planning for stingray tourism at hamelin bay, western australia: the importance of stakeholder...

ABSTRACT

Stingray tourism continues to be developedat various locations around the world withthe concept being marketed on televisiontravel programmes, documentaries, internetsites and travel brochures. Food provisionedstingray tourism, for example, now attractssome 100000 visitors a year to ‘stingray city’in the Caymen Islands. At Hamelin Bay insouthwest Western Australia, up to 16 largestingrays (Dasyatis brevicaudata andDasyatis thetidis) and numerous eaglerays(Myliobatis australis) are fed by visitorsfrom the waters edge. This study reports onstakeholder perspectives relating to tourismdevelopment and potential management ofthe Hamelin Bay site. From the results ofthis study it is clear that there is sufficientinterest in stingray tourism (by all thestakeholders surveyed) to develop HamelinBay as a permanent feeding site. Visitors onaverage gave their experience with the raysa satisfaction value of 8.9 out of 10. Twenty-five per cent of visitors surveyed did notwant commercialisation, tour groups orexcessive visitor numbers. Their mainconcern was that the health and safety ofthe rays may deteriorate with an increase ofvisitors if the situation is not managedcorrectly. Visitors desire to be educatedabout the rays, and how to best interactwith them safely. Visitors also

acknowledged that the site needsmanagement through more signs,information and a management plan.Management for the site is therefore likelyto be best implemented through theapplication of signage, development ofguidelines/codes of conduct, protection ofthe rays and zoning the beach according tospecific recreational purposes. Managementregimes should also use various indicatorsto monitor the impacts of stingray tourismat Hamelin Bay. Copyright © 2003 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 13 January 2003, revised 29 April 2003; accepted 6May 2003

Keywords: stingrays; stakeholders; foodprovisioning; wildlife management; WesternAustralia.

INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE FORTHE STUDY

Stingrays are currently hand fed as part of dive and snorkel ventures in loca-tions such as Tahiti, Maldives and the

Caribbean. The most publicised stingray site isthat of ‘Stingray City’ in the Cayman Islands,where some 30 Southern Atlantic Stingrays(Dasyatis americana) attract more than 100000tourists per year (New Traveller, 2001). Thesestingrays, sizing up to 4m across, have becomeaccustomed to, and perhaps dependent upontourists, who offer squid and fish daily

Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 5, 331–346 (2003)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jtr.442

Planning for Stingray Tourism atHamelin Bay, Western Australia: theImportance of Stakeholder PerspectivesAnna Lewis and David Newsome*School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University, Western Australia

*Correspondence to: D. Newsome, Division of Scienceand Engineering, Murdoch University, South Street,Murdoch, Western Australia 6150, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

(Spender, 2001). The primary concern with thispractice is overfeeding of stingrays, as in anatural state food resources are the limitingfactor to stingray populations (Department ofEnvironment, 2001). The ecological implica-tions of an increase in stingray numbersinclude a potential impact on their naturalprey if the rays were to feed away from thetourist site (Department of Environment,

2001). Other concerns include increased sus-ceptibility of the rays to disease, limited nour-ishment, alterations in their natural behaviour,death from ingesting litter and water fouling(Department of Environment, 2001).

In the southwest of Western Australia, 300km south of Perth (Figure 1), lies a coastaltourist site, the Hamelin Bay Caravan Park,where up to a dozen individual stingrays con-

332 A. Lewis and D. Newsome

Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 5, 331–346 (2003)

Figure 1. Location of Hamelin Bay in the Cape Naturaliste region of Western Australia(adapted from CALM, 1987, 2002).

gregate at a time to feed on the fish scrapsthrown in the water by fishermen. Thestingrays consist of a number of species,including the smooth ray (Dasyatis brevicau-data), black stingray (Dasyatis thetidis) andeagleyray (Myliobatis australis). The smooth rayis the largest of all stingrays, which can growto 4.3m in length (Allen, 1999).

Currently, up to 20 people at a time attendthe feeding site usually around midday whenthere is frequently at least six rays in atten-dance. People can be seen paddling around inboats or more commonly standing in the waterobserving, touching and/or feeding the rays.This activity often lasts from December untilMarch each year (Figures 2 and 3).

The potential for a tourism product with popularity similar to that of Stingray Cityand/or the internationally famous dolphinexperience at Monkey Mia in Western Australia appears to be very promising.Although the site is currently not managedspecifically as a wildlife attraction and certainlynot promoted, travel websites have begun to

Stingray Tourism at Hamelin Bay 333


Figure 2. Stingray provisioning site at Hamelin Bay, Western Australia.

feature the stingrays of Hamelin Bay as anattraction and visitors are steadily increasingthrough word of mouth. The problem is thatthere are no site-specific data with regard topotential impacts on the rays, aspects of visitorsatisfaction, safety factors, or how the industrycould be managed to provide a sustainabletourism product. The main purpose of thisresearch, therefore, was to fill this importantgap in knowledge that is necessary for theWestern Australian Department of Conserva-tion and Land Management to effectively planfor and manage the site in the future.

