This article was downloaded by: [University of Waikato]On: 05 September 2015, At: 00:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

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

Who Likes SaltwaterCrocodiles? Analysing Socio-demographics of ThoseViewing Tourist WildlifeAttractions Based onSaltwater CrocodilesChris Ryan & Kylie HarveyPublished online: 29 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Chris Ryan & Kylie Harvey (2000) Who Likes SaltwaterCrocodiles? Analysing Socio-demographics of Those Viewing Tourist WildlifeAttractions Based on Saltwater Crocodiles, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8:5,426-433, DOI: 10.1080/09669580008667377

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667377

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

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 in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand 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

0:29

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Who Likes Saltwater Crocodiles?Analysing Socio-demographics of ThoseViewing Tourist Wildlife Attractions Basedon Saltwater Crocodiles

Chris RyanUniversity of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

Kylie HarveyNorthern Territory University, Darwin, Australia

Saltwater crocodiles are a popular tourism attraction throughout Northern Australia.But who are they popular with? Past research has indicated ambiguous feelingstowards crocodiles, with some people fascinated by them and others disliking them(Shackley, 1996). Are there any specific correlations between wishing to see saltwatercrocodiles and other variables? This research note examines some of those other vari-ables, notably socio-demographics, preferences for other wildlife attractions likedolphin watching, and sensitivitytowards environmental issues.As predictedby Ryan(1998) an inverse relationship between dolphin watching and crocodile viewing isfound. Males are found to be rather more disposed towards crocodiles as a touristattraction, but little relationship exists between visitor statements on a measure ofenvironmental sensitivity(the New Environmental Paradigm1) and their behaviours orattitudes towards crocodiles as a protected species that are used as a wildlife touristattraction.

Ryan (1998) reported that saltwater crocodiles form an important component ofthe natural attractionsoffered by the Northern Territory of Australia as part of itstourism product. Garnett (1991) argues it is tourism that is giving crocodiles theirgreatest value. Braithwaite et al. (1996) noted in their study of the Yellow Watersof Kakadu National Park that a key determinant of visitor satisfaction was thenumber of crocodiles seen by those travelling on the waters by boat. Among theother Northern Australian tourism products that feature crocodiles areCrocodylus Park, the Crocodile Farm, the Northern Territory Wildlife Park, andthe Jumping Crocs Cruise. The accompanying photographs also illustrate someof the features to which Ryan (1998) alluded in terms of the image being used todraw attention to trips, cafés, restaurants and other attractions (Figures 1–3).

Ryan also formulated a hypothesis that the appeal of wildlife as an attractionis based on varying dimensions and that, from interviews, it appeared thatreptiles like saltwater crocodiles are treated with a mixture of awe, fear andgrudging respect as survivors from the period of the dinosaurs. They representan opposite end in a continuum that at the other end is represented by seamammals like dolphins. These, he argued, elicit other responses as dolphins areperceived as being intelligent, friendly, engaging in human-like activities likecuriosity and play, with the end result that many visitors would wish to swimwith and possibly touch them. These attributes are not allocated to saltwatercrocodiles. Figure 4 is extracted from his paper. Shackley (1996) contends that0966-9582/00/05 0426-08 $16.00/0 © 2000 C. Ryan & K. HarveyJOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM Vol. 8, No. 5, 2000

426

Research Note

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to]

at 0

0:29

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15

there are ambiguous feelings towards crocodiles, with some people fascinatedby them while others express deep dislike.

The issue that this research note addresses is whether species of wildlife areadjudged to be so far apart in image that they might actually appeal to differenttypes of visitors.

A questionnaire was devised which sought data as to how many trips respon-dents had made to various types of wildlife-based attractionsand how attractivewere such destinations to them. A seven-point scale was used where seven repre-sented the highest level of attraction.Crocodiles and dolphins were listed amongthese features. Additionally, respondents’ environmental sensitivity wasmeasured through incorporating the New Environmental Paradigm question-naire (New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, 1997) and lastlysocio-demographic data were elicited. A usable sample of 2334respondents whoreplied to a survey posted to 7000 adult Australians who lived in Queensland,New South Wales and South Australia was collected. All of the sample had madea visit to Kakadu National Park within the three years prior to the survey and

Research Note 427

Figure 1 Boxing crocodile at restaurant on the Arnham Highway

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to]

at 0

0:29

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15

thus were assumed to have an interest in wildlife and natural areas. Of the 2334respondents, 964 were male, 1352 were female and 18 respondents did notprovide details of their gender. Sixty-six per cent of the sample was married orhad a permanent partner. Sixteen per cent had a child below the age of ten years,and 13% had children between 11 and 16 years of age.

Of the sample, 352 respondents had seen crocodiles in natural settings (asdistinct from a crocodile farm) in the 12 months prior to completing the question-naire and a further 916 had seen crocodiles in natural settings at some other timein the past. This meant that 54% of the sample had actually seen crocodiles. Inaddition the question was asked whether respondents would wish to see croco-diles in a natural setting at some future time. To this question, 620 answered inthe affirmative. Of these, 6% had already seen crocodiles at least twice in anatural setting.

