338 Int. J. Sustainable Development, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2002 Marine ecotourism in Kaikoura 33S

Mark B. Orams

The concept of 'ecotourism' has, in part, arisen as a result of concerns about thesustainability of tourism based on natural attractions and also as a reaction against moretraditional 'mass tourism' [4]. Mass tourism is usually viewed as the more conventional

form of tourism development where short-term free-market principles dominate and themaximization of income is paramount. It has been vilified in recent times as the negative

impacts of tourism have become more and more apparent [4], As a result, an alternative

paradigm for tourism has arisen - this view rejects the mass tourism approach andencompasses those tourism activities that deliberately plan for and seek to minimizenegative effects. This 'alternative tourism' is, therefore, inherently based on principles ofsustainability - particularly in an environmental and socio-cultural sense.

Fennell [4] considers ecotourism to be one type of alternative tourism (Figure 1) that,while it may not always achieve it, at a minimum attempts to be environmentallysustainable. The idea that tourism should contribute to the health and viability of thenatural attraction upon which it is based is an appealing one. The concept and the termhave been widely adopted and ecotourism has been hailed by some as the 'answer' tonature-based tourism and 'its supporters argue that ecotourism is the only tourismdevelopment that is sustainable in the long term' [5]. Others, however, remain scepticaland view ecotourism as simply nature-based tourism 'dressed up' under a new, attractivelabel [6, 7, 8].

Marine ecotourism as a potential agent forsustainable development in Kaikoura, New Zealand

Coastal-Marine Research Group, Massey University at Albany, Private

Bag 102 904, North Shore MSC, New Zealand

(e-mail: M.B.Orams@massey.ac.nz)

Abstract: The terms 'sustainability' and 'ecotourism' have become much usedin recent years, yet there have been few examinations of how they might applyin practical cases. Kaikoura, a small coastal town (population 3600) on the eastcoast of New Zealand's South Island, has a rapidly developing tourismindustry. This industry has helped to transform the town from an economicallydepressed area with few opportunities for local employment into one of NewZealand's 'boom towns'. However, this growth has not been without costs andcontroversies. The development of a successful ecotourism business by localindigenous Maori has caused some resentment amongst residents, and there isevidence that the marine mammals targeted by the tourism industry areexperiencing increasing pressure. As a consequence, researchers and localpeople recognize that sustainability is an important issue for the future of thearea. This case study provides important insights into the challenges associatedwith the rapid growth of an ecotourism destination.

Keywords: 'indigenous people, Kaikoura, Maori, marine mammals, NewZealand, whale-watching.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Orams, M.B. (2002)'Marine ecotourism as a potential agent for sustainable development inKaikoura, New Zealand', /nt. J. Sustainable Development, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.338-352.

Environmentally, sustainable activities

Environmentallyunsustainable act.ivities

1 Introduction

masstourism

111

The development of tourism as an area of academic inquiry is relatively new [I]. As a

consequence, there are, as yet, few widely accepted theories and models that underpin the

field. What is apparent is that there is a growing understanding that tourism development

has wide-ranging impacts on natural and human societies. Related to this has been a

'mushrooming' of tertiary education courses, conferences and journals based on tourism.Furthermore, other social and natural sciences are now finding the tourism phenomenon

an area worthy of more careful consideration. Thus, it is both timely and appropriate that

the International Journal of Sustainable Development examines tourism and ecotourism

as a topic for this special issue. The issue of sustainability is central to the widespread

discussion regarding the impacts of tourism. Although tourism has been viewed as a

potentially sustainable industry by some [2], many commentators remain sceptical aboutthe sustainability of tourism ventures. For example, Zell [3] states:

Tourism creates more tourism, the location becomes well known and thusdesirable creating demand, more supply and ultimately destruction of theoriginal reason for going there.

Figure 1 Relationshipsbetweenmasstourism,alternativetourismandecotourism.

A further related issue is the argument put forward by authors such as Wallace and Pierce[ll] who argue that ecotourism is travel that is based not only on nature but also on 'thepeople (caretakers) who live nearby, their needs, their culture, and their relationships tothe land'. This represents a significant extension of the ecotourism concept beyondsimply a focus on the maintenance and improvements of natural communities to aninclusion of social and cultural objectives. It further complicates the already confusedstate that exists with regard to what ecotourism actually is - or should be. Semantic

debates regarding ecotourism and sustainability are widespread in the literature and thesediscussions have resulted in little consensus. However, in the recently published

Copyright @ 2002 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

340 M.B. Orams Marine ecotourism in Kaikoura 341.:

1

11

.1

~ ,.~ SOIlIf) Paciftc

~.~ Ocean

t...

~\ .~Auckl ~tt~;

'f~i '\.Hamilt~,f'I. ~"(aurang~

North Island r ~?

NewPlymout~' Gi$;.~r

~ ~NaPier

o ]5Y .~-I VYf ~l{INGTON

;... Kaikourai2hristchurch

~~.> j.-~..

