This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 09 October 2014, At: 14:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of EcotourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/reco20

Can Visitor Satisfaction andKnowledge About TropicalRainforests be Enhanced ThroughBiodiversity Interpretation, and Doesthis Promote a Positive AttitudeTowards Ecosystem Conservation?Jennifer Hill , Wendy Woodland & Georgie Gougha School of Geography & Environmental Management ,University of the West of England , Bristol, UKPublished online: 28 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: Jennifer Hill , Wendy Woodland & Georgie Gough (2007) Can VisitorSatisfaction and Knowledge About Tropical Rainforests be Enhanced Through BiodiversityInterpretation, and Does this Promote a Positive Attitude Towards Ecosystem Conservation?,Journal of Ecotourism, 6:1, 75-85, DOI: 10.2167/joe166.0

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/joe166.0

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms

& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Research NoteCan Visitor Satisfaction and KnowledgeAbout Tropical Rainforests be EnhancedThrough Biodiversity Interpretation, andDoes this Promote a Positive AttitudeTowards Ecosystem Conservation?

Jennifer Hill, Wendy Woodland and Georgie GoughSchool of Geography & Environmental Management, University of theWest of England, Bristol, UK

doi: 10.2167/joe166.0

Keywords: tropical forests, biodiversity interpretation, visitor education, ecosystemconservation, sustainable tourism

IntroductionThis research note examines whether educating visitors about biological

diversity during a visit to tropical rainforest can raise their levels of satisfactionand knowledge above those achieved from the experiential encounter alone. Itthereby interrogates both the affective domain (subjective emotions and feel-ings) and the cognitive domain (objective knowledge acquisition) of visitorsto rainforest. Selected aspects of biological diversity were interpreted inorder to elucidate which were most conducive to enhanced satisfaction andknowledge. Visitor attitudes post-visit were ascertained to test whether increas-ing satisfaction and/or knowledge can encourage a more positive attitudetowards ecosystem conservation and sustainable tourism.

There is evidence that rainforest interpretation contributes substantially totourist satisfaction at the Skyrail Rainforest Cableway in Queensland,Australia (Moscardo & Woods, 1998; Pearce & Moscardo, 1998). Skyrail visitorswho used interpretive facilities were significantly more satisfied with their visitthan those who did not. Additionally, comparison of visitors with differentlevels of exposure to the interpretation demonstrated that the more interpret-ation experienced by visitors, the more they learnt. Similarly, an examinationof the impact of interpretive signs on visitor knowledge at the Valley of theGiants Tree Top Walk in Western Australia found significant increases invisitor knowledge and satisfaction as a result of their reading trail-side signs(Hughes & Morrison-Saunders, 2002).

There has been much rhetoric that interpretation is an important element inthe promotion of environmental conservation and sustainable tourism, largelyby increasing visitor knowledge and environmental awareness, and by

75

1472-4049/07/01 075-11 $20.00/0 # 2007 J. Hill et al.JOURNAL OF ECOTOURISM Vol. 6, No. 1, 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

prompting more responsible tourist behaviour (Beck & Cable, 1998; Bramwell& Lane, 1993; Moscardo, 1999, 2003; Orams, 1995). This has rarely been testedempirically, although a study in Dartmoor National Park in the UK found thatincreasing visitor knowledge via interpretation did encourage visitors to seehow they could behave more respectfully towards the local environment(Tubb, 2003). More recently, Hughes and Morrison-Saunders (2005) foundthat the Tree Top Walk in Western Australia, which offers low intensityinterpretation and restricts activities to a passive observation of nature, encour-aged a more ecocentric view of the forest by visitors. Lee and Moscardo (2005)explored changes in tourists’ environmental knowledge, awareness, attitudesand behavioural intentions after staying at a major ecotourism resort onFraser Island in Queensland, Australia. The study suggested that satisfyingexperiences in ecotourism accommodation and awareness of in-resort environ-mental practices could reinforce visitors’ favourable environmental attitudes.There has been much less evaluation of tourist perceptions and understandingof biodiversity (Kerley et al., 2003) and yet this is an important issue to addressif its potential as an ecotourism resource is to be assessed.

