IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cmpart/334753.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Estimating the value of natural characteristics of a National Park: the case of Mokala National Park in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Kriek, Carel Johannes

Abstract

Due to the extreme decimation of species worldwide, there is a need to conserve and protect more natural areas and biodiversity. A way to ensure species' survival across areas, is to rewild a protected area or nature reserve by reintroducing regionally extinct fauna and flora, or removing invasive species. In developing countries, these protected areas are generally underfunded and underdeveloped, and therefore may have limited capacity to conserve the wildlife, and/or rewild the park to its previous natural state. This study utilised a discrete choice experiment to determine the preferences and ‘appreciative value’ tourists place on different natural characteristics of the park, in the context of rewilding. This study analysed the responses of 288 tourists from Mokala National Park in the Northern Cape, South Africa, using online questionnaires. The respondent's preferences were drawn from the completed questionnaires by the tourists who have visited the park since its inception in 2007. The natural characteristics ranged from (1) reintroducing carnivores such as lions or cheetahs back into the park, (2) removing non-native species, whether threatened or non-threatened, and (3) boosting endangered species populations such as roan antelope, black rhino and tsessebe. A latent class model was created to identify heterogeneity in the preferences amongst the sampled population. It was determined that there is heterogeneity and that the sampled tourists had varying preferences to rewild the national park to its previous biological state. Respondents of the four classes, strongly preferred reintroducing cheetahs back into the park above a pride of lions. All classes had significant preference for boosting the numbers of endangered black rhinos compared to the status quo. Only 11.20% of the respondents wanted to completely rewild the park by removing the non-native species and reintroducing all the other species identified. Thus, 88.20% of respondents did not support removing the non-native species regardless of their status, either threatened (sable antelope) or non-threatened (impala, nyala and waterbuck). The results provide a basis that rewilding improvements could be initiated, and better park management policies could be implemented, to attract tourists and more successfully rewild the park . Yet, tourists had an affinity for more species diversity in the park above protecting the natural ecosystem. Further research can be done to expand on whether there is a preference for species based on their status, such as being endangered, iconic, carnivore, or megafauna.

