negative impacts of wildlife tourism

• How Bad Tourism Affects Wildlife Around The World

• Wildlife tourism is popular among travelers as it provides an opportunity to get close to species that they would not ordinarily encounter. However, such interactions are often harmful to wildlife.
• Lion cubs are sometimes drugged in order for tourists to take photos with them in South Africa.
• Tourists photographing turtles nesting on beaches often disturbs the nesting process of these animals further threatening their survival.
• Close interactions between humans and wild primates can lead to inter-specific disease transmission.

Wildlife tourism is popular among travelers as it provides an opportunity to get close to species that they would not ordinarily encounter. Popular wildlife tourism activities include safaris, dolphin and whale watching, gorilla tracking, and visiting conservation centers. In recent years there has been a rise in eco-tourism and sustainable travel that aims to protect wildlife and the environment. However, not all areas of the wildlife tourism industry are following suit and many species are at risk due to bad tourism. Read on below to find out which animals are threatened by bad tourist practices.

The Great Barrier Reef , located off north-eastern Australia in the Pacific Ocean, is home to 400 types of coral. It is the world’s largest coral reef collection. The tourism industry has had a detrimental impact on the Reef, snorkelers and scuba divers have caused damage to the coral species. When divers explore the area, they sometimes kick up sand and sediment, which smothers the coral causing it to die. Divers and snorkelers may accidentally kick the coral or take a piece as a souvenir - this causes long-term damage to the reef. In 2016, 30% of the Great Barrier Reef perished due to a number of factors, including badly managed tourism. A further 20% was damaged in 2017.

7. Orangutans

Indonesia is famous for its orangutans, a critically endangered species that are native to the Indonesian island of Borneo and Sumatra . Some tours run excursions into the jungles, where tourists are able to come into close contact with the primates. This can cause many problems for the species. Frequent feeding by tourists causes the orangutans to become aggressive in instances where they are not fed.  Feeding the orangutans also puts them at risk of contamination and poor health. The repeated contact with humans has resulted in high infant mortality rates due to diseases and poor motherhood skills, which indicates tourism is having a negative impact on these already endangered animals.

Safaris and game drives are popular amongst tourists as it is an opportunity to see exotic animals in their natural habitat. However, studies have shown that tigers suffer psychological stress due to wildlife tourism. If the animals are subjected to prolonged stress, their survival and reproduction will be at risk. Elevated stress hormones can also negatively impact tigers' growth and immunity. It is important for tourist vehicles entering the parks to be regulated and human disturbances should be greatly minimized to conserve the existence of these already endangered animals.

5. Green turtles

The endangered green turtle can be found in more than 80 countries, including Costa Rica and Australia. Many tourists visit the coastlines to catch a glimpse of the animals, especially during the nesting season, where they can observe the turtles during the day time. However, the large number of tourists concentrated in these areas has a negative impact on the lives of the turtles. Habitat degradation through tourism development is a common occurrence; trash is often left behind on beaches and badly managed tour groups can sometimes harass the nesting turtles. Some unregulated ‘turtle hatcheries’ efforts are also extremely damaging to the green turtle population. They are often run by volunteers, rather than experts, and have incorrect knowledge in regards to the turtles’ life cycles and biology.

4. Dolphins

In 2018, research led by the University of Otago found that there is growing evidence to suggest that whale and dolphin -watching activities can have an adverse effect on the animals. Spinner dolphins have been particularly affected as they rest and sleep in shallow waters during the day time. When tourists visit these areas, they disrupt the resting patterns of the dolphins. Repeated sleep and rest loss could eventually cause a decline in population and displacement. Marine parks are also a threat to dolphin populations. Marine parks are a tourist attraction that can greatly impact dolphin populations. The Taji hunt in Japan sees more than 1,700 dolphins either slaughtered or sold to aquariums and marine parks.

3. Gorillas

In 2020, a study was published by researchers at Ohio University that showed the risk that tourists pose to endangered mountain gorillas. The mountain gorillas are an endangered species found only in eastern Africa. Around 40% of the remaining mountain gorilla population is found in southwestern Uganda’s Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. The Park attracts tourists from all over the world, but the close proximity between humans and animals is a great risk. Researchers have found that gorillas are particularly susceptible to human diseases and the transmission of respiratory infections causes up to 20% of sudden deaths in gorillas. Poorly managed tour groups do not observe distancing rules; the study found that this rule was violated in over 98% of the examined tours.  

In South Africa , there are more captive than wild lions. Only 32% of the country’s lion population lives in free-roaming wildlife reserves. Lions are bred specifically to be held captive for commercial use, to be used as photo opportunities for tourists wanting a ‘once in a lifetime experience’. Lion cubs are often drugged in order for tourists to take photos with them, but when they become adults, they are too dangerous to have contact with humans and are either euthanized or kept in crowded captive conditions, sold to inhumane zoos or lion farms. These holding facilities have a severe impact on lions’ well-being and have no conservation benefit.

1. Galapagos tortoise

The Galapagos Islands are home to an abundance of wildlife found nowhere else in the world. In recent years, the islands have seen an increase in tourists, which has led to increasing demand for accommodation and subsequent habitat degradation. Tourists leaving litter and the increasing number of ships traveling between the islands and the mainland pollutes the waters and impact marine life. Tourists also unwittingly introduce foreign species to the archipelago, seeds, or spores attached to clothing could create an invasion that threatens the existence of endemic species. The famous Galapagos tortoise is at risk as human interaction alters their behavioral patterns, which has a detrimental impact on the tortoises.

• Environment

More in Environment

Importance Of Wetlands

Meet 12 Incredible Conservation Heroes Saving Our Wildlife From Extinction

India's Leopard God, Waghoba, Aids Wildlife Conservation In The Country

India's Bishnoi Community Has Fearlessly Protected Nature For Over 500 Years

Wildfires And Habitat Loss Are Killing Jaguars In The Amazon Rainforest

In India's Sundarbans: Where People Live Face-To-Face With Wild Tigers

Africa's "Thunderbird" Is At Risk Of Extinction

Why Is Biodiversity Critical To Life On Earth?

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Animals (Basel)

The Escalating Effects of Wildlife Tourism on Human–Wildlife Conflict

Qingming cui.

1 School of Tourism Management, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China; moc.621@gnimgniqiuc

2 South China Ecological Civilization Research Center, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China

3 School of Hotel Administration, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA; ude.llenroc@242ry

Honggang Xu

4 School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China

Associated Data

Simple summary.

Communities adjacent to protected areas usually face conflict with protected wildlife. Wildlife tourism is regarded as a tool to mitigate such conflict through bringing economic benefits to villagers and then increasing villagers’ tolerance of wildlife. We used qualitative methods to conduct a case study on a macaque tourism attraction in China and find that tourism may escalate rather than mitigate community–wildlife conflict. Provisioning food is a common way to attract wild animals to visit and stay in human activity areas. In the case of macaque tourism, anthropogenic food provision caused rapid population increase and more intra-group aggressive behaviors. More tourist–macaque interactions resulted in macaques becoming habituated to human’s presence. These ecological impacts on macaques led more invasion to the surrounding community and intensified resident–macaque conflict. Meanwhile, low community participation in tourism generated few benefits for residents and did not help alter residents’ hostile attitudes towards the macaques. Local residents gradually retreated from agriculture as the macaques became more intrusive. We propose a holistic model combining social and ecological perspectives to evaluate the role of wildlife tourism in resolving community–wildlife conflict. We suggest that wildlife tourism should minimize human–wildlife intimate interactions and food provision.

Human–wildlife conflict is a barrier to achieving sustainable biodiversity conservation and community development in protected areas. Tourism is often regarded as a tool to mitigate such conflict. However, existing studies have mainly adopted a socio-economic perspective to examine the benefits of tourism for communities, neglecting the ecological effects of tourism. This case study of macaque tourism on a peninsula in China illustrates that tourism can escalate rather than mitigate human–wildlife conflict. Fifty-three stakeholders were interviewed and secondary data were collected to understand the development of rhesus macaque ( Macaca mulatta ) tourism and community–macaque conflict. The results show that food provision and tourist–macaque interactions rapidly increased the macaques’ population, habituation, and aggressive behaviors, which led them to invade the surrounding community more often and exacerbated human–macaque conflict. Meanwhile, low community participation in tourism generated few benefits for residents and did not help alter residents’ hostile attitudes towards the macaques. Local residents gradually retreated from agriculture as the macaques became more intrusive. A holistic approach to evaluating the role of wildlife tourism in resolving community–wildlife conflict is proposed and practical suggestions for alleviating such conflict are given.

1. Introduction

In the past few decades, protected areas have been one of the main tools for maintaining and improving biodiversity conservation [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. However, there are tensions between wildlife conservation and the development of communities adjacent to protected areas [ 5 , 6 ]. The establishment of protected areas deprives communities of natural resources and restricts industrial and agricultural development, suggesting that to conserve ecology and wildlife, those communities sacrifice economic opportunities [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Moreover, wild animals often cross the borders of protected areas and enter neighboring communities, causing human–wildlife conflict [ 10 , 11 ]. The costs that wildlife impose upon local people include crop-raiding, livestock loss, human attacks, and opportunity and transaction costs [ 8 , 12 ]. Local residents who suffer economic, social, and health losses may then become hostile to wildlife and conservation, and even harm or kill wild animals for revenge [ 12 , 13 ]. Human–wildlife conflict is therefore one of the main problems besetting sustainable wildlife conservation and the sustainable livelihoods of local communities. “Human–wildlife conflict” in this study mainly refers to the community–wildlife conflict, following most other conservation studies, e.g., [ 12 , 14 , 15 ].

Wildlife tourism development has been proposed as a solution to human–wildlife conflict [ 3 , 14 , 15 ]. Recent studies have focused on examining whether and how tourism benefits can alter communities’ hostile attitudes and livelihoods from the economic and social perspectives [ 16 ]. In this article, we argue that those studies neglect the ecological costs of wildlife tourism. Human–wildlife interactions in tourism can bring about various adaptive ecological and behavioral changes that cause wildlife to become a nuisance and make human–wildlife conflict difficult to manage [ 17 , 18 ]. The introduction of profit-driven wildlife tourism in protected areas can trigger complicity in relation to human–wildlife conflict and result in a divergence from original conservation principles. In order to bridge the above research gap, we propose a holistic approach that synthesizes social and ecological perspectives to examine the interactions among tourism businesses, local community, and wildlife.

We use macaque tourism in Hainan Province, China, as a case study to show how wildlife tourism can intensify, rather than mitigate, human–wildlife conflict. The specific research questions include: (1) How do the community residents cope with the community–wildlife conflict? (2) How does the community participate in tourism, and can tourism benefits change the community’s attitude towards wildlife? (3) How does tourism activities affect wildlife? (4) Does wildlife tourism exacerbate or mitigate human–wildlife conflict if assessing the socio-economic benefits and ecological costs combined?

2. Literature Review

2.1. tourism as a way to mitigate human–wildlife conflict.

There are controversial arguments about whether and how tourism development mitigates human–wildlife conflict in protected areas. Many studies endorse the premise that tourism benefits that accrue to local residents can raise villagers’ environmental awareness, increase residents’ tolerance of wildlife [ 15 ], and transform traditional livelihoods [ 19 ]. For instance, Mbaiwa and Stronza found that in Okavango Delta, three communities participating in tourism had stopped traditional activities, such as hunting, gathering, livestock raising, and crop farming [ 20 ]. Tourism revenue-sharing projects in gorilla tourism in Rwanda and Uganda have received the most research attention, with studies finding that national park officials and local representatives believe that revenue-sharing is the most significant advantage of living adjacent to gorilla national parks [ 21 ] and that residents benefit from tourism revenue-sharing through infrastructure projects [ 22 , 23 ]. Cases from Brazil and Peru also support the argument that tourism benefits local residents, and that local participation in management can generate conservation attitudes and actions [ 24 ].

However, other scholars have questioned the effectiveness of tourism in improving community development and biodiversity conservation [ 9 , 16 , 25 ]. Swemmer et al. pointed out that “benefit sharing is messy, is complex, and occurs at various scales with multiple trade-offs” [ 26 ] (p. 17). Stakeholders at different scales have heterogeneous demands for revenue, for various reasons. For instance, communities in Uganda’s Mgahinga Gorilla National Park were found to want benefits to compensate for crop and livestock losses caused by wildlife, park officials hoped to use tourism revenues to offset the costs of management, and the national government tended to allocate tourism revenues according to the conservation needs of the whole state [ 27 ]. In many developing countries, the government and park authorities have the power to determine the allocation of tourism revenues, and communities lack access to participation in the decision-making process [ 25 , 28 , 29 ].

In addition to unequal power relations and a lack of local participation, the uneven distribution of tourism benefits is another problem [ 16 ]. Within communities, poor residents often perceive that the elite obtain the majority of tourism benefits [ 22 , 28 ]. Hemson et al. noted that only residents in tourism industry gain benefits; most local residents are not beneficiaries of tourism [ 30 ]. Tourism revenues may not be distributed evenly among different communities. For example, residents in the buffer zone of Nepal’s Chitwan National Park are constrained in their use of natural resources, but only those villages close to the park’s entry points benefit from tourism incentives [ 31 ]. In China’s Wolong Giant Panda Nature Reserve, the communities close to main roads gain more income from tourism than the remote communities that bear greater costs of conservation [ 32 ]. The spatial unevenness of revenue distribution has also been found in gorilla national parks in central Africa [ 25 , 33 , 34 ].

Moreover, the distribution of tourism economic incentives is often mismatched. Crop-raiding and livestock loss caused by wildlife are the problems of most concern to local residents [ 25 , 34 ]. However, tourism benefits are often allocated to improving social infrastructures, such as clinics, schools, roads, bridges, wells, and water tanks, rather than direct compensation or the prevention of human–wildlife conflict [ 21 , 22 ]. Because of this mismatch, local people remain hostile towards wildlife [ 30 ]. The locals in Kibale National Park in Uganda regard building elephant trenches as being better than building schools and roads [ 35 ]. Many scholars have therefore suggested that tourism revenues should be used to directly offset losses caused by human–wildlife conflict to more effectively improve local attitudes to conservation [ 22 , 25 , 28 , 34 ].

Generally, existing studies mainly evaluate the role of tourism in conservation from the socio-economic dimension, and conclude that although tourism benefits contribute to changing local people’s attitudes towards wildlife and conservation, the effectiveness of tourism is limited due to the unequal, uneven, and mismatched distribution of benefits [ 16 , 36 ]. By contrast, few studies consider the ecological impacts when assessing the impact of tourism on mitigating human–wildlife conflict. Many protected areas use their unique species as tourist attractions to generate economic revenues. However, wildlife-based tourism development is not without cost. Tourism activities can generate negative effects on wild animals [ 37 , 38 ], which should also be considered when evaluating social and economic benefits [ 39 ]. In the next section, we review the effects of wildlife tourism on macaques as an exemplar species.

2.2. The Effects of Wildlife Tourism on Macaques

Humanity has a long history of interacting with macaques ( genus Macaca ). In contemporary society, free-ranging macaques have become popular tourist attractions. There are 23 species of macaque distributed in Asia, North Africa, and Gibraltar, many of which are strongly involved in the tourism industry [ 40 ].

Wild animals usually avoid encountering humans, which makes wildlife-based tourism unpredictable and uncontrollable [ 41 ]. In non-captive macaque tourism, food provisioning is a common way to tempt macaques to stay in a certain area and become habituated to the presence of people [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]. In some wildlife tourism sites, feeding animals is itself an important tourist experience [ 44 ]. Provision of food is an effective strategy to increase the likelihood of tourists interacting with free-ranging macaques [ 44 ].

However, food provisioning and tourist activities have various negative effects on macaques [ 44 , 45 ]. Anthropogenic foods are highly caloric and are more palatable and more accessible than macaques’ natural foods. Wild macaques therefore spend more time at tourist sites and come to rely on the provided food supply, resulting in changes in their activity budgets and dietary diversity [ 43 , 46 ]. Provisioning also affects the population in diverse ways. A stable, intensive, and abundant food supply can dramatically increase the population of macaques [ 39 , 44 , 47 ]; however, close contact raises the possibility of mutual pathogen transmission between humans and macaques, which can further affect the health and population of the animals [ 48 ].

Macaques in tourism areas gradually develop interspecific aggressive behaviors. The presence and proximity of tourists can elevate Barbary macaques’ anxiety levels [ 49 , 50 ]. Many tourists are not satisfied with inactive wildlife. They often tease monkeys to behave more actively by pointing, waving, slapping, mimicking, yelling, throwing food, and even threatening [ 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. Many studies show that tourists initiate the majority of interactions with macaques [ 54 , 55 ]. Tourists’ provocative behaviors induce monkeys’ agonistic responses such as biting, scratching, hitting, and threatening [ 52 , 56 ]. Because of interspecific differences, tourists generally misinterpret the meaning of monkeys’ behaviors, which may enhance the agonism. For example, Maréchal et al. found that in interactions, most tourists cannot identify the exact meanings of macaques’ facial expressions [ 57 ]. The longer the history of visitors’ interactions with macaques, the more aggressive the macaques may become [ 58 ].

