Estimating Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Conservation of Natural Resources in Thailand: Evidence from Khao Laem Ya-Mu Ko Samet National Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review a paper entitled

Estimating Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Conservation of Natural Resources: Evidence from Khao Laem Ya-Mu Ko Samet National Park.The topic of this paper is very interesting. However, My suggestions are:

1. In my opinion it is better to add the country name in the title.
2. Please revise the keywords.
3. In the introduction section, please write a separate paragraph about Thailand (National parks in Thai- land also hold significant ecological, cultural and economic values (Suksawang & 51 McNeely, 2015). It is important to conserve natural resources in national parks for the 52 long-term sustainability of biodiversity, ecosystems, and the services they provide to both 53 nature and society (IPBES, 2019)..) for Example: from line 50 to 54 move it to a separate paragraph.
4. Please summarize the introduction section and add a Literature review section.
5. Language revision advised.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable and insightful comments. All suggestions have been carefully addressed in the revised manuscript. A tracked-changes version is provided to clearly indicate where and how modifications were made. Our detailed responses to each specific comment are outlined below.

Comment 1: It is better to add the country name in the title.
Response1: Revised the title to:

Estimating Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Conservation of Natural Resources in Thailand: Evidence from Khao Laem Ya-Mu Ko Samet National Park.

Comment 2: Please revise the keywords.
Response2: Updated keywords:

Thailand; willingness to pay; national park conservation; contingent valuation; ecosystem services; seemingly unrelated regression; environmental awareness

Comment 3: Write a separate paragraph about Thailand in the introduction.
Response3: The section discussing Thai national parks was moved to a standalone paragraph, expanded with contextual information, and now includes the educational value of national parks.

Comment 4: Summarize the introduction and add a literature review section.
Response4: A new literature review paragraph was added before the objective paragraph. It synthesizes prior studies and highlights the gap in multi-resource valuation in Thai parks using existing citations.

Comment 5: Language revision advised.
Response5: The manuscript underwent a thorough language revision for grammar, clarity, and flow throughout.

We deeply appreciate the reviewer's contributions, which helped us significantly improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Estimating Tourists’ Willingness to Pay for Conservation of Natural Resources: Evidence from Khao Laem Ya-Mu Ko Samet National Park

COMMENTS

Lines 43-53: These factors are important, but you should add the educational value.

Lines 124-126: This repetition (ecological offer) is not necessary.

Line 221 f.: Air quality is difficult to assess: which measures can be employed?

Line 308: it is ok to use THB, but an approximative figure for the exchange rate (US$ or €) would be helpful right in this place (e.g. in a footnote).

Lines 509-519: this was to be expected, given that previous strudies were cited. The range is to some extent surprising: that coral reefs precede clean air, although the latter could have well be the first on the list.

Lines 527-529: the low economic value of clean air is surprising because this is the only ubiquitos good on offer (but obviously taken for granted).

Line 553: This generational gap should be investigated into more depth. Are older people less prone to pay for a pristie environment because they have had it before or because they may have less money?

Line 586: For foreign tourists, paying for nature coservation is part of their holiday budget and does not mean an extra expense whereas local and regional visitors may have more budget constraits.

Line 618: Voluntary donations (at entry points, park shops, at select sports in the park, also online) are maybe an even better alternative, particularly if the contribution can be illustrated by some positive examples: what does a contribution of e.g. 100 THB could mean for the purpose of nature conservation. Corporations may also be sponsors (line 620/1) and demonstrate their awareness.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The background to the study is clear and makes sense.

The method is adequately described.

