An Island Geographical Approach to Island Tourism and Biodiversity

8/3/2019 An Island Geographical Approach to Island Tourism and Biodiversity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-island-geographical-approach-to-island-tourism-and-biodiversity 1/18

An Island Biogeographical Approach to IslandTourism and Biodiversity: An Exploratory Study of

the Caribbean and Pacific Islands

C. Michael Hall1–3∗1Department of Management, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

2Department of Geography, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland3Linnaeus University School of Business and Economics, Kalmar, Sweden

Islands are especially susceptible to the loss of indigenous species following anthropogenicchange. Although tourism has long been cited as a justification for conserving biodiversityvia the establishment of national parks and reserves, it also contributes to biodiversity lossas a result of direct habitat change and human activities, as well as more indirectly via theintroduction of exotic species and environmental change. An island biogeographical approach is used to provide an exploratory analysis of tourism and biodiversity relation-ships in the Caribbean and Pacific Islands. Data suggest that the islands are under heavyanthropogenic pressure, of which tourism is just one element, although for some countries

tourism represents a substantial real increase in the size of the human population. Few of the countries examined have anywhere near the recommended percentage of area pro-tected, with marine ecosystems being least conserved. The study concludes that there aresignificant data gaps for examining tourism and biodiversity relations at the national level, but suggests that island biogeographical approaches may yield significant insightsinto the pressures of tourism on biodiversity at smaller scales if adequate data can be gained.

Key words: island biogeography, biodiversity, tourism, conservation, Caribbean, PacificIslands

Introduction

Islands have long played a pivotal role in

the understanding of natural processes. For

example, the Galapagos Islands have long been

recognized as a significant source of inspiration

for Darwin’s theory of natural selection and

continue to be an important natural history

research site, and tourist attraction, to the

present day. One of the most significant

Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, September 2010

∗Email: [email protected]

Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, September 2010

ISSN 1094-1665 print/ISSN 1741-6507 online/10/030383–17# 2010 Asia Pacific Tourism Association

DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2010.503628



contributions of islands to the understanding of

the richness of biodiversity for ecological com-

munities is the concept of island biogeography,

which examines the relationships between

species and a given area (MacArthur &

Wilson, 1963, 1967; Preston, 1962). The con-ventional expression of the species– area

relationship is S ¼ CAz, where S and A are

species count and area, respectively, and C and

z are fitted species-specific constants. However,

significantly for the wider applicability of the

species–area relationship, an “island” can be

regarded as any area of suitable habitat that is

surrounded by unsuitable habitat, for instance

a national park surrounded by agricultural

land. Therefore, the concept has importantimplications for conservation reserve design

and broader strategies to conserve biodiversity.

This article seeks to examine the implications

of island biogeographical theory with respect

to understanding some of the possible effects

of tourism on the biodiversity of small island

economies as well as the potential relationship

between island biogeographic theory and

steady-state approaches of ecological econ-

omics. The article is divided into three main

sections. First, a discussion of island biogeo-

graphic theory and its potential connections to

sustainable tourism and biodiversity conserva-

tion; second, an exploratory study of tourism

and biodiversity conservation on small island

economies; and finally, a series of observations

with respect to the need to integrate better bio-

geographical and ecological economic insights

into the development of sustainable tourism

research and biodiversity conservation strategies

for islands and equivalent areas.

The Theory of Island Biogeography

The number of species that are found on an

island depends on a number of factors,

including its area and topography, diversity of

habitats, shape, spatial and temporal isolation,

connection to previous landmasses, climate,

accessibility to its source of colonists (i.e. not

just distance to nearest source region but

location relative to ocean currents), and theequilibrium rate of colonization by new

species and the rate of extinction of existing

species (Cox, Healey, & Moore, 1973). The

equilibrium model of the biota of a single

island proposes that the equilibrial species

number is reached at the intersection between

the curve of the rate of new species immigration,

not already on the island, and the curve of

extinction of species on the island (Figure 1).

The model therefore suggests that althoughfluctuations will occur over time, there is a

finite limit on the species biodiversity of a

given area. This is significant in conservation

terms as, because every species runs the risk of

extinction, “the more that have arrived the

more species there are at risk. In addition, as

more species arrive, the average population

size of each will diminish as competition

increases” (Cox et al., 1973, p. 98).

As noted in the Introduction, McArthur and

Wilson (1963, 1967) concluded that for a

particular taxon and within any given region

of relatively uniform climate, the island

species –area relationship can be approxi-

mated by the power function model:

S = CAz

where S and A are species count of a given

taxon and area, respectively, and C and z are

fitted species-specific constants that will varyfrom system to system. MacArthur and

Wilson favoured logarithmic transformations

of both axes thereby enabling the constants C

and z to be determined by least squares

(linear) regression (Whittaker & Ferna ´ndez-

Palacios, 2007). MacArthur and Wilson

384 C. Michael Hall



(1967) found that in most cases z falls between

0.20 and 0.35 for islands. The model is highly

significant in that, even though it has heuristic

value without it, the contribution of the

theory to biogeography and conservation

biology provides a high degree of rigour with

respect to dynamic modelling of ecological

and biological population processes. As Brown

and Gibson (1983, p. 449) stated, “like any

good theory, the model goes beyond what isalready known to make additional predictions

that can only be tested with new observations

and experiments”, a situation that has led to a

significant reformulation of some of the

notions of equilibrium and species and island

difference (e.g. Brown & Lomolino, 2000;

Lomolino, 2000), as well as the importance of

anthropogenic and other disturbance. Indeed,

as Wilson (2001, p. viii) himself noted, “after

more than three decades, [the theory of island

biogeography] has been largely replaced by a

generation of far more detailed and sophisti-

cated studies. Yet I believe that its basic struc-

ture remains sounds, and the content still

serves as a good introduction to the subject”.

Lomolino (2000) has argued for a tripartitemodel of island biography that illustrates the

three fundamental biogeographic processes

of immigration, extinction and evolution as a

function of island characteristics of area and

isolation (Figure 2). Under such a model immi-

gration rates should increase with proximity

Figure 1 Equilibrium Model of the Biota of a Single Island.

An Island Biogeographical Approach to Island Tourism 385



to a source region and the ability of species to

travel or be transported across immigration

barriers and filters. Extinction rates should

decrease as island area increases, or increase

with growing resource requirements of the

focal species. Finally, speciation should be

most important where extinction and immi-gration are lowest, and therefore it increases

in relation to increase in island area and iso-

lation and decreases with respect to resource

requirements and the capacity of species to

move or disperse within their environments

(Lomolino, 2000). However, just as signifi-

cantly, the interrelationships between island

characteristics and biogeographical processes

provide for the relative resilience of islands

to disturbance, whether from natural events

such as storms and tide surges, or from anthro-

pogenic pressures such as tourism. In addition,

recognition of the relationships between acces-sibility, area size and resilience also has direct

parallels with the identification of wilderness

areas in which remoteness and naturalness

are key factors (Hall & Page, 2006).

In conservation terms the theory is important

because it highlights the need for retaining large

Figure 2 Interrelationships between Biogeographical Processes and Island Characteristics.

386 C. Michael Hall



areas of relatively undisturbed environments in

order to save species from extinction. National

parks, conservation reserves and other relatively

undisturbed environments under public or

private ownership act as islands for a large

number of species. The breaking up of suchnatural areas as a result of land clearing, agri-

culture or other natural and human processes

therefore can lead to the creation of smaller

islands, with significant effects for species as

these new “islands” develop their new ecosys-

tem equilibrium. Such fragmentation effects

are most pronounced on larger species that

require large ranges; however, they can affect

many plant and animal species as habitat is

reduced and/or competition among individualsand between species is increased. As a result,

island biogeography theory has led conserva-

tionists to advocate for the retention of

natural areas that are as large as possible,

ideally with a high ratio of area to boundary

(Soule ´ & Simberloff, 1986). In addition,

where fragmentation has occurred or is una-

voidable efforts have been made to retain or

regenerate natural area corridors (also referred

to as habitat corridors) between reserves in

order to assist the movement of species

between reserves and therefore increase the

number of species that can be supported and

the opportunities for species survival (Dobson,

Rodriguez, Roberts, & Wilcove, 1997; Prender-

gast, Quinn, Lawton, Eversham, & Gibbons,

1993).

Studies of species– area relationships

suggest that 30–50% of a given community

or ecosystem type needs to be conserved to

maintain 80– 90% of the species (Groves,2003; Soule ´ & Sanjayan, 1998). However, in

their analysis of the conservation deficits for

the continental USA, Dietz and Czech (2005)

noted that even 30–50% may not be enough

to sustain species over the long term, with

research indicating that there is no single

threshold value that can be broadly applied

to conserve all species (Fahrig, 2001).

Although highly significant in conservation

ecology, the theory of island biogeography

has had relatively little influence on tourism

research except where there is a focus on thedesign of national parks and conservation

reserve areas that may attract visitors (e.g.

Newsome, Moore, & Dowling, 2002; Whit-

taker & Ferna ´ndez-Palacios, 2007) and, to a

very limited extent, with respect to the examin-

ation of the impact of tourism on island

environments (e.g. Go ¨ ssling, 2003). Although

perhaps not recognized by many students of

tourism, the theory of island biogeography

has also been extremely influential withrespect to the notion of the physical carrying

capacity of outdoor recreation land in terms

of the maximum number of people that can

use an area without an unacceptable change

in the environment or an unacceptable change

in perceived quality (Wall, 1999). Both carry-

ing capacity and the theory of island biogeo-

graphy suggest that capacity is the maximum

sustainable output of a system, i.e. that there

is an upper limit to the number of individuals

a population can reach in a closed environment.

Such ideas have also proved influential with

respect to broader concerns about the limits

to growth and sustainable development,

topics that also have significance in tourism

studies (e.g. Hall & Lew, 2009).

