Download Exploitation or Conservation: Can Wildlife Tourism Help Conserve

Exploitation or Conservation: Can
Wildlife Tourism Help Conserve
Vulnerable and Endangered Species?
John Dobson, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK
Eleri Jones, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK
David Botterill, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK
I. ABSTRACT
Wildlife tourism is increasingly utilising vulnerable and endangered species
as tourist attractions. This paper uses the South African cage diving industry
as a case study to assess the contributions that the tourism industry can make
to the conservation of the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias). The
study highlights that individual wildlifre tour operators can make positive
contributions using various mechanisms such as interpretation, education and
contributing towards scientific research. However when the industry is
examined as a collective whole then a number of paradoxes and
complications emerge. The study demonstrates that operators face immense
pressure when trying to reconcile conservation objectives with business
profitability and client satisfaction. This can lead to the development of
inappropriate business practices that are counter-productive to the overall
aims of conserving target species such as the Great White Shark.
II. INTRODUCTION
There has been wide recognition of tourism‟s ability to impact both
positively and negatively on host environments (De Kadt 1979, Mathieson
and Wall 1982, Krippendorf 1989, Holden 2000). Particular focus has been
paid to the growth in nature-based / ecotourism products, which target fragile
environments and species (Price, 1996, Weiler, 1992).
Wildlife tourism is a niche form of nature-based tourism and can, under
certain definitions, be classified as a form of eco-tourism. It can be
subdivided depending upon its relationship with the targeted species and also
where the experience takes place. Consumptive wildlife tourism involves the
extraction of animals from the environment and from a tourism perspective
predominately relates to hunting and fishing. Non-consumptive wildlife
tourism involves viewing wildlife, usually for photographic purposes and, at
least in theory, involves no harm to the species being observed. Wildlife
tourism can take place in captive environments, such as in zoos or safari
parks, or in situ, utilising the species natural environment. In situ wildlife
tourism takes place both in terrestrial and marine environments and can be
based at an ecosystem level (rainforests and coral reefs) or at the species
level such as orchid tours in Ecuador and the global phenomenon of whale
watching.
This research is part of a wider project examining the linkages that can be
made between tourism and wildlife conservation strategies. The aim of this
paper is to explore the potential tensions that emerge between species
conservation and business practices. This is achieved through the reporting of
a case study of the South African Great White Shark cage diving industry.
III. WILDLIFE TOURISM AND SPECIES CONSERVATION
Wildlife tourism is increasingly utilising rare and endangered species e.g.
the Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei) in Uganda and Rwanda, the
Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) in Florida and the Great White
Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) in South Africa as tourist attractions.
The potential for wildlife tourism to contribute towards conservation has
long been the focus of academic debate. For the most part this debate has
been conducted at an idealistic level, is weakly theorised and lacks empirical
testing, typically it takes the view that tourism and species conservation
should foster a symbiotic relationship (Budowski, 1976, Halpenny, 2003,
Goodwin et al 1998). Higginbottom et al (2003) identify key mechanisms
through which wildlife tourism can help contribute towards the conservation
of target species. These are:






Providing socio-economic incentives for conservation
Providing direct funding for conservation schemes
Educating tourists about species conservation
Political lobbying for wider protection
Contributing directly towards wildlife management
Contributing towards scientific research
The ability of wildlife tourism to provide economic incentives for
conservation has received the most focus from researchers. International
tourism has the potential to provide significant economic benefits to host
areas that develop a wildlife-based tourism industry. This is especially true
for developing countries that depend on tourism as sources of inward
investment and foreign exchange earnings. Developing countries generally
have less disturbed environments and therefore a viable wildlife resource
base upon which a tourism industry can be based. Economic benefits from
wildlife tourism can be derived primarily from inward investment, jobs and
benefits of the multiplier effect. In theory these benefits provide local
communities with a vested interest in ensuring that those species that are
attractive to tourism are protected (ibid).
The value of wildlife tourism is perhaps best illustrated by the growth of
the whale watching industry. Hoyt (2001) estimated the value of whale
watching in International Whaling Commission countries at US$779 million.
