Wildlife Tourism - Stakeholders - Research Paper Example

Wildlife Tourism College Wildlife tourism is defined as trips to places with the sole purpose of viewing the local fauna. This implies that wildlife tourism comprises other niche markets like bird watching, in addition to the exploration of marine life like whale watching. This type of tourism is based on coming across non-domesticated animals. These encounters can take place in either the animals’ natural habitat or in captivity environment. It includes actions historically termed as non-consumptive, such as photography, viewing, and feeding, as well as those actions that include the killing or capturing of animals, mostly hunting, as well as recreational fishing. Wildlife tourism can involve tours, experiences accessible in association with the accommodation of tourists, attractions at fixed sites, or it can come about as unguided meeting by independent travelers (Spenceley, 2012, pp. 85-88). Wildlife tourism has several stakeholders. The first stakeholders in this sector are the visitors. They have an expectation of accessing experiences that are of affordable high quality. These experiences include interesting activities of wildlife watching and guided excursions. Some tourists would like to have opportunities to familiarize themselves with the local culture and to have authentic interaction with local communities (Benson, 2001, p. 132). Another set of stakeholders is the tourism industry which includes private with public sector operators, the travel trade as well as industry associations. This ensures that there is development in the wildlife sector. They also ensure the individual operators get maximum short term profits. The third stakeholder is the host and the indigenous community. The indigenous community improves minimal negative social effect of this sector. While capitalizing on profits from the local area, they ensure that there is no disruption on the local wildlife (Lovelock, 2007, pp. 152-156). Another role they play is the protection of their environmental and livelihood assets, and minimization of disturbance to their communities and culture. It has the potential to add tourism-related benefits, to step up local services and employment opportunities, to improve the infrastructure with local business opportunities, and so stimulate revenue generation (Sosinski, 2011, p. 88). Wildlife managers in public plus private sectors are other stakeholders whose sole duty is the conservation, NGOs protection of wildlife habitats, biodiversity, generation of revenues and greater awareness via tourism to sustain conservation as well as to demonstrate the worth of conservation to the government, indigenous and local communities, and to the general public. They make use of tourism in the support of goals of conservation (Newsome, Ross, & Moore, 2005, p.256). The government agencies are a stakeholder that deals with the planning and promotion of tourism. They are vital in fostering sustainable increase of wildlife tourism socially, economically as well as ecologically (Hoyt, 2000). The environmental managers, especially government conservation agencies, belong to another class of stakeholders whose significance is in sustaining the activities of wildlife tourism ecologically, making use of tourism in support of goals of conservation and satisfying public relation goals. Lastly, we have the tour operators. They are a category of stakeholders with the potential to develop and market tourism products based on wildlife watching. It just doesn’t depend entirely on market demand but also on local conditions which include infrastructure as well as suitability of accommodation, site accessibility, catering, and availability of dependable local business partners to offer services on the ground (Hoyt, 2000, p. 69). Tourists in the wildlife sector are some of the most varied of any niche market. They range from the knowledgeable specialists who would like to seek new places that remain comparatively undiscovered to the new tourist travelling together to one of the common game reserves. Transversely, these range consumers differ considerably in gender, age and socioeconomic grouping. Package tourists vary from planned travelers through to those that stay in small limited lodges or tented camps (Isaacs, 2000, pp. 145-149). On the other hand, specialists are likely to be independent travelers who are prone to stay in essential accommodation and are normally very flexible with their travelling arrangements. Even though the luxurious package market is likely to be most demanding regarding the conditions of the infrastructure and services, they also produce the greatest income. These consumers are likely to be in the third-age group (50-65 years); often they include the early retired (Knetsch 1963, p. 96). The Congress Avenue Bridge is a residence