Readings for Thursday

Here are two papers for Thursday.  The first one is an example of a Contingent Valuation study and the second is a Choice Experiment.  Those both fall under the category of Stated Preference Techniques.

 

Download MP_2018

Download Ocm_2016

 

 

Comments

[Jessica Pachuca]

Both of these pieces do great at highlighting the importance of the preservation of ecosystems economically. Entire industries could be disrupted if we don't protect them. In the case of Belize, respondents were willing to pay more than I expected. However, because the survey provided some context of the state of PACT/MPA, I wonder how that impacted the results. I'd imagine that given some background knowledge, individuals would be more inclined to pay higher amounts. It relates to the idea of the three I's and the impact "ignorance" has. If there were more efficient systems in place to educate people on environmental goals/consequences as it relates to them, would there be more support? Or would educating not suffice, as it is just a matter of ideology?

[Claire Jenkins]

Together, these articles emphasize the importance of the tourism industry in Belize and Barbados and the consequential importance of environmental conservation of these places. Both places are heavily dependent on the tourism industry, and as a result, highly dependent on the quality of the environment. The article that talked about marine policy in Belize was extremely interesting to me. I was surprised at the conclusions that the authors reached: that PACT had charged tourists leaving Belize a $3.75 conservation fee for over 20 years, and suddenly changed the fee to $20 but tourists are still willing to pay that, or more. When I first read this, I thought that tourists would see the extreme jump in the fee and have hesitations about paying $16 more than they previously would have had to. However, a $20 is not a huge expense compared to the costs that the tourists are paying as a whole for their trip to Belize. The results from the study indicate that about 80% of tourists are willing to pay higher exit fees when these revenues are used towards protecting the environment. This article relates to the article about Barbados because it seems that tourists are willing to pay for conservation efforts in these tourist destinations because they value clean beaches and the amenities, experiences, and activities that come with these conserved areas. If environmental degradation is not prevented in these places, tourists will likely stop traveling to them. After reading about the results from both of these studies, it seems that both these places, as well as other Caribbean islands and tourist destinations, are able to impose or raise exit fees without harming their levels of tourism. The Belize Barrier Reef is responsible for approximately 30% of national GDP and “long-term projected rise in sea levels are likely to impact more than 40 percent of hotels” on Barbados. These statistics highlight the importance of environmental conservation in these areas so that these places can maintain their levels of tourism to support their economies. Both articles made me hopeful that other places will realize the ability to impose these fees to increase their revenues directed towards conserving the environment. The authors also mention that places could receive more conservation financing through the use of targeted fees for specific activities, which I think would be viable as well.

[Valerie Sokolow]

Throughout reading these two papers, I kept thinking about the story we learned in Development last semester where Americans were asked if they thought the US should give less money to developing countries and how much. In my mind, that story highlights the absurdity of the discrepancy between what people think the US should give and what they actually give, but the story also highlights the lack of a sort of “anchoring” number that Casey and Schuhmann (2018) discuss in their findings of people’s WTP. In both cases, respondents stated higher values without an anchoring effect. I’m curious about if this is always the case – if people tend to think of higher values in WTP scenarios when they’re not given an anchoring number. Also, if this is commonly observed in WTP surveys for valuations of the environment, is there a way to account for this? Finally, I’m curious about if/how policymakers take this data into consideration when making decisions about environmental conservation issues. Clearly, people seem to be willing to pay a higher amount than they currently do (at the time of the study), but I’d imagine people would be reluctant to actually raise an entrance or exit fee out of fear of backlash.

[TevinPanchal]

I found the article on Belize interesting because it is somewhere I want to go. With much of the tourism spawning from the environmental attractions Belize presents, it makes sense to impose some sort of fee to keep the environment safe and in proper condition. Personally, I would be willing to pay even more than the 20 bucks required right now. I think people going on a vacation in Belize are spending a good amount of money, to begin with, ranging from flights to hotels and different attractions. At the end of the day, I do not see a fee as high as 30-50 dollars deterring tourists from visiting Belize. I asked one of my friends about Belize because she recently went, and she had no idea that there was even a fee when leaving. Although this might be a rare occurrence, I believe that the last thing someone is worried about when coming back from a vacation in Belize is paying 20 dollars to keep the environment they just spent a vacation on safe. I think when you are in a place like that paying 20 dollars is the least we can do to experience the conditions we are going for. Making the fee more transparent when booking flights and hotels might be something Belize can start doing just to make it apparent. I think someone searching for a vacation in Belize will not change plans when they find out there is a 20 dollar fee to experience what it has to offer. With the current price of 20$, 6M$ is going towards protecting the environment. It would be interesting to see what the optimal amount of funding would be and see if that is the amount that can be charged.