In recent years stakeholder involvement intourism planning has become increasinglyimportant (Pearce et al., 1998). Hall and Lew(1998) consider public involvement funda-mental because plans not supported by stake-holders will be difficult to implement andoften fall short of their goals (Hendee et al.,1990). Stakeholders include those partiesdirectly affected by changes to an area, such as visitors themselves, plus those indirectlyaffected (e.g. local communities) (Newsome

et al., 2002). Those managing or providingtourism opportunities, such as governmentdepartments, developers and tour operatorsare also considered stakeholders (Newsome etal., 2002). Stakeholder groups targeted for thisstudy were visitors to the site, the local com-munity, tourism operators and regional touristbureaus. This paper reports on these stake-holder interests and concerns with regard tostingray tourism at the Hamelin Bay site.

RESEARCH METHODS

The survey of stakeholder perspectivesinvolved five non-government groups, how-ever, the main focus is on the major users ofthe area, who are tourist operators and visitorsfrom urban centres located further north inWestern Australia. The permanent local popu-lation is very small, with the most importanton site stakeholders being the people who runthe caravan park.

Newspaper article

To reach the broader community for calls ofinput, the West Australian newspaper con-ducted a story on 9 February 2002. Posters

were also pinned at three prominent locationswithin the Hamelin Bay Caravan Park, inform-ing occupants and visitors of the project andencouraging their input.

Email survey

Email questionnaires were sent to six touristbureaus’ throughout the southwest region on24 October 2001. Questionnaires were simple,asking; if they were aware that the stingrays atHamelin bay were provisioned, if they pro-moted the attraction themselves, if they believethere is the potential for stingray provisioningto become an attraction and if they would behappy to promote stingray provisioning as anattraction.

Hamelin Bay Caravan Park survey

The Hamelin Bay caravan park survey wasutilised as a preliminary information toolbefore field work commenced. The surveyscomprised of 16 questions regarding thegeneral habits of the rays (i.e. when they cameto shore), management interests and supportof the project. The aim of the survey was togain an overview of local knowledge of the



Figure 3. Stingrays and visitors in the vicinity of the Hamelin Bay boat launching ramp.

provisioning situation before initial data col-lection occurred, and an understanding of theissues that may need to be studied and latermanaged. Three surveys in total were sent: oneto the Hamelin Bay Caravan Park manage-ment, one to the caravan park owner and a long-term resident of the area was also surveyed.

Tour operator survey

A postal tour operator survey was developedto seek opinions of all tour operators whooperated in the Leeuwin-Naturaliste NationalPark, The Western Australian Depaertment ofConcervation and Land Management (CALM)Nature-base web site was used as the samplingframe, from which operator details werederived (Denscombe, 1998). Several questionsfrom a CALM tour operator survey of WesternAustralia (Davies, 2000) were included forcomparative purposes, and were also used asa guide for questionnaire formatting. Twentyquestions were included in the survey, whichwas divided into two parts: stingray tourismand wildlife as part of your tour. The questionsreflected current usage of the Hamelin Bayarea and interest in stingray tourism, and whatwould be required to bring their patrons to thesite. Fifty-six questionnaires were sent in total.

Visitor questionnaire

The visitor questionnaire (Appendix) con-sisted of 20 questions incorporating; stingrayinteraction, wildlife tourism preferences (orig-inally derived from a CALM questionnaire)(Davies, 2000), future concerns regarding thesite and management preferences. An explana-tory cover page was included, modelled onthat used by Pearce (2000). Questionnaireswere dispersed randomly to visitors after theyobserved or interacted with the rays. A total of204 visitor questionnaires were completed atthe study site.

Pilot study

A pilot study of the visitor questionnaires wasconducted the first week in December 2001when visitors began to frequent the provision-ing site. The purpose of the study was to iden-

tify any potential misunderstandings associ-ated with the format or manner of questionpresentation. Some anomalies were found withsome of the questions, which were clarifiedverbally and then changed to provide a clearerunderstanding for when they were issued inmid-December. The tour operator survey wasfound confusing by some respondents withregard to the ‘ranking’ system, where boxeswere ticked instead of numbered. This compo-nent of the questionnaire was not changed asthe questions were drawn from an originalCALM survey, for which comparisons could bedrawn.

RESULTS

The main focus of these results is on the touroperator survey and visitor questionnairebecause of the need to establish how manypeople are visiting/likely to visit the site tosee/interact with stingrays.

