Abstract
The Kruger National Park in South Africa is a key ecotourism attraction for both domestic and international tourists. The South African National Parks have recently come under pressure to uplift communities and to build relationships with communities. This study therefore aimed to answer the question: how do communities benefit from the Kruger Park? Two surveys were conducted: a tourist survey to estimate expenditures, and a community survey to determine the perceived contribution of the Park. The results show that the Park has a significant impact on the local economies in both income and employment generation. Local communities have a positive attitude to the Park and deem it to have a beneficial effect on their quality of life.
1. Introduction
The Kruger Park, South Africa's flagship National Park, is among South Africa's best known and most visited attractions, and one of the most profitable national parks in the world. Accounting for 75% of total bed nights sold in national parks in South Africa, it attracts in excess of one million visitors per year. It has the largest number of species of any park in South Africa, and in area it is larger than the state of Israel, covering 21 497 square kilometres (see ).
Figure 1: Kruger National Park
South African National Parks (SANParks) has three primary objectives: to conserve the biodiversity of the country, to maintain a relationship of community upliftment and capacity building among people living in the areas neighbouring the parks, and to provide a tourism and recreational outlet that allows people to enjoy the wonders of the parks. The reason for undertaking this study was to look at how well the second and third objectives are being achieved.
There is a growing body of literature on the effects of protected areas on adjacent communities (see for example Simelane et al., Citation2006; Simpson, Citation2008). Of particular interest is the relationship between biodiversity conservation and human welfare. Adams & Hutton Citation(2007) state that this implies ‘the compatibility of conservation and poverty alleviation’, but that setting aside land for conservation purposes inevitably has social and economic impacts. Communities living adjacent to a park expect that they will derive some form of benefit from its activities, and that the costs to themselves will be minimised. But protected areas inevitably have social effects. Besides the issue of displacement, some of the most noteworthy of these effects are restrictions placed on local communities that prevent them from inhabiting the area and gaining a living from the land, direct costs such as damage to crops and deaths caused by wild animals, and the change in the way local communities view themselves and their environment (see West et al., Citation2006; Adams & Hutton, Citation2007).
With these issues in mind, the purpose of this study was to determine the socioeconomic impact of ecotourism in the Kruger National Park. Most research on national parks has focused on the economic contribution of a particular park, or the social influence that a park has on one or more surrounding communities. This is first study to address both the economic contribution and the social impact of the Kruger Park on the adjacent communities.
2. Literature review
A socioeconomic study of a park typically assesses factors such as income generated, employment created, benefits perceived by the community, and contribution to the local and regional economy (Van der Merwe, 2008). However, Saayman & Saayman Citation(2006b) state that a socioeconomic impact study should go further than this and take into account the contribution the park makes to the quality of life for people in neighbouring communities.
The role and contribution of local communities in managing national parks has changed significantly over the past few years. This has been brought about by a paradigm shift at SANParks from traditionally being an agency concerned purely with conservation to one that strives to benefit and empower local communities (Venter et al., Citation2008). The question to ask is therefore: do communities benefit from national parks and, in this case, the Kruger National Park? And in addition, does this Park contribute to the communities' quality of life? The host community, according to Akama & Kieti Citation(2007), is considered to be one of the most important role players in determining the success of tourism. Ratz Citation(2000) argues that an understanding of residents' perceptions can help local decision making and mitigate negative perceptions and concerns raised by local residents. Bad community relations can lead to poaching, vandalism, crime against tourists and other unlawful activities (Oberholzer et al., Citation2009). It is therefore important to understand communities' perceptions of the impact of a park such as the Kruger.
From an economic point of view, tourists visiting the Kruger Park generate ‘new’ money in the area which has direct, indirect and induced effects. These effects are influenced by the amount spent, the length of stay, the number of tourists and leakages from the economy. Saayman et al. Citation(2009) add that factors such as the number of activities available, the size of the park, the type of accommodation and the species available also affect spending in national parks. Streuders Citation(2008) states that it remains paramount that communication between the Park and the community should be well established and maintained even though an increase in tourist spending could lead to greater benefits for local communities.
A review of the literature revealed a few studies in the field of socioeconomic research in national parks. These can be divided into three categories: those that deal with the economic side of conservation, those that are concerned with the social issues, and socioeconomic studies that address both aspects simultaneously. Among the studies of social and community issues pertaining to conservation areas are Goodwin Citation(2002), Simelane et al. Citation(2006), Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau Citation(2006) and West et al. Citation(2006). Some studies of the economic impact of conservation areas are Engelbrecht & Van der Walt Citation(1993), Vaughan et al. Citation(2000), Mahoney & Van Zyl Citation(2002), Standish et al. Citation(2004), Saayman & Saayman Citation(2006a) and Samuelsson & Stage Citation(2007). And examples of the socioeconomic impact of conservation areas are Taylor et al. Citation(1999), Mbaiwa (Citation2003, Citation2004, Citation2005), Motlanke (2005), Saayman & Saayman Citation(2006b), Akama & Kieti Citation(2007), Oberholzer et al. Citation(2009) and Saayman et al. Citation(2009).
