7 - world resources institutepdf.wri.org/policiesmaximizingnaturetourism_bw.pdf · protected areas....

-'- "*-* 7

•"•• . t

POLICIES FOR MAXIMIZINGNATURE TOURISM'S ECOLOGICALAND ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Kreg Lindberg

International Conservation Financing Project Working Paper

n

LJ

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTEFebruary 1991

Kathleen CourrierPublications Director

Brooks ClappMarketing Manager

Hyacinth BillingsProduction Manager

Lindblad/African Wildlife FoundationCover Photo

Each World Resources Institute Report represents a timely, scientific treatment of a subject of public concern.WRI takes responsibility for choosing the study topics and guaranteeing its authors and researchers freedomof inquiry. It also solicits and responds to the guidance of advisory panels and expert reviewers. Unlessotherwise stated, however, all the interpretation and findings set forth in WRI publications are those of theauthors.

Copyright 1991 World Resources Institute. All rights reserved.ISBN #0-915825-68-6Printed in the United States of AmericaLibrary of Congress Catalog Card Number 91-065128Printed on Recycled Paper

INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION FINANCING PROJECT

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE PROJECT TEAM

Robert Repetto, Program Director

Frederik van Bolhuis, Project Director

Michael Sweatman, Senior Advisor

Douglas Fuller, Project Assistant

Catherine Perry, Secretary

Diana Page, Communications Coordinator (Part-Time)

Oretta Tarkhani, Conference Manager (Part-Time)

SPONSORS

United Nations Development Programme

Canadian International Development Agency

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Norwegian Agency for Development

Organization of American States

The Pew Charitable Trusts

United Nations Environment Programme

United States Agency for International Development

i i i

ADVISORY PANEL

George ClarkAlex CoboJose" Pedro de Oliveira CostaJacques DioufWilliam DraytonAnthony FaircloughKathryn FullerMounkeila GoumandakoyeShin-Ichi HirayamaBasil KavalskyGraeme KelleherAshok KhoslaBert Lindstrom

Jim MacNeillAdolfo Mascarenhas

Jeffrey A. McNeely

Reuben OlemboFrancis RinvilleCelso RoqueRoque SevillaAlexander ShakowThomas StoelHarry StrachanMalee Suwana-AdthMichaela WalshAlan WeedenGerald T. WestJohn Williamson

Citibank NA, USAFundaci6n para la Educaci6n Superior, ColombiaFunda?ao S.O.S. Mata Atltotica, BrazilCentral Bank of West African States, SenegalAshoka Society, USACommission of the European Communities, BelgiumWorld Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation, USAComite" Inter-Etat de Lutte Contre S6cheresse (CILSS), Burkina FasoWorld Wildlife Fund, JapanWorld Bank, USAGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, AustraliaDevelopment Alternatives, IndiaThe Joint Nordic/South African Development Co-Ordination

Conference Group of Advisors on Financial Mechanisms, SwedenInstitute for Research on Public Policy, CanadaInternational Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources, ZimbabweInternational Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources, SwitzerlandUnited Nations Environment Programme, KenyaUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, ItalyDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources, PhilippinesFundacidn Natura, EcuadorWorld Bank, USANatural Resources Defense Council, USABain and Company, USASVITA Foundation, ThailandWomen's World Banking, USAFrank Weeden Foundation, USAOverseas Private Investment Corporation, USAInstitute for International Economics, USA

WORKSHOP HOST ORGANIZATIONS

Fundaci6n NeoTr6pica, Costa RicaUnited Nations Development Programme,

Representative Office, BrazilAssociac.3o de Defesa do Meio Ambiente,

BrazilAfrican Development Bank, C6te d'lvoire

International Union for Conservation ofNature and Natural Resources, SouthernAfrica Regional Office, Zimbabwe

Development Alternatives, IndiaUnited Nations Environment Programme,

Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific,Thailand

iv

Contents

Acknowledgments .vii

Preface i x

I. Introduction 1

II. Defining Nature Tourism 3

III. The Current Contribution of Nature Tourism 5

IV. Maintaining and Increasing Nature Tourism's Contribution 9

Consequences of Open Access to Natural Attractions 9

Increasing Revenues Through a Levy 13

Size and Nature of Levy 21

Increasing Revenue from Indirect Expenditures 23

Minimizing Loss of Revenue Through Leakage 24

Increasing Efficiency Through Decentralization and Public-Private Partnership 24

Ensuring that Revenues Lead to Sustainable Development 25

The Importance of Education 26

The Need for Planning 26

V. Summary and Conclusions 31

References 33

Figures

Figure 1. Potential Cultural Impacts of Tourism 10

Figure 2. The Tourism Cycle 11

Figure 3. Benefits and Costs of Visitation at a Nature Tourism Attraction 12

Figure 4. Using a Tourist Levy to Reduce Visitation by Raising Cost 12

Figure 5. Tourism Investment Subsidies in Selected Countries 14

Figure 6. Pricing at Rwanda's Pare National Des Volcans 16

Figure 7. Increasing Revenues Despite Leveling of Visitation at Rwanda's Pare National Des

Volcans 16

Figure 8. Increasing Revenues While Limiting Visitation 17

Figure 9. Demand for Visitation by Residents and Foreigners 18

Figure 10. Two-tiered Pricing to Maximize Revenues 18

Figure 11. Two-tiered Pricing at Private Nature Reserves 19

Figure 12. Visitation Levels at the Galapagos National Park (Ecuador), the Amboseli NationalPark (Kenya), and for Nepal 19

Figure 13. Visitation at Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve (Costa Rica) and the Pare National

Des Volcans (Rwanda) 20

Figure 14. Responses to Surveys Near Rwanda's Pare National Des Volcans 26

Figure 15. The Value of Coffee and Tourism Exports in Kenya 28

vl

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to the numerous individuals and Courrier and Kathy Lynch for skillfully editingorganizations who provided the basic information the report, and to Hyacinth Billings and Laura Leenecessary for this report. I am particularly indebt- Dooley for their preparation of the text. Finally,ed to Jacobus Doeleman, Elizabeth Halpin, Robert special appreciation goes to Robert Repetto andHealy, Diana McMeekin, Kenton Miller and Frederik van Bolhuis, without whom this reportWalter Reid for their valuable comments on all or would never have come to fruition,parts of earlier drafts. My thanks also to Kathleen Kreg Lindberg

vll

PREFACE

Nature tourism is booming, as more and moretravelers set out in search of the unspoiled naturalwonders and exotic cultural experiences thedeveloping world has to offer. This boom cancontribute to "sustainable development," definedby the 1987 Brundtland Commission as"development that meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet theirs." Or its dark side canwin out, and ecotourism can damage the naturalassets on which it rests. The outcome depends onhow it is managed.

The axiom that "good ecology is goodeconomics" applies closely in this industry, whichgenerates some $30 billion in revenues every year.Very little of the money tourists spend goestoward protecting the ecosystems they want tovisit. Most governments charge far less for accessto natural sites than tourists and tour organizersare willing to pay. Rarely are admission fees topopular destinations high enough to keep thenumber of visitors within an ecosystem's carryingcapacity. Sprawling visitor complexes and hordesof tourists are spoiling natural attractions in manyparts of the developing world. To compound theproblem, governments siphon off most of therevenues they do collect for general purposes,rather than using them to manage and protect thenatural resource.

Yet, nature tourism holds the promise ofproviding developing countries with both thefunds and the incentives needed to boostconservation efforts. If governments raised fees inrecognition that their natural attractions can't betreated as open-access resources, they couldcontrol the number of tourists while collectingenough funds to improve management ofprotected areas.

Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourism'sEcological and Economic Benefits explores waysin which changing such economic instruments asfees and royalties can promote both objectives.

This report was initially prepared by KregLindberg as a background paper for the WorldResources Institute's International ConservationFinancing Project, commissioned by the UnitedNations Development Programme and othersponsors. It extends the discussion of ecotourismand other public-private partnerships contained inWRI's 1989 study, Natural Endowments:Financing Resource Conservation forDevelopment, the message this report contains isso timely and important that WRI is nowpublishing it to make it available to a wideraudience.

Robert RepettoDirector of Economic Research

World Resources Institute

ix

W O R L D R E S O U R C E S I N S T I T U T E

INTRODUCTION

Nature tourism is burgeoning. Tired of massbeach and urban tourism, more and more peoplewant to spend their vacations in pristine naturalsurroundings, often enhanced in appeal by adistinctive local culture. Nature tourism is amiracle agent for sustainable economicdevelopment, some tour operators assert and themedia affirm. This argument seems logical totourists who spend thousands of dollars visitingparks in developing countries. Tourists figure thatmoney must go to the parks, guides,restauranteurs, and local residents they see, in acircular process that helps to preserve nature.

In reality, however, results have been mixed.Participants in workshops held for the WorldResources Institute's International ConservationFinancing Project as well as observers in the fieldvoice caution about nature tourism's actualcontribution to conservation and development inhost countries. "Can nature tourism supportsustainable development?" they ask.

This report focuses on two basic contributionsof nature tourism:

1) funding for creation and maintenance ofpublic and private natural areas throughentrance fees, concessions, and royalties;and

2) economic opportunities that reduce thepressure to encroach on natural areas forfood and fiber.

With this potential in mind, two questionsarise: "How much does tourism actuallycontribute to economic development?" and"Which economic policies increase naturetourism's contribution without degrading thenatural resources on which it is based?"


DEFINING NATURE TOURISM

Despite the industry's recent growth, there isno standard definition of nature tourism. It can bedefined in many ways, but the importantdistinction is between mass tourism and naturetourism. The beaches of Phuket, Cancun, andSousse are indeed natural resources (in contrast tosuch human achievements as the Taj Mahal orEgypt's pyramids), but they are too crowded andhighly developed to be considered nature tourismattractions.

One observer describes nature tourism(ecotourism) as:

Tourism that involves traveling to relativelyundisturbed or uncontaminated natural areaswith the specific object of studying, admiringand enjoying the scenery and its wild plantsand animals, as well as any existing culturalareas.

Most nature tourism sites feature naturalattractions and a solitude that the traveler lacks athome. Four basic types of tourists seek out thesespots:2

Type 1 Hard-Core Nature Tourists. Scientificresearchers or members of toursspecifically designed for education,removal of litter, or similar purposes.

Type 2 Dedicated Nature Tourists. People whotake trips specifically to see protectedareas and who want to understand localnatural and cultural history.

Type 3 Mainstream Nature Tourists. Peoplewho visit the Amazon, the Rwandangorilla park, or other destinationsprimarily to take an unusual trip.

Type 4 Casual Nature Tourists. People whopartake of nature incidentally as part ofa broader trip.

Of course, a single individual may fit intodifferent categories at different times. But thissimple typology does show the variety within thenature tourism "market," which is important forplanners. For example, Type 1 and Type 2 touristswill likely be more tolerant of limited amenitiesthan Type 4 tourists but will hope and expect toavoid crowds.

