Re-creation tourism: de-extinction and its implications for nature-based recreation

Whittle, Patrick Michael; Stewart, Emma; Fisher, David F.

doi:10.1080/13683500.2015.1031727

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the crucial role of tourism in providing an economic justification for rewilding (Feldman, 2011;Hall, 2015;Tanasescu, 2017) and de-extinction (Richmond, Sinding, & Gilbert, 2016;Whittle et al, 2015), usually via the reintroduction of charismatic megafauna (DeSilvey & Bartolini, 2019;Donlan et al, 2006;Jepson, Schepers, & Helmer, 2018;Vasile, 2018;Wolf & Ripple, 2018;Zamboni, Di Martino, & Jiménez-Pérez, 2017), there is surprisingly little directly written about tourism and rewilding with ecotourism and nature-based tourism usually being regarded as a surrogate for tourism to rewilded areas (Brown et al, 2011;Prior & Ward, 2016;Procter, 2014). Indeed, Cloyd (2016) makes the significant observation that rather than the human presence being dismissed within sites of rewilding, tourism reveals just how embedded humans are shaping 'wild' places.…”

Section: Rewilding and Tourismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tourism and rewilding: an introduction – definition, issues and review

Hall

2019

Journal of Ecotourism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rewilding is an increasingly significant normative concept in biological conservation, environmental planning and urban greenspace studies. Originally developed in relation to ecological restoration theory and practice the term has developed over time and has come to be used in a range of environmental discourses. Along with other ecosystem services tourism provides a major economic justification for rewilding, although specific studies on rewilding and tourism are limited. In introducing this special issue of Journal of Ecotourism on tourism and rewilding attention is given to the main definitions and approaches to rewilding, their application, and some of the issues that emerge, including contestation over not only how rewilding is framed but also the implications of the (re)introduction of wild animals. Rewilding therefore provides new opportunities to examine the nature-culture relationship and the ethics, management and policies associated with tourism's embeddedness in ecological restoration practices and the framing of the wild.

show abstract

Section: Rewilding and Tourismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tourism and rewilding: an introduction – definition, issues and review

Hall

2019

Journal of Ecotourism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…New conservation tools that employ synthetic biology would, however, carry significant risks, and they would pose a moral hazard if the decisions to implement them resulted in costs to people not involved in those decisions, including future generations—for example, somehow woolly mammoths lead to a resurgence of some mammoth pathogen that wreaks havoc on Siberian communities (which I regard as quite unlikely, to say the least). In the de‐extinction debate, a moral hazard would arise if de‐extinction were seen as providing a techno‐fix to the crisis of species extinctions and biodiversity loss and that perception undermined societal and political support for efforts to prevent species extinctions …”

Section: The Intersection Of Genetic Science and Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

De‐extinction and Barriers to the Application of New Conservation Tools

Seddon¹

2017

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decades of globally coordinated work in conservation have failed to slow the loss of biodiversity. To do better—even if that means nothing more than failing less spectacularly—bolder thinking is necessary. One of the first possible conservation applications of synthetic biology to be debated is the use of genetic tools to resurrect once‐extinct species. Since the currency of conservation is biodiversity and the discipline of conservation biology was formed around the prevention of species extinctions, the prospect of reversing extinctions might have been expected to generate unreserved enthusiasm. But it was not universal acclaim that greeted the coming‐out party for “de‐extinction” that was the TEDx conference and accompanying National Geographic feature in 2013. Why the concern, the skepticism, even the hostility among many conservationists about the idea of restoring lost species? And how does this professional concern relate to public perception and support for conservation? This essay explores the barriers to the acceptance of risky new genomic‐based conservation tools by considering five key areas and associated questions that could be addressed in relation to any new conservation tool. I illustrate these using the specific example of de‐extinction, and in doing so, I consider whether de‐extinction would necessarily be the best first point of engagement between conservation biology and synthetic biology.

show abstract

“…Walpole & Leader-Williams 2002). In such a case, strategic de-extinction of a flagship species could be undertaken as a marketing tool to raise money via tourism or other avenues (Whittle, Stewart & Fisher 2015) to support the recovery of other species in the system (Smith, Ver essimo & MacMillan 2010).…”

Section: Attracting Additional Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing revived species: what are the conservation management implications of de‐extinction?

Iacona

Maloney²,

Chades

et al. 2016

Functional Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1.De-extinction technology that brings back extinct species, or variants on extinct species, is becoming a reality with significant implications for biodiversity conservation. If extinction could be reversed there are potential conservation benefits and costs that need to be carefully considered before such action is taken. 2. Here, we use a conservation prioritization framework to identify and discuss some factors that would be important if de-extinction of species for release into the wild were a viable option within an overall conservation strategy. 3. We particularly focus on how de-extinction could influence the choices that a management agency would make with regard to the risks and costs of actions, and how these choices influence other extant species that are managed in the same system. 4. We suggest that a decision science approach will allow for choices that are critical to the implementation of a drastic conservation action, such as de-extinction, to be considered in a deliberate manner while identifying possible perverse consequences.

show abstract

Re-creation tourism: de-extinction and its implications for nature-based recreation

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

Tourism and rewilding: an introduction – definition, issues and review

Tourism and rewilding: an introduction – definition, issues and review

De‐extinction and Barriers to the Application of New Conservation Tools

Prioritizing revived species: what are the conservation management implications of de‐extinction?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About