Asia Pacic Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 15, No.

3, September 2010

An Island Biogeographical Approach to Island Tourism and Biodiversity: An Exploratory Study of the Caribbean and Pacic Islands
C. Michael Hall1 3
1

Department of Management, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand 2 Department of Geography, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland 3 Linnaeus University School of Business and Economics, Kalmar, Sweden

Islands are especially susceptible to the loss of indigenous species following anthropogenic change. Although tourism has long been cited as a justication for conserving biodiversity via the establishment of national parks and reserves, it also contributes to biodiversity loss as a result of direct habitat change and human activities, as well as more indirectly via the introduction of exotic species and environmental change. An island biogeographical approach is used to provide an exploratory analysis of tourism and biodiversity relationships in the Caribbean and Pacic Islands. Data suggest that the islands are under heavy anthropogenic pressure, of which tourism is just one element, although for some countries tourism represents a substantial real increase in the size of the human population. Few of the countries examined have anywhere near the recommended percentage of area protected, with marine ecosystems being least conserved. The study concludes that there are signicant data gaps for examining tourism and biodiversity relations at the national level, but suggests that island biogeographical approaches may yield signicant insights into the pressures of tourism on biodiversity at smaller scales if adequate data can be gained. Key words: island biogeography, biodiversity, tourism, conservation, Caribbean, Pacic Islands

Introduction
Islands have long played a pivotal role in the understanding of natural processes. For example, the Galapagos Islands have long been

recognized as a signicant source of inspiration for Darwins theory of natural selection and continue to be an important natural history research site, and tourist attraction, to the present day. One of the most signicant

Email: michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz

ISSN 1094-1665 print/ISSN 1741-6507 online/10/030383 17 # 2010 Asia Pacic Tourism Association DOI: 10.1080/10941665.2010.503628

384

C. Michael Hall including its area and topography, diversity of habitats, shape, spatial and temporal isolation, connection to previous landmasses, climate, accessibility to its source of colonists (i.e. not just distance to nearest source region but location relative to ocean currents), and the equilibrium rate of colonization by new species and the rate of extinction of existing species (Cox, Healey, & Moore, 1973). The equilibrium model of the biota of a single island proposes that the equilibrial species number is reached at the intersection between the curve of the rate of new species immigration, not already on the island, and the curve of extinction of species on the island (Figure 1). The model therefore suggests that although uctuations will occur over time, there is a nite limit on the species biodiversity of a given area. This is signicant in conservation terms as, because every species runs the risk of extinction, the more that have arrived the more species there are at risk. In addition, as more species arrive, the average population size of each will diminish as competition increases (Cox et al., 1973, p. 98). As noted in the Introduction, McArthur and Wilson (1963, 1967) concluded that for a particular taxon and within any given region of relatively uniform climate, the island species area relationship can be approximated by the power function model: S = CAz where S and A are species count of a given taxon and area, respectively, and C and z are tted species-specic constants that will vary from system to system. MacArthur and Wilson favoured logarithmic transformations of both axes thereby enabling the constants C and z to be determined by least squares (linear) regression (Whittaker & Ferna ndezPalacios, 2007). MacArthur and Wilson

contributions of islands to the understanding of the richness of biodiversity for ecological communities is the concept of island biogeography, which examines the relationships between species and a given area (MacArthur & Wilson, 1963, 1967; Preston, 1962). The conventional expression of the speciesarea relationship is S CAz, where S and A are species count and area, respectively, and C and z are tted species-specic constants. However, signicantly for the wider applicability of the speciesarea relationship, an island can be regarded as any area of suitable habitat that is surrounded by unsuitable habitat, for instance a national park surrounded by agricultural land. Therefore, the concept has important implications for conservation reserve design and broader strategies to conserve biodiversity. This article seeks to examine the implications of island biogeographical theory with respect to understanding some of the possible effects of tourism on the biodiversity of small island economies as well as the potential relationship between island biogeographic theory and steady-state approaches of ecological economics. The article is divided into three main sections. First, a discussion of island biogeographic theory and its potential connections to sustainable tourism and biodiversity conservation; second, an exploratory study of tourism and biodiversity conservation on small island economies; and nally, a series of observations with respect to the need to integrate better biogeographical and ecological economic insights into the development of sustainable tourism research and biodiversity conservation strategies for islands and equivalent areas.

