TOURISM RECREATION RESEARCH VOL. 29(3), 2004: 35-38
Examining the Relationship Between Ecotourists and Philanthropic Behaviour MARTHA L. BARNES and PAUL EAGLES Ecotourism has some of its programmes and initiatives influenced by the philanthropic behaviour of its constituents. Philanthropic behaviour is demonstrated through the contributions of time or charitable donations. In Kenya, philanthropic behaviour has been instrumental in generating revenue for the Kenya Wildlife Service. Conservationists see ecotourism as a strategy for providing funds for conservation while at the same time justifying its importance. In Canada, the United States of America, Britain and Australia, individuals have donated CDN $5 billion, US $135 billion, £1 billion and A$3 billion, respectively. Furthermore, Canadians volunteered 1 billion hours in 2000, Americans volunteered 199 billion hours in 1998 and Australians volunteered 704 million hours. Some of this donated money and time was influenced by and directed to ecotourism activities. Keywords: ecotourism, philanthropic behaviour, motivations, conservation.
Introduction Philanthropic behaviour occurs in the world of ecotourism and it is crucial to examine possible factors influencing this behaviour. The philanthropic behaviour by ecotourists has not been adequately addressed in the literature. For instance, the literature is unable to answer a question such as 'what motivates ecotourists to engage in philanthropic behaviour?' There is some literature which suggests that individuals donate to organizations that represent values and beliefs that mirror their internal belief system (Martin 2000). A similar explanation may exist for ecotourists. Research also supports the notion that past behaviour is a strong predictor of future behaviour (Martin 2000), thereby suggesting that ecotourists that have engaged in philanthropic behaviour in the past are more likely to engage in future philanthropic behaviour. And finally, research suggests that when individuals visit, experience, and appreciate a place, they are more likely to make a charitable donation (Butler 1992), meaning that all ecotourists have the potential to help preserve areas they have experienced. Butler believes that for an area to be managed and protected, constituents must exist, and in the case of ecotourism, the constituents are ecotourists. The intent of this discussion paper is to make a call for research in understanding the link between ecotourists and philanthropic behaviour. Oearly, not all ecotourists engage in philanthropic acts. The extent to which philanthropic
behaviour is pursued by ecotourists is unknown and so until such time that we can say why ecotourists engage in philanthropic behaviour, we are left making generalizations in the hopes of spurning some future research. Definition of Key Terms
Philanthropic Behaviour: Philanthropic behaviour refers to all activity which promotes human well-being including blood donations, gifts in kind, voluntary work, and financial contributions (Reddy 1980). In Canada, the year 2000 saw approximately 22 million individual Canadians contribute over CDN $5 billion (Hallet al. 2001) to a wide spectrum of charitable organizations. In Britain, even though researchers suggest that there is a slow-down in charitable giving, between 2001 and 2002 a total of £10 billion was generated (Greene 2003). In the United States of America, annual individual charitable contributions increased from US $59 billion in 1964 to US $105 billion in 1994 (Kaplan and Ekstrom 1994). Though research is just beginning to be collected on philanthropy in Australia, in 1997 Australians donated A$3 billion (Lyons and Hocking 2000). Furthermore, the number of volunteered hours also accounts for a demonstration of the 'philanthropic' nature of individuals. For instance, in Canada individuals volunteered over 1 billion hours in 2000 (Hallet al. 2001 ). A national study in the United States found that 109 million
MARTHA L BARNES is Assistant Professor, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Ave., St.Catharines, Ontario, Canada L2S 3Al. e-mail:
[email protected] PAUL EAGLES is Professor, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. e-mail:
[email protected] ©2004 Tourism Recreation Research
Ecotourists and Philanthropic Behaviour: M.L. Barnes & P. Eagles
individuals volunteered 199 billion hours of time in 1998 (Wiener et al. 2002). In Australia, the year 2000 saw 4 million volunteers for a total of 704 million hours, excluding the Sydney Olympics (Lyons and Hocking 2000). It is important to examine both volunteering and charitable giving because these two acts often overlap. Individuals who volunteer are more likely to also make charitable donations (Mixer 1993). In Canada, 93% of individuals who volunteered at least 188 hours or more (according to the categorization identified by Hallet al.) annually also made charitable contributions (Hall et al. 2001). Individuals who volunteered less than 188 hours did not make as many charitable donations.
