IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0088192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Tourists’ Preference for Mammal Species in Private Protected Areas: Is There a Case for Extralimital Species for Ecotourism?

Author

Listed:
  • Kristine Maciejewski
  • Graham I H Kerley

Abstract

Private Protected Areas (PPAs) often use wildlife-based ecotourism as their primary means of generating business. Achieving tourist satisfaction has become a strong driving goal in the management of many PPAs, often at the expense of biodiversity. Many extralimitral species, those which historically did not occur in an area, are stocked in PPAs with the intention of increasing ecotourism attractions. Even though the ecological and economic costs of stocking these species are high, the social benefits are not understood and little information exists globally on the ecotourism role of extralimital species. This study assessed the value of stocking extralimital species using questionnaire-based surveys and observing tourists in Shamwari Private Game Reserve in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. No difference was found between indigenous and extralimital species with regards to the tourists’ weighted scoring system, average amount tourists were willing to pay, total viewing time, average viewing time or the likelihood of stopping to view species when encountered on game drives. During game drives a strong preference was found for the elephant (Loxodonta africana), lion (Panthera leo), leopard (Panthera pardus) and cheetah (Acynonix jubatus). With the exception of the cheetah, these species are all members of the “big five” and are indigenous. Species availability and visibility, however, may influence the amount of time tourists spend at an animal sighting. Our analysis suggests that certain extralimital species (typically larger and charismatic species) contribute to tourist satisfaction, while particularly the smaller extralimital species add little to the game viewing experience, but add to the costs and risks of the PPAs. We recommend that extralimital species introductions for ecotourism purposes should be approached with caution with regards to the risks to the sustainability of PPAs.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristine Maciejewski & Graham I H Kerley, 2014. "Understanding Tourists’ Preference for Mammal Species in Private Protected Areas: Is There a Case for Extralimital Species for Ecotourism?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-8, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0088192
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088192
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088192&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0088192?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. C. R. Margules & R. L. Pressey, 2000. "Systematic conservation planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 243-253, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel T C Cox & Kevin J Gaston, 2015. "Likeability of Garden Birds: Importance of Species Knowledge & Richness in Connecting People to Nature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.

    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. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    2. Tamara S. Wilson & Benjamin M. Sleeter & Rachel R. Sleeter & Christopher E. Soulard, 2014. "Land-Use Threats and Protected Areas: A Scenario-Based, Landscape Level Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-28, April.
    3. Auriel M. V. Fournier & R. Randy Wilson & Jeffrey S. Gleason & Evan M. Adams & Janell M. Brush & Robert J. Cooper & Stephen J. DeMaso & Melanie J. L. Driscoll & Peter C. Frederick & Patrick G. R. Jodi, 2023. "Structured Decision Making to Prioritize Regional Bird Monitoring Needs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 207-217, May.
    4. Wang, Haoluan, 2017. "Land Conservation for Open Space: The Impact of Neighbors and the Natural Environment," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258125, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Eppink, Florian V. & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2007. "Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 284-293, March.
    6. Shirley Saenz & Tomas Walschburger & Juan Carlos González & Jorge León & Bruce McKenney & Joseph Kiesecker, 2013. "A Framework for Implementing and Valuing Biodiversity Offsets in Colombia: A Landscape Scale Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-27, November.
    7. Iritie, Jean-Jacques, 2015. "Economic Growth, Biodiversity and Conservation Policies in Africa: an Overview," MPRA Paper 62005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Zhouqiao Ren & Wanxin Zhan & Qiaobing Yue & Jianhua He, 2020. "Prioritizing Agricultural Patches for Reforestation to Improve Connectivity of Habitat Conservation Areas: A Guide to Grain-to-Green Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    9. Kristin Kaschner & Nicola J Quick & Rebecca Jewell & Rob Williams & Catriona M Harris, 2012. "Global Coverage of Cetacean Line-Transect Surveys: Status Quo, Data Gaps and Future Challenges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-12, September.
    10. Sari, Dwi Amalia & Margules, Chris & Lim, Han She & Widyatmaka, Febrio & Sayer, Jeffrey & Dale, Allan & Macgregor, Colin, 2021. "Evaluating policy coherence: A case study of peatland forests on the Kampar Peninsula landscape, Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    11. Michael A. Wulder & Jeffrey A. Cardille & Joanne C. White & Bronwyn Rayfield, 2018. "Context and Opportunities for Expanding Protected Areas in Canada," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Robert F. Baldwin & Nakisha T. Fouch, 2018. "Understanding the Biodiversity Contributions of Small Protected Areas Presents Many Challenges," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-12, October.
    13. John A. Gallo & Amanda T. Lombard & Richard M. Cowling, 2022. "Conservation Planning for Action: End-User Engagement in the Development and Dual-Centric Weighting of a Spatial Decision Support System," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    14. H. K. Millington & J. E. Lovell & C. A. K. Lovell, 2013. "Using Fieldwork, GIS and DEA to Guide Management of Urban Stream Health," CEPA Working Papers Series WP072013, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    15. Qingchi Han & Jinzhuo Wu & Wenshu Lin, 2025. "Long-Term Spatiotemporal Evolution Characteristics and Driving Force Analysis of Landscape Stability in the Forest–Grassland Ecotone of the Greater Khingan Mountains, Inner Mongolia, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-22, February.
    16. Li, Shicheng & Zhang, Heng & Zhou, Xuewu & Yu, Haibin & Li, Wangjun, 2020. "Enhancing protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    17. Patricio Sarmiento-Mateos & Cecilia Arnaiz-Schmitz & Cristina Herrero-Jáuregui & Francisco D. Pineda & María F. Schmitz, 2019. "Designing Protected Areas for Social–Ecological Sustainability: Effectiveness of Management Guidelines for Preserving Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, May.
    18. Jessica Cheok & Robert L Pressey & Rebecca Weeks & Serge Andréfouët & James Moloney, 2016. "Sympathy for the Devil: Detailing the Effects of Planning-Unit Size, Thematic Resolution of Reef Classes, and Socioeconomic Costs on Spatial Priorities for Marine Conservation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
    19. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Taeyoung & Larson, Eric R. & Armsworth, Paul R., 2017. "Economies of scale in forestland acquisition costs for nature conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 73-82.
    20. Bi Goli Jean Jacques Iritie, 2015. "Economic Growth and Biodiversity: An Overview Conservation Policies in Africa," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(2), pages 196-196, February.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0088192. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.