- Email: [email protected]
Vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada
Journal of Rural Studtes, Vol 13, No 4, pp. 467-475, 1997 © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain All rights reserved 11743-0167/97 $17.00 + I).0t)
Pergamon PII: S0743-0167(97)00032-6
Vacation Farms and Ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada David A. Fennell* and David B. Weaver? *Faculty of Physical Activity Studies, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada $4S 0A2 tFaculty of Business and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Queensland 4217, Australia
Abstract - - Vacation farms represent an increasingly significant rural diversification option for chronically unstable agriculture-based economies such as Saskatchewan. Concurrently, ecotourism is a rapidly expanding form of tourism which could serve to enhance the recreation product of such rural enterprises. Accordingly, a self-administered questionnaire was sent to all listed vacation farm operators in the province to obtain information on the provision of ecotourism opportunities. Just over one-half (n = 40) of all operations returned a completed questionnaire. Of 23 listed recreation options, wildlife viewing was cited as the activity most frequently undertaken by vacation farm visitors, followed by hunting, casual photography and touring. Wildlife viewing occurred most commonly during the spring and summer, with access to the resource occurring mainly on foot, and less so by horse and vehicle. Birds were the most important category of wildlife viewed, followed by mammals and plants; reptiles/amphibians, insects and fish were of only minor significance. It was evident that the sampled vacation farm operators possessed very little training in the area of ecotourism; few barriers or opportunities related to the latter were indicated. Appropriate recommendations include the provision of ecotourism training opportunities, stronger linkages between vacation farms and public spaces, and further investigation into the relationship between wildlife viewing and hunting activities. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
a maximum number of rooms beyond which the operation is no longer considered to be a vacation farm. A limit of five rooms is enforced for the gites rureaux priv~s of France, for example, while Austria allows for a maximum of 10 rooms (Dernoi, 1983). As an industry, vacation farms are far more numerous and longer established in Europe than in North America or elsewhere. The heaviest concentration occurs along a transect incorporating Austria, Germany, France and the UK, each of which offers between 20,000 and 30,000 vacation farms (Dernoi, 1983; Frater, 1983; Murphy, 1985; Embacher, 1994). By contrast, the USA offered only 2000 operations in 1969 (Vogeler, 1977), while an estimated 700 vacation farms operated in Canada during 1992 (Shaw and Williams, 1994).
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to examine the vacation farm sector in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan from the specific perspective of the ecotourism sector. Brief reviews of the overall vacation farm sector, the Saskatchewan context, and ecotourism are followed by a presentation of general and ecotourism-related data obtained from a survey of Saskatchewan vacation farm operators. On this basis, recommendations and policy directives are suggested for the fostering of ecotourism within this sector. The term 'vacation farm' is employed in this paper to describe a working farm operation which derives additional income from a periodic tourist clientele (Pizam and Pokela, 1980; Dernoi, 1983; Murphy, 1985). Overnight accommodation is usually though not always provided, and some jurisdictions stipulate
The trend over the past 30 years has been one of expansion, owing to the interaction of two post-war trends which have radically altered the rural land467
468
David A. Fennell and David B. Weaver
sc~tpe of most industrialized capitalist countries. First, the cost/price squeeze and associated crisis of agricultural overproduction have forced farmers to augment their income through diversification, both within agriculture itself as well as through the adoption of non-agricultural pursuits. Secondly, increasing discretionary incomes and vacation time allocations within these same societies have stimulated an unprecedented growth in recreational activity; the specific interest in farm-based tourism, from a demand perspective, derives from the desire of a predominantly urban population to experience the rural milieu and nostalgia associated with a working farm enterprise. Tourism, at least potentially, therefore represents a logical and appropriate avenue of diversification for the farmer. According to Murphy (1985, p. 109), the vacation farm represents 'a symbiotic relationship between agriculture and tourism'. The amount of research into the vacation farm sector is not yet commensurate with its emergence as a major form of rural tourism provision. Not surprisingly, most of the investigations have centred on such destinations as Austria (Pevetz, 1991; Embacher, 1994; Hummelbrunner and Miglbauer, 1994), Germany (Oppermann, 1995), and the UK (Dower, 1973; Frater, 1983; Neate, 1987; Winter, 1987; Greenwood, 1994). In the North American context, Vogeler (1977) and Pizam and Pokela (1980) have both examined the USA, while the present study represents one of the first attempts to examine some aspect of the sector within a Canadian jurisdiction. The selection of Saskatchewan as a case study is rationalized in part by its over-representation in agriculture, which accounts for 16% of employment in 1993, vs. 3% in Canada (Statistics Canada, 1994); its 60,840 farms (as of 1991) are exceeded in number only by the 68,633 of Ontario, which has 10 times the population of Saskatchewan (Statistics Canada, 1992). Furthermore, the 83 vacation farm operations within the province (Saskatchewan, 1995) represent 12% of the Canadian total (see Fig. 1). Given this emphasis on farming, Saskatchewan has been especially vulnerable to the chronic instabilities of industrial agriculture. For example, large-scale rural out-migration is partly responsible for the unimpressive growth in provincial population from 925,000 in 1931 to 989,000 in 1991 (Statistics Canada, 1992). Accordingly, the need for diversification in Saskatchewan is acute. The vacation farm option is certainly no panacea, but there does appear to be considerable room for expansion in a sector which currently accounts for only about 0.1% of all farm operations.
•
Vacation farms
/
Major roads
(~
Regina
(~) Saskatoon
scale lcm=70km
d~
q
i
USA
Figure 1. The potential of ecotourism
It is proposed in this paper that the potential of the vacation farm option as a vehicle for rural diversification would be enhanced through the provision of ecotourism-related opportunities. Ecotourism may be defined as a form of tourism which emphasizes the non-consumptive appreciation of natural attractions, undertaken within the socio-economic carrying capacities of local communities. As such, it may be considered as a form of Alternative Tourism, i.e., a tourism type generally construed as encompassing the more benign alternatives to largescale, externally controlled Mass Tourism model (Dernoi, 1983; Cohen, 1989; Smith and Eadington, 1992). Though claims (e.g., Ecotourism Society, nd) that ecotourism has been expanding at an annual rate in the vicinity of 20-25% are undoubtedly exaggerated, there is credible evidence to suggest above-average performance in the growth of related leisure activities. For example, the 1994/95 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment showed birdwatching to be the fastest growing recreational activity between 1982 and 1995 among Americans 16 and older (155.2%), followed by hiking (93.0%) and backpacking (72.7%) (Cordell et al., 1995). These results complement earlier research which identified birdwatching and pleasure walking as the outdoor
Vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada recreational activities with the greatest growth potential in Canada (Foot, 1990).
future
The potential complementarity of vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan and elsewhere is based on at least two factors. First, the rural areas where vacation farms are located provide not only the relatively uncrowded spaces amenable to ecotourism, but also the remnant-to-extensive natural habitats which harbour wildlife. Furthermore, cultivated and grazed lands function as important feeding areas for wildfowl and ungulates. Secondly, by merit of their small size, local ownership, and integration into the local rural economy, vacation farms as a concept are a form of Alternative Tourism ideally suited to fulfill the call for sustainable rural tourism options (Bramwell, 1994). The current research gauges the extent to which Saskatchewan vacation farms are already involved in ecotourism, and proposes strategies for furthering this involvement in an appropriate fashion.
Methodology and response rate A list of all registered vacation farm operators was obtained from the 1995 Saskatchewan Vacation Guide (Saskatchewan, 1995). A self-administered questionnaire was sent in the summer of 1995 to the indicated operators of the 83 listed farms, along with appropriate cover letters and a stamped, addressed return envelope. The questionnaire used both closed- and open-ended questions to solicit information on a wide variety of characteristics associated with the operations; the information that is directly or indirectly pertinent to ecotourism is presented in this paper. One purpose of the survey was to examine how vacation farm operators perceive ecotourism (i.e., wildlife viewing) as a component of their operation. Central to this goal was the need to examine the level of ecotourism training and experience of operators, the nature of wildlife viewing characteristics on vacation farms, conflict with hunting and other potentially incompatible vacation farm activities, and barriers and opportunities of this sector. It was assumed that owners were in a position to judge the relative importance of various activity options among their clientele. Following an initial mail-out, a second package was sent to those operators from whom no response had yet been received. As a result of the two mailings, 40 useable questionnaires were obtained. As the original number of 83 was reduced to 76 primarily as a result of closings, the returns represented 53% of the known population of vacation farms in Saskatchewan. Given the low number of respondents in the
469
study, the results should be interpreted with caution, and used more as a means to stimulate future research.
