Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: A conceptual framework

Biological Conservation 53 (1990) 213-231

Non-Consumptive Wildlife-Oriented Recreation: A Conceptual Framework D a v i d A. Duffus & Philip D e a r d e n Department of Geography, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 2Y2

(Received 7 June 1989; revised version received 20 December 1989; accepted 11 January 1990)

ABSTRACT Recreational non-consumptive use of wildlife has been attract&g &creasing numbers of people and generating growing economic benefits from tourism activity. More importantly this type of wildlife interaction has potential benefits to conservation from the long-term effect of changing attitudes towards wild animals and natural habitats. It does not, however,fit well into the existing wildlife management paradigm due to the nature of the final product, a recreation experience. This paper aims to provide an integrated framework that illustrates the major components of non-consumptive wildlife recreation and links between research areas in ecology, animal behaviour, recreation, tourism and existing wildlife management institutions. The fundamental purpose of this paper is to cast wildlife conservation in a new light that recognizes the need to formulate management plans in both a social and biological context.

INTRODUCTION Human interaction with wildlife has often entailed the death or removal of organisms from their natural habitat. Large state-controlled bureaucracies have evolved in many nations to 'manage' such consumptive uses. The main function of wildlife management authorities has been to provide for the 'wise use'-oriented conservation of wild populations according to demandgenerated objectives. In North America this has largely evolved into the 213

Biol. Conserv. 0006-3207/90/$03-50 © 1990 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain

214

David A. Duffus, Philip Dearden

management of wildlife populations for recreational consumptive uses, such as sport hunting and fishing. Less attention has been paid to preservation of endangered species, subsistence hunting, commercial hunting and capture, 'pest'/predator control, and indirect impacts on wildlife from other activities such as by-catch in fisheries. This situation may be changing as wildlife management begins to accept responsibility for a wider constituency with different ideas, particularly a more biocentric view of man's role in nature and a movement away from killing (Scheffer, 1976). The manifestation of such changes can be seen in the advent of 'non-game' programmes in many locations (e.g. Crawford, 1976; Kellert, 1984b; Morache, 1984; Marshall, 1985; Thompson, 1987. Over the past two decades the growth of non-consumptive uses of wildlife has expanded to the point where a larger proportion of people, with a concurrently large proportion of economic and, potentially, ecological impact, have engaged in non-consumptive recreational interaction with wild species than in traditional wildlife pursuits. Whelan (1988) estimates that nature-oriented adventure tourism generates a north-south transfer of US$25 thousand million annually. In North America detailed nationwide studies and site-specific research have measured substantial economic and recreational benefits from non-consumptive wildlife use. In 1981 alone, 3-6 million Canadians spent a total of CanS2.1 billion on non-consumptive wildlife-oriented trips (Filion et al., 1983). In the United States wildlife viewing as a primary recreational activity increased from 83.2 million to 104-7 million user-days between 1980 and 1985 (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987). Birdwatchers in Point Pelee National Park in Ontario, Canada, generate Can $6 million annually (Butler in Dodge, 1988), while whale-watching from Vancouver Island, Canada, generated expenditures estimated at Can $4.2 million by the authors in 1988. Expenditures on wildlife-oriented activity only address fairly simple components of value, such as regional economic impact. The actual total value of wildlife involves a wide spectrum of market and non-market values, some of which are conducive to well-established economic valuation methods and others which evoke argument such as the appropriateness of economic techniques (Kellert, 1984a; Loomis & Walsh, 1986; Rahmatian, 1986). Studies that have incorporated advanced techniques to appraise total value of wildlife, especially rare biota (e.g. Stoll & Johnson, 1984; Boyle & Bishop, 1986), have indicated previously unquantified benefits that are substantially higher than resource managers have yet accorded wildlife. N o n - c o n s u m p t i v e wildlife recreation, the topic of this paper, will undoubtedly require the use of more complex economic treatments to comprehend the full value of this activity within the sphere of resource management decision-making.

Wildlife-oriented recreation

215

Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation (NCWOR) can be defined as a human recreational engagement with wildlife wherein the focal organism is not purposefully removed or permanently affected by the engagement. This follows from Wagar's (1969) definition of nonconsumptive use and includes his basic precepts that use provides an experience rather than a product, and that one person's activities do not detract from the experiences available for another person in the same area. Some dissension exists with the use of the term 'non-consumptive', especially when it is confused with the concept of zero impact (e.g. Wilkes, 1979). Certainly, any relatively proximal contact between man and nature can cause changes to the focal species, the local ecosystem or other incidentally encountered species. Non-consumptive recreation can involve many activities with a wide range of levels of organization which will influence the level and types of impact (Liddle & Scorgie, 1980; Hall & Dearden, 1984; Boyle & Samson, 1985). In fact, these differences in focus have been used as a basis for suggestion that non-consumptive uses that have a high goal orientation, such as specialized wildlife viewing, differ little from consumptive use (e.g. Applegate & Clark, 1987). While it is recognized that a continuum (Fig. 1) exists along which all interaction with wildlife can be viewed, there is, however, a distinct difference in most respects between an activity that purposely seeks to remove or destroy an organism and one that does not (Vaske et aL, 1982). For the purposes of a management framework one of the principal arguments differentiating consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife use is that the lack of requirement for a sophisticated population productivity model in the latter allows space for a more balanced approach between human and ecological dimensions. In the wide context of human contact with wildlife (Fig. 2) there has been a plethora of scientific research and conceptual/theoretical work regarding wild species and habitats. Several sub-disciplines of biological science have endeavoured to understand the nature of individual species and the complex interactions between species that form natural communities (Fig. 2, Box (a)). Although still in a developmental stage, human recreation (Fig. 2, Box (b)) A m o u n t of physical i n t e r a c t i o n High

9

Low

1

I

Hunting Culling Predator control

Live capture

Fig.

