4.7 Article

Evaluating the economics of park-tourism from the ground-up: Leakage, multiplier effects, and the enabling environment at South Luangwa National Park, Zambia

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 182, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106960

关键词

Economic impacts; Protected areas; Ecotourism; Management; Value chains; Economic methods

资金

  1. University of Florida
  2. UNDP
  3. GEF-STAP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that despite high leakage, tourism accounts for approximately 40% of local household income and at least half of business growth in the gateway community. Results also reveal that the GDP contributions from tourism are an order of magnitude higher than park management costs. Circumstances promoting the park's economic performance include key access infrastructure and commercial autonomy in management.
Economic impacts from tourism may benefit people living near parks and contribute to national-level economic growth. However, economic evaluations of park-tourism, which could be used to advocate for greater support of management, are rare in developing countries. Local multiplier effects of tourist spending, which can potentially promote business growth even where leakage is high, have also received little attention. We demonstrate an approach for estimating these local economic effects from an iterative set of surveys tracing the flow of tourism money near South Luangwa National Park, Zambia, and synthesize results with qualitative and quantitative analyses of national multiplier effects, park finances, local perceptions, and the park's management history. Despite high leakage, tourism accounts for similar to 40% of local household income and at least half of business growth in the gateway community. Results also reveal that GDP contributions are an order of magnitude above park management costs. Circumstances promoting the park's economic performance include key access infrastructure and commercial autonomy in management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据