Senevirathna & Perera /Journal of Tropical Forestry and Environment Vol. 3, No. 02 (2013) 1-10 1 Feature Article Wildlife Viewing Preferences of Visitors to Sri Lanka’s National Parks: Implications for Visitor Management and Sustainable Tourism Planning H.M.M.C. Senevirathna* and P.K.P. Perera Department of Forestry and Environmental Science, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka 1. Introduction Tourism is the largest service-sector industry in the global economy, and plays a key role in destination development, especially in developing countries. Tourism industry has long been a key player in the Sri Lankan economy. Traditionally, Sri Lanka‟s tourism industry has been oriented towards sea, sand and sun tourism (3S tourism). However, when compared with other popular tourism destinations in the region, Sri Lanka has diverse tourism opportunities to offer. Sri Lanka at present is in a rapid post-war recovery process, and the country‟s tourism sector is also booming rapidly. Reflecting this positive growth, tourism sector‟s contribution to the country‟s GDP has increased from 2.7% in 2009 to almost 3% in 2010, primarily due to the strong growth in tourist arrivals and spending (ICRA, 2011). The interest on Sri Lanka as a travel destination has grown tremendously during the post-war period. For instance, The New York Times ranked Sri Lanka at the top in it‟s “The 31 Places to go in 2010” travel article (nytimes.com 2010). The National Geographic Channel has also rated Sri Lanka as the second best place to visit in its travel documentary “World's Twenty Best Tourist Destinations” (National Geographic Channel 2010). More recently, “Lonely Planet”, a leading travel and tourism information source rated Sri Lanka at the top in its “Best in Travel 2013 - Top 10 countries” list (lonelyplanet.com, 2012). Interestingly, all these sources have highlighted nature-based attributes and biodiversity as major attractions in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka boasts having the highest biodiversity per 10,000 km 2 in Asia, and it is also rated as one of the 25 biodiversity hot spots in the world (Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, 2002). At the same time, Sri Lanka also has a highly sophisticated Protected Area network managed under Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWLC) and Forest Department (FD), where an area of over 1,710,000 hectares accounting for 26.5% of the land area of the country is legally protected. These Protected Areas (PAs) along with other natural landscapes provide diverse nature tourism opportunities within the country. However, when considered the diverse natural and cultural resources, Sri Lanka‟s tourism resources still remain relatively under-exploited. Instead, most nature-based tourism activities are concentrated on few well-known destinations such as certain National Parks (NPs) and Forest Reserves. As a result, these sites are continuously subjected to increased visitor pressure. Hence, research focused on introducing better management strategies to alleviate negative impacts of tourism on highly visited nature-based destinations should be prioritized in the sustainable tourism research agenda. This article explores the recent developments in nature-based tourism in Sri Lanka‟s PAs and discusses the use of understanding wildlife viewing preferences of visitors in introducing visitor management strategies, and recreational planning in PAs. *Correspondence: madu87feb@gmail.com Tel: +94-112758411, Fax: +94 112803470 ISSN 2235-9370 Print / ISSN 2235-9362 Online ©2013 University of Sri Jayewardenepura Senevirathna & Perera /Journal of Tropical Forestry and Environment Vol. 3, No. 02 (2013) 1-10 2 2. Sri Lanka’s Protected Area Network The history of wildlife protection and PA establishment in Sri Lanka goes back to 246 BC where King Devanam Piyatissa established one of the world‟s earliest wildlife sanctuaries in Anuradhapura (Wijesinghe, 2003). Contemporary history of legal protection of flora and fauna in the country dates back to 1889 where Colonel R.A. Clark, the Conservator of Forests pushed the Government of Ceylon to introduce immediate legislations forbidding the killing of wild animals and export of hides. Continued efforts of Mr. A.F. Broun resulted in Government of Ceylon declaring Yala (160 sq. miles) and Wilpattu (256 sq. miles) as Reserves under the Forest Ordinance (DWLC, 2012). Since then, the PA network in Sri Lanka has systematically expanded to include over 26% of the total land area of the country. Sri Lanka‟s PAs are mainly administered by two state institutions; the Forest Department and the