1.

I Research

I

m.

I

I

NonConservation Option consumptive and existence recreational lobby and bequest use group value membership

A c o n t i n u u m of h u m a n - w i l d l i f e interaction.

216

David A. Duffus, Philip Dearden

HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP

HUMAN RECREATION

INTERACTION

(b) (C)

CONSUMPTIVE NON-CONSUMPTIVE USE ~ ~ USE WILD SPECIES AND HABITATS

Uses

Consumptive uses COMMERCIAL HUNTING SPORT HUNTING SUBSISTENCE HUNTING COMMERCIAL FISHING SPORT FISHING SUBSISTENCE FISHING FUR TRAPPING AND HUNTING HUNTING FOR ANIMAL PARTS AND PET TRADE INDIRECT KILLS THROUGH OTHER ACTIVITIES (I:~OLLUTION, BY-CATCH, ROAD KILLS) ERADICATION PROGRAMS FOR ANIMALS WITH REAL AND PERCEIVED THREATS

(a)

Low Consumptive Uses ZOOS AND ANIMAL PARKS AQUARIA AND OCEANARIA SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

BIRDWATCHING WHALE-WATCHING PHOTOGRAPHIC TRIPS ORGANIZED AND INDIVIDUAL NATURE WALKS COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND CINEMATOGRAPHY SECONDARY WILDLIFE VIEWING IN PARKS, RESERVES AND RECREATIONAL AREAS

Fig. 2. The broad context of human-wildlife interaction. has also been the subject of much research from a variety of single and multidisciplinary sources (Driver & Brown, 1983; Manning, 1986). Work from these two established areas of research has to some extent been synthesized (Fig. 2, Box (c)) in a sometimes narrowly construed approach to manage recreational consumptive interaction between people and wildlife (Todd, 1980). Such studies have typically concentrated on animal population dynamics and strategies to enhance access to such populations. Only recently has research begun to document non-consumptive wildlife activity in any detail (see Boyle & Samson, 1985, for a review). Most of the studies are empirical in nature (e.g. Tilt, 1985). The purpose of this paper is to propose a conceptual framework that identifies the major components of non-consumptive wildlife recreation and indicates the role of, and relationship between, those components. The

Wildlife-oriented recreation

217

rationale for this is not only to enhance the conceptual clarity and link existing theoretical structures in diverse bodies of literature to a broader framework of understanding but also to reinforce the case for the analysis and management of non-consumptive wildlife pursuits that includes both the human and ecological dimensions. The call for social science input into wildlife management in general began decades ago (e.g. Leopold, 1940; Leopold, 1943 in Flader, 1974) and has continued sporadically over the interim (e.g. Clarke, 1974; Scheffer, 1976; Todd, 1980). Research in the early 1970s formalized a growing body of thought among wildlife managers based on the knowledge of behavioural aspects of the traditional user group dominated by sport hunters and fishermen (e.g. Hendee, 1969; Hendee & Potter, 1971; Hendee & Schoenfeld, 1973; Knopf et al., 1973; Potter et al., 1973; Stankey et al., 1973; Hendee, 1974). On a parallel course researchers in the field of outdoor recreation began to develop theories and methods directed to the psychological dimensions of their constituency (Clawson & Knetsch, 1966; Driver & Tocher, 1970; Driver & Knopf, 1977). Recently wildlife managers have begun exploring the social characteristics of the new constituency, the nonconsumptive user (e.g. Brown et al., 1986; Manfredo & Haight, 1986; Moss et al., 1986; Decker & Purdy, 1988). Non-consumptive wildlife management lies at the juncture of these two areas of research. It depends on the biological sciences to understand the nature of the support system that presents the opportunity for contact between the users and the focal species, and the techniques of the social scientist to understand the interrelated concepts of satisfaction that produce the recreational benefits. Thus, the non-consumptive framework to be described can be viewed as a more in-depth examination of the nonconsumptive use element in Box (c) in Fig. 2.

THE C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K The proposed framework includes three initial elements: the focal species or species groups, the human user, and the history of the relationship between the two (Fig 3). These are presented as individual elements for ease of description, yet it is recognized that they are interrelated, largely through the historical aspects of the relationship. These elements combine to produce NCWOR. The activity is undertaken by a wide variety of recreationists that interact with each other, and with the site of the activity to produce changes in both over time. This interaction has considerable management implications both for the user and the species. Each element of the framework will now be discussed in turn.

218

David A. Duffus, Philip Dearden

MANAGEMENT WILDLIFE USER

f

" HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP

NON-CONSUMPTIVE WILDLIFE USE " ~

~..~

~..~

"

Time HABITAT I Fig. 3.

GROWTH CURVE j A -

\('~

MANAGEMENT )

The core components of non-consumptive wildlife use.

