lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 219–228

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

Access to marine parks: A comparative study in willingness to pay

Howard Peters*, Julie P. HawkinsEnvironment Department, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 16 December 2008

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: hp510@york.ac.uk (H. Peters), jp

0964-5691/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.12.001

a b s t r a c t

Marine parks worldwide are under assault from illegal fishing, pollution and a burgeoning tourismindustry. However, their principal mission of environmental protection and conservation is too oftenhampered by lack of funds. In recent years a number of studies have been done on the willingness ofusers to pay entrance fees to fund marine park management particularly those where coral reefs occur. Inthis analysis, we examine 18 such reports from which we conclude that there is overwhelming publicapproval to pay for entry to marine parks, with all studies indicating a general acceptance for theintroduction of fees or an increase in those where charges already exist. Factors that positively influencethis include visitors income, level of education, environmental awareness, residency and desire toprovide a legacy to future generations. However, there are also aspects that deter including trust in thefee collection agency and openness in how the money is spent. This analysis endeavours to highlightthose aspects that positively influence users of marine parks to contribute willingly to their managementand help close the funding gap that confronts so many.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Over the past twenty years, there has been a significant accel-eration in the decline of marine ecosystems throughout the worldwith concurrent loss of biodiversity, species richness and structuralcomplexity [1]. Resources for conservation measures especiallyamong developing nations are often seriously lacking makingeffective management of protected areas well beyond their means[2], however, for ecosystems such as coral reefs that are attractiveas tourist destinations opportunities exist to raise funds forprotective management through charging visitors.

Today nearly a thousand marine parks or marine protected areas(MPAs) cover over 98,000 km2 or 18.7% of the world’s coral reefhabitats, although less than 9% have effective management, i.e. arepoacher-free no-take zones [3]. Many are free to visit or charge justa nominal user fee. Outside of Florida but within the Caribbean andthe Pacific coast of Central America, for example, 50% of recrea-tional dives – approximately 7.5 million annually – take placewithin MPAs where only 25% of those with coral reefs charge forentry [4]. From a response by 83 MPAs polled during research intooperating costs, only 15.7% reported that their funding wasadequate for effective conservation [5]. Many researchers haveconducted surveys on the willingness of visitors to pay (WTP) foraccess to MPAs. The purpose of this analysis is to determine

h7@york.ac.uk (J.P. Hawkins).

All rights reserved.

whether entrance fees are an appropriate vehicle for MPA fundingby examining those characteristics that influence visitors’ WTP andthe levels of charging. Our results offer guidance especially tosmaller MPAs in their quest to protect the fragile and valuableresources in their care for future generations.

2. Methods

With scuba diving expanding from specialist interest to main-stream tourist pursuit we focused our attention principally onMPAs that attract divers and snorkellers. We examined those whereentry was free at time of original survey as well as others looking toincrease an established fee. We studied both large and small MPAsand included examples from different regions of the world.

In total 18 WTP surveys were selected: 4 from the Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico, 9 from south-east Asia, 2 from the Indian Ocean, 2from the Pacific and 1 from the Mediterranean. These include twoseparate surveys on Pulau Payar, Malaysia and one report froma single author encompassing three different locations in thePhilippines. All sites supported diving, snorkelling or general beachactivities. Ten locations did not operate a fee system at the time ofthe WTP survey, with the remainder charging per visit or per daywith some also offering an annual pass.

Table 1, below, lists MPAs from the selected papers with theirrespective authors. We have included the size of marine area withthe typical recreational activity of survey respondents. Commercialwebsites indicate there are dive and/or snorkel facilities at all these

Table 1Sites, references, MPA sizes and users.

Location Reference Areaa km2 Users surveyedb Survey methodc Sample size

Mediterranean1 Greece, Zakynthos Togridou et al. [22] 89 Beach holidaymakers OE 484

Caribbean2 Bonaire Dixon et al. [25] 26 Divers only SDC 793 St Eustatius Riley et al. [26] 27 Divers (and hikers – not included here) PC 1004 St Lucia Barker [27], Barker and Roberts, [28] 9 Principally divers & snorkellers OE 786

Gulf of Mexico5 Mexico, Akumal Casey [29] N/R Principally divers & snorkellers SDC 337

South-east Asia6 Indonesia, Komodo Walpole et al. [8], Goodwin et al. [30] 1,733 Foreign (only) visitors DDC 4657 Malaysia, Pulau Payar (1)d Yeo [31] 55 Visitors – use not specified OE 2388 Malaysia, Pulau Payar (2) Mahdzan et al. [32] 55 Day trippers, principally snorkellers SDC 5879 Philippines, Anilao Arin and Kramer [33] N/R Divers & snorkellers PC 3710 Philippines, Mactan Is Arin and Kramer [33] N/R Divers & snorkellers PC 4611 Philippines Alona Beach Arin and Kramer [33] N/R Divers & snorkellers PC 4612 Thailand, Phi Phi Seenprachawong [34] 329 Visitors – use not specified SDC 52813 Thailand, Similan Tapsuwan [35] 140 Divers only SDC/DDC 42814 Viet Nam, Nha Trang Lindsey and Holmes [36] 121 Divers & snorkellers PC 571

Pacific15 USA, Orange County Hall et al. [37] N/R Residents DDC 22016 USA, Hawaiian Is. van Beukering et al. [38] N/R Divers & snorkellersþ few non-users OE 1380

Indian Ocean17 Seychelles Mathieu et al. [39] 46 Divers, snorkelersþ beachusers PC 27018 Zanzibar Ngazy et al. [40] N/R Divers & snorkellers OE 157

N/R, not recorded in original paper or obtainable through other sources.a Marine area in km2 of MPA.b Profile of respondents to survey as a group.c OE: open ended; PC: payment card; SDC: single-bounded dichotomous choice; DDC: double-bounded dichotomous choice.d Two papers have been published on this location using different survey methodologies. Both are included for comparison of results.

H. Peters, J.P. Hawkins / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 219–228220

locations although such activities were not specifically mentionedin the papers for Komodo and Zakynthos. The three most commonmethods used to elicit the fees respondents would be willing to payare also shown, being open-ended questioning, payment card anddichotomous choice. These methods are described in greater detailin Section ‘How ecosystem values are measured’.

To provide further guidance, we examined socio-economicfactors that influenced whether visitors would accept the intro-duction or raising of fees and whether this was significant to thelevel of charging.

3. Charging for entry

Funding for MPAs is obtained from a variety of sources thatinclude direct central government support, public donations, trustfunds and licences amongst others [6]. These mechanisms oftenleave MPAs short of resources and susceptible to competingdemands on funds. In such cases, the recovery of costs is moreeffectively handled and controlled through levying fees on thedirect beneficiaries, i.e. divers, snorkellers and other recreationalusers [4] and collected directly, or indirectly through licencedoperators or through hotel and airport taxes. However, in the lattercase a visible link between tax and conservation, so important foracceptability by users, may become obscured [7].

