Tourist perception of environmental impact

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 853–867, 2001  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/01/$20.00

PII: S0160-7383(01)00004-4

TOURIST PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Melinda Hillery CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, Australia Blair Nancarrow CSIRO Land and Water, Australia Graham Griffin CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, Australia Geoff Syme CSIRO Land and Water, Australia Abstract: This study investigated the relationship between measured environmental impact and tourists’ perception of it, at ten sites in Central Australia. A positive relationship between annual visitation to a site and measurable impact was found, despite the small amount of tourism impact in the area. Tourists’ perception of impact varied in degree. A majority identified relevant environmental threats (tourism or introduced species), while a smaller proportion suggested management options to address track spreading, the major impact identified by this study. Overall, environmental conditions were rated lower at sites with a higher intensity of impacts, reflecting some tourists’ ability to distinguish impacts. Keywords: sustainability, lifecycle, impact, perceptions, walking-tracks.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Re´sume´: La perception des touristes au sujet de l’impact sur l’environnement. Cet e´tude examine la relation entre le mesurage de l’impact sur l’environnement et la perception des touristes, a` dix endroits en Australie centrale. On a trouve´ une relation positive entre les visites annuelles et l’impact mesurable, malgre´ la faible pre´sence du tourisme dans la re´gion. Les touristes avaient des perceptions varie´es de l’impact. La majorite´ des visiteurs ont identifie´ les menaces a` l’e´gard de l’environnement (tourisme ou introduction des espe`ces), tandis qu’un plus petit nombre de touristes ont sugge´re´ des options de gestion pour aborder le proble`me de la prolife´ration des sentiers, qui e´tait l’impact majeur que cette e´tude a identifie´. En ge´ne´ral, on a e´value´ moins favorablement les conditions de l’environnement aux endroits ou` les impacts e´taient plus intenses, ce qui indique que quelques touristes sont capables de percevoir des impacts. Mots-cle´s: durabilite´, cycle de vie, impact, perceptions, sentiers de marche.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION The exponential growth of tourist numbers and their spread to previously quite remote regions of the world has highlighted the poten-

Melinda Hillery is currently undertaking research on spatial patterns in arid zone termite distributions; Blair Nancarrow conducts social research in natural resources management at the Australian Research Center for Water in Society; Geoff Syme is Director and social scientist with the same Center; Graham Griffin, is a systems ecologist with CSIRO’s Center for Arid Zone Research (PO Box 2111, Alice Springs NT 0871, Australia. Email: ). 853

854

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

tially paradoxical character of nature-based tourism. The more attractive a site (usually due to its rich biological and/or cultural values), the more popular it may become, and the more likely it is that it will be degraded due to heavy visitation, which in turn may diminish the quality of the experience. Many studies (Budowski 1976; Butler 1980; Cole 1989; Dearden and Harron 1994; Doggart and Doggart 1996; Drost 1996; Goldsmith 1974; Martin and Uysal 1990; Nelson 1993) have identified this as an issue of concern, yet it is still unclear how the various factors interact with each other, or indeed whether one necessarily leads to another. A concept arising out of the recognition that natural attractions may have potential limits for tourism is that of carrying capacity. Goldsmith (1974:218) identified four categories of carrying capacity: physical, ecological, economic, and perceptual. The latter, for example, has been defined as the level of use before a decline in the user’s recreational experience (Goldsmith 1974). These aspects of carrying capacity were considered for each stage of the tourism lifecycle by Martin and Uysal (1990), who highlighted those factors most likely to be important at each stage. An area in its early exploratory stage may be limited by its physical carrying capacity. Ecological and perceptual aspects (which directly link to economic ones) become increasingly important in maintaining an attraction in its mature phase and in preventing its decline. Despite the likely importance of both environmental and perceptual capacity, research has often focused on the environment or perceptions of it separately, but rarely linked the two. This has made it difficult to assess the extent of environmental impact that tourists are or are not aware of. The exceptions include two early studies by Merriam and Smith (1974) and Lee (1975) who found there was no correlation between their own/expert assessments of campsite impact stages and comments/ratings collected about the same campsites. Other studies have compared the perceptions of tourists with those of residents (Dowling 1993; Holdnak, Ellen, Drogin, Graefe and Falk 1993) or managers (Downing and Clark 1976; Lucas 1979; Martin, McCool and Lucas 1989) to provide an approximate indication of the degree of impact awareness. Studies focused on perceptions of the environment have found that tourists generally have limited perception of wear and tear impacts but are more sensitive to the direct impacts resulting from litter, human waste, and vandalism etc. (Lucas 1979; Marion and Lime 1986:229). More recent work (Hammitt, Bixler and Noe 1996:60) showed that tourists are still most observant of the direct impacts of other participants (trail use for more than one activity, litter, etc.) but that they may also be growing more aware of other impacts on the environment (like trail erosion). The suggestion of increased awareness and sensitivity to environmental impacts over the past decades (Lucas 1985; Hammitt et al 1996) highlights this issue in planning for a sustainable tourism industry into the future. PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Ideally the investigation of perceptions of impact following tourism in an area would involve several re-interviews of return tourists, prefer-

