Results and discussion Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:E:Ecological Economics:Vol33.Issue2.May2000:

Primary data collection consisted of a struc- tured survey implemented during face-to-face in- terviews with 68 reserve owners. Table 1 lists these reserves, including their locations and sizes. Sup- plemental information reserves’ levels of protec- tion and land uses appear in Langholz 1999a . The survey included a combination of closed and open-ended questions, thus soliciting not just quantitative data for comparisons across reserves, but also detailed qualitative information for added depth. Conducting the survey face-to-face provided control over who represented each re- serve, overcame illiteracy obstacles, and bypassed an often-unreliable postal system. It also in- creased the response rate by giving the interviewer the opportunity to work around reserve owners’ schedules, and assure them of confidentiality. Seven additional reserves participated in a pilot test. The first author conducted 57 of the inter- views including the pilot test, and a research assistant did the remaining 18. Forty-six of the reserves were selected at random from a list of 211 suspected reserves. The remaining 22 were inten- tionally added to the sample because they formed part of the study that was exploring participation in a specific incentives program. Interviews were conducted in Spanish or En- glish, according to the reserve owner’s preference. We tape recorded and transcribed all interviews, except for three cases where the owner requested that we not tape a portion or the entire interview. In addition to the interviews, we examined docu- ments related to the individual reserves, visually inspected the premises of 42 of them, and inter- viewed numerous local residents, government offi- cials, and conservation NGO representatives. These multiple data sources, as well as discussion of preliminary findings with key informants, pro- vided ongoing triangulation of the data Patton, 1990.

4. Results and discussion

4 . 1 . Rethinking optimality of nature reser6e size In their landmark book on economics of pro- tected natural areas, Dixon and Sherman 1990 correctly note that private parks tend to be small. Many large reserves exist, however, such as 80 000-hectare Hato Pinero in Venezuela, 270 000-hectare Pumalin in Chile, and several re- serves of over 100 000 hectares in Brazil. As described in Fig. 2, several factors influence the quantity of hectares a landowner will protect as a private park. These factors form the basis of landowner views on optimality of nature reserve size. For decades, island biogeography theory and concern for megafauna have mandated a ‘bigger is better’ approach to parks e.g. MacArthur and Wilson, 1967, Diamond, 1975, Simberloff and Abele, 1976. Private parks, however, require an expanded notion of optimal protected area size. The 68 reserves in our study ranged in size from 20 to 22 000 hectares, but had a median of only 101 hectares. We asked landowners to comment on the size of their reserves, hoping to see if their sense of optimality matched the traditional one. Only 3 n = 2 of reserve owners said their reserves were ‘too large’. These owners claimed that they would be incapable of managing larger reserves, given available resources. As one owner said, ‘‘It’s too big for me to thoroughly know and protect.’’ Another 31 of owners n = 21 de- scribed their reserves as ‘too small’. These owners expressed concern that their reserves were inca- pable of maintaining biodiversity levels over the long-term, especially for large mammals. The ma- jority 68, n = 44, however, considered their reserve size to be ‘about right.’ When asked to elaborate, most park owners commented that they wanted to keep reserves at a manageable size. ‘‘If it was bigger, we’re not sure we’d have enough time to care for it,’’ said one owner. Another noted, ‘‘It could be bigger, but then would be too hard for us to control.’’ ‘‘If you’re referring to protection of biodiversity, it’s very small,’’ com- mented a third. ‘‘But if you’re referring to what we can do given our economic resources, it’s very large. Clearly, private reserves run counter to conven- tional wisdom. They require an expanded notion of optimal reserve size in which bigger is not necessarily better. Their set of household prefer- ences and constraints necessitate a focus not just on quantity of land protected, but also on the quality of that protection. Table 1 Private nature reserve sample group Name of reserve Region Size hectares 252 Southern Zone Palmar Norte Agua Buena 90 Osa Peninsula Drake Bay Aguila de Osa Guanacaste Liberia 500 Albergue Buena Vista Albergue Cerro Alto 29 Talamanca Mts. Cartago 147 Albergue Monte Amuo Talamanca Mts. Buenos Aires 400 Talamanca Mts. San Isidro Albergue Rio Savegre Central Pacific Orotina 80 Arbofilia 39 Atlantic Coast Cahuita Aviarios del Caribe 20 Bahia Esmerelda Osa Peninsula Matapalo 96 Osa Peninsula Matapalo Bosque del Cabo Cabanas Escondidas Central Pacific Dominical 32 41 Central Pacific Orotina Cacyra 100 Osa Peninsula Carate Carate Jungle Camp 22 Golfo Dulce Golfito Casa Orquideas 100 Osa Peninsula Drake Bay Cebios Tilaran Mts. Monteverde 22 000 The Children’s Rainforest 