National park entrance fees: A global benchmarking focussed on affordability

Q1 Environmental Science Parks Pub Date : 2019-05-03 DOI:10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.PARKS-25-1HVZ.EN
H. V. Zyl, J. Kinghorn, L. Emerton
{"title":"National park entrance fees: A global benchmarking focussed on affordability","authors":"H. V. Zyl, J. Kinghorn, L. Emerton","doi":"10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.PARKS-25-1HVZ.EN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Setting protected area entrance fees at appropriate levels can be extremely challenging. We provide benchmarking data across a sample of 62 countries and construct an Index of Affordability (IOA), showing protected area entry fees relative to citizens’ per capita income adjusted for purchasing power. Using this measure, Australian parks are the most affordable (IOA of 0.10) to citizens, those in Benin are the least affordable (10.69), while Indonesia is closest to the global average IOA of 2.09. Protected areas in low-income countries are on average 30 times less affordable to citizens than in high-income countries. This has equity implications, and may supress visitation rates, thereby reducing the degree to which citizens attach value to, and are willing to support, national parks. International tourist fees are lowest in Armenia (US$1.04) and highest in Tanzania (US$43.72), while Costa Rica is closest to the global average (US$11.21), a relatively small proportion of the US$165 average daily spend estimated for European middle to higher income tourists. International tourists to low-income countries pay an average entrance fee of US$20, four times that paid in high-income countries. This is arguably fair, given their far smaller protected area funding bases and much greater reliance on tourism earnings. Our findings support fee differentiation between citizens and international tourists as a means of equating affordability.","PeriodicalId":37571,"journal":{"name":"Parks","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parks","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.PARKS-25-1HVZ.EN","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Setting protected area entrance fees at appropriate levels can be extremely challenging. We provide benchmarking data across a sample of 62 countries and construct an Index of Affordability (IOA), showing protected area entry fees relative to citizens’ per capita income adjusted for purchasing power. Using this measure, Australian parks are the most affordable (IOA of 0.10) to citizens, those in Benin are the least affordable (10.69), while Indonesia is closest to the global average IOA of 2.09. Protected areas in low-income countries are on average 30 times less affordable to citizens than in high-income countries. This has equity implications, and may supress visitation rates, thereby reducing the degree to which citizens attach value to, and are willing to support, national parks. International tourist fees are lowest in Armenia (US$1.04) and highest in Tanzania (US$43.72), while Costa Rica is closest to the global average (US$11.21), a relatively small proportion of the US$165 average daily spend estimated for European middle to higher income tourists. International tourists to low-income countries pay an average entrance fee of US$20, four times that paid in high-income countries. This is arguably fair, given their far smaller protected area funding bases and much greater reliance on tourism earnings. Our findings support fee differentiation between citizens and international tourists as a means of equating affordability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国家公园入场费:一项关注可负担性的全球基准
将保护区的入场费设定在适当的水平是极具挑战性的。我们提供了62个国家样本的基准数据,并构建了一个可负担性指数(IOA),显示了保护区入场费与经购买力调整的公民人均收入的关系。使用这一衡量标准,澳大利亚的公园是公民最负担得起的(IOA为0.10),贝宁的公园是最负担得起的(10.69),而印度尼西亚最接近全球平均IOA 2.09。低收入国家保护区内居民的负担能力平均比高收入国家低30倍。这对公平有影响,可能会抑制游客数量,从而降低公民对国家公园的重视程度和支持程度。国际旅游费用最低的是亚美尼亚(1.04美元),最高的是坦桑尼亚(43.72美元),而哥斯达黎加最接近全球平均水平(11.21美元),相对于欧洲中高收入游客平均每日消费165美元的比例相对较小。到低收入国家旅游的国际游客平均要支付20美元的入场费,是高收入国家的4倍。这可以说是公平的,因为它们的保护区资金基础要小得多,对旅游业收入的依赖要大得多。我们的研究结果支持公民和国际游客之间的费用差异,这是一种平等负担能力的手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Parks
Parks Environmental Science-Nature and Landscape Conservation
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: We aim for PARKS to be a rigorous, challenging publication with high academic credibility and standing. But at the same time the journal is and should remain primarily a resource for people actively involved in establishing and managing protected areas, under any management category or governance type. We aim for the majority of papers accepted to include practical management information. We also work hard to include authors who are involved in management but do not usually find the time to report the results of their research and experience to a wider audience. We welcome submissions from people whose written English is imperfect as long as they have interesting research to report, backed up by firm evidence, and are happy to work with authors to develop papers for the journal. PARKS is published with the aim of strengthening international collaboration in protected area development and management by: • promoting understanding of the values and benefits derived from protected areas to governments, communities, visitors, business etc; • ensuring that protected areas fulfil their primary role in nature conservation while addressing critical issues such as ecologically sustainable development, social justice and climate change adaptation and mitigation; • serving as a leading global forum for the exchange of information on issues relating to protected areas, especially learning from case studies of applied ideas; • publishing articles reporting on recent applied research that is relevant to protected area management; • changing and improving protected area management, policy environment and socio-economic benefits through use of information provided in the journal; and • promoting IUCN’s work on protected areas.
期刊最新文献
Clarifying ‘long-term’ for protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs): why only 25 years of ‘intent’ does not qualify The World Heritage Convention, Protected Areas and Rivers: Challenges for Representation and Implications for International Water Cooperation A crisis of moral ecology: Magar agro-pastoralism in Dhorpatan Hunting Reserve, Nepal The benefits of the IUCN Green List in implementing effective park management in Queensland, Australia Nudging to glory: the World Heritage Convention’s influence in conflict-prone Global South natural sites
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1