ECOTOURISM – THE FACE OF CHANGE?
Great Barrier Reef, Kelli Anderson
Drs. Kelli Anderson and Ben Fitzpatrick (Oceanwise Expeditions)
As the health of our oceans decline, many of us are searching for ways to increase awareness of marine conservation issues, and/or contribute to conservation goals directly. One potential avenue for positive change is ecotourism. Ecotourism is a term that encompasses a wide range of wildlife-human-ecosystem interactions. When considering the usefulness of ecotourism, it’s important to consider what positive and negative impacts may exist. Here we’ll look at some of the more popular and studied types of ecotourism, and their flow on effects for ecosystem, economic and social health.
As the health of our oceans decline, many of us are searching for ways to increase awareness of marine conservation issues, and/or contribute to conservation goals directly. One potential avenue for positive change is ecotourism. Ecotourism is a term that encompasses a wide range of wildlife-human-ecosystem interactions. When considering the usefulness of ecotourism, it’s important to consider what positive and negative impacts may exist. Here we’ll look at some of the more popular and studied types of ecotourism, and their flow on effects for ecosystem, economic and social health.
Money Matters
It’s an all too common story that ecological arguments are not enough to persuade people to care for the environment. But let’s face it, money matters...
Manta rays are highly sought after by scuba divers and snorkelers across the globe, particularly in Japan, Indonesia, the Maldives, Mozambique, Thailand, Australia, Mexico, United States, Micronesia and Palau. Manta populations have declined significantly in recent years, mostly due to an unsustainable level of fishing estimated to be worth US$5 million per year globally. This compares to global estimates of US$73 million in direct revenue for dive/ecotourism operators offering manta ray viewings, with associated tourist expenditures (accommodation, food etc) of US$140 million per annum. Using the Maldives as an example, this means that the economic value of a single manta is approximately US$100 000 over the life of the animal (20 – 25 years), or in the Federated States of Micronesia values of over US$1 million per animal have been estimated. In contrast, mantas that are listed as vulnerable to extinction by the IUCN (2011) and have the potential to boost an economy by hundreds of thousands of dollars can be fished, and then sold at a fish marked for $US41 in Sri Lanka or US$200 in Lamakera, Indonesia.
In Palau, approximately half of all tourists are scuba divers, and 21% of divers are there to see sharks specifically. An individual reef shark’s economic value in terms of tourism has been estimated at $US179 000 per year, and $US1.9 million over the lifetime of the animal. This equates to approximately 8% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Palau, which highlights the importance of preserving sharks as a non-consumptive economic resource. In contrast, the same individual reef shark would fetch about $110 dollars as a one off consumptive fisheries resource. Palau has become a world leader when it comes to preserving the natural environment, recently declaring that the whole island nation will become a marine sanctuary with a total ban on commercial fishing. President Tommy Remengesau Jr. was quoted as saying ‘the oceans are our way of life, our livelihood, our culture, our economy, and I always say the economy is our environment, and our environment is our economy’. A fantastic example of building and promoting an economy based on sustainable practices including responsible ecotourism.
Manta rays are highly sought after by scuba divers and snorkelers across the globe, particularly in Japan, Indonesia, the Maldives, Mozambique, Thailand, Australia, Mexico, United States, Micronesia and Palau. Manta populations have declined significantly in recent years, mostly due to an unsustainable level of fishing estimated to be worth US$5 million per year globally. This compares to global estimates of US$73 million in direct revenue for dive/ecotourism operators offering manta ray viewings, with associated tourist expenditures (accommodation, food etc) of US$140 million per annum. Using the Maldives as an example, this means that the economic value of a single manta is approximately US$100 000 over the life of the animal (20 – 25 years), or in the Federated States of Micronesia values of over US$1 million per animal have been estimated. In contrast, mantas that are listed as vulnerable to extinction by the IUCN (2011) and have the potential to boost an economy by hundreds of thousands of dollars can be fished, and then sold at a fish marked for $US41 in Sri Lanka or US$200 in Lamakera, Indonesia.