Field Site and Research MethodsField research was undertaken in the Daintree rainforest in Queensland,

Australia at Crocodylus Rainforest Village. The site incorporates a privatelyowned, unsurfaced, 1.75 km circular ropewalk for which biodiversity informationwas controlled explicitly by the researchers. One hundred and thirty five visitors tothe ropewalk were sampled over 11 days during July/August 2004. Visitors under-took a self-administered, written questionnaire and biodiversity quiz. Every visitorwho started the ropewalk between 7 am and 5 pm was asked to take part in thesurvey and the response rate was 98%. Sampling was divided into two categoriesof English speaking visitors: those with (n ¼ 73) and those without (n ¼ 62) biodi-versity information who undertook the questionnaire immediately pre- and post-visit and who completed the biodiversity quiz post-visit.

Sixteen biodiversity information sheets were used in the research, interpret-ing aspects ranging from historical evolution of tropical rainforest, throughsimple facts concerning contemporary rainforest structure, to more complexprocesses maintaining biological diversity. Rainforest uses, threats and conser-vation were also outlined (Table 1). The interpretive sheets were read by visi-tors at specified intervals along the ropewalk, their position indicated byprominent numbered markers. Visitors were asked to read as many of thesheets as they desired during their walk. In post-visit questioning, 78% indi-cated that they read all sheets and 18% said that they omitted only one ortwo sheets. The style and content of the sheets followed key elements of effec-tive interpretation, particularly the inclusion of colour and illustrations, use ofgrabber headlines and small quantities of text, adoption of a uniform style andlayering of content complexity (Moscardo, 1996).

Questionnaires were comprised of five sections for those interviewed withbiodiversity information, and four sections for those interviewed without infor-mation. The sections consisted of trip characteristics; pre-visit survey questions(concerning visitor expectations, motivations and initial conservation attitudes);

76 Journal of Ecotourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 1 Outline content of the biodiversity interpretation sheets used in the research

Sheet Sheet title Sheet outline

1 Rainforest Structure:A multi-storeyapartment

Describes the different canopy layers of rainforestand their interactions with climate

2 The SouthernCassowary: Therainforest gardener

Describes the cassowary and explains its role as aseed disperser in the Queensland rainforest

3 Alien Life Forms:Cauliflory

Describes cauliflory and explains its ecologicalrole in the rainforest

4 The Rainforest Diner Describes the theory of seedling and foliarherbivory in the rainforest and how thispromotes local species diversity

5 Unwanted Visitors Explains the negative impacts of cane toads andwild pigs in the Queensland rainforest

6 Rainforest Recyclers:The living dead

Explains how dead trees are recycled by insectsand fungi and why it is important to protectsuch organisms

7 Alien Life Forms:Epiphytes

Defines and gives examples of epiphytes,indicating their adaptations to the aerial habitatand their ecological role

8 Do Not Disturb? Whydisturbance is goodfor the rainforest

Describes the theory of intermediate disturbanceand how this promotes species diversity in therainforest

9 Plugging the Gaps Explains the importance of canopy gaps torainforest regeneration and the resulting mosaicof different aged forest areas

10 Lianas: Anyone seenTarzan?

Defines lianas and explains their ecological rolesin the rainforest

11 Taking Refuge: Thebirth of new species

Describes past fragmentation of rainforest duringglacial periods and the importance of suchfragments in generating new species

12 Alien Life Forms:Buttress and stiltroots

Defines buttress and stilt roots and explains whythey exist on particular rainforest trees

13 Fowl play! Can youspot the rainforestwildlife?

Provides species information on orange-footedscrubfowl, Boyd’s forest dragons and gastricbrooding frogs

14 Clear Today, GoneTomorrow

Explains how forest fragmentation alters thenumbers and types of species in rainforest andQueensland’s tropical forest World HeritageStatus

15 Rainforest Lottery Describes the role of chance in the regeneration ofcanopy gaps, influencing species diversity inunpredictable ways

16 Rainforest Uses Compares some key economic uses ofrainforest: tourism, logging, bio-prospecting andbush foods

Visitor Satisfaction and Knowledge of Tropical Rainforests 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

post-visit general questions (concerning visitor satisfaction, affective learningand ‘return’ conservation attitudes); post-visit questions for those receivingbiodiversity information (concerning visitor interaction with the information);and visitor socio-demographic characteristics. Visitors were monitored as theyanswered pre-visit questions to ensure that they did not read through theremainder of the questionnaire. This reduced bias in their answers throughpre-visit sensitisation (Lee & Balchin, 1995). Respondents were not informedabout the biodiversity quiz so they did not read the interpretive sheets withthe aim of recalling information for a cognitive test.

Questions concerning visitor satisfaction followed a Likert-type, self-avowalscale with responses graduated to five possibilities: 1 was ‘very dissatisfied’, 2was ‘dissatisfied’, 3 was ‘indifferent’, 4 was ‘satisfied’ and 5 was ‘very satisfied’.Questions about whether the rainforest walk met overall visitor expectationsand how much visitors thought they had learnt from experiencing the rainfor-est were established as semantic differentials. Such question styles wereadopted as it has been shown that respondents prefer verbal to numericallabels and a verbal anchor reduces over-use of scale extremes (Haley & Case,1979). Some questions were open-ended to explain the quantitative visitorresponses. Chi-square (x2) and Mann–Whitney (U) statistical analyses wereused to test for significant differences in levels of visitor satisfaction and knowl-edge according to exposure to biodiversity information. They were undertakenusing SPSS version 11 for Windows.

The biodiversity quiz tested visitor cognition post-visit at two levels: recall offactual knowledge (e.g. satinash tree species are good examples of cauliflory)and evidence of deeper understanding (e.g. when forest fragments are farapart, there is little exchange of genetic material between them). Visitorsresponded to 32 statements, based directly on information provided onthe interpretive sheets, by ticking ‘true’, ‘false’ or ‘don’t know’ options.Respondents were also asked to tick a box for each question if they couldhave answered the question prior to their visit. This was used to gauge thelevel of newly acquired rather than prior knowledge. The resultant scoresprovided an objective evaluation of short-term visitor cognition.

ResultsVisitor satisfaction and knowledge

This paper does not examine differential levels of visitor satisfaction andknowledge according to socio-demographics, prior exposure to rainforest orvisit motivation due to the relatively small sample size. Chi-square tests wereundertaken, however, to investigate if there were any significant differencesbetween the socio-demographic variables for those visitors receiving and notreceiving biodiversity information. The tests showed no significant differences(at p ¼ 0.05) between the two samples. It can be concluded, therefore, thatany significant differences in levels of visitor satisfaction and knowledgeaccording to the provision of biodiversity information should not be explainedby the varying demographic profiles of the two samples.

Visitors rated their overall satisfaction with the rainforest walk and with 16components of their rainforest experience. In general, a high degree of visitor

78 Journal of Ecotourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

satisfaction was expressed irrespective of whether visitors had been providedwith interpretive biodiversity sheets (Table 2). When asked whether the rainfor-est walk had met their expectations nearly 90% of all visitors agreed/stronglyagreed that it had. When all respondents were considered together thehighest mean satisfaction score (4.31) was recorded for visitors’ encounterswith the rainforest structure and trees. Encountering scenic beauty (4.21),exploring something new and different (4.12), enjoying the sounds, smellsand feel of the rainforest (4.10) and having fun/enjoyment (4.06) were theonly other categories rated above 4. This indicates that visitors were satis-fied/very satisfied with these aspects of their rainforest walk. The lowestmean satisfaction scores were recorded for acquiring a sense of rainforesthistory (2.85) and seeing the rainforest wildlife (3.17). Cognitive aspects oflearning about the rainforest (3.45) and provision of rainforest information(3.24) showed largely indifferent visitor responses.

Three components recorded significant differences in visitor satisfactionlevels when comparing responses for those visitors receiving and those visitorsnot receiving biodiversity information (Figure 1). There was a significantincrease in visitor satisfaction in terms of learning about the rainforest forthose visitors who used the rainforest biodiversity information sheets(x2 ¼ 32.19, p , 0.001). Seventy-four percent of these respondents said that

Table 2 Visitor satisfaction with the rainforest walk based on 16 components of theirrainforest experience (1 is very dissatisfied, 2 is dissatisfied, 3 is indifferent 4 is satisfied,5 is very satisfied)

Satisfaction component Satisfaction score

Withinfo.

