Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023_02_02 - Manta Testimony - Needham et al. - 2017 - Manta ray tourism interpersonal and social values - Kirsten MoeManta ray tourism: interpersonal and social values conflicts, sanctions, and management Mark D. Needham a, Brian W. Szuster b, Camilo Mora b, Laura Lesar c and Emma Anders b aDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA; bDepartment of Geography, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA; cDepartment of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia ARTICLE HISTORY Received 2 April 2016 Accepted 11 December 2016 ABSTRACT Scuba diving and snorkeling with manta rays (M. birostris, M. alfredi) at sites in Hawaii, USA, have become popular, with upward of 30 tour boats and 300 participants daily. This article examined whether conflicts are occurring within and between these activities and if so, what types of conflict are prevalent and how would participants respond (support restrictions, sanction others). Data from surveys of 444 participants following evening trips to view manta rays showed that 79% of snorkelers experienced in-group conflict with other snorkelers, and 53% of scuba divers reported conflict with other divers. Most conflicts were interpersonal (physical interactions among individuals interfering with experiences). Conflict behaviors included bumping into people (up to 92%), not being aware (up to 73%), and blinding people with underwater flashlights (up to 56%). There were fewer out-group conflicts between different activities (snorkelers vs. scuba divers) and minimal social values conflicts (negative preconceptions, no physical interactions among individuals). Participants supported limiting numbers of snorkelers, scuba divers, and boats, and providing education on how to behave with others. Those experiencing conflicts were more supportive of these strategies and more likely to directly sanction participants causing conflicts, but were not more likely to indirectly sanction managers and operators. KEYWORDS Interpersonal conflict; social values conflict; sanctions; management; manta rays; marine wildlife tourism Introduction Viewing wildlife in marine environments continues to increase in popularity (Higham & L€uck,2007; Markwell,2015). Participation in whale watching, for example, increased from five million people in 65 countries in 1994, to nine million participants in 87 countries in 1998, to over 13 million people in more than 119 countries in more recent years (Higham, Bejder, & Williams,2014;O’Connor, Campbell, Cortez, & Knowles,2009). Shark tourism is also a major industry with upward of 600,000 people each year paying to interact with sharks in the wild (Bentz, Dearden, Ritter, & Calado,2014; Topelko & Dearden,2005). Species of rays, such as stingrays and manta rays, have also become popular attrac- tions with tourists primarily motivated by opportunities to view and photograph rays in their natural state, experience something new, and learn about marine species and environments (Lewis & Newsome,2003; Newsome, Lewis, & Moncrieff,2004;O’Malley, Lee-Brooks, & Medd,2013; Semeniuk, Haider, Beardmore, & Rothley,2009b; Shackley,1998). Worldwide, more than one million people scuba dive or snorkel with manta rays each year, generating over US $140 million in direct economic CONTACT Mark D. Needham mark.needham@oregonstate.edu © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM, 2017 VOL. 25, NO. 10, 1367–1384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1274319 impacts (O’Malley et al.,2013). Popular locations for manta ray tourism include Japan (O’Malley et al., 2013), Mozambique (Tibiri¸ca, Birtles, Valentine, & Miller,2011), Maldives (Anderson, Adam, Kitchen- Wheeler, & Stevens,2011), and Hawaii (Deakos, Baker, & Bejder,2011; Osada,2010). Studies have shown that people swimming, scuba diving, and snorkeling with marine species such as rays can cause environmental impacts including habitat alteration, physiological stress, dis- ease, injury, shifts in feeding ecology, and habituation of rays (Osada,2010; Semeniuk, Bourgeon, Smith, & Rothley,2009a). Marine wildlife tourism can also cause social impacts because some partici- pants behave in ways that are viewed as unacceptable by others (Needham,2013). These social impacts include crowding (Vaske & Shelby,2008) and conflict among participants (Graefe & Thapa, 2004). Research has examined use levels, perceived crowding, and numbers of encounters among participants interacting with marine species (Bentz, Rodrigues, Dearden, Calado, & Lopes,2015; Curnock, Birtles, & Valentine,2013; Ziegler, Dearden, & Rollins,2016). There are also many studies on human-wildlife conflict involving negative interactions between individuals participating in these experiences and the wildlife species being viewed (see Draheim, Madden, McCarthy, & Parsons,2015 for a review). Conflicts among people participating in marine wildlife tourism experiences, however, have received comparatively little empirical attention (Finkler & Higham,2004; Markwell,2015), especially in the context of scuba diving and snorkeling with manta rays. These conflicts involve competition over the same resources by activity groups, and incompatibilities between activity groups and their respective goals (Graefe & Thapa,2004; Manning,2011). Understanding conflicts among participants is important because it can inform management strategies designed to minimize depreciative impacts and maximize the quality of participant experiences (Vaske, Needham, & Cline,2007). This article focuses on people scuba diving and snorkeling with manta rays in Hawaii. It examines whether conflicts are occurring within and between these activity groups and if so, what types of conflict are most prevalent and how would participants respond to these conflicts (e.g. support restrictions, sanc- tion others). Conceptual foundation Types of conflict Several types of conflict exist in tourism and recreation (see Graefe & Thapa,2004; Manning,2011; Needham, Haider, & Rollins,2016 for reviews).One-way or asymmetrical conflict occurs when one activity group experiences conflict with or dislikes another group, but not vice versa. A study of snork- elers and scuba divers in Florida, for example, showed that snorkelers had less tolerance for scuba divers compared to scuba diver evaluations of snorkelers (Vaske, Heesemann, Loomis, & Cottrell, 2013).Two-way conflict occurs with resentment or dislike in both directions. Conflict between users engaging in different activities is out-group conflict (e.g. snorkelers vs. scuba divers), whereas conflict among participants within the same activity is in-group conflict (e.g. snorkelers vs. other snorkelers). Research has predominantly examined these types of interactions in the context of interpersonal (i.e.goal interference) conflict where the physical presence or behavior of a group or individual directly interferes with the goals or experiences of another (Jacob & Schreyer,1980; Vaske et al., 2007). A scuba diver, for example, may experience this conflict if he or she collides with snorkelers or other divers in the water. Studies have mainly examined interpersonal conflict between activities, such as hikers and mountain bikers (Carothers, Vaske, & Donnelly,2001), skiers and snowboarders (Thapa & Graefe,2004), skiers and snowmobilers (Vaske et al.,2007), and hunters and wildlife viewers (Vaske, Donnelly, Wittmann, & Laidlaw,1995). There are other conflicts that have received less attention in tourism and recreation.Social values conflict, for example, occurs when one group has a negative preconception or opinion about another without these direct experiences (Vaske et al.,2007). Unlike interpersonal conflict, social values con- flict transpires when there is no physical contact or direct interaction between activities, yet at least 1368 M. D. NEEDHAM ET AL. one activity is still perceived to be problematic (Carothers et al.,2001). Some scuba divers, for exam- ple, may never interact directly with jet skiers in a given marine area, yet still report conflict because they philosophically disagree about the appropriateness of jet skiing and believe the activity is prob- lematic in the area. The most well-known study of social values conflict was between hunters and wildlife viewers where these viewers did not see hunters or witness hunting behaviors (e.g. see ani- mals shot, hear gunshots) in an area because zoning and rugged terrain and topography separated these activities (Vaske et al.,1995). Regardless, wildlife viewers still reported conflict with hunters, but based this on opinions about the appropriateness of hunting and perceptions that hunting was a problem in the area. Research has examined social values conflicts for other activities, including hikers and mountain bikers (Carothers et al.,2001), campers and windsurfers (Ruddell & Gramann, 1994), stock users in wilderness (e.g. horses, llamas; Blahna, Smith, & Anderson,1995; Watson, Nicco- lucci, & Williams,1994), and skiers and snowmobilers (Vaske et al.,2007). Social values conflicts are somewhat similar to assigned values because they involve