Abstract
Wildlife tourism can provide economic incentives for conservation. Due to the abundance of wildlife and the presence of charismatic species some areas are better suited to wildlife tourism. Our first objective was to develop criteria based on wildlife abundance and diversity to evaluate tourism potential in the Northern Conservation Zone of Botswana. Secondly we wanted to quantify and compare tourism experiences in areas with high and low tourism potential. We used aerial survey data to estimate wildlife biomass and diversity to determine tourism potential, while data from ground surveys quantified the tourist experience. Areas used for High Paying Low Volume tourism had significantly higher mean wildlife biomass and wildlife diversity than the areas avoided for this type of tourism. Only 22% of the Northern Conservation Zone has intermediate to high tourism potential. The areas with high tourism potential, as determined from the aerial survey data, provided tourists with significantly better wildlife sightings (ground surveys) than the low tourism potential areas. Even Low Paying tourism may not be economically viable in concessions that lack areas with intermediate to high tourism potential. The largest part of the Northern Conservation Zone has low tourism potential, but low tourism potential is not equal to low conservation value. Alternative conservation strategies should be developed to complement the economic incentive provided by wildlife-based tourism in Botswana.
Highlights
Nature and wildlife-based tourism provides benefits that compensate to some extent for conservation costs at local, national and global scales [1,2,3]
Our objectives were to quantify the differences in wildlife abundance and diversity between the subjectively selected sites for High Paying Low Volume (HPLV) tourism lodges in northern Botswana and the areas with a perceived low tourism potential, and to develop criteria to evaluate the tourism potential based on wildlife abundance and diversity
We found that the HPLV tourism sample sites in Northern Conservation Zone had a significantly higher mean wildlife biomass (Welch F1, 258.213 = 422.797, P = 0.000) and wildlife diversity (Welch F1, 833.190 = 47.353, P = 0.000) than non-HPLV tourism sample sites (Table 1) for the 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999 aerial surveys
Summary
Nature and wildlife-based tourism provides benefits that compensate to some extent for conservation costs at local, national and global scales [1,2,3]. These costs can be high [4] and local communities are often burdened with most of the indirect conservation costs, including wildlife damage and restrictions on land-use and use of natural resources [1]. Due to the presence of charismatic species and good visibility, some areas are better suited to wildlife tourism than others [6] and can provide a better economic incentive for conservation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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