Withoutinfo.

Totalsample

Escaping from the stress of everyday life 3.89 3.97 3.93

Encountering scenic beauty 4.22 4.20 4.21

Encountering the rainforest structure and trees 4.41 4.20 4.31

Seeing the rainforest wildlife 3 3.34 3.17

Enjoying the sounds, smells and feel of therainforest

4.08 4.12 4.10

Learning about the rainforest 3.96 2.91 3.45

Provision of rain forest information 3.9 2.57 3.24

Gaining a sense of rainforest history 3.12 2.58 2.85

Being with friends and family 3.44 3.61 3.53

Sharing your knowledge with others 3.28 3.19 3.24

Being creative such as painting or taking photos 3.44 3.24 3.34

Having fun and enjoying yourself 4.05 4.07 4.06

Doing something to tell friends about 3.70 3.80 3.75

Exploring something new and different 4.02 4.21 4.12

Taking exercise 3.47 3.74 3.6

Passing time whilst in Queensland 3.45 3.53 3.49

Visitor Satisfaction and Knowledge of Tropical Rainforests 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

they were satisfied or very satisfied with their learning about the rainforest,compared to only 33% of respondents who did not use the information. Thiswas reflected in the mean satisfaction scores which rose from 2.91 for thesample without information to 3.96 for the sample with information. Therewas also a significant increase in satisfaction with the provision of biodiversityinformation for those visitors who used the information sheets (x2 ¼ 41.15,p , 0.001). Seventy-two percent of these respondents said that they were satis-fied or very satisfied with the provision of rainforest information, compared toonly 22% of respondents who did not use the information. In line with this,mean satisfaction scores rose from 2.57 to 3.90. Finally, there was a significantincrease in the satisfaction level of visitors who used the biodiversity infor-mation sheets in gaining a sense of rainforest history (x2 ¼ 12.97, p , 0.01).Mean satisfaction scores rose from 2.58 to 3.12. When visitors were askedwhether they would have liked more information during their visit only 27%of those visitors who had used the information sheets responded positively,compared to 76% of those without sheets. This difference in opinion was signifi-cant (x2 ¼ 28.65, p , 0.001). Dissatisfaction with learning and information pro-vision was polarised into two small samples of visitors who rated someinformation as either overly complex (too academic/theoretical) or overlysimple (and already known). To improve the provision of information thecommon response was to add text on rainforest safety measures and toinclude information about some immediately visual/audible aspects of theforest that had been omitted. This is a challenging task in an inherentlydynamic environment.

In terms of subjective (perceived) visitor knowledge, 60% of visitors who hadreceived biodiversity information thought that they had learnt a moderate

Figure 1 Components of the visitor experience for which significant differenceswere recorded in mean satisfaction scores (+1 SE) for visitors with and withoutbiodiversity information sheets

80 Journal of Ecotourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

amount/a lot from their rainforest walk, compared to only 39% of visitors whocompleted the walk without information sheets. Visitors who had received bio-diversity information rated their learning experience significantly higher thanthose who did not receive information (x2 ¼ 9.69, p , 0.05). This changederives from a common base of perceived knowledge: 89% of visitors whoreceived information rated their rainforest knowledge as nothing/a littleprior to their site visit, compared to 83% of those visitors who did notreceive information. In terms of objective (actual) visitor knowledge, themean quiz score for the sample of visitors who did not take the biodiversityinformation sheets on their walk was 43%. This contrasted with a mean scoreof 69% for the sample of visitors who undertook the walk with the sheets(Figure 2). Results from a Mann–Whitney test indicated that this differencein learning was significant. The sample of visitors who used the biodiversityinformation sheets gained significantly higher results in the biodiversity quiz(U ¼ 578.5, p , 0.001). Thus, after being supplied with information visitorsbelieved that they knew more about the rainforest and they had significantlyincreased their short-term knowledge about the ecosystem, its threats and itsconservation. Quiz responses also indicated that the learning was largelynew learning that took place on site, rather than recovery of informationlearnt prior to the site visit. There was no significant difference, for example,in correct quiz answers for a statement that the cassowary is Australia’sbiggest rainforest bird. Ninety-four percent of those visitors who receivedinformation acknowledged that this statement was correct, compared to 87%of those who did not receive information. This is a common piece of infor-mation that is repeated throughout the Daintree and the majority of visitorsindicated that they could have answered this question prior to their visit. Bycontrast, an incorrect statement that cauliflory (where flowers and fruit growon the trunks and major branches of trees) describes the harvesting ofproduce from the forest floor, drew significantly more correct answers fromthose visitors who had undertaken the walk with the biodiversity information,

