- Email: [email protected]
Policy preferences and social economic values to resolve pastoralism-tourism conflicts
Landscape Planning, 12 (1986) 387--401 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands
387
POLICY PREFERENCES AND SOCIAL ECONOMIC VALUES TO RESOLVE PASTORALISM--TOURISM CONFLICTS
R.J. DELFORCE ' , J.A. SINDEN ~ and M.D. YOUNG' ' CSIRO Division o f Wildlife and Rangelands Research, Private Bag P.O., Deniliquin, N.S. W. 2710 (Australia) 2 University o f New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351 (Australia) (Accepted for publication 9 July 1985)
ABSTRACT Delforce, R.J., Sinden, J.A. and Young, M.D., 1986. Policy preferences and social economic values to resolve pastoralism--tourism conflicts. Landscape Plann., 12 : 387--401. In the resolution of landscape planning problems, it is rarely possible to obtain better than ordinal data. This paper reports the collection and use of ordinal social-preference data to evaluate alternative allocations of use-rights and their combination with economic data to aid the resolution of conflicts of interest between pastoral and tourist users of the Flinders Ranges of South Australia. Pastoralists report that the seemingly unfettered access rights given to tourists to enter and remain on their leaseholdings for the purposes of sightseeing, camping and off-road vehicle use is imposing unacceptable management costs on them. The problem for administrators is to identify whether or not there is an alternative set of use-rights which would alleviate the extent of pastoralists' problems without substantially reducing the tourist value of the area. Preferences for alternative policy options are elicited from large numbers of pastoralists and tourists, and several public decision-makers. The tourist value of the area in terms of actual incurred expenses and unappropriated consumers' surplus is estimated, along with the value of pastoral production. Pastoralists' perceived production and other costs due to tourism are quantified. The preference and economic data are then analysed to identify the socially optimal policy for the area. It is argued that greater control over tourist access is desirable.
INTRODUCTION T h e F l i n d e r s R a n g e s o f S o u t h A u s t r a l i a is a n a r i d e n v i r o n m e n t o f r u g g e d scenic b e a u t y , o p e n space and isolation, which a n n u a l l y attracts m a n y t o u r i s t s f r o m t h r o u g h o u t A u s t r a l i a . A l t h o u g h s o m e o f t h e a r e a has b e e n d e s i g n a t e d as a n a t i o n a l p a r k t o c a t e r l a r g e l y f o r t o u r i s t n e e d s , i t is m o s t l y o c c u p i e d c r o w n l a n d , p r e d o m i n a n t l y u n d e r p a s t o r a l lease t e n u r e . T h e p a s t o r a l l a n d s are p r i n c i p a l l y u s e d f o r g r a z i n g s h e e p a n d c a t t l e . W h i l s t t o u r i s m has u n q u e s t i o n a b l y aided local n o n - p a s t o r a l businesses t h r o u g h the i n j e c t i o n of t o u r i s t dollars, tourist use of l a n d w i t h i n established pastoral
0304-3924]86/$03.50
© 1986 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
388 leases has apparently created management problems for the area's traditional pastoral landholders. In a strictly legal sense, lessees do not at present appear to have any control over access to their leaseholdings, as the conditions of their lease provide t hat the public can enter, drive through, and camp upon, a pastoral lease w i t h o u t obtaining the lessee's permission (Interdepartmental Working Group, 1981). The management problems caused by this u n f e t t e r e d access include: frightening of sheep and cattle from watering points; fouling of waterholes, creeks and bores; damage and destruction of vegetation and p r o p e r t y ; death and injury to livestock from shooting and inadvertent vehicle collisions; whidespread litter; unw ant ed livestock mixing; mis-use of off-road vehicles; seasonal fire risk; and general nuisance value (Hut° chings, 1979). In response, pastoralists have sought amendments to existing lease conditions to give them control over tourist access. This may, however, lead to a curtailment of what some tourists view as a "long-established right" o f use ( I n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l Working Groups, 1981, p. 10.9). This apparent conflict of interest between pastoralists and tourists is a vexed one, which is of concern to the various public administrators with an interest in the area and remains largely unresolved. Hitherto, there has been a lack o f information on the current economic value of tourism in the area, the current economic impact of tourism on pastoralism, and the preferences of the users for alternative land-use options. This paper describes the collection and interpretation of the ordinal preferences of large samples of pastoralists and tourists in conjunction with the economic data, with a view to making r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s on a socially preferred policy opt i on for the management of the Flinders Ranges. The preferences of three public decision-makers were also elicited to aid policy r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . The paper begins by providing a basis for the valuation of the benefits of tourism in the Flinders Ranges. The m et hods adopt ed are then used to assess possible alternative access rights for the area. The economic values and preference data obtained from the various tourist and pastoralist surveys are then analysed in an a t t e m p t to choose a preferred land-use policy for the study area. BASIS FOR VALUATION OF THE BENEFITS OF TOURISM AND PASTORALISM Following Mishan (1971, 1976), Dasgupta and Pearce (1972) and Brookshire et al. (1980), consumers' surplus is accepted as the appropriate economic measure of the net social value of a good such as tourism or o u t d o o r recreation. In this c o n t e x t , consumers' surplus is the m a x i m u m a m o u n t in excess of actual incurred cost t hat a tourist is prepared to spend in order to visit the Flinders Ranges before choosing n o t to go there. In the research r e p o r t e d here, extra willingness-to-pay (hereafter WTP) is ad o p ted as the operational measure of consumers' surplus. This was specified as the m axi m um extra a m o u n t tourists indicated t hat t h e y would be
389 willing to spend in excess of actual incurred expenses and still visit the Flinders Ranges. The questions used to elicit tourists' actual incurred expenses and extra WTP's were formulated so that a distinction could be drawn between tourists making the Flinders Ranges the sole purpose of their round-trip from home, and those visiting other places as well. For the former class of visitor, the relevant incurred expenditure is the total round-trip cost. In the latter case where tourists visit other places, only that component of total round-trip cost that could be definitely attributed to specifically visiting the Flinders Ranges should be included in the estimate of incurred expenditure. The costs of tourism on pastoralism under the current set of access rights are identified, and attempts are made to value these costs. Valuation is in terms of identifiable losses in pastoral production and the costs of repairs to damages believed by pastoralists to be attributable to the direct actions of tourists in recent years. Possible economic impacts of the alternative management policies are analysed. RESEARCH METHODS Alternative access rights
Four descriptive options were formulated for each of (a) tourist access to pastoral tracks (X1), (b) camping access to pastoral lands (2£2) and (c) off-road vehicle access (2(3). These are shown in Table I. The options represent the actual decision alternatives being faced by the South Australian Government for the future management of the Flinders Ranges in relation to the various land-use attributes (South Australian State Planning Authority, 1978). They were formulated after discussions with South Australian Public Service personnel with a professional interest in the management of the area. These discussions also indicated that the best interpretation of the existing situation in each case was (probably) Option 4 (unfettered tourist access). It is difficult to be confident about what is legally the status quo, however, as the law relating to public access to pastoral leases is vague, and legal experts cannot interpret the meaning of the relevant legislation (Interdepartmental Working Group, 1981). Nevertheless, Option 4 seems to be occurring in each case. Survey m e t h o d s
The general location of the study area and the delineation of the 36 pastoral (lease) holdings comprising the study area are shown in Fig. 1. This figure also indicates the location of the main roads and towns within the region, the positions of national parks, and also the two most popular tourist camping sites on pastoral lands; Parachilna and Chambers Gorges. A combined total of 97 tourist groups were interviewed in person at the
P r o h i b i t e d , e x c e p t to a n y areas of m a j o r public i n t e r e s t w h e r e no tracks exist, or a n y w h e r e w i t h specific p e r m i s s i o n f r o m pastoralists
Off-road driving on pastoral lands
(x~)
P e r m i t t e d in all environmentally s u i t a b l e areas, e x c e p t in limited areas a d j a c e n t to h o m e s t e a d s , outstations, a n d shearing sheds
Tourists can c a m p anywhere, except 1 km from homesteads a n d 500 m from man-made water
C a m p i n g restricted to : (i) n a t i o n a l parks; (ii) 200 m f r o m t h r o u g h roads a n d G o v e r n m e n t designated tracks, b u t not within 1 km from homesteads and 500 m f r o m m a n - m a d e water; (iii) areas o f m a j o r public interest; (iv) a n y w h e r e w i t h specific permission from pastoralists.