839 Cobano Osa Peninsula Puerto Jimenez 80 Osa Peninsula Carate Corcovado Lodge Tent Camp 60 Guanacaste Sardinal Costa Esmerelda 84 Curu Nicoya Peninsula Paquera 300 Golfo Dulce Golfito Dolphin Quest Osa Peninsula Drake Bay 48 Drake Bay Wilderness Camp 792 Talamanca Mts. Buenos Aires Durika Biological Reserve 600 EARTH Atlantic Slope Guapiles 40 Tilaran Mts. Monteverde Ecolodge San Luis 84 Guanacaste Abangares El BarantesLa Garita 35 Mirador de San Gerardo Tilaran Mts Monteverde 200 Central Valley Atenas Escuela C.A. de Ganaderia 35 Central Valley Santa Ana Finantica 535 Puntarenas Playa Cocal Finca El Cedral Tilaran Mts. San Ramon 540 Ganaderia San Lorencito 47 Genesis II Cloudforest Reserve Talamanca Mountains Cartago 100 Central Pacific Dominical Reserva Guapil 227 Central Pacific Dominical Hacienda Baru 650 Hacienda La Pacifica Guanacaste Las Canas 42 Nicoya Peninsula Paquera Hara Heinrik Tilaran Mts. Monteverde 240 Heliconia 130 Nicoya Peninsula Montezuma Ingalls Family 21 JadeMar Osa Peninsula Drake Bay 65 Central Valley Orosi Kiri Forest Reserve Reserva Tangara Sarapiqui La Virgin 238 200 Central Pacific Orotina La Avellana 284 Nicoya Peninsula Paquera La Ceiba 390 Guanacaste Chomes La Ensenada 1500 Atlantic Slope Turrialba La Marta Northeast Pital 250 Laguna de Lagarto Lodge 17 Las Cusingas a Atlantic Slope Guapiles 45 Central Pacific Uvita Los Laureles Mapache Wilderness Camp 40 Southwest Palmar Norte 800 Marenco Biological Reserve Osa Peninsula Drake Bay 749 Atlantic Coast Limon PacuareMondoquillo Osa Peninsula Puerto Jimenez 249 Platanares Poas Volcano Lodge 30 Central Mts Alajuela Table 1 Continued Name of reserve Size hectares Region Portalon Central Pacific Quepos 420 78 Central Pacific Dominical Punta Achiote 20 Punta Leona Central Pacific Jaco 543 Golfo Dulce Golfito Rainbow Adventures Lodge Rancho la Merced 150 Central Pacific Uvita 36 Atlantic Slope Turrialba Rancho Naturalista Osa Peninsula Golfito RHR Bancas 242 Guanacaste Liberia Rincon de la Vieja Lodge 296 95 Talamanca BriBri Samasati Tilaran Mts. Monteverde Reserva Santa Elena 310 1650 Central Pacific Silencio Tropical America Tree Farms 101 Tiskita Jungle Lodge Golfo Dulce Pavones 400 Atlantic Slope Turrialba Vereh-Tayyutic Vitacura 68 Atlantic Slope Tortuguero 100 Nicoya Peninsula Samara Werner Sauter a Although this reserve did not meet the 20 hectare minimum size requirement, its owner has founded a local conservation organization that is protecting 1800 additional hectares in the vicinity. Despite this finding, several factors compound the size issue. For example, landowners no doubt face economies and diseconomies of scale. The number of park guards and other employees needed to protect a 5000-hectare reserve, for ex- ample, may be no greater than what is required to protect 4000 hectares. On the other hand, costs such as fencing, signage, and property taxes will grow in proportion to an expanding reserve. Similarly, the status of surrounding lands can influence a reserve owner’s size decisions. Neigh- boring lands may be overly developed or too expensive to justify purchase for protection pur- poses. Likewise, adjacent lands might already be operated as protected areas, either by private landowners, or as was the case with roughly half of our study group, by the government 51.5, n = 35. This close proximity to publicly protected areas causes a wide variety of biological and financial costs and benefits to private nature re- serve owners, which are detailed in Langholz 1999a,b. 4 . 2 . Market 6alue : profitability among pri6ate reser6es In addition to size considerations, the theoreti- cal framework also discussed how market values vary among private reserve owners Fig. 2. One of the most important market values of private reserves is their profitability. Previous research has shown that private nature reserves in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa can be a profitable venture, and that their overall profitability appears to be rising Alderman, 1994; Langholz, 1996a,b. One private reserve, in fact, reportedly generated more revenue than all of Costa Rica’s national parks combined Church et al., 1994. Much of this financial success can be attributed to the ecotourism boom of the last two decades. This study sought to go beyond mere profit and loss data to exploring three other as- pects of profitability. First, we looked at profitability as a motivation behind reserve estab- lishment and operation. Using four basic sources of resource conservation motives mentioned in the literature Uphoff and Langholz, 1998; Langholz, 1999a, we determined that a profit was an ex- tremely powerful motivating force, second only to a sense of stewardship or conservation ethic. Table 2 provides details on economic factors un- derlying the profit motive. Note that even the least popular economic motives were important at nearly a third of the reserves. Also note that the economic motives were quite diverse, taking into account not just the here and now i.e. present profit, within the reserve, but also there and then i.e. future profit, and surrounding lands. A com- prehensive assessment of motives behind private reserves appears in Langholz 1999a. Having profit as a motive is one thing, but actually