Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilDossiers111-4Going to See Animals: An Analysis...

Going to See Animals: An Analysis of Tourist Offerings for Wildlife Observation in the French Alps

Louis Defraiteur, Laine Chanteloup et Clémence Perrin-Malterre
Cet article est une traduction de :
Aller voir des animaux : analyse des offres touristiques d’observation de la faune sauvage dans les Alpes françaises [fr]

Résumés

Cet article présente un travail exploratoire et d’analyse des offres touristiques d’observation de la faune sauvage situées dans le massif alpin français. Par ce travail, nous souhaitons questionner la valorisation des animaux comme ressource touristique et son inscription dans des processus territoriaux et de diversification touristique. Pour cela une méthode quantitative de recension des offres présentes sur le territoire a été élaborée. Ceci a permis de constituer un corpus de 172 offres touristiques sur lequel se base le développement de cet article. Une analyse statistique avec la réalisation d’une typologie des offres répertoriées a permis d’identifier quatre formes principales de mise en tourisme des animaux sauvages. Ces offres ont ensuite été cartographiées pour interroger l’ancrage spatial de ces pratiques touristiques ; ce qui permet d’en souligner le caractère diffus et spontané de ces offres. Ainsi plus que d’être liés à une ou des politiques territoriales concertées, les processus de diversification touristique autour de l’observation de la faune sont le résultat de l’addition d’intentions individuelles de valorisation des animaux sauvages.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 “Climate Change 2021 The Physical Science Basis”

1Mountain tourism, “summer contemplation at first, then a sports venue, it will become a winter destination” (Achin & George-Marcelpoil, 2013, p. 68), mainly structured around winter sports resorts. The territory is accordingly placed at the heart of a “Fordist” vision: the social division of labor must correspond to a spatial division of activities (Courlet et al., 1993). While this model was promoted for its “capitalist capacity” (Achin & George-Marcelpoil, 2013), since the 1970s, it has been challenged by environmental and landscape criticism and then for its economic difficulties (Lorit, 1991). Today, in addition to political, territorial and socio-cultural criticisms, issues related to “global change” and climate disruption (IPCC Report1) are of concern to winter sports resorts, particularly with regard to their ability to provide snow. A variety of social and political factors impact and redefine the trajectories of mountain resorts and contribute to their mutations (Vlès, 2014). These changes are accompanied by the diversification of tourism in mountain areas (Bourdeau, 2009). This diversification of activities stems, first of all, from a political commitment, with support being deployed to organize—but also to encourage—it (Achin & George-Marcelpoil, 2013). It is also the result of socio-cultural dynamics driven by the inhabitants and socio-professionals who participate in redefining mountain territories’ tourism systems (Corneloup & Bourdeau, 2002).

  • 2 We use the term wild in this text for convenience to refer to animals that are not domestic or farm (...)
  • 3 The Big Five are the five most coveted animals on a safari. They are the lion, leopard, elephant, r (...)
  • 4 Poland

2In this context, local natural and cultural heritages are generally mobilized and become tourism resources (Hautbois et al., 2003). This is notably the case of “wild mountain animals”2 and specifically of emblematic fauna (Stoeckl et al., 2005), with the development of wildlife observation tourism (Chanteloup, 2013). This practice is growing steadily internationally (Newsome & Rodger, 2013) and can be at the very heart of a region or even a country’s tourism economy (Earnshaw & Emerton, 2000). This type of tourism is generally structured around specialist agencies (Curtin & Wilkes, 2005) that develop tourism products such as photo safaris related to charismatic species (Lorimer, 2007). Indeed, specific destinations are particularly popular, such as South Africa, which offers the “Big Five”3 (Ferreira & Harmse, 2014), the coastal areas of Canada, Australia and South America for whale watching (Hoyt & Parsons, 2014), and the Canadian north for polar bear observation (Lemelin & Smale, 2006). The heart of Europe, better known for its cultural destinations, tends to remain on the back burner of these nature trips, even though some places such as the Białowieża Forest4 (Czeszczewik et al., 2019) are developing their tourism economy around their environmental amenities (Ament et al., 2016), and notably wildlife.

Questioning Wildlife Tourism

3Several conceptual frameworks have been proposed in the literature to study wildlife tourism. The seminal work of Duffus & Dearden (1990) identifies three constituent elements of this activity in order to understand how it operates and evolves over time:

  1. the species that initiates tourism and its habitat,

  2. tourists (“users”) who come to see the animal, and

  3. the historical relationship that is wrought between these two.