A total of 2103 respondents replied to the Likert-type scale item on how attrac-tive crocodiles were as a tourist attraction. Based on these scores, those who hadseen crocodiles were divided into three categories. Those scoring six and seven

428 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Figure 2 Another advertising feature on the Arnhem Highway

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to]

at 0

0:29

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15

on the scale were labelled ‘crocodile likers’, those scoring between three and fivewere labelled the ‘indifferent’ and finally those who scored one or two werelabelled the ‘crocodile dislikers’. Table 1 shows the results of an analysis of cate-goricaldata using chi-squared tests and contingency testing where the frequencyof observations of ‘crocodile liking’ was distributed across socio-demographicvariables.

From Table 1 it seems, from the …2 statistic, that socio-demographic variablesare of importance with specific respect to crocodiles. Looking more closely at thevariables it was found that 66% of the crocodile ‘dislikers’ were female whereasin the other two categories the sexes were much more equally divided. However,given the bias within, and size of the sample, as shown in Table 1, contingencytesting was undertaken. Cramer’s V test implies that there is little degree of asso-ciation between the two variables and indeed the Goodman and Kruskal taustatistic had a value of 0.009.

Again, with reference to Table 1, the role of marital status was examined.Among the ‘crocodile dislikers’ 60% indicated they had a permanent partner,

Research Note 429

Figure 3 The jumping croc, much featured in advertising material

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to]

at 0

0:29

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15

among the ‘crocodile likers’, 74 percent were married or in a permanent relation-ship. Again, however, the Goodman and Kruskal lambda test indicates littleassociation(tau = 0.009).The presence or absence of children in a family was not adiscriminatory factor, but age was. ‘Crocodile likers’ were found to beover-represented among the over 50s (…2 = 20.1, p = 0.0004). This age groupformed 18% of the total sample but 28% of the ‘crocodile likers’. Among the ‘croc-odile dislikers’, as might be expected, this age group was under-represented,forming but 14% of this sub-sample. When examining the variable ‘educationallevel’, it was found to possess a relationship with ‘age’ where …2 = 95.7,df = 32, p <0.001, and the over 50s were found to be significantly under-represented amongthose with university qualifications. Accordingly, and as confirmed by theCramer V statistic, educational attainment was deemed not to be a discrimina-tory variable in attitude formation, partly because it was not an entirely inde-pendent variable.

Does ‘liking’ crocodiles translate into above average sightseeing of crocodileattractions? Looking at frequency of visit in the 12 months prior to the question-naire no significant difference existed between the ‘likers’, ‘dislikers’ and ‘indif-

430 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

SafeDolphin x

Human Un-HumanOrientated

Gorilla x‘Saltie’ x

Dangerous

Figure 4 Classifications of wild-life appeal.Source: Ryan (1998).

Table 1 Crocodile liking by socio-demographic variables

Variable Chi-squaredstatistic

Degrees offreedom

Cramer’s V Probabil-ity

Gender 21.43 2 0.099 0.00002Marital status 18.82 2 0.093 0.00008Children under 10 present in family 1.33 2 0.025 0.51411Children 10–16 present in family 0.28 2 0.004 0.98564Age-grouping 45.44 18 0.103 0.00036Level of education 27.04 8 0.081 0.00069

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to]

at 0

0:29

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15

ferent’ (p = 0.48) with reference to visitation patterns. Looking at past trips intotal, crocodile ‘dislikers’ scored the lowest mean figure, but not at statisticallysignificant levels (p = 0.11).

Examining data derived from the results recorded on the New EnvironmentalParadigm, it was found that the dispersion of crocodile ‘likers’, ‘indifferent’ and‘dislikers’ was not randomly distributed across cluster groups derived from acluster analysis of the scale …2 = 38.04, df = 8, p < 0.001). However, it was alsofound that these cluster groups were not entirely independent of thesocio-demographic variables already indicated and thus no independent rela-tionship between environmental scores, socio- demographics and attitudestowards crocodiles appeared to exist.

The final part of the analysis was to examine Ryan’s contention that crocodilescould be opposed to dolphins as an attraction. This contention was assessed byseeing whether those attracted to dolphins displayed any significantly differen-tiated group characteristics when compared to those strongly attracted to croco-dile wildlife attractions. At first sight it certainly appears that the two speciesattract different market segments with little overlap as is illustrated in Table 2,which shows the distribution of visits made to dolphin and crocodile sites withinthe last year.

Thus Table 2 shows that of the sample, 1820 made no visits to either a crocodileor dolphin site. Of those who made two or more visits to a crocodile site, 81% (n =39) made no visits to a dolphin site. Of those who made one visit to a crocodilesite, only 18% visited a dolphin site. Of the sample who visited dolphins, only28% visited a crocodile site. However, while the table may be a measure ofinterest it is not conclusive because factors like differing opportunities to visitdolphin or crocodile sites depend in part on the geographical distribution of holi-days.