C a m p i n g access C a m p i n g restricted to: to pastoral (i) n a t i o n a l parks; lands (ii) 200 m f r o m t h r o u g h (X:) roads, b u t n o t w i t h i n 1 km from homesteads a n d 500 m f r o m manm a d e water; (iii) a n y w h e r e w i t h specific permission from pastoralists.
(Xl)
Prohibited, except with specific p e r m i s s i o n f r o m pastoralists
All tracks o p e n , e x c e p t private tracks in the vicinity of s t a t i o n h o m e s t e a d s , outstations and shearing sheds
All tracks private, e x c e p t through-roads and Governmentdesignated tracks to areas of m a j o r public i n t e r e s t
Tourist access to pastoral tracks
All tracks private, e x c e p t t h r o u g h - r o a d s w h i c h are o p e n to the public. Permission f r o m pastoralists r e q u i r e d to drive o n private tracks
Option 3
Option 2
Option I
A l t e r n a t i v e tourist access rights
TABLE I
P e r m i t t e d in all pastoral areas, w i t h o u t permission f r o m pastoralists
T o u r i s t s can c a m p anywhere, without permission from pastoralists
T o u r i s t s can drive along all tracks, without permission f r o m pastoralists
Option 4
¢D ¢D O
WOOLATEHi MOOLAWA~ANA
HOUNT LYNDHURST
i
~IANGL~ /
/ i/
MYRTLE
/
XAI',V-ANiNNA
SPRINGS
EDEACARA
WODLTANA I
BELTANA
FROME
•
/_._.- O WERTALODNA
NILPENA
RENS k
WIRREALPA
F LINDERS "
ERUDINA MARTINS
a
}NTABATiNYANA
Boundary around study leases
/
WILLIPPA WALLERBE RDINNA
National
Parks
Property boundary ,
/
/
KANYAKA
THREE CREEKS SPRINGFFELD \ Cradock,
iI i i
T©
QUORN
Q
Non contiguous property parts
(--
-3
Parachilna Gorge
O
Chambers Gorge
@
ORRORO0
Roads
. . . .
I
50 KMS
Townships
<
200
people
Fig. 1. Location of study area and distribution of pastoral leases within the Flinders Ranges.
©
392 two gorges (hereafter referred to as the tourist on-site survey) during Septemb er 1981 and the April 1982 Easter weekend. A mail survey questionnaire (hereafter referred to as the tourist mail survey) was also distributed to 190 tourists in the Flinders Ranges National Park during September 1981. Seventy-seven useful mail questionnaires were returned. These two surveys, inter alia, sought the required data on expenditures and extra WTP's. Ordinal rankings of the decision options of Table I were obtained only from the 97 on-site survey tourists. The types of tourists who visit the Flinders Ranges were believed to vary with time in terms of their characteristics, benefits, needs and preferences. Hence, a survey u n d e r t a k e n in any particular period would be unlikely to be representative of, say, all tourists who visit the area over the course of Axles per day Sept school holidays
350 300
I~
• ~
long weekend
F
250 200.
Parachilna Gorge
150 -
Aug
Sept
400t
Oct
Nov
Dec
1981
Jan
Feb
1982
3501 3001 250~
North Eastern FSnders Ranges ( Ar karoola )
2oo/
,0t' Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Fig. 2. Distribution of tourist activity over time at two locations w i t h i n the Flinders Ranges as indicated by vehicle axle counts.
393 any year. Consequently, the tourist on-site survey was spread over two separate time-periods, the 1981 Sept em ber school holidays and the 1982 Easter weekend, in an e f f o r t to capture some of these perceived differences. The o th e r main tourist-use periods are the O ct ober long weekend and the May school holidays (Fig. 2). An estimation of the total annual economic tourist value of the area requires an estimation of annual tourist usage. This was achieved for the years 1980 and 1981 using vehicle axle counts (Fig. 2). Details of the method and assumptions used are contained in Delforce and Hardaker (1983). The estimations suggest t ha t 87 380 tourists visited the Flinders Ranges in 1980 and 98 370 in 1981. The estimated numbers of tourists were then multiplied by the relevant estimated average expenditure and average extra WTP per tourist (= consumers' surplus) to give an estimate of the economic total social benefit of the Flinders Ranges in those years. Mail questionnaires were sent to each of the 36 pastoral lessees who reside in the Flanders Ranges (Fig. 1), with 33 responses. Six of these 33 respondents were then selected for detailed case study. These surveys, inter alia, sought data on the value of pastoral p r o d u c t i o n in the years 1 9 7 8 / 7 9 and 1979/80, and the nature and m o n e t a r y e x t e n t of the costs (if any) imposed on pastoralists by tourists during that time. Ordinal rankings of the policy options were also obtained during the survey. The value of the pastoral p r o d u c t i o n of the study area was estimated to give an indication of the regional significance of any tourist-induced losses using records of average prices received by the p r o d u c e r for sheep, cattle and wool p r o d u c e d in th at region in the p r o d u c t i o n years in question. Three senior executives f r om relevant State G o v e r n m e n t D epart m ent s were chosen as decision-makers for the purposes of the study. Their policy r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s are usually accepted by those above t hem in the policymaking hierarchy. Each was asked to rank the options for each attribute according to the advice he would give his G o v e r n m e n t Minister. ECONOMIC VALUES Tourism values Responses to the tourist mail survey indicate that 44% c o m b i n e d a visit to the Flinders Ranges with one to ot her locations, and 56% made the Flinders Ranges the object of their trip. The average round-trip cost for those who made a separate trip (56%) was $90.34 per tourist per trip, and for those who also visited ot he r locations the cost was $33.73 per tourist per visit. Similar results were obtained from the tourist on-site survey. The average round-trip cost for the 90% who made a separate trip was $76.00 per tourist per trip, and $34.86 per tourist per trip for the Flinders Ranges c o m p o n e n t of the trip which involved a trip to ot her locations.
394 T h u s , the t o t a l e s t i m a t e d c o s t o f the Flinders Ranges e x p e r i e n c e f o r 169 (77 + 92) tourists c o n t a c t e d during this s t u d y is $11 5 2 9 . 7 6 (43 X $ 9 0 . 3 4 + 34 X $ 3 3 . 7 3 + 80 X $ 7 6 . 0 0 + 12 X $ 3 4 . 8 6 ) , or $ 6 8 . 2 2 p e r t o u r i s t p e r visit. With an e s t i m a t e d 87 3 8 0 tourists visiting the area in 1 9 8 0 a n d 98 370 in 1 9 8 1 , the t o t a l e s t i m a t e d i n c u r r e d costs o f tourists in specifically visiting t h e area was a b o u t $ 5 . 9 6 million ( $ 6 8 . 2 2 X 87 380) in 1 9 8 0 a n d $6.71 million ( $ 6 8 . 2 2 X 98 370) in 1981. T h e s e costs are c o m p o s e d o f e x p e n d i t u r e b o t h inside a n d o u t s i d e t h e area. T h e average c o s t p e r t o u r i s t a n d s u b s e q u e n t WTP e s t i m a t e s are a s s u m e d to be t h e s a m e in 1 9 8 0 a n d 1981. T h e average e x t r a WTP f o r b o t h surveys c o m b i n e d , t h a t is the e x t r a value o f the Flinders R a n g e s e x p e r i e n c e o v e r a n d a b o v e t h a t w h i c h t h e y spent, was $ 3 5 . 8 8 p e r t o u r i s t p e r trip, w i t h a m i n i m u m o f $ 2 8 . 1 7 p e r t o u r i s t p e r trip in t h e case o f t h e t o u r i s t mail survey. T h u s , the t o t a l n e t value o f t o u r i s m (the c o n s u m e r surplus) in the Flinders R a n g e s was at least $ 2 . 4 6 million ( $ 2 8 . 1 7 X 87 380 t o u r i s t trips) in 1 9 8 0 a n d $ 2 . 7 7 million ( $ 2 8 . 1 7 X 98 370) in 1 9 8 1 , w i t h an average n e t value o f $ 3 . 1 4 million ( $ 3 5 . 8 8 X 87 3 8 0 ) in 1 9 8 0 a n d $ 3 . 5 3 million ( $ 3 5 . 8 8 X 98 370) in 1981. T h e t o t a l social b e n e f i t o f t o u r i s m in the area ( t h a t is, c o n s u m e r s ' exp e n d i t u r e plus c o n s u m e r s ' surplus) is e s t i m a t e d to be at least $ 8 . 4 2 million in 1 9 8 0 a n d $ 9 . 4 8 million in 1 9 8 1 , a n d averages $ 9 . 1 0 million in 1 9 8 0 a n d $ 1 0 . 2 4 million in 1 9 8 1 .
