This article was downloaded by: [University of Strathclyde]On: 04 October 2014, At: 17:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Ecotourism and conservation: factorsinfluencing effective conservationmessagesSheila Peake a , Peter Innes a & Pam Dyer aa Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences , University of theSunshine Coast , Queensland, AustraliaPublished online: 14 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Sheila Peake , Peter Innes & Pam Dyer (2009) Ecotourism and conservation:factors influencing effective conservation messages, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17:1,107-127, DOI: 10.1080/09669580802276000

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669580802276000

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Sustainable TourismVol. 17, No. 1, January 2009, 107–127

Ecotourism and conservation: factors influencing effectiveconservation messages

Sheila Peake∗, Peter Innes and Pam Dyer

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia.

(Received 5 November 2007; final version received 21 May 2008)

Environmental education and interpretation have largely focused on individual mech-anisms (e.g. cognitive processes) leading to intention and behavioural change. Lesshas been said about the role of the situation and communication processes betweentour guides and tourists in ecotourism experiences. This paper examines the role ofinterpreters and individuals as jointly influencing the effectiveness of communicatingconservation messages. A survey of over 1500 visitors was undertaken to ascertain thefactors crucial to whether visitors received a conservation message in an ecotourismsetting. The results indicate a three-tier effect: individual characteristics, specificallyrespondent’s age, were initially important. The second tier represents the impact ofconservation-related information from the tour guide/interpreter. This information actsas a stimulus to the third and most crucial tier of influence – visitor empowerment. Thetertiary stage comprises a two-way communication process that influences a positiveconservation message. The process involves the interpreter suggesting positive conser-vation action that translates into what we term “a locus of responsibility” for the visitorand subsequent higher levels of satisfaction. All of these drive effective communicationof conservation message comprehension.

Keywords: conservation; ecotourism; interpretation; locus of responsibility; whale-watching

Introduction

Recently, the study of the impact of humans on environments has led researchers to focuson a range of environmental, economic and social issues critical to long term sustainability.Ecotourism, occurring most often in protected areas such as National Parks and WorldHeritage sites, is a good example of the interface between the social and the environmental.We focus our research on Hervey Bay, an area of coastal Queensland, Australia, because itis an important environment in the life cycle of the humpback whale (Megaptera novaean-gliae) (Vang, 2002). Hervey Bay is a seasonal Marine Park managed by the QueenslandParks and Wildlife Service (QPWS). It is this location that supports a whale-watchingindustry and local community, which, in turn, is a substantial source of support, both fi-nancially and politically, for the conservation of the humpback whale species (Wilson &Tisdell, 2003). We remind readers that the humpback whale is still listed as vulnerable inQueensland (DEH, 1997) and endangered in the rest of Australia and worldwide (Common-wealth of Australia, 1999). A commitment to the sustainability of the humpback whale andits associated ecotourism industries require that we understand the factors that facilitate, orindeed hinder, the effective understanding of conservation values.

∗Corresponding author. Email: speake@usc.edu.au.

ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 onlineC© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09669580802276000http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

108 S. Peake et al.

Our research examines the communication of conservation messages in an ecotourismsetting where individual and situational elements interact to influence visitors’ understand-ing of conservation. To meet the terms of their licenses, commercial tour operators inHervey Bay must provide visitors with education/interpretation about the whale-watchingexperience with a focus on whale conservation in the interests of a sustainable industry.However, Ballantyne and Uzzel (1999) and others (Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001; Turner& Speedie, 1999) have noted that small business tour operators often have different prior-ities from those of the overseeing management agency driven by their need for economicviability. However, tour operators also have a responsibility to meet their permit conditionsand assist in the protection of the resource that has led to the disparity between principlesembodied in ecotourism policies and guidelines and practice in real settings (Muhlhausler &Peace, 2001; Weaver, 2004). What is important, then, is the examination of communicationin real settings. Here we ask, “What role do tour guides play, if any, in the effective commu-nication of conservation messages?”. Additionally, unlike much of the ecotourism researchliterature, we include the notion of the “other” in communication and ask, “What visitorcharacteristics are influential in the process of understanding conservation messages?” Thispaper presents one aspect of a much larger study that used both qualitative and quantitativemeasures to investigate the communication and understanding of conservation messagesin an ecotourism setting. The qualitative research examined tour guide communicationthrough interviews, guide questionnaires and observations, to assess guide characteristicsand skills, content, techniques and interpretive media used. The findings of the researchare reported elsewhere (Peake, 2007). The second part of the larger study, which forms thebasis and contribution of this paper, involved a survey of visitors to ascertain the influencesof individual conservation outcomes.

Therefore, while we focused on the broad process of effective conservation commu-nication, in the context of whale-watching, we specifically focus this research on thoseinfluences that increase individual understanding of conservation messages. We focusour review of the literature on ecotourist/visitor attributes and situational factors thatcomprise important elements of the process of communication which, in turn, influence anindividual’s understanding of whale conservation messages.

Literature review: communication and conservation

Interpretation is widely accepted as the most effective means to communicate in leisuresettings (Archer & Wearing, 2003; Green & Hayward, 1998; Ham, 1992; Markwell & Weiler,1998; Orams, 1994; Uzzell & Ballantyne, 1998; Weiler & Ham, 2001), which according toTilden (1977) should result in a conservation outcome. A number of communication theoriesoften used to understand interpretive communication were considered in this research,together with others that address the situational context. These theories included those froma psychology focus such as the cognitive map theory (Hammitt, 1981; Kaplan, 1978; Orams,1997), cognitive dissonance and affective domain (Orams, 1997), the elaboration likelihoodmodel of communication (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), the schema theory (Anderson, 1977;Derry, 1996; Widmeyer, 2004), the theory of reasoned action (Ham & Krumpe, 1996) andthe theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1992; Ham & Weiler, 2004). Additionally, othertheories such as those focused on constructivism (Piaget, 1970), socio-cultural theoriesincluding social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and situational learning (Quay, 2003) wereconsidered. Thus, the research considered a wide array of interacting factors that potentiallyimpacted in different ways on the visitors’ understanding of a whale conservation message.We have structured this as individual attributes and characteristics of the whale-watching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 109

visitor and the influence of the situation, including the influences of the tour guide, thewildlife and other visitors.

Visitor attributes

Research into visitor attributes in tourism settings has varied greatly in both consistency andfocus. Some aspects have been investigated in depth, such as demographics, attitudes andinterpretation impact, while others are rarely addressed. Research taking a broad approachto the motivations and attitudes of ecotourists indicates that they are distinctive. Eco-tourists have specific motivations centred on first-hand experience of natural environments,and often already possess a positive environmental attitude (Beaumont, 1998; Eagles, 1992;Hvenegaard, 1994; Lee & Moscardo, 2005; Wright, 1996). The specific ecotourism researchon travel motivation, knowledge and previous experience provides a complexity and constel-lation of factors yet to be examined in any study on effective communication of conservationmessages. In the literature, motivation is accepted as an important component of wildlifetourism. The motivation to travel may be to escape from everyday life, for self-development,solitude, excitement and adventure (Archer & Wearing, 2003; Ormsby, Moscardo, Pearce,& Foxlee, 2004; Packer & Ballantyne, 2001), to address feelings of personal inauthentic-ity (Kim & Jamal, 2007; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006) or derive from an anthropomorphicattraction to animals (Bentrupperbaumer, 2005; Curtin, 2005; Sandford, 1997). However,the larger work on motivation to travel, specifically choice of tour, reveals that there is nosimple common aspect (Beaumont, 1998; Eagles, 1992; Moscardo, 2000; Orams, 2000;Ormsby et al., 2004; Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001; Shackley, 1996). Prior knowledgeand previous experience have been found to influence the expectations and focus ofvisitor requirements (Bryan, 1977; Dearden, 2006; Duffus & Dearden, 1990; Lehto,O’Leary, & Morrison, 2004; Ormsby et al., 2004), environmental knowledge and be-haviour (Neil, Orams, & Baglioni, 1995a; Thapa, Graefe, & Meyer, 2005), satisfaction(Ham & Weiler, 2007; Moscardo, 2001) and conservation attitude (Beaumont, 1998; Dyck,Schneider, Thompson, & Virden, 2003; Thapa et al., 2005). While the extant research intoattitudes and motivation presents a complex portrait of those characteristics, which visi-tors bring with them into ecotourism settings, individual affective components are oftenresponses that occur at the point of experience.