Analysis
Setting and visitation profile Not surprisingly, eighty per cent (n = 32) of the vacation farms were located in the prairie biome of the province, which constitutes the core agricultural ecumene of Saskatchewan. Ten (25.0%) vacation farms were found within the parkland region (an area dominated by aspen forest), and only 7.5% (n = 3) were located in the boreal forest.' In terms of hydrological context, 13 respondents (32.5%) indicated the presence of wetlands, while rivers were present on 12 (30.0%) vacation farms. Eight respondents (20%) indicated the presence of lakes. The average owned (private) land base was 470 hectares, with a range of 2 to 2835 hectares. Crown land, on average, accounted for 243 hectares of recreational hinterland beyond the vacation farm properties themselves. The recreational hinterland of a vacation farm consists of all lands utilised for recreational purposes by the clients of that operation during the duration of their stay. Weaver and Fennell (1997) suggest that tourism on vacation farms may compete with other forms of land use and, in such cases, is usually treated as a secondary economic activity. These authors found that agriculture and tourism reached their peak times at the same time of the year, with some operators restricting the vacation farm season to July and August in order to satisfy the higher priority economic endeavours. However, this is not inconsistent with the nature of vacation farms across various jurisdictions, wherein tourism is usually subsidiary to agriculture. In Saskatchewan, it was found that gross income from vacation farms was less than $10,000 for about 77% of the sample, which in most cases resulted in less than 1% of the total farm income. An extensive range of visitors was apparent among the operations in the study, with reported 1994 estimates ranging from a low of two, to 3500. Over half of all visitation occurred in the summer months (54.6%), 25% in fall, and 14.9% in spring. Winter accounted for only 6.7% of visitation. The data indicated that operations are attractive as overnight vacation spots, with 46.7% of all visits being recorded as such. On average, adult males consti-
470
David A. Fennell and David B. Weaver
tuted 45.2% of visitors, 38.2% were adult females, and 17.6% were children,
Visitor activities
outfitters may not be as non-consumptive in their delivery of packages as demand requires.
Wildlife viewing characteristics
The questionnaire solicited the level of importance of selected visitor activities to each operator (Table 1). Given that a score of 3.0 represents a neutral response (average importance of the activity), the table reveals that 18 of the 23 activity options were found to be relatively unimportant. Of those scoring higher than 3.0, wildlife viewing (mean=3.82), the representative form of ecotourism in this study, was ascendent, followed by hunting (mean = 3.47). This is significant in that the literature on wildlife viewing and hunting suggests incompatibilities between these two activities, given their respective non-consumptive and consumptive nature. Vacation farm operators and backcountry outfitters provide some of the only accommodation opportunities for those wanting to experience many peripheral regions of Saskatchewan, and more broadly, Canada. Although there is little information from a vacation farms perspective, the issue has been raised with respect to backcountry outfitters who have contended with how best to refit their enterprises to accommodate what Kellert (1985) sees as a changing focus towards more non-consumptive outdoor recreational pursuits. Despite this fact, Anderson/Fast (1996) report that Table 1. Vacation farm visitor activities Activity
n
Mean"
S.D.
Wildlife viewing Hunting Casual photography Touring Hiking Camping Professional photography Horseback riding Petting zoo Cultural tourism Specialty meals Cross country skiing Conference/retreats Study/research Cycling Fishing Snowmobiling Purchasing souvenirs Assist in farm work Canoeing Ice fishing Boating Barn dancing
34 36 35 36 35 35 31 34 36 31 37 32 32 32 34 31 30 32 34 30 30 30 32
3.82 3.47 3.46 3.31 3.29 2.83 2.68 2.53 2.53 2.42 2.35 2.34 2.16 2.09 2.03 1.90 1.87 1.78 1.62 1.50 1.43 1.33 1.25
1.51 1.73 1.22 1.49 1.43 1.48 1.51 1.69 1.75 1.46 1.57 1.36 1.50 1.30 1.29 1.16 1.20 1.21 0.92 1.25 1.86 0.88 1.80
aBased on a five-point scale: 1 ='not at all important', 5 = 'very important'.
Table 2 provides a comprehensive overview of wildlife viewing characteristics within the sampled operations. Each of the main wildlife groups (e.g., mammals and birds) was compared on the basis of the following four variables: importance, mode of viewing, season, and time of day for viewing. All percentages reflect the number of a particular group viewed within each of the four categories identified. In addition, respondents, in many cases, overlapped their responses to include more than one variable (e.g., foot, boat, boat/foot, foot/horse/vehicle). In such cases, each particular variable (or mode in this example) was counted so as not to under-represent any particular response. The result is that multiple responses were recorded in many cases, owing to the different frequencies within various categories.
Importance and mode of viewing. Four of the six wildlife groups were viewed most often as common in importance, while fish and insect viewing were usually indicated as being minor in importance. Of the six groups, bird viewing was the most important, with eight of 29 responses given as 'major', 17 as 'common', and four as 'minor'. This corroborates a common impression that Saskatchewan is particularly well endowed with a broad variety of migratory bird species. Mammals were a close second in importance, followed by plants, reptiles/amphibians, insects and fish. In all cases, foot was the dominant mode of viewing wildlife, while boat was the least pursued option. There was very little difference in the incidence of viewing wildlife from a vehicle or horse. This question illustrates the variability in wildlife viewing opportunities within vacation farms, and raises the question as to whether all of these modes are equally appropriate to the ecotourism experience; both horse and vehicle, for example, may result in negative environmental impacts such as trail erosion, pollution and seed dispersal.