Besides these simplifying assumptions abouttourist motivations, some others are made in thispaper. First, the terms "parks" and "protectedareas" are used to refer to all nature tourismattractions, even those that are not protected bylaw. Second, adventure and cultural tourism areincorporated into nature tourism. Third, theemphasis is on visits to developing-country parksby tourists from developed countries, since thesetourists will in the near future contribute morerevenue than will tourists from developingcountries.


THE CURRENT CONTRIBUTION OFNATURE TOURISM

Demonstrating nature tourism's profit-earningperformance and potential is central toestablishing it as a model of sustainabledevelopment. Unfortunately, because statisticstypically do not differentiate between naturetourism and mass tourism, nature tourism'sparticular economic contributions are difficult toestimate. For example, how should one accountfor the revenues generated by a person whospends one afternoon of a two-week trip to thePhilippines visiting an impressive waterfall?Nature is only an incidental reason for the trip tothe country. Entrance fees paid at the waterfall arethe direct revenues from this tourist, but whatabout indirect gains—the money spent on aManila hotel?

Tourism of all sorts earned developingcountries an impressive $55 billion in 1988.3

Nature tourism's share of this figure ranges froman estimated $2 billion to $12 billion.4 In somecountries, the relative impact is much larger thanthese figures suggest. In parts of the Caribbeanand in such countries as Kenya, Rwanda, CostaRica, Ecuador, and Nepal, nature tourism is aleading foreign exchange earner. Caribbeanmarine areas receive close to $1 billion a year justfrom scuba divers.5 Official 1988 Kenyanestimates put foreign exchange earnings atroughly $400 million from tourism of all sorts,6

but informed unofficial sources say that thecountry's protected areas alone generate almost

$500 million in direct and indirect revenues.Tourism generates 30 percent of Kenya's foreignexchange, more than either coffee or tea. InRwanda, "gorilla tourism" in the Pare Nationaldes Volcans brings in roughly $1 million a year inentrance fees and generates up to $9 millionindirectly.8 Nepal earned roughly $45 million in1983 from visitors attracted primarily byHimalayan geography and culture.

Whether these substantial revenues benefitconservation and help maintain the basicattractions on which success is based depends onhow much they increase funding for establishingand managing parks and provide incentives forlong-term conservation by management agencies,central and local governments, and localresidents. Most protected areas around the worldare maintained with allotments from nationalgovernment budgets; related entrance fees,concessions, and taxes go into the generalgovernment treasury. (This paper focuses onpublic parks, but the impetus for conservingprivately owned natural areas is similar.) If agovernment adequately supports conservation,this system works fine, but park budgets haveoften been reduced as a result of competition forpublic sector funding. Many conservationists haveembraced nature tourism with the expectation thatit will help increase desperately needed fundingfor protected areas, and to some extent theseexpectations have been met.

6 N A T U R E T O U R I S M

In both Kenya and Rwanda, tourism revenueshave engendered the belief that "wildlife pays sowildlife stays." In Kenya, the success of tourismhas led the government to establish and maintainlarge protected areas. The World Bank investmentin tourism expansion at Kenya's AmboseliNational Park in the 1970s is perhaps the classicexample of conservation justified by naturetourism. Not environmental concern but theexpectation of a 20 to 29 percent internal rate ofreturn prompted this investment. Expected nettotal returns from park tourism were $40 perhectare, compared to $0.80 per hectare foragricultural uses.10 The visitor-attraction worth ofeach lion has been estimated at $27,000 per yearand each elephant herd at $610,000 per year, morethan could be gained from hunting licenses.11 Inthis country where expanding human needs oftenconflict with the needs of wildlife, the tangiblebenefits of tourism have generated greater supportfor conservation than would have been possiblewithout them.

Rwanda's Pare National des Volcans is anotherexample of tourism's contribution toconservation. For a number of years, the park'sgorilla population had declined, partly because thegovernment could not devote enough money andmanpower to curb poaching. Despite skepticismin both the government and the conservationcommunity, tourism has developed as a way togenerate revenue to pay for antipoaching patrolsand to give the populace employment alternativesto clearing the land for raising cattle. NowRwanda spends $150,000 a year on salaries for 70guards and 8 to 10 guides at the park, just a smallfraction of its $1 million a year in revenues fromentrance fees. The increased poaching patrolshave helped prevent poaching deaths since 1983.12

However, economic downturn, severe pressureson the land from growing populations, and otherelusive factors can cause fluctuations in financialand political dedication to conservation. Toincrease and stabilize funding levels, earmarkingand other alternative funding mechanisms can

often be put in place. Costa Rica, Ecuador,Thailand, Zambia, and Saba in the NetherlandsAntilles already have some form of earmarkedfunds.

In Costa Rica, proprietary funds from entranceand other fees (including fiscal taxes) complementthe general government allotment.13 The CostaRican case shows the importance of earmarking.Although the government is aware of the value ofconservation, park budgets declined in real termsduring an economic downturn. Proprietary fundsalso declined in real value, but the Costa Ricanconservation community was able to mountenough support for the funds to resist governmentpressure to eradicate them altogether under anausterity program mandated by the InternationalMonetary Fund. The funds were less susceptibleto elimination because they were independent ofthe central government treasury.

In Ecuador, the Galapagos National Park earnsdirect tourism revenues of at least $560,000 a yearand receives additional funds from conservationfoundations. The park's surplus revenue isavailable to help maintain Ecuador's 14 othernational parks and reserves, which together bringin only $40,000 a year.14

In Thailand, entrance and lodging fees staywithin the National Parks Division. Even with lowentrance fees, revenue from these sources at KhaoYai National Park roughly offset managementcosts.15

In Zambia's Luangwa Valley, a WildlifeConservation Revolving Fund was established in1983 to finance additional park personnel, as wellas to fund community projects. The fund isfinanced in part by the harvest of hippos and inpart by a portion (60 percent) from auctions ofsafari hunting rights. The increased fundingderived from this program has allowed an increasein park personnel from 11 in 1985 to 26 in 1987.As a result, during that time elephant and rhinopoaching decreased by 90 percent.16


Likewise, the Saba Marine Park will soon befinanced primarily by entrance fees and royaltiesthat are directly channeled into the park. Evenwith the low entrance fee of $1.00 per snorkelerand $1.00 per dive for scuba divers (most diveboats charge $40 to $80 per dive trip), the Sabapark is expected to be financially self-sufficientby 1991.17 The Dutch government, a major donor,agreed to provide start-up funds on the conditionthat entrance fees and royalties be earmarked.Without earmarking, the park might never havebeen established, much less maintained.

In some cases, nature tourism has also providedboth funding for development programs incommunities near parks and economic alternativesto park encroachment. The importance of thesecontributions is straightforward. Residents whotraditionally relied upon the area for food andfiber pay a steep price when the creation of a parksuddenly cuts off their access to these resources.To forestall park encroachment and violencebetween residents and park personnel, efforts arebeing made to assist these people to meet theirneeds.

By considering local communities' needs andincorporating their expertise in conservationplanning and by giving communities an economicand social interest in parks, managers candecrease or eliminate conflict betweenconservation and human survival. The need forsuch cooperation and its payoff have beenstressed in forums such as the WorldConservation Strategy of the International Unionfor the Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources (IUCN).

In many areas, controlled continuation ofhistorical resource use is allowed. People livingnear the Royal Chitwan National Park in Nepalharvest thatch grass in the park for two weeksevery year. This grass, the most importanttraditional roof-making material in the region, isworth some $1 million per year to the 59,000

local villagers, and it is virtually unavailableelsewhere in the region.18

Nature tourism can provide additional benefitsto local residents. Occasionally, governmentsdirectly compensate people hurt when parks orreserves are set up. The Maasai of Kenya havereceived $30,000 per year, along with substantialindirect benefits, to cover "the losses they sustainin accommodating the park's wildlife."19 Theparastatal Kenya Wildlife Service is developing anew mechanism that is expected to channel 20 to25 percent of tourism revenues back into local

• • 20communities.

In Zambia the Wildlife ConservationRevolving Fund channels 40 percent of the feesfor hunting licenses to the local chiefs forcommunity projects. This program has aided localresidents and has encouraged tribal leaders toestablish security committees to prevent poachersfrom entering their areas.21

Another community development program islocated in the village of Ban Sap Tai, next toThailand's Khao Yai National Park. ThePopulation and Community DevelopmentAssociation, working with the private Germanorganization Agro Action, established anEnvironmental Protection Society that provideslow-interest loans, education programs, acooperative store, and other support to villagers.

Nature tourism also creates demand for goodsand services that can give local individualsalternative sources of income. Residents of BanSap Tai and other villages in the region havetraditionally harvested timber, wildlife, and otherforest products and grown rice or cash crops onland now inside the park. According to a NationalPark Division survey, six out of ten villagersclaimed that they could not support themselveswithout engaging in such activities, which becameillegal with the establishment of the park.22 Anature trekking program was recently establishedto employ villagers as porters and guides.

8 N A T U R E T O U R I S M

Although the number of treks is small, themonetary benefits, and the support of thecommunity development program, have greatlydecreased encroachment.23

Some villagers near nature tourism sites starttheir own businesses. At the Monteverde CloudForest Reserve in Costa Rica, eight womenfounded a souvenir and crafts shop in 1982 as acooperative venture. Annual sales of the locallyproduced handicrafts have reached SSO.OOO.24 Asurvey by Guatemala's Institute of Tourismestimated that tourists arriving in Guatemala byair spent an average of $82 each on handicrafts.25

Most nature tourism enterprises are small, butsome employ hundreds or thousands of people.The Tiger Mountain Group in Nepal employs5,000 people during peak season.26 According to a

recent survey, 63 privately-owned nature reservesin Latin America and Africa employed 1,289people permanently and 336 additional peopleduring peak seasons.27

Private businesses also help to fundcommunity-development activities. Becausenature tourism cannot survive without thegoodwill of residents and the integrity of naturalattractions, organizations such as the TigerMountain Group support development andconservation programs as well as create jobs. Thegroup has helped to establish the InternationalTrust for Nature Conservation, which conductsconservation education and other activities in thevillages surrounding Royal Chitwan NationalPark.28 Similarly, a number of tour operators inthe United States donate a portion of their sales toconservation projects in developing countries.29


IV.MAINTAINING AND INCREASINGNATURE TOURISM'S CONTRIBUTION

As the previous examples of increased fundingfor park management and opportunities for localresidents demonstrate, nature tourism can supportconservation and development. However, naturetourism has at least three broad shortcomings.First, many (if not most) areas of ecologicalimportance are too inaccessible or unappealing toattract tourists or are ecologically incapable ofweathering the negative by-product of tourismdevelopment. Certainly, nature tourism is nopanacea for conservation financing, and othersources of funding will remain necessary tomaintain natural areas adequately. Second,unrestricted use of natural attractions by touristsand the industry will lead to overuse at manydestinations. Third, host countries have not tappedmuch of the potential revenue from naturetourism, and what they do capture rarely goesback into parks and surrounding communities.