! J';. South Pacific

In11&roaf.9il!,. Dunedln0

, cean

:DStewartIsland

Encyclopedia of Ecotourism [12] the following characteristics are identified as central toecotourism:

The natural (non-human) environment or a feature of it is the prime attraction for thetourist.

2 The basis of that attraction is an inherent appreciation/educational interest in thatnatural environment or natural environmental feature.

Ta5man

Sea

3 A management regime/effort directed at the conservation/sustainable use of thatnatural environment exists.

Although these general characteristics are useful to by-pass the semantic debate overdefinitions of ecotourism, they do little to contribute to an understanding of themanagement and application of the concept. This paper provides a case study onKaikoura, a small town on New Zealand's South Island, as a contribution to increasingunderstanding of how ecotourism is being applied in practice. It further seeks to establishwhether ecotourism is, in this case, alternative tourism that is sustainable or if, as someauthors claim, it is simply the dressing up of mass tourism under a new more palatablelabel.

2 Case study: Kaikoura, New Zealand

2.1 Background

Kaikoura is a small coastal community located around a small peninsula on the

northeastern coast of New Zealand's South Island (Figure 2). It has a long history of

human habitation associated with its plentiful marine resources. It is a place of specialsignificance to the indigenous Maori of New Zealand, who have inhabited Kaikoura for

around 1000 years. The abundance of marine resources in the area is associated with the

continental shelf, which is close to shore near the Kaikoura Peninsula, coming as close as

a kilometre from shore just south of the township. The rapid increase in depth associatedwith the shelf, from as little as 30 metres to over a thousand in a short distance, and the

convergence of offshore currents in the vicinity, produces an upwelling of nutrient-rich

waters that supports an abundant marine food chain. Numerous commercial fish species,

as well as the crayfish (spiny lobster) from which the town derives its Maori name, hasprovided the base for a local fishing industry that has been an important source of

employment in the past. This abundant marine ecosystem has also provided a food source

for a number of species of whales, dolphins and seals that are resident in the area for

much of the year.

The closest cities to Kaikoura are Blenheim (population 30 000) 100 km to the north

and Christchurch (population 330000) 200 km to the south [13]. Kaikoura is, therefore,

a small (population 3500) [14], relatively isolated town that has been viewed in the past

as an economically depressed area with few opportunities for local people [15, 16].

!i

""

II i

1'i

;:1!L

Iijl1!1'1

Il!l"1I

L,, ,

o 150 3OOk!l1

I

I ,I1I

I! I

I11I' I, ,, I

1

,'"I'~~T~_ -~.-r'---~~-,

o ,;,1) :>00rn',Ij

'I!I'

il,

I

Figure 2 Map showing the location of Kaikoura,

342 M.B. Orams Marille ecotollrism ill Kaikollra 343 'I;I'

2.2 Tourism developmentTourism has, therefore, provided a significant impetus for economic development

and, as a consequence, Kaikoura is no longer viewed as an economically depressedregion, but as one of the 'boom towns' in New Zealand's South Island [5].

Prior to the late 1980s, Kaikoura's tourism industry was relatively small. It functioned

primarily as a brief stopover point for travellers driving along State Highway I betweenBlenheim and Christchurch, and as a small-scale holiday destination for New Zealanders

who owned holiday cottages in the area. In 1988, an American whale researcher/naturephotographer and a local fisherman started a small-scale whale-watching operation,

which they named NatureWatch. This operation was joined in 1989 by Kaikoura Tours, a

company set up as an employment initiative by local Maori. In 1991-92 the local Maori-

owned company, with the assistance of the larger Ngai Tahu 'iwi' (tribe), bought thepermit and boats from NatureWatch and became the sole whale-watch operator in the

area [17]. This new company, Whale Watch Kaikoura, is a non-profit Maori enterprise48% owned by Ngai Tahu (the local iwi) and 52% by the local 'hapu' (sub-tribe). The

company employs local Maori and provides income to the local 'marae' (communal

tribal community). This venture has grown rapidly to become very successful [18].The whale-watching activities in Kaikoura have lead to the establishment of a variety

of other tourism operations based on marine mammals, including dolphin watching and

swimming, seal watching and swimming, and whale watching from aircraft [19]. Thisecotourism industry has grown quickly to become the most important economic activityin the area [20].

Local residents have been quick to recognize the economic and social benefits of this

tourism development. Local Maori, Lorraine Hawke, typifies the thoughts of manylocals:

2.3 Issues and controversies

The development of ecotourism in Kaikoura has not been without its problems. Thesechallenges are illustrative of the difficulties that can arise whenever rapid economicgrowth occurs in a small community. Furthermore, such growth provides additionalchallenges when it is associated with increasing numbers of 'outsiders' (tourists) who,despite being temporary visitors to the town, have a significant influence over itscharacter and its community.

