Tourism in Marine Environments, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.

251-262
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2016 Cognizant, LLC.

1544-273X/16 $60.00 + .00

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/154427316X14580612748687
E-ISSN 2169-0197
www.cognizantcommunication.com

REVIEW
RECENT ADVANCES IN WHALE-WATCHING RESEARCH: 20142015

E. C. M. PARSONS* AND CAROL SCARPACI

*Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
College of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, Werribee Campus, Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia

Whale-watching research encompasses a wide variety of disciplines and fields of study, including
monitoring the biological impacts of whale-watching activities on cetaceans and assessments of the
effectiveness of whale-watching management and regulations, to the sociological and economic
aspects of whale watching on communities hosting such activities. This article is the latest in a series
of annual digests, which describes the variety and findings of whale-watching studies published over
the past year, since June 2014.
Key words: Whale watching; Code of conduct; Regulations; Management
Swim-with-dolphin/whale tourism; Whale watchers; Illegal feeding; Whale ecotourism

Introduction

to be a useful digest of recently published articles,

and as such assisted the work of the Subcommittee,
similar digests in following years were requested
(see Parsons, Lewandowski, & Lck, 2006; Parsons,
Lck, & Lewandowski, 2006; Parsons & Scarpaci,
2010; Scarpaci, Lck, & Parsons, 2009; Scarpaci &
Parsons, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015; Scarpaci, Parsons,
& Lck, 2008, 2009). This is the 12th in this series
of review articles, detailing a summary of whalewatching research published over the past year (June
2014May 2015), since the 2014 meeting of the
IWC Scientific Committee.

Recognizing the difficulties of keeping up to

date on the wealth of research on whale-watching
activities, in particular the impacts of these activities on cetaceans, an article summarizing the breadth
and variety of whale-watching research, published
during the previous year, was presented to the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) Scientific Committees Whalewatching Subcommittee
(Parsons, Classen, & Bauer, 2004) during the 56th
Annual Meeting of the IWC. As this was deemed

Address correspondence to E. C. M. Parsons, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax,
VA22030-4444, USA. E-mail: ecm-parsons@earthlink.net

251

252

PARSONS AND SCARPACI

Impacts of Whale Watching on Cetaceans

Numerous studies have documented impacts of

whale watching on cetaceans (see Parsons, 2012, for
a review) and the past year added several published
studies to the collection of research on behavioral
changes of cetaceans resulting from whale-watching vessel exposure. For example, concern has
been raised about the influence of disturbance by
boat traffic (tourism-related and otherwise) on
the small population of bottlenose dolphins in the
Bay of Islands, New Zealand (Constantine, 2001;
Constantine, Brunton, & Dennis, 2004). TezanosPinto, Constantine, Mouro, Berghan, and Baker
(2015) found that there was a 7.5% annual decline
in the population between 1997 and 2006, probably due to emigration/displacement or mortality.
The calving rate increased between 1997 and 1999
(0.13) and 2003 and 2005 (0.25, i.e., one calf every
4 years; Tezanos-Pinto et al., 2015). Despite the
increase in reproductive rate, however, it is lower
for this population than it is in comparable populations (Hansen, 1990; Wrsig, 1978). Mortality
rates for calves were higher than rates reported
for comparable populations (age 1+: 0.340.52 to
age 2+: 0.150.59; Tezanos-Pinto et al., 2015) and
similar to those of severely compromised populations that have attracted attention due to high mortality rates, such as captive dolphins (DeMaster &
Drevenak, 1988) and provisioned dolphins (Mann,
Connor, Barre, & Heithaus, 2000). A combination
of population decline, high calf mortality rates,
and low recruitment leads to a poor prognosis for
the viability of this population. It is possible that
chronic disturbance is impacting this population at
a population level. The researchers conclude that
management should focus on minimizing sources
of anthropogenic disturbance [i.e., boat traffic] and
enforcing compliance with current legislation
(Tezanos-Pinto et al., 2015, p. 540). This includes
enforcing the current ban on tourists swimming
with dolphin groups that contain calves and limiting
boat access to these groups; restricting numbers of
boats around dolphin groups to four or fewer vessels; putting restrictions on problematic activities
(such as speed boat races) during the breeding season; and not granting any further whale-watching
permits to operators in the region (Tezanos-Pinto
et al., 2015).

Filby, Stockin, and Scarpaci (2015a) documented responses of the newly described Burrunan
dolphins (Tursiops australis; Charlton-Robb et al.,
2011) to dolphin-swim activities in Port Phillip
Bay, Victoria, Southern Australia. Burrunan dolphins are an endemic but threatened species and
the study sought to evaluate potential long-term
implications of swim-with tourism and to explore
signs of habituation or tolerance to the swim-withdolphin industry over time. A total of 211 dolphin
sightings were documented from 1998 to 2000
and 2011 to 2013 across 306 surveys (Filby et al.,
2015a). The researchers found that the probability
of sighting dolphins decreased across time (12.8%)
and encounter time was reduced by 8.2 min (Filby et
al., 2015a). Dolphins were more likely to approach
the vessel when the boat made a legal approach
(parallel) to dolphin groups and illegal/prohibited
approaches were more likely to evoke an aggressive response from dolphins (Filby et al., 2015a).
Size of dolphin groups and the type of behavior
they were initially exhibiting affected the degree
of response, with large groups responding less and
resting groups showing more avoidance (Filby
et al., 2015a). Dolphins were also most likely to
exhibit responses to boat presence as time progressed, suggesting sensitization to boats (Filby et
al., 2015a) Moreover, the likelihood of calves being
observed also increased in the latter study period
(Filby et al., 2015a). The increase in interaction
with groups with calves is a cause for concern. The
authors rationalize that noncompliance by swimwith-dolphin operators is impacting the viability
and health of this genetically isolated population of
Burrunan dolphins by hindering foraging and resting (Filby et al., 2015a). Complying with regulations would, however, ultimately be beneficial for
trip operators, as dolphins would be less likely to
avoid the vessels and it would likely increase customer satisfaction (see Filby, Stockin, & Scarpaci,
2015b). Official monitoring and strict enforcement
of swim-with-dolphin regulationsactive management, as the authors put itis definitely warranted for this population.
Meissner et al. (2015) documented the effects
of whale-watching boat traffic on common dolphin
(Delphinus delphis) behavior in the North Island
(Bay of Plenty) of New Zealand. Data were collected from research vessels or on the platform of