Consequences of Open Access toNatural Attractions

Most natural attractions are what economistscall limited nonrival goods: up to a point, onevisitor's enjoyment of the attraction does notimpinge on another visitor's enjoyment. Heavyuse of a popular site, however, can bringenvironmental damage, congestion, and culturaldisruption. Environmental impacts are direct

(from litter and the disruption of flora and fauna)and indirect (waste generated at lodges, forexample). At the Thai beach resort of Pattaya,rapid growth of tourism infrastructure, withoutadequate pollution-control measures, has led toserious water pollution and a shortage of freshwater for residents and tourists alike.30

Congestion also occurs as the number ofvisitors mounts and the nature of their activitieschanges. Eventually, enjoyment of the attractionfades. Although the impact on visitor enjoymenthas rarely been quantified, a number ofdestinations in East Africa and elsewhere havecome into disrepute for congestion.31

32

Tourist incursions into isolated regions canalso overwhelm a local culture, its economy, andits ecological balance, as happened in Ladakh.Ladakh "exemplifies how a unique culturalHimalayan heritage can be ravaged by a suddentourist invasion," in the words of one observer.Simultaneously, residents at tourist destinationsoften tire of tourist attitudes and activities, whichin turn leads to negative interaction. (See Figure1.)

These effects of tourism on environment,congestion, and culture can decrease visitor

1 0 N A T U R E T O U R I S M

Figure 1.Potential Cultural Impacts of Tourism

LIMITS TOSOCIALCARRYINGCAPACITY

Negative interaction betweenresidents and tourists

Tourists senseunfriendliness

Local resentment increasestoward visitors as a resultof various perceivedproblems

Commercializationincreases in response togrowing number of tourists

Generally friendly response butminor irritations develop andcommercialization of tourismgrows

Curiousity and friendlyinterest toward tourists

Tourism visitationbegins to decline

TIME ORINCREASINGTOURISMDEVELOPMENT

SOURCE: P. Murphy, ed., "Tourism in Canada: Selected Issues and Options," Western Geographical Series, vol.21, 1983, p. 136, as displayed in Barry Sadler, "Sustaining Tomorrow and Endless Summer," EnvironmentallySound Tourism in the Caribbean, p. xxii.

enjoyment or completely destroy an attraction'sappeal, thereby reducing or eliminating futurerevenues.33 The tourism cycle, the potential foroverexploitation and decline, is illustrated inFigure 2.34 A particular region may initiallyattract a few "low impact" tourists who relyprimarily on existing facilities. As word of thedestination's appeal spreads and visitors flock to

see it, however, residents begin to tailor facilitiesspecifically for tourists. Heavily promotedfacilities spring up, many of them foreignfinanced, and visitors become disenchanted.Major franchises dominate the supply of touristattractions, eventually the region stagnates, andrevenues fall unless a deliberate effort is made torejuvenate the region.

W O R L D R E S O U R C E S I N S T I T U T E 1 1

Figure 2.The Tourism Cycle

NUMBER OFTOURISTS

i

CRITICAL RANGE Stagnation^.OF ELEMENTS OF j ^CAPACITY Consolidation ^r

Development /

Involvement /

•-~*»*0^ Exploration

SOURCE: R.W. Butler, "The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution:Resources," Canadian Geographer, vol. 24, no. 1,1980, p. 7.

Rejuvenation

Decline \ V

\E

TIME

T+.

Implications for Management of

New as the tourism industry is in mostcountries, preliminary analysis supports thehypothesis that many currently populardestinations will eventually fall out of vogue.35

This potential for "overshooting" has importantimplications for tourism managers. They need tobe constantly aware that, although the industry isresilient and growing, tourism at each destinationmust be treated as a renewable resource that mustbe carefully cultivated to ensure future returns.

If the number of visitors remains low,stagnation is unlikely. However, most naturetourism attractions have an open access character;tourists and the tourism industry are allowed useof the resource without significant restriction byprice or numerical limits. This structure leads tooveruse at popular attractions (See Figure 3). Asvisitors proliferate, the marginal (additional)benefit of visitation decreases, and the totalbenefit curve (TB) levels off. Meanwhile, the


Figure 3.Benefits and Costs of Visitation at aNature Tourism Attraction

Dollars

N2

Number of Visitors

Figure 4.Using a Tourist Levy to ReduceVisitation by Raising Cost

Dollars

TC

N2

Number of Visitors

marginal cost of visitation increases, and the totalcost curve (TC) rises. The net value to society ismaximized at point Ni, where the distancebetween benefits and costs is greatest (not wherethe number of tourists is greatest). After this pointthe marginal benefit of each additional visit is lessthan the added cost of such a visit because ofecological, congestion, and cultural impacts. AtNi, continued use still generates profits forindividual users (consumer surplus for touristsand financial profits for the industry) sinceaverage returns exceed average costs. They thuscontinue to use the resource until N2, where theresource becomes overexploited from theviewpoint of society's total welfare. This issimilar to the classic example of fish stockdepletion through open access to fisheries.

If the attraction is managed to maximize socialwelfare, visitation will be limited to point Ni.Limits also make good financial sense, givingprivate reserves an incentive to restrict visitation.A single manager is most likely to set numerical

ceilings, but multiple users can also cooperativelymanage their use to avoid overexploitation, and tosustain the attraction value of the commonproperty resource. Without cooperation, theattraction becomes an open access resource indanger of overexploitation as individual users tryto profit at the expense of the group as a whole.Some nature tourism destinations do functionunder a common property regime. In Cozumel,Mexico, for example, dive operators coordinateand limit dive tourism to prevent damage to thecoral reefs and to prevent "free riders" fromexploiting the resource.36 Not surprisingly,however, most tourists, and the managers of theindustry serving them, come from regions faraway from the attraction. As a result, cooperationto avoid overexploitation is often inadequate. Inaddition, most natural attractions are owned bygovernments, which generally permit open accessas a service to the public. There is thus a tendencyto overuse popular attractions to the point wheretheir value is reduced or eliminated.37


To avoid overuse, managers of many areas willneed to limit visitation through mechanisms suchas quotas or prices, tools that can also be used inconjunction with cooperative management.Because additional funding is usually needed forprotected area management or establishment, theuse of a levy to both limit visitation and generatefunding is particularly appealing.

Managers can use the price mechanism to limitthe number of visitors to the socially optimal level(Ni). Figure 4 illustrates how a levy imposeddirectly on tourists reduces visitation. The levyincreases the financial costs of the visit, shiftingthe total cost curve to TC\ so that the total costsequal the total benefits at Ni (the desired level)instead of at N2. The size of the levy is(TCVTCn)/Nn.

Setting prices to precisely achieve Ni requiresa level of flexibility uncommon in protected areamanagement. A combination of price andnumerical limits may therefore be necessary,especially in areas of well-defined carryingcapacity, as in the case of Rwanda, where onlyfour groups of gorillas may be visited.

In theory, the most efficient mechanism togenerate revenue and limit visitation would be toauction Ni production quotas. However, thismechanism will be feasible only in thecomparatively rare cases where markets are trulycompetitive and adequate information on demandcan be obtained.

Increasing Revenues Through a Levy

In making decisions on price levels, resourcemanagers consider both equity (fairness) andefficiency (whether the price will maximizebenefits). At many destinations, there has beenconsiderable debate about the fairness ofallocating use by price through charging visitorshigh fees. The debate usually centers around the"free good" nature of parks and protected areas. Ifsuch attractions are seen as part of the society's

natural heritage, this argument goes, they shouldnot be denied to people who cannot pay high fees.After all, citizens as a group pay for the protectedareas indirectly through taxes.

A multitier fee structure, however, allows morerevenue to be generated without denying citizensaccess to their natural heritage; assuming low feesfor nationals, this structure would allocate use byprice only for foreigners. Costa Rica, Ecuador,Mexico, and other countries have alreadyinstituted such systems. In such systems, the feescould stay the same for residents but rise forforeigners. In some cases, a two-tier system willbe satisfactory, whereas in others a multitiersystem will be appropriate to differentiatebetween foreigners, researchers, local residents,and other groups.

Charging foreigners higher fees is equitableinsofar as they receive far greater benefit thanthey are currently being asked to pay for. Theyreceive substantial enjoyment from theexperience, yet pay low (if any) entrance fees,they do not pay taxes to support the park, and theydo not bear the opportunity costs of not using theresource for agriculture, logging, or otheractivities. Indeed, a multitiered structure is moreequitable than the single-fee structure that iscommon today. After all, the individuals whoreceive the benefits from the park should pay thecost of maintaining it.

Whether a given fee level is efficient dependson the character of the supply and demand in thenature tourism market. Many policymakersopposed to raising fees point to the tightcompetition for visitors between beach tourismdestinations. Since there is little productdifferentiation in the beach tourism market,destinations must often compete fiercely, usinglow prices to attract visitors. (In economic jargon,demand is highly elastic because productsubstitutability is high.) As a result, many of thesedestinations not only fail to generate revenue forthe government through user fees, but also lose


Figure 5.Tourism Investment Subsidies in Selected Countries

INCENTIVE

Assistance withproject financing

Equityparticipation

Loan guarantees

Underwritingissues

Tax holiday

Investment/other tax credits

Accelerateddepreciation

Double tax relief

Infrastructure aid

Leasing ofproperty

Marketingsupport

Amenities aid

Training

Specialinstitutions

Antigua Aruba TheBahamas

Barbados Dominica DominicanRepublic

Grenada Jamaica Montserrat St,Kitts-Nevis

St.Lucia

###

INCENTIVE

Cash grants

Low-interest loans

Loan guarantees

Equity participation

Debt-equity swaps

Import duty exemptions

Tax reductions

Subsidized utilities

Investor assistanceorganization

Mauritius

mmmm

Mexico

,,,,JiiIilli

Portugal

1

illillllllllWIi

Seychelles Spain

2

Tahiti

St.Vincent

Trinidad&

Tobago

Turkey

2

Yugoslavia

KEY:

###

1

2

= Incentive currently exists

= Incentive in process of being enacted

= Incentive up to 60% of investment

= Incentive up to 20% of project costs

SOURCE: Chart for Caribbean countries from the Caribbean Tourism Organization. Both charts based on Arthur Young, A

Study of the Impact of Tourism Investment Incentives In the Caribbean Region, Barbados, August 1988.


money through subsidies. (See Figure 5.) Thefinancial losses are considered appropriate toensure benefits such as employment opportunities,although ironically such incentives in theCaribbean may play only a minor role ininvestment decisions.38

Despite the rush to develop new nature tourismdestinations of increasingly generic appeal, naturetourism destinations remain more differentiatedthan beach destinations. Indeed, many are uniqueor almost unique. Their owners thus have theopportunity to make profits by exploiting the"scarcity rent" of their particular resources. Take,for example, Rwanda's Pare National desVolcans, whose gorillas are an almost unique andvery popular attraction. Because of thispopularity, Rwanda has been able to chargevisitor fees high enough to generate substantialprofits. Normally, these profits would attractcompeting businesses into the market, but thescarcity of gorillas stands in the way in this caseso profits are not eroded.

