Protected area entry fees and governance quality

Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104003

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Protected area entry fees and governance quality Leon Mach a, *, C. Winner b, C. Rojas c, M. Klemond d a

Tropical Island Biodiversity Studies, School for Field Studies, Bocas del Toro, Panama School of Education, School of Letters and Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA c School of Behavioral and Social Science, St.Edwards University, Austin, TX, USA d Department of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Governance quality Marine protected areas Stakeholder perspectives User fees Bocas del Toro Panama

Entry fees are often promoted as mechanisms to finance conservation in marine protected areas (MPAs). This case study examined stakeholder perspectives on how a federal government decree to remove protected area entry fees in the Republic of Panama impacted governance quality in the Bastimentos Island National Marine Park (BINMP), in Bocas del Toro. Through interviews and surveys, we found that local stakeholders view poorly monitored and distributed fees as ineffective and contentious. This manuscript demonstrates how fees are perhaps one of the most tangible elements of protected area governance and that quality can be greatly improved through efforts to ensure that local stakeholders have a say in whether or not there is a fee, as well as, how fees are collected and dispersed.

1. Introduction Protected areas (PAs) and marine protected areas (MPAs) are critical socio-political strategies for the conservation of biodiversity and to protect natural resources from over-extraction and degradation (Gaines, Lester, Grorud-Colvert, Costello, & Pollnac, 2010). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) suggested that 10% of the world’s marine spaces ought to be placed under protected status by 2020 (Rife, Erisman, Sanchez, & Aburto-Oropeza, 2013). Prior studies have critiqued the implementation of such targets, as they push for quantity over quality MPAs (Agardy, Notarbartolo di Sciara, & Christie, 2011; De Santo, 2013). Targets have been found to add pressure on governments, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), to designate MPAs (at least proportionally to global targets) when they often do not have the financial resources or enforcement capacity to take on these commitments (De Santo, 2013). Rife et al. (2013) caution that ‘paper parks’ – parks placed on maps with little to no actual protective mea­ sures in place – can contribute to a false sense of protection and potentially harm conservation goals. Balloffet and Martin (2007, p. 2) suggest that “the degree to which protected areas meet conservation objectives, contribute to the well-being of society, and achieve broad social, economic and environ­ mental goals is closely related to the quality of their governance” (Eagles et al., 2012; Eagles, 2009; Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015; Lockwood,

2010; McCay & Jones, 2011). Governance dimensions and scope, however, vary widely across academic studies and governmental reports (Ruhanen, Scott, Ritchie, & Tkaczynski, 2010). One common idea linking PA governance studies is that all stakeholders (not just govern­ ment agencies and officials) are involved in the PA system, how it operates, and that each stakeholder impacts the outcomes of the in­ teractions among stakeholders and between stakeholders and natural resources (Lemos & Agrawal, 2006; Ostrom, 2009). Another common thread suggests that the economic value of natural resources is increasingly critical to creating a foundation for both local stakeholders’ buy-in and their contribution to park success (De Santo, 2013; Lockwood, 2010). Neoliberal governance strategies often incor­ porate user fees for protected areas, which both reflects the finding that healthy ecosystems have direct economic value to tourists (Stoeckl et al., 2011) and can help overcome shortfalls in government financial support for preservation (Laarman & Gregersen, 1996; Alpizar, 2011; Balmford et al., 2015). Few studies to date, however, examine the links between park entry fees and governance quality. This case study provides a unique opportunity to analyze stakeholder perceptions of how the removal of a park entry fee from the federal level impacts governance quality locally. While studies have looked at stakeholder perceptions of different governance models to approximate governance quality (Balloffet & Martin, 2007; Eagles, 2009; Eagles et al., 2012; Graham, Amos, & Plumptre, 2003; Lockwood, 2010), few

* Corresponding author. School for Field Studies, Center for Tropical Island Biodiversity Studies, Big Creek, Isla Colon, Bocas del Toro, Panama. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Mach), [email protected] (C. Winner). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104003 Received 28 June 2019; Received in revised form 23 September 2019; Accepted 24 September 2019 Available online 3 October 2019 0261-5177/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

L. Mach et al.

Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104003

Peters-Burton, & Parson, 2017; Solimar International, 2009).

researchers have had the opportunity to interview and survey stake­ holders before and after a major operational change like the removal of a long-standing park entry fee. The quantitative and qualitative data collected for this article reveal a complicated relationship between park entry fees and governance quality.

1.1.1. The study area: The Bastimentos Island National Marine Park (BINMP) The General Environmental Law of 1988 gave the National Envi­ ronmental Authority (now Miambiente) the authority to administer the country’s National System of PAs (SINAP) (Spalding et al., 2015). The BINMP (Fig. 1) was created as a part of this initiative. The MPA was to form part of a Mesoamerican ecological corridor through Central America (a project funded through the International Union for the Conservation of Nature) and also to recover sea turtle populations through protecting critical nesting beaches (Mou Sue, 1993). Consisting of more than 13,2000 ha, the BINMP spans across the center of Basti­ mentos Island and curves to cover two other islands to the East known as �n-Montero, 2005). The park contains Zapatillas Uno and Dos (Guerro fifty-two of the seventy-one coral species found in the Caribbean and provides critical nesting beaches for the four species of turtles found in the region (Meylan et al., 2013). Studies suggest, however, the park boundaries were drawn without considering Indigenous stakeholder concerns for agricultural access (Mach & Vahradian, 2019) or historic fisheries’ interests (Guerr� on-Montero, 2005). Starting in the late 2000s, a plan of use for the BINMP was initiated that included the implementation of a USD 4 entrance fee for Pan­ amanians and a USD 10 entrance fee for foreigners, to be collected on Zapatilla Dos. In 1996, 2000 tourists visited this island, and in 1997, there were 3000 documented visitors (Guerron-Montero, 2002). In 2016, conservative estimates suggest there were 20,000 visitors to Zapatilla Dos, generating roughly USD 100,000 in direct revenue from the fee (anonymous source). The fee revenue was sent to the federal government to manage the SINAP. Zapatilla Dos was selected as the focus of this research because it is the only location in the BINMP actively monitored by a rotation of seven

