dolphin watching tourism in Taiwan

Marine Policy 35 (2011) 10–17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

From catching to watching: Moving towards quality assurance of whale/dolphin watching tourism in Taiwan Chung-Ling Chen a,b,n a b

Institute of Ocean Technology and Marine Affairs, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1 University Road, Tainan City 701, Taiwan Department of Marine Leisure Management, National Kaohsiung Marine University, No. 142 Haijhuan Road, Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan

a r t i c l e in f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 15 May 2010 Received in revised form 4 June 2010 Accepted 15 July 2010

Taiwan has shifted from harvesting whales and dolphins to protecting all cetacean species since 1990. Whales and dolphins have become major tourist attractions. With an eye on foreseeable future growth and increasing concerns about environmental impact, service delivery, and educational efficacy, the government seeks to achieve the overall quality assurance of whale/dolphin watching tourism by introducing an ecolabelling program. The aim of this study is to examine this program by analyzing its impact on tour operators and visitors. A survey method was used to assess the impact. The results showed that the program is having a positive impact on operators by seeking environmental sustainability and has brought about educational benefits for visitors, including: site-based knowledge, awareness of marine conservation and reinforcing intentions to perform environmentally responsible behaviors. However, money cost is a major factor discouraging tour operator’s participation, even though ecolabels help to construct an image of responsibility. With potential educational benefits for visitors in mind, the study highlights the need for increasing public awareness of the program, expanding marketing of ecolabelled products, and providing economic incentives for tour operators to engage in ecolabelling. & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Whale/dolphin watching tourism Ecolabelling Environmental responsibility Taiwan

1. Introduction In 1982, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) introduced a moratorium on commercial whaling effective from the 1985/1986 whaling season. In 1993, the IWC adopted a first resolution on whale watching that declared its desire to encourage further development of whale watching as a sustainable use of cetacean resources [1]. These two resolutions reflect a growing societal awareness of conservation and non-consumptive use of cetacean resources. Even though the moratorium remains in force today, the debate over whaling is still fiercely contended and continues to be one of the world’s most high-profile environmental issues [2]. Compared to whaling, whale watching is much less controversial and has gained wide support from the international community largely due to its non-consumptive use of cetacean resources. This industry has grown from humble beginnings in the 1950s to become an almost universal human passion. The subjects watched include the large species of whales and the smaller species of dolphins and porpoises. In 2008, the industry has continued to grow strongly with thirteen million people participating in 119 countries and territories located at all five continents, generating a total expenditure of US$ 2.1 billion. The average

n

Tel.: + 886-6-2757575; fax: +886 7 364 6214. E-mail address: [email protected]

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.07.002

growth rate of this industry is 3.7% per year, comparing well against global tourism growth of 4.2% over the same period [3]. It is argued that whale watching generates many benefits, including: providing valuable income to communities, fostering visitors’ appreciation of marine conservation, and offering a platform for researchers to study cetaceans [4]. However, while cetaceans have become popular resources for tourist use, there are increasing concerns regarding the negative impact whale watching may have on whales. The detrimental impact on the target animals could compromise the considerable economic and educational promise of whale watching tourism [5]. In addition, there is increasing understanding that to be economically and socially sustainable, tourism must also be environmentally sustainable [6]. Literature relevant to the environmental impact of whale/dolphin watching frequently mentions disturbance impact. Disturbance from the close approach of boats has been identified as a conservation concern for the cetacean population since it may alter whale behaviors. Behavioral reactions include changes in travelling direction, travelling path, travelling speed, feeding time, surfacing intervals, and displacement from the disturbance area [5,7–11]. Concern for environmental sustainability of whale/ dolphin watching tourism has led to a plethora of guidelines in recent years, notably in codes of conducts [12]. Guidelines typically include restrictions on the number of boats in close proximity, boat speed limit, minimum approach distances, boat approach patterns, and allowed and non-allowed interacting patterns with whales. It

C.-L. Chen / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 10–17

stands to reason that proper management of whale/dolphin watching tourism to minimize the environmental impact is essential for the sustainable development of this industry. In addition to the aspect of environmental impact elucidated in the above literature, numerous studies in other fields examine other aspects of whale/dolphin watching. These aspects include: community-based management through ecotourism in Mexico [13], sustainability of the industry in Scotland [14], environmental education [15,16], and visitor motivation [17] in New Zealand, visitor expectations and experiences in Australia [18], and tradeoffs between whaling and whale watching [19–21]. Each study contributes to a better understanding of whale/dolphin watching. These aspects are economically, socially, educationally, managerially, or environmentally related. This paper aims to add to the preceding studies by presenting the Taiwanese efforts to pursue quality assurance of whale/dolphin watching. Taiwan, as one of the world’s whale/dolphin watching spots in the West Pacific, shifted in 1990 from harvesting whales and dolphins to protecting all cetacean species. Due to a reliable aggregation of cetaceans (predominantly dolphins with some whales) found on the east coast of Taiwan and a governmental policy to promote fisheries diversification into tourism, whale/dolphin watching tourism was developed in the late 1990s. As this industry has grown, in terms of fishing boats involved and participating visitors, the government has recognized that whale/dolphin watching should be conducted in such a way that environmental sustainability will be ensured, positive visitor experience enhanced and visitors’ understanding and appreciation of the marine environment fostered in order to enhance the overall quality service of the trip; the ecolabelling program, commonly employed in tourism [22], functions as a quality assurance mechanism to satisfy these needs. The purpose of this study was to examine this program in the Taiwanese context by investigating its impact on tour operators and visitors. The management implications inferred from the program will also be discussed. It is hoped that the insights offered by this paper will contribute positively towards the management of whale/dolphin watching tourism.