The Theory of Island Biogeography

The number of species that are found on an island depends on a number of factors,

An Island Biogeographical Approach to Island Tourism

385

Figure 1

Equilibrium Model of the Biota of a Single Island. Lomolino, 2000), as well as the importance of anthropogenic and other disturbance. Indeed, as Wilson (2001, p. viii) himself noted, after more than three decades, [the theory of island biogeography] has been largely replaced by a generation of far more detailed and sophisticated studies. Yet I believe that its basic structure remains sounds, and the content still serves as a good introduction to the subject. Lomolino (2000) has argued for a tripartite model of island biography that illustrates the three fundamental biogeographic processes of immigration, extinction and evolution as a function of island characteristics of area and isolation (Figure 2). Under such a model immigration rates should increase with proximity

(1967) found that in most cases z falls between 0.20 and 0.35 for islands. The model is highly signicant in that, even though it has heuristic value without it, the contribution of the theory to biogeography and conservation biology provides a high degree of rigour with respect to dynamic modelling of ecological and biological population processes. As Brown and Gibson (1983, p. 449) stated, like any good theory, the model goes beyond what is already known to make additional predictions that can only be tested with new observations and experiments, a situation that has led to a signicant reformulation of some of the notions of equilibrium and species and island difference (e.g. Brown & Lomolino, 2000;

386

C. Michael Hall

Figure 2

Interrelationships between Biogeographical Processes and Island Characteristics. cantly, the interrelationships between island characteristics and biogeographical processes provide for the relative resilience of islands to disturbance, whether from natural events such as storms and tide surges, or from anthropogenic pressures such as tourism. In addition, recognition of the relationships between accessibility, area size and resilience also has direct parallels with the identication of wilderness areas in which remoteness and naturalness are key factors (Hall & Page, 2006). In conservation terms the theory is important because it highlights the need for retaining large

to a source region and the ability of species to travel or be transported across immigration barriers and lters. Extinction rates should decrease as island area increases, or increase with growing resource requirements of the focal species. Finally, speciation should be most important where extinction and immigration are lowest, and therefore it increases in relation to increase in island area and isolation and decreases with respect to resource requirements and the capacity of species to move or disperse within their environments (Lomolino, 2000). However, just as signi-

An Island Biogeographical Approach to Island Tourism areas of relatively undisturbed environments in order to save species from extinction. National parks, conservation reserves and other relatively undisturbed environments under public or private ownership act as islands for a large number of species. The breaking up of such natural areas as a result of land clearing, agriculture or other natural and human processes therefore can lead to the creation of smaller islands, with signicant effects for species as these new islands develop their new ecosystem equilibrium. Such fragmentation effects are most pronounced on larger species that require large ranges; however, they can affect many plant and animal species as habitat is reduced and/or competition among individuals and between species is increased. As a result, island biogeography theory has led conservationists to advocate for the retention of natural areas that are as large as possible, ideally with a high ratio of area to boundary (Soule & Simberloff, 1986). In addition, where fragmentation has occurred or is unavoidable efforts have been made to retain or regenerate natural area corridors (also referred to as habitat corridors) between reserves in order to assist the movement of species between reserves and therefore increase the number of species that can be supported and the opportunities for species survival (Dobson, Rodriguez, Roberts, & Wilcove, 1997; Prendergast, Quinn, Lawton, Eversham, & Gibbons, 1993). Studies of species area relationships suggest that 30 50% of a given community or ecosystem type needs to be conserved to maintain 80 90% of the species (Groves, 2003; Soule & Sanjayan, 1998). However, in their analysis of the conservation decits for the continental USA, Dietz and Czech (2005) noted that even 30 50% may not be enough to sustain species over the long term, with research indicating that there is no single

387

threshold value that can be broadly applied to conserve all species (Fahrig, 2001). Although highly signicant in conservation ecology, the theory of island biogeography has had relatively little inuence on tourism research except where there is a focus on the design of national parks and conservation reserve areas that may attract visitors (e.g. Newsome, Moore, & Dowling, 2002; Whittaker & Ferna ndez-Palacios, 2007) and, to a very limited extent, with respect to the examination of the impact of tourism on island environments (e.g. Gossling, 2003). Although perhaps not recognized by many students of tourism, the theory of island biogeography has also been extremely inuential with respect to the notion of the physical carrying capacity of outdoor recreation land in terms of the maximum number of people that can use an area without an unacceptable change in the environment or an unacceptable change in perceived quality (Wall, 1999). Both carrying capacity and the theory of island biogeography suggest that capacity is the maximum sustainable output of a system, i.e. that there is an upper limit to the number of individuals a population can reach in a closed environment. Such ideas have also proved inuential with respect to broader concerns about the limits to growth and sustainable development, topics that also have signicance in tourism studies (e.g. Hall & Lew, 2009). Tourism is an important element in the maintenance of biodiversity for many islands, both as a justication for conservation efforts by virtue of being an attraction for visitors interested in the natural environment (e.g. Christian, Potts, Burnett, & Lacher, 1996; Gossling, 1999), sometimes referred to as ecotourism, and as a form of anthropogenic disturbance (e.g. Gossling & Hall, 2006; Hall & Lew, 2009). For example, in the case of islands tourism can: act as a means of

