WILDLIFE VIEWING IN THE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARKS OF CANADA: AN EXPERIENTIAL VIEW by Danielle McIntosh B.A., University o f Northern British Columbia, 2008 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF M ASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA October 2012 © Danielle McIntosh, 2012 1+1 Library and Archives Canada Bibliotheque et Archives Canada Published Heritage Branch Direction du Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-94161-4 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-94161-4 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ exclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distrbute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or non­ commercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats. L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou autres formats. The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission. L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation. In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis. Conform em ent a la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privee, quelques formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de cette these. W hile these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis. Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. Canada APPROVAL Name: Danielle McIntosh Degree: M aster of Natural R esources and Environmental Studies Title: WILDLIFE VIEWING IN THE MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARKS OF CANADA: AN EXPERIENTIAL VIEW Examining Committee: Chairf Dr. Linda O’Neill, Associj School of Education University of Northern British Columbia Supervisor: Dr. Pam ela Wright, A ssociate P rofessor Natural R esources and Environmental Studies Program University of Northern British Columbia Com m itte^M em ber: Dr. John Shultis, A ssociate Professor Natural R esources and Environmental Studies Program University of Northern British Columbia Corrimittee Member: Dr. Kathy Rettie Social Science Parks C anada Agency '& I < U / f~ )Q l c L& L External Examiner: Dr. Joyce Joyce Gould Science Coordinator Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation D ate Approved: O ctober 25, 2012 Abstract The topic o f wildlife tourism has received considerable academic attention within the last decade. While much o f the existing literature has focused specifically on the impacts o f tourism/recreation activities on wildlife, much less attention has been given to understanding visitor perceptions and experiences viewing wildlife. This research examines visitor experience viewing wildlife in the mountain national parks o f Canada by: 1) identifying what factors contribute to a meaningful wildlife viewing experience; and 2) identifying the value and meaning o f wildlife viewing experiences for park visitors. A mixed-method approach largely based on qualitative data revealed that while there is an individual set o f themes present that contribute to meaningful wildlife experiences, more important is the processing o f the visitors emotions throughout the experience. This finding suggests that truly meaningful wildlife experiences may be the result o f a series o f stages over time, rather than based solely on the moment o f the encounter. Based on the data interpreted, recommendations for management and future research are provided. Management plans should provide direction for implementing programs to assist visitors in continuing to process their wildlife experiences over the long term. iii Table o f Contents A pproval........................................................................................................................................... ii Abstract............................................................................................................................................ iii Table o f Contents............................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................v Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Significance.......................................................................................................3 1.3 Description o f Study A re a ......................................................................................... 4 1.4 Study O bjectives.......................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Thesis S tructure........................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2: Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 7 2.1 An Overview o f Wildlife Tourism ............................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Wildlife and National Parks.......................................................................8 2.1.2 Economic Impacts o f Wildlife T o u rism ................................................12 2.1.3 Other Impacts o f Wildlife Tourism........................................................ 15 2.2 Understanding Wildlife Tourism M arkets.............................................................17 2.2.1 Wildlife Viewing Preferences o f T ourists............................................ 19 2.3 Activities Associated with W ildlife T o u rism .......................................................22 2.4 Setting Attributes o f Wildlife Tourism .................................................................. 23 2.5 An Experiential View o f Wildlife T ourism .......................................................... 24 2.6 Management Implications........................................................................................ 27 Chapter 3: M ethodology.............................................................................................................. 30 3.1 Data C ollection.......................................................................................................... 31 3.2 Sample Design and Selection...................................................................................36 3.3 Data A nalysis............................................................................................................. 39 3.4 Study Limitations.......................................................................................................43 3.5 C onclusion..................................................................................................................44 Chapter 4: Description and Interpretation..................................................................................46 4.1 Encounters with W ildlife......................................................................................... 46 4.2 Central Themes within Wildlife Viewing Experiences...................................... 52 4.3 Experiential Outcomes o f Wildlife V iew ing........................................................ 62 4.4 Sum m ary..................................................................................................................... 74 Chapter 5: Recommendations and C onclusions.......................................................................75 5.1 Management Recommendations............................................................................. 75 5.2 Recommendations for Further Research................................................................ 81 5.3 Conclusions.................................................................................................................84 References....................................................................................................................................... 87 Appendix I: Standardized Q uestionnaire...................................................................................96 Appendix II: Study Area M aps....................................................................................................98 Appendix III: Demographic Profile o f Backcountry Day-use Visitors.............................. 106 List o f Tables Table 1: Survey S ites.................................................................................................................... 38 Table 2: Emotional Stages o f Wildlife Viewing Experiences............................................... 64 List of Figures Figure 1: Map o f the Mountain National Parks o f Canada....................................................... 4 Figure 2: The Lewinian Experiential Learning M odel............................................................68 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my graduate supervisor Dr. Pam W right for her continuous support o f my Masters research and “Larry”. Her patience, motivation, humour, immense knowledge, and the occasional friendly threat helped me in all the time o f research and writing o f this thesis. I could not have imagined a better advisor and mentor. My sincere thanks also go out to my committee members who provided much advice, guidance and support. Dr. John Shultis, whose insightful comments always encouraged me to examine a problem from a different perspective. And to Dr. Kathy Rettie, who constantly made me see the value in my research. To both o f you I am forever grateful. Thank you to my family for their continuous encouragement and support, and never losing faith in my ability to succeed. A special thank you to my beautiful grandmother, who never got to see me complete this project, but who I know was with me the whole way. Without you all I would not be who I am today. Finally, thank you to all those who put up with my frequent breakdowns and kept me sane: Jocelyn Franks, Matthew Franks, Nikki Zwaga, Luke Zwaga, Andrew Holland, Douglas Bumip, Davina Nemeth, and Trish Watt. Thank you all. Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Background Tourism is a widespread industry that increasingly caters to niche markets. Nature based tourism, and wildlife tourism in particular, is quickly growing as a focal point o f the tourism industry. In recent years, wildlife tourism has attracted interest from governments, the tourism industry and researchers (Moscardo and Saltzer, 2004; Higginbottom, 2004; Bushnell and McCool, 2007; Manfredo, 2008). Parks and protected areas are attractive settings for the growing demand for tourism activities in natural environments (Eagles et al., 2002). Increasingly seen as an alternative source o f revenue, tourism can provide considerable benefits to protected areas and the communities adjacent to or within them (Bushnell and McCool, 2007). Wildlife tourism can be defined as tourism based on encounters with non­ domesticated (non-human) animals, and can occur in either the animals’ natural environment or in captivity (Higginbottom, 2004). It includes activities historically classified as ‘non-consumptive’ (Higginbottom, 2004), and is typically associated with nature-based activities such as the observation and/or photography o f wildlife (Hammit and Wells, 1993), looking for signs o f wildlife such as tracks (Wilson and Heberlein, 1996), and learning about wildlife (Russell and Hodson, 2002). Wildlife tourism can be found in a variety o f forms, from specialised wildlife tours (e.g. safari tours, bear viewing tours), attractions featuring natural aggregations o f wildlife (e.g. migratory pathways, breeding colonies), experiences available in association with tourist accommodation (e.g. resorts that feature surrounding wildlife) and unguided encounters by independent 1 travellers (e.g. visiting national parks) (Valentine and Birtles, 2004). For the purpose o f this study, the focus will remain on unguided encounters by independent travellers. Although the topic o f wildlife tourism has received considerable academic attention, especially in the last decade, much o f the existing literature has focused more specifically on the impacts o f tourism/recreation activities on wildlife (e.g. habituation, physiological impacts), with much less attention given to the benefits o f wildlife viewing and satisfaction with wildlife viewing experience. That is, on what exactly it is that makes wildlife so attractive to visitors, what wildlife tourists want to see, and where and how they want to experience it (Coughlan and Prideaux, 2008). Since visitors are an integral element o f any tourism product or service, ultimately a sustainable tourism activity is one that provides a quality experience for visitors (Moscardo et al., 2001). An experiential view o f wildlife tourism pertains to the “emotional, psychological and physical benefits o f taking a wildlife holiday” (Curtin, 2005, p .l). Coe (1985) suggests that the recreation function o f wildlife viewing is not simply satisfied by viewing ‘aesthetic, active and unusual animals’. Rather, experiential factors such as anticipation, emotional involvement, surprise, mild-fear, and risk-taking play important roles (cited in Montag, Patterson and Freimund, 2005). This indicates that tourism consumption is therefore about purchasing experiences rather than ‘things’, and increasingly these experiences include natural spaces and wild animals (Curtin, 2005). 2 1.2 Study Significance Understanding visitor perceptions and experiences is an important but little researched element o f wildlife tourism. There has been only limited research comparing visitors and their experiences in non-captive wildlife settings (Moscardo et al., 2004; Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001; Schanzel and McIntosh, 2000). As a result, little is known about the actual demand for non-consumptive wildlife tourism, or what characterizes people who desire wildlife encounters (Moscardo and Saltzer, 2004). Previous approaches to research tell us that people enjoy participating in wildlife tourism for a number o f reasons (e.g. to experience animals in the wild and observe their natural behaviour), but it does not really explore what it means to enjoy wildlife experiences, the content o f what exactly is enjoyed, the process through which people perceive wildlife or the emotional responses it provokes (Curtin, 2005). Therefore it is critical that the human dimension o f wildlife interactions be considered, paying particular attention to the psychological and sociological processes that underlie human-wildlife relations and human interest in wildlife (Newsome, Dowling and Moore, 2005). In recent years, Parks Canada has gradually shifted the focus o f their mandate from offering quality services to the visitor, to setting the stage for the visitor to create personal experiences and memories (Parks Canada, 2007). Although previous studies have identified viewing wildlife as a general motivation for visitors to come to the parks, there is little evidence to suggest why it matters so much to some people and how much it influences people’s decisions to visit the parks (Parks Canada, 2007). By gaining a better understanding about the nature o f wildlife viewing experiences this research will aid park 3 managers in developing management strategies that enhance visitor experience, while continuing to maintain the conservation values o f the parks. 1,3 Description of Study Area As areas known for their abundance o f wildlife, the Canadian mountain national parks have become popular destinations for tourists seeking wildlife viewing opportunities. Located in Western Canada, the chain o f mountain national parks comprises BanfTNational Park, Jasper National Park, Kootenay National Park, Waterton Lakes National Park, Glacier National Park and Mount Revelstoke National Park (Fig. 1). Mountain National Parks F ig .l Rocky Mountain National Parks o f Canada (Parks Canada, 20 1 2 ) 4 In total, 56 mammalian species have been recorded within the range o f the parks. Species include mountain goat, bighorn sheep, northern pika, hoary marmot, moose, mule deer, white-tailed deer, caribou, grey wolf, grizzly bear, black bear, wolverine, lynx and cougar (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2012). B anff National Park in itself is home to an estimated 53 mammals, which reflects upon the wide range o f habitats found among these parks due to variations in elevation, climate and plant communities. As a result, the chance to observe wild animals is one o f the most unique experiences that the parks have to offer (Parks Canada, 2009). 1.4 Study Objectives This thesis addresses the experiential aspects o f wildlife viewing as identified by visitors participating in wildlife viewing activities. It will present a broad context o f what makes up a meaningful experience and the importance o f those experiences to overall visitor satisfaction. The following main objectives and associated research questions have been set for this research: 1. To identify what factors contribute to a meaningful wildlife viewing experience; 2. To identify the value and meaning o f wildlife viewing experiences for park visitors. The associated research questions are: a. What factors (e.g. species, time o f day, geographic location, distance from animal, behaviour o f animal, presence o f others, etc.) seem to create memorable wildlife viewing experiences; b. What emotional responses do encounters with wildlife provoke; and c. Do these experiences have any lasting impacts on the visitor? 5 1.5 Thesis Structure This thesis is an examination o f the wildlife viewing experiences by visitors to the mountain national parks in western Canada. It examines the nature o f memorable wildlife experiences and the components that contribute to visitors’ engagement in these experiences. The report has been organized into four major sections: 1) a review o f the existing literature, 2) a detailed description o f the methodology used, 3) description and interpretation; and 4) recommendations for managers o f parks and protected areas and for future research. 6 Chapter 2: Literature Review This chapter presents a review o f literature related to wildlife viewing in naturebased tourism destinations. Its purpose is to outline and describe the current state o f knowledge o f wildlife tourism by examining the economic, ecological and social impacts o f wildlife tourism, with a focus on the experiential aspects o f wildlife tourism. 2.1 An Overview of Wildlife Tourism Wildlife tourism has been identified as an area o f overlap between nature-based tourism, ecotourism, consumptive use o f wildlife, rural tourism, and human relations with animals (Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001). It involves a broad spectrum o f experiences included in all aspects o f tourism with the distinctive feature o f wildlife as the primary attraction (Hughes et al., 2005). While the only feature shared by all wildlife tourism products or experiences is their inclusion o f a wildlife element, labeling and discussion o f wildlife tourism as a distinct class o f tourism is becoming increasingly common. Although referred to as ‘viewing’ for the purpose o f this report, this form o f tourism can also involve listening, photography, or any other form o f interaction that does not kill the animal (Higginbottom, 2004). From the tourists’ point o f view, there is a rapidly increasing desire for interaction with the environment in a variety o f ways (Jenner and Smith, 1992). This general interest in nature and nature-based experiences is reflected in an increasing demand to participate in wildlife tourism activities, with increasing value being placed on animals in the wild, as opposed to those in captive or semi-captive environments (Gauthier, 1993). The types 7 o f experiences are diverse, from encountering an animal while hiking on a trail to by­ passing an animal while driving along a highway; however, they all feature wild animals as a major or significant part o f the experience. Such experiences are becoming a large part o f the organized tourism industry and contribute substantially to the economy o f many countries (World Travel and Tourism Council [WTTC], 2000). Increasingly, popular destinations for wildlife tourism are located in, or are adjacent to national parks and other protected areas (Powell and Ham, 2008). 