Despite the increasing number of visitors to Galapagos National Park, the tourism industry pays little attention to the distinct preferences of tourists toward park attributes, including both its natural resources and managerial emphasis. To “monetize” the benefits of these attributes requires utilizing nonmarket valuation techniques. Using a stated preference questionnaire, we estimated the economic value of the park’s recreational attributes. The following five attributes were selected: endangered species, prevalence of garbage, site infrastructure, air quality, and entrance fees. The results of this study demonstrate that tourists place the highest willingness to pay values on increased protection of animal species (US$26.9) and garbage reduction (US$111.2). These results highlight the economic contributions for park management, with a potential for value improvement of US$38.1 per tourist if the park’s combined attributes are upgraded from the present condition to the optimum condition.
AlexandrakisGManasakisCKampanisNA (2019) Economic and societal impacts on cultural heritage sites, resulting from natural effects and climate change. Heritage2(1): 279–305.
2.
BansalPDazianoRAAchtnichtM (2018) Extending the logit-mixed logit model for a combination of random and fixed parameters. Journal of Choice Modelling27: 88–96.
3.
BarbierEBAcremanMKnowlerD (1997) Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A Guide for Policy Makers and Planners. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Bureau.
4.
BenitezS (2001) Tarifas por el uso turistico de las areas protegidas. The Nature Conservancy: Turismo y Áreas Protegidas: 1–22.
5.
Benitez-CapistrosFHugéJKoedamN (2014) Environmental impacts on the Galapagos Islands: identification of interactions, perceptions and steps ahead. Ecological Indicators38: 113–123.
6.
BennettJ (1996) Estimating the recreation use values of national parks. Tourism Economics2(4): 303–320.
7.
BlameyRGordonJChapmanR (1999) Choice modelling: assessing the environmental values of water supply options. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics43(3): 337–357.
8.
BoyesK (2016) Applying wildlife conservation tourism to marine endangered species: identifying indicators for triple bottom line sustainability. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, USA.
9.
BrauRCaoD (2006) Uncovering the macrostructure of tourists’ preferences: a choice experiment analysis of tourism demand to Sardinia. SSRN Electronic Journal33: 1–30.
10.
BrownTC (2003) Introduction to stated preference methods. In: ChampPABoyleKJBrownTC (eds) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, Vol. 3. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 99–110.
11.
BullockSDLawsonSR (2008) Managing the “commons” on Cadillac Mountain: a stated choice analysis of Acadia National Park visitors’ preferences. Leisure Sciences30(1): 71–86.
12.
BurkeLGreenhalghSPragerD, et al. (2008) Coastal capital: economic valuation of coral reefs in Tobago and St. Lucia. Coastal Capital: Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs in Tobago and St. Lucia.
13.
CarlssonFFrykblomPLiljenstolpeC (2003) Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecological Economics47(1): 95–103.
14.
CaveCNegussieE (2017) Managing world heritage. In: World Heritage Conservation. Routledge, pp. 164–191.
15.
ChampPABoyleKJBrownTC (2017) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation, Vol. 13. Dordrecht: Springer.
16.
ChenJMZhangJNijkampP (2016) A regional analysis of willingness-to-pay in Asian cruise markets. Tourism Economics22(4): 809–824.
17.
ChristieMHanleyNHynesS (2007) Valuing enhancements to forest recreation using choice experiment and contingent behaviour methods. Journal of Forest Economics13(2): 75–102.
18.
ConcuNAtzeniG (2012) Conflicting preferences among tourists and residents. Tourism Management33(6): 1293–1300.
19.
DailyGC (1997) Nature’s Services. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Island Press.
20.
DanielWM (2003) Nonmarket valuation in action. In: ChampPABoyleKJBrownTC (eds) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resource, Vol. 3. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 483–536.
21.
DavisRK (1963) Recreation planning as an economic problem. Nature Resources Journal3(2): 239–249.
22.
De GrootRS (1983) Tourism and conservation in the Galapagos Islands. Biological Conservation26(4): 291–300.
23.
EkKPerssonL (2014) Wind farms—where and how to place them? A choice experiment approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm establishments in Sweden. Ecological Economics105: 193–203.
