

examination of the responses to the effects of the conflicting activities on visitor enjoyment.

This table provides a breakdown of the effect by activity and by respondent awareness of the

activity. This table shows clearly that for the majority of activities, their effect was either to

increase visitor enjoyment or to have no effect on visitor enjoyment of the park. The

awareness of respondents did not noticeably change these results. In only a minority of cases

did respondents suggest that these activities decrease their enjoyment of the park. The

highest source of dis-satisfaction was from seaweed cultivation - overall 38.1% indicated

decreased enjoyment (39.4% for those who were aware of the activity). Fishing decreased

enjoyment for 21.2% of visitors. Plantations, housing and tourism/business facilitiesdecreased enjoyment for fewer than 4% of respondents. Clearly, the conflicting activities did

not reduce the visitors enjoyment of the park. This finding seems somewhat incongruous

with expectations.

However, there is a willingness to pay to have these activities stopped in the park. This

suggests that at least some respondents perceive some benefit from their removal. The next

question then is an economic one: what is the value likely to be gained by having these

activities removed from the park? While the survey sought information on the value gained

by removing these activities, the results of the survey show that a greater proportion of

respondents find the activities actually increase their enjoyment. As a consequence, whatmay be gained for some by stopping the activities may result in a loss for others. The results

of the survey answer the question in part concerning the values being lost by these activities

continuing. The result, however, is ambiguous at best.

On average, the survey found that visitors were willing to pay Rp. 25,135 to have the

activities stopped. This suggests that this amount could be considered as a cost or reduction

in enjoyment from these activities occurring in the park. With a visitor population of 9,255,

this suggests that a total loss in the order of Rp.233 million is being experienced by non-local

park visitors from the continuation of these incompatible activities.

5.3 Commercial Benefits

As described in the framework (Chapter 3), commercial benefits arise from the value added

(gross domestic product at factor cost) from attributable spending by non-resident park


30/61



visitors which is retained in the area being considered. The survey found that the average

spending per person attributable to BNP was:


31/61



Table 4

Awareness and Effects of Conflicting Activities on Visitor Experience/Enjoyment

Conflicting Activity/Effect Overall Aware Not Aware Not Sure

Fishing 124 (41.1%) 62 (20.5%) 116 (38.4%)

Increase 100 (33.1%) 67 (54%) 5 (8.1%) 28 (24.1%)

No Effect 138 (45.7%) 36 (29%) 43 (69.4%) 59 (50.9%)

Decrease 64 (21.2%) 21 (17%) 14 (22.6%) 29 (25.0%)

Seaweed Cultivation 33 (11.3%) 140 (48.1%) 118 (40.6%)

Increase 23 (7.9%) 13 (39.4%) 6 (4.3%) 4 (3.4%)

No Effect 157 (54.0%) 7 (21.2%) 73 (52.1%) 77 (65.3%)

Decrease 111 (38.1%) 13 (39.4%) 61 (43.6%) 37 (31.3%)

Plantations 147 (48.8%) 54 (17.9%) 100 (33.2%)

Increase 32 (10.6%) 23 (15.6%) 3 (5.6%) 6 (6.0%)

No Effect 258 (85.7%) 120 (81.6%) 47 (87.0%) 91 (91.0)

Decrease 11 (3.7%) 4 (2.7%) 4 (7.4%) 3 (3.0%)

Housing 260 (86.4%) 9 (3.0%) 32 (10.6%)

Increase 90 (29.9%) 86 (33.1%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (12.5%)

No Effect 206 (68.4%) 170 (65.4%) 8 (88.9%) 28 (87.5%)

Decrease 5 (1.7%) 4 (1.5%) 1 (11.1%) 0 (0.0%)

Tourism Facilities 282 (93.4%) 2 (0.7%) 18 (5.9%)

Increase 129 (42.7%) 126 (44.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (16.7%)No Effect 166 (55.0%) 149 (52.8%) 2 (100.0%) 15 (83.3%)

Decrease 7 (2.3%) 7 (2.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)


32/61


The use of 20% indicates an estimated GDP at factor cost multiplier of 0.2.6


In and around Bunaken NP Rp. 569,778 (8.0%)

In and around Manado Rp. 4,531,257 (63.6%)

In Indonesia Rp. 7,121,237 (100.0%)

Each geographic area identified is considered an account register, or perspective of valuation,

and an analysis of the commercial benefits within each account can be estimated. These

commercial benefits are part of what has traditionally been considered the economic impact

of visitor spending. However, in a benefits analysis, depending on the account register, not

all expenditures may be included in the calculation.

