economics and conservation in third world national parks

Economics and Conservation in Third World National ParksAuthor(s): David Western and Wesley HenrySource: BioScience, Vol. 29, No. 7 (Jul., 1979), pp. 414-418Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1307647 .

Accessed: 01/10/2013 17:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 17:20:31 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aibs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1307647?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Economics and Conservation

in Third World National Parks

David Western and Wesley Henry

It has been argued that rapidly ex- panding human populations and the re- sulting pressure for land place an obliga- tion on the developing nations to justify their national parks economically (Myers 1972). However, there is a growing ap- prehension that the profit approach clashes with the more traditional conservation objectives of national parks. In East African parks, the increasingly common sight of predators surrounded by numerous minibuses does little to dis- pel concern that the impact of commercial tourism on the ecosystem is un- duly destructive (Jewell 1974). Is it really likely, however, that the economic motive that many Third World countries have adopted to promote their parks need sound the parks' death knell through congestion?

We here contend that the economic exploitation of national parks, when ra- tionally planned, need not be at odds with the other goals of conservation. In the final analysis, it is the quality of the environment and the uniqueness of its attraction that are appealing and that the visitor is willing to pay for. Furthermore, visitors to most national parks in the Third World countries are from the developed world. Their financial costs compared to visits to their own parks are enormous in the expectation of en- joying a unique and less congested environment.

Paradoxically, then, the same dilemma-"How many is too many?"- must ultimately confront both the aesthetic and economic approaches to the management of national parks, since they depend on similar value systems among visitors. From an economic standpoint, a decline in the appeal of a park foreshadows a declining revenue potential. From the aesthetic standpoint,

Western is resource ecologist of the New York Zo- ological Society, Box 48177, Nairobi, Kenya; Henry is with the Department of Recreation Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523. ? 1979 American Institute of Biological Sciences. All rights reserved.

too many visitors sharing the same unique experience destroy the very wil- derness they seek. Both approaches must therefore balance conservation and use, a dilemma which is already a pre- occupation of national parks in the developed world (Forster 1973).

Much of the impact that arises from commercial tourism stems from a laissez-faire approach to defining the objectives of a national park and to planning and managing its use. Although many parks worldwide are implicitly developed to increase visitor attendance and revenues, few if any have an explicit plan based on an economic framework that evaluates the costs and benefits for a given level of impact. Such an approach is usually seen as the antithesis of conservation.

One of the few countries to state its economic objectives explicitly with regard to wildlife is Kenya. A new wildlife policy statement (Sessional Paper No. 3 1975) and subsequent legislation (Wild- life Bill 1976) clearly declare the need to make wildlife pay. The high premium on land is recognized, as is the case that landowners should not have to bear the costs of supporting wildlife on their land.

Legislation permits landowners to recover the opportunity costs of supporting wildlife migrants from the national parks. However, the economic motive is not the sole objective. The need to balance economic, aesthetic, and cultural goals is acknowledged, though the mechanism for doing so has not been elaborated.

In pursuing these objectives, the Kenya government approached the World Bank for a major loan. The government demonstrated that (a) the rate of return on an investment of $37 million approached 22% per year, which was, within project areas, considerably greater than that of other agricultural options; and (b) the development of the parks would contribute significantly to the income of rural populations near the parks (Mitchell 1969, Western and Thresher

1973). The bank granted the loan, antici- pating that-through detailed planning and development-it would increase both the economic and conservation viability of Kenya's national parks and reserves (Western 1978).

Thus, Kenya has adopted an explicit policy of making wildlife pay, while still acknowledging the need for alternative aesthetic and cultural goals within the parks. How does it reconcile these objectives?

NATIONAL GOALS AND THE PARKS

Ideally, the objectives of national parks should be defined within the social, cultural, and economic goals set by the country. In Kenya, the five-year development plans for wildlife echo the national theme of rural development (e.g., Kenya National Development Plan 1979-1983). In most countries, however, the parks are not viewed within the larger fabric of development; they are planned separately, if at all. Even where there are definite national goals for parks, there are few cases in which the designation of a particular park is made after considering the numerous factors that will affect its potential use.

For example, no park can cater to the entire range of visitor demands-from aesthetic to recreational. Only planning at the national and regional level can des- ignate each park for a particular type or combination of uses (Wagar 1964). Moreover, additional considerations include location, size, and type of parks, reserves, or recreation areas existing or planned elsewhere in the country or re- gion; the network of communications; the population centers; and the type of land use in the surrounding area. The possible permutations of these and other factors on the designation of a specific park are enormous and will change with time.

Most of these factors apply to all parks. In the developing countries, addi-

BioScience Vol. 29 No. 7 414



tional factors dictate the need for coordi- nated planning. Because most visitors to the parks are non-nationals, the country rather than a specific park is their desti- nation. The choice of a country will, in turn, depend largely on the variety and accessibility of its attractions. Accessi- bility requires detailed planning for regional circuits, transport services, and accommodations in order to avoid local- ized congestion, which will otherwise limit capacity.

The complexity of regional and in- tegrated planning is beyond the capabili- ties of most existing national park services, a fact which further isolates them from activities in other development areas. Recognizing the attendant diffi- culties, Kenya has established a central- ized Wildlife Planning Unit, which will, through national and regional planning, determine the levels and types of use of each particular park (Western 1978).

Having designated the role that each park and reserve will play, the government then addresses the problem of estimating the visitor and economic potential for given levels of cost and impact.

FACTORS INFLUENCING USE AND INCOME

To calculate the visitor and economic potential of a park, the factors that will ultimately constrain further growth for a designated type of use must be identi- fied. They will influence the cost-effective side of park planning.

Capacity is not an absolute value, but will vary with the level and type of research, planning, investment, and management. In theory, capacity can be gauged by the point of marginal returns, but for national parks, unlike other mar- ket economies, this cannot be evaluated through use: By the time capacity has been reached, the resource may have been irreparably damaged. Instead, it must be anticipated through an analysis of what a park can supply in the way of attractions, what the visitor wishes to view-or, through guidance, can be en- couraged to view-and what levels of use are sustainable ecologically and psychologically.

In the developed countries, several approaches have been used to calculate the maximum levels of use compatible with predefined objectives. In each case, the aesthetic value of the park to the visitor is calculated either directly from re- sponses to different levels of use (Forster 1973, Lime and Stankey 1971, Wagar 1964) or indirectly through surrogate

pricing techniques (Fisher and Krutilla 1971).

In Kenya, where the economic objective is explicitly stated, planners have used a more direct method of calculating the optimal visitor levels. The analysis necessarily relies on various assumptions about the factors that influence the number of viewing attractions and their use by, and impact from, visitors. The supply of attractions within a park is more or less invariable and is assumed to establish the potential visitor capacity. Park planners determine the prevailing viewing patterns of visitors and the elasticity of their demand for the available attractions and then evaluate the costs and returns of various types and levels of development and management.

However, visitor capacity and maximum profitability are not necessarily synonomous. The willingness of visitors to pay to enter a park will decline as their saturation threshold is approached, and the point of maximum profitability may be reached before social capacity. But visitor capacity does provide a useful basis for planning purposes. The optimal balance among income, impact, and numbers can subsequently be adjusted by management actions such as setting price differentials.

RESOURCE CAPABILITY

One of the most difficult problems in calculating the potential use of a park in- volves identifying what amenities it has to offer and what factors will constrain its use. The factors that govern the attraction and potential capacity of a park include its size, tractability, fragility, landscape, vegetation cover, number and variety of species of animals, their distribution in space and time, and unique attractions. For the purposes of estimating capacity in Kenya's parks, these variable are reduced to four con- ceptual categories.

Diversity

In general, the greater the physical and biological diversity of an area, the greater will be its attraction and visitor capacity for a given level of impact (Lloyd and Fisher 1972). Viewing diversity depends on a large number of variables related to landscape, history, archaeology, and biota.

For wildlife attractions, useful ecological indexes have been successfully adapted for calculating the relative ca-

pacity and investment potential of various parks in Kenya (Western 1975). An inventory of animal numbers in the area at different seasons can be used as the basis for quantification. The community of animals that a visitor is likely to view in any locality and for any season can then be expressed by the numbers of species, their relative abundance, and the equitability of their distribution in space and time. Species richness, diversity, and evenness (Krebs 1972) provide quantitative measures for these charac- teristics. Then an estimate can be made of the relative viewing potential of the areas under evaluation and of the visitor capacity.

Uniqueness

A park may be visited simply because it has a unique or rare attraction. Unless visitors can be diverted to other amenities, the availability of the specific attraction alone will limit capacity. If the main attraction is, say, a feature of the landscape, it may be possible to accommo- date large numbers of visitors; if it is a rare animal, the capacity is likely to be low. This is particularly the case in many African and Asian parks, where the prime interest is the predators, which are in short supply and are sensitive to dis- turbance. The quantitative importance of each attraction to visitors is readily established from questionnaires and from direct observations of visitor activity (Henry 1975, 1979).

Concealment

Parks vary enormously in their capacity to conceal visitors and, therefore, to reduce interpersonal visibility. The factors that contribute to concealment, which include size, topographic and landscape heterogeneity, vegetation cover, and the extent of tractible land for viewing, are readily quantified (Western 1975). These variables, however; do not necessarily influence the quality of viewing except in terms of a reduction in contacts among visitors.

Resilience

The susceptibility of an area to degra- dation with use imposes a major constraint on visitor capacity. In Shaba Na- tional Reserve, Kenya, a few passages of a vehicle leave excessive ruts in the friable, aeolian soils. Considerable ex- penditure is needed to stabilize the viewing tracks before any intensive use is

July 1979 415



possible. Other damageable features of a park include the vegetation and animal

100

90 life (Olindo 1972).

Measures of the resiliency of parks to 80o

visitor use are difficult to obtain since the z ~ 70 sensitive variables differ between loca- >

tions. Thus, specific studies on environ- -o 60

mental impact of visitor use are ultimate- z ly required for each park. 50

z w40

VISITOR BEHAVIOR AND CAPACITY ? :30o U..

The establishment of the potential visitor capacity of a park is only one aspect of estimating its actual capacity. To as- sume that the resource alone determines capacity would be to presume that each amenity is equally attractive to the visitors. We must examine, therefore, the visitors' stated preference, their actual viewing behavior, and their flexibility in response to interpretive sevices before we can predict capacity.

The more selective the visitors are, the greater will be the congestion around each attraction and the lower the projected capacity for a given level of environmental and social impact. The number and nature of contacts among visitors and in relation to specific attractions are widely used as measures of congestion in temperate parks (Brown et al. 1976); they are equally useful in the savannah parks.

Although there are many components of visitor behavior, various models have been used to project the capacity of different parks and reserves in Kenya (Western 1975). The models rest on the following assumptions:

* The unselective model assumes that viewing demand is perfectly elastic and that, under perfect management, all the amenities can be viewed proportional to their abundance in the park. Here the predicted capacity is equal to the potential capacity.

* The performance model assumes that viewing demand is completely inelastic and predicts capacity on the basis of present viewing patterns and the supply of attractions of interest. It provides a minimum estimate of capacity based on the viewable supply of the limiting attraction.

* The preference model assumes that viewing preferences (which are less selective than actual performance) are also inelastic; it otherwise uses the same assumptions as the performance model.

* The management model assumes that visitor viewing demands are some- what elastic, depending on the nature of management and planning.

.20

J

10o u

0

o 0 I 0 I I6 I I

(see text).

- 6 cr * m A

50 (g 03 m 0 0 S0

Fig. 1. Viewing patterns of visitors in Amboseli National Park, Kenya. The differences in viewing patterns depend on various assumptionp about the elasticity of visitor behavior (see text).

The elasticity of visitor behavior can be tested using a sample of visitors sub- jected to a variety of manipulations de- signed to increase the range of uses they make of the park. The extent to which the management model projections approach the capacity projected from the unselective model will depend on the relative costs and benefits of management and on constraints arising from visitor impact, both social and environmental.

Data for the first three models have been used in Amboseli to evaluate how management will influence the allocation of visitors' time among the wildlife species (Fig. 1). The actual performance of visitors is much more selective than their stated preference, with nearly 30% of all their stopped time spent at lions. The limited numbers of both lion and cheetah in the park and the large proportion of time visitors spend watching them result in concentrations of up to 30% of all vehicles in the park at any one time (Henry 1975).

The capacity for a given level of visitor contact will, on the basis of the performance model, be set by the total numbers of lion and cheetah and their tolerance thresholds. It will be increased threefold for the same level of impact if the visitor preferences are satisfied. Here the differences between the two are un- doubtedly a function of limited training among the drivers and rangers both in appreciating the problems and in their ability to introduce the visitors to other aspects of the park's amenities (Henry 1979).

If the visitors were unselective, the capacity could be increased by almost six- fold above the projections based on the performance model. The actual capacity, based on an economic analysis, is projected at between four- and fivefold, depending on the flexibility of visitor viewing demands and the extent to which planning and management can influence them to view and appreciate species and amenities other than predators (Western and Thresher 1973).

The models help to focus attention on the factors that contribute to the performance of visitors, the constraints that influence visitor behavior, and, ultimately, the capacity of a park.

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND LIMITING AMENITIES

We have repeatedly used the phrase, "for a given level of impact." What is an acceptable level of impact? This is an area of special concern to con- servationists (Myers 1972, Olindo 1972) since some invaluable resource could be destroyed before the tolerance levels of visitors are exceeded and before the park has reached maximum revenue potential.

There is already some evidence that both cheetah and lion are affected by tourism (Kumpumula 1979) and that concentrations of more than six vehicles sharply diminish hunting activity (Henry 1975). Cheetah, by virtue of their susceptibility, are presently a limiting amenity; they couid become endangered in many




parks unless management action is in- troduced to limit the visitor impact on them. Furthermore, the threshold of visitor tolerance is also being approached around predators; the time that the aver- age tourist spends falls significantly when more than eight vehicles are as- sembled-more conspicuously among local visitors than first-time overseas tourists.

From an economic as well as a conservation standpoint, an impact assessment is a crucial component of planning. Once visitor impact is assessed, deci- sions can be made about the possibility, desirability, methods, and cost-effective- ness of reducing it to given levels. As long as possible, this will simply sub- stitute one pressure point for another un- til a constraint is met that for prevailing economic, social, or ecological reasons is insurmountable. At that point, the capacity of the park for visitors will be reached.

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

The role of planning and management is crucial to achieve optimal visitor capacity through manipulating use so that it matches the usable and sustainable supply of amenities, which can them- selves be manipulated. This is not essen- tially different from the role parks play even where the sustained aesthetic quality of the resource is the prime object of policy. Planning ensures that the anticipated demand can be met and that early developments do not act as major constraints on later capacity levels.

That the economic value of planning and management for visitors can be enormous is evident from an analysis of projected income in Amboseli (Western and Thresher 1973). With no investment in planning or management, it was esti- mated that the prevailing patterns of visitor use would limit its net revenue potential to $100,000 per year. Under conditions of careful planning and investment over the entire ecosystem, the net returns could be increased to $1.43 million per year for the same level of environmental impact and visitor satisfac- tion, measured by interpersonal contacts.

Although planning and management of parks are largely confined within their boundaries in the developed countries, most Third World countries must also consider the externalities involved (Myers 1972). For the sake of conve- nience, we shall consider separately the internal and external aspects of planning and management now being developed in

Kenya, though in practice they are inter- locked.

Internal

The models of visitor capacity, specifi- cally the management model, provide a target figure for planning purposes. De- tails of planning will vary between parks. Sufficient literature exists on the planning criteria and design (Brown et al. 1976, Forster 1973, Lloyd and Fisher 1972) that we need not elaborate the principles here. The zoning of a park- the distribution of roads, lodges, campsites, and access routes, for example- influences the density and distribution of visitors within the park.

Once the infrastructure of a park has been established, the behavior of visitors can be influenced by a variety of means ranging from unobtrusive manipulation to conspicuous regulation (Brown et al. 1976). The most desirable form, of course, is by manipulation; hereby the visitor is aided unconsciously to enjoy the full range of attractions that the park has to offer with a minimum infringement on the park or the enjoyment of others. In the developed countries, the means of doing so are largely limited to brochures, education centers, group guides, traffic routing, and temporary closing of various areas. Greater control can be achieved in the East African parks, where most visitors are guided by a ranger, a courier/driver, or both. It is ironic that, due to a lack of training, these personnel contribute most to the abuses that now occur (Henry 1979). In- adequate training is widely recognized as being responsible for the prevailing poor use of parks, and under the present development programs the Kenya government is constructing a Wildlife Institute at Lake Naivasha to upgrade the quality of guides.

A close coordination between the visitor/guides and the park staffs will ultimately offset the present patterns of poor use within the majority of the parks by diversifying the viewing patterns and di- verting traffic to areas seldom used dur- ing peak viewing times. A greater coordination would also reduce the impact on the limiting amenities such as cheetah and lion. If the impact on such amenities proved critical long before the visitor capacity was reached on other factors, a more direct regulation of activities could be enforced as a final resort. Before that stage is reached, however, further studies should identify more precisely what options exist short of such regulations.

External

Even where they do not take up land that could be more profitably used for other purposes, most parks in developing countries form enclaves in which the economic disparity in earnings between the park and its environs is enormous. Under these circumstances, the park is seen as a resort for foreign clientele, which has little relevance or benefit for the local populace, even if it does for the national government. This inevitably alienates the parks from the very populations on which they are most dependent for their survival, at least in their present form.

Beginning in the 1950s, the management and benefits of various reserves in Kenya were handed over to local county councils. The local district administra- tion can establish national reserves on their trust-land and derive all the benefits from them. Although this has undoubt- edly promoted the concept of reserves that pay their own way in the rural areas, it still falls short of ensuring that the populations in the dispersal areas of the parks are included in the benefits.

The new wildlife legislation in Kenya is focused at this level. The revenues earned by both the park and the landowners in its dispersal areas can be sub- stantially increased by planning the park in conjunction with the surrounding area, rather than in isolation of it. For example, an analysis for the economic potential of Amboseli showed that the total revenues earned from all sources could be more than doubled by planning wildlife use at the ecosystem level, rather than exclusively for the park (Western and Thresher 1973). More im- portantly, through the financial in- centives made possible by the greater visitor capacity, the net revenues to the landowners within the dispersal areas of the park could increase by 85% over their maximum projected agricultural earnings.

Although the benefits may be obvious, most countries are still reluctant to consider parks in a broader context. Installa- tions, such as lodges, campsites, and viewing tracks, can be located outside the park to benefit not only the landowners, but in a direct sense the park as well, by decreasing the immediate pressure of visitors and by raising its ultimate capacity (Western 1976). Bed levies from lodges and campsites can generate local benefits, which might include employ- ment opportunities and markets for agricultural produce and handicrafts.

July 1979 417



An added advantage of external viewing tracks is that the seasonality of animal viewing within the park can be de- creased. Where the direct benefits from wildlife are inadequate to cover the landowners' costs of supporting the park animals, and where their continued survival depends extensively on the surrounding land, other forms of use can be made of wildlife, such as hunting and cropping. Where such uses are incompatible with the conservation of wildlife, landowners can be compensated for the value of their production lost to wildlife.

DISCUSSION

The similarities rather than the differences between the parks of different countries tend to be stressed, and various international criteria have, for example, been established to encourage conformity in rationale and management (Harroy 1969, 1971). Nevertheless, they are subject to different expectations, which are rooted in the varying social and economic circumstances as well as the aspirations of nations. In poor countries, it is difficult to justify biotic refuges to a subsistence farmer who is suffering from land shortage and who is unlikely ever to visit a park. Yet it is the very nature of their vastness and wildness that makes many parks so appealing to international tourists and such revenue- earners for the nation. It is little won- der, then, that the economic motive is strong, compared with the developed countries where, conversely, the wealthy populace is short on natural fauna-rich ecosystems.

Because international opinion stresses the conservation rationale and criteria for parks, there is a reluctance to ac- knowledge the profit motive when it is the prime objective. Consequently, planning is equivocal at best and effectively laissez faire, which, we believe, results in both poor conservation and poor economics.

We have argued that the economic motive is compatible with conservation and adds greatly to its viability. An analysis of the value of the lions in Amboseli shows their gross worth to be $27,000 each per year; the elephant herd is worth $610,000 per year. One might argue that such animals are worth more alive than dead when the comparable gross sustained yield from hunting would be ap- preciably less than 10% of this value and when the total park net returns amount to $40 per hectare compared to 80? per hectare under the most optimistic agri-

cultural returns (Western and Thresher 1973).

Suppose the economic expectations from conservation are not met, that the visitors anticipated fail to arrive, or dwindle away: Economics should be seen as a justifiable pursuit per se; when successful, it can add to the case for conservation, particularly in poor countries. When there is not an economic case, alternative rationales obviously must be convincing enough to persuade planners to allocate land. There are innumerable examples, particularly in West Africa and South America, where such rationales have led to the establishment of parks despite the enormity of land pres- sures and where wildlife will continue to decline because they are regarded as uneconomic and surplus to conservation needs.