  • 5 Translation of: Spectrum of Tourist-Wildlife Interaction Opportunities (SoTWIO)

4In their modeling attempt, these authors are interested in tourist sites evolution according to the number of visitors, the facilities implemented and also the type of tourists (from novice to specialists). Following on from this work, Orams (1996) proposes another way of approaching wildlife tourism, according to what he calls “a range of possibilities for tourist-wildlife interactions”5, whereby the tourist may encounter an animal in a “wild” state, in a semi-captive or captive setting.

5Reynolds & Braithwaite (2001) focus on tourism “products” developed by wildlife tourism providers. Tourism offerings differ according to “a combination of circumstances” depending on the importance assigned to different variables specific to this industry. The variables identified are the “species” present, “habitats”, “participants” in tourism and “impacts” on wildlife. The trade-off between these different components also takes into account the management of uncertainty specific to encounters with wild animals. Indeed, one of the distinctive features of this kind of tourism is that it commercializes the unpredictable (Margaryan & Wall-Reinius, 2017). For Reynolds & Braithwaite, the tourism products developed are therefore the result of compromises made between these different aspects.

A Form of Tourism Still Little Studied in the Alps

6As an extension to this work, this article is intended to develop a study of the French Alps. Within this geographical area, the development of wildlife tourism packages is still poorly known and quite marginal compared to nature sports and the ski industry (Sauri & Llurdés, 2020). However, the territorial context is well suited to the emergence of this type of tourism. Since the mid-20th century, nature protection policies, through the multiplication of protected areas, combined with the implementation of wildlife management policies, have led to a dramatic increase in wildlife populations, especially in large animals. Moreover, the return of emblematic species such as the wolf or the bearded vulture has reinforced the number of charismatic animals (Lorimer, 2007) present in the territory. Isabelle Mauz (2009, p. 187) even questions this trend by asking whether the Alps are not becoming “Europe’s animal park”.

7In this article, we present an exploratory study aimed at distinguishing different offerings and approaches to wildlife tourism. This work is part of a larger doctoral study aimed at studying tourist observation experiences as a specific context for building socialities with animals. To that end, it is necessary to first identify the potential tourist experiences available across the French Alps territory and the different ways of relating with wildlife. This work seeks, on the one hand, to identify specific characteristics of this tourism within our geographical area and then to propose a typology of these offers. Finally, an analysis of offerings geographical distribution was carried out: it has helped us question the spatial and territorial dynamics specific to this form of tourism on the massif, put forward by this work.

Differentiating wildlife tourism offerings: collection method and corpus obtained

Elaboration of the data corpus

8In order to obtain a representative sample of the wildlife tourism offer in our study area, we conducted an Internet survey of wildlife tourism attractions (activities, products, outings and events). The choice of this method was to quickly create a panel that would enable us to identify trends, similarities or differences in the offers present in our study area. However, this panel only presents what is proposed or made visible by tourist operators and does not make it possible to show what is actually carried out or sold and the share that these offers can cover in relation to other activities within the tourist practices present on the territories.

9On the other hand, the use of the Internet for our survey was justified by the relevance of this medium for tourism companies, particularly in the choice of media for their products (Bouhaoula & Chantelat, 2002). However, it is also the widespread use of the Internet in tourism consumption practices (Aquilina et al., 2018) that further validates this choice.

10We have chosen two modes of collection:

  1. Consultation of all tourist offices’ websites in each département (county), and a census of the offers proposed to find those related to wildlife.

  2. A keyword search via the Google search engine. The first step was to establish several lists of keywords combining two to four of the following words: Stays / Internship / Outing / Activities / Wildlife / Animals / Mountain / Alps / Photography / Observation. We then went on to open all the suggested links. Google’s algorithm chooses what best corresponds to our query according to various criteria (weight of the site, number of visits, different sites referencing strategies) (Cardon, 2013) without actually securing relevance to our search question. It was necessary to establish selection criteria for the constitution of our corpus.

11We therefore set two criteria to sort out what would belong to this panel or not. Here was the first criterion: the activities’ primary purpose was to discover, learn about, meet, observe or promote wild or non-domestic fauna, whether animals were physically present or not (museum, activity on the animals, recognition or imprinting, tracking, etc.), in freedom or in a park (semi-liberty or other). The second criterion was geographical: the offer had to be located in the chosen geographical area, i.e., the French Alpine Mountain range with the delimitation of the Alpine Convention’s accession zone.

12A thematic analysis of the information available on the websites was carried out in order to identify a set of recurring variables, so as to identify modalities from which we could compare and differentiate the tourist offers listed.