1.1. Background context The Archipelago of Bocas del Toro (ABdT) has often been described as following a different development path than the rest of the country, mainly due to its geographic remoteness from Panama City (Marín Araya, 2004). When the United Fruit Company abandoned the archi­ €be) and pelago in the early 1900s, many Indigenous (mostly Ngo Afro-Caribbean banana plantation workers populated the archipelago, predominantly surviving off of subsistence agriculture and fisheries (Gordon, 1982). During this phase, many marine species (i.e., hawksbill, green turtles, and conch) were hunted in staggering amounts, which facilitated drastic ecological degradation (Spalding, Suman, & Mellado, 2015; Stephens, 2008). Reports suggested, for example, that as many as 152,000 individual hawksbills were exported from Panama between 1950 and 1992, making it the largest contributor to the Japanese tortoiseshell market at that time (Meylan, Meylan, & Espinosa, 2013). The desire to diversify the Panamanian economy through mimicking neighboring Costa Rica’s success with ecotourism development in the late 1980s, however, ushered in a series of environmental legal reforms aimed at intertwining species preservation with tourism development �n-Montero, 2005; Meylan et al., 2013). The archipelago now has (Guerro a diverse population of around 13,000 and is visited by roughly 250,000 tourists annually (Mach, 2019). Most of these tourists are at least partially drawn to the archipelago to experience its natural amenities such as the white sand beaches, snorkeling areas, dolphin watching, surfing, and other nature-based pursuits (Sitar, May-Collado, Wright,

Fig. 1. BINMP Map. 2

L. Mach et al.

Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104003

park rangers, it is the marquee site (almost all eco-tours of the archi­ pelago visit this site for beach enjoyment, snorkeling, and hiking a bromeliad trail through the interior), and it is a nature-based tourist destination that has operated with and without an entry fee. The Pan­ amanian government labeled Zapatilla Dos as the most crucial microdestination within the BINMP and suggested that the zone was reach­ ing its visitation limits (Miambiente, 2016). While the latest manage­ ment plan lists a carrying capacity of 120 visitors per day (Miambiente, 2016), this threshold was exceeded many times during this study, including one holiday when more than 500 visitors were counted. In December 2017, the Panamanian government issued a federal decree to promote visitation to Panama’s national parks by removing the entrance fee for the BINMP and all other PAs, besides Coiba National Park, which is under special legislation (Miambiente, 2017). The fee removal represents a new governance structure for operating the MPA and influences how stakeholders interact with one another in the system.

governance quality in Canadian national parks related to the functional elements of park governance. Graham et al. (2003) condensed the UNDP criteria to suggest that governance quality can be assessed on five basic principles (1) legitimacy and voice; (2) direction; (3) performance; (4) accountability; and (5) fairness. These five criteria will be used in our analysis. 2.2. Fees and protected areas There are growing pressures, particularly in LMICs, for protected areas to be self-funded (Eagles et al., 2012). Eagles et al. (2012) suggest that there are three broad sources of income categories for managing PAs: (1) societal taxes; (2) user fees and charges; and (3) donations (which are typically secondary). Because PAs differ greatly in the sig­ nificance of their biodiversity and their visitation patterns, Whitelaw, King, and Tolkach (2014) argued that some governance, management, and funding options are more appropriate than others given particular contexts. To date, however, the vast majority of PA management funds come from societal taxes and direct user fees. A proliferation of research suggests that visiting protected areas of­ fers tourists non-consumptive onsite benefits that they value and are willing to pay for directly (Balmford et al., 2015; Stoeckl et al., 2011). Following this logic, tourism revenues are seen as of critical importance to adequately fund protected areas that both conserve ecosystems (and species), while simultaneously offering nature-based tourism experi­ ences that tourists’ value. This is a very difficult balancing act, as the mandates for visitation based revenues have often been found to exac­ erbate environmental issues within protected areas (Monz, Pickering, & Hadwen, 2013; Wilson, Nielsen, & Buultjens, 2009). In most studies, research on park entry fees is dedicated to discov­ ering the optimal amount to charge tourists (balancing willingness-topay with the elasticity of demand) in order to earn as much revenue as possible to cover operational costs, while limiting reductions in tourist satisfaction (Alpizar, 2011; Uyarra, Gill, & Cote, 2010; Lindberg and Aylward, 1999). Studies, however, often demonstrate that the fees charged are almost always less than the tourists’ willingness to pay and managerial costs (Thur, 2010). There is a great need to look more holistically at fees. Lindberg (2001) argues that the decision-making process surrounding fees ought to; explicitly consider both the advantages and disadvantages of fees, consider and state the fee objectives, conduct research to guide decision making, and work with relevant stakeholders (including tour operators and local communities). Few studies look at park entry fees, however, as an integral part of the governance framework that can impact overall governance quality.

2. Literature review 2.1. Governance quality Most PAs around the world are managed directly by governments, often entailing complex systems of ministries, agencies, administrative levels and actors that work in coordination and sometimes in tension (Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015; Eagles, 2009). Top-down government management has been criticized for weak accountability, lack of trans­ parency, and the failure to incorporate other stakeholder groups in de­ cision making and information sharing (Dearden, Bennett, & Johnston, 2005). Accountability and transparency require independent audit procedures (Eagles, 2009), mechanisms that inform tasks and objectives are being completed on time, and that public funds are being spent for the purposes intended (Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015). For quality governance, governments “need to ensure fair and well-enforced legis­ lation and rules, which leave space for civil society to organize and take on autonomous or collaborating roles” (Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015, p. 189). Many frameworks have been developed to define and assess gover­ nance quality from an interdisciplinary perspective in the PA context (Balloffet & Martin, 2007; Eagles, 2009; Eagles et al., 2012; Graham et al., 2003; Lockwood, 2010). Most of these frameworks are normative and argue for the need to incorporate a more diverse mixture of stake­ holders in the decision making and rule enforcing components of MPAs. Governance can be discussed analytically in two broad categories: the governing institutions (the rules of the game) and governing processes (how the game is actually played) (Hall, 2011; Laws, Agrusa, Scott, & Richens, 2011). The institutional framework for MPAs lays out the physical area designated, ownership of resources, the rules (i.e. which resources can be taken by whom, where and when; tourism concessions; and entry fees), and the government agencies or other stakeholders responsible for monitoring and enforcing particular rules (Halpern, Lester, & Kellner, 2009; Eagles et al., 2012). Governing processes have more to do with how behavior is coordinated or steered within the institutional framework. This process involves understanding how ‘ac­ tors actually act’ in different contexts and the social and environmental outcomes associated with those interactions (Paavola, Gouldson, & Kluvankova-Oravska, 2009). Some suggest that governance quality is best understood as relative, or that which is effective from the viewpoint of the stakeholders involved (Borrini-Feyerabend, Johnston, & Pansky, 2006; Ruhanen et al., 2010). For that reason, case studies are valuable for research on the governance of tourism (Bramwell, 2011). The United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 1997) outlined ten criteria for basic principles of good governance, which have been used in several studies to analyze natural resource management. Eagles et al. (2012) used these criteria as well to examine stakeholder perceptions on how the

