Whale-watching

Trim: 246mm × 189mm Top: 10.556mm Gutter: 19mm CUUK2494-18 CUUK2494/Higham ISBN: 978 0 521 19597 3

October 30, 2013 21:32

Part IV

Sustainable management: insights and issues


October 30, 2013 21:32


October 30, 2013 21:32

18 The socioeconomic, educational and legal aspects of whale-watching A Scottish case study Chris Parsons

Introduction

Whale-watching in Scotland

Between 1995 and 2000 the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) held a number of workshops on various aspects of whale-watching. The first discussed the scientific aspects (IFAW, 1995) of the activity, but in 1997 there were three workshops on the more social and managerial aspects of the industry, including a workshop on the educational impacts of whale-watching (IFAW, 1997) which also included debate about ways to persuade whalewatching operators to use codes of conduct to minimize their impacts, and another workshop on the legal aspects of whale-watching (IFAW, 2000). The third was on the socioeconomic impacts of whalewatching (IFAW, 1999). A global review of all of these aspects of whale-watching would arguably be a book, or books, by themselves. Therefore, this current chapter builds on some of the ideas and suggestions raised in these workshops for a specific case study in Scotland, an area where there has been substantive and quantitative research into these areas. The last workshop in the series mentioned above (IFAW, 2001) discussed issues such as the conflict between whale-watching and whaling in certain locations, and the potential negative socioeconomic impacts, and this is also briefly discussed in this chapter.

The first official whale-watching business (Sealife Surveys) in Scotland, indeed for the entire UK, began in 1989 on the island of Mull. Hoyt (2001) estimated that there were at least 35 land- and boat-based whale-watching activities in Scotland by 1998. Hughes (2001) suggested that in the UK there was an overall growth in public interest to seeing cetaceans in the wild from the late 1980s onwards, and a move away from tourism involving captive cetaceans – indeed, all of the captive cetacean facilities in the UK had closed by the mid-1990s, whereas there as a positive growth in wild cetacean-watching opportunities, particularly in eastern Scotland, focused on the resident common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) population in the Moray Firth. The two main regions for whale-watching in Scotland are the Moray Firth on the east coast, and the western coast. For the latter, whale-watching is particularly concentrated on the islands of Mull, Skye, Islay, Lewis, Barra and around the Small Isles (Rum, Eigg, Muck and Canna) and Arisaig, Mallaig, Ullapool and Gairloch on the mainland. The primary target species on the east coast is the common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), although northern minke whales (Balaenoptera

Whale-watching: Sustainable Tourism and Ecological Management, eds J. Higham, L. Bejder and R. Williams. Published by Cambridge University Press. © Cambridge University Press 2014.

263


264

October 30, 2013 21:32

C. Parsons

ORKNEY ISLANDS

Thurso

Wlck Lewis Stornoway

Lerwick Scalloway

SHETLAND ISLANDS

Ullapool

MORAY FIRTH

Harris

N. Uist

Gairloch

Fraserburgh Cromarty Banff

Portree

Inverness

Strathcarron

S. Uist

Kyle of Lochalsh

Skye

Canna Aberdeen Eigg

Barra Rum

Arisaig Muck

Fort William

Coll Montrose Tobermory

Dundee

Mull

Tiree

Perth St Andrews Inveraray Colonsay

Jura Stirling

Lochgilphead Helensburgh Dunoon

Dumbarton Greenock

Rothesay Largs

Islay

Glasgow Paisley

Arran Prestwlck Ayr

Campbeltown

Stranraer

Figure 18.1 Map of Scotland.

Dunfermline Edinburgh

North Berwick


October 30, 2013 21:32

The socioeconomic, educational and legal aspects of whale-watching

acutorostrata) and harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) are increasingly becoming a focus in some areas. On the west coast northern minke whales are the main target species, although depending on the area bottlenose dolphins, harbour porpoises or Risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus) can also be key target species. Non-cetacean marine megafauna may also be a component of whalewatching trips on the west coast, such as basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus), harbour (Phoca vitulina) and grey seals (Halichoerus grypus), and even puffins (Fratercula arctica) and white-tailed sea eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla). Whale-watching activities in northern Scotland are also starting to develop both on the mainland (in areas such as Thurso) and the Orkney and Shetland Islands. For the mainland and Orkneys, harbour porpoises and white-beaked dolphins (Lagenorhynchus albirostris) may feature as a focus species, and in the Shetland Islands, both the ubiquitous harbour porpoise, and also killer whales (Orcinus orca), are sometimes key target species.