[Jackson Hotchkiss]

I thought both of these were a pretty interesting way of looking at the environment from an economic perspective. Both pieces presented the general idea that for the economic gain of the country or area it's in their best interest to hold the natural environment ( coral reef or beach ) to a high standard. In a way, I think this is somewhat funny because it seems like the only incentive to conserve these natural areas is economic. With this said, I found the exit fee that goes towards PACT in Belize to be somewhat surprising. Overall the WTP was very high. To be exact it was upward of 30 dollars after the survey results had been studied. I think this is so fascinating and having an exit fee was very smart on Belize's part. I think that the WTP would be much higher after one has experienced something in a natural place rather than before. Therefore, having an exit fee rather than an entry fee is brilliant. With this all said, Belize and Barbados seem to realize what they have in the form of Monetary value, but I wonder if this helps translate the message of the natural objects' non monetary value as well.

[Jack Lewis]

I really enjoyed reading the Belize article as I learned about a new concept of sustainability with the PACT fee. I was surprised to learn that the fee was only $3.75 for 21 years until 2017. I feel that Belize could have taken advantage of their tourist attractions and increased the fee earlier to fund more projects preserving the coastline and more. Additionally, I found the research to be very interesting because I found myself agreeing with many of the other vacationers in being willing to pay even more than a $20 fee. I definitely would be willing to pay more and I'm certain others would not mind paying a small fee at the end especially when they've already spent a large amount for their vacation. We see evidence in the article that the PACT fee does not seem to affect tourism because March 2018 had the highest number of overnight arrivals, and at this point, the fee was at $20, not $3.75. Additionally, I am curious about how many other countries that attract tourists have a fee, and how that fee compares to Belize. For example, it would be a great idea for Australia to impose a similar fee to as much as they can to preserve the Great Barrier Reef. It is clear that research including WTP can expose potential advantages countries can jump on.

[Kate Hannon]

These two studies raised several interesting points regarding how we pay for conservation efforts in countries where tourism is heavily impacted by the environment. Both studies focused on the United States, Canada, and (in the Barbados study) the United Kingdom. Caribbean tourists were represented in the Barbados study, comprising 10% of the sample, though the study notes that they were underrepresented. I am very curious about how this population, along with Central American tourists, would be affected by the proposed fees in Barbados and Belize. Though a $20+ fee might seem very reasonable to an American tourist who is presumably already spending considerable money on flights and hotels, I wonder if tourists coming to Barbados and Belize from neighboring developing countries would have the same level of resources to pay these fees. These fees will not be prohibitive to an American already shelling out thousands of dollars on a vacation, but the same might not be true for someone from a nearby country who is working with a much lower budget. I think it would be important to understand how the tax would be applied to those leaving the country; for example, would someone from Guatemala visiting family in Belize be expected to pay the tax? Environmental preservation is extremely important, and it seems only fair that those enjoying Belize and Barbados’ clean water and beaches help pay for their conservation. At the same time, I hope attention is paid to the impacts of these fees on tourists from nearby developing countries, who should also be able to participate in tourism in Belize and Barbados.

[Allyssa Utecht]

I found both of these articles to be great examples of contingent valuation and choice modeling methods that illustrate how often people's willingness to pay is greater than the current fees they are charged. In Belize, I found the $3.75 fee charged upon exiting the country to be extremely low and I was not surprised when I read that it was raised to $20. The survey conducted on tourists demonstrated the frequency with which their WTP end higher than the actual fees, indicating the potential for fees ti be raised even more without negative feedback and the resulting higher revenue for the conservation trust. These exit fees can be a key tool in repairing and conserving coastal and marine environments without hindering the tourism industry and recreation. The choice modeling study done in Barbados illustrates how we can take advantage of tourist’s WTP for cleaner, wider beaches and employ these funds to reduce coastal erosion and beach litter. There is a strong potential for significant funds to be made from raising the prices of properties that are along beaches that are kept clean and and unaffected by erosion, which can be used to install erosion preventing barriers and support litter collection/prevention efforts. Both of these types of surveys provide critical information on how people value the environment, but I think it would be interesting to survey those who live in Belize and Barbados to see if they value environmental preservation higher. However, even if they do place a significantly higher price on the health of the land they live on, I think the tourists should still be the ones who pay the conservation fees since they are often the primary source of damage, litter, and degradation.