Figure 2 Mean quiz scores (+1 SE) for visitors with and without biodiversityinformation sheets

Visitor Satisfaction and Knowledge of Tropical Rainforests 81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

compared to those who had not received the information (82% compared to10%) (x2 ¼ 65.8, p , 0.001). The statistics were somewhat depressed for ques-tions concerning more complex ecosystem processes. Seventy-two percent ofvisitors who had used the biodiversity information sheets correctly identifiedthat when forest fragments are far apart there would be less exchange ofgenetic material between them, compared to 30% of visitors who had notreceived the information sheets. This was, nevertheless, a significant increasein knowledge for those receiving the information compared to those who didnot (x2 ¼ 26.9, p , 0.001).

Visitor attitudes towards ecosystem conservation and sustainable tourism

Visitors to the site did not notably alter their attitude towards rainforest con-servation or the way they would behave as tourists in rainforests. Seventy-fourpercent of visitors who received biodiversity information and 73% ofvisitors who did not receive the information said that the rainforest walk hadnot changed, or changed only a little, their attitude towards rainforestconservation. The figures were similar in response to whether the rainforestwalk had changed the way the respondents would behave as tourists inthe rainforest in the future. Seventy-four percent of visitors who received bio-diversity information and 77% of visitors who did not receive the informationsaid that the rainforest walk had not changed, or changed only a little, theirexpected behaviour. This was largely because visitors felt that they werealready conservation-oriented or that they already behaved as environmentallyresponsible tourists. With regards to conservation one respondent stated ‘I wasalready strongly convinced that it [the rainforest] should be strongly protected’.There were, however, positive comments: ‘I think that before the walk I didn’tappreciate what we have and now it makes me want to fight for it’. In terms offuture behaviour in rainforest a respondent said ‘I think that I am already an“ethical” walker, as far as staying on the path, not touching or breakingthings, etc., but it will make me more observant’. The sheets ‘Clear Today,Gone Tomorrow’ and ‘Rainforest Uses’ were picked out by a number of respon-dents as making them consider the threats to the ecosystem and the need toprotect it.

DiscussionThe circular ropewalk at Crocodylus Rainforest Village provided a satisfying

tourist experience irrespective of whether visitors had been provided withinterpretive biodiversity sheets. Tourists seemed to partition their consumptionof the rainforest into an affective domain (subjective emotions and feelings) anda cognitive domain (objective knowledge acquisition). Similar to the findings ofWallace and Pierce (1996), Ryan et al. (2000) and Curtin (2005) visitors were sat-isfied with gaining a purely affective experience, where the value of their visitlay in the pleasure they gained from a sensual and immersive encounter with anovel environment. Interpretation had little impact on the emotive encounter ofvisitors with nature. Visitors do, therefore, need to be stimulated to move froma ‘looking’ to a ‘learning’ environment (Hennes & Chabay, 2001).

82 Journal of Ecotourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Visitors were dissatisfied with the cognitive experience if they had not usedbiodiversity information sheets. There were significant increases in visitor sat-isfaction in terms of learning about the rainforest, particularly its historicalevolution, and in acknowledging the provision of information. In contradictionto Ryan et al. (2000), however, the cognitive domain supported the affectivedomain, rather than intruded upon it, as visitors without informationrequested interpretation. This study supports the contention that visitors tonature-based attractions without interpretative opportunities can desirecognitive stimulation through information provision (Luck, 2003; Stein &Lee, 1995). It must be stated here that the ropewalk at this location normallyhas species information available, but this was kindly withdrawn to allowuse of the research project biodiversity sheets.