Economic value of whale-watching in Scotland Tourism is the single largest industry in rural Scotland. The entire Scottish tourism trade grosses more than £2.5 billion (US $4 billion) annually. A study in 1996 on marine wildlife tourism noted that this particular sector of the tourism industry alone provided over 400 jobs, involving over 80 boat operators and was worth £9.3 million directly, but indirect income from marine wildlife tourism (i.e. associated income from accommodation, restaurants, etc., derived from marine wildlife tourists) was worth a total of £57 million and provided 2670 jobs (Masters et al., 1998). An updated study was conducted in 2009 that estimated marine wildlife tourism had an economic impact of £15 million providing 633 additional full-time equivalent jobs, with coastal wildlife tourism having a net economic impact of £24 million providing 995 additional jobs (International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2010).

Whale-watching is an important component of this marine wildlife industry, with whales and dolphins being the country’s number one wildlife attraction. It has been noted that whales and dolphins are very effective at bringing tourists into an area: a survey determined that 23% of whalewatchers visited rural West Scotland specifically to go on whale-watching trips (Parsons et al., 2003a). In 2000, a project funded by the UK Government estimated that the direct economic income (i.e. expenditure on excursion tickets) from cetacean tourism activities was estimated to be £1.77 million per annum (Parsons et al., 2003a).The total economic value from tourists being brought to rural West Scotland solely due to the presence of whales represented an additional £5.1 million in tourism income for the region (Parsons et al., 2003a). Moreover, tourists stayed in the region longer as the result of going on whale-watching trips, which adds a further £0.9 million of additional expenditure as a result of whale-watching (Parsons et al., 2003a). Thus, the total gross income generated (directly and indirectly) by cetacean-related tourism in rural West Scotland was estimated at £7.8 million (US $13 million; Parsons et al., 2003a). In some rural areas it provides as much as 12% of local tourist income (Parsons et al., 2003a), which as mentioned above is the major industry and employer in rural areas. For the eastern coast of Scotland, Hoyt (2001) estimated that in 1998, land- and boat-based whaleand dolphin-watching in the Moray Firth generated £477,000 as direct expenditure and £2.34 million as total expenditure (when adding assumed indirect income from accommodation, food purchases, et.c). More recently, Davies et al. (2010) estimated that in 2009 the direct income from dolphinwatching in eastern Scotland was £10.4 million, of which at least £4 million (effectively translating into 202 full-time equivalent jobs) was solely due to the presence of a bottlenose dolphin population off eastern Scotland. Although Hoyt (2001) and Davies et al. (2010) use different methodologies to assess the economic impact of cetaceans, the data nonetheless suggest that there been substantial

265


266

October 30, 2013 21:32

C. Parsons

growth in the economic value of the east coast dolphin-watching industry over a 10-year period. Hoyt (2001) also estimated that on the northern islands of Shetland, land-based whale-watching generated £109,000 in indirect expenditure. When combining whale-watching expenditure for the whole of Scotland, a conservative estimate of the total income from Scottish cetacean-related tourism for the turn of the century (direct plus indirect expenditure) was a total of £10.7 million (US $18 million; Parsons et al., 2003a). Numerous new whale-watching businesses have been established in Scotland in the 12 years since the Hoyt (2001) evaluation, and in the 10 years since the Parsons et al. evaluation, and with the substantially higher economic value noted in 2009 for east coast whale-watching derived by Davies et al. (2010) this turn of the century figure would certainly be an under-estimate of the current economic value. Woods-Ballard et al. (2003) investigated the nature of whale-watching operators in Scotland and the perceived sustainability of the industry. Most operators were found to be local people, supporting up to five full-time equivalent jobs (WoodsBallard et al., 2003). Many were ex-fishermen or farmers, and few had any formal training in wildlife tourism or business management (Woods-Ballard et al., 2003). In terms of growth of the industry, the east coast and western isles of Scotland were particularly perceived to be steadily increasing in tourist numbers (Woods-Ballard et al., 2003). Many operators in Scotland considered the marine mammal numbers in their area to be increasing (WoodsBallard et al., 2003). Over one-half of the operators reported that they kept a record of cetacean sightings, many of which were already being used for research purposes (Woods-Ballard et al., 2003) and in one case data collected from the whalewatching operator has been used in several major scientific publications in international journals on the ecology and behaviour of minke whales (e.g. Leaper et al., 1997; Stockin et al., 2001; Macleod et al., 2004). Finally, most operators considered that their whale-watching businesses were economically

sustainable in the long term, and those operators that expressed concern over the future viability of their businesses were only a small percentage of the industry (Woods-Ballard et al., 2003).