From the above, it is clear that a number of socioeconomic studies have been conducted in national parks, but none at a park as large as the Kruger and with such a wide variety of activities. Of additional interest in this study is that the Kruger Park has many communities bordering it, whereas most other national parks have only one or two. We can sum up the findings of the above-mentioned studies as follows:
| • | The national parks in general have positive economic spin-offs and benefits for communities. | ||||
| • | In most cases, communities have positive feelings about national parks. | ||||
| • | Communities say that national parks contribute to their quality of life. The more developed a national park is in terms of infrastructure (road infrastructure, shops, number of accommodation units), number of activities (game drives, hiking trails, and so on) and number of species, the greater the benefits. | ||||
| • | National parks located in more ‘touristy’ areas have higher leakages than those located in areas where other industries are also available. | ||||
| • | Poorer communities have higher expectations of national parks in terms of job creation and economic benefits than richer communities have. | ||||
3. Method of research
3.1 The surveys
Two visitor surveys were conducted, one during the winter season of 2008 and another during the summer season of 2008/09, to ensure a true reflection of tourists visiting the Kruger Park. These surveys were conducted at different camps (see ) and in addition a day visitor survey was conducted. shows that in total 384 249 overnight guests visited the Kruger Park from March 2008 to March 2009, and that there were 941 805 day visitors. If one takes into account that the average size of overnight groups is approximately three people, it can be estimated that a total of over 2442 overnight visitors formed part of the overnight visitor survey. The study sample comprised all the overnight visitors in the camps at that time. According to Israel Citation(2009 [1992]), a sample of 400 is sufficient for a population of this size and with a response rate of six times the required, reliability is ensured. The day visitor survey was more difficult to administer, since most of these visitors spend the day viewing game and do not always enter the camps or sites where surveys could be administered.
Table 1: Number and distribution of questionnaires, 2008/09
The aim of the visitor survey was to determine the size of the groups, their spending patterns on various categories of products, and the number of nights and days they spend in the Park. This information provided the primary inputs into the economic impact analysis. All the questionnaires were handed out to visitors in the above-mentioned camps and day visitor sites by field workers who collected them the same day or evening, or the following day.
In addition, a community survey was conducted during June 2009 to determine the community's perceptions of and attitudes to the Kruger Park. A total of 1200 questionnaires were distributed in, among others, the communities of Bosbokrand, Eikenhoek, Hazyview, Hoedspruit, Komatipoort, Malelane, Marloth Park and Phalaborwa, all of which lie within a 30 kilometre radius of the Park. These communities include smaller and even more rural communities that form part of the greater towns (listed above). They also formed part of the sample – even some communities that could only be reached using 4 × 4 vehicles. In total, 1169 questionnaires were usable for statistical analysis purposes and a sample of 400 is again viewed as sufficient (see Israel, Citation2009 [1992]). The survey was again conducted by fieldworkers who targeted local shopping areas and respondents were chosen randomly. The questionnaire was based on the work of Ferreira Citation(2008).
3.2 Impact analysis through SAM multipliers
Multipliers are among the techniques that capture the secondary economic effects of tourism activity and a variety of methods have been used by researchers to determine the size of multipliers. Three of the most popular methods are Input–Output (I-O) tables, Social Accounting Matrices (SAMs) and Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models. Historically, I-O tables have been the most widely used in determining tourism impacts (see Frechtling & Horváth, 1999; Schwer et al., Citation2000). The SAM expands on the I-O tables by including not only product flow information but also the income and expenditure flows of economic agents and serves as a primary input into CGE modelling (Zhou et al., Citation1997). Dwyer et al. Citation(2004) observe that CGE modelling has not yet been widely applied in tourism, and also that it has the advantage of including the feedback effects of an increase in economic activity in one sector of the economy. It therefore presents a more complete picture of the impacts of tourism because, unlike other multiplier frameworks, it incorporates negative effects, such as price increases or resource constraints. However, Dwyer et al. acknowledge that the cost of constructing a CGE model for small regional economies often outweighs the benefits, since relative prices are mostly set outside such economies. In such cases, they argue that I-O tables and SAM models may be applied with success in determining economic impacts and the results would not differ significantly from a CGE analysis, although the shortcomings of these models must be stated explicitly.