The market for dolphin trips was examined using the same criteria as for croc-odile sites. Gender, age or the presence of children between the ages of 11 and 16were not discriminatory items. Education was shown not to have been randomlyallocated across the matrix of education and visitation rates (…2 = 16.4, df = 8, p =0.036). This pattern was seemingly caused by those with post-graduate andschool-leaving qualifications being over-represented among those making twoor more visits a year. Again the sub-sample of those showing the highest level ofinterest and visitation rates in dolphins was isolated and examined to see if itrepresented any significant market segment that could be identified fromsocio-demographic variables. Overall no patterns of any great significance were

Research Note 431

Table 2 Visitation patterns to dolphin and crocodile sites

No visits todolphin sites

One visit to adolphin site

Two or morevisits to a

dolphin siteNo visits to a crocodile site 1820 142 20One visit to a crocodile site 248 47 9Two or more visits to a crocodile site 39 9 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to]

at 0

0:29

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15

the last 12 months showed that families with children under 10 have a tendencyto higher levels of trips to see dolphins. When the data for trips for over the lastthree years were examined, families with young children emerged to havehigher visitation rates at significant levels (p < 0.05).

Thus, it can be concluded from this evidence that any attempt to distinguishbetween market segments on the basis of Ryan’s conceptualisation of thedifferent types of appeals of wildlife is weak when considering socio- demo-graphics and past visitation patterns. On the other hand there is an inverse rela-tionship between visitation rates to crocodile sites and dolphin sites – peoplewho visit crocodile sites more than average tend to have a below average rate ofvisitation to dolphin sites, and vice versa. Given that for this sample both types ofsites generally require travel over significant distances, the respondent’s loca-tion, while important, is not wholly responsible for this relationship. However,the two market segments are not clearly distinguishable by socio-demographicvariables. On the whole little distinguishes visitors to dolphin-based attractionsother than the possible presence of children under the age of 10 years. On theother hand it was found that crocodile sites, for some unknown reason, tend toappeal more to married males over 50 years of age. Use of a scale designed tomeasure the levels of sensitivity to environmental issues failed to offer a means ofdiscrimination. In short, conventionalmarketing segmentation techniques basedon socio- demographic variables offer no insights for the marketing of wildlifeattractionsbased on these two species, or in helping researchers understand theirappeal. It might also be of significance that a scale designed to measure environ-mental sensitivity seemingly had no discriminatory power in predicting visita-tion patterns among those visiting wildlife attractions, and this needs to beexamined in more detail. A third finding is that crocodiles do interest people, forof the sample 76.8% had seen or wanted to see crocodiles. Indeed 6% of thesample had seen crocodiles more than twice in the past and indicated a willing-ness to see crocodiles again in the future.

Ryan’s original diagram was based upon a phenomenographic technique ofresearch. The current authors would suggest that if tourist expectations of, andsubsequent behaviours at wildlife attractions, are to be understood, researchersneed to engage in such research techniques in order to establish scales that mayhave reliability across wild-life attractions based on different species and activi-ties.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would wish to thank in particular the Co-operative Research

Centre for Sustainable Tourism for funds to undertake this work, the universitiesof the Northern Territory University, Australia and Waikato, New Zealand forother resources (including time), Professor Greg Hill of the School for Biologicaland Environmental Sciences and Professor Terry DeLacey for continued support(especially when budgets ran out) and to Wildlife Management Interna-tional/Crocodylus Park, Darwin, Australia, for continued expert help onmatters relating to crocodylus porosus. Finally the useful comments of the refereesare also acknowledged.

432 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to]

at 0

0:29

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Professor Chris Ryan, Waikato

Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, NewZealand (caryan@waikato.ac.nz).

Note1. The New Environment Paradigm has been widely used in environmental, parks and

recreation management and education circles, particularly in North America. For adiscussion within a framework of Business Administration Education see Ryland(1998) ‘Greening’ business education: Teaching the paradigm. Journal of ManagementEducation 22 (3), 320–343.

ReferencesBraithwaite, D., Reynolds, P. and Pongracz, G. (1996) Wildlife Tourism at Yellow Waters –

Final Report. Darwin: CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Darwin and NorthernTerritory University.

Garnett, S. (1991) He could be your uncle from former life: He is certainly the best way toput the bite on the tourist dollar. GEO RAOU, 31–41.

New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (1997) Who Cares About TheEnvironment in 1997? EPA Social Research Series. Surry Hills, NSW: New South WalesEnvironment Protection Authority.

Ryan, C. (1998) Saltwater crocodiles as tourist attractions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(4), 314–327.

Shackley, M. (1996) Wildlife Tourism. London: International Thomson Business Press.

Research Note 433

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

aika

to]

at 0

0:29

05

Sept

embe

r 20

15