University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies Legacy Theses
1999 Dugong-watching tourism and encounter response of the dugong (Dugong dugon) in Shark Bay, western Australia
Gerrard, Cedric Aron
Gerrard, C. A. (1999). Dugong-watching tourism and encounter response of the dugong (Dugong dugon) in Shark Bay, western Australia (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/23002 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/25023 master thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALXiARY
Dugong-Watching Tourism and Enawnter Response of the Dugong
(&gong dugon) in Shark Bay, Western Australia
by
Cedric Aron Gemad
A THESIS
SUBMITIED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQWMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
RESOURCES AND THE ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM
CALGARY, ALBERTA
OCTOBER, 1999
O Cedric Aron Gerrard 1999 National Library BiMitM?que~ti0-k 1+1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rw WeningWl Ottawa ON KlAON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pennettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, priiter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la ?ropriCe du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othenvise de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT
Dtgoog-watdikg Sbdc w,Wm A- 00ur dishab.aeeoadqeon(l(~~)~~?nofcaoaatca.hatrped>2hrots causssi~cmtlymolr~~~&2~lcgardlessofmechodof appmach,watudepcb,adistmcctodugoqg. Moadirtllrbmecrmwithin25 metres to &gong. Sl~vyrof dug--vmtcbg tani311 reveal a low .waeaeas of thc dugongbytoclrisrrdakw~wl~kvdof~~~~logy~Touristsdsemcdtk dugong-antcbing expderyx as bhga high educational value* 'Ibcrr is high intaest in obtaining mote infdcmabout the dug- ada vay high demand for morc publicity on dugong consenmtion. Towists place a very high value on dugong codonand there is high demand for more finamid support for dugong conservation.
Recommendations arc offered to improve the guidelines for encountering dugong and for the development of education programs on the dugong. I would likc to acknowledge the following, wbsupport and Mcmwere -ti.l to the undertaking of this research project.
Dr. Dianne L. haper (Supcmbor)
Dr. Paul K. An&= (Lqhtical and mialsupport) heyRaven and his Shotover crew
Craig and Jessie Shadand
The Department of C~h~~rvrtiolladbud Management of Western Australia
I also would like to acknowledge the contribution of committee members:
Dr. Paul Paquet
Dr. Mary M. S. Pavelka and Dr. Brent Ritchie (External Examiner)
I would like to acknowledge Robin Poitras for his cartographic wizardry.
Finally. I would like to acknowledge the support given by Roxanne Shadbolt and the
Rangers at Monkey Mia.
Thank you, all.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
** AppmVBil P~gt...... II ... Abstract ...... LU
Acknowledgements...... iv Dedication ...... v Table of Contents ...... vi ... List of Tables ...... vw List of Figures ...... ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1
1 .1 Rationale ...... 1 . . 1.2 Research Objectrves...... 2
1.3 Study Area ...... 3
1.4 The Dugong (Dugong dugon)...... -6
2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 8
...... 2.1 Introduction...... 8
2.2 Humadwildlife Interactions ...... 9
2.3 The Natural Aliens ...... 14
2.4 Naturalizing the Aliens ...... 15
3.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 18
3.1 Time and Place ...... 18
3 -2 Questionnaire Design ...... 18
3 -3 Typical Tour Profile ...... 19
vi 3.4 Rcscafch Pmcdum...... 20 3.5 mgmg Bchavioural Obrcrvationr ...... 21
3.6 StatMcaI Analysis ...... 22
4.0 mULTS...... 23 4.1 Introduction ...... 23
4.2 Re-Tour Sumy ...... 23 4.2.1 F.aUp1 Knowledge ...... 24 4.2.2 ~~~ationOpinion...... 27
4.3 Post-TOUTSurvey ...... 28 4.4 Dugong Behaviod Observations ...... 30
4.4.1 mitt of Speed of Approach on Dugong Behaviour ...... 30
4.4.2 Efikct of Water Depth on Dugong Bchaviow...... 40
4.4.3 Effict of Distance on Dugong Behaviour ...... 43
5.0 DISCUSSION ...... 50
5.1 Effect of Tourboat Disturbance on Dugong Behaviour ...... 50
5.2 Contribution of Dugong-Watching Tours to Environmental Education ...... 53
5.3 Recommendations ...... 60
5.4 Strengths and Weaknesses of Research ...... 61
6.O.REFERENCES ...... 64 7.0 APPENDIX A: fre-Tour Questionnaire ...... 70
8.0 APPENDIX B: Post-Tour Questionnaire ...... 74
vii LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-.------*- .-t------.---t----o-o------.-.----.---o----.-.---~--.------.---~.---~-~*.~~.-.------*----3 1 Surmnray of results hmdug- behavioural observations
viii LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 ...... 4 Shark Bay, Western Austmh
FIGURE 2 ...... 26 Percentage of const responses by age pupon wur sumy lrnowladge qdcms. FIGURE 3 ...... 32 Effkct of speed of .ppracb on dug- hmdl observed encounters.
FIGURE 4 ...... 34 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs fiom encounters within the motor-driven apmh-wary- FIGURE 5 ...... -35 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs from encounters within the winddriven approach category.
FIGURE 6 ...... 37 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs from encounters in shallow water (I2 metres) by motor-driven and winddriven approaches.
FIGURE 7 ...... -38 Effkct of speed of approach on dugongs fiom encounters in deep water (> 2 metres) by motor-driven and wind-driven approaches.
FIGURE 8 ...... 39 Eff'ect of speed of approach on dugongs hmencounters within the '0 to 25 metres' distance category by motor-driven and wind&ven approaches.
FIGURE 9 ...... -...... 41 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs hmencounters within the '25 to 50 metres' distance category by motor-driven and wind-driven approaches.
FIGURE 10 ...... 42 - Effect of speed of approach on dugongs fiom encounters within the '50 to 100 metres' distance category by motor-driven and wind-driven approaches.
FIGURE I I ...... ,...... 44 Effect of water depth on dugongs fiom encounters within the motordriven approach category. FIGURE 12 ...... 45 Effkct of water deph on dugongs fbm encounters within the wioddrivcn .pprorch -on'* ...... t...... g...... FIGURE 13 ...... t...... g...... -47 EEkt of distmec @etwsm dugongs adtourboat) on dugongs hrom eocountcrs within the winddriven approach -ory.
FIGURE 14 ...... 49 Effect of dispmcc @ctwecn dugongs and towboat) on dugongs hmencounters within the motordrivven approach category. 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale
Shark Bay. Western Aurarli. is m expanding tourist &sthation md a via habitat for
one of tk wald's lrpsert surviving conceaaioas of &gongs (Dugmg -a).
Increasing tourist activity in &gong habitat may .&a ~ltgativelyon tbt &vd of this
species. There has been no previous mscamh ccmducW cm tbe effects of &gong-
watching tourism on the &gong. A better un&rstanding of dugong ecology and
behaviour could belp &uce Imom and -tial human distmbmce. Tbc kvel of
understanding of dugong ecology by tourists, and the valut of dugong-watching tours as
a medium for dugong ecology education and conservation needs to bt assessed. This
information could contribute to establishing recommendations on education programs to
inform tourists how their activities am impacting on dugongs and their habitat.
Effects of dugong-watching tourboat activity on dugong behaviour need to be assessed if
action is to be taken to mitigate the impact of wildlife tourism on this species. Dugong-
watching tourboats can frighten dugongs away from important resources and
consequently degrade their habitat. Disturbance may break-up cowlcalf bonds. interrupt
mating, interfere with calving, and cause frequent moves from seagrass beds resulting in
- loss of foraging time that could negatively affect the- long-term survival of the Shark Bay
dugong population. 2 1.2 Research Obiectives
To effectively evaluate tbe eff'of &gong-watching tourism an the ~th.vimof
dugcmg it is wcessmy to iategmtc humm md &gong variables. The WuvMur of ?be dugong during amunters with mubats needs to be smdid, as well rr tbe knowledge
level. a!tituks. and opinions of dugong-watching taaisU befae .ad rRa byhave taken a dugoag-wrtcbing tour. Tbtrcfdlrt tk specific objectives of the -h .re:
1. to assess tbc level of understanding and interest in dugong ecology by tourists on
dugong-watching tours;
2. to assess the value of dugong-watching tours as a &urn for dugong ecology
education and conservation; and
3. to detcnnint if dugongs alter their behaviour in tcsponse to dugong-watching
tourboat activities. WandE 114O O(Ymgwc 1). 'Ibisupmsi1lfkyisUOlrilomemsloagbyl10kil~ wide, and its 13,000 uprn kilommc drcam is divided by tb Plaoa knhala 'lb bayhsa~~dephofdyl~d~~~l~utmsive~dslrmes.
~hausevastsra~+nss~wsinchrdingthc16~~widcby160Lil~
1ongWooramclSeagmssBanL.theI.rgestintheworld. Twelvespbcicsofscrgrassatrt found in the bay, which supports a rich marine aaystcm including me of the wdd's largest populations of &gongs, estimated at 10,000 (Macsh et al., 1994).
Shark Bay was listed as a World Heritage Area in 1991 and contains examples of all faur of the United Naticms Eddonal, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)criteria for inscription (Shark Bay Regional Strategy, 1997). These criteria are: (1) outstanding examples representing the major stages of Ed's evolutionary history, (2) outstanding examples representing signikant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution, and human interaction with the natural environment. nKse include the stromatolides and hypersaline environment of Hamelin Pool; (3) examples of unique, rare, or superlative natural p henornena, formations or features of exceptional natural beauty. These include the - Faure Sill and Wooramel Seagrass Bank; and (4) the most important and significant habitats where threatened species of plants and animais of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science and conservation stilt survive. These include a staging area for
Humpback whales, nesting site for loggerhead turtles, and the resident dugong population
(Shark Bay Marine Resewes Draft Management Plan, 1994). DORRE ISLAND N.rm. muw.
SHARK BAY
FIGURE 1: SHARK BAY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA Tbe~~fatbe~b~heofDmbrmwimapopalrrioaof~y
~peopk.WemirrSbpdrB.ymrbapopllrtioaofdy9W)peopk.ThirEcsiden popuMonisprrdomiarclyanployalincommadrlmdlsratiaarl~g,saltmininp.a
~iadustybrrdotlwoolpoduaiar.8nd~~tanism~*Toctrirm off- tbe patest potential fa futme devdopmmt of tk Sbak Bay scooomy with tk marine arviramvat being tbe pdmuy don. Taurist vi&Btio(~s to tbc .ru m increasing with the 19% annual camt at 120,000 (SW Bay Regional Stmt~gy,1997).