The choice of attractions is a bit strange: crab-eating monkeys – this sounds like a zoo attraction although it is not; coral reefs – they are not visible to all visitors; dry evergreen foerests – they are probably the key element; clean air – this may be a universal attraction and probably everybody’s wish. – As a non-specialist, I don’t comment on the quantitative method

Policy: The modern society has been geared to think almost exclusively in monetary terms, that everything must have a material value. This is the sad conclusion one can draw from this study. People should learn that non-material values are ultimately more important in life and have non conventional price. Material costs are online information (computer maintenance), leaflets, park ranger salaries, creation and maintenance of footpaths, for example, that mus be covered. Cost transparency emphasizes the need for money and could be illustrated in this way.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback. All comments have been thoroughly addressed in the revised manuscript. A version with tracked changes is provided to clearly show where and how revisions were made. Detailed responses to each specific point are presented below. 

Comment 1: Lines 43–53 — Add the educational value.
Response1: A sentence was added to explicitly acknowledge the educational role of national parks:

“In addition to their ecological and economic significance, national parks serve as outdoor classrooms, offering experiential learning opportunities that increase environmental awareness among tourists and local communities.”
(See Lines 53–55 of revised manuscript)

Comment 2: Lines 124–126 — Remove repetition (“ecological offer”).
Response2: This sentence was revised to improve clarity and avoid redundancy:

“KLYMKS National Park contains a variety of marine and terrestrial ecosystems—such as coral reefs, dry evergreen forests, and vital wildlife habitats—that support rich biodiversity.”
(See Line 123–124)

Comment 3: Line 221 — Air quality is difficult to assess; what measure was used?
Response3: A clarification was added:

“Air quality was framed around the Air Quality Index (AQI), with the baseline condition set at an AQI of 50, representing ‘good’ air quality as defined by Thailand’s Pollution Control Department.”
(See Lines 237–239)

Comment 4: Line 308 — Add exchange rate.
Response4: Exchange rate added:

(approx. 34.26 THB = 1 USD at the time of survey)
(See Line 388)

Comment 5: Lines 509–519 — Coral reefs receiving higher WTP than clean air is surprising.
Response5: This point was addressed in the discussion section:

“Although clean air is a universal good, coral reefs received higher WTP, possibly reflecting their perceived rarity, visibility in tourism marketing, or visitors’ stronger emotional and visual connection with marine biodiversity (Colléony et al., 2017; Shoji et al., 2023).”
(See Lines 536–538)

Comment 6: Lines 527–529 — Low value of clean air is surprising.
Response6: An expanded explanation was added based on the concept of baseline bias:

“The low WTP value for clean air may be due to a form of baseline bias, where visitors take clean air for granted in a national park setting and perceive it as a default condition rather than a distinct and vulnerable resource (Colléony et al., 2017).”
(See Lines 562–566)

Comment 7: Line 553 — Investigate generational gap in WTP.
Response7: This was addressed with an expanded interpretation and supporting citation:

“The lower willingness to pay among older individuals may be due to a combination of factors, including a reduced sense of personal benefit from long-term conservation outcomes and past experiences of more pristine environments, which may lessen the perceived urgency to act (Aseres & Sira, 2020).”
(See Lines 585–587)

Comment 8: Line 586 — Foreigners may view WTP as part of holiday spending.
Response8: A sentence was added exactly as suggested:

“As suggested by Nguyen et al. (2024), conservation payments by international tourists may be viewed as part of the overall holiday experience and budget, whereas local visitors might perceive them as an added cost, especially under more constrained financial conditions.”
(See Line 588–589)

Comment 9: Line 618 — Donations may be better; give examples.
Response9: Expanded discussion now includes illustrative examples and strategic points of donation:

“Voluntary donations can be solicited at entrance points, shops, and online platforms. For example, messaging such as ‘100 THB supports 5 native seedlings’ or ‘funds 30 minutes of coral reef monitoring’ may make contributions feel more meaningful. Corporate sponsorships can also enhance visibility and public trust.”
(See Lines 605–608)

Comment 10: Conclusion — Emphasize non-material values.
Response10: The Conclusion section was completely rewritten to address this concern, including a dedicated paragraph highlighting the importance of cultural, spiritual, and intrinsic values that cannot be monetized. It encourages policymakers to integrate these non-material values into conservation messaging alongside economic arguments.
(See Lines 640–644)