The age of digital activism in tourism: evaluating the legacy and limitations of the Cecil anti-trophy hunting movement

Abstract

When Cecil the Lion was shot in 2015 by the American tourist, Walter Palmer, the story sparked a global “cybermovement” against trophy hunting, questioning its sustainability from a moral-ethical standpoint. Indeed the incident was hailed as a possible turning point for the wildlife tourism industry. It remains unclear however whether a movement of this nature could have any meaningful impact. Thus, 2 years on from Cecil, what has (not) changed, and why? Findings reveal interventions aimed at deterring hunters, tightening international legislation, and furthering research on African wildlife conservation. However, trophy hunting still persists in much of Southern Africa, pointing to the limitations of digital movements. In explaining the limits of these movements, the article applies Social Movement Impact Theory and juxtaposes the divergent, competing moral criteria operating in the international “Cecilgate” context.

Keywords:

• Cyberactivism
• hashtag movements
• sustainable wildlife tourism
• trophy hunting
• Cecil the Lion
• ethicality

Introduction

Ethicality continues to gain prominence in the contexts of sustainable wildlife tourism management and human-animal interactions, both in practice and in debate (Caton, 2012; Fennell, 2006; Frenzel, Koens, & Steinbrink, 2012; Grimwood, 2014; Smith & Duffy, 2003). We witnessed an instance of this when Cecil, the Zimbabwean lion was shot in 2015 by the American tourist, Walter Palmer. Clemens (2017, p. 51) writes that, “precipitated through social media platforms, this incident swiftly brought the shock of trophy hunting to the forefront of popular knowledge”. The story, dubbed “Cecilgate”, was hailed as a possible turning point for wildlife tourism, with many social media users expressing the hope that the incident would be a catalyst for the ultimate demise of the trophy hunting industry. As the story went viral, individuals and groups harnessed the momentum to petition for change (Lindsey, Balme, Funston, Henschel, & Hunter, 2016; Macdonald, Jacobsen, Burnham, Johnson, & Loveridge, 2016; Macdonald, Johnson, Loveridge, Burnham, & Dickman, 2016). Thus, Macdonald, Jacobsen, et al., (2016) referring to the Cecil incident and its aftermath, describes a “moment” that became a “movement”. As a result, the tourism industry in Southern Africa, reliant on trophy hunting proceeds for decades, came under the spotlight.

What remains unclear, however, is whether a movement of this nature could have any meaningful impact, that is, whether it was more than mere clicktivism – inconsequential digital hype which fades with no legacy? Thus, 2 years on from Cecil, what has (not) changed? Notably, tourism studies as a body of knowledge has not yet caught up with the role of cybermovements, stuck in the non-digital traditional movements of the pre-Web era. The research question therefore comprises two levels: a practical level – has the trophy hunting industry transformed in any way as a result of the Cecil movement; this lends us to the theoretical question – how effective are cybermovements in stimulating change towards a more ethically sustainable tourism industry? In explaining the opportunities and limitations of these movements, the article applies social movement impact theory (SMIT), juxtaposing the divergent, competing moral criteria operating in the international “Cecilgate” context, and exploring the factors which serve to perpetuate the status quo.

The topic is especially pertinent given that digital movements are becoming a defining phenomenon of (post)modernity, facilitating socio-cultural and political reflexivity around the world. The cyberactivism trend is indeed observable in other socio-political spheres – the “#Metoo” movement, for example, has recently enlivened a global conversation around sexual harassment and gendered discrimination in workplaces (Wexler et al., 2018). As the age of digital movements continues to unfold, understanding movement impacts is increasingly important.

The paper is structured as follows: the next section provides a brief background on the Cecil case. This is followed by an overview of extant literature and theory: the rise new digital movements; successful and failed campaigns; and the emerging framework of SMIT. The main body of the article outlines the methodological approach and findings, before concluding with a synthesis of the key contributions.

Background

On 1 July 2015, a lion was shot on a Zimbabwean farm in the Gwaai Conservancy, adjacent to Hwange National Park (Macdonald, Jacobsen, et al., 2016; Nelson, Bruskotter, Vucetich, & Chapron, 2016). The requisite legal permits for this area had not been issued by Zimbabwe’s National Parks and Wildlife Management Authority; the hunt was therefore allegedly illegal, regardless of whether the tourist client was complicit (Macdonald, Jacobsen, et al., 2016). On July 27, the hunter was named as Walter Palmer, a Minnesota dentist. The lion, named Cecil, was revealed to be a famous “celebrity” male under study by the University of Oxford’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), collared with a satellite tracking device.

The following day, angry protests erupted outside Palmer’s dental practice. That same day, Jimmy Kimmel broadcast an emotional monologue on his American Broadcasting Company television show, in which he expressed disgust at Walter Palmer’s actions, urging the public to donate money towards the conversation research efforts of WildCRU (Howard, 2015; Macdonald, Jacobsen, et al., 2016; Nelson et al., 2016). This broadcast led to a spike in media coverage on the incident (Macdonald, Jacobsen, et al., 2016). Again, on August 24, when Quinn Swales, a safari guide was killed by another lion in a different part of Hwange National Park, another spike in the media resulted (Macdonald, Jacobsen, et al., 2016).

The Cecil incident sparked outrage from the international community, motivating individuals and interest groups to petition for the banning of trophy hunting. To date, a search of “Cecil the lion petition” on Facebook brings up hundreds of pages of related petitions and lobbying. As Lindsey et al. (2016, p. 296) put it “Cecil-gate” reflected “growing objection to the notion of hunting wildlife for sport, particularly among urbanized Westerners”. Over time, however, as with many stories that go viral in social media, Cecilgate was slowly forgotten. What remains unclear, more than two years on, is the impact the Cecil movement has had on the trophy hunting industry, if any – a gap which the present study partially addresses. Tackling this question then provides insight into the effectiveness and limitations of cybermovements. Can these movements move the tourism industry towards more ethically sustainable practice?