ADVANCES IN WHALE-WATCHING RESEARCH

commercial tour vessels from November 2010 to

May 2013, equating to three austral summer periods aligned with peak tourism (Meissner et al.,
2015). The behavior of dolphins was studied using
standard methods and the behaviors of observed
groups were placed into five categories: foraging, milling, resting, socializing, and traveling
(Meissner et al., 2015). Common dolphins were
observed in the vicinity of a vessel 21% of the
time: 6.0% exclusively with tourism vessels; 1.3%
in the presence on a nontourism vessel; and 13.3%
in the presence of both tourism vessels and nontourism vessels (Meissner et al., 2015). To explore
the impact that boat interactions may have on
dolphin groups, Markov chain analysis was used
to investigate the probability of dolphins transitioning from one type of behavior to another in
the presence, or absence, of vessels (Meissner et
al., 2015). Boat interactions with dolphin groups
were found to significantly alter dolphin foraging
behavior (Meissner et al., 2015). In addition, the
time taken to resume foraging behavior after vessel exposure was extended, raising warranted concerns for the impacts of this on the health of this
population (Meissner et al., 2015).
Also in New Zealand, the effect of tourism vessels on the group structure and acoustic behavior
of common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Doubtful Sound was examined by Guerra,
Dawson, Brough, and Rayment (2014). The impacts
of tourism vessels on the behavior of dolphins in
this location have garnered concern in other studies (e.g., Lusseau, 2003). Both acoustic recordings
and observations of followed groups were collected, and the researchers found that groups with
mothercalf pairs were significantly less cohesive
and coordinated when tourism boats were audible
underwater (Guerra et al., 2014). Dolphin groups
with calves also increased their vocalization rates
when tourism boats were traveling faster, whereas
groups without calves became quieter (Guerra et
al., 2014), which may possibly indicate mothers
trying to keep in acoustic contact with their offspring. Dolphins were also more acoustically active
when boats were closer, and also while boats were
heading awaypossibly because the animals were
trying to reestablish their group structure after a
boat encounter (Guerra et al., 2014). Dolphins also
altered call frequency and duration in response to

253

boats, with groups containing calves decreasing

the duration of their whistles, and whistling at a
higher frequency when tourism boats were present
(Guerra et al., 2014), possibly to avoid their calls
being smothered or masked by underwater boat
noise. The researchers did note that one issue with
this study was the problem of boat noise that could
obscure or mask vocalizations, an issue that Pirotta,
Merchant, Thompson, Barton, and Lusseau (2015)
tries to deal with. The researchers express concern about their results noting that boat presence
and noise seems to be a particular issue for groups
with calves (Guerra et al., 2014). Because of the
endangered status of the population, its small size,
the high levels of calf mortality, a shift of animals
away from their habitat, and a decline in the population (Currey, Dawson, & Slooten, 2009; Currey,
Dawson, Slooten, Schneider, et al., 2009; Henderson,
Dawson, Rayment, & Currey, 2013), Guerra et al.
(2014) recommend precautionary management of
anthropogenic impacts, including management measures that try to mitigate the effects of underwater
noise on the dolphins. This is particularly important as tourism traffic is not the only anthropogenic
impact in the regionsuch as increase freshwater
do to a hydroelectric project and declining prey
availability (Henderson et al., 2013)but tourism
activity may be the easiest threat to manage, and
thus minimize.
Pirotta et al. (2015) also used passive acoustic
methods to try to investigate the impacts of boat
disturbance on common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) foraging activity in the Moray Firth,
eastern Scotland. Boat noise can cover or mask
dolphin vocalizations, and so Pirotta et al. (2015)
developed a method to measure the probability of
detecting significant foraging calls (buzzes) in relation to boat noise via Bayesian hierarchical modeling, as well as looking at interactions between
noise level, location, time, dolphin group size, and
number and types of boats (Pirotta et al., 2015).
They found that boat presence nearly halved (49%)
acoustic foraging activity in the short term, but
there was no relationship with noise level (Pirotta
et al., 2015). As there was a difference in responses
between locations and between years, reactions
may be variable and dependent upon foraging conditions (Pirotta et al., 2015). An increasing number
of boats decreased the amount of foraging, and the

254

PARSONS AND SCARPACI

effect also depended upon the type of boat, with

motorized boats that interacted with dolphins eliciting a greater response that those that did not interact,
with sailing boats and stationary vessels producing
a negligible response (Pirotta et al., 2015).
Three impact studies were conducted using data
from Faxafli Bay, Iceland on northern minke
whales (Balenoptera acutorostrata). The first
study looked at exposure rates of individual minke
whales to whale-watching boats, using photo identification recapture rates in 1-km2 grid squares in
the bay. The authors used these recapture rates to
model and estimate the likelihood of an individual animal encountering a whale-watching vessel
and to assess the cumulative time whales spent
withwhale-watching boats (Christiansen, Bertulli,
Rasmussen, & Lusseau, 2015). There was considerable variability between individuals for exposure
rates because of spatial and temporal variation of
whale distribution and variation in the movement of
whale-watching vessels (Christiansen et al., 2015).
Despite some whales being encountered multiple
times by whale-watching vessels, the total amount
of time in the presence of whale-watching vessels
was low (0.65 to 2.24 cumulative hours throughout
the entire feeding season) with the most exposed
individual (7.13 hr of exposure in total) being with
whale-watching vessels only 0.2% of its time during the entire feeding season (Christiansen et al.,
2015). Although whale-watching vessel presence
may temporarily disrupt minke whale feeding, it
was concluded that it is unlikely that the whalewatching industry [in Faxafli Bay, Iceland] in
its current state is having any long-term negative
effects on vital rates (Christiansen et al., 2015,
p.311).
The second study looked at potential energetic
costs associated with whale watching by comparing changes in swimming speed and surfacing (and
thus respiration) rates of minke whales around a
whale-watching vessel (boat-based platform) in the
middle of Faxafli Bay with minke whales close to
a headland at the periphery of the bay (land-based
platform) (Christiansen, Rasmussen, & Lusseau,
2014). Published bioenergetics models were then
used to estimate and contrast energy expenditure
from these differing respiration and swimming rates
(Christiansen et al., 2014). From the higher rate of
surfacing around whale-watching vessels, it was

estimated that minke whales experienced a 23.2%

increase in estimated energy expenditure, with a
further 4.4% increase in estimated energy expenditure due to increased swimming speeds, that is,
a 27.6% increase in estimated energy expenditure
in total or 56.5472.16 J kg1 min1 (Christiansen
et al., 2014).
It should be noted that the methodology of the
behavioral study that provided data for this model
was criticized at the IWCs Whalewatching Subcommittee when the behavioral differences attributed
to whale watching were presented to them (IWC,
2012). These criticisms included that the differences
in whale behavior between the whale-watching
impacted location and the control location might
be because of: (a) differences in oceanographic features and prey distribution in two different locations;
and/or (b) differences in the ability to sight surfacing
whales from boat-based and land-based platforms
(IWC, 2012). The latter was reinforced by Godwin
(2013), who found that when comparing observations of the same whale surfacing, surface interval
data gathered from a boat platform was shorter (thus
respiration rates seemed faster) when compared to
observations from a land-based platform (i.e., surfacing and behavior were more frequently missed when
observed from a land-based platform). Therefore,
differences in respiration rates (and therefore energetic costs) in whales near whale-watching vessels
when compared to land-based control observations may very well be an artifact of different methodologies rather than the effect of whale-watching
boats per se (IWC, 2012; Scarpaci & Parsons, 2014).
As noted in Scarpaci and Parsons (2014), the International Whaling Commission suggested that comparing whale surfacing behavior before, during, and
after an encounter with a whale-watching vessel, in
a single location, using a single observation method,
may be a more accurate method of determining
behavioral changes resulting from whalewatching
(IWC, 2012).
Following on from Christiansen et al. (2014,
2015), Christiansen and Lusseau (2015) developed a model that investigated how behavioral
changes resulting from anthropogenic disturbance
might influence female reproductive success in
whales. Using data from the above studies on possible behavioral changes due to whale watching
(Christiansen et al., 2014) and individual minke

ADVANCES IN WHALE-WATCHING RESEARCH

whales exposure to whale-watching vessels, the

model estimated that the effect of whale-watching
disturbance on fetal growth was, in fact, no greater
than natural variability. Therefore, the current level
of whale watching in Iceland is unlikely to be having a negative impact on northern minke whale
reproductive success, and thus is unlikely to be
having a population-level impact.
Similar to Christiansen et al. (2015), Pirotta,
Thompson, Cheney, Donovan, and Lusseau (2015)
used a cumulative exposure approach to estimate
exposure of common bottlenose dolphins in the
Moray Firth to boat traffic. The survey area was
divided into km2 grids and photo-identification
data used to look at capturerecapture rates. There
was again a great deal of variability in exposure
both spatially and between individuals, although
animals whose home range was predominantly in
the inner Moray Firth received higher levels of boat
exposure (Pirotta et al., 2015). Although this study
dealt with all types of boat traffic, not just whalewatching traffic, the method appears to be a useful
one for investigating levels of individual exposure
to whale-watching activity.
In another modeling exercise to try to evaluate
the impacts of boat avoidance, Symons, Pirotta,
and Lusseau (2014) developed a theoretical optimal dive model for bottlenose dolphins. They
compared their predictions to observed diving
behavior in foraging dolphins of both sexes (in
Doubtful Sound, New Zealand) in the presence
and absence of tourism vessels. Male dolphins
significantly increased their bottom time (foraging at depth) and performed fewer deep bottom
dives (deep diving to the seabed) when boats were
present, which matched the models prediction for
a strategy of perceived decreasing instantaneous
risk (a high risk when surfacing, but decreasing
while they spend time at the surface; Symons et al.,
2014). However, females significantly decreased
their bottom time and increased the frequency of
dives to the seabed, matching predictions from the
model of perceived increasing instantaneous risk
(low risk while surfacing, but increasing risk if they
stay at the surface; Symons et al., 2014). The study
suggests that males and females may perceive the
risk of boat traffic differently, and that although
both sexes may experience energetic costs because
of altered behaviors in response to boat traffic, the

255

energetic costs to females may be higher (Symons

et al., 2014). This in turn provides support for managers to limit whale-watching activity, and thus disturbance, in important foraging areas.
Finally, Scheer, de S Alves, Ritter, Azevedo,
and Andriolo (2014) described inter- and intraspecific behaviors of pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) during swim-with-whale trips in the
Canary Islands, Spain, and of Amazon river dolphins or botos (Inia geoffrensis) during dolphin
feeding/tourist interactions (but not swim-with
activities) in Amazonas state (Brazil). Cetacean
behaviors that could potentially pose a risk of
physical harm to either humans or cetaceans were
monitored. Roughly a quarter of the pilot whales
reacted neutrally or avoided swimmers and it was
assumed that they were disturbed by swimmers to
some extent (Scheer et al., 2014). In comparison,
the Amazon River dolphinsall of whom were
maleapproached humans, despite these animals
normally being relatively solitary (Scheer et al.,
2014). The dolphins exhibited risky behaviors
that could pose a health risk to both humans and
dolphins, during every interaction between the dolphins and humans (Scheer et al., 2014). Agonistic
behaviors were also exhibited between the dolphins. Scheer et al. (2014) recommended that close
interactions between humans and cetaceansbe it
feeding or swimmingshould be discouraged.
Compliance With Whale-Watching Regulations
The swim-with-dolphin industry in Port Phillip
Bay, Victoria, Australia is well-noted for a high level
of noncompliance with whale-watching regulations (Howes, Scarpaci, & Parsons, 2012; Scarpaci,
Dayanthi, & Corkeron, 2003; Scarpaci, Nugegoda,
& Corkeron, 2004). Filby et al. (2015b) explored
the potential to shift tour operators behavior from
noncompliance to compliance by using social science as a tool, as passive management has been
ineffective in improving compliance levels in this
region. To holistically understand the dolphinswim industry, Filby et al. (2015b) collected data
from dolphin-swim tourists, which included demographics, factors that motivate participation, satisfaction levels of tourists, dolphin knowledge,
and questions to assess how they saw themselves
in the environment, during the trip and 6 months