Food provision also intensifies intraspecific agonism. Monkeys fight with each other during the feeding time [ 59 ]. There is a positive correlation between food provision and the frequency of in-group aggression [ 54 ]. Furthermore, tourists like to feed baby monkeys, which they perceive as cuter than adults [ 51 ]. This preference violates the strict hierarchy among macaque groups and increases the rate of attacks on baby and juvenile macaques by male adult macaques [ 51 , 59 ].

Despite these negative impacts, some scholars regard human–macaque interactions in tourism as opportunities that have stimulated the evolution of macaques [ 18 ]. Evidence for this point of view is the robbing and bartering behavior developed by long-tailed macaques at Uluwatu Temple, Indonesia [ 60 ]. The macaques have learned to steal inedible objects such as glasses and hats from tourists and barter the objects for food with the staff. This innovation has been socially learned and has spread in the group, suggesting that human–macaque interactions in tourism can cause significant cultural change in a macaque group [ 61 ].

Existing research shows that tourism affects macaques at the population, behavioral, and cultural levels. Macaques can develop adaptive behaviors in anthropogenic tourism environments. Barrett, Stanton and Benson-Amram called for more studies to explore the roles of animals’ adaptive behaviors in worsening or mitigating human–wildlife conflict in protected areas [ 17 ]. This study uses macaque tourism in China to show that the effects of tourism on macaques can exacerbate rather than mitigate human–wildlife conflict.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. study site.

The study site is Nanwan peninsula in Lingshui county, Hainan, China ( Figure 1 ). This peninsula consists of three main areas: Nanwan Macaque Provincial Nature Reserve, Monkey Tourism Park, and Nanwan Village. The nature reserve was established in 1965 and covers 10.2 square kilometers [ 56 ]. The reserve contains more than 2000 rhesus macaques ( Macaca mulatta ), which are second class protected animals in China. There is a protection station responsible for conservation work. In 1974, a tourism park was built in the experimental zone of the nature reserve. Food was used to attract wild monkeys into the tourism area [ 62 ]. In 2020, more than 500 monkeys visit the tourism park every day, and approximately one million tourists visit every year. Nanwan Village, which has approximately 550 residents, is also located in the experimental zone of the reserve. Agriculture is still the way of life for some villagers. Macaques often cross the border of the nature reserve and enter the village, causing community–macaque conflict.

Map of the study site.

The macaques are the only target attraction in this area. There are also some potentially attractive houseboats on the sea, where some water people still live. However, those houseboats are usually seen from the cable cars, few tourists approach them.

3.2. Data Collection

The research team visited the site 10 years ago and conducted a study attempting to understand the tourism development model of the conservation area. The current qualitative study is based on twice fieldwork conducted from 16 to 22 February 2019, and from 28 to 30 September 2020. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and observation. We used the method of purposive sampling to find the people who best know the situations about tourism, community, and nature reserve. We interviewed 2 managers from the nature reserve, 2 managers and 5 staff from the Monkey Tourism Park, 26 tourists, the chairman of Nanwan Village and other 17 Nanwan villagers. We also interviewed a biologist who had studied the macaques in the park since 2013. Interviews with tourists were mainly conducted at the visitor center. The main questions were about the visitors’ general views on macaques, and how they perceived and reacted to aggressive macaques. Interactions between the tourists and macaques were observed and recorded as field notes. Interviews with managers and staff were conducted in their workplaces. We mainly asked about the development of scenic spots, management of the macaques, and community participation in tourism. The interviews with the nature reserve managers covered the establishment and development of the protected area, the protection of macaques, the relationship between the protected area and the tourism park, and responses to community–macaque conflict. Interviews with the villagers concerned their livelihood, their attitudes to macaques, and management of the nature reserve and tourism park. All interviewees gave their permission to be recorded.

Observation was mainly used to understand the spatial arrangements of tourism park, tourist routes, nature reserve, and community land utilization. For example, the route that tourists go to the park from the mainland and return, the distance between the community and the park, the locations of village mango groves. The spatial relations between the tourism park, nature reserve, and village are essential to understand human–macaque conflict (see Supplementary Materials Figures S1–S4 ).

In addition to the above first-hand data, we also searched second-hand data about the Monkey Tourism Park, such as published research articles (e.g., [ 56 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]), and news reports (e.g., [ 66 , 67 ]) to help comprehensively understand the history of tourism development and macaque protection.

3.3. Data Analysis

From numerous qualitative data analysis methods, we chose “thematic analysis” [ 68 ] to analyze our collected materials. During the data analysis, the audio records were transcribed first. Then, two authors separately read the first-hand and second-hand data repeatedly to get familiar with the data. Second, we generated many initial codes about conservation conditions, community-macaque conflicts, community participations in tourism, and tourism’s ecological impacts. Third, we thought about the relationships between codes and categorized these codes into many sub-themes and themes, including conservation modes, villagers’ strategies to cope with conflict with macaques, low community participation in tourism, and two main ecological impacts of tourism on macaques. Fourth, each of the two authors reviewed and named the themes. After that, we wrote an outline by relating these themes to explain the story of community–macaque conflict and tourism development, then compared the two outlines to obtain a mutually agreed version and construct a thematic map. The third author then compared this outline with the data to check its validity, and proposed a final thematic map (see Supplementary Materials Figure S5 ), on which the results are based. Finally, the three authors proposed a general model to explain the exacerbating effects of tourism on human–wildlife conflict according to the evidence from Nanwan.

4.1. Coercive Fortress Conservation and Spatial Exclusion of the Community

The community–macaque conflict on the Nanwan peninsula has existed for a long time. In the 1930s and 1950s, before the establishment of the nature reserve, the conflict was solved at the cost of a loss of macaques. To safeguard their crops, community residents killed macaques. When the nature reserve was established in 1965, there were only 5 groups of macaques left, comprising about 115 individuals [ 62 ].

The nature reserve system in China prohibits any use of natural resources in the core and buffer zones, and only allows limited research, education, tourism, and leisure activities in the experimental zone [ 69 ]. This management regulation tallies with the model of fortress conservation, according to which “biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas where ecosystems can function in isolation from human disturbance” and “only tourism, safari hunting, and scientific research are considered as appropriate uses within protected areas” [ 70 ] (p. 704). The fortress conservation in Nanwan is coercive and underpinned by national laws. All conservation work in the reserve is run from a protection station, which routinely sends rangers to patrol and record at various points in the reserve. Considering that the Nanwan villagers and their ancestors have lived in this area for a long time, this conservation model excludes the community residents from using resources that once belonged to them. It also means that Nanwan villagers sacrifice their development opportunities for conservation.

As a result of the coercive fortress conservation, macaques are well protected. The number of macaques has undergone a rapid increase. In 1988, there were 903 macaques in Nanwan nature reserve [ 63 ]. In 1998, the population was estimated to be 1300 [ 63 ]. In 2019, the manager of the nature reserve told us that the current estimate is more than 2000 macaques.

4.2. Community–Macaque Conflict and the Lack of Ecological Compensation

As the population of macaques has grown, community–macaque conflict has worsened. According to Lian and Jiang [ 64 ], the ecological capacity of Nanwan nature reserve can provide resources for 1900 macaques at most. The current macaque population level has exceeded the maximum capacity. In a study conducted in 2010 [ 65 ], an ecologist has pointed out the problem of ecological overshoot on Nanwan peninsula.

Many bold macaques now enter the community area to search for food. The most damaged crops include mangoes, sweet potatoes, and watermelons. In Nanwan village, nearly every household used to have a mango grove, and selling mangoes was one of their main income sources. When the mango harvest was better, a farmer could earn about $2800 USD to $4200 USD per year. However, when the mangoes are ripe, macaques enter into the groves almost every day. As one resident (L02) described: “We are the poorest village in this town area. When mangoes ripen, macaques come down to eat. They not only eat whatever they can, but also grab and throw away the rest.” Some monkeys have even broken into residents’ houses to search for cooked food or steal eggs from chicken pens. The locals show obvious hostility towards the monkeys by describing them as “public nuisances” and “thieves”.

Because of the legally protected status of the macaques, the community cannot hurt monkeys as their ancestors did in the past. After the establishment of the nature reserve, it was made very clear to the Nanwan villagers that capturing monkeys is illegal. Nowadays, the residents do not have effective ways to expel the annoying macaques. “Many macaques come to the village at a time. You cannot catch them. You cannot beat them. We know it is illegal. If we frighten them, they run to the top of the trees and cannot be driven away. They are animals, we cannot control them.” (L01). Some villagers tried to isolate mango groves from the macaques using nets, but staff from the protection station stopped that defense because they feared that the net may pose a threat to the macaques. The conflict between the community and the macaques became more tense.

As a result, villagers were eager to be compensated by the government for their loss of livelihood. However, the protection station manager said: “There is no special fund for ecological compensation in Hainan Province for macaque damage.” (SM01). Nanwan villagers complained about the lack of ecological compensation: “We live on mangoes, macaques often come down to eat, they [the protection station] do not give us money, even a penny.” (L02). With no ecological compensation, the conflict between villagers and macaques remains unsolved, even though the station manager is aware of the macaques’ crop-raiding.

4.3. Monkey Tourism and Limited Community Participation

The development of monkey tourism brought a new potential opportunity to solve the conflict between villagers and macaques. There is a long history of developing macaque tourism on Nanwan peninsula. In 1974, the staff of the protection station began to feed two groups of macaques and the area received tourists in 1980 [ 62 ]. Around 1985, the Lingshui county government established a tourism company and cooperated with the reserve to develop monkey tourism on a large scale [ 62 , 66 ]. After experiencing 10 years of rapid development, the tourism park began to decline [ 67 ]. To restore tourism development, in 1999 the county government sold the rights of developing the park to a private cable car company. To reinvigorate tourism development, the company built a two-kilometer cableway to connect the mainland to the peninsula, rebuilt the park’s infrastructure, and improved the park’s management [ 67 ]. The tourism development has followed the conservation plan, such that nobody can enter the core zone of the reserve; the tourism park is restricted to the experimental zone and tourists can only interact with macaques when the monkeys freely enter this zone [ 65 ]. The attraction is now a national 4A level scenic area and attracts approximately one million tourists every year.

However, the prosperity associated with the monkey tourism has not resulted in the economic development of Nanwan village for many reasons. The most important is that the enclaved mass tourism model leaves no room for business opportunities for the Nanwan villagers. Most visitors are package tourists. They enter the scenic area via the sightseeing cableway from Xincun town on the mainland. The trip is about two-hour visit. They then either take a cable car or a boat and shuttle bus back. There are no tourism products in the village. Thus, there are few intersections between the tourists’ activities and village spaces. The villagers once applied to do business in the scenic area, but were denied by the manager. “When the scenic area belonged to the county government, we could sell things inside. When the tourism company contracted with the local government, they promised we could still do business inside. But after selling for one month, we were driven away by the tourism company and were not allowed to sell things from then on.” (L08).

Second, the tourism park only employs a limited number of villagers, due to its adoption of a modern business management model. Well paid and skilled jobs can only be from outside the peninsula. There are more than 130 households in Nanwan village. Only about 10 of them have obtained low-salary jobs in tourism to do cleaning and security work. The average salary is about $230 USD per month, lower than working in other places. “Now only some old villagers work in the scenic spot as security guards. They look after the scenic spot during the night.” (L09). Work in tourism is not economically attractive compared with off-farm jobs in the city.

Third, about 10 households rent their land to the company managing the scenic area. However, the contract was signed 20 years ago for a period of 50 years with a land value based on its 1999 evaluation. The village chairman revealed that: “About 10 households have contracts with the scenic area. Rents are low. Now the park pays the rent every year, about $50 USD per household. Only about 10 households receive the money.” (L01). The residents are powerless compared to the company, who is a big tax-payer for Lingshui County. Thus, it is impossible for the residents to push the company to sign a new contract based on the current land value.

The perception of the tourism park manager is that the company is not responsible for community development and compensation for macaque damage. “I am not clear about the negotiation between the nature reserve and the community. It [the compensation] has nothing to do with our park. We are only responsible for business operations. Macaques belong to the nature reserve, who should be responsible for the compensation.” (PM01).

It may be true that for historical reasons, the partnership among the conservation committee, the park company, the village committee, and the villagers was not perfectly designed because the potential dynamics of tourism and the macaques were not clear initially. The major challenge now is that the initial collaboration model was not designed to enable all parties to negotiate and benefit from the collaboration when changes occur. In the next section, we show how the development of macaque tourism is likely to escalate community–macaque conflict, and demonstrate the obligation of the tourism industry to provide compensation.

4.4. Adaptive Macaques and Escalation of Human–Wildlife Conflict

4.4.1. population, aggression, and tourist–macaque conflict.

As with macaque tourism in other regions, developing tourism on Nanwan peninsula has had many ecological effects on monkeys. One of the most obvious impacts is the rapid growth of the macaque population. Food provision is the main method of attracting wild macaques to the tourism park area and keeping them there. Such provisioning started in 1974 and continues now. Usually, the macaques come down from nearby hills every morning, stay in the park area during the day and go back to the hills in the evening. The park staff feed the macaques at 08:00, 12:00, and 17:30 each day with wheat and various vegetables [ 56 ]. In 2013, around 80 g of food was formally provided per individual per day [ 71 ]. In addition, the park sells food for tourists to feed the macaques. Anthropogenic provision can increase macaque populations. A biologist who is studying macaques in the park said that “provision can lead to the growth of the monkey population within the park. My records are from 2013 to this year 2019 and show that the number of fertile adult female macaques has grown every year in this park.” (R1). More fertile adult female macaques mean that there are more baby macaques every year. Zhang et al. recorded 7 groups with approximately 350 individuals visiting the park in 2014 [ 56 ]. According to the official data, the macaque population grew from 393 in 2018 to 433 in 2019. The head of Department of Macaque Management estimated that the number is more than 500 in 2020 and there are about 80 new-born baby macaques every year. The population growth effect of tourism provision corresponds with studies of Barbary macaques in Gibraltar [ 47 ] and Japanese macaques in Oita [ 39 ].

Second, the macaques become habituated to the presence of people and more aggressive to tourists. The provisioned food (80 g/individual/day) is not enough to satisfy the needs of every monkey. Many monkeys develop robbing, biting, scratching, and threatening behaviors towards tourists. Zhang et al. recorded 195 instances of aggressive behavior, most of which were aimed at obtaining food [ 56 ]. Tourist-induced aggressive behaviors accounted for 54.67% of the total [ 56 ]. Visitors often pursue close interactions with monkeys by feeding and touching them, even though the park regulations and tour guides prohibit such behaviors.

During our field observations, we found that when entering the park, tour guides usually counselled visitors not to feed monkeys or hold drinks, foods or colorful bags in their hands, and they repeatedly reminded visitors not to open bags in front of the macaques to prevent robberies by the monkeys. Park managers also set up many noticeboards to remind the tourists not to engage in these “transgressive” behaviors, but still allowed tourists to buy park-provided food to feed the macaques. Tourists usually perceived the monkeys, especially baby monkeys, as “funny, cute, and human-like”, and thus “approachable and playful” (T01). Many tourists ignored or forgot the guides and warnings, and approached the macaques to feed, tease and interact with them. These behaviors are highly likely to incur an attack. Staff in the park’s clinic said that nearly every day there are incidents in which tourists are hurt by macaques. Moreover, there were 45.33% aggressive behaviors initiated by the macaques [ 56 ]. Sometimes monkeys actively rob food, drinks, and inedible objects such as paper napkins and glasses from careless tourists. Some bold adult male macaques may even open tourists’ bags to search for food.

The above evidence shows that macaques in Nanwan Monkey Park have developed adaptive aggressive behaviors through long-term human–macaque interactions to better obtain anthropogenic resources and maximize their benefits. Tourists who are bitten or scratched by macaques need to be given vaccines, which increases the economic cost of the park’s operation and leads to economic disputes with tourists and the tourism company. Therefore, the park has built many wooden “cages” for tourists to eat inside to avoid monkey robberies. A number of security guards have been recruited to constantly remind visitors to pay attention to safety, and stop tourists from engaging in transgressive behaviors. The security guards are also responsible for driving macaques back to the trees when they gather at the visitor center or trails. However, it is difficult for the guards to watch over such a high number of tourists and troublesome macaques. The interviewed biologist revealed that in recent years the park had decided to increase the amount of food provision with the aim of making the macaques fuller and thus reducing their attacks on tourists. Now, in 2020 the head of Department of Macaque Management told that the park fed 50 kg of rice and 10 kg of peanuts for the macaques every day, that is 100 g for an individual per day.

Many measures have been formulated to mitigate tourist–macaque conflict in the park. However, the impact of the aggressive monkeys on the local community on Nanwan peninsula has been largely neglected. The monkeys not only make trouble in the park, but also invade Nanwan village, intensifying community–macaque conflict.

4.4.2. Intensification of Community–Macaque Conflict

It is difficult for the rapidly increasing and aggressive macaques in the tourism park not to influence the community, because the park is next to the community’s mango groves and the macaques are free to range in the park, the nature reserve, and the village. The park is separated from one main piece of village’s mango groves by a wall, which “can only prevent humans entering the park, not stop the monkeys entering the mango grove”, commented by a villager (L16) (see Supplementary Materials Figure S3 ). The interviewed biologist revealed that “Nanwan village is just next to the monkey park. Sometimes park macaques do range in Nanwan Village.” (R01). Although there has been no quantitative research calculating the proportions of park macaques and nature reserve macaques invading Nanwan village, it can be sure that monkey tourism has affected the community–macaque relationship.

