THE IMPACT OF THE TERRESTRIAL BASKING EVENT OF HAWAIIAN GREEN
SEA TURTLES ON VISITORS AT HO’OKIPA, MAUI
by
COLLEEN ANN BLACK

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF TOURISM MANAGEMENT
in the Department of Tourism Management

Thesis examining committee:
John S. Hull (PhD), Associate Professor & Thesis Supervisor, Tourism Management

April 2018
Thompson Rivers University

Colleen Ann Black, 2018

ii

ABSTRACT
In Maui, marine tourism includes Hawaiian green sea turtles that emerge
from the ocean to bask on the sand, at Ho’okipa Beach Park. In no other location in
Hawai’i, do the green sea turtles bask so consistently and in the highest numbers, as
they do at Ho’okipa Beach. With the event drawing approximately 500 visitors to the
beach daily, a local non-profit, Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, aims to protect the turtles by
providing interpretation to visitors. This research examined the impact of the
terrestrial basking event of the Hawaiian green sea turtles on visitors at Ho’okipa,
Maui. The objectives were: 1) to identify if visitors transitioned into more
responsible marine tourists by adapting the outcome indicators of visitor
satisfaction, learning, attitudes and behaviours, from Orams’ marine-tourist model,
2) measure the interpretation efforts of Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, and 3) help aid in the
protection of the basking green sea turtles. Results demonstrated that visitor
transition did not occur and could not be confirmed on visitors who expressed good
intentions, without the pursuit of longitudinal studies. This outcome
notwithstanding, the measured Orams outcome indicators show there is great
visitor satisfaction in the event itself and viewing the basking sea turtles in their
natural environment. Visitors connected emotionally to the turtles, which facilitated
their learning through the interpretation programs of the Hawai’i Wildlife Fund.
The programs impacted the viewing experience and demonstrated that emotion can
transition visitors. Visitor attitudes reflected the knowledge of what constituted a
responsible tourist, yet many disregarded the signage, boundaries, and suggestions
of Hawai’i Wildlife Fund volunteers. This reflected a mixed and somewhat
conflicted viewing experience for many visitors. The most deficient area of Orams
outcome indicators was visitor behaviour. Survey fatigue occurred in this area and

iii

while there were visitors who exhibited good intentions, information on how to get
involved with Hawai’i Wildlife Fund and help the turtles on holiday and when
visitors returned home, was not realized. The findings enable the author to provide
the Hawai’i Tourism Authority and Maui County with insight on how this basking
event impacts visitors. Results also offer managerial strategies from Orams’ model
as recommendations to aid in the visitor and site management that supports Maui
County, Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, and the protection of the basking Hawaiian green
sea turtles, providing a memorable viewing experience for visitors.
keywords: marine tourism, sea turtles, tourism management, wildlife viewing,
responsible tourist, Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Ho’okipa Beach Park.

iv

Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ iv
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. viii
Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................ix
Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................... 1
1.1: Purpose and Background ........................................................................................ 1
1.2: Goals and Conceptual Framework ......................................................................... 1
1.3: Thesis Outline ........................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................... 3
2.1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3
2.2: Natural Events and the Visitor Experience ............................................................ 4
2.3: Wildlife Tourism Management Frameworks....................................................... 10
2.3.1: Non-Consumptive Wildlife-Oriented Recreation .................................... 10
2.3.2: Orams’ Framework ..................................................................................... 13
2.4: Ho’okipa Beach Park, Maui and Hawaiian Green Sea Turtle Research ............ 17
2.5: Summary ................................................................................................................. 21
Chapter 3: Methods ......................................................................................................... 22
3.1: Survey Design......................................................................................................... 22
3.2: Sampling Strategy .................................................................................................. 24
3.3: Research Sample Limitations ................................................................................ 24
3.4: Research Instrument .............................................................................................. 25
3.5: Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 27
3.6: Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 28

v

Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................ 29
4.1: Socio-Demographic Information .......................................................................... 29
4.2: Visitor Satisfaction ................................................................................................. 31
4.3: Visitor Learning ...................................................................................................... 35
4.4: Visitor Attitudes ..................................................................................................... 37
4.5: Visitor Behaviours .................................................................................................. 40
Chapter 5: Discussion ..................................................................................................... 43
5.1: Socio-Demographic Information .......................................................................... 44
5.2: Visitor Satisfaction ................................................................................................. 44
5.3: Visitor Learning ...................................................................................................... 50
5.4: Visitor Attitudes ..................................................................................................... 51
5.5: Visitor Behaviours .................................................................................................. 56
Chapter 6: Conclusions ................................................................................................... 58
6.1: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 59
6.2: Limitations .............................................................................................................. 64
6.2: Contributions .......................................................................................................... 64
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 65
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 70
6.2: Appendix A: Survey .............................................................................................. 70
6.2: Appendix B: Ethics Approval Letter .................................................................... 75

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to extend my sincerest gratitude to Associate Professor Dr. John S.
Hull, for his continuous support of my research and this project. If it were not for
his generosity of time, mentorship, and incredible patience, this thesis would not
have been possible.
I also wish to thank Dr. Kellee Caton who supported this research and helped
me to achieve funding for it. Additionally, a big mahalo to Hannah Bernard,
Executive Director of Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, for her cooperation and collaboration
on this project. To the magnificent Hawaiian green sea turtles at Ho’okipa Beach
Park, you are always in my pu’uwai (heart). Aloha.

vii

List of Tables
Table 4.1: How many times did you witness the turtles in previous trips .............. 32
Table 4.2: How important and the following in achieving a satisfying experience
when viewing the basking sea turtles ......................................................................... 34
Table 4.3: Received information from HWF ............................................................... 36
Table 4.4: Viewing the basking sea turtles causes me to care more about sea turtle
conservation and my environmental choices ............................................................. 36
Table 4.5: Visitor attitudes ............................................................................................ 38
Table 4.6: Opportunity to participate in sea turtle conservation with HWF ........... 40
Table 4.7: Do you actively volunteer in a conservational/environmental
organization................................................................................................................... 40
Table 4.8: I want to engage in a conservational activity but...................................... 41
Table 5.1: KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity: visitor satisfaction ........................ 46
Table 5.2: Two factors important in achieving a satisfying experience when
viewing the basking Hawaiian green sea turtles ....................................................... 47
Table 5.3: KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity: visitor attitudes ............................ 52
Table 5.4: Visitor attitudes ............................................................................................ 53

viii

List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Duffus & Dearden (1990) The core components of non-consumptive
wildlife ........................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.2: The relationship of user specialization and site ...................................... 11
Figure 2.3: Forestell & Kaufman’s (1990) interpretation model ................................ 14
Figure 2.4: Orams (1999) Conceptual model for the management of marine tourism
........................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 2.5: Map of Ho’okipa Beach Park, Maui.......................................................... 18
Figure 2.6: Basking Hawaiian green sea turtles at Ho’okipa Beach ......................... 19
Figure 2.7: Basking green sea turtle ............................................................................. 21
Figure 4.1: Gender ......................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.2: What country do you reside in ................................................................. 30
Figure 4.3: Year born ..................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4.4: First time witnessing the basking sea turtles at Ho’okipa ...................... 31
Figure 4.5: Number of people viewing the turtle including yourself ....................... 32
Figure 4.6: How did you find out about the basking sea turtles............................... 33
Figure 4.7: Prior knowledge of responsible sea turtle viewing guidelines .............. 37
Figure 4.8: What does being a responsible tourist mean to you ............................... 39
Figure 5.1: Orams (1999) Outcome indicators ............................................................ 43
Figure 6.1: Orams (1999) Conceptual model for the management of marine tourism
........................................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 6.2: Map of Ho’okipa Beach Park, Maui.......................................................... 61

ix

ABBREVIATIONS
CBSM - Community-Based Social Marketing
DPS - Distinct Population Segment
ESA - Endangered Species Act
HWF - Hawai’i Wildlife Fund
ICMTS - International Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism Society
KMO - Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
LAC - Limits of Acceptable Change
NCWOR - Non-Consumptive Wildlife-oriented Recreation
NOAA - National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
OPT - Otago Peninsula Trust
SANParks - South African National Parks
SPCA - Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
SPSS - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
SST - Sea Surface Temperature
TRUREB - Thompson Rivers University Research Ethics Board
UNWTO - United Nation’s World Tourism Organization
U.S. - United States
WWF - World Wildlife Fund

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Background
Coastal and marine tourism is a central component of many key tourism
destinations. For the United States, the second most visited country in the world
(U.S. Travel Association, 2015), 85% of its tourist revenue is generated from its
marine environments (Clein-Sain, B., Knecht, R.W., & Foster, N., 1999). In 2016,
visitors voted Maui the best island destination in the U.S., for the 23 rd consecutive
year (Maui Now, 2016). Maui’s beaches are special for many reasons, including the
island’s green sea turtles, which emerge from the ocean to bask on the sand at
Ho’okipa Beach Park.
Terrestrial basking is a behaviour unique to specific populations of green sea
turtles located in Hawai’i, the Galapagos, and the Wellesley archipelago of Australia
(Van Houtan, K.S., Halley, J.M., & Marks, W., 2015). The basking event in Maui,
draws upwards of 500 visitors per day (H. Bernard, personal communication,
November 26, 2016). On the beach, a local non-profit, Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, uses
interpretation as a visitor management strategy in pursuit of protecting the turtles
listed as ‘threatened’ under the Endangered Species Act (NOAA Fisheries, 2016).
1.2 Goals and Conceptual Framework
The goal of this research is to examine the impact of the terrestrial basking
event of Hawaiian green sea turtles on visitors at Ho’okipa Beach Park, Maui, U.S.A.
Qualitative and quantitative survey results will profile five areas: visitor satisfaction,
learning, attitudes, behaviours, and socio-demographic information. Within these
areas, visitors will be asked to determine the items important in achieving a

2

satisfying viewing experience, the information they gained during the basking event
and any knowledge of sea turtle viewing guidelines prior to the event. Queries
concerning visitor attitudes will be directed towards the basking event, sea turtles,
visitor conduct, and what being a responsible tourist means to them. Finally,
questions on visitor behaviour will address respondents’ participation in
conservation activities, their barriers to participation if they are not involved, what
pro-environmental habits they currently hold, and how they will help the basking
sea turtles once they return home.
The proposed research will adapt Orams’ marine tourism management
model (1999) as a guiding framework, to determine if visitors transition into more
responsible tourists after viewing the basking turtles. It is desired that the results
from this survey will help improve marine tourism management at Ho’okipa Beach
Park and aid in the protection of the basking Hawaiian green sea turtles.
1.3 Thesis Outline
This thesis will be organized into six chapters. In chapter 2, a literature review
will summarize natural events, wildlife tourism management frameworks, Ho’okipa
Beach Park and Hawaiian green sea turtle research. Chapter 3 will outline the
methodological approach of the proposed research, while chapter 4 will present the
results. In chapter 5, there will be a critical discussion and analysis of the results in
context of the literature. Chapter 6 will summarize conclusions, limitations, and
recommendations of the investigation.