Whale-watching tourists in Scotland Several studies have been conducted on the demographics of whale-watching tourists in western Scotland, and they were found generally to be middle-class, well-educated (63% educated to 21+) and middle-aged (35–55), although there is a notable proportion of younger participants (Parsons et al., 2003b). In eastern Scotland, ‘dolphinenthusiast’ tourists (for whom cetaceans were their main reason for their visit to the area) also tended to be middle-class (78%), although fewer ‘dolphin enthusiasts’ were less likely to be middle-class when compared with other wildlife-watching tourists, or general tourists, in the region (Davies et al., 2010). Whale-watchers were also more likely to be accompanied by children than general Scottish tourists in both western and eastern Scotland (Parsons et al., 2003b; Davies et al., 2010). Most tourists taking whale-watching trips in western Scotland were domestic (British) tourists, a quarter of whom were Scottish (Parsons et al., 2003b) and 70% were repeat visitors to the area (Parsons et al., 2003b). For east Scotland, Davies et al. (2010) reported that 94% of ‘dolphin-enthusiast’ tourists were British, of which just over a quarter (28%) were Scottish. Of all whale-watchers in the western Scotland, 62% were on their first whalewatching trip, and of those who had been whalewatching before, nearly half had done so in the UK (90% in Scotland; Parsons et al., 2003b). In eastern Scotland, 85% of ‘dolphin-enthusiast’ tourists said that they would come back to the area again (versus 73% of ‘wildlife-enthusiast’ tourists and only 35% of general tourists) and 93% of ‘dolphin-enthusiast’ tourists, 88% of ‘wildlife-enthusiast tourists’ and 69% of general tourists said that they would try to visit new dolphin-watching locations, if they were made aware of these locations (Davies et al., 2010).


October 30, 2013 21:32


In a survey of members of the general public conducted in Glasgow and Edinburgh it was noted that over half of those interviewed were aware of the possibilities to go on a whale-watching trip in Scotland; showing good awareness of whale-watching opportunities (Howard & Parsons, 2006a). Moreover, although only 7% had actually gone on a whalewatching trip, nearly 60% stated that they would like to go on a whale-watching trip, indicating a large, as yet untapped, domestic market for whale-watching (Howard & Parsons, 2006a), which may help the growth of the Scottish whale-watching industry.

Environmental awareness and whale-watching tourists in Scotland It has also been found that tourists who went on marine wildlife-watching tours in western Scotland, particularly whale-watching, were very environmentally motivated and displayed great interest in animal welfare issues, e.g. over 90% of marine wildlife-watching tourists on the Isle of Mull were involved in environmental/wildlife-related activities; nearly 60% were members of environmental charities and an astonishing 18% stated that they actually engaged in voluntary work for environmental charities (Warburton et al., 2000). A survey conducted two years later discovered that the proportion of whale-watchers engaged in voluntary work had actually increased even further to 27% (Rawles & Parsons, 2004). Greater levels of environmental awareness and concern for animal welfare in whale-watchers were also apparent in other ways, e.g. nearly three-quarters of whale-watchers claimed that they only purchased cosmetic/hygiene products that had not been tested on animals and over 80% regularly recycled items (compared with only 18% of the general Scottish population; Rawles & Parsons, 2004). Also, just under half used energysaving appliances or purchased organic or environmentally friendly products on a regular basis (Rawles & Parsons, 2004). The majority of whalewatching tourists had previously been aware of the occurrence of cetaceans in the waters of western

Scotland (Parsons et al., 2003b), which agrees with the data that whale-watchers are more interested in environmental and animal issues as noted above. This high level of animal welfare and environmental concern amongst whale-watchers has several implications for whale-watching management in the area, including the possibility that environmental groups may be able to play an important role in educating whale-watching tourists about management issues, and also, through their awareness of animal welfare issues, tourists themselves may actually help to police whale-watching activities and ensure their sustainability (Rawles & Parsons, 2004). The high levels of environmental motivation in whale-watching tourists are also apparent in other ways, for example when Scottish whale-watchers were questioned as to whether they would visit, or go whale-watching in a country that conducted whaling operations, overwhelmingly stated that they would not: 79% of whale-watchers stated they would boycott visiting a country that conducted hunts for cetaceans, and a further 12.4% of whalewatchers stated that although they might visit a country conducting whaling operations, they would not take a whale-watching trip in that country (i.e. 91.4% of whale-watchers would not go whalewatching in a country that hunted whales; Parsons & Rawles, 2003). These data refute the argument that whale-watching and whaling can peaceably coexist (which has been echoed in other studies, e.g. Parsons & Draheim, 2009), and suggests that whaling activities may very severely decrease whalewatching and wider tourism industry activities in those countries (see also Higham & Lusseau, 2008).

