Reassessing public opinion of captive cetacean attractions with a photo elicitation survey

Sample demographics

There were a total of 292 respondents and all responses were voluntary. Respondents were 61.1% female and 38.9% male (n = 280). By age, 15.2% of respondents were 18–29, with 10.5% being 30–39, 31.0% being 40–49, 23.1% being 50–59, and 22.2% being 60 or older (n = 277). Most respondents resided in North America, with 71.5% living in the US and 25.8% in Canada. The remaining 2.8% were from Europe, South America, and Egypt (n = 291). Where n < 292, it is due to non-responses, all of which are reported in Table 2.

In terms of tourists’ preferences, those who would consider a future cruise vacation comprised 37.8%, with the remainder uninterested (n = 288). Of the tourists surveyed, 39.8% were staying in all-inclusive resorts, which provide activity programmes as part of the package, with the remainder staying in other accommodation (n = 289). Across the sample, 47.4% had vacationed in the TCI more than once (n = 289).

Qualitative responses: rate and nature

Very few respondents offered qualitative responses for all six photographs. For the photograph of the SWTD attraction, 26.4% of respondents provided open-ended responses, with this reduced to 18.2% for the MMP killer whale show. While a small number of respondents responded in greater detail, most answers were between one and three sentences long. All qualitative responses were about the featured attractions, rather than comments that could only be attributed to the images themselves; no respondent remarked on the child in the SWTD image (Fig. S1).

Overall perceptions of tourists

Respondents favoured the possibility of visiting a potential SWTD attraction over an MMP killer whale show, with an overall median description of “likely” to visit the SWTD attraction compared to “unlikely” for the MMP killer whale show. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the responses for the MMP killer whale show and the SWTD attraction. The preferred favourability rankings are SWTD attraction, aquarium, botanical gardens, craft market, MMP killer whale show, and maritime museum. The SWTD attraction, aquarium, and botanical gardens all had median descriptors of “likely” to be visited, with the MMP killer whale show and maritime museum having median descriptors of “unlikely”. The craft market fell into its own significant group between “likely” and “unlikely”. There was no significant difference between the SWTD attraction and the aquarium or botanical gardens, but there was a significantly higher likelihood to visit an SWTD attraction than a craft market (p < 0.01). The MMP killer whale show was significantly less attractive than the three “likely” attractions (p < 0.001) and the maritime museum (p < 0.05), but not significantly less than the craft market. The full range of Likert responses for each attraction are reported in Table 3, with significant groupings shown in Fig. 2.

Only five respondents who were “likely” or “very likely” to visit an MMP killer whale show gave qualitative feedback, all stating “entertainment” as their reason for wanting to visit. The 4.2% of those “likely” or “very likely” to visit and who provided qualitative feedback said that though they were disinclined to visit themselves, they would be likely to visit an MMP killer whale show because it would be entertaining for their children. For those “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to visit, and who offered qualitative comments (n = 48), the most frequently-given reasons were animal welfare concerns (72.9%), perceived over-commercialisation of the attraction (14.6%), and lack of entertainment value (10.4%). Their qualitative justifications for their decision-making included the belief that animals were being “abused” in such parks, that “animals [did not] belong in an environment like this”, that they did not like the nature of performances, and that they objected to animals being “caged up”. Respondents noted that there “was a lot of bad press” about killer whale shows and that Blackfish was “really sad”. The documentary was cited by 14.6% of those “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to visit an MMP attraction and who gave qualitative responses for their reasoning for non-visitation. One respondent noted that their young daughter had told them the documentary showed abuse of killer whales. Only 4.2% of the same “unlikely” group, who provided qualitative responses, explicitly mentioned the human welfare threat to animal trainers as a reason for non-visitation.

For tourists offering qualitative appraisals that they would be “likely” or “very likely” to visit an SWTD attraction (n = 26), the only reasons they gave were entertainment value (96.2%) and/or that it would be especially enjoyable for children (34.6%). They made comments such as that their daughter would love it because she was going to a marine biology camp and that they had done it before in the Bahamas and would do it again. However, 15.4% of this group mentioned that they knew about the related animal welfare concerns. The only respondent to mention Blackfish when commenting on the SWTD attraction stated the attraction remained “awesome” despite what he had seen in the documentary.

