Unethical use of wildlife in tourism: what's the problem, who is responsible, and what can be done?

Abstract

Wildlife tourism is a huge global market, the revenue from which can promote local livelihoods and tourist education, enact conservation and improve animal welfare. Such benefits arise if wildlife tourist attractions (WTAs) prioritise ethical deliverables above financial profit, but recent work has shown that the majority of WTAs have substantial negative animal welfare and conservation impacts. In the absence of global regulatory authorities, tourist revenue has become the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes acceptable use of animals in WTAs. Tourists, however, are not adequate assessors of WTAs' animal welfare and conservation impacts: they lack the specialist knowledge required and are subject to a number of psychological biases that obscure the ethical dimensions of decisions to attend particular WTAs. This inadequacy is evidenced, and compounded, by overwhelmingly positive reviews on TripAdvisor (the industry-leading review site), even for WTAs with objectively poor ethical standards. Our suggested solution is to empower tourists by presenting unequivocal assessments of WTAs animal welfare and conservation impacts, hosted in the fora that tourists already use to make their travel decisions. We would thereby promote a subjective norm: that tourists should consider and limit their individual negative impacts when choosing which WTAs to visit.

A review of wildlife ecotourism in Manaus, Brazil

“…In the absence of global regulatory authorities (Moorhouse et al 2016), independent ground-level audits, using direct observations and interviews with staff focused on welfare and conservation aspects (e.g. Alves 2011, Arena et al 2012, SchmidtBurbach et al 2015, Carder et al 2016) like this study can provide important insights to help reduce the prevalence of ecotourism activities with negative impacts and increase those with positive impacts on wildlife.…”

“…In the absence of global regulatory authorities, and given their wide global audience (e.g. TripAdvisor, 2016), the dissemination of relevant information via international online travel websites could also prove highly impactful in achieving positive human behaviour change in this regard (Moorhouse et al 2016). On a national level, Brazil already has a National Tourism Plan [Plano Nacional do Turismo, 2013(Federal Decree 7,994/2013.…”

“…However, although wildlife ecotourism can and does have net positive impacts on wildlife (Brockington and Duffy 2010), recent research has highlighted that wildlife focused ecotourism can also have net negative impacts on both the conservation and the welfare of wild animals (Moorhouse et al 2015(Moorhouse et al , 2016. For example, regular close proximity of tourists with free-ranging wildlife can have an adverse impact on an array of animal behaviors such as breeding (Jacobson and Lopez 1994) and foraging (Meissner et al 2015).…”

“…However, the outcomes of these trade-offs, particularly the negative impacts on wild animal conservation and welfare, are difficult to detect, especially by tourists themselves (Moorhouse et al 2015). Different attitudes and societal expectations can often complicate such decision-making even further (Moorhouse et al 2016). As can the myriad of different legal situations involved, which can include absent, ambiguous, inaccessible and or conflicting legislation (TRAFFIC 2008).…”

Illegal Trade of Wild-Captured Lemur catta within Madagascar

“…Tourists, who may have little knowledge of the conservation status of nondomestic animals, often rely on the information provided by destination guides or staff assuming that regulating bodies oversee wildlife interactions [Moorhouse et al, 2017]. Destination guides and/or staff may not have correct information or might be willing to share information that they believe tourists want to hear, and regulating bodies may not be in place or effective at protecting wildlife.…”