The historical context of human-wildlife relations

History influences the demand for wildlife contact in two major ways, first through the influence of humans on animal species and their habitats, and second, via the cultural conditioning of perceptions that have taken place over the centuries. The density and habits of almost all wild species have been altered through human influence over long periods of time. Certain species have proven susceptible to domestication and their numbers increased far above natural limits. Much of the earth has been controlled by man to provide optimal feeding conditions. Vast areas are devoted to raising sheep, cattle and goats. They are a c o m m o n landscape component in many parts of the world. By way of contrast many other species have been found to have little direct economic benefit for society and their numbers have been dramatically reduced, often due to habitat change generated by the need to accommodate the domestic species. Thus, the history of contact has dramatically increased the abundance of some species and led to the extinction, extirpation and increasing rarity of others. Ironically the latter, due to their very rarity, are now often accorded the highest values in society. The desire to view particular animals is fueled by the image humans have developed over their previous association. Authors such as Appleton (1975) have suggested that aesthetic pleasure for humans may ultimately be genetically controlled. Thus, landscapes that are favourable for humans as organisms often elicit pleasurable feelings and a sense of well-being that may not be recognized as aesthetic preferences for the landscape. Appleton argues than in the case of humans such landscapes would contain both prospect and refuge. Elements of this same reasoning can be applied to

Wildlife-oriented recreation

219

human perceptions of other species that could readily be broken down on eating preferences: either humans would eat the animals or vice versa. In either case a feeling of arousal was probably the result, with degree of arousal highest toward either end of the spectrum, those animals most likely to eat humans, and those with the highest value as human food. Interestingly, even now--whether in zoos or in the wild--the species that often provoke the most stimulation are the predators, lions, tigers, bears and wolves. The arousal from food-dependent animals has, in many societies, now been substantially blunted by the abundance of such species through domestication. Upon this evolutionary conditioning has been layered cultural, religious, national, regional and individual variations (Dearden, 1989). Nonetheless there are some similarities in perceptions of species. Many species have been recipients of recent changes in attitude from one of a strong and unidimensional societal consensus, such as a predator (shoot it) or a food source (eat it), to one of a much broader range of interpretation. Such changes are often reflected in high profile debates over issues such as the harp seal hunt off Newfoundland, predator control programmes such as the wolf kill in British Columbia and controversy over the keeping of species such as killer whales in aquariums. The time scale of the history of interaction is also sensitive to the nature of the organisms under consideration. For example, terrestrial organisms of the temperate zones of industrialized countries where much of wildlife science developed have been managed and protected far earlier than organisms of tropical forests or the open ocean. Bison and whooping crane were well-known symbols of conservation effort afforded to wild species much earlier than the bengal tiger, giant panda and humpback whale. Currently our concern is being increasing directly to even more obscure species, such as rare prosimians of the disappearing Madagascar forests and oceanic dolphins, and to protection of more ecologically and politically complex systems such as tropical rainforests. Thus, as can be seen in Fig. 3, the historical context mediates the relationship between the organism and the user. This relationship is often diffuse and difficult to quantify but provides an essential component of the context for enlightened management. Authors such as McNeely & Wachtel (1988) have helped flesh out the historical relationships between specific animals and humans or in specific regions. Nonetheless the literature is far from complete in this area. The wildlife The focal species or species groups and the requirements of the species for

220

David A. Duffus, Philip Dearden

survival form the second foundation of the framework (Fig. 3). Within this aspect lies a need for sophisticated ecological analysis. Non-consumptive use of wildlife requires a predictable occurrence of the target species within a fairly small spatial area. For that reason, established areas of nonconsumptive contact often focus on a location coincident with special life history requirements of the species. A classic case is the heavy concentration of brown bear Ursus arctos at Alaska's McNeil River State Game Sanctuary from late June to mid-August each year. Returning chum salmon at this time of year must surmount a 100-m stretch of white-water where over 60 individual bears per day may congregate to feed (Bledsoe, 1987). The spectacle has attracted over 2600 visitors in the past 16 years without a single maiming incident, despite the fact that the visitors sometimes find themselves within 5 m of the bears. This relatively benign interaction is often attributed to the well-fed state of the animals and the closely controlled lottery system that limits the number of tourists to 10 at a time. In many cases the priority for analysis and management is developing a working knowledge of the relationship between the organism and a particular site. Many baseline studies have analyzed the ecology of large mammals of the African savannah and forest communities that have become foci of non-consumptive use (e.g. Schaller, 1963, 1972; Wing & Buss, 1970; Kruuk, 1972; Douglas-Hamilton, 1973; Laws et al., 1975). Some studies have evolved as a response to increased non-consumptive use, for example humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in Glacier Bay, Alaska (Baker et al., 1983; Miles & Malme, 1983; Kreiger & Wing, 1984), and beluga whales Delphinapterus leucas in the St Lawrence estuary (Sergeant & Hoek, 1988). In one case, the giant tortoises Geochelone gigantea of Aldabra Atoll, research and experimental translocation of specimens to a more accessible and manageable site were carried out in response to non-consumptive demand (Stoddart et al., 1982). A second and related biological consideration is the establishment of behavioural and reproduction benchmarks that will allow managers to recognize when the focal species is being disturbed, and if that disturbance has potential to harm the individual or the population. These questions are crucial, yet often represent difficult areas in which to obtain concrete answers, although a body of research exists on short-term responses. Studies of ungulate disturbance point to changes in behavior, physiology and reproduction (Klein, 1971; Wobesor et al., 1976; Rost & Bailey, 1979; MacArthur et aL, 1982; Valkenburg et al., 1983; Geist et al., 1985; Yarmoloy et al., 1988). Study of various whale species' response to disturbance have been less conclusive (Baker et al., 1983; Watkins, 1986). Often management must proceed before scientifically valid responses to the harassment question can be brought forth from the research community. In those cases biological uncertainty plays a major role in the quality of any