[Clara Ortwein]

I really enjoyed reading these two papers because it gave me a much clearer idea of what these two concepts are and how they are used. The main thing I wondered after reading this is how they can be used together. At the end of the choice experiment paper, one of the final conclusions was that tourists (as people who reap the benefits of environmental quality in Barbados) should pay in part for their maintenance. Although WTP was determined based on what was most important to the tourists, does this calculation translate to the amount of taxes/fees that would then be placed on the tourists? Or would this come from studies like the contingent valuation study, which seemed to evaluate more closely how these kinds of fees would affect tourism. Another thing of interest to me was that the increase in exit fees in Belize did not come with a decrease in tourist levels, but actually an increase occurred. Of course, I have no idea what caused this growth, but I wonder if they were able to implement that revenue so quickly that it could have improved quality enough to actually affect number of visitors. If so, it would be interesting to know if the factors they addressed aligned with the findings of consumer preferences found in the choice experiment study.

[Jacob McCabe]

I really enjoyed both of these papers as they took on a similar theme and provided great insight as to the economic value of natural resources in these tourism-dependent countries. I found it pretty interesting that most people were willing to pay a greater exit fee than they needed to, but I also thought that it made sense for the population of the samples taken. People who are already scuba diving in coral reefs or involved in some other related activity already have an appreciation for the places they enjoy these activities. In addition, the same article mentioned that most of the respondents were college educated and made a very comfortable amount of money (~$99k). With this being the case, an additional $10-20 being charged on a trip they have already spent (likely) thousands on would be a negligible cost. I think that the rise in price is a step in the right direction for prioritizing sustaining the systems that provide so much pleasure to people all around the world.

[A Facebook User]

The article discussing conservation efforts in Belize and the exit fee's they require as well as consumer's willingness to pay (WTP) was extremely interesting to me. While there were points in the article which I did not find to be surprising, I found it most fascinating and interesting that consumer's WTP increased greatly when they were informed of the previous exit fee. The article discusses how when consumers were told that the exit fee was previously $3.75, their WTP showed a statistically significant increase. The more I think about this scenario, the more it makes sense, however initially I would have thought upon consumers hearing what it used to be, they would lower their WTP, stating it should still be around the same level. Among many others, one aspect of this article that greatly impressed me was the many different factors taken into consideration when measuring consumer's WTP. I found it fascinating that in order to calculate an accurate WTP, 10+ variables were needed. Lastly, when analyzing the introduction of the article I thought such a significant increase in exit fees would surely result in an extreme decrease in the amount of visitors. However, as explained in the fourth section of the article, the mean WTP for tourists came to be $34.60, showing that a further increase in exit fees could most likely be successful. I found this article to be very encouraging especially when finding out that 80% of tourists prioritize conservation efforts and their WTP increases if the money goes to such efforts.

[Trip Wright]

Reading these articles really enlightened me to the relationship between government policy and environmental action/justice. I have to echo the sentiments that Jackson made with regard to Belize's decision for the PACT fee to be an exit fee. While reading, I considered the "pathos" factor of visiting a country with beautiful beaches, coral reefs, snorkeling, etc. Such recreation creates long-lasting memories for many who visit, which fosters an affinity towards the country. Introduction to Economics teaches the change of a population's (those visiting Belize) taste and preferences for a good—i.e. visiting Belize—as a ceteris paribus violation causing demand to shift outward. This increase in demand leads to a decrease in quantity demanded and an increase in quantity supplied. Nonetheless, the price of the good, in theory, increases which could be supported in the increase of the PACT fee to $20 USD. The results from the contingent valuation method (CVM) survey revealed that 79% were willing to pay a higher conversation fee which suggests that 21% do not; this relationship could relate back to the decrease in quantity demanded due to an increase in T&P. However, the "price increase" at least the mean max willingness to pay (WTP) was $31.08 USD, 50% greater than the April 2017 fee increase. So, there are big benefits for charging the PACT fee after one's visit to Belize. Additionally, when thinking of those who visit Belize for vacation, they tend to have a decent amount of disposable income to spend. I enjoyed learning that the mean income of the sample was $98,977 USD, which allows an estimate that most individuals vacationing in Belize come from upper-middle-class/upper-class backgrounds. Thus, a $20 environmental conservation fee does not become burdening when mixed in with hotel, excursion, and food costs over the course after a mean 11 nights in the country. Kate brings up a good point by asking who does this PACT fee begin to impact? According to the article, "every international visitor to Belize" is charged the PACT fee. Thus, the country begins to become less accessible for visitors from developing countries. The survey sample yielded 88% of tourists from the United States or Canada, and, although Belize received a record number of overnight arrivals of 55,488 in March 2018, how many people were visiting from developed vs. developing countries?

