1 Factors and impacts of ecotourism on revenue of private reserves in Costa Rica Grace Heusner Department of Environmental Science & Policy, The College of William & Mary ABSTRACT Tourism in Costa Rica represents a large piece of the countryÂ€s national revenue, but the exact funds private reserves obtain from this source has been insufficiently studied. The goal of this investigation was to determine reservesÂ€ ecotourism revenue and factors impacting differences in income. Survey data was collected fr om 17 private reserves in Costa Rica to determine percentage of revenue derived from tourism, payments for environmental services PES, and donations or other sources. In addition, the survey sought to identify factors that may explain differential revenu es. An average of 88% of revenue came from ecotourism, 8%percent from donations, and 4% from governmental payments. There were significant correlations between marketing budget and revenue, as well as tourists per year on overall tourism revenue. However, size, distance from San JosÃ©, and park admission fee had no significant correlation to tourist revenue, indicating that tourists visit reserves independently of these factors. Studies have hypothesized that ecotourism may not be an effective vehicle for co nservation, and opinion results of the survey supported this belief. However, payments for environmental services may represent an economically viable way to balance the conflicts between tourism and conservation. RESUMEN El turismo en Costa Rica repres enta un pedazo grande de la renta nacional de l paÃs , pero de los fondos exactos las reservas privadas obtienen de esta fuente ha sido estudiado insuficientemente . El objetivo de esta investigaciÃ³n fue de determinar las reservas ' renta de ecoturismo y los factor es que impresionan las diferencias en los ingresos . Los datos de la inspecciÃ³n fueron reunidos de 17 reservas privadas en Costa Rica para determinar el porcentaje de renta derivada del turismo, los pagos para servicios ambientales, y los donativos u otras fuentes. AdemÃ¡s , la inspecciÃ³n procurÃ³ identificar los factores que pueden explicar rentas diferenciales. Un promedio de 88% de renta vino del ecoturismo, 8% de donativos, y el 4% de pagos gubernamentales. HabÃa correlaciones significativas entre el mercadeo , el presupuesto y la ren ta asÃ como turistas por aÃ±o en la renta general de turismo. Sin embargo, el tamaÃ±o, la distancia de San JosÃ©, y la entrada de l parque no tuvieron correlaciÃ³n significativa a la renta del turista, indicando que turistas visitan las reservas independientemente de estos factores. Los estudi os han formado una hipÃ³tesis el ecoturismo no puede ser un vehÃculo efectivo para la conservaciÃ³n, y para resultados de opiniÃ³n de la inspecciÃ³n apoyaron esta creencia. Sin embargo, los pagos para servicios ambientales pueden representar una manera econÃ³micamente viable para equilibrar los confli ctos entre turismo y conservaci Ã³ n. INTRODUCTION In 2005, ecotourism revenues ranged from fifty to 300 billion United States dollars USD Krueger 2005. Ecotourism here is defined as Âtraveling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areasÂ‚to study, admireÂ‚ its conserved wild plants and animalsÂƒ Ceballos LascurÃ¡in 1987. Since the 1990s, it has been estimated that the annual rates of growth in ecotourism range from 10% an d 30% annually Â„ double the rates of general tourism Kruger 2005. In Costa Rica, a country with significant tourism revenues, this growth has led to non governmental entrepreneurs to conserve land for profit Honey 1999. Monteverde alone has over 50,000 h ectares of protected habitat Cavanagh 2005, Haley 2006. During the last half of
2 the 1980s, tourism in Monteverde increased by 36% per year, and in the early 1990s it grew at a rate of 50% per year Honey 1999. These changes implicate an increase in the number of privately owned reserves and numbers of tourists visiting these reserves has been observed Honey 1999. In this context, private reserves are defined as a piece of land owned by a non governmental entity, including corporations, individuals, or groups Honey 1999. This widespread growth implies that ecotourism may create incentives to conserve valuable natural resources and rai se revenue for conservation Kruger 2005. Indeed, some studies show that Monteverde provides an example of positive e cotourism because it has brought more jobs to the