Wildlife Tourism and Environmental Impacts - Research Paper Example

Wildlife Tourism and Environmental Impacts Introduction Tourism in general is most often founded on the environment, its sceneries, its natural occurrences, and its attractions. One of these attractions is the wildlife, which has now become an indispensable part of what is currently known as wildlife tourism. Wildlife tourism features animals in their natural habitat. It is an important aspect of the tourism industry in various countries including Africa and other countries like Australia, India, Canada, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Animals including lions, elephants, dolphins, tigers, are all part of the wildlife tourism package, depending on the animals indigenous to the country where the tourism package is featured. Inasmuch as wildlife tourism provides opportunities for wildlife protection, it also creates negative impacts on the environment. This paper shall discuss wildlife tourism and its environmental impacts. It shall review various research materials on wildlife tourism, summarising the main issues on this topic and the general impacts on related activities which pertain to wildlife tourism. Body Overview, wildlife tourism The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2006) discusses that wildlife tourism is related to wildlife watch, mostly those of large mammals or flocks of birds; however, all types of animals are also included in this type of tourism. Wildlife watching is set apart from hunting and fishing and is confined to observations on animals; interactions in some cases are also seen, including the touching and feeding of these animals (UNEP, 2006). Wildlife tourism has grown significantly in recent years and it has evolved in it features to include other optional activities which tourists can choose to include in their package (UNEP, 2006). In some instances, wildlife tourism also includes hunting or fishing and in some instances viewing animals in zoos and confined parks (UNEP, 2006). This paper shall include both wildlife watching and wildlife tourism (with hunting and fishing) and the term wildlife tourism shall include wildlife watching. Literature on wildlife tourism and impact on wildlife and environment In the study by Roe, Leader-Williams, and Dalal-Clayton (1997), the authors discuss that wildlife tourism is usually associated with wildlife management and economic enterprises which support conservation, most especially in developing nations. The proliferation of other forms of tourism has occurred alongside the increased recognition of the need to secure sustainable development and ecotourism has been considered as a stable means of implementing sustainability (Roe, et.al., 1997). Ecotourism includes environmental and cultural elements and focuses on the economic advantages for local communities. As a result, ecotourism seems to be a means of achieving sustainable development. However, it also has the possibility of being more environmentally damaging as compared to mass tourism because it often occurs in delicate environments; moreover, it also unveils previously undisclosed areas to the general population (Roe, et.al., 1997). Wildlife tourism can assist in the management of protected areas with beneficial effects seen in terms of foreign exchange revenues, employment opportunities, as well as better knowledge in conservation. As protected regions are top drawers for wildlife tourists, the private stakeholders are also having an increased stake in wildlife tourism (Roe, et.al., 1997). However, the benefits to local communities have not been wholly beneficial. The kind and the degree of impact is different for the kind of tourist activity being considered with some of these impacts being clearly apparent and at other times, being difficult to assess. Direct impacts include: disturbed feeding and breeding patterns; higher vulnerability to predators; disruption of parental and offspring ties; transmission of diseases; death of animals. Indirectly, other impacts may include: changes in their habitat, increased trends towards animal products for souvenirs; and infrastructure impact (Roe, et.al., 1997). For areas with small populations and with rare or slow reproducing species, the impact of wildlife tourism is usually higher. The impact of wildlife tourism is also based on various factors which may include the nature of the disturbance, the qualities of the wildlife or the area where tourist activities are being carried out (Roe, et.al., 1997). Roe, et.al., (1997) discusses that it is not possible to make generalizations on the actual impact of wildlife tourism because there are various elements involved; moreover, the studies which have been carried out reviewing the impact of tourism have mostly dealt with short term impacts of events, and on individuals species. The authors recommended future studies in order to fill in these gaps. In a similar line as the study by Roe and colleagues, Higginbottom (2004) was able to discuss the various negative impact of wildlife tourism on the wildlife, specifically the impact of associated developments to wildlife. These developments like lodges and roads can sometimes expose the wildlife to various human stimuli which can create various responses and disturbances to their well-being (Green and Higginbottom, 2001). Human presence alone can affect animals in various ways. Although some animals may be oblivious to human presence; most of them flee at the first signs of human presence; some hide, and others defend themselves (Green and Higginbottom, 2001). Some of them are even attracted to human presence because they may already be used to being fed by humans. For some animals, there may also be no apparent effects of human interaction or even tourists watching, however, long term data suggests significant changes in the breeding patterns of some animals, including albatrosses (Higginbottom, 2004). Numbats have also been known to stop searching for food when they sense humans approaching; and eagles as well as divers sometimes desert their nests when they see humans (Fraser, et.al., 1995). The method by which humans approach wildlife can also impact on the response of the animals. Aircrafts for example can cause extreme responses for some animals with some fleeing and dispersing at top speeds, often causing themselves injury (Higginbottom, 2004). Other factors can also impact on the kind of responses manifested, including the behaviour of the tourists, the colour of their clothes, and the time of day which they visit. Although physical contact through feeding and petting is often common in wildlife tourism; it can also cause stress on the animals (Moore, et.al., 1997). In effect, wildlife tourism when not effectively managed can cause trauma among most animal species, and in some instances, it can interrupt their normal processes, including their reproduction and feeding. Sinha (2001) also discusses about the impact that wildlife tourism has on wildlife. He echoes what was already discussed by previous authors and declares that the impact may be varied. Some wild animals who are already accustomed to tourists and humans usually do not suffer any negative effects from wildlife tourism (Sinha, 2001). These animals are said to have habituated to human presence and as a result, their reactions to humans have already tapered off. Eagles are said to be less likely to flush from boaters in well-travelled rivers; in these instances, they are said to be habituated to human presence already (Sinha, 2001). Sinha (2001) also discusses that freeranging animals which are fed or given rewards for approaching humans often learn to seek humans for food. This can be sometimes dangerous, especially when they may manifest aggressive or dangerous behaviour to tourists; some of these animals may also attack humans at their camp sites in search of food (Sinha, 2001). In relation to bird feeding, this may have a variety of effects on wildlife. For some birds, it may cause them to be dependent on humans for food, sometimes making them overweight (Sinha, 2001). The human to animal contact, especially among unhealthy animals can also spread diseases. The spread of disease from humans to wild animals is also a major issue, especially among primates with whom humans share numerous anatomical similarities. Some monkeys have been known to suffer human-like influenza and others have been known to suffer from respiratory-type illnesses also seen in humans (Sinha, 2001). Aside from the feeding process causing transmission of diseases, feeding can also reduce the instincts of animals to forage for food. Some even lose their predator instinct and their ability to naturally identify their enemies (Sinha, 2001). Isaacs (2010) discusses that wildlife tourism manifests with a variety of negative impacts on wildlife and on wildlife habitat. External costs actually include damage to living resources or habitat in order to give way to lodging houses and roads for tourists. Areas have also been deforested to accommodate tourist facilities (Isaacs, 2010). Sewage and runoffs resulting from human wastes have also become an issue in wildlife tourism; in this regard, human pollution has become a major issue. In fact, in Uganda, the building of campsites has caused the loss of various woody tree species in some of their national park reserves (Isaacs, 2010). In Canada, tourists have been known to harass polar bears, especially when they approach too closely; in Africa, these tourists have also been blamed for driving cheetahs out of Kenyan reserves, often exposing these cats to various dangers, including inbreeding risks (Isaacs, 2010). Sea turtles have also manifested negative responses to electric lights at tourist facilities. In general, US reports that wildlife tourism manifests with 84% negative effects on plants and animals (Isaacs, 2010). Furthermore, other activities related to tourism like outdoor recreational activities are one of the major causes of species endangerment in the US (Isaacs, 2010). Grese (1996) discussed on a specific note the impact of pedestrian approaches to the Adelie penguins during their breeding season in Antarctica. Their study was meant to evaluate the minimum safe distance people can approach the breeding penguins and how the breeding success of these penguins is affected by tourist visits. The research was carried out in order to assess penguin behaviour when approached by a single person at a distance of 5/15/30 meters. The penguins’ heart rates were recorded at these distances in order to assess stress levels (Grese, 1996). Approaches by a single human at 5 meters interrupted incubation activity of the birds, as the birds often stood up from their nests when approached. This often causes cooling of the eggs and reduced hatching success for these penguins (Grese, 1996). These penguins also manifested more aggressive behaviour as well as more guarded attitudes when approached; this was measured from their increased heart rates. Increased hear rates also caused the expending of more energy to respond to the stressor (Grese, 1996). All in all, the authors expressed that the distance of one’s approach to wildlife can have a significant impact on wildlife; moreover, the behaviour of humans during their approach can also have a significant impact (Giese, 1996). It also seems to be important to limit human contact during breeding or hatching seasons in order to prevent stress for these animals and prevent interruptions in their reproductive activities. The hand-feeding of wildlife has been firmly objected to by conservationists; however, others also point out that the negative impact of tourist activities can be remedied if the activity is adequately controlled (Gill, 2002). The positive impact of the wildlife tourism activity is that tourists usually have a more enlightened picture about conservation and about animals after their visits. Although, hand-feeding in parks are considered questionable practices, some circumstances, such as extreme stress after a prolonged drought or after a forest fire may justify the act of hand-feeding (Gill, 2002). Moreover, in instances where the habitat is far from