Newspaper article

Three responses from the general public werereceived after an article was published in theWest Australian on 9 February 2001. Theserespondents offering to contribute their knowl-edge of the rays toward the project.

Email survey

Two tourist bureaus out of six responded to theemail survey. Both were aware that stingrayscould be fed at Hamelin Bay. Although neitherof them officially promoted the stingrays, bothtourist bureaus believed that stingray pro-visioning had potential as a future attractionand were happy to promote it if a sustainablefeeding station was developed in the future.

Hamelin Bay Caravan Park survey

Of the three surveys mailed to Hamelin BayCaravan Park, two were returned. These hadbeen completed by both the caravan park man-agers and a long-term resident. The surveysprovided preliminary information on stin-gray numbers and abundance. Although theHamelin Bay Caravan Park managers arehappy to support increased patronage to



the area that may arise from stingray tour-ism, concern regarding attracting sharks, thenarrow access road and inadequate ablutionswere expressed by a long-term resident.

Tour operator survey

Of the 56 surveys mailed to Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park tour operators, sixwere undeliverable owing to incorrect addressdetails. The response rate excluding this non-deliverable fraction was 35% (17 surveys).

Stingray tourism. The majority (66%) of respon-dents do not visit Hamelin Bay as part of theirtour, and none bring tourists to Hamelin Bayto feed the stingrays, although observationsduring data collection suggest that companiesother than those surveyed bring tourists tofeed the rays. However, 53% of those surveyedare aware that stingrays can be fed at HamelinBay, and a very high number of respondents(94%) believe that stingray provisioning hasmarketing potential. Their reasons for thiswere that the attraction was unique and peopleare fascinated with marine wildlife, and theperception that visitors will see anything thatis free or costs little.

Personal interest in stingray tourism (whengiven a choice of very interested, moderatelyinterested or not interested) was resoundinglymoderate (70%) when compared with notinterested (12%) and very interested (18%).Similarly, respondents presume that theirpatrons are moderately interested in stingraytourism (53%), when compared to very inter-ested (41%). Only 6% (1 survey) of tour opera-tors believed that their patrons would not beinterested in stingray tourism. When asked ifthey would support the development of a sus-tainable feeding station the majority of touroperators (47%) were very interested in bring-ing their patrons to the site, although 18% saidthey were not interested.

With regards to management, 82% of touroperators agreed to comply with any manage-ment regimes put in place to protect the healthof the rays, as opposed to 10% who would con-sider it depending on the regulations. Again,6% (one operator) stated that they would notcomply with any management regimes put inplace.

Wildlife as part of your tour. This section coversaspects of wildlife tourism considered to beimportant, tour group characteristics, mar-keting strategies and assistance required toinvolve patrons in stingray tourism at HamelinBay.

Tour operators were asked what theybelieved were important aspects of wildlifetourism, for both themselves personally andfor their patrons. Seven preselected optionswere presented, which the respondents wereasked to rank in order of importance. It wasfound that tour operators believe ‘seeinganimals in their natural state’ and ‘photoopportunities’ are the most important aspectsof wildlife tourism to both themselves andtheir patrons. However, personal interests oftour operators in wildlife tourism otherwisediffer to what they believe are important totheir patrons. Tour operators believed thattouching animals was more important thanviewing animals without binoculars fortourists interested in wildlife. However, watch-ing wildlife without binoculars proved morepopular with wildlife tourists at Hamelin Bay.

This result differs to Davies’ (2000) survey oftour operators, who ranked ‘watching wildlifewith binoculars’ as their fourth preference. The100 tour operators within Western Australiawho were surveyed by Davies (2000), however,also believed that seeing animals in theirnatural state and photograph opportunitieswere the most important aspects of wildlifetourism.

Clients of tour operators to Leeuwin-Naturaliste region are predominantly inter-national (48%), the second largest group interstate customers (29%), followed byWestern Australia metro (18%) and WesternAustralia country (5%). The origin of touristshas management implications for languagesput on signs, or for promotional purposes.

When marketing their product respondentspredominantly utilise their own brochures,information centres, their own web page andword of mouth, with radio/TV advertisingand regional advertising being the leastcommon. These results may be useful if decid-ing how to promote a sustainable feedingstation, and who the market group would be.

Tour operators were next asked what assis-tance was required of government bodies and



the tourism industry if stingray tourism was tobe included as part of their tour. ‘Informationon wildlife’ received the most responses fol-lowed by ‘clear and streamlined regulations’(Figure 4).

General comments from tour operators weremixed. One tour operator would like to seeprotection of the rays, and others do not wantcommercialisation at the site. However, somerespondents noted that stingray tourism was aworthy pursuit for educational purposes, andthat a sustainable feeding station would mostlikely attract many visitors and tour operatorsto the area.