The existence of scarcity rent is not limited toextraordinary attractions like the gorillas. Rwandais also developing tourism at the Nyungwe ForestReserve. The Colobus monkeys and various birdsof Nyungwe may not be as scarce or as popular asthe gorillas, but they still attract tourists and willlikely also generate (smaller) profits.

The uniqueness of nature tourism destinations(the product) allows countries (the seller) to act aspartial monopolists in their pricing and outputdecisions (fees and number of visits). Becausemonopolists can limit output and raise priceswithout fear of competition, park managers canlimit use and raise significant revenue at the sametime. The extent of their monopoly powernaturally depends on how differentiated theirproduct (nature) is from those of competitors.Because their attractions are both more appealingand more unique, managers of resources such asEcuador's Galapagos National Park and Rwanda'sPare National des Volcans can earn higher profits

than can managers of resources such as Thailand'sKhao Yai National Park. However, Khao Yai stillhas an unexploited profit-earning potential.

In addition, the uniqueness of the attraction isonly one of the factors contributing todifferentiation. Destinations can also bedifferentiated, at least temporarily, bycomplementary offers such as higher qualityexperiences, appealing "add-on" tours, and otherservices. Furthermore, destinations that offersimilar attractions can retain monopoly power ifthey explicitly or implicitly cooperate on price.The International Gorilla Conservation Programwill follow such a pricing strategy as it expandsthe profitable gorilla tourism to Uganda and Zaire.Finally, because demand for nature tourism isstrong, even relatively undifferentiated attractionscan usually charge much higher fees than thosecurrently asked.

In Figure 6, for example, the Pare National desVolcans has set an annual limit of roughly 6,000gorilla visits (supply curve) at the price of $170 avisit. If the cost of providing this product is thearea abed (cost per visitor times the number ofvisitors) and the revenue from this product is abef(price per visitor times the number of visitors),then the profit is cdef.

Since the visits are booked well into the future,demand exceeds supply at the current price of$170. Thus the price theoretically could be raisedto PE, the equilibrium price, to capture theadditional benefit efgh that currently accrues totourists in the form of consumer surplus(enjoyment for which they do not pay). However,opening gorilla parks in Zaire and Uganda willprobably eliminate this opportunity and bring theprice per visitor down to less than $170.

The park is currently "losing" the potentialprofit of efgh, in addition to the surplus above PE.Revenues might be further increased by reducingvisitation further and charging yet higher prices,depending on the shape of the demand curve,


which is unknown (revenue will be maximizedwhere demand is unitary elastic). By raising theprice to $170, however, park managers have atleast captured a significant portion of the park'sscarcity value—just imagine the lost value if theprice were only $5! By raising fees and setting alimit, park managers have increased revenueswhile avoiding overuse (See Figure 7).

Likewise, the Galapagos National Parkgenerates profits, part of which helps finance thecountry's remaining parks. By one estimate, theseprofits could be increased greatly by raising thelevy on visitors from the current fee of $40 pervisitor to $770. This would theoretically increasepark revenues from $700,000 to $26,700,000while the total number of visitor days remainedthe same.39

Figure 6.Pricing at Rwanda's Pare NationalDes Volcans

Dollars Supply

Demand

6000 Number of Visitors

NOTE: The supply and demand curves areused for illustration only and are not meantto be authoritative,

Figure 7.Increasing Revenues Despite Leveling of Visitation at Rwanda's Pare National Des Volcans

3 2 -

REVENUES 3 8 -(FRW)

(Millions)2 8 -

26-

2 4 -

2 2 -

2 8 -

18 -

1 6 -

14"

1 2 "

18 -

8 "

6 -

4 -

2 "

8 "I

NUMBEROF 7

VISITORS(Thousands)

G -

5 -

4 -

3 -

2

1

Revenues

Visitors

1S74 75 7G 77 78 79 86 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

YEAR

NOTES: $1.00 roughly equals FRW 82. The data used in this graph are official. Unofficial sourcesestimate 1989 revenues of roughly $1 million (FRW 82 million). SOURCE; Ministere du Plan, RepubliqueRwandaise, Strategie Nationale de L'Environment au Rwanda, Version provisoire, October 30, 1989.


Figure 8.Increasing Revenues While Limiting Visitation

DESTINATION

Country of Bhutan*

Rwanda's Pare National des Volcansb

Ecuador's Galapagos National Parkc

Costa Rica's Poas, Manual Antonio andCahuita Parks'1

YEAR

1988

1989

1980

1984

1987

1988

1986

1986 (A)

1988

1988 (A)

1988(B)

FOREIGN VISITORFEE (US$)

130/day

260/day

14

43

54

170

40

770

0.30

1.20

1.20

NUMBER OF TOTALVISITORS

2,199

2,000

2,593

6,010

6,965

6,000

125,000

125,000

290,000

144,000

290,000

TOTAL REVENUE(US$)

2.9 million

5.2 million

36,500

261,200

378,800

1,020,000

.7 million

26.7 million

87,000

112,200

234,000

NOTES: * SOURCE: UNDP, World Development, November 1989, vol. 2, no. 6, p. 18. The fee Is all inclusive (hotel, food,guide, etc.). The number of visitors for 1989 is estimated. The total revenue is calculated using an average stay often days (based on estimate from Bhutan Mission to the UN).

b SOURCE: 1980-1987 data from Ministere du Plan, Republique Rwandaise, Strategie Nationale deL'Environnement au Rwanda, Version provisoire, October 30,1989, pp. 184,186. Converted using FRW 82 = $1.Visitor fee for 1980,1984, and 1987 calculated by dividing total revenue by number of visitors (by 1987 the actualfee was $85). Data from 1988 based on unofficial estimates.

c SOURCE: Steven Edwards, T h e Demand for Galapagos Vacations: Estimation and Application to Conservation,"Working Paper, 1990. The figures for number of visitors are for visitor-days. The figures for 1986 (A) are projectedpotential.

* SOURCE: Manuel J. Baldares and Jan G. Laarman, "User Fees at Protected Areas in Costa Rica," Draft,processed, 1990. The fee is converted at 25 colones = $0.30. The figures for 1988 (A) are estimated potential if feeswere increased and visitors behaved according to their implicit price elasticities. The figures for 1988 (B) areestimated potential if fees were increased while demand remained perfectly ineiastic.Since the completion of thissurvey, entrance fees have been raised to $1.00 for foreigners and $0.50 for nationals.

Data from both cases as well as those ofBhutan and Costa Rica are presented in Figure 8.In Bhutan and Rwanda, revenues have increasedwhile visitation levels have stabilized. In CostaRica and Ecuador, it is projected, parks couldachieve the same goal if fees were raised.

These examples demonstrate the gains inefficiency made by charging high fees. Givensuch results, one questions whether low fees fornationals can be efficient. Yes they can, becausethere are different levels of demand for thedestination. The average foreigner will bewealthier than the average resident. Thisaffluence, combined with strong motivation, will

cause a higher willingness to pay by foreignersthan by residents.40

As Figure 9 illustrates, the line Dr traces thedemand for visitation on the part of residents. At alow price (Pi), a large number of residents (Ni(r>)will visit the park, but no residents will pay a highprice (Ph) for the privilege. Under this scenario,the demand for visitation on the part of residentsis relatively price elastic; a price increase causes asharp drop in visits.

On the other hand, the line Df traces foreigndemand for visitation. At a price of Pi, Ni(f)foreigners will visit the park, while at a price of


Figure 9.Demand for Visitation by Residentsand Foreigners

Price ofVisitation

Nh(f) N i(f) Niw

Number of Visitors

Figure 10.Two-tiered Pricing to MaximizeRevenues

Price ofVisitation

Ph

Pi

b c d

Number of Visitors

NOTES: a = Nh(ty, b = Ni(i)\c = Ni(ry, d = (Ni(r) +Ni(t)) - (Ni(f) - Nh(fj) since the foreigners betweenNi(fj and Nh(f) would visit with a price of Ni butwill not visit with a price for foreigners of Nh.e = Ni(r) + Nip)

Ph, Nh(f) foreigners will still visit. The demand forvisitation on the part of foreigners iscomparatively price inelastic since a priceincrease causes less of a drop in visitation.

Figure 10 shows the demand for visitationwhen foreigners and residents are combined (thenumber of visitors from each group was added ateach price). If the price for all visitors was set atPh, the total revenue (price multiplied by numberof visitors) would be the horizontally hatchedarea. If the price was set at Pi, the total revenuewould be the vertically hatched area. However, ifforeigners were charged Ph and residents werecharged Pi, the total revenue would be thecombined area, less the portion between d and e.

Protected areas owned by private individuals orgroups, rather than governments, have moreflexibility in setting prices and many of them haveadopted multitiered fee structures. Fewer than half

of the private reserves that responded to a recentsurvey charge entrance fees, and instead collectall revenues from grants, accommodation charges,and other sources. However, reserves that docharge fees usually charge residents less thanforeigners. {See Figure 11.) The average (mean)fee for residents is $5.67 while the average fee forforeigners is $14.58 (the median figures are,respectively, $1 and $5).

Multitiered pricing can thus satisfy both equityand efficiency. However, where the ecosystem'scarrying capacity keeps visitation below the levelof demand, a dilemma may remain forpolicymakers (depending on the variouselasticities of demand). Should a park setprofit-maximizing prices which would effectivelyexclude many of its own citizens but providemaximum financial benefits for the country, orshould low resident prices and limits on foreignvisitation be enacted? This would allow residents


Figure 11.Two-tiered Pricing at Private Nature Reserves

14-

12-

10-

8 -

6 -

4 -

2 -

0 -*

Number

11

37 Reserves

m11ii iJl

<2 2-5 6-20 21-50 >50Entrance Fee (U.S. Dollars)

H H Nationals Y///X Foreigners

SOURCE: Raw data from a survey by Claudia Alderman of the Yale School of Forestry, in conjunction withConservation international, 1990.

Figure 12.Visitation Levels at the Galapagos National Park (Ecuador), the Amboseli NationalPark (Kenya), and for Nepal

Visitors (Thousands)

200

100

Nepal

Unofficial

Galapagos / Official

1968 1975 Year 1982 1989

NOTES: Figures for Nepal are total tourist visitation and are based on only two data points (actual growth wasnot necessarily linear). SOURCE: His Majesty's Government Nepal/IUCN, Building on Success: The NationalConservation Strategy for Nepal, Kathmandu, 1988, p.66. Figures for Amboseli—SOURCE: David Western,"Tourist Capacity in East African Parks," Industry and Environment, Jan/Feb/Mar 1986, vol. 9, no.1, p. 16.Figures for Galapagos—SOURCE: Elizabeth Boo, Ecotourism: The Potential and Pitfalls, World Wildlife Fund,Washington, DC 1990, vol. 2, p. 98.


to enjoy their natural heritage but would decreasethe financial benefits.