The first account register is the area in and around Bunaken NP. As indicated, the survey

found that non-resident visitors spent an average of Rp. 569,778 in this area. Given the 9,255

non-local visitors, this amounts to an expenditure in the Bunaken area of Rp. 5.3 billion in2001, attributable to BNP.

The value added (economic benefit) retained in and around Bunaken NP arising from that

expenditure can be estimated through the use of an input-output table for the BNP. No such

I-O table exists. However, based on observations of the economy within BNP, it can be

seen that virtually nothing is produced within the park which visitors would purchase. Only

accommodation, some foods and perhaps some souvenirs would be produced in the park; all

other sales would be of items imported into the park. Because of this, the coefficient of value

added associated with these expenditures is probably quite small. If the retained value added

was 20% of the visitor expenditures (a conservative estimate), this still suggests that aboutRp.1 billion is a net economic benefit to businesses within BNP. This is an economic6

benefit wholly attributable to BNP which local commercial enterprises gain.

The second account register is the area defined as in and around Manado (North Sulawesi).

As noted, the survey found that each non-resident visitor spent an average of Rp. 4,531,257

in this area. Given that there were 9,255 non-local visitors, this amounts to a total

expenditure in the Manado area of Rp. 42 billion in 2001.

As previously stated, the value added (economic benefit) retained in the Manado area can be

estimated through the use of an input-output table which describes the local economy. Nosuch I-O table exists. However, again, based on observations of the economy in and around

Manado, it will be observed that significantly more is produced within North Sulawesi than

is produced within the park. It would be expected, therefore, that the value added retained


33/61


It is assumed that Indonesian BNP visitors would have spent the equivalent of the amount spent at7

Bunaken in Indonesia even if they did not visit the park. Only where it can be shown that Indonesians would have

spent this money outside Indonesia had it not been for Bunaken can these funds be included in the analysis. It is

assumed in this analysis (for lack of contrary information) that Bunaken did not retain expen ditures in Indonesia.

The GDP multiplier for North Sulawesi and Indonesia are considered realistic and not particularly8

conservative.


within the Manado area from visitors purchases would be more than that experienced by the

park. Because of this, the coefficient of value added associated with these expenditures is

probably more moderate. If the retained value added was 40% of the visitor expenditures,

this suggests that approximately Rp.16.8 billion is a net economic benefit to businesseswithin the Manado area. Again, this is an economic benefit wholly attributable to BNP from

which local commercial enterprises gain materially.

The final account register is Indonesia. As previously noted, the survey found that foreign

visitors spent an average of Rp. 7,121,237 in Indonesia which was directly attributable to

BNP. Because Indonesia is the account register, only the expenditures of foreign visitors7

are included in the calculation of these national commercial benefits. In 2001, it was

estimated that there were 6,220 foreign visitors. Given this number of foreign visitors and

the average expenditure, this amounts to a total expenditure in Indonesia of Rp. 44.3 billion

in 2001.

The value added (economic benefit) retained in Indonesia arising from this expenditure can

be estimated through the use of the national input-output table. While such an I-O table

exists, the analyst did not have access to it for this study. As a consequence, an assumed

GDP multiplier has been used. This multiplier is assumed to be 0.5 (or 50% of the

expenditure is retained as value added within Indonesia ). This indicates that Rp. 22.2 billion8

is a net economic benefit to businesses in Indonesia because of BNP. This is an economic

benefit wholly attributable to BNP from which Indonesian commercial enterprises gain.

To summarize, the commercial benefits, measured as retained value added (GDP), for eachof the account registers, are as follows:

Account Register Assumed Multiplier Commercial Benefit

Bunaken 0.2 Rp. 1.0 billion

Manado (North Sulawesi) 0.4 Rp. 16.8 billion

Indonesia 0.5 Rp. 22.2 billion


34/61



5.4 Exported Personal Benefits

The survey sample comprised park visitors from outside the local area. As a consequence,

the measure of personal benefits reflects those that are exported from the local area. Nomeasure was made of the personal benefits received by local area residents.