Tourism is an important element in the

maintenance of biodiversity for many islands,

both as a justification for conservation efforts

by virtue of being an attraction for visitors

interested in the natural environment (e.g.Christian, Potts, Burnett, & Lacher, 1996;

Go ¨ ssling, 1999), sometimes referred to as

ecotourism, and as a form of anthropogenic

disturbance (e.g. Go ¨ ssling & Hall, 2006;

Hall & Lew, 2009). For example, in the case

of islands tourism can: act as a means of




transporting new species and diseases; directly

change and fragment habitat as a result of

developments such as golf courses, beaches,

marinas, roads and walkways and hotels;

and indirectly change habitats as a result of

requiring food for visitors, disturbinganimals, placing further demands on water

supply, as well as disturbing animals or tram-

pling plants. However, for many small island

economies tourism is often one of the few

means of development available, thereby

leading to increased attention as to how

tourism can become sustainable.

Sustainable tourism development is tourism

development without growth in throughput of

matter and energy beyond regenerative andabsorptive capacities (Hall, 2008). From such

a perspective the sustainability of tourism is

to be found in recognition of the high ecologi-

cal footprints of much tourism consumption

(Go ¨ ssling, Hansson, Ho ¨ rstmeier, & Saggel,

2002) and the need to adopt an approach

towards tourism development grounded in

ecological economics. Hall (2009) argues

that sustainable tourism needs to be under-

stood from a steady-state economic perspec-

tive that explicitly recognizes the extent to

which economic development is dependent

on the stock of natural capital. According to

Hall (2009), steady-state tourism is a tourism

system that encourages qualitative develop-

ment but not aggregate quantitative growth

to the detriment of natural capital. A steady-

state economy, including at the destination

level, can therefore be defined in terms of “a

constant flow of throughput at a sustainable

(low) level, with population and capital stockfree to adjust to whatever size can be main-

tained by the constant throughput beginning

with depletion and ending with pollution”

(Daly, 2008, p. 3). Such an approach therefore

recognizes that the human economy competes

with wildlife for use of scarce natural capital.

Figure 3 illustrates that natural capital (e.g.

soil, timber and water) is reallocated from

wildlife to humans in the process of economic

growth, thereby leading to species extinction

and threats. As the economy grows, the

natural capital comprising wildlife habitat(represented above the sigmoid curve) is con-

verted into goods and services in the human

economy (represented below the sigmoid

curve). K equals economic carrying capacity

(Czech, 2004).

The steady-state approach to tourism desti-

nations as well as the theory of island biogeo-

graphy suggests that there are limits to the

exploitation of natural capital. However,

time remains an important element in under-standing how anthropogenic change may

affect species immigration and extinction. As

Burt (2003) noted with respect to issues of

scale in the physical environment, in general

terms, short-term studies tend to focus on

process dynamics whereas longer-term

studies are more likely to involve statistical

analysis of form and structure. The temporal

and spatial scale at which studies are con-

ducted also has implications for understanding

causality (Schumm & Lichty, 1965). At the

shortest timescale, processes operate within

an essentially fixed environment. Over the

Figure 3 Competition for Natural Capital

between People and Wildlife.

388 C. Michael Hall



longer term, properties that were fixed at the

shorter timescale now become variable. As

Burt (2003, p. 212) commented, “Process

now controls form and a ‘steady-state equili-

brium’ may be identified. Large events may

perturb the system but there is then recoveryto a characteristic form”.

It is widely recognized that human activity is

having a significant impact on the world’s

biodiversity, with a third of amphibians, a

quarter of mammals and one-in-eight birds

being threatened with extinction (BBC,

2009). Human activity can serve to fragment

existing natural habitat and change environ-

mental conditions so as to suit species that

are identified as economically desirable.Figure 4 combines the insights of island

biographic theory and steady-state economic

thinking to illustrate the way in which anthro-

pogenic change in island environments serves

to reduce the extent of natural capital avail-

able to indigenous species. The figure also

highlights that there is a need to differentiate

between the manner in which this process

occurs in human timescales as against under-

standing its operation in evolutionary time.

Arguably this process is occurring at the

moment, as island environments come increas-

ingly under pressure from human activities

(Quammen, 1997). The insights of island

biogeographical research may therefore have

significant implications for understanding the

impacts of tourism on island environments.

Tourism and Threats to Biodiversity in

Island Economies

The theory of island biogeography highlights

how human impact, including tourism, may

threaten the biodiversity of island environ-

ments in a relatively short period of time.

This section therefore examines some of the

small island economies that are most depen-

dent on tourism in order to ascertain potential

threats and issues with respect to biodiversity

conservation. Two main data sets are utilized.

For economic, population and tourism infor-

mation UNCTAD (2008) statistical data areused while biodiversity information is primar-

ily gained from the IUCN Red List of Threa-

tened SpeciesTM (see http://www.iucnredlist.

org/ ). Unfortunately, there are several gaps in

both sets of information as a result of lack of

national data gathering. Nevertheless, the

information that is available does provide for

an exploratory analysis of some of the poten-

tial relationships between biodiversity and

the significance of tourism for island states.For the purpose of this study, data from the

Caribbean and Pacific Island regions are

examined as not only is tourism of recognized

importance in these areas but the islands in the

two regions also share common climatic fea-

tures. The small number of countries exam-

ined highlights that any relationships found

should be noted with caution, but as noted in

the Introduction, the value of such exploratory

analysis is to highlight potential future paths

for research.

Table 1 provides information on the biodi-

versity status of a number of island territories

in the Caribbean and Pacific. Some territories

are not included in IUCN data as they are

regarded as overseas departments or territories

of continental countries such as France or the

USA. The table provides information on the

percentage of marine and terrestrial territory

that is protected and various categories of

threatened species. Unfortunately, changeover time of threatened species is only avail-

able for a limited number of categories of

animals (birds, mammals and amphibia), but

it is noticeable that most countries have had

an increase in the number of species in those

categories with threatened species status


http://www.iucnredlist.org/






Figure 4 Anthropogenic Change and Reduction of Natural Capital in Island Environments.

390 C. Michael Hall



Table 1 Biodiversity Status

Economy

Land

Area

% Area Protected Threatened Species (TS)

Marine Terrestrial Mammals Birds Amphibia Reptiles Fish Molluscs

Other

Inverts

Su

tota

(km2) 2008 2008 2004 2008 2004 2008 2004 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 20

Caribbean

Bermuda 53.1 5.12% 14.43% 2 4 3 1 0 0 2 12 0 28

Anguilla 102 0.01% 11.04% 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 14 0 10

Montserrat 102 0.02% 10.39% 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 14 0 11

Aruba 193 0.00% 0.06% 1 3 1 1 0 0 2 15 0 1

Saint Kitts and Nevis 261 0.41% 5.06% 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 14 0 10

Cayman Islands 262 1.32% 58.00% 0 1 1 1 0 0 4 14 1 10

Grenada 344 0.01% 1.96% 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 15 0 10

Saint Vincent and the

Grenadines

389 0.31% 16.34% 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 18 0 10

Barbados 431 0.07% 0.11% 0 3 2 1 0 0 4 15 0 10

Antigua and Barbuda 442.6 0.77% 10.25% 1 2 1 1 0 0 6 14 0 11

Turks and Caicos

Islands

430 2.85% 28.48% 0 2 4 2 0 0 4 14 0 10

Saint Lucia 616 0.11% 18.53% 2 2 5 5 4 0 5 15 0 11

Dominica 754 0.09% 26.69% 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 15 0 11

Trinidad and Tobago 5,128 0.27% 35.00% 1 2 2 2 9 9 5 19 0 10

Jamaica 10,991 3.56% 20.90% 5 5 12 10 17 17 9 15 0 14

Bahamas 13,940 0.44% 11.37% 4 7 7 5 0 0 6 20 0 11

Pacific Islands

Cook Islands 236.7 0.04% 2.61% 1 1 15 15 0 0 1 7 0 25

Palau 458 8.74% 1.30% 3 4 1 2 0 0 2 12 5 97 1

Micronesia (Federated

States of)

702 0.03% 10.08% 6 6 8 9 0 0 3 13 4 104 1

Tonga 748 2.20% 25.53% 2 2 4 4 0 0 2 9 2 33

Kiribati 811 0.00% 55.01% 0 1 5 5 0 0 1 7 1 72

Samoa 2,944 1.34% 3.62% 3 2 7 7 0 0 1 8 1 52

French Polynesia 4,167 0.08% 1.07% 3 1 31 32 0 0 1 13 29 26 1

Vanuatu 12,200 0.05% 4.46% 5 8 8 8 0 0 2 11 1 78 1

Fiji 18,270 0.11% 2.16% 5 6 13 10 1 1 6 11 3 87 1

New Caledonia 19,060 0.22% 7.39% 6 9 15 14 1 0 2 17 11 84 1



Table 1 Continued

Economy

Land

Area

% Area Protected Threatened Species (TS)

Marine Terrestrial Mammals Birds Amphibia Reptiles Fish Molluscs

Other

Inverts

Su

tota

(km2) 2008 2008 2004 2008 2004 2008 2004 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 20

Solomon Islands 28,450 0.05% 0.76% 20 17 22 20 2 2 4 12 2 138 1

Papua New Guinea 462,840 0.45% 9.70% 58 41 32 36 10 11 9 38 2 167 3

Sources: Land area from CIA World Factbook. Percentage area protected derived from nationally designated protected areason Protected Areas (WDPA), a joint project of UNEP and IUCN, hosted and managed by UNEP-World Conservation Monito31, 2008. Threatened species figures for 2004 derived from Baillie et al. (2004), appendix 3j. The numbers of threatened spendemic per country for mammals, birds, amphibians, turtles, chondrichthyan fishes (elasmobranches), conifers and cycadspresent exclude uncertain occurrences and vagrants. These will therefore differ from figures obtained through a country seaThreatened SpeciesTM, which includes all countries listed within the species’ range. Threatened species figures for 2008 deriveSpeciesTM (2009), table 5. Number of threatened species in each major group of organisms in each country (critically endancategories only) (totals by taxonomic group); table 6a Red List Category summary country totals (animals); table 6b Red L(plants).



