Entrance and Activity Fees (Tourism)

1.   Understanding Entrance and Activity Fees

1.5    Strengths, Risks, and Challenges

Entrance and activity fees can have a wide range of environmental, economic, and social benefits – assuming that impacts are well managed, and some revenues are re-invested in the long-term maintenance of sites of interest (Leung et al. 2018). Their strengths as a finance solution are as follows (Lindberg 2001; Summers 2005; Eagles & Hillel 2008; Rylance, Snyman & Spenceley 2017):

  • Fees provide income for PA authorities to reinvest in conservation

  • Fees can lead to economic efficiency in terms of maximizing social benefits – nature-based tourism typically generates costs, and free access would lead to the marginal user receiving less benefit than the cost that their visit generated

  • Fees are equitable across users and non-users (in contrast to taxes) – i.e. the benefits received by a visitor can clearly be identified, and those who do not pay the fees can generally be excluded

  • If revenues are earmarked/directly retained by a PA management entity, they can act as an incentive for cost-saving, accountability, and improved management (depending on institutional capacity), creating a positive cycle leading back to increased revenue generation

  • Fees can be beneficial for local businesses, since free or under-priced access to recreation opportunities on public land may draw visitors away from private businesses operating elsewhere

  • Fees can be used as a visitor management tool, and extra staff employed to collect fees can provide a management presence and means to inform and educate visitors, with potential to minimize negative impacts on wildlife or biophysical resources

  • Revenues can be used to enhance site quality, which in turn increases acceptance of the fees among visitors and the tourism industry, and can potentially attract more tourists. If this tourism is well managed, it can have the following benefits:

    • Stimulate the local economy through employment and entrepreneurship in the tourism supply chain

    • Build awareness and support among visitors on the importance of conservation (Powell & Ham 2008)

    • Provide a major incentive for communities in or near PAs to safeguard wildlife and avoid illegal or destructive activities, through direct social and economic benefits (Leung et al. 2018)

  • Charging fees for access to and activities in specific sites of interest can raise awareness of the importance of these sites to local and regional economies, justifying political support and better funding for management (Leung et al. 2018)

The main challenges of using entrance and activity fees to capture revenues for conservation are as follows:

  • If multi-tiered fee systems are not used (some countries have explicit or perceived legislative prohibitions on this) low-income or other socio-economic groups may be disproportionately affected by fees or excluded from benefiting from nature

  • It can be costly to collect fees and PAs frequently lack the capacity, infrastructure, and financial resources required (Lindberg 2001; Bovarnick et al. 2010)

  • Fee revenues can rarely cover all PA costs and, without other complementary measures, may offer only a limited relief to large funding gaps (Eagles 2002)

  • If the generation of revenues is highly concentrated in a few PAs, the remaining PAs and overall conservation impact may be further compromised

  • It is necessary to ensure that fees will be used for parks and conservation, and to benefit impoverished local people living in buffer zones and intact areas of high conservation value, rather than being used to subsidize unrelated government activities and functions, or being appropriated for the benefit of politically powerful individuals or interest groups. This is different from the issue that is mentioned below of “corruption and bribery at fee collection points”.

The main risks of using entrance and activity fees to capture revenues for conservation are as follows: (Font, Cochrane & Tapper 2004; Lindberg 2001; Summers 2005; Leung et al. 2018)

  • Inefficient fee collection, including corruption and bribery at collection points, particularly if institutions and audit systems are weak

  • Staff can end up focusing on maximizing fee collection and neglecting PA management (especially if staff are few)

  • Revenues can be vulnerable to political interference or sudden policy changes (especially if they are channelled into a central treasury) and even if revenues are earmarked, politicians might reduce budget allocations by the amount generated through tourism fees, further compromising financial sustainability

  • The volatility and seasonality of tourism demand can make tourism revenues an unpredictable and unreliable source of finance for conservation

  • Earmarked revenues can incentivize PA or site staff to allow levels of visitation that compromise conservation and social values – more details on the negative environmental and socio-economic impacts of tourism can be found in Tourism Financing for Conservation

  • Low public acceptance of fees resulting from concerns around the exclusion of citizens from public natural land and marine areas, or double taxation (i.e. residents paying taxes and user fees)

  • In areas with limited economic opportunities, fees may lead to reduced tourism spending and subsequent opposition from the tourism industry, but conducting willingness-to-pay surveys may in many cases alleviate such opposition (e.g., in the case of the introduction of Belize’s “conservation levy” that all foreign tourists are required to pay), because the tourism industry is also quite concerned that their revenues may plummet if the resource becomes degraded or inadequately protected (particularly in the case of coral reefs and commercial dive operators, or if beaches or trails and sites become full of litter, etc.)