This is a 20% hmmsc fiom the 100,000 eJtimue rrportcd in the Shrrk Bay Marine
Rescrvcs Draft Management Plan, 1994. Thc main anmaion at Shrlr Bay has kcn and continues to be tbe wild dolphins at Monkey Mia Most tourists visit the area on their
"Round Australia" motor vdon. ?be &gong, like many wildlife specks, oollld bcDefit frmr a public a- campaign. Relativeto~rmrhw~,litdek~rban~~dhbummimpvrsm thisspedes. Whlislmoam.bOut~gocology,~ythatvbichrmltestbac
~nimslswlnenMetahmma~nccdstobcllvdcwail8ble9tlriardtour operators. Knowkdge of tbe ~iticsof dugcmgs to human dirmabma win coatributtu,~011cff~dshouldbelprrdua~~~~h-imp#P~ tourism.
Dugongs gmw in length to over 3 metres, weigh up to 450 kilopms. and live to 70 plus years of age (Reeves ct al., 1992). Tkyare the ooly berbivofous marine mnmmal that still exists and tbe only surviving mmber of the family Dugmgidsc. The dugong's closest relatives are tbe three species of manatee and together they make up the entire order Sknia
Certain aspects of the dugong's ecology make them vulnerable to human distmbula.
Dugongs forage predominantly on the leaves and rhizomes of sugiasscs, consuming up to
50 kilograms per day. Destruction of the dugong's seagrass habitat, and disturbance of their
being foraging activities, can result in these large animals not able to meet their- daily nutritional requirements. In eastern Shark Bay, the seagrass beds where dugongs usually are encountered are near-shore shallow water environments of less than 2 metres in depth
(Marsh et al., 1994). The visibility in the shallow water environment is often poor. increasing the possibility of watercraft colliding with tbese slow moving animals. 7
Asa~toflbdrpoa~fyeavinmmmtthc&~n?ly~yolltbeirLsm baing ability to rcarc their tmmdhgs. Dugmgs comrmmiclse using a rca*s of
~v~amslshn. . -'gof~~md~(AadcRaa8nd
Barclay, 1995). Tbesc wdnatmm. . 8rcdtocommmicrteQringIMtjagandterritory . . dcfcns~and indi- and mahas of I hczd is vitally imprtantbetsvamcow/crlf~.kcalf's~nldepadpaaac~bondwimitsmaba forupto~oycars.coW/~~0~s~tbtd*~ridt0f~011. kduchg predation is impatmt fa tht apvival of tk spdes hause &gangs bve a slow repduction rate, with mphuc cows giving bito a single calf cma every 3 to 7 years
(Marsh, 1988). Human such as watercraft pursuits, mist from powdmt~,and coastal developrnents could result in cow/calf scpMtion and interfere with mating behaviour that can impact negatively cm the survival of the species over time. 20 BACKGROUND
2.1 Intro&ctia
Tollr*miscbti.rgathdLgllYm(bCwald(WaldTrrveldT~~1995). Thcf~mg-tofthttlrtmiadusey-rn-numhnofpeopk seeking expahas m nrtune and fmign cultures 1997). A ammoa ups of . . . . therclaticmshipbawd~~~~adnmtlleispscrpks&lring~oppammtKs involving wildlife in tbcu oltunl =tat (Boa, 1990. Cmrdirm E;edarl Rovkial Task
Force, 1993; Canadian Heritage, 19W. Duffis adDcudca 1990, Sakh adKarwacld.
19%; Shackky. 1996, and Whelan, 1991). 'Ibis thesis mfers to such humanMkWe interactions as wildlife tdm.
Wildlife tourism is ohperceived as being beneficial to wildlife cbnservaticm and contributing to envhnmental education but few studies have actually looked at the eff- that wildlife tourism may have on the wildlife species involved. Of the studies that have looked at the effects of wildlife tourism, most (Blane and Jaakmn, 1994; Kovacs and Innes,
1990, Roe et al, 1997; Shackley, 19%; and Smcthurst and Nietschrnann, 1999) ccvcal that wildlife tourism has negative eff- on wildlife. and it is uncertain what coneibution a wildlife-watching tour makes to environmental education. To gain a better understanding- of the paradox between the negative reality of wildlife tourism and the positive perception it holds, it is necessary to examine humadwildlife interactions in light of the value placed on nature in human culture.
10 potmtiauymorrdicmrbiagmsvildlirc~uMmmtastadtobcmac~t~of longadumtiontbanrcidcatrlvildliframuntas. Whmmeasmsitivtqsiesate involvd tbe effkcts of -ca be !!tignifiant. Boyk md Samson .dvioc tbn ~some~nr~~tivcto~~0ftb*r~bthviaP. b-g b-g pmam, resa*lcd dhiia habitat -ts, here is a d to daamine cht effects th* a rpdfic human .crivity is baving on (ht ptkuk rpda involvedinadato~specific~t~d~~ties.
The view of Boyk and Samson is supponcd by a study specific to the envimmmtal impacts of wildlife tourism conducted by Roc et al(1997). ?his paper fdmainly on research involving the impacts of wildlife tourism on the ternstrial wildlife of Africa. The authors concluded that tbc nature of to& relaad disturbana to wildlife depends on faon such as the predictability of the distubncc; the frrquary and magnitude of tbc disturbance; when the disnubaoce awrs in the daily activity cycle or life cycle of a particular species; and the type of tourist activity. These factors can result in distwbance of feeding and breeding patterns; disruption of pmnt~ffspringbonds; incrrased vulnerability to predators and competitors; habitat degradation; and death of individual animals. The review revealed that most studies conducted on the impacts of wildlife tourism focused on - - the short-term effects of tourist disturbance on wildlife. The long-term implications of these negative effects are not yet known.
Evidence is also mounting of similar effects on marine mammals. There is one account of tourism's negative impact on a dolphin in 109 AD as retold by Orams (1997). This account interactions m mueh of r tourist attmth that tbe town's bk&wtmccould not
rarmmod*e the overuuwding. As a solution to the probkan the town ledcrs hd che
dolphin kiud
Such&h~.Ctiarmrynotbe~ktadrybutinsomecrscstht~oftaaign
havebeenmkssdnstic. Onlyin~antycarsbveoludiesbecnamductdto~ the impacts that wildlife tourism is having on the wileoo which tk indus&y dcpcads.
Beluga whales in tbe St. L.wrmcc River, Canada, me being displred by whale-watching ccotour boats (Blaae and Jaakson, 1994). The study revealed that Beluga whale avoidance behaviour was positively correlated with boat-spod and negatively conelated with distance
from a boat. After being disturbed by whale-watching boats, Belugas resdtheir pre- disturbanc bthaviour in more than 75%of cases. However, fdgand travelling Belugas would terminate and not resume their activity after being disturbed by towboats.
A concern that tberc was a defbin the number of humpback whales offshore of Maui,
Hawaii, attributed in part to the increase in whale-watching boats, prompted an investigation of the encounter rates from 198 1 to 1986. The results of the study revealed that the concern of an apparent decline in the number of whales was not justified but there was evidence to suggest that there was a shift towards less congested waters by cow/calf pairs (Salden,
1988). Anotbcrstudyfoubd~wbentoruists~~t,attadaaocofharpscPrlmothtrsto theirpupswassi~cantlyrcduccd.Sealmotbcrsalsospcntmoh~activeandkstimc nursing their pups compwd to undishlrkd animals. Visually all adult behviour pattans returned to normal within one hour aftcr tbe tourists departed indicating a resiliency to short duration disturbance (Kovacs and Innis, 1990).
Even the famous bottlenose dolphins of Monlrey Mia, Western Australia, to which towkts have been attracted since the 1%0s, an paying tbe price of human interactions. A Western
Australia Department of Conservation and Land Management ~cportstates that calves of hand-fed dolphin mothers have a 67% mortality rate compared to 36% for calves of dolphins not hand-fed by tourists. The report attributes the difference in mortality rates to .. - the possibility that hand-fed dolphins do not spend enough time teaching their calves how to hunt for food and often leave them unprotected from pred2tors because they are feeding at the tourist site at the beach (Anderson, 1994). success is *Iribtad to involving loal mein tk dccisio~xkuking poccss. lad
The success of rmuntain gorilla consemation in Rwrrnda depends on tauism ddlars
(Shackley. 1995). Tourism dollars pay fa anti-vhing -Is and support commration
agencies. Thcsc paaok and comemaion agencies contribute to the dcvelopmt of
alternative employment sounxs,which reduce the need to clear gorilla habitat to raise cattle.
These examples highlight the potential for positive impacts on wildlife from the economic
side of emtourism. There is no question that tourism can deliver substantial economic rewards, or it would not have become the largest industry in the world But regardless of
how these cconomic rewards arc distributed, whether to local economics and/or to educational and experiential opportunities contributing to wildlife consexvation, if wildlife-
watching operations are affecting negatively on the survival of the wildlife involved, then
the operations cannot be considered sustainable. They are simply exploiting a resource. If
humans view nature as a resource to be exploited for economic gain then well-intended efforts to conserve wildlife may not be effective. To understand why conservation efforts
have not been effective, an examination of the value that humans place on nature is
necessary. Livingston (198 1) attributes tbe devaluation of nsrunt in favour of human self-interest to the human view that everything non-human is considaed a rrsource to be put to human use.
This view assumes that wildlife is a renewable resame that needs to be managed to better serve human society. But even the argumcnt that wildlife should be consemad for human self-interest fafes the probkm of society's demand for proof that the firturt sumival of a wildlife species is threatened. The problem, according to Livingston. is that in wildlife ecology there are so many variables that conclusive proof of anything is unlikely to be - - found; society can always demand that more evidence is required before action is taken.
But from Livingston's perspective, interest groups such as industry and commerce, which are part of the societal belief system. do not have to provide conclusive proof that their actions are not negatively affecting the natural environment. IS Ihe~ofthehrrmarpedafiom~.pperrstobetbe~oftbepobkm.Ibc
failu~t~~humrnltlrtsdnessmnwhmhs~seen~a~fahumrn
ncgativceffectsontknatucalcn~(R~1994). UhumansQnotfMa
conned011with~thenitis~~d~thtchan#inb~~to [email protected]~.Inadertobscomemo~e~ttbdtotht
natural en- humans must krrn to thinlt mat axkgidly (Drapu and Kaid,
1990). Seuninfd papk amtnito He it is pssibk th* plbk education could help reduce the negative eEiof tourism (Klein a al, 1995). A solution to the problem may be fdby amcentrating on wildlife tourism's potential to educate and create awareness of the natural mvhnmmt. Tbc potential of wildlife tourism to change attitudes toward wildlife and promote consemation efforts is extolled by many (Boo, 1990;
Davies, 1990, Duff& and Deaden, 1990, and 1993; Forestell, 1993; Orams, 1996, and
Williams, 1992).
