Whale-watching encounters in Tenerife: an exploratory mixed-methods study of visitor experience, interpretation, and conservation-related responses

1 Introduction

1.1 Whale-watching as both an opportunity and a conservation challenge

Whale watching sits at an important intersection between tourism, public engagement and animal protection (Higham et al., 2014; Fumagalli et al., 2021). It can support local economies, scientific activity, environmental interpretation and conservation awareness, but these benefits depend on governance, operator practice and how tourism pressure is managed (Higham et al., 2014; Fumagalli et al., 2021).

From the animals’ perspective, non-lethal does not mean impact-free. Vessel presence and underwater noise have been associated with changes in cetacean behaviour and acoustic activity, and repeated exposure can raise both conservation and individual-welfare concerns (Erbe et al., 2019; Nicol et al., 2020). Whale watching therefore needs to be considered not only in terms of visitor experience, but also in terms of its potential effects on the animals being observed (Senigaglia et al., 2016; Erbe et al., 2019; Nicol et al., 2020).

Visitor expectations add another dimension to this issue. In Tenerife, 62% of participants in a recent study across three Macaronesian destinations preferred close contact, and the authors cautioned that proximity-centred expectations may conflict with responsible practice (Hurtado-Pampín et al., 2026). Critical analyses have also raised concerns about commodification when cetaceans are presented primarily as emotionally appealing tourism products (Neves, 2010; Higham et al., 2016). What visitors value is therefore not automatically what is best for the whales, and closeness should not become a simple measure of encounter quality or a management objective (Higham et al., 2016; Hurtado-Pampín et al., 2026).

These opportunities and tensions frame the present study, which examines how visitors described the immediate experience of encountering free-ranging whales within a marine and managed tourism setting.

1.2 Visitor experiences, emotions, and interpretations

Wildlife encounters are sensory, embodied and socially situated experiences in which animals, weather, seascape, vessel conditions, guides and other passengers may all contribute to what visitors notice and value (Curtin, 2009). Emotional and relational dimensions may be especially relevant. Awe has been associated with pro-environmental intention among whale watchers (Kjaer et al., 2025), while Maguire et al. (2020) reported associations among dispositional empathy, anthropomorphism, connectedness to nature and conservation intention. These perspectives informed the study’s attention to what participants felt, perceived, interpreted and regarded as personally meaningful.

Visitors also bring prior ideas into cetacean encounters. Dolphin-tourism recollections can reflect earlier conceptions and anthropomorphic expectations (Curtin, 2006), while research on human–dolphin relationships has documented portrayals of cetaceans as communicative, intentional or relationship-oriented (Servais, 2005; Wiener, 2015). Descriptions of whales as social, intelligent, vulnerable or human-like may therefore draw on observation, guide commentary, earlier wildlife experiences, media narratives and pre-existing beliefs (Servais, 2005; Curtin, 2006; Wiener, 2015). Here, such descriptions are treated as visitor interpretations rather than independent assessments of whale behaviour or cognition.

Research also indicates that the wider tourism context matters. In southwest Tenerife, conservation intentions differed across knowledge-, responsibility- and emotion-focused interpretation conditions (Jacobs and Harms, 2014). In Panama, satisfaction was higher when whale behaviours were observed, while comfort with the encounter declined as vessel numbers increased (Cárdenas et al., 2021). Guide communication, perceived behaviour and vessel context may therefore all contribute to how an encounter is experienced (Jacobs and Harms, 2014; Cárdenas et al., 2021).

Together, this literature raises the study’s central question: when different responses appear together in visitors’ immediate accounts, what do they reveal about how an encounter with free-ranging whales is experienced and interpreted?

1.3 Distinguishing immediate self-reports, change, and behaviour

Immediate post-excursion responses require careful distinction. An emotion is not an attitude, a participant’s retrospective sense of influence is not measured change, and an intention is not behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; Sheeran and Webb, 2016; Ardoin et al., 2020). Environmental-education research likewise distinguishes affective and cognitive responses from completed actions and direct conservation outcomes, which require separate measurement (Ardoin et al., 2020).

