creating a framework to determine the socio economic impact of national parks in south africa a case...

7/26/2019 Creating a Framework to Determine the Socio Economic Impact of National Parks in South Africa a Case Study of

1/15

Tourism Economics, 2006, 12 (4), 619633

Creating a framework to determine the

socio-economic impact of national parks inSouth Africa: a case study of the Addo

Elephant National Park

MELVILLE SAAYMANAND ANDREA SAAYMAN

Melville Saayman is with the Institute for Tourism and Leisure Studies and Andrea

Saayman is with the School of Economics at North-West University, PotchefstroomCampus, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa.

Tel: +27 18 2991810. Fax: +27 18 2994140.

E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected].

National parks in South Africa are seen as major tourism assets, sincewildlife is the biggest draw-card for international visitors to thecountry. Yet little is known of the socio-economic contribution ofthese parks to their respective local economies. The purpose of thisresearch is to develop a framework for assessing the socio-economicimpact of the Addo Elephant National Park in South Africa. Theresults show that the park has a significant impact in terms ofproduction, income generation and employment in the area. Keyresults include a proposed framework for assessing the socio-

economic impact of national parks in a developing country.

Keywords: socio-economic impact; national parks; South Africa

National parks can be seen as paying assets for the economy of South Africa,and they are also major draw-cards for international tourists, over 80% of whom

visit South Africa for a nature experience. As early as 1993, Van der Waltindicated that Kruger National Park, Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, AddoElephant National Park, Golden Gate Highlands and Tsitsikamma NationalPark had demonstrated that conservation actions could generate a great dealof revenue. It is estimated that tourism currently contributes 5% to the GrossDomestic Product of South Africa, and this is expected to increase to 9% by2014 (Garson, 2002). Because tourism forms an important sector of the economy,conservation authorities are under great pressure to develop self-sustaining

programmes and activities and also to justify the benefit that these parks offerto local communities. National parks in South Africa have three fundamentalspheres of focus:


2/15

TOURISM ECONOMICS620

the conservation of a representative sample of the biodiversity of the country; to maintain a relationship of community uplifting and capacity building

among people living in the areas in and around the parks; and to provide a recreational outlet for people to experience and enjoy the

wonders of the parks.

While the main emphasis of the national parks has traditionally been on thefirst objective the conservation of biodiversity the past 20 years have seena shift towards an emphasis on economic sustainability and the uplifting of localcommunities (Myburgh and Saayman, 2002). It is this second objective thattherefore provides the rationale for the research discussed here.

South Africa has some of the greatest protected areas in the world, yet littleis known about the socio-economic impact of these parks. Eadington and

Redman (quoted by Walpole and Goodwin, 2000, p 559) state that tourism,as a development tool, holds many potential economic benefits for hostcommunities, including increased employment opportunities, improved socio-economic conditions and greater market stability than is provided by traditionalcommodity exports. But because most national parks are situated in rural areas,Saayman and Saayman (2004a) express concern about leakages which will reducethe benefit for the local community.

The aim of this research is to estimate the socio-economic contribution ofthe Addo Elephant National Park (AENP) to the surrounding communitiesand, in doing this, to create a framework for similar research. This involves:

estimating the economic impact of AENP on the local economy; estimating the impact of tourism business development in the region and

how tourism businesses and communities benefit from the park; and determining the employment generated as a result of tourism activity due

to the park.

The AENP offers an interesting case study, first, since it was the first Big

Seven park in the world (that is, it contains elephant, rhino, lion, buffalo,leopard, the Southern Right Whale and the Great White Shark). Second, thepark has expanded significantly during the past ten years. Third, with thisexpansion there has been growth in the number of tourism products in the area.And finally, the park is in one of the poorest provinces of South Africa, whichmakes job and income creation projects so much more important.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. First, the differentmethodologies to determine local economic impacts are reviewed. Second, the

methodology used in the paper and the study area is discussed. Third, theresults of the research are explained. Fourth and finally, the framework andpitfalls experienced in this research are reported and conclusions are offered.

Methodological review

Kepe (2001, pp 155156) indicates that ecotourism in local areas is often

promoted because of the notions that there is a strong link between ecotourismand biodiversity protection and that ecotourism can benefit poor ruralcommunities at the locality and also attracts foreign tourism. But measuring


3/15

621The socio-economic impact of national parks

the positive environmental, cultural and economic impact of ecotourism hasproven extremely difficult (see Roe et al, 1997). Akama (1996, pp 571572)confirms that the socio-economic and cultural orientation of local Africans isdifferent from that of conservation officials and Western tourists: their mainfocus is on meeting their subsistence needs and fighting poverty, and thus theycannot afford to regard aesthetic value and conservation as high priorities.

