Exploring the use of visitor surveys as a tool for supporting EIA follow-up in protected areas: a case study of a conference centre in an iconic national park

References

• Aggarwal P, Agarwala T. 2022. Relationship of green human resource management with environmental performance: mediating effect of green organizational culture. Benchmarking: Int J. 30(7):2351–2376. doi: 10.1108/BIJ-08-2021-0474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alberts RC, Retief FP, Roos C, Cilliers DC, Hauptfleisch M. 2021. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) effectiveness in protected areas. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 38(5):358–367. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2020.1734403.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Caldwell P, Morrison-Saunders A. 2001. Environmental impact assessment follow-up: good practice and future directions — findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 conference. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 19(3):175–185. doi: 10.3152/147154601781767014.
   Google Scholar
• Arts J, Morrison-Saunders A. 2022. Impact assessment follow-up: international best practice principles. Special Publication Series No. 6. Fargo (USA): International Association of Impact Assessment; [accessed 14 Nov 2023]. https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SP6_22%20Follow%20up_converted.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bice S, Moffat K. 2014. Social licence to operate and impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32(4):257–262. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.950122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boley BB, McGehee NG, Hammett ALT. 2017. Importance-performance analysis (IPA) of sustainable tourism initiatives: The resident perspective. Tourism Manage. 58(2017):66–77. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.002.
   Google Scholar
• Boutilier RG. 2014. Frequently asked questions about the social licence to operate. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32(4):263–272. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.941141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper D, Schindler P. 2011. Business research methods. 11th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Craigie F, Snijman P, Fourie M. 2009. Dissecting environmental compliance and enforcement. In: Paterson A Kotzé L, eds. Environmental compliance and enforcement in South Africa – legal perspectives. Cape Town: JUTA Law; p. 65–102.
   Google Scholar
• Dare ML, Schirmer J, Vanclay F. 2014. Community engagement and social licence to operate. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32(3):188–197. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.927108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dipper B, Jones C, Wood C. 1998. Monitoring and post-auditing in Environmental Impact Assessment: A Review. J Environ Plann Manage. 41(6):731–747. doi: 10.1080/09640569811399.
   Google Scholar
• Duarte CG, Dibo APA, Siqueira-Gay J, Sánchez LE. 2017. Practitioners’ perceptions of the Brazilian environmental impact assessment system: results from a survey. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 35(4):293–309. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2017.1322813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feris L. 2006. Compliance notices – a new tool in environmental enforcement. Potch Electronic Journal. 9(3):53–70. doi: 10.17159/1727-3781/2006/v9i3a2824.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin M. 2004. Constructing and interpreting qualitative data. In: Bond A, editor. Writing your master’s thesis: how to plan, draft, develop and publish your thesis. Somerset: Studymates Ltd; p. 21–34.
   Google Scholar
• Hill RC. 2000. Integrated environmental management systems in the implementation of projects. S Afr J Sci. 96:50–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homes of Africa. n.d. Some interesting facts of the Kruger Park. [accessed 9 Apr 2024]. https://homesofafrica.com/krugerpark/facts/.
   Google Scholar
• International Association for Impact Assessment [IAIA]. 1999. Principles of environmental impact assessment best practise. [accessed 20 Febr 2022]. https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/principlesEA_1.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement [INECE]. 2009. Principles of environmental enforcement handbook. National Service Centre for Environmental Publications (NSCEP); [accessed 8 Dec 2021]. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1005AO9.PDF?Dockey=P1005AO9.PDF, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Kolhoff AJ, Runhaar HAC, Gugushvili T, Sonderegger G, Van der Leest B, Driessen PPJ. 2016. The influence of actor capacities on EIA system performance in low and middle income countries – cases from Georgia and Ghana. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 57:167–177. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee YC, Yen TM, Tsai C-H. 2008. Modify IPA for quality improvement: Taguchi’s signal-to-noise ration approach. Tqm J. 20(5):488–501. doi: 10.1108/17542730810898458.
   Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Luo X, Fu W. 2022. Does China’s real-name system improve or reduce residents’ willingness to participate in environmental impact assessments? Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 40(5):411–422. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2102881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macintosh A. 2010. The Australian Government’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime: using surveys to identify proponent views on cost- effectiveness. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 28(3):175–188. doi: 10.3152/146155110X12772982841168.
   Google Scholar
• Martinez C, Franks DM. 2014. Does mining company-sponsored community development influence social licence to operate? Evidence from private and state-owned companies in Chile. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32(4):294–303. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.929783.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffat K, Zhang A. 2014. The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resour Policy. 39:61–70. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2013.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders and Arts. 2012. Assessing impact: handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J. 2004. Assessing impact: handbook of EIA and SEA follow-up. London [(UK)]: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, et al. 2024. Guidance for implementing the impact assessment follow-up international best practice principles. Reference and guidance documents. Fargo (USA): International Association for Impact Assessment; [accessed 15 Apr 2024]. https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/Guidance%20for%20Followup%20Best%20Practice%20Principles.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, Bond A, Pope J, Retief F. 2021. Reflecting on, and revising, international best practice principles for EIA follow-up. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 89(2021):106596. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106596.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Arts J, Pope J, Bond A, Retief F. 2023. Distilling best practice principles for public participation in impact assessment follow-up. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 41(1):48–58. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2022.2119527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Baker J, Arts J. 2003. Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 20(1):43–56. doi: 10.3152/147154603781766527.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Hughes M, Pope J, Douglas A, Wessels JA. 2019. Understanding visitor expectations for responsible tourism in an iconic national park: differences between local and international visitors. J Ecotourism. 18(3):284–294. doi: 10.1080/14724049.2019.1567740.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders A, Sadler B. 2010. The art and science of impact assessment: results of a survey of IAIA members. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 28(1):77–82. doi: 10.3152/146155110X488835.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons R, Moffat K. 2014. Integrating impact and relational dimensions of social licence and social impact assessment. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32(4):273–282. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.936107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto E, Morrison-Saunders A, Bond A, Pope J, Retief F. 2019. Distilling and applying criteria for best practice EIA follow-up. J Environ Assess Policy Manage. 21(2):1950008–1–32. doi: 10.1142/S146433321950008X.