Not all exported personal benefits have been measured in this study; in fact, very few have

the capability of being measured from this survey. For example, the non-use benefits

enjoyed by persons throughout the world from Bunaken NP have not been addressed; only

some of the non-use benefits derived by park users have been addressed by this survey.

As briefly described in Chapter 3, personal benefits are measured in the following manner:

Benefits type Measure of Value

Use:

direct use fees paid + extra-market benefit

(indirect use not known)

Non-Use:

option extra-market benefit

bequest extra-market benefit

existence extra-market benefit

(collectively termed preservation benefits)

Park records show how much of Bunakens personal value was captured through the payment

of fees. The recorded amount includes local as well as non-local park visitors, and also

covers only part of the year. Some additional calculations need to made therefore to be able

to calculate the fee portion of benefit received through direct use by park visitors.

Based on the published fee structure, the following revenue should have been collected

according to the published attendance figures:

Indonesians Rp. 24,680,000

Foreigners Rp. 388,725,000

Making the adjustments for unreported months (assuming that the same revenues could have

been collected had the fee system been in place), and factoring in our local - non-local visitor

numbers, the following estimates of fees that would have been paid over the year are made:


35/61



Non-local Indonesians Rp. 7,587,500

Foreigners Rp. 466,500,000

Total Fees Paid Rp. 474,087,500

Since non-local Indonesians and foreigners were willing to pay this amount for the

experience of Bunaken, we know that it was worth at least this amount to them. This

provides a base estimate of the personal benefit received by park visitors. Added to this

should be an extra-market (consumer surplus) value in order to obtain an estimate of the

personal direct use benefits produced by Bunaken. While the survey did not address this

question of extra-market benefit, respondents were asked what they would be willing to pay

if the entry fee were changed. This value can be used as a conservative surrogate for visitor

extra-market benefits.

The survey results show that a majority of Indonesians (61.2%) thought the entry fee was too

low and were willing to pay more. On average, for all survey respondents, the amount

willing to be payed was Rp. 5,015 or an additional Rp. 2,515. In total then an additional Rp.

7,633,025 which was not collected could have been obtained from non-local Indonesian park

visitors. This is a simple estimate of the non-market or extra-market benefits which they

admit they received.

In the case of foreigners, only a minority of park visitors were willing to pay more than the

current fee. However, the total amount willing to be paid was Rp. 472,374 or Rp.1564 forall survey respondents. Assuming that the overall foreign population would be willing to pay

this additional amount, then the extra-market benefits would total Rp. 9,728,080.

These estimates of personal extra-market benefit are considered extremely low and probably

do not accurately reflect the value obtained over and above that paid for through entry fees.

However, they do provide a preliminary base estimate.

To summarize, personal direct use benefits are estimated as follows:

Fees Paid Extra-Market Benefits TotalNon-local Indonesians Rp. 7,587,500 Rp. 7,633,025 Rp. 15,220,525

Foreigners Rp. 466,500,000 Rp. 9,728,080 Rp. 476,228,080

Total Direct Use Benefits Rp. 474,087,500 Rp. 17,361,105 Rp. 491,448,605


36/61


See, for example, L.D. Sanders, R.G. Walsh and J.B. Loomis. Toward Empirical Estimation of the Total9

Value of Protecting Rivers in Water Resources Research, Volume 26, No. 7, pp 1345 - 1357, July 1990.

See, for example, The Outspan Group, Economic Benefits of Provincial Parks in Ontario: A Case Study10

Approach, for Ontario Parks, 1998.


These results suggest that foreign visitors feel they are obtaining almost full value for their

fee paid - very small extra-market benefits are realized. On the other hand, non-loca l

Indonesians show that only about half of their benefits are captured by the market fees. The

value of the extra-market benefits for both visitor groups is remarkably similar in absoluterupiah terms.

Non-use benefits, or preservation benefits, can be estimated through the simple willingness

to pay question. The survey found that on average Rp. 41,062 would be an amount all survey

respondents would be willing to pay for the preservation of BNP. Applying this figure to the

non-local visitor numbers (9,255) produces an overall estimate of the non-use value of Rp.

380,028,810.