It is not the aim of this research to measure the cost of the park to the localcommunity, but rather to focus on the benefit for the local community. Thisagain highlights the importance of assessing the socio-economic impact ofnational parks in less developed countries. The socio-economic impact thereforegoes further than just assessing the income generated by the park; it alsodemonstrates the contribution of the park to the community. Tayor et al(1999,p 52) indicate that the social impact of a national park includes the shift from

production to service industry, changes in the nature and composition ofemployment in the area, more viable medical and transport services and ageneral change in the lifestyles of the people in the surrounding areas.

Mules (2005, pp 249250) correctly states that, while there have been manystudies on the impact of national parks tourism on state and national economies,few have focused on the economic impact on the local (or nearby) communities.Both Mules and the authors of this paper found few studies focusing on thelocal economic impacts of national parks. These include those by Chalmers and

Wall (1992), which explains the use of the TIEBOUT computer program tomodel the local economic impacts of expenditure in national parks in Canada;Goodwin (2002), which examines local communities in Indonesia, India,Zimbabwe and the Philippines; Walpole and Goodwin (2000), which measuresthe local economic impact of dragon tourism in Indonesia; Vaughan et al(2000),which estimates the local economic benefits of visitor spending in ExmoorNational Park in the UK; and Mules (2005), which models the local economicimpact of visitor spending in the Kosciuszko National Park in Australia. In

addition to these cited articles, the research by Gelan (2003) on the localeconomic impacts of the British Open is also a useful source on the methodology ofmeasuring local economic impacts.

Gelan (2003) indicates that there are three controversial issues which needto be addressed when determining the economic impact of an event: (a) whichspending to include, (b) the spatial area under evaluation and (c) whatmultiplier to use.

The first issue, whether or not to include spending by locals, has attractedmuch attention. Gelan (2003, p 409) cautions that including all expenditure

without distinguishing between tourist and other expenditure can lead toinflated results. Crompton (1999) states that local spending can be includedin the analysis if the locals are visiting the location instead of holidayingelsewhere.

Wang (1997) includes in his analysis both expenditure by the establishment(in his case a zoo) and visitor expenditure to get a true reflection of the overalleconomic benefit of the establishment. The TIEBOUT model supports this viewand divides expenditure in the local economy into three parts local

consumption, investment and exports. It is argued that the income effects resultfrom expenditure due to local consumption and that these expenditures consistof both direct spending on the park by outside agencies and the distribution


4/15


of these expenditures, as well as visitor expenditure (Chalmers and Wall,1992).

The second issue of importance is the spatial area under evaluation. Toexclude any ambiguity, the area under evaluation should be clearly defined andlimited to capture the true effect of the park on the local community. This hasalso been proposed by researchers such as Walpole and Goodwin (2000).

The third issue, the appropriate multiplier to use, is even more controversial.One of the greatest problems lies in determining the value of the appropriatemultiplier to use. Various methods can be used to generate economicmultipliers: the most popular tool for such an analysis is an inputoutput model(Hughes, 2003). The inputoutput model aims to trace and describe howtourism expenditures are distributed throughout a region (Brown et al, 2002).Ryan and Lockyer (2001) describe the inputoutput model as follows:

inputoutput analysis requires very detailed data about the transactionsbetween various sectors of the economy and about each sectors purchases ofimports, their payments to factors of productions, their level of employment,their sales to each of the other sectors and to exports, the public sector anddomestic consumption.

Walpole and Goodwin (2000) conclude that large-scale techniques are often

inappropriate for determining the local economic impacts of national parks andprotected areas, for which significant data are often unavailable. They proposethe use of direct estimation from primary sources, obtained through surveys ofbusinesses (supply-side) and tourists (demand-side) to determine the magnitudeand distribution of revenue and employment generated by tourism activity. Thisis also the approach proposed by Vaughan et al (2000), who use survey datato perform a proportional multiplier analysis in which the modified form ofinputoutput analysis and traditional Keynesian multiplier analysis are com-

bined. To calculate the multiplier, one can either make use of iterations ormatrix inversion. Matrix inversion is a mathematical procedure that forms thebasis of inputoutput modelling. When used in a proportional multiplieranalysis, the inputoutput model is derived from survey data, rather than beingbased on local/regional estimates derived from national data. The result is amuch smaller matrix for example, 5-by-5 or up to 10-by-10. The value (5or 10) represents the number of sectors included for example, manufacturing,wholesale, retail, construction and utilities. For this reason the proportionalmultiplier analysis is often referred to as a reduced set, or partial inputoutput

procedure (Vaughan et al, 2000).Mules (2005) also uses a visitor survey and supplements the analysis by using

New South Wales inputoutput tables to derive estimates of economic impacts.No regional or partial inputoutput model is constructed, but the regionalimpacts are derived using the state inputoutput model.

