Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:08:40.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do entrance fees crowd out donations for public goods? Evidence from a protected area in Costa Rica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2014

Francisco Alpízar ,
Peter Martinsson  and
Anna Nordén
Francisco Alpízar
Affiliation:
Environment for Development (EfD) Center for Central America, CATIE, 7170 Turrialba, Costa Rica. Tel: (506) 2558-2215. Fax: (506) 2558-2625. E-mail: [email protected]
Peter Martinsson
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]
Anna Nordén
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, and Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate how different levels of entrance fees affect donations for a public good, a natural park. To explore this issue, we conducted a stated preference study focusing on visitors' preferences for donating money to raise funds for a protected area in Costa Rica given different entrance fee levels. The results reveal that there is incomplete crowding out of donations when establishing an entrance fee.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , June 2015 , pp. 311 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alpízar, F., Carlsson, F., and Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008), ‘Anonymity, reciprocity and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica’, Journal of Public Economics 92(5–6): 1047–1060.Google Scholar
Alpízar, F., Carlsson, F., and Martinsson, P. (2003), ‘Using choice experiments for non-market valuation’, Economic Issues 8(1): 83–110.Google Scholar
Alpízar, F. and Martinsson, P. (2012), ‘Paying the price of sweetening your donation – evidence from a natural field experiment’, Economics Letters 114(2): 182–185.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1988), ‘Privately provided public goods in a large economy: the limits of altruism’, Journal of Public Economics 35(1): 57–73.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1990), ‘Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving?’, Economic Journal 100(2): 464–477.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1993), ‘An experimental test of the public-goods crowding-out hypothesis’, American Economic Review 83(5): 1317–1327.Google Scholar
Bénabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2006), ‘Incentives and prosocial behavior’, American Economic Review 96(5): 1652–1678.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., and Varian, H. (1986), ‘On the private provision of public goods’, Journal of Public Economics 29(1): 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F. and Martinsson, P. (2001), ‘Do hypothetical and actual willingness to pay differ in choice experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41(2): 179–192.Google Scholar
Chan, K., Godby, R., Mestelman, S., and Muller, A.R. (2002), ‘Crowding-out voluntary contributions to public goods’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 48(3): 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, L.C., Lee, D.R., Schulze, W.D., and Anderson, D.J. (1998) ‘Ecotourism demand and differential pricing of national park access in Costa Rica’, Land Economics 74(4): 466–482.Google Scholar
Daly, A., Hess, S., and Train, K. (2012), ‘Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficients models’, Transportation 39(1): 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A. (2007), ‘Gift exchange in the field’, Econometrica 75(5): 1501–1511.Google Scholar
Frey, B. and Meier, S. (2004), ‘Social comparison and pro-social behavior: testing “conditional cooperation” in a field experiment’, American Economic Review 94(5): 1717–1722.Google Scholar
Gronberg, T.J., Luccasen, R.A., Turocy, T.L., and Van Huyck, J.B. (2012), ‘Are tax-financed contributions to a public good completely crowded-out? Experimental evidence’, Journal of Public Economics 96(7): 596–603.Google Scholar
Hearne, R.R. and Salinas, Z.M. (2002), ‘The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa Rica’, Journal of Environmental Management 65(2): 153–163.Google Scholar
Huck, S. and Rasul, I. (2011), ‘Matched fundraising: evidence from a natural field experiment’, Journal of Public Economics 95(5): 351–362.Google Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O. and Svedsäter, H. (2012), ‘Self-image and valuation of moral goods: stated versus actual willingness to pay’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 84(3): 879–891.Google Scholar
Kallbekken, S., Kroll, S., and Cherry, T.L. (2011), ‘Do you not like Pigou, or do you not understand him? Tax aversion and revenue recycling in the lab’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 62(1): 53–64.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K. (1966), ‘New approach to consumer theory’, Journal of Political Economy 74(2): 132–157.Google Scholar
List, J.A. and Lucking-Reiley, D. (2002), ‘The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: experimental evidence from a university capital campaign’, Journal of Political Economy 110(1): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D. (2000), Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D. and Train, K. (2000), ‘Mixed MNL models for discrete response’, Journal of Applied Econometrics 15(5): 447–470.Google Scholar
Shang, J. and Croson, R. (2009), ‘A field experiment in charitable contribution: the impact of social information on the voluntary provision of a public goods’, Economic Journal 119(540): 1422–1439.Google Scholar
Soetevent, A.R. (2005), ‘Anonymity in giving in a natural context – a field experiment in 30 churches’, Journal of Public Economics 89(11): 2301–2323.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. (1970), The Gift Relationship: From Human to Social Policy, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Train, K. (2003), Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whittington, D. (2002), ‘Improving the performance of contingent valuation studies in developing countries’, Environmental and Resource Economics 22(1–2): 323–367.Google Scholar
Zelmer, J. (2003), ‘Linear public goods experiments: a meta-analysis’, Experimental Economics 6(3): 299–310.Google Scholar