Many studies , especially in North America, have found that the non-use benefits derived9

from parks and protected areas are in the order of five times direct use benefits. This is ageneralization, but this ratio of use to non-use benefits has been applied in park economic

benefit studies in Canada . If this ratio were applied in the case of BNP, then an order of10

magnitude of non-use benefits would be Rp. 2.5 billion. It is important to remember

however, that this estimate of non-use benefit includes those people within the account

register who do not use the park and are therefore not picked up by user surveys (i.e. a

different population from the one surveyed in this study).

A first and base estimate, therefore, of personal benefits associated with BNP in 2001 (only

from those who used the park) is summarized as follows:

Use Benefits Rp. 491 million

Non-Use Benefits Rp. 380 million

Total Personal Benefits Rp. 871 million

This value (Rp. 871 million) is a value generated by BNP which visitors take away with

them, since these are benefits realized by non-local visitors. This value represents an export

value derived from BNP to outside the local area.


37/61



If we change the account register to Indonesia, we then have to exclude the non-local

Indonesian personal benefits (since these benefits are retained within Indonesia). Only the

personal benefits obtained by foreigners are considered an export from Indonesia. Based on

the figures presented above, the following benefits can therefore be estimated as an exportvalue:

Fees Paid Extra-Market Benefits Total

Direct Use Rp. 466,500,000 Rp. 9,728,080 Rp. 476,228,080

Non-Use - Rp. 255,405,640 Rp. 255,405,640

Total Foreigner Value Rp. 466,500,000 Rp. 265,133,720 Rp. 731,633,720

Of the total value exported through personal benefits from BNP, 84% of this value goes withforeigners; that is, the foreigner component of total exports represents 84% of the total.

Of the Rp. 731.6 million in value exported to foreigners, Rp. 466.5 million or 64% is

captured in the form of entry fees. This appears to be a reasonable rate of capture of these

benefits and is probably higher than might be experienced in other national park situations

in other countries.

To summarize, the personal benefits exported, for each of the account registers, are presented

in Table 5.

Table 5

Summary of Exported Personal Benefits, BNP, 2001

Account Register Use Benefits Non-Use Benefits Total Benefits

Manado

(North Sulawesi) Rp. 491 million Rp. 380 million Rp. 871 million

Indonesia Rp. 476 million Rp. 255 million Rp. 732 million

No matter which account register is used, BNP produces significant personal benefit values

which are exported. As with other benefit components estimated above, these personal

benefits reported here are considered a lower bound value.


38/61



Another way to consider these personal benefits is from the perspective of the account

register in which they are retained. However, because of the design of this research, most

of the personal benefits are exported, the exported value therefore seemed to be the most

appropriate perspective of calculation.

5.5 Societal Benefits

Societal benefits are the most comprehensive and yet the most difficult to quantify in

economic terms. These are the benefits which a society, as defined by the account register,

receives from the existence of BNP. As outlined in Chapter three these benefits are many

and varied; they are as diverse as the society to which they accrue.

Many of the benefits to society defy quantification in monetary terms since the economic

analysis techniques have not yet been developed to measure these values. However, it is

these benefits to society which tend to be of greatest interest to the public. As briefly

described in the framework, these benefits include: financial transfers between jurisdictions,

ecological functions and/or ecosystem services, quality of life, scientific and educational

benefits, and many others. In this study, the societal benefits will not be analyzed in detail;

only an overview will be provided.

Financial Transfers

Two types of financial transfers occur in the context of BNP: those between government

agencies and those from individuals to government (public sector) agencies. Monies

received by BNP to manage the park are transferred from the central government to Manado;

this transfer represents a benefit to the local area due to the BNP, since the vast majority of

the funds are spent within the local area. In 1999 this transfer amounted to approximately

Rp. 875 million. Within the account register of Indonesia, this benefit does not exist because

it is not a new generation of funds, merely a transfer within the account register.

The second source of financial transfers is from individuals. Part of the personal benefits

quantified above (section 5.4) are paid as fees and retained as revenue by the management

organization. The amount of these personal benefits and, therefore revenues retained, is a

societal benefit. This transfer of financial resources forms an easily quantified and

measurable component of the societal benefits of the park. The amount of these benefits

changes within different account registers. For example, from the perspective of Indonesia

(account register = Indonesia), the fees paid by non-Indonesians (foreigners) are a financial

transfer to Indonesia because of BNP. The estimated amount of this societal benefit is Rp.