Visitor questionnaire

Knowledge of stingray tourism. It was the firstvisit to Hamelin Bay for just under half therespondents (49.3%), yet a considerably large

(63.4%) proportion of all visitors surveyedknew that stingrays could be viewed and fedfrom the shore. This knowledge was predomi-nantly gained through word of mouth (57.8%)(Figure 5) and ‘watching the actions of otherson the beach’ or ‘experience from previousvisits’ (36.5%), which was written by respon-dents under the heading “Other”. Only 4.3% ofvisitors learned of the rays through brochures(the rays are mentioned in only two brochuresat Augusta Tourist Bureau), and only 1.4%gained the information from tourist bureaus.For 51% of respondents one of the reasons for visiting Hamelin Bay was to encounterstingrays. This indicates that there is largeinterest in stingray interaction.

Stingray interaction and visitor satisfaction. Whileat the provisioning site, 99.5% of visitors sur-veyed viewed rays, 72% touched them and



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Informationon Wildlife

ClearRegulations

Assistance inPromotion

AssistanceFunding

Training

Res

po

nse

Nu

mb

er

Figure 4. Assistance required for tour operators to includestingray tourism in their tour.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Word of Mouth Previous visits/Observing

Brochures Tourist Bureaus

Nu

mb

er o

f V

isit

ors

Figure 5. How visitors know about stingray provisioning atHamelin Bay.

38% of visitors fed rays. Visitors observing rayssaw an average of 6.7 rays in the water, andthree stingrays on average were touched bythose visitors interacting with the rays. Anaverage of 2.8 stingrays were fed by those visitors provisioning the rays. During theseencounters 93% of those surveyed entered thewater, standing predominantly knee deep(48.4%) and ankle deep (43.2%) when com-pared with thigh deep (5.3%) and waist deep(3.1%).

When asked to rate the level of interactionwith the rays visitors responded 31.7% limitedinteraction, 36.6% fairly interactive and 31.7%very interactive. This may be due to varyinglevels of physical contact with the rays or dueto varying expectations.

Visitors were asked to rate their overallenjoyment (1, I didn’t enjoy and 10 thoroughlyenjoyed) of observing or feeding the rays.Values ranged between 4 and 10, but averageda total of 8.9. This indicates that, on average,those surveyed thoroughly enjoyed their expe-rience. If the respondents did enjoy encounter-ing the stingrays, they were asked why thiswas so and this resulted in mixed responses.Of the 180 visitors to comment, the mostcommon responses were that the experiencewas new and unique, and that the site wasnatural and undeveloped (Figure 6). Addi-tional comments included; great experience forchildren (3%), the experience alleviated a fear

of stingrays (3%), the interaction was sponta-neous as did not know about the site (2%).

Question 15 of the visitor survey (Appendix)asked visitors about their satisfaction withregard to different aspects about their visit (thenumber of rays seen; how close you could getto a stingray; the number of people in thewater with you; facilities provided for visi-tors). Visitors were requested to give eachsection a mark out of 5 (5 being very satisfied).Those surveyed were satisfied to highly satis-fied, both with the numbers of rays seen(average of 4.65) and how close they got to astingray (4.78). They were less satisfied (4.05),however, with the number of people in thewater with them (which averaged 11.3 personsat a time) and neutral to satisfied (3.89) withthe facilities available for visitors.

Concerns and preferred management regardinginteraction. Personal safety concerns of 102 vis-itors regarding stingray interaction reflected‘being stung’ or a fear of the stingray’s barb(87%). However, treading on a stingray (5%)and fear of the unknown (6%), not knowingwhat they were capable of or how to avoidharm, were also concerns. Very few respon-dents (2%) did not know that stingrays couldcause harm. Although respondents interactingwith the rays had a fear of being stung, 77%did not know how to treat injury caused by astingray barb. In spite of this, many of these



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Stingrays beautiful creatures/ largesize

Stingrays gentle and trusting

Stingrays close to shore

Interaction was fascinating

Stingrays were wild and in naturalenvironment

New experience/ unique/ different

Responses

Figure 6. Reasons that visitors enjoyed observing and feeding the rays.

visitors snorkeled with the stingrays. Of theremaining 23% who believed they did knowhow to treat barb injuries, only 46 (56%) ofthese respondents were correct. Indeed, 7%suggested methods (i.e. applying an ice pack)that would inflict further harm to the patient.One resident expressed concern regarding theincreased risk of shark attack through discard-ing offal near a bathing beach. He had previ-ously sent a letter to local newspapers on thetopic.

