Master’s thesis

Whale-Watchers' Perceptions of in

Erin H. M. Henderson

Advisor: Chiara G. Bertulli, Ph.D.

University of Akureyri Faculty of Business and Science University Centre of the Westfjords Master of Resource Management: Coastal and Marine Management Ísafjörður, August 2020

Supervisory Committee

Advisor: Chiara G. Bertulli, Ph.D.

External Reader: Laura Malinauskaite, MA

Program Director: Catherine Chambers, Ph.D.

Erin H. M. Henderson -Watchers' Perceptions of Whaling in Iceland

45 ECTS thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of a Master of Resource Management degree in Coastal and Marine Management at the University Centre of the Westfjords, Suðurgata 12, 400 Ísafjörður, Iceland

Degree accredited by the University of Akureyri, Faculty of Business and Science, Borgir, 600 Akureyri, Iceland

Copyright © 2020 Erin H. M. Henderson All rights reserved

Printing: Háskólaprent, Reykjavík, August 2020

Declaration

I hereby confirm that I am the sole author of this thesis and it is a product of my own academic research.

______Erin H. M. Henderson

Abstract

Wild cetaceans have been an important marine resource for thousands of years, providing food for coastal communities and consumer products for whaling nations. Years of led to a near complete ban on commercial whaling in the 1980s, after which whale-watching became the main economic use of wild cetaceans. Because whaling still takes place in several countries, there has been continued debate over whether it can coexist alongside the whale-watching industry. In Iceland, whaling and whale-watching activities both occur in the same locale, and there is concern that whale-watchers may be discouraged from visiting a country that hunts . Whale-watchers in Húsavík, Iceland were surveyed in July and August of 2019 to determine how the presence of the whaling industry affected their decision to go whale-watching. Questionnaires were filled out by respondents on the quay and at the Húsavík Whale Museum, located in the harbour area. A total of 224 completed questionnaires were collected and analysed to investigate demographics, booking decisions, consumption, and perceptions of whaling. Respondents were mostly young females who attended tours in Húsavík because they considered it a good whale- watching location which fit best with their travel plans. Most of those surveyed were aware that whaling took place in Iceland before booking their tour, and even prior to arriving in the country. Overall, whale-watchers were opposed to whaling, though the majority of those from a whaling nation were supportive of the practice. Additionally, while whale meat is marketed primarily to tourists, most respondents were not interested in trying it.

Útdráttur

I þúsundir ára hafa villtir hvalir verið mikilvæg auðlind fyrir sjávarbyggðir hvalveiðiþjóða, hvort sem er í formi matar og annarrar neysluvöru. Áralöng ofveiði leiddi til nær algjörs banns við hvalveiðum í atvinnuskyni á níunda áratugnum. Í kjölfar þess urðu hvalaskoðanir helsta efnahagslega nýting villtra hvalastofna. Þar sem hvalveiðar eru enn stundaðar í fjölmörgum löndum hefur farið fram umtalsverð umræða um það hvort hvalaskoðun og hvalveiðar geti átt samleið. Á Íslandi eiga hvalveiðar og hvalaskoðanir sér stað á sömu svæðunum. Uppi eru áhyggjur af því að ferðamenn sem sækja í hvalaskoðun hafi minni áhuga á slíku í löndum sem stunda hvalveiðar. Könnun var framkvæmd meðal ferðamanna í hvalaskoðunum á Húsavík í júlí og ágúst 2019 til að ákvarða hvaða áhrif hvalveiða hefði á ákvörðun þeirra að fara í hvalaskoðun. Þátttakendur svöruðu spurningakönnun á hafnarbakkanum og á Hvalasafninu á Húsavík, sem er staðsett á hafnarsvæðinu. Svörum frá alls 224 þátttakendum var safnað og þau síðan greind út frá lýðfræðiupplýsingum, bókunarákvörðunum, hvalkjötsneyslu og viðhörfum til hvalveiða. Svarendur voru að mestu leyti ungar konur sem fóru í hvalaskoðunarferðir á Húsavík af þeirri ástæðu að þær töldu staðinn góðan hvalaskoðunarstað sem féll vel að ferðaskipulagi þeirra. Flestir þátttakendur vour meðvitaðir um að hvalveiðar ættu sér stað á Íslandi áður en þeir bókuðu ferð og jafnvel áður en þeir komu til landsins. Heilt yfir voru hvalaskoðendurnir andvígir hvalveiðum, þótt flestir sem komu frá hvalveiðiþjóðum væru fylgjandi veiðum. Auk þess kom í ljós að þótt hvalkjöt sé einkum markaðssett fyrir ferðamenn voru fæstir þátttakendur áhugasamir um að prófa það.

v

For my grandfather, Christopher Henderson. 1941-2018

vi Table of Contents Abstract ...... v Dedication……………………………………………………………………………...….vi Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………..…….vii List of Figures ...... ix Acknowledgements ...... xi 1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Theoretical Overview ...... 3 2.1 Whaling ...... 3 2.1.1 Historical Whaling ...... 3 2.1.2 Modern Whaling ...... 4 2.1.3 Icelandic Whaling ...... 5 2.2 Whale Meat Consumption ...... 7 2.3 Whale-Watching ...... 8 2.3.1 Whale-Watching in Iceland ...... 9 2.3.2 Positive Impacts of Whale-Watching ...... 10 2.3.3 Negative Impacts of Whale-Watching ...... 11 2.4 Whaling vs Whale-Watching ...... 12 2.4.1 Conflict ...... 12 2.4.2 Coexistence ...... 13 2.4.3 Iceland ...... 13 3 Material and Methods ...... 17 3.1 Study Area ...... 17 3.2 Data collection ...... 20 3.3 Data Analysis ...... 22 4 Results ...... 25 4.1 Effort ...... 25 4.2 Demographics ...... 25 4.3 Environmental Values ...... 27 4.4 Is This Your First Visit to Iceland? ...... 28 4.5 Whale-Watching: Experience, Destination Choice, and Expectations ...... 28 4.6 Attitudes Towards Icelandic Whaling ...... 31 4.7 Attitudes Towards Whale Meat Consumption ...... 34 4.8 Mitigating Scenarios ...... 35 5 Discussion ...... 37 5.1 New Study Results ...... 37

vii 5.1.2 Environmental Values ...... 38 5.1.3 Whale-Watching ...... 38 5.1.4 Support for Whaling ...... 39 5.1.5 Whale Meat Consumption ...... 40 5.1.6 Mitigating Measures ...... 41 5.2 Comparison with Other Studies ...... 42 5.2.1 Demographics ...... 42 5.2.2 Environmental Values ...... 42 5.2.3 Whale-Watching ...... 43 5.2.4 Support for Whaling ...... 44 5.2.5 Whale Meat Consumption ...... 46 5.3 Recommendations ...... 47 5.3.1 Caveats ...... 47 5.3.2 Iceland ...... 48 5.3.3 Future Research ...... 48 6 Conclusion ...... 51 References ...... 53 Appendix A ...... 67 Appendix B...... 69 Appendix C ...... 71 Appendix D ...... 73

viii List of Figures

Figure 1: Húsavík's location on the shore of Skjálfandi Bay, Iceland...... 18

Figure 2: Map of Húsavík harbour ...... 19

Figure 3: Nationality of respondents ...... 26

Figure 4: Age range of respondents ...... 26

Figure 5: Gender of respondents ...... 27

Figure 6: Responses to question "Have you ever belonged to an environmental/conservation group?" ...... 27

Figure 7: Responses to question "Is this your first visit to Iceland?" ...... 28

Figure 8: Number of whale-watching trips attended by respondents ...... 29

Figure 9: Responses to question "When did you book your whale-watching tour?" ...... 29

Figure 10: Responses to question “Why did you decide to whale-watch in Húsavík, rather than Reykjavík?” ...... 30

Figure 11: Responses to question "Which species are you most excited to see today?" .... 31

Figure 12: Responses to question "When did you find out Iceland hunted whales?" ...... 31

Figure 13: Responses to question "Did you know Iceland hunted whales before booking your whale-watching tour?" ...... 32

Figure 14: Responses to question "Do you support whale hunting in Iceland?" ...... 33

Figure 15: Reasons why respondents support (top) or oppose (bottom) whaling ...... 34

Figure 16: Responses to question "Have you ever eaten whale meat?" ...... 35

Figure 17: Amount of support respondents felt for whaling in four different scenarios ..... 36

ix

x Acknowledgements

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for the many people who helped make this thesis a reality. First and foremost is my advisor, Chiara Bertulli, whose knowledge and support was invaluable throughout this process. Much thanks to the staff at the University Centre of the Westfjords, who run an amazing program that I am proud to be a part of. This thesis could not have been completed without the support of Gentle Giants, Húsavík Adventures, North Sailing, Salka, and the Húsavík Whale Museum, who allowed me to survey their clients throughout the summer. I would also like to acknowledge the amazing support and encouragement I received from my family, especially my parents, during the most difficult parts of this process. Finally, I would like to thank my friends, both in Canada and in Iceland, who have supported me for the past two years; especially Tiana Trumpour and Josie Kaip, who have been there with me since before any of us could read.

xi

xii 1 Introduction

Ever since early modern humans first arrived at the African coast tens of thousands of years ago, we have made use of marine resources (Marean et al., 2007). Oceans provide a variety of goods that can be used for sustenance, trade, and cultural or symbolic purposes (Weinstein et al., 2007). Over time, coastal communities have established industries to more efficiently exploit these resources and support their economies; adjusting the methods and targets of exploitation as demand shifted. Cetaceans, a taxonomic group that includes whales and , have been used as sustenance, commercial goods, and spiritual figures throughout history (Cook, Malinauskaite, Davíðsdóttir, Ögmundardóttir, & Roman, 2020). More recently, non-lethal use of these animals has provided humans with entertainment, education, and recreation (Cook et al., 2020).

While early coastal communities could hunt smaller cetaceans or scavenge beached animals, the larger species (typically referred to as the "great whales") were near impossible targets because of their size and power (Corkeron, 2006; Roman, 2006). As maritime technology improved, however, humans were able to catch and process these animals, with large-scale commercial hunting feeding a global demand for whale products. While these industries were beneficial to their nations, they were hugely detrimental to the global whale population, and fears of extinction led to a moratorium on certain types of whaling in the 1980s (Altherr, 2003). Around this time, whale-watching was becoming a popular activity, and many communities began to develop whale-watching industries that allowed them to make use of their local cetacean populations (Hoyt, 2002).

Whale-watching is still incredibly popular with tourists and is a significant source of revenue for those communities able to provide tours (O'Connor, Campbell, Knowles, & Cortez, 2009). Whales have also benefitted from this industry, as they are now generally perceived not as a consumer product, but as flagship conservation animals who should be valued for what they are rather than what they can provide (Corkeron, 2006; Einarsson, 2009).

There has been continuous debate over the potential impacts that whaling and whale- watching could have on each other (Bertulli, Leeney, Barreau, & Matassa, 2016: Rasmussen, 2014). The two industries are generally viewed as incompatible, as whaling necessitates the

1 lethal harvest of the same populations that whale-watching companies rely on (Higham & Lusseau, 2008). The whale-watching industry's support for cetacean conservation has therefore caused conflict between it and the whaling industry (Einarsson, 2009; Endo & Yamao, 2007; Higham & Lusseau, 2008). However, while studies have shown that many tourists oppose whaling, there is evidence that the two industries can coexist with few or no negative effects (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016; Moyle & Evans, 2008; Parsons & Draheim, 2009; Parsons & Rawles, 2003).

As of 2019, , , and Iceland are the only nations that practice commercial whaling, and all three maintain some level of whale-watching (Corkeron, 2006: Dooley & Ueno, 2019). Iceland restarted their whaling activities several years after their whale- watching industry began, and profits from the sale of both whale meat and whale-watching tickets (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016; Rasmussen, 2014).

In the current research project, a questionnaire was distributed to whale-watchers in the town of Húsavík, Iceland to examine their perceptions of the whale-watching and whaling industries and how these affect the Icelandic whale-watching scene.

The research question is:

I. What effect do Iceland’s whaling activities have on whale-watchers' decisions to participate in whale-watching?

The three aims of this study are:

i. To determine demographics of whale-watchers in Iceland ii. To explore where and when whale-watchers book whale-watching activities iii. To document whale-watchers' perceptions of Icelandic whaling and whale meat consumption

2 2 Theoretical Overview

2.1 Whaling

The hunting of cetacean species, referred to as whaling, has been conducted in various ways throughout history to provide humans with both sustenance and valuable products, particularly oil and . Its main regulatory body, the International Whaling Commission (IWC), currently recognises three types of whaling: indigenous, special permit, and commercial (Freeman, 1993). Indigenous whaling is conducted on both small cetaceans and great whales by native peoples to fulfill cultural and nutritional needs and does not attempt to maximize catch or profit (Herrera & Hoagland, 2006; IWC, 2018). Special permit whaling, more commonly known as scientific whaling, is used to gather research data (IWC, 2019). Japan, the last member of the commission to conduct special permit whaling, ended their research program in 2019 (IWC, 2019). Commercial whaling is conducted mainly for profit, and has been under a moratorium since 1985, though some countries still engage in it (IWC, 2016). Norway and Iceland, both IWC members, do so under an objection and a reservation to the moratorium respectively, while Japan left the IWC in 2019 to restart their commercial whaling industry (IWC, 2016, 2019).

2.1.1 Historical Whaling

Cetaceans have been hunted by humans for thousands of years, with the earliest depictions possibly dating to 6000 BCE (Roman, 2006). Early on, animals would have been taken opportunistically when they became beached or stranded or hunted from land or close to shore (Roman, 2006; Romero, 2012). However, whaling technology improved over time, and in the Middle Ages it became possible to hunt whales in open waters (Corkeron, 2006).

Commercial whaling began with the Basques in the 11th century and grew as demand for whale products increased (Herrera & Hoagland, 2006). , produced by rendering down a whale's , was arguably the most important of these, and was used as an illuminant and lubricant, and to manufacture various products (Gorman, 2008). Whalebone, the commercial name for the baleen plates of filter-feeding whales, was used in products where strength and flexibility were needed, comparable to modern day plastic (New Bedford Whaling Museum, n.d.). Whale meat itself was not harvested, as it would have rotted by the

3 time the ship returned to port; the carcass, once stripped of blubber and baleen, was left to scavengers (Gorman, 2009).

In those early days of whaling, right (Eubalaena sp.) and bowhead (Balaena mysticetus) whales were the most commercially valuable of the baleen whales because of their thicker blubber and longer baleen plates (Rasmussen, 2014; Scammon, 1874). Their relatively slow speed meant they could be easily caught by the small wooden and hand-thrown used at the time, and their blubber allowed them to float when killed (Davis, Gallman, & Gleiter, 1997; Rasmussen, 2014; Scammon, 1874). Targeted whaling of these species between the 17th and 19th centuries drove the to the brink of extinction by the 1890s, and reduced the bowhead population from at least 50,000 individuals to less than 3,000 by 1921 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2018a, 2018b; Woodby & Botkin, 1993).

