Economic Valuation of Biodiversity and Ecotourism in Monte Maria: Integrating Conservation and Sustainable Tourism Practices

  • Authors

    • Angelica A. Macalalad Batangas State University, the National Engineering University – Pablo Borbon Campus, Batangas City, Philip-pines
    • Leonna Marrien U. Asi Batangas State University, the National Engineering University – Pablo Borbon Campus, Batangas City, Philip-pines
    • Ericson Coracero Batangas State University, the National Engineering University – Pablo Borbon Campus, Batangas City, Philip-pines
    • Pelita C. Panganiban Batangas State University, the National Engineering University – Pablo Borbon Campus, Batangas City, Philip-pines
    https://doi.org/10.14419/nqhks585

    Received date: June 5, 2025

    Accepted date: August 1, 2025

    Published date: August 12, 2025

  • Ecotourism; Economic Valuation; Willingness to Pay; Biodiversity Conservation; Contingent ‎Valuation; Travel Cost Method

  • Abstract

    This study explores the integration of biodiversity conservation into sustainable tourism ‎through an economic valuation of a coastal pilgrimage destination — Monte Maria International ‎Pilgrimage Center. Combining the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) and Travel Cost ‎Method (TCM), the research assesses tourists’ willingness to pay (WTP) for conservation efforts ‎and estimates the economic value of the site’s natural resources and recreational services.‎

    Using a mixed-methods approach, the study surveyed 225 tourists and carried out ‎stakeholder focus groups. Results reveal that 89.78% of respondents expressed willingness to pay ‎an environmental fee, with a mean WTP of PHP 52.33 [US$0.94]. Economic valuation estimates ‎indicate that Monte Maria and its surrounding resorts generate a combined annual tourism value ‎of approximately PHP 63.75 million [US$1.148 million]. Despite its ecological richness — ‎hosting 23 plant species and 2 fauna species, including several listed as endangered — the site ‎faces biodiversity threats from tourism-driven land conversion and habitat loss.‎

    Findings underscore the critical role of WTP metrics in designing conservation fee ‎structures and support the adoption of sustainable tourism policies. The strong visitor support for ‎environmental contributions presents a viable funding mechanism for biodiversity protection and ‎site maintenance. The study further recommends targeted education campaigns and transparent ‎fund allocation to enhance visitor buy-in and community participation.‎

    By positioning Monte Maria as both a spiritual and ecological asset, this research ‎contributes to global discourse on ecotourism in sacred landscapes. It offers actionable insights ‎for policymakers and tourism managers in developing nature-based financing strategies that ‎balance cultural heritage, economic development, and environmental sustainability — particularly ‎in coastal and pilgrimage destinations across Southeast Asia and similar ecological regions‎.