388

C. Michael Hall Figure 3 illustrates that natural capital (e.g. soil, timber and water) is reallocated from wildlife to humans in the process of economic growth, thereby leading to species extinction and threats. As the economy grows, the natural capital comprising wildlife habitat (represented above the sigmoid curve) is converted into goods and services in the human economy (represented below the sigmoid curve). K equals economic carrying capacity (Czech, 2004). The steady-state approach to tourism destinations as well as the theory of island biogeography suggests that there are limits to the exploitation of natural capital. However, time remains an important element in understanding how anthropogenic change may affect species immigration and extinction. As Burt (2003) noted with respect to issues of scale in the physical environment, in general terms, short-term studies tend to focus on process dynamics whereas longer-term studies are more likely to involve statistical analysis of form and structure. The temporal and spatial scale at which studies are conducted also has implications for understanding causality (Schumm & Lichty, 1965). At the shortest timescale, processes operate within an essentially xed environment. Over the

transporting new species and diseases; directly change and fragment habitat as a result of developments such as golf courses, beaches, marinas, roads and walkways and hotels; and indirectly change habitats as a result of requiring food for visitors, disturbing animals, placing further demands on water supply, as well as disturbing animals or trampling plants. However, for many small island economies tourism is often one of the few means of development available, thereby leading to increased attention as to how tourism can become sustainable. Sustainable tourism development is tourism development without growth in throughput of matter and energy beyond regenerative and absorptive capacities (Hall, 2008). From such a perspective the sustainability of tourism is to be found in recognition of the high ecological footprints of much tourism consumption (Gossling, Hansson, Horstmeier, & Saggel, 2002) and the need to adopt an approach towards tourism development grounded in ecological economics. Hall (2009) argues that sustainable tourism needs to be understood from a steady-state economic perspective that explicitly recognizes the extent to which economic development is dependent on the stock of natural capital. According to Hall (2009), steady-state tourism is a tourism system that encourages qualitative development but not aggregate quantitative growth to the detriment of natural capital. A steadystate economy, including at the destination level, can therefore be dened in terms of a constant ow of throughput at a sustainable (low) level, with population and capital stock free to adjust to whatever size can be maintained by the constant throughput beginning with depletion and ending with pollution (Daly, 2008, p. 3). Such an approach therefore recognizes that the human economy competes with wildlife for use of scarce natural capital.

Figure 3 Competition for Natural Capital between People and Wildlife.

An Island Biogeographical Approach to Island Tourism longer term, properties that were xed at the shorter timescale now become variable. As Burt (2003, p. 212) commented, Process now controls form and a steady-state equilibrium may be identied. Large events may perturb the system but there is then recovery to a characteristic form. It is widely recognized that human activity is having a signicant impact on the worlds biodiversity, with a third of amphibians, a quarter of mammals and one-in-eight birds being threatened with extinction (BBC, 2009). Human activity can serve to fragment existing natural habitat and change environmental conditions so as to suit species that are identied as economically desirable. Figure 4 combines the insights of island biographic theory and steady-state economic thinking to illustrate the way in which anthropogenic change in island environments serves to reduce the extent of natural capital available to indigenous species. The gure also highlights that there is a need to differentiate between the manner in which this process occurs in human timescales as against understanding its operation in evolutionary time. Arguably this process is occurring at the moment, as island environments come increasingly under pressure from human activities (Quammen, 1997). The insights of island biogeographical research may therefore have signicant implications for understanding the impacts of tourism on island environments.

389

Tourism and Threats to Biodiversity in Island Economies

The theory of island biogeography highlights how human impact, including tourism, may threaten the biodiversity of island environments in a relatively short period of time. This section therefore examines some of the

small island economies that are most dependent on tourism in order to ascertain potential threats and issues with respect to biodiversity conservation. Two main data sets are utilized. For economic, population and tourism information UNCTAD (2008) statistical data are used while biodiversity information is primarily gained from the IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM (see http://www.iucnredlist. org/). Unfortunately, there are several gaps in both sets of information as a result of lack of national data gathering. Nevertheless, the information that is available does provide for an exploratory analysis of some of the potential relationships between biodiversity and the signicance of tourism for island states. For the purpose of this study, data from the Caribbean and Pacic Island regions are examined as not only is tourism of recognized importance in these areas but the islands in the two regions also share common climatic features. The small number of countries examined highlights that any relationships found should be noted with caution, but as noted in the Introduction, the value of such exploratory analysis is to highlight potential future paths for research. Table 1 provides information on the biodiversity status of a number of island territories in the Caribbean and Pacic. Some territories are not included in IUCN data as they are regarded as overseas departments or territories of continental countries such as France or the USA. The table provides information on the percentage of marine and terrestrial territory that is protected and various categories of threatened species. Unfortunately, change over time of threatened species is only available for a limited number of categories of animals (birds, mammals and amphibia), but it is noticeable that most countries have had an increase in the number of species in those categories with threatened species status

390

C. Michael Hall

Figure 4

Anthropogenic Change and Reduction of Natural Capital in Island Environments.

