conceptual framework wildlife tourism

Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism

• Scinapse’s Top 10 Citation Journals & Affiliations graph reveals the quality and authenticity of citations received by a paper.
• Discover whether citations have been inflated due to self-citations, or if citations include institutional bias.

Towards a Conceptual Framework for Wildlife Tourism Paul C

Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42

Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism Paul C. Reynolds! *, Dick Braithwaite" !School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University, Cows Harbour, New South Wales 2457, Australia "CSIRO Tourism Research Program, PO Box 284, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia Accepted 8 November 1999

Tourism based on interactions with wildlife is increasing in popularity across the world. A conceptual framework is presented which begins to classify the major components of wildlife tourism/recreation and indicates the roles of and the relationship between these components. It is suggested that the values of conservation, animal welfare, visitor satisfaction, and pro"tability are often in con#ict in wildlife tourism (WT) and trade-o!s are necessary. While there is a range of factors involved, the most germane are impact on the environment and quality of the experience. Sustainable tourism depends on encouraging the desirable and discouraging the undesirable. Such mechanisms are discussed. ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wildlife tourism; Environmental impact; Animals; Quality services; Sustainable tourism

1. Introduction about increasing the probability of positive encounters with wildlife for visitors whilst protecting the wildlife Growing concern for conservation and the well-being resource. There is a wide range of species, habitats , of the environment over the past two decades has methods of observing, tricks for improving the encoun- brought about a closer relationship between the environ- ters, and levels of interpretation involved. Some of these ment and tourism. This relationship has incorporated are more desirable than others, both from the observer's several phases over the past four decades. These include and/or animal's point of view. it being viewed as one of working together (Zierer, 1952), One key to the e!ective management of wildlife is an disharmony and opposition (Akoglu, 1971), with sym- understanding of the public's relationship to this re- biotic possibilities (Romeril, 1985), and as an integrated source. Aldo Leopold (1966) remarked: `The problem of whole (Dowling, 1992). From the tourists' point of view, game management is not how we shall handle the deer there is a rapidly increasing desire for interaction with the * the real problem is one of human management. Wil- natural environment in a range of ways (Jenner & Smith, dlife management is comparatively easy; human manage- 1992). This general interest in nature and nature-based ment di$cult.a experiences is re#ected in an increasing demand to ex- We propose that wildlife tourism (WT) lacks impor- perience these, and increasing value being placed on, tant information on the needs, desires and opinions of the animals in the wild, as opposed to those in captive or public. There is a need to know just how vital wildlife is semi-captive situations (Gauthier, 1993). to human welfare and to identify the social and economic People have always been interested in animals, as bene"t derived from this use of wildlife resources. Indeed, illustrated by the fact that domestic pets have been the Du!us and Deardon (1993) suggest: `The importance of companions of humans for millennia. However, the non- doing so is to reinforce the idea that both human and consumptive side of human relations with wildlife has ecological dimensions must be understood, and bal- until recently, received much less attention than wildlife anced, in the planning stages for management. To ignore as a source of food, trophies, fabric and other resources. either is to invite con#ict that will result in the degrada- The experiencing of wildlife by tourists has become the tion of the resource base2and/or degradation of the business of wildlife tourism (WT). Essentially, this is recreational experience.a We present a conceptual framework to classify the major components of wildlife tourism/recreation, and * Corresponding author. Tel.: 61-2-665-93312; fax: 61-2-665-93144. indicates the role of and the relationship between these

0261-5177/00/$- see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 8 - 2 32 P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42 components. The values of conservation, animal welfare, visitor satisfaction, and economic pro"tability are often in con#ict in WT and tradeo!s are necessary, so some guiding principles for mitigating the con#icts are re- quired. Conservation is only as strong as its community sup- port. The increase in the proportion of the population that is urban and remote from the natural world is driving the increasing demand for WT. It has great po- tential importance as a tool for conservation. If done well, WT builds support for conservation.

Fig. 1. Wildlife-based tourism. 2. Wildlife tourism (WT)

Tourism based upon wildlife has become the leading foreign exchange earner in several countries. Fillion, 3. Current research Foley and Jaquemot (1992) and The Ecotourism Society (1998) outline the magnitude of this market. They both The growth and development of a recreational rela- suggest that between 40 and 60 per cent of international tionship with wildlife is based on several developing tourists were nature tourists, and that 20}40 per cent of issues (Du!us & Dearden, 1993). The "rst is a growing these were wildlife-related tourists. The second report societal re-evaluation of wildlife and of nature in general, further suggests that in 1994 there were between 106 and its place in society. The second issue is its part of the million and 211 million wildlife-related tourists world- growth trend in nature and wildlife-related tourism, and wide. They de"ne nature tourists as people visiting the third issue pertains to society's changing attitudes to a destination to experience and enjoy nature, and particular species as wildlife education becomes more wildlife-related visitors as tourists visiting a destination accessible and entertaining. to observe wildlife. The reports do not suggest how much The traditional view of research in the area has been to of a tourist's activity time was related to wildlife. It focus research on either: therefore seems useful to create a framework that shows the relationship between WT and other forms of nature- 1. Ewects on the tourist of the experience, with measure- based tourism. ment of enjoyment/satisfaction and behaviour lifestyle A focus on WT has become important because some change (see Kellert, 1980, 1989; Berry & Kellert, 1980 of the issues peculiar to wildlife are obscured in the or Bitgood, 1987). more broadly based discussion of nature-based tourism 2. Ewect on the natural environment, including both nega- or the more tightly de"ned ecotourism (which in- tive (actions to minimise disturbance to the environ- cludes requirements for education, conservation, and ment) and positive (actions that contribute to the respect of other cultures). These in turn overlap with health of the environment); (For a review see Dalal- consumptive uses of wildlife, such as hunting and "shing, Clayton, Leader-Williams & Roe, 1997). some of which is in a tourism context. Rural tourism is 3. Carrying capacity as a means of setting numbers of concerned with broader issues of regional development visitors using a site. (see Sharkey, 1970; Wagar, 1964 in a farmed landscape which may have substantial natu- or Williams & Gill, 1991). ral areas. Lately there has been a willingness to go beyond these There is a large body of research about human traditional con"nes. Current approaches to the manage- relations with animals. The issues include the role of ment of tourists' interactions with wildlife have fallen into pets as therapy, animal rights, animal husbandry three broad categories. and aspects of wildlife management. This literature has some relevance to wildlife-based tourism. Thus WT 1. Identixcation of participants and constituent parts of may be de"ned as an area of overlap between nature- the wildlife tourism process: Who is involved and based tourism, ecotourism, consumptive use of wild- a!ected by the process, and what makes up a wildlife life, rural tourism, and human relations with animals. tourism attraction as opposed to other forms of activ- Thus it inherits traditions which include aspects of ity. Examination of this area also allows us to consider ecology, psychology, physiology, ethics and other as- the use of wildlife by humans as either consumptive pects of social science research, including tourism or non-consumptive. (i.e. Du!us & Dearden, 1990; (see Fig. 1). Orams, 1994 or Johnston, 1998). P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42 33

2. Satisfaction management: This area examines both the demand side (i.e. who desires interaction, where and under what conditions does the interaction take place, and what do the participants expect out of the encounter), and the supply side (i.e. information re- garding resources, social needs and managerial condi- tions which facilitate realisations of desires of the participant), (see Blamey & Hatch, 1996; Cumbow, Jurowski, Noe & Uysal, 1996). 3. Impact and trade-ow analysis, which includes social and biological impacts resulting from development and preservation strategies (see Tisdell, 1993; Decker Fig. 2. Conceptual framework of non-consumptive wildlife-oriented & Enck, 1997 or Bright, Cordell & Tarrant, 1997). recreation and tourism. Main categories of in#uences in wildlife-based tourism framework.

