Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.