from 2004 to 2008. In the Caribbean the pro-

portion of threatened animal species as a pro-

portion of all animal species in the country

ranges from a low of 6.6% in Trinidad and

Tobago to a high of 18.1% in Bermuda. The

proportion of threatened animal species ismuch higher overall in the Pacific Islands,

which range from a low of 14.8% for Tonga

to 22.4% for French Polynesia. Of the 16

Caribbean countries studied, only two (the

Cayman Islands and Trinidad and Tobago)

have over 30% of their land area set aside as

protected areas, although the Turks and

Caicos Islands, Dominica and Jamaica have

over 20% of their land area protected. In the

Pacific only Kiribati has set aside more than30% of its land area as protected area, while

Tonga has a protected area of just over 25%.

The proportion of protected marine area in

both regions is much lower than terrestrial

area. In the Caribbean, Jamaica has the

highest proportion of marine area set aside at

3.56% and in the Pacific, Palau has 8.74%

of its marine territory as protected area.

Table 2 sets out information with respect to

tourism and the small island economies of the

Caribbean and the Pacific and includes data

with respect to UNCTAD economic grouping,

population and tourist data in terms of

number of visitors and visitor expenditure.

Data on average length of stay are included

so as to provide a measure of the actual

annual population equivalent in real terms

(permanent population plus visitors) (see

Mu ¨ ller & Hall (2003) for further information

on this approach to population determination

in tourist regions; where no official figures areavailable for length of stay a surrogate period

of average length of stay for the region has

been used).

The data indicate that there is a reasonably

strong relationship between the terrestrial

area of the territory and the number of

threatened species (a correlation of 0.62 for

the Caribbean and 0.76 for the Pacific). A

relatively weak relationship between GDP and

number of threatened species was observed

for the Caribbean (0.44), although a stronger

relationship exists in the Pacific (0.77). Norelationship was seen to exist in terms of per

capita GDP. The extent of the relationship

between GDP and threatened species has been

briefly noted because of the extent to which

this relationship has been observed in other

studies (e.g. Czech et al., 2005; Dietz &

Adger, 2003), including with respect to the

extent that economic growth is meant to lead

to increased biodiversity (the so-called environ-

mental Kuznets curve) (Mills & Waite, 2009). Aslightly negative relationship was found in both

regions with respect to the relationship between

tourism’s contribution to the economy and the

number of endangered species.

For small islands the size of the human

population may have a significant impact on

biodiversity (McMaster, 2005). In both the

Caribbean and the Pacific there is a strong

relationship between population and the

number of endangered species for each terri-

tory, 0.91 and 0.76, respectively. Including

international visitors in the island population

(see Table 2) provides only a very marginal

increase in the strength of the relationship.

Table 2 clearly indicates the potential extra

impacts that visitors may have on island

environments by virtue of their consumption

and increased density, thereby leading to dis-

turbance and anthropogenic change. In the

case of Anguilla, the annual visitor numbers

are equivalent to a 30.5% increase in perma-nent population, whereas the Cayman

Islands is equivalent to a staggering 89%.

However, the figures indicated in Tables 1

and 2 are effectively only a single-shot analysis

of island biodiversity and tourism economies.

Instead, more dynamic approaches that plot




Table 2 Tourism and Developing Small Island Economies

Economy

UNCTAD

Category

Population

Estimate

2006 (’000)

Visitor

Estimate

2006

(’000)

Visitors as %

of Population

(Annual

Basis)

Visitors as

Ratio to

Population

(Annual

Basis)

Average

Length of

Stay

(Days)

Equivalent

Additional

Population

per Annum

As %

To

Perm

Popu

Caribbean

Anguilla A 12 167 1,392% 1:13.92 8.0 3,660 30.Aruba A 104 1,285 1,236% 1:12.36 7.9 10,152 9.

Turks and

Caicos

Islands

A 25 248 992% 1:9.92 7.0 4,756 19.

Saint Lucia A, F 163 670 411% 1:4.11 – –

Antigua and

Barbuda

A, F 84 745 887% 1:8.87 9.5 19,390 23.

Bahamas A, F 327 4,731 1,474% 1:14.74 6.4 82,954 25.

Barbados A, F 293 1,102 376% 1:3.76 9.8 29,588 10.

Saint Kitts and

Nevis

A, F 50 339 678% 1:6.78 – –

Saint Vincent

and theGrenadines

B, F 120 306 255% 1:2.55 12.5 10,479 8.7

Grenada A, F 106 342 323% 1:3.23 7.6 7,121 6.7

Dominica B, F 68 465 684% 1:6.84 9.2 11,721 17.

Cayman

Islands

A 46 2,197 4,776% 1:47.76 6.8 40,930 89.

Jamaica B, F 2,699 3,016 112% 1:1.12 9.8 80,977



Montserrat A 6 9.5 158% 1:1.58 – –

Bermuda A 65 635 977% 1:9.77 6.5 11,308 17.