2.3.1 Exclusive rightsfor Maori

The impact of Whale Watch Kaikoura on the local township has been major. Priorto the establishment of the company. Kaikoura was seen as an economicallydepressed area. Businesses were on a downturn. and people were having to leavethe area to get work. Following the establishment of the company which broughtincreasing numbers of tourists, businesses across the board began to benefitthrough increased sales... A host of new businesses have sprung up in theaccommodation and catering areas. New craft shops and takeaway bars, as well asnovelty shops. have also appeared. Real estate prices have also increased, and thetempo of life has picked up a little. Without Whale Watch Kaikoura. I think ourtown may have eventually given up the ghost and died [21].

Socio-economic indicators back up Hawke's impressions. In 1991, soon after the marine

mammal based tourism began in Kaikoura, unemployment in the area was still higherthan the national average for New Zealand. Household income was significantly lower

than the New Zealand average - only 29% of the district's residents reported incomeshigher than NZ$30 000 per year, as opposed to 44% nationally.

Annual visitor numbers to Kaikoura, estimated to be around 10000 in 1989,

increased dramatically to over 100000 by 1993, and to 873000 in 1999 [22]. The current

annual growth rate of tourism in Kaikoura is around 14%, significantly higher than theNew Zealand average. Overall, the industry is estimated to directly contribute around

NZ$28 million annually to the community. The tourism industry directly employs 330

people in the town - representing 30% of the jobs [23]. In addition, these tourism jobs

likely support significantly more employment in the community through the spending ofthe employees of tourism-based businesses. Tourism expenditure is currently increasingby about NZ$4.4 million annually and resulting in around 33 new full-time jobs in thetown each year [23].

One of the more challenging aspects of ecotourism has been the argument that this kind

of tourism development should be inclusive of, sensitive to, and beneficial for indigenouspeoples [24]. The use of natural and cultural resources for tourism as a means of

economic development and cultural support for indigenous peoples is well supported inthe literature [24, 25]. However, the practical application of this approach has provedcontroversial in the case of Whale Watch Kaikoura.

The relationship between early European colonists of Aotearoa (New Zealand) and

the indigenous Maori was formally defined in 1840 under the Treaty of Waitangi. This

agreement between the Crown (government) and Maori guaranteed Maori certain rights

and privileges, including the 'full, exclusive and undistur~ed possession of their land,forests and fisheries' [26]. Important related concepts dealt with under the Treaty include

the rights of Maori to have 'rangatiratanga' (control or sovereignty) and 'kaitiakitanga'(guardianship) over their 'taonga' (treasures), including their natural, cultural and

spiritual resources [26]. As in many other countries, the Maori of New Zealand argue that

these and other rights have been ignored and usurped by European colonizers.

It is clear from the historical record that Maori in the vicinity of Kaikoura had (and

continue to have) an important spiritual relationship with whales [27]. Thus, they are

certainly considered 'taonga' for local Maori. Furthermore, local Maori had a stronginfluence over early European exploitation of marine mammals in the Kaikoura area.

They would often levy whaling boats entering local harbours and, in effect, 'licensed'European whaling operations, in return offering protection for those whalers from other

tribes [28]. Thus, Ngai Tahu has argued that they had, and continue to have,

'rangatiratanga' over the whales as a resource at Kaikoura. Consequently, according toNgai Tahu, whales and the use of them (even in a modern context) are covered under the

principles of the Treaty ofWaitangi [28]. .

This historical background and the recent development of a new use for whales at

Kaikoura (for tourism) led Ngai Tahu to claim that they had exclusive rights to the use of

whales in the area. This contention was argued through the High Court to the Court ofAppeal in New Zealand in 1994 and 1995, when Ngai Tahu sought to restrict the

granting of any further permits for whale-watching at Kaikoura [29]. The finding of the

court provided some support for Ngai Tahu's argument and agreed that rights pertainingto economic development for indigenous peoples were becoming 'recognized and

344 M.B. Drams Marille ecotourisl1l ill Kaikoura 345 i!1

accepted in international jurisprudence'. More specifically, the court found that the

principles of the Treaty of Waitangi required 'active protection' of Maori interests. As aresult, the court directed the Department of Conservation (the government agency

charged with administering New Zealand's Marine Mammal Protection Act) to take intoaccount the protection of Ngai Tahu interests before awarding further whale-watching

permits in the area [30]. So, although the court did not grant exclusive rights to whale-

watching in this case, in effect it provided strong direction that this was a favoured

option. Subsequent to this, and despite many applicants, no additional sea-based whale-

watching permits have been issued for the Kaikoura area. This has raised the ire of manylocals who see the situation as an unfair monopoly based on cultural/racial grounds. It

has also been argued that there is a conflict of interest for Maori who own and run WhaleWatch Kaikoura as a commercial enterprise and who are also, via the Treaty of Waitangi,

a powerful party in decision-making regarding the use of those whales.

