Content uploaded by Austin J Gallagher
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Austin J Gallagher on Mar 31, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Global shark currency: the distribution, frequency, and economic
value of shark ecotourism
Austin J. Gallagher
a,c
∗and Neil Hammerschlag
a,b,c
a
Leonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy, University of Miami, P.O.
Box 248203, Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA;
b
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science, University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL, 33149, USA;
c
RJ
Dunlap Marine Conservation Program, University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway,
Miami, FL 33149, USA
(Received 10 March 2011; final version received 26 April 2011)
Ecotourism represents a highly popularised activity which has exhibited global growth
in recent years. In the present paper, we examine the distribution, frequency, and
economic value of shark-based ecotourism operations worldwide. A total of 376
shark ecotour operations across 83 locations and 8 geographic regions were
identified. Here we describe the global and regional scope of the industry; determine
the species utilised in shark ecotourism activities; and examine the recreational usage
values of sharks. Further, we conducted a case study of a shark tourism operation
based in South Africa by analysing 12 years of demographical and economical data,
revealing increasing trends in the total number of customers served and cost per trip
over the sampling period. We also compare consumptive and non-consumptive values
of shark resources and discuss the potential research and conservation implications of
the industry to sharks worldwide.
Keywords: ecotourism; shark diving; biodiversity preservation; shark; economic
valuation
Introduction
Ecosystem capital is the sum of all the goods and services provided to global human enter-
prises by natural systems. These services are conservatively valued at US$41 trillion per
year (Wright & Boorse, 2008). Furthermore, such capital depends on the maintenance of
ecosystem biodiversity and resilience; nevertheless, many natural systems are experiencing
severe losses in both (Dunne, Williams, & Martinez, 2002; Pearce & Moran, 1996;
Tittensor et al., 2010; Worm et al., 2007). The drivers of these losses are numerous and
include growing anthropogenic threats in the form of (but not limited to) habitat destruction,
invasive species, pollution, climate change, and overfishing (e.g. Wilcove, Rothstein,
Dubow, Phillips, & Losos, 1998; Worm et al., 2006; Worm & Lotze, 2009). Removing
species from habitats can lead to small-scale extirpation and subsequent shifts in food-
web dynamics; however, the targeted removal of keystone and/or ecologically important
species may be detrimental to ecosystem structure and function, thus impacting biodiversity
ISSN 1368-3500 print/ISSN 1747-7603 online
#2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2011.585227
http://www.informaworld.com
∗Corresponding author. Email: agallagher@rsmas.miami.edu
Current Issues in Tourism
2011, iFirst article, 1– 16
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
and resilience, ultimately diminishing ecosystem capital (Dunne et al., 2002; Myers, Baum,
Shepherd, Powers, & Peterson, 2007; Paine, 1969; Parsons, 1992; Wright & Boorse, 2008).
As the exhaustion of natural systems continues to alter ecosystem capital, the value of
non-consumptive usage of these natural resources becomes increasingly important in
shaping conservation efforts at the local, regional, and international level (Bra¨uer, 2003;
McNeely, 1990; Perrings, Folke, & Maler, 1992).
Species in their natural environments support a variety of recreational activities and
aesthetic interests including fishing, hiking, snorkeling, and photography, just to name a few.
Nature-based tourism, often referred to as ecotourism (yet treated the same for the purposes
of this paper), has become increasingly popular in recent decades and has been described as
one of the fastest growing sectors of the tourism industry (Scheyvens, 1999; Wearing &
Neil, 2009). Ecotourism is broadly defined as an ‘environmentally responsible, enlightening
travel to a relatively undisturbed or natural area to enjoy and appreciate nature’ (Ceballos-
Lascurain, 1996). Established ecotourism operations present visitors with new and exciting
ways to experience nature in exchange for money (Liu, 2003; Wearing & Neil, 2009).
While various species sustain nature-based tourism markets, it is the large and charismatic
species (including predators) which arguably draw the most attention (i.e. whales, eagles, big
cats, sharks) from tourists. Despite their general popularity among tourists, the numbers of
threatened and endangered species (notably marine species) continues to rise (IUCN, 2009;
Liu, 1994); and marine apex-predators, particularly sharks, have experienced population
declines globally in the last few decades (Baum et al., 2003; Burgess et al., 2005; Dulvy
et al., 2008; Ferretti, Myers, Serena, & Lotze, 2008; Worm et al., 2006). For example,
shark populations on the US east coast have declined an estimated 80– 90% since the mid-
1980s, as a result of target and non-target fisheries (Baum & Blanchard, 2010; Baum et al.,
2003; Clarke, Magnussen, Abercrombie, McAllister, & Shivji, 2006; Myers et al., 2007).
Many shark species are inherently vulnerable to population decreases as a result of overexploi-
tation due to their general life-history characteristics (i.e. slow growth, late to reach sexual
maturity). As of 2010, an estimated 15% of shark species were listed as critically endangered,
endangered, or vulnerable (IUCN, 2010), with an estimated one-third of all pelagic (open
ocean) sharks faced with extinction (IUCN, 2009). Furthermore, the continued harvest of
these keystone and/or ecologically important species is largely due to their high economic
value in various global markets (i.e. shark finning; Figure 1(a)), presenting both existing
and potential future users with hard-to-ignore fiscal incentives to target sharks.
Figure 1. Consumptive and non-consumptive uses of shark resources. (a) Prized shark fins on display
in a Hong Kong market, likely originating from a large hammerhead (Sphyrna spp.) or white shark
(Carcharodon carcharias), photo taken September 2010 (photo J. Gallagher). (b) Oceanic white-tip
shark (Carcharhinus longimanus) with diver during shark ecotourism operation in the Bahamas.
2A.J. Gallagher and N. Hammerschlag
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
In contrast to harvesting, sharks also provide non-consumptive use potential. In recent
years, there has been a surge in shark-directed ecotourism, presenting users with opportu-
nities to observe, photograph, and interact with these marine predators (Orams, 2002;
Topelko & Dearden, 2005; Figure 1(b)). Accordingly, there have been several recent
studies evaluating both economic and ecological impacts of shark ecotourism (e.g.