3

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The International Congress on Coastal and Marine Tourism Society (ICMTS)
defines coastal and marine tourism to be inclusive of “recreational activities which
involve travel away from one's place of residence which have as their host or focus the marine
environment and/or the coastal zone" (p. 9) (ICMTS, N.D.). Examples of recreational
activities include common beach and oceanic leisure interests, boating, fishing, and
wildlife watching (ICMTS, N.D.).
This sector of the tourism industry has increased substantially, with 86.0
million U.S. residents, 16 years or older, participating in wildlife-watching activities
exclusively. The US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (2016) reports
that “19.6 million participants, 83% of all away-from-home wildlife watchers,” cite
wildlife watching as their most prominent pursuit. This figure is significant, since
the U.S. has been named the world’s second largest tourism spender, according to a
2016 United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) report on
international tourism expenditures (GTP, 2017).
With mass tourism in mind, tourists often seek viewing experiences that offer
personally-defined authenticity and satisfaction, for which the observation of
wildlife often occurs in the animals’ natural environment and which can include the
quest for and curiosity of, natural events. With that quest emanates a great necessity
for tourism management practices that protect the safety and well-being of wildlife
populations, while providing visitors with a memorable viewing experience.
Interpretation is often included in these practices, to engage, inform, and manage

4

the visitor. Such is the case for the basking Hawaiian green sea turtles at Ho’okipa
Beach Park, Maui.
This chapter provides a summary of literature central to this study and is
organized around three themes: (1) natural events and the visitor experience, (2)
wildlife tourism management frameworks, and (3) Ho’okipa Beach Park and
Hawaiian green sea turtle research.
2.2 Natural Events and the Visitor Experience
According to Kruger, Viljoen & Saayman (2013), natural events are defined as
“events that occur in a specific place and at a specific time, lasting from a few
seconds to a few weeks and are not organized by humans” (p. 3). They can be
categorized into earth, sky, animal, bird, water, and plant events (Kruger, Saayman
& Hull, 2018). Kruger et al. (2018) conducted research to profile the motives of
natural event visitors at the 2014 ‘Salute to the Sockeye’ salmon run, in British
Columbia. Annually, the natural water event hosts hordes of spawning salmon on
the Adams River, with every fourth year cyclically displaying a large run (Adams
River Salmon Society, 2018). In 2014, the river held a large run of 19 million salmon
(Adams River Salmon Society, 2018).
To commemorate this event, the Adams River Salmon Society holds a
celebration in Roderick Haig-Brown Provincial Park, where the Adams River runs.
Food vendors are present, along with interpretive slide-shows, printed information,
facilitated talks, indigenous dance performances, and souvenirs.
A motivational profile was utilized to segment visitors, resulting in a tourist
typology. The typology could then be used to evaluate the motives of viewers that
attend the salmon event, determine the impacts which constituted a memorable

5

viewing experience for each segment, and develop marketing strategies toward the
visitor segments, accordingly.
The results of this study concluded that visitors travelled to natural events
simply to appreciate the genuineness of the spectacle, have their lives enhanced, and
become educated. Kruger & Saayman (2017) determined the factors important to
visitors for a memorable viewing experience included: “photography, proximity and
authenticity, accessibility, managed encounters and tranquility, splendour and
amazement, and primary and secondary interpretation” (p. 6). The visitors were
segmented into Novelists, Naturalists, Enthusiasts, and Escapists (Kruger et al.,
2018). Their motives for witnessing the event involved lifestyle and nature
experience, annual commitment and social interaction, unique experience and
escape, and education and photography (Kruger et al., 2018). The Novelists were
motivated by the lifestyle/natural experience and unique experience/escape; The
Naturalists by the lifestyle/nature experience and by education and photography
factors; Enthusiasts were motivated by the entire event; and Escapists for the unique
experience and escape traits the event offered (Kruger et al., 2018).
An additional study on wildflower tourism by Kruger, M., Viljoen, A. &
Saayman, M. (2013), sought to recognize visitor motivations of travel to two
different South African National Parks (SANParks) to witness the natural plant
event of wildflower blooming. Once again, the project’s goal was to determine a
visitor segmentation that would construct a visitor profile based on a typology, to
discover the factors visitors considered important in park attributes and a
memorable experience.
Kruger et al. (2013) determined that visitors’ motivations were “experience
and appreciation, escape, and amenities” (p. 92) and the visitor segments that were

6

defined were “Appreciators, Observers, and Admirers” (p. 92). Admirers scored all
motivational factors highest, Observers lowest, and Appreciators viewed experience
and appreciation the most important attributes. Factors important to a memorable
experience “were identified, namely, in order of importance: uniqueness, splendor
and diversity, and identification” (Kruger et al., 2013, p.94-95). Tangible park
attributes, which were facility-based preferences, scored higher over intangible park
features, such as accessibility and directions to and from the park.
Although one study focuses on a water event and the other a plant event,
there are similarities characteristic to both natural events. These include
experiencing the natural event for its own remarkable sake, the importance of
proximity to the species being viewed, the photographic opportunities it provides,
and the education presented either by way of primary or secondary interpretation,
which includes the identification of species.
While the study objectives of both investigations were successfully
accomplished, queries on visitor behaviour appeared in the wildflower study only,
which addressed the frequency of tourist visitation to the SANParks, as opposed to
personal conservational or pro-environmental behaviours held by visitors.
Furthermore, no discussion of whether viewing the salmon or wildflowers
transitioned visitors into more responsible tourists, was evidenced.
In contrast, Ballantyne, Packer & Falk (2010) sought to discover the defining
element of a visitor’s transition into the long-term conscientious tourist. The
researchers examined the impacts wildlife tourism experiences had on visitors at
four separate wildlife viewing experiences in Queensland, Australia. These included
two captive events and two natural events, which were: an aquarium, marine theme
park, a turtle nesting and hatching encounter, and a whale watching tour. Visitors

7

who participated in the study were to commit to complete three questionnaires: one
pre-visit, a second post-visit, and a third, web survey, was completed four months
after the encounters. Three variables that were measured included “visitors’
entering attributes (environmental orientations and motivations for the visit), salient
aspects of the experience, and short and long-term impacts on visitors’
environmental learning and behavioural outcomes” (Ballantyne, et al., 2010, p.
1244).
Approximately 1278 participants completed the pre-visit questionnaire,
however, only 173 visitors completed all three questionnaires. Respondent numbers
notwithstanding, some of the salient aspects of the viewing experience included the
exhilaration of seeing the animals, having good views of them, and an experience
that was enjoyable, engaging, and left visitors “feeling a sense of wonder or awe”
(Ballantyne et al., 2010, p. 1247). An emotional connection with the animals being
viewed was principal, feelings (positive or negative) toward environmental
concerns, and the need to reflect on and discuss the experience with their travel
companions was also important to visitors (Ballantyne et al., 2010).
Ballantyne et al. (2010) discovered that “a reflective experience made a
significant contribution to short-term learning, which in turn was a significant but
weak predictor of long-term impact” (p. 1250) and learning outcomes were resultant
of the combination between cognitive and emotional factors.
The researchers did not investigate barriers to participation and the qualifiers
visitors deemed important in achieving a satisfying viewing experience, were not
addressed. Yet, some of those aspects, in general terms, filtered through visitor
responses, when asked about their motivational reasons for partaking in the viewing
experience. Nonetheless, visitor transition into the long-term responsible tourist

8

remained illusive, as Ballantyne et al. (2010) observed “new knowledge and
understandings appeared to outlast actual changes in attitudes and behaviour” (p.
1250).
Accordingly, Hughes (2013) argued that visitor intentions recorded
immediately post-experience were a poor way to predict long-term behaviour
changes in visitors. Hughes (2013) utilized the natural sea turtle nesting event at
Mon Repos Conservation Park in Queensland Australia, and performed a study
utilizing nearly the same methodology as Ballantyne, Packer & Falk (2010). One
hundred Australian families were given three questionnaires which included one for
the pre-visit, measuring visitor’s conservation knowledge regarding turtles and their
threats, their attitudes, and 13 conservation behaviours they may participate in, such
as recycling, volunteering, and donating money to causes (Hughes, 2013). A second
questionnaire was administered immediately post-visit to measure the visitor’s
experience, and the third questionnaire was given three (instead of four) months
after the viewing experience, to measure long-term behaviour change (Hughes,
2013).
Hughes (2013) discovered an increase in visitor’s behavioral intentions “if
they felt an emotional connection with the turtles viewed” (p. 50) and visitors stated
they would increase their role in the 13 conservation behaviours surveyed.
However, three months after the viewing experience, most visitors did not change
their behaviours (Hughes, 2013). Hughes (2013) discusses Community-Based Social
Marketing (CBSM) theory, which seeks to isolate barriers that prevent people from
engaging in conservation activities. It was Hughes’ (2013) paper that inspired this
author to survey visitors regarding their barriers toward conservation participation.
This study did not address specific traits of visitor satisfaction.

9

Another natural event case study, involves three separate elephant seal
breeding sites. Two rookeries located in California and another in Argentina. The
sites were highly accessible to the public and drew masses of tourists, at all
locations. Le Boeuf and Campagna (2013) studied the pinnipeds for 67 years and
constructed best practices to protect the elephant seals from the crowds.
The researchers believed that the protection of the pinnipeds must occur first,
before visitors can have a satisfactory experience, as “unrestricted free access
reduces the experience for all and ultimately threatens the attraction itself and the
entire program” (Le Boeuf & Campagna, 2013, p. 140). Le Boeuf and Campagna
(2013) affirmed that visitor behaviours should not be negative as to impact the
animal population or destroy the natural viewing event for other visitors.
There is a strong parallel here with the basking sea turtles on Maui, as visitor
behaviour has been monitored at the basking site by Hawai’i Wildlife Fund since
2008. Le Boeuf and Campagna (2013) devised their strategy to protect the elephant
seals by the observations they made witnessing the viewing event, not by surveying
visitors about their viewing experience (Le Boeuf & Campagna, 2013). Therefore,
visitor satisfaction, learning, attitudes, and behaviours were not addressed, nor if
visitors transition into more responsible tourists post-viewing experience.
In reviewing the literature on natural events and the visitor experience, the
case studies exhibit many analogous qualities, such as experiencing the spectacle for
its own sake, protection and conservation, emotional connection, proximity to the
species, and the pursuit to discover the causes of short and long-term behaviour
change. While a great deal of literature on wildlife viewing exists, there is no study
that addresses the impacts of the terrestrial basking event of the Hawaiian green sea

10

turtles on visitors, and their experience, at Ho’okipa Beach Park. In the next section,
I will discuss two models often utilized in wildlife tourism management.
2.3 Wildlife Tourism Management Frameworks
Two conceptual models proposed by Duffus and Dearden (1990) and Mark
Orams (1995) assist in addressing wildlife oriented recreation and management of
marine tourism.
2.3.1 Non-Consumptive Wildlife-Oriented Recreation: A Conceptual Framework
In the first model, wildlife watching has been characterized as a nonconsumptive wildlife-oriented recreation (NCWOR), which is defined as “a human
recreational engagement with wildlife wherein the focal organism is not purposely
removed or permanently affected by the engagement” (Duffus & Dearden, 1990, p.
215). The researchers created this framework hoping it would assist in managing the
growth of non-consumptive wildlife activities between the species, people, and the
historical relationship between the two (Duffus & Dearden, 1990).

Figure 2.1: Duffus & Dearden (1990) - The core components of non-consumptive wildlife.
use.

11

Duffus & Dearden (1990) employ a growth curve modelled after Butler’s
tourist area life cycle curve (Butler, 1980). The researchers state that a wildlife
viewing site may grow in notoriety causing the visitor type to change over time,
whereby they demand their own differing levels of satisfaction and expectation from
the experience (Duffus & Dearden, 1990). They argue that in the beginning, a tourist
typology called the “wildlife specialists” (p. 222) will be the ones to attend the
viewing site, requiring very little in the way of infrastructure or interpretation, and
their presence does not impact the species, society, or natural viewing site (Duffus &
Dearden, 1990). As knowledge of the viewing site grows, the “wildlife generalist” (p.
222) begins to appear demanding “more facility development, more mediation and

Figure 2.2: Wildlife-oriented recreation.
The relationship of user specialization and site.
evaluation.

12

increased pressure on both the social system and the ecosystem of the host area”
(Duffus & Dearden, 1990, p. 222). As the growth of the viewing site continues, the
wildlife generalist must become more accommodated, eventually pushing out the
wildlife specialists, dominating and stressing the host society and ecosystem,
increasing the need for managerial intervention (Duffus & Dearden, 1990).
At each stage of growth, “change is initiated when the area’s existing carrying
capacity is exceeded” (Duffus & Dearden, 1990, p. 224). The authors refer to this as
the “limits of acceptable change (LAC)” (Duffus & Dearden, 1990, p. 225), for which
there are three levels and “violating LAC III may well be serious enough to
permanently alter the ecological capacity of the site to provide the recreational
experience” (Duffus & Dearden, 1990, p. 225). While Duffus & Dearden (1990) offer
this framework, the researchers recommend determining the expectations,
motivations and satisfactions of wildlife viewers to further aid in the management of
the NCWOR and the focal species.
Higham (1998) tested the Duffus & Dearden (1990) framework to target
visitor impacts of NCWOR on the Northern Royal Albatross Colony, in New
Zealand. Guides have been taking visitors to view the colony since 1972, operated
by the Otago Peninsula Trust (OPT) who produced annual reports detailing tourism
development to the colony (Higham, 1998). For 16 years, small tours of visitors were
escorted to view the Albatross three days a week. This changed in the 1980s, when
daily tours, visitor numbers, and the hours of operation expanded (Higham, 1998).
Infrastructure was built which included an observatory, followed by a reception
centre and the provision of 21 tours per day, which left every half hour during an
11.5-hour work day, every single day of the year, excluding Christmas Day
(Higham, 1998). The growth curve at Taiaroa Head mimicked the curve utilized by
Duffus & Dearden (1990).

13

While the wildlife generalists demanded more introductory information
about the colony, they also required “policing of behaviour” (p. 528), exhibited
unacceptable noise levels, and utilized camera flashes on the birds (Higham, 1998).
Higham (1998) reported the carrying capacity of the Albatross viewing site
progressed from LAC I, which “allows the maximum number of viewers with
minimum facilities and negligible impact on the species or habitat” (p. 528) to LAC
II, which may show impacts on the Albatross. Such was the case, as some birds
began nesting in sub-optimal locations, away from the observatory while others
seemed to tolerate the visitors (Higham, 1998). However, Higham (1998) examined
nesting records over a 50-year period discovering the age albatross chicks would
leave their nests was considerably different between those who were in nests close
to viewers, compared to those that were out of sight. Further, he pointed out that the
tolerance of tourists does not mean impacts still do not take place on the species and
while he agreed the Duffus & Dearden (1990) framework held up, the tourist
impacts on wildlife would be difficult to recognize had he not had “time series
research” (p. 529) to review and recommended ongoing monitoring of the viewing
site (Higham, 1998).
2.3.2 Orams’ Framework
Orams offers a conceptual framework for the management of marine tourism
(1995). This is a framework for testing the efficacy of various tourism management
strategies to move visitors toward stewardship of the environment (Orams, 1999).
One of the management strategies utilized, is interpretation: “an educational activity
which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects,
by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media, rather than simply to
communicate factual information” (Tilden, 1957, p. 8). Orams’ model was adapted

14

from the work of Forestell and Kaufman (1990) who tested whale watching
interpretation programs in Hawai’i to assess their impact on visitor appreciation.

Figure 2.3: Forestell & Kaufman’s (1990) interpretation model.

Forestell & Kaufman (1990) used Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance
theory to develop a three-stage experiential interpretation program. The researchers
believed questions should be created in the visitors’ minds, prior to the tourism
encounter, in a Pre Contact Phase that creates “a perceived need for information”
(Orams, 1996, p. 85). The discrepancy between the visitors needing and having the
information causes dissonance (discord), motivating visitors to learn. The
interpreters manage the cognitive dissonance in the visitors, by providing them with
the needed information “relevant to what the tourist is observing and experiencing”
(p. 85), during their experience (Orams, 1996). The Post Contact Phase incorporates
activities to help move the participants into a changed behaviour, after they have
assimilated the new information (Orams, 1996).
However, since a variety of wildlife experiences cannot host a pre and post
contact phase, Orams utilized Forestell & Kaufman’s (1990) model as a structure to
build upon. He examined cognitive processes and determined there was relevance
of the affective domain in “nature-based tourism because of the emotional responses
that such interaction with nature engenders” (Orams, 1996, p. 89). Therefore, if an

15

interpretation program contained emotional involvement for the visitor, it may be
likely to cause a behaviour change if visitors were persuaded by factors of why they
should change (Orams, 1996). Orams (1996) believed this could be achieved if
interpretation programs provided the means and the opportunity for visitors to act
and constructed a six-step approach in designing an effective interpretation program
(Orams, 1996).
Nevertheless, interpretation is one management strategy for which there are
others used to manage marine encounters. Orams (1995) developed a conceptual
model for the management of marine tourism that divided managerial approaches
into four categories: regulatory, physical, economic, and educational. These
strategies could be utilized in various combinations to manage marine tourism
recreations, classified from easily accessible to those that are more remote.

Figure 2.4: Orams (1999) Conceptual model for the management of marine tourism.

To assess the success of the strategies employed to manage a marine tourism
recreation, Orams (1995) devised outcome indicators. Outcome indicators are four

16

steps used to measure a visitor’s satisfaction/enjoyment, education/learning,
attitude/belief change, and behaviour/lifestyle change (Orams, 1995). The objective is
to help facilitate the visitor from having an enjoyable experience wishing to impart a
minimal disturbance on an environment, to one where they make a behaviour
change which positively contributes to the environment (Orams, 1995). Orams (1999)
endorses designing a research instrument to measure outcome indicators and
believes “educational strategies in combination with other approaches show
considerable potential for creating the sustainable ‘ecotourism’ that so many hope is
attainable” (p. 91).
In 2008, Zeppel applied Orams’ framework to analyze the empirical studies of
18 marine wildlife experiences, in Australia. Within all experiences, visitors received
guided tours (Zeppel, 2008). She found positive tourist behaviour changes occurred
when emotional empathy and learning were combined (Zeppel, 2008). When the
guide placed the focus of the encounter on education, some visitors changed their
attitudes toward conservation, becoming more aware of species threats (Zeppel,
2008). Human impacts on the species also influenced visitor attitudes, beliefs, and
conservation outcomes (Zeppel, 2008). Visitors cleaned beaches, donated money to
wildlife causes and recycled, four months after encounters with sea turtles and
dolphins (Zeppel, 2008). Zeppel (2008) concurred that her review of the 18
experiences “supports Orams’ (1999) framework, for managing marine tourism
experiences as well as the experiential education sequence model in marine
ecotourism programs (Forestell, 1990)” (p. 11). She advocated for longitudinal
studies post experience and that future research be executed on the connections
between emotions, learning, the wildlife experience, and conservational actions with
Orams’ (1999) model (Zeppel, 2013).

17

Out of the two wildlife tourism management frameworks, this author will
adapt Orams’ (1999) model to study the impacts of terrestrial basking event of
Hawaiian green sea turtles on visitors, at Ho’okipa, Maui.
2.4 Ho’okipa Beach Park, Maui and Hawaiian Green Sea Turtle Research
The literature investigated on Hawaiian green sea turtles includes studies
that have been completed at Ho’okipa Beach Park, have addressed basking
behaviours, and are within the Hawaiian archipelago.
In Hawai’i, the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) population has increased
53% over the last 25 years due to the protection of them in 1978 from human
harvesting (NOAA Fisheries: Pacific Islands Regional Office, N.D.). However, after
40 years of protection, this population is still regarded as ‘threatened’ under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and is recognized as a distinct population segment
(DPS) (NOAA Fisheries: Pacific Islands Regional Office, N.D.). This is defined as “a
vertebrate population or group of populations that is discrete from other population
of the species and significant in relation to the entire species” (NOAA Fisheries,
2014).
In 2008, Hawai’i Wildlife Fund (HWF) began a photo ID catalogue of the
basking green sea turtles at Ho’okipa Beach Park and has since recorded over 120
individual turtles that bask on the beach (Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, personal
communication, April 2016). In 2011, Maui county lifeguards asked the non-profit
to help them protect the turtles from harassment, as they could not safely monitor
both people and sea turtles (H. Bernard, personal communication, November 26,
2016).
Green sea turtles will bask on other beaches of Maui and the Hawaiian
archipelago. However, what is unique about this population is that no other area

18

receives the basking turtles with such consistency and number, with HWF reporting
a record of more than 100 turtles basking at one time, at Ho’okipa Beach (Hawai’i
Wildlife Fund, personal communication, April 2016). Typical numbers are reflective
of 20 or more basking sea turtles in an evening, but each night is different (Hawai’i
Wildlife Fund, personal communication, April 2016).
It is assumed that the green sea turtles arrive at Ho’okipa to bask, because it is
an area that is very accessible to them (Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, personal
communication, April 2016). The basking beach maintains a gentle incline from the
ocean’s entry, surrounded by a tall volcanic wall which can serve as protection from
some of the harsher environmental elements. (Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, personal
communication, April 2016). The basking period begins mid-day, mainly, and
continues toward sunset where the turtles will rest on the beach overnight. Basking
turtles most often remain motionless, except when taking a breath or to flip sand on

= Basking Area on Beach
VW = Volcanic Wall
VW
Ocean

Figure 2.5: Map of Ho’okipa Beach Park, Maui.

19

their hind flippers or carapace, to cool themselves. At night the beach becomes very
dark and the gates to Ho’okipa Beach Park are locked allowing the turtle population
to rest undisturbed (Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, personal communication, April 2016).
Basking helps the turtles with thermoregulation and to avoid tiger sharks
(Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, personal communication, April 2016). It is proposed that the
basking behaviour aids in digestion (Van Houtan, Halley & Marks, 2015), vitamin D
synthesis, egg maturation, and helps break down fungi and algae (Maxwell,
Jeglinski, Trillmich, Costa & Raimondi, 2014).
Both Hawthrone (in press) and Van Houtan et al. (2015) examined the
basking behaviours of Hawaiian green sea turtles against sea surface temperatures
(SST), in Hawai’i. Hawthrone (in press) looked at the correlation between the
number of basking turtles to the sea surface temperatures (SST) and surf heights, at
Ho’okipa Beach.

Photo: C. Black

Figure 2.6: Basking Hawaiian Green Sea Turtles at Ho’okipa
Beach Park.
Van Houtan et al. (2015) completed a sea surface temperature (SST)/basking study,
utilizing census data from turtles basking at Laniakea Beach Park, on O’ahu.

20

Hawthrone (in press) discovered surf heights low in stature facilitated the
largest numbers of basking turtles on the beach, whereas turtles were frequently
disturbed or displaced when high surf encroached upon the beach basking area. At
Ho’okipa, peak numbers of basking green sea turtles occurred during the
transitional months between summer (August, September, October) and fall
(November, December, January) (Hawthrone, in press). The reverse was stated by
Van Houtan et al. (2015), who determined higher numbers of basking turtles during
the winter months on O’ahu, when the sea surface temperature drops below 23
degrees Celcius. Both studies did not see high numbers of sea turtles basking in
spring or summer months. Van Houtan et al. (2015) suggest the basking behaviour
of Hawaiian green sea turtles may cease in Hawai’i by 2039 due to the warming of
oceanic conditions, allowing the green turtles to thermoregulate in-water.
Hawthrone (in press) argues the sea turtles may not need to thermoregulate via
basking during the colder months but exhibit the behaviour when the sea surface
temperature initially drops, to regulate their body temperatures as they transition
into the next climatic season. Hawthrone (in press) maintains that rising sea levels
will cause the basking area of Ho’okipa Beach to be considerably covered by water
by 2050, significantly reducing the basking turtle population and possibly
completely submerged by 2100, eliminating the green sea turtles from the area
altogether.
Further research on Hawaiian green sea turtles may be viewed by Balazs, a
career researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), who has produced over 180 publications on turtles. These include studies
on the basking behaviours of sea turtles and their thermal ecology (1982), biological
data (1979), migrations (1976), and issues of disease (2005), to name a very small few
of his vast accomplishments.

21

2.5 Summary
In summary, the above studies address natural events, wildlife tourism
management frameworks, Ho’okipa Beach Park and green sea turtle research in
Hawai’i. Although numerous studies have evaluated the basking behaviours of the
Hawaiian green sea turtles, none have adopted/tested Orams (1999) framework. An
additional gap exists on the impacts the basking Hawaiian green sea turtles have on
visitors and whether viewing this event positively impacts learning, attitudes, and
behaviors of environmental responsibility. The result of this research will provide
Hawai’i Wildlife Fund (HWF) and Maui County with valuable information on the
visitor, their experience, and marine tourism management options to help protect
the basking Hawaiian green sea turtles, at Ho’okipa Beach Park, Maui.

Photo: C. Black

Figure 2.7: Basking green sea turtle.

