positive and negative impacts of wildlife tourism

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Animals (Basel)

The Escalating Effects of Wildlife Tourism on Human–Wildlife Conflict

Qingming cui.

1 School of Tourism Management, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China; moc.621@gnimgniqiuc

2 South China Ecological Civilization Research Center, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China

3 School of Hotel Administration, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA; ude.llenroc@242ry

Honggang Xu

4 School of Tourism Management, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China

Associated Data

Simple summary.

Communities adjacent to protected areas usually face conflict with protected wildlife. Wildlife tourism is regarded as a tool to mitigate such conflict through bringing economic benefits to villagers and then increasing villagers’ tolerance of wildlife. We used qualitative methods to conduct a case study on a macaque tourism attraction in China and find that tourism may escalate rather than mitigate community–wildlife conflict. Provisioning food is a common way to attract wild animals to visit and stay in human activity areas. In the case of macaque tourism, anthropogenic food provision caused rapid population increase and more intra-group aggressive behaviors. More tourist–macaque interactions resulted in macaques becoming habituated to human’s presence. These ecological impacts on macaques led more invasion to the surrounding community and intensified resident–macaque conflict. Meanwhile, low community participation in tourism generated few benefits for residents and did not help alter residents’ hostile attitudes towards the macaques. Local residents gradually retreated from agriculture as the macaques became more intrusive. We propose a holistic model combining social and ecological perspectives to evaluate the role of wildlife tourism in resolving community–wildlife conflict. We suggest that wildlife tourism should minimize human–wildlife intimate interactions and food provision.

Human–wildlife conflict is a barrier to achieving sustainable biodiversity conservation and community development in protected areas. Tourism is often regarded as a tool to mitigate such conflict. However, existing studies have mainly adopted a socio-economic perspective to examine the benefits of tourism for communities, neglecting the ecological effects of tourism. This case study of macaque tourism on a peninsula in China illustrates that tourism can escalate rather than mitigate human–wildlife conflict. Fifty-three stakeholders were interviewed and secondary data were collected to understand the development of rhesus macaque ( Macaca mulatta ) tourism and community–macaque conflict. The results show that food provision and tourist–macaque interactions rapidly increased the macaques’ population, habituation, and aggressive behaviors, which led them to invade the surrounding community more often and exacerbated human–macaque conflict. Meanwhile, low community participation in tourism generated few benefits for residents and did not help alter residents’ hostile attitudes towards the macaques. Local residents gradually retreated from agriculture as the macaques became more intrusive. A holistic approach to evaluating the role of wildlife tourism in resolving community–wildlife conflict is proposed and practical suggestions for alleviating such conflict are given.

1. Introduction

In the past few decades, protected areas have been one of the main tools for maintaining and improving biodiversity conservation [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. However, there are tensions between wildlife conservation and the development of communities adjacent to protected areas [ 5 , 6 ]. The establishment of protected areas deprives communities of natural resources and restricts industrial and agricultural development, suggesting that to conserve ecology and wildlife, those communities sacrifice economic opportunities [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Moreover, wild animals often cross the borders of protected areas and enter neighboring communities, causing human–wildlife conflict [ 10 , 11 ]. The costs that wildlife impose upon local people include crop-raiding, livestock loss, human attacks, and opportunity and transaction costs [ 8 , 12 ]. Local residents who suffer economic, social, and health losses may then become hostile to wildlife and conservation, and even harm or kill wild animals for revenge [ 12 , 13 ]. Human–wildlife conflict is therefore one of the main problems besetting sustainable wildlife conservation and the sustainable livelihoods of local communities. “Human–wildlife conflict” in this study mainly refers to the community–wildlife conflict, following most other conservation studies, e.g., [ 12 , 14 , 15 ].

Wildlife tourism development has been proposed as a solution to human–wildlife conflict [ 3 , 14 , 15 ]. Recent studies have focused on examining whether and how tourism benefits can alter communities’ hostile attitudes and livelihoods from the economic and social perspectives [ 16 ]. In this article, we argue that those studies neglect the ecological costs of wildlife tourism. Human–wildlife interactions in tourism can bring about various adaptive ecological and behavioral changes that cause wildlife to become a nuisance and make human–wildlife conflict difficult to manage [ 17 , 18 ]. The introduction of profit-driven wildlife tourism in protected areas can trigger complicity in relation to human–wildlife conflict and result in a divergence from original conservation principles. In order to bridge the above research gap, we propose a holistic approach that synthesizes social and ecological perspectives to examine the interactions among tourism businesses, local community, and wildlife.

We use macaque tourism in Hainan Province, China, as a case study to show how wildlife tourism can intensify, rather than mitigate, human–wildlife conflict. The specific research questions include: (1) How do the community residents cope with the community–wildlife conflict? (2) How does the community participate in tourism, and can tourism benefits change the community’s attitude towards wildlife? (3) How does tourism activities affect wildlife? (4) Does wildlife tourism exacerbate or mitigate human–wildlife conflict if assessing the socio-economic benefits and ecological costs combined?

2. Literature Review

2.1. tourism as a way to mitigate human–wildlife conflict.

There are controversial arguments about whether and how tourism development mitigates human–wildlife conflict in protected areas. Many studies endorse the premise that tourism benefits that accrue to local residents can raise villagers’ environmental awareness, increase residents’ tolerance of wildlife [ 15 ], and transform traditional livelihoods [ 19 ]. For instance, Mbaiwa and Stronza found that in Okavango Delta, three communities participating in tourism had stopped traditional activities, such as hunting, gathering, livestock raising, and crop farming [ 20 ]. Tourism revenue-sharing projects in gorilla tourism in Rwanda and Uganda have received the most research attention, with studies finding that national park officials and local representatives believe that revenue-sharing is the most significant advantage of living adjacent to gorilla national parks [ 21 ] and that residents benefit from tourism revenue-sharing through infrastructure projects [ 22 , 23 ]. Cases from Brazil and Peru also support the argument that tourism benefits local residents, and that local participation in management can generate conservation attitudes and actions [ 24 ].

However, other scholars have questioned the effectiveness of tourism in improving community development and biodiversity conservation [ 9 , 16 , 25 ]. Swemmer et al. pointed out that “benefit sharing is messy, is complex, and occurs at various scales with multiple trade-offs” [ 26 ] (p. 17). Stakeholders at different scales have heterogeneous demands for revenue, for various reasons. For instance, communities in Uganda’s Mgahinga Gorilla National Park were found to want benefits to compensate for crop and livestock losses caused by wildlife, park officials hoped to use tourism revenues to offset the costs of management, and the national government tended to allocate tourism revenues according to the conservation needs of the whole state [ 27 ]. In many developing countries, the government and park authorities have the power to determine the allocation of tourism revenues, and communities lack access to participation in the decision-making process [ 25 , 28 , 29 ].

In addition to unequal power relations and a lack of local participation, the uneven distribution of tourism benefits is another problem [ 16 ]. Within communities, poor residents often perceive that the elite obtain the majority of tourism benefits [ 22 , 28 ]. Hemson et al. noted that only residents in tourism industry gain benefits; most local residents are not beneficiaries of tourism [ 30 ]. Tourism revenues may not be distributed evenly among different communities. For example, residents in the buffer zone of Nepal’s Chitwan National Park are constrained in their use of natural resources, but only those villages close to the park’s entry points benefit from tourism incentives [ 31 ]. In China’s Wolong Giant Panda Nature Reserve, the communities close to main roads gain more income from tourism than the remote communities that bear greater costs of conservation [ 32 ]. The spatial unevenness of revenue distribution has also been found in gorilla national parks in central Africa [ 25 , 33 , 34 ].

Moreover, the distribution of tourism economic incentives is often mismatched. Crop-raiding and livestock loss caused by wildlife are the problems of most concern to local residents [ 25 , 34 ]. However, tourism benefits are often allocated to improving social infrastructures, such as clinics, schools, roads, bridges, wells, and water tanks, rather than direct compensation or the prevention of human–wildlife conflict [ 21 , 22 ]. Because of this mismatch, local people remain hostile towards wildlife [ 30 ]. The locals in Kibale National Park in Uganda regard building elephant trenches as being better than building schools and roads [ 35 ]. Many scholars have therefore suggested that tourism revenues should be used to directly offset losses caused by human–wildlife conflict to more effectively improve local attitudes to conservation [ 22 , 25 , 28 , 34 ].

Generally, existing studies mainly evaluate the role of tourism in conservation from the socio-economic dimension, and conclude that although tourism benefits contribute to changing local people’s attitudes towards wildlife and conservation, the effectiveness of tourism is limited due to the unequal, uneven, and mismatched distribution of benefits [ 16 , 36 ]. By contrast, few studies consider the ecological impacts when assessing the impact of tourism on mitigating human–wildlife conflict. Many protected areas use their unique species as tourist attractions to generate economic revenues. However, wildlife-based tourism development is not without cost. Tourism activities can generate negative effects on wild animals [ 37 , 38 ], which should also be considered when evaluating social and economic benefits [ 39 ]. In the next section, we review the effects of wildlife tourism on macaques as an exemplar species.

2.2. The Effects of Wildlife Tourism on Macaques

Humanity has a long history of interacting with macaques ( genus Macaca ). In contemporary society, free-ranging macaques have become popular tourist attractions. There are 23 species of macaque distributed in Asia, North Africa, and Gibraltar, many of which are strongly involved in the tourism industry [ 40 ].

Wild animals usually avoid encountering humans, which makes wildlife-based tourism unpredictable and uncontrollable [ 41 ]. In non-captive macaque tourism, food provisioning is a common way to tempt macaques to stay in a certain area and become habituated to the presence of people [ 42 , 43 , 44 ]. In some wildlife tourism sites, feeding animals is itself an important tourist experience [ 44 ]. Provision of food is an effective strategy to increase the likelihood of tourists interacting with free-ranging macaques [ 44 ].

However, food provisioning and tourist activities have various negative effects on macaques [ 44 , 45 ]. Anthropogenic foods are highly caloric and are more palatable and more accessible than macaques’ natural foods. Wild macaques therefore spend more time at tourist sites and come to rely on the provided food supply, resulting in changes in their activity budgets and dietary diversity [ 43 , 46 ]. Provisioning also affects the population in diverse ways. A stable, intensive, and abundant food supply can dramatically increase the population of macaques [ 39 , 44 , 47 ]; however, close contact raises the possibility of mutual pathogen transmission between humans and macaques, which can further affect the health and population of the animals [ 48 ].

Macaques in tourism areas gradually develop interspecific aggressive behaviors. The presence and proximity of tourists can elevate Barbary macaques’ anxiety levels [ 49 , 50 ]. Many tourists are not satisfied with inactive wildlife. They often tease monkeys to behave more actively by pointing, waving, slapping, mimicking, yelling, throwing food, and even threatening [ 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. Many studies show that tourists initiate the majority of interactions with macaques [ 54 , 55 ]. Tourists’ provocative behaviors induce monkeys’ agonistic responses such as biting, scratching, hitting, and threatening [ 52 , 56 ]. Because of interspecific differences, tourists generally misinterpret the meaning of monkeys’ behaviors, which may enhance the agonism. For example, Maréchal et al. found that in interactions, most tourists cannot identify the exact meanings of macaques’ facial expressions [ 57 ]. The longer the history of visitors’ interactions with macaques, the more aggressive the macaques may become [ 58 ].

Food provision also intensifies intraspecific agonism. Monkeys fight with each other during the feeding time [ 59 ]. There is a positive correlation between food provision and the frequency of in-group aggression [ 54 ]. Furthermore, tourists like to feed baby monkeys, which they perceive as cuter than adults [ 51 ]. This preference violates the strict hierarchy among macaque groups and increases the rate of attacks on baby and juvenile macaques by male adult macaques [ 51 , 59 ].

Despite these negative impacts, some scholars regard human–macaque interactions in tourism as opportunities that have stimulated the evolution of macaques [ 18 ]. Evidence for this point of view is the robbing and bartering behavior developed by long-tailed macaques at Uluwatu Temple, Indonesia [ 60 ]. The macaques have learned to steal inedible objects such as glasses and hats from tourists and barter the objects for food with the staff. This innovation has been socially learned and has spread in the group, suggesting that human–macaque interactions in tourism can cause significant cultural change in a macaque group [ 61 ].

Existing research shows that tourism affects macaques at the population, behavioral, and cultural levels. Macaques can develop adaptive behaviors in anthropogenic tourism environments. Barrett, Stanton and Benson-Amram called for more studies to explore the roles of animals’ adaptive behaviors in worsening or mitigating human–wildlife conflict in protected areas [ 17 ]. This study uses macaque tourism in China to show that the effects of tourism on macaques can exacerbate rather than mitigate human–wildlife conflict.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. study site.

The study site is Nanwan peninsula in Lingshui county, Hainan, China ( Figure 1 ). This peninsula consists of three main areas: Nanwan Macaque Provincial Nature Reserve, Monkey Tourism Park, and Nanwan Village. The nature reserve was established in 1965 and covers 10.2 square kilometers [ 56 ]. The reserve contains more than 2000 rhesus macaques ( Macaca mulatta ), which are second class protected animals in China. There is a protection station responsible for conservation work. In 1974, a tourism park was built in the experimental zone of the nature reserve. Food was used to attract wild monkeys into the tourism area [ 62 ]. In 2020, more than 500 monkeys visit the tourism park every day, and approximately one million tourists visit every year. Nanwan Village, which has approximately 550 residents, is also located in the experimental zone of the reserve. Agriculture is still the way of life for some villagers. Macaques often cross the border of the nature reserve and enter the village, causing community–macaque conflict.

Map of the study site.

The macaques are the only target attraction in this area. There are also some potentially attractive houseboats on the sea, where some water people still live. However, those houseboats are usually seen from the cable cars, few tourists approach them.

3.2. Data Collection

The research team visited the site 10 years ago and conducted a study attempting to understand the tourism development model of the conservation area. The current qualitative study is based on twice fieldwork conducted from 16 to 22 February 2019, and from 28 to 30 September 2020. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and observation. We used the method of purposive sampling to find the people who best know the situations about tourism, community, and nature reserve. We interviewed 2 managers from the nature reserve, 2 managers and 5 staff from the Monkey Tourism Park, 26 tourists, the chairman of Nanwan Village and other 17 Nanwan villagers. We also interviewed a biologist who had studied the macaques in the park since 2013. Interviews with tourists were mainly conducted at the visitor center. The main questions were about the visitors’ general views on macaques, and how they perceived and reacted to aggressive macaques. Interactions between the tourists and macaques were observed and recorded as field notes. Interviews with managers and staff were conducted in their workplaces. We mainly asked about the development of scenic spots, management of the macaques, and community participation in tourism. The interviews with the nature reserve managers covered the establishment and development of the protected area, the protection of macaques, the relationship between the protected area and the tourism park, and responses to community–macaque conflict. Interviews with the villagers concerned their livelihood, their attitudes to macaques, and management of the nature reserve and tourism park. All interviewees gave their permission to be recorded.

Observation was mainly used to understand the spatial arrangements of tourism park, tourist routes, nature reserve, and community land utilization. For example, the route that tourists go to the park from the mainland and return, the distance between the community and the park, the locations of village mango groves. The spatial relations between the tourism park, nature reserve, and village are essential to understand human–macaque conflict (see Supplementary Materials Figures S1–S4 ).

In addition to the above first-hand data, we also searched second-hand data about the Monkey Tourism Park, such as published research articles (e.g., [ 56 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]), and news reports (e.g., [ 66 , 67 ]) to help comprehensively understand the history of tourism development and macaque protection.

3.3. Data Analysis

From numerous qualitative data analysis methods, we chose “thematic analysis” [ 68 ] to analyze our collected materials. During the data analysis, the audio records were transcribed first. Then, two authors separately read the first-hand and second-hand data repeatedly to get familiar with the data. Second, we generated many initial codes about conservation conditions, community-macaque conflicts, community participations in tourism, and tourism’s ecological impacts. Third, we thought about the relationships between codes and categorized these codes into many sub-themes and themes, including conservation modes, villagers’ strategies to cope with conflict with macaques, low community participation in tourism, and two main ecological impacts of tourism on macaques. Fourth, each of the two authors reviewed and named the themes. After that, we wrote an outline by relating these themes to explain the story of community–macaque conflict and tourism development, then compared the two outlines to obtain a mutually agreed version and construct a thematic map. The third author then compared this outline with the data to check its validity, and proposed a final thematic map (see Supplementary Materials Figure S5 ), on which the results are based. Finally, the three authors proposed a general model to explain the exacerbating effects of tourism on human–wildlife conflict according to the evidence from Nanwan.

4.1. Coercive Fortress Conservation and Spatial Exclusion of the Community

The community–macaque conflict on the Nanwan peninsula has existed for a long time. In the 1930s and 1950s, before the establishment of the nature reserve, the conflict was solved at the cost of a loss of macaques. To safeguard their crops, community residents killed macaques. When the nature reserve was established in 1965, there were only 5 groups of macaques left, comprising about 115 individuals [ 62 ].

The nature reserve system in China prohibits any use of natural resources in the core and buffer zones, and only allows limited research, education, tourism, and leisure activities in the experimental zone [ 69 ]. This management regulation tallies with the model of fortress conservation, according to which “biodiversity protection is best achieved by creating protected areas where ecosystems can function in isolation from human disturbance” and “only tourism, safari hunting, and scientific research are considered as appropriate uses within protected areas” [ 70 ] (p. 704). The fortress conservation in Nanwan is coercive and underpinned by national laws. All conservation work in the reserve is run from a protection station, which routinely sends rangers to patrol and record at various points in the reserve. Considering that the Nanwan villagers and their ancestors have lived in this area for a long time, this conservation model excludes the community residents from using resources that once belonged to them. It also means that Nanwan villagers sacrifice their development opportunities for conservation.