   Google Scholar
• Pope J, Wessels JA, Douglas A, Hughes M, Morrison-Saunders A. 2019. The potential contribution of environmental impact assessment (EIA) to responsible tourism: The case of the Kruger National Park. Tour Manag Perspect. 32:100557. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinikainen J, Tolonen H, Borodulin K, Härkänen T, Jousilahti P, Karvanen J, Koskinen S, Kuulasmaa K, Männistö S, Rissanen H, et al. 2018. Participation rates by educational levels have diverged during 25 years in Finnish health examination surveys. Eur J Public Health. 28(2):237–243. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckx151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Republic of South Africa [RSA]. 1998 Nov 27. National environmental management act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998). (Government Notice 1540). Government Gazette 19519.
   Google Scholar
• Republic of South Africa [RSA]. 2014 Dec 4. Environmental impact assessment regulations, 2014. (Government Notice 982). Government Gazette 38282.
   Google Scholar
• RSA (Republic of South Africa). 2017. Amendment to environmental impact assessment regulations, 2014 and listing notices 1, 2 and 3 of 2014. (Proclamation no. R1030.) Government Gazette, 40772. 7 Apr 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Ruckstuhl K, Thompson-Fawcett M, Rae H. 2014. Māori and mining: Indigenous perspectives on reconceptualising and contextualising the social licence to operate. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32(4):304–314. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.929782.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runhaar H, van Laerhoven F, Driessen P, Arts J. 2013. Environmental assessment in the Netherlands: effectively governing environmental protection? A discourse analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 39:13–25. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler B. 1996. International study on effectiveness of environmental assessment: final report —environmental assessment in a changing world: Evaluating practice to improve performance. [accessed 19 Febr 2022]. https://unece.org/DAM/env/eia/documents/StudyEffectivenessEA.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Sandham L, Huysamen C, Retief FP, Morrison-Saunders A, Bond AJ, Pope J, Alberts RC. 2020. Evaluating environmental impact assessment report quality in South African national parks. KOEDOE - African Protected Area Conserv Sci. 62(1):1–9. doi: 10.4102/koedoe.v62i1.1631.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman D. 2005. Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Slabbert L, du Preez EA. 2021. Where did all the visitor research go? A systematic review of application areas in national parks. J Hosp Tour Manag. 49:12–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.08.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• South African Bureau of Standards [SABS]. 2016. SANS 1162: 2016. South African national standard: responsible tourism — requirements. Edition 1.1. ISBN 978-0-626-33759-9.
   Google Scholar
• South African National Parks [SANParks. 2013a. Media release: kNP rangers get pampered for their hard work. Archived News; [12 12 2013. [accessed 20 Febr 2022]. https://www.sanparks.org/parks/kruger/news.php?id=55964%3FPHPSESSID=k3firacp64d7d4t07i11taghi1.
   Google Scholar
• South African National Parks [SANParks]. 2013b. Responsible tourism in SANParks – the journey to 2022. Pretoria: South African National Parks; [accessed 18 Aug 2021]. http://cdn.bdlive.co.za/images/pdf/SanParks_tourism.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Spitzer S. 2020. Biases in health expectancies due to educational differences in survey participation of older Europeans: It’s worth weighting for. Eur J Health Econ. 21(4):573–605. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01152-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong S. 2001. An integrated exploratory approach to examining the relationships of environmental stressors and fish responses. J Aquat Ecosyst Stress Recovery. 9(1):1–19. doi: 10.1023/A:1013184311165.
   Google Scholar
• Wessels JA. 2015. Understanding independent environmental control officers: learning from major South African construction projects [ thesis—PhD]. Potchefstroom: North-West University.
   Google Scholar
• Wessels JA, Douglas A. 2022. Exploring creative tourism potential in protected areas: The Kruger National Park case. J Hosp Tour Res. 46(8):1482–1499. doi: 10.1177/1096348020983532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood C. 1999. Pastiche or Postiche? Environmental Impact Assessment in South Africa. S Afr Geogr J. 81(1):52–59. doi: 10.1080/03736245.1999.9713661.
   Google Scholar
• Wood C. 2003. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearsons Education.
   Google Scholar
• Zvijáková L, Zeleňáková M, Purcz P. 2014. Evaluation of environmental impact assessment effectiveness in Slovakia. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 32(2):150–161. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2014.893124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar