Tourism, Security and Safety From Theory to Practice

Exploring Negative Wildlife Encounters: A Critical Incidents
Approach
The following section provides the results of a critical incidents study of tourist
perceptions of negative wildlife encounters that suggests that this risk to tourist
safety may be more widespread than official statistics indicate, as it is based on
reporting from a sample of visitors rather than an analysis of official incident
reports. Further, the details provided in these qualitative descriptions provide some
insight into the factors that may be associated with negative wildlife encounters.
This study was originally intended to explore the nature of both positive and nega-
tive wildlife experiences reported by tourists, with the aim of developing a more
detailed understanding of the service and site management dimensions specific to this
type of tourism. A critical incidents approach (see Chell, 1998, for a more detailed dis-
cussion of the critical incidents technique) was used in order to elicit detailed descrip-
tions of positive and negative wildlife experiences that could be explored for service
quality and management themes. The survey was conducted with a total sample of
790 respondents made up of residents and tourists to the North Queensland region of
Australia (see Woods, 2000, for a more detailed description of the total study). The
experiences reported ranged from safaris in India and South America to families vis-
iting local wildlife parks and sanctuaries. The reported critical incidents occurred in a
variety of environments including coral reefs, mountains, rainforests, and various cap-
tive settings such as zoos and wildlife parks. Of particular interest to the present dis-
cussion were the negative critical incidents reported by 65% of the sample and these
were firstly examined for the existence of major themes. It was this preliminary analy-
sis that identified the prevalence of animal bites or attacks. This was the second most
common theme to emerge after the category of poor management of captive animals.
Just over 38% of all the negative incidents reported included some aspect of a threat-
ening or dangerous encounter with wildlife while on holidays.
Tourists and Wildlife: When Encounters Go Wrong
213
H7898_Ch12.qxd 8/24/05 8:47 AM Page 213

---

These 195 critical incidents related to wildlife attacks on tourists were then ana-
lyzed in more detail. The majority of the incidents reported did not result in an
injury to the tourist that required medical attention. The most common type of
encounter involved the tourists reporting being chased or harassed by an animal
(44% of the incidents reported), with a further 36% of the sample reporting minor
injuries (not requiring medical attention) from an attack or bite. Examples of the
first category include “The kangaroo stole my young daughter’s whole bag of pop-
corn. It scared us” and “The monkeys in Indonesia kept trying to attack us—
jumped all around us in groups—looking for food or us.” Examples of the second
category include “Our small grandson was hit in the face by an angry wallaby—
we won’t be going back,” and “I was cooking a fish on the campfire and an eagle
hit me in the head while trying to get the fish. It hurts when they peck you.”
In addition, 15% of the incidents involved the tourists reporting feelings of fear
associated with finding themselves close to an animal seen as dangerous. One
respondent from New Zealand provided an example of this type of encounter when
he stated that “A two-meter bronze whaler [shark] came within 3 meters of me
while surfing in Queensland with only three of us at dusk and 300 meters from the
shore. Scary!” In another example, “I nearly **** myself when I found a snake in
my tent.” The remaining 5% of the incidents involved an attack resulting in injury
requiring medical attention. For example, “I was swimming and saw a brown
snake. The snake bit my foot and I was rushed to hospital.”
Table 2 provides a summary of some of the other features of these negative inci-
dents. Given that the study was conducted in Australia it is not surprising to find
that the majority of the incidents reported were in Australia. The wide range of
animals associated with the attacks however, was unexpected. In total 60 different
types of animals were reported in these negative wildlife encounters and they
ranged from those which would usually be seen as threatening, such as crocodiles,
sharks, lions, snakes, and bears, to those not generally associated with attacks on
humans, such as horses, koalas, dolphins, and birds.
Tourism Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice
214