Residents’ preferences for tourism development in a protected area: a choice experiment

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to reveal residents’ individual perceptions of nature-based destination development and preferences for infrastructure and tourism superstructure development among communities that rely heavily on wildlife tourism. Design/methodology/approach A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used among the Maasai community based in the villages and towns near the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. The attributes included type of tourism accommodation, location of tourism accommodations, types of access roads (tarmac or marram), tourist numbers and desired land-use options (between tourism development, livestock grazing and agriculture). A DCE analysis with hierarchical Bayes estimation was performed. Findings It revealed that the introduction to land-use restrictions and the location of tourism accommodations were the most important attributes for the respondents, with average importance values of 30.36% and 24.02%, respectively. A significant less important attribute was the types of access roads with an average importance of just 8.38%. Cluster analysis revealed widespread heterogeneity in preferences. Research limitations/implications The survey-based DCE was conducted in the Maasai Mara National Reserve, Kenya, and therefore may not be relevant in other contexts. The focus was also only on the residents’ preferences. The findings broaden the knowledge on tourism developments and residents’ support for development and management of protected areas. Practical implications For policymakers, conservation practitioners and tourism businesses, this study provides a source of reference for understanding the development preferences of the Maasai community. In general, the study contributes to a better understanding of local communities in relations to tourism development and residents’ support for developments and management of protected areas (PAs). Originality/value This study fills the gap in the literature on tourism development and residents’ support for developments in PAs by presenting some limits of acceptable and desirable use of PAs among a community that has a complex coexistence with a wildlife tourism destination. It provides an alternative perspective for future research by examining residents’ choice towards destination development and preferences for infrastructure and tourism superstructure development using an experimental approach.