As a result of the coercive fortress conservation, macaques are well protected. The number of macaques has undergone a rapid increase. In 1988, there were 903 macaques in Nanwan nature reserve [ 63 ]. In 1998, the population was estimated to be 1300 [ 63 ]. In 2019, the manager of the nature reserve told us that the current estimate is more than 2000 macaques.

4.2. Community–Macaque Conflict and the Lack of Ecological Compensation

As the population of macaques has grown, community–macaque conflict has worsened. According to Lian and Jiang [ 64 ], the ecological capacity of Nanwan nature reserve can provide resources for 1900 macaques at most. The current macaque population level has exceeded the maximum capacity. In a study conducted in 2010 [ 65 ], an ecologist has pointed out the problem of ecological overshoot on Nanwan peninsula.

Many bold macaques now enter the community area to search for food. The most damaged crops include mangoes, sweet potatoes, and watermelons. In Nanwan village, nearly every household used to have a mango grove, and selling mangoes was one of their main income sources. When the mango harvest was better, a farmer could earn about $2800 USD to $4200 USD per year. However, when the mangoes are ripe, macaques enter into the groves almost every day. As one resident (L02) described: “We are the poorest village in this town area. When mangoes ripen, macaques come down to eat. They not only eat whatever they can, but also grab and throw away the rest.” Some monkeys have even broken into residents’ houses to search for cooked food or steal eggs from chicken pens. The locals show obvious hostility towards the monkeys by describing them as “public nuisances” and “thieves”.

Because of the legally protected status of the macaques, the community cannot hurt monkeys as their ancestors did in the past. After the establishment of the nature reserve, it was made very clear to the Nanwan villagers that capturing monkeys is illegal. Nowadays, the residents do not have effective ways to expel the annoying macaques. “Many macaques come to the village at a time. You cannot catch them. You cannot beat them. We know it is illegal. If we frighten them, they run to the top of the trees and cannot be driven away. They are animals, we cannot control them.” (L01). Some villagers tried to isolate mango groves from the macaques using nets, but staff from the protection station stopped that defense because they feared that the net may pose a threat to the macaques. The conflict between the community and the macaques became more tense.

As a result, villagers were eager to be compensated by the government for their loss of livelihood. However, the protection station manager said: “There is no special fund for ecological compensation in Hainan Province for macaque damage.” (SM01). Nanwan villagers complained about the lack of ecological compensation: “We live on mangoes, macaques often come down to eat, they [the protection station] do not give us money, even a penny.” (L02). With no ecological compensation, the conflict between villagers and macaques remains unsolved, even though the station manager is aware of the macaques’ crop-raiding.

4.3. Monkey Tourism and Limited Community Participation

The development of monkey tourism brought a new potential opportunity to solve the conflict between villagers and macaques. There is a long history of developing macaque tourism on Nanwan peninsula. In 1974, the staff of the protection station began to feed two groups of macaques and the area received tourists in 1980 [ 62 ]. Around 1985, the Lingshui county government established a tourism company and cooperated with the reserve to develop monkey tourism on a large scale [ 62 , 66 ]. After experiencing 10 years of rapid development, the tourism park began to decline [ 67 ]. To restore tourism development, in 1999 the county government sold the rights of developing the park to a private cable car company. To reinvigorate tourism development, the company built a two-kilometer cableway to connect the mainland to the peninsula, rebuilt the park’s infrastructure, and improved the park’s management [ 67 ]. The tourism development has followed the conservation plan, such that nobody can enter the core zone of the reserve; the tourism park is restricted to the experimental zone and tourists can only interact with macaques when the monkeys freely enter this zone [ 65 ]. The attraction is now a national 4A level scenic area and attracts approximately one million tourists every year.

However, the prosperity associated with the monkey tourism has not resulted in the economic development of Nanwan village for many reasons. The most important is that the enclaved mass tourism model leaves no room for business opportunities for the Nanwan villagers. Most visitors are package tourists. They enter the scenic area via the sightseeing cableway from Xincun town on the mainland. The trip is about two-hour visit. They then either take a cable car or a boat and shuttle bus back. There are no tourism products in the village. Thus, there are few intersections between the tourists’ activities and village spaces. The villagers once applied to do business in the scenic area, but were denied by the manager. “When the scenic area belonged to the county government, we could sell things inside. When the tourism company contracted with the local government, they promised we could still do business inside. But after selling for one month, we were driven away by the tourism company and were not allowed to sell things from then on.” (L08).

Second, the tourism park only employs a limited number of villagers, due to its adoption of a modern business management model. Well paid and skilled jobs can only be from outside the peninsula. There are more than 130 households in Nanwan village. Only about 10 of them have obtained low-salary jobs in tourism to do cleaning and security work. The average salary is about $230 USD per month, lower than working in other places. “Now only some old villagers work in the scenic spot as security guards. They look after the scenic spot during the night.” (L09). Work in tourism is not economically attractive compared with off-farm jobs in the city.

Third, about 10 households rent their land to the company managing the scenic area. However, the contract was signed 20 years ago for a period of 50 years with a land value based on its 1999 evaluation. The village chairman revealed that: “About 10 households have contracts with the scenic area. Rents are low. Now the park pays the rent every year, about $50 USD per household. Only about 10 households receive the money.” (L01). The residents are powerless compared to the company, who is a big tax-payer for Lingshui County. Thus, it is impossible for the residents to push the company to sign a new contract based on the current land value.

The perception of the tourism park manager is that the company is not responsible for community development and compensation for macaque damage. “I am not clear about the negotiation between the nature reserve and the community. It [the compensation] has nothing to do with our park. We are only responsible for business operations. Macaques belong to the nature reserve, who should be responsible for the compensation.” (PM01).

It may be true that for historical reasons, the partnership among the conservation committee, the park company, the village committee, and the villagers was not perfectly designed because the potential dynamics of tourism and the macaques were not clear initially. The major challenge now is that the initial collaboration model was not designed to enable all parties to negotiate and benefit from the collaboration when changes occur. In the next section, we show how the development of macaque tourism is likely to escalate community–macaque conflict, and demonstrate the obligation of the tourism industry to provide compensation.

4.4. Adaptive Macaques and Escalation of Human–Wildlife Conflict

4.4.1. population, aggression, and tourist–macaque conflict.

As with macaque tourism in other regions, developing tourism on Nanwan peninsula has had many ecological effects on monkeys. One of the most obvious impacts is the rapid growth of the macaque population. Food provision is the main method of attracting wild macaques to the tourism park area and keeping them there. Such provisioning started in 1974 and continues now. Usually, the macaques come down from nearby hills every morning, stay in the park area during the day and go back to the hills in the evening. The park staff feed the macaques at 08:00, 12:00, and 17:30 each day with wheat and various vegetables [ 56 ]. In 2013, around 80 g of food was formally provided per individual per day [ 71 ]. In addition, the park sells food for tourists to feed the macaques. Anthropogenic provision can increase macaque populations. A biologist who is studying macaques in the park said that “provision can lead to the growth of the monkey population within the park. My records are from 2013 to this year 2019 and show that the number of fertile adult female macaques has grown every year in this park.” (R1). More fertile adult female macaques mean that there are more baby macaques every year. Zhang et al. recorded 7 groups with approximately 350 individuals visiting the park in 2014 [ 56 ]. According to the official data, the macaque population grew from 393 in 2018 to 433 in 2019. The head of Department of Macaque Management estimated that the number is more than 500 in 2020 and there are about 80 new-born baby macaques every year. The population growth effect of tourism provision corresponds with studies of Barbary macaques in Gibraltar [ 47 ] and Japanese macaques in Oita [ 39 ].

Second, the macaques become habituated to the presence of people and more aggressive to tourists. The provisioned food (80 g/individual/day) is not enough to satisfy the needs of every monkey. Many monkeys develop robbing, biting, scratching, and threatening behaviors towards tourists. Zhang et al. recorded 195 instances of aggressive behavior, most of which were aimed at obtaining food [ 56 ]. Tourist-induced aggressive behaviors accounted for 54.67% of the total [ 56 ]. Visitors often pursue close interactions with monkeys by feeding and touching them, even though the park regulations and tour guides prohibit such behaviors.

During our field observations, we found that when entering the park, tour guides usually counselled visitors not to feed monkeys or hold drinks, foods or colorful bags in their hands, and they repeatedly reminded visitors not to open bags in front of the macaques to prevent robberies by the monkeys. Park managers also set up many noticeboards to remind the tourists not to engage in these “transgressive” behaviors, but still allowed tourists to buy park-provided food to feed the macaques. Tourists usually perceived the monkeys, especially baby monkeys, as “funny, cute, and human-like”, and thus “approachable and playful” (T01). Many tourists ignored or forgot the guides and warnings, and approached the macaques to feed, tease and interact with them. These behaviors are highly likely to incur an attack. Staff in the park’s clinic said that nearly every day there are incidents in which tourists are hurt by macaques. Moreover, there were 45.33% aggressive behaviors initiated by the macaques [ 56 ]. Sometimes monkeys actively rob food, drinks, and inedible objects such as paper napkins and glasses from careless tourists. Some bold adult male macaques may even open tourists’ bags to search for food.

The above evidence shows that macaques in Nanwan Monkey Park have developed adaptive aggressive behaviors through long-term human–macaque interactions to better obtain anthropogenic resources and maximize their benefits. Tourists who are bitten or scratched by macaques need to be given vaccines, which increases the economic cost of the park’s operation and leads to economic disputes with tourists and the tourism company. Therefore, the park has built many wooden “cages” for tourists to eat inside to avoid monkey robberies. A number of security guards have been recruited to constantly remind visitors to pay attention to safety, and stop tourists from engaging in transgressive behaviors. The security guards are also responsible for driving macaques back to the trees when they gather at the visitor center or trails. However, it is difficult for the guards to watch over such a high number of tourists and troublesome macaques. The interviewed biologist revealed that in recent years the park had decided to increase the amount of food provision with the aim of making the macaques fuller and thus reducing their attacks on tourists. Now, in 2020 the head of Department of Macaque Management told that the park fed 50 kg of rice and 10 kg of peanuts for the macaques every day, that is 100 g for an individual per day.

Many measures have been formulated to mitigate tourist–macaque conflict in the park. However, the impact of the aggressive monkeys on the local community on Nanwan peninsula has been largely neglected. The monkeys not only make trouble in the park, but also invade Nanwan village, intensifying community–macaque conflict.

4.4.2. Intensification of Community–Macaque Conflict

It is difficult for the rapidly increasing and aggressive macaques in the tourism park not to influence the community, because the park is next to the community’s mango groves and the macaques are free to range in the park, the nature reserve, and the village. The park is separated from one main piece of village’s mango groves by a wall, which “can only prevent humans entering the park, not stop the monkeys entering the mango grove”, commented by a villager (L16) (see Supplementary Materials Figure S3 ). The interviewed biologist revealed that “Nanwan village is just next to the monkey park. Sometimes park macaques do range in Nanwan Village.” (R01). Although there has been no quantitative research calculating the proportions of park macaques and nature reserve macaques invading Nanwan village, it can be sure that monkey tourism has affected the community–macaque relationship.

The effects of tourism on the population and behaviors of the macaques have contributed to the escalation of community–macaque conflict. First, the fact that the tourism park has provided a stable and increasing food source for macaques has made the park a “reservoir” of constantly reproducing macaques. These macaques inevitably overflow into the surrounding areas including the village, especially when the park does not provide abundant food. A resident (L07) commented that “A few years ago there were more monkeys because they [the park] did not provide enough food for the monkeys, who then came to the village to steal food. Now, they feed more food and monkeys have become fewer in our village.” The village head told that “There were more monkeys disturbing the village in the COVID-19 pandemic compared to past years, maybe because the tourism food provision became less” (L01). The problem is that more provision can only keep macaques in the park temporarily, at the cost of macaques reproducing in the future. Thus, it is predictable that more provision cannot resolve the conflict between the community and the macaques, but will eventually intensify it. Second, the park macaques have become habituated to the presence of humans. When they invade Nanwan village, they are not afraid of villagers. Hence, villagers have few methods to repel the macaques. “After our protection, the macaques live harmoniously with humans. When people treat macaques well and stop hurting them, their courage will increase and they will definitely come to the village to find food to eat.” (SM01). The ecological impacts of tourism on macaques complicate the community–macaque conflict.

Residents’ reactions to macaque invasion provides further evidence of the escalated conflict. Nanwan villagers usually adopt two strategies in response to the ongoing macaque invasions. Some villagers spend more time and energy watching out for macaques to defend their mangoes (see Supplementary Materials Figure S2 ). In the ripe season, they have to stop most other daily work to drive away the invading monkeys, who may appear in the village at any time. Although driving away the monkeys is quite time and labour consuming, this intense defense does not significantly reduce invasion by the macaques. For instance, “Near the harbour, a boss rents the land and has planted many mangoes. The operation is different. They employ special men to drive away macaques all the day. But they said there are still a lot of monkeys going to eat mangoes.” (L06). Even the professionalization of repelling monkeys cannot stop macaque damage. Thus, many other residents have given up planting in most of the mango groves near the hills and the park (see Supplementary Materials Figure S4 ). Some have even abandoned mango cultivation as a main livelihood and have chosen to find jobs in the county town. “Now my family members don’t care about whether the mangoes grow well or not. We find jobs in other places. My parents stay at home, but have also stopped planting mangoes.” (L04). Only about 15 households still plant mangoes now, according to the estimate of the village head. The strategies of intense defense against macaques and retreating from planting mangoes are the community’s helpless reactions to the escalation of community–macaque conflict.

5. Discussion

The Nanwan case shows a dynamic and growing pattern of human–macaque conflict over time. This conflict existed when the community lived on the island before the reserve was established and did not stop when the nature conservation system was implemented. However, conflicts intensified when tourism was introduced. The structures leading to these conflicts are presented in Figure 2 . We argue that making food available to macaques is the critical aspect underlying all of these complicated conflictual relationships.

Integrated model of tourism–macaque–community interactions.

In the absence of anthropogenic and external influences, wild macaques live mainly by foraging for natural food. Under this condition, the macaque population will not exceed the maximum ecological capacity, and in the long term, wild macaques and the natural environment will reach an ecological balance. As the top left loop in Figure 2 illustrates, natural food resources impose a constraint on the growth of macaque populations, and vice versa. In the loop without anthropogenic influence, ecological rule plays the vital role in controlling macaque population.

However, in reality there are usually human communities adjacent to protected areas, and their agricultural crops provide additional food sources for wildlife. Hence, when protected areas lack sufficient food, wild macaques will invade the surrounding communities for extra food. When crop raiding, macaques must bypass communities’ guards, which usually evolves into human–macaque conflict. In the case of Nanwan, the villagers have developed different strategies to cope with human–macaque conflict in different social, historical, and institutional contexts.

Before the establishment of the nature reserve and the legislation of macaque protection, humans had advantages over the monkeys. They often hunted the transgressive macaques to protect their crops, which reduced the wild macaque population. After the nature reserve was established, the advantages were reversed. The villagers were prohibited from hurting the macaques, even for the purpose of protecting their property. Subsequently, the residents adopted a defensive strategy in the short term and attempted to drive the nuisance macaques away. This defense was effective in reducing crop loss and restraining the rapid increase of macaques. However, because of the gradual habituation of the macaques to the presence of humans, the residents have become unable to find effective methods to expel the monkeys once and for all. Thus, their defense strategy has failed to stop the macaque invasion. Human–macaque conflict has heightened; crop damage has increased, and the macaque population has grown steadily. In the long term, as the labour and time costs of defense have continued to increase, the community has begun to retreat, stop planting crops and find alternative livelihoods, resulting in a further increase of the macaque population in the community’s agricultural area. The conservation policies and community’s livelihood strategies determine the community–macaque interactions. In the context of coercive fortress protection, macaques have big advantages over humans, and the community–macaque conflict loop will not be completely mitigated until the community fully retreats from agriculture.

The introduction of wildlife tourism was supposed to mitigate community–macaque conflict. However, food provision has exacerbated the conflict. The Monkey Tourism Park uses food to tempt wild macaques to visit the park regularly, as many other tourism attractions have done [ 39 , 51 , 52 ]. This attracts tourists who want to watch and interact with the monkeys at close range. Close tourist–macaque interactions induce frequent macaque attacks on tourists [ 52 , 56 ], which have resulted in additional economic costs and disputes for the tourism park. To reduce these attacks and their associated costs, the tourism park has increased the amount of food provided to make the macaques more satiated and thereby stop them robbing food from tourists. Thus, a vicious loop has developed. Commercial logic dominates this loop. For maximizing the profit, the tourism park must maintain and increase food provision to attract macaques coming and reduce macaque attacks. As a consequence, the population of macaques will keep growing [ 39 , 47 ]. Macaques may also develop adaptive behaviors, including aggressive behavior, in continuous interactions with humans [ 18 , 61 ].

As the macaque population grows, the food provided by the tourism park can never be enough. Some macaques inevitably intrude into the nearby village to search for edible crops. This widens the macaque–community conflict loop. Because of the constantly reinforced loop in the tourism park, crop damage is intensified as more and more macaques become habituated to and aggressive towards humans. As a result, the macaque population gradually increases and the community retreats from agriculture with a hostile attitude.

This integrated model provides a general theoretical explanation of the dynamic and growing pattern of human–macaque conflict under the impact of wildlife tourism. The model covers the interactions between tourism, the community, and the macaques that we can see. However, it needs more testing and validation before it can be extended to explain conflict between humans and other species in other regions.