The rise of new digitalised movements

Research on social movements has usually focused on movement emergence and mobilisation, as Giugni (1998) observes, paying very limited attention to their outcomes and impacts. It has also been noted that most studies have addressed the political and policy outcomes of movements, while overlooking their broader cultural and institutional impacts (Bernstein, 2003; Giugni, 1998). These biases in extant knowledge point to gaps which the present study addresses.

Furthermore, within tourism studies, social movements have mostly been examined in their traditional, non-digital formats (McGehee, 2002). For example Kousis (2000), studied environmental mobilizations against tourism activities in Greece, Spain, and Portugal from the early 70s to the mid-90s. McGehee, Kline, and Knollenberg (2014) studied the role of HandMade in America, a regional economic development organization, in cultivating consciousness-raising, networking, and self-efficacy in tourism-reliant communities. However, the emergence of new digital media, particularly social media, has intensified connectivity which has become vital for twenty-first century business transactions and for social interaction, inspiring a new breed of social movements which tourism studies have not yet explored fully (Khondker, 2011). As Carty and Onyett (2006) observe, new means for communicating across vast geographic distances have facilitated the emergence of new forms of cultural and political solidarity and understanding of international norms. The Internet, they add, is more persuasive and effective than any other media in diffusing social ideas and actions within a global community.

Carty and Onyett (2006) also assert that digital technologies have given rise to new forms of social movements which embrace a global and compassionate perspective, mediated by the Internet. These movements are described as “cyberactivism”, or Internet activism (also “clicktivism”), referring to “the use of electronic communication technologies such as social media, especially Twitter and Facebook, YouTube, e-mail, and podcasts for various forms of activism to enable faster communications by citizen movements and the delivery of local information to a large audience” (Sandoval-Almazan & Gil-Garcia, 2014, p. 367). Cyberactivism develops around issues highlighted through the networked interaction of various players, including traditional activist groups that create a presence online, spontaneous aggregation, and individuals (Illia, 2003).

Although social media sites were not created with activism in mind, they are the most common entrance to online activism (Harlow, 2012). The internet offers a movement the opportunity to enhance its repertoire by adding email campaigns, online petitions and even virtual sit-ins to activists’ existing toolbox. Harlow (2012) observes that with the advent of social media sites, all it takes to attract and mobilise participants for a cause is a click of a mouse. However, this is also seen as potentially problematic: being so easy to click “Join Group” or “Sign Petition” (hence “clicktivism”), does cyberactivism attract members who are genuinely dedicated to the cause, or are they jumping onto a bandwagon (Drumbl, 2012; Harlow, 2012; Karpf, 2010) – the latter has been dubbed “slacktivism” (Harlow, 2012). Scholars therefore emphasise that cyberactivism does not replace traditional social movements, but rather complement them (Harlow, 2012).

Nonetheless, in an era when human-animal relations in tourism are continually contested in public virtual-scapes, a closer examination of the impact of these digital spaces and actors on tourism practices is imperative. Indeed, as Munar et al. (2013) argue, a more critical digital tourism studies framework is needed. It is within this space that the present study is located. For clarity, when the term “movement” is used in this article, like MacDonald et al. (2016) use it, it refers not to an exact, named organisation, but the combination of the efforts of groups and individuals who agitated to bring about an end of trophy hunting. The next section examines examples of past social movements in the literature, assessing, where possible, their successes and failures.

Successful and failed digital campaigns

To appreciate the successes and failures of the Cecil movement, it is useful to reflect on previous digital movements. Within tourism contexts, such examples are scarce in the literature. Notably, Gretzel (2017) provides the example of social media mediated whistleblowing which has exposed problematic or illegal practices by tourism and hospitality businesses, as in the case of the use of the hashtag #unfriendlyskies to complain about the (perceived) poor treatment of customers by airlines, and the anti-tourism campaign under the hashtag #touristgohome, used by local residents in European cities. Gretzel observes that in these examples, activists successfully took advantage of Twitter and Facebook to spread their messages and get the interest of mainstream media.

Beyond tourism studies, there are numerous examples of successful and failed digital campaigns. The most commonly cited example is the “Arab Spring”, a revolutionary wave which began in Tunisia and spread to Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen. To the extent that this uprising led to the toppling and/or destabilisation of political regimes in the short term, the Arab Spring may be considered a success (Anderson, 2011; Khondker, 2011; Lotan, Graeff, Ananny, Gaffney, & Pearce, 2011; Stepanova, 2011). However, in the longer term, the hopes of ending corruption, increasing political participation, and bringing about greater economic equity have not been realised. Indeed, the Arab Spring brought about turmoil and complete social collapse in some cases, the worst of which is seen in the example of Syria and Lybia. Like the Cecil movement, the long term impact of the Arab revolution is yet to be fully understood, as political and religious strife across North Africa and parts of the Middle East continues. This is another complexity with determining whether a movement has failed or succeeded – the time lapse question: at what point is it appropriate to make that determination? Nonetheless, the short term success of the Arab Spring is often and justly attributed, at least in part, to the use of digital networking to mobilise for greater political protest (Khondker, 2011; Lotan, Graeff, Ananny, Gaffney, & Pearce, 2011).

The United States also provides further notable examples of digital movements that have emerged in the social media era. The #Occupywallstreet and Blacklivesmatter movements both harnessed social media affordances to mobilise protests against economic and racial inequality, respectively. In more recent times, the #Metoo movement, mentioned before, sparked by public revelations of sexual misconduct allegations against the Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, has had significant discursive impact on the issue of sexual harassment. Following the revelations, actress Alyssa Milano asked Twitter users to respond using the hashtag #MeToo if they had been sexually harassed or assaulted. Within a period of 24 h, the hashtag had been posted more than half a million times as people from around the world shared details of their abuse experiences across social media platforms (Wexler et al., 2018). However, questions remain in relation to the intended goals of the movement, and whether it is likely to achieve meaningful impact beyond greater cultural awareness and reflexivity. There are also concerns of unintended “overcorrection” and the presumption of guilt when unproven allegations of harassment have been made (Wexler et al., 2018).

It is neither possible nor necessary to provide an exhaustive list of (digital) movements that have emerged in the technology era. Scholars are still grappling with the scope and nature of digital activism, and are yet to fully grasp what shapes success and failure in that respect. Nevertheless, these examples demonstrate the difficulty of determining whether a movement has succeeded or failed in achieving its goals. Indeed, the goals might not be clear to begin with; the goals often evolve with time; or they might change altogether in response to socio-political forces in their broader environment. It is also not yet clear under what conditions movements are likely to succeed or fail, partly because individual movements vary greatly. Moreover, even within a single movement, such as the Arab Spring, outcomes vary across contexts. Thus, for instance, the Arab Spring had significantly different impacts in each of the countries it emerged (Anderson, 2011). Indeed, each movement is unique in its internal and external circumstances, making it difficult to make useful comparisons between movements. However, a new body of work under the umbrella descriptor of “SMIT” is promising in that regard. The next section reviews this emerging theoretical lens, which serves as a framework for the study.

Theoretical approach: SMIT

SMIT is applied as a broad theoretical framework for the study. SMIT is useful for analysing the impacts social movements have on societies, although it has its shortcomings. Traditionally, social movement impact has been defined as obtaining access to the structure of political bargaining and or transforming laws and policies ( Bernstein, 2003; Gamson, 1989; Joshua Gamson, 1995; Gamson & Wolfsfeld, 1993 ). However, in recent years, there is growing recognition that social movements have both political and cultural goals (Bernstein, 2003).

Three types of movement impact have been identified within SMIT: political and policy outcomes, mobilization outcomes, and cultural outcomes (Staggenborg, 1995). Political change encompasses “recognition by elites and/or new advantages for a constituency such as changes in laws and policies” (Bernstein, 2003, p. 356). Mobilisation outcomes, on the other hand, relate to organisational successes that result in the continued ability of the movement to engage in collective action (Bernstein, 2003). Cultural outcomes correspond to changes in social norms and behaviour, which may transform public understandings and belief systems on an issue (Bernstein, 2003; McAdam, 2010).

Bernstein (2003) also highlights the importance of discursive impact as a cultural outcome. Indeed, “framing” is crucial for movement outcomes: social movements must use the appropriate rhetoric if they are to resonate with the public (Jacobsson & Lindblom, 2017). Thus the framing perspective of social movement theory depicts movement activists as salespersons involved with formulating and packaging their message so that it is effective and appealing to their audiences (Jacobsson & Lindblom, 2017). By creating and shifting discourses, social movements can alter the way their issues are understood (Bernstein, 2003).

A key question in SMIT is whether movement-controlled variables (internal explanations) or aspects of a movement’s environment (external explanations) are more important in accounting for its success and failure (Giugni, 1999). Some authors suggest that social movements are able to achieve certain results independent of external support, while others opine that social movements are weak and lacking the indigenous resources to be successful on their own (Giugni, 1999; McAdam, 2010).

It should be noted that, as a body of work, SMIT has had limited growth due to methodological challenges: defining what constitutes success for a social movement is problematic as noted before, as is finding appropriate methods for evaluating a movement’s impact and limitations (Bernstein, 2003). Furthermore, it is often challenging to prove that a movement has caused a particular outcome, or why it has failed to achieve its goals (Giugni, 1999). However, notwithstanding these shortcomings, through rigorous analysis of the wider context of the movement, related discourses, narratives, and actions of the various actors, the impact and influence of a movement can be gleaned and assessed.

Methodology

The study adopted a multimodal case study approach, combining traditional and online fieldwork.

Fieldwork at Hwange and Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe

Between August 2016 and December 2017, fieldwork was conducted at Hwange and the nearby town of Victoria Falls, in Zimbabwe. The purpose was to investigate, on the ground, local perspectives on wildlife and the trophy hunting industry, as well as any changes in the trophy hunting industry, as a result of the Cecil incident. Interviews (face-to-face and telephone) were conducted with 19 practitioners at Hwange and around Victoria Falls, 27 residents of Victoria Falls and 18 residents of Hwange living in communities adjacent to the Hwange National Park. Practitioners included representatives of nine tour operators who book wildlife-related activities; two tourism officials, as well as eight professional hunting and safari guides, who were knowledgeable about the trends in trophy hunting before and after the Cecil incident.

The interviews were semi-structured, lasting between 20 and 50 min for each participant, in Shona, Ndebele, or English, depending on the preference of the interviewee. Where interviewees expressed discomfort with being audio-recorded, data were recorded through note-taking. Interviewees continued until no new information was emerging.

It should be noted that, due to the sensitivity of the topic in Zimbabwe, it was challenging to recruit participants, hence the bias in the findings towards more online data. Requests for interviews from Zimbabwe National Parks Authority officials, and from several trophy hunting operators in Zambia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa, were either ignored or declined. This was not entirely surprising, given the backlash that the industry has faced as a result of Cecilgate, and the general politicisation of wildlife management issues in Africa.

Online data

Data were also gathered online. This part of the study sought multimodal online publications and social media narratives relating to the shooting of Cecil, and in particular to changes and developments in the trophy hunting industry since the shooting. Data searches were conducted using Google, Facebook, and Tripadvisor search engines, with various combinations of terms “Cecil the Lion”, “Walter Palmer”, “trophy hunting ban”, “trophy hunting”, “canned hunting”. This yielded a range of online content, which was then scanned for relevance. The most relevant content was selected, based on the extent to which it addressed the research question. The selected data included rich multiperspective sources such as Walter James Palmer’s Twitter page, Youtube videos and responses (user comments) to them, Facebook posts and their related comments, Tripadvisor discussion forums on trophy hunting, a New York Times article authored by a Zimbabwean, Oxford University’s webpage and Youtube channel, press statements by the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority on the shooting of Cecil and the case against Walter Palmer, and Sir Richard Branson’s webpage. A complete list of the pages with descriptions and URLs is provided in Appendix A.

Thematic analysis

Once data were gathered, analysis began with open coding, highlighting segments that pointed to (i) the diversity of reactions to the shooting from various stakeholders (ii) where relevant, the moral reasoning implied or expressed in the reactions and (iii) developments in the trophy hunting industry since the Cecil shooting. After the initial coding, related codes were grouped to facilitate the identification of patterns. The grouped codes were then categorised under a theme, capturing the key insights from the data.

Findings relating to the impact of the Cecil movement are presented in a discursive thematic format, within the structure set out by SMIT: political outcomes, mobilisation outcomes, and cultural outcomes. The focus was on rich, thick descriptions, as well as the role of framing activities and cultural processes in the trophy hunting debate, consistent with an interpretivist-constructionist reading of the data. As Munro (2012) puts it, the question of ethicality was seen not as a matter of who is right or wrong, but as a moral contestation that brings to the fore the complex attitudes, assumptions, and actions of both sympathisers and critics of hunting.

Research ethics

Interviewed participants were recruited subject to informed consent. To protect the anonymity of individual participants, names drawn from online content and from fieldwork in Zimbabwe, except where they refer to public figures (for example the Zimbabwean Environment Minister, and Sir Richard Branson), have been pseudonymised. No data were actively sought from online participants beyond what was already publicly available. Online data are not edited for typographical and other errors, to preserve their raw authenticity.

Findings and discussion

The movement’s legacy

Even with the persistence of the hunting status quo (I return to this point later), findings reveal that the Cecil movement was a teaching moment for human-wildlife relations, as well as a catalyst for various interventions by the international community, geared towards deterring hunters and boosting conservation research. In the next sections this legacy is explored in more detail.

Inspiring cultural change: The Cecil incident as a teaching moment

From an SMIT perspective, cultural outcomes are the most difficult to measure and demonstrate (Giugni, 1999). However, it was apparent in the data that the Cecil movement served as a significant teaching moment, increasing awareness of trophy hunting, and exposing its ethical ramifications. For example, a Facebook blogger on a page titled “Justice For Cecil The Lion”, describing protesters outside Walter Palmer’s office, remarks:

One woman could be heard screaming “Extradite Palmer!” “We need to thank Dr Palmer”, shouts one protester, “we need to thank him for waking us up”. For the half a dozen demonstrators here, Cecil the Lion has become a poster child. Some say they'd never heard of trophy hunting before Cecil hit the headlines. One lady tells me she felt so strongly she is protesting for the first time in her life. She holds aloft a handwritten board which reads “Roar for Cecil”.

The educational opportunity provided by the incident, along with the emotions and reactions it elicited, demonstrate the transformative agency of the Cecil movement, at least at the individual-cultural level. Within that, the Cecil movement realised “discursive impact” (Bernstein, 2003) in the way that trophy hunting and more specifically, trophy hunters were widely framed by the public – as “murderers” who deserved the same measure of violence as they inflicted on animals:

I hope that dentist gets shot in the face [Youtube]

I dont understad people who hunt for hobbie. Whats the point of killing an animal that you will not eat? Its just as bad as killing a human. [Youtube]

Voted YES & shared, When will the governments wake up and realise these guys are murderers just like those who kill humans. Anyone who kills for fun should be locked up and the key thrown away. What makes it worse is they believe they are "conservationists", how deluded can they be. [Facebook]

In these narratives commenters dismiss the anthropocentric attitudes that give humans the implied right to exercise dominion over other species as they choose, in favour of biotic ethics (or life-centred ethics), that value life itself – acts that sustain life are good, and acts that destroy life are bad (Mautner, 2009). For these social media critics, trophy hunting was a malicious and barbaric pursuit; in their eyes, Walter Palmer deserved to face the full wrath of the law (Macdonald, Johnson, et al., 2016). While different commenters approached the morality of the shooting from their own subjective perception, the common denominator in their responses was the disgust at the motive for killing – “killing for fun”. They judged the act itself, a deontological ethic that rejects consequentialism.

The discursive impact of the Cecil incident is also exemplified in the wider debate and consultation that it engendered, as in the case of the “Cecil Summit” of September 2016, where WildCRU, together with Panthera, held a workshop to consider future initiatives to conserve African wildlife, with participation from a wide range of stakeholders including African wildlife policy makers, politicians, and conservation scientists. Footage of the Summit is available on WildCru’s Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWCxTDkLho0. In that consultative process, Cecil became a symbol or metaphor for broader wildlife conservation issues.

However, it is important to note, within this global discourse in various social media platforms, the Western perspective is dominant, with minimal participation from the African community. This representational imbalance prompted one Facebook user to comment:

Ever wonder the viewpoint from the people of Zimbabwe? Lions are killers and predators. Their villages probably dance when a lion is killed. We don't mourn when a wolf or a bear is killed in North America. Just a thought. Gotta look at all sides [Facebook]

This point raises the question, in relation to the Cecil incident as a teaching moment, of who is being taught and by whom; of whether locals have enough “voice” on an issue which affects them more than it does the millions of people who are loudest in social media platforms. These representational issues of cybermovements have indeed been highlighted in previous studies, especially in light of communities which simply lack access to technology, as is the case with rural Zimbabwe and many other African communities (Carty & Onyett, 2006).