In this study, an emotional response is a feeling reported after the excursion; a perception is an evaluation of the encounter or its conditions; and an interpretation concerns how a participant characterised the whales or understood the wider experience. “Conservation-consistent attitudes” refers to individual responses expressing responsibility towards whales or support for protective measures, not to a validated composite scale. Perceived influence records participants’ retrospective assessment of whether the encounter affected how they felt about whale protection. Statements about being “more curious,” thinking differently or being “more likely” to support protective action are treated as retrospective self-assessments or stated intentions.

Stated intention is also an imperfect proxy for behaviour. The Theory of Planned Behaviour distinguishes intention from action (Ajzen, 1991), and later research has documented a substantial intention–behaviour gap (Sheeran and Webb, 2016). This distinction is important here because the questionnaire recorded what participants said they were more likely to support immediately after the excursion, not whether they later acted on those intentions.

Emotional responses, interpretations, perceived influence, conservation-consistent attitudes and stated intention are therefore analysed as distinct but potentially related forms of immediate self-report.

1.4 Tenerife context and study rationale

Southwest Tenerife brings together three features that make it a useful setting for this exploration: year-round occurrence of short-finned pilot whales, intensive commercial whale watching and a protected marine area in which tourism and conservation coexist (Servidio et al., 2019; Almunia et al., 2021; MITECO, n.d.).

The Franja marina de Teno-Rasca Special Area of Conservation (ZEC ES7020017) extends along western and southwestern Tenerife and covers approximately 69,490 ha (Figure 1). Its management seeks to balance human activities with protection of marine habitats and species (MITECO, n.d.), placing visitor encounters within an active conservation and management context.

Deep oceanic habitat occurs close to the coast. Tagging work off Tenerife documented short-finned pilot whales using waters around 800-2,000 m deep and foraging dives exceeding 1,000 m (Aguilar Soto et al., 2008). Long-term photo-identification research found the species throughout the year but with substantial variation in site fidelity, including a Tenerife-associated core-resident group and transient or temporary migrant individuals using wider ranges (Servidio et al., 2019). Year-round occurrence therefore does not mean that every whale encountered off southwest Tenerife is permanently resident.

This predictable occurrence has supported concentrated whale-watching activity off southwest Tenerife. AIS data show that this activity is sustained and varies seasonally (Almunia et al., 2021). The intensity of vessel use also makes the conditions of these encounters important to consider from the whales’ perspective. Experimental approaches in the same area found that a louder vessel reduced the proportion of time mothers spent resting, highlighting vessel noise as a relevant component of exposure (Arranz et al., 2024). Animal welfare and behavioural freedom therefore remain important considerations alongside positive visitor experiences (Nicol et al., 2020).

These intersecting features prompted the study’s central exploration: how do visitors experience and interpret whale-watching encounters where access to free-ranging animals, the marine setting, tourism management and conservation responsibility meet?

1.5 Study aim and research questions

The study aimed to examine the different dimensions reported within immediate whale-watching encounters in southwest Tenerife, with short-finned pilot whales. Quantitative and open-text self-reports collected immediately after the excursions were used to examine participant background and prior context, encounter context and setting, emotional and relational responses, meaning and interpretation, and conservation-related self-reports. Selected item-level associations were also explored. The research was guided by four questions:

RQ1: What participant background, prior experience, motivations and encounter-context perceptions were reported?

RQ2: What emotional and relational responses, interpretations and personally meaningful aspects of the whales, marine setting and wider excursion did participants report?

RQ3: What perceived influence, retrospective self-assessments, conservation-consistent attitudes and stated likelihood of protective action did participants report?

RQ4: Among participants in this sample, did greater perceived influence of the encounter on feelings about whale protection tend to occur alongside higher ratings on selected emotional and relational responses, perceived proximity, prior familiarity with pilot whales and stated likelihood of supporting protective action?

Because these association analyses were post hoc and exploratory, no directional hypotheses were specified in advance; RQ4 was used as the organising question for the statistical tests.

