IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i11p3041-d235324.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tourists’ Willingness to Pay Increased Entrance Fees at Mexican Protected Areas: A Multi-Site Contingent Valuation Study

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Witt

    (Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, Technische Universität Wien, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

It can be challenging to set protected area entrance fees without information on how much visitors are willing to pay. It is particularly difficult for agencies managing multiple sites to set fees without conducting surveys at each location. In order to examine how willingness to pay estimates would vary across sites with distinctive profiles, 877 visitors at five Mexican protected sites (Calakmul, Cobá, Palenque, Sian Ka’an, and Yum Balam) were interviewed through double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys. The results suggest that visitors would be willing to pay higher entrance fees, with mean maximum willingness to pay estimates of 2.8–9.8 times current fees, ranging from US$15.70 to US$25.83. Visitor demand was found to be relatively inelastic, with aggregate fee rises of 26% estimated to result in a 5% decrease in visitation. These results suggest that there is room to raise revenues through moderate fee increases without a concomitant drop-off in visitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Witt, 2019. "Tourists’ Willingness to Pay Increased Entrance Fees at Mexican Protected Areas: A Multi-Site Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:11:p:3041-:d:235324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3041/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/11/3041/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kristin M. Jakobsson & Andrew K. Dragun, 1996. "Contingent Valuation and Endangered Species," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1120.
    2. Kido, Antonio & Seidl, Andrew, 2008. "Optimizing protected area entry fees across stakeholders: the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, Michoacan, Mexico," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 229-243, April.
    3. Lisa C. Chase & David R. Lee & William D. Schulze & Deborah J. Anderson, 1998. "Ecotourism Demand and Differential Pricing of National Park Access in Costa Rica," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(4), pages 466-482.
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. Mathieu, Laurence F. & Langford, Ian H. & Kenyon, Wendy, 2003. "Valuing marine parks in a developing country: a case study of the Seychelles," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 373-390, May.
    6. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    7. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    8. Adis Isangkura, 1998. "Environmental Valuation: An Entrance Fee System for National Parks in Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr1998091, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 1998.
    9. Fuest, Clemens & Kolmar, Martin, 2007. "A theory of user-fee competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 497-509, April.
    10. Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
    11. Onofri, Laura & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2013. "Beach ‘lovers’ and ‘greens’: A worldwide empirical analysis of coastal tourism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 49-56.
    12. Gamini Herath & John Kennedy, 2004. "Estimating the Economic Value of Mount Buffalo National Park with the Travel Cost and Contingent Valuation Models," Tourism Economics, , vol. 10(1), pages 63-78, March.
    13. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    14. Romy Greiner & John Rolfe, 2004. "Estimating Consumer Surplus and Elasticity of Demand of Tourist Visitation to a Region in North Queensland Using Contingent Valuation," Tourism Economics, , vol. 10(3), pages 317-328, September.
    15. Kaffashi, Sara & Yacob, Mohd Rusli & Clark, Maynard S. & Radam, Alias & Mamat, Mohd Farid, 2015. "Exploring visitors' willingness to pay to generate revenues for managing the National Elephant Conservation Center in Malaysia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 9-19.
    16. Adams, William M. & Infield, Mark, 2003. "Who is on the Gorilla's Payroll? Claims on Tourist Revenue From a Ugandan National Park," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 177-190, January.
    17. Johane Dikgang & Edwin Muchapondwa, 2017. "The determination of park fees in support of benefit sharing in Southern Africa," Tourism Economics, , vol. 23(6), pages 1165-1183, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Ellingson, Lindsey & Seidl, Andrew, 2007. "Comparative analysis of non-market valuation techniques for the Eduardo Avaroa Reserve, Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 517-525, January.
    20. Togridou, Anatoli & Hovardas, Tasos & Pantis, John D., 2006. "Determinants of visitors' willingness to pay for the National Marine Park of Zakynthos, Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 308-319, November.
    21. Tran Tuan & Stale Navrud, 2007. "Valuing cultural heritage in developing countries: comparing and pooling contingent valuation and choice modelling estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 51-69, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vilela, Thais & Malky Harb, Alfonso & Mendizábal Vergara, Carla, 2022. "Chileans' willingness to pay for protected areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    2. José Alberto Lara-Pulido & Ángela Mojica & Aaron Bruner & Alejandro Guevara-Sanginés & Cecilia Simon & Felipe Vásquez-Lavin & Cristopher González-Baca & María José Infanzón, 2021. "A Business Case for Marine Protected Areas: Economic Valuation of the Reef Attributes of Cozumel Island," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Casola, William R. & Peterson, M. Nils & Pacifici, Krishna & Sills, Erin O. & Moorman, Christopher E., 2023. "Conservation motivations and willingness to pay for wildlife management areas among recreational user groups," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    4. Adam Zydroń & Krzysztof Szoszkiewicz & Cyprian Chwiałkowski, 2021. "Valuing Protected Areas: Socioeconomic Determinants of the Willingness to Pay for the National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-11, January.
