5.2 Visitors
5.2.5 Impacts of tourism
5.2.5.3 Environmental impacts
The environmental impacts are discussed in relation to whether respondents engage in environmentally-friendly behaviour. Furthermore, respondents’ perceptions of various forms of environmental impacts and what should be done to make their visits more enjoyable are examined.
Table 5.30 How often do respondents perform specific activities (in %)
Care of the environment Ezulwini
(n=100)
Tala (n=100)
Total (n=200) Save bottles, cans and newspapers for recycling
Never 5 19 12
Seldom 11 13 12
Sometimes 5 17 11
Frequently 15 24 19.5
Always 64 27 45.5
Buy environmentally-friendly or recycled products
Never 5 4 4.5
Seldom 22 17 19.5
Sometimes 19 21 20
Frequently 33 38 35.5
Always 21 20 20.5
Make donations to environmental organisations
Never 25 17 21
Seldom 31 41 36
Sometimes 24 17 20.5
Frequently - 13 6.5
Always 20 12 16
Conserve water
Never 5 2 3.5
Seldom 11 14 12.5
Sometimes 10 32 21
Frequently 20 24 22
Always 54 28 41
Take public transport whenever possible
Never 52 43 47.5
Seldom - 12 6
Sometimes 20 24 22
Frequently 15 10 12.5
Always 13 11 12
Engage in minimal impact practices in natural
areas
Never 14 11 12.5
Seldom 15 26 20.5
Sometimes 22 12 17
Frequently 24 19 21.5
Always 25 32 28.5
Participate in local environmental group
Never 45 42 43.5
Seldom 5 21 13
Sometimes 20 5 12.5
Frequently 10 21 15.5
Always 20 11 15.5
Write to politicians or attend meetings about
environmental issues
Never 39 55 47
Seldom 37 24 30.5
Sometimes 37 24 30.5
Frequently - 7 3.5
Always 5 8 6.5
Results from a study on tourist perceptions at the Mon Repos Conservation Park in Queensland, Australia reported that tourists are frequently engaged in conservation actions that require a low level of commitment (recycling, conserving water and conserving energy); sometimes engaged in conservation actions that require a moderate level of commitment (purchasing environmentally-friendly products talking to others about the environment and picking up other people’s litter) and never or rarely engage in conservation actions that require a high level of commitment (participating in a public land/water clean-up doing volunteer work for a group that helps the environment and donating money to a nature or conservation organisation (Ballantyne et al., 2007). Results from this study show a similar trend. Table 5.30 illustrates that the majority of the respondents at the Ezulwini Private Park and at Tala Private Park (i) always save bottles, cans and newspapers for recycling (64% and 27%, respectively), (ii) frequently buy environmentally-friendly or recycled products (33% and 38%, respectively), (iii) seldom make donations to environmental organisations (31% and 41%, respectively), (iv) always or seldom conserve water (54% and 32%, respectively), (v) never take public transport whenever possible (52% and 43%, respectively), (vi) always engage in minimal impact practices in natural areas (25% and 32%, respectively), (vii) never participate in local environmental group (45% and 42%, respectively), and (viii) never write to politicians or attend meetings about environmental issues (39% and 55%, respectively). These tourists visiting Ezulwini Private Park and Tala Private Park could fall into the category of hard-core nature tourists (Lindberg, 1991). According
to Lindberg (1991: 3), hard-core nature tourists are “scientific researchers or members of tours specifically designed for education, removal of litter or similar purposes”.