256

PARSONS AND SCARPACI

postparticipation. A total of 282 surveys were collected from 19982003, with participants logging
onto an online survey (Filby et al., 2015b). Tourists
said that they were happy to comply with regulations, as failure to do so would incur a negative
impact on the species they paid to view (Filby et
al., 2015b).
Simultaneously with the above survey, data
were collected on compliance levels of the swimwith-dolphin trip operators with whale-watching
regulations. Compliance levels had not improved
significantly since previous studies (Filby et al.,
2015b), but the information gained in the survey
might prove a valuable tool to encourage compliance with whale-watching regulations, that is, via
operators trying to increase tourist satisfaction
levels by improving education and complying
with regulations. Filby et al. (2015b) highlight the
importance of understanding the human dimensions of cetacean tourism and how understanding
this could be an important tool to effectively manage whale watching.
In addition to documenting the effects of boat
traffic on dolphins, Meissner and coauthors (2015)
documented the level at which common dolphinwatching trip operators complied with whalewatching regulations in the Bay of Plenty, North
Island of New Zealand. The study documented both
commercial operations and recreational vessels that
intercepted dolphin groups (defined as recreational
whale watching by the IWC in Parsons, Fortuna, et
al., 2006) in an open oceanic habitat from November 2010 to May 2013 (as noted above). Levels of
compliance of two types of whale-watching vessels
(commercial whale-watching and swim-withdolphin trips with government permits) and non
permitted recreational whale watching were reported
(Meissner et al., 2015). The following regulations
were studied for compliance levels: vessel number,
vessel speed, duration of encounter, and presence of
immature animals during swim-with-dolphin trips.
Vessel types were recorded as: commercial tour vessels, nonmotorized, motorized recreational vessels
less than 8 m, motorized personal craft such as jet
skis, and motorized commercial, which included
container ships (Meissner et al., 2015).
The regulation for interaction time was exceeded
in 14.8% of dolphin encounters; the number of
vessels in the vicinity to dolphins was breached in

24.1% of encounters; the speed limit within 300 m

of dolphins was exceeded in 51.3% of encounters;
and on one occasion a swim-with-dolphin encounter
with a calf was documented (Meissner et al., 2015).
Whale-Watching Case Studies
Two recent studies discuss the nature of whale
watching in the Azores. The first discussed the
nature of whale watching specifically in the Lajes
region, on the island of Picio (Silva, 2015). Once
famous as a whale-hunting locale, the concept of
whale watching in the Azores was discussed in
1987, promoted by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) (Silva, 2015). In Lajes, the first
commercial whale-watching operation started in
the early 1990s, when a French expatriot partnered
with an exwhaler and, with some governmental
support, started trips to watch sperm whales, first
in a sailboat and later in an inflatable (Silva, 2015).
Whale watching quickly took off and a need for
whale-watching regulation was soon realized: regulations were implemented in 1999, and were further revised in 2003, 2004, and 2005 (Law Decree
Nr. 9/99/A, Law Decree Nr. 10/2003/A, Ruling
Nr. 5/2004; Silva, 2015). The Azorean guidelines
include approach distances, angle of approach,
duration of interaction, maximum number of boats
allowed per group, and specifications on the maximum size of boats, and regulations permit only a
limited number of whale-watching licenses (Silva,
2015). However, in the 2000s, Magalhes et al.
(2002) noted that only 54% of whale-watching
boats completely complied with the guidelines.
Magalhes et al. (2002) and several other studies
(e.g., Visser et al., 2010) have observed impacts
of whale-watching vessels on Azorean cetaceans,
culminating with the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea (2010) calling for better
enforcement of whale-watching activity.
In Lajes, the number of whale watchers has
increased from 50 in 1991 to an estimated 12,000
in 2011 (Silva, 2015). The average whale watcher
in the Azores is a foreign city dweller from a European Union country, aged between 35 and 45 years
old, who has high education levels and a managerial or scientific occupation, is visiting the island
with family and/or friends, and is going whale
watching for the first time (Oliveira, 2005), that is,