In Palau, approximately half of all tourists are scuba divers, and 21% of divers are there to see sharks specifically. An individual reef shark’s economic value in terms of tourism has been estimated at $US179 000 per year, and $US1.9 million over the lifetime of the animal. This equates to approximately 8% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Palau, which highlights the importance of preserving sharks as a non-consumptive economic resource. In contrast, the same individual reef shark would fetch about $110 dollars as a one off consumptive fisheries resource. Palau has become a world leader when it comes to preserving the natural environment, recently declaring that the whole island nation will become a marine sanctuary with a total ban on commercial fishing. President Tommy Remengesau Jr. was quoted as saying ‘the oceans are our way of life, our livelihood, our culture, our economy, and I always say the economy is our environment, and our environment is our economy’. A fantastic example of building and promoting an economy based on sustainable practices including responsible ecotourism.
Manta rays, Maldives. Footage courtesy of Stefan Andrews
CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE (AND CONSERVATION)
Working as a scientific researcher can be quite difficult, especially when your capacity to conduct top notch marine research is dependent on funding, availability of expensive watercraft and sometimes access to remote locations. Funding in the form of grants (*sigh) is typically competitive and relatively short term (between 1 – 3 years), which makes the potential relationship between ecotourism and science quite enticing.
Successful whale shark tagging operations have been conducted in Mozambique and the Seychelles, where operating costs, like those associated with boat use, are underwritten by tourists. Tourists are able to interact with scientists, then snorkel with the whale sharks after in-water tagging has taken place. In the Seychelles, the whale shark’s reaction to tagging was varied and seemed to be dependent on the animal’s size. Smaller sharks (4 – 5 m) sometimes twitched then briefly increased their swimming speed, while larger sharks did not react at all. After tagging whale sharks didn’t appear to be bothered by snorkelers, and even approach boats out of curiosity. Despite the apparent lack of concern when it comes to snorkelers, all participants are given strict instructions not to touch the animals, or swim in front of them to intentionally divert or block them. This is a good example of responsible ecotourism, and tagging will allow scientists to gather information about the population size, distribution and migration patterns of whale sharks. It will also be a good tool for assessing the potential presence and impacts of overfishing, and identify areas that may be especially critical for the survival of the species.
Successful whale shark tagging operations have been conducted in Mozambique and the Seychelles, where operating costs, like those associated with boat use, are underwritten by tourists. Tourists are able to interact with scientists, then snorkel with the whale sharks after in-water tagging has taken place. In the Seychelles, the whale shark’s reaction to tagging was varied and seemed to be dependent on the animal’s size. Smaller sharks (4 – 5 m) sometimes twitched then briefly increased their swimming speed, while larger sharks did not react at all. After tagging whale sharks didn’t appear to be bothered by snorkelers, and even approach boats out of curiosity. Despite the apparent lack of concern when it comes to snorkelers, all participants are given strict instructions not to touch the animals, or swim in front of them to intentionally divert or block them. This is a good example of responsible ecotourism, and tagging will allow scientists to gather information about the population size, distribution and migration patterns of whale sharks. It will also be a good tool for assessing the potential presence and impacts of overfishing, and identify areas that may be especially critical for the survival of the species.
Responsible whale shark ecotourism with Oceanwise Expeditions, Ningaloo Reef, courtesy of Silke Stuckenbrock
KILLING WITH KINDNESS?
The act of feeding large and charismatic wild animals is a good way to draw tourists to the marine environment, and at a glance it seems like a great idea. It may even seem like you’re helping wildlife by making it easier for them to meet their nutritional requirements. However, that’s probably not the case...
Feeding southern stingrays is a very popular activity in the Cayman Islands, and in 2007 it was estimated that up to 2500 tourists could be interacting with stingrays at the Stingray City Sandbar at any one time. Research scientists set out to investigate whether the nutritional status of fed sting rays was similar to stingrays that did not interact with tourists. It was discovered that the blood fatty acid profiles of fed and unfed stings rays were distinctly different, and thus the natural diet of southern stingrays is quite different to what they receive from tourists. Stingrays in tourist-fed areas also had a lower body condition and a higher number of parasites compared to their unfed counterparts. Southern stingrays are largely solitary animals; however fed stingrays also had a higher incidence of bite marks, thought to be caused by high levels of crowding and aggressive competition for resources at tourist sites. Injuries from boat propellers were also more common in ecotourism areas. While the long term effects of tourist activities on the survival, immune function and reproductive capacity of southern stingrays is unclear, there is strong evidence to suggest that these parameters may be affected. As such, recommendations have been made to decrease the amount of, and increase the quality and variety of food that stingrays receive in the hope that nonnatural food dependency will decrease and animal welfare will improve.