Section 2 and Figure 2 present the study-specific framework used to organise these questions and the questionnaire evidence.

2 Conceptual framework

Whale-watching encounters involve more than a sighting. They bring people into contact with free-ranging animals within a marine environment and a managed tourism setting, while prior experience, sensory conditions, emotions, perceived relationships, interpretation and conservation-related concerns may all be present in the same account (Curtin, 2009; Bennett et al., 2017; Dou and Day, 2020; Thomsen et al., 2023). A study-specific framework was developed to organise these dimensions while keeping the encounter with free-ranging whales, the marine environment and the managed tourism setting conceptually visible. Research on wildlife and cetacean tourism informed this approach by describing encounters as embodied and socially situated (Curtin, 2009) and as part of wider social-ecological systems in which visitors, animals and management conditions interact (Dou and Day, 2020). Conservation social science and multispecies research further support considering human experience alongside ecological evidence, animal welfare and non-human interests (Bennett et al., 2017; Thomsen et al., 2023).

The framework is an organising and interpretive structure developed for this study, not a psychological, educational or behavioural model. “Meaning-making” is used as an overarching interpretive description for how participants reported feelings, perceptions, interpretations and conservation-related responses; it was not measured as a composite construct. “Relational” is likewise used as an interpretive lens for connections expressed among visitors, whales, other people and the marine environment, rather than as a validated psychological construct.

At the centre of Figure 2 is the whale-watching encounter with free-ranging whales within a marine and managed tourism setting. Five surrounding domains organise the evidence. These domains may co-occur, interact and overlap, with no implied starting point, endpoint, causal direction or temporal order.

Operationally, participant background and prior context included age group, country of residence, previous whale-watching experience, self-rated familiarity with pilot whales and motivations; broader values, expectations and media or cultural influences were not comprehensively measured. Encounter context and setting captured participants’ perceptions of the whales, marine environment and wider tourism setting rather than independent measures of vessel practice, whale behaviour, disturbance or welfare. Emotional and relational responses were analysed separately rather than combined into a single construct or score. Meaning and interpretation concerned how participants characterised the whales and what they considered meaningful, while conservation-related self-reports comprised perceived influence, retrospective self-assessment, conservation-consistent attitudes and stated intention, retained as distinct forms of evidence rather than combined into a single conservation outcome.

Table 1 maps the five domains to the questionnaire evidence and analytical treatment. The framework organised integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence, but it did not provide fixed categories for the qualitative analysis; the themes were developed from the open-text material and could cut across several domains.

Table 1. Operationalisation of the study-specific framework.

The five domains organise the study evidence shown in Figure 2. They are not stages in a temporal or causal sequence. Qualitative responses could contribute to more than one domain and were not coded using the framework as a fixed set of categories.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Study approach

Participants completed a researcher-developed online questionnaire once after the excursion, accessed through a QR code on their own electronic devices. Closed-response items generated quantitative data across the study domains, while open-text questions invited participants to describe the whales, marine setting, wider excursion and aspects they considered personally meaningful.

Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately and integrated during interpretation. Selected item-level analyses examined patterns among concurrently collected responses.

3.2 Study setting and focal species

The study was conducted between 7 and 17 March 2026 in connection with commercial whale-watching excursions departing from Puerto Colón, Costa Adeje, southwest Tenerife, Canary Islands. The study area lies within the wider Franja marina de Teno-Rasca Special Area of Conservation (ZEC ES7020017), a marine Natura 2000 site covering approximately 69,490 ha (MITECO, n.d.). Figure 1 shows the protected-area boundary and departure location.

Short-finned pilot whales occur year-round off Tenerife (Servidio et al., 2019) and are a principal focus of commercial excursions (Almunia et al., 2021). Photo-identification research has identified a Tenerife-associated core-resident group alongside transient or temporary migrant individuals using wider areas of the archipelago (Servidio et al., 2019). The species was therefore the focus of the questionnaire, although the species observed by individual respondents was not independently confirmed.