3. Methods As an exploratory case study on the relationship between fees and governance quality, a mixed-methods approach was employed to solicit a range of responses. To better understand different stakeholders’ per­ ceptions of actual and potential future governance impacts of the fee removal in the BINMP, interviews and surveys were conducted with tourists, boat captains who take tour groups to BINMP, and government officials (including park rangers who manage the BINMP). The authors conducted interviews and surveys during two sampling periods – the first between November 13th and December 6th, 2017 (before the fee removal) and the other between April 9th and 27th, 2018 (after the fee removal). Both phases of this human subject’s research were granted exemptions from further review from the School for Field Studies’ Office of Academic Affairs and all participants were ensured their responses would be presented anonymously. Convenience sam­ pling was conducted on Zapatilla Dos. Tourists were approached after spending 45 min at the park and asked to participate in a voluntary survey that asked if they had visited the BINMP, their willingness to donate for conservation at the site, and various questions related to their 3

L. Mach et al.

Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104003

satisfaction with park visitation (five-point Likert scale). Tourists responded to the same survey before and after the fee removal and Ttests were utilized to determine differences in responses between the two phases. The other stakeholders were specifically asked questions about the entry fee removal’s impact on governance quality. Each day, one group was positioned on Zapatilla Dos and the other at a popular town square for locals located on Isla Colon (the most populous island on the archi­ pelago). Every boat driver who brought tourists to the island and every self-ascribed local found in the park during sampling were asked to participate in the survey (survey questions summarized in Table 3). Those who participated were also asked to respond to a series of openended questions following the survey. Survey data were aggregated and displayed, and T-tests were run to look for statistically significant differences in responses between boat captains and other local residents. Purposive sampling was used to collect further qualitative data from park rangers and local government officials. Each respondent was asked to speak (open-ended) about their general thoughts on the rationale for the entry fee removal, as well as, the economic, environmental, and social impacts of the park entry fee removal. Interviews lasted anywhere between three and 40 min. All interviews were conducted in Spanish and translated and transcribed by a native Spanish speaker. The qualitative data was then analyzed deductively by each author individually using Graham et al.’s (2003) five criteria for analyzing quality governance. A collaborative, iterative process was then employed to move towards consensus-based themes (Patton, 1990) discussed subsequently under each quality governance criterion. There were also limitations. Firstly, our sampling occurred only three-months after the removal of the park entry fee. In one sense, the study might have benefited from allowing more time for the fee removal to set it and the impacts to be felt. The strong responses that we received within this short horizon, however, lend importance to the results and findings. The tourist survey is also somewhat limited because neither sampling period took place during high season. Though some days of high visitation pressure were accounted for in the sampling, the many low visitation days might have skewed our results in a positive direction in terms of satisfaction. Lastly, survey responses to demographic ques­ tions related to race and ethnicity were skipped too often to be included in the analysis.

Dos during both sampling periods, with sixty-six percent of the surveys taking place after the fee removal. Roughly 22 percent of the tourists approached agreed to participate. Almost half of our participants were between 18 and 29 years old and roughly half were from Europe. Eighty percent of the tourists had completed university or graduate school (see Table 1). When the fee was in place, 62 percent knew that they were within the limits of an MPA, likely because their boat was approached by a park ranger to collect the fee. After the fee removal, only 37 percent of tourists were aware. When asked about their overall satisfaction with their visit to Zapatilla Dos, survey participants demonstrated high levels of satisfac­ tion – indicating the fee did not have an impact on satisfaction (see Table 2). While there was no significant difference, those who paid the $10 USD entry fee also reported a slightly higher willingness to donate for conservation ($6.7) than those who visited after the fee was removed ($6.5) (See Table 2). Generally speaking, these results suggest that paying an entry fee did not influence the willingness to donate for conservation. This potentially signals a higher perceived use-value for the tourists who paid the fee, or that tourists still payed the same overall to visit the MPA before and after the fee removal. 4.1.2. Boat drivers and other local citizens Twenty-six male boat drivers out of the thirty-six approached during the sampling period completed the survey. Eighty-one self-ascribed lo­ cals also participated (See Table 1 for demographic information). This quantitative assessment revealed that boat drivers and other local Table 2 Summary of tourist’s responses on Zapatilla Dos after at least 45 min on the beach.

4. Results

Survey Questions

n

I have visited the MPA in Bocas (before) I have visited the MPA in Bocas (after fee removal)

82 159

Overall satisfaction with park visit (Likert)

82 (b) 161 (a) 81 (b) 155 (a)

Dollar amount (USD) willing to donate for conservation measures at this site

4.1. Quantitative analysis 4.1.1. Tourists Survey responses were gathered from 242 tourists visiting Zapatilla

Participant Reponses No Yes 38% 62% 63% 37% Mean(SD) Before

Mean (SD) After

p

4.5(.7)

4.2 (1.1)

.06

$6.7(4.6)

$6.5(5)

.85

a

indicates before the fee removal. indicates after the fee removal.

b

Table 1 Demographic information of survey respondents. Variable

Categories

n

Tourists

n

Locals

n

Boat Drivers

Gender

Male Female 18–29 30–39 40–49 50 or over Europe North America South America Central America Australasia > High School High School University Graduate School Before Fee Removal After Fee Removal

242

53% 47% 47% 25% 14% 14% 53% 21% 16% 8% 2% 0% 20% 54% 26% 34% 66%

81

43% 57% 44% 34% 11% 10%

26

100% 0% 28% 24% 24% 24%

7% 30% 54% 9% 0% 100%

23

13% 74% 13%

26

0% 100%

Age

Geographic Region

Highest Education Level Attended

Completed Survey in Relationship to Fee Removal

242

242

239

241

4

79

78

81

25

L. Mach et al.

Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104003

citizens were neutral on many perceived impacts of the fee removal (See Table 3). On average, they neither agreed nor disagreed that the fee removal would put marine or terrestrial ecosystems at risk. This suggests that many felt that the fee was never critical to financing the protection of ecosystems. When asked if removing the fee would limit the gov­ ernment’s ability to conserve natural resources, most boat drivers dis­ agreed, while other local residents were more neutral or agreed with this statement (see Table 3). This reveals tensions between the boat drivers and governmental park authorities that will be further unpacked in the next section. Both local resident groups, however, reported a belief that removing the fee would lead to more park visitation. Generally, thirtysix percent of boat drivers thought that removing the protected area fee was a good idea, while only 29% of other local residents did (see Table 4). These survey results demonstrate that boat drivers and other local residents felt similarly about the fee removal in most instances, but that boat drivers were more in favor of the fee removal and reported that its removal would have less of an impact on the government’s ability to conserve natural resources.

Table 4 General stakeholder opinions on the fee removal.