Education and whale-watching in Scotland It has been proposed that whale-watching could have substantive benefits in terms of educating the public, especially about the biology and conservation status of cetaceans (IFAW, 1997), potentially even leading more effective management the impacts of tourism activities as a result (Orams,

267


268

October 30, 2013 21:32

C. Parsons

1994, 1995, 1996a, 1996b). To date, there has only been one, so far unpublished (and is thus described in this chapter in detail), study on education provision by operations that conducted whale-watching and marine wildlife tours. Bridgland (2002) obtained survey questionnaire data from 26 operators, of whom 50% stated that environmental education was a major feature of their trip. One operation had a small visitor center with exhibits, and five operations said that they gave educational lectures or talks, all of which were less than 30 minutes in length (although one operation gave public lectures that could last more than an hour during the winter as well; Bridgland, 2002). Eighty percent stated that the whale-watching boat skipper acted as a tour guide, providing information, but five operations also had onboard guides (four of which were paid; Bridgland, 2002). Eighty-eight percent included information about local history and culture, in addition to information about marine wildlife (Bridgland, 2002). Three operators had degrees in biology or a ‘relevant subject’, and those operations with guides noted that they typically had, or were undergoing, university marine science degrees (Bridgland, 2002). Two-thirds had displays, books, leaflets or guides onboard the whale-watching vessels (primarily on marine wildlife, but information about historical and cultural topics were also provided by some operators; Bridgland, 2002). One operator had a bulletin board reporting recent cetacean sightings. Three operators further stated that they carried artefacts, such as feathers, teeth or baleen, to use as illustrative props for talks, etc. (Bridgland, 2002). Materials in languages other than English were limited: only 19% of operators had translated materials (with one operator having materials in seven languages) although comments were made that foreign tourists typically spoke English relatively fluently (Bridgland, 2002). Fifty-four percent of the operators stated that they were members, or linked with, a conservation charity (either personally or as a business) and 27% stated that they were involved with a research organization (the most frequently stated

organization being the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin trust (http://www.hwdt.org), typically contributing information on sightings of cetacean species; Bridgland, 2002). Seventy-seven percent of operators responded that they had ‘an educational role to play’ although one operator rather negatively stated that ‘this is a business, not an education service’ (Bridgland, 2002). Bridgland (2002) asked whether a training course on education methods and content might help operators, but only third of operators in the survey (35%) thought that such a course would necessarily help. However, almost a half (46%) stated that they would be willing to pay for such a course, although only 23% stated that they would want a certificate, or similar, if they took such a course (Bridgland, 2002). In addition to boat-based commercial whalewatching operations in Scotland, there are several visitor centres run by cetacean conservation charities, such as the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust (HWDT) visitor centre in Tobermory, Mull, and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society’s (WDCS) visitor centres in Spey Bay and North Kessock on the east coast, and nearby the Cetacean Research and Rescue Unit’s (CRRU) centre in Gardenstown, Banff. There are several community centres also that highlight local wildlife and nature, including local cetaceans, such as the Arisaig Land, Sea and Islands Centre. All of these provide educational benefits and work closely with whale-watching companies in their local regions. Tourist information centres, particularly in the Highlands and Argyll regions, frequently have information and sell books about whales and dolphins, alongside promotional materials about whale-watching operations. Even the small aquarium belonging to the University (of London’s) Marine Biological Station in Millport, on the Isle of Cumbrae (which is in the Firth of Clyde near Glasgow), has exhibits about whales and dolphins of Scotland, and the station itself runs and annual course on whales and dolphins utilizing Scottish whale-watching operators as an educational platform. Commercial visitor centres also provide educational information on whales and dolphins of Scotland, such as the Oban Sealife Sanctuary.


October 30, 2013 21:32


To date, there has only been one published study specifically investigating public knowledge of cetaceans in Scotland. In summer 2001, Scott and Parsons (2004) interviewed members of the public in southwest Scotland to determine their knowledge of the diversity and occurrence of cetaceans in the region. Most of those participating (46%) underestimated the number of cetacean species occurring in western Scottish waters with only 4.4% giving a correct answer. Knowledge was much better for members of the public in areas with thriving whale-watching industries and it was suggested that this perhaps played a role in increasing their knowledge (Scott & Parsons, 2004). Similarly members of the public from these locations were also more able to identify photographs of the four most commonly cetacean species (age, gender and level of environmental interest also had an effect on knowledge; Scott & Parsons, 2004). However, as yet, a full review on cetacean-related education in Scotland, its effectiveness and impacts on public attitudes and knowledge, and the role that whale-whaling and whalerelated visitor centres play in this education, has not been conducted, but is perhaps merited.

Community benefits and whale-watching in Scotland Whale-watching as a tourism activity is frequently, and wrongly, referred to as ecotourism. Ecotourism can be defined as: environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features – both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations’(Ceballos-Lascuráin, 1996: 20, emphasis added).