2.4 Naturalizinn the Aliens: The revaluation of nature throunh environmental education
Environmental education has been developed to influence people to become more environmentally responsible and actively participate in contributing to the health of the environment. To foster individual environmentaly responsible behaviow, Hungerford and
Volk (1990) identified seven key variables which need to be addressed in environmental education programs. The seven variables fall into three categories: (1) entry-level variables predict responsible citizenship behaviour based on: an individuals' empathy toward the environment. willingness to help resolve environmental issues, and knowledge of ecology.
(2) Ownership variables predict an individuals' commitment to resolving environmental 16 issuesbrvdoo..nin-dcpthhwrwbdgeofLarsdcbclevdof~in~hm issue. (3)EmpoarenaeatvPirblespcdiEtaindi~bd*fchrtcbycr,bdp~vc ~11~talisfsues,brssdarlnwwbdgeof~11~~~rad~VCd skill in using a&n stmtcgk. H@ad ad Vdlr th e~1~tal~cm~gobeycmd.ovlra3cssa~~ofissuesmdpnwide
Wildlife-watching tourism may fit into tk en-tal eddansystem admntributc to this end. Sbott4uration envircmmmtal intuptaticm such as a wildlife-watching tour may contribute to tbc highcr goal of environmental education by increasing intexcst in and concern for the en-t through ht-hrmd experiences (Morfimt and Blake. 1978).
These first-hand experiences can motivate people to become involved at a higbcr level of environmental activity (Jordan et al, 1986)
Russell (1994) contends that because most humans have lost the facling of connection to nature, and because a connection to nature is developed from positive experiences over a lifetime, the short-duration of a wildlife tow may not be effective in motivating .. .. environmentally active behaviour.
Orams (1995) argues that ecotourism management regimes should attempt to move the tourist experience from a passive role to one of active participation leading to behavioural changes that contribute to a healthy environment. As an example, a structured education 17 ~hri~mbe~bytarricrr~m~.. . inaQlpbinfrrrliop polp.mrrarltrdma~rrduaiol,h~of~withtbe dolphinfcedingprogmm~~toa~gap.Thertudysbowedtbta education program an change mucia beb.viaa to rsba negative imprrc cluing humm/wildlie (Oram md Hill, 1998). Tbc study illwmtcs a wed fa educatiagtaPistsbef~intarctionswithwildlifiratbcrthan~ginteractiolrs.Inthis way tbe p.rticulu wile rpcig invdwd is not rubjscQd to negative impcLI that may occurdtlringthc~on~
Envbnmmtal education can result in a change to a more positive en-l attituck if opportunities that art of sufficient duration arc provided for first-hand experience, participatory intcdbtl, md thue ue opportunities for SU~~~UCII~reinforcement (Bogncr,
1998). To determine if wildlife tourism is to contribute to envirmmcntal education tach tourism-operation should be evaluated on these criteria 3.0 MEI'HODOWY
3.1 Tim cmd Phc Thisartbor~lrwerrctrdraingScpcmbertoNo~1997drPiagthehigb~ seas0ninShtkB.y. DatawaecdledsdMtht#~~d~
-, tbe 18 metre Shorova, thc 12.5 nx&c James Schmu. md tbe 10 metre rrsertrhvcssdN& Alltlxecdwmlgcdtocdktdugoagbeb.viomrldata wbcrreas~~sunnyswcrccoaduasdfrantbeShoto~andtkJa~~~~ only. Sb~tropnraatofMdyM*pLiogupto49-oaatvoPdoaehrlf hour tour whereas the James Sc& operates out of Dcnham taking up to 10 tomists on an eight hour tour. Tourists voluntarily to one of two quedonnak surveys administered either before or following the tours. The same tdtsdid not receive two surveys each, they responded to eitber a prc-tour or a post-tour suney. Tkprc-tour SuNeys were conducted September I I to October 4 with an 89% response rate. Tbe posttour sucveys were conducted October 5 to 18 with a 94% ~csponserate.
3.2 Ouestionnaire Design
The pre-tour and post-tour questionnaire surveys were designed and distributed in accordance with the requirements of the University of Calgary Ethics Committee. The - - questionnaires were in English only and were offered to tourists on a voluntary basis and with anonymity. A copy of the pre-tour questionnaire is included in Appendix A and a copy of the post-tour questionnaire is included in Appendix B. 19
The pre-tour questionnaire consisted of 15 multiplechoice questions designed to assess
tourists' knowledge of dugong ecology and conservation. A sub-set of 9 knowledge questions focussed on aspects of dugong ecology that make dugongs vulnerable to human disturbance. A sub-set of 3 questions solicited opinion on dugong conservation. The - remaining 3 questions queried respondents on how well informed they were about dugongs, their interest in obtaining more dugong information, and their age group. Respondents were grouped in 5 age categories: 12 to 15; 16 to 19; 20 to 30; 3 1 to 60; and over 6 1 years. The age categories are meant to be used as a guide to direct environmental education programs.
The post-tour questionnaire consisted of 7 multiplechoice questions designed to solicit the opinions of tourists on the value of dugong-watching tours as an educational and conservation tool. Questions were directed at determining if the tour had increased tourists' knowledge of dugongs and interest in conservation. Other questions asked if tourists felt there was a need for more publicity or financial support for dugong conservation. Post-tour questionnaire respondents were grouped into the same three age categories as the pre-tour respondents.
3.3 Twical Tour Profile
Once all passengers were on board and while the crew was preparing to depart, the Skipper would give an orientation of the boat, and discuss safety procedures and marine park regulations. While underway it took 30 to 45 minutes to hach the scagras banks where dugongs would be found. During this time the Skipper took the oppo-ty to relay information about dugongs and the Shark Bay World Heritage Area while crcwmtmbtrs The pre-tour or post-tour qud- survey was intmducd to towists by a cxcwmcmbcr at the end of the orientation briefing and before getting underway. The q\~cstionnakswac offered to tourists by this researcher on a voluntary basis. Tk pre-tour survey was conducted immediately afttt the orientation briefing and ~t~ponscscollected before the crew presented dugong info~mand dugongs were encountered. Tbt post-tour survey was conducted on the trip back aAer the dugong encounter cxperknce. Rc-tour and post-tour surveys were not given to tourists on tbc same tour because the post-tour qucstionnak was not available until a later date during the field study. The post-tour questionnaire was developed whik in Shark Bay in response to seeing an opportunity to solicit the opinion of .. - tourists on the value of the dugong-watching tour an educational tool.
This procedure was always followed on the Shotover tour but the research administrator was different on the James Scheerer tow. On the James Sckrer tour the pre-tour and post-tour surveys were administered and collected by the proprietors, rather than the researcher, but 21 following the same procedure. This procedure was followed because the researcher was
based at Monkey Mia and conducted daily surveys from the Shotover operation. Because
the questionnaires were straightforward and the questions easy to understand there is no
reason to suspect any significant differences in the data collected in this manner.
3.5 Dugona Behavioural Observations
This author collected dugong behavioural data ftom 232 encounters recorded on 5 1 days of
observation while onboard one of 3 approaching motor/sail catamarans. Data were grouped
into motor-driven approaches and wind-driven approaches. Speed of appmh was
recorded hrn onboard instruments when available and estimated by observation when no
instruments were onboard. Speed data were recorded in the 3 categories of '0 to 2 knots', '2
to 5 knots' and '5 to 7 knots'. These &ta were later grouped into less than or equal to 2
knots and greater than 2 knots as a result of a small sample in the '5 to 7 knots' category.
Water depth data were recorded hmonboard insmunents wben available and estimated by observation when no instruments we= onboard. Water depth was grouped into less than or equal to 2 metres and greater than 2 mew. Water depth of 2 metres was reported by Reen
( i 992) to appear to be the pivotal depth with regard to the urgency of response by dugong to being encountered by a boat. Distances to which dugongs were approached were estimated with the aid of a laser rangefmder. Distances were grouped into less than or equal to 25 metres, greater than 25 metres to 50 metres, and greater than 50 metres to a maximum of
LOO me-. Dugong encounter responses were recordtd in the following categories;
'panic', 'displacement', 'investigation with displ~ccmcnt', 'investigation without displacement', and 'no response'. Dugong encounter rtsponses were later classified as ~~datawatwbjstcdmSPSSforMSW~ws~8.O.-of rrspaascs h the sample poplation wae fa kuiptivc prpoba. Fa knowledge questions m tk prc-tour aarey the -was calculated adparmtllges of correct responses tabulated.
Dugong behavioural data were subjected to standard SPSS Chi-square CmsstabuIatiw tests to determine viuiablc relationship significance. Two-way crosstabulation with me degree of freedom were subjected to Fisher's Exact Test. Fisher's Exact Test was chosen for the two-way crosstabulations because Chi-square distributions with one degree of freedom produce an irregular distribution curve. Fisher's Exact Test makes an adjustment on the
Pearson Chi-square for the irregular distribution curve and delivers a more wnservative and more accurate test of significance for two-way crosstabulations. Pearson Chi-square was used for the 2-by-3 crosstabulations with two degrees of freedom where the Fisher's Exact - - Test could not be used. 4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
Results presented include data from a pre-tour questionnaire survey (Appendix A), a post-
tour questionnaire survey (Appendix B), and dugong behaviour from dugong/tourboat
encounten. Respondents to both questionnaires indicaied they were within one of five age
groups as outlined on question 15 of the pre-tour survey and question 7 of the post-tour
survey. These age groups were as follows: (a) 12 to 15; (b) 16 to 19; (c) 20 to 30; (d) 3 1 to
60; and (e) 6 1 or over. As a result of a low number of respondents, the first three age groups were combined into one age group (12 to 30) for data analysis.
Presentation of the dugong behavioural data is supplemented with graphs combined with tables of Chi-square tests. These tables always show the Pearson Chi-square when the
Fisher's Exact Test is relevant. This is done to present the 'Chi-square value' that is not shown in the Fisher's Exact Test. Percentages within the text may not add up to 1009b due to rounding-off to the nearest whole number.
4.2 Pre-Tour Survey
Data were collected from a pre-tour questiomaire survey administered September 11 to
October 4, 1997 in the Shark Bay Marine Park. Of the 310 questionnaires completed, 226 were from Shotover tours and 84 were from James Scheerer tours. The imbalance in the number of questtiomaims completed betwan tbc two towboats is duc to tht smaller tourist capacity of the James Scheemr. Twenty-seven percent of participants on tbc prc-tour survey were aged 12 to 30 years, 48% wae aged 31 to 60 years, and 25% were over 61 years of 24
age. '2bese~tsiadicrsedctrirMofawyme9.baa~arrsImrsarearlt
of their rrspoavs to gugtiaa 1 ('How infdwere yuu about &gongs bef- visiting
Shadr Bay?'). The rcspo~sesto dais question were divided into the fdowing mponsc
categories: 30% Mhtcdtbey were 'not infiat all'. 49% irdicmd tky were 'slightly
infamd'. 18% bdkated tky wcrc 'mokatcIy infamcd'. 2% iadiatcd they wac 'well
inf~,andl%~tbcyanre'vaywellinfii.Whmaddhowinterrstrd they were in finding ad mocle infdoaon &gong dcology (@an 21, tk -ts indid their interest was high, with the maprity (85%)' falling into tbe of
'moderately interested' (40%)' and 'very interested' (45%). Of the remaining 15%. 9% indicated that they were 'highly interested' in finding out mo~cinfdon on dugong ecology, 6% indicated that they were 'slightly interested', and 1 person respondad to the
'not interested' category.