2. From catching to watching

south (between 15–30 1N and 120–155 1E) to catch Berde’s whales. This period lasted only five years, from 1976 to 1980, since whaling attracted global attention and Taiwan, which was not a member of the IWC, was under tremendous pressure from the United States to stop commercial whaling or at least restrict whaling activity. In 1981, after consulting with various authorities, the fisheries administration stopped whaling and revoked all whaling permits, putting a final end to the whaling industry. The whaling catch data is shown in Table 1. Though the data is incomplete, it solidly indicates that there used to be an abundance of large whales migrating through the southern waters of Taiwan. However, recent research rarely documents whales in such areas, indicating that large species of whales might have been overexploited in the past. Although whaling has been outlawed since 1981, fishers continued to harvest small species of dolphins. Perhaps due to the taste being similar to that of pork, dolphins are nicknamed ‘sea pigs’ by local fishers, and like other catches, are traded and cooked in local villages. The catch data was rarely recorded, but consuming dolphins was normal and a non-controversial issue in Taiwan. However, as cetacean conservation sentiment rose in the West in the 1970s, Taiwanese society began to examine the issues of dolphin killing and consumption. In particular, the driftnet fisheries in the North Pacific, operated by the Taiwanese, Korean, and Japanese industries, were severely blamed for accidentally catching dolphins and salmons in the 1980s, culminating in a global moratorium adopted by the United Nations (the Resolution 46/215) on all large-scale high seas driftnet fishing by 31 December 1992 [25]. The pro-dolphin conservation rhetoric has steadily increased in intensity in Taiwan, reaching its highest point when the conventional dolphin harvesting in Shagong of the Penghu islets, was broadcasted internationally in the spring of 1990 [26]. The media release put Taiwan under fire for the brutal, inhumane destruction of marine mammals. In facing such a high-profile environmental issue, the government had no choice but to take a drastic measure to protect all cetacean animals by Table 1 Historical whale catch in Taiwan. Sources: [23, 24] First period

1

Before developing whale/dolphin watching tourism, Taiwan had engaged in whaling and viewed whales as consumable resources. The whaling industry was introduced by Japan in 1920 when Taiwan was a Japanese colony (between 1895 and 1945). Whaling in Taiwan was small scale, conducted off the coast of Hengchuen Peninsula, the southern tip of Taiwan. The timeline for the development of the whaling industry can be roughly segmented into three periods: 1920–1942, 1955–1969, and 1976–1980. The first period ended when the Second World War broke out in the Pacific. After the war was over and Japan no longer ruled over Taiwan, whaling was carried out again, but this time, by Taiwanese-owned fishing companies, recruiting Japanese crews in the second period. During this period, the Taiwanese government was also involved in whaling by building a whaling fishing boat which was used as a patrol boat as well. Though both the private and public sectors sought to resume whaling during the post-war period, it was perhaps the declining harvests and decreasing demand for whale meat in local markets that led to the industry dying out again. The harvests during these two periods consisted mostly of blue whales, fin whales, sei whales, humpback whales, sperm whales, and killer whales. In the third period, whaling resumed again with four fishing boats venturing further 1

11

Much information of this paragraph is excerpted from [23, 24].

Second period

Year

Counts

Year

Tons

1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934

29 43 45 44 54 45 48 56 57 61 47 39 40 30 17

1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969

5 5 56 179 214 – 73 – 2 0 67 58 23 5 10

1935

33

Third period

1936

20

Year

Tons/Counts

1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942

22 17 9 10 7 6

1976–1980

2439/450

12

C.-L. Chen / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 10–17

law, in order to alleviate international blames, because of Taiwan’s disadvantaged political position. With stringent regulations imposed, dolphin harvesting, a long existing activity in local villages, vanished into history. However, fishers frequently argue that dolphins eat too many fish, interfere with fishing operation, destroy fishing gear, and are plentiful enough to sustain regulated harvests [26–28]. They desire liberal regulations to allow for fishing. In addition, other countries, such as Japan, permit dolphin catching [29]. Despite such arguments, the prohibition of dolphin killing remains in force today. Perhaps it is the notion of killing and eating dolphins against normative moral concerns that has kept the government from relaxing regulations. Since harvesting cetacean resources was banned in 1990, concerns have surfaced in regard to the research and conservation of these animals. A 1998 research found a reliable sighting of whales (mostly dolphins) on the east coast of Taiwan [30]. This indicates that whale/dolphin watching may develop into a tourist attraction and provide fishers with alternative activities. In response to this opportunity, the government amended regulations allowing certain fishing boats to take tourists out to the sea to watch whales and dolphins, remodeled dock facilities in fishing harbors, and offered loans at low interest rates for boat owners. Moreover, the government subsidized training programs for fishers who were engaged in whale/dolphin watching to enhance their business skills, professional knowledge, and environmental conservation awareness. These measures are part of the governmental policy to diversify fisheries into tourism.2 This diversification policy was initiated in the early 1990s when offshore fisheries faced a serious downturn and the government perceived the need to restructure this declining industry and search for alternative income and employment in coastal areas where traditional fishery industries had declined. To implement this policy, the government adopted several measures, such as revising/stipulating regulations and financing projects to create an environment suitable for diversifying fisheries into tourism. Whale/dolphin watching is a result of this policy. The first whale/dolphin watching cruise set off in 1997. Perhaps due to visitor’s curiosity to watch whales/dolphins in their natural habitats and the rise in the demand for leisure opportunities induced by rising disposable income and increasing leisure time, the whale/dolphin watching industry has grown significantly in terms of visitor volume and financial value over the past ten years. It grew from a minor activity with only three boats involved and 10,000 tourists in 1997 to a popular outdoor marine recreational activity with 25 boats and 230,000 tourists in 2008. The economic benefits generated in 2008 were estimated at NT$ 1.2 billion (33 NT$A1US$) [34], greatly contributing to the revival of local communities [35]. There are three major fishing harbors providing regular cruises to cater to mostly domestic visitors during the whale/dolphin watching season, which lasts from May to late September. The duration of each cruise is around two and a half hours. Frequently sighted whales are the spinner dolphin, the Pantrophical spotted dolphin, the Risso’ dolphin, the Fraser’ dolphin, the bottlenose dolphin, the common dolphin, the killer whale, the false killer whale, the short-finned pilot whale, the dwarf sperm whale, and the sperm whale [36]. In winter, cruises are suspended due to rough sea conditions created by the northeast monsoon.