Cost o f tourism on pastoralism T h e r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n c e o f t o u r i s t p r o b l e m s is given in T a b l e II. T h e f r i g h t e n i n g o f s t o c k f r o m w a t e r i n g p o i n t s , gates being left o p e n and the TABLE II Incidence of problems caused by tourists (%)
Litter Gates left open Frightening stock Bogged tourists Damage and theft Fire risk Stock mixing Nuisance value Mechanical problems Wear and tear on private roads Destruction of vegetation Fouling waters Removing water Liability for tourists
Yes
No
80.6 71.0 66.7 65.5 63.3 55.2 54.8 53.6 53.3 51.6 37.9 33.3 23.3 10.7
16.1 25.8 33.3 27.6 30.0 34.5 32.3 35.7 46.7 41.9 55.2 56.7 66.7 82.1
Uncertain 3.2 3.2 6.9 6.7 10.3 12.9 10.7 6.5 6.9 10.0 10.0 7.1
395 resultant unw ant ed stock mixing, damage and theft, litter and bogged tourists are the more c o m m o n l y cited problems occurring on pastoral properties. No one problem is occurring everywhere. These results, however, give no indication in each case of the frequency and/ or seriousness of the particular problem involved. Moreover, there is usually a minority of pastoralists who appear to be uncertain as to whether the particular problem is occurring on their holdings. Table III shows the management responses of pastoralists to these various problems. The most c o m m o n responses are to erect " n o trespass" and other warning signs, and to regularly m o n i t o r tourist campsites and movements. These are relatively low-cost responses. TABLE III Management responses to tourist problems (%)
Erecting signs to discourage tourists Monitoring tourists Collecting litter Installing ramps in place of gates Locking gates to stop tourists Erecting extra fences/gates to stop tourists Installing litter bins Other
Yes
No
67.7 60.0 46.7 31.0 26.7 16.7 13.3 3.3
32.3 40.0 53.5 69.0 73.3 83.3 86.7 96.7
Only 3 (or 9%) of the respondents could definitely attribute any significant losses in pastoral p r o d u c t i o n s to tourist activities. Of these, only one was able to specify a significant dollar value for the loss. This particular lessee stated that in one paddock f r e q u e n t e d by tourists, the 2000 sheep which normally grazed there had, on average, p r o d u c e d 1.4 kg less wool per head than sheep in an adjoining paddock. He attributed this loss in p r o d u c t i o n to the t e n d e n c y of campers to frighten sheep from watering points, and claimed it represented an annual loss of $6000. Other pastoralists indicated that, whereas t hey believed some damage to structures and p r o p e r t y had occurred (for example, removal of strands of fencing wire and damage to gates and signs), the dollar costs were minimal. A n o t h e r 33.3% of respondents were conscious of unnatural p r o d u c t i o n losses in recent years, but could n o t attribute with certainty any of these perceived losses to the presence of tourists on their pastoral holdings.
Value of pastoral production A reasonable estimate of the total gross value of pastoral p r o d u c t i o n from the pastoral properties of the study area was possible from the pastoral data obtained in the research. An estimate of the net value of p r o d u c t i o n
396 was n o t possible, however, because of lack of information on p r o d u c t i o n costs. The estimated gross value was $4.29 million in 1 9 7 8 / 7 9 and $4.80 million in 1979/80. Details of the m e t h o d of estimation (including the assumptions on average prices used) are contained in Delforce et al. (1985).
Comparison o f tourism and pastoralism values Pastoralism and tourism are joint uses of the Flinders Ranges. Their combined gross annual benefits seem to have been at least $13.22 million around 1980. In minimum terms, tourism ($8.42 m) exceeded pastoralism ($4.80 m) in 1980 by a bout $3.62 m. The comparison in terms of minimum gross revenue is as follows:
Gross benefits Gross revenues Consumers' surplus
Pastoralism ( 1979/ 80)
Tourism (1980)
Total
$4.80 m $4.80 m $0
$8.42 m $5.96 m $2.46 m
$13.22 m $10.76 m $ 2.46 m
The gross revenue data represent the capacity of the area to produce pastoral revenue and to attract tourist revenue. In this sense, gross revenue f r o m tourism is the total actual expenditure under tourism. Tourism is ahead of pastoralism on this basis. The gross benefits for tourism include consumers' surplus, because this is a recognised economic benefit. The consumers are all (or at least virtually all) Australians, and the value of this surplus is a function of the num ber of people who visit the Flinders Ranges. In contrast, gross benefits for pastoralism exclude the (uncalculated consumers') surplus for grazing, in the belief that extra p~oduction must be e xp ort ed. The consumers of the meat and wool products are t her e f or e in overseas countries.
Ordinal rankings of decision options The ordinal rankings of policy options by the 33 pastoralists and 97 onsite tourists are given in Tables IV and V respectively. The f o u r t h set of options were not shown to pastoralists, as pilot testing revealed t hat these options inhibited pastoralists' ability to rationally consider each option. The policy and methodological ramifications of this decision are discussed at length in Delforce and Hardaker ( t 9 8 3 ) . It is n o t e d here, however, t hat there is very little practical difference between Options 3 and 4 in each case. Most pastoralists ranked Option 3 last, and would therefore be expected to rank the more tourist-oriented Option 4 lower still in their order o f preferences. There is clearly a lack of unanimity in preferences both between pastor-
397 TABLE IV Pastoralists' rankings of policy options Land-use attribute
Option
Percentage of the time option was ranked First
Second
Third
Pastoral track access (X,)
1 2 3
54.5 45.5 0.0
42.4 54.6 3.0
3.0 0.0 97.0
Camping access (X 2 )
1 2 3
87.1 12.9 0.0
12.9 87.1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0
Off-road vehicle access (X~)
1 2 3
90.9 3.0 6.1
9.7 87.1 3.2
0.0 9.7 90.3
TABLE V Tourists' rankings of policy options Land-use attributes
Option
Percentage of the time option was ranked First
Second
Third
Fourth
Pastoral track access (X~)
1 2 3 4
14.4 37.1 45.4 3.3
36.1 41.2 18.6 4.4
38.1 17.5 36.1 6.7
9.3 4.1 0.0 83.3
Camping access (X 2 )
1 2 3 4
13.4 58.8 25.8 1.0
54.6 28.9 13.3 3.3
23.7 9.3 60.8 4.4
6.2 1.0 1.0 90.0
Off-road vehicle access (X~)
1 2 3 4
30.9 40.2 28.9 1.0
26.8 46.4 22.7 3.3
32.0 13.4 48.5 6.7
10.3 0.0 0.0 88.9
alists a n d t o u r i s t s , a n d b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s o f t h e s a m e u s e r - g r o u p . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e m o s t p a s t o r a l i s t - o r i e n t e d O p t i o n S e t 1 is u s u a l l y d e s i r e d b y a t least the m a j o r i t y of pastoralists for each a t t r i b u t e . In c o n t r a s t , tourists u s u a l l y l e a s t p r e f e r t h i s o p t i o n i n e a c h case. O v e r a l l , m o s t t o u r i s t s w a n t a n a s s u r e d r i g h t t o visit a n d c a m p o n p a s t o r a l l a n d s ( e i t h e r O p t i o n 2 o r 3 f o r t r a c k access, X 1 , a n d c a m p i n g access, X2 ), w h i l e p a s t o r a l i s t s w a n t t h e r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e s e a l l - i m p o r t a n t t y p e s o f access. B o t h g r o u p s , h o w e v e r , v i e w u n f e t t e r e d access ( u n d e r t h e f o u r t h set o f o p t i o n s ) , o r v i r t u a l l y u n f e t t e r e d
398 access ( u n d e r t h e t h i r d set o f o p t i o n s ) , as u n d e s i r a b l e . T o u r i s t s are divided in their p r e f e r e n c e s f o r r e s t r i c t i o n s on o f f - r o a d vehicle access, )(3. T h e r a n k i n g s o f the first t h r e e o p t i o n s b y t h e t h r e e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s are d i s p l a y e d in T a b l e VI. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , a n d p e r h a p s in r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f the issues, t h e y disagree o n the m o s t p r e f e r r e d o p t i o n f o r all a t t r i b u t e s . F o r t r a c k access, X , , t h e y are divided as to w h e t h e r all t r a c k s s h o u l d be o p e n e x c e p t t h o s e a r o u n d h o m e s t e a d s and o t h e r i m p o r t a n t m a n - m a d e s t r u c t u r e s ( O p t i o n 3), or w h e t h e r o n l y t h o s e t r a c k s to areas o f m a j o r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s h o u l d be o p e n to tourists ( O p t i o n 2). Similar divisions o c c u r in r e l a t i o n to c a m p i n g access, X2, as to w h e t h e r c a m p i n g should be permitted everywhere except near homesteads and other man-structures ( O p t i o n 3), or o n l y at areas o f m a j o r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ( O p t i o n 2). O f f - r o a d vehicle access, X3, is desired e i t h e r o n l y w h e r e n e c e s s a r y to r e a c h areas o f m a j o r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ( O p t i o n 2), or o n l y w i t h p a s t o r a l i s t s p e r m i s s i o n (Opt i o n 1). TABLE VI Decision-makers' rankings of policy options' Land-use attribute
Option
Decision-maker 1
2
3
Pastoral track access (x,)
1 2 3
3 2 1
2 1 3
2 1 3
Camping access (X~)
1 2 3
3 2 1
2 1 3
2 1 3
Off-road vehicle access (X3)
1 2 3
2 1 3
2 1 3
1 2 3
~Ranking: 1, most preferred option; 2, second most preferred option; 3, least preferred option. POLICY ANALYSIS As o n l y o n e p a s t o r a l i s t c o u l d i d e n t i f y a significant m o n e t a r y c o s t o f t o u r i s m , it s e e m s t h a t f r o m a regional e c o n o m i c v i e w p o i n t the p r o b l e m s are n o t very serious. This implies t h a t , in strict r a t i o n a l e c o n o m i c t e r m s , a n y p o l i c y w h i c h severely restricts tourists, such as a change f r o m the c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n o f O p t i o n 4 ( u n f e t t e r e d t o u r i s t access) to O p t i o n 1 ( p a s t o r a l i s t c o n t r o l over access), is u n l i k e l y to p r o d u c e a n e t social b e n e f i t a n d w o u l d be difficult to j u s t i f y .
