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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ukwueze Ezebuilo & Ogujiuba Kanayo & Adenuga Adeniyi, 2005. "How Useful Is Contingent Valuation Of The Environment To Water Services? Evidence From South East, Nigeria," Econometrics 0512012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Pramod Lamsal & Kishor Atreya & Krishna Prasad Pant & Lalit Kumar, 2016. "Tourism and wetland conservation: application of travel cost and willingness to pay an entry fee at Ghodaghodi Lake Complex, Nepal," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1-2), pages 51-61, February.
    3. Vilela, Thais & Malky Harb, Alfonso & Mendizábal Vergara, Carla, 2022. "Chileans' willingness to pay for protected areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    4. Francisco López-del-Pino & José M. Grisolía, 2018. "Pricing Beach Congestion," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(4), pages 449-472, June.
    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. 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.
    7. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L. & Alló, Maria & Barrio, Melina, 2016. "Ecosystem Services and REDD: Estimating the Benefits of Non-Carbon Services in Worldwide Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 246-261.
    8. Alpizar, Francisco, 2006. "The pricing of protected areas in nature-based tourism: A local perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 294-307, February.
    9. Filippini, Massimo & Wekhof, Tobias, 2021. "The effect of culture on energy efficient vehicle ownership," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Bush, Glenn & Colombo, Sergio & Hanley, Nicholas, 2008. "Measuring the demand for nature-based tourism in Africa: a choice experiment using the "cut-off" approach," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-06, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    12. Pemberton, Carlisle A. & Harris-Charles, Emaline & Patterson-Andrews, Hazel, 2010. "Cultural bias in contingent valuation of copper mining in the Commonwealth of Dominica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 19-23, November.
    13. Roberto Ponce & Felipe Vásquez & Alejandra Stehr & Patrick Debels & Carlos Orihuela, 2011. "Estimating the Economic Value of Landscape Losses Due to Flooding by Hydropower Plants in the Chilean Patagonia," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(10), pages 2449-2466, August.
    14. Niraj, Shekhar K. & Dayal, Vikram & Krausman, Paul R., 2010. "Applying methodological pluralism to wildlife and the economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1610-1616, June.
    15. Shrestha, Ram K. & Loomis, John B., 2001. "Testing a meta-analysis model for benefit transfer in international outdoor recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 67-83, October.
    16. Hynes, S. & Ghermandi, A. & Norton, D. & Williams, H., 2017. "Marine Recreational Ecosystem Service Value Meta-Analysis," Working Papers 266404, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    17. Hynes, Stephen & Ghermandi, Andrea & Norton, Daniel & Williams, Heidi, 2018. "Marine recreational ecosystem service value estimation: A meta-analysis with cultural considerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 410-419.
    18. Jung-Eun Kim & Jungsung Yeo, 2010. "Valuation of Consumers’ Personal Information: A South Korean Example," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 297-306, September.
    19. 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.
    20. Catherine M. H. Keske & Adam Mayer, 2014. "Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, February.
    21. Sekar, Nitin & Weiss, Jack M. & Dobson, Andrew P., 2014. "Willingness-to-pay and the perfect safari:Valuation and cultural evaluation of safari package attributes in the Serengeti and Tanzanian Northern Circuit," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 34-41.
    22. Martin YELKOUNI, 2004. "L'évaluation des ressources naturelles : le cas de la forêt classée de Tiogo au Burkina Faso," Working Papers 200414, CERDI.
    23. 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.
    24. David Worden & Getu Hailu & Kate Jones & Yu Na Lee, 2022. "The effects of bundling on livestock producers' valuations of environmentally friendly traits available through genomic selection," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 263-286, December.
    25. 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.

    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.