region, improved standards of living, improved guide training, and encouraged a conservation ethic Weinberg et al. 2002. However, some theorists argue that tourism may be detrimental to conservation Krug er 2005. A 2005 study of 251 worldwide ecotourist destinations found that 45.6% of places suffered from too many tourists as perceived by employee interviews at these locations, lack of community involvement, or lack of funding Kruger 2005. Further, r evenues generated from ecotourism may be insufficient to support large scale conservation Kruger 2005. Instead, some have proposed that conservation may be stimulated by payments for environmental services PES World Bank 2009. Payments for environme ntal services here are defined as systems in which landowners are compensated for the environmental services i.e. forested land they preserve World Bank 2009, Wunder 2007. Thus, landowners have a direct incentive to consider environmental resources, re sulting in more socially optimal land uses World Bank 2009. Today, over 400,000 ha representing 8% of land area is co vered by PES in Costa Rica Uman a 2005. Because of tourismÂ€s proposed impact on the environment, information about reserve funding can be useful for conservation strategies. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether some reserves profit more from ecotourism than others. Specifically, I investigated private reservesÂ€ revenues from tourism i.e. entrance fees, payments f or environmental services, and other miscellaneous sources i.e. individual donations through survey administration. This data was used to analyze possible factors that may relate to ecotourism revenue. These included size, distance from San JosÃ©, park ad mission, marketing, and number of tourists. Lastly, employee opinions towards various aspects of ecotourism were analyzed against tourism revenue to gauge Costa Rican sentiment towards tourism in the country. METHODS Study Sites The investigation occurr ed in Costa Rica because of the high percentage of protected land in the country: eight percent of national territory and over 50 individual areas are under protection Kruger 2005. To reach the greatest proportion of private reserves throughout Costa Ric a, I initially contacted the Red Costarricensis de Reservas Privadas , a network of Costa Rican private reserves Appendix 1. All 123 members of the network were contacted via email and sent a disclaimer and survey attachment. Non respondents were sent a f ollow up email at the beginning of the second week and beginning of the third week. Reserves with phone numbers listed were also contacted. Six of these members responded to email and phone requests.
3 In addition to this network, I contacted eleven ecotou ristic areas and reserves in the Monteverde Zone. In 2006, there were over 215,000 tourists in Monteverde at six of the most popular reserves in the area Haley 2006. The ÂMonteverde ZoneÂƒ includes all local area businesses with their economic activity ti ed primarily to tourism. Some of the reserves fall outside of the political boundaries of Monteverde but are referred to as the Monteverde Zone in this paper Monteverde Institute 2009. The eleven areas surveyed in Monteverde included: the Monteverde Clou d Forest Preserve MCFP, Monteverde Conservation League/Bosque Nuboso de los NiÃ±os, Santa Elena Reserve, Sendero Tranquil o , La Finca EcolÃ³gica, University of Georg ia/San Luis Ecolodge, La E staci Ã³ n BiolÃ³gica Monteverde, the Monteverde Creative School, Bosq ue Eterno, SelvaTura, and SkyWalk SkyTrek Appendix 2. In total, I was able to contact 17 private reserves and ecotourism areas in Costa Rica. Survey Administration I created a survey asking fifteen questions seeking financial and logistical informatio n from each reserve Appendix 3. This survey was translated into Spanish before being sent and distributed. Questions were asked to determine the revenue composition from tourism, governmental payments, donations, and other components of each reserve. T he survey asked questions to determine possible factors for ecotourism differences in the reserves. Specifically, I asked about reserve size in hectares, park admission rate for a non national adult in USD for 2008, number of tourists per year, and marke ting/advertising budget for 2008. In addition, I calculated the reserveÂ€s distance from the Juan SantamariÂ… International Airport in San JosÂ†, assuming that this represented