HILLERY, NANCARROW, GRIFFIN AND SYME

855

Figure 1. Location and 1994 Tourist Numbers of the Ten Study Sites

ably including a visit before any tourism development had occurred. Unfortunately this situation will be rarely available to managers and researchers. Alternatively users of a number of otherwise similar sites with varying degrees of visitation might be asked to compare their perceptions of environmental impact at the different sites. This was the method undertaken in this study. The western MacDonnell Ranges, due west of Alice Springs, contain a number of physical attractions including gorges, cultural sites, and waterbodies which draw an estimated 135,000 tourists to the area annually (1994 road count data, Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory). Ten sites were chosen (Figure 1) that ranged from low to high annual user numbers (Table 1). The hypothesis was that the extent of environmental impact was likely to be greater at sites with higher annual arrivals and, if this was the case, that they would perceive sites with higher tourist numbers (and impact) to be more changed than those frequented less. Table 1. Study Sites and the Total Numbers of Tourists in 1994a Location (Sites)

Site No.

1994 Tourist Numbers

Bond Gapa Wallaby Gapa Redbank Gorgea Serpentine Gorge Ochre Pits Ellery Creek Bighole Ormiston Gorge Standley Chasm Glen Holm Gorge Simpson’s Gap

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

⬍1,000 ⬍1,000 25,428 29,059 46,552 83,621 102,196 >100,000 128,216 134,339

a

Marks sites where tourist numbers were not high enough for effective sampling.

856

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

Measuring the Extent of Environmental Impact There was a great variety in layout and topography among the western MacDonnell Ranges sites. To be compared, they were standardized by determining an area of “greatest likely tourism impact”. This area was within 20 m of the attractions themselves (typically waterbodies) and for 20 m either side of the main route(s) of traffic away from the attractions for approximately 70 m, usually one or more formally built walking tracks toward a carpark (Figure 2). Extent of environmental impact rather than severity was measured. This allowed the use of simple measures and gave an indicator of relative impact among sites, but sacrificed the ability to determine absolute measures of it. A second measure, called “intensity”, was also used to express the degree of concentration of impacts in space. The extent of influence within the area of “greatest likely tourism impact” was assessed by on site examination of a subsample of 30 2 m×2 m plots. At each plot the presence or absence of possible tourist impacts was recorded. Variable measured included shrub/tree dam-