Table 1
% Area Protected

Biodiversity Status
Threatened Species (TS)

Economy

Land Area (km2)

Marine 2008

Terrestrial 2008

Mammals 2004

2008

Birds 2004

2008

Amphibia 2004

2008

Reptiles 2008

Fish 2008

Molluscs 2008

Other Inverts 2008

Subtotal TS 2008

Total Animals 2008

TS as % of Total 2008

Plants 2008

Total all TS 2008

Caribbean Bermuda Anguilla Montserrat Aruba Saint Kitts and Nevis Cayman Islands Grenada Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Barbados Antigua and Barbuda Turks and Caicos Islands Saint Lucia Dominica Trinidad and Tobago Jamaica Bahamas Pacic Islands Cook Islands Palau Micronesia (Federated States of) Tonga Kiribati Samoa French Polynesia Vanuatu Fiji New Caledonia

53.1 102 102 193 261 262 344 389 431 442.6 430 616 754 5,128 10,991 13,940

5.12% 0.01% 0.02% 0.00% 0.41% 1.32% 0.01% 0.31% 0.07% 0.77% 2.85% 0.11% 0.09% 0.27% 3.56% 0.44%

14.43% 11.04% 10.39% 0.06% 5.06% 58.00% 1.96% 16.34% 0.11% 10.25% 28.48% 18.53% 26.69% 35.00% 20.90% 11.37%

2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 5 4

4 1 3 3 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 5 7

3 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 5 3 2 12 7

1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 5 3 2 10 5

0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 2 9 17 0

0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 9 17 0

2 3 2 2 5 4 4 3 4 6 4 5 3 5 9 6

12 14 14 15 14 14 15 18 15 14 14 15 15 19 15 20

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 10 11 1 10 10 10 10 10 11 10 11 11 10 14 11

47 28 33 22 33 31 34 34 33 34 32 38 37 47 71 49

260 333 320 291 347 364 259 355 356 357 362 357 357 712 399 451

18.1% 8.4% 10.3% 7.6% 9.5% 8.5% 13.1% 9.6% 9.3% 9.6% 8.8% 10.6% 10.4% 6.6% 17.8% 10.9%

4 3 3 0 2 2 3 4 2 4 2 6 11 1 209 5

51 31 36 22 35 33 37 38 35 38 34 44 48 48 280 54

An Island Biogeographical Approach to Island Tourism

236.7 458 702 748 811 2,944 4,167 12,200 18,270 19,060

0.04% 8.74% 0.03% 2.20% 0.00% 1.34% 0.08% 0.05% 0.11% 0.22%

2.61% 1.30% 10.08% 25.53% 55.01% 3.62% 1.07% 4.46% 2.16% 7.39%

1 3 6 2 0 3 3 5 5 6

1 4 6 2 1 2 1 8 6 9

15 1 8 4 5 7 31 8 13 15

15 2 9 4 5 7 32 8 10 14

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

1 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 6 2

7 12 13 9 7 8 13 11 11 17

0 5 4 2 1 1 29 1 3 11

25 97 104 33 72 52 26 78 87 84

49 122 139 52 87 71 102 108 124 137

299 709 709 351 479 419 456 572 630 667

16.4% 17.2% 19.6% 14.8% 18.2% 16.9% 22.4% 18.9% 19.7% 20.5%

1 4 5 4 0 2 47 10 66 218

50 126 144 56 87 73 149 118 190 355

391

(Continued)

392 C. Michael Hall

Table 1 Continued
% Area Protected Threatened Species (TS)

Economy

Land Area (km2)

Marine 2008

Terrestrial 2008

Mammals 2004

2008

Birds 2004

2008

Amphibia 2004

2008

Reptiles 2008

Fish 2008

Molluscs 2008

Other Inverts 2008

Subtotal TS 2008

Total Animals 2008

TS as % of Total 2008

Plants 2008

Total all TS 2008

Solomon Islands Papua New Guinea

28,450 462,840

0.05% 0.45%

0.76% 9.70%

20 58

17 41

22 32

20 36

2 10

2 11

4 9

12 38

2 2

138 167

195 304

922 2035

21.1% 14.9%

16 142

211 446

Sources: Land area from CIA World Factbook. Percentage area protected derived from nationally designated protected areas data extracted from World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), a joint project of UNEP and IUCN, hosted and managed by UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), January 31, 2008. Threatened species gures for 2004 derived from Baillie et al. (2004), appendix 3j. The numbers of threatened species present and threatened species endemic per country for mammals, birds, amphibians, turtles, chondrichthyan shes (elasmobranches), conifers and cycads. The gures for threatened species present exclude uncertain occurrences and vagrants. These will therefore differ from gures obtained through a country search on the 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM , which includes all countries listed within the species range. Threatened species gures for 2008 derived from IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM (2009), table 5. Number of threatened species in each major group of organisms in each country (critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable categories only) (totals by taxonomic group); table 6a Red List Category summary country totals (animals); table 6b Red List Category summary country totals (plants).