Wildlife-oriented recreation

221

management plan and the balance between opinion and fact in the management equation is often weighted toward opinion. Therefore, the manager is faced with the potentially politically charged endeavour of assessing a range of informed opinion regarding specific cases, assessing the veracity of the scientific 'facts' and developing a management plan. The wildlife user

The third foundation of the non-consumptive wildlife recreation framework (Fig. 3) is the wildlife user. This element is composed of individuals who engage in encountel:s with wild species for the purpose of non-consumptive recreation, most frequently to view, observe and often to photograph the organism. These people are engaged in a satisfaction,seeking behaviour, recreation activity is the means to an end or goal state (Driver & Tocher, 1970; Manning, 1986; Ewart, 1987). They are induced to undertake a particular activity by a set of antecedent conditions that form an image of the subject and drive the desire to encounter wildlife under natural conditions. Personality variables connected to attitude, cognitive style, environmental stimuli and physiological drives coupled in various ways with socio-economic status provide the individual with a desire and the means to pursue wildlife. The prevailing view is that these psychological variables are part of a cognitive process that construes the human mind as an informational environment continually taking in new data and integrating into existing knowledge (Ulrich, 1983). An alternative framework for response to environment expresses the possibility that the cognitive component may be supplanted by an affective response (Zajonc, 1980; Ulrich, 1983). The significance of this model is that the actual contact with the target species is dominated by a powerful, pre-cognitive, possibly innate or instinctive, reaction. The three elements that Ulrich describes for his model that elicit an affective response are a strong and specific focus on the object, gross structural properties that are readily recognized, and the element of threat or tension. All can be applied to many cases of wildlife viewing to some extent. The deeper psychological dimensions of wildlife encounters are beyond the scope of this paper (but see Kaplan & Talbot, 1983; Kellert, 1983; Wohlwill, 1983; Almagor, 1985; Finlay et al., 1988, for further treatment of some concepts), but they are mentioned here to indicate that, in terms of an ultimate accounting of the benefit of wildlife encounters, there are classes of value whose ontogeny and outcome are largely unexplored. Non-consumptive wildlife use

These three foundations, the history, target organism and host ecosystem,

222

David A. Duffus, Philip Dearden

and the wildlife user, unite to create a non-consumptive recreational wildlife use scenario (Fig. 3). These may range from elaborate commercial cruises to view cetaceans in remote ocean reaches, to individuals birdwatching close to their homes. Nonetheless recreational activities are seldom static entities. They exhibit evolution and change both in terms of the nature of the users and the sites where the activity takes place. Through time, a site particularly attractive for wildlife viewing may develop a public image through the growth in publicity and facilities designed to service the visitors who arrive at the area to encounter wildlife. As the facilities expand, this in turn influences the types of individuals who visit a site, the expectations, and the satisfaction derived from the attraction. These processes have been examined particularly in light of tourism situations with regard to the users (Cohen, 1972; Plog, 1972; Smith, 1977) and the tourism areas (Butler, 1980). However, the process is equally applicable to day-visiting outdoor recreationists and for the purpose of this paper the terms 'tourist' and 'outdoor recreationist' can be used interchangeably. This section of the paper seeks to draw together and integrate the existing literature regarding different tourist types and degrees of specialization, and relate them to changes in destination site characteristics, all within the context of nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented recreation. Tourists cannot be considered an homogeneous population; even tourists that may be primarily motivated by the same stimulus, such as wildlife viewing. Tourist typologies present a sequential change in the type of visitors to a site that begins with a stage dominated by exploratory users. In the case of non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation this group may be termed wildlife specialists. These people require little infrastructure or interpretive facilities, and their presence is usually absorbable by existing social and ecological systems at the site. They are likely to have pre-knowledge about the site and constituent wildlife attraction derived from other specialistexplorers and are few enough in number to require little management intervention. As the awareness of the site and associated activity grows, a less ambitious user will dominate the group. There will be a concomitant demand for more facility development, more mediation and increased pressure on both the social system and the ecosystem of the host area. At the most mature end of this spectrum lies domination by general tourists, or wildlife generalists in this context, with little special interest in the site's attraction, relying heavily on the development of supportive infrastructure. At this end both the host society and ecosystem may be stressed, requiring increased management intervention. Such a growth in visitor numbers over time and changes in those visitors can be seen in Fig. 4. This classification can be further refined by linking the concept of sequential change within the user group as described above to wildlife-

Wildlife-oriented recreation

223

L

®

LAC I I l .........................

v ~ ( C ~) ' ~ . E
~

I

I T/

O

Z

GENERALIST

-----~/

LAc.,

I

E=N/

sE?~ERgsT J __.....~,/

~N

I

~OV~EsT

~V%E

SPECIALIST

GENERALIST TIME

--

}

EXPERT SPECIALIST

NOVICE NERALlST

"~

Fig. 4.