natural and no conservation issues are involved, the issue of feeding may already be superfluous. Nevertheless, the management of the activity can be complicated for both the tourists, park managers, as well as the animals because there is a need to understand the animal’s ecology and his natural behaviour (Gill, 2002). Hence, with adequate management means for wildlife tourism, it may be possible to outweigh its negative impacts and gain better support for conservation practices from a wider population. One of the unfortunate aspects of wildlife tourism is the recreational hunting and fishing activities associated with it. Hunting and fishing have long been subjects of debate among various interest groups. The impact of these activities have included concerns on unsustainable rates of hunting and fishing, on the impact on sex structures or genetic diversity of animal species, animal suffering, and disturbance of non-target species (Milner-Gulland and Bennett, 2003). Allowing hunting to be made part of wildlife tourism can lead to the decline of animal species and even the eventual extinction of wildlife (Milner-Gulland and Bennett, 2003). Fishing activities have also led to the depletion of both target and non-target species and as a result, the endangered species may inadvertently be included in some of these fishing activities. Orams (2002) also discusses various impacts in the feeding of wildlife. Majority of these seem to be negative, primarily related with interruptions in the natural behaviour of the animal population. However, in some cases, the supplemental feeding of animals also reduces their time for foraging, and increases their time for socializing and resting (Orams, 2002). The extent of the animal’s home range would also likely be affected by the feeding practices, often reducing its coverage as the animals no longer have to forage extensive areas in order to feed themselves. Other scientists also claim that additional feeding can increase breeding activity as well as group size (Orams, 2002). Moreover, normal migration patterns for some animals can also be changed, causing them to stay year round in one place instead of moving to other places as they normally do. These impacts cannot always be assumed to be negative because the behaviour of some animals can also adjust based in response to their environment; this is part of their adaptation. Sindiga (1995) also discusses how in Kenya, there are human-wildlife conflicts which are causing losses among wildlife, destruction of property, and even human deaths. This issue is based on conflicting land use with the population of Kenya rapidly growing and encroaching on animal habitats (Sindiga, 1995). The demands for African safaris from tourists have also caused resulted in competing demands of limited range lands and wildlife reserves. Most times, the animals have borne the brunt of human encroachment, leading to limited shelters, depleted food sources, and stress from human activity, including hunting, poaching, feeding, and petting. Conclusion Wildlife tourism has a significant effect on wildlife and by association, on the environment itself. Inasmuch as it helps efforts towards conservation of wildlife and related habitats, the activities related to wildlife tourism can bring about negative results, including changes in their normal behavioural patterns. The establishment of tourist lodgings and related accommodations and activities can also decrease the habitat of these animals, moreover, it can cause human pollution on their natural habitats. With adequate management practices however, it may be possible to establishment a well-balanced setting for animals and for tourists. References Fraser, J.D., Frenzel, L.D. and Mathisen, J.E. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management, 49, pp. 585-592. Giese, M., 1996. Effects of human activity on Adélie Penguin Pygoscelis adeliae breeding success. Biological Conservation, 75, pp. 157-164. Green, R.J. and Higginbottom, K., 2001. Negative effects of wildlife tourism, wildlife tourism research report no. 5, Status Assessment of Wildlife Tourism in Australia Series, CRC for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast, Queensland. Higginbottom, K. 2004. Wildlife Tourism Impacts, Management and Planning. Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism [online] Available at: http://www.crctourism.com.au/wms/upload/resources/wildlifetourism-impacts.pdf [Accessed 27 April 2012]. Isaacs, J., 2000. The limited potential of ecotourism to contribute to wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1), pp. 61–69. Milner-Gulland and E. J. Bennett, E.L., 2003. Wild meat: the bigger picture. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, pp. 351-357. Moore, N., Olsson, S., O’Reilly Jnr, P. and Johnson, S. 1997. To feed or not to feed? The interpretation of issues surrounding the artificial feeding of wildlife. Proceedings of the 6th National Conference of the Interpretation Australia Association. Orams, M., 2002. Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: a review of issues and impacts. Tourism Management, 23, pp. 281–293. Roe, D., Leader-Williams, N. and Dalal-Clayton, B., 1997. Take only photographs, leave only footprints: the environmental impacts of wildlife tourism. IIED Wildlife and Development Series, 10, pp. 1-68. Sindiga, I., 1995. Wildlife-based tourism in Kenya: Land use conflicts and government compensation policies over protected areas. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 6(2), pp. 45-55 Sinha, C., 2001. Wildlife tourism: a geographical perspective. University of Western Sydney [online] Available at: http://hsc.csu.edu.au/geography/activity/local/tourism/LWILDLIF.pdf [Accessed 27 April 2012]. United National Environmental Programme, 2006. Wildlife Watching and Tourism: A study on the benefits and risks of a fast growing tourism activity and its impacts on species. UNEP / CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany [online] Available at: http://www.cms.int/publications/pdf/CMS_WildlifeWatching.pdf [Accessed 27 April 2012]. Read More