Affective components of visitor attributes are much more difficult to grapple with,because by their nature, they are dynamic and co-dependent on context. Emotion has beenshown to be a major component in wildlife tourism, especially for charismatic megafaunasuch as whales, whale sharks and dolphins (Amante-Helweg, 1996; Brown, 2000; Curtin,2005; Davies, 1990; Kals, Schumacher, & Montada, 1999; Orams, 2000). These en-counters evoke a strong emotional response in the people (Curtin, 2005; Davis, Bank,Birtles, Valentine, & Cuthill, 1997; Forestell & Kaufman, 1990; Muloin, 1998; Schanzel& McIntosh, 2000; Valentine, Birtles, Curnock, Arnold, & Dunstan, 2004), eliciting emo-tional descriptors such as “peace, calm, grace and beauty” from visitors. These naturalsituations may be viewed by the visitor as representing object authenticity as a more real,unique experience, rather than a contrived one such as witnessed at feeding stations, zoosand aquaria (Rokicka, 2002). This perceived “realness” as experienced in whale-watchingmay also allow people to feel a part of the natural world, exposing them to experience their“real self”, through a deeper emotional connectivity with nature (Orams, 2002; Reynolds &Braithwaite, 2001). While emotions elicit a reaction to an experience, the process by whichindividuals experience satisfaction moves yet further into co-dependence on the context ofthe experience.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

110 S. Peake et al.

Satisfaction can be viewed as playing a dual role in individuals’ ecotourism experiences.While satisfaction may be treated as an outcome of an experience or as a result of effectivecommunication of a conservation message, it can also be viewed as a precursor to the effec-tive understanding of conservation values. Satisfaction may be a consequence of pleasure,happiness, fulfilment for having taken part in an experience, and therefore accomplishes avisitor’s emotional and hedonistic expectations (Kim & Jamal, 2007; Steiner & Reisinger,2006). However, satisfaction may also be viewed as removed from an emotional focus, andmay derive from a meta-awareness based on empowerment (Knapp, 1995) or existentialauthenticity (Heidegger, 1996) to develop what we term a “locus of responsibility” in thevisitor. Locus of responsibility (Grace, 2004; Lalwani & Duval, 2000; Weiss, 1939) is aconcept of responsible action stemming from a perceived locus of control (Ballantyne &Packer, 1996; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Hungerford & Volk, 1990) wherebyindividuals perceive that their actions can make a difference. We suggest that satisfactiongenerated by an experience such as whale-watching, which accommodates both the cog-nitive and affective aspects, may empower individuals to take some responsibility for, andcontribute to, whale conservation. The reported high satisfaction levels found in tourismresearch in general (Curtin, 2005; Duffus & Dearden, 1990; Muloin, 1998; Orams, 2000;Ormsby et al., 2004; Schanzel & McIntosh, 2000; Valentine et al., 2004) might be ex-plained by the nature of the experience in leading the individual to satisfy both hedonisticand higher cognitive needs. Our locus of responsibility refers to a potential outcome fromthe whale-watching experience (i.e. Maslow’s self-actualisation). Thus, we see satisfactionas a direct precursor to the understanding of conservation messages and any potential futurepositive attitudes and behavioural intention in relation to whale conservation.

Again, the research literature presents a complexity in which affective components,like satisfaction, are related to other attitudes, motivations and individual characteristicsof the ecotourist. These include motivation, prior knowledge, previous experience, age,crew service and tour guide interaction (Beaumont, 1998; Cottrell, 2003; DiEnno & Hilton,2005; Dyck et al., 2003; Neil et al., 1995a; Ormsby et al., 2004; Rokicka, 2002; Thapaet al., 2005). Research into visitor satisfaction in tourism settings has been identified as apotential factor in attitude change and is assumed to lead to positive conservation outcomes(Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001; Weaver, 2004). However, the link between satisfaction andconservation message comprehension has not, to our knowledge, been investigated.

Finally, individual attributes may take the form of characteristics, otherwise labelled as“demographics”. While most studies tend to measure age, few address this substantially.Age has been shown to have marginal effects on visitor learning. Despite reported significanteffects of age-grouping (Lothian, 2002; Lukas & Ross, 2005; Moscardo, 1999; Moscardo& Pearce, 1986), research into the age-related effects on learned conservation knowledgeshows no consistent or linear effect which might be expected if age reflected cumulativelyincreasing benefits of experience. Gender, in most tourism research, is often reported asa statistic of percentage of the total population (see Lehto et al., 2004; Moscardo, 2001;Muloin, 1998; Orams, 2000; Ormsby et al., 2004; Salter, 2002; Saltzer, 2002; Stewart,Hayward, & Devlin, 1998; Tourism Queensland, 1998; Valentine et al., 2004), but other-wise not often used specifically to explain key processes or outcomes. Among those rarestudies which did address the role of gender, Saltzer (2002) found that gender was relatedto visitor satisfaction, Priskin (2003) found gender had little effect on visitors’ percep-tions of environmental impact, and Lehto et al. (2004) found no influence of gender onany of the constructs tested. Finally, the visitor’s place of origin is more complex thanother demographics because it is a proxy for diverse cultural differences. Visitors’ placeof origin has been found to influence motivation in destination choice (Lehto et al., 2004;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 111

Tourism Queensland, 2006a, 2006b), the way in which visitors use the environment (Green-wood & Moscardo, 1999; Ormsby et al., 2004), visitors’ environmental awareness and atti-tudes (Lee & Moscardo, 2005; Priskin, 2003); and visitors’ levels of satisfaction (Moscardo,2001). In all, visitor attributes more or less represent individual, as in demographic charac-teristics, or co-dependent indicators, as in emotion and satisfaction with attitudes.

Situation and context

Situational environments often depend upon the nature of the phenomena under study. Ininterpretation research, elements of the situational environment have been shown to play arole in learning and overall satisfaction with the experience. These situational influencesinclude crew service (Orams, 2000; Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001; Valentine et al., 2004),tour guide qualities and skills (Ham, 2002; Ham & Weiler, 2007; Weiler, 1999; Weiler &Ham, 2001), and interaction (Beaumont, 1998; Cottrell, 2003; DiEnno & Hilton, 2005;Dyck et al., 2003; Neil et al., 1995a; Ormsby et al., 2004; Rokicka, 2002; Thapa et al.,2005) and the interpretation offered and the messages received (Ham, 1992; Markwell,2001; Orams, 1994; Tilden, 1957; Weiler, 1999, 2001). Additionally, the influence of thewildlife interaction on the visitor (Amante-Helweg, 1996; Bentrupperbaumer, 2005; Curtin,2005; Forestell & Kaufman, 1990; Muloin, 1998; Sandford, 1997; Schanzel & McIntosh,2000) needs to be considered by researchers.