The effects of tourist supplied food on animal and ecosystem health will depend on (but is not limited to) a couple of factors. Firstly, the likelihood of affecting the spatial distribution, density and behaviour of an animal will vary depending on the species in question. A highly localised species with a small home range will probably be more vulnerable to negative impacts than a migratory species with a large natural range. For example, tourist fed tiger sharks in the Bahamas still undertook long distance migrations into areas of the Gulf Stream thought to be important for feeding and giving birth. Secondly, both the number of ecotourists in an area, and the amount, variety and quality of food fed to wildlife requires careful consideration. Providing an unlimited and inferior food source will encourage animals to live in an environment of higher risk but will not improve their health or survival rates.
Feeding southern stingrays is a very popular activity in the Cayman Islands, and in 2007 it was estimated that up to 2500 tourists could be interacting with stingrays at the Stingray City Sandbar at any one time. Research scientists set out to investigate whether the nutritional status of fed sting rays was similar to stingrays that did not interact with tourists. It was discovered that the blood fatty acid profiles of fed and unfed stings rays were distinctly different, and thus the natural diet of southern stingrays is quite different to what they receive from tourists. Stingrays in tourist-fed areas also had a lower body condition and a higher number of parasites compared to their unfed counterparts. Southern stingrays are largely solitary animals; however fed stingrays also had a higher incidence of bite marks, thought to be caused by high levels of crowding and aggressive competition for resources at tourist sites. Injuries from boat propellers were also more common in ecotourism areas. While the long term effects of tourist activities on the survival, immune function and reproductive capacity of southern stingrays is unclear, there is strong evidence to suggest that these parameters may be affected. As such, recommendations have been made to decrease the amount of, and increase the quality and variety of food that stingrays receive in the hope that nonnatural food dependency will decrease and animal welfare will improve.
The effects of tourist supplied food on animal and ecosystem health will depend on (but is not limited to) a couple of factors. Firstly, the likelihood of affecting the spatial distribution, density and behaviour of an animal will vary depending on the species in question. A highly localised species with a small home range will probably be more vulnerable to negative impacts than a migratory species with a large natural range. For example, tourist fed tiger sharks in the Bahamas still undertook long distance migrations into areas of the Gulf Stream thought to be important for feeding and giving birth. Secondly, both the number of ecotourists in an area, and the amount, variety and quality of food fed to wildlife requires careful consideration. Providing an unlimited and inferior food source will encourage animals to live in an environment of higher risk but will not improve their health or survival rates.
A CATALYST FOR CHANGE?
Without a doubt, one of the best things about ecotourism is the potential for wildlife encounters to change the way people view and interact with the world, or at least come away with a greater appreciation for the natural environment. In a general sense, this could mean a change in behaviour or lifestyle born from a desire to live more sustainably, or it could be a change in perception. The latter is particularly important when it comes to large predatory species such as sharks who have suffered immensely thanks to unfounded post-jaws hysteria. But just how likely is it that an ecotourism experience will be a catalyst for positive change in someone's life? As it turns out, not all ecotourism experiences are created equal.
In Hawai’i, an examination of marine tourism found that many operators engaged in, and/or allowed their guests to engage in activities that could potentially degrade marine ecosystems. For example, operators that promote ‘green’ practices were seen to dump food scraps, or turn a blind eye when clients chased marine life such as turtles. Damage to coral was quite common, with improper boat anchoring and tourists sitting on or trampling shallow coral. During scuba diving operations, diver ability was rarely monitored and coral was frequently kicked due to inexperience or lack of awareness. Dive guides were also observed forcing octopuses to ink and removing sea urchins, sea cucumbers and other invertebrates for divers to see and hold. (For the record, I (Kelli) have witnessed all of the above by ‘eco-certified’ diver operators in Australia). Furthermore, only 14% of the tour operators surveyed recycled waste materials. This could easily leave tourists confused about best practice, or cause them to disregard the green message of the tour all together.