Environmental charges can be contentious since many usersoften feel access should be free. Resort operators, dive centres, etc.also want to ensure that improvements follow the money collected[8]. Research shows that tourists generally and divers in particularare prepared to pay reasonable entrance fees provided they haveevidence that their outlay is used to improve conservation [9].Results of a study into the attitude towards the introduction of feesfrom 112 dive operators in south-east Asia and 41 from the fran-cophone countries of the Indo-Pacific, showed that all thoseaccustomed to charges believed them to be essential to MPAmanagement, with 63% prepared to accept an increase of whomover three-quarters approving a doubling of fees. Of those dive

operators unaccustomed to charging, 48% believed fees to beimportant and 55% felt they were unlikely to impact their business[10]. WTP surveys can predict that although fees can inflate reve-nues they might also deter some visitors and while fewer visitorsmay have environmental benefits, the impact on the wider localeconomy in terms of reduced demand on transport, accommoda-tion, guides and retail could be damaging [8].

Where charging schemes have been implemented well, theyhave attracted worldwide attention and encouraged other MPA’s tofollow their lead. For example, the system of user fees for divers andsnorkellers on the Caribbean island of Bonaire was emulated byBunaken in Indonesia [9], is under evaluation by Namena MarineReserve in Fiji, and has been followed to a greater or lesser extent byseveral other MPAs [11]. Similarly, a scheme resulting frommanagement review of Gilutongan Marine Sanctuary in thePhilippines has been copied at other sites in the country [12].

What MPAs decide to charge range from fees based on a general‘feeling’ of what would be relevant through to those calculatedfrom a fully researched funding analysis. However, in general, thelatter approach is uncommon. Even in the Galapagos, where 85,000non-Ecuadorian visitors annually each pay a $100 entrance fee,a WTP survey has never been conducted [13]. In developingcountries particularly, two-tier pricing with national citizens beingcharged less than more affluent foreign visitors, is alsocommonplace.

Once charging is seen as effective, there is a risk that revenuesmay be siphoned off or direct grants may be reduced. Governmentdecentralisation in Indonesia, for example, has put pressure ondistrict authorities to find alternative sources of income for whichMPA takings represent a tempting cash-cow [9].

4. How ecosystem values are measured

Values can be applied to ecosystems as they can to any resourceor goods. An ecosystem may be considered as possessing ‘usevalues’, such as fishing where a product is extracted or diving

H. Peters, J.P. Hawkins / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 219–228 221

where there is recreational benefit; additionally they may also have‘non-use values’ which could include existence value, option value(retaining the opportunity for future use) and bequest value (abilityto bequeath to future generations) [14]. Putting a value on thesepassive uses is contentious since it could be argued that traditionaleconomic valuation methodologies cannot be used to value purepublic goods, i.e. those where the public cannot be excluded, suchas wilderness areas or MPAs [15,16].

There are a number of ways to evaluate recreation. The ‘travel-cost’ method uses the cost of getting to and from the site asa reflection of its amenity value. This assumes that the value to thevisitor will be proportionate to the costs in reaching the destina-tion. An alternative approach is the contingent valuation method(CVM) that determines through a polling process, i.e. a visitorquestionnaire, a willingness to pay that is contingent on a hypo-thetical set of circumstances, such as maintaining or improving reefmanagement or committing to increased biodiversity. The deter-minants of a WTP are therefore contingent upon those attributes ofthe resource being realistically described to the respondent suchthat he/she may identify with the issues and make a reasoneddecision of an appropriate payment for them.

One of the concerns of CVM is that it fails to take account of‘lexicographic preferences’, that is where respondents to a surveyare unwilling to accept on ethical or moral grounds that anymonetary value would compensate for lost biodiversity etc [17].Analysis of the results of a WTP survey can be distorted by these so-called ‘protest bids’ where such ‘moral’ refusals may be recorded aszero [17] and become confused with those respondents who bidzero for financial or other reasons. Questionnaires need to beworded in such a way as to distinguish between these differences.

There are three common methods of eliciting WTP withina CVM scenario:

1. Open-ended questioning. The respondent simply proposes a fee(the bid). However, this suffers from the problem that therespondent may need some reference point or indication to getthe bid started [18]. The method is also shown to encourage ‘free-rider’ responses where the respondent offers a low or zero bid inthe belief that payment is someone else’s responsibility [19].

2. Payment card. Identical to open-ended questioning except thatthe respondent is presented with a series of bids to choosefrom.

3. Dichotomous choice. Here the survey is split into different bidvalues, e.g. $1, $5, $10, $50. During the survey all the bidvalues will be used equally among the respondents, but eachindividual respondent is offered just a single bid which isselected at random. The respondent is then asked whether theywould be willing to pay that amount for the service orimprovement in support of the fee. If the response is negative,further questions may be asked to determine the reason and toeliminate protest and zero bids. In a single-bounded dichoto-mous choice, the bid is either accepted or rejected and nofurther bid is offered. In double-bounded, negative responsesare followed with the offer of a lower bid, and positive oneswith a higher option [20]. This method improves the accuracyas reflected in a tighter confidence interval to the statistics [21].

Further statistical tests can then be performed to determine thevalue of the resource and the profile of those individuals mostwilling to pay for it.

5. Meta-analysis

Wherever possible, we examined data on the geographical sizeof MPAs, visitor numbers, and cost of entry. The WTP

methodologies used in each survey were noted, although it was notpossible to make meaningful comparisons between value bandsacross dichotomous choice surveys owing to lack of detailed data oruniformity in their construction. Mean bid values (Table 2) wereavailable from all reports except St Lucia. Where an ‘optimum’ bidwas provided by the author, it has been included; this may be themodal or median bid or with dichotomous choice the highest valueband before the approval rate starts to materially decay. A divisionbetween resident and foreign respondents was provided in 10surveys, however, only 4 surveys apportioned mean bids betweenthese groups. Six surveys questioned only foreign visitors and justone, Orange County, California, only local residents. The Bonairestudy made no differentiation between foreign and residentrespondents.

Zero bids as a percentage of respondents were provided ordeduced from all papers except in the case of Orange County, Cal-ifornia and Zanzibar. For the purposes of this meta-analysis, thepercentage of bids that refused the lowest offered value (e.g. $0.50)in single and double-bounded dichotomous choice methodologieshas been taken to be zero bids in the absence of any additional data.

Eight surveys proposed a fee where no fee was previouslycharged, 7 proposed a fee increase and in 3 studies no newrecommendations were suggested. Fourteen surveys calculated thereturns that could be expected from their proposed fee byextending projected visitor numbers by this fee. Despite inconsis-tencies among the surveys a number of important trends could bedetermined.

6. Site summaries and key findings

These outlines briefly describe the issues each study attemptedto address together with the key findings obtained.

