UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Huascaran National Park related expenditures, Peru : a survey Saito Diaz, Claudio Segundo 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A6_7 S23_7.pdf [ 5.81MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096103.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096103-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096103-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096103-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096103-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096103-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096103-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096103-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096103.ris

Full Text

HUASCARAN NATIONAL PARK RELATED EXPENDITURES, PERU - A SURVEY by CLAUDIO SEGUNDOjsAITO DIAZ B.Sc. Forestry, Universidad Nacional Agraria, La Molina, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Forestry We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1984 © Claudio Segundo Saito Diaz 8 b In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publ i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date Jcme Jl iZY i i ABSTRACT The s u b j e c t of t h i s study i s Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park and the area known as C a l l e j o n de Huaylas i n Peru. Since establishment of t h i s Conservation Unit e x p e c t a t i o n s i n income and job o p p o r t u n i t i e s were c r e a t e d and r e s t r i c t i o n s on t r a d i t i o n a l uses of the land were a p p l i e d . T h i s t h e s i s e v a l u a t e s the economic c o n t r i b u t i o n s of the Park on adjacent areas and seeks to i d e n t i f y and eva l u a t e the e f f e c t s of i t s r e s t r i c t i o n s . To accomplish t h i s four d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were used. The p e r i o d of study was June to August, 1983. Evaluated w i t h i n 18 sample days were 20% of the t o t a l v i s i t o r s of the sampling p e r i o d . A t o t a l of 1423 t o u r i s t s were i n t e r v i e w e d . Non-local Peruvian v i s i t o r s r e presented 83% of the t o t a l , f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s 13%, and f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s 4% of the t o t a l sample. I t was found that expenditures d i f f e r e d a c c ording to r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r type though the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of expenditures remained r e l a t i v e l y constant, with lodging about one q u a r t e r of the t o t a l , and food from over a t h i r d to about h a l f of the t o t a l e xpenditure. The t o t a l p a r k - r e l a t e d economic c o n t r i b u t i o n f o r the study p e r i o d of 1983 i s estimated at 269,214 U.S. d o l l a r s . Non-local Peruvians c o n t r i b u t e d 65% of i i i t h i s t o t a l , f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s 22%, f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s 6%, and the Park with 7% i n the form of wages and s a l a r i e s . As an average, Non-local Peruvians spent 24,700 s o l e s per day ($ 16.46), Foreign non-residents 15,900 s o l e s per day ($ 10.6), and For e i g n r e s i d e n t 22,600 s o l e s per day ($ 15.06). These f i n d i n g s are a g a i n s t c o n v e n t i o n a l wisdom, acc o r d i n g to which non-resident v i s i t o r s are considered the main source of c o n t r i b u t i o n to the l o c a l economy. At present, c o n t r o l l e d t r a d i t i o n a l uses of the land are permitted w i t h i n parkland. In that sense, the r e g u l a t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l uses, e x c l u d i n g mining, has not caused economic l o s s or provided a d d i t i o n a l economic b e n e f i t s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the Conservation Unit i s not perc e i v e d as a t o o l of r e g i o n a l economic development. T h i s misconception has l e d to a l a c k of support by l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s . At both r e g i o n a l and n a t i o n a l l e v e l s , there i s no o v e r a l l c o o r d i n a t i n g p o l i c y and p r i o r i t i e s f o r development are at present l e f t to s u c c e s s i v e o f f i c i a l s who, at any given moment, occupy the d e c i s i o n makers' p o s i t i o n . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION PAGE 1.1 Statement of the Problem 1 1.2 Purpose of the Study . 2 1.3 O b j e c t i v e s of the Study 2 1.4 L i m i t s and D e l i m i t s of the Study 3 1.5 Hypotheses . . .4 1.6 S t r u c t u r e of the Study 5 CHAPTER II : CONSERVATION OF NATURE IN PERU : BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 6 2.2 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 9 2.3 The Present S i t u a t i o n . . 12 2.4 Study Area 14 2.4.1 D e s c r i p t i o n 14 2.4.2 Reasons f o r the S e l e c t i o n 18 V CHAPTER III : ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PARKS ON LOCAL AREAS 3.1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 21 3.2 Kinds of Impacts 22 3.2.1 B e n e f i t s 22 3.2.2 Costs 23 3.3 Techniques to Evaluate Economic Impacts on L o c a l Areas 24 3.3.1 Macro ( I n d i r e c t ) Methods 25 3.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the I n d i r e c t Methods 28 3.3.3 Micro ( D i r e c t ) Methods 29 3.4 Study Methodology 32 3.4.1 Survey Design 32 3.4.2 Sampling Design 34 3.4.3 Interview Technique 40 CHAPTER IV : STUDY FINDINGS 4.1 V i s i t o r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 45 4.1.1 Attendance P a t t e r n s 45 4.1.2 V i s i t o r s per Sampling Day 46 4.1.3 Length of Stay 48 v i 4.1.4 O r i g i n 53 4.1.5 Transport Used 53 4.1.6 Age D i s t r i b u t i o n 56 4.1.7 Reasons f o r V i s i t i n g the L o c a l Area . .56 4.1.8 Accommodation Used 59 4.1.9 Reasons f o r V i s i t i n g the Park 59 4.1.10 Awareness About the Park 62 4.1.11 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of what a N a t i o n a l Park i s • .63 4.1.12 Previous V i s i t s to the Park 64 4.1.13 L i k e s and D i s l i k e s About the Park. . .64 4.1.14 Reasons f o r Park's A t t r a c t i v e n e s s . . .67 4.1.15 Comments About the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . . 69 4.2 V i s i t o r Expenditures 69 4.2.1 Money Expenditures Planned by Type of V i s i t o r i n the Region 72 4.2.2 Change on the Patterns of Expenditures by A c t i v i t i e s f o r the Remainder of the V i s i t 75 4.2.3 Average Expenditures by Type of V i s i t o r per Sampling Day 75 4.2.4 Average Expenditures by Type of V i s i t o r f o r the Sampling Period . . . .76 4.2.5 T o t a l Expenditures by Type of V i s i t o r 8 2 v i i 4.2.6 Summary of V i s i t o r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Expenditures P a t t e r n s .. . .. . . . . 84 4.3 V i s i t o r Sales 88 4.3.1 C l i e n t e l e Composition by Type of Establishment 89 4.3.2 Employment P a t t e r n s by Type of Establishment 90 4.3.3 Average Sales by Type of Establishment. 92 4.3.4 E f f e c t s of the N a t i o n a l Park on L o c a l Establishments . . 92 4.4 E f f e c t s of Park's R e s t r i c t i o n s 94 4.4.1 A g r i c u l t u r e 95 4.4.2 Mining 95 4.4.3 Hunting 96 4.4.4 Ice P i c k i n g 96 4.4.5 F i r e wood ga t h e r i n g 97 4.4.6 Grazing 98 4.4.7 Knowledge about N a t i o n a l Park O b j e c t i v e s 99 4.4.8 Comments, Opinions and A t t i t u d e s Towards Park's R e s t r i c t i o n s 100 4.5 Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park's E x p e n d i t u r e s . . -101 v i i i 4.6 P o l i c y o f Development 103 4.6.1 P r e s e n t R o l e o f H u a s c a r a n N a t i o n a l P a r k i n t h e A r e a 104 4.6.2 T r a d i t i o n a l Uses o f t h e Land 105 4.6.3 P r i o r i t y o f A c t i o n s f o r t h e F u t u r e • • 106 4.6.4 P o l i c i e s o f Development 107 4.7 C o s t s 108 CHAPTER V : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 110 LITERATURE CITED 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY 116 APPENDICES A p p e n d i x A : V i s i t o r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and E x p e n d i t u r e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A p p e n d i x B : S a l e s t o V i s i t o r s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A p p e n d i x C : N a t i o n a l P a r k ' s R e s t r i c t i o n s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A p p e n d i x D : L i s t o f P e o p l e I n t e r v i e w e d A p p e n d i x E : Changes on t h e P a t t e r n s o f E x p e n d i t u r e s ix LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Peruvian Naional Parks and Equivalent Reserves (1983) 13 Table 2. Monthly Attendance Patterns for the Past Three Years at the Llanganuco Entrance 35 Table 3. Daily Attendance Patterns for the Past Three Years (June-August) at the Llanganuco Entrance 37 Table 4. Number of V i s i t o r s per Sampling Day 47 Table 5. Average Length of Stay in the Region by Type of V i s i t o r (Without Holidays) . . . 50 Table 6. Average Length of Stay in the Region by Type of V i s i t o r (Holidays) 51 Table 7. Average Stay in the Park by Type of V i s i t o r 52 Table 8. V i s i t o r s According to their Place of Residence 54 Table 9. Transport Used 55 Table 10. Age Distribution .57 Table 11. Reasons for V i s i t i n g the Local Area . . . . 58 Table 12. Accommodation Used 60 X Table 13. Reasons f o r V i s i t i n g the Park 61 Table 14. Awareness About the Park 62 Table 15. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of What a N a t i o n a l Park Is 63 Table 16. Previous V i s i t s to the Park 65 Table 17. L i k e s and D i s l i k e s About the Park 66 Table 18. Reasons f o r Park's A t t r a c t i v e n e s s 68 Table 19. Comments About the Que s t i o n n a i r e 68 t a b l e 20. Money Planned to Be Spent 74 Table 21. P a t t e r n of Expenditures per person by Sampling Day (Non-local Peruvian) . . . .77 Table 22. P a t t e r n of Expenditures per person by Sampling Day (Foreign n o n - r e s i d e n t ) . • . 78 Table 23. P a t t e r n of Expenditures per person by Sampling Day (Foreign r e s i d e n t ) . . . . 79 Table 24. P r o p o r t i o n of Expenditures by Type of V i s i t o r 80 Table 25. Average Expenditures per Person by A c t i v i t i e s 81 Table 26. T o t a l Expenditures by Type of V i s i t o r . . . 83 Table 27. Employment Pa t t e r n s by Type of Establishment During the Long Weekend i n J u l y 91 Table 28. Average Sales by Establishments per Person..93 x i Table 29. Effects of the National Park on Local Establishments 93 Table 30. Perceived Reasons Why the Park Was Established 99 Table 31. Huascaran National Park Budgets (1975-1983) . .103 x i i LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. N a t i o n a l System of Conservation Units 8 Figure 2. O r g a n i z a t i o n Chart 10 Figu r e 3. Study Area 17 Figu r e 4. Monthly Attendance P a t t e r n s 1980 to 1982 . . . -45 Figure 5. D a i l y Attendance P a t t e r n s 1980 to 1982 . . . . 45 Figure 6. Length of Stay i n the Region 49 Figure 7. Money Expenditures Planned by Type of V i s i t o r i n the Region 73 Figure 8. P a t t e r n s of Expenditures by Type of V i s i t o r 85 Figu r e 9. Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park Budgets x i i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would l i k e to acknowledge the continous guidance and va l u a b l e c r i t i c i s m from my academic s u p e r v i s o r , Dr. P.J. Dooling, throughout my s t u d i e s at the F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y , the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Thanks are due a l s o to Dr. Alan Chambers and Dr. Robert North, members of my a d v i s o r y committe, who have each made important c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h i s t h e s i s . S p e c i a l thanks are due to Mr. Hugo C a r r i l l o , c h i e f r e g i o n a l f o r e s t e r i n Huaraz, and the Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park s t a f f . F i n a n c i a l support from the Canadian I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development Agency (CIDA) i s a l s o g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. x i v T O M Y F A T H E R , R . I . P . a n d M Y F A M I L Y . - 1 -CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM : "In the t r o p i c a l developing c o u n t r i e s , where you have most of the p l a n e t ' s w i l d l i f e , you a l s o have most of the r e a l l y d i r e poverty problems. You have poor people surrounding the parklands - people who are sh o r t of food, land, water and firewood" ( M i l l e r 1982). The idea of p r e s e r v i n g l a r g e areas f o r the s o l e p r o t e c t i o n of w i l d l i f e appears to be a luxury that developing c o u n t r i e s can not a f f o r d . In response to t h i s concept, the establishment and development of p r o t e c t e d n a t u r a l areas have been encouraged as a means a l s o of a s s i s t i n g the development of depressed areas. But with the establishment of Conservation U n i t s , not only e x p e c t a t i o n s of i n c r e a s e s i n income l e v e l s and jobs o p p o r t u n i t i e s are c r e a t e d , but a l s o r e s t r i c t i o n s mainly on the t r a d i t i o n a l uses of the land are imposed. C o n s i d e r i n g the present s i t u a t i o n of Peru, the i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , and the competition f o r - 2 -d i f f e r e n t uses of the land the N a t i o n a l System of N a t i o n a l Parks and. E q u i v a l e n t Reserves i s faced with the problem of measuring the b e n e f i t s that are claimed to be a s s o c i a t e d with park developments. 1.2 PURPOSE : It i s the general purpose of t h i s study f i r s t to e m p i r i c a l l y e v a l u a t e the c o n t r i b u t i o n s of a Peruvian N a t i o n a l Park on adjacent depressed areas and second, to evaluate the e f f e c t s of the park's r e s t r i c t i o n s on some t r a d i t i o n a l uses of the l a n d . 1.3 OBJECTIVES : S p e c i f i c a l l y , the o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s study are: (1) To i d e n t i f y v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and t h e i r expenditures a s s o c i a t e d with the high use season i n 1983, upon the l o c a l area; (2) To i d e n t i f y and ev a l u a t e N a t i o n a l Park expenditures on the l o c a l area; (3) To determine the d i s t r i b u t i o n of expenditures among a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n towns of the l o c a l area; - 3 -(4) To i d e n t i f y and eva l u a t e the impacts of the N a t i o n a l Park's r e s t r i c t i o n s on t r a d i t i o n a l uses of the land; and (5) To i d e n t i f y and analyze present p o l i c i e s f o r the economic development of t h i s a r ea. 1.4 LIMITS AND DELIMITS : The study i s l i m i t e d to the a n a l y s i s of Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park and i t s surroundings. Within t h i s area the study i s f u r t h e r l i m i t e d to i d e n t i f y i n g and e m p i r i c a l l y e v a l u a t i n g the a c t u a l economic c o n t r i b u t i o n of the N a t i o n a l Park during the peak use season i n 1983. The c o n t r i b u t i o n s evaluated were r e s t r i c t e d to the expenditures made by the v i s i t o r s and the Conservation Unit i n the area. V i s i t o r expenditure data were recorded at the Llanganuco e n t r a n c e / e x i t of the N a t i o n a l Park, s i n c e i t was assumed that most v i s i t o r s v i s i t t h i s area during t h e i r stay i n the r e g i o n . The v a l i d i t y of t h i s assumption i s u n c e r t a i n but v i s i t o r ' s estimates of expenditure were compared to separate estimates d e r i v e d from the v i s i t o r s a l e s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The two separate estimates were i n reasonable agreement although some d i s c r e p a n c i e s were noted. Park v i s i t o r expenditures made o u t s i d e the study area were not co n s i d e r e d . The study i d e n t i f i e d and e m p i r i c a l l y evaluated, w i t h i n the study area, the e f f e c t s of the Park's r e s t r i c t i o n s on - A -t r a d i t i o n a l uses of the land. Study r e s u l t s .may a l s o be a f f e c t e d by the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n t h at e x i s t e d i n Peru during June - August 1983 i n that p o l i t i c a l unrest i n s o u t h - c e n t r a l Peru may we l l have d i v e r t e d some Peruvians from t h i s area to the C a l l e j o n de Huaylas and may have d e f e r r e d some f o r e i g n e r s from v i s i t i n g Peru. 1.5 HYPOTHESES : The f i r s t of two hypotheses of t h i s study i s that Conservation U n i t s are a s s i s t i n g the economic development of depressed areas; but c o n t r a r y to the widely held b e l i e f , the c o n t r i b u t i o n of f o r e i g n expenditures on l o c a l areas i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than the expenditures c o n t r i b u t i o n of the n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r . Second, the Park's land use r e s t r i c t i o n s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t i n g l o c a l people and c r e a t i n g c o n f l i c t s t h a t could threaten the f u t u r e of the N a t i o n a l Park. - 5 -1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY : Chapter II pr e s e n t s , as background i n f o r m a t i o n , a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the h i s t o r y , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and present s i t u a t i o n of the c o n s e r v a t i o n of nature w i t h i n N a t i o n a l Parks and E q u i v a l e n t Reserves i n Peru. In p a r t i c u l a r i t d e s c r i b e s the study area and the reasons f o r s e l e c t i o n . Chapter I I I c o n t a i n s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the kinds of impact that Parks have on l o c a l areas, assesses d i f f e r e n t techniques which have been developed to eva l u a t e the impact, and d e s c r i b e s the study methodology used to evaluate v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and expenditure, v i s i t o r s a l e s , e f f e c t s of Park's r e s t r i c t i o n s , and n a t i o n a l , r e g i o n a l and l o c a l p o l i c y of development. The f i n d i n g s f o r each q u e s t i o n n a i r e are de s c r i b e d i n Chapter IV. A b r i e f c o n c l u d i n g statement i n Chapter V summarizes the f i n d i n g s of t h i s t h e s i s . - 6 -CHAPTER II CONSERVATION OF NATURE IN PERU : BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2.1 INTRODUCTION : The Peruvian c o n s e r v a t i o n p o l i c i e s that were put i n t o e f f e c t i n the e a r l y 1960's evolved from an inadequate l e g a l base f o r p r o t e c t i o n of nature. The F o r e s t r y Law of 1975 that l a i d the foundation f o r a N a t i o n a l System of Conservation U n i t s was a major p o l i c y r e v i s i o n . The f i r s t Conservation U n i t s , Cutervo (1961) and Tingo Maria (1965) N a t i o n a l Parks, were e s t a b l i s h e d as a r e s u l t of pressure from l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n s . These areas were designated as such by a p r e s i d e n t i a l decree r a t h e r than a N a t i o n a l Park Act and thus t h e r e f o r e lacked a f i r m l e g a l base guaranteeing complete p r o t e c t i o n (Baker 1980). The Law Decree 21147 (Ley F o r e s t a l y de Fauna S i l v e s t r e ) , proclaimed on May 13, 1975 during the regime of the M i l i t a r y Government, was the f i r s t l e g a l document that r e g u l a t e d and re c o g n i z e d a system of Conservation U n i t s i n Peru. T h i s Act a l s o contained r e g u l a t i o n s f o r f o r e s t e x p l o i t a t i o n , r e f o r e s t a t i o n and - 7 -hunting. Under t h i s Law, N a t i o n a l Parks and E q u i v a l e n t Reserves ^.Conservation U n i t s ) , are recognized as p u b l i c domain or common p r o p e r t y . The same document and i t s r e g u l a t i o n s (Reglamento de Unidades de Conservacion D.S. 160-77-AG) d e f i n e Conservation U n i t s as c e r t a i n areas which have outstanding f e a t u r e s , n a t u r a l scenery, w i l d e r n e s s , f l o r a and fauna. These areas, the Law maintains, should be preserved f o r e v e r as p a r t of the n a t i o n a l h e r i t a g e f o r the b e n e f i t , education and enjoyment of present and f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s . The N a t i o n a l System ( F i g u r e 1), which i s p a r t of The I n t e r n a t i o n a l System, i s composed of f i v e N a t i o n a l Parks, e i g h t N a t i o n a l Reserves, two N a t i o n a l S a n c t u a r i e s and three H i s t o r i c a l S a n c t u a r i e s . NATIONAL PARKS are areas where the n a t u r a l a s s o c i a t i o n of f l o r a , fauna and the landscape are p r o t e c t e d . In t h i s U n i t the commercial use of the resources i s p r o h i b i t e d . Examples of these types of U n i t s are Manu N a t i o n a l Park, the b i g g e s t park i n Peru (1'532,806 Ha.), Huascaran N.P.,Cerros de Amotape N.P., and Cutervo N.P.. NATIONAL RESERVES are n a t u r a l areas where the fauna i s p r o t e c t e d . In these U n i t s the State takes charge of the w i l d l i f e management. A good example of a N a t i o n a l Reserve i s Pampa Galeras N.R. where the vicuna i s p r o t e c t e d . Lachay N.R., Junin N.R., Pacaya Samiria N.R., T i t i c a c a N.R.,Aguada Blanca N.R., and C a l i p u y N.R. are a l s o examples of t h i s type of Conservation U n i t . The A) utioiu runs 1. CUIJRTO 2. TIIOO URIA 5. UTD 4. CJRROS 01 AHOTAPB 5 . SUASCARAI BJ IATIOHAL RK5BRTSS 6. PAIIPA OALBUS 7. JBIIII 8. PARACAS 9- LACHAT 10 PltlCACA ti 8AUIAS AODADA BLAICA 12 CALX PO? 15 PACAIA BAMRIA C) IATIOIAL 8AICT0ARIES 14 HDATLIAI 15 CA1IP0I 0) HISTORICAL 8AICT0ARXBS 16 CEACAIIARCA 17 PAIIPA DI ATACOCRO te HACBSPICCHU PIRUVIAB TBtRITOR? ASIA PROTECTED PXRCXRTAGE ASIA (Bu) TEAR 2,500 1961 16,000 1965 1,552,806 1973 9 1 , 5 0 0 1975 540.000 1975 ARIA (Eu) TIAR 6.500 1967 53.000 1974 535.000 1975 5,070 1977 56.180 1976 566,936 1979 64,000 1981 2,080,000 1982 AREA (Eu) TSAR 6.815 1974 •4.500 1981 ARIA (Baa) TSAR 2.500 1974 500 1980 52.592 1981 128,521,560 l u 4,977,999 Baa 5.87* SOURCE: MXIBTRT OP AGRICULTURE. IJPOR. ADOUST 1983. Figure 1. NATIONAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATION UNITS. - 9 -areas where one s p e c i e s of animal or p a r t i c u l a r type of landscape i s p r o t e c t e d , are the NATIONAL SANCTUARIES. Huayllay N.S. f o r example, p r o t e c t s a s p e c i a l type of p l a n t as w e l l as rock formations. HISTORICAL SANCTUARIES are areas where n a t u r a l scenery of a h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e are p r o t e c t e d . Macchu Pi c c h u H i s t o r i c a l Sanctuary, the c a p i t a l of the anc i e n t Incan empire, i s a good example of t h i s type of Conservation U n i t . 