466.5 million in 2001. From the perspective of the local area, the transfer of all fees paid


39/61



(non-local Indonesians and foreigners) would be included; an estimated Rp. 474.1 million

in 2001.

For both these account registers, these transfers are due to BNP and are thus economicbenefits for the society defined by the account register. These are funds which would not

have otherwise been made available to the management of BNP.

Ecosystem Services

The value associated with ecosystem services is difficult to estimate. In the last few years

a number of studies have been carried out to estimate these benefits, but there are few

definitive works which are considered as fundamental documents. One of the more

comprehensive papers on this subject is the Costanza, et. al. article published in Nature in

1997 entitled The Value of the Worlds Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Data

presented in that paper have been adapted to calculate some hypothetical values for BNP,based on the characteristics of its area.

The sources of ecosystem service value used in this study, according to Costanza et al, come

from both marine and terrestrial biomes. The marine biome - termed coastal - includes

estuaries, seagrass and algae beds, coral reefs, and coastal shelf. The terrestrial biome is

made up of two components: mangrove value and tropical forest biomes. Table 6 presents

the biome and ecosystem service value within each of these three categories. Note these

values are derived in 1994 US dollars. For the purposes of this analysis no attempt has been

made to adjust these values for inflation. The degree of accuracy of the figures and their

application to BNP do not justify this refinement.

Table 6

Sources and Values of Selected Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystem Services

(1994 US dollars)

Ecosystem Service

(Source of Value)

Biome

Coastal

Value ($/ha/yr)

Mangrove

Value ($/ha/yr)

Tropical

Forest Value($/ha/yr)

Climate regulation - - 223

Disturbance regulation 88 1,839 5

Nutrient cycling 3,677 - 922


40/61


Table 6

Sources and Values of Selected Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystem Services

(1994 US dollars)

Ecosystem Service

(Source of Value)

Biome

Coastal

Value ($/ha/yr)

Mangrove

Value ($/ha/yr)

Tropical

Forest Value

($/ha/yr)

It is interesting to note that the values associated with recreation and c ultural value presented in Table 611

substantially exceed those of any study of tourism/recreation value for BNP .


Water regulation and supply - - 14

Erosion control and soil formation - - 255

Biological control 38 -

Waste treatment - 6,696 87

Habitat/refugia 8 169 -

Food production 93 466 32

Raw materials 4 162 315

Genetic resources - - 41

Recreation 82 658 112

Cultural 62 - 2

TOTAL 4,052 9,990 2,007

Source: Costanza, et al, (1997).

While these are the sources of value derived from an area such as BNP, the last two

categories (recreation and cultural values) have not been included in our calculations of

ecosystem benefits since they have been captured and calculated in terms of the personal

benefits described earlier .11

These ecosystem service benefits tend to possess public good characteristics where


41/61



consumption and/or use by one person does not materially affect the consumption and/or use

by others. The natural regulation of disturbances, for example, is equally available to all

those in the area of the park.

As described in Chapter 2, BNP has two main areas, a larger northern area and smaller

southern area. Each area consists of open water, coastal areas, mangroves and tropical forest

areas, of which only 3% is terrestrial. The total park area is 79,056 hectares. For simplicitys

sake, the following assumptions have been made concerning the land use in the park:

a) 2% of the area is tropical forest

b) 1% of the area is mangrove, and

c) 97% of the area is coastal

Based on the area of BNP within each of these biomes and the adjusted average value perhectare per year reported in Table 6, the following dollar and rupiah values represent the

estimated ecosystem service values provided by BNP annually.

Area (ha) US $ Value Rupiah Value

Tropical Forest 1,581 $2,993,000 29.3 billion

Mangrove 791 $7,382,000 72.2 billion

Coastal 76,684 $299,681,000 2.9 trillion

In gross terms, based on the published figures of Costanza et al, the value of the ecosystemservices provided by the resources in BNP amount to approximately US$ 310 million or Rp.

3.0 trillion annually. What is not clear from the figures presented by the authors is to whom

these values accrue. As a consequence, it is not clear whether these are local values or values

that are received by all mankind irrespective of where recipients are located. The end result

is that while these figures are interesting, it is difficult to determine what contribution to the

estimated value of BNP locally, regionally or nationally can be made from these figures.

What these figures make very clear, however, is that the value of ecosystem services to all

peoples is very high. Their reliability and accuracy in reflecting the situation in the Bunaken

area is sufficiently in question that they will not be incorporated into the current analysis.