Research method

The above discussion highlights three aspects that must be addressed in themethodology when estimating economic impacts: which spending to include,


5/15


Figure 1. Area under investigation.

the study area and the determination of the multiplier. This research addressedthese issues as follows.

First, the approach of Wang (1997) and Chalmers and Wall (1992) wasfollowed, and both park expenditure and expenditure by visitors were assessedin determining the economic value of the AENP for the region. Only overnightvisitors were included in the research and the strict definition of a tourist wasthus applied.

Second, this research was limited to the Addo Elephant National Park. Thepark had its humble beginnings in 1931, when a small parcel of land (onlysome 2,237 ha) was set aside to protect the persecuted African elephantpopulation in the region. The park is situated near the Sundays River in the

region of the Eastern Cape of the Republic of South Africa (see Figure 1). Since1931, the park has grown to 125,000 ha and there are plans to extend it to492,000 ha in the near future (AENP, 2004, p 1). The elephant population hassince grown from only 11 to 380, and has gained worldwide recognition (Hall-Martin, 2003, pp 117119). Other animal species in the park include the BigSeven, a variety of antelope species and the unique flightless dung beetle, foundalmost exclusively in Addo. The park is also home to a vast variety of birdspecies (AENP, 2004, p 1).

The local economy is defined as the 30 km radius around AENP (also appliedby Walpole and Goodwin, 2000). This area was chosen for practical reasons if a larger radius were used, densely populated areas (the city of Port Elizabeth)


6/15


would then be included, as would industrial sites and harbours: these aresupported by large industries and therefore would cause deviations in thecalculations. If a smaller radius were used, there would not be sufficient datato support the study. The statistics for towns such as Patterson, Kirkwood andAlicedale were used because they are representative of the largest populatedareas in the region.

Concerning the third issue, the appropriate multiplier, this research made useof the methodology proposed by Gelan (2003) and Vaughan etal (2000). Noregional inputoutput table is available for the study area; the structure of therural economy does not represent the national economy and so the nationalinputoutput model cannot be used. Therefore, surveys and a proportionalmultiplier analysis are utilized in this research.

Two surveys were conducted a visitor survey and a business survey. The

aim of the visitor survey was to record visitor expenditure data and keycharacteristics of the visitors. The survey was conducted in December 2004 andthe results were compared with similar surveys conducted since 2002. Allwilling visitors to the park over four nights in December completed thequestionnaire a total of 82 were administered, which represents 4.1% of thevisitor groups during the month of December. Limited accommodation units,unwillingness to complete the questionnaire and budgetary implications madeit difficult to administer more questionnaires.

During December 2004 all businesses located in the study area (at least thosewhich were marked in such a way that they could be recognized as businesses)were surveyed. This survey included the Addo Elephant National Park and thebusinesses located within its borders. The aim was to determine the linkagesbetween businesses in the area, a breakdown of business expenses and therelationship between turnover and the income and size of the workforce. Whilethe information sought was of a sensitive nature, a written statement tobusinesses from SANParks (the national parks management agency) helped in

the collection of the data. Eighty-three business questionnaires wereinterviewer-administered, but since there are a number of establishments thatare conglomerate businesses (for example, a petrol station, retailer andtake-away), the number of businesses (103) exceeded the number of question-naires.

Results

The results are discussed below in three sections: the partial inputoutputmodel for the study region; the output and income generated by the park; andemployment and business development due to the park.

Partial inputoutput model for the study region

The information obtained through the business survey was used to construct

a reduced set or partial inputoutput model for the study area. The partialinputoutput model is an 8-by-8 transaction matrix (transposed into a technicalcoefficient matrix or A-matrix), with the eight sectors included in the model


7/15


being accommodation; curios; restaurants; tourism services; retail; transport;wholesale; and manufacturing.