Suggested Citation

  • Kriek, Carel Johannes, 2023. "Estimating the value of natural characteristics of a National Park: the case of Mokala National Park in South Africa," Research Theses 334753, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:334753
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.334753
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334753/files/2023_FinalThesisCJKriek.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.334753?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baral, Nabin & Stern, Marc J. & Bhattarai, Ranju, 2008. "Contingent valuation of ecotourism in Annapurna conservation area, Nepal: Implications for sustainable park finance and local development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 218-227, June.
    2. Pramod Lamsal & Kishor Atreya & Krishna Prasad Pant & Lalit Kumar, 2016. "Tourism and wetland conservation: application of travel cost and willingness to pay an entry fee at Ghodaghodi Lake Complex, Nepal," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(1-2), pages 51-61, February.
    3. Mok, Henry M K & Chan, Patrick P K & Cho, Yiu-sun, 1995. "A Hedonic Price Model for Private Properties in Hong Kong," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 37-48, January.
    4. Verbic, Miroslav & Slabe-Erker, Renata, 2009. "An econometric analysis of willingness-to-pay for sustainable development: A case study of the Volcji Potok landscape area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1316-1328, March.
    5. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Juutinen, Artti & Mitani, Yohei & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Shoji, Yasushi & Siikamäki, Pirkko & Svento, Rauli, 2011. "Combining ecological and recreational aspects in national park management: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1231-1239, April.
    7. Dang Vu, Hoai Nam & Nielsen, Martin Reinhardt & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2022. "Conserving rhinos by legal trade: Insights from a choice experiment with rhino horn consumers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    8. Michael J. Hay & Kenneth E. McConnell, 1979. "An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 55(4), pages 460-471.
    9. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    10. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Boto-García & Petr Mariel & José Baños Pino & Antonio Alvarez, 2022. "Tourists’ willingness to pay for holiday trip characteristics: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Tourism Economics, , vol. 28(2), pages 349-370, March.
    2. Salehnia, Mina & Hayati, Baballah & Ghahremanzadeh, Mohammad & Molaei, Morteza, 2015. "Estimating the Value of Improvement in Lake Urmia’s Environmental Situation Using Choice Experiment," International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development (IJAMAD), Iranian Association of Agricultural Economics, vol. 5(4), December.
    3. Wei Fang & Gloria Rui Gou & Lewis T. O. Cheung & Lincoln Fok & Alice S. Y. Chow & Ke Zhang, 2024. "An Investigation of Willingness to Pay for Geopark Management and Conservation: A Case Study of Geotourists in the Greater China Region," Resources, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Kelley, Hugh & van Rensburg, Thomas M. & Jeserich, Nadine, 2016. "Determinants of demand for recreational walking trails in Ireland," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 173-186.
    5. Guimarães, Maria Helena & Nunes, Luís Catela & Madureira, Lívia & Santos, José Lima & Boski, Tomasz & Dentinho, Tomaz, 2015. "Measuring birdwatchers preferences: A case for using online networks and mixed-mode surveys," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-113.
    6. Ali Ardeshiri & Joffre Swait & Elizabeth C. Heagney & Mladen Kovac, 2019. "Preserve or retreat? Willingness-to-pay for Coastline Protection in New South Wales," Papers 1902.03310, arXiv.org.
    7. Tyrväinen, Liisa & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 4-13.
    8. Estifanos, Tafesse & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2018. "Protection of the Ethiopian Wolf: What are tourists willing to pay for?," Working Papers 272805, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. López-Mosquera, Natalia & Sánchez, Mercedes, 2011. "The influence of personal values in the economic-use valuation of peri-urban green spaces: An application of the means-end chain theory," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 875-889.
    10. Jacobson, Michael & Shr, Yau-Huo & Dalemans, Floris & Magaju, Christine & Ciannella, Rodrigo, 2018. "Using a choice experiment approach to assess production tradeoffs for developing the croton value chain in Kenya," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 76-85.
    11. Balogh, Péter & Török, Áron & Czine, Péter & Horváth, Péter, 2020. "A fogyasztói magatartás elemzése feltételes választási modellekkel - a mangalicakolbász példáján [Analysing consumer behaviour with conditional choice models, with Mangalica sausage as an example]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 474-494.
    12. Chanyul Park & Hwasung Song, 2018. "Visitors’ Perceived Place Value and the Willingness to Pay in an Urban Lake Park," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, November.
    13. Kermagoret, Charlène & Levrel, Harold & Carlier, Antoine & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2016. "Individual preferences regarding environmental offset and welfare compensation: a choice experiment application to an offshore wind farm project," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 230-240.
    14. Ahi, Jülide Ceren & Aanesen, Margrethe & Kipperberg, Gorm, 2023. "Testing the sensitivity of stated environmental preferences to variations in choice architecture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    15. Tokunaga, Kanae & Sugino, Hiroaki & Nomura, Hideaki & Michida, Yutaka, 2020. "Norms and the willingness to pay for coastal ecosystem restoration: A case of the Tokyo Bay intertidal flats," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    16. Chun-Lin Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang & Chun-Hung Lee & Supasit Sriarkarin, 2019. "Evaluating the Public’s Preferences toward Sustainable Planning under Climate and Land Use Change in Forest Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, June.
    17. Kim, Hyerin & Shoji, Yasushi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Aikoh, Tetsuya & Kuriyama, Koichi, 2020. "Understanding services from ecosystem and facilities provided by urban green spaces: A use of partial profile choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    18. Gosal, Arjan S. & Geijzendorffer, Ilse R. & Václavík, Tomáš & Poulin, Brigitte & Ziv, Guy, 2019. "Using social media, machine learning and natural language processing to map multiple recreational beneficiaries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Yasushi Shoji & Takahiro Tsuge, 2015. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Winter Nature-Based Tours in Sub-Frigid Climate Zones: A Latent Class Approach," Tourism Economics, , vol. 21(2), pages 387-407, April.
    20. Molin, Eric & Kroesen, Maarten, 2022. "Train travel in corona time: Safety perceptions of and support for policy measures," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 196-209.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:cmpart:334753. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.agriculturaleconomics.net .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.