2.1.1 Wildlife and National Parks Park reserves or “forest parks” were first established on the line o f the Canadian Pacific Railway west o f B anff at Lake Louise and Field; at Waterton Lakes in the southwestern part o f what is now Alberta, and at Jasper. Together, along with Rocky Mountains Park (now Banff National Park), these reserves formed the core o f Canada’s National Park system (Lothian, 1976). While square miles o f land were originally preserved in reservation for public use, numerous species and forms o f wildlife were also given protection through the preservation o f their natural habitat (Lothian, 1981). Since the late 1800s, viewing wildlife, both in captivity and in the natural environment, has been an important activity for visitors to these park reserves. Even in the beginning o f the formation o f the national parks, the government’s policy on wildlife in the park was largely in response to the perceived needs o f the tourist (Great Plains Research Consultants, 1984). In 1886, the former Commissioner o f Fisheries o f Canada conducted an investigation into the park’s flora and fauna to make recommendations 8 concerning the handling o f these resources for the tourist. He concluded that a strong policy o f preservation should be implemented: Paucity o f fish and game will undoubtedly deprive the national park o f something o f its many wild attractions; whilst plenteousness will be a source o f profit and pleasure to Canadians interested in its development as a free popular resort for health and recreation, as also to strangers attracted thither by the natural features o f scenic beauty and hygienic excellence which it assuredly embodies in an eminent degree (Lothian, 1977, p.64). Over the years, the approach has evolved and as societies’ views o f nature conservation developed, so did the role that national parks play in protecting and presenting wildlife in their natural habitat. Various means were employed in the Rocky Mountains Park to attract visitors and foster interest in wildlife conservation. In 1903, a small museum in the B anff town site (now the Banff Park Museum National Historic Site) displayed mounted specimens of large mammals found in the park, along with birds and waterfowl. In addition, exhibits o f mountain sheep, mountain goats, elk, deer and buffalo were also displayed. This brought attention o f visitors to the diverse range o f wildlife species within the park (Lothian, 1976). The role o f Rocky Mountains Park as a sanctuary for wildlife began in 1897. A gift o f three buffalo was given to Rocky Mountains Park by T.G. Blackstock, Q.C., o f Toronto; supplemented in 1898 by Lord Strathcona with the presentation o f an additional sixteen buffalo. To make viewing easier, the animals were enclosed in an area only 1.5 miles from the B anff town site in a place visible from both the railway as well as a popular road to Lake Minnewanka, By 1916 species o f elk, moose, deer, goats and 9 bighorn sheep had been added (Lothian, 1981; Luxton, 1975). In 1904, W illiam Whyte, vice-president o f the Canadian Pacific Railway, presented the park with ten pheasants o f different varieties. This farther addition o f wildlife led to the formation o f an aviary within B anff town site. The aviary became known world-wide and three years later a zoo was started in the same grounds. Enclosures mimicking each species natural habitat housed black and grizzly bears, polar bears, mountain lions, lynx, raccoons, marmots, timber wolves, coyotes, wolverines and foxes. While this was a popular attraction for visitors, the zoo was discontinued by the government at the close o f the 1937 visitor season. Despite this, the concept that B anff National Park offered adequate opportunity for viewing species in their natural habitat was accepted by both residents and tourists (Lothian, 1981; Luxton, 1975). A more distinctive and purposive role for Canada’s national parks began to take shape with the replacement o f the Rocky Mountains Park Act with the Dominion Forest Reserve and Parks Act in 1911. Commissioner James B. Harkin, head o f the new Dominion Parks Branch lead the shift to a more conservation-based focus; preservation o f the environment, conservation o f wildlife, and tourism were his primary concerns (Luxton, 1975). A continuing need to provide information about the national parks, stressing preservation o f their fauna, flora and other features, led to the experimentation with an education and interpretation section within the National Parks Branch in 1959 (Great Plains Research Consultants, 1984; Lothian, 1981). After 1961 BanffN ational Park established a permanent interpretive staff with two main tasks: (1) to increase the pleasure o f park visitors and, (2) to strengthen public appreciation o f the park environment (Great Plains Research Consultants, 1984). The opportunity to encounter wildlife in their natural surroundings has long been repeated by promoters o f park tourism. In the first few decades after Jasper National Park was established, tourists were encouraged to engage with the bears in the region. People were encouraged by advertisements to travel to Jasper where they could see and feed the bears (Cronin, 2011). A brochure published by CNR in 1934 claimed that, “one o f the great charms o f the park is the abundance and fearlessness o f its wildlife. To wake in the morning and see a deer below one’s window, a black bear ambling off into the forest, or, on the trail, and to be able to come close to the shyest creatures o f the wild, mountain sheep and goats....is a pleasure which makes every walk or ride a possible adventure” (Canadian National Railways, 1934, cited in Cronin, 2011). The thrill o f a ‘tum-of-the-century tourists’ encounter with wildlife is described by Luxton (1975): “One day in July 1903, fo u r ladies were driving along the Loop Road when one looked back and saw a mountain lion trailing them, about a hundred yards behind. One lady exclaimed it was fourteen fe e t long, another said it was the size o f an elephant, and the visitor next to the driver said it was the size o f an ordinary buffalo. The driver, showing great presence o f mind, stated that atmospheric conditions caused unacclimatized people to be deceived in regard to size and distance and that the animal was only o f the ordinary size. When the ladies reached the B a n ff Springs Hotel and told their story, many o f the guests called fo r saddle-horses. O f course, when the riders arrived at the spot, they only saw the tracks where the animal had turned into the bush. Such were the events that made a visitor’s day exciting” (p. 124). Today, this notion o f humans existing with wildlife has remained a strong focal point in the promotion o f the mountain national parks. Representations o f wildlife have continued to play a significant role in the construction o f the national park experience and are a key component o f national park tourism (Cronin, 2011). Additionally, initiatives to maintain the preservation o f wildlife continue through actions such as voluntary area 11 closures for important wildlife habitat, programs for wildlife education and encouraging visitors to report sightings o f wildlife (Parks Canada, 2010). One example o f a program which has been successful at facilitating visitor understanding and encouraging positive conservation practices is the Bear Guardian program. This program involves on-the-spot information to visitors about safe viewing o f bears along roadways. Since 2006, Parks Canada staff has made 4600 personal contacts at numerous “bear jam s” (Parks Canada, 2008). The Bear Guardians, along with other initiatives aimed at facilitating visitor understanding continue to encourage positive visitor experiences and educational opportunities within the national parks, while also maintaining the preservation o f important wildlife habitat and species. 2.1.2 Economic Impacts of Wildlife Tourism Although reliable global estimates o f the economic impact o f wildlife tourism are limited, it clearly involves increasingly large numbers o f participants, and has the potential to generate a substantial amount o f money (Higginbottom, 2004). The most detailed research to determine the importance o f wildlife-related activities has been in the United States (US). Cordell et al. (1990) concluded that by the year 2040, participation in wildlife viewing activities will increase by 74%, or 121 million trips, and is predicted to be one o f the most rapidly growing outdoor recreation activities in the US. Estimates from 2001 suggest that 66.1 million (31 %) o f the US population sixteen years and older observed, fed, or photographed wildlife. O f that 66.1 million, at least 21.8 million (10%) traveled at least one mile away from their home for the primary purpose o f doing so (US 12 Department o f the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002, cited in Higginbottom, 2004). Travelers from the US have also been stated as being considerably more likely to include wildlife viewing activities while traveling. O f the estimated seven million American travelers who visited British Columbia (BC) in 2003 and 2004, over three million (43%) participated in wildlife viewing activities while traveling, and nearly one million (13%) indicated that wildlife viewing was the primary reason for at least one trip (Cowichan/Ladysmith Marine Tourism Authority, 2005). Yellowstone National Park, located in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, is home to a diverse spectrum o f wildlife species including grizzly bears, wolves and bison (United States National Park Service, 2011). As a park well known for wildlife viewing opportunities, wildlife tourism is one o f the top reasons people choose to visit Yellowstone (Duffield, Neher and Patterson, 2006). W olf watching in Yellowstone has been especially popular. In 2005, 44% o f visitors to the park indicated that they would like to see wolves, stating the only species they would like to see more was the grizzly bear. Depending on the season, 50% or more o f visitors indicated they were specifically interested in the possibility o f seeing or hearing wolves, with 59% indicating they were there specifically for the possibility to see wolves in the winter. An average o f 3.5% o f park visitors indicated that they would not have come to Yellowstone if they had not had an opportunity to hear or see wolves. Based on the average spending o f visitors across the four seasons, about $22.5 million are directly attributable to the presence o f wolves in the park. Based on the amount o f money spent in the three-state area around Yellowstone 13 National Park, visitors who specifically want to see or hear wolves generate approximately $35.5 million annually (Duffield, Neher and Patterson, 2006). In Canada, the total number o f participants in non-consumptive wildlife viewing activities was predicted to increase 21% over 1987 estimates by 2006 (Manfredo, Pierce and Teel, 2002). In a report compiled by Tourism British Columbia (TBC) summarizing information on the wildlife viewing sector in BC, it was stated that o f the estimated 5.6 million Canadian travelers who traveled within BC in 2003 and 2004, over 1.5 million (27%) participated in wildlife viewing activities while traveling. Approximately 310,000 (6%) stated that wildlife viewing was the primary reason for at least one overnight trip (Tourism British Columbia, 2009). In British Columbia, whale watching is a wildlife tourism market which has seen a growth o f approximately 4.2% per year since 1998 (O ’Connor et al., 2009). Tofino, BC, located in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (PRNPR) is one location on BC’s west coast where marine mammal viewing has been centered, along with Victoria, Campbell River and Telegraph Cove (O ’Connor et al., 2009; Clarkson, 2006). From 1998 to 2008, the number o f whale watchers increased from 285,000 to 430,600 per year, despite the number o f operators (47) remaining the same (O ’Connor et al., 2009). Expenditures on wildlife related activities have seen an increase over the last decade. Wildlife viewing expenditures in 1996 increased approximately $5 billion over 1991, to a total o f $30 billion, rising to $40 billion in 2001. In 2006, wildlife viewers in the US spent over $45 billion on their activities, an average o f $816 per person. This included both around-home and away-from-home viewing (US Fish and Wildlife 14 Service, 2006). In Canada, BC specific figures estimated that wildlife viewers spent $6.3 billion on wildlife viewing activities in 1996, an annual amount o f $454 per person. In total, 63 percent o f that spending was on direct wildlife viewing (e.g. trips away from home where the main purpose is to watch, photograph or study wildlife) (Reid, 1998). In 2008 alone, total expenditure o f whale watchers, both direct and indirect went from $69,129,000 to $118,176,000 (O’Connor et al., 2009). These figures suggest that the continuing development o f wildlife tourism can be a valuable means o f promoting economic activity. 2.1.3 Other Impacts of Wildlife Tourism In addition to promoting economic activity, an important claim made by those who support wildlife viewing is that wildlife experiences can provide opportunities for visitors to develop a greater awareness o f wildlife and other nature-based conservation (Tisdell and Wilson, 2001; Higginbottom, 2004; Bushnell and McCool, 2007; Moscardo, 2008; Ballantyne et al., 2011). One o f the key concerns o f wildlife encounters is the detrimental effects the presence o f humans can have on wildlife (Ballantyne et al., 2011). Some o f these negative impacts include changes in animal behaviour, habituation to humans, disruptions to foraging, injury, stress or death, and habitat displacement resulting from harassment o f animals by recreationists (Boyle and Samson, 1985; Gauthier, 1993; Shackley, 1996; Green and Higginbottom, 2000; Green and Giese, 2004). These impacts become more apparent over long periods o f time whenever and wherever recreation occurs (Cole and Landres, 1995). 15 To reduce the negative impacts associated with wildlife tourism, many wildlife tourism experiences are accompanied by conservation themed interpretation that aim to increase visitor awareness o f conservation issues and encourage them to adopt behaviors that encourage conservation practices in their experiences (Ballantyne et al., 2009). Originally defined by Tilden (1977), interpretation is an educational activity aimed at revealing meanings and relationships to people about the places they visit and the things they see and do there. Alan Helmsley, a Canadian authority on park interpretation, defined it as “the art o f stimulating in people an interest in, and an awareness of, an understanding and an appreciation o f the landscapes and ecological communities o f the national parks, with recognition o f the historical role o f man within these landscapes and his continuing relationship to them” (cited in Lothian, 1981, p. 134). Ham and Weiler (2001) state that interpretation is a necessary centerpiece o f wildlife tourism not only because o f its potential to influence tourists’ beliefs and actions towards wildlife, but also because o f its importance in shaping the nature and quality o f tourist experiences. By contributing to the intellectual and emotional dimensions o f a tourist’s encounter with wildlife, interpretation can strongly influence the nature o f the experience formed in the visitor’s mind. Increasing evidence suggests that visitors not only expect information, but interpretation, as part o f their wildlife experiences and for many, high quality interpretation is a major contributor to overall satisfaction (Ham and Weiler, 2001). In addition to visitors, wildlife interpretation has also been shown to benefit other stakeholders such as tourism operators, entrepreneurs and protected area managers. Education o f wildlife tourists can result in changes in attitudes and increased knowledge. The ways in which wildlife tourism is potentially associated with 16 conservation benefits can be organized into a three main categories (Higginbottom and Tribe, 2004): (1) direct wildlife management and supporting research, (2) use o f income derived from wildlife tourism to fund conservation initiatives, and (3) education o f visitors to encourage support or enhance conservation. In turn, interpretive education can promote more responsible behaviour towards wildlife, involvement in wildlife conservation or research, increased donations towards conservation, and a higher level of overall satisfaction (Higginbottom and Tribe, 2004). A study conducted by Orams (1997) testing the effectiveness o f an education program for managing tourists at Tangalooma, Australia, showed that interacting with dolphins produced a desire in tourists to change their behaviour and become more environmentally responsible. However, tourists who participated in a structured education program were more likely to follow through with those changes than those who did not participate in any type o f program. This shows that an education program, combined with the experience o f interacting with animals, may be an important influence on tourist behaviour (Orams, 1997). 2.2 Understanding Wildlife Tourism Markets As noted in section 1.2, the non-consumptive side o f human interactions with wildlife has received little recent attention compared to the negative biophysical impacts o f human interactions with wildlife. A non-consumptive interaction with wildlife refers to “public interest in wildlife and wildlife-related activities that extend beyond traditional hunting and fishing activities” (Rockel and Kealy, 1991, p.422). Although the existing literature provides many references to support the size and growth o f the wildlife tourism 17 market, little is known about the actual demand for non-consumptive wildlife tourism, and what characterizes tourists who desire wildlife viewing opportunities (Moscardo and Saltzer, 2004). Moscardo and Saltzer (2004) state that studying wildlife tourism markets and understanding the level o f visitor demand for wildlife tourism experiences is important for three reasons: 1) To guide the planning o f infrastructure and services, 2) determine the nature o f the visitor markets and factors that contribute to satisfaction with wildlife tourism opportunities; and 3) gain a better understanding o f visitor behaviour and how it can be influenced. In doing so, the negative impacts o f wildlife tourism may be effectively managed, and positive outcomes such as conservation awareness and support can be encouraged (Moscardo and Saltzer, 2004). One o f the challenges faced in the field o f wildlife tourism is that few researchers have looked at the nature o f the experience o f each individual visitor. This is important because individual wildlife viewing experiences can reveal a number o f benefits that visitors can gain from these types o f experiences. There is also substantial evidence that encounters with wildlife can elicit emotional and other affective responses from people (Kellert, 1996). Visitor relationships with outdoor areas can reflect broader satisfactions with social life, broader socio-cultural and spiritual connections, and evolving place identities (Fredrickson and Anderson, 1999; Manzo, 2003). Paying closer attention to the psychological needs o f tourists will expand our knowledge on all these fronts; this in turn may impact wildlife tourism practices aimed at improving visitor experience. 18 2.2.1 W ildlife Viewing Preferences of Visitors Wildlife tourism experiences can vary greatly in terms o f the emphasis or intensity o f encounters, and the aesthetic appeal o f certain characteristics o f wildlife species may facilitate more positive responses from the visitor. Aesthetic appeal can be defined as the “attraction various species hold for tourists...aesthetic preferences can be individualistic, shaped by social and cultural processes, and is often found to be greatly influenced by colour, shape, movement and visibility” (Kellert, 1996, p.90). It is also expressed in commonly used terms such as ‘cute and cuddly’, features primarily linked to age and size class, skin texture, and behavioural traits. Research suggests that the more ‘cute and cuddly’ an animal, the more positive the response from the visitor will be in terms o f attraction, feelings, attitudes and treatment (Newsome, Dowling and Moore, 2005). In a review o f literature focusing on the most liked and disliked animals, Woods (2000) provided a set o f features that were associated with greater preference for particular types o f wildlife. Animals that were stated as being more attractive to humans included larger animals, animals perceived as intelligent, and colourful, graceful and soft animals. Animals perceived to be dangerous to humans were generally disliked, and animals that were perceived as being similar in appearance or behaviour to humans were preferred (Woods, 2000). Woods (2000) also provided findings o f factors found to be related to overall satisfaction. These include variety o f animals seen, being able to get close to wildlife, seeing large, rare or new species, and the natural setting itself. This is supported by a number o f examples in the literature. Higginbottom and Buckley (2003) identified that 19 attractive wildlife resources for tourism generally fall into one o f three categories: (1) large numbers o f animals, (2) single species, usually o f large body size (generally termed charismatic megafauna), and (3) areas o f high species diversity. Lemelin and Smale (2006) suggest that wildlife tourists expect to see higher levels o f activity by wildlife, and hope to come within close proximity o f wildlife. Woods and Moscardo (2003) described the factors mentioned in people’s descriptions o f their “best” wildlife encounters as including: being in close proximity to large or rare animals in natural habitats, seeing a variety o f animals, high levels o f animal activity, and unexpected, surprising or new experiences. Chapman (2003) also found that the most memorable experiences involved being in close proximity to the animal, feeling intimacy through activities such as eye contact, and the element o f surprise. Together, these studies suggest that there is a large diversity o f ways in which tourists may encounter wildlife in a way that best suits their needs, their desired experience and their ability to control the encounter (Orams, 1996). While the literature suggests that seeing wildlife is special in and o f itself, it appears that opportunities to be close in proximity to wildlife and viewing natural behaviour is extra special (Farber and Hall, 2007). Schanzel and M cIntosh’s (2000) research at Penguin Place, Otaga Peninsula, New Zealand, revealed that visitor satisfaction often stems from the ‘closer the better’ and the most frequently mentioned cause o f dissatisfaction was not being able to get close enough. Visitors felt they had benefited from being able to view the penguins at close proximity, reporting a higher degree o f enjoyment when they got closer to the penguins than expected (Schanzel and McIntosh, 2000). Such close encounters have also been noted to create feelings o f 20 intimacy through factors such as eye-contact and surprise or novelty (Chapman, 2003), and are an important aspect o f the overall experience (Curtin, 2005). The species o f wildlife viewed has also been considered an important factor in determining the overall experience for the visitor. Shackley (1996) noted that a strong focus in wildlife tourism is placed on rare and endangered species. This is also supported by Reynolds and Braithwaite (1996) who state that “species on rare and endangered lists appear to hold a special attraction for wildlife tourists” (p.36). One explanation for this is that an encounter with such an animal presents an extraordinary and unique opportunity that one does not get to experience on a regular basis (Newsome, Dowling and Moore, 2005). Charismatic mega-fauna represents a feature o f protected areas most important to tourists, and play a key role in attracting many visitors to national parks (Lindsay et al., 2007). This is illustrated in a report submitted by IPSOS REID for Parks Canada in 2007 following a study conducted on the Bow Valley Parkway in B anff National Park. One o f the objectives o f the study was to determine the wildlife that visitors had seen along the Parkway, the wildlife species they would like to have seen but did not, and the top three animals visitors who did not see any wildlife during their visit would most like to see. Many respondents named animals such as bears, moose, and cougars. However, many respondents also stated that they did not expect to see any animals, and were happy to have sightings o f any types o f wildlife (Parks Canada, 2007). A correlation was found between less commonly seen animals and animals that respondents would most like to see. Animals that only a small proportion o f respondents 21 had reported seeing (e.g., cougar, moose) were considered to be the most desired animals other respondents would like to see if they had a choice (Parks Canada, 2007). 2.3 Activities Associated with Wildlife Tourism In addition to the characteristics o f the wildlife itself that create satisfying experiences, there are activities associated with the observation o f wildlife that can play an important role. Perhaps the most frequent o f these activities is photography. Promotion o f the mountain national parks has repeatedly drawn on photogenic animals such as elk, mountain sheep, and bears (Cronin, 2011). Photography is an essential component in many aspects o f tourism as it helps to illustrate a level o f experience. It can serve to both recreate one’s memories o f a trip, as well as offer evidence that the trip was made and that satisfaction was achieved (Russell, 1995). Sontag (1977) argued that photography is a principal device for experiencing something. She states that “most tourists feel compelled to put the camera between themselves and whatever is remarkable they encounter. Unsure o f other responses, they take a picture. This gives shape to the experience” (p. 10). Urry (1990) describes photography as a “means o f transcribing reality...A photograph thus seems to furnish evidence that something did indeed happen” (p. 139). As well as documenting their experiences, the images captured can provide evidence o f an authentic wildlife experience, and recall and relive the event at whatever time they choose, thereby recreating the experience (Cronin, 2011; Newsome, Dowling and Moore, 2005). 