judgments about activity groups.Assigned values are judgments about the relative importance or worth of an object or issue to an individual or group, and are more situation-specific and changeable than held values (Brown,1984; Jones, Shaw, Ross, Witt, & Pinner,2016).Held values, on the other hand, are abstract and enduring cognitions concerned with desirable end states (e.g. freedom, success) and modes of conduct (e.g. honesty, fairness) that are shaped early in life, few in number, relatively stable over time, transcend situations, and guide decisions (Jones et al.,2016; Rokeach,1973). For example, an individual may respect other forms of life across many contexts (held values), but the importance that he or she places on habitat preservation and non-consumptive tourism activities that protect species (assigned values) may vary among contexts. Management as a response to conflict Although studies of interpersonal and social values conflicts have reported the amount of conflict occurring within and between activity groups, they seldom included follow-up questions asking par- ticipants how they would respond or think conflict should be addressed. Some studies included gen- eral questions asking how managers could improve experiences, but these questions and their responses have seldom been linked directly to conflict situations (Andereck, Vogt, Larkin, & Freye, 2001; Ramthun,1995). In most cases, researchers who found situations where respondents experi- enced conflict have simply suggested that management attention is required and then advocated approaches for resolving the issue. These strategies included using interpretation and education about certain activity groups to reduce social values conflict, or using zoning to separate incompati- ble groups or quotas limiting the number of participants in problematic activities to reduce interper- sonal conflict (Graefe & Thapa,2004; Manning,2011; Needham et al.,2016). It is possible, however, that some participants could experience conflict, but not support certain management actions because they would restrict use. Management strategies in tourism and recreation can be grouped into two broad categories. Direct strategies are formal regulations on behavior leaving little or no freedom of choice, and include mandatory use limits, fees, and prohibitions on activities (Manning,2011; Needham et al.,2016).Indi- rect strategies are less formal attempts to influence behavior, such as hardening techniques (e.g. boardwalks, facilities) and voluntary interpretation and education programs (Manning,2011; Need- ham et al.,2016). Measuring participant support or opposition toward these actions takes the guess- work out of interpreting strategies that may or may not be within their tolerance limits (Needham & Szuster,2011). Participants who experience conflict, for example, may still oppose use limits or other restrictions on activities. As a result, managers may implement alternative approaches that may be more strongly supported, such as interpretation about how to interact properly with activity groups. Through research, therefore, managers are able to consider approaches supported by participants and avoid strategies that are opposed or controversial while still attempting to mitigate problems associated with conflict (Bell, Needham, & Szuster,2011). JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1369 Sanctions as a response to conflict Participants may not only respond to conflicts by supporting management strategies aimed at addressing these situations, but they can also respond by directly sanctioning individuals or groups causing the conflict (e.g. other participants) or indirectly sanctioning those in charge (e.g. managers, operators). In a social psychological context,sanctions are emotional or coercive actions felt internally or expressed toward others as forms of control (Blake & Davis,1964; Grasmick, Blackwell, Barsik, & Mitchell,1993). Internal sanctions can influence behavior through feelings such as shame or guilt, whereas external sanctions influence behavior through overt actions such as complaints, punish- ment, or rewards (Grasmick et al.,1993; Parsons,1951). People are typically compelled to conform to standards of behavior due to formal (e.g. rules, laws) or informal sanctions (e.g. smile, frown, com- plain; Blake & Davis,1964). In the context of conflict among tourism and recreation activities, it is pos- sible for an individual to sanction other participants through confrontation, complaints, expressing personal values, or making negative facial expressions (Schuster, Hammitt, Moore, & Schneider,2006). Participants could also sanction managers or others in charge of areas where conflict occurs because these responsible authorities influence experiences through tactics such as use limits, fees, and zoning (Heywood,2011; Manning,2011). Smyth, Watzin, and Manning (2007) acknowledged that conditions in many tourism and recreation areas are a direct result of human behavior, and allowing conditions to reach unacceptable levels often lies within the behavior of managers or others responsible for these areas. Public institutions (e.g. agencies) and their representatives (e.g. manag- ers) are at least partially obligated to adhere to societal standards and provide acceptable conditions. Managers or other responsible authorities can experience responses such as informal, external, and indirect sanctions (e.g. public disapproval, complaints) imposed by participants who experience con- flict at unacceptable levels (Heywood,2011; Smyth et al.,2007). It is often up to those in charge, how- ever, to levy formal, external, and direct sanctions such as applying restrictions, permits, or other approaches to correct the situation and return conditions to acceptable standards (Heywood,2011). Taken together, then, managers can sanction participants, and participants can sanction both man- agers and other participants. Little research has empirically examined sanctions in relation to participant experiences in tourism and recreation, but researchers have called for measuring sanctions in these contexts (Heywood, 1996,2011; Roggenbuck, Williams, Bange, & Dean,1991). Sanctions associated with littering (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren,1990) and conformance with ecotourism guidelines (Sirakaya & Uysal,1997) have been examined, but sanctions associated with experiences such as conflict have received limited attention (Manning,2011; Schneider,2000; Schuster et al.,2006). Understanding sanctions associated with conflict is important because it provides those involved in tourism (e.g. managers, operators, participants) with information about direct and indirect responses to conflict situations, which can inform proactive strategies for diffusing these situations when they occur and preventing conflict sit- uations in advance. This article extends this literature by examining four research questions in the context of people scuba diving and snorkeling with manta rays in Hawaii. First, is conflict occurring within and between these groups and if so, to what extent? Second, what types of conflicts are occurring (one-way, two- way, in-group, out-group, interpersonal, social values)? Third, are participants who experience conflict more supportive of strategies for managing use compared to those not experiencing conflict? Fourth, are those who experience conflict more likely to impose sanctions in response? Methods Study area Tourism is the largest source of investment and employment in Hawaii, producing US $15 bil- lion in annual economic contributions, over 20% of the gross state product, and more than 175,000 jobs (Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism,2014; 1370 M. D. NEEDHAM ET AL. Hawaii Tourism Authority [HTA],2014). Hawaii hosts more than eight million visitors each year with approximately 40% engaging in marine activities such as snorkeling (over three million annually) and scuba diving (over 200,000; Friedlander et al.,2005;HTA,2014). Manta rays are one species viewed by these groups, and the most popular sites are Keauhou Bay (i.e.