Visitors were asked to rank aspects ofwildlife tourism that they consider to beimportant in order of importance (1 being themost important). Seeing animals in theirnatural state was their first priority, followedby photograph opportunities. Watching with-out binoculars was ranked third, whereasanimal interactions such as touching, swim-ming with and feeding animals were rankedquite low, with 4th, 5th and 6th respectively.Watching with binoculars was ranked last.

The main concerns of visitors regarding anincreased number of people feeding the rayswere ranked in order of importance from 1 to7 (1 being the most important) as above. Of the204 visitors surveyed, 142 filled in this section.Table 1 shows that the primary concern of vis-itors was clearly the health of the stingrays,

with an average rank of 1.44 and 123 respon-dents (87% of all respondents) ranking thisissue their number 1 concern. The averagerank of a subject was determined by findingthe mean rank values for a given subject (inthis instance a particular concern) from thevisitor questionnaire. As the highest preferenceby visitors was ranked 1 and the lowest 7, thelowest average was considered the most pre-ferred option for visitors.

Safety of those interacting with the rays fol-lowed concerns about health of rays, whereasincreased vehicle numbers and crowding ofthe boat ramp least concerned visitors. Con-cerns added under the ‘other’ option included:commercialisation of the site, damage to the environment, increased development anddependency of the stingrays on humans.

Question 13 of the visitor questionnaireasked visitors to note observations that couldhave a negative impact on the stingrays. Forty-five percent of respondents (out of 120) wereconcerned with a combination of overfeedingof the rays, too many people interacting withthe rays and overhandling of the rays, and 15%were concerned that boats came too close tothe rays when coming to shore. Other impactsthat concerned visitors included the impact ofsun exposure on rays from coming to shallowwaters, disease contraction from humans, andrepercussions from toxins such as sunscreenand petrol.

Visitors were asked what managementstrategies they believe should occur at the sitein the event that uncontrolled feeding by visi-tors increases (Table 2). Five options were pre-sented and ranked in order of preference.Education and controlled feeding through aranger at peak periods was the most popularoption. The second was education throughsigns, and having no stingray feeding was theleast popular option. Management preferenceslisted under the ‘other’ category included: acombination of both moving the cleaning sta-tion and signs/pamphlets/information boardon rays.

Visitors also wish to be educated about thestingrays, with 67% of respondents believingthat the supervision and information providedby a ranger would affect their experience pos-itively (compared with 12.8% who believe itwould have a negative effect), rather than have



Table 1. Visitor concerns regarding an increase instingray provisioning

Ranka Issue

1 (most Health of the stingrays (averagepreferred) rank 1.44)

2 Safety of those interacting with the rays (3.88)

3 Crowding of the beach (3.94)4 Unsightly food in water (4.45)5 Possible increase risk of shark

attack (4.69)6 Increased traffic/vehicles to the

Hamelin Bay area (4.91)7 (least Crowding of the boat ramp (5.04)

preferred)

a The rank is in order of importance with 1 being the mostimportant. The average rank of a subject was determinedby finding mean rank values for a given subject. Thelowest average was considered the most preferred option.

a commercial, structured feeding programmepresented. A popular phrase (25%) written bymany tourists was ‘no commercialisation-leaveas is’ and ‘no Monkey Mia’. The Shark Bay,Monkey Mia dolphin provisioning site was asmall, low visitation camping area and unreg-ulated some 20 years ago, as Hamelin Bay isnow. Over time Monkey Mia has evolved intoa tourist resort that is now regularly visited by coach tours. The growth of tourist num-bers and the potential for negative impactsincreased so much that a supervised and struc-tured feeding programme had to be put inplace. Today there are as many as 200 peoplein attendance at any one time during peakperiods.

These concerns about possible impacts andthe potential for tourism succession are furtherillustrated through general comments (Ques-tion 20) made by those surveyed (Figure 7).Respondents were given the option at the endof the survey to write any comments (Appen-dix) with regard to stingray tourism. Twenty-three percent of respondents acknowledgedthat management is needed for the Hamelin

Bay site, both through information to thepublic regarding the rays, and also throughresearch and a management plan. A small percentage (5%) of visitors want the site left as it is, and ‘other’ comments, which com-prised a small percentage, included ‘keep therays safe’, ‘do not advertise the rays’, and ‘Ienjoyed watching and interacting with the rays without a ranger or restriction throughregulations.’

A PLANNING STRATEGY FOR HAMELIN BAY

It appears that visitor numbers to Hamelin Bayare increasing markedly both for recreationalpurposes and to interact with the rays. It isessential that when planning for visitor use,detailed attention is given to the potential forfurther increases in visitation and the associ-ated potential for increased risks to visitorsand impacts on the rays.

