50
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Customer Isn't Always Right—Conservation and Animal Welfare Implications of the Increasing Demand for Wildlife Tourism

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Tourism accounts for 9% of global GDP and comprises 1.1 billion tourist arrivals per annum. Visits to wildlife tourist attractions (WTAs) may account for 20–40% of global tourism, but no studies have audited the diversity of WTAs and their impacts on the conservation status and welfare of subject animals. We scored these impacts for 24 types of WTA, visited by 3.6–6 million tourists per year, and compared our scores to tourists’ feedback on TripAdvisor. Six WTA types (impacting 1,500–13,000 individual animals) had net positive conservation/welfare impacts, but 14 (120,000–340,000 individuals) had negative conservation impacts and 18 (230,000–550,000 individuals) had negative welfare impacts. Despite these figures only 7.8% of all tourist feedback on these WTAs was negative due to conservation/welfare concerns. We demonstrate that WTAs have substantial negative effects that are unrecognised by the majority of tourists, suggesting an urgent need for tourist education and regulation of WTAs worldwide.

          Related collections

          Most cited references1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Managing the wildlife tourism commons.

          The nonlethal effects of wildlife tourism can threaten the conservation status of targeted animal populations. In turn, such resource depletion can compromise the economic viability of the industry. Therefore, wildlife tourism exploits resources that can become common pool and that should be managed accordingly. We used a simulation approach to test whether different management regimes (tax, tax and subsidy, cap, cap and trade) could provide socioecologically sustainable solutions. Such schemes are sensitive to errors in estimated management targets. We determined the sensitivity of each scenario to various realistic uncertainties in management implementation and in our knowledge of the population. Scenarios where time quotas were enforced using a tax and subsidy approach, or they were traded between operators were more likely to be sustainable. Importantly, sustainability could be achieved even when operators were assumed to make simple rational economic decisions. We suggest that a combination of the two regimes might offer a robust solution, especially on a small spatial scale and under the control of a self-organized, operator-level institution. Our simulation platform could be parameterized to mimic local conditions and provide a test bed for experimenting different governance solutions in specific case studies.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Contributors
            Role: Editor
            Journal
            PLoS One
            PLoS ONE
            plos
            plosone
            PLoS ONE
            Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
            1932-6203
            21 October 2015
            2015
            : 10
            : 10
            : e0138939
            Affiliations
            [1 ]Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney, United Kingdom
            [2 ]World Animal Protection (formerly the World Society for the Protection of Animals), London, United Kingdom
            University of New South Wales, AUSTRALIA
            Author notes

            Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

            Conceived and designed the experiments: TPM CALD SEB NCDC DWM. Performed the experiments: TPM CALD. Analyzed the data: TPM CALD. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: TPM CALD SEB NCDC DWM. Wrote the paper: TPM CALD SEB NCDC DWM.

            Article
            PONE-D-15-19723
            10.1371/journal.pone.0138939
            4619427
            26489092
            f2238f6c-b1c2-453b-a6e4-1b4ae8d8e8fe
            Copyright @ 2015

            This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

            History
            : 6 May 2015
            : 4 September 2015
            Page count
            Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 15
            Funding
            This study was funded by World Animal Protection ( http://www.worldanimalprotection.org.uk). SB was supported by the Humane Society International, UK and The Baker Trust during preparation of this manuscript. One author (NCDC) occupies a shared role between World Animal Protection and University of Oxford, and contributed to the experimental design, some aspects of the data collection and writing of the manuscript. The bulk of data collection, refining the study design and all of the analyses were carried out by TPM and CALD. The decision to publish was made jointly, and the authors are satisfied that the work represents an objective, impartial and fair assessment of the subject area.
            Categories
            Research Article
            Custom metadata
            All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

            Uncategorized
            Uncategorized

            Comments

            Comment on this article