Local Citizens Mean (SD)

p

The fee removal will put marine ecosystems at risk The fee removal will put terrestrial ecosystems at risk The fee removal will limit the government’s ability to conserve natural resources The fee removal will limit educational opportunities The fee removal will allow more people to visit the MPA The fee removal will increase opportunities to appreciate nature I am aware of the 2016 management plan for the MPA

25

2.8(1.4)

70

2.9(1.3)

.75

25

3.1(1.3)

72

3.1(1.2)

.94

25

2.3(1.6)

66

3.4(1.2)

.002*

25

2.7(1.0)

80

3.0(1.1)

.3

25

3.7(.89)

71

3.8(1.4)

.65

25

3.3(1.1)

72

3.7(1.3)

.2

25

2.9 (1.5)

72

1.9(1.5)

.03

Local Citizens

The fee removal was a good idea The fee removal was a bad idea

25 25

36% 29%

72 71

30% 42%

The government is saying they want to remove the fees so more people will appreciate nature. In some areas of Panama, that is probably a good idea, but not everywhere, and certainly not here. More people will just make things worse here. We already exceed the limits of visitation. Most days, every stretch of the little bit of beach that remains due to rising seas is packed with tourists and the trails are overburdened and falling apart. We need fewer tourists here, but no one asks us, we just have to do what the law says. While the quantitative results showed that there were differences of opinion in terms of whether people agreed with the fee removal or not (Table 4), qualitative results exposed weak local legitimacy and voice because local stakeholders did not feel as if they had a chance to voice their concerns and felt that the removal was imposed out of context. The majority of respondents agreed that the removal of the fee will increase visitation to the park (Table 3) and during interviews many expressed concerns that this will have adverse impacts on the environmental quality. Articles have exposed the multifaceted ecological and social rationales for putting effort into relieving visitation pressure at marquee nature-tourism sites (Dodds, Graci, & Holmes, 2010; Loomis & Keske, 2009), but this case reveals discords between local stakeholder desires to limit visitation with the state’s priority to increase visitation to PAs.

Table 3 Summary of fee removal impact questions (Likert scale). n

n

Respondent reflections on the nature of the decree and the rapid timetable for phasing out the fee revealed a contentious relationship between the state and province level actors in ABdT. The fee removal reinforced frustration with top-down and absentee management. Many local residents argued that while ABdT brings in a great deal of tourism revenue to the federal government, they see very little investment returning to the archipelago and its vital MPA. Park rangers, boat drivers, and other local residents suggested that it was no surprise to them that a decision like this would be made in Panama City without the consultation of anyone in the province to consider how they might be affected. A quote from one local resident is illustrative:

4.2.1. Legitimacy and voice Evaluating legitimacy and voice requires understanding if decisions made regarding how protected areas operate and are managed reflect the real priorities of society (Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015; Graham et al., 2003). Lockwood (2010) refers to aspects of this as the ‘inclusive principle,’ which gives opportunities to all stakeholders to participate in and influence decision-making processes and actions (Lordkipanidze, Bressers, & Lulofs, 2019). All stakeholders demonstrated concern related to the legitimacy of the decision to remove the fee. Many felt the deci­ sion lacked dialogue and that local protected area managers were not properly notified and briefed. The common industry recommendation is to notify all relevant parties 18 months in advance of a change in fee structure for PAs (Lindberg, 2001). In this case, park managers were given roughly two-weeks-notice in December 2017 that they were to stop charging entry fees to everyone starting the first of the year. One

Boat Drivers Mean (SD)

Boat Drivers

We were not given any explanation as to why the fee was being removed and we were not assured that the removal would not impact our jobs. We were just told that we no longer needed to collect the fee and could focus our efforts on other things and monitoring.

Post-survey interviews were conducted with 26 boat drivers and 32 local residents. Eleven government officials (five park rangers and six officials representing three agencies) also participated. Organizing interview data using the five good governance principles put forth by Graham et al. (2003) helped elucidate a nuanced interpretation of stakeholders’ perceptions on how fees impact governance quality. In the following subsections, these results will be displayed in order to enhance the survey results and demonstrate key points that emerged.

n

n

ranger offered this representative quote:

4.2. Qualitative analysis

Survey Questions

Survey Questions

4.2.2. Direction Lack of a long-term integrated vision had been found to makes the governance context less supportive of conservation in PAs (Lordkipa­ nidze et al., 2019). The removal of the fee reinforced long-standing sentiments that locals do not have a say in the direction of the MPA. �n-Montero (2005) exposed how local stakeholders were not Guerro included in the creation of this MPA back in 1988, nor in subsequent attempts to revise and update management plans. This lack of inclusion seems to persist. Only 35 percent of boat drivers and 18 percent of local residents (Table 3) reported being aware of the 2016 MPA Management Plan (Miambiente, 2016). One respondent, who was aware of the plan, noted that there was no mention of “even the potential to remove the fee in the entire document,” which signaled to him that the decision was rash and did not involve any local planning. Another respondent said, “if fees have been supporting conservation for decades, where is the money going to come from now?” In short, many interviews demonstrated a belief that fee removal is leading park governance in a vulnerable direction. 5

L. Mach et al.

Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104003

The abrupt fee removal also seemed to facilitate the reemergence of property issues dating back to the MPA’s creation. Other studies have exposed issues with the nebulous agreement made during the creation of the BINMP that allowed residents to maintain landholdings inside the terrestrial limits of the MPA as long as their land-use did not expand or change (Mach & Vahradian, 2019; Spalding et al., 2015). One local resident discussed a recent episode where she attempted to construct a small restaurant to serve lunch on the weekends to the growing number of tourists visiting Zapatillas (on a portion historically owned by her family). Miambiente promptly tore down this structure and suggested the construction was a violation of the law and incompatible with the 2016 management plan. A local resident said:

landings and trampling, as well as increased pollution) and that park officials should consider limiting or halting visitation during nesting seasons in addition to continuing to prohibit visitation during evening hours (Meylan et al., 2013). In short, stakeholders are concerned that the fee removal will increase visitation to Zapatillas and that this may negatively impact the environmental performance of the BINMP. 4.2.4. Accountability This principle is based around accountability to the public and institutional stakeholders and transparency in terms of the accuracy and accessibility of information (‘relevant to the performance of PA man­ agement and to its use of regulatory, spending and other powers’) to all concerned stakeholders (Graham et al., 2003, p. vi). Interview responses revealed that when the fee was being paid, many tour operators felt that they were not getting anything in return for the payment. This led boat drivers to make derogatory comments towards park rangers like the following, which demonstrates a lack of coordination, cooperation, and trust:

I have seen the tourism authority’s plans to build infrastructure on the keys and I am sure that is being financed from all the fees they have charged over the years. Why can they do it but we can’t. Many think the entry fee was removed as part of the long process to sell the islands completely to a developer. We are just waiting to hear that there is no money to maintain the park, so we have to sell it.