2.2 ADMINISTRATION : The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Conservation U n i t s i s under the M i n i s t r y of Food and A g r i c u l t u r e ( F i g u r e 2). Within t h i s M i n i s t r y two d i v i s i o n s are d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d with N a t i o n a l Parks and E q u i v a l e n t Reserves. The F o r e s t r y and W i l d l i f e D i r e c t i o n General (DGFF) r e g u l a t e s , assesses and su p e r v i s e s the p r o t e c t i o n and c o n s e r v a t i o n of n a t u r a l resources w i t h i n the Conservation U n i t s . In a d d i t i o n , the N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of F o r e s t r y and W i l d l i f e (INFOR, e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1981), i s the executive branch that s u p e r v i s e s and manages the Conservation U n i t s . In theory, t h i s l o g i c a l d i v i s i o n of r e p o n s i b i l i t i e s should speed the development of the N a t i o n a l System of N a t i o n a l Parks and E q u i v a l e n t Reserves, s i n c e the INFOR has MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE I FOREST AND WILDLIFE DIRECTION GENERAL FORESTRY RESOURCES DIRECTION FLORA AND FAUNA SUB-DIRECTION REGIONAL LEVEL 1 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FORESTRY CONSERVATION DIRECTION GENERAL NATIONAL PARKS DIRECTION — — — " LOCAL COMMITTEE CONSERVATION UNITS Figure 2 O R G A N I Z A T I O N C H A R T ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 I I I I I z g FOREST g POLICE § o o u o I - 11 -t e c h n i c a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e autonomy. In p r a c t i c e these i n d i v i d u a l ^ - agencies are not working i n harmony, mainly because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s of s e t t i n g the boundaries of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and are thereby c r e a t i n g c o n f u s i o n among the p u b l i c and t h e i r own p e r s o n n e l . In a d d i t i o n to t h i s problem, there are p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems, such as i n d i v i d u a l i s m , o v e r - s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and p o l i t i c a l d i v i s i o n , that make the o r g a n i z a t i o n and communication between these i n s t i t u t i o n s d i f f i c u l t . At the n a t i o n a l l e v e l , an Advisory C o u n c i l was formed i n 1975 to c o o r d i n a t e e f f o r t s among d i f f e r e n t m i n i s t r i e s , and to make recommendations about the establishment, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and use of the Conservation U n i t s . At the l o c a l l e v e l , l o c a l committees were e s t a b l i s h e d . These committees i n c l u d e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of p u b l i c and non-public o r g a n i z a t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n the development and the o p e r a t i o n of the N a t i o n a l Parks and E q u i v a l e n t Reserves. The p o l i c y , s t r a t e g y , and goals of s h o r t , medium and long term f o r the development of the N a t i o n a l System are r e g u l a t e d by a D i r e c t o r P l a n . The development of each Conservation Unit i s i n c l u d e d i n i t s Master P l a n . The c h i e f of the N a t i o n a l Park and E q u i v a l e n t Reserve i s the h i g h e s t a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n each u n i t . Each u n i t must have Conservation and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n d i v i s i o n s . At a l l l e v e l s - 12 -w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n there e x i s t s mutual c o o r d i n a t i o n with the F o r e s t P o l i c e . They take charge of the a p p l i c a t i o n of the F o r e s t r y Law i n N a t i o n a l Parks and E q u i v a l e n t Reserves. The F o r e s t P o l i c y , which i s t r a i n e d by f o r e s t e r s , i s part of the Peruvian C i v i l Guards ( P o l i c e F o r c e ) . 2.3 THE PRESENT SITUATION : Progress has been remarkable s i n c e the f i r s t N a t i o n a l Park was e s t a b l i s h e d . In the past ten years Peru has e s t a b l i s h e d f o u r t e e n Conservation U n i t s . N a t i o n a l Parks and e q u i v a l e n t Reserves i n t o t a l have an area of almost f i v e m i l l i o n hectares r e p r e s e n t i n g 3.87% of Peruvian t e r r i t o r y (Table 1). "The purpose of these U n i t s i s b a s i c a l l y the p r e s e r v a t i o n of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples of a l l of the n a t u r a l l i f e zones or of the main e c o l o g i c a l systems found w i t h i n the country's borders, i n c l u d i n g i t ' s t e r r i t o r i a l seas" (Dourojeanni 1976). The i n c r e a s i n g number of Conservation U n i t s s i n c e e a r l y 1960, however does not r e f l e c t governmental support or p u b l i c acceptance. Only f i f t y percent of the Conservation Units have budgets and p e r s o n n e l , the o t h e r s e x i s t only on paper. The l a c k of governmental support i s mainly due to the economic s i t u a t i o n of the country and a l s o because of a - 13 -TABLE 1. PERUVIAN NATIONAL PARKS AND EQUIVALENT RESERVES (1983) A) NATIONAL PARKS AREA (Ha) YEAR CUTERVO 2,500 1961 TINGO MARIA 18,000 1965 MANU 1,532,806 1973 CERROS DE AMOTAPE 91,300 1975 HUASCARAN 340,000 1975 B) NATIONAL RESERVES AREA (Ha) YEAR PAMPA GALERAS 6,500 1967 JUNIN 53,000 1974 PARACAS 335,000 1975 LACHAY 5,070 1977 TITICACA 36,180 1978 SALINAS AGUADA BLANCA 366,936 1979 CALIPUY 64,000 1981 PACAYA SAMIRIA 2,080,000 1982 C) NATIONAL SANCTUARIES AREA (Ha) YEAR HUAYLLAY 6,815 1974 CALIPUY 4,500 1981 D) HISTORICAL SANCTUARIES AREA (Ha) YEAR CHACAMARCA 2,500 1974 PAMPA DE AYACUCHO 300 1980 MACHUPICCHU 32,592 1981 PERUVIAN TERRITORY 128,521,560 Ha SOURCE: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE. INFOR. AUGUST 1983. - 14 -misunderstanding of the c o n s e r v a t i o n purpose. Conservation i n Peru" i s commonly understood as an a n t i p o l l u t i o n movement. Because p o l l u t i o n • i s not yet too high i n the country, c o n s e r v a t i o n of n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s has l i t t l e importance. At the l o c a l l e v e l , due to the land use r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed by the establishment of a Park, Conservation U n i t s are seen as r e s t r i c t i n g r e g i o n a l economic development. Since c o n s e r v a t i o n i s seen, on the one hand, as a n t i p o l l u t i o n and on the other, as antidevelopment, i t has r e c e i v e d n e i t h e r government nor p u b l i c support. 2.4 STUDY AREA: 2.4.1. D e s c r i p t i o n : The Conservation Unit that was chosen f o r study i s Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park. The area where l o c a l impacts were measured i s known as " C a l l e j o n de Huaylas". Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park, a f t e r years of work by a few d e d i c a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s , was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1975 with an area of 340,000 Ha. The idea of having a Conservation U n i t i n t h i s area was promoted i n the e a r l y 1960's by l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n s and i n f l u e n t i a l i n d i v i d u a l s . Despite t h e i r e f f o r t s , they could not arouse enough i n t e r e s t among government o f f i c i a l s and the p r o j e c t was dropped - 15 -t e m p o r a r i l y ( B a r t l e 1980). In 1970 there was a c a t a s t r o p h i c earthquake that caused l a n d s l i d e s , avalanches, and f l o o d i n g t h at s e r i o u s l y damaged the r e g i o n . I t k i l l e d about 80,000 people and l e f t thousands of people homeless. The i n t e r m i n i s t e r i a l committee r e s p o n s i b l e f o r emergency, r e l i e f and recovery o p e r a t i o n s suggested that a n a t i o n a l park be c r e a t e d . In 1972 the p r o j e c t was r e i n s t a t e d and i n 1975 the l e g a l decree e s t a b l i s h i n g the park was approved. The s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s of the park were: a) to p r o t e c t and conserve the f l o r a , fauna, and a r c h e o l o g i c a l s i t e s ; b) to promote s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n of i t s n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s ; c) to s t i m u l a t e and r e g u l a t e tourism w i t h i n i t s boundaries; and d) to help r a i s e the standard of l i v i n g of the people around the park (D.S. n 0622-75-AG). Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park, l i k e the other Conservation Units i n Peru does not have the amount of v i s i t o r s that comparable areas of Europe and North America have, but v i s i t o r use i s i n c r e a s i n g . In the p a r t i c u l a r case of Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park, v i s i t o r use tends to be s p e c i a l i z e d , such us c l i m b i n g (Baker 1980) The area known as " C a l l e j o n de H u a y l l a s " , has a p o p u l a t i o n of aproximately 220,000 people with 65% of the p o p u l a t i o n l i v i n g i n r u r a l a reas. The area i s a v a l l e y l o c a t e d on the western s i d e of the park where the Rio Santa r i v e r flows north - 16 -( F i g u r e 3). There are four important towns: Huaraz, Carhuaz, Yungay and Caraz. These depressed areas are l o c a t e d along the route to the park (the only asphalted r o u t e ) , with Huaraz as the main town and c a p i t a l of the r e g i o n . With a p o p u l a t i o n of 68,000, f a r g r e a t e r than any of the other towns, Huaraz i s the commercial and c u l t u r a l center of the r e g i o n . I t o f f e r s t o u r i s t s most of the s e r v i c e s and conveniences they expect, i n c l u d i n g 30 establishments f o r accommodation and 70 r e s t a u r a n t s ( M i n i s t r y of Industry and Tourism 1983). " A f t e r the 1970 earthquake, people from other p a r t s of the country moved to Huaraz to help i n the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , take advantage of the o p p o r t u n i t i e s to buy land, and to l i v e i n the c i t y as i t s t a r t e d anew" ( B a r t l e 1980). People came to Huaraz not o n l y from other c i t i e s , but a l s o from the surrounding mountains i n order to b e n e f i t from the i n t e r n a t i o n a l a i d pouring i n t o the ar e a . The c i t y had to be r e c o n s t r u c t e d q u i c k l y and u n f o r t u n a t l y the o l d a r c h i t e c t u r e of the town was not an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A d i s a s t e r though i t was, the aftermath of the earthquake has helped the development of the are a . The i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t , the new r e s i d e n t s and the new highway have brought i t i n t o much c l o s e r contact with the c a p i t a l of the country and the r e s t of Peru ( B a r t l e 1980). Figure 3 . STUDY AREA. - 18 -2.4.2. Reasons f o r the S e l e c t i o n : Since the establishment of Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park r e s t r i c t i o n s were imposed a f f e c t i n g some t r a d i t i o n a l uses of the l a n d . The d e f i n i t i o n of boundaries was f a c i l i t a t e d by the r e v e r s i o n of land to s t a t e c o n t r o l through the process of a g r a r i a n reform. Although there are no human settlements i n the park, about one hundred p r i v a t e p r o p e r t i e s were i n c l u d e d w i t h i n the boundaries of the Conservation U n i t . "Compensation i n the form of money, bonds, or f u t u r e employment i n the park was granted during the land e x p r o p i a t i o n phase that took p l a c e before the park was e s t a b l i s h e d . I t was proposed that peasants should be employed as t o u r i s t guides i n cases where use of g r a z i n g lands was no longer p e r m i t t e d " (Baker 1980). Sev e r a l communities continue to use land w i t h i n the park f o r l i v e s t o c k g r a z i n g although there are attempts to c o n t r o l the p r a c t i c e . T h i s goal of e l i m i n a t i n g g r a z i n g from the park w i l l be d i f f i c u l t because of the long e s t a b l i s h e d r i g h t s . Other t r a d i t i o n a l uses a l s o have been a f f e c t e d . There has been o p p o s i t i o n to the a b o l i t i o n of hunting r i g h t s , r e s t r i c t i o n s on the c o l l e c t i o n of f u e l supply, and p r o h i b i t i o n of new small mines. Since the establishment of the park there has been an i n c r e a s i n g l o c a l e x p e c t a t i o n f o r the r e a l i z a t i o n of park - 19 -r e l a t e d economic b e n e f i t s . A r e f l e c t i o n of t h i s i s the growing tourism i n d u s t r y . C o n s t r u c t i o n of more h o t e l s , t o u r i s t s e r v i c e s , t o u r i s t c e n t e r s and r e c r e a t i o n a l areas have been proposed and some are a l r e a d y under c o n s t r u c t i o n . In most cases the development of the tourism i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i s based only on the idea of o b t a i n i n g the d o l l a r s of f o r e i g n t o u r i s t s ( g r i n g o s ) . T h i s N a t i o n a l Park r e c e i v e d i n c r e a s e d v i s i t o r use a n n u a l l y as w e l l as i n c r e a s e d economic support from the goverment u n t i l 1980. Since then, though the number of v i s i t o r s has continued to i n c r e a s e , government economic support has not. Since 1982 the Park has been f u n c t i o n i n g without a s p e c i f i c budget. The l o c a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e body r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the development of the r e g i o n c o n s i d e r s the Park of secondary importance and an unproductive p r o j e c t . In sum, the area presents an i d e a l s i t u a t i o n f o r the purpose of t h i s study, because : l ) " C a l l e j o n de Huaylas" i s e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e (A v a l l e y surrounded by a chain of mountains), with only one route of access; 2) one of the park o b j e c t i v e s i s to help r a i s e the standard of l i v i n g of the people l i v i n g i n the surroundings, but apparently the r e s t r i c t i o n s are c r e a t i n g c o n f l i c t s and c o n t r o v e r s i e s ; 3) the park i s l o c a t e d c l o s e to the c a p i t a l of the r e g i o n which has t o u r i s t f a c i l i t i e s , and i t i s t h e r e f o r e an i d e a l s i t u a t i o n i n which to e v a l u a t e l o c a l impacts; 4) there i s an i n c r e a s i n g - 20 -l o c a l e x p e c t a t i o n f o r the economic b e n e f i t s , but at the same time d e c r e a s i n g economic support from the government. There i s a need to" e v a l u a t e these claimed b e n e f i t s , f o r , 5) s i n c e t h i s i s the f i r s t study of t h i s type i n Peru, i t could be used as an example of the p o s s i b l e economic c o n t r i b u t i o n of a Peruvian Conservation Unit i n depressed areas of the n a t i o n . - 21 -CHAPTER III ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PARKS ON LOCAL AREAS 3.1 INTRODUCTION : "The economic impact r e s u l t i n g from development of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s i n a given area or l o c a l i t y i s i n c r e a s i n g l y becoming a matter of more than passing i n t e r e s t . Many towns and l o c a l i t i e s want more t o u r i s t or v a c a t i o n business as a means of economic support f o r the community" (Clawson and Knetsch 1966). In the context of impacts of N a t i o n a l Parks on l o c a l areas, the main c o n t r i b u t i o n of the parks upon the r u r a l a d j o i n i n g economy occurs i n the form of in c r e a s e d income and employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s (CORRC 1975). There are two primary sources f o r these types of b e n e f i t s . One i s i n the form of wages and expenditures made by the Conservation Unit and the other i s from v i s i t o r expenditures on the l o c a l a r e a. Although t o u r i s t s b r i n g an i n j e c t i o n of money, they a l s o impose both s o c i a l and economic c o s t s on the r e s i d e n t s . While host communities are r e c r e a t i o n environments f o r t o u r i s t s they are home environments f o r the r e s i d e n t s who - 22 -c a t e r to the needs of the t r a v e l l i n g p u b l i c (Cheng 1980). "The economic e f f e c t may indeed be s u b s t a n t i a l , and the concern of the l o c a l .people - i s understandable, but i s by no means c l e a r that there i s complete understanding of what r e c r e a t i o n expenditures mean i n terms of the l o c a l economy "(Clawson and Knetsch 1966). 3.2 KINDS OF IMPACTS : 3.2.1 B e n e f i t s : There are three kinds of b e n e f i t s that c o u l d be obtained from a Conservation U n i t . The f i r s t one i s the D i r e c t or Primary B e n e f i t s , d e f i n e d as the w i l l i n g n e s s to pay of consumers f o r a r e c r e a t i o n resource o p p o r t u n i t y . These values may or may not r e g i s t e r i n the commerce of the na t i o n or even i n the commerce of the r e g i o n , but t h i s does not make them any l e s s r e a l . These are values t h a t , when a p p r o p i a t e l y measured, could provide the b a s i s f o r c a l c u l a t i n g the economic worth of n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s (Clawson and Knetsch 1966). I t i s a l s o d e f i n e d as the gain a c c r u i n g to those people who use the r e c r e a t i o n s e r v i c e s provided by the N a t i o n a l Park (CORRC 1975). The second one i s the I n d i r e c t or Secondary B e n e f i t s , - 23 -d e f i n e d as the net gains stemming i n d i r e c t l y from or induced by the primary b e n e f i c i a r i e s of the Park. What i s expense to the r e c r e a t i o n i s t i s income to the s u p p l i e r of h i s goods and s e r v i c e s . "This impact on the l o c a l area i s i n the form of such t h i n g s as the i n c r e a s e d s a l e s of r e t a i l business e s t a b l i s m e n t s , t h e i n c r e a s e d number of c e r t a i n types of commercial e n t e r p r i s e s c a t e r i n g to the users of the park, changes i n tax s t r u c t u r e s , b e t t e r markets f o r commodities produced l o c a l l y , and i n c r e a s e s i n employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s " (Clawson and Knetsch 1966). The l a s t k i n d , the I n t a n g i b l e B e n e f i t s , are i n t e r p r e t e d as "the gains not p r i c e d by the market nor capable of being d e r i v e d i n d i r e c t l y from the p r i c e of secondary products produced by using these s e r v i c e s . There are both d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t i n t a n g i b l e b e n e f i t s " (CORRC 1975). 3.2.2 Costs : For each b e n e f i t there i s a corresponding c o s t . F i r s t l y , the D i r e c t or Primary Costs, d e f i n e d as the goods and s e r v i c e s l o s t as a consequence of the establishment of the Conservation U n i t . These c o s t s are r e f e r r e d to as foregone o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t s . Secondly, the I n d i r e c t or Secondary Costs, i n t e r p r e t e d as the c o s t s i n v o l v e d i n the pro d u c t i o n of secondary b e n e f i t s . L a s t l y , the I n t a n g i b l e Costs, d e f i n e d as the c o s t s i n v o l v e d - 24 -with the p r o d u c t i o n of i n t a n g i b l e b e n e f i t s . 3.3 TECHNIQUES TO EVALUATE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON LOCAL AREAS The measure of t o u r i s t spending (secondary b e n e f i t s ) , r e f l e c t s the economic impact or the true gain to the l o c a l area, but not the economic value of the Park. "To attempt to s u b s t i t u t e secondary f o r primary b e n e f i t s f o r measuring the value of a Park i s to c r e a t e a l u d i c r o u s s i t u a t i o n where e x c e l l e n t amenities or f a c i l i t i e s with high secondary b e n e f i t s give a high value to a mediocre park, while poor amenities with corresponding low secondary b e n e f i t s d e t r a c t from the value of a, say, w i l d e r n e s s park" (CORRC 1975). There are numerous methods to measure the economic impact of a Conservation Unit on l o c a l areas. These w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d as macro ( i n d i r e c t ) or micro ( d i r e c t ) methods. The f i r s t i n v o l v e s the a n a l y s i s of n a t i o n a l , r e g i o n a l or l o c a l s a l e s data to f i n d the p r o p o r t i o n a t t r i b u t a b l e to t o u r i s t spending (Archer 1973). T h i s method, which r e q u i r e s a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the area's economy, i s a l s o r e f e r r e d to as an economic base a n a l y s i s . The micro or d i r e c t method uses surveys to b u i l d up an economic p i c t u r e from a sample of - 2 5 -t o u r i s t and/or r e t a i l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s . 3.3.1 Macro ( I n d i r e c t ) Methods : These methods, known a l s o as economic base s t u d i e s , disaggregate s a l e s data i n order to determine the key economic a c t i v i t i e s of the community (Tiebout 1962). An economic base study begins by d e f i n i n g the community to be s t u d i e d ( g e o g r a p h i c a l u n i t ) , and then d i v i d i n g the l o c a l economy i n t o two segments : the f i r s t one i s r e l a t e d to those f i r m s and i n d i v i d u a l s s e r v i n g markets o u t s i d e the community ( e x p o r t s ) . The second segment i s r e l a t e d to those f i r m s and i n d i v i d u a l s s e r v i n g markets w i t h i n the community (I s a r d 1982). "Export markets are c o n s i d e r e d the prime mover of the l o c a l economy" (Tiebout 1962): Because of t h i s r o l e , export a c t i v i t i e s are c o n s i d e r e d the ' b a s i c ' s e c t o r . "Sales to the r e s t of the world may be i n the form of goods and s e r v i c e s , i n c l u d i n g l a b o r , that flow out of the r e g i o n , or they may be i n the form of expenditures by f o r e i g n e r s i n the r e g i o n on goods and s e r v i c e s that are immobile such as those connected with the geography, c l i m a t e , h i s t o r i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , or r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n of the r e g i o n , i . e . tourism" (Bendavid 1974). Supporting a c t i v i t i e s , which form the second segment, are necessary to s e r v i c e workers i n b a s i c i n d u s t r i e s and to the b a s i c i n d u s t r i e s themselves. Together they comprise the - 26 -"nonbasic" s e c t o r (Tiebout 1962). In most economic base s t u d i e s , the f i r s t task i s to determine the p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l s a l e s s e c t o r which are due to tourism (CORRC 1975). S e v e r a l ways have been suggested, the most common used being the, f o l l o w i n g s i x : a) Excess of s a l e s over l o c a l consumption.- This approach estimates expenditures of l o c a l r e s i d e n t s on r e t a i l goods and s e r v i c e s . Then, the excess of the t o t a l r e t a i l goods and s e r v i c e s over l o c a l consumption i s a t t r i b u t e d to export consumption and t o u r i s t spending (CORRC 1975, Centaur Management C o n s u l t a n t s , INC.1977) b) Firm by f i r m .- T h i s technique c a l c u l a t e s the i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g each f i r m ' s p r o p o r t i o n of s a l e s that are due to tourism. U s u a l l y , t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s obtained by p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s or q u e s t i o n n a r i e s ( I s a r d 1982). c) L o c a t i o n q u o t i e n t . - The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s approach i s to determine the p r o p o r t i o n of s a l e s due to tourism using as a benchmark the p r o p o r t i o n of tourism at the n a t i o n a l l e v e l (Tiebout 1962). d) Minimum requirement.- Instead of using the n a t i o n as a benchmark, t h i s approach compares the r e g i o n under study to a number of r e g i o n s each having s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . It could be assumed, that the r e g i o n with the lowest per c a p i t a r e t a i l and s e r v i c e s e c t o r s a l e s has the minimum necessary to - 27 -f u l f i l l l o c a l needs. Any excess i n the re g i o n under study may then be a t t r i b u t e d to b a s i c or export a c t i v i t i e s (CORRC 1975, Isard 1982, Bendavid 1974). e) Per c a p i t a s a l e s comparison.- In t h i s technique the per c a p i t a s a l e s f o r d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s of r e t a i l o u t l e t s are compared with the n a t i o n a l averages (Archer 1973). Any excess, i n an area i s assumed to be due to b a s i c or export a c t i v i t i e s . f ) Input-output a n a l y s i s . - "This approach p r o v i d e s a framework f o r a r r a y i n g , p r o c e s s i n g , and a n a l y z i n g i n t e r i n d u s t r y s t r u c t u r e of the economy and the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the unique s t r u c t u r a l interdependence that p r e v a i l s " (Bendavid 1974). "Input-output a n a l y s i s p r o v i d e s a r i g o r o u s and i n t e g r a t e d approach f o r d e p i c t i n g and i n v e s t i g a t i n g the f a c t o r s which bind together the v a r i o u s s e c t o r s of the economy. For showing the general interdependence of the economy of a r e g i o n , t h i s i s the most powerful t o o l a v a i l a b l e " (CORRC 1975). g) From-to a n a l y s i s . - Input-output s t u d i e s r e l y h e a v i l y upon n a t i o n a l c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e i r a n a l y s i s . In an e f f o r t to overcome t h i s weakness a modified v e r s i o n of input-output a n a l y s i s was developed. K a l t h e r and Lord (1968) c a l l e d t h i s technique 'from-to' a n a l y s i s . Focusing a t t e n t i o n on r e g i o n a l l i n k a g e s , i t does e l i m i n a t e some data requirements of the input-output models while s t i l l r e t a i n i n g the advantages of - 28 -accuracy and completeness. 