This growth has led to significant economic benefits being derived for those
local communities that host whale watching (ibid). The contribution made by
whale watching to national GDPs has led to intense debate in those nations
who wish to resume commercial whaling. Surveys show that any resumption
in commercial whaling in countries with an established whale watching
industry would see a decline in visitor numbers. Parsons and Rawles (2003)
estimate that 79% of whale watchers in Iceland would not return should there
be any resumption in commercial whaling. They forecast that this would
result in a loss of approximately US$12 million per year in lost revenue. A
similar study by Orams (2001) in Tonga found that a significant number of
tourists would not return should commercial whaling be resumed resulting in
a potential loss of approximately US$550,000 per annum. These examples
demonstrate the potential revenue generation that can be created by wildlife
tourism, although they only create indirect benefits for the target species.
Wildlife tourism can provide direct economic benefits for conservation
strategies via the willingness of tourists to pay towards conservation schemes
(in terms of ticket prices and donations) and from charging tour operators‟
permits / licensing fees (Font et al, 2004). Tisdell and Wilson‟s (2001) study
of the development of wildlife tourism based on sea turtle viewing at Mon
Repos beach in Queensland, Australia illustrated that tourists are willing to
contribute financially towards the conservation of turtles, however this was
contingent on the tourists having had a positive wildlife experience (i.e.
turtles were observed during the trip), which unfortunately can very rarely be
guaranteed on wildlife tours.
There are also inherent problems with wildlife tourism‟s ability to directly
contribute to species conservation economically. Issacs (2000) highlights
these concerns, which centre around the nature of the wildlife tourism market
and the market pressures on operators and governments. Wildlife tourism
tends to be dominated by small to medium sized enterprises (SME‟s) that
tend to operate with high costs and low profit margins. Marine-based wildlife
tourism can be an especially expensive market to operate in due to the cost of
boat operation and obtaining safety and operating certification. These
pressures can then lead to the neglect of effective environmental protection in
favour of concentrating on revenue generation. The ethical orientation of the
tour operator therefore has a central role in ensuring that conservation
remains a central priority for the organisation.
In a relatively rare theorisation of this field Fennell and Malloy (1998)
adapted and developed Kohlberg‟s (1981) work into moral development in
order to posit a taxonomy of ecotourism operator ethics. They proposed that
tour operators, and in particular eco-tour operators, can be classified into
three different cultures depending upon their ethical behaviour as shown
below:


Market Ecotourism Culture – the view of the market is „ours for the
taking‟ and the cardinal value is to ensure the survival of individual
employees, shareholders or members. This can result in the best
interests of the clientele, environment or social milieu being ignored.
Ethical conduct is therefore based around avoiding punishment or
seeking rewards such as eco labelling accreditation.
Socio-bureaucratic Ecotourism Culture – is also concerned with the
financial viability of the organisation however local environmental
issues and customs will be of concern to the operator.

Principled Ecotourism Culture – The organisation‟s philosophy is
linked to Lovelock‟s (2000) notion of Gaia. They not only operate
within site and regional specific laws but will also act with the
global ecology as a primary concern.
Operators classified under the Market Ecotourism Culture would make
minimal contributions towards species conservation. They would make
indirect contributions via socio-economic benefits through the payment of
wages to staff and utilising local suppliers. However it would be expected
that they would make little other contribution. Operators classified under the
Principled Ecotourism Culture would certainly be expected to make more indepth contributions via more complex mechanisms such as political lobbying
or scientific research.
Thus far there have also been no reported attempts to take a holistic case
study approach to examine the linkages between wildlife-based tourism and
wildlife conservation.
IV. THE GREAT WHITE SHARK (Carcharodon carcharias)
The Great White Shark is probably one of the most demonised animals in
human history. For many it embodies the ultimate killing machine and
personal nightmare. This is exemplified by Peter Benchley‟s 1974 book
„Jaws‟ and the subsequent 1976 Steven Spielberg film. Since then the shark
has had in marketing parlance „an image problem‟. The Great White has also
become the „star‟ of numerous TV documentaries, news stories and other
films. The shark, unlike other great predators, has not been the subject of
positive „Disneyfication‟.