Of course, fees can be raised to increaserevenues only if demand for the attraction issufficient, but it does seem to be strong enough atmany destinations. As an extreme example, agroup of adventurers recently paid $60,000 eachto ski to the South Pole from a nearby drop-offpoint; another group paid $35,000 each to spendthree hours at the pole.41

Demand for more typical natural attractions isstrong and increasing, despite fee increases. (SeeFigures 12 and 13.) The Galapagos, the PareNational des Volcans, and several otherdestinations have already translated this demandinto higher revenues. Surveys in Nepal, Costa

Rica, and elsewhere suggest that tourists in othernatural areas would also be willing to pay higherfees.

Industry experts expect tourist demand toremain solid for a number of reasons. Generaltourism, currently growing 4 percent annually,will continue to expand as population, leisuretime, and discretionary income levels increasewhile the (real) cost of travel decreases.42 Naturetourism, and other forms of specialized tourism,are expected to grow faster than general tourismas people tire of mundane and crowded beachesand urban destinations; one observer estimatesthat specialized tourism, including nature tourism,will grow 10 to 15 percent per year over the nextfive years.43

Figure 13.Visitation at Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve (Costa Rica) and the Pare NationalDes Volcans (Rwanda)

NUMBEROFVISITORS(Thousands)

Pare Nationaldes Volcans

1974 75

NOTES: Figures for Monteverde are visitor-days. SOURCE: Elizabeth Boo, Ecotourism: the Potential and Pitfalls,World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 1990, vol. 2, p. 44. Visitor levels for the PNV leveled off due to limits imposedby management (not decline in demand). SOURCE: Ministere du Plan, Republique Rwandaise, Strategie Nationalede L'Environnement au Rwanda, Version provisoire, October 30, 1989.


A breakdown of trip costs was recentlyprovided by Mountain Travel for one of itsAfrican treks. Of the $4,105 price tag, thefunds were distributed as follows:50

AMOUNT

$2130

$350

$350

$1125

$150

PERCENTOF TOTAL

52%

9%

9%

27%

4%

ITEM

Field costs (e.g.,inbound operator andentrance fees)

Hotels

Trip Leader

Administration andcommissions

Profit

Still other factors suggest that higher feescould be sustained. Current fees are such a smallpart of total tourist expenditures that even largeincreases in fees have little effect on the overallcost of travel.44 In addition, many fees are never"seen" by tourists since they are part of large tourpackages. Each decision on fee levels must beevaluated case by case, but substantial evidenceindicates that tourists would willingly pay higherfees at many nature tourism destinations.

Although the burden of higher fees will largelybe borne by the tourists themselves, there areindications that the tourism industry could absorbpart of the increase. Growth has been rapid in thenumbers and size of both outbound operators(packagers who sell trips to tourists in developedcountries) and inbound operators (the organizersof trips at the destination). Large outboundoperators claim that their nature tourism businessis growing at 25 to 30 percent per year.45 CostaRica's largest nature tour operator grew 46percent in 1986.46 Data are scarce on the growthin numbers of operators, partly becausedefinitions of nature tourism vary. The increase inadvertisers in the Specialty Travel Index from 110in 1979 to 539 in 1990 is, however, one indicatorof growth.47

Glamour and adventure may lend appeal totourism ventures, but recent growth in theindustry stems largely from the attraction ofprofits. This growth, in turn, can lead to overuseof "open access" nature tourism destinations.Because most operators are small, privatecompanies in a competitive market, detailedfinancial information is difficult to obtain. Theconsensus is, however, that the industry earns anet profit of 3 to 6 percent on sales,48 marginswhich are more impressive considering the lowcapital investment necessary to enter the industry.One large nature tourism company, for example,paid off its original debt in five years and still had5 percent net profit on sales of nearly $10 million(1989) for future expansion.49

Indeed, many of these operators recognize theneed for higher fees because of the dangers ofoverexploitation and the lack of funds for parkmanagement. Fee increases will probably alsoreduce the industry's size or rate of growth,forcing out the least efficient firms.

Inbound operators earn much higher salesprofits than do outbound operators. Theirrelatively high profits may be appropriate,especially in regions where the work is highlyseasonal. Nonetheless, licensing and otherrestraints and the dearth of linguistically,scientifically, and entrepreneurially qualifiedpersonnel often limit the number of operators,leaving room for opportunistic pricing. To theextent that these operators use their monopolypower to sustain high profits, they capture thescarcity rents that might otherwise supportconservation. Managers of the attractions thushave an interest in recovering these rents throughlevies and concessions that reflect the true valueof resource use.

Size and Nature of Levy

Fees should thus be raised, but which fees, howmuch, and by what criteria?


A park can raise user fees until excess demanddisappears. Unfortunately, optimal user feescannot be precisely estimated in advance for lackof equivalent historical markets. In most areas,however, demand is so strong that fees can besignificantly raised without any danger ofcollapse. In any case, even quick and simplesurveys can provide managers with sufficientlyreliable information to set user fees that moreaccurately capture the attraction's value.

Methods have been developed for estimatingthe demand curve using surveys of touristwillingness-to-pay (WTP). The two primarymethods for estimating WTP for recreation havebeen the travel cost method (TCM) and thecontingent valuation method (CVM).51 The travelcost method is best suited when

1) visitors originate from points in concentriccircles around the recreation site, and

2) visitors are visiting only one site.

Because these conditions rarely obtain ininternational nature tourism, the CVM is apreferable measure despite its limitations. A CVMstudy was the basis for the Costa Rican estimatesin Figure 8. Other methods can be used, such asthe hedonic price analysis in the study of Ecuadorpresented in Figure 8, but their complexity mayhinder widespread application.

Setting fee levels is difficult, and managerialjudgment is crucial since the optimal fee for anyattraction will be highly site-specific. Two of themany factors that managers can consider arehistorical demand and competition. If visitationlevels at the park have been increasing, fees canprobably be raised; the more rapid the growth invisitation, the less likely higher fees will reducevisitation. Likewise, an attraction can usuallycharge fees equivalent to those charged atattractions with similar appeal, quality, andaccessibility.

Once the current demand for the attraction isknown, managers can investigate opportunities forraising future demand. Among factorscontributing to willingness-to-pay are:

1) Strength of desire to see an attraction andcontribute to its continued existence.Popular attractions like Rwanda's gorillaswill generate high WTP.

2) General trip quality. Friendly andresponsive service, clean lodging, goodfood, and similar amenities are importantto many tourists.

3) Fulfillment of expectations of exercise andsolitude.

4) Income. Wealthier tourists will usually paymore than poorer ones.

5) Existence of substitutes. The WTP for anattraction depends on the availability ofsimilar attractions at lower prices.

Managers cannot usually control such factorsas the uniqueness of the attraction, but they canenhance the quality of a visitor's experience andaccess to exercise and solitude. A site'sexclusivity can also be promoted to wealthiertourists.

In addition, many tourists will pay more if theyknow that the extra money helps conserve thespecial area they have come so far to see. InNepal, for example, six out of ten of trekkers inthe Annapuma area said they would pay $5 to $10more than current government fees if they knewthe money would be used in programs to conservethe area.52 Nature tourists would also like moreeducational material than is currently available atmost attractions, according to surveys by theWorld Wildlife Fund (WWF).53 Complimentarydistribution of a natural and cultural history guideto the area could accompany fee increases, which


would more than cover the cost of producing theguide.

The most traditional form of user levy is theentrance fee, directly correlated with use andeasily collected in parks with staffed entrances,but alternative methods for charging fees can alsobe considered. In countries like Costa Rica orKenya, where many tourists visit more than onepark, a system-wide fee could be paid at one pointand would be valid for all parks. A "park airporttax," charged to all international passengers, hasalso been suggested. These methods wouldfacilitate fee collection, but might be resented bytourists who visit only one park (or none in thecase of the airport tax).

Fees for the tourism industry, with or withoutfees levied directly on tourists, could also beenacted. These can range from per-visitorlicensing fees for tour guides to hotel taxes. InBelize, for example, a 5 percent hotel tax and a$10 international flight tax, respectively,generated $295,800 and $611,000 in 1988.54

Likewise, hotels near the Tobago Cays MarineNational Park in St. Vincent and The Grenadinespay a levy to help maintain the park.55 Thoughoften difficult to administer effectively, a hoteltax can be "hidden" from tourists. As a result, itmay be more amenable for tourists from industrialcountries who are used to paying high hotel bills,but low entrance fees.

To get the highest possible flow of revenuefrom any fee structure, flexibility must bemaintained in setting prices. Fees need to beadjusted for changes in inflation and demand forthe attraction within the tourist market. In CostaRica, for example, fiscal stamp fees, which helpfinance the park system, can be increased only byan act of the national legislature. In deference toresistance to tax increases, these fees have notbeen increased in the 11 years of their existence,despite substantial inflation. Entrance fees, on the

other hand, have been increased by executivedecree, but too slowly for the fees to retain their

56real value.

To ease the transition, fee increases may bephased in over time. The Monteverde CloudForest Reserve plans to raise its basic entrance feeto $10 (from $2.75) after a one-year grace periodwhile tour operators incorporate the change intotheir tour package prices.57 Flexibility may alsoencourage charging high and low seasonal fees, asmany hotels do, to spread out use.

Increasing Revenue from IndirectExpenditures

Developing new tourist facilities providesanother opportunity to generate revenue. Putsimply, tourists need more opportunities to spendmoney. Visitor centers selling interpretivematerials, basic foods, lodgings, and souvenirs areoften considered unaffordable expenses by parkmanagers instead of profit centers. These facilitiesdo not have to be managed directly; concessionsare likely to be more efficient and lessburdensome to park management.

At Thailand's Khao Yai National Park, forexample, accommodations alone generated$57,700 in 1987 for the National Parks Division(NPD), which oversees them. This figure equaledrevenue from entrance fees that year. Althoughthe revenue did not go to the NPD, the TourismAuthority of Thailand earned a profit of more than$257,700 in 1987 on its operation of lodging,restaurants, and other facilities in the region.58

Improved infrastructure gives tourists a chanceto spend more money and encourages them toreturn, thus increasing entrance fee revenues. Halfof all the foreign tourists at Khao Yai andthree-quarters of all the Thai visitors surveyedsaid they would come more often if amenitieswere improved.59


Minimizing Loss of Revenue ThroughLeakage

The economy in many regions containingnatural attractions is too undeveloped andundiversified to offer the necessary goods andservices for tourism. Importing these goods andservices leads to a leakage of tourist revenues sothat little money stays in the host country, letalone in the local community. Fifty-five cents ofevery tourism dollar spent in developing countriesleaks back to developed countries, according toWorld Bank estimates.60 Only 10 percent of everynature tourist dollar remains in Zimbabwe,according to participants at the ICFP workshopthere. Less than 10 percent of every tourist dollarspent in the Annapurna region of Nepal staysthere, and little of the rest stays in Nepal.61

Countries thus capture little of the scarcity rentoffered by their resources and quickly lose muchof what they do capture.

Some leakage is inevitable—the costs of airtravel and marketing, for example.62 Still, theamount remaining in the economy can beincreased in two ways. First, parks and businessescan use local goods and services wheneverpossible. In the Lower Casamance region ofSenegal, for example, tourism development wasbased on local supplies and manpower.Accommodations were built of local materials,meals were based on traditional cuisine, and theproject was managed by local villagers.63 In thelong term, the ability to provide goods andservices essential to attract tourists, but notimmediately available, should be developedwherever feasible. Such development will rangefrom expanding the variety of locally grownfoodstuffs to training local residents for bothmanagerial and support jobs. This venture willentail additional costs in the short run but willproduce rewards later. An example ofcommitment to this ideal comes from thePhilippines, where a fee levied on local hotelsfunds a training school in Quezon City, Manila.64

Second, when goods, and particularly services,have to be imported, the conditions governingimportation can be established so as to maximizelocal benefit. Working within limits acceptable toboth parties, a host country can, for example,expect a multinational lodging chain to train andemploy local residents in staff positions in returnfor the opportunity of opening a safari lodge orother facility.

increasing Efficiency ThroughDecentralization and Public-PrivatePartnership

Parks and protected areas are generally seen asthe responsibility of governmental parksdepartments, which consider their primary task aspreserving nature and are often suspicious ofprivate market motives. Nonetheless, in naturetourism, conservation and the private market canwork together. Private organizations, whetherbusiness or nongovernmental organizations(NGOs), may be able to play important roles inpark-related tourism management. Suchdecentralization also encourages responsible useof the attraction by the tourism industry (this isthe basis for common property management).

Indeed, since most attractions compete withothers in the world tourist market, they mustrespond flexibly and efficiently to consumer tastes(within the limits of sound ecology). To the extentthat many parks are overseen by inefficientbureaucracies, decentralization may foster soundmanagement of nature tourism, and thusconservation.65 The central governmentnevertheless has the important role of settingpolicies and regulatory conditions to ensure thatnature tourism operators and others supportnational resource-conservation goals.

The public-private partnership can take manyforms, with varying degrees of governmentinvolvement. Tourism facilities in parks may bemanaged by private groups, like the for-profit


concessionaire TW Services in YellowstoneNational Park, or the nonprofit Monarca A.C. inMexico's Monarch butterfly area. Or public parksmay be implicitly managed by a group ofcompanies, as in the marine protected area ofCozumel, Mexico, where dive tour operators areresponsible for coordinating and limiting theiractivities to prevent damage to the coral reefs.Alternatively, private reserves, such as theMonteverde Cloud Forest Reserve, may beestablished independently of the government byfor-profit or nonprofit groups.

The recent establishment of the parastatalKenya Wildlife Service is a heartening example ofdecentralization. The Service is 90 percentprivate, has its own board of directors, and is nolonger under the control of the central governmenttreasury. The resultant flexibility is expected toincrease efficient park management anddistribution of tourism proceeds.66

Many variations of such partnerships may beenvisioned, based on the premise that thecompanies either manage the area themselves orare taxed by the government to pay for their useof the resource. Such public-private relationshipsare most likely to maximize economic andmanagerial efficiency while protecting thecountry's long-term resource conservationinterests.

Ensuring That Revenues Lead toSustainable Development

Tourism will provide little support tosustainable development if the benefits itgenerates remain in the hands of the tourists, thetourism industry, or the government treasuryinstead of being channeled back into the park andsurrounding communities. Developing anefficient, equitable, and sustainable channelingmechanism is difficult and very site-specific.Policymakers can learn from the successes andfailures of other destinations, but some trial anderror will likely be necessary.

One way of ensuring channeling is byearmarking revenues for park maintenance andcommunity development.67 The nature of theearmarking system will vary between countries,but logic dictates that most revenues fromentrance fees, concession fees, donations, andother related sources should remain within thepark system. Because fees and donations will notcover all expenses of every protected area withina country, at least some funds from traditionalsources will also be necessary. Since earmarkingis intended to increase funding in countries withhigh current or expected levels of tourismdemand, park ministries in countries with littleactual or potential nature tourism will think twicebefore suggesting such a mechanism.Furthermore, although each park would depositmost of its revenue into the central fund, a parkcould retain part of its revenue to improve its ownfacilities, pay higher wages, finance research, andundertake other activities.

Earmarking can both increase the efficient useof existing funds and increase future revenue. Asnoted, many tourists will pay higher fees if theyknow that the money will be used to conserve thespecial area they have come to enjoy. Asystem-wide park fund, or supplementary fundsfor individual parks, would fulfill this condition.Donations could also be channeled through eithertype of fund. The importance of donations shouldnot be underestimated; the expansion of CostaRica's Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve from2,000 hectares to 10,000 hectares was madepossible largely by donations to the MonteverdeConservation League.68 Likewise, The NatureConservancy raised $150,000 for the DarwinResearch Station just by a direct-mail fund-raisingappeal to tourists who signed the station's guestlog in the Galapagos.69

Earmarking can also be used to fundcommunity development programs, as inZambia's Luangwa Valley. If nature tourism is toserve development as well as conservation, localresidents have to be involved in the benefits of


tourism, through activities ranging fromdeveloping guide programs to providing loans forsmall infrastructure such as lodges.

Figure 14.Responses to Surveys Near Rwanda'sPare National Des Volcans

SUBJECT

National Benefits

Regional Benefits

Personal Benefits

Forest Values*

Wildlife Values*

Open Park toExploitation

Yes

No

Don't know

Yes

No

Don't know

Yes

No

Don't know

No value

Rain/climate

Erosion control

Wildlife refuge

Tourism

Research

Don't know

No value

Tourism

Research

Aesthetic

Species preservation

Don't know

Yes

No

PERCENTAGEOF

RESPONDENTS

1979

65

11

24

39

SO

11

26

72

2

17

19

7

19

0

0

38

14

39

1

1

0

44

51

49

1984

85

(71

10

81

11

8

49

50

1

22

21

11

28

6

2

11

24

52

1

1

1

16

29

71

'Non-consumptive values; multiple responses permitted.

SOURCE: RRAM, "Ruhengeri and Its Resources: An

Environmental Profile of the Ruhengeri Prefecture,"

Kagali, 1987, following p. 61.

The importance of Education

Informing tourists about a region's natural andcultural history can pay off directly and indirectly.It encourages them to donate money to continueeducational programs, heightens their enjoymentof the trip, and increases the chance of returnvisits and good recommendations to others.

Education is also important for residents ofcommunities around nature sites.70 This involvesconveying the monetary benefits of conservation(such as nature tourism) as well as thenonmonetary values (such as watershedpreservation). Surveys of local residents aroundthe Pare National des Volcans show howeducational programs—and economicsuccess—have changed their attitudes.71 (SeeFigure 14.) The benefits of tourism for the localpopulace, the region, and the nation have beenrecognized. In 1979, before tourism wasdeveloped, a small majority favored opening thepark to agricultural exploitation, but by 1984 aclear majority rejected such an option.

The Need for Planning

The potential benefits of nature tourismdescribed above will be captured and maintainedonly with adequate planning and coordination.72

To make an informed decision about whethernature tourism is desirable and, if it is, toimplement it carefully, countries can form anational nature tourism board, either as a separateentity or as part of an existing tourism ministry.The concept is not new; Kenya formed aninterministerial planning committee (including theministries of Tourism and Wildlife, Finance andPlanning, Lands, Agriculture, Water, and outsideconsultants) to plan nature tourism developmentin the 1970s.73 Likewise, Ecuador established theFundacion Ecuatoriana de Promocion Turistica(FEPROTUR) to plan and promote generaltourism in that country.74

A national nature tourism board will logicallybe comprised of representatives from the


ministries of planning, finance, and parks andtourism, or their equivalents. It will also includerepresentatives of the private tourism industry,affected communities, the national airline, privateconservation organizations and others. It will beresponsible for elaborating the country's goalsand abilities with regard to nature tourism. Basedon research concerning the demand for attractionsand the ability of the region to absorb the changesbrought on by tourism, the board will determinethe combination of visitation level and fee thatgenerates the most profit without exceeding anarea's carrying capacity.

The issue of carrying capacity merits furtherdiscussion here. Though a dynamic concept that isdifficult to quantify, an area's carrying capacitycan be qualitatively described as the level ofvisitation that can be sustained without causingunacceptable change (overexploitation).75

Carrying capacity has been broken down intonumerous types, but only three of them areimportant here.76 The ecologic carrying capacityis the level of visitation beyond whichunacceptable ecologic impacts will occur, eitherfrom the tourists or from the amenities theyrequire. The tourist social carrying capacity is thelevel beyond which visitor satisfaction dropsunacceptably from overcrowding. The host socialcarrying capacity is the level beyond whichunacceptable change will be caused to localcultural stability and attitudes toward tourists.

The primary mechanism for managing changeis by limiting the number of visitors, but plannerscan also use mitigation strategies. Any strategywill be highly site-specific, but somegeneralizations can be made.77 Ecological damagecaused by tourist infrastructure can be mitigated iffacilities are carefully sited, appropriate treatmentmechanisms are used, and care is taken inselecting food and other products used at the site.By diversifying the location of viewing trails,park management can reduce both congestion anddisturbance of flora and fauna. Here educationalso plays a role, by informing tourists of proper

behavior toward plants and animals and perhapseven by influencing their desire to see certainfauna or flora. For example, if told that humanpresence decreases the cheetah's hunting successsome tourists may forgo cheetah viewing.Similarly, educating tourists on damage caused bylitter will likely reduce it. The high feesrecommended earlier may enhance tourists'respect for the value of an attraction and thusencourage thoughtful behavior. In any event,education should help eliminate the "I paid for itso I'll do what I like" attitude.

Mitigation policies and other managementpractices can work. In 1973 the AmboseliNational Park was expected to reach its carryingcapacity at 70,000 to 80,000 visitors a year.However, under improved management practices,the park's annual capacity could exceed 250,000visitors with no greater ecologic and socialimpacts than would have been caused by a smallernumber of unregulated tourists.78 Similarly, tocombat the deforestation in Nepal, which has beenaggravated by the fuel needs of trekkers, theAnnapurna Conservation Area Project setsguidelines for fuel use. Fuel-efficient waterheaters have been introduced, and trekking groupsnow cook with kerosene. The switch to kerosenealone is expected to save over 1,600 kg of woodper day.79

Planners must also avoid exceeding the touristsocial carrying capacity through congestion,which will discourage future visits to a naturalattraction. As demand falls, so too will tourismrevenue. "Mature" tourism destinations in theCaribbean, for example, exhibit congestioncharacteristics and are therefore located at the topof the tourism cycle.80

Some of the factors on which congestiondepends are:

1) The number of encounters with othervisitors. This, in turn, is a function of thenumber of visitors.