13These are the different variables that were identified and then recorded in a spreadsheet for each of the offers: the mode of survey; the tourist office (if found on a tourist office website); the département; the type of territory (park, geopark, etc.); the mountain range; the service provider; the activity(ies); the supervision; the scale of the activity (a site, a park, a hike, an expedition across a range, etc.); whether or not there is a charge; the price; the animals targeted; the number of species targeted; the duration.

14From this spreadsheet, we performed flat sorting and multivariate analysis to classify offers with the SPAD software. We used the Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) method, which explores a complex database by identifying associations of numerous variables and to summarize the information. The MCA results are presented in the form of graphs composed of points positioned on a plane structured by two axes (Renisio & Sinthon, 2014). To carry out the MCA, the variables “supervision”, “price” (grouped into four classes), “providers”, “duration” and “type of activity proposed” were selected because they are the ones that mainly determine the distribution of offers. The main interest and objective of this method is to quantify, summarize or synthesize the overall information, to identify the structures or types of products offered in the different sites and places identified. In fact, we have completed our analysis with a hierarchical ascending classification (HAC) to propose a typology of the offers identified in this territory.

Characteristics of Wildlife Tourism in the Alps

15The survey resulted in a panel of 172 tourist offers (97 via the websites of tourist offices and 75 with keyword searches). We can characterize the sample produced by this survey to see how this type of tourism opportunities is structured.

16First of all, two categories of offers can be distinguished:

  • tourist sites, to which visits correspond (museum, animal park, hideouts, observation hut, etc.), which are constituted according to a well-defined place or space dedicated to meeting, observing and seeing animals.

  • outings that correspond to mobile or itinerant activities that take place in more diffuse environments and spaces and that are not solely dedicated to the viewing of animals. These outings are mainly based on hiking, or at least they are done on foot and require a more or less advanced physical commitment depending on the activity.

17Moreover, this panel presents a mainly commercial, tourist or leisure activity. 83% of the offers listed are paying (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Price of wildlife tourism offerings

Figure 1: Price of wildlife tourism offerings

Source: Defraiteur L. 2022

18One of the first elements of wildlife tourism characterization in the Alps is that a large majority of the offers listed are structured around accompaniment offered to visitors (Figure 2), notably by mid-range mountain leaders (Accompagnateurs en Moyenne Montagne, AMM) or “agencies” that offer stays (Figure 3). The guides’ central role differentiates wildlife tourism in the French Alps from other destinations that structure their packages more specifically around tour operators and specialized travel agencies (Curtin & Wilkes, 2005). In the French Alps, tour operators are both the providers and marketers of these offerings, which may partially explain the lower visibility of wildlife tourism in the Alps compared to other destinations. The widespread presence of guides is reflected in the types of offers proposed for animal sightseeing. For example, we can note the marked prevalence of walking in the activities listed (Figure 4).

Figure 2: Type of framing

Figure 2: Type of framing

Source: Defraiteur L. 2022

Figure 3: Supply provider

Figure 3: Supply provider

Source: Defraiteur L. 2022

Figure 4: Proposed Activity

Figure 4: Proposed Activity

Source: Defraiteur L. 2022

  • 6 Addition of “Deer”; “Others”; “Mouflons”; "Avifauna" and "Deer".
  • 7 Cross-tabulation of "target animals” and “activity types”, p=<0.01 et Khi2= 135.57

19Across the panel of our inventory, there seems to be a convergence of offers towards species associated with mountain spaces, around animals that are symbolic of the alpine space (Schirpke et al., 2018). Thus, 24% of the offers are organized around “mountain animals” in a generic way without specifying the species. For those that do specify species, the animals that are most targeted by these offers are: chamois (19%), marmots (13.4%), deer (10.5%), ibex (8.1%) and vultures (8.1%). Then come wolves (7%) and avifauna in general (5.2%). 43% of the successful bids were for a single species. Nevertheless, there is a significant proportion of offers (38%6) that target more generic animals and whose habitats go beyond the Alpine area (deer, vultures, wolves, avifauna in particular). This is true of the offers developed around deer, for example. This animal is still considered a charismatic species (Lorimer, 2007) but the mountain is not its only habitat. We also note differences in practices depending on the animal. For example, for the deer and the ibex, we note a significant correlation with the practice of photography. For species such as marmot or chamois, the correlation is significant with simple observation associated with hiking.7

20In fact, wildlife tourism in the Alps is quite heterogeneous in terms of practices, temporalities, costs and targeted animals. It is not structured around a specific practice and a specific species (or group) as the major wildlife tourism destinations discussed in the literature (Higginbottom, 2004). The informal or fragmented nature of these tourism offerings is one of the main characteristics that stand out. In fact, it is worth noting that the diversification process through wildlife observation activities is more related to individual approaches than to the collective and/or institutional logic of wildlife tourism. Thus, we felt it would be interesting to propose a typology of offers to highlight the way this type of tourism is structured.