This definition was officially adopted by the IUCN at the 1996 Congress (via Resolution CGR 1.67). As can be seen in the definition, socioeconomic benefits of host communities are specifically included in the definition. The International

Whaling Commission’s definition of ‘whale ecotourism’ also specifically mentions that the activity should ‘Provide some benefits to the local host community within which the company operates’ (Parsons et al., 2006: 251). Do whale-watching activities in Scotland provide such socioeconomic benefits? Cetaceans definitely draw members of the public to Scotland, and without these animals hotels, restaurants and other businesses would not benefit from the additional revenue that whale-watchers bring (Parsons et al., 2003a; Davies et al., 2010). Whale-watchers certainly stay in locations longer as the result of whale-watching trips, and this also brings additional revenue (Parsons et al., 2003a; Davies et al., 2010). However, both of these sources of indirect values have been factored into the economic benefits that whale-watching brings noted above. Moreover, Warburton et al. (2001) noted that in one village where whale-watching occurred, of the 21 shops in village 13 sold whale-related merchandise (from 0.2% to 70% with items ranging from £0.2 to £100 in price) and an estimated £15,300 would be generated for these local shops by the sale of this merchandise alone. Also, as Woods-Ballard et al. (2003) reported, and was noted above, many of the whale-watching companies are run by local Scottish residents, and often employ local people as guides, although the total extent of this host community employment has not been calculated. Moreover, whale-watching companies may bring other local community benefits. For example, taking the example of just one company in Tobermory, on the Isle of Mull, the company sells locally produced snacks on board their boat and sell books, DVDs and photographs produced by local residents, in addition to a range of educational, recycled and environmentally friendly goods. The company also collects money for local charities and has also offered free trips to local school classes and small business owners at the end of the season. Several of the crew also volunteer for local community services, such as the lifeboat crew and the fire brigade. Arguably, this company, which has similar business practices to several other whale-watching

269


270

October 30, 2013 21:32

C. Parsons

companies in the country, provides substantive direct and indirect benefits to the host community.

Whale-watching codes of conduct and voluntary management schemes In 1995, due to concerns over the possible impacts of whale-watching activities on dolphins in the Moray Firth, the Dolphin Space Program (DSP) was initiated (see http://www.dolphinspace.org). The DSP was set up with a multi-stakeholder steering group, which at the time was a novel approach for marine mammal management in Scotland, and this steering group includes members such as the regional police, coastguard, VisitScotland (the tourist board) and the WDCS. The DSP developed an accreditation scheme, by which local whalewatching operators could join, if they committed to abiding by a whale-watching code of conduct produced by the DSP. Accredited members can also receive training, educational materials, and gain promotional benefits through being associated with the scheme. The DSP steering group meets at least once a year with accredited operators and arising issues and management problems are discussed. There are as such no specific mandatory regulations with respect to whale-watching activities in Scotland. Despite this, in a 2000 survey it was found that nearly 90% of whale-watching operators stated that they voluntarily followed a whalewatching code of conduct or guidelines (Parsons & Woods-Ballard, 2003; Woods-Ballard et al., 2003). The most frequently used whale-watching code or set of guidelines was one produced by a tour operators’ association, and three codes of conduct produced by environmental non-governmental organizations were also used frequently (Parsons & Woods-Ballard, 2003). In a separate study, Bridgland (2002) noted that more than a half of marine tourism operators surveyed (58%) made their passengers aware that they used a code of conduct and of these 60% tried to relate their use of a code to the importance of whale-watching guideline use internationally.

However, only 27% of the operators surveyed by Parsons and Woods-Ballard (2003) were aware of specific whale-watching guidelines which had been produced by the UK government, and were available at the time. Moreover, none of the operators actually referred to these guidelines when watching cetaceans (Parsons & Woods-Ballard, 2003). This was interpreted as being evidence that although that the majority of whale-watching tour operators had accepted codes of conduct, but preferences were for local, or operator-produced, codes rather than governmentally appointed regulations, i.e. ‘bottom-up’ management (with scientific advice and guidance), rather than ‘top-down’ management by statutory bodies (Parsons & Woods-Ballard, 2003). It should be emphasized, however, that although whalewatching operators stated that they used a code of conduct, research has not been conducted to investigate how frequently these codes of conduct are fully complied with. Even despite sometimes being a legal requirement, compliance with whalewatching regulations and guidelines has been poor in many locations (e.g. Scarpaci et al., 2003, 2004). Studies into whether guidelines are followed, partially or completely, factors that affect compliance, and the general efficacy of guidelines, should be a matter of priority.