[alliengfer]

Though tourism can be a great way for countries to profit off the preservation of its environment in favor of creating more unsustainable industries leading to more land degradation and pollutant emissions, the Barbados article seemed to contain negative undertones towards tourism, especially seen in the introduction section discussing the detriment of tourists’ littering habits. While it does mention how the local population contributes to coastline pollution as well, it seems to highlight the negative impact tourism. I think it should have instead highlighted its findings on how tourism could presumably almost fully reduce litter and fund targeted waste policy because of people’s willingness to pay for cleaner beaches and the loss of economic value resulting from litter. Essentially, it doesn’t matter if tourists pay an additional fee, as almost all would be willing to do according to the article, or if the tourism companies pay themselves to eradicate the litter because in the end, everyone should benefit from cleaner beaches.

I liked the Belize piece a lot, and similarly to the Barbados article, it gave me hope of potential industries that could help preserve the environment while still being very profitable and attractive to investors. It did not surprise me that 80% of those surveyed were willing to pay significantly more than the original price of the entrance fee, for when people are immersed into an environment like Barbados and are truly able to appreciate the beauty of nature, they should rationally want to pay extra to preserve it. Out of all the articles we’ve read so far in this class and in Developmental Econ, these two probably gave me the most hope of our ability/desire to conserve at least some of the remaining ecosystems even if it’s purely driven by profit maximization.

[Andrew Arnold]

I thought both these pieces were quite interesting because of how hard it is to assign economic value to things like beaches or coral reefs or really any kind of natural attraction. Obviously, it is generally bad for humans to be interacting with a lot of these places because we litter and disrupt ecosystems, but at the same time for the places that were mentioned in the articles, these beaches and reefs are natural resources for these countries and drive local economies. I think Willingness to Pay is an interesting concept to add to these places. As Americans, we are used to national parks being largely free to use, but maybe they shouldn't be because our WTP could be greater than 0. I think for places like Belize and Barbados these studies are really important for how they choose to allocate their financial resources. It really is a balancing act for them because they do not want their natural tourism resources to be destroyed, but at the same time humans need to use them for these countries to drive tourism. I wonder if more expansive surveys could yield more accurate data. Especially the Belize one. That sample size of 300 something felt small to me when deciding on changing national policy on something so big. Still, I think both are an interesting case study for other tourism driven countries to follow as it may provide them the method to get more of people's WTP.

[Hayden Roberts]

The marine policy paper shows just how easy it could be to implement a policy to increase funding for conservation issues. The previous exit fee of $3.75 was so minuscule that tourists probably did not think much about paying it. Thus, there was a ton of room to increase the fee to a point where tourists are still willing to pay it in order to enjoy the natural beauty of Belize. In terms of travel costs, an increased fee of $20 to $30 still remains minuscule. The focus of tourists will be on flight and hotel costs. Besides, the fee is an exit fee, so tourists have to pay it in order to go home. I think it is unrealistic to think that tourists will not return to Belize because they had to pay a $30 fee upon exit. Belize is an exotic location that people enjoy for its beauty, so I cannot imagine this being a significant issue for tourism.

[Belen Delgado Mio]

I found these two articles really interesting. It's nice to know that many tourists were willing to pay higher fees in order to conserve wildlife ecosystems in Belize or to keep beaches clean in Barbados. I had a couple of questions about the study that took place in Belize. I wonder if a bigger sample size in this study would have made a difference in the results. I also wondered if a trend would be seen along political leanings. Also, since the surveys were done in an interview style, I wondered if the respondents would have answered lower WTP amounts, had they taken the survey on their own. Finally, since the  most common maximum willingness to pay was $10, I wondered what the respondents would have answered to a question that asked that since their WTP was lower than $20, the new fee, would they stop visiting Belize altogether? I assume that visiting Belize isn't relatively cheap so I'm not sure if a $10 difference in the fee would keep so many of the respondents from coming back.

