Do wildlife tourism actually make people want to conserve nature? A new study suggest that it does!
Wildlife tourism is big business, and the people who own businesses that include this type of tourism often try to claim that it has a direct link with increasing the knowledge, attitude and willingness of conservation efforts for the people who partake in this type of tourism.
A safari in Africa is probably one of the most common types of wildlife tourism. Image by Laika ac, posted with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
.jpg){kind=link}
It does of course make sense, but there are also some arguments against it. The main one is that no study has really shown that this link exist. The people who argues that it does not affect conservation efforts often use the argument that wildlife tourism tend to “preach to the converted”, meaning that people who spend money on the wildlife tourism already has made up their mind, while those who generally oppose it have no plan to try wildlife tourism.
Up until very recently this debate has been ruled by arguments and opinions, but a paper posted in the Marine Policy journal finally bring some evidence to the discussion!
Seeing sharks in a shark cage leads to higher conservation effort!
Southern Cross University PhD student Kirin Apps and Dr. Charlie Huveneers of Flinders University have been working on a project where they wanted to find out how peoples’ view of shark conservation changed after having dived in a shark cage. They surveyed 783 different people who dived in them, and 54 % of these agreed for the scientists to contact them later and ask them of their views on the matter.
Tourists swimming in a shark cage to experience the sharks up-close. Image by Flickr user kalanz, posted with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
After the initial survey they waited for several months, and in some cases even several years before contacting them. A total of 136 of the participants responded for a follow-up survey, which was enough to give the research team a good indication of what has changed.
The report shows that there is a significant increase in the awareness of threats towards sharks. Not only that, but the participants had also increased their engagement by joining anti-shark killing groups on social media, had a better understanding of the role of the shark in the ecosystem, were more likely to sign shark conservation petitions, and were more likely to promote shark conservation to friends and coworkers.
All in all it seemed like the people who had dived in a shark cage were much more concerned with shark conservation even a long time after the dive!
Why look at shark diving, and not safaris?
One of the unique features of shark diving compared to for example safaris is that many people reported to dive with the sharks as a thrilling activity. They did not necessarily care much about the sharks, but just wanted to experience the thrill of diving next to a huge predator that could potentially kill and eat them (but that is of course very unlikely).
This meant that the researcher were able to take a group that did not care too much about a certain type of conservation effort and measure how/if this experienced affected their view on the matter.
While this does not conclude that all wildlife tourism has an increased conservation effort, it is a good indication that it can be beneficial in some cases.
A Great White Shark; the biggest and most dangerous of them all! Image by Terry Goss, posted with the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
Conservation effort is not all we should care about
While this does provide some evidence that wildlife tourism can make people care more about conserving the species they experience, this is not the only factor that should be used when discussion wildlife tourism. There are many other factors to including, such as:
- Impacts of feeding patterns.
- Impacts of breeding patterns.
- How it affects the animals, such as are they scared when tourists visit? This could lead to a higher mortality rate or other problems.
- Do the tourism affect the ecosystem of the area without knowing?
I won’t go into much detail about these issues in this post, but just keep in mind that many other things affect the total benefit or cost of having wildlife tourism.
Thanks for reading
Thanks for reading about how diving with sharks can affect people attitudes towards conservation effort of the sharks. I hope you learned something new, and maybe even made up your mind in regards to how you feel about wildlife tourism. Feel free to leave a comment below if you got any opinions or idea about this and want to share it with the rest of us!
With my background in economics, I am firmly in the camp that believes wildlife tourism is KEY to conservation.
It’s not about tourists simply seeing the beauty of wildlife that will make them suddenly care, because that’s garbage. People care about themselves and money. That’s all. Therefore, the key to conservation through wildlife tourism, is by giving ownership of land/wildlife to communities, you make them suddenly worth something. This ownership now gives the community an incentive to conserve so as to protect their assets and income.
A more controversial opinion I have is around how we should protect endangered wildlife from poaching... We should actually allow hunting! (Hear me out here 😉). By granting ownership over the land and endangered wildlife within it, the community is going to want to conserve the species within so as they don’t lose an income stream. If, for top dollar, a hunter wants to shoot a certain species then they are granted permission to do so, but only animals that can’t breed or are causing problems etc. The money made then can be reinvested back into conservation of the species for tourism efforts.