2.1.2 Modern Whaling

Prior to the late 19th century, the rorqual whales, a family that includes the minke, humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin, and blue (Balaenoptera musculus) whales, had been relatively safe from (Rasmussen, 2014). Their strength and speed made them difficult targets, and on the rare occasions that a could one, whalers risked being swamped or stranded when the whale fled (Davis et al., 1997). Additionally, their reduced blubber meant that they were less commercially valuable and tended to sink when killed (Davis et al., 1997; Rasmussen, 2014).

Modern commercial whaling began in the 1870s, as technological advancement allowed improvement to both ships and weapons (Rasmussen, 2014). Explosive harpoons fired from a cannon mounted on fast, powerful steamer ships made it possible to chase and catch faster species, and a strong winch and an innovation that pumped air into the whale prevented the body from sinking (Davies et al., 1997; Rasmussen, 2014). The depletion of the more valuable species and better technology allowed whalers to turn their attention to the more abundant rorqual populations (Rasmussen, 2014). The global whale population therefore declined dramatically, and by the 1970s, it became clear that some sort of management system had to be put in place (Aron, Burke, & Freeman, 2000).

4 The IWC was created in 1946 by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (Wright, Simmonds, & Vernazzani, 2016). Its original purpose was to manage the depleted whale stocks and regulate the whale oil industry so that it continued to profit (Aron et al., 2000; Herrera & Hoagland, 2006). In 1982, the IWC decided to pause commercial whaling of all species by the 1985/1986 season, so that populations could recover (Aron et al., 2000; Altherr, 2003). The moratorium, as it became known, was not supposed to be permanent, but rather a conservation measure that would allow the IWC to assess the stocks and come up with a management plan (Aron et al., 2000; Herrera & Hoagland, 2006). Over time, the IWC's focus shifted to in general, and it has become a platform for nations to discuss all aspects of cetacean conservation (Wright et al., 2016). IWC member countries are evenly split into the pro-and anti-whaling camps, which has allowed the moratorium (which requires ¾ approval to be rescinded) to remain in place (Kuo, Chen, & McAleer, 2012).

2.1.3 Icelandic Whaling

Prior to the 17th century, Icelanders would harvest whales that had become beached or stranded (Edvardsson, 2015). These animals provided large amounts of meat and blubber, the latter of which could be turned into whale oil or eaten (Altherr, 2003; Edvardsson, 2015). Because whales provided enormous amounts of vital resources, they were incredibly important to small communities, and the Icelandic term for godsend, hvalreki, literally means “beached whale” (Sigurjónsson, 1989).

Basque whalers first arrived in the 1600s, after depleting the bowhead and North Atlantic right (Eubalaena glacialis) whales that had populated the Bay of Biscay and Eastern Canada (Edvardsson, 2015; Edvardsson & Rafnsson, 2006). Spanish, Dutch, and French whalers arrived soon after, but Icelanders were unable to build their own whaling ships as Denmark had passed laws preventing them from trading with foreigners (Edvardsson, 2015; Edvardsson & Rafnsson, 2006). Spear hunting from small boats was used to hunt smaller cetaceans until the 1890s but attempts to develop a commercial industry were unsuccessful (Rasmussen, 2014). Modern whaling practices arrived in Iceland in 1883 and in 1935 Icelanders were given sole access to whales within their territorial waters (Rasmussen, 2014). Their commercial industry began that same year, and they joined the IWC in 1947 (Rasmussen, 2014). When the moratorium was put in place, Iceland did not object to it,

5 which would have allowed them to continue their commercial hunt, and instead submitted a plan for a scientific whaling program, which was implemented in 1986 (Altherr, 2003). Over the course of the next three years, 292 fin whales and 70 sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) were killed as part of this program (Altherr, 2003). This research caused considerable backlash, with organising a boycott of Icelandic fish products, and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society scuttling two whaling boats while they were docked in the Reykjavík harbour (Einarsson, 2009). In 1989, the Icelandic government decided to end the program, possibly due to the fish boycott (Einarsson, 2009). Commercial whaling proposals were submitted to the IWC in 1990 and 1991, but both were rejected, and Iceland left the organisation in 1992 (Gillespie, 2005).

When Iceland left the IWC, they did so partially under the perception that other countries would follow their example, thereby rendering the commission obsolete (Altherr, 2003). Accordingly, they had founded a regional organisation, the North Atlantic Commission (NAMMCO), to study and manage cetacean and populations; however, it was ignored by the international community (Altherr, 2003; NAMMCO, 2018). Additionally, IWC members were forbidden from exporting whaling equipment to, or whale products from, non-member countries (Altherr, 2003). This prevented Iceland from importing the explosive harpoons they needed from Norway, or exporting whale meat to Japan, their only profitable market (Altherr, 2003). The lack of support for NAMMCO, the failure of other countries to leave the IWC, and the restrictions set in place by the commission made it nearly impossible for Iceland to resume commercial whaling (Altherr, 2003).

Fourteen years after leaving the IWC, Iceland attempted to rejoin with a reservation to the moratorium that would allow them to immediately restart their commercial whaling industry (IWC, 2001). Their proposal was denied in 2001 and 2002, though they did become an observer to the commission, giving them the right to be present at meetings but not to vote (Altherr, 2003; IWC, 2001). At a special meeting in 2002, the proposal was altered so the commercial whaling industry would restart in 2006, which was approved in a narrow vote where Iceland ended up being the deciding ballot (Altherr, 2003; IWC, 2002). This ruling was controversial both within and outside of the commission, but 70 to 80% of Iceland's population were pleased with the decision (Parsons & Rawles, 2003; Williams, 2006). Icelanders viewed the foreign interference in the 1986-1989 scientific whaling program as

6 an attack on their sovereignty and rights to the marine resources in their waters (Einarsson, 2009). Between 2003 and 2007, a new scientific whaling program caught 200 minke whales, and commercial whaling resumed in 2006, targeting fin and minke whales (IWC, 2012a; Rasmussen, 2014).

Until 2020, there were two whaling companies active in Iceland: IP útgerð, which hunted minke whales to sell to the domestic market, and Hvalur hf, which targets fin whales for export to Japan (Kyzer, 2019b; Roman, 2020). In 2019, both companies skipped the whaling season, with Hvalur hf citing lack of time for ship repairs and declining demand for meat in Japan, while IP útgerð explained the decision not to hunt as a consequence of increased expenses (Kyzer, 2019b). In 2020, Hvalur hf has cancelled the season because of difficulties exporting whale meat to Japan, while IP útgerð has decided to permanently stop whaling as an expansion of the no fishing coastal zone has made it economically unfeasible (Agence France-Presse [AFP], 2020). Hvalur hf may also be at risk, as three shareholders have filed a lawsuit in an attempt to force the company to pay out their shares, which, if successful, could lead to further buyouts and the company's dissolution (Ćirić, 2020).

2.2 Whale Meat Consumption

While whale meat is often marketed as traditional Icelandic fare, it was historically only eaten when available, often in the form of "sour whale", where meat and blubber were processed with lactic acid to prevent spoiling (Altherr, 2003; Sigurgeirsson, 2001). When Iceland began whaling commercially in 1935, whale meat became a popular substitute for beef, but most of the annual catch was exported to international markets (Altherr, 2003; Sigurgeirsson, 2001). Between 1989 and 2003, whale meat was rarely available, and demand was therefore low when it returned to the market (Järvi, 2016; Sigurgeirsson, 2001). A media campaign was launched to encourage Icelanders to eat whale meat, but annual consumption only increased about 7%, from 150 to 200 tonnes (Altherr, 2003; Wende & Gothall, 2008). The repeat sale rate remained low, and by 2008 the domestic demand for whale meat was between 5 and 15 tonnes annually (Wende & Gothall, 2008). Currently, less than 1% of Icelanders consume whale meat regularly (Altherr, 2003; International Fund for Animal Welfare [IFAW], 2018). Tourists are the main market for whale meat inside Iceland, and many restaurants in Reykjavík offer it on their menus (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016; Rasmussen, 2014). In 2011, IFAW and IceWhale, the Icelandic whale-watching

7 organisation, launched the "Meet Us Don't Eat Us" campaign in Reykjavík (IFAW, 2019a). The program, which educates tourists on whaling and ask them to pledge that they will not partake in whale meat, has seen a 70% decrease in the number of tourists consuming it between 2009 and 2018 (IFAW, 2019b; Langeree, 2020). However, demand has still been high enough that Iceland has had to import whale meat from Norway when poor weather has reduced the catch (Ćirić, 2019a; Sands, 2017). While the minke whale hunt has stopped permanently, there has so far been no mention of whether Iceland will continue to import whale meat from Norway.

Iceland's sole international market is Japan, which imports fin whale meat as well as conducting their own hunt (Cunningham, Huijbens, & Wearing, 2012). While the number of fin whales caught in the years the hunt takes place is relatively stable, there has been a great variety in how much of the meat is exported to Japan (IWC, 2012b). In 2009, Hvalur hf processed 1500 tonnes of whale meat but exported none of it; the next year, 55 tonnes were exported to Japan, less than 3% of the processed catch (Rasmussen, 2014). In 2014, Japan imported 2000 tonnes of meat, inviting backlash and confusion from environmental organisations, as the country already had a large stockpile of frozen whale meat due to low demand (AFP, 2014). That same year, several member states of the European Union took an official position opposing Iceland's whaling, and prevented exported whale meat travelling through their ports (European Union, 2014; Roman, 2020). Japan's 2019 decision to resume commercial whaling may do further harm to Iceland's fin whale exports, as the Japanese government provides subsidies for their own whaling, and health certification for foreign whale meat is stricter (Hafstað, 2020).

2.3 Whale-Watching

Whale-watching is the human activity of watching any cetacean species in their natural habitat, whether from land, boats, or aircraft (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002; Kuo et al., 2012). While it usually refers to a planned commercial venture, whale-watching can be done privately, opportunistically, or by researchers (Hoyt, 2002; Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002). Whale-watching is the current leader in the marine tourism sector and is the most economically valuable use of cetaceans (Cunningham, Huijbens, & Wearing, 2012; Parsons & Rawles, 2003).

8 Whale-watching began in San Diego, where, during the 1940s, students from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography would participate in an annual land watch count of migrating grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus; Hoyt, 2002). In 1950, a lookout was established so that tourists could watch the migrating whales, and in 1955, the first paid boat tour allowed whale-watchers to get a closer look at the animals (Hoyt, 2002). The practice spread along the West coast in the 1960s, with both on land lookouts and boat tours offered to interested participants (Hoyt, 2002). The industry grew quickly and in 1998, 9 million whale-watchers spent USD 1 billion in total expenditures covering whale-watching tour, travel, and accommodation expenses. By 2008, 12 million whale-watchers spent USD 2 billion globally (O'Connor et al., 2009; Hoyt, 2001).

2.3.1 Whale-Watching in Iceland

Whale-watching feasibility studies were conducted in Iceland as early as 1990 and demonstrated the feasibility for the Icelandic whale-watching industry (Einarsson, 2009). The timing was not ideal as Icelanders, especially those in small fishing towns, were still frustrated with the outside intervention that had put a stop to their whaling industry the year before (Einarsson, 2009). At the time, cetaceans were mainly seen as a marine resource that Icelanders had a right to exploit, and as pests that preyed upon commercial (Altherr, 2003; Einarsson, 2009). Around this same time, however, many small fishing communities were suffering as the Individual Transferable Quota system, introduced in 1984, was consolidating fishing rights in the hands of larger companies and making entry into the fishing industry more difficult (Einarsson, 2009). Whale-watching appealed to small towns, who hoped it would provide direct income and increase demand for tourism services like restaurants and accommodations (Einarsson, 2009).

In 1991, Höfn, a small fishing village on the southeastern coast of Iceland, offered the first whale-watching trips in the country (Rasmussen, 2014). About 100 whale-watchers attended the tours, paying USD 17,000 on direct expenditures (money directly spent towards whale- watching activities), and USD 60,000 on total expenditures (Hoyt, 2001). While whale- watching at Höfn only lasted a few years, the Icelandic industry exploded, with an annual growth rate of 251% between 1994 and 1998 (Hoyt, 2001; Nicosia & Perini, 2016). In 1998, 30,000 tourists attended whale-watching tours; that number increased to 114,000 in 2008, and 272,000 in 2015 (Hoyt, 2001; Nicosia & Perini, 2016; O'Connor et al., 2009). While

9 whale-watching numbers are no longer increasing as exponentially as they once did, approximately 20-25% of tourists to Iceland go whale-watching every year (Nicosia & Perini, 2016). Whale-watching operators formed the IceWhale cooperative in 1999, which became a formal association in 2014, to help promote whale-watching and educate tourists about whales (IceWhale, n.d.-b). In recent years, they have also become a major participant in the campaign against whaling; co-running the "Meet Us Don't Eat Us" campaign and providing information about whale-friendly restaurants around the country (IceWhale, n.d.- a; IFAW, 2019a). IceWhale is currently made up of ten whale-watching companies, four based out of Reykjavík, five in the North, and one in the West (IceWhale, n.d.-e). Currently, the largest centre for Icelandic whale-watching is Reykjavík, followed by Húsavík (Nicosia & Perini, 2016). As the whale-watching industry grew in Iceland, cetaceans were no longer seen as pests competing for fish stocks, but as valuable members of the tourism industry (Einarsson, 2009).

The main species targeted by Icelandic whale-watching companies are the minke whale in the southwest and the in the north (IceWhale, n.d.-d). Additionally, about 15 species of cetaceans are visible during the summer months, from the small harbour porpoise to largest marine mammal on earth, the (Altherr, 2003).

2.3.2 Positive Impacts of Whale-Watching

Whale-watching tours provide educational benefits to both whale-watchers and researchers (Hoyt, 2002). Operators that provide educational material to customers increase their knowledge of cetaceans and their environment and can positively affect environmental attitudes and behaviours (Lopez & Pearson, 2017; Zeppel & Muloin, 2008). Additionally, the boats are a valuable tool for scientists, as they can be used as a platform to conduct non- invasive research through observation and photo identification (Hoyt, 2002). Individual cetaceans can be differentiated by scars, markings, patterns, and physical morphology of flukes and tails, all of which can be photographed (Hammond, Mizroch, & Donovan, 1990). Characteristics that are prevalent for any one species can then be used to form catalogues for future identification (Bertulli, Galatius et al., 2016; Bertulli, Rasmussen, & Rosso, 2016). In Iceland, photo identification has been used to document distribution and movement patterns for minke whales (Albrecht & Rasmussen, 2019; Bertulli, Rasmussen, & Tetley, 2013), humpback whales (Brown, 2019), and white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris;

10 Bertulli, Tetley, Magnúsdóttir, & Rasmussen, 2015). Photo identification can also be used to track the health of wild cetacean populations from both natural conditions such as parasites, and anthropogenic events like entanglement in fishing gear (Basran, 2014; Basran et al, 2019; Bertulli, Cecchetti, Van Bressem, & Van Waerebeek, 2012). Observation of feeding behaviours can help identify prey animals for species, like orcas (Orcinus orca), that have a mixed diet (Samarra et al., 2018). Whale-watching boats may also be used by researchers studying the effect whale-watching has on wild cetaceans (Senigaglia et al., 2016).