22

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
In 1995, Orams developed a marine tourism evaluation tool to assess
management strategies and their impacts on visitors, by measuring their levels of
satisfaction, learning, attitudes, and behaviors. Management of a marine tourism
activity that is sustainable, successfully shifts the marine tourist from an enjoyable
experience, towards one which changes their behaviour or lifestyle. Consequently,
this change in the visitor promotes a positive manifestation in the environment, by
minimizing disturbances, improving habitats, and contributing to the longevity of
the environment’s health and well-being (Orams, M., 1999). As noted, this
framework has yet to be explored in the context of the basking sea turtles, at
Ho’okipa Beach Park, Maui.
3.1 Survey Design
Due to my previous volunteer experiences with Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, I
adopted an interpretive epistemology, which seeks to “grasp the subjective
meanings of people’s actions” (Bryman, A., Teevan, J., & Bell, E., 2009, p. 8).
Interpretive epistemology embraces a research worldview where individuals
interpret the reality of their daily lives and it is these thoughts that motivate their
behaviour (Bryman, A., Teevan, J., & Bell, E., 2009). My earlier work with Hawai’i
Wildlife Fund and my concerns for conserving the threatened Hawaiian green sea
turtle, have led me to want to explore how and if interpretation of the basking green
sea turtles can influence the behaviour of tourists, making them more responsible.
The ontological approach utilized for this study, was constructivism.
Constructivism explains that social reality is “not necessarily pre-existing and fixed

23

but is instead created through our actions” (Bryman, A., Teevan, J., & Bell, E., 2009,
p. 10). Since meaning is defined by what individuals attribute to it, this approach is
valuable in determining the significance behind the attributes of visitor satisfaction,
learning, attitudes, and behaviours, at Ho’okipa, Maui, to establish if the action of
transitioning into a better tourist occurs.
Methodologically, a case study approach using mixed methods was
employed. Case studies are particularly useful for understanding people, events,
experiences and organizations in their social and historical context (Veal, 2006). A
random intercept survey gathered quantitative and qualitative data, adapting
outcome indicators from Orams’ marine tourism model (1999). Questions were
linked to visitor satisfaction, learning, attitudes, and behavior changes. Sociodemographic information was also profiled.
Both quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed using SPSS
software. A content analysis was performed on all qualitative explorations to
identify emergent themes, from which data could be entered into SPSS and
analyzed with the quantitative investigations. A frequency analysis was applied to
summarize the results of all qualitative and quantitative questions. One question
that asks the participant to name three emotions, was analyzed using a word cloud
generator called Tag Crowd (N.D.).
The result of this research will assist both Hawai’i Wildlife Fund (HWF) and
Maui County in providing valuable information on the visitor and their experience.
This will aid in devising marine tourism management options to help protect the
basking Hawaiian green sea turtles, at Ho’okipa Beach Park, Maui. Providing
essential base line information, this research can be repeated in future, delivering
comparisons and possible trends.

24

3.2 Sampling Strategy
A convenience sample of 400 surveys was to be collected using a clipboard
and paper survey. The survey sample size of 400 was determined by utilizing the
Research Advisors Required Sample Size Table (Research Advisors, 2006). In 2016,
76,094 people visited Ho’okipa Beach Park (Hawthorne, J., personal communication,
October 5, 2017). The visitor total is calculated from 2:30 pm when a Hawai’i
Wildlife Fund (HWF) volunteer is on shift, until park closing. Park closing was at
7pm during this study but may vary slightly other times of the year, given periods
of shorter days of sunlight. In the Northern Hemisphere, June 20, 2017 was the
longest day of the year (summer solstice), giving Maui 13:25:51 hours of daylight
(Time and Date AS, 1995-2018). December 21, 2017 was the shortest day of the year
(winter solstice), offering Maui 10:50:15 hours of daylight (Time and Date AS, 19952018). The visitor total includes the number of people on the beach viewing the
basking sea turtles but does not differentiate between residents or tourists.
The Sample Size Table shows that one who desires to generate a 95%
confidence level with a 5% margin of error for a population size of 75,000, would
need a sample size of 381 individuals. For a population as large as 250,000 to
300,000,000, one would need a sample size of 384 individuals (Research Advisors,
2006). Therefore, the investigator chose a rounded integer of 400 as the selected the
sample size, for this research.
Surveyed participants were 18+ years old (of legal age in the Hawaiian State)
and were visitors to Maui and the Hawaiian Islands.
3.3 Research Sample Limitations
Hawai’i State residents and Hawaiians were excluded from the survey, along
with minors, those under 18 years of age.

25

3.4 Research Instrument
The survey for this project profiled questions in five areas. Four areas
adapted the Outcome Indicators from Orams’ (1999) marine tourism management
model, which included: visitor satisfaction, visitor learning, visitor attitudes, and
visitor behaviours. The fifth area, summarized socio-demographic information
(Appendix A).
Questions constructed for this survey included those designed by the
researcher, as well as those borrowed and adapted from the Salute to the Sockeye
Visitor Survey 2014 by Kruger, Saayman & Hull (2018). It also adapts the theory of
Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM) that Hughes (2013) discusses in her
literature review, devising inquiries for respondent evaluation.
Survey questions borrowed from the Salute to the Sockeye Visitor Survey
2014, incorporated gender and year born. Questions adapted from the Salute to the
Sockeye Visitor Survey 2014 (Kruger, Saayman & Hull, 2018), included those on
visitor attendance and frequency to the site, the number of travel companions, and
the emotions felt during the basking experience.
Adapted Likert Scale questions from Sections B and C of the Salute to the
Sockeye Visitor Survey 2014 (Kruger, Saayman & Hull, 2018), consisted of
motivational elements visitors felt were important to their viewing experience.
The Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM) concept deals with
discovering barriers toward pro-environmental behaviours. These barriers can be
real or perceived (Hughes, 2013) and can consist of either internal or external factors
(McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). McKenzie-Mohr (2000) refers to pro-environmental
behaviours as repetitive, in which effort is needed initially but also needs to be
sustained over time.

26

In her conclusion, Hughes (2013) concurred that despite an individual’s good
intentions, they may not be engaged in pro-environmental behaviours due to “lack
of knowledge, time and/or money; poor supporting infrastructure; and social,
cultural and economic factors” (p. 56-57). It was this statement that prompted a
survey question asking of participants, if they actively volunteered in any
conservation or environmental organizations. If participants did not engage in a
conservation/environmental activity, a proceeding question asked the respondent
what their barrier toward participating was, asking if it was due to: not knowing
how to get involved, not having time, it costs money, there being no direct
experiences where they live, poor infrastructure, or poor management.
Survey questions were further developed from “variables associated with
responsible pro-environmental behaviour” (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002, p. 243).
Hines, Hunderford & Tomera (1986) executed research that was structured upon
Ajzen’s (1985) Theory of Planned Behaviour, from which Community-Based Social
Marketing was devised. Hines et al. (1986) completed a meta-analysis of 128 proenvironmental behaviour studies and found that pro-environmental behaviours
were associated with six factors: (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002, p. 243).
•

Knowledge of issues - person is aware of the environmental issue and its
causes.

•

Knowledge of action strategies - person knows how they are to act to lower
their impact on environment.

•

Locus of control - a person’s perception of their ability to cause or bring about
change through their own behavioural actions.

•

Attitudes - people with strong pro-environmental mindsets were more likely
to engage in pro-behaviours.

27

•

Verbal commitment - willingness toward pro-environmental behaviors came
from an expressed intent to take action.

•

Individual sense of responsibility - those who feel a personal sense of
responsibility in their lives are more likely to engage in pro-environmental
behaviours.

From these variables, some of the survey questions included Likert Scale questions
such as: I believe there are actions I can take to help the turtles, it is my
responsibility to participate in ethical wildlife encounters, and sustainability of
viewing the turtles depends on visitor and site management. Other queries asked
respondents if they would participate in sea turtle conservation with Hawai’i
Wildlife Fund if they were given the opportunity to list the pro-environmental
habits they currently held, what being a responsible tourist means to them, and
how they would help the basking sea turtles once they returned home.
3.5 Data Collection
Data collection occurred over 31 days in Maui, from July 1 to July 31, 2017, by
the principal investigator, at Ho’okipa Beach Park. Issues resulting in the
researcher’s change of lodging and transportation shortened the study to one
month instead of the two months proposed. Surveys were collected over four
hours, each research day. The four-hour period was altered daily, to randomize the
process. Visitors chosen for this study were due to the increased numbers of
tourists flocking to Ho’okipa Beach Park, causing concern toward the basking
green sea turtles and the carrying capacity of basking site. A total of 555 surveys
were collected, however, 12 were removed as three surveys were missed and nine
others were completed by Maui residents, making them ineligible. Consequently,
the total number of surveys collected for analysis, in one month, was 543.

28

3.6 Ethics
Ethical approval for this study, was permitted by the Thompson Rivers University
Research Ethics Board (TRUREB). An online ethics application was completed and
reviewed by Faculty Supervisors Dr. John S. Hull and Dr. Kellee Caton. A letter of
support from Hawai’i Wildlife Fund and a copy of the written survey were
attached to the application and submitted to the TRUREB for review. Revisions to
the application and survey were requested by the TRUREB. Once completed,
ethical approval for this research was confirmed on June 6th, 2017. (Appendix B)
In the next chapter I will address the results, of my survey.

29

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Results from this study were arranged in the following categories and
included: socio-demographic information, visitor satisfaction, visitor learning,
visitor attitudes, and visitor behaviours.
4.1 Socio-Demographic Information
Of 543 respondents, 56.7% = female, 34.6% = male. 0.2% = gender
unspecified, while 7.9% did not answer the gender question. An invalid response
of 0.6% is shown, due to surveys completed by respondents who circled more then
one gender on the survey.

Figure 4.1: Gender.
Visitor participants resided in the following countries: U.S. = 62.8%, Canada =
15.3% European Union = 8.1%, Australia = 2.8%, New Zealand = 1.3%, South Korea
= 0.4%, Mexico and Brazil = 0.2%. Participants that did not answer = 8.1%.

30

Figure 4.2: What country do you reside in?
Visitors born in the 1970s and 1960s made up the largest demographic at
24.9% and 22.3%, respectively. Combined, these participants accounted for 47.2%
of the survey responses. The third largest group were those born in the 1980s =
17.3%. Both visitors from the age groups of the 1950s and 1990s = 9.9%. The 1940s
and 1930s represented 4.6% and 9.2% of participants did not respond.

N=543

Figure 4.3: Year born.

31

4.2 Visitor Satisfaction Information
84.9% of visitors witnessed the basking green sea turtle event at
Ho’okipa Beach Park for the first time, while 14.4% stated it was not their first time.
0.7% did not respond.

Figure 4.4: First time witnessing the basking sea turtles at Ho’okipa?
1.8% of visitors did not view (0 times) the turtles during previous trips
but viewed them more than once during their current trip. 5.0% of visitors reported
viewing the basking green sea turtles once on a previous trip, 1.7% viewed the
turtles twice during a previous trip (or trips). 0.6% viewed the turtles three times
during previous trips. Whereas, 1.6% of visitors viewed the turtles from 3 to 6
times and 1.2% viewed the turtles 10 to 50 times. 3.3% did not answer and 0.7% of
respondents’ answers were invalid due to the legibility of their response.

32

Table 4.1: How many times did you witness the turtles in previous trips?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 0

10

1.8

1.8

1.8

1

27

5.0

5.0

6.8

2

9

1.7

1.7

8.5

3

3

.6

.6

9.0

4

1

.2

.2

9.2

5

2

.4

.4

9.6

6

2

.4

.4

9.9

10

3

.6

.6

10.5

11

1

.2

.2

10.7

30

1

.2

.2

10.9

50

1

.2

.2

11.0

Answered Yes to 1A so N/A

461

84.9

84.9

99.3

Did not answer

18

3.3

3.3

14.4

Invalid Answer

4

.7

.7

100.0

543

100.0

100.0

Total

3.9% of tourists viewed the basking green sea turtles as solo travellers, 29.3%
travelled in pairs, 38.7% viewed as a group of three to four individuals. 17.9%
comprised a group of 5 to 7 people, while 8.3% included a combined 8 to 14+
visitors. 2.0% of participants did not respond.

Figure 4.5: Number of people viewing the turtles including yourself.

33

Given the number of tourists gathering daily to view the basking green sea
turtles at Ho’okipa Beach Park, a question was asked as to how visitors found out
about the turtles. 42.9% found out by word of mouth. Friends, other tourists, taxi
drivers, rental car agencies, and service staff from Mama’s Fish House restaurant
were the most popularly listed. 19.3% of visitors showed up at Ho’okipa Beach to
watch the windsurfers, participate in beach activities, or stopped at the lookout to
view the waves and discovered the sea turtles basking by chance.

Figure 4.6: How did you find out about the basking turtles?
11.8% of visitors found out about the turtles via social media or websites.
Facebook, TripAdvisor, Expedia, and Yelp were the most mentioned. 9.2% of
visitors were told about the sea turtles by tours they had taken. Most noted were
Temptation Tours, Dynamic Tours, and Rappel Maui. 7.0% found out via Hotels
with the Aloha Surf Hostel, Wailea Beach Marriott Resort & Spa, the Sheraton
Maui Resort & Spa, and the Westin Maui Resort & Spa, listed often. 4.6% of
participants answered ‘Other’, which included a travel book titled Maui Revealed,
a mobile app called the Shaka Guide that offered driving tour descriptions as
visitors drove certain routes around the island, and previous trip experiences.