Local Maori argue that the whales are their taonga (treasures). Because theprovisions of the Treaty of Waitangi guarantee Maori sovereignty over theirtaonga, Ngai Tahu rightly feel that they should be consulted about the use ofnatural resources such as the whales. The difficulty in this situation is that theorganization to be consulted on the basis of their guardianship (kaitiakitanga)of the whales also has both a direct economic interest in their exploitation andan interest in keeping permits out of the hands of competitors. Thus, theirstatutory and commercially dual positions have some philosophical difficultiesassociated with them [15].

The resentment amongst some locals has contributed to racial tension in the town [15].However, some of this resentment may be related to jealousy over the commercial

success of a Maori-run business because 'Kaikoura Whale Watch and other prosperous

Maori enterprises give lie to the notion, held by many New Zealanders, that Maori are

not very good at business' [18]. Even in the early years of Whale Watch Kaikoura's

operation evidence of racially based resentment existed - in November 1990 all eight

motors for the venture's boats were sabotaged, causing NZ$25 000 worth of damage. InFebruary 1991 the company's bus was set alight and petitions were circulated amongstthe local community seeking to ban the company from berthing their boats in the harbour[26]. Thus, the development of a successful ecotourism business specifically benefittinglocal indigenous people has not been without its difficulties in Kaikoura. It is, however,an extremely successful enterprise winning many awards - including the British AirwaysTourism for Tomorrow Award - one of the world's top prizes for ecotourism [29]. The

company turnover is estimated in the millions of dollars each year [31], and thedownstream effects in its support of local Maori, their marae and the wider communityare far greater [26].

they may target, the activities they may conduct and the times they may operate [20]. A

recent summary of the number of permitted marine mammal tourism operators inKaikoura shows a potential total of 365 trips per week to watch or swim with the animalsincluding [32]:

Whale-watch boats (one company, four boats) - 112 trips per week.

Dolphin/seal watch/swim boats (three operators, four boats) -78 trips per week.

Boat-based seal swimming (four operators, four boats) -119 trips per week.

Land-based seal swimming (two operators) - 35 trips per week.

Land-based seal watching (two operators) - 21 trips per week.

These figures represent the maximum number of permitted trips and, as a consequence,

this capacity is unlikely to be reached (owing to lack of customers or weather). It does,

however, provide an indication of the scale of the marine mammal tourism industry in

Kaikoura. The regulations also require commercial tourist operators to provide

'educational value to participants or to the public' and most operators do make an effortto provide education for their clients.

Research on the impacts of the high level of visitation on,the marine mammals of the

area has revealed extensive pressure on these animals. For example, a long-term study on

the effects of boat-based watching and tourists swimming with dusky dolphins found that

boats were present within 300 metres of the dolphins 72% of the time during the summer

months. 'Once dolphins were located at dawn, their movements and positions were

almost continuously followed until dusk by commercial whale- and dolphin-watching

skippers' [33]. While these vessels were found to have transgressed regulations

governing behaviour around the dolphins only 7.4% of the time, the simple presence of

vessels in the vicinity of the animals for such long periods was of concern.Similarly, research has shown that sperm whales in Kaikoura respond to the presence

of whale-watching boats by having shorter surfacing intervals and thus decreased

respiratory periods [34]. This may be detrimental to sperm whales, a deep-diving

mammal for which surface respiration is critical. Additional research found that the

amount and type of reaction to vessels varied considerably from one individual whale toanother [35]. Some whales were more tolerant of boats than others - this may represent

habituation by some individuals to vessels or it may simply reflect variation in 'theindividual sensitivity of different whales. The study also revealed that careful and

sensitive boat handling around the whales, including adherence to the whale-watching

regulations, did reduce negative reactions. Additional experiments concluded that noise

levels produced by tourist traffic were within the range of current levels of backgroundnoise in the area - if sudden noises were avoided and adequate distance was maintained

from the animals (greater than 75 metres) [36].

Research on the impacts of tourists on New Zealand fur seals in the vicinity of

Kaikoura also revealed some disturbance. A study of the effect of close approaches to fur

seals at two haul-out sites showed a marked difference in seal response dependent ongender [37]. Female seals, juveniles and pups always responded to close approach (less

than five metres) by moving away - in most cases by entering the water. Bulls and sub-adult males most often responded with a threatening gesture and/or by moving a shortdistance away. An additional finding of significance was that in the case of females,

2.2.2 Impacts on marine mammals

Kaikoura is now viewed as one of the premier marine mammal tourism destinations in

the world [19]. The large number of operators taking hundreds of thousands of touristsout to view, swim and otherwise interact with the wildlife has caused concern regarding

the impact on these animals [32]. The Department of Conservation has established

regulations, which require any commercial marine mammal tourism operator to obtain a

permit from the department [20]. These permits are restricted in number and control theoperator in terms of where they can operate, the size and number of vessels, the species