2) The type of encounters. For example, fiveindividuals seen separately quietly walkingwill produce a different reaction than agroup of five people talking loudly witheach other.

3) The encounter preference. Some visitors,to a point, prefer more rather than fewerencounters because of factors such as thecomfort of being in a group and theknowledge that other people value theexperience.

Considering the interplay of these variables,tourist social carrying capacity is hard to quantify.Nonetheless, a mere glance often suffices todetermine that an area is "too crowded."Managers can reduce congestion by dispersing the

visitors over time and space and by segregatingparticular types of activities.

By combining mitigation strategies, high fees,and visitor limitation, planners can keep adestination low on the "S" curve of the tourismcycle, thereby forestalling decline. High fees andlimits will encourage tourism by more affluentvisitors, thereby maximizing per-visitor revenuesrather than visitor-days. Rwanda is pursuing thisstrategy, as are destinations as diverse as Bhutan,Cyprus, and the island of Anguilla.

Finally, when judging nature tourism'spotential, planners should recognize possiblethreats to demand, some of which will be beyondtheir control. Although considered to be lessprone than general tourism to fads, nature tourism

Figure 15.The Value of Coffee and Tourism Exports in Kenya.

KENYANPOUNDS(Millions)

25B1

28B-

158-

188-

859-

Tourism

19S3 1965 1967 1959 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979

YEAR

SOURCE: Rebecca M. Summary, Tourism's Contribution to the Economy of Kenya," Annals of TourismResearch, vol. 14, p. 532, 1987.


is susceptible to changes in demand due to real orperceived dangers to health and life. Ethnicviolence halved tourism arrivals in Sri Lankabetween 1982 and 1986.81 Conflict in Guatemalacaused a drop in tourism from 503,908 visitors in1979 to 191,934 in 1984.82 An impending tradeembargo with India and the possibility of supplyshortages kept many potential visitors away fromNepal in 1990. Nature tourists are likely to be ahardier lot than general tourists, but plannersshould be aware that unexpected events couldcause shifts in demand.

Likewise, although nature tourism demandappears to be strong and relatively price inelastic,a serious recession or a significant rise in theprice of oil or other industry inputs could reducevisitor levels. As far as possible, planners shouldcompare these uncertainties with similar risksfacing alternative industries.83 In Kenya, forexample, the value of coffee exports rose rapidlybetween 1975 and 1978, but crashed between1978 and 1980. Tourism "exports" grew moreslowly, but more steadily. (See Figure 15.)


V.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This cursory review of recent developments inthe nature tourism "industry" suggests that naturetourism has contributed to sustainabledevelopment in certain areas. However, manynature tourism areas are at risk of beingoverexploited, are earning only a fraction of theirpotential revenues, or are not funneling earningsback into sustainable development.

Because nature tourism at many destinations ismonopolistic or quasi-monopolistic, priceincreases (possibly in conjunction with visitorlimits) can help to prevent overexploitation and toraise revenues. Currently, low entrance fees meanthat tourists and the tourism industry capture thevalue inherent in a nature tourism destination.Tourists receive a big consumer surplus becausethey pay for only a portion of the enjoyment theyreceive. Likewise, the tourism industry receivessubstantial monetary benefits in the form ofhigher profits than needed to keep it in business.

Most owners of nature tourism destinations aregiving their products away, even though most ofthem sorely need funds to maintain protected

areas. This only strengthens the argument forselling their products at fairer prices. If owners donot appropriate the scarcity rent, it will eitheraccrue to the tourism industry or be lost to touristsin the form of consumer surplus. Occasionallyboth industry and tourists have turned these gainsinto support for programs that contribute tosustainable development, but governments aremore likely to consistently pursue nationalconservation and development goals. Yet theywill succeed only if they utilize the benefits oftheir ownership of nature tourism resources. Oncecaptured, these benefits must be channeled backinto parks and surrounding communities if theyare to serve sustainable development.

Capturing nature tourism's potential will also"level the economic playing field" on whichdecisions between nature tourism and otheroptions for development (such as mass tourism,agriculture, or logging) are made. Each decisionwill be site-specific, but recognizing naturetourism's real monetary value will strengthen theargument for conservation.

KREG LINDBERG contributed to WRV s International Conservation Financing Project while completing hisM.A. at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. He currently works with theEcotourism Society in Washington, DC.


REFERENCES

1. Hector Caballos-Lascurain, "The Future of'Ecotourism'," Mexico Journal, January 27,1988,p. 13. Quoted in Donald Hawkins, The Potentialof Ecotourism for Expansion of CurrentConservation Financing Initiatives, paperprepared for ICFP.

2. For a different definition of what constitutesan ecotourist, see Karen Ziffer, "Ecotourism: TheUneasy Alliance," prepared for ConservationInternational, Oct. 27,1989. See also the series ofreports by Patrick Durst and others published bythe US DA Forestry Private Enterprise Initiative.

3. "Riding the Tourist Boom," South, August1989, p. 12.

4. These estimates come from variousunpublished sources. They should not beconstrued as authoritative, but they are based onthe best available information.

5. Organization of American States, "MarineParks: A Mechanism of Self-Financing ResourceManagement," paper prepared for ICFP,December 1988. C.f., speech given by KirkRodgers of the OAS at the "Miami Conference onthe Caribbean," November, 1989.

6. USAID data from U.S. Embassy cables. C.f.,Peter Warutere, "Tourism Industry Earns Sh7Billion," Daily Nation, June 2,1989.

7. Lecture by Richard E. Leakey, head of theKenyan Wildlife Service, Smithsonian Institution,Washington, DC, October 13,1990.

8. Entrance fee estimates from privatecommunication with Diana McMeekin of AWFand Bill Weber of WCI. A 1988 estimate put theindirect revenues at $2-$3.5 million, while a 1990estimate put the total financial contribution(presumably entrance fees and indirect revenue) at$7 - $10 million. Amy Vedder, "TechnicalAnalysis: Biodiversity," Natural ResourcesManagement Project, Rwanda, July 1988, p. 10and Joanne Omang, "And No Matter What, Don'tBeat Your Chest," Washington Post, May 6,1990,pp. E1-E4.

9. His Majesty's Government [Nepal], NationalPlanning Commission, The Seventh Plan(1985-1990), (His Majesty's Government Press,Kathmandu, 1985).

10. David Western and Philip Thresher,"Development Plans for Amboseli," World Bankreport, Nairobi, 1973. Also, David Western andWesley Henry, "Economics and Conservation inThird World National Parks," Bioscience, vol. 29,no. 7, pp. 414-418.

11. Jeffrey McNeely, Economics andBiological Diversity, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland,1988, p. 20.

12. Private communication with DianaMcMeekin, AWF and Bill Weber, WCI. Much hasbeen written about the gorilla tourism program.For an overview of how the program developedsee Amy Vedder, "In the Hall of the Mountain


King," Animal Kingdom, May/June 1989, pp.31-43.

13. For more information on the Costa Ricanproprietary funds see James R. Barborak,"Innovative Funding Mechanisms Used By CostaRican Conservation Agencies," paper presented atthe IUCN General Assembly, San Jose, CostaRica, Feb. 1988.

14. Private communication with Roque Sevilla,Fundacion Natura. Estimates of Galapagosrevenue and visitation levels vary greatly. The$560,000 figure is conservative.

15. For more information on the Thai parksystem, see John A. Dixon and Paul B. Sherman,Economics of Protected Areas: A New Look atBenefits and Costs, Island Press, Washington, DC,1990.

16. Jeffrey A. McNeely, et al, Conserving theWorld's Biological Diversity, IUCN/WRI/CI/WWF-US/World Bank, 1990, p. 121. C.f.,Luangwa Integrated Resource DevelopmentProject, Phase 2 Programme, LIRD ProjectDocument No. 4, November 1987.

17. Tom Van't Hof, "Making Marine ParksSelf-Sufficient: The Case of Saba," Mimeo,September, 1989, pp. 4,9.

18. Quoted in McNeely, Economics, p. 27.19. David Western, "Amboseli National Park:

Human Values and the Conservation of a SavannaEcosystem," in Jeffrey McNeely and KentonMiller, eds., National Parks, Conservation, andDevelopment, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C., 1982, p. 96. Suchcompensation is also required in Britain by theWildlife and Countryside Act of 1981. See K.G.Willis and J.F. Benson, "Financial and SocialCosts of Management Agreements for WildlifeConservation in Britain," Journal ofEnvironmental Management, vol. 26, pp. 43-63,1988.

20. Private communication with DianaMcMeekin and Gary Taber, AWF.

21. McNeely et al, Conserving, p. 121.22. Dixon and Sherman, Economics.23. For further information on the Ban Sap Tai

project see Dixon and Sherman, Economics,

McNeely, Economics, or R.J. Dobias and C.Khontong, "Integrating Conservation and RuralDevelopment in Thailand," Tigerpaper, vol. 13,no. 4,1986, pp. 1-4.

24. Elizabeth Boo, Ecotourism: The Potentialand Pitfalls, World Wildlife Fund, Washington,DC, 1990, vol. 2, p. 47.

25. Robert G. Healy, "Economic Considera-tions in Nature-Oriented Tourism: The Case ofTropic Forest Tourism," FPEI Working Paper No.39,1988, p. 46.

26. J.O.M. Roberts and B.D.G. Johnson,"'Adventure' Tourism and SustainableDevelopment: Experience of the Tiger MountainGroup's Operations in Nepal," in J.A. McNeelyand J.W. Thorsell, eds., People and ProtectedAreas in the Hindukush-Himalaya, ICIMOD,Kathmandu, 1985, pp. 81-84.

27. Claudia L. Alderman, "A Study of the Roleof Privately Owned Lands Used for NatureTourism, Education, and Conservation," paperprepared for the Yale School of Forestry andConservation International, May, 1990, p. 38.

28. For a discussion of this program, seeRoberts and Johnson, "Adventure Tourism."

29. For example, the Earth Preservation Fundof the company Journeys, or the Fund for theEnvironment of the company Mountain Travel.

30. Charles P. Wallace, "Pollution andOverdevelopment Foul Former ThailandParadise," LA Times-Washington Post Service,Jan. 21, 1990.

31. For a discussion of quantitative studies inthe U.S., see Bo Shelby and Thomas A.Heberlein, Carrying Capacity in RecreationSettings, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis,Oregon, 1986.

32. Tej Vir Singh and Jagdish Kaur, "TheParadox of Mountain Tourism: Case Referencesfrom the Himalaya," Industry and Environment,Jan/Feb/Mar 1986, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 23. C.f.,Cultural Survival Quarterly, vol. 14, nos. 1 & 2,1990.

33. This discussion focusses primarily on themanner in which overuse affects tourists. For aninnovative quantitative analysis of how rapid


growth also affects the quality of life forresidents, see Timothy J. Tyrrell, "An EconomicPerspective of Tourism Development in Phuket,Thailand," paper presented at the Congress onMarine Tourism, East-West Center, Honolulu,Hawaii, May 1990.