[Cal Christianson]

I thought it was very interesting how sustainable development can work hand in hand with tourism. Common perception is that tourism is a dirty, exploitive enterprise. Even if it happens in an ethical way, tourism still adds people into areas that are natural sparsely populated. But by putting a price on tourism into natural areas, developing countries have developed a way to raise revenue to counter-act damage that occurs to the natural attractions. This includes environmental damage due to overall climate change and degradation, in addition to tourism related damage. While estimating the value of environmental venues is difficult to do, it is a worth while endeavor. The other aspect is the difficulty of determining the proper fee. Too high and tourism would be negatively effected. Too low and not enough revenue would be raised. Either way, I believe that the idea of using tourism fees to advance the economy while protecting the environment is a crucial weapon for developing economies.

[Alice Chen]

I enjoyed reading the two pieces as they really emphasized how economics and the environment go hand in hand--and they are also applicable to a good number of other tourist locations too. The Belize article was surprising to me mainly because I was not aware there was a departure fee for international visitors. Additionally, the sharp increase of $3.75 to $20 was just as surprising as that seemed like such a large increase. However, it made sense as the typical tourist is pretty affluent and able to afford a trip all the way to Belize. Thus, they should be able to pay for "using" the natural environment there in order to conserve it for the future (in which they may want to continue to visit). I had similar thoughts when reading the Barbados article. Tourists have a willingness to pay for clean beaches which can then entice them to visit the island again. Thus, it makes sense that there should be litter prevention efforts which can be financed by tourism taxes. So, because tourism and the environment go hand in hand in the Caribbean, it is necessary for these countries to preserve its natural features, while still encouraging economic growth with tourism. Otherwise, failing one of these categories means the other fails as well and can lead to disastrous consequences in the future.

[Josh Fingerhut]

I found both of these articles interesting in the sense that they provided a means for assigning value to environmental resources, something that can be very hard to do. One thing that caught my attention was the effect of anchoring in the Belize article. The authors found that those that were informed of the previous $3.75 fee were slightly more likely to support a higher fee. However, the average Max WTP was significantly lower for those informed of the fee, measuring $20.03 as opposed to $35.19 for those not informed. Having taken behavioral economics last semester, I am well aware of the power that the heuristic of anchoring and adjustment can have on economic decision-making, but I had not thought to apply it to environmental economics as this paper did. Upon reflection, the effect of anchoring is likely felt in many areas of environmental economics. One example of this may be gas taxes. Those that live in states with a gas tax are likely quite comfortable with the idea. However, if the optimal gas tax is $.50 and they have had a $.10 gas tax for years, they may remain anchored to the previous tax and fight hard against a significant increase. People may remain anchored to all sorts of status quos when it comes to protecting the environment. For example, very few people complain about existing federally protected land. However, if the government attempted to expand national forests or national parks, many would-be hesitant to accept such a change. In short, humans are biased in that they remain anchored to past norms when assessing new changes. In the case of the environment, however, it is becoming increasingly evident that past norms are often not a good guideline for what is truly best for society. The inclusion of an observed anchoring effect in the Belize article may be a good starting point for future research looking into the effect of anchoring across the discipline of environmental economics.

[Grace A Stricklin]

I found both of these articles especially interesting as they mentioned two ways to assign a value to what people are willing to pay to preserve both Barbados and Belize. The Belize article was especially intriguing as it mentioned that there had been a $3.75 conservation fee for visitors that had been raised to $20. The article mentioned a concept that I had not previously heard of called ‘anchoring’ when they were discussing if mentioning the existing $3.75 fee would cause people to become attached to this price point instead of giving their true willingness to pay for conservation efforts in the country. The researchers found that their fear of the anchoring affect was unfounded as upon hearing about the $3.75 fee, many peoples’ willingness to pay increased from their initially stated value. Ultimately, Belize was able to raise the fee to the existing $20 amount, however, some of the initial research indicates that many people would be willing to pay even more than $20. This research into how much people are willing to pay, or claim to be willing to pay, is extremely interesting and seems to offer hope for future conservation efforts in Belize and elsewhere.