Various studies have shown that it can be quite difficult to change human behaviour, and the outcomes in terms of awareness and behavioural change are dependent on at least a few key factors. Firstly, does the tour offer an animal viewing/interaction in isolation, or is a more structured educational program on offer? This question deals with the incorrect assumption that interaction or more knowledge equals a change in behaviour. Research has shown that nature-based tourism is unlikely to change a tourist’s behaviour unless a structured educational program is in place with the premeditated aim of doing just that. Then there is the issue of credibility and accessibility. The credibility of the host must be established quickly, this can be demonstrated by sharing knowledge gained through a mixture of formal and naturalistic training/experience. The host must be able to explain ecological concepts clearly and engage with a wide variety of people while leading by example in terms of behaviour. This can be quite difficult considering the makeup of tour groups in terms of age, gender, culture, language and interest level. The guide must also be adaptable and able to gauge the level of interest in the group, keeping explanations brief enough to avoid boredom or overburdening guests with information. Like most things, it’s appears to be about defining a clear goal, recruiting guides with experience, knowledge and credibility, and finding the right balance.
In Hawai’i, an examination of marine tourism found that many operators engaged in, and/or allowed their guests to engage in activities that could potentially degrade marine ecosystems. For example, operators that promote ‘green’ practices were seen to dump food scraps, or turn a blind eye when clients chased marine life such as turtles. Damage to coral was quite common, with improper boat anchoring and tourists sitting on or trampling shallow coral. During scuba diving operations, diver ability was rarely monitored and coral was frequently kicked due to inexperience or lack of awareness. Dive guides were also observed forcing octopuses to ink and removing sea urchins, sea cucumbers and other invertebrates for divers to see and hold. (For the record, I (Kelli) have witnessed all of the above by ‘eco-certified’ diver operators in Australia). Furthermore, only 14% of the tour operators surveyed recycled waste materials. This could easily leave tourists confused about best practice, or cause them to disregard the green message of the tour all together.
Various studies have shown that it can be quite difficult to change human behaviour, and the outcomes in terms of awareness and behavioural change are dependent on at least a few key factors. Firstly, does the tour offer an animal viewing/interaction in isolation, or is a more structured educational program on offer? This question deals with the incorrect assumption that interaction or more knowledge equals a change in behaviour. Research has shown that nature-based tourism is unlikely to change a tourist’s behaviour unless a structured educational program is in place with the premeditated aim of doing just that. Then there is the issue of credibility and accessibility. The credibility of the host must be established quickly, this can be demonstrated by sharing knowledge gained through a mixture of formal and naturalistic training/experience. The host must be able to explain ecological concepts clearly and engage with a wide variety of people while leading by example in terms of behaviour. This can be quite difficult considering the makeup of tour groups in terms of age, gender, culture, language and interest level. The guide must also be adaptable and able to gauge the level of interest in the group, keeping explanations brief enough to avoid boredom or overburdening guests with information. Like most things, it’s appears to be about defining a clear goal, recruiting guides with experience, knowledge and credibility, and finding the right balance.
Crowding animals is a common occurrence, Kelli Anderson
CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS
After reviewing the literature, the economic and ecological arguments for moving away from unsustainable fishing, towards responsible ecotourism are quite clear and straight forward. However, it’s really important to realise that fishing is a way of life and sole source of income for many people, and the activity may hold cultural significance. If this is the case, it is unreasonable to suggest that ecotourism replaces all fishing. Rather, there is potential for ecotourism operators and local fishers to work together synergistically for the effective management of natural resources. For example, instead of fishers targeting species depended upon for ecotourism, they could target other species whose populations are healthy and supply food for locals and a growing number of ecotourists alike. For activities such as shark feeding (when responsibly done), fishers could supply fish to tour operators instead of catching the sharks themselves. It’s about finding the right balance, and consultation and collaboration with locals is absolutely essential.
PERSONAL NOTE
Unfortunately we live in a world where many 'decision makers' fail to realise the real value of the natural world. For this reason it's usually helpful to think in terms of how much something is worth to a country's economy. Ecotourism is a long-term source of income and employment that will be able to boost or completely sustain rural and metropolitan communities so long as ecosystem health and integrity is maintained. It's an industry where economic, cultural and environmental interests can be one and the same, and for this reason has incredible potential.
