How Much Would Tourists Pay To Protect Lions?

In recent years, the issue of African trophy hunting has sparked international controversy. Events like the killing of Cecil the lion in 2015 have fueled the criticism, while surveys show that many people, especially in Europe, are ethically uncomfortable with hunting animals for sport. A growing number of people are calling for bans on trophy hunting and hunting imports.

According to this study, some researchers caution that abruptly ending trophy hunting in Africa without having alternative sources of revenue in place could harm the region’s humans and animals. For example, private landowners and rural communities would lose the incentive to conserve commonly hunted species and their habitats. They might also turn to other sources of revenue if they lose funds from trophy hunting, such as illegal poaching or using their land for agriculture. In turn, this could lead to environmental damage, habitat loss, and extinction threats.  

To get around these challenges, the authors of this paper suggest charging tourists to compensate for the loss of trophy hunting funds. Specifically, they investigated whether tourists would be willing to pay a daily “lion protection fee” when visiting South Africa, a popular trophy hunting destination. They wanted to know whether such fees could realistically make up for an estimated $176 million USD in lost revenue if trophy hunting were banned.

The researchers surveyed 907 respondents from France, Germany, the U.S., the U.K., Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe who had either recently visited South Africa or planned to visit in the near future. They surveyed respondents to gauge their opinions on a daily lion protection fee and used a price sensitivity technique to determine the price ranges considered too expensive, acceptably expensive, good value, and too cheap for this (hypothetical) fee. All prices below are listed in USD.

In general, respondents were overwhelmingly in favor of a daily lion protection fee — 53% of those asked about it believed it was a great idea, while 31% said it was a good idea. Support from overseas countries (i.e., France, the U.K., the U.S., and Germany) was the highest, and the authors also added that 4% of those who were not in favor of the daily fee were active supporters of trophy hunting.  

Regarding the fee itself, the “acceptably expensive” and “good value” price ranges varied by country. Respondents from the U.S. ($47 and $32) and Mozambique ($45 and $36) were willing to pay the most, while those from Eswatini ($7 and $4) were willing to pay the least. On average, 89% of all respondents said they’d be willing to pay the fee at their acceptably expensive rate, while 93.5% would be willing to pay the fee at their stated good value rate. 

The researchers calculated two different “optimal” price points for a lion protection fee — one to maximize the number of tourists willing to pay the fee, and another to generate the highest total revenue. To get the most people on board, the optimal price ranged from $2 in Eswatini to $55 in Mozambique. When asked if they would be willing to pay this optimal price, between 37% (Zimbabwe) and 53% (Botswana) of respondents were willing to pay.

The prices projected to raise the most total revenue were generally higher, ranging from $29 in Eswatini to $70 in the United Kingdom. Fewer people were willing to pay a daily fee at these “maximum revenue” price points, ranging from just 5% in Eswatini up to 39% in Mozambique.

To reach a goal of $176 million in revenue, the authors outline several different fee structures that could work for both overseas and African tourists. For example, because overseas tourists were generally willing to pay more, this group could be charged $10 per day (their lower bound optimal price point) for a total of $156.75 million (based on current tourism rates), while African tourists would be responsible for the remaining $20 million. This would amount to just $1-$1.50 per day per African tourist. 

The authors note that the higher the price, the more people will avoid traveling to South Africa and paying the fee, so there needs to be a balance. The “sweet spot” for overseas visitors is, in their view, between $6-$7, while the ideal range for African tourists is between $3-$4. 

There are some limitations to the study, including that this was a hypothetical survey — in other words, people may overestimate how much they’d actually be willing to pay in reality. Furthermore, the authors had to estimate tourism figures based on previous tourism rates. Finally, they only surveyed a limited number of current and potential tourists from specific countries, which means their results may not reflect the beliefs of all tourists visiting South Africa from those countries and elsewhere.

Although these results are promising, much more work is likely necessary before the South African government would be willing to consider a lion protection fee in lieu of trophy hunting. For example, it’s important to figure out how these fees would be distributed to communities, former trophy hunting operators, and general conservation efforts. We also need to understand the attitudes and potential challenges posed by those who benefit from the trophy hunting industry to avoid pushback in the future. Advocates can work with these stakeholders directly while simultaneously encouraging the South African government to pursue further research in this area.