Season and time of day. The most significant finding of the seasonality characteristic is the marked decrease in winter viewing of wildlife groups. In general, most of the wildlife viewing was undertaken in the spring and summer, followed closely by the fall. This finding illustrates that there was no one dominant season for viewing wildlife. However, the relative importance of summer over
471
Vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada Table 2. Wildlife viewing characteristics Importance Group Mammal (%) viewmg (n) Bird ( f~ ) viewing (n) Rept/Amp'n (c~) viewing (n) Fish (~ ) viewing (n) Insect (% ) viewing (n) Plant (%) viewing (n)
Mode of Viewing
Major C o m m o n Minor Foot 24.0 6 26.7 8 16.7 2 9.1 1 0.0 0 26.1 6
48.0 12 56.7 17 25.0 3 0.0 0 46.2 6 43.5 10
24.0 6 13.3 4 58.3 7 90.9 10 53.8 7 26.1 3
42.3 22 50.0 28 50.0 6 66.7 4 62.5 5 55.9 19
Boat Vehicle 5.8 3 5.4 3 8.3 1 16.7 1 12.5 1 0.0 0
28.8 15 23.2 13 25.0 3 16.7 1 12.5 1 23.6 8
fall, even for birdwatching, is surprising, considering that the latter season is characterized by dramatic bird migrations, while the summer is a time of relative inactivity. Table 2 illustrates that dawn and dusk were the most significant times for the viewing of mammals, birds, and fish. Reptile and amphibian viewing was equally distributed during the dawn, afternoon, and dusk (30.8% for each), and plant viewing was reported to occur most often during the afternoon and at dusk (35.3% for each). Not surprisingly, wildlife viewing fell off significantly during the hours of the night. A majority of the sampled operators (n =27) provided examples of the wildlife species or groupings which could be viewed in conjunction with their operations. Thirteen operators provided no examples, although six of these had earlier provided information which clearly revealed the availability of wildlife viewing opportunities; therefore, only seven of 40 operators were apparently not involved in this activity at all. Of the 212 species/groups cited in total, 80 (37.7%) were birds, with 34 of these being of a perching variety (e.g., robins), 16 waterfowl (e.g., ducks), 14 birds of prey (e.g., eagles), six non-passerine (e.g., hummingbirds), and three fowllike birds (e.g., grouse). The numeric dominance of bird citations again reflects Saskatchewan's strength in this category of ecotourism attraction. Mammals represented the second highest frequency of wildlife viewed, comprising 62 or 29.2%. Mammals were also broken down into subgroups, with 39 of the 62 citations belonging to the ungulates (e.g., deer), 14 to the carnivores (e.g., coyote), and seven to the rodents (e.g., beaver). The prevalence of ungulates is not surprising, given the dominance of prairie habitat cited above. Thirty-two references were recorded with respect to the viewing of plants, representing 15.1% of all wildlife viewed. No further sub-categorization of plants was needed due to the
Season
Horse
Winter
23.1 12 21.4 12 16.7 2 0.0 0 12.5 1 20 6 7
10.8 7 7.9 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 4.4 2
Time of day
Spring Summer 27 7 18 31 6 24 25.0 3 30.0 3 35.7 5 33.3 15
32.3 21 34.2 26 41.7 5 50.0 5 42.9 6 37.8 17
Fall 29.2 19 26.3 20 33.3 4 20.0 2 21.4 3 24.4 11
Dawn Aft. 39.2 20 37.7 20 3(/.8 4 31/.I) 3 22.2 2 23.5 S
11.8 6 13.2 7 30.8 4 10.(I 1 44.4 4 35 3 12
Dust Night 43.1 22 45.3 24 3(I.8 4 50.[) 5 33.3 3 35.3 12
59 3 38 2 77 1 111.0 I 11.0 0 59 2
overwhelming reference to the generic 'wild flowers' and "native species'. Similar responses were recorded for insects (15; 7.1%; e.g., dragonflies and the ever-present mosquito throughout the warmer months), and reptiles and amphibians (14; 6.6%; mostly frogs, toads, and garter snakes). Finally, fish were viewed least (n = 9; 4.2%) and included species like rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, and perch. The small number of fish citations (n = 9) may reflect the relatively limited potential of this category for viewing (as opposed to fishing), and the relative lack of fish-sustaining waters in the farming areas of Saskatchewan.
Primary and secondary aspects of wildlife viewing and hunting Further to the previous discussion on wildlife viewing and hunting, respondents were asked to indicate the proportion of their guests who visited their vacation farm to view wildlife and hunt, respectively, as primary and secondary activities. The results lend support to the previous findings which suggest that wildlife viewing was the more important activity. Wildlife viewing was the primary activity undertaken, on average, by 32.9% of vacation farm visitors. The standard deviation of 32.9 for this variable reveals a wide dispersal around the mean value; for example, 11 operators stated that 0% of clients were primarily involved in this activity, while seven operators provided an estimate of 75% or more. Hunting, in contrast, was identified as the primary pursuit for 22.5% of clients; the standard deviation of 29.7 suggests a similarly diverse range of responses. Moreover, the five operations which provided values of 80% or more point toward the existence of a core of hunting-specialized vacation farms.
472
David A. Fennell and David B. Weaver
An analysis of the responses as to whether the activities are of secondary importance shows that wildlife viewing tends to be reported as such much more frequently than hunting. For example, an average of 25.8% of clients were reported as undertaking wildlife viewing as a secondary activity. The corresponding value for hunting was only 9.3%, suggesting that those who hunt tend to do so as their main activity. Those who view wildlife have more of a proclivity to do so in conjunction with a range of additional pursuits, perhaps because of its greater accessibility with respect to skills, costs and other barriers.
Ecotourism experience and training characteristics Operators were asked to indicate the type of ecotourism experience and training that they held, assuming that with knowledge of this rapidly growing tourism option, they could enhance the visitors' overall appreciation of the natural characteristics of their vacation farm (Table 3). Seven respondents (17.5%) indicated having prior experience in ecotourism, while six (15.4%) suggested that they held some form of training in this area. It was apparent that several of these were only indirectly related to ecotourism (e.g., first-aid training, farm living, public relations), while the two references to firearm or hunting experience could be considered as being opposed to ecotourism. This could, pending further investigation, indicate either a misunderstanding of the term's meaning, or a sense that responsible hunting qualifies as a form of ecotourism. With these concerns in mind, the responses may be divided into informal, formal, and combined informal/formal experience. The informal responses (n = 4) included self-education, 'hands-on experience', farm living, volunteering and guiding or leading of tours. Formal responses incorporated a variety of experiences, including participation with industry organizations (and especially the Saskatchewan Watchable Wildlife Association, which is the
Table3. Ecotourism experience and training characteristics Characteristic Prior experience" Yes No Trainingh Yes No aMean = 1.8; S.D. = 0.5. hMean = 1.8; S.D. = 0.4.
n
%
7 32
17.5 82.1
6 33
15.4 84.6
sector association for ecotourism in the province), seminars and workshops, unspecified professional training, and courses leading to diplomas or certificates. One operator emphasized that the lack of formal training opportunities in Saskatchewan was a big problem, while another respondent was planning to pursue formal training opportunities.
Barriers and opportunities to wildlife viewing Respondents were given the opportunity of discussing, in an open-ended format, particular barriers and opportunities to the provision of wildlife viewing in their operations. These questions were designed to solicit responses related to environmental, cultural and social, government and political, economic and financial, and infrastructural barriers/opportunities. Each is dealt with in the following section. In general, the only major environmental barrier mentioned was the weather, contributing to 'high infestations of mosquitos' on the one hand, and acting as a limiting factor to the appearance of waterfowl on the other; in essence, there was either too much or too little rain. Considering the limited amount of activity during the winter season (see above), it is surprising that no operators listed the cold climate as a barrier; pending further investigation, this may indicate an acceptance of the challenging winter as a normal phenomenon, rather than as a barrier. Many felt that the environment was the key reason for people wanting to visit vacation farms. In addition to several general comments on the countryside and its unspoiled nature, specific comments included the presence of wildlife species (e.g., 'birdwatching opportunities'), and wildlife habitat (e.g., 'proximity to internationally important wildlife area'). Of the nine comments related to cultural/social barriers to vacation farm operation, only one (i.e., 'indifference of some local people to wildlife') dealt specifically with wildlife viewing. No social/cultural opportunities related to wildlife viewing were cited by the sampled operators. Barriers of a governmental/political nature were predominantly directed towards the regulation of hunting activity, as for example through the implementation of gun control legislation. Respondents were adverse to the control of hunting dates and bag limits, in addition to the control of American hunters. Operators provided no specific responses on how government/political action has stimulated or impeded wildlife viewing opportunities, but merely mentioned the role of the Saskatchewan Vacation Guide (free advertising
Vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada from the Saskatchewan Tourism Authority) as an indirect spin-off for all vacation farm activities. There were no specific economic/financial barriers or opportunities recorded that dealt directly with the provision of wildlife viewing opportunities. When asked if operators were planning any improvements to facilities over the next five years, one made particular reference to the importance of wildlife: 'the whole operation needs improvement, as operator would like to be involved in ecotourism (i.e., birdwatching groups) but doesn't have facilities for larger groups'. Despite the fact that vacation farms in Saskatchewan have been in existence since the early 1970s, they remain quite modest in terms of their impact on the tourism sector in the province. Although many vacation farms are part of a thriving Country Vacation Farm Association (about one-third are not members) and have obtained exposure in Tourism Saskatchewan's guide to accommodation (Saskatchewan, 1995), there are very few wildlife programs beyond the provision of standard farm-related tourist opportunities identified in aforementioned guides, despite the fact that, as stated earlier, the majority of sampled operators provided examples of species which could be viewed in conjunction with their operations. However, these are not developed programs, which indicates that the onus is on the tourist to initiate wildlife viewing opportunities. This, along with operator expertise in ecotourism, must also be seen as a major barrier.