Visitors who used biodiversity information sheets during their walk ratedtheir subjective (perceived) learning significantly higher than those whoreceived no information. Allowing visitors to explore the rainforest withoutinterpretation did not present a perceived learning opportunity for the majority(following Stein et al., 2003) although a minority rated their perceived learningas satisfactory through the nature experience alone. The belief that learning hasoccurred through interpretation (or indeed without it) can be as useful totourism managers as the objective act of learning, in terms of increasing thequality of the tourist experience (Madin & Fenton, 2004).

Biodiversity interpretation played a significant pedagogic role at the site inthat it acted as an effective tourist educator. There was a significant differencein objective (actual) cognition between the two groups of respondents. Thesample of visitors who used the biodiversity information sheets gained signifi-cantly higher results in a biodiversity quiz than those visitors who undertookthe walk without the information sheets. Additionally, the short-term learningwas largely new learning that took place on site, rather than recovery ofinformation learnt prior to the site visit. It is acknowledged here that, due tothe specific aims of the project, the aspects of cognitive development underinvestigation were limited to Western, science-based ecological thinking(Staiff et al., 2002).

From a tourism perspective, therefore, what are the benefits of providingvisitors with an objective learning experience? While visitors to the siteexemplified the consumption of nature made both emotional and intellectual,the emotional response to the ecosystem was a partial response. Visitors whoused the biodiversity information sheets received a more holistic experience.They rated the sense of rainforest history significantly higher than visitorswithout information and they also noted the importance of synergistic inter-actions in maintaining ecosystem functioning. There is potential for rainforestsites to provide a more rounded satisfaction for visitors by appealing to theircognitive as well as their affective domain. The visitors to this site displayedboth intelligence and interest. They consequently deserve quality interpret-ation. Visitors can be sensitised to information about biological diversity, butwithout this sensitisation they can under-appreciate biodiversity. Ecosystembiodiversity should be valued as an ecotourism resource.

There was no support that on-site interpretation of biological diversity,including pertinent threats and conservation issues, altered visitor attitudes

Visitor Satisfaction and Knowledge of Tropical Rainforests 83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

towards sustainable tourism and ecosystem conservation, despite greatercognitive performance by these visitors (agreeing with Beaumont, 1998,2001). Working atop a high self-reported sensitivity to the environment,biodiversity interpretation did not enhance the likelihood that visitors to therainforest would care more for, or behave differently in, that environment,but it did seem to reinforce visitors’ already favourable conservation attitudesand behavioural intentions (following Lee & Moscardo, 2005). A ‘ceiling effect’(Beaumont, 2001) seemed to have been reached, whereby visitors reportedreasonably strong environmental attitudes prior to undertaking the rainforestwalk.

To conclude, the results presented here should prove useful to site managersin their quest to provide both a satisfying tourist experience and one that sup-ports conservation of the ecosystem that tourists have come to see. Futureresearch should examine whether the provision of environmental informationat sites that are not as obviously recognised for their ecological wealth, andthereby conservation potential, can alter visitor attitudes. Visitors to suchsites may not originate from a recreational sector that is already sensitisedto environmental issues and so research here may demonstrate the potentialof environmental interpretation in positively influencing the conservationattitudes of visitors.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the owners (Terry and Ian Rogers) and man-agement of Crocodylus Rainforest Village for allowing removal of their usualropewalk interpretation sheets and replacement with the research project bio-diversity sheets. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the kind permissionto undertake visitor questioning. Special thanks are extended to RosemaryBurton for her expert advice and enthusiastic company in the field. Researchfunding was provided by the Faculty of the Built Environment, University ofthe West of England, Bristol, UK.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Jennifer Hill, School of Geography& Environmental Management, University of the West of England,Coldharbour Lane, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK (Jennifer.Hill@uwe.ac.uk).

ReferencesBeaumont, N. (1998) Promoting pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours through

ecotourism: That’s the theory but does it happen in practice? In S. McArthur andB. Weir (eds) Australia’s Ecotourism Industry: A Snapshot in 1998 (pp. 26–27).Brisbane: Ecotourism Association of Australia.