[William Dantini]

Having just taken econometrics, I find these studies to be very interesting from a perspective on theory. Your research shows clearly how economic theory and data combined with econometric models can be used to promote sustainability. By surveying people on their willingness to pay, you are able able to come up with a good level of confidence, the predicted choices that a consumer is going to make. Having just taken microeconomics, this is a big step in my mind of connecting the microeconomic theory with real results because we never explained in class how one actually goes about finding consumer preferences. With this in mind, you have made clear arguments, supported by data and theory, that point to a sustainable solution for Belize and Barbados by taking advantage of economic incentives. Although it wasn't explicitly talked about, this kind of research can be a strong foundation for more studies in other states that rely on coastal resources for tourism, like Greece, which could have significant effects on public policy to preserve these resources and their economic benefits. For me, the next step that I see is lobbying the government to make policy changes with this research. Talking at economics conferences, getting peer-reviewed, speaking with organizations like the EPA, and getting some publicity would be the next step to get noticed and for the economic engine to drive the political train in a sustainable direction that improves all parties involved. This is an excellent example of how economic theory and applied research can ultimately lead to positive benefits for society.

[Camryn Bostick]

I find it very interesting that we are able to find the amount that people are willing to pay to preserve natural and environmental resources. This willingness can be used to find efficient and cost-effective natural resource policies, mostly focused around travelers and visitors. Travel and tourism being such a large and growing industry has a huge impact on some economies, and therefore satiating the preferences of those who participate is in the best interest of the most people. As stated in the article by Peter Schumann, those who visit and stay at beach front properties are quite adverse to seeing litter on those beaches, and will pay more money to avoid it. Knowing this, we see that most people do have a certain amount of willingness to preserve natural and environmental resources, and that in order to help preserve such we need to find a level at which the most people would agree to help. In the article on the PACT, it is shown again that people have a certain willingness to preserve the environment, as there was almost no outcry when the fee per tourist was $3.75. Also, in the survey, 90% of people said that they would still return to Belize, and their mean willingness to pay for the PACT fee was $34.60 - even larger than the currently instated $20 fee.

[Max Thomas]

Reading these studies, primarily PACT or no PACT, I was most surprised by how small individuals’ apparent WTP for environmental services is. I would think that, among the subset of the global population that can afford vacationing to the Caribbean, their price elasticity would be fairly inelastic, meaning a marginal change in price would have a limited effect on their desire to vacation. I would think that, especially in a survey format, there would be a major discrepancy between individuals’ perceived WTP and their actual WTP. In practice, I would not be surprised if vacationers would be willing to pay much more for the ecological services they take for granted.

Additionally, I wonder whether the mechanism of payment would have any effect on WTP for environmental services. If a vacationer were asked to pay a direct fee to snorkel, hike, or enjoy any other outdoor activity, I could imagine WTP would be relatively low. However, if such fees were included in the payment for a necessity, like airfare or lodging, travelers might be willing to pay considerably more.

[Matthew Todd]

Reading these studies reminded me about the important trade-off countries, especially those that're lower income have to make. Can they afford to take a hit in terms of tourism in order to lessen environmental damage? Yes, this will likely save some costs in the long run, but that doesn't mean that short-term tradeoffs are not difficult to make.

With 80% of tourists willing to pay the higher fees, there would be a loss in overall revenue. I would have predicted a higher WTP given the high income/education levels of the tourists. This suggests either pervasive greediness in the tourists or that we need to do a better job at educating students about the importance of these environmental measures, as we too might be taking trips out to the Caribbean in the not-so-distant future. The research was helpful in showing that if the price was being raised it could be raised more- given the fact that the average increase in WTP with the conservation was 10 dollars.

[Isabel Lourie]

It was interesting to see the results of the PACT-based survey versus the Barbados WTP analysis that focused more on touristic enjoyment. Perhaps it is a result of the difference in the studies' designs, but it appears that the average WTP for general ecological protection in Belize is lower than the WTP for Barbados tourists to avoid discomfort (litter, beach size) on their trip. This could speak to the difference in valuing specific qualities of environment versus its health in a country overall. The disparity could also come from the average wealth of tourists in Belize versus Barbados. It was also noted that those who visited the Mayan ruins in Belize were more likely to be willing to pay a much higher PACT fee, which speaks to the power of conscientiousness in WTP for ecological services regardless of their direct relationship to an individual's activities.
Given the relative negligibility of elasticity of demand for both tourism-based countries, it seems like a good idea to continue to attach fees to tourist industries, and in many cases to increase them. I wonder what impact the rise of eco-tourism has had on these countries that must balance opposing forces of ecological health and tourism economy.