6. Conclusions

In protected areas, human–wildlife conflict is one of the main barriers to achieving sustainable biodiversity conservation and community development [ 6 , 12 ]. Tourism is usually regarded as a way to mitigate human–wildlife conflict by involving communities in tourism to obtain benefits that will change their hostile attitude towards wildlife or transform traditional livelihoods [ 3 , 15 , 20 ]. Existing studies mainly focus on examining the effectiveness of tourism in mitigating human–wildlife conflict from social, economic, and political perspectives [ 16 , 36 ], ignoring the biological consequences to wildlife. This study contributes to understanding the effect of using tourism as a tool to mitigate human–wildlife conflict. The provision of food in wildlife tourism can dramatically change the natural ecosystem and the behaviors of macaques, as well as the balance between natural capacity and the number of macaques. Human–wildlife conflict worsens in this scenario.

This research suggests the need for a holistic, integrated, and dynamic approach to evaluating tourism development and solving human–wildlife conflict in protected areas. Human–wildlife conflict is not only embedded in social systems, but also involves ecosystems. Thus, it is not adequate to solely consider the social and economic benefits brought by tourism. It is also necessary to consider tourism’s impacts on wildlife and ecology. As wildlife habitats shrink, more wild animals will cross the borders of protected areas into peripheral spaces, which then become the hot spots at the human–wildlife interface. It should be recognized that it is nearly impossible to protect a species without any human disturbance in the Anthropocene [ 72 ]. Hence, a balanced approach is to assess the mitigating effects of wildlife tourism in human–wildlife conflict by integrating social and ecological/biological perspectives.

Moreover, scholars should pay more attention to the agency of animals. Animals are not passive things waiting for human actions. Wildlife can actively develop adaptive behaviors in anthropogenic environments to maximize its own benefits [ 18 ]. More human–wildlife interactions provide more opportunities for wildlife to acquire more adaptations [ 17 ], such as the robbing and bartering behaviors of long-tailed macaques in Bali [ 61 ]. This adaptation and evolution, when combined with coercive institutional protection, give wildlife many advantages in conflicts with humans and make the conflict unmanageable and uncontrollable, as in the case of Nanwan. Wildlife tourism is based on human–wildlife interactions, and their impact on the adaptation and evolution of wildlife should be fully considered.

Implications

The integrated model of tourism–macaque–community interactions proposed in this study needs validation for other species and in other regions. Trans-species interactions in tourism can generate different effects on different wildlife due to the heterogeneity of species [ 37 ]. Thus, wildlife may evolve heterogeneous behaviors and then influence community–wildlife conflict in different ways. For instance, human–elephant conflict is also a challenging problem due to the excellent memory ability of elephants and their high food demand. Moreover, the diversity of social, cultural, economic, and political contexts in which human–wildlife conflict is embedded means that different regions must adopt different strategies to cope with the conflict. Under China’s current policies, culling protected wildlife is not possible to control wildlife populations, but in some other countries the culling of overpopulated wildlife is a normal ecological management policy. Different social, cultural, and institutional contexts produce different ways to address human–wildlife conflict.

This study has many implications for practice. Our observations suggest that wildlife tourism attractions should design their activities cautiously and minimize human–wildlife interactions and food provision if possible. It is better to control tourists’ behaviors to meet the behavioral patterns of wildlife rather than the other way around. If the tourism sites plan to feed wildlife, it is better to provide food via formal supervised arrangement and eradicate tourists’ accidental and non-regulatory feeding activity [ 44 ]. Furthermore, the institutional design for cooperation among communities, tourism companies, and conservation committees should also be flexible to allow for the adjustment and re-negotiation of benefits and obligations, because the interaction among tourists, wildlife, community, and ecosystem is always evolving. Because, in general, local communities are in relatively weak bargaining positions, it is better for governments to establish special ecological compensation projects for wildlife damage, and control wildlife populations properly according to the principle of maintaining ecological balance.

Acknowledgments

We thank Huang Xuebing, Wu Chengfeng and Wei Cao for their help in collecting data, and thank Lin Jiayi for helping edit the map. We also give gratitude to the managers and staffs of Nanwan Nature Reserve and Monkey Tourism Park and the Nanwan villagers for accepting our interview. Thanks to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments!

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani11051378/s1 , Figure S1: A photographic illustration of the community–macaque conflict, Figure S2: Well-cared mango groves in a relatively remote place from the monkey park and reserve hills, Figure S3: The wall between the monkey park and mango groves, Figure S4: The abandoned mango groves beside the monkey park and reserve hills, Figure S5: The thematic map showing the (sub)themes from thematic analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.C. and H.X.; methodology, Q.C. and Y.R.; validation, Q.C. and H.X.; formal analysis, Q.C. and Y.R.; investigation, Y.R.; resources, H.X.; data curation, Y.R.; writing—original draft preparation, Q.C. and Y.R.; writing—review and editing, Q.C. and H.X.; visualization, Q.C. and H.X.; supervision, H.X.; project administration, Q.C.; funding acquisition, Q.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 41901161.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The manuscript does not need ethical approval. The paper deal with villagers’ conflict with macaques and the study has been run through a questionnaire.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Growing Wildlife-Based Tourism Sustainably: A New Report and Q&A

Copyright: Sanjayda, Shutterstock.com

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• While wildlife and biodiversity are increasingly threatened by habitat loss, poaching, and a lack of funding for protection, nature-based tourism is on the rise and could help provide solutions for these issues.
• The publication Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism highlights successful wildlife tourism programs in seven countries in Africa and Asia that can be used as models to promote conservation and boost economies.
• World Bank lead economist Richard Damania answers questions on the drivers, innovations and challenges for wildlife tourism, and why the World Bank Group and governments should support sustainable tourism strategies.

Wildlife tourism is a powerful tool countries can leverage to grow and diversify their economies while protecting their biodiversity and meeting several Sustainable Development Goals. It is also a way to engage tourists in wildlife conservation and inject money into local communities living closest to wildlife. Success stories and lessons learned from nature-based tourism are emerging from across the globe.

“Here is a way of squaring the circle: provide jobs and save the environment,” said World Bank lead economist Richard Damania, who has extensive experience in understanding the link between tourism and the economy . In 2016, travel and tourism contributed $7.6 trillion, or 10.2%, to total GDP, and the industry provided jobs to one in 10 people, according to the World Travel & Tourism Council .

While nature-based tourism, which includes wildlife tourism, has been expanding rapidly in the last decade or so due to increased demand and opportunities, wildlife and biodiversity are increasingly threatened by habitat loss, poaching, and a lack of funding for protection.

Which is why more than ever countries need to look to concrete examples of well-planned, sustainably-run tourism operations that have led to increased investments in protected areas and reserves, a reduction in poaching, an increase in the non-consumptive value of wildlife through viewing , and opportunities for rural communities to improve their livelihoods through tourism-related jobs, revenue-sharing arrangements, and co-management of natural resources.

A recently-released publication— Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism —developed by the World Bank Group and the Global Wildlife Program , funded by the Global Environment Facility , showcases sustainable wildlife tourism models that can be applied to developing countries, and offers solutions and case studies to bring insight into this sector as a mechanism for inclusive poverty reduction and global conservation.

The Global Wildlife Program spoke with Damania to learn more about the growth, challenges, and innovations in wildlife-based tourism.

Copyright: Wandel Guides, Shutterstock.com

Why should the World Bank support conservation endeavors, and how does wildlife tourism help support our mission?

Enlightened self-interest is one obvious reason why we need to promote wildlife tourism.  It provides the most obvious way to reconcile the interests of nature with the imperative for development and growth. Tourism simultaneously creates jobs while, when done well, protects natural habitats.

Prudence and precaution are another reason why investments in nature-based tourism ought to be promoted. The science of “ planetary boundaries ” warns us that many fragile natural environments and ecosystems are reaching their limits and in some cases, the hypothesized safe boundaries have been crossed. Further damage will imply that we lose important ecosystem services such as watershed and soil protection with damaging consequences for development.

But, in my mind, perhaps the most important reason is humanity’s moral and ethical imperative as stewards of global ecosystems. Simply because humanity has the ability to destroy or convert ecosystems and drive species to extinction does not make it ethically justifiable. There needs to be an ethical balance and that is where ecotourism comes in. We need jobs and economic growth, but here is a way to get jobs and growth in ways that meet our moral and ethical obligation.

What have been the drivers behind a burgeoning nature-based/wildlife-based tourism sector?  

I think there are two things that drive it: as habitats diminish there is more scarcity and their value goes up. Everyone wants to see the last remaining habitats of wild gorillas for instance, or the few remaining wild tigers in India. In sum scarcity confers economic value. 

Another force driving demand is the internet and rising lifestyles—you can learn about animals and habitats you might not have known existed, and more people have the ability to visit them. So, you have supply diminishing on one hand, and demand rising on the other hand which creates an opportunity for economic progress together with conservation.

What is your advice to governments and others who are developing or expanding on a nature or wildlife-based tourism strategy?

Tourism benefits need to be shared better . There is a lack of balance with too many tourists in some places, and none elsewhere. Some destinations face gross overcrowding, such as South Africa’s Krueger National Park or the Masai Mara in Kenya where you have tourists looking at other tourists, instead of at lions. We need to be able to distribute the demand for tourists more equally. The Bank has a role to play in developing the right kind of tourism infrastructure.

Those living closest to nature and wildlife must also benefit .   The local inhabitants that live in the national parks or at their periphery are usually extremely poor. Having tourism operations that can benefit them is extremely important for social corporate reasons, but also for sustainability reasons. If the benefits of tourism flow to the local communities, they will value the parks much more.

We also need to be mindful of   wildlife corridors . We know that dispersion and migration are fundamental biological determinants of species survival. Closed systems where animals cannot move to breed are not sustainable in the long run. As we break off the corridors because of infrastructure and increasing human populations we are putting the ecosystems on life support.

There are some who believe we can manage these closed ecosystems, but it takes an immense amount of self assurance in science to suggest this with confidence, and it is unclear that one can manage ecosystems that we do not adequately understand. A measure of caution and humility is needed when we are stretching the bounds of what is known to science.

What are some of the innovative partnerships that are helping the wildlife-based tourism businesses in developing countries? 

One very successful model that has combined wildlife conservation and management and community benefits and welfare is the  Ruaha Carnivore Project  in Tanzania, part of Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unite ( WildCRU ). They use a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme and do all the right things.

Another example are the community conservancies in Namibia. The community manages the land for wildlife and there are a variety of profit sharing commercial tourism arrangements—although not everything always works fairly or perfectly. Incentives matter deeply and communities need to be guided and need technical assistance in setting up commercial arrangements.

The Bank needs to understand these better and find ways of scaling those up. The IFC has a very good role to play here as well. 

To learn more and to explore numerous examples of community involvement in wildlife tourism from Botswana, India, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa and Uganda, read the report  Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism   or find a one-page fact sheet here .

The Global Wildlife Program (GWP) is led by the World Bank and funded by a $131 million grant from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The program is working with 19 countries across Africa and Asia to promote wildlife conservation and sustainable development by combatting illicit trafficking in wildlife, and investing in wildlife-based tourism. 

• Full Report: Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism
• Fact Sheet on Key Messages
• Report: Twenty Reasons Sustainable Tourism Counts for Development
• Report: Women and Tourism: Designing for Inclusion
• Blog: Africa can Benefit from Nature-based Tourism in a Sustainable Manner
• Feature: Ramping up Nature-Based Tourism to Protect Biodiversity and Boost Livelihoods
• Website: Global Wildlife Program
• Website: Environment
• Website: Competitiveness
• Global Environment Facility

Data, analysis, convening and action.

The world’s largest and most diverse environmental network.

• IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS
• REGIONAL CONSERVATION FORA
• CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NATURE
• IUCN ENGAGE (LOGIN REQUIRED)

IUCN tools, publications and other resources.

• News & Events
• Eastern and Southern Africa
• Eastern Europe and Central Asia
• Mediterranean
• Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean
• North America
• South America
• West and Central Africa
• IUCN Academy
• IUCN Contributions for Nature
• IUCN Library
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species TM
• IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas
• IUCN World Heritage Outlook
• IUCN Leaders Forum
• Protected Planet
• Union Portal (login required)
• IUCN Engage (login required)
• Commission portal (login required)

Get Involved

Can tourism be nature-positive?

Wildlife tourism provides essential income to support communities and conservation in many places in the Global South, but mismanaged tourism is also a major cause of nature loss. The tourism sector must reform to protect the unique places people travel to see, and every IUCN Member has a part to play in this transformation - write Cam Do and Olivia Schlaepfer of the Yale Tropical Resources Institute, an IUCN Member organisation.

Originally from Viet Nam, Cam Do graduated from Yale with a Bachelor’s in Global Affairs with Distinction and a Certificate in Data Science. At Yale, Cam was a member of the Dwight Hall Socially Responsible Investment Fund, the nation’s first undergraduate-run fund of its kind. She plans to pursue a career at the intersection of finance and corporate and environmental sustainability.

A Swiss-American senior at Yale University with a passion for conservation, Olivia Schlaepfer has worked with the IUCN WCPA Tourism and Protected Areas Specialist Group on post-Congress monitoring of Motion 130 on sustainable tourism since 2021. Following graduation from Yale with a Bachelor’s in Environmental Studies and a Certificate in Advanced Language Study in French in 2023, she plans on pursuing a Master’s in environmental communications and corporate responsibility.

Cape Town, South Africa

The COVID-19 pandemic drove the global tourism industry to a grinding halt. With would-be travelers stuck at home, many tourist destinations were left deserted. In the Global North, news articles and social media posts led us to believe that wildlife had flourished during our absence. The phrase ‘nature is healing’ became a popular refrain, following reports of decreased pollution and unanticipated animal sightings in urban areas.

But was nature really healing? In reality, the decline in global travel decimated essential income for many protected areas, where biodiversity and local communities need it most. The sudden drop in tourism led to job losses and food insecurity, forcing households to return to wildlife and natural resources to survive. Poaching surged in some places in the Global South.

Before the pandemic, wildlife tourism had been steadily increasing. A 2019 study found that it had grown to have a direct economic value of USD 120 billion annually, providing over USD 344 billion of wider economic benefits and supporting 21.8 million jobs worldwide. With more visitors came more funding; with greater funding, better protection. For example, in the Philippines, Kenya and Zambia, over half of funding for protected areas comes from visitors. In Botswana, it’s more than 80%.

Mismanaged wildlife tourism can do more harm than good. Long before the pandemic, construction of infrastructure for tourists was a major cause of habitat loss.

However, research also shows that mismanaged wildlife tourism can do more harm than good. Long before the pandemic, the construction of large and luxurious accommodation, roads and other infrastructure for tourists was a major cause of habitat fragmentation and loss in popular destinations. Single-use disposables worsened plastic pollution problems. Greenhouse gas emissions from travel intensified climate change, and demand for extravagant food, hot showers and uninterrupted battery charging over-exploited local energy resources in remote areas.

Keenly aware of the need for the tourism industry to address its negative impacts while preserving its positive impacts, members of the IUCN WCPA Tourism and Protected Areas Specialist Group (TAPAS Group) set out to highlight the issue by bringing Motion 130 to the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Marseille. With insights from decades of research, IUCN Member Instituto de Ecología Aplicada (ECOLAP) emerged to sponsor the Motion. ECOLAP works with communities and wildlife reliant on ‘nature-based tourism’ and being based in Ecuador, home to the Galapagos Islands, is all too familiar with the opportunities and challenges tourism entails.

The Motion – now Resolution 130 - received overwhelming support from IUCN Members, who voted to invest more resources and further integrate tourism into the Union’s Programme. Work is ongoing to bring the Resolution to life through new ideas, projects and networks that help ensure nature-based tourism supports conservation and communities. But organisations like ECOLAP, the TAPAS Group and a handful of environmental NGOs cannot do this on their own. Every IUCN Member has a part to play, but ultimately individual tourists and tourism businesses must ensure the unique flora and fauna people travel to see are preserved.

We call on tourism businesses to join the Nature-positive Travel & Tourism Alliance, and demand that airlines and governments reinvest profits back into habitat conservation, communities and carbon mitigation.

Progress was made at last year’s UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15), when the World Travel & Tourism Council, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, and numerous travel and tourism industry ‘heavyweights’ came together to make a pact to become guardians, rather than consumers, of nature. As signatories to the Nature-positive Travel & Tourism Alliance, almost 150 businesses have committed to give more importance to biodiversity and ecosystem health in their decision making. This pact helps guarantee that companies will strive to reduce the environmental footprint of tourism operations and value chains; increase their biodiversity impact monitoring; provide more support for Indigenous rights; and promote education for travelers, partners and communities about the need for conservation. It is a monumental step for the industry and an indication that the private sector can help reimagine nature-based tourism. We call on every tourism business to make the same commitment.

T ourists must step up too and make sustainable choices that minimise our individual footprint when travelling.

Individual tourists must step up too. Importantly, as tourists we must be cognisant of our choices and select companies and destinations that are sustainable, equipped to handle the experiences we seek, and able to contribute positively to nature and local communities. When travelling, we must be aware of our individual footprint and aim to minimise it. We must ask for opportunities for ‘voluntourism’ - in which tourists participate in voluntary work - and demand that airlines and governments reinvest profits back into habitat conservation, communities and carbon mitigation. Most of all, we must hold businesses and ourselves to higher standards of sustainable use, for example by maintaining appropriate viewing distances for wildlife; even if that means our vacations are a little less extravagant and our photographs a little ‘less wild'.

Today, the opportunities for sustainable tourism are rich and diverse. Well-managed it can share cultures, connect people with biodiversity, support local economies and provide vital funding for conservation, so long as we take care of the places we visit. Guided by Resolution 130, it’s the responsibility of us all - governments, businesses and individual visitors - to make sure that we do.

The authors would like to thank Dr Yu-Fai Leung, Dr Shane Feyers, Dr Kelly Bricker and Dr Anna Spenceley for their crucial support for Resolution 130 and its implementation.

Disclaimer Opinions expressed in posts featured on any Crossroads or other blogs and in related comments are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of IUCN or a consensus of its Member organisations.

IUCN moderates comments and reserves the right to remove posts that are deemed inappropriate, commercial in nature or unrelated to blog posts.

