Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:46:19.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Optimizing protected area entry fees across stakeholders: the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, Michoacan, Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

ANTONIO KIDO
Affiliation:
Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Michoacan, Mexico.
ANDREW SEIDL
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA 80523-1172. Tel: 970-491-7071. Fax: 970-491-2067. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Tourists, protected area managers, gateway communities, and national or international interested parties may have different objectives for protected areas management in developing countries. When values and incentives are at cross-purposes, difficulties in management may persist, but policy alternatives may be available. This research hopes to better understand the incentives facing different groups of stakeholders in the ecological-economic management of the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Michoacan, Mexico. The quasi-private management of this protected area by ‘ejidatarios’ provides an additional feature of interest. Travel cost, contingent behavior and export base analyses are used to establish alternative optimal entrance price strategies at the Reserve. Potential policy alternatives from the perspective of each stakeholder group are explored. Significant changes in management strategy, optimal entry fee and economic benefit appear to be possible by recognizing different scales and orientations of relevant stakeholders.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Alberini, A., Kanninen, B., and Carson, R. 1994, ‘A general model for double-bounded discrete choice contingent valuation data’, Paper presented at the AERE session of the ASSA Meetings, Boston MA.Google Scholar
Beal, D. 1996, ‘A theoretical market model for national parks of different ecological character managed by one agency’, Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 64: 177182.Google Scholar
Cameron, C. and Travedi, P. 1986, ‘Econometric models based on count data: comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests’, Journal of Applied Econometrics 1: 2953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, T.A. 1992, ‘Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of non-market goods’, Land Economics 68: 302317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanneman, M. 1984, ‘Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete choice responses’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 332341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanneman, M. 1989, ‘Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete choice data: reply’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71: 10571061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirman, A. 1992, ‘Whom or what does the representative individual represent?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 6: 117136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiftmann, J. 1998, ‘Options for managing protected areas: lessons from international experience’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41: 129143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, J. 1997, ‘Panel estimators to combine revealed and stated preference dichotomous choice data’, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22: 233245.Google Scholar
Stoker, T. 1993, ‘Completeness, distribution restrictions, and the form of aggregate functions’, Econometrica 52: 887907.Google Scholar