To obtain a clearer picture of the area economy, the remuneration for labour,profits, indirect taxes and each sectors intermediate imports was also includedin the model. This gives an indication of the income distribution within thelocal economy as well as leakages (imports and taxes) to neighbouring regions.

Both the technical conditions pertaining to inputoutput analysis weresatisfied by the model. The first of these is the non-singular condition, whichmust be valid before the inverse of a matrix can be determined. The other isthe HawkinsSimon Stability Condition, which tests the economic validity ofthe technical coefficients.

This leads us to have reasonable confidence in the model produced by thesurvey and the method employed. Another economically satisfying result is that

the ratio of primary inputs to intermediary input seems reasonable for allsectors. Again, this is something that adds to confidence in the model.

Income generated

To estimate the contribution of the park in terms of output and incomegenerated in the area, this research follows the approach suggested by Wang(1997) and includes both visitor spending and operating expenditure by the

park.First, concerning the level of Park expenditure, the 2003 figures were usedas a proxy since the 2004 figures for expenditure by the AENP were notavailable at the time. This amounted to R23,312,635 (about 2.9 million).

Secondly, the total value of tourist expenditure in the park was determined.Since the 2004 arrival figures were not available at the time, it was assumedthat the growing trend in people who were camping (9.15%) would continue,but since unit occupancy levels were above 90% in 2003, the same level of unitoccupancy was assumed. This translated into 18,728 unit nights sold and14,509 campers visiting the park during 2004. To determine the magnitudeof visitor spending, these figures were used as proxies for visitor numbers indifferent categories.

Since unit nights already exclude the problem of spending per person versusspending per group, only the number of campers was divided by the averagegroup size for campers (3.2) to estimate the number of camper groups. Accord-ing to this method, 4,534 camper groups visited the park in 2004.

Table 1 presents the calculations of the magnitude of visitor spending,

making use of the above estimates and the average spending per visitor group,as determined by the visitor survey.

As suggested by Vaughan et al (2000), two methods can be employed in aproportional multiplier analysis to determine the impact on the local economy:iteration and matrix inversion. This research used the second method, matrixinversion, which produced the following results. In terms of output, oneadditional tourist (change in demand) in each category creates the additionaloutput shown in Table 2. The multipliers created by the matrix inversion

process are in line with previous estimates of South African rural outputmultipliers for towns such as Potchefstroom, Oudtshoorn and Grahamstown(with multipliers between 1.1 and 1.4) (Saayman and Saayman, 2004b).


8/15


Table 1. Estimated total expenditure by visitors, 2004.

Category Number of groups Average spending per group Total spending

Chalets 18,728 R1,786.21 R33,452,141

Camping 4,534 R1,328.74 R 6,042,507

Total 23,262 R39,476,648

Table 2. Output multipliers.

Category Change in demand Change in output Multiplier

Chalet R1,786.21 R2,116.32 1.18

Camp R1,328.74 R1,590.09 1.2

Table 3. Sectoral changes in output and income.

Sector Chalet: Chalet: Camp: Camp:change in change in change in change inoutput income output income

Accommodation 1,204.88 522.03 485.10 210.18

Curios 37.65 5.81 71.672 11.06

Restaurants 223.40 83.78 146.46 54.92

Tourism/recreation services 72.77 16.37 102.92 23.16

Retail 418.77 46.32 612.05 67.69

Transport 75.84 3.79 92.59 4.63Wholesale 66.81 3.34 66.52 3.33

Manufacturing 16.19 2.43 12.77 1.91

Total R2,116.32 R683.87 R1,509.09 R376.88

The change in output due to visitor spending in each industry in theproportional multiplier model is indicated in Table 3, which also shows theincome generated due to one additional visitor.

While the direct and indirect impacts on income can be derived from Table3, the induced effect is not included. To determine the total effect on income(direct, indirect and induced), the inputoutput table had to be expanded toinclude the effect of household spending and wages. In other words, a 9-by-9 matrix was created. The assumption was made that the consumption patternof locals in the study area was similar to that of the national consumptionpattern (as defined in the 1996 nationwide inputoutput table). The results ofthe analysis are presented in Table 4.

The income multiplier for campers is much lower than that for the chalets.This should, however, be expected since campers spend less on accommodation(which is a labour-intensive activity) than people in chalets and more on retail


9/15


Table 4. Income multipliers.