The effects of tourism on the population and behaviors of the macaques have contributed to the escalation of community–macaque conflict. First, the fact that the tourism park has provided a stable and increasing food source for macaques has made the park a “reservoir” of constantly reproducing macaques. These macaques inevitably overflow into the surrounding areas including the village, especially when the park does not provide abundant food. A resident (L07) commented that “A few years ago there were more monkeys because they [the park] did not provide enough food for the monkeys, who then came to the village to steal food. Now, they feed more food and monkeys have become fewer in our village.” The village head told that “There were more monkeys disturbing the village in the COVID-19 pandemic compared to past years, maybe because the tourism food provision became less” (L01). The problem is that more provision can only keep macaques in the park temporarily, at the cost of macaques reproducing in the future. Thus, it is predictable that more provision cannot resolve the conflict between the community and the macaques, but will eventually intensify it. Second, the park macaques have become habituated to the presence of humans. When they invade Nanwan village, they are not afraid of villagers. Hence, villagers have few methods to repel the macaques. “After our protection, the macaques live harmoniously with humans. When people treat macaques well and stop hurting them, their courage will increase and they will definitely come to the village to find food to eat.” (SM01). The ecological impacts of tourism on macaques complicate the community–macaque conflict.

Residents’ reactions to macaque invasion provides further evidence of the escalated conflict. Nanwan villagers usually adopt two strategies in response to the ongoing macaque invasions. Some villagers spend more time and energy watching out for macaques to defend their mangoes (see Supplementary Materials Figure S2 ). In the ripe season, they have to stop most other daily work to drive away the invading monkeys, who may appear in the village at any time. Although driving away the monkeys is quite time and labour consuming, this intense defense does not significantly reduce invasion by the macaques. For instance, “Near the harbour, a boss rents the land and has planted many mangoes. The operation is different. They employ special men to drive away macaques all the day. But they said there are still a lot of monkeys going to eat mangoes.” (L06). Even the professionalization of repelling monkeys cannot stop macaque damage. Thus, many other residents have given up planting in most of the mango groves near the hills and the park (see Supplementary Materials Figure S4 ). Some have even abandoned mango cultivation as a main livelihood and have chosen to find jobs in the county town. “Now my family members don’t care about whether the mangoes grow well or not. We find jobs in other places. My parents stay at home, but have also stopped planting mangoes.” (L04). Only about 15 households still plant mangoes now, according to the estimate of the village head. The strategies of intense defense against macaques and retreating from planting mangoes are the community’s helpless reactions to the escalation of community–macaque conflict.

5. Discussion

The Nanwan case shows a dynamic and growing pattern of human–macaque conflict over time. This conflict existed when the community lived on the island before the reserve was established and did not stop when the nature conservation system was implemented. However, conflicts intensified when tourism was introduced. The structures leading to these conflicts are presented in Figure 2 . We argue that making food available to macaques is the critical aspect underlying all of these complicated conflictual relationships.

Integrated model of tourism–macaque–community interactions.

In the absence of anthropogenic and external influences, wild macaques live mainly by foraging for natural food. Under this condition, the macaque population will not exceed the maximum ecological capacity, and in the long term, wild macaques and the natural environment will reach an ecological balance. As the top left loop in Figure 2 illustrates, natural food resources impose a constraint on the growth of macaque populations, and vice versa. In the loop without anthropogenic influence, ecological rule plays the vital role in controlling macaque population.

However, in reality there are usually human communities adjacent to protected areas, and their agricultural crops provide additional food sources for wildlife. Hence, when protected areas lack sufficient food, wild macaques will invade the surrounding communities for extra food. When crop raiding, macaques must bypass communities’ guards, which usually evolves into human–macaque conflict. In the case of Nanwan, the villagers have developed different strategies to cope with human–macaque conflict in different social, historical, and institutional contexts.

Before the establishment of the nature reserve and the legislation of macaque protection, humans had advantages over the monkeys. They often hunted the transgressive macaques to protect their crops, which reduced the wild macaque population. After the nature reserve was established, the advantages were reversed. The villagers were prohibited from hurting the macaques, even for the purpose of protecting their property. Subsequently, the residents adopted a defensive strategy in the short term and attempted to drive the nuisance macaques away. This defense was effective in reducing crop loss and restraining the rapid increase of macaques. However, because of the gradual habituation of the macaques to the presence of humans, the residents have become unable to find effective methods to expel the monkeys once and for all. Thus, their defense strategy has failed to stop the macaque invasion. Human–macaque conflict has heightened; crop damage has increased, and the macaque population has grown steadily. In the long term, as the labour and time costs of defense have continued to increase, the community has begun to retreat, stop planting crops and find alternative livelihoods, resulting in a further increase of the macaque population in the community’s agricultural area. The conservation policies and community’s livelihood strategies determine the community–macaque interactions. In the context of coercive fortress protection, macaques have big advantages over humans, and the community–macaque conflict loop will not be completely mitigated until the community fully retreats from agriculture.

The introduction of wildlife tourism was supposed to mitigate community–macaque conflict. However, food provision has exacerbated the conflict. The Monkey Tourism Park uses food to tempt wild macaques to visit the park regularly, as many other tourism attractions have done [ 39 , 51 , 52 ]. This attracts tourists who want to watch and interact with the monkeys at close range. Close tourist–macaque interactions induce frequent macaque attacks on tourists [ 52 , 56 ], which have resulted in additional economic costs and disputes for the tourism park. To reduce these attacks and their associated costs, the tourism park has increased the amount of food provided to make the macaques more satiated and thereby stop them robbing food from tourists. Thus, a vicious loop has developed. Commercial logic dominates this loop. For maximizing the profit, the tourism park must maintain and increase food provision to attract macaques coming and reduce macaque attacks. As a consequence, the population of macaques will keep growing [ 39 , 47 ]. Macaques may also develop adaptive behaviors, including aggressive behavior, in continuous interactions with humans [ 18 , 61 ].

As the macaque population grows, the food provided by the tourism park can never be enough. Some macaques inevitably intrude into the nearby village to search for edible crops. This widens the macaque–community conflict loop. Because of the constantly reinforced loop in the tourism park, crop damage is intensified as more and more macaques become habituated to and aggressive towards humans. As a result, the macaque population gradually increases and the community retreats from agriculture with a hostile attitude.

This integrated model provides a general theoretical explanation of the dynamic and growing pattern of human–macaque conflict under the impact of wildlife tourism. The model covers the interactions between tourism, the community, and the macaques that we can see. However, it needs more testing and validation before it can be extended to explain conflict between humans and other species in other regions.

6. Conclusions

In protected areas, human–wildlife conflict is one of the main barriers to achieving sustainable biodiversity conservation and community development [ 6 , 12 ]. Tourism is usually regarded as a way to mitigate human–wildlife conflict by involving communities in tourism to obtain benefits that will change their hostile attitude towards wildlife or transform traditional livelihoods [ 3 , 15 , 20 ]. Existing studies mainly focus on examining the effectiveness of tourism in mitigating human–wildlife conflict from social, economic, and political perspectives [ 16 , 36 ], ignoring the biological consequences to wildlife. This study contributes to understanding the effect of using tourism as a tool to mitigate human–wildlife conflict. The provision of food in wildlife tourism can dramatically change the natural ecosystem and the behaviors of macaques, as well as the balance between natural capacity and the number of macaques. Human–wildlife conflict worsens in this scenario.

This research suggests the need for a holistic, integrated, and dynamic approach to evaluating tourism development and solving human–wildlife conflict in protected areas. Human–wildlife conflict is not only embedded in social systems, but also involves ecosystems. Thus, it is not adequate to solely consider the social and economic benefits brought by tourism. It is also necessary to consider tourism’s impacts on wildlife and ecology. As wildlife habitats shrink, more wild animals will cross the borders of protected areas into peripheral spaces, which then become the hot spots at the human–wildlife interface. It should be recognized that it is nearly impossible to protect a species without any human disturbance in the Anthropocene [ 72 ]. Hence, a balanced approach is to assess the mitigating effects of wildlife tourism in human–wildlife conflict by integrating social and ecological/biological perspectives.

Moreover, scholars should pay more attention to the agency of animals. Animals are not passive things waiting for human actions. Wildlife can actively develop adaptive behaviors in anthropogenic environments to maximize its own benefits [ 18 ]. More human–wildlife interactions provide more opportunities for wildlife to acquire more adaptations [ 17 ], such as the robbing and bartering behaviors of long-tailed macaques in Bali [ 61 ]. This adaptation and evolution, when combined with coercive institutional protection, give wildlife many advantages in conflicts with humans and make the conflict unmanageable and uncontrollable, as in the case of Nanwan. Wildlife tourism is based on human–wildlife interactions, and their impact on the adaptation and evolution of wildlife should be fully considered.

Implications

The integrated model of tourism–macaque–community interactions proposed in this study needs validation for other species and in other regions. Trans-species interactions in tourism can generate different effects on different wildlife due to the heterogeneity of species [ 37 ]. Thus, wildlife may evolve heterogeneous behaviors and then influence community–wildlife conflict in different ways. For instance, human–elephant conflict is also a challenging problem due to the excellent memory ability of elephants and their high food demand. Moreover, the diversity of social, cultural, economic, and political contexts in which human–wildlife conflict is embedded means that different regions must adopt different strategies to cope with the conflict. Under China’s current policies, culling protected wildlife is not possible to control wildlife populations, but in some other countries the culling of overpopulated wildlife is a normal ecological management policy. Different social, cultural, and institutional contexts produce different ways to address human–wildlife conflict.

This study has many implications for practice. Our observations suggest that wildlife tourism attractions should design their activities cautiously and minimize human–wildlife interactions and food provision if possible. It is better to control tourists’ behaviors to meet the behavioral patterns of wildlife rather than the other way around. If the tourism sites plan to feed wildlife, it is better to provide food via formal supervised arrangement and eradicate tourists’ accidental and non-regulatory feeding activity [ 44 ]. Furthermore, the institutional design for cooperation among communities, tourism companies, and conservation committees should also be flexible to allow for the adjustment and re-negotiation of benefits and obligations, because the interaction among tourists, wildlife, community, and ecosystem is always evolving. Because, in general, local communities are in relatively weak bargaining positions, it is better for governments to establish special ecological compensation projects for wildlife damage, and control wildlife populations properly according to the principle of maintaining ecological balance.

Acknowledgments

We thank Huang Xuebing, Wu Chengfeng and Wei Cao for their help in collecting data, and thank Lin Jiayi for helping edit the map. We also give gratitude to the managers and staffs of Nanwan Nature Reserve and Monkey Tourism Park and the Nanwan villagers for accepting our interview. Thanks to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments!

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani11051378/s1 , Figure S1: A photographic illustration of the community–macaque conflict, Figure S2: Well-cared mango groves in a relatively remote place from the monkey park and reserve hills, Figure S3: The wall between the monkey park and mango groves, Figure S4: The abandoned mango groves beside the monkey park and reserve hills, Figure S5: The thematic map showing the (sub)themes from thematic analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.C. and H.X.; methodology, Q.C. and Y.R.; validation, Q.C. and H.X.; formal analysis, Q.C. and Y.R.; investigation, Y.R.; resources, H.X.; data curation, Y.R.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.C. and Y.R.; writing—review and editing, Q.C. and H.X.; visualization, Q.C. and H.X.; supervision, H.X.; project administration, Q.C.; funding acquisition, Q.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 41901161.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The manuscript does not need ethical approval. The paper deal with villagers’ conflict with macaques and the study has been run through a questionnaire.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Ecotourism can put wild animals at risk, scientists say

Benjamin Geffroy

Tourists in Brazil interact with fish in a tributary of the Cuiabá River.

Ecotourism, in which travelers visit natural environments with an eye toward funding conservation efforts or boosting local economies, has become increasingly popular in recent years. In many cases it involves close observation of or interaction with wildlife, such as when tourists swim with marine animals.  

Now, life scientists have analyzed more than 100 research studies on how ecotourism affects wild animals and concluded that such trips can be harmful to the animals, whose behaviors may be altered in ways that put them at risk.

The research is published Oct. 9 in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.

Protected areas around the globe receive a total of more than 8 billion visits each year. “This massive amount of nature-based and ecotourism can be added to the long list of drivers of human-induced rapid environmental change,” said Daniel Blumstein , the study’s senior author and professor and chair of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA.

The presence of humans changes the way animals behave, and those changes may make them more vulnerable — to poachers, for one, but also in less obvious ways, said Blumstein, who is also a professor in the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability in the UCLA College. 

When animals interact in seemingly benign ways with humans, they may let down their guard, Blumstein said. As animals learn to relax in the presence of humans, they may become bolder in other situations; if this transfers to their interactions with predators, they are more likely to be injured or killed.

The presence of humans can also discourage natural predators, creating a kind of safe haven for smaller animals that may make them bolder. For example, when humans are nearby, vervet monkeys have fewer run-ins with predatory leopards. And in Grand Teton National Park, elk and pronghorns in areas with more tourists are less alert and spend more time eating, Blumstein and his colleagues report.

Interacting with people can cause significant change in the characteristics of various species over time. “If individuals selectively habituate to humans — particularly tourists — and if invasive tourism practices enhance this habituation, we might be selecting for or creating traits or syndromes that have unintended consequences, such as increased predation risk,” the researchers write. “Even a small human-induced perturbation could affect the behavior or population biology of a species and influence the species’ function in its community.”

Ecotourism has effects similar to those of animal domestication and urbanization, the researchers argue. In all three cases, regular interactions between people and animals may lead to habituation — a kind of taming. Research has shown that domesticated silver foxes become more docile and less fearful, a process that results from evolutionary changes, but also from regular interactions with humans, Blumstein said. Domesticated fish are less responsive to simulated predatory attacks. Fox squirrels and birds that live in urbanized areas are slower to flee from danger.

Blumstein hopes the new analysis will encourage more research into the interactions between people and wildlife. It is essential, he said, to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how various species in various situations respond to human interaction and under what conditions human exposure may place them at risk.

The study’s co-authors are Benjamin Geffroy, a postdoctoral researcher with France’s Institute National De La Recherche Agronomic in Rennes; Diogo Samia, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of ecology at the Federal University of Goias, in Brazil; and Eduardo Bessa, a professor at the State Unversity of Ponta Grossa, also in Brazil. 

Top UCLA News

Gerrie Zvara leads effort for a more effective, efficient campus

UCLA Downtown springs to life as 31 community-focused programs prepare to move in

UCLA to lead $4 million cell research project funded by Chan Zuckerberg Initiative

Surge in 2024 transfer applications, uptick in first-year California applicants

Stay connected.

Get top research & news headlines four days a week.

(Check your inbox or spam filter for confirmation.)

Subscribe to a UCLA Newsroom RSS feed and our story headlines will be automatically delivered to your news reader.

• UCLA on Twitter
• UCLA on Facebook
• UCLA on LinkedIn
• @UCLA on Instagram
• UCLA on YouTube

A new study says that elephant rides, such as this one in Sri Lanka, and other wildlife tourist attractions, are not good for animals’ welfare.

• WILDLIFE WATCH

Visitors Can’t Tell If a Tourist Attraction Is Bad for Animals

A new study ranks wildlife tourist attractions around the world based on how they treat their animals and whether they help save species.

In the first major study of wildlife tourism around the world, researchers at the University of Oxford’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit—the same group that had been studying Cecil the Lion before he was shot in July—found that the millions of people who visit wildlife attractions each year don’t seem to realize that places they’re visiting have ill effects on animals.

Wildlife attractions account for between 20 and 40 percent of all tourism worldwide, with 3.6 to six million people visiting these sites annually. The study found that every year two to four million tourists financially support attractions that aren’t good for animal welfare or conservation. And it found that 80 percent of reviewers didn’t recognize that certain wildlife attractions weren’t good for the animals.

Led by conservation biologist Tom Moorhouse, the researchers compared 24 types of wildlife tourist attractions to thousands of evaluations on TripAdvisor, a travel review and ratings website.

They grouped wildlife tourist attractions into five categories: interactions with captive animals (such as elephant treks and encounters with big cats); sanctuaries, whose main purpose is to help and protect wild animals; wildlife farms where tourists observe animals bred for other purposes, such as crocodiles for meat and leather and bears whose gallbladders are “milked” for bile for traditional medicines); street performances; and wild attractions such as gorilla trekking and polar bear sightseeing.

The researchers rated each type of attraction on animal welfare and conservation. Animal welfare scores were based on factors such as adequate food and water, freedom from pain and injury, ability to behave normally, and level of stress.

Wildlife sanctuaries are among the few wildlife tourist attractions that receive good marks on animal welfare. At the Buddhist Tiger Temple in Thailand, however, advocates have raised questions about the cats’ well-being, and it is under investigation by local authorities.

