Saltwater Crocodiles as Tourist Attractions

This article was downloaded by: [University of Waikato]On: 05 September 2015, At: 00:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Journal of SustainableTourismPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Saltwater Crocodiles asTourist AttractionsChris RyanPublished online: 29 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Chris Ryan (1998) Saltwater Crocodiles as TouristAttractions, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6:4, 314-327, DOI:10.1080/09669589808667319

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669589808667319

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication arethe opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of orendorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09669589808667319

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669589808667319

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions ofaccess and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to]

at 0

0:30

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Saltwater Crocodiles as Tourist Attractions

Chris RyanWaikato Management School, The University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105,Hamilton, New Zealand and Visiting Professor, Australian International HotelSchool, Canberra, Australia

These study reports the results derived from a pilot research study based on a pheno-menographic research approach with 50 respondents in the Northern Territory ofAustralia. The data permitted a perceptual map to be drawn which identifies touristfascination with crocodiles as being based on attributes of potential threat, danger,power, links with the prehistoric, and survivorship. However the study also found thatwhen asked to describe the Northern Territory, crocodiles did not immediately cometo mind, even though, arguably, the reptile is etched upon the ethos of the ‘Top End’.However prompted responses quickly elicited mention of crocodiles. There was also apreference to see crocodiles within their natural terrain. Some evidence of a minorityof tourists being prepared to mitigate their behaviours was also found, and hence thisstudy may have wider implications.

IntroductionTourism based on wildlife has been, and continues to be an attraction (Duffus

& Dearden, 1990; Orams, 1996; Shackley, 1996). Indeed, such is the growth ofdemand for what Duffus and Dearden call ‘non-consumptive wildlife-orientedrecreation’ that they see an evolution away from the maintenance of wild-lifehabitats required for hunting to one where ‘wildlife management begins to acceptresponsibility for a wider constituency with different ideas, particularly a morebiocentric view of man’s role in nature and a movement away from killing’ (1990:214). They envisage a model of site evolution, partly based on Butler’s (1980)destination life cycle, where, over time, visitor numbers grow, but with achanging classification of visitors whereby ‘expert specialists’ become theminority and ‘novice generalists’ the majority. They also envisaged managementstrategies that engage in a discourse with both visitors and wildlife.

Orams (1996) also offers a model of tourist–wildlife interaction. His model hasthree main dimensions. First, there is the spectrum of tourist–wildlife interactionopportunities. These range from animals in captive environments like zoos toanimals in wild life environments like National Parks or along migratory routesvia intermediate locations like Wildlife Parks or rehabilitation centres. Thesecond dimension relates to the form of management strategies being adopted,which in turn are classified as physical, regulatory, economic and educational.The final dimension relates to the outcomes for both tourists and wildlife. Again,a continuum is described. Tourists may merely gain pleasure, or be motivated tochange their behaviours. The environment may, at one extreme, simply havenegative impacts minimised, to, on the other hand, there being a specificenhancing of the long-term sustainability of the site.

However, neither model assesses the nature of the tourist perception ofwildlife as an attraction in either general terms, or with reference to specific

0966-9582/98/04 0314-14 $10.00/0 ©1998 C. RyanJOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 6, No. 4, 1998

314

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to]

at 0

0:30

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15

species. It is taken as a ‘given’ that wildlife is attractive to tourists, but the natureof the attraction is not analysed. Nor do the authors consider the nature of thedata that are required for their models to become operative. Drawing on Britishexperience, Cuthbertson (1993) argues that historical data is important toestablish patterns of change, and also argues for the establishment of GIS specificto the sites to be managed. Kelly and Hill (1987) and Hill (1995) make a similarargument for vegetation cover in Australia. It can be contended that within anydataset an understanding of tourist perceptions may be of importance. Ryan etal. (forthcoming) argue from evidence gathered from Fogg Dam, another site inthe Northern Territory, that eco-tourism is culturally determined, like much elseof tourism is concerned with spectacle, and is essentially about affective and notcognitive learning. Thus, an understanding about visitor perceptions may beimportant in offsetting the scientific bias towards interpretation and manage-ment generally found within heritage and wildlife sites (Heron, 1991).

This paper describes the findings derived from 50 respondents using anopen-ended interview based on phenomenographic techniques (Marton, 1986;Prosser, 1994). It represents an early stage in the research project described below.The purpose of this article is thus limited. First, it briefly reviews the nature ofthe crocodile as a tourist attraction in the ‘Top End’ of the Northern Territory,Australia. It does this in two ways. Initially the nature of existing attractionsbased upon crocodiles is described. Subsequently it briefly refers to the literatureon wildlife based tourism in order to contend that tourism based on saltwatercrocodiles differs from that based on, for example, the more well known dolphinwatching as described by Orams (1997). Finally the paper reports an analysis ofthe interviews. From this analysis a simple perceptual model of wildlife as anattraction is suggested.

