Wildlife tourism and consumption

Abstract

The scant existent literature on the link between wildlife tourism and consumption relies on case studies and does not directly measure attitudes towards wildlife tourism or consumption. This paper uses empirical survey data (N = 12,378) from 12 countries in Europe, Asia, and the Americas to examine the links between wildlife tourism and wildlife consumption, with a particular focus on evaluating forms of wildlife tourism typically considered “non-consumptive.” The first set of analyses looked at the full sample and examined the relationships between wildlife tourism participation and (a) acceptability of wildlife consumption and (b) wildlife consumption behavior. The second set of analyses divided the sample by country and by location of the wildlife tourism activity (abroad or at home) and focused on the associations between participation in live animal encounters and wildlife consumption behavior. Models were built for two forms of wildlife consumption: eating/drinking wildlife and purchasing products/souvenirs made from animal parts. The results indicate that participation in entertainment-based live animal encounters is a strong correlate of increased wildlife consumption. Implications for wildlife tourism policies, wildlife consumption research, and wildlife crime prevention are discussed.

Keywords:

• Wildlife
• consumption
• selfie safari
• elephant ride
• food
• souvenir

Disclosure statement

The author has no conflicts of interest to report.

Notes

1 The utilitarian attitude is distinct from utilitarianism, which is a philosophical theory that has been applied to animal rights by Peter Singer and others. In this paper, the author focuses on and measures the utilitarian attitude.

2 According to a representative from World Animal Protection (WAP), these countries were selected because a) WAP has offices and thus campaigning/mobilization leverage in these countries and b) these countries were likely sources of wildlife tourists.

3 There were a few exceptions to this age range. In the United States, the surveyed age range was 18-64 as 18 is considered the age of the adulthood in the United States. In China, India, and Thailand, the target group was 16-44 because Internet access in the 45+ populations in these countries is not high.

4 The countries excluded from these analyses were Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands. These countries had extremely low rates of wildlife consumption and there was no statistically significant relationship between tourism participation and wildlife consumption for these countries.

5 The live animal encounters excluded from these analyses were a) visiting a wildlife sanctuary and b) feeding a wild animal. These variables were not significantly correlated with wildlife consumption behavior. For models of wildlife consumption abroad, wildlife tourism activities abroad were used as predictors. For models of wildlife consumption at home, wildlife tourism activities at home were used as predictors.

6 This was measured by the percentage of respondents who viewed the behavior as “very acceptable.” 26.7% of Indian respondents, 16.1% of US respondents, 15.9% of Thai respondents, 14.6% of Canadian respondents, and 13.8% of Chinese respondents viewed eating/drinking wildlife as very acceptable. 30.8% of Indian respondents, 21.1% of Thai respondents, 15.8% of US respondents, 14.7% of Chinese respondents, and 13.1% of Canadian respondents viewed purchasing wildlife products as very acceptable.

7 In India, 7.12% had ate or drank wildlife products and 11.8% had purchased wildlife products. In Thailand, 6.6% had ate or drank wildlife products and 6.4% had purchased wildlife products. In China, 6.8% had ate or drank wildlife products and 10.9% had purchased wildlife products.

8 The first value is for eating/drinking wildlife and the second value is for purchasing wildlife products. Hunting/fishing was correlated with eating/drinking wildlife but not with purchasing wildlife products. All correlations are significant at the .01 level.

9 These countries were China, Thailand, India, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the United States, and Brazil.

10 For the United States, people who visited a zoo/aquarium were less likely to consume wildlife, but for Great Britain people who visited a zoo/aquarium were more likely to consume wildlife.

11 These describe trends rather than statistical calculations.

12 There is an IUCN Commission specifically on sustainable use of wildlife, so consumption could be considered a conservation practice when done sustainably.