Legal aspects of whale-watching in Scotland Prior to 2004, coastal cetaceans in Scotland were protected under the UK Wildlife & Countryside Act of 1981. This Act made it illegal to intentionally kill, capture or injure cetaceans and, moreover, to intentionally disturb a cetacean (Parsons et al., 2010a). This law extended to 12 nautical miles from the UK coastline. In 2004, the Scottish Parliament passed the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act in which superseded and slightly altered the provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, effectively making it illegal to ‘recklessly’ (with the idea that reckless behaviour is easier to prove than ‘deliberate’ behaviour in a court of law) ‘disturb or harass’ cetaceans (although the meaning of harassment


October 30, 2013 21:32


was not defined; Parsons et al., 2010a). In addition, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act required that Scottish Natural Heritage (as the competent authority for nature conservation in Scotland) produce a ‘Scottish Marine Wildlife Watching Code’ (Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act; Part 3, Section 51). The code was to outline activities that might disturb marine wildlife, circumstances under which marine wildlife should be approached and ways to view marine wildlife ‘with minimum disturbance’ (Section 51 (2) (a),(b) & (c)). There was a requirement for Scottish Natural Heritage to consult with persons ‘appearing to them to have an interest in marine wildlife watching and other persons as it thinks fit’ (Section 51 (5)), i.e. extensive consultation with stakeholders in the whale-watching industry, which was done via a series of workshops, meetings and subsequent consultation on drafts of the code, illustrating a high level of ‘bottom-up’ involvement with the development of the code, despite the act being a ‘top-down’ management action. There is no actual requirement in the act for Scottish Natural heritage to enforce and police this code of conduct, but arguably the code would make enforcement of laws that prohibit disturbance of cetaceans easier as it can be taken that by adhering to behaviour in the guidelines you are not disturbing or harassing marine wildlife, and deviating from the proscribed guidelines could be constitute reckless disturbance (Parsons et al., 2010a). As a member of the European Union, the UK (and thus Scotland) must also comply with the 1992 Council Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive), which came into effect in the UK in 1994. Cetaceans are listed under Annex IV of the directive, which effectively requires member states to prohibit their deliberate capture and killing, and well as deliberate the disturbance of cetaceans. Unlike the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act which is limited to 12 nm from the coat, the Habitats Directive extends to 200 nm from the coastline, and so provides some protection for cetaceans while further ashore (Parsons et al., 2010a). Under the

Habitats Directive, member nations are obliged to designate protected areas for species listed on Annex II (which for cetaceans includes harbour porpoise and common bottlenose dolphin), and as such a Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) was designated in the Moray Firth, which provides some additional protective measures for animals in this protected area from whale-watching activities (Parsons et al., 2010a).

Public attitudes to the impacts of whale-watching in Scotland Although whale-watching activities are known to negatively impact cetaceans (Parsons, 2012), there have been few studies on the actual impacts of whale-watching activities on target cetaceans in Scotland. Studies on the impact of boat traffic, including whale-watching vessels, on bottlenose dolphins in the Moray Firth found that in 17 of the 22 cases where whale-watching boats approached dolphin groups, significantly fewer surfacings were recorded (Janik & Thompson, 1996). Another study noted increased synchronicity in dolphin surfacings in response to boat traffic (Hastie et al., 2003), but the biological significance of whale-watching or other types of disturbance to cetaceans has not been assessed in the UK (Parsons et al., 2010b). In terms of public opinion on the impacts of whale-watching, the activity is not generally seen by the general public to be a major threat to the cetacean populations (Scott & Parsons, 2005; Howard & Parsons, 2006b; Zapponi & Robinson, 2007). Nearly a third of city-dwellers considered whale-watching to be only a minor problem, and nearly half considered it not to be a threat at all, with only 11% considering whale-watching activities to pose greater risk (Howard & Parsons, 2006b). Similar results were obtained in rural, coastal areas of western Scotland (Scott & Parsons, 2005), with less than 1% of the public considering whale-watching to pose a serious risk to cetaceans, a statistic that is not surprising considering the concentration of marine wildlife tourism in this locale. These results were

271


272

October 30, 2013 21:32

C. Parsons

also echoed for a slightly smaller survey of members of the general public in the Moray Firth (Zapponi & Robinson, 2007). There are, nonetheless, some areas of concern, noticeably an increase in numbers of companies offering high-speed whale-watching, i.e. boats capable of travelling to key whale-watching areas at speeds faster than 20 knots (Parsons & Gaillard, 2003).

Conclusion In summary, for this case study in Scotland, whalewatching has a notable positive impact on the economy of coastal and rural areas (e.g. Parsons et al., 2003a), and is considered to have potential for further growth (Howard & Parsons, 2006a). There appear to be educational benefits from whalewatching and cetacean-related tourism, although to date research into this area is largely limited to just one study (Bridgland, 2002). There are also some definable benefits to local communities that host whale-watching operations. Whale-watching tourists in Scotland appear to have a relatively high level of environmental awareness (Rawles & Parsons, 2004), which could be channelled to aid cetacean conservation, and certainly means that it is in tour operator’s interests to ensure that their operations are as ‘environmentally friendly’ as possible to avoid alienating their clientele. However, there has been a lack of specific research on the biological and population-level impacts of whale-watching activities on cetaceans in any region of Scotland, or indeed the UK as a whole (Parsons et al., 2010b). There are laws within the UK that specifically prohibit the deliberate or reckless disturbance and harassment of cetaceans, and as such inappropriate behaviour by whale-watching trip operators that could negatively impact cetaceans is technically illegal. Moreover, although guidelines exist for whale-watching activities, including official Governmentally produced guidelines, the efficacy of these guidelines, and their ability to reduce biological impacts on animals (such as stress; Parsons et al., 2010b) or the degree to which whale-watching