Crocodile Attractions in the ‘Top End’Saltwater crocodiles form part of the folklore of the Northern Territory,

Australia. Within the Territory it is a local joke that the Territory’s dailynewspaper always features a crocodile story on its front page, and while thisoverstates the case, it is true to say that rarely does a month pass without crocodilestories being reported. There is a perverse pride at the number of crocodiles beingcaught in the harbour (96 in 1997), and crocodiles feature in the Territory’sliterature. For example the Pitjantjatjara Aboriginal poet, Bob Randall, writes inhis poem ‘Hunting Crocs’ of ‘Go to the creek where the water’s dry and look fortheir golden eyes’ (Randall, 1997). Kaz Cooke’s novel, The Crocodile Club describesDarwin’s society where the Crocodile Club is a controlling mafia of :

government and the mining companies and old-timer public servants ¼profit driven, amoral, plundering, wall-eyed, greedy complacent old blokeswith hardened arteries and bat-shit where their soul should be ¼ TheCrocodile Club. A protected species. (Cooke, 1992: 72)

It might be said that crocodiles have become part of the soul of the NorthernTerritory — a sign of its harshness and the pride in overcoming the heat and thehumidity to create a thriving community. In passing, it should be noted that theuse of crocodiles as a tourist attraction is not unique. Saltwater crocodiles are also

Saltwater Crocodiles as Tourist Attraction 315D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

found in Northern Queensland. Additionally, the alligator (alligator mississippi-ensis) is featured in the tourism and popular culture of Florida. For example theUniversity of Florida has its ‘Gator Bowl’ — the home of the University’s GatorAmerican Football team. Spectators there raise their arms to imitate the snappingjaws of the ‘gator’.

Thus, it is not surprising to find that within the Top End there exist a smallnumber of tourist attractions based upon crocodiles. Broadly speaking, two typesof crocodiles can be found in the region. These are freshwater crocodiles(crocodylus johnstoni) found in the rivers, and saltwater crocodiles (crocodylusporosus) which inhabit the rivers and estaurine reaches of the coast. Saltwatercrocodiles (in Australia, widely known as ‘salties’) have also been observedswimming several kilometres from the coast out in open seas. Of the two speciesthe freshwater crocodile is the smaller, and is far less likely to attack. Addition-ally, such attacks are less likely to be fatal. On the other hand the saltwatercrocodile represents a potential hazard to swimmers at sea and in the rivers ofthe Northern Territory, and to other water users like fishermen and thosecamping by the side of billabongs and creeks. This is because ‘salties’ will attackeven if unprovoked, and by reason of their powerful jaws, can seriously injureor kill. Each year within the Northern Territory saltwater crocodile attacks arerecorded on humans, and Territoreans have learnt to be wary of these reptiles.In 1997 there were four such attacks. For example on 9 November a fishermanhad his hand torn off in a crocodile attack in Arnhamland (Voss, 1997). Early in1998 a young aboriginal boy was saved by his friends when a crocodile seizedhim by his leg. However, most of these attacks are due to a lack of care on thepart of the person concerned. For example, camping too near billabongs orrepetition of behaviour over time near water are actions which expose one to risk.Saltwater crocodiles are also larger than their freshwater cousins, and a commonsize to be found in the Northern Territory is between three to four metres inlength. Much larger ‘salties’ can be found without too much effort, and they havebeen known to grow to about seven metres in length. Indeed, ‘salties’ are thelargest living reptile in the world. While large, they are not slow, and can sprintup to 48 kilometres per hour over small distances.

Saltwater water crocodiles found in the wild are a protected species under theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES) of 1973. While a threatened species they are now common in manyof the rivers of Northern Queensland and the Northern Territory, especially incertain areas. Thus, in Australia they are listed as an Appendix II species(generally elsewhere they are listed as an Appendix I) and on the revised IUCN(The World Conservation Union) classification have been downgraded frombeing a vulnerable species to one that is characterised as ‘low risk’. The authorhas seen large congregations of over 30 ‘salties’ near popular fishing spots suchas Shady Camp on the Mary River, and near watering holes for cattle. In the dryseason they can be easily found in the Yellows Waters in Kakadu National Park,and are a popular sight for tourists who take the cruise. Indeed, Braithwaite et al.(1996: 197) report that ‘Our earlier analyses have shown that people could notget to see enough crocodiles ¼’.

They argue that compared to other competing venues in the Darwin region,

316 Journal of Sustainable TourismD

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Yellow Waters has the potential to be an important tourist site because it is highin both authenticity and enthralment. In part this is because crocodiles arefascinating creatures and can be seen in natural settings. Among the otherlocations where visitors can view ‘salties’ as a ‘staged’ tourist event are the‘Jumping Crocs Cruise’ on the Adelaide River, Crocodylus Park, and theCrocodile Farm. The ‘Jumping Crocs Cruise’ consists of a boat trip along the river,and guides suspend meat from lines several feet above the water. This attractsthe crocodiles who jump out of the water to seize the food, thereby providingspectacular opportunities for photograph taking tourists. The setting is natural,and the behaviour is also natural in the sense that crocodiles do jump out of waterfor prey on branches above the water, but Braithwaite, et al. (1996: 211) note thatit ‘has little authentic to endorse it’. Crocodylus on the other hand is a researchcentre and has a small zoo open to the public. It is the headquarters of WildlifeManagement International which has been undertaking research into breedingand other aspects of crocodile behaviour for several years. The Park has aninformation centre describing the reptile and its habits, and guides take visitorsaround breeding pens. A highlight is the feeding of the crocodiles, and againtourists can take photographs from platforms above a small ‘reserve’. TheCrocodile Farm is a commercial farm located to the south of Darwin wherecrocodiles are kept for their skins and meat products. It is also the location wherethose crocodiles caught in the traps surrounding Darwin Harbour are taken.These traps are maintained by the Parks and Wildlife Commission of theNorthern Territory to ensure that crocodiles do not endanger ‘boaties’, swimmersand other commercial and recreational users of the harbour. Since the crocodilesare a protected species they are not killed, but are usually taken to the farm, oroccasionally to Crocodylus Park. As farmed crocodiles are often not goodbreeding stock, these ‘wild’ crocodiles are useful for the farm. The farmspecifically advertises feeding time as a good time to visit, and tourists are‘enthralled’ with the sight of (dead) chickens (‘chooks’) being thrown to thecrocodiles.

Apart from these attractions, the crocodile features strongly in touristbrochures and advertising. One Darwin car hire company used a crocodile in anadvertising campaign aimed at Northern European markets in tourism tradefairs in late 1997/early 1998. In personal communication the marketing managerstated that this was done because the crocodile is equated with the Territory, itreflects adventure and natural settings, evokes an image of excitement and isconsistent with an image that Europeans and North Americans had of NorthernAustralia derived from films like ‘Crocodile Dundee’. Crocodile soft toys withwide grins can also be found in souvenir shops, and large plastic models can befound by the side of the Arnhem highway being used to advertise accommoda-tion in much the same way as dinosaur models are used in North America atlocations like Drumheller, Alberta, Canada.

Saltwater crocodiles are a significant part of the tourist offering of the NorthernTerritory, and thus several questions arise. Some of these questions areenvironmental. For example, does the ‘Jumping Crocs’ cruise have an effect onthe territories of the saltwater crocodile, and if so, what are the implications forbreeding and hunting? The saltwater crocodile is a territorial reptile and males


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

defend their territories. Does the ease of food have any effect? What is the impacton the density of crocodiles, and does this affect other wild-life along the river?The cruise boat also attracts kites and sea eagles for food — what consequencesflow from this? These issues are, in fact, to be examined at a later stage by theNorthern Territory University and Wildlife Management International based inDarwin in a research project being funded by the Co-operative Research Centrefor Sustainable Tourism.

The attraction of crocodilesWildlife as a tourist attraction is now an established part of the supply of

tourist experiences. Orams (1997) notes that in 1983 only 12 countries offereddolphin and whale watching experiences, whereas by 1996 it was estimated 295communities in 65 countries offered such products. Shackley (1996: 21) commentsthat ‘Wildlife-watching tours involving large mammals are common’. The natureof tourism as a revenue raising activity which helps protect wildlife is also wellnoted (e.g. Shackley, 1995). Baker (1997a) has also drawn attention to the role oftourism in sustaining national parks through revenues created through hunting.Similar arguments pertain to the maintenance of wetlands in North Americawhere, for example, the activities of pressure groups like Ducks Unlimited havebeen important in sustaining breeding grounds for migratory wildfowl. Forexample, Ducks Unlimited in the USA has helped to conserve over 900,000 acresof waterfowl habitat (Minnesota Ducks Unlimited, 1998).