Operator identity and the number of excursions represented were not recorded. Routes, encounter locations and detailed vessel, environmental and animal-response conditions were also not documented systematically. Questionnaire responses concerning proximity, naturalness, encounter conditions and whale behaviour were therefore analysed as participants’ perceptions. These contextual gaps are considered further in Section 5.7.

3.3 Participants and recruitment

Eligible participants were adults aged 18 years or older taking part in commercial whale-watching excursions departing from Puerto Colón, Costa Adeje. Participants were recruited through non-probability convenience sampling. The researcher, assisted by MutatioMare Tenerife volunteers, approached prospective participants before boarding or while aboard a vessel, provided study information and invited them to complete the questionnaire after the excursion. Participation was voluntary and no incentives were offered.

After the excursion, participants accessed the English-language questionnaire through a QR code linking to Google Forms and completed it on their own electronic devices. No specialist knowledge, previous whale-watching experience or prior familiarity with pilot whales was required. The questionnaire began with a mandatory consent item, and only submissions recording affirmative consent were retained.

A total of 47 eligible and consenting questionnaires formed the analytical sample. Background items recorded age group, country of residence, previous whale-watching experience and self-rated familiarity with pilot whales. Optional unanswered items were treated as missing, so some participant characteristics and analyses use item-specific denominators.

The number of eligible visitors approached was not recorded, so a response rate could not be calculated. The sample therefore represents English-reading adults who voluntarily participated during the sampled excursions. Sampling, self-selection and language-related limitations are considered in Section 5.7.

3.4 Questionnaire development and measures

The study used a researcher-developed questionnaire. Before data collection, it was informally piloted with conservation-project volunteers to assess clarity, ease of completion and technical functionality. This was a feasibility and usability check rather than formal instrument validation.

Questionnaire evidence was aligned with the five study domains shown in Figure 2 and Table 1. Within conservation-related self-reports, perceived influence and retrospective self-assessment, conservation-consistent attitudes and stated intention were retained as distinct forms of evidence.

Closed-response formats comprised five-point Likert-type agreement items, five-point ratings with labelled endpoints, single-choice questions and multiple-response questions. Multiple-response items addressed motivations, sea and boat conditions and descriptions of pilot whales. Optional open-text prompts asked about additional emotions, the influence of the setting and aspects of the experience considered most meaningful.

Measures were developed specifically for this exploratory study and were represented principally by individual items analysed separately; no composite domain scores were calculated. The complete questionnaire, including participant information, consent wording, item wording, response options and open-text prompts, is provided as Supplementary File 1.

3.5 Quantitative analysis

Closed-response items were summarised using frequencies and percentages. Valid and missing responses were recorded for each item, with percentages based on valid responses. For multiple-response questions, each selected option was counted separately; percentages were calculated from the number of participants answering the question and could therefore total more than 100%.

Free-text country-of-residence responses were standardised for capitalisation and equivalent geographical labels. England, Scotland and variants of “UK” or “United Kingdom” were grouped as the United Kingdom. No other substantive recoding was undertaken.

Association analyses included participants with valid data for both items. Ordered response categories were assigned ascending numerical values, with higher values representing stronger endorsement, perceived proximity, familiarity or influence, as applicable. “Not sure” and “Prefer not to say” responses were excluded where they could not be meaningfully placed within an ordinal scale.

To address RQ4, Spearman’s rank correlations were used to examine whether higher perceived-influence ratings tended to occur alongside higher ratings on six emotional and relational responses (awe or wonder, curiosity, empathy or concern, excitement, connection with nature and calm), two proximity measures, prior familiarity with pilot whales and stated likelihood of supporting protective action. These analyses were post hoc and exploratory: their purpose was to identify patterns for hypothesis generation, not to test a causal model or demonstrate attitudinal change. Kendall’s tau-b was used as a sensitivity check for tied ordinal responses.