346 M.B. Orams Marille ecotourism ill Kaikoura 347

juveniles and pups the disturbance caused by close approaches from people frequently

continued for many minutes after the visitors had left the area. The researchers found that

fur seals spent about 17% of their time (daylight hours) responding to interactions withvisitors [37). It has also been noted that in some cases when the seals escape into thewater that snorkellers from commercial 'swim with seals' operators await the animals as

they enter the water [32).Interactions with additional marine animals, such as orca, common dolphins, pilot

whales, Hector's dolphins, sea birds, fish and invertebrates occur at Kaikoura - however,

there is no reported research on impacts on these animals [32). It is clear that thedevelopment of tourism has resulted in increased pressure on some marine species thatfrequent the area. It is also likely that this increased pressure may be detrimental to theanimals in some cases.

half (48.5%) also report personal negative effects [15). These effects are specified asthings such as less parking available in town, crowding, higher property taxes, a highercost of living, increased traffic, and a 'loss of community'. Interestingly, the study foundthat over 30% of respondents stated their single greatest concern about tourismdevelopment in the area was 'sustainability' [15). More specifically, they refer to thesustainability of the tourism industry itself in the area and, by implication, the continuedpresence and availability of the marine mammals for tourism in Kaikoura.

3 Analysing the Kaikoura case

2.3.3 Impacts on visitors

Visitors to Kaikoura fall into three distinct categories [38). Short-stop travellers who aredriving along State Highway 1 between Christchurch and BlenheimlPicton are generallyNew Zealanders and they use Kaikoura as a food and rest stop for an hour or two. Thesevisitors have little impact on the town (other than supporting road-side food outlets andgas stations). Day visitors most commonly travel from Christchurch for the day andparticipate in one or two marine mammal tourism activities - 49% go whale-watching,

44% visit the seal colony and 5% go dolphin watching/swimming. This group is amixture of international and domestic tourists, many of whom travel by bus on a'packaged' day tour. Overnight visitors are predominantly international tourists (60% ofwhom are from Europe) who stay for between one and four nights in the area. Theyparticipate in many tourism activities but they particularly focus on marine mammals.These visitors rate whales (50%), dolphins (17%) and other marine features (5%) asimportant attractions at Kaikoura. The top three activities for this group are marinemammal based - 63% visit the seal colony, 53% go whale-watching and 32% go dolphin

watching or swimming [38).Both day and overnight visitors reported high levels of satisfaction with their visit to

Kaikoura. Research on the effect of marine mammal tourism experiences indicates thattourists' awareness and knowledge about marine mammals was significantly modified,thus the experiences can be said to have some educational value [39). However, nosignificant improvement in the conservation values of participants in these experienceswas detected. Research elsewhere has indicated that increasing environmentallyresponsible behaviour as a result of marine mammal tourism experiences is particularlydifficult [40). This also appears true with regard to Kaikoura, prompting someresearchers to argue that there is a general need to increase the educational value of thetours in the area [32, 39).

Although Kaikoura has noi deliberately set out to become an ecotourism destination it is

being promoted as such, and the majority of companies operating there consider

themselves to be ecotourism operators. Consequently, Kaikoura can be evaluated interms of the three key components of ecotourism identified earlier [12). First, it is

obvious that a feature of the natural environment - specifically marine mammals - is the

main attraction for the area. Second, visitors to Kaikoura identify marine mammals as anattraction with educational interest, and it can be assumed that there is also an inherent

appreciation for these animals by those who wish to experience them. Third, amanagement regime directed at the sustainable use of marine mammals does exist. The

New Zealand Marine Mammal Protection Act and, more specifically, the associated

Marine,Mammal Protection Regulations (Section 4) administered by the Department ofConservation, explicitly state that their purpose is to:

Make provision for the protection, conservation, and management of marinemammals ... (and) ... regulate human contact or behaviour with marinemammals either by commercial operators or other persons, in order to preventadverse effects on and interference with marine mammals [4IJ.

2.3.4 Impacts on the local community

The reaction of the local community to the development of tourism in Kaikoura has been

largely positive. However, some within the community (particularly older residents) are

concerned about the rapid growth of tourism and feel that tourism development has 'gone

too far and is ruining the things that they like about their home' [15). Residents recognize

the employment and economic benefits of tourism development for the area, but almost

In addition, the regulations (section 6h) require that all commercial operations 'shouldhave sufficient educational value to participants or to the public' [41). Thus, themanagement regime in place attempts to promote conservation and sustainable use of themarine mammals as tourism attractions. Consequently, Kaikoura can be legitimatelyconsidered an ecotourism destination.