Since the SAM frameworkFootnote1 allows one to study the direct, indirect and induced impacts at a disaggregated level – by sectors and by socioeconomic groups in a particular region – and the two provinces under investigation are provinces with relatively low economic activity in South Africa, it may be argued that the multipliers derived from the SAM will be a good reflection of the economic impact. In the present case, we used a combined SAM for the Mpumalanga and Limpopo Provinces, which was developed through the PROVIDE Project (2006). This SAM (based on 2000 prices) distinguishes 23 sectors, nine household types and four ethnic groups.
Using the multipliers obtained from a SAM, the economic impact of visitor spending is classically estimated by some variation of the following simple formula:
Economic impact of visitors' expenditure = number of visitors × average spending per visitor per category × multiplier
It is also possible to use different levels of aggregation in visitor segments, spending categories, multipliers and economic sectors to fine-tune the data and models to suit a particular application and also to yield more detailed information about the economic impacts. Accordingly, the multipliers compiled for the Mpumalanga and Limpopo economies consist of only nine sectors – (i) agriculture, (ii) mining, (iii) manufacturing, (iv) electricity and water, (v) construction, (vi) trade and accommodation, (vii) transport and communication, (viii) financial and business services and (ix) community services – to reflect the main spending items of visitors to the Kruger Park.
4. Results
The results from the research are discussed in three sections. Section 4.1 provides a brief overview of the descriptive results of the surveys, and Sections 4.2 and 4.3 discuss the results of the economic impact study and the social impact study, respectively.
4.1 Descriptive results of the surveys
4.1.1 Kruger National Park visitors
The participants in the winter 2008 overnight survey were predominantly Afrikaans-speaking and had an average age of 45 years. Most respondents were married and travelled in groups of three to four people. The respondents were mainly from Gauteng and the Western Cape Provinces of South Africa, with international visitors mainly from Australia, France and Germany. A similar pattern was observed for day visitors.
The respondents in the summer overnight survey were again predominantly Afrikaans-speaking (46%), with an average age of 51 years. These visitors again were mainly from Gauteng, but there was an increase in visitors from Mpumalanga during the summer months. The international visitors were from Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and France. The day visitors during the summer survey were predominantly African, with 42% speaking mainly African languages, and most were from Mpumalanga. The international day visitors were mostly from France and the Netherlands.
In the overnight visitor survey, most of the respondents were South Africans in both the winter and summer surveys (93% and 90% respectively). Compared to the SANParks total visitor distribution for the year, the survey is slightly biased towards South Africans. A possible reason for this could be that the months of the survey are traditional holiday periods in South Africa, with more South Africans visiting the Park during this period. During both the winter and the summer surveys, 32% of the respondents were camping, while 68% stayed overnight in chalets. South African campers also tend to stay longer in the Park than any other visitors – averaging more than eight nights.
The day visitor surveys were again dominated by South Africans, with only a limited number of international visitors entering the Park just for the day. The day visitors tend to travel in fairly large groups, since some tour buses include a one-day visit to the Park. The survey further revealed that the South African day visitors are mainly from the two provinces in which the Park lies, and from Gauteng. This is supported by statistics obtained from SANParks, which show that approximately 48% of South African day visitors to the Park were from Limpopo and Mpumalanga during 2008/09.
4.1.2 Community
The respondents who took part in the community survey had spent an average of 19 years living in the area, were on average 35 years old, and 55% were female. Unemployed respondents represented 16%, while 13% held managerial positions and another 13% were sales personnel. A further 13% were students, pensioners or security workers. It is therefore not surprising that the most common level of education was secondary school.
Sixty-two per cent of respondents said they had visited the Park during the year under survey and the average number of visits was almost six times during that year. They cited relaxation, family recreation, an appreciation for wildlife and learning about wildlife as some of their main reasons for visiting the Park.
4.2 Economic impact
4.2.1 Spending in the Kruger National Park area
To derive total visitor expenditure in the Park region, we used visitor numbers. The survey measured spending by day visitors and overnight visitors in and around the Park during their trip. Spending was measured for the entire travel party and then converted from per party trip spending to per party day/night spending using visitors' lengths of stay. Distinct spending profiles were estimated for each of the two visitor trip segments, day and overnight (see ).
Table 2: Total spending by day and overnight visitors at the Kruger National Park (in ZAR)
According to the visitor survey, day visitors to the Park spent on average R756.65 in and around the Park region. Camping groups, on the other hand, spent on average R1124.22 while staying in the Park (see ). The spending by chalet tourists was on average R2470.35 per group, exceeding that of campers. Transport to the Park was excluded from the analysis, as it could not be ascertained where the car had been filled with fuel.
presents a breakdown of the activity sectors where expenditure was incurred. According to SANParks, the Kruger Park employs 2421 permanent staff. One item not captured by the questionnaire and the information gathered above is the spending by concessionaires, who employ an additional 407 people. They pay a concession fee to SANParks, and since the data gathered from the respondents did not include concessionaire camps, it had to be accounted for separately. In total, SANParks received R37 million from concessionaires. To allocate this income to spending items, we distributed it across the various operating cost categories of the Kruger Park according to the percentage that each of the spending items contributed to total spending by the Park.