Catlin, Jones, Jones, Norman, & Wood, 2010; Malkjovic
´&Co
ˆte
´, 2011). Many of these
reports, however, have focused on a particular species in a given region, leaving a gap in
our knowledge of the global breadth of the shark ecotourism industry.
The present paper provides a global examination of the distribution and frequency of the
shark-based ecotourism industry. Although shark ecotourism can include onboard obser-
vations and catch & release angling, here we focus solely on in-water ecotourism activities
(e.g. diving or snorkeling). Specific areas addressed in this paper include: (1) describing the
size and scope of the industry; (2) identifying heavily used regions for these activities; (3)
identifying the species utilised in shark ecotourism; and (4) discussing the recreational
usage value of sharks. Based on our analyses, we evaluate the relative economic importance
of shark-based ecotourism at a global scale and the potential implications of the industry to
shark conservation.
Methods
Tourism has long been one of the most important components of online commerce, and the
Internet remains a predominant driver for the economic decisions of tourists when planning
vacations and excursions (Milano, Baggio, & Piatrelli, 2011; Werthner & Ricci, 2004).
Accordingly, this large database may contain novel data useful in both addressing the scope
of the shark ecotourism industry and its relative economic value. From October to November
2010, we performed extensive Internet searches (using http://www.google.com) to identify
locations directly linked to the shark ecotourism operations, using the following key words:
‘shark ecotourism’, ‘shark diving’, ‘shark trips’, ‘shark operations’, ‘shark photography’,
and ‘shark encounters’. After preliminary locations and operations were identified, we then
ran subsequent searches by region (and associated species) to further identify ecotourism
companies promoting sharks as a recreational resource. We also included operations based
on verbal and written communications with marine-based tourism industries.
The overarching criterion used to identify an established shark ecotourism operation
was whether an individual company specifically advertised shark encounters as an associ-
ated service. Components of an operation which met this criteria generally included: (a) a
banner on the website homepage featuring a shark image and/or text advertising a shark
encounter; (b) operations directly promoting a specific shark ‘adventure’, ‘encounter’, or
‘package’; (c) operations providing specific pricing for shark-related activities; and (d)
verbal descriptions citing sharks as the main goal or objective of a given diving or
snorkeling activity. We excluded companies that presented the chance to encounter a
shark opportunistically. Such discrimination in our examination filtered out locations
where divers may casually observe sharks species on a particular dive. As such, we were
able to record the most established, shark-focused operations. To be included in our analysis
(Table 1), a recorded operation had to contain at least one currently functioning shark-
focused ecotourism activity.
Locations were classified into one of eight regional zones: 1, North America; 2, Central
and South America; 3, Greater Caribbean, including the Bahamas; 4, Europe; 5, North
Africa and the Middle East; 6, Southern and Eastern Africa, including Seychelles and
Madagascar; 7, Asia and Indonesia, excluding Papua New Guinea; and 8, Oceania,
Current Issues in Tourism 3
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
Table 1. Summary table of established global shark ecotourism sites from examination of Internet
websites.
Location Region
No.
operators Main attraction Category
Rhode Island, USA
a
NA 2 Blue/mako P
Long Island, USA NA 1 Blue/mako P
Stellwagen Bank, MA, USA NA 2 Basking H
Nantucket, MA, USA NA 1 Blue/mako P
Outer Banks, NC, USA NA 8 Sand tiger CR
Venice, Louisiana
a
NA 1 Dusky, Silky CR
Palm Beach, FL, USA NA 2 Caribbean reef CR
Farallon Islands, CA, USA NA 5 White H
Catalina Island, CA, USA
a
NA 3 Blue/mako P
San Diego, CA, USA
a
NA 1 Blue/mako P
Hornby Island, BC, CA NA 1 Six-gill CR
Haleiwa, HI, USA NA 2 Galapagos CR
Honolulu, HI, USA NA 4 Galapagos, whitetip reef CR
Isla Guadalupe, Mexico
b
CSA 5 White H
Sea of Cortez, Mexico
b
CSA 4 Whale, S. Hammerhead H, CR
Socorro Island, Mexico
b
CSA 4 S. Hammerhead, whale H, CR
Playa Del Carmen, Mexico CSA 1 Bull CR
Isla Holbox, Mexico CSA .20 Whale H
Ambergris Caye, Belieze CSA 5 Nurse, Caribbean reef CR
Gladden Spit, Belieze CSA 4 Whale H
Bat Islands, Costa Rica CSA 5 Bull, whitetip reef CR
Cocos Island, Costa Rica
b
CSA 4 S. Hammerhead H, CR
Utila, Honduras CSA .20 Whale H
Galapagos Islands, Ecuador
b
CSA 6 S. Hammerhead, whale H, CR
Malpelo Island, Ecuador
b
CSA 3 S. Hammerhead, whale H, CR
Canary Islands, Spain E 3 Angel CR
Cornwall, UK E 3 Basking H
Isle of Man, UK E .10 Basking H
The Azores, Portugal E 2 Blue/mako P
St. Maarten, Dutch Antilles GC 3 Caribbean reef CR
Tiger Beach, the Bahamas
b
GC 3 Tiger, hammerhead CR
Nassau, the Bahamas GC 3 Caribbean reef CR
Long Island, the Bahamas GC 1 Caribbean reef CR
Bimini, the Bahamas GC 1 Caribbean reef CR
Grand Bahama Island, the
Bahamas
GC 2 Caribbean reef CR
Exuma Cays, the Bahamas GC 3 Caribbean reef, whale CR
Eleuthera, the Bahamas GC 1 Caribbean reef, blacktip CR
San Salvador Island, the Bahamas GC 1 Caribbean reef,
S. Hammerhead
CR
Walker’s Cay, the Bahamas GC 2 Caribbean reef CR
Turks and Caicos Islands, West
Indies
GC 3 Caribbean reef, nurse CR
Playa Santa Lucia, Cuba GC 1 Bull CR
Jardines de la Reina, Cuba GC 2 Bull, Silky CR
Fish Rock, NSW, Australia O 3 Sand tiger CR
Coffs Harbor, NSW, Australia O 2 Sand tiger CR
Forster, NSW, Australia O 3 Sand tiger CR
Ningaloo Reef, WA, Australia O .10 Whale H
Port Lincoln, SA, Australia O 4 White H
(Continued)
4A.J. Gallagher and N. Hammerschlag
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
including Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific Islands. These
data were then put into a Geographic Information System (ArcView 9.3) to examine for
patterns in the frequency and distribution of operations. For each operation within a
given region, we recorded the following parameters: total advertised species richness
and focal species (major attraction). Species diversity was derived by locating specific
Table 1. Continued.