3.3.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of the I n d i r e c t Methods : a) Advantages: The advantages of these types of methods (exc l u d i n g the l a s t two), c e n t r e mainly on t h e i r inexpensiveness and ease of implementation (assuming a v a i l a b i l i t y of d a t a ) . T h i s i s o f t e n not the case f o r a developing country where data c o l l e c t e d are scarce and most of the time inadequate f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r purpose. S p e c i f i c a l l y the input-output and from-to a n a l y s i s p rovide a comprehensive r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the area's economy, a s s i s t i n g the understanding of past and present developments i n the l o c a l economy. These types of s t u d i e s p i n p o i n t weaknesses i n the community's economy and a s s i s t i n governmental decision-making. An a n a l y s i s of t h i s k i nd i s a l s o used to f o r e c a s t the impact of change i n one s e c t o r i . e . t o u r i s m , on the l o c a l economy as a whole. b) Disadvantages: The f i r s t problem that c o n f r o n t s the a n a l y s t i s the s e l e c t i o n of a u n i t of measurement. If employment i s chosen, there i s the problem of part-time jobs, seasonal employment, f u l l t i m e j o b s , e t c . Income could be a b e t t e r u n i t of measure, but o f t e n the data a v a i l a b l e are not r e l i a b l e (Bendavid 1974,Isard 1982). "The next problem has - 2 9 -to do with the assumptions necessary. V a r i a t i o n s i n the l e v e l of per c a p i t a r e t a i l and s e r v i c e s e c t o r s a l e s i n an area c o u l d take p l a c e f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons other than changes i n the l e v e l of t o u r i s t a c t i v i t y " (CORRC 1975). The major task i n assembling an input-output model i s the c o l l e c t i o n of a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e q u a n t i t y of data. In many cases complete data may not be a v a i l a b l e and the c o n s t r u c t i o n of an input-output t a b l e i s an expensive and time-consuming process. "The p r e d i c t i o n of impacts i s based on past or present data and i s su b j e c t to e r r o r because of f u t u r e q u a l i t a t i v e changes i n s o c i a l , t e c h n o l o g i c a l , and economic c o n d i t i o n s , the i n f l u e n c e of many of which can not c r u d e l y , l e t alone p r e c i s e l y , be estimated" ( I s a r d 1982). These methods of e s t i m a t i n g t o u r i s t expenditures depend upon too many assumptions untested by e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h (Archer 1973). 3.3.3 Micro ( D i r e c t ) Methods : These are methods that normally i n v o l v e surveys to gather i n f o r m a t i o n necessary to c a l c u l a t e t ourism expenditures and s a l e s i n a p a r t i c u l a r a r ea. Surveys may be c a r r i e d out from e i t h e r the demand or the supply s i d e or both. "That i s , the e s t i m a t i o n of user expenditures may be d e r i v e d by asking the park users - 30 -themselves what they spend, by asking the r e c i p i e n t s of these expenditures what was spent, or by asking both" (CORRC 1975). Of the most commonly employed methods of data c o l l e c t i o n , i n t e r v i e w surveys and s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s are the two most f r e q u e n t l y used techniques (Burton and Noad 1981, Hudson and S t o v a l l 1974, Kovacs 1971). a) The i n t e r v i e w survey .- A great advantage of t h i s technique i s i t s f l e x i b i l i t y . The s k i l l e d i n t e r v i e w e r , because of the p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t with the respondent, can help mantain respondent i n t e r e s t and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the survey. "The i n t e r v i e w e r can e s t a b l i s h a rapport with the respondent, e x p l a i n the nature of the i n f o r m a t i o n sought, focus a t t e n t i o n on the s u b j e c t , present v i s u a l m a t e r i a l to secure h i g h l y accurate i n f o r m a t i o n , and adapt h i s language to s u i t the respondent's l e v e l of understanding" (Kovacs 1971). T h i s kind of survey y i e l d s a more complete sample of the general p o p u l a t i o n (Burton and Noad 1981, Parks Canada 1972), because of the l e s s e r non-response category. Despite the advantages of t h i s method, the success of the i n t e r v i e w technique however depends l a r g e l y on the s k i l l of the i n t e r v i e w e r , and a w e l l designed q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Numerous sources of b i a s or i n a c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n can be d e r i v e d , as f o l l o w s : Respondents may not f u l l y understand the q u e s t i o n being asked. Respondents tend, f o r example, to give answers and - 31 -express o p i n i o n s of what they t h i n k the i n t e r v i e w e r expects to hear from them or which they t h i n k the i n t e r v i e w e r would approve Of (Eby 1975, Burton and Noad 1981). "Since the d i r e c t method almost always i n v o l v e s the use of a sample, a l l the problems i n h e r e n t i n sample s e l e c t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s must be considered" (Eby 1975). "The person i n t e r v i e w e d i s r e q u i r e d to r e c a l l how much he has spent, compartmentalizing h i s expenditures i n t o c a t e g o r i e s which are suddenly t h r u s t upon him by the i n t e r v i e w e r " (CORRC 1975). b) The s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . - T h i s method i n v o l v e s q u e s t i o n n a i r e s which are completed by respondents themselves. The v i t a l l i m i t a t i o n l i e s i n the d i f f i c u l t i e s of o b t a i n i n g adequate responses. Since there i s no i n t e r v i e w e r , the q u e s t i o n s may not be p r o p e r l y understood. I n c o r r e c t or incomplete responses cannot be e a s i l y f o l l o wed up. " I t s most s i g n i f i c a n t disadvantage i s the r e l a t i v e low response r a t e which can le a d to a b i a s e d sample (Kovacs 1971). According to Burton and Noad (1981), the response to a s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d survey depends upon such f a c t o r s as the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p o p u l a t i o n to whom the q u e s t i o n n a i r e has been sent, the degree of i n t e r e s t i n the s u b j e c t of the survey that can be r a i s e d i n - 32 -t h i s p o p u l a t i o n , the standing and p r e s t i g e which the sponsor of the survey has amongst t h i s p o p u l a t i o n and the e f f e c t which the c o v e r i n g l e t t e r • e n g e n d e r s among the r e c i p i e n t s . Even though there are some inherent problems with using t h i s technique there are some advantages : low cost and convenience (the degree of o r g a n i z a t i o n i s l e s s ) , i t covers a wider g e o g r a p h i c a l area and reaches a l a r g e r sample. The responses are comparable s i n c e they avoid the b i a s of the i n t e r v i e w e r s but may not avoid the b i a s e s of the qu e s t i o n s . When the anonymity i s assured the responses are l i k e l y to be frank and g r e a t e r d e t a i l of i n f o r m a t i o n can be s o l i c i t e d because there i s no r e s t r i c t i o n on i n t e r v i e w time (Parks Canada 1972). 3.4 STUDY METHODOLOGY : 3.4.1 Survey Design : The primary o b j e c t i v e of the survey was to a s c e r t a i n the economic c o n t r i b u t i o n which Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park makes to the surrounding a r e a . In a d d i t i o n to the r e q u i r e d data on attendance p a t t e r n s , park and v i s i t o r expenditures, the survey provided i n f o r m a t i o n on the o r i g i n and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of v i s i t o r s , s a l e s due to v i s i t o r s , e f f e c t s of park r e s t r i c t i o n s - 33 -on t r a d i t i o n a l uses of the land, and comments about the N a t i o n a l Park p o l i c i e s . The f i r s t task was to e s t a b l i s h the geo g r a p h i c a l area i n which the park e x e r t s a d i r e c t economic i n f l u e n c e . The area chosen was " C a l l e j o n de Huaylas" where the economic impact i s both meaningful and measurable. The park r e l a t e d expenditures were d e f i n e d as the expenditures made by the v i s i t o r s (non l o c a l people) i n the " C a l l e j o n the Huaylas", and the expenditures made i n the l o c a l area by the park i t s e l f . L o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r r e l a t i o n to tourism i . e . accommodation, food, s e r v i c e , t r a n s p o r t , entertainment, s o u v e n i r s , and mi s c e l l a n e o u s . T r a d i t i o n a l uses of the land were c l a s s i f i e d as : g r a z i n g , a g r i c u l t u r e , mining, hunting, i c e p i c k i n g and f i r e wood ga t h e r i n g . In order to c o l l e c t the data r e q u i r e d , four types of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were designed : 1) V i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and expenditures, 2) V i s i t o r s a l e s , 3) E f f e c t s of park r e s t r i c t i o n s , and 4) P o l i c i e s of development q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . C o n s i d e r i n g the inadequacy of e x i s t i n g data, the d i r e c t i n t e r v i e w technique was - chosen to o b t a i n prime source i n f o r m a t i o n , and to o b t a i n as complete a sample of the po p u l a t i o n as p o s i b l e . T h i s technique was used i n a l l the surveys. C o n s i d e r a t i o n s taken i n t o account i n de s i g n i n g the - 34 -q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n c l u d e d : a) The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n order to avoid p r e j u d i c e and b i a s d i d not c o n t a i n a l a b e l of sponsorship; b) The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were w r i t t e n i n Spanish. Only the v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and expenditures q u e s t i o n n a i r e was w r i t t e n i n both E n g l i s h and Spanish. The E n g l i s h q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p r i n t e d on grey paper and the Spanish on orange paper; c) To ensure that the q u e s t i o n n a i r e would be understood very simple language was used; d) Fixed a l t e r n a t i v e s and precoded q u e s t i o n s were a p p l i e d to s t a n d a r i z e responses and to f a c i l i t a t e data p r o c e s s i n g ; e) Respondent anonymity was assured. 3.4.2 Sampling Design : a) V i s i t o r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Expenditures Q u e s t i o n n a i r e -The form and content of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e was designed i n a way that would enable i t to be used as a d i r e c t i n t e r v i e w and/or s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d survey. The survey form developed i s shown i n Appendix A. T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e followed a pre-determined l i s t of sampling days. These days were chosen as f o l l o w s : the months of June through September were found to c o n s t i t u t e the peak use season, based on an a n a l y s i s of 1980-1982 Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park (Llanganuco Entrance) - 35 -v i s i t a t i o n data records provided by the park authority and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism (Table 2). Unfortunatelly park v i s i t o r records for 1983 were not yet available to the author. TABLE 2. MONTHLY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS AT THE LLANGANUCO ENTRANCE TOTAL AVERAG. MONTH 1930 1981 1982 MONTH MONTH % JANUARY 482 307 501 1390 463 3 FEBRUARY 274 100 421 795 265 2 MARCH 356 199 98S 1543 514 3 APRIL 1245 2125 4044 7414 2471 15 MAY 440 1025 930 2395 798 5 JUNE 455 830 1996 3281 1094 7 JULY 1265 5470 5078 11813 3938 24 AUGUST 1384 1870 5593 8847 2949 18 SEPTEMBER 721 1423 1702 3846 1282 3 0CT08ER 846 1292 N/A 2138 1069 7 NOVEMBER 579 1075 891 2545 848 5 DECEMBER 147 596 N/A 343 422 3 SOURCE: HUASCARAN NATIONAL PARK RECORDS - 36 -The proportion, of monthly v i s i t o r s d i s t r i b u t e d among the days of the week was determinated using these records (1980-1982). I t was found, that weekdays (Monday - F r i d a y ) , r epresented 59% and weekends 41% of the t o t a l use (Table 3). Assuming that almost a l l the v i s i t o r s had Llanganuco Lakes as t h e i r main a t t r a c t i o n (Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park s t a f f p e r s o n a l communication), a l l the v i s i t o r s from 8am. to 5pm. were i n t e r v i e w e d at the Llanganuco entrance by the author during each sampling day. It was decided to eva l u a t e 20% of the t o t a l v i s i t o r s d uring the peak use season. Due to budget and time c o n s t r a i n t s the study was l i m i t e d to the p e r i o d of June to August 1983. The c a l c u l a t i o n s was as f o l l o w : the peak use season has 92 days (June to August 1983) r e p r e s e n t i n g 100%. Eighteen sampling days w i l l r e p r e s e n t 20%. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of v i s i t o r s among months i s as f o l l o w s : 15% i n June, 50% J u l y , and 35% August. The 18 sampling days were d i s t r i b u t e d on that p r o p o r t i o n : 3 days i n June, 9 days i n J u l y and 6 days i n August. The sampling days f o r each month were d i s t r i b u t e d 59% among weekdays and 41% among weekends. In other words, 2 days TABLE 3. DAILY ATTENDANCE PATTERNS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS (JUNE-AUGUST) AT THE LLANGANUCO ENTRANCE WITHOUT HOLIDAYS DAYS JUNE JUNE JUNE JULY JULY JULY AUGUST AUGUST AUGUST TOTAL 1980 1981 1982 1980 1931 1982 1980 1981 1932 DAYS % SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 61 5 15 8 11 20 64 67 34 15 63 34 13 78 112 60 33 54 27 49 81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 69 50 34 107 58 67 119 109 61 63 66 62 68 95 64 46 75 51 55 70 67 117 44 68 32 145 89 91 128 126 81 129 137 108 260 727 426 384 510 530 484 355 19 11 10 13 13 12 22 u> TOTAL 184 304 416 504 524 428 587 969 WEEKENDS = 41* WEEKDAYS = 59% SOURCE: HUASCARAN NATIONAL PARK RECORDS - 38 -among weekdays and 1 day among weekends on June, 5 weekdays and 4 weekends i n J u l y , and 3 weekdays and 3 weekends f o r A u g u s t . S i x t e e n sample d a y s w i t h i n t h e s t u d y p e r i o d were c h o s e n r a n d o m l y . The I n d i a n day ( J u n e 25) and N a t i o n a l day ( J u l y 29) were a l s o c h o s e n t o see i f t h e s e h o l i d a y s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e o t h e r d a y s i n terms o f v i s i t o r e x p e n d i t u r e s . b) V i s i t o r S a l e s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e - An example o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s shown i n A p p e n d i x B. I t was d e s i g n e d t o be u s e d as a d i r e c t i n t e r v i e w method. B a s i c a l l y i t c o n s i s t e d o f a s k i n g t h e r e c i p i e n t s o f v i s i t o r and p a r k e x p e n d i t u r e s what was s o l d , and what t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e t o t a l s a l e s was due t o t h e v i s i t o r s o r t h e p a r k . U s i n g t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e M i n i s t r y o f I n d u s t r y and T o u r i s m , a l i s t o f l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s by town was e l a b o r a t e d . L o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s were g r o u p e d i n t o t h e same c a t e g o r i e s u s e d i n p a r t B o f t h e v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and e x p e n d i t u r e s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . F u r t h e r m o r e , w i t h i n e a c h c a t e g o r y , i e . a c c o m m o d a t i o n , e s t a b l i s h m e n t s were g r o u p e d as H o t e l s , M o t e l s , e t c . Once t h e g r o u p s were formed, e a c h l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t t o be i n t e r v i e w e d was c h o s e n r a n d o m l y . A t o t a l o f 51 l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s were sampled. c) E f f e c t s o f P a r k ' s R e s t r i c t i o n s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e - An - 39 -example of t h i s format i s shown i n Appendix C. The main task of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e was to determine how Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park's r e s t r i c t i o n s on t r a d i t i o n a l uses of the land were a f f e c t i n g the way of l i v i n g of the people who depend on those a c t i v i t i e s . Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park keeps a r e c o r d of l o c a l people p r e s e n t l y using the park f o r d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n a l uses. For the purpose of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e t r a d i t i o n a l uses were c l a s s i f i e d as : g r a z i n g , a g r i c u l t u r e , mining, hunting, i c e p i c k i n g and f i r e wood gathering.The study area was d i v i d e d i n t o 13 g e o g r a p h i c a l areas ( v a l l e y s ) . Within each v a l l e y people i n the communities that have been a f f e c t e d by the park's r e s t r i c t i o n s were grouped as : l e a d e r s , important neighbours, and members. From these groups, the average of f i v e people to be i n t e r v i e w e d were chosen randomly. A t o t a l of 35 people were i n t e r v i e w e d . Though e f f o r t s were made, i t proved imposible to i n t e r v i e w a l l the communities, because some communities were s u s p i c i o u s of o u t s i d e r s . d) N a t i o n a l , r e g i o n a l and l o c a l p o l i c y q u e s t i o n n a i r e - The primary task of t h i s survey was to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n about the c u r r e n t p o l i c y r e s p e c t i n g c o n s e r v a t i o n of nature i n Peru, i n p a r t i c u l a r about Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park and i t s surroundings. People d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n the p o l i c y and development of Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park at n a t i o n a l , r e g i o n a l - 40 -and l o c a l l e v e l s were i n t e r v i e w e d . Former and present p u b l i c employees from the DGFF, INFOR, M i n i s t r y of Industry and Tourism, p r o f e s s o r s from the A g r a r i a n U n i v e r s i t y ( F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y ) , l o c a l b u s i n e s s , and important neighbours of the l o c a l communities were s e l e c t e d as i n t e r v i e w e e s . The r e l a t i o n of people i n t e r v i e w e d are l i s t e d i n Appendix D. The d i r e c t i n t e r v i e w method used was d i v i d e d i n t o two stages: f i r s t , the purpose and hypothesis of the study was e x p l a i n e d and i n f o r m a t i o n about p o l i c i e s and a c t i o n s being taken i n r e s p e c t of Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park was obtained. Second, comments were obtained from those i n t e r v i e w e d p r e v i o u s l y about the f i n d i n g s of the study. 3 . 4 . 3 Interview Technique : For the v i s i t o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and expenditures q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the survey was held at the e n t r a n c e / e x i t of Llanganuco Lakes using the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r v i e w procedure: f i r s t , the purpose of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was exp l a i n e d to the group of v i s i t o r s and d i s t r i b u t e d among each member of the group fou r t e e n years and o l d e r . Second, they were asked to complete p a r t A of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e before e n t e r i n g the Park, but i n the m a j o r i t y of the cases they p r e f e r r e d to complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e while i n the Conservation U n i t . T h i s procedure was accepted s i n c e i t was f e l t that b e t t e r and more - 41 -r e l i a b l e answers would be obtained i f the respondent was able to respond i n h i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y time. T h i r d , once the purpose was understood they were asked to go to the Park a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f f i c e to r e g i s t e r and to pay the entrance fee. Since there were many c o n t r o v e r s i e s about the d i f f e r e n c e i n entrance fees f o r the f o r e i g n and n a t i o n a l v i s i t o r , i t was found that i n t e r v i e w i n g before the r e g i s t r a t i o n had b e t t e r r e s u l t s and acceptance of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Fourth, each questionnaire was c o l l e c t e d at the same pla c e , a f t e r ensuring that i t was p r o p e r l y f i l l e d and completed. At the end of each sample day a compliance check was made between Park's r e g i s t e r and the number of returned q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . One hundred percent of a l l questionnaires given out were returned. Parkguards help was needed on days i n which v i s i t o r a r r i v a l volume was high or concentrated i n time ( s p e c i a l l y between 10 am. to 12 noon). In the v i s i t o r s a l e s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r v i e w procedure was used: i n order to have an environment of t r u s t i t was decided to f i n d a person who knew the owner of a l o c a l establishment (the one s e l e c t e d randomly), and ask to be introduced to him. The " f r i e n d of a f r i e n d " approach was u s u a l l y s u c c e s s f u l . The i n t e r v i e w was normally conducted i n the owner's or a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s house and not i n the establishment i t s e l f . This was done not only to avoid the i n t e r r u p t i o n of business i n the establishment but to give an - 42 -informal a i r to the interview so that the person being interviewed could part with information more f r e e l y in a familiar atmosphere. This procedure was found to be the only way of carrying out the interview. The same procedure was used in the questionnaire regarding the eff e c t s of Park's r e s t r i c t i o n s . The only difference was that the person who handled the introductions was in each case a person who knew both Spanish and the native language and belonged to the community. This was the most d i f f i c u l t questionnaire to complete. The people to be interviewed l i v e d in remote areas (without roads of access), and in two cases the author was asked to leave the community and promise not to come back again. It was necessary to stay a few days in the communities to organize the interview and to get to know the lo c a l people. To avoid misinterpretation and d i s t r u s t , the interpreter wrote the answers himself. After completing the formal interview, we were invited in most cases to have something to drink or eat. It was during this informal conversation that most useful information was obtained. For the p o l i c i e s of development questionnaire, the interview did not follow a pre-established pattern but the questions and topics of discussions were the same for a l l the interviews. During the interview a tape recorder was used. The main topics revolved around the past, present and future - 4 3 -p o l i c i e s of development f o r Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park, problems found during the r e s e a r c h and how they could be handled, and comments about the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s . - 44 -CHAPTER IV STUDY FINDINGS The a n a l y s i s of f i n d i n g s of the survey i s presented a c c o r d i n g to the p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e of the persons i n t e r v i e w e d , c a t e g o r i z e d as f o l l o w s : NON-LOCAL PERUVIAN or a Peruvian v i s i t o r who does not l i v e i n the l o c a l area. FOREIGN NON-RESIDENT, f o r e i g n v i s i t o r (non-Peruvian) who does not l i v e i n the country. FOREIGN RESIDENT, f o r e i g n v i s i t o r (non-Peruvian) who l i v e s i n the country but not i n the l o c a l a rea. i . e . , f o r e i g n experts working on an i n t e r n a t i o n a l a i d p r o j e c t . 