4.2.2 Secondary and total economic impact
As indicated above, multipliers convert expenditure into the associated increase in production, jobs and income and estimate secondary effects as the visitor spending (day and overnight) circulates through the regional economy. To do this, it is necessary to ‘correct’ the direct impact (i.e. expenditure figures in ) by the multiplier effect (refer to Column 2 in to ).
Table 3: Foreign visitors' impact through production multipliers (ZAR, 2000 prices)
4.2.3 Foreign expenditure
The direct, indirect and induced impact on the Mpumalanga and Limpopo economies of foreign spending by day visitors, camping and chalet tourists at the Park is summarised in . This table also reflects the effects on production (using the production multipliers) of foreign expenditure resulting from the Park on these two economies.
The spending by foreign day visitors in 2009 was mostly on tourist activities. It is clear from that the largest direct impact was in trade and accommodation (41.5%) and financial and business services (35.2%). Through the ‘backward linkages’, large indirect and induced impacts were also experienced in the transport and communication sector.
The spending by foreign camping tourists in 2008/09 was more evenly spread across different activities than the spending by day visitors and chalet tourists (see ). It is clear from that the largest direct impact was in trade and accommodation (59.9%), financial and business services (16.5%) and manufacturing (13.3%). Through the ‘backward linkages’, large indirect and induced impacts were experienced in the construction sector.
Finally, the spending by foreign chalet tourists in 2009 was, like that of the day visitors, predominantly on tourist activities. From it can be seen that the largest direct impact was in trade and accommodation (71.1%) and manufacturing (10.9%). Through the ‘backward linkages’, large indirect and induced impacts were seen in the electricity and water sector.
4.2.4 South Africa's expenditure
The ‘corrected’ spending at the Park by day visitors, camping and chalet tourists hailing from South Africa was estimated using a similar approach to that used to estimate the spending by foreign visitors. Using the production multipliers, illustrates how this spending affected production in the Mpumalanga and Limpopo economies, showing the direct, indirect and induced impacts.
Table 4: South African visitors' impact through production multipliers (ZAR, 2000 prices)
shows that the largest direct impacts from expenditure by local day visitors were quite evenly distributed between the trade and accommodation (31%), transport and communication (27.7%) and financial and business services (25.1%) sectors. Through the ‘backward linkages’, large indirect and induced impacts were experienced in the transport and communication sector.
The largest direct impacts from expenditure by local camping tourists were in trade and accommodation (69.6%), transport and communication (12.1%) and manufacturing (11.3%). The ‘backward linkages’ show that large indirect and induced impacts were experienced in the trade and accommodation sector.
also shows that the largest direct impacts from expenditure by local chalet tourists were predominantly in the trade and accommodation sector (82.1%). Through the ‘backward linkages’, large indirect and induced impacts were experienced in the transport and communication sector (despite a less significant direct impact).
shows that the largest direct impact from concession fees was predominantly in the financial and business services sector (70%). Through the ‘backward linkages’, large indirect and induced impacts were experienced in the transport and communication sector (despite a less significant direct impact). On the basis of the data collected, we estimated that the direct impact of concessionaires' fees in the region might exceed R28.6 million.
Table 5: Impact of concessionaires' fees through production multipliers (ZAR, 2000 prices)
4.2.5 Overall impact
Multiplying the direct impact in each activity sector for the specific production multipliers gives the total impact of the visitor spending at the Park for the economies of Mpumalanga and Limpopo combined (see ).
Table 6: Total impact of (day and overnight) visitor spending at the Kruger National Park on production in Limpopo and Mpumalanga
The analysis of the results indicates that the direct economic impact of the Park and its visitors in the region (which is in the order of R953.7 million), can result in an additional R1131.9 million of indirect and induced impact, giving a total annual impact in the region in excess of R2085.6 million. That is equivalent to an aggregated production multiplier in the order of 2.19. Therefore, for each rand spent by visitors in the region, 119 cents are generated additionally in terms of indirect expenditure. The aggregated production multiplier is obtained by dividing the total impact by the direct impact.
One of the elements of the additional value added that will result from the visitor spending at the Park is remuneration of employees, which in turn affects household income. The household income multiplier thus measures the magnitude of changes that will occur both to household income and to spending and saving patterns. In particular, the impact on low-income households can be highlighted, as this can be used as to indicate how much the Park contributes to poverty alleviation throughout the provincial economies of Mpumalanga and Limpopo.