Figure 2. The Environmental Sampling Plot Design at Ellery Creek Bighole

HILLERY, NANCARROW, GRIFFIN AND SYME

857

age, ground cover drainage, soil compaction, gullying, garbage, touristmade (informal) tracks, built (formal) tracks, feral animal sign, and several weed plant species. From these subplots an estimate of the overall area affected by each impact within the study reach was calculated. Plots were randomly located by placing a 10m×10m grid over low-level high-resolution aerial video imagery for each of the ten sites (acquired using the techniques and equipment described by Pickup, Chewings and Pearce 1995). Environmental sampling occurred in June and July 1997. Two indexes were calculated to express the level of tourism impact. The Index of Tourism Impact 1 (T1) was simply the number of plots in a site where one or more of the environmental impacts were present. This gave a simple measure of extent at a local scale. The Index of Tourism Impact 2 (T2) was the number of environmental impacts at each plot summed across the whole site. This gave a measure of overlap and intensity of impacts. For both indexes only variables directly attributable to tourism (not weed variables) were used, and for T2, only those variables that were not correlated among themselves (shrub damage, informal tracks, rubbish, and formal tracks) were used. Tourist perceptions were measured through a questionnaire delivered by a trained interviewer. This paper addresses the sections of the questionnaire that asked respondents, one, to rate the overall state of the environment in the region on a five point Likert scale from 1=poor through to 5=good; two, to rate the state of the environment at their particular location on a similar five point scale; three, to indicate whether they thought the condition of plants and ground/soil (including informal tracks, weeds, numbers of people, water quality, cattle and horses, and rubbish or litter) was the same, better, or worse at their particular location compared with the other areas they had visited, and to explain why they thought this; four, to explain what they thought they would do to ensure the best parts of the environment were still there in ten years time; and five, to nominate any major threats in the area that they thought needed attention. In two sample periods of May and August 1997, 324 users were interviewed. This was done mostly on site (only seven of the ten sites had daily arrivals high enough to allow efficient sampling). Others were interviewed while staying in Alice Springs before and after, or only after visiting the western Macdonnells. This was done in order to test for differences in perceptions depending on the time of the survey (but as there were no significant differences, this is not discussed any further here). Thirty visitors were interviewed at each site; those interviewed in Alice Springs were asked to choose a site that they had visited. Consequently the number of people giving responses for each site varies from 30 to 71, with most sites having more than 50 responses. In all places interviewers approached the third party after completion of the previous interview, each time varying the age and sex of the potential respondent addressed. The questionnaire was introduced as one investigating “touring, sightseeing, and other activities in this area, so that we can properly plan for the future”. It was also ensured that respondents were over the age of 15 and had visited at least two of the ten sites in the study area. Of the 426 eligible people

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

858

approached, 324 agreed to be interviewed, which represented a response rate of 76%. The most common reason for refusal was “no time” (39%), while “no English” accounted for 22%. A further 95 people were approached but were ineligible. Analyses were done using the statistical package Systat 6.0 for Windows (SPSS 1996) and STATISTICA 5.1 (Statsoft 1984–1998). Parametric tests were used for analyzing the relationships between environmental impact and annual number of arrivals. When relating changes in the proportion of responses to measured environmental impacts, direct relationships could not be measured due to the ordinal nature of the tourist data. Non-parametric tests were used to determine significant differences in distribution of responses but did not in themselves indicate the direction of these differences. These were ascertained by visual comparison. Environmental Impact and Tourist Numbers A relatively high proportion of plots across all 10 sites (0.316) were completely unaffected by any of the measured signs of environmental impact, which is noteworthy since the sampling occurred in areas predetermined to have the “likely highest tourism impact”. This proportion increased to 0.456 when impacts not directly related to tourism (weeds and feral animals) were disregarded. Table 2 shows that the most widespread impacts for all sites combined were the spread of tourist made

a

Gullying

Rubbish

Informal tracks

Formal tracks

Feral Animals

Buffel Grass

Rosy dock

Couch Grass

0.30 0.23 0.13 0.33 0.13 0.47 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.77 0.56 0.09 0.33

0.03 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.17 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.37 0.33 0.79 0.01 0.15

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.50 0.14 0.02

0.07 0.00 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.27 0.51 0.13 0.09

0.20 0.23 0.33 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.13 0.37 0.47 0.80 0.62 0.06 0.37

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.68 0.03 0.02

0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.20 0.58 0.03

0.40 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.33 0.37 0.29 0.19

0.20 0.57 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.15 0.68 0.13

0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.07 0.30 0.17 0.57 0.09 0.10

Index of Tourism Impact 2

Soil Compact

0.07 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.36 0.30 0.07

Index of Tourism Impact 1

Ground Cover Damage

1,000 1,000 25,428 29,059 46,552 83,621 100,000 102,196 128,216 134,339

Shrub Damage

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R value p value All sites

1994 Visitor Nos.

Site No.