4.1 VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS : 4.1.1 Attendance P a t t e r n s : The monthly attendance p a t t e r n s f o r Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park f o r the years 1980 to 1982 i n c l u s i v e are shown i n Table 2 on Page 35 • Fig u r e 4 on Page 45 r e v e a l s two peak seasons of use during the year ( A p r i l and June-September) with J u l y and August the heavy use months of the year. The f i r s t one ( A p r i l ) i s due to the 'Holy week' (long weekend) where only Peruvians - 45 -F i g u r e 5. D a i l y A t t e n d a n c e P a t t e r n s 1980 to 1982. - 46 -v i s i t the a r e a . The other season (June-September), i s due to long weekends ( N a t i o n a l H o l i d a y s ) , school h o l i d a y s , and winter or dry season (good f o r c l i m b i n g ) . Due to budget and time c o n s t r a i n t s the study was concentrated during June-August 1983. T h i s p e r i o d was chosen to eva l u a t e the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and expenditures of the three types of v i s i t o r s . F i g u r e 5 r e p r e s e n t s the p r o p o r t i o n of d a i l y attendance p a t t e r n s f o r 1980 to 1982 duri n g the p e r i o d June through August. U n f o r t u n a t e l y there were no re c o r d s a v a i l a b l e to d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the types of v i s i t o r s . In the present study, i t was found that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d a i l y attendance p a t t e r n s f o r weekends of the sampling p e r i o d were 75.3% f o r n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s , 44.9% f o r f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s and 56.1% f o r f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s . On the other hand, the attendance p a t t e r n s f o r weekdays of the sampling p e r i o d were 24.7% f o r n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s , 55.1% f o r f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s and 43.9% f o r f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s . 4.1.2 V i s i t o r s Per Sampling Day : T o t a l attendance f i g u r e s by sampling day are shown i n Table 4. A t o t a l of 1423 v i s i t o r s were counted and i n t e r v i e w e d . Of those, 83% were n o n - l o c a l Peruvians, 13% f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s , and 4% f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t - 4 7 -TABLE 4. NUMBER OF VISITORS PER SAMPLING DAY SAMPLING NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN TOTAL/DAY DAYS PERUVIAN NON RESIDENT RESIDENT JUNE 14 5 7 2 14 JUNE 17 16 14 5 35 (»)JUNE 25 98 28 6 132 JULY 2 58 14 6 78 JULY 4 1 9 3 13 JULY 7 6 11 0 17 JULY 10 22 20 0 42 JULY 12 12 30 2 44 JULY 16 48 7 5 60 JULY 18 3 10 0 13 <»)JULY 29 713 10 5 728 JULY 31 49 0 6 55 AUGUST 7 14 0 0 14 AUGUST 8 11 0 1 12 AUGUST 11 14 5 4 23 AUGUST 16 29 0 1 30 AUGUST 20 62 28 3 93 AUGUST 21 16 1 3 20 WITH HOLIDAYS 1177 194 52 1423 83 % 13 % A % WITHOUT HOLIDAYS 366 156 41 563 65 % 28 % 7 % - 48 -v i s i t o r s . On the Indian day (June 25) and the N a t i o n a l day ( J u l y 29), 60.4% of the t o t a l 1423 v i s i t o r s were i n t e r v i e w e d , and nine of every ten v i s i t o r s were n o n - l o c a l Peruvians. 4.1.3 Length of Stay : a) In the r e g i o n . - The most frequent l e n g t h of stay, e x c l u d i n g h o l i d a y s , f o r the n o n - l o c a l Peruvians was three days, four days f o r f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s and more than nine days f o r f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s . On the other hand, during the h o l i d a y s (long weekends), most v i s i t o r s stayed f o r a p e r i o d of three days ( F i g u r e 6). The average l e n g t h of stay f o r n o n - l o c a l Peruvians was 4 days, 8.1 days f o r f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s and 5 days f o r f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s (Table 5). These averages changed during h o l i d a y s to 4.2 days f o r n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s , 7.6 days f o r f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s and 3.4 days f o r f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s (Table 6). b) In the park.- Although n o n - l o c a l Peruvians and f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s spent an average of four days i n the r e g i o n , they stayed f o r l e s s than a day i n the Park (Table 7). The average l e n g t h of t h e i r park v i s i t was three hours. Of the f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s , 67.5% spent l e s s than a day. However, the remainding 32.5% camped from two to twenty days (on an average f o r 3.4 days). Such f o r e i g n non-resident - 49 -LENGTH OF STAY IN REGION w < H w Pi w a, 90 72 54 36 18 0 WITHOUT HOLIDAYS LENGTH OF VISIT (DAYS) HI NON LOCAL PERUVIAN • FOREIGN RESIDENT g^g FOREIGN NON RESIDENT Fi g u r e 6. Length of Stay i n the Region. TABLE 5. AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY IN THE REGION BY TYPE OF VISITOR WITHOUT HOLIDAYS LENGTH OF NON LOCAL PERUVIANS FOREIGN NON RESIDENTS FOREIGN RESIDENTS:."' VISIT (DAYS) # VISITORS VISITOR-DAYS % # VISITORS VISITOR-DAYS % It VISITORS VISITOR-DAYS % 2 48 96 13.3 17 34 10.9 3 16 20.5 3 139 417 37.9 34 102 21.8 8 24 20.5 4 71 284 19.3 16 64 10.2 12 48 28.2 5 53 265 14.5 28 140 17.6 6 30 15.4 6 24 144 6.3 11 66 6.8 4 24 7.7 7 13 91 3.6 8 56 5.4 8 10 80 2.7 3 24 2.1 1 8 2.6 9 1 9 0.3 2 18 1.4 10 3 30 0.9 14 140 0.1 11 1 11 0.3 15 3 45 0.9 1 15 0.7 16 3 43 2.1 17 18 1 18 0.7 19 1 19 0.7 20 4 80 2.7 23 2 46 1.4 27 2 54 5.1 28 30 5 150 3.3 40 6 240 4.1 TOTAL VISITORS 366 TOTAL VISITORS 156 TOTAL VISITORS 41 TOTAL VISITOR-DAYS 1472 TOTAL VISITOR-DAYS 1260 TOTAL VISITOR-DAYS 204 AVE. LENGTH OF STAY 4.0 DAYS AVE. LENGTH OF STAY 8.1 DAYS AVE. LENGTH OF STAY 5.0 DAYS TABLE 6. AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY IN THE REGION BY TYPE OF VISITOR HOLIDAYS LENGTH OF VISIT (DAYS) NON LOCAL PERUVIAN # VISITORS VISITOR-DAYS FOREIGN NON RESIDENTS # VISITORS VISITOR-DAYS FOREIGN RESIDENTS # VISITORS VISITOR-DAYS % 2 62 124 7.7 3 333 999 41.2 25 75 64.3 4 260 1040 32.1 5 70 350 8.6 3 15 7.1 6 35 210 4.3 4 24 10.7 7 19 133 2.4 8 8 64 0.9 10 4 40 0.5 15 8 120 0.9 17 1 17 3.6 28 1 28 3.6 30 12 360 1.4 3 90 7.1 40 1 40 3.6 TOTAL,VISITORS 811 TOTAL VISITOR-DAYS 3440 AVE. LENGTH OF STAY 4.2 DAYS TOTAL VISITORS 38 TOTAL VISITOR-DAYS 289 AVE. LENGTH OF STAY 7.6 DAYS TOTAL VISITORS 11 TOTAL VISITOR-DAYS 204 AVE. LENGTH OF STAY 3.4 DAYS - 52 -TABLE 7. AVERAGE STAY IN THE PARK BY TYPE OF VISITOR LENGTH OF NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN TOTAL STAY PERUVIANS NON RESIDENT RESIDENT (n=l177) (n=194) (n=52) % % % % 1-3 HOURS 86 32.5 60 77.8 4-6 HOURS 12 17 22 13.0 7-9 HOURS 2 18 18 4.8 2 DAYS 4 0.5 3 DAYS 12 1.6 4 DAYS 4.5 0.6 5 DAYS 6 0.8 9 DAYS 1.5 0.2 13 DAYS .5 0.1 >20 DAYS 4 (*) 0.5 (*) DUE TO ONE PARTY THAT STAYED MORE THAN 20 DAYS CAMPING - 53 -v i s i t o r s add up to 4.4% of the t o t a l v i s i t o r s . c) In towns.- The l e n g t h of stay i n towns i s c a l c u l a t e d as the p e r i o d of time that a v i s i t o r spends i n the region l e s s the time he spends i n the park. For n o n - l o c a l Peruvians and f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s the average l e n g t h of stay i n towns was the same as that i n the r e g i o n because none of them spent more than a day i n the park. Foreign n o n - r e s i d e n t s , however, spent an average of 8.1 days i n the r e g i o n out of which they spent 6.1 days i n the towns. During h o l i d a y s , the average le n g t h of stay was 4.2 days f o r n o n - l o c a l Peruvians, 5.8 days f o r f o r e i g n n o n - r e s i d e n t s and 3.4 days f o r f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s . t 4.1.4 O r i g i n : The p l a c e of v i s i t o r o r i g i n based on v i s i t o r type, during the sampling p e r i o d , i s summarized i n t a b l e 8. It was found that France i s the prime source of v i s i t o r s ; B r i t a i n , U.S.A, Germany, and S w i t z e r l a n d c o n s t i t u t i n g the top f i v e c o u n t r i e s , together r e p r e s e n t i n g 73.9% of the t o t a l f o r e i g n v i s i t o r s to the Park. From Lima, the c a p i t a l of the country, nine of every ten n o n - l o c a l Peruvians v i s i t e d the l o c a l a r ea. 4.1.5 Transport Used : S i x t y percent of a l l v i s i t o r s take buses or ren t a car - 54 -TABLE 8. VISITORS ACCORDING TO THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE FOREIGN NON RESIDENTS FOREIGN RESIDENTS NON LOCAL PERUVIANS COUNTRY COUNTRY DEPARTAMENTO % FRANCE BR ITAIN U.S.A GERMANY SWITZERLAND ITALY CANADA HOLLAND SPAIN AUSTRIA SWEDEN ISRAEL BELGIUM JAPAN ARGENTINA 21.3 17.1 16.4 9.8 9.3 6.6 6.0 3.3 2.7 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.6 0.5 SPAIN FRANCE HOLLAND CANADA GERMANY U.S.A BRITAIN SWITZERLAND ARGENTINA URUGUAY ITALY PANAMA MEXICO HONDURAS 19.14 12.77 12.76 10.64 10.64 6.38 6.38 6.38 4.26 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 LIMA PIURA AREQUI PA L.LI BERTAD LAMBAYEQUE CALLAO ICA PUNO JUN IN TUMBES 90.97 1.96 1.96 1.76 1.08 0.88 0.54 0.34 0.34 0.17 - 55 -(Table 9) to get to the park. People using buses were normally groups of students or employees of a company. Co n s i d e r i n g the d i s t a n c e (168 km) and the unpaved road to the park (Llanganuco Lakes), groups of v i s i t o r s use c a r s , small buses or p i c k up t r u c k s , d r i v e n by l o c a l people and share the c o s t . T h i s i s the common way of t r a v e l to the most popular p l a c e s i n the r e g i o n . I t was found that most of the f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s t r a v e l e d i n t h e i r own c a r s , f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s rented a car and n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s used buses r a t h e r than t h e i r own c a r s , or rented c a r s . Foreign non-resident v i s i t o r s used b i c y c l e s , horses and motorcycles as other forms of t r a n s p o r t . TABLE 9. TRANSPORT USED TYPE # VISITORS % BUS 322 22.6 TAXI 57 4.0 OWN CAR 467 32.8 CAR RENTAL 572 40.2 OTHERS 6 0.4 - 56 -4.1.6 Age D i s t r i b u t i o n : The group age d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the d i f f e r e n t types of v i s i t o r s i s shown i n Table 10. The chi-square hypothesis t e s t at 0.05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e with 9 degrees of freedom r e j e c t s the n u l l hypothesis that the group age d i s t r i b u t i o n among d i f f e r e n t types of v i s i t o r s i s s i m i l a r . S i x t y s i x percent of n o n - l o c a l Peruvians were between 20 - 40 years of age, 72% of the f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s were between 20 - 35 years of age and 60% of f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s were 25 - 45 years of age. Less than 5% of the t o t a l n o n - l o c a l Peruvian and f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s are l e s s than 14 years o l d . Whereas 13.5% of f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s are i n t h i s age group. Further i t appears that the f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r type i s the o l d e s t one and t r a v e l f o r t h i s group i s more f a m i l y o r i e n t e d . 4.1.7 Reasons For V i s i t i n g The L o c a l Area Table 11 p r o v i d e s a summation of the main reasons or purposes of v i s i t a t i o n to the C a l l e j o n the Huaylas ( l o c a l a r e a ) . An estimated 84% of a l l f o r e i g n v i s i t o r s and 54% of n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s , s t a t e d that the primary reason of t h e i r being i n the area was Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park. A l l the TABLE 10. AGE DISTRIBUTION AGE GROUP NON LOCAL PERUVIAN FOREIGN NON RESIDENT FOREIGN RESIDENT TOTAL VISITORS TOTAL % 0-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 > 60 55 74 212 240 185 138 113 66 49 25 20 4.7 6.3 18.0 20.4 15.7 11.7 9.6 5.6 4.2 2.1 1.7 8 2 40 60 40 10 12 4 11 2 5 4.1 1.0 20.6 30.9 20.6 5.2 6.2 2.1 5.7 1.0 2.6 13.5 1.9 3.8 13.5 17.3 17.3 11.5 9.6 9.6 1.9 70 77 254 307 234 157 131 75 65 28 25 4.9 5.4 17.8 21.6 16.4 11.0 9.2 5.3 4.6 2.0 1.8 TOTALS 1177 194 52 1423 - 58 -TABLE 11. REASONS FOR VISITING THE LOCAL AREA WITHOUT HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN TOTAL PERUVIAN NON RESIDENT RESIDENT (n=366) (n=156) (n=41) (n=563) % % % % BUSINESS PURPOSES 2.9 TO VISIT RELATIVES/FRI ENDS 5.4 TO STUDY 2.2 TO WORK (EMPLOYMENT) 2.6 TO VISIT THE NATIONAL PARK 54.8 OTHER 32.2 1.9 3.1 2.6 4.6 3.8 2.5 2.6 1.8 84.7 84.2 65.2 8.4 10.5 24.0 HOLI DAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN TOTAL PERUVIAN NON RESIDENT RESIDENT (n=811) (n=38) (n=11) (n=860) % % % % BUSINESS PURPOSES 1.1 1.0 TO VISIT RELATIVES/FRIENDS 8.5 4.6 8.2 TO STUDY 4.6 0.2 TO WORK (EMPLOYMENT) 0.0 TO VISIT THE NATIONAL PARK 58.2 90.9 100.0 60.2 OTHER 32.3 30.4 - 5 9 -respondents, i n p a r t i c u l a r the n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r , i n the category of 'other' reasons, s t a t e d that Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park was an important reason f o r v i s i t i n g the area but a p a r t of a l o c a l group of a t t r a c t i o n s , which would i n c l u d e i . e "Chavin" and "Canon d e l Pato". V i s i t s to r e l a t i v e s / f r i e n d s and the category of 'other' reasons i n c r e a s e d d u r i n g h o l i d a y s , mainly because of i n v i t a t i o n s of f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s , and t o u r i s t packages which i n c l u d e the N a t i o n a l Park as p a r t of a t o u r i s t c i r c u i t . 4.1.8 Accommodation Used : H o t e l s were the most frequented accommodation used. The next most popular kind was h o s t e l s and pensions. S u r p r i s i n g l y , almost 15% of the f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s were i n v i t e d to stay i n the homes of a f r i e n d or r e l a t i v e (Table 12). Because of the demand and the shortage of accommodation during h o l i d a y s ( e s p e c i a l l y the n a t i o n a l h o l i d a y s ) , l o c a l f a m i l i e s rented rooms f o r the short season making c o n s i d e r a b l e amounts of money. The p r o f i t m a k i n g that i s a s s o c i a t e d with such r e n t a l s has l e d many l o c a l people to t h i n k that there i s room f o r an even f u r t h e r development of tourism. 4.1.9 Reasons For V i s i t i n g The N a t i o n a l Park : Nine out of every ten n o n - l o c a l Peruvian or f o r e i g n 60 -TABLE 12 ACCOMMODATION USED WITHOUT HOLIDAYS TYPE NON LOCAL PERUVIAN (n=366) FOREIGN NON RESIDENT (n=156) FOREIGN RESIDENT (n=41) TOTAL (n=563) HOTEL 47.1 MOTEL 1.1 HOSTEL 29.6 PENSION 11.2 RELATIVES/FRIENDS 9.5 TENT 0.3 NOT REQUIRED 0.9 OTHER 0.3 39.5 44.1 44.8 1.3 1.1 23.0 29.4 27.8 15.1 11.8 12.3 3.3 14.7 8.2 17.8 5.1 0.6 0.2 HOLIDAYS . NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN TYPE PERUVIAN NON RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL (n=811) (n=38) (n=11) (n=860) HOTEL 34.0 56 80 43.4 MOTEL 0.4 0.3 HOSTEL 23.7 28 20 24.6 PENSION 17.5 8 13.6 RELATIVES/FRIENDS 16.4 8 12.9 TENT 3.8 2.5 NOT REQUIRED 0.4 0.3 OTHER 3.8 2.5 - 6 1 -r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s (Table 13) who entered the park through Llanganuco-. entrance came f o r the purpose of s i g h t s e e i n g . For f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s h i k i n g and c l i m b i n g c o n s t i t u t e d other popular purposes of v i s i t i n g the park. Llanganuco entrance i s not the most popular entrance f o r those who inte n d to climb the Andes mountains (Andinism), but at the same time i t i s a l s o true that almost a l l c l i m b e r s sooner or l a t e r v i s i t Llanganuco area which i s co n s i d e r e d one of the main a t t r a c t i o n s of the N a t i o n a l Park. TABLE 13. RESAONS FOR VISITING THE PARK NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIAN NON RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL (n=1177) (n=194) (n=52) (n=1423) ACTIVITY % % % % SIGHTSEEING 93.0 69 94 93.9 HIKING 1.7 21 4 4.4 STUDY 0.3 2 2 0.6 ANDINISM 6 0.8 ROCK CLIMBING 2 0.3 - 62 -4.1.10 Awareness About The Park : As shown i n Table 14 the recommendation of f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s was the most s i g n i f i c a n t s t i m u l a n t by which i n i t i a l i n t e r e s t s of v i s i t o r s i n the N a t i o n a l Park were aroused. T h i s p o i n t s to the importance of word-of-mouth a d v e r t i s i n g . The second s p e c i f i c category of i n f o r m a t i o n f o r n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s was magazines and newspapers, and t r a v e l agencies f o r f o r e i g n v i s i t o r s . T r a v e l agencies play an important r o l e i n a d v e r t i s i n g the area; f o r example, by TABLE 14. AWARENESS ABOUT THE PARK NON LOCAL PERUVIAN (n=1177) FOREIGN NON RESIDENT (n=194) FOREIGN RESIDENT (n=52) TOTAL (n=1423) SOURCE % % % % FRIENDS/RELATIVES 56.6 46.1 71.8 55.7 TRAVEL AGENCY 9.6 16.3 12.9 10.6 MAGAZINE,NEWSPAPER 19.5 11.8 5.1 17.9 BROCHURE 2.6 8.9 5.1 3.6 T.V. 1.2 0 0 1.0 RADIO 0 0 0 0.0 CAN NOT REMEMBER 1.6 3.4 0 1.8 OTHER 8.9 13.5 5.1 9.4 - 63 -advertisements i n S i e r r a Magazine. The M i n i s t r y of Industry and Tourism s t a r t e d a d v e r t i z i n g the area on T.V i n J u l y 1983, which was the sti m u l a n t r e p o r t e d by 1.2% of the n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s . 4.1.11 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s Of What A N a t i o n a l Park Is : Fort y one percent of t o t a l v i s i t o r s d e f i n e d a N a t i o n a l Park as an area e s t a b l i s h e d f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of w i l d l i f e (Table 15). The second l a r g e s t number of people d e f i n e d i t as TABLE 15. INTERPRETATION OF WHAT A NATIONAL PARK IS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIAN NON RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL (n=1177) (n=194) (n=52) (n=1423) % % % % AREA ESTABLISHED FOR THE 34.0 81.2 52 41.1 PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE TOURIST AREA 17.3 0.9 12 14.9 RECREATIONAL AREA 7.7 1.8 0 6.6 STUDY AREA 0.6 0 0 0.5 OTHERS 19.6 3.6 16 17.3 DO NOT KNOW 0.6 0 0 0.5 NATURAL AREA,WILDERNESS. 20.2 12.5 20 19.1 - 64 -a n a t u r a l or w i l d e r n e s s area. One of every f i v e v i s i t o r s t h i n k of i t as", ' l e i s u r e grounds', which shows the i n f l u e n c e upon them of the advertisements of the Minis t r y , of Industry and Tourism. I n c i d e n t a l l y , none of the advertisements r e f e r r e d to t h i s area as a N a t i o n a l Park, but r a t h e r as a t o u r i s t a r ea. As long as t h i s M i n i s t r y continues i t s advertisements t h i s k i nd of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l i n c r e a s e . 4.1.12 Pr e v i o u s V i s i t s to the Park : Seven percent of the t o t a l number of v i s i t o r s had p r e v i o u s l y v i s i t e d the park (Table 16). Of those, the m a j o r i t y c o n s i s t e d of f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s . Though not v e r i f i e d by t h i s t h e s i s , i t can be spe c u l a t e d that t h i s repeat v i s i t a t i o n i s due to t h e i r g r e a t e r d i s p o s a b l e income. 4.1.13 L i k e s and D i s l i k e s About The Park A l i s t of l i k e s and d i s l i k e s that v i s i t o r s expressed i s shown i n Table 17. More than 60% of n o n - l o c a l Peruvians and f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s came to the Park expecting to f i n d some kind of t o u r i s t f a c i l i t i e s , i . e . , access roads, washrooms, f i r s t a i d s e r v i c e s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c e n t e r s , e t c . The few f a c i l i t i e s found were r a t e d as bad. The m a j o r i t y of complaints i n order of importance were; poor road c o n d i t i o n s , - 65 -TABLE 16. PREVIOUS VISITATION TO THE PARK NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIANS NON RESIDENT RESIDENT PREVIOUS # VISITS # VISITORS § VISITORS # VISITORS 2 65 9 4 3 13 1 1 4 3 1 5 1 2 6 2 7 2 8 1 9 0 10 3 11 1 TOTAL 91 11 7 % OF TOTAL VISITORS. 8 6 13 l a c k of washrooms, l a c k of f i r s t a i d s u p p l i e s and a place to buy food and beverages from. T h i s e x p l a i n s t h e i r short stay (3 hours) i n the park. Foreign non-resident v i s i t o r s who come to the Conservation Unit do not expect to f i n d r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , but the few found were r a t e d as good. The general comments of t h i s v i s i t o r type were: the l e s s r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s the b e t t e r , keep the area as i t i s , and no more development i s - 66 -TABLE 17. LIKES AND DISLIKES ABOUT THE PARK EXPECTED RANKING NON LOCAL PERUVIAN FOREIGN NON RESIDENT FOREIGN RESIDENT TOURIST SERVICES GOOD MODERATE BAD 3.2 9.9 52.3 2.2 2.2 20.0 8.3 65.8 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FLORA & FAUNA GOOD MODERATE BAD GOOD MODERATE BAD 1.2 3.1 8.7 6.2 1.9 1.2 26.7 6.7 11.1 8.3 8.3 SCENERY GOOD MODERATE BAD 5 1.2 8.3 COMMENTS ABOUT THE PARK GOOD MODERATE BAD 0.6 0.6 2.5 6.7 6.7 UNEXPECTED TOURIST SERVICES GOOD MODERATE BAD 0.6 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES GOOD MODERATE BAD 0.6 11.1 SCENERY GOOD MODERATE BAD 2.2 COMMENTS ABOUT THE PARK GOOD MODERATE BAD 0.6 0.6 - 67 -needed. These two o p p o s i t e kinds of e x p e c t a t i o n s between n o n - l o c a l Peruvian and f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s , and f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s are the r e f l e c t i o n of the kinds of a c t i v i t i e s that each v i s i t o r intended to engage i n while i n the park. Although t h i s s e c t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e d i d not ask f o r comments, most v i s i t o r s used i t f o r that purpose and recorded t h e i r o p i n i o n s about the park. The m a j o r i t y of the comments were complaints about the d i f f e r e n c e i n the entrance f e e . Foreign v i s i t o r s ( r e s i d e n t s and non r e s i d e n t s ) had to pay ten times more than Peruvians during the sampling p e r i o d . Foreign v i s i t o r s were asked to pay s o l e s (2000) e q u i v a l e n t to an American d o l l a r while the Peruvians p a i d only 200 s o l e s . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e would i n c r e a s e with the d e v a l u a t i o n of the Peruvian currency. 4.1.14 Reasons f o r Park's A t t r a c t i v e n e s s : Seven of every ten v i s i t o r s were a t t r a c t e d to the N a t i o n a l Park mainly because of i t s scenery and w i l d l i f e i n general (Table 18). Although not mentioned i n advertisements the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of t h i s Conservation Unit i s due to i t s having the h i g h e s t t r o p i c a l f o r e s t , the most b e a u t i f u l mountain and the h i g h e s t peak i n the world. Alpamayo Mt. was named the world's most b e a u t i f u l mountain i n an i n t e r n a t i o n a l - 6 8 ^ TABLE 18. REASONS FOR PARK'S ATTRACTIVENESS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIAN NON RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL (n=1177) (n=194) (n=52) (n=1423) % % % % FLORA AND FAUNA,WILDLIFE IN GENERAL 20.3 26.9 22.2 21.3 GOOD SCENERY 47.4 59.6 33.3 48.5 TOURIST SERVICES 6.0 1.0 16.7 5.7 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES 2.2 1.0 5.6 2.2 OTHERS 24.1 11.5 22.2 22.3 TABLE 19. COMMENTS ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE NON LOCAL PERUVIANS (n=1177) % GOOD OPINIONS 41.8 COMMENTS TO IMPROVE IT 10.9 USED TO COMMENT 24.5 AGAINST THE PARK USED TO COMMENT 9.1 IN FAVOR OF THE PARK OTHER COMMENTS 7.3 NO COMMENTS 6.4 FOREIGN FOREIGN NON RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL (n=194) (n=52) (n=1423 % % % 5.8 18.7 36.0 11.5 18.7 11.3 23.1 12.5 23.9 1.9 6.3 8.0 30.8 31.3 , 11.4 26.9 12.5 9.4 - 69 -c o m p e t i t i o n i n Germany i n 1966. Huascaran may be the highest peak i n the world i f measured from the c e n t e r of the E a r t h (Moore 1969). 