the largest entrance point for foreign tourists Distance Calculator 2009. Fin ally, four questions on the survey targeted the employeeÂ€s feelings towards tourism and conservation, as well as ecotourismÂ€s importance for Costa Rica and the economy of the individual reserve. This was done to discover if there was a relationship between ecotourismÂ€s financial impacts on a reserve and an employeeÂ€s opinion of ecotourism. Statistical Analyses Initially, descriptive statistics mean, range, and standard deviation were calculated for revenue from tourism, government payments, donations, and total revenue. These values were also calculated for size, distance from airport, park admission, marketing budget, and number of tourists. Each of these values was correlated against tourism revenue. RESULTS Revenue Composition In the seventeen reserves from which information was obtained, tourism was the greatest single source of revenue with 88%, donations and other non tourism sources second 8% and governmental payments accounting for 4% of total revenue composition Figure 1. Five of sev enteen reserves received payments for environmental services Bosque Eterno de los NiÃ±os, Bosque Eterno, Tirimbina, Rancho Mastatal, and Terra Folia Appendix 4. The average amount of payment revenue for these reserves was $46,840 USD per year. Two other s replied that they are in the process of applying for governmental payments for environmental services Santa
4 Elena Reserve, Sendero Tranquilo Appendix 4. The average annual revenue from tourism was $304,372.47 USD Table 1. Income ranged from $0 USD including Finca Quijote de Esperanza and Terra Folia to $1,800,000 USD The Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve; Appendix 4. The mean amount of governmental payments was $13,776.47 USD Table 1, with a range of $0 to $185,000 Appendix 4. Donations compos ed a mean $26,850.47 USD Table 1. The range was from $0 to $199,200 Appendix 4. The total average revenue in USD was $39,6609.00, with a range of $3000 USD to $1.8 million USD per year Table 1; Appendix 4. For average revenue, information was not ava ilable for Finca Quijote de Esperanza; therefore, N = 16. Variables for Ecotourism Revenue Five variables were tested to determine correlation with ecotourism revenue. The mean size, distance from San JosÃ©, marketing budget, park admission and tourists/y ear varied widely across the reserves Table 2. Number of tourists per year showed significant positive correlation between tourism revenue R = 0.8541, P < 0.0001, N = 17; Table 3. Number of tourists per year ranged from 0 people including Finca Quijot e de Esperanza and Terra Folia to 80,000 the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve; Appendix 3. Further, marketing budget per year correlated positively with revenue from tourism R = 0.56316, P < 0.0001, N = 15; Table 3. Data for marketing budgets were una vailable for SelvaTura and SkyWalk SkyTrek. However, park admission cost R = 0.0757, P = 0.7726, N = 17, size R = 0.0208, P = 0.9367, N = 17 and distance from San JosÃ© R = 0.1200, P = 0.6463, N = 17 did not show significant correlation with tourism revenue Table 3. Governmental payments were not correlated with tourism revenue; however, a negative trend was observed between amount of payments for environmental services and tourist revenue R = 0.11069, P = 0.6374, N = 17; Table 3. Employee Opin ions of Ecotourism Respondents were also asked their personal opinions of ecotourism from 1 to 5. A response of Â1Âƒ meant that the variable was very negative or very unimportant. Likewise, a response of Â5Âƒ meant that the variable was very positive or ver y important. Responses to the question ÂHow does ecotourism affect Costa RicaÂ€s economy?Âƒ had a mean response of 4.671 Figure 2. For the question ÂHow does ecotourism affect conservation in Costa Rica?Âƒ the mean response was 3.8235 Figure 3. The third question, ÂHow does ecotourism affect your organizationÂ€s economy?Âƒ had a mean of 4.0589 Figure 4. Finally, the last question, ÂHow do you personally feel about ecotourism?Âƒ yielded a response of mean 4.1176 Figure 5. When correlated with tourism r evenue, none of the questionsÂ€ responses were significant. There was a positive trend observed that illustrated the relationship between opinions of how ecotourism affects reserve and amount of USD from tourism R = .34949, P = .1691, N = 17 Table 3. I n addition, a positive trend resulted from correlation analyses for an individualÂ€s feeling towards ecotourism and amount of money their organization earned from ecotourism R = .4239, P = 0.0900, N = 17; Table 3. DISCUSSION Ecotourism revenue composes the majority of income for the 17 reserves sampled, more than seven times the revenue from the next largest source donations. While the mean values indicate