399
Most costs of tourism on pastoralism were non-monetary, however, meaning that they could be not be valued satisfactorily in dollar terms. For example, responses from pastoralists indicate that the most c o m m o n problems are litter, leaving gates open and other general nuisance values (Table II). Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that these non-monetary, intangible costs of tourism on pastoralism would justify the loss in total annual gross benefits of tourism on pastoral lands that would probably result with a change in policy to Option 1 for all attributes. The estimated values of tourism, of course, represent the values of the whole Flinders Ranges, including the area's national parks, and not just that which can be attributed to the pastoral lands of the area. The value of tourism on pastoral lands alone would be some lower amount. That is, the whole Flinders Ranges consists of pastoral lands, national park land, and crown land under other uses such as mining. The c o m p o n e n t of these values which can be attributed to tourism on pastoral lands alone cannot be specified from the research data because m a n y rourists visit several types of land during their stay in the area. These tourists would find it difficult to divide their benefits between pastoral and non-pastoral land. The elicited preferences suggest that both Option 1 and Option 4, in each case, are not socially desirable. Whereas most, or the majority of, pastoralists want Option 1, it is clearly undesirable to most tourists and to decision-makers (except decision-maker 3) for off-road vehicle access. Tourists clearly reject Option 4. As noted earlier, pastoralists would also be expected to reject it. The change from Option 4 to Option 3 (unfettered access except around homesteads and other important man-made structures) would be unlikely to significantly reduce the annual number of tourists visiting the Flinders minor change in tourist access rights, whilst it would certainly improve the welfare of pastoralists. An increase in the welfare of pastoralists would result from an increased level of privacy under Option 3 compared to Option 4. If so, then Option 3 would be more socially optimal than the existing situation of Option 4. As traditional land users, however, pastoralists would regard this as only a very minor concession to them in that it would merely establish their basic human right to privacy. It might also be argued that an assured tourist right of access to designated areas of major public interest for sightseeing, camping and off-road vehicle purposes through the adoption of Option 2 for each attribute might not significantly reduce the annual number of tourists visiting the Flinders Ranges, and hence might not significantly reduce the net value of the area under tourism. This, however, is subject to the important assumption that the adoption of Option 2 in both cases would n o t result in any significant decrease in the average value (or marginal WTP) of the Flinders Ranges per tourist per visit. If this were so, and assuming that the adoption of Option 2 for all land-use attributes would lead to a significant improvement in pastoralists' welfare, then the adoption of this option for all attributes
400 would be m or e socially optimal than Option 3 or Option 4. It would also be much m or e acceptable to pastoralists than the adoption of Option 3 in each case. Most tourists want either Option 2 or Option 3 for sightseeing and camping and either Option I or Option 3 for off-road vehicle access. Most pastoralists want Option 1 for all attributes, and clearly prefer Option 2 to Option 3. Option 1, however, would be unacceptable to most tourists. Option 2 for all attributes seems the most satisfactory compromise solution to the problem. This set of options also represents the most satisfactory solution to decision-makers. CONCLUDING REMARKS The use of the economic research data for the t y p e of policy analysis u n d er tak en is not strictly appropriate because of the uncertainties in the values involved. In particular, it is uncertain whether a change in policy from Option 4 to Option 2 for all attributes would result in a positive net social benefit. T ha t is, it is uncertain as to whether such a change would mean that the probable resultant increase in total producers' surplus (to pastoralists) would exceed or equal the probable resultant decrease in total consumers' surplus (to tourists). It would also be desirable to determine the changes in net social benefit f r o m the policy move f r om Option 4 to each of Option 3 and Option 1. A major ef f or t might be made with this to evaluate the intangible costs of tourism on pastoralism, as well as intangible benefits to pastoralists such as the rural way of life. Techniques for this purpose are given in Sinden and Worrell (1979). In the case of tourist values, the change in net social benefit might be specified in terms of WTP's for the alternative sets of policy options. Also of relevance to such evaluation is option-value. This is, the value that current users or non-users of the study area derive from the fact that they have retained the opt i on or right to use the resource, as it is now, should t h e y so dem a nd in the future (Cicchetti and Freeman, 1971; Bohm, 1975; Bishop, 1982). Such values can be exhibited by large p r o p o r t i o n s of the population, and could thus be quite substantial. The change f r om Option 4 to Option 2 (open access only to areas of designated major public interest), however, seems desirable for the camping and off-road vehicle access provisions. Pastoral track access remains a more difficult m a t t e r to resolve. REFERENCES Bishop, R.C., 1982. Option value: an exposition and extension. Land Econ., 58: 1--15. Bohm, P., 1975. Option demand and consumers' surplus. Am. Econ. Rev., 65: 733--736. Brookshire, D., Randall, A. and Stoll, J., 1980. Valuing increments and decrements in natural resource service flows. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 62: 478--488.
401 Cicchetti, C.J. and Freeman, A.M., 1971. Option demand and consumers' surplus: further comment. Q. J. Econ., 85: 528--339. Dasgupta, A.K. and Pearce, D.W., 1972. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Theory and Practice. McMillan, student edn,. Bungay, Suffolk, 270 pp. Delforce, R.J. and Hardaker, J.B., 1983. An experiment in the use of multi-attribute utility theory as an aid to public decision making. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., unpublished paper. Delforce, R.J., Sinden, J.A. and Young, M.D., 1985. An economic analysis of relationships between pastoralism and tourism in the Flinders Ranges of South Australia. CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research, Divisional Report, in press. Hutchings, A.W.J., 1979. Public Administration in the Flinders Ranges. Discussion Paper, Department of Urban and Regional Affairs, Adelaide. Interdepartmental Working Group, 1981. The Administration, Management and Tenure of South Australia's Pastoral Lands. South Australian Government Printer, Adelaide. Mishan, E.J., 1971. Cost--Benefit Analysis: An Informal Introduction. George Allen and Unwin, London. Mishan, E.J., 1976. The use of compensating and equivalent variations in cost-benefit analysis. Economica, 43: 185--197. Sinden, J.A. and Worrell, A.C., 1979. Unpriced Values: Decisions without Market Prices. Wiley, Brisbane. South Australian State Planning Authority, 1978. Flinders Ranges Planning Area Development Plan. State Planning Authority, Adelaide.