Analysis and typology of wildlife observation tourism

Offers structured according to activities framework, price and duration

21To carry out our typology we first performed a multiple correspondence analysis with the SPADD software. As shown in Table 1, the cumulative explained variance is almost 40% for the first two axes of the MCA. It rises to 52.4% by adding the 3rd axis.

Table 1: Variance of the 3 axes

Table 1: Variance of the 3 axes

Source: Defraiteur L. 2022

22Table 2 shows the contribution to each axis of the active variables

Table 2: Explanatory variables

Table 2: Explanatory variables

Source: Defraiteur L. 2022

23Figure 5 is the graphical representation of the MCA with axes 1, 2 and 3. Axis 1 is mainly explained by the type of service. On the left side of the axis are the accompanied and paid offers. On the right-hand side, there are unaccompanied offers (free or supervised), such as wildlife parks or thematic routes/tours on wildlife. Axis 2 is characterized by the duration of the services: at the bottom of the graph, the less than a day offers with prices ranging from €20 to €100 and in the upper part, the longer offers (more than 2 days) with prices reaching over €100. Finally, axis 3 contrasts the free and unsupervised offers proposed by tourist offices and resorts, such as themed tours, with the paying offers proposed by animal parks or museums.

Figure 5: Variables on axis 1 & 2 and 1 &3

Figure 5: Variables on axis 1 & 2 and 1 &3

Source: Defraiteur L. 2022

24Following the MCA, we performed an Ascending Hierarchical Classification (AHC). This enabled us to identify the appropriate number of classes into which the data could be grouped. Each class corresponds to a type of wildlife tourism offer.

25The SPAD software recommends 3, 4 and 6 class divisions for the AMP. In describing the classes, it appears that the 6-class division, although precise, produces classes that are very similar. The partition in three classes masks a fourth class that is very different in the description. We have therefore chosen to keep a four-class categorization (Figure 6) because we felt it corresponded more faithfully to the diversity of the offers observed during the survey.

Figure 6: Distribution into four classes

Figure 6: Distribution into four classes

Source: Defraiteur L. 2022

26Class 1 corresponds to the outings that represent 50% of the offers listed. These are accompanied days and half-days, mainly in the form of hiking or snowshoeing in winter, allowing the observation of the fauna in a “natural environment”. The animals most associated with this type of outing are chamois and marmots, which are emblematic species (Stoeckl et al., 2005) or symbolic of the Alps. These offers are mainly supervised by AMMs. The prices of these offers are less than €100/person.

27Class 2 corresponds to stays and represents 21% of the offers listed. These are accompanied stays of more than two days specifically based on wildlife (observation and/or photography). While walking remains one of the main activities in these offers, a place is often given to other activities, such as photo trapping, tracking (reading tracks) or stalking (static and camouflaged observation). Deer and “mountain fauna in the broadest sense” are these offers’ most recurrent subjects. They are most often proposed by travel agencies and supervised by WMAs, or even professional photographers. It should be noted that some WMAs also offer thematic wildlife trips on their own. These trips range from two days to one week and are priced above €100/person.

28The third class corresponds to free activities which represent 13% of the offers in this inventory. These are non-commercial activities offered by tourist organizations such as tourist offices, ski resorts or local authorities. They take the form of thematic tours, with explanatory and educational panels on the fauna present or activities for children such as footprint casting. The fauna most associated with these offers are birds, insects and reptiles. Added to this class are the free-access viewing huts and observatories.

29Finally, the fourth class corresponds to the visits of structures and represents 15% of the offers listed. These are animal parks with captive animals and/or animals in semi-liberty but also animal shelters or museums. The price of these activities is less than €20. The animals concerned by these tourist offers are variable. They can be based on mountain species (mainly alpine) as well as on species without any specific link with the Alps.

30We have identified four ways of proposing an animal-related offer. A distinction can be made between more or less structured offers that reflect a different understanding of wildlife tourism on the part of service providers, oscillating between: on the one hand, the search for access to the greatest number of people with the greatest possible proximity to animals (4th class) and, on the other hand, the option to limit the number of visitors and increase the distance between the tourist and animals (classes 1, 2 and 3), mainly to limit negative impacts on the fauna (Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001). Thus, in each offer, several types of contact with animals can be mobilized, whether through signs, the use of binoculars, reading of presence signs or listening. It should be noted that there are a wider variety of interactions than just physical or visual interaction, to bring animals and humans into contact. We believe these modalities are part of the interaction between humans and animals and that it is therefore interesting to widen the spectrum of interaction proposed in the work of Orams (1996), by opening it to other types of sensory relations different from vision and the “physical encounter”. One of the most telling examples in our inventory is connecting tourists and animals through hearing with listening to a deer bellow. These experiential aspects have yet to be explored in the context of wildlife tourism in our study area.