4. Essential characteristics of wildlife tourism WT experience while ensuring protection of the wildlife Instead of the traditional approach outlined above, we resource. suggest that considerations of wildlife}tourism interac- In order to examine how to make WT a better experi- tions would bene"t from placement into a systems frame- ence for the tourist while minimising the e!ect on the work. Others have created frameworks for examination animals and habitat , it is important to examine its com- of these interactions. Du!us and Dearden (1990) suggest ponent parts. Hammit, Dulin and Wells (1993) and a conceptual framework for non-consumptive recre- others have measured some of the dimensions of satisfac- ational use of wildlife. Their model uses an interaction tion in wildlife viewing, and our approach adds to these between ecology, the recreational user and the historical elements. Fig. 2 shows the main categories of in#uences context of the human}wildlife relationship. They draw on on WT, and the factors and modi"ers that control them. Bryan's (1977) Leisure Specialisation Continuum, But- It suggests the principal factors of `e!ect on wildlifea ler's (1980) model of the evolution of tourist places, and and `satisfactiona lead to `sustainable tourisma and ulti- Stankey, Cole, Lucas, Peterson, Frissell and Washburne mately serve the interests of conservation. It also suggests (1985) concept of limits of acceptable change. While this that `habitat fragilitya and the type and method of activ- ground-breaking work discussed di!erences between the ity engaged in by the tourist in#uence the e!ect on generalist and the specialist user, and suggested some wildlife. Tourist satisfaction is a!ected by both tangible management strategies, the paper does not attempt to and intangible factors (Braithwaite, Reynolds & Pon- analyse the human}wildlife interaction, or motivations of gracz, 1996). These tangible factors include service and the tourist. Indeed, they suggest (p. 226) `Increased contextual factors such as comfort and design of facilities, knowledge of the user in terms of expectation, motivation the number of people involved and the weather. The and satisfaction will allow more precise manipulation of intangible quality modi"ers include the duration of the the human component2 . to maintain the ultimate pro- event, the exhilaration felt and the authenticity of the viso of protection of wildlifea. experience. Orams (1996) takes a di!erent approach by viewing the range of opportunities in a `Spectrum of Tour- ist}Wildlife Interaction Opportunitiesa. Orams divides 5. The WT product his model into interaction opportunities (the way a tour- ist might meet an animal in a wild, semi-captive or A perusal of brochures about a wide range of WT captive state), management strategy options (such as products suggests that most can be placed in one of seven physical or economic restraint and educational pro- categories. grams) and outcome indicators for both the tourist and Nature-based tourism with wildlife component: Many the wildlife. nature-based tours show wildlife as a key but incidental The approach taken in this paper takes the discussion part of the product. and analysis further by "rstly identifying additional fac- Locations with good wildlife opportunities: Some accom- tors that a!ect wildlife tourism and the tourist. From modation establishments are located in close proximity these, the combination of circumstances that give the best to wildlife-rich habitat. They may even contrive to attract possible outcome in terms of tourist satisfaction and wildlife through provision of food or other enticement. protection of wildlife resources can be determined. Our Artixcial attractions based on wildlife: Some species are approach also helps identify leverage points that allow amenable to forming the basis of a man-made attraction managers and operators to improve the quality of the where the species is kept in captivity, and may even be 34 P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42 trained. Some of these attractions may have detrimental E allow the protection and mobility o!ered by transport e!ects on the animals. such as vehicles or boats. Specialist animal watching: Such tours cater for special- Bene"eld, Bitgood, Landers and Patterson (1986) in ist interests in a species or group of species. Bird watching discussing visitor behaviour, also suggest that the power is a good example. to &hold' visitors is increased by the: Habitat specixc tours: Such tours are based on a habitat rich in wildlife and usually amenable to being accessed by E motion of the animal; a specialised vehicle or vessel. E size; Thrill-owering tours: The basis of these is the exhibition E visitor participation; of a dangerous or large species enticed to engage in E presence of an infant; spectacular behaviour in the wild by the operator. E ease of viewability; Hunting/xshing tours: This consumptive use of wildlife E vistors perceptions of the species characteristics (i.e. may be in natural habitat, semi-captive or farmed condi- rarity value, &cuteness'). tions. This may involve killing the animal or releasing with an often frequent high rate of mortality. The list above illustrates the wide and diverse range of 7. Motivations of participants interactions which are available under the banner of WT. From the wide range of types of product available it is evident that there is a wide range of participants, in age, 6. Conditions favouring WT socio-economic background and motivation. It is clear that participants in wildlife tourism approach interac- Apart from the business-related parameters, some na- tions from a variety of life backgrounds and motivations. ture-based criteria need to be considered for a WT opera- Any examination of the components of WT must take tion to be successful from a tourist's perspective. customer motivations and attitudes into account. Re- searchers such as Eagles (1991), Moscado, Pearce and 6.1. Species Haxton (1998), and Beaumont (1998) and others have recognised this important factor. Muloin (1998) goes In a report prepared for Alberta Tourism, Prism further and suggests not only the motivations but also Environmental Consulting Services (1988) suggested the psychological bene"ts for a particular sector of WT. that successful WBT incorporated the following points in A 1990 report for Alberta Tourism (HLA, Gaia and relation to the species observed. Cottonwood Consultants, 1990) suggested that people Animals or birds should display most of the following involved in consumptive wildlife use were mainly male characteristics. They should be: (90 per cent) and few held degrees (5.6 per cent), while in non-consumptive users the sexes were evenly balanced E predicable in activity or location; and 60 per cent held degrees. Kellert (1980) has suggested E approachable; a typology which re#ects fundamental di!erences in E readily viewable (open habitats); values. An individual may encompass more than one E tolerant of human intrusion (for some time of the year); category. That is, the same person may express the char- E possess elements of rarity or local super abundance; acteristics of di!erent categories at di!erent times and E diurnal activity pattern. under di!erent circumstances. However, it is not essential for a species to display all Naturalistic: Primary interest and a!ection for wildlife of these characteristics. For example, in Australia some and outdoors. operators display nocturnal species using spotlighting Ecologistic: Primary concern for environment as a tours. wildlife-habitat system. Humanistic: Primary interest and strong a!ection for individual animals, mainly pets. 6.2. Habitats Moralistic: Primary concern for the right and wrong Habitats might also be considered in the same way. treatment of animals, especially cruelty. The most desirable habitats are those which: Scientistic: Primary interest in physical attributes and biological functioning of animals. E support a number of watchable and interesting species; Aesthetic: Primary interest in artistic and symbolic E are open and allow good visibility of animals; characteristics of animals. E have cover which obscures the observers' approach Utilitarian: Primary concern for practical and material from animals; value of animals or habitat. E have features which concentrate animal activity at Dominionistic: Primary interest in mastery and control times (e.g. waterholes); of animals, typically in sporting situations. P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42 35