5 that ecotourism is an extremely important piece of revenue for these reserves, there was a wide variety of dependence of a reserve on ecotourism dollars. Payments for environmental services, which have been claimed to be an important source of conservation funding Miranda et al. 2003, Pagiola 2008, Umana 2005, Wunder 2007, only had 4% of the averag e revenues for reserves. Three reserves did not depend on ecotourism for their revenue, including the Finca Quijote de Esperanza, Terra Folia, and the Bosque Eterno. However, these reserves received significant payments for environmental services: the nega tive trend observed between payments and tourism revenue may mean that places receiving environmental payments are less likely to need or want ecotourism revenue. In addition, the amount of payments received may have been skewed due to the fact that only f ive reserves are currently receiving payments for environmental services. While the overall average for PES payments was low, the amount of money that receiving reserves earned is higher than many reservesÂ€ total revenues. Two others were in the process of applying, and all were familiar with the process of receiving recuperations for preserving their land. For the variables that were analyzed to determine correlation with ecotourism revenue, number of tourists and marketing budget correlated significantly with tourism revenue. Indeed, Fennell and Eagles claim that marketing is essential to create a desire to visit and establish reserve expectations on the national, international, and local scale Fennell and Eagles 1990. However, while marketing may attra ct visitors, it can be detrimental to conservation through greenwashing or false advertising. This occurs when a business attempts to convince people that it is doing something ÂgoodÂƒ for the environment, while in reality it either has no effect or a negat ive effect on conservation May et al. 2007. This is has been identified as a potential obstacle to reconciling ecotourism with conservation May et al. 2007. Conversely, the three other factors Â„ size, distance, and park admission Â„ had no relationship to tourism revenue per year. This indicates that size of the reserve has no importance to visitors. Further, distance from the San JosÂ† airport had no correlation with tourism revenue. If ÂdistanceÂƒ can be used as a proxy for ease of getting to a particular reserve, then tourists do not choose where to travel based upon ease. Similarly, price did not influence the amount of revenue a place received. Haley 2006 ascertained that 87.5% of Monteverde tourists would be willing to pay up to $20 USD more than the average price for admission to a well protected forest. Perhaps tourists are willing to pay more and travel farther distances to obtain a particular experience. For the responses to my four questions seeking to gauge employee sentiment towards ecotourism, almost all of the respondents N = 16 felt that ecotourism was either ÂimportantÂƒ or Âvery importantÂƒ for Costa RicaÂ€s economy. Yet 7 of 17 felt that ecotourism was neither positive nor negative for conservation in Costa Rica; more than one respondent re marked that the question was difficult to answer, due to the variability in environmental management in private reserves. While ecotourism serves as a primary revenue source for the reserves sampled here, employees acknowledged that ecotourism might not be the best way to conserve land and resources. Continuation of this research would require that a greater sample of reserves and national parks in Costa Rica be surveyed in order to make more appropriate recommendations. Yet as previously stated, KrugerÂ€s 2005 study on the efficacy of ecotourism for conservation found that only approximately fifty percent of ecotourism sites were sustainable Kruger 2005. Payments for environmental services require a reserve or park to agree to keep land in undisturbed con ditions Pagiola 2008. In Costa Rica, payments for environmental services pagos de servicios ambientales are implemented by two organizations Â„ one governmental FONAFIFO and the other non governmental FUNDECOR Owen 2007,
