Management 22 (2001) 31}42

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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