Negativistic: Primarily active avoidance of animals due are in good condition. If tourism activities decrease the to indi!erence, dislike or fear. feeding time and/or increase the energy expenditure due Kellert (1980) further suggests that members of the to disturbance from perceived danger, the condition of general public tend to be humanistic and moralistic, and animals is likely to deteriorate, causing a decline in repro- that wildlife managers tend to be ecologistic, scientistic ductive success. and utilitarian. Such di!erences are likely to be the basis Habituation: This is an animal learning not to respond of tensions between many managers of the WT experi- to stimuli. It increases the ease of observation of animals ence and users of that experience. by making them unnaturally tame to approach by hu- mans and is thus may be encouraged by WT managers. The learning process is, however, also a stress in that 8. Categories of impact on wildlife feeding time is lost and energy is expended in #eeing. Management of the process of habituation can be an There are many classi"cations of impacts on wildlife important issue. by recreational and tourism activities. For example, Animal dietary distortion: The feeding of animals by Knight and Cole (1995) list four broad causes of impacts; visitors may produce an imbalanced diet with vitamin harvest, habitat modi"cation, pollution and disturbance. and mineral de"ciencies decreasing the vitality and sur- They then specify a hierarchy of immediate responses, vival of animals. long-term e!ects on individual animals, species popula- Stereotyped behaviour: Animals in captivity can devel- tions and animal communities. For the present purposes, op neurotic behaviour such as pacing. Presumably under we have produced an expanded set of categories. less extreme situations, there are more subtle forms of Harvest/death: Activities like hunting and "shing cause modi"ed behaviour. the immediate death of some animals. Death may also be Aberrant social behaviour: If the frequency of encounter caused by collision with a vehicle or similar. between animals is increased by interaction with humans, Clearing of habitat: This is the "rst of four habitat this can have negative e!ects. When animals are attracted modi"cation factors. Fairly obviously, it deals with com- to an arti"cial food source, for example, the rate of plete or near-complete removal of the native ecosystem. agonistic behaviour can increase to arti"cially high levels Changed plant composition: This is usually a mixture of with consequent loss of condition and survival. loss of native plant species and the invasion by some Increased predation: Disturbance of breeding animals exotic plant species. The net result is usually a loss of can increase the risk of discovery of young by predators. resources used by the native wildlife. New resources For example, this is often seen at bird rookeries. attractive to exotic fauna may also occur. Modixcation of activity patterns: The activity patterns of Reduced plant production: This impact is a form of animals are generally a compromise between the need for reduced resource availability. The production of new feeding and avoiding predation. It is well known the growth, the level of #owering and fruiting may be dimin- hunting pressure can cause animals to become more ished. Trampling for example may change localised hy- nocturnal, so presumably excessive human contacts can drology through compaction of the soil. Wave action do the same thing. from boats is another example. It may cause salt intru- Altered community structure: If species leave an area or sion which impacts on non-salt-tolerant communities. die out, then inevitably the species composition changes. Changed plant structure: Thinning of trees, mowing, This may have impacts on the remaining species. It may changing "re regimes, are all intentional or unintentional facilitate or allow exotic animal species to establish. management actions which can change the structure of Fig. 3 shows the inter-relationships between human the plant communities and thereby alters its attractive- impacts on animals and habitat. ness to native wildlife. Pollution: The introduction of harmful concentrations of chemicals into animal habitat. Such by-products of 9. The wildlife tourism experience tourism and recreation may cause death or reduce the health of the animal. 9.1. Richness/intensity Animal emigration: This and following animal distur- bance factors are commonly the result of direct distur- Six quality factors are suggested to be intrinsic to the bance of the animals, but it should be noted that the same situation and capture the essence of quality and richness e!ect can be produced by habitat modi"cation or pollu- of the WT encounter for the person experiencing it. Four tion. Basically animals can leave an area for many rea- of these are general to all tourism experiences, and two sons. Sometimes emigration is a prelude to mortality in are speci"ctoWT. that they do not "nd somewhere else suitable. Authenticity has been widely used as an estimate of the Reduced animal production and reproduction: Animals `honestya of the attraction. The degree of natural behav- generally only dedicate resources to breeding when they iour exhibited by the fauna, and the environment which it 36 P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42

Fig. 3. Diagram showing inter-relationships between impacts of tourism and recreational activities.

is viewed in. Authenticity will not be perceived not be design of the facilities. (Braithwaite, Reynolds & Pon- high if the experience is obviously contrived (MacCan- gracz, 1996, p. 136) nell, 1973). These variables combine when the customer is assess- Intensity refers to the excitement generated by an ex- ing value. The basis of any successful tourism venture is perience. Other words that capture this concept are en- the delivery of a product which is perceived to be value thrallment, and for some the feeling may be an adrenalin for money. The price people are willing to pay is a com- rush. (Braithwaite & Reynolds, 1996). plex judgement based on past relevant experiences. The Uniqueness of the experience is the sense of the experi- judgement of satisfaction of the current transaction is ence being special and unusual and therefore the partici- based on a combination of all these variables (Du!us pant being privileged. & Dearden, 1993). Duration refers to the length of exposure to the stimuli. Up to a certain point the experience is heightened. Be- 9.2. Control of encounter yond this point the visitor is saturated with the particular experience. It is clear from service management research (Sparks, The following two attributes are speci"ctoWT. 1994, 1997 and many other examples) that control over Species popularity is driven by a range of factors, which the WT encounter is a key determinant of customer include physical attractiveness, its size, danger and satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The amount of control the drama associated with the species and the publicity that tourist has over the experience may also have an e!ect on the species has enjoyed in the public media. both the impact on the habitat and wildlife. Species status refers to the rarity of the animal. Species There has been considerable discussion of strategies to on rare and endangered lists appear to hold a special control tourist interactions with wildlife. These include attraction. physical and regulatory methods that control through These quality factors have a series of modi"ers which external manipulation and have dominated most tour- e!ect the strength of e!ect of these variables. ist}wildlife interactions in the past (e.g. Wallace, 1993). There are also a set of context variables which describe More recently, economic strategies have also been space and time factors including time of day and time of utilised. Authors such as Plimmer (1992), Beckman (1989) year. They are natural factors which still a!ect the quality and Orams (1996) suggest educational strategies. These of the transaction, but are out of the direct control of the strategies generally seem to try to control the number of management, such as temperature and humidity. tourists, and are forms of regulating numbers of people to In addition to the above there is a set of standard and carrying capacity of a site, rather than the interaction or manageable service variables that also a!ect customer experience itself. perception of quality. Management potentially has con- The quality of the experience can provide greater or trol over the service, and therefore the impact on the end lesser satisfaction for an observer, and depends on the user (both human and animal). The variables might in- degree of control of the wildlife encounter which clude the guide commentary (skill) and comfort and the observer feels he or she has. Circumstances a!ecting P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42 37 the sense of control include: E communication skills of guide; E personal guide}observer rapport; E under direct control of a guide or ranger; E motivation levels of guide and observer (e.g. could be E under a set of rules, such as in a national park; a!ected by tiredness); E the number of people in the group; E on-site interpretation aids. E degree of exposure to the animal; E degree of unpredictability and potential danger from Guides are also able to manipulate and (generally) posit- the animal; ively a!ect the quality of the experience for the visitor by E the fragility of habitat and/or rareness of the animal; their behaviour. Examples include: E whether armed or not; E E knowledge of the observer. building anticipation verbally; E taking a circuitous route to viewing place; Some WT experiences rely on observation of animals in E teaching observer to speak quietly and move slowly a natural situation. Others involve a situation contrived (even if not strictly necessary); by humans to make the animals more observable (e.g. the E guide uses quiet con"ding voice to observer; provision of food). In situations where observation of E using sounds to attract animal thereby increasing wildlife occurs regularly, animals become habituated or sense of intimacy; more tolerant of the presence of human observers. That E making the particular experience seem special and the is, providing nothing happens to the animal, it will learn observer feel fortunate. not to #ee and will allow closer approach over time. Management methods for control of the experience can be divided into physical and intellectual. Physical 10. Options and tradeo4sinWT control is managed by tangible separation from the ani- mal, a guide being present, or other forms of barriers Recreational use of wildlife incorporates an array of external to the observer. The control factor may also economic and non-economic values (Du!us & Dearden, regulate the activities to prevent risk of injury to the 1993). It is perhaps unfortunate that the short-term eco- visitor. Intellectual control is the amount of expert know- nomic bene"ts often appear to take a central role in ledge transmitted by the guide or other interpretation wildlife resource management, especially where alloca- mechanism. This may include &tricks' that improve the tions of resources among a group of competing uses are encounter. considered. (Furze, de Lacy & Birkhead, 1996). Non- A person experiencing a high level of personal physical economic values for users, management and society are control over the encounter would be close to the wildlife, more di$cult to measure. Driver and Tocher (1970) sug- possibly being able to touch it. The possibility of harm to gested a behavioural approach which concluded that the ` a the exhibit is therefore high, and with some species goal of such recreational engagement was an experience, there may be the prospect of harm to the visitor. As in that each individual who undertakes a trip has expec- mentioned above, this may add considerably to the ex- tations, knowledge and past experiences which go to- perience, but may have damaging e!ects on the fauna (or gether to evaluate whether such a trip was a success. the tourist). There has been considerable research on satisfaction in Perhaps of more interest is the amount of intellectual the services sector (e.g. Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, control that may be exercised in an encounter. The no- 1985, 1988), and the hospitality sector (e.g. Barsky, 1992; tion that a person must have expert knowledge of an Brown, Fisk & Bitner, 1994; Sparks & Bradley, 1997; Oh exhibit to appreciate it is currently untested. However, & Parks, 1997). However, a tourism-based model has a guide or other type of interpretation mechanism may additional variables, including many that are di$cult to increase enjoyment of the experience. Sparks (1997) has measure (see Hall & McArthur, 1993 or Reynolds, 1999). also demonstrated that the communication method af- The added dimensions with wildlife increase the com- fects the satisfaction level of the service encounter. It is plexity still further. Shackley (1996) suggests several ad- currently unclear what type of interpretation will lead to ded dimensions which include: increased levels satisfaction in WT encounters. Equally it is clear that the level of understanding E di!erential popularity (not all animals are as popular available at a wildlife encounter can strongly in#uence as others); the level of satisfaction of the observer. Relevant factors E di!erential fragility (not all animals and ecosystems include: are equally fragile); E ease of habituation (some animals will alter their be- E educational level of observers; haviour, sometimes to the advantage of WT). E communication with previous visitors; E pre-reading by observers; Braithwaite et al. (1996) show that, when a range of issues E level of knowledge of guide (if applicable); are investigated in the one study and in an integrated 38 P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42 fashion, it is possible to understand the possible compro- Vicarious experiences: Books, television shows, docu- mises between the needs of various stakeholders in a par- mentaries and "lms, which have very little impact on ticular WT context. wildlife. The making of the book or "lm does have an The tradeo!s and compromise options available to impact (which may be high), but the book or "lm is managers of WT can be expressed thus: experienced by many people, therefore for the number of Values of conservation vs animal welfare vs visitor satis- experiences that occur the actual impacts are low. faction vs proxtability. General access wildlife areas: National Parks, wilder- The key issues of the WT experience are the `Richness ness areas, public foot paths, walking trails. Animals are of Experiencea and the `E!ect on Wildlifea. In order to in their own habitat, and displaying natural behaviour, assess each WT product it is necessary to construct although in high usage areas some amount of habitu- a framework which shows di!erent types of WT, whether ation may occur. The interface between the visitor and consumptive or non-consumptive, their e!ects on the the wildlife may be managed or unmanaged. A high person involved, and the consequences to wildlife. number of people may participate. Fig. 4 provides a framework in which WT experiences Contrived experiences: Zoos, Circuses, wildlife parks, can be placed. It is clear that some interactions will be pets. The interaction is contrived. The animals are not in more desirable than others, in both environmental and their natural habitat, but there are few animals and many tourist satisfaction terms. Operations that cause min- people involved. imum impacts and maximum richness or experience are Limited access, rare animals: Animals in natural habi- clearly the most desirable. The framework can display tat. The visitor is interested in the rarity value of the both WT practices which may be advocated, and those species (and its behaviour, numbers, habitat, etc.), and which might be discouraged because of adverse impacts desires a close interaction with the animal. on the wildlife or the visitor. Restricted access, rare/endangered animals: Animals in natural habitat. Contact with wildlife would probably 10.1. Ewect on wildlife incur high physical and/or monetary cost.