ADVANCES IN WHALE-WATCHING RESEARCH

a tourist profile similar to many other whale-watching

locations (e.g., Parsons et al., 2003). At present in
Lajes, three of the four whale-watching companies are family owned and boats are typically fast
Zodiac rigid inflatable models for up to 12 passengers (Silva, 2015). Each company employs an average of six people directly (usually locals, although
some are young Europeans from other countries),
including crew and personnel on shore (spotters and
shopkeepers), usually for 6 or fewer months (Silva,
2015). At present, Silva (2015) notes that there is
intense competition between whale-watching companies, with inequity in the distribution of the profits of whale watching. Silva suggests that better
management practices and collaboration between
whale-watching stakeholders would result in a
more equitable distribution of profits for all participants, and less competition.
In the second study, Bentz, Rodrigues, Dearden,
Calado, and Lopes (2015) investigated whale watching in the Azores, but in conjunction with scuba
diving tourismthese two activities are major tourist attractions in the islands. Specifically, Bentz et
al. (2015) looked at tourists perception of over
crowding, considering that there are a substantive
24 whale-watching and 27 diving operations in the
archipelago, with close to 60,000 whale-watching
tourists and 4,0007,000 scuba divers. As noted
above, the majority of whale-watching vessels are
rigid inflatable boats for 1224 passengers, but some
cabin vessels operate that can take up to 80 passengers (Bentz et al., 2015). Questionnaires were given
out to 435 divers and 466 whale-watching tourists.
They were asked how many whale-watching boats
they had observed with a group of cetaceans (or
divers on a dive site) and how many they considered
appropriate. They were also asked about their level
of experience doing their particular activity, and
howsatisfied they were with their experience.
The gender balance of respondents was almost
equal. Most were between 26 and 35 years old
(32.2%) or between 46 and 55 years old (22.8%) and
few were from the Azores (2.6%), with most coming from mainland Europe (with 11.8% from Portugal; Bentz et al., 2015). Half of the whale watchers
stated that it was important or very important
for them not to be crowded, and the number of boats
that were observed during their trip ranged from
08 (mean=2.69) and the number they stated there

257

ought to be ranged from 05 (mean=2.37; Bentz

et al., 2015). More than a third (35.8%) of whale
watchers noted that there should be fewer boats
than they observed, which suggested a perception
of crowding (Bentz et al., 2015). After 2.18 boats
were exceeded, whale-watchers satisfaction evaluations become increasingly more negative (Bentz
et al., 2015). Thus, for the Azores, tourists will be
more satisfied with their whale-watching excursion if there are two boats or fewer present. Interestingly, inexperienced whale watchers were more
likely to feel crowded than experienced whale
watchers (Bentz et al., 2015). Nearly half of the
whale watchers located at Faial Island (45.1%) felt
crowded, compared to 37.8% on Pico and 19.8%
on So Miguel (Bentz et al., 2015). However, passengers did not associate greater environmental
impacts with crowding. Bentz et al. (2015) suggest that, to make the industries more sustainable,
there should be spatial zoning, better compliance
with existing whale-watching regulations (which
require 3 vessels around whales), and improved
educational and awareness programs.
There has been concern about the impacts of
human swimmers and other disturbance on spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) that utilize certain bays as daytime resting areas, in Hawaii, USA
(Courbis & Timmel, 2009). Heenehan et al. (2015)
looked at this problem using Ostroms commonpool resource theory as a novel method for problem
analysis. The researchers quantified the number of
human activities in the bays of interest. Kealakekua
Bay had significantly more boats, kayakers, and
swimmers per hour than Makako Bay, although
there was no significant difference in numbers if
dolphins were present or not (Heenehan et al., 2015).
However, in Makako Bay there were significantly
more boats and swimmers present when dolphins
were in the bay (Heenehan et al., 2015) (e.g., up to
4 boats per hour when dolphins were absent, vs. 13
when dolphins were present). Likewise, up to 60
swimmers were present when there were dolphins,
versus up to only 4 when there were no dolphins
(Heenehan et al., 2015). Conflicts between uses
were highlightedthe fishing community was concerned that dolphin watching was affecting fishing,
while some native Hawaiians saw swimming with
dolphins as almost a spiritual right, whereas others
considered the dolphins as precious and should

258

PARSONS AND SCARPACI

therefore be left alone (Heenehan et al., 2015).

Technically, as the dolphins are protected by the US
Marine Mammal Protection Act, taking the dolphins is prohibited, which includes disturbing the
animals, which should, theoretically, limit human
activities in the bays.
To reduce the negative impacts of people on
these dolphins, managers in Hawaii are attempting to implement time-area closures. However,
Heenehan et al. (2015) suggested that top-down
approaches to management may not work, and that
managers should view the bay as a resource with
tourism as one of many human demands, instead
of specifically focusing on dolphins (Heenehan et
al., 2015, p. 536). Heenehan et al. (2015) posited
that stakeholder meetings between those that used
the dolphin bays might lead to better mutual understanding. In turn, self-enforcement activities in the
bay might arise, although they also stated that they
thought it was unrealistic to expect communitybased conservation to spontaneously emerge here
(Heenehan et al., 2015, p. 536). Nevertheless,
greater stakeholder engagement might lead to better management.
In the Brazilian Amazon there have been interesting negative interactions between those involved in
fishing and Amazon dolphins (Inia geoffrensis), or
botos. Mintzer et al. (2015) looked at the attitudes
and perceptions of those in the fishing community
(57 interviews) with respect to these dolphins and
especially the impact that the Mamirau Sustainable
Development Reserve (MSDR) and its programs
have had upon attitudes. Mintzer et al. (2015) found
that interactions between dolphins and fisheries
were common, such as taking fish from lines and
entanglement in gear, and that the illegal hunting
of dolphins as a source of bait occurs in most of the
local communities studied. Thirty percent of those
interviewed confirmed that this practice occurs.
However, there were positive attitudes towards dolphins. Although only 37% said that they liked the
dolphins (25% disliked them), 84% stated that the
dolphins were important animals for the Amazon
and 89% said they should be protected from being
killed (Mintzer et al., 2015). Positive attitudes were
influenced by participation in, and employment by,
activities related to the reserve, such as dolphinrelated tourism activities and being involved with
dolphin research (Mintzer et al., 2015). However,

