Filetype PDF | Posted on 09 Feb 2023 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
299x Filetype PDF File size 0.29 MB Source: tourismtwohundred.files.wordpress.com
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
Abstract
Tourismbasedoninteractionswithwildlifeisincreasinginpopularityacrosstheworld.Aconceptualframeworkispresentedwhich
begins to classify the major components of wildlife tourism/recreation and indicates the roles of and the relationship between these
components.Itissuggestedthatthevaluesofconservation,animalwelfare,visitorsatisfaction,andpro"tabilityareoftenincon#ictin
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-
broughtaboutacloserrelationshipbetweentheenviron- 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
thereisarapidlyincreasingdesireforinteractionwiththe *thereal problem is one of human management. Wil-
natural environment in a range of ways (Jenner & Smith, dlife managementiscomparativelyeasy;humanmanage-
1992). This general interest in nature and nature-based ment di$cult.a
experiences is re#ected in an increasing demand to ex- We propose that wildlife tourism (WT) lacks impor-
perience these, and increasing value being placed on, tantinformationontheneeds,desiresandopinionsofthe
animals in the wild, as opposed to those in captive or public. There is a need to know just how vital wildlife is
semi-captive situations (Gauthier, 1993). tohumanwelfareandtoidentifythesocialandeconomic
People have always been interested in animals, as bene"tderivedfromthisuseofwildliferesources.Indeed,
illustrated by the fact that domestic pets have been the Du!usandDeardon(1993) suggest: `The importance of
companionsofhumansformillennia.However,the non- doing so is to reinforce the idea that both human and
consumptive side of human relations with wildlife has ecological dimensions must be understood, and bal-
until recently, received much less attention than wildlife anced, in the planning stages for management. To ignore
as a source of food, trophies, fabric and other resources. either is to invite con#ict that will result in the degrada-
Theexperiencingofwildlifebytouristshasbecomethe tion of the resource base and/or degradation of the
2
business of wildlife tourism (WT). Essentially, this is recreational experience.a
We present a conceptual framework to classify the
major components of wildlife tourism/recreation, and
*Corresponding author. Tel.: 61-2-665-93312; fax: 61-2-665-93144. indicates the role of and the relationship between these
0261-5177/00/$-see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0261-5177(00)00018-2
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 andits 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 observewildlife. The reports do not suggest how much Thetraditionalviewofresearchintheareahasbeento
of a tourist's activity time was related to wildlife. It focus research on either:
therefore seems useful to create a framework that shows 1. Ewects on the tourist of the experience, with measure-
the relationship between WT and other forms of nature- mentofenjoyment/satisfactionandbehaviourlifestyle
based tourism. change (see Kellert, 1980, 1989; Berry & Kellert, 1980
Afocus on WT has become important because some or Bitgood, 1987).
of the issues peculiar to wildlife are obscured in the 2. Ewect on the natural environment, including both nega-
more broadly based discussion of nature-based tourism tive (actions to minimise disturbance to the environ-
or the more tightly de"ned ecotourism (which in- ment) and positive (actions that contribute to the
cludes requirements for education, conservation, and health of the environment); (For a review see Dalal-
respect of other cultures). These in turn overlap with Clayton, Leader-Williams & Roe, 1997).
consumptiveusesofwildlife, such as hunting and "shing, 3. Carrying capacity as a means of setting numbers of
some of which is in a tourism context. Rural tourism is visitors using a site. (see Sharkey, 1970; Wagar, 1964
concerned with broader issues of regional development or Williams & Gill, 1991).
in a farmed landscape which may have substantial natu-
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 mentoftourists'interactionswithwildlifehavefalleninto
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. Examinationofthisareaalsoallowsustoconsider
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. Impactandtrade-owanalysis,whichincludessocialand
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
WTexperience 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 wouldbene"tfromplacementintoasystemsframe- 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- othershavemeasuredsomeofthedimensionsofsatisfac-
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
contextofthehuman}wildliferelationship.Theydrawon onWT,andthefactorsandmodi"ersthatcontrolthem.
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 matelyservetheinterestsofconservation.Italsosuggests
(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-
analysethehuman}wildlifeinteraction,ormotivationsof gracz, 1996). These tangible factors include service and
the tourist. Indeed, they suggest (p. 226) `Increased contextualfactorssuchascomfortanddesignoffacilities,
knowledgeoftheuserintermsofexpectation,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 humancomponent . to maintain the ultimate pro- event, the exhilaration felt and the authenticity of the
2
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 productssuggeststhatmostcanbeplacedinoneofseven
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
Theapproachtaken in this paper takes the discussion part of the product.
and analysis further by "rstly identifying additional fac- Locationswithgoodwildlifeopportunities:Someaccom-
tors that a!ect wildlife tourism and the tourist. From modation establishments are located in close proximity
these, the combinationofcircumstancesthatgivethebest towildlife-richhabitat.Theymayevencontrivetoattract
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 amenableto 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 f allowthe 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:
Habitatspecixctours:Suchtoursarebasedonahabitat
richinwildlife andusuallyamenabletobeingaccessedby f motion of the animal;
a specialised vehicle or vessel. f size;
Thrill-owering tours: The basis of these is the exhibition f visitor participation;
of a dangerous or large species enticed to engage in f presence of an infant;
spectacular behaviour in the wild by the operator. f ease of viewability;
Hunting/xshing tours: This consumptive use of wildlife f vistors perceptions of the species characteristics (i.e.
maybeinnaturalhabitat, 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.
Thelist above illustrates the wide and diverse range of 7. Motivations of participants
interactionswhichareavailableunderthebannerofWT.
Fromthewiderangeoftypesofproductavailableitis
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-basedcriteria needtobeconsideredforaWTopera- 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.
thatsuccessfulWBTincorporatedthefollowingpointsin 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
f predicable in activity or location; and60percenthelddegrees.Kellert(1980)hassuggested
f approachable; a typology which re#ects fundamental di!erences in
f readily viewable (open habitats); values. An individual may encompass more than one
f tolerantofhumanintrusion(forsometimeoftheyear); category. That is, the same person may express the char-
f possess elements of rarity or local super abundance; acteristics of di!erent categories at di!erent times and
f 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
6.2. Habitats individual animals, mainly pets.
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.
f supportanumberofwatchableandinterestingspecies; Aesthetic: Primary interest in artistic and symbolic
f are open and allow good visibility of animals; characteristics of animals.
f have cover which obscures the observers' approach Utilitarian: Primary concern for practical and material
from animals; value of animals or habitat.
f have features which concentrate animal activity at Dominionistic: Primary interest in mastery and control
times (e.g. waterholes); of animals, typically in sporting situations.
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