Conservation scores were based on, for instance, where the animals came from and whether proceeds help preserve the species through habitat protection, anti-poaching efforts, and so on.

Not surprisingly, animal sanctuaries received positive scores for both animal welfare and conservation. Street performances—dancing macaques and snake charming, for example—received negative scores on both.

Swim-with-the-dolphin interactions, elephant rides, shark cage diving, and crocodile, sea turtle, and bear bile farms get the highest number of visitors each year (more than 500,000 visitors), and they all have negative impacts on animal welfare.

Our rule of thumb: avoid any wildlife attraction that scores under 80 percent on TripAdvisor. David Macdonald , Director of Oxford’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit

On the other hand, bear sanctuaries also receive a high number of tourists each year, and they rate well both in terms of welfare and conservation.

“Some of the most concerning types of wildlife attractions...received overwhelmingly positive reviews from tourists,” said Neil D’Cruze, one of the study’s authors and the head of research at World Animal Protection, an animal welfare nonprofit based in London, in a press release.

For example, only 18 percent of reviews for tiger attractions, which received the lowest possible animal welfare rating, mentioned concerns about the welfare of the animals.The other 82 percent of reviewers rated the tiger attractions as “excellent” or “very good.”

“How sad it is that tourists, often no doubt lured in as a result of a well-intentioned interest in animals, thereby support attractions that not only keep wild animals in bad conditions but damage their conservation,” said David Macdonald, the director of Oxford’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit. “That double whammy could be rectified by tougher regulation, better enforcement, and by following our rule of thumb: avoid any wildlife attraction that scores under 80 percent on TripAdvisor.”

TripAdvisor currently has a program called GreenLeaders , in which eco-friendly hotels that meet certain sustainability standards get an icon of a green leaf on their review page. The researchers of this study would like to see TripAdvisor do something similar with wildlife tourist attractions.

“There is a great opportunity for TripAdvisor to improve its service to the visiting public by including in its evaluations a score for animal welfare and conservation,” D’Cruze said.

This story was produced by National Geographic’s Special Investigations Unit, which focuses on wildlife crime and is made possible by grants from the BAND Foundation and the Woodtiger Fund. Read more stories from the SIU on Wildlife Watch . Send tips, feedback, and story ideas to [email protected] .

FREE BONUS ISSUE

Related topics, you may also like.

Animals trapped in war zones find a second chance here

How these parrots went from the tropical jungle to the concrete jungle

See a rare view of a manta ray courtship ritual deep in the sea

10 simple ways to change your life in 2024

What lurks beneath the surface of these forest pools? More than you can imagine.

• Perpetual Planet
• Environment
• History & Culture
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

• Australia edition
• International edition
• Europe edition

The world needs wildlife tourism. But that won't work without wildlife

Habitat loss, pollution, climate change, over-exploitation and poaching are all threatening a lifeline for local communities

• 点击这里，阅读本文中文版

W ildlife-based tourism is growing rapidly worldwide as the number of tourists continues to grow and as we, as travellers, seek out new and more enriching personal experiences with local cultures and wildlife. This is what inspired me to take six months unpaid leave from the grind of legal practice many years ago and backpack around South America with my little sister. Experiencing the natural beauty of places like the Amazon rainforest, Iguazú Falls and Machu Picchu and the local people fighting to protect them was life-changing.

The UN World Tourism Organisation estimates that 7% of world tourism relates to wildlife tourism, growing annually at about 3%, and much higher in some places, like our Unesco world heritage sites. A WWF report shows that 93% of all natural heritage sites support recreation and tourism and 91% of them provide jobs. In Belize, more than 50% of the population are said to be supported by income generated through reef-related tourism and fisheries.

I’ve just come back from the Northern Rangelands Trust in Kenya, where I saw amazing work with local communities to protect wildlife. The trust’s mix of funding includes almost 30% of revenue coming from tourism. It employs over 1,000 Kenyans. I spoke with local people who told me that the rhino and the elephant bring them security, healthcare and education, and no one must interfere with these animals. They are today the best protectors of the wildlife, working with local rangers. Their development is being achieved through conservation.

The result: in this region elephant poaching is down by 50%. No rhinos have been poached for four years. Tourism revenue is growing. And it is not the only example: wonderful examples of success exist in many other places, including in the Chitwan national park in Nepal, where again local people are front and centre.

But the very assets that underpin this wildlife-based tourism – the wildlife itself – are under severe threat. The threats come from a multitude of sources: habitat loss, pollution, infrastructure, climate change, over-exploitation and illegal trade, the most immediate threat to wildlife. If we lose the wildlife, we lose the wildlife-based tourism and the jobs that goes with it.

The surge in illegal wildlife trade witnessed in recent years is industrial in scale and is driven by transnational organised criminals. They target high-value wildlife without regard for the animals or people’s lives. They corrupt local officials, recruit and arm local poachers, plunder local wildlife, create insecurity and put local communities into a poverty spiral.

The international community is fighting back. There is a global collective effort underway to take on these criminals. But they are hard to beat. We cannot rely on law enforcement alone. We need the private sector, especially the transport, travel and tourism sectors, to join the fight. Many in the transport sector, especially airlines, have come on board largely thanks to HRH the Duke of Cambridge, through his Transport Task Force initiative. It is an inspired initiative that has seen the likes of the president of Emirates Airlines standing up for wildlife and even painting four of his planes with tigers and elephants . The tourism sector must join us as well, as must each one of us, as tourists.

It is true that, if poorly managed, tourism can have negative impacts on wildlife and the environment, as we have seen in the Galapagos, where there sheer volume of tourists poses a serious threat to the islands’ unique wildlife. But on a crowded planet of over 7 billion people, growing to over 9 billion, we need viable land use options that support wildlife, and wildlife-based tourism is a critical part of the mix in ensuring the survival of wildlife and in fighting wildlife crime.

Well-managed wildlife-based tourism can offer an economic opportunity that supports wildlife. It must be responsibly managed and operators must engage with staff, customers and, most importantly, local people. Staff can be eyes and ears for the police, and customers can stop buying illegally or unsustainably sourced wildlife products. Engaging local people is the key, and that takes effort.

Evidence shows that when local people have a stake in it they will be the best protectors of wildlife , as is evident in the Northern Rangelands Trust.

Many wildlife destinations are remote from capitals, where there may be limited employment opportunities. This may open up opportunities for tourist operators. They can invest in local communities in a way that will benefit them, benefit wildlife and benefit their business.

Tourism operators have the power to lift local people out of poverty in a manner that will be mutually beneficial and self-sustaining. Or they can choose not to engage with local communities and to invest in a manner that sees all of the profits go offshore – in which case I would say they are no better than the poachers and the smugglers.

The reality is that the tourism sector is not a fringe player in the fight against illegal wildlife trade – it is right at the centre of it. Tourism operators are on the front line of this fight along with the customs and rangers and inspectors.

How operators engage with their staff, customers and local communities, and where they choose to invest, can change the trajectory of the survival of our wildlife. By doing the right thing tourism operators will not just be protecting wildlife. They will be investing in maintaining the core natural asset that underpins their own wildlife tourism venture.

But operators can’t do it alone. How we behave as individual tourists is ultimately what counts, and that is our choice. We have a personal responsibility to hold operators’ feet to the fire. We cannot support the bad ones, no matter how good the price. And let us never forget: wildlife and the local people living among it are to be not just enjoyed but respected by all of us.

• Elephant conservation
• Wildlife holidays

Most viewed

Growing Wildlife-Based Tourism Sustainably: A New Report and Q&A

Copyright: Sanjayda, Shutterstock.com

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• While wildlife and biodiversity are increasingly threatened by habitat loss, poaching, and a lack of funding for protection, nature-based tourism is on the rise and could help provide solutions for these issues.
• The publication Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism highlights successful wildlife tourism programs in seven countries in Africa and Asia that can be used as models to promote conservation and boost economies.
• World Bank lead economist Richard Damania answers questions on the drivers, innovations and challenges for wildlife tourism, and why the World Bank Group and governments should support sustainable tourism strategies.

Wildlife tourism is a powerful tool countries can leverage to grow and diversify their economies while protecting their biodiversity and meeting several Sustainable Development Goals. It is also a way to engage tourists in wildlife conservation and inject money into local communities living closest to wildlife. Success stories and lessons learned from nature-based tourism are emerging from across the globe.

“Here is a way of squaring the circle: provide jobs and save the environment,” said World Bank lead economist Richard Damania, who has extensive experience in understanding the link between tourism and the economy . In 2016, travel and tourism contributed $7.6 trillion, or 10.2%, to total GDP, and the industry provided jobs to one in 10 people, according to the World Travel & Tourism Council .

While nature-based tourism, which includes wildlife tourism, has been expanding rapidly in the last decade or so due to increased demand and opportunities, wildlife and biodiversity are increasingly threatened by habitat loss, poaching, and a lack of funding for protection.

Which is why more than ever countries need to look to concrete examples of well-planned, sustainably-run tourism operations that have led to increased investments in protected areas and reserves, a reduction in poaching, an increase in the non-consumptive value of wildlife through viewing , and opportunities for rural communities to improve their livelihoods through tourism-related jobs, revenue-sharing arrangements, and co-management of natural resources.

A recently-released publication— Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism —developed by the World Bank Group and the Global Wildlife Program , funded by the Global Environment Facility , showcases sustainable wildlife tourism models that can be applied to developing countries, and offers solutions and case studies to bring insight into this sector as a mechanism for inclusive poverty reduction and global conservation.

The Global Wildlife Program spoke with Damania to learn more about the growth, challenges, and innovations in wildlife-based tourism.

Copyright: Wandel Guides, Shutterstock.com

Why should the World Bank support conservation endeavors, and how does wildlife tourism help support our mission?

Enlightened self-interest is one obvious reason why we need to promote wildlife tourism.  It provides the most obvious way to reconcile the interests of nature with the imperative for development and growth. Tourism simultaneously creates jobs while, when done well, protects natural habitats.

Prudence and precaution are another reason why investments in nature-based tourism ought to be promoted. The science of “ planetary boundaries ” warns us that many fragile natural environments and ecosystems are reaching their limits and in some cases, the hypothesized safe boundaries have been crossed. Further damage will imply that we lose important ecosystem services such as watershed and soil protection with damaging consequences for development.

But, in my mind, perhaps the most important reason is humanity’s moral and ethical imperative as stewards of global ecosystems. Simply because humanity has the ability to destroy or convert ecosystems and drive species to extinction does not make it ethically justifiable. There needs to be an ethical balance and that is where ecotourism comes in. We need jobs and economic growth, but here is a way to get jobs and growth in ways that meet our moral and ethical obligation.

What have been the drivers behind a burgeoning nature-based/wildlife-based tourism sector?  

I think there are two things that drive it: as habitats diminish there is more scarcity and their value goes up. Everyone wants to see the last remaining habitats of wild gorillas for instance, or the few remaining wild tigers in India. In sum scarcity confers economic value. 

Another force driving demand is the internet and rising lifestyles—you can learn about animals and habitats you might not have known existed, and more people have the ability to visit them. So, you have supply diminishing on one hand, and demand rising on the other hand which creates an opportunity for economic progress together with conservation.

What is your advice to governments and others who are developing or expanding on a nature or wildlife-based tourism strategy?

Tourism benefits need to be shared better . There is a lack of balance with too many tourists in some places, and none elsewhere. Some destinations face gross overcrowding, such as South Africa’s Krueger National Park or the Masai Mara in Kenya where you have tourists looking at other tourists, instead of at lions. We need to be able to distribute the demand for tourists more equally. The Bank has a role to play in developing the right kind of tourism infrastructure.

Those living closest to nature and wildlife must also benefit .   The local inhabitants that live in the national parks or at their periphery are usually extremely poor. Having tourism operations that can benefit them is extremely important for social corporate reasons, but also for sustainability reasons. If the benefits of tourism flow to the local communities, they will value the parks much more.

We also need to be mindful of   wildlife corridors . We know that dispersion and migration are fundamental biological determinants of species survival. Closed systems where animals cannot move to breed are not sustainable in the long run. As we break off the corridors because of infrastructure and increasing human populations we are putting the ecosystems on life support.

There are some who believe we can manage these closed ecosystems, but it takes an immense amount of self assurance in science to suggest this with confidence, and it is unclear that one can manage ecosystems that we do not adequately understand. A measure of caution and humility is needed when we are stretching the bounds of what is known to science.

What are some of the innovative partnerships that are helping the wildlife-based tourism businesses in developing countries? 

One very successful model that has combined wildlife conservation and management and community benefits and welfare is the  Ruaha Carnivore Project  in Tanzania, part of Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unite ( WildCRU ). They use a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme and do all the right things.

Another example are the community conservancies in Namibia. The community manages the land for wildlife and there are a variety of profit sharing commercial tourism arrangements—although not everything always works fairly or perfectly. Incentives matter deeply and communities need to be guided and need technical assistance in setting up commercial arrangements.

The Bank needs to understand these better and find ways of scaling those up. The IFC has a very good role to play here as well. 

To learn more and to explore numerous examples of community involvement in wildlife tourism from Botswana, India, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa and Uganda, read the report  Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism   or find a one-page fact sheet here .

The Global Wildlife Program (GWP) is led by the World Bank and funded by a $131 million grant from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The program is working with 19 countries across Africa and Asia to promote wildlife conservation and sustainable development by combatting illicit trafficking in wildlife, and investing in wildlife-based tourism. 

• Full Report: Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism
• Fact Sheet on Key Messages
• Report: Twenty Reasons Sustainable Tourism Counts for Development
• Report: Women and Tourism: Designing for Inclusion
• Blog: Africa can Benefit from Nature-based Tourism in a Sustainable Manner
• Feature: Ramping up Nature-Based Tourism to Protect Biodiversity and Boost Livelihoods
• Website: Global Wildlife Program
• Website: Environment
• Website: Competitiveness
• Global Environment Facility

Southern African Perspectives on Sustainable Tourism Management pp 169–185 Cite as

Environmental Change, Wildlife-Based Tourism and Sustainability in Chobe National Park, Botswana

• Maduo O. Mpolokang 7 ,
• Jeremy S. Perkins 7 ,
• Jarkko Saarinen 8 , 9 &
• Naomi N. Moswete 7  
• First Online: 01 June 2022

355 Accesses

1 Citations

Part of the book series: Geographies of Tourism and Global Change ((GTGC))

Environmental change is an ecologically complicated and contentious issue that usually has consequences on the structure and dynamics of ecosystems. Consequently, the impacts of environmental change will be more pronounced on both the natural resource base and dependent industries such as wildlife-based tourism. However, the extent of knowledge on environmental change, especially in protected areas in Botswana, is relatively limited. Creating knowledge on the nature and scale of environmental change is a fundamental step to responsive policy formulations and planning of adaptation measures. This chapter examines the perceived impacts and implications environmental change has on the sustainability and management of the Chobe National Park (CNP), Botswana. Sixty-seven safari tour guide respondents were purposively sampled in this study, drawn from the mobile and fixed tourism operators in Chobe District. In addition, nine key informants were also purposively sampled. Descriptive statistics and a thematic analysis approach were used for analysing the data. The results demonstrate that respondents held negative perceptions towards environmental change on wildlife-based tourism. The important assumption is that the consequences of environmental change on wildlife-based tourism management in Chobe National Park should not threaten its sustainability and High Cost; Low Volume (HCLV) Policy position.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Balinsky, B. I. (1962). Patterns of animal distribution on the African continent (summing-up talk). Annals of the Cape Provincial Museum, 2 , 299–310.

Google Scholar  

Barnes, I. J. (2001). Economic returns and allocation of resources in the wildlife sector of Botswana. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 31 (3–4), 141–153.

Bartlam-Brooks, H. L. A., Bonyongo, M. C., & Harris, S. (2011). Will reconnecting ecosystems allow long-distance mammal migrations to resume? A case study of a zebra Equus burchelli migration in Botswana. Oryx, 45 (2), 210–216.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bio-Chobe. (2016). Survey and assessment of the conservation threats of the Chobe National Park and Chobe Forest Reserves . A report prepared for The United Nations Development Program.

BTO [Botswana Tourism Organization]. (2016). The Chobe National Park . Retrieved 19 September 2016 from: http://www.botswanatourism.co.bw/chobeNationalpark.php

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Sage.

Campbell, J. M. (2008). Communicating for wildlife management or hunting tourism. In B. Lovelock (Ed.), Tourism and the consumption of wildlife: Hunting, shooting and sport fishing (pp. 213–226). Routledge.

Cassidy, L., Perkins, J. S., & Bradley, J. (2022). Too much, too late: Fires and reactive wildfire Management in Northern Botswana. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 39 , 160.

Child, B. (2002). The acceptable face of conservation. Wildlife conservation can bolster human needs rather than conflict with them. Book Review. Nature, 415 , 581–582.

Child, B., & Barnes, G. (2010). The conceptual evolution and practice of community-based natural resource management in southern Africa: Past, present and future. Environmental Conservation, 37 (3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000512

Chilembwe, J. M. (2020). Nature tourism, wildlife resources and community-based conservation: The case study of Malawi. In M. T. Stone, M. Lenao, & N. Moswete (Eds.), Natural resources, tourism and community livelihoods in southern Africa: Chalenges of sustainable development (pp. 26–38). Routledge.

