Avitourism and Australian Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas.

Rochelle Steven,J Michael Arthur,J Guy Castley,Clare Morrison,Govindhaswamy Umapathy

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144445

Abstract

Formal protected areas will not provide adequate protection to conserve all biodiversity, and are not always designated using systematic or strategic criteria. Using a systematic process, the Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) network was designed to highlight areas of conservation significance for birds (i.e. IBA trigger species), and more recently general biodiversity. Land use activities that take place in IBAs are diverse, including consumptive and non-consumptive activities. Avitourism in Australia, generally a non-consumptive activity, is reliant on the IBA network and the birds IBAs aim to protect. However, companies tend not to mention IBAs in their marketing. Furthermore, avitourism, like other nature-based tourism has the potential to be both a threatening process as well as a conservation tool. We aimed to assess the current use of IBAs among Australian-based avitour companies’ marketing, giving some indication of which IBAs are visited by avitourists on organised tours. We reviewed online avitour itineraries, recorded sites featuring in descriptions of avitours and which IBA trigger species are used to sell those tours. Of the 209 avitours reviewed, Queensland is the most featured state (n = 59 tours), and 73% feature at least one IBA. Daintree (n = 22) and Bruny Island (n = 17) IBAs are the most popular, nationally. Trigger species represent 34% (n = 254 out of 747) of species used in avitour descriptions. The most popular trigger species’ are wetland species including; Brolga (n = 37), Black-necked Stork (n = 30) and Magpie Goose (n = 27). Opportunities exist to increase collaboration between avitour companies and IBA stakeholders. Our results can provide guidance for managing sustainability of the avitourism industry at sites that feature heavily in avitour descriptions and enhance potential cooperation between avitour companies, IBA stakeholders and bird conservation organisations.

Highlights

While protected areas (PAs) have long been viewed as one of the most effective conservation measures, not all species are found within PA networks [1,2,3]
The Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) network clearly plays an important role in the avitourism industry in Australia, with almost three quarters of avitours reviewed in our study featuring at least one IBA
The challenge lies in managing the potential impacts avitourism can have on birds and their habitats [22,23,24,25], where certain species and sites may be over-used by avitour companies in order to deliver the right experience to paying avitourists

Summary

Introduction

While protected areas (PAs) have long been viewed as one of the most effective conservation measures, not all species are found within PA networks [1,2,3]. Among many species, persist in a variety of areas including private reserves and other sites important for biodiversity, PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0144445. Avitourism and Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas such as BirdLife International’s Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) network [4,5,6]. IBAs aim to increase awareness among governments and conservation practitioners of the importance of bird habitats worldwide. There are currently more than 12,000 IBAs in more than 200 countries, with approximately half of the total IBA area captured within formal PAs [7]. IBAs are identified using a systematic selection process, largely based on the presence of various trigger species

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion