--Jim Fowler (Wild Kingdom, Mutual of Omaha)
Namibia is an interesting case study in tourism. Ecotourism, to be exact. One day in class, I used the word, "ecotourism." One of my students, Francois, asked me, "Prof, can you explain to me the difference between tourism and ecotourism?"
His was an interesting question. I realized, suddenly, that Namibia's tourism 'slate' is 99% filled by ecotourism activities (tourism to enjoy nature). My students were unaware that any other form of tourism existed. However, I shared with them that the FIFA World Cup in South Africa next year was an example of 'tourism'. That made sense.
I want be clear that I am in no fashion an expert in ecotourism. But because tourism in Namibia drives much of the conservation efforts in the country, I have been thinking about ecotourism a bit. The level of tourism here is really 'saturated' in terms of the landscape being filled with guest farms, lodges, tour activities and the like. One might wonder, "How do all of these tourism ventures stay viable?" Well, at least I wondered.
The more I thought, the more I realized the answer seems to be a function of the landscape. I consider myself a landscape ecologist--studying ecology at landscape-levels. I wondered if there was a field of 'landscape economics'? Turns out I didn't invent the phrase. There is a field. Although, it is very new. There was a conference in 2009--the first international conference in Landscape Economics. For a nice little paper that summarizes the challenges of thinking about economics of landscapes, you can go here.
So, I've been developing a conceptual model to explain why tourism ventures in Namibia are viable and why there are fewer tourism ventures in the Great Plains, compared to Namibia. My first attempt at it appears here in graphic form.
The basic idea of this graph is that a viable tourism attraction depends on two things: (1) having some inherent quality or "draw" to your attraction (cool stuff to see, quality lodging, etc.), and (2) being close to other tourism attractions. Tourists normally plan trips that combine stops at multiple sites. They look for places along their route where they can stop. If you want to have a lodge in the Great Plains, it helps to be close to the Black Hills. In Namibia, it helps to be close to Etosha National Park. Essentially, it helps to be close to anything (a lake, a historical site, etc.) that already draws people. But, if you are far from other attractions, you can still be viable--you just have to have a bigger draw. As an example, the sandhill cranes draw people to Nebraska ever year in high numbers; it's not close to other tourism destinations. But, it is a unique attraction.
And, my thought is that there are some thresholds in distance from other sites. If you are within an hour from another site, you can have a fairly benign attraction and still gather people who will be willing to drive. Beyond an hour, I think people start to demand higher quality to make the drive. And, at about 3 hours, the requirement really sky-rockets. People need a reason to make the trip to see your attraction. To the point where you have to have something that is a regional tourist attraction to attract people from 4-5 hours away. Sandhill cranes.
This all creates a need to think about tourism from a landscape level in the Great Plains. The landscape matters--from several perspectives. Where are places where tourism might be able to be used to sustain profits on ranches? I've got some ideas on that. More on that later...
You will notice there are two lines on the figure: one for the USA and one for Namibia. This is also a hypothesis on my part. When several ranchers from the Great Plains visited Namibia earlier this year, they made some interesting observations about the two countries and tourism. First, labor is much cheaper in Namibia. It is possible to employ farm workers or general laborers for about US$12-15/day with no requirements for workman's comp, health insurance, or fancy staff lounges. When you are building a lodge, or when you need to employ a staff to serve guests, it takes less output in Namibia. Couple that with the fact that Namibian ecotourism facilities do not pay much for liability insurance (if anything, in some cases), while their counterparts in the USA can pay up to 10% of their expenses for liability insurance. So, the end result is that it takes less income to be viable in Namibia as a tourism facility--because you have lower costs. So, the 'viability line' is lower for Namibia.
What does this all explain? Well, in Namibia, tourism has two things going for it at the moment. The relatively low output costs and interesting destinations have resulted in many viable tourism centers being established. And, that has created a landscape that now is ripe to support other tourism establishments--it is hard to find a place in Namibia that is more than 2 hours from another tourism location.
For Namibia, it also points a warning for the tourism industry. As human rights issues are dealt with, salaries of workers will rise. Eventually, I would guess that liability insurance costs will catch up with Namibian tourist facilities as well (sadly, perhaps). So, the tourism industry in Namibia (in my opinion) should brace itself to deal with these issues in coming years. My prediction would be that Namibia will not have the landscape dotted with small tourist facilities in 25 years that it has now. The facilities will be fewer and larger as the line on the graph creeps up to meet the USA's line.
And, I think this perhaps provides some guidelines for folks interested in ecotourism and conservation in the Great Plains. My prediction would be that successful ventures should initially be targeted towards areas that are close to existing tourism destinations.
------
P.S. I never thought I would quote Jim Fowler. More later on the argument that he and Aldo Leopold might have if they ever met. This ecotourism/conservation thing is not simple. Some would argue that a landscape saturated with tourism is a landscape that is not 'wild'.
No comments:
Post a Comment