Chiutsi, S., & Saarinen, J. (2017). Local participation in transfrontier tourism: Case of Sengwe community in Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area, Zimbabwe. Development Southern Africa, 34 (3), 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2016.1259987

CSO (Central Statistics office). (2011). Chobe sub-district population and housing census 2011: Selected indicators for villages and localities . Statistics Botswana.

Cumming, D. H. M. (2008). Large scale conservation planning and priorities for the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. In A report prepared for Conservation International . Conservation International.

Desanker, P., & Magadza, C. (2001). Africa. Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In J. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, & K. S. White (Eds.), Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability . Cambridge University Press.

Dillimono, H. D., & Dickinson, J. E. (2015). Travel, tourism, climate change, and behavioral change: Travelers’ perspectives from a developing country, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23 (3), 437–454.

Dobson, J. (2006). Sharks, wildlife tourism, and state regulation. Tourism in Marine Environments, 3 (1), 15–23.

DWNP (Department of Wildife and National Parks). (2008). Chobe Management Plan, 2008. In Ministry of environment, wildlife and tourism department of wildlife and national parks . Government Press, Gaborone.

Earnshaw, A., & Emerton, L. (2000). The economics of wildlife tourism: Theory and reality for landholders in Africa. In H. H. T. Prins, J. G. Grootenhuis, & T. T. Dolan (Eds.), Wildlife conservation by sustainable use (pp. 315–334). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Fennell, D. (1999). Ecotourism: An introduction . Routledge.

Fox, A. D., Elmberg, J., Tombre, I., & Hessel, R. (2017). Agriculture and herbivorous waterfowl: A review of the scientific basis for improved management. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12258

GOB (Government of Botswana). (2001). Botswana national atlas . Department of Surveys and Mapping. Government Printer, Gaborone.

Engelbrecht, F., Adegoke, J., Bopape, M. J., Naidoo, M., Garland, R., Thatcher, M., & Gatebe, C. (2015). Projections of rapidly rising surface temperatures over Africa under low mitigation. Environmental Research Letters, 10 (8), 085004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/085004

Hambira, W., Manwa, H., Atlhopheng, J., & Saarinen, J. (2013). Perceptions of tourism operators towards adaptations to climate change in nature-based tourism: The quest for sustainable tourism in Botswana. Botswana Journal of African studies, 27 (1), 69–85.

Hambira, W. L., Saarinen, J., & Moses, O. (2020). Climate change policy in a world of uncertainty: Changing environment, knowledge and tourism in Botswana. African Geographical Review . https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2020.1719366

Harper, A. R., Doerr, S. H., Santin, C., Froyd, C. A., & Sinnadurai, P. (2018). Prescribed fire and its impacts on ecosystem services in the United Kingdom. Science of the Total Environment, 624 , 691–703.

Jones, T. B. (1999). Community-based natural resource management in Botswana and Namibia: An inventory and preliminary analysis and progress . Report submitted to International Institute for Environment and Development. IIED, London.

Jones, B. T. B. (2002). Chobe enclave: Lessons learnt from a community-based natural resources project 1993-2002. Ocassional paper N0.7, IUCN/SNV cbnrm support programme. IUCN, Gland.

Kilungu, H., Leemans, R., Munishi, P. K., Nicholls, S., & Amelung, B. (2019). Forty years of climate and land-cover change and its effects on tourism resources in Kilimanjaro National Park. Tourism Planning & Development, 16 (2), 235–253.

Lepetu, J., & Garekae, H. (2020). Role of forest resources in local community livelihoods: Implications for conservation of Chobe Forest Reserve, Botswana. In M. T. Stone, M. Lenao, & N. Moswete (Eds.), Natural resources, tourism and community livelihoods in southern Africa: Challenges of sustainable development (pp. 176–189). Routledge.

Lindsey, P. A., Nyirenda, V. R., Barnes, J. I., Becker, M. S., & McRobb, R. (2014). Underperformance of African protected area networks and the case for new conservation models: Insights from Zambia. PLoS One, 9 (5), e94109. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094109

Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11 (6), 459–475.

Lovelock, B. (Ed.). (2008). Tourism and the consumption of wildlife: Hunting, shooting and sport fishing . Routledge.

Mabunda, D. M., & Wilson, D. (2009). Commercialisation of national parks: South Africa’s Kruger National park as an example. In J. Saarinen, F. Becker, H. Manwa, & D. Wilson (Eds.), Sustainable tourism in southern Africa: Local communities and natural resources in transition (pp. 116–133). Channelview.

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2017). Poverty to riches: Who benefits from the booming tourism industry in Botswana. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 35 (1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2016.1270424

Mbaiwa, J. E. (2018). Effects of the safari hunting tourism ban on rural livelihoods and wildlife conservation in northern Botswana. South African Geographical Journal, 100 (1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2017.1299639

Mkiramweni, N. (2014). Sustainable wildlife tourism in the context of climate change: The case study of Ngorongoro conservation area, Tanzania . PhD Dissertation. Victoria University.

Mmopelwa, G., & Mackenzie, L. (2020). Economic assessment of tourism–based livelihoods for sustainable development: A case of handicrafts in southern and eastern Africa. In M. T. Stone, M. Lenao, & N. Moswete (Eds.), Natural resources, tourism and community livelihoods in southern Africa: Challenges of sustainable development (pp. 235–253). Routledge.

Mogende, E., & Moswete, N. (2018). Perceived wildlife-based tourism and impacts at the Chobe National Park, Botswana Wildlife. PULA: Botswana Journal of African Studies, 32 (1), 48–67.

Mosugelo, D. K., Moe, S. R., Ringrose, S., & Nellemann, C. (2002). Vegetation changes during a 36-year period in northern Chobe National Park, Botswana. African Journal of Ecology, 40 (3), 232–240.

Moswete, N., & Thapa, B. (2015). Factors that influence support for community-based ecotourism in the rural communities adjacent to the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Botswana. Journal of Ecotourism, 14 (2–3), 243–263.

Moswete, N., Nkape, K., & Tseme, M. (2017). Wildlife tourism safaris, vehicle decongestion routes and impact mitigation at the Chobe National Park, Botswana. In L. Ismar & R. Green (Eds.), Wildlife tourism, environmental learning and ethical encounters (pp. 71–88). Springer.

Moswete, N., & Thapa, B. (2018). Local communities, CBOs/trusts, and People–Park relationships: A case study of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Botswana. The George Wright Forum, 35 (1), 96–108.

Naidoo, R., Du Preez, P., Stuart-Hill, G., Beytell, P., & Taylor, R. (2014). Long-range migrations and dispersals of African buffalo ( Syncerus caffer ) in the Kavango–Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation area. African Journal of Ecology, 52 (4), 581–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12163

Naidoo, R., Kilian, J. W., Du Preez, P., Beytell, P., Aschenborn, O., Taylor, R. D., & Stuart-Hill, G. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of local-and regional-scale wildlife corridors using quantitative metrics of functional connectivity. Biological Conservation, 217 , 96–103.

Newsome, D., Dowling, R. K., & Moore, S. A. (2005). Wildlife tourism . Channelview.

Book   Google Scholar  

Novelli, M., Barnes, J. I., & Humavindu, M. (2006). The other side of the ecotourism coin: Consumptive tourism in southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism, 5 (1–2), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724040608668447

Nyaupane, G. P., & Chhetri, N. (2009). Vulnerability to climate change of nature-based tourism in the Nepalese Himalayas. Tourism Geographies, 11 (1), 95–119.

Nyirenda, V. R., Milimo, C., & Namukonde, N. (2020). Local people’s perspectives on wildlife conservation, ecotourism and community livelihoods: A case study of Lusaka National park, Zambia. In M. T. Stone, M. Lenao, & N. Moswete (Eds.), Natural resources, tourism and community livelihoods in southern Africa: Challenges of sustainable development (pp. 108–122). Routledge.

Owen-Smith, N. (1996). Ecological guidelines for water points in extensive protected areas. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 26 (4), 107–112.

Perkins, J. S. (2019). ‘Only connect’: Restoring resilience in the Kalahari ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Management, 249 , 109420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109420

Perkins, J. S. (2020). Take me to the river along the African drought corridor: Adapting to climate change. Botswana Journal of Agriculture and Applied Sciences, 14 (1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.37106/bojaas.2020.77

Perkins, J. S. (2021). Changing the scale and nature of artificial water point (AWP) use and adapting to climate change in the Kalahari of Southern Africa. In S. O. Keitumetse, L. Hens, & D. Norris (Eds.), Sustainability in developing countries – Case studies from Botswana’s journey towards 2030 agenda . Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Preston-Whyte, R., & Watson, H. (2005). Nature tourism and climatic change in southern Africa. In C. M. Hall & J. E. Higham (Eds.), Tourism, recreation and climate change (pp. 130–142). Challenview.

Purdon, A., Mole, M. A., Chase, M. J., & van Aarde, R. J. (2018). Partial migration in savannah elephant populations distributed across southern Africa. Scientific Reports, 8 , 11331. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29724-9

Reddy, M. V., & Wilkes, K. (2013). Tourism and sustainability: Transition to a green economy. In M. V. Reddy & K. Wilkes (Eds.), Tourism, climate change and sustainability (pp. 3–23). Routledge.

Saarinen, J. (2014). Critical sustainability: Setting the limits to growth and responsibility in tourism. Sustainability, 6 (11), 1–17.

Saarinen, J., Fitchett, J., & Hoogendoorn, G. (2022). Climate change and tourism in southern Africa . Routledge.

Saarinen, J., Hambira, W. L., Atlhopheng, J., & Manwa, H. (2012). Tourism industry reaction to climate change in Kgalagadi South District, Botswana. Development Southern Africa, 29 (2), 273–285.

Saarinen, J., Moswete, N., Atlhopheng, J., & Hambira, W. (2020). Changing socio-ecologies of Kalahari: Local perceptions towards environmental change and tourism in Kgalagadi, Botswana. Development Southern Africa, 37 (5), 855–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2020.1809997

Santarém, F., Campos, J. C., Perreira, P., Hamidou, D., Saarinen, J., & Brito, J. C. (2018). Using multivariate statistics to assess ecotourism potential of water-bodies: A case-study in Mauritania. Tourism Management, 67 , 34–46.

Santarém, F., Saarinen, J., Brito, J., & Pereira, P. (2019). New method to identify and map flagship fleets for promoting conservation and ecotourism. Biological Conservation, 229 , 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.10.017

Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & Gössling, S. (2012). Tourism and climate change : Impacts, adaptation and mitigation . Routledge.

Shoo, R., & Sorongwa, A. (2013). Contribution of ecotourism to nature conservation and improvement of livelihoods around Amani nature reserve, Tanzania. Journal of Ecotourism, 12 (2), 75–89.

Sianga, K., van Telgen, M., Vrooman, J., Fynn, R. W., & van Langevelde, F. (2017). Spatial refuges buffer landscapes against homogenisation and degradation by large herbivore populations and facilitate vegetation heterogeneity. Koedoe, 59 (2), 1–13.

Snyman, S., & Spenceley, A. (2012). Key sustainable tourism mechanisms for poverty reduction and local socio-economic development in Africa. Africa Insight, 42 (2), 76–93.

Spenceley, A. (2008). Impacts of wildlife tourism on rural livelihoods in South Africa. In A. Spenceley (Ed.), Responsible tourism: Critical issues for conservation and development (pp. 159–186). Earthscan.

Stoldt, M., Göttert, T., Mann, C., & Zeller, U. (2020). Transfrontier conservation areas and human-wildlife conflict: The case of the Namibian component of the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA. Scientific Reports, 10 , 7964. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64537-9

UNWTO (World Tourism Organisation). (2008). Policy for the growth and development of tourism in Botswana . UNWTO/government of Botswana project for the formulation of a tourism policy for Botswana, July 2008. UNWTO and Department of Tourism, Gaborone.

van Wilgen, N. J., Goodall, V., Holness, S., Chown, S. L., & McGeoch, M. A. (2016). Rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns in South Africa's national parks. International Journal of Climatology, 36 (2), 706–721.

Wato, Y. A., Heitkönig, I. M. A., van Wieren, S. E., Wahungu, G., Prins, H. T., & van Langevelde, F. (2016). Prolonged drought results in starvation of African elephant ( Loxodonta africana ). Biological Conservation, 203 , 89–96.

Wolf, A. (2009). Preliminary assessment of the effect of high elephant density on ecosystem components (grass, trees, and large mammals) on the Chobe riverfront in Northern Botswana . PhD Dissertation. University of Florida.

WTTC [World Travel and Tourism Council] (2015). Travel and tourism economic impact 2015: Botswana. London, UK. Retrieved from https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20research/countries%202015/botswana2015.pdf

WTTC. (2018). Travel and tourism economic impact study. www.wttc.org .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Environmental Science, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana

Maduo O. Mpolokang, Jeremy S. Perkins & Naomi N. Moswete

Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Jarkko Saarinen

School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naomi N. Moswete .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department Historical and Heritage Studies, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Berendien Lubbe

Naomi N. Moswete

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Mpolokang, M.O., Perkins, J.S., Saarinen, J., Moswete, N.N. (2022). Environmental Change, Wildlife-Based Tourism and Sustainability in Chobe National Park, Botswana. In: Saarinen, J., Lubbe, B., Moswete, N.N. (eds) Southern African Perspectives on Sustainable Tourism Management. Geographies of Tourism and Global Change. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99435-8_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99435-8_12

Published : 01 June 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-99434-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-99435-8

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

A Year Without Travel

For Planet Earth, No Tourism Is a Curse and a Blessing

From the rise in poaching to the waning of noise pollution, travel’s shutdown is having profound effects. Which will remain, and which will vanish?

By Lisa W. Foderaro

For the planet, the year without tourists was a curse and a blessing.

With flights canceled, cruise ships mothballed and vacations largely scrapped, carbon emissions plummeted. Wildlife that usually kept a low profile amid a crush of tourists in vacation hot spots suddenly emerged. And a lack of cruise ships in places like Alaska meant that humpback whales could hear each other’s calls without the din of engines.

That’s the good news. On the flip side, the disappearance of travelers wreaked its own strange havoc, not only on those who make their living in the tourism industry, but on wildlife itself, especially in developing countries. Many governments pay for conservation and enforcement through fees associated with tourism. As that revenue dried up, budgets were cut, resulting in increased poaching and illegal fishing in some areas. Illicit logging rose too, presenting a double-whammy for the environment. Because trees absorb and store carbon, cutting them down not only hurt wildlife habitats, but contributed to climate change.

“We have seen many financial hits to the protection of nature,” said Joe Walston, executive vice president of global conservation at the Wildlife Conservation Society. “But even where that hasn’t happened, in a lot of places people haven’t been able to get into the field to do their jobs because of Covid.”

From the rise in rhino poaching in Botswana to the waning of noise pollution in Alaska, the lack of tourism has had a profound effect around the world. The question moving forward is which impacts will remain, and which will vanish, in the recovery.

A change in the air

While the pandemic’s impact on wildlife has varied widely from continent to continent, and country to country, its effect on air quality was felt more broadly.

In the United States, greenhouse gas emissions last year fell more than 10 percent , as state and local governments imposed lockdowns and people stayed home, according to a report in January by the Rhodium Group, a research and consulting firm.

The most dramatic results came from the transportation sector, which posted a 14.7 percent decrease. It’s impossible to tease out how much of that drop is from lost tourism versus business travel. And there is every expectation that as the pandemic loosens its grip, tourism will resume — likely with a vengeance.

Still, the pandemic helped push American emissions below 1990 levels for the first time. Globally, carbon dioxide emissions fell 7 percent , or 2.6 billion metric tons, according to new data from international climate researchers. In terms of output, that is about double the annual emissions of Japan.

“It’s a lot and it’s a little,” said Jason Smerdon, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory . “Historically, it’s a lot. It’s the largest single reduction percent-wise over the last 100 years. But when you think about the 7 percent in the context of what we need to do to mitigate climate change, it’s a little.”

In late 2019, the United Nations Environment Program cautioned that global greenhouse gases would need to drop 7.6 percent every year between 2020 and 2030. That would keep the world on its trajectory of meeting the temperature goals set under the Paris Agreement, the 2016 accord signed by nearly 200 nations.

“The 7 percent drop last year is on par with what we would need to do year after year,” Dr. Smerdon said. “Of course we wouldn’t want to do it the same way. A global pandemic and locking ourselves in our apartments is not the way to go about this.”

Interestingly, the drop in other types of air pollution during the pandemic muddied the climate picture. Industrial aerosols, made up of soot, sulfates, nitrates and mineral dust, reflect sunlight back into space, thus cooling the planet. While their reduction was good for respiratory health, it had the effect of offsetting some of the climate benefits of cascading carbon emissions.

For the climate activist Bill McKibben , one of the first to sound the alarm about global warming in his 1989 book, “The End of Nature,” the pandemic underscored that the climate crisis won’t be averted one plane ride or gallon of gas at a time.

“We’ve come through this pandemic year when our lives changed more than any of us imagined they ever would,” Mr. McKibben said during a Zoom webinar hosted in February by the nonprofit Green Mountain Club of Vermont.