It might be contended that the development of wildlife as a tourist attractionhas significantly changed in the last two decades. Prior to the development ofmass tourism, a major means for the viewing of ‘wildlife’ was a trip to thezoological gardens. Today zoos have to increasingly defend their role withinconservation, and replicate as near as possible, a natural surrounding. Many arealso having difficulties in sustaining their popularity. It can be argued that theirpublic, now being more able to view wildlife in a ‘natural’ setting, seek the ‘zoo’in the wild. As Shackley (1996) notes, the public require access to large mammalsand exotics, and wish to touch and experience a closeness to nature. Davis et al.(1997: 266) show that docile whale sharks elicited wonder from tourists in ‘gettingso close to such a large animal’. However, there has been little work undertakenon the tourist–saltwater crocodile interaction. Shackley advances one reasonwhen she writes:

The fact that many of these creatures are seen by the public as dangerousor unpleasant, rather than being sought out as the objectives of awildlife-watching trip, means that little attention has been paid to theirproblems. This is exemplified by the issues facing the saltwater crocodilepopulation of southern Florida. (Shackley, 1996: 21)

Nonetheless, while few tourists would venture near a fully grown adultsaltwater crocodile, local venues near Darwin do allow and encourage visitors tohold young baby ‘salties’. Even so, their jaws are bound, but tourists can feel howsoft the skin of the underbelly of a crocodile is, and also find that, perhapscontrary to their initial thoughts, they are not cold and wet to hold. Nonetheless,saltwater crocodiles arguably form a different category of wildlife attraction to


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

those offered by African game parks and whale or dolphin watching opportuni-ties. At a vernacular level it might be argued that dolphins attract through theirintelligence, gorillas and monkeys through distant genetic relation, furry animalsthrough cuddly connotation, and lions through their feline grace. Saltwatercrocodiles do not possess any of these attributes. They continually possess a latentthreat in that the human watcher is safe only at a distance or through a safetybarrier. This colloquial approach indicates two possible intersecting dimensions.The first is perceived safety or danger; the second, human orientation withinwhich wildlife is seen as possessing characteristics that are friendly or similar tohumans, or at the other end of the scale, the animal is perceived as beingun-human like. This is shown in Figure 1. It may be possible to locate animalswithin the matrix based on these dimensions, and three indicative examples areused to illustrate this in the Figure. Thus, for example, the saltwater crocodile isplaced at the bottom right corner of the matrix as being both ‘un-human’(reptilian) and ‘dangerous’. If this is the case, then it would be expected thattourists would reflect this when describing their attitudes towards crocodiles. Atthe same time, the commercial success of a business venture like the ‘JumpingCrocs Cruise’ would mean that these negative appraisals must be associated withsome characteristics that attract. It might be argued that there is an inverse appeal— it is the sense of something that is both so very different from humans, andwhich represents a thrill associated with danger that is itself the attraction. Albertand Boyer (1991) note similar factors when considering factors relating to Grizzlybear–human interactions in Denali National Park.

Dolphin x

Human orientated

Un-human

Gorilla x ‘Saltie’ x

Dangerous

Safe

Figure 1 Classifications of wild-life appeal


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

The StudyThe location used for the interviews was the Northern Territory Wildlife Park.

About an hour’s drive south on the Stuart Highway, the Park is a popular touristdestination maintained by the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the NorthernTerritory. It does not feature crocodiles. The Park was selected because:

(a) it is popular with tourists who have an interest in wildlife;(b) not being a specific crocodile site it produces no bias in that tourists who are

both attracted and repelled by crocodiles would be found;(c) the facilities within the Park included a cafeteria which was comfortable and

was a location where people would sit and spend some time. Initiatingconversation was thus easy.

The interviews were carried out in March 1997. This is early in the NorthernTerritory’s main tourism season, but had the advantage that there was a steadytrickle of visitors and noise levels in the cafeteria were never high. Conversationwas again ‘easy’ for this reason, and people were not rushed. After an initialquestion to ascertain whether possible respondents were visitors to the Territory,the researcher introduced himself.

The phenomenographic approach to research has been described by Ryan(forthcoming) as a post-positivist mode of research as its ontology andepistemology assumes a consensus external reality which can be discovered bythe researcher. It is a non-directive conversational mode of research whereby theresearcher seeks to ascertain the underlying structures of attitude through askingrespondents to clarify and give examples of their main responses to the questionsasked. The mode of questioning and its concerns are more fully discussed byMarton (1994) and Bowden and Walsh (1994).