Controversial I know, but in my opinion, tourism via ownership is key to conservation efforts 🌲.
Thanks for sharing your point of the matter with the rest of us, @forexbrokr :)
I can't say that I agree to all of what you're saying, but I get where you are going with this. By giving the power to the local people, they are surely going to be interested in protecting the area, but there are of course a few problems with this method as well. For instance not all animals that needs protection are something that tourists are willing to pay to see. Some areas will only have "boring" species that no one will want to visit, and then why would the locals care about protecting it?
The thing you are saying about hunting is pretty much already happening. Shooting a lion or other big animal in Africa can cost as much as $100,000, and a lot of it is going back into conservation and to the local people. It's surely controversial, but it is paying for a lot of the conservation effort (in Africa especially).
Love your work as always mate. Really gets me thinking.
Thanks, it means the world to me when people tell me that they appreciate reading the posts I write! :D
When I first started reading this post, I was thinking you were going to talk about whether or not tourism hurts the animal populations or not and I figured that you would go into a debate about the ethics in zoo. When you started talking about the positive impact of people observing sharks in a cage, it threw me off a bit, but I like the point it's making.
I often hear people talking about how by interacting with animals that do better in isolation, we hurt them and that by keeping them in a zoo would do more harm due to how unnatural it is, versus the benefit it would have to educate people about them. For the most part, I believe this is true for most things, but what I like about this approach is that it is, instead, taking people into the environment of the animal rather than forcing the animals out of their home.
When I think about this, it's very ingenious, because it forces people to actually see what thee animals look like in a natural setting. I makes it so that there can be a connection they make when someone addresses issues with pollution in the oceans and poaching (although I'm not certain that shark poaching is a common issue.....but defiantly for one of the other sea creatures.) It's kind of like when people see the videos about the animal cruelty in meat shops. Most people can't care if they aren't aware. By creating a meaningful link between the people and the sharks, I have no doubt that is has a positive impact. Plus, I doubt that the sharks care all that much about the cage. Good stuff!
There are lots of different aspects of wildlife tourism and things like zoos that went unmentioned in this post, and I'm sure I could write lots of posts on this subject. It's a really interesting topic, and what's great is that everyone has their own opinions, so there tend to be a lot of good debate. Anyway, I definitely agree that wildlife tourism is much better than zoos for the animals.
Like you mention, the sharks probably does not care about the cage. In fact they probably get fed, which is why they are attracted to the area in the first place.
Actually, the killing of sharks is a huge threat to their survival, because shark fins are extremely valuable and sought after in the Asian markets. Fishermen tend to illegally fish fish, cut of the fins and toss the shark back in the water again, where it will slowly die since it cannot breathe without moving. It's actually very morbid and brutal!
And thanks for leaving a good comment, @thegreatlife!
Yikes, I wasn't aware of the fins. It's probably for a flimsy reason like why a lot of people want elephant tucks and so forth... magical remedy and such...well, elephant parts have real utility...but you know what I mean.. People are probably selling them and buying them for reasons that don't even make sense (not that I agree with those type of sales happening under any circumstances.) Good post, and of course! I enjoy reading about the kind of things you address in these articles. Very professional and educational.
Yeah, you're completely right. It's believed to cure cancer or something like that in China, so everyone wants it. It is also a symbol of wealth, so people will go and eat very expensive (and apparently pretty tasteless) shark fin soup to get healthy and show off their money.
A valid issue with many great points. I never put much thought into wildlife tourism. I wonder how much the tourism companies help with the conservation of animals, habitats and surrounding ecosystems? Any kind of tourism can have a negative effect on the environment simply by the influx of traffic. Limits should be in place on the number of visitors allowed into the areas.
Does a person that goes on a Safari give more effort into the conservation of that environment having visited? I would think so but who knows? Zoos ( the good ones) have a pretty large impact on education, preservation and conservation.