Debate remains, however, over whether the rapid and intensive ecotourismdevelopment in Kaikoura is truly sustainable. There is evidence to suggest that increasedpressure and stress is being experienced by sperm whales, dusky dolphins and NewZealand fur seals in the area. Whether that increased pressure has longer termimplications for the health and viability of those populations is not known. There is alsoevidence that the promotion of a local indigenous people through the development of anecotourism attraction has caused resentment and some division in the local community.While this issue does not necessarily reflect on sustainability, it nevertheless reveals thatthere are socio-cultural impacts associated with ecotourism development at Kaikoura.Local residents are also aware of other 'costs' associated with the growth of the town -increased traffic, less parking and a higher cost of living may impact the ability of someindividuals to 'sustain' their standard of living in the area.

For Kaikoura, questions remain regarding the development of ecotourism. Will itultimately be alternative tourism in an environmentally sustainable sense or will itbecome an example for those cynical about the concept? The answer for Kaikoura may

348 M.B. Drams Marille ecotollrislII ill Kaikoll/'Q 34Si

I I

be related to scale. Inevitably. with increasing numbers come increasing negative impacts

and. as a result. Kaikoura may find that its tourism-induced transition moves it along a

development path that is ultimately unsustainable. Figure 3 provides an illustration of

types of tourism placed according to their host environment. educational content andenvironmental sustainability. The review of the development of Kaikoura shows that the

town is undergoing a transformation. Placed on this model (Figure 3), this transformationis viewed as a movement away from smaller scale environmentally sustainableecotourism to a potentially less sustainable state that could be viewed as outside therealm of ecotourism.

high educationalcontent

the human and marine residents of Kaikoura. Issues of environmental and social

sustainability are key in ensuring that. the benefits of the development in tourism to the

area continue to outweigh the costs. Cases elsewhere show that rapid development oftourism in small communities can cause widespread resentment from locals as they face

issues such as crowding, overloaded water and sewage systems. demand-inducedinflation, increased crime and alienation from their own area. There are indications that

some Kaikoura residents are experiencing some of these 'costs' on a personal level. It is

also obvious that the environmental sustainability of the industry is fundamental to thecontinued economic welfare of the Kaikoura area.

What is fortunate in the Kaikoura situation is that the local people seem to be aware

of the potential 'down side' of tourism development. Unlike other locations wheretourism development has been embraced in the past with little understanding of the

implications. many Kaikoura people appear willing to become involved in planning anddecision-making on the issues surrounding tourism development. It is also fortunate that

New Zealand has strong natural resource management statutes. The potential exists,

therefore, to manage tourism growth in Kaikoura on a sustainable basis. Legalmechanisms are in place and local will exists to carefully consider issues of sustainability

in tourism management for the area [22].

environmentallyunsustainableactivities

naturalenvironments 4 Conclusion

artificialenvironments

environmentallysustainableactivities

The concepts of ecotourism and sustainability are ideals with worthy objectives.

However. labels are easy to apply and 'talking the talk' has become fashionable in

tourism circles. as evidenced by the increasing number of publications on the subject.What remains difficult, however, is the successful application of these concepts in real

life. We have made important first steps in recognizing that tourism development is not a

panacea and that negative impacts inevitably accompany the positive. Communities that

are developing as tourism destinations also recognize this and are looking for ways tomitigate the costs associated with tourism. This is good news. for the first step in solving

a problem is to recognize that there is one! A second step is to examine cases whereecotourism has developed and to improve our understanding of how such destinations are

transformed by such activities. .

Kaikoura is a location typical of many worldwide where rapid ecotourism

development has provided an impetus for improved economic and social conditions.

Concurrently. negative impacts are starting to occur. While this is widely recognized at

Kaikoura. the difficulty lies in managing the popularity of the activities. Despite the best

efforts of management agencies (such as the Department of Conservation) to ensure thatthe effects of tourism on marine mammals are not harmful and are ultimately sustainable.

the scale of tourist operations is such that increasing pressure on marine wildlife in the

area is inevitable. Thus. the popularity of Kaikoura has resulted in a movement away

from true ecotourism toward a more mass tourism approach. Herein appears to be theheart of the issue: ecotourism operations or destinations that grow too popular move

down a path of development away from sustainability toward a situation where they canbecome unsustainable and indistinguishable from mass tourism. How to arrest. this

evolution is the challenge. Part of the answer lies in management agencies taking a strong

stand and restricting development; mostly. however. a complete reversal of the traditional

low educationalcontent

Figure 3 Types of tourism. sustainability and Kaikoura.

3.1 The future

Tourism development is at a crossroads in Kaikoura. To date, the development oftourism has been largely a positive economic influence for the area; however, rapidvisitor growth of 14% a year and tourist numbers approaching one million annually.provide significant challenges for a town of 3500 residents. There is evidence of potentialproblems for the marine mammals that are the major draw-card for visitors to the area.Careful planning and management is therefore critical for the long-term future for both

350 M.B. Orams Marine ecolourislll in Kaikoura 351

business model is needed. Ecotourism businesses should not be judged on the basis of

growth, size or profitability; rather, their success should be judged on their focus onsustainability and their contribution to the health and viability of the host environment.Until that paradigm shift is achieved ecotourism will struggle to live up to its loftyaspirations.