Even those parks justified on economic grounds may change their function in time as the national populations become wealthier, more urbanized, have more leisure time, and make a greater demand for recreation (Brightbill 1960). That transition has already begun in many nations and must be anticipated in the long- term plans of a park.

Our emphasis here is that an economic justification of national parks should be clearly and objectively stated in national park policies. It is, after all, a prime conservation aid. More significantly, it ar- gues for comprehensive planning to en- sure the sustained profitability of the resource, which depends ultimately on reconciling the dilemma of use and preservation-a universal challenge that applies to all parks, whatever their objectives.

REFERENCES CITED

Brightbill, C. K. 1960. The Challenge of Lei- sure. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Brown, P. J., B. L. Driver, and G. H. Stankey. 1976. Human behavioral science and recreation management. Int. Union For. Res. Organ. World Congr. Proc. Div. (Vienna, Austria) 16: 53-63.

Fisher, A. C., and J. V. Krutilla. 1971. Oper- ational Concepts of Optimal Recreation Carrying Capacity for Low Density Re- source-Based Recreation Facilities. Paper presented at workshop on Research in Wildlands. Wildlife and Scenic Resources. University of Montana, Missoula.

Forster, R. R. 1973. Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks. IUCN Pub- lication new series No. 26. Morges.

Harroy, J. -P. 1969. The development of the national park movement. Can. Nat. Parks Today Tomorrow 1: 17-34.

, ed. 1971. United Nations List of Na- tional Parks and Equivalent Reserves, 2nd ed. Hayes, Brussels.

Henry, W. R. 1975. A Preliminary Report on Visitor Use in Amboseli National Park. In- stitute for Development Studies, Working Paper No. 263. University of Nairobi, Nai- robi, Kenya.

1979. Management Planning for Tour- ism in Amboseli: Incorporating Behavioral Information on Park Users. Institute for Development Studies, Working Paper. Uni- versity of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, in press.

Jewell, P. 1974. Problems of wildlife conservation and tourist development in east- ern Africa. J. S. Afr. Wildl. Man. Assoc. 4(1): 59-62.

Kenya Development Plan, 1979-1983. Gov- ernment Printer, Nairobi, Kenya.

Krebs, C. J. 1972. Ecology. Harper and Row, New York.

Kumpumula, M. 1979. The influence of visitors on the predators of Amboseli National Park. Masters Thesis, University of Nairo- bi, Nairobi, Kenya.

Lime, D. W., and G. H. Stankey. 1971. Car- rying Capacity: Maintaining Outdoor Rec- reation Quality. Paper presented to Forest Recreation Symposium, Syracuse, New York.

Lloyd, R. C., and V. L. Fisher. 1972. Dis- persed versus concentrated recreation as forest policy. Seventh World Forest Con- gress. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Myers, N. 1972. National parks in savannah Africa. Science 178: 1255-1263.

Mitchell, F. 1969. Forecasts of Returns to Ka- jiado County Council from the Maasai Am- boseli Game Reserve, 1970-2000. Institute for Development Studies, Research Paper No. 87. University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.

Olindo, P. 1972. Park Values, Changes and Problems in Developing Countries. Back- ground paper for Session III, Second World Conference on National Parks. Yellow- stone National Park.

Sessional Paper No. 3. 1975. Statement on Future Wildlife Management Policy in Kenya. Government Printer, Nairobi, Kenya.

Wagar, J. A. 1964. The carrying capacity of wildlands for recreation. For. Sci. Monogr. 7.

Western, D. 1975. An Assessment of Visitor Capacities and Related Planning Needs for Mara, Samburu and Shaba Game Reserves. World Bank Report, Nairobi, Kenya.

1976. A new approach to Amboseli. Parks 1(2): 1-4.

1978. The shape of tomorrow's world: Kenya's Wildlife Planning Unit. Swara 1(1): 29-32.

Western, D., and P. Thresher. 1973. Develop- ment Plans for Amboseli. World Bank Re- port, Nairobi, Kenya.

Wildlife Bill. 1976. The wildlife conservation and management bill. Kenya Gazette. Gov- ernment Printer, Nairobi, Kenya.




economics and conservation in third world national parks

Documents