“Manta Village”) and Hoona Bay and adjacent Makako Bay (i.e. Garden Eel Cove or “Manta Heaven”; Figure 1). Both sites are offshore of Kailua-Kona on the west coast of the Big Island of Hawaii, and are accessed mainly by tour boats from nearby harbors (e.g. Keauhou, Honokohau). Snorkeling and scuba diving began at these sites in 1984 and have increased dramatically since this time with at least 42 operators now conducting manta ray tours at these sites, using boats rang- ing in capacity from six to 40 passengers (Marine Science Consulting,2015). On average, 12 or 13 boats visit each site at a time, although the maximum number at the busiest times is double this aver- age (26–30 boats 5%–10% of the time; Marine Science Consulting,2015). Tours last 3–5 hours in dura- tion, cost an average of US $110 per person, and the number of participants at each site ranges from 100 to over 300 at a time (Marine Science Consulting,2015). The Hawaii Department of Land and Nat- ural Resources (DLNR) has jurisdiction over these resources, but there has been relatively unregulated growth and minimal monitoring and enforcement at the sites (Manta Pacific Research Foundation, 2013; Marine Science Consulting,2015). In response, operators established voluntary safety and stew- ardship guidelines (e.g. moorings, no touching rays), but these contain little information about mini- mizing conflicts among participants (Manta Pacific Research Foundation,2013). Viewing occurs in the evening after sunset. Scuba divers sit on the seafloor, snorkelers float and swim at the surface, and manta rays feed on zooplankton in the water column between these groups. Participants are provided with underwater flashlights that attract and concentrate zooplankton in high densities, which in turn attract manta rays to the area. To minimize getting lost in the darkness and ocean swells, participants wear color-coded safety lights matching their specific boat, and opera- tors monitor clients by identifying these lights. Participants from the same boat also try to remain in proximity to each other, as some scuba divers sit next to their fellow tour participants and some Figure 1.Map of the most popular sites for manta ray viewing in Hawaii. JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1371 snorkelers hold onto floating rafts or circular rings with fellow participants from the same boat. How- ever, this does not always occur and participants can stray away and swim freely among those from other boats. In addition, groups from each tour boat do not operate in their own separate areas. Instead, they all share a relatively small localized area to help concentrate the zooplankton and manta rays, which causes participants from several boats to come into close contact with each other (Marine Science Consulting,2015). Data collection Data were obtained from an onsite (face-to-face) survey of snorkelers and scuba divers participating in manta ray tours at the Garden Eel Cove site (“Manta Heaven”). Questionnaires were administered nightly in March and April 2012 at Honokohau harbor, which is the departure point for all but a small number of tours (the remaining boats leave Keauhou harbor to visit the “Manta Village”site). Immedi- ately prior to the departure of tour boats, passengers were briefed by researchers and encouraged to complete a questionnaire after their trip. Upon their return, passengers were approached by researchers and asked to complete a questionnaire using a lighted clipboard because it was dark by that time. Administering questionnaires immediately after the activity minimizes recall bias. In addi- tion, passenger contacts (e.g. addresses, telephone numbers) are not collected by most operators, so other survey methods were not feasible (e.g. mail, Internet, telephone). Questionnaires were com- pleted by 444 participants (89% response rate), ensuring a margin of error of §4.6% at the 95% con- fidence level (Vaske,2008). Of these participants, 284 were snorkeling and 160 were scuba diving on their tour, which is relatively proportionate to the distribution of use at this site (Marine Science Consulting,2015). The average questionnaire completion time was 10 minutes. Analysis variables and strategy Consistent with past research (Carothers et al.,2001; Vaske et al.,1995,2007), respondents were asked how frequently they observed five conflict behaviors (“being rude or discourteous,”“not being aware of other people,”“bumping into people,”“blinding people with lights,”“bubbles distracting other people”) caused by two activity groups during their manta ray tour (snorkelers, scuba divers). Responses were on 4-point scales of “never,”“once or twice,”“sometimes,”and “many times.”For analysis purposes and identical to past research (Carothers et al.,2001; Vaske et al.,1995,2007), responses were recoded into the behavior being observed (at least once) or not (never saw). Partici- pants were also asked if they believed each of these behaviors for each activity was a problem on 4- point scales of “not a problem”to “extreme problem.”Identical to previous research (Carothers et al., 2001; Vaske et al.,1995,2007), these were also recoded into two categories for analysis purposes (no problem, problem). 1 Combining the observed behaviors (observed, did not observe) with their corresponding per- ceived problems (no problem, problem) for each activity produced a typology consisting of no con- flict, interpersonal conflict, and social values conflict. If a respondent did not consider a behavior to be a problem, irrespective of whether or not it was observed, no conflict was evident. Participants who witnessed a behavior and believed it was problematic experienced interpersonal conflict. Those who never saw the behavior, but still believed it was a problem, were considered to be expressing social values conflict. This typology is shown in Figure 2 and identical to previous studies (Carothers et al.,2001; Vaske et al.,1995,2007). Consistent with more recent research by Vaske et al. (2007), how- ever, participants categorized as experiencing interpersonal conflict were classified further based on their agreement with the statements “just knowing that snorkelers are at the manta ray sites bothers me, even if I never see snorkelers there”and “just knowing that scuba divers are at the manta ray sites bothers me, even if I never see scuba divers there.”Participants who were initially categorized as experiencing interpersonal conflict with an activity, but agreed with the statement, were 1372 M. D. NEEDHAM ET AL. reclassified as expressing both interpersonal and social values conflicts with the activity, whereas those who disagreed experienced only interpersonal conflict. This approach is identical to Vaske et al. (2007). This method resulted in five conflict behaviors (e.g. being rude or discourteous, bumping into peo- ple) for each activity where participants were categorized as expressing no conflict, interpersonal conflict, social values conflict, or both interpersonal and social values conflicts. To obtain the overall proportion of participants experiencing each type of conflict with each activity, a function was applied where those who had no conflict for all five behaviors were considered to have experienced no conflict with the activity. For the remaining participants, the type of conflict expressed most fre- quently across the five behaviors determined what conflict they experienced most with the activity (interpersonal, social values, or both). 2 To measure responses toward management strategies, participants were asked the extent they supported or opposed three possible direct strategies at the manta ray site (“limit the number of snorkelers allowed,”“limit the number of scuba divers allowed,”“limit the number of boats allowed”) and one indirect strategy (“educate visitors more about how to behave with other visitors”). These strategies were identified based on consultation with the DLNR and some operators. Responses were on 5-point scales of “strongly oppose”to “strongly support”and recoded into two categories for anal- ysis purposes (not support [neither, oppose], support). 3 To measure sanctions, participants were asked if they were to experience more people or conflict with others than they would tolerate at the manta ray site, how likely would they “express my opin- ions about the situation to other visitors causing the situation”(direct sanction) and “express my opinions about the situation to people in charge such as managers, boat operators, or boat owners” (indirect sanction). Responses were on 4-point scales of “very unlikely”to “very likely”and recoded into two categories for analysis purposes (unlikely, likely). 4 Results The most common behaviors observed by snorkelers were other snorkelers bumping into people (92%), not being aware of other people (73%), and blinding people with lights (44%;Table 1). Signifi- cantly fewer scuba divers (9%–30%) observed snorkelers engaging in conflict behaviors,x2 D 12.07– 181.10,p <.001. Phi (f) effect sizes ranged from .19 to .66. Using well-established guidelines for inter- preting effect sizes, the magnitude of these differences between snorkelers and scuba divers can be Observeed No Yes N N Perce No No Conflict No Conflict eived Problem So Both and In Yes ocial Values Conflict h Interpersonal Social Values Conflicts nterpersonal Conflict l Figure 2.Conflict evaluation typology (modified from Vaske et al.,2007). JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1373 considered as “medium”to “large”(Cohen,1988)or“typical”to “substantial”(Vaske,2008). Similarly, the most common behaviors observed by scuba divers were other divers bumping into people (65%), blinding people with lights (56%), and not being aware (53%). Fewer snorkelers (10%–22%) observed scuba divers engaging in these behaviors,x2 D 47.25–136.51,p <.001,f D .34–.58. These behaviors, therefore, were most frequently observed in-group, but significantly more snorkelers (48%) than scuba divers (33%) observed bubbles exhaled from scuba divers distracting people,x2 D 9.60,p D .002,f D .15 (i.e. out-group). Identical patterns emerged for beliefs about each of these behaviors being a problem