10% stated that they might kill a dolphin (Mintzer

et al., 2015). Thirty percent of those interviewed
said that they believed in the local legends that
dolphins could shapeshift into human form (typically older interviewees), and half of these stated
that this belief influenced their attitudes to the dolphins (Mintzer et al., 2015). The researchers stated
that Primarily through involvement with ecotourism and scientific research, fishers have learned
to appreciate botos as an important animal in the
Amazon ecosystem and recognize it as an animal
that others value (Mintzer et al., 2015, p. 264).
This therefore illustrates that cetacean tourism can
play a positive role in influencing attitudes towards
threatened populations.
Descriptions of Whale-Watching
Industries in New Locations
Gowreesunkar and Rycha (2015) provide the first
case study of bottlenose dolphin-watching tourism
at Tamarin Bay, Mauritius. The authors highlight
that islands such as Mauritius are resource limited,
small, isolated, and with minimal growth potential. Marine life, and particularly dolphin tourism,
could provide substantial economic revenue to the
region (Gowreesunkar & Rycha, 2015). The dolphin-watching industry in Mauritius is welcomed
by local government (as it diversifies tourism products and offers unique experience to the tourists),
but it is acknowledged that further knowledge of
the dolphin-watching industry is required, particularly as this industry is not necessarily benign to
the resource. The authors identify the major stakeholders in the region (from one-person operations
to large multinational corporations, supporting
businesses, government, NGOs, and researchers;
Gowreesunkar & Rycha, 2015). Interestingly, the
researchers also included dolphins as key stakeholderssimply noting that in their absence there
would be no dolphin watching (Gowreesunkar &
Rycha, 2015).
Tamarin Bay, on the west coast of Mauritius,
was selected as a case study location due to the reliability of dolphin sightings in the region and boat
presence (Gowreesunkar & Rycha, 2015). Of the
1,500 boat skippers that are licensed for maritime
activities,there are effectively 40 dolphin-watching
operations (Gowreesunkar & Rycha, 2015). Data

ADVANCES IN WHALE-WATCHING RESEARCH

were collected across a 7-month period in 2013, via

questionnaires mailed to operators, who were then
prompted by phone call to complete the survey.
The subsequent data indicated that dolphin-watching tourism was contributing financially to the
region, operated throughout the year, and different
forms of vessels were used as operating platforms,
inclusive of speedboats (Gowreesunkar & Rycha,
2015). Gowreesunkar and Rycha (2015) expressed
concerns about levels of compliance with whalewatching guidelines and a lack of enforcement;
for example, dolphin groups were approached
very closely and boat skippers and tourists would
whistle or slap the water to attract dolphins. The
authors describe a new location where whalewatching activity has developed; however, further
data gathering and research is required to properly
establish a management strategy in this region
(Gowreesunkar & Rycha, 2015).
Whale Watching and Education
There is often an assumption that whale-watching trips are educational, and that provision of
natural history and conservation information is
important on trips, but there have been few studies on what tourists specifically desire in terms of
education provision. Lck (2015) surveyed tourists on whale-watching trips in Auckland and on
swim-with-dolphin trips in Kaikoura, New Zealand, to investigate what these tourists wanted to
learn. Nearly two thirds of survey respondents were
female, compared to just over a third (35%) male;
two thirds were under 40 years of age; and three
quarters had a college education (nearly a quarter had a postgraduate degree; Lck, 2015). Over
half of the respondents were from the UK, and just
over 11% were from North America and 11% from
Asia (Lck, 2015). Although whale-watching tourists appeared to be satisfied with their trips (96.7%
agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with their trip), and although they generally
agreed that their crew was knowledgeable about
whales and dolphins (and to a slightly lesser extent
about marine wildlife in general), they did want to
receive more educational information, with only
43% strongly agreeing that the educational program
fulfilled their expectations (Lck, 2015). However,
they wished this information to be about whales

259

and dolphins and their habitat rather than the general marine environment. Top topics that tourists
wanted to hear about included cetacean intelligence
(80%), social behavior, importance in the ecosystem, and conservation (all 75%), closely followed
by their relationship with other species (74%)
and general marine conservation (71%), whereas
less popular topics were dolphin diet (50%) and
interactions with indigenous people (48%; Lck,
2015). However, only 21% agreed, and merely
9% strongly agreed, that they wanted more information on how they could get involved in wildlife
conservation (Lck, 2015), suggesting that these
trips currently do not promote a conservation ethic
in tourists as of yet.
Similar results were found by Filby et al. (2015b)
in the Southern Australian study described earlier.
Participants on whale-watching trips were also
found to value knowledgeable crew, but were only
moderately satisfied with the educational material
that was provided to them (Filby et al., 2015b).
Moreover, this satisfaction declined as time on trips
progressed (Filby et al., 2015b). From this, it was
suggested that an optimal time to educate tourists
could be after a swim with dolphins (Filby et al.,
2015b). These studies into the educational aspects
of whale watching are encouraging; as noted in
the introduction to this section, there has been an
assumption that education occurs on whale-watching
trips, but there are relatively few studies that quantify this, or assess the quality of this education.
Whale watching can be a valuable tool for educating the public about cetaceans and conservation,
and potentially for influencing tourists behaviors
so that they become more environmentally oriented, but how to maximize this potential is an area
that clearly requires more research.
Summary
Over the past year there have been several inter
esting studies that have further developed the
ways in which scientists can measure the impacts
of whale watching on cetaceans, including combining acoustic and visual observations, using
photo-identification data to investigate exposure
levels, exploring bioenergetic costs of behavioral
alterations, and investigating gender differences
in animals responses to whale watching. Several