More suitable areas for wildlife viewing?

  • 8 The dots were placed on the locations mentioned in the offers, otherwise they were placed around th (...)
  • 9 The intersection of “Targeted animals” and “Massif” is statistically significant (p=0.01; chi2=219. (...)

31Bortolamiol et al. (2017) remind us that the socio-spatial configurations in which human-animal interactions unfold play a dominant role on the latter. Marchand (2013) encourages us to place relations with animals in a territorial dynamic, notably because of the importance of the spatial reference of animals due to their territorial and physical holdings inherent to their existence, but also because of the symbolic place(s) that they occupy and/or that we attribute to them (Mauz, 2002). Indeed, various works show that territorial inscription can be an important factor in wildlife tourism (Chanteloup, 2013). In particular, the literature on wildlife tourism emphasizes the link between protected areas and the development of wildlife tourism (Higginbottom, 2004). This factor is also visible in the Alps: there is a significant correlation between the proximity of a protected or labeled area and the presence of wildlife observation offers (see Figure 7)8. However, it is important to note that a large proportion (27%) of the Alpine territory is now covered by protection or land enhancement schemes (Laslaz, 2020). This shows that this form of tourism is territorially based, as the activities listed are largely based on so-called mountain animals. On the other hand, the geographical variables of types of protected areas (p=0.14; Chi2=13.48), departments (p=0.33; Chi2=20.10) or different mountain ranges (p=0.14; Chi2=55.04) do not statistically account for the distribution of the types of offers listed. Within the French Alps, there is therefore no territory that is more conducive to the emergence of offers of stays, outings or visits, nor even territories in which one finds more offers based on a particular species9. And this is even though some of these territories are associated with the presence of a species, such as the Bauges National Hunting and Wildlife Reserve dedicated to research on chamois, the reintroduction of a species such as the ibex in the Vanoise or the return of the wolf in the Mercantour.

Figure 7: Mapping of identified offers

Figure 7: Mapping of identified offers

Source: Defraiteur L. 2022

Wildlife as a source of tourism diversification

32Having chosen an entry by “tourist products”, as recommended by Reynolds and Braithwaite (2001), we realize the diffuse character of this form of tourism as much on the places and spaces of presence, as on practices. On the same spaces and sometimes the same sites, practices can coexist for different clientele, specialists or generalists (or even novices). Thus, the offers of different operators (Landel & Pecqeur, 2011) enrich the offer already present on the territories. Indeed, as we have seen, the significant representation of WMAs as providers of these activities is one of the particularities of this tourism in the French Alps. If wildlife watching activities can be part of these processes of tourist diversification by mobilizing new practices, new spaces and even new temporalities (Bourdeau, 2009), the wildlife watching activities proposed are above all the result of individual rather than territorial logic. It is the individuals (AMMs in the majority of cases) who are at the same time designers, providers, sellers and promoters of these tourist activities. Thus, these individual dynamics enrich an already existing tourist offer on the territory, but do not design it as a destination (George-Marcelpoil et al., 2016) of wildlife tourism.

33This needs to be analyzed in a more qualitative way, but we can already put forward, thanks to this inventory of offers, that they are certainly often relayed by the tourist offices but not promoted by the territorial authorities as an element of a territory’s identification. In short, on the French Alps’ scale, wildlife tourism offers are not significantly part of “an intentional process, engaging a collective appropriation dynamic by the actors of the territory” (François et al., 2006) that would make them a territorial resource. At the scale of the Alps, there are no structured territorial operators (Landel & Pecqueur, 2011) who organize the tourism of mountain fauna, unlike the tourism of snow with winter sports resorts. Nevertheless, we must underline a potential bias of the census carried out. This is the invisibilization of certain sociocultural logics and dynamics that may be linked to this type of tourism. In fact, these are not apparent because of the methodology chosen. The fact of listing variables that are transversal to all the offers in order to be able to compare them can also exclude sociological and territorial aspects that lead to the emergence of these types of tourist services. The logical continuation of this work will be to continue the investigation by a qualitative approach to support the inscription of these steps of setting in tourism in sociocultural and territorial processes. But it will also be possible to enrich the classification by more qualitative aspects such as the type of immersion, the choice of the territories of observation or the type of bodily engagement which will be as many elements which will highlight the distinctions and differentiations explained in this article (or conversely will call them into question).