387
POLICY PREFERENCES AND SOCIAL ECONOMIC VALUES TO RESOLVE PASTORALISM--TOURISM CONFLICTS
R.J. DELFORCE ' , J.A. SINDEN ~ and M.D. YOUNG' ' CSIRO Division o f Wildlife and Rangelands Research, Private Bag P.O., Deniliquin, N.S. W. 2710 (Australia) 2 University o f New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351 (Australia) (Accepted for publication 9 July 1985)
ABSTRACT Delforce, R.J., Sinden, J.A. and Young, M.D., 1986. Policy preferences and social economic values to resolve pastoralism--tourism conflicts. Landscape Plann., 12 : 387--401. In the resolution of landscape planning problems, it is rarely possible to obtain better than ordinal data. This paper reports the collection and use of ordinal social-preference data to evaluate alternative allocations of use-rights and their combination with economic data to aid the resolution of conflicts of interest between pastoral and tourist users of the Flinders Ranges of South Australia. Pastoralists report that the seemingly unfettered access rights given to tourists to enter and remain on their leaseholdings for the purposes of sightseeing, camping and off-road vehicle use is imposing unacceptable management costs on them. The problem for administrators is to identify whether or not there is an alternative set of use-rights which would alleviate the extent of pastoralists' problems without substantially reducing the tourist value of the area. Preferences for alternative policy options are elicited from large numbers of pastoralists and tourists, and several public decision-makers. The tourist value of the area in terms of actual incurred expenses and unappropriated consumers' surplus is estimated, along with the value of pastoral production. Pastoralists' perceived production and other costs due to tourism are quantified. The preference and economic data are then analysed to identify the socially optimal policy for the area. It is argued that greater control over tourist access is desirable.
INTRODUCTION T h e F l i n d e r s R a n g e s o f S o u t h A u s t r a l i a is a n a r i d e n v i r o n m e n t o f r u g g e d scenic b e a u t y , o p e n space and isolation, which a n n u a l l y attracts m a n y t o u r i s t s f r o m t h r o u g h o u t A u s t r a l i a . A l t h o u g h s o m e o f t h e a r e a has b e e n d e s i g n a t e d as a n a t i o n a l p a r k t o c a t e r l a r g e l y f o r t o u r i s t n e e d s , i t is m o s t l y o c c u p i e d c r o w n l a n d , p r e d o m i n a n t l y u n d e r p a s t o r a l lease t e n u r e . T h e p a s t o r a l l a n d s are p r i n c i p a l l y u s e d f o r g r a z i n g s h e e p a n d c a t t l e . W h i l s t t o u r i s m has u n q u e s t i o n a b l y aided local n o n - p a s t o r a l businesses t h r o u g h the i n j e c t i o n of t o u r i s t dollars, tourist use of l a n d w i t h i n established pastoral
0304-3924]86/$03.50
© 1986 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
388 leases has apparently created management problems for the area's traditional pastoral landholders. In a strictly legal sense, lessees do not at present appear to have any control over access to their leaseholdings, as the conditions of their lease provide t hat the public can enter, drive through, and camp upon, a pastoral lease w i t h o u t obtaining the lessee's permission (Interdepartmental Working Group, 1981). The management problems caused by this u n f e t t e r e d access include: frightening of sheep and cattle from watering points; fouling of waterholes, creeks and bores; damage and destruction of vegetation and p r o p e r t y ; death and injury to livestock from shooting and inadvertent vehicle collisions; whidespread litter; unw ant ed livestock mixing; mis-use of off-road vehicles; seasonal fire risk; and general nuisance value (Hut° chings, 1979). In response, pastoralists have sought amendments to existing lease conditions to give them control over tourist access. This may, however, lead to a curtailment of what some tourists view as a "long-established right" o f use ( I n t e r d e p a r t m e n t a l Working Groups, 1981, p. 10.9). This apparent conflict of interest between pastoralists and tourists is a vexed one, which is of concern to the various public administrators with an interest in the area and remains largely unresolved. Hitherto, there has been a lack o f information on the current economic value of tourism in the area, the current economic impact of tourism on pastoralism, and the preferences of the users for alternative land-use options. This paper describes the collection and interpretation of the ordinal preferences of large samples of pastoralists and tourists in conjunction with the economic data, with a view to making r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s on a socially preferred policy opt i on for the management of the Flinders Ranges. The preferences of three public decision-makers were also elicited to aid policy r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . The paper begins by providing a basis for the valuation of the benefits of tourism in the Flinders Ranges. The m et hods adopt ed are then used to assess possible alternative access rights for the area. The economic values and preference data obtained from the various tourist and pastoralist surveys are then analysed in an a t t e m p t to choose a preferred land-use policy for the study area. BASIS FOR VALUATION OF THE BENEFITS OF TOURISM AND PASTORALISM Following Mishan (1971, 1976), Dasgupta and Pearce (1972) and Brookshire et al. (1980), consumers' surplus is accepted as the appropriate economic measure of the net social value of a good such as tourism or o u t d o o r recreation. In this c o n t e x t , consumers' surplus is the m a x i m u m a m o u n t in excess of actual incurred cost t hat a tourist is prepared to spend in order to visit the Flinders Ranges before choosing n o t to go there. In the research r e p o r t e d here, extra willingness-to-pay (hereafter WTP) is ad o p ted as the operational measure of consumers' surplus. This was specified as the m axi m um extra a m o u n t tourists indicated t hat t h e y would be
389 willing to spend in excess of actual incurred expenses and still visit the Flinders Ranges. The questions used to elicit tourists' actual incurred expenses and extra WTP's were formulated so that a distinction could be drawn between tourists making the Flinders Ranges the sole purpose of their round-trip from home, and those visiting other places as well. For the former class of visitor, the relevant incurred expenditure is the total round-trip cost. In the latter case where tourists visit other places, only that component of total round-trip cost that could be definitely attributed to specifically visiting the Flinders Ranges should be included in the estimate of incurred expenditure. The costs of tourism on pastoralism under the current set of access rights are identified, and attempts are made to value these costs. Valuation is in terms of identifiable losses in pastoral production and the costs of repairs to damages believed by pastoralists to be attributable to the direct actions of tourists in recent years. Possible economic impacts of the alternative management policies are analysed. RESEARCH METHODS Alternative access rights
Four descriptive options were formulated for each of (a) tourist access to pastoral tracks (X1), (b) camping access to pastoral lands (2£2) and (c) off-road vehicle access (2(3). These are shown in Table I. The options represent the actual decision alternatives being faced by the South Australian Government for the future management of the Flinders Ranges in relation to the various land-use attributes (South Australian State Planning Authority, 1978). They were formulated after discussions with South Australian Public Service personnel with a professional interest in the management of the area. These discussions also indicated that the best interpretation of the existing situation in each case was (probably) Option 4 (unfettered tourist access). It is difficult to be confident about what is legally the status quo, however, as the law relating to public access to pastoral leases is vague, and legal experts cannot interpret the meaning of the relevant legislation (Interdepartmental Working Group, 1981). Nevertheless, Option 4 seems to be occurring in each case. Survey m e t h o d s
The general location of the study area and the delineation of the 36 pastoral (lease) holdings comprising the study area are shown in Fig. 1. This figure also indicates the location of the main roads and towns within the region, the positions of national parks, and also the two most popular tourist camping sites on pastoral lands; Parachilna and Chambers Gorges. A combined total of 97 tourist groups were interviewed in person at the
P r o h i b i t e d , e x c e p t to a n y areas of m a j o r public i n t e r e s t w h e r e no tracks exist, or a n y w h e r e w i t h specific p e r m i s s i o n f r o m pastoralists
Off-road driving on pastoral lands
(x~)
P e r m i t t e d in all environmentally s u i t a b l e areas, e x c e p t in limited areas a d j a c e n t to h o m e s t e a d s , outstations, a n d shearing sheds
Tourists can c a m p anywhere, except 1 km from homesteads a n d 500 m from man-made water
C a m p i n g restricted to : (i) n a t i o n a l parks; (ii) 200 m f r o m t h r o u g h roads a n d G o v e r n m e n t designated tracks, b u t not within 1 km from homesteads and 500 m f r o m m a n - m a d e water; (iii) areas o f m a j o r public interest; (iv) a n y w h e r e w i t h specific permission from pastoralists.