Prosocial Behaviour: A concept that is similar to philanthropic behaviour, prosocial behaviour refers to any behaviour which has positive outcomes for individuals' (Cadenhead and Richman 1996: 171). While this term is sometimes used interchangeably with philanthropic behaviour, prosocial behaviour seems to be a more theoretical construct. Nonetheless, understanding prosocial behaviour contributes to understanding philanthropic behaviour. 1
Ecotourism: Nature-based, alternative, nature-oriented, natural or green tourism are terms often used to describe the concept encompassing ecotourism'. Dowling (2000:11) defines ecotourism as special interest tourism which places emphasis on greater contact and understanding between hosts and guests as well as between tourists and the environment'. Dowling also identifies several components of true ecotourism that include ecologically sustainable activities, conservation, active interpretation, education, and support for local economy. 1
is a developmental approach. In other words, by exploring the role that socialization plays in motivating individuals to act in prosocial ways, researchers acknowledge that philanthropic behaviour is a learned behaviour. Smith and Bakdwin (1974) gathered data with adult volunteers that demonstrated a substantial portion of the variance (10%25%) in an individual's formal voluntary organization participation was accounted for by the joint impact of four types of indices: parental socio-economic status, the volunteers' socio-economic status, parental formal voluntary organization attitudes, and parental formal voluntary organization behaviour (in other words, being socialized to give). These findings suggest that individuals who are exposed to prosocial behaviour as children are more inclined to engage in prosocial behaviour as an adult. More recently, research has found a positive relationship between respondents' volunteering and parent behaviour (Hallet al. 2001). Specific to the topic of ecotourism, it could be that ecotourism is structured in a way that philanthropic behaviour is part of the culture and individuals are socialized to follow that lead. The two theoretical explanations offered provide insights into the reasons that individuals engage in philanthropic behaviour; however, research has yet to be done in an ecotourism setting.
1
Theoretical Explanations for Philanthropic Behaviour Philanthropic behaviour can be explained by borrowing from Bar-tel (1976) and Blau (1964). More specifically, an exchange approach states that individuals perform acts for reasons related to future rewards (Bar-tel 1976). Exchange theorists consider pure acts of altruism rare (Blau 1964) and that all acts are performed with the expectation of some reward, whether it be tangible or intangible. According to Martin (2000) when individuals benefit from a particular service or organization (or are likely to in the future) they are more likely to make a donation. Therefore, it is possible that individuals who travel to an ecotourism destination and benefit (emotionally, socially, and financially), may feel that their donation may help preserve the destination so that it is available for a future visit. Another explanation put forth by Bar-tel (1976) to understand the phenomena of prosocial behaviour which can be applied to the ecotourism-philanthropic phenomena 36
Evidence of Philanthropic Pursuits by Ecotourists This paper will now present some of the successful strategies that have been employed to strengthen the natural resources management that connects ecotourists with philanthropy. There has been a steady increase in the number of tourism corporations encouraging philanthropic behaviour by its visitors. Ecotour companies have been known to develop programmes that encourage their clients to donate money towards conservation causes at the ecotourist destinations. For example, Abercrombie and Kent, a British-based tour operator, established a non-profit conservation organization to provide financial support to numerous protected areas in Kenya. As part of a tour package, tourists are taken to protected areas sponsored by Abercrombie and Kent to increase financial support (Brandon 1996). Another example is found in the Galapagos Islands where Lindblad Expeditions created a successful customer-generated charitable fund supporting scientific research and environmental preservation efforts (Ham 2001). Beginning in 1997, this project collected approximately US $4,000 a week ($500,000 total) from tourists' donations. The money funded such programmes as the eradication of feral pigs from the island of Santiago, the operation of a patrol boat to combat illegal fishing, and the establishment of local environmental education (Ham 2001 ). Generally, ecotourists are more interested in environmentally-appreciated trips than environmentallyTourism Recreation Research Vol. 29, No.3, 2004
Ecotourists and Philanthropic Behaviour: M.L. Barnes & P. Eagles
