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