Even when there was a fee, the park rangers were not cleaning the beach or bathrooms, or monitoring the area. They never raked debris off the beach or cleaned up the trash, so no one ever knew what anyone was paying for with fees. We were basically just paying for them to collect the fee. It was BS.

While the government officials we interviewed argued there is no truth to the claim that Zapatillas may be sold, the reality that this sentiment emerged unsolicited in twelve interviews with local stake­ holders indicates the lack of a consistent strategic vision for the PA and the role fees play. These results also demonstrate how fee legitimacy is tied to property ownership and that changes in fees can impact land tenure agreements and exacerbate tensions concerning who can do what within PAs.

Interestingly, the results demonstrate that the fee removal might enhance transparency between stakeholder groups and reduce the finger-pointing expressed above. Furthermore, many argued that removing the fee could lead to the collection of more accurate data concerning visitation. Many felt that visitation data was always under­ reported as indicated in the following quote from a local resident:

4.2.3. Performance The capacity to undertake the required functions is a significant component of governance performance. At its most direct level, per­ formance requires making efficient use of financial resources (Eagles, 2009; Graham et al., 2003). Many studies suggest that substantial and reliable funding is a fundamental component of good governance in PAs (Balloffet & Martin, 2007). Some studies go as far as to say that obtaining adequate funding is one of the top two challenges to achieving effective governance (Dearden et al., 2005). Many local residents and boat drivers argued that removing the fee has not changed the number of foreign tourists visiting, it has only led to more domestic tourists visiting, and particularly on holidays. Many said that the holiday visitation is a huge problem now and that these tourists:

When there was a fee, the more visitors that got reported, the more money that had to be paid up to the government. So, it is pretty clear why we never got accurate data. I am hoping at the very least, now that the fee has been removed, rangers will pass on accurate data about visitation. As this response indicates, many are hopeful that the fee removal might lead to governance that is more accountable to all the stake­ holders involved and that might provide more accurate data from which to base future decisions. The fee removal was seen by many as an effective way to limit incentives for corruption and enhance transparency.

just want to drink, party and play loud music on a pretty beach, they don’t want to learn about nature. Many local tourists land their boats on the beach and leave their trash behind. The bathrooms also do not have running water and just can’t accommodate all those visitors.

4.2.5. Fairness and rights This criterion centers on the presence of ‘practices that achieve a favorable balance of costs and benefits to local and indigenous people’ (including traditional uses, revenue sharing, preferential employment, and contracting procedures) (Graham et al., 2003, p. vii). Many park rangers indicated that when the fee was instituted, the majority of their days were occupied with the requirement of approaching every boat, collecting the fee, and issuing receipts for payment. Every park ranger interviewed said that the removal of the fee has freed up time for them to patrol more areas within the MPA. They said that this has facilitated and enhanced their capacity to enforce fishing regulations within the park boundaries. The equity concern relates to the interview responses sug­ gesting that more Indigenous fisherman and lobster divers from nearby islands are being caught fishing and are burdened by this enhanced enforcement (having catch taken and tools destroyed). This demon­ strates how the fee removal may exacerbate problems associated with the marginalization of Indigenous groups in the archipelago also found �n-Montero, 2005; Mach & Vahradian, 2019). in other studies (Guerro Many noted that this policy change would not impact the amount most people pay to visit the park. All but four respondents reported that their tour companies continue charging the same price for the tour after the fee removal. If the former fee revenue is transferred directly to the

This exposes incongruences between the government’s goal of increasing domestic park visitation to facilitate a greater appreciation for nature (Miambiente, 2017) with local concern for the impacts associated with heightened visitation pressure and the motivations for local visitation. It is beyond the scope of this manuscript to specifically discuss the environmental performance of the MPA from a scientific perspective. Coral reef biologists argue that the BINMP limits do not include critical coral reef stands that require protection (Guzman & Guevara, 1999; Lirman & Mate, 2018). Interviews with local residents and park officials for this manuscript indicated that many tourists also snorkel on the reefs fringing the Zapatillas islands and that these snorkeling excursions are built into many popular tours of the islands. Many of these respondents expressed concerns that snorkelers are not adequately briefed on how to view coral in a way that does not harm them (i.e., wearing reef-friendly sunscreen) and many interviewees suggested that they witnessed tour­ ists trampling on coral. Sea Turtle biologists also suggested that heightened tourism visitation in the MPA is a serious threat to turtle nesting on the Zapatillas Islands (compacting sand through boat 6

L. Mach et al.

Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104003

tour agencies and boat drivers servicing the MPA, this is quite consid­ erable. Considering that the fee has now been essentially transferred from the government to the private sector through increased tour earnings, other stakeholders argued that the tour operators ought to now share more in the burden of park maintenance. A local resident said:

locally. Whitelaw et al. (2014) showed how parks with different levels of biodiversity (low or high) and differing levels of visitation (low or high) can best be financed by matching financing mechanisms. Our research corroborates the finding that there is no one size fits all solution for financing preservation across a system of protected areas. Many studies also stressed the importance of sustainable funding for effective PA governance (Rife et al., 2013; Whitelaw et al., 2014). This has led to research seeking to understand the value of ecosystem services and tourist’s willingness to pay for recreational experiences in PAs (Whitelaw et al., 2014). This research has more often than not, viewed entry fees as a quantitative problem – using economic models to discover the optimal amount to charge tourists to meet particular revenue goals (Alpizar, 2011; Cardenas & Lew, 2016; Lindberg & Aylward, 1999). While charging the right fee is important, our findings demonstrate that the stakes are much higher than merely reducing visitor satisfaction or failing to earn maximum revenues – the entire governance system can be negatively impacted by decisions related to fees. Previous research has found that tourists and tour operators are willing to pay fees, particularly when they are informed where the fees are going and can see quality improvements in categories like man­ agement and infrastructure (Laarman & Gregersen, 1996; Gelcich et al., 2013; Uyarra et al., 2010). While our results demonstrated that tourists may be willing to pay fees regardless of having information about them and how they are dispersed, local stakeholders in ABdT sought trans­ parency surrounding the fee’s allocation and more tangible park main­ tenance in exchange for the fee. The fee removal was shown to increase the economic benefits for tour operators (breeding some discontent among other stakeholders), but many still showed concern that the visitation experience might be increasingly diminished by over-visitation. Studies also show that personal contact with uniformed staff is the most effective approach for controlling tourist behavior in protected areas and in conditioning tourists to act in ways that minimize environmental impact (i.e., leaving no trace, or staying on trails) (Kidd et al., 2015). Our results demonstrated that fee removal significantly reduced tourist awareness of being inside of an MPA, which could have impacts on tourist behavior with respect to minimizing environmental impact. In short, fees were seen by all stakeholders to have a roll in local governance, but without a forum for dialogue surrounding them, the fee (and its removal) proved to only shift blame around and breed distrust among stakeholders and impact the viability of the system. Inadequate local participation related to decisions related to fees also led to the resurgence of local discontent with the distribution of value related to the MPA. Many studies have demonstrated that local stake­ holders need to directly benefit from PAs in order to have a vested in­ terest in participating in and improving systems of governance (Balloffet & Martin, 2007; Kusumawati & Huang, 2015; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017). Many argued that the BINMP has always been, and remains for the benefit of tourists and tour companies and that fringing communities continue to be burned by enforcement mechanisms (i.e., increased monitoring of Indigenous). Interviews suggested that some families have also been able to rent their land to the SeaTurtle Conservancy (an In­ ternational NGO that monitors the turtle nesting population on Zapa­ tillas and other areas in BDT) and that others are allowed to continue to harvest coconuts, but anything outside of these cases has been forbidden and effectively enforced by park authorities (i.e., tearing down the local restaurant). This seems consistent with many studies that discuss pro­ tected areas (and ecotourism more generally speaking) as mechanisms through which tourists preferences can become authoritative and augment landscapes to meet tourist desires, often at the expense of local community wishes (Shultis & Heffner, 2016; West & Carrier, 2004). Because coconut trees are seen as a critical symbolic image of paradise to tourists, planting and maintaining these trees is often encouraged on island sites in PAs, even if it requires the removal of native vegetation (Fahn, 2003). Allowing local coconut harvesting and permitting an NGO to monitor turtle nesting populations, but disallowing local owners to construct any other form of tourism infrastructure or agriculture, shows