Institutional/Policy change: Transportation bans

Policy changes are a key demonstration of the success of a social movement, as they open up platforms for real, tangible transformation; they are not only persuasive in their authority, but may also compel behavioural change. An instance of policy change directly attributable to the Cecil incident is evident in the response of the airline industry. Prior to Cecilgate, animal rights groups had been petitioning airlines to stop carrying trophies, as a way to deter hunters by making it more difficult for them to bring their trophies home, without much success. However, following the incident, in a statement released on his Virgin.com website, Sir Richard Branson states that in light of what happened in the Cecil incident, a significant number of international airlines had pledged to no longer carry hunting trophies on flights:

As for the trophies, it’s great to see that the international business community has come together so swiftly to ensure they have nowhere to go. A large number of international airlines – including Virgin Atlantic, Virgin America, Virgin Australia and our partner, Delta – have pledged to no longer carry hunting trophies on flights. This has been a policy of Virgin Atlantic for many years and it’s wonderful to see other airlines join the fight. Now we have to stop the killing, too.

Branson’s statement also points to a personal conviction that trophy hunting is immoral, describing the Cecil incident as a “senseless and brutal killing”, and the lion as “affectionately known as Cecil” and “majestic”. Branson rejects consequentialist-utilitarian arguments that justify trophy hunting on the basis of the supposed contribution to conservation and to local communities:

Those defending trophy hunting are eager to point out that these huge sums benefit local communities, support conservation efforts and are part of effective wildlife management. It’s hard to see those benefits.

With his celebrity status, his publicly expressed opinions reach millions of people, in the process influencing the discourses that emerge out of the incident.

In response to the move by the airline industry, some posters in social media committed to boycotting airlines that would continue to ship animal trophies:

I agree that SAA is sending the wrong message. I will not fly SAA [Facebook]

Already signed … When South Africa should be leading the way to preserve their natural resources, they continue to disappoint by refusing to ban the shipping of trophies of hunters! What they are failing to realize is that the average citizen of the world will refuse to fly South African Airlines, effecting tourism and their economy! I strongly urged them to join the ban! [Facebook]

Thus, as a further impact, the international airline industry’s policy responses provided added leverage for the public to exercise their consumer voting power in punishing airlines that deviated from their expectation. Unsurprisingly though, this response from Virgin and other airlines has not been effective enough to stop hunters. Hunters are able to find alternative carriers for their trophies (for example South African Airways).

Political change: Legislative developments and policy reforms

The pinnacle of success for a social movement can be conceived of as its ability, as Bernstein (2003) puts it, to realise political change, that is, gaining access to the structure of political bargaining and/or changing laws. In that respect, following the death of Cecil, in response to public pressure, several Western countries including France and the Netherlands tightened restrictions on importing animal trophies; indeed, there have been continued calls to institute a European Union- wide ban on trophy imports of lions. A statement on the British Parliament website’s question-and-answer platform (Parliament, 2016), states:

We continue to monitor the impact of trophy hunting and will work to put in place greater protection, including prohibiting imports, if this is shown to be needed. For example, I announced on 24 November 2015 that the Government will ban lion trophy imports by the end of 2017 unless there are improvements in the way hunting takes place in certain countries, judged against strict criteria. The UK is also pushing for tougher hunting trophy controls to be agreed at the 17th Conference of Parties to CITES in the autumn. A UK-led EU proposal aims to agree global guidelines to ensure that hunting trophy exports are sustainable, and agree clear criteria on when lion trophy hunting can be considered acceptable.

In a similar fashion, the United States has reviewed its policy regarding trophy imports from Africa. A December 2015 (that is, five months after Cecil’s shooting) statement on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) website, states:

…. although lion numbers in southern Africa are increasing overall, there are populations that are declining due to ongoing threats. As a result, the Service finds the subspecies meets the definition of a threatened species under the ESA …. The Service found that sport-hunting, if well managed, may provide a benefit to the subspecies. However, the Service found that not all trophy hunting programs are scientifically based or managed in a sustainable way. So in addition to protecting both lion subspecies under the ESA, we created a permitting mechanism to support and strengthen the accountability of conservation programs in other nations. This rule will allow for the importation of the threatened panthera leo melanochaita, including sport-hunted trophies, from countries with established conservation programs and well-managed lion populations.

The United States is of particular interest, being the largest importer of hunting trophies from Africa (Lindsey, Balme, Booth, & Midlane, 2012). Yet we encounter here again an instance of consequentialism, where the trophy hunting outcomes at the source determine whether the hunter is permitted to bring the trophy into the United States. The rigour of the USFWS’s criteria for this assessment is questionable, as countries in the Southern African region, with their serious poaching crisis (Büscher & Ramutsindela, 2015), meet the “sustainability” benchmarks. There is of course no single binding international legal standard on sustainable practices; in addition, animal protection laws vary greatly because, as Smith (2016) puts it, they are rooted in cultural and societal values. As a result, policing animal protection practices across national borders is fraught with difficulties.

However, the USFWS’s case-by-case approach is echoed by MacDonald et al. (2016, p. 307), who warn against moral absolutism, suggesting that such moral purists “might reassure themselves with the knowledge that they occupy the moral high ground, but if they hold sway, there may be rather less African wildlife for them to see from that lofty position.” Notwithstanding their limitations, Clemens (2017) expresses the hope that the tighter trophy import regulations will allow for legal hunting to finance anti-poaching efforts, motivate conservation endeavours and ultimately increase lion population numbers. Effective or not, the message to African tourism practitioners is very clear: they are under observation from a very interested international audience. As one interviewee at Hwange noted, “We feel we are now under surveillance by the whole international community.”

Mobilisation outcomes: Increased funding for wildlife conservation

Mobilisation outcomes in SMIT refer to organisational successes that facilitate continued engagement in collective action. Cecil’s legacy from that perspective was the creation of various lobbying platforms through new socio-organisational institutions and collective identities that the anti-hunting movement members continue to use to spread their message. In particular, hundreds of digital resources including hashtags (for example #Cecilthelion) and Facebook pages (for example “Cecil the Lion”) connected to Cecil’s legacy are still in use, years on from the shooting.