An Island Biogeographical Approach to Island Tourism from 2004 to 2008. In the Caribbean the proportion of threatened animal species as a proportion of all animal species in the country ranges from a low of 6.6% in Trinidad and Tobago to a high of 18.1% in Bermuda. The proportion of threatened animal species is much higher overall in the Pacic Islands, which range from a low of 14.8% for Tonga to 22.4% for French Polynesia. Of the 16 Caribbean countries studied, only two (the Cayman Islands and Trinidad and Tobago) have over 30% of their land area set aside as protected areas, although the Turks and Caicos Islands, Dominica and Jamaica have over 20% of their land area protected. In the Pacic only Kiribati has set aside more than 30% of its land area as protected area, while Tonga has a protected area of just over 25%. The proportion of protected marine area in both regions is much lower than terrestrial area. In the Caribbean, Jamaica has the highest proportion of marine area set aside at 3.56% and in the Pacic, Palau has 8.74% of its marine territory as protected area. Table 2 sets out information with respect to tourism and the small island economies of the Caribbean and the Pacic and includes data with respect to UNCTAD economic grouping, population and tourist data in terms of number of visitors and visitor expenditure. Data on average length of stay are included so as to provide a measure of the actual annual population equivalent in real terms (permanent population plus visitors) (see Muller & Hall (2003) for further information on this approach to population determination in tourist regions; where no ofcial gures are available for length of stay a surrogate period of average length of stay for the region has been used). The data indicate that there is a reasonably strong relationship between the terrestrial area of the territory and the number of

393

threatened species (a correlation of 0.62 for the Caribbean and 0.76 for the Pacic). A relatively weak relationship between GDP and number of threatened species was observed for the Caribbean (0.44), although a stronger relationship exists in the Pacic (0.77). No relationship was seen to exist in terms of per capita GDP. The extent of the relationship between GDP and threatened species has been briey noted because of the extent to which this relationship has been observed in other studies (e.g. Czech et al., 2005; Dietz & Adger, 2003), including with respect to the extent that economic growth is meant to lead to increased biodiversity (the so-called environmental Kuznets curve) (Mills & Waite, 2009). A slightly negative relationship was found in both regions with respect to the relationship between tourisms contribution to the economy and the number of endangered species. For small islands the size of the human population may have a signicant impact on biodiversity (McMaster, 2005). In both the Caribbean and the Pacic there is a strong relationship between population and the number of endangered species for each territory, 0.91 and 0.76, respectively. Including international visitors in the island population (see Table 2) provides only a very marginal increase in the strength of the relationship. Table 2 clearly indicates the potential extra impacts that visitors may have on island environments by virtue of their consumption and increased density, thereby leading to disturbance and anthropogenic change. In the case of Anguilla, the annual visitor numbers are equivalent to a 30.5% increase in permanent population, whereas the Cayman Islands is equivalent to a staggering 89%. However, the gures indicated in Tables 1 and 2 are effectively only a single-shot analysis of island biodiversity and tourism economies. Instead, more dynamic approaches that plot

394 C. Michael Hall

Table 2

Tourism and Developing Small Island Economies

Visitor Expenditurea

Economy Caribbean Anguilla Aruba Turks and Caicos Islands Saint Lucia Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Grenada Dominica Cayman Islands Jamaica

UNCTAD Category

Population Estimate 2006 (000)

Visitor Estimate 2006 (000)

Visitors as % of Population (Annual Basis)

Visitors as Ratio to Population (Annual Basis)

Average Length of Stay (Days)

Equivalent Additional Population per Annum

As % of Total Permanent Population

As % of GDP 2002

As % of GDP 2006

% Difference

A A A

12 104 25

167 1,285 248

1,392% 1,236% 992%

1:13.92 1:12.36 1:9.92

8.0 7.9 7.0

3,660 10,152 4,756

30.5% 9.8% 19.0%

50.4% 53.2% 43.7% 45.2% 79.6% 45.1%

2.8% 1.5% -24.5%

A, F A, F A, F A, F A, F B, F

163 84 327 293 50 120

670 745 4,731 1,102 339 306

411% 887% 1,474% 376% 678% 255%

1:4.11 1:8.87 1:14.74 1:3.76 1:6.78 1:2.55

9.5 6.4 9.8 12.5

19,390 82,954 29,588 10,479

23.1% 25.4% 10.1% 8.7%

29.4% 37.2% 38.3% 34.6% 32.9% 33.7% 26.9% 28.4% 15.7% 23.8% 24.9% 23.5%

7.8% -3.7% 0.9% 1.5% 8.1% -1.4%

A, F B, F A B, F

106 68 46 2,699

342 465 2,197 3,016

323% 684% 4,776% 112%

1:3.23 1:6.84 1:47.76 1:1.12

7.6 9.2 6.8 9.8

7,121 11,721 40,930 80,977

6.7% 17.2% 89.0% 3.0%

27.3% 22.5% 18.0% 21.5% 27.9% 20.8% 17.5% 20.3%

-4.8% 3.5% -7.1% 2.8%

Montserrat Bermuda Trinidad and Tobago Pacic Islands Palau Cook Islands Vanuatu Fiji Samoa French Polynesia Micronesia (Federated States of) Tonga New Caledonia Kiribati Solomon Islands Papua New Guinea
a