2 Diversifying fisheries into tourism is also seen in other parts of the world. For example, fishers in Bahia de los Angeles, Mexico have become local service providers and are engaged in whale shark ecotourism [31]. Korean fishing communities embrace tourism (e.g. fishers open their fishing grounds to tourists, take them fishing and diving) because of its income generating capability in light of declining fishing resources and consequent out-migration [32,33].

Nowadays, whales and dolphins have become a significant addition to tourism resources. Whale/dolphin watching is a common activity included in the package and independent tours in eastern Taiwan. The industry is growing steadily with the rising demand for marine recreation in the domestic market. Moreover, a growing number of visitors from mainland China participate in this activity during their stay in Taiwan. This is a result of the liberal cross-strait policy initiated by the new government in 2008 to promote cross-strait exchanges, which encourages tourists from China to visit Taiwan.3 In response to this policy, the fisheries authority has relaxed regulations to allow tourists from China to board fishing boats and enjoy whale/dolphin watching.4

3. Management of whale/dolphin watching—the ecolabelling program In Taiwan, whale/dolphin watching boats are one kind of fishing boats5 and are operated under a permit issued by fisheries authorities. These boats are subject to general regulations similarly imposed on fishing boats and special regulations regarding recreational fisheries. However, no regulations are exclusively imposed on whale/dolphin watching activities; the ecolabelling program thus fills this gap. Ecolabelling in tourism is becoming internationally common [37]. It is one of the quality assurance tools (along with awards of excellence, codes of conduct, and monitoring and evaluation) that has been developed and applied in the ecotourism industry to address and improve the quality. For achieving quality tourism, all of the key principles: natural area focus, environmental sustainability, interpretation/education, return to local communities, and cultural sensitivity must be promoted, with the negative impacts of tourism minimized and the positive impacts maximized [38]. Since the first ecolabel (the Blue Flag Campaign) was initiated in 1985, tourism ecolabels have been developed worldwide, including over 100 ecolabels for tourism hospitality and ecotourism [39]. With numerous ecolabels, no universal model exists, however, and few labels specifically refer to whale/dolphin watching tourism. With the increasing recognition of ecolabels, the government in Taiwan began following this trend to manage whale/dolphin watching tourism in 2003. The ecolabelling program acts as a quality assurance mechanism, setting quality standards for the industry to follow in order to achieve environmental sustainability, facilitate visitors’ understanding and appreciation of the marine environment, and foster positive visitor experience. This program is not a regulatory tool, but rather a voluntary initiative. The reasons are as follows. First, compared to the regulatory tool, the program requires less cost of management, administration, and enforcement. Second, ‘guidance’ is better than ‘immediate enforcement’ for a newly developing industry. Third, regulations would be difficult to check. With financing and guidance from authorities, the program was steered by a working group of the 3 Soon after the new government taking office in May 2008, on 13th June 2008, two agreements were signed between China and Taiwan, including the ‘Minutes of Talks on Cross-Strait Charter Flights’ and the ‘Cross-Strait Agreement on Travel by Mainland Residents to Taiwan’, which have generated a flow of tourists from China to Taiwan. 4 Article 5 of the ‘Regulation on the Management of Recreational Fisheries’. 5 The fishing boats used for whale/dolphin watching are in general not equipped with fishing gear for commercial fishing. They are structured along similar lines to a yacht, which can carry passengers and sail faster than traditional fishing boats. These boats, thought like yachts, are subject to the management of fisheries authorities and must acquire official permission before taking tourists to the sea.