Planning for stingray tourism at HamelinBay is imperative for the following reasons.

(1) Safety of visitors. Many visitors do not knowhow to interact with the rays in a safemanner and there is the risk of someonebeing stung in response to deliberate oraccidental ignorant behaviour towards therays.



Table 2. Management preferences of visitors toHamelin Bay if uncontrolled stingray feeding wereto increase

Ranka Management suggestion

1 (most Ranger or staff to educate visitorspreferred) about the rays and control the

amounts of feeding in peak seasons (average rank 1.90)

2 Signs suggesting ways to minimise impacts on the rays plusinformation about potential risksto people (2.34)

3 Fully staffed interpretation and feeding site, where visitors are provided with limited amounts of fish and rays are only fed at certain times (2.87)

4 Same as above, but also move the cleaning station to a nearby location to prevent crowding at the boat ramp (3.56)

5 (least No stingray feeding of any kind preferred) (4.27)

a Five management options ranked in order of preferencewith 1 being the most preferred.

30%

25%12%

11%

5%

17%

Great-Natural and Untouched

No Commercialisation/Monkey Mia

Needs Management-Information

Needs Management-Research and Management Plan

Leave Site as is

Other

Figure 7. General visitor comments (Question 20).

(2) Safety of the rays. At present our under-standing of the impacts of food provision-ing on the rays at Hamelin Bay have notbeen determined. Visitors, with regard to an increase in visitation, expressed concerns regarding this. Potential harmincludes physical stress such as lesionsfrom touching or beaching themselves andfrom visitors who are rough or who maycause deliberate physical harm to the rays.Less direct negative impacts include habit-uation, overfeeding, disease contractionfrom humans, contaminated food or waterfouling (Shackley, 1998).

(3) Safety of swimmers and snorkellers. Many vis-itors swimming or snorkeling are unawareof the risks, such as barb injuries, involvedwhen swimming or snorkeling with therays. Decomposing fish offal in the watercould pose a shark threat to swimmers, andboaters coming to shore and those fish-ing from the shore or provisioning areacould pose a threat of accidental injury toswimmers.

(4) Safety of recreational boaters. Many boatershave expressed fears regarding treading onstingrays when disembarking from theirboat. At least two boaters have stood on aray when disembarking, but luckily forthem the rays were tailless (Lewis (2002)noted that fishermen release rays entangledin nets by cutting off their tails). This fearmay create (and has in some cases created)a negative attitude toward the rays from theboating community.

(5) Future satisfaction of visitors to the site. Oftenthe ideals that attracted visitors to the sitein the first place, in this case provisioningstingrays in a natural setting that is notoverly commercial in nature potentially canbe degraded by a growth in human usage.It is interesting to note that visitor satisfac-tion is not entirely dependent on feedingthe rays. Although visitors ranked ‘nofeeding of rays’ last as a management strat-egy (Table 2), feeding ranked below ‘seeinganimals in their natural state’ and ‘photoopportunities’ in terms of what they con-sider what is important in wildlife tourism.

(6) Ecological disruption. As tourist numbers tosite grow, so too do associated impacts.Litter, dune trampling, fouling of nearshore

waters, diesel runoff from the boat rampand car park are other potential impactsthat could negatively have an impact on therays as well as other marine organisms inthe Hamelin Bay area.

(7) Conflict over visitor use of the site. Lewis(2002) has shown that at present somevisitor conflict already exists betweenboaters, rays, swimmers, those provision-ing the rays and beach fisherman. Planningmay help to minimise these growing con-flicts in the future.

The best way to plan for wildlife tourism atHamelin Bay is through the utilisation of aplanning framework that helps identify andmanage impacts of visitation (Newsome et al.,2002). The most applicable planning frame-work for stingray tourism at Hamelin Bay islikely to be a Limits of Acceptable Change(LAC) framework. This is primarily becausethis framework focuses on site-level areas,rather than a region or group of natural areas.This framework also relies on indicators andstandards, and thus provides information onthe likely causes of impacts in order to imple-ment management strategies. AdditionallyLAC has increasing manager involvement asthe planning framework nears completion.The manager is responsible for the collection of data from monitoring, which, along withimplementation of the framework, determinesthe success of management. If managementregimes need to be changed or updated, it isvital that this can be executed quickly and effi-ciently. Therefore, giving the manager a largeamount of responsibility at Hamelin Bay isimperative. Moreover LAC was developedexplicitly to include stakeholder interests inthe planning process. Many authors (e.g.Hendee et al., 1990; Hall and Lew, 1998; Pearceet al., 1998) have suggested that stakeholderinvolvement is an integral part of planning.This study also demonstrates that HamelinBay stakeholders are keen to put their viewsacross through the numerous questionnairescompleted.