15 Horn, C., Simmons, D.G. and Fairweather, J.R. (1998) Evollllion and Change in Kaikoura:Responses 10 Tourism Developmel1l, Report No. 6 Tourism Research and Education Centre,Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

16 Orams, M.B. (1999) Marine Tourism: Developme1ll, Impacts and Managemel1l, Routledge,London.

17 Zeppel. H. (1997) 'Maori tourism conference 'Te Putanga Mai',' Journal of Travel Research,Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 78-80.

18 James, C. (1995) 'Native talent', Far Eastern Economic Review, Vol. 158, No. 25, p. 94.

19 Buurman, D. (1999) 'Dolphin encounters', Whale World, Vol. I, No. 2, pp. 1-2.

20 Baxter, A.S. (1993) 'The management of whale and dolphin watching Kaikoura, NewZealand', in Postle, D. and Simmons, M. (Editors) Encou1llers with Whales '93, Great BalTierReef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, pp. 108-120.

21 Hawke, L. (1995) 'Whale Watch Kaikoura', in Colgan, K., Prasser, S. and Jeffery, A.(Editors) Encou1llers with Whales 1995, Australian Nature Conservation Agency, CanbelTa,pp. 37-39.

22 Sinunons, D.G. and Fairweather, J.R. (1998) Towards a Tourism Plan for Kaikoura, ReportNo.1O Tourism Research and Education Centre, Lincoln University, Canterbury, NewZealand.

23 Butcher, G., Fairweather, J.R. and Simmons, D.G. (1998) The Economic Impact of Tourismon Kaikoura, Report No. 8 Tourism Research and Education Centre, Lincoln University,Canterbury, New Zealand.

24 Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: The Potel1lial and Pitfalls, World Wide Fund for Nature,W\lshington DC.

25 Weiler, B. (Editor) (1992) Ecotourism Incorporating the Global Classroom, InternationalConference Papers, Bureau of Tourism Research, CanbelTa.

26 Poharama, A., Henley, M., Smith, A., Fairweather, J.R. and Simmons, D.G. (1998) TheImpact of Tourism on the Maori Community in Kaikoura, Report No.7 Tourism Research andEducation Centre, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

27 Cawthorn, M.W. (2000) Maori, Whales and 'Whaling': An Ongoing Relationship,Conservation Advisory Science Note No. 308, Department of Conservation, Wellington.

28 Anon. (1995) 'Ngai Tahu appeal on whale watch', The Dominion, 17 May, Edition 2, p. 2.

29 MacLennan, C. (1995) 'Whale-watch access at treaty heart', The Dominion, 5 May, Edition 2,p.9.

30 Evans, S. (1995) 'Whale watching monopoly not a treaty right, Ngai Tahu told', TheIndependent Business Weekly, 29 September, p. 2.

31 Hutching, C. (1993) 'Kaikoura whale-watching venture a thriving calf, The NationalBusiness Review, 14 May, p. 61.

32 Constantine, R. (1999) Effects of Tourism on Marine Mammals in New Zealand, Science forConservation Series No. 106, Department of Conservation, Wellington.

33 Barr, K. and Slooten, E. (1999) Effects of Tourism on Dusky Dolphins at Kaikoura,Conservation Science Advisory Notes No. 229, Department of Conservation, Wellington.

34 MacGibbon,1. (1991) Responses of Sperm Whales (Physeter macrocephalus) to CommercialWhale Watching Boats off the Coast of Kaikoura, unpublished report, Department ofConservation, Wellington.

35 Gordon, J., Lcaper, R., Hartley, F.G. and Chappell, O. (1992) Effects of Whale WatchingVessels 011the Surface and Underwater Acoustic Behavior of Sperm Whales off Kaikoura,New Zealand, Science and Research Series No. 52, Department of Conservation, Wellington.

36 MalTelt. R. (1992) Underwater Noise From Tourist Operations, Conservation ScienceAdvisory Notes No. \, Department of Conservation, Wellington.

5 Acknowledgements

A great deal of work has been conducted on the development and impacts of tourism on

Kaikoura by staff and students from the Tourism Research and Education Centre atLincoln University in New Zealand. Publications arising from their work have been

particularly helpful in the writing of this paper, and the author acknowledges thecontribution of this research. References to this work are provided in the reference list for

this paper. The review and comments of Kaye Thorn and Michael Barker from MasseyUniversity at Albany, two anonymous referees and the editor of this special issue of the

USD have also been particularly helpful in improving this paper.

References

Ryan, C. and Page, SJ. (2000) Tourism Management. Towards the New Millennium, ElsevierScience, Oxford.