The purpose of this research was to assess the structure of visitor attitudestowards crocodiles. The reason for this study was that it was a pilot study relatingto tourist interaction with, and impacts upon, crocodiles with particular referenceto the Adelaide River systems as described above. As noted, this research isfunded by the Co-operative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism and formsbut part of wider Australian national study being conducted in the period1998–2000.

Essentially the interview consisted of simply four questions. First therespondent was asked to describe the Top End of the Northern Territory. Thepurpose of this question was to assess the extent that crocodiles featured inpeople’s imagery of the Top End. Second, respondents were asked whichattractions in the Top End were the most appealing to tourists — again thepurpose was to assess how frequently those featuring crocodiles would bementioned. The third question asked the visitors to describe their feelingstowards crocodiles, and then finally they were asked whether they had, orintended to visit attractions featuring crocodiles. At the completion of theinterview respondents were given an A4 sheet of typed text which explained thatthe study was a pilot study to determine key phrases for a subsequentquestionnaire. This information in itself often elicited further responses, but theseadditional comments do not form part of the data analysed below.

The sample consisted of 20 males and 30 females. Twenty-eight came from


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

parts of Australia outside of the ‘Top End’ and 22 were overseas visitors. Of these,eight were from the United Kingdom, four from Switzerland, three fromGermany, three from Sweden, two from Eire and one from each of Japan and Fiji.The sample was a convenience sample. However, it should be noted that the datawere raised from 80% of the tourists who visited the cafeteria during the fourdays of the research with the exception of bus parties. These last were omittedfrom the sample because they were subject to a time schedule which precludedlong conversations. The interviews took anything from 5 to 25 minutes, with amedian of 12 minutes. Analysis of the responses indicated little differencebetween overseas and Australian visitors and the results reported below are forthe total sample.

When asked to describe the Territory only two respondents made unpromptedmention of crocodiles. However, another two made further references to wildlife.When prompted they mentioned birds and not crocodiles. Descriptions of theTerritory were couched in terms of it being ‘hot’ and ‘humid’, but also of it being‘awesome’, ‘spacious’, ‘vast’, ‘different’, ‘big’, ‘lush’, and ‘barren’. It was totallydifferent to anywhere else, it retained still the sense of being a frontier, albeitpopulated by a friendly people. It was a ‘young’ place in many senses — thepopulation was young, it was not a sophisticated mature place, its communitieswere ‘new’.

However, when asked which locations within the Top End were the mostattractive for tourists, crocodiles began to emerge as an unprompted response.Excluding the Wildlife Park, which was referred to by most respondents as anexcellent attraction, the most popular locations were Litchfield National Park andKakadu National Park, each being mentioned 28 times. Darwin was mentioneda total of 14 times, either simply generally or with reference to its markets,museum or wharfside. Katherine Gorge (based in another National Park) wasmentioned six times. However, quite unprompted respondents spoke aboutspecific crocodile attractions like Crocodylus Park (five mentions), the CrocodileFarm (three mentions) and the Adelaide Jumping Crocs Cruise (two mentions).A further four respondents made a general reference to crocodiles. Thus, of the50 respondents, a total of 14 made unprompted comments about crocodiles as atourist attraction. Another three made general references to the wildlife of theregion, while three respondents interpreted the question as not meaning specificlocations but spoke of the naturalness of the region, its sunsets, scenery andbeauty. One German respondent spoke of the National Parks and then went onto say ‘and there are many other places, but I won’t tell you as you will want topromote them and then spoil them’.

The visitors were then asked their feelings about crocodiles. One of the mostcommonly used words to describe crocodiles was ‘prehistoric’ in that over a thirdof respondents used this word. However, the most common reaction, with aseries of different words being used, was that they were scary, dangerous,ferocious, and fearful. As one respondent put it ‘we are on their menu and Iwouldn’t want to be near one when it was hungry’. Yet this same respondent alsocommented that ‘¼ they can be gentle, they take their young in their mouths —they can distinguish between caring and eating’. Another said ‘don’t go too closeto them, I wouldn’t want to be attacked in the bush’. Another said ‘I hate ’em —


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

they should all be shot — they have wreaked the swimming areas — I wouldn’twant to be visited by one when I was swimming’. Another respondent describedthem as ‘mean, terrifying, exciting, vicious and angry’.

