Tourism development can have positive and/or negative impacts on wildlife. However, if tourism is developed in accordance with the basic tenets of wildlife tourism such an activity can be sustainable and can aid the conservation of species. Based on two case studies in Queensland, Australia, this article outlines the various economic and conservation benefits arising from wildlife-based tourism. Some of the benefits are direct, such as tangible economic benefits, others are less tangible, such as increased visitors' willingness to pay in principle for the conservation of species. Wildlife-based tourism is shown to foster political support for the conservation of species utilized for such tourism by various mechanisms. Non-consumptive uses of wildlife are not only sustainable, but may provide a viable alternative to consumptive uses.

No abstract

The arguments of most conservationists supporting ecotourism have been based on the view that it is environmentally friendly as a resource-use and that receipts from it can counter demands to use the natural resources involved for more extractive economic purposes. But wildlife-based ecotourism can also have positive impacts in itself on the willingness of tourists to pay for wildlife conservation, strengthen the pro-conservation attitudes of tourists, and foster personal actions by them that contribute to wildlife conservation. These aspects are explored in this article on the basis of a survey of tourists visiting Mon Repos Beach near Bundaberg, Queensland, for the purpose of watching marine turtles. The results enable several of the conservation impacts of this experience on tourists to be quantified, and highlight important relationships between specific socioeconomic variables and the willingness of tourists to pay for the protection of sea turtles. Furthermore, it is shown that the on-site experiences of ecotourists have positive impacts on the willingness of tourists to pay for the conservation of wildlife, and that willingness to pay is sensitive to whether or not wildlife is seen. It is suggested that in situ ecotourism is likely to be a more powerful force for fostering pro-conservation attitudes and actions among visitors than ex situ wildlife-based tourism in aquaria and zoos.

The possibilities for good governance depends on institutional structures and the economic resources available for ensuring governance. In some cases centralised governance structures are inefficient. In other cases, decentralised structures turn out to be inadequate. In India decentralisation of power to village level has not improved the efficiency of rural development. Decentralisation of power, it is said, by facilitating the empowerment of people in local communities can contribute to more sustainable development. On the other hand, in India, the delegation of power to the states in some cases has resulted in the destruction of the environment. Thus centralised and decentralised governance structure have both merits and demerits. Preservation of the environment which is essential for sustainable development can not be achieved unless the pressure on forest and natural resources is reduced. This cannot happen in the absence of appropriate property rights of local communities and of rural women. In West Bengal as well as in the central Himalayan region in India it has been found that the disappearance of community control and restrictions on the user rights of villagers reduced the incentive and ability of villagers to use forest sustainability.On the other hand, in Russia, pristine forests are being degraded because of lack of resources of the weak central government. Good governance also depends on appropriate institutions. Corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, inefficient and corrupt law enforcement agencies undermine the capacity of institutions to facilitate good governance for sustainable development. Corruption and rent seeking activities can grow even in an economy which has tried to apply outward oriented economic policies if an appropriate institutional environment does not exist. A state which assumes predatory or semi-predatory status can systematically incapacitate all institutions for good governance and effective implementation of policies.Thus formulation of policies cannot ensure effective implementation in the absence of good governance which in turn can not be achieved in the absence of appropriate institutions. Hence, sustainable development requires good policies and effective provision of institutions conducive to good governance.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Swimming with whale sharks has become popular in the waters of Ningaloo Marine Park, Western Australia, since 1993. The Park is one of very few known and accessible places in the world where whale sharks congregate on a regular and predictable basis. Consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) to participate in the whale shark experience, and their willingness to contribute financially to the management of the resource might be important to the long-term sustainability of the industry. The Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management levies tourist operators A$15 per passenger per day, and uses the funds collected for research, management and education about whale sharks. Surveys were undertaken to determine the willingness of participants to pay for their whale shark experience and to pay the levy. WTP for the experience was slightly below the amounts actually paid, while Japanese tourists indicated a lower WTP than did other tourists. Respondents indicated WTP a significantly higher levy than is presently charged (t = –10.99, p < 0.05). In a loglinear analysis the only significant effect on WTP the levy was ethnicity (Pearson chi-square = 16.2473, p < 0.05), with Japanese tourists again signalling a lower WTP than other groups. It is concluded that tourists are willing, via the payment of a transparent ‘access fee’, to contribute to the costs of sustainable management of the whale shark experience.