Feedbacks between Hard Infrastructure and Cultural Ecosystem Services in South Africa’s National Parks

Abstract

While protected areas are critical for safeguarding nature, the role of hard (i.e., human-made) infrastructure in mediating their ecological and social outcomes remains poorly understood. This thesis examines hard infrastructure investment and condition across South Africa’s national park system and explores the relationship between patterns of infrastructure investment and visitor preferences for cultural ecosystem services (CES). The study draws on an existing registry of above-ground infrastructure assets (including roads, buildings, and fences) across 19 of South Africa’s 20 National Parks, comprising several thousand individual assets. Infrastructure condition and quality were assessed using indicators of age, condition, and retained economic value, while investment intensity was standardised at the park level (unit cost per square kilometre). K-means clustering of parks based on variables of infrastructure investment intensity identified three distinct infrastructure archetypes: (i) remote parks with low overall infrastructure investment, (ii) high-access urban or peri-urban parks with high investment but no fence infrastructure, and (iii) well-funded parks with integrated infrastructure and relatively balanced investment across asset types. Visitor preferences for CES were analysed using an existing national visitor survey dataset (n = 3,131 respondents) collected across South African National Parks by Ament et al. (2017). The survey used Likert-scale statements capturing visitors’ motivations and valued experiences. Factor analysis identified five CES bundles (Natural History, Recreation, Sense of Place, Safari Experience, and Outdoor Living), and k-means clustering of park-level mean factor scores revealed four CES-based park clusters: (i) Nature-Learning & Heritage, (ii) Safari & Charismatic Wildlife, (iii) Place-Attachment & Immersive Experiences, and (iv) Urban Recreation. Relationships between infrastructure archetypes and CES clusters were explored using MANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests with post-hoc comparisons. Results showed partial alignment between infrastructure and CES patterns: Recreation-oriented CES were associated with high-access, infrastructure-dense parks, while Natural History values were more prominent in infrastructure-light parks. In contrast, Sense of Place and Outdoor Living did not differ significantly across infrastructure archetypes. Overall, the findings support the hypothesis that institutional priorities for infrastructure investment in South Africa’s national park system are shaped by visitor demand-driven feedback loops, and an emerging differentiation in park roles. Where misalignments between CES and infrastructure were observed, these may reflect weak or lagged feedbacks between visitor values and governance responses. This study contributes to a better understanding of protected area dynamics and the importance of infrastructure within conservation contexts, particularly in mediating the delivery of cultural ecosystem services. Future research could extend this work through longitudinal monitoring of infrastructure-CES feedbacks, deeper investigation of links between infrastructure and ecological outcomes, more explicit examination of governance processes, “soft infrastructure,” and justice and equity in protected area systems.