Using the same SAM for the Mpumalanga and Limpopo economies, it was thus possible to estimate the impact of total visitor spending at the Park at the level of families' income. To do this, specific household income multipliers were calculated for each activity sector and these were then multiplied by the value of the total impact of the sector (see ).
Table 7: Impact of (day and overnight) visitor spending at the Kruger National Park on the income of Mpumalanga and Limpopo families
The aggregated income multiplier, valued at 0.54, can be interpreted as the increment of the Mpumalanga and Limpopo families' income for each rand of spending by visitors in the Park region. The authors estimate that currently a total of R1101 million of remunerations in Mpumalanga and Limpopo would not have been made annually if the Park did not exist (see ).
Labour is a key element of the production process. This indicator measures job creation and reveals how much each sector contributes to creating employment opportunities and, ultimately, to distributing salaries and wages between various types of labourers, which, in turn, should have a positive impact on the economy of the two provinces (see ).
Table 8: Impact at the level of employment
Finally, using the values presented in it is also possible to estimate the impact of visitor spending at the Park at the level of jobs in the Mpumalanga and Limpopo provinces. On the basis of figures from the Mpumalanga and Limpopo SAM, and using data on the labour force per province relative to the business volume and jobs per activity sector in South Africa for 2006, it was possible to estimate the impact of visitor spending at the Park on the provinces' job level, as shown in . The table shows that 7319 job positions may depend on visitors to the Park, in addition to the number of people permanently employed by the Park. Consequently, the absence of visitors to the Park would have implied a reduction of 7319 jobs in the provinces, and a reduction in the number of positions or employees (2828 including concessionaires) directly involved. The most affected sectors in the absence of the Park would have been trade and accommodation and manufacturing.
4.3 Social impact
Our analysis of the social impact of visitors to the Kruger Park suggests that the community view the Park as an asset, with 39% indicating that it had a very positive effect on their personal quality of life, and only 1% indicating that it had a very negative effect. A similar pattern was observed when the effect on the community's quality of life was assessed. Again, 39% felt that the Park had a very positive effect on enhancing the community's quality of life, while only 2% indicated that the community was very negatively affected. The positive aspects of the Park that were cited included its importance for conservation, nature and wildlife preservation, and for increasing economic activity and creating jobs due to tourism. On the negative side, the threat posed by dangerous animals that escape was a real concern, while the negative aspects associated with increased tourism, such as overcrowding and the pressure on prices, were also recognised.
shows the results of the survey of the community's perceptions of the social and economic implications of the Park for their lives. It is evident that they saw the Park in a positive light, with 89% saying that it supported the community and culture in the area, 88% that it improved their province's reputation, and 84% that it improved awareness of the importance of nature and wildlife, while promoting good values to the community. They also saw the Park as being very accessible to members of the community. On the other hand, they did not see the community as being positively involved in Park management, and it appears that the Park did not provide much financial support for community activities.
Table 9: Social impact statements
The community also recognised that the increased tourism activity in the area had had a positive effect on their economies, with 80% saying the Park helped to stimulate economic activity and 76% saying that the existence of the Park promoted business development in the area. However, they also identified the negative aspects that are associated with the increase in tourism activity, such as the increase in the prices of goods and services, and thus also their cost of living in the area.
5. Findings and implications
The results of this study make it clear that the Kruger National Park has a significant impact in terms of its social as well as economic mandate. From an economic point of view, the Park attracts large numbers of visitors whose spending generates in excess of R2 billion annually. This corroborates the finding by Saayman & Saayman Citation(2006a) that the Kruger Park generated approximately R1.5 billion from visitor spending in 2003. This Park generates significantly more income than any other park in South Africa, with the sectors that benefit most being trade and accommodation, manufacturing and financial and business services.
The results also show that chalet visitors spend significantly more than camping visitors, even though campers tend to stay longer in the Park. This corroborates the finding by Saayman & Saayman Citation(2010) that type of accommodation has an influence on the magnitude of the overall economic impact in conservation tourism. The results furthermore show that the total spending by foreigners in the three categories, chalet visitors, campers and day visitors, fails to reach the levels of their South African counterparts. This contradicts the common belief that foreign tourists are more important than domestic tourists for the economic sustainability of tourism attractions and emphasises the importance of South African tourists at the Kruger Park.
The Park stretches over two of South Africa's provinces that contributed only 6.8% each to South Africa's GDP during 2006 (Stats SA, 2007), which means that it is responsible for approximately 1.5% of all economic activity in these two provinces. The total contribution of the Park to both provincial economies is comparable to that of the construction industry in either of the provinces. It also contributes more, in total, than the agricultural industry or electricity and water services in Limpopo.