Beaumont, N. (2001) Ecotourism and the conservation ethic: Recruiting the uninitiatedor preaching to the converted? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9, 317–341.

Beck, L. and Cable, T. (1998) Interpretation for the 21st Century. Champaign: Sagamore.Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (1993) Interpretation and sustainable tourism: The potential

and the pitfalls. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1, 71–80.Curtin, S. (2005) Nature, wild animals and tourism: An experiential view. Journal of

Ecotourism 4, 1–15.Haley, R.I. and Case, P.B. (1979) Testing thirteen attitude scales for agreement and brand

discrimination. Journal of Marketing 43, 20–32.

84 Journal of Ecotourism

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hennes, T. and Chabay, I. (2001) From looking environment to learning environment:The networked aquarium of the 21st century. Marine Technology Society Journal 35,48–59.

Hughes, M. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2002) Impact of trail-side interpretive signs onvisitor knowledge. Journal of Ecotourism 2&3, 122–132.

Hughes, M. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2005) Influence of on-site interpretation inten-sity on visitors to natural areas. Journal of Ecotourism 4, 161–177.

Kerley, G.I.H., Geach, B.G.S. and Vial, C. (2003) Jumbos or bust: Do tourists’ perceptionslead to an under-appreciation of biodiversity? South African Journal of Wildlife Research33, 13–21.

Lee, T. and Balchin, N. (1995) Learning and attitude change at British Nuclear Fuel’sSellafield visitors centre. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, 283–298.

Lee, W.H. and Moscardo, G. (2005) Understanding the impact of ecotourism resortexperiences on tourists’ environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions.Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13, 546–565.

Luck, M. (2003) Education on marine mammal tours as agent for conservation – But dotourists want to be educated? Ocean and Coastal Management 46, 943–956.

Madin, E.M.P. and Fenton, D.M. (2004) Environmental interpretation in the Great BarrierReef Marine Park: An assessment of programme effectiveness. Journal of SustainableTourism 12, 121–137.

Moscardo, G. (1996) Principles of Effective Interpretation. Townsville: CRC Reef Research.Moscardo, G. (1999) Making Visitors Mindful. Champaign: Sagamore.Moscardo, G. (2003) Interpretation and sustainable tourism: Functions, examples and

principles. Journal of Tourism Studies 14, 112–123.Moscardo, G. and Woods, B. (1998) Managing tourism in the Wet Tropics World Heritage

Area: Interpretation and the experience of visitors on Skyrail. In E. Laws, B. Faulknerand G. Moscardo (eds) Embracing and Managing Change in Tourism: International CaseStudies. (pp. 307–323). London: Routledge.

Orams, M.B. (1995) Using interpretation to manage nature-based tourism. Journal ofSustainable Tourism 4, 81–94.

Pearce, P.L. and Moscardo, G. (1998) The role of interpretation in influencing visitor sat-isfaction: A rainforest case study. In W. Faulkner, C. Tidswell and D. Weaver (eds)Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Part 1. Proceedings of the EighthAustralian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference. Gold Coast, Canberra:Bureau of Tourism Research, pp. 309–319.

Ryan, C., Hughes, K. and Chirgwin, S. (2000) The gaze, spectacle and ecotourism. Annalsof Tourism Research 27, 148–163.

Staiff, R., Bushell, R. and Kennedy, P. (2002) Interpretation in National Parks: Some criti-cal questions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10, 97–113.

Stein, T.V. and Lee, M.E. (1995) Managing recreation resources for positive outcomes:An application of benefits-based management. Journal of Park and RecreationAdministration 13, 52–70.

Stein, T.V., Denny, C.B. and Pennisi, L.A. (2003) Using visitors’ motivations to providelearning opportunities at water-based recreation areas. Journal of SustainableTourism 11, 404–425.

Tubb, K.N. (2003) An evaluation of the effectiveness of interpretation within DartmoorNational Park in reaching the goals of sustainable tourism development. Journal ofSustainable Tourism 11, 476–498.

Wallace, G.N. and Pierce, S.M. (1996) An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil.Annals of Tourism Research 23, 843–873.

Visitor Satisfaction and Knowledge of Tropical Rainforests 85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

14:

55 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014