Thank you for outlining these important steps to make tourism nature-positive. These are reminders we all need to hear.

Monitoring the resolution

Very interesting, and good to see Resolution 130. That said, I don't quite get it. Can someone explain what the resolution calls for? For example, who and how will this resolution be monitored by the IUCN and others? 🌏 https://www.planeta.com/iucn2020-motion130

totally agree! Just happen…

totally agree!

Just happen to be a very fine Line between carrying capacity, Tourism-based development and Market (Price for travelling) and democratization of Tourism. At the end, natural areas should be take care way more than a Urban monument of a City, but how to compete to that kind of cheaper that can also hold larger amount of people. Perhaps, then is when tourism should be redesigned and clients be able to pay higher prices. And, in that way find the correct income threshold.

Nature-Positive Tourism

Hi - a very nice article, although I'm a little surprised it didn't refer directly to the Nature-Positive report recently produced by the World Travel and Tourism Council and specifically the accompanying tool-box to enable companies of all sizes to develop nature-positive action plans? While I've heard some suggest the toolbox is too challenging for businesses to engage with, I'm not convinced this is case and think we need case studies and examples to showcase the successes and challenges...

Questions about the report

Interesting. Downloading the report now - https://action.wttc.org/vision-for-nature-positive-travel-and-tourism - and asking how this vision and toolbox will be used in a practical manner. I will be updating links on Planeta.

Add new comment

• All projects
• Endangered species
• Farming and Wildlife
• Fundamental biology
• Land use and biodiversity
• Wildlife as a resource

Associated Members

• Dr Tom Moorhouse

Wildlife tourism

In studying the impacts of wildlife tourism we examined 48 types of wildlife tourist attraction (representing thousands of individual institutions), ranging from poorly-attended street performances, like snake charming, bear dancing and macaque shows, to large, established attractions such as dolphinaria and tiger interactions, which have tens of thousands of visitors every year. We audited 24 of these types in detail, collectively visited by 3.6–6 million tourists per year. We found that up to 4 million tourists who visit non-zoo tourist attractions involving wildlife are likely to be contributing to large-scale animal welfare abuses and declines in species’ conservation status – and are typically unaware of their impacts.

Moorhouse, T. P., Dahlsjö, C. A., Baker, S. E., D’Cruze, N. C., & Macdonald, D. W. (2015). The customer isn’t always right—conservation and animal welfare implications of the increasing demand for wildlife tourism .  PloS One ,  10 (10), e0138939.

Examining the feedback left for wildlife tourist attractions on TripAdvisor we discovered that at least 80% of tourists left positive feedback for attractions they had visited – even for those attractions with the poorest welfare standards. In each case a minority (approximately 20%) of tourists left reviews that correlated with welfare standards (i.e. were positive for beneficial attractions and negative for detrimental attractions). This overwhelmingly positive feedback probably arises from a number of psychological mechanisms that make tourists unlikely to consider the ethical dimensions of their consumption, and also likely to retrospectively diminish the severity of their contribution if they suspect the conditions at a given wildlife venue were not what they would usually have wanted to be involved in.

Moorhouse, T., D’Cruze, N. C., & Macdonald, D. W. (2017). Unethical use of wildlife in tourism: what’s the problem, who is responsible, and what can be done?.   Journal of Sustainable Tourism ,  25 (4), 505-516.

Our findings have led us to advise that any wildlife attraction reviewed on TripAdvisor with 80% positive reviews or less (four stars or fewer), may be more likely to have detrimental impacts on wildlife. We are also working directly with TripAdvisor to create an information platform to educate tourists on the consequences of attending wildlife tourist attractions, and to support them in choosing beneficial, rather than exploitative.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/blog/animal-welfare-education-portal/

https://www.tripadvisor.com/blog/impacts-wildlife-tourist-attractions/

Our current project examines whether making potential wildlife tourists aware of the ethical dimension of their decisions – at the time when they are deciding which tourist attractions to visit – might lead them to preferentially choose attractions that have beneficial (for animal welfare and species conservation) impacts.

Related pages

Examining our recreational use of wildlife Exotic pets and reducing demand

• FROM THE EDITOR

Why we’re shining a light on wildlife tourism

Selfie-seeking visitors like close encounters with exotic animals. Our investigation uncovered rampant abuse behind the scenes.

People love animals. Nowhere is that more apparent than at National Geographic, where photos of animals are among the most “liked” by our Instagram followers , stories about animals drive traffic on our website, and animals are prominent in the pages of our magazine.

But this love of animals can often lead people, unwittingly, to hurt them. This month we explore the thriving industry of wildlife tourism—a way for people to appreciate and support animals when it’s done appropriately but an exploitative business with terrible consequences when it’s not.

We sent reporter Natasha Daly and photographer Kirsten Luce around the world to investigate the lives of captive animals once the selfie-taking tourists go home. What they found will break your heart . In some attractions with unscrupulous operators, tourists have no idea the animals they’re joyously interacting with have been abused. They “don’t know that … the elephants give rides and perform tricks without harming people only because they’ve been ‘broken’ as babies,” Daly writes. “Or that the Amazonian sloths taken illegally from the jungle often die within weeks of being in captivity.”

Even more shocking is her discovery that some elephants at an “eco” resort in Thailand—where customers see animals roaming a property unchained—are the same elephants that, at another attraction just a few miles away, give rides and do tricks, sometimes prodded by a sharp metal hook.

Wildlife-encounter tourism is not new. But examining it is all the more urgent today because of social media. Who among us would not want to cuddle a baby tiger, memorialized by a shareable photo? That is, until we find out the reality: Cubs are taken from their mothers days after birth, so the mothers can quickly be bred again. And no one quite knows what happens to those precious baby tigers once they become unruly teenagers.

As our reporting found, too often this industry takes advantage of people’s love of animals even as it exploits them for profit from birth to death.

With this month’s package of stories on animal exploitation and continuing coverage by our Wildlife Watch team , we hope this complicated, important topic gets the attention it deserves. That’s the first step toward securing a truly happy ending for the animals.

Thank you for reading National Geographic.

Related Topics

• ANIMAL WELFARE
• ANIMAL CRUELTY
• WILDLIFE CRIME

You May Also Like

$1,500 for 'naturally refined' coffee? Here's what that phrase really means.

U.S. arrests Cambodian official headed to wildlife summit—for monkey smuggling

Elephants are in trouble—and we’re to blame

Why Poison Is a Growing Threat to Africa’s Wildlife

Ozempic was tested on monkeys IUCN listed as endangered. Here’s what we know

• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Why Wildlife Tourism Isn’t Always A Good Thing

Wildlife tourism refers to any tourism that involves wildlife- from swimming with dolphins to volunteering at a turtle conservation centre. The wildlife tourism industry is diverse, taking many different shapes and forms. However, the wildlife tourism industry is also very controversial and has been subject to a lot of negative media coverage in recent years.

In this article I will teach you about what wildlife tourism is and I will introduce you to the different types of wildlife tourism that occur around the world. I will also explain to you why this is a very important industry and the many advantages of wildlife tourism. Lastly, I will outline some of the negative aspects that are associated with wildlife tourism and provide suggestions on how wildlife tourism can be responsible.

What is wildlife tourism?

Zoos and aquariums, animal rescue centres and sanctuaries, birdwatching, whale watching, hunting and fishing, swimming with dolphins, playing with lions and tigers, cuddling a panda, elephant riding, shark cage diving, gorilla trekking, monkey forests, ostrich riding, conservation, breeding porogrammes, economic benefits, job creation, mistreatment of the animals, introduction of disease, wild animals can be dangerous, changes in animal behaviour, reduced breeding success, do your research before you go, don’t get too close, sanctuaries and rescue centres are better than zoos, don’t mess with nature, animal souvenirs, eat carefully, raise awareness about wildlife tourism, wildlife tourism: further reading.

Put simply, wildlife tourism is tourism that involves wildlife. But the important question is, what is wildlife? And when does a wild animal stop being ‘wild’?

Most types of animal tourism involves the use of animals that are or were once living in the wild. Whether its a stray cat who was taken into a shelter, or a zoo-based rhinoceros that was rescued from poachers, unless bred in captivity, the majority of animals that we see in the tourism industry come from the wild.

As such, wildlife tourism, in its broadest sense, encounters all types of tourism that involves animals. Types of wildlife tourism can then be segregated into two categories: animals in captivity and animals in the wild.

Types of wildlife tourism

There are many different types of wildlife tourism.

The United Nations estimates that tourism involving wildlife accounts for around 7% of all tourism around the world. However, they exclude animals in captivity, so unreality this figure is likely much higher. From safaris in Tanzania to diving at then Great Barrier Reef, there are plenty of ways that tourists can watch and get up close and personal with wildlife.

Below, Have outlined the most commonly found types of wildlife tourism around the world, with examples.

A safari takes place in an animal’s natural habitat. Safari’s usually involve the use of a small safari vehicle and a ranger, who will drive tourists to areas where there are likely to be animals.

Safari is traditionally associated with Africa, but can also be found in other parts of the world.

Popular safari destinations: Tanzania; Kenya; South Africa

A zoo or an aquarium is a place where animals are kept captivity, usually in cages. Zoos are renowned for having small enclosures and for domesticating animals.

Some zoos and aquariums have important research projects and breeding programmes. Many will also take on rescue animals or marine life.

Popular zoos: San Diego Zoo; Singapore Zoo; Australia zoo, London Zoo

Popular aquariums: Georgia aquarium; Marine Life Park, Sentosa, Singapore; Dubai Mall Aquarium

Many farms around the world have been commercialised to allow visitors in to see the animals. They may include feeding experiences and the opportunity to interact with the animals, such as stocking the rabbits or riding the horses.

Farms are usually small, independently owned businesses that are not famous around the world, but that are well known within the local area.

Animal rescue centres and sanctuaries are businesses who rescue animals and then care for them.

Oftentimes they will look like a zoo, and may be commercialised in a similar way. However, the funds made should be reinvested into the business, rather than for profitable gain.

Popular animal rescue centres and sanctuaries: Elephant Nature Park, Thailand; Lonely Pine Koala Sanctuary, Australia; Sloth Sanctuary of Costa Rica ; The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, Kenya; Panda Research Centre,Chengdu, China

Birdwatching, also referred to as birding, occurs in a bird’s natural habitat. It involves watching the birds, often from a distance with the use of binoculars.

It can also involve the use of a webcam, facilitating virtual tourism .

Popular birdwatching destinations: The Gambia ; The Galapagos; The Pantanal, Brazil

Whale watching usually occurs on tours, when tourists will be taken out to sea on a boat in search of whales. There will usually be a guide who will provide details about the whales and who is able to spot them easily through a trained eye.

Popular what watching destinations: Australia; Iceland; South Africa ; Canada

Hunting is the practice of pursuing and capturing or killing wild animals. Many animals are hunted for enjoyment throughout the world, from deer to pigeon to bears.

Hunting can be both legal and illegal depending on where it takes place and what is being hunted.

Likewise, fishing is a popular activity around the globe. Some people fish for enjoyment and return the fish to the water once caught and others eat or sell the fish.

Popular hunting animals: Deer; pigeon; rabbit; bears

Diving is a popular form of wildlife tourism, enabling tourists to experience life beneath the sea.

Many people will undertake PADI courses or similar to enable them to dive deeper and swim further.

Popular dive sites: the Great Barrier Reef, Australia; The Red Sea,Egypt ; Blue Hole,Belize, Gili Islands, Bali

Wildlife encounters

Many people are keen to get up close and personal with wildlife.

Back in the 2000’s everyone was doing it. If you had a photo of you and a baby tiger as your Facebook profile picture you were one of the cool kids. Upload that same photo today and you will likely experience a barrage of abuse from your nature-loving friends and connections.

Some types of wildlife encounters are great. Take volunteer work, for example. There are many conservation projects around the world that are desperate for volunteer tourists to help run their operations.

However, most animals encounters are not so good. Animals are often drugged or abused to keep them calm around the tourists. They are kept in inhumane conditions and treated unethically- I mean, would you want to walk up and down the road all day long with people on your back?!

Here are some the most common wildlife encounters around the world:

You can swim with dolphins in the wild in a handful of places around the world.

It is more common, however, to swim with dolphins that are in enclosures. These animals are taken out of their natural habitats and asked to perform trips and entertain tourists.

Popular places to swim with dolphins: USA, Mexico, Bahamas , Portugal.

There are plenty of places that allow you to have an up close and personal experience with lions and tigers.

Naturally, these are dangerous animals, so that instantly raises alarm bells to me. Oftentimes these animals are drugged and abused to ensure that they ‘perform’ for the tourist.

Popular places to play with lions and tigers: Thailand, India , South Africa

Cuddling a panda is a thing of the past unless you are a volunteer tourist (and still many would argue even this is unethical). The last commercial activity which enabled you to cuddle and have your photograph taken with a panda stopped operations in 2018.

However, there are still plenty of opportunities to visit the famous giant pandas, most of which are in China .

Popular places to visit pandas: China

Elephant riding is most commonly found in Asia. Elephants are used to carry tourists around as a leisure activity. There have been many ethical debates about this, which has resulted in a reduction of elephant rides taken around the world.

Now, many elephant organisations are trying to appeal to tourists who take a more ethical approach by transforming their organisation into an ‘elephant sanctuary. Whilst these are sometimes genuine, with ethical practices, some are not so- they simply disguise their unethical approaches by giving themselves the title ‘sanctuary’.

Popular elephant riding destinations: Thailand , Cambodia, India

A cat cafe is a venue that houses a variety of cats, whilst also serving basic food and beverages. People pay an entrance fee or hourly rate to sit with the cats. You can play with the cats and stroke them. Cat cafes are most commonly found in Asia and are particularly popular in Japan, although you can also find them in other parts of the world.

Some cat cafes claim to be rescue centres or sanctuaries, but most operate on a for-profit business. Some do not allow young children in, for fear off them scaring or hurting the animals. Others have no such rules. A cafe is obviously not a natural place for a cat to live, and some argue that the concept in unethical.

Popular destinations with cat cafes: Japan, Thailand ,

Shark cage diving is essentially underwater diving or snorkelling whilst inside a cage. A process called chumming ( baiting the sharks with minced fish) is used to lure the sharks towards the cage.

Shark cage diving can be dangerous both for the person inside the cage and for the shark. The methods are also questionable. Encouraging the sharks to behave in a way that they wouldn’t usually will lead to lasting behavioural changes, which will inevitably have a knock on effect on other marine life and the wider ecosystem.

Popular shark cage diving destinations: South Africa, Florida

Gorilla trekking occurs in remote areas on the African continent . The concept is quite simple- tourists go hiking in search of gorillas.

Gorilla trekking is a unique experience, and tours are pricey. Tourists generally keep their distance and there have been few negative impacts reported.

However, there is always potential for abuse. Careful regulation and monitoring needs to remain in place to ensure that the gorillas are not tempted into certain areas with food or disturbed by the presence of trekkers.

Popular gorilla trekking destinations: Rwanda, Uganda

A monkey forest is a wooded area where monkeys live. This could be the monkeys’ natural habitat, but more likely they have been placed there intentionally.

Visitors will usually pay an entrance fee. They are then free to roam around the forested area and interact with the monkeys. Some monkey forest areas are relatively natural, whereas others may have monkey shows or circuses.

It can be dangerous to visit a monkey forest. As a result of human interaction and loss of natural habitat and feeding grounds monkey often become vicious. It is common for them to bite tourists, which then requires the person to visit a hospital for a rabies jab.

Ostrich riding occurs mostly on ostrich farms and was a popular tourist activity until fairly recently. In 2017, ostrich riding was banned in South Africa, which is where it most commonly occurred.

Ostrich riding as a form of wildlife tourism was/is unethical. This is because the weight of the tourist can seriously hurt the ostrich. It is also not good to make the ostrich spend its day running up and down with people on its back.

Popular places to ride an ostrich: South Africa

Benefits of wildlife tourism

Wildlife tourism can be a great thing. There are many positive impacts of wildlife tourism including; conservation, research, breeding programmes and economic benefits.

For many wildlife tourism businesses, conservation is their top priority. In fact, most places where the focus is conservation would rather not have any tourists come to visit at all, however it is the tourists that pay the bills and allow their business to operate.

Wildlife tourism businesses can be fantastic for conservation and can raise a lot of money. These types of businesses are usually charities or trusts. They do not make a profit and their intentions are wholesome.

Wildlife tourism also facilitates important research. Research can help us to further understand the animals and therefore to better cater for them, both in the wild and in captivity.

Many wildlife tourism projects have successful breeding programmes. From Siberian tigers and pandas in China to koalas in Australia to lions in Botswana, there are successful breeding programmes underway around the world.

Many of these programmes would not be able to operate without the money raised from tourists.

There are many positive economic impacts of wildlife tourism.

Wildlife tourism brings tourists to a given area, and they bring money with them! They spend money on hotels, on food and on transport.

This money can then be reinvested into the economy and spent on areas such as healthcare and education.

Another economic advantage of wildlife tourism that is worth mentioning is job creation. Whatever type of wildlife business it is, it will require staff. This helps to boost employment figures in the area as well as helping the boost the overall economic prospects resulting from wildlife tourism.

Disadvantages of wildlife tourism

Sadly, there are also many disadvantages of wildlife tourism. Whilst there is great potential for wildlife tourism to do good, many businesses are poorly managed and demonstrate unethical practices. This most commonly includes; the mistreatment of animals, introduction of disease, dangerous behaviour, changes in the animal’s behaviour and reduced breeding success.

Mistreatment of animals is common, especially in developing countries.

Fortunately, there is a lot more awareness of this nowadays than there once was. Recent years have seen many laws and regulations introduced in the name of animal welfare all over the world. This has helped to reduce the mistreatment of animals in the wildlife tourism business.