As a crucial contribution to the study of the understanding of conservation messages, itis our thesis that effective communication be studied as a product of visitor attributes and,importantly, situation/context. Thus, a range of concepts identified in the literature reviewwere operationalised in this survey research. The full set of measures used are presented inthe method section, specifically in Table 1.

Therefore, this paper presents the findings of how individual and situational factorspotentially influence the messages visitors understood as a result of their tour. We regardthe understanding of conservation messages, in relation to whale-watching ecotourism, asa potential precursor to positive conservation attitudes and behaviour. In this research, wenarrow our focus to the individual and situational factors which influence the individual’sunderstanding of conservation messages.

Model and research questions

What is apparent, when considering the literature reviewed, is the dominance in focus onindividual attributes in ecotourism research. While such focus might be a natural prod-uct of disciplinary standpoint (e.g. psychology), our focus on communication necessitatesan incorporation of situational or context measures, including tour guide interaction withtourists. However, we fall short of widening the focus of our research to include thosespatial–physical concepts of environmental psychology (see Stoklos & Altman, 1987).Further, by bringing into the sphere of analysis those contextual interactive components,we are open to a potentially richer understanding of the dynamics of communication im-portant in interpretation research (see Figure 1). As noted, some visitor characteristicsare co-dependent on the situation (see area C in Figure 1). As articulated in our review,satisfaction may play a dual role, but the extent that visitors are enriched and grow fromthe ecotourism experience may, in part, be facilitated by the efforts of the tour guidein the translation of conservation values. Thus, our research aims to develop and test amodel regarding the factors that link visitor and situational environments to positive con-servation outcomes and potentially influence attitude and behaviour change (Ajzen, 1991;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

112 S. Peake et al.

Table 1. Operationalization of concepts: survey questions and measurement.

Focus Measurement level and type

Visitor

DemographicOrigin Nominal – four category (Australian/State;

overseas/country)Age Ordinal – four category (18–25; 26–41;

41–55; >56)Gender Nominal (male, female)

Attitude/personal attributesMotivation for coming to Hervey Bay Nominal – three category (holiday; whales;

friends/family)Previous experience in whale-watching Nominal (yes/no) plus five-category ordinal

scale (1; 2; 3; 4; >4)Preference for a qualified tour guide Nominal (yes/no)Prior knowledge Ordinal – four category (a lot; some; not

much; nothing)Most interesting aspect of tour Open responseAttitude change to whales Nominal (yes/no) with open response

explanationAttitude change to wildlife Nominal (yes/no) with open response

explanationBest/worst aspect of tour Open responseOverall satisfaction Ordinal – five-point Likert scale

Situational environment

Tour guide influenceTopics presented on tour

(whale behaviour, whale biology, whaling, whywhales come here, conservation, management,impact of boats on whales)

Nominal (yes/no) – seven variables based onEPA education directive for the industry

Topics not presented that visitors indicatedshould bePresentation of information (audio visual,books/brochures, talk by guide, conversationwith crew/guide, from other visitors, other)

Open response

Visitor rating of tour guide skills(knowledge, speaking skills, presentation ofinformation, interaction with visitor)

Nominal (yes/no) – six variables

Perceived threats to Hervey BayAvailability of conservation informationon the tourSuggested conservation action by the tour guide

Four categories tested with five-point Likertscale

Influence of information Open responseNominal (yes/no) with open responseexplanation

Overall impression of the tour guide Nominal (yes/no)

General tour influenceVisitors interaction with crew

(friendliness, helpfulness, knowledgeof whales, other)

Nominal (yes/no) with open responseexplanationOpen responseFour categories tested with five-pointLikert scaleOpen response

Best/worst aspects of the tour

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 113

Table 1. Continued

Focus Measurement level and type

Whale experienceNumber of whales sighted

Closeness of whalesOrdinal – three category (1–4; 5–10; >10)

Ordinal – four category (Beside boat; lessthan 10 m; 10–20 m; >20 m)

Emotion generated by seeing whales(amazement, joy, sadness, fear, other)Influence of interaction

Nominal (yes/no) – five category, with openresponse commentNominal (yes/no)

Figure 1. Overall model: factors influencing visitor conservation message comprehension.

Fishbein & Manfredo, 1992; Ham, 1983; Ham & Weiler, 2004; Lee & Moscardo, 2005;Orams, 1996). The model is not designed to replace the existing theories of communica-tion. Rather it may be viewed as complementary to, and not inconsistent with, the theoryof planned behaviour by providing further insight pertaining to potential influences on be-havioural intention through the specific outcome of conservation message comprehension.Figure 1 represents the visitor, situation and overlapping co-dependent aspects as impactingon the understanding of a conservation message (Box D). Thus, we have identified visitorattributes along the tripartite attitude/motivation, emotion/satisfaction and demographic,alongside of situational elements (see Box B in Figure 1) of boat and tour guide interactionand experience. We regard those individual characteristics overlapping between the indi-vidual, Box A, and the context, Box B, as individual emotion/satisfaction dependent onsituation with the corresponding Box C in Figure 1.

In summary, the contribution of this research is in examining, sequentially, the followingquestions.

(1) To what extent do demographic characteristics explain the understanding of con-servation messages?

(2) Beyond visitor attributes, to what extent, if any, do situational/context factorsexplain the understanding of conservation messages?

(3) Beyond demographic attributes and situational contexts, what contribution, if any,do attitude/motivation and emotion/satisfaction have on explaining the understand-ing of conservation messages?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

114 S. Peake et al.

Methodology

This study focused on testing the significance and strength of the influence of three groupsof individual and context factors on the understanding of a conservation message amongecotourists. The research approach draws upon the testing of identified concepts in the extantliterature over a large sample of individuals engaging in whale-watching. The geographiclocation of Hervey Bay was chosen as it houses the largest and longest established humpbackwhale-watching industry of its kind in Australia, with over one million boat-based touristsviewing whales since 1987 (EPA, 2005). The whale-watching season extends from 1 Augustto 31 October each year. In that time, the Hervey Bay tour operators have an exceptionalopportunity to convey whale conservation messages.

The primary methodology employed in this research aims to test relationships be-tween identified factors/concepts and conservation message comprehension. To this end,the method uses self-completed surveys, as is frequently used in tourism and social scienceresearch, as a tool for gathering large amounts of information (Moscardo, 2001; Muloin,1998; Saltzer, 2002; Tourism Queensland, 1998; Valentine et al., 2004; Weaver, 2001). Thissurvey research involved an “on boat” visitor survey with questions designed to collectboth qualitative and quantitative information.

Questionnaire design

The survey design employed a number of closed questions, scaled questions and openquestions to extract the affective elements of the experience. Questions were designed to testthe overall model (Figure 1) to ascertain the impact of the independent variables comprisingdemographic characteristics, attitudes and personal attributes, tour-guide-related measures,their contextual overlap as an emotional reaction to, and satisfaction with, the interactionwith whales and finally the dependent message types received (Bradburn, Seymour, &Wansink, 2004; Peterson, 2000; Procter, 1993; Punch, 2003; Rokicka, 2002; Sarantakos,2005; Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). Specifically, the model and questionnaire (Figure 1,Table 1) comprised 49 variables based on two broad categories: the visitor (16 measures)and the situation (30 measures) and several questions (3) in relation to the dependentvariable: extent of conservation message or outcome.

These variables included, in the case of the latter two, operational forms of questionssuch as “What key message did you get from today’s tour?”, “Was there any information onwhale conservation?” and “Did your guide suggest any action you could take to help protectwhales?”. The dependent variable was developed from coding emerging thematic categories(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) from an open-ended question, “Whatkey messages did you get from today’s tour?”. In this research, we focused on the themescoded in the dependent variable on one hand, on individual understandings of conservationvalues (specifically with respect to whales) in addition to that of purely information andknowledge content.

