Conservation Maven

in Research Briefs | Dec 21, 200

When it comes to marine protected areas, managers are charging recreational use fees that are substantially less than what visitors would be willing to pay. Two studies have coincidentally come out recently in different journals addressing this counterintuitive phenomenon.

On the surface, charging too little might not seem like such a big deal. However, many marine protected areas are located in poor countries where the management of the park is largely funded by collected fees.

In a study in the journal Conservation Letters, Jeffrey Wielgus and fellow researchers surveyed managers of protected areas world wide and not surprisingly found that 90% reported that their annual budget was not sufficient to cover management costs. However, results from the survey suggest that the low fees are fueled at least in part by the perception among managers that charging for entrance could reduce the number of international visitors.

Meanwhile, a study in the journal Environmental Management found that international and domestic visitors of the Mombasa Marine National Park in Kenya were willing to pay substantially more than the entrance fee charged. Kevin Ransom and Stephen Mangi asked park visitors (snorkelers, scuba divers, and passengers on boat tours) how much more they would be willing to pay in addition to current fees to fund reef quality improvements.

On average, international and domestic visitors responded that they were willing to pay $8 and $2.20 more respectively (on top of the current $10 international fee and $1.53 domestic fee). This would equal a total revenue of $346,733 compared to an annual operating budget of $152,383.

So for me, one take away message from these studies is that more effort needs to be put into helping managers understand the recreational value of marine protected areas to users so that they can set prices that reflect what people are willing to pay. It seems like a willingness to pay analysis similar to that used by Ranson and Mangi in Kenya could be a good tool for other protected areas globally.

However there are some caveats. First, raising fees could make parks less affordable for lower income people. In the case of poorer countries where many marine protected areas are located, a two tiered fee system – i.e. higher fees for international visitors – is one way to address this.

Secondly, in the study in Kenya, survey respondents were explicitly told up front that the extra fee would go to reef improvements. In my experience, parks often fail to adequately communicate what the fees will actually fund. People are likely more willing to pay fees if they know the money will be used for the benefit of the resource.

This brings up another issue. In Kenya, like many countries, the park fees are sucked into a general fund and then redistributed to individual protected areas. Results from the survey indicate that people who were willing to pay higher fees wanted to know that the money would be invested directly in reef conservation and not for other governmental purposes.

Lastly, policy makers should consider the larger impact that raising fees may have. While raising fees could increase revenue, it could decrease the number of tourists. On the positive side, this might reduce recreational impacts on the resource. However, it could have negative impacts on other sectors of the local economy (e.g tourism operators) possibly undermining local support for conservation. 

–Reviewed by Rob Goldstein

Ransom, K., & Mangi, S. (2009). Valuing Recreational Benefits of Coral Reefs: The Case of Mombasa Marine National Park and Reserve, Kenya Environmental Management DOI: 10.1007/s00267-009-9402-9