6 Pagiola 2008. Costa RicaÂ€s P ES program has contributed to the protection of about 400,000 ha , and is likely to grow in the future Miranda et al. 2003. For Costa Rica, loss of tourism could have a significant effect on national revenues. If the environments and ecosystems needed to attract these tourists are degraded by poorly managed or exploitative tourism, foreign tourists might not choose Costa Rica as a travel destination. Thus, payments for environmental services may represent a sustainable solution to balancing ecotourism w ith conservation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Completion of this project and retention of my sanity would not be possible without my saintly parents, who have always been my greatest supporters and friends. Thanks also to my OG advisor, Anjali Kumar, for making thi ngs happen with my research and patiently helping me over the past three months. Yimen, you are made to be a teacher and I am grateful for all of your tireless guidance this semester. Thank you to everyone interviewed and especially Mia Roberts from the Mo nteverde Conservation League for all of her extra work. Lastly, many thanks to Valerie Caldas for managing to work with me for the better part of four weeks and keeping my attitude relatively positive. LITERATURE CITED CAVANAGH, E. 2005. Monteverde, C osta Rica: Balancing environment and development. Monteverde Institute: 1 8. CEBALLOS LASCURAIN, H. 1988. The future of ecotourism. J. Mexico 17: 13 14. DISTANCE CALCULATOR COSTA RICA. 2009. Globe Feed < http://distancecalculator.globefeed.com/Costa_Rica_D istance_Calculator.asp>. FENNELLS, D. A. AND P. F. J. EAGLES. 1990. Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A conceptual framework. J. Park and Rec. Admin. 8: 23 34. HALEY, C. 2006. The price we pay: EcotourismÂ€s contribution to conservation in Monteverde, Costa Rica. CIEE Fall 2006. Council on International Education Exchange, Monteverde, Costa Rica: 242 257. HONEY, M. 1999. Ecotourism and sustainable development: who owns paradise? Island Press, Washington, DC: 160 214. KRUGER, O. 2005. The role of ecotourism in cons ervation: Panacea or PandoraÂ€s Box? Biodiv. and Cons. 14: 1 22. MAY, S.K., G. CHENEY, AND J. ROPER. 2007. The debate over corporate social responsibility. Oxford University Press, New York: 370 374. MIRANDA, M., I. T. PORRAS, AND M. L. MORENO. 2003. The s ocial impacts of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica: a quantitative field survey and analysis of the Virilla watershed. International Institute for Environment and Development, London: 1 7. MONTEVERDE ZONE. 2009. MVI and the Monteverde Zone . Monteverde Institute, Monteverde, Costa Rica . NADKARNI, N. AND N. WHEELWRIGHT. 2000. Monteverde: Ecology and conservation of a tropical cloud forest. Oxford University Press, New York: 357 364. OWENS, S. 2007. Ecotourism as a driver of forest conservation on small farms in Costa Rica. CIEE Fall 2007. Council on International Educational Exchange, Monteverde, Costa Rica: 242 257. PAGIOLA, S. 2008. Payment for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 65: 712 724. POPULAR CITIES IN COSTA RICA. 2009. Delfina Travel Group . UBIACION Y Ã REA DE LAS RESERVAS. 2002. Red Costarricenses de Reservas Naturales Privadas . UMANA, A. 2005. Evolution of forest incentives and payment for ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont: 1 13. WEINBERG, A., S. BELLOWS, AND D. EKSTER. 2002. Susta ining ecotourism: insights and implications from two successful case studies. J. Soc. and Nat. Resources. 15: 371 80.
7 WHAT IS PAYMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES? 2009. The World Bank . WUNDER, S. 2007. The efficiency of payment for environmental services in tropical conservation. Cons. Bio. 21: 48 58. TABLES TABLE 1. Mean values of revenue composition for private reserves in Costa Rica for 2008. Data includes tourism revenue in US dollars, governmental payments for environmental services in US dollars, donations and other sources of revenue in US dollars for 2008. The last column is average total revenue from 2008 in US dollars. N= 17 except for total revenue, where N = 16 due to insufficient data. Tourism Revenue USD Governmental Payments USD Donations USD Total Revenue USD Mean 304371.47 13776.47 26850.47 396609.00 Standard Dev iation 534946.83 44527.51 