The boat drivers always complained and acted like the government should be maintaining the park in exchange for the fee. Now that [boat drivers] keep the fee you don’t hear them saying they should be cleaning the park now and maintaining it. Now no one does, and it’s sad. 5. Discussion Many are seeking ways to better understand governance quality and how it can be enhanced to ensure MPA’s meet mandates for ecosystem preservation and human well-being. There is a general consensus calling for increasing local stakeholder buy-in and participation in the gover­ nance process (Balloffet & Martin, 2007; Borrini-Feyerabend & Hill, 2015; Eagles, 2009; Lockwood, 2010). Many studies are suggesting it is critical for power-sharing among various actors to coordinate behaviors that lead to successful MPA governance (Islam, Ruhanen, & Ritchie, 2018; Visseren-Hamakers, Leroy, & Glasbergen, 2012). Our results demonstrated how the failure to include local stakeholders in decisions related to entry fees specifically, bred discontent and distrust with the entire system of governance. This suggests that while governance is a fairly abstract concept that is difficult to define and operationalize because it involves many actors, scales, institutions and processes (Ruhanen et al., 2010), local residents experience PA governance (and relate to it) primarily through tangible aspects of the system, such as fees. Our results corroborate the importance of discussing scale in addressing global environmental issues. When considering governance quality in MPAs, it is critical to understand how wider scalar dimensions can influence governance at the destination level (Bramwell, 2011; Laws et al., 2011; Lemos & Agrawal, 2006; Paavola et al., 2009) and in relation to marine resources specifically (Mach & Ponting, 2018; McCay & Jones, 2011). This case demonstrates how global pressures to create and maintain PAs in countries like Panama can exacerbate long-standing problems between federal and local governments. This is particularly apparent in areas like ABdT, where these political tensions have long �n-Montero, 2005; Spalding et al., 2015). histories and persist (Guerro Local government representatives, in this case, felt disconnected from the federal government and its decision-making process concern­ ing fees. When the fee was in place, park rangers collected it and sent it to the federal government with little explanation regarding how the revenue was then distributed across the SINAP and how much returned to BINMP. Many suggested that this incentivized poor governance practices (i.e., under-reporting visitation). The disconnect between the federal and local environmental authorities also manifested itself as a problem locally between local stakeholders and local government offi­ cials. Boat drivers felt that tourists paying fees ate into their revenues and vocally complained about lacking park maintenance in exchange for the fee. This facilitated stakeholder conflict, rather than cooperation. Fees in this context also signified broader conflicts over the direction and vision for the BINMP. The federal decision to remove fees to increase visitation and enhance environmental awareness in Panama (broadly speaking) was seen by many interviewees to be out of touch with local concerns for limiting park visitation. While it may be important for countries to have national systems of protected areas, this case further demonstrated that for individual MPAs to meet conservation goals and have community buy-in, they must be governed by context-relevant adaptive co-management regimes (Islam et al., 2018; McCay & Jones, 2011; Plummer & Fennel, 2009). Fees are a critical and tangible component of this and decisions regarding them should be handled 7

L. Mach et al.

Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104003

Author contribution

a direction and vision for the BIMNP that favors tourist desires and conservation goals – without considering compensation for those who are burdened. Quality PA governance must account for the equitable distribution of benefits and costs (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2006; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017) and this case demonstrates the fees can be a mechanism for exacerbating equity concerns. Hopefully, these findings also expose potential to build towards quality governance through using fee revenues to assuage some equity issues and contribute tangible as­ pects of park maintenance that mostly all stakeholders desire.

L.M. conceived of the study topic and compiled this manuscript with assistance from C.R., C.W., and M.K. Data were collected in the field by C.R., C.W., M.K. C.R. Translated all qualitative interviews into English from Spanish. L.M. supervised the project. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104003.