Conclusion

34Our typology aimed to better identify and characterize different tourist practices of wildlife observation in the French Alps, a terrain where this activity has been little studied. We have highlighted the heterogeneous nature of this form of tourism, whether in terms of practices, temporalities, costs or targeted animals. It is not structured around a specific practice and species, as are the major wildlife tourism destinations discussed in the literature. Nevertheless, we have identified four major groups of practices or tourism activities in the Alps. The categories established in this article are not compartmentalized and fixed, but are permeable between them. This illustrates the involvement of tourism in multiple mutation processes of practices and societal transition (Bourdeau, 2018), here seen through the prism of our relationships to “wild” animals, which are translated into a diversity of ways of valuing them for tourism.

35Hence, the elaboration of wildlife tourism offers refers to a number of choices and arbitrations made by different providers. Our inventory work encourages us to broaden the interaction modalities proposed by Orams (1996) between tourists and animals beyond interactions centered on watching animals. While the question of “seeing” has proved to be central in tourism in general (Everett, 2008; Urry, 1990) and in wildlife tourism in particular (Lemelin, 2006), the articulation of the tourist experience built around vision has yet to be questioned. Indeed, tourism experiences are multiple, both sensory and bodily, and are not centered on vision alone (Perkins & Thorns, 2001; Everett 2008). A recent publication (Dybsand, 2020) even explains that seeing or not seeing the target species is not tourists’ main driver of positive experiences.

36Furthermore, we have seen these practices are part of tourism diversification processes, not thanks to intentional and collective steps taken by tourism actors and institutions, but emerge from individual intentions. The entry by the tourist offers that we chose enabled us to highlight the diffuse character of this form of tourism on the Alpine massif. Moreover, the emblematic mountain species do not seem to be as structuring as we might have thought, both in terms of the spaces (places, territories) invested and practices. Wildlife tourism is not segmented and articulated around actors who work collectively for the development of tourism, and therefore the Alpine space is not built as a tourist destination for wildlife observation, although a good number of tourist products are present on this mountain range.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Achin, C., & George-Marcelpoil, E., 2013.– “Sorties de piste pour la performance touristique des stations de sports d’hiver”, Tourisme et territoires, vol. 3, pp. 67–927.

Ament, J. M., Moore, C. A., Herbst, M., & Cumming, G. S., 2017.– “Cultural Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas: Understanding Bundles, Trade‐Offs, and Synergies”, Conservation Letters, vol. 10, no 4, pp. 440–450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12283.

Aquilina, M., Pugnière-Saavedra, F., & Mahéo, C., 2018.– La communication touristique : Vers de nouvelles interfaces ?, Presses de l’université Laval.

Bortolamiol, S., Raymond, R., & Simon, L., 2017.– “Territoires des humains et territoires des animaux : Éléments de réflexions pour une géographie animale”, Annales de geographie, vol. 716, no 4, pp. 387–407.

Bouhaouala, M., & Chantelat, P., 2002.– “Les pratiques commerciales des petites entreprises du tourisme sportif de nature : Entre rationalité marketing et logiques sociales des dirigeants”, Revue internationale P.M.E. Économie et gestion de la petite et moyenne entreprise, vol. 15, no 1, pp. 11–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1008799ar.

Bourdeau, P., 2009.– “De l’après-ski à l’après-tourisme, une figure de transition pour les Alpes ?”, Journal of Alpine Research|Revue de géographie alpine, vol. 97, no 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.1049.

Bourdeau, P., 2018.– “L’après-tourisme revisité”, Via Tourism Review, no 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/viatourism.1936.

Cardon, D., 2013.– “Inside the mind of PageRank”, Réseaux, vol. 177, no 1, pp. 63–95.

Chanteloup, L., 2013.– À la rencontre de l’animal sauvage : Dynamiques, usages et enjeux du récréotourisme faunique. Une mise en perspective franco-canadienne de trois territoires : Bauges, Gaspésie, Nunavut, PhD Thesis, Grenoble. Online: https://www.theses.fr/2013GRENAO14, retrieved January 12, 2023.

Corneloup, J., & Bourdeau, P., 2001.– “Culture professionnelle et métiers du tourisme sportif de montagne”, Téoros : Revue de recherche en tourisme, vol. 20, no 3, p. 32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1071630ar.

Courlet, C., Pecqueur, B., & Soulage, B., 1993.– “Industrie et dynamiques de territoires”, Revue d’économie industrielle, vol. 64, no 1, pp. 7–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/rei.1993.1474.