Category Change in demand Change in income Multiplier

Chalet R1,786.21 R722.15 0.404

Camp R1,328.74 R398.08 0.30

Table 5. Output and income effects of visitor spending.

Category Total spending Output effect Income effect

Chalet R33,452,141 R39,473,526 R13,514,665Camp R 6,042,507 R 7,251,008 R 1,812,752

Total R39,476,648 R46,724,534 R15,327,417

Table 6. Output and income effects of visitor spending and park expenses.

Category Total spending Output effect Income effect

Chalet R33,452,141 R39,473,526 R13,514,665

Camp R 6,042,507 R 7,251,008 R 1,812,752

Park R23,312,635 R25,877,025 R10,024,433

Total R56,764,782 R72,601,559 R25,351,850

items (which is more capital-intensive and requires more stock purchases andleakages from the small rural area).If the above multipliers are applied to total spending by visitors, the

production and income effect of their spending would be as shown in Table 5.While these estimates reflect the impact of spending by visitors, the impactof park operations is not yet reflected. If a similar process is repeated for parkexpenditure, the output multiplier for park expenditure is 1.11, while theincome multiplier is 0.43. The total contribution of the park to the localeconomy is shown in Table 6.

Employment and business development

The years of existence of the different businesses give a good indication of howbusiness has developed in the region. Only the golf club, one general dealerand a meat wholesaler have existed longer than the AENP (which is 74 yearsold). Most of the other accommodation establishments have been in existencefor less than ten years, with only three guest houses/B&Bs and the private game

reserve having existed for more than ten years. The main economic activity inthe area has traditionally been agriculture, with little manufacturing activity,and this is evident from the age and nature of businesses.


10/15


Sixty per cent of guest houses and bed-and-breakfast establishments indicatedthat they would not have existed if it had not been for the AENP, while 27%of lodges and self-catering accommodation establishments felt the same. Onlyone retailer indicated that he owed his existence to the park, while 37.5% oftourism and recreation services and restaurants would not have been there hadit not been for the park. Fifty per cent of curio shops felt that the park wasthe main reason for their existence. In other words, the park has led to theestablishment of 34 businesses or approximately 33% of all businesses in thearea. Table 7 presents a breakdown of the businesses and gives an indicationof employment levels and the ratio of permanent versus part-time personnel.

As can be seen from the table, the accommodation industry is, as expected,very reliant on labour and provides employment to 896 people, of whom 694are permanently employed. The two privately-owned game reserves account for

55% of these jobs. This figure is put into perspective when compared with the98 people working in retail, 58 at petrol stations, 70 in curios, 44 in food salesand restaurants, 18 in recreation and tourism services, 16 in wholesale and 28in manufacturing. These results are summarized in Table 8. It should also benoted that, in 96% of the cases, the workers employed live in the area.

On average, accommodation establishments (excluding the game parks) sell79% of their business to tourists and 21% to locals (it should be kept in mindthat many accommodation establishments form part of conglomerates, selling,

for example, restaurant services as well), while 95% of business in game reservesis due to tourist activity. Tourists are also the main customers of tourism andrecreation services, while restaurants and curio shops are also very reliant ontourism for their existence (see Table 8). The reliance of the local economy ontourism is therefore plain to see.

In terms of employment, the AENP alone employs 149 people. Taking intoaccount the number of businesses that indicated that they owed their existenceto the park, it is estimated that the park has led to the creation of at least

393 additional jobs in the area.Businesses also indicated the percentage of their turnover that they ascribedto the fact that the AENP was in the vicinity. Guest houses and bed-and-breakfast establishments indicated that they owed 64.7% of their turnover tothe park, while lodges ascribed 38.6% to it. The hotel indicated that only 10%of its business was reliant on the AENP, while the other private game reservein the area ascribes 5% of its turnover to the park. Curio shops indicated that25.7% of their business was due to the Park, and restaurants ascribed 32.6%to it. Retailers and service stations indicated that they owed 11% of their

turnover to the park, and tourism and recreation services estimated thecontribution at 18.75%. If this is taken as an indication of the number ofemployment opportunities created due to the park, it can be concluded thatit has led to 434 job opportunities (obviously a linear relationship betweenturnover and employment is assumed). However, the tourism industry (narrowlydefined as game parks, curio shops and accommodation units) employs about1,000 people.

It is difficult to put this employment into perspective for the area, since

census data in South Africa are recorded by district, and the towns adjacentto the park fall into two districts Sundays River and Makana. Other largetowns are also included in these districts: for example, on the Alicedale side,


11/15


Table 7. Breakdown of businesses and employment in the study area.