CONCLUSIONS

From the results of this study it is clear thatthere is sufficient interest in stingray tourism



(by all the stakeholders surveyed) to developHamelin Bay as a permanent feeding site. Forexample, 94% of tour operators surveyedbelieve that stingray tourism has marketingpotential and 47% of tour operators are veryinterested in bringing their patrons to the site.Visitors on average gave their experience withthe rays a satisfaction value of 8.9 out of 10 Themost common reason for this high value beingbecause the site was unique and different. Fur-thermore, the study undertaken by Shackley(1998) was in response to over 100000 peoplevisiting the stingray provisioning site per year,indicating that tourists are very keen to inter-act with stingrays.

However, in opposition to developing thesite, the most important aspect of wildlifetourism to both tour operators and visitors toHamelin Bay (as well as what tour operatorsbelieve are important to their patrons) is‘seeing animals in their natural state’. Like-wise, 29.5% of visitors commented that theyenjoyed their experience because the site was‘natural and untouched’, and 25% did notwant commercialisation, tour groups or exces-sive visitor numbers. Additionally, the numberone concern of stingray interaction for visitorswas the health and safety of the rays, may dete-riorate with an increase of visitors if notmanaged correctly. Visitors instead desire to beeducated about the rays, and how to best inter-act with them safely. Nineteen per cent of finalcomments by visitors acknowledged that thesite needs management through more signs,information and a management plan. Indeed,tour operators indicated that ‘information onwildlife’ was the number one assistance re-quired to bring their patrons to Hamelin Bay.

Management for the site is likely to be bestimplemented through a combination of imme-diate responses and a long-term planningstrategy, incorporating the ‘Limits of Accept-able Change’ framework. Strategies that couldbe implemented in the near future includezoning the beach according to specific recre-ational purposes, the application of signage,

development of guidelines/codes of conductand the provision of an official presence eitherthrough a ranger and/or via a ranger volun-teer programme. Management regimes shouldbe developed that use various indicators tomonitor the impacts of stingray tourism atHamelin Bay. Such indicators could includemeasures of ray health, water quality parame-ters, site crowding and visitor satisfaction andvisitor safety.

The time frame of this study could be con-sidered its main limitation, as collecting dataduring the summer period only assessed onepeak season. One concern highly relevant tothe future of stingray provisioning at HamelinBay is whether stingray numbers are increas-ing or decreasing over time. Clearly, thisknowledge would affect both the planning andmanagement of Hamelin Bay, and determinethe practicality of developing a sustainablefeeding station. This information will not beknown unless the rays are monitored in futureyears. Additionally, this study did not allowtime for data collection and analysis other thanthe peak visitation times sampled. Local resi-dents have suggested that stingrays do notcome to shore during winter. If this is the case it is almost certain that managementwould be necessary only during the summermonths.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Daryl Moncrieff, Plan-ning Coordinator of CALM and members of the CALM Nature-based Recreation andTourism Research Reference Group for makingfunds available for this project. We also ap-preciate the help of Peter Henderson, KimWilliams and Mark Pittavino of the BunburyCALM Office. We are also indebted to KirstyGuppy and Darren Lewis, managers ofHamelin Bay Caravan Park for their supportthroughout this study. Acknowledgementsalso go to Jackie Lewis and all of the studentvolunteers who assisted with this project.



APPENDIX

Hamelin Bay visitor survey

1. Is this our first visit to Hamelin Bay? (please circle)No (Continue on to question 2)Yes (Go straight to question 3)

2. What year(s) did you visit previously? __________

3. Were you aware that stingrays could be viewed and fed from the shore at Hamelin Bay?No (Go straight to question 6)Yes (Continue on to question 4)

4. How were you aware that stingrays could be viewed and fed from shore? (please circle)

Tourist bureaus Brochures Word of mouth Other __________

5. Was one of your reasons for visiting Hamelin Bay to encounter stingrays? No Yes

6. Did you(a) observe any stingray(s) during your visit? No Yes

If Yes, how many? __________

(b) touch any stingray(s) No YesIf Yes, how many? __________

(c) feed any stingray(s) No YesIf Yes, how many? __________What were they fed? __________

7. Did you stand in the water whilst encountering the stingrays?No (go straight to question 9)Yes (continue to question 8)

8. How deep did you stand in the water during the stingray visit? (Please circle one):Ankle deep Knee deep Thigh deep Waist deep

9. How do you rate your level of interaction with the stingray(s)? (Please circle one)

Limited interaction Fairly interactive Very interactive

10. How many people do you estimate were either in the water or near the water during the stinray(s)visit? __________

11. (a) On a scale of 1–10 (1 being the least), how much did you enjoy observing/feeding the stingrays?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Did not enjoy Enjoyed Thoroughly enjoyed

(b) If you did enjoy observing/feeding the stingrays, why was this so?