C a m p i n g access C a m p i n g restricted to: to pastoral (i) n a t i o n a l parks; lands (ii) 200 m f r o m t h r o u g h (X:) roads, b u t n o t w i t h i n 1 km from homesteads a n d 500 m f r o m manm a d e water; (iii) a n y w h e r e w i t h specific permission from pastoralists.
(Xl)
Prohibited, except with specific p e r m i s s i o n f r o m pastoralists
All tracks o p e n , e x c e p t private tracks in the vicinity of s t a t i o n h o m e s t e a d s , outstations and shearing sheds
All tracks private, e x c e p t through-roads and Governmentdesignated tracks to areas of m a j o r public i n t e r e s t
Tourist access to pastoral tracks
All tracks private, e x c e p t t h r o u g h - r o a d s w h i c h are o p e n to the public. Permission f r o m pastoralists r e q u i r e d to drive o n private tracks
Option 3
Option 2
Option I
A l t e r n a t i v e tourist access rights
TABLE I
P e r m i t t e d in all pastoral areas, w i t h o u t permission f r o m pastoralists
T o u r i s t s can c a m p anywhere, without permission from pastoralists
T o u r i s t s can drive along all tracks, without permission f r o m pastoralists
Option 4
¢D ¢D O
WOOLATEHi MOOLAWA~ANA
HOUNT LYNDHURST
i
~IANGL~ /
/ i/
MYRTLE
/
XAI',V-ANiNNA
SPRINGS
EDEACARA
WODLTANA I
BELTANA
FROME
•
/_._.- O WERTALODNA
NILPENA
RENS k
WIRREALPA
F LINDERS "
ERUDINA MARTINS
a
}NTABATiNYANA
Boundary around study leases
/
WILLIPPA WALLERBE RDINNA
National
Parks
Property boundary ,
/
/
KANYAKA
THREE CREEKS SPRINGFFELD \ Cradock,
iI i i
T©
QUORN
Q
Non contiguous property parts
(--
-3
Parachilna Gorge
O
Chambers Gorge
@
ORRORO0
Roads
. . . .
I
50 KMS
Townships
<
200
people
Fig. 1. Location of study area and distribution of pastoral leases within the Flinders Ranges.
©
392 two gorges (hereafter referred to as the tourist on-site survey) during Septemb er 1981 and the April 1982 Easter weekend. A mail survey questionnaire (hereafter referred to as the tourist mail survey) was also distributed to 190 tourists in the Flinders Ranges National Park during September 1981. Seventy-seven useful mail questionnaires were returned. These two surveys, inter alia, sought the required data on expenditures and extra WTP's. Ordinal rankings of the decision options of Table I were obtained only from the 97 on-site survey tourists. The types of tourists who visit the Flinders Ranges were believed to vary with time in terms of their characteristics, benefits, needs and preferences. Hence, a survey u n d e r t a k e n in any particular period would be unlikely to be representative of, say, all tourists who visit the area over the course of Axles per day Sept school holidays
350 300
I~
• ~
long weekend
F
250 200.
Parachilna Gorge
150 -
Aug
Sept
400t
Oct
Nov
Dec
1981
Jan
Feb
1982
3501 3001 250~
North Eastern FSnders Ranges ( Ar karoola )
2oo/
,0t' Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Fig. 2. Distribution of tourist activity over time at two locations w i t h i n the Flinders Ranges as indicated by vehicle axle counts.
393 any year. Consequently, the tourist on-site survey was spread over two separate time-periods, the 1981 Sept em ber school holidays and the 1982 Easter weekend, in an e f f o r t to capture some of these perceived differences. The o th e r main tourist-use periods are the O ct ober long weekend and the May school holidays (Fig. 2). An estimation of the total annual economic tourist value of the area requires an estimation of annual tourist usage. This was achieved for the years 1980 and 1981 using vehicle axle counts (Fig. 2). Details of the method and assumptions used are contained in Delforce and Hardaker (1983). The estimations suggest t ha t 87 380 tourists visited the Flinders Ranges in 1980 and 98 370 in 1981. The estimated numbers of tourists were then multiplied by the relevant estimated average expenditure and average extra WTP per tourist (= consumers' surplus) to give an estimate of the economic total social benefit of the Flinders Ranges in those years. Mail questionnaires were sent to each of the 36 pastoral lessees who reside in the Flanders Ranges (Fig. 1), with 33 responses. Six of these 33 respondents were then selected for detailed case study. These surveys, inter alia, sought data on the value of pastoral p r o d u c t i o n in the years 1 9 7 8 / 7 9 and 1979/80, and the nature and m o n e t a r y e x t e n t of the costs (if any) imposed on pastoralists by tourists during that time. Ordinal rankings of the policy options were also obtained during the survey. The value of the pastoral p r o d u c t i o n of the study area was estimated to give an indication of the regional significance of any tourist-induced losses using records of average prices received by the p r o d u c e r for sheep, cattle and wool p r o d u c e d in th at region in the p r o d u c t i o n years in question. Three senior executives f r om relevant State G o v e r n m e n t D epart m ent s were chosen as decision-makers for the purposes of the study. Their policy r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s are usually accepted by those above t hem in the policymaking hierarchy. Each was asked to rank the options for each attribute according to the advice he would give his G o v e r n m e n t Minister. ECONOMIC VALUES Tourism values Responses to the tourist mail survey indicate that 44% c o m b i n e d a visit to the Flinders Ranges with one to ot her locations, and 56% made the Flinders Ranges the object of their trip. The average round-trip cost for those who made a separate trip (56%) was $90.34 per tourist per trip, and for those who also visited ot he r locations the cost was $33.73 per tourist per visit. Similar results were obtained from the tourist on-site survey. The average round-trip cost for the 90% who made a separate trip was $76.00 per tourist per trip, and $34.86 per tourist per trip for the Flinders Ranges c o m p o n e n t of the trip which involved a trip to ot her locations.
394 T h u s , the t o t a l e s t i m a t e d c o s t o f the Flinders Ranges e x p e r i e n c e f o r 169 (77 + 92) tourists c o n t a c t e d during this s t u d y is $11 5 2 9 . 7 6 (43 X $ 9 0 . 3 4 + 34 X $ 3 3 . 7 3 + 80 X $ 7 6 . 0 0 + 12 X $ 3 4 . 8 6 ) , or $ 6 8 . 2 2 p e r t o u r i s t p e r visit. With an e s t i m a t e d 87 3 8 0 tourists visiting the area in 1 9 8 0 a n d 98 370 in 1 9 8 1 , the t o t a l e s t i m a t e d i n c u r r e d costs o f tourists in specifically visiting t h e area was a b o u t $ 5 . 9 6 million ( $ 6 8 . 2 2 X 87 380) in 1 9 8 0 a n d $6.71 million ( $ 6 8 . 2 2 X 98 370) in 1981. T h e s e costs are c o m p o s e d o f e x p e n d i t u r e b o t h inside a n d o u t s i d e t h e area. T h e average c o s t p e r t o u r i s t a n d s u b s e q u e n t WTP e s t i m a t e s are a s s u m e d to be t h e s a m e in 1 9 8 0 a n d 1981. T h e average e x t r a WTP f o r b o t h surveys c o m b i n e d , t h a t is the e x t r a value o f the Flinders R a n g e s e x p e r i e n c e o v e r a n d a b o v e t h a t w h i c h t h e y spent, was $ 3 5 . 8 8 p e r t o u r i s t p e r trip, w i t h a m i n i m u m o f $ 2 8 . 1 7 p e r t o u r i s t p e r trip in t h e case o f t h e t o u r i s t mail survey. T h u s , the t o t a l n e t value o f t o u r i s m (the c o n s u m e r surplus) in the Flinders R a n g e s was at least $ 2 . 4 6 million ( $ 2 8 . 1 7 X 87 380 t o u r i s t trips) in 1 9 8 0 a n d $ 2 . 7 7 million ( $ 2 8 . 1 7 X 98 370) in 1 9 8 1 , w i t h an average n e t value o f $ 3 . 1 4 million ( $ 3 5 . 8 8 X 87 3 8 0 ) in 1 9 8 0 a n d $ 3 . 5 3 million ( $ 3 5 . 8 8 X 98 370) in 1981. T h e t o t a l social b e n e f i t o f t o u r i s m in the area ( t h a t is, c o n s u m e r s ' exp e n d i t u r e plus c o n s u m e r s ' surplus) is e s t i m a t e d to be at least $ 8 . 4 2 million in 1 9 8 0 a n d $ 9 . 4 8 million in 1 9 8 1 , a n d averages $ 9 . 1 0 million in 1 9 8 0 a n d $ 1 0 . 2 4 million in 1 9 8 1 .