34

3.3% of the answers were found invalid, as respondents circled two answers to the
question. Although void, this statistic is worth noting as participants found out
about the turtles via two different information sources. 1.1% found out about the
sea turtles via a Visitor Information Centre. 0.7% did not answer the question.
The following 12 questions were arranged in a Likert Scale asking
visitors to rate their importance in achieving a satisfying experience while viewing
the basking green sea turtles. The rating scale was as follows: Very important = 5,
Important = 4, Neutral =3, Unimportant =2, Very unimportant =1
Table 4.2: How important are the following in achieving a satisfying
experience when viewing the basking sea turtles?
N

𝑥̅

The basking turtles are a memorable experience

542

4.79

The basking event is natural and authentic

540

4.77

Affection/Empathy towards the sea turtles

540

4.72

Viewing an animal, I do not normally see

542

4.62

The proximity of turtles

541

4.60

Viewing an animal important to Hawaiian Culture

542

4.53

Seeing an animal on the endangered species list

541

4.38

Easy access to the beach

542

4.33

Feeling a sense of place viewing the basking turtles

541

4.27

A photo opportunity

542

4.21

Confidence the turtles would be basking

538

3.93

Number of turtles at the basking site

542

3.88

Valid N (listwise)

524

The top three aspects were the event being a memorable experience (𝑥̅ = 4.79),
that was natural and authentic (𝑥̅ = 4.77) in which visitors expressed feelings of
affection or empathy towards the turtles (𝑥̅ = 4.72).
Viewing an animal that tourists do not normally see (𝑥̅ = 4.62), the
proximity of the turtles (𝑥̅ = 4.60) and viewing an animal important to Hawaiian

35

culture were of secondary importance. Viewing an animal placed on the
Endangered Species list (𝑥̅ = 4.38), having easy access to the beach and basking site
where the turtles were found (𝑥̅ = 4.33), feeling a sense of place (𝑥̅ = 4.27), and
having a photographic opportunity (𝑥̅ = 4.21), was of tertiary importance to a
satisfactory experience.
Visitors felt more neutral in their importance, about having confidence
the sea turtles would be basking (𝑥̅ = 3.93) and less concerned about the numbers of
sea turtles that may be basking (𝑥̅ = 3.88).
Participants were asked which three words best described the
emotions they felt from witnessing the green sea turtles bask. 1519 responses were
placed into a word cloud generator called Tag Crowd (N.D.), which grouped
similar words together, computing the frequency of the words used by
respondents. The top three emotions expressed were: Happy (144), Amazing
(141), and Peaceful (137).
4.3 Visitor Learning Information
The questions in this category were to assess the interpretation given
by Hawai’i Wildlife Fund and determine the information visitors learned while
viewing the basking event. When asked if visitors received information about the
basking sea turtles from a Hawai’i Wildlife Fund representative, participants could
answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Respondents answering ‘Yes’= 56.4%. ‘No’= 37.8% and 5.3%
did not answer.

36

Table 4.3: Received information from HWF.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid

Yes

306

56.4

56.7

56.7

No

205

37.8

38.0

94.6

Did not answer

29

5.3

5.4

100.0

Total

540

99.4

100.0

3

.6

543

100.0

Missing System
Total

The question ‘What are two facts you learned about the basking green
sea turtles’, has been dropped from this analysis. A total of 132 out of 543 survey
participants did not answer the question, which accounts for 24.3% of the total
number of surveys. 35 participants outside of this number answered the question
partially, by providing one out of two facts.
Table 4.4: Viewing the basking sea turtles causes me to care more about…
sea turtle conservation and my environmental choices.

Agree

Undecided

Row Valid N
Count
Sea turtle

%

Disagree

Row Valid N
Count

%

Did not answer

Row Valid N
Count

%

Row Valid N
Count

%

453

83.4%

56

10.3%

8

1.5%

26

4.8%

425

78.6%

77

14.2%

13

2.4%

26

4.8%

conservation
My
environmental
choices

83.4% of visitors agreed the experience caused them to care more
about sea turtle conservation, 10.3% were undecided, 4.8% of respondents did not

37

answer, and 1.5% disagreed the viewing experience would cause them to care
more about sea turtle conservation.
78.3% of respondents felt they cared more about their
environmental choices because of viewing the basking turtles, 14.2% were
undecided, 4.8% surveyed did not answer, and 2.4% disagreed.
When asked if visitors possessed prior knowledge of responsible sea
turtle viewing guidelines before viewing the basking sea turtles, 56.5% answered
‘No’, 39.6% answered ‘Yes’. 3.3% did not answer, and 0.2% of answers were invalid
due to both choices being circled.

Figure 4.7: Prior knowledge of responsible sea turtle viewing guidelines?

4.4 Visitor Attitudes Information
A second set of 12 questions were arranged in a Likert Scale asking
visitors to indicate their responses to the following questions. The rating scale was

38

as follows: Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Undecided =3, Disagree =2, Strongly
Disagree =1.
Table 4.5: Visitor Attitudes.
N

𝑥̅

The basking sea turtles should be minimally disturbed

541

4.92

Sea turtles/wildlife are much more than tourism objects

542

4.90

Protecting the sea turtles protects their significance in Hawaiian culture

542

4.85

Sustainable viewing depends on visitor and site management

543

4.80

I benefit from viewing the basking sea turtles

543

4.72

It is my responsibility to participate in ethical wildlife encounters

541

4.63

The number of people in the water at ocean entry concerns me

543

4.44

I believe there are actions I can take to help the turtles

542

4.35

I would view from a platform to make less impacts on the sea turtles

543

4.08

I would support a park visitor fee to assist with site and visitor management

543

4.07

I would not support a park visitor fee but would donate to HWF instead

543

3.84

The number of people around the basking sea turtles concerns me

542

3.83

Valid N (listwise)

535

Surveyed respondents agreed most strongly that the basking sea
turtles should be minimally disturbed (𝑥̅ = 4.92), are much more than tourism
objects (𝑥̅ = 4.90), and that protecting them protects their significance in Hawaiian
culture (𝑥 = 4.85). Of strong importance, but secondarily, participants felt that
sustainable viewing depends upon visitor and site management (𝑥̅ = 4.80), that
they benefit from viewing the basking sea turtles (𝑥̅ = 4.72), and that the
responsibility falls on them to participate in ethical wildlife encounters (𝑥 = 4.63).
Visitors agreed they felt concerned about the number of people in the water at the
ocean’s entry (𝑥̅ = 4.44) and there were actions they could take that would benefit
the sea turtles (𝑥̅ = 4.35). They agreed that they would be willing to view the

39

basking sea turtles from a platform to make less impacts on them (𝑥̅ = 4.08) and
would support paying a modest visitor park fee to support visitor and basking site
management (𝑥̅ = 4.07). Visitors were undecided about their feelings toward not
supporting a visitor park fee but donating to Hawai’i Wildlife Fund instead (𝑥̅ =
3.84), and of being concerned by the number of people around the turtles (𝑥̅ = 3.83).
Participants were asked what being a “responsible tourist” meant to them.
The two top comments included respecting the environment/wildlife and habitats
(27.4%) and not disturbing the turtles/wildlife by giving them space (24.3%).
Following rules/regulations, obeying signage, and adhering to cultural norms were
the third most common statements (16.4%) and many participants commented one
should take photographs only, leaving no footprints/impacts behind and leaving
areas better than they found it (14.7%). Management of garbage/not littering
(1.7%) and making better environmental choices (1.1%) were also represented.
14.2% of participants did not answer the question.

N=543

Figure 4.8: What does being a responsible tourist mean to you?

40

4.5 Visitor Behaviour Information
Would surveyed visitors participate in sea turtle conservation with Hawai’i
Wildlife Fund, during their trip, if given the opportunity? 47.1% stated ‘Maybe’,
28.0 answered ‘Yes’, and 14.9% said ‘No’. 9.2% of respondents = Did not answer.
Table 4.6: Opportunity to participate in sea turtle conservation with HWF.
Frequency

Percent

543

100.0

100.0

Maybe

256

47.1

47.1

75.1

Yes

152

28.0

28.0

28.0

No

81

14.9

14.9

90.1

Did not answer

50

9.2

9.2

99.3

Invalid Response/Double Answer

4

.7

.7

100.0

Valid Total

Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Visitors were asked whether they actively volunteer/participate in a
conservational/environmental organization. 78.3% of respondents answered ‘No’,
9.0% ‘Yes’, and 12.3% Did not answer. 0.4% of answers were invalid due to
conflicting answer selections (ex: ‘No’, but volunteers with an animal shelter).
Table 4.7: Do you actively volunteer in a conservational organization?
Cumulative
Frequency
Valid Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

543

100.0

100.0

No

425

78.3

78.3

87.3

Did not answer

67

12.3

12.3

99.6

Yes

49

9.0

9.0

9.0

Invalid Response

2

.4

.4

100.0

41

Of the 9.0%, the most commonly engaged organizations were wildlife-based,
which included WWF, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the SPCA. Closely
followed were organizations that enhanced the community or natural
environments at large. Those included garden clubs, river and natural park
conservation, and environmental alliances.
If surveyed participants stated they did not actively a volunteer in a
conservational/environmental activity, they were asked to select the reason(s) why
they did not engage and to answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to the following statements below.
31.7% of respondents reported they did not have time. 23.7% answered that there
were no direct experiences where they lived. 21.% replied that they did not know
how to get involved and 10.7% reported it costs money. 6.7% felt the issue was due
to poor infrastructure and 6.2% stated it was due to poor management concerns.

Table 4:8 I want to engage in a conservational activity but…
Responses
N

Percent Percent of Cases

246

31.7%

67.6%

There are no direct experiences where I live 184

23.7%

50.5%

I do not know how to get involved

163

21.0%

44.8%

It costs money

83

10.7%

22.8%

There is poor infrastructure

52

6.7%

14.3%

There is poor management

48

6.2%

13.2%

Total

776 100.0%

213.2%

I have no time

a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1.

The means for all these responses were low to very low. A common
occurrence from respondents was to answer the statement that best suited their
situation, as opposed to filling out ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to all statements on the survey.

42

The two remaining questions in the visitor behaviour section of the
survey were thrown out of the analysis. They included:
A) We are all connected. How will help the basking sea turtles once you return
home? 25.2% of respondents did not answer this question (137/543).
B) The other question asked participants to list the pro-environmental habits they
currently have. 31.9% of those surveyed did not answer this question 173/543).
The above results will be examined in the discussion chapter.

43

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The objective of this research was to identify whether visitors transition into
more responsible marine tourists, through their interaction with the basking
Hawaiian green sea turtles at Ho’okipa Beach Park. The results aim to aid Hawai’i
Wildlife Fund (HWF) with their visitor and site management strategies. This was
accomplished by measuring the outcome indicators adapted from Orams’ (1999)
conceptual model for the management of marine tourism (See Figure 5.1). The
results were evaluated against the literature reviewed and an interpretation of the
findings is provided.
Orams (1999) explains that the Outcome Indicators may be thought of as a
series of four steps. Management of a marine tourist experience may be measured
by the satisfaction and enjoyment of the visitor (step 1). The two intermediate steps,
education/learning (step2) and
attitudes/belief change (step 3),
facilitate the visitor into a
behaviour/lifestyle change (step 4).
The visitor’s transition positively
impacts the marine environment,
through the adoption of behaviours
that minimize animal/habitat
disturbances,
to behaviours that contribute toward
enduring environmental stewardship.
Figure 5.1: Orams (1999) Outcome Indicators.

44

On Ho’okipa Beach, Maui, the non-profit HWF supplies volunteers who
deliver interpretation about the Hawaiian green sea turtles at the basking site. The
area the turtles normally bask in contains signage and a roped barrier to deter
people from entering the basking space. HWF volunteers closely monitor visitors
and their behaviours daily, between 2:30-3:30 pm and stay until park closing.
5.1 Socio-demographic Information
In July of 2017, 543 visitors completed the survey for this study and 56.7%
were female participants. Although respondents of all genders were sought for this
survey, the higher percentage of females was due to the male travel companions
who often forfeited the survey to their fellow female travellers to complete.
Approximately 47% of respondents were between the ages of 40 and 50 years
old and represented the principal countries the Hawai’i Tourism Authority actively
markets towards, which includes: USA, Canada, the European Union, Oceania, Asia,
and Japan (Hawai’i Tourism Authority, 2018).
5.2 Visitor Satisfaction
Considering Orams (1999) outcome indicators, the first step of visitor
transition toward stewardship to be measured was visitor satisfaction. An
exploratory principal component factor analysis, based on Eigenvalues greater than
1, was completed on 12 questions arranged in a five-point Likert Scale in SPSS (v.24).
Participants were to indicate how important each question was in achieving a
satisfying experience when viewing the basking green sea turtles at Ho’okipa. The
weighting measures assigned were: very important = 5, important = 4, neutral = 3,
unimportant = 2 and very unimportant = 1. The purpose of this test was to discover
if there were any themes or patterns in the relationships between the 12 variables
and reduce them into factors that explained the relationships between the variables.