This last comment covers the theme adopted by a number of respondents —while frightening crocodiles commanded respect and awe. Hence the commonuse of the term ‘prehistoric’ — as one respondent stated, ‘they were toughsurvivors from a prehistoric age’. They were ‘primeval, awesome creatures’. Forothers they were ‘fascinating’. One respondent said ‘I find them abhorrent —they’ve been around a long time — a good survivor and it is fascinating to seeone’. Another stated they were ‘quite majestic’.

One way of attempting to assess these data is to try to establish relationshipsbetween the phrases and words. All of the text was typed into a computer andused as raw data for analysis using CATPACTM software. This is a piece of neuralnetwork software used to establish patterns within written text. It proceeds bypermitting the user to define ‘windows’ of text and allocates to words a weightingwhich becomes part of an interconnection with other words within the ‘window’.For more technical explanations see Serota et al., (1978) Lieman (1992) and Woefeland Stoyanoff (1994). The text was edited carefully to concentrate on that part ofthe conversation that referred specifically to crocodiles, that is comments relatingto other aspects of the Northern Territory were deleted. A second stage editingwas then undertaken to remove pause marks and to concentrate the text to beanalysed on the adverbs and adjectives being used. This was undertaken becausea purpose behind the research was to obtain key descriptors that could beincorporated into a subsequent questionnaire. It should be noted that this practiceis not normally engaged in and must be done with care. A centroid clusteringmethod was selected to emphasise the difference between clusters and theprogram was set to work on the most common 20 unique words. The centroidmethod was used because it is not sensitive to outliers and is appropriate whereshort chains of relationships are sufficient. The method represents objects by theircentroids (the centre of gravity of the points) and is based on Euclidean distance.A dendogram was produced as shown in Figure 2.

The dendogram groups the words ‘dangerous’, ‘large’ and ‘scared’ together.Another cluster appears to emerge between ‘alone’ and ‘prehistoric’ and linksacross to text including the words ‘awesome’, ‘amazing’, and ‘ferocious’. A seriesof words like ‘go’ ‘want’ and ‘wouldn’t’ cluster together and these emanate fromthe text when people were describing the fact that they would not wish to be nearcrocodiles or go too near to them.

The next stage was to return to the full text and begin to examine it for thepurpose of developing a perceptual map. This was undertaken using theperceptual mapping techniques described by Barnett and Woelfel (1979). Figure3 represents a two-dimensional mapping of the data derived from a dendogrambased on the most commonly used 20 keywords. The analysis for this paper wasrestricted to 20 keywords for the purpose of generating uncluttered diagrams,but, as discussed below, other analyses were completed. The perceptual mapdiffers slightly from the dendogram in that logarithmic scales were used. Thewords ‘dangerous’, ‘ferocious’, ‘large’ and ‘scared’ relate closely to each other.The ambivalence discussed previously shows with the clustering of the words


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

‘scary’ and ‘amazing’, while the prehistoric heritage which generates respect isclearly seen in the bottom right hand cell of the diagram. As in common in textualanalysis a ‘clutter’ of words emerge and in Figure 3 they relate to the ‘not wantingto be near one’ theme, although the word ‘vicious’ also emerges.

The analysis was conducted with an increasing number of keywords. That is,the text was subjected to mapping by increasing the number of words to be usedby drawing in those words less frequently used by respondents. As is to beexpected the amount of ‘clutter’ increased but one or two further points of interestemerged. Notable among these was the emergence of the word ‘Dundee’. Thisreflects the film ‘Crocodile Dundee’. In the editing of the text the word ‘crocodile’was deleted from this film title as possibly causing a confusion, but the word‘Dundee’ was retained as a signifier of the film. However, it is difficult toimmediately conclude that the Northern Territory still benefits from this film.The film, starring Paul Hogan, was released in 1986, that is over 11 years ago.

Figure 2 A dendogram: centroid clustering method


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

What might be prompting the mention is that at Adelaide River, a smallcommunity south of Darwin on the Stuart Highway (the main route to Darwin),a local tourist attraction is ‘Charlie the Water Buffalo’. This animal was used inthe film and is famous for its very large horns. It might be that many touriststravelling north are having a memory triggered by this attraction, and thus willmention the film as an evocation of the Territory. Word association brings it tothe fore when discussing crocodiles in the Territory. The map that emergedimplied that the association, if this is what is happening, further reinforces theimage of the crocodile as a dangerous creature.