22 2.4 Setting Attributes of W ildlife Tourism In terms o f landscape, tourists can encounter wildlife in a broad range o f environments. These vary from remote and wild regions such as natural wildlife habitat areas, to secure and confined enclosures such as zoos, aviaries and aquariums (Newsome, Dowling and Moore, 2005). This landscape continuum provides a variety o f opportunities for tourists to encounter wildlife in a way that best suits their desired experience. Floyd and Gramann (1997) identified a link between the setting o f the landscape and experience; such that the type o f setting in which the encounter takes place can constrain or facilitate the attainment o f the visitors’ desired experience (cited in Newsome, Dowling and Moore, 2005). Wildlife encounters in captive or semi-captive settings can provide tourists with the opportunity to experience reasonably close encounters with wildlife that may be otherwise unattainable for a number o f reasons such as due to age or inaccessibility, or, as in the case o f some rare, endangered or dangerous animals, an encounter not possible in the natural environment (Newsome, Dowling and Moore, 2005). In terms o f non-captive settings, while wildlife encounters may provide incentive for a trip, there are other attributes that may be additionally significant to the overall experience. For example, the landscape itself may provide a backdrop for the experience and add to the overall satisfaction o f the visitor (Valentine and Birtles, 2004). 23 2.5 An Experiential View of Wildlife Tourism While attention has been given to the preferences o f visitors in regards to wildlife characteristics, little research has furthered understanding as to how wildlife experiences affect tourists and how these experiences change in different settings (Curtin, 2005; Lemelin and Wiersma, 2007). An experiential view o f wildlife tourism concerns the “emotional, psychological and physical benefits o f taking a wildlife holiday” (Curtin, 2005, p .l), and there is substantial evidence that encounters with wildlife elicit emotional and other affective responses from humans (Kellert, 1996). Harrison (2003) noted that tourists want, “intellectual, physical, even spiritual stimulation” from their travels (cited in Curtin, 2005, p.27). Further, Ulrich (1983) has argued that, “emotional experiences are among the most important benefits realized by many recreationists in the natural environment” (cited in Farber and Hall, 2007, p.250). In order to gain a deeper understanding o f the processes that underlie the development o f human-wildlife relations, human interest in wildlife, and the nature and role o f such relations, a better understanding o f what factors contribute to a satisfying visitor experience is needed (Newsome, Dowling and Moore, 2005). Essential to providing a satisfying experience is an understanding o f the factors that contribute to quality experiences. The quality o f the experience can provide greater or lesser satisfaction for a visitor, and often depends on the degree o f control which the visitor feels they have (Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001). The degree o f satisfaction felt by a tourist is derived in part by a combination o f pre-existing circumstances, and conditions combined with the influence o f his or her personality. The quality and nature 24 o f the resulting satisfaction that the visitor experiences then is determined by the match between reality and expectations (Shackley, 1996). Driver and Tocher (1970) suggested that each individual who undertakes a trip has expectations, knowledge and past experiences which go together to evaluate whether a trip is a success (cited in Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001). The definition o f a successful visitor experience, therefore, must be related to the realization or exceeding o f expectations (Shackley, 1996). Several areas o f research help us understand human emotional responses to other animals. W ilson (1984; 1993) introduced the biophilia hypothesis. Biophilia can be defined as, “the innate emotional affiliation o f human beings to other living organisms” (1993, p.31). Wilson argues that this tendency is inherited genetically, and is facilitated by biologically based tendencies to learn (1984). Building upon this, Ulrich (1993) discusses how in addition to the biophilic response to living things, there also exists a “biophobic” response. Biophobia deals with “fears related to natural hazards or life forms such as snakes and spiders that have threatened humans throughout evolution”(Manfredo, 2008, p.35). Other explanations have been offered that describe human emotional responses to animals as an innate tendency o f humans to be aroused and attentive to wildlife that are given meaning by experience, culture and learning. This suggests that such tendencies integrate biological processes and environmentally learned responses (Manfredo, 2008; Katcher and Wilkins, 1993; Kellert and Wilson, 1993). There is substantial evidence that wildlife encounters elicit emotional and other affective responses from humans (Kellert, 1996). Increasingly, emotions are displayed in social settings and the desire to reveal emotions is an important component o f 25 communication. Consideration, therefore, needs to be given as to how emotional communication can be incorporated in discussion surrounding natural resources, as well as the effect that our emotions can have on behaviours and social interactions in natural resource settings (Manfredo, 2008). The element o f feelings is one we most readily identify in our day-to-day use o f language about emotions. When people express the emotions they experience over an event, we tend to identify with the personal sensation o f that experience (Manfredo, 2008). Rolston (1987) suggested that viewing wild animals is a source o f fascination because they are more than mere objects. He noted the spontaneity o f wildlife, the possibility o f surprise and appreciation for the moment, and the idea that people are likely to highlight and remember the surprises o f the trip (cited in Montag, Patterson and Freidmund, 2005). Schanzel and McIntosh (2000) found that a significant proportion o f the experiences and emotions reported by the tourists interviewed could be conceptualized as experiences o f wonder and unforgettable memories. Specifically, beneficial feelings such as a “sense o f exploration, o f fascination, amazement, and privilege, o f seeing endangered birds in their habitat, and feeling o f happiness” were described by respondents (Schanzel and McIntosh, 2000, p.49). Similar responses were recorded in a study conducted by Fredrickson and Anderson (1999), who explained their respondents sense o f awe and wonderment at the exhilaration o f seeing or hearing wildlife in its natural environment. They stated that there is an “intense and pressing recognition o f one’s insignificance and the heightened interrelatedness o f all life form s.. .above all, a mixture o f awe and thrill at being exposed to the sheer powers o f nature and a reawakened sensitivity towards the sights and sounds o f nature” 26 (Fredrickson and Anderson, 1999, p. 10). This suggests that visitors have intense and deeply personal experiences through viewing wildlife. It is fair to assume then, that if an animal elicits a positive response, the experience based on that response has the potential to deliver important outcomes for the visitor and is more likely to result in visitor satisfaction (Kellert, 1996). 2.6 Management Implications Worldwide, parks and protected areas are being identified as major attractions for visitors, and the growing demand for wildlife tourism in these areas challenges the capacity o f management to meet this demand without affecting the values for which protected areas exist (Bushnell and McCool, 2007). Traditionally, managers o f protected areas with wildlife have focused their efforts toward managing the potential negative impacts o f visitor/wildlife interactions then toward the psychological determinants o f quality experiences (Hendee and Potter, 1971 and Manning, 1986, cited in Hammitt, Dulin and Wells, 1993). While these types o f management efforts protect the traditional values o f protected areas, they sometimes reduce the opportunities for visitors to observe and learn about wildlife; for example, management actions that disperse wildlife from roadsides and other areas that reduce chances o f seeing wildlife, as well as trail and other road closures designed to protect the habitats o f certain species (Wright, 1998). The management o f wildlife resources that include encounters between tourists and wildlife has emerged as a major issue for management agencies (Coghlan and Prideaux, 2008). Increasingly, a common goal o f management is to provide opportunities for high-quality recreational experiences. In order to provide these experiences one 27 needs an understanding o f the factors that contribute to quality experiences (Hammit, Dulin and Wells, 1993). The challenge for researchers and managers is to more clearly define the nature o f the wilderness experience (Borrie and Birzell, 2001), to give managers a better understanding o f what constitutes high quality experiences and the social-psychological benefits visitors receive (Farber and Hall, 2007). Moscardo et al. (2001) identified a knowledge gap concerning demand for and satisfaction within wildlife tourism. Five conclusions are identified which reflect the information on the level and nature o f demand for wildlife based tourism that is generally lacking: (1) There is some evidence that opportunities to see wildlife are very important to a majority o f tourists, both international and domestic; (2) There is some evidence that interest in wildlife viewing opportunities are increasing; (3) There is evidence that interest in wildlife at captive or semi-captive attractions is steady or in decline; (4) There is little information available on the total number o f tourists going to sites specifically for wildlife viewing; (5) There is little information on the types o f wildlife based experiences desired by tourists (Moscardo et al., 2001). Protected area management agencies require a clear indication o f how the expectations o f users are satisfied (Dufius and Dearden, 1993), and an understanding o f the inherent diversity in visitors’ attitudes and preferences (Fredman and Emmelin, 2001). Furthering the knowledge and understanding o f tourists’ interactions with wildlife will not only enhance the visitor experience in parks, but also allow for greater optimization o f management strategies to do so without compromising the conservation values o f natural resources (Lemelin and Smale, 2006). Studies that help to build an 28 understanding o f wildlife tourists’ wildlife experiences can assist in developing appropriate management strategies to enhance the viewing experience for visitors, to better respond to existing or potential problems arising from human-wildlife interactions and their associated impacts, and to facilitate the positive contributions such visitors can make (Lemelin and Smale, 2006). 29 Chapter 3: Methodology This research project is based on a mixed-method approach consisting o f both quantitative and qualitative methods. Previous research on the outcomes o f wildlife encounters have been criticized for relying heavily on quantitative methodologies rather than qualitative approaches (Deruiter and Donnelly, 2002). By applying research methods that are both quantitative and qualitative, the researcher can benefit from the strengths and weaknesses o f either approach (Jick, 1979; Denzin, 1989; Patton, 2002; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). Exploring wildlife tourism from a more qualitatively based approach may therefore be o f value in understanding the full range o f what it is that visitors take away with them following a wildlife experience (Moscardo, 2008). To accomplish this, I triangulated methods for data collection. Broadly defined by Denzin (1978), triangulation is a combination o f methodologies in the study o f the same phenomenon. A need has been identified for the use o f multiple methods in the investigation o f values related to natural resources that include the application o f qualitative approaches (Champ, 2002; DeRuiter and Donnelly, 2002). Champ (2002) argues that such an approach will enhance understanding o f topics like wildlife value orientations. For the purpose o f this thesis, a combination o f more than one research strategy was used as a tool for cross validation, to increase the credibility o f the research and to reduce flaws within the individual methods used, and yield comparable data. This chapter will provide a description o f the methods used. In addition, the data collected regarding demographic information o f the initial survey population will be included. 30 3.1 Data Collection My data was collected as part o f a broader study being conducted by Parks Canada focusing on mountain national parks backcountry day-use research and monitoring (Rettie, 2009). I was a member o f the research team that gathered basic demographic information about visitors, their motives for choosing specific trails, their reasons for visiting national parks, and their main activities. While data was not collected specifically for m y research, the questions and focus were similar enough to be adapted to my purposes. Baseline data was collected using a personally administered structured questionnaire. The questionnaire also served to screen participants who would be eligible to participate further in my own research. This follow-up data was collected through the use o f a sub-sample o f in-depth interviews, and a public weblog. Research Instrument Research for this project was conducted in three complementary stages: (1) a structured questionnaire, (2) a series o f in-depth interviews, and (3) a public Weblog. The first two stages correspondingly used two different interview instruments: (1) standardized interview questions, and (2) in-depth open-ended interview questions. Development o f these instruments occurred through a number o f steps including review o f relevant literature in social science research methods (e.g., Denzin and Lincoln, 1998; Patton, 2002; Neuman, 2004) and an examination o f methods used in various other similar studies (e.g., Simpson, 1995; Dill, 1998; Finkler, 2001). 31 Structured Questionnaire During the summer o f 2009, a short structured questionnaire was administered as part o f a backcountry day-use research and monitoring study being conducted by Parks Canada (Rettie, 2009). The questionnaire consisted o f 20 short questions pertaining to visitor experience on backcountry day-use trails in the mountain national parks, and collected general demographic information.1 The questions provided to visitors at selected sites (these sites will be reviewed in section 3.2). Due to the similar nature o f the study sample I was able to combine my questions onto the structured questionnaire being used by Parks Canada. For the purposes o f my research, I surveyed 428 mountain national park backcountry day-use visitors over a period o f four months2. The questionnaire served three main purposes: (1) collect general demographic and trip information; (2) determine visitor motivations for visiting national parks; and (3) a screener for park visitors who fit the desired respondent criteria for the second stage o f my research (in-depth interview). To better achieve the qualitative nature o f the interviews, I used a purposive sample. Therefore, the purpose o f the screening question was to identify those respondents who felt strongly that seeing wildlife was very important to them during a trip to the mountain national parks. Survey participants were recruited at a series o f pre-identified sites in each o f the seven mountain national parks. These sites consisted o f hiking trails considered to be low, medium or high-use. Respondents were approached on the basis o f being the next 1 Refer to A ppendix 1 for full questionnaire " Parks Canada surveyed a total o f 2142 visitors 32 available individual/party entering the area. If there was more than one individual in the approaching group, the participant was then selected based on a ‘next occurring birth date’ basis. In-depth Interviews In-depth interviews were conducted with a subsample o f respondents who were identified through the screener in the structured questionnaire. This subsample consisted o f 15 visitors to the mountain national parks who considered seeing wildlife very important to their experience. The purpose o f the in-depth interviews was to explore a deeper and more personal understanding o f the meaning o f wildlife viewing experiences. It has been suggested that the limits o f previous research in the area o f wildlife values implies the appropriateness o f using qualitative methods (Strauss and Corbin, 1994; Deruiter and Donnelly, 2002). Using open-ended questions in a semi-structured format allowed for the opportunity o f a thorough qualitative analysis. Relevant topics o f interest included: wildlife as a motivation for visiting national parks, activities planned around increasing opportunities to view wildlife, desired species to see, most memorable experiences viewing wildlife, and lasting impacts on visitors as a result o f wildlife viewing experiences. Participants were given a choice o f three options in how and where the interviews would be conducted: (1) on-site immediately following the structured questionnaire, (2) off-site in a neutral location o f the participants’ choice, or (3) via phone at a convenient 33 date specified by the participant. The purpose o f having these three options was to accommodate what was most convenient for the participant. O f the 15 in-depth interviews, one interview was conducted on-site immediately following the questionnaire, six were conducted off-site, and eight were conducted by phone. My initial intention was to complete 30 in-depth interviews. However, this target was not met for two reasons: a) by giving people the option to be contacted for a phone interview, the degree o f follow-up success was more limited than what I had anticipated, and b) after going through each interview in the process o f analysis, the data began to reach a point o f saturation. The categories, concepts and dimensions that were developed by the researcher were consistent among each interview. For this reason, in reviewing the number o f interviews collected it was decided that additional collection o f interviews was unnecessary. Alternatively, a third method o f data collection was added to provide a yield o f comparable data. Weblog The third instrument used was a weblog. A site was created using a publishing platform available through the University o f Northern British Columbia. The weblog was open to the public and used as a forum where wildlife viewers could share their experiences online. This instrument was added as an additional research method following the 2009 field season as a means to acquire additional data that would be useful in supporting the results found in the analysis o f the in-depth interviews. The purpose o f using the weblog as a research instrument, therefore, was as a tool for a comparative 34 analysis. Entries submitted on the weblog were analysed for similarities/differences with the data accumulated through the in-depth interviews. The weblog was advertised through a variety o f ways. I contacted a number o f organizations including various naturalists’ societies, hiking/outdoors clubs, wildlife societies and other related organizations. Each o f these organizations passed on the link to the blog via mailings lists and newsletters. The weblog was also advertised within Parks Canada through their newsletter. In addition, information about the weblog was spread by word o f mouth through friends, family and other acquaintances to those people whom they thought may have a keen interest in wildlife and who may be interested in participating. The weblog itself invited participants to share their experiences viewing wildlife by writing a personal entry describing their experience. The project was described in detail, and descriptions were given as to what kind o f information an entry should contain. Additionally, a page was available to the reader describing in detail the purpose o f the research, the consent implied by submitting an entry, and contact information for myself, as well as the UNBC Office o f Research. The response rate o f the blog resulted in a total o f 10 submissions within the time frame o f my analysis. Studies in recent years have shown that there are numerous benefits to using weblogs as a research instrument. First, they provide a publicly available and instantaneous technique for collecting substantial data (Hookway, 2008). In addition, blogs are naturalistic data in textual form. This allows for the creation o f immediate text without the resource intensiveness o f tape recorders and transcription (Liamputtong and 35 Ezzy, 2005). Lastly, due to the anonymity o f the online context bloggers are able to be relatively unselfconscious about what they are writing since their identity remains hidden from view (Hookway, 2008). 3.2 Sample Design and Selection Sample Design The sampling period for the structured questionnaire and the in-depth interviews was mid-June through mid-September 2009. This three month period was chosen based on peak visitation to the mountain national parks, and because it corresponded with the study being conducted by Parks Canada. It also allowed for sufficient time for instrument design and revision. Sampling was scheduled by weekday, weekends and holiday weekends, and time o f day. This sampling schedule was designed in a systematic random sampling fashion with a purpose o f obtaining a representative sample. Respondent Selection Procedures The sample population for this study was defined as those visitors to the mountain national parks during the months o f mid-June 2009 through mid-September 2009 who have a keen interest in wildlife viewing. More specifically, respondents in the first stage were screened to identify those visitors who feel that seeing wildlife on a trip through the national parks was very important, and who may have purposely sought out wildlife viewing opportunities. 