4.2.1 Factual Knowiedne
The pre-tour questionnaire contained 9 knowledge questions (numbers 3,4,5,6,7.8, and
12,13,14) on dugong ecology (Appendix A). 'Ihe aspects of dugong ecology covered by the questions related to taxonomy (e.g. 'What are dugongs most closely related to?'), biological characteristics (e.g. 'On what senses do dugong depend most?'), habitat (e-g. 'In what depth - - of water do dugongs spend most of their time?'), and reproduction (e.g. 'How often do dugongs give birth?'). The mean of correct responses was 4. Only one respondent answered all 9 knowledge questions correctly. There is no significant difference between age groups with regard to the number of correct responses to the knowledge questions. This Figurt2outliacstk~fa8tofcarartrtspo~nstod~~~mby.gc
group. Ibcnumbmsintkbarsarmspoadiagtoerchagecatc$ory~tbcpenra~~e
ofanax~bytbctpcifif.gc~ouptothc~~~~~. AU-
rspondems uuanrrd all questions. Tbe bdght of the bar hdicl*es the reamulmd
percentage of comct rcqmscs to tk knowledge qudm. For cxrmpk. question 5 (Q5)
received the most coma responses while question 6 (46) received the fewest camct
respo--
With the exception of questions 5 and 6. the rate of comct clcsponses to the knowledge
questions was more or less consistent over the four dugongccology categories. The
unusually high rate of comct responses to question 5 ('What do dugongs at?'correct
response: (b) seagras) may be attributed to the dugongs' popular image of king a 'sea
cow'. The low correct response rate to question 6 ('On what senses do dugongs depend
most?' correct response: (a) ears) may be attributed to the lack of availability. to the public,
of this specific biological information about dugongs. This low level of correct response to .. .. the dugong ecology knowledge questions corresponds with the low level of awareness about dugongs that was indicated on question 1. Both responses indicate value of providing education on dugong ecology and conservation. AGE GROUPS
61 4%-
m 31 to60ycus I2lo30~
KNOWLEDGE QUWITONS
FIGURE 2 Percentage of correct responses by age group on pre-tour survey knowledge questions. Shark Bay, Western Australia 1 997. 27 . . 42.2 commmticm Chmo(1
A set of 3 questions (n& 9.10.11) on the pre-rour aavey solicitad tbe opinion of participants on &gong aaravltioa. on question 9 ('what is tbc shrk Bay dugong ppuhiaas' chace of surviving fa ibe next 100 )errs?). 29% rrspoodsd u, tk opinion' category. Oftbe rrspocdecltr wbo gave an opinias 25% gar tbe dusoog a '0% to
35%' chaace of mmMng cbe next 100 ycrs 53% gave tbe dugcmg a '35% to 70%' chance, and 22% gave the dugcmg a '70% to 10096' chance.
Wben asked how important they thought dugoag coasewation is (question 10). 6% responded to the 'no opinion' category. Of the rtspoadtnts who gave an opinion, most
(87%) said dugong conservation is 'very important', 12% said dugoag conse~vatioais
'moderately important', and 1% said dugong conservation is 'slightly important'.
Respondents indicated that the main reasons to conserve the dugong (question 11)' were 'for their role in the ecosystem' (63%)' and because 'they have a right to exist' (3696). The remaining 1% indicated that the dugong should be conserved 'for human use' (I respondent), and that '&re is no reason to conserve dugongs' (1 respondent).
The high percentage of respondents indicating that dugongs should be conserved 'for their - - role in the ecosystem' may bereflective of the limited options in question I1 considering that the general knowledge and awareness about dugongs is iow. The high importance put on dugong conservation by respondents, as indicated by responses to the conservation opinion questions, may demonstrate a concern for conservation issues without specific knowledge and awareness. 28 4.3 Post-Tour S-
Datawcrecollectcdfromapost-murqucstiaanrirra~vrycoadoacdOaokrSto18,1997 iatheS~BayMarincPrkOfthe335~~3omplctrd318uacSShaovrr tours and 17 wae bmJ~~lres Scbeerrr tours. The low number of questioanak
by the oprmtars &ring the timcm of this smvey. As a Wt of the low number of
the two tour operations. All 335 -ys arc mrlyrsd as aae sample.
Ihirty-six percent of piuticipants on the post-tour swey were aged 12 to 30 years. 50% were aged 3 1 to 60 years. and 14% wen over 61 ycars of age. The timing of the post-tour survey included a --week school break. This is believed to account for the higher percentage of participants in the '12 to 30' ages group (36%) compared to the same age group on the pm-tour survey (27%). This may also account for the lower percentage in the
'61 or older' age group (14%) compared to 25% on the pre-tour survey.
When answering question 1, ('How well informed were you about dugongs before today's tour?'), the respondents on this survey indicated a slightly higher level of awareness about - dugongs than the pre-tour respondents. with 24% 'not informed at all*, 46% 'slightly informed', and 20% 'moderately informed'. This slightly higher informed level could be a result of the higher percentage of school age respondents (36% compared to 27% on the pre- tour survey) who may have been exposed to dugong information at school. 29 --g qudan2, ('Did fodryTstour ioat.Pc yaa lamwkdgc of dugoegs?'). 2% respoadcdtotbe'nat~.II'~.'Ibtrraoftbe~iad*.tSdtbattbetour
increased tbe~know- of dugcmg ecology 'slightly' (24%). 'modaatdyv (36%). and
'my' (38%). Thy llro indicrcd that the tour incmd tb*r intaest in &gong
-ation (qmdh 3). 'slightly' (16%). 'makmdy' (35%). md 'greatly' (46%).
arbaessthe~3%rrspoodtdtotbc'narall'~gay.Most(868)tboughttbat dugmg couscwatim needed mac publicity (question 4). with 25% indhting a necd fa 'a
~increare'.and61%~gthat'agrcatderlmolcisa&dcd'.Oftheremaining respondents, 11% indicated that 'a little mo~'publicity is needed on dugong consc~~ation, while 2% said that 'm more' publicity is nadcd. This high response to dugmg conservation needing mac publicity co~pondsto the respondents' low kvel of awareness about dugongs as indicated in question 1 of the post-tour survey, and as indicated by responses to question 1 fiom the prc-tour survey respondents.
When asked if dugong consemation needs more financial support (question 5), 36% responded to the 'don't know' category. Of the respondents who offered an opinion. 4% said 'no more' financial support is needed for dugong conservation. 15% thought 'a Little more is needed*, 33% indicated 'a moderate amount more is needed*, and 48% said that
'much more is needed'. This question would have been difficult to give an opinion to because it is unknown how much financial support dugong conservation currently receives.
In response to question 6. regarding their willingness to make a financial contribution to dugong conservation efforts, 10% responded to the 'no opinion' category. Of the 30
respondents who offered an opinion, 12% said 'no', 41% said 'maybe*, 35% said
'probably', and 12% said 'certainly' they would contribute. However, a stated willingness
to contribute does not necessarily translate into making actual contributions.
4.4 Dugong Behavioural Observations
This author conducted observations on 232 dugong encounters tiom 12 September to 6
November 1997 in the Shark Bay Marine Park. Dugong encounters were grouped into 106
motor-driven approaches and 126 wind-driven approaches resulting in 87 (37%) disturbances to dugong. Table 1 provides a sumxnary of results from dugong behavioural observations. Of the 87 disturbances, 42 (48%) were caused by motor-driven approaches, and 45 (52%) were caused by wind-driven approaches. No significant relationship was found between method of approach and effect on dugongs. In other words, no one method of approach was more likely to cause disturbance than the other when all variables are considered together.
4.4.1 Effect of Sdof A~~roachon dun on^ Behaviour
There is a significant relationship between speed of approach and effect on dugongs (p =
0.000, Fisher's Exact Test, Figwe 3). Of the 232 dugong encounters observed, 159 approaches were made at speeds 'less than or equal to 2 knots', and 73 approaches were made at speeds 'greater than 2 knots'. Slower speed is associated with greater numbers of undisturbed dugong encounters relative to disturbed dugong encounters, and faster speed is associated with greater numbers of distwbed dugong encounters relative to undisturbed dugong encounters. Speed category was not dated with a particular method of
EFFEm
Disturbed
- Undistutbed
SPEED APPROACH: Motor-driven and wind-driven
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Value Degrees Asymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Significance freedom (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) Pearson Chi-square 43.655 1 ,000 Fisher's Exact Test .OOO .000 Valid Cases 232 d
FIGURE 3 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs from all observed encounters. Shark Bay, Western Australia 1997. 'Lbcse~o~~sofdo~spcdmda~nrmberoflmdisaubsddugoog~, along with faster speed and a number of disturbed &gong encam- rcmsin significaut artm ccatdcd fa mabod of .ppForh (mmtardciven, p = 0.000. Figute 4; winddriwxa, p = 0.000. Filpm 5). Of tbc 106 mator-drivcn .pprorches (F@ne 4). 71
(67%) wen in the 'less thaa a equal m 2 Laas' category. Of thcse 71, 15 dugong encounters Wted in disturbances to dugong (21%), and 56 dugong encounters did not result in dishabrmas (79%). By co-n, of the 35 (33%) motor-driven approach in the 'greater than 2 knots' category. 27 (77%) dugong encounters resulted in dis- to dugong, and 8 (23%) dugong encounters did not result in disturb-.
Of the 126 winddxiven appmhes (Figure S), 88 (70%) were in the 'less than or equal to 2 knots' category. Of these, 22 (Z%)dugong encounters dtedin disturbances to dugong, and 66 (75%) dugong encounters did not result in disturbances. By comparison, of the 38
(30%) wind-driven approaches in the 'greater than 2 knots' category, 23 (61%) dugong encounters resulted in disturbances to dugong, and 15 (39%) dugong encounters did not - - result in disturbances.
A significant association between speed of approach and effect on dugongs was found when controlled for water depth (S 2 metres. p = 0.000. Figure 6; > 2 metres, p = 0.000.
