Page 2 - Agius_Theuma_Deidun(2018)

Does Absence of Charismatic Species Impact the Ecotourism Potential of Central Mediterranean Islands? 154

whether charismatic species are indeed a key attractor of Whereas charismatic species and the impact on eco-
ecotourists to protected areas and if factors other than tourism have been given due importance in various re-
simply charismatic species might explain attractiveness gions across the world (Weaver, 2005), little attention
of protected areas (Hausmann et al., 2017). has been given to this aspect when it comes to peri-
Weaver (2005) distinguished between the different pheral areas including islands such as those in the cent-
nature-based products, a major element of ecotourism ral Mediterranean region. Studies on such biodiversity
together with interpretation and sustainability. He ar- in this region have mostly been conducted from the nat-
gues that the nature-based product ranges along a con- ural sciences perspective. Meanwhile, peripheral areas
tinuum. On one end, one finds a holistic approach such as islands have been regarded as areas ideal for
featuring an entire ecosystem such as a forest or coral ecotourism purposes due to high species richness which
reef. This approach normally also includes landscapes include charismatic megafauna. These persist due to
(Buckley, 2013; Di Minin, Fraser, Slotow & MacMillan, the remoteness of the areas sparing species and habits
2013) and scenery (Lindsey et al., 2007) as targets for from negative environmental impacts from anthropo-
tourists. Owing to the fact that few places are devoid of genic sources (Garrod & Wilson, 2004). In fact whereas
human influence, the holistic approach normally also in- emphasis in research has been made on terrestrial mam-
corporates the cultural component to the nature-based mals, marine charismatic species such as whales, sharks,
focus (Weaver, 2005). On the other end one finds an ele- dolphins, turtles and seals have also been identified (Al-
mental approach focusing on specific non-captive flora bert et al., 2018; Garrod & Wilson, 2004; Giglio, Luiz
and fauna charismatic species (Weaver, 2005). Similarly, & Schiavetti, 2015).
Lee, Lawton and Weaver (2013) argued that ecotourism Similarly to the arguments raised above for terrestrial
attractions tend to focus on rather pristine ecosystems environments, in the case of peripheral areas such as
and wild endemic charismatic megafauna that inhabit tourism dependent islands and archipelagos lacking cha-
such ecosystems. In these cases, ecotourism attractions rismatic fauna, other species such as seabirds have been
go beyond charismatic species and emphasis is not only considered to have considerable potential to act as flag-
made on mammals or fauna. ship for tourism purposes. This is especially the case
Similarly, others have remarked that tourists’ interest if such species are endemic to the islands, have a low
for visiting protected areas goes beyond charismatic population (or are threatened with extinction) and have
terrestrial megafauna. In some cases, depending on unique features of special biological or behavioural in-
the site, geological features (such as volcanoes, and terests (Verissimo et al., 2009). Ecotourism targets in
cliffs) are also included as attractions (Lee et al., 2013). such areas also include fish, marine microfauna, sea
Even if having received less recognition than charismatic caves and other geological formations such as stacks and
megafauna (Hall, James & Baird, 2011), a smaller num- arches, corals and flora along with cultural attractions
ber of destinations also feature charismatic megaflora (Garrod & Wilson, 2004). This research aims to study
(such as trees) (Lee et al., 2013; Weaver, 2005). Yet in if the lack of terrestrial charismatic mega-fauna impacts
some regions where such mega attractions are lacking, ecotourism in the area of study and if alternative ap-
other smaller attractions have been identified to serve as proaches can be used to develop and practise ecotourism
flagship species confirming that nature-based attraction in the central Mediterranean region. This is of particu-
parameters should not necessarily focus on megafauna lar interest as policy makers are eyeing alternative forms
(Lee et al., 2013). These include less charismatic spe- of tourism to mitigate the negative impacts of mass tour-
cies (Buckley, 2013; Di Minin et al., 2013) including ism and ensure that destinations remain competitive.
birds (Glowinski, 2008; Lindsey et al., 2007; Verissimo
et al., 2009), rarer less-easily observed and/or less high- 2 Material and Methods
profile mammal species (Lindsey et al., 2007) such as 2.1 Area of Study
bats (Weaver & Lawton, 2007). Reptiles and amphibi-
ans known collectively as herpetofauna have also been The area of study consists of nine islands (three ar-
considered to play an important role as a pull factor for chipelagos and an island) all situated in the central
the ecotourism (Wollenberg et al., 2011). Furthermore, Mediterranean Region. These are the Pelagian Islands
butterflies and dragonflies have also been regarded as (comprising Lampedusa, Linosa and the islet of Lampi-
charismatic microfauna which can play a flagship role one), the Aegadian Islands (comprising Favignana, Le-
in ecotourism and attract visitors to protected areas vanzo and Marettimo) and the Maltese Islands (com-
(Cannings, 2001; Harvey Lemelin, 2007). Plants such prising Malta, Gozo and Comino) along with the island
as orchids have also been identified as targets for tour- of Pantelleria. The islands have extensive terrestrial and
ists and potential flagships for conservation (Lindsey et marine areas which are protected through one or more
al., 2007; Pickering & Ballantyne, 2013). designation including regional, national and EU legis-
lation (Protected Planet, 2018). Notwithstanding the

10.7423/XJENZA.2018.2.08 www.xjenza.org