6.1. Greece, Zakynthos (Togridou et al. [22])

This park contains the most important nesting beach ofloggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean [23]. Itis a mass tourist destination and the nesting turtles are anattraction. In 2002 it was judged to be in violation of EuropeanUnion laws for the protection of sea turtles by its failure toprotect the nesting sites [24]. This study sought to determinethe degree to which tourist revenues could replace governmentfunding for conservation. Respondents were evenly dividedbetween Greek nationals and mainly European visitors.A survey in 2004 interviewed 484 visitors using open-endedquestioning.

Key findings:1. Non-use values of existence and bequest were important

factors in WTP but those who selected existence value bidsignificantly less than those who did not, and those whoselected bequest value bid significantly higher than those whodid not.

2. Income and environmental concern positively influenced theamount bid.

3. Television as the media for environmental issues positivelyaffected WTP, i.e. the payment principle generally, but nega-tively affected it when associated with Zakynthos specifically.

4. The aim of regulation of human activities rather than prohibi-tion positively influenced the payment principle.

5. The message from educational programmes about the parkcould result in feedback to friends and relatives and increasefuture WTP.

Table 2Estimated financial returns from implementation of WTP results.

Location Fee atsurvey

Per WTPmean

WTP optimum (modal,median or % at bid)

Suggestedfee

Estimated annual yield (rounded, 000).A: at time of survey, B: suggested increase, C: total

Mediterranean1 Zakynthos None Visit $6.15a Med: $5 $1 C $300,000

Caribbean2 Bonaire None Annum $27.40 80%: $20 $10 C $170,000b

3 St Eustatius $3 diver Dive $4.00 Mod: $3 $4$15 diver Annum N/R Mod: $20 $20 C Est $42,000c

4 St Lucia $4 diver Day N/R 75%: $6 $6 A $26,000$12 diver Annum 75%: $20 $20 B $16,000$1 snorkel Day 90%: $2 $2 C $42,000

Gulf of Mexico5 Akumal None Visit $57.03 70%: $25 $20 C $50,000,000d

South-east Asia6 Komodo $0.87 Visit $11.70 79%: $4 $4 A $15,000

Med: $9.73 B $78,000C $93,000

7 Pulau Payar (Yeo) $1.32 Visit $4.68 Med: $2.63 $4.21 A $122,000B $268,000C $390,000e

8 Pulau Payar (Mahdzan et al) $1.32 Visit $4.92f 70%: $7.89 $8 A $106,000B $434,000C $640,000f

9 Anilao None Visit $3.70 75%: $3 $4 C $95,00010 Mactan None Visit $5.50 62%: $5 $5.50 C $856,00011 Alona None Visit $3.40 59%: $3 $4 C $400012 Phi Phi $0.50 Visit $7.16 58%: $7.50 $1 A $78,000

B $78,000C $156,000

13 Similan $4.80 diver Day $27.07 N/R $27 A $163,000B $770,000C $993,000

14 Nha Trang None Visit $0.61 Med: $0.35 $1g – $100,000Pacific

15 Orange County None Family Day $6.11 Med: $4.55 $6 C $3,600,000 per mile16 Hawaii None Day $3.77 Mod: $5 N/R - N/R

Indian Ocean17 Seychelles $10 Visit $12.20 N/R $12.20 A $400,000

B $88,000C $488,000

18 Zanzibar None Year $84.70 N/R $84.70 C $1,600,000h

N/R¼ not recorded.a Original figures quoted in euros – translated to USD at 1:1.b $170,000 was sum realized in first year (1992).c Estimate of tourist arrivals compared to Bonaire model, and adjusted for fee differential.d Est. based on 50% of visitors arriving at Cancun International airport.e Converted – 1US$¼ 3.8RM$. Total yield only provided; remainder computed.f Mean from sample poll. Proposed fee not suggested by author of paper. Yields estimated from visitor returns of c. 80,000 in 1999.g $1 minimum fee yielding $100,000 referred by authors to an IUCN 1999 report.h Projected economic loss from divers (25% of visitors) suffered as a result of bleached coral.

H. Peters, J.P. Hawkins / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 219–228222

6.2. Netherlands Antilles, Bonaire (Dixon et al. [25])

In 1991, 10 years after the inauguration of the MPA during whichtime no fees had been collected or effective management enforced,a WTP survey was conducted in response to a proposal to introducea user fee. At that time, the park attracted some 17,000 scuba diversper year with each undertaking an average of 10 or 11 dives. Sincemost visitors to the park were divers, interviews were conductedexclusively with this group. This retrospective report examined theresults of the survey. It considered the trade-off between dive tourismwith its importance to the general economy and ecosystem protec-tion. It also considered the opportunity to expand the MPA’s biolog-ical carrying capacity for scuba diving, which was nearing its limit.

Key findings:1. The economy of the country depended upon the amenity

values of the MPA.2. Park fees that finance protection to the marine ecosystem can

be compatible with dive tourism.

3. Through appropriately funded MPA management and divereducation, the carrying capacity could be increased.

6.3. Netherlands Antilles, St Eustatius (Riley et al. [26])

The St Eustatius National Parks Foundation (STENAPA), faced witha shortfall in fee income and irregular government subsidies, hadalready experienced a park closure in 2003. This survey sought toestablish whether raising user fees could address this problem. Therespondents included 100 divers, all foreign of whom 54% were UScitizens. The majority was middle-aged high-earners. 85% of diverspurchased annual dive passes and 92% of respondents were ‘con-cerned about environmental issues’. The survey used payment cards.

Key findings:1. Where fees were included in dive packages, many divers were

unaware that MPA fees existed.2. Although 72% of divers overall were prepared to pay an increased

fee, the majority was opposed to an increase in the daily pass.

H. Peters, J.P. Hawkins / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 219–228 223

3. Although 89% of divers rated their experience as excellent orgood, 91% expressed concern for the marine environment at StEustatius with 72% being willing to pay more to protect andmaintain it.

6.4. St Lucia (Barker [27], Barker and Roberts [28])

This survey was conducted in 2001/2002 and used two differentquestionnaires. The first focused on holiday choice and expenditureand the second on quality of marine habitat and its influence onvisitors to the Soufriere Marine Management Area (SMMA). At thetime, fees to the MPA only covered 50% of its revenue requirements.The study also included economic data from local businesses abouttheir dependence on servicing SMMA users. 786 visitors wereinterviewed using open-ended questioning.

Key findings:1. Snorkellers’ WTP was positively influenced by fish abundance,

water clarity and personal income.2. WTP was not correlated with satisfaction with the MPA

experience.

6.5. Mexico, Akumal (Casey [29])

Although this survey was conducted from the resort of Akumalon the Yucatan Peninsula which is not within an MPA, it is includedin this analysis because of its proximity to MPAs within the Mes-oamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS). The purpose was toestablish whether visitors to the Riviera Maya region of the Yucatanwould be prepared to pay into a trust fund for coral reef protection.All 337 respondents were English-speaking visitors of whom 79%were from North America. A single-bounded dichotomous choiceCVM was used.