4.1.15 Comments About the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e : Two of every f i v e v i s i t o r s had f a v o u r a b l e o p i n i o n s about the q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Table 19). The m a j o r i t y of f o r e i g n v i s i t o r s used t h i s s e c t i o n to comment about the Park and the l o c a l a r e a . They made r e f e r e n c e s to the entrance f e e s , improvement of s e r v i c e s and the kind of treatment v i s i t o r s r e c e i v e d from the l o c a l people. F o r e i g n v i s i t o r s are cheated i n l o c a l towns ('gringos have more money') and i n t h i s s e c t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e they c r i t i c i z e d these' l o c a l a t t i t u d e s and a l s o made the comment that the d i f f e r e n c e i n entrance fees between the Peruvians and the f o r e i g n e r s i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the kind of treatment they r e c e i v e d from l o c a l people. There were no comments a g a i n s t the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t s e l f but there were op i n i o n s recommending a r e d u c t i o n i n the number of q u e s t i o n s . 4.2 VISITOR EXPENDITURES: The f o l l o w i n g equations were used f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n of - 70 -e x p e n d i t u r e s . B a s i c a l l y t h e y r e p r e s e n t the summation of what the v i s i t o r had s p e n t , p l u s what he would spend f o r the remainder .'of the v i s i t . The r e s u l t i s then d i v i d e d by t h e number of days i n towns i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n the average v i s i t o r e x p e n d i t u r e s per day. a) E q u a t i o n 1 : D a i l y e x p e n d i t u r e s on accommodation per v i s i t o r [{(Q15 * (Q4-1)} + [(Q15 * Q22) * {Q5-(Q4 + Q11)}]] /(Q5-Q11) b) E q u a t i o n 2 : D a i l y e x p e n d i t u r e s on foo d and beverages per v i s i t o r ((Q16 *Q4) + ((Q16 * Q23) * ((Q5 - (Q4 + Q11))) /(Q5 - Q11) c) E q u a t i o n 3 : D a i l y e x p e n d i t u r e s on t r a n s p o r t per v i s i t o r {(Q17) + (Q17 * Q24)} / (Q5 - Q11 ) d) E q u a t i o n 4 : D a i l y e x p e n d i t u r e s on s e r v i c e s per v i s i t o r {(Q18) + (Q18 * Q25)} / (Q5 -Q11) e) E q u a t i o n 5 : D a i l y e x p e n d i t u r e s on e n t e r t a i n m e n t per v i s i t o r {(Q19) + (Q19 * Q26)} / (Q5 - Q11 ) f ) E q u a t i o n 6 : D a i l y e x p e n d i t u r e s on g i f t s and s o u v e n i r s per v i s i t o r {( Q20) + (Q20 * Q27)} / (Q5 - Q11) g) E q u a t i o n 7 : D a i l y e x p e n d i t u r e s on m i s c e l l a n e o u s per v i s i t o r ((Q21) + (Q21 * Q28)) / (Q5 - Q1 1 ) - 71 -Where, Q = Question number i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e Q4 = Days a l r e a d y spent i n the l o c a l area Q5 = T o t a l days planned to stay i n the area Q l l = Days i n the park Q15 = A c t u a l p r i c e p a i d f o r accommodation/night Q16 = A c t u a l p r i c e p a i d on food and beverages/day Q17 = Amount spent on t r a n s p o r t Q18 = Amount spent on s e r v i c e s Q19 = Amount spent on entertainment Q20 = Amount spent on g i f t s and souve n i r s Q21 = Amount spent on miscellaneous Q22 = P o s i b l e change on the p a t t e r n of expenditures on accommodation f o r the remainder of the v i s i t Q23 = P o s s i b l e change on the p a t t e r n of expenditures on food and beverages f o r the remainder of the v i s i t Q24 = P o s s i b l e change on p a t t e r n of expenditure on t r a n s p o r t f o r the remainder of the v i s i t Q25 = P o s s i b l e change on p a t t e r n s of expenditures on s e r v i c e s f o r the remainder of the v i s i t Q26 = P o s s i b l e changes on the p a t t e r n s of expenditures on entertainment f o r the remainder of the v i s i t Q27 = P o s s i b l e changes on the p a t t e r n of expenditures on g i f t s and so u v e n i r s f o r the remainder of the v i s i t - 72 -Q28 = P o s s i b l e change on p a t t e r n s of expenditures on misce l l a n e o u s f o r the remainder of the v i s i t . 4.2.1 Money Expenditures Planned by Type of V i s i t o r i n the Region : Non-local Peruvian and f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s spend l e s s than 25% of. t o t a l money budgeted f o r the t r i p at home or en route to the l o c a l a r e a . Table 20 shows that h a l f of these types of v i s i t o r s i n t e n d to spend more than 50% of the t o t a l money planned i n the r e g i o n . On the other hand, f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s i n t e n d to spend l e s s than 25%. For n o n - l o c a l Peruvian and f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s the f i n a l d e s t i n a t i o n of the t r i p was the r e g i o n , and so they could be expected to spend more money i n the r e g i o n . However, f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s who in t e n d to t r a v e l elsewhere w i t h i n the country do not spend as much. The p a t t e r n of v i s i t o r expenditures changes during h o l i d a y s (Figure 7 ) . T h i s could be ex p l a i n e d as f o l l o w s ; i t i s known that d u r i n g h o l i d a y seasons, many t o u r i s t packages are bought o u t s i d e the l o c a l a r ea. A l s o f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s l i v i n g i n Huaraz i n v i t e v i s i t o r s f o r the long weekends. Thus, v i s i t o r s who a r r i v e on t o u r i s t packages or i n v i t e d to the r e g i o n would plan to spend l i t t l e i n the area. - 73 -MONEY PLANNED TO BE SPENT co o H i—i CO I—I > PL, o <10% <25% < 5 0 l <75% < 901 v>90l Do not know 70 CD g 60 50 40 CO > ». 30 o * 2 0 10 0 <10% . <25% < 5 0% < 751 <90% .> 901 Do not kn ow AMOUNT OF.MONEY NON LOCAL PERUVIAN • FOREIGN RESIDENT £3 FOREIGN NON RESIDENT Figure 7. Money Expenditures Planned by Type of V i s i t o r i n the Region. - 74 -TABLE 20. MONEY PLANNED TO BE SPENT WITHOUT HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN AMOUNT PERUVIAN - NON RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL (n=366) (n=156) (n=41) (n=563) % % % % < 10% 5.9 27.9 5.3 12.0 < 25% 11.8 35.7 15.8 18.7 < 50% 7.9 13.3 2.6 9.0 < 75% 5.6 3.5 10.5 5.4 < 90% 23.2 2.1 5.3 16.0 > 90% 26.3 0.7 34.2 19.8 DON'T KNOW 19.3 16.8 26.3 19.1 HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN AMOUNT PERUVIAN NON RESIDENT RESIDENT TOTAL (n=811) (n=38) ( n = l l ) (n=860 % % % % < 10% 24.5 65.2 20 35.4 < 25% 12.5 4.4 20 10.8 < 50% 7.0 8.6 6.9 < 75% 5.5 8.6 6.0 < 90% 15.5 4.4 20 12.8 > 90% 17.5 4.4 20 14.1 DON'T KNOW 17.5 4.4 20 14.1 - 75 -4.2.2 Change on the P a t t e r n s of Expenditure by A c t i v i t i e s f o r  the Remainder of the V i s i t : More than 80% of the t o t a l number of v i s i t o r s c l a i m that they w i l l spend the same amount of money f o r accommodation, food and beverages, t r a n s p o r t , s e r v i c e s , entertainment, g i f t s and s o u v e n i r s , and other m i s c e l l a n e o u s expenditure, f o r the remainder of the v i s i t as they d i d p r i o r to t h e i r i n t e r v i e w . About 5% w i l l reduce t h e i r expenditure and 6 to 12% w i l l i n c r e a s e the amount being spent (Appendix E ) . The tendency i s to keep the same d a i l y p a t t e r n of expenditure f o r the t r i p , e s p e c i a l l y during h o l i d a y s . The p a t t e r n appears to be to spend more on t r a n s p o r t , s e r v i c e s , entertainment, g i f t s and s o u v e n i r s , and miscellaneous at the beginning of the v i s i t . Besides accommodation and food, more than 80% of a l l v i s i t o r s w i l l spend nothing more f o r the remainder of the v i s i t . 4.2.3 Average Expenditures by Type of V i s i t o r Per Sampling  Day : Using equations 1 to 7, the expenditure of each v i s i t o r was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each of t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . The t o t a l d a i l y expenditure and the p r o p o r t i o n of expenditures by a c t i v i t i e s per sampling day was obtained by adding the expenditures of - 76 -each v i s i t o r on that sampling day (Table 21,22 and 23). Table 21, f o r example, shows that on June 14 f i v e n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s , spent an average of 22.5% of t h e i r t o t a l e xpenditures on accommodation, 49.8% on food and beverages e t c . , and.had a d a i l y average expenditure of 17,100 s o l e s . The d i f f e r e n c e : i n d a i l y expenditures per sampling day shown on Table 21, i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the group composition r a t h e r than an i n c r e a s e on p r i c e s due to the peak season, i . e . , the average d a i l y expenditure f o r June 17 f o r the n o n - l o c a l Peruvians was 15,120 s o l e s and 34,230 on August 7 f o r almost the same number of people sampled. But the group composition on June 17 was of 8 persons who were i n the re g i o n a t t e n d i n g a convention i n which t h e i r company paid f o r the expenditure. On the other hand, on August 7 eleven people came to the Park using t h e i r own cars and three took t a x i s . T h i s l a t t e r group stayed i n t o u r i s t h o t e l s and t h e i r major expenditure was on t r a n s p o r t and s e r v i c e s ( t o u r i s t g u i d e s ) . 4.2.4 Average Expenditures by Type of V i s i t o r f o r the  Sampling P e r i o d : Each average expenditure by a c t i v i t y per sampling day was weighted by the number of v i s i t o r s f o r that day i n order to ob t a i n an average expenditure per a c t i v i t y f o r the sampling p e r i o d f o r each type of v i s i t o r . Table 24 and 25, show the TABLE 21. PATTERN OF EXPENDITURE PER PERSON BY SAMPLING DAY (NON-LOCAL PERUVIAN) WITHOUT HOLIDAYS SAMPLING DAY. NON LOCAL PERUVIAN ACCOMM. X FOOD X TRANSPORT I SERVICES I ENTERTAIN. X GIFTS X MISC. X AVERAGE EXP./DAY (000 SOLES) AVERAGE EXP./DAY (U.S \) JUNE 14 5 22.5 49.8 5.9 0.0 1.2 19.4 1.2 17.1 11.4 JUNE 17 16 30.1 47.7 5.3 0.0 n.o 16.8 0.1 15.1 10.1 JULY 2 58 26.9 45.4 12.4 2.1 2.8 9.8 0.6 24.2 16.1 JULY 4 1 12.3 53.4 34.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 . 9.7 JULY 7 6 17.4 29.5 2.9 1.5 0.0 48.6 0.0 31.4 h.o JULY 10 22 23.2 49.6 12.9 0.9 2.5 8.1 2.7 18.2 12.1 JULY 12 12 28.7 46.2 13.7 1.7 1.7 8.0 0.0 21.2 14.1 JULY 16 48 19.2 50.5 13.6 4.6 2.4 7.4 2.3 18.4 12.3 JULY 18 3 21.8 32.5 13.4 14.1 6.1 7.8 4.3 22.0 14.7 JULY 31 49 21.8 43.3 15.2 1.9 2.7 13.7 1.4 17.2 11.5 AUGUST 7 14 25.5 38.9 14.8 7.4 0.0 9.9 3.5 34.2 22.8 AUGUST 8 11 26.7 49.7 10.5 0.4 0.1 6.4 4.2 22.7 15.1 AUGUST 11 14 34.3 48.3 8.5 5.4 0.3 3.2 0.0 17.1 11.4 AUGUST 16 29 13.5 35.5 10.4 0.0 0.0 35.7 4.9 24.2 16.1 AUGUST 20 62 23.7 38.2 11.1 5.6 4.3 14.2 2.9 28.6 19.1 AUGUST 21 16 30.1 35.4 19.2 4.4 1.9 8.8 0.2 22.5 15.0 AVERAGES 23.7 43.4 12.3 3.1 2.3 13.3 1.9 22.5 15.0 TOTAL VISITORS 366 HOLIDAYS SAMPLING DAY. NON LOCAL PERUVIAN ACCOM. X FOOD X TRNSPORT X SERVICES X ENTERTAIN. X GIFTS X MISC. X AVERAGE AVERAGE EXP./OAY EXP./DAY (000 SOLES) (U.S $) JUNE 25 98 27.7 45.3 11.1 2.2 '2.9 10.2 0.6 17.9 11.9 JULY 29 713 22.1 33.2 9.1 2.5 4.5 16.1 7.5 27.2 18.1 AVERAGES 23.1 39.3 9.3 2.4 4.5 15.1 6.3 25.7 17.1 TOTAL VISITORS 811 TABLE 22. PATTERN OF EXPENDITURES PER PERSON BY SAMPLING DAY (FOREIGN NON-RESIDENT) WITHOUT HOLIDAYS SAMPLING FOREIGN DAY. NON RESIDENT ACCOMM. t FOOD t TRANSPORT 1 SERVICES X ENTERTAIN, t GIFTS I MISC. 1 AVERAGE EXP./DAY (000 SOLES) AVERAGE EXP./DAY (U.S %) JUNE 14 7 18.2 30.9 5.0 2.4 0.0 29.2 14.3 17.1 11.4 JUNE 17 14 15.2 67.3 11.5 3.9 0.0 2.1 0.0 9.0 6.0 JULY 2 14 22.2 43.1 14.7 3.3 2.3 13.5 0.9 22.7 15.2 JULY 4 9 22.2 29.3 6.2 2.1 2.1 36.5 1.6 25.6 17.0 JULY 7 11 26.3 35.2 9.1 4.9 0.9 16.8 1.8 13.1 8.7 JULY 10 20 35.9 45.3 14.1 0.2 0.0 4.1 0.4 16.5 11.0 JULY 12 30 24.7 40.1 6.8 6.0 0.1 18.4 3.9 16.9 11.3 JULY 16 7 25.6 46.7 13.8 0.0 0.4 12.6 0.9 15.2 10.1 JULY 18 10 17.0 45.5 25.1 0.0 0.0 8.7 3.7 10.6 7.1 JULY 31 0 AUGUST 7 0 AUGUST 8 0 AUGUST 11 5 25.6 54.3 20.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 10.1 AUGUST 16 0 AUGUST 20 28 33.6 31.9 18.4 9.6 0.4 5.8 0.3 18.7 12.5 AUGUST 21 1 40.5 35.5 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 14.8 AVERAGES 25.1 41.9 13.1 4.7 0.9 12.2 2.1 16.7 11.1 TOTAL VISITORS 156 HOLIDAYS SAMPLING FOREIGN DAY. NON RESIDENT ACCOMM. FOOD TRANSPORT % % % SERVICES ENTERTAIN. AVERAGE AVERAGE GIFTS MISC. EXP./DAY EXP./DAY I % (000 SOLES) (U.S $) JUNE 25 JULY 29 28 10 25.3 0.0 51.1 97.1 6.5 2.9 8.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 16.2 2.1 10.8 1.4 AVERAGES 23.4 43.3 TOTAL VISITORS 3S 5.5 6.1 0.1 10.2 1.4 12.6 8.4 TABLE 23. PATTERN OF EXPENDITURES PER PERSON BV SAMPLING DAY (FOREIGN RESIDENT) WITHOUT HOLIDAYS SAMPLING FOREIGN AVERAGE AVERAGE DAY. RESIDENT ACCCOMM. FOOD TRANSPORT SERVICES ENTERTAIN. GIFTS MISC. EXP./DAY EXP./DAY X X X X I t X (OOO SOLES) (U.S $) JUNE 14 2 15.5 35.9 11.0 0.0 0.0 35.3 2.3 25.8 17.2 JUNE 17 5 20.1 38.4 8.6 24.5 5.3 3.1 0.0 19.8 13.2 JULY 2 6 36.5 62.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 14.1 9.4 JULY 4 3 19.2 35.2 5.7 O.G 0.0 34.2 5.7 29.2 19.5 JULY 7 0 JULY 10 0 JULY 12 2 40.8 53.8 4.5 0.0 n.o 0.0 0.9 55.3 37.2 JULY 13 5 14.1 38.2 19.2 0.0 1.4 27.1 0.0 12.3 8.2 JULY 18 0 JULY 31 6 26.5 54.1 15.7 O.C 0.0 3.7 0.0 16.7 11.2 AUGUST 7 0 AUGUST 8 1 0.0 81.1 5.4 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 7.4 4.9 AUGUST 11 4 7.8 45.8 26.9 0.0 2.6 16.5 0.4 10.7 7.1 AUGUST 16 1 33.3 33.3 33.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 20.0 AUGUST 20 3 25.2 52.2 3.5 9.8 9.3 0.0 0.0 35.8 23.8 AUGUST 21 3 34.8 52.1 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 28.8 19.2 AVERAGES 23.5 43.3 11.6 3.7 1.8 10.5 0.6 21.1 14.1 TOTAL VISITORS 41 HOLIDAYS SAMPLING FOREIGN DAY. RESIDENT ACCOMM. X FOOD TRANSPORT SERVICES X X ENTERTAIN. GIFTS X X AVERAGE AVERAGE MISC. EXP./DAY EXP./DAY X (000 SOLES) (U.S $) JUNE 25 6 32.6 34.7 6.4 1.1 3.6 18.2 0.4 33.1 22.1 JULY 29 5 30.4 53.9 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.3 14.8 AVERAGES 31.6 43.5 3.5 9.4 1.9 9.9 0.2 28.1 18.7 TOTAL VISITORS 11 T. 80 p r o p o r t i o n s of v i s i t o r spending by a c t i v i t i e s f o r the sampling p e r i o d . S i m i l a r s t u d i e s i n the U.S r e p o r t e d by Clawson and Knetsch (1966), between 1949 and 1960 have shown the percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n of t o u r i s t expenditures as f o l l o w s : food 35.4%, l o d g i n g s 27.1% and ot h e r s 37.5%. In t h i s study although the averages conceal a few wide v a r i a t i o n s , there i s a c o n s i s t e n c y i n the m a j o r i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n s , with l o d g i n g about one qu a r t e r of the t o t a l , TABLE 24. PROPORTIONS OF EXPENDITURES BY ACTIVITIES BY TYPE OF VISITORS NON LOCAL PERUVIANS (n=1177) (1) (2) FOREIGN NON RESID. (n=194) (1) (2) FOREIGN RESIDENTS (n=52) (1) (2) TOTAL AVERAGE (n=1423) (1) (2) ACCOMMODATION % 23.7 23.1 25.1 23.4 23.5 31.6 24.1 23.2 FOOD & BEVERAGES % 43.4 39.3 41.9 43.3 48.3 43.5 43.3 39.5 TRANSPORT % 12.3 9.3 13.1 15.5 11.6 3.5 12.5 9.5 SERVICES % 3.1 2.4 4.7 6.1 3.7 9.4 3.6 2.7 ENTERTAINMENT % 2.3 4.5 0.9 0.1 1.8 1.9 1.9 4.3 GIFTS-SOUVENIRS % 13.3 15.1 12.2 10.2 10.5 9.9 12.8 14.8 MISCELLANEOUS % 1.9 6.3 2.1 1.4 0.6 0.2 1.9 6.0 (1) (2) WITHOUT HOLIDAYS HOLIDAYS - 81 -and food from over a t h i r d to about h a l f of the t o t a l . The chi-square g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t at 0.05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e with 6 degrees of.freedom f a i l s to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis (the d i s t r i b u t i o n of expenditures among c a t e g o r i e s by each type of v i s i t o r i s s i m i l a r ) , meaning that the n u l l hypothesis i s accepted. Thus the d i s t r i b u t i o n of expenditures among TABLE 25. AVERAGE EXPENDITURES PER PERSON BY ACTIVITIES (000 SOLES) NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN TOTAL PERUVIANS NON RESID. RESIDENTS AVERAGE (n=1177) (n=194) (n=52) (n=1423) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) ACCOMMODATION 5. . 3 5. ,9 4. ,2 2. .9 4.9 8. ,9 5. ,5 FOOD & BEVERAGES 9. ,7 10. .1 7, .0 5. .4 10.2 12. .2 9. .6 TRANSPORT 2. .8 2. .4 2. .2 1. .9 2.5 1. . u 2. .5 SERVICES 0. ,7 0. .6 0. .8 0. .8 0.8 2. .6 0. ,7 ENTERTAINMENT 0, .5 1. .2 0. .2 0, .1 0.4 0. .5 0. .8 GIFTS o> SOUVENIRS 3. .1 3, .9 2. .0 1, .3 2.2 2. .8 3. .4 MISCELLANEOUS 0. .4 1. .6 0. .3 0, .2 0.1 0. .1 1. .1 AVERG. DAILY EXP. 22. .5 25. .7 15, .7 12, . 6 21.1 27. .1 23, .5 DAILY EXP. (U.S $) 15, .0 17. .1 11, .1 8, .4 14.1 18. .7 15, .7 (1) WITHOUT HOLIDAYS (2) HOLIDAYS - 82 -c a t e g o r i e s i s s i m i l a r f o r each of the three types of v i s i t o r . On average, n o n - l o c a l Peruvians spent 24,700 s o l e s per day (16.46 $ U.S), f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s 15,900 s o l e s (10.60 $ U.S) and f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t s 22,600 s o l e s per day (15.06 $ U.S). The probable reason, not v e r i f i e d by t h i s study, of why n o n - l o c a l Peruvians spent more per day than the other types of v i s i t o r s , c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d as f o l l o w s ; the longest and the only weekend of the year on which long t r i p s are undertaken i s the one that i n c l u d e s the N a t i o n a l day. At such times n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s who can a f f o r d to be t o u r i s t s w i t h i n t h e i r own country behave l i k e a f f l u e n t f o r e i g n t o u r i s t s i n the area, and thus spend more than the other type of v i s i t o r s . I t was found that n o n - l o c a l Peruvian and f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s w i t h i n the age group 40 - 44 spent more per day than the other age-groups of these v i s i t o r s types. On the other hand, f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t s w i t h i n the age group 35 - 39 years of age spent the most. 4.2.5 T o t a l Expenditures by Type of V i s i t o r : Table 26 shows the t o t a l expenditure by each type of v i s i t o r during the sampling p e r i o d . M u l t i p l y i n g the number of v i s i t o r s by t h e i r average l e n g t h of stay the t o t a l number of v i s i t o r days was obtained. The t o t a l expenditure of each type - 83 -TABLE 26. TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY TYPE OF VISITOR NON HOLIDAY SAMPLE DAYS TYPE OF VISITOR VISITORS AVERAGE AVERAGE (n) EXPEND. EXPEND. (OOO so les ) (U.S $) AVERAGE STAY TOTAL TOTAL TOWNS EXPEND. EXPEND. (DAYS) (OOO so les ) (U.S $) NON LOCAL PERUVIAN 366 FOREIGN NON RESIDENT 156 FOREIGN RESIDENT 41 TOTAL 563 22.5 16.7 21.1 15.0 11.1 14.1 6.1 5 32940.0 21950.0 15391.7 10594.5 4325.5 2883.7 SUB TOTAL EXPENDITURES 53157.2 35438.1 62.0 30.0 3.0 100% TWO HOLIDAYS TYPE OF VISITOR VISITORS AVERAGE AVERAGE (n) EXPEND. EXPEND. (000 so le s ) (U.S $) AVERAGE STAY TOWNS (DAYS) TOTAL EXPEND. TOTAL EXPEND. (000 so les ) (U.S $) NON LOCAL PERUVIAN 811 25.7 FOREIGN NON RESIDENT 38 12.5 FOREIGN RESIDENT 11 28.1 TOTAL 860 17.1 4.2 87539.3 58359.5 96.0 3.4 5.8 2777.0 1851.3 3.0 18.7 3.4 1050.9 700.6 1.0 SUB TOTAL EXPENDITURES 91367.2 60911.5 100% - 84 -of v i s i t o r was c a l c u l a t e d as a product of the v i s i t o r days and average d a i l y expenditure. The expenditure r e p o r t e d f o r the sampling days of the study p e r i o d , e x c l u d i n g h o l i d a y s , was 53,157,200 s o l e s (35,438.1 $ U.S). Based on the sample days to sample p e r i o d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of 18%, the estimated t o t a l expenditures of v i s i t o r s to the study r e g i o n , June through August 1983 was 295,316,660 s o l e s (196,878.33 $ U.S), e x c l u d i n g h o l i d a y s . The expenditure r e p o r t e d f o r the two h o l i d a y s of the sampling p e r i o d (Indian day and N a t i o n a l day) was 91,367,200 s o l e s (60,911.5 $ U.S). The t o t a l v i s i t o r expenditures f o r the study p e r i o d (June through August 1983) was t h e r e f o r e estimated to be 386,683,860 s o l e s (257,789.83 $ U.S). Of t h i s f i g u r e , 70% r e p r e s e n t s the expenditure of n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s , 24% due to the f o r e i g n non-resident v i s i t o r s and 6% the expenditures of f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t v i s i t o r s . 4.2.6 Summary of V i s i t o r C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Expenditure  P a t t e r n s : Three types of v i s i t o r s were c l a s s i f i e d a c c ording to t h e i r p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e . F i g u r e 8, shows g r a p h i c a l l y the p a t t e r n s of expenditures by type of v i s i t o r . T h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p a t t e r n s of expenditure can be summarized as f o l l o w s : «r. 85 -PATTERN OF EXPENDITURES T S E CATEGORIES NON LOCAL PERUVIAN FOREIGN NON RESIDENT £ • FOREIGN RESIDENT A = ACCOMMODATION T = TRANSPORT F = FOOD S = SERVICES E = ENTERTAINMENT G = GIFTS AND SOUVENIRS M = MISCELLANEOUS Figure 8. Patterns of Expenditures by Type of V i s i t o r . - 86 -a) Non L o c a l Peruvian V i s i t o r s .- Nine out of every ten n o n - l o c a l -Peruvians came from Lima using buses and p r i v a t e c a r s as t r a n s p o r t . T h i s type of v i s i t o r represented 83% of the t o t a l attendance f i g u r e . He stayed i n the area f o r an average of 4 days, although the most frequent l e n g t h of stay was three days centered on weekends. While i n Huaraz, he stayed i n h o t e l s , bought g i f t s , s o u v e n i r s , and miscellaneous items during the f i r s t two days of h i s v i s i t . He attended some l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s f o r entertainments and h i s d a i l y three or four meals were taken at r e s t a u r a n t s . The next day a f t e r a r r i v a l he v i s i t e d Llanganuco r e n t i n g a car f o r 8000 s o l e s (about 5.3 $ U.S). He came to the r e g i o n p r i m a r i l y to v i s i t the Park and while i n the Conservation Unit h i s main a c t i v i t y was s i g h t s e e i n g f o r about three hours. T h i s v i s i t o r (20-40 years o l d ) c r i t i c i z e d the road c o n d i t i o n s and p o i n t e d out the need f o r more t o u r i s t and r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . On an average he spent 24,700 s o l e s (16.46 $ U.S) per day or 98,800 f o r the whole stay. T h i s amount was spent as f o l l o w s ; 23.3% on accommodation, 40.5% on food, 10.2% on t r a n s p o r t , 2.6% on s e r v i c e s , 3.8% on entertainment, 14.6% on g i f t s and s o u v e n i r s , and 5% on m i s c e l l a n e o u s . b) F o r e i g n Non-Resident V i s i t o r .- T h i s type of v i s i t o r , 70% of whom were e i t h e r French, B r i t i s h , American, German, or - 87 -Swiss, came to the area using bus t r a n s p o r t . Although France was the prime source of f o r e i g n v i s i t o r s , the French v i s i t o r s d i d not c o n t r i b u t e the most. In f a c t , the average d a i l y expenditure per v i s i t o r from the top f i v e c o u n t r i e s i s as f o l l o w ; the B r i t i s h v i s i t o r has an average d a i l y expenditure of 14.6 $ U.S, American 13.3 $ U.S, Swiss v i s i t o r 12.1 $ U.S, German 10.8 $ U.S, and French v i s i t o r s 8.6 $ U.S per day. Foreign non-resident v i s i t o r s r epresented 13% of the t o t a l attendance. While i n the area, these v i s i t o r s stayed i n h o t e l s and a l s o camped. T h e i r meals were taken at r e s t a u r a n t s or p u b l i c markets. They were a t t r a c t e d to the area mainly because of the scenery of the N a t i o n a l Park. To v i s i t the Conservation Unit they rented a car and p a i d more than the Peruvians ("gringos have more money"). Only t h i s type of v i s i t o r stayed i n the Park f o r more than one day and f o r reasons other than s i g h t s e e i n g . T h i s v i s i t o r type a p p r a i s e d the Park as e x c e l l e n t because of the few f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e . On an average they spent 15,900 s o l e s per v i s i t o r - d a y (10.6 $ U.S) or 95,400 s o l e s per s t a y . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e i r expenditure was; 24.8% f o r accommodation, 42.2% on food, 13.6% on t r a n s p o r t , 5% on s e r v i c e s , 0.7% on entertainment, 11.8% on g i f t s and s o u v e n i r s , and 1.9% on m i s c e l l a n e o u s . c) F o r e i g n Resident V i s i t o r .- T h i s type of v i s i t o r , 60% - 88 -of whom were e i t h e r Spanish, French, Dutch, Canadian or German, was nine out of ten times a r e s i d e n t i n Lima. From Lima he went to the area using p r i v a t e t r a n s p o r t . T h i s v i s i t o r r epresented 4% of the t o t a l v i s i t o r s . He stayed i n the area f o r an average of 4 days, centered about weekends. While i n the area he stayed i n h o t e l s . His expenditure on g i f t s , s o uvenirs and mi s c e l l a n e o u s followed the same p a t t e r n as f o r the n o n - l o c a l Peruvians. His meals were taken at r e s t a u r a n t s , mainly t o u r i s t r e s t a u r a n t s . The next day a f t e r h i s a r r i v a l he v i s i t e d Llanganuco using h i s own c a r . While i n the Park h i s main a c t i v i t y was s i g h t s e e i n g f o r about 3 hours. On an average, he spent 22,600 s o l e s (15.06 $ U.S) per day or 90,400 s o l e s f o r the stay. His expenditure was d i s t r i b u t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g p r o p o r t i o n ; 25.2% on accommodation, 47.3% on food, 9.9% on t r a n s p o r t , 4.9% on s e r v i c e s , 1.8% on entertainment, 10.4% on g i f t s and s o u v e n i r s , and 0.5% on m i s c e l l a n e o u s . 4.3 VISITOR SALES : The owners of l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s who were interv i e w e d i n d i c a t e d that t h e i r c l i e n t e l e i n c r e a s e d during the peak season and v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g to the type of establishment, i t s l o c a t i o n , the q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e and i t s p o p u l a r i t y among l o c a l people. F i f t e e n owners and/or a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of l o c a l - 89 -e s t a b l i s h m e n t s f o r accommodation (30% of the t o t a l ) , twelve r e s t a u r a n t s (14% of the t o t a l ) , four t r a n s p o r t agencies (30% of the t o t a l ) , f i v e t o u r i s t s e r v i c e s (30% of the t o t a l ) , two l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s f o r entertainment (30% of the t o t a l ) , two shops of g i f t s and s o u v e n i r s and f i f t e e n l o c a l establishments that s e l l m i s c e l l a n e o u s items were i n t e r v i e w e d . Owners of l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s were asked to provide i n f o r m a t i o n based on t h e i r experience during June through August f o r the l a s t three years. A l l the respondents s t a t e d that the 'Holy week' i n A p r i l , the weekends of Indian Day i n June and N a t i o n a l Day i n J u l y were the b u s i e s t , and were the best times of the year f o r p r o f i t s . The f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e f e r r e d to the l a t t e r two h o l i d a y s . Although the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e f e r r e d to the e n t i r e summer p e r i o d , a l l the respondents answered with r e s p e c t to the two h o l i d a y s o n l y . 4.3.1 C l i e n t e l e Composition by Type of Establishment : There was no d e f i n e d p a t t e r n of v i s i t o r composition by type of e s t a b l i s h m e n t . The attendance p a t t e r n s depend on t h e i r l o c a t i o n w i t h i n towns and t h e i r p o p u l a r i t y among l o c a l people (word-of-mouth a d v e r t i s i n g ) . According to the responses of owners and/or a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s f o r accommodation, seven of every ten c l i e n t s were v i s i t o r s to the r e g i o n and l e s s than 25% of t h e i r - 90 -c l i e n t e l e were f o r e i g n e r s ( r e s i d e n t s and n o n - r e s i d e n t s ) . Owners and managers of r e s t a u r a n t s agreed with the same c l i e n t e l e p a t t e r n , ' but i n t h i s case only 10% were f o r e i g n e r s . On t r a n s p o r t , t o u r i s t s e r v i c e s , and shops of g i f t s and so u v e n i r s , people i n t e r v i e w e d s t a t e d that nine out of ten c l i e n t s were v i s i t o r s to the l o c a l area, but l e s s than 25% were f o r e i g n e r s . Only three out of ten c l i e n t s on l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s f o r entertainment and misc e l l a n e o u s items were v i s i t o r s to the r e g i o n , with f o r e i g n e r s comprising l e s s than one of the 3. The c l i e n t e l e composition p a t t e r n s on one hand c o n t r a d i c t s c o n v e n t i o n a l wisdom and the misconception of p u b l i c p o l i c y of c o n s i d e r i n g f o r e i g n v i s i t o r s as the m a j o r i t y and prime source of income f o r the r e g i o n ; on the other hand, i t e s t a b l i s h e s the importance of n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s on l o c a l b u s i n e s s . 4.3.2 Employment P a t t e r n s by Type of Establishment : The changes i n the employment p a t t e r n s of Table 27 r e f e r only to the long weekend of J u l y , i . e . , N a t i o n a l Day and r e f l e c t s the i n c r e a s e i n the number of employees by category of e s t a b l i s h m e n t . With the exception of l o c a l e stablishments that p r o v i d e t o u r i s t s e r v i c e s such as guides f o r c l i m b i n g , i t appeared that during the p e r i o d of June through August there was no change i n the employment p a t t e r n s . Although the - 91 -TABLE 27. EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS BY TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENTS DURING THE LONG WEEKEND IN JULY % OF INCREMENT OVER ESTABLISHMENT NORMAL EMPLOYMENT LEVEL ACCOMMODATION (n=15) 47. .8 FOOD AND BEVERAGES (n=12) 46. .9 TRANSPORT (n=4) 37. .5 SERVICES (n=5) 90. .0 ENTERTAINMENT (n=2) 0. .0 GIFTS AND SOUVENIRS (n=2) 100, .0 MISCELLANEOUS (n=15) 12. .1 c l i e n t e l e composition during the long weekends i n d i c a t e s a high p r o p o r t i o n of c l i e n t s that are v i s i t o r s to the r e g i o n , t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s not r e f l e c t e d i n employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Besides t o u r i s t h o t e l s and t o u r i s t r e s t a u r a n t s , l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s are owned and administered by l o c a l f a m i l i e s , where each member c o n t r i b u t e s to the business whenever help i s needed. I t i s f o r t h i s reason that during the Indian Day and N a t i o n a l Day weekends, the number of people working f o r the establishment could i n c r e a s e by 100%, but i t does not - 92 -n e c e s s a r i l y mean an i n c r e a s e i n employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the l o c a l people f o r the e x t r a workers are a c t u a l l y members of the f a m i l y that operates the b u s i n e s s . I t was impossible to d i r e c t l y enumerate the number of employees i n a given e s t a b l i s h m e n t who owe t h e i r jobs to the t o u r i s t t rade, s i n c e most t o u r i s t - o r i e n t e d s e r v i c e s are used by both l o c a l s and v i s i t o r s . 4.3.3 Average D a i l y S a l e s by Type of E s t a b l i s h m e n t s : In Table 28 comparison i s made between owner repo r t e d s a l e s and v i s i t o r r e p o r t e d e x p e n d i t u r e s . V i s i t o r s a l e s r e p o r t e d r e p r e s e n t the d a i l y average s a l e s per person and the v i s i t o r expenditure f i g u r e r e p r e s e n t the average expenditure per day c a l c u l a t e d on a b a s i s of l e n g t h of stay. The only d i f f e r e n c e found was i n the case of c a t e g o r i e s that were not consumed on a d a i l y b a s i s such as g i f t s and s o u v e n i r s , where the d a i l y average s a l e s per person were not the same as the v i s i t o r d a i l y average expenditures f o r the whole stay. 4.3.4 E f f e c t s of the N a t i o n a l Park on L o c a l Establishments Views of 51 people i n t e r v i e w e d about e f f e c t s of the N a t i o n a l Park on t h e i r businesses are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 29. The N a t i o n a l Park, co n s i d e r e d by some as the 'the only show i n town,' was unknown to many l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s . - 93 -TABLE 28. AVERAGE DAILY SALES PER PERSON BY TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT-OWNER REPORTED VISITOR REPORTED ESTABLISHMENTS SALES EXPENDITURES (OOO so les ) (OOO so les ) ACCOMMODATION (n=15) 5.8 5.5 FOOD AND BEVERAGES (n=12) 8.7 9.6 TRANSPORT (n=4) 2.7 2.5 SERVICES (n=5) 10.6 .7 ENTERTAINMENT (n=2) 0.8 .8 GIFTS AND SOUVENIRS (n=2) 13.9 3.4 MISCELLANEOUS (n=15) 1.4 1.1 TABLE 29. EFFECTS OF THE NATIONAL PARK ON LOCAL ESTABLISHMENTS (1) (2) (3) (4) % % % % ACCOMMODATION (n=15) 47 20 - 33 FOOD AND BEVERAGES (n=12) 12 38 - 50 TRANSPORT (n=4) - 25 50 25 SERVICES (n=5) 40 40 20 ENTERTAINMENT (n=2) 50 50 -GIFTS AND SOUVENIRS (n=2) - 100 -MISCELLANEOUS (n=15) 22 22 - 56 (1) NO EFFECTS (2) BENEFICIAL (3) NEGATIVE (4) DON'T KNOW - 94 -Apparently the economic e f f e c t s of v i s i t o r expenditures are not a s s o c i a t e d to Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park by the owners and/or a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of these l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s . Transport and tourism agencies manifested that the park i s causing negative impacts to t h e i r b u s i n e s s . Every time a t r a n s p o r t or t o u r i s t agency b r i n g s to the park a group of t o u r i s t s the Fo r e s t P o l i c e request that the agencies present a l i s t of the passenger's name, o r i g i n , p a s s p o r t , I.D., age and l i c e n s e number of the d r i v e r , number p l a t e of the v e h i c l e e t c . According to the F o r e s t P o l i c e at the e n t r a n c e / e x i t of the park, every v i s i t o r i s a ' p o t e n t i a l d e l i n q u e n t ' . A f t e r t h i s procedure, v i s i t o r s r e g i s t e r i n the Park o f f i c e where they pay the entrance fee and gi v e name, age, o r i g i n , purpose of the t r i p , passport number e t c . ("double checking the p o t e n t i a l d e l i n q u e n t " ) . On the other hand, a v i s i t o r that comes with h i s own car o n l y r e g i s t e r s at the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f f i c e . Indeed, t h i s t e d i o u s procedure i s not onl y d e t r i m e n t a l f o r the t r a n s p o r t and t o u r i s t agencies, but a l s o f o r v i s i t o r s who f e e l unwelcome at the park. 4.4 EFFECTS OF PARK'S RESTRICTIONS P r i o r to the park's establishment the t r a d i t i o n a l uses of - 95 -the land i n the r e g i o n were a g r i c u l t u r e , g r a z i n g , hunting, i c e p i c k i n g and f i r e wood g a t h e r i n g . Of a l l t r a d i t i o n a l uses, a g r i c u l t u r e ; i s the on l y excluded use today w i t h i n the park's boundary. In a d d i t i o n to these t r a d i t i o n a l uses of parkland, mining was another important a c t i v i t y i n the study area. 4.4.1 A g r i c u l t u r e : Th i s a c t i v i t y u s u a l l y represented the main source of income f o r the l o c a l people. Each f a m i l y with an average of 6 people was allowed to have a maximun of 6 has. of land ( a g r i c u l t u r a l f a m i l y u n i t , AFU). In t h i s AFU, people grow d i f f e r e n t types of vegetables which are traded among members of the communities or s o l d i n p u b l i c markets. T h i s kind of a g r i c u l t u r e i s on l y f o r s u r v i v a l . At present t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l use, i s not being a f f e c t e d by the Park's r e s t r i c t i o n s . 4.4.2 Mining : Fol l o w i n g the establishment of Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park i n 1975 new l e a s e s f o r mining w i t h i n the park were i n t e r r u p t e d with approximately 3000 requests f o r new l e a s e s being r e f u s e d . At present there are about 104 small mining areas i n the park, a l l l e a s e s being granted before 1975. ( S i l v a 1981). These mines produce s i l v e r , z i n c , copper, and lead i n small q u a n t i t i e s . There were no data about how much i s obtained at - 96 -present from these mines r e f u s a l to grant l e a s e s f o r 4.4.3 Hunting : T h i s a c t i v i t y , at l e a s t i n theory, i s p r o h i b i t e d w i t h i n the park. In s p i t e of the presence of the f o r e s t p o l i c e and some parkguards, there i s poaching i n the park due to sport hunters who come from other towns, and members of the army who sometimes ' p r a c t i s e ' shooting w i l d l i f e . According to the responses of persons interviewed few people c u r r e n t l y depend on hunting f o r a l i v i n g . T h i s t r a d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t y has become a sport a c t i v i t y f o r people who can a f f o r d i t . In t h i s sense, l o c a l r e s i d e n t s have not been a f f e c t e d by the Park's r e g u l a t i o n s . 4.4.4 Ice P i c k i n g : There were 26 people r e g i s t e r e d i n the park who were allowed to e x t r a c t b l o c k s of i c e (10 x 20 x 40 cm.) from the g l a c i e r s to be s o l d i n towns f o r making ' r a s p a d i l l a s ' , a kind of i c e d d r i n k . Because of the small amount being e x t r a c t e d and the l i m i t e d demand f o r the product t h i s a c t i v i t y i s not an economically p r o f i t a b l e one, but i s continued as. p a r t of a t r a d i t i o n and as supplementary income to a g r i c u l t u r e . The o p i n i o n of i c e p i c k e r s was that nowadays they were b e t t e r o f f and how much i s being l o s t by the a d d i t i o n a l mines. - 97 -because before the establishment of the park they p a i d the owners of the land a p r i c e f o r each block of i c e , but were allowed to e x t r a c t as much as they c o u l d . Although they are now r e s t r i c t e d as to the amount, they do not have to pay. People engaged i n t h i s a c t i v i t y earn about 54,000 s o l e s per month ($ 36/month at 1500 s o l e s / d o l l a r ) . T h i s i s about h a l f the minimun o f f i c i a l s a l a r y i n the r e g i o n . 4.4.5 F i r e Wood Gathering : With the i n c r e a s e of p o p u l a t i o n and the l a c k of wood supply i n most of the communities around the park, the g a t h e r i n g of f i r e wood has i n c r e a s e d . At the same time, s i n c e the establishment of the park t h i s a c t i v i t y i s t o t a l l y p r o h i b i t e d . With the presence of the F o r e s t P o l i c e i n some t o u r i s t areas such as Llanganuco Lakes, there have been attempts to c o n t r o l , and i n some areas to e r a d i c a t e t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l use. I t i s not true to say that t h i s a c t i v i t y has been c o n t r o l l e d and reduced, f o r people s t i l l gather f i r e wood and w i l l continue to do so u n t i l they are provided with a cheaper or simpler a l t e r n a t i v e f u e l . It i s naive to t h i n k that t h i s a c t i v i t y can be e r a d i c a t e d once and f o r a l l without f i r s t f i n d i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e that would e l i m i n a t e the need f o r f i r e wood. - 98 -4.4.6 G r a z i n g : S i n c e t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e p a r k c o n t i n u o u s u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t s have been made t o c o n t r o l o r p r o h i b i t t r a d i t i o n a l u s e o f t h e l a n d f o r g r a z i n g . In 1980, f i v e y e a r s a f t e r t h e P a r k was e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e M i n i s t r y o f A g r i c u l t u r e and Food a l l o w e d t h e p a r k , t h r o u g h a M i n i s t e r i a l R e s o l u t i o n , t o c o n c l u d e a g r e e m e n t s w i t h c o m m u n i t i e s a n d / o r i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t had been u s i n g p a r k l a n d f o r g r a z i n g s i n c e b e f o r e 1975. S i n c e 1980 p a r k s t a f f have b e i n g s i g n i n g a g r e e m e n t s w i t h c o m m u n i t i e s and i n d i v i d u a l s f o r t h e use o f t h e p a s t u r e i n t h e p a r k . C o m m u n i t i e s a r e c l a s s i f i e d by v a l l e y s , and v a l l e y h e r d s i z e i s d e t e r m i n e d by a c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y s t u d y o f t h e p a s t u r e a r e a . C o m m u n i t i e s and i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t had p r i o r use i n t h e P a r k f o r g r a z i n g t h e i r a n i m a l s a r e g r o u p e d i n l o c a l c o m m i t t e e s o f u s e r s . T h e r e were 13 v a l l e y s i n t h e s t u d y a r e a w i t h a t o t a l o f 1158 u s e r s , e a c h h a v i n g an a v e r a g e o f 5 a n i m a l s , m a i n l y c a t t l e . But n o t a l l t h e c o m m u n i t i e s have a g r e e d t o be p a r t o f l o c a l c o m m i t t e e s . A t l e a s t f o u r o f t h e 13 do n o t r e c o g n i z e t h e p a r k ' s a u t h o r i t y . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h o u g h e f f o r t s were made, i t p r o v e d i m p o s s i b l e t o i n t e r v i e w t h e s e c o m m u n i t i e s , b e c a u s e t h e y l i v e i n remote a r e a s and a r e s u s p i c i o u s o f o u t s i d e r s . I t was f o u n d a f t e r i n t e r v i e w i n g members and non-members o f t h e l o c a l c o m m i t t e e s t h a t a g r i c u l t u r e was t h e i r main s o u r c e o f ^ 99 -income, while g r a z i n g of domestic animals was an important supplemental income. For most of the people, p o s s e s s i n g domestic animals i s l i k e having money i n a bank savings account, that i t i s there whenever i t i s needed. 4.4.7 Knowledge About the N a t i o n a l Park's O b j e c t i v e s : Table 30 d i s p l a y s the responses of people r e g a r d i n g the purpose of the establishment of Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park. Three of ten respondents s t a t e d that they d i d not know that the area that they were using was a N a t i o n a l Park. One of four s t a t e d i t was e s t a b l i s h e d to r e g u l a t e g r a z i n g i n the a r e a . People with p r e v i o u s c o n t a c t with park a u t h o r i t i e s were of the TABLE 30. PERCEIVED REASONS WHY THE PARK WAS ESTABLISHED (n=35) REASONS % FOR MY BENEFIT 8 TO PROTECT FLORA AND FAUNA 18 FOR TOURISM 5 TO REGULATE GRAZING 26 DO NOT KNOW 29 OTHER 14 - 100 -o p i n i o n (18%) that the purpose of the establishment of the c o n s e r v a t i o n u n i t was f o r p r o t e c t i o n of the f l o r a and fauna of the r e g i o n , although they d i d not understand the need f o r the p r o t e c t i o n . Even though one of the park o b j e c t i v e s i s to help r a i s e the standard of l i v i n g of people around the park, t h i s o b j e c t i v e i s not p e r c e i v e d i n the same manner by the l o c a l people that are t r a d i t i o n a l l y using the l a n d . 4.4.8 Comments, Opinions and A t t i t u d e s Towards the Park's  R e s t r i c t i o n s : F o r t y two percent of people i n t e r v i e w e d commented that the park's r e s t r i c t i o n s were not a f f e c t i n g t h e i r present way of l i f e . In other words, they d i d not change t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l ways of using the land as a consequence of the r e s t r i c t i o n s . S u r p r i s i n g l y , i n s p i t e of the e f f o r t s of park a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , o n l y 8% of the 35 people i n t e r v i e w e d f e l t that the N a t i o n a l Park was p r o v i d i n g some b e n e f i t s , i n the sense that i n the past, they had to pay f o r the pasture which was now f r e e , but c o n t r o l l e d . H a l f of a l l responses were a g a i n s t the r e s t r i c t i o n s . The main argument was that w i l d l i f e was a t t a c k i n g domestic animals g r a z i n g i n the park and they were not allowed to k i l l the p r e d a t o r s . In a d d i t i o n , they were not conpensated f o r the l o s s e s . Another p e r c e i v e d reason f o r t h e i r a n t i - p a r k a t t i t u d e s was the c o n t e n t i o n that p r e v i o u s l y - 101 -e x i s t i n g p r i v a t e lands had been e x p r o p r i a t e d without compensation. T h i s was a misconception, as p r i v a t e lands had been e x p r o p r i a t e d • through the a g r a r i a n reform and f o r p o l i t i c a l purposes before the establishment of the park. In g e n e r a l terms, people i n t e r v i e w e d looked upon park s t a f f as watchdogs who prevent the use of resources that l o c a l people had been enj o y i n g f o r g e n e r a t i o n s . 4.5 HUASCARAN NATIONAL PARK EXPENDITURES Information about park expenditures was obtained from the park's f i l e s and from p e r s o n a l communications with the s t a f f . D espite the i n c r e a s e d number of v i s i t o r s and the growing tourism i n d u s t r y i n the r e g i o n , Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park has been l o s i n g f i n a n c i a l support f o r the l a s t couple of years. For 1982 and 1983 Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park has not had an assigned budget. The s t a f f has been p a i d from the budgets a l l o c a t e d to other p r o j e c t s and only through the good w i l l of the r e g i o n a l c h i e f f o r e s t e r . The personnel of t h i s c o n s e r v a t i o n u n i t have been c o n f i n e d to o f f i c e work because there i s no money f o r f i e l d i n s p e c t i o n s . Table 31 and Fig u r e 9 show the budgets s i n c e Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park was e s t a b l i s h e d . Although the t a b l e shows that the budget i n c r e a s e s every year, the i n c r e a s e i s more apparent - 102 -HUASCARAN N. P. BUDGETS 38.8, 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1988 1981 1982 1983 YEARS HUASCARAN N. P. BUDGETS 58.0! 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1988 1981 1982 1983 .EARS F i g u r e 9. Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park Budgets (1975-1983). - 103 -than r e a l . Due to i n f l a t i o n , the budgets have actually decreased every year. The entire budget i s spent in the region in the .form of wages, s a l a r i e s , goods and services, maintenance, and operations. The figures for 1982-1983 cover only wages and s a l a r i e s . TABLE 31. HUASCARAN NATIONAL PARK BUDGETS (1975 - 1983) YEAR SOLES (000) U.S DOLLAR (000) EXCHANGI RATE 1975-1976 3600.00 62.96 57.18 1977 6225.00 47.32 131.56 1978 3850.00 19.58 196.68 1979 11000.00 43.87 250.75 1980 13000.00 37.94 342.61 1981 7000.00 13.77 508.40 1982 15960.00 16.08 992.10 1983 28392.00 11.43 2485.00 SOURCE : HUASCARAN NATIONAL PARK RECORDS 4.6 POLICY OF DEVELOPMENT The following i s a summary of the opinions expressed by people interviewed in the public administration, tourism - 104 -s e c t o r , U n i v e r s i t y of La Molina, p r i v a t e companies and concerned i n d i v i d u a l s at n a t i o n a l , r e g i o n a l and l o c a l l e v e l s of government. The b a s i c t o p i c s f o r the i n t e r v i e w s were: a) the present r o l e of the Conservation Unit i n the r e g i o n , b) t r a d i t i o n a l uses of the land, and c) p r i o r i t y of a c t i o n s f o r the f u t u r e . 