Table 2. The Proportion of Plots Affected by each Environmental Variablea

14 12 16 13 13 21 10 14 22 11 0.26 0.47

10 10 14 10 12 26 13 14 17 39 0.66 0.04

R and p values are in relation to the 1994 tourist numbers (proportions were transformed by arcsine(x) before regressions were carried out). See definitions of the indexes of tourism impact in the text.

HILLERY, NANCARROW, GRIFFIN AND SYME

859

(“informal”) tracks and associated plant damage and soil compaction, and the presence of Cenchrus ciliaris L. (buffel grass), an exotic species. The variables most strongly related to annual arrival numbers were also those associated with tourist-made informal tracks (Table 2), which was close to being significantly related to user numbers itself (R=0.62, p=0.06). Soil compaction and groundcover damage (both significantly correlated with tourist-made tracks) also showed a positive relationship with annual arrival numbers. Other studies (Liddle 1975; Sun and Liddle 1993) have demonstrated increased trampling damage with successive passes along a track, but the authors are not aware of any studies that have examined the spatial spread of tracks with increasing visitation. Clearly, the spread of tourist-made tracks is a significant impact in these areas which, if managed now, while the impact is still relatively contained, could prevent serious deterioration of the sites with the passage of years and the potentially increasing number of users. Feral animals and weedy plants showed no relationship to annual tourist numbers, with the exception of Cynadon dactylon (couch grass), another introduced species. Both buffel grass and Acetosa vesicaria (rosy dock) were, however, correlated with distance from Alice Springs (r=⫺0.68, p⬍0.05 and r=⫺0.78, p⬍0.05, respectively). It is likely that the distribution of these two species is associated with disturbance processes in the catchment broader than the impacts of tourism alone, and consequently they are not confined to areas of highest likely use but also occur widely away from sites. Numerous weed species have been established and spread along the major river systems of Central Australia (Griffin 1993; Mitchell 1978). Couch grass on the other hand is likely to be associated with cattle (which historically have used the bigger waterbodies) and/or tourist spread. The environmental variables (excluding introduced species) were combined in the form of the two Indexes of Environmental Impact; T1 reflecting the extent of impacts with the site and T2, their intensity, as already noted. By these measures, the extent of area within a site affected by all measured tourism impacts (T1) was not related to annual number of users (Table 2), but the intensity of different impacts (T2) was (Figure 3). Parenthetically, some sites had lower values for T2 than T1, explained by the exclusion of variables that were correlated with informal tracks in the calculation of the second index. At first glance this result would appear to conflict with work done in campsites which found that over time impacts tend to increase through the proliferation of new locations and area expansion at old ones, rather than deterioration—through soil loss, compaction and plant damage—of established sites (Cole 1993). However, it is critical to consider the scale of the impacts being discussed in order to explain why these two findings may not be comparable. First, the current study measured only one point in time, and thus makes no comment on the rate of deterioration of sites, only the occurrence of tourism impacts in space. Second, the measurement in space assumed a fixed “area of greatest likely tourism impact” that was roughly comparable from site to site. This was set in a relative manner in order to overcome differences in layout and topography. It may be that there

860

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

See text for calculation of the Index of Tourism Impact T2 (R=0.66, p=0.04)

Figure 3. Relationship between Tourism Impact and Annual Tourist Numbers

is a difference in the extent of this area, independent of site specific layout, that has a relationship with the level of visitation. The results of this study are much more local and emphasize the importance of stating what is meant by environmental impact and at what scale. It is thus important to ask why the local extent of tourism impact (T1) was associated with tourist numbers. It is proposed that this is the result of a combination of site specific characters and the argument from the literature that most impact locally occurs under conditions of light usage. Beyond a particular level of use, little further damage is recorded until the scale of usage changes (Kuss and Hall 1991; Sun and Liddle 1993). Apart from sites 6 and 9, the values of T1 were all very similar. The prominence of these two locations was best explained by the lack of prominence of the intervening sites, 7, 8, and 10. Site 7 is in a very steep area making it difficult for tourist impact to spread very far; and sites 8 and 10 both have well designed formal pathways, as well as being the locations of rangers’ stations which manage good care of the area. On the other hand, T2 indicated that sites with higher annual user numbers tended to have a greater overlap of different types of impacts (intensity) within the area predefined as “likely to have impact”. Again, site specific characters drove variation from the overall trend. Tourist Perception The first part of the questionnaire sought to get a quantitative impression of tourist perception of the state of the environment at a chosen site and the general area (Figure 4a). Superficially the distributions of ratings at each site seem similar—overall, the majority of users rated most sites as “good” (Mode=5). In Figure 4, the sites are arranged along the x-axis in order of increasing measured environmental impact, as given by the index T2. From this one can see that respondents were more likely to give a lower rating at sites with a higher intensity of impacts. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to determine