Type Number Average number Permanent (%) Part-time (%)

of employees

B&B and guesthouse 31 6.2 87.9 12.1Lodges 12 19.4 64.4 35.6

Hotels 1 15 60 40

Game reserves 2 249.5 79 21

Tourism and

recreation services 8 2.25 67.8 32.2

Restaurants 8 5.5 83.3 16.7

Curio shops 11 7.8 80.6 19.4

Petrol station 5 14.5 83 18

Retail 19 5.2 93.6 6.4Wholesale 2 8 100 0

Manufacturing 4 7 87.5 12.5

Total 103

Table 8. Employment and other ratios.

Type Number Employment Tourist/local ratio

Other accommodation 44 397 79:21

Game parks 2 499 95:5

Tourism and recreation services 8 18 65:35

Restaurants 8 44 34:66

Curio shops 11 70 37:63

Petrol station 5 58 18:82

Retail 19 98 19:81Wholesale 2 16 6:94

Manufacturing 4 28 5:95

Total 103 1,228

Albany, Grahamstown and Riebeeck-East are included in the census data whichrecord 17,800 households living the district, where the unemployment rate isalmost 50%. On the Kirkwood and Paterson side, the town of Alexandria isalso included in the 10,000 households that reside in the Sundays River district where there is a 35% unemployment rate. Since Alexandria is a larger townthan Alicedale, it is thus estimated that the population of the area underinvestigation comprises around 6,000 households. The agricultural sector is stillthe main provider of employment, but tourism has generated new employmentopportunities and income for approximately 1,000 households. This supportsthe notion of Tayor et al (1999) that tourism to national parks causes a shiftaway from traditional economic activity towards service products. Yet this

research found that many of the employment opportunities created are of apermanent nature, which contradicts the contention of Tayor et al that mostemployment due to tourism is temporary.


12/15


Proposed framework and pitfalls

While the previous section elaborates on the economic and social impact of thepark, our intention was also to create a framework for future assessments of thelocal socio-economic contribution of national parks, with the AENP as a casestudy. Most national parks in Africa are situated in rural areas, and little tono firm economic activity data are available for these areas. This was the casewith the AENP, and the framework proposed here is therefore especiallyapplicable to these circumstances.

First, the area under investigation must be demarcated early in the researchand all gateway communities should be included in the research area. Anunderstanding of the area and its main economic activities is essential. Thespatial area under investigation should be defined sensibly even the 30 km

radius around the park amounted to distances of up to 150 km from the parkentrance. Larger spatial areas would not necessarily deliver more accurate resultsin terms of local economic impacts.

Second, visitor (demand) and business (supply) surveys should be conductedto determine the magnitude of visitor spending and the distribution of spend-ing throughout the local economy. It is proposed that as many visitors aspossible should be surveyed to ensure accurate spending data and that allbusinesses (or a good representation of all businesses) should be surveyed to

understand the interconnections and leakages of local businesses.Third, to obtain a clear picture of the true contribution of the national park

to the economy of the area, the spending by the park on employees and localproducts should also be included. This is also proposed by Wang (1997) andChalmers and Wall (1992).

Fourth, the use of proportional multiplier analysis is proposed to determinethe value of the income and sales multipliers and estimate the economic impactof the national park.

Finally, the change in the nature of business and employment opportunitiesin the area due to the national park should be determined. This can be doneby using the percentage of turnover that a business ascribes to the park as aweighting factor for its total employees or by simply adding the employmentand businesses that indicate that they owe their existence to the park. Com-paring it to previous business surveys of the area gives a good indication of thechange in business activity and employment.

We would also like to point out certain pitfalls experienced in the research,which other researchers attempting similar studies should be aware of. First,this research took place in an economy that is less developed than those of mostof the other areas in which similar studies have been conducted. This posedcertain problems for example, no production data or even exact census dataon the size of the population or workforce are available for the region. Theregional production data available are also outdated, and there is no regionalinputoutput table that can be used to supplement the analysis. Recentattempts (in 1998) by Statistics South Africa to update the 1988 social account-ing matrix (SAM) failed miserably. This means that all data have to be collected

via primary sources, and it is very difficult to obtain a clear picture of the parkscontribution to employment in the region.