A A A, F, H

6 65 1,328

9.5 635 543

158% 977% 41%

1:1.58 1:9.77 1:0.41

6.5 14.8

11,308 22,018

17.4% 1.7%

23.7% 17.4% 9.7% 9.8% 4.5% 2.0%

-6.3% 0.1% -2.5%

A, F B B, F, G B, F B, F, G A B, F

20 14 221 833 185 259 111

86 92 154 545 116 222 19.1

430% 657% 70% 65% 63% 86% 17%

1:4.3 1:6.57 1:0.7 1:0.65 1:0.63 1:0.86 1:0.17

10.4 9.8 8.9 13.2

2,621 4,135 13,289 8,028

18.7% 1.9% 1.6% 3.1%

49.6% 45.1% 30.6% 20.6% 17.2% 13.2% 7.5%

57.6% 50.8% 35.6% 20.5% 21.2% 13.9% 6.9%

8.0% 5.7% 5.0% 0.1% 4.0% 0.7%

An Island Biogeographical Approach to Island Tourism

-0.7%

B, F A C, F, G C, F, G C, F

100 238 94 484 6,202

54 219 4.4 11.5 78

54% 92% 5% 2% 0%

1:0.54 1:0.92 1:0.05 1:0.02 0

19.1 9.1

11,460 1,944

4.8% 0%

4.2% 4.7% 6.4% 0.0% 0.0%

6.9% 5.4% 4.0% 1.9% 0.0%

2.5% 0.7% -2.4% 1.9% 0%

Visitor expenditure excluding transport. Most recently available gure/estimate. UNCTAD Economic Groupings: A: 2000 per capita current GDP above US$4,500: High-income (42); B: 2000 per capita current GDP between US$1,000 and US$4,500: Middle-income (50); C: 2000 per capita current GDP below US$1,000: Low-income (65); D: Heavily indebted poor countries HIPCs (41); E: Landlocked developing countries LLDCs (31); F: Small island developing states SIDS (29); G: Least-developed countries LDCs (49); H: Major petroleum exporters (22); I: Major exporters of manufactured goods (12); J: Emerging economies (10); K: Newly industrialized economies (8). Source: Derived from UNCTAD (2008).
b

395

396

C. Michael Hall tourism (Hall 2007), particularly as international medium and long-haul travel to island economies also contributes substantial greenhouse gas emissions (Gossling, Hall, & Scott, 2009). With respect to island biodiversity, the data emphasize that in the case of the islands studied there is a signicant number of endangered species. In the case of animal species in the Caribbean, the proportion of animal species identied by the IUCN as threatened ranges from a low of 7.6% of all animal species in Aruba to a high of 18.1% in Bermuda. In the Pacic the average number of animal species threatened is much higher, ranging from a low of 14.8% in Tonga to 22.5% in French Polynesia. The differences can be explained, at least in part, by theories of island biogeography, whereby more isolated islands, as in the case of the Pacic, are more vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts, and therefore have higher potential for species extinction. Yet, although the maintenance of biodiversity is recognized as a critical element in sustainable development, the proportion of area protected, especially marine areas, remains signicantly lower than recommendations as to what would be required to conserve 80 90% of species (Groves, 2003; Soule & Sanjayan, 1998). Although the sample of island economies is small the paper has also sought to relate biodiversity conservation to the economic and tourism characteristics of islands in a more dynamic fashion. As island biogeographic theory would suggest there is a reasonably strong relationship between island size and number of threatened species. However, human impact on the natural capital of islands is also seen in the strong relationship between population size and the number of endangered species for countries. By themselves, neither the number of tourists nor the

the relationship of tourism growth over time in relation to biodiversity concerns are needed to assess more accurately the role that tourism might play with respect to placing extra pressures on indigenous island species.