Many shark species are considered endangered, millions are killed every
year, predominately for their fins to supply the Asian soup fin market and
also their jaws and teeth for the souvenir trade (Philpott 2002). The Great
White Shark is listed on the IUCN Red List as vulnerable to extinction and
was listed on Appendix 2 of the Convention of International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 2004. The Great
White has been given more in-depth local protection from fishing in Malta,
South Africa, Australia and California.
The Great White Shark is a surface feeder that renders it vulnerable to
human activities. Although not commercially targeted the Great White can be
caught as by-catch by long-lines and in nets (Environment Australia 2002).
Recreational sports fishing have also targeted the Great White although this
threat is reducing as the shark has been protected in countries where this has
taken place.
Great White Shark tourism is a fairly recent phenomenon and is found in
three countries globally: South Africa in the Western Cape, USA around the
Farallon Islands off the Californian coast and Ille de Guadeloupe (Mexican
territory but tours leave from San Diego) and Adelaide, South Australia. A
successful dive industry based around Great White sharks usually requires a
resident pinniped colony where they congregate due to the abundance of prey
available. Tour boats are then able to attract the sharks close to the boats by
„chumming‟. This involves placing blood and liquidised fish parts in the
water to create an oily slick that sharks can sense and follow to the boat. Bait
and decoys are placed in the water and used to manoeuvre the sharks past the
cages providing divers with a close up view.
V. RESEARCH DESIGN
Yin (1994) identifies six source of evidence for generating information for
case studies:






Documentation
Archival records
Interviews
Direct observations
Physical artefacts
Participant observation
A major strength of adopting a case study approach is the opportunity to
utilise multiple sources of information and „triangulate‟ findings. This study
utilised a number of Yin‟s recommended source to generate information.
Semi-structured interviews were carried out with eleven cage-dive tour
operators, four representatives from South Africa‟s Environment and
Tourism Department (Marine and Coastal Management (MCM) section) and
two white shark researchers. Nine observations of cage diving tours were
undertaken in Gansbaai, False Bay and Mossel Bay to establish how tours
were constructed and how sharks were represented to tourists through the
educational component and handling of the sharks. Documents relevant to the
management and marketing of the industry were reviewed including the
Marine and Coastal Management‟s permit conditions and code of conduct
and operators‟ brochures and web sites. This multiple information source
approach allows for the development of converging lines of enquiry allowing
findings and conclusions to be more convincing and accurate (Yin 1994).
VI. CASE STUDY FINDINGS
The cage diving industry in South Africa is located in three areas within
the Western Cape, False Bay, Dyer Island near Gansbaai and Mossel Bay.
The industry initially started in the early 1990s in Gansbaai and then spread
to other locations as the potential of tourism was identified. The industry is
not without its critics and the MCM introduced a permit system and code of
conduct to regulate the industry in 2000. At present there are 12 tour
operators licensed to offer tours, 8 in Gansbaai, 3 in False Bay and 1 in
Mossel Bay. One operator recently had their permit revoked for violating the
permit conditions by operating too close to a swimming beach and for
potentially harming a shark.
All stakeholders identify that tourism can have an important role in
assisting in the conservation of the Great White shark; however there is
dissonance as to how this is best achieved. The case study highlighted that
three of the mechanisms identified by Higginbottom et al (2003) were of
particular significance to this case study. These were:



Contributions to economic generation
Education and interpretation
Contributions to scientific research
The case study also provided some interesting insights into the ethical
orientation of the operators, providing some insight into the relevance and
applicability of Fennell and Malloy‟s (1998) taxonomy.
Operator Ethics
The case study illustrates some key problems operators face when
attempting to integrate a conservation ethic with ensuring business
profitability and client satisfaction. Operators recognised the need to
conserve the shark and break down the „Jaws‟ stereotype and perceived that
they played a significant role in achieving this.