Our dependent variable focusing on comprehension of conservation, over and aboveinformation, may be useful as a precursor to those effects that cause attitudinal and be-havioural intentions (see theory of planned behaviour). Coding the 1519 responses resultedin three primary themes reflecting three contrasting message outcomes: (1) no message,(2) information and (3) conservation message. Two other categories emerged comprising5.4% of the total 1519 responses. These specifically related to enjoyment and the boat. Theuse of qualitative methods in coding allowed for the research to identify those respondentswho indicated conservation messages in contrast to information about whales (or no mes-sage at all). In analysing the impact of visitor and situational variables on understanding of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 115

conservation message, the sample size necessarily reduces to those 794 individuals (52%of the total sample) split between information (335) and conservation (459) message types.

Furthermore, marginal levels of missing data on the visitor and situational independentvariables result in a final sample of 678 (86% of those reporting information or conservationmessages) for the multivariate analyses. This information was used to investigate theunderstanding of a conservation message and specifically identify factors most influentialin the communication dynamic.

Data collection and response rate

Survey data were collected from eight whale-watching boats, on four separate occasions,over the three-month whale-watching season in 2005. These eight boats represented theentire population of commercial whale-watching boats in operation. Each boat was given atotal of 400 surveys to distribute, across four time periods, over the season. Of the surveysdistributed (N = 1550), a very high response rate of 98% resulted. The agreement andassistance of the distribution and collection of surveys by the boat crew, often considereda constraint (Valentine et al., 2004), and the nature of the isolation and length of timerespondents experienced on whale-watching boats maximised the response rate. Whileit is impossible to assess the extent to which the convenience sampling presents a biasin our data (through voluntary completion or systematic attrition), the 98% response-rateminimises the impact of any such bias. Furthermore, our accessible population targeting thestrong whale-watching industry in Hervey Bay is potentially reflective of wider theoreticalpopulations of whale-watching in Australian and overseas, and more broadly, of ecotourismof other types.

Sample characteristics

The population of whale-watching visitors sampled (N = 1519) in 2005 was mainlyAustralian (71.4%), with only a small number from overseas (28.6%). International visitorscame from 29 countries, the majority from Europe. Australian visitors, over the season,were predominately from Queensland (57.5%), New South Wales (NSW) (22.2%) andVictoria (12.6%), with the remainder (7.7%) from the other five states and territories. Ofthe Queensland visitors, 34.45% were from the local region (from Caloundra to Bundaberg).The majority of visitors (86.1%) were relatively evenly distributed across all age cohortsexcept the 18–25 group that was marginally under-represented at 13.9%. This under-representation of the 18–25 age cohort is common in whale-watching tourism (Muloin,1998; Neil, Orams, & Baglioni, 1995b; Tourism Queensland, 1998). The modal gender wasmarginally female (55.9%).

Data analyses

In testing the impact of multiple independent variables on the conservation message out-come, a multivariate logistic regression was used. Logistic regression is used over linearregression because the dependent variable, understanding of a conservation message, was adichotomous (binary) measure (Kleinbaum & Klein, 2002). The logistic regression also hasthe advantage of having few distributional assumptions required for formal testing of the re-lationships between the independent and dependent variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).However, it should be noted that statistical assumptions were met. Specifically, the ratioof cases to variables, including adequacy of cross-tabulated independent variables on thebinary outcome were high, possibly due to relatively fewer ordinal and nominal groupings

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

116 S. Peake et al.

in all variables (see Table 1); no inflation of standard errors in relation to coefficients werefound (highest was 0.261), indicating a lack of multicollinearity, and no individual scoresimpacted adversely on the regression coefficients (e.g. no individual SDF Betas were greaterthan ±/0.026), as indication of an absence of multivariate outliers. Preliminary bivariateanalyses helped to reduce the number of variables used in the multivariate modelling from49 variables to 15 – this initial reduction is useful in increasing the stability, generalis-ability and parsimony of the final model (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000). The multivariatelogistic regression modelling is presented in two stages. Initially, a simultaneous entryplaces all 15 independent variables into the model. Second, a blocked method of enter-ing the 15 independent variables by grouping in the conceptual model, such that fixedindividual demographic characteristics are entered first (Box A in Figure 1), followed bysituation-context variables (Box B in Figure 1), followed finally by individual factors thatare situation-dependent (overlap Box C in Figure 1). The advantage of using this secondstep is to provide detail on the additional significance and contribution, if any, subsequentgroupings of independent variables have on the conservation message outcome. WhileR squared and −2 log-likelihood (−2LL) are reported for each of the three multivariateblocks, three further assessments of goodness-of-fit are provided in Table 4: first, a Wald testof a model without predictors (null) for the initial step, with step chi-squared significancefor each block thereafter; second, the Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit statistic(Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000, p. 147); and third, a calculation assessing the significance ofany reduction (change) in −2LL. Such statistics are provided in order to show if the modelfit or successive blocks improves the overall model fit (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Results

Univariate and bivariate

The results are broken into two sections, an initial focus on the message types and bivariateanalysis, followed by the presentation of the multivariate logistic model.

Results indicated 42.4% of all respondents received no message, 30.2% received aconservation message and 22.1% received general information about whales (Figure 2).

To examine the significance of sample time, boat sub-sample, origin of visitor and in-dividual age cohort against the conservation message, initial bivariate chi-squared analyses

0

10

20

30

40

No message Conservation Whale

information

Enjoyment

% R

esp

on

ses

Figure 2. Types of messages received by whale-watching visitors to Hervey Bay.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 117

Table 2. Significant relationships between selected variables and outcome message.

Dependent: conservation message

Statistical sig. Direction of effect

Time surveyed NSBoat χ 2 = 50.025∗∗∗ df = 14 ↑Boats 5 & 7OriginO = Overseas, A = Australian χ2 = 19.696∗∗∗ df = 2 O = 23.4%, A = 35.4%Age (yrs) 18–25, 26–40,

41–55, >56χ 2 = 50.030∗∗∗ df = 6 >40 yrs = 75% <41 = 45%

Attitude to whales NSAttitude to wildlife Y =

change N = no changeχ 2 = 14.179∗∗ df = 4 Y = 62%, N = 56%

Significance: ∗ = p < 0.1; ∗∗ = p < 0.05; ∗∗∗ = p < 0.01.

are presented in Table 2. The results indicated both origin and age were significantly relatedto the message visitors received. Differences between boats included size and various waysof marketing services. However, analysis revealed that, in common, Boats 5 and 7 – fea-tured in Table 2 – had higher visitor rating of guide-suggested actions and enthusiasm thanthe other boats. Differences in levels of such factors are useful, rather than confounding,in providing variability in the independent variables. Overseas visitors were less likely toreceive a conservation message (23.4%) compared to Australian visitors (35.4%). In part,this may be due to an interaction between overseas visitors and a younger cohort, or maybe due to confounding through language and cultural barriers. Visitors over the age of 41years (75%) were the most likely to receive a conservation message as compared to youngervisitors (45%). As age potentially interacts with overseas/Australian origin and is a keyelement of the multivariate model, its role will be discussed following the presentation ofthe logistic regression results.

Changes in visitor attitude when tested against the understanding of a conservationmessage indicated a general attitude change to wildlife but not specifically to whales.This is both interesting and somewhat expected. A global positive attitude change towardswildlife underscores the potential for conservation messages in specific ecotourism settingsto permeate into other areas of conserving internal values and activities. The non-significantresult with respect to attitudes to whales and the extent of understanding of a conservationmessage is most likely a result of commitment to see whales by purchasing and participatingin the specific whale-watching activity itself.