61922.13 532736.55 TABLE 2. Potential factors for ecotourism revenue variance in Costa Rican private reserves. Means and standard deviations for reserve sizes in hectares, the reserveÂ€s distance from San JosÂ in kilometers, a mount of money in US dollars spent on marketing and advertising in 2008, amount of money charged for a foreign adult entrance fee in USD, and tourists per year from 2008. N = 17 except for Â‚marketing budgetÂƒ, where N = 15 due to insufficient data. Size h a Distance from San JosÃ© km Marketing Budget USD Park Admission USD Tourists/ year USD Mean 3369.00 75.28 2671.33 25.13 13642.00 Standard Deviation 10638.06 25.53 4411.43 31.30 23594.15
8 TABLE 3. Correlation results with tourism revenue in USD from 2008. Variabl es include marketing budget, tourists per year, size in hectares, and distance from San Jose in kilometers, average park admission for a foreign adult, and governmental payments in USD. All of these variables were analyzed against the revenue from 2008 in USD of each reserve. FIGURES FIGURE 1. Average revenue composition among 17 private reserves in Costa Rica between three sources, including tourism revenue, payments, and donations/other. Tourism Revenue USD 88% Governmental Payments USD 4% Donations/ Other USD 8% Variable P value R N Marketing Budget 0.0288 0.56316 15 Tourists per year 0.0001 0.8541 17 Size ha 0.9367 0.0208 17 Distance from SJO km 0.6463 0.1200 17 Park Admission 0.7726 0.0757 17 Governmental Payments 0.6374 0.1107 17
9 FIGU RE 2. Responses to the question ÂHow does ecotourism affect Costa RicaÂ€s economy?Âƒ asked to 17 respondents. The values above the column indicate the number of respondents who gave each answer. An answer of 1 meant that ecotourism was very unimportant while 5 meant that it was very important. One respondent answered that ecotourism was unimportant, 3 said it was important, and 13 said it was very important to ecotourism in Costa Rica FIGURE 3. Responses to the question ÂHow do you think ecotourism affects conservation in Costa Rica?Âƒ asked to 17 respondents. The values above the column indicate the number of respondents who gave each answer. An answer of 1 meant that ecotourism had a very negative effect, while 5 meant that it had a very positive effect. Seven respondents answered that 0 1 0 3 13 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Very unimportant 1 Unimportant 2 Neutral 3 Important 4 Very important 5 Frequency of Response Response Options Frequency 0 0 7 6 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Very negative 1 Negative 2 Neutral 3 Positive 4 Very positive 5 Frequency of Response Response Options
10 ecotourism is neither negative nor positive for conservation, 6 said it was positive, and 4 said it was very positive. FIGURE 4. Responses to the question ÂHow does ecotourism affect your organizationÂ€s economy?Âƒ asked to 17 respondents. The values above the column indicate the number of respondents who gave each answer. An answer of 1 meant that ecotourism was very unimportant while 5 meant that it was very important . Two respondents answered that ecotourism was very unimportant, 1 said it was unimportant, and 2 said it was neither unimportant nor important, while the majority of respondents said it was very important 12. FIGURE 5. R esponses to the question ÂHow do you personally feel about ecotourism?Âƒ asked to 17 respondents. The values above the column indicate the number of respondents who gave each answer. An answer of 1 meant that ecotourism was very negative while 5 meant that it was very positive. Six respondents felt that ecotourism was neither negative nor positive, 4 felt it was positive, and 7 said it was very positive. 2 1 2 0 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Very unimportant 1 Unimportant 2 Neutral 3 Important 4 Very important 5 Response Frequency Response Options 0 0 6 4 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Very negative 1 Negative 2 Neutral 3 Positive 4 Very positive 5 Frequency of Respones Response Options
11 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Maps of Private Reserves Costa Rica Ub ica ci Ã³ n y Area 2002.