Conclusions: Integrating Ecological and Economic Dimensions of Island Tourism

Many of the Caribbean and Pacic Islands are highly dependent on tourism for economic growth (Duval, 2004; Harrison, 2004). However, although sustainable island tourism development has been a signicant issue in tourism studies, there has been relatively little attempt to try and integrate tourism within ecological frameworks that have been developed for island studies. This paper has therefore sought to suggest ways in which theories of island biogeography and ecological economics could underpin the development of steady-state tourism approaches (Hall, 2009) to island tourism. In the case of the small Caribbean and Pacic Islands, the article has highlighted the extent to which tourism, while important economically, also makes a very substantial addition to the real population of the island, human density, and consequent resource consumption and anthropogenic change. It has also tentatively suggested, similar to the results of other developing country research, that economic growth as measured by GDP may not provide positive results for the retention of biodiversity and a reduction in the number of endangered species (Dietz & Adger, 2003; Czech et al., 2005). Such an observation may have profound implications for strategies that argue that biodiversity maintenance in developing countries may be enhanced by encouraging tourism as a means of economic development, so-called pro-poor

An Island Biogeographical Approach to Island Tourism relative size of tourisms contribution to the economy appears related to the number of endangered species. Nevertheless, the combination of tourist numbers and permanent population is strongly positively related to the number of endangered species. This article has suggested some interesting potential directions for future research on the sustainability of the relationship between tourism, economic development and biodiversity conservation in small island environments. It has argued for a more theoretically informed account of sustainable island tourism that seeks to integrate ecological approaches, and island biogeography in particular, with studies of tourism development. However, the size of the sample used to try and study this phenomenon is extremely small and suggests a range of methodological issues that need to be addressed. First, with respect to data availability this study has only utilized data available at the national level; even here some signicant gaps in terms of both information on tourism and biodiversity were found that prevented some islands being studied. For example, the IUCN Red Book has valuable information on endangered species and biodiversity; however, there are some signicant limitations in its use and methods used (see Mace et al., 2008). Second, there are signicant issues of scale. The use of national data for the territories studied has treated all countries as individual islands. Yet some territories, such as the Bahamas, are island archipelagos, thereby potentially signicantly changing the nature of island biogeographic relationships, particularly in terms of area-to-boundary ratios of landmasses, which can affect species range and distribution and their relative susceptibility to disturbance. Just as importantly, there is a need to incorporate understanding of the proportion of territory that is actually

397

affected by habitat change as there are, in effect, islands of relatively natural environment with the terrestrial and marine areas of each country. Such relationships cannot be understood by looking at protected areas alone, as there may be areas of relatively undisturbed environment outside protected areas, while some protected areas may have been subject to signicant disturbance. In addition, with respect to scale there is also a clear need to undertake analysis of change over time so that contributing factors that lead to biodiversity loss are recorded. This will include not only economic, demographic, tourism and biodiversity data, but also information on natural disturbances such as highmagnitude weather events such as storms, oods and drought. Nevertheless, the gathering of such information will provide a basis by which to identify areas that may be most resilient to anthropogenic environmental change, including climate change, and may also provide the identication of sites that can be used as analogue for other island environments at threat as well as benchmark locations with which to measure the impacts of change. Finally, as noted above, it is suggested that the island biogeographical approach can be applied to a range of different island environments, not necessarily surrounded by water! The fragmentation of private and public natural areas creates islands of relatively natural environment surrounded by environmental change. Many national parks and conservation reserves have these characteristics, as do wilderness areas that may act as refugia from global environmental and climate change (Crist, Wilmer, & Aplet, 2005; Hall & Page, 2006). Therefore, in seeking to understand better the role that tourism plays in contributing to biodiversity in such environments, there is considerable potential not only to

398

C. Michael Hall
Czech, B. (2004). A chronological frame of reference for ecological integrity and natural conditions. Natural Resources Journal, 44, 11131136. Czech, B., Trauger, D. L., Farley, J., Costanza, R., Daly, H. E., Hall, C. S. Noss, R. F., Krall, L., & Krausman, P. R. (2005). Establishing indicators for biodiversity. Science, 308, 791792. Daly, H. E. (2008). A steady-state economy. London: Sustainable Development Commission. Dietz, S., & Adger, W. N. (2003). Economic growth, biodiversity loss and conservation effort. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 2335. Dietz, R. W., & Czech, B. (2005). Conservation decits for the continental United States: An ecosystem gap analysis. Conservation Biology, 19(5), 14781487. Dobson, A. P., Rodriguez, J. P., Roberts, W. M., & Wilcove, D. S. (1997). Geographic distribution of endangered species in the United States. Science, 275, 550553. Duval, D. (Ed.). (2004). Tourism in the Caribbean: Trends, development, prospects. London: Routledge. Fahrig, L. (2001). How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation, 100, 6574. Gossling, S. (1999). Ecotourism: a means to safeguard biodiversity and ecosystem functions? Ecological Economics, 29, 303320. Gossling, S., Hansson, C. B., Horstmeier, O., & Saggel, S. (2002). Ecological footprint analysis as a tool to assess tourism sustainability. Ecological Economics, 43, 199211. Gossling, S. (Ed.). (2003). Tourism and development in tropical islands: Political ecology perspectives. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Gossling, S. & Hall, C.M. (Eds.). (2006). Tourism and global environmental change. London: Routledge. Gossling, S., Hall, C. M. & Scott, D. (2009). The chal lenges of tourism as a development strategy in an era of global climate change. In E. Palosou (Ed.), Rethinking development in a carbon-constrained world. Development cooperation and climate change (pp. 100119). Helsinki: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Groves, C. R. (2003). Drafting a conservation blueprint: A practitioners guide to planning for biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press. Hall, C. M. (2007). Pro-poor tourism: Do tourism exchanges benet primarily the countries of the South? Current Issues in Tourism, 10(2 3), 111118. Hall, C. M. (2008). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson. Hall, C. M. (2009). Degrowing tourism: Decroissance, sustainable consumption and steady-state tourism.