Nevertheless, mistreatment does still occur and it is pretty common. There are still circuses that use animals and attractions that make animals perform tricks for tourists. From elephant camps in Thailand to monkeys dressed as babies in Morocco, there are many examples of mistreatment around the world.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, I think that all understand animals can pass disease onto humans. And this also works the other way around.

When tourists are allowed to have close interaction with animals there is a risk of them passing on illnesses that the animals do not have immunity to. A common cold might not be a big deal for a human, but it could kill a lion cub, for example.

Many of the people who work in animal tourism are not trained in this field and could unintentionally introduce disease either to humans or to the animals that they are working with.

Animals are unpredictable and can be dangerous. Elephants can easily trample people, sharks can bite and monkeys can give a person rabies.

Using animals in a tourism setting can have serious implications for its welfare and wellbeing.

How would you respond if you were locked in a cage and only let out to perform tricks? I bet your behaviour would change!

These behavioural changes can be unpredictable and dangerous, for both the tourist and the animal.

When animals are taken away from their usual habitat and exposed to tourists they may have trouble breeding.

For businesses that claim to be conservation centres, this can actually have the opposite effect. Instead of protecting the species it can exemplify and exhasberate its extinction.

Responsible wildlife tourism

The moral of the story here is this- wildlife tourism can be great, but it needs great management. When wildlife tourism is bad, it is very bad.

Wildlife tourism businesses need to operate under sustainable tourism practices. In recent years we have seen many wildlife tourism organisations change their practices. This is perhaps most common in Thailand, where many elephant riding companies have become sanctuaries.

But it’s not just down to the business, it’s down to us tourists too! Here are some of the things that can do to ensure responsible wildlife tourism.

This is sometimes easier said than done, because there isn’t always a great deal of information available about every wildlife tourism attraction. Nonetheless, you should always try to research the place that you are considering visiting before you do so.

There are many wildlife conscious people around in today’s world, and if it is a major attraction that you are thinking about going to then there will be reviews on Trip Advisor and other review sites. And if there is mistreatment of the animals then you will most likely find information about it here.

If the reviews are bad then I urge you not to go. Yes, you might get to have a cuddle with a lion cub, that’s cute. But think about the picture picture here.

Getting too close to animals can have a number of negative impacts. It can scare the animals, it can cause changes to their behaviour, it can cause them to stop breeding or relocate town area that is less safe. It can also be dangerous.

Be sensible and keep your distance from animals.

If you really want an animal experience, you should choose to visit a sanctuary or research centre rather than a zoo. From the outside, the differences might not be that obvious, but from the inside the differences are big.

The treatment of the animals should be better, to start with. Plus sanctuaries have underlying motives that are not about making money. They are there to protect, rehabilitate and conserve the species, not to exploit it. For these types of organisations, allowing visitors is a means of making enough money to support the conservation project, not a way to get rich as the expensive of a poor animal(s).

Beware, however. Some places label themselves as sanctuaries, when there is in reality little conservation involved. It is simply cover up for their less altruistic intentions. This is why doing your research is important- don’t just read what you see on the tin!

Let nature be nature. Don’t put clothes on animals, don’t feed them and don’t interfere with them.

All of these things lead to instant and progressive changes in animal behaviours. The wildlife that you are seeing today won’t be the same in 10 or 20 or 30 years if you keep messing with it.

Be mindful of souvenirs that you are buying. Sometimes souvenirs are made with ivy or animal fur, for example. This has inevitably involved the death of an animal. So be careful when you go shopping and think before you buy.

There’re also a number of destinations that use wildlife in their food and drink.

In Vietnam, for example, many backpackers think it is funny to drink snakes blood or drinks theatre made bu drowning live snakes in them. There is nothing funny our cool about killing a snake. End of.

In countries such as China and Japan, it is common to see (often endangered) shark on the menu un restaurants. And in Iceland you can eat whale or puffin. I’m not a vegetarian, but I draw the line on eating endangered animals, and you should too.

The most important thing you can do is raise awareness.

If you visit wildlife attraction that you think is doing a great job, write a review on Trip Advisor, tell your friends. Every little helps to support their cause.

Likewise, if you see an attraction that is operating unethically, then you should definitely speak out. This is especially important with smaller, lesser known attractions. If nobody tells you, then you don’t know, right?

I hope you have enjoyed reading this article about wildlife tourism and that you have learnt something new today! If you want to learn a bit more, then I recommend the following:

• Wildlife Tourism – A landmark contribution to the rapidly growing field of wildlife tourism, especially in regard to its underpinning foundations of science, conservation and policy. 
• Wildlife Tourism Futures: Encounters with Wild, Captive and Artificial Animals – An excellent book focussing on future wildlife tourism development and management; the experiential value, educational components and ethical relevance of tourism-animal encounters; and the technology applied to wildlife tourism. 
• Marine Wildlife and Tourism Management: Insights from the Natural and Social Sciences – This book demonstrates that through scientific approaches to understanding and managing tourist interactions with marine wildlife, sustainable marine tourism can be achieved.

• Net Zero Features
• Conscious Living Essentials
• Geothermal Energy Installers
• Planet Earth
• Climate Policy
• Sustainability

The Surprising Benefits of Wildlife Tourism

We are reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn affiliate commission.

Wildlife tourism is a major business, accounting for 20% to 40% of the entire tourism industry’s net value. However, this kind of tourism can also have a detrimental impact on animal populations and their habitats. As people flock to take selfies with sedated tigers or ride abused elephants, they fuel the cycle of unsustainable ecotourism. Their actions further fund animal cruelty, captivity and destruction.  Yet, many other wildlife tourist attractions actually work to protect animals and their habitats. In allowing tourists to come and experience these animals in their natural environments, these organizations change wildlife tourism — and the future of animals everywhere — for the better. 

Educates Tourists

More than 31,000 species are facing extinction and, each day, between two and 20 species do cease to exist. However, many tourists — and people in general — aren’t aware of this rapid decline in biodiversity. This factor is mostly due to many of these species being halfway across the world. For people to know and care about these endangered animals, they must see and experience them and their homes. That’s where ecotourism comes into play.  By traveling to and visiting animals’ natural habitats, tourists can increase their awareness of the importance of conservation and learn how they can make a difference. Moreover, they can go home and share their newfound knowledge and passion with others. 

Spreads Awareness

Many people learn of ecotourism attractions through social media sites like Instagram and Facebook. Photos of friends posing with elephants and tigers make them want to go to those locations and do the same. However, these hands-on encounters often aren’t animal-friendly. Moreover, they only exacerbate the problem of wildlife cruelty and captivity. As more people travel in search of photo opportunities, they knowingly and unknowingly fund unsustainable wildlife tourism.

However, if more people travel and participate in healthy, animal-friendly ecotourism, these new photos will replace the ones featuring unsustainable attractions. This concept fosters true public awareness by showing a well-rounded perspective of issues surrounding wildlife and how people play a crucial role in preserving them. 

Funds the Economy and Conservation Efforts

Wildlife tourism also encourages the development of impoverished communities by bringing steady revenue and jobs to the local economies. In Kenya, the Northern Rangelands Trust employs more than 1,000 Kenyans , providing them with security, healthcare and education. Moreover, the Trust gives them skills they can transfer to other areas of employment if they so choose. Thus, wildlife tourism offers many families a bright future they otherwise wouldn’t have had.

In addition to benefiting the people and the local economy, sustainable wildlife tourism also funds conservation efforts. At the Northern Rangelands Trust, almost 30% of their revenue comes from tourism. This funding helps them provide sanctuary for elephants, protect endangered species, monitor wildlife and boost local animal populations. This money also aids them in training and raising leaders within the community who will work to conserve local wildlife for many years beyond.

Promotes Local Animal Rescue Efforts

While many people may see photos of illegal poaching and become enraged, there’s little they can do to solve the issue from thousands of miles away, aside from sharing their sentiments with others. Those closest to the problem, like the locals in Kenya, can end illegal activities and rescue wildlife, though. And this is exactly what conservancies like the Northern Rangelands Trust are doing.  Stopping poaching and the illegal wildlife trade requires more than law enforcement’s efforts. Kenya must rally the private sector to join the fight. Therefore, the Trust uses funding from tourism to educate people on poaching and how it affects the local community — because there can be no wildlife tourism or related jobs without animals. This initiative has encouraged the transport, travel and tourism sectors to work undercover to report illegal activities. Already there has been a 50% decrease in elephant poaching in Kenya. 

Upholds Eco-Friendly Standards

If you choose a conservation-oriented wildlife tour, it’ll likely be eco-friendly to both the animals and the environment. Your journey may include participating in a walking tour instead of a car ride or taking care to observe the plants, trees and other flora while also looking for gorillas or other wild animals. Eco-friendly trips like these stress the importance of preserving animals’ homes and fostering a deep respect for natural habitats and ecosystems.   Some travel companies, like Baobab Travel, are taking it a step further by offering fair-trade tourism travel packages. By purchasing one of these packages, tourists can rest assured that their money is benefiting the local people , environment and businesses of South Africa. Moreover, travelers can book vacations with organizations that work closely with local communities, thereby supporting the economy. 

Protecting Wildlife Tourism With Your Dollars

Hundreds of thousands of unsustainable wildlife tourism attractions exist across the globe. These establishments practice animal cruelty, illegal wildlife trade and many other abhorrent activities. Whenever you visit one of these places to get a good photo or touch a wild animal, you fund this vicious cycle. However, by traveling and participating in tourist attractions that actively work to protect and care for animals and their habitats, you can be part of the solution.  If enough people decide they no longer want to pay for an unsustainable experience, these harmful tours and attractions will cease to exist. And instead, people will participate in eco-friendly tours and pro-conservation activities, thereby protecting wildlife and their precious habitats.

Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Like what you read? Join other Environment.co readers!

Get the latest updates on our planet by subscribing to the Environment.co newsletter!

About the author

Harvest Hues: 6 Fall Garden Ideas to Elevate Your Yard

10 Top Trends That Are Shaping Sustainability in 2024 

Like or Dislike? Social Media and Sustainability’s Influential Relationship

7 Companies Making Waves with Sustainable Investing 

Accessible Ideas for Self-Sufficient Living

The Impacts of Methane Burning and How to Abate Them

• About Us 👨‍👩‍👧

Positive Impacts of Tourism on the Environment

If you asked random people from different countries whether tourism has negative or positive impacts on the environment, none of the answers would most likely prevail since their opinion will be based on their personal experience from travels. Tourism and environment have important, yet controversial relationship, that needs to be in a perfect balance to benefit each other.

Beautiful natural landscapes or unique flora and fauna are the main drivers of tourism into an area. But when too many tourists visit natural sites, environment and its inhabitants rather suffer from the negative impacts, which easily outweigh all the benefits due to exceeding the natural carrying capacity of a place .

On the other hand, when the number of visitors is balanced with respect for the natural environment, tourism has great potential in supporting or even starting out new conservation projects that protect unique areas and benefit local residents.

Sustainable tourism helps protect the environment

Many countries around the world depend on tourism as their main industry in providing jobs in rural areas and bringing in funds that would be otherwise out of their reach. Financial resources and employment are critical for local livelihoods and security. But as more and more countries focus on expanding their tourism sites, they often encounter problems with overconsumption of their finite natural resources, pollution, and degradation. This easily spirals into undesirable situations of negative impacts on the local environment and society.

Tourism as a fast-growing industry must follow the principles of sustainability in order to last long term while maintaining positive impacts for an area. In terms of environment, this means consumption of natural resources within acceptable limits, protecting biodiversity and making sure that essential ecological processes can take place, while providing a pleasant experience to visiting tourists [1] .

A part of striving towards sustainability is also raising awareness about the unique natural features of an area and educating visitors about their sustainable management. This helps them to understand the rules set in place and respect differences.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in relation to tourism

Tourism represents 10 percent of world GDP. The industry increasingly affects the environment, culture, and socio-economic development of a country. Due to such a great reach, it is a powerful tool in facilitating change.

According to the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), tourism contributes directly or indirectly to all the 17 goals of sustainable development (SDGs) that were defined together with additional 169 SDG targets to ensure safer future for life on Earth by 2030.

Since 2018, UNWTO operates even an online platform dedicated to achievement of SDGs through tourism. You can visit it here: https://tourism4sdgs.org/ . On the platform is detailed description of each sustainable development goal in relation to tourism. SDGs address areas ranging from the importance of biodiversity, protection of marine ecosystems to urgent call for sustainable production and consumption.

Following the guidelines, UNWTO has, for example, partnered with the United Nations Environment Programme and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and launched a Global Tourism Plastics Initiative to mitigate the problem of plastic pollution in the industry.     

What are the positive impacts of tourism on the environment?

Sustainable tourism is the only way to go forward if the industry wants to grow. But throughout the last couple decades, tourism has been already growing and has introduced many new places to foreign visitors. In some regions, having the option of welcoming paying guests, tourism has brought many positive impacts on the environment. Let’s see their examples.     

#1 Awareness raising and first-hand experience

Beautiful landscapes, animals in their natural environment, exotic ecosystems attract visitors from around the world. They are the primary reason why people travel. To get rest from their daily blues and experience ultimate relaxation from the connection with natural world. Tourism is the best tool to raise awareness of environmental values.

You learn the best when you do get to experience something directly, when you see it, touch it, and when you witness what threatens to destroy it. Personal visit of natural areas introduces you to the values they have for life. It makes you care about them, since you get to enjoy their special feeling. And memories you will have will encourage you to be environmentally-conscious in travel and personal life.

In January 2021, alarming pictures of the most touristy beaches in Bali buried in plastic waste that washed up on the shore due to the monsoon weather, appeared on social media of travelers and in the news [2] . The images have drawn global attention and created a bad rep for single-use plastic items, making us (consumers) more aware of the true impact.

#2 Tourism for skills learning and education

This is a special side of tourism but plays also an important role in positive impacts of tourism on the environment. Visitors do not have to be drawn to places just for entertainment or relaxation, they may come with the primary mission of learning a new skill or gaining certain knowledge. Tourists come to see a special feature in an area and often pay for their stay, for food, or training, which is a nice way to support the work they came to admire. Additionally, they may also put the new knowledge to use for their own projects.   

One nice example of this form of tourism could be visiting a permaculture farm with the purpose to learn about the practices applied on the farm and exchange ideas on what might work at home. Another example, that could inspire many, is spending time on edible forest farms, learning about planting diversity of low maintenance plants on your piece of land. Or visiting villages excelling in agroforestry farming practices which have allowed them to harvest variety of products from their lands, while protecting sensitive mountainous environments, where intensive farming would not be an option.           

#3 Support of conservation and biodiversity protection activities

Africa is a prime example of a country where tourism has had a positive effect on wildlife protection. Wildlife tourism in Africa makes around 36 percent of the tourism industry, contributing over $29 billion to the continent’s economy and provides jobs to 3.6 million people [3] .

The opportunity of seeing wild animals in their natural environment is what Africa is the most known for. This form of tourism reduces poverty and helps to empower women directly by giving them jobs, but even indirectly by allocating funds to build infrastructure – schools, hospitals.

Africa, Asia, South America, and the South Pacific focus more and more on the value of their wild natural areas. With the growth of tourism appear even new national and wildlife parks that connect sustainable tourism with biodiversity preservation.

For example, iSimangaliso Wetland Park in South Africa offers amazing experience for tourists who can choose between diving, snorkeling, kayaking or horseback riding in a landscape of 25,000 years old coastal dunes and swamp forests, while protecting the area’s sensitive ecosystems and unique species. The coastline is Africa’s only remaining nesting place of Loggerhead and Leatherback turtles [4] .

#4 Protection of endangered species

Countries begin to realize that their rare and endemic species are their symbol in the eyes of foreign visitors who are often attracted to the place because of them. Wild animals, virgin forests and a colorful palette of exotic plants are becoming an unusual sight in an economically developed world. The remaining spots that are still a home to this disappearing world are often turn to nature reserves and protected areas. This ensures better safety for endangered species that inhabit them.

Virunga National Park in East Africa has a story of conservation success to tell, even despite years of civil unrest and war in the surrounding areas, it has been declared an ecological pillar for the entire East and Central African biodiversity, having the largest concentration of birds and reptiles over other protected areas [5] .

Thanks to the initiative of the World Wildlife Fund and United Nations, the park has endured hard years and granted protection to endangered mountain gorillas, who were almost driven to extinction by human encroachment into their already limited habitat. Thanks to these extraordinary efforts and persistence, gorillas from the Virunga recovered and their number rose from 480 to over 600 [6] . The park is one of the most attractive tourist destinations, where you can see gorillas, chimpanzees, and many other iconic animals.

#5 Prevention of illegal trade and exploitation

Tourism brings new opportunities even to most remote places. The growing interest of tourists in visiting places where people live in connection with nature and animals gives chance to locals to sustain their families far from urban areas. In many cases, local communities quickly realize the need to protect what they have in order to attract tourists, as the stream of income from tourism is long-term and more advantageous than one-time sales of finite resources or poached animals.

A glimmer of hope sparked by the vision of attracting tourists takes place in two villages in Nepal that are known for being a transit points for illegal trade in pangolin meat and scales to Tibet and India.

The villages have joined a community-based pangolin conservation and education project . The goal of the project is to discourage local poachers from selling scales of pangolins to illegal traders, and thus interrupt the illegal trade pathway while protecting endangered pangolins . Participants of the project are also trained to help with long-term monitoring of pangolin population (species ecology, identification of threats and distribution).        

#6 Finance and job opportunities

One in ten jobs worldwide are directly or indirectly in the tourism industry. Tourism creates decent work opportunities and economic growth even in rural or remote areas. Tourism employs women and is often the first job experience of young people. Money from the tourism then often goes into improving local infrastructure, and sustainable management and protection of natural wonders that attract visitors.

Better infrastructure and services have a positive impact on the environment. They revolve around consumption of resources and their management. Modern infrastructure for wastewater cleaning saves water and promotes more efficient use of it. Waste management facilities focus on recycling materials rather than just dumping waste into sea or to landfills.

