Growing and diversifying expectations for protected areas: Are they too high?

If there is one trend that has typified the relationship between society and its protected areas it is the growing demands and broadening expectations for the services and benefits based on the natural capital preserved within them. Originally established on a foundation of scenery protection, recovery of wildlife populations and preservation of landscapes from human development, the world’s storehouse of parks and other similar areas have experienced diversifying demands:


• they have become sources of genetic resources, potentially providing useful and effective medicines for human health,

• they are increasingly recognized as buffers against climate change,

• poverty stricken areas increasingly view them as engines of economic development and as ways of enhancing their quality of life,

• they are to serve as models of democratic governance, and

• they should provide opportunities to learn about the natural world and our impact upon it.

This partial list is quite significant. But are we up to meeting these expectations? The diversification of expectations has grown rapidly, far outpacing our ability—in terms of technical aspects and in terms of institutions—to competently address them. Government budgets for protection are generally declining; in the U.S., agencies such as the Forest Service, have lost a lot of their staffs as the federal government has changed its priorities for funding. This loss of staff has reduced the agency’s capabilities to manage publicly administered lands for these growing purposes.

In response to diversifying and growing demands in combination with declining funding, agencies have increasingly turned to tourism as a method of financing management. Tourism is probably the dominant economic use of protected areas. Revenues from visitors, such as fees, charges and taxes, can become sources of revenue directed toward management. Indirect revenue from taxes and fees on visitor expenditures outside of protected areas can also contribute to management. For example, in the state of Montana in the U.S., a portion of the taxes on use of overnight accommodations regardless of their location goes to fund management of state parks and to the state Historical Society for maintenance of local signs.

Now, I believe tourism should pay its way: the increased costs of management of a protected area for visitation, particularly for recreational purposes, should be borne by those inducing those costs. But many agencies are looking for tourism to pay for all management costs. This orientation is problematic for several reasons.

First, protected areas are designed to benefit all of society, not just particular segments. When only segment finances the management for all of society two things happen: (1) that segment will exercise more and more power over management decisions; and (2) the remaining components of society may lose a sense of “ownership” or responsibility for the area. The second consequence is dangerous in the long run as it will eventually lead to, I fear, a disassociation of society and environmental protection.

Second, as fees are raised to generate revenue to cover management costs, those unable to pay cannot visit the park. This is not an unfounded fear. In South Africa, entrance fees (termed a “conservation fee) to Kruger National Park range up to $20 US per day for international visitors, and average about $5 US per day per person for South African citizens. This fee structure has a tremendous influence on visitation patterns: the vast majority of visitors to Kruger are international visitors who can afford the entrance fee. The revenues from tourism, including profits from accommodation and food pay for the entire management costs of Kruger.

A typical South African family of 5 would thus pay $25 per day for entrance into the park in comparison to the U.S. average of about $20 per week per vehicle.

Third, structuring fees so that visitors subsidize management reflects a philosophy that only individuals benefit from the protected areas not society as a whole. Yet, the fundamental purpose of protection is to ensure a continuing, sustainable flow of services and benefits is provided to society.

So, finding money is a big problem, and finding it in a way that does not conflict with the goals of protection is also a big problem, one that is value laden in character. What is needed is a framework to structure our thinking about how we can solve these problems. More on this later.