for each activity (Table 2). Conflict evaluations were operationalized by combining responses from questions in Tables 1 and 2. For all five behaviors, most scuba divers (70%–86%) experienced no conflicts with snorkelers (Table 3). Conversely, large percentages of snorkelers experienced conflicts with other snorkelers, especially bumping into people (76%), not being aware of others (66%), being rude or discourteous (41%), and blinding people with lights (40%). Most of these snorkeler interactions with other snorkel- ers represented interpersonal conflicts. For example, 71% of snorkelers experienced interpersonal conflict associated with other snorkelers bumping into people. Similarly, 73%–80% of snorkelers experienced no conflicts with scuba divers for most behaviors, but many scuba divers experienced conflicts with other divers, especially bumping into people (45%), not being aware (44%), and blind- ing people with lights (44%), with almost all of these representing interpersonal conflicts (Table 4). Differences in conflicts between snorkelers and scuba divers for four of the five behaviors across both activities were significant,x2 D 11.16–120.17,p D .011 to <.001,V D .16–.53. There were, how- ever, no statistical differences between groups in conflict associated with participant bubbles dis- tracting others. In fact, slightly more snorkelers (40%) than scuba divers (33%) experienced conflicts associated with scuba diver bubbles, with most of these being interpersonal. Table 1.Observed snorkeler and scuba diver behaviors. Snorkelersa Scuba divers a x2-value p-value phi (f) Snorkeler behaviors Being rude or discourteous 35 15 19.46 <.001 .21 Not being aware of other people 73 29 76.15 <.001 .43 Bumping into people 92 30 181.10 <.001 .66 Blinding people with lights 44 27 12.07 <.001 .19 Their bubbles distracting other people 24 9 14.05 <.001 .20 Scuba diver behaviors Being rude or discourteous 10 26 17.85 <.001 .21 Not being aware of other people 14 53 67.53 <.001 .41 Bumping into people 10 65 136.51 <.001 .58 Blinding people with lights 22 56 47.25 <.001 .34 Their bubbles distracting other people 48 33 9.60 .002 .15 aCell entries are percentage (%) of each activity who observed the behavior one or more times. Table 2.Perceived snorkeler and scuba diver problem behaviors. Snorkelersa Scuba divers a x2-value p-value phi (f) Snorkeler behaviors Being rude or discourteous 41 25 10.75 <.001 .16 Not being aware of other people 66 30 47.58 <.001 .34 Bumping into people 76 31 80.64 <.001 .45 Blinding people with lights 40 26 7.65 .006 .14 Their bubbles distracting other people 21 13 3.70 .049 .09 Scuba diver behaviors Being rude or discourteous 21 24 .77 .381 .04 Not being aware of other people 24 44 16.01 <.001 .20 Bumping into people 22 45 22.80 <.001 .24 Blinding people with lights 27 43 11.01 <.001 .17 Their bubbles distracting other people 40 34 1.77 .184 .07 a Cell entries are percentage (%) of each activity who perceived the behavior to be a problem. 1374 M. D. NEEDHAM ET AL. These conflict responses across the five behaviors were combined to obtain the overall proportion of participants experiencing each type of conflict with each activity. In total, 79% of snorkelers experi- enced conflict with other snorkelers, whereas 36% of scuba divers experienced conflict with snorkel- ers,x2 D 91.35,p <.001 (Table 5). The Cramer’s V effect size of .47 suggests this difference between activities was “large”(Cohen,1988)or“substantial”(Vaske,2008). Most of this conflict was Table 3.Perceived conflicts with snorkelers. Snorkeler behaviors Snorkelers a Scuba divers a x2-value p-value Cramer’s V Being rude or discourteous 17.17 <.001 .19 No conflict 59 75 Interpersonal conflict 25 11 Social values conflict 14 14 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 2 0 Not being aware of other people 64.98 <.001 .39 No conflict 34 70 Interpersonal conflict 57 20 Social values conflict 6 10 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 3 0 Bumping into people 120.17 <.001 .53 No conflict 24 70 Interpersonal conflict 71 19 Social values conflict 2 11 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 3 0 Blinding people with lights 11.16 .011 .16 No conflict 60 73 Interpersonal conflict 27 17 Social values conflict 11 10 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 2 0 Their bubbles distracting other people 4.22 .238 .09 No conflict 80 86 Interpersonal conflict 10 8 Social values conflict 9 6 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 1 0 aCell entries are percentages (%). Table 4.Perceived conflicts with scuba divers. Scuba diver behaviors Snorkelers a Scuba divers a x2-value p-value Cramer’s V Being rude or discourteous 16.95 <.001 .21 No conflict 80 76 Interpersonal conflict 4 15 Social values conflict 15 9 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 1 0 Not being aware of other people 45.15 <.001 .34 No conflict 76 56 Interpersonal conflict 8 35 Social values conflict 15 9 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 1 0 Bumping into people 78.75 <.001 .44 No conflict 78 55 Interpersonal conflict 6 41 Social values conflict 15 4 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 1 0 Blinding people with lights 32.78 <.001 .29 No conflict 73 56 Interpersonal conflict 13 37 Social values conflict 13 7 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 1 0 Their bubbles distracting other people 4.82 .186 .10 No conflict 60 67 Interpersonal conflict 33 26 Social values conflict 6 7 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 1 0 aCell entries are percentages (%). JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1375 interpersonal with few participants expressing social values conflict (8%, 12%) or both types of con- flict (3%). Conflict with scuba divers was more balanced with 53% of scuba divers and 46% of snork- elers reporting conflict with divers,x2 D 21.05,p <.001,V D .23. Almost all conflict between scuba divers and other divers was interpersonal, whereas 27% of conflict with scuba divers experienced by snorkelers was interpersonal and 18% represented social values conflict. Few participants (1%) reported both types of conflict with scuba divers. Given that so few participants (3%) reported both types of conflict with each activity, they were removed from the remaining analyses. Participants who experienced conflict were more likely to support the direct (i.e. limit numbers of snorkelers, scuba divers, boats) and indirect management strategies (i.e. educate users about how to behave;Table 6). Those in each group who experienced interpersonal conflict with each activity were most likely to support each strategy, followed by those who expressed social values conflict. Partici- pants who did not report conflict were least supportive of each strategy. For example, 42% of snorkel- ers who reported no conflict with scuba divers supported limiting the number of divers, 69% of snorkelers who expressed social values conflict with scuba divers supported limiting the number of divers, and 76% of snorkelers who experienced interpersonal conflict with scuba divers supported limiting the number of divers. This pattern was consistent across all 16 comparisons and statistically significant for 11 of these,x2 D 5.45–22.69,p D .049 to <.001,V D .16–.31. Table 5.Overall perceived conflicts with snorkelers and scuba divers. Snorkelersa Scuba divers a x2-value p-value Cramer’s V Conflict with snorkelers 91.35 <.001 .47 No conflict 21 64 Interpersonal conflict 68 24 Social values conflict 8 12 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 3 0 Conflict with scuba divers 21.05 <.001 .23 No conflict 54 47 Interpersonal conflict 27 46 Social values conflict 18 7 Both interpersonal and social values conflict 1 0 aCell entries are percentages (%). Table 6.Relationships between perceived conflicts and support for potential management strategies. No conflicta Social values conflicta Interpersonal conflicta x2- value p- value Cramer’s V Snorkeler conflict with other snorkelers Educate about how to behave with others 70 78 87 5.45 .049 .16 Limit number of snorkelers allowed 51 65 78 13.17 <.001 .24 Limit number of scuba divers allowed 47 53 58 2.06 .357 .09 Limit number of boats allowed 53 61 65 1.27 .529 .07 Snorkeler conflict with scuba divers Educate about how to behave with others 83 84 91 1.51 .472 .08 Limit number of snorkelers allowed 65 78 84 7.78 .020 .18 Limit number of scuba divers allowed 42 69 76 22.69 <.001 .31 Limit number of boats allowed 54 69 74 7.96 .019 .18 Scuba diver conflict with snorkelers Educate about how to behave with others 60 78 83 6.57 .037 .21 Limit number of snorkelers allowed 38 56 60 5.78 .048 .20 Limit number of scuba divers allowed 44 56 69 7.23 .026 .22 Limit number of boats allowed 53 58 67 1.21 .546 .09 Scuba diver conflict with other scuba divers Educate about how to behave with others 58 64 79 7.31 .026 .22 Limit number of snorkelers allowed 36 46 58 6.81 .033 .22 Limit number of scuba divers allowed 39 55 66 10.29 .006 .26 Limit number of boats allowed 49 55 67 4.51 .105 .18 aCell entries are percentages (%) who supported the strategy. 