Location Region
No.
operators Main attraction Category
Wolf Rock, QLD, Australia O 4 Sand tiger CR
Great Barrier Reef, QLD, Australia O .20 Grey reef, silvertip CR
Coral Sea Islands, QLD, Australia
b
O 5 Grey reef, silvertip CR
Moorea, French Polynesia O 4 Blacktip reef, lemon CR
Fakarava, French Polynesia O 2 Grey reef, blacktip reef CR
Rangiroa, French Polynesia O 6 Blacktip reef, grey reef CR
Bora Bora, French Polynesia O 2 Blacktip reef, grey reef CR
New Georgia/Russell Islands,
Solomons
O 3 Blacktip reef, whitetip reef CR
Vanua Levu, Fiji
b
O 5 Grey reef, blacktip reef CR
Mana Island, Fiji O 4 Grey reef, blacktip reef CR
Beqa Lagoon, Fiji O 1 Tiger, bull CR
Chatham Islands, New Zealand O 1 White H
North Island, New Zealand O 2 White, mako H, P
Beirut, Lebanon AME 2 Sand tiger CR
Hurghada, Egypt AME 4 Grey reef, whitetip reef CR
Elphinstone and Daedalus Reef,
Egypt
b
AME 10 Oceanic whitetip P
Coastal Reefs, Sudan AME 3 Silvertip, S. Hammerhead H, CR
Tubbataha Reef Park, Philippines AI 3 Whitetip reef, blacktip reef CR
Donsol, Philippines AI .10 Whale H
Malapascua/Pescador Island,
Philippines
AI 7 Pelagic thresher P
Phuket, Thailand AI 5 Whale H
Similan, Thailand
b
AI .5 Whale H
Palau Archipelago, Palau
b
AI .10 Grey reef, whitetip reef H, CR
The Maldives (grouped)
b
AI .20 Whale, grey reef H, CR
False Bay, South Africa SEA 2 White H
Mossel Bay, South Africa SEA 1 White H
Gansbaai, South Africa SEA 7 White H
Protea Banks, KZN, South Africa
b
SEA 7 Sand tiger, bronze whaler CR
Aliwal Shoal, KZN, South Africa SEA .10 Tiger, sand tiger CR
Sardine Run, KZN, South Africa SEA .10 Blacktip, bronze whaler CR
Sodwana Bay, KZN, South Africa SEA 3 Sand tiger, whale H
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania SEA 3 Whale H
Inhambane, Mozambique SEA 5 Whale, S. Hammerhead H
Bassas da India Atoll, French
Territory
b
SEA 2 White, S. Hammerhead H
Ponta D’Ouro, Mozambique SEA 4 S. Hammerhead, whale H
The Seychelles (various atolls)
b
SEA 4 Whale H
Notes: Location, region, number of operators, main species, and category (biological) of shark species are
presented. Region: NA, North America; CSA, Central and South America; E, Europe; GC, Greater Caribbean;
O, Oceania; AME, North Africa and Middle East; AI, Asia and Indonesia; SEA, Southern and Eastern Africa.
Category: H, highly migratory; CR, coastal and reef associated; P, pelagic.
a
Fishermen who operate ecotours.
b
Live aboard experience (partial or full).
Current Issues in Tourism 5
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
mention of species (common name was acceptable) associated with a diving activity on an
operator’s webpage. The total number and range of species that were promoted (as part of
an ecotourism activity) were tallied and recorded at each location. In our examination, we
did not discriminate between methods used by operations to foster or create shark
encounters (i.e. chumming, baiting, feeding, etc.).
We also conducted a socio-economic case study of a shark-ecotourism company based
in South Africa. The company, Apex Expeditions, is run by Chris and Monique Fallows,
who have been conducting shark ecotourism activities for 20 years (www.apexpredators.
com). Apex Expeditions focuses their activities on observing natural shark predation and
cage diving, particularly with white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias), and other pelagic
species. We quantified the scope of their operation by evaluating a set of demographic
and economic focal metrics which included: (a) year of company establishment; (b) total
number of trips since inception; (c) total number of trips per year between 1999 and
2010; (d) total number of customers since inception; (e) total number of customers per
year between 1999 and 2010; (f) maximum number of passengers per year from 1999 to
2010; (g) total number of staff employed per year between 1999 and 2010; and (h)
average cost per person, per trip, per year between 1999 and 2010. Additionally, we also
recorded the (i) number of shark species encountered on a daily shark trip, (j) average
number of days conducting ecotourism activities per year, (k) the top three countries
served by the operation, (l) percentage of repeat customers, (m) the estimated percentage
of people who take photo/video, and (n) the estimated percentage of people who publish
their photo/video in various media. We also examined the community services provided
and monetary contribution to local communities as a result of their operation. All
quantitative data were summarised and the means were calculated. Initial raw monetary
data (cost of trips, presented in South African Rand) were corrected for inflation based
on South African annual average inflation rates (source: International Monetary Fund)
and were subsequently converted to USD equivalents. Relationships between total
number of customers per year and total number of trips conducted per year were analysed
via regression analysis. All analyses were performed using SAS (1990) software and
significance was declared at p,0.05.
Results
A global review
Our examination of ecotourism via the Internet websites revealed 376 established shark
ecotourism operations (over 500 found and screened), in 83 specific locations, spanning
29 different countries (Figure 2).