Leisure specialization continuum (After Bryan 1977, 1980)

Point of intersection indicates the position on Butler's curve and the domination by expert (E) or novice (N) users

The relationship of user specialization and site evolution.

oriented recreationists through Bryan's leisure specialization continuum (Bryan, 1977, 1979, 1980). Bryan suggests that recreationists may increase their level of specialization over time, and that change is reflected in changing equipment, skills, settings and commitment. In the case of a wildlife-oriented recreationist an individual may begin expressing his or her interest in wildlife with visits to zoos or other similar captive displays gradually changing to participation in outdoor activities with some aspect of wildlife viewing, to specific trips to view wildlife in general local areas, to specific trips to view particular species. This continuum involves an increasing commitment of resources. By the end stage this may involve considerable time, effort and money being invested to travel long distances

224

David A. Duffus, Philip Dearden

to see particular species. Some of Bryan's indicators of specialization may be less relevant to non-consumptive wildlife recreation than other forms of recreation. Equipment, for example, may not have a great deal of variability although one might expect wildlife specialists to possess high quality equipment such as binoculars, spotting scope, camera and lenses. However, expanding the skills concept to include knowledge about the organism and habitat, and involvement in conservation efforts, may provide a useful index of increasing specialization. Coupled with these changes in the user group are changes in the overall character of the site toward increased infrastructure. Butler (1980) developed a model of the evolution of tourist areas which has been used in diverse applications and is based on a product life cycle roughly following a logistic curve (e.g. Hovinen, 1981; Keller, 1987; Dearden, 1988). A framework for understanding, and possibly predicting, evolution of nonconsumptive wildlife use sites would require a functional link between the wildlife specialization of the user and the changing characteristics of the encounter area. Figure 4 presents a framework for linking wildlife specialization to site characteristics by using a combination of Butler's model of tourist area evolution and Bryan's leisure specialization continuum. Over time as the number of visitors increases, the proportion of specialists will decline relative to generalists. The site, in catering to generalists, will no longer fulfill the expectations of the specialists. Intraactivity conflict may also occur between users of different specialization levels (e.g. Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Specialists hence may be displaced to other, less developed sites. The model suggests that if the dominant level of specialization among the user group is known, the relative level of maturity as an attraction can be estimated. This information has considerable value to managers in at least two ways: as an indication of the need for facility development (e.g. interpretive sites and visitor services), and as an indication of the potential rate and timing of growth that may be expected. The combined model of the interaction between changing users and an evolving site has not yet been subject to testing, although it has provided a useful conceptual guideline for research on whale-watching in British Columbia (Duffus, 1988; Dearden & Duffus, 1989). Initially indices of specialization require development and refinement and the particular dimensions of the curve need to be specified. At each stage in the life cycle described above, change is initiated when the area's existing carrying capacity is exceeded. An area's continued growth can be attributed to the reestablishment of the evaluative standards, either experiential or physical. In the case of wildlife viewing, the evaluative standards can change, primarily in the form of relaxed experiential standards by less demanding visitors, but

Wildlife-oriented recreation

225

the physical or management parameters may be far less flexible (Shelby & Hiberlein, 1986). This can be illustrated by reference to Fig. 4. Point A, for example, may allow a maximum number of viewers with minimum facilities and negligible impact on the species or habitat. Depending upon the management goals for the site this point may define the carrying capacity or limits of acceptable change (LAC I, after Stankey et al., 1985). If the LAC are broadened to accommodate perhaps reduced wildlife populations (the more wary individuals in the population may, for example, no longer tolerate human presence above these numbers), increased facilities and fewer demands upon the visitor, then the limit (LAC II) may be at B on Fig. 4. Point C may represent the balance where maximum visitors can be tolerated and still maintain the activity (LAC III). If this point is passed then visitors may be reduced in number (point D) due to failure of the site to provide the expected satisfactions. The ecological carrying capacity may have been so violated at this point that the chances of encountering the species are considerably diminished and hence visitors, especially generalist visitors, may not be willing to make the required investment. Indeed violating LAC III may well be serious enough to permanently alter the ecological capacity of the site to provide the recreational experience. It is unlikely in the case of wildlife that the curve would be symmetrical, allowing the opportunity to violate the critical threshold levels and yet return to the original situation. Thus, any increase in visitors following point C, E would in all likelihood represent a different but perhaps related attraction at the site with less sensitive LAC. Data from a wide range of sites with various management regimes (e.g. national parks, marine sites, endangered species habitat) are required to establish the specific shapes that Butler's curve may take under different circumstances. Protected areas of various descriptions running from I U C N Class I to VII categories (Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, 1984) have different goals and objectives. Some wildlife sites may make extensive use of commercial operators (such as whale-watching cruises) while others on individual foot traffic (e.g. birdwatching in critical areas). Different species and even different individuals have different tolerance levels to disturbance. All these conditions will influence the shape of the curve and the criteria for LAC establishment. Currently plans that incorporate an ecological basis yet recognize that the context of the social reality of the local region of non-consumptive use areas remain rare. Research from national parks and wildlife programmes in Africa (Western, 1984; Abel & Blaikie, 1986; Anderson & Grove, 1987; Bell, 1987), India (Panwar, 1984; Saharia, 1984) and Nepal (Mishra, 1984) points to some emerging themes in planning and some of the difficulties encountered