Finally, the respondents were asked whether they would visit a crocodileattraction. Of the 50 respondents six stated ‘no’ and one ‘was not sure’. Theremaining 43 respondents provided 49 answers as shown in Table 1. Of those notwishing to go to a crocodile attraction one said, ‘I like seeing the crocodiles in thewild but I wouldn’t go to a tourist attraction — that’s something else — its notnatural’. Among the comments made about the ‘Jumping Crocs Cruise’ were ‘I’dgo to the Jumping Crocs, but no other’, ‘I’d go to the Jumping Crocs — but it isn’treally the way to see them though’ and ‘I’d go to the Jumping Crocs — I don’tlike zoos’. Another said ‘I suppose people would go to the Jumping Crocs — butits a side show really’. Fewer comments were made about Crocodylus Park, butsuch comments tended to recognise the educational aspects of the Park.

Figure 3 Two dimensional perceptual map of crocodiles


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

DiscussionIt appears that there is some support for the model proposed in Figure 1, but

the model is incomplete in that it fails to capture the ambivalence felt by touristsabout crocodiles — the fact that people are fascinated by a creature that isrepellent to many because of its potential threat to humans. What also emergesis the respect felt by many towards a creature which has survived for aeons — itis a living link with the prehistoric. These themes might be of use to operators indevising brochures.

What the research also uncovered was a second form of ambivalence — andthat was to the nature of attractions based on crocodiles. There were, among thecomments of a minority of respondents, a feeling that while the Jumping CrocsCruise was of interest, it had perhaps a bit too much of the circus about it. Somepeople felt uneasy about the way crocodiles were prompted to ‘perform’ forphotograph taking tourists. The fact that this is felt by at least a segment of touristsis of interest for the next stage of the research. This is being designed to linkattitudes towards crocodiles with more general environmental issues. In 1994and 1997 surveys of environmental knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviourswere undertaken in New South Wales (EPA, 1997), and the results will providea comparative base for the forthcoming research. Certainly the result seems tosupports the contention made by Braithwaite et al., (1996) that there exists ademand for wildlife within a natural, unspoilt and authentic environment.Products which do not meet these criteria may cause some dissatisfaction. Sucha feeling is of interest in that it supports Orams’s arguments that educativeapproaches can bring about attitudinal change with behavioural implications —that is, these visitors would not visit this particular sight (Orams & Hill, 1996).Hence this study may have implications beyond its immediate geographicallocation and concerns.

If this is the case then it can only mean that while greater stress upon naturalenvironments might occur if tourists wish to view wildlife there exists a potentialsub-sector who may be prepared to mitigate their role as spectators ateco-tourism sites (Ryan, forthcoming). The issue thus may arise as to how strongare the environmentally aware feelings of tourists — will they be strong enoughto deny themselves the opportunity to view creatures like crocodiles? Canperhaps operators capitalise on this by offering substitute learning products like

Location Number of mentionsJumping Crocs Cruise 16Crocodylus Park 14Crocodile Farm 11Kakadu — Yellow Waters 6Shady Camp 2Cairns 1See ’sweetheart’ in museum 1

Note: ‘Sweetheart’ is a preserved large saltwater crocodile featured in the Darwin Museum.

Table 1 Crocodile locations mentioned


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Crocodylus Park? The answers to such questions are important to the develop-ment of a wildlife management and tourism programme, and such questions willbe within the domain of future studies by the Co-operative Research Centre forSustainable Tourism in Australia. For example, the author is currently undertak-ing a study that seeks to assess levels of environmental awareness using the NEPscale with attitudes to wildlife tourism and actual visit behaviours. If it appearsthat visitors are prepared to mitigate their activities out of a sense of concernabout the environment, then it might mean that the concerns expressed by Butler(1990) and Wheeller (1991, 1993) as to eco-tourism extending and not mitigatingenvironmental stress may need to be reconsidered.

AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to thank the Research Office of the Northern Territory

University for a small grant to undertake this work, and to Professor Greg Hillof the University and the CRC for Sustainable Tourism for the provision offurther funds to continue this research.

CorrespondenceAny corrrespondence should be directed to Chris Ryan, Tourism Programme,

Waikato School of Management, The University of Waikato, Hillcrest Road (Gate7), Private Bag 3015, Hamilton, New Zealand ([email protected]).

ReferencesAlbert, D.M. and Boyer, R.T., (1991) Factors related to grizzly bear–human interactions in

Denali National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19, 339–349.Baker, J.E. (1997a) Development of a model system for touristic hunting revenue collection

and allocation. Tourism Management 18 (5), 273–286.Baker, J.E. (1997b) Trophy hunting as a sustainable use of wildlife resources in southern

and eastern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5 (4), 306–321.Barnett, G.A. and Woelfel, J. (1979) On the dimensionality of psychological processes.