Second, the collection of reliable data is difficult and expensive something


13/15


that is true for most research conducted via surveys. The cost of the surveyslimited the number of questionnaires that could be distributed, and wheneversensitive and detailed information was requested it was difficult to persuadepeople to participate. However, every effort should be made to acquire as manycompleted questionnaires as possible and to get detailed information the moredetail, the better. With the visitor survey, we found that surveying at theaccommodation units produced the best results, while questionnaires left at keypoints, such as the restaurant, did not have the same quality of response. Moreresponses would have been desirable, and we realize that this is a weakness ofthis research. The business survey, on the other hand, was interviewer-administered. While this leads to the option of asking open-ended questions,it does not give the respondent enough time to give a true breakdown ofexpenditure in detail. Sensitive information again poses a problem when this

method is used.Third, the importance of working with the data collected cannot be

emphasized enough. Data adjustments should be made and biases should berecognized. Classifying the data according to national versus international, oraccording to different accommodation establishments, is therefore essential.This ensures that the results will not be biased towards a certain group ofvisitors.

Finally, it should be emphasized that multipliers should be used with care.

The tendency to inflate multipliers to create positive incentives for policymakers has placed a huge question mark over the accuracy of multiplier analysis.This research again indicates that output and income multipliers are low forsmall rural regions with substantial stock leakages. The income multipliersfound in this study compare well with that found by Vaughan et al(2000) forExmoor National Park (income multiplier of 0.22). Metropolitan and largerareas (such as provinces) normally exhibit larger multipliers than rural areas,due to fewer stock leakages.

Conclusion

The aim of this paper is to determine the socio-economic impact of the AddoElephant National Park on the local economy and to establish a framework forfuture assessments of this kind. This research was the first of its kind in SouthAfrica and contributes to the general understanding of the socio-economicimpact of national parks on an area/region as well as the linkages betweenindustries in rural areas of South Africa. It is also the first time that proportionalmultiplier analysis has been used to determine output and income multipliersfor regions in South Africa.

The results clearly show that the park has a significant impact on employ-ment, production and general income creation in the region. It has also led tothe establishment of businesses, and this supports the general finding in theliterature that tourism, and specifically protected areas, contribute to thedevelopment of a region in our case, about 35% of businesses were established

directly as a result of the park. This positive impact has a snowball effect interms of employment and income generation.

The results also support the concern that rural areas normally face high


14/15


leakages, and thus that the local economy does not benefit to its full potential.This is seen through lower multiplier values, and this research again emphasizesthe importance of not using over-inflated multipliers to establish economicimpact on rural areas. However, in terms of employment creation, the fact that96% of all workers live in the area under consideration is an indication thatthe benefits of the park reach the local community and that it certainlycontributes towards social uplift in the vicinity.

This paper proposes a clear demarcation of the study area, the use of businessand visitor surveys, the inclusion of park expenditure and the use of aproportional multiplier analysis to assess the economic impact of a national parkin rural areas with severe data limitations. The determination of businessdevelopment and employment due to the national park and tourism activityin the area should be included to track the social impact of the park on the

local communities.

References

AENP (2004), Addo Elephant National Park, www.parks-sa.co.za/parks/addo/default.html(accessed4 September 2004).

Akama, J.S. (1996), Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in Kenya, TourismManagement, Vol 17, No 8, pp 567574.

Brown, M.D., Var, T., and Lee, S. (2002), Messina Hof Wine and Jazz Festival: an economic impactanalysis, Tourism Economics, Vol 8, No 3, pp 273279.

Chalmers, L., and Wall, G. (1992), Local economic impact modelling: TIEBOUT, tourism andtraining, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol 16, No 1, pp 6167.

Crompton J. (1999), Measuring economic impact, working paper, http://rptsweb.tamu.edu/faculty/crompton.htm.

Garson, P. (2002), SA tourism defies gravity, http://www.safrica.info/ doing_business/investment/opportunities/tourismgrowth.htm (accessed 21 Feb 2004).

Gelan, A. (2003), Local economic impacts: the British Open, Annals of tourism Research, Vol 30,No 2, pp 406425.

Goodwin, H. (2002), Local community involvement in tourism around national parks: opportunitiesand constraints, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol 5, Nos 3 and 4, pp 338360.

Hall-Martin, A. (2003), Architects of Addo, in Hall-Martin, A., and Carruthers, J., eds, SouthAfrican National Parks: a Celebration, Horst Klemm Publications, Auckland Park.

Hughes, D.W. (2003), Policy uses of economic multiplier and impact analysis, Choices, Vol 18, No2, pp 2529.