Resource integrity

The concept of resource integrity is based on the premise that resource management and/or

resource preservation within the park maintains levels of benefits derived from directed and

associate resource uses. Resource integrity is also based upon the premise that associate

resource uses are being undertaken in a compatible and sustainable manner; if directed and


42/61



associate resource use are being carried out in an unsustainable manner, then there is no

resource integrity value, and a possible cost is being incurred. Scientific calculations of

sustainable levels of use must be generated before it can be determined whether this benefit

has a positive or negative value.

In this study, various conflicting activities were identified - fishing, plantations, housing,

seaweed cultivation, etc. The benefits produced by these activities, assuming they are done

in a biologically sustainable manner, can be considered as societal benefits derived from

BNP. How to measure the value of these benefits is not so clear. The value of the

production or harvest may be one measure, although it is not a good measure of social value

(since this tends to reflect private revenues as opposed to societal benefits).

There are several studies available on the value of the fishery within Bunaken NP as well as

the recreation and preservation value of the park. None of these studies have approached thequestion of social benefits or social costs within the frame of reference of this study. As a

consequence, the fishery and other values derived in these studies will not be used as

measures of resource integrity benefits derived from these activities. These activities do

create employment and income opportunities which have the effect of stabilizing the local

population and anchoring the economy. The value of these societal effects must be

determined by other studies.

A point worth considering is that even if the Bunaken area was not designated a national park

and the current resource use was extant, these same benefits would be produced - i.e. the

personal, commercial and other societal benefits would still be produced. In other words,even if the park did not exist some or all of these benefits would still be derived from the

area. While this is true, the national park designation ensures that the level of benefits

currently being produced are, or should be, capable of being maintained. It is this

designation which creates the value of resource integrity. If the park is not managed

sustainably or without a long term conservation objective as its goal, then the value of this

designation is negated.

Other Societal Benefits

Other societal benefits identified in the overall framework include:

Health effects - physical, mental, spiritual

Worker productivity

Educational/Cultural benefits

Scientific benefits

International responsibilities/agreements: CBD, RAMSAR, CITES, MAB, etc.


43/61



Business location decisions (quality of life/business), community cohesion

All of these benefits are important and all are relevant to BNP. However, none of these have

been quantified in this study. One of the reasons for this is the inability of economics tosatisfactorily place values on such societal benefits. The following table (Table 7), therefore,

presents an extremely limited quantification of the societal benefits produced by BNP in

2001.

Table 7

Summary of Calculated Societal Benefits, BNP, 2001

Account Register Financial Transfers Other

Benefits

Total Quantified

Benefits

Manado (North Sulawesi) Rp. 1.3 billion NA Rp. 1.3 billion

Indonesia Rp. 0.5 billion NA Rp. 0.5 billion

NA - not available or not reliable

5.6 Summary of Economic Benefits

The economic analysis of the survey results has created some estimates of the economicbenefits associated with or derived from Bunaken National Park. Table 8 presents a

summary of the values by account register and by type of benefit. Excluded from this

summary table are the ecosystem service benefits and many other unquantified benefits

which BNP produces. This table is an incomplete representation of the full benefits

produced by BNP on an annual basis. However, this table shows clearly that for those

benefits quantified in this study, BNP is producing substantial economic benefits annually

to the local area as well as to Indonesia. More and different research is required to quantify

all the other benefits not included or calculated in this study.

Table 8

Summary of Calculated Benefits, Bunaken National Park, 2001


44/61



Account

Register

Type of Benefit Total

Quantified

BenefitsPersonal Commercial Societal

Manado

(North

Sulawesi)

NA Rp. 16.8 billion Rp. 1.3 billion Rp. 18.1 billion

Indonesia Rp. 15.2 million Rp. 22.2 billion Rp. 0.5 billion Rp. 22.7 billion

NA - not available

Note: This table contains only the quantified values calculated and does not include the

many other values not quantified in this study.

The quantified benefits indicate that in the local area (North Sulawesi) the park is producing

annual net benefits in the order of Rp. 18 billion (US$ 1.8 million), while to the nation the

park is producing annual net benefits of at least Rp. 23 billion (US$ 2.3 million). The vast

majority of quantified benefits are commercial in nature. These benefit values are verifiable

base values which are conservative in nature because of the research methodology adopted.