consumptive sport hunting trips (Boo 1990). Ecotourists often have a strong commitment to the environment and to its conservation (Eagles 1992; Wearing and Neil 1999). Furthermore, when individuals travel to undeveloped countries, they may feel inclined to help host communities. For example, ecotourists are 8.5% more likely than regular tourists to purchase products produced by local, environmentally responsible individuals while vacationing (Wearing and Neil1999). Furthermore, since ecotourists like to witness their expenditures resulting in conservation, many will contribute to local conservation organizations in the hope of furthering education and preservation of that particular area (Eagles and Higgins 1998). In the past, this concern for the environment and its preservation has led to widespread public pressure to conserve resources through the establishment of parks and protected areas (Boo 1990). In other research, this fortuitous connection between travel, traveller attitudes, public policy and conservation is known as the Tourism-Conservation-Attitude Cycle (Eagles and McCool2002). Fundamental to this cycle is the philanthropic behaviour of travellers (i.e. ecotourists). In terms of the motives associated with ecotourists, these individuals are often motivated to visit a destination classified as a national park or some other form of protected area. For instance, Obua and Harding (19%) found that 35% of ecotourists reported'status as a protected area' as a motive for travel. Research has found that Canadian ecotourists were motivated by the opportunity to experience nature and natural surroundings, learn about nature, be active and connect with individuals of similar interests. Furthermore, Canadians were motivated to travel to see tropical forests, wilderness and undisturbed nature as well as learn about nature. Each of these motives was often experienced in a protected area (Eagles 1992). Ecotourists' conservation motives are often directed beyond the protection of special sites to the conservation of wildlife species. A widely-discussed connection between travel motives and government policy is that of whale watching and whale conservation. Increasingly restrictive whale exploitation polices are correlated with vast increases in whale watching and whale appreciation. By heightening the public's awareness of the whale crisis, a strong voice was heard and government responded positively (Butler 1992). A study investigating the whale watching industry in Tonga, a small island in the South Pacific, found evidence supporting the ecotourism-whale conservation argument (Grams 2001 ). Starting in 1978, whale hunting was banned in Tonga. In recent years there has been pressure by some local people and the World Council of Whalers Association to allow whale hunting once again, much to the dismay of Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 29, No. 3, 2004
tourism and environmental groups. Orams found that 83% of individuals arriving by yacht and 95% of individuals arriving by plane to the island were opposed to the commencement of commercial whaling. More importantly, when asked if whale hunting would reduce their likelihood of visiting any island in particular, 62% of yacht visitors and 78% of airplane visitors responded" yes". When asked if whale hunting would affect their specific travel plans to Tonga, 65% of yacht visitors and 73% of aircraft visitors said they would be less inclined to visit. In other words, individual travellers wish to protect whales and make their travel choices based on these conservation principles. In Uganda, as a result of the work of Dian Fossey, a non-profit foundation was established to accept funds for research and conservation. Gorilla trekking in Bwindi National Park in Uganda was part of an estimated US $1.5 million donor funded project being used to promote tourism in the forest. In Rwanda in 1991, before the civil war, 75% of the tourism income was generated from visitation of the gorillas, equalling US $1 million in gate fees and US $9 million in indirect expenditures (Brandon 19%). A portion of this revenue went directly to the Mountain Gorilla Project and Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. The connection between ecotourism, conservation, and philanthropic behaviour is apparent in this eastern Africa gorilla-park-ecotourism activity. Nianyong and Zhuge (2001) observed that in developed and developing countries, industry and private donations are important funding sources. A non-profit organization is often instrumental to many conservation partnerships because in many Third World countries, non-profit organizations act as conduits for funds from foreign aid agencies and private donors. An advantage of non-profit organizations is that they typically have long-term sustainability in mind. According to Selin (1999), the majority of tourism partnerships are cross-sector initiatives that involve individuals from industry, government and voluntary organizations. For instance, the World Wide Fund for Nature Arctic project includes conservationists, tourism academics, researchers,local and national government and Arctic community representatives all working together to integrate conservation ideals into tourism projects (Mason, Johnston and Twynam 1999). In addition to individual monies, granting agencies and partnerships, international donors often form partnerships with local agencies as a way of contributing to the environment. For example, USAID promotes a tourism strategy called 'Low Impact Tourism'. What is interesting about this project is that the entire plan is funded through private donations and investments (Brandon 1996). 37
Ecotourists and Philanthropic Behaviour: M.L. Barnes & P. Eagles
Conclusion In summary, this discussion paper has highlighted some examples that exist in the field of ecotourism where philanthropic behaviour is apparent. This theoretical structure of possible explanations of philanthropic behaviour by ecotourists merits further empirical and scholarly inquiry. The reasons that ecotourists are inclined to preserve wildlife, contribute to local economy, lend
political influence, and volunteer must be further uncovered. There are several possible explanations for this philanthropic behaviour that need to be verified in the field. Insights as to the reasons for philanthropic behaviour are necessary to ensure that future ecotourists remain committed both financially and emotionally to specific sites and that natural resources are used sustainably. The philanthropic tendencies of ecotourists may be one of the most important forces for conservation available.