36 Sampling occurred in two stages, corresponding with the first two research instruments: (1) standardized questionnaire, and (2) in-depth semi-structured interviews. In the first stage, the sample consisted o f a stratified random sample by location (e.g. specified trails within the mountain national parks). For any given survey period, the next available individual/party entering the area was approached and a participant was selected based on a ‘next occurring birth date’. Only individuals above the age o f 18 were eligible to participate. Answers for the questionnaire were given based on individual representation. For this first stage, the targeted sample size was approximately 396 completed surveys (based on a 95% confidence level with a +/- 5% error margin). The second stage o f sampling consisted o f an in-depth, semi-structured set o f interview questions administered to a sub-set o f survey respondents who indicated that seeing wildlife on their visit to mountain National Parks was ‘very important’. The sample represented in the second stage o f research consisted o f a non-probabilistic sample. Consequently, calculating a sample size a priori was unnecessary. Instead, interviews were obtained from a range o f visitors over the season and in various locations, working under the principle o f theoretical saturation (Patton, 2002). Sampling Sites The sampling sites were selected based on the visitor study being conducted by Parks Canada (Rettie, 2009). The sites were representative sample o f low, medium and high use backcountry day-use trails within the seven mountain national parks: Banff, 37 Jasper, Yoho, Kootenay, Waterton Lakes, Glacier, and Mount Revelstoke National Parks (Table l).3 Park B an ff National Park Survev Sites • • • • Bourgeau Lake Lake L ouise Trails (Lake L ouise Lakeshore, Fairview Lookout, Lake A gnes, Plain o f Six Glaciers) Johnston Canyon from M oose M eadow s Mt. Norquay; Red Earth • • Rockbound Lake Taylor Lake • • Astoria River Trail Geraldine Lakes M aligne Canyon Mt. Edith Cavell Sulpher Skyline Trail • Jasper National Park • • • • W abasso Lake Y oho National Park • • Lake o ’Hara Takakkaw Falls Kootenay National Park • • • • F loe Lake Waterton Lakes National Park • • • Akamina Parkway Bertha Lake Trail Red Rock Canyon Glacier National Park • • • Asulkan V alley Trail Balu Pass Mount Sir Donald Mount R evelstoke National Park • • Eva Lake M eadow s in the Sky M arble Canyon Paint Pots Stanley Glacier T able 1. Survey Sites 3 Refer to Appendix 2 for full maps 38 3.3 Data Analysis Data was analysed in two stages using a combination o f descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. 3.3.1. Stage One Basic descriptive statistics were used to examine the data collected in the structured questionnaire. As descriptive statistics provide a tool for simplifying and summarizing basic information from a mass o f data (Hopkins, Glass and Hopkins, 1987) this was the most appropriate method to describe the set o f categorical data (e.g., sex, age, group size) collected through the questionnaire. Results o f the structured questionnaire In total, 428 respondents participated in the on-site questionnaire. The data acquired from the questionnaire was used to supply a demographic profile o f backcountry day-use visitors in the mountain national parks. The subsample population from this group consisted o f 15 people. The 15 individuals who participated in the in-depth interviews were not selected specifically to be representative o f the survey population; however, they tended to represent a cross-section o f gender, age, and origin. 1. Demographic Profile o f Backcountry Day-Use Visitors in the Mountain National Parks Overall, visitors were primarily Canadian, equally split between male and female with an average age ranging between 50 to 59 years o f age4. 4 Refer to Appendix 3 for full list o f figures 39 2. Trip Characteristics o f Backcountry Day-use Visitors in the Mountain National Parks Survey location The distribution o f survey locations was spread throughout the seven mountain national parks. This was based on previous visitation numbers per individual park based on results from research previously conducted by Parks Canada. The majority o f respondents were approached on trails within Banff National Park, followed by Jasper, Yoho, Kootenay, Waterton Lakes, Glacier and Revelstoke National Parks. Respondents were asked to indicate what part o f the season they generally visit the national parks. The majority o f respondents indicated that this was their first visit to the national park. This was followed by respondents who stated that they visit the national parks during any time o f the season. A small portion o f respondents indicated that they visit during a specific seasonal period. Respondents were asked to indicate which activities they participated in or planned to participate in during their trip to the national park. The most popular activities included hiking, sightseeing, camping and eating out. In terms o f planned activities, wildlife watching was a less popular activity in terms o f planned activities. Importance o f seeing wildlife Respondents were asked to indicate how important it is for them to see wildlife on a trip through the mountain national parks. Despite a low number o f respondents indicating wildlife watching as an activity they plan on a trip through the mountain national parks, the majority o f respondents (46%) stated that seeing wildlife was very 40 important to them. This was followed by a moderate level o f importance (40%), and the fewest number o f respondents indicated that seeing wildlife on a trip through the national parks was o f no importance (14%). 3.3.2.Stage Two The method o f analysis chosen for both the second (in-depth interview) and third (weblog) stage o f data collection was thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is a search for themes that emerge as being important to the description o f the phenomenon (Patton, 2002; Daly, Kellehear, & Gliksman, 1997). For the purpose o f this research, the analysis was primarily inductive, and involved the identification o f codes, categories and themes within the data (Boyatzis, 1998; Patton, 2002). The thematic analysis was done separately for each individual interview and was repeated from the beginning multiple times to reconsider the patterns and themes, and maintain a consistency between interviews. Once this was done I refined the themes by looking across transcripts to represent the interviews collectively as a whole. These results will be discussed in the next chapter. I initially organized the data using the qualitative research software “NVivo 8” . However, after a closer examination o f the interviews I felt that a more thorough analysis and interpretation would be accomplished through personal analysis. Using a process o f open coding (Patton, 2002), I began by examining each individual interview transcript and developing a codebook. Coding was emergent but informed by my reading o f the literature. Encoding the information allowed me to organize the interviews to identify categories o f codes and patterns and ultimately to reveal themes in the interviews. 41 Boyatzis (1998) states that a “good code” is one that captures the qualitative richness of the phenomenon. He defines a theme as “a pattern in the information that at minimum describes and organises the possible observations and at maximum interprets aspects o f the phenomenon” (p. 161). Coding was done through the creation o f a structure o f nodes that provided a complete listing o f all categories for each dimension being coded. For example one set o f codes included elements such as “scary” “fear” and “anticipation” that were grouped in a category called “feelings or emotions”. Once I had conducted a detailed coding and categorized this information I looked more closely at these categories and across categories to discern patterns in the results. These patterns were interpreted to identify a series o f themes. At that point I looked more closely at each transcript to identify all o f the information that more specifically related to each individual theme. This process involved recognizing the individual respondents’ ideas and allowed me to examine the data more thoroughly. The entries o f the weblog were analysed using the same process o f thematic analysis. The text o f each blog entry was assigned codes from the same node structure created for the interview transcripts and examined for similar arising themes. A negative case analysis was done on the resulting data from the weblog. The purpose o f this was to search for any elements in the data that did not support, or appeared to contradict, the patterns that emerged from the analysis o f the in-depth interviews. Where patterns and trends have been identified, our understanding is increased by considering the instances and cases that do not fit within the pattern (Patton, 1999). Doing so may revise, broaden and confirm the patterns emerging from the original data analysis (Creswell, 1998). 42 After identifying the core or central themes in the interviews and blog entries I re­ examined and interpreted this information in what might be termed a meta-analysis or meta-synthesis (Lewis-Beck et al., 2004). This is similar to Attride-Stirling’s (2001) notion o f global themes. These global-themes “are super-ordinate themes that compass the principal metaphors in the data as a whole” (p. 389). In my research, my overarching findings were not necessarily themes p er se but were a synthesis across themes that identified a series o f central ideas. 3.4 Study Limitations Data Collection Methods Due to the nature o f the data being collected, in-depth interviews were chosen as the main research instrument in this study. There are, however, limitations associated with the sampling frame chosen. The sub-sample o f in-depth interviews conducted was originally intended to be conducted primarily as face-to-face interactions with participants. The intention o f having a face-to-face interaction with the visitor was to allow for a more personal relationship to be developed between the interviewer and the visitor, as well as to allow for a more thorough interpretation o f visitor experiences through the use o f facial expressions and body language. However, visitor schedules (e.g., travel time constraints), made it difficult to get participants to agree to on-site interviews. To cope with these obstacles, visitors were given the additional options o f meeting off-site at a later time, or setting up the interview via phone at a later date. 43 There were two major limitations associated with giving participants the option o f where and how the interviews were conducted. First, many o f the respondents who agreed to participate in off-site interviews via phone failed to respond despite multiple attempts to contact them. Thus, the number o f interviews collected was lower than had originally been anticipated. Second, because the phone interviews were conducted in a timeframe after their actual trip, details recalled regarding individual experiences may not have been as accurate or thorough as they might have been had the interview been conducted during the trip itself. A second major limitation regarding the data collection methods was the nature o f the information itself. While the study was originally designed to be specific to wildlife experiences within the national parks system, the focus ended up being less specific to the national parks and more directed towards the most memorable experiences had by visitors, be it in the national parks or elsewhere. This occurred through visitors relaying experiences that they have had viewing wildlife outside o f the national parks. However, because o f the similarity in nature, it was determined that information collected from such other experiences is still useful in how it could be applied in a national park setting. 3. 5 Conclusion This chapter presented the design and methodology o f the study. A mixedmethod approach was chosen, using a combination o f a structured questionnaire, in-depth interviews, and a public weblog. The questionnaire was administered to park visitors at a set o f low, medium and high use trails throughout the seven mountain national parks in western Canada. Through this questionnaire, a sub-sample o f participants was chosen 44 based on the importance they placed on seeing wildlife on a trip through the national parks. This sub-sample participated in individual in-depth interviews based on their experiences viewing wildlife in the national parks and elsewhere. The public weblog was developed as a separate tool for individuals to share their wildlife viewing experiences. Analysis was done using a combination o f descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and negative case analysis. The results from the thematic analysis o f the in-depth interviews and the public weblog will be interpreted and discussed in the following chapter. 45 Chapter 4: Description and Interpretation In this chapter I provide a description o f the in-depth interviews that were conducted with 15 individuals in the Canadian mountain national parks in the summer o f 2009. In addition, entries from my weblog have also been included in this interpretation to support and add to the descriptions o f the various elements shown to contribute to a meaningful wildlife experience. My interview questions were focused on the major elements o f wildlife tourism as related to experience as described in the literature. These included topics such as species preference, mode and proximity o f viewing, and general accounts o f memorable experiences. Given the qualitative approach to the thesis, this chapter is both a description and interpretation o f the interviews. In doing so, I hope to provide a comprehensive description o f the components identified to contribute to a meaningful wildlife experience. In addition I hope to draw the reader into the experiences described and give deeper insight into encounters with wildlife. The purpose o f the interpretation is to explain my findings and build the visible patterns into an analytic framework (Patton, 2002). I will start by sharing some o f the personal experiences encountering wildlife as described by the participants. This will be followed by a description o f the individual themes that were present in the responses o f participants, and in the latter part o f the chapter I will provide a more holistic picture o f meaningful wildlife viewing experiences. 4.1 Encounters with Wildlife My interest in encounters with wildlife first stemmed from when I was working as an interpretive guide in Lake Louise, Alberta. It was the first job I’d ever had in my field 46 o f study, and the first time I’d ever spent a quality amount o f time within a national park. Each day I would meet new people from different areas o f the world who were always keen to share stories o f their trip with me. M any times these stories were about wildlife they had seen along the highway, or encountered on a trail. As the summer went on I became more aware o f how often people actually began discussions with, “Guess what we have just seen?” The amount o f excitement and passion they tended to express amazed me. My interest only continued to grow as I began to have my own experiences with wildlife. I can still vividly recall the first time I ever encountered a bear on a hiking trail. We were happily hiking along and up ahead o f us realized that the two figures in front were that o f a black bear mother and her cub. Although we turned around immediately, we encountered another group o f hikers on the way out. We warned the two women that there was a bear with her cub up ahead on the trail, and to my surprise, rather than turning around, they immediately both got out their cameras and continued on ahead. This only confirmed my intrigue o f people’s interest in seeing wildlife. Since then I have spent a significant amount o f time within national and provincial parks throughout Alberta and British Columbia and my interest in encounters with wildlife has never ceased. I wondered what it was about wildlife that was so exciting for people, including myself. During the summer that I collected my research for this project I had the pleasure o f having many individuals share their experiences with me. Relaying a few o f those here to the reader sets the context for subsequent interpretation o f components of the experiences. In the interviews participants shared personal stories o f experiences they’ve had with wildlife, both in the national parks and elsewhere. Each o f these stories is unique in 47 many aspects, including species involved, where and how the experience took place, and the feelings and emotions that were reflected in the experience. In an interview with a woman I encountered in Kootenay National Park I was in awe at the amount o f emotion and passion in her voice as she recalled an experience she had viewing multiple bears on Vancouver Island. M y most memorable experience is the, i t ’s a very beautiful picture I will give to you. It was, I watched oh fo r about h a lf an hour, some black bears. It was on Vancouver Island on the west coast and I can't exactly remember the name, but there had been a pulp mill which had been closed, so interventions at the pulp mill had been planted, cherry trees. There were cherry trees along on one side o f the whole road. I went there with a frie n d and we sort o f had gone on to this road that w a sn ’t really leading anywhere, we had sort o f lost our way a little bit, and we saw, oh there must have been 15 bears, fro m little tiny cubs to big mommies and daddies and they were all up in the cherry trees gorging themselves. Some were big bears and they were heavy and they were reaching out and gorging themselves and then they kind o f plopped to the ground and rolypollied over the grass. They were so fu n to watch. Then the mama bear was kind of, kind o f hitting the little bears, like sort o f as i f they were being too naughty. Then after awhile you could tell they were so full, they sort o f went into the thicket beyond and you could ju s t imagine they would ju s t go in there and ju s t sleep. We were no more than 30 to 35 fe e t away, and they o f course d id n ’t know we were there, but it was ju s t the most amazing thing, and there were about 15 bears. It was so fu n and so beautiful. I could sort o f imagine i f they came upon big areas o f wild berries and then gorging themselves and then playing and enjoying themselves and ju st eating themselves silly (Participant #6). Participant #4 recalls the excitement demonstrated by her husband in an encounter with a bear: He (my husband) was so excited; he was like a little kid. He was bent down in fro n t o f me and I looked over his back and there was this bear. Well he got up and his eyes were this big and he was so excited. He was so excited that he was chuckling like a little kid looking up, like get out o f my way! I was thinking about all the things they tell you with a bear o f what to do. It starts flicking through your mind. You ’re so close and you ’re thinking is it a black bear or a grizzly bear, because i t ’s different right? A ll I could think o f was ju st back up, ju s t back up and get out o f 48 here. But my husband, he was laughing he was so excited. He was like, did you see that bear? That was so cool! The biggest thing I wish is ju s t that I would have had a camera to get a picture o f him that close, but I didn 7. It was exciting. Many o f the stories demonstrate a wide range o f emotions that occur throughout the experience, ranging from fear and excitement, jo y and exhilaration, to a sense o f peace and calm. This was the experience o f participant #9 as he recalled a run in with a moose in the forest: We were ju s t walking around in the winter and we came around the corner and there was a moose ju st standing right there in the middle o f the trail. It was almost like there was a pause fo r about 15 seconds, and utter silence. We d id n ’t know what to do, whether to run or anything like that. It ju s t kind o f stood there looking at us. I think it was kind o f thinking, "oh hopefully they d o n ’t see me ”, even though it was standing there right in the middle o f the snow. So there was kind o f a pause, and kind o f this quiet silence, then all o f a sudden it ju s t trotted o ff into the woods. It was neat because I had never seen one that close, not being in a vehicle. A t first it was scary, like oh god big moose, but then you 're okay and i t ’s not doing anything. It was really peaceful and calm. So it contradicted how I maybe fe lt ahead o f time i f I had seen a moose like that. A similar display o f emotions was revealed in an experience posted in a blog entry appropriately titled “Weak in the Knees” as the writer described a series o f bear sightings which started off in the safety o f a vehicle as they travelled along the highway, and transferred into a personal and unexpected encounter on a trail along their drive: M y fiance and I were lucky enough to take our ’78 tent trailer on a road trip fro m Edmonton to Prince George. We had a lovely drive out as the weather was perfect. I had never seen so many bears in all my life! It was so exciting to press my nose to the window like a child and be on the lookout fo r bears. They seemed to be around every corner lazily soaking up the sun or grazing casually as i f there was no one else existing. It was one o f the best road trips I had been on, ju st me and my beau, cruising music and bears galore. On our way home we stopped at a trail, it was magnificent! I was nattering the entire time to p u t my mind at ease thinking that any bears that could hear me would turn and run the other way. I fe lt fa irly safe until my fiance calmly told me to stop. I was warned 49 beforehand i f we spotted any bears not to run, ju s t to stand still. Yeah right! I was about to turn and bolt when he grabbed my hand. M y knees went limp and it took all my might ju s t to stand there. There, about 60 f t away, was a mama bear and her cub. Holy crap! She had grunted and snorted to make us aware o f her presence. M y fiance quickly grabbed a couple o f branches and started banging them together like a mad man. The black bear stared us down, not willing to give up her grazing spot. The cub stood on two legs, interested in what all the commotion was about. The only other option was fo r us to retreat, finding a new path to continue our walk. Now I was terrified to finish the rest o f the trail in fe a r o f running into more bears. We had to have a break so that my knees and heart had time to fo rg et my near death experience, at least in my mind, o