C.-L. Chen / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 10–17

Taiwan Cetacean Society (TCS). The group consisted of TCS members, fisheries officials and academic experts, and environmental organizations. The TCS is the only non-governmental organization dedicated to the conservation of cetacean resources as well as promotion of public awareness and education of cetaceans and the marine environment in Taiwan. The program, though modified several times, contains four major parts: service delivery, environmental education, environmental impact, and sustainable initiatives. Service delivery helps visitors to feel safe and comfortable during the trip by requiring tour operators to provide certain tangible and intangible items. The former includes: safety guides, safety vests, fire hydrants, and broadcasting equipments that can produce clear announcements, and whale-watching boats that feature comfortable design and provide a good view so that visitors may watch whales/dolphins from an appropriate angle. The latter includes: employees’ positive attitude and immediate response to visitors’ inquiries, on-the-job service quality and emergency rescue training. Environmental education enhances tourists’ knowledge and increases awareness of cetacean conservation and the marine environment. It focuses on exhibiting information related to marine environment and whales/dolphins, the practice of environmental behaviors (such as reducing and sorting waste, saving water, prohibiting smoking, feeding whales/dolphins, and dumping garbage at sea), and interpretation. Interpretation is the most important component of this part in terms of the scores assigned. It assists visitors to appreciate the area they are visiting, including an understanding and awareness of the natural environment [40]. The interpretation takes place in two stages: pre-visit and duringvisit. Pre-visit information involves learning about whale biology, the whale watching industry, the marine environment around Taiwan, and tour-related information. In the during-visit stage, interpreters focus on observing and identifying whales, whale behavior, and the appropriate ways that boats should approach whales. The concern for environmental impact requires minimizing disturbance to whales/dolphins. A number of boat approach guidelines were set in line with the codes of conduct practiced in other parts of the world [12]. The guidelines include: that vessels move slowly within a specified distance to whales/dolphins, remain less than 20 min during whale/dolphin watching, approach whales/dolphins from behind, and do not directly cross the whales/dolphins’ travel path, or separate them, and that no more than two vessels stay in the same area at the same time. Sustainable initiatives enhance industry contribution to scientific research, the local economy, and environmental conservation. This part verifies whether tour operator helps to document species and number of whales/dolphins sighted at the sea, carry scientists on board to do research, appropriate a certain amount of revenue or sponsor environmental conservation campaigns, provide job opportunities, and train local people as interpreters. Each part includes several items and every item has a range of scores. The total of the highest scores of all items is 100 points. Environmental education and impact have more points than the other two parts do, indicating that the program is concerned more with educational efficacy and environmental sustainability. For tour operators who intend to participate in the program, they need to file applications and submit a certain amount of fees to the TCS. The committee reviews the application documents and arranges tours, including both those unknown and known to tour operators, to do on-site examination and interviews with tour operators in order to examine how well the applying boats perform on each item. Based on the total scores obtained for each boat and whether any serious boat approach patterns have been made, the committee decides whether or not the applying boat is

13

to be certified. The ecolabel certification is valid for two years. In 2009, there were nine ecolabelled boats, comprising about onethird of all whale/dolphin watching boats.

4. Assessing the impact of the ecolabelling program This section assesses the impact of the ecolabelling program on tour operators and visitors. The assessment helps in examining the extent of the fulfillment of the program’s purpose. To conduct the assessment, we asked the following two questions: (1) Do tour operators follow the guidelines set out in the program no matter whether or not they applied for ecolabels? (2) Do visitors with ecolabelling tour experience learn more, have greater enjoyment, and reveal higher intention to act in environmentally responsible ways than visitors with nonecolabelling tour experience? Two sets of questionnaires centered on these questions. One is for tour operators to understand their response to the program. The other is for visitors to explore if there are any educational benefits brought from the ecolabelling tour experience, specifically to investigate the differences in environmental knowledge, awareness, and behavioral intentions between visitors after ecolabelling and non-ecolabelling tour experience. It is noted that while non-ecolabelled boats may also follow guidelines, their overall service performance is not reviewed by the committee, as are ecolabelled boats. The tour experience of these two kinds of boats may differ. Therefore, this study assumes that the ecolabelling tour experience will enable visitors to learn more, obtain greater understanding, and reveal a stronger intention to act in environmentally responsible ways. This assumption is based on traditional thinking of environmental education and Moscardo’s mindfulness model. The former argues that we can change the behavior by making human beings more knowledgeable about the environment and its associated issues [41]. The latter specifies that effective interpretation is an important factor in determining whether or not visitors will be mindful or mindless after their tour experience [42]. Mindful visitors will more likely enjoy their visit, learn more from their visit, be interested in discovering more about a topic or issue, and more likely change their attitudes and behaviors than mindless visitors. 4.1. Impact on tour operators This study used a survey questionnaire containing six questions with a dichotomous scale to elicit tour operators’ views toward the program and administered through face-to-face interviews in the summer of 2008. Each operator works for a whale/dolphin watching company. Twelve tour operators, representing most of the active operators, participated in the survey. The survey results showed that all of them approved the program. Only half applied for ecolabels. For voluntarily following the guidelines set out in the program, all respondents were unequivocally affirmative with the part of environmental impact but 75%, 67%, and 33% with the parts of service delivery, environmental education, and sustainable initiatives, respectively. For the factors that hinder operators from applying for ecolabels, 83%, 50%, and 50% agreed to money cost, effort cost, and time cost, respectively. For the motivating factors, 92% and 33% agreed to ‘ecolabels building an image of responsibility’ and ‘ecolabelled tours having greater market advantage than non-ecolabelled ones’, respectively. None of respondents intended to raise fares for ecolabelled tours. Table 2 provides a summary of results.

14

C.-L. Chen / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 10–17

Table 2 Tour operators’ response to the ecolabelling program. Questions

Percentage

Do you approve of the ecolabelling program? Do you apply for the ecolabels for your whale/dolphin watching boats? No matter you apply for the ecolabels or not, which part of guidelines in the program you will voluntarily follow? a. Part of service delivery b. Part of environmental education c. Part of environmental impact d. Part of substantial initiatives What factors might hinder you from applying for ecolabels? a. Money cost b. Effort cost c. Time cost What factors might motivate you to apply for ecolabels? a. Ecolabels building an image of responsibility b. Ecolabelled tours having greater market advantage than non-ecolabelled ones Do you intend to increase fares for ecolabelled tours?