Fig. 4 shows the `e!ect on wildlifea dimension scaled 10.2. Richness of experience from vicarious experiences of wildlife to `in naturea ex- periences with rare or endangered animals. This dimen- The second dimension, `Richness or Intensity of sion also demonstrates the access to and availability of experiencea, is a measure of ambient factors already the experience which has an inverse relationship with described. The important elements are those of an intan- impacts on habitat and wildlife. gible nature, namely Exhilaration, Authenticity and

Fig. 4. Experience and tradeo!s diagram. P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42 39

Uniqueness. However, the other factors of Involvement, impacts on the environment the greater the need to pay. Duration, and the Status and Popularity of the species The costs to society of providing some experiences may interacted with clearly a!ect the profundity and strength call for special consideration. People who choose attract- of the WT experience. ive experiences of high impact may be required to pay for It is clear that there is a wide range of possible experi- the privilege by way of additional taxation or fees which ences and wildlife/human interactions. These range from would be dedicated to conservation. In this way not only a low contact/low enthrallment/non-consumptive vicari- would conservation be funded, but less desirable WT ous experience, (an example of which might be a person experiences would be discouraged. reading a wildlife textbook in a place far removed from It is likely that at the high ends of the scales there is where the wildlife live), to a high contact/high enthrall- also a high personal risk factor, and for some this may be ment (and high impact) consumptive interaction of big an enriching factor (Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992). This game hunting. In between these two examples lie a range may represent a greater commercial hazard for the oper- of activities which include "lms and documentaries, zoos, ator. In this situation, there is a strong potential for safari parks, circuses, guided and unguided walking, bird unacceptable environmental and other costs for society. watching, etc. These activities need to be examined so as Section B includes interactions that while probably to ascertain their attraction for the tourist and their e!ect rating higher on the richness/intensity of experience scale on wildlife. are likely to have some negative e!ects on wildlife or Once examined and measured by the factors described habitat, or may lack authenticity. above, the interactions can then be placed on a matrix The areas C and D indicate a range of activities that (Fig. 5). Note that the examples shown in the framework might be deemed to have more minor e!ects on wildlife diagram are for indicative purposes only and require and still provide a valid experience for the tourist. These careful study to determine impacts and quality of experi- activities need to be encouraged if there is to be sustain- ence). Three diagonal lines are placed across the frame- able growth in WT. work as an indication of four broad categories of a complex range of features (A, B, C, D). The categories attempt to capture the trade-o!s between impact on the 11. Directions for future research environment and quality of the experience. High e!ect/high enthrallment experiences (A) need to The emerging issues include: the biological impacts of be carefully managed to lessen impact. The higher the non-consumptive and consumptive uses of wildlife, the quality of the experience the greater the need to pay analysis of visitor satisfaction with various types of wil- should be. It can also be argued that the higher the dlife experience, determining carrying capacity of sites,

Fig. 5. Experience and e!ect tradeo! II. 40 P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42 the economic implications for tourism and conservation, and e!ectiveness of di!erent methods is open to dis- and the impacts on society and education. cussion, but might include a di!erential taxation system, Further research is also required in the role of inter- education (of both tourists and operators) or self-regula- pretation and guiding in the management of tourist satis- tion. Although it is likely that a multi-disciplinary ap- faction in WT. It is suggested that management of this proach is called for (Cellabos-Lascurain, 1993), indeed, factor will have a signi"cant e!ect on the level of satisfac- Plimmer (1992, p. 125) suggests `2 we have a wide tion of the visitor (Moscado, 1996). range of management techniques. We can add to them as we realise the possibilities. It is essential that we look at all these possible techniques as a menu, and choose the 12. Conclusion one, or combination, best suited to the situation.a

A wide range of activities fall within the ambit of WT, apparently catering for a wide range of needs and in Acknowledgements a variety of ways. Some WT is more attractive to the general public than others, however it is critically impor- We would like to thank Sue Briggs, Sue Mulion, Carl tant that the environmental sustainability of WT opera- Binning, and Steve Morton and the anonymous referees tions be given the highest priority due to the inherent for their comments on the manuscript. fragility of the resource. There are a number of di!erent tensions or problems between tour operators and protected area managers. The most common and basic seemed to be between References operators seeking greater and closer access to wildlife Akoglu, T. (1971). Tourism and the problem with the environment. and managers seeking to restrict access and increase the Tourist Review, 26,18}20. distance between visitors and the wildlife. From the per- Barsky, J. D. (1992). Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: Mean- spective of some in the tourism industry, protected area ing and Measurement. CHRIE Hospitality Research Journal, 16, managers seek to restrict visitors based on a philosophi- 51}73. cal or social objection to visitors rather than on sound Beaumont, N. (1998). The conservation bene"ts of ecotourism: Does it produce pro-environmental attitudes or are ecotourists already evidence of ecological impacts on the visited environ- converted to the cause? Australian tourism and hospitality research ment or wildlife. From the perspective of some of those conference. CAUTHE. Brisbane. concerned with wildlife conservation and management, Beckman, E. A. (1989). Interpretation in Australian national parks and operators often make claims about the viability of their reserves: status, evaluation and prospects. In D. L. Uzzell, Heritage operations that cannot be backed up by evidence. In each interpretation vol 1: The natural and built environment (pp. 142}152). London: Belhaven Press. case there appears to be a lack of understanding by each Bene"eld, A., Bitgood, S., Landers, A., & Patterson, D. (1986). Under- party of the constraints and pressures on the other and in standing your vistors: Ten factors that inyuence their behaviour (Tech. each case people are often operating on a precautionary Re. No 86-60) Jacksonville, Al: Centre for Social Design. principle not understood or recognised by the other. In Berry, J. K., & Kellert, S. R. (1980). American attitudes, knowledge and the case of managers, restrictions are often based not on behaviours toward wildlife and natural habitats. Phase three results of a US xsh and wildlife service funded study. Connecticut: Yale evidence of actual impacts but on concerns over possible University. impacts. In the case of operators, concerns over what will Bitgood, S. C. (1987). Understanding the public's attitudes toward and make acceptable and saleable experiences for visitors are behaviour in museums, parks, and zoos (Tech. Rep. No. 87-30). Jack- also driven not by direct evidence but by fears of possible sonville: Center for Social Design. problems. Clearly what is needed is reliable, independent Blamey, R., & Hatch, D. (1996) Proxles and motivations of nature-based tourists visiting Australia. Occasional paper No. 25. Bureau of and relevant evidence on both impacts of visitors on Tourism Research, Canberra. wildlife and environments and on what visitors seek and Braithwaite, R. W., Reynolds, P. C., & Pongracz, G. B. (1996). Wildlife are prepared to accept in a wildlife-based tourism experi- tourism at yellow waters. Final Report. An analysis of the environ- ence. The proposed model (Fig. 5) links the two areas of mental, social and economic compromise options for sustainable the quality of experience and impact on wildlife and operation of a tour boat venture in Kakadu National Park. A report to the federal Department of Tourism. Australian Nature Conserva- points a way forward for responsible management in tion Agency, Gagudju Association, Inc. wildlife tourism. The model portrays part of the complex Bright, A. D., Cordell, H. K., & Tarrant, M. A. (1997). Attitudes toward of trade-o!s and compromises that are inherent to WT wildlife species protection: Assessing moderating and mediating which will assist both operators and managers. Clearly e!ects in the value}attitude relationship. Human Dimension of sites and interactions of low quality and high impact are Wildlife, 2(2), 1}20. less desirable than the converse. Brown, S. W., Fisk, R. P., & Bitner, M. J. (1994). The development and emergence of services marketing thought. International Journal of If we are to move towards sustainable tourism it is Service Industry Management, 5(1), 21}48. necessary to encourage the desirable and to discourage Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the undesirable through a variety of methods. The range The case of trout "shermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 174}187. P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42 41

Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution Kellert, S. (1989). Human}animal interactions: A review of American implications for the management of resources. Canadian Geogra- attitudes to wild and domestic animals in the twentieth century. In pher, 24,5}12. A. Rowan, Animals and people sharing the World (pp. 137}175). New Cellabos-Lascurain, H. (1993). Overview on Ecotourism around the England: University of New England Press. world: ICUN's Ecotourism program'. Proceedings of the 1993 world Knight, R. L., & Cole, D. N. (1995). Wildlife responses to recreationists. congress on adventure travel and ecotourism (pp. 219}222). The In R. L. Knight, & K. J. Gutzwiller, Wildlife and recreation: Coexist- Adventure Travel Society Inc, Englewood, CO. ence through management and research. (pp. 71}80). Washington, Cumbow, M. W., Jurowski, C., Noe, F. P., & Uysal, M. (1995}96). The DC: Island Press. e!ects of instrumental and expressive factors on overall satisfaction. Leopold, A. (1966). Wildlife in American culture. In &A Sand County In: A. Park, Environment. Journal of Environment Systems, 24(1), Almanac with other essays on conservation from Round River' 47}68. (p. 197). New York: Oxford University Press. Dalal-Clayton, B., Leader-Williams, N., & Roe, D. (1997). Take only MacCannell (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space photographs, leave only footprints: The environmental impacts of in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79, 589}603. wildlife tourism. IIED Wildlife and Development Series; International Moscado, G. (1996). Mindful visitors. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), Institute for Environment and Development, London. 376}397. Decker, D. J., & Enck, J. W. (1997). Examining assumptions in wildlife Moscado, G., Pearce, P. L., & Haxton, P. (1998). Understanding Rain- management: A contribution of human dimensions inquiry. Human forest Tourist Expectations and Experiences. Australian tourism and Dimensions of Wildlife, 2(3), 56}72. hospitality research conference. CAUTHE. Brisbane. Dowling, R. K. (1992). Tourism and environmental integration: The Muloin, S. (1998). Wildlife tourism: The psychological bene"ts of whale journey from idealism to realism. In C.P. Cooper, & A. Lockwood, watching. Pacixc Tourism Review, 2, 2. Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management, vol. 4 Oh, H., & Parks, S. C. (1997). Customer satisfaction and service quality: (pp. 33}46) London: Bellhaven Press. A critical review of the literature and research implications for the Driver, B. L., & Tocher, S. R. (1970). Toward a behavioural interpreta- hospitality industry . CHRIE Hospitality Research Journal, 20(3), tion of recreational engagement, with implications for planning. 35}64. In B. Driver, Elements of outdoor recreational planning, USA Orams, M. B. (1996). A conceptual model of tourist}wildlife Interac- (pp. 9}31). tion: the case for education as a management strategy. Australian Du!us, D. A., & Dearden, P. (1990). Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented Geographer, 27(1), 39}51. recreation: A conceptual framework. Biological Conservation, 53, Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual 213}231. model of service quality and its implications for future research. Du!us, D. A., & Deardon, P. (1993). Recreational use, valuation, and Journal of Marketing, 49,41}50. management, of Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) on Canada 's Paci"c Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: Coast. Environmental conservation, 20(2), 149}156. A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service Eagles, P. F. (1991). The motivations of Canadian Ecotourist. In quality. Journal of Retailing, 64,12}40. B. Weiler, Ecotourism: Incorporating the global classroom inter- Plimmer, W. N. (1992). Managing for growth: regulation versus the national conference papers. Bureau of Tourism Research Canberra. market. Proceedings of conference, ecotourism business of the pacixc Fillion, F. L., Foley J. P., & Jaquemot, A. J. (1992). The economics of (pp. 122}125). Auckland: University of Auckland. global tourism. Paper presented at the fourth World Congress on Prism Environmental Consulting Services (1988). Wildlife and tourism National Parks and Protected Areas, Caracas, Venezuela, February in Alberta. A report prepared for Alberta Tourism, Edmonton, 10}21. Alberta, Canada. Furze, B., de Lacy, T., & Birkhead, J. (1996). Culture, conservation and Reynolds, P. (1999). Design of the process and product interface. In biodiversity. UK: Wiley. Ian Yeoman, & Anna Leask, Heritage Visitor attractions: An Gauthier, D. A. (1993). Sustainable development, tourism and wildlife, operations management perspective Cassell. UK (Chapter 8) In J. G. Nelson, R. W. Butler, & G. Wall, Tourism and sustainable (pp. 110}126). development: Monitoring, planning, managing. Heritage Resource Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk perceptions and pleasure Centre Joint Publication No 1, University of Waterloo, Ontario (pp. travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 30, 98}109). 17}26. Hall, C. M., & McArthur, S. (1993). Heritage management: An intro- Romeril, M. (1985). Tourism and the environment: Towards a sym- ductory framework. In C. M. Hall, & S. McArthur, Heritage man- biotic relationship. International Journal of Environmental Studies, agement in New Zealand and Australia (pp. 1}17) Auckland: Oxford 25(4), 215}218. University Press. Shackley, M. (1996). Wildlife tourism. UK: Thompson Business Hammitt, W. E., Dulin, J. N., & Wells, G. R. (1993). Determinants of Press. quality wildlife viewing in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Sharkey, M. J. (1970). The carrying capacity of natural and improved Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21(1), 21}30. land in di!erent climatic zones. Mammalia, 34, 564}572. HLA Consultants, GAIA Consultants, and Cottonwood Consultants. Sparks, B. (1994). Communicative aspects of the service encounter. (1990). Marketing Watchable Wildlife Tourism in Alberta. Report CHRIE Hospitality Research Journal, 17(2), 39}50. prepared for Alberta Tourism and Alberta Forestry, Lands and Sparks, B., & Bradley, G. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of Wildlife, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. perceived service provider e!ort in the hospitality industry. CHRIE Jenner, P., & Smith, C. (1992). The tourism industry and the environ- Hospitality Research Journal, 20(3), 17}34. ment. Special Report No 2453. The Economist Intelligence Unit. Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., Peterson, M. E., Frissell S. S., London, UK. & Washburne, R. F. (1985). The limits of acceptable change Johnston, R. J. (1998). Estimating demand for wildlife viewing in zool- (LAC) system for wilderness planning. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. ogical parks: An exhibit-speci"c, time allocation approach. Human Report INT-176, Intermountain Forest and Range Exp Station, Dimensions in Wildlife, 3(1), 16}33. Ogden Utah. Kellert, S. (1980). Activities of the American public relating to animals. The Ecotourism Society (1998). http!! www.ecotourism.org. Position Phase II of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Study. Cited in HLA papers. Consultants, GAIA Consultants, and Cottonwood Consultants. Tisdell, C. (1993). Environmental economics: Policies for environmental (1990) Marketing Watchable Wildlife Tourism in Alberta. and sustainable development. Aldershot UK: Edward Elgar. 42 P.C. Reynolds, D. Braithwaite / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 31}42