Figure 7). Of the 101 approaches conducted at a water depth of 'less than or equal to 2 SPEED APPROACH: Motor-driven
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Value Degrees Asymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Significance Freedom (2-sided) (2-sided) ( 1-sided) Pearson Chi-square 30.749 1 .000 Fisher's Exact Test .000 -000 Valid Cases 106
FIGURE 4 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs from encounters within the motor- driven approach category. Shark Bay. Western Australia 1997. EFFEm
Disturbed
Undisturbad
SPEED APPROACH: Wind-driven
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Value Degrees Asymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Significance Freedom . (2-sided) (2-sided) ( 1 -sided) Pearson Chi-square 14.589 1 .000 Fisher's Exact Test I .OOO -000 Valid Cases 1 126 - -
FIGURE 5 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs from encounters within the wind- driven approach category. Shark Bay, Western Australia 1997: . dugoag emters dtcdin to &gongs. and 60 (77%) dumg mtas did not dtin disturbmaJ. Of tk 23 -hes that .t spads of
'grtater than 2 knots'. 16 (70%) &gong cnanmfas dtcdin dishlrbmas to dugon@, and
7 (3096) &gong encounters did wt dtin distrtrbaaoes.
In a weta depth of 'greater than 2 mas'. tbge wae 131 ~bes(Figure 7). Of these.
81 approachcswaeatspccdsof 'kss~orcquaito2~'.19(23%)dugongcncounters multed in ~ctsto dugongs, and 62 (77%) did not mult in disturbances. The remaining 50 approaches were at speeds of 'greater than 2 knots'. Of these, 34 (6896) dugong encounters resulted in disturbances to dugongs, and 16 (32%) dugong encounters did not result in disturbances.
A significant association exists between speed of approach and effect on dugong when controlled for distance between dugongs and tourboat (0 to 25 metres, p = 0.000, Figure 8;
25 to 50 metres, p = 0.000, Figure 9; 50 to la) metres, p =0.002, Figure 10). Speeds
'greater than 2 knots' were associated with significantly higher numbers of encounters resulting in disturbance to dugong than speeds 'less than or equal to 2 knots'. -
Of the 232 dugong encounters, 156 (67%) were within the '0 to 25 metres' distance category (Figure 8). Of these, 109 approaches were at speeds of 'less than or equal to 2 knots', of which 32 dugong encounters resulted in disturbances to dugong (29%),and 77 dugong encounters did not result in disturbances (71%). By comparison. of the 47 EFFEcr
Diuurbcd
Undisturbed
SPEED WATER DEPTH: 1 2 Metres
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Value Degrees Asymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Significance Freedom (2-sided) (2-sided) ( I -sided) Pearson Chi-square 17.190 1 .000 Fisher's Exact Test .000 .OOO Valid Cases 101
FIGURE 6 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs from encounters in shallow water (52 metres) by motor-driven and wind-driven approaches. Shark Bay. Western Australia 1997. EFFECT
m Dimrkd Undisturbed
SPEED WATER DEPTH: > 2 Metres
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Vaiue Degrees Asymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Significance Freedom (2-sided) (2-s ided) ( 1 -sided) w
Pearson Chi-square 25.464 1 .. .000 Fisher's Exact Test .000 .oOO Valid Cases 1 131
FIGURE 7 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs from encounters in deep water (> 2 metres) by motordriven and wind-driven approaches. Shark Bay. Western Australia 1997. EFFECT
Undisturbed
SPEED DISTANCE: 0 to 25 Metres
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Value Degrees Asymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Significance Fdom (2-sided) (2-sided) ( 1-sided) Pearson Chi-square 20.357 1 .OOO Fisher's Exact Test -000 .000 Valid Cases 156
FIGURE 8 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs from encounters within the '0 to 25 metres' distance category by motordriven and wind-driven approaches. Shark Bay, Western Australia 1997. - - 40 ~btswithintht'Oto25mebres'~~~~w~1l~~spdods'~~2 knots', 32 (68%) &gong cnamntas dtedin disnrrbeaoes to dugongs, ad 15 (32%) dugong encounters did not result in -.
Ofthe232&goag~fct~.58wcrraricbin~"25ta50~'diJt.lwrt~
(Figure 9). Of these, 41 approaches arat at speeds of 'less than a equal to 2 knots', of which 5 (12%) &gag cncomttrs dtedin d&ubmcs to dugong. and 36 (88%) dugong encounters did not dtin distmbnccs. By corxgmrbm, of tht I7 approaches within tb:
'25 to 50 metres' distance category that were at speeds 'greater than 2 knors', 11 (65%) dugong encuuntcrs resulted in disturbances to dugongs. and 6 (35%) dugong encounters did not result in disturbances.
Of the 232 dugong encounters, 18 were within the '50 to 100 metres* distance category
(Figure 10). Of these, 9 approach were at speeds of 'less than or equal to 2 knots'; none of these 9 dugong encounters rwulted in disturbances to dugongs. By comparison. of the 9 approaches within the '50 to 100 metres' category that were at speeds of 'greater than 2 knots', 7 (78%) dugong encounters resulted in disturbances to dugongs, and 2 (228) dugong encounters did not result in disturbances.
4.4.2 Effect of Water Depth on Dugong- Behaviour
Of the 232 dugong encounters, 101 were approached in water 'less than or equd to 2 metres' (shallow water), and 13 1 were approached in water 'greater than 2 metres' (deep water). Of the 87 disturbances, 34 (39%)were in shallow water, and 53 (6 1%) were in deep SPEED DISTANCE: 25 to 50 Metres
Value Degrees Asymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Signifkame Freedom (2-sided) (2-sided) ( 1 -sided) Pearson Chi-square 16.588 1 .000 Fisher's Exact Test Valid Cases 58
FIGURE 9 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs from encounters within the '25 to 50 metres' distance category by motor-driven and wind-driven approaches. Shark Bay, Western Australia 1997: . EFFECT
Disturbed
Undisturbed s 2 Knots >2Knots SPEED DISTANCE: 50 to 100 Metres
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
- Value Degrees As ymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Significance
Freedom . (2-sided) (2-sided) ( 1-sided) Pearson Chi-square 1 1.455 1 .001 Fisher's Exact Test .002 .001 Valid Cases 18
FIGURE 10 Effect of speed of approach on dugongs from encounters within the '50 to 100 metres' distance category by motor-driven and wind-driven approaches. Shark Bay, Western Australia 1997. 43 watcr, but the was no signifkant ~lthtkmsbipbetw#p wda md eff- m. Wherr~~~l~famabodof~bowc~~,~ba~~rel.tioasbip betwet~~wuadeph'~thnZ~'d~t~&g~withintbt-- driven approach category @ = 0.005, Figme 1 1).
Ofthe 106~drivm~49waemshallow~.Of-, 12(25%)&gong enauntem dtcdh to dugongs, ad37 (76%) dugcmg encountem did not result in dismbanccs. By camparisw, of the 57 motorrdivcn approach amhctd in deep water, 30 (53%) dugong mcountcrs xcsulted in disturbancts to dugongs, and 27 (47%) dugong encounters did not result in disnubances.
In comparison, there was no significant relationship between water depth and effect on dugongs within the wind-driven appmh category @ = 0.257, Figure 12). Of the 126 wind- driven approaches, 52 were in shallow water. Of these, 22 (42%) dugong enwunters resulted in disturbances to dugongs, and 30 (58%) dugong encounters did not result in disturbances. Of the 74 wind4riven approaches conducted in deep water, 23 (3 1%) dugong encounters resulted in disturbances to dugongs, and 51 (69%) dugong encounters did not result in disturbances. -
4.4.3 Effect of Distance on Du~ongBehaviour
Of the 232 encounters. 156 (6796) were approached to a distance of '0 to 25 metres*, 58
(25%) were approached to a distance of '25 to 50 metres', and 18 (8%) were approached to a distance of '50 to 100 metres*, Of the 87 disturbances, 64 (74%) occurred within the '0 to WATER DEPTH APPROACH: Motor-driven
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Value Degrees Asymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Significance Freedom (2-sided) (2-sided) ( 1 -sided) Pearson Chi-square 8.723 1 1.003 , Fisher's Exact Test I .005 .003 Valid Cases 106
FIGURE 1 1 Effect of water depth on dugongs from encounters within the motor-driven approach category. Shark Bay. Western Australia 1997. EFFEm
m Disturbed
Undisturbed
WATER DEPTH 'PROACH: Motor-driven
U-SQUARE TESTS
Value Degrees Asymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Significance Freedom (2-sided) (2-sided) ( 1-sided) Pearson Chi-square 8.723 1 .003 Fisher's Exact Test -005 .003
Valid Cases 106 1
FIGURE 1 1 Effect of water depth on dugongs from encounters within the motor-driven approach category. Shark Bay, Western Australia 1997. so a
E 40 4 N C 0 30a U N T 20, EFFECT E R Disturbed s lo. Undisturkd
WATER DEPTH APPROACH: Wind-driven
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Value Degrees Asymp. Exact Exact of Significance Significance Significance Freedom (2-sided) (2-sided) ( 1 -sided) Pearson Chi-square 1.677 1 -195 Fisher's Exact Test .257 .134 Valid Cases 126
FIGURE 1 2 Effect of water depth on dugongs from encounters within the wind-driven approach category. Shark Bay, Western Australia 1997. 47
25 mecrest distsmx aacgory., 16 (18%) oamcd within tk '25 to SO mm~'distraot category., snd 7 (8%) oocurrrd within tk '50 to 100 metrts' distance category. A greater numbaof~ocnawithintbecloscrdistmce~ory,buttbere;irao~gaificmt rclati-hip between distance (betwetn dugmgs and tourbat) and cffad on dugcmgs.
When controlled fa mahod of approach bowcver, tkae is a significant mlrtioaship, within the widdriven appmd~catcgay, ktwka distplre d effbct on dupgs @ = 0.-
Pearson Chisquart, Fiqurcl3).