100 50

75 100 67 33 83 50 50 92 33 0

4.2. Impact on visitors 4.2.1. Methods This study used a survey questionnaire consisting of three parts to collect information from visitors. The first part included questions on demographic information, travel behaviors, and acquaintance with the program. The second part focused on tourists’ knowledge and awareness of the marine environment and whale related information, and tour satisfaction. The third part measured the intention to act on environmental behaviors. All of the questions were revised and finalized based on feedback from three experts responsible for marine recreation and fishery management and a pilot sample of five postgraduate students who had attended whale/dolphin watching trips. For obvious reasons, the survey was conducted in Taiwan and some adjustments to the questions were made to cater to local circumstances. The survey research was set in the Hualien fishing harbor that offers both ecolabelling and non-ecolabelling cruises on a regular basis. Only visitors who had watched a number of whales/dolphins at sea during the trips were sampled. The reason is two-fold. One is that the ‘whales/dolphins watched’ during the trip is an important influence on passenger enjoyment [17]. This suggests that the factor of sighting whales/dolphins might confound the results, particularly the level of satisfaction, which this study seeks to explore. The other is that if no whales/dolphins were watched, visitors would not have had the chance to see and learn how boats should approach whales/dolphins to diminish disturbance, or how interpreters on board conveyed message regarding whales/dolphins species and behaviors. A two-group posttest quasi-experimental deign6 [43] was used to measure the impacts of ecolabelling tour experience between the subsamples. One subsample comprised the tourists who had attended ecolabelling tours (hence referred to as an ecolabel subsample or ecolabel visitors); while the other consisted of the tourists who attended non-ecolabelling tours (hence referred to as a

6 The two-group posttest design is preferred to the one-group pre–post design for two reasons. One is that while the latter might be evaluated more objectively, this approach seems desirable only in a situation that is easily manipulated by researchers. For practical reasons, it is hard to manipulate the same tourists to accept measurements before and after their trip, given they are free to come and go. The other is the concern about the threat of reactivity in the latter design. Asking people about their knowledge, awareness, and behavioral intentions is likely to focus their attention on these variables and any increased knowledge, awareness, and intentions become a response to completing the survey rather than the ecolabelling tour experience.

non-ecolabel subsample or non-ecolabel visitors). As for sampling, the purposive sampling method was first used to select trips during which whales/dolphins had been watched. The convenience sampling method was then employed to select visitors participating in those trips. From May to September 2007, the interviewers spotted the ‘right’ cruises and approached visitors when they returned to the harbor. The visitors aged eighteen or older and willing to participate in the survey, were given questionnaires to record their opinions. A sample of 745 visitors completed the questionnaires. This sample was then separated into two subsamples. One had 361 respondents with ecolabelling tour experience. The other had 384 respondents with non-ecolabelling tour experience. Overall, the two subsamples had similar profiles, except for two characteristics: gender and income. Most of the two subsamples were aged 25–34, had graduated from university or college, were not members of environmental organizations, were first-time visitors, traveled with family, and were not acquainted with the program. It is worth noting that a low percentage of respondents in the ecolabel subsample (30%) and non-ecolabel subsample (26%) were acquainted with the program, indicating its slight market penetration. A series of cross-tabulations, chi-square tests, and t-tests were then conducted to explore the similarities and dissimilarities between the two subsamples on visitors’ knowledge, awareness, enjoyment, and behavioral intention.

4.2.2. Results As for knowledge and awareness, the ecolabel visitors had a high propensity for knowing the items relating to the marine environment and whale/dolphin information. In contrast, the non-ecolabel visitors presented mixed results. Specifically, some items were known by the majority of respondents; while some not. Chi-square tests indicated that there were significantly more respondents of the ecolabel subsample than the non-ecolabel subsample in knowing four of the seven items. These items were: I know that whales move with their fluke swaying vertically rather than horizontally (chi-square¼123.952 p o0.05), I know that there are two kinds of whales: baleen whales and toothed whales (chi-square¼221.090, po0.05), I can list at least three commonly sighted dolphins (chi-square¼40.517, p o0.05), and I am aware of the importance of marine conservation (chi-square¼17.718, p o0.05). This result suggests that the ecolabelling tour experience makes tourists learn more and be more aware of the marine environment than those tourists with non-ecolabelling tour experience. As for perceived satisfaction, respondents were asked to use a seven-point scale (where 7 was highly satisfied) to gauge their level of satisfaction. Overall, both subsamples showed high levels of satisfaction with mean scores greater than 5. A t-test showed that there was no significant difference between the two subsamples (t¼ 1.945, p40.05). Table 3 provides a summary of results. As for behavioral intention with six items scored on a sevenpoint scale (where 7¼ strongly agree), both ecolabel and non-ecolabel visitors had similar views for three statements. Specifically, both agreed to two statements: ‘ecolabelling needs to be applied to whale/dolphin watching tours’, and ‘with all things being equal (tour price, tour itinerary, etc.), they would select an ecolabelled tour rather than another if they are acquainted with the program’. Additionally, both were neutral about the statement on being members of environmental organizations. Further t-tests showed that ecolabel visitors were more likely to spend more time and effort learning about the marine environment and marine affairs, to suggest an eco-friendly tour to friends (including cyberpals), and to promote the concept of sustainable

C.-L. Chen / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 10–17

utilization of marine resources, while non-ecolabel visitors were neutral. Table 4 presents a summary of results. An item of visitors’ willingness to pay more for the ecolabelled tour was also asked. Table 4 shows that overall, the majority of

Table 3 Visitors’ knowledge, awareness and satisfaction after the travel experience. Items

Knowledge and awareness I know that whales/dolphins are mammals and not fish. I know that whales move with their fluke swaying vertically rather than horizontally. I know that there are two kinds of whales: baleen whales and toothed whales. I know that the Kuroshio current moves along the east coast of Taiwan, which brings about abundant nutrients. I can list at least three commonly sighted dolphins in Taiwan. I am aware of the ways that boats should approach whales/dolphins to minimize the disturbance. I am aware of the importance of marine conservation. Satisfaction I am satisfied with today’s whale/dolphin watching tour.