The movement further mobilised financial resources to support broader conservation research efforts. For example, following the reporting of the Cecil incident and its subsequent virality in social media, the University of Oxford published a statement on its website, where Professor David Macdonald, the founding Director of WildCRU, thanks members of the public who donated more than £750 000 ($1.1m) in the months following the incident, spurred especially by Jimmy Kimmel’s urging, as mentioned before:

Cecil was a glorious male lion with a fascinating family history, from which we had learnt a lot about lions' private lives, and his death was heartbreaking. However, our goal is to learn from it. … We urgently need to expand it in order to study and conserve lions over the entire landscape that spans western Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia. We are overwhelmed with gratitude for the support, encouragement and very generous gifts we have received over the past five months – they ensure the project will survive, and thus that we can strive to ensure that lions survive too

It should be noted however that there still remains a major shortfall in funding for conservation and research in Africa. As Lindsey et al. (2016) note, many African countries have protected area budgets of less than $100/km² (or 1/5th to 1/20th of the required amount), leaving massive budget deficits. They urge the international community to create alternative funding streams to reduce reliance of African countries on trophy hunting. Conservation funding should indeed be the focus of any future debates and activism. This point is dealt with in more depth in the next section.

Why does the status quo persist?

In much of Southern Africa, and indeed in other parts, trophy hunting persists. The next section reflects on why this is so, examining both internal and external explanations, as SMIT proposes. As Giugni (1999) argues, studying social movement impacts should not just be about successes, but also about examining failure.

Limitations of the Cecil movement

There are several possible explanations why the Cecil movement has not been the “turning point” that many hoped it would be. It should be stressed that these explanations are offered only as probable, rather than absolute truths. What is patently clear however is that the Cecil movement, crucially, failed to proffer an alternative to trophy hunting that would generate an equal or higher flow of revenue to fund conservation in Africa. This lacuna prompts Lindsey et al. (2016, p. 296; Macdonald, Johnson, et al., 2016) to urge “a shift away from perpetual debates over trophy hunting to the more pressing question of ‘How do we fund Africa’s wildlife areas adequately?’”. As a result of this shortcoming, hunting critics have been characterised by the hunting industry as driven by emotion and hype, not reason (Nelson et al., 2016). This view is articulated by a pro-hunting practitioner in a Tripadvisor discussion forum:

When it comes to hunting, we will always encounter emotive arguments. Our management team have a duty to put emotion aside to make the best decisions based on the best scientific information available to ensure we uphold our objective “to promote the conservation of biodiversity for the sake of posterity, and to manage its ecosystem….,

He dismisses critics who he deems have little to show for their passion:

People do not need to enjoy hunting, or to respect hunters. Rather they need to understand the enormous benefits that hunting—including the hunting of white rhino – brings to conservation, not only in the Timbavati, but to the whole of Southern Africa …. If you’re a critic of rhino hunint, ask yourself “What have I done to save the rhino today?” and compare your answer to what the Timbavati does every day, all day. (Tripadvisor discussion forum participant)

Thus, unless the movement is able to suggest a viable pathway for galvanising the disapproval for trophy hunting into a funding mechanism, indications are that change would only be superficial. However, the discussion on an alternative funding model for conservation has begun. For example, at the WildCru Summit mentioned before, various stakeholders, including tourism policy makers in the Southern African region, conservation scientists, politicians, and academics, discussed the possibility of a global funding model for conservation.

Furthermore, the Cecil movement, like many social media movements, lacked a clear, unified message targeting the hunting industry. As studies suggest, (Carty & Onyett, 2006; Langman, 2005), the multiplicity of often-competing organisations, goals, and orientations can lead to difficulty establishing a united front. Likewise, its efforts comprised highly fragmented and sometimes contradictory messages. As a result, it was never clear what the movement was actually advocating: was it a total ban of trophy hunting, or more controlled hunting where collared lions would be excluded from hunting quotas, or stricter policing of hunting revenues to ensure they were fed back into communities and conservation?

In addition, it is also fair to suggest, the Cecil movement lacked moral authority – the (perceived) implicit hypocrisy in the West, a meat-eating society, criticising the killing of animals for trophies on moral grounds. This lack of moral authority was highlighted by Chris, a Zimbabwean now living in the United Kingdom, who rejected completely what he perceived as a neo-colonialist attempt by the West to impose their value system on Africa:

The West has no moral authority to dictate to us what we must do with our wildlife, or any of our resources. If we want to kill them we will do so. They kill animals too, everyday. They eat meat. They are the worst hypocrites, on some moral high ground. We will never be colonised again.

Here Chris exposes the political nature of the trophy hunting debate. For Chris however, “They” (the West) want to undermine “Our” sovereignty, by seeking to influence how “We” manage “Our” wildlife resources. The ethics of Cecilgate are therefore are subordinated in this instance to the political imperatives.

Local attitudes and framing of wildlife

In explaining the persistence of trophy hunting, there are of course local factors, independent of the shortcomings of the Cecil movement, which must also be acknowledged. First, for income poor African economies, a sustainability model where economic gains take precedence over ethics operates. As MacDonald et al. (2016, p. 308) argue, “African governments will act to benefit their own people, particularly those living alongside dangerous wildlife, and whose emotions concerning lions are often undervalued and in stark contrast to those of international ‘stakeholders’.”. Similarly, Mbaiwa (2017, p. 2) explains the stance taken by African governments using Social Exchange Theory – “humans strive for a positive outcome, meaning to maximize benefits and minimize costs when engaging in an exchange”. To put it simply, African countries need the money; they are more concerned about sourcing dollars to deal with poverty and its ensuing disadvantages, than about the morality of killing a lion. Doub (2012, p. 39) makes the point aptly: “A nation can afford to focus on ambitions such as preserving bio-diversity only when it enjoys an adequately high standard of living not to be preoccupied with basic survival, even though that survival may in fact be partially dependent on preserving biodiversity”.