4.6.1 Present Role of Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park i n the Area : There was a general agreement i n the response that the present prime r o l e of the N a t i o n a l Park was to generate income and job o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n the r e g i o n . None of the respondents had a d e f i n i t e f i g u r e of how much the economic c o n t r i b u t i o n of the Conservation Unit to the area was, but the seventeen people i n t e r v i e w e d concurred that the f o r e i g n v i s i t o r was the type of t o u r i s t that was c o n t r i b u t i n g most to the r e g i o n a l economy. There were innumerable o p i n i o n s about the p o t e n t i a l economic b e n e f i t s ; the o p t i m i s t i c ones f e l t that the N a t i o n a l Park would be the economic s o l u t i o n f o r the r e g i o n , being an important p a r t of the development of a tourism i n d u s t r y which would encourage t o u r i s t expenditure. On the other hand, there were comments q u e s t i o n i n g the need of a park i n the area, s i n c e with or without i t , t o u r i s t s would continue coming to the r e g i o n . - 105 -4.6.2 T r a d i t i o n a l Uses of the Land : Beside;,the miners themselves, i t was the general opinion that new mines should not be permitted, and the ones i n existence since before the establishment of the park should continue only u n t i l the end of the period of contract or lease. A l l the respondents agreed that at t h i s time, with a l l the economic problems at the n a t i o n a l l e v e l and the pressure from the l o c a l miners, a p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n f o r or against mining was necessary. A general consensus was d i f f i c u l t to achieve about p o l i c i e s of f i r e wood gathering. The po i n t s of disagreement among respondents were, on one hand, the importance of the a c t i v i t y to l o c a l communities and the lack of f e a s i b i l i t y of other a l t e r n a t i v e s , and on the other, the p o t e n t i a l damage to the ecosystems and the p o s s i b l e consequences such as erosion or l a n d s l i d e s . People interviewed agreed that p i c k i n g blocks of i c e that are separate from g l a c i e r s , and only f o r t r a d i t i o n a l uses, i s not a p o t e n t i a l threat to park resources. At the same time everybody accepted the f a c t that t h i s a c t i v i t y does not make economic sense. Grazing p o l i c i e s were hardly discussed and i t was d i f f i c u l t to obtain a general consensus upon them. Nobody had - 106 -an idea of the number of users and animals that were involved in the park, but they agreed that i t was not in the park's interest to ha,ve th i s a c t i v i t y perpetuated. Two d i f f e r e n t alternatives were suggested. The f i r s t was that grazing had to be gradually reduced, and not allowed in the future. The other opinion was that domestic grazing has to be gradually replaced by native grazing, llama and alpacas. 4.6.3 P r i o r i t y of Actions for the Future People interviewed agreed that lack of finance prevented employing good personnel in the conservation unit, yet because of the lack of capable personnel i t was d i f f i c u l t to obtain finance for the park. The interviewers were asked to comment about possible solutions to break the c i r c l e . It was c l e a r l y stated by the governmental agencies and the university that the only solution to obtain economic support was through international a i d . The help of organizations such as the Peace Corps was also mentioned. Unfortunately, opinions on the p r i o r i t y of actions (assuming f i n a n c i a l aid was obtained) were completely d i f f e r e n t among people representing d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s , and even within the same organization. The p r i o r i t y of actions suggested by the university ranged from training personnel at a l l l e v e l s and spreading the ideas of conservation to - 1 0 7 -developing s e c t o r s of the park. Conversely, the o p i n i o n s of people i n govermental agencies ranged from new o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h i n the present a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s t u d i e s about development to absolute c o n t r o l of the r e s o u r c e s . The v a r i e t y and d i f f e r e n c e among suggested p r i o r i t i e s g i v e s an idea of the l a c k of agreement that e x i s t s i n these i n s t i t u t i o n s concerning the f u t u r e of t h i s and the r e s t of the Parks i n the Peruvian N a t i o n a l System. I n t e r n a t i o n a l a i d may be necessary, but i t would be dangerous to have i t without a p r e v i o u s consensus reg a r d i n g the p r i o r i t y of a c t i o n s f o r the development of the N a t i o n a l System. 4 . 6 . 4 P o l i c i e s of Development : The f u t u r e of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r park i s u n c e r t a i n . At the n a t i o n a l l e v e l , the decision-makers r e s p o n s i b l e f o r f u t u r e development of the Park do not have a c l e a r p o l i c y . They blame the present economic s i t u a t i o n of the country, the l a c k of support from the government, and t h e i r own reduced personnel. Even more, the l a c k of d e f i n i t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s among i n s t i t u t i o n s makes t h i s s i t u a t i o n of i n d e c i s i o n even worse. At the r e g i o n a l l e v e l the s i t u a t i o n i s the same.There i s no economic, s o c i a l or p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t i n the r e g i o n a l body r e s p o n s i b l e f o r development, which c o n s i d e r s the park an o b s t a c l e to development of the r e g i o n . At the park l e v e l , - 108 -s t a f f are not w e l l t r a i n e d and are incapable of p r e p a r i n g plans f o r development of the Park. The only d r a f t of a Master Plan i s but a general d e s c r i p t i o n of the resources of the Conservation Unit and not a Park Master Plan i n any r e a l sense. There i s , i n f a c t , not a s i n g l e plan of development f o r t h i s park. At d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of decision-making, the d e c i s i o n makers have d i f f e r e n t ways of l o o k i n g at the f u t u r e of t h i s a r ea. There i s no o v e r a l l c o o r d i n a t i n g p o l i c y and p r i o r i t i e s f o r development are at present l e f t to s u c c e s s i v e o f f i c i a l s who, at any given moment, occupy the d e c i s i o n makers' p o s i t i o n . 4 . 7 COSTS A cost a n a l y s i s was beyond the scope of t h i s study, but i t i s important to understand that v i s i t o r s who were a t t r a c t e d to the park not only c o n t r i b u t e d to the l o c a l economy, but a l s o imposed s o c i a l and economic c o s t s on the r e s i d e n t s . The f o l l o w i n g are some s o c i a l and economic i m p l i c a t i o n s of tourism i n the a r e a . In the m a j o r i t y of the cases v i s i t o r s to the r e g i o n were not evenly d i s t r i b u t e d , but tended to concentrate i n p a r t i c u l a r areas, n e c e s s i t a t i n g a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s such as - 109 -l i t t e r removal, t r e s p a s s e r ' s damage to p r o p e r t i e s , and i n c r e a s e d p r o b a b i l i t y of road a c c i d e n t s . Due to peaking and s e a s o n a l i t y of use p r i c e s i n c r e a s e d to a l e v e l that were p r o h i b i t i v e to l o c a l r e s i d e n t s . The v i s i t o r ' s l o c a l shopping was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s i n g l e loud q u e s t i o n :"How much that ?" Even when the p r i c e s were r i d i c u l o u s l y low some t o u r i s t s f e l t compelled to argue and ask f o r a d i s c o u n t . The t o u r i s t s had the common f e e l i n g that they were not " f o r a long time, but f o r a good time". They tended to adopt behavior p a t t e r n s such as d r i n k i n g , c r u i s i n g i n c a r s l o o k i n g f o r t h i n g s to do, making a l o t of n o i s e . The area was more a town with tourism, than a t o u r i s t town. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , many t o u r i s t s were l o s i n g the f e e l i n g of s e c u r i t y and t r u s t i n the area while l o c a l people were developing u n f r i e n d l y a t t i t u d e s towards t o u r i s t s . - 110 -CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Thi s study was the f i r s t attempt to eva l u a t e the economic c o n t r i b u t i o n of a Peruvian N a t i o n a l Park on depressed adjacent areas. I t was w r i t t e n with a s c i e n t i f i c o b j e c t i v e and i s not to be seen as a development or p o l i t i c a l t o o l . By no means does i t provide a measure of the economic worth of Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park, nor does i t measure the t o t a l net income of the l o c a l i t y from P a r k - r e l a t e d e x p e n d i t u r e s . The f i r s t of the two hypotheses of t h i s t h e s i s i s accepted because i t has been found that the n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r c o n t r i b u t e s f a r more to the l o c a l economy than the other type of v i s i t o r s . T h i s f i n d i n g i s a g a i n s t c o n v e n t i o n a l thought. On the other hand, the second hypothesis i s r e j e c t e d i n the sense that c u r r e n t l y the park's land use r e s t r i c t i o n s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t i n g l o c a l people, but the f u t u r e of the Conservation Unit could be threatened i f the park's a u t h o r i t i e s enforce the r e s t r i c t i o n s without f i r s t f i n d i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s . There are two primary sources of economic c o n t r i b u t i o n to the l o c a l area from the N a t i o n a l Park. The f i r s t one i s from the expenditures of the Conservation Unit i t s e l f i n the l o c a l - I l l -area, the second from v i s i t o r e xpenditures. The Park's budget f o r the e n t i r e year of 1983 was 11,425 U.S. d o l l a r s , which was spent i n the l o c a l area as wages and s a l a r i e s . On the other hand, v i s i t o r e x penditures, during the three month p e r i o d June to August of 1983, c o n t r i b u t e d 257,789 U.S. d o l l a r s to the economy, June 25 and J u l y 29 (Indian day and N a t i o n a l day) r e p r e s e n t i n g 23.6% of t h i s t o t a l . T h i s means that f o r every d o l l a r i n v e s t e d i n the park as wages and s a l a r i e s (952.08 $ U.S per month) n i n e t y d o l l a r s i s obtained i n terms of park r e l a t e d v i s i t o r e x p e n d i t u r e s . Three types of v i s i t o r s were i d e n t i f i e d a c c ording to t h e i r p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e : n o n - l o c a l Peruvians, f o r e i g n n o n - r e s i d e n t s , and f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t s . Of the t o t a l e x p enditures, 70% rep r e s e n t the expenditures of n o n - l o c a l Peruvians, 24% due to f o r e i g n non-residents and 6% to f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t s . As an average, n o n - l o c a l Peruvians spent 24,700 s o l e s per day (16.46 $ U.S), f o r e i g n non-resident 15,900 s o l e s (10.6 $ U.S), and f o r e i g n r e s i d e n t s 22,600 s o l e s per day (15.06 $ U.S). Although the average expenditures conceal a few wide v a r i a t i o n s , there was c o n s i s t e n c y i n the m a j o r i t y of i n d i v i d u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s by a c t i v i t i e s , with l o d g i n g about one quarter of the t o t a l , and food from over a t h i r d to about h a l f of the t o t a l . The c l i e n t e l e composition p a t t e r n s c o n t r a d i c t , on the one - 112 -hand, the c o n v e n t i o n a l view (which has h i t h e r t o been r e f l e c t e d i n p u b l i c , p o l i c y ) that f o r e i g n v i s i t o r s are the prime source of income f o r the r e g i o n . On the other hand they e s t a b l i s h the importance of the r o l e of n o n - l o c a l Peruvian v i s i t o r s as sources of revenue f o r l o c a l business.The s i m i l a r i t y between both v i s i t o r expenditures r e p o r t e d and v i s i t o r s a l e s r e p o r t e d f i g u r e s was remarkable i n f i v e of seven c a t e g o r i e s . The only d i f f e r e n c e found was i n the case of c a t e g o r i e s that were not consumed on a d a i l y b a s i s , where the d a i l y average s a l e s per person were not the same as the d a i l y average expenditures of the v i s i t o r f o r the whole stay. Although the peak season i s considered to run from June through September, i n c r e a s e d employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s are a v a i l a b l e only f o r the long weekend of J u l y . Although owners and/or a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of l o c a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s agreed that d u r i n g h o l i d a y s t h e i r c l i e n t e l e i n c r e a s e c o n s i d e r a b l y and were the best times of the year f o r p r o f i t s , the economic e f f e c t of the expenditures made by the v i s i t o r s i n the area are not a s s o c i a t e d with Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park. In the m a j o r i t y of cases, the Park's r e s t r i c t i o n s have had no e f f e c t on the l o c a l people who have not changed t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l ways of using the land. In that sense the r e g u l a t i o n of t r a d i t i o n a l uses has not caused economic l o s s or provided a d d i t i o n a l economic b e n e f i t s . To e r a d i c a t e - 1 1 3 -t r a d i t i o n a l uses from the Park, i f park a u t h o r i t i e s decide to enforce the r e g u l a t i o n s , i t w i l l be necessary to f i n d cheaper and b e t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e s . I t w i l l be b e t t e r to f i n d s o l u t i o n s where c o n s e r v a t i o n of nature goes hand i n hand with the economic and s o c i a l development of people i n the r e g i o n , otherwise the f u t u r e of the park w i l l be threatened. The l a c k of q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n n e l , shortage of f i n a n c e , l a c k of a p o l i c y of development and the l a c k of support from the n a t i o n a l and l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e the present s i t u a t i o n of Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park and make i t s f u t u r e u n c e r t a i n . What i s needed to modify t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s a change i n a t t i t u d e of the people r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the Conservation U n i t . Huascaran N a t i o n a l Park i s not the economic s o l u t i o n , but an important t o o l to help develop the r e g i o n . The park i s part of the r e g i o n and not an i s l a n d w i t h i n the l o c a l a r ea. As such, i t would have to work c l o s e l y with the r e g i o n a l body r e s p o n s i b l e f o r development and other r e g i o n a l , p r i v a t e and govermental i n s t i t u t i o n s i n s t e a d of being only the guardian of the n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . - 114 -LITERATURE CITED Archer B.- 1973. The Impact of Domestic Tourism. O c c a s i o n a l Papers i n Economics, Number 2, U n i v e r s i t y of Wales Press. Bangor, pp. 19-23. Barker M. 1980. N a t i o n a l Parks, C o n s e r v a t i o n , and A g r a r i a n Reform i n Peru. The G e o g r a p h i c a l Review , Volume 70,(1), pp.1-18. B a r t l e J . 1980. T r a i l s of the C o r d i l l e r a Blanca and Huayhuash of Peru. E d i t o r i a l G r a f i c a P a c i f i c Press S.A. Lima. pp. 146-148. Bendavid A. 1974. Regional Economic A n a l y s i s f o r P r a c t i c i o n e r s . Praeger. New York. pp. 103-122. Burton T.L. and Noad P.A. 1981. R e c r e a t i o n Research Methods. A Review of Recent S t u d i e s . O c c a s i o n a l Paper No3. Centre f o r Urban and Regional S t u d i e s . The U n i v e r s i t y of Birminghan, pp. 18-25. Centaur Management C o n s u l t a n t s , INC. 1977. Economic A c t i v i t y A s s o c i a t e d with Marine R e c r e a t i o n a l F i s h i n g . F i n a l Report. Prepared f o r N a t i o n a l Marine F i s h e r e s Science, N a t i o n a l Oceanic and Atmospheric A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, pp. 4-5. Cheng J . 1980. Tourism: How Much i s Too Much? Lessons f o r Canmore from Banff, Canadian Geographer , Volume 24, No 1. pp. 72-79. Clawson M. and Knetsch J.L. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation . P u b l i s h e d f o r Resources f o r the Future Inc., The Johns Hopkins Press, B a l t i m o r e , pp.230-248. Canadian Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Research Committee. CORRC. 1975. The Economic Impact of Parks. Report No.2. Prepared f o r the F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l Parks Conference, pp. I I I - l to I I I - 9 . Dourojeanni M.. 1976. Machu Picchu and Peru's N a t i o n a l System of Conservation U n i t s . Parks . V o l . 1 No 2. pp. 8-11. Eby P h i l i p A. 1975. The Value of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . A Case Study. M.A. T h e s i s , School of Community and Regional Planning. - 115 -U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, pp.32-36. Hudson J.F. & S t o v a l l C. 1974. An Economic A n a l y s i s of C o t i l e R e c r e a t i o n Area. Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics and A g r i - B u s i n e s s . D.A.E. Research Report No 469. Lousiana State U n i v e r s i t y , pp. 8-9. Is a r d W.. 1982. Methods of Regional A n a l y s i s : An I n t r o d u c t i o n to Regional S c i e n c e . Program i n Urban and Regional S t u d i e s . C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Ithaca, New York. pp. 163-320. K a l t e r R. and Lord W. 1968. Measurement of the Impact of R e c r e a t i o n Investments on a L o c a l Economy. American J o u r n a l of  A g r i c u l t u r e Economics , V o l 50. Number 2. pp. 243-257. Kovacs T. 1971. A S e l f - A d m i n i s t e r e d Park V i s i t o r Survey Technique. T e c h n i c a l Paper No 1. N a t i o n a l and H i s t o r i c Parks Branch. Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development, pp. 8-9. M i l l e r K.. 1982. Parks Under Siege. I n t e r n a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e . Nov.-Dec. 1982. pp. 32-34. Moore T. 1969. The World's Great Mountains: Not the Height You Think. The American A l p i n e J o u r n a l . Vol XVI i s s u e 42. pp. 109-117. Parks Canada. 1972. Park V i s i t o r Survey: Data C o l l e c t i n g and P r o c e s s i n g Techniques. Volume VI. Ottawa O n t a r i o , pp. 6-7. S i l v a B. 1981. Plan Maestro Parque N a c i o n a l Huascaran. M i n i s t e r i o de A g r i c u l t u r a . I n s t i t u t o N a c i o n a l F o r e s t a l y de Fauna, pp. 30-32. Tiebout C.. 1962. The Community Economic Base Study. Committee f o r Economic Development. New York. pp. 12-47. - 116 -SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Archer B., Sadler P., Owen C. 1973. Regional Income M u l t i p l i e r s . O c c a s i o n a l Paper i n Economics. Number 1. U n i v e r s i t y of Wales Press. Bangor. 109pp. Barchay G. , 1971. Regional Development P l a n n i n g . Papers Presented at a Conference Sponsored by C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y and the U n i v e r s i t y of Puerto R i c o . 297 pp. Bryden J . M. 1973. Tourism and Development: A Case Study of the Commonwealth Caribbean. Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 236 pp. Buse H. 1957. Huaraz, Chavin. Juan Mejia Baca y P.L. V i l l a n u e v a , e d i t o r e s . 159 pp. Canadian C o u n c i l on R u r a l Development. 1975. Economic S i g n i f i c a n c e of Tourism and Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n f o r Rural Develoment. Ottawa, 67 pp. Clawson Marion. 1963. Land and Water f o r R e c r e a t i o n . O p p o r t u n i t i e s , Problems, and P o l i c i e s . Resources f o r the Future. P o l i c y Background S e r i e s . Rand Mc N a l l y and Company. Chicago. 144 pp. Clawson Marion. 1958. S t a t i s t i c s on Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . Resources f o r the Future, Inc. Washington, D.C. 165 pp. Cleverdon Robert. 1979. The Economic and S o c i a l Impact of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Tourism on Developing C o u n t r i e s . The Economist I n t e l l e g e n t Unit L t d . S p e c i a l Report No 60. London. 153 pp. CORDE ANCASH. 1982. Producto Bruto Interno 1978-1980. O f i c i n a Departamental de E s t a d i s t i c a . 105 pp. Canadian Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Research Commitee. CORRC. 1974. R e c r e a t i o n User Surveys. Based on Meeting Proceedings of the F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l Parks Conference. U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo. 151 pp. Documental d e l Peru . 1967. Departamento de Ancash. Segunda E d i c i o n . Ioppe S.A.. 158 pp. - 117 -EDAW INC.. 1980. The Economic Impact of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n i n Nevada. A P o r t i o n of R e c r e a t i o n i n Nevada. The State-Wide Comprehensive Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Plan. State of Nevada. Department of Conservation and N a t u r a l Resources. D i v i s i o n of State Parks. C a p i t a l Complex Carson C i t y . Nevada. 63 pp. Fay M.P.. 1981. A N a t i o n a l Park Regional I n t e g r a t i o n Strategy With S p e c i a l Reference to R i d i n g Mountain N a t i o n a l Park. M.A. T h e s i s . Department of Geography. U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba. 151 pp. J . and Nelson J . . 1981. N a t i o n a l Parks and Native Peoples i n Northern Canada, Ala s k a , and Northern A u s t r a l i a . Environmental Conservation , V o l 8, No 3. pp. 207-215. Ch.. Swart W.. Var T.. 1976. Planning f o r Tourism Development. Q u a n t i t a t i v e Approaches. Praeger P u b l i s h e r s . New York U.S.A.. 221 pp. D.. Shafer E.. Rovelstad J . . 1980. Tourism Marketing and Management Issues. Proceedings of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium on Tourism and the Next Decade. George Washington U n i v e r s i t y . Washington D.C. 409 pp. and Espy J . 1980. State Park Economic Impact Study. Popham Beach, Two L i g h t s , Damariscotta Lake. D i v i s i o n of Planning and Research of the Bureau of Parks and R e c r e a t i o n . , Department of C o n s e r v a t i o n , Augusta. Main. 49 pp. I n s t i t u t o N a c ional de E s t a d i s t i c a . 1980. Anuario E s t a d i s t i c o . O f i c i n a Regional Ancash. 293 pp. I n s t i t u t o N a c ional de E s t a d i s t i c a . 1982. Peru: Compendio E s t a d i s t i c o 1981. 123 pp. I n s t i t u t o N a c i o n a l de E s t a d i s t i c a . 1983. Informe e s t a d i s t i c o . Segundo Tr i m e s t r e 1983. D i r e c c i o n General De Indicadores Economicos y S o c i a l e s . D i r e c c i o n de Coyuntura. 88 pp. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Tourism Q u a r t e r l y . 1983. No 2 The Economist I n t e l l i g e n c e Unit L i m i t e d London. 61 pp. Johnson B. 1980. A i d f o r T h i r d World Environments. AMBIO Vo l 9 No 5. pp. 236-240 L i t t l e ' Arthur D.. Inc. 1967. Tourism and R e c r e a t i o n A S t a t e - o f - t h e - A r t - S t u d y , Prepared f o r the O f f i c e of Gardner Gearing Hawkins How N. - 118 -Regional Development Planning, U.S. Department of Commerce. 301 pp. Matthews Harry G. 1978. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Tourism. A P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l A n a l y s i s . Schenkman P u b l i s h i n g Company. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 99 pp. Mc. A l l i s t e r D.. 1982. E v a l u a t i o n i n Environmental P l a n n i n g . As s e s s i n g Environmental, S o c i a l , Economic, and P o l i t i c a l Trade O f f s . Cambridge. 308 pp. Mishra R.H. 1982. Balancing Human Needs and Conservation i n Nepal's Royal Chitwan. AMBIO Volume 11 No 5. pp. 246-251. Munn R.E.. 1979. Environmental Impact Assessment. SCOPE 5. Second E d i t i o n . John Wiley & Sons. 190 pp. Nelson J.G. 1972. Some Economic and S o c i a l E f f e c t s of N a t i o n a l Parks on Surrounding Communities. U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary World N a t i o n a l Park Progress and Opportunites. pp. 363-369. On t a r i o M i n i s t r y of Industry and Tourism. 