Locations and operators
All recorded sites were categorised by location into eight regions (Table 1). Regionally,
Oceania contained the highest proportion of different locations offering shark-based
ecotourism (18 locations, 22%; Figure 3). The Greater Caribbean and North America
regions each accounted for approximately 16% (n¼13, respectively) of all locations
offering shark ecotours (Figure 3). Both Europe and North Africa/Middle East had the
fewest number of different locations among all regions offering shark-based ecotourism
(4% each; Figure 3).
The specific locations supporting the highest number of established shark-based ecotour-
ism operations included: Holbox, Mexico (.20), Utila, Honduras (.20), Great Barrier Reef,
6A.J. Gallagher and N. Hammerschlag
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
Figure 2. The global distribution and frequency of established shark ecotourism. Results on the distribution and frequency of shark ecotourism as tabulated from
extensive Internet searches according to our criteria (see Methods). Green locations, 1 – 5 operations; yellow locations, 6 – 10 operations; red locations, ,10
locations.
Current Issues in Tourism 7
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
Australia (.20), Isle of Man, UK (.10), and Ningaloo Reef, Australia (.10) (Figure 2).
Additionally, both Palau and Maldives contained .10 operations each. North Africa and
the Middle East region contained the fewest number of operations (Table 1, Figure 2).
Species
We quantified species-specific patterns in shark-based ecotourism activities in order to
compare their relative contribution to the global industry. The following species were
included in our analysis: whale (Rhincodon typus), white (Carcharodon carcharias),
basking (Cetorhinus maximus), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), blue (Prionace
glauca), great hammerhead (Sphyrna mokarran), scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna
lewini), Caribbean reef (Carcharhinus perezi), blacktip reef (Carcharhinus melanopterus),
lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris), sickle-fin lemon shark (Negaprion acutidens), tiger
(Galeocerdo cuvier), bull (Carcharhinus leucas), nurse (Ginglymostoma cirratum), and
blacktip (Carcharhinus limbatus). We also included four additional categories that
grouped species. Sharks not listed above, but from the family Carcharhinidae were cate-
gorised as ‘Carcharhinidae spp.’. The category ‘Reef shark species’ included the silvertip
reef (Carcharhinus albimarginatus), grey reef (Carcharhinus amblyrynchos), and whitetip
reef (Triaenodon obesus) shark. The category ‘carpet sharks’ was composed of angel sharks
(Order Squatiniformes) and wobbegongs (Orectolobus spp.). Any species which did not
fall into any of the former categories were listed as ‘other’. We also recorded the ‘main
attraction’ species, which was the focal species and most frequently advertised from each
location (Table 1).
Figure 3. Trends among species and regions. Observed frequency (reported as proportion of total) of
advertised species (histogram) and percentage of locations by region (pie chart); data gathered from
Internet searches.
8A.J. Gallagher and N. Hammerschlag
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
In roughly 33% of all locations globally, ‘Reef shark spp.’ (excluding Caribbean and
Blacktip reef) were advertised among ecotourism operations (all regions, except Europe;
Figure 3). Whale shark (the largest fish in the ocean) encounters accounted for 30% of
all market locations, which generally supported the highest number of operations. These
locations include: the Yucatan Peninsula (Isla Holbox), Honduras, Western Australia
(Ningaloo Reef), and Asia and Indonesia (Philippines, Seychelles, and the Maldives).
Sharks from the species groupings ‘blacktip reef’ and ‘Caribbean reef’ were highly
advertised in shark encounters (18% and 15.6%, respectively; Figure 3). Additionally,
pelagic species such as the short-fin mako and the blue shark exhibited modest represen-
tation among global ecotourism operations (.10% each).
Economic case study
Over the 12-year sampling period of operations by Apex Expeditions, we found general
patterns of increase in all metrics examined (Table 2). Data for the number of trips per
year exhibited an exponential increase over time (r
2
¼0.74, p,0.003; Figure 4), with
an overall average of 101.75 +8.91 trips per year (mean +SE) over the 12-year
period, peaking in 2010 (175 trips). The number of customers per year also exhibited an
exponential increase over time (r
2
¼0.92, p,0.0001; Figure 4), averaging 624.54 custo-
mers per year +127.87 (mean +SE) over the period of 12 years. This pattern is further
demonstrated by the large spike in the number of customers from 2005 to 2010 (Table 2).
Other metrics, such as the number of staff employed (2 –6 staff from 1999 to 2010), number
Figure 4. Demographic case study. Regression of the total number of trips (open triangles) and total
customers (closed circles) over the 12-year sampling period, data derived from the case study of Apex
Expeditions.
Table 2. Demographical and economical data from the case study of Apex Expeditions ecotourist
operation in South Africa.
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
Total: 1999–
2010
Mean +SE: 1999–
2010
Trips 83 76 102 121 175 1221 101.75 +8.91
Customers 250 500 650 1100 1700 8570 625.54 +127.87
Cost of trip/per
person (USD)∗
$164 $177 $208 $193 $201 n/a $189.17
Notes: Trips, customers and cost per trip/per person are presented across 3-year periods, as well as the total across
the 12-year sampling period.
∗Monetary amounts were adjusted for inflation using the South African CPI and converted to USD equivalents.
Current Issues in Tourism 9
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
of passengers per vessel (6 – 12 people from 1999 to 2010), and average cost per trip/per
person (23% increase from 1999 to 2010) displayed increasing trends over the 12-year
sampling period (Table 2). Since its inception in 1996, Apex Expeditions spends an
average of 200 days a year on the water, bringing customers close to five species of
shark (white sharks and four pelagic species). Apex has run 1221 trips since 1996 and
catered to approximately 8570 customers from around the world. The top three countries
served during the sampling period were: USA, UK, and Canada (in no particular order).
An estimated 85% of customers recorded video or took photographs during their trips,
with an additional 20% of this group choosing to publish their content in some form of
online or print media.
Discussion
Oceania’s prevalence of pristine reef habitats and associated shark fauna likely explains its
high proportion of shark ecotourism locations (Last & Stevens, 2009). As a corollary, the
Greater Caribbean’s high number of locations may be explained by feeding and nursery
grounds utilised by sharks in this region (e.g. Carrier & Pratt, 1998; Feldheim, Gruber,
& Ashley, 2002; Figure 2). The Bahamas alone provides almost 70% of this region’s
total shark ecotourism, which is not surprising due to its biological richness of shark
species (Holland, 2007). Asia and Indonesia contained dense patches of locations advertis-
ing shark encounters; however, we noted that operations are still relatively young among
this region (Authors, direct observation). Moreover, the burgeoning of ecotourism sites
in places such as Palau is tied to recent large-scale developments of shark sanctuaries,
which simultaneously seek to protect resources while driving a tourism industry. North
Africa and the Middle East region contained the fewest number of operations (Table 1,
Figure 2), a finding which could be a consequence of depleted regional populations of
sharks (e.g. unregulated shark fishing). Interestingly, the Red Sea’s international reputation
for reef diving activities (yet lack of established, directed shark ecotourism) may indeed
suggest local depletions of shark diversity.
Our examination of species patterns across locations may provide insights into the
worth of a species to a location or region’s ecotourism. For example, reef sharks (including
Caribbean reef and Blacktip reef) were present in over 33% of all global ecotourism
locations. The reef shark’s widespread presence across ecotourism sites may be explained
by industry geography (i.e. a market’s proximity to reef habitats), and shark ecology (the
high site fidelity observed by reef sharks; Papastamatiou et al. 2011).
Whale shark encounters accounted for 30% of all market locations, where such
locations included the Yucatan Peninsula (Isla Holbox), Honduras, Western Australia
(Ningaloo Reef), and Asia and Indonesia (Philippines, Seychelles, and the Maldives).
While the whale shark-watching industry is still relatively young (began in 1980s;
Colman, 1997), these numbers indicate the regional capitalisation on whale sharks as a
recreational resource. Additionally, their large size, non-threatening character, coupled
with easily accessible snorkeling encounter opportunities, allow for a reliable and profitable
industry (Authors, direct experience). Moreover, ecotourism efforts have likely benefitted
from international restrictions on the consumptive use of this species. The whale shark is
currently listed as ‘vulnerable to extinction’ on the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened
Species and international trade in whale shark parts are monitored under Appendix II of
the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species. The basking shark (the
second largest fish in the ocean) operations in the UK and white shark ecotours in South
Africa and Mexico also demonstrate a similar trend in regional abundance and tight
10 A.J. Gallagher and N. Hammerschlag
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
global regulation (Table 1). It is worthy to note that these species represent the three largest
and arguably the most charismatic species of shark on the planet, inherently drawing public
interest, which no doubt adds to their popularity in terms of ecotourism.
Our case study of a white shark ecotourism operator in South Africa revealed significant
economical growth over time. This case study also highlighted an additional level of local
economic stimulation emanating from Apex Expeditions. For example, Apex Expeditions
hires its employees from surrounding poor local communities. Additionally, we discovered
that the average Apex Expedition customer spends an estimated US$350 per day. This
figure is based on both the cost of the trip as well as external costs benefiting the local
economy incurred from accommodation, food, car rental, and other recreational activities.
The company has also developed various professional enterprises with local businesses,
including establishing partnerships with other dive and travel companies. Apex Expeditions
provides first-aid training for all of its employees as well as setting up their employees with
alternative sources of income during each off-season. Our case study also revealed a high
degree of community involvement and educational outreach from Apex Expeditions,
ranging from an online monthly newsletter (5000 subscribers), to donations to local com-
munity enterprises (US$2000.00 per year). Apex frequently provides presentations to local
schools. Apex Expeditions also facilitates scientific research, resulting in publications of
both popular and peer-reviewed scientific publications (e.g. Hammerschlag, Martin, &
Fallows, 2006; Martin, Hammerschlag, Collier, & Fallows, 2005; Martin, Rossmo, &
Hammerschlag, 2009). While just one example, we believe our case study highlights the
economic potential, community-involvement, and environmentally conscious development
of an operator in the shark ecotourism industry.
There is a call for studies taking an interdisciplinary approach to studying top marine
predators such as sharks (Jacques, 2010). Our study provides the first attempt to use the
Internet to gauge the distribution and frequency of shark ecotourism. A limitation of our
study is the validity and quality of data from Internet sources. We realise that these findings
cannot be treated as purely absolute, given the potential for overlap among highly clustered
markets and possibility for inaccuracies in the source data. Moreover, websites are easily
subject to change and may not remain online indefinitely. Despite these issues, our analysis
is a ‘snapshot’ of the industry at a moment in time which reflects the choices that rec-
reational users (i.e. tourists) are offered across the world at any given moment in time.
The monetary value of sharks
It has been previously reported that shark ecotourism can present large economic values
across coastal nations (Table 3). In the Maldives, for example, divers engaged in over
Table 3. Economic impact of discrete established ecotourism markets as they appear in previous
reports.
Location Value (per year) Species Source
Gansbaai, SA 4.4 million White Hara, Maharaj and Pithers (2003)
Maldive Islands 2.3 million (1993) Various reef spp. Anderson and Ahmed (1993)
Maldive Islands 6.6 million (1998) Various reef spp. Waheed (1998)
Ningaloo Reef, AUS 5.9 million (1997) Whale Davis et al. (1997)
Seychelles 4.88 million Whale Rowat and Engerlhardt (2007)
The Bahamas 78 million (2004) Various reef spp. Cline (2008)
Note: Location, annual value, species, and source are presented.
Current Issues in Tourism 11
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
76,000 shark-observing dives in just one year, bringing in an estimated US$2.3 million to
the local economy in 1993 alone (Anderson & Ahmed, 1993; Anderson & Waheed, 2001).
This same study also estimated that a single grey reef shark was worth an average of $3,300
per year, and over $35,000 per year at the most popular dive sites. In 2010, shark fishing in
the Maldives was banned since shark-based ecotourism contributed an estimated .30%
towards the Maldives GDP (Ndurya & Kihara, 2009).
A similar pattern is apparent in North America, whereby the Bahamas have enjoyed
over 25 years of recreational shark usage. In 2007, divers experienced an estimated
73,000 shark interactions in the Bahamas, generating roughly US$78 million in annual
revenue (Cline, 2008; Table 3). In over 20 years, the Bahamas have offered over 1
million shark– diver interactions, contributing an estimated gross of US$800 million to
the Bahamian economy (Cline, 2008). Our study corroborates this high economic value
of sharks in the Bahamas, where we found that the Bahamas alone represented over 70%
of all Greater Caribbean ecotourism operations. Accordingly, it may serve the Bahamas
well to consider protecting these natural resources for future non-consumptive usage
through tourism.
In addition to the profits generated by the tour operators, the economic benefits of shark-
based tourism extend throughout the community. Travel, accommodation, and meals are
just a few examples of other external costs incurred by shark ecotourists. For example,
in the small developing community of Donsol, Philippines, whale shark tourism is solely
responsible for bringing the local municipalities out of poverty by creating over 300 jobs
and offering over 200 fishermen seasonal employment (as reported in Norman & Catlin,
2007). Another example of community values emanating from shark ecotourism is the
Shark Reef Marine Reserve in Beqa Lagoon, Fiji. This project’s goal is to preserve the bio-
diversity of a small patch reef, while sustaining a local community through the economic
revenues generated from shark diving (for more information, see Brunnschweiler, 2010;
Brunnschweiler & Earle, 2006).
Shark-based ecotourism operations may benefit from the long-lived life-history
characteristics of many shark species (provided sharks remain in the system). For
example, Anderson and Ahmed (1993) concluded that a grey reef shark was 100 times
more valuable alive than dead. It has also been calculated that an individual reef shark
may be valued at over US$200,000 over the course of its life (Wells, 2010). Extrapolating
this value, a single reef shark would be worth roughly US$13,000 a year (using a conser-
vative life span of 15 years). Moreover, if an ecotourism operator visits this individual every
other day during the course of a year, the shark would be worth approximately US$73 a day.
In 2004, the average market price for a set of shark fins (from the family Carcharhinidae)
was valued at US$50 (Clarke, Milner-Gulland, Bjorndal, 2007). The one-time daily
usage comparison between $73 (alive, recreation) and $50 (dead, finned) creates a stark
dichotomy.
Shark ecotourism, like other marine recreational activities, is driven by the economic
decisions of tourists. Studies and reports often attempt to highlight the socio-economic
importance of biodiversity and nature by conducting questionnaire surveys to gauge the
public’s monetary interest in experiencing a particular species. These questionnaires,
generally known as the ‘willingness to pay’ surveys (hereafter referred to as WTP), are
often employed in natural resource economics and decision-making (Simpson, 1998).
Here, we provide a few examples from the WTP surveys directed to the study of shark
ecotourism.
In a study conducted at Duke University in 2004, 504 American scuba divers were
asked to assess their maximum WTP for seeing healthy corals, sea turtles, and sharks
12 A.J. Gallagher and N. Hammerschlag
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
(White, 2008). Results from this study suggested that divers hold high non-consumptive
values for marine life, ranking sharks as the top attraction, with 71% of all divers willing
to pay more to observe sharks than any other species. Two other studies which conducted
WTP surveys on divers in the Seychelles and Australia found a WTP range of US$30 – 900
for observing whale sharks (Cesar, van Beukering, Payet, & Grandcourt, 2003; Davis,
Banks, Birtles, Valentine, & Cuthill, 1997). Finally, a recent WTP survey aimed at divers
with an average of 1000 logged dives revealed that over 75% of them were willing to
pay extra to see sharks on a given trip (Medd, unpublished data). These high WTP
values reflect strong socio-economic interests for tourists to experience sharks in the
wild, and may reflect the wide distribution and popularity of this industry.
Strong debate currently exists on whether shark ecotourism may alter shark behaviour
and/or incur ecosystem-level consequences. Accordingly, there is a blossoming and contro-
versial body of literature on this subject (e.g. Clua, Buray, Legendre, Mourier, & Planes,
2010; Laroche, Kock, Dill, & Oosthuizen, 2007; Malkjovic
´&Co
ˆte
´, 2011). Addressing
this topic is beyond the scope of our present study, and those interested are urged to
consult the growing stock of literature on this topic.
The issue of shark ecotourism lends itself to investigations from researchers spanning
multiple disciplines such as tourism research (Catlin & Jones, 2010; Catlin et al., 2010),
economics (Anderson & Ahmed, 1993), community-based resource management
(Brunnschweiler, 2010), and ecology (Hammerschlag et al., 2006; Malkjovic
´&Co
ˆte
´,
2011). Additionally, it should be noted that ecotourism can facilitate scientific observations
and data collection, affording researchers opportunities to measure inter-annual population
changes and the behavioural ecology of various shark species (e.g. Domeier & Nasby-
Lucas, 2007; Graham & Roberts, 2007; Malkjovic
´&Co
ˆte
´, 2011; authors’ unpublished
data). Such a marriage of research and ecotourism could benefit the regional management
of shark populations (e.g. Bensley et al., 2009).
Due to the popularity and controversy surrounding shark ecotourism activities, future
shark ecotourism investigations will benefit from empirically derived consumer question-
naires, time-scale economic data on regional operations (i.e. case studies), as well as the
examination of potential correlations between ecotourism and marine protection area
status. While we did not include marine protected areas in our analysis, their coupling
with ecotourism will undoubtedly benefit regional shark aggregations and conservation
efforts.
Shark-based tourism is a global phenomenon. Once feared and despised, sharks today
draw significant attention and allure from people worldwide. Their importance to the diving
and marine tourist industry is highlighted by the distribution, frequency, and value of shark
ecotourism. We urge managers and NGOs to strongly consider and utilise the economic
figures and values of live sharks presented here when shaping and constructing manage-
ment initiatives. Responsible shark ecotourism can also benefit research and conservation.
