Financing Marine Protected Areas Through Visitor Fees: Insights from Tourists Willingness to Pay in Chile

Abstract

Tourism is a financing mechanism considered by many donor-funded marine conservation initiatives. Here we assess the potential role of visitor entry fees, in generating the necessary revenue to manage a marine protected area (MPA), established through a Global Environmental Facility Grant, in a temperate region of Chile. We assess tourists' willingness to pay (WTP) for an entry fee associated to management and protection of the MPA. Results show 97 % of respondents were willing to pay an entrance fee. WTP predictors included the type of tourist, tourists' sensitivity to crowding, education, and understanding of ecological benefits of the MPA. Nature-based tourists state median WTP values of US$ 4.38 and Sun-seasand tourists US$ 3.77. Overall, entry fees could account for 10-13 % of MPA running costs. In Chile, where funding for conservation runs among the weakest in the world, visitor entry fees are no panacea in the short term and other mechanisms, including direct state/government support, should be considered.

Integrating marine ecosystem conservation and ecosystems services economic valuation: Implications for coastal zones governance

“…The same tendency was reported in Croatia, over 80% of the interviewees were WTP for their holiday in support of marine conservation (Batela et al, 2014). From the tourist perspective the availability to pay an extra amount while visiting a particular area for nature conservation is well recorded: sun-sea-sand tourists report a median WTP of US$ 3.77, while nature based tourists state a higher WTP value of US$ 4.38 (Gelcich et al, 2013) for nature conservation. In Kentucky it was recorded a WTP value between US$ 6 and US$ 13 for a "Wetland Preservation Fund" (Whitehead 1990), and in Spain, the results showed that the mean WTP for an improvement in water quality was about D 33 per household per year (Ramajo-Hernandez and Saz-Salazar 2012).…”

“…In Chile, Gelcich et al (2013) reported a 97% rate of respondents willing to pay (WTP) for the financing of a marine protected area with the charge of an entrance fee, covering 10-13% of the MPA running costs. The same tendency was reported in Croatia, over 80% of the interviewees were WTP for their holiday in support of marine conservation (Batela et al, 2014).…”

Alternative strategies for scaling up marine coastal biodiversity conservation in Chile

“…Multiple Use MPAs have been the latest addition to the marine conservation policy instruments in Chile. Multiple use MPAs were first implemented with funding by the Global Environmental Facility, and are meant to act as an "umbrella-like" tool which considers the management of multiple ecosystem services within MPA boundaries (Gelcich et al 2013).…”

“…Despite the existence of a suite of conservation tools, biodiversity conservation in Chile is underfunded, including MPAs (Castilla 2008;Gelcich et al 2013;Waldron et al 2013). Chile is one of four countries that are in bottom quartile of relative biodiversity conservation funding and the top quartile of threatened biodiversity (Waldron et al 2013).…”

“…For MPAs in Chile, revenues from tourism are not sufficient to finance running costs and enforcement. For example, Lafken Mapu Lahual, one of the largest multiple use MPAs in continental Chile, could only achieve around 10% of running costs, in the most favorable conditions, under current management scenarios (Gelcich et al 2013).…”