Wagar, J. A. (1964). The carrying capacity of wetlands for recreation. Williams, P. W., & Gill, A. (1991). Carrying capacity Management in Society of American Foresters, Forest Service Monograph 2. tourism settings: A tourism growth management process. Report for Wallace, G. N. (1993). Visitor management: Lessons from Galapagos Alberta Tourism. Center for Tourism Policy and Research, Simon National Park. In K. Lindberg, & D. E. Hawkins, Ecotourism, Frazer University, Vancouver. a guide for planners and managers. Vermont, USA: The Ecotourism Zierer, C. M. (1952). Tourism recreation in the west. Geographical Society. Review, 42, 462}481.

Ethics and Responsibility in Wildlife Tourism: Lessons from Compassionate Conservation in the Anthropocene

• First Online: 16 June 2017

Cite this chapter

• Georgette Leah Burns 6  

Part of the book series: Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism ((GGAG))

2458 Accesses

12 Citations

Whether captive or non-captive, consumptive or non-consumptive, targeted or non-targeted, guided or non-guided, wildlife tourism activities have traditionally been dominated by an anthropocentric worldview that recognizes wildlife only for its extrinsic value. This chapter argues that the advent of the Anthropocene provides an opportunity for humans to accept responsibility for how they engage with animals in tourism settings and ethically reassess this engagement. Reviewing theories of ethics dealing with animals, tourism, the environment and conservation, the conclusion is drawn that in order to effectively manage wildlife tourism for the equitable benefit of both humans and wildlife, and thus create a viable wildlife tourism ethic, valuable lessons can be extracted from an approach that embodies compassionate conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Compassion as a Practical and Evolved Ethic for Conservation

Zoo and Aquarium Visitors’ Wildlife Values and Ethics Orientations

Money, Myths and Man-Eaters: Complexities of Human–Wildlife Conflict

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) (2016) Hunter who killed black bear with spear and left it to die overnight could face charges, 17 August 2016. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-17/outcry-over-spear-hunted-bear/7750326

Ballantyne R, Packer J, Falk J (2011) Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: testing short-and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modeling. Tour Manage 32(6):1243–1252

Google Scholar  

Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K (2009) Tourists’ support for conservation message and sustainable management practices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tour Manage 30(5):658–664

Article   Google Scholar  

Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K, Dierking L (2007) Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environ Educ Res 13(3):367–383

Bekoff M (2010) First do no harm. New Scientist, August 24–25

Bekoff M, Jamieson D (1996) Ethics and the study of carnivores: doing science while respecting animals. In: Gittleman JL (ed) Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 15–45

Bekoff M, Nystrom J (2004) The other side of silence: Rachel Carson’s views of animals. Zygon 39(4):861–883

Bekoff M, Ramp D (2014) Cruel to be kind. New Scientist, June 26–27

Bock B, Buller H (2013) Healthy, happy and humane: evidence in farm animal welfare policy. Sociologia Ruralis 53(3):390–411

Bruni CM, Fraser J, Schultz PW (2008) The value of zoo experience for connecting people with nature. Visitor Stud 11(2):139–150

Burns GL (2004) The host community and wildlife tourism. In: Higginbottom K (ed) Wildlife tourism: impacts, management and Planning. Common Ground Publishing, Altona, pp 125–144

Burns GL (2014) Animals and anthropomorphism in the Anthropocene. In: Burns GL, Paterson M (eds) Engaging with animals: interpretations of a shared existence. Sydney University Press, Sydney, pp 3–20

Burns GL (2015a) Ethics in tourism. In: Hall CM, Gössling S, Scott D (eds) The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability. Routledge, London, pp 117–126

Burns GL (2015b) Animals as tourism objects: Ethically refocusing relationships between tourists and wildlife. In: Markwell K (ed) Animals and tourism: understanding diverse relationships. Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp 44–59

Burns GL, Howard P (2003) When wildlife tourism goes wrong: a case study of stakeholder and management issues regarding Dingoes on Fraser Island. Aust Tourism Manage 24(6):699–712

Burns GL, Macbeth J, Moore S (2011) Should dingoes die? Principles for engaging ecocentric ethics in wildlife tourism management. J Ecotourism 10(3):179–196

Burns GL, Paterson M (2014) Introduction. In: Burns GL, Paterson M (eds) Engaging with animals: Interpretations of a shared existence. Sydney University Press, Sydney, pp ix–xiv

Carr N, Cohen S (2011) The public face of zoos: images of entertainment, education, and conservation. Anthrozoos 24(2):175–189

Carrington D (2014) Earth has lost half of its wildlife in the last 40 years, says WWF. Guardian. 30 Sept 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf

Ceballos G, Garcia A, Ehrlich P (2010) The sixth extinction crisis: loss of animal populations and species. J Cosmol 8:1821–1831

Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, Garcia A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM (2015) Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci Adv 1(5):1–5

Dawson J, Johnston MJ, Stewart EJ, Lemieux CJ, Lemelin RH, Maher PT, Grimwood BSR (2011) Ethical considerations of last chance tourism. J Ecotourism 10(3):250–265

Dobson J (2011) Towards a utilitarian ethic for marine wildlife tourism. Tourism Mar Environ 7(3–4):213–222

Dorresteijn I, Schultner J, Nimmo DG, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Kuemmerle T, Kehoe L, Ritchie EG (2015) Incorporating anthropogenic effects into trophic ecology: predator-prey interactions in a human-dominated landscape. Proc Bio Sci 282(1814):301–306

Draper C, Bekoff (2013) Animal welfare and the importance of compassionate conservation—a comment on McMahon et al. 2012. Biol Conserv 158: 422–423

Fennell DA (2006) Tourism ethics. Channel View Publications, Clevedon

Fennell DA (2012) Tourism and animal ethics. Routledge, London

Fennell DA (2015a) The status of animal ethics research in tourism. In: Markwell K (ed) Animals and tourism: understanding diverse relationships. Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp 27–43

Fennell DA (2015b) Tourism and the precautionary principle in theory and practice. In: Hall CM, Gössling S, Scott D (eds) The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability. Routledge, London, pp 67–77

Fox CH, Bekoff M (2011) Integrating values and ethics into wildlife policy and management—Lessons from North America. Animals 1(4):126–143

Frost W (2011) Zoos and tourism: conservation, education, entertainment? Channel View Publications, Bristol

Fulton D, Manfredo M, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement framework. Human Dimensions Wildlife 1(2):24–47

Gamborg C, Palmer C, Sandoe P (2012) Ethics of wildlife management and conservation: what should we try to protect? Nature Edu Know 3(10):8

Garner R (1993) Political animals: a survey of the animal protection movement in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs 46(3):333–352

Gascon C, Brooks TM, Contreras-MacBeath T, Heard N, Konstant W, Lamoreux J, Vié JC (2015) The importance and benefits of species. Curr Biol 25(10):431–438

Gore ML, Nelson MP, Vucetich JA, Smith A, Clark M (2011) Exploring the ethical basis for conservation policy: the case of inbred wolves on Isle Royale, USA. Conserv Lett 4:394–401

Gössling S, Hall CM (eds) (2006) Tourism and global environmental change: ecological, social, economic and political interrelationships. Routledge, London

Granquist SM, Sigurjonsdottir H (2014) The effect of land based seal watching tourism on the haul-out behaviour of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) in Iceland. Appl Animal Behav Sci 156:85–93

Green R, Giese M (2004) Negative effects of wildlife tourism on wildlife. In: Higginbottom K (ed) Wildlife tourism: impacts, management and planning. Common Ground Publishing, Altona, pp 81–98