examine the population effects of visitation and tourist consumption but also to identify sites of highest resilience with respect to the conservation of insular biodiversity.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the comments of David Duval on an earlier version of the paper as well as conversations with Stefan Gossling, Dan Scott, Murray Simpson and Sandra Wilson.

References
Baillie, J., Hilton-Taylor, C., & Stuart, S. J. (2004). 2004 IUCN red list of threatened species: A global species assessment. Cambridge & Gland: IUCN Species Survival Commission. BBC (2009, July 2). World still losing biodiversity, Retrieved July 3, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/ hi/science/nature/8130942.stm. Brown, J. H. & Gibson, A. C. (1983). Biogeography (1st ed.). St Louis: Mosby. Brown, J. H., & Lomolino, M. V. (2000). Concluding remarks: Historical perspective and the future of island biogeography theory. Global Ecology & Biogeography, 9, 8792. Burt, T. (2003). Scale: Upscaling and downscaling in physical geography. In S. L. Holloway, S. P. Rice & G. Valentine (Eds), Key concepts in geography, (pp. 209227). London: Sage Publications. Christian, C., Potts, T., Burnett, G., & Lacher, Jr. T. (1996). Parrot conservation and ecotourism in the Windward Islands. Journal of Biogeography, 23, 387393. Cox, C. B., Healey, I. N. & Moore, P. D. (1973). Biogeography: An ecological and evolutionary approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Crist, M. R., Wilmer, B., & Aplet, G. H. (2005). Assessing the value of roadless areas in a conservation reserve strategy: Biodiversity and landscape connectivity in the northern Rockies. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(1), 181191.

An Island Biogeographical Approach to Island Tourism

Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 4661. Hall, C. M. & Lew, A. (2009). Understanding and managing tourism impacts: An integrated approach. London: Routledge. Hall, C. M. & Page, S. (2006). The geography of tourism and recreation: Space, place and environment (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Harrison, D. (2004). Tourism in the Pacic Islands. The Journal of Pacic Studies, 26(1&2), 128. Lomolino, M. V. (2000). A call for a new paradigm of island biogeography. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 9, 16. MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1963). An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution, 17, 373387. MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The theory of island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mace, G., Collar, N. J., Gaston, K. J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Akcakaya, H. R., Leader-Williams, N., Milner Gulland, E. J., & Stuart, S. N. (2008). Quantication of extinction risk: IUCNs system for classifying threatened species. Conservation Biology, 22(6), 14241442. McMaster, R. T. (2005). Factors inuencing vascular plant diversity on 22 islands off the coast of eastern North America. Journal of Biogeography, 32(3), 475492. Mills, J. H., & Waite, T. A. (2009). Economic prosperity, biodiversity conservation, and the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 20872095. Muller, D., & Hall, C. M. (2003). Second homes and regional population distribution: On administrative

399

practices and failures in Sweden. Espace Population Societes, 2, 251261. Newsome, D., Moore, S. & Dowling, R. (2002). Natural area tourism: Ecology, impacts and management. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Prendergast, J. R., Quinn, R. M., Lawton, J. H., Eversham, B. C., & Gibbons, D. W. (1993). Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature, 365, 335337. Preston, F. W. (1962). The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: Part I. Ecology, 43, 185215. Quammen, D. (1997). The song of the dodo: Island biogeography in an age of extinctions. New York: Scribner. Schumm, S. A., & Lichty, R. W. (1965). Time, space and causality. American Journal of Science, 263, 110119. Soule, M. E., & Sanjayan, M. A. (1998). Conservation targets: Do they help? Science, 279, 20602061. Soule, M. E., & Simberloff, D. S. (1986). What do genetics and ecology tell us about the design of nature reserves? Biological Conservation, 35(1), 1940. UNCTAD (2008). UNCTAD handbook of statistics 2008. New York and Geneva: UN. Wall, G. (1999). Carrying capacity. In D. E. Alexander & R. W. Fairbridge (Eds.), Encyclopedia of environmental science (pp. 7273). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Whittaker, R. J. & Fernandez-Palacios, J. M. (2007). Island biogeography: Ecology, evolution, and conservation (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, E. O. (2001). Preface. In R. H. MacArthur & E. O. Wilson (Eds), The theory of island biogeography (pp. viiix). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Copyright of Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.