Among survey respondents “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to visit an SWTD attraction (n = 51) and who provided qualitative feedback, the three dominant reasons for their choice were animal welfare concerns (56.9%), lack of entertainment value (21.6%), and human welfare concerns (9.8%). The qualitative feedback included statements that they would only swim with wild dolphins, that “dolphins should be free”, that their daughter had experienced a skin infection after her human-dolphin interaction at another SWTD attraction, that they were worried about male dolphins “getting frisky”, and that they would rather go to the beach. Of this group, despite their own opposition to the attraction, 11.8% said they would visit with children, as it was more entertaining for that age group. One tourist said she was “unlikely” to visit this type of attraction again, but she “loved it” when she did it before. No respondents mentioned The Cove in the unprompted qualitative feedback. A summary of all qualitative responses is detailed in Table 4.

By accommodation type

Tourists staying in all-inclusive resorts were significantly more “unlikely” to visit a potential SWTD attraction than respondents in other accommodations (p < 0.001). Those staying in all-inclusive resorts were also significantly less interested in visiting MMP killer whale shows (p < 0.001). For this variable, and those that follow, a more detailed summary of tourist visitation likelihood is found in Table 5.

By age

Interest in SWTD attractions decreased with age, with older participants more “unlikely” (p < 0.001) to visit. There were no significant differences for MMP killer whale shows on this criterion.

By country of residence

Significant groupings (p = 0.001) were reported for preference toward visiting an SWTD attraction. Respondents from the US were the most positive and were “likely” to visit, compared to Canadians who fell between “likely” and “unlikely”, and those from other countries who were generally “unlikely” to visit. After the Bonferroni correction, no significant differences were found between tourists from different countries for visiting the MMP killer whale show.

By gender, parental status, preference for cruise tourism, and trip frequency to TCI

There were no significant differences in interest in SWTD attractions or MMP killer whale shows by gender, parental status, preference for cruise tourism, or frequency of visitation to the TCI.

Public opinion of SWTD attractions

A majority of tourists to the TCI supported the introduction of an SWTD attraction. The figure of support (60.3%) was, however, below the 70.2% found in an earlier industry survey (Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums, 2005). The reason for support in our study was overwhelmingly that such an attraction would be entertaining, with some respondents specifically mentioning their children’s potential interest. The earlier, higher figure came from a study that potentially introduced motivated bias by asking respondents to agree or disagree with the statement: “I would be interested in swimming with dolphins in a safe, legal and permitted environment at a marine life park, aquarium or zoo” (Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums, 2005). The figure found in our study was also above the percentages found in several previous public opinion studies of tourists, where majorities of respondents reported not favouring visiting captive dolphin attractions (Draheim et al., 2010; Luksenburg & Parsons, 2014). The demographics of our participants were similar to Luksenburg & Parsons (2014), where 59% of tourists surveyed in Aruba were from the USA. It is possible that, despite Luksenburg & Parsons’ best efforts to avoid bias, their use of extensive closed-questioning introduced motivated, ingratiation, and/or social desirability bias.

Alternatively, the differences between the findings from these studies and ours may be due to the sampling locations and approaches. Draheim et al. (2010), Luksenburg & Parsons (2014), and ourselves all surveyed tourists, but in different resorts. Visitors to different locales can have different attitudes, as is the case for tourist perceptions of the natural environment, which differ by island in the Caribbean region (Uyarra et al., 2005). Our study is also less comparable to Miller et al. (2013), where visitors to a captive marine mammal attraction were surveyed while in attendance or Patterson (2010), where the surveys were conducted with volunteers for a high-end whale watching and eco-tourism outfit. These studies sampled sections of the public predisposed to visiting cetacean attractions, while our study sampled a section of the general public for whom no predisposition towards or against visiting captive cetacean attractions can be assumed.