“Everybody stopped flying; everybody stopped commuting,” he added. “Everybody just stayed at home. And emissions did go down, but they didn’t go down that much, maybe 10 percent with that incredible shift in our lifestyles. It means that most of the damage is located in the guts of our systems and we need to reach in and rip out the coal and gas and oil and stick in the efficiency, conservation and sun and wind.”

Wildlife regroups

Just as the impact of the pandemic on air quality is peppered with caveats, so too is its influence on wildlife.

Animals slithered, crawled and stomped out of hiding across the globe, sometimes in farcical fashion. Last spring, a herd of Great Orme Kashmiri goats was spotted ambling through empty streets in Llandudno, a coastal town in northern Wales. And hundreds of monkeys — normally fed by tourists — were involved in a disturbing brawl outside of Bangkok, apparently fighting over food scraps.

In meaningful ways, however, the pandemic revealed that wildlife will regroup if given the chance. In Thailand, where tourism plummeted after authorities banned international flights, leatherback turtles laid their eggs on the usually mobbed Phuket Beach. It was the first time nests were seen there in years, as the endangered sea turtles, the largest in the world, prefer to nest in seclusion.

Similarly, in Koh Samui, Thailand’s second largest island, hawksbill turtles took over beaches that in 2018 hosted nearly three million tourists. The hatchlings were documented emerging from their nests and furiously moving their flippers toward the sea.

For Petch Manopawitr, a marine conservation manager of the Wildlife Conservation Society Thailand, the sightings were proof that natural landscapes can recover quickly. “Both Ko Samui and Phuket have been overrun with tourists for so many years,” he said in a phone interview. “Many people had written off the turtles and thought they would not return. After Covid, there is talk about sustainability and how it needs to be embedded in tourism, and not just a niche market but all kinds of tourism.”

In addition to the sea turtles, elephants, leaf monkeys and dugongs (related to manatees) all made cameos in unlikely places in Thailand. “Dugongs are more visible because there is less boat traffic,” Mr. Manopawitr said. “The area that we were surprised to see dugongs was the eastern province of Bangkok. We didn’t know dugongs still existed there.”

He and other conservationists believe that countries in the cross hairs of international tourism need to mitigate the myriad effects on the natural world, from plastic pollution to trampled parks.

That message apparently reached the top levels of the Thai government. In September, the nation’s natural resources and environment minister, Varawut Silpa-archa, said he planned to shutter national parks in stages each year, from two to four months. The idea, he told Bloomberg News , is to set the stage so that “nature can rehabilitate itself.”

An increase in poaching

In other parts of Asia and across Africa, the disappearance of tourists has had nearly the opposite result. With safari tours scuttled and enforcement budgets decimated, poachers have plied their nefarious trade with impunity. At the same time, hungry villagers have streamed into protected areas to hunt and fish.

There were reports of increased poaching of leopards and tigers in India, an uptick in the smuggling of falcons in Pakistan, and a surge in trafficking of rhino horns in South Africa and Botswana.

Jim Sano, the World Wildlife Fund’s vice president for travel, tourism and conservation, said that in sub-Saharan Africa, the presence of tourists was a powerful deterrent. “It’s not only the game guards,” he said. “It’s the travelers wandering around with the guides that are omnipresent in these game areas. If the guides see poachers with automatic weapons, they report it.”

In the Republic of Congo, the Wildlife Conservation Society has noticed an increase in trapping and hunting in and around protected areas. Emma J. Stokes, regional director of the Central Africa program for the organization, said that in Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, monkeys and forest antelopes were being targeted for bushmeat.

“It’s more expensive and difficult to get food during the pandemic and there is a lot of wildlife up there,” she said by phone. “We obviously want to deter people from hunting in the park, but we also have to understand what’s driving that because it’s more complex.”

The Society and the Congolese government jointly manage the park, which spans 1,544 square miles of lowland rainforest — larger than Rhode Island. Because of the virus, the government imposed a national lockdown, halting public transportation. But the organization was able to arrange rides to markets since the park is considered an essential service. “We have also kept all 300 of our park staff employed,” she added.

Largely absent: the whir of propellers, the hum of engines

While animals around the world were subject to rifles and snares during the pandemic, one thing was missing: noise. The whir of helicopters diminished as some air tours were suspended. And cruise ships from the Adriatic Sea to the Gulf of Mexico were largely absent. That meant marine mammals and fish had a break from the rumble of engines and propellers.

So did research scientists. Michelle Fournet is a marine ecologist who uses hydrophones (essentially aquatic microphones) to listen in on whales. Although the total number of cruise ships (a few hundred) pales in comparison to the total number of cargo ships (tens of thousands), Dr. Fournet says they have an outsize role in creating underwater racket. That is especially true in Alaska, a magnet for tourists in search of natural splendor.

“Cargo ships are trying to make the most efficient run from point A to point B and they are going across open ocean where any animal they encounter, they encounter for a matter of hours,” she said. “But when you think about the concentration of cruise ships along coastal areas, especially in southeast Alaska, you basically have five months of near-constant vessel noise. We have a population of whales listening to them all the time.”

Man-made noise during the pandemic dissipated in the waters near the capital of Juneau, as well as in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve . Dr. Fournet, a postdoctoral research associate at Cornell University, observed a threefold decrease in ambient noise in Glacier Bay between 2019 and 2020. “That’s a really big drop in noise,” she said, “and all of that is associated with the cessation of these cruise ships.”

Covid-19 opened a window onto whale sounds in Juneau as well. Last July, Dr. Fournet, who also directs the Sound Science Research Collective , a marine conservation nonprofit, had her team lower a hydrophone in the North Pass, a popular whale-watching destination. “In previous years,” she said, “you wouldn’t have been able to hear anything — just boats. This year we heard whales producing feeding calls, whales producing contact calls. We heard sound types that I have never heard before.”

Farther south in Puget Sound, near Seattle, whale-watching tours were down 75 percent last year. Tour operators like Jeff Friedman, owner of Maya’s Legacy Whale Watching , insist that their presence on the water benefits whales since the captains make recreational boaters aware of whale activity and radio them to slow down. Whale-watching companies also donate to conservation groups and report sightings to researchers.

“During the pandemic, there was a huge increase in the number of recreational boats out there,” said Mr. Friedman, who is also president of the Pacific Whale Watch Association . “It was similar to R.V.s. People decided to buy an R.V. or a boat. The majority of the time, boaters are not aware that the whales are present unless we let them know.”

Two years ago, in a move to protect Puget Sound’s tiny population of Southern Resident killer whales, which number just 75, Washington’s Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law reducing boat speeds to 7 knots within a half nautical mile of the whales and increasing a buffer zone around them, among other things.

Many cheered the protections. But environmental activists like Catherine W. Kilduff, a senior attorney in the oceans program at the Center for Biological Diversity, believe they did not go far enough. She wants the respite from noise that whales enjoyed during the pandemic to continue.

“The best tourism is whale-watching from shore,” she said.

Looking Ahead

Debates like this are likely to continue as the world emerges from the pandemic and leisure travel resumes. Already, conservationists and business leaders are sharing their visions for a more sustainable future.

Ed Bastian, Delta Air Lines’ chief executive, last year laid out a plan to become carbon neutral by spending $1 billion over 10 years on an assortment of strategies. Only 2.5 percent of global carbon emissions are traced to aviation, but a 2019 study suggested that could triple by midcentury.

In the meantime, climate change activists are calling on the flying public to use their carbon budgets judiciously.

Tom L. Green, a senior climate policy adviser with the David Suzuki Foundation , an environmental organization in Canada, said tourists might consider booking a flight only once every few years, saving their carbon footprint (and money) for a special journey. “Instead of taking many short trips, we could occasionally go away for a month or more and really get to know a place,” he said.

For Mr. Walston of the Wildlife Conservation Society, tourists would be wise to put more effort into booking their next resort or cruise, looking at the operator’s commitment to sustainability.

“My hope is not that we stop traveling to some of these wonderful places, because they will continue to inspire us to conserve nature globally,” he said. “But I would encourage anyone to do their homework. Spend as much time choosing a tour group or guide as a restaurant. The important thing is to build back the kind of tourism that supports nature.”

Lisa W. Foderaro is a former reporter for The New York Times whose work has also appeared in National Geographic and Audubon Magazine.

Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram , Twitter and Facebook . And sign up for our weekly Travel Dispatch newsletter to receive expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation.

Come Sail Away

Love them or hate them, cruises can provide a unique perspective on travel..

 Cruise Ship Surprises: Here are five unexpected features on ships , some of which you hopefully won’t discover on your own.

 Icon of the Seas: Our reporter joined thousands of passengers on the inaugural sailing of Royal Caribbean’s Icon of the Seas . The most surprising thing she found? Some actual peace and quiet .

Th ree-Year Cruise, Unraveled:  The Life at Sea cruise was supposed to be the ultimate bucket-list experience : 382 port calls over 1,095 days. Here’s why  those who signed up are seeking fraud charges  instead.

TikTok’s Favorite New ‘Reality Show’:  People on social media have turned the unwitting passengers of a nine-month world cruise  into  “cast members”  overnight.

Dipping Their Toes: Younger generations of travelers are venturing onto ships for the first time . Many are saving money.

Cult Cruisers: These devoted cruise fanatics, most of them retirees, have one main goal: to almost never touch dry land .

Elephant tourism often involves cruelty – here are steps toward more humane, animal-friendly excursions

Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, Project Dragonfly, Miami University

Disclosure statement

Michelle Szydlowski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Miami University provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

Suju Kali is a 50-year-old elephant in Nepal who has been carrying tourists for over 30 years. Like many elephants I encounter through my research , Suju Kali exhibits anxiety and can be aggressive toward strangers. She suffers from emotional trauma as a result of prolonged, commercial human contact.

Like Suju Kali, many animals are trapped within the tourism industry. Some venues have no oversight and little concern for animal or tourist safety. Between 120,000 and 340,000 animals are used globally in a variety of wildlife tourism attractions, including endangered species like elephants. Over a quarter of the world’s endangered elephants reside in captivity with little oversight.

Wildlife tourism – which involves viewing wildlife such as primates or birds in conservation areas, feeding or touching captive or “rehabilitated” wildlife in facilities, and bathing or riding animals like elephants – is tricky business . I know this because I am a researcher studying human relationships with elephants in both tourism and conservation settings within Southeast Asia.

These types of experiences have long been an extremely popular and profitable part of the tourism market . But now, many travel-related organizations are urging people not to participate in, or calling for an outright ban on, interactive wildlife experiences .

Tourism vendors have started marketing more “ethical options” for consumers. Some are attempting to truly improve the health and welfare of wildlife, and some are transitioning captive wildlife into touch-free, non-riding or lower-stress environments. In other places, organizations are attempting to implement standards of care or create manuals that outline good practices for animal husbandry.

This marketing, academics argue, is often simply “ greenwashing ,” applying marketing labels to make consumers feel better about their choices without making any real changes. Worse, research shows that some programs marketing themselves as ethical tourism may instead be widening economic gaps and harming both humans and other species that they are meant to protect.

No quick fix

For example, rather than tourist dollars trickling down to local struggling families as intended by local governments, many tourism venues are owned by nonresidents, meaning the profits do not stay in the area . Likewise, only a small number of residents can afford to own tourism venues, and venues do not provide employment for locals from lower income groups.

This economic gap is especially obvious in Nepalese elephant stables: Venue owners continue to make money off elephants, while elephant caregivers continue to work 17 hours a day for about US$21 a month; tourists are led to believe they are “ promoting sustainability .”

Yet, there are no easy answers, especially for elephants working in tourism. Moving them to sanctuaries is difficult because with no governmental or global welfare oversight, elephants may end up in worse conditions.

Many kindhearted souls who want to “help” elephants know little about their biology and mental health needs, or what it takes to keep them healthy. Also, feeding large animals like Suju Kali is pricey, costing around $19,000 yearly . So without profits from riding or other income, owners – or would-be rescuers – can’t maintain elephants. Releasing captive elephants to the jungle is not a choice – many have never learned to live in the wild, so they cannot survive on their own.

Hurting local people

Part of the problem lies with governments, as many have marketed tourism as a way to fund conservation projects. For example in Nepal, a percentage of ticket sales from elephant rides are given to community groups to use for forest preservation and support for local families.

Increasing demand for wildlife-based tourism may increase traffic in the area and thus put pressure on local governments to further limit local people’s access to forest resources.

This may also lead to increased demands on local communities , as was the case in Nepal. In the 1970s, the Nepalese government removed local people from their lands in what is now Chitwan National Park as part of increasing “conservation efforts” and changed the protected area’s boundaries. Indigenous “Tharu,” or people of the forest, were forced to abandon their villages and land. While some were offered access to “buffer zones” in the 1990s, many remain poor and landless today.

In addition, more and more desirable land surrounding conservation areas in Nepal is being developed for tourist-based businesses such as hotels, restaurants and shops, pushing local poor people farther away from central village areas and the associated tourism income.

Some activists would like humans to simply release all wildlife back into the wild, but there are multiple issues with that. Elephant habitats throughout Southeast Asia have been transformed into croplands, cities or train tracks for human use. Other problems arise from the fact that tourism elephants have never learned how to be elephants in their natural elements, as they were separated from their herds at an early age.

So tourism may be vital to providing food, care and shelter to captive elephants for the rest of their lives and providing jobs for those who really need them. Because elephants can live beyond 60 years, this can be a large commitment.

How to be an ethical tourist

To protect elephants, tourists should check out reviews and photos from any venue they want to visit, and look for clues that animal welfare might be impacted, such as tourists allowed to feed, hold or ride captive wildlife animals. Look for healthy animals, which means doing research on what “healthy” animals of that species should look like.

If a venue lists no-touch demonstrations – “unnatural” behaviors that don’t mimic what an elephant might do of their own accord, such as sitting on a ball or riding a bike, or other performances – remember that the behind-the-scenes training used to achieve these behaviors can be violent, traumatic or coercive .

Another way to help people and elephant is to to use small, local companies to book your adventures in your area of interest, rather than paying large, international tourism agencies. Look for locally owned hotels, and wait to book excursions until you arrive so you can use local service providers. Book homestay programs and attend cultural events led by community members; talk to tourists and locals you meet in the target town to get their opinions, and use local guides who provide wildlife viewing opportunities while maintaining distance from animals .

Or tourists can ask to visit venues that are certified by international humane animal organizations and that do not allow contact with wildlife. Or they can opt for guided hikes, canoe or kayak experiences, and other environmentally friendly options.

While these suggestions will not guarantee that your excursion is animal-friendly, they will help decrease your impact on wildlife, support local families and encourage venues to stop using elephants as entertainment. Those are good first steps.

• Animal ethics
• Endangered species
• Southeast Asia
• South East Asia
• Ethical question

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 182,200 academics and researchers from 4,941 institutions.

Register now

Why Wildlife Tourism Isn’t Always A Good Thing

Disclaimer: Some posts on Tourism Teacher may contain affiliate links. If you appreciate this content, you can show your support by making a purchase through these links or by buying me a coffee . Thank you for your support!

Wildlife tourism refers to any tourism that involves wildlife- from swimming with dolphins to volunteering at a turtle conservation centre. The wildlife tourism industry is diverse, taking many different shapes and forms. However, the wildlife tourism industry is also very controversial and has been subject to a lot of negative media coverage in recent years.

In this article I will teach you about what wildlife tourism is and I will introduce you to the different types of wildlife tourism that occur around the world. I will also explain to you why this is a very important industry and the many advantages of wildlife tourism. Lastly, I will outline some of the negative aspects that are associated with wildlife tourism and provide suggestions on how wildlife tourism can be responsible.

What is wildlife tourism?

Zoos and aquariums, animal rescue centres and sanctuaries, birdwatching, whale watching, hunting and fishing, swimming with dolphins, playing with lions and tigers, cuddling a panda, elephant riding, shark cage diving, gorilla trekking, monkey forests, ostrich riding, conservation, breeding porogrammes, economic benefits, job creation, mistreatment of the animals, introduction of disease, wild animals can be dangerous, changes in animal behaviour, reduced breeding success, do your research before you go, don’t get too close, sanctuaries and rescue centres are better than zoos, don’t mess with nature, animal souvenirs, eat carefully, raise awareness about wildlife tourism, wildlife tourism: further reading.

Put simply, wildlife tourism is tourism that involves wildlife. But the important question is, what is wildlife? And when does a wild animal stop being ‘wild’?

Most types of animal tourism involves the use of animals that are or were once living in the wild. Whether its a stray cat who was taken into a shelter, or a zoo-based rhinoceros that was rescued from poachers, unless bred in captivity, the majority of animals that we see in the tourism industry come from the wild.

As such, wildlife tourism, in its broadest sense, encounters all types of tourism that involves animals. Types of wildlife tourism can then be segregated into two categories: animals in captivity and animals in the wild.

Types of wildlife tourism

There are many different types of wildlife tourism.

The United Nations estimates that tourism involving wildlife accounts for around 7% of all tourism around the world. However, they exclude animals in captivity, so unreality this figure is likely much higher. From safaris in Tanzania to diving at then Great Barrier Reef, there are plenty of ways that tourists can watch and get up close and personal with wildlife.