Gusset M, Dick G (2010) ‘Building a Future for Wildlife’? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in situ conservation. Int Zoo Year Book 44:183–191

Hadidian J, Fox CH, Lynn WS (2006) The ethics of wildlife control in humanized landscapes. In: Timm RM, O’Brien JM (eds) Proceedings of the 22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, pp 500–504

Hardin G (1968) Tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Higginbottom K (ed) (2004a) Wildlife tourism: Impacts, management and planning. Common Ground Publishing, Altona

Higginbottom K (2004b) Managing impacts of wildlife tourism on wildlife. In: Higginbottom K (ed) Wildlife tourism: impacts, management and planning. Common Ground Publishing, Altona, pp 211–230

Higginbottom K, Tribe A (2004) Contributions of wildlife tourism to conservation. In: Higginbottom K (ed) Wildlife tourism: impacts, management and Planning. Common Ground Publishing, Altona, pp 99–124

Higham J, Hopkins D (2015) Wildlife tourism: “call it consumption”. In: Hall CM, Gössling S, Scott D (eds) The Routledge handbook of tourism and sustainability. Routledge, London, pp 280–293

Higham J, Shelton EJ (2011) Tourism and wildlife habituation: reduced population fitness or cessation of impact? Tour Manag 32(6):1290–1298

Holden A (2005) Achieving a sustainable relationship between common pool resources and tourism: the role of environmental ethics. J Sustain Tourism 13(4):339–352

Jafari J (1990) The Basis of tourism education. J Tourism Stud 1:33–41

Jafari J (2001) The Scientification of tourism. In: Smith V, Brent M (eds) Hosts and guests revisited: Tourism issues of the 21st Century. Cognizant Communications, Elmsford, pp 28–41

Jóhannesson GT, Huijbens EH (2010) Tourism in times of crisis: exploring the discourse of tourism development in Iceland. Curr Issues Tourism 13:419–434

Kellert SR (1985) Public perceptions of predators, particularly the Wolf and Coyote. Biol Conserv 31:167–189

Kellert SR (2003) Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Island Press, Washington, DC

Lewis P-M, Burns GL, Jones D (2016) Response and responsibility: Humans as apex predators and ethical actors in a changing societal environment. Food Webs

Littin KE, Mellor DJ, Warburton B, Eason CT (2004) Animal welfare and ethical issues relevant to the humane control of vertebrate pests. New Zealand Vet J 52(1):1–10

Littin KE, Mellor DJ (2005) Strategic animal welfare issues: Ethical and animal welfare issues arising from the killing of wildlife for disease control and environmental reasons. Rev Sci Tech (Int Off Epizootics) 24(2):767–782

Lovelock B, Lovelock KM (2013) The Ethics of tourism: critical and applied perspectives. Routledge, New York

Manfredo MJ (1989) Human dimensions of wildlife. Wildl Soc Bull 17(4):447–449

Manfredo MJ (2008) Who cares about wildlife? Social science concepts for exploring human-wildlife relationships and conservation issues. Springer, Fort Collins

Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Bright AD (2003) Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions Wildlife 8:287–306

Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Bright AD (2004) Application of the concepts of values and attitudes in human dimensions of natural resources research. In: Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Field D, Brown PJ (eds) Society and Natural Resources: a summary of knowledge prepared for the 10th International Symposium on Society and Natural Resources. Jefferson, MO, Modern Litho, pp 271–282

Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Zinn HC (2009) Understanding global values toward wildlife. In: Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Brown PJ, Decker DJ, Duke EA (eds) Wildlife and society: The Science of human dimensions. Island Press, Washington, DC

Marschall S, Granquist S, Burns GL (2017) Interpretation in wildlife tourism: Assessing the effectiveness of signage to modify visitor behaviour at a seal watching site in Iceland. J Outdoor Recreation Tourism 17:11–19

Mason P (2000) Zoo tourism: the need for more research. J Sust Tourism 8:333–339

Macbeth J (2006) Towards an ethics platform for tourism. Annals Tourism Res 32(4):962–984

MacClellan J (2013) How (not) to defend a Rawlsian approach to intergenerational ethics. Ethics Environ 18(1):67–85

Minteer B (2011) Refounding environmental ethics: Pragmatism, principle, and practice. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

Moore S, Rodger K (2010) Wildlife as a common pool resource issue: enabling conditions for sustainability governance. J Sustain Tourism 18(7):831–844

Moore, RS, Wihermanto, Nekaris, KAI (2014) Compassionate conservation, rehabilitation and translocation of Indonesian slow lorises. Endangered Species Res 26:93–102

Moscardo G, Woods B, Saltzer R (2004) The Role of interpretation in wildlife tourism. In: Higginbottom K (ed) Wildlife tourism: Impacts, management and planning. Common Ground Publishing, Altona, pp 231–251

Nelson MP, Bruskotter JT, Vucetich JA, Chapron G (2016) Emotions and the ethics of consequence in conservation decisions: Lessons from Cecil the Lion. Conserv Lett 9(4):302–306

Newsome D, Dowling R, Moore S (2005) Wildlife tourism. Channel View Publications, Clevedon

Newsome D, Rodger K (2007) Impacts of tourism on pinnipeds and implications for tourism management. In: Higham J, Lück M (eds) Marine wildlife and tourism management: insights from the natural and social sciences. CABI, Oxfordshire, pp 182–205

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Óladóttir O (2016) Tourism in Iceland in figures—May 2016. Icelandic Tourist Board, Reykjavik

Ostrom E, Burger J, Field CB, Norgaard RB, Policansky D (1999) Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284:278–282

Ragnarsson A (2015) Norðurland Vestra, Stöðugreining 2014 [Northwest Status Analysis 2014]. Byggðastofnun, Iceland

Ramp D (2013) Bringing compassion to the ethical dilemma in killing kangaroos for conservation: comment on “Conservation through sustainable use” by Rob Irvine. J Bioethical Inquiry 10(2):267–272

Ramp D, Bekoff M (2015) Compassion as a practical and evolved ethic for conservation. Bioscience 65:323–327

Regan T (2001) Defending animal rights. University of Illinois Press, Chicago

Regan T (2004) The Case for animal rights: Updated with a new preface. University of California Press, Berkeley

Shackley M (1996) Wildlife tourism. International Thomson Business Press, London

Singer P (1975) Animal liberation: a new ethics for our treatment of animals. Harper Collins, New York

Singer P (ed) (2005) In defense of animals: the second wave. Blackwell, Oxford

Skibins JC, Powell RB (2013) Conservation caring: measuring the influence of zoo visitors` connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviors. Zoo Biology 32:528–540

Soulé M (1985) What is conservation biology? Bioscience 35(11):727–734

Teel TL, Manfredo M (2009) Linking society and environment: a multi-level model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western U.S. Soc Sci Q 90(2):407–427

Tribe A, Booth R (2003) Assessing the role of zoos in wildlife conservation. Human Dimensions Wildlife 8(1):65–74

Vaske JJ, Shelby LB, Manfredo MJ (2006) Bibliometric reflections on the first decade of human dimensions of wildlife. Human Dimensions Wildlife 11(2):79–87

Wallach AD, Bekoff M, Nelson PM, Ramp D (2015) Promoting predators and compassionate conservation. Conserv Biol 29(5):1481–1484

White L (1967) The Historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science 155(3767):1203–1207

Þórisson SL (2017) Selasetur Íslands Annual Report 2016. Icelandic Seal Center, Hvammstangi

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Environmental Futures Research Institute and Faculty of Environmental Science, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia

Georgette Leah Burns

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgette Leah Burns .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Business and Tourism, Southern Cross University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia

Ismar Borges de Lima

Wildlife Tourism Australia (WTA) , Rathdowney, Queensland, Australia

Ronda J. Green

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Burns, G.L. (2017). Ethics and Responsibility in Wildlife Tourism: Lessons from Compassionate Conservation in the Anthropocene. In: Borges de Lima, I., Green, R. (eds) Wildlife Tourism, Environmental Learning and Ethical Encounters. Geoheritage, Geoparks and Geotourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55574-4_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55574-4_13

Published : 16 June 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-55573-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-55574-4