2 Bumie, D. (1994) 'Ecotourists to paradise', New Sciemist, I 6 April, pp. 24-27.

3 Zell, L. (1992) 'Ecotourism of the future - the vicarious experience', in Weiler, B. (Editor)Ecotourism Incorporating the Global Classroom, International Conference Papers, Bureau ofTourism Research, CanbelTa, pp. 30-35.

4 Fennell, D.A. (1999) Ecotourism: An Introduction, Rolitledge, London.

5 Warren, J.A.N. and Taylor, C.N. (1994) Developing Ecotourism in New Zealand, The NewZealand Institute for Social Research and Development Ltd, Wellington.

6 Berle, P.A.A. (1990) 'Two faces of ecotourism', Audubon, Vol. 92, No. 2, p. 6.

7 Wight, P. (1993) 'Ecotourism: Ethics or eco-sell?', Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31, No.3, pp. 3-9.

8 Wheeller, B. (1994) 'Ecotourism: A ruse by any other name', in Cooper, C.P. and Lockwood,A. (Editors) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, Vol. 7, Belhaven,London, pp. 3-11.

9 Butler, R.W. (1990) 'Alternative tourism: pious hope or Trojan horse?', Journal of TravelResearch, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 40-45.

10 Weaver, D.B. (1998) Ecotourism in the Less Developed World, CAB International, NewYork.

I1 Wall ace, G.N. and Pierce, S.M. (1996) 'An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil',Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 843-873.

12 Weaver, D.B. (Editor) (2001) The Encyclopedia ofEcotourism, CABI Publishing, London.

13 New Zealand Department of Statistics (1999) New Zealand Yearbook 1999, New ZealandDepartment of Statistics, Wellington.

14 New Zealand Department of Statistics (1997) New Zealand Census of Population andDwellings Summary Report 1996, New Zealand Department of Statistics, Wellington.

352 M.B. Orams lm. J. Sustainable Developmem, Vo/. 5, No. 3, 2002 353

37 Barton, K., Booth, K., Ward, J., Simmons, D.G. and Fairweather, J.R. (1998) Visitor and NewZealand Fltr Seal Interactions Along the Kaikoura Coast, Report No. 9 Tourism Research andEducation Centre, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

38 Simmons, D.G., Horn, C. and Fairweather, J.R. (1998) Summertime Visitors to Kaikoura:Characteristics, Attractions and Activities, Report No. 3 Tourism Research and EducationCentre, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

39 Beasley, I. (1992) Marine Mammal Tourism: Educational Implications and Legislation,University of Otago Wildlife Management Report No. 78, University of Otago, Dunedin,New Zealand.

40 Orams, M.B. (\997) 'The effectiveness of environmental education: Can we turn tourists into'greenies'?', Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Management, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 295-306.

41 Anon. (\992) New Zealand Marine Mammals Protection Regulations, Government Printer,Wellington.

Monetary valuation as a tool for planning andmanaging ecotourism

BrianGarrodFaculty of Economics and Social Science, University of the West ofEngland, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS 16 1QY, UK(e-mail: Brian.Garrod@uwe.ac.uk)

Abstract: While the techniques of monetary valuation are firmly grounded ineconomic theory and have a substantial record of practical application,planners and managers of ecotourism have not embraced them with particularenthusiasm. The explanation offered in this paper has two main strands. On thedemand side, those involved in planning and managing ecotourism have, for anumber of reasons, tended to be wary of monetary valuation. Consequently,most of the monetary valuation studies that have been commissioned andsubsequently undertaken have tended to be overly conservative in their aimsand scope. On the supply side, meanwhile, economists have too often failed toexplain how the results of such studies could be used to promoie the objectivesof ecotourism. Planners and managers of ecotourism have therefore remainedlargely unconvinced of the practicality of monetary valuation. Arguably,however, there is a considerable latent potential for the application of monetaryvaluation techniques in the ecotourism context. This paper attempts todemonstrate this potential by identifying and illustrating a number of practicaluses for monetary valuation in the context of planning and managingecotourism.

Keywords: contingent valuation, ecotourism, management, monetaryvaluation, planning, travel cost method.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Garrod, B. (2002)'Monetary valuation as a tool for planning and managing ecotourism', Int. J.Sustainable Development, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 353-371.

1 Introduction

Even a brief review of the relevant literature will reveal that monetary valuation has

rarely been used in assessing and evaluating ecotourism. This is perhaps surprising inview of the growth of popularity of monetary valuation among academic economists and

consultants, who now commonly apply techniques such as contingent valuation and the

travel cost method across a wide range of practical contexts. Moreover, the techniques ofmonetary valuation are based on an increasingly sophisticated body of theory, and have a

growing record of successful application. The question arises as to what can explain theeschewal of such methods by those responsible for planning and managing ecotourism.

The argument put forward in this paper has two main strands: a demand-side explanation

and a supply-side explanation. Clearly these two strands of explanation overlap to anextent.

I]

I'iI,11

I

i

Copyright @2002 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.