24.
FloresEN (2017) Conceptual framework for nonmarket valuation. In: ChampPABoyleKJBrownTC (eds) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, Vol. 3. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 27–54.
25.
GhulamRabbanyMAfrinSRahmanA, et al. (2013) Environmental effects of tourism. American Journal of Environment, Energy and Power Research1(7): 117–130.
26.
GrafeldSOlesonKBarnesM, et al. (2016) Divers’ willingness to pay for improved coral reef conditions in Guam: an untapped source of funding for management and conservation?Ecological Economics128: 202–213.
27.
GreenPSrinivasanV (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing54(4): 3–19.
28.
GuzmánI (2007) Charles Darwin Foundation Annual Report. Quito: Grupo Impresor.
29.
HaabTMcConnellK (2003) The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
30.
HaefeleMLoomisJBBilmesL (2016) Total Economic Valuation of the National Park Service Lands and Programs: Results of a Survey of the American Public. HKS Working Paper No. 16-024.
31.
HanleyN (2001) Cost—benefit analysis and environmental policymaking. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space19(1): 103–118.
32.
HanleyNWrightREAlvarez-FarizoB (2005) Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. In: Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 111–130.
33.
Hasan-BasriBKarimMZBakarN (2015) Willingness to pay for recreational attributes of public parks: a choice experiment approach. The Singapore Economic Review60(05): 1550048.
34.
HearneRRSalinasZM (2002) The use of choice experiments in the analysis of tourist preferences for ecotourism development in Costa Rica. Journal of Environmental Management65(2): 153–163.
35.
HoleAR (2013) Mixed logit modeling in Stata: an overview. In: United Kingdom Stata Users’ Group Meetings, September 2013 (No. 23). Stata Users Group.
36.
HolmesTPAdamowiczWLCarlssonF (2017) Choice experiments. In: ChampPABoyleKJBrownTC (eds) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. The Economics of Non-Market Goods and Resources, Vol. 3. Dordrecht: Springer.
37.
HougnerCColdingJSöderqvistT (2006) Economic valuation of a seed dispersal service in the Stockholm National Urban Park, Sweden. Ecological Economics59(3): 364–374.
38.
IzurietaATapiaWMosqueraG, et al. (2014) El Ámbito Conceptual y Geográfico del Plan de Manejo: Galápagos como una Ecorregión y un Socio ecosistema, Mariscal.
39.
JeanetteS (2008) The choice experiment method and use. In: Measuring the Value of Culture: Methods and Examples in Cultural Economics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 177–215.
40.
JeanlozSLizinSBeenaertsN, et al. (2016) Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: a study in a Belgian protected area. Ecosystem Services18: 45–57.
41.
JuradoENTejadaMTGarcíaFA, et al. (2012) Carrying capacity assessment for tourist destinations. Methodology for the creation of synthetic indicators applied in a coastal area. Tourism Management33(6): 1337–1346.
42.
KangNWangEYuY (2018) Valuing forest park attributes by giving consideration to the tourist satisfaction. Tourism Economics25: 1–18.
43.
KenchingtonRA (1989) Tourism in the Galápagos Islands: the dilemma of conservation. Environmental Conservation16(03): 227–232.
44.
KristoferssonDNavrudS (2007) Can use and non-use values be transferred across countries? In: Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 207–226.
45.
LancasterKJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy74(2):132–157.
46.
LatinopoulosD (2014) The impact of economic recession on outdoor recreation demand: an application of the travel cost method in Greece. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management57(2): 254–272.
47.
LeeWSLeeJMoonJ (2018) Study on the preference for capsule hotel attributes using a choice experiment. Tourism Economics24(4): 492–499.
48.
LeónCJLeónJDArañaJE, et al. (2015) Tourists preferences for congestion, residents welfare and the ecosystems in a national park. Ecological Economics118: 21–29.
49.
LewDKWallmoK (2017) Temporal stability of stated preferences for endangered species protection from choice experiments. Ecological Economics131: 87–97.
50.
LyuSO (2017) Which accessible travel products are people with disabilities willing to pay more?A choice experiment. Tourism Management59: 404–412.
51.
McFaddenD (1974) Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
52.