References BAR-TEL, D. (1976). Prosocial Behaviour: Theory and Research. Washington, D.C. John Wiley & Sons. BLAU, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York. John Wiley. BOO, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls (Vol. 1). Washington, D.C. World Wildlife Fund. BRANDON, K. (1996). Ecotourism and Conservation: A Review of Key Issues (1st ed.). Washington, D.C. The World Bank. BUTLER, J. R. (1992). Ecotourism: Its Changing Face and Evolving Philosophy. Paper presented at the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. CADENHEAD, A. and RICHMAN, C. (1996). The Effects of Interpersonal Trust and Group Status on Prosocial and Aggressive Behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality 24(2): 169-184. DOWLING, R. K. (2000). Global Ecotourism at the Start of the New Millennium. World Leisure 2: 11-19. EAGLES, P. F. J. (1992). The Travel Motivations of Canadian Ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research 2: 3-7. EAGLES, P. F. J. and HIGGINS, B. R. (1998). Ecotourism Market and Industry Structure. In Lindberg, K., Epler-Wood M. and Engledrum D. (eds.) Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers (2nd ed). North Bennington, VT. The Ecotourism Society: 11-43 EAGLES, P. F. J. and McCOOL, S. F. (2002). Tourism in National Parks and Protected areas: Planning and Management. Wallingford, UK. CABI. GREENE, S. (2003). Britain's Largest Charities Face Slowdown in Private Donations. Chronicle of Philanthropy 15(2): 11-14. HALL, M., MCKEOWN, L. and ROBERTS, K. (2001). Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians: Highlights from the 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Ottawa, ON. Ministry of Industry. HAM, S. (2001). A Theory-based Approach to Campaign Planning for Traveller's Philanthropy. Paper presented at the BEST Summit on Philanthropy, Nov. 9-11, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. KAPLAN, A. and EKSTROM, H. (1994). Giving USA: The Annual Report on Philanthropy. New York. American Association of Fund Raising Council. LYONS, M. and HOCKING, S. (2000). Dimensions of Australia's Third Sector. Sydney, Australia. Centre for Australian Community Organizations and Management, University of Sydney. MARTIN, S. (2000). Donations as an Alternative to Wilderness User Fees: The Case of the Desolation Wilderness. Paper presented at the USDA Forest Service Conference. May 22-27, Missoula, MT. MASON, P., JOHNSTON, M. and TWYNAM, D. (1999). The World Wide Fund for Nature Arctic Tourism Project. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(4): 305-323. MIXER, J. (1993). Principles of Professional Fundraising. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass. NIANYONG, H. and ZHUGE, R. (2001). Ecotourism in China's Nature Reserves: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(3): 228-242. OBUA, J. and HARDING, D. (1996). Visitor characteristics and Attitudes Towards Kibale National Park, Uganda. Tourism Management 17(7): 495505. ORAMS, M. (2001). From Whale Hunting to Whale Watching in Tonga: A Sustainable Future? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(2): 128-146. REDDY, R. (1980). Individual Philanthropy and Giving Behavior. In Horton-Smith D., Macaulay, J. & Associates (eds.) Participation in Social and Political Activities. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass: 370-399. SELIN, S. (1999). Developing a Typology of Sustainable Tourism Partnerships. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7(3 & 4): 260-273. SMITH, D. H. and BAKDWIN, B.R. (1974). Parental Socialization, Socio-economic Status, and Volunteer Organization Participation. Journal of Voluntary Action Research 3(3&4): 59-66. WEARING, S. and NEIL, J. (1999). Ecotourists: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities. Oxford. Butterworth-Heinemann. WIENER, S., TOPPE, C., JALANDONI, N., KIRSCH, A. and WEITZMAN, M. (2002). Giving and Volunteering in the United States: Findings from a National Survey. Washington, DC. Independent Sector.
Submitted: February 10, 2004 Accepted: May 12,2004 38
Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 29, No. 3, 2004
