Applying the precautionary principle when feeding an endangered species for marine tourism. (June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ziegler, Jackie A.; Silberg, Joshua N.; Araujo, Gonzalo; Labaja, Jessica; Ponzo, Alessandro; Rollins, Rick; Dearden, Philip
• Is Part Of: Tourism management. Volume 72(2019)
• Page Start: 155
• Page End: 158
• Publication Date: 2019-06
• Subjects: Wildlife tourism ethics -- Marine wildlife tourism -- Tourism impacts -- Precautionary principle -- Shark tourism -- Wildlife provisioning -- Ecotourism; Tourism -- Periodicals; 338.4791
• DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.11.021
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0261-5177

Abstract

Abstract: Ziegler et al. (2018) assessed tourists' perceptions of the ethics of feeding an endangered species for tourism purposes. The ethical decisions made, and justifications provided, were assessed using utilitarian and animal welfare ethical philosophies. We concluded that despite the substantial social and economic benefits of this activity, it remains unclear whether these benefits outweigh the potential costs to the whale sharks, the community, and the greater environment. There is no evidence that provisioning is not detrimental to the sharks. Consequently, we invoke the precautionary principle whereby the onus to prove no detrimental impact should be on the proponents of provisioning whale sharks. Due to the lack of published, peer-reviewed "robust and unequivocal" scientific evidence of the impacts of this activity alluded to by Meekan and Lowe, our conclusions stand until thorough cost-benefit analyses are completed. Highlights: We assessed tourists' ethical perceptions of feeding whale sharks and identified justifications used for participation. A utilitarian cost-benefit analysis highlighted gaps in knowledge of the economic, social and ecological impacts. It is unproven that the benefits of tourism outweigh costs to the sharks, community, and greater environment. We invoke the precautionary principle whereby onus to prove no detrimental impact lies with proponents of provisioning. Significant ethical questions remain regarding the provisioning of these sharks.