Recommendations
While a significant amount of ecotourism activity already occurs within Saskatchewan's vacation farm sector, considerable potential exists for further improvement and expansion. The following main recommendations represent selected strategies by which this potential can be realized; no particular priority of order is intended.
Increase the availability of ecotourism-oriented training opportunities Very few operators possess any formal training related to ecotourism, yet such training is crucial if vacation farms are to offer an environmentally sustainable, high-quality product in a cost-effective manner. A number of useful ecotourism manuals have appeared recently (e.g., Hudson, 1992; Hawkins et al., 1995), but these must be augmented by courses, seminars and workshops oriented
473
specifically to the context of Saskatchewan vacation farms. Strategically, such courses would be most effectively delivered to small groups of operators through a partnership of the Saskatchewan Watchable Wildlife Association, the Saskatchewan Tourism Authority, and the Saskatchewan Country Vacations Association. Future research needs to explore the types of experience, courses, and preparation that vacation farms operators have undertaken in preparing themselves to meet this aspect of the market.
Make available a pool of trained local ecotourism interpreters to be utilized by vacation farm operators and others invoh,ed with ecotourism The status of vacation farms as functioning agricultural enterprises constrains the operators' ability to participate directly in the provision of ecotourism activities such as guiding, facility maintenance and interpretation. This is especially significant in Saskatchewan insofar as the peak bird migration periods coincide with the spring planting and fall harvest. A potential solution is to train a cadre of local ecotourism guides who, depending on individual circumstances, could be available on a seasonal, regular part-time or 'on-call' basis. Such training opportunities, both for guides and operators, should be made available on a subsidized basis during the incubation period for ecotourism development. These could take the form of tax concessions and the provision of low- or non-rent facilities within which to offer such opportunities. The findings of the paper suggested that operators may not fully understand the meaning of ecotourism, and actually equate it with responsible hunting. Clarification could ultimately be handled by interpreters, if not by the ecotourists themselves.
Investigate the relationship between consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife-based visitor activities Two potentially incompatible wildlife-based options occupy the top positions among visitor activities reported by operators. Given the financially precarious status of many vacation farms, the patronage of both clienteles may be essential to generate a sufficient volume of visitors. However, any perceived catering to hunters or a hunting-positive environment could be alienating to the ecotourists, who would therefore go elsewhere for a non-consumptive environment. Whether or not this is a legitimate and significant concern needs to be investigated; if it is problematic, then operators may have to choose to specialize in one activity or the other. Conversely,
474
David A. Fennell and David B. Weaver
strategies of spatial and temporal segregation could be implemented in order to minimize conflict. For operators unsure of what to emphasize, it may be helpful to note that hunting participation, unlike ecotourism, has been steadily declining in both Canada (Filion et al., 1993) and in the USA (Cordell et al., 1995).
Conclusion
The development of ecotourism opportunities as part of the Saskatchewan vacation farm experience is clearly at an early stage. This study provides some baseline data with which to address the issue. Based on the limited population of vacation farms in the province, a sample of 40 operators, or more than one-half of the population, indicated that wildlife viewing was the most important activity of visitors, followed by hunting and casual photography, of 23 activities listed. Birds and mammals, respectively, were the most sought after animal attractions, usually during the summer and spring seasons. It was further discovered that there was a tremendous degree of variation in the perceived importance of wildlife viewing and hunting as client activities among the farms surveyed. Less than 20% of the sample was found to have any form of ecotourism training or experience, which led to the belief that this dearth had to be addressed in the future for this sector to prosper. Barriers related to the provision of wildlife viewing included mosquitos, rain, and the indifference of local people to wildlife. Future research might endeavour to analyse vacation farm tourists, both ecotourists and hunters, and their motivations, preferences, and attitudes towards their chosen vacation farm activities, beyond the operators' perceptions, which may have been motivated more by self-promotion rather than an accurate observation of tourist behaviour.
References
Anderson/Fast (1996). Ecotourism in Saskatchewan: State of Resource. Saskatchewan Watchable Wildlife Association: Saskatoon, SK, Canada. Bramwell, B. (1994) Rural tourism and sustainable rural tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2, 1-6. Cohen, E. (1989) Alternative tourism: a Critique. In Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries, eds T. Singh, L. Theuns and F. Go, pp. 127-142. Peter Lang, Frankfurt. Cordell, H., Lewis, B. and McDonald, B. (1995) Longterm outdoor recreation participation trends. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995
National Recreation Resource Planning Conference, eds J. Thompson, D. Lime, B. Gartner and W. Sames, pp. 35-38. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Dernoi, L. (1983) Farm tourism in Europe. Tourism Management 4, 155-166. Dower, M. (1973) Recreation, tourism and the farmer. Journal of Agricultural Economics 24, 465-477. Ecotourism Society (nd) Ecotourism Statistical Fact Sheet. The Ecotourism Society, Alexandria, VA. Embacher, H. (1994) Marketing for agri-tourism in Austria: strategy and realisation in a highly developed tourist destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2, 61-76. Filion, F., Duwors, E., Jacquemont, A., Bouchard, P., Boxall, P., Gray, P. and Reid, R. (1993) The Importance of Wildlife to Canadians: Highlights of the 1991 Survey. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Foot, D. (1990) The age of outdoor recreation in Canada. Recreation Canada 48, 16-22. Frater, J. (1983) Farm tourism in England: planning, funding, promotion, and some lessons from Europe. Tourism Management 4, 167-179. Greenwood, J. (1994) Dartmoor area tourism initiative: a case study of visitor management in and around a national park. In Tourism: The State of the Art, ed. A. Seaton, pp. 682-690. John Wiley, Chichester, UK. Hawkins, D., Wood, M. and Bittman, S. (1995) The Ecolodge Sourcebook for Planners and Developers. Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, VT. Hudson, W. (ed.) (1992) Nature Watch: A Resource for Enhancing Wildlife Viewing Areas. Falcon Press, Helena, MT. Hummeibrunner, R. and Miglbauer, E. (1994) Tourism promotion and potential in peripheral areas: the Austrian case. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2, 41-50. Kellert, S. R. (1985) Birdwatching in American society. Leisure Sciences 7, 343-360. Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. Methuen, New York. Neate, S. (1987) The role of tourism in sustaining farm structures and communities on the Isles of Scilly. In Who from their Labours Rest? Conflict and Practice m Rural Tourism, eds M. Bouquet and M. Winter, pp. 9-21. Avebury, Aldershot, UK. Oppermann, M. (1995) Holidays on the farm: a case study of German hosts and guests. Journal of Travel Research 34, 63-67. Pevetz, W. (1991) Agriculture and tourism in Austria. Tourism Recreation Research 16, 57-60. Pizam, A. and Pokela, J. (1980) The vacation farm: a new form of tourism destination. In Tourism Marketing and Management Issues, eds D. Hawkins, E. Sharer and J. Roveistad, pp. 203-216. George Washington Press, Washington, DC. Saskatchewan (1995) Saskatchewan Vacation Guide. Saskatchewan Tourism Authority, Regina, SK, Canada. Shaw, G. and Williams, A. (1994) Critical Issues in Tourism: ,4 Geographical Perspective. Blackwell, Oxford. Smith, V. and Eadington, W. (eds) (1992) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA. Statistics Canada (1992) Miscellaneous statistical material. Statistics Canada (1994) Miscellaneous statistical material. Vogeler, I. (1977) Farm and ranch vacationing. Journal of Leisure Research 9, 291-300.
Vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada Weaver, David B. and Fennell, David A. (1997). The Saskatchewan vacation farm operator as entrepreneur. In International Rural Tourism Case Studies, eds D. Getz and S. Page. International Thomson Business Press, London.
475
Winter, M. (1987) Private tourism in the English and Welsh Uplands: farming, visitors and property. In Who from their Labours Rest? Conflict and Practice in Rural Tourism, eds M. Bouquet and M. Winter, pp. 22-34. Avebury, Aldershot, UK.