f coming upon a mama and her cub. Although the experience was terrifying, it was also exhilarating to witness the beauty o f the black bear and her young in their true surroundings. It made me experience the true "wild" in wildlife. The importance o f the feelings that occur in encounters with wildlife was effectively described by one participant, who shared her thoughts about the feelings of her experiences, after sharing a few encounter stories with me. This story opened my eyes even further into how unique the process o f each experience is for every individual. She uniquely described her feelings about wildlife experiences using an analogy o f another type o f naturally occurring event. It s the feelings that are fantastic. The feeling that I had is the same fo r each o f those experiences when I ’m describing them. The only other thing I can think o f that I can compare it to is watching a thunderstorm, because i t 's another natural event that you ’re kind o f lucky to see that close. I t ’s spectacular, you have no control over it, and your encounter with it is kind o f unknown how i t ’s going to react. I t ’s the same in each o f those wildlife ones, the same feeling; different than anything else. I think i t ’s the hiking fo r a long time. You can 7 drive up, or you can 7 expect to hike fo r h a lf an hour and see wildlife, it ju st doesn 7 do it. You ve got to be hiking fo r awhile to immerse yo u rself in the environment and then i f you see something i t ’s neat because you are in it; you 're more in the environment. Even people who are well versed in the environment and being in backcountry settings have startling experiences with wildlife that they are generally very familiar with. 50 A commercial guide shared his experience in the blog entry “The Early Bear Catches the Snowshoers” : As a commercial guide I never expected this! Leading a group o f 12 people from Britain, we snow-shoed up the Marble Canyon Trail in Kootenay National Park and were marvelling at the frozen waterfall under the bridge. It was almost the end o f the season, April 10,h. A ll o f a sudden someone called out, “ W hat’s that? ” I looked to where they were pointing and saw a massive grizzly bear ‘swimming ’ through the deep snow, directly towards us. His stroke was immensely pow erful and he was approaching quickly. As I reassured my guests (and tried to form ulate a plan) his head came up fro m the wave o f snow in fro n t o f him and his course adjusted to our left, ju s t 100 f t fro m the bridge. Over ju s t a couple o f minutes we startled to see the unexpected, awed at this a n im al’s amazing power, and were left breathless as he quickly and silently disappeared over a small knoll. That is wildlife viewing in the Rockies; unpredictable and no time fo r a photo. These stories and the others that were shared with me during the discussions I had with each participant demonstrate that encountering wildlife is a unique and personal experience for each individual. Each story gives insight into the multiple characteristics that come together to create something that is meaningful to the individual involved and which often has a profound and lasting impact on the life o f the person. The remainder o f this chapter will be used to describe and interpret these discussions and blog entries more deeply to explore wildlife viewing experiences and the specific aspects that contribute to making them more meaningful and memorable for wildlife viewers. I will begin by examining the individual themes that arose from the interviews/blog entries and move into a more holistic interpretation o f these themes as the chapter goes on. 51 4.2 Central Themes within Wildlife Viewing Experiences Situational Factors Are More Relevant Than Species Viewed When speaking with each participant, the importance o f what type o f species individuals prefer to see or seek out was discussed. Initially the responses I was given were what I had expected and what is supported in the literature; a general desire to see rare and less well known species (e.g., wolverine, wolf, cougar) and large charismatic megafauna (e.g., grizzly bear, moose) (Farber and Hall, 2007; Lindsey et al., 2007; Woods, 2005; Moscardo and Saltzer, 2004; Chapman, 2003; Higginbottom and Buckley, 2003; Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001). Although the literature suggests that animals which are considered to be potentially dangerous to humans are generally disliked, it is also suggested that there are some exceptions, particularly with big cats (Woods, 2000). I found this to be congruent with what I heard from participants. Many participants expressed interest in seeing more predatory-type wildlife such as cougars, wolves and bears. Participant #1 stated more than once their desire to see a cougar; however, they were conscious o f the issue o f safety, stating “I would love to see a cougar, but I don’t want to find m yself on the path with it”. Participant #13 also shared that they would be interested in seeing, “stuff you don’t get to see very often like wolverines, wolves and bears”. This appeared to arise out o f the excitement and rarity associated with seeing less common predator species. While bears were commonly mentioned, their popularity might be explained by the fact that bears have become a distinctive symbol o f Canada, especially within the mountain national parks. This was described by participant #2 as he shared with me an encounter he had with an international tourist on a trail: 52 I had a very interesting experience here last year. I think they were Japanese tourists, all around on the trail over this way, at Oesa (Yoho National Park). We had spotted a mountain goat, Billy goat, big guy, by himself, and he was ju s t very slowly going along the scree slope. This couple came by and we pointed him out to them. The woman was a bit interested, but the man was like, “Huh? Goat? I came to see a bear ”. I fo u n d that very interesting, but I think many other people come fro m other countries and hope to see things like bears; bear in particular fo r many people. It’s been suggested that charismatic mega-fauna represents the feature o f protected areas most important to tourists, and these species play a key role in attracting the bulk o f visitors to parks (Lindsey et al., 2007). This could partly explain the emphasis that seems to be consistently placed on viewing bears in the mountain national parks. If this is so then charismatic species could be important in motivating first time visitors to participate in more frequent trips. As a result, visitors may begin to develop interest in opportunities to view a more diverse set o f species (Lindsey et al., 2007). An additional explanation that might further describe why there tends to be a specific emphasis on bears within Canada could be the focus placed on bears in the media and advertising for the national parks (e.g., The Discovery Channel, National Geographic). In an increasingly urbanized world where individuals have less direct contact with wildlife, mass media are an important source o f wildlife information. For many people who lack much direct personal contact with wildlife, perceptions o f wildlife are achieved through a variety o f sources, such as other people, entertainment, mass media, advertising and books (Corbett, 1995). Champ (2002) explored this idea o f media influence in an investigation o f wildlife media and value orientation. In this study, 30 o f the 60 families involved were aware o f at least some wildlife media presentations even when they have limited access to different media types (ex. internet). Champ (2002) 53 describes how creators o f wildlife media texts most often participate in practices such as staging scenes, sensationalizing nature, and concentrating on charismatic megafauna. If this is the case, then mediated wildlife, especially charismatic megafauna that is regularly showcased (such as bears) can become icons that ground us (Champ, 2002). If this is so, the initial desire to see larger animals and other rare species may arise out o f wildlife value orientations created by elements o f exposure to products o f wildlife media. As many o f the interviews progressed, the importance o f which particular species was desired seemed to decrease, suggesting that maybe the type o f species isn’t as important to wildlife viewers as they might even believe themselves. Most participants began by describing experiences with larger and less common species such as bears and moose; however this was often followed by descriptions o f experiences involving more common and species frequently considered as being less interesting such as squirrels, marmots or deer. In my discussion with participant #1, he shared with me how his focus on large species was easily changed in an encounter with some marmots. I'd love to see a bear, but only in the right circumstance. I 'd love to see a cougar or something, but I d o n ’t want to fin d m yself on the path with it. T here’s that element, the big animal in the wild is more amazing then seeing a pika or a marmot, yet ju st today watching the marmots with my kids, and they were incredibly cute and we sat and stopped and let them run around. That's pretty cool too. The preference o f other participants who also leaned toward seeing large species was often contradicted as the discussions got further into detail. This was the case for participant #12 who shared with me their desire to see larger sized species: I guess really I like to see any kind o f larger animal. Then again, marmots and stu ff are pretty cool too...I guess I'm not too picky after all. Participant #2 shared a similar thought: 54 Meeting a bear or a moose or any large mammal is in some sense more dramatic, but no more interesting than smaller animals. One reason that may explain why species is not as important as people may believe could be that the quality o f the experience may be influenced more by situational factors rather than the animal itself. The interviews indicate that wildlife viewers find meaning not only in species, but also in where and how the experience occurs: I need to see what nature would provide at whatever time I am there (Participant #6). I 'd say it depends on the situation. Just seeing it isn 't all that amazing, but i f I see it in a beautiful place or doing something interesting, that would make it more special (Participant #7). I think it's more the situation than the actual species; like with elk. I don't generally think that elk are that interesting, but because o f how the whole situation was and how funny it was, that made it more memorable. I think it's possible to have a pretty amazing experience with any sort o f animal (Participant #15). Viewing Wildlife Away from Building Infrastructure Creates a M ore Authentic Interaction The mode in which an animal is viewed emerged as being an important factor related to creating meaning in an encounter with wildlife. Two main points that were illustrated as being most important in regard to the mode o f viewing are that it should occur: (1) away from the highway or major roads (e.g., on a trail); (2) outside o f the safety o f a vehicle. 55 Viewing wildlife out on a trail or away from built infrastructure was described by participants as creating a more dynamic and authentic feeling o f having an interaction within the animal’s environment. This was described by participant #10: The experience is really different because seeing the animal on the road is almost like they are entering our world and i t ’s a different perspective. Being out on the trail i t ’s more that we ’re in their domain and we 're impacting their world rather than the other way around. A very similar view was also described by participant #14 who stated, “I would rather see something out on a trail or something where there are less people and it’s more like the animal is letting you be there” . An authentic experience has been considered to be an experience in which, “individuals feel themselves to be in touch both with the ‘real’ world and with their ‘real’ selves (Handler and Saxton, 1988, p.243). This sense o f realness was described by participant #11 as he explained his feelings on viewing wildlife from a vehicle: There's kind o f that idea o f security, you ’r e behind a window, but th ere’s no realness to it, you ’re not really interacting. Whereas i f you ’re out on the trail, i f there was fo r example a bear you would fe e l afraid and be like, what am I going to do? Am I going to be attacked? There's that possibility, so th ere’s kind o f that realization that we ’re not on the top o f the fo o d chain. Anything can happen and i t ’s kind o f real. Bruner (1991) suggests that authenticity often becomes a projection o f tourists' own beliefs, expectations and preferences. If we consider this in context to wildlife viewing experiences, it may mean that wildlife viewers see wild animals as being symbolic o f the wilderness. Reynolds and Braithwaite (2001) suggest that authenticity is one factor that is intrinsic in capturing the quality and richness o f a wildlife encounter for the person experiencing it. Authenticity in this sense is described in terms o f the degree o f natural behaviour exhibited by wildlife, and the environment it is observed in. This 56 could explain why viewing wildlife in a setting that is more immersed in nature might allow for the individual to connect more meaning to the encounter as a result o f it being more ‘authentic’. Other responses by participants suggest that seeing wildlife away from built infrastructure creates a type o f switch between environments, placing humans in the animal’s environment rather than the animal having wandered into “human space”. This idea could support the notion that by removing protective barriers, such as being in a vehicle, it may create a more authentic and meaningful experience by further exposing the visitor to the animal’s environment and therefore its natural behaviour. The removal o f a protective barrier was indicated as an element in creating a more authentic experience. O f the few respondents who mentioned they might like to see wildlife from a vehicle, it was only as a means o f safety rather than the experience. Participant #11 described how “there’s that idea o f security, you’re behind a window, but there’s no realness to it. You’re not really interacting”. This could indicate that while being in a vehicle might create a safer and more comfortable viewing environment, the experience might be less meaningful. While none o f the blog entries specifically went into any descriptions regarding preference to mode o f viewing, each o f the experiences described in every entry took part in some sort o f wilderness setting, away from a road or vehicle. Since these entries were un-probed and shared purely out o f the memory o f the writer, this may be a good indication that the most memorable experiences occur in natural settings, away from built infrastructure. 57 Being in Close Proximity to Wildlife is a Key Factor in the Experience In my discussions with participants the notion o f “the closer the better” was also described in the characteristics o f their meaningful wildlife experiences. When asked to reveal their most memorable wildlife experience, participants revealed that being in close proximity to the animal was a key factor o f the experience: The fa c t that y o u ’re in somewhat proximity to them and the feeling o f being that close is pretty amazing (Participant #1). There was a black bear, and he was big. He was ju st stopped and he ju s t kind o f looked at us like this, and we were looking at him. So that was probably the most memorable because we almost walked into him (Participant #4). We did know that there were bears in the area. It was quick, we ju st came around the corner and boom there they were. So I think because it was my firs t time; it was my first time being that close, too close, to a bear (Participant #5). It was an exciting experience to be that close and fo r them to be calm and acting normal like they would (Participant #10). This could be because the closer an animal is in proximity to the person may decrease the level o f comfort o f the visitor, and contribute to the amount o f emotion involved in the experience. A statement made by participant #15 supports this idea in stating that, “ I wasn’t really used to the idea o f wildlife being that close to me”. There is a significant body o f evidence that supports the notion o f the importance o f proximity in wildlife encounters. Schanzel and M cIntosh’s (2000) research revealed that satisfaction stems from being in close proximity and an often stated source o f dissatisfaction is not being able to get close enough. Similar findings have been described in several other studies related to overall visitor satisfaction, stating the importance o f being able to get close to wildlife (Moscardo and Saltzer, 2004; Higginbottom et al., 2001; Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001; Wright, 1998). 58 Seeing Signs o f Wildlife can Create an Equally Significant Experience A very interesting commonality that I came across throughout m y interviews involved the physical presence o f wildlife, or lack thereof. Throughout my discussions with the participants, multiple participants noted that there does not necessarily need to be wildlife physically present in order to have a meaningful experience. Instead, signs that there has been wildlife present at some point in time, or even just a feeling o f their presence created an equally significant experience. Such experiences were described by the following participants: We've walked up to an area and ju st gotten a really strange feeling, ju s t one o f those auras. That’s very impactful; it changed the dynamic o f the hike (Participant #1). There was so much scat, relatively fresh, and fo r the whole 12 bn. That in itself is an experience, and evidence; very clear evidence (Participant #2). I've seen tracks all the time, andfound antlers in the woods and all that kind o f stuff. It's really interesting. I w ouldn’t say it's the same experience as turning the corner and seeing a big group o f elk or something like that, but it's definitely still a memorable experience (Participant #7) I've gone hiking before where I haven't seen any animals but I ’ve come across a big fresh pile o f bear poop. I ’ll even go home and tell people about that, so I think there's definitely some kind o f meaning there (Participant #14). Such types o f experiences may indicate that even without the physical presence o f wildlife there is still a great amount o f interest in seeing traces o f the paths that animals may be taking, and as described by participant #10, “Almost a way o f understanding their lives". A similar finding was described by Fredrickson and Anderson (1999) who explained their respondents’ sense o f awe and wonder at the natural world. They discuss 59 how the exhilaration o f even just hearing wildlife in its natural setting adds to the excitement o f being in unfamiliar territory. This also relates to finding that there is, “an intense and pressing recognition o f one’s insignificance and the heightened recognition o f the inter-relatedness o f all life forms...above all a mixture o f awe and thrill o f being exposed to the sheer powers o f nature and a reawakened sensitivity towards the sights and sounds o f nature” (Fredrickson and Anderson, 1999, p.26). This is important as it demonstrates the possibility that the revelations o f being exposed to wildlife habitat and the evidence that animals are, or have been, present may be equally important to the overall experience. This could be an important implication for managers to facilitate wildlife experiences in a way that does not compromise the well-being o f wildlife in the park. Wildlife Photography Does Not Enhance an Experience so Much as Documents it Although stated as an important component o f wildlife tourism in the literature (Russell, 1995; Shackley, 1996; Lemelin, 2006), photography was not described as a significant contributor to meaningful wildlife tourism experiences within my interviews. Lemelin (2006) states that central to the experience o f wildlife viewing is the visual experience, and related proof o f the experience. While photographs did come up many times in my discussions with participants, most individuals found it more important to be in the moment than to spend it trying to get their camera out. Photographs o f the experience appear to act more as a documentation that the experience happened, rather than an important part o f the experience itself. 