While previous research has cited education, conservation, and welfare benefits as the reasons the public gave for visiting captive cetacean attractions, in this study, the only motivation mentioned by respondents for visiting SWTD attractions was their entertainment value. This suggests that the polls that found that at least 80% of respondents see educational and conservation values in captive cetacean attractions have over-asserted these attitudes (e.g., Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums, 2005; Miller et al., 2013). This difference may be due to potential ingratiation bias in the survey by Miller et al. (2013), where statements like “this experience was educational” were put to respondents while they were visiting the attraction. It would be uncomfortable for a respondent to respond negatively to this statement while talking to a surveyor they might suspect has a working relationship with the attraction. Jiang, Lück & Parsons (2007) similarly found that conservation value was not greatly attached to captive cetacean attractions by visitors, but even their paper, openly sceptical of the educational value of such attractions, still found that visitors offered education as a reason for their attendance. Jiang, Lück & Parsons (2007) also specifically asked about education opportunities, which might have introduced motivated bias through the survey questions, as a result of leading respondents to assign more weight to an issue than they might have independently. We expect that researchers seemingly sceptical of a perceived value to the public would not intentionally insert bias that caused that value to be highly reported by respondents, illustrating how hard it can be to design written, closed questions that do not influence the participant. Additionally, the benefits to human health claimed in some research may not be a valid reason for maintaining and developing SWTD attractions, as respondents in our research only identified associated threats to human well-being from visiting such attractions.

Furthermore, 39.7% of tourists surveyed here were not in favour of visiting SWTD attractions, primarily citing dolphin welfare concerns, where reasoning was provided. These viewpoints cast doubt on the interpretations of the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums (2005) survey, where AMMPA stated that the general public believed animal welfare was high at such attractions. In that survey, 95% agreed that “the people who care for the animals at marine life parks, aquariums and zoos are committed to the welfare of the animals” (Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums, 2005), a question more focused on the capability of the trainers than the condition of captive animals. The wording likely introduced the motivated bias of the researchers. Our results are closer to those found by Jiang, Lück & Parsons (2007) in Canada, where a major reason for non-visitation was animal welfare concerns.

In our study, overall opposition to an SWTD attraction was noted for those staying in all-inclusive accommodation, tourists residing outside of the US and Canada, and older adults. The lack of appropriate qualitative data offered by most respondents makes it hard to fully explain their opposition. Whatever their reasoning, the opinions of these demographic groups have implications wherever they are present. All-inclusive tourism models are particularly popular in the Caribbean (Brida & Zapata-Aguirre, 2010), with just above 50% of tourists not from the US (Caribbean Tourism Organization, 2014), and the average age of visitors from the US being over 40 (International Trade Administration, 2014). All-inclusive resorts provide entertainment for their guests, and for countries like the TCI, where these resorts are among the biggest individual employers (Allen, 2013), there are limits to the market for SWTD attractions.

In general, TCI tourists were willing to visit an SWTD attraction, even when aware of the associated animal welfare concerns amplified in recent media. Jiang, Lück & Parsons (2007) also found this to be the case among the Canadian public. Researchers and advocates opposing dolphin captivity may still see an opportunity to influence public opinion, however, in the relatively low level of human welfare and dolphin conservation concerns recorded in this study. Draheim et al. (2010) noted that tourists in the Dominican Republic were similarly unaware of welfare and safety concerns, with 75% of their sample not seeing swimming with dolphins as dangerous. Their study also found that, when required to provide a closed answer, over 80% of tourists placed weight on dolphin conservation issues. Without prompting from close-ended survey questions, dolphin conservation was barely identified as an issue by TCI tourists. If this was due to a lack of awareness rather than apathy, then there is potential to increase public knowledge of both conservation and welfare issues.