Tourism also directly helps to fund conservation activities of national parks, or other nature and wildlife preservation projects. Visitors are usually asked to pay entrance fees or a small tax that is meant to support the project.  

Costa Rica has one of the most successful rainforest conservation strategies, which enables the country to protect and care for its incredibly biodiversity rich rainforests, while at the same time generating income from tourism. A part of this income goes back to the rainforest conservation maintenance, research, and professional training of park guards. The rest sustains regional economy and creates balanced life opportunities for locals.       

#7 Adoption of sustainable practices and new legislation

We have partially tapped into this aspect already in the previous point. It is closely linked. More funds available to a region mean better possibilities to improve infrastructure and services. Modernization of infrastructure goes hand in hand with a transition to sustainable technologies and seeking of long-term solutions that will benefit people and the local environment.

Many travelers care about their impact on the environment. They are willing to pay for environmentally friendly services and accommodation when visiting a new place. Many destinations already follow the suit and are changing their approach to tourism by considering their environmental impact in their management.

Additionally, governments also respond to this pressure and often enforce regulations to further protect local natural resources by adopting sustainable practices in the industry.

You can see this trend in increasing numbers of eco-tourism lodges around the world; or recycling bins placed in public areas to collect different materials for more efficient waste management; in water saving measures and recommendations adopted by accommodation providers; or even large-scale renewable energy projects that power whole regions.

Several studies highlighted the benefits of renewable energy for maintaining healthy environment during the seasonal influx of tourists to island destinations. For example, a study of Mediterranean islands sees renewable energy projects as a tool to provide sufficient energy to residents and tourists during the periods of increased demand, while protecting already fragile and limited resources islands have.

Tourism and the environment could go well together

The success of tourism relies on good infrastructure and decent quality of services. The industry therefore helps the community development and brings new sources of inspiration and motivation for protection of biodiversity rich natural areas, wildlife, or whole ecosystems.

Many new conservation projects raise hope of local people in being able to sustain their families, while taking care of their home, of their legacy, of a place shaped by the nurturing hands of their ancestors. They hope that their effort will be appreciated and rewarded by respectful visitors.

Was this article helpful?

About greentumble.

Greentumble was founded in the summer of 2015 by us, Sara and Ovi . We are a couple of environmentalists who seek inspiration for life in simple values based on our love for nature. Our goal is to inspire people to change their attitudes and behaviors toward a more sustainable life. Read more about us .

• Agriculture
• Biodiversity
• Deforestation
• Endangered Species
• Green Living
• Solar Energy

Sliding Sidebar

Positive and Negative Impacts associated with Non-Consumptive Wildlife Tourism

Essay , 2007 , 23 Pages , Grade: 2,3

Autor:in: Janine Paul (Author)

• eBook for only 15.99 € Download immediately. Incl. VAT Format: PDF and ePUB – for all devices
• Softcover for only 17.95 € Shipping worldwide

The aim of wildlife tourism “is to visit a destination in order to see and gain an understanding of the local fauna without harming the natural environment“ (Mintel, 2006). Duffus & Dearden (1990) developed three dimensions of wildlife – human interaction which are illustrated in Figure 1. This study focuses on non-consumptive wildlife tourism. This form of niche tourism includes observing and interacting with animals without harming them with a special interest in wildlife conservation (Higginbottom 2004, Duffus & Dearden, 1990). The future for wildlife tourism is predicted to grow rapidly within the next 10 years. A shift away from the single adventurers to a more general target group is forecasted (Mintel, 2006) leading eventually to mass tourism and more negative impacts. The question is where the desire, to be close to nature, comes from. One view is, that “humans evolved in the natural environment, changing in response to it” (Knopf, 1987). Animals have provided much of the food supply for most societies (Orams, 2002). Furthermore, the every day life of the human being demands directed attention and full power. There is the desire to be ‘free’, unconventional and enjoy life (Newsome, 2005). Furthermore, Kim & Jamal (2007) introduce that the today’s society is inauthentic and isolated, driving people to travel in search for an authentic experience. This could take the form of staged authenticity - making a product out of it (Goffman, 1963 cited in Kim & Jamal, 2007). The desire to experience nature is stimulated through the media (Orams, 2002). In addition a growing concern for the environment, visible e.g. through the Kyoto protocol, enhances this phenomenon (Mapleweb, 2005). Fredrickson & Anderson (1999: 30) found that a close relationship to animals leads to a decrease in depression and stress enhancing social interaction as the natural experience enables the tourist a “step away from the stresses of life.”

Table of Contents

Introduction, discussion of positive impacts, discussion of negative impacts.

Possibilities to alleviate negative environmental and social impacts

Word Count: 2694 words

The aim of wildlife tourism “is to visit a destination in order to see and gain an understanding of the local fauna without harming the natural environment“ (Mintel, 2006). Duffus & Dearden (1990) developed three dimensions of wildlife – human interaction which are illustrated in Figure 1. This study focuses on non-consumptive wildlife tourism. This form of niche tourism includes observing and interacting with animals without harming them with a special interest in wildlife conservation (Higginbottom 2004, Duffus & Dearden, 1990).

Figure 1 – The three dimensions of wildlife tourism

illustration not visible in this excerpt

The future for wildlife tourism is predicted to grow rapidly within the next 10 years. A shift away from the single adventurers to a more general target group is forecasted (Mintel, 2006) leading eventually to mass tourism and more negative impacts.

The question is where the desire, to be close to nature, comes from. One view is, that “humans evolved in the natural environment, changing in response to it” (Knopf, 1987). Animals have provided much of the food supply for most societies (Orams, 2002). Furthermore, the every day life of the human being demands directed attention and full power. There is the desire to be ‘free’, unconventional and enjoy life (Newsome, 2005).

Furthermore, Kim & Jamal (2007) introduce that the today’s society is inauthentic and isolated, driving people to travel in search for an authentic experience. This could take the form of staged authenticity - making a product out of it (Goffman, 1963 cited in Kim & Jamal, 2007). The desire to experience nature is stimulated through the media (Orams, 2002). In addition a growing concern for the environment, visible e.g. through the Kyoto protocol, enhances this phenomenon (Mapleweb, 2005). Fredrickson & Anderson (1999: 30) found that a close relationship to animals leads to a decrease in depression and stress enhancing social interaction as the natural experience enables the tourist a “step away from the stresses of life.”

Wildlife also raises the question how the relationship between humans and animals is defined. Are animals subordinate to humans, equal or higher (Orams, 2002)? From an anthropocentric point of view, humans are the centre of things or peak of evolutionary chain. Humans want to control everything including also nature and wildlife. This evokes the issue if animals have souls and feelings. From an ecocentric approach humans are part of the nature and the whole environment not putting their selves above the animal (Btgreenparty, 2007).

The positive and negative factors affecting on different stakeholders of the wildlife tourism product are discussed in the next sections. Stakeholders are made visible in Appendix 1.

Wildlife tourism constitutes “a peak emotional experience” for tourists. The enjoyment of the tourist can be influenced through the intensity of the wildlife i.e. proximity, the number of animals viewed and their behaviour, number of fellow passengers, duration of the trip… (Newsome, 2005:22). “… Animal contact has significant health benefits and […] positively influences transient psychological states, morale, and feelings of self worth” (Orams, 2002). This could be seen in a report, where swimming with dolphins helped ill persons to get well (BBC, 2005). The study of Schänzel and McIntosh (2003) of Penguins in the Otago Peninsula, New Zealand revealed that benefits for visitors are:

- higher environmental friendly awareness - experience of contributing to and helping conservation - increased knowledge from guided tours - people with less contact to animals can come closer to them

The author would like to add that tourism operators can profit when tourists have a memorable experience through wildlife, as satisfied customers may ensure repeat business.

Wildlife tourism helps the preservation of the natural balance and ecology. Higginbottom (2004) supports that: it “is […] far more conductive to wildlife conservation than most alternative uses of the land”, e.g. agriculture. Furthermore, endangered species can be assisted through supplementary feeding, ensuring their survival (Orams, 2002). Wildlife supports the analysis of animals, which helps the mankind for research and development. However this is abused by e.g. the Japanese justifying whale hunting through research but using it for consumerism (Greenpeace International, 2005).

Wildlife contributes to conservation and community projects in developing countries. It increases awareness through the establishment of codes of conduction for wildlife tourists (Newsome, 2005). A “close interaction with wild animals may well increase concern for wildlife conservation amongst many tourists” (WTA inc., 2005).

The support of the local community is essential for protected areas. This is often linked to the direct benefits, which local communities get from the protected areas (Sekhar, 2003). However, a danger discovered by Sekhar (2003) is, that biologists claim wildlife species are at risk if local people are given priority over conservation objectives (Sekhar, 2003). This raises the question of the relation of animals and human beings, as mentioned earlier.

Ecotourism is very profitable to the economy of many destinations. They use wildlife tourism as a tool for economic development and environmental protection especially in developing countries (Sekhar, 2003). For example, Galapagos Island, Nepal and Monteverde in Costa Rica are visited by curious tourists and adventurers. With the time infrastructure, accommodation and transportation improved, increasing the standard of living. But finally this was leading to mass demand (Honey, 1999). In the Galapagos, the majority of tourism is based on nature with an estimated worth of wildlife tourism of over £60 million (Mintel, 2006). Positive outcomes for countries like Kenya and its National Parks are the employment and use of local process. Whale watching in the United Kingdom attracted 121,000 whale watchers and contributed over £6 million to the economy in 1998 (Hoyt, 2000). This can cause a multiplier effect leading to higher employment and financial benefits for the local community. Inhabitants can operate the lodges or take part in the management process. There is an increased provision of services and facilities, better planning (e.g. water, energy, training), management and operation of wildlife tourism. Furthermore the local population gains information provided on wildlife for a deeper understanding and knowledge (Newsome, 2005). For example in Uganda, the National Wildlife Policy of 1994 demands revenue sharing through the help of a ‘Park Management Advisory Committee’ where locals are represented (Archbald and Naughton-Treves, 2001). The amount of revenue through entrance fees, game viewing and photography is considerable. Tourists pay US$ 250 to view gorillas for one hour. The local income per capita is less than US$ 220 (Sekhar, 2003). Therefore wildlife tourism raised the disposable income. On the other hand, prices increase where tourism occurs, which could be higher than elsewhere in the country, causing a stronger financial burden for the locals.

Newsome (2005) identified three categories of negative impacts: access, observation and close contact feeding. Access to wildlife can occur through foot, road, plane or boat. A direct impact is also death through vehicles (Reynolds & Braithwaite 2001). Burger (1981) examined the effects of humans on birds at Jamaica Bay by foot. Birds were flushed from their ponds when people made rapid movements. Fewer birds were visible when people were present. The major problems of access via road are clearing, construction of the road, barrier effects, noise and road kill. This can result in stress, disorientations and avoidance of the animals (Newsome, 2005). Davis et al. (1997) considered whale sharks. Diving or observing them from a boat caused health problems in the population or aggressiveness.

Food is used to attract animals, enabling the tourist to a close view and interaction with the animals. Orams (2002) particularly investigated the impacts of feeding on dingoes on Fraser Island, Australia. Changes in breeding or group size occurred. Animals got dependent on the food received and used to a close contact with humans. Therefore they are in danger of losing the ability and skills to forage for their selves and are seeking to areas where many humans are, incorporating higher risks due to for example roads. The species amongst each other became more aggressive in their procedure of getting food. The health of the animals is threatened through artificial food leading to injury and diseases (Orams, 2002) as there are not enough nutrients in the food (Higginbottom, 2004). Hunger always played an important role in nature as the weakest one will die according through the theory of Darwin (Darwin-online, 2007). Normally animals die when they find not enough food. This natural cycle is interrupted: they do not die or they stop breeding due to disruption. Besides feeding, breeding is very essential to be considered. For example, parent birds’ abandonment of the nest or eagles are known to leave when humans approach (Green and Higginbottom, 2001). The clearing of the habitat or its modification, which is undertaken for the camping of tourists, can take away resources for feeding and building accommodation. Appendix 2 gives an overview of the ecological impacts of wildlife tourism.

The animals them selves are heavily affected through wildlife tourism. “Experimental vessel approaches to Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins in Tasmania revealed that during approaches, focal dolphin groups became more compact, had higher rates of change in membership and had more erratic speeds and directions of travel” (Bejder et al., 2006). Mammals were discovered to have the most sensitive hearing amongst terrestrial vibrates (Bowles, 1995 cited in Higginbottom, 2004). They get distracted through noise made by humans. Snakes can interpret vibration differently confusing important and unimportant signals (Higginbottom, 2004). Artificial light, which helps visitors to orientate in the darkness, is also impacting on animals. Other short-term effects discovered include disruption of social activities among Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins in Hong Kong (Leung & Leung, 2003).

Hunting and fishing – exploitation has effects on the sex structure (Adamic, 1997) e.g. brown bears were shot in Slovenia, causing a genetic diversity of populations. Another example is that, 50 million butterflies are killed in Brazil to make souvenirs. (Carvalho & Mielke, 1971). The problem is, when stimuli disappear, boredom can occur or loss of natural behaviour. Insects are killed not to displease visitors during their trip (Higgionbottom, 2004). This shows that tourists do not want to give up their civilisation; therefore toilets have to be build (Dyck & Baydack, 2004). The more mainstream visitor requires well-established tourist facilities and infrastructure. These travellers are much greater in number, and therefore can destroy more. In Kenya’s Amboseli National Park, Maasai Mara Game Reserve and Nairobi National Park, “hordes of tourists came and hindered cheetahs in hunting.” It resulted in a considerable decline in this species. (World Resource Institute, 1993: 150 cited in Honey 1999). However the potential to generate a larger economic benefit to the destination when more tourists arrive is higher (Mintel, 2006). Nevertheless the drawback for the destination is that it can become dependent on wildlife tourism, e.g. Tonga’s economy is mainly based on whale watching. In the small South Pacific island community of Vava’u in Tonga it was worth US $600,000 per year (Orams, 2000). With regards to this benefit, attention needs to be drawn to the fact that no economic leakages occur, i.e. that financial gains are invested in the destination’s conservation and development schemes rather than just benefiting tour operators.

• Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.

Wildlife Tourism Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction: How Does Tourism Affect Animals?

Thesis statement, positive and negative impacts of wildlife tourism, conclusion: negative effects of tourism on wildlife.

Wildlife tourism is basically the viewing of wild animals in their natural habitats. Tourism affects the ecosystem of wildlife both positively and negatively. Tourism can lead to interference and destruction of the wildlife ecosystem, leading to decrease in the population of the animals and degradation of their habitats.

Tourists will interfere with the welfare of the wild animals through their interactions with the animals. The roads and paths that offer access to the wild animals also lead to destruction of the natural habitat of the wild animals (Claggett 1997, p.23).

Tourism can also have numerous positive effects on wildlife. Due to the huge incomes that tourism generates, authorities and local communities will aim at preserving the natural habitat of the animals for continued gains in the future. Part of the money earned from tourism can be used for conservation of endangered species and safeguarding the habitat of the wild animals through fencing (Claggett 1997, p.27).

Although wildlife tourism is common in various countries, it has negative effects on the wildlife.

Tourism is known to finance conservation efforts of wildlife

Opponents of the argument that tourism negatively affects wildlife claim that tourism in fact promotes conservation efforts of wildlife and their habitat through provision of financial aid (Bushell & Eagles 2006, p.143).

They argue that part of the revenue obtained from tourism is channelled back to conservation efforts of the wildlife like conservation of endangered species. They also argue that local communities and authorities are dedicated to conserving wildlife primarily because of tourism as most of them earn their living through tourism related activities (Bushell & Eagles 2006, p.154).

Rebuttal to the Argument That Tourism Finance Conservation Effort of Wildlife and Their Habitats

Tourism leads to destruction and interference of the wildlife’s habitat. In places with wildlife that attracts tourists, part of the wildlife’s habitat is cleared in order to pave way for construction of amenities that meet the needs of tourists like resorts (Green & Higginbottom 2001, p.37). Tourists may engage in off-road driving and walking through wildlife habitat, which leads to trampling of vegetation and death of small living creatures.

Tourism leads to disturbance of normal activities of wildlife. Tourism disrupts the feeding and breeding patterns of wildlife. Tourists move too close to animals with the aim of viewing and taking photographs, the animals become aware of the presence of humans and cannot continue with their routine activities. A study in Mexico reveal a decrease in breeding of brown pelicans by 52 to 100% in areas frequented by tourists compared to areas not visited by tourists (Eagles & Haynes 2002, p.92).

Tourists disrupt the bonding between parent and offspring. In Canada, female harp seals’ attendance to their pups reduced when tourists were present (Eagles & Haynes 2002, p.97).

Tourism activities create awareness on conservation efforts of endangered species

Opponents of the argument that tourism negatively affects wildlife claim that tourism creates awareness on conservation of endangered species. Some tourists engage in studying of the ecosystem and create awareness to raise funds for various projects aimed at conservation of the ecosystem (Edgell 2006, p.45).

Rebuttal to the Argument That Tourism Creates Awareness on Conservation Efforts of Endangered Species

Tourism activities may lead to increased vulnerability of some species to predators. Viewing of certain species of wildlife may expose them to predators leading to a decrease in their population (Edgell 2006, p.41). Certain tourism activities may scare away wildlife from their habitat. In Kenya, increased observation of cheetahs drives them away from their habitat into community farms (Green & Higginbottom 2001, p.27).

Tourism increases cases of poaching and game hunting. Poachers masquerading as tourists gain access to wildlife that have body parts with high monetary value like elephant tasks. Controlling poaching becomes difficult and expensive (Green & Higginbottom 2001, p.23). Tourists also contribute to decreased population of wildlife through activities like game hunting and sport fishing. The effects can be severe without proper regulation of these activities.