Ecolabel

Nonecolabel

76.5nn

40.5nn

nn

nn

30.5

70.8

65.6

67.5nn

34.5nn

82.5

77.3

72.4nn

57.5nn

Meana (SDb) 5.88 (2.31) 5.53 (2.60)

a Seven-point scale was used for rating the satisfaction level of visitors, ranging from 1 (highly dissatisfied) to 7 (highly satisfied). b SD is standard deviation. nn Chi-square tests were performed and significant at p value less than 0.05.

Table 4 Visitors’ response on behavioral intentions. Items

I would like to be a member of an environmental organization. I want to spend more time and effort to learn more about the marine environment and marine affairs. I agree that ecolabelling needs to be applied to whale/dolphin watching tours. All things being equal (tour price, tour itinerary, etc.), I would select an ecolabelled tour rather than another if I am acquainted with the ecolabelling program. I would like to suggest eco-friendly tours to friends (including cyberpals). I would like to promote the concept of sustainable utilization of marine resources.

respondents were either not willing to pay more or to pay a premium of about NT$40–NT$80 (equal to 5–10% of the tour fare). Significant portions of the respondents (23% and 31%) from the ecolabel and non-ecolabel subsamples, respectively, were not willing to pay more. If the premium is equal to or greater than 20% of the tour fare, both ecolabel and non-ecolabel visitors reported low rates of purchasing the ecolabelled products. Ecolabel visitors were more likely than non-ecolabel visitors to say they would be willing to pay an extra 10% of the fare (chi-square¼18.954, po0.05). In contrast, non-ecolabel visitors were more unlikely than ecolabel visitors to pay more.

Percentage 90.2

96.7

86.8

15

Meana (SD) Ecolabel

Nonecolabel

3.98 (2.01)

4.03 (2.17) 4.06 (1.02)nn

5.11 (1.42)nn 5.72 (1.42) 6.03 (1.50)

5.65 (1.65)nn 5.03 (1.30)nn

5.86 (1.82) 5.88 (1.66)

4.26 (2.08)nn 4.03 (1.54)nn Percentage

I am willing to pay more for the ecolabelled tour. 22.8nn Nob Yes, NT$40 (¼5% of the tour fare) 31.8 Yes, NT$80 (¼10% of the tour fare) 27.8nn Yes, NT$160 (¼20% of the tour fare) 9.8 Yes, NT$200 (¼25% of the tour fare) 5.6 Yes, NT$240 (¼30% of the tour fare) 2.2

31.3nn 38.6 19.1nn 6.3 3.5 1.2

a Seven-point scale was used for rating the agreement level of each item, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). b The tour fare is NT$ 800 (approximately equal to US$ 24). nn Chi-square tests and t tests were performed and significant at p value less than 0.05.

5. Discussion The results of the tour operator survey indicate that the ecolabelling program received great support, though only half of the sample had participated in it. This low participation rate is largely due to the money, effort and time factors. Against such constraints, ‘ecolabels build an image of responsibility’ constitute a major motivating factor for participation. Therefore, operators must decide between ‘image-building’ and ‘saving costs’ when it comes to applying for ecolabels. It is noted that even with the low participation rate, a high percentage of operators was reported to observe the guidelines in the parts of environmental impact (100%), service delivery (75%), and environmental education (67%). This indicates that the program has had a positive impact on tour operators, particularly in regard to the aspect of seeking environmental sustainability. However, it is interesting to note that a low percentage (33%) reported observing sustainable initiatives, perhaps because they are not directly involved in enhancing service delivery and entail additional costs. It is also noted that the image of responsibility inherent in ecolabels is unable to secure market advantage. In effect, tour operators can still run a business with non-ecolabelled products and therefore do not intend to risk losing sales in the competitive whale/dolphin watching market by raising fares for ecolabelled tours.7 Sasidharan and Font’s [44] argument might explain this phenomenon: potential tourists may not respond favorably to ecolabels and the enterprises that market their eco-sensitive tourism services and products. If ecolabelling tour experience achieved educational benefits for visitors, ecolabel visitors would be expected to report greater environmental knowledge and awareness, higher enjoyment, and increased preferences for eco-friendly tours and responsible behaviors. The results of the visitor survey were largely in line with this expectation. More specifically, ecolabelling tour experience had a significantly positive impact on tourist’s site-based knowledge, awareness of marine conservation, and behavioral intentions related to suggesting eco-friendly tour choices to friends, making efforts to learn more about the marine environment, promoting marine sustainable utilization, and willingness to pay an extra 10% of the tour fare. Similar results of the positive effects of environmental education and ecotour experience in turning tourists into ‘greenies’ can be inferred from other empirical studies [15,45]. Our results indicate that ecolabelled whale/dolphin watching achieved educational efficacy and had a positive impact on visitors. Should this become a trend, this implies an emphasis for encouraging more operators to apply for ecolabels. That both the ecolabel and non-ecolabel visitors reported high enjoyment after the trip is also notable. This is perhaps not 7 It is noted that in the whale/dolphin watching market, there is no difference in fares between ecolabelled and non-ecolabelled tours.