Low public opinion of MMP killer whale shows

TCI tourists’ overall attitude toward MMP killer whale shows was largely negative. The 60.9% who identified as not likely to visit such attractions roughly correlates to a recent survey where closed-ended questions found 50% of a sample of the general public opposed killer whale captivity (Edge Research, 2014). It is possible that, because of their use of telephone interviews conducted by professional surveyors, the surveyors managed to reduce some ingratiation and social desirability bias (Rossiter, 2009). There is also the possibility that motivated bias introduced through question design had a lesser impact, as public opinion of killer whale captivity in MMPs was already strongly formed, possibly due to exposure to more media on the welfare of captive killer whales than captive dolphins.

Tourists not staying in all-inclusive resorts were the only respondent demographic to clearly identify as positive towards visiting an MMP killer whale show, but there were not enough qualitative responses to explain why. Of the reasons given, the strongest concern was for animal welfare. Education, conservation, and human welfare benefits were not cited as reasons for wanting to visit. Conservation concerns were not mentioned as a deterrent. Again, this contrasts with previous surveys that may have introduced pro- or anti-captivity researcher-motivated bias through their use of close-ended questions, such as those that have found a wide range of respondent agreement (56–97%) that these attractions offer educational experiences (e.g., Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums, 2005; Jiang, Lück & Parsons, 2007; Edge Research, 2014).

Media influence had noticeably more impact on respondents’ opinions of MMP killer whale shows than SWTD attractions, with several citing having watched Blackfish as their reason for not wanting to visit such an attraction. This influence is supported in the results of a recent survey, which showed that 73% of the US public learned about killer whales via the media (Edge Research, 2014). It is also reflected in the dramatic fall in the stock market value of North America’s primary provider of killer whale attractions, which has been blamed on negative publicity and resultant decreasing visitor numbers (Peterson, 2014; Huggan, 2017). In 2016, the same provider announced the end of their captive breeding programme and therefore the eventual end of captive killer whale shows at their attractions (Hacket, 2016). However, while the documentary extensively covered the human welfare issues associated with training killer whales, TCI tourists’ qualitative responses rarely explicitly identified these issues, even when mentioning Blackfish.

Shifting public opinion of SWTD attractions and MMP killer whale shows

The issues contributing to the public opinion of dolphin and killer whale captivity are similar, yet the respondents here were more likely to visit SWTD attractions than MMP killer whale shows. In the qualitative responses, media influence was cited less frequently for SWTD attractions as a factor in potential visitation. The showing of Blackfish on well-watched television outlets is credited for broadening the media profile of the negative issues associated with MMP killer whale shows, especially given the deaths of trainers highlighted in the film (Huggan, 2017; Parsons & Rose, 2018).

A similar shift in public opinion could be expected if a member of the public were seriously harmed at an SWTD attraction (Hunt et al., 2008; Rose, Parsons & Farinato, 2009). Indeed, shifts in public opinion have already been credited for the closures of the last United Kingdom captive dolphin attractions in the 1990s (Hughes, 2001) and a facility in the Bahamas in 2014 (Lowe, 2014). Pushback against a plan to construct an SWTD attraction in Arizona, USA led to a petition with over 170,000 signatures (Milman, 2016; Dee, 2016). In these cases, dolphin welfare has primarily driven public opinion, though recent opposition has cited bites from dolphins and “incidents that resemble sexual assault” (Milman, 2016). Nevertheless, the captive cetacean industry continues to invest in infrastructure and propose new attractions. Approximately 25 additional SWTD attractions have been proposed for the Caribbean region (Rose, Parsons & Farinato, 2009), including the two in the TCI. Policy-makers, governments, and tourist attraction developers need to be aware of potential negative shifts in public opinion of SWTD attractions, as they would likely cause the same drop in visitation as for MMPs.

Our results could also be interpreted as the public believing that dolphin welfare in SWTD attractions is higher than for killer whale welfare in MMPs. Yet this interpretation is actually contrasted by our qualitative data, which suggest that dolphin welfare is not at the forefront of public consciousness. Very few of our participants commented on captive cetacean welfare and those that did mentioned killer whale captivity rather than that for dolphins. Either the public care less about the welfare of captive dolphins than of killer whales, perceive dolphins to be better-suited to captivity, leading to better welfare, or have not been as exposed to the welfare issues surrounding dolphin captivity. Our study lacks the data necessary to determine which scenario is most likely and further research is necessary to determine the root of the lack of public consciousness over dolphin captivity.