Department of Wild Life Conservation. From the total land area of the country, approximately 13% is conserved under the DWLC. This are comprise of 61 Sanctuaries, 22 National Parks, 4 Nature Reserves, 3 Strict Nature Reserves and 1 Jungle Corridor (Ministry of Economic Development, 2011). The Forest Department manages 65 conservation forests and one National Heritage and Wilderness Area (Table 1). Accordingly, a total area of 1,767,000 ha accounting for 26.5% of the land area in the country is legally protected. This is comparatively a higher percentage of protected areas than other countries in Asia. Table 1: Protected Areas Administrated by the Forest Department and Department of Wildlife Conservation Protected Area Category Area under each category (ha) in 2010 Forests under the Forest Department (FD) National Heritage Wilderness Area [N = 1] 11,127 Conservation Forests [N = 65] 96,249 Other Reserved Forests [N = 366] 630,701 Forest Plantations 79,941 Total Areas under the FD 818,018 Forests under the Department of Wildlife Conservation (DWLC) National Parks [N=22] 526,156 Nature Reserves [N=4] 57,056 Sanctuaries [N=61] 349,105 Strict Natural Reserves [N=3] 31,575 Jungle Corridors [N=1] 8,777 Total Areas under the DWLC 972,669 Source: Sri Lanka REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposal, 2012 Compatibility of Sri Lanka’s Protected Areas with Nature-Based Tourism National Reserves and Sanctuaries are the two major categories of PAs managed by the DWLC. National Reserves include National Parks, Strict Natural Reserves, Nature Reserves, Jungle Corridors and Marine Reserves. Over 450,000 ha of land are protected under National Reserves of which, nearly 75% are NPs (DWLC, 2012). Strict Nature Reserves (SNRs) are highly protected landscapes. Only research and educational activities are allowed in SNRs with the permission of the Director General, DWLC. Hakgala, Yala and Ritigal are the three SNRs under Sri Lanka‟s PA network. Nature Reserves (NRs) are also similar to SNRs in many ways. Public entry is restricted except for research and education. However, traditional Senevirathna & Perera /Journal of Tropical Forestry and Environment Vol. 3, No. 02 (2013) 1-10 3 human activities are allowed in NRs. Although recreation or wildlife observation is not allowed in SNRs and NRs by mandate, such venues have provisions for research and education under permission. Hence SNRs and NRs are compatible only with research/education oriented hardcore ecotourism activities. NPs are areas established to ensure the maximum protection for wildlife and their habitats while allowing opportunities for the public to observe and study wildlife. There are 22 NPs in Sri Lanka‟s PA network (DWLC, 2012). Recreational and tourism opportunities is an important dimension in establishing NPs as it generates the public interest while ensuring the economic viability of the establishment (Suntikul et al., 2010). Sri Lanka‟s NPs allow wildlife viewing/observation by mandate (Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance, 1938). When considered their magnitude and diverse recreational opportunities, NPs are highly compatible with both hard and soft ecotourism activities. In addition, NPs often contains monuments of cultural and religious importance and therefore can accommodate cultural tourism activities as well. At present, Sri Lanka‟s NPs are increasingly becoming prime tourism destinations for both international and domestic tourists. According to the 2011 Annual Statistical Reports of the Tourism Development Authority in Sri Lanka, the revenue received from the NPs increased by Rs 79,764,105.51 from 2010 to 2011. Total visitor arrivals to national parks increased to 836,634 from 630,463 from 2010 to 2011. Comparative to 2010 foreign tourist arrivals to NPs, year 2011 showed an improvement of 55,338 visitors, while local visitor arrivals increased by 150,833 (Table 2 and Figure 1). Table Error! No text of specified style in document.: Visitor Arrivals Volume and Revenue to National Parks 2011 National Park Foreign Tickets Local Tickets Total no. of Visitors Total Revenue (Rs.) No. of visitors Revenue (Rs.) No. of visitors Revenue in (Rs.) Yala 98,583 154,310,770.10 216,666 12,453,959.00 315,249 166,764,729.10 Horton Plains 29,854 50,103,251.89 166,818 8,971,550.00 196,672 59,074,801.89 Udawalawa 19,901 33,531,189.50 57,024 3,252,161.00 76,925 36,783,350,50 Minneriya 23,220 38,342,350.00 36,449 2,120,070.00 59,669 40,462,420.00 Hikkaduwa 5,958 170,415.00 46,011 216,275.00 51,969 386,690.00 Pigeon Island 4,185 4,456,160.00 31,035 1,190,610.00 35,220 5,646,770.00 Wilpattu 2,322 3,881,279.00 22,972 1,309,710.00 