Trinidad and

Tobago

A, F, H 1,328 543 41% 1:0.41 14.8 22,018 1.7

Pacific Islands

Palau A, F 20 86 430% 1:4.3 – –

Cook Islands B 14 92 657% 1:6.57 10.4 2,621 18.

Vanuatu B, F, G 221 154 70% 1:0.7 9.8 4,135 1.9

Fiji B, F 833 545 65% 1:0.65 8.9 13,289 1.6

Samoa B, F, G 185 116 63% 1:0.63 – –

French

Polynesia

A 259 222 86% 1:0.86 13.2 8,028 3.

Micronesia

(Federated

States of)

B, F 111 19.1 17% 1:0.17 – –

Tonga B, F 100 54 54% 1:0.54 – –

New Caledonia A 238 219 92% 1:0.92 19.1 11,460 4.

Kiribati C, F, G 94 4.4 5% 1:0.05 – – Solomon

Islands

C, F, G 484 11.5 2% 1:0.02 – –

Papua New

Guinea

C, F 6,202 78 0% 0 9.1 1,944 0

aVisitor expenditure excluding transport.bMost recently available figure/estimate.UNCTAD Economic Groupings: A: 2000 per capita current GDP above US$4,500: High-income (42); B: 2000 per capita cUS$4,500: Middle-income (50); C: 2000 per capita current GDP below US$1,000: Low-income (65); D: Heavily indebted Landlocked developing countries – LLDCs (31); F: Small island developing states – SIDS (29); G: Least-developed countriexporters (22); I: Major exporters of manufactured goods (12); J: Emerging economies (10); K: Newly industrialized econoSource: Derived from UNCTAD (2008).



the relationship of tourism growth over time in

relation to biodiversity concerns are needed to

assess more accurately the role that tourism

might play with respect to placing extra

pressures on indigenous island species.

Conclusions: Integrating Ecological andEconomic Dimensions of Island Tourism

Many of the Caribbean and Pacific Islands are

highly dependent on tourism for economic

growth (Duval, 2004; Harrison, 2004).

However, although sustainable island

tourism development has been a significant

issue in tourism studies, there has been rela-tively little attempt to try and integrate

tourism within ecological frameworks that

have been developed for island studies. This

paper has therefore sought to suggest ways

in which theories of island biogeography

and ecological economics could underpin

the development of steady-state tourism

approaches (Hall, 2009) to island tourism. In

the case of the small Caribbean and Pacific

Islands, the article has highlighted the extent

to which tourism, while important economi-

cally, also makes a very substantial addition

to the “real” population of the island,

human density, and consequent resource

consumption and anthropogenic change. It

has also tentatively suggested, similar to the

results of other developing country research,

that economic growth as measured by GDP

may not provide positive results for the

retention of biodiversity and a reduction in

the number of endangered species (Dietz &Adger, 2003; Czech et al., 2005). Such an

observation may have profound implications

for strategies that argue that biodiversity

maintenance in developing countries may be

enhanced by encouraging tourism as a means

of economic development, so-called pro-poor

tourism (Hall 2007), particularly as inter-

national medium and long-haul travel to

island economies also contributes substantial

greenhouse gas emissions (Go ¨ ssling, Hall, &

Scott, 2009).

With respect to island biodiversity, the dataemphasize that in the case of the islands

studied there is a significant number of endan-

gered species. In the case of animal species in

the Caribbean, the proportion of animal

species identified by the IUCN as threatened

ranges from a low of 7.6% of all animal

species in Aruba to a high of 18.1% in

Bermuda. In the Pacific the average number

of animal species threatened is much higher,

ranging from a low of 14.8% in Tonga to22.5% in French Polynesia. The differences

can be explained, at least in part, by theories

of island biogeography, whereby more iso-

lated islands, as in the case of the Pacific, are

more vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts,

and therefore have higher potential for

species extinction. Yet, although the mainten-

ance of biodiversity is recognized as a critical

element in sustainable development, the pro-

portion of area protected, especially marine

areas, remains significantly lower than rec-

ommendations as to what would be required

to conserve 80–90% of species (Groves,

2003; Soule ´ & Sanjayan, 1998).

Although the sample of island economies is

small the paper has also sought to relate biodi-

versity conservation to the economic and

tourism characteristics of islands in a more

dynamic fashion. As island biogeographic

theory would suggest there is a reasonably

strong relationship between island size andnumber of threatened species. However,

human impact on the natural capital of

islands is also seen in the strong relationship

between population size and the number of

endangered species for countries. By them-

selves, neither the number of tourists nor the

396 C. Michael Hall



relative size of tourism’s contribution to the

economy appears related to the number of

endangered species. Nevertheless, the combi-

nation of tourist numbers and permanent

population is strongly positively related to

the number of endangered species.This article has suggested some interesting

potential directions for future research on the

sustainability of the relationship between

tourism, economic development and biodiver-

sity conservation in small island environments.