A similar instance to wildlife tourism would be the tourism surrounding our National Parks and Forests. Without tourism, there would not be much of an increase in education and subsequent conservation of these areas. No doubt it brings money into the area but only a portion of the money is going to be used to negate the effects of the mass quantities of people on the environment.
Tourism is a double edged sword. Thinking in a sustainable manner is extremely important when our natural resources are involved. I wish it didn't take having to go on a Safari to make a person feel they should consider conservation. Or going to a Zoo for that matter.
That's a good question, and I don't think there is a clear answer here. I guess it entirely depends on the organization that owns the wildlife tourism business, the country it operates in, and what type of thing it is.
Thanks for leaving a valuable comment, @kiristin! You raise some good question, and I definitely agree with you that tourism is a double-edged sword. It has played a big part in the conservation of some species, but has also been the demise of others. It's unfortunate that many national parks and other protected areas are dependent on the money from tourists in order to function, but luckily some are financed entirely by the governments, which allows them to protect the area without having to build hotels, shops, and restaurants next to it in order to afford to protect it.
The most abundant wildlife I have seen is in national parks both private and public. Both of which get the majority of their funding and guidance from tourists.
People never forget an interaction with a "wild" animal. For me my love of nature started with a elephant encounter (Scary at the time).
If people have never been exposed to wildlife it is unreasonable for them to care for it. I think wildlife tourism should not only be encouraged I think it should be compulsory in the education system.
Very interesting to see that shark cage diving does the same.
I have lived in Fish Hoek, Cape Town where they chum (put blood in the water) to attract Great whites to the cage and there has been a massive increase in shark attacks, which gives it a bad name. Although i could easily be due to over fishing also
That's a good point. But I'm not sure I agree completely. While I have never seen a shark in my life I still care a lot about the conservation of them, so it's not necessarily needed to interact with all animals. I believe that some species are best left of to stay wild, but eh, that's just my opinion on the matter. Wildlife tourism certainly has a lot of positive aspects as well, and I have personally begun my interest in biology because I loved seeing animals when I was a child.
Wow, that's one thing that had not crossed my mind. I guess it might not be such a smart idea to have these shark cages close to places where people swim or surf..
PS. sorry for not answering sooner! Some of my comments got buried in my Replies feed, so I forgot all about them.
In my personal opinion tourism is helping conservation of wild life animal and species by directly and indirectly. At one side tourist spend handsome amount in traveling safari parks which facilitates to bear the expanse of wild life food. Tourist also love to feed animals with their hands which passively make a close relationship between animals and humans. In my last visit to northern area I fed a lot of monkeys with corn.monkeys love to eat corn.
Visiting safari park is not all about seeing wild life but it taught a lot of active and passive learning. Seeing is believing. People get good awareness after observing themselves. As you mentioned the case of people dived with a cage to see shark.
However with all the pros of tourism there are few cons like hydro carbon pollution due to automobiles,throwing plastic garbage etc. These issues not only damage the environment but also endanger wild life. The good thing is we can control it by giving awareness to people.so it is to raise awareness to people to make this world a better place with good ecosystem
Sorry that I have not been able to answer your comment earlier, @kamchore!
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Wildlife tourism can be really good for both humans and conservation efforts, but I'm not sure it's always the best for the animals. As you say "Tourist also love to feed animals with their hands which passively make a close relationship between animals and humans". I also think it is really cool to feed animals by hand, but I also believe that we should let the animals be able to stay wild, and not become too familiar with humans. How will they escape hunters if they think the humans are there to feed them?
Good point. And even more emission from planes; these pollute an extreme amount!
Totally agreed. I missed a valid point. Hunter may used these tactics for their benefits. It is not only about animal hunting but people do trap/ditch you for their benefits in the name of love. Thanks for clarification
Exactly. It's very sad that even nice activities like feeding the animals can lead to them being taken advantage of.
This reminds of a brief conversation regarding tourists paying to help baby sea turtles in Mexico, the other day. The thing that a lot of people seem to leave out of when examining the ecotourist industry is that the main effect they have isn't necessarily converting the tourists to environmentalism, or even maximizing their direct benefit to the animals, so much as converting the local economy from one that exploits the animals themselves (i.e. hunting, fishing, circus performance, farm labor, etc.) to one that exploits the tourists' interest in the animals. (Here's a link to a really great video by Chris Haddfield's son on a similar situation involving the few remmaining wild elephants of Cambodia.)