Moreover, since many shark species are long-lived, these natural resources may accrue
revenue over extended periods of time, thus offering potential benefits to local economies
that can last decades and beyond.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to C. Fallows, M. Fallows, and the staff at Apex
Expeditions. Additionally, we would like to thank M. O’Malley, H. Medd, B. Davis, and
J. Abernethy for their assistance with reports, as well as A. Moore, C.P. Hammerschlag,
E. Staaterman, and D. Letson for their comments on our manuscript. We also thank K. Broad,
Current Issues in Tourism 13
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
G. Maranto from the Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy, as well as J. Serafy,
S. Genovese, L. Rock, C. Shepherd, A. Murch, and J. Romeiro for prompting useful discussion
and verbal contributions. We thank the anonymous reviewers whose comments strengthened this
manuscript. We thank the Shark Foundation, Florida Sea Grant Program Development, Batchelor
Foundation, Wells Fargo, Citizen’s Board Foundation at the University of Miami and the RJ
Dunlap Marine Conservation Program for their support of this work.
References
Anderson, R.C., & Ahmed, H. (1993). The shark fisheries of the Maldives: A review (Report to
Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, Republic of Maldives and Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 76 pp).
Anderson, R.C., & Waheed, A. (2001). The economics of shark and ray watching in the Maldives.
Shark News,13, 1–3.
Baum, J.K., & Blanchard, W. (2010). Inferring shark population trends from generalized linear mixed
models of pelagic longline catch and effort data. Fisheries Research,102, 229–239.
Baum, J.K., Myers, R.A., Kehler, D.G., Worm, B., Harley, S.J., & Doherty, P.A. (2003). Collapse and
conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science,299, 389–392.
Bensley, N., Woodhams, J., Patterson, H.M., Rodgers, M., McLoughlin, K., Stobutzki, I., & Begg,
G.A. (2009). Shark assessment report for the Australian national plan of action for the conserva-
tion and management of sharks (Final report to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra).
Bra¨uer, I. (2003). Money as an indicator: To make use of economic evaluation for biodiversity
conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,98, 483–491.
Brunnschweiler, J.M. (2010). The Shark Reef Marine Reserve: A marine tourism project in Fiji
involving local communities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,18, 29–42.
Brunnschweiler, J.M., & Earle, J.L. (2006). A contribution to marine life conservation efforts in the
South Pacific: The Shark Reef Marine Reserve, Fiji. Cybium,30, 133–139.
Burgess, G.H., Beerkircher, L.R., Cailliet, G.M., Carlson, J.K., Corte
´s, E., Goldman, K.J., ...
Simpfendorfer, C.A. (2005). Is the collapse of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic
Ocean and Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries 30,10, 19– 26.
Carrier, J.C., & Pratt, H.L. (1998). Habitat management and closure of a nurse shark breeding and
nursery ground. Fisheries Research,39, 209–213.
Catlin, J., & Jones, R. (2010). Whale shark tourism at Ningaloo Marine Park: A longitudinal study of
wildlife tourism. Tourism Management,31, 386–394.
Catlin, J., Jones, R., Jones, T., Norman, B., & Wood, D. (2010). Discovering wildlife tourism: Awhale
shark tourism case study. Current Issues in Tourism,13, 351–361.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas (301 pp.). Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN.
Cesar, H.S.J., van Beukering, P.J.H., Payet, R., & Grandcourt, E. (2003). Economic analysis of threats
to coastal ecosystems in the Seychelles: Costs and benefits of management options, (Report to the
Seychelles Ministry of Environment). Victoria.
Clarke, S.C., Magnussen, J.E., Abercrombie, D.L., McAllister, M.K., & Shivji, M.S. (2006).
Identification of shark species composition and proportion in the Hong Kong shark fin market
based on molecular genetics and trade records. Conservation Biology,20, 201–211.
Clarke, S., Milner-Gulland, E.J., & Bjorndal, T. (2007). Social, economic, and regulatory drivers of
the shark fin trade. Marine Resource Economics,22, 305–327.
Cline, W. (2008). Shark diving overview for the islands of the Bahamas (p. 11). Nassau, Report of the
Bahamas Ministry of Tourism. Nassau, Bahamas: Cline Marketing Group.
Clua, E., Buray, N., Legendre, P., Mourier, J., & Planes, S. (2010). Behavioural response of sicklefin
lemon sharks Negaprion acutidens to underwater feeding for ecotourism purposes. Marine
Ecology Progress Series,414, 257–266.
Colman, J.G. (1997). Whale shark interaction management, with particular reference to Ningaloo
Marine Park (63 pp.). Perth: Department of Conservation and Land Management.
Davis, D., Banks, S., Birtles, A., Valentine, P., & Cuthill, M. (1997). Whale sharks in Ningaloo
Marine Park: Managing tourism in an Australian marine protected area. Tourism Management,
18, 259–271.
14 A.J. Gallagher and N. Hammerschlag
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
Domeier, M.L., & Nasby-Lucas, N. (2007). Annual re-sightings of photographically identified white
sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) at an eastern Pacific aggregation site (Guadalupe Island,
Mexico). Marine Biology,150, 977–984.
Dulvy, N.K., Baum, J.K., Clarke, S., Compagno, L.V.J., Corte
´s, E., Domingo, A., Fordham, S., &
hellip; Valenti, S. (2008). You can swim but you can’t hide: The global status and conservation
of oceanic pelagic sharks. Aquat Cons-Mar Fresh Eco,18, 459–482.
Dunne, J.A., Williams, R.J., & Martinez, N.D. (2002). Network structure and biodiversity loss in food
webs: Robustness increases with connectance. Ecology Letters,5, 558–567.
Feldheim, K.A., Gruber, S.H., & Ashley, M.V. (2002). The breeding biology of lemon sharks at a
tropical nursery lagoon. Proceedings of the Royal Society B,269, 1655–1651.
Ferretti, F., Myers, R.A., Serena, F., & Lotze, H.K. (2008). Loss of large predatory sharks from the
Mediterranean Sea. Conservation Biology,22, 952–964.
Graham, R.T., & Roberts, C.M. (2007). Assessing the size, growth rate and structure of a seasonal
population of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus Smith 1828) using conventional tagging and
photo identification. Fisheries Research,84, 71–80.
Hammerschlag, N., Martin, A., & Fallows, C. (2006). Effects of environmental conditions on
predator–prey interactions between white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) and Cape fur seals
(Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus) at Seal Island, South Africa. Environmental Biology of
Fishes,76, 341–350.