When it comes to job creation, ecotourism activities in the Kruger Park are responsible for approximately 10 150 jobs in the region, of which most are in the trade and accommodation sectors, followed by the manufacturing and financial and business services. Given that the average household size was 4.3 in Limpopo and 3.9 in Mpumalanga during the 2007 community survey (RSA, 2008), the Park provides livelihoods for approximately 41 500 people, which is approximately 0.5% of all the people in these two provinces. In the light of the fact that 34% of the population of Limpopo and 28% of the population of Mpumalanga live below the poverty line of R250 per month (RSA, 2008), it is not surprising that the community sees the Park as fulfilling its role of job creator in the region, and as being responsible for new business developments and thus increased economic activity in an otherwise underdeveloped rural area.
As regards its social mandate, the Park is seen as having a positive impact on the quality of life for its surrounding communities. Residents regard the Park as an asset and acknowledge its economic, environmental, conservation and social value, thereby corroborating the findings of research by Mbaiwa Citation(2005) and Simelane et al. Citation(2006). However, our study showed that the negative social aspects associated with national parks in the rest of the world are also evident at the Kruger. These include the threat of wild animals to livestock and human life, cited also by Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau Citation(2006) and Adams & Hutton Citation(2007), and the negative consequences of increased tourism, in the form of price increases and overcrowding, as acknowledged by Saayman & Saayman Citation(2010). In addition, our study supported the finding by Simelane et al. Citation(2006) that poorer communities have high expectations of job creation from national parks.
Relocation is not viewed as a social issue by the communities, and this therefore contradicts findings by Cernea & Schmidt-Soltau Citation(2006) who identified this as a major problem for communities living around conservation areas. Instead, the communities in our study generally viewed the Kruger Park as being accessible to them. A possible reason why relocation issues are not central to the social impact of the Kruger Park, is that this is one of the oldest national parks in the world – already established in 1898 (Venter et al., Citation2008) and proclaimed as a National Park in 1926. Relocations caused by the Kruger Park took place in the early years of the 20th century, and therefore few of the current residents in the area were affected. However, this is becoming an important social issue again with the expansion of the Park into Mozambique and Zimbabwe as a transfrontier park (see Munthali, Citation2007) and with renewed opportunities to reclaim ancestral land in South Africa (Venter et al., Citation2008). Again, our study did not find that this was a matter of concern to the broader local communities.
The social analysis did, however, reveal the community's desire for greater involvement in Park decisions and information dissemination. Streuders Citation(2008) found similar results in a study conducted at the Karoo National Park. The community's plea for better information dissemination was partly motivated by a wish to hear about opportunities to become involved in various Park projects, which could provide them with jobs.
The following are some implications of our findings in this study. Firstly, in terms of community relations, it is imperative that a system be developed to improve information dissemination. SANParks is currently implementing a system of park forums. However, it does not seem to reach the broader community effectively. The information dissemination strategy should include a variety of targets, for example school children (through an ambassador system or conservation clubs), youth, adults and the elderly. The purpose should be to establish greater cooperation and to invite members of the community to become more actively involved in job creation projects and conservation activities, such as honorary guides.
Secondly, to address the fears about wild animals escaping and causing harm to livestock and humans, greater cooperation with the community is again paramount. A system (such as a mobile phone number to which problems can be reported) to make it possible for concerned residents to report incidents involving wild animals and fence ruptures could aid in improving safety and fence maintenance, to the benefit of both the Park and the local communities.
Thirdly, in terms of marketing policy, domestic visitors should take priority over foreign visitors. This approach is relevant if SANParks is to achieve its goals. Again, a diversified approach is required, with tourists staying in chalets being the primary market, followed by campers and then day visitors.
Fourthly, product development again requires greater cooperation between the Park and community to ensure that business activity is stimulated in the area, with the accompanying increase in employment opportunities. Not only will this strategy increase community relations, it will also limit leakages and ensure greater economic benefits for all.
6. Conclusions
On the question whether conservation makes sense to local communities, the main findings of this study clearly indicate that it does. The study also showed that conservation can generate significant economic benefits. The Kruger National Park is a useful example or model of how government use protected areas to achieve both conservation goals and economic goals, particularly poverty alleviation. Communities benefit not only financially, through increased economic activity and job creation, but also socially, through improved quality of life and social cohesion.
On the basis of key aspects that distinguish an attraction from a destination (Saayman, Citation2007), it is clear that the Kruger Park is a destination, since it offers a variety of activities and accommodation and can cater for a variety of people in all seasons. The Park has become the lifeline for many businesses in the region and has the potential to expand business opportunities. This study showed that the community acknowledges that it does fulfil this economic role. The influence on business development was not assessed in this study. This is an important aspect of the Park that needs to be addressed in future research, since many private lodges have opened adjacent to the Park and these have had a positive influence on tourism to these provinces.