HILLERY, NANCARROW, GRIFFIN AND SYME

861

See text for calculation of the Index of Tourism Impact T2. The y-axis in 4b shows the ratio of tourist rating of a site to their rating of the environment generating in the MacDonnell Ranges region.

Figure 4. Trend between Measured Environmental Impact and the Perception

whether there were any differences in the distributions among sites. The test statistic’s value (11.97; p⬍0.06, df=6) suggests that it is unlikely that all of the distributions came from the same population. The authors estimate that the changes in these distributions reflect a level of distinction among different levels of impact for about 25% of users. Figure 4b shows the ratio of rankings of a single site compared to those of the general area. Most ranked both the site and the general area similarly (a ratio of 1:1). Ratings above this indicated that they ranked a site as above average compared to the rest of the area. Unlike the “gut response” to the site, this ratio shows no relationship to T2, the intensity of impact. But the extent of impact (T1) can be different. In Figure 4b respondents identified the state of the environment at two of the sites as different from the their overall rating of the region.

862

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

The environment at site 4 was rated significantly better than the overall (Wilcoxon signed rank test, two-tailed probability computed from an approximate normal variate: Z=2.81; p=0.005, n=30), while the environment at site 9 was rated as significantly poorer (Wilcoxon signed rank test: Z=⫺2.238; p=0.006, n=34). Although there is no linear relationship between the ratio values for each site and T1, these two sites are at the extremes for measured extent of environmental impact. Site 9 in particular, while it gave a low value for intensity of impacts, is probably the one with the greatest degree of track spreading, which extends well out of the “area of greatest likely impact” and where there is no formal pathway to the waterbody. In this case, some respondents appear to perceive the extent of impact at this site as significantly different from other sites. Those interviewed were asked to assess whether the site they were at was “worse”, “the same”, or “better” (than other west MacDonnell locations they had visited) for several environmental factors (Table 3). The majority of respondents did not distinguish among sites for these factors: the response “the same” was the clear mode for all factors. There were some deviations from this, however, as shown by the highlighted cells of the table. The number of people at the site (crowding) was the variable most often responded to. Strong relationships between the number of people at a site and acceptability ratings have been previously demonstrated (Manning, Lime, Freimund and Pitt 1996), and this has been supported here. Sites of low annual user numbers tended to coincide with higher proportions of respondents perceiving the number of people to be “better” there. Interestingly site 9 also received this response, probably due to its more open spacious layout, compared with the other more popular sites. To a lesser degree, some respondents also distinguished among sites on the basis of tourist-made tracks and soil condition. In particular, site 9 was identified as “worse” for these variables by up to 40%, confirming the interpretation of Figure 4b. On the other hand site 10 was identified by 40% as being “better” for tracks and soil, despite showing a wide extent of these two variables by the measurement (Table 2). Here the scale of measurement is again at issue, as at this site a well built path begins just at the end of the “area of greatest likely impact”. While respondents based their impressions on the whole site, the study Table 3. Visitor Perceptions of Specific Environmental Impactsa

a Visitors nominated “worse”, “same”, or “better” for each environmental variable at the chosen site compared with other sites visited in the area. Sample sizes are shown in parentheses. Cells are highlighted with increasing proportion of tourists.