McIntoshCRWilmotN (2011) An empirical study of the influences of recreational park visitation: the case of US National Park Service sites. Tourism Economics17(2): 425–435.
53.
MatthewsYScarpaRMarshD (2017) Stability of willingness-to-pay for coastal management: a choice experiment across three time periods. Ecological Economics138: 64–73.
54.
MejíaCVBrandtS (2015) Managing tourism in the Galapagos Islands through price incentives: a choice experiment approach. Ecological Economics117: 1–11.
55.
Ministry of Tourism of Ecuador (2019) Institución que ejercer la rectoría, regulación, control, planificación, gestión, promoción y difusión, a fin de posicionar al Ecuador como un destino turístico preferente en el mundo. Available at: https://www.turismo.gob.ec/(accessed 30 May 2019).
56.
MowforthMCharltonCMuntI (2007) Tourism and Responsibility: Perspectives from Latin America and the Caribbean. Abingdon: Routledge.
57.
MuellerJMSpringerAELimaRE (2018) Willingness to pay for forest restoration as a function of proximity and viewshed. Landscape and Urban Planning175: 23–33.
58.
MuhannaE (2006) Sustainable tourism development and environmental management for developing countries. Problems and Perspectives in Management, Sumy4(2): 1–18.
59.
NaidooRAdamowiczWL (2005) Biodiversity and nature-based tourism at forest reserves in Uganda. Environment and Development Economics10(2): 159–178.
60.
NewellLWSwallowSK (2013) Real-payment choice experiments: valuing forested wetlands and spatial attributes within a landscape context. Ecological Economics92: 37–47.
61.
Parque Nacional Galapagos (2017) Estudio técnico de factibilidad para el desarrollo de un modelo logístico y de gestión, con enfoque ambiental, para el transporte terrestre y sus diferentes modalidades en el cantón santa cruz, provincia de galápagos, Puerto Ayora, Ecuador. Available at: https://www.darwinfoundation.org/en/blog-articles/420-2017-2018-annual-report-launch (accessed 21 August 2018).
62.
PedersenA (2004) Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites: A Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp. 1–96.
63.
PeñaherreraCLlerenaYKeithI (2012) Perceptions on the economic value of sharks for the daily diving tourism industry and the souvenir commerce in Santa Cruz Island. Galapagos Report.
64.
PoweNGarrodGMcmahonP (2005) Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis. Ecological Economics52(4): 513–526.
65.
PowellRBHamSH (2008) Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism16(4): 467–489.
66.
RolfeJWindleJ (2015) Do respondents adjust their expected utility in the presence of an outcome certainty attribute in a choice experiment?Environmental and Resource Economics60(1): 125–142.
67.
RosenbergerRSLoomisJB (2001) Benefit transfer of outdoor recreation use values: a technical document supporting the forest service strategic plan (2000 revision). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-72. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 59: 72.
68.
RuizL (2017) Adverse environmental effects of tourism on communities in the Ecuadorian highlands region. Current Urban Studies05(03): 348–355.
69.
SchuhmannPWCaseyJFHorrocksJA, et al. (2013) Recreational SCUBA divers’ willingness to pay for marine biodiversity in Barbados. Journal of Environmental Management121: 29–36.
WallerJLeaS (1999) Seeking the real Spain? Authenticity in motivation. Annals of Tourism Research25: 110–129.
75.
WangEWeiJLuH (2014) Valuing natural and non-natural attributes for a national forest park using a choice experiment method. Tourism Economics20(6): 1199–1213.
76.
WangEWeiJZhuJ (2016) The effects of improving coastal park attributes on the recreation demand—a case study in Dalian China. Tourism Economics23(1):133–149.
77.
WillisKG (2014) The use of stated preference methods to value cultural heritage. In: Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture 2. Elsevier, pp. 145–181.
78.
WilsonCTisdellC (2004) Attitudes to entry fees to national parks: results and policy implications from a Queensland case study. Economic Analysis and Policy34(1): 79–102.
79.
WuepperD (2016) What is the value of world heritage status for a German national park? A choice experiment from Jasmund, 1 year after inscription. Tourism Economics23(5): 1114–1123.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