Key findings:1. Enlightening respondents about the value of coral reefs, for

example in biomedical research, improved their WTP.2. Observing poor quality reefs reduced WTP for conservation as

it was perceived as ineffectual.3. The longer respondents were questioned the less they were

willing to pay.

6.6. Indonesia, Komodo National Park (Walpole et al. [8], Goodwinet al. [30])

Komodo National Park is best known for its lizard (Varanuskomodoensis), but the park also includes the marine environ-ment as well as the terrestrial. Both these reports are based ondata collected during a survey of 1995 that focused on peoplewho wanted to see the lizards. In common with most nationalparks in Indonesia the cost of entrance is controlled by centralgovernment to which revenues are returned. The charge for thispark was modest at less than $1 per day. 465 visitors wereinterviewed all of whom were independent travellers; those ongroup tours had tour-inclusive tickets and so were excludedfrom the survey. A double-bounded dichotomous choice CVMwas used.

Key findings:1. Entrance fees did not generally deter visitors. For example, a 5-

fold increase would only reduce visitation by 20%, although thiswould impact the local economy [8].

2. Those who accepted their bid (except at the $8 level) hada longer stay in the park than those who refused the same bid[30].

3. WTP was positively influenced by the quantity of wildlifeobserved – in this case the lizards [30].

4. A policy towards maximising revenue generation could posi-tively influence government attitude towards funding [8].

6.7. Malaysia, Pulau Payar (Yeo [31], Mahdzan et al. [32])

The number of visitors to Pulau Payar rose from 1373 in 1988 to106,780 in 2000. This dramatic increase caused problems of sewageand solid waste polluting the marine environment. Two indepen-dent surveys using different methodologies were conducted inPulau Payar: Yeo interviewed 238 people in 1998 using a paymentcard whilst Mahdzan et al. questioned 587 in 2000 with a single-bounded dichotomous choice CVM. In January 1999, following thesurvey by Yeo but unrelated to it, a nominal ‘conservation fee’ of 5ringgits (about $1.32) was introduced to enter the park.

The park only attracted day visitors owing to lack of accom-modation with 28% from Hong Kong and Taiwan who spent only 2or 3 h in the MPA [31]. It was also noted that tour operators tried toinfluence how visitors bid in response to the questionnaire [31].A majority of respondents rated the marine environment of thepark excellent or good, with 60% approval for the reefs, 83% for fishand 74% for water quality [32]. Both reports found approximately70% of their samples were represented by foreign visitors.

Key findings:1. The WTP value of foreign respondents was more than twice

that of resident visitors [31].2. Overall, twice as many foreign respondents accepted their bid

compared to resident visitors [32].

6.8. Philippines: Anilao, Mactan Island and Alona Beach (Arin andKramer [33])

Three studies were undertaken at different sites in thePhilippines: Anilao, Mactan Island and Alona Beach. The surveysought to establish whether visitors would pay for effectiveenforcement in the prohibition of fishing and protection of corals.Each location attracted different types of visitors, but all thoseinterviewed from the small samples (37 in Anilao and 46 each onMactan Island and Alona Beach) engaged in diving or snorkelling.The proximity of Anilao to Manila reflected the high percentage(97.3%) of Filipinos, whereas the other two sites only had 10.9%and 15.5% respectively. Anilao visitors also stayed for a shorterperiod (average of 1.95 days, i.e. the weekend), whereas MactanIsland hosted primarily upmarket visitors from east and south-east Asia who stayed for an average of 4.8 days. Alona beachattracted backpackers who stayed for an average 12 days. Thevariety of visitors enabled comparisons to be drawn on socio-economic factors. Bidding was by payment card where respon-dents were asked to choose a value among an ordered set or tospecify another value.

Key findings:1. WTP values were influenced by personal income and

education.2. Introduction of fees could be beneficial by reducing visitor

numbers and limiting damage to the reefs.3. The idea of government involvement in the collection of fees

was very unpopular

H. Peters, J.P. Hawkins / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 219–228224

6.9. Thailand, Phi Phi (Seenprachawong [34])

The survey asked respondents to decide the amount they wouldbe willing to pay into a trust fund to restore the reefs that hadalready experienced a 25% loss of coral cover through improve-ments in planning for sewage treatment, mangrove replanting etc.Both a travel-cost method and a single-bounded dichotomouschoice CVM were used. Bid prices ranged from $1 to $50. Therewere 528 respondents.

Key findings:1. Education, i.e. number of years at school, was an important

determinant of WTP.2. Foreign and resident visitors bid similarly, making a two-tier

system difficult to justify.3. A hotel bedroom tax may deliver a simpler administrative

method of collecting fees.

6.10. Thailand, Moo Koh Similan Islands (Tapsuwan [35])

This study investigated whether an entrance fee could behelpful towards controlling intense levels of diving activity and itsenvironmental consequences. Both single and double-boundeddichotomous choice CVM were used on 127 resident and 301foreign divers.

Key findings:1. Double-bounded dichotomous choice CVM proved a more

efficient and conservative estimator of WTP when measuredagainst single-bounded models.

2. The greater the dive experience the less the WTP, possiblyreflecting reduced utility and diminishing marginal return fromthe activity.

3. Earnings and age were significant only with resident, i.e. Thai,visitors, with those on higher earnings having a greater WTPand older divers being less willing to pay.

6.11. Viet Nam, Nha Trang (Lindsey and Holmes [36])

This survey of 571 foreign and resident respondents usedpayment cards. It sought to evaluate visitors’ perceptions of localenvironmental problems and to determine their WTP for themanagement of Viet Nam’s first proposed MPA. Although the reefswere biologically diverse, coral coverage was relatively low at 34%.

Key findings:1. Foreign visitors were more likely to perceive environmental

problems than local visitors which reflected their greatersupport for the concept of MPAs

2. A greater percentage of local visitors agreed with the paymentprincipal and although their WTP was less than that offoreigners it represented a higher percentage of their income.

3. Support for marine protection correlated positively withincome and education

4. User fees were preferred to increased taxes by a ratio of 2.3–1.

6.12. USA, Orange County, Southern California (Hall et al. [37])

This was a CVM-based evaluation for the protection of non-commercial rocky inter-tidal resources. There was widespreadillegal collection of marine life within the MPAs of Orange County.This study examined whether the annual 1.25 m adult local visitors

per mile would be willing to pay for enforcement officers to patrolthe zone and for the closure of some sites. Respondents were givena detailed briefing on the impact on species from unlawful gath-ering and trampling. A double-bounded dichotomous choice CVMwas undertaken over two years across nine sites using 220respondents.

Key findings:1. Regional visitors to the shoreline put considerable value on the

protection of biological resources.2. There is a willingness to pay for conservation from local urban

populations.

6.13. USA, Hawaiian Islands (van Beukering et al. [38])

This large survey in 2003 of 1303 divers and snorkellerstogether with 77 non-users aimed to establish whether visi-tors to 6 sites were willing to contribute to the managementof MPAs and whether improved reef conditions lead to greateruser satisfaction. The largest group were mainland US citizens(75%), followed by Hawaiians (16%) and then the rest-of-the-world, including Canadians (9%). This was a developednation survey of affluent visitors, however, this did nottranslate into higher bids. For this meta-analysis, as theislands are so remote from mainland USA, Hawaiians wereconsidered residents and all others as foreigners. An open-ended questionnaire was used.

Key findings:1. 45% of Hawaiians were unwilling to pay – the largest

percentage of any group.2. The major reasons for refusing to bid were that the respondents

did not want the financial burden and that they did notconsider the environment their responsibility, but that of thegovernment.

3. The government followed by NGOs were trusted more thanlocals to collect fees.

6.14. The Seychelles (Mathieu et al. [39])

This 1998 survey was conducted to establish the WTP ofvisitors to the Seychelles in making good the deficit in govern-ment funding in the management of its MPAs. A $10 entrance feewas already in force. 270 holidaymakers were interviewedincluding divers, snorkellers and honeymooners, using paymentcard methodology. This survey was conducted on three islandsthat were within or close to the six MPAs studied. Residents donot pay for MPA access so questioning was restricted to foreignvisitors. In addition to WTP, the survey included socio-demo-graphic data, visitor holiday choice, and views on marineprotection.

Key findings:1. Age, education and income explained a relatively small degree

of variation in the WTP and were not significant – 3.4% inpayment principle and 6% in WTP amount, whereas country oforigin and level of expectations, for example diving, weresignificant.

2. WTP was significantly affected by site. Where there aremultiple MPAs, each should be assessed separately with regardto level of fees.

3. Those seeking peace and quiet on the beach, were lessfavourably inclined towards the payment principal.

H. Peters, J.P. Hawkins / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 219–228 225

6.15. Zanzibar (Ngazy et al. [40])

In 1998, Zanzibar experienced a mass coral bleaching event. Theauthors of this survey wanted to establish the perception of diversand snorkellers towards bleaching and how it would affect theirWTP in order to determine the economic impact. Respondentswere shown pictures of pristine and degraded reefs to ascertainwhat they would pay additionally to visit Zanzibar’s reefs in theircondition prior to bleaching. The results were therefore based onadditional holiday cost rather than MPA entrance fee. All 157respondents were foreign. The majority was young (18 to 35 years)with incomes typically less than $20,000. 66% were divers, princi-pally novices, with the remainder snorkellers. Although many reefswere in relatively poor condition 75% of divers ‘enjoyed the reefsa lot’

Key findings:1. For novice divers and snorkellers, with no pre-conceptions, the

condition of the reef is of secondary importance to their overallunderwater experience.

2. Nationality may not be a good indicator of WTP

7. Results

Table 2 shows for each location the fee structure (if any) in placeat the time of the survey. Both the mean WTP and its optimumvalues are included, i.e. for open-ended questioning and paymentcard the modal or median and for dichotomous choice the highestpercentage providing the greatest return. 15 of the studies providedan estimated annual park revenue or increase in revenue (yield) bymultiplying the published visitor numbers by their suggestedentrance fee(s). Where an author proposed a range of fees or yields,the lowest of the values is included here. No data was available forHawaii.

Immediately apparent from these results is that the mean WTPwas significantly higher than the fee charged, if any, at time ofsurvey. This suggests that user fees offer MPAs real opportunitiesfor substantial revenue generation. The lowest increase wasrecorded in the Seychelles where there was only an additional$2.20 over the $10 fee already collected. Nevertheless, whenapplied to the entire visitor population this still amounted to anannual increase in revenues of $88,000. Bonaire represents a classiccase: in an environment with no direct funding, their survey indi-cated a mean WTP annual fee of $27.40. Management decided thatimplementation at this level would be excessive, so the fee was setat $10. It yielded $170,000 in its first year. In 2005, when thecarrying capacity of the reefs was considered to have reachedmaximum, the diver fee was increased to $25.

The majority of surveys concerned conservation of reef habitats.The following were atypical:

Table 3Locations that have increased their fees since their WTP survey with comparisonsbetween mean WTP and current fee.

Location Fee at survey Per Mean WTP Current Fee

2 Bonaire None Annum $27.40 $25a

6 Komodo $0.87 Visit $11.70 Min $17b

9 Anilao None Visit $3.70 $110 Mactan None Visit $5.50 $112 Phi Phi $0.50 Visit $7.16 $613 Similan $4.80 Dive $27.05 $614 Nha Trang None Visit $0.61 $2.50

a Bonaire. A $10 fee was implemented subsequent to survey. This has since beenincreased for divers only.

b Komodo. $15–$45 fund dependent on length of stayþ $2 entrance fee.

a) Akumal, where respondents were asked about an area theywere not necessarily visiting, i.e. the Mesoamerican BarrierReef System,

b) Komodo which attracted a tourist ‘premium’, namely wit-nessing the ‘Komodo Dragon’,

c) Orange County where WTP was for protection of a rocky inter-tidal zone,

d) Zanzibar, where loss of revenues rather than potential feesurplus was the focus of the study,

Excluding the four sites above, the median WTP for theremaining 14 sites is approximately $5 per day within a range of$0.61 (Nha Trang, Viet Nam) to $27.05 (Similan, Thailand). Theaverage mean WTP across all 14 surveys is $6.75� 6.38 (s.d.),however, if the 2 outliers of Nha Trang and Similan are excluded,the average mean falls to $5.57�2.38 (s.d.)

Note: There is no daily fee for Bonaire, so for comparativepurposes 20% of its annual pass has been taken as representative,being the lower of two other dive sites where both daily and annualpasses are offered. No mean value was provided for the WTP in StLucia, so the 75% approval band of $6 has been used.

Table 3 shows recent fee increases. Komodo raised its fee fromthe government standard of $0.87 to a minimum of $17 for foreignvisitors (mean WTP $11.70). This includes a fee of $15 to $45 pervisit dependent upon length of stay [41] which is paid into a trustestablished to support nature conservation, community develop-ment and ecotourism infrastructure projects. The National Parkentrance fee at the time of writing was approximately $2, which isadditional to the fund [41].

For smaller MPAs, that is those with a marine area of less than200 km2 there is a correlation between size of the MPA and pro-jected yield from proposed fee levels (Pearson r¼ 0.884, P< 0.01).This includes Zakynthos, Bonaire, St Eustatius, St Lucia, Pulau Payar(both reports), Similan, Seychelles and Nha Trang. No yield data wasavailable for Zanzibar. This confirms that the larger the site, thegreater the potential for revenue generation.

Understanding those factors that influence how much visitorsare willing to pay can be invaluable in determining fee levels, andfindings from the 18 papers we analysed provide some guidance.