260

PARSONS AND SCARPACI

studies illustrate that even though whale-watching

regulations and scientific data on impacts of the
activity exist in an area, levels of compliance with
even statutory regulations can be low, let alone
voluntary guidelines in science-poor areas. There
is some encouraging work using social science to
aid conservation, such as tourists willingness to
see whale watching regulated, and their interest in
less crowding and greater provision of educational
materials on cetacean biology and marine conservation. The case study in Brazil (Mintzer et al., 2015)
also shows that cetacean tourism can promote proconservation attitudes in local communities where
there are threats to populations, as the community
members can see that tourism gives these cetaceans
value, and their conservation maintains this value.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Naomi Rose for kindly reviewing draft versions of this manuscript. A draft of this
article was presented to the Whalewatching Subcommittee at the annual meeting of the Scientific
Committee of the International Whaling Commission, May 22June 3, 2015 (article SC66a/WW8),
in San Diego, California.
References
Bentz, J., Rodrigues, A., Dearden, P., Calado, H., & Lopes,
F. (2015). Crowding in marine environments: Divers and
whale watchers in the Azores. Ocean & Coastal Management, 109, 7785.
Charlton-Robb, K., Gershwin, L. A., Thompson, R., Austin,
J., Owen, K., & McKechnie, S. (2011). A new dolphin
species, the Burrunan dolphin Tursiops australis sp.
nov., endemic to southern Australian coastal waters.
PLoS ONE, 6(9), e24047.
Christiansen, F., Bertulli, C. G., Rasmussen, M., & Lusseau,
D. (2015). Estimating cumulative exposure of wildlife
to non-lethal disturbance using spatially explicit capturerecapture models. Journal of Wildlife Management,
79(2), 311324.
Christiansen, F., & Lusseau, D. (2015) Linking behavior
to vital rates to measure the effects of non-lethal disturbance on wildlife. Conservation Letters, 8(6), 424431.
Christiansen, F., Rasmussen, M. H., & Lusseau, D. (2014).
Inferring energy expenditure from respiration rates in
minke whales to measure the effects of whale watching
boat interactions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 459, 96104.
Constantine, R. (2001). Increased avoidance of swimmers
by wild bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) due

to long-term exposure to swim-with-dolphin tourism.

Marine Mammal Science, 17, 689702.
Constantine, R., Brunton, D., & Dennis, T. (2004). Dolphinwatching tour boats change bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus) behaviour. Biological Conservation, 117,
299307.
Courbis, S., & Timmel, G. (2009). Effects of vessels and
swimmers on behavior of Hawaiian spinner dolphins
(Stenella longirostris) in Kealakeakua, Honaunau, and
Kauhako bays, Hawaii. Marine Mammal Science, 25,
430440.
Currey, R. J. C., Dawson, S. M., & Slooten, E. (2009). An
approach for regional threat assessment under IUCN Red
List criteria that is robust to uncertainty: The Fiordland
bottlenose dolphins are critically endangered. Biological
Conservation, 142, 15701579.
Currey, R., Dawson, S. M., Slooten, E., Schneider, K., Lusseau, D., Boisseau, O. J., Haase, P., & Williams, J. A.
(2009). Survival rates for a declining population of bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand: An
information theoretic approach to assessing the role of
human impacts. Aquatic Conservation, 19, 658670.
DeMaster, D. O., & Drevenak, J. K. (1988). Survivorship
patterns in three species of captive cetaceans. Marine
Mammal Science, 4, 297311.
Filby, N. E., Stockin, K. A., & Scarpaci, C. (2015a). Longterm responses of Burrunan dolphins (Tursiops australis) to swim-with dolphin tourism in Port Phillip Bay,
Victoria, Australia: A population at risk. Global Ecology
and Conservation, 2, 6271.
Filby, N. E., Stockin, K. A., & Scarpaci, C. (2015b). Social
science as a vehicle to improve dolphin-swim tour operation compliance? Marine Policy, 51, 4047.
Godwin, E. (2013) Comparing multiple methods for measuring
the behavior of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Paper presented at the 27th Conference of the European Cetacean Society, Setbal, Portugal, April 810.
Gowreesunkar, G., & Rycha, I. (2015). A study on the
impacts of dolphin watching as tourism activity: Western
Mauritius as case study. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/11233573/The_Impacts_of_Dolphin_Wacthing_as_a_Tourism_Activity_Western_Mauritius_as_
Case_Study
Guerra, M. G., Dawson, S. M., Brough, T. E., & Rayment,
W. J. (2014). Effects of boats on the surface and acoustic behaviour of an endangered population of bottlenose
dolphins. Endangered Species Research, 24, 221236.
Hansen, L. J. (1990). California coastal bottlenose dolphins.
In S. Leatherwood & R. R. Reeves (Eds.), The bottlenose dolphin (pp. 403442). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Heenehan, H., Basurto, X., Bejder, L., Tyne, J., Higham, J. E.
S., & Johnston, D. W. (2015). Using Ostroms commonpool resource theory to build toward an integrated ecosystem-based sustainable cetacean tourism system in Hawaii.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(4), 536556.
Henderson, S. D., Dawson, S. M., Rayment, W. J., & Currey,
R. J. C. (2013). Missing in action? Are the resident

ADVANCES IN WHALE-WATCHING RESEARCH

dolphins of Doubtful Sound becoming less resident?