226

David A. Duffus, Philip Dearden

integrating ecological, political and social systems in high profile N C W O R situations. CONCLUSIONS This paper describes the interaction between three foundations for nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented recreation management: the ecology of the focal species, the recreational user and the historical context of the h u m a n wildlife relationship. This foundation provides the link between the growth and development of N C W O R sites and a modified model of tourism area evolution and leisure specialization. The conceptual framework is first and foremost an indication of the relative roles and interactions among the components of non-consumptive wildlife use. It is significant to note at how many places natural and social science knowledge must be successfully integrated to fully understand non-consumptive wildlife use. Also important is a distinction between non-consumptive and traditional consumptive wildlife management based on the different measures of successful management. Whereas both activities must fundamentally provide a reasonable chance of encountering wildlife, the results of a successful nonconsumptive encounter exist in the psychological domain of the individual where they are not as easily measured as game bagged. The traditional agencies involved in wildlife management may not be prepared for the depth of social science research required for nonconsumptive users. The need for a total analysis framework is timely, as is the need for a multi-disciplinary approach. The growing importance of nonconsumptive uses may soon demand increased management intervention to maintain opportunities without harming wildlife populations to capture the full conservation value of NCWOR. Increased knowledge of the user in terms of expectation, motivation and satisfaction will allow more precise manipulation of the human component of N C W O R to maintain the ultimate proviso of protection of wildlife. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish to thank World Wildlife Fund Canada for support of research leading to this article. REFERENCES Abel, N. & Blaikie, P. (1986). Elephants, people, parks and development: The case of the Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Environ. Manage., 19, 735-51.

Wildlife-oriented recreation

227

Almagor, U. (1985). A tourist's 'vision quest' in an African game reserve. Ann. Tourism Res., 12, 31~,7. Anderson, D. & Grove, R. (1987). Introduction: The scramble for Eden: past, present and future in African conservation. In Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice, ed. D. Anderson & R. Grove. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1 12. Applegate, J. E. & Clark, K. E. (1987). Satisfaction levels of birdwatchers: An observation on the consumptive-nonconsumptive continuum. Leisure Sci., 9, 129-34. Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience of Landscape. Wiley, London. Baker, C. S., Herman, L. M. with Bays, B. G. & Bauer, G. B. (1983). The Impact of Vessel Traffic on the Behavior of Humpback Whales in Southeast Alaska: 1982 Season. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Bell, R. H. V. (1987). Conservation with a human face: conflict and reconciliation in African land use planning. In Conservation in Africa: People, Policies and Practice, ed. D. Anderson & R. Grove. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 79 102. Bledsoe, T. (1987). Brown Bear Summer: Life among Alaska's Giants. Truman Talley Books/E. P. Dutton, New York. Boyle, K. J. & Bishop, R. C. (1986). The economic valuation of endangered species of wildlife. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conj., 51, 153-61. Boyle, S. A. & Samson, F. B. (1985). Effect ofnonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: A review. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 13, 110-16. Brown, T. L., Connelly, N. A. & Decker, D. J. (1986). First-year results of New York's 'Return a gift to wildlife' tax checkoff. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 14, 115 20. Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreation specialization: The case of trout fishermen. J. Leisure Res., 9, 174 87. Bryan, H. (1979). Conflict in the great outdoors: Towards understanding and managing for diverse sportsmen preferences. Sociological Studies No. 4. Bureau of Public Administration, University of Alabama, University, Alabama. Bryan, H. (1980). Sociological and psychlological approaches to assesing and categorizing wildlife values. In Wildlife Values, ed. W. W. Shaw & E. H. Zube. Center.for Assessment of Noncommodity Natural Resource Values, Inst. Ser. Rep., No. 1, pp. 70-6. Butler, R. W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Can. Geogr., 24, 5 12. Clarke, R. N. (1974). Social science, social scientists, and wildlife management. Trans. Fed.-Prov. Wildl. Conf., 38th, pp. 103-7. Clawson, M. & Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Res., 39, 179-202. Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (IUCN) (1984). Categories, objectives and criteria for protected areas. In National Parks Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, ed. J. A. McNeely & K. R. Miller. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 47-55. Crawford, J. A. (1976). Nongame wildlife-the role of the university. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 4, 116 19.