Pergamon PII: S0743-0167(97)00032-6
Vacation Farms and Ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada David A. Fennell* and David B. Weaver? *Faculty of Physical Activity Studies, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada $4S 0A2 tFaculty of Business and Hotel Management, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Queensland 4217, Australia
Abstract - - Vacation farms represent an increasingly significant rural diversification option for chronically unstable agriculture-based economies such as Saskatchewan. Concurrently, ecotourism is a rapidly expanding form of tourism which could serve to enhance the recreation product of such rural enterprises. Accordingly, a self-administered questionnaire was sent to all listed vacation farm operators in the province to obtain information on the provision of ecotourism opportunities. Just over one-half (n = 40) of all operations returned a completed questionnaire. Of 23 listed recreation options, wildlife viewing was cited as the activity most frequently undertaken by vacation farm visitors, followed by hunting, casual photography and touring. Wildlife viewing occurred most commonly during the spring and summer, with access to the resource occurring mainly on foot, and less so by horse and vehicle. Birds were the most important category of wildlife viewed, followed by mammals and plants; reptiles/amphibians, insects and fish were of only minor significance. It was evident that the sampled vacation farm operators possessed very little training in the area of ecotourism; few barriers or opportunities related to the latter were indicated. Appropriate recommendations include the provision of ecotourism training opportunities, stronger linkages between vacation farms and public spaces, and further investigation into the relationship between wildlife viewing and hunting activities. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
a maximum number of rooms beyond which the operation is no longer considered to be a vacation farm. A limit of five rooms is enforced for the gites rureaux priv~s of France, for example, while Austria allows for a maximum of 10 rooms (Dernoi, 1983). As an industry, vacation farms are far more numerous and longer established in Europe than in North America or elsewhere. The heaviest concentration occurs along a transect incorporating Austria, Germany, France and the UK, each of which offers between 20,000 and 30,000 vacation farms (Dernoi, 1983; Frater, 1983; Murphy, 1985; Embacher, 1994). By contrast, the USA offered only 2000 operations in 1969 (Vogeler, 1977), while an estimated 700 vacation farms operated in Canada during 1992 (Shaw and Williams, 1994).
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to examine the vacation farm sector in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan from the specific perspective of the ecotourism sector. Brief reviews of the overall vacation farm sector, the Saskatchewan context, and ecotourism are followed by a presentation of general and ecotourism-related data obtained from a survey of Saskatchewan vacation farm operators. On this basis, recommendations and policy directives are suggested for the fostering of ecotourism within this sector. The term 'vacation farm' is employed in this paper to describe a working farm operation which derives additional income from a periodic tourist clientele (Pizam and Pokela, 1980; Dernoi, 1983; Murphy, 1985). Overnight accommodation is usually though not always provided, and some jurisdictions stipulate
The trend over the past 30 years has been one of expansion, owing to the interaction of two post-war trends which have radically altered the rural land467
468
David A. Fennell and David B. Weaver
sc~tpe of most industrialized capitalist countries. First, the cost/price squeeze and associated crisis of agricultural overproduction have forced farmers to augment their income through diversification, both within agriculture itself as well as through the adoption of non-agricultural pursuits. Secondly, increasing discretionary incomes and vacation time allocations within these same societies have stimulated an unprecedented growth in recreational activity; the specific interest in farm-based tourism, from a demand perspective, derives from the desire of a predominantly urban population to experience the rural milieu and nostalgia associated with a working farm enterprise. Tourism, at least potentially, therefore represents a logical and appropriate avenue of diversification for the farmer. According to Murphy (1985, p. 109), the vacation farm represents 'a symbiotic relationship between agriculture and tourism'. The amount of research into the vacation farm sector is not yet commensurate with its emergence as a major form of rural tourism provision. Not surprisingly, most of the investigations have centred on such destinations as Austria (Pevetz, 1991; Embacher, 1994; Hummelbrunner and Miglbauer, 1994), Germany (Oppermann, 1995), and the UK (Dower, 1973; Frater, 1983; Neate, 1987; Winter, 1987; Greenwood, 1994). In the North American context, Vogeler (1977) and Pizam and Pokela (1980) have both examined the USA, while the present study represents one of the first attempts to examine some aspect of the sector within a Canadian jurisdiction. The selection of Saskatchewan as a case study is rationalized in part by its over-representation in agriculture, which accounts for 16% of employment in 1993, vs. 3% in Canada (Statistics Canada, 1994); its 60,840 farms (as of 1991) are exceeded in number only by the 68,633 of Ontario, which has 10 times the population of Saskatchewan (Statistics Canada, 1992). Furthermore, the 83 vacation farm operations within the province (Saskatchewan, 1995) represent 12% of the Canadian total (see Fig. 1). Given this emphasis on farming, Saskatchewan has been especially vulnerable to the chronic instabilities of industrial agriculture. For example, large-scale rural out-migration is partly responsible for the unimpressive growth in provincial population from 925,000 in 1931 to 989,000 in 1991 (Statistics Canada, 1992). Accordingly, the need for diversification in Saskatchewan is acute. The vacation farm option is certainly no panacea, but there does appear to be considerable room for expansion in a sector which currently accounts for only about 0.1% of all farm operations.
•
Vacation farms
/
Major roads
(~
Regina
(~) Saskatoon
scale lcm=70km
d~
q
i
USA
Figure 1. The potential of ecotourism
It is proposed in this paper that the potential of the vacation farm option as a vehicle for rural diversification would be enhanced through the provision of ecotourism-related opportunities. Ecotourism may be defined as a form of tourism which emphasizes the non-consumptive appreciation of natural attractions, undertaken within the socio-economic carrying capacities of local communities. As such, it may be considered as a form of Alternative Tourism, i.e., a tourism type generally construed as encompassing the more benign alternatives to largescale, externally controlled Mass Tourism model (Dernoi, 1983; Cohen, 1989; Smith and Eadington, 1992). Though claims (e.g., Ecotourism Society, nd) that ecotourism has been expanding at an annual rate in the vicinity of 20-25% are undoubtedly exaggerated, there is credible evidence to suggest above-average performance in the growth of related leisure activities. For example, the 1994/95 National Survey on Recreation and the Environment showed birdwatching to be the fastest growing recreational activity between 1982 and 1995 among Americans 16 and older (155.2%), followed by hiking (93.0%) and backpacking (72.7%) (Cordell et al., 1995). These results complement earlier research which identified birdwatching and pleasure walking as the outdoor
Vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada recreational activities with the greatest growth potential in Canada (Foot, 1990).
future
The potential complementarity of vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan and elsewhere is based on at least two factors. First, the rural areas where vacation farms are located provide not only the relatively uncrowded spaces amenable to ecotourism, but also the remnant-to-extensive natural habitats which harbour wildlife. Furthermore, cultivated and grazed lands function as important feeding areas for wildfowl and ungulates. Secondly, by merit of their small size, local ownership, and integration into the local rural economy, vacation farms as a concept are a form of Alternative Tourism ideally suited to fulfill the call for sustainable rural tourism options (Bramwell, 1994). The current research gauges the extent to which Saskatchewan vacation farms are already involved in ecotourism, and proposes strategies for furthering this involvement in an appropriate fashion.
Methodology and response rate A list of all registered vacation farm operators was obtained from the 1995 Saskatchewan Vacation Guide (Saskatchewan, 1995). A self-administered questionnaire was sent in the summer of 1995 to the indicated operators of the 83 listed farms, along with appropriate cover letters and a stamped, addressed return envelope. The questionnaire used both closed- and open-ended questions to solicit information on a wide variety of characteristics associated with the operations; the information that is directly or indirectly pertinent to ecotourism is presented in this paper. One purpose of the survey was to examine how vacation farm operators perceive ecotourism (i.e., wildlife viewing) as a component of their operation. Central to this goal was the need to examine the level of ecotourism training and experience of operators, the nature of wildlife viewing characteristics on vacation farms, conflict with hunting and other potentially incompatible vacation farm activities, and barriers and opportunities of this sector. It was assumed that owners were in a position to judge the relative importance of various activity options among their clientele. Following an initial mail-out, a second package was sent to those operators from whom no response had yet been received. As a result of the two mailings, 40 useable questionnaires were obtained. As the original number of 83 was reduced to 76 primarily as a result of closings, the returns represented 53% of the known population of vacation farms in Saskatchewan. Given the low number of respondents in the
469
study, the results should be interpreted with caution, and used more as a means to stimulate future research.