Multivariate analysis

Two tables of results are presented here. A simultaneous method of entering all 15 indepen-dent variables was followed by a sequential “blocked” approach that uses a logical entry ofgroups according to the developed overall model.

The simultaneous logistic regression results confirmed five key factors from the original15 as continuing to remain significant (see Table 3). These included demographics (age),topics covered by the tour guide (whaling and conservation) as well as the tour guideand tour influence (suggested conservation action) and visitor satisfaction, which may beconsidered an individual and tour/context influence.

Next, the sequential model enters succeeding groups of independent variables intothe multiple logistic regression. Specifically, three blocks of variables, each aligned with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

118 S. Peake et al.

Table 3. Simultaneous multivariate analysis to test for effect on conservation message.

Independent Variables B Exp (B) Sig.

Visitor demographics and attributes

Origin 0.132 1.142Age 0.191 1.211 ∗∗

Emotion 0.453 1.573

Situational environment

Learning through audiovisual 0.183 1.201Topics covered – whaling 0.382 1.466 ∗∗

Topics covered – why whales come here 0.319 1.376Topics covered – conservation 0.379 1.461 ∗

Topics covered – management −0.001 0.999Topics covered – boat impact −0.218 0.804Guide rating – knowledge −0.149 0.862Guide rating – speaking skills −0.088 0.916Guide rating – presentation −0.125 0.883Guide suggest conservation action 0.501 1.651 ∗∗∗

Information/interaction 0.119 1.126

Visitor/situational

Overall satisfaction 0.400 1.492 ∗∗

Constant −2.094Nagelkerke R2 0.097Chi 46.032∗∗∗

−2LL 794.19N 615

Significance: ∗ = p < 0.1; ∗∗ = p < 0.05; ∗∗∗ = p < 0.01.

groups/boxes in the overall model (see Figure 1) are entered. The sequential multiplelogistic regression results are presented in Table 4, including a rejection of the null model(p < 0.001); non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow statisics and significant reductionsin the −2LL over blocks. The presentation of the results occurs in three blocks, startingwith the left-hand columns containing age only. The sequential model builds incrementally,with the addition of the second block, noted in the middle columns (block 2), followed bythe addition of the final variable with the full model presented in the right-hand columns(block 3). The results identified that two of the five factors remained significant at the99% confidence level, and three at the 95% confidence level. The two significant factors(p < 0.01), which affected visitors’ receiving a conservation message, were age and theeffect of the tour guide suggesting conservation action. The other factors that influencedmessage comprehension (p < 0.05) were visitor satisfaction and the topics of whaling andconservation.

The significance of age remained strong throughout the model. Consistent with thebivariate logistic and simultaneous regression, results showed the probability of receivinga conservation message increased with age grouping. The addition of subsequent blocksenables the researcher to gauge the impact of variables outside of, and beyond theindividual’s age.

The strength of the association of the model was indicated by the Nagelkerke R2 value.This value is based on log-likelihoods and is adjusted taking into account the samplesize. Where significant variables are added over subsequent blocks, the change in R2 wasexamined to gauge the relative increase in strength of the model.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 119

Tabl

e4.

Log

isti

cre

gres

sion

ofva

riab

les’

effe

cton

cons

erva

tion

mes

sage

.

Blo

ck1

Blo

ck2

Blo

ck3

Inde

pend

entv

aria

bles

BE

xp(B

)S

ig.

BE

xp(B

)S

ig.

BE

xp(B

)S

ig.

Vis

itor

dem

ogra

phic

s

Age

0.20

91.

232

∗∗∗

0.21

1.23

∗∗∗

0.21

31.

237

∗∗∗

Sit

uat

ion

alen

viro

nm

ent

Topi

csco

vere

d–

wha

ling

0.33

1.40

∗∗0.

366

1.44

2∗∗

Topi

csco

vere

d–

cons

erva

tion

0.42

1.53

∗∗∗

0.38

11.

464

∗∗

Gui

desu

gges

ted

cons

erva

tion

acti

on0.

531.

70∗∗

∗0.

488

1.62

9∗∗

∗

Vis

itor

/sit

uat

ion

al

Ove

rall

sati

sfac

tion

0.37

41.

454

∗∗

Con

stan

t−0

.291

−1.0

33−2

.023

Test

ofnu

llm

odel

(Wal

d)14

.331

∗∗∗

NA

NA

Nag

elke

rke

R2

0.01

40.

071

0.08

13C

hi7.

119∗∗

∗36

.891

∗∗∗

42.3

8∗∗∗

Cha

nge

inR

2(S

tep

Chi

)N

A0.

057∗∗

∗0.

010∗∗

−2L

L±

919.

6989

4.96

9∗∗∗

884.

43∗∗

Hos

mer

&L

emes

how

Goo

dnes

sof

Fit(

df)

1.89

0(1

)7.

819

(8)

7.68

5(8

)N

678

Sig

nifi

canc

e:∗ =

p<

0.1;

∗∗=

p<

0.05

;∗∗∗

=p

<0.

01.

± Sig

nifi

canc

eof

chan

gein

−2L

Lfr

ompr

evio

usbl

ock

repo

rted

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

120 S. Peake et al.

Discussion

This research examines three key elements salient in the communication of conservationvalues. Our model comprised relatively fixed demographic characteristics, situational vari-ables related to tour guide interpretation which form an important part of the context ofecotourism experiences and those individual attitude/motivation and emotion/satisfactionfactors, which, in part, depend on the person in an ecotourism setting. What is interestingabout posing these three elements is that they represent increasingly abstracted layers thatform interdependencies in any explanation of effective communication of conservationvalues. For example, age appears to interact with the country of origin, as well as the tourboat choice, which is arguably, in part, determined by nationality and age-related serviceprovision and marketing. We sought to first enter demographic variables into our sequentialmodelling not only to understand its explanatory power, but also to both control for suchinfluences and look beyond it to the role of those individual and situational attributes presentin the interpretation literature. Our research questions are sequentially structured in thisway.

The first research question asks, “To what extent do demographic characteristics explaineffective communication of conservation messages?”. In our analyses, only the age of therespondent was significant, such that the older the individual, the greater the potential foreffective conservation message comprehension. This might suggest that older individualshave greater prior knowledge, and certainly our data suggests such a relationship (45%of 18–25 years: 78% of >56 years had prior knowledge). However, not only did priorknowledge not bear out in the bivariate or multivariate analyses in predicting effective con-servation messaging, the relationship between age cohort and experience was the reverse ofthat with prior knowledge (78% of 18–40 years compared with 62% of the >56 years grouphad experience). Potentially, such results suggest an intersection between age cohorts orgenerations: older generations have greater prior knowledge (older) while younger cohortsexhibited greater experience, potentially from greater patterns of consumption and mobil-ity. While we cannot discount the impact of age, those interrelationships do not simply,or directly, impact on effective conservation message comprehension. Despite the statis-tical significance, the strength of the relationship between age and effective conservationmessage comprehension was quite weak, explaining only about 1.5% of the variation ofsuccessful conservation message comprehension. Again, we reiterate the usefulness of asequential model in examining the impact of subsequent variables while controlling forother fixed effects.