228

David A. Duffus, Philip Dearden

Dearden, P. (1988). Tourism in developing societies: Some observations on trekking in the highlands of northern Thailand. Pre-Congress publication. First Global Conference, Tourism--A Vital Force for Peace, Vancouver, BC, Oct. 1988. Dearden, P. (1989). Societal landscape preferences: A pyramid of influences. In Landscape Evaluation: Approaches and Applications, ed. P. Dearden & B. Sadler. University of Victoria Western Geographical Series, No. 23. Dearden, P. & Duffus, D. A. (1989). Whale-watching in British Columbia: Human dimensions and theoretical links. Paper presented at the Canadian Association of Geographers Annual Meeting, May, 1989, Chicoutimi, Quebec. Decker, D. J. & Prudy, K. G. (1988). Towards a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 16, 53-7. Dodge, D. A. (1988). Point Pelee Birders are big business. Borealis, 1, 49. Douglas-Hamilton, I. (1973). On the ecology and behaviour of Lake Manyara elephants. E. Afr. Wildl. J., 11,401-3. Driver, B. L. & Brown, P. L. (1983). Contributions of behavioral scientists to recreation resource management. In Behavior and the Natural Environment, ed. I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 307-40. Driver, B. L. & Knopf, R. C. (1977). Personality, outdoor recreation, and expected consequences. Environ. & Behav., 9, 169-93. Driver, B. L. & Tocher, S. R. (1970). Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreational engagement, with implications for planning. In Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning, ed. B. L. Driver. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 9-31. Duffus, D. A. (1988). Non-consumptive use and management of cetaceans in British Columbia coastal waters. PhD dissertation, University of Victoria. Ewart, D. A. (1988). Towards a theoretical understanding of commercialized outdoor recreation. Trends, 24(3), 5-9. Filion, F. L., James, S. W., Ducharme, J-L., Pepper, W., Reid, R., Boxall, P. & Teillet, D. (1983). The Importance of Wildlife to Canadians, Highlights of the 1981 National Survey. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Finlay, T., James, L. R. & Maple, T. L. (1988). People's perception of animals: The influence of zoo environment. Environ. & Behav., 20, 508-28. Flader, S. L. (1974). Thinking Like A Mountain. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri. Geist, V., Stemp, E. & Johnston, R. H. (1985). Heart rate telemetry in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) as a means of investigation disturbances. In The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation on Mountain Areas in Europe and North America, ed. N. G. Bayfield & G. C. Barrow. Recreational Ecology Research Group, Rep., No. 9, 92-9. Hall, C. & Dearden, P. (1984). The Impact of 'Non-Consumptive' Recreation on Wildlife: An Annotated Bibliography. Public Administration Series: Bibliography P-1485, Vance Bibliographies, Monticello, Illinois. Hendee, J. C. (1969). Appreciative versus consumptive uses of wildlife refuges: Studies of who gets what and trends in use. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf., 34, 252-64. Hendee, J. C. (1974). A multiple satisfaction approach to game management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2(3), 104-13.

Wildlife-oriented recreation

229

Hendee, J. C. & Potter, D. (1971). Human behavior and wildlife management: Needed research. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf., 36, 383-96. Hendee, J. C. & Schoenfeld, C. (1973). Human Dimensions in Wildlife Programs, Reports of Recent Investigations. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC. Hovinen, G. R. (1981). A tourist cycle in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Can. Geogr., 25, 283-5. Jacob, G. R. & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective. J. Leisure Res., 12, 368-80. Kaplan, S. & Talbot, J. F. (1983). Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In Behavior and the Natural Environment, ed. I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 163-204. Keller, C. P. (1987). Stages of peripheral tourism development--Canada's Northwest Territories. Tourism Manage., 8, 20-32. Kellert, S. R. (1983). Affective, cognitive, and evaluative perceptions of animals. In Behavior and the Natural Environment, ed. I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill. Plenum Press, New York, pp 241-68. Kellert, S. R. (1984a). Assessing wildlife and environmental values in cost-benefit analysis. J. Environ. Manage., 18, 355-63. Kellert, S. R. (1984b). Comprehensive wildlife management: An approach for developing a nongame program in Connecticut. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf., 49, 215-20. Klein, D. R. (1971). Reaction of reindeer to obstructions and disturbances. Science, N.Y., 173, 393-8. Knopf, R. C., Driver, B. L. & Bassatt, J. R. (1973). Motivations for fishing. In Human Dimensions in Wildlife Programs, Reports of Recent Investigations, ed. J. C. Hendee & C. Schoenfeld. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 28~J,1. Kreiger, K. J. & Wing, B. L. (1984). Hydroacoustic Surveys and Identification of Humpback Forage in Glacier Bay, Stephens Passage, and Frederick Sound, Southeastern Alaska, Summer 1982. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-66. Kruuk, H. (1972). The Spotted Hyena: A Study of Predation and Social Behaviour. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Laws, R. M. Parker, I. S. C. & Johnstone, R. B. B. (1975). Elephants and Their Habitats: The Ecology of elephants in North Bunyara, Uganda. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Leopold, A. (1940). The state of the profession. J. Wildl. Manage., 4, 343-6. Liddle, M. J. & Scorgie, H. R. A. (1980). The effects of recreation on freshwater plants and animals: A review. Biol. Conserv., 17, 183-206. Loomis, J. B. & Walsh, R. G. (1986). Assessing wildlife and environmental values in cost-benefit analysis: State of the art. J. Environ. Manage., 22, 125-31. MacArthur, R. A., Geist, V. & Johnston, R. H. (1982). Cardiac and behavioural responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. J. Wildl. Manage., 46, 351-8. Manfredo, M. J. & Haight, B. (1986). Oregon's nongame tax checkoff: A comparison of donors and non-donors. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 14, 121-6. Manning, R. E. (1986). Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