  • References

    1. Alpízar, F., Carlsson, F., & Martínsson, P. (2003). Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Economic Issues, 8(1), 83–110.
    2. Alisa, F., & Ridho, Z. (2020). Sustainable Cultural Tourism Development: A Strategic For Revenue Generation in Local Communities. Journal of Economic and Tropical Life Science (JETLS), 4(2), 47-56.
    3. Apdohan, R. A., Panes, C. S., & Balala, E. P. (2021). Estimating the willingness to pay for conservation in Agusan Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary, Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 24(2), 21–29.
    4. Báez, A., Centeno, A. B., Lara, J. Á. S., & Prieto, L. C. H. (2015). Contingent valuation and motivation analysis of tourist routes. Tourism Economics, 22(3), 558. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2015.0459.
    5. Carandang, A. P., Camacho, L. D., Gevaña, D. T., Dizon, J. T., Camacho, S. C., de Luna, C. C., ... & Rebugio, L. L. (2013). Economic valuation for sustainable mangrove ecosystems management in Bohol and Palawan, Philippines. Forest science and technology, 9(3), 118-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2013.801149.
    6. Carpenter, S. R., & Springer, T. A. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment: Ecosystems and human well-being. Ecology, 86(9), 2413–2414.
    7. Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(4), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.27.
    8. Castellanos‐Verdugo, M., Vega‐Vázquez, M., Oviedo‐García, M. Á., & Agüera, F. O. (2016). The relevance of psychological factors in the ecotourist experience satisfaction through ecotourist site perceived value. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.126.
    9. Catibog-Sinha, C. (2010). Biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism: Philippine initiatives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(4), 297-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2010.517841.
    10. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
    11. Dong, W., Kang, Q., Wang, G., Zhang, B., & Liu, P. (2023). Spatiotemporal behavior pattern differentiation and preference identification of tourists from the perspective of ecotourism destination based on the tourism digital footprint data. PLoS ONE, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285192.
    12. Fakir, F., Erraoui, E., Bekkay, M. E., & Sair, A. (2019). Protected Natural Areas: A New Alternative Offer for the Seaside and Mass Tourism Destination Agadir: The Case of Souss Massa National Park. China-USA Business Review, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.17265/1537-1514/2019.04.004.
    13. Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2018). Global trends in length of stay: Implications for destination management and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(12), 2087–2101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1529771.
    14. Gunatilake, H., De Guzman, R., & Bajracharya, B. (2013). Valuation of biodiversity conservation in Sri Lanka: A case study of pilgrimage site Adam’s Peak. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 15(3), 345–365.
    15. Hanley, N., & Barbier, E. B. (2009). Pricing nature: Cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Lee, C. K., & Han, S. Y. (2002). Estimating the use and preservation values of national parks’ tourism resources using a contingent valuation method. Tourism Management, 23(5), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00010-9.
    17. Musa, F., Nasir, N., Jaunis, O., & Hamdan, D. D. M. (2021). Exploring Tourists’ Knowledge, Perceptions and Willingness to Pay on Biodiversity Conservation: Insights from Kinabalu Park, Borneo. IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, 736(1), 12045. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/736/1/012045.
    18. Ninan, K. N., & Kontoleon, A. (2008). Valuing forest ecosystem services and disservices: Case study of a protected area in India. Ecological Economics, 66(4), 594–604.
    19. Nuva, R., Shamsudin, M. N., Radam, A., & Amrin, A. (2009). Willingness to pay towards the conservation of ecotourism resources at Gunung Gede Pangrango National Park, West Java, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v2n2p173.
    20. Omonijo, D., Olusola, J., Anyaegbunam, M., Nnatu, S., & Adeleke, V. (2018). Examining the Role of Online Customer Reviews on Tourist Motivation: Destination and Revisit Intention. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 12. https://doi.org/10.32861/jssr.412.413.422.
    21. Perez, A., Magnaye, L., & Magnaye, C. (2023). Floristic composition and carrying capacity of Nalayag Tourism Site: Basis for sustainable ecotourism management plan in Lobo, Batangas. [Bachelor’s Thesis, Batangas State University – The National Engineering University Lobo Campus].
    22. Putra, I. N. D., & Hitchcock, M. (2020). Balancing religious and tourism interests in Bali: A study of Tirta Empul Temple. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 15(4), 393–407.
    23. Rivera, J. P. R., Gutierrez, E. L. M., David, I. B. M., & Newsome, D. (2022). Implementing an Effective Ecotourism Strategy for the Philippines. In Tourism in the Philippines: Applied Management Perspectives (pp. 23-45). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4497-0_2.
    24. Samdin, Z., Aziz, Y. A., Radam, A., & Yacob, M. R. (2010). Factors Influencing the Willingness to Pay for Entrance Permit: The Evidence from Taman Negara National Park. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v3n3p212.
    25. Steven, R., & Castley, J. G. (2013). Tourism as a threat to critically endangered and endangered birds: global patterns and trends in conservation hotspots. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(4), 1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0470-z.
    26. TIES Overview. (2019). https://ecotourism.org/ties-overview/
    27. de la Vega, A. J., Lizada, J. C., & Tan, M. L. (2019). Willingness to pay for coastal resource conservation in a marine protected area in the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 167, 101–109.
    28. Villanueva, A. J., Bantayan, N. C., & Japitana, M. (2021). Integrating biodiversity conservation into tourism development in ecotourism sites in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(3), 512–534.
    29. Zeng, L., Li, R. Y. M., Jotikasthira, N., Sun, J., & Mao, Y. (2022). Economic Development and Mountain Tourism Research from 2010 to 2020: Bibliometric Analysis and Science Mapping Approach. Sustainability, 14(1), 562. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010562.
    30. Zhang, Y., & Li, Y. (2020). Willingness to pay for tourism ecological compensation and its influencing factors——Taking the best spring in the world in Ji’nan as an example. IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science, 615(1), 12046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/615/1/012046.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Macalalad , A. A. ., Asi, L. M. U. ., Coracero, E. ., & Panganiban, P. C. . (2025). Economic Valuation of Biodiversity and Ecotourism in Monte Maria: Integrating Conservation and Sustainable Tourism Practices. International Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 14(4), 351-360. https://doi.org/10.14419/nqhks585