Tourism, Security and Safety From Theory to Practice

Table 2
Key Features of Negative Wildlife Incidents Involving Animal Attacks
Type of Animal (10 most 
Location of the Incident
Commonly Reported)
Tourist Actions Reported
Australia (70%)
Kangaroos (15%)
No specific actions recorded (62%)
Americas (8%)
Monkeys (9%)
Asia (4%)
Snakes (9%)
Feeding wildlife (8%)
Africa (1%)
Mosquitoes (6%)
Wildlife attracted to campsite (8%)
Europe (0%)
Elephants (5%)
Other (17%)
Jellyfish (5%)
Walking on a trail (6%)
Crocodiles (4%)
Komodo dragons (4%)
Wildlife attracted to picnic (6%)
Magpies (4%)
Surfing (1%)
Monitor lizards (4%)
Wildlife photography (1%)
Driving through sanctuary (1%)
Swimming (1%)
Other (8%)
H7898_Ch12.qxd 8/24/05 8:47 AM Page 214

---

The list also included insects and some of the descriptions did include concerns
over the 
possibility
of contracting diseases from the animals. In one incident the
respondent wrote about an incident with monkeys in Indonesia: “I don’t like to be
harassed and grabbed by animals—these monkeys could have rabies or other dis-
eases.” In addition a number of other factors appeared to be related to the negative
wildlife encounters including the connection between food and wildlife feeding noted
in other literature. For example, one Australian respondent reported that “Wallabies
were around the campsite and vehicle scrounging for food and at times I had to push
them away and were concerned they would turn aggressive.” Another reported prob-
lems with goannas, stating, “The goannas were accustomed to being fed. They were
not used to people not feeding them, so they became very aggressive.”
Another common theme that emerged from these critical incidents was fear and
anxiety associated with not knowing how to react to the wildlife encountered. For
example, “A large male roo [kangaroo] attacked and seriously injured a male
member of our party. The roo was put down but there was a fear/danger of real
threat—a strong attacker—a lack of knowledge about the best way to handle the
situation.” In a similar fashion, many of the incidents were associated with unex-
pected encounters with wildlife perceived to be threatening or actually acting in an
aggressive manner. For example, in one incident involving a snake—“I didn’t
expect to come across it and got a fright.” In another “The emu approached me
from behind startling me and stealing my sandwich from my hands and generally
making a nuisance of itself. Personal safety was in jeopardy. Fear and humiliation.”
In summary, this exploratory critical incidents study confirmed the prevalence
of negative wildlife encounters in tourist experiences. In particular, the analyses of
the tourists’ accounts of these negative wildlife encounters highlighted the issues
of fear, a lack of information and preparedness to deal with threatening wildlife,
the association between food and negative wildlife encounters, and the negative
impacts of biting insects on holiday satisfaction. In short, negative wildlife
encounters do appear to pose a number of risks to tourists’ safety and have poten-
tially negative impacts on tourist experiences.