The ten correlation p-values were treated as one family and adjusted using the Benjamini–Hochberg false-discovery-rate procedure (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995). Statistical interpretation used the adjusted criterion q < 0.05. Full coefficients, pairwise sample sizes, unadjusted p-values, adjusted q values and Kendall’s tau-b results are reported in Supplementary Table 6.

As a supplementary exploratory question, three Mann–Whitney U tests asked whether first-time whale-watchers and participants with previous whale-watching experience differed in perceived influence, thinking differently about whales or stated likelihood of supporting protective action. “Yes, in Tenerife” and “Yes, in another location” were combined as previous experience. The three tests formed a separate adjustment family under the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure, with full results reported in Supplementary Table 7.

Analyses were conducted in Python 3.13.5 using SciPy 1.17.0 for rank correlations and Mann–Whitney U tests and statsmodels 0.14.6 for false-discovery-rate adjustment (Seabold and Perktold, 2010; Virtanen et al., 2020). All inferential analyses concerned concurrently collected responses and were interpreted as exploratory.

3.6 Qualitative analysis

Responses to four open-text questions were analysed as a single corpus using reflexive thematic analysis at a primarily semantic level (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2019). The approach was hybrid: initial coding was data-led, with later interpretation informed by the research questions and study-specific framework. The prompts addressed the trip setting, additional emotions, the most meaningful aspect of the experience and the contribution of location.

The corpus comprised 94 entries containing approximately 962 words: 36 responses about the most meaningful aspect, 26 about the trip setting, 21 about the influence of location and 11 about additional emotions. Of these, 80 contained material suitable for interpretation, 10 indicated that the participant had nothing further to add and four were unclear or could not be interpreted confidently. Only interpretable material contributed to theme development. Corpus and completion details are provided in Supplementary Table 8.

Each response entry was treated as a unit of coding and could receive more than one code. Following familiarisation with the full corpus, semantic and descriptive codes were developed from participants’ wording. Related codes were then grouped into candidate patterns of shared meaning and reviewed against both the coded entries and the complete corpus. Patterns were combined, separated or renamed where necessary, resulting in four final themes. The study-specific framework informed later interpretation but did not provide predetermined coding categories.

Because many responses were brief, the analysis remained primarily semantic and descriptive, and no claim of thematic saturation was made (Braun and Clarke, 2021). Supplementary Table 9 provides the final themes, working definitions, contributing codes and interpretive cautions.

The author’s prior interest in cetacean conservation, involvement in questionnaire development and role in data collection were recognised as influences on interpretation. Particular attention was given to avoiding assumptions that whale-watching experiences would necessarily be described positively or as conservation-relevant. Neutral, negative and contrasting responses were considered during theme development. Quotations were identified using anonymous participant codes P01–P47, with original wording and spelling retained.

3.7 Ethics and permissions

Participation was voluntary and restricted to individuals aged 18 years or over. Before proceeding to the questionnaire, prospective participants were informed of the study’s purpose, that participation was voluntary, that they could stop completing the questionnaire at any time, and that their responses would be treated anonymously and reported in aggregate form. They were also informed that the data would be stored securely.

Consent was recorded electronically through a required item at the beginning of the questionnaire. Only questionnaires containing an affirmative consent response were included in the study. All 47 respondents retained for analysis selected the affirmative option. No names, contact details or other direct personal identifiers were requested.

Participants were recruited in connection with commercial whale-watching excursions departing from Puerto Colón. The individual tour operator was not recorded, and no formal written documentation of permission from an operator or harbour authority is available.

Open-text responses were handled with particular attention to participant confidentiality. Selected quotations are reported using anonymous participant identifiers, and potentially identifying contextual details are omitted where necessary. The complete set of individual open-text responses will not be released publicly because the small sample and contextual information contained in some entries may create a risk of indirect identification.

4 Results

Findings from the 47 retained questionnaires are presented first across the five study domains, followed by cross-cutting qualitative themes and exploratory associations. Quantitative results are reported as n/N (%) using item-specific valid denominators, with missing responses identified where relevant.