One of the determining factors for driving WTP can be seen inthe economic make-up of respondents. Income, in particular, hadan influence on WTP bid levels in Zakynthos, Orange County, Cal-ifornia and Hawaii. In the Seychelles it was significantly correlatedwith WTP values, although the multiple regression analyses dis-counted it as a predictor of WTP in favour of other variables such asnationality and reasons for visiting. In Komodo, those who paidmore for their trip, and therefore considered wealthier, were alsomore generous in their WTP. However, in St Lucia there was nocorrelation between income and WTP within the all-foreign diverrespondents.

In developing countries one would expect income to be loweramong resident visitors than among foreign tourists and thereforeto generate lower bids. Indeed, in Nha Trang and Pulau Payar [31],mean WTP of residents was less than that of foreigners – however,although the Vietnamese bid lower than foreign visitors, a greaterpercentage of Vietnamese said they would be willing to paysomething. In Similan, income was only significant with Thairespondents. This issue is further complicated when examiningWTP within each group at the same location. In the Philippinestudies, Alona had the highest quality of coral reefs of the threesites but also attracted the lowest WTP. This counter-intuitive resultcan be explained by the fact that Alona was particularly attractive tolow income backpackers.

For MPAs that attract high-income groups to the virtual exclu-sion of other visitors, such as world-renowned dive sites, there is

H. Peters, J.P. Hawkins / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 219–228226

greater elasticity in setting fees. For sites where there is a domi-nance of resident visitors or a mix of lower-income groups or thoseon a budget, such as backpackers, income can be an importantdriver of WTP and should be taken into account when establishingfee levels.

Nationality of visitors produces mixed messages in surveys.South Africans, for example, returned the highest average bid inZanzibar but the lowest in the Seychelles, although samples weresmall. Conversely, Italian visitors bid low in Zanzibar but wereamong the highest in the Seychelles and, confusingly, also itshighest zero bidders. The authors of the Seychelles study concludedthat country of origin was a significant component with roots innational values especially when pertaining to environmental issuesthat influence WTP. In Nha Trang nationality was not significantafter the effects of education and income had been controlled. InZakynthos, nationality was not a significant predictor of WTP.Nationality it seems is an unreliable indicator of WTP and of lessrelevance in setting fee levels.

Where low and zero bidders represent a significant percentageof respondents the reasons need to be established. Protest biddersin Akumal felt that local businesses that derive earnings as a directresult of the reefs should bear the costs. In Hawaii, twice as manyresidents (45%) bid zero compared to foreign visitors (22%), withthe principal reason given that the environment was the gov-ernment’s responsibility. Similarly in Zakynthos, of the Greekvisitors who refused to bid, 85% felt government or other authori-ties should pay compared to 30% for foreign zero bidders. Thisattitude of resident visitors towards payment may be a reflection ofthe fact that they already support MPAs through their taxes. Theimplication of this for MPA managers is that where research showsa high percentage of resident respondents share this concern,consideration should be given towards a two-tier pricing structure.

Our study shows that age and experience count negatively. InSimilan older Thai divers bid less as did more experienced diversgenerally, possibly because older divers were accustomed to notpaying and more experienced divers were more likely to becomedisenchanted with the experience and this reduced their utility. Thistrend was also evident in the Seychelles where older visitors weremore likely to respond negatively to the payment principle, and onAlona where it was considered that younger visitors were morereceptive to environmental considerations. However, older and moreexperienced divers maycontribute more tothe economy in other ways.

In Zakynthos, non-use values appeared to be particularlyimportant with bequest being associated with higher WTP. Bequestvalue was also significant in the Seychelles study where it waspositively correlated with WTP.

While the condition of the environment is not necessarilyreflected in a WTP, it does play a role in attracting tourists. Thequality of the reef in Bonaire, where the majority of visitors rated ithighly even though there has been significant degradation in recentyears, produced an overwhelming 92% agreement on a $10 annualentrance. In St Lucia, nearly half of respondents said they visitedbecause of the existence of the MPA. However there was no rela-tionship between their WTP and level of satisfaction with the MPA.In the Seychelles each of the four island locations attracteda different mean bid, but those respondents who had witnessed thecoral through glass-bottomed boats were more likely to bid higherdespite a mass coral-bleaching event. This was explained by the factthat compared to divers most of the glass-bottomed boat users hadnot observed coral before and so were less conditioned to degradedreefs. In Zanzibar, also victim of coral bleaching and where a largeproportion of divers were inexperienced, the quality of the reef wassimilarly not significant to WTP. In Nha Trang, rubbish on the beach,pollution and begging were considered a problem mainly amongstforeign visitors.

Educational attainment and environmental awareness can playa major role in determining WTP. In Phi Phi education positivelyinfluenced WTP. In Akumal, higher WTP was recorded oncerespondents learned more about the value of reefs, such as theirpotential for pharmacology and less after they had just snorkelledover degraded reefs. In St Eustatius where 92% of respondents saidthey were concerned about the park’s marine environment, itproduced a positive effect on WTP, a trend confirmed by respon-dents in Zakynthos and in Similan where membership or support ofa conservation group improved the chance of accepting a bid. In theNha Trang study, income and education had significant positiveeffect on WTP. However, in St Lucia, where 72% of respondents saidthey had been ‘exposed to environmental issues’, this had noinfluence on WTP.

8. Discussion

This analysis clearly demonstrates that people would beprepared to pay higher user fees for access to marine protectedareas and reveals considerable untapped resources. Projectedrevenues ranged between a modest $4,000 yr�1 for Alona to$133 m yr�1 ($3.6 m per mile) for Orange County. Large MPAs havethe potential to generate higher returns although they also havehigher costs [5]. Whether an MPA is in the Caribbean, the Indo-Pacific or the Mediterranean, is a world-renowned dive site ora beach holiday destination, people are willing to pay for marineconservation. Wherever there are visitors, there is opportunity.

The question of how to determine the most appropriate fee levelis very much dependent on individual MPA management. For thosewho believe that the specific demographics of their marine parkmay not be reflected elsewhere, and who have the time andresources, undertaking their own survey would be the mostdesirable option. For those who have neither the inclination nor theresources to embark on research, then taking a general approachbased on the WTP results of other MPAs with similar characteris-tics, visitor profiles and marine attractions may be sufficient.

It is apparent from our reviews that there are a number ofguidelines that MPA managers should consider when planningand evaluating their WTP surveys. A sufficiently large and repre-sentative sample together with the most appropriate methodologyfor eliciting the WTP values and the need to keep the question-naire succinct are key components. It is important to ensure thatrespondents fully understand the reasons for additional fundingbefore the questioning begins and that the motives behind all zeroor protest bids are understood. Care should be exercised whenacting on the results: although a good WTP response should beviewed as encouraging, there may be resentment against theimposition of fees especially from local visitors, leading toa decline in their numbers. This may have a knock-on effect on thelocal economy. Researching the experiences of other similar MPAsin implementing change should form an important part of thewhole process.