Curtin, S., & Wilkes, K., 2005.– “British Wildlife Tourism Operators: Current Issues and Typologies”, Current Issues in Tourism, vol. 8, no 6, pp. 455–478. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500508668231.

Czeszczewik, D., Ginter, A., Mikusiński, G., Pawłowska, A., Kałuża, H., Smithers, R. J., & Walankiewicz, W., 2019.– “Birdwatching, logging and the local economy in the Białowieża Forest, Poland”, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 28, no 11, pp. 2967–2975. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01808-6.

Duffus, D. A., & Dearden, P., 1990.– “Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: A conceptual framework”, Biological Conservation, vol. 53, no 3, pp. 213–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(90)90087-6.

Dybsand, H. N. H., 2020.– “In the absence of a main attraction – Perspectives from polar bear watching tourism participants”, Tourism Management, no 79, article 104097. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104097.

Earnshaw, A., & Emerton, L., 2000.– “The Economics of Wildlife Tourism: Theory and Reality For Landholders in Africa”, in H. H. T. Prins, J. G. Grootenhuis, & T. T. Dolan (eds.), Wildlife Conservation by Sustainable Use, Springer Netherlands, pp. 315–334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4012-6_16.

Everett, S., 2008.– “Beyond the visual gaze?: The pursuit of an embodied experience through food tourism”, Tourist Studies, vol. 8, no 3, pp. 337-358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468797608100594.

Ferreira, S., Harmse, A., 2014.– “Kruger National Park: Tourism development and issues around the management of large numbers of tourists”, Journal of Ecotourism, vol. 13; no 1, pp. 16-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2014.925907.

François, H., Hirczak, M., & Senil, N., 2006.– “Territoire et patrimoine : La co-construction d’une dynamique et de ses ressources”, Revue d’Économie Regionale Urbaine, 2006/5, pp. 683–700.

George-Marcelpoil, E., Achin, C., Fablet, G., & François, H., 2016.– “Entre permanences et bifurcations : Une lecture territoriale des destinations touristiques de montagne”, Mondes du tourisme, Hors-série. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/tourisme.1237.

Hautbois, C., Ravenel, L., & Durand, C., 2003.– “Sport Tourism and Local Economic Development: The Importance of an Initial Diagnosis of Supplier’s Geographical Concentration: A Case Study of France”, Journal of Sport & Tourism, vol. 8, no 4, pp. 240–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1477508032000161546.

Higginbottom, K., 2004.– Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning (Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2004), Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd.

Hoyt, E., & Parsons, E. C. M., 2014.– “The whale-watching industry”, in J. Higham, L. Bejder, & R. Williams (eds.), Whale-watching, Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139018166.006.

Landel, P.-A., & Pecqueur, B., 2011.– L’opérateur territorial, vecteur du changement. 48colloque ASRDLF, Migrations et territoires. Online: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00616349, retrieved January 12, 2023.

Laslaz, L., 2020.– “Protéger les Alpes”, L’Alpe, no 90, “Montagne
durable ”, pp. 54–61.

Lemelin, R., & Smale, B., 2006.– “Effect of Environmental Context on the Experience of Polar Bear Viewers in Churchill, Manitoba”, Journal of Ecotourism, vol. 5, no 3, pp. 176–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2167/joe142.0.

Lorimer, J., 2007.– “Nonhuman Charisma”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 25, no 5, pp. 911–932. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/d71j.

Lorit, J.-F., 1991.– Les difficultés financières des stations de sports d’hiver, Report for the Ministry of the Interior and the General Inspection of Administration.

Marchand, G., 2013.– “Les conflits hommes/animaux sauvages sous le regard de la géographie : Cadre territorial, perceptions et dimension spatiale”, Carnets de géographes, no 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/cdg.1070.

Margaryan, L., & Wall-Reinius, S., 2017.– “Commercializing the Unpredictable: Perspectives From Wildlife Watching Tourism Entrepreneurs in Sweden”, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol. 22, no 5, pp. 406–421. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1334842.

Mauz, I., 2002.– “Les conceptions de la juste place des animaux dans les Alpes françaises”, Espaces et Sociétés, no 110-111, pp. 129–146.

Mauz, I., Larrère R., Lizet B., Berlan-Darqué M., 2009.– “Histoire des parcs nationaux. Comment prendre soin de la nature”, Les Alpes, de la société de la vache au parc animalier. Éditions Quæ, pp. 187–204. Online: https://www.cairn.info/histoire-des-parcs-nationaux--9782759201815-page-187.htm, retrieved January 12, 2023.