All respondents believed that the best way of helping conserve the shark
was by exposing their clients to the animal, allowing them to see the creature
in its natural environment and allowing the formulation of their own views
about the sharks. One shark researcher commented:
„if it is done properly and if the information is given to the customers
properly there is nothing better in the world than having people come out
and see the Great White Sharks .... you see people arrive in the morning and
they still come with Jaws in their heads. When they see the sharks swimming
peacefully around the boat it sort of shatters all of that.’
This is probably one of the most significant contributions that the tourism
industry can make towards conservation. Psychological theory supports the
notion of exposing individuals to stimuli can result in the enhancement of
their attitudes towards it (Cassidy 1997; Zajonic 1968). Previous studies by
Beaumont (2001) and Gray (1985) have related this to tourism in the natural
environment finding that exposing tourists to the natural environment can
help engender a positive conservation ethic within them. The potential for
wildlife tours to influence peoples‟ attitudes towards conservation is an area
that deserves further research.
However as suggested by Fennell and Malloy (1998) the underlying
philosophy of operators does differ between those who appear to have an
ecocentic / biocentric view of shark conservation recognising the intrinsic
value of the shark „the Great White is the apex predator of the ocean. It is
essential that we conserve them. They are a sign of a healthy marine
ecosystem‟ and are therefore displaying traits of being principled operators
and those with an anthropocentric view relating the need to conserve the
shark due to its value for economic generation ‘without the animals you don’t
have an industry. It is the commodity that we need to make our business run’;
demonstrating characteristics of the Market Ecotourism Culture. Further
evidence of the difficulties faced when combining a conservation ethic with
ensuring a profitable business and the differences that underpin the ethical
orientation of the operators can be gained from their attitude towards
chumming.
In order to provide tourists with the best view of the sharks „chum‟ is used
to attract the sharks to the boat. Due to their oily nature livers from other
shark species work best in attracting the sharks, this has led operators to buy
significant amounts of shark liver from local fishermen. Initially these livers
predominately came from the Soupfin shark (Galeorhinus galeus) that is
commercially targeted for its fins and the livers were by products that were
sold to the operators allowing the fishermen to increase their income.
However there is now an increase in the targeting of other shark species
specifically for their liver (especially the seven gilled cow shark
(Notorynchus cepedianus) which has no other commercial value). Hence
concerns are increasing in relation to over fishing and the potential for the
cow shark to become locally extinct. This therefore creates an inherent
paradox in that by increasing the possibility of seeing a Great White Shark
tourism is threatening the survival of other shark species.
Operators‟ attitudes towards chumming seem to closely identify with
Fennell and Malloy‟s (1998) taxonomy. A minority of operators claimed to
adopt what could be considered a principled stance by rejecting the use of
any shark products in their chum, recognising the inherent paradox therein „I
cannot see the reasoning behind threatening one shark species in order to
attract another. I do not use shark liver in my chum.’ The majority of
operators take a more business orientated (Socio-bureaucratic Ecotourism
Culture) approach by using shark livers but ensure that they are by-products
from commercially caught sharks „the livers we use are by products and if we
don’t utilise the livers they get thrown away.’ Many of these operators
recognised the paradoxical situation of using shark livers in their chum and
take steps to ensure that they use waste products from commercial fishing.
However they do not take the more holistic view that the principled operators
take. The final category are those operators who utilise any source of chum
without checking its source, „we use any shark liver, other shark species are
a major part of the White shark diet and so we know it works.’ This view is
archetypal of the Market Ecotourism Culture. Although Great White Sharks
do eat other sharks, the pressures placed upon the sharks by targeted fishing
specifically for their livers has the potential to be much greater than that of
natural predation and therefore is unsustainable.