1376 M. D. NEEDHAM ET AL. Participants who experienced conflict would also be more likely to respond by directly sanctioning individuals causing the problematic situation, but would not be more likely to indirectly sanction those in charge (e.g. managers, operators;Table 7). Participants in each group who experienced inter- personal conflict with each activity would be most likely to directly sanction other participants caus- ing the situation, followed by those who expressed social values conflict. Those who did not report any conflict would be least likely to sanction other participants. For example, the percentages of scuba divers likely to sanction other participants causing a problem was 68% of those who reported no conflict with other scuba divers, followed by 73% of those who expressed social values conflict with other divers, and 89% of those who reported interpersonal conflict with other divers. This pattern was consistent and statistically significant across all four comparisons,x2 D 4.99–9.63, p D .047–.008,V D .16–.25. There were no statistical relationships, however, between any conflict experiences and likelihood of indirectly sanctioning managers, operators, or owners. Discussion Management implications These results have implications for both management and research. From a management perspec- tive, results showed that manta ray tourism at this site is characterized by considerable conflicts, with most involving direct physical interactions among participants in the same activity. Overall, 79% of snorkelers experienced conflict with other snorkelers and most of this was interpersonal. Similarly, 53% of scuba divers reported conflicts with other divers with most of this also being interpersonal. The most commonly observed and problematic behaviors were participants bumping into each other (up to 92%), not being aware of others (up to 73%), and blinding people with underwater flashlights (up to 56%). These results are somewhat predictable given that this manta ray viewing occurs in the water after sunset where darkness and ocean swells can cause people to lose their bearings. Partici- pants are also encouraged by tour operators to remain in close proximity to each other for safety rea- sons and concentrate their lights to attract zooplankton and manta rays in a localized area. Previous studies suggested that separating people through spatial zoning can be effective for mitigating inter- personal conflicts (Graefe & Thapa,2004; Manning,2011). An example of this approach at the manta ray viewing site could be to require minimum distances between participants to slightly spread out use while maintaining safety and the density of zooplankton and manta rays. Minimum distances and other spatial zoning techniques have been successful for managing interactions among groups such as anglers along popular rivers (Martinson & Shelby,1992) and snorkelers and other tourists at heavily used marine protected areas (Roman, Dearden, & Rollins,2007). Minimum distances, however, may not be feasible at this manta ray site because they would be challenging to monitor given that use occurs in the dark and there is little formal regulation and enforcement by the DLNR Table 7.Relationships between perceived conflicts and likelihood of potential sanctions. No conflicta Social values conflicta Interpersonal conflicta x2- value p- value Cramer’s V Snorkeler conflict with other snorkelers Express opinions to others causing situation 62 78 80 4.99 .047 .16 Express opinions to people in charge 49 42 51 .54 .762 .05 Snorkeler conflict with scuba divers Express opinions to others causing situation 70 76 85 5.92 .039 .16 Express opinions to people in charge 53 41 49 1.92 .383 .09 Scuba diver conflict with snorkelers Express opinions to others causing situation 71 83 92 7.13 .028 .21 Express opinions to people in charge 49 56 43 .84 .657 .08 Scuba diver conflict with other scuba divers Express opinions to others causing situation 68 73 89 9.63 .008 .25 Express opinions to people in charge 42 64 57 3.53 .171 .16 aCell entries are percentages (%) who would be likely to take this action (sanction). JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1377 (Marine Science Consulting,2015). In addition, it would be difficult for participants to estimate distan- ces between each other, especially at night and when concentrating on viewing manta rays. Other possible strategies for addressing these conflicts involve temporal zoning. Examples include staggering visitation times throughout the evening (rather than most boats visiting at the same time) or limiting access by alternating nights (instead of every boat visiting each night). These strategies could reduce the number of people in the water at any one time and possibly reduce conflict. Stag- gering visitation times could, however, be problematic because this may increase the total amount of time each evening that people are interacting with manta rays, presenting potentially negative impacts on the rays (e.g. stress, habituation, shifts in feeding; Osada,2010; Semeniuk et al.,2009a). Alternating nights could benefit participants and rays by having fewer people in the water each night (Osada,2010), but this could have negative economic implications on operators by reducing their passenger loads and profitability. Operators could potentially compensate for this loss by increasing passenger fees (i.e. tour costs). Another possible strategy for managing these conflicts at the manta ray site would be to imple- ment a quota system limiting the numbers of snorkelers, scuba divers, tour boats, and/or operators. Although use limits are controversial because they leave little or no freedom of choice and should usually be used as a last resort (Hall & Lew,2009; Manning,2011; McCool,1978; Needham & Szuster, 2011), these direct strategies were supported by many respondents, especially those experiencing interpersonal conflict (up to 84%). Decreasing use could impact operators by reducing their number of passengers and profits, but, again, any losses could be offset by increasing participant fees (i.e. tour costs). This approach of limiting use through a licensing or permit system, coupled with fee increases, has been successful at reducing impacts (e.g. conflict, crowding, depreciative behavior) and attracting more conscientious participants at several tourism and recreation destinations (Catlin, Jones, & Jones,2012; Lankford, Inui, & Whittle,2008; Rollins,1998; Smith, Newsome, Lee, & Stoeckl, 2006; Weaver,2008). In addition to these in-group interpersonal conflicts, results showed some out-group conflicts between snorkelers and scuba divers. For example, 46% of snorkelers experienced conflicts with scuba divers, with most of these caused by distractions from bubbles created by scuba divers exhal- ing. This finding is not surprising given that scuba divers sit on the seafloor while snorkelers float and swim at the surface, and diver bubbles float upward through the water column. One option for addressing this issue is to separate the two activity groups (i.e. spatial zoning), but this could make it difficult to concentrate lights that are needed for attracting zooplankton and manta rays. Another approach is to educate snorkelers before purchasing and beginning the tour by informing them about the bubbles and other conditions to expect when participating. Education might also reduce social values conflicts between snorkelers and scuba divers. In fact, results showed strong support for educating participants about how to behave with others (up to 91%).The largest amount of social values conflict, however, was only 18% and involved snorkeler evaluations of scuba divers; about one in five snorkelers believed that scuba diving at this manta ray site is problematic and they philosophically disagreed about the appropriateness of scuba diving at this site. Studies have suggested that when conflict stems from differences in values, education through the use of interpretation tends to be most effective (Carothers et al.,2001; Vaske et al., 2007). Interpretation captures attention and conveys information with the goal of educating people (Ham,2013; Littlejohn, Needham, Szuster, & Jordan,2016). Interpretation exists in various forms (e.g. signs, lectures, brochures), should go beyond conveying facts to revealing relationships and mean- ings, and is essential for achieving both entertainment and educational outcomes (L€uck,2015; Weaver,2008). Providing interpretation to users before they purchase and begin the tour to educate them about the appropriateness and importance of each activity may help to mitigate these minor social values conflicts at the site. Findings also showed relationships between experiencing conflict and likelihood of directly sanc- tioning other participants causing problems, especially among those experiencing interpersonal con- flicts (up to 92%). Participants taking conflict situations into their own hands is problematic and could 1378 M. D. NEEDHAM ET AL. spiral out of control (Manning,2011). Managers and operators, therefore, should use interpretation to educate participants about other approaches for dealing with