Analysis
Setting and visitation profile Not surprisingly, eighty per cent (n = 32) of the vacation farms were located in the prairie biome of the province, which constitutes the core agricultural ecumene of Saskatchewan. Ten (25.0%) vacation farms were found within the parkland region (an area dominated by aspen forest), and only 7.5% (n = 3) were located in the boreal forest.' In terms of hydrological context, 13 respondents (32.5%) indicated the presence of wetlands, while rivers were present on 12 (30.0%) vacation farms. Eight respondents (20%) indicated the presence of lakes. The average owned (private) land base was 470 hectares, with a range of 2 to 2835 hectares. Crown land, on average, accounted for 243 hectares of recreational hinterland beyond the vacation farm properties themselves. The recreational hinterland of a vacation farm consists of all lands utilised for recreational purposes by the clients of that operation during the duration of their stay. Weaver and Fennell (1997) suggest that tourism on vacation farms may compete with other forms of land use and, in such cases, is usually treated as a secondary economic activity. These authors found that agriculture and tourism reached their peak times at the same time of the year, with some operators restricting the vacation farm season to July and August in order to satisfy the higher priority economic endeavours. However, this is not inconsistent with the nature of vacation farms across various jurisdictions, wherein tourism is usually subsidiary to agriculture. In Saskatchewan, it was found that gross income from vacation farms was less than $10,000 for about 77% of the sample, which in most cases resulted in less than 1% of the total farm income. An extensive range of visitors was apparent among the operations in the study, with reported 1994 estimates ranging from a low of two, to 3500. Over half of all visitation occurred in the summer months (54.6%), 25% in fall, and 14.9% in spring. Winter accounted for only 6.7% of visitation. The data indicated that operations are attractive as overnight vacation spots, with 46.7% of all visits being recorded as such. On average, adult males consti-
470
David A. Fennell and David B. Weaver
tuted 45.2% of visitors, 38.2% were adult females, and 17.6% were children,
Visitor activities
outfitters may not be as non-consumptive in their delivery of packages as demand requires.
Wildlife viewing characteristics
The questionnaire solicited the level of importance of selected visitor activities to each operator (Table 1). Given that a score of 3.0 represents a neutral response (average importance of the activity), the table reveals that 18 of the 23 activity options were found to be relatively unimportant. Of those scoring higher than 3.0, wildlife viewing (mean=3.82), the representative form of ecotourism in this study, was ascendent, followed by hunting (mean = 3.47). This is significant in that the literature on wildlife viewing and hunting suggests incompatibilities between these two activities, given their respective non-consumptive and consumptive nature. Vacation farm operators and backcountry outfitters provide some of the only accommodation opportunities for those wanting to experience many peripheral regions of Saskatchewan, and more broadly, Canada. Although there is little information from a vacation farms perspective, the issue has been raised with respect to backcountry outfitters who have contended with how best to refit their enterprises to accommodate what Kellert (1985) sees as a changing focus towards more non-consumptive outdoor recreational pursuits. Despite this fact, Anderson/Fast (1996) report that Table 1. Vacation farm visitor activities Activity
n
Mean"
S.D.
Wildlife viewing Hunting Casual photography Touring Hiking Camping Professional photography Horseback riding Petting zoo Cultural tourism Specialty meals Cross country skiing Conference/retreats Study/research Cycling Fishing Snowmobiling Purchasing souvenirs Assist in farm work Canoeing Ice fishing Boating Barn dancing
34 36 35 36 35 35 31 34 36 31 37 32 32 32 34 31 30 32 34 30 30 30 32
3.82 3.47 3.46 3.31 3.29 2.83 2.68 2.53 2.53 2.42 2.35 2.34 2.16 2.09 2.03 1.90 1.87 1.78 1.62 1.50 1.43 1.33 1.25
1.51 1.73 1.22 1.49 1.43 1.48 1.51 1.69 1.75 1.46 1.57 1.36 1.50 1.30 1.29 1.16 1.20 1.21 0.92 1.25 1.86 0.88 1.80
aBased on a five-point scale: 1 ='not at all important', 5 = 'very important'.
Table 2 provides a comprehensive overview of wildlife viewing characteristics within the sampled operations. Each of the main wildlife groups (e.g., mammals and birds) was compared on the basis of the following four variables: importance, mode of viewing, season, and time of day for viewing. All percentages reflect the number of a particular group viewed within each of the four categories identified. In addition, respondents, in many cases, overlapped their responses to include more than one variable (e.g., foot, boat, boat/foot, foot/horse/vehicle). In such cases, each particular variable (or mode in this example) was counted so as not to under-represent any particular response. The result is that multiple responses were recorded in many cases, owing to the different frequencies within various categories.
Importance and mode of viewing. Four of the six wildlife groups were viewed most often as common in importance, while fish and insect viewing were usually indicated as being minor in importance. Of the six groups, bird viewing was the most important, with eight of 29 responses given as 'major', 17 as 'common', and four as 'minor'. This corroborates a common impression that Saskatchewan is particularly well endowed with a broad variety of migratory bird species. Mammals were a close second in importance, followed by plants, reptiles/amphibians, insects and fish. In all cases, foot was the dominant mode of viewing wildlife, while boat was the least pursued option. There was very little difference in the incidence of viewing wildlife from a vehicle or horse. This question illustrates the variability in wildlife viewing opportunities within vacation farms, and raises the question as to whether all of these modes are equally appropriate to the ecotourism experience; both horse and vehicle, for example, may result in negative environmental impacts such as trail erosion, pollution and seed dispersal.