Economic Benefits
The recognition of the potential for tourism to bring economic benefits to
the region was a primary driver behind the development and regulation of
shark diving. There is no doubt that tourism is an important aspect of coastal
settlements in the Western Cape, especially in Gansbaai. Hara et al (2003)
estimate that the tourism industry is worth in the region of 289 million Rand
to the local economy. Of this marine-based tourism (whale watching and
shark diving) contributes approximately 34 million Rand and eighty-one
direct jobs. Winter is the peak time for observing sharks and whales in the
Western Cape, the industry therefore brings the added benefit of extending
the tourist season within the area. Positive linkages are also made with the
local economy through boat launching and servicing.
Perhaps more significantly is the type of tourist that some operators,
especially those in Gansbaai, are targeting. Certain operators now see
backpackers as their core client as they are attracted to the adventure aspects
of the tours. These operators target the backpacker hostels in Cape Town and
Hermanus and transport them to and from Gansbaai in one day. Tourists are
therefore held in a „bubble‟ and Gansbaai can be removed from the trip
experience, with only a small number of tourists, who are undertaking dive
packages or moving down the coast, staying in the town. This particular
market orientation impacts upon the trickle down benefits to those businesses
that rely on direct contact with tourists, especially those in the hospitality
sector.
Education, Interpretation and the Representation of the Shark
All operators identified education as an important element in their
contribution towards the conservation of the shark. However observations
indicated that the quality of education provided varied between operators.
Data derived from the observations of the tours demonstrated that the
interpretive elements of many tours were generally weak in terms of instilling
a conservation ethic into the tourists. The information provided
predominately focused on biological information (size and gender) and
predator / prey relationships. References to shark conservation were
extremely limited with only passing mention of issues of threat to sharks such
as shark finning, by-catch and the lack of global conservation strategies.
There is also some concern over the depth of knowledge that some of the
boat crews have about the shark. A shark researcher recalled a question asked
to him by one of the boat crews:
‘Once I was on a boat a shark guide and dive master who had been working
on a boat for 11/2 years asked me whether sharks were mammals. I started
laughing because I though he was joking, but he was deadly serious, and
that’s somebody who has been working as a guide on a boat for a good deal
of time.’
Interpretation is not limited to the actual experience and the preexperience promotion utilised by the operators and the type of client being
attracted to the tours offered a further route into understanding this concept.
The limitations in the interpretive provision are heavily influenced by the
need for operators to achieve client satisfaction, particularly in Gansbaai.
There was recognition among operators that backpackers were predominately
there for the adrenaline rush and not necessarily interested in learning about
the shark. In order to attract this market certain operators employed
stereotypical images of the sharks (open mouthed) on the front cover of their
promotional leaflets, contradicting their aim of breaking down the „Jaws‟
stereotype. The justification given for the use of these images centred on the
need to grab the attention of potential clients and using these pictures acted as
the „hook’ to achieve this. The dominance of clients motivated for an ecoadventure tour can then impacts on the construction of the rest of the tour,
where operators attempt to balance client satisfaction with their underlying
aim of education.
This is perhaps best illustrated through discussion of how the sharks were
manipulated during some tours and the subsequent implications this had for
the way the sharks were represented to tourists. Perhaps the most significant
element of this was through the handling of the sharks on the bait line. MCM
permit regulations stipulate that sharks must not be fed but bait can be used to
lure the sharks towards the boat. Should a shark take the bait then the line
must be dropped and the shark allowed to swim away. However
observational data showed that on some tours when the sharks managed to
take the bait the handlers would „wrangle‟ with them; holding onto the bait
line which resulted in the shark thrashing around. This manufactured action
generated the most reaction from tourists in terms of taking photographs and
comments. This perhaps was the shark that they had come to see.