Of the 126 wind-driven approac&s, 88 ('70%) were within the '0 to 25 merrc~'distance category. Of thesc, 40 (46%) dugong encounters resulted in di- to dugongs, and
48 (55%) dugong encounters did not result in dishubamxs. For the 30 (24%) winddriven approaches within the '25 to 50 metres' distance category, the proportion of disturbed to undisturbed changes significantly from that of the '0 to 25 metns' distance category. Of these 30 winddriven approaches, 4 (13%) dugong encounters resulted in disturbances to dugongs, and 26 (87%) dugong encounters did not result in disturbances. There are 8 (6%) wind-driven approaches within the '50 to 10metres' distance category of which tbe proportion of disturbed to undisturbed is similar to that of the '25 to 50 metres' distance category. Of these 8 wind-driven approaches, 1 (13%) dugong encounter resulted in a .. disturbance to dugongs, and 7 (88%)dugon; encounten did not result in disturbance. what is significant is the high proportion of disturbances that occur within the '0 to 25 metres' distance category relative to the proportion of disturbances that occur within the other two distance categories of these wind-driven approaches. These are important findings for education information and conservation efforts. ma-
Disturbed
Undisturbed
DISTANCE APPROACH: Wind-driven
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
Value Degrees Asyrnp. of Significance Freedom (2-sided) Pearson Chi-square 12.059 2 _ .002 Vdid Cases 126
FIGURE 13 Effect of distance (between dugongs and tourboat) on dugongs from encounters within the wind-driven approach category. Shark Bay, Western Australia 1997. Incomprdsoa,tbaeisaori~trt~~pbawseadiaaeeto~adeffcaoa dugmgs within tb bt&m .pprouh category @ = 0303. Rarson Cbi-square, Figme
14). Of the 106 mator-dri- -&s, 68 (64%) war within the '0 to 2!5 m' distPna -gory. Of hie, % (35%) dugong cncumms resulted in dismrbmaJ to dugongs, and 44 (65%) dugmg cnanmtas did not dtin distlabmas. Of the 28 (26%) motordriven rpporbcs within tk '25 to 50 -' disrma category, 12 (43%) &gong encounters resulted in chdmmxs to dugongs, and 16 (57%) dugong encountas did not result in Of the 10 (10%) motordriven approaches within the 'SO to 100 metres' ciktamc category, 6 (60%) dugong cacounttrs dtcdin distllrbsaces to dugongs. and 4 (4096)dugong encounters did not result in disturbances. EFFECT
Disturbed
Undisturbed
DISTANCE APPROACH: Motor-driven
CHI-SQUARE TESTS
- - - Value Degree of Freedom Asymp. Significance (2-sided) Pearson Chi-square 2.39 1 2 -303 Valid Cases 106
FIGURE 14 Effect of distance (between dugongs and tourboat) on dugongs from encounters within the motor-driven approach category. Shark Bay, Western Australia 1997. 5.0 DISCUSSION
5.1 Effwof Towbcm! Disrmrbma an Du- &bviour
As previously outlined, past ~SCIUC~has dexwnmatd that the effcfu on wildlife from
htumnhildlife interactions, as a rcslt of wildlife towism, arc highly variable. The
variability h a result of many fm,including the unique khaviour of each specks
involved throughout their daily and annual lifccycks; tbe circumstances of each
humadwildlife eaeamtrr. and the type of tourist dvity. Tkreforc, it is l~ascuyto
evaluate uch wildlife toem operation to determine the impact it is having on the
wildlife involved.
The results of this research reveal that dugong-watching tourboats are impacting
negatively on the short-term behaviour of dugongs in Shark Bay. Dugong-watching tourboats have displaced dugongs fiom their daily activities of foraging and travelling on
37% of the encounters observed. Tohat speed greater than 2 knots is the most significant cause of disturbance to dugongs, accounting for 57% of the disturbances observed. Negative effects of dugong-watching tourboats can be greatly reduced if tourboat operators keep boat speed to less than 2 knots when encountering dugongs. The
Western Australia guidelines for approaching dugong do not specify a maximum speed, .. but state that a vessel should approach a dugong by drifting downwind, with power off, from 50 metres away from the animal.
Water depth greater than 2 metres, is a contributing factor in causing disturbance to dugongs during encounters in the motor approach category. These findings are contrary 52 to observations np0rt.d by Rscll (1992). Preen observed that dugongs wac wne sensitive to boats in shallow water conditions, a wben further 6rom deep water. Hc reported that 2 metres qpadto be the pivotal depb of water, the deeper the wrta the less dugongs react, tbt shalIowcr the water the mac urgent the qnseto being enwuntmdbyaboat. Therp&dPoftheboasinthcscencountcrsuenotknown,adit is possible that Preens' chewations may have kcn of boats tmlling much fwtban the tourboats of the present study; fr~tcrsped is associated with higher levels of dugong disturbance.
Distance between dugong and tourbaat during an encounter is an important factor in the cause of disturbances to dugong. The shorter the distance between dugong and tourboat the greater the number of resulting disturbances to dugong regardless of method of approach. The relationship is significant during wind-driven encounters in the 0 to 25 metres category. The dugong-watching guidelines do not specify a minimum separation distance that should be maintained between dugong and tourboat during an encounter.
The guidelines only specify that dugongs cannot be approached to less than 50 metres under power. Motor-driven approaches at speed less than 2 knots cause fewer disturbances to dugong during close encounters (0 to 25 metres) then winddriven approaches. Dugong may be more aware of the slow speed approach of the motor-driven boat and less likely to be startled when visual contact is established. A minimum separation distance between dugong and tourboat may be more effective then a power-on distance restriction. as long as speed is maintained at less than 2 knots. pmtcchg dumphm most negative eff- of tanbolt cmmmters. Violations of the dugong-watching guidelines arc not due to a dimegad for the wellbeing of dugongs on the part of tourbat operatom. Based on pasod observations. todxxt operatom demonstrafed a genuine coaazn fa tbe wellbeing of &gongs duing encounters. Each dugon@hm&at encounter was approrbed, by the tour operator, on an individual basis rather than in accordance with the dugoog-watching guidelines. If dugcmgs king encomtcmd showed signs of being disturbed then the tourbort 0pent0~~ouM back off or terminate the encounter as required by the guidelines.
The preference to approach each encounter on an individual basis rather than in accordance with the dugong-watching guidelines may be a consequence of the variability in reaction to encounters among individual dugong. Some dugong react strongly to close encounters by the tourboat while other dugong, under similar circumstances, appear undisturbed by the encounter. For example, this researcher observed on a number of separate encounters with cow/calf pairs that the cow would position herself between her calf and the boat and attempt to lead the calf away from the encounter. During another observation, this researcher observed a cow nursing her calf, with no apparent sign of - distress. while the cow/calf pair was sl~wlyswimming along between the bows of the catamaran. On two other close encounters, an individual dugong swam along beside the catamaran apparently aware of the boar but undisturbed, until the shadow of the mast passing over the animals' head startled the dugong and it swam further away from the 54 boat. Shce dugoag fayoa the bottom, this redon is possibly a pcy mpnsc to the shadow cast by dugong pdators such as sharks and killer whales.
Considering the dew of variability in -011 to tomhat encounters among individual dugong, and the genuine concern for the wellbeing of the dugong dtmomtmtd by the tousboat operators, it might bc Wcult fa opruon to c& tbe extmt to which hyarc causing disturbance to the dugong. Considt~gthis. tbe dugong-watching guidelines may k perceived by operators as unrrrlistic. As a rrsult, tourboat operators may prefa to approach dugong-watching based on their first-hand experience rather than the dugong-watching guidelines.
The preference to encounter dugongs based on operator experience rather than the dugong-watching guidelines may also be influenced by tourist demand. Wildlife- watching tourists, during their wildlife encounter experience, place high importance on viewing rare wildlife species, in close proximity, and in the natural habitat of the wildlife
(Butler, 1996; Pearce and Wilson, 1995). The combination of a lack of awareness of the negative effects of dugong/tourboat encounters by tourboat operators. and the demand by uninformed tourists for close encounters with wildlife create a situation in Shark Bay where dugong-watching tours will continue to inflict short-duration disturbance on dugong. There is a need to educate dugong-watching tourists and tourboat operators about the effects of dugong/tourboat encounters in order to reduce disturbance on dugong. 55
The conseq~mncesof continued short4don disbrrbance on &gong is aot known.
Research that has -ted tbc eff;acts of shortduration dhtuhmx fiom tourism on other matine mammal rpccics shows variability. Harp sub. that could be individually identified, appear to be msihnt to short-ducation distlabrnce (Kovaa and Innis, 1990).
Individual dugoag could not be identified in Shack Bay tkefotc it was wt possible to determine tbe mili~~~=yto shortduration disntrbrace by &gongs. The same individual dugong may not have been mwuntercd on a mtinual basis because. during the timing of the pnsent wb(September to November). dugong undergo a seasonal migration within Shark Bay (Anderson, 1986). The time duration that dugong stay in one area during migration is not known.
The West Indian manatee in Florida shows a tendency to become habituated to burnan activity (Shacldey. 1992). but this same species in Costa Rica avoids areas of high boat
-c (Smethurst and Nietschmann, 1999). Dugong appear to avoid areas of high boat traffic (Marsh. 1989). This may be an indication that dugong are resistant to habituation and may move out of zones where they encounter too much disnubance. The intensity of boat traffic that dugong experience in Shark Bay is very low relative to that of the West
Indian manatee in the waters of Florida and Costa Rica. In an area as vast as Shark Bay, - if tourist zone disturbance increases substantially, dugong currently have the option to move out to less stressful areas. The result could mean dugong displacement from food sources and movement out of range presently feasible for dugong-watching tourism. 5.2 Contribution of Duqpbn-Watchinn Tours to Eavinnunmtd Fducatim
The research reveals tbe opinions of tourists mlybefore ex-g a dugong- watching tour .ad.ixnmediatcly after a tour. Thc effkct that a dugong-watching experience has on tourists over the long-tnm is not Laown. In summary, tbe Wts of the two questionnaire surveys reveal a low awareness of dugong ecology md coosmation by tourists as well as a low knowledge kvel on dugong ecology befon embarking on a dugong-watching tour. After tbe dugoag-wa!ching experience, tbe tour is dccmcd by tourists to have a high educational value. There is high interest in obtaining more information about the dugong and a very high demand for more publicity on dugong conservation. Tourists place a very high value on dugong conservation both before and afier a dugong-watching tour. There is high demand for more financial support for dugong conservation but only a moderate expressed commitment to making a personal financial contribution to dugong conservation efforts.
The low awareness and knowledge of dugong ecology and conservation by pre-tour tourists may be the result of various factors. The dugong is not as well researched as other marine mammals and there is not as much material available for public information.
As well, the dugong does not possess the characteristics of a typical high profile species, - .. such as the bottlenose dolphin. For example, dugongs ak not physically attractive creatures and they rarely display dynamic behaviour. The consequence of a lack of pre- knowledge about dugong ecology and conservation by dugong-watching tourists, and presumably by the public in general, is a high potential risk for human disturbance on this species. The dugong-watching tour is deemed by tourists to be a valuable education tool 57 for dugollg ccoIogy but it bas shortcomings as an ell-tal education tool. The
shortcomings include: dugolrg-watching tours are very short duration; infixmation is presented by guides that haw not attcndd a dugong oddon program; and the information xeccived by twrists comes too late. Tourists should be informed about dugong ecology and ~rvatimbefore choosing a tour if they are to have an influence on dugong consemation. Inf'towkts can have an influence on how a tour is operated by being an unofficial watchdog to ensure guidelines arc followed and by giving informed feedback to the tour operator.
There is a definite need for structured ducation/aw~t~esscampaigns about the dugong.