Alternatives to captive cetacean attractions

Aquariums and botanical gardens, rated by TCI tourists as significantly more desirable than MMP killer whale shows and similarly desirable to SWTD attractions, have been shown to provide educational and conservation value (Parsons & Muhs, 1994; Falk & Adelman, 2003; He & Chen, 2012), with less debate than for captive cetacean attractions. Where possible, wild whale and dolphin-watching tours may be better attractions to endorse as they have, in some studies, been found to have fewer negative conservation and animal and human welfare issues (Jiang, Lück & Parsons, 2007). Research in Aruba (Luksenburg & Parsons, 2014), the Dominican Republic (Draheim et al., 2010), and Belize (Patterson, 2010) has shown that visitors would prefer wild cetacean encounters to captive ones.

Advantages and limitations of the photo elicitation methodology

The relatively low qualitative response rate from participants impeded our ability to explain the respondents’ reasoning behind their quantitative Likert ratings. All of the other public opinion studies of captive cetacean attractions reviewed here did draw specific conclusions about whether entertainment, educational, or conservation value, or human or animal wellbeing, were reasons for visitation or non-visitation, because they received a complete response rate to their worded, closed questions. Yet we know these worded questions can also be limited, likely more so, due to the opportunities for introducing bias that distorts responses. In some cases, it might be easier to write more neutral closed survey questions, but with emotionally-sensitive topics like animal captivity and welfare, it is difficult. The benefit of photo elicitation is that it leaves the respondent open to responding how they want to, decreasing potential bias.

The results of this study, for instance, do not reveal whether TCI tourists believed an SWTD attraction would be educational or improve their wellbeing, or otherwise, but this ambiguity can be valuable. The lack of definitive qualitative findings from respondents on the potential educational, conservation, and human wellbeing benefits of SWTD attractions, or of animal and human welfare issues, is because the respondents guided this research. Many of the issues previously highlighted by researchers were simply not at the forefront of TCI tourists’ minds when considering which attractions they would like to visit. Conclusions drawn elsewhere, therefore, may have been influenced by researcher-introduced bias, preventing a true snapshot of public opinion. While the lack of qualitative responses to photo elicitation limits the explanatory power of our quantitative findings, the responses that were elicited, especially on the entertainment value of SWTD attractions, do begin to explain our data. Follow-up research, attempts at replication, and comparative case studies should look to elicit more extensive open-ended responses from participants. These could use an approach that compels a comment for each photograph, as long as care is still taken to avoid introducing researcher bias.

One success of this methodology was not initially revealing the full research aims to respondents, reducing bias. The substantial differences between the opinions of TCI tourists on cetacean captivity and those found in several similar surveys is likely down to our accounting for the biases listed in Table 1. Many of the other surveys did not describe attempts to reduce these biases. Yet our selection of photographs may have remained an issue. The photographs used in this approach, though carefully selected with a theoretically-grounded approach, could have inherently influenced respondents. The image used for the SWTD attraction (Fig. S1), for instance, is a close-up of a child smiling while swimming with a dolphin, while the image for the MMP killer whale show (Fig. S1) is a more distant photograph with the faces of spectators out of focus. As photographs with smiling subjects tend to indicate positive experiences (Miles & Johnston, 2007), the SWTD attraction image is more likely to have attracted additional positive responses, irrespective of general opinions of the attraction, and perhaps has artificially inflated our figure for respondents’ likelihood to visit SWTD attractions. No respondents commented on the image content (Fig. S1), however, suggesting this was likely not a major issue here. Still, bias introduction through photograph selection cannot be ruled out. Further photo elicitation studies on the influence of photographs of subjects with varying expressions, or photographs where facial expressions were not shown, would give further context to the value of the quantitative results presented here. To more definitively determine the strengths and limitations of the photo elicitation methodology, a follow-up study comparing photo elicitation in parallel to traditional survey methods would be useful.