Hara, M., Maharaj, I., & Pithers, L. (2003). Marine-based tourism in Gansbaai: A socio-economic
study. Final report for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), South
Africa, 55 pp.
Holland, J.S. (2007). Eden for sharks. National Geographic Magazine,211,p.3.
IUCN. (2009). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2010.2). Retrieved November 1, 2010,
from http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/summarystatistics/2010_4RL_Stats_Table_4a.pdf
Jacques, P.J. (2010). The social oceanography of top oceanic predators and the decline of sharks: A
call for a new field. Progress in Oceanography,86, 192–203.
Laroche, R.K., Kock, A.A., Dill, L.M., & Oosthuizen, W.H. (2007). Effects of provisioning ecotour-
ism activity on the behaviour of white sharks Carcharodon carcharias.Marine Ecology Progress
Series,338, 199–209.
Last, P.R., & Stevens, J.D. (2009). Sharks and rays of Australia (2nd ed.). Melbourne: CSIRO.
Liu, Z.H. (1994). Tourism development – a system analysis. In A.V. Seaton et al. (Eds.), Tourism: The
state of art (pp. 20–30). Chichester: John Wiley.
Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,11,
459–475.
Malkjovic
´, A., & Co
ˆte
´, I.M. (2011). Effects of tourism-related provisioning on the trophic signatures
and movement patterns of an apex predator, the Caribbean reef shark. Biological Conservation,
144, 859–865.
Martin, R.A., Hammerschlag, N., Collier, R.S., & Fallows, C. (2005). Predatory behavior of white
sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) at Seal Island, South Africa. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association of the UK,85, 1121–1135.
Martin, R.A., Rossmo, D.K., & Hammerschlag, N. (2009). Hunting patterns and geographic profiling
of white shark predation. Journal of Zoology,279, 111–118.
McNeely, J.A. (1990). How conservation strategies contribute to sustainable development.
Environmental Conservation,17, 9–13.
Medd, H. (2010). Willingness to pay questionnaire for the Shark experience. Shark Savers, Inc.
Unpublished data.
Milano, R., Baggio, R., & Piatrelli, R. (2011). The effects of online social media on tourism websites.
In R. Law, M. Fuchs, & F. Ricci (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference in Innsbruck,
Austria, January 26–28, 1st Ed., 2011, XVI, 610 p. 129 illus.
Myers, R.A., Baum, J.K., Shepherd, T.D., Powers, S.P., & Peterson, C.H. (2007). Cascading effects of
the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science,315, 1846–1850.
Ndurya, M., & Kihara, G. (2009, October). Maldives to ban reef shark fishing by March 2010,
Retrieved from http://www.maldivesdivingadventure.com/reefsharkmaldives.php.
Norman, B. & Catlin, J. (2007). Economic importance of conserving whale sharks. Report for the
International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Sydney, 18 pp.
Orams, M.B. (2002). Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: A review of issues and impacts. Tourism
Management,23, 281–293.
Current Issues in Tourism 15
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
Paine, R.T. (1969). A note on trophic complexity and community stability. The American Naturalist,
103, 91–93.
Papastamatiou, Y.P., Cartamil, D.P., Lowe, C.G., Meyer, C.G., Wetherbee, B.M., & Holland, K.M.
(2011). Scales of orientation, directed walks and movement path structure in sharks. Journal of
Animal Ecology, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01815.x.
Parsons, T.R. (1992). The removal of marine predators by fisheries and the impact of trophic structure.
Marine Pollution Bulletin,25, 51–53.
Pearce, D., & Moran, D. (1996). The economic value of biodiversity. Natural Resources Forum,20,
79–81.
Perrings, C., Folke, C., & Maler, K.G. (1992). The ecology and economics of biodiversity loss: The
research agenda. Ambio,21, 201–211.
Rowat, D., & Engelhardt, U. (2007). Seychelles: A case study of community involvement in the
development of whale shark ecotourism and its socio-economic impact. Fisheries Research,
84, 109–113.
Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tourism
Management,20, 245–249.
Simpson, R.D. (1998). Economic analysis and ecosystems: Some concepts and issues. Ecological
Applications,8, 342–349.
Tittensor, D.P., Mora, C., Ricard, D., Jetz, W., Lotze, H.K., Vanden Berghe, E., & Worm, B. (2010).
Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature,466, 1098–1107.
Topelko, K.N., & Dearden, P. (2005). The shark watching industry and its potential contribution to
shark conservation. Journal of Ecotourism,4, 108–128.
Waheed, A. (1998). Economic valuation of marine ecotourism to the Maldives. B.Sc. Thesis, Institute
of Marine Studies, University of Plymouth, UK.
Wearing, S., & Neil, J. (2009). Ecotourism: impacts, potentials, and possibilities (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Wells, E. (2010, October 27). Bahamas National Trust launches shark campaign. The Nassau
Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.thenassauguardian.com/BNT-launches-shark–campaign.
Werthner, H., & Ricci, F. (2004). E-commerce and tourism. Communications of the ACM,47(12),
101–105.
White, L. (2008). Sea, the value: Quantifying the value of marine life to divers North Carolina,
(Master’s thesis, Duke University). Retrieved from http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/
handle/10161/479/MP_lcw6_a_200805.pdf;jsessionid=7D7F6477F4062E0CDC0FA5E1D9E1F286
?sequence=1.
Wilcove, D.S., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A., & Losos, E. (1998). Quantifying threats to
imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience,48, 607–615.
Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., ... Watson, R. (2006).
Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science,314, 787–790.
Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., ... Watson, R. (2007).
Response to comments on ‘Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services’. Science,
316, 1285–1286.
Worm, B., & Lotze, H.K. (2009). Changes in marine biodiversity as an indicator of climate change.
In T. Letcher (Ed.), Climate change: observed impacts on Planet Earth (pp. 263– 279). Elsevier.
Wright, R.T., & Boorse, D. (2008). Environmental science: Towards a sustainable future. Boston,
MA: Benjamin Cummings.
16 A.J. Gallagher and N. Hammerschlag
Downloaded By: [Gallagher, Austin Joseph] At: 11:47 2 June 2011