negative interactions, as well as potential avenues for reporting any negative events that happen. In some heavily used tourism and recreation areas, for example, industry codes of conduct have included outlets such as telephone hotlines and internet blogs for people to report negative situations and allow managers to address these issues instead of participants taking situations into their own hands (Pomeranz, Needham, & Kruger,2013). Although there were no relationships between experiencing conflict and likelihood of expressing opin- ions to those in charge of the manta ray site (e.g. managers, operators), managers and operators could encourage participants to report events instead of directly sanctioning fellow participants. Taken together, there is clearly no perfect “one size fits all”solution to minimize conflicts at this manta ray site. Instead, there are a number of interventions that managers could take with each hav- ing advantages and disadvantages. As a first step, however, temporal zoning (e.g. alternating nights) could be implemented alongside fee increases to reduce interpersonal conflicts and maintain opera- tor profitability. In addition, interpretation before beginning the tour to educate users about condi- tions to expect and the appropriateness and importance of each activity could be enhanced to reduce out-group and social values conflicts. If these interventions are unsuccessful, then managers could increase fees and implement quota limits through a licensing or permit system to reduce num- bers of snorkelers, scuba divers, boats, and/or operators while maintaining profitability. Regardless of strategies that could be adopted, implementation should be followed by continuous monitoring and periodic biophysical and social science research, otherwise this site may become a “sacrifice area”of high use where the quality of the natural environment and participant experiences may become severely compromised (Bell et al.,2011). Research implications From a research perspective, results showed that almost all conflicts among participants were attrib- uted to the physical presence or behavior of individuals interfering with the goals and experiences of others (interpersonal or goal interference conflict), whereas there were minimal social values conflicts. This finding is consistent with Carothers et al. (2001) who found that interpersonal conflict was the main source of contention between hikers and mountain bikers, but differs from Vaske et al. (1995) who found that conflict between hunters and wildlife viewers was largely attributed to differences in values and beliefs. Social values conflicts are likely to dominate when individuals differ dramatically in activity participation patterns, goals, and philosophies (e.g. hunters, wildlife viewers), whereas interper- sonal conflicts are more likely when individuals share similar goals and beliefs (Vaske et al.,2007). Snorkelers and scuba divers share similar interests (e.g. underwater exploration, viewing species) and sometimes recreate close together, which may explain the minimal social values conflicts when viewing manta rays. Research is needed, however, to understand the underlying predictors of interpersonal and social values conflicts, and the extent these drivers are similar or different across types of conflict. Results also showed few (3%) snorkelers and scuba divers simultaneously expressing both inter- personal and social values conflicts for each behavior (e.g. being rude or discourteous, bumping into people) and across the behaviors combined. This finding is consistent with Vaske et al. (2007) who did not find clear groups of skiers or snowmobilers reporting both types of conflict. Additional research is needed to determine whether this pattern is consistent across other activities. This study also used similar measures as Vaske et al. (2007) to reclassify respondents as expressing both inter- personal and social values conflicts (e.g.“just knowing that scuba divers are at the manta ray sites bothers me, even if I never see scuba divers there”), but more research is needed to test this and other possible measures for classifying respondents who experience both types of conflict to deter- mine if results generalize across activities, settings, and methods. Research has also focused more on out-group conflicts (e.g. hikers vs. mountain bikers) than in- group conflicts (Graefe & Thapa,2004; Manning,2011). Findings here, however, showed that the majority of conflicts were not out-group. Instead, most conflicts were in-group between snorkelers JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1379 and other snorkelers (79%), and scuba divers and other divers (53%). This finding is similar to Thapa and Graefe (2004) who found that skiers were more likely to attribute conflict to other skiers than to snowboarders. In-group conflicts at the manta ray site are somewhat predictable because snorkelers and scuba divers are slightly physically separated (i.e. divers on seafloor, snorkelers at surface), which minimizes direct out-group contact between activities (e.g. bumping into people). This situation, however, is not consistent across all areas and activities, so researchers are encouraged to examine all possible types of conflict for a given situation. In addition to revealing the presence or absence of conflicts, this study showed empirical relation- ships between these conflicts and responses to potential management actions. Previously, research- ers typically suggested that management attention is needed and then advocated approaches for addressing conflict, without actually asking respondents for their opinion (Graefe & Thapa,2004; Manning,2011). Participants who experienced interpersonal conflict were most supportive of educa- tion and limiting use at the manta ray site (58%–91%). Many participants who experienced no con- flict, however, still supported these strategies (36%–83%), which may be explained by the fact that the survey questions focused more broadly on managing use and experiences in general rather than managing conflict in particular. This finding suggests that other issues in addition to conflict could be problematic at this manta ray site. Although speculative, these issues could include crowding, noise, and other depreciative behaviors commonly studied in tourism and recreation (Hall & Lew, 2009; Manning,2011; Needham et al.,2016; Weaver,2008). Researchers should refine these measures and examine if this relationship between conflict and support for management generalizes across other activities, settings, and methods. Participants who experienced conflict would also be more likely to sanction individuals causing problems, but not more likely to sanction those in charge (managers, operators). Limited research has examined sanctions in relation to tourism and recreation experiences such as conflict (Cialdini et al.,1990; Sirakaya & Uysal,1997). Schneider (2000) and Schuster et al. (2006) focused on coping mechanisms in general and not sanctions in particular, and found that few wilderness visitors talked to managers or engaged in what they called “confrontive coping”(e.g. stood ground, expressed anger) after experiencing conflict. Most wilderness visitors opted to restrain themselves and accept the situation. Results at the manta ray site, however, showed much greater likelihood among those experiencing social values (up to 83%) and interpersonal conflicts (up to 92%) to express their opin- ions directly to those causing problems. Although speculative, these differences among studies may be explained by the fact that most participants pay over US $100 to snorkel or scuba dive with manta rays and this experience could be considered a “once in a lifetime”opportunity for many, potentially producing more aggressive responses to negative experiences. By comparison, wilderness recreation can be less costly and more frequently accessible. In addition, many participants who experienced no conflict would still be likely to impose sanctions (42%–71%), which could be explained by the fact that the survey questions asked how participants would respond if they experienced more people or conflict than they would tolerate. These questions were not specific to just conflict, but also included use levels, suggesting that both use and conflict are problems at this site. Researchers are encour- aged, therefore, to enhance the specificity of questions measuring sanctions and examine whether this relationship between conflicts and sanctions extends to other situations. Studies examining interpersonal and social values conflicts have developed and tested a number of behavioral indicators of conflict, and there remains considerable diversity in methods for measur- ing this concept (Graefe & Thapa,2004; Manning,2011). The five indicators used here (e.g. rude or discourteous, bump into people) and methodological approaches such as recoding scale responses (e.g. never observed to observed many times) into dichotomous categories (not observed, observed) are consistent with those employed in previous studies (Carothers et al.,2001; Vaske et al.,1995, 2007). Examining individual behavioral indicators is important because it identifies specific problems that may warrant management attention. Given the complexities of understanding conflict, research- ers should continue investigating multiple site-specific and activity-specific indicators of problem sit- uations and behaviors, and also test various approaches for measuring and analyzing conflict. 