16

C.-L. Chen / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 10–17

surprising, as all the respondents watched whales/dolphins during the trips. As stated in Orams [17], ‘whales/dolphins watched’ was the single most important influence on passenger enjoyment among other factors. This finding also suggests that less learning and less awareness indicated by the non-ecolabel visitors may not be necessarily accompanied by lower satisfaction, as expected in the Moscardo’s model. The complex nature of human motivation for recreational activities proposed by Iso-Ahola [46] might explain this phenomenon. Human motives are diverse, including such aspects as: to challenge ones’ skills, to enhance self-esteem, to socialize with others, to be alone and self discover, to escape routines or work, and to learn something new. Fulfilling each of these motives determines the level of satisfaction that the whale/ dolphin watcher attains during the tour. Since most respondents were first-time visitors, it could be assumed that tourists came with the primary motivation of viewing whales/dolphins. The results also showed that both respondents, either from the ecolabel or non-ecolabel subsamples, highly agreed that with all things being equal (tour price, tour itinerary, etc.), they would select an ecolabelled tour if they were acquainted with the program. This finding coupled with the previous result of the program’s scant market penetration suggests that acquaintance with the program might be an important factor in regard to the purchase of ecolabelled tours. A policy implication for this would be that the certifying agency, tour operators, and the government should offer effective information for guests to become aware of the ecolabelling program. However, the result of a significant portion of respondents unwilling to pay more for the eco-friendly tour indicates that high support for ecolabelling might not necessarily translate into green consumption if green products cost more. This points that price might supersede environmental concerns and features in visitors’ decision making. Support for this view can be found in Sharpley [47] who stated that if green products cost more, provide inferior performance, and involve greater effort or do not satisfy customer needs, then environmental values are likely to be of little consequence in the consumer decision-making process. It is noted that tour operators may not bother to apply for certification if their non-ecolabelled products still have a market share. Therefore, for ecolabelling to be widely implemented, the incentives provided to tour operators might prove an important factor, at least in the early stage for implementing the ecolabelling program. A policy implication would be that the government might consider providing economic incentives to tour operators to partially offset the resulting cost of ecolabelling. In addition, for ecolabelled products to obtain higher market penetration than non-ecolabelled ones, more marketing on ecolabelled tours might be important to encourage more tour operators to participate in the program. To increase their market penetration, the government, non-governmental organizations, and tour operators are encouraged to hold promotional activities, make use of media and internet advertising, visit prospective customers such as institutions, companies, civil groups, and schools, or set up partnership with travel agencies. Overall, the results of the analyses suggest that for the public sector, ecolabels are a possible mechanism for encouraging sustainable practices in the tourism industry without resorting to official regulatory framework [48]. However, they failed to demonstrate that they are currently an effective marketing and promotional tool for the private sector.

6. Conclusion This study chronicles the shift of whale/dolphin utilization in Taiwan from consumption to tourism. In particular, this study

focuses on a quality assurance system: the ecolabelling program, applied to the emerging whale/dolphin watching industry. Information derived from the analysis of the impact of the program shows that the program has a positive impact on tour operators in following the guidelines, particularly regarding environmental impact. The program also generates educational benefits for visitors, including site-based knowledge, awareness of marine conservation, and reinforcing intentions to perform environmentally responsible behaviors. However, it fails to attract most operators to participate because of the cost. It is also unable to create a market advantage for ecolabelled products. With potential educational benefits for visitors in mind, the study highlights the need for increasing public awareness of the program, having more marketing on ecolabelled products, and providing economic incentives for operators to engage in ecolabelling in order to encourage tour operators’ participation in the program and the purchase of ecolabelled tours by visitors. It is hoped that ecolabelling will eventually find a point of differentiation in the market, with tourists selecting sustainably run businesses which will therefore thrive. In this respect, the program is similar to the non-state-market-driven governance system that encourages compliance by recognizing responsibly produced goods and services, and derives its authority not from the state, but through ‘consumer preferences’ in markets [49]. Lastly, while not intending to be a panacea to whale/dolphin watching concerns, the experience of working toward ‘quality assurance’ of whale/dolphin watching in the Taiwanese context might serve as a precedent to be taken into account by managers who intend to introduce a similar approach to the management of this industry.

References [1] IWC [International Whaling Commission]. Forty-fifth report of the International Whaling Commission. Cambridge: IWC; 1994. [2] Bowett J, Hay P. Whaling and its controversies: examining the attitudes of Japan’s youth. Marine Policy 2009;33:775–83. [3] O’Connor S, Campbell R, Cortez H, Knowles T. Whale watching worldwide: tourism numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits. Yarmouth MA: International Fund for Animal Welfare; 2009. [4] Hoyt E. Whale watching 2001: world tourism numbers, expenditures, and expanding socioeconomic benefits. Yarmouth MA: International Fund for Animal Welfare; 2001. [5] Bejder L, Dawson SM, Harraway JA. Responses by hector’s dolphins to boats and swimmers in Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 1999;15(3):738–50. [6] Macleod C, Todnem R. Performance, conformance and change: towards a sustainable tourism strategy for Scotland. Sustainable Development 2007;15: 329–42. [7] Kruse S. The interactions between killer whales and boats in Johnstone Strait, B.C. In: Pryor K, Norris K, editors. Dolphin societies: discoveries and puzzles. Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1991. p. 149–59. [8] Duffus DA. The recreational use of grey whales in Southern Clayoquot Sound, Canada. Applied Geography 1996;16:179–90. [9] Williams R, Trites AW, Bain DE. Behavioural responses of killer whales (Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and experimental approaches. Journal of Zoology 2002;256:255–70. [10] Jahoda M, Lafortuna LC, Biassoni N, Almirante C, Azzellino A, Panigada S, et al. Mediterranean fin whale’s (Balaenoptera Physalus) response to small vessels and biopsy sampling assessed through passive tracking and timing of respiration. Marine Mammal Science 2003;19(1):96–110. [11] Williams R, Lusseau D, Hammond PS. Estimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biological Conservation 2006;133:301–11. [12] Garrod B, Fennell D. An analysis of whalewatching codes of conduct. Annals of Tourism Research 2004;31(2):334–52. [13] Cardenas-Torres N, Enriquez-Andrade R, Rodriguez-Dowdell N. Communitybased management through ecotourism in Bahia de los Angeles, Mexico. Fisheries Research 2007;84:114–8. [14] Woods-Ballard AJ, Parsons ECM, Hughes AJ, Velander KA, Ladle RJ, Warburton CA. The sustainability of whale-watching in Scotland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2003;11(1):40–55. [15] Orams M. The effectiveness of environmental education: can we turn tourists into ‘greenies’?Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 1997;3: 295–306.