The first additional impact examined, over individual demographics, what was un-derscored in interpretation research as those characteristics marked by the situation andcontext. In the sequential modeling, there was over a four-fold jump in the explanatorypower when situation/context factors were added. Our related research question asked,“Beyond visitor attributes, to what extent, if any, do situational/context factors explaineffective communication of conservation messages?”. The results indicated that three mea-sures, including two developed around the content of the message, and another mea-sure, guide-suggested conservation action, were significant. It is interesting to note thatthe latter factor was the most powerful, both within the situational/context factors, andover all possible independent variables. These crucial impacts suggest a key contribu-tion to the understanding of communication of conservation values. Specifically, whileknowledge content alone has an impact on conservation message comprehension, it is theframing of such knowledge as “problematic” and the processes underpinning empower-ment that are most effective in the successful communication of conservation messages.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 121

These results imply further investigation of the cognitive and social psychological pro-cesses (e.g. cognitive dissonance, elaboration likelihood, theory of planned behaviour),underpinning effective communication of conservation messages would be beneficial. Fi-nally, we turn to the impact of individual attitude/motivation and emotion/satisfactionattributes.

Our final research question asked, “Beyond demographic attributes and situationalcontexts, what contribution, if any, do attitude/motivation and emotion/satisfaction have onexplaining understanding of conservation messages?”. Only one measure was significant,specifically, Overall satisfaction. In terms of the strength of the relationship, the contributionwas relatively weak. This measure is featured last because it is most complex in thepossible interrelationships with other levels. Satisfaction might drive conservation messagecomprehension as much as it could be its cause. We cannot resolve this matter in this paper,but can say that whatever the case, satisfaction is useful in the constellation of measuresfound to spring from the individual in an information and value-rich context. As such, wecan argue that satisfaction is both an outcome and cause of those inter-dependencies whichfind individuals at the cusp of effective conservation message comprehension. Where thetour guides have an important role to play in the positioning and framing, as interpretation,of understandings, the experience of the setting is empowering to the extent that it resonateswithin the individual.

Synthesis and model

So, how do we break down the mechanism of effective communication of conservationmessages? In this study, we worked with three tiers of effect. Initially, age was important.However, its status is not clearly established in this research. While such age-related trendshave been indicated in other research, few have asked why there are so few youngervisitors on these types of tours. Given that, of the 1519 respondents, 86.1% were 26 yearsand older, our complex and contrary interactions with experience and knowledge urgesfurther investigation. Beyond this first tier, we develop some interesting contributions tounderstanding the dynamic of effective communication of conservation messages in whatwe regard as an ecologically valid research setting.

Our second and third tiers locate the role of information, value-context and individualrealisation in driving effective conservation message comprehension. For example, tourguide information, through topics presented, is coupled with specific whale conservationactions. While these represent planned “one-way” communications, they act as a stimulantby providing building blocks with which visitors achieve a sense of value-in-context.While the topic of whaling affords the visitor an insight into the vulnerability of theseanimals and the potential for decimation, information about whale conservation and itsstronger grounding in the suggested conservation actions, provide the visitor with theconnection between their own actions (roles) and the wider beliefs (values) from whichwhale conservation can emanate. While not directly measured in this study, the interactionbetween the tour guide and the visitor suggests the basis of individual empowerment. Inthe context of whale conservation and ecotourism experiences, we recast the final tieras visitor’s “locus-of-responsibility”. As such, the final tier is marked by the salienceof individual satisfaction, consistent with much research in ecotourism settings (Ham &Weiler, 2007; Harriot, 2002; Moscardo, 1996a, 1996b, 1999; Moscardo & Pearce, 1986;Pearce, Moscardo, & Woods, 1997). However, a case can be made for such satisfactionas indicative of higher level cognitive awareness (motivations), such as self-actualisation(Maslow, 1998). What is somewhat convincing is the absence of emotion as a significant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

122 S. Peake et al.

Visitorcharacteristics(AGE = Knowledge)

Satisfaction

Context (Tour guide providesproblem and solution)

Conservationmessage

Figure 3. The mechanism behind effective communication of conservation messages.

predictor of effective communication of conservation. It is interesting, in this regard, toconsider the dynamic of the communication of conservation as one which transcends anotherwise one-way transaction into visitor transformation. The interaction between the threelayers or tiers is presented diagrammatically in Figure 3.

The utility of our model, of effective conservation communication, rests somewhat ona balance of limitations with the methodology and method employed. First, the samplerepresents a 98% response rate of the sample frame, helping to highlight the potential ofthis research to avoid at least those systematic biases inherent in low or moderate response-rate survey research. Therefore, we should underscore the ecologically valid setting andthe additionally strong claim to representativeness of results, notwithstanding validity ofthe instrument. Turning, second, to the validity of the instrument, we regard our researchas embryonic in addressing interpretive communication. Clearly, the role of tour guides inan ecotourism context is in driving the kind of transformative processes in visitors crucialfor the sustainability of our natural resources and its associated industries. In this paper, weilluminate only a part of a dynamic that focuses on some measured aspects of the processesunderlying the dynamic of the communication of conservation.

Our models, at best, explain around 10% of the variation in effective communication ofconservation message comprehension. There is much remaining to be explained. Therefore,our empirical work, as much a matter of the measurement instruments as a synthesis ofa communication model, can only be regarded as a partial contribution. We hope that theepistemic advantages with high response-rate surveys will now be used to generate newthreads for future research, some of these to which we have already alluded. For example, wehold in high regard the utility of qualitative methodologies, including those of the analysisof discourse in legislation and in conservation settings, as further exploring and elaboratingknowledge around the communication of conservation.

Implications and conclusions

The role and efforts of tour guides form an important part of the inter-locking dynamics ofconservation communication and value transmission. In short, they make a difference.

Our results show that the tour guide’s framing of conservation action is crucial to theeffective understanding of conservation messages among our sample of ecotourists. Withthe greater share of the explanation of effective comprehension of conservation message

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 123

among ecotourists, the strategic role of tour guides should not be underestimated by touroperators or relevant government agencies. For boat operators, our model suggests that therole they, and their tour guides, play in conservation is important to both business and tonatural resource sustenance. Furthermore, operators must work through their employees inmeeting government and agency requirements. In turn, often under-resourced governmentagencies need to understand this balance in stakeholder interests. Consequently, we raisethe question: to what extent can operators, most often of small and medium enterprises,successfully engage in strategic recruitment and selection, and further training and develop-ment of their tour guides? Moreover, despite the strong motivation and conscientiousness ofowner operators, they have considerably less time and resources to enhance their necessaryinterpretation/communication skills.

Perhaps more importantly, the evidence we present most highly suggests the groundednature of conservation communication in the individual experience and situational contextbut crucially in their intersection. We reject firmly any stance which regards individuals, andtheir experiences in ecotourism, as merely epiphenomenal, that is, as one-way experiencesof physical phenomena. As reinforced by Tilden (1977), our paper orients the effectivecommunication of conservation towards a holistic consideration of interpretation and inter-action. We view the ecotourist as having potential to develop, and as incumbent of, a sharedresponsibility for the conservation of our natural fauna and flora, resources in which weall have a stake in sustaining. Furthermore, the changing agenda of contemporary debatesof climate change have most certainly now become as much about contesting norms andvalues as about scientific evidence. In this paper, we have opened the issue of conservationmessaging to individuals as participatory, experiential and emergent in contexts. Particu-larly, we draw attention to the role of interpretation by tour guides in the empowermentof individuals who will carry the burden of resource exploitation or the benefits of itssustenance.

Notes on contributor/sDr. Sheila Peake is a lecturer in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of the SunshineCoast, Australia. Her research focus is on environmental communication, specifically conservation intourism and leisure settings. Sheila extends this research focus with a specific interest in the formationof attitudes, beliefs and behaviour about the environment.

