(McConnell, 1985) stated that the willingness to pay (WTP) is the amount of
money someone is willing to pay and to enjoy their leisure facilities. It
measures whether people are willing to pay their income to get more goods and
services, and is typically used for non-market goods. The following factors may
affect WTP for parks are age, education level, and income; fulfilment of hope;
and the existence of alternative park and recreational sites. (Lindberg, 1998) stated
that expressed its willingness to pay and the reasons provided for the
willingness to pay (WTP) questions ‘principle payments’ are used to see in
advance if respondents are basically in favour of paying at least some of the
park’s total. They were not in favour of any amount required to justify their
answers to comply with one or more of the five reasons given. The reasons
involve expenses (‘I have to pay everywhere’; ‘Zakynthos too expensive’).
According to Elsevier B, V, (2006) was asked to state the amount of money they
will pay. They were then asked to state their reasons for their answers, comply
with one or more of five predefined reasons. The reasons that refers to both
the use of such limits the number of visitors and the use of leisure real) and
the non-use (existence, choice, and value of the bequest).

to Mitchell & Carson, (1989), stated that the statement of the existence
value of biodiversity, although intangible is often realised in the form of
donation towards the conservation of biodiversity. Its magnitude can also be
seen in terms of willingness to pay (WTP) by the way, the survey method
preferences such as contingent valuation. The observed difference has at least
two possible meanings which the first are it can be interpreted as a sign of
weakness of survey methods such as contingent valuation. Under this
interpretation, this method does not measure priority because respondents did
not answer the question each time with neoclassical priority. The weak version
of this interpretation is the willingness to pay questions measure a priority
but is not willing to accept questions. However, as a result, with their
emphasis on the effects of income, it will help in developing alternative modes
of explanation and, as the income effect is most economic models such as
options under uncertain. The present study recognizes them, and practicing
techniques either to avoid or then minimize them. The authors pay particular
attention to the tendency of hypotheses, biased starting point, the impact of
supply and the overall bias part indicated by Navrud & Mugatana, 1994. Thus,
the 5-year commitment period of payment also encourages and resolutely
dedicated only to accept the offer of settlement. In addition, to reduce the
effect of warm light from beyond the willingness to pay (WTP), schedule an
interview and the interviewer makes clear that it does not matter if the
respondent chooses not to accept the offer. Multiple dis offers, followed by
open-ended questions used to maximize maximum WTP information. This method is
efficient in terms of the information collected. At the same time, it does not
reduce the number of higher WTP that people are willing to pay. According
Ventakatachalam, (2004), he argued that the hypothetical scenarios presented to
respondents stating the maximum amount of money they receive to compensate for
the change (WTA). Estimated WTP or WTA can show the value of environmental
goods or services, as an input to the analysis of costs – especially for public

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now