It has argued for a more theoretically informed

account of sustainable island tourism that

seeks to integrate ecological approaches, and

island biogeography in particular, with

studies of tourism development. However,the size of the sample used to try and study

this phenomenon is extremely small and

suggests a range of methodological issues

that need to be addressed. First, with respect

to data availability this study has only utilized

data available at the national level; even here

some significant gaps in terms of both infor-

mation on tourism and biodiversity were

found that prevented some islands being

studied. For example, the IUCN Red Book

has valuable information on endangered

species and biodiversity; however, there are

some significant limitations in its use and

methods used (see Mace et al., 2008).

Second, there are significant issues of scale.

The use of national data for the territories

studied has treated all countries as individual

islands. Yet some territories, such as the

Bahamas, are island archipelagos, thereby

potentially significantly changing the nature

of island biogeographic relationships, particu-larly in terms of area-to-boundary ratios of

landmasses, which can affect species’ range

and distribution and their relative suscepti-

bility to disturbance. Just as importantly,

there is a need to incorporate understanding

of the proportion of territory that is actually

affected by habitat change as there are, in

effect, “islands” of relatively natural environ-

ment with the terrestrial and marine areas of

each country. Such relationships cannot be

understood by looking at protected areas

alone, as there may be areas of relativelyundisturbed environment outside protected

areas, while some protected areas may have

been subject to significant disturbance. In

addition, with respect to scale there is also a

clear need to undertake analysis of change

over time so that contributing factors that

lead to biodiversity loss are recorded. This

will include not only economic, demographic,

tourism and biodiversity data, but also infor-

mation on natural disturbances such as high-magnitude weather events such as storms,

floods and drought. Nevertheless, the gather-

ing of such information will provide a basis

by which to identify areas that may be most

resilient to anthropogenic environmental

change, including climate change, and may

also provide the identification of sites that

can be used as analogue for other island

environments at threat as well as benchmark

locations with which to measure the impacts

of change.

Finally, as noted above, it is suggested that

the island biogeographical approach can be

applied to a range of different “island” environ-

ments, not necessarily surrounded by water!

The fragmentation of private and public

natural areas creates islands of relatively

natural environment surrounded by environ-

mental change. Many national parks and con-

servation reserves have these characteristics,

as do wilderness areas that may act as refugiafrom global environmental and climate

change (Crist, Wilmer, & Aplet, 2005; Hall

& Page, 2006). Therefore, in seeking to under-

stand better the role that tourism plays in con-

tributing to biodiversity in such environments,

there is considerable potential not only to




examine the population effects of visitation and

tourist consumption but also to identify sites of

highest resilience with respect to the conserva-

tion of insular biodiversity.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the

comments of David Duval on an earlier

version of the paper as well as conversations

with Stefan Go ¨ ssling, Dan Scott, Murray

Simpson and Sandra Wilson.

References

Baillie, J., Hilton-Taylor, C., & Stuart, S. J. (2004). 2004

IUCN red list of threatened species: A global species

assessment. Cambridge & Gland: IUCN Species

Survival Commission.

BBC (2009, July 2). World “still losing biodiversity”,

Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/

hi/science/nature/8130942.stm.

Brown, J. H. & Gibson, A. C. (1983). Biogeography (1st

ed.). St Louis: Mosby.

Brown, J. H., & Lomolino, M. V. (2000). Concludingremarks: Historical perspective and the future of

island biogeography theory. Global Ecology & Biogeo-

graphy, 9, 87–92.

Burt, T. (2003). Scale: Upscaling and downscaling in phys-

ical geography. In S. L. Holloway, S. P. Rice & G.

Valentine (Eds), Key concepts in geography,

(pp. 209–227). London: Sage Publications.

Christian, C., Potts, T., Burnett, G., & Lacher, Jr. T.

(1996). Parrot conservation and ecotourism in the

Windward Islands. Journal of Biogeography, 23,

387–393.

Cox, C. B., Healey, I. N. & Moore, P. D. (1973). Biogeo- graphy: An ecological and evolutionary approach.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Crist, M. R., Wilmer, B., & Aplet, G. H. (2005). Assessing

the value of roadless areas in a conservation reserve

strategy: Biodiversity and landscape connectivity in the

northern Rockies. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(1),

181–191.

Czech, B. (2004). A chronological frame of reference for

ecological integrity and natural conditions. Natural

Resources Journal , 44, 1113–1136.

Czech, B., Trauger, D. L., Farley, J., Costanza, R., Daly,

H. E., Hall, C. S. Noss, R. F., Krall, L., & Krausman,

P. R. (2005). Establishing indicators for biodiversity.

Science, 308, 791–792.Daly, H. E. (2008). A steady-state economy. London:

Sustainable Development Commission.

Dietz, S., & Adger, W. N. (2003). Economic growth,

biodiversity loss and conservation effort. Journal of

Environmental Management , 68, 23–35.

Dietz, R. W., & Czech, B. (2005). Conservation deficits

for the continental United States: An ecosystem gap

analysis. Conservation Biology, 19(5), 1478–1487.