Secondly, the largely anti-lion sentiment among local residents gives governments the moral support for legal hunting. This view, captured in existing studies (for example Dickman, 2010; Gusset, Swarner, Mponwane, Keletile, & McNutt, 2009), was corroborated by interviews conducted at Hwange and Victoria Falls. When questioned on their attitudes about wildlife, most locals expressed hatred and/or fear of lions because of a personal, direct or indirect experience. For example, a tour guide for a local Victoria Falls company, John, remarked, “I hate lions, they killed my friend”. His narrative was particularly notable when he revealed that the “friend” he referred to was Quinn Swales, a professional guide who was mauled by a lion about two months after the Cecil shooting, in the Hwange National Park where Cecil lived.

When quizzed about lion trophy hunting, the majority of local respondents did not regard the question as a moral one, or a particularly important one. This attitude was explained by Tendai, a hotel worker who grew up in the nearby villages where human-animal conflict is rampant:

Everyone who has lived around here long enough has a family member who has been attacked by wildlife. That’s why we don’t think of animals as beautiful or cute or whatever. People really don’t care what happens to a lion. It’s just a dangerous animal. We are more worried about our day to day lives, feeding our families, finding work.

Thus the local framing of animals was starkly different from the Western-centric media descriptions of Cecil (“beautiful”, “majestic”, “charismatic”, and so on). In a New York Times article titled “In Zimbabwe, we don’t cry for lions”, Goodwell Nzou, a Zimbabwean born doctoral student, draws this distinction:

In my village, surrounded by wildlife conservation areas, no lion has ever been beloved or granted an affectionate nickname.

A local safari operator noted that locals in the Hwange area live in constant fear for their lives because of the threat of lion attacks:

When they walk home from church, or from the grocery store, they are constantly looking over their shoulder. Do you think these people would care that a lion or an elephant is shot? Of course not.

Similarly, a local policeman, Nelson, related a horror incident where “three children from the same family were devoured last week by a lion, on their way to school”, characterising lions as “serial killers”. He was perplexed at learning that there was a movement that sought to protect lions from humans, feeling that it ought to be other way around: if trophy hunting helped to eliminate danger, how could it be wrong?, he questioned. Nelson feared that banning trophy hunting would only lead to more human casualties. Indeed, as Mbaiwa’s (2017) study found in the case of Botswana, banning hunting can also lead to increased human-animal conflict. This argument has been used by African governments to justify the continuation of controlled trophy hunting. For example, Jean Kapata, Zambia’s then Tourism and Arts minister, when announcing the reinstating of big cat trophy hunting in 2015, stated:

We are hunting male old lions. These are the lions that now cannot depend on feeding themselves. They’ll take advantage of communities where they are and start killing human beings, hence creating human-animal conflict.

A Zimbabwean tourism official also commented:

We manage our own affairs. We are not going to stop legal, well regulated trophy hunting just because someone in America or somewhere in Europe thinks so. We make our policies based on the facts on the ground. We monitor our numbers and we need to generate funds to look after our national parks and so forth.

It is interesting to observe the absence of any animal rights sentiment within the above local voices; none of them criticised the killing of animals per se. However, understanding the differences in attitudes between the West and locals requires reference to worldviews that govern African communities’ relationship with animals and their ecological environment. The history – the destabilisation of this relationship following colonial settlement and the subsequent creation of National Parks, as well as the associated commercialisation of wildlife – should also be brought to bear.

The unrepentant hunter

Trophy hunting also exists because there is sustained demand for it. It was clear in hunters’ online narratives, even after Cecilgate, that many remain defiant and determined to continue their “sport”. The unapologetic hunter’s perspective is encapsulated by Walter Palmer himself in his Twitter posts, where he proudly boasts of his hunting conquests:

Cops shoot innocent dog = nothing, I pay 55k to shoot some dumb #CecilTheLion, all hell breaks loose https://blu185.mail.live.com/?tid=cmDOHFQeBG5RGX7Gw75adL4g2&fid=fltrash … wtf ppl!!!

Free dental work for ALL hunters, BOTH teeth!!!! #CecilTheLion

In social media, hunters portrayed themselves as conservationists who were making an essential contribution towards the survival of species:

No kidding! if anyone wants to save the planet, its us hunters. Save it for our generations to come, that they one day will be able to experience the beauty we enjoy today.

I'm a hunter and proud of it … Proper conservation is important so that we can still carry on the tradition years later.

Thus, like pro-hunting African politicians, hunters maintain a utilitarian-consequentialist ethic, emphasising the revenues generated and claiming their use in turn for conversation goals. Nevertheless, the findings here highlight the tension between the hunting industry’s consequentialist stance and the Kantian critique dominant in social media. It is fair to question whether hunters in fact care about conservation as they claim. Do they follow up with authorities at hunting destinations to ensure that their fees are directed towards conservation? If not, are their consequentialist ethics actually valid?

Conclusion

The study sought to analyse the legacy of the Cecil movement, with a view to understanding the efficacy of cybermovements in bringing meaningful change to the tourism industry, towards more ethically sustainable practices. Although the movement failed to bring an end to trophy hunting, it emerged as an important teaching moment, providing various groups and individuals a vortex from which to petition for change. The fundamental message from the incident and its aftermath was that ethicality must take precedence over economics. Thus, at the ideological-ontological level, the Cecil movement precipitated a tension between the anti-hunting Kantian camp and the consequentialist-utilitarian arguments of the hunting establishment. As Nelson et al. (2016) argue, there is a growing sentiment that the presupposition that the consequences of one’s actions are the only basis on which judgement on whether the action is right or wrong is flawed. The Cecil movement questioned the motivations of hunters, disregarding any supposed positive ends: the ends could not justify the means.

Beyond its value as a teaching moment, the Cecil movement also inspired the international community to implement various interventions. The combination of trophy transportation bans, policy and legal instruments, and increased conservation funding, constitute significant commitment at the international level to transform the hunting industry. On these bases, it is fair to say that the Cecil movement was much more than “clicktivism” or “slacktivism”. The movement represents a genuine international effort to move towards more compassionate human-animal relations in tourism.