4.1 Participant background and prior context

Age-group data were available for 46/47 participants (1 missing); the largest group was aged 18–24 years (21/46, 45.7%). Country of residence was provided by 34/47 participants (13 missing), representing 15 countries. Canada (11/34, 32.4%), the United Kingdom (8/34, 23.5%) and Germany (3/34, 8.8%) were most frequently reported. Full distributions are presented in Supplementary Table 1.

The prior-familiarity item was completed by all 47 participants: 17/47 (36.2%) were not familiar at all with pilot whales, 13/47 (27.7%) only slightly familiar, 13/47 (27.7%) somewhat familiar and 3/47 (6.4%) very familiar; 1/47 (2.1%) preferred not to say. Previous whale-watching experience was available for 46/47 participants (1 missing): 27/46 (58.7%) were first-time whale-watchers, 16/46 (34.8%) had previously been whale watching elsewhere and 3/46 (6.5%) had previously participated in Tenerife.

All 47 participants answered the multiple-response motivation item. Seeing whales in the wild was selected most often (40/47, 85.1%), followed by curiosity about marine life (24/47, 51.1%), learning something new (20/47, 42.6%), support for responsible wildlife tourism (18/47, 38.3%) and inclusion in holiday plans (17/47, 36.2%). Percentages may total more than 100% because multiple responses were permitted (Supplementary Table 2).

4.2 Encounter context and setting

Most participants perceived the whales as relatively close: 28/47 (59.6%) selected “Quite close” and 10/47 (21.3%) “Very close.” On a separate agreement item, 38/47 (80.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that they felt close to the whales.

A total of 43/47 (91.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that they could clearly observe whale behaviour, and the same proportion reported that the encounter felt natural rather than staged. In addition, 36/47 (76.6%) agreed or strongly agreed that the boat maintained what they considered a respectful distance, and 36/47 (76.6%) that the encounter lasted long enough to form an impression of the whales. Figure 3 presents the agreement items; full distributions are in Supplementary Table 2.

Participants could select more than one description of sea and boat conditions. Moderate conditions were most frequently selected (32/47, 68.1%), followed by calm or smooth conditions (13/47, 27.7%) and choppy or rough conditions (7/47, 14.9%); one participant selected very rough conditions (1/47, 2.1%).

General onboard-atmosphere ratings fell mainly in the middle or upper-middle categories. Participants generally rated the influence of boat movement, the ocean or surroundings on how they felt about the whales toward the lower or middle part of the scale; no participant selected the highest rating, “Very much.” Full distributions are provided in Supplementary Table 2.

All encounter-context findings are participant-reported perceptions and recollections.

4.3 Emotional and relational responses

Agreement was highest for awe or wonder (44/47, 93.6%), excitement (43/47, 91.5%) and curiosity (41/46, 89.1%; 1 missing). Connection with nature was endorsed by 37/47 (78.7%), while 34/47 (72.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that they felt calm.

Empathy or concern was more varied: 28/47 (59.6%) agreed or strongly agreed, 12/47 (25.5%) neither agreed nor disagreed and 7/47 (14.9%) disagreed or strongly disagreed. Figure 4 presents the response distributions; full values are in Supplementary Table 3.

4.4 Meaning and interpretation

A single-choice item asked participants to select the statement that best represented their current view of pilot whales. Among 46 respondents (1 missing), 18/46 (39.1%) selected “I feel more curious about whales than before,” 11/46 (23.9%) “More like intelligent, socially complex beings,” 8/46 (17.4%) “About the same as before” and 7/46 (15.2%) “More like wild animals in their own habitat.”

In the multiple-response descriptor item (n = 46; 1 missing), participants most frequently described pilot whales as social or family-oriented animals (34/46, 73.9%), followed by intelligent beings (25/46, 54.3%), wild animals primarily (22/46, 47.8%) and animals vulnerable to human activities (19/46, 41.3%).

When asked whether location affected how meaningful the experience felt, 20/47 (42.6%) selected “Yes, somewhat” and 10/47 (21.3%) “Yes, a lot,” while 13/47 (27.7%) selected “Not really” and 3/47 (6.4%) “Not at all.” Figures 5A, B present the descriptor and location findings; full distributions are in Supplementary Table 4.