Some operators attempting to open the mouths of sharks can help establish
a paradoxical situation in the way the shark is represented. Although
prohibited under MCM regulations „opening mouths‟ involves touching the
sharks on the snout, which causes them to stall and fall back in the water. The
shark‟s head is then raised out of the water and its jaws open. This technique
was originally developed to protect the sharks from biting the boat motors but
has since been used for photographic opportunity and has helped generate
some of the most iconic pictures that have appeared on the front cover of
magazines such as National Geographic. This elicits great reaction from the
tourists both through witnessing a human touching a shark without being
harmed but also witnessing the stereotypical image of the Great White „all
jaws and teeth.‟
This manipulation of the sharks adds further complexity to the ability of
tourism to contribute towards conservation. The observations demonstrated
that many clients were motivated to take numerous photographs of the
sharks, especially when the handlers were manipulating them. This focus on
ocular consumption may possibly lead to a reduction in contemplation and
therefore would contradict the hope that by exposing tourists to the shark
they will be able to develop their own views. The close contact that is
necessary for the tourists to gain a successful view of the sharks can result in
the sharks being injured as they collide with the boat sides and engines and
the cages. Only a limited number of operators demonstrated a more
principled approach by taking steps to minimise shark injuries through their
cage design and one by using engine covers to stop the sharks biting the
motors.
Competition appears to be a key factor in helping define the way tours are
constructed. In False Bay where there are only two operators (who work
collectively rather than in competition) and Mossel Bay where only one
operator is licensed, the tours are constructed in a very different manner to
those in Gansbaai where there are eight operators. In False Bay the tours are
focused around attempting to elicit White Sharks to breach (the shark jumps
clear out of the water when attacking seals) by towing decoys behind the
boats rather than „caging‟ the tourists (although this does happen). The tours
therefore focus much more on demonstrating the sharks‟ natural behaviour
and provide a more naturalistic, but still spectacular image of the shark in its
natural environment. Due to this limited focus on cage diving there is more
time for interaction between the crew and tourists and a freer flow of
information about shark conservation issues.
It is important to note that the observations identified many areas of good
practice relating to education and interpretation. One operator carried out an
extensive pre-trip briefing using video and a model of a shark to illustrate key
biological features. Three operators also produce newsletters that are
distributed via e-mail to previous clients. These provide information about
current shark sightings and issues surrounding the cage diving industry and
are a good way of helping to keep people informed about shark issues. The
potential for cage-diving tours to positively impact upon clients‟ image of the
shark is an area that deserves further research.
Scientific Research
Contributing towards scientific research is perhaps the area that best tests
whether operators can make a major contribution towards shark conservation.
This has been an area of controversy, as in the past some operators have been
accused of carrying out their own tagging schemes and of taking biological
samples from sharks, but this has now been prohibited by the MCM permit
system. However operators are still able to make significant contributions via
the collection of observational data. All operators are required to gather
rudimentary information relating to the number of sharks sighted their size
and gender as part of their permit conditions. Two operators have gone
beyond this; one operator has been undertaking extensive observation
research on shark predation in False Bay, which led to the production of a
scientific paper presented at the 2004 Elasmobranch Association Annual
Conference. Due to their extensive local knowledge operators are in a
position to assist the scientific community with shark tagging and the
collection of data from shark tags. One operator has worked extensively with
MCM, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the WCS during a
catch and tag programme in 2003, assisting in attracting sharks to the
research boat and helping to gather data once tags are in place.
VII. CONCLUSION
Literature suggests that wildlife-based tourism has the potential to
contribute towards the conservation of vulnerable and endangered species
through a variety of mechanisms. This is perhaps best achieved through
exposing tourists to endangered species in their natural habitat, which may
have the potential of instilling them with a conservation ethic if combined
with a structured educational programme. However this case study suggests
that although there are areas of individual good practice by some operators,
when the industry is examined collectively, these views maybe too positive
and that any contributions that tourism can make towards species
conservation are much more problematic than the „idealist‟
conceptualisations suggested by the literature. The nature of the wildlife
tourism market is particularly problematic as it generally characterised by
small / medium sized enterprises working with high operating costs and low
profit margins. Cage-diving is carried out primarily as an economic activity
that for many the principal objective is to generate a profitable return on
financial investment. Therefore the ability of operators to achieve
conservation objectives and contribute towards the wildlife conservation can
be compromised in order to ensure that they are competitive, profitable and
provide client satisfaction. If the cage-diving industry, as a collective whole,
is to claim that it actively contributes towards the conservation of the Great
White then management strategies need to be implemented that disseminate
the good practice being carried out by individual operators in areas such as
education / interpretation, shark handling / protection and scientific research
across the whole industry. This area of study would benefit from further
research into the ability for tourism to help influence peoples‟ attitudes
towards sharks and its potential to engender a conservation ethic in them.