However, the failure of the Cecil movement to end trophy hunting illustrates the limitations of digital movements. Several explanations were suggested for this state of affairs. First, the Cecil movement was itself limited intrinsically in several ways: the failure to provide a viable alternative to trophy hunting; the lack of a unified message; and, the questionable moral authority. When this is considered within the reality that revenue constrained African governments are motivated primarily by the income generating opportunity of trophy hunting, the possibility of eliminating the hunting industry in Africa is unlikely in the short term. Therefore, if the Cecil movement is to achieve its ultimate goal of a ban on trophy hunting, it is imperative that its lobbying extends beyond criticism, to proffering viable alternatives that will ensure African economies have equal or better revenue streams for conversation. Without such alternatives, ethical movements of this nature are futile.

There are several theoretical implications: First, the evolution in global sentiment on the (un)ethicality of trophy hunting with increasing repugnance towards violence against animals suggests that human-animal relations will continue to be contested. Secondly, on a broader level, the role of hashtag activism/cyberactivism in ethical discourses, in terms of its transformative power, comes to fore. As new powerful movements continue to emerge, and existing ones continue to mobilise, ethical norms are challenged, discourses are shifted, and political advantages are earned The Cecil movement and its impact are therefore best understood within the broader framework digitally mediated socio-cultural movements.

From an SMIT perspective, the impact of movements is shown to be multilayered and multidirectional. SMIT however is limited in its ability to illuminate fully the impact of the Cecil movement partly because it was formulated in the context of traditional protest activism. A few research gaps must therefore be noted. First, more work on SMIT in light of the new dynamics that have emerged with digitalisation of movements is expedient. There are also opportunities to investigate the research question through the lens of alternative social movement theories such as Political Opportunity Theory, which argues that the success or failure of a movement is largely dependent on political opportunities, and Resource Mobilisation Theory, which focuses on the mobilisation and deployment of moral, cultural, socio-organisational, human, and material resources to achieve a movement’s ends. These lens might offer added insight into the Cecil movement, and into digital movements more broadly.

Notwithstanding its limitations, it is safe to conclude, like other movements before it such as the #blacklivesmatter and the #metoo movements, the Cecil movement created awareness and enlivened conversations on a topic that resonates on a global scale. However, it is too early to tell what the long term impact of Cecilgate might be, making it imperative that future studies continue to track related developments. In any event, cyberactivism will continue to play an important role in ethical debates that affect tourism. As a final note, one of Cecil’s cubs, Xanda, was shot legally in Zimbabwe in July 2017, two years after Cecil’s shooting, and the incident received hardly any coverage in the media. Clearly, there are many more lessons yet to be learned about the limitations and progression of movements in tourism, ethics, and in other spheres.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council under Grant [DE170100385].

Notes on contributors

Muchazondida Mkono

Mucha Mkono is an Australian Research Council (ARC) DECRA Fellow in the Business School, University of Queensland, Australia. Her main research interests are digital social movements, tourism social media, tourist experiences, African tourism, and sustainability.

APPENDIX A

Table

Source	Description
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-12-21-cecil-lion-donors-give-more-%C2%A3750k-11m-wildlife-research	Oxford University’s webpage statement, thanking the public for donations towards the work of the Wildlife Conversation Research Unit
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-07-07/42211/	UK Parliament documents (Online written question-and-answer statements)
https://twitter.com/WalterPalmerDDS	Walter James Palmer’s Twitter page
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C63ZIEbHqkc	CGTN New clip on Zambia’s lift of ban on big cat trophy hunting
http://www.zimparks.org/index.php/mc/214-press-statement-on-the-illegal-hunt-of-a-collared-lion-at-antoinette-farm-in-gwayi-conservancy-hwange-district-on-1-july-2015-by-bushman-safaris-professional-hunter-theo-bronkhorst	Official press statements by the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority.
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/lion.html	The official website of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/big-game-worth-more-alive-dead	Sir Richard Branson’s webpage statement on pledge not to carry trophies of lions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oNwrAfmWGo	Zimbabwe’s Tourism Minister, Oppah Muchinguri, calling for the extradition of Walter Palmer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I40MobLZiQE	Responses to the Youtube video “Death threats for U.S. hunter | Cecil the Lion”, viewed 222,938 times, with 8698 comments, as of July 26, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyNp-k0VXdM	Responses to the Youtube video Cecil the Lion: What Happened When Beloved Lion Was Killed’, viewed 150,691 times, with 861 comments, as of July 26, 2017
https://www.facebook.com/#!/search/str/jimmy%2Bkimmel%2Bcecil%2Bthe%2Blion/keywords_videos?vertical=videoiv)	Responses to the video, Jimmy Kimmel on the killing of Cecil the Lion, viewed 9,998,435 times on Facebook; with 12,808 comments, as of July 26, 2017.
https://www.facebook.com/#!/humanesociety/?fref=nf	Facebook posts made by the Humane Society of the United States
https://www.facebook.com/#!/Esdaw-European-Society-of-Dog-and-Animal-Welfare-162090127175643/?fref=nf	Facebook posts made by Esdaw – European Society of Dog and Animal Welfare, a Non-Profit Organization
https://www.facebook.com/Anti-Trophy-Hunting-1630166200571812/?fref=ts#!/unitedagainsttrophyhunting/?fref=ts	Posts by the Facebook page “United Against Trophy Hunting”
https://www.facebook.com/search/str/against%2Btrophy%2Bhunting/keywords_pages?ref=eyJzaWQiOiIwLjUyODU2ODA4Nzg1OTE0NTIifQ%3D%3D#!/speak4theanimals/?fref=ts	Posts by the Facebook page “Coalition Against Trophy Hunting, Poaching & Animal Cruelty”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opinion/in-zimbabwe-we-dont-cry-for-lions.html	New York Times article by Goodwin Nzou, a Zimbabwean living in the United States
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAoxE5zZMiamUhNA64eYs4A	Youtube channel of Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCru)