2007Tourism Review InternationalRequires access

Understanding Visitor Experiences in Captive, Controlled, and Noncaptive Wildlife-Based Tourism Settings

Gianna Moscardo

Open publisher page 17 citations

Abstract

There is considerable debate about the ethics of captive wildlife-based setting such as zoos and aquaria, and there is concern about the negative impacts wildlife watchers can have on animals in both captive and noncaptive settings. An important claim made by both captive wildlife-based tourist attractions and those who support wildlife viewing in noncaptive settings is that these wildlife experiences provide opportunities to encourage visitors to develop greater wildlife conservation awareness. This claim is, however, largely untested in any setting and there has been very little research comparing visitors and their experiences across different types of wildlife-based tourism. This study compared wildlife-based tourism attractions in three different groups—captive, controlled, and noncaptive—in terms of visitor profiles, encounters with wildlife, images of wildlife, and learning about the wildlife. The results indicated significant and substantial differences between the three types of setting on many of the variables analyzed. Overall the results provide little support for the claims that any wildlife-based tourism experiences enhance wildlife conservation awareness.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

There is considerable debate about the ethics of captive wildlife-based setting such as zoos and aquaria, and there is concern about the negative impacts wildlife watchers can have on animals in both captive and noncaptive settings. An important claim made by both captive wildlife-based tourist attractions and those who support wildlife viewing in noncaptive settings is that these wildlife experiences provide opportunities to encourage visitors to develop greater wildlife conservation awareness. This claim is, however, largely untested in any setting and there has been very little research comparing visitors and their experiences across different types of wildlife-based tourism. This study compared wildlife-based tourism attractions in three different groups—captive, controlled, and noncaptive—in terms of visitor profiles, encounters with wildlife, images of wildlife, and learning about the wildlife. The results indicated significant and substantial differences between the three types of setting on many of the variables analyzed. Overall the results provide little support for the claims that any wildlife-based tourism experiences enhance wildlife conservation awareness.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 17 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

There is considerable debate about the ethics of captive wildlife-based setting such as zoos and aquaria, and there is concern about the negative impacts wildlife watchers can have on animals in both captive and noncaptive settings. An important claim made by both captive wildlife-based tourist attractions and those who support wildlife viewing in noncaptive settings is that these wildlife experiences provide opportunities to encourage visitors to develop greater wildlife conservation awareness. This claim is, however, largely untested in any setting and there has been very little research comparing visitors and their experiences across different types of wildlife-based tourism. This study compared wildlife-based tourism attractions in three different groups—captive, controlled, and noncaptive—in terms of visitor profiles, encounters with wildlife, images of wildlife, and learning about the wildlife. The results indicated significant and substantial differences between the three types of setting on many of the variables analyzed. Overall the results provide little support for the claims that any wildlife-based tourism experiences enhance wildlife conservation awareness.

Key concepts: Wildlife, Wildlife tourism, Visitor pattern, Wildlife conservation, Tourism, Geography, Wildlife management, North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Understanding Visitor Experiences in Captive, Controlled, and Noncaptive Wildlife-Based Tourism Settings — Research Paper | ScholarLens