A Comparative Approach to Analyzing Local Expenditures and Visitor Profiles of two Wildlife Festivals

Abstract

Wildlife festivals are growing in popularity and warrant additional studies of festival visitors. However, comparisons of visitor demographics, motivations, activities, and local expenditure patterns between festivals are difficult because different methods of measurement are used. By using a comparative approach, this study evaluates, with the same methods, the visitor characteristics of two similar wildlife festivals in Western Canada. While providing site-specific context, this study notes variations in total local expenditure patterns, visitor motivations, and visitor activities that result from, in part, different visitor demographics, activities offered, other attractions, and rates of overnight stays. Visitors to these festivals were slightly older age and had high educational levels than the general public, which was consistent with visitors to other wildlife festivals and ecotourists in general.

Balancing ecosystem function, services and disservices resulting from expanding goose populations

“…In general, birding is the fastest-growing outdoor recreational activity in U.S. and the most promising branch of ecotourism in terms of economic impacts, with a high potential to contribute to local communities (Şekercioğlu 2003 ). Although little quantified, specific non-consumptive interest in geese is increasing the U.S. and Canada and 2–3 day goose festivals geared specifically for greater snow or brent geese attract thousands of visitors, bringing substantial local economic benefit (Hvenegaard and Manaloor 2006 ; SGSBC 2009 ; Hvenegaard 2011 ). The annual revenue from birdwatching and eco-tourism in the four main spring staging areas of greater snow geese in Québec was estimated at c. US$14 million (Bélanger and Lefebvre 2006 ).…”

Potential Conservation Benefits of Wildlife Festivals

“…According to Duffus and Dearden (1990), among the new participants to wildlife festivals (i.e., soft ecotourism), there will be more generalists than specialists. This has been shown in several wildlife festivals (Chambliss, Slotkin, & Vamosi, 2009;Fermata, Inc., 2001;Hvenegaard & Manaloor, 2007). Second, research has demonstrated considerable economic impact on local communities (Chambliss et al, 2005;Fermata, Inc., 2001;Kim, Scott, Thigpen, & Kim, 1998) and economic value of wildlife festivals (eubanks & Stoll, 1999;Fermata, Inc., 2001).…”

“…Thus, ecotourism is characterized by nature appreciation and learning in natural settings, with management following sustainability practices for economic, sociocultural, and economic systems (ross & Wall, 1999;Weaver & lawton, 2007). Typical ecotourism activities include bird watching, whale watching, and nature study (Hvenegaard & Manaloor, 2007;Weaver, 2001). Wildlife festivals are considered to be a subset of ecotourism (Slotkin, 2003), given their similar activities and similar goals (lawton 2008).…”

“…First, wildlife festival tourists are generally older, more educated, and more affluent (Hvenegaard, Jenner, & Manaloor, 2005) than general tourists. They also have proenvironmental concerns, attitudes, and behaviors (Singh et al, 2007), and a wide range of wildlife skills and interests (Hvenegaard & Manaloor, 2007) that can be represented along a continuum from hard (small scale) to soft (large scale) ecotourism. According to Duffus and Dearden (1990), among the new participants to wildlife festivals (i.e., soft ecotourism), there will be more generalists than specialists.…”

“…Second, research has demonstrated considerable economic impact on local communities (Chambliss et al, 2005;Fermata, Inc., 2001;Kim, Scott, Thigpen, & Kim, 1998) and economic value of wildlife festivals (eubanks & Stoll, 1999;Fermata, Inc., 2001). new research has identified characteristics of the festivals and communities that influence the level of local expenditures (Hvenegaard & Manaloor, 2007).…”