Further research is needed into the social issues involved in protected areas, such as determining what progress has been made in the matters raised in this study, and proactively investigating the new social issues that will arise with the expansion of the Park.
On the economic side, the method applied in the economic impact analysis in this study could usefully be expanded to CGE modelling, since some of the negative feedback effects are indeed felt by the local community. Of these, the most notable are price increases due to demand pressures caused by tourism. In addition, it would be useful to determine the economic and social benefits pertaining to a transfrontier park, where more countries are involved.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Glenn Phillips and Joep Stevens of SANParks for data and financial assistance, and the National Research Foundation for financial support. Any errors or omissions remain the responsibility of the authors.
Notes
1According to Roland-Holst & Sancho Citation(1995), SAMs have been used extensively in the decomposition of activity multipliers that shed light on the circular flow of income (see for example Stone, Citation1981; Defourny & Thorbecke, 1984; Pyatt & Round, Citation1985; Robinson & Roland-Holst, Citation1988).
References
- Adams , W M and Hutton , J . 2007 . Review – People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity conservation . Conservation and Society , 5 ( 2 ) : 147 – 83 .
- Akama , J S and Kieti , D . 2007 . Tourism and socioeconomic development in developing countries: A case study of Mombasa Resort in Kenya . Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 15 ( 6 ) : 735 – 48 .
- Cernea , M M and Schmidt-Soltau , K . 2006 . Poverty risks and national parks: Policy issues in conservation and resettlement . World Development , 34 ( 10 ) : 1808 – 30 .
- Defourney , J and Thorbecke , E . 1984 . Structural path analysis and multiplier decomposition within a social accounting matrix framework . The Economic Journal , 94 : 111 – 36 .
- Dwyer , L , Forsyth , P and Spurr , R . 2004 . Evaluating tourism's economic effects: New and old approaches . Tourism Management , 25 : 307 – 17 .
- Engelbrecht , W G and Van der Walt , PT . 1993 . Notes on the economic use of the Kruger National Park . Koedoe , 36 ( 2 ) : 113 – 20 .
- Ferreira , M . 2008 . “ The socioeconomic impact of tourism in the Karoo National Park ” . In MCom thesis , Potchefstroom : North-West University .
- Frechtling , D C and &Horváth , E . 1999 . Estimating the multiplier effects of tourism expenditures on a local economy through a regional input–output model . Journal of Travel Research , 37 ( 4 ) : 324 – 32 .
- Goodwin , H . 2002 . Local community involvement in tourism around national parks: Opportunities and constraints . Current Issues in Tourism , 5 ( 3/4 ) : 338 – 60 .
- Israel , G D . 2009 1992 . Determining sample size . www.edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/pd/pd00600.pdf Accessed 22 March 2010
- Mahoney , K and Van Zyl , J . 2002 . The impacts of tourism investment on rural communities: Three case studies in South Africa . Development Southern Africa , 19 ( 1 ) : 83 – 103 .
- Mbaiwa , J E . 2003 . The socioeconomic and environmental impacts of tourism development on the Okavango Delta, north-western Botswana . Journal of Arid Environments , 54 ( 2 ) : 447 – 64 .
- Mbaiwa , J E . 2004 . The socioeconomic impacts and challenges of a community-based safari hunting tourism in the Okawango Delta, Botswana . Journal of Tourism Studies , 15 ( 2 ) : 37 – 50 .
- Mbaiwa , J E . 2005 . Enclave tourism and its socioeconomic impacts in the Okavango . Delta. Botswana. Tourism Management , 26 : 157 – 72 .
- Motlhanke , S G . 2005 . “ The socioeconomic impacts of nature-based tourism: The case study of Bakgatla ba-ga Kgafela in the Pilanesberg National Park ” . In Research report for Master's of Arts, Faculty of Humanities , Johannesburg : University of the Witwatersrand . http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/254/dissertation.pdf?sequence=2 Accessed 3 July 2012
- Munthali , S M . 2007 . Transfrontier conservation areas: Integrating biodiversity and poverty alleviation in southern Africa . National Resources Forum , 31 : 51 – 60 .
- Oberholzer , S , Saayman , M , Saayman , A and Slabbert , E . The socioeconomic impact of Africa's oldest marine park . Paper presented at the Coastal & Marine Tourism Congress (CMT) . June 24–25 , Port Elizabeth , South Africa.
- Phillips , A . 1998 . Economic values of protected areas: Guidelines for protected area managers . www.unpei.org/PDF/policyandprogrammes/Economic-values-Protected-areas.pdf Accessed 18 June 2008
- PROVIDE . 2006 . Compiling national, multiregional and regional Social Accounting Matrices for South Africa . PROVIDE Technical Paper 2006, 1. www.elsenburg.com/provide/ Accessed 3 July 2012
- Pyatt , G and Round , J I . 1985 . “ SAMs: A Basis for Planning ” . Washington, DC : World Bank .