Dobson, A. P., Rodriguez, J. P., Roberts, W. M., &

Wilcove, D. S. (1997). Geographic distribution of endan-

gered species in the United States. Science, 275, 550–553.

Duval, D. (Ed.). (2004). Tourism in the Caribbean:Trends, development, prospects. London: Routledge.

Fahrig, L. (2001). How much habitat is enough? Biologi-

cal Conservation, 100, 65–74.

Go ¨ ssling, S. (1999). Ecotourism: a means to safeguard

biodiversity and ecosystem functions? Ecological Econ-

omics, 29, 303–320.

Go ¨ ssling, S., Hansson, C. B., Ho ¨ rstmeier, O., & Saggel, S.

(2002). Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess

tourism sustainability. Ecological Economics, 43,

199–211.

Go ¨ ssling, S. (Ed.). (2003). Tourism and development in

tropical islands: Political ecology perspectives. Alder-shot: Edward Elgar.

Go ¨ ssling, S. & Hall, C.M. (Eds.). (2006). Tourism and

global environmental change. London: Routledge.

Go ¨ ssling, S., Hall, C. M. & Scott, D. (2009). The chal-

lenges of tourism as a development strategy in an era

of global climate change. In E. Palosou (Ed.), Rethink-

ing development in a carbon-constrained world.

Development cooperation and climate change

(pp. 100–119). Helsinki: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Groves, C. R. (2003). Drafting a conservation blueprint:

A practitioner’s guide to planning for biodiversity.

Washington, DC: Island Press.Hall, C. M. (2007). Pro-poor tourism: Do “tourism

exchanges benefit primarily the countries of the

South”? Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2– 3), 111–118.

Hall, C. M. (2008). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). Harlow:

Pearson.

Hall, C. M. (2009). Degrowing tourism: Decroissance,

sustainable consumption and steady-state tourism.

398 C. Michael Hall

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8130942.stm






Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and

Hospitality Research, 20(1), 46–61.

Hall, C. M. & Lew, A. (2009). Understanding and mana-

ging tourism impacts: An integrated approach. London:

Routledge.

Hall, C. M. & Page, S. (2006). The geography of tourism

and recreation: Space, place and environment (3rd ed.).London: Routledge.

Harrison, D. (2004). Tourism in the Pacific Islands. The

Journal of Pacific Studies, 26(1&2), 1–28.

Lomolino, M. V. (2000). A call for a new paradigm of

island biogeography. Global Ecology and Biogeogra-

phy, 9, 1–6.

MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1963). An equili-

brium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution, 17,

373–387.

MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The theory of

island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.Mace, G., Collar, N. J., Gaston, K. J., Hilton-Taylor, C.,

Akcakaya, H. R., Leader-Williams, N., Milner-

Gulland, E. J., & Stuart, S. N. (2008). Quantification

of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threa-

tened species. Conservation Biology, 22(6), 1424–1442.

McMaster, R. T. (2005). Factors influencing vascular

plant diversity on 22 islands off the coast of eastern

North America. Journal of Biogeography, 32(3),

475–492.

Mills, J. H., & Waite, T. A. (2009). Economic prosperity,

biodiversity conservation, and the environmental

Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 2087–2095.Mu ¨ ller, D., & Hall, C. M. (2003). Second homes and

regional population distribution: On administrative

practices and failures in Sweden. Espace Population

Societes, 2, 251–261.

Newsome, D., Moore, S. & Dowling, R. (2002). Natural

area tourism: Ecology, impacts and management .

Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Prendergast, J. R., Quinn, R. M., Lawton, J. H., Ever-

sham, B. C., & Gibbons, D. W. (1993). Rare species,the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation

strategies. Nature, 365, 335–337.

Preston, F. W. (1962). The canonical distribution of com-

monness and rarity: Part I. Ecology, 43, 185–215.

Quammen, D. (1997). The song of the dodo: Island

biogeography in an age of extinctions. New York:

Scribner.

Schumm, S. A., & Lichty, R. W. (1965). Time, space

and causality. American Journal of Science, 263,

110–119.

Soul ´e, M. E., & Sanjayan, M. A. (1998). Conservation

targets: Do they help? Science, 279, 2060–2061.Soule ´, M. E., & Simberloff, D. S. (1986). What do genetics

and ecology tell us about the design of nature reserves?

Biological Conservation, 35(1), 19–40.

UNCTAD (2008). UNCTAD handbook of statistics 2008.

New York and Geneva: UN.

Wall, G. (1999). Carrying capacity. In D. E. Alexander &

R. W. Fairbridge (Eds.), Encyclopedia of environmental

science (pp. 72–73). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Whittaker, R. J. & Ferna ´ndez-Palacios, J. M. (2007).

Island biogeography: Ecology, evolution, and conserva-

tion (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (2001). Preface. In R. H. MacArthur &E. O. Wilson (Eds), The theory of island biogeography

(pp. vii–ix). Princeton: Princeton University Press.


An Island Geographical Approach to Island Tourism and Biodiversity

Documents

Transcript of An Island Geographical Approach to Island Tourism and Biodiversity