The growing practice of ecotourism offers great benefits to wildlife

Opponents of the argument that tourism negatively affects wildlife claim that with the increase in the practice of ecotourism, greater care is taken to educate tourists of the need for preserving wildlife and their habitat (Boo 1990, p.87).

Rebuttal of the Argument That Ecotourism Offers Benefits To Wildlife

Tourism activities like noise and feeding of wildlife affects behaviour and welfare of wildlife (Mieczkowski 1995, p.64). In the Galopolos islands, artificial feeding led to disruption of breeding patterns of iguanas (Lascuráin 1996, p.99). Noise generated by motor boats and engines of motor vehicles as tourists move closer to the animals tend to disturb feeding and drinking patterns of wildlife (Newsome & Moore 2005, p.75).

Tourism leads to decreased pollution of the wildlife habitat. Tourists lead to pollution of the habitat through littering and noise pollution, which tend to scare wild animals. The use of vehicles and motor boats leads to further pollution of the environment (Lascuráin 1996, p.97). Burning firewood for providing warmth in resorts leads to environmental pollution.

Wildlife tourism is a major source of revenue for countries in Africa and South American countries. However without proper coordination, it can negatively impact on the wildlife and their habitat. For sustainable tourism, structures should be put in place to minimise the negative effects of tourism to wildlife. Efforts to educate tourists on conserving wildlife should be practiced.

Boo, E 1990, Ecotourism: the potentials and pitfalls , World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C.

Bushell, R & Eagles, F 2006, Tourism and protected areas benefits beyond boundaries , CABI Pub, Wallingford.

Claggett, H D 1997, Wildlife conservation , H W Wilson Co, New York.

Eagles, F & Haynes, C 2002, Sustainable tourism in protected areas: guidelines for planning and management , IUCN the World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland.

Edgell, D L 2006, Managing sustainable tourism: a legacy for the future , Haworth Hospitality Press, New York.

Green R, & Higginbottom, K, 2001, The negative effects of wildlife tourism on wildlife , CRC for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast, Qld.

Lascuráin, H 1996, Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas: the state of nature-based tourism around the world and guidelines for its development , IUCN, Gland.

Mieczkowski, Z 1995, Environmental issues of tourism and recreation , University Press of America, Lanham, Md.

Newsome, D & Moore, S 2005, Wildlife Tourism , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

• The Impact of Logging and Deforestations on an Ecosystem
• Endangered Species Issue in the United States
• Fairmont the Palm Hotel Eco-Tourism Adoption
• Javan Rhinos: Wildlife Trading of Endangered Animals
• Ecotourism vs Cultural Voyeurism: Protection of Local Communities and Cultures
• Environmental Issue raised in the “Weather Extremes Leave Parts of U.S. Grid Buckling”
• Rolston and Callicott into the transforming concepts
• Ecological Imperialism
• Ecological Studies in Los Alamos National Laboratory
• Effects of Oil Spills on Aquatic Environments
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 5). Wildlife Tourism Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/negative-effect-of-tourism-on-wildlife/

"Wildlife Tourism Essay." IvyPanda , 5 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/negative-effect-of-tourism-on-wildlife/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Wildlife Tourism Essay'. 5 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Wildlife Tourism Essay." April 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/negative-effect-of-tourism-on-wildlife/.

1. IvyPanda . "Wildlife Tourism Essay." April 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/negative-effect-of-tourism-on-wildlife/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Wildlife Tourism Essay." April 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/negative-effect-of-tourism-on-wildlife/.

Overtourism: A Potential Outcome in Contemporary Tourism—Concepts, Indicators, and Impacts

• First Online: 30 August 2024

Cite this chapter

• Kim Pham 4 ,
• Christine A. Vogt 4 &
• Kathleen L. Andereck 4  

10 Accesses

Overtourism is increasingly an issue with popular destinations. The heavy volume of visitors across multiple seasons and the resentment of residents to tourism development and visitor volumes are two key concepts of overtourism. This chapter provides a thorough review of definitions and theoretical frameworks associated with overtourism and provides a toolkit of indicators and measurement of those indicators to gauge size of tourism economy, employment, tourism visitation, development levels, media reach, and stakeholder’s perspectives. Overtourism is known for when tourism exceeds social and environmental capacities of a community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Ahn, B., Lee, B., & Shafer, C. S. (2002). Operationalizing sustainability in regional tourism planning: An application of the limits of acceptable change framework. Tourism Management, 23 (1), 1–15.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alexis, P. (2017). Overtourism and anti-tourist sentiment: An exploratory analysis and discussion. Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, 17 (2), 288–293.

Google Scholar  

Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M., Borrajo-Millán, F., & Yi, L. (2019). Are social media data pushing overtourism? The case of Barcelona and Chinese tourists. Sustainability, 11 (12), 3356.

Andereck, K. L., & Becker, R. H. (1993). Perceptions of carry-over crowding in recreation environments. Leisure Sciences, 15 (1), 25–35.

Andereck, K. L., & Nyaupane, G. P. (2011). Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research, 50 (3), 248–260.

Baños, C. J., Hernández, M., Rico, A. M., & Olcina, J. (2019). The hydrosocial cycle in coastal tourist destinations in Alicante, Spain: Increasing resilience to drought. Sustainability, 11 (16), 4494.

Benner, M. (2019). From overtourism to sustainability: A research agenda for qualitative tourism development in the Adriatic. German Journal of Economic Geography, 2 (64), 74–87.

Bimonte, S., & Punzo, L. F. (2016). Tourist development and host–guest interaction: An economic exchange theory. Annals of Tourism Research, 58 , 128–139.

Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24 , 5–12.

Butler, R. W. (1993). Tourism–An evolutionary perspective. In J. G. Nelson, R. W. Butler, & G. Wall (Eds.), Tourism and sustainable development: Monitoring, planning, managing (pp. 25–39). Univ. of Waterloo Press.

Butler, R. W. (1999). Sustainable tourism: A state-of-the-art review. Tourism Geographies, 1 (1), 7–25.

Capocchi, A., Vallone, C., Amaduzzi, A., & Pierotti, M. (2019). Is ‘overtourism’ a new issue in tourism development or just a new term for an already known phenomenon? Current Issues in Tourism, 23 , 1–5.

Cheer, J. M., & Lew, A. A. (2017). Understanding tourism resilience: Adapting to social, political, and economic change. In Tourism, resilience and sustainability (pp. 3–17). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cheer, J. M., Milano, C., & Novelli, M. (2019). Tourism and community resilience in the Anthropocene: Accentuating temporal overtourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27 (4), 554–572.

Cheung, K. S., & Li, L. H. (2019). Understanding visitor–resident relations in overtourism: Developing resilience for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27 , 1–20.

CNN Travel. (2018, Oct 2). Thailand bay made popular by ‘The Beach’ closes indefinitely. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/maya-bay-closure-thailand/index.html

Coccossis, H., & Mexa, A. (2004). Tourism and carrying capacity . Continuum.

Coldwell, W. (2017, August 10). First Venice and Barcelona: Now anti-tourism marches spread across Europe. The Guardian . Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/aug/10/anti-tourism-marches-spread-across-europe-venice-barcelona

CREST (Center for Responsible Tourism). (2023, February 15). Power point slides in the academic affiliate annual meeting .

Cruz, M. S., & Zaragoza, M. P. P. (2019). Analysis of the accommodation density in coastal tourism areas of insular destinations from the perspective of overtourism. Sustainability, 11 (11), 1–19.

Dodds, R., & Butler, R. (2019a). The phenomena of overtourism: A review. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5 (4), 519–528.

Dodds, R., & Butler, R. (Eds.). (2019b). Overtourism: Issues, realities and solutions (Vol. 1). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Dodds, R., & Holmes, M. R. (2019). Beach tourists; What factors satisfy them and drive them to return. Ocean & Coastal Management, 168 , 158–166.

Doxey, G. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences. In Travel and Tourism research association sixth annual conference proceedings (pp. 195–198).

Eckert, C., Zacher, D., Pechlaner, H., Namberger, P., & Schmude, J. (2019). Strategies and measures directed towards overtourism: A perspective of European DMOs. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5 (4), 639–655.

Erschbamer, G., Innerhofer, E., & Pechlaner, H. (2018). Overtourism: How much tourism is too much . Eurac Research.

Espiner, S., Orchiston, C., & Higham, J. (2017). Resilience and sustainability: A complementary relationship? Towards a practical conceptual model for the sustainability–resilience nexus in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25 (10), 1385–1400.

Frauman, E., & Banks, S. (2011). Gateway community resident perceptions of tourism development: Incorporating importance-performance analysis into a limits of acceptable change framework. Tourism Management, 32 (1), 128–140.

Goodwin, H. (2017). The challenge of overtourism. Responsible tourism partnership, 4 , 1–19.

González, A. (2018). Venice: The problem of overtourism and the impact of cruises. Investigaciones Regionales=Journal of Regional Research, 42 , 35–51.

GSTC (Global Sustainable Tourism Council). (n.d.). What is sustainable tourism?. https://www.gstcouncil.org/what-is-sustainable-tourism/

Hieu, V. M., & Rašovská, I. (2017). Developing cultural tourism upon stakeholders' perceptions toward sustainable tourism development in Phu Quoc Island, Vietnam. Research & Science Today, 2 (14).

Hillali, M. (2003). Le tourisme international vu du sud: Essai sur la problématique du tourisme dans les pays en développement, Québec . Presse de l’Université du Québec.

Book   Google Scholar  

Jacobsen, J. K. S., Iversen, N. M., & Hem, L. E. (2019). Hotspot crowding and overtourism: Antecedents of destination attractiveness. Annals of Tourism Research, 76 , 53–66.

Jover, J., & Díaz-Parra, I. (2020). Gentrification, transnational gentrification and touristification in Seville. Urban Studies, 57 (15), 3044–3059.

Jurado-Rivas, C., & Sanchez-Rivero, M. (2019). Willingness to pay for more sustainable tourism destinations in world heritage cities: The case of Caceres, Spain. Sustainability, 11 (21), 5880.

Kim, S., & Kang, Y. (2020). Why do residents in an overtourism destination develop anti-tourist attitudes? An exploration of residents’ experience through the lens of the community-based tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 25 (8), 858–876.

Koens, K., Postma, A., & Papp, B. (2018). Is overtourism overused? Understanding the impact of tourism in a city context. Sustainability, 10 (12), 4384.

Krajickova, A., Hampl, F., & Lancosova, E. (2022). Visitors’ perception of overtourism impacts in a small destination. Anatolia, 33 (2), 236–246.

Lee, H., & Graefe, A. R. (2003). Crowding at an arts festival: Extending crowding models to the front country. Tourism Management, 24 (1), 1–11.

Lee, K. J., Morgan, M., & Shim, H. (2019). Crowding, race, and ethnicity: A case study at Onondaga Cave State Park. Journal of Interpretation Research, 24 (1), 49–61.

Lew, A. A., Ng, P. T., Ni, C.-C., & Wu, T.-C. (2016). Community sustainability and resilience: Similarities, differences and indicators. Tourism Geographies, 18 (1), 18–27.

Li, L., Zhang, J., Nian, S., & Zhang, H. (2017). Tourists’ perceptions of crowding, attractiveness, and satisfaction: A second-order structural model. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22 , 1250–1260.

Liu, J., & Ma, Y. (2017). The perceptual differences among stakeholders in the tourism supply of Xi’an City, China. Sustainability, 9 (2), 214.

Liu, A., & Ma, E. (2019). Travel during holidays in China: Crowding’s impacts on tourists’ positive and negative affect and satisfactions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 41 , 60–68.

Loverio, J. P., Chen, L. H., & Shen, C. C. (2021). Stakeholder collaboration, a solution to overtourism? A case study on Sagada, The Philippines. Tourism Geographies , 1–22.

MacInnis, D. J. (2016). Developing conceptual articles for JCR: Research curation. Journal of Consumer Research .

Maingi, S. W. (2019). Sustainable tourism certification, local governance and management in dealing with overtourism in East Africa. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 11 (5), 532–551.

Manning, R. E. (2022). Studies in outdoor recreation . Oregon State University Press.

Markwick, M. C. (2000). Golf tourism development, stakeholders, differing discourses and alternative agendas: The case of Malta. Tourism Management, 21 (5), 515–524.

Martín Martín, J., Guaita Martínez, J., & Salinas Fernández, J. (2018). An analysis of the factors behind the citizen’s attitude of rejection towards tourism in a context of overtourism and economic dependence on this activity. Sustainability, 10 (8), 2851.

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism, economic . Physical and Social Impacts.

McCool, S. F., & Martin, S. R. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 32 (3), 29–34.

McKinsey & Company and the WTTC (World Travel & Tourism Council). (2017). Coping with success—Managing overcrowding in tourism destinations . https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-infrastructure/our-insights/coping-with-success-managing-overcrowding-in-tourism-destinations

Mihalic, T. (2020). Conceptualizing overtourism: A sustainability approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 84 , 103025.

Mihalic, T., & Kuščer, K. (2022). Can overtourism be managed? Destination management factors affecting residents’ irritation and quality of life. Tourism Review, 77 (1), 16–34.

Milano, C., Novelli, M., & Cheer, J. M. (2019). Overtourism and tourismphobia: A journey through four decades of tourism development, planning and local concerns. Tourism Planning & Development, 16 (4), 353–357.

Milano, C., Novelli, M., & Cheer, J. M. (2022). Overtourism. In Encyclopedia of Tourism Management and Marketing (pp. 413–416). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities: A psychological analysis. In F. F. Korten, S. W. Cook, & J. I. Lacey (Eds.), Psychology and the problems of society (pp. 152–173). American Psychological Association.

Muler Gonzalez, V., Coromina, L., & Gali, N. (2018). Overtourism: Residents’ perceptions of tourism impact as an indicator of resident social carrying capacity-case study of a Spanish heritage town. Tourism Review, 73 (3), 277–296.

Oklevik, O., Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., Steen Jacobsen, J. K., Grøtte, I. P., & McCabe, S. (2019). Overtourism, optimization, and destination performance indicators: A case study of activities in Fjord Norway. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 1–21.

O'Reilly, A. M. (1986). Tourism carrying capacity: Concept and issues. Tourism Management, 7 (4), 254–258.

Panayiotopoulos, A., & Pisano, C. (2019). Overtourism dystopias and socialist utopias: Towards an urban armature for Dubrovnik. Tourism Planning & Development, 16 , 1–18.

Peeters, P. M., Gössling, S., Klijs, J., Milano, C., Novelli, M., Dijkmans, C. H. S., et al. (2021). Research for TRAN committee-overtourism: Impact and possible policy responses . European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, Transport and Tourism.

Perkumienė, D., & Pranskūnienė, R. (2019). Overtourism: Between the right to travel and residents’ rights. Sustainability, 11 (7), 21–38.

Peterson, R., & DiPietro, R. B. (2021). Is Caribbean tourism in overdrive? Investigating the antecedents and effects of overtourism in sovereign and nonsovereign small Island tourism economies (SITEs). International Hospitality Review, 1 (35), 19–40.

Petroman, I., Văduva, L., Marin, D., Sava, C., & Petroman, C. (2022). Overtourism: Positive and negative impacts. Quaestus, 20 , 171–182.

Phi, G. T. (2019). Framing overtourism: A critical news media analysis. Current Issues in Tourism , 1–5.

Pinke-Sziva, I., Smith, M., Olt, G., & Berezvai, Z. (2019). Overtourism and the night-time economy: A case study of Budapest. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 5 (1), 1–16.

Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism's impacts: The social costs to the destination community as perceived by its residents. Journal of Travel Research, 16 (4), 8–12.

Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strategies . CAB International.

Preveden, V., Mirkovic, G., Gratzer, M., & Schenk, O. (2018). Protecting your city from overtourism: European city tourism study 2018 .

Ryan, C., & Cessford, G. (2003). Developing a visitor satisfaction monitoring methodology: Quality gaps, crowding and some results. Current Issues in Tourism, 6 (6), 457–507.

Sanz-Blas, S., Buzova, D., & Schlesinger, W. (2019). The sustainability of cruise tourism onshore: The impact of crowding on visitors’ satisfaction. Sustainability, 11 (6), 1510.

Šegota, T., Mihalič, T., & Kuščer, K. (2017). The impact of residents’ informedness and involvement on their perceptions of tourism impacts: The case of Bled. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6 (3), 196–206.

Seraphin, H. (2018). Destination branding and overtourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 38 (December 2018), 1–4.

Sharpley, R. (2000). Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8 (1), 1–19.

Sheehan, L. R., & Ritchie, J. B. (2005). Destination stakeholders exploring identity and salience. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (3), 711–734.

Simmonds, C., McGivney, A., Reilly, P., Wilkinson, T., Canon, G., Wright, M., and Whaley, G. (2018, November 20). Crisis in our national parks: How tourists are loving nature to death . https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/20/national-parks-america-overcrowding-crisis-tourism-visitation-solutions .

Spradley, J. P. (1976). The revitalization of American culture: An anthropological perspective. In E. J. Logue (Ed.), Qualities of life: Critical choices for Americans (Vol. 7, pp. 99–121). Lexington Books.

Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., & Petersen, M. E. (1985). Wilderness Planning .

Szromek, A. R., Kruczek, Z., & Walas, B. (2019). The attitude of tourist destination residents towards the effects of overtourism—Kraków case study. Sustainability, 12 (1), 228.

Theng, S., Qiong, X., & Tatar, C. (2015). Mass tourism vs alternative tourism? Challenges and new positionings (pp. 31–32). Études Caribéennes.

UNWTO (World Tourism Organization). (2018). ‘ Overtourism’?—Understanding and managing urban tourism. https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284420070

UNWTO (World Tourism Organization). (2021, Jan 28). 2020: Worst year in tourism history with 1 billion fewer international arrivals. https://www.unwto.org/news/2020-worst-year-in-tourism-history-with-1-billion-fewer-international-arrivals

Vainikka, V. (2013). Rethinking mass tourism. Tourist Studies, 13 (3), 268–286.

