Human dimensions of whale shark provisioning in Oslob, Philippines
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Whale shark tourism can provide an incentive to protect whale sharks and their habitats by making them worth more alive than dead. However, the sustainability of these tourism activities is critical to the long-term success of this approach. Whale shark tourism in Oslob is one of only two places in the world where tour operators feed whale sharks to facilitate tourist interactions. To date, no comprehensive studies have assessed tourists' attitudes towards whale shark provisioning. This study assesses tourists' support for whale shark provisioning, as well as their satisfaction with the tour experience in Oslob. Approach TripAdvisor comments of the Oslob whale shark watching experience (n=216) were thematically coded and analysed in NViVO 10. Tourist surveys were collected during the 2014 whale shark watching season in Oslob (n=761) in order to measure attitudes towards interactions with whale sharks. Survey results were coded and analysed in SPSS Version 21. Results TripAdvisor analysis identified four main issues with the experience in Oslob: crowding, provisioning, impacts on sharks, and pricing. Survey results suggest that foreign tourists were significantly more likely to feel crowded compared to national tourists, both in terms of number of other snorkelers (37% vs. 19%; χ2(1, N=629)=23.475, p=0.000, Cramer's V = 0.193) and number of boats (50% vs. 28%; χ2(1, N=623)=30.919, p=0.000, Cramer's V = 0.223), despite the fact that both groups reported encountering the same number of people. Both the survey and TripAdvisor analyses found no significant difference in overall satisfaction with the tour between foreign and national tourists. However, the TripAdvisor analysis did identify a foreign tourist segment termed ‘guilty pleasure’, which exhibited negative feelings towards the ethics of whale shark feeding and an unwillingness to return to Oslob, but still recommended the tour to others. These findings were reflected in the survey results. Foreign tourists were significantly less likely to be willing to participate in whale shark tourism in Oslob again (62%) compared to national tourists (90%; χ2(1, N=632)=67.686, p=0.000, Cramer's V = 0.327), but the vast majority of both foreign (93%) and national (99%) tourists would still recommend the tour (χ2(1, N=632)=18.153, p=0.000, Cramer's V = 0.169). Foreign tourists were also significantly less likely to support the feeding of whale sharks than national tourists (35% vs. 65%; χ2(2, N=635)=55.209, p=0.000, Cramer's V = 0.295), with a further 35% and 22% neutral on the topic, respectively. Although the majority of both groups felt the price of the tour was appropriate, foreign tourists were willing to pay significantly more for the whale shark experience than national tourists (US$63 vs. US$33; t=–6.020, p=0.000, rpb=0.245). Foreign tourists were willing to pay the most for an experience where sharks were not fed, but there was 100% chance of seeing a shark (US$64), followed by sharks fed with 100% chance of seeing sharks (US$43). National tourists on the other hand were willing to pay US$17 for an experience where there was 100% chance of seeing a shark regardless of whether the sharks were fed. Conclusions Few participants perceived the feeding of whale sharks as a negative activity, although foreign tourists were less supportive than national tourists. Most foreign tourists would recommend the tour to others despite their stated intention to not return and misgivings regarding the ethics of provisioning or potential impacts on whale shark health. More in-depth interpretation is necessary to inform tourists of the conservation status and threats facing whale sharks, as well as the potential impacts of tourism activities, both positive and negative. Furthermore, the number of boats and swimmers should be controlled in the whale shark viewing area to address crowding issues.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».