60 The pictures that w e ’ve taken, I like to look at them because they remind me o f the place, but i t ’s the mental memory, i t ’s almost like a visceral memory; the animals in the picture d o n ’t do it. Yeah, the pictures ju st document that you were there; it recalls... I t ’s kind o f hard to look through the camera, what you shoot isn ’t what you want (Participant #3). Although individuals liked to have a memento o f the experience to share with friends or family, most people felt that the quality o f the photograph that you get is not worth missing the defining moments o f the encounter itself. Well it's nice to have pictures, but I d o n ’t think i t ’s too important. I fin d with wildlife by the time you get your camera out the animal has always moved anyway. I guess I'd rather ju s t spend the time watching. I f i t ’s that exciting then I ’ll remember it (Participant #12). I t ’s always nice to have some sort o f memento to take back and show people, but fo r me when it saves in m y memory it's always there, so ju s t being able to see something and be there and experience it is rewarding enough (Participant #10). I ’m one o f these people who, i f I run around with a camera and I ’ve got to get this exposure and I ’m looking through a lens, and I have ju s t as much time to look at an animal to get that photograph, I ’m not really experiencing it properly, I ’m ju s t making sure I get this photograph, I ’m not really experiencing it properly. I ’m ju st making sure I get this photograph and then later on I can p u ll out the photograph and look at it, but I wasn ’t there at the time... Just to really be there properly, I ’m not in the future, I ’m not in the past, I ’m ju st right there and then I can actually remember that animal much better than I could looking at that photograph. I t ’s more important fo r me to see with my own eyes (Participant #6). Although photography was not an important component o f the experience within the discussions I had with participants, I suspect this could partially depend on the skill level o f the individual. Perhaps this would change with an increase in the skill level and ability o f the individual to take photographs o f wildlife. This is evident in my interview with participant #7, who shared how his experiences in the wilderness have actually inspired photography to be an important part o f his life. I've sort o f become an amateur photographer and painter, ju s t because I ’ve grown up camping all the time, seeing wildlife, all that jazz. I t ’s dramatically affected my 61 life, and the amount o f room I have in my apartment...I like to show o ff to friends and fa m ily whenever I can, but they d o n ’t care to see all that many photos, but I like to share. That's why I got into painting as well, ju s t sort o f to reach a wider audience. Although this participant is an exception to the other individuals I interviewed, for him photographs and painting act as a channel for sharing his experiences. While most participants felt that photographs are not an essential part o f the experience, sharing the experience with others, through other various means, was extremely important. This will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter. 4.3 Experiential Components of Wildlife Viewing Experiential Stages: Processing the Emotions o f a Wildlife Experience After examining the individual themes that arose from my interviews, a pattern began to emerge that could perhaps indicate that it may not just be the individual components o f a wildlife encounter that contribute to the creation o f a meaningful experience. Rather, there is a processing component that is important. This may also explain why the importance o f what species are viewed might not be as important as it initially appeared to be. This occurred to me as I reviewed an interview I had with participant #3. In our discussion she shared with me the way in which she interprets seeing different species in one hike as a progression o f signs that lets her know how immersed in nature she has become. For her this progression begins with the smallest, most common species that are generally quite easily spotted. I always like to see chipmunks, they make me smile. That’s the first thing I see in the wild and it makes me know I ’m out in the forest. That feels good. Then after that I like to see marmots and pikas; then you know 62 you 're getting out in the woods and you 're more likely to see something. You 're lucky i f you see more after that. Absolutely after that then it's luck. After listening to her describe this and reading it over again in the interview, I realized that there were other participants whose descriptions o f their experiences also showed a certain type o f progression. This might indicate that the development o f a meaningful wildlife experience may be the result o f a series o f stages that occur over time, rather than just at the defining moment o f the encounter. This progression, however, does not necessarily arise out o f the sighting o f different species, but rather a sequence o f emotional stages that occur over a period o f time throughout the encounter. Manfredo (2008) suggests that the element o f feeling is one we most readily identify with. He states that the experience o f emotion brings together “affect, perception o f meaning in one's world, and one’s existing knowledge about emotion” (p.53). While 1 did expect that there would be a broad variety o f feelings and emotions felt by the participants that were associated with their past experiences, something that I did not expect was the distinct emotional pattern that appeared. This pattern appears to be characteristic in almost all o f the accounts shared by participants in their interviews. For example, in the blog entry, “ 1 Bear, 2 Bear, 3 Bear cubs!” the writer describes how his feelings progressed in an encounter with multiple bears while on a biking trail: As I came flyin g around a technical com er Ifo u n d m yselfpulling on both breaks to try and avoid the inevitable collision with the black bear. Finally coming to a skidding stop I am looking the bear in the fa ce about 1 to 2 fe e t away. We are both curious... a wave o f adrenaline/fear slapped me in the fa c e but was quickly turned into a confident “avoid being attacked’’ emotion and all the thoughts o f how to act rushed in... it ended up with me slowly backing away while yelling only to fin d out that backing down the trail took me to a mother grizzly with three cubs, not a better place to be by any means. I ran into them ju s t as the mother was crossing the trail to catch up with the young cubs. I don't want to imagine how it 63 would have gone down i f I was a fe w minutes earlier and was in between the mother and cubs. This second encounter was beautiful, there was no fe a r (maybe because I still had some adrenaline pum ping through me) and I ju s t watched as the mother and cubs continued through the bush...After both encounters I had let go o f almost all fe a r I was feeling before and gained a lot o f respect fo r these majestic animals. Fear or apprehension was frequently mentioned in the first stage o f emotions that were felt by individuals, followed by more positive emotions as the experience continued. In an encounter with an elk, participant #15 described how they were afraid the whole time, however, the following morning when her group was discussing what had happened they were all really excited about it and laughing. This type o f change in emotion was also described by other participants as they reflected on their experiences. In a close encounter with a moose described by participant #2, he recalled how he felt a “big mixture o f reactions” and how his emotions went from “fear, to interest, to some sort of awe and admiration” . A similar spectrum was described by participant #6 who shared how his experience was scary at first, but then once he realized he was okay it turned to peacefulness and calm, extinguishing his initial feelings o f fear. The spectrum o f emotion that is described by each o f the participants, despite what type o f species they encountered, appears to align with each ‘stage’ o f the experience. Using the approach described by Manffedo (2008), this could indicate that a meaningful wildlife experience develops over a period o f time or number o f encounters, and increases in intensity through this series o f emotional stages. Based on additional findings from my interviews, this time o f processing seems to occur over a series o f 4 stages: (1) expectations before viewing wildlife; (2) the moment o f the encounter; (3) the 64 moments directly following the encounter; and (4) a longer term period o f reflection (Table 2). S tage A ssociated em otion s 1. Pre-encounter A nticipation, intrigue 2. M oment o f encounter Adrenaline, fear, shock, surprise 3. Post-encounter (directly R elief, excitem ent, calm, follow ing) peacefulness 4. R eflection (long-term ) Inspiration, fortune, privilege, connectedness with nature Table 2. Emotional stages o f w ildlife view in g experience Stage one: Pre-wildlife encounter In the first stage, common feelings that were described by participants were a sense o f anticipation and intrigue, not knowing what they might encounter. You come here this time o f year, you 're going to see flowers, and you know you are. As soon as the snow pulls back, out come the flowers. But you d o n ’t know whether or not you ’re going to see wildlife. Now I think you can expect that you ’11 see some, like you might see some squirrels, but you can never be sure how many. But the larger mammals, you know say marmots, and then in particular goats, sheep, moose, bear, you know, becomes less and less o f a certainty that you ’re going to see them, so th e re’s this sense o f anticipation, you ’re always looking and looking and looking (Participant #2). Stage two: The moment o f the encounter The second stage frequently incurred feelings o f adrenaline and fear, especially in presence o f larger animals. Smaller less threatening wildlife such as marmots, pikas martins was more frequently described in this stage as a sense o f shock or surprise. Participant #12 recalled her feelings in the moment o f an encounter with a black bear while hiking. We were ju st talking and not really paying too much attention and we came around the corner and there was this bear right there on the edge o f the trail. I ’m not even sure that it saw us, we could really only see its butt, it was busy eating plants. It definitely caught us o ff guard...at fir s t I think it was shock; it ju st totally took us o ff guard. I kind o f get into a bubble when I ’m hiking, get lost in m y thoughts and whatnot. So I guess I was ju s t surprised. Participant #15 shared her feelings o f fear on a camping trip during elk rutting season. I woke up in the middle o f the night to the most awful noise coming from right outside o f our tent. I mean, it sounded like it was ju s t outside the tent. It freaked me out. I couldn't actually see it but it was obvious what it w as...I mean, I d o n ’t know how close it was exactly, but it was obvious that it wasn ’t too fa r away. A nd elk are big! I mean, I can remember thinking what i f it tramples over our tent or something...I was afraid, probably the whole time. It was so loud and close. Stage three: Short-term post-encounter Moving into the third stage, the moments directly following the encounter, participants described feelings o f relief, excitement, calm, and peacefulness. In my discussion with participant #14, she described her feelings after an encounter with a mountain goat. I was by m yself and when I got to the top o f the trail and there was a big snow patch and there was this mountain goat there, ju s t chilling out up there by itself...I think at firs t I had some adrenaline pumping, I mean I think mountain goats aren 7 generally very aggressive animals, but I guess because I was by m yself I was a little freaked out. I didn 7 want to startle it or anything. But I ju s t kind o f stood still and watched it fo r a bit. It was really serene, it was ju s t so quiet and it was ju s t doing its own thing and I happened to come upon it. I guess I fe lt pretty lucky. Stage four: Long term reflection The fourth stage appears to occur as a long term result o f an encounter. In this stage the emotions o f the encounter appear to develop over a length o f time as the experience is re-played by the individual. Common feelings described by participants in this post- 66 encounter stage include a connectedness with nature, inspiration, fortune, and privilege. Along with the development o f these feelings in this stage, there also appears to be a strong desire to share the experience with others. The lasting impacts o f these feelings and the importance o f sharing experiences will be discussed later in this chapter. Multiple participants described how they felt that they had more intense feelings after the moment was over. The existence o f this fourth ‘reflection’ stage might explain this because as time passes the individual has more time to process the details o f the experience. This extended time frame, therefore, may allow for the development o f deeper feelings that connect more emotional meaning to the experience, and as a result creates a deeper and more profound memory. Experiential Learning Although the emotional processing was something that I did not expect to find, when I returned to the literature there were previously developed models connected to experience that can be applied to the experiences described in wildlife viewing. This progression o f emotional stages is reminiscent o f the Lewinian Experiential Learning Model described by Kolb (1984). This model describes a 4-stage cycle through which learning is conceived. It begins with a here-and-now experience. This provides a basis for reflective observation, where the individual can reflect on the personal meaning o f the experience. This is followed by a stage o f conceptualization that can then be analyzed by adopting new behaviours which can then influence the next experience. This is then analyzed by the individual in the experience and the conclusions are used in the modification o f their behaviour and choice o f new experiences (Kolb, 1984). / Concrete Experience (seeing/doing) Active experimentation Reflective Observation (acting, a d o p tin g n e w behaviours) (reflecting on person al meaning) N Abstract Conceptualization (thinking, developing concepts) Fig.2 The L ewinian Experiential Learning M odel (K olb, 1984) Ballantyne et al. (2011) identified a similar hierarchy o f responses from visitors in a study examining participants’ memories o f their wildlife tourism experiences and processes through which such experiences lead to long-term changes in conservation behaviour. The authors identified four levels o f visitor response to their wildlife tourism experiences (p.773): 1. Sensory impressions: Visitors report vivid visual, auditory, olfactory or tactile memories o f their experience; 2. Emotional affinity: Visitors report emotional responses to the experience or emotional connections with the animals they observed; 3. Reflective response: Visitors report new insights as a result o f cognitively processing their experience or make comments that indicate they have reflected on what they saw or heard; and 4. Behavioural response: Visitors report having taken specific actions in response to their wildlife tourism experience or report a heightened awareness o f the need for such action. The differentiation between the stages that I feel are the most important and those described by both the Experiential Learning Model (Kolb, 1984) and the four levels o f visitor response (Ballantyne et al., 2011) appears to be in the first stage. While neither model addresses the period o f time before the concrete experience, I found this time to be 68 an important stepping stone to the building o f a meaningful experience. The emotions felt before an encounter with wildlife appears to set the stage in what the individual may be expecting to follow. As a result the level o f excitement or anticipation the individual feels may contribute to a deeper development o f emotion when those feelings are confirmed by the occurrence o f an actual encounter. Consistent with both Ballantyne et al. (2011) and Kolb (1984) is the stage o f reflective observation or response. If the reflection stage o f the process is as important as it appears to be then perhaps it is also essential to the development o f deeper more embedded memories o f the experience. Manfredo (2008) suggests the topic o f wildlife is closely aligned to the development o f emotions with humans. He describes three ways emotions can affect memory: (1) as a quality o f what is remembered, (2) as a condition o f the mental state o f an individual when encoding information, and (3) as the condition o f the individual recalling information. Dillard and Meijnders (2002) also suggest that memory for an emotional event is better than for an emotionally neutral event. Curtin (2005) states that, “lived experiences gather significance as we reflect on and give memory to them” (p.3). This may indicate then that the deep emotional connections that appear to result in more vivid memories o f a wildlife experience may also have an important impact in creating long-term, lasting impacts on the life o f the wildlife viewer. Such impacts appear to reveal themselves differently based on the individual. Sharing Contributes to Long Term Meaning and Reflection In the discussions with the participants, each individual seemed to relay their memories through different forms o f expression. Examples o f this include keeping the 69 memory as an internal reward, using the memory as a learning tool, and using the memory to share the experience and relive the encounter with other people. In some instances, the positive feelings acquired from meaningful wildlife experiences appears to have lead some individuals to have a better appreciation for wildlife, and encouraged more frequent visits to the mountain national parks and other natural areas to pursue similar types o f experiences. Participant #13 explained how his experiences, “encourage you to go out and go further and do more, to get a chance to view something like that again”. These multiple experiences appear to contribute to the development o f a continuous spectrum o f learning opportunities, as described by participant #14 who revealed how they learn something new from each experience, especially because the details o f each experience are vastly different. This might also result from an increase in confidence in encountering wildlife as a result o f having experiences where the outcome is positive: These experiences definitely change the way I look at predatory wildlife or wildlife in general. Just changing my perspective fro m before in hearing other people's stories and ju s t kind o f going by them, whereas once you actually have an experience like that or an encounter you kind o f see the other side. The more beautiful side o f it (Participant #11). I ve encountered bears and such, but not really close, and I ’m always afraid I might panic and do something silly, so it was a good experience in showing that I could be calm and collected and nothing bad happened, so you know you can see wildlife in the wilderness and it's not necessarily going to be a bad situation (Participant #9). This was also the experience o f an individual whose blog entry “ 1 Bear, 2 Bear, 3 Bear Cubs!” described a series o f multiple encounters with bears while on a biking trail: A wave o f adrenaline/fear slapped me in the fa c e but was quickly turned into a confident, ‘avoid being attacked’ emotion. The second encounter was beautiful, there was no fear. After both encounters I had let go o f 70 almost all fe a r I was feeling before and gained a lot o f respect fo r these majestic animals. In addition to actively seeking out new experiences and feeling more confident, meaningful wildlife experiences also appear to influence some participants in their lifestyle and important decisions in their lives. This was described by participant #10 who explained how his experiences have impacted his life in multiple ways: I think going out and experiencing wildlife in a natural setting helps you appreciate it, and fo r me th a t’s led me to want to live more sustainably and preserve that fo r the future so that other people can experience the same. He continued by further describing how his experiences with wildlife has shaped his interests and what he’s been led to do throughout his life, including the educational degree he chose to pursue. This could be an indication o f the strength o f wildlife experiences as an influential source o f shaping life choices and decisions. This finding supports the literature in ways that wildlife tourism can contribute to conservation. This participant chose his academic pursuits based on experiences he has had with wildlife. This aligns with the notion that wildlife tourism can lead to subsequent involvement with wildlife conservation or research, and enhanced perception o f the value o f the natural environment (Higginbottom and Tribe, 2004). Sharing the Experience One o f the most significant impacts o f a meaningful and memorable wildlife experience that came out o f the descriptions in my interviews is the opportunity to share those experiences with other people. Whether it is friends, family, or complete strangers, sharing their stories was perhaps one o f the most central parts o f the experience for 71 almost all o f the participants. In many o f the discussions I had with participants, as well as in the blog entries, it was mentioned that the wildlife experiences they’ve had come up repeatedly in conversations over a long period o f time. Patterson et al. (1998) found that the opportunity to reflect on, analyse and share experiences after an intense nature/wildlife interaction seem to consolidate experiences and transform them into cherished memories. It is also suggested that sharing these experiences adds value to the life o f the participant long after the on-site activity (Curtin, 2005). This was demonstrated to me by participant #4 who revealed to me how she and her husband share their experiences: We tell that story so often and he (my husband) gets excited every time, oh yeah, we ’re always telling stories. When we go back home, well, we 11 be telling the one about the hairy marmot chasing us down the trail, and you know, it's ju s t another story we 11 be telling people about, we 11 be showing them pictures o f whatever we got... but you know, you ’re ju st talking to people about stu ff and we still talk about things w e ’ve seen, even to each other, we ’re both there, and also other people that we talk to, our fam ily and friends. The one thing that I found fascinating about this was the amount o f detail and emotion that she presented during our conversation. The animation in her hands and the level of excitement in her voice increased with every story. As she described to me how much they share their stories with each other and other people she also continued to recall other stories. This was the same for many participants. Participant #14 explained how she can’t wait to go home and tell someone when she’s had an exciting encounter: To see something that you haven ’t seen before, or that ju s t not very many people get to see in general, then i t ’s super exciting, and you know, you can 1 wait to go home and tell someone about it. 72 Through my observations o f the emotion and animation that presented itself as each story it continued to become even more apparent o f the impact that such types o f experiences have on an individual. Another thing that I found interesting was that it was not only with friends and family that the stories were important to share with, but also with other park visitors and trail users who they happen upon along. Participant #12 describes the significance o f this: I think i t ’s really important. It seems like that's always the first thing I want to tell people about, is wildlife I ’ve seen. Even ju s t running into other people on trails, i f you stop and chat it always seems to come back to that. This could indicate sharing wildlife experiences with other park visitors may be an important means to relate to one another over some kind o f common ground. The story that is connected to each experience also appears to be very important in creating even more meaning as it is continually relayed to other people. In my discussion with participant #2, he explained to me how he felt that in his encounter with two mountain goats it was “more than that 1just saw two goats because there’s a bit o f a story connected to it”. This appears to be the same even for people who shared the same experience together. Participant #12 explained how they felt that sharing was “really important because you have two different perspectives and everyone has a different opinion or outlook or emotion, and then kind o f sharing that other side o f it is really neat”. All o f these examples illustrate how it might be possible that meaningful experiences are lasting, continue to be rewarding over a long period o f time, and create a 73 way to bond with friends, family, and other visitors through the sharing o f deep memories. 