Tourism, Security and Safety From Theory to Practice

Toward a Framework for Understanding and Managing
Negative Encounters between Wildlife and Tourists
The literature and research reviewed in the preceding sections suggests that there
are three main dimensions or characteristics of wildlife tourist encounters that con-
tribute to actual and perceived risk and perceived responsibility for risk manage-
ment. These are:
1. The type of negative encounter—traffic accidents, disease and attacks, or harass-
ment.
2. The type of wildlife perceptions held by visitors—dangerous but attractive,
attractive but not recognized as potentially dangerous, and unattractive.
3. The type of visitor motivation—encounters where tourists deliberately seek close
encounters with dangerous species, situations where tourists seek close contact
with wildlife but are unaware of potentially dangerous outcomes, and completely
accidental encounters where contact with wildlife was not sought at all.
To these we can also add whether or not the encounter occurs as part of a struc-
tured tourist activity, such as on a tour or within a wildlife life park, or as an
activity independent of any tour operation. Ryan (2003) notes that visitors may pay
less attention to risks when they are part of a tour as they assume the tour opera-
tor has taken responsibility for risk management. Finally, we can also add the
Tourism Security and Safety: From Theory to Practice
222
H7898_Ch12.qxd 8/24/05 8:47 AM Page 222

---

dimension of differences between particular wildlife species. Animals differ in
variables such as their prevalence, behavior patterns, size, and the toxicity of their
venom, if they are venomous.
These five variables can combine in different ways to create different risk situ-
ations with different implications for management. For example, tourists who
deliberately seek close contact with bears, even though they are aware of the risks
associated with that contact, create a different management challenge than do vis-
itors who feed kangaroos in a wildlife park and are unaware of the potentially neg-
ative consequences. In the latter case the visitor is likely to see the park managers
as responsible for any negative outcomes, whereas in the former case the individ-
uals may be prepared to take responsibility for any negative outcomes. In the for-
mer case education campaigns and fines may be the only management options
available, while in the latter case a wider range of options is available including
education campaigns, control of which specific animals are fed, and the provision
of alternative activities that allow for close contact.
Both the available evidence and common sense suggest that information and
risk management programs are very important in all the risk situations that have
been outlined. The challenge is to develop effective programs. This requires first a
recognition that these threats to tourist well-being exist and that visitors want and
have the right to be informed of these risks. The risk perceptions study reported in
this chapter did find some evidence that the presentation of information about
potentially threatening wildlife can have negative impacts on tourists’ behavior and
destination images. The study also found, however, that many of the threatening
species were also of interest to many visitors, especially if presented in a controlled
setting. For regional planning, then, it is important to understand the range of vis-
itor perceptions of dangerous wildlife. It is possible that the presence of threaten-
ing wildlife species may be an attraction in itself. A core research need here is to
determine the range of perceptions of wildlife and the size and nature of those mar-
kets seeking contact with these threatening species. Preliminary work using the
concept of mindfulness/mindlessness from social psychology may be useful in
understanding these dynamics of wildlife perceptions (see Moscardo, 2004). In
addition, a major factor associated with negative wildlife encounters is close con-
tact, and in many cases visitors actively seek that contact. It may also be that much
more can be done on the development of ways to provide visitors with opportuni-
ties to have close, but safe, contact with the wildlife (see Matt and Aumiller, 2003,
for an example). Finally there is a clear need to have systematic evaluations of
successful education campaigns in this area.
In summary more research is needed to determine:
■
The frequency of different types of risk situations associated with wildlife;
■
The factors that contribute to negative outcomes in these situations;
■
Visitor perceptions of the wildlife; and
■
Visitor perceptions of the risks associated with wildlife in a region.