to the chief urban bat colony in the United States. It is located in Austin, Texas and supports about 1.5 million Mexican free-tailed bats also known as Tadarida brasiliensis. In the evening, they appear as a stunning flock and hunt. They inhabit the bottom of the bridge from March till November and then migrate south in the winter months. Every summer evening, they devour around 14,000 kilograms of insects as well as countless pests (Knetsch, 1963, p. 146). The emergences of the colony have become a tourist draw for city residents, who add up to a third of bat watching visitors, as well as tourists to the city. Each evening sees the bats being viewed by between 200 – 1500 people from a viewing area. This includes a sequence of information sections on bats as well as their ecology and behavior. This section has been established on a grassy hill next to the bridge. The bats are viewed free of charge, but the local area benefits significantly out of this. A survey was conducted for Bat Conservation International (BCI) which gathered information from almost 900 visitors concerning their expenses in their bat watching visits by means of a blend of interviews as well as survey forms (Weidner, 2009, p. 152). The information, as well as daily statistics on the visitor numbers at the watching site, resulted in the estimation that visitor expenses directly associated with bat watching visits is in surplus of USD 3 million a year. BCI also hold and manage Bracken Bat Cave in addition to Nature Reserve, which was obtained to keep it away from housing development. The cave is residence for a great bat maternity colony of about 20 million Mexican free-tailed bats from March till October. These bats migrate to Mexico in the winter (Weidner, 2009, p. 156). Generally like bats, this variety is vulnerable to development and the loss of feeding and roosting environment; larger colonies are also at peril of vandalism. Only the BCI members have access to the reserve. They pay a yearly subscription of USD 35. The reserve is also accessed by invited visitors that include students, potential donors and other civic organizations, as well as local volunteers who give assistance in the running of the reserve (United Nations Environment Program, 2006, p. 196). Approximately 35,000 day visitors come to Bracken Bat Cave every year. Group size as well as access is managed to reduce disturbance to the bats. The visitors are accompanied by an interpreter. The site has very basic facilities for tourism, but BCI is planning for the construction of an interpretative center that would be opened to public access. Plans are underway to move viewing further away from the entrance of the cave in order to reduce the negative impact (Weidner, 2009, p. 152). Economic Impact of Wildlife Tourism on Income and Employment Wildlife tourism is a significant section of tourism which has spread swiftly in many nations in recent decades and is becoming a major industry. Many tourists are influenced by wildlife when visiting a country/region and extend their stay. Wildlife tourists comprise specialists as well as generalists. The demand for wildlife tourism, therefore, comes from a broad group of visitors, both domestic and foreign (Tisdell, 2002, p. 54). In the same way, the amount of money produced from such tourism differs according to the species of the area, the type of visitors; averagely, specialists like birdwatchers spend more cash than generalists. Furthermore, tourists are known to use extra days in an area because of the presence of wildlife (Tisdell 2002, p. 55). The economic significance of wildlife tourism has been calculated in different ways. The suitable method relies on the reason of the exercise while some methods are uncertain and lead to results that are conflicting. This is partially because estimating all the costs connected to wildlife tourism is difficult. This includes travelling, food, and accommodation. Additionally, visitors frequently want to see a huge number of attractions including wildlife. Such multiple-purpose journeys typically entail numerous sites (Tisdell & Wilson, 2002a, p. 304). This produces a major problem in making use of the travel cost method for the approximation of the value of sites. Nevertheless, in spite of such difficulties, a great number of studies universally have indicated that tourists’ expenditures on wildlife tourism are large. Some studies demonstrate that the main employment produced from wildlife tourism related expenditure is great, and after taking into account the multiplier effect, the sum employment impacts are even bigger (Tisdell & Wilson, 2002, p. 308). Though large approximation of income as well as employment created from wildlife tourism with its multipliers is eye-catching and helpful for a country, particularly for political support, these estimations can be misinterpreted (United Nations Environment Programme, 2006, p. 106). For example, in spite of the large national approximations, the payback to the local area where the wildlife viewing takes place are now and then small since most of the expenditures are done outside the local area. This has effects for the maintenance of wildlife that is concerned in tourism. Another significant issue to bear in mind is that that these monetary impacts only take place from market expenditures and as such are not a representation of total economic values expected (United Nations Environment Program, 2006, p. 109). Because of the troubles and matters involved in estimating all the expenditures on wildlife tourism, it is frequently more pertinent and sensible to estimate the economic payback to the local area or region that arises from wildlife tourism. This approach is not without problems, either (Tisdell & Wilson, 2002a, p. 294). Future challenges to the wildlife tourism are the enthusiasm of the wildlife tourist who would like to get too close to their target (Weaver, 2005, p. 43). This causes discomfort to the creatures. Interference with breeding due to human visitation is a major challenge. It has been reported that birds abandon their nests due to this. Human visitation may lead to a decline in the reproductive success for many species of marine birds that breed colonially (Higham & Lück, 2008, 59). Apart from birds, the crocodiles and alligators abandon their eggs when boats get too close. This results in the loss of eggs to predators. For the turtles, the presence of tourists on the shores inhibits breeding. Habitat clearing interferes with essential resources for behaviors like feeding and breeding. Due to the population growth of humans, quest for land leads to this. Growth of the number of tourists may also need extra parking space that will lead to a habitat clearing, hence posing a challenge to future tourism (Tisdell & Wilson, 2002b, 159). Recommendation Wildlife tourism can make imperative contributions to community growth as well as conservation by increasing awareness of the animals observed together with their habitats. Another way is to create revenues for maintenance, as well as to create jobs and income for the communities that are local to the habitat. To achieve this assistance, wildlife tourism needs to be carefully organized and managed by the tourism sector, government agencies and conservation managers. With speedily growing influx of wildlife tourists, controls should be put in place to prevent unpleasant effects on the local communities and wildlife (Weidner, 2009, 151). Bibliography Spenceley, A. (2012) Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development. New York: Rout ledge. Benson, E. D. (2001) ‘Wildlife and recreation management on private lands in the United States,’ Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29(1):359–371. Lovelock, B. (2007) Tourism and the Consumption of Wildlife: Hunting, Shooting and Sport Fishing. Kentucky: Rout ledge. Sosinski, C. (2011) Wildlife Tourism in Germany: Exploring the domestic wildlife tourism market in Germany - an analysis of the countrys wildlife tourism potential and its link to wildlife conservation. Chicago: GRIN Verlag. Newsome, D., Ross, K., & Moore, S.A. (2005) Wildlife Tourism Volume 24 of Aspects of Tourism, Kansas: Channel View Publications. Weaver, D. B. (2005) ‘Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism’ Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (2), pp. 439–455 Hoyt, E. (2000) Whale Watching 2000: Worldwide Tourism Numbers, Expenditures and Expanding Socioeconomic Benefits. International Fund for Animal Welfare. London: Crowborough. Higham, J., & Lück, M. (2008) Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management Cabi Series. Indiana: CABI. Isaacs, J. (2000) ‘The limited potential of ecotourism to contribute to wildlife conservation,’ Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 28, pp. 61-69. Knetsch, J. (1963) Outdoor recreation demands and benefits. New York: Land Economics. United Nations Environment Programme. (2006) Wildlife Watching and Tourism: A Study on the Benefits and Risks of a Fast Growing Tourism Activity and Its Impacts on Species. London: UNEP/Earthprint. Weidner, S. (2009) The Quest for Authentic Experiences in Wildlife Tourism - a Review of Issues. Chicago: GRIN Verlag. Tisdell, C.A. (2002) The Economics of Conserving Wildlife and Natural Areas, London: Edward Elgar Cheltenham. Tisdell, C.A. & Wilson, C. (2002a) ‘Economic, Educational and Conservation Benefits of Sea Turtle Based Ecotourism – A Study Focused on Mon Repos’ Wildlife Tourism Research Report Series, No. 20. Tisdell, C. A. & Wilson, C. (2002b) ‘Ecotourism for the survival of sea turtles and other wildlife’ Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 11, pp. 1521-1538. Read More