- Ratz , T . 2000 . “ Residents' perceptions of the socio-cultural impact of tourism at Lake Balaton, Hungary ” . In Tourism and Sustainable Community Development , Edited by: Richards , G and Hall , D . 36 – 47 . London/New York : Routledge .
- Robinson , S and Roland-Holst , D W . 1988 . Macroeconomic structure and computable general equilibrium models . Journal of Policy Modeling , 10 ( 3 ) : 353 – 75 .
- Roland-Holst , D W and Sancho , F . 1995 . Modeling price in a SAM structure . The Review of Economics and Statistics , 77 ( 2 ) : 361 – 71 .
- RSA (Republic of South Africa) . 2008 . “ Development Indicators 2008 ” . Republic of South Africa, Pretoria : The Presidency .
- Saayman , M . 2007 . En Route with Tourism , 3 , Potchefstroom : Leisure C Publications .
- Saayman , M and Saayman , A . 2006a . Estimating the contribution of visitor spending in the Kruger National Park to the regional economy . Journal for Sustainable Tourism , 14 ( 1 ) : 67 – 81 .
- Saayman , M and Saayman , A . 2006b . Creating a framework to assess the economic contribution of national parks in South Africa: The case study of the Addo Elephant National Park . Tourism Economics , 12 ( 4 ) : 619 – 33 .
- Saayman , A and Saayman , M . 2010 . Regional development and national parks in South Africa: Lessons learned . Tourism Economics , 16 ( 4 ) : 1037 – 64 .
- Saayman , M , Saayman , A and Ferreira , M . 2009 . The socioeconomic impact of the Karoo National Park . Koedoe , 51 ( 1 ) : 1 – 10 .
- Samuelsson , E and Stage , J . 2007 . The size and distribution of the economic impacts of Namibian hunting tourism . South African Journal of Wildlife Research , 37 ( 1 ) : 41 – 52 .
- Schwer , R K , Gazel , R and Daneshvary , R . 2000 . Air-tour impacts: The Grand Canyon case . Annals of Tourism Research , 27 ( 3 ) : 611 – 23 .
- Simelane , T S , Kerley , GIH and Knight , M H . 2006 . Reflections on the relationships between communities and conservation areas of South Africa: The case of five South African national parks . Koedoe , 49 ( 2 ) : 85 – 102 .
- Simpson , M C . 2008 . Community Benefit Tourism Initiatives: A conceptual oxymoron? Tourism Management . 29 : 1 – 18 .
- South Africa Rent . 2010 . Map of Kruger National Park . www.southafricarent.co.za/Media/Site/Pictures/limpopo-map.gif Accessed 25 March 2010
- Standish , B , Boting , A , Van Zyl , H , Leiman , T and Trupie , J . 2004 . “ The economic contribution of Table Mountain National Park ” . In Graduate School of Business , University of Cape Town .
- Stats SA (Statistics South Africa) . 2007 . “ Statistical Release P0441 ” . Stats SA , , Pretoria : Gross Domestic Product .
- Streuders , C . 2008 . “ Communication efficacy of South African National Parks: A case study of Karoo National Park ” . North West University, Potchefstroom : MCom thesis .
- Stone , R . 1981 . “ Aspects of Economic and Social Modelling ” . Geneva : Librairie Droz .
- Taylor , C N , Gough , JD , Warren , J and McClintock , W . 1999 . Social and economic impacts of the Kahurangi National Park. Science for Conservation 119 , Wellington , , New Zealand : Department of Conservation .
- Van der Merwe, LH . 2008 . “ The socioeconomic impact of the Klein Karoo National Arts Festival ” . In MCom thesis , Potchefstroom : North-West University .
- Vaughan , D R , Farr , H and Slee , R W . 2000 . Estimating and interpreting the local economic benefits of visitor spending: An explanation . Leisure Studies , 19 ( 2 ) : 95 – 118 .
- Venter , F J , Naiman , RJ , Biggs , H C and Pienaar , DJ . 2008 . The evolution of conservation management philosophy: Science, environmental change and social adjustments in Kruger National Park . Ecosystems , 11 : 173 – 92 .
- West , P , Igoe , J and Brockington , D . 2006 . Parks and people: The social impact of protected areas . The Annual Review of Anthropology , 35 : 14.1 – 14.27 .
- Zhou , D , Yanagida , J F , Chakravorty , U and Lueng , P . 1997 . Estimating economic impacts from tourism . Annals of Tourism Research , 24 ( 1 ) : 76 – 89 .