The surveys reveal a high interest in obtaining morc information about the dugong and a very high demand for morc publicity on dugong conservation. The majority (87%) of tourists visiting Shark Bay are Australian (Dowling, 199 1). A large majority can have an influence on how a tour is operated, therefore, educatiodawareness campaigns about the dugong should fmus on educating Australians about dugong conservation. An effective method to deliver information to promote awareness about dugong conservation is to utilize existing delivery systems. These systems include school curricula, environmental organizations, and Shark Bay World Heritage Area promotions. These systems may - already include some information about dugongs but it is important to deliver information that contributes to conservation goals.
One of the best sources for delivering information to tourists at Shark Bay would be the development of a video about the dugong. The video could be shown free to visitors at 58 the Monlcey Mi. laformation Centre as b the one currently being shown on bottknosc dolphins. Presently at Monkey Mia then is little available information specific to the dugong. What is available is included within general information pamphlets and a short piece on the Shark Bay World Heritage AFea video.
Tour guides and Park Rangers should be given a course on dugcmg ecology to ensure that fxtual infomation is delivcred to tourists. Fmrn personal okemation, during the time that our dugong research team was involved with the dugong-watching tour operators, their knowledge of dugong ecology and conservation increased substantially. The newly acqd knowIedge was then passed on to the dugong-watching tourists. This observation lends support to the value of providing dugong ecology education programs for dugong-watching tour operators. Additionally, a dugong information booklet should be given to tourists embarking on a dugong-watching tour. The booklet should include information about the dugong and its habitat as well as the guidelines to which dugong- watching tour operators are to adhere. The issuing of the booldet should be a requirement of the dugong-watching tour operating license.
Funding for dugong public awareness campaigns would have to come, for the most part, - .. from the tourism industry. Results of the post-tour survey reveal that there is a high demand for financial support for dugong conservation but only a moderate expressed commitment by tourists to make personal financial contributions. There is the potential for the creation of a dugong conservation organization based on the expressed support.
Such an organization could provide one avenue for delivery of dugong conservation 59 Sodon. Otkdeiivcry systems could be hmdcd fnw park entry fees, and dogong- watching tour far A study by Laaman .nd Grcprscn (1996) mWthat park -try fees arc a potentially pow- tool to move towards greater eWency and environmentally sustahablt managemclt. 'Ibe authors formd that only a small share of the money spend by visitas in nature-based tourism gas toward protecting the attwtions the visiton go to see. For example, fercvcnucs collected from the National
Park Se~ceof the United States arc only 5 - 6% of expnditucs.
An increase in park entry fc+~will mt on a visitor's willingness to pay. Wilhgness to pay varies according to the demographic aspects of the tourist and the attributes of the ana A high willingness to pay is associated with anas that arc perceived as 'jewels of nature', such as the Galapagos Islaads and the Serengeti Plains wanand Gregersen,
1996). The Shark Bay World Heritage Area certainly qualifies as a 'jewel of nature' and therefore should solicit a high willingness to pay.
A portion of the dugong-watching tour fee should be allocated for funding tourist and tour operator education programs. Revenue collected from this source would serve as a type of user pay method. Tourists are less reluctant to pay fees when they know that the - fees are used f0r.a good cause and informing tourists of how their fees are being used helps the education process (Laarman and Gregersen, 1996). Mu1ti-tiered pricing can be used to ensure fair access for children and those with less income. As well, mechanisms must be in place for collecting and disseminating revenues to their designated use. 60
The surveys undertaka fa this research ~vulthat dugmg-watching tourists pive a very high valut on dugong comemati011 both befoclt and after a tour. The very high concern for dugong conservation is in absence of knowledge of dugong consenration issues. This may reflect a general concern and support for cnvixcmmcntal amsewation and simrify a desire to change how humans interact with the natural envhmmt. A survty conducted by Ktllert (1999) to ascertain the opinions of Amcricians on marine mammals and their management ~vddstrong support for marine mammal conservation. Findings of the study show that 9046 of Americans support protection of marine mammals over commtrrciai fishing interests. More than 8096 object to interfering with the behaviour of whales for whale-watching. Nearly 75% endorse whale-watchers paying a small fee to help fund the cost of whale conservation and management. Seventy percent of Americans are in favor of restricting various activities within marine sanctuaries to protect marine mammals and other marine life, and about 8096 support limiting various economic development activities in the ocean that harm marine mammals.
Past research, identified earlier in this thesis, has suggested that for wildlife tourism to contribute to environmental education the tourism experience must be of sufficient - duration, provide for first-hand experience, involve participatory interaction. and &dude opportunities for subsequent reinforcement. The contribution of wildlife tourism to the conservation of wildlife through environmental education needs to be evaluated by each tourism operation. The dugong-watching tours in Shark Bay certainly piqued the interest and awareness of tourists toward dugong. But the short duration of a dugong-watching 6 1 tour is not sufficient to fatate a laag-tmn bchrviour change in tourists on its own.
The dugong-watching upemis within the cantext lad influence of a guided tour and camit be consided a first-tmnd experience. he tourists Meand examine dugong bones and seagmss samples while on tour but tbc tours arc passive and arc not designed to provide participatory intc&on. Presumably, visitors to Shark Bay wbo embark on a dugong-watching tour only do it oaoe during their stay and therefore the dugong- watching experience is not subsaqueny ~tinf& As a contribution to envhmmcntal education. and the khavidchange tbpt it aims to invoke, a dugong-watching tour at
Shark Bay only serves to pique interest and awareness about the dugong and its environment. Environmental education that inspires o behaviourai change in support of dugong conservation must come fmm a more structured dugong education/awareness campaign, one that can take advantage of the interest and concern about dugong conservation that currently exists.
5.3 Recommendations
As a result of the negative effects that dugong-watching tourism in Shark Bay is inflicting on dugong behaviour, action must be taken to ensure the sustainability of the dugong population and the tourism operations on which it depends. In an attempt to establish - sustainable dugong-watching tourism in Shark Bay the following recommendations are offered:
Amend the guidelines for dugong-watching to specify that dugong must not be
approached at speeds greater than 2 knots regardless of method of approach. 62 Amend the guidelines for dugong-watching to cpecify that dugong must not be
appmhed to a ckmncc closer than 25 metres. . Implement a dugong-watching tour opauor education program to educate tour
operators on dugong ecology and comemation, and to inform tour operators on the
negative effects of tourboat encounters and how to avoid them.
Implement an ducationlawareness campaign to educate Australians about dugong
ecology and consc~ationand disseminate the infhcm through school curricula,
environmental organizations. and s video developed specifically about dugong
conservation issues.
Develop an information booklet on the dugong and its habitat that includes the
dugong-watching guidelines. The booklet is to be given to tourists embarking on
dugong-watching tours.
Implement a conservation fee that is collected from visitors on entry to the Shark Bay
World Heritage Area, to help offset the cost of conservation initiatives.
Allocate a portion of the dugong-watching tour fte to be used to offset the cost of
implementing a dugong-watching tour operator education program.
5.4 Strengths and Weaknesses of Research - - One strength of the present research is that it integrates human variables with wildlife variables in an attempt to better understand the effects of tourism on wildlife.
Knowledge level. attitude. and opinion of wildlife by humans is often overlooked in impact studies on wildlife. It is the knowledge level. attitude, and opinion of tourists 63 about the wildlife species tbey arc about to obscme, that influences how wildlife tourism operations arc conducted and, ultimately. tbe cffcas tourism has on wildlife.
The second strength of this research is that it is the first study on tbc effects of dugong- watching tourism on the behavim of dugongs. The present research identifies some of the negative effkcts cm dugong of dugmg-watching tourism. RccommmMom arc mde to mitigate these negative effiin an effort to help ensure the sustainability of dugong- watching tourism and tht consecvation of the dugong.
The third strength of this research is that it was conducted early on in the development of dugong-watching tourism in Shark Bay. The importance of early identification of the negative effects of dugong-watching tourism is that action can be taken to mitigate the negative effects before increased dugong-watching tourism causes irreconcilable damage to one of the few remaining viable populations of dugong.
There are four weaknesses of the study that need to be identified in order to guide future research. First, the present study is based on research from one field season. The field research was conducted during the high dugong-watching tourism season and during a .. seasonal migration of dugong within shark Bay. The significance of this is that there is no comparison of data between field seasons to determine if there is seasonal variation in dugong behaviour and tourist profile. 64 Secondly, dugon~ouhatencounter observatiom ut of short-term distuba~~~.The study is unable to determine tbe effect of disturbance on dugong alter the encounter has terminated. Futurc research needs to detcrminc the adaptability of dugong to dmt-twm tourboat disturbance. Tbis is complicated by the inability to i&nw individual dugong.
Thirdly, as a result of observations being ma& hma tourbat in the process of encountering a dugong, it is not possible to dttc~the behavioural state of tbc dugong before the encounter. There is no way of bowing how aware dugongs are of the tourboat before the encounter is undertaken, or whether evasive action has already been initiated at a less apparent level.
Finally, a fourth weakness of the present research is that there is insufficient data to compare for any significant differences between dugong-watching tourboat operations.
Such a comparison would be helpful to identify both positive and negative elements within dugong-watching tourism operations. These may include the effect of motor size and its associated sounds, tourist capacity and its associated sounds, and approach techniques. Information on these elements may help guide dugong-watching operations to reduce dugong disturbance. 6.0 REFERENCES bdersm, L (Uw)Dolphins pay a bigh price fa haduats. New Scientist (Oa IS): 5. hdefmn, P.K. (USC)Dugongs of ShaL Bay, Austnlia - Seasad Migration, Water
Tcmpemtum, and Rmgc. National Gaqpphk Rcsurch 2(4): 473490.
And- PJL and R.M.R. Burby (l995) Acastic Siguls of Solitlry Dugmgs: . . Physical CharactarstIcs and Bebavioral Conc~.Journal of hhummlogy 76(4): 1226-
1237.
Blane, JA& .ad Jaakson, RJ. (l994) The lmpM of Ecmtourism Boats oa the St
La-ncc Beluga Whales. En-tal Conscrwation 2 l(3): 267-269.
Bogner, FX(1998) Thc Influence of Short-Term Outdoor Ecology Education on hg-
Term Variables of Environmental Pcfspective. The Joumal of Environmental Education
29(4): 17-29.
Boo, E. (1990) Ecotoufism: the Potentials and Pitfalls. World Wildlife Fund, Washington,
DC,USA. 7 1 pp.
Boyle, S.A. and Sllaaoa, F.B. (1985) Effects of nonconsumptive -on on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 110-1 16.
Budowski, G. (1976) Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence, or
Syrnbjosis? Environmental Conservation 3( 1): 27-3 1. - Butler, C. (1996) The Development of Ecotourism in South Luangwa National Park.
Zambia MSc. Dissertation, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, Unversity of
Kent, Sept. 1996. As reported in Roe et al(1997). original not seen.