Below, Have outlined the most commonly found types of wildlife tourism around the world, with examples.

A safari takes place in an animal’s natural habitat. Safari’s usually involve the use of a small safari vehicle and a ranger, who will drive tourists to areas where there are likely to be animals.

Safari is traditionally associated with Africa, but can also be found in other parts of the world.

Popular safari destinations: Tanzania; Kenya; South Africa

A zoo or an aquarium is a place where animals are kept captivity, usually in cages. Zoos are renowned for having small enclosures and for domesticating animals.

Some zoos and aquariums have important research projects and breeding programmes. Many will also take on rescue animals or marine life.

Popular zoos: San Diego Zoo; Singapore Zoo; Australia zoo, London Zoo

Popular aquariums: Georgia aquarium; Marine Life Park, Sentosa, Singapore; Dubai Mall Aquarium

Many farms around the world have been commercialised to allow visitors in to see the animals. They may include feeding experiences and the opportunity to interact with the animals, such as stocking the rabbits or riding the horses.

Farms are usually small, independently owned businesses that are not famous around the world, but that are well known within the local area.

Animal rescue centres and sanctuaries are businesses who rescue animals and then care for them.

Oftentimes they will look like a zoo, and may be commercialised in a similar way. However, the funds made should be reinvested into the business, rather than for profitable gain.

Popular animal rescue centres and sanctuaries: Elephant Nature Park, Thailand; Lonely Pine Koala Sanctuary, Australia; Sloth Sanctuary of Costa Rica ; The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, Kenya; Panda Research Centre,Chengdu, China

Birdwatching, also referred to as birding, occurs in a bird’s natural habitat. It involves watching the birds, often from a distance with the use of binoculars.

It can also involve the use of a webcam, facilitating virtual tourism .

Popular birdwatching destinations: The Gambia ; The Galapagos; The Pantanal, Brazil

Whale watching usually occurs on tours, when tourists will be taken out to sea on a boat in search of whales. There will usually be a guide who will provide details about the whales and who is able to spot them easily through a trained eye.

Popular what watching destinations: Australia; Iceland; South Africa ; Canada

Hunting is the practice of pursuing and capturing or killing wild animals. Many animals are hunted for enjoyment throughout the world, from deer to pigeon to bears.

Hunting can be both legal and illegal depending on where it takes place and what is being hunted.

Likewise, fishing is a popular activity around the globe. Some people fish for enjoyment and return the fish to the water once caught and others eat or sell the fish.

Popular hunting animals: Deer; pigeon; rabbit; bears

Diving is a popular form of wildlife tourism, enabling tourists to experience life beneath the sea.

Many people will undertake PADI courses or similar to enable them to dive deeper and swim further.

Popular dive sites: the Great Barrier Reef, Australia; The Red Sea,Egypt ; Blue Hole,Belize, Gili Islands, Bali

Wildlife encounters

Many people are keen to get up close and personal with wildlife.

Back in the 2000’s everyone was doing it. If you had a photo of you and a baby tiger as your Facebook profile picture you were one of the cool kids. Upload that same photo today and you will likely experience a barrage of abuse from your nature-loving friends and connections.

Some types of wildlife encounters are great. Take volunteer work, for example. There are many conservation projects around the world that are desperate for volunteer tourists to help run their operations.

However, most animals encounters are not so good. Animals are often drugged or abused to keep them calm around the tourists. They are kept in inhumane conditions and treated unethically- I mean, would you want to walk up and down the road all day long with people on your back?!

Here are some the most common wildlife encounters around the world:

You can swim with dolphins in the wild in a handful of places around the world.

It is more common, however, to swim with dolphins that are in enclosures. These animals are taken out of their natural habitats and asked to perform trips and entertain tourists.

Popular places to swim with dolphins: USA, Mexico, Bahamas , Portugal.

There are plenty of places that allow you to have an up close and personal experience with lions and tigers.

Naturally, these are dangerous animals, so that instantly raises alarm bells to me. Oftentimes these animals are drugged and abused to ensure that they ‘perform’ for the tourist.

Popular places to play with lions and tigers: Thailand, India , South Africa

Cuddling a panda is a thing of the past unless you are a volunteer tourist (and still many would argue even this is unethical). The last commercial activity which enabled you to cuddle and have your photograph taken with a panda stopped operations in 2018.

However, there are still plenty of opportunities to visit the famous giant pandas, most of which are in China .

Popular places to visit pandas: China

Elephant riding is most commonly found in Asia. Elephants are used to carry tourists around as a leisure activity. There have been many ethical debates about this, which has resulted in a reduction of elephant rides taken around the world.

Now, many elephant organisations are trying to appeal to tourists who take a more ethical approach by transforming their organisation into an ‘elephant sanctuary. Whilst these are sometimes genuine, with ethical practices, some are not so- they simply disguise their unethical approaches by giving themselves the title ‘sanctuary’.

Popular elephant riding destinations: Thailand , Cambodia, India

A cat cafe is a venue that houses a variety of cats, whilst also serving basic food and beverages. People pay an entrance fee or hourly rate to sit with the cats. You can play with the cats and stroke them. Cat cafes are most commonly found in Asia and are particularly popular in Japan, although you can also find them in other parts of the world.

Some cat cafes claim to be rescue centres or sanctuaries, but most operate on a for-profit business. Some do not allow young children in, for fear off them scaring or hurting the animals. Others have no such rules. A cafe is obviously not a natural place for a cat to live, and some argue that the concept in unethical.

Popular destinations with cat cafes: Japan, Thailand ,

Shark cage diving is essentially underwater diving or snorkelling whilst inside a cage. A process called chumming ( baiting the sharks with minced fish) is used to lure the sharks towards the cage.

Shark cage diving can be dangerous both for the person inside the cage and for the shark. The methods are also questionable. Encouraging the sharks to behave in a way that they wouldn’t usually will lead to lasting behavioural changes, which will inevitably have a knock on effect on other marine life and the wider ecosystem.

Popular shark cage diving destinations: South Africa, Florida

Gorilla trekking occurs in remote areas on the African continent . The concept is quite simple- tourists go hiking in search of gorillas.

Gorilla trekking is a unique experience, and tours are pricey. Tourists generally keep their distance and there have been few negative impacts reported.

However, there is always potential for abuse. Careful regulation and monitoring needs to remain in place to ensure that the gorillas are not tempted into certain areas with food or disturbed by the presence of trekkers.

Popular gorilla trekking destinations: Rwanda, Uganda

A monkey forest is a wooded area where monkeys live. This could be the monkeys’ natural habitat, but more likely they have been placed there intentionally.

Visitors will usually pay an entrance fee. They are then free to roam around the forested area and interact with the monkeys. Some monkey forest areas are relatively natural, whereas others may have monkey shows or circuses.

It can be dangerous to visit a monkey forest. As a result of human interaction and loss of natural habitat and feeding grounds monkey often become vicious. It is common for them to bite tourists, which then requires the person to visit a hospital for a rabies jab.

Ostrich riding occurs mostly on ostrich farms and was a popular tourist activity until fairly recently. In 2017, ostrich riding was banned in South Africa, which is where it most commonly occurred.

Ostrich riding as a form of wildlife tourism was/is unethical. This is because the weight of the tourist can seriously hurt the ostrich. It is also not good to make the ostrich spend its day running up and down with people on its back.

Popular places to ride an ostrich: South Africa

Benefits of wildlife tourism

Wildlife tourism can be a great thing. There are many positive impacts of wildlife tourism including; conservation, research, breeding programmes and economic benefits.

For many wildlife tourism businesses, conservation is their top priority. In fact, most places where the focus is conservation would rather not have any tourists come to visit at all, however it is the tourists that pay the bills and allow their business to operate.

Wildlife tourism businesses can be fantastic for conservation and can raise a lot of money. These types of businesses are usually charities or trusts. They do not make a profit and their intentions are wholesome.

Wildlife tourism also facilitates important research. Research can help us to further understand the animals and therefore to better cater for them, both in the wild and in captivity.

Many wildlife tourism projects have successful breeding programmes. From Siberian tigers and pandas in China to koalas in Australia to lions in Botswana, there are successful breeding programmes underway around the world.

Many of these programmes would not be able to operate without the money raised from tourists.

There are many positive economic impacts of wildlife tourism.

Wildlife tourism brings tourists to a given area, and they bring money with them! They spend money on hotels, on food and on transport.

This money can then be reinvested into the economy and spent on areas such as healthcare and education.

Another economic advantage of wildlife tourism that is worth mentioning is job creation. Whatever type of wildlife business it is, it will require staff. This helps to boost employment figures in the area as well as helping the boost the overall economic prospects resulting from wildlife tourism.

Disadvantages of wildlife tourism

Sadly, there are also many disadvantages of wildlife tourism. Whilst there is great potential for wildlife tourism to do good, many businesses are poorly managed and demonstrate unethical practices. This most commonly includes; the mistreatment of animals, introduction of disease, dangerous behaviour, changes in the animal’s behaviour and reduced breeding success.

Mistreatment of animals is common, especially in developing countries.

Fortunately, there is a lot more awareness of this nowadays than there once was. Recent years have seen many laws and regulations introduced in the name of animal welfare all over the world. This has helped to reduce the mistreatment of animals in the wildlife tourism business.

Nevertheless, mistreatment does still occur and it is pretty common. There are still circuses that use animals and attractions that make animals perform tricks for tourists. From elephant camps in Thailand to monkeys dressed as babies in Morocco, there are many examples of mistreatment around the world.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, I think that all understand animals can pass disease onto humans. And this also works the other way around.

When tourists are allowed to have close interaction with animals there is a risk of them passing on illnesses that the animals do not have immunity to. A common cold might not be a big deal for a human, but it could kill a lion cub, for example.

Many of the people who work in animal tourism are not trained in this field and could unintentionally introduce disease either to humans or to the animals that they are working with.

Animals are unpredictable and can be dangerous. Elephants can easily trample people, sharks can bite and monkeys can give a person rabies.

Using animals in a tourism setting can have serious implications for its welfare and wellbeing.

How would you respond if you were locked in a cage and only let out to perform tricks? I bet your behaviour would change!

These behavioural changes can be unpredictable and dangerous, for both the tourist and the animal.

When animals are taken away from their usual habitat and exposed to tourists they may have trouble breeding.

For businesses that claim to be conservation centres, this can actually have the opposite effect. Instead of protecting the species it can exemplify and exhasberate its extinction.

Responsible wildlife tourism

The moral of the story here is this- wildlife tourism can be great, but it needs great management. When wildlife tourism is bad, it is very bad.

Wildlife tourism businesses need to operate under sustainable tourism practices. In recent years we have seen many wildlife tourism organisations change their practices. This is perhaps most common in Thailand, where many elephant riding companies have become sanctuaries.

But it’s not just down to the business, it’s down to us tourists too! Here are some of the things that can do to ensure responsible wildlife tourism.

This is sometimes easier said than done, because there isn’t always a great deal of information available about every wildlife tourism attraction. Nonetheless, you should always try to research the place that you are considering visiting before you do so.

There are many wildlife conscious people around in today’s world, and if it is a major attraction that you are thinking about going to then there will be reviews on Trip Advisor and other review sites. And if there is mistreatment of the animals then you will most likely find information about it here.

If the reviews are bad then I urge you not to go. Yes, you might get to have a cuddle with a lion cub, that’s cute. But think about the picture picture here.

Getting too close to animals can have a number of negative impacts. It can scare the animals, it can cause changes to their behaviour, it can cause them to stop breeding or relocate town area that is less safe. It can also be dangerous.

Be sensible and keep your distance from animals.

If you really want an animal experience, you should choose to visit a sanctuary or research centre rather than a zoo. From the outside, the differences might not be that obvious, but from the inside the differences are big.

The treatment of the animals should be better, to start with. Plus sanctuaries have underlying motives that are not about making money. They are there to protect, rehabilitate and conserve the species, not to exploit it. For these types of organisations, allowing visitors is a means of making enough money to support the conservation project, not a way to get rich as the expensive of a poor animal(s).

Beware, however. Some places label themselves as sanctuaries, when there is in reality little conservation involved. It is simply cover up for their less altruistic intentions. This is why doing your research is important- don’t just read what you see on the tin!

Let nature be nature. Don’t put clothes on animals, don’t feed them and don’t interfere with them.

All of these things lead to instant and progressive changes in animal behaviours. The wildlife that you are seeing today won’t be the same in 10 or 20 or 30 years if you keep messing with it.

Be mindful of souvenirs that you are buying. Sometimes souvenirs are made with ivy or animal fur, for example. This has inevitably involved the death of an animal. So be careful when you go shopping and think before you buy.

There’re also a number of destinations that use wildlife in their food and drink.

In Vietnam, for example, many backpackers think it is funny to drink snakes blood or drinks theatre made bu drowning live snakes in them. There is nothing funny our cool about killing a snake. End of.

In countries such as China and Japan, it is common to see (often endangered) shark on the menu un restaurants. And in Iceland you can eat whale or puffin. I’m not a vegetarian, but I draw the line on eating endangered animals, and you should too.

The most important thing you can do is raise awareness.

If you visit wildlife attraction that you think is doing a great job, write a review on Trip Advisor, tell your friends. Every little helps to support their cause.

Likewise, if you see an attraction that is operating unethically, then you should definitely speak out. This is especially important with smaller, lesser known attractions. If nobody tells you, then you don’t know, right?

I hope you have enjoyed reading this article about wildlife tourism and that you have learnt something new today! If you want to learn a bit more, then I recommend the following:

• Wildlife Tourism – A landmark contribution to the rapidly growing field of wildlife tourism, especially in regard to its underpinning foundations of science, conservation and policy. 
• Wildlife Tourism Futures: Encounters with Wild, Captive and Artificial Animals – An excellent book focussing on future wildlife tourism development and management; the experiential value, educational components and ethical relevance of tourism-animal encounters; and the technology applied to wildlife tourism. 
• Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management: Insights from the Natural and Social Sciences – This book demonstrates that through scientific approaches to understanding and managing tourist interactions with marine wildlife, sustainable marine tourism can be achieved.

Liked this article? Click to share!

Reducing negative impacts of wildlife tourism on wildlife

Tourism in general can have many impacts on wildlife, sometimes minor, sometimes major

Even wildlife tourism itself has impacts, which careful planning and guidelines can at least minimise if not eliminate.

Some of these impacts include:

• direct injury or death of animals – e.g. roadkill, impacts while clearing habitat for roads or buildings, deliberate killing of snakes or native rodents that tourists don;t want to be near them
• disturbance of animals  – e.g. from favoured feeding areas, from nests, separation of mothers from young, by close approach, noise, bright lights at night etc.
• habitat destruction, fragmentation and alteration – clearing to make way for holiday cabins, use of water, trampling of young plants or burrows, clearing of understorey shrubs, firewood collection, felling of old trees with hollows
• Duff, L. (1993). “Ecotourism in National Parks: Impacts and Benefits.” National Parks Journal(June): 18-20.
• Fisher, F., M. Hockings, et al. (1998). “Recreational impacts on waders on Fraser Island.” The Sunbird 28(1): 1-11.
• Foin, T. C., E. O. Garton, et al. (1977). “Quantitative studies of visitor impacts on environments of Yosemite National Park, California, and their implications for park management policy.” Journal of Environmental Management 5: 1-22.
• Green, R. J. and Higginbottom, K.2001.  The Negative Effects of Wildlife Tourism on Wildlife. Wildlife Tourism Research Report Series No. 5, Status Assessment of Wildlife Tourism in Australia Series, CRC for Sustainable Tourism
• Green, R. J. and Giese, M. 2004. The Negative Effects of Wildlife Tourism on Wildlife. In K. Higginbottom (ed.) Wildlife Tourism, Sustainable Tourism CRC
• Green, R. J. The Tourism Operator’s Dilemma (presentation)
• Higginbottom, K., Green, R. J. and Northrope, C. 2003.  A framework for managing the negative impacts of wildlife tourism on wildlife . Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8: 1-24
• Griffiths, M. and C. P. Van Schaik (1993). “The impact of human traffic on the abundance and activity periods of Sumatran rain forest wildlife.” Conservation Biology 7(3): 623-626.
• Keates, N.Taking a Walk on the Wildlife Side, Smart Money Magazine (Wall Street Journal) January 18, 2012  http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/travel/taking-a-walk-on-the-wildlife-side-1326907986695/
• Wilson, B. A. and G. R. Friend (1999). “Responses of Australian mammals to disturbance: A review.” Australian Mammalogy.
• Wolf, I. and Croft, D. (2010). “Minimizing disturbance to wildlife by tourists approaching on foot or in a car: A study of kangaroos in the Australian rangelands.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 126 (1-2): 75-84.
• http://mazoomdaar.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/dont-ban-wildlife-tourism-customise-it.html
• http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/regions/nellore/forest-faces-extinction-344 – forest in India being destroyed for zoo expansion
• http://www.mydigitalfc.com/views/it’s-matter-amicable-co-existence-838
• http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/21602.html Wild orangutans in Borneo stressed by eco-tourists, but not for long, IU study finds

Back to workshop themes

• Alaska Insight
• Watch KAKM Live
• Indie Alaska
• Ways to Watch
• There is Hope
• AK Passport
• In My Family
• KSKA Schedule
• Hometown, Alaska
• Listen to KSKA Live
• All Radio Programs
• Outdoor Explorer
• Addressing Alaskans
• State of Art
• Alaska Economic Report
• Hear me now
• Military Voices
• One Small Step
• Alaska Morning News
• Talk of Alaska
• Alaska News Nightly
• Traveling Music
• Black History in the Last Frontier
• Latest News
• Environment
• Mental Health
• Rural Health
• Alaska Legislature
• Washington, D.C.
• Public Safety
• ANCSA, 50th Anniversary
• Midnight Oil
• Daily Digest
• AKPM Community Education Engagement
• Race Matters
• Ready to Learn
• Library Explorers
• Molly of Denali
• Learning Media
• Parent Resources
• Watch PBS KIDS
• Workforce Development
• Ways to Give
• Benefits of Membership
• Together We Are Stronger
• AKPM Merchandise
• E-Newsletters
• Organization
• Public Documents
• Public Meetings
• Accessibility Commitment
• Donor Portal

Alaska Native Heritage Center ready to rouse ‘sleeping giant’ of cultural tourism

Research shows cultural tourism is on the rise in Indian Country, because travelers crave authenticity and want deeper experiences with Indigenous peoples — a trend that could help Alaska tribes develop their own tourism businesses.