45

The Factor Analysis was completed with a Varimax rotation with Kaiser
Normalization. A loading value of .5 or higher was the determining aspect of
variables belonging to a factor. Loading values below .5 were supressed in the
analysis.
The factor analysis was run four times. The primary analysis showed
question #15, “A photographic opportunity”, as having a loading value below .5.
This variable was removed, and the analysis was run a second time, whereby it
presented question #7, “Confidence the sea turtles would be basking”, that was cross
loaded into factors 1 and 3. Consequently, this variable was as removed, and the
analysis was executed a third time. In this case, question #8, “Viewing an animal I
do not normally see”, exhibited a loading value less than .5 and was removed. The
fourth and final factor analysis presented 9 variables cleanly loaded, with values
greater than .5, reduced into two factor components. Factor One contained 6
variables and Factor Two consisted of 3 variables. After rotation, Factor One had an
Eigenvalue of 3.037 and explained 33.470% of the variance. Factor Two had an
Eigenvalue of 1.941 and explained an additional 21.562% of the variance. Combined,
these factors explained 55.302% of the variance.
To measure the reliability of my variables within the two factors, a
Cronbach’s Alpha test was performed on each. Factor One had a Cronbach’s Alpha
of .795 (good reliability) and Factor Two, a Cronbach’s Alpha of .676 (fair reliability).
Two tests, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy
and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, were utilized to determine the suitability of my data
for factor analysis (IBM Knowledge Center, N.D.), prior to running the assay. The
first test, the KMO assessment, looked for the amount of variance in the
variables/questions that might be produced by other underlying factors and used a

46

statistical value closest to 1, to indicate whether the sample size may be used for a
factor analysis (IBM Knowledge Center, N.D.). With a KMO value of 0.808, the test
determined my sample size was large enough to execute a factor analysis.
Table 5.1: KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Visitor Satisfaction Likert Scale

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square
Df
Sig.

.808
1365.424
36
.000

The second test, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, confirmed that my variables
were related, which further supported the use of factor analysis (IBM Knowledge
Center, N.D.). The correlation was significant at the p<0.001 level (2-tailed).
Instead of calling my factors, Factor One and Factor Two, I examined the
value of the variables in the components that loaded high. Variables were then
scrutinized by what they were measuring, followed by what all the variables within
a component had most in common. Upon conclusion of this process, the component
factors were re-named as: Viewing and Accessibility.

47

Table 5.2: Two Factors Important in Achieving a Satisfying Experience
when Viewing the Basking Hawaiian Green Sea Turtles.

Q.5 Easy access to the beach/basking site.
Q.4 The proximity of the turtles.
Q.8 Viewing an animal important to Hawaiian
culture.
Q.10 The basking turtles are a memorable experience.
Q.13. The basking event is natural and authentic.
Q.11 Feeling a sense of place viewing the basking
turtles.
Q.9 Seeing an animal on the Endangered Species List.
Q.14 Affection/Empathy towards the sea turtles.
Q.6 The number of the turtles at the basking site.
Eigenvalues
% of Variance Explained
Coefficient Alpha

Viewing Accessibility
(Factor 1) (Factor 2)
.828
.816
.742
.733
.728
.707
.684
.663
.684
3.037
33.740%
.795

1.941
21.562%
.676

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

The variables within the factors have been arranged in descending order, to
demonstrate the strength of relationship that exists between the items and the factor.
The closer an item’s loading value is to 1, the stronger and more significant its
relationship is to the factor.
This data demonstrates that when viewing the basking Hawaiian green sea
turtles, the important aspects of visitor satisfaction were influenced by the following:
1) the proximity and accessibility to the sea turtles, 2) the naturalness and
authenticity of the event, 3) the viewing provoked emotions toward witnessing the

48

overall event, 4) the viewing stimulated an emotional connection with the sea
turtles, 5) the delight of viewing an endangered animal, and 6) the importance of the
basking turtles to Hawaiian culture and their significance that allows visitors to feel
a sense of place during their visit.
The two factors, viewing and accessibility, were also reflected in the
comments some of the visitors recorded on their surveys. Commentaries regarding
the two included expressions of excitement “LOVED IT” (#513), amazement,
“absolutely amazing experience for both kids & adults” (#419) and appreciation of
the turtles, “very nice to see and appreciate” (#198). It also encompassed the basking
event itself, “this was a lovely and beautiful experience” (535), “so so glad I came.
Will remember forever” (#412). Others felt that the experience was authentic,
“amazing experience - felt very authentic” (#226). “It’s nice to see these creatures in
their natural environment instead of a zoo” (#278) and that the basking event was
something they would cherish,” viewing these amazing creatures has been a
wonderful experience & one I will treasure” (#142).
Additional visitors expressed a request to keep the viewing going so
different generations could witness it, “amazing area please keep for our children’s
children to see” (#398) and one individual stated it would always be a distinctive
memory of Maui, reflective of a sense of place, “thank you for the access to the
turtles - it was wonderful and will always be a special memory of Maui” (#390).
The viewing experience elicited emotional responses from visitors. These
consisted of both affection, “I like turtles!” (#274), “beautiful turtles” (#239) and
concern toward the turtles, “thank you for helping protect these beautiful creatures”
(#155). Additional concerns will be addressed further in the visitor attitudes section.
One individual commented that they searched at length for the turtles, “we searched

49

for 4 days for the turtles. We are thrilled to finally see them” (#206). While not data
supported, the researcher personally experienced a woman in tears watching the sea
turtle basking event, as the visitor expressed it was her bucket list wish and was
overcome with emotion.
The two factors, viewing and accessibility, concur with much of the literature
reviewed on natural events. The commonalities between the reviewed studies
include proximity as Kruger, M., Viljoen, A. & Saayman, M. (2013) found this
attribute was an overlapping factor in the wildlife viewing literature the author’s
reviewed, since visitors to the wildflower blooming event sought to have clear views
of the flowers. The clear views relate to visitors desiring to be close to the sea turtles.
Important visitor motivations of the wildflower study also included easy
accessibility to the park, similar to visitors of the basking sea turtles having easy
access to the beach/basking site. Salute to the sockeye salmon run visitors also
agreed that viewing the event allowed for a “unique opportunity to see and interact
with the First Nations” (Kruger, Saayman & Hull, 2018, p. 11), similar to connecting
the basking sea turtles with Hawaiian culture.
Emotional connections during the viewing experience were equal to the
visitors expressing sentiment toward the animals and feelings of a sense of wonder
or awe, as seen in Ballantyne, Packer & Falk’s (2010) study. Also, natural events
were articulated by visitors, as memorable experiences that contributed to visitor
well-being in Kruger, Saayman & Hull’s (2018) research. Finally, the visitor’s desire
to experience the authenticity and spectacle of the event itself was evidenced by
Kruger, M., Viljoen, A. & Saayman, M. (2013), who discovered visitors were
motivated to attend natural events to appreciate the wonder of nature.

50

The surprise in all the factor analyses performed, was the low loading score
and unmeaningful relationship of the variable, ‘A photographic opportunity’. This
placed high as one of the motivational attributes visitors expressed, as part of what
constituted a memorable experience in 2014 Salute to the Sockeye Salmon Run event
(Kruger, Saayman & Hull, 2018).
This concludes the measurement of Orams (1999) visitor satisfaction outcome
indicator (step 1). Next, the analysis will address step 2, visitor learning.
5.3: Visitor Learning
The questions in this category sought to collect data on the interpretation
given by Hawai’i Wildlife Fund (HWF), as education was one of the management
strategies represented in Orams (1999) model to facilitate the visitor from learning
(step 2), toward a shift in attitudes (step 3). The researcher also wanted to determine,
the information visitors learned while viewing the basking event.
Before witnessing the basking event of the Hawaiian green sea turtles at
Ho’okipa Beach, just over half of all visitors stated they had no prior knowledge of
responsible sea turtle viewing guidelines. Nearly the same number of individuals
received information about the basking sea turtles, from a volunteer with HWF. The
impact of interpretation provided by HWF was further evidenced by the
observations left by visitors, on the survey.
Many expressed gratitude for the information volunteers provided and for
the ability to speak to the volunteers, “awesome experience! Nice to get up close and
learn and ask questions” (#186). Visitors stated they had fun and enjoyed learning
about the turtles, “loved learning! Thanks for sharing” (#424) and cared about the
volunteers on the beach who protect them, “really enjoyed learning (seeing) about
the turtles & those who are trying to protect them” (#163). There were visitors who

51

also expressed appreciation toward the volunteers and the effect it had on the
basking experience, “thank you for a memorable & educational experience” (#401).
A high majority of visitors reported that viewing the basking Hawaiian green
sea turtles had caused them to care more about sea turtle conservation and their
environmental choices. Accordingly, two separate requests came from visitors who
wanted “more information at the basking site” (#554), including information on how
they could help protect the sea turtles “I would like more information on how to
help conserve” (#511).
These findings correspond to the salmon run study by Kruger, Saayman &
Hull (2018), who reported that people enjoy travelling to natural events to have their
lives enriched and to learn. Primary and secondary interpretation was regarded as
one of the top factors important in experiencing a memorable viewing event in
Kruger & Saayman’s (2017) wildflower study. Both Ballantyne, Packer & Falk
(2010), and Zeppel (2008), noted that positive visitor behaviours revealed themselves
when learning was combined with emotion. Visitor attitudes, step 3 of Orams (1999)
outcome indicators, will be analyzed subsequently.
5.4 Visitor Attitudes
To determine visitor attitudes, which Orams (1999) states is one of the
building blocks involved to move the visitor towards environmental stewardship, a
second exploratory principal component factor analysis, based on Eigenvalues
greater than 1, was completed on an additional 12 questions arranged in a Likert
scale in SPSS (v.24). As before, the factor analysis was completed with a Varimax
rotation with Kaiser Normalization. A loading value of .5 or higher was the
determining aspect of variables belonging to a factor. Loading values below .5 were

52

supressed in the analysis. The weighting measures included: Strongly Agree = 5,
Agree = 4, Undecided = 3, Disagree = 2, and Strongly Disagree = 1.
This factor analysis was run twice. The initial analysis showed question #33,
“I would not support a visitor park fee, but would donate to HWF to support them
with visitor and site management of the basking sea turtles at Ho’okipa”, as having
a loading value below .5. This variable was removed, and the analysis was run a
second time. This factor analysis presented 11 variables cleanly loaded, with values
greater than .5, reduced into two factor components. Factor One contained 7
variables and Factor Two consisted of 4 variables. After rotation, Factor One had an
Eigenvalue of 4.079 and explained 37.077% of the variance. Factor Two had an
Eigenvalue of 2.568 and explained an additional 23.342% of the variance. Combined,
these factors explained 60.420% of the variance.
Cronbach’s Alpha test of reliability awarded Factor One a value of .874 (very
good reliability) and Factor Two .783 (good reliability). The KMO assessed a value of
0.888, indicating a successful sample size for factor analysis and the Bartlett’s Test
confirmed the correlation was significant at the p<0.001 level (2-tailed).

Table 5.3: KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Visitor Attitudes Likert Scale

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square
df
Sig.