Table 5.31 Perceptions of various forms of impacts that they experienced in the Parks (in
%)
Impacts Ezulwini
(n=100)
Tala (n=100)
Total (n=200)
Overcrowding
Yes - 8 4
No 100 92 96
Overdevelopment
Yes - 2 1
No 100 98 99
Unregulated recreation
Yes 6 6 6
No 94 94 94
Pollution
Yes 6 10 8
No 94 90 92
Wildlife disturbances
Yes - 13 6.5
No 100 87 93.5
Vehicle use
Yes 9 18 13.5
No 91 82 86.5
Lack of signs
Yes - 1 0.5
No 100 99 99.5
Noxious weeds
Yes - 1 0.5
No 100 99 99.5
Marion and Reid (2007) show that there is evidence whereby visitation causes negative impacts and affects wildlife and their habitats. Furthermore, the greater the popularity of a site, the more likely it may become degraded due to heavy visitation which will diminish the tourists quality of experience (Hillery et al., 2001). Researchers note that reducing these negative impacts through the implementation of appropriate policies, planning and management strategies is crucial to the development of a sustainable wildlife tourism industry (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Higginbottom,
2004; Newsome et al., 2004; Rodger et al., 2007). However, results from this study (Table 5.31) indicate that an overwhelming majority of the visitors to Ezulwini Private Park and Tala Private Park did not experience negative impacts such as overcrowding (100% and 92%, respectively), overdevelopment (100% and 98%, respectively), unregulated recreation (94% in both Parks), pollution (94% and 90%, respectively), wildlife disturbances (100% and 87%, respectively), vehicle use (91% and 82%, respectively), lack of signs (100% and 99%, respectively), and noxious weeds (100% and 99%, respectively) while they were visiting the respective Parks. The results reveal that according to the visitors, the Parks are being well managed from their perspective. However, Hillery et al. (2001) indicate that previous studies on perceptions of the environmental impacts have concluded that tourists are not very perceptive of their own effects on the visited natural areas, although they do notice the direct impacts such as rubbish and vandalism of other tourists.
Table 5.32 Rating of aspects to make their visit more enjoyable (in %)
Ezulwini (n=100)
Tala (n=100)
Total (n=200) Educate visitors more about conservation
Strongly agree 33 58 45.5
Agree 39 25 32
Neutral 11 10 10.5
Disagree 17 1 9
Strongly disagree - 5 2.5
Not applicable - 1 0.5
Limit the overall number of visitors
Strongly agree 23 25 24
Agree 29 27 28
Neutral 31 34 32.5
Disagree - 4 2
Strongly disagree 17 9 13
Not applicable - 1 0.5
Limit the use of forest area
Strongly agree 28 22 25
Agree 24 30 27
Neutral 31 36 33.5
Disagree - 2 1
Strongly disagree 17 9 13
Not applicable - 1 0.5
Limit the length of stay during peak periods
Strongly agree 10 17 13.5
Agree 24 26 25
Neutral 40 27 33.5
Disagree 9 19 14
Strongly disagree 17 11 14
Not applicable - - -
Provide more visitor facilities
Strongly agree 35 33 34
Agree 24 38 31
Neutral 15 15 15
Disagree 26 8 17
Strongly disagree - 6 3
Not applicable - - -
Provide more staff
Strongly agree 25 33 29
Agree 30 32 30.5
Neutral 28 25 27
Disagree - 6 3
Strongly disagree 17 4 10.5
Not applicable - - -
Limit the number of vehicles to the Park
Strongly agree 40 23 31.5
Agree 24 41 32.5
Neutral 31 14 22.5
Disagree 5 9 7
Strongly disagree - 13 6.5
Not applicable - - -
It is essential for Park management to understand not only the numbers but also the activities for visitors with reference to modes of transport, seasonal behaviour patterns, types and locations of behaviours, and the toleration of visitors to various forms of management control (Ryan and Sterling, 2001). However, little is known about the interests, needs and preference of tourists (Ballantyne et al., 2007). Results from this study illustrate that the majority of the respondents at the Ezulwini Private Park (69%) and at Tala Private Park (83%) strongly agree or agree that their stay would be more enjoyable if visitors to the Parks were educated on conservation issues.
Research has shown that many visitors to nature-based recreation areas want to learn more about the environment. Instead interpretation facilities and services continue to be lacking at these sites due to restrictions on budgets and the lack of environmental education specialists (Roggenbuck et al., 1990). In order to make their stay more enjoyable, the majority of the respondents at the Ezulwini Private Park and at Tala Private Park strongly agreed or agreed that (i) the overall number of visitors to the Park should be limited (52% in both Parks), (ii) limit the use of forest area (52% in both Parks), (iii) the length of stay of visitors at the Park during peak periods should be limited (34% and 43%, respectively), (iv) there should be more visitor facilities (59%
and 71%, respectively), (v) there should be more staff attending to visitors (55% and 65%, respectively), and (v) the number of vehicles entering the Park should be limited (64% in both Parks). Very few respondents disagreed with these statements while significant proportions were neutral. The results generally show that most respondents supported activities to promote
environmental education, restrictions to minimise environmental impacts and the provision of more visitor facilities.