Dr. Peter Innes is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of theSunshine Coast, Australia. His research focus is in organisational change and research methods.

Professor Pam Dyer is Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of theSunshine Coast, Australia. Being a geographer, her research interests span a range of issues at theinterface of human natural and built environments.

ReferencesAjzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision

Processes, 50, 179–211.Ajzen, I. (1992). Persuasive communication theory in social psychology: A historical perspective. In

M. Manfredo (Ed.), Influencing human behaviour. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.Amante-Helweg, V. (1996). Ecotourism, beliefs and knowledge about dolphins and the development

of cetacean tourism. Aquatic Mammals, 22, 131–140.Anderson, R. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion

of the conference. In R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro, & W.E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and theacquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

124 S. Peake et al.

Archer, D., & Wearing, S. (2003). Self, space, and interpretive experience: The interactionism ofenvironmental interpretation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 8(1), 7–23.

Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (1996). Teaching and learning in environmental education: Developingenvironmental conceptions. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(2), 25–33.

Ballantyne, R., & Uzzel, D. (1999). International trends in heritage and environmental interpretation:Future directions for Australian research and practice. Journal of Interpretation Research, 4(1),59–75.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Beaumont, N. (1998). Promoting pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours through ecotourism:

That’s the theory but does it happen in practice. Brisbane: Ecotourism Association of Australia.Bentrupperbaumer, J. (2005). Human dimension of wildlife interactions. In D. Newsome, S. Moore,

& R. Dowling (Eds.), Wildlife tourism (pp. 82–112). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.Bradburn, N., Seymour, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to ques-

tionnaire design. New York: Wiley.Brown, R. (2000). Contemplating the emotional component of learning: The emotions and feelings

involved when undertaking an MBA. Management Learning, 31(3), 275–294.Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure, value systems and recreational specialization: The case of trout fishermen.

Journal of Leisure Research, 9, 74–187.Commonwealth of Australia. (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999. Canberra, Australia.Cottrell, S. (2003). Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible

environmental behaviours among recreational boaters. Environment and Behaviour, 35, 347–375.

Curtin, S. (2005). Nature, wild animals and tourism: An experiential view. Journal of Ecotourism,14(1), 1–15.

Davies, M. (1990). Wildlife as a tourism attraction. Environments, 20(3), 74–77.Davis, D., Bank, S., Birtles, A., Valentine, P., & Cuthill, M. (1997). Whale sharks in Ningaloo Marine

Park: Managing tourism in an Australian marine protected area. Tourism Management, 18(5),259–271.

Dearden, P. (2006). Getting real: Linking theory and practice in wildlife tourism. Paper presentedat the Getting Real About Wildlife Tourism, the 2nd Australian Wildlife Tourism Conference,Fremantle, Australia.

DEH. (1997). Conservation and management of whales and dolphins in Queensland 1997–2001.Retrieved from http://epa.qld.gov.au

Derry, S. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist,31(3/4), 163–174.

DiEnno, C., & Hilton, S. (2005). High school students’ knowledge, attitudes, and levels of enjoymentof an environmental education unit on non-native plants. Journal of Environmental Education,37(1), 13–25.

Duffus, D.A., & Dearden, P. (1990). Non-consumptive wildlife-orientated recreation: A conceptualframework. Biological Conservation, 53, 213–231.

Dyck, C., Schneider, I., Thompson, M., & Virden, R. (2003). Specialization among mountaineersand its relationship to environmental attitudes. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,21(2), 44–62.

Eagles, P.F.J. (1992). The travel motivation of Canadian ecotourists. Journal of Travel Research,31(2), 3–7.

EPA. (2005). Hervey Bay whale watching statistics 1989–2005. Victoria: EPA.Fishbein, M., & Manfredo, M. (1992). A theory of behaviour change. In M. Manfredo (Ed.), Influ-

encing human behaviour: Theory and applications in recreation tourism and natural resourcemanagement (pp. 29–50). Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Forestell, P.H., & Kaufman, G.D. (1990). The history of whale watching in Hawaii and its rolein enhancing visitor appreciation for endangered species. Paper presented at the Congress onCoastal and Marine Tourism.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Grace, M. (2004). Who’s in control? British Dental Journal, 197(5), 223.Green, P., & Hayward, L. (1998). Future of environmental education/interpretation in

Australia. Paper presented at the Facing the Future Using Interpretation: Heritage Interpreta-tion International, 5th World Congress, Sydney.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 125

Greenwood, T., & Moscardo, G. (1999). Australian and North American Coastal and marinetourists. What do they want. Recent Advances in Marine Science and Technology, 98, 253–260.

Ham, S. (1983). Cognitive psychology and interpretation: Synthesis and application. Journal ofInterpretation, 8(1), 11–27.

Ham, S. (1992). Environmental interpretation: A practical guide for people with big ideas and smallbudgets. Golden, CO: North American Press.

Ham, S. (2002). Toward a theory of quality in cruise-based interpretive guiding. Journal of Interpre-tation Research, 7(2), 29–49.

Ham, S., & Krumpe, E. (1996). Identifying audiences and messages for nonformal environmentaleducation – A theoretical framework for interpreters. Journal of Interpretation Research, 1(1),11–23.

Ham, S., & Weiler, B. (2004). Beyond visitor satisfaction: Applying communication theory in tourismsettings. Presented at the workshop held at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,Australia.

Ham, S., & Weiler, B. (2007). Isolating the role of on-site interpretation in a satisfying experience.Journal of Interpretation Research, 12(2), 5–24.

Hammitt, W. (1981). A theoretical foundation for tilden’s interpretive principles. Journal of Interpre-tation, 6(1), 9–12.

Harriot, V. (2002). Marine tourism impacts and their management on the Great Barrier Reef. CRCReef Research Centre Technical Report, Townsville, Australia.

Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Hines, J., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on respon-

sible environmental behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2),1–8.

Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (1990). Changing learner behaviour through environmental education.

Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–21.Hvenegaard, G. (1994). Ecotourism: A status report and conceptual framework. Journal of Tourism

Studies, 5(2), 24–35.Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity towards nature as a motivational

basis to protect nature. Environment and Behaviour, 31(2), 178–202.Kaplan, S. (1978). On knowing the environment. In S. Kaplan & Kaplan, R. (Eds.), Humanscape:

Environments for people. Belmont, TN: Duxbury.Kim, H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research,

34(1), 180–201.Kleinbaum, D., & Klein, M. (2002). Logistic regression. New York: Springer.Knapp, D. (1995). Moving beyond Tilden: Producing behaviour change goals for environmental

interpretation. Legacy, 6(1), 20–23.Lalwani, N., & Duval, S. (2000). The moderating effects of cognitive appraisal processes on self-

attribution of responsibility. Journal of Apprlied Social Psychology, 30(11), 2233–2245.Lee, W., & Moscardo, G. (2005). Understanding the impact of ecotourism resort experiences on

tourist’s environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,13(6), 546–565.

Lehto, X., O’Leary, J., & Morrison, A. (2004). The effect of prior experience on vacation behaviour.Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 801–818.

Lothian, A. (2002). Australian attitudes towards the environment 1991–2001. Australian Journal ofEnvironmental Management, 9(1), 45–61.

Lukas, K., & Ross, S. (2005). Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes towards gorillas and chimpanzees.Journal of Environmental Education, 36(4), 33–48.

Markwell, K. (2001). An intimate rendezvous with nature? Mediating the tourist-nature experienceat three tourist sites in borneo. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 39–57.

Markwell, K., & Weiler, B. (1998). Ecotourism and interpretation. In R.B.D. Uzzel (Ed.), Contempo-rary issues in heritage and environmental interpretation: Problems and prospects (pp. 98–111).London: The Stationary Office.