operators comply with guidelines, have not been studied. Scotland has a valuable and maturing whale-watching industry, and for the majority of Scotland there has argueably been an impression that the industry as a whole is sustainable. At least, there have been no recent attempts to officially control or manage whale-watching activities by government agencies, or urgent calls to do so by environmental groups. Moreover, the general pubic do not consider whale-watching to be a threat to cetacean populations (Scott & Parsons, 2005; Howard & Parsons, 2006b; Zapponi & Robinson, 2007). However, there has not been a comprehensive investigation into whether this impression of sustainability is warranted, and such a study should be considered a priority. This is especially important when one considers the potential for growth of the whale-watching industry in the nation and the positive economic benefits that a healthy population of cetaceans can have, ensuring the long-term sustainability of this industry is important not just for cetaceans, but for also for human communities in Scotland.

REFERENCES Bridgland, R. (2002). A study of the extent of interpretation in marine wildlife tourism in western Scotland. MSc thesis, School of Life Science, Napier University. Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (1996). Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Davies, B., Pita, C., Lusseau, D. & Hunter, C. (2010). The Value of Tourism Expenditure Related to the East of Scotland Bottlenose Dolphin Population. Aberdeen: Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability & Moray Firth Partnership. Hastie, G.D., Wilson, B., Tuft, L. & Thompson, P.M. (2003). Bottlenose dolphins increase breathing synchrony in response to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science 19, 74–84. Higham, J.E.S. & Lusseau, D. (2008). Slaughtering the goose that lays the golden egg: Are whaling and whalewatching mutually exclusive? Current Issues in Tourism 11, 63–74. Howard, C. & Parsons, E.C.M. (2006a). Public awareness of whalewatching opportunities in Scotland. Tourism in Marine Environments 2, 103–109.


October 30, 2013 21:32


Howard, C. & Parsons, E.C.M. (2006b). Attitudes of Scottish city inhabitants to cetacean conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 4335–4356. Hoyt, E. (2001). Whale Watching 2001: Worldwide tourism numbers, expenditures, and expanding socioeconomic benefits. Crowborough: International Fund for Animal Welfare. Hughes, P. (2001). Animals, values and tourism – Structural shifts in UK dolphin tourism provision. Tourism Management 22, 321–329. IFAW. (1995). Report of the Workshop on the Scientific Aspects of Whale Watching. 30 March–4 April 1995, Monticastello di Vibio, Italy. Massachusetts: International Fund for Animal Welfare. IFAW. (1997). Report of the Workshop on the Educational Values of Whale Watching. 8–11 May 1997, Province Town, Massachusetts, USA. Massachusetts: International Fund for Animal Welfare. IFAW. (1999). Report of the Workshop on the Socioeconomic of Whale Watching. 8–12 December 1997, Kaikoura, New Zealand. Massachusetts: International Fund for Animal Welfare. IFAW. (2000). Report of the Workshop on the Legal Aspects of Whale Watching. 17–20 November 1997, Punta Arenas, Chile. Massachusetts: International Fund for Animal Welfare. IFAW. (2001). Report of the Closing Workshop to review Various Aspects of Whale Watching. 6–10 February 2000, Tuscany, Italy. Massachusetts: International Fund for Animal Welfare. International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research. (2010). The economic impact of wildlife tourism in Scotland. International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research, Bournemouth University. Retrieved from www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch (accessed 24 July 2012). Janik, V.M. & Thompson, P.M. (1996). Changes in surfacing patterns of bottlenose dolphins in response to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science 12, 597–602. Leaper, R., Fairbairns, R., Gordon, J., Hiby, A., Lovell, P. & Papastavrou, V. (1997). Analysis of data collected from a whalewatching operation to assess relative abundance and distribution of the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) around the Isle of Mull, Scotland. Reports of the International Whaling Commission 47, 505–511. MacLeod, K., Fairbairns, R., Gill, A., et al. (2004). Seasonal distribution of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in relation to physiography and prey off the Isle of