HILLERY, NANCARROW, GRIFFIN AND SYME

863

chose to limit measurements to a specified area for the sake of comparability. This is a difficult tradeoff in studies like this one. To the question “do you think there are any major threats to the environment in the area that should have special attention”, 53% responded positively and a further 11% said they were unsure (Table 4). Of the 201 who went on to list their reasons, 145 (72% of respondents, or at least 45% of all tourists) identified problems directly related to tourism and 89 (44% of respondents, or 27% of all tourists) specifically commented that there were too many users. The next most common issue was track spreading and vandalism. Although the impact of tourism was seen as the primary environmental issue in the study area, the effect of introduced plants and animals was also recognized as an important issue (28% of respondents, or 17% of all users). In total, 56% of respondents identified threats related to tourism and/or exotic species. A wide and detailed variety of management options was put forward by respondents in their answers to the question “If you’d like to make sure that the best parts of the environment were still here in 10 years Table 4. Threats to the Environment in the Western MacDonnells Areaa Perceived Threatsa Tourism Too many people Vandalism/erosion/track proliferation Lack of education/guides 4WDs Rubbish Development/roads/hotels Water quality Wildlife disturbance Plant damage Coaches/organized tours Need more rangers Exotic Plants and Animals Feral animals (e.g. cats, dogs) Cattle Introduced plants Unspecified (plant or animal) Broader Environmental Issues Greenhouse/climate change Development/industry/mining Fire Killing rabbits (effect on birds of prey) Acid rain Other Litter in Alice Springs/car bodies along roads Too many conservationists a

No. of Respondents 143 (71%) 89 40 15 10 11 9 5 4 4 4 3 56 (28%) 31 31 8 3 16 (8%) 2 3 10 1 1 3 (1%) 2 1

When asked if they thought there were any major threats to the environment in the area, 53.4% responded “yes” and 10.8% said they were not sure.

864

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

time and it was up to you, what would you do?”. After “keeping the status quo”, the most common responses to this question specifically addressed informal track spreading (40% of respondents), emphasizing the sensitivity of a significant minority of tourists to this issue. As to other points, there were no significant effects of time of survey (during, after, reinterview after) on perceptions of the environment, indicating that the judgements about it are carried from the site at least for a limited period. There were also no major differences in environmental perceptions on the basis of tour type, mode of transport, or for a comparison between overseas and Australian tourists. Local residents were more likely to rate the state of the environment at a particular site lower than did non-local tourists, but rated the state of the environment in the overall region highly. Local users have shown greater sensitivity to environmental impacts compared with nonlocals in some studies (Holdnak et al 1993), although others have shown few differences between tourists and the broader resident population living around a destination (Dowling 1993). Conversely, on the specific issues of cattle grazing in a national forest, Mitchell, Wallace and Wells (1996) found that local and rural users were more tolerant. However, this result is likely to be related to an urban/rural dichotomy in attitudes towards landuse. As an added point, the major demographics of survey respondents indicated that tourists to the west MacDonnell ranges typically drove their own vehicles, camped or caravaned, visited Central Australia for at least a week, had completed college education, often had previous experience of arid areas, and were Australian. CONCLUSION An increase in environmental impacts along with a growth in tourist use has been previously shown for many types of environmental impacts, including soil compaction, campsite proliferation and erosion, and plant damage (Cole 1987, 1989; Cole and Landres 1996; Liddle 1975, 1988). In the west MacDonnell Ranges, environmental impacts were still not very widespread, even in the areas most likely to be affected. Yet an increasing relationship between this influence and tourist numbers was measured, in extent for some impact types considered alone, and in intensity for them considered together. The extent of impacts considered together was not related to arrival numbers, but this was in context of the spread of impacts in a limited area predefined as “likely to be affected”, rather than for the total area, which is expected to more closely relate to visitation. Previous studies on perceptions of the environmental impacts have often concluded that tourists are not very perceptive of their own effects on the visited natural areas, or that what they do notice are primarily the direct impacts (like rubbish and vandalism) of other tourists (Lucas 1979; Manning 1985; Marion and Lime 1986). This study found that many tourists to the west MacDonnell ranges did not distinguish in either a general sense, or for specific environmental impacts, between the site that they were at and other sites visited in

HILLERY, NANCARROW, GRIFFIN AND SYME

865

the area, despite a measurable increase in deterioration at sites with higher annual user numbers. To this extent, the results are consistent with previous work. The study departed from the conclusions of many previous ones, however, by considering the varying levels of perception of environmental impact among the tourists to this area. This can be viewed as a matter of degree, ranging from the broadest understanding of general environmental issues down to the perception of immediate site conditions and impacts. Among the survey respondents, 56% were aware of relevant environmental threats (tourism or introduced species), and 45% listed a threat associated with tourism. Further, 40% identified management options to address track spreading and erosion, the major environmental impact identified by this study. It is estimated (Figure 4) that at least 25% of tourists distinguished between sites on the basis of accumulating impact types present, and a smaller but significant group could identify specific impacts of concern at extreme sites. Even with a relatively constrained sample size, a number of interesting trends have been detected. The differences from the conclusions of previous work could be explained by the design of this survey, which, by focusing in detail on specific localized environmental issues, may have been more sensitive to the varying perception levels. An increasing awareness of environmental issues among nature tourists over the past 20 years may also explain some of the differences. A study in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex recorded changes in attitudes to the environment which implied increasing awareness over the period 1970 to 1982 (Lucas 1985:1). Jurowski, Uysal, Williams and Noe (1995:83) found that “ecocentric” (as opposed to “anthrocentric”) tourists to Biscayne Bay National Park were more likely to be younger, suggesting that the former views may become more common in the future. In one sense, tourists to natural areas present a potential paradox. They see tourism as a threat, and yet they want to be able to visit such natural areas. Future research could aim to quantify responses to specific environmental issues (since many of this study’s questions were open ended); investigate the point at which these environmental impact issues become critical in terms of changing tourist location choice; and look at how to manage these areas in the context of the critical level of environmental impact for user satisfaction, other competing management objectives, and equity of tourist access.왎 Acknowledgements—The authors acknowledge the assistance of many operators in Alice Springs, the Central Australian Tourism Industry Association, and the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory for assistance in conducting the survey. The rangers at Simpson’s Gap and Ormiston Gorge deserve special mention for their interest and help. Thanks also to Sue Raggatt, Penelope Bowen, Jody Galvin, and Jeff CameronSmith who conducted the interviews; and Louise Kuchel, Trevor Hobbs, and Janine Kinloch for their assistance in the environmental survey. David Albrecht, herbarium of PWCNT southern region, provided assistance in identifying some plant specimens. Mark Stafford Smith, Dick Braithwaite, and Paul Reynolds gave helpful comment on the paper, and Craig James provided much timely advice on final polish. This project was funded by the Multi-Divisional Program on Tourism within CSIRO.

866

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PERCEPTIONS

REFERENCES Budowski, G. 1976 Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence or Symbiosis? Environmental Conservation 3(1):27–31. Butler, R. W. 1980 The Concept of a Tourist Area Cycle of Evolution: Implications for Management of Resources. Canadian Geographer 24:34672. Cole, D. N. 1987 Research on Soil and Vegetation in Wilderness: A State-of-Knowledge Review. Proceedings of National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions, pp. 135–177. Ogden UT: US Department of Agriculture. 1989 Recreation Ecology: What We Know, What Geographers Can Contribute. Professional Geographer 41(2):143–148. 1993 Research Paper INT-463. Ogden UT: US Department of Agriculture. Cole, D. N., and P. B. Landres 1996 Threats to Wilderness Ecosystems: Impacts and Research Needs. Ecological Applications 6(1):168–184. Dearden, P., and S. Harron 1994 Alternative Tourism and Adaptive Change. Annals of Tourism Research 21:81–102. Doggart, C., and N. Doggart 1996 Occasional Studies: Environmental Impacts of Tourism in Developing Countries. Travel and Tourism Analyst 2:71–86. Dowling, R. K. 1993 Tourist and Resident Perceptions of the Environment: Tourism Relationship in the Gascoyne Region, Western Australia. GeoJournal 29(3):243–251. Downing, K., and R. N. Clark 1976 Users and Managers Perceptions of Dispersed Recreation Impacts: A Focus on Roaded Forest Lands. The Recreational Impact on Wildlands conference Proceedings, pp. 18–23. Portland OR: The US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Drost, A. 1996 Developing Sustainable Tourism for World Heritage Sites. Annals of Tourism Research 23:479–484. Goldsmith, F. B. 1974 Ecological Effects of Visitors in the Countryside. In Conservation in Practice, A. Warren and F. B. Goldsmith, eds., pp. 217–231. London: Wiley. Griffin, G. F. 1993 The Spread of Buffel Grass in Inland Australia: Land Use Conflicts. Proceedings of the 10th Australian and 14th Asian Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, Brisbane, pp. 501–504. Brisbane: The Weed Society of Queensland. Hammitt, W. E., R. D. Bixler, and F. P. Noe 1996 Going Beyond Importance-Performance Analysis To Analyze the Observance: Influence of Park Impacts. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 14(1):45–62. Holdnak, A., E. B. Drogin, A. R. Graefe, and J. M. Falk 1993 A Comparison of Residential and Visitor Attitudes toward Experiential Impacts: Environmental Conditions and Management Strategies on the Delaware Inland Bays. Visions in Leisure and Business 12(3):11–23. Jurowski, C., M. Uysal, D. R. Williams, and F. P. Noe 1995 An Examination of Preferences and Evaluations of Visitors Based on Environmental Attitudes: Biscayne Bay National Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3(2):73–86. Kuss, F. R., and C. N. Hall 1991 Ground Flora Trampling Studies: Five Years After Closure. Environmental Management 15:715–727. Lee, R. G. 1975 Final Research Report, Prepared for the Yosemite Institute, Yosemite

HILLERY, NANCARROW, GRIFFIN AND SYME

867

National Park CA. San Francisco: The US Department of the Interior National Park Service. Liddle, M. J. 1975 A Selective Review of the Ecological Effects of Human Trampling on Natural Ecosystems. Biological Conservation 7:17–36. 1988 Recreation and the Environment: The Ecology of Recreation Impacts. AES working paper 1/88. Brisbane, Australia: The Griffith University School of Australian Environmental Studies. Lucas, R. C. 1979 Perceptions of Non-Motorized Recreational Impacts: A Review of Research Findings. The Recreational Impact on Wildlands, conference proceedings, pp. 24–31. Portland OR: The US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1985 Research Paper INT-345. Ogden UT: The US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Manning, R. E. 1985 Descriptive Aspects of Outdoor Recreation: Attitudes, Preferences, Perceptions. In Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction, R. E. Manning, ed., pp. 27–41. Corvalis OR: Oregan State University Press. Manning, R. E., D. W. Lime, W. A. Freimund, and D. G. Pitt 1996 Crowding Norms At Frontcountry Sites: A Visual Approach to Setting Standards of Quality. Leisure Sciences 18:39–59. Marion, J. L., and D. W. Lime 1986 Recreational Resource Impacts: Visitor Perceptions and Management Responses. In Wilderness and Natural Areas in the Eastern United States: A Management Challenge, D. L. Kulhavy and R. N. Conner, eds., pp. 229–235. Austin TX: Austin State University Center for Applied Studies. Martin, B. S., and M. Uysal 1990 An Examination of the Relationship between Carrying Capacity and the Tourism Lifecycle: Management and Policy Implications. Journal of Environmental Management 31:327–333. Martin, S. R., S. F. McCool, and R. C. Lucas 1989 Wilderness Campsite Impacts: Do Managers and Visitors See Them the Same? Environmental Management 13:623–629. Merriam, L. C. Jr., and C. K. Smith 1974 Visitor Impact on Newly Developed Campsites in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Journal of Forestry 72(10):627–630. Mitchell, J. E., G. N. Wallace, and M. D. Wells 1996 Visitor Perceptions about Cattle Grazing on National Forest Land. Journal of Range Management 49:81–86. Nelson, J. G. 1993 Third International Symposium on Tourism, Ecology and Municipalities. Environmental Conservation 20:373–374. Pickup, G., V. H. Chewings, and G. Pearce 1995 Procedures for Correcting High Resolution Airborne Video Imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing 16:1647–1662. SPSS 1996 SYSTAT 6.0 for Windows. Tulsa OK: SPSS. Statsoft 1984–1998 STATISTICA 5.1. Chicago: Statsoft Inc. Sun, D., and M. J. Liddle 1993 A Survey of Trampling Effects on Vegetation and Soil in Eight Tropical and Subtropical Sites. Environmental Management 17(4):497–510.

Submitted 26 August 1998. Resubmitted 16 December 1998. Resubmitted 27 March 2000. Accepted 14 April 2000. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: John J. Pigram