25,294 5,190,989.00 Wasgamuwa 367 403,170.00 18,732 697,230.00 19,099 1,100.400.00 Kumana 820 906,725.00 16,277 731,640.00 17,097 1,638,365.00 Kaudulla 8,331 9,458,461.00 7,374 292,480.00 15,705 9,750,941.00 Bundala 4,780 5,314,700.00 6,616 256,830.00 11,396 5,571,530.00 Horagolla 4 4,400.00 4,895 190,290.00 4,899 194,690.00 Lunugamwehera 27 29,826.00 2,703 99,880.00 2,730 129,706.00 Gal Oya 118 23,760.00 1,580 36,180.00 1,698 59,940.00 Angammedilla 0 - 1,483 52,590.00 1,483 52,590.00 Galwaysland 39 42,000.00 1,182 46,362.00 1,221 88,362.00 Lahugala 25 28,000.00 172 6,230.00 197 34,230.00 Maduru Oya 2 2,250.00 109 4,824.00 111 7,074.00 Total 198,536 301,008,707.49 638,098 31,928,871.00 836,634 332,937,578.49 Sanctuaries on the other hand require no permission or fee to enter. Sanctuaries allow human activities while protecting the natural environment. Both state and private lands can be declared as Senevirathna & Perera /Journal of Tropical Forestry and Environment Vol. 3, No. 02 (2013) 1-10 4 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 Y a la N P H o rt o n P la in N P U d a w a la w a N P M in n e ri ya N P H ik k a d u w a N P P ig e o n I sl a n d N P W il p a tt u N P W a sg a m u w a N P K u m a n a N P K a u d u ll a N P B u n d a la N P T o ta l V is it o r A rr iv a ls National Park 2010 2011 sanctuaries. Hence, sanctuaries are also compatible with nature-based tourism models such as ecotourism. However, due to their nature of establishment, wildlife viewing oppertunities are comparatively limited. In addition, significant number of forest reserves and proposed reserves are under the management of FD. Hurulu, Kanneliya-Dediyagala-Nakiyadeniya (KDN) and Sinharaja are UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves managed by the FD while Sinharaja and Central Highlands/Knuckles Range of Forests have been designated as World Heritage Sites. These PA categories under FD are highly compatible with nature-based tourism as they allow research, education, and recreation. Figure 1: Total Visitor Arrivals to National Parks 2010-2011 Althogu it is evident that nature-based tourism in protected areas generate much-needd funds for conservation and development, there are substantial difference between revenues generated at different NPs in Sri Lanka. For instance, revenue at Yala NP in 2010 was Rs. 166,764,729.10 compared to Maduru Oya NP‟s Rs. 7,074.00 (STDA, 2011). Apart from unique recreational opportunities/attractions available at each NP, Herath et al. (1997) largely attribute this scenario to the lack of awareness among visitors and tour operators regarding the natural diversity and recreational opportunities in Sri Lanka‟s PAs. Previous studies elsewhere further point out narrow wildlife viewing preferences of visitors as a main cause of higher visitor pressure in certain PAs (Kerley et al., 2003; Prideaux, 2006; Duffiled et al., 2006). For example, an individual with narrow preference of viewing elephants would travel to Minneriya NP because of the destination‟s overall popularity, despite having several PAs in the same region with similar wildlife observing opportunities. The down-side of this scenario is the increased visitor pressure at few popular NPs, while NPs with low levels of visitation facing the risk of receiving fewer funds for park maintenance and conservation efforts. Heavy visitor arrivals to NPs are known to cause negative impacts such as interruptions to the behavior of wildlife including habituation, littering, damages to vegetation and increased cases of visitor non-conformities with environmental standards and park policy (Herath et al., 1997). In addition, limited perceptions of wildlife viewing can lead to the devaluation of biodiversity in a particular protected area (Kerley et al., 2003), and this in turn can lead to negligence of valuable biological resources for conservation by state agencies. Therefore, identifying wildlife viewing preferences of visitors has wider applications in visitor management at PAs. Senevirathna & Perera /Journal of Tropical Forestry and Environment Vol. 3, No. 02 (2013) 1-10 5 3. The Case Study To gain a preliminary understanding of wildlife viewing preferences of visitors to NPs in Sri Lanka, we conducted a visitor survey at Minneriya NP located in the North Central Province of Sri Lanka. Minneriya NP was selected as it is one of the top-five highly visited NPs in the country. A structured questionnaire was administered via face-to-face interviews, using a systematic sampling method with every one-in-third visitor being intercepted at the park exit to administer the questionnaire. Data collection was done from