Season and time of day. The most significant finding of the seasonality characteristic is the marked decrease in winter viewing of wildlife groups. In general, most of the wildlife viewing was undertaken in the spring and summer, followed closely by the fall. This finding illustrates that there was no one dominant season for viewing wildlife. However, the relative importance of summer over
471
Vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada Table 2. Wildlife viewing characteristics Importance Group Mammal (%) viewmg (n) Bird ( f~ ) viewing (n) Rept/Amp'n (c~) viewing (n) Fish (~ ) viewing (n) Insect (% ) viewing (n) Plant (%) viewing (n)
Mode of Viewing
Major C o m m o n Minor Foot 24.0 6 26.7 8 16.7 2 9.1 1 0.0 0 26.1 6
48.0 12 56.7 17 25.0 3 0.0 0 46.2 6 43.5 10
24.0 6 13.3 4 58.3 7 90.9 10 53.8 7 26.1 3
42.3 22 50.0 28 50.0 6 66.7 4 62.5 5 55.9 19
Boat Vehicle 5.8 3 5.4 3 8.3 1 16.7 1 12.5 1 0.0 0
28.8 15 23.2 13 25.0 3 16.7 1 12.5 1 23.6 8
fall, even for birdwatching, is surprising, considering that the latter season is characterized by dramatic bird migrations, while the summer is a time of relative inactivity. Table 2 illustrates that dawn and dusk were the most significant times for the viewing of mammals, birds, and fish. Reptile and amphibian viewing was equally distributed during the dawn, afternoon, and dusk (30.8% for each), and plant viewing was reported to occur most often during the afternoon and at dusk (35.3% for each). Not surprisingly, wildlife viewing fell off significantly during the hours of the night. A majority of the sampled operators (n =27) provided examples of the wildlife species or groupings which could be viewed in conjunction with their operations. Thirteen operators provided no examples, although six of these had earlier provided information which clearly revealed the availability of wildlife viewing opportunities; therefore, only seven of 40 operators were apparently not involved in this activity at all. Of the 212 species/groups cited in total, 80 (37.7%) were birds, with 34 of these being of a perching variety (e.g., robins), 16 waterfowl (e.g., ducks), 14 birds of prey (e.g., eagles), six non-passerine (e.g., hummingbirds), and three fowllike birds (e.g., grouse). The numeric dominance of bird citations again reflects Saskatchewan's strength in this category of ecotourism attraction. Mammals represented the second highest frequency of wildlife viewed, comprising 62 or 29.2%. Mammals were also broken down into subgroups, with 39 of the 62 citations belonging to the ungulates (e.g., deer), 14 to the carnivores (e.g., coyote), and seven to the rodents (e.g., beaver). The prevalence of ungulates is not surprising, given the dominance of prairie habitat cited above. Thirty-two references were recorded with respect to the viewing of plants, representing 15.1% of all wildlife viewed. No further sub-categorization of plants was needed due to the
Season
Horse
Winter
23.1 12 21.4 12 16.7 2 0.0 0 12.5 1 20 6 7
10.8 7 7.9 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 4.4 2
Time of day
Spring Summer 27 7 18 31 6 24 25.0 3 30.0 3 35.7 5 33.3 15
32.3 21 34.2 26 41.7 5 50.0 5 42.9 6 37.8 17
Fall 29.2 19 26.3 20 33.3 4 20.0 2 21.4 3 24.4 11
Dawn Aft. 39.2 20 37.7 20 3(/.8 4 31/.I) 3 22.2 2 23.5 S
11.8 6 13.2 7 30.8 4 10.(I 1 44.4 4 35 3 12
Dust Night 43.1 22 45.3 24 3(I.8 4 50.[) 5 33.3 3 35.3 12
59 3 38 2 77 1 111.0 I 11.0 0 59 2
overwhelming reference to the generic 'wild flowers' and "native species'. Similar responses were recorded for insects (15; 7.1%; e.g., dragonflies and the ever-present mosquito throughout the warmer months), and reptiles and amphibians (14; 6.6%; mostly frogs, toads, and garter snakes). Finally, fish were viewed least (n = 9; 4.2%) and included species like rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, and perch. The small number of fish citations (n = 9) may reflect the relatively limited potential of this category for viewing (as opposed to fishing), and the relative lack of fish-sustaining waters in the farming areas of Saskatchewan.
Primary and secondary aspects of wildlife viewing and hunting Further to the previous discussion on wildlife viewing and hunting, respondents were asked to indicate the proportion of their guests who visited their vacation farm to view wildlife and hunt, respectively, as primary and secondary activities. The results lend support to the previous findings which suggest that wildlife viewing was the more important activity. Wildlife viewing was the primary activity undertaken, on average, by 32.9% of vacation farm visitors. The standard deviation of 32.9 for this variable reveals a wide dispersal around the mean value; for example, 11 operators stated that 0% of clients were primarily involved in this activity, while seven operators provided an estimate of 75% or more. Hunting, in contrast, was identified as the primary pursuit for 22.5% of clients; the standard deviation of 29.7 suggests a similarly diverse range of responses. Moreover, the five operations which provided values of 80% or more point toward the existence of a core of hunting-specialized vacation farms.
472
David A. Fennell and David B. Weaver
An analysis of the responses as to whether the activities are of secondary importance shows that wildlife viewing tends to be reported as such much more frequently than hunting. For example, an average of 25.8% of clients were reported as undertaking wildlife viewing as a secondary activity. The corresponding value for hunting was only 9.3%, suggesting that those who hunt tend to do so as their main activity. Those who view wildlife have more of a proclivity to do so in conjunction with a range of additional pursuits, perhaps because of its greater accessibility with respect to skills, costs and other barriers.
Ecotourism experience and training characteristics Operators were asked to indicate the type of ecotourism experience and training that they held, assuming that with knowledge of this rapidly growing tourism option, they could enhance the visitors' overall appreciation of the natural characteristics of their vacation farm (Table 3). Seven respondents (17.5%) indicated having prior experience in ecotourism, while six (15.4%) suggested that they held some form of training in this area. It was apparent that several of these were only indirectly related to ecotourism (e.g., first-aid training, farm living, public relations), while the two references to firearm or hunting experience could be considered as being opposed to ecotourism. This could, pending further investigation, indicate either a misunderstanding of the term's meaning, or a sense that responsible hunting qualifies as a form of ecotourism. With these concerns in mind, the responses may be divided into informal, formal, and combined informal/formal experience. The informal responses (n = 4) included self-education, 'hands-on experience', farm living, volunteering and guiding or leading of tours. Formal responses incorporated a variety of experiences, including participation with industry organizations (and especially the Saskatchewan Watchable Wildlife Association, which is the
Table3. Ecotourism experience and training characteristics Characteristic Prior experience" Yes No Trainingh Yes No aMean = 1.8; S.D. = 0.5. hMean = 1.8; S.D. = 0.4.
n
%
7 32
17.5 82.1
6 33
15.4 84.6
sector association for ecotourism in the province), seminars and workshops, unspecified professional training, and courses leading to diplomas or certificates. One operator emphasized that the lack of formal training opportunities in Saskatchewan was a big problem, while another respondent was planning to pursue formal training opportunities.
Barriers and opportunities to wildlife viewing Respondents were given the opportunity of discussing, in an open-ended format, particular barriers and opportunities to the provision of wildlife viewing in their operations. These questions were designed to solicit responses related to environmental, cultural and social, government and political, economic and financial, and infrastructural barriers/opportunities. Each is dealt with in the following section. In general, the only major environmental barrier mentioned was the weather, contributing to 'high infestations of mosquitos' on the one hand, and acting as a limiting factor to the appearance of waterfowl on the other; in essence, there was either too much or too little rain. Considering the limited amount of activity during the winter season (see above), it is surprising that no operators listed the cold climate as a barrier; pending further investigation, this may indicate an acceptance of the challenging winter as a normal phenomenon, rather than as a barrier. Many felt that the environment was the key reason for people wanting to visit vacation farms. In addition to several general comments on the countryside and its unspoiled nature, specific comments included the presence of wildlife species (e.g., 'birdwatching opportunities'), and wildlife habitat (e.g., 'proximity to internationally important wildlife area'). Of the nine comments related to cultural/social barriers to vacation farm operation, only one (i.e., 'indifference of some local people to wildlife') dealt specifically with wildlife viewing. No social/cultural opportunities related to wildlife viewing were cited by the sampled operators. Barriers of a governmental/political nature were predominantly directed towards the regulation of hunting activity, as for example through the implementation of gun control legislation. Respondents were adverse to the control of hunting dates and bag limits, in addition to the control of American hunters. Operators provided no specific responses on how government/political action has stimulated or impeded wildlife viewing opportunities, but merely mentioned the role of the Saskatchewan Vacation Guide (free advertising
Vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada from the Saskatchewan Tourism Authority) as an indirect spin-off for all vacation farm activities. There were no specific economic/financial barriers or opportunities recorded that dealt directly with the provision of wildlife viewing opportunities. When asked if operators were planning any improvements to facilities over the next five years, one made particular reference to the importance of wildlife: 'the whole operation needs improvement, as operator would like to be involved in ecotourism (i.e., birdwatching groups) but doesn't have facilities for larger groups'. Despite the fact that vacation farms in Saskatchewan have been in existence since the early 1970s, they remain quite modest in terms of their impact on the tourism sector in the province. Although many vacation farms are part of a thriving Country Vacation Farm Association (about one-third are not members) and have obtained exposure in Tourism Saskatchewan's guide to accommodation (Saskatchewan, 1995), there are very few wildlife programs beyond the provision of standard farm-related tourist opportunities identified in aforementioned guides, despite the fact that, as stated earlier, the majority of sampled operators provided examples of species which could be viewed in conjunction with their operations. However, these are not developed programs, which indicates that the onus is on the tourist to initiate wildlife viewing opportunities. This, along with operator expertise in ecotourism, must also be seen as a major barrier.