Quality and Quantity 13, 215–232.Bowden, J.A. and Walsh, E. (1994) Phenomenographic Research: Variations in Method — the

Warburton Symposium. Melbourne: RMIT.Butler, R.W. (1990) Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan Horse? Journal of Travel

Research 3, 40–45.Braithwaite, D., Reynolds, P. and Pongracz, G. (1996) Wildlife Tourism at Yellow Waters —

Final Report. CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Darwin and Northern TerritoryUniversity, Darwin.

Cooke, K. (1992) The Crocodile Club. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Cuthbertson, M. (1993) A database for environmental research programme. Journal of

Environmental Management 37, 291–300.Davis, D., Banks, S., Birtles, A., Valentine, P. and Cuthill, M. (1997) Whale sharks in

Ningaloo Marine Park: Managing tourism in an Australian marine protected area.Tourism Management 18 (5), 259–272.

Duffus, D.A. and Dearden, P. (1990) Non-consumptive wildlife oriented recreation: Aconceptual framework. Biological Conservation 53 (4), 213–231.

EPA NSW, (1997) Who cares about the environment in 1997? EPA Social Research Series,Environmental Protection Agency, NSW.

Heron, P. (1991) The institutionalisation of leisure: Cultural conflict and hegemony. Loisiret Société 14 (1), 171–190.

Hill, G.J.E. (1995) Remote sensing, GIS, and the CRC for sustainable development oftropical savannas: What are the implications for Northern Australia? Proceedings of the


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

2nd North Australia Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems Forum, 18–20 July,Darwin.

Kelly, G.D. and Hill, G.J.E. (1987) Updating maps of climax vegetation cover with LandsatMSS data in Queensland, Australia. Photogramm‘etric Engineering and Remote Sensing53 (6) 633–637.

Lieman, J. (1992) Using a neural network (CATPAC) to map the conceptual structure ofverbatim responses. Paper presented at the Advanced Research Techniques Forum ofthe American Marketing Association, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.

Marton, F (1986) Phenomenography — a research approach to investigating differentunderstandings of reality. Journal of Thought 21 (3), 28–49.

Marton, F. (1994) Phenomenography. In T. Husén and T.N. Postlethwaite (eds) TheInternational Encyclopaedia of Education (pp. 4424–4429). Oxford: Pergamon.

Minnesota Ducks Unlimited (1998) Mission Statement, http://www.mtn.org/mndu/.Orams, M.B. (1996) A conceptual model of tourist–wildlife interaction: The case of

education as a management strategy. Australian Geographer 27 (1), 39–51.Orams, M.B. (1997) Historical accounts of human–dolphin interaction and recent

developments in wild dolphin based tourism in Australasia. Tourism Management 18(5), 317–326.

Orams, M.B. and Hill, G.J.E. (1996) Controlling the eco-tourist in a wild dolphin feedingprogram: Is education the answer? Journal of Environmental Education 16 (1), 3–8.

Prosser, M. (1994) Some experiences of using phenomenographic research methodologyin the context of research in teaching and learning. In J.A. Bowden and E. Walsh (pp.31–43) Phenomenographic Research: Variations in Method — the Warburton Symposium.Melbourne: RMIT.

Randall, B. (1997) Hunting crocs. In K. Reed-Gilbert (ed.) Message Stick — ContemporaryAboriginal Writing (p. 62). Alice Springs: Jukurrpa Books.

Ryan, C., Hughes, K. and Chrigwin, S. (forthcoming) ‘The gaze’, spectacle andecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research.

Ryan, C. (forthcoming) Tourist experiences, phenomenographic analysis, post-postivismand neural network software. The International Journal of Tourism Research (formerlyProgress in Tourism & Hospitality Research).

Serota, K., Cody, M., Barnett, G. and Taylor, J. (1978) Precise procedures for optimizingcampaign communication. In B. Ruben (ed.) Communication Yearbook I (pp. 425–442).New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Shackley, M. (1996) Wildlife Tourism. London: International Thomson Business Press.Voss, N. (1997) Hand torn off in croc attack. Sunday Territorean, 9 November.Wheeller, B. (1991) Tourism’s troubled times: Responsible tourism is not the answer.

Tourism Management 12 (2), 91–96.Wheeller, B. (1993) Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (2), 121–129.Woefel, J. and N.J. Stoyanoff (1994) CATPAC: A neural network for qualitative analysis

of text. Paper presented at the Australian Marketing Research Association, Melbourne.


ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wai

kato

] at

00:

30 0

5 Se

ptem

ber

2015

Documents

Saltwater Crocodiles as Tourist Attractions