Canadian Federal Provincial Task Force (1993) The Importance of Wildlife to 66
Canadians: Highlights of rbc 1991 Survey. Mnistcr of Ea-t Caaadhn Wrldlife
Se~a,Canada.
Cmmdb Haitage, Idustry Canada, British Columbia Ministy of SdBusiness
Tourism and Cultwe. Nkta E#raomic Devel-t rad Tourism, and Outdoor
Rumation Couacil of British Columbia (1994) A Detailed Ldc at Two Popular
Activities: Viig.nd Cultural Expaiencts. 23pp.
Davk, M. (1990) Widlife as a Tourism At!mcticm. En-& 20(3): 74-77.
Eveden, N. Tbt Natural Alien: Humankind and En-t. Toronto: Univdty of
Toronto hss, 1985.
Dowling, R (1991) Tourism and the Natural Envhmmcnt Shark Bay, Westcm Australia.
Tourism Recreation Research 16(2): 44-48.
Draper, D. and Ihrk1, KG. (1990) Metatowism: Dealing Critically with the Future of
Tourism Environments. Journal of Cultural Geography 1 l(1): 139- 155.
Mus, D.A. and Dearden, P. (1990) Nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: A conceptual fiamework. Biological Conservation 53: 2 13-23 1.
Duf'fus, D.A. and Dearden, P. (1993) Recreational Use, Valuation, and Management, of
Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) on Canada's Pacific Coast . Environmental Conservation
2012): 149-156. -
Forestell, P-H. (1993) If Leviathan has a Face, Does Gaia Have a Soul?: Incorporating
Environmental Education in Marine Eco-tourism Programs. Ocean & Coastal Management
20: 267-282. 67
Hung&- ELR. .Id T.L VoOr (l990) Changing Lerrna Behvia Through
Envimmmtal Education. Jdof Eavkmmatal Education 21(3): 8-22.
Jordan, JJL, Hangdbd, md AN. T~aacrr(MW) Effbcts of Two Residential
Environmental W- on High School Stu&nts. Journal of Eavimnamtal Education
18(1): 15-22. gdlert,S.R.Amcriaa~of~Mrmrmpls;mdrbdr~t.Tbe
Humane Society of the United States Wasbington, D.C. 1999.
Kkh, h4.L SJL H-, ad F.H. PkcivaI (1995) Effkcts of Ecommkm on
Distribution of Wattrbii in a Wildlife Refuge. Cansewation Biology 9(6): 1454-1465.
Kovacs, IGM. ad S. Innes (1990) The Impact of Tourism on Harp Seals (Pboca groenlandica) in the Gulf of St. Lawmncc. Canada. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 26:
15-26.
Laarman, J.G. and H.M. G-rsen (1996) Pricing Policy in Nature-Based Tourism.
Tourism Management 17(4): 247-254.
Livingston, J.A. The Fallacy of Wildlife Conservation. Toronto: McCleiland and Stewart
Limited. 198 1.
Marsh, H. (1988) An Ecological Basis for Dugong Conservation in Australia. In: Augee,
M.L., ed., Marine Mammals of Australasia: Field Bioloay- and captive Management. Royal Zoological Society of new South Wales, Sydney. Pp. 9-2 1.
Marsh, H. (1989) Biological Basis for Managing Dugongs and Other Large Vertebrates in theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park. Final Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority. 1: 1-23. 68
Marsh, H., RAT. WKSdfdd and R Sbcpbvd (1994) Tbe Distnioa and
Abundance of the Dugong in Shark Bay, Westem Australia Wildlife Research 21: 149- 16 1.
MorfOOf, C md B.F. Blake (1978) Evaluations of Envhnmmtal Intaptaticm: Pitfalls and Opportunities. Joumal of Envhcmcntal Fmrrtim 10(1): 23-3 1.
0- M.B. (1995) Towards a rxme &&able form of dCOIouh~Taurism hbagmmt
16(1): 3-8.
Orclms, Mg. (1996) Using Intapmation to Manage Nlu~rr-bpsedTourism. Jdof
Sustainable Tourism 4(2): 8 1-94.
Oranrs, M.B. (lw Historical accounts of humandolphin interaction and recent developments in wild dolphin based tourism in Australasia. Tourism Management lB(5):
3 17-326.
Omms, M.B. and GJ.E. Iiill(1998) Controlling the Ecotourist in a Wild Dolphin Feeding
Program: Is Education the Answer? The Journal of Evironmental Education 29(3): 33-38.
Patterson, C. The Business of Ekotourism. Explorer's Guide Publishing, Rhinelander, WL
1997.
Pearce, D.G. and P.M. Wilson (1995) Wildlife-Viewing Tourists in New Zealand. Journal of Travel Research (Fall): 1 9-26. - Preen, AoRo (1992) Interactions Between Dugongs and Seagrasses in a Subtropical
Environment. PhD. Dissertation, Department of Zoology, James Cook University of North
Queensland, July 1992.
Reeves, R.R., BS. Stewart and S. Leatherwood. The Sierra Club Handbook of Seals and Simians. ShClub Boairs. SIII F~u&co.1992. RgD,Nm~~.ndR~~T.lrcmyPhacognpbP.~.veOnly
Footprhts: 'Ibe Envimmmtrl of Wildlife Taaism. IIED d
Development Series No. 10, SepL 1997.
RmCL (m)Emtaaism as eqcrhtial envimnmcntal ducatiaa? '2be Journal of Experiential Educatim17(1): 1622.
Sdden, D.R (l988) Humpbrk Wbale Encamtcr Rmcs Offsborr of Mauli, Hawaii.
Joumal of Wildlife hhagcmt~lt532): 301-304.
Saleh, Fa adB.rrwLi, J. (1996) Revisiting the Ecotoucist: The CpsC of Grasslands
National Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4(2): 6 1-80.
Shackky, M. (1992) Manatees and Tourism in Southern Florida: Oppommity or Threat?
Journal of Environmental Management 34: 257-265.
Shackley, M. (1995) The Future of Gorilla Tourism in Rwanda. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism 3(2): 6 1 - 72.
Shackley, M. Wildlife Tourism Inttmational Thomson Business Press. bndon. 1996.
Shark Bay Marine Reserves Draft Mamgement Plan 1994. Department of Conservation and Land Management. Perth, Western Australia. 1 994.
Shark Bay Regional Strategy. State of Western Australia. Western Australia Planning - Commission. October, 1997.
Smethurst, D. and B. Nietschmann (1999) The Distribution of Manatees (Trichechus manatus) in the Coastal Waterways of Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Biological Conservation 89:
267-274. 70
Whelan, T. Eeaocaism and Its Rok in Sustabbk Developmt @p. 322). In. T. Whelm
(Editor), Natum Towism Managing fa the En-t. Lslmd Phss. Washington, D.C.
1991.
Wlhms, P.W. (1992) Tourism and tbc Envircmmmt: No Placc to Hi&. Tourism and the
Environment (Summer): 13- 17.
World Travel and Towism Councn, United States Travel & Tourism: New Eccmornic
Perspective. The World Travel & Tourism Council. Brussels. 1995.
This meyqdd is kiag dd by Cedric Gcnard, a graduate studcllt at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. ?be qddis prt of a Mrrtas degree project on the impacts of human activities an the dugong population of Shark Bay Marine Park. The purpose of the qdonnak is to ascrtah the lewl of your knowledge about dugong ecology in ordcr to devise education *es designed to kfitdugong conservation efforts.
I. How well infonned were you about dugongs before visiting Shark Bay? (a) not at all informed (b) slightly iaformed (c) moderately informed (d) well informed (e) very well informed
2. How inkrested are you in mgout more information on dugong ecology? (a) not interested (b) slightly interested (c) moderately interested (d) very interested (e) highly interested
3. What are dugongs most closely related to? (a) whales (b) elephants (c) fish (d) don't know
4. In what depth of water do dugong spend most of their time? (a) 0 to 2 metres (b) 2 to 12 metres (c) over 12 metres (d) don't know
5. What do dugongs eat? (a) fish (b) seagrass (c) shrimp (d) don't know
6. On what senses do dugongs depend most? (a) ears (b) eyes (c) sonar (d) don't know 7. How do dugongs Mithemselves? (a) haid (b) sharp teeth (c) swim away (d) don't know
8. What is the main cause of death of dugongs? (a) hmlam (b) killer whales (c) tiger sharks (d) don't know
9. Wbat is the SWBay dugong population's chance of Suniving for the next 100 years? (a) 0% to 35% (b) 35% to 70% (c) 70% to 100 (d) no opinion
10. How important is dugong conservation? (a) not important (b) slightly important (c) moderately important (d) very important (e) no opinion
1 1. What would be the main reason to conserve dugongs? (a) for human use (b) for their role in the ecosystem (c) because they have a right to exist (d) there is no reason to conserve dugongs
1 2. How often do dugongs give birth? (a) every 6 months (b) every 14 months (c) every 3 to 5 years (d) don't know
13. How many young are usually produced from each pregnancy? (a) 1 (b) 2 (c) 4 (d) don't know 14. How long do dugong young depend on their mother for dvl? (a) up to 6 months (b) UP to 1 year (c) up to2 Y- (d) don't know
15. What age group do you belong to? (a) 12 to 15 (b) 16 to 19 (c) 20 to 30 (d) 3 1 to 60 (e) 6 1 or over 8.0 APPENDIX B: Post-Tour Questionmire This questionnaire survey is being conducted by Cedric Gcrrard, a graduate student at the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 'Ibe navy is part of a Master's degree project on the impacts of human hvitics on the dugong population of SWBay Marine Park. The purpose of the questionnaire is to detamine bow much dugong-watching tours contribute to your knowledge of dugongs, aad ascmtah the level of your interest in dugong conservation aAer you have taken a tour.
1. How well informed were you about dugongs before today's tour? (a) not at all infarmed (b) slightly informed (c) moderately informed (d) well informed (e) very well idorrned
2. Did today's tour increase your knowledge of dugongs? (a) not at all (b) slightly increased (c) moderately increased (d) grealy increased
3. Did today's tour increase your interest in dugong conservation? (a) not at all (b) slightly increased (c) moderately increased (d) greatly increased
4. Does dugong conservation need more publicity? (a) no more is needed (b) yes, a little more is needed (c) yes, a moderate amount more is needed (d) yes, a great deal more is needed
5. Does dugong conservation need more financial support? (a) no more is needed (b) yes, a little more is needed -(c) yes, a moderate aqount more is needed (d) yes, much more is needed (e) don't know 6. If- wac a IW-profit dugong comation organhtion would you make financial contributions to it? (a) no (no possibility) (b) maybe (less than 50% ptobabiity) (c) probably @rester than 50% probability) (d) certainly (1 W/a probability) (e) no opinion
7. What age group do you belong to? (a) 12- 15 (b) 16- 19 (c) 20 - 30 (d) 31 -60 (e) 61 or over