Newsome, D., & Rodger, K., 2013.– “Feeding of wildlife: An acceptable practice in ecotourism?”, International Handbook on Ecotourism. DOI: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9780857939968/9780857939968.00041.xml.

Orams, M. B., 1996.– “A conceptual model of tourist‐wildlife interaction: The case for education as a management strategy”, Australian Geographer, vol. 27, no 1, pp. 39–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00049189608703156.

Perkins, H. C., & Thorns, D. C., 2001.– “Gazing or Performing?: Reflections on Urry’s Tourist Gaze in the Context of Contemporary Experience in the Antipodes”, International Sociology, vol. 16, no 2, pp. 185–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580901016002004.

Renisio, Y., & Sinthon, R., 2014.– “L’analyse des correspondances multiples au service de l’enquête de terrain”, Geneses, no 97(4), pp. 109‑125.

Reynolds, P. C., & Braithwaite, D., 2001.– “Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism”, Tourism Management, vol. 22, no 1, pp. 31–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00018-2.

Sauri, D., & Llurdés, J. C., 2020.– “Changement climatiques et stratégies d’adaptation dans les stations de ski catalanes espagnoles”, Journal of Alpine Research|Revue de géographie alpine, vol. 108, no 1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.6782.

Schirpke, U., Meisch, C., & Tappeiner, U., 2018.– “Symbolic species as a cultural ecosystem service in the European Alps: Insights and open issues”, Landscape Ecology, vol. 33, no 5, pp. 711–730. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0628-x.

Stoeckl, N., Smith, A., & Newsome, D., 2005.– Regional Economic Dependence on Iconic Wildlife Tourism: Case studies of Monkey Mia and Hervey Bay, vol. 16, no 1.

Urry, P. J., 1990.– Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies, SAGE Publications Ltd.

Vlès, V., 2014.– Métastations : Mutations urbaines des stations de montagne. Un regard pyrénéen. Presses universitaires de Bordeaux.

Haut de page

Notes

1 “Climate Change 2021 The Physical Science Basis”

2 We use the term wild in this text for convenience to refer to animals that are not domestic or farmed.

3 The Big Five are the five most coveted animals on a safari. They are the lion, leopard, elephant, rhinoceros and buffalo.

4 Poland

5 Translation of: Spectrum of Tourist-Wildlife Interaction Opportunities (SoTWIO)

6 Addition of “Deer”; “Others”; “Mouflons”; "Avifauna" and "Deer".

7 Cross-tabulation of "target animals” and “activity types”, p=<0.01 et Khi2= 135.57

8 The dots were placed on the locations mentioned in the offers, otherwise they were placed around the tourist office on which the offer was present, some dots were shifted so that they could be distinguished at the scale of this map.

9 The intersection of “Targeted animals” and “Massif” is statistically significant (p=<0.01; chi2=219.91) but numbers are too small to consider this correlation (all over-represented numbers are fewer than 5 observations).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1: Price of wildlife tourism offerings
Crédits Source: Defraiteur L. 2022
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/11004/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 20k
Titre Figure 2: Type of framing
Crédits Source: Defraiteur L. 2022
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/11004/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 36k
Titre Figure 3: Supply provider
Crédits Source: Defraiteur L. 2022
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/11004/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 23k
Titre Figure 4: Proposed Activity
Crédits Source: Defraiteur L. 2022
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/11004/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 19k
Titre Table 1: Variance of the 3 axes
Crédits Source: Defraiteur L. 2022
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/11004/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 19k
Titre Table 2: Explanatory variables
Crédits Source: Defraiteur L. 2022
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/11004/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 15k
Titre Figure 5: Variables on axis 1 & 2 and 1 &3
Crédits Source: Defraiteur L. 2022
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/11004/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 136k
Titre Figure 6: Distribution into four classes
Crédits Source: Defraiteur L. 2022
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/11004/img-8.png
Fichier image/png, 158k
Titre Figure 7: Mapping of identified offers
Crédits Source: Defraiteur L. 2022
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/11004/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Louis Defraiteur, Laine Chanteloup et Clémence Perrin-Malterre, « Going to See Animals: An Analysis of Tourist Offerings for Wildlife Observation in the French Alps »Journal of Alpine Research | Revue de géographie alpine [En ligne], 111-4 | 2023, mis en ligne le 13 février 2023, consulté le 26 février 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rga/11004 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.11004

Haut de page

Auteurs

Louis Defraiteur

Laboratoire EDYTEM UMR 5204

Laine Chanteloup

Assistant Professor at the Institute of Geography and Sustainability - University of Lausanne

Articles du même auteur

Clémence Perrin-Malterre

Laboratoire EDYTEM UMR 5204

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search