.888
2618.395
55
.000

53

Once again, the value of the variables in the components that loaded high
were recognized primarily, followed by what the variables were measuring, and
then by what all the variables within a component had most in common. The
components were then re-named as: Sea Turtle Encounter and Site Management.
Table 5.4: Visitor Attitudes:

Q.24 Sea turtles/wildlife are more than tourism objects.
Q.25 It is my responsibility to participate in ethical wildlife
encounters.
Q.22 I benefit from viewing the basking green sea turtles.
Q.27 Protecting the sea turtles protects their significance in
Hawaiian culture.
Q.26 Sustainability of viewing the turtles basking at
Ho’okipa depends on visitor and site management.
Q.23 I believe there are actions I can take to help the turtles.
Q.28 The basking green sea turtles should be minimally
disturbed.
Q.29 The number of people around the basking sea turtles
concerns me.
Q.30 The number of people in the water at the ocean entry
concerns me.
Q.31 I would view the turtles from a platform to make less
impacts on them, while still allowing me the experience.
Q.32 I would support a modest park visitor fee at Ho’okipa.
Eigenvalue
% of Variance Explained
Coefficient Alpha
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

Sea Turtle
Site
Encounter
Mgmt
(Factor 1) (Factor 2)
.822
.763
.738
.738
.720
.720
.676
.814
.776
.749
.672
4.079
37.077%
.874

2.568
23.342%
.783

54

This data is supportive of visitor’s knowing what constitutes appropriate conduct,
when viewing the basking Hawaiian green sea turtles and their viewing experience.
It also corresponds with the answers to the survey questions of what being a
responsible tourist means to them, as they identified respecting wildlife and their
habitats, not disturbing turtles, and obeying signage, rules, and cultural norms.
However, while there is a strong relationship that visitors believe they have a
responsibility in participating in ethical wildlife encounters, the relationship is a
little less confident there are actions they can take to help the sea turtles. This may be
where more information from HWF, can come into play.
Many visitors were highly supportive of HWF and the volunteers present on
the beach, “so glad you are here protecting these turtles!” (#493) and “I’m glad to see
a representative at this beach looking after the turtles” (#540). These are the tourists
that are accountable for their behaviours, yet, there were many visitors who were
not. These visitors got in the way of the basking sea turtles, disregarded signage, site
barriers, and recommendations by volunteers. The responsible visitors want more
protection for the sea turtles and improved site management, as concerns for both
ruined their viewing experience of the basking event. When given the choice, these
same visitors stated they would pay a visitor fee and view turtles from a viewing
platform to both have their experience, while protecting the sea turtles.
These opinions, of their viewing experience and the basking site, were
reinforced by the observations visitors left on their surveys. They included: requests
to keep people away from the turtles, “keep people out of turtles!” (#256), comments
of too many people are around the turtles disturbing them, “the turtles should be
protected here - especially near the sea. Too many people disregard the signs and
volunteers” (#483). The current viewing area should be restricted, “I feel way too
many people around the turtles and disturbing them. This should be “off limits” and

55

viewing from distance only” (#263). Frustrations of visitors were expressed, “too
many people not following the rules, frustrates me” (#348), another visitor stated
they “get flustered by tourists touching turtles at Black Rock area. People need to
know more information readily when staying” (#299). Additionally, a visitor
described how disheartened they were to see how others did not follow guidelines
“so disappointed to see how the few feel they are above following guidelines! It’s
about “their” experience. People “swimming” to take picture right next to them.
Ruined the experience to a certain extent as I wanted to yell [move away]” (#117).
Further comments included visitor restriction “It would be nice to see more
restriction on how close you can get to the turtles” (#541). “This is a special
experience that appears to need additional conservation efforts” (#223). Another
stated they, “would support more structure to ensure turtle safety” (#482). “It is sad
to see disrespect to the turtles by those viewing them” (#108), “too many were
walking past signs. Something more needs to be done to keep them safe” (#104), as
well as the suggestion to instate “user fees” (#394), at Ho’okipa Beach.
This data relates strongly to Le Boeuf and Campagna’s (2013) elephant seal
study, where the two researchers stated the protection of the seals must come first,
as free unrestricted access to the seals not only has the potential to harm them, but
the viewing experience itself. It confirms that a location exhibiting a mass tourism
presence of turtle novices alters the limits of acceptable change (LAC), which also
forces the location to find a way to deal with the novices (Duffus & Dearden, 1990).
It also demonstrates, that the tourists that felt most emotionally towards the sea
turtles advocated for a transition of visitor behaviour to change and it was this
emotional connection Hughes (2013) discovered to increase positive behaviour
intentions of visitors. The discussion will focus on visitor behaviour, step 4 of
Orams (1999) model, next.

56

5.5 Visitor Behaviour
Nearly 30% of visitors stated they would participate in sea turtle conservation
with HWF during their trip, if the opportunity presented itself. An additional 47%
answered ‘maybe’ to that question. The results demonstrate that there is potential
for HWF to secure more volunteers by increasing the information at the basking site
in regard to the opportunities for visitors to become involved. Two visitor comments
included “we would love to get involved. We love the turtles” (#102) and “an
amazing humbling experience that I will never forget. It inspires me to do more
when I get home” (#105). It may help to facilitate the transition of the visitor toward
stewardship further, as 9% of visitors participated in a conservational organization
back home, which were mostly animal related. These people already are emotionally
connected.
The visitor behaviour portion of the survey experienced survey fatigue. The
researcher wanted to find out if visitors did not participate in conservation activities,
what the barriers/reasons were for visitors. Although the means for the respondents
were low for this question, the emergent themes are worth mentioning. Only 10.7%
of those who answered stated the reason was because it cost money. The top three
surfacing reasons were: 1) people had no time (31.7%), 2) there were no direct
experiences where people lived (23.7%), 3) they did not know how to get involved
(21%).
There appears to be a disconnect for visitors getting this information and
perhaps some of the 47% of those that answered ‘maybe’ to participating with HWF,
just need to find out how to become involved and what it entails?
Behaviour change is a difficult subject, with many variables. Good intentions
do not always result in positive changes of any kind. In the reviewed literature,

57

Ballantyne, Packer & Falk (2010) found that new knowledge outlived behaviour
changes when seeking to understand the transition of a visitor to embark on a
behaviour change and recommended activities for visitors to participate in, post
experience. This was also advocated by Forestell & Kaufman (1990), in their
interpretation model.
In summary, the measured Orams (1999) outcome indicators shows there is
great visitor satisfaction (step 1) in the event itself and viewing the basking sea
turtles in their natural environment. Visitors connected emotionally to the turtles,
which facilitated their learning and further enhanced their viewing experience with
HWF (step 2). Visitor attitudes reflected responsible and sustainable tourist
behaviour knowledge, yet many addressed concerns of those who chose to
disregard their accountability and voiced their anxieties regarding site management.
This reflected a mixed and somewhat conflicted viewing experience for many
visitors (step 3). The most deficient area of Orams (1999) outcome indicators was
visitor behaviours (step 4). While there were visitors who exhibited good intentions
toward sea turtle stewardship, opportunities for transition did not occur. How
visitors can get involved with HWF and help conserve the sea turtles while on
holiday or when they go home, was unknown to the visitors.

58

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS
This study cannot truly determine whether visitors will transition into more
responsible tourists, without the completion of a post longitudinal study of visitor
behaviours. There is some evidence to support that the impacts the basking sea
turtles have made on visitors may offer behaviour intentions in that direction in the
future. Yet, there are several challenges to get through before that end may be
realized.
To facilitate visitor transition toward stewardship, Orams (1999) outcome
indicators measured what visitors considered a satisfying viewing experience.
Visitors in Hawai’i expressed the emotions they felt and what their positive
behavioural intentions may be in the future. The basking event also included
interpretation programs delivered by HWF as a tourist managerial strategy,
however, the beach is overrun with visitors, and often HWF volunteers are spread
out thinly. Maui County must aid in this situation by taking control of the visitors,
and their numbers to reclaim some natural order to Ho’okipa Beach Park. The
Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin, G., 1968) is greatly affecting visitor transition into
more responsible tourism and the sea turtles are the ones suffering the
consequences. Once measures are taken to manage Ho’okipa Beach Park initially,
then visitor interpretation can be established, mediated, and perhaps optimistic
changes toward behavioural and lifestyle transitions toward more responsible
tourists, can prevail.

59

6.1: Recommendations
The Orams’ (1999) Outcome Indicators used for this study are part of a larger
framework that incorporates various interventions used to manage marine tourism
encounters. To shift visitors toward a successful transition into becoming more
responsible tourists, I recommend Maui County employ all four of Orams’ (1999)
management strategies: physical, economic, regulatory and educational.

Figure 6.1: Orams (1999) Conceptual model for the management of marine tourism.
Physical strategies are physical structures that control activities. Regulatory
strategies include forming rules and regulations for people to abide by. Economic
strategies include fines and fees and Educational strategies involve signage,
printed material, visitor and interpretation centres (Orams, M., 1999).
Since Ho’okipa Beach Park is easily accessible, the simplest immediate
strategy is to have the entry gate to the park promptly closed at 7pm. Currently,
both the entry gate and exit gate remain open, so surfers and beachgoers may exit
the park. However, it still creates access to visitors who come into the park to see
the turtles before park closure. If the entry gate is closed at 7pm, the flow of traffic

60

is forced to exit in one direction out of the park and no new tourists may enter. The
way the exit gate is positioned from Hana Highway makes it more difficult to enter
the park from the reverse direction. Although it still is not impossible for visitors to
enter the park this way, they would encounter oncoming traffic from vehicles
leaving the park. This provides for less volume of last minute visitors trying to get
access into the park to view the turtles. It reduces the tourist numbers at the end of
the evening for Hawai’i Wildlife Fund to have to deal with and creates less of a
chance the green sea turtles will have to endure another uninformed visitor using
flash photography.
Two other strategies include setting up a toll booth and designating the
existing open area next to the picnic pavilion to be the basking sea turtle viewing
and interpretation platform.
Both the Iao Valley State Park (State of Hawaii, 2017) and Haleakala National
Park (U.S. National Park Service, 2018) have set up toll booths charging a modest
visitor park fee for use and maintenance and in the case of Haleakala National
Park, utilizes an online reservation system for visitors to reserve spots for sunrise
viewing. The option here is to allow free Ho’okipa Beach access to Hawai’i State
residents by way of a pass or some other sort of identification but charge the
visitors park entry fees. There are approximately 36 parking stalls located on the
lookout portion of the park. The county could set up an online visitor reservation
system for those 36 stalls only, charging for daily passes, significantly reducing the
mass volume of tourists. If visitors want to surf or snorkel they will reserve a spot
and pay the fee. This rule could be excluded during the periods of the year annual
surfing or windsurfing competitions take place. The country could also include a
bus service that runs to Ho’okipa. While visitor reservations do not prevent

61

individuals from approaching the turtles on the beach, there would be 36 stalls of
visitors to monitor, not mass tourism of visitors. The idea is reduction or deliberate
restriction of visitors, not residents, to a desired means. If visitors are opposed to
the fee, there are plenty of beaches they have access to, in west and south Maui.
Another option would be to require visitors wishing to view the basking sea
turtles to book the experience with a tour guide company, or by way of a park &
ride system, which reserves its time through HWF. There is access for at least three
to five buses that hold 8 to 25 passengers, alongside the entry to the park and
lookout area. These visitors enter the park by tour bus/tour guide only. The driver
escorts the visitors to the viewing platform area, which already overlooks the
beach where the green turtles bask. In this area there can be mediated
interpretation, printed materials, and a visitor donation box for HWF. The visitors
receive their experience of witnessing the basking event, eliminating issues of

= Basking Turtles on Beach
= HWF Interpretation Centre

Ocean

Figure 6.2: Map of Ho’okipa Beach
Park, Maui.