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: A conceptual framework

1990, Biological Conservation

Related Papers

Susanna Curtin

Wildlife tourism has arguably come of age. The last five years has seen an incremental growth in the number of different types of commercial wildlife watching activities developed, the number of tourism businesses offering these activities worldwide and the number of tourists engaging in them either as the primary motivation for travel or as a day trip whilst on a standard rest and relaxation holiday (UNEP/CMS 2006). The purpose of this discussion paper is to highlight the recent changes in the sector and suggest the contemporary management issues that industry and the scientific community need to address. The discussion is drawn from an overview of the author’s own research regarding ‘serious’ / ‘dedicated’ wildlife tourists from the United Kingdom and studies from other key academics working in the same field. As the title of this paper suggest, the only markets once interested in travelling to the world’s key wildlife destinations were serious bird-watchers and hard-core naturalists. Today, however, the wildlife-watching market is a complex, non-homogenous sector which represents the multiple identities of modern tourists. The wildlife-watching sector embraces a number of activities including specialist mammal watching, habitat specific tours, floral and butterfly tours, thrill and adventure seeking activities, safaris and cruises, conservation or research orientated trips, and finally, opportunities for direct embodied experiences such as feeding wildlife or ‘swim-with’ (snorkelling) tours with marine mammals and other large charismatic marine fauna including sharks, sting-rays and potato-cod. British wildlife tourists are predominantly an equal mix of males and females, aged 35+ with a majority in the high disposable income and early-retired bracket (Mintel 2006; Curtin and Wilkes 2005). However, due to increased interest in the natural world, the family market is also a growth area as is the younger market via the link between adventure travel and wildlife, safari honeymoons and conservation-orientated activity holidays such as recording sightings of marine mammals, turtle nest checking and helping game rangers. Indeed volunteering tourism is a burgeoning and under-studied facet of the wildlife tourism portfolio. Mintel (2006) and UNEP/CMS (2006) claim that the demand for nature experiences is growing worldwide at a faster rate than tourism in general. The global market size of wildlife tourism today is an estimated 12 million trips annually; currently growing at 10% per annum. According to the literature and industry commentators, this growth is driven by an increasingly urbanised population (Bird 2007; Gossling 2002; Urry 1990), the educational, emotional and restorative nature of wildlife watching (Curtin 2008; Finkler and Higham 2004; Luck 2003; Orams 2000; Schanzel and McIntosh 2000), the increase exposure through television documentaries, media coverage of endangered species, and silver screen documentaries such as the March of the Penguins (Mintel 2006; Page and Dowling 2002). There is also an element of ‘last chance’ tourism to see species such as polar bears, tigers, gorillas and pandas which puts increasing pressure on already endangered species (Shackley 1996). An expertly guided and managed wildlife tourism product can represent high margin and value-added tourism which is why so many main stream operators are embracing it (Curtin and Wilkes 2005). It can also provide much needed funds for conservation (Tisdell and Wilson 2002). Indeed, increased memberships and rising tourist demand have also prompted charities such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the Born Free Foundation to offer responsible holidays to view wildlife. In addition, there is an emergence of multi-activity holidays such as ‘orca watching and the aura borealis’ in Norway, ‘wildlife plus total eclipse tours’ and ‘trekking, riding and grizzly bears’ which, again, widens market potential. As in other types of tourism, there is a constant demand for new products, experiences and destinations. Emerging wildlife destinations include Antarctica, Bolivia, Finland and China whilst the most popular consolidating markets for American and European travellers include Madagascar and the Pantanal rainforest in Brazil (Mintel 2006). This said, for wildlife enthusiasts, any destination has its own attractive flora and fauna which local commercial operators are quick to exploit. Often, threatened species and habitats occur in countries that do not have the resources to protect them. The biggest challenge facing wildlife tourism is the human/wildlife conflict over habitat use and making protected areas financially self-sufficient whilst still protecting their biodiversity. Responsible tour leading and managing common resources will be at the forefront of discussion. For example what is the result of whaling on migratory whale populations which are later exploited for tourism in the waters of neighbouring countries? Similar conflicts occur with regards to seals and the fishing industry or bear hunting and the bear watching industry. How might such conflicts be resolved? Moreover, the negative impacts of wildlife tourism are becoming well-documented and whilst site and species specific they nonetheless suggest the need for sustainable management policies. Whilst there is a responsible travel movement, it has not given as much attention to animal welfare as it has to eco-accommodation. This further enhances the need to develop and market wildlife watching codes of conduct, regulations, limits of development, and permits for successful and sustainable wildlife watching. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that responsible wildlife watching actually enhances the visitor experience rather than detracts from it as ‘fleeing wildlife is no fun to watch’ (Curtin et al. 2008). Whilst wildlife-specific destinations such as The Galapagos, Namibia and Rwanda are primed to set such controls, other developing destinations clearly are not and wildlife opportunities become a ‘free for all’ (Orams 2002). Much more work must be done on strengthening the potential economic and conservation orientated links if tracts of habitat and their indigenous species are to be saved for future generations. According to industry commentators such as Mintel (2008) green issues are important for wildlife consumers who are becoming sensitive to their carbon footprint. Nevertheless there is very little evidence that customers are willing to financially offset this footprint via an environmental tax as ultimately they are still motivated by cost. Some operators prefer to talk about perceived ‘carbon credit’ (i.e. economic contribution to conservation) rather than carbon footprint. Even so, the growing debate on climate change, the global recession and the rising cost of fuel may demand that future consumers holiday much closer to home. For developed countries, the domestic market may represent great untapped opportunity. Recent research has suggested that seeing wildlife close to home is as important as experiencing it in exotic locations, as at home there is a feeling of ‘connection’, ‘relationship’ and ‘responsibility’ (Curtin 2008). Watching wildlife has profound emotional effects on participants. It has the potential to temporarily distract them from their hectic time-driven schedules, daily existence and work / family demands to a space where time is their own, and a place where it is possible to reconnect and restore their mental well-being to a state of equilibrium. This is further evidence that such experiences are potentially fundamental to human mental health and happiness; that the very existence of wildlife may indeed enhance the quality of our lives. The growth in demand for wildlife watching experiences is testimony to the human fascination with and need to reconnect with the natural world which underlines the importance of managing human behaviour, conservation, and the careful management of wildlife resources and their habitats.

Lala Aswini Kumar Singh

Elisa Squadrito

Clement Tisdell

This essay classifies different types of wildlife tourism on the basis of whether they rely on captive or non-captive wildlife and whether they involve consumptive or non-consumptive use of wildlife. It is argued that depending upon how they are managed, all these forms of wildlife tourism can be supportive of the conservation of wildlife. Different mechanisms for sharing the benefits of wildlife tourism are considered and it is argued that from several different perspectives, there can be too much or too little sharing of the economic benefits from wildlife tourism. Diverse stakeholders with an interest in wildlife tourism are identified and different ways (direct and indirect) in which they can benefit from wildlife tourism are specified. The distribution of these benefits plays an important role in facilitating access to wildlife resources for tourism purposes and in ensuring their conservation. However, it cannot be assumed that wildlife tourism operators have a large amount of profit or economic surplus to share. Factors that influence their level of profit are identified and discussed. Ways are considered in which the benefits from wildlife tourism might be increased in Australia. These include easier and more widespread access of tour operators to Australia’s wildlife resources held in the public domain and by some NGOs.

Journal of Applied Ecology

George M Coghill

Human Dimensions of Wildlife

laura jannot

Md Saidul Islam

Wildlife tourism is frequently touted as a solution to the problems of increased poaching, habitat destruction, and species extinction. When wildlife is able to pay for its right to survive through attracting tourists, there is an incentive to conserve wildlife populations and the habitats that support them. However, numerous reports in recent years have drawn attention to the potential negative impacts of wildlife tourism attractions. This paper examines whether market environmentalism diminishes the potential of wildlife tourism to contribute to conservation and the welfare of individual animals. Market environmentalism commodifies the animals involved in wildlife tourism attractions and fuels an anthropocentric worldview where animals are resources to be used by humans for entertainment or economic gain, potentially presenting a threat to long-term conservation. Instead, we call for a decommodified experience of wildlife tourism based on more than just economic value.

Glen Hvenegaard

www-lbtest.jcu.edu.au

haretsebe manwa

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.