Maslow, A. (1998). Maslow on management. New York: Wiley.Moscardo, G. (1996a). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2),

376–397.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

126 S. Peake et al.

Moscardo, G. (1996b). Principles for effective interpretation: What have we learnt from 100 yearsof presenting heritage to visitors. Paper presented at the Interpretation in Action: 5th AnnualInterpretation Australia Association Conference, Bendigo.

Moscardo, G. (1999). Communicating with two million visitors. A formative evaluation of an inter-pretive brochure. Journal of Interpretation Research. Special Issue: Interpretation in Australia,4(1), 21–37.

Moscardo, G. (2000). Understanding wildlife tourism market segments: An Australian marine study.Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5(2), 36–53.

Moscardo, G. (2001). Understanding visitor wildlife interactions, factors influencing satisfaction.Townsville, Australia: CRC.

Moscardo, G., & Pearce, P. (1986). Visitor centres and environmental interpretation. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 6, 89–100.

Muhlhausler, P., & Peace, A. (2001). Discourses of ecotourism: The case of Fraser Island, Queensland.Language & Communication, 21(4), 359–380.

Muloin, S. (1998). Wildlife tourism: The psychological benefits of whale-watching. Pacific TourismReview, 2, 199–213.

National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity. (1996). CommonwealthDepartment of Environment, Sport and Territories. Canberra, Australia.

Neil, D., Orams, M., & Baglioni, A. (1995a). Effect of previous whale watching experience onparticipants knowledge of, and response to whales and whale watching. Paper presented at theEncounters with Whales ’95, Hervey Bay, Australia.

Neil, D., Orams, M., & Baglioni, A. (1995b). The influence of content in interpretive commentaryon environmental attitudes and intentions of whale watching participants. Paper presented at theEncounters with Whales ’95, Hervey Bay, Australia.

Orams, M.B. (1994). Creating effective interpretation for managing interaction between tourists andwildlife. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 21–34.

Orams, M.B. (1996). A conceptual model of tourist – Wildlife interaction: The case for education asa management strategy. Australian Geographer, 27(1), 39–51.

Orams, M.B. (1997). The effectiveness of environmental education: Can we turn tourists into “gree-nies”? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(4), 295–306.

Orams, M.B. (2000). Tourists getting close to whales, is it what whale-watching is all about? TourismManagement, 21(6), 561–569.

Orams, M.B. (2002). Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: A review of issues and impacts. TourismManagement, 23, 281–293.

Ormsby, J., Moscardo, G., Pearce, P., & Foxlee, J. (2004). A review of research into tourist andrecreational uses of protected natural areas. Townsville, Qld.: G.B.R.M.P.A.

Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2001). Motivations for learning: Visitors’ perceptions regarding theeducational element in leisure experiences. Paper presented at the 9th National IAA Conference,Alice Springs, Australia.

Peake, S. (2007). Whale watching tour guides: Communicating conservation effectively. Paper pre-sented at the 5th International Coastal and Marine Tourism Congress, Auckland, New Zealand.

Pearce, P., Moscardo, G., & Woods, B. (1997). Understanding the tourist market. Paper presented atthe Great Barrier Reef Science, Use and Management, Townsville, Australia.

Peterson, R. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Barkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic.Piaget, J. (1970). Psychology and epistemology. New York: W.W. Norton.Priskin, L. (2003). Tourist perceptions of degradation caused by coastal nature-based recreation.

Environmental Management, 32(2), 189–204.Procter, M. (1993). Measuring attitudes. In Researching social life (pp. 116–134). London: Sage.Punch, K. (2003). Survey research. London: Sage.Quay, J. (2003). Experience and participation: Relating theories of learning. Journal of Experiential

Education, 26(2), 105–116.Reynolds, P., & Braithwaite, D. (2001). Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism. Tourism

Management, 22, 31–42.Rokicka, E. (2002). Attitudes towards the natural environment. International Journal of Sociology,

32, 78–91.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 127

Salter, W. (2002). Understanding Great Barrier Reef visitors: Factors that contribute to visitorsatisfaction. Townsville, Australia: CRC Reef Research Centre.

Sandford, M. (1997). Anthropomorphism in interpretation: A case study at the Alice Springs DesertPark. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference of the Interpreta-tion Australia Association: Big ideas . . . small budgets, University of Queensland. Brisbane,Australia.

Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan.Schanzel, H., & McIntosh, A. (2000). An insight into the personal and emotive context of wildlife

viewing at the penguin place, Otago Peninsula, New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,8(1), 36–53.

Shackley, M. (1996). Wildlife tourism. London: International Thomson Business Press.Steiner, C., & Reisinger, Y. (2006). Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Re-

search, 33(2), 299–318.Stewart, E., Hayward, B., & Devlin, P. (1998). The place of interpretation: A new approach to the

evaluation of interpretation. Tourism Management, 19(3), 257–266.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson/

Allyn & Bacon.Thapa, B., Graefe, A., & Meyer, L. (2005). Moderator and mediator effects of scuba diving special-

ization on marine-based environmental knowledge-behaviour contingency. Journal of Environ-mental Education, 37(1), 53–67.

Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Tourism Queensland. (1998). The 1998 whale watching survey: Research findings. Brisbane: Tourism

Queensland.Tourism Queensland. (2006a). International visitor survey. Brisbane: Tourism Queensland.Tourism Queensland. (2006b). National visitor survey. Brisbane: Tourism Queensland.Turner, T., & Speedie, C. (1999). Doing it privately or publicly? Can private enterprise replace

government interpretation of natural and cultural resources? Paper presented at the Human Factorin Interpretation: Interpretation Australia Association, National Conference, Hobart, Tasmania.

Uzzell, D., & Ballantyne, R. (1998). Contemporary issues in heritage and environmental interpreta-tion: Problems and prospects. London: The Stationary Office.

Valentine, P., Birtles, A., Curnock, M., Arnold, P., & Dunstan, A. (2004). Getting closer to whales:Passenger expectations and experiences, and the management of swim with dwarf minke whalesinteractions in the Great Barrier Reef. Tourism Management, 25, 647–655.

Vang, L. (2002). Distribution, abundance and biology of Group V humpback whales (Megapteranovaeangliae): A review. The State of Queensland: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Weaver, D. (2001). The encyclopaedia of ecotourism. Wallingford: CABI.Weaver, D. (2004). Comprehensive and minimalist dimensions of ecotourism. Annals of Tourism

Research, 32(2), 439–455.Weiler, B. (1999). Assessing the interpretation competencies of our ecotour guides. Journal of

Interpretation Research, 4(1), 80–83.Weiler, B., & Ham, S. (2001). Tour guides and interpretation. In D. Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopaedia

of ecotourism (pp. 549–563). Wallingford: CABI.Weiss, P. (1939). The locus of responsibility. Ethics, 49(3), 349–355.Widmeyer, S. (2004). Schema theory: An introduction. Retrieved September 16, 2004, from

http://chd.gse.gmu.edu/immersion/knowledgebase/strategies/cognitivism/SchemaTheory/htmWilkinson, D., & Birmingham, P. (2003). Using research instruments: A guide for researchers.

London: Routledge Falmer.Wilson, C., & Tisdell, C. (2003). Conservation and economic benefits of wildlife based tourism: Sea

turtles and whales as case studies. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8, 49–58.Wright, P. (1996). North American ecotourism markets; motivations, preferences and destinations.

Journal of Travel Research, 34(Summer), 3–10.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

rath

clyd

e] a

t 17:

03 0

4 O

ctob

er 2

014