Pricing Policy for Tourism in Protected Areas: Lessons from Komodo National Park, Indonesia

Abstract

Protected areas are under increasing pressure to provide economic justification for their existence, particularly in developing countries where demand for land and natural resources is high. Nature-based tourism offers a mechanism to generate substantial benefits from protected areas for both governments and local communities, and ecotourism is increasingly promoted as a sustainable use of protected areas. The extent to which ecotourism offsets the costs of a protected area has rarely been examined. We used financial data from Komodo National Park, Indonesia, and a willingness-to-pay questionnaire of independent visitors to (1) examine the financial contribution of tourism in offsetting the costs of tourism and wider management and (2) assess the effect of hypothetical fee increases on park revenues, visitation patterns, and local economies. Although only 6.9% of park management costs were recovered, visitors were willing to pay over 10 times the current entrance fee, indicating a substantial potential for increased revenue. The potential negative effect of large fee increases on visitor numbers and the resultant effect on local economic benefits from tourism may limit the extent to which greater financial benefits from Komodo National Park (KNP) can be realized. Our results suggest that a moderate, tiered increase in entrance fees is most appropriate, and that partial revenue retention by KNP would help demonstrate the conservation value of tourism to both visitors and managers and has the potential to increase visitors' willingness to pay.Política Tarifaria para el Turismo en Areas Protegidas: Lecciones del Parque Nacional Komodo, Indonesia *

Whales vs. gulls: Assessing trade-offs in wildlife and waste management in Patagonia, Argentina

“…Further research demonstrates that "visitors would be more willing to pay a higher fee if the revenue generated was used for the benefit of the visited area" (Walpole et al, 2001). This general finding is concurrent with both the results of the present study and the general literature on WTP for protected areas in the tropics and coastal areas.…”

“…These results fall in line with previous literature studies on entrance fees as vehicles for conservation and park management in addition to providing insight to the drivers of WTP for such actions (Naidoo and Adamowicz, 2005;Ormsby and Mannle, 2006;Thur 2010;Walpole et al, 2001). Rather than address the direct threat, the 'attacker gulls', tourists preferred to target the human-caused component of the problem-the waste.…”

“…For example, Naidoo and Adamowicz (2005) find that revising entrance fees to $47 (from the original $5) and redistributing ecotourism revenues would protect 80% of forest bird species. Another study calculates that a modest increase in entrance fees for a protected area in Indonesia would potentially better finance the site (Walpole et al, 2001). In Masoala National Park (Madagascar), 50% of entrance fees are allocated to local management committees for development projects such as road improvements, schools, and facilities (Ormsby and Mannle, 2006).…”

New Issues on Protected Area Management

“…Thus, discounts should be applied to low-income visitors upon appropriate certification. Dual-pricing policies charging foreign visitors higher than local ones are an equitable and socially acceptable option in developing countries (Walpole et al, 2001).…”

Does flagship species tourism benefit conservation? A case study of the golden snub-nosed monkey in Shennongjia National Nature Reserve

“…First, tourism can directly support conservation by generating revenue to pay for management activities. These monies come from fees charged for entry to the reserve or park, or for access to a particular species [2]. Second, revenue can be reinvested in conservation-related activities, such as building additional infrastructure or moving local people out of the protected area.…”