6. Conclusion ‘[T]ourism is now often one of the major factors contributing to environmental change in islands’ (Gossling & Wall, 2007, p. 4). Archi­ pelagos like ABdT, with economies almost solely reliant on tourism, often face tourism use pressure in particular zones that must be managed to preserve the ecosystems and species that are integral pull factors for tourist visitation. MPAs are often seen as the most viable governance initiatives available to establish mechanisms for both conservation and tourism visitation – and thus balance both mandates related to conser­ vation and development. In this era of neoliberal conservation (Fletcher, 2010), Entry fees are leaned upon heavily to finance the monitoring and maintenance of PAs. Few studies, however, have assessed park entry fees from the qualitative perspective of local stakeholders. Through examining local perspectives on the removal of a longstanding park entry fee (at a time when most PAs are looking to raise entry fees to keep up with increasing maintenance cost pressures), we gathered valuable insights for consideration in both research and prac­ tice related to governance quality. Firstly, the fee removal exposes scalar issues associated with park governance quality. National-level govern­ ment actors did not coordinate with local agencies and issued a decree from the top-down without allowing time for planning or local com­ ments. This proved to facilitate governance quality issues in many of the categories discussed in the manuscript. Policymakers are cautioned to consider coordination across scales of governance when making changes to PA governance. Secondly, interviews revealed how fees exacerbate transparency and accountability issues. Many stakeholders believe that more accurate visitation data will be kept (to validate concerns of over-visitation) because of the fee removal and that the removal will relieve pressure on park rangers. We argue, however, that the decree to remove park entry fees in this context exposes a failed opportunity to discuss how local residents would like to see the park governed. Instead, the new feeless governance regime merely shifts a portion of value derived from tourist visitation from federal environmental authorities to local boat drivers and tour operators. Fees may be one of the most tangible components of protected area governance. To this effect, this manuscript demonstrated the importance of clearly assessing how fee changes will monetarily impact local governance systems and work to develop strategies to leverage the po­ tential opportunities created and mitigate the challenges. This case also demonstrated that fees provide an avenue for discussing stakeholder opinions on MPA governance in a very robust and direct way. Fees seem to be something users of PAs are often willing-to-pay, but that does not mean that they in-and-of-themselves can enhance governance quality. Many factors must be considered in order to have fees work in favor of facilitating and financing effective governance mechanisms responsive to stakeholders’ evolving needs, opinions, and desires. Explicating the need for a fee, discussing the goals for it, and planning how fee revenues will be allocated (and ensuring this happens through a system of accountability) can set a foundation for quality governance more broadly speaking. We argue that protected area governance success in many cases around the world, and particularly in LMICs, can benefit tremendously from incorporating as many stakeholders as possible in decisions regarding fees and through careful consideration of how fees impact governance quality.

References Agardy, T., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., & Christie, P. (2011). Mind the gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 35(2), 226–232. Alpizar, F. (2011). The pricing of protected areas in nature-based tourism: A local perspective. Ecological Economics, 56(2), 294–307. Balloffet, N. M., & Martin, A. S. (2007). Governance trends in protected areas: Experiences from the parks in peril program in Latin America. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. Balmford, A., Green, J. M., Anderson, M., Beresford, J., Huang, C., Naidoo, R., et al. (2015). Walk on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol., 13, e1002074. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., & Hill, R. (2015). Governance for the conservation of nature. In G. L. Worboys, A. Lockwood, S. Kothari, Feary, & I. Pulsford (Eds.), Protected area governance and managment (pp. 169–2016). Canberra: ANU Press. Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Johnston, G., & Pansky, D. (2006). Governance of protected areas. In M. Lockwood, G. L. Wordboy, & A. Kothari (Eds.), Managing protected areas: A global guide (pp. 116–145). London: Earthscan. Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: A political economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 459–477. Cardenas, S., & Lew, D. (2016). Factors influencing willingness to donate to marine endangered species recovery in the Galapagos National Park, Ecuador. Front. Mar. Sci., 3, 1–14. De Santo, E. M. (2013). Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal of Environmental Management, 124–137. Dearden, P., Bennett, M., & Johnston, J. (2005). Trends in global protected area governance. Environmental Management, 36(1), 89–100. Dodds, R., Graci, S., & Holmes, M. (2010). Does the tourist care? A comparison of tourists kin Koh Phi Phi, Thailand and gili trawangan, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 207–222. Eagles, P. (2009). Governance of recreation and tourism partnerships in parks and. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 231–248. Eagles, P., Romagosa, F., Buteau-Duitschaever, W., Havitz, M., Glover, T., & McCutcheon, B. (2012). Good governance in protected areas: An evaluation of stakeholders’ perceptions in British Columbia and Ontario provincial parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(1), 60–79. Fahn, J. (2003). A land on fire: The Environmental consequences of the Southeast Asian boom. Fletcher, R. (2010). Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate. Conservation and Society, 8(3), 171. Gaines, S. D., Lester, S. E., Grorud-Colvert, K., Costello, C., & Pollnac, R. (2010). Marine reserves special feature: Evolving science of marine reserves: New developments and emerging research frontiers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 18251–18255. Gelcich, S., Amar, F., Valdebenito, A., Castilla, J., Fernandez, M., Godoy, C., et al. (2013). Financing marine protected areas through visitor fees: Insights from tourists willingness to pay in Chile. J. Hum. Environ., 42(8), 975–984. Gordon, B. L. (1982). Panama forest and shore. Pacific Grove: Boxwood Press. Gossling, S., & Wall, G. (2007). Island tourism. In G. Baldacchino (Ed.), A world of islands: An island studies reader (pp. 427–451). Malta & Canada: Agenda Aademic and Institute of Island Studies. Graham, J. A., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Governance principles for protected areasin the 21st century. Ottawa: Institute on Governance. Guerron-Montero, C. (2002). Like an alien in we own land: International tourism, gender and identity in Afro-Antillean Panama. Dissertation. University of Oregon. Guerr� on-Montero, C. (2005). Marine protected areas in Panam� a: Grassroots activism and advocacy. Human Organization, 64(4). Guzman, H., & Guevara, C. (1999). Arrecifes coralinos de Bocas del Toro, Panama: III. Distribucion, estructura, diversidad y estado de conservacion de los arrecifes de las islas Pastores, Cristobal, Popa, y Cayo Agua. Revista de Biologia Tropical, 47(4), 659–676. Hall, M. (2011). A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 437–457. Halpern, B. S., Lester, S. E., & Kellner, J. B. (2009). Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environmental Conservation, 36, 268–276. Islam, W., Ruhanen, L., & Ritchie, B. (2018). Tourism governance in protected areas: Investigating the application of the adaptive co-management approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(11), 1890–1908.