CVM surveys are a useful tool for setting or reviewing fee levels;however, results must be treated with caution since they can besubject to distortion: For example, 78% of those divers who wereunwilling to pay more for diving at St Eustatius (27% of respon-dents) were of the opinion that the modest fee of $3 per day wasquite adequate, belying the fact that these divers had a meanhousehold income of $71,000 and 92% claimed to be concernedabout the environment. This anomaly can be equated to the spec-tacle of wealthy tourists bartering hard for cheap goods from poorpeople. It calls into question what motivates people to bid – is itconcern for the environment generally or towards an MPA inparticular; or is it simply the moral satisfaction of a positiveresponse? [39]. Confronted by researchers asking seemingly

H. Peters, J.P. Hawkins / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 219–228 227

hypothetical questions, truthfulness may sometimes appearquestionable.

Reasons why resident visitors in poor developing countries areat times willing to pay more than foreign tourists could also becomplex and counter-intuitive. The effect of socio-economic mix ofhigh-earning ‘elite’ residents rubbing shoulders with low-incomewestern backpackers has already been discussed in the surveys forAnilao and Alona. Alternatively, local residents may have a genu-inely greater concern for their environment than holidaymakersfrom abroad. Whether residents should be given a reducedentrance fee depends upon cultural and historical norms. Ingeneral, there are probably good social reasons for introducing two-tier pricing for MPAs in developing nations.

Clearly explaining to respondents the objectives behind a WTPsurvey is critical. However, it also needs to be kept short as bidvalues decline with longer surveys as discovered in Akumal.Socio-economic data should ideally be collected after the bid hasbeen secured.

Visitors need to know their money is not being collected aspart of a general government revenue raising initiative but is beinginvested directly in conservation. In Pulau Payar, 91% of therespondents agreed with a fee increase only if the money wentinto improving park management [31]. Similarly in Komodo, 36%of those volunteering additional information expressed a willing-ness to pay higher fees provided the funds were earmarked forpark upkeep and information was provided on the way it wasused. This sentiment was echoed by local tour and dive operators.In St Eustatius, it was suggested that visitors should be keptinformed about the nature of the fee and its purpose. In St Lucia,many visitors would have welcomed information on biologicalaspects of the reef and MPA projects. In Akumal, respondents werewilling to pay if they could be guaranteed that the money wouldgo towards protecting the coral. One of the reasons for refusing tobid was that the respondents did not trust the government to usethe money for conservation. In the Philippines’ surveys therespondents wanted NGOs not the government to administer theirfees and in Akumal protest bidders cited distrust of the govern-ment to manage the funds, although in Hawaii the public sectorwas the most trusted authority.

There is good evidence that those people who are ‘conservationaware’ are generally more generous in their WTP. In Akumal thiswas true even when their knowledge was acquired through on-siteeducation. In Zakynthos it was found that educational programmescould lead to lasting benefit as conservation information is fed backthrough friends and family. In Similan, although recommendationby others was an important factor in motivating people to visit theMPA, it was support for conservation that improved their willing-ness to pay.

Determining which survey methodology to employ is subjec-tive, however, single-bounded dichotomous choice CVM requiresa large sample size to obtain acceptable accuracy; a problem bestalleviated using a double-bounded method [34]. For the Similansurvey, both models were selected; however, the double-boundedmodel gave mean WTP values of less than half those of the single-bounded model – $27.07 against $62.24, demonstrating the cautionthat must be exercised over the choice of method.

9. Conclusions

This analysis leaves little doubt that visitors are willing to payfor the conservation and protection of MPs worldwide even thoughour findings demonstrate the difficulty in measuring some of thekey indicators. Nevertheless, common principles in reaching thebasic objective of realising amenity value are:

1. Apply a methodology that delivers conservative results.Although more complex in analysis, a double-boundeddichotomous choice CVM provides this better than most, giventhe sample is sufficiently large.

2. Keep the questioning succinct. Collect WTP information beforeany further visitor opinion and socio-economic data.

3. Respondents should fully understand the benefits that wouldaccrue from any introduced fee. Time, but not too much, shouldbe spent explaining the environmental issues.

4. A significant number of zero and protest bids are importantfactors which require explanation.

5. Statistics may not tell the whole story. Even if certain categoriesof visitor bid low, their presence may be valuable to otheraspects of the local economy.

6. Do not allow irrelevant socio-economic results to detract fromthe key issues.

7. Consider carefully how fees will affect local visitors and ifnecessary, introduce a two-tier pricing system.

8. Consider the impact on the local economy in the event ofreduced visitor numbers following the introduction of fees.MPAs with a large percentage of budget day-trippers or regularlocal visitors may be particularly vulnerable.

9. Treat the results from a WTP survey only as a guide. If thesample size is modest, repeat the survey at a later date toconfirm findings.

10. Learn from the experiences of MPAs that have implementedWTP survey recommendations.

Having chosen the most appropriate methodology, establishedthe mean bid price by careful framing of the questionnaire, ensuredthe sample is representative of the population and analysed theresults carefully, the optimum fee should become apparent.However, if the fees are to be accepted by those that follow, it isequally important that visitors be kept aware of why charges arebeing imposed, where the money goes and improvements thathave been made as a result. A programme of information dissem-ination through hotel leafleting [34] together with information onthe importance of the MPA towards the environment and biodi-versity generally will hopefully ensure that messages are alsotransmitted through word of mouth to those that follow [22].

Finally, entry fees should not be allowed to completely replacegovernment funding. Where there is instability, political unrest ornatural disasters, visitor arrivals and the fees they generate can behalted at a stroke.

References

[1] Roberts CM, McClean CJ, Veron JEN, Hawkins JP, Allen GR, McAllister DE, et al.Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs.Science 2002;295:1280–4.

[2] Bellwood DR, Hughes TP, Folke C, Nystrom M. Confronting the coral reef crisis.Nature 2004;429:827–33.

[3] Mora C, Andrefouet S, Costello MJ, Kranenburg C, Rollo A, Veron J, et al. Coralreefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science2006;312:1750–1.

[4] Green R, Donnelly R. Recreational scuba diving in Caribbean marine protectedareas: do the users pay? Ambio 2003;32(2):140–4.

[5] Balmford A, Gravestock P, Hockley N, McClean CJ, Roberts CM. The worldwidecosts of marine protected areas. PNAS 2004;101(26):9694–7.

[6] Becker N, Choresh Y. Economic aspects of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).Tunis. In: UNEP-MAP RAC/SPA; 2006. p. 131.

[7] Hawkins DE. The relationship of tourism-related revenue generation to coralreef conservation in panel III, marine protected areas from coral reefs, chal-lenges opportunities for sustainable management. In: Hatziolos ME,Hooten AJ, Fodor M, editors. Proceedings of an associated event of the fifthannual world conference on environmentally and socially sustainable devel-opment. World Bank Washington; 1997. p. 3.

