IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v3y1998i01p131-149_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opportunities and limitations of contingent valuation surveys to determine national park entrance fees: evidence from Costa Rica

Author

Listed:
  • SHULTZ, STEVEN
  • PINAZZO, JORGE
  • CIFUENTES, MIGUEL

Abstract

A contingent valuation method (CVM) survey to determine foreign and resident willingness to pay (WTP) for return visits to two different Costa Rican national parks was administered in 1995. WTP values were estimated for future entrance fees associated with proposed improvements to infrastructure and services in the Poas Volcano and the Manuel Antonio parks. Resulting logistic CVM models were statistically robust and mean WTP for entrance fees differed among the parks and were considerably higher than current fees. Results indicate that even in a developing country setting, the CVM is a useful tool to help determine park entrance fees in spite of the following methodological limitations which are recommended for further study: the need to include potential park visitors in survey samples; the lack of detailed information framing and contingent scenarios for park related WTP questions; and the threat of cultural-strategic biases when surveying residents of a developing country.

Suggested Citation

  • Shultz, Steven & Pinazzo, Jorge & Cifuentes, Miguel, 1998. "Opportunities and limitations of contingent valuation surveys to determine national park entrance fees: evidence from Costa Rica," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 131-149, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:3:y:1998:i:01:p:131-149_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X98000072/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:3:y:1998:i:01:p:131-149_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.