8

L. Mach et al.

Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104003

Kidd, A., Monz, C., D’Antonio, A., Manning, R., Reigner, N., Goonan, K., et al. (2015). The effect of minimum impact education on visitor spatial behavior in parks and protected areas: An experimental investigation using GPS-based tracking. Journal of Environmental Management, 162, 53–62. Kusumawati, I., & Huang, H. (2015). Key factors for successful management of marine protected areas: A comparison of stakeholders‫ ׳‬perception of two MPAs in Weh island, Sabang, Aceh, Indonesia. Marine Policy, 51, 465–475. Laarman, J., & Gregersen, H. (1996). Pricing policy in nature-based tourism. Tourism Management, 17(4), 247–254. Laws, E., Agrusa, J., Scott, N., & Richens, H. (2011). Tourist destination governance: Practice, theory and issues. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 297–324. Lindberg, K. (2001). Protected area visitor fees overview. Griffith University. Gold Coast: Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism. Lindberg, K., & Aylward, B. (1999). Price responsiveness in the developing country nature tourism context: Review and Costa Rican case study. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(3), 281–299. Lirman, D., & Mate, J. (2018). Status of coastal habitats of Bocas del Toro, Panama: Coral reefs and seagrass meadows. In D. Suman, & A. Spalding (Eds.), Coastal resources of Bocas del Toro Panama: Tourism and developent pressures and the quest for sustainability (pp. 159–181). Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami. Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestrial procted areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 754–766. Loomis, J. B., & Keske, C. M. (2009). Mountain substitutability and peak load pricing of high alpine peaks as a management tool to reduce environmental damage: A contingent valuation study. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1751–1760. Lordkipanidze, M., Bressers, H., & Lulofs, K. (2019). Governance assessment of a protected area: The case of the Alde Feanen national park. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62, 647–670. Mach, L. (2019, April 7). Surf tourism destination governance in Bocas del Toro, Panama. MD: Annapolis. Mach, L., & Ponting, J. (2018). Governmentality and surf tourism destination governance. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(11), 1845–1862. Mach, L., & Vahradian, D. (2019). Tourists want to be spooked, not schooled: Sustainable Indigenous tourism in Bocas del Toro, Panama. Journal of Ecotourism, 1–33. Marín Araya, G. (2004). La Poblaci� on de Bocas del Toro y la Comarca Ng€ obe-Bugl� e hasta inicios del Siglo XIX. Anuario de Estudios Centroamericanos de la Universidad de Costa Rica, 30(1–2), 119–162. McCay, B. J., & Jones, P. (2011). Marine protected areas and the governance of marine ecosystems and fisheries. Conservation Biology, 25, 1130–1133. Meylan, A., Meylan, P., & Espinosa, C. (2013). Sea Turtles of Bocas del Toro Province and the Comarca Ngobe-Bugl�e Republic of Panam� a. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 12(1), 13–33. Miambiente. (2016). Plan de uso Publico del PNMIB 2016-2020. Panama. Republica de Panama. �reas Miambiente. (2017, December 15). MiAMBIENTE anuncia entrada gratuita a a protegidas. Retrieved from miambiente.gob.pa http://www.miambiente.gob.pa/inde x.php/2013-02-20-08-59-23/noticias/noti-rapidas/1403-miambiente-anuncia-ent rada-gratuita-a-areas-protegidas. Monz, C., Pickering, C., & Hadwen, W. (2013). Recent advances in recreation ecology and the implications of different relationships between recreation use and ecological impacts. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 441–446. Mou Sue, L. (1993). Parque nacional Marino Isla Bastimentos. In S. H. Moreno (Ed.), Agenda Ecol� ogica y Social para Bocas del Toro (pp. 163–173). Panam� a: Impresora Continental. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422. Paavola, J., Gouldson, A., & Kluvankova-Oravska, T. (2009). Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environ. Policy Gov., 19, 148–158. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Plummer, R., & Fennel, D. (2009). Managing protected areas for sustainable tourism: Prospects for adaptive co-management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 149–168. Rife, A., Erisman, B., Sanchez, A., & Aburto-Oropeza, O. (2013). When good intentions are not enough.. Insights on networks of “paper park” marine protected areas. Conserv. Lett., 6, 200–2012. Ruhanen, L., Scott, N., Ritchie, B., & Tkaczynski, A. (2010). Governance: A review and synthesis of the literature. Tourism Review, 65(4), 4–16. Shultis, J., & Heffner, S. (2016). Hegemonic and emerging concepts of conservation: A critical examination of barriers to incorporating indigenous perspectives in protected area conservation policies and practice. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24, 1227–1242. Sitar, A., May-Collado, L., Wright, A., Peters-Burton, E., & Parson, E. (2017). Tourists’ perspectives on dolphin watching in Bocas del Toro, Panama. Tourism in Marine Environments, 79–94. Solimar International. (2009). Business model document for a destination management organization in Bocas Del Toro, Panama. Washington DC: USAID Conservation of Central American Watersheds Program. Retrieved from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_d ocs/pnadp139.pdf. Spalding, A., Suman, D., & Mellado, M. (2015). Navigating the evolution of marine policy in Panama: Current policies and community responses in the Pearl Islands and Bocas del Toro Archipelagos of Panama. Marine Policy, 62, 161–168.

Stephens, C. (2008). Outline of History of the Province of Bocas del Toro, Panama. Eustis, Florida: SPS Publications. Stoeckl, N., Hicks, C., Mills, M., Fabricius, K., Esparon, M., Kroon, F., & Costanza, R. (2011). The economic value of ecosystem services in the Great Barrier Reef: Our state of knowlege. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219, 113–121. Thur, S. M. (2010). User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National Marine Park. Marine Policy, 34, 63–69. UNDP. (1997). Governance for sustainable human development. New York. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/261618?ln¼en. Uyarra, M. C., Gill, J. A., & Cote, I. M. (2010). Charging for nature: Marine park fees and management from a user perspective. R. Swed. Acad. Sci., 39(7), 515–523. Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Leroy, P., & Glasbergen, P. (2012). Conservation partnerships and biodiversity governance: Fulfilling governance functions through interaction. Sustainable Development, 20, 264–275. West, P., & Carrier, J. (2004). Ecotourism and authenticity: Getting away from it all? Current Anthropology, 45(4), 483–498. Whitelaw, P., King, B., & Tolkach, D. (2014). Protected areas, conservation and tourism financing the sustainable dream. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22, 584–603. Wilson, E., Nielsen, N., & Buultjens, J. (2009). From lessees to partners: Exploring tourism public-private partnerships withing the New South Wales national parks and wildlife service. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 269–285. Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-Vazquez, J. A., GrossCamp, N., & Burgess, N. D. (2017). Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological Conservation, 211, 134–141.

Leon is a Resident Lecturer in Environmental Policy and So­ cioeconomic Values at School for Field Studies in Bocas del Toro, Panama. He examines marine, coastal, and protected area tourism governance from an interdisciplinary perspective. He is also a founding member of the International Association for Surfing Research and study abroad company called SeaState.

Carly is an undergraduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studying Environmental Studies and Elementary Education. She was recently selected as a 2019 Udall Foundation National Environmental Scholar. She aspires to educate youth about environmental sustainability, policy, and accessibility through community-based education programs.

Camila recently graduated from St.Edward’s University in Austin, Texas with a degree in Environmental Science and Policy. She is currently coordinating the Community Outreach Program at Ca~ no Palma Biological Station in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. She is working towards implementing community-based approaches for conservation. She aspires to continue research related to environmental governance in protected areas and tourist destinations.

9

L. Mach et al.

Tourism Management 77 (2020) 104003 Melanie Klemond is a recent college graduate from the Uni­ versity of Minnesota holding a Bachelor’s degree in Neurosci­ ence. Her passion for the environment lead her to spend a semester abroad, studying biodiversity and sustainability practices. She is currently employed as a medical scribe in an emergency care unit and hopes to attend medical school.

10