By not including any estimate of the value produced from the parks ecosystem services,

which were estimated in the trillions of rupiah, a very conservative estimate of annual

benefits is produced. The full benefits produced locally and nationally will be substantially

larger than those quantified in this study. The figures in this study, however, do provide a

base estimate to which further research can add additional values as they are estimated.


45/61



References

Anonymous, 1996. Recreation Values of Tourists for Bunaken National Park North

Sulawesi, Natural Resources Management Project Report No. 66, Bappenas-Ministry of

Forestry-USAID, Jakarta.

Anonymous, 1996. Values of Preserving The Bunaken Coral Reef Ecosystem North

Sulawesi, Natural Resources Management Project Report No. 65, Bappenas-Ministry of


Anonymous, 1996. Economics Value of Fisheries to the Residents of Bunaken NationalMarine Park, Natural Resources Management Project Report No. 62, Bappenas-Ministry of


Anonymous, 1994. Bunaken National Park North Sulawesi: Management Plan (Book 1),

Natural Resources Management Project, Bappenas-Ministry of Forestry-USAID, Menado,

North Sulawesi.

Anonymous, 1994. Bunaken National Park of North Sulawesi: Data Projection and Analysis

(Book 2), Natural Resources Management Project, Bappenas-Ministry of Forestry-USAID,

Menado, North Sulawesi.

Bromley, D. W. (ed), 1995. The Handbook of Environmental Economics. Blackwell

Publishers Inc. London.

Costanza, Robert, et. al. 1997. The Value of the Worlds Ecosystem Services and Natural

Capital, in Nature, Volume 387, 15 May 1997. Pages 253 - 260.

Djajadiningrat, S.T, et. al. 1993. Natural Resources Accounting for Sustainable

Development. Ministry of State for Population and Environment and Central Bureau of

Statistics, Jakarta.

Hanley, N., et. al. 1997. Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice. Macmillan Ltd,

London.

Hanley, N. and C.L. Spash, 1994. Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar


46/61



Publishing Company. USA.

Hines, Lawrence G, 1973. Environmental Issues Population, Pollution and Economics. W.

W. Norton & Company. Inc. New York.

Irham, 1999.Application of Hedonic Approach on the Estimation of Environmental Value

of Agriculture (An Example of Japanese Agriculture). A paper presented in the Seminar

Series on Natural Resource Accounting-Environmental Economics, PPLH-UGM in

collaboration with CEPI Canada, Yogyakarta, October 13.

Irham, 2000. The Importance of Apportioning Global Costs and Benefits of Sustainable

Management of Tropical Peatland. A paper presented in the International Workshop on

Apportioning Global Costs and Benefits of Sustainable Management of Tropical Peatland,

Palembang, 18-20 March.

L.D. Sanders, R.G. Walsh and J.B. Loomis. Toward Empirical Estimation of the Total

Value of Protecting Rivers in Water Resources Research, Volume 26, No. 7, pp 1345 -

1357, July 1990.

Lee, Vicki J., Assessing Ecotourisms Abilities to Generate Community Benefits, Bunaken

National Park, Indonesia, Thesis for Master of Environmental Studies in Geography.

University of Waterloo. June 2000.

The Outspan Group, 2001. Benefits of Protected Areas in the Circumpolar Arctic, ABackground Paper, Paper prepared for the Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (Arctic

Council) on behalf of Parks Canada Agency.

The Outspan Group, 2000. Potential Economic Impacts from the Lake Superior National

Marine Conservation Area, prepared for Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage.

The Outspan Group, 1999. The Economic Benefits of Protected Areas: A Guide for

Estimating Personal Benefits, prepared for the Federal-Provincial Parks Council.

The Outspan Group, 1998, Economic Benefits of Provincial Parks in Ontario: A Case StudyApproach. Prepared for Ontario Parks.

Tietenberg, T. 1992. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. Harper Collins

Publishers, Inc., New York.


47/61



Turner et al. 1994. Environmental Economics. An Elementary Introduction. Harvester

Wheatsheaf.

Whiting, P.G., 1999. An Economic Benefits Framework for Parks and Protected Areas.

Jurnal Ekonomi Lingkungan, June, 1999. Center for Economic and Environmental Studies.

Documents

Bunaken Report