Endangered Species Research, 20, 99107.
Howes, L., Scarpaci. C., & Parsons, E. C. M. (2012). Ineffectiveness of a marine sanctuary zone to protect burrunan dolphins (Tursiops australis sp. nov.) from tourism
activities in Port Phillip Bay, Australia. Journal of Ecotourism, 11(3), 188201.
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. (2010).
Report of the working group on marine mammal ecology.
Horta, Portugal: Author.
International Whaling Commission. (2012). Report of the
sub-committee on whalewatching. Journal of Cetacean
Research and Management, 13, 292301.
Lck, M. (2015) Education on marine mammal toursbut
what do tourists want to learn? Ocean and Coastal Management, 103, 2533.
Lusseau, D. (2003). Effects of tour boats on the behaviour of
bottlenose dolphins: Using Markov chains to model anthropogenic impacts. Conservation Biology, 17, 17851793.
Magalhes, S., Prieto, R., Silva, M., Gonalves, J., AfonsoDias, M., & Santos, R. (2002). Short-term reactions
of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) to whalewatching vessels in the Azores. Aquatic Mammals, 28
(3), 267274.
Mann, J., Connor, R., Barre, L. M., & Heithaus, M. R. (2000).
Female reproductive success in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) life history, habitat, provisioning, and groupsize effects. Behavioral Ecology, 11, 210219.
Meissner, A. M., Christiansen. F., Martinez, E., Pawley, M.
D. M., Orams, M. B., & Stockin, K. A. (2015). Behavioural effects of tourism on oceanic common dolphins,
Delphinus sp., in New Zealand: The effects of Markov
analysis variations and current tour operation compliance with regulations. PLoS ONE, 10(1), e0116962.
Mintzer, V. J., Schmink, M., Lorenzen, K., Frazer, T. K.,
Lorenzen, K., Frazer, T. K., Martin, A. R., & Da Silva,
V. M. F. (2015). Attitudes and behaviors toward Amazon River dolphins (Inia geoffrensis) in a sustainable
use protected area. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24,
247269.
Oliveira, C. (2005). A actividade de observao turstica de
cetceos no arquiplago dos aores. Contribuio para
o seu desenvolvimento sustentvel. Masters dissertation,
University of the Azores, Ponta Delgada, Portugal.
Parsons, E. C. M. (2012). The negative impacts of whalewatching. Journal of Marine Biology, 2012(807294), 19.
Parsons, E. C. M., Classen, J. M, & Bauer, A. (2004). Recent
advances in whale-watching research. Paper presented
to the Scientific Committee at the 56th Meeting of the
International Whaling Commission, June 29July 10,
2004, Sorrento, Italy. SC56/WW6.
Parsons, E. C. M., Fortuna, C. M., Ritter, F., Rose, N. A.,
Simmonds, M. P., Weinrich, M., Williams, R., & Panigada
S. (2006). Glossary of whalewatching terms. Journal of
Cetacean Research and Management, 8, 249251.
Parsons, E. C. M., Lewandowski, J., & Lck, M. (2006).
Recent advances in whalewatching research: 20042005.
Tourism in Marine Environments, 2(2), 119132.

261

Parsons, E. C. M., Lck, M., & Lewandowski, J. (2006).

Recent advances in whale-watching research: 2005
2006. Tourism in Marine Environments, 3(2), 179189.
Parsons, E. C. M., & Scarpaci, C. (2010). Recent advances
in whale-watching research: 20092010. Tourism in
Marine Environments, 7(1), 4353.
Parsons, E. C. M., Warburton, C. A., Woods-Ballard, A.,
Hughes, A. Johnston, P., Bates, H., & Lck, M. (2003).
Whale-watching tourists in West Scotland. Journal of
Ecotourism, 2, 93113.
Pirotta, E., Merchant, N. D., Thompson, P. M., Barton, T. R.,
& David Lusseau, D. (2015a). Quantifying the effect of
boat disturbance on bottlenose dolphin foraging activity.
Biological Conservation, 181, 8289.
Pirotta, E., Thompson, P. M. Cheney, B., Donovan, C. R.,
& Lusseau, D. (2015b) Estimating spatial, temporal and
individual variability in dolphin cumulative exposure
to boat traffic using spatially explicit capture-recapture
methods. Animal Conservation, 18, 2031.
Scarpaci, C., Dayanthi, N., & Corkeron, P. J. (2003) Compliance with regulations by swim-with-dolphins
operations in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Environmental Management, 31, 342347.
Scarpaci, C., Lck, M., & Parsons, E. C. M. (2009). Recent
advances in whale-watching research: 20082009. Tourism in Marine Environments, 6(1), 3950.
Scarpaci, C., Nugegoda, D., & Corkeron, P. J. (2004). No
detectable improvement in compliance to regulations by
swim-with-dolphin operators in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia. Tourism in Marine Environments, 1, 4148.
Scarpaci, C., & Parsons, E. C. M. (2012). Recent advances
in whale-watching research: 20102011. Tourism in
Marine Environments, 8(3), 161171.
Scarpaci, C., & Parsons, E. C. M. (2013). Recent advances
in whale-watching research: 20112012. Tourism in
Marine Environments, 8(4), 207217.
Scarpaci, C., & Parsons, E. C. M. (2014). Recent advances
in whale-watching research: 20122013. Tourism in
Marine Environments, 10(1/2), 121140.
Scarpaci, C., & Parsons, E. C. M. (2015). Recent advances
in whale-watching research: 20132014. Tourism in
Marine Environments, 11(1), 79-86.
Scarpaci, C., Parsons, E. C. M., & Lck, M. (2008). Recent
advances in whale-watching research: 20062007. Tourism in Marine Environments, 5(1), 5566.
Scarpaci, C., Parsons, E. C. M., & Lck, M. (2009). Recent
advances in whale-watching research: 20072008. Tourism in Marine Environments, 5(4), 319336.
Scheer, M., de S Alves, L. C. P., Ritter, F., Azevedo, A. F., &
Andriolo, A. (2014). Behaviors of botos and short-finned
pilot whales during close encounters with humans: Management implications derived from ethograms for food
provisioned versus unhabituated cetaceans. In J. B.
Samuels (ed.), Dolphins (pp. 134). Hauppauge, NY:
Nova Science Publishers.
Silva, L. (2015). How ecotourism works at the communitylevel: The case of whale-watching in the Azores. Current
Issues in Tourism, 18(3), 196211.

262

PARSONS AND SCARPACI

Symons, J., Pirotta, E., & Lusseau, D. (2014). Sex differences

in risk perception in deep-diving bottlenose dolphins leads
to decreased foraging efficiency when exposed to human
disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 15841592.
Tezanos-Pinto, G., Constantine, R., Mouro, F., Berghan,
J.,& Baker, C. S. (2015). High calf mortality in bottlenose
dolphins in the Bay of Islands, New Zealanda local unit
in decline. Marine Mammal Science, 31, 540559.

Visser, F., Hartman, K. L., Rood, E. J. J., Hendriks, A. J.

E., Zult, D. B., Wolff, W. J., Huisman, J., & Pierce, G.
(2010). Rissos dolphins alter daily resting pattern in
response to whale-watching at the Azores. Marine Mammal Science, 27(2), 366381.
Wrsig, B. (1978). Occurrence and group organization of
Atlantic bottlenose porpoises (Tursiops truncatus) in an
Argentine Bay. Biological Bulletin, 154, 348359.