230

David A. Duffus, Philip Dearden

Marshall, D. B. (1985). Oregon's nongame wildlife management plan. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf., 50, 383 91. McNeely, J. A. & Wachtel, P. S. (1988). Soul of the Tiger: Searching for Nature's Answers in Exotic Southeast Asia. Doubleday, New York. Miles, P. R. & Malme, C. I. (1983). The Acoustic Environment andNoise Exposure of Humpback Whales in Glacier Bay, Alaska. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. Mishra, H. R. (1984). A delicate balance: Tigers, rhinoceros, tourists and park management vs the needs of the local people in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. In National Parks Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining SocieO', ed. J. A. McNeely & K. R. Miller. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 197-205. Morache, M. (1984). Idaho's modular nongame plan. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf , 49, 211 14. Moss, M. B., Fraser, J. D. & Wellman, J. D. (1986). Characteristics of nongame fund contributors vs hunters in Virginia. Wildl. Soc. BulL, 14, 1107-14. Panwar, H. S. (1984). What to do when you've succeeded: Project tiger, ten years later. In National Parks Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, ed. J. A. McNeely & K. R. Miller. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 183-9. Plog, S. C. (1972). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Paper presented at the Southern Cal(/'ornia Chapter c~/ the Travel Research Association, San Diego, CA. Potter, D. R., Sharpe, K. M. & Hendee, J. C. (1973). Human Behavior aspects ofFish and Wildlife Conservation: An Annotated Bibliograph)'. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-4. Rahmatian, M. (1986). Extensions of the disaggregate bid experiment: Variations in framing. J. Environ. Manage., 22, 191 202. Rost, G. R. & Bailey, J. A. (1979). Disturbance of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. J. WildL Manage., 43, 634-41. Saharia, V. B. (1984). Human dimensions in wildlife management: The Indian experience. In National Parks Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, ed. J. A. McNeely & K. R. Miller. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 190 6. Schaller, G. B. (1963). The Mountain Gorilla; Ecology and Behaviour. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Schaller, G. B. (1972). The Serengeti Lion. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Scheffer, V. B. (1976). The future of wildlife management. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 4(2), 51~,. Sergeant, D. R. & Hoek, W. (1988). An update of the status of white whales Delphinapterus leucas in the Saint Lawrence estuary, Canada. Biol. Conserv., 45, 287 302. Shelby, B. & Heberlein, T. A. (1986). Caro, ing Capacity in Recreational Settings. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. Smith, V. (1977). Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Stankey, G. H., Lucas, R. H. & Ream, R. (1973). Relationships between hunting success and satisfaction. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Con.[., 38, 77 84. Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., Petersen, M. E., Frissell, S. S. & Washburne, R. F. (1985). The Limits ~?fA cceptable Change ( LA C) System.for

Wildlife-oriented recreation

231

Wilderness Planning. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. INT-176, Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Station, Ogden Utah. Stoddart, D. R., Cowx, D., Peet, C. & Wilson, J. R. (1982). Tortoises and tourists in the western Indian Ocean: The Curieuse experiment. Biol. Conserv., 24, 67-80. Stoll, J. R. & Johnson, L. A. (1984). Concepts of value, nonmarket valuation, and the case of the whooping crane. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf., 49, 383-93. Thompson, B. C. (1987). Attributes and implementation of non-game and endangered species programs in the United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 15, 210-16. Tilt, W. (1985). Whales and Whalewatching in North America with Special Emphasis on Whale Harassment. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, Connecticut. Todd, A. W. (1980). Public relations, public education and wildlife management. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 8, 55 60. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Behavior and the Natural Environment, ed. I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 85-126. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (1987). 1985 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Associated Recreation. US Government Printing Office, Washington. Valkenburg, P., Boertje, R. D. & Davis, J. C. (1983). Effects of darting and netting on caribou in Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage., 47, 1233-7. Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., Heberlein, T. A. & Shelby, B. (1982). Differences in reported satisfaction ratings by consumptive and nonconsumptive recreationists. J. Leisure Res., 14, 195-206. Wagar, J. A. (1969). Nonconsumptive uses of the coniferous forest, with special relation to consumptive uses. In Coniferous Forest of the Northern Rock Mountains: Proceedings of the 1968 Symposium, ed. R. D. Taber. University of Montana Foundation, Missoula, pp. 255 70. Watkins, W. A. (1986). Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Mar. Mammal Sci., 2, 251-62. Western, D. (1984). Amboseli National Park: Human values and the conservation of a savanna ecosystem. In National Parks Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, ed. J. A. McNeely & K. R. Miller. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp. 93-100. Whelan, H. (1988). Nature tourism. Environ. Conserv., 15, 182. Wilkes, B. (1979). The myth of the non-consumptive user. Park News, 15, 16-21. Wing, L. D. & Buss, I. O. (1970). Elephants and forests. Wildl. Monogr., 19. Wobesor, G., Bellamy, J. E. C., Boyen, B. G., MacWilliams, P. S. & Rudge, W. (1976). Myopathy and myoglobinvra in a white-tailed deer. J. Am. Vet. Med. Ass., 169, 971 74. Wohlwill, J. F. (1983). The concept of nature: A psychologist's view. In Behavior and the Natural Environment, ed. I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 5 38. Yarmoloy, C., Bayer, M. & Geist, V. (1988). Behavior responses and reproduction of mule-deer, Odocoileus hemionus, does following experimental harassment with an all-terrain vehicle. Can. Fld Nat., 102, 425 9. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. Am. Psychol., 35, 151-75.