Abstract
User fees charged by Tanzania’s Game Reserves (GR) and Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) have not changed since 2008. Although previous research has been done on visitors’ willingness-to-pay to enter national parks in Tanzania, none has been conducted on GRs and WMAs. This article assesses the entrance fees in GRs and WMAs, by comparing them with equivalent fees charged in Tanzania (at national parks and the Ngorongoro Crater) and also with regional protected areas in Botswana, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Based on 28 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholder institutions working on tourism and conservation and more than 50 online survey responses from Tanzanian tourism operators, the research reviews local opinion and issues relating to adjusting current entrance fees. The article considers that while one objective for generating revenue from entrance fees is for conservation management, it is difficult to establish appropriate fees where there are gaps in knowledge about existing levels of visitation, tourism revenue and associated management costs.Conservation implications: This article has implications for protected area management practices, as it provides information on processes by which managers can review and revise entrance fee values.
Highlights
In some countries, there has been a determined shift from using government funding for the capital and operational needs of protected areas (PAs), towards charging fees for using services and facilities provided to visitors (e.g. Canada: Van Sickel & Eagles 1998), tour operators and investors (e.g. South Africa: Spenceley 2004)
At the time of this study, the entrance fees charged by the Wildlife Division (WD) for non-citizen adults at Selous, Ikorogo, Grumeti and Maswa Game Reserves (GR) was USD50, plus an additional USD15 conservation fee for tourists staying outside the reserves
For tourists staying inside the GRs, the entrance fee is the same, but the conservation fee increased to USD25
Summary
There has been a determined shift from using government funding for the capital and operational needs of protected areas (PAs), towards charging fees for using services and facilities provided to visitors (e.g. Canada: Van Sickel & Eagles 1998), tour operators and investors (e.g. South Africa: Spenceley 2004). This shift has been caused by changes in government priorities for the use of public funds. Approaches to establishing user fees in order to finance the management of PAs have been extensively documented. Other approaches to establishing recreational value and fees include the Travel Cost Method (e.g. Chen et al 2004; Flemming & Cook 2008; Herath & Kennedy 2004; Turpie & Joubert 2001) and price differentiation (e.g. Chase et al 1998; Krug, Suich & Haimbodi 2002)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