Kepe, T. (2001), Tourism, protected areas and development in South Africa: views of visitors toMkambati Nature Reserve, South African Journal of Wildlife Research, Vol 31, Nos 3 and 4, pp155159.

Mules, T. (2005), Economic impacts of national park tourism on gateway communities: the case

of Kosciuszko National Park, Tourism Economics, Vol 11, No 2, pp 247259.Myburgh, E., and Saayman, M. (2002),Ecotourism in Action: Practical Guidelines and Principles, 2nd

edition, Leisure C Publications, Potchefstroom.Roe, D., Leader-Williams, N., and Dalal-Clayton, B. (1997), Take Only Photographs, Leave Only

Footprints: the Environmental Impacts of Wildlife Tourism, Wildlife and Development Series No 10,International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

Ryan, C., and Lockyer, T. (2001), An economic impact case study: the South Pacific Masters Games,Tourism Economics, Vol 7, No 3, pp 267275.

Saayman, M., and Saayman, A. (2004a), Progress Report: Socio-Economic Impact of Addo National Park,Institute for Tourism and Leisure studies, Potchefstroom.

Saayman, M., and Saayman, A. (2004b), The economic impact of cultural events, South AfricanJournal of Economic and Management Sciences, December.

Tayor, C.N., Gough, J., Warren, J., and McClintock, W. (1999), Social and Economic Impacts of
http://www.parks-sa.co.za/parks/addo/default.htmlhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0261-5177()17:8L.567[aid=230198]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0261-5177()17:8L.567[aid=230198]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0261-5177()17:8L.567[aid=230198]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1354-8166()8:3L.273[aid=7636445]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1354-8166()8:3L.273[aid=7636445]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0309-8265()16:1L.61[aid=7636444]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0309-8265()16:1L.61[aid=7636444]http://rptsweb.tamu.edu/faculty/crompton.htmhttp://rptsweb.tamu.edu/faculty/crompton.htmhttp://www.safrica.info/doing_business/investment/opportunities/tourismgrowth.htmhttp://www.safrica.info/doing_business/investment/opportunities/tourismgrowth.htmhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0160-7383()30:2L.406[aid=7636443]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0160-7383()30:2L.406[aid=7636443]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0160-7383()30:2L.406[aid=7636443]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1354-8166()11:2L.247[aid=7636441]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1354-8166()11:2L.247[aid=7636441]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1354-8166()7:3L.267[aid=7636440]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1354-8166()7:3L.267[aid=7636440]http://rptsweb.tamu.edu/faculty/crompton.htmhttp://rptsweb.tamu.edu/faculty/crompton.htmhttp://www.parks-sa.co.za/parks/addo/default.htmlhttp://www.safrica.info/doing_business/investment/opportunities/tourismgrowth.htmhttp://www.safrica.info/doing_business/investment/opportunities/tourismgrowth.htmhttp://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1354-8166()7:3L.267[aid=7636440]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1354-8166()11:2L.247[aid=7636441]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0160-7383()30:2L.406[aid=7636443]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0160-7383()30:2L.406[aid=7636443]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0309-8265()16:1L.61[aid=7636444]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=1354-8166()8:3L.273[aid=7636445]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0261-5177()17:8L.567[aid=230198]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0261-5177()17:8L.567[aid=230198]


15/15


Kahurangi National Park, Science for Conservation 119, Department of Conservation, Wellington.Van der Walt, P. (1993), Die waarde en voordele van bewaring [The value and benefits of

conservation], paper presented at workshop, Potchefstroom, 3 March 1993.Vaughan, D.R., Farr, H., and Slee, R.W. (2000), Estimating and interpreting the local economic

benefits of visitor spending: an explanation, Leisure Studies, Vol 19, pp 95118.Walpole, M.J., and Goodwin, H.J. (2000), Local economic impacts of dragon tourism in Indonesia,

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 27, No 3, pp 559576.Wang, P.C.M. (1997), Economic impact assessment of recreation services and the use of multipliers:

a comparative examination, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol 15, No 2, pp 3243.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0261-4367()19L.95[aid=4764757]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0261-4367()19L.95[aid=4764757]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0160-7383()27:3L.559[aid=7522632]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0160-7383()27:3L.559[aid=7522632]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0160-7383()27:3L.559[aid=7522632]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=0261-4367()19L.95[aid=4764757]

creating a framework to determine the socio economic impact of national parks in south africa a case...

Documents