Mull, Scotland. Marine Ecology Progress Series 277, 263– 274. Masters, D., Nautilus Consultants & Carter, J. (1998). Marine wildlife tourism: developing a quality approach in the Highlands and Islands. Inverness: Tourism and Environment Initiative and Scottish Natural Heritage. Orams, M.B. (1994). Creating effective interpretation for managing interaction between tourists and wildlife. Australian Journal of Environmental Education 10, 2l–34. Orams, M.B. (1995). Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. Tourism Management 16, 3–8. Orams, M.B. (1996a). A conceptual model of Tourist– Wildlife Interaction: The case for education as a management strategy. Australian Geographer 27, 39–51. Orams, M.B. (1996b). Using interpretation to manage nature-based tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 4, 81–94. Parsons, E.C.M. (2012). The negative impacts of whalewatching. Journal of Marine Biology, in press. Parsons, E.C.M. & Draheim, M. (2009). A reason not to support whaling: A case study from the Dominican Republic. Current Issues in Tourism 12, 397–403. Parsons, E.C.M. & Gaillard, T. (2003). Characteristics of high-speed whalewatching vessels in Scotland. Paper presented to the Scientific Committee at the 55th Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 26 May–6 June 2003, Berlin, Germany. SC55/WW2. Parsons, E.C.M. & Rawles, C. (2003). The resumption of whaling by Iceland and the potential negative impact in the Icelandic whalewatching market. Current Issues in Tourism 6, 444–448. Parsons, E.C.M. & Woods-Ballard, A. (2003). Acceptance of voluntary whalewatching codes of conduct in West Scotland: The effectiveness of governmental versus industryled guidelines. Current Issues in Tourism 6, 172–182. Parsons, E.C.M., Warburton, C.A., Woods-Ballard, A., Hughes, A. & Johnston, P. (2003a). The value of conserving whales: The impacts of cetacean-related tourism on the economy of rural West Scotland. Aquatic Conservation 13, 397–415. Parsons, E.C.M., Warburton, C.A., Woods-Ballard, A., et al. (2003b). Whalewatching tourists in West Scotland. Journal of Ecotourism 2, 93–113. Parsons, E.C.M., Fortuna, C.M., Ritter, F., et al. (2006). Glossary of whalewatching terms. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 8(Suppl.), 249–251. Parsons, E.C.M., Clark, J. & Simmonds, M.P. (2010a). The conservation of British cetaceans: A review of the threats and protection afforded to whales, dolphins and

273


274

October 30, 2013 21:32

C. Parsons

porpoises in UK Waters, Part 2. International Journal of Wildlife Law and Policy 13, 99–175. Parsons, E.C.M., Clark, J., Warham, J. & Simmonds, M.P. (2010b). The conservation of British cetaceans: A review of the threats and protection afforded to whales, dolphins and porpoises in UK Waters, Part 1. International Journal of Wildlife Law and Policy 13, 1–62. Rawles, C.J.G. & Parsons, E.C.M. (2004). Environmental motivation of whalewatching tourists in Scotland. Tourism in Marine Environments 1, 129–132. Scarpaci, C., Nugegoda, D. & Corkeron, P.J. (2003). Compliance with regulations by ‘swim-with-dolphins’ operations in Port Philip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Environmental Management 31, 342–347. Scarpaci, C., Nugegoda, D. & Corkeron, P.J. (2004). No detectable improvement in compliance to regulations by ‘swim-with-dolphin’ operators in Port Philip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Tourism in Marine Environments 1, 41–48. Scott, N.J. & Parsons, E.C.M. (2004). A survey of public awareness of the occurrence and diversity of cetaceans in Southwest Scotland. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 84, 1101–1104. Scott, N.J. & Parsons, E.C.M. (2005). A survey of public opinions in Southwest Scotland on cetacean conservation issues. Aquatic Conservation 15, 299–312.

Stockin, K., Fairbairns, R.S., Parsons, E.C.M. & Sims, D. (2001). The effects of diel and seasonal cycles on the dive duration of the minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) off the Isle of Mull, Scotland. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 81, 189–190. Warburton, C.A., Parsons, E.C.M. & Goodwin, H. (2000). Whalewatching and marine wildlife tourism on the Isle of Mull, Scotland. Paper presented to the Scientific Committee at the 52nd Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, 11–28 June 2000, Australia. SC52/WW17. Warburton, C.A., Parsons, E.C.M., Woods-Ballard, A., Hughes, A. & Johnston, P. (2001). Whale-watching in West Scotland. London: Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Woods-Ballard, A., Parsons, E.C.M., Hughes, A.J., Velander, K.A., Ladle, R.J. & Warburton, C.A. (2003). The sustainability of whalewatching in Scotland. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11, 40–55. Zapponi, L. & Robinson, K. (2007). Social attitudes to marine conservation in NE Scotland: Public perceptions and cetaceans in the Moray Firth. Poster presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the European Cetacean Society, 22–25 April 2007, San Sebastián, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.crru.org.uk/publications.asp.