2.3.3 Negative Impacts of Whale-Watching

While whale-watching is often considered to be a benign use of whales, particularly when framed against whaling, this is not necessarily the case (Nicosia & Perini, 2016; Parsons, 2012). Targeted animals are often in the vicinity of at least one boat for a prolonged period, and a lack of guidelines or poor enforcement at some sites allows operators to engage in inappropriate and dangerous behaviour (Hoyt, 2002). Multiple studies have shown that wild cetaceans exhibit short-term behavioural changes in the presence of whale-watching boats, which may have long-term consequences for both individual animals and the population as a whole (Christiansen & Lusseau, 2014; Parsons, 2012). Minke whales in Iceland have been shown to spend less time feeding when in the presence of whale-watching boats, both at and below the surface, thereby reducing energy intake (Christiansen, Rasmussen, & Lusseau, 2013a). Reduced diving time and less direct movement indicates that the whales were attempting to avoid the boats (Christiansen, Rasmussen, & Lusseau, 2013b). These stresses may be ongoing for whales during the busier times of the season. In Húsavík, where the whale-watching season coincides with Arctic summer, operators hold "midnight sun" tours, which leave the harbour around 21:30 or 22:30, and last for approximately 2 hours (Gentle Giants, 2016a; Húsavík Adventures, 2018). As the morning tours start around 8:30, the whales have little time when they can feed and rest uninterrupted by boats (Gentle Giants, 2016b; North Sailing, 2011). IceWhale has developed a code of conduct for use by whale- watching companies (IceWhale, n.d.-c), but these guidelines have been shown to be insufficient for managing the whale-watching activities in Iceland (Martin, 2012). A study in Húsavík showed that while approach speed and density of whale-watching boats generally fell within suggested guidelines, they often came too close to the cetaceans, particularly the humpback whales (Martin, 2012).

11 Improperly managed whale-watching may also have negative effects on humans. Getting too close to large cetaceans can be dangerous, and there have been numerous fatalities on tours when boats have been hit or capsized by whales (Hoyt, 2002). Additionally, lack of proper infrastructure can cause overcrowding; fishermen in Húsavík have had difficulty moving their gear from their sheds to their boats because of the presence of the whale-watching operators (Einarsson, 2009; Hoyt, 2002).

2.4 Whaling vs Whale-Watching

2.4.1 Conflict

Whale-watching and whaling are generally viewed as opposing industries, as whale- watching relies on cetacean populations that spend at least some time relatively close to shore, while whaling removes animals from those populations (Higham & Lusseau, 2008). Because of this, there is concern that whaling may reduce the number of animals available to tour operators, or otherwise alter or disturb their behaviour in a way that reduces whale- watchers' satisfaction (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002; Kuo et al., 2012). While some species exhibit neutral or positive reactions to whale-watching vessels, these developed gradually as the whales were exposed to whale-watchers (Watkins, 1986). When commercial whaling was still a substantial worldwide industry, most animals would actively flee any approaching vessels, and some modern populations who are still targeted will avoid boats during hunting season (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002; Scammon, 1874). There is concern that whales from hunted populations may learn to actively avoid boats to reduce their risk of being killed, making it more difficult for tour operators to approach them (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002; Kuo et al., 2012). Additionally, friendly whales who remain or approach whale-watching vessels would be at higher risk as they may approach a whaleship (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002).

There have also been multiple reports of whales killed in front of whale-watchers (Parsons & Draheim, 2009). In July of 2006, off the coast of Andenes, Norway, whalers killed a minke whale in front of a whale-watching vessel while it was interacting with the animal (Higham & Lusseau, 2008). Events like these are not only upsetting for the people involved but can also have a negative effect on whale-watchers' perception of the whale-watching industry in that location.

12 2.4.2 Coexistence

Despite strong opposition to whaling, both whaling and whale-watching activities can take place in the same country, or even locality. As Corkeron (2006) points out all three countries that practice commercial whaling can sustain multiple whale-watching companies. Moyle and Evans (2008) suggested that developing nations could cater to whale-watchers while continuing to hunt local cetaceans when their numbers increase above the minimum required to maintain population viability and tourism activities. This would allow them to establish a potentially viable whale-watching industry, with whaling as an economic fallback in case the former was not as profitable as expected (Moyle & Evans, 2008).

2.4.3 Iceland

Many of the tourists who visit Iceland are from Europe and North America and belong to cultures that view cetaceans as animals to be admired and protected, not eaten (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016; Einarsson, 2009; Hoyt, 2001). As a group, they are generally unsupportive of Iceland's whaling activities. Wende and Gothall (2008) found that 69.4% of tourists had negative feelings towards commercial whaling. A later study of whale-watchers found that 75.2% of them opposed whaling in Iceland (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016). When broken down based on country of origin, both studies found that most respondents from whaling nations accepted the practice, while the majority of those from non-whaling nations did not (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016; Wende & Gothall, 2008). Negative perceptions of whaling were well known even before Iceland resumed their hunt: 68.9% of tourists surveyed in 1998 opposed its recommencement (A.S. Thorsdottir cited by Hoyt, 2001).

However, the two industries have managed to coexist in the same locality since 2003, with both operating in Faxaflói Bay, on the southwest coast of Iceland, where Reykjavík is located (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016; Nicosia & Perini, 2016). As mentioned previously, Iceland's whale-watching industry has grown in both size and scope, even after the whaling activities recommenced (Nicosia & Perini, 2016; O'Connor et al., 2009). Wende and Gothall (2008) found that 82.5% of tourists would visit Iceland and 70.6% would go whale-watching, despite the whaling activities. Some respondents indicated that they did not consider whaling and whale-watching to be connected, while others believed that going whale-watching could help stop Icelandic whaling (Wende & Gothall, 2008).

13 The Threat of Boycotts: Whale-Watcher’s Perceptions

When Iceland announced that it would be restarting the whale hunt, the tourism industry in general, and whale-watching companies in particular, were nervous of its effects on their businesses. After the backlash caused by the 1986-1989 research program, there was concern that a commercial hunt would harm Iceland's reputation as a nature destination and potentially cause more boycotts (Björgvinsson, 2007; Einarsson, 2009). A survey conducted shortly before Iceland's whaling industry restarted suggested that 79% of whale-watchers would boycott the country, with another 12.4% saying they would not attend whale-watching tours (Parsons & Rawles, 2003). This would have devastated the whale-watching industry and removed approximately 65,000 tourists from Iceland as a whole (O'Connor et al., 2009; Parsons & Rawles, 2003). Though the actual loss was not that drastic, the tourism industry, particularly whale-watching companies, did feel the effects. A Swiss travel agency fielded numerous calls from concerned customers (Iceland Review, 2006), and a major British tour operator who had expected a 50-100% increase of bookings to Iceland instead saw them fall by 25% (Williams, 2006). North Sailing, located in Húsavík, experienced several cancellations within a week of the decision and The Centre, located in Reykjavík, also had about a dozen people cancel (Iceland Review, 2006; AFP, 2006).When a new quota was set in 2009, the Reykjavík based whale-watching company Elding stated that there had been several cancellations and that some travel agencies had threatened to remove the company from their list if Icelandic whaling resumed (Iceland Review, 2009). However, many whale-watchers are still willing to visit whaling countries for a variety of reasons. When asked, 76.9% of whale-watchers in Reykjavík believed that Iceland's whaling activities were not a good reason to boycott the country (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016). Most whale-watchers attend tours because they are offered in the country or town they are visiting, so it is unlikely they will boycott if their trip has already been booked (Higham & Lusseau, 2008). Additionally, anti-whaling whale-watchers may be replaced with those who are neutral or pro-whaling, especially if they view it as creating a unique experience (Higham & Lusseau, 2008; Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002).

Icelandic Whale-Watching and Whaling: An Economic Perspective

In the mid 1900s, whaling was one of the most economically valuable oceanic industries, with the caught whales providing large amounts of valuable oil and whalebone (Clark & Lamberson, 1982; George, Bockstoce, Punt, & Botkin, 2007). Even after whalers began

14 hunting whales for meat, profits remained relatively high, bringing in USD 154 million worldwide in 1988 (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002). Iceland's whaling peaked between 1980 and 1985, with annual revenues of USD 21 million (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002). However, as demand for whale meat has decreased, it has become increasingly difficult for whaling companies to make a profit; Hvalur hf is in fact subsidized by its owner, who also owns a fisheries company (Cunningham et al., 2012). Between 2009 and 2017, fin whaling provided USD 93.6 million in profits, and the total revenue of whaling in 2017 was USD 14.1 million (Ćirić, 2019a).

Whale-watching, by contrast, has become increasingly profitable over the years; in 1988, whale-watching provided USD 56 million in revenue globally, ten years later, annual expenditures grew to USD 1049 million (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002). Iceland's whale- watching industry made USD 3 million in direct expenditures, and more than USD 6 million in total expenditures in 1998 (Hoyt, 2001). By 2008, whale-watching revenue was USD 6 million in direct expenditures, and over USD 16 million in total expenditures (O'Connor et al., 2009). In 2014, ticket sales for whale-watching tours in Reykjavík alone were USD 7.1 million (Iceland Review, 2015). Whale-watching companies in Iceland made a total of USD 26.5 million in 2017 (Ćirić, 2019a).

While whaling profits may be higher or similar to whale-watching's in the short term, the latter makes more profits off the same individuals in the long term (Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002). A single Icelandic minke whale is valued at approximately USD 7550 if hunted, the same amount of revenue as a single whale-watching trip with 125 passengers, which take place multiple times a day (Iceland Review, 2015). As whaling has declined economically, whale-watching has become an economically important tourist industry and is currently the most viable use of cetaceans worldwide (Hoyt, 2001; Hoyt & Hvenegaard, 2002; Parsons & Draheim, 2009).

15

16 3 Material and Methods

Respondents were surveyed using a questionnaire, as this format has been used successfully in other studies conducted with whale-watching passengers (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016; Parsons & Draheim, 2009; Parsons & Rawles, 2003). Whale-watchers were likely to have planned other activities before and after their tours, leaving them with little time to answer questions. Consequently, a short, easy to answer questionnaire was considered more appealing to potential respondents, encouraging a higher amount of participation. Aiming at a questionnaire which would be easy and quick to fill in, most of the questions were closed- ended, and none required long responses.

The questionnaire was used to answer the three aims:

1) To determine demographics of whale-watchers in Iceland 2) To explore where and when whale-watchers book whale-watching activities 3) To document whale-watchers' perceptions on Icelandic whaling and whale meat consumption

3.1 Study Area

One of the oldest inhabited settlements in Iceland, Húsavík is a northeastern town of approximately 2300 people located on the southeastern shore of Skjálfandi Bay (Figure 1; Einarsson, 2009; Statistics Iceland, 2020). While it maintains connections with the local agricultural industries, fishing and fish processing were the main economic contributors for many years (Einarsson, 2009). When the fishing industry began to decline whale-watching was presented as a way to diversify the economy (Einarsson, 2009). There were early concerns that the tours would conflict with the seal and hunting conducted by locals, and some residents believed that there were no whales in the bay, which would render the enterprise worthless (Einarsson, 2009). Nevertheless, it was received positively, and North Sailing held their first tours in 1995, catering to 2200 whale-watchers (Einarsson, 2009; Nicosia & Perini, 2016).

17

Figure 1 Húsavík's location on the shore of Skjálfandi Bay, Iceland (Ovide, 2017)

Today, Húsavík is marketed as one of the best whale-watching sites in the world and is often referred to as "The Whale Capital of Iceland" (Nicosia & Perini, 2016; Parson & Rawles, 2003). Skjálfandi Bay is highly productive and provides a rich summer feeding ground for both the resident and migratory cetacean species (Cecchetti, 2006 cited by Martin, 2012). Alongside North Sailing, three other whale-watching companies began operating within the past 20 years: Gentle Giants in 2001, Salka in 2013, and Húsavík Adventures in 2015 (Nicosia & Perini, 2016). Humpback whales are the target species for these operators, though minke whales and white-beaked dolphins are also common (Nicosia & Perini, 2016).

Húsavík was chosen as the location for this project because of the large number of whale- watchers who visit annually and the lack of whaling activities. In Húsavík, the docks for North Sailing, Gentle Giants, Salka, and Húsavík Adventures are located on the same quay, so all whale-watchers congregate in the same area while waiting for their tours (Figure 2). Since the tours are staggered throughout the day, it was expected that new groups of whale- watchers would be continually arriving at the docks. North Sailing, Gentle Giants, and Salka have offered their boats as platforms to researchers in the past, and they provide free trips

18 all year long to local research students and staff from the Húsavík Research Centre. Whaling does not occur in Skjálfandi Bay, so the questionnaire could investigate whether Húsavík was a preferred whale-watching destination to Reykjavík, where whaling does take place.

Figure 2 Map of Húsavík harbour (Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, 2015: Cartography licensed as CC BY-SA)

19 3.2 Data collection

Data collection took place between July 2nd and August 30th of 2019. Permission was granted to distribute questionnaires on the quay of the following whale-watching companies: Gentle Giants, Húsavík Adventures, North Sailing, and Salka. After booking their tour, whale- watchers are asked to be at the quay approximately 15 minutes before their trip, so it was the best time to hand out the questionnaires. Whale-watchers were approached on the quay five days a week, alternating between mornings (9:00 – 13:00) and afternoons (13:00 – 17:00) to ensure equal coverage of both time periods. As whale-watching trips are weather dependent, questionnaires were not handed out on days of heavy rain or wind.

When approached on the quay, tourists were asked whether they were about to board a whale-watching trip, and if they would be willing to participate in the survey. Questionnaires and consent forms were handed out on a clipboard. Each participant was offered help with questions when needed.

Questionnaires were also distributed at the Húsavík Whale Museum, located directly beside the harbour. A folder with blank questionnaires was placed in the lounge area, along with pens and an empty folder for completed questionnaires. These questionnaires were collected after the in-hand questionnaires had been handed out on the quay. Questionnaires collected after the principle investigator (E.H.) had left Húsavík were sent to her via post.

The questionnaire comprised of 12 questions. Firstly, whale-watchers were asked to provide basic personal data: country of origin, age bracket, and gender. This allowed the population demographics to be compared with other studies conducted both inside and outside Iceland, and to determine trends within this study.

Secondly, questions 1 through 6 were used to understand whale-watchers' expectations about the tours they were about to join and to know whether they were frequent whale-watchers. To determine environmental awareness of participants, they were asked if they had ever belonged to an environmental organisation. Whale-watchers were asked to explain why they chose Húsavík as the location for their whale-watching trip. They were also asked what species of cetacean they were most excited to see, to determine if fin or minke whales are especially popular; if so, hunting them would be bad for public image.

20 Questions 7 through 12 investigated whale-watchers' opinions about Icelandic whaling and meat whale consumption. Participants were asked about their knowledge of Icelandic whaling, if they supported or opposed this industry and why. Respondents were also asked if they were interested in consuming whale meat, to determine whether there was a demand for it among whale-watchers. Question 12 was used to determine if the amount of support for whaling changed based on circumstances. Participants were given four theoretical whaling scenarios: (A) the species being hunted was threatened or endangered, (B) money was put towards whale conservation, (C) fewer whales were visible when whale-watching, and (D) the same number of whales were visible when whale-watching. They were asked to indicate whether they felt less support, the same amount of support, or more support for whaling in a country where each scenario was true. This question was used to determine whether it was possible to mitigate negative opinions of Icelandic whaling.

Questionnaires were anonymous but a modified consent form was provided for participants to read and was also freely available at the Húsavík Whale Museum along with a copy of the project description. Respondents were free to leave the questionnaires incomplete, but those forms were not included in the analysis.

All questionnaires were written in English as it is the language used by team members onboard all whale-watching boats, allowing the majority of groups and individuals to read and fill out the questionnaire. Prior to finalizing the questionnaire, copies were given to family and friends to test the readability of the questions and the length of time required to fully complete them. Small changes in word choice and clarification to instructions were added based on their feedback.

Most of the questions were close-ended, either two-option or multiple-choice (Taylor- Powell, 1998); question number 12 was a matrix question, which allowed participants to quickly note the amount of support they felt (Liu & Cernat, 2016). This gave participants a variety of options for responses, without making data analysis complex. Three of the multiple-choice questions- number 5, number 6, and number 10 (Appendix B) had the option “other” allowing respondents to write something outside what was provided and giving them a chance to provide different or more complete answers if they desired.

Completed questionnaires were given successive numbers, and the name of the whale- watching company used was noted, unless the questionnaire had been filled out in the

21 museum. All responses and written comments were entered into a password protected Microsoft Excel (2016) file the same day they were collected. Incomplete questionnaires were marked and set aside. All hard copies of the questionnaires were kept.

3.3 Data Analysis

Questionnaire responses were coded into numerical groups to make analysis easier. The coding system used was selected before any completed surveys were entered into the Excel file to prevent biases being formed while reviewing responses. After all the answers had been entered into the Excel file, each question was copied into one or more separate sheets to allow raw data to be manipulated while keeping the original intact. As none of the questions allowed for long written answers, all data analysis was quantitative.

Country of origin was assigned a number that corresponded to the continent where that country is located. Many countries were represented in the sample, but most had very few respondents. Grouping the countries by continent allowed for meaningful analysis and comparison with both previous studies and tourist numbers in Iceland as a whole (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016). The codes for age bracket and gender were matched with the responses available on the questionnaire. Written responses for the number of whale-watching tours attended by the participant were grouped into ranges: 1 time, 2-5 times, 6-9 times, and 10 or more times.

Each response for a multiple-choice question was given a successive numerical code. For questions that allowed multiple responses to be selected, each chosen response was coded as a separate respondent. The distribution of the responses was then calculated using the total number of answers. If a participant had selected multiple responses in a question that only asked for one, their responses for that question were discarded from the analysis, so as to not bias the weighting of the other questionnaires.

Written answers provided when "Other (please specify)" was selected were analysed to determine key words and themes and assigned codes based on these interpretations. All answers with the same code were then grouped together and analysed along with predetermined responses.

22 Country of origin, age bracket, gender, and number of attended whale-watching tours were all analysed in Microsoft Excel (2016) to better understand the population demographics of whale-watchers visiting Húsavík. Country of origin was also compared to the nationality data of all tourists entering Iceland (Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.). Multiple-choice questions were analysed using Microsoft Excel (2016) to determine what percentage of participants had selected each response.

The amount of support a participant felt for each scenario in question 12 was coded as 1 for less supportive, 2 for the same amount of support, and 3 for more supportive. Each respondent's answers were summed to create a Likert scale. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used in RStudio (RSTudio Team, 2015) to compare country of origin, age bracket, gender, and membership status to an environmental organisation to the summed responses to see if there was any significant variance in levels of support for whaling.

23

24 4 Results

4.1 Effort

A total of 224 completed questionnaires were collected over the course of 31 days (n=164 in July, n=60 in August). More questionnaires were collected quayside (n=120; 53.6%) than in the Húsavík Whale Museum (n=104; 46.4%). Of the whale-watchers surveyed quayside, the majority had booked their trip with North Sailing (56.7%), then followed by Gentle Giants (30.8%), Salka (9.2%), and Húsavík Adventures (3.3%).

Three of the respondents were tourists visiting from the south of Iceland. Their questionnaires were included in the analysis as they were attending a whale-watching trip and could be classified as "whale-watchers". However, their responses to the question "Is this your first visit to Iceland?" (question number 1) were removed as they would bias the results obtained for that question. One of the respondents had gone whale-watching in Akureyri, but their questionnaire was included in the analysis as they had gone whale- watching in Iceland. However, their response to the question "Why did you decide to whale- watch in Húsavík, rather than Reykjavík?" (question number 8) was not included.

4.2 Demographics

The majority of respondents were from Europe (78.5%) and North America (18.3%), then followed by Asia (2.2%), South America (0.5%), and the Middle East (0.5%; Figure 3). Most of them were between 18-29 years of age (39.7%; 30-49: 37.5%, 50-69: 21.9%, ≥70: 0.9%; Figure 4).

25 100%

90% 78.5% 80%

70%

60%

50%

40% % respondents% 30% 18.3% 20%

10% 2.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0% Europe North America Asia Middle East South America

Figure 3 Nationality of respondents

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 39.7%

40% 37.5% % respondents% 30% 21.9% 20%

10% 0.9% 0% 18-29 30-49 50-69 ≥70

Figure 4 Age range of respondents

A significantly higher number of respondents (59.8%) were female (males: 39.3%, not listed: 0.9%, prefer not to answer: 0%; ꭓ² = 9.5315, df = 1, P < 0.05; Figure 5).

26 100%

90%

80%

70% 59.8% 60%

50% 39.3%

40% % respondents% 30%

20%

10% 0.9% 0% Female Male Not listed

Figure 5 Gender of respondents

4.3 Environmental Values

The majority (74.1%) of respondents had never belonged to an environmental group, 14.3% were current members of such a group, and 11.6% had belonged to one in the past (Figure 6).

100%

90%

80% 74.1% 70%

60%

50%

40% % respondents% 30%

20% 11.6% 14.3% 10%

0% Yes, in the past Yes, right now No, never

Figure 6 Responses to question "Have you ever belonged to an environmental/conservation group?"

27

4.4 Is This Your First Visit to Iceland?

The majority of whale-watchers (84.4%) indicated they were on their first trip to Iceland, while 15.6% had visited on a previous occasion (n=221; Figure 7).

100% 90% 84.4% 80%

70%

60%

50%

40% % respondents% 30%

20% 15.6%

10%

0% Yes No

Figure 7 Responses to question "Is this your first visit to Iceland?"

4.5 Whale-Watching: Experience, Destination Choice, and Expectations

When asked how many times they had been whale-watching, 63.4% of respondents indicated that this was their first time (2-5 times: 30.8%, 6-9 times: 2.2%, ≥10 times: 3.6%; Figure 8).

28 100%

90%

80%

70% 63.4% 60%

50%

40%

30.8% % respondents% 30%

20%

10% 2.2% 3.6% 0% First time 2-5 times 6-9 times ≥ 10 times

Figure 8 Number of whale-watching trips attended by respondents

When asked when they had booked their whale-watching trip, 32.3% of respondents indicated they had booked before arriving in Iceland, 36.3% had booked after arriving in the country but before the day of their whale-watching tour, and 31.4% had booked the day of their tour (Figure 9).

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40% 36.3% 32.3% 31.4% % respondents% 30%

20%

10%

0% Before arriving in Iceland After arriving in Iceland, but Today before today

Figure 9 Responses to question "When did you book your whale-watching tour?"

The most common reasons given for choosing Húsavík for a whale-watch tour over Reykjavík (n=271) were that Húsavík was a better fit with travel plans (48.3%), and that it

29 was a better location to go whale-watching (44.6%). "Other (please specify)" made up 5.2% of responses (spontaneous decision: 3.3%; location decided by others: 1.9%). Whaling activities conducted in Reykjavík affected 1.9% of respondents who decided to go whale- watching in Húsavík instead (Figure 10). Of the 5 respondents that had not gone whale- watching in Reykjavík because of the whaling, 3 had selected additional reasons for going whale-watching in Húsavík (60%).

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 48.3% 50% 44.6% 40%

% respondents% 30%

20%

10% 3.3% 1.9% 1.9% 0% Best fit with travel Better location Spontaneous Decided by others Whaling activities in plans decision Reykjavik

Figure 10 Responses to question “Why did you decide to whale-watch in Húsavík, rather than Reykjavík?”

When participants were asked “Which species are you most excited to see today?" (n=173), the most popular species was the humpback whale (48%) followed by the minke whale (7.5%), fin whale (6.9%), and the white-beaked dolphin (5.8%). "Other (please specify)" made up 31.8% of responses (blue whale: 3.5%; orca: 1.7%; no preference: 26.6%; Figure 11).

30 100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 48.0% 50%

40%

% respondents% 30% 26.6%

20% 7.5% 6.9% 5.8% 10% 3.5% 1.7% 0% Humpback Minke whale Fin whale White-beaked Blue whale Orca No preference whale dolphin

Figure 11 Responses to question "Which species are you most excited to see today?"

4.6 Attitudes Towards Icelandic Whaling

When asked when they learned that whaling was conducted in Iceland, the majority (n=125; 55.8%) knew before they arrived in the country, 17.9% found out after arriving in Iceland but before this trip, and 26.3% found out while filling in the questionnaire (Figure 12).

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% 55.8%

50%

40%

% respondents% 30% 26.3% 17.9% 20%

10%

0% Before arriving in Iceland After I arrived in Iceland, but Right now, as I am filling out this before going on this trip questionnaire

Figure 12 Responses to question "When did you find out Iceland hunted whales?"

31 As a result, a total of 62.9% of respondents knew about Icelandic whaling before booking their tours (Figure 13).

100%

90%

80%

70% 62.9% 60%

50%

40% 37.1% % respondents% 30%

20%

10%

0% Yes No

Figure 13 Responses to question "Did you know Iceland hunted whales before booking your whale-watching tour?"

When asked their opinion regarding whaling, the majority of respondents (75%) opposed Icelandic whaling, 4.5% indicated support, and 20.5% were unsure (Figure 14). When comparing attitudes towards whaling and nationality, it was found that the majority (75.6%) of the respondents from non-whaling countries (n=221) opposed Icelandic whaling (supported whaling: 3.6%; unsure: 20.8%). Of the three individuals from a whaling country (Iceland), the majority (66.7%) supported whaling (opposed whaling: 33.3%; unsure: 0%).

32 100%

90%

80% 75.0%

70%

60%

50%

40% % respondents% 30% 20.5% 20% 10% 4.5% 0% Yes No I'm not sure

Figure 14 Responses to question "Do you support whale hunting in Iceland?"

Responses of participants who supported whaling (n=21) fell under: “Icelandic tradition/culture” (42.9%), "moral conviction" (4.7%), “scientific research” (28.6%), and “whales are just animals” (9.5%). "Other (please specify)" made up 14.3% of responses, all fell under "conservation" (Figure 15).

Responses of participants who opposed whaling (n=218) fell under: "Icelandic tradition/culture" (6%), "moral conviction" (61%), "scientific research" (2.3%), and "whales are just animals" (6%). "Other" made up 24.7% of responses ("conservation": 16%, "unnecessary": 6.4%, "economics": 1.4%, "human health": 0.9%; Figure 15). The most common reason for individuals to support Icelandic whaling in both whaling and non- whaling countries was because they considered it part of the country's tradition or culture. The sole Icelandic whale-watcher who did not support whaling reasoned that the current market is in whale-watching, while most individuals from non-whaling countries cited moral conviction.

33

Figure 15 Reasons why respondents support (top) or oppose (bottom) whaling

4.7 Attitudes Towards Whale Meat Consumption

Significantly more participants (83.3%) had no desire to try whale meat, 7.2% had not tried it but wanted to, 5.4 % had eaten it in Iceland, and 4.1% had eaten it in another country (Figure 16). All three Icelandic respondents had eaten whale meat at some point.

34 100% 90% 83.3% 80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

% respondents% 30%

20% 7.2% 10% 5.4% 4.1% 0% Yes, in Iceland Yes, outside Iceland No, but I want/am No, and I don't want to planning to

Figure 16 Responses to question "Have you ever eaten whale meat?"

4.8 Mitigating Scenarios

A) The hunted species was threatened/endangered

The majority of participants (79.7%) indicated that they would feel less supportive of Iceland's whaling industry (same amount of support: 15.8%, more supportive: 4.5%; Figure 17).

B) Money was also put towards whale conservation

Most participants (49.8%) indicated they would feel the same amount of support for Iceland's whaling activities (less supportive: 16.7%, more supportive: 33.5%; Figure 17).

C) You would not see as many whales when whale-watching

The majority of participants (56.6%) would feel the same amount of support for whaling if less whales were seen during whale-watching tours, with 38.9% feeling less support, and 4.5% feeling more support (Figure 17).

35 D) You would see the same number of whales when whale-watching

The majority participants (74.2%) would feel the same amount of support for whaling if the same number of whales were seen during whale-watching tours (less supportive: 21.7%, more supportive: 4.1%; Figure 17).

A B C D

100% 4.5% 4.5% 4.1% 90% 15.8% 80% 33.5%

70% 56.6% 60% 74.2% 50% 40% 79.7% 49.8%

% respondents% 30% 20% 38.9% 10% 16.7% 21.7% 0% Targeted species is Money also put towards Less whales visible Same number of whales threatened/ endangered conservation whale-watching visible whale-watching

Less support Same amount of support More support

Figure 17 Amount of support respondents felt for whaling in four different scenarios

The amount of support respondents felt towards whaling in these scenarios did not significantly change between country of origin (Kruskal-Wallis ꭓ² = 4.1589, df = 4, P > 0.05), age (Kruskal-Wallis ꭓ² = 0.14754, df = 3, P > 0.05), gender (Kruskal-Wallis ꭓ² = 5.5317, df = 2, P > 0.05), or membership status to an environmental organisation (Kruskal- Wallis ꭓ² = 5.7543, df = 2, P > 0.05).

36 5 Discussion

Iceland's whaling has been subject to debate since it restarted in 2003, particularly with regards to the possible ramifications its presence could have on the tourism industry. Whale- watching operators are especially concerned with the possibility that whaling could harm local cetacean populations or discourage whale-watchers from booking tours in Iceland. Surveying whale-watchers allows for better understanding of the effect whaling has on the whale-watching industry. Overall, these respondents fit the general demographic profile of whale-watchers and were whale-watching in Húsavík because it fit best with their travel plans. Although the majority were aware of Iceland's whaling activities before arriving in the country, very few were supportive of the industry. While some respondents had eaten whale meat during their stay, the majority were not interested in sampling it.

5.1 New Study Results

5.1.1 Demographics

The majority of the Húsavík whale-watchers were from Europe, followed by North America; together they comprised over 95% of respondents. These results are comparable to the 2019 Tourist Board Data for July and August, where tourist nationalities comprised 45.2% from Europe, 30.8% from North America, and 24.0% from other countries (Icelandic Tourist Board, n.d.). Because Iceland is located between Europe and North America, it is relatively easy for transatlantic passengers to access. Additionally, Icelandair, the country's major international airline, offers extended stays at no extra cost for stopover passengers (Icelandair, 2019). Easy access and the reduced cost for some European and North American visitors has made Iceland a popular tourist destination for individuals from both continents.

Most of the surveyed whale-watchers were between 18 and 29 years of age, slightly younger than Icelandic tourists in general. A 2018 survey of foreign visitors conducted by the Icelandic Tourist Board indicated that most were between 25 and 34 years of age (31%; Icelandic Tourist Board, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d, 2018e, 2018f, 2018g). As respondent numbers decreased in each successive age bracket, it is also possible that younger individuals were more likely to participate in the survey.

37 The majority of respondents in this study were female, more than would be expected based on the general tourist data; half of the visitors to the country in 2018 were male (Icelandic Tourist Board, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d, 2018e, 2018f, 2018g). This indicates that female tourists in Iceland may be more likely than males to attend whale-watching tours, or that they may be more willing to fill out questionnaires.

5.1.2 Environmental Values

Less than 26% of respondents had belonged to an environmental organisation, either in the past or at the time of the survey. This is slightly more than whale-watchers in Reykjavík, 22.7% of whom had been members of such an organisation at some point (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016). This could indicate that, as a group, whale-watchers in Húsavík are not exceptionally environmentally aware, and view whale-watching as a fun activity rather than one with any environmental connotations. However, membership in an environmental organisation may be less indicative of environmental consciousness than a person's everyday behaviours (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016).

5.1.3 Whale-Watching

Almost 16% of respondents had been to Iceland at least once prior to this trip, and one couple stated that they were planning to visit the country in fall, winter, spring, and summer. This is similar to the tourist data from prior years (19.1% of tourists in 2011 were repeat visitors, as were 19.9.1% in 2014, and 19.64% in 2016; Icelandic Tourist Board, 2012, 2014, 2016). This, along with the country of origin and age data, shows that Húsavík whale-watchers fit the general profile of Icelandic tourists.

The majority of respondents had never joined a whale-watching tour before being surveyed. Slightly more than one third had completed bookings after arriving in Iceland but prior to the day of the tour. Nearly a third had booked before arriving in Iceland, and similar numbers booked on the same day as their tour.

The most common reason given for going whale-watching in Húsavík as opposed to Reykjavík was that Húsavík was better fit with respondents' travel plans. Húsavík is a small town with relatively few tourist activities, and whale-watching is the biggest draw for visitors (Annisius, 2014). In contrast, Reykjavík has many attractions and activities for

38 tourists to explore in addition to whale-watching (Konior, 2018). Therefore, tourists who visit both locations may have decided to take a whale-watching tour in Húsavík while visiting other attractions in the capital. The second most common reason given to whale- watch in Húsavík was that it is a better location than Reykjavík. Húsavík is considered one of the best places to see whales in Iceland, a reputation that is strongly marketed towards tourists (Nicosia & Perini, 2016; Parson & Rawles, 2003). This makes it an appealing location to first time whale-watchers and those that want to get the best possible experience.

A small number of respondents indicated that their decision to go whale-watching was spontaneous. Húsavík is one of the larger towns in the area and is a convenient place for people travelling on the ring road to stop to eat and spend the night. People who stop for a break, arrive on a cruise ship, or experience car trouble (as one respondent did) may decide to take advantage of being in a town that offers whale-watching and book a tour. The least common reasons given for going whale-watching in Húsavík were that it was decided by others, such as tour groups or cruise lines, or because of the whaling activities that occur near Faxaflói Bay. The decision not to go whale-watching in a location where whales are hunted could be based on the idea that doing so would indicate support or neutrality towards whaling. This is essentially the view that going whale-watching in a whaling nation encourages the latter, but on a smaller scale. Whale-watchers may also be concerned that their tour boat could encounter ships actively hunting whales.

5.1.4 Support for Whaling

Over half of the respondents were aware of Iceland's whaling activities before they arrived in the country, with a further 18% finding out before they went whale-watching. However, despite the majority of respondents knowing about Icelandic whaling before going on their tour, only 5% supported the practice. Of the three Icelanders surveyed, only one opposed the country's commercial whaling. .

Support for whaling was mostly based on the belief that it is part of Icelandic culture or tradition. These respondents may have more positive feelings for the activity because they view it as part of the country's heritage, in which whaling has value as a practice, not just for what it can provide. The belief that it was part of local tradition or culture was also one of the main reasons some respondents were unsure whether they supported whaling. Scientific research was the second most common reason given to support whaling, as data taken from

39 caught whales (such as stomach contents or tissue samples) can provide valuable information on cetacean biology. Conservation, whales as animals, and moral conviction were also cited by respondents. Whale-watchers who support whaling may view it as a way to manage the whale population and reduce predation on fish stocks. Moral conviction in favour of whaling supports the notion that Icelanders have a right to hunt marine mammals in their territorial waters (Einarsson, 2009).

A larger variety of reasons were given for opposition towards whaling. Chief among these was moral conviction, where respondents did not view whaling as an acceptable behaviour due to their own personal beliefs. This shows strong support for the view that whales are "special" animals that should be protected rather than exploited for human use (Corkeron, 2006). Respondents mentioned that whaling was detrimental to conservation and the environment, indicating that they may view whales as endangered through hunting. Whaling was also considered unnecessary by some; the one Icelandic individual who did not support whaling wrote that, "the market for it today is in whale watching". Whales as animals, whaling as part of Icelandic culture or tradition, scientific research, economics, and human health were also given as reasons to oppose whaling. Those that selected "whaling as part of Icelandic culture" or "scientific research" may believe that this is not sufficient to justify the current whaling practices. A small number of respondents indicated that they were vegan or vegetarian, in which case they would be more likely to oppose whaling whether they view whales as "special" animals or not.

Whether respondents supported or opposed whaling, most of their opinions were based on how the practice would affect cetaceans or humans in general, rather than other industries. While the Icelandic individual who opposed whaling believed that whale-watching was more valuable, they were the only respondent who compared them. This could indicate that even if whale-watchers are aware that both industries rely on the same populations, they do not necessarily view whaling as a risk to their whale-watching experience.

5.1.5 Whale Meat Consumption

The majority of respondents had no desire to try whale meat, while a small number were interested in doing so, and even fewer had eaten it in Iceland. Amongst Húsavík whale- watchers there is little demand for whale meat; this could be due to opposition towards

40 whaling or simple disinterest in the meat. One respondent asked the researcher if "seafood soup" would contain whale meat and was concerned by the possibility.

5.1.6 Mitigating Measures

The majority of respondents were less supportive of whaling when the targeted species was considered threatened. Of the two species hunted in Iceland, the fin whale is listed as "vulnerable" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), meaning that it is thought to be at risk of becoming extinct (Cooke, 2018a; IUCN, 2019). Whale-watchers who are aware of this are likely to be more resistant to the fin whale hunt when compared to species listed as "least concern", such as the minke whale (Cooke, 2018b). While the fin whale is currently threatened by ship strikes and entanglement rather than whaling (IUCN, 2019), Iceland's targeting of this species may be actively damaging to the country's reputation.

Most of the surveyed whale-watchers indicated they would feel the same amount of support for whaling if the country also spent money on conservation efforts. However, a fair number of respondents would feel increased support for whaling, and this was the only given scenario where there was no majority opinion.

The number of whales visible when whale-watching in a whaling nation had no effect on the amount of support felt for whaling. Respondents were unlikely to know if they were seeing fewer whales than usual, especially since most of them were first-time whale-watchers with no expectations. Additionally, because Iceland is currently hunting whales, any change in visible numbers would have no effect on these respondents.

It should be noted that this question was confusing for some participants, and responses to the scenarios, particularly " (C) You would not see as many whales when whale-watching" may not be accurate.

41 5.2 Comparison with Other Studies

5.2.1 Demographics

The demographic profile of respondents in this study mirrors that of most whale-watching tourists. Nationality results were similar Bertulli, Leeney et al.'s (2016) findings from Reykjavík, whose participants were 82.3% Europeans, 10.4% North Americans, and 7.2% from other countries.

Respondents in this study were slightly younger than those surveyed in Iceland in the past; 40% of whale-watchers in Húsavík were under 40 (Nicosia & Perini, 2016), while 38.1% of those in Reykjavík were between 26 and 40 years of age (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016). However, they are similar to other studies conducted with whale-watchers. A study of dolphin watchers in Panama found that almost 70% of respondents were between 18 and 29 years old (Sitar et al., 2017). Most whale-watchers surveyed in Hervey Bay, Australia were between 25 and 34 years old (21.7%; Tkaczynski & Rundle-Thiele, 2018).

There is a general trend among whale-watching studies that the majority of respondents are female. In Iceland, 55% of Húsavík whale-watchers surveyed in 2014 were female (Nicosia & Perini, 2016), as were 51.7% of whale-watchers surveyed in Reykjavík (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016). Females made up 54% of whale-watchers in Alaska (Lopez & Pearson, 2017), and 63% on dolphin watching trips in Panama (Sitar et al., 2017). In , 56.6% of customers using community-based whale-watching companies were male, but 60% of those going with private companies in the same bay were female (Cornejo-Ortega, Chavez- Dagostino & Malcolm, 2018). Parsons et al. (2003) found that while the majority tourists to west Scotland were male (57.3%), most surveyed whale-watchers were female (51.4%), similar to what was found in this study.

5.2.2 Environmental Values

Participation in environmental organisations varies amongst whale-watchers. Only 13% of respondents in Hervey Bay, Australia were part of an environmental group (Muloin, 1996 cited by Rawles and Parsons, 2004). As previously mentioned, 22.7% of whale-watchers in Reykjavík belonged to an environmental organisation at some point (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016). In contrast, nearly 40% of whale-watchers in Tangalooma, Australia (Muloin 1998

42 cited by Lück, 2003), and 34% of boat-based whale-watchers in the San Juan Islands (Finkler, 2001 cited by Lück, 2003) had been members of an environmental group. An unusually high percentage of whale-watchers in west Scotland belonged to an environmental organisation; 58% of respondents in Parsons et al.'s (2003) study, and 46.6% in a 2004 paper (Rawles & Parsons, 2004). Overall, Húsavík's whale-watchers are on the lower end of the spectrum when it comes to active participation in environmental causes. However, this does not necessarily indicate a lack of concern when it comes to environmental protection; this study did not ask about other pro-environmental behaviours that respondents engaged in (recycling, reducing carbon footprint, etc.). Nicosia & Perini (2016) found that, while respondents were generally not considering the environment when booking their tours, they did take note of whether boat operators were behaving appropriately around the whales.

5.2.3 Whale-Watching

The number of first-time whale-watchers surveyed was similar to that of previous Icelandic studies, both in Húsavík (70%; Nicosia & Perini, 2016) and Reykjavík (71.1%; Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016). Globally, the majority of individuals going whale-watching have no prior experience (Finkler, 2001 cited by Lück, 2003; Lopez & Pearson, 2017; Muloin, 1998 cited by Lück, 2003).

Respondents in this study cited the reasoning that Húsavík was a better whale-watching location than Reykjavík nearly as often as they chose Húsavík being the best fit with travel plans. This is quite different from Nicosia & Perini's (2016) results, where 76.5% of respondents went whale-watching in Húsavík because it was considered the best location. In fact, 94.5% of surveyed whale-watchers in that study had visited Húsavík specifically to go whale-watching (Nicosia & Perini, 2016). Húsavík is generally considered the best whale- watching location in Iceland (Nicosia & Perini, 2016). Guide to Iceland, a cooperative for Iceland's tourism operators, states that whale-watchers in Húsavík have the highest chance of seeing whales and engaging displays of behaviour (Haraldsdóttir, n.d.). Iceland's official tourism website emphasises both Reykjavík and Húsavík as whale-watching locations but credits the later with "pioneering" whale-watching tourism (Inspired by Iceland, n.d.). For habitual whale-watchers, or those thoroughly planning out their whale-watching trip, places like Húsavík or Snaefellsnes, where you can see a larger variety of rarer species, are often recommended (Haraldsdóttir, n.d.; Whaletrips, 2020). However, most tourists to Iceland will

43 have busy itineraries, so while Húsavík may be the "Whale Capital of Iceland", the difference in quality is likely small enough that whale-watchers will preferentially choose what is most convenient for them. Tourists planning to go whale-watching are generally told to pick their tour location based on their travel plans or expectations for the tour, whether that is seeing certain species, ease of access, or reliability (Haraldsdóttir, n.d.; Touris, n.d.). It is also possible that Húsavík's reputation as a whale-watching location gives it an edge over other towns in the area. Akureyri, Hauganes, and Dalvík also provide whale-watching tours, but service fewer customers (Nicosia & Perini, 2016). Respondents in this study showed that most whale-watchers to Húsavík find it the most convenient location, but its reputation as a whale-watching locale helps draw tourists away from Reykjavík and possibly from surrounding towns.

Very few respondents' choice of where to go whale-watching was affected by the whaling activities in Faxaflói Bay. As seen in both this study and others, most whale-watchers, and, in fact, most tourists, in Iceland are aware of the country's whaling activities before they arrive (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016; Wende & Gothall, 2008). These individuals are clearly willing to go whale-watching in a whaling nation, and those who go on tours out of Reykjavík extend that acceptance to the city itself. Additionally, of those individuals who were affected by the whaling in Faxaflói Bay, the majority had multiple reasons to go to a different location. Even if the Icelandic whale-watching industry is being harmed by whaling, Reykjavík is not particularly affected.

5.2.4 Support for Whaling

Icelandic whale-watchers are generally unsupportive of whaling; 75.2% of surveyed whale- watchers in Reykjavík indicated that they opposed the practice (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016), as did 75% of respondents in this study. While there were too few respondents from whaling countries in this study to draw conclusions, nationality has been seen to influence whether people approved the practice or not, with the majority of individuals in Reykjavík who were from whaling nations supporting whaling (Bertulli, Leeney et al., 2016). Wakamatsu, Shin, Wilson, & Managi (2018) found that 96% of respondents from Australia, a non-whaling nation, opposed the practice, compared to only 27% in Japan, where whaling does occur.

The belief that whaling is part of Iceland's culture was the primary reason given by supportive respondents; this is, however, incorrect. While Icelanders hunted small cetaceans

44 and harvested whales that came on shore, their whaling industry did not begin until the 20th century, at which point they started targeting the great whales (Edvardsson, 2015; Rasmussen, 2014). Interestingly, both Icelandic respondents who supported whaling believed that commercial whaling was Icelandic tradition, demonstrating that this is a misconception prevalent among visiting tourists and locals alike.

Many respondents who supported Icelandic whaling also mentioned that it provides data for scientific research. Recently, fin whales caught during the current commercial hunt have been used to examine how isotopes can be used to track cetacean movement, and to analyse pollutant levels in this species (Borrell, Saiz, Víkingsson, López Fernández & Aguilar, 2018; Garcia-Garin et al., 2020; Vighi, Borrell, Víkingsson, Gunlaugsson & Aguilar, 2018). The 2003-2007 research programs provided minke whale data that has recently been used to investigate their behavioural ecology (Christiansen, Víkingsson, Rasmussen & Lusseau, 2013; Víkingsson et al., 2013). However, while these studies provide information on the fin and minke whale populations in Iceland, there is little current data from other regions to compare them to. There also exists a wide array of non-lethal methods that can be used to collect physiological data, such as sloughed skin, blow vapour, and biopsy sampling (Burgess, Hunt, Kraus, & Rolland, 2018; Gauthier & Sears, 1999; Valsecchi, Glockner- Ferrari, Ferrari, & Amos, 1998).

"Conservation" as a reason to support whaling could possibly be referring to conserving fish stocks by managing the local whale populations. Icelanders have long considered cetaceans to be in competition with fishermen for important commercial stocks (Altherr, 2003; Einarsson, 2009). Icelandic whaling companies have maintained that whaling is necessary to protect the balance of the marine ecosystem, as whales catch significantly more fish than fishermen do every year (Altherr, 2003). Simulations have shown that completely eradicating toothed whales would increase biomass in some fisheries, but baleen whales were found to have the lowest impact on the ecosystem, and both the fin and minke whale populations rely on non-commercial species for the majority of their diet (Morissette, Christensen, & Pauly, 2012; Víkingsson et al., 2015). While over 100 fin whales have been caught every year the hunt takes place, less than 50 minke whales have been taken annually since 2013, which would be unlikely to have a large effect on the fish stocks (IWC, 2012b).

Overall, whale-watchers who support whaling mainly do so because of incorrect perceptions of the practice. As whaling does not maintain Icelandic traditions and provides little in the

45 way of scientific research, its main contribution to the country is the revenue made from the sale of whale meat.

5.2.5 Whale Meat Consumption

While whale meat is mostly marketed towards tourists, demand among this group is not necessarily high (Wende & Gothall, 2008). Bertulli, Leeney et al. (2016) found that 65% of respondents had no intention of eating whale meat; of those that had tried it, or were planning to, 69.1% stated that it was out of curiosity. This study showed a 28% increase of whale- watchers who were uninterested in consuming any whale products. This is a newer trend amongst tourists which differs from a 2009 study where 40% of tourists visiting Reykjavík were found to have tried whale meat (IFAW, 2019b). According to Sigursteinn Másson, a lead member of the "Meet Us Don't Eat Us" campaign, tourists would often not make the connection between their own consumption of whale meat and the whale hunt occurring in Faxaflói Bay (IFAW, 2019b). Even as the number of whale-watchers increased, so did demand for whale-based dishes within restaurants (Huijbens & Einarsson, 2018). However, targeted education of tourists in Reykjavík has seen whale meat consumption in the capital drop to 11% in 2018 (IFAW, 2019b).

Húsavík, by contrast, is a completely "whale-friendly" town, as none of the restaurants serve whale, and an attempt by one restaurant in 2015 was cut short due to pressure from local tour operators and researchers (Nicosia & Perini, 2016). This resistance to whale meat has been seen in other locations; in Andenes, a major whale-watching centre in Norway, there was opposition to the inclusion whale burgers on one restaurant's menu, even though whale meat had been sold by the town in the past (Higham & Lusseau, 2008; Kristoffersen, Norum, & Kramvig, 2016 cited by Fironova, 2019). Small towns that rely heavily on whale-watching are likely wary of drawing attention to whaling, under the assumption that this may cause controversy with visiting whale-watchers.

While the Icelandic market for whale meat has been relatively good in the past, efforts by conservation groups have caused its popularity to dwindle. If the sale of whale meat can be used to judge the success of the whaling industry, tourist support for the latter is decreasing steadily.

46 5.3 Recommendations

5.3.1 Caveats

Within the surveyed population, environmental awareness was likely underestimated. As participation in environmental organisations is probably a poorer indicator of environmental awareness than everyday behaviours, future studies could examine factors like transportation choices, waste management, and household energy use. Additionally, many respondents were confused by question 12 and required help understanding the instructions. In the future, a multiple-choice question could be used that asks participants to select which response options would improve their opinion of whaling.

While the questionnaires were tested for readability, all the individuals who helped with this were native English speakers, and as such had a greater ease of comprehension than those respondents for whom English is a second language. For future studies, the questionnaires could be translated into multiple languages, if feasible.

Being able to attend whale-watching tours would have helped increase the number of questionnaires collected. While clients are advised by the whale-watching companies to be at the dock 15 minutes before departure time, few groups do this. Additionally, it was difficult for a single researcher to handle more than two groups at a time, reducing the number of questionnaires that could be completed before participants had to get on the ship. Going on the tours, or having multiple people hand out surveys, would increase the number of completed questionnaires.

Individuals going whale-watching on rigid inflatable boat (RIB) tours were more difficult to survey than those going on the sailboats, as the former spent little time on the quay before boarding. However, people going whale-watching on RIB with Gentle Giants would wait in a cordoned off area that contained benches and tables. Asking permission to leave questionnaires in this area may have increased the sample size.

This study focused solely on those whale-watchers who were already visiting Iceland; whatever their thoughts on whaling, they had already decided to go whale-watching when they filled out the questionnaire. There was no focus on potential tourists to Iceland, and whether the presence of whaling would affect their decision to visit.

47 5.3.2 Iceland

Overall, whaling does not have a large effect on Iceland's whale-watching industry. While the majority of whale-watchers are opposed to whaling, most are aware that it takes place when they book their tour. Whaling may have had a negative effect on tour bookings when it first started, but there has since been an increase in the number and size of whale-watching companies.

Many tourists lack information about the Icelandic whaling industry, especially with regards to its history and place in the country's culture. Providing more information to the public, possibly in the form of educational campaigns, would likely reduce support for the practice.

Whaling activities in Iceland have declined over the past several years due to the economic difficulties in maintaining the industry (AFP, 2020; Kyzer, 2019b). This has culminated in the permanent stop of the minke whale hunt in 2020, as it has grown too expensive, with the fin whale hunt at risk for the same reason (AFP, 2020; Ćirić, 2020).

Whale-watching vessels have been used by researchers to gather data for a multitude of studies on both their natural lives and the anthropogenic effects affecting them (Basran, 2014; Basran et al., 2019; Bertulli et al., 2016b; Bertulli et al., 2015; Brown, 2019; Samarra et al., 2018; Senigaglia et al., 2016). Whale-watching companies have also provided important platforms for citizen science projects, which, along with the education they provide for whale-watchers, are beneficial for cetacean conservation (Happywhale, 2019; Lopez & Pearson, 2017; Pacific Whale foundation, 2019; Atlantic Whale and Dolphin Foundation, 2019; Zeppel & Muloin, 2008)

5.3.3 Future Research

Within Iceland, an investigation into the economics of whale-watching and whaling operations would help determine the strengths and weaknesses of each industry. The financial profits of Iceland's whale-watching have been periodically examined alongside other countries (Hoyt, 2001; O'Connor et al., 2009), but an in-depth look at the entire Icelandic industry would provide a more comprehensive view. An economic report was released in 2019 that summarized the profits of the whaling and whale-watching industries (Ćirić, 2019a). However, it incited widespread criticism, with some detractors calling it

48 propaganda (Kyzer, 2019a). Whale-watching companies perceived the report as biased in favour of the whaling industry and stated that they were not consulted by the author (Ćirić, 2019c, Kyzer, 2019a). Conservation groups criticised the report for implying that they are terrorist organisations and said that it made incorrect claims, such as that hunting whales would increase the country's fish stocks (Ćirić, 2019b, Kyzer, 2019a). Redoing this report with authors from various disciplines and examining the interactions between whaling and whale-watching in locations other than Reykjavík and Húsavík would provide a more comprehensive view. Additionally, determining the profits of whale meat as sold in restaurants would contribute more in-depth information of its popularity with tourists as a whole.

If all Icelandic whaling ceases, sampling of tourists and whale-watchers could be done to determine if the discontinuance is wildly known, whether tourists had been avoiding visiting because of the whaling activities, and how their opinions of whaling compare to those sampled while the industry was still active.

Outside of Iceland, similar studies could be conducted in whaling nations to develop a larger data base of tourist and whale-watchers' perceptions of whaling. By doing this in countries that practice commercial whaling (Japan and Norway) and those that practice aboriginal whaling (such as the Faroe Islands and Alaska), tourists' opinions for the different types of whaling can be contrasted and compared. Investigation of the perceptions of tourists visiting non-whaling nations towards whale-watching, whaling, and whale meat consumption should also be examined. This information can be compared to studies within whaling nations to see how opinions differ between samples.

49

50 6 Conclusion

Iceland's whale-watching industry has grown rapidly in the past few decades, both in scope and size. More towns are offering tours, and companies are expanding to serve larger numbers of tourists. Small communities have taken advantage of the demand for this activity to help diversify their local economies. In Húsavík, whale-watching has become incredibly lucrative, with four companies operating from the town's harbour. However, though the tourism industry relies on wild cetacean populations to support the whale-watching industry, Iceland has hunted fin and minke whales for several years to provide meat for the domestic and international markets. The whaling industry, which operates in Faxaflói Bay, has been a consistent source of controversy and public debate since its recommencement in 2003. For the past several years, there has been discussion about the possible effects the whaling industry has on whale-watching and whether the two industries can successfully operate in the same country.

This study has shown that whale-watchers in Húsavík fall within the general demographic profile of both tourists in Iceland and whale-watchers in general. Their choice to go whale- watching in Húsavík was predicated on developing a feasible travel plan and getting the best possible whale-watching experience. They are opposed to the whaling industry and unwilling to support it through the purchase of whale meat. However, Iceland's whaling activities did not have a strong effect on their decision to visit Iceland or partake in a whale- watching tour. Support of whaling was mostly based on the erroneous belief that it is part of Icelandic tradition, while opposition stemmed mainly from individuals who consider the practice to be morally wrong. These views highlight a major argument within the whale- watching debate: are whales a resource that Icelanders have the right to harvest, or symbolic animals that should be protected in their own right?

Reducing or permanently stopping Iceland's whaling activities in unlikely to have a strong effect on its whale-watching industry. However, the former has weakened economically over the past several years, and the last whaling company is in danger of failing. Whale hunting in Iceland may soon be over, not through boycotts, but because today's tourists are more interested in seeing them in the wild than on a plate.

51

52 References

Agence France-Presse (2006, October 22). Icelandic whalers kill the first fin whale. Space Daily. Retrieved from https://www.spacedaily.com/

Agence France-Presse (2014, May 9). Japan imports tonnes of whale meat from Iceland, Greenpeace says. Phys Org. Retrieved from https://phys.org/

Agence France-Presse (2020, April 26). No whaling in Iceland for second straight year. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved from https://www.thejakartapost.com/life

Albrecht, S., & Rasmussen, M. H. (2019). Habitat use of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in Skjálfandi Bay, North Iceland. Poster session presented at the Worlds Marine Mammal conference, Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338533638_World_Marine_Mammal_Co nference_2019_Poster_- _Habitat_use_of_minke_whales_Balaenoptera_acutorostrata_in_Skjalfandi_Bay_N orth_Iceland

Altherr, S. (2003). Iceland's whaling comeback: Preparations for the resumption of whaling [Special report]. Munich, Germany: Pro Wildlife, Wiltshire, United Kingdom: Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Washington, D.C.: Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/archive/assets/pdfs/Iceland_report _pt1.pdf and http://his- old.pub30.convio.net/assets/pdfs/icelands_whaling_comeback_pt2.pdf

Annisius, D. C. (2014). Managing seasonality in tourism: Challenges and opportunities for the tourism industry in Húsavík, Iceland (Bachelor's Dissertation, Dalarna University). Retrieved from DiVA (urn:nbn:se:du-14307)

Aron, W., Burke, W., & Freeman, M. M. R. (2000). The whaling issue. Marine Policy, 24(3), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(99)00031-7

Basran, C. J. (2014). Scar-based analysis and eyewitness accounts of entanglement of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in fishing gear in Iceland. (Master’s thesis, University Centre of the Westfjords). Retrieved from Skemman. (http://hdl.handle.net/1946/19615)

Basran, C. J., Bertulli, C. G., Cecchetti A., Rasmussen M. H., Whittaker M., & Robbins J. (2019) First estimates of entanglement rate of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae observed in coastal Icelandic waters. Endangered Species Research, 38, 67-77. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00936

Bertulli, C. G., Cecchetti, A., Van Bressem, M.-F., & Van Waerebeek, K. (2012). Skin disorders in common minke whales and white-beaked dolphins off Iceland, a photographic assessment. Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology, 5(2), 29- 40. Retrieved from http://www.oers.ca/journal/volume5/issue2/scientific-vol5- iss2.pdf

53 Bertulli, C. G., Galatius, A., Kinze, C. C., Rasmussen, M. H., Keener, W., & Webber, M. A. (2016). Color patterns in white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) from Iceland. Marine Mammal Science, 32(3), 1072-1098. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12312

Bertulli, C. G., Leeney, R. H., Barreau, T., & Matassa, D. S. (2016). Can whale-watching and whaling coexist? Tourist perceptions in Iceland. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 96(4), 969-977. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002531541400006X

Bertulli, C. G., Rasmussen, M.H, & Tetley, M.J. (2013). Photo-identification rate and wide-scale movement of common minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in the coastal waters of Faxaflói and Skjálfandi Bays, Iceland. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 13(1), 39-45. Retrieved from https://archive.iwc.int/pages/search.php?ref=1469&search=%21collection15+&ord er_by=title&offset=0&restypes=&starsearch=&archive=&per_page=240&default_ sort_direction=DESC&sort=DESC&context=Modal&k=&curpos=&go=up&place= 1469

Bertulli, C. G., Rasmussen, M. H., & Rosso, M. (2016). An assessment of the natural marking patterns used for photo-identification of common minke whales and white- beaked dolphins in Icelandic waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 96(4), 807- 819. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315415000284

Bertulli, C. G., Tetley, M. J., Magnúsdóttir, E. E., & Rasmussen, M. H. (2015). Observations of movement and site fidelity of white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) in Icelandic coastal waters using photo-identification. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 15, 27-34. Retrieved from https://archive.iwc.int/pages/search.php?ref=1469&search=%21collection15+&ord er_by=title&offset=0&restypes=&starsearch=&archive=&per_page=240&default_ sort_direction=DESC&sort=DESC&context=Modal&k=&curpos=&go=up&place= 1469

Björgvinsson, A. (2007). Whaling undermines whale watching in Iceland. Retrieved from https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?105340/Whaling-undermines-whale-watching- in-Iceland

Borrell, A., Saiz, L., Víkingsson, G. A., Gaufier, P., López Fernández, A., & Aguilar, A. (2018). Fin whales as bioindicators of multi-decadal change in carbon and oxygen stable isotope shifts in the North Atlantic. Marine Environmental Research, 138, 129-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.04.014

Brown, J. L. (2019). Abundance and distribution shifts of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Ísafjarðardjúp (Master’s thesis, University Centre of the Westfjords). Retrieved from Skemman. (http://hdl.handle.net/1946/34020)

Burgess, E. A., Hunt, K. E., Kraus, S. D., & Rolland, M. R. (2018). Quantifying hormones in exhaled breath for physiological assessment of large whales at sea. Science Report 8, 10031. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28200-8

54 Cecchetti, A. (2006). The spatial and temporal distribution of cetaceans within Skjálfandi bay, North East Iceland (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Wales, Bangor, United Kingdom.

Christiansen, F., Rasmussen, M. H., & Lusseau, D. (2013a). Inferring activity budgets in wild animals to estimate the consequences of disturbances. Behavioral Ecology, 24(6), 1415-1425. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/art086

Christiansen, F., Rasmussen, M. H., & Lusseau, D. (2013b). Whale watching disrupts feeding activities of minke whales on a feeding ground. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 478, 239-251. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10163

Christiansen, F., & Lusseau, D. (2014). Understanding the ecological effects of whale- watching on cetaceans. In J. Higham, L. Bejder, & R. Williams (Eds.), Whale- Watching: Sustainable Tourism and Ecological Management (pp. 177-192). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Christiansen, F., Víkingsson, G. A., Rasmussen, M. H., & Lusseau, D. (2013). Minke whales maximise energy storage on their feeding grounds. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 216, 427-36. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.074518

Ćirić, J. (2019, January 17). Icelandic economists say whaling overall profitable. Iceland Review. Retrieved from https://www.icelandreview.com/

Ćirić, J. (2019, January 21). Environmental association calls to redo whaling report. Iceland Review. Retrieved from https://www.icelandreview.com/

Ćirić, J. (2019, January 24). Whale watching companies condemn whaling report. Iceland Review. Retrieved from https://www.icelandreview.com/

Ćirić, J. (2020, July 8). Case Against Whaling Company Could Lead to Its Dissolution. Iceland Review. Retrieved from https://www.icelandreview.com/

Clark, C. W., & Lamberson, R. (1982). An economic history and analysis of pelagic whaling. Marine Policy, 6(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308- 597X(82)90065-3

Cook, D., Malinauskaite, L., Davíðsdóttir, B., Ögmundardóttir, H., & Roman, J. (2020). Reflections on the ecosystem services of whales and valuing their contribution to human well-being. Ocean & Coastal Management, 186, 105100.

Cooke, J. G. (2018a). Balaenoptera acutorostrata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018. T2474A50348265. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T2474A50348265.en

Cooke, J. G. (2018b). Balaenoptera physalus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018. T2478A50349982. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018- 2.RLTS.T2478A50349982.en

55 Corkeron, P. (2006). How shall we watch whales? In D. Lavigne (Ed.), Gaining ground: In pursuit of ecological sustainability. Proceedings of an international forum (pp. 161-170). Guelph, Canada: International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Cornejo-Ortega, J. L., Chavez-Dagostino, R. M., & Malcolm, C. D. (2018). Whale watcher characteristics, expectation- Satisfaction, and opinions about whale watching for private vs community-based companies in Bahía de Banderas, Mexico. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 13(5), 790-804. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V13-N5-790-804

Cunningham P. A., Huijbens E. H., & Wearing S. L. (2012). From whaling to whale watching: Examining sustainability and cultural rhetoric. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 143-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.632091

Davis, L. E., Gallman, R. E., & Gleiter, K. (1997). Modern whaling. In In pursuit of leviathan: Technology, institutions, productivity, and profits in American whaling, 1816-1906 (pp. 498–512). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dooley, B., & Ueno, H. (2019, July 1). Japan resumes commercial whaling. But is there an appetite for it? New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/

Edvardsson, R. (2015). The Strákatangi whaling project in Strandasýsla: An archaeological site in the Westfjords. In V. G. Miglio & X. Irujo (Eds.), Basque whaling in Iceland in the XVII century. Legal organization, cultural exchange and conflicts of the Basque fisheries in the North Atlantic (1st ed., pp. 319–345). Santa Barbara, CA: University of Santa Barbara.

Edvardsson, R., & Rafnsson, M. (2006). Basque whaling around Iceland. Westfjords Natural History Institue and the Museum of Icelandic Sorcery and Witchcraft. Retrieved from http://www.galdrasyning.is/baskarnir.pdf

Einarsson, N. (2009). From good to eat to good to watch: Whale watching, adaptation and change in Icelandic fishing communities. Polar Research, 28(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-8369.2008.00092.x

Endo, A., & Yamao, M. (2007). Policies governing the distribution of by-products from scientific and small-scale coastal . Marine Policy, 31(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2006.06.001

European Union (2014, September 15). EU leads an international demarche against whaling by Iceland [Memorandum]. European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_14_529

Finkler, W. (2001). The experiential impact of whale watching: Implications for management in the case of the San Juan Islands, USA (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Fironova, A. (2019). Whales and whale meat dining opportunities in destination image perception. (Master’s thesis, University of Stavanger). Retrieved from SV-NHS. (http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2621578)

56 Freeman, M. M. R. (1993). The International Whaling Commission, small-type whaling, and coming to terms with subsistence. Human Organization, 52(3), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.52.3.f12883h2r7ur6504

Garcia-Garin, O., Sala, B., Aguilar, A., Vighi, M., Víkingsson, G. A., Chosson, V., … Borrell, A. (2020). Organophosphate contaminants in North Atlantic fin whales. Science of The Total Environment, 721, 137768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137768

Gauthier, J., & R. Sears. (1999). Behavioral response of four species of balaenopterid whales to biopsy sampling. Marine Mammal Science 15(1), 85-101. Retrieved from https://www.rorqual.com/downloads/behavioral-response-of-four-species-of- balaenopterid-whales-to-biopsy-sampling-pdf.pdf

Gentle Giants. (2016a). GG2 big whale safari & puffins. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://gentlegiants.is/tours-and-bookings/gg2-big-whale-safari-and-puffins

Gentle Giants. (2016b). Timetable 2020. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://gentlegiants.is/tours-and-bookings/timetable

George, J. C., Bockstoce, J. R., Punt A. E., & Botkin, D. B. (2007). Preliminary estimates of bow-head whale body mass and length from Yankee commercial oil yield records. Paper SC/59/BRG5 presented to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, Anchorage, AK. Retrieved from http://www.north- slope.org/assets/images/uploads/SC-59-BRG5%20Yankee%20oil.pdf

Gillespie, A. (2005). Whaling diplomacy: Defining issues in international environmental law. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gorman, M. (2008). Whale oil - An overview. Retrieved from http://www.scran.ac.uk/packs/exhibitions/learning_materials/webs/40/whaleoil_ove rview.htm

Gorman, M. (2009). Whale meat. Retrieved from http://www.scran.ac.uk/packs/exhibitions/learning_materials/webs/40/whale_meat. htm

Hafstað, V. (2020, April 24). No whaling this summer. Iceland Monitor. Retrieved from https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/

Hammond, P. S., Mizroch, S. A., & Donovan, G. P. (1990). Individual recognition of cetaceans: Use of photo-identification and other techniques to estimate population parameters. [Report in Special Issue 12]. Cambridge, United Kingdom: International Whaling Commission. Retrieved from http://www.vliz.be/en/imis?module=ref&refid=232857&printversion=1&dropIMIS title=1

Haraldsdóttir, L. (n.d.). Whale watching in Iceland. Retrieved from https://guidetoiceland.is/nature-info/whale-watching-in-iceland

57 Herrera, G. E., & Hoagland, P. (2006). Commercial whaling, tourism, and boycotts: An economic perspective. Marine Policy, 30(3), 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2004.12.005

Higham, J. E. S., & Lusseau, D. (2008). Slaughtering the goose that lays the golden egg: Are whaling and whale-watching mutually exclusive? Current Issues in Tourism, 11(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.2167/cit335.0

Hoyt, E. (2001). Whale watching 2001: worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and expanding socioeconomic benefits. [Special report]. Yarmouth Port, MA: International Fund for Animal Welfare. Retrieved from http://erichhoyt.com/eh/Downloads_files/Hoyt%20WW%202001%20Report.pdf

Hoyt, E. (2002). Whale watching. In W. F. Perrin, B. Würsig, & J. G. M. Thewissen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals (pp.1305-1310). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hoyt, E., & Hvenegaard, G. T. (2002). A Review of whale-watching and whaling with applications for the Caribbean. Coastal Management, 30(4), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/089207502900273

Huijbens, E. H., & Einarsson, N. (2018) Feasting on friends: Whales, puffins, and tourism in Iceland. In C. Kline (Ed.), Tourism experiences and animal consumption: Contested values, morality, and ethics (pp. 10-27). Abingdon-on-Thames, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Húsavík Adventures. (2018). Daily departures and prices 2020. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://husavikadventures.is/timetable/

Iceland Review. (2006, October 19). Whaling is affecting tourism. Iceland Review. Retrieved from https://www.icelandreview.com/

Iceland Review. (2009, February 19). Iceland confirms whaling quota for 2009. Iceland Review. Retrieved from https://www.icelandreview.com/

Iceland Review. (2015, May 13). Icelandic whale watchers protest hunt. Iceland Review. Retrieved from https://www.icelandreview.com/

Icelandair. (2019). A transatlantic journey with a stopover in Iceland. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from https://www.icelandair.com/en-ca/flights/stopover/

Icelandic Tourist Board. (n.d.). Numbers of foreign visitors. Retrieved February 19, 2020, from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/en/recearch-and-statistics/numbers-of-foreign- visitors

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2012). International visitors in Iceland: Visitor survey summer 2011. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/upload/files/Erlendir%20gestir_2011_10_ English_final2.pdf

58 Icelandic Tourist Board. (2014). International visitors in Iceland: Summer 2014. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/ferdamalastofa/Frettamyndir/2014/desem ber/2014-12- 17_ferdamalastofa_erlendirferdamenn_an_vaka_maskinuskyrsla_enska.pdf

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2016). International visitors in Iceland: Summer 2016. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/ferdamalastofa/Frettamyndir/2017/januar/ sunarkonnun/sumar-2016-islensk.pdf

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2018a). British travellers in Iceland: Demography, travel behaviour and visitors opinion 2018. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/konnun2018/en/unitedkingdom.pdf

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2018b). Canadian travellers in Iceland: Demography, travel behaviour and visitors opinion 2018. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/konnun2018/en/canada.pdf

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2018c). Chinese travellers in Iceland: Demography, travel behaviour and visitors opinion 2018. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/konnun2018/en/china.pdf

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2018d). French travellers in Iceland: Demography, travel behaviour and visitors opinion 2018. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/konnun2018/en/france.pdf

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2018e). German travellers in Iceland: Demography, travel behaviour and visitors opinion 2018. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/konnun2018/en/germany.pdf

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2018f). Travellers from Nordic countries in Iceland: Demography, travel behaviour and visitors opinion 2018. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/konnun2018/en/nordiccountries.pdf

Icelandic Tourist Board. (2018g). U.S. travellers in Iceland: Demography, travel behaviour and visitors opinion 2018. Retrieved from https://www.ferdamalastofa.is/static/files/konnun2018/en/unitedstates.pdf

IceWhale. (n.d.-a). Choose a whale friendly restaurant. Retrieved from https://icewhale.is/whale-friendly-restaurants/

IceWhale. (n.d.-b). The Icelandic whale watching association. Retrieved from https://icewhale.is/about/

IceWhale. (n.d.-c). Responsible whale watching. Retrieved from https://icewhale.is/code- of-conduct/

IceWhale. (n.d.-d). Whales around Iceland. Retrieved from https://icewhale.is/whales- around-iceland/

59 IceWhale. (n.d.-e). Whale watching in Iceland. Rerieved from https://icewhale.is/whale- watching-in-iceland/

Inspired by Iceland. (n.d.). Whale watching in Iceland. Retrieved from https://visiticeland.com/article/whale-watching

International Fund for Animal Welfare. (2018, July 27). IFAW: Minke whaling in Iceland has stopped. PR Newswire. Retrieved from https://www.prnewswire.com/

International Fund for Animal Welfare. (2019a). About the campaign. Retrieved from https://www.ifaw.is/about-the-campaign/

International Fund for Animal Welfare. (2019b). We asked whale expert Sigursteinn Másson about the Iceland whaling industry- Here's what he revealed. Retrieved from https://www.ifaw.org/people-and-ideas/opinions/we-asked-whale-expert- sigursteinn-masson-about-the-iceland-whaling-industry-heres-what-he-revealed

International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2019). Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria: Version 14. [Special report prepared by the IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee]. Gland, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.

International Whaling Commission (2001). 2001 meeting in London. Retrieved from https://iwc.int/meeting2001

International Whaling Commission (2002). 2002 special meeting. Retrieved from https://iwc.int/specmeeting2002

International Whaling Commission (2012a). Catches taken: Special permit. Retrieved February 1, 2020, from https://iwc.int/table_permit

International Whaling Commission (2012b). Catches taken: Under objection. Retrieve February 1, 2020, from https://iwc.int/table_objection

International Whaling Commission (2016). Commercial whaling. Retrieved from https://iwc.int/commercial

International Whaling Commission (2018). Aboriginal subsistence whaling. Retrieved from https://iwc.int/aboriginal

International Whaling Commission (2019). Scientific permit whaling. Retrieved from https://iwc.int/permits

Järvi, P. (2016). Perceptions, values and attitudes on whales and whale watching by workers on whale watching and - hunting ships. (Master’s thesis, University of Stavanger). Retrieved from SV-NHS. (http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2426496 )

Konior, A. (2018). The Revitalization of the Old Harbor in Reykjavik by a Cultural Economy. Space and Culture, 21(4), 424-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331217750829

60 Kuo, H.-I., Chen, C.-C., & Mcaleer, M. (2012). Estimating the impact of whaling on global whale-watching. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1321–1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.12.015

Kristoffersen, B., Norum, R., & Kramvig, B. (2016). Arctic whale watching and Anthropocene ethics. In M. Gren, & E. H. Huijbens (Eds.), Tourism and the Anthropocene (pp. 94-110). Abingdon-on-Thames, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Kyzer, L. (2019, January 19). Report on economic impact of whaling incites criticism. Iceland Review. Retrieved from https://www.icelandreview.com/

Kyzer, L. (2019, June 28). No whaling this summer. Iceland Review. Retrieved from https://www.icelandreview.com/

Langeree, J. (2020). Saving whales in Iceland: The IFAW approach. Retrieved from https://www.ifaw.org/journal/saving-whales-iceland-ifaw-approach-jalou- langeree

Liu, M. & Cernat, A. (2018). Item-by-item versus matrix questions: A web survey experiment. Social Science Computer Review, 36(6), 690-706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439316674459

Lopez, G., & Pearson, H. C. (2017). Can whale watching be a conduit for spreading educational and conservation messages? A case study in Juneau, Alaska. Tourism in Marine Environments, 12(2), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.37cernat27/154427316X14779456049821

Lück, M. (2003). Environmentalism and on-tour experiences of tourists on wildlife watch tours in New Zealand: A study of visitors watching and/or swimming with wild dolphins (Doctoral thesis, University of Otago). Retrieved from Otago University Research Archive (http://hdl.handle.net/10523/3408)

Marean, C. W., Bar-Matthews, M., Bernatchez, J., Fisher, E., Goldberg, P., Herries, A. I. R., … Williams, H. M. (2007). Early human use of marine resources and pigment in during the Middle Pleistocene. Nature, 449(7164), 905–908. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06204

Martin, S. M. (2012). Whale watching in Iceland: An assessment of whale watching activities on Skjálfandi bay (Master’s thesis, University Centre of the Westfjords). Retrieved from Skemman. (http://hdl.handle.net/1946/12298)

Morissette, L., Christensen, V., & Pauly, D. (2012). Marine mammal impacts in exploited ecosystems: Would large scale culling benefit fisheries? PLoS ONE, 7(9), 43966. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043966

Moyle, B., & Evans, M. (2008). Economic development options for island states: The case of whale-watching. Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures, 2(1), 41–58. Retrieved from https://www.shimajournal.org/issues/v2n1/f.- Moyle-&-Evans-Shima-v2n1.pdf

61 Muloin, S. (1996). Whale watching in Hervey Bay: Results from Matilda II. Townsville, Australia: Department of Tourism, James Cook University

Muloin, S. (1998). Wildlife tourism: The psychological benefits of whale watching. Pacific Tourism Review, 2(3), 199- 213.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2018a). Bowhead Whale. Retrieved from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/bowhead-whale

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2018b). North Atlantic Right Whale. Retrieved from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale

Nicosia, E., & Perini, F. (2016). Ecotourism between theory and practice: Empirical analysis of the tourism industry of whale watching in Húsavík (Iceland). AlmaTourism, 7(14), 60–105. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2036--‐5195/6323

New Bedford Whaling Museum. (n.d.). Whales and hunting. Retrieved from https://www.whalingmuseum.org/learn/research-topics/overview-of-north- american-whaling/whales-hunting

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. (2018). About Us. Retrieved from https://nammco.no/about-us/

North Sailing. (2011). Timetable 2020 Húsavík. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from https://www.northsailing.is/whale-watching/timetable/

O’Connor, S., Campbell, R., Knowles, T., & Cortez, H. (2009). Whale watching worldwide: Tourism numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits [Special report prepared by Economists at Large]. Yarmouth Port, MA: International Fund for Animal Welfare. Retrieved from http://www.ecolarge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/WWWW09.pdf

OpenStreetMap contributors. (2015). [Map of Húsavík harbour]. Planet dump [Data file from 2020]. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/66.04603/-17.34177. License available at https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en

Ovide, B. G. (2017). Using tag data to assess behaviour, vocal sounds, boat noise and potential effects on Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in response to whale watching boats in Skjálfandi Bay (Húsavík), Iceland (Master’s thesis, University Centre of the Westfjords). Retrieved from Skemman. (https://skemman.is/handle/1946/28667)

Parsons, E.C.M. (2012). The Negative Impacts of Whale-Watching. Journal of Marine Biology, e807294. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/807294

Parsons, E. C. M., & Draheim, M. (2009). A reason not to support whaling – A tourism impact case study from the Dominican Republic. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(4), 397–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500902730460

62 Parsons, E. C. M., & Rawles, C. (2003). The resumption of whaling by Iceland and the potential negative impact in the Icelandic whale-watching market. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 444–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667964

Parsons, E.C.M., Warburton, C., Woods-Ballard, A., Hughes, A., Johnston, P., Bates, H., & Lück, M. (2003). Whale-watching Tourists in West Scotland. Journal of Ecotourism, 2(2), 93-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724040308668137

Rasmussen, M. (2014). The whaling versus whale-watching debate. In J. E. S. Higham, L. Bejder, & R. Williams (Eds.), Whale-watching (pp. 81–94). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press

Rawles, C., & Parsons, E. C. M. (2004). Environmental motivation of whale-watching tourists in Scotland. Tourism in Marine Environments, 1(2), 129-132. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427305774865831

Roman, J. (2006). Whale. London, United Kingdom: Reaktion Books.

Roman, J. (2020, January 21). Iceland didn’t hunt any whales in 2019 — And public appetite for whale meat is fading. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/ca

Romero, A. (2012). Yankee whaling in the Caribbean basin: Its impact in a historical Context. In A. Romero & E. O. Keith (Eds.), New Approaches to the Study of Marine Mammals (pp. 223-232). Rijeka, Croatia: Intech.

RStudio Team (2015). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/

Samarra F. I. P., Bassoi M., Béesau J., Elíasdóttir M. Ó., Gunnarsson K., Mrusczok M.-T., ... Víkingsson, G. A. (2018). Prey of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in Iceland. PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0207287. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207287

Sands, Z. V. (2017, August 2). Iceland to import minke whale meat as not enough are hunted. The Reykjavík Grapevine. Retrieved from https://grapevine.is/

Scammon, C. M. (1874). The marine mammals of the Northwestern coast of North America: Together with an account of the American whale-. San Francisco, CA: J.H. Carmany. Retrieved from https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/54884#page/20/mode/1up

Senigaglia V., Christiansen F., Bejder L., Gendron D., Lundquist, D., Noren, D., ... Lusseau, D. (2016). Meta-analyses of whale-watching impact studies: Comparisons of cetacean responses to disturbance. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 542, 251- 263. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11497

Sigurgeirsson S. (2001) Iceland: Culinary traditions. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture 1(2) 86 – 89. Retrieved from https://online.ucpress.edu/gastronomica/article/1/2/86/44340/Iceland

63 Sigurjónsson, J. (1989). To Icelanders, whales were a godsend. Oceanus Magazine, 32, 29–36.

Sitar, A., May-Collado, L., Wright, A., Peters-Burton, E., Rockwood, L., & Parsons, E.C.M. (2017). Tourists' Perspectives on dolphin watching in Bocas Del Toro, Panama. Tourism in Marine Environments, 12(2), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427316X14820977775343

Statistics Iceland. (2020). Population by urban areas, sex and age 2011-2019. Retrieved June 24, 2020, from https://px.hagstofa.is/pxis/pxweb/is/Ibuar/Ibuar__mannfjoldi__2_byggdir__Byggda kjarnar/MAN03105.px/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=31233866-531b-4a62-8521- f1149a2ace86

Taylor-Powell, E., (1998), Questionnaire design: Asking questions with a purpose. [Guide] Madison, WI: UW-Madison Division of Extension. Retrieved from: https://vulms.vu.edu.pk/courses/HRM619/Downloads/How_to_ask_question s_through_questionaire.pdf

Tkaczynski, A., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2019). Identifying whale-watching tourist differences to maximize return on investment. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 25(3), 390–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766718814083

Touris (n.d.) Whale watching in Iceland- Where to go. Retrieved from https://www.tour.is/news/whale-watching-in-iceland-where-to-go

Valsecchi, E., Glockner-Ferrari, D., Ferrari, M., & Amos, W. (1998). Molecular analysis of the efficiency of sloughed skin sampling in whale population genetics. Molecular Ecology, 7(10), 1419–1422. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00446.x

Vighi, M., Borrell, A., Víkingsson, G. A., Gunnlaugsson, T., & Aguilar, A. (2018). Strontium in fin whale baleen: A potential tracer of mysticete movements across the oceans? Science of The Total Environment, 650(1), 1224-1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.103

Víkingsson, G. A., Auðunsson, G., Haug, T., Christiansen, F., Elvarsson, B., Lydersen, C., & Gunnlaugsson, T. (2013). Energy deposition of common minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) during the feeding season in Icelandic waters. Paper SC-65a-002 presented to the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, Jeju, Korea. Retrieved from https://archive.iwc.int/pages/search.php?search=!collection144&bc_from=themes#

Víkingsson, G. A., Pike, D. G., Valdimarsson, H., Schleimer, A., Gunnlaugsson, T., Silva, T., … Hammond, P. S. (2015). Distribution, abundance, and feeding ecology of baleen whales in Icelandic waters: Have recent environmental changes had an effect? Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 3(6), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2015.00006

Wakamatsu, M., Shin, K. J., Wilson, C., Managi, S. (2018). Exploring a gap between Australia and Japan in the economic valuation of whale conservation. Ecological Economics, 146, 397-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.002

64 Watkins, W. A. (1986). Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Marine Mammal Science 2(4), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748- 7692.1986.tb00134.x

Weinstein, M. P., Baird, R. C., Conovor, D. O., Gross, M., Keulartz, J., Loomis, D. K., … van der Windt, H. J. (2007). Managing coastal resources in the 21stcentury. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(1), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[43:MCRITS]2.0.CO;2

Wende, B. D., & Gothall, S. E. (2008). Match point: Watching versus catching the influence of whaling for the whale watching tourism industry in Iceland. (Master’s thesis, Göteborg University). Retrieved from GUPEA. (http://hdl.handle.net/2077/9617 )

Whaletrips. (2020). Whales Iceland. Retrieved from https://whaletrips.org/en/places/iceland/

Williams, N. (2006). Iceland shunned over whale hunting. Current Biology, 16(23), 975– 976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.11.006

Woodby, D. A., & Botkin, D. B. (1993). Stock sizes prior to commercial whaling. In J. J. Burns, J. J. Montague, & C. J. Cowles (Eds.), The bowhead whale (pp. 387–407). Lawrence, KS: Society for Marine Mammology.

Wright, A. J., Simmonds, M. P., & Vernazzani, B. G. (2016). The International Whaling Commission—Beyond whaling. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3(158), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00158

Zeppel, H., & Muloin, S. (2008). Conservation benefits of interpretation on marine wildlife tours. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13(4), 280-294. https://doi.org/10.3727/154427308787716802

65

66 Appendix A

Ethics clearance letter for this project from the Masters Program Committee

Research ethics training and clearance

University Centre of the Westfjords Suðurgata 12 400 Ísafjörður, Iceland +354 450 3040 [email protected]

This letter certifies that Erin Henderson has completed the following modules of:

(X) Basic ethics in research (X) Human subjects research (X) Animal subjects research

Furthermore, the Masters Program Committee has determined that the proposed masters research entitled Effect of Iceland’s whaling on tourists’ decision to participate in whale- watching activities meets the ethics and research integrity standards of the University Centre of the Westfjords. Throughout the course of his or her research, the student has the continued responsibility to adhere to basic ethical principles for the responsible conduct of research and discipline specific professional standards.

University Centre of the Westfjords ethics training certification and research ethics clearance is valid for one year past the date of issue unless otherwise noted.

Effective Date: 17 April 2019 Expiration Date: 17 June 2020

Prior to making substantive changes to the scope of research, research tools, or methods, the student is required to contact the Masters Program Committee to determine whether or not additional review is required.

67

68 Appendix B

Questionnaire used for this study.

Whale-Watchers’ Perceptions of Whaling in Iceland

This anonymous survey is part of MRM research with the University Centre of the Westfjords. Please fill the questionnaire out as completely as possible. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Country of Origin: ______

Age: 18-29 ☐ 30-49 ☐ 50-69 ☐ 70+ ☐

Gender: Female ☐ Male ☐ Prefer not to answer ☐ Not listed☐

1) Have you ever belonged to an environmental/conservation group?

☐ Yes, in the past ☐ Yes, right now ☐ No, never

2) Is this your first visit to Iceland?

☐ Yes ☐ No

3) How many times have you been whale-watching (including this tour)? ______

4) When did you book your whale-watching tour?

a. Before arriving in Iceland b. After arriving in Iceland, but before today c. Today 5) Why did you decide to whale-watch in Húsavík, rather than Reykjavík? (Please select all that apply)

a. It fits best with my travel plans b. I do not support the whaling activities taking place near Reykjavík c. Húsavík is a better location (smaller community, species of whale, price) d. Other (please specify) ______6) Which species are you most excited to see today? (Please select one)

a. Minke whale b. Humpback whale c. Fin whale d. White-beaked dolphin e. Other (please specify) ______

69 7) When did you find out that Iceland hunts whales? (Please select one)

a. Before I arrived in Iceland b. After I arrived in Iceland but before going on this trip c. Right now, as I am filling out this questionnaire 8) Did you know that Iceland hunted whales before you booked your whale-watching tour?

☐ Yes ☐ No

9) Do you support whale hunting in Iceland?

☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ I’m not sure

10) Please select your reason(s) for the above response. (Please select all that apply)

a. It is part of Icelandic tradition/ culture b. Moral conviction c. It provides scientific research d. Whales are just animals e. Other (please specify) ______11) Have you eaten whale meat before? (Please select one)

a. Yes, in Iceland b. Yes, outside of Iceland c. No, but I want/ am planning to d. No, and I do not want to 12) Would you feel less supportive, as supportive, or more supportive of whaling in a country if the following information were true? (Please mark down one box per scenario)

Scenario Less supportive The same More supportive

The hunted species was threatened/endangered Money was also put towards whale conservation You would not see as many whales when whale-watching You would see the same number of whales when whale-watching Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire and contribute to this research! If you have any future questions, feel free to email me at [email protected].

70 Appendix C

Informed consent form provided for respondents.

Informed Consent Form Whale-Watchers' Perceptions of Whaling in Iceland

Description of the Study: I am asking you to take part in a research study about how the whaling activities in Iceland affect tourist’s decisions to participate in whale-watching activities. As a whale-watching tourist, your perceptions of whaling are an important part of this research. If you are willing to participate in this project, please fill out the provided questionnaire completely before returning it back to me.

Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study: I do not expect any risks for you if you take part in this study. You may feel uncomfortable answering the questions. You may stop at any time and hand the incomplete questionnaire back to me; in which case I will not use your answers in my research. You may not receive any benefits from taking part in this study. The knowledge that I collect in this study might help other researchers interested in the relationship between whaling and whale-watching.

Confidentiality: You will not be asked for any personal information, and your questionnaire will be coded with a number, so that you do not need to provide your name. The data derived from this study may be used in reports, presentations, and publications but you will not be individually identified.

Voluntary Nature of the Study: Your decision to take part in the study is completely voluntary. You are free to choose not to complete the questionnaire. If you do not complete your questionnaire, I will assume that you have revoked consent to use the information, and your responses will not be used in my research.

Contacts and Questions: If you have questions now, feel free to ask. If you have questions later, please contact:

Erin Henderson Dr. Chiara Bertulli Master’s Student Sightings Officer University Centre of the Westfjords Sea Watch Foundation (+354) 8422241 [email protected] (+39) 3406933102 [email protected]

Statement of Consent: By completing the questionnaire, it is accepted that you understand the procedures described above and you agree to participate in this study.

71

72 Appendix D

Explanation of study provide for museum respondents.

Questionnaire

Whale-Watchers' Perceptions of Whaling in Iceland

I am a master’s student in the Coastal and Marine Management Program at the University Centre of the Westfjords. My thesis project focuses on the effect Iceland’s whaling activities have on tourists’ decision to participate in whale- watching activities. If you have gone, or will be going, on a whale-watching tour during your time in Húsavík, please feel free to fill out the anonymous survey located in this folder. The questionnaire is one double-sided page, and will take less than five minutes to complete fully. If you have any questions regarding this research, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].

Thank you for your participation

Erin Henderson

73