Weaver, D. B. (2006). Sustainable tourism: theory and practice . Routledge.

Weber, F., Eggli, F., Meier-Crameri, U., & Stettler, J. (2019). Measuring overtourism: Indicators for overtourism: Challenges and opportunities. In Report for the World Tourism Forum . Luce.

Wickham, T. D., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2000). The relationship between place attachment and crowding in an event setting. Event Management, 6 (3), 167–174.

Woo, E., Kim, H., & Uysal, M. (2015). Life satisfaction and support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 50 , 84–97.

Woo, E., Uysal, M., & Sirgy, M. J. (2018). Tourism impact and stakeholders’ quality of life. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42 (2), 260–286.

Yrigoy, I., Horrach, P., Escudero, L., & Mulet, C. (2023). Co-opting overtourism: Tourism stakeholders’ use of the perceptions of overtourism in their power struggles. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1 (5), 1–17.

Zelenka, J., & Kacetl, J. (2014). The concept of carrying capacity in tourism. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 16 (36), 641–654.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Kim Pham, Christine A. Vogt & Kathleen L. Andereck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen L. Andereck .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Community Resources and Development, Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Deepak Chhabra

Department of Internal Medicine, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi, Delhi, India

Amity Institute of Travel and Tourism, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Alka Maheshwari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Pham, K., Vogt, C.A., Andereck, K.L. (2024). Overtourism: A Potential Outcome in Contemporary Tourism—Concepts, Indicators, and Impacts. In: Chhabra, D., Atal, N., Maheshwari, A. (eds) Sustainable Development and Resilience of Tourism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63145-0_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63145-0_9

Published : 30 August 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-63144-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-63145-0

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Safari ideas
• Special offers
• Start planning
• Great Wildebeest Migration
• Gorilla trekking
• Chimp trekking
• Finding wild dogs
• Beaches and lakes
• Luxury safari
• Malaria-free
• Food & wine
• Other experiences
• Victoria Falls
• Okavango Delta
• Greater Kruger
• Sabi Sand & MalaMala
• Maasai Mara
• Volcanoes National Park
• Other places
• When to go on safari - month by month
• East or Southern Africa safari?
• Solo travellers
• Women on safari
• Accommodation types & luxury levels
• General tips & advice
• All stories
• Afrika Odyssey Expedition
• Photographer of the Year
• Read on our app
• Subscribe & app
• Collar a lion
• Save a pangolin
• Guarding tuskers
• Rules of engagement
• Job vacancies
• Ukuri - safari camps

Conservationists condemn Namibia’s plan to cull 723 wildlife amidst drought – MEFT responds

As the Namibian drought worsens and grazing land for cattle becomes scarce, the Namibian government last week announced a plan to cull 723 wild animals. The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) asserts the cull will relieve drought by contributing game meat to communities. In the wake of the announcement, a group of conservationists has released a response that raises concerns about the initiative. The report challenges the government’s motives, suggesting the move is politically driven and timed to influence upcoming elections. But MEFT insists the primary goal of the cull is to benefit wildlife and ecosystems amidst the drought. 

A group of 14 conservationists, researchers and scientists is challenging the Namibian government’s plan to cull 723 wild animals , including endangered species. The conservationists, many of whom wish to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, suggest the cull is politically motivated and lacks necessary environmental or food security assessments. The group released a report critiquing the government’s plan, announced last week, which will see 83 elephants, 300 zebras, 30 hippos, 60 buffaloes, 50 impalas, 100 eland and 100 wildebeest shot, primarily within Namibia’s national parks. Details from the report are included below.

MEFT spokesperson Romeo Muyunda announced in a press release that the meat from these animals will support Namibia’s drought relief programme. The shooting of these animals will take place in Namib Naukluft Park, Mangetti National Park, Bwabwata National Park, Mudumu National Park and Nkasa Rupara National Park, and several areas outside of national parks. The culling is being conducted by professional hunters and safari outfitters contracted by MEFT, and 262 animals have already been killed.

In response to the report, Muyunda says MEFT stands by their statement on the benefits of the cull. “The arguments included in the report are mere assumptions,” he says, reiterating that the decision to cull was not “primarily made to feed people but as a conservation measure… Wildlife culling is a conservation measure taken by the wildlife authority in the country.”

A risky conservation precedent

The conservationists’ report states that allowing the cull to proceed will set a worrying precedent, paving the way for other African governments to engage in similar practices under the guise of humanitarian relief. The authors highlight the decline in African elephant numbers – from over 5 million in 1900 to just over 400,000 today – as a blunt reminder of the fragility of the continent’s wildlife.

“We are calling upon the Namibian government to desist from attacking our wildlife and instead to embrace their resources and expertise to solve their challenges in a way which assists local people, without destroying their natural heritage,” says John Grobler, Namibian environmental journalist who is quoted in the report.

In response, MEFT’s Muyunda says Namibia’s wildlife numbers continue to increase despite the concerns often expressed by critics: “Our laws and policies provide for sustainable utilisation in a well-regulated system. What our critics don’t realise is that our wildlife populations increase because we have chosen a people-centred approach. We have advanced benefits from utilisation of wildlife to communities and people. This way, people see the need for a peaceful co-existence as opposed to when there are no benefits – they would kill the animals uncontrollably.”

Editorial note: Muyunda’s response about Namibia’s increasing wildlife numbers contradicts data gathered by NACSO which states that trends over the last decade for north-west Namibia reflect a drastic decline in various animal populations since 2014, including kudu, gemsbok, zebra, springbok, and ostrich. NACSO further states that wildlife population health has declined sharply in recent years as a result of the drought.

Timing and politics

The conservationists raise questions about the timing of the cull, which coincides with the lead-up to Namibia’s elections. The report alleges the culling targets rural areas, particularly Kavango and Caprivi, where the ruling party needs to boost its support base.

“The latest move by the government is an election ploy where meat seems to be earmarked for contested constituencies,” says Izak Smit of Namibia’s Desert Lions Human Relations Aid, who is quoted in the report.

Muyunda, however, says that the drought is a natural phenomenon that happens to coincide with an election year. “The drought is not manufactured – its impact is tangible in Namibia, and ignoring that… would be catastrophic for conservation.” Muyunda continues, “The culling is happening across the country – not only in the two regions mentioned [in the report].”

The conservationists also suggest MEFT has not conducted comprehensive environmental impact assessments, stakeholder consultations, game counts, or food insecurity evaluations in the targeted areas, further fuelling suspicions about the government’s motives. The group has questioned the government’s claims that the cull is necessary to alleviate food insecurity or drought impacts.

Muyunda says this is inaccurate. “We have undertaken an assessment in all our national parks and found that some need intervention. The culling will take place in six national parks, which were found to have been affected the most.”

MEFT’s original statement says the cull will “assist in reducing the negative impact of drought on the conservation of wild animals in both our national parks and communal areas.” The statement continues, “This will assist in managing the current grazing pressure and water availability by reducing wildlife numbers in some parks and communal areas where we feel numbers exceed available grazing and water.”

However, the report’s authors suggest that livestock, rather than wildlife, should be the focus of any drought-relief efforts, as livestock cannot survive prolonged droughts while wildlife is more adapted to the harsh Namibian climate.

“If meat supply is the only solution, a bonafide scheme would involve livestock,” the report argues. The report suggests a livestock-purchase programme would provide more meaningful assistance to farmers and communities, who could sell their animals before they die from starvation and increase the available water for people and grass for remaining livestock.

But Muyunda argues the decision to cull was taken as a conservation measure. “Our assessment has indicated that in selected national parks, there are currently limited grazing and water resources for wild animals. This is the basis for these decisions. If we do not reduce wildlife numbers, these resources will finish before the rainy season, which may potentially lead to mass mortalities from hunger or thirst.”

Muyunda says meat derived from the cull is a secondary benefit. “We are where we are because people have accepted living with wild animals primarily because they derive benefits from this. In this time of need, we are happy to contribute to the food security of Namibians.”

A questionable track record

The report highlights concerns about the Namibian government’s credibility in light of past government incidents, such as the 2021 “Fishrot scandal” , which resulted in the imprisonment of two ministers for environmental exploitation. Other controversial government schemes aimed at monetising Namibia’s natural resources are also mentioned, including the government proposal to auction 170 wild elephants to zoos and trophy hunters,  efforts to lobby for the sale of ivory stockpiles despite international laws preventing ivory trade, the sale of oil rights in protected areas , and the sale of rhino calves and elephants to a Cuban zoo .

MEFT’s Muyunda argues that the Fishrot scandal was an isolated incident. “We will not stop working just because of previous cases. There is no motive beyond conservation.”

Potential negative impact of a cull on tourism & ecosystem balance

The report underscores the potential negative consequences of the cull on Namibia’s tourism industry, which contributes N$14.2 billion to the economy and employs 58,000 people. The authors warn that graphic images and videos of the culling process may surface on social media and provoke international tourism boycotts, leading to significant economic losses.

Adam Cruise, investigative journalist and academic, is quoted in the report, saying, “One of the most concerning aspects is that wildlife is being culled in national parks, which ought to be safe havens for wildlife populations. Photographic tourism is a major sector in the Namibian economy, with most visitors flocking to national parks to view wildlife. It may not sit well with tourists if they know the elephant or the zebra they are photographing one day will be butchered for meat production the next.”

The report also notes that elephants, which are endangered (although Namibian populations are stable), offer immense value to the tourism sector. “Over the course of an elephant’s long life it is worth over $1.6m to communities from its contribution to poverty-alleviation through tourism income and its critical role in ecosystem services,” states the report.

Muyunda responds that wildlife species are important to Namibia, which is why MEFT is doing everything possible to protect them. “Sometimes this includes taking the most unpopular decisions. Our interventions over the years have shown tangible results while others just criticise.”

MEFT’s statement says, “elephant numbers need to be reduced as a measure to assist in reducing prevailing cases of human-wildlife conflict,” and that conflicts are expected to increase if no interventions are made during the drought. However, the report by conservationists warns that culling could exacerbate human-wildlife conflict in the region. “Elephants are highly intelligent, socially complex, have long memories and show a documented increase in aggressiveness toward humans, following the loss of individuals through culling or trophy hunting.”

But Muyunda says the cull of animals by professional hunters will be guided by the Namibia’s hunting Code of Conduct, and ethics. “We will not hunt elephants in herds, obviously.”

Editorial note: Namibia has a track record of questionable behaviour by the trophy hunting industry, which is usually shielded from prosecution by MEFT. Two examples include legalities and due process surrounding the killing of a desert-adapted lion and an iconic desert-adapted elephant .

And while Muyunda says that “83 elephants represent 0.3% of Namibia’s total population,” and that the impact should be minimal, the authors also raise concerns that hunters could cull trans-national elephant herds passing through the country, or rare desert-adapted elephants.

Editorial note: MEFT fails to acknowledge that many of the areas earmarked for elephant culling are within Namibia’s north-west regions, home to desert-adapted elephants, which are uniquely adapted to living in arid areas. These desert-adapted elephants are low in number, but MEFT’s statements do not provide the portion of that population to be culled.  

The report highlights that desert-adapted elephants are able to survive droughts by digging for water and help other animals by creating pools for other animals to drink from.

Muyunda says MEFT has already considered this. “No desert-adapted animals will be culled – only resident elephants in the identified areas will be culled,” he says.

Adam Cruise, however, challenges whether this will be the case. “The area earmarked for the cull includes the range of desert-adapted elephants. They are not genetically different from other elephants and there is certainly an overlap in breeding between desert-adapted elephants and others, which means any elephants targeted in that area are problematic.” He continues, “There is little chance that MEFT-employed hunters will be able to distinguish between the two, unless monitors from Elephant-Human Relations Aid are on hand to point them out. Will MEFT guarantee that is the case?”

The report further highlights the potential disruption to the delicate balance of Namibia’s ecosystems. Aside from affecting only the targeted species, such as elephants, zebras, and antelope, the cull could also affect predators like lions, leopards, cheetahs and hyenas, and scavengers such as vultures, all of which depend on weakened prey during droughts. But Muyunda says the number of animals targeted by the cull will not affect ecosystems. “We will have sufficient animals after the cull to maintain ecological processes.”

Legal action against the cull

The report states the conservation community is exploring legal avenues to challenge the Namibian government’s proposal. Calling for international solidarity in opposing the cull, the authors argue Namibia’s actions could set a dangerous example for other African countries facing food insecurity, leading to widespread exploitation of national parks and protected species. It expresses particular concern at the monetisation of Africa’s endangered elephants – and big tuskers – through international sales and trophy hunting. Trophy hunts for the cull are already on sale.

Government’s alleged misuse of data

The report accuses some African governments, including Namibia, of inflating elephant population figures. The conservationists suggest this could be to justify controversial wildlife management practices, such as higher hunting quotas, zoo sales, and culling. However, the report shows how an official data analysis indicates Namibian elephant populations have remained stable for years.

In response, MEFT’s Muyunda says Namibia has grown its elephant population from 7,000 in 1990 to more than 24,000 today.

The authors denounce media for uncritically accepting these figures , often used to support government narratives that downplay public sympathy for elephant conservation. “The pro-government bias in conservation reporting is exacerbated by African conservationists’ fear of speaking out due to potential repercussions like permit revocation, deportation, or legal action,” the report states.

Editorial note: Namibia does, in fact, have an ongoing elephant population survey process which we reported on here . 

A call to action

The report concludes with a call for the Namibian government to desist from compromising wildlife and find alternative solutions that do not compromise the country’s natural heritage.

Stephan Scholvin, a Namibian professional guide and conservationist, echoes this sentiment, and is quoted in the report, stating, “Conservationists here in Namibia have proven solutions to the government’s claimed human-wildlife-conflict – including moving water points away from villages and electric fencing – but the government are ignoring them all. Despite their claims, it’s clear that their plans are about money, not wildlife.”

Outside of the report, other organisations have critiqued the government’s proposal. Mary Rice, the Environmental Investigation Agency’s executive director, says: “We are deeply disturbed by the Namibian Government’s cynical decision to cull hundreds of animals, including elephants and hippos, under the pretext of needing meat to feed people following a drought. Official figures show that Namibia has a human population of just over 2.5 million, with 2.5 million cattle, 2.4 million sheep, and 1.8 million goats. It is important to prioritise using livestock to feed the population rather than resorting to culling wildlife, especially when some of these species are endangered.”

Media outlets have also decried Namibia’s targeting of elephants. Writing on behalf of AllAfrica , Adam Cruise suggests that targeting elephants, which are not mass grazers and are mainly browsers, is being done for their high meat yield rather than to eliminate grazing competition with livestock.

In AllAfrica’s response, elephant biologist Dr Keith Lindsay says the cull will hurt the entire arid ecosystem. “Destructive interventions of removing animals at random from wildlife populations,” he says, “are likely to reduce the resilience of the ecosystems of northern Namibia in the longer term.” He also says the cull sets a dangerous precedent of reliance on wildlife populations to solve human problems. “This practice, if adopted and normalised, is very likely to create a continuing demand on vulnerable wildlife populations that would be unsustainable in the dwindling areas of natural habitat. There is also the risk that it will give neighbouring nations a strong case for doing so as well, triggering a colossal disaster,” says Lindsay.

“Wildlife cannot become a replacement for domestic livestock production,” continues Lindsay, “as its productivity is much more susceptible to the effects of variable seasonal conditions than livestock populations under human husbandry and protection.”

As the world watches, the Namibian government’s next steps could have far-reaching consequences for Africa’s wildlife and the future of conservation on the continent.

Related reading

• For more interpretations on current information available on the cull, read this post on Conservation Namibia by Dr Chris Brown and Gail Thomson
• Read more about the link between hunting and tourism in Namibia, written by Dr Chris Brown, here .
• Op-ed: Izak Smit explores solutions to human-wildlife conflict in Kunene, Namibia, focusing on ethical conservation of desert-adapted lions. Read Smit’s Op-ed here .
• Read more on the hunt of a male desert-adapted lion – hunted amidst suspicious circumstances. We asked questions of MEFT .
• Research in Namibia on the type and frequency of human-wildlife conflict incidents between 2001 and 2019 can aid in mitigating future conflict occurrences. Read more about human-wildlife conflict trends in Namibia .
• We evaluated the results of Namibia’s controversial elephant auction. Read our Op-ed on the auction here .
• Journalists target Namibia’s community-based conservation program. This is what 76 affected entities have to say – decide for yourself.
• In 2021, Gail Thomson penned an article for AG on how elephants are thriving in Namibia. could exacerbate human-wildlife conflict .

HOW TO GET THE MOST OUT OF AFRICA GEOGRAPHIC:

• Travel with us . Travel in Africa is about knowing when and where to go, and with whom. A few weeks too early / late and a few kilometres off course and you could miss the greatest show on Earth. And wouldn’t that be a pity? Browse our ready-made packages or answer a few questions to start planning your dream safari .
• Subscribe to our FREE newsletter / download our FREE app to enjoy the following benefits.
• Plan your safaris in remote parks protected by African Parks via our sister company https://ukuri.travel/ - safari camps for responsible travellers

Why choose us to craft your safari?

Handcrafted experiential safaris since 1991 .

Travel in Africa is about knowing when and where to go, and with whom. A few weeks too early/late or a few kilometres off course, and you could miss the greatest show on Earth. And wouldn’t that be a pity?

Trust & Safety

Client safari payments remain in a third-party TRUST ACCOUNT until they return from safari - protecting them in the unlikely event of a financial setback on our part.

See what travellers say about us

Make a difference

We donate a portion of the revenue from every safari sold to carefully selected conservation projects that make a significant difference at ground level.

YOUR safari choice does make a difference - thank you!

Friend's Email Address

Your Email Address