[8] Walpole MJ, Goodwin HJ, Ward KGR. Pricing policy for tourism in protectedareas: lesson from Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Conservation Biology2001;15(1):218–27.

H. Peters, J.P. Hawkins / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 219–228228

[9] Erdmann MV, Merrill PR, Arsyad I, Mongdong M. Developing a diversifiedportfolio of sustainable financing options for Bunaken National Marine Park.Vth World Parks Congress: Sustainable Finance Stream, Durban; 2003. p. 13.

[10] Depondt F, Green E. Diving user fees and the financial sustainability of marineprotected areas: opportunities and impediments. Ocean and CoastalManagement 2006;49:188–202.

[11] Erdmann MV, Merrill PR, Mongdong M, Arsyad I, Harahap Z, Pangalila R, et al.Building effective co-management systems for decentralized protected areasmanagement in Indonesia: Bunaken National Marine Park Case Study.National Resources Management Program; 2004. p. 149.

[12] Ross M, Ross N, Green S, Amores A, Carina J, Menguito T. Experience fromimproving management of an urban marine protected area: GilutonganMarine Sanctuary, Municipality of Cordova, Cebu, Philippines. In: Paper pre-sented at the second International Tropical Marine Ecosystems ManagementSymposium (ITMEMS 2); 2003. p. 11. Manilla, Philippines.

[13] Benitez PS. Visitor user fees and concession systems in protected areas: Gal-apagos National Park Case Study. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy,nature.org/ecotourism; 2001.

[14] Bateman IJ, Langford IH. Non-users’ willingness to pay for a national park: anapplication and critique of the contingent valuation method. Regional Studies1996;31(6):571–82.

[15] Portney PR. The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care.Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994;8(4):3–17.

[16] King DM, Mazzotta MJ. Available from: www.ecosystemvaluation.org, 2000.[17] Spash CL. Assessing the benefits of improving coral reef biodiversity: the

contingent valuation method. In: Cesar HSJ, editor. Collected essays on theeconomics of coral reefs. Sweden: CORDIO, Kalmar University; 2000. p. 40–54.

[18] Habb TC, McConnell KE. Valuing environmental and natural resources: theeconometrics of non-market valuation. Edward Elgar; 2002. p. 326.

[19] Bateman IJ, Langford IH, Turner RK, Willis KG, Garrod GD. Elicitation andtruncation effects in contingent valuation studies. Ecological Economics1995;12(2):161–79.

[20] Kanninen BJ. Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomouschoice contingent valuation. Land Economics 1993;69(2):138–46.

[21] Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B. Statistical efficiency of double-boundeddichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics 1993;73(4):1255–63.

[22] Togridou A, Hovardas T, Pantis JD. Determinants of visitors’ willingness to payfor the national marine park of Zakynthos, Greece. Ecological Economics2006;60:308–19.

[23] Karavas N, Georghiou K, Arianoutsou M, Dimopoulos D. Vegetation and sandcharacteristics influencing nesting activity of Caretta caretta on Sekania beach.Biological Conservation 2005;121:118–77.

[24] European Court Reports 2002, Case C-103: 1147; 2002.[25] Dixon JA, Scura LF, van’t Hof T. An economic and ecological analysis of the

Bonaire Marine Park. In: Cesar HSJ, editor. Collected essays on the economicsof coral reefs. Sweden: CORDIO, Kalmar University; 2000. p. 158–65.

[26] Riley E, Northrop A, Esteban N. A willingness to pay study for park fees: Quill/Boven National Park St Eustatius marine park St Eustatius, Netherland Antilles.

St Eustatius: St Eustatius National Parks Foundation, National Parks Office;2006. p. 29.

[27] Barker NHL. Ecological and socio-economic impacts of dive and snorkeltourism in St Lucia, West Indies. Environment Department, University of York;2003. p. 220, unpublished.

[28] Barker NHL, Roberts CM. Scuba diver behaviour and the management ofdiving impacts on coral reefs. Biological Conservation 2004;120(4):481–9.

[29] Casey JF. Are tourists willing to pay additional fees to protect corals in Mexico?The selected works of James F. Casey. Berkeley Electronic Press. Availablefrom: http://works.bepress.com/james_casey/7; 2006.

[30] Goodwin HJ, Kent IJ, Parker KT, Walpole MJ. Tourism, conservation andsustainable development, Komodo National Park Indonesia. Final report to theDepartment for International Development, 1997, vol. I, p. 98, vol. III, p. 129,unpublished.

[31] Yeo BH. The recreational benefits of coral reefs: a case study of Pulau PayarMarine Park, Kedah, Malaysia. In: Ahmed M, Chong CK, Cesar H, editors.Economic valuation and policy priorities for sustainable management of coralreefs; 2005. p. 108–17. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 70.

[32] Mahdzan AA, Bahrain RS, Amizan A, Aznor AS. Conserving Pulau Payar: arevisitors willing to share the cost? Proceedings of National Symposium onPulau Payar Marine Park; 2000. p. 15.

[33] Arin T, Kramer RA. Divers’ willingness to pay to visit marine sanctuaries: anexploratory study. Ocean and Coastal Management 2002;45(2):171–83.

[34] Seenprachawong U. An economic analysis of coral reef benefits from Phi PhiIslands, Thailand from an economic analysis of coral reefs in the Andaman Seaof Thailand. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA);2001. p. 50.

[35] Tapsuwan S. Valuing the willingness to pay for environmental conservationand management: a case study of scuba diving levies in Moo Koh SimilanIslands Marine National Park, Thailand. In: Proceedings of the AustralianConference of Economists;, ISBN 07340 26080; 2005. p. 28.

[36] Lindsey G, Holmes A. Tourist support for marine protection in Nha Trang, VietNam. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2002;45(4):461–80.

[37] Hall DC, Hall JV, Murray SN. Contingent valuation of marine protected areas:Southern California rocky intertidal ecosystems. Natural Resource Modelling2002;15(3):335–68.

[38] van Beukering P, Cesar H, Dierking J, Atkinson S. Recreational survey inselected marine managed areas in the main Hawaiian Islands. In: Assessmentof economic benefits and costs of marine managed areas in Hawaii. Universityof Hawaii; 2004. p. 14. Report for the Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative ResearchProgram.

[39] Mathieu LF, Langford IH, Kenyon W. Valuing marine parks in a developingcountry: a case study of the Seychelles. Environment and DevelopmentEconomics 2003;8:373–90.

[40] Ngazy Z, Jiddawi N, Cesar H. Coral bleaching and the demand for coral reefs:a marine recreation case in Zanzibar. In: Ahmed M, Chong CK, Cesar H, editors.Economic valuation and policy priorities for sustainable management of coralreefs; 2005. p. 118–25. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 70.

[41] Komodo National Park website available from: www.komodonationalpark.org.