As(McConnell, 1985) stated that the willingness to pay (WTP) is the amount ofmoney someone is willing to pay and to enjoy their leisure facilities. Itmeasures whether people are willing to pay their income to get more goods andservices, and is typically used for non-market goods. The following factors mayaffect WTP for parks are age, education level, and income; fulfilment of hope;and the existence of alternative park and recreational sites. (Lindberg, 1998) statedthat expressed its willingness to pay and the reasons provided for thewillingness to pay (WTP) questions ‘principle payments’ are used to see inadvance if respondents are basically in favour of paying at least some of thepark’s total. They were not in favour of any amount required to justify theiranswers to comply with one or more of the five reasons given. The reasonsinvolve expenses (‘I have to pay everywhere’; ‘Zakynthos too expensive’).According to Elsevier B, V, (2006) was asked to state the amount of money theywill pay.
They were then asked to state their reasons for their answers, complywith one or more of five predefined reasons. The reasons that refers to boththe use of such limits the number of visitors and the use of leisure real) andthe non-use (existence, choice, and value of the bequest).Dueto Mitchell & Carson, (1989), stated that the statement of the existencevalue of biodiversity, although intangible is often realised in the form ofdonation towards the conservation of biodiversity. Its magnitude can also beseen in terms of willingness to pay (WTP) by the way, the survey methodpreferences such as contingent valuation. The observed difference has at leasttwo possible meanings which the first are it can be interpreted as a sign ofweakness of survey methods such as contingent valuation. Under thisinterpretation, this method does not measure priority because respondents didnot answer the question each time with neoclassical priority. The weak versionof this interpretation is the willingness to pay questions measure a prioritybut is not willing to accept questions. However, as a result, with theiremphasis on the effects of income, it will help in developing alternative modesof explanation and, as the income effect is most economic models such asoptions under uncertain.
The present study recognizes them, and practicingtechniques either to avoid or then minimize them. The authors pay particularattention to the tendency of hypotheses, biased starting point, the impact ofsupply and the overall bias part indicated by Navrud & Mugatana, 1994. Thus,the 5-year commitment period of payment also encourages and resolutelydedicated only to accept the offer of settlement. In addition, to reduce theeffect of warm light from beyond the willingness to pay (WTP), schedule aninterview and the interviewer makes clear that it does not matter if therespondent chooses not to accept the offer.
Multiple dis offers, followed byopen-ended questions used to maximize maximum WTP information. This method isefficient in terms of the information collected. At the same time, it does notreduce the number of higher WTP that people are willing to pay. AccordingVentakatachalam, (2004), he argued that the hypothetical scenarios presented torespondents stating the maximum amount of money they receive to compensate forthe change (WTA). Estimated WTP or WTA can show the value of environmentalgoods or services, as an input to the analysis of costs – especially for publicprojects.