1380 M. D. NEEDHAM ET AL. Conclusion In conclusion, this article examined the extent that conflicts are occurring within and between people scuba diving and snorkeling with manta rays at a site in Hawaii, what types of conflict are prevalent, and how participants would respond (support restrictions, sanction others). The majority of snorkel- ers experienced in-group conflict with other snorkelers, and scuba divers reported in-group conflict with other divers. Most of these conflicts were interpersonal (e.g. bumping into each other, blinding people with underwater flashlights). There were fewer out-group (e.g. snorkelers vs. scuba divers) and social values conflicts. Understanding these conflicts can inform management strategies to mini- mize depreciative impacts and maximize the quality of experiences (e.g. temporal zoning, education, quota). Most participants, for example, favored limiting numbers of snorkelers, scuba divers, and boats, and providing education on how to behave with others. Those experiencing conflicts were more supportive of these strategies and would be more likely to sanction participants causing prob- lems. Applicability of these patterns of findings to other activities and geographical settings remains a topic for further empirical investigation. Notes 1.These scales were collapsed into dichotomous categories to match the exact methodological procedures of almost all studies measuring both interpersonal and social values conflicts (e.g., Carothers et al.,2001; Vaske et al.,1995, 2007), allow comparisons across studies, and test the typology in Figure 2. To validate this approach, discriminant function analysis determined how well the original 4-point scales predicted the proportions of participants calcu- lated as experiencing each type of conflict with each activity (e.g., no conflict, interpersonal conflict, social values conflict). All of the original scales significantly predicted these conflict groups, Wilks’lambda U D .358–.942, p <.001. These scales correctly classified 98%–100% of respondents reporting no conflicts, 67%–80% of those experiencing social values conflicts, and 78%–93% of respondents reporting interpersonal conflicts. Overall, 89%– 93% of respondents were correctly classified, suggesting that collapsing responses into dichotomous categories yielded almost identical results compared with retaining the original scales. 2.Vaske et al. (2007) used cluster analysis of conflict behaviors to obtain overall proportions of respondents experiencing each type of conflict. A challenge with their approach, however, is there are not always consistent pat- terns in cluster centroids or clear differentiations between clusters representing each type of conflict. In addition, cluster analysis weights all conflict behaviors relatively equally and focuses on patterns across these behaviors, which could cause some conflicts to be underestimated or overestimated, and could also be problematic when only a few behaviors are highly prevalent and commonly reported. 3.These scales were collapsed into dichotomous categories and reported as percentages instead of means to simplify description and interpretation of results. The majority of respondents (55%–78%) supported or strongly supported each management strategy, comparatively few (<30%) selected the scale midpoint (i.e., neither), and even fewer opposed each strategy (<14%). In addition, ancillary analyses retaining the original scales and using means instead of percentages showed the same pattern of results as those in Table 6. Respondents in each group who experi- enced interpersonal conflict were most supportive of each strategy, followed by those who expressed social values conflict. Participants who did not report conflict were least supportive. For example, among snorkelers who reported no conflict with scuba divers, the mean response for limiting the number of divers was M D 3.34, followed by M D 3.90 for those expressing social values conflict and M D 4.10 for those experiencing interpersonal conflict. Collapsing responses into dichotomous categories, therefore, yielded identical patterns of results compared with retaining the original scales. 4.This scale had no midpoint (e.g., neither, neutral). Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Notes on contributors Dr. Mark D. Needham is a faculty member in the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State Univer- sity. He focuses on human dimensions of recreation, tourism, and natural resources (e.g. wildlife, forests, marine environ- ments). He is also Editor of the international journal Human Dimensions of Wildlife. JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1381 Dr. Brian W. Szuster is a faculty member in the Department of Geography at the University of Hawaii. He focuses on marine and coastal tourism, environmental impact assessment, and aquaculture. Dr. Camilo Mora is a faculty member in the Department of Geography at the University of Hawaii. He focuses on bio- geography, biodiversity, macroecology, and conservation assessment. Laura Lesar is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management at Griffith University. She focuses on sustainable tourism, certification programs, and destination management. Emma Anders is a masters student in the Department of Geography at the University of Hawaii. She focuses on marine and coastal tourism, environmental education, and natural resource management. References Andereck, K., Vogt, C., Larkin, K., & Freye, K. (2001). Differences between motorized and nonmotorized trail users.Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19,62–77. Anderson, R., Adam, M., Kitchen-Wheeler, A., & Stevens, G. (2011). Extent and economic value of manta ray watching in Maldives.Tourism in Marine Environments, 7,15–27. Bell, C., Needham, M., & Szuster, B. (2011). Congruence among encounters, norms, crowding, and management in a marine protected area.Environmental Management, 48, 499–513. Bentz, J., Dearden, P., Ritter, E., & Calado, H. (2014). Shark diving in the Azores: Challenge and opportunity.Tourism in Marine Environments, 10,71–83. Bentz, J., Rodrigues, A., Dearden, P., Calado, H., & Lopes, F. (2015). Crowding in marine environments: Divers and whale watchers in the Azores.Ocean and Coastal Management, 109,77–85. Blahna, D., Smith, K., & Anderson, J. (1995). Backcountry llama packing: Visitor perceptions of acceptability and conflict. Leisure Sciences, 17, 185–204. Blake, J., & Davis, K. (1964). Norms, values, and sanctions. In R. Faris (Ed.),Handbook of modern sociology (pp. 456–484). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Brown, T. (1984). The concept of value in resource allocation.Land Economics, 60, 231–246. Carothers, P., Vaske, J., & Donnelly, M. (2001). Social values versus interpersonal conflict among hikers and mountain bikers.Leisure Sciences, 23,47–61. Catlin, J., Jones, T., & Jones, R. (2012). Balancing commercial and environmental needs: Licensing as a means of managing whale shark tourism on Ningaloo reef.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20, 163–178. Cialdini, M., Reno, R., & Kallgren, C. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026. Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Curnock, M., Birtles, R., & Valentine, P. (2013). Increased use levels, effort, and spatial distribution of tourists swimming with dwarf minke whales at the Great Barrier Reef.Tourism in Marine Environments, 9,5–17. Deakos, M., Baker, J., & Bejder, L. (2011). Characteristics of a manta ray Manta alfredi population off Maui, Hawaii, and implications for management.Marine Ecology Progress Series, 429, 245–260. Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT). (2014).State of Hawaii data book 2014. Retrieved from http://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/databook/db2014 Draheim, M., Madden, F., McCarthy, J., & Parsons, E. (2015).Human-wildlife conflict: Complexity in the marine environment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Finkler, W., & Higham, J. (2004). The human dimensions of whale watching: An analysis based on viewing platforms. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9, 103–117. Friedlander, A., Aeby, G., Brown, E., Clark, A., Coles, S., & Dollar, S. (2005).The state of coral reef ecosystems of the main Hawaiian Islands. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Biogeography Team. Graefe, A., & Thapa, B. (2004). Conflict in natural resource recreation. In M. Manfredo, J. Vaske, B. Bruyere, D. Field, & P. Brown (Eds.),Society and natural resources: A summary of knowledge (pp. 209–224). Jefferson City, MO: Modern Litho. Grasmick, H., Blackwell, B., Barsik, T., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Changes in perceived threats of shame, embarrassment, and legal sanctions for interpersonal violence.Violence and Victims, 8, 313–325. Hall, C. M., & Lew, A. (2009).Understanding and managing tourism impacts: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Ham, S. (2013).Interpretation: Making a difference on purpose. Golden, CO: Fulcrum. Hawaii Tourism Authority (HTA). (2014).2014 annual visitor research report. Retrieved from http://www.hawaiitourismau thority.org/research/reports/annual-visitor-research 1382 M. D. NEEDHAM ET AL. Heywood, J. (1996). Social regularities in outdoor recreation.Leisure Sciences, 18,23–37. Heywood, J. (2011). Institutional norms and evaluative standards for parks and recreation resources research, planning, and management.Leisure Sciences, 33, 441–449. Higham, J., Bejder, L., & Williams, R. (2014).Whale-watching: Sustainable tourism and ecological management. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Higham, J., & L€uck, M. (2007).Marine wildlife and tourism management: Insights from the natural and social sciences. Cambridge, MA: CABI. Jacob, G., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective.Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 368–380. Jones, N., Shaw, S., Ross, H., Witt, K., & Pinner, B. (2016). The study of human values in understanding and managing social-ecological systems.Ecology & Society, 21, 15. Lankford, S., Inui, Y., & Whittle, A. (2008). Exploring social carrying capacity based on perceived levels of crowding: A case study of Hanauma Bay, Hawaii.Tourism in Marine Environments, 5,43–53. Lewis, A., & Newsome, D. (2003). Planning for stingray tourism at Hamelin Bay, Western Australia: The importance of stakeholder perspectives.International Journal of Tourism Research, 5, 331–346. Littlejohn, K., Needham, M., Szuster, B., & Jordan, E. (2016). Pre-trip expectations and post-trip satisfaction with marine tour interpretation in Hawaii: Applying the norm activation model.Journal of Environmental Education, 47, 202–212. L€uck, M. (2015). Education on marine mammal tours: But what do tourists want to learn?Ocean and Coastal Manage- ment, 103,25–33. Manning, R. (2011).Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Manta Pacific Research Foundation. (2013).Manta tour operator standards. Retrieved from http://www.mantapacific.org and http://www.mantaraygreenlist.com/operator-standards Marine Science Consulting. (2015).Manta ray viewing boating operations and safety assessment. Retrieved from http:// dlnr.hawaii.gov/dobor/files/2013/04/Manta-Ray-Viewing-Boating-Operations-and-Safety-Assessment_final.pdf Markwell, K. (2015).Animals and tourism: Understanding diverse relationships. Bristol: Channel View. Martinson, K., & Shelby, B. (1992). Encounter and proximity norms for salmon anglers in California and New Zealand. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 12, 559–567. McCool, S. (1978). Recreation use limits: Issues for the tourism industry.Journal of Travel Research, 17,2–7. Needham, M. (2013). Encounters, norms, and crowding at six coastal and marine areas in Hawaii.Tourism in Marine Envi- ronments, 9,19–34. Needham, M., Haider, W., & Rollins, R. (2016). Protected areas and visitors: Theory, planning, and management. In P. Dear- den, R. Rollins, & M. Needham (Eds.),Parks and protected areas in Canada: Planning and management (pp. 104–140). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. Needham, M., & Szuster, B. (2011). Situational influences on normative evaluations of coastal tourism and recreation management strategies in Hawaii.Tourism Management, 32, 732–740. Newsome, D., Lewis, A., & Moncrieff, D. (2004). Impacts and risks associated with developing, but unsupervised, stingray tourism at Hamelin Bay, Western Australia.International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, 305–323. O’Connor, S., Campbell, R., Cortez, H., & Knowles, T. (2009). Whale watching worldwide: Tourism numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits. Yarmouth, MA: International Fund for Animal Welfare. O’Malley, M., Lee-Brooks, K., & Medd, H. (2013). The global economic impact of manta ray watching tourism.PLoS ONE, 8 (5), e65051. Osada, K. (2010).Relationship of zooplankton emergence, manta ray abundance, and scuba diver usage in Kona Hawaii (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Hawaii-Hilo, Hilo. Parsons, T. (1951).The social system. London: Routledge. Pomeranz, E., Needham, M., & Kruger, L. (2013). Stakeholder perceptions of indicators of tourism use and codes of con- duct in a coastal protected area in Alaska.Tourism in Marine Environments, 9,95–115. Ramthun, R. (1995). Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers.Leisure Sciences, 17, 159–169. Roggenbuck, J., Williams, D., Bange, S., & Dean, D. (1991). River float trip encounter norms: Questioning the use of the social norms concept.Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 133–153. Rokeach, M. (1973).The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press. Rollins, R. (1998). Managing for wilderness conditions on the West Coast Trail area of Pacific Rim National Park. In N. Munro & J. Willison (Eds.),Linking protected areas with working landscapes (pp. 643–651). Wolfville, NS: SAMPAA. Roman, G., Dearden, P., & Rollins, R. (2007). Application of zoning and “limits of acceptable change”to manage snorkel- ling tourism.Environmental Management, 39, 819–830. Ruddell, E., & Gramann, J. (1994). Goal orientation, norms, and noise-induced conflict among recreation area users.Lei- sure Sciences, 16,93–104. Schneider, I. (2000). Response to conflict among wilderness visitors. In D. Cole, S. McCool, W. Borrie, & J. O’Loughlin (Eds.), Wilderness science in a time of change conference: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management (Vol.4). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM 1383 Schuster, R., Hammitt, W., Moore, D., & Schneider, I. (2006). Coping with stress resulting from social value conflict: Non- hunters’response to anticipated social interaction with hunters.Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 101–113. Semeniuk, C., Bourgeon, S., Smith, S., & Rothley, K. (2009a). Hematological differences between stingrays at tourist and non-visited sites suggest physiological costs of wildlife tourism.Biological Conservation, 142, 1818–1829. Semeniuk, C., Haider, W., Beardmore, B., & Rothley, K. (2009b). A multi-attribute trade-off approach for advancing the management of marine wildlife tourism: A quantitative assessment of heterogeneous visitor preferences.Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19, 194–208. Shackley, M. (1998). Stingray city: Managing the impact of underwater tourism in the Cayman Islands.Journal of Sustain- able Tourism, 6, 328–338. Sirakaya, E., & Uysal, M. (1997). Can sanctions and rewards explain conformance behaviour of tour operators with eco- tourism guidelines?Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5, 322–332. Smith, A., Newsome, D., Lee, D., & Stoeckl, N. (2006).The role of wildlife icons as major tourist attractions: Case studies: Mon- key Mia dolphins and Hervey Bay whale watching. Gold Coast: Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism. Smyth, R., Watzin, M., & Manning, R. (2007). Defining acceptable levels for ecological indicators: An approach for consid- ering social values.Environmental Management, 39, 301–315. Thapa, B., & Graefe, A. (2004). Recreation conflict and tolerance among skiers and snowboarders.Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22,37–52. Tibiri¸ca, Y., Birtles, A., Valentine, P., & Miller, D. (2011). Diving tourism in Mozambique: An opportunity at risk?Tourism in Marine Environments, 7, 141–151. Topelko, K., & Dearden, P. (2005). The shark watching industry and its potential contribution to shark conservation.Jour- nal of Ecotourism, 4, 108–128. Vaske, J. (2008).Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. State College, PA: Venture. Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., Wittmann, K., & Laidlaw, S. (1995). Interpersonal versus social values conflict.Leisure Sciences, 17, 205–222. Vaske, J., Heesemann, L., Loomis, D., & Cottrell, S. (2013). Measuring variability in encounter norms among scuba divers and snorkelers: An application of the potential for conflict index2.Tourism in Marine Environments, 9,69–90. Vaske, J., Needham, M., & Cline, Jr., R. (2007). Clarifying interpersonal and social values conflict among recreationists.Jour- nal of Leisure Research, 39, 182–195. Vaske, J., & Shelby, L. (2008). Crowding as a descriptive indicator and an evaluative standard: Results from 30 years of research.Leisure Sciences, 30, 111–126. Watson, A., Niccolucci, M., & Williams, D. (1994). The nature of conflict between hikers and recreational stock users in the John Muir Wilderness.Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 372–385. Weaver, D. (2008).Ecotourism. Sydney: Wiley. Ziegler, J., Dearden, P., & Rollins, R. (2016). Participant crowding and physical contact rates of whale shark tours on Isla Holbox, Mexico.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24, 616–636. 1384 M. D. NEEDHAM ET AL.