12 APPENDIX 2: Maps of Private Reserves in the Monteverde Zone D elfina Travel Group 2009. APPENDIX 3: Survey Ecotourism Survey Encuesta sobre ecoturismo Questionnaire #_________ Purpose: To collect data from Costa Rican national park and private reserve employees to determine tourist and ecosystem service revenues a t different institutions. Objetivo: Recopilar informaciÃ³n de los empleados de parques nacionales de Costa Rica y reservas privadas para determinar los ingresos asociados a turismo y a servicios ambientales Date/Fecha: ___________________ Place/Lugar: _______ _________________ Company/Organization Name CompaÃ±ia u organizaciÃ³n : ____________________________________________ 1. What is the mission or goal of your organization? ______________________ Â¿ CuÃ¡l es la misiÃ³n u objetivo de su compaÃ±Ãa ? ___________________ ______ _______________________________________________________________ 2. How many tourists do you receive per year? __________________________ Â¿ Cu Ã¡ ntos turistas reciben al aÃ±o?____________________________________ 3. How many US dollars do you r eceive from tourism per year? _____________ Â¿ Cu Ã¡ ntos dÃ³lares reciben por turismo al aÃ±o? __________________________ ______________________________________________________________
13 4. How much money do you charge for reserve/park admission in US dollars? Â¿ Cu Ã¡ n to s dÃ³lares cuesta la admisiÃ³n al parque? __________________________ 5. How many US dollars do you receive from governmental payments per year? Â¿ Cu Ã¡ ntos dÃ³lares reciben de pagos gubernamentales al aÃ±o? ________________________________________________________ ____ a. For what services do you receive government payments? ____________ Â¿ Por cu Ã¡ les servicios reciben pagos gubernamentales? ___________ 6. How many US dollars are received from other sources, including non governmental organizations or individual donation s? Cu Ã¡ ntos dÃ³lares reciben de otras fuentes de financiamiento, incluyendo organizaciones no gubernamentales y donaciones individuales _________________ ____________________________________________________________ 7. Are there any other major components of re venue of your organization/ business not included on this survey? Â¿ Existe alg Ãº n otro tip o de ingreso para su organizaci Ã³ n que no sean negocios ? ____________________________________________________________ 8. How many US dollars do you spend on marketing or advertising per year? Â¿ Cu Ã¡ ntos dÃ³lares al aÃ±o invierten en mercadeo y publicidad? ________________________________________________________ 9. How many staff do you have in your organization for example, tour guides? Â¿ Cu Ã¡ nto per sonal tiene usted en su organizaciÃ³n, por ejemplo guÃas ? _____________________________________________________________ 10. How many researchers, including those paid and unpaid, utilize your facilities per year? Â¿ Cu Ã¡ ntos investigadores contratados y no contra tados utilizan sus facilidades ? ______________________________________________________________ 11. What is your total revenue per year, in US dollars? Â¿ Cu Ã¡ l es el total de sus ingresos en dÃ³lares anualmente ? ___________________ 12. On a scale of one to five, with one being very little and five being very much, how does ecotourism effect the economy of your business? Â¿ En una escala de 1 a 5, siendo uno muy poco y 5 mucho, como afecta el ecoturismo a la economÃa de su negocio ? . a. 1 Very Little/ Muy poco b. 2 Little/ Poco c. 3 Neutral/ Nada d. 4 Some/ Algo e. 5 Very Much/ Mucho 13. On a scale of one to five, with one being very negative and five very positive, how do you feel about ecotourism? Â¿ En una escala del 1 al 5, siendo uno muy negativo y 5 muy positivo, como se siente usted acerca del ecoturismo? a. 1 Very negative/ Muy negativo b. 2 Negative/ Negativo c. 3 Neutral/ Neutral d. 4 Positive/ Positivo
14 e. 5Very Positive/ Muy positivo 14. On a scale of one to five, with one being very little and five being very much, how does ecotourism affect Costa RicaÂ€s economy? Â¿ En una escala de 1 a 5, siendo 1 muy poco y 5 mucho, como afecta el ecoturismo a la economÃa de Costa Rica? a. 1 Very Little/ Muy poco b. 2 Little/ Poco c. 3 Neutral/ Nada d. 4 Some/ Algo e. 5 Very Much/ Mucho 15. On a scale of one to five, with one being very negat ive and five being very positive, how does ecotourism effect conservation in Costa Rica? Â¿ En una escala del 1 al 5, siendo 1 muy negativo y 5 muy positivo, como afe cta el ecoturismo la conservaci Ã³ n en Costa Rica? a. 1 Very Negative/ Muy negativo b. 2 Negative/ Negativo c. 3 Neutral/ Neutral d. 4 Positive/ Positivo e. 5 Very Positive/ Muy positivo