C.-L. Chen / Marine Policy 35 (2011) 10–17

[16] Luck M. Education on marine mammal tours as agent for conservation—but do tourists want to be educated?Ocean and Coastal Management 2003;46: 943–56. [17] Orams M. Tourist getting close to whales, is it what whale-watching is all about? Tourism Management 2000;21:561–9. [18] Valentine PS, Birtles A, Curnock M, Arnold P, Dunstan A. Getting closer to whales-passenger expectations and experiences, and the management of swim with dwarf minke whale interactions in the Great Barrier Reef. Tourism Management 2004;25:647–55. [19] Parsons ECM, Rawles C. The resumption of whaling by Iceland and the potential negative impact in the Icelandic whale-watching market. Current Issues in Tourism 2003;6(5):444–8. [20] Herrera GE, Hoagland P. Commercial whaling, tourism, and boycotts: an economic perspective. Marine Policy 2006;30:261–9. [21] Higham J, Lusseau D. Slaughtering the goose that lays egg: are whaling and whale watching mutually exclusive?Current Issues in Tourism 2008;11(1): 63–74. [22] Buckley R. Tourism ecolabels. Annals of Tourism Research 2002;29:183–208. [23] Hu S-H. Taiwan’s whaling industry vanishing into history. Fisheries Extension 1994;93:37–44. [in Chinese]. [24] Yu C-Y. Historical records of Hengchuen township (Chapter 3 Fisheries). Pingdong: Hengchuen Township Administration; 1999 [in Chinese]. [25] Sha C-I, Sun B-N, Kau H-C, editors. Taipei: council of agriculture; 1994. [in Chinese]. [26] Wang C-M. Conflicts between dolphins and fisheries: the dispute over dolphin conservation in Taiwan. Thesis, Institute of Journalism, National Taiwan University, Taipei, 2001 [in Chinese]. [27] Yeh C-T. Interaction on cetaceans on long line and troll line fisheries at Nanfangao, Taiwan. Thesis, Institute of Zoology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, 2004 [in Chinese]. [28] Liu Y-P. 2008. Dolphin and shark depredations on longline fishery from Nanfangao, northeastern Taiwan: assessment of catch damage and economic loss. Thesis, Institute of Marine Affairs and Resource Management, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, Taiwan, 2008 [in Chinese]. [29] Endo A, Yamao M. Policies governing the distribution of by-products from scientific and small-scale coastal whaling in Japan. Marine Policy 2007;31: 169–81. [30] Chou L-S. A survey of the potential for developing whale watching ecotourism in Taiwan. Taipei: Taiwan Tourism Bureau; 1998 [in Chinese]. [31] Rodriguez-Dowdell N, Enriquez-Andrade R, Cardenas-Torres N. Property rights-based management: whale shark tourism in Bahia de los Angeles, Mexico. Fisheries Research 2007;84(1):119–27. [32] Cheong S-M. Privatizing tendencies: fishing communities and tourism in Korea. Marine Policy 2003;27:23–9.

17

[33] Cheong S-M. Korean fishing communities in transition: limitations of community-based resource management. Environmental and Planning A 2005;37:1277–90. [34] TCS [Taiwan Cetacean Society]. Report of Taiwanese Whale Watching Survey. Taipei: TCS; 2008 [in Chinese]. [35] Jeng H-Y, Lee Y-Y. Evaluation of the regional economic impacts of whalewatching ecotourism on Hua-Tung area in Taiwan. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2003;73:1–34. [in Chinese]. [36] TCS. Commonly sighted whales. http://www.whale.org.tw, accessed 9 April 2010. [37] Fairweather JR, Maslin C, Simmons DG. Environmental values and response to ecolabels among international visitors to New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2005;13(1):82–98. [38] Black R, Alice C. Achieving quality in ecotourism: tools in the toolbox. In: Black R, Alice C, editors. Quality assurance and certification in ecotourism. Cambridge MA: CABI; 2007. p. 16–22. [39] Font X. Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: progress, process and prospects. Tourism Management 2002;23:197–205. [40] Weiler B, David D. An exploratory investigation into the roles of the naturebased tour leader. Tourism Management 1993;14:91–8. [41] Hungerford HR, Volk TL. Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 1990;21(3):8–21. [42] Moscardo G. Mindful visitors: heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 1996;23:376–97. [43] Bernard H. Research Methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham: Altamira; 1995. [44] Sasidharan V, Font X. Pitfalls of ecolabelling. In: Font X, Buckley R, editors. Tourism ecolabelling: certification and promotion of sustainable management. Wallingford: CABI; 2001. p. 105–18. [45] Lee WH, Moscardo G. Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’ environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2005;13(6):546–65. [46] Iso-Ahola SE. Motivation for leisure. In: Jackson EL, Burton TL, editors. Understanding leisure and recreation: mapping the past, charting the future. State College: Venture Publishing; 1989. p. 247–79. [47] Sharpley R. The consumer behavior context of ecolabelling. In: Font X, Buckley R, editors. Tourism ecolabelling: certification and promotion of sustainable management. Wallingford: CABI; 2001. p. 41–55. [48] Yunis E. Preface. In: Font X, Buckley R, editors. Tourism ecolabelling: certification and promotion of sustainable management. Wallingford: CABI; 2001. p. xix. [49] de Groot J, Bush SR. The potential for dive tourism led entrepreneurial marine protected areas in Curacao. Marine Policy (2010), 10.1016/j.marpol. 2010.03.004.