34. Decline may also be caused by externalfactors such as a faddish change in the popularityof the attraction. The tourism cycle has beendescribed by R.W. Butler, "The Concept of aTourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications forManagement of Resources," CanadianGeographer, vol. 24, pp. 5-12,1980 and D.Lundberg, The Tourist Business, Cahners Books,Boston, 1980.

35. C.f., P.F. Wilkinson, "Tourism in SmallIsland Nations: A Fragile Dependence," LeisureStudies, vol. 6, pp. 127-146,1987, and JeromeMcElroy, "Tourism Styles and Policy Responsesin the Open Economy-Closed EnvironmentContext," paper presented at the CCA conferenceon Economics and the Environment, Barbados,Nov. 1989.

36. My thanks to Art Heyman of the OAS forbringing this example to my attention.

37. For a further discussion of this issue, seeWilliam Magrath, The Challenge of theCommons: The Allocation of NonexclusiveResources, World Bank Environment DepartmentWorking Paper No. 14, February 1989. C.f.,Robert H. Haveman, "Common Property,Congestion, and Environmental Pollution,"Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 87, no. 2,May 1973, pp. 278-287.

38. Arthur Young, A Study of the Impact ofTourism Investment Incentives in the CaribbeanRegion, Barbados, August 1988.

39. Steven F. Edwards, "The Demand ForGalapagos Vacations: Estimation and Applicationto Conservation," Working Paper, 1990.

40. Different groups of foreigners also havevarying levels of willingness-to-pay. Thisvariation provides further options for flexiblepricing. It has been suggested that Kenyasegregate "mass" safari tourism, with relativelylow fees charged, from "elite" safari tourism, with

relatively high fees charged. (Lecture by RichardE. Leakey, head of the Kenyan Wildlife Service,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC,October 13,1990.)

41. Kurt Kutay, "The New Ethic in AdventureTravel, " Buzzworm: The Environmental Journal,vol. 1, no. 4, Summer 1989, p. 32.

42. South, "Riding," p. 12.43. K. Vickland, "'New' Tourists Want 'New'

Destinations," Travel and Tourism ExecutiveReport, 9, October 1989, pp. 1-4. For a discussionof how ecotourism fits into consumer demand foradventure and environmental sensitivity, see AnneB. Fisher, "What Consumers Want in the 1990s,"Fortune, January 29,1990, pp. 108-112.

44. For example, at Thailand's Khao YaiNational Park the formal admission fee is lessthan 1 percent of the average daily expenditurefor foreign tourists. Dixon and Sherman,Economics.

45. See speech by Kirk Rodgers (note 5).46. Hortense Whelan, "Nature Tourism,"

Environmental Conservation, vol. 15, no. 2, p.182.

47. Private communication with Andy Alpine,Specialty Travel Index. Advertisers in the indexare primarily wholesale operators, and includenon-nature tourism companies, but these figurespresent an approximation of the industry's growth.

48. These figures are derived from industrysources. For a further discussion of industryrevenues, see Ziffer, "Ecotourism," p. 20.

49. Private communication with Dr. RichardRyel, International Expeditions.

50. David Noland, "Why This Trek Cost$3,890," New York Times, Dec. 4,1988, p. 14(Travel Section). The total in the article is givenas $3,890, but the sum of the individual items isactually $4,105. The percentages do not add to100 due to rounding.

51. For more information concerning CVMstudies, see Robert C. Mitchell and Richard T.Carson, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods:The Contingent Valuation Method, Washington,DC, Resources for the Future, 1989. For examplesof TCM analyses in developing countries, see


Bamidele O. Durojaiye and Anthony E. Ikpi, "TheMonetary Value of Recreation Facilities in aDeveloping Economy: A Case Study of ThreeCenters in Nigeria," Natural Resources Journal,vol. 28, no. 2, Spring 1988, pp. 315-328 and S.Eutriak and S. Grandstaff, "Evaluation ofLumpinee Public Park in Bangkok, Thailand," inJ.A. Dixon and M.M. Hufschmidt (eds.),Economic Valuation Techniques for theEnvironment, Baltimore, Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1986.

52. Hemanta R. Mishra, "Nepal—TheAnnapurna Project," in Vance Martin, ed., For theConservation of Earth, 1988, p. 141.

53. Boo, Ecotourism.54. Robert G. Healy and David H. Newman,

"Opportunity Costs in Establishing the ProposedBladen Branch Nature Reserve, Belize,"Consultant Report for the World Wildlife Fund -US, July 20, 1989, p. 39.

55. See speech by Kirk Rodgers (note 5).56. See Barborak, "Innovative," for a further

description.57. Monteverde charges less for certain types

of visitors. Private communication with JamesBarborak.

58. Dixon and Sherman, Economics. Figureswere converted at 26 baht = $1.

59. Dixon and Sherman, Economics.60. Cited in Boo, Ecotourism, vol. 1, p. 13.61. Hemanta R. Mishra, "Nepal—The

Annapurna Project," in Vance Martin, ed., For theConservation of Earth, 1988, p. 140.

62. The catalogue alone for one nature tourismoperator cost $350,000 to produce. When dividedby the number of actual trekkers served, theaverage cost came to $116.67 per tourist. DavidNoland, "Why This Trek Cost $3,890," New YorkTimes, Dec. 4,1988, p. 14 (Travel Section).

63. Christian Saglio, "Tourism for Discovery:A Project in Lower Casamance, Senegal," inEmanuel de Kadt, Tourism: Passport toDevelopment?, Oxford University Press, 1979, pp.321-335. C.f., the case of the PapilloteWilderness Retreat, which buys "all thevegetables local farmers can produce." (Healy,

"Economics," p. 14) This also raises concerns ofwhether tourists deprive local residents ofessential supplies.

64. South, "Riding," p. 16.65. For examples of financial and political

decentralization in the general tourism industrysee South, "Riding," pp. 14-15.

66. Private communication with DianaMcMeekin, AWF.

67. See Barborak, "Innovative," pp. 116-117,for suggestions on implementing earmarkingprograms.

68. Boo, Ecotourism, vol. 2, p. 44.69. Edward Warner, "Ecotourism!,"

Environmental Action, Sept./Oct. 1989, p. 21.70. For suggestions on developing an education

program, see David S. Wood and Diane WaltonWood, How to Plan a Conservation EducationProgram, World Resources InstituteAJ.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 1987.

71. For more information on the educationprogram, see Amy Vedder, "Technical Analysis,"p. 10.

72. South, "Riding," p. 17.73. David Western, "Amboseli National Park:

Human Values and the Conservation of a SavannaEcosystem," in Jeffrey McNeely and Ken tonMiller, eds., National Parks, Conservation, andDevelopment, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C., 1982, p. 96.

74. For more information on FEPROTUR,which has also become involved in naturetourism, see Healy, "Economics," p. 47.

75. For the description of a carrying capacityanalysis at Amboseli in Kenya see Henry andWestern, "Tourism and Conservation in Kenya'sNational Parks: Planning for a BetterPartnership," in Krumpe and Weingart, eds.,Management of Park and Wilderness Reserves,Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho,1988.

76. C.f., Bo Shelby and Thomas A. Heberlein,Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings, OregonState University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, 1986,pp. 19-21. The carrying capacity can also bethought of as the "limit of acceptable change," a


concept whose implementation is described morefully in George H. Stankey, et al., The Limits ofAcceptable Change(LAC) System for WildernessPlanning, U.S. Forest Service, General TechnicalReport INT-176,1985.

77. For more complete listings of negativeenvironmental impacts and managementtechniques to mitigate them, see OAS, "NaturalTourism Attractions: It Pays to Protect Them,"(undated) or Jeffrey McNeely and James Thorsell(IUCN), Guidelines for Development ofTerrestrial and Marine National Parks forTourism and Travel, prepared for the WorldTourism Organization, 1987, pp. 5-6.

78. Western, "Tourist Capacity in East AfricanParks," Industry and Environment, Jan/Feb/Mar1986, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 14-16. See also Henry andWestern, "Tourism and Conservation."

79. Hemanta R. Mishra, "Nepal—TheAnnapurna Project," in Vance Martin, ed., For theConservation of Earth, 1988, pp. 142-143.

80. McElroy, "Tourism."81. "Third-World Tourism: Visitors Are Good

For You," Economist, March 11,1989, p. 22.82. Robert G. Healy, "Economic," pp. 34-35.83. Such potential fluctuations in the value of

any single industry should also encourageeconomic diversification.

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE

1709 New York Avenue, NWWashington, DC, 20006, USA

WRI's Board of Directors:Matthew Nimetz, ChairmanJohn E. Cantlon, Vice ChairmanJohn H. AdamsRobert O. AndersonRobert O. BlakeJohn E. BrysonPamela G. CarltonWard B. ChamberlinRichard M. ClarkeEdwin C. CohenLouisa C. DuemlingAlice F. EmersonJohn FirorMichio HashimotoCynthia R. HelmsCurtis A. HesslerMartin HoldgateThomas E. LovejoyC. Payne LucasAlan R. McFarland, Jr.Robert S. McNamaraScott McVayPaulo Nogueira-NetoThomas R. OdhiamboSaburo OkitaRuth PatrickAlfred M. Rankin, Jr.Roger SantJames Gustave SpethM.S. SwaminathanMostafa K. TolbaRussell E. TrainAlvaro UmafiaVictor L. UrquidiGeorge M. Woodwell

James Gustave SpethPresidentMohamed T. El-AshrySenior Vice PresidentJ. Alan BrewsterVice President for Administration and FinanceJessica T. MathewsVice PresidentWallace D. BowmanSecretary-Treasurer

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is a policyresearch center created in late 1982 to helpgovernments, international organizations, and privatebusiness address a fundamental question: How cansocieties meet human needs and nurture economicgrowth without undermining the natural resources andenvironmental integrity on which life, economic vitality,and international security depend?

Two dominant concerns influence WRI's choice ofprojects and other activities:

The destructive effects of poor resourcemanagement on economic development and thealleviation of poverty in developing countries; and

The new generation of globally importantenvironmental and resource problems that threatenthe economic and environmental interests of theUnited States and other industrial countries and thathave not been addressed with authority in their laws.

The Institute's current areas of policy researchinclude tropical forests, biological diversity, sustainableagriculture, energy, climate change, atmosphericpollution, economic incentives for sustainabledevelopment, and resource and environmentalinformation.

WRI's research is aimed at providing accurateinformation about global resources and population,identifying emerging issues, and developing politicallyand economically workable proposals.

In developing countries, WRI provides field servicesand technical program support for governments andnon-governmental organizations trying to managenatural resources sustainably.

WRI's work is carried out by an interdisciplinarystaff of scientists and experts augmented by a networkof formal advisors, collaborators, and cooperatinginstitutions in 50 countries.

WRI is funded by private foundations, UnitedNations and governmental agencies, corporations, andconcerned individuals.

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE1709 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 USA

7 - world resources institutepdf.wri.org/policiesmaximizingnaturetourism_bw.pdf · protected areas....

Documents