12. What are your personal concerns with regard to stingray interaction at Hamelin Bay?

13. Did you see anything that you think could have a negative effect on the stingray(s)? (If so, pleaseexplain)

14. Do you know what emergency procedures to follow if injury by a stingray barb occurs?

NoYes (please give procedure) _________________________________________________________

15. How satisfied were you with the following features of your stingray experience?Please circle the appropriate number in each row



Very unsatisfied Unsatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied

The number of 1 2 3 4 5stingrays seen

How close you 1 2 3 4 5could get to astingray

The number of 1 2 3 4 5people in thewater

The facilities 1 2 3 4 5available forvisitors

Touching animals

Photo opportunities

Watching without the need for binoculars

Watching with binoculars

Seeing animals in their natural state (i.e. not in enclosures)

Swimming with marine animals

Feeding animals

Other (please specify)

16. Which of the following do you consider to be important parts of wildlife tourism?Please rank in order of importance

17. What would be your main concerns if an increased number of visitors began to feed the rays in amanaged or unmanaged environment? Please rank in order of importance

19. How do you believe the supervision and information provided by a ranger would affect your experience?

Positively No Effect Negatively

20. Lastly, are there any comments or suggestions you would like to make about your stingray experiencehere at Hamelin Bay?



Health of the stingrays

Crowding of the beach

Crowding of the boat ramp

Unsightly food in water

Safety of those interacting with rays

Possible increase risk of shark presence

Increased traffic/vehicles in the Hamelin Bay area

Other (please specify)

1. No stingray feeding of any kind (therefore stingrays may not come to shore)

2. Signs suggesting ways to minimise impacts on the rays plus information aboutpotential risks to people

3. Ranger or staff to educate visitors about the rays and control amounts of feeding inpeak seasons

4. Fully staffed interpretation and feeding site, where visitors are provided with limitedamounts of fish and rays are only fed at certain times

5. Same as 4, but also have the site moved to a nearby location to prevent crowding atthe boat ramp

6. Other (please specify)

18. If uncontrolled feeding of stingrays by visitors increases at the site, what management strategies doyou believe should occur? Please rank in order of choice

REFERENCES

Allen G. 1999. Marine Fishes of Tropical Australia and South-east Asia. Western Australian Museum:Western Australia.

CALM. 1987. Leeuwin-Naturaliste National Park Draft Management Plan. Department of

Conservation and Land Management: WesternAustralia.

CALM. 2002. Guide to Leeuwin-Naturaliste NationalPark. Department of Conservation and LandManagement: Western Australia.

Davies M. 2000. Macropod conservation andwildlife tourism: a case study of the black-flanked

rock-wallaby, Petrogale lateralis lateralis, inWestern Australia. Unpublished honours thesis,School of Environmental Science, Murdoch Uni-versity: Perth, Western Australia.

Denscombe M. 1998. The Good Research Guide forSmall-scale Research Projects. Open UniversityPress: Philadelphia.

Department of Environment. 2001. The DOE’s Con-cern with Stingray Feeding. Available World WideWeb:http://divecayman.ky/divemaster/press_01.asp

Hall CM, Lew AA. 1998. Sustainable Tourism: a Geo-graphical Perspective. Longman: New York.

Hendee JC, Stankey GH, Lucas RC. 1990. WildernessManagement. North American Press: Colorado.

Lewis AR. 2002. Planning for stingray tourism atHamelin Bay, Western Australia: stakeholder per-spectives, impacts and management. Unpublishedhonours thesis, School of Environmental Science,Murdoch University: Perth, Western Australia.

New Traveler. 2001. The Waters Of Stingray City. Available World Wide Web:

www.newtraveler.com/stories/arch_stingrayc-ity.html

Newsome D, Moore S, Dowling RK. 2002. NaturalArea Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management.Channel View Publications: Clevedon.

Pearce K. 2000. Effects of food provisioning on thebehavior and interactions with humans of a juvenilebottlenose dolphin. Unpublished honours thesis,School of Biological Sciences, Murdoch Univer-sity: Perth, Western Australia.

Pearce PL, Morrison AM, Rutledge JL. 1998.Tourism: Bridges Across Continents. Irwin/McGraw-Hill: Australia.

Shackley M. 1998. Stingray City — managing theimpact of underwater tourism in the CaymanIslands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(4): 328–338.

Spender M. 2001. Dasyatis americana’ — SouthernAtlantic Stingray. Available World Wide Web:http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/dasyatis/d._americana$narrative.html



planning for stingray tourism at hamelin bay, western australia: the importance of stakeholder...

Documents