4.4 Summary In my discussions with participants and through submitted entries from my weblog I was able to identify five central themes that have a high level o f relevance to wildlife viewing experiences: 1. Situational factors are more influential than species viewed; 2. Viewing wildlife away from built infrastructure creates a more authentic interaction; 3. Being in close proximity is a key factor o f the experience; 4. Seeing signs o f wildlife can create an equally significant experience; 5. Photography does not enhance an experience so much as documents it; Each o f these themes showed some level o f relevance to the participants and helps to describe the individual factors that are present in contributing to meaningful wildlife viewing experiences that are personal to the individual. However, in addition to the individual themes, what appeared more central was the idea that a meaningful experience develops through a series o f emotional stages and is facilitated by sharing the experience with others. This processing o f emotions appears to enable the individual to connect more meaning to the experience, while also leaving lasting impacts on the life o f the individual. It is evident that this process continues over a long period o f time and that the meaning o f the experience strengthens as it is relived through various channels o f sharing. This finding suggests avenues for further research and use for people looking for positive methods o f facilitating wildlife viewing opportunities. This will be discussed in the following chapter. 74 To achieve a truly meaningful wildlife experience that is valuable to the individual, I believe that there are a number o f factors involved that include not only the animal, but more importantly specific characteristics o f the physical surroundings, and the level o f emotion that is present throughout the encounter. Through my interpretation I conclude that within the context o f the individuals I studied: 1. meaningful experiences develop over a series o f time; 2. emotional connections to experience are essential in creating more meaningful and lasting memories; and 3. wildlife experiences have important lasting impacts on the life o f the viewer. 75 Chapter 5: Recommendations and Conclusions 5.1 Management recommendations This research provides important insights for managers o f parks and protected areas who are adapting to a shifting focus on visitor experience. As noted in previous chapters, wildlife tourism is a growing form o f tourism, especially within parks and other protected areas. The information obtained in this study demonstrates the importance o f visitor interactions with wildlife and the impact the experiences associated with such interactions can have on the visitor. If managers are able to focus on ways to encourage and enhance such types o f experiences, a number o f positive benefits may result such as increased visitation, positive economic impacts, and increased awareness, concern, and efforts towards education and conservation. Consistent with findings from Ballantyne et al., (201 la), and Ballantyne et al., (201 lb), the findings o f this research indicate that tourism managers should encourage visitors to find an emotional connection with the wildlife they encounter and develop ways in which they can reflect on those experiences. To do so, managers should address the individual components that contribute to meaningful wildlife experiences. This will provide visitors with the information and tools necessary to facilitate and enhance wildlife encounters before, during and after they occur. Additionally, managers need to focus on developing ways to aid visitors in continuing to process their experiences after they occur. Design interpretive programs to focus specifically on wildlife viewing It has been argued that increasing visitor awareness will lead to pro-active behaviour in conservation practices, possibly reducing the negative effects o f human76 wildlife encounters (Powell and Ham, 2008; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Higginbottom, 2004; Schanzel and McIntosh, 2000). In addition to encouraging pro-active behaviour, I suspect that increasing visitor awareness can facilitate opportunities to aid visitors in achieving more meaningful wildlife experiences. Effective interpretive programs have the potential to assist people to better see and identify wildlife and natural wildlife behaviour (Ballantyne et al., 2004). In their study examining visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism, Ballantyne et al. (201 la) provide suggestions for steps that wildlife managers should take to implement interpretation that addresses human-wildlife relationships. Building on these ideas, the development o f wildlife specific interpretive programs and experiences should address the individual components that have been identified in this research as being important in achieving meaningful wildlife experiences. In addition, such types o f programs may be an important tool in guiding visitors in the ways that they can interact with wildlife. The results o f this research indicate three areas o f focus which programs should be developed around: 1. Emphasize safe practices o f interacting with wildlife. Emphasizing the importance o f knowing how to safely interact with animals in the wild and how to understand the types o f behaviour that an animal may be displaying would provide visitors with effective tools to pursue wildlife experiences in a safe and appropriate manner. Some examples include information such as how to interpret the behaviour o f the animal, especially pertaining to specific seasons (e.g., elk in rutting season or bears in important periods o f foraging), recommended distances to stay away from the animal based on species type, what types o f human behaviour encourage aggressive behaviour in wildlife, and what actions to take if an animal shows aggressive 77 behaviour towards the visitor. This could be further enhanced by providing visitors with the proper information o f what types o f situations that park staff should be contacted in and the importance o f reporting wildlife sightings. Such information will encourage more pro-active behaviour by allowing the visitor to understand why such actions are important and give them a feeling o f ownership that their actions are contributing positively to the park. 2. Place more focus on species outside o f charismatic megafauna. Currently, national park promotion in the mountain parks places a large amount o f emphasis on charismatic megafauna, specifically bears. Providing more interpretive opportunities to learn about species outside o f the typical focus on charismatic megafauna has the potential to increase awareness and appreciation for smaller mammals that visitors may have a higher probability o f encountering. For example, species such as squirrels, marmots, martens and pikas. Creating a greater level o f awareness o f the positive attributes o f smaller wildlife species will enable opportunities for an increased number o f wildlife encounters, and increase the potential for such encounters to be equally as meaningful and memorable as those with rare and larger sized species. 3. Educate visitors on how to identify signs o f wildlife Educating visitors and giving them the tools necessary to be able to more easily identify signs o f wildlife will facilitate and encourage more meaningful experiences in nature even in the absence o f the physical presence o f wildlife. This can be done by designing programs that encourage the visitor to incorporate multiple senses (e.g., sight, sound, smell) while pursing activities that will result in a greater awareness o f the presence o f wildlife. By doing so visitors will be more attuned to their surroundings and 78 have the capability to interpret what wildlife may have been there before them, what wildlife may still be in the area, and how various species o f wildlife live and survive. In turn, by being more aware o f their surroundings visitors will increase their own level o f safety, as well as the safety and well-being o f wildlife they may encounter. Provide access to information to increase visitor opportunities to see wildlife Management should provide information to the visitor that may increase the opportunity to view wildlife, without compromising the objectives o f the park and the well-being o f wildlife and their habitat. Examples o f such types o f information might include promoting appropriate times o f the day or the year when wildlife is more likely to be seen. This type o f information may be a positive alternative to revealing specific locations that are common to some animals while still encouraging the visitor. Such types o f wildlife viewing tips may prevent large numbers o f visitors from travelling to specific areas and possibly compromising the health o f various habitat areas or the safety o f wildlife present. In doing so, managers can continue to cater to visitor satisfaction and experience by encouraging the desire to see wildlife and increasing their likelihood o f having an encounter. Assist visitors in processing the experience Apart from addressing the individual components, the results o f this research indicate that it is important that managers focus on developing methods o f facilitating opportunities for visitors to continue the emotional processing o f their experiences after the encounter occurs. Research in the environmental education literature suggests that 79 emotions also influence conservation learning (Meyers et al., 2004; and Ballantyne et al., 2001). In addition, encouraging visitors to continue this process after their visit will aid the visitor in continuing to enhance the meaning o f the experience and the associated lasting impacts. One way in which this could be done is by encouraging participatory sharing among visitors. This will enable visitors to continue to process and reflect upon their experiences through recalling specific details o f their experiences while sharing with other visitors and parks employees. This can be done in a number o f ways. One way would be by integrating participatory activities into interpretive programs that encourage visitors to re-play their experiences. For example, having audience members come up to re-enact a funny or exciting wildlife encounter. In doing so this would also allow family members or groups o f friends to interact with each other and reflect on the meaning o f the experience together. Another way managers can aid visitors in the processing stage o f the experience is by providing resources that encourage participation or use o f programs that the visitor can continue to use in the days, weeks or even longer periods after the visit. This may be through the use o f web-based technologies, or permanent fixtures within the park. PhotoVoice is an example o f an existing program whose idea fits the principles that would be beneficial to visitors looking for opportunities to share their experiences. While this specific program serves a different purpose, ultimately it provides a channel for participatory photography and digital storytelling methods (PhotoVoice, 2012). By developing a similar platform, visitors would have a means to continue to share their experiences with friends, family and other visitors. Other channels that may encourage similar sharing opportunities may be social networking pages, or the construction o f story 80 boards within the park where visitors could submit photos, drawings or writings o f encounters they have had. Such activities will help visitors continue to reflect upon and focus on the emotional aspects o f the experience. Encourage visitors to pursue conservation endeavours Since meaningful wildlife experiences appear to have lasting impacts on the life o f the individual, managers can use this to draw attention to various issues and provide opportunities for the visitor to contribute. Previous research has shown that encounters with wildlife can lead to pro-conservation behaviour o f visitors (Orams, 1997; Higginbottom and Tribe, 2004; Ballantyne et al., 2009; Ballantyne et al., 2011). Building upon their ideas, I believe that managers o f parks and protected areas can encourage pro­ conservation behaviour by providing visitors with examples o f practical and realistic things that they can do that will ultimately contribute to the welfare o f wildlife, in some cases specifically towards an individual species they may be passionate about as a result o f a positive encounter. Types o f positive outlets may be through providing examples o f small changes they can make in their own behaviour, volunteer opportunities, or providing information for various organizations where financial contributions can be made. 5.2 Recommendations for Future Research The findings in this thesis reveal multiple areas that merit further examination to better understand the nature o f wildlife viewing experiences. 81 Wildlife behaviour In terms o f the wildlife itself, one thing to look at specifically is the behaviour displayed by the individual animal(s) in the encounters described. Further questions to consider are: • • Does the behaviour that the animal is displaying (e.g., foraging, sleeping, showing aggression) change the outcome o f the whole experience for the visitor? If so, what type o f behaviour creates the most meaningful and memorable type o f wildlife experience and why? Improving vocalization o f wildlife experiences Additional research to be considered concerns the individual visitor. In my research I found that the ability o f the participants to vocalize their experiences was often limited. It appeared that participants frequently had a difficult time finding the language to adequately describe their experiences outside o f generic descriptions such as ‘exciting’, ‘awesome’ and ‘incredible’. By understanding the limits to vocalizing experiences it may be possible to uncover a way to aid visitors in elaborating the descriptions o f their feelings. This will allow for the collection o f a broader depth o f information regarding expression o f individual experience. Long term impacts o f wildlife experiences As I suspect that wildlife viewing experiences have a long term impact on the lives o f the individual visitor, tracking the long term effects o f such experiences is important to understand the true benefits that wildlife tourism has. A follow-up with participants could reveal a number o f things regarding the impacts o f wildlife viewing experiences. Examples o f topics for follow-up are: 82 • • • Measurement o f intent and action o f visitors who state intentions to change their behaviour in terms o f conservation practices; Does the individual’s species preference still hold true following the experience? Do individuals reshape the memory o f their experiences as time passes? Comparison o f user groups Since my population was focused quite specifically on backcountry day-use trail users within the mountain national parks, examining whether my findings hold true for other user groups would be valuable in identifying if the characteristics o f memorable wildlife experiences remain constant. Other user groups to be considered should include non-trail users and roadside wildlife views, as well as visitors who do not necessarily place a high level o f importance on seeing wildlife in the national parks. For those who are not motivated wildlife viewers, an additional question to consider may be whether wildlife experiences have a more profound impact. Media influence As 1 suggested that media may influence the way various species appeal to different individuals, an additional question to consider may be how exactly media portrayal o f wildlife shapes visitor preferences and does this influence change the experience for the individual. Questions to consider are: • • • In what ways do TV documentaries, books, magazine ads, and wildlife news coverage shape the way in which visitors perceive wildlife? How do perceptions o f wildlife differ between exposures to various types o f wildlife media? What, if any, effects do these perceptions have in shaping wildlife experiences? Visitor based research methods 83 Lastly, since the major limitations I faced related back to the timing and location that the interviews were conducted, I recommend that future studies in visitor based research use one consistent method o f contact with each visitor. For example, in my experience I found it very difficult to follow up with visitors who had stated they would like to participate via a phone interview at a later date. As a result the total number o f indepth interviews I desired was reduced. I feel that this would have been improved by requesting only on-site, face to face interviews with participants. This also aids in developing a more personal relationship with the visitor and allows the interviewer to develop a deeper interpretation through facial expressions and body language. Exploring these areas o f further research will allow for a greater breadth of information into how visitor perceptions o f wildlife are shaped, how these perceptions affect the way that visitors experience wildlife, and how to better understand the impacts o f wildlife experiences and how they differ among individual visitors. 5.3 Conclusions Wildlife tourism is a quickly growing focal point o f the tourism industry and is attracting interest from governments, the tourism industry and researchers (Moscardo and Saltzer, 2004; Higginbottom, 2004; Bushnell and McCool, 2007; Manfredo, 2008). Increasingly, parks and protected areas are attractive settings for the growing demand for encounters with wildlife in natural environments (Eagles et al., 2002). Emphasis on visitor experience is becoming an increasingly common goal for agencies like Parks Canada and other protected areas agencies. Therefore, a greater understanding o f what contributes to meaningful and satisfying visitor experiences is essential for managers to 84 successfully set the stage to providing such experiences. Research investigating the dynamics o f wildlife viewing encounters from the visitor’s perspective can help managers to better understand the importance o f these specific types o f experiences, and aid them in developing ways to enhance such experiences for the visitor, even long after it has occurred. A large portion o f research previously conducted in wildlife tourism has largely focused on the individual components o f wildlife viewing (e.g., size, species). Increasingly, more attention is being paid to the emotional aspects o f human-wildlife relationships. Previous approaches to understanding human-wildlife relationships have been largely quantitative. While this has been an effective way in obtaining data related to visitor preferences for wildlife, future studies with a more qualitative approach should be conducted to gain a greater depth o f understanding into the emotional connections that visitors have with wildlife. The results o f this research emphasize this. My findings indicate that while the individual components o f wildlife viewing do play a role in experience, more important are the emotional connections that are associated with a wildlife encounter and the various stages o f the experience where those emotions come into play. In addition, these experiences often have important lasting impacts on the life o f the individual. As a result, managers o f parks and protected areas need to pay greater attention to the emotional connections that visitors have with wildlife and utilize these relationships to facilitate more meaningful visitor experiences, while also continuing to increase support for conservation and encourage return trips to the national parks. In the final section o f this thesis I have made several management suggestions based on the results o f my research. The two most important areas o f focus that I feel 85 need to be addressed are: (1) provide visitors with the tools necessary to increase their awareness o f wildlife, ultimately increasing the opportunity for the visitor to have a wildlife experience and (2) provide opportunities for visitors to continue processing their experiences after they have occurred. In doing so, visitors will have the means necessary to enhance the meaningful nature o f their experiences and continue to reflect upon those experiences in ways which create long-term positive impacts on the individual. Future research recommendations have been made that will continue to build a better understanding o f the nature o f wildlife viewing experiences. In doing so, managers will be better able to reach a broader visitor audience and continue to achieve their goals o f maintaining ecological integrity while providing opportunities for positive visitor experiences. 86 References Attridge-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic Networks: An Analytical Tool for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), pp.385-405. Ballantyne, J. and Eagles, P.J. (1994). Defining the Canadian Ecotourist. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism, 2(4), p.210-214, 4p. Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Falk, J. (2011). Visitors’ learning for environmental sustainability: Testing short- and long-term impacts o f wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modeling. Tourism Management, 32, pp. 1243-1252. Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Hughes, K. (2009). Tourists’ Support for Conservation Messages and Sustainable Management Practices in Wildlife Tourism Experiences. Tourism Management, 30(5), pp.658-664. Ballantyne, R., Packer, J. and Sutherland, L.A. (2011). Visitors’ memories o f wildlife tourism: Implications for the design o f powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism Management, 32, pp.770-779. Borrie, W.T. and Birzell, R.M. (2001). Approaches to Measuring Quality o f the Wilderness Experience. In Freimund, W.A., and Cole, D.N. (Eds.). Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience, (pp.29-38). Ogden, UT: Department o f Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bruner, E.M. (1991). Transformation o f Self in Tourism. Annals o f Tourism Research, 18, pp.238-250. Bushnell, R. and McCool, S.F. (2007). Tourism as a tool for conservation and support of protected areas: Setting the agenda. In Bushnell, R. and Eagles, P.J.F. (Ed.) Tourism and Protected Areas: Benefits Beyond Boundaries (p. 12-26) CABI International Champ, J.G. (2002) A Culturalist-Qualitative Investigation o f Wildlife Media and Value Orientation. Human Dimensions o f Wildlife, 7, pp.273-286, 13p. Chapman, R. (2003). Memorable Wildlife Encounters in Elk Island National Park. Human Dimensions o f Wildlife, 8, pp.235-236. Clarkson, P. (2006) Applying Precautionary Principles to Marine Wildlife Viewing in Pacific Rim National Park. In Viewing M arine Mammals in the Wildlife, (pp.81-83), accessed on January 12, 2012 from www.thegreenblue.org.UK/pdf/z 1356. ViewingMarineMammalsintheWild.pdf#page: 113 87 Coghlan, A. and Prideaux, B. (2008). Encounters with Wildlife in Cairns, Australia: Where, What, Who...? Journal o f Ecotourism, 7(1), pp.68-76, 8p. Cole, D,N. and Landres, P.B. (1995). Indirect Effects o f Recreation on Wildlife. In Knight, R.L. and Gutzwiller, K.J. (Eds), Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research, (pp. 183-202). Washington, DC: Island Press. Corbett, J.B. (1995). When Wildlife Makes the News: An Analysis o f Rural and Urban North Central US Newspapers. Public Understanding o f Science, 4, pp.397-410. Cordell, H. K., Bergstrom, J.C., Hartmann, L.A., and English, D.B.K. (1990). An Analysis o f the Outdoor Recreation und Wilderness Situation in the United States: 19892040. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service. Cowichan/Ladysmith Marine Tourism Authority (2005). Commercial Marine-Based Tourism Study Report. Accessed on May 18, 2010 from http://marine.cowichan.net/pdf/Final%20report%20March%2031.pdf Curtin, S. (2005). Nature, W ild Animals, and Tourism: An Experiential View. Journal o f Ecotourism, 4(1), pp. 1-15, 15p. Creswell, JW. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cronin, J.K. (2011). Manufacturing National Park Nature: Photography, Ecology, and the Wilderness o f Jasper. Vancouver: UBC Press. Daly, J., Kellehear, A. & Gliksman, M. (1997). The public health researcher: A methodological approach. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Pres DeRuiter, D.S., and Donnelly, M.P. (2002). A qualitative approach to measuring determinants o f wildlife value orientations. Human Dimensions o f Wildlife, 7(4), pp.251271. Denzin, N.K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative material. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dillard, J.P. and Meijnders, A. (2002). Persuasion and the Structure o f Affect. In: Dillard, J.P. and Pfau, M. (Eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in theory and practice, (pp.309-328). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. 88 Dowling, R.K. (1977). Environmental Education. New Zealand Environment, 16, p.2426, 2p. Duffield, J., Neher, C. and Patterson, D. (2006). Wolves and People in Yellowstone: Impacts on the Regional Economy. Accessed on November 18, 2011 from https ://motherj ones.com /files/1Owolvesandpeople .pdf Duffus, D.A. and Dearden, P. (1993). Recreational use, valuation, and management, o f killer whales (Orcinus orca) on Canada's Pacific coast. Environmental Conservation 20(2), pp. 149-156. Eagles, P.F.J., McCool, S.F. and Haynes, C.D. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas: Guidelines for planning and management. Accessed on January 15, 2012 from cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pag_008.pdf Farber, Mary E.; Hall, Troy E. 2007. Emotion and Environment: Visitors’ Special Experiences Along the Dalton Highway in Alaska. Journal o f Leisure Research, 39, pp.248-270. Fredman, P. and Emmelin, L. (2001). Wilderness Purism, Willingness to Pay and Management Preferences: A Study o f Swedish Mountain Tourists. Tourism Economics. 7(1), pp.5-20. Fredrickson, L.M. and Anderson, D.H. (1999). A qualitative exploration o f the wilderness experience as a source o f spiritual inspiration. Journal o f Environmental Psychology, 19, pp.21-39. Graefe, A.R. and Vaske, J.J. (1987). A Framework for Managing Quality in the Tourist Experience. Annals o f Tourism Research, 14(3), pp.390-404, 14p. Green, R. and Giese, M. (2004). Negative Effects o f Wildlife Tourism on Wildlife. In Higginbottom, K. (Ed.), Wildlife Tourism: Impact, M anagement and Planning. Australia: CABI International. Green, R. and Higginbottom, K. (2000). The Effects o f Non-Consumptive Wildlife Tourism on Free Ranging Wildlife: A Review. Pacific Conservation Biology, 6, pp. 183197. Great Plains Research Consultants. (1984). BanffN ational Park, 1792-1965: A History. Library Parks Canada. Gauthier, D.A. (1993). Sustainable development, tourism and wildlife. In Nelson, J.G., Butler, R.W., and Walls, G. (Eds), Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing (pp.98-109). Ontario: University o f Waterloo. 89 Handler, R., and W. Saxton. (1988). Dissimulation: Reflexivity, Narrative, and the Quest for Authenticity in Living History. Cultural Anthropology, 3, pp.242-260. Ham, S. and Weiler, B. (2001). 100,000 Beating Bird Hearts: Tourism, Wildlife and Interpretation. Keynote presentation at the First National Conference on Wildlife Tourism in Australia. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, October 28-30. Accessed from www.crctourism.com.au. Hammitt, W.E., Dulin, J.N. and Wells, G.R. (1993) Determinants o f quality wildlife viewing in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21, pp.21-30. Higginbottom, K. (2004). Wildlife tourism: An Introduction. In Higginbottom, K. (Ed.), Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning (pp. 1-11). Australia: CABI International. Higginbottom, K. and Buckley, R. (2003). Terrestrial Wildlife Viewing in Australia. Gold Coast: CRC for Sustainable Tourism. Higginbottom, K. and Tribe, A. (2004). Contributions o f Wildlife Tourism to Conservation. In Higginbottom, K. (Ed.), Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, M anagement and Planning (p.99-123). Australia: CABI International. Hopkins, K.D., Glass, G.V. and Hopkins, B.R. (1987). Basic Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. Hookway, N. (2008). Entering the Blogosphere: Some Strategies for Using Blogs in Social Research. Qualitative Research, 8, pp.91-113. Hughes, M., Newsome, D. and Macbeth, J. (2005). Case study: Visitor perceptions o f captive wildlife tourism in a western Australian natural setting. Journal o f Ecotourism, 4(2), pp. 73-90. Jenner, P. and Smith, C. (1992) The Tourism Industry and the Environment. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit Jick, T.O. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), pp.602-611. Katcher, A. and Wilkins, G. (1993). Dialogue with Animals: Its Nature and Culture. In S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis, (pp. 173-200). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Kellert, S.R. (1996). The Value o f Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington, DC: Island Press 90 Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source o f learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Lemelin, R.H. (2006). The Gawk, the Glance, and the Gaze: Occular Consumption and Polar Bear Tourism in Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(6), pp.516-534. Lemelin, R.H. and Smale, B. (2006). Effect o f environmental context on the experience o f polar bear viewers in Churchill, Manitoba. Journal o f Ecotourism, 5(3), pp. 176-190, 14p. Lemelin, R.H. and Wiersma, E.C. (2007). Perceptions o f Polar Bear Tourists: A Qualitative Analysis. Human Dimensions o f Wildlife Management, 12(1), pp.45-52. Lewis-Beck, M.S., Bryman, A. and Liao, T.F. (2004). The Sage Encyclopedia o f Social Science Research Methods. Accessed on October 26, 2012 from http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-social-science-researchmethods/n782. xml Liamputtong, H. and Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindsay, P.A., Alexander, R., Mills, M.G.L., Romanach, S. and Woodroffe, R. (2007). Wildlife Viewing Preferences o f Visitors to Protected Areas in South Africa: Implications for the Role o f Ecotourism in Conservation. Journal o f Ecotourism, 6(1), pp. 19-34. Lothian, W.F. (1976). A History o f Canada’s National Parks: Volume 1. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Lothian, W.F. (1977). A History o f Canada’s National Parks: Volume 2. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Lothian, W.F. (1981). A History o f Canada’s National Parks: Volume 4. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Luxton, E.C. (1975). Banff: Canada’s First National Park. Banff: Summerthought. Manfredo, M.J. (2008). Who cares about wildlife? Social science concepts for exploring human-wildlife relationships and conservation ideas. New York: Springer. Manfredo, M. J. C. L. Pierce, and T. L. Teel. 2002. Participation in Wildlife Viewing in North America. In Manfredo, M. (Ed.) Wildlife Viewing in North America: A Management Planning Handbook (pp. 25-42). Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 91 Manzo, L.C. (2003). Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning o f emotional relationships with places. Journal o f Environmental Psychology, 23, pp.47-61. Meyers, O.E., Saunders, C.D. and Birjulin, A.A. (2004). Emotional Dimensions o f Watching Zoo Animals: An Experience Sampling Study Building on Insights from Psychology. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(3), pp.299-321. Moscardo, G., Woods, B. and Greenwood, T. (2001). Understanding Visitor Perspectives on Wildlife Tourism. CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd.: Australia. Moscardo, G. and Saltzer, R. (2004). Understanding Wildlife Tourism Markets. In Higginbottom, K. (Ed.), Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning (p. 167185). Australia: CABI International. Moscardo, G., Woods, B. and Saltzer, R. (2004). The role o f interpretation in wildlife tourism. In Higginbottom (Ed)., Wildlife Tourism, (pp.231-252). Melbourne: Common Ground Publishing. Montag, J.M., Patterson, M.E. and Freimund, W.A. (2005). The W olf Viewing Experience in the Lamar Valley o f Yellowstone National Park. Human Dimensions o f Wildlife, 10, pp.273-284, lip . Newsome, D., Dowling, R. and Moore, S. (2005). Wildlife Tourism. North York, Ont.: Channel View Publications. Neuman, W.L. (2004). Basics o f Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Pearson, Allyn and Bacon. O ’Connor, S., Campbell, R., Cortez, H. and Knowles, T. (2009). Whale Watching Worldwide: Tourism Numbers, Expenditures and Expanding Economic Benefits. Accessed on January 14, 2012 from www.ecolarge. com/wp. content/uploads/2010/061 WWW W 09 .pdf Orams, M.B. (1997). The Effectiveness o f Environmental Education: Can We Turn Tourists into ‘Greenies’? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3, pp.295-306. Parks Canada (2007). Visitor Experience in Parks Canada. Accessed on January 20, 2010 from http://lin.ca/resource-details/9232 Parks Canada. (2007). Bow Valley Parkway Final Report. Vancouver, BC: IPSOS REID. Parks Canada (2008). Banff National Park o f Canada: State o f the Park Report. 92 Parks Canada (2009). Wildlife o f B a n ff National Park. Accessed on January 8, 2010 from http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/natcul/natcul5_E.asp Parks Canada (2010). B anff National Park o f Canada: Management Plan. Ottawa: Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication. Patterson, M.E., Watson, A.E., Williams, D.R. and Roggenbuck, J.R. (1998). An Hermeneutic Approach to Studying the Nature o f Wilderness Experiences. Journal o f Leisure Research, 30(4), pp.423-452. Patton, M.Q. (1999). Enhancing the Quality and Credibility o f Qualitative Analysis. HSR: Health Services Research, 34(5), pp. 1189-1208. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Powell, R.B., and Ham, S.H. (2008) Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro­ conservation knowledge, attitudes, and behavior? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), pp.467-489. Reid, R. (1998). Economic Value o f Wildlife Activities in British Columbia. Victoria, BC: Wildlife Program, BC Ministry o f Environment. Rettie, K.(2009). Mountain Parks Back Country Day Use Research and Monitoring. Parks Canada, B anff National Park. Reynolds, P.C., and Braithwaite, D. (2001). Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism. Tourism Management, 22, pp.31-42. Rockel, M.L. and Kealy, M. (1991). The Value o f Non-consumptive Wildlife Recreation in the United States. Land Economics, 67, pp.422-434. Russell, L.C. (1995). The Social Construction o f Orangutan: An Ecotourist Experience. Ontario Institute fo r Studies in Education, 3(2), pp. 151-170. Russell, C. L., & Hodson, D. (2002). Whalewatching as Critical Science Education? Canadian Journal o f Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 7, pp.54-66. Schanzel, H.A., and McIntosh, A.J. (2000). An insight into the personal and emotive context o f wildlife viewing at the Penguin Place, Otago Peninsula, New Zealand. Journal o f Sustainable Tourism, 8(1), pp.36-52. Shackley, M. (1996). Wildlife Tourism. London: International Thomson Business Press. Sontag, S. (1977). On Photography. London: Penguin. 93 Strauss,A., and Corbin, J. (1994). Basics o f qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook o f Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Tisdell, C. and Wilson, C. (2001). Wildlife-based Tourism and Increased Support for Nature Conservation Financially and Otherwise: Evidence From Sea Turtle Ecotourism at Mon Repos. Tourism Economics, 7(3), pp.233-249. Tourism British Columbia. (2009). Wildlife Viewing Product Overview. Accessed on May 18, 2010 from http://www.jti.gov.bc.ca/research/ResearchbyActivity/pdfs/land_based/Wildlife_Viewing _Sector_Profile.pdf Tremblay, P. (2002). Tourism Wildlife Icons: Attractions or Marketing Symbols? Journal o f Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9, pp. 164. Ulrich, R.S. (1993). Biophilia, Biophobia, and Natural Landscapes. In S.R. Kellert & E.O.Wilson (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis (pp. 73-137). Washington, D.C: Island Press. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2012). Canadian Rocky Mountain National Parks. Accessed on January 14, 2012 from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/304 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2006). National Survey o f Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Accessed on May 18, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html United States National Park Service. (2011). Yellowstone National Park. Accessed on November 18, 2011 from http://www.nps.gov/yell/index.htm Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage Publications. Valentine, P. and Birtles, A. (2004). Wildlife Watching. In Higginbottom, K. (Ed.), Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning (pp. 15-34). Australia: CABI International. Washington Department o f Fish and Wildlife, and Washington Department o f Community, Trade and Economic Development (2004). Wildlife Viewing Activities in Washington: A Strategic Plan. Accessed on May 18, 2010 from http://wdfw.wa.gov/viewing/viewing_plan/index.htm 94 Wilson, E.O. (1984). Biophilia, the Human Bond with Other Species. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wilson, E.O. (1993). Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic. In Kellert, S. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis, (pp.31-40). Washington, D.C.: Shearwater Books. Wilson, M.A. and Herberlein, T.A. (1996) The wolf, the tourists, and the recreational context: New opportunity or uncommon circumstance? Human Dimensions o f Wildlife, \, pp.38-53. Wilson, C. and Tisdell, C. (2001). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Woods, B. (2000). Beauty and the beast: Preferences for animals in Australia. Journal o f Tourism Studies, 11(2), p.25-35 Woods, B. and Moscardo, G. (2003). Enhancing Wildlife Education Through Mindfulness. Australian Journal o f Environmental Education, 19, pp.97-108. Wright, R.G. (1998). A Review O f the Relationships Between Visitors and Ungulates in National Parks. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 26(3), pp.471-476. 95 Appendix I: Standardized Questionnaire 2009 Summer Survey #_________Int.__________ Time_______ Date________ Trail nam e________________________________ Park___________________________ 1. H ow did you find out about this trial? a.visitor centre b. friend/family c. internet d. written info e. oth er______ 2. What factors contributed to your choice o f trail? a. appropriate distance and elevation gain b. landmark or view along trail c. schedule and availability o f time d. weather e. recommended f. o th er___________________ 3. H ow far did (w ill) you travel along the trail today? _________________ (km increments or trail landmark) 4. What three words best describe your experience so far. 5. D id the trail meet your expectations? yes no 6 . Overall, what are som e things that Parks Canada can do to better meet your expectations? 7. H ow m any days w ill you spend in the follow ing areas? B an ff N P days K ootenay N P Lake L ouise a r e a _________________ d a y s days Icefields Parkw ay__________________ days days W atertonN P Jasper N P days R evelsto k eN P Y ohoN P Glacier N P __________________ days __________________ days days_Other_________________________________ _ 8 . What other activities do you have planned for this trip through National Parks? sightseeing hiking w atching other shopping eating out camping relaxing m useum s/exhibits w ildlife 9. When do you usually com e here O this is my first visit O early season (M ay/June) O mid-season (July/August) O late season (September/October) O all season 10. What is your main reason for visiting national parks: 11. H ow important is it to you to see w ildlife during your visit to the national parks? O not important O moderately important O very important 96 12. D o you have any activities planned purposely to increase the opportunity to view w ildlife? 13. H ow did Parks Canada staff influence your experience? 14. What are som e new things you have learnt w hile in the National Parks? 15. W here and how did you learn about these things? 16. W here is your home? C ity /T o w n ____________________ 17. Are you: solo P rov/State with group o f friends and/or fa m ily _____ (# o f p p l) Country _ oth er___________ 18. Are you a (please check one per line): Sex: O male O female Age: O < 20 0 20-29 Employment status: 0 30-39 0 40-49 0 50-59 0 60-70 O >70 O em ployed O self-em ployed O retired O student O unem ployed Family income: O < $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 O $3 5 ,0 0 0 -5 5 0 ,0 0 0 O $50,00 0 -$ 7 0 ,0 0 0 O $7 0 ,0 0 0 -$ 100,000 O > $100,000 19. Comments: I h a n k \ o u l o r a s s is t i n g in b e t t e r m a n a g e m e n t o f N a t i o n a l P ar ks 97 Appendix 2: Study Area Maps Banff National Park Trail Information #1 -('.tiki; V - Mount St. Pi ran Mount S i block Pass Lake;Agnes *y Teahouse 2,135m 7 :0 0 5 # " ' 2 . 0 ' r ■ '* * ;* 96 r Devil's •s 1 Thumb M ount W hxte Little xe t > : .9 , ^ N* > •’ ■ N F airm ont f ’ -■'Chateau ,"W ..... -G a te D eeh i/L o f^ e Lodge /s S & r ^ 'V t N N ?^ // / / ' Fm>w ( t ' Lookout \%. \% - - ' o ,y i .A Plain cjf the : Six Glajciers Teahouse 2,090m 167857* # : “ - ■-■ ' F airview -5 .-^ Mount a in f * — >0 % 1 • A .'' 94' 2.175m 7,156' ' THIS AREA IS ENLARGED y^ O .V uo c' t% 1 -r—- •••"'■; "- •- ' ^ w r< ■ . 5-.. ;V*!S .\ . O N ‘BACK OF MAP . ; Mdunt Aberdeen ' i Y*'** Sadd< Saddleback ~o\ A$“ '/ ; TT I © 6 ; Haddo ;■ Peak : 3,070m /O.07I 1 .3 S 0 m y ■ ~ O 7 M 4 '0 -X'-lus: ■ tx %% VV Rock Gardens To 6th ^ (Sport climbing) 1.0 km Horse Maiigne Canyon Area Scale 1:20,000 Contour interval 20 metres Maiigne Canyon Restaurant and Gift Shop x NX Interpretive V \ loop •-"Z&K Trail Distances 1st to 3rd Bridge loop: 0.8 km 3rd to 5th Bridge: 1.6 km one way 5th to 6th Bridge: 2.0 km one way . r0 1 7* Maiigne Canyon Hostel 100 S i t VI-2 V -S T * •-' r ^ K M b tiu t - M ^nhtn 101 Pass ' J ? \^ Estella Majestic 3,085m V^ Lectern : . Vertex P eak I .2.774m trailers on (5w.SdithCavellRc is ro^d is ctosad in winter 'yAtpdla\ iMaccaru Mountain Portal 1880m Creek . Toi^uin tT 5- A «5*W; Valley - - «—• ' l‘‘ A&k> Backcounity ’ttk" ^ " •■' L A ,. tp d g e L ^ j , A r* C h th e r i& s ■%>. r .. I.1L r* ■ •. -. Mficcarib, •Pratichire /fc.« ''- 2 5 0 0 - - . '# » ' - \ 2. m n 7J S 0 ’ Mount Mafcarib doubh&KJtim A s to r ia s_~ Pass ^y M ^i'CSVy Switchtiaek Qtaii 'A i s u ■ . . * Ar^Ji _~L» ( . f dtimosi VEneOUte Sil\ 2>880m>\*zd net r> Tfutme MauMuln K 3.12dm Peak / 'I^M o m P e^p y JyA>un,^ I \ ! Jrl’ ',\ \ , : R e n t ( y e .-//f'£n £ uirm ^ k . h t s s - f<\ ’ Mount Caved Meadows .Trail Kootenay National Park Trail Information 9S 4V M1 . Whvrnpei VW.Vi 9 t.H n a t io n a l •K iaoo^yAXKi t; Wa*d*h / i&o • ' N-*i. ■ 5 -.M ■■ araa * V- ,l- . ' A ■vTokumfrCfsw,k . - V*’ jOXtfvtvjKj ■\ Trat*' X t y d r f ’*' srffta 4 Vtl 4 CSetiruftWiit# Ch»gt.,Tfai!S( / j. ■ >. U- ; ^MwttBCa^on, Octwe 32 " * y.imn : m e lq n , i '•■§, *•.. . . "‘■'I'SXS” 'Trait * - • . PAFfK ;* • HefmatffjoTrO^' *•! ,r# Mis .\ h '" v* ***■—._ T$n>mWti •*• ; ’ *> V r? “' V ! liCW • T« 1«krr '''\y^&l.440n — ^ ^ IK3 i Wa/bte Canyon 'C #jW W S / W o<4 /49tn S.69J Mount, * n iT ' v v /5 $ & ,W.i*^ <>/ y 4 D 2.<40n U 20 Sr,.,, S io n ltv ! 'Xmtwtumi ts-fi Wwria ... NATlOh Glacier National Park Trail Information 103 Waterton Lakes National Park Trail Information •Cam o n F4 M / />U11 lit alw fhrihtt Pe.ik ■ 2.440 m V iv lh inset map, \....... t ': above to right., 4 ., this point. Elevation \ \ < ' % 1,280 m $,005' B ik J « allowed pas,1 \ 3 •; i LanPir^g 1 14® Crypt «■ A ..-7 -:' 6 "v B e t t h a T a k e ^ ^ i -y v / ’0 4 km iT Bei thajf /'f i > //. II hr. Oii-rOw, Ltii-i’ Mount RU'huufs 2,4 H ,n 7 )0 Boundary B a y # V il ""•" '.> r- — ^ i 9.Q ^ ; ^ 7* 0.<>Km CumpbeUi MouiOum' 2 5!$ nt 8345* ■ Goat Haunt / i Boat ,-’ ' : ~7 Goat Dcf k In te rp re ts ^ Olson \ ■Mountain, 2.412 m i 7,013' ] t J r ’S n s V Haunt V: C w u n -p. ^| „*■*>£ ^ s ^ - ~ * w Ai* " A , u^/Waterfon - * ravjg^A »>» 104 5 - - (Goat Haunt - i s w ^ .^ R a n w , . f K cm hn-* r \% Lookout 1:0 mi t .6 km Yoho National Park Trail Information \ ^ WhatebTK* ' v' - V Y v .i ^ h,>hui-i . A..-/, b Sfjjr Uluili.hr, K U. -ununf! *A\1 5,430 / % % - (•■•■'•'I '■•aav \^^^Uuahira.Pa}}s B. 1,606m5t2?.5’ XXa,- M‘vV'i ti m.*. *C< > ft :c> Va«ey_. Kiva-'VirKVs;v$ n.i>v\!.1jr} 'PENT RANGE f i?4m !ce)ir«« wrwvi \ 2,230^ 7 310 * te n ts only) 1i<<•President it\w: TakaMuaw Fan? , Trjiihcad 1510m4.9b4 Vi^M'y J&i*VaHra-v ^U-a=fc> f ,-Vi .1?‘T WWvif/ Y bhoU kf \V .> i;t Q.f/i a< j a - »:• 105 A ppendix III: D em ographic Profile of B ackcountry Day-use Visitors Survey Location ■ Banff NP » Ja s p er NP ■ Y oho N P ■ K ootenay NP ■ W a te rto n NP s Glacier NP ■ Mt. Revelstoke NP N=428 V isito rG e n d er a Female 106 Visitor Age 30% 26.1% Wk 22.4% 25% 20% 16.0% 1 5 .5 % 1 I I | 1 15.3% 15% 10% 5% 0% - I | _______ IN=425 s I III I i , ^ -------------- "T--------- <20 20-29 30-39 40-49 T"~-------------T------ '------ ~ 1 " 50-59 60-69 70+ Visitor Origin by Country ■ C anada a United States ■ G erm a n y ■ England ■ Holland O th e r 107 A ctivities Planned M useum s/Exhibits Shopping Relaxing 16.1% Wildlife w atching O th er I 23.1% Eating o u t I 22.7% Camping Sightseeing Hiking ■ N=428 3- .9% 42.1% 3% 100% 109