62

violating boundaries and encroaching on turtles and are instead offered current
opportunities to participate with HWF in sea turtle conservation during their trip.
Proceeds of this partnership are split by the county, to maintain the park and pay
for toll employees, and for the services provided by HWF.
While 28.0% of visitors said they would participate in sea turtle conservation
with HWF, 47.1% stated ‘maybe’. An emotionally satisfying viewing experience
combined with an educational interpretation medium could be the turning point
for visitors to find out more about the HWF organization and engaged in activities
that transition the visitor into a more responsible tourist. This is additionally
important as they visit and experiencing other parts of the island.
I endorse following the model Iao Valley State Park (State of Hawaii, 2017)
and Haleakala National Park (U.S. National Park Service, 2018) by charging tour
guide companies the same park entry fees enforced by the Public Utilities
Commission based on the size of the passenger vehicles. I would also recommend
charging a 2% or 3% tax on tour guide companies, like a hotel tax, as they have
reaped the benefits of paid tours and tip earnings at length, while HWF has been
the one to monitor their visitors and impart education without receiving any
money, exhausting unpaid volunteer resources.
If a toll booth model is unacceptable to the county, I recommend HWF set up
a small table on the beach by the viewing area with more interpretational materials
visitors can access. This includes opportunities for how visitors may be able to get
involved with HWF.
Signage needs to be placed on all the beaches around Maui, but specifically at
Ho’okipa, reminding people that green sea turtles are protected by U.S. State and
Federal Law (Hawaii State, 2017) and regarded as threatened under the

63

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Enforcement of signs and fines for non-compliance
by legal authorities allowed to enforce must take place. Regulations are a waste of
time without enforcement. Posting of the ESA penalties charged for harassment of
green sea turtles, and signage advising people to stay a minimum distance of 15
feet from turtles is also recommended. Although distance from the turtles is not
enforceable, an individual who goes up so close to a turtle that it moves/becomes
disturbed, is grounds for enforcement under U.S. State and Federal Law (Hawaii
State, 2017).
Signage posted should be teleological in nature. Teleological signs are those
that include explanations with instructions (Marschall, Granquist & Burns, 2017).
Researchers Marschall et al. (2017) discovered that teleological signs were more
effective on visitors in a wildlife viewing site than ontological signs, which are
signs without explanations. It would serve Maui to have these in at least one other
language, besides English.
The local community on Maui must take ownership of fueling the fires, by
telling visitors where to find the turtles. Hotels, especially ocean front resorts,
should inform visitors during check-in to keep their distance from turtles and what
proper sea turtle viewing guidelines are. Offering a rack card that discusses sea
turtle viewing guidelines that can be give to the visitor along with their key along
can outline these behaviours in writing and provide the contact information of the
Hawai’i Wildlife Fund for conservational involvement. The same information/rack
cards could be given to visitor centers, taxi drivers, restaurants, to give to visitors
and frequently stated on the Maui Visitor Channel. Hawaiian Airlines could also
get involved giving this information to passengers on board, as well as setting a
precedence with international airline carriers who make regular flights into the
Hawaiian state.

64

Physical hard site changes combined with regulatory, economic, and
educational strategies, within a larger community initiative, will help foster the
success of transitioning the Ho’okipa visitor into a more responsible tourist. Good
for all concerned, should those visitors become repeat tourists to the island.
6.2: Limitations of Research
Limitations of this research included the basking timeframe of the Hawaiian
green sea turtles, toward the end of July. During this period, the turtles were
emerging on the beach from 2 pm onward, until park closing. This made the
randomization of my four-hour surveying interval, more challenging. The research
was also to be over a two-month period, however, the researcher lost her
accommodation and vehicle for this phase and the bus stopped one mile from
Ho’okipa Beach. An attempt was made on a couple of occasions to walk the mile
along the shoulder of the highway to the beach but did not feel very safe and the
attempt was abandoned, since I had achieved over 100 surveys over the intended
sampling number required.
6.3: Contributions to Future Research
This research may be used as a baseline for future research on visitors at
Ho’okipa each Park. Research to determine a visitor typology based on visitor
motivations to attend the basking event and addressing the needs and opinions of
locals about the visitors and turtles would be valuable. A longitudinal study
would also contribute to a greater understanding of changes in visitor behaviour as
a result of their experience at Ho’okipa Beach.

65

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams River Salmon Society. (2018). Learn more. Retrieved from
http://www.salmonsociety.com/learn-more/.
Ajzen, I. (1991). Theory of planned behaviour. Organizational behaviour and human
decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Falk, J. (2010). Visitors’ learning for environmental
sustainability: Testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism
experiences using structural equation modelling. Journal of Tourism
Management, 32(6), 1243-1252. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.11.003.
Balazs, G.H., & Whittow, G.C. (1982). Basking Behavior of the Hawaiian Green Turtle
(Chelonia mydas). Retrieved from https: //scholarspace .manoa.hawaii.edu/
bitstream/handle/10125/415/v36n2-129-139.pdf.
Balazs, G.H. (1976). Green turtle migrations in the Hawaiian archipelago. Biological
Conservation, 9(2), 125-140. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(76)90045-8.
Balazs, G.H. & Chaloupkam M. (2005). Modelling effect of fibropapilloma disease on
the somatic growth dynamics of Hawaiian green sea turtles. Marine Biology,
147(5), 1251-1260. doi: 10.1007/s00227-005-0026-1.
Balazs, G.H. (1979). Synopsis of Biological Data of the Green Turtle in the Hawaiian
Islands. Retrieved from
https://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/adminrpts/1979/SWFC_Admin_ Report_7924C.pdf.
Bryman, A., Teevan, J., & Bell, E. (2009). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Butler, R.W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications for
management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5-12. doi:
10.1111/j.15410064.1980.tb00970.x.

66

Clein-Sain, B., Knecht, R.W., & Foster, N. (1999). Trends and future challenges for U.S.
national ocean and coastal policy. Retrieved from
https://books.google.ca/books?hl
=en&lr=&id=YloNWa8mRPYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA73&dq=COASTAL+TOURISM
+AND+RECREATION:+THE+DRIVER+OF+COASTAL+DEVELOPMENT&ot
s=q5d9c5VJfw&sig=WROecBUVYWYnlqI7lQ50yFb3to#v=onepage&q=COAS
TAL%20TOURISM%20AND%20RECREATION%3A%20THE%20DRIVER%2
0OF%20COASTAL%20DEVELOPMENT&f=false.
Duffus, D.A., & Dearden, P., (1990). Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation:
A conceptual framework. Biological Conservations, 53 (3), 213-231.
doi:10.1016/0006-3207(90)90087-6.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row & Peterson.
Forestell, P.H., & Kaufman, G.D. (1990). The history of whale watching in Hawaii
and its role in enhancing visitor appreciation for endangered species. In M.L.
Miller & J. Auyong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1990 Congress on Coastal and
Marine Tourism, 11, 399-407. Newport, OR: National Coastal Resources
Research and Development Institute.
Hardin, G. (2009). Tragedy of the commons. Journal of Natural Resources Policy
Research, 1(3), 243-253. doi: 10.1080/19390450903037302.
Hawai’i Tourism Authority. (2018). Brand marketing. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/brand-marketing/.
Hawthrone, J. (2015). The effects of oceanic conditions on basking Hawaiian green sea
turtles at Ho’okipa, Maui. Unpublished report, Department of Earth and
Planetary Sciences, University of California at Berkley, Berkley, California,
United States of America.
Higham, J.E.S. (1998). Tourists and albatrosses: the dynamics of tourism at the
Northern Royal Albatross Colony, Taiaroa Head, New Zealand. Tourism
Management, 19(6), 521-531. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00054-5.
Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R. & Tomera, A.N. (1986-1987). Analysis and synthesis
of research on responsible pro-environmental behavior: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8. doi:
10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482.

67

Hughes, K. (2013). Measuring the impact of viewing wildlife: do positive intentions
equate to long-term changes in conservation behaviour? Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 21(1), 42-59. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2012.681788.
Klein, Y.L., Osleeb, J.P., & Viola, M.R., (2004). Tourism-Generated earnings in the
coastal zone: A regional analysis. Journal of Coastal Research, 20(4), 1080-1088.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/003-0018.1.
Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act
environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?
Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. doi:
10.1080/13504620220145401.
Kruger, M., Saayman, M., & Hull, J.S. (2018). A motivation-based typology for
natural event viewers. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events,
doi: 10.1080/19107963.2018.1443939.
Kruger, M., Viljoen, A., & Saayman, M. (2017). Who visitis the Kruger National
Park, and why? Identifying target markets. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 34(3), 312-340. doi: 10.1080/19407963.2018.1443939.
Le Boeuf, B.J., & Campagna, C. (2013). Wildlife viewing spectacles: Best practices
from elephant seal (Mirounga sp.) colonies. Journal of Aquatic Mammals, 39(2),
132-146. doi: 10.1578/AM.39.2.2013.132.
Marschall, S., Granquist, S.M. & Burns, G.L. (2017). Interpretation in wildlife
tourism: Assessing the effectiveness of signage on visitor behaviour at a seal
watching site in Iceland. Journal of Outdoor Education and Tourism, 17, 11-19.
doi: 10.1010/j.jort.2016.11.001.
Maui Now. (2016). Maui Nō Ka ʻOi: Ranked Best Island in US—Again. Retrieved from
http://mauinow.com/2016/10/26/maui-no-ka-%CA%BBoi-ranked-best-islandin-us-again/.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behaviour through communitybased social marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5), 531-537. doi:
10.1037//0003-66X.55.5.531.
NOAA Fisheries. (2016). Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). Retrieved from
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.html.

68

NOAA Fisheries: Pacific Islands Regional Office. (N.D.). Protected resources: Green sea
turtle. Retrieved from
http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_green_sea_turtle.html.
NOAA Fisheries. (2014). Protected resources glossary. Retrieved from
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/glossary.htm#dps.
Orams., M. (1999). Marine tourism: Development, Impacts and Management. New York,
NY. Routledge.
Orams., M.B. (2010). Using Interpretation to Manage Nature-Based Tourism.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(2), 81-94. doi: 10.1080/09669589608667260.
Research Advisors. (2006). Sample size table. Retrieved from http://researchadvisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm.
Singh, E., Milne, S., & Hull, J. (2012). Use of mixed-methods case study to research
sustainable tourism development in the south pacific sids. In Keneth F.
Hyde, Chris Ryan, Arch G. Woodside (ed.) Field guide to case study research in
tourism, hospitality and leisure (advances in culture, tourism and hospitality
research, 6, 457-478. doi: 10.1108/S187-3173(2012)0000006028.
State of Hawaii. (2017). Iao Valley State monument. Retrieved from http://dlnr.hawaii.
gov/dsp/parks/maui/iao-valley-state-monument/.
State of Hawaii. (2017). Sea turtles. Retrieved from http://dlnr.hawaii.gov
/dar/species/ sea-turtles/.
Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Colleen/
Downloads/Interpreting_Our_Heritage__Chapel_Hill_Books_%20(1).pdf.
Time and Date AS. (2017). Maui, Hawaii, USA - Sunrise, sunset, and daylength,
December 2017. Retrieved from https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@5850862?
month= 12&year=2017.
Time and Date AS. (2017). Maui, Hawaii, USA - Sunrise, sunset, and daylength, June
2017. Retrieved from https://www.timeanddate.com/ sun/@5850862?month
=6& year=2017.

69

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2016). 2016 national survey of fishing, hunting, and
wildlife-associated recreation: National overview. Retrieved from
https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/nationalsurvey/nat_survey2016.pdf.
U.S. National Park Service. (2018). Plan your visit. Retrieved from
https://www.nps.gov/hale/planyourvisit/index.htm.
U.S. Travel Association. (2015). Fact Sheet: International inbound travel to the U.S.
Retrieved from https://www.ustravel.org/system/files/Media%20Root/
Document/Research_Fact-Sheet_International-Inbound.pdf.
Van Houtan, K.S., Halley, J.M., & Marks, W. (2015). Terrestrial basking sea turtles
are responding to spatio-temporal sea surface temperature patterns. Biology
Letters, 11(1), 10. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0744.
Zeppel, H. (2008). Education and Conservation Benefits of Marine Wildlife Tours:
Developing Free-Choice Learning Experiences. Journal of Environmental
Education, 39(3), 3-18. Retrieved from
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.tru.ca/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=fd9339
57-b27e-46ce 8b6d43 67aab22 fe 0%40
sessionmgr4008&hid=111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU %3d#
db=a9h&AN=33525371.

70

APPENDICES
Appendix A
Survey: The Impact of the Terrestrial Basking Event of Hawaiian
Green Sea Turtles on Visitors at Ho’okipa Maui

71

72

73

74

75

Appendix B
TRUREB Ethics Approval Letter

June 06, 2017

Ms. Colleen Black
School of Tourism\Tourism Management
Thompson Rivers University
File Number: 101592
Approval Date: June 06, 2017
Expiry Date: June 05, 2018
Dear Ms. Colleen Black,
The Research Ethics Board has reviewed your application titled 'The impact of the
terrestrial basking event of Hawaiian green sea turtles on visitors at Ho'okipa, Maui:
creating more responsible tourists.'. Your application has been approved. You may
begin the proposed research. This REB approval, dated June 06, 2017, is valid for one
year less a day: June 05, 2018.
Throughout the duration of this REB approval, all requests for modifications, renewals
and serious adverse event reports are submitted via the Research Portal. To continue
your proposed research beyond June 05, 2018, you must submit a Renewal Form before
June 05, 2018. If your research ends before June 05, 2018, please submit a Final Report
Form to close out REB approval monitoring efforts.
If you have any questions about the REB review & approval process, please contact the
Research Ethics Office via 250.852.7122. If you encounter any issues when working in
the Research Portal, please contact the Research Office at 250.371.5586.
Sincerely,

Andrew Fergus
Chair, Research Ethics Board