IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i8p4307-d534977.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Business Case for Marine Protected Areas: Economic Valuation of the Reef Attributes of Cozumel Island

Author

Listed:
  • José Alberto Lara-Pulido

    (CENTRUS—Centro Transdisciplinar Universitario para la Sustentabilidad, Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City 01219, Mexico)

  • Ángela Mojica

    (Conservarion Strategy Fund (CSF), Washington, DC 20011, USA)

  • Aaron Bruner

    (Conservarion Strategy Fund (CSF), Washington, DC 20011, USA)

  • Alejandro Guevara-Sanginés

    (CENTRUS—Centro Transdisciplinar Universitario para la Sustentabilidad, Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City 01219, Mexico)

  • Cecilia Simon

    (Conservarion Strategy Fund (CSF), Washington, DC 20011, USA)

  • Felipe Vásquez-Lavin

    (Facultad de Economía y Negocios, Universidad del Desarrollo, Concepción 4030000, Chile
    Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago 8320000, Chile
    Instituto Milenio en Socio-ecología Costera (SECOS), Santiago 8320000, Chile)

  • Cristopher González-Baca

    (Director Parque Nacional Arrecifes de Cozumel, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Quintana Roo 77600, Mexico)

  • María José Infanzón

    (Independent Consultant, Mexico City 54769, Mexico)

Abstract

Tourism to Cozumel Island generates USD 762 million annually in local economic activity, and 111 visitors stay in local hotels for each inhabitant. The island’s coast is its principal attraction, yet water quality and reef health are threatened. This paper studies the link between the local economy and management of Arrecifes de Cozumel National Park, using a choice experiment to assess the economic value visitors assign to underwater visibility, biodiversity, and visitor congestion in reef areas. We found that, on average, tourists are willing to pay USD 190 per visit to avoid a projected decrease in biodiversity, USD 120 per visit to prevent a projected decline in visibility, and USD 98 to avoid high congestion during reef visits. We find high heterogeneity in willingness to pay estimates, which may be useful for targeting both conservation and marketing efforts. On the other hand, increasing the reef access fee from USD 2 to USD 6 could fully fund effective protected area management, with no substantial effect on visitors’ consumer surplus. Results suggest that a conservation surcharge could be added to all tours, with little impact on visitation, and that significantly increasing private sector collaboration and government spending on conservation would be good economic choices.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4307-:d:534977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4307/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4307/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Onil Banerjee & Martin Cicowiez & Thomas Ochuodho & Michel Masozera & Bernabas Wolde & Pankaj Lal & Sebastian Dudek & Janaki R.R. Alavalapati, 2017. "Financing the Sustainable Management of Rwanda’s Protected Areas," CEDLAS, Working Papers 0211, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
    2. Anthony Waldron & Daniel C. Miller & Dave Redding & Arne Mooers & Tyler S. Kuhn & Nate Nibbelink & J. Timmons Roberts & Joseph A. Tobias & John L. Gittleman, 2017. "Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation spending," Nature, Nature, vol. 551(7680), pages 364-367, November.
    3. Train, Kenneth, 2015. "Welfare calculations in discrete choice models when anticipated and experienced attributes differ: A guide with examples," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 15-22.
    4. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    6. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    7. Small, Kenneth A & Rosen, Harvey S, 1981. "Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(1), pages 105-130, January.
    8. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    9. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    10. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Chuenpagdee, Ratana & Pascual-Fernández, Jose J. & Szeliánszky, Emese & Luis Alegret, Juan & Fraga, Julia & Jentoft, Svein, 2013. "Marine protected areas: Re-thinking their inception," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 234-240.
    13. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    14. Daniele Pacifico & Hong il Yoo, 2013. "lclogit: A Stata command for fitting latent-class conditional logit models via the expectation-maximization algorithm," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(3), pages 625-639, September.
    15. Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Akaichi, Faical & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2019. "Revisiting cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 135-155.
    16. Juan Piñeiro-Chousa & M.Á. López-Cabarcos & N. Romero-Castro & P. Vázquez-Rodríguez, 2021. "Sustainable tourism entrepreneurship in protected areas. A real options assessment of alternative management options," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(3-4), pages 249-272, March.
    17. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2006. "Do Experience and Cheap Talk influence Willingness to Pay in an Open-Ended Contingent Valuation Survey?," Working Papers in Economics 190, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    18. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. 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.
    20. Brander, Luke M. & Van Beukering, Pieter & Cesar, Herman S.J., 2007. "The recreational value of coral reefs: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 209-218, June.
    21. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    22. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    23. Saul Hoffman & Greg Duncan, 1988. "Multinomial and conditional logit discrete-choice models in demography," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 25(3), pages 415-427, August.
    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. Kristīne Pakalniete & Heini Ahtiainen & Juris Aigars & Ingrīda Andersone & Aurelija Armoškaite & Henning Sten Hansen & Solvita Strāķe, 2021. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits and Welfare Impacts of Offshore Marine Protected Areas: A Study from the Baltic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-30, September.
    2. Ángel Acevedo-Duque & Romel Gonzalez-Diaz & Alejandro Vega-Muñoz & Mirtha Mercedes Fernández Mantilla & Luiz Vicente Ovalles-Toledo & Elena Cachicatari-Vargas, 2021. "The Role of B Companies in Tourism towards Recovery from the Crisis COVID-19 Inculcating Social Values and Responsible Entrepreneurship in Latin America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-21, July.

    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. Pengfei Liu & Lingling Hou & Dongqing Li & Shi Min & Yueying Mu, 2021. "Determinants of Livestock Insurance Demand: Experimental Evidence from Chinese Herders," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 430-451, June.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Jackson Bunyangha & Agnes. W. N. Muthumbi & Anthony Egeru & Robert Asiimwe & Dunston W. Ulwodi & Nathan. N. Gichuki & Mwanjalolo. J. G. Majaliwa, 2022. "Preferred Attributes for Sustainable Wetland Management in Mpologoma Catchment, Uganda: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2016. "Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is," Monash Economics Working Papers 42-16, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    5. Imamura, Kohei & Takano, Kohei Takenaka & Kumagai, Naoki H. & Yoshida, Yumi & Yamano, Hiroya & Fujii, Masahiko & Nakashizuka, Tohru & Managi, Shunsuke, 2020. "Valuation of coral reefs in Japan: Willingness to pay for conservation and the effect of information," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Daniel A. Brent & Lata Gangadharan & Anke Leroux & Paul A. Raschky, 2014. "Putting One's Money Where One's Mouth is: Increasing Saliency in the Field," Monash Economics Working Papers 43-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    8. Jan Vanstockem & Liesbet Vranken & Brent Bleys & Ben Somers & Martin Hermy, 2018. "Do Looks Matter? A Case Study on Extensive Green Roofs Using Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    9. 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.
    10. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    11. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    13. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    14. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    15. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    18. Chad M. Baum & Robert Weigelt, 2019. "How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Chai & Chad M. Baum (ed.), Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution, pages 141-169, Springer.
    19. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson, 2009. "Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 389-401, April.
    20. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.

    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:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4307-:d:534977. 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.