15 APPENDIX 4: Data for Sampled Reserves Name Govern mental Payments Donations/ Other Marketing in USD Tourism Revenue USD Total Revenue USD Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve 0 0 10,900 1,200,000 1,200,000 Monteverde Conservation League 185,000 4 7,000 2,000 140,000 535,000 Santa Elena Reserve 0 Â‡ in process 0 0 327,000 327,000 Sendero Tranquilo 0 Â‡ in process 0 4,000 15,000 15,000 Finca Ecol Ã³ gica 0 100 800 6,100 6,100 UGA/Ecolodge 0 0 3,000 13,500 13,500 Creative School 0 157,158 + tuition, not included here 970 22,718 555,943 Estaci Ã³ n Biol Ã³ gica Monteverde 0 199,200 2,000 800 200,000 La Tirimbina 14,000 30,000 15,000 200,000 250,000 Rara Avis 0 8000 1000 191,339 199,339 Reserva BiolÃ³gica Campanario 0 0 0 27495 27,495 Rancho Mastatal 4, 000 0 100 100,000 104,000 Finca Quijote de Esperanza 0 0 0 0 No data Terra Folia, S.A. 12,000 0 300 3,000 3,000 Bosque Eterno 19,200 15,000 0 0 34,200 SelvaTura 0 0 No data 1,120,500 1,250,500 SkyWalk SkyTrek 0 0 No data 1,800,000 1,800,000 Name Contact Distance to Airport km Size ha Tourists/ year 2008 Park Admission USD Foreign Adult Monteverde Cloud Forest Preser ve Marjorie Cruz 83.61 10,500 80,279 17 Monteverde Conservation League M ia Roberts 83.61 43,500 9,792 8 Santa Elena Reserve J ohnny 83.61 310 28,000 14 Sendero Tranquilo Zaida Villalobo s 83.61 92 1,000 35 Finca Ecologica Andrea Hu e rt a s 83.61 30 1,000 10 UGA/Ecolodge Fabrici o Camacho 83.61 50 150 90 Creative School A lan Masters 83.61 42 118 12.5 Estaci Ã³ n Biol Ã³ gica Monteverde Marvin Hi dalgo 83.61 100 20 0 L a Tirimbina Carlos Chavarria 61.59 345 15,000 15 Rara Avis Viviana 45.42 358 1698 60 Reserva BiolÃ³gica Campanario Nancy Aitkin 136.54 54 262 100 Rancho Mastatal Tim O'Hara 19.57 222.67 500 0 Finca Quijot e de Esperanza Ginnee Hancock 36.42 514.17 0 0 Terra Folia, S.A. Rick Chatham 60.57 283.4 100 0 Bosque Eterno Karen Mast ers 83.61 554 0 0 SelvaTura Samuel Morenco 83.61 300 54,000 20.75 SkyWalk SkyTrek He idy Garcia 83.61 20 40,000 45
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xlink http:www.w3.org1999xlink xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance
leader 00000nas 2200000Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 000000c19749999pautr p s 0 0eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a M39-00135
Factores e impactos en los ingresos del ecoturismo de las reservas privadas en Costa Rica
Factors and impacts of ecotourism on revenue of private reserves in Costa Rica
Tourism in Costa Rica represents a large piece of the countrys national revenue, but the exact funds private reserves obtain from this source has been insufficiently studied. The goal of this investigation was to determine reserves ecotourism revenue and factors impacting differences in income. Survey data was collected from 17 private
reserves in Costa Rica to determine percentage of revenue derived from tourism, payments for environmental services (PES), and donations or other sources. In addition, the survey sought to identify factors that may explain differential revenues. An average of 88% of revenue came from ecotourism, 8%percent from donations, and 4%
from governmental payments. There were significant correlations between marketing budget and revenue, as well as tourists per year on overall tourism revenue. However, size, distance from San Jos, and park admission fee had no significant correlation to tourist revenue, indicating that tourists visit reserves independently of these factors. Studies have hypothesized that ecotourism may not be an effective vehicle for conservation, and opinion results of the
survey supported this belief. However, payments for environmental services may represent an economically viable way to balance the conflicts between tourism and conservation.
El turismo en Costa Rica representa una parte importante de los ingresos nacionales del pas, pero los fondos exactos que las reservas privadas obtienen de esta fuente han sido poco estudiadas. El objetivo de esta investigacin fue determinar los ingresos del ecoturismo en las reservas y los factores que influyen en las diferencias de los ingresos. Se colectaron encuestas en 17 reservas privadas en Costa Rica para determinar el porcentaje de los ingresos derivados del turismo, los pagos por servicios ambientales (PES), y las donaciones u otras fuentes.
Text in English.
Tropical Ecology 2009
Payments for environmental services
Ecologa Tropical 2009
Pagos por servicios ambientales
t Monteverde Institute : Tropical Ecology