being profitable is quite another. We also assessed, therefore, the extent to which owners believe reserves to be a profitable land use. Al- though collecting detailed financial information on each reserve was beyond the scope of this study, the data on perceived profitability were quite revealing. When asked if maintaining the natural area was a profitable use of the land, nearly as many owners disagreed 48.5, n = 33 as agreed 51.5, n = 35. The two groups were also split evenly within themselves, among those ‘strongly’ or ‘mildly’ agreeing or disagreeing. The fact that 11.8 n = 8 reserves were owned by non-profit organizations, and that 39.7 n = 27 hosted tourists either ‘rarely’ or ‘never,’ may ex- plain the wide discrepancy. As mentioned above, land stewardship was often a higher priority than making money. Finally, we explored the extent to which owners depend on reserves for revenue generation. Previ- ous studies Langholz, 1996a, Alderman, 1994 discussed the numerous ways private reserves cre- ate revenue. Given these options, do reserve own- ers in Costa Rica rely on their reserves for revenue? Results showed overall reliance on re- serves for annual income to be weak at best. Only 40 n = 27 agreed with the statement, ‘‘The natural area is currently an important source of annual revenue.’’ Owners had strong opinions, with 29.4 n = 20 strongly agreeing and 48.5 n = 33 strongly disagreeing. As noted above, many reserves were not involved in the eco- tourism industry. The number of reserves engaged in other revenue-producing activities was even lower. For example, only 22.0 n = 15 harvested medicinal plants from the reserve either ‘some- times’ or ‘often’. Only 16.2 n = 11 mined rocks or sand from the reserve, and 10.3 n = 7 uti- lized wild food plants. None harvested wildlife or sold logs. These results suggest market values tell only part of the story at private reserves. 4 . 3 . Non-market factors : the importance of bequest 6alue As suggested in Fig. 2 and in the preceding section, non-market values play an important role at private reserves. While the various non-market values mentioned in Fig. 1 may be similar across public and private natural areas, bequest value may particularly important at private reserves. Bequest value refers to the value of keeping a resource intact for one’s heirs Krutilla, 1967; Barbier et al., 1995. With publicly owned parks this value is generalized across society at large. Privately owned parks, however, have a bequest value that is directly attributable to the owners’ heirs rather than to broader society. For example, 75 of owners n = 51 strongly agreed with the statement, ‘‘Someday in the future, I would like to see a child of mine take over maintaining the natural area.’’ Another 11.8 n = 8 mildly Table 2 Economic factors as motivating forces behind private nature reserves a Mean Economic Motive Agreeing I maintain a natural area because it is a financially wise thing to do. 52.9 2.53 2.38 I maintain a natural area because it will be worth a lot of money in the future. 51.5 50.0 2.34 I maintain a natural area because it is a profitable use of the land. 2.24 42.6 I maintain a natural area because it makes the surrounding agricultural lands more productive. 1.91 33.8 I maintain a natural area because I will not have to pay taxes on that portion of my land. 1.93 I maintain a natural area because it provides a regular stream of financial revenue. 30.9 29.4 I maintain a natural area because it pays more money than any other land use, including cattle, 1.88 agriculture, or logging. a Reserve owners rated each possible motive on a four-point scale, where: 1, strongly disagree; 2, mildly disagree; 3, mildly agree, and 4, strongly agree. ‘Agreeing’ refers to the number of landowners who chose ‘mildly agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. agreed with the statement, and only 13.3 n = 9 mildly or strongly disagreed. We asked a backup question and got similar results. More than three-fourths 76.5, n = 52 of owners agreed with the statement, ‘‘I maintain a natural area because it will be a valuable inher- itance for my children.’’ We intentionally left the word ‘valuable’ ambiguous, letting owners define it in their own terms. Some interpreted it in a strictly financial sense, while others viewed it more broadly to include various non-market values. As a final indicator, we asked an open-ended question on motives behind reserve establishment and operation. Bequest value figured prominently here, as well, with many reserve owners expressing a desire to save the natural area for ‘future gener- ations’. Although several spoke in general terms, other reserve owners were thinking of their own children in particular. ‘‘My kids love the bush, and I hope they stay here when I disappear. I want to leave some kind of legacy for them,’’ said one reserve owner. Another commented, ‘‘It’s for my kids. I’d like to give them a natural environ- ment. They’re young now. And when they’re older there might not be many natural areas left.’’ Assessing all of private reserves’ non-market val- ues was beyond the scope of this study. What is clear, however, is that bequest value is an espe- cially important non-market value for reserve owners.

5. Conclusions