April to August, 2012, predominantly on weekends where higher visitor traffic was anticipated. Only visitors over 18 years of age were interviewed. A main objective of this survey was to identify different visitor segments or nature-based tourism market segments based on wildlife viewing preferences. In order to assess the relationships of wild life viewing preferences and key biodiversity elements of NP with socio-demographic and trip characteristics of visitors, the multivariate logistic regression method was used. We developed two separate models using wild life viewing preferences and importance of key biodiversity elements of the park as dependent variables. Accordingly, we attempted to describe different visitor segments based on wildlife viewing preferences using their demographic characteristics. A total of 735 individuals participated in the survey, and there were 701 usable questionnaires. This included 682 domestic respondents and 19 foreign respondents. Due to the low number of foreign respondents, they were excluded from further analysis. General respondent socio-demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 3. Of those who participated in the survey, 30.1% were first-time visitors to a NP in Sri Lanka. Majority of the respondents (62.2%) have visited NPs in one to five previous occasions. Only 7.8% of the respondents have visited a NP more than five occasions within the last five years. Table 3: General Respondent Socio-demographic Profile – Domestic visitors Socio-demographic Variable Frequency Percentage Gender (n = 701) Male 397 56.6 Female 304 43.3 Age ( n = 682) 18-25 142 20.2 26-45 461 65.7 Above 45 98 14.0 Education ( n = 682) Up to O/L or below 122 17.4 Up to A/L or A/L with Professional Qualifications 405 57.8 Undergraduate (UG) education & above 174 24.8 Income (n=597) ≤Rs. 30,000 350 57.1 Rs. 30,001 to Rs 75,000 211 34.4 Above Rs. 75,000 36 5.9 Respondent preferences for key biodiversity elements Respondents were asked to rank the importance of some key biodiversity elements of the NP that influenced them to choose Minneriya NP as the destination for travelling (on a 1 to 5 Likert scale where Senevirathna & Perera /Journal of Tropical Forestry and Environment Vol. 3, No. 02 (2013) 1-10 6 4.3 4.37 4.41 4.16 4.49 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Attractive Scenery Bird Diversity Mammal Diversity Floral Diversity Elephant Herds M e a n V a lu e Reserve Characteristics 4.55 4.48 4.36 4.25 4.27 4.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Elephant Leopard Bear Aquatic Birds Terrestrial Birds Herbivores M e a n V a lu e Animal Categories 1= least important and 5= highly important). Most respondents ranked “elephant herds” as the most important biodiversity element followed by mammal diversity, bird diversity and attractive scenery (Figure 2). When asked about their desire to observe different components of wildlife during the trip, most respondents gave priority to watching elephants, followed by herbivores (other than elephants), leopards, and bears (Figure 3). Majority of the respondents were interested in observing elephants in the wild (90.5%), while observing aquatic birds was least preferred (54.8%). The Relationship between key biodiversity elements and the socio-demographic variables To understand the relationships between key biodiversity elements of the park and socio- demographic variables, scores given by respondents to key biodiversity elements were categorized as „indifferent‟ (scores 1 to 3) or „interested‟ (scores 4 and 5), and was analyzed relative to respondent age, education, and number of visits to NPs in the last five years. Table 4 summarizes the results of logistic regression models developed for each reserve characteristic. It indicates the odds of visitor in each category being interested in each reserve characteristic, relative to the reference category. Underlined values represent statistically significant relationships (p<0.05). Statistically non-significant variables are also reported for illustrative purposes. Table 4: Relationship between Reserve Characteristics and the Socio demographic Characteristics of the respondents Underlined odds ratios are the significant ones p<0.05 b Reference category (fixed) In this case study, we interpreted the results using odds ratios. For example, attractive sceneries seem to be a more important biodiversity element for respondents with higher levels of education i.e. comparative to a visitor with graduate education, “attractive sceneries” are 0.831 times less important for Reserve Characteristics Model Previous Visits Age Education 18-25 26-45 Above 45 Up to O/L or