FURTHER READING
Forestell, P.H., 1993. If Leviathan has a face, does Gaia have a soul?: Incorporating environmental education in marine eco-tourism programs. Ocean & Coastal Management. 20, 267-282. View article.
Hammerschlag, N., Gallagher, A.J., Wester, J., Luo, J., Ault, J.S., 2012. Don’t bite the hand that feeds: assessing ecological impacts of provisioning ecotourism on an apex marine predator. Functional Ecology. 26, 567-576. View article.
Newman, H.E., Medcraft, A.J., 1997. Whale Shark Tagging and Ecotourism. in: Fowler, S., Tim, R., Frances, D. (Eds.), Elasmobranch biodiversity, conservation and management. Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop. The IUCN Species Survival Commission, Sabah, Malaysia, pp. 230-235. View article.
O'Malley, M.P., Lee-Brooks, K., Medd, H.B., 2013. The global economic impact of manta ray watching tourism. PLoS One. 8, e65051. View article.
Orams, M.B., 1997. The effectiveness of environmental education: can we turn tourists into "greenies'? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research. 3, 295-306. View article.
Semeniuk, C.A., Rothley, K.D., 2008. Costs of group-living for a normally solitary forager: effects of provisioning tourism on southern stingrays Dasyatis americana. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 357, 271. View article.
Semeniuk, C.A.D., Speers-Roesch, B., Rothley, K.D., 2007. Using fatty-acid profile analysis as an ecologic indicator in the management of tourist impacts on marine wildlife: a case of stingray-feeding in the Caribbean. Environmental Management. 40, 665-677. View article.
Vianna, G.M.S., Meekan, M.G., Pannell, D., Marsh, S., Meeuwig, J.J., 2010. Wanted dead or alive? The relative value of reef sharks as a fishery and an ecotourism asset in Palau. Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the University of Western Australia (UWA). View article.
Wiener, C.S., Needham, M.D., Wilkinson, P.F., 2009. Hawaii's real life marine park: interpretation and impacts of commercial marine tourism in the Hawaiian Islands. Current Issues in Tourism. 12, 489-504. View article.
Hammerschlag, N., Gallagher, A.J., Wester, J., Luo, J., Ault, J.S., 2012. Don’t bite the hand that feeds: assessing ecological impacts of provisioning ecotourism on an apex marine predator. Functional Ecology. 26, 567-576. View article.
Newman, H.E., Medcraft, A.J., 1997. Whale Shark Tagging and Ecotourism. in: Fowler, S., Tim, R., Frances, D. (Eds.), Elasmobranch biodiversity, conservation and management. Proceedings of the International Seminar and Workshop. The IUCN Species Survival Commission, Sabah, Malaysia, pp. 230-235. View article.
O'Malley, M.P., Lee-Brooks, K., Medd, H.B., 2013. The global economic impact of manta ray watching tourism. PLoS One. 8, e65051. View article.
Orams, M.B., 1997. The effectiveness of environmental education: can we turn tourists into "greenies'? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research. 3, 295-306. View article.
Semeniuk, C.A., Rothley, K.D., 2008. Costs of group-living for a normally solitary forager: effects of provisioning tourism on southern stingrays Dasyatis americana. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 357, 271. View article.
Semeniuk, C.A.D., Speers-Roesch, B., Rothley, K.D., 2007. Using fatty-acid profile analysis as an ecologic indicator in the management of tourist impacts on marine wildlife: a case of stingray-feeding in the Caribbean. Environmental Management. 40, 665-677. View article.
Vianna, G.M.S., Meekan, M.G., Pannell, D., Marsh, S., Meeuwig, J.J., 2010. Wanted dead or alive? The relative value of reef sharks as a fishery and an ecotourism asset in Palau. Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) and the University of Western Australia (UWA). View article.
Wiener, C.S., Needham, M.D., Wilkinson, P.F., 2009. Hawaii's real life marine park: interpretation and impacts of commercial marine tourism in the Hawaiian Islands. Current Issues in Tourism. 12, 489-504. View article.