The Alaska Native Heritage Center is one of five Indigenous groups that will receive federal money to expand cultural tourism. The Heritage Center’s director, Emily Edenshaw, predicts it will benefit the state’s entire travel industry.

“It’s a sleeping giant,” Edenshaw said. “It’s untapped.”

Edenshaw says it’s an opportunity to re-think tourism in Alaska, which she believes has come to rely too much on wildlife and scenery to draw tourists.

“Come and see the mountains and the brown bears — and come explore and discover and go on the glaciers and look at the berries,” says Edenshaw, reciting the typical travel industry pitch that she says needs to be updated. “What about the Indigenous experience? Our people have been here for 10,000 years, in some cases even longer than that.”

The Heritage Center will receive about $50,000 to boost tourism. The money comes from the Office of Indian Economic Development, under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which has partnered with the American Indian Alaska Native Tourism Association to oversee the grants.

The association’s director, Sherry Rupert, says it’s a good time to invest in Indigenous tourism.

“Visitation to our communities is increasing. That’s why we’re so interested in supporting efforts up in Alaska,” Rupert said. “Alaska has the largest number of federally recognized tribes than in any other state. There is so much potential there for these small communities.”

Rupert says cultural tourism not only creates jobs and economic opportunity, but also helps tribes hold on to their heritage.

“I think it really sparks a light and really sparks that pride in who they are, so it helps us to preserve our cultural identity.”

Edenshaw says the AIANTA grant will be used to create a new position, a cultural tourism navigator, who will work with other communities to develop their own visitor experiences.

The grant will also be leveraged with other public and private funds — and will augment ongoing efforts at the Heritage Center to study on the impacts of cultural tourism.

“We need to get the data. We need to know how many jobs it creates. We need to know the economic impact through a cultural tourism lens,” said Edenshaw. “And the truth is, this has never happened in Alaska.”

As the Heritage Center approaches its 25th anniversary, Edenshaw says tourism is not just about how Alaska Native cultures lived in the past. She says it’s also about their future.

Edenshaw hopes that as Indigenous tourism grows, it will help to bridge cultural divides within the state by giving Alaskans an appreciation for Native cultures, as well as generate empathy and understanding for some of the struggles and historical trauma Native peoples have faced.

Other organizations to receive AIANTA funding for cultural tourism are: the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in New York, the Pine Ridge Area Chamber of Commerce in South Dakota, the Shonto Economic Development Corporation in Arizona and the Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association in Hawaii.

Rhonda McBride, KNBA - Anchorage

Related articles more from author, chickaloon tribal policing to expand to non-native alaskans under unique state authorization, alaska senate proposes $7.5m aid package for struggling fish processors, confession leads to cold-case arrest in fatal 2009 shooting at anchorage hotel.

BP Oil Spill: Where does the coast stand 14 years later?

BILOXI, Miss. (WLOX) - Saturday marks 14 years since the Mississippi Gulf Coast was changed forever.

On April 20, 2010, the Gulf of Mexico saw the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion. The catastrophe killed 11 workers, sent over 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico and washed onto the shores of the Gulf Coast. The spill continued for the next four weeks and two days, causing lasting environmental and economic impacts.

“A lot of the grasslands and the marsh and all had a lot of devastation there because the oil get in and it would kill the grasses and also kill what was in the grasses,” explained Mississippi Department of Marine Resources Executive Director Joe Spraggins.

Not only were grasslands a major concern, but also the waters of the Mississippi Sound and all that lived in and around it. From wildlife to tourism, several industries felt the negative impacts of the spill — but perhaps none more so than the oyster industry.

“It impacted our fisheries but mainly our oysters,” said Spraggins. “The oysters were impacted pretty hard because the oil got on them and caused issues there.”

Spraggins said the issue of the massive wipe-out of oysters began to fix itself. However, things worsened just a year later with the opening of the Bonnet Carré Spillway in 2011 and again in 2019.

“It basically wiped out our oyster season again. We have not had an oyster season as far as on-bottom oysters since 2018.”

Due to the RESTORE Act, the coast has received hundreds of millions of dollars to put towards restoration.

“We’re also working with DEQ on numerous oyster beds we’ve been able to build to replenish the oysters.”

Spraggins said it’s going to take all of us to be able to continue to protect the Mississippi Sound and our Gulf Coast.

“If you get around the islands or around the shoreline and you see grasses, try to be protective of those. The grasses are huge and they’re the area that allows our estuary to grow.”

14 years later, Spraggins said everything is so much better than it was in the months and initial years following the oil spill disaster, but there is still much to do.

See a spelling or grammar error in this story? Report it to our team HERE .

Copyright 2024 WLOX. All rights reserved.

Alabama woman identified as victim of fatal Highway 613 crash

Pascagoula holds viewing party for Netflix documentary on 1973 UFO sighting

Biloxi man arrested, charged after being found with stolen motorcycles

‘Fight Like Bryan’ event celebrates life of Coast man Bryan Diotte

Latest news.

State Senator Scott DeLano discusses the latest from the State Capitol

Big push in Congress to protect Mississippi Gulf shrimp, shrimp caught from cheap imports

House votes for possible TikTok ban in the U.S.

Local dispensaries showcase products, educate people about medical cannabis during Mississippi Cannabis Festival

Gulfport NAACP hosts annual Mother of the Year Gala, honoring mothers from various churches

• Latin America
• Expat Living
• Art and Culture
• Science and Tech
• Classifieds
• Advertise with Us

COSTA RICA'S LEADING ENGLISH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER

Vaping Surge in Costa Rica Alarms Health Authorities

The Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS) reports a worrying increase in health issues linked to vaping, with registered cases rising from 13 in 2021 to 1,456 in 2023. Vaping primarily affects adolescents and young adults, increasing the risk of respiratory diseases, chronic non-communicable diseases, and early deaths.

Dr. Marny Ramos, coordinator of the CCSS Cessation Clinics, warns that vaping is not a safe or effective method to quit smoking and can lead to nicotine addiction and conventional tobacco use. While Costa Rica has made progress with anti-smoking laws, new challenges emerge as younger generations are exposed to attractive tobacco products. Other countries, such as the UK, are considering stricter measures, like banning tobacco sales to those born after 2009.

Costa Rica’s Single-Use Plastics Ban Takes Effect

Costa Rica’s ban on single-use plastics has come into effect. The law, approved in 2021, aims to eliminate items like straws, plates, and cups that contribute to the country’s 60 tons of plastic waste per day. The ban prohibits the sale and free distribution of single-use plastic straws and bags, with exceptions for reusable and biodegradable bags.

Public institutions are also barred from purchasing single-use plastic items. Businesses must meet requirements such as using recycled resin and implementing waste management programs. However, business owners have expressed uncertainty due to a lack of clarity on the new packaging specifications and fear penalties for non-compliance.

Costa Rica’s Tourism Sector Faces Job Losses Amidst Exchange Rate Crisis

The National Chamber of Tourism reported that 544 employees were laid off by its affiliated companies in 2024 due to the negative impact of the exchange rate. The chamber expects another 918 layoffs in the coming weeks if the U.S. dollar continues to devalue and the local currency keeps appreciating.

The private sector claims that the government’s exchange rate policy is destructive, making it difficult for businesses to plan, invest, and maintain jobs. The tourism sector, crucial to Costa Rica’s economy, has been particularly affected. Business owners have repeatedly warned about the layoffs and urged the government to take action, but the Chaves administration has defended the current exchange rate and stated it will not intervene further.

Today's Top News

Costa rica’s first indigenous biocentric restoration plan takes root, panama papers scandal: mossack fonseca trial concludes, can ai and big data solve latin america’s farming woes, returning a lost wallet in costa rica: a story of honesty and reflection, costa rican president meets with panama’s favored presidential candidate, guess who is accused of costa rica’s ongoing water crisis, costa rica, uae sign economic partnership agreement.

Responsible tourism: 8 ways to support local businesses while traveling

Posted: May 17, 2023 | Last updated: January 26, 2024

What Is Responsible Tourism?

The responsible tourism movement aims to minimize and even reverse the negative effects of travel, from overcrowding and pollution to the erosion of cultural identity. A responsible tourist will make choices based on what’s best for the long-term success of the community they’re visiting.

Conscientious travelers will want to keep the following goals in mind:

• Minimize negative economic, social, and environmental impacts
• Generate economic benefit for local people while supporting improved working conditions
• Honor natural and local heritage
• Make connections with local people that foster a deeper understanding of the culture
• Take into account people with disabilities
• Be culturally sensitive overall

Responsible tourism was first defined by U.K. professor Harold Goodwin as part of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. It differs from sustainable tourism, which focuses more on conserving natural heritage and biodiversity. Both movements offer blueprints not only for tourists, but for business operators, governments, and local residents.

And remember: The negative effects of tourism, while more pronounced in poor countries, are also felt in many American communities.

Benefits of Supporting Local Economies

What travelers spend in local communities ideally benefits both locals and travelers. Most travelers are eager to help out the places they visit. And if tourists play their cards right, they’ll experience fewer crowds and a more authentic experience.

Before the pandemic, the travel sector employed 1 in 10 people around the globe. As the World Travel & Tourism Council reminds us, “[B]ehind every job in travel and tourism, there is a face, a story, a family and sometimes a whole community’s livelihood.”

Jobs in tourism offer chances at economic success to all sorts of people, including women and young people. In fact, women are employed in tourism at almost twice the rate of other sectors. And in some areas, wildlife tourism can help protect that wildlife through preservation programs and the creation of conservation jobs.

8 Ways to Support Local Economies

So how can you know if the money you spend is benefiting locals? You can start by avoiding chains of all sorts. Read on for more ideas.

1. Book Locally Owned Accommodations

Chain hotels and Airbnbs run by property managers mainly benefit their global headquarters. Plus they can damage the local culture by driving gentrification.

Instead, opt for a locally run or family-owned inn, B&B, or  small hotel . You’ll be contributing directly to the local economy, as you learn more about the place and its idiosyncrasies.

2. Eat in Local Restaurants

After enduring a long flight and arriving in an unfamiliar place grumpy and hungry, you may be tempted to pop into a familiar coffee or food establishment that you know from home. But buying food from global chain restaurants doesn’t support the local economy — nor does it expand your palate, which is one of the great benefits of travel.

3. Consider an Off-Season Visit

Travelers tend to overrun popular destinations during peak season. And in a tourism-dependent economy, their absence during low season can cause places to all but shut down. Instead of contributing to the tourist crush, try booking for a less coveted time.

Instead of  summer travel  to a northeastern U.S. beach town, try holding off till the fall, when it’s still balmy but emptying out.

4. Hire Local Cars and Drivers

Who knows the place you’re visiting better than a born-and-bred local? Rather than  renting a car  (likely from a global chain), hire a knowledgeable local driver to help you get around. You’ll learn the lay of the land and enjoy lots of insider tips and anecdotes for good measure. And you’ll put money directly into a local family’s pocket.

5. Take Trains Over Planes

Flying is one of the least sustainable parts of travel. In fact, it’s one of the least sustainable human activities, period, contributing to 2.5% of the world’s carbon emissions. Sure, when you globetrot, you need to fly to get somewhere. But why make it worse by then taking a bunch of small, enticingly cheap flights within your host country? Instead, set your sights on trains and buses, which have a much lower impact than even the shortest flights.

6. Buy Local Souvenirs

You want to go shopping, and locals have stuff to sell. What could be easier? The challenge comes in avoiding massive commercial shops and purchasing items from local artisans in craft markets and tiny, proprietor-run boutiques.

It’s also important to be aware of illegal souvenirs and avoid them at all costs. These include anything made of protected animals or trees, such as souvenirs made from poached ivory, animal skins and furs, rosewood, seashells, and hummingbirds, for just a few examples.

7. Volunteer With or Donate to Local Causes

Before heading to your destination, do a search for what donated materials might be needed by local charities. Then reserve some space in your luggage (which you can then refill with your locally purchased handicrafts). For some guidance on what to bring where, check out the destinations guide from the nonprofit  Pack for a Purpose  .

8. Share Your Experiences on Social Media

Once you’ve experienced responsible travel for yourself, spread the word! Using the popular #responsibletravel hashtag, share pics and details of the local establishments where you stay, eat, and shop — you may inspire others to do the same. This way, you can go on changing the world through others.

Tips for Being a Responsible Tourist

Read up on responsible tourism ahead of your trip. The fresh mindset you’ll be left with can help you get more out of your travels. Then make a few reservations in advance at local haunts.

Once you arrive, every time you open your wallet, think: Am I benefiting the local economy? Am I contributing in a positive or negative way? Keep it positive, and your destination will thank you.

The Takeaway

Enjoy your time away from home by keeping in mind the basic tenets of responsible travel: Respect local culture, minimize your waste, shop locally, and try to keep your footprint small. The whole world will benefit in the end.

This article originally appeared on  SoFi.com  and was syndicated by  MediaFeed.org .

Please understand that this information provided is general in nature and shouldn’t be construed as a recommendation or solicitation of any products offered by SoFi’s affiliates and subsidiaries. In addition, this information is by no means meant to provide investment or financial advice, nor is it intended to serve as the basis for any investment decision or recommendation to buy or sell any asset. Keep in mind that investing involves risk, and past performance of an asset never guarantees future results or returns. It’s important for investors to consider their specific financial needs, goals, and risk profile before making an investment decision.

The information and analysis provided through hyperlinks to third party websites, while believed to be accurate, cannot be guaranteed by SoFi. These links are provided for informational purposes and should not be viewed as an endorsement. No brands or products mentioned are affiliated with SoFi, nor do they endorse or sponsor this content. Communication of SoFi Wealth LLC an SEC Registered Investment Advisor SoFi isn’t recommending and is not affiliated with the brands or companies displayed. Brands displayed neither endorse or sponsor this article. Third party trademarks and service marks referenced are property of their respective owners.

Communication of SoFi Wealth LLC an SEC Registered Investment Adviser. Information about SoFi Wealth’s advisory operations, services, and fees is set forth in SoFi Wealth’s current Form ADV Part 2 (Brochure), a copy of which is available upon request and at  www.adviserinfo.sec.gov . Liz Young is a Registered Representative of SoFi Securities and Investment Advisor Representative of SoFi Wealth. Her ADV 2B is available at  www.sofi.com/legal/adv .

More from MediaFeed

4 ways travel credit cards can really save you big on your next vacation, more for you.

Russia Issues Furious Warning After Ukraine Aid Bill

People Who Don’t Show Empathy Usually Have These 18 Traits

We Ordered 7 Fast-Food Breakfast Sandwiches to Find the Best One

Sony dropped OLED for its flagship 2024 TV – here's why

Israel hit Iran with a half-ton supersonic 'Rampage' missile, report says

Gynosexual: What It Means & How To Tell If It Describes You

Don't use these phrases in a job interview, they are ‘major red flags,’ says ex-Google recruiter

The cicadas are coming, and some may become ‘flying saltshakers of death’

The Coolest Car From the Year You Were Born (1945-1995)

Aaron Brooks defeats wrestling gold medalist David Taylor, who loses his Olympic roster spot

One of the best British spy dramas of all time is finally streaming on Netflix

I’m a Real Estate Agent: Here Are the 4 Florida Cities Where You Should Avoid Buying a Home

I got laid off at Google and it broke my heart because the company had become my life. Here are 3 things I learned about defining myself based on my job.

The Most Affordable Hybrid SUV With Over 500 Miles Of Driving Range In 2024

Oregon Statewide Ban on Magazines Ruled Unconstitutional and Throw Out of Court

16 Popular Pizza Chains, Ranked Worst to Best

Potential Trump VP Pick Dodges Question on Certifying Joe Biden Win

The Most Visited Attraction in Every US State

The most successful people never use these 5 toxic phrases when talking to themselves, says psychologist at Yale

Space Rock Slammed Into Moon - The Explosion Was Seen From Japan