Cost o f tourism on pastoralism T h e r e p o r t e d i n c i d e n c e o f t o u r i s t p r o b l e m s is given in T a b l e II. T h e f r i g h t e n i n g o f s t o c k f r o m w a t e r i n g p o i n t s , gates being left o p e n and the TABLE II Incidence of problems caused by tourists (%)
Litter Gates left open Frightening stock Bogged tourists Damage and theft Fire risk Stock mixing Nuisance value Mechanical problems Wear and tear on private roads Destruction of vegetation Fouling waters Removing water Liability for tourists
Yes
No
80.6 71.0 66.7 65.5 63.3 55.2 54.8 53.6 53.3 51.6 37.9 33.3 23.3 10.7
16.1 25.8 33.3 27.6 30.0 34.5 32.3 35.7 46.7 41.9 55.2 56.7 66.7 82.1
Uncertain 3.2 3.2 6.9 6.7 10.3 12.9 10.7 6.5 6.9 10.0 10.0 7.1
395 resultant unw ant ed stock mixing, damage and theft, litter and bogged tourists are the more c o m m o n l y cited problems occurring on pastoral properties. No one problem is occurring everywhere. These results, however, give no indication in each case of the frequency and/ or seriousness of the particular problem involved. Moreover, there is usually a minority of pastoralists who appear to be uncertain as to whether the particular problem is occurring on their holdings. Table III shows the management responses of pastoralists to these various problems. The most c o m m o n responses are to erect " n o trespass" and other warning signs, and to regularly m o n i t o r tourist campsites and movements. These are relatively low-cost responses. TABLE III Management responses to tourist problems (%)
Erecting signs to discourage tourists Monitoring tourists Collecting litter Installing ramps in place of gates Locking gates to stop tourists Erecting extra fences/gates to stop tourists Installing litter bins Other
Yes
No
67.7 60.0 46.7 31.0 26.7 16.7 13.3 3.3
32.3 40.0 53.5 69.0 73.3 83.3 86.7 96.7
Only 3 (or 9%) of the respondents could definitely attribute any significant losses in pastoral p r o d u c t i o n s to tourist activities. Of these, only one was able to specify a significant dollar value for the loss. This particular lessee stated that in one paddock f r e q u e n t e d by tourists, the 2000 sheep which normally grazed there had, on average, p r o d u c e d 1.4 kg less wool per head than sheep in an adjoining paddock. He attributed this loss in p r o d u c t i o n to the t e n d e n c y of campers to frighten sheep from watering points, and claimed it represented an annual loss of $6000. Other pastoralists indicated that, whereas t hey believed some damage to structures and p r o p e r t y had occurred (for example, removal of strands of fencing wire and damage to gates and signs), the dollar costs were minimal. A n o t h e r 33.3% of respondents were conscious of unnatural p r o d u c t i o n losses in recent years, but could n o t attribute with certainty any of these perceived losses to the presence of tourists on their pastoral holdings.
Value of pastoral production A reasonable estimate of the total gross value of pastoral p r o d u c t i o n from the pastoral properties of the study area was possible from the pastoral data obtained in the research. An estimate of the net value of p r o d u c t i o n
396 was n o t possible, however, because of lack of information on p r o d u c t i o n costs. The estimated gross value was $4.29 million in 1 9 7 8 / 7 9 and $4.80 million in 1979/80. Details of the m e t h o d of estimation (including the assumptions on average prices used) are contained in Delforce et al. (1985).
Comparison o f tourism and pastoralism values Pastoralism and tourism are joint uses of the Flinders Ranges. Their combined gross annual benefits seem to have been at least $13.22 million around 1980. In minimum terms, tourism ($8.42 m) exceeded pastoralism ($4.80 m) in 1980 by a bout $3.62 m. The comparison in terms of minimum gross revenue is as follows:
Gross benefits Gross revenues Consumers' surplus
Pastoralism ( 1979/ 80)
Tourism (1980)
Total
$4.80 m $4.80 m $0
$8.42 m $5.96 m $2.46 m
$13.22 m $10.76 m $ 2.46 m
The gross revenue data represent the capacity of the area to produce pastoral revenue and to attract tourist revenue. In this sense, gross revenue f r o m tourism is the total actual expenditure under tourism. Tourism is ahead of pastoralism on this basis. The gross benefits for tourism include consumers' surplus, because this is a recognised economic benefit. The consumers are all (or at least virtually all) Australians, and the value of this surplus is a function of the num ber of people who visit the Flinders Ranges. In contrast, gross benefits for pastoralism exclude the (uncalculated consumers') surplus for grazing, in the belief that extra p~oduction must be e xp ort ed. The consumers of the meat and wool products are t her e f or e in overseas countries.
Ordinal rankings of decision options The ordinal rankings of policy options by the 33 pastoralists and 97 onsite tourists are given in Tables IV and V respectively. The f o u r t h set of options were not shown to pastoralists, as pilot testing revealed t hat these options inhibited pastoralists' ability to rationally consider each option. The policy and methodological ramifications of this decision are discussed at length in Delforce and Hardaker ( t 9 8 3 ) . It is n o t e d here, however, t hat there is very little practical difference between Options 3 and 4 in each case. Most pastoralists ranked Option 3 last, and would therefore be expected to rank the more tourist-oriented Option 4 lower still in their order o f preferences. There is clearly a lack of unanimity in preferences both between pastor-
397 TABLE IV Pastoralists' rankings of policy options Land-use attribute
Option
Percentage of the time option was ranked First
Second
Third
Pastoral track access (X,)
1 2 3
54.5 45.5 0.0
42.4 54.6 3.0
3.0 0.0 97.0
Camping access (X 2 )
1 2 3
87.1 12.9 0.0
12.9 87.1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0
Off-road vehicle access (X~)
1 2 3
90.9 3.0 6.1
9.7 87.1 3.2
0.0 9.7 90.3
TABLE V Tourists' rankings of policy options Land-use attributes
Option
Percentage of the time option was ranked First
Second
Third
Fourth
Pastoral track access (X~)
1 2 3 4
14.4 37.1 45.4 3.3
36.1 41.2 18.6 4.4
38.1 17.5 36.1 6.7
9.3 4.1 0.0 83.3
Camping access (X 2 )
1 2 3 4
13.4 58.8 25.8 1.0
54.6 28.9 13.3 3.3
23.7 9.3 60.8 4.4
6.2 1.0 1.0 90.0
Off-road vehicle access (X~)
1 2 3 4
30.9 40.2 28.9 1.0
26.8 46.4 22.7 3.3
32.0 13.4 48.5 6.7
10.3 0.0 0.0 88.9
alists a n d t o u r i s t s , a n d b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a l s o f t h e s a m e u s e r - g r o u p . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e m o s t p a s t o r a l i s t - o r i e n t e d O p t i o n S e t 1 is u s u a l l y d e s i r e d b y a t least the m a j o r i t y of pastoralists for each a t t r i b u t e . In c o n t r a s t , tourists u s u a l l y l e a s t p r e f e r t h i s o p t i o n i n e a c h case. O v e r a l l , m o s t t o u r i s t s w a n t a n a s s u r e d r i g h t t o visit a n d c a m p o n p a s t o r a l l a n d s ( e i t h e r O p t i o n 2 o r 3 f o r t r a c k access, X 1 , a n d c a m p i n g access, X2 ), w h i l e p a s t o r a l i s t s w a n t t h e r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e s e a l l - i m p o r t a n t t y p e s o f access. B o t h g r o u p s , h o w e v e r , v i e w u n f e t t e r e d access ( u n d e r t h e f o u r t h set o f o p t i o n s ) , o r v i r t u a l l y u n f e t t e r e d
398 access ( u n d e r t h e t h i r d set o f o p t i o n s ) , as u n d e s i r a b l e . T o u r i s t s are divided in their p r e f e r e n c e s f o r r e s t r i c t i o n s on o f f - r o a d vehicle access, )(3. T h e r a n k i n g s o f the first t h r e e o p t i o n s b y t h e t h r e e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s are d i s p l a y e d in T a b l e VI. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , a n d p e r h a p s in r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f the issues, t h e y disagree o n the m o s t p r e f e r r e d o p t i o n f o r all a t t r i b u t e s . F o r t r a c k access, X , , t h e y are divided as to w h e t h e r all t r a c k s s h o u l d be o p e n e x c e p t t h o s e a r o u n d h o m e s t e a d s and o t h e r i m p o r t a n t m a n - m a d e s t r u c t u r e s ( O p t i o n 3), or w h e t h e r o n l y t h o s e t r a c k s to areas o f m a j o r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s h o u l d be o p e n to tourists ( O p t i o n 2). Similar divisions o c c u r in r e l a t i o n to c a m p i n g access, X2, as to w h e t h e r c a m p i n g should be permitted everywhere except near homesteads and other man-structures ( O p t i o n 3), or o n l y at areas o f m a j o r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ( O p t i o n 2). O f f - r o a d vehicle access, X3, is desired e i t h e r o n l y w h e r e n e c e s s a r y to r e a c h areas o f m a j o r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ( O p t i o n 2), or o n l y w i t h p a s t o r a l i s t s p e r m i s s i o n (Opt i o n 1). TABLE VI Decision-makers' rankings of policy options' Land-use attribute
Option
Decision-maker 1
2
3
Pastoral track access (x,)
1 2 3
3 2 1
2 1 3
2 1 3
Camping access (X~)
1 2 3
3 2 1
2 1 3
2 1 3
Off-road vehicle access (X3)
1 2 3
2 1 3
2 1 3
1 2 3
~Ranking: 1, most preferred option; 2, second most preferred option; 3, least preferred option. POLICY ANALYSIS As o n l y o n e p a s t o r a l i s t c o u l d i d e n t i f y a significant m o n e t a r y c o s t o f t o u r i s m , it s e e m s t h a t f r o m a regional e c o n o m i c v i e w p o i n t the p r o b l e m s are n o t very serious. This implies t h a t , in strict r a t i o n a l e c o n o m i c t e r m s , a n y p o l i c y w h i c h severely restricts tourists, such as a change f r o m the c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n o f O p t i o n 4 ( u n f e t t e r e d t o u r i s t access) to O p t i o n 1 ( p a s t o r a l i s t c o n t r o l over access), is u n l i k e l y to p r o d u c e a n e t social b e n e f i t a n d w o u l d be difficult to j u s t i f y .