That's a very good point, @ribbitingscience! I agree that this is one of the most important factors when it comes to wildlife tourism, and I'm sure it has helped preserve many different species. I remember reading about something similar for the turtles that hatched, where previously the local people would collect the eggs to eat, but now they could collect the eggs and trade them to a conservation group for food.
Precisely. Now, I don't know if this distinction is still recognized outside of the U.S. (even here the public seems to be unaware of the origins of the two) but the terms "environmentalist" and "conservationist" originally signified very different approaches to protecting the environment. Environmentalists believed in the preservation of nature in a completely natural state (exemplified by nature preserves) while conservationists believed in finding a balance in the sustainable use of nature (i.e. national parks and sustainable logging).
Personally, I come down on the conservationist side. Looking at the movement to save the Amazon rainforest, for example, you see the massive amount of attention paid by the public to the environmentalists' message did in fact result in a quite dramatic drop in the amount of tree coverage lost every year. With the economic downturn a few years back, the deforestation spiked 29% in 2016 alone. The reason being that most of the deforestation results from subsistence farming, which, despite being illegal, not only continues to spread but means that deforestation spikes correlate with slumps in the economy pretty well. The Brazilian government is reporting that deforestation is down for 2017 but that once again correlates with economic growth. Ultimately, the fate of the forest is tied to fixing the economic incentives and it just doesn't seem like the Brazilian government has done enough to transition the rural populations to a sustainable economy, instead relying on an underfunded legal initiative and so the chain continues forest>susbistence farm>land is depleted>cattle ranch>more land is cleared for farming>bought by larger cattle ranch>more land is cleared to unite the ranch lands. Focusing on tying the economy to environmental sustainability just seems to be the only viable long term in any circumstance.
I have never heard of the distinction between "environmentalist" and "conservationist" before, so at least it is not really used where I live. But it makes sense, and I suppose it is good to have different words, since these groups will have very different goals.
I completely agree. I can't really blame any poor countries for making bad decisions, because it's not like they really have a choice, because they do need some income to run their country.
Dett er et veldig interessant tema. Bra at du skriver om det.
Jeg så forresten nettopp ville pingviner for første gang i mitt liv. Jeg merker at jeg nå har blitt mye mer opptatt av at vi må bevare de sjeldne og utrydningstruede artene vi har.
Jeg har også vært på safari for noen år siden, uten å tenke noe over konseptets fordeler og ulemper.
Det er lett å bare dra på ting uten å relektere noe over det. Dessverre.
STEEM on!
Det er hyggelig å høre at du liker posten min, @susanne! Artig å se pingviner da; jeg kjenner jeg er litt misunnelig på deg for det.
Du har helt rett i at det er altfor enkelt å være med på disse tingene uten å tenke over hvilke konsekvenser eller fordeler det har for dyrene. Det er i alle fall viktig å ha debatten for å avgjøre hvordan vi skal forholde oss til slik type turisme :) Men det er godt å høre at du har blitt mer opptatt av å bevare sjeldne og utrydningstruede arter.
Takk for at du tok turen innom og la igjen en god kommentar forresten!
Hilsen @valth
Being A SteemStem Member
Thanks! :D
Excellent friend that is one of my dreams to go to a wild tourism in Africa and I love those types of wild animals that are there must be fabulous to see a lion an elephant, you would pay the last dollar to go, I do not know how people who with money do not dare to pay a wild tourism for all that plain that africa can offer you there are very beautiful national parks there I can not imagine that it should be to see a white rhinoceros a leopard a gazelle, a buffalo must be magical thanks greetings .
deffinatly makes you think about it more. i visited an elephant safari as part of a buggy deal in bali once they started walking the elephent around you could see how distressed it was and they had a baby chained up at the front for tourist to take photos with it was a truely unsettling experience that i felt ashamed to have been apart of my next trip will be to the conservation park where they do not practice this
Oh wow, that sounds terrible, @cryptokemon! This is a good example of why not all types of wildlife tourism is good.