Recommendations
While a significant amount of ecotourism activity already occurs within Saskatchewan's vacation farm sector, considerable potential exists for further improvement and expansion. The following main recommendations represent selected strategies by which this potential can be realized; no particular priority of order is intended.
Increase the availability of ecotourism-oriented training opportunities Very few operators possess any formal training related to ecotourism, yet such training is crucial if vacation farms are to offer an environmentally sustainable, high-quality product in a cost-effective manner. A number of useful ecotourism manuals have appeared recently (e.g., Hudson, 1992; Hawkins et al., 1995), but these must be augmented by courses, seminars and workshops oriented
473
specifically to the context of Saskatchewan vacation farms. Strategically, such courses would be most effectively delivered to small groups of operators through a partnership of the Saskatchewan Watchable Wildlife Association, the Saskatchewan Tourism Authority, and the Saskatchewan Country Vacations Association. Future research needs to explore the types of experience, courses, and preparation that vacation farms operators have undertaken in preparing themselves to meet this aspect of the market.
Make available a pool of trained local ecotourism interpreters to be utilized by vacation farm operators and others invoh,ed with ecotourism The status of vacation farms as functioning agricultural enterprises constrains the operators' ability to participate directly in the provision of ecotourism activities such as guiding, facility maintenance and interpretation. This is especially significant in Saskatchewan insofar as the peak bird migration periods coincide with the spring planting and fall harvest. A potential solution is to train a cadre of local ecotourism guides who, depending on individual circumstances, could be available on a seasonal, regular part-time or 'on-call' basis. Such training opportunities, both for guides and operators, should be made available on a subsidized basis during the incubation period for ecotourism development. These could take the form of tax concessions and the provision of low- or non-rent facilities within which to offer such opportunities. The findings of the paper suggested that operators may not fully understand the meaning of ecotourism, and actually equate it with responsible hunting. Clarification could ultimately be handled by interpreters, if not by the ecotourists themselves.
Investigate the relationship between consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife-based visitor activities Two potentially incompatible wildlife-based options occupy the top positions among visitor activities reported by operators. Given the financially precarious status of many vacation farms, the patronage of both clienteles may be essential to generate a sufficient volume of visitors. However, any perceived catering to hunters or a hunting-positive environment could be alienating to the ecotourists, who would therefore go elsewhere for a non-consumptive environment. Whether or not this is a legitimate and significant concern needs to be investigated; if it is problematic, then operators may have to choose to specialize in one activity or the other. Conversely,
474
David A. Fennell and David B. Weaver
strategies of spatial and temporal segregation could be implemented in order to minimize conflict. For operators unsure of what to emphasize, it may be helpful to note that hunting participation, unlike ecotourism, has been steadily declining in both Canada (Filion et al., 1993) and in the USA (Cordell et al., 1995).
Conclusion
The development of ecotourism opportunities as part of the Saskatchewan vacation farm experience is clearly at an early stage. This study provides some baseline data with which to address the issue. Based on the limited population of vacation farms in the province, a sample of 40 operators, or more than one-half of the population, indicated that wildlife viewing was the most important activity of visitors, followed by hunting and casual photography, of 23 activities listed. Birds and mammals, respectively, were the most sought after animal attractions, usually during the summer and spring seasons. It was further discovered that there was a tremendous degree of variation in the perceived importance of wildlife viewing and hunting as client activities among the farms surveyed. Less than 20% of the sample was found to have any form of ecotourism training or experience, which led to the belief that this dearth had to be addressed in the future for this sector to prosper. Barriers related to the provision of wildlife viewing included mosquitos, rain, and the indifference of local people to wildlife. Future research might endeavour to analyse vacation farm tourists, both ecotourists and hunters, and their motivations, preferences, and attitudes towards their chosen vacation farm activities, beyond the operators' perceptions, which may have been motivated more by self-promotion rather than an accurate observation of tourist behaviour.
References
Anderson/Fast (1996). Ecotourism in Saskatchewan: State of Resource. Saskatchewan Watchable Wildlife Association: Saskatoon, SK, Canada. Bramwell, B. (1994) Rural tourism and sustainable rural tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2, 1-6. Cohen, E. (1989) Alternative tourism: a Critique. In Towards Appropriate Tourism: The Case of Developing Countries, eds T. Singh, L. Theuns and F. Go, pp. 127-142. Peter Lang, Frankfurt. Cordell, H., Lewis, B. and McDonald, B. (1995) Longterm outdoor recreation participation trends. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium and the 1995
National Recreation Resource Planning Conference, eds J. Thompson, D. Lime, B. Gartner and W. Sames, pp. 35-38. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Dernoi, L. (1983) Farm tourism in Europe. Tourism Management 4, 155-166. Dower, M. (1973) Recreation, tourism and the farmer. Journal of Agricultural Economics 24, 465-477. Ecotourism Society (nd) Ecotourism Statistical Fact Sheet. The Ecotourism Society, Alexandria, VA. Embacher, H. (1994) Marketing for agri-tourism in Austria: strategy and realisation in a highly developed tourist destination. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2, 61-76. Filion, F., Duwors, E., Jacquemont, A., Bouchard, P., Boxall, P., Gray, P. and Reid, R. (1993) The Importance of Wildlife to Canadians: Highlights of the 1991 Survey. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa. Foot, D. (1990) The age of outdoor recreation in Canada. Recreation Canada 48, 16-22. Frater, J. (1983) Farm tourism in England: planning, funding, promotion, and some lessons from Europe. Tourism Management 4, 167-179. Greenwood, J. (1994) Dartmoor area tourism initiative: a case study of visitor management in and around a national park. In Tourism: The State of the Art, ed. A. Seaton, pp. 682-690. John Wiley, Chichester, UK. Hawkins, D., Wood, M. and Bittman, S. (1995) The Ecolodge Sourcebook for Planners and Developers. Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, VT. Hudson, W. (ed.) (1992) Nature Watch: A Resource for Enhancing Wildlife Viewing Areas. Falcon Press, Helena, MT. Hummeibrunner, R. and Miglbauer, E. (1994) Tourism promotion and potential in peripheral areas: the Austrian case. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2, 41-50. Kellert, S. R. (1985) Birdwatching in American society. Leisure Sciences 7, 343-360. Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. Methuen, New York. Neate, S. (1987) The role of tourism in sustaining farm structures and communities on the Isles of Scilly. In Who from their Labours Rest? Conflict and Practice m Rural Tourism, eds M. Bouquet and M. Winter, pp. 9-21. Avebury, Aldershot, UK. Oppermann, M. (1995) Holidays on the farm: a case study of German hosts and guests. Journal of Travel Research 34, 63-67. Pevetz, W. (1991) Agriculture and tourism in Austria. Tourism Recreation Research 16, 57-60. Pizam, A. and Pokela, J. (1980) The vacation farm: a new form of tourism destination. In Tourism Marketing and Management Issues, eds D. Hawkins, E. Sharer and J. Roveistad, pp. 203-216. George Washington Press, Washington, DC. Saskatchewan (1995) Saskatchewan Vacation Guide. Saskatchewan Tourism Authority, Regina, SK, Canada. Shaw, G. and Williams, A. (1994) Critical Issues in Tourism: ,4 Geographical Perspective. Blackwell, Oxford. Smith, V. and Eadington, W. (eds) (1992) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA. Statistics Canada (1992) Miscellaneous statistical material. Statistics Canada (1994) Miscellaneous statistical material. Vogeler, I. (1977) Farm and ranch vacationing. Journal of Leisure Research 9, 291-300.
Vacation farms and ecotourism in Saskatchewan, Canada Weaver, David B. and Fennell, David A. (1997). The Saskatchewan vacation farm operator as entrepreneur. In International Rural Tourism Case Studies, eds D. Getz and S. Page. International Thomson Business Press, London.
475
Winter, M. (1987) Private tourism in the English and Welsh Uplands: farming, visitors and property. In Who from their Labours Rest? Conflict and Practice in Rural Tourism, eds M. Bouquet and M. Winter, pp. 22-34. Avebury, Aldershot, UK.