REFERENCES
Beaumont, N. “Ecotourism and the Conservation Ethic: Recruiting the
Uninitiated or Preaching to the Converted?,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Vol 9, No.4, 2001, pp 317-341.
Budowski, G. “Tourism and environmental conservation: conflict,
coexistence or symbiosis” Environmental Conservation, Vol. 3, 1976, pp 27
– 31.
Cassidy, T. Environmental Psychology: Behaviour and Experience in
Context (Psychology Press, 1997).
De Kadt, E. (ed.) Tourism: Passport to Development, (Oxford University
Press, 1979).
Environment Australia, White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery
Plan. (Environment Australia, 2002).
Fennell, D.A. and Malloy, D.C. “Ecotourism and Ethics: Moral Development
and Organisational Cultures”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol 36 pp 47 –
56.
Font, X., Cochrane, J., & Tapper, R. Tourism for Protected Area Financing:
Understanding tourism revenues for effective management plans (Leeds
Metropolitan University, 2004).
Goodwin, H., Kent, I., Parker, K. and Walpole, M. Tourism Conservation
and sustainable development. Case studies from Asia and Africa. (IIED
Wildlife and Development Series no 12, 1998).
Gray, D.B. Ecological Beliefs and Behaviours: Assessment and Change
(Greenwood Press, 1985).
Halpenny, E.A. “NGOs as Conservation Agents: Achieving Conservation
through Marine Ecotourism” in Garrod, B. & Wilson, J.C. Marine
Ecotourism: Issues and Experiences (Channel View Publications, 2003, pp
107 - 121).
Hara, M., Maharaj, I., and Pithers, L. Marine-based Tourism in Gansbaai: A
Socio-economic Study. (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2003).
Higginbottom, K., Tribe, A. & Booth, R. “Contributions of Non-consumptive
Wildlife Tourism to Conservation” in Buckley, R., Pickering, C. & Weaver,
D.B. Nature-based Tourism, Environment and Land Management (CABI
Publishing, 2003 pp 181 - 196).
Holden, A. Environment and Tourism (Routledge, 2000).
Hoyt, E. Whale Watching 2001. Worldwide Tourism Numbers, Expenditure
and expanding socio-economic benefits (IFAW / UNEP, 2001).
Issacs J.C. “The limited potential of eco-tourism to contribute to wildlife
conservation” Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol 28, No. 1, 2000, pp 61 – 69.
Kohlberg, L. The Philosophy of Moral Development, (Harper and Row,
1981).
Krippendorf, J. The Holiday Makers (Heinemann, 1989).
Lovelock, J. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford Paperbacks, 2000).
Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts
(Longman, 1982).
Orams, M.B. “From Whale Hunting to Whale Watching in Tonga: A
Sustainable Future?”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2001, pp
128 – 146.
Parsons, E.C.M. and Rawles, C. “The Resumption of Whaling by Iceland and
the Potential Negative Impact in the Icelandic whale-Watching Market”,
Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 6, No. 5, 2003, pp 444-448.
Philpott, R. “Why Sharks May Have Nothing to Fear More than Fear Itself:
An Analysis of the Effect on Human Attitudes on the Conservation of the
Great White Shark” Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law
and Policy, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp 445 – 472.
Price, M. F. People and Tourism in Fragile Environments (Wiley, 1996).
Tisdell, C. & Wilson, C. “Wildlife-based tourism and increased support for
nature conservation financially and otherwise: evidence from sea turtle
ecotourism at Mon Repos”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 7, No.3, 2001, pp 233249.
Weiler, B. and Hall, C. Special Interest Tourism (Belhaven, 1992).
Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods 2 nd ed (Sage
Publications, 1994).
Zajonic, R.B. “Attitudinal effects of mere exposure”, Journal of Personality
and Psychology Vol. 9, No.2, 1968.