399
Most costs of tourism on pastoralism were non-monetary, however, meaning that they could be not be valued satisfactorily in dollar terms. For example, responses from pastoralists indicate that the most c o m m o n problems are litter, leaving gates open and other general nuisance values (Table II). Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that these non-monetary, intangible costs of tourism on pastoralism would justify the loss in total annual gross benefits of tourism on pastoral lands that would probably result with a change in policy to Option 1 for all attributes. The estimated values of tourism, of course, represent the values of the whole Flinders Ranges, including the area's national parks, and not just that which can be attributed to the pastoral lands of the area. The value of tourism on pastoral lands alone would be some lower amount. That is, the whole Flinders Ranges consists of pastoral lands, national park land, and crown land under other uses such as mining. The c o m p o n e n t of these values which can be attributed to tourism on pastoral lands alone cannot be specified from the research data because m a n y rourists visit several types of land during their stay in the area. These tourists would find it difficult to divide their benefits between pastoral and non-pastoral land. The elicited preferences suggest that both Option 1 and Option 4, in each case, are not socially desirable. Whereas most, or the majority of, pastoralists want Option 1, it is clearly undesirable to most tourists and to decision-makers (except decision-maker 3) for off-road vehicle access. Tourists clearly reject Option 4. As noted earlier, pastoralists would also be expected to reject it. The change from Option 4 to Option 3 (unfettered access except around homesteads and other important man-made structures) would be unlikely to significantly reduce the annual number of tourists visiting the Flinders minor change in tourist access rights, whilst it would certainly improve the welfare of pastoralists. An increase in the welfare of pastoralists would result from an increased level of privacy under Option 3 compared to Option 4. If so, then Option 3 would be more socially optimal than the existing situation of Option 4. As traditional land users, however, pastoralists would regard this as only a very minor concession to them in that it would merely establish their basic human right to privacy. It might also be argued that an assured tourist right of access to designated areas of major public interest for sightseeing, camping and off-road vehicle purposes through the adoption of Option 2 for each attribute might not significantly reduce the annual number of tourists visiting the Flinders Ranges, and hence might not significantly reduce the net value of the area under tourism. This, however, is subject to the important assumption that the adoption of Option 2 in both cases would n o t result in any significant decrease in the average value (or marginal WTP) of the Flinders Ranges per tourist per visit. If this were so, and assuming that the adoption of Option 2 for all land-use attributes would lead to a significant improvement in pastoralists' welfare, then the adoption of this option for all attributes
400 would be m or e socially optimal than Option 3 or Option 4. It would also be much m or e acceptable to pastoralists than the adoption of Option 3 in each case. Most tourists want either Option 2 or Option 3 for sightseeing and camping and either Option I or Option 3 for off-road vehicle access. Most pastoralists want Option 1 for all attributes, and clearly prefer Option 2 to Option 3. Option 1, however, would be unacceptable to most tourists. Option 2 for all attributes seems the most satisfactory compromise solution to the problem. This set of options also represents the most satisfactory solution to decision-makers. CONCLUDING REMARKS The use of the economic research data for the t y p e of policy analysis u n d er tak en is not strictly appropriate because of the uncertainties in the values involved. In particular, it is uncertain whether a change in policy from Option 4 to Option 2 for all attributes would result in a positive net social benefit. T ha t is, it is uncertain as to whether such a change would mean that the probable resultant increase in total producers' surplus (to pastoralists) would exceed or equal the probable resultant decrease in total consumers' surplus (to tourists). It would also be desirable to determine the changes in net social benefit f r o m the policy move f r om Option 4 to each of Option 3 and Option 1. A major ef f or t might be made with this to evaluate the intangible costs of tourism on pastoralism, as well as intangible benefits to pastoralists such as the rural way of life. Techniques for this purpose are given in Sinden and Worrell (1979). In the case of tourist values, the change in net social benefit might be specified in terms of WTP's for the alternative sets of policy options. Also of relevance to such evaluation is option-value. This is, the value that current users or non-users of the study area derive from the fact that they have retained the opt i on or right to use the resource, as it is now, should t h e y so dem a nd in the future (Cicchetti and Freeman, 1971; Bohm, 1975; Bishop, 1982). Such values can be exhibited by large p r o p o r t i o n s of the population, and could thus be quite substantial. The change f r om Option 4 to Option 2 (open access only to areas of designated major public interest), however, seems desirable for the camping and off-road vehicle access provisions. Pastoral track access remains a more difficult m a t t e r to resolve. REFERENCES Bishop, R.C., 1982. Option value: an exposition and extension. Land Econ., 58: 1--15. Bohm, P., 1975. Option demand and consumers' surplus. Am. Econ. Rev., 65: 733--736. Brookshire, D., Randall, A. and Stoll, J., 1980. Valuing increments and decrements in natural resource service flows. Am. J. Agric. Econ., 62: 478--488.
401 Cicchetti, C.J. and Freeman, A.M., 1971. Option demand and consumers' surplus: further comment. Q. J. Econ., 85: 528--339. Dasgupta, A.K. and Pearce, D.W., 1972. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Theory and Practice. McMillan, student edn,. Bungay, Suffolk, 270 pp. Delforce, R.J. and Hardaker, J.B., 1983. An experiment in the use of multi-attribute utility theory as an aid to public decision making. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., unpublished paper. Delforce, R.J., Sinden, J.A. and Young, M.D., 1985. An economic analysis of relationships between pastoralism and tourism in the Flinders Ranges of South Australia. CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Rangelands Research, Divisional Report, in press. Hutchings, A.W.J., 1979. Public Administration in the Flinders Ranges. Discussion Paper, Department of Urban and Regional Affairs, Adelaide. Interdepartmental Working Group, 1981. The Administration, Management and Tenure of South Australia's Pastoral Lands. South Australian Government Printer, Adelaide. Mishan, E.J., 1971. Cost--Benefit Analysis: An Informal Introduction. George Allen and Unwin, London. Mishan, E.J., 1976. The use of compensating and equivalent variations in cost-benefit analysis. Economica, 43: 185--197. Sinden, J.A. and Worrell, A.C., 1979. Unpriced Values: Decisions without Market Prices. Wiley, Brisbane. South Australian State Planning Authority, 1978. Flinders Ranges Planning Area Development Plan. State Planning Authority, Adelaide.