    5. Ali Chakir & Irfan Muhammad, 2021. "Estimating the recreational value for the sustainability of Hingol National Park in Pakistan," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 52-62, June.
    6. Patricia Moreno-Casasola & Marisa Luisa Martínez & Debora Lithgow, 2021. "New Beach Landscapes to Promote Social Distancing and Coastal Conservation during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Xaysompheng Sengkhamyong & Helmut Yabar & Takeshi Mizunoya, 2022. "Assessing Household Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of the Phou Chom Voy Protected Area in Lao PDR," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    8. George Halkos & Aikaterini Leonti & Eleni Sardianou, 2020. "Assessing the Preservation of Parks and Natural Protected Areas: A Review of Contingent Valuation Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-24, June.
    9. Kansinee Panwanitdumrong & Chung-Ling Chen, 2022. "Are Tourists Willing to Pay for a Marine Litter-Free Coastal Attraction to Achieve Tourism Sustainability? Case Study of Libong Island, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    10. Juita Saleha Nordin & Nitanan Koshy Matthew & Chong Leong Puan, 2023. "Public Willingness to Pay for an Entrance Fee to National Elephant Conservation Center (NECC), Peninsular Malaysia," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, October.
    11. José Luis Durán-Román & Pablo Juan Cárdenas-García & Juan Ignacio Pulido-Fernández, 2020. "Tourist Tax to Improve Sustainability and the Experience in Mass Tourism Destinations: The Case of Andalusia (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Graça, Manjate, 2018. "Scope effects in contingent valuation: an application to the valuation of irrigation water quality improvements in Infulene Valley, Mozambique," Research Theses 334752, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    2. Ghosh, Ranjan & Goyal, Yugank & Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian, 2017. "Are small firms willing to pay for improved power supply? Evidence from a contingent valuation study in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 659-665.
    3. Pandit, Ram & Dhakal, Maheshwar & Polyakov, Maksym, 2015. "Valuing access to protected areas in Nepal: The case of Chitwan National Park," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-12.
    4. Marija Opačak & Erda Wang, 2019. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for a Future Recreational Park Atop the Current Jakuševec Landfill in Zagreb, Croatia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Lin Song & Yi Xue & Yaqiong Jing & Jincan Zhang, 2021. "Visitor’s Willingness to Pay for National Park Entrance Fees in China: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Method," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Ghanem, Samar & Ferrini, Silvia & Di Maria, Corrado, 2023. "Air pollution and willingness to pay for health risk reductions in Egypt: A contingent valuation survey of Greater Cairo and Alexandria households," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    7. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    8. Wei Fang & Gloria Rui Gou & Lewis T. O. Cheung & Lincoln Fok & Alice S. Y. Chow & Ke Zhang, 2024. "An Investigation of Willingness to Pay for Geopark Management and Conservation: A Case Study of Geotourists in the Greater China Region," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    10. Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
    11. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    12. Mary Riddel & John Loomis, 1998. "Joint Estimation of Multiple CVM Scenarios under a Double Bounded Questioning Format," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 77-98, July.
    13. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    14. Baral, Nabin & Dhungana, Anal, 2014. "Diversifying finance mechanisms for protected areas capitalizing on untapped revenues," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 60-67.
    15. Ju-Hee Kim & Ga-Eun Kim & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "A Valuation of the Restoration of Hwangnyongsa Temple in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-7, January.
    16. Koo, A Mi & Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Household willingness to pay for a smart water metering and monitoring system: The case of South Korea," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    17. Jichao Geng & Na Yang & Wei Zhang & Li Yang, 2023. "Public Willingness to Pay for Green Lifestyle in China: A Contingent Valuation Method Based on Integrated Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-23, January.
    18. Seidl, Andrew, 2014. "Cultural ecosystem services and economic development: World Heritage and early efforts at tourism in Albania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 164-171.
    19. Useche, Pilar & Blare, Trent, 2014. "The Sustainable Choice: How Gendered Difference in the Importance of Ecological Benefits Affect Production Decisions of Smallholder Cacao Producing Households in Ecuador," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 174285, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Bandara, Ranjith & Tisdell, Clem, 2004. "The net benefit of saving the Asian elephant: a policy and contingent valuation study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 93-107, January.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:11:p:3041-:d:235324. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.