1972. A Survey of V i s i t o r s to Sa i n t - M a r i e Among the Hurons, 1971. and the Economic Impact of the A t t r a c t i o n on the Midland Area. Tourism and Rec r e a t i o n S t u d i e s Branch. Report No. 80. 50 pp. Ont a r i o M i n i s t r y of Industry and Tourism. 1972. Economic Impact of the S t . Lawrence Parks Commission's F a c i l i t i e s on the Surrounding Area. Tourism and Rec r e a t i o n S t u d i e s Branch. Report No. 72. 45 pp. ORDENOR-CENTRO. 1981, Plan Nacional de D e s a r r o l l o 1981-1982. Sistema N a c i o n a l de P l a n i f i c a c i o n . I Comision Regional de P l a n i f i c a c i o n . Plan Nacional de D e s a r r o l l o Ancash-Maranon. 133 pp. ORRRC. 1962. Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n f o r America.. A Report to the P r e s i d e n t and to the Congress. Washington D.C. 246 pp. Parks Canada. 1973. General I n t r o d u c t i o n , Park Attendance Data, and The Procedure f o r Requesting S p e c i f i c T a b u l a t i o n s of Data from the 1972 Park V i s i t o r Surveys. Volume I, 1972 S t a t i s t i c a l Reference on V i s i t a t i o n , the User and Use of Canada's N a t i o n a l and H i s t o r i c Parks. N a t i o n a l Parks S e r v i c e . P l a n i n g D i v i s i o n Park Use Research S e c t i o n . Ottawa. 46pp. - 119 -Parks Canada. 1973. A Summary, S t a t i s t i c a l Reference on V i s i t a t i o n , the User and Use of Canada's N a t i o n a l and H i s t o r i c Parks S e r v i c e . Planning D i v i s i o n Park use Research S e c t i o n . Ottawa. 26 pp. Parks Canada. 1976. G u i d e l i n e s f o r Gathering Park Use S t a t i s t i c s , Socio-Economic Research D i v i s i o n . Departmental S t a t i s t i c s D i v i s i o n . Ottawa. 47 pp. Parks Canada. 1977. SERD 77-13, DRAFT. G u i d e l i n e s f o r S o c i a l and Economic Impact S t u d i e s . Socio-Economic Research D i v i s i o n . Program C o - o r d i n a t i o n Branch. 76 pp. Proyecto PNUD/FAO/PER/81/002. 1982. Peru F o r e s t a l . 156 pp. Sugandhy Apandi. 1980. The Impact Assessment of Tourism Development on A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Use. A Case Study of the Impact on T r a d i t i o n a l V i l l a g e Land Use P a t t e r n s i n B a l i . M.A. T h e s i s . School of Community and r e g i o n a l p l a n n i n g . U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. 211 pp. The Economic Impact of N a t i o n a l Parks i n Canada..1970. A Summary. Indian and Northerm A f f a i r s . Parks Canada N a t i o n a l and H i s t o r i c Park Branch. Ottawa. 82 pp. UNESCO/MAB.1975. MAB Report S e r i e s No 39 Regional Planning Meeting of the MAB N a t i o n a l Committee of Andean C o u n t r i e s , With P a r t i c u l a r A t t e n t i o n to P r o j e c t 6 Lima. 37 pp. Van den Berghe P i e r r e L. 1980. Tourism as E t h n i c R e l a t i o n s : A Case Study of Cuzco. Peru. E t h n i c and R a c i a l S t u d i e s . Volume 3. pp. 375-392. Waiten C.. 1981. A Guide to S o c i a l Impact Assessment. Prepared f o r Research Branch Corporate P o l i c y . Indian and Northern A f f a i r s Canada. 120 pp. Walter I. and Ugelow J . . 1979. Environmental P o l i c i e s i n Developing C o u n t r i e s . AMBIO V o l . 8 No 2-3. pp. 102-109. Woodbrige G. .1968. The Impact of the Tourism and T r a v e l Industry on a Developing Regional Economy: The Puerto Rican Case. Ph.D. T h e s i s . C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y . 264 pp. - 120 -A P P E N D ! C E I S - 121 -A P P E N D I X A VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS AND EXPENDITURES QUESTIONNAIRE - 122 -VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS AND EXPENDITURES QUESTIONNAIRE ( PART A ) A STUDY ON HUASCARAN NATIONAL PARK No 01 7 3 Date: GENERAL INFORMATION Group s i z e : The purpose of t h i s survey i s to c o l l e c t information on the economic contribution of Huascaran National Park on the l o c a l area. Your cooperation by answering the following questions would be appreciated. The Information obtained w i l l be used for Thesis pur-poses. Your reply w i l l remain s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and w i l l not be used for any other purpose. 1) WHERE DO YOU LIVE ? City/Town 2) HOW MANY YEARS DO YOU HAVE ? I 1 Years Province/State Country Na t i o n a l i t y 3) ON THIS VISIT HOW DID YOU GET TO THIS PARK ? 1. D Bus 4. • Car re n t a l 2. D Taxi 5. • Other 3. • Own car 4) ON THIS VISIT HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE LOCAL AREA?CZZjdays 5) ON THIS VISIT HOW LONG DO YOU PLAN TO STAY IN THE LOCAL AREA I I days 6) WHY ON THIS VISIT DID YOU PRINCIPALLY COME TO THIS LOCAL AREA ? 1. D Business purposes 2. • To v i s i t r e l a t i v e s / f r i e n d s 3. • To study A . • To work(employment) 5. D To v i s i t the National Park 6. • Other 7) WHILE IN THE LOCAL AREA ARE YOU STAYING IN A ? 1. DHotel 6.Client 2. [3Motel 7.DNot required 3. rjHostel S.Dother A.• Pension 5.• With r e l a t i v e s / f r i e n d s 8) THINKING OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT YOU PLAN TO SPEND ON THIS TRIP WHAT PROPORTION DO YOU THINK YOU WILL SPEND IN THE LOCAL AREA ? 1 . • Less than 102 5. • 75% or more 2. • 252 or less 6. • More than 902 3. • 26 - 50% 7. • Don't know 4. • 5 1 - 7 5 2 9) HOW DID YOU GET TO KNOW ABOUT THIS PARK ? 1. • Fr i e n d s / r e l a t i v e s 6. • 2. • Travel agency 7. • 3. • Magazine,newspaper 8. • 4. Cl Brochure 5. • T.V Radio Can't remember Other 10) IS THIS YOUR FIRST VISIT TO THIS PARK ? 1 .CD yes 2.Dno 3 how many? 11) HOW LONG DO YOU PLAN TO STAY IN THIS PARK ? 1 Q d f l y s 2 < r - j h Q u r s 12) ARE YOU COMING TO THIS PARK FOR ? 1. • Andinism 5. • Study 2. • Rock climbing 6. • Business 3 . • Hiking 7 . • Other 4. • Sigthseeing 13) WHAT DO YOU THINK A NATIONAL PARK IS ? 14) WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO FIND IN THIS NATIONAL PARK ? - 123 -VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS AND EXPENDITURES QUESTIONNAIRE ( PART B ) A STUDY ON HUASCARAN NATIONAL PARK No. 0 1 '/ Date: GENERAL INFORMATION The purposes of t h i s questionnaire are to obtain YOUR expenditures incurred while v i s i t i n g the l o c a l area and opinions of t h i s Park. This information w i l l be used to evaluate the l o c a l economic contribution of Huascaran National Park and to as-s i s t the planning of future developments i n the Conservation Unit. Your cooperation i n completing t h i s questionnaire i s appreciated. SECTION A : REPORT ONLY THE MONEY YOU HAVE SPENT IN THE LOCAL AREA Ql 1) ACCOMMODATION (soles per night) 1.1 iHotel 4.1 IPension 2.F iMotel 5.1 lother 3.1 JHostel —. r r - r (specify) 2) FOOD AND BEVERAGES (soles per day) 1J iBreakfast 4.[ 2.1 iLunch 31 jsnacks/beverages Jother ^Dinner (specify) Q2 Q3 3) TRANSPORT (soles per t r i p ) No. t r i p s 1 .| lAirport to town • 2.1 lArnnnri town (per day) • 3.1 iTnim to National Park • ENTERTAINMENT ( t o t a l spent) 1.1 iNight clubs 2.1 [Cinema 3.1 JOther (specify) 4) SERVICES ( t o t a l per service/person) 2 JO 3.0 Tourist services (tours etc.) Guide services Other (specify) 6) GIFTS AND SOU-VENIRS ( t o t a l spent) Total 7) MISCELLANEOUS ( t o t a l spent) ll . iMedicine 2l. Ikecreation equipment 3L lother (specify) Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 SECTION B : FOR THE REMAINDER OF YOUR VISIT TO THE LOCAL AREA AND CONSIDERING THE AMOUNTS REPORTED IN THE ABOVE SECTION, DO YOU EXPECT THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU WILL SPEND ON ? Q9 8) ACCOMMODATION 1. D To increase by X 2. rjTo remain the same 3. DTo decrease by % 9) FOOD AND BEVERAGES 1. D To increase by X 2. D To remain the same 3. D To decrease by X 10) TRANSPORT 1. D To increase by X 2. D To remain the same 3. D To decrease by % Q10 11) SERVICES 1. D To increase by X 2. DTo remain the same 3. D T o decrease by % 12) ENTERTAINMENT 1. D To increase by X 2. D To remain the same 3. D To decrease by X 13) GIFTS AND SOUVENIRS 1. D To increase by X 2. D To remain the same 3. D To decrease by % Q12 ') MISCELLANEOUS 1. DTo increase by X 2. DTo remain the same 3. DTo decrease by 2 PLEASE TURN OVER THE PAGE Q13 Q14 - 123a -15) EXPRESS YOUR LIKES AND DILIKES ABOUT THE PARK IN RELATION TO WHAT YOU EXPECTED TO FIND, WHAT WAS UNEXPECTED, AND RANK EACH AS GOOD, MODERATE OR BAD. For example : EXPECTED UNEXPECTED RANKING 1) Camping grounds Moderate  1) T r a i l s Good  EXPECTED UNEXPECTED RANKING 16) ANY CONMENTS OR CRITICISMS ABOUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ? \ PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AS YOU ARE LIVING THE PARK TO THE ADMINISTRATION CENTRE - LLANGANUCO SECTOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION - 124 -QUESTIONARIO SOBRE CARACTERISTICAS Y GASTOS DE LOS VISITANTES ( PARTE A ) IMPACTO ECONOMICO LOCAL DEL PARQUE NACIONAL HUASCARAN N°8 U 7 3 = Fecha: INFORMACION GENERAL Grupo: E l presente questionario tlene como objeto recolectar informacion sobre l a contribu-cio'n econdmica del Parque Nacional Huascaran en areas aledanas. La informacion que pudiese obtener sera" usada en l a elaboracio'n de mi thesis y no para otro proposito, permaneciendo vuestra respuesta estrictamente c o n f i d e n c i a l . Vuestra cooperacion se-ra' apreciada. Ql 1) LUGAR DE RESIDENCIA 2) CUANTOS ANOS TIENE ? Ciudad 1 1 Anon Departamento/Region Pais Nacionalidad 3) MEDIO DE TRANSPORTE USADO 1. • Omnibus 2. D Taxi 3. D Carro propio 4. D Carro alquilado 5. D Otro (especifique) 4) EN ESTA OPORTUNIDAD, HACE CUANTO TIEMPO QUE ESTA EN LA REGION ? 5) CUANTO TIEMPO PLANEA PERMANECER 1 Dfas EN LA REGION ? [_ 6) INDIQUE EL PRINCIPAL MOTIVO POR HABER VENIDO A LA REGION 1. D Negocios 2. D V i s i t a r amigos/familiares 3 -D Estudio 4. D Trabajo (empleo) 5. D V i s i t a r e l Parque Nacional 6. D Otro 7) DURANTE SU ESTADIA EN LA REGION, ESTA USTED ALOJADO EN ? 6. D Acampando 7. D 8. D 1. D 2. D 3. D 4. D 5. D Hotel Motel Hostal Pensio'n Casa familiares/amigos No requiero Otro 8) CONSIDERANDO EL MONTO TOTAL PLANEADO A SER GASTADO EN ESTE VIAJE, QUE PORCENTAGE CREE USTED GASTARA EN ESTA REGION ? l . D Menos del 105! 2. D 25% o menos 3. D 26 - 50% 4. D 51 - 75% 5 . D 75% o ma's 6. D mas de 90% 7. D no se 9) COMO SE ENTERO DE ESTE LUGAR ? 1. D Amigos/f amiliares 2. D Agencia de v i a j e s 3 -D Revista.perio'dico 4. D F o l l e t o s 5. D T.V 6. D 7. D 8. D Radio No me acuerdo Otro (especifique) 10) ES ESTA SU PRIMERA VISITA A ESTE PARQUE NACIONAL ? i , l . D S i 2 .D No 3. cuantas?| | 11) CUANTO TIEMPO PLANEA QUEDARSE EN EL PARQUE ? 1. I Dias 2. Horas 12) CUAL ES EL MOTIVO POR EL CUAL VIENE AL PARQUE NACIONAL ? l . D Andinismo 2 . D Escalar en rocas 3 .D Caminar 4 . D Turismo 5.D Estudio 6 . D Negocios 7 .D Otros (especificar) 13) QUE ES PARA USTED UN PARQE NACIONAL ? 14) QUE ESPERA ENCONTRAR EN ESTE PARQUE NACIONAL ? Q14 - 125 • — QUESTIONARIO SOBRE CARACTERISTICAS Y GASTOS DE LOS VISITANTES ( PARTE B ) IMPACTO ECONOMICO LOCAL DEL PARQUE NACIONAL HUASCARAN No 04 7 Z Fecha: INFORMACION GENERAL E l proposito de este questionarlo es l a de obtener informacidn sobre IOB gastos efec-tuados por usted durante su v l s i t a a l a Regio'n, con e l tnotivo de evaluar l a contribu-cidn econdmica del Parque Nacional Huascaran. Asimismo, conocer vuestra opinio'n sobre e l Parque,para pertnitirnos una mejor p l a n i f i c a c i d n del desarrollo futuro de esta Uni-dad de Conservacidn. Vuestra cooperacio'n sera apreciada. SECCION A : REPORTE SOLO EL DINERO QUE USTED HA GASTADO EU LA REGION 1) ALOJAMIENTO ( soles por noche) 1.1 JHotel 4 . ' ' 2 . C ' 3 . C jMotel 5. jHostal Pension Otro (especifique) 2 ) ALIMENTOS Y BEBIDAS ( soles por dia) 1 J Ipesayuno 2.1 JAImuerzo 3.C ' 4.|_ jBebidas lotros JComids (especifique) 3 ) TRANSPORTE (soles por viaje) 1. | JAeropuerto - ciudad 2 . | ~~|Alrededores (por dia) 3.1 iciudad - Parque Nacional No. v i a j e s • • • 5) ENTRETENIM1ENTOS (gasto t o t a l ) 1.1 iNieht clubs 2.j |Cine 3 . Otros (especifique) 4) SERVICIOS (soles/servicio/persona) 1.1 Iserv. t u r i s t i c o s (tours etc, 2.1 I s e r v i c i o de guias 3.E ' JOtros (especifique) 6) REGALOS Y RECUER-DOS ( gasto total) Total 7) DIVERSOS (gasto total) 1 .| JMediclnas 2-! ~]Equipo de campo 3.1 lotros (especifique) SECCION B : POR LO QUE LE QUEDA DE ESTADIA EN LA REGION Y CONSIDERANDO LOS MONTOS REPORTADOS EN LA SECCION ANTERIOR, USTED ESFERA QUE EL DINERO QUE GASTARA EN : 8) ALOJAMIENTO 1 «D Incremente en 7. 2 , r j Se mantenga igual 3.D Disminuya en % 9) ALIMENTOS Y BEBIDAS 1 .• Incremente en 7. 2.DSe mantenga igual 3 .O Disminuya en X 10 ) TRANSPORTE l . D Incremente en X 2 - D Se mantenga ig u a l 3 - D Disminuya en % 11 ) SERVICIOS 1 .D Incremente en X 2 0 Se mantenga igual 3.D Disminuya en X 12 ) ENTRETENIMIENTOS 1 .D Incremente en Z 2 . D S e mantenga igual 3 . D Disminuya en 7. 13 ) REGALOS Y RECUERDOS 1. D Incremente en X 2 . D Se mantenga igual 3 -D Disminuya en % IA) DIVERSOS 1. D Incremente en % 2 . DSe mantenga igual 3 . D Disminuya en X SIRVASE VOLTEAR LA PAGINA - 125a -15) EXPRESE SUS GUSTOS Y/O DISGUSTOS SOBRE EL PARQUE NACIONAL HUASCARAN EN RELACION A LO QUE USTED ESPERO ENCONTRAR Y LO QUE ENCONTRO, CLASIFICANDOLOS COMO BUENO, REGU-LAR 0 MALO. Por ejemplo: ESPERE ENCONTRAR NO ESPERE ENCONTRAR CLASIFICACION 1) Areas de camping Regular  1) Senderos Bueno  ESPERE ENCONTRAR NO ESPERE ENCONTRAR CLASIFICACION 16) ALGUN COMENTARIO Y/O CRITICA SOBRE ESTE QUESTIONARIO ? POR FAVOR ENTREGUE ESTE QUESTIONARIO EN EL CENTRO ADMINISTRATIVO DEL PARQUE NACIONAL HUASCARAN - SECTOR LLANGANUCO GRACIAS POR SU COOPERACION - 126 -A P P E N D I X B SALES TO VISITORS QUESTIONNAIRE - 127 -QOKSTIOMARIO SOULS " VEKTA A LOS VTSITANTES IIPO OS BTABLECIMIKHTO: RCHA DS SSTABLECIMIENTO: No. oo 1 7 j r Fecha: INPORMACION GENERAL El propoalto de eata queatlonario aa l a de cvaluar loa gaatoa efectuados por los vlsitantea a eata RagIon, durante los aesea de Junto, Julio y AgoBto. La infonaa-cio'n a obtener aara uaada an la elaboraclor. de ml theaia y no para otro propo'sitc, permaneciendo vuestra raapueata eatrictamente confidancial. Vuestra cooperacio'n •era apreciada. 1) DURANTE LOS MESES DE JUNIO, JULIO 0 AGOSTO DS LOS ULTIMOS TRES ANOS, VUESTRA CLLENTELA : 1. Q Aunento 2. Q Disminuyo 3. O Se mantuvo igual 4. • No se SI VUESTRA CLIENTELA AUMENTO 0 DISMINUYO, CUANTOS KMPLEADOS TUVO QUE : 1. | | Contratar 2. | | Deapedir 3. f~l Se mantuvo Igual 2) CUANTOS KMPLEADOS TEMPORALES 0 PERMANENTES TIENE KN LA ACTUALIDAD ? 1.I 1 Temporales 2. I Permanentes 3) CUANTOS CLIENTES TIENE ACTUALMENTE ? Por mes 2. Por dia 4) QUE PORCENTAGE DEL TOTAL DE SUS CLIENTES SON VISITANTES A ESTA REGION ? l . D Menos del 10Z 2.0 25Z o nenos 3-D 26 - 50Z 4. • 51 5. • 75Z o ma's 6.0 aas de 90Z 75Z 7.D no se 5) QUE PORCENTAGE DEL TOTAL DE SUS CLIENTES SON TURISTAS EXTRANGEROS ? 4. • 51 - 75Z 1.• Menos del 10Z 5.• 75Z o mas 2.D 25Z o nenos 6.D nas de 90Z 3-D 26 - 50Z 7.D no se 6) PODRIA INDICAKME EL PRECIO APROXIMADO DE : 1.I I Alojamiento por noche/persona 2. | | Desayuno 3.1 (lndicar lo que corresponds) Almuerzo 4. (_ Comlda 5-C 6.r Por servicios Otros 7) PODRIA INDICAKME COHO AFECTA A SU NEGOCIO EL PARQUE NACIONAL HUASCARAN ? 1. O No ne afecta 2. • Contribuye 3. Q Me perjudica EXPLICAR GKACIAS POR VUESTRA COOPERACION - 128 -A P P E N D I X C NATIONAL PARK'S RESTRICTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE tr - 129 -QUESTIONARIO SOBRE LAS RESTRICCIO-NES DEL PARQUE NACIONAL HUASCARN USO TRADICIONAL: No — 00 8 0 -1 Feeha: INFORMACION GENERAL Los propo'sitos de este questionario son l a de i d e u t i f i c a r l o s usos t r a d i c i o n a -l e s de l a t i e r r a en esta area y l a importancia economica que representa para e l poblador l o c a l . La informacion a obtener sera usada en l a elaboracion de mi thesis y no para otro proposito, permaneciendo vuestra respuesta estrlctamente conf i d e n c i a l . Vuestra cooperacio'n sera apreciada. 1) ES USTED MIEMBRO DE ALGUNA COMUNIDAD? l . f j N o 2.Qsi 3) CUANTAS FERSONAS VIVEN CON USTED ? 2) HACK CUANTO TIEMPO QUE PERTENECE A ESA COMUNIDAD ? 4) TODOS SON MIEHJ.K:iS DE SU FAMILIA ? S i 2.Dllo 01 Q2 Q3 5) HACE CUANTO TIEMPO QUE VIVE EN ESTE LUGAR ? (•) HAC1. CUANTO TIEMPO QUE PRACTICA ESTA ACTIVIDAD ? 7) DESCRIPCION DE LA ACTIVIDAD Cantidad y tipo de ganado Tipo de c u l t i v o Otro OA 8) EE ESTA ACTIVIDAD LA UNICA FUENTE DE INGRESO rARA *T- Y SU FAMILIA ? S i 2.Q No SI NO LO TvS, QUE OTRA ACTIVIDAD PRACTICA UT U OTRO MIEMF.iin DE SU FAMILIA ? 06 Q7 9) POR QUE CREE USTED, SE ESTABLECIO EL PARQUE NACIONAL HUASCARAK ? 03 10) C0M0 AFEC'XA A SU ACTIVIDAD (mencionada en 7) EL PARQUE NACIONAL HUASCARAN ? 1. D No me afecta 2. • Contribuye 3-D Pe perjuc'tca EXPLICAR no on 11) COMO AFECTA A S'J ACTIVIDAD (mencionada en 8) EL PARQUE NACIONAL EUASCARAN ? 1. D No me af ecta 2. D Contribuye 3. D Me perjudica EXFLTCAR GRACIAS POR VUESTRA COOPKRACION - 130 -A P P E N D I X O LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED - 131 -LIST OP PEOPLE INTERVIEWED 1. WITHIN THE MINISTRY OP AGRICULTURE a) N a t i o n a l Level a.1 F o r e s t r y and W i l d l i f e D i r e c t i o n General - Mr. W. Ojeda : D i r e c t o r of F o r e s t r y Resources - Mr. E. Herrera : Sub D i r e c t o r of F l o r a and Fauna a.2 N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of F o r e s t r y - M r . E. Kardich : D i r e c t o r General of Conservation - M r . R. Bustamante : D i r e c t o r of N a t i o n a l Parks - M r . B. S i l v a : Former Superintendent/Huascaran N.P b) Regional Level 2. WITHIN THE AGRICULTURE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY "LA MOLINA - DR. M. Dourojeanni : Head F a c u l t y of F o r e s t r y . Former D i r e c t o r General of F o r e s t r y and W i l d l i f e . - M r . C. Ponce : Associate P r o f e s s o r . Former D i r e c t o r of Conservation U n i t s . - M r . M. Rios : D i r e c t o r of the Department of F l o r a and Fauna. - M r . R. H i j a r : D i r e c t o r of Tourism. Huaraz - M r . M. Zamora : E l e c t r o p e r u . - M r . A. Aguedo : D i r e c t o r of the mining d i v i s i o n . - M r . R. V a l e n c i a : Manager Huaraz Guia Tours. - M r . V. Angeles : To u r i s t guide - M r . A. Gonzales : P r o f e t i o n a l t o u r i s t guide - Mr. H. C a r r i l l o - Mr. L. Champa : - M r . P. G u i l l e n : Local Chief Forester Superintendent of Huascaran N.P. Guardpark 3 . OTHERS - 132 -A P P E N D I X EE CHANGES ON THE PATTERNS OF EXPENDITURES - 133 -TABLE. 1 CHANGES ON THE PATTERNS OF EXPENDITURES ON TRANSPORT WITHOUT HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL PERUVIANS FOREIGN NON RESID FOREIGN RESIDENT WILL SPEND NOTHING MORE 83 1 83.0 WILL INCREASE IN 10 % (1) 2 0 3.7 WILL INCREASE IN 20 % 2 0 WILL INCREASE IN 25 % 0 5 WILL INCREASE IN 50 % 1 5 WILL SPEND 10% MORE (2) 2 0 WILL SPEND 20% MORE 3 0 WILL SPEND 30% MORE 1 5 1.2 WILL SPEND 50% MORE 0 5 1.2 WILL SPEND 70% MORE 1 5 11.0 WILL SPEND 60% MORE 2 0 WILL SPEND 90* MORE 0 5 95.4 4.6 HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL PERUVIANS FOREIGN NON RESID FOREIGN RESIDENT WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL WILL SPEND NOTH INCREASE I INCREASE I INCREASE INCREASE INCREASE SPEND 15* SPEND 20* SPEND 50% SPEND 75* SPEND 80% ING MORE N 10 % N 20 % N 40 % N 50 % N 100 % MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE 90 82 100 12 (1) THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE WILL INCREASE IN 10% FOR REMAINDER OF THE VISIT (2) WILL SPEND ONLY 10% OF THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE VISIT - 134 -TABLE 2. CHANGES ON THE PATTERNS OF EXPENDITURES ON FOOD WITHOUT HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIANS NON RESIDENT RESIDENT % % % WILL REMAIN THE SAME 86.1 86.4 88.9 WILL DECREASE IN 10 % 1.5 WILL DECREASE IN 20 % 1.5 3.0 WILL DECREASE IN 30 % 0.5 1.5 WILL DECREASE IN 50 % 1.5 WILL INCREASE IN 10 % 7.5 3.0 WILL INCREASE IN 30 % 0.5 3.0 5.6 WILL INCREASE IN 50 % 2.0 5.6 WILL INCREASE IN 75 % 0.5 WILL INCREASE IN 100 % 1.5 HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIANS NON RESIDENT RESIDENT % WILL REMAIN THE SAME 87.7 90.0 75.0 WILL DECREASE IN 20 % 1.0 WILL DECREASE IN 50 % 3.8 WILL INCREASE IN 5 % 5.0 WILL INCREASE IN 10 % 1.9 WILL INCREASE IN 20 % 1.9 WILL INCREASE IN 30 % 25.0 WILL INCREASE IN 50 % 3.8 WILL INCREASE IN 100 % 5.0 - 135 -TABLE 3. CHANGES ON THE PATTERNS OF EXPENDITURES ON ACCOMMODATION WITHOUT HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIAN NON RESID RESIDENT % % % WILL REMAIN THE SAME 86.8 74.7 94.1 WILL DECREASE IN 10 % 2.5 2.5 WILL DECREASE IN 20 % 2.5 2.5 WILL DECREASE IN 30 % 0.4 1.3 WILL INCREASE IN 10 % 2.1 2.5 WILL INCREASE IN 20 % 2.9 2.5 WILL INCREASE IN 30 % 0.4 1.3 WILL INCREASE IN 50 % 1.7 12.7 WILL INCREASE IN 75 % 0.8 WILL INCREASE IN 100 % 5.9 HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIAN NON RESID RESIDENT % % % WILL REMAIN THE SAME 83.0 95.7 80 WILL DECREASE IN 10 % 1.8 WILL DECREASE IN 30 % 2.7 WILL INCREASE IN 5 % 1.8 WILL INCREASE IN 10 % 2.7 WILL INCREASE IN 15 % 0.9 WILL INCREASE IN 20 % 0.9 WILL INCREASE IN 30 % 2.7 20 WILL INCREASE IN 50 % 3.6 WILL INCREASE IN 100 % 4.3 - 136 -TABLE.4 CHANGES ON THE PATTERNS OF EXPENDITURES ON SERVICES WITHOUT HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL PERUVIAN FOREIGN NON RESID FOREIGN RESIDENT % % % WILL SPEND NOTHING MORE WILL INCREASE IN 10 % WILL SPEND 10% MORE WILL SPEND 20% MORE WILL SPEND 50% MORE WILL SPEND 80% MORE (1) (2) 92.2 0.6 4.2 1.8 0.6 0.6 96.9 3.1 100 HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL PERUVIAN FOREIGN NON RESID FOREIGN RESIDENT % WILL SPEND NOTHING MORE WILL INCREASE IN 10 % WILL INCREASE IN 20 % WILL INCREASE IN 30 % WILL SPEND 10% MORE WILL SPEND 50% MORE 92.7 1.0 2.1 1.0 1.0 2.1 100 100 (1) THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE WILL INCREASE IN 10% FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE VISIT (2) WILL SPEND ONLY 10% OF THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE VISIT - 137 -TABLE. 5 CHANGES ON THE PATTERNS OF EXPENDITURES ON ENTERTAIMENT WITHOUT HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIAN NON RESID RESIDENT % % % WILL SPEND NOTHING MORE 95.2 100 94.7 WILL INCREASE IN 10 % ( l ) 1.1 5.3 WILL INCREASE IN 20 % 0.5 WILL SPEND 10% MORE (2) 0.5 WILL SPEND 20% MORE 2.2 WILL SPEND 30% MORE 0.5 HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIAN NON RESID RESIDENT % % % WILL SPEND NOTHING MORE 94.2 100 54.6 WILL INCREASE IN 10 % 2.9 WILL SPEND 20% MORE 1.0 WILL SPEND 30% MORE 45.4 WILL SPEND 50% MORE 1.0 WILL SPEND 90% MORE 1.0 (1) THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE WILL INCREASE IN 10% FOR REMAINDER OF THE VISIT (2) WILL SPEND ONLY 10% OF THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE VISIT - 138 -TABLE. 6 POSSIBLE CHANGES ON THE PATTERNS OF EXPENDITURES ON GIFTS AND SOUVENIRS WITHOUT HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL PERUVIAN FOREIGN NON RESID FOREIGN RESIDENT % WILL SPEND NOTHING MORE WILL INCREASE IN 10 % ( l ) WILL INCREASE IN 15 % WILL INCREASE IN 30 % WILL INCREASE IN 50 % WILL INCREASE IN 100 % WILL SPEND 10% MORE (2) WILL SPEND 20% MORE WILL SPEND 25% MORE WILL SPEND 50% MORE WILL SPEND 80% MORE WILL SPEND 90% MORE 3.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.9 2.4 1.0 0.5 89.1 1.8 5.5 l.{ 1.8 95 HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL PERUVIAN FOREIGN NON RESID FOREIGN RESIDENT % % % WILL SPEND NOTHING MORE WILL INCREASE IN 10 % WILL INCREASE IN 20 % WILL INCREASE IN 100 % WILL SPEND 60% MORE WILL SPEND 80% MORE WILL SPEND 90% MORE 38.9 2.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 100 100 (1) THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE WILL INCREASE IN 10% FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE VISIT (2) WILL SPEND ONLY 10% OF THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE VISIT - 139 -TABLE. 7 CHANGES ON THE PATTERNS OF EXPENDITURES ON MISCELLANEOUS WITHOUT HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL FOREIGN FOREIGN PERUVIAN NON RESID RESIDENT % % % WILL SPEND NOTHING MORE 97.4 98.5 90 WILL INCREASE IN 10 % (1) 1.6 WILL INCREASE IN 20 % 5 WILL SPEND 10% MORE (2) 0.5 1.5 WILL SPEND 20% MORE 5 WILL SPEND 90% MORE 0.5 HOLIDAYS NON LOCAL PERUVIAN % FOREIGN NON RESID % FOREIGN RESIDENT % WILL SPEND NOTHING MORE WILL INCREASE IN 20 % WILL INCREASE IN 30 % WILL SPEND 10% MORE 96.3 1.9 1.0 1.0 100 100 (1) THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE WILL INCREASE IN 10% FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE VISIT (2) WILL SPEND ONLY 10% OF THE CURRENT EXPENDITURE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE VISIT 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096103/manifest

Comment

Related Items