The current-view item combines retrospective language with interpretations of pilot whales and is therefore treated as categorical rather than as a direct measure of change. Whale descriptors are reported as participant interpretations.

4.5 Conservation-related self-reports

Responses to the retrospective statement that the encounter made participants think differently about whales were mixed: 25/47 (53.2%) agreed or strongly agreed and 16/47 (34.0%) neither agreed nor disagreed.

When asked how much the encounter influenced their feelings about protecting whales, 33/47 (70.2%) selected ratings of 4 or 5 on the five-point scale.

Among 46 respondents asked which element most influenced those feelings (1 missing), “seeing the whales up close” was selected most frequently (22/46, 47.8%), followed by observing whale behaviour (8/46, 17.4%), seeing the ocean environment (6/46, 13.0%) and learning from the guide (5/46, 10.9%). These are participants’ own attributions of influence; selecting closeness does not indicate that closer approaches were desirable or appropriate for the whales.

Responsibility towards whales was endorsed by 33/47 participants (70.2%) who agreed or strongly agreed that they felt a responsibility to protect whales and their habitat. Agreement was higher for specific protective measures: stronger regulations to protect whales from disturbance (44/47, 93.6%), limits on whale-watching trips if the activity were harming whales (44/47, 93.6%), a human duty to prevent tourism-related harm (45/47, 95.7%) and rules limiting the number of boats near whales (40/47, 85.1%).

On the stated-likelihood item, 20/47 (42.6%) selected “Slightly more likely” and 16/47 (34.0%) “Much more likely” to support actions that protect whales; 10/47 (21.3%) selected “No change” and 1/47 (2.1%) “Slightly less likely.” Figures 6A–D present the conservation-related distributions; full values are in Supplementary Table 5.

4.6 Qualitative themes across the encounter

The thematic analysis of the open-text corpus developed four related themes from participants’ accounts. These themes cut across the five study domains rather than reproducing the framework categories. Counts reported below refer to coded entries, not participants, and individual entries could contribute to more than one theme. Full corpus details are provided in Supplementary Table 8, with theme definitions, contributing codes and interpretive cautions in Supplementary Table 9.

4.6.1 Direct encounters with free-ranging whales: behaviour, sociality, and relational meaning

This was the most extensively supported theme, with 39 coded entries centred on direct sightings, perceived whale behaviour and social interaction, proximity, natural habitat, novelty and personal significance.

Participants frequently described direct observation of free-ranging whales as meaningful. One participant referred to:

“Seeing them interact with one another & using their blow holes.” (P06)

Other entries referred to group or mother-calf observations, breathing, movement, perceived closeness and the rarity of the experience. Some participants interpreted these observations in terms of social or family relationships or described a sense of personal connection. The animals’ free-ranging status was also emphasised:

“Being able to see their behaviour in the wild without disturbing them” (P13)

These accounts describe how participants interpreted what they believed they observed; they are not independent verification of whale behaviour or encounter conditions.

4.6.2 Ocean setting and sensory atmosphere

Twenty-eight coded entries concerned the open-ocean setting, quiet, scenery, weather, remoteness, spatial scale and the embodied experience of being aboard a vessel.

Quiet conditions were particularly meaningful for some participants. One wrote:

“The most meaningful moments to me was when everyone and everything was silent and we could hear the whales breathing, it was so calming” (P24)

Other entries referred to the horizon, scale of the ocean, scenery, weather and open-water setting. For some participants, location formed part of the meaning of the encounter rather than simply providing a background to the sightings.

The setting was not uniformly positive. Participants also described dizziness and feeling sick in rough conditions. One explained:

“When it isn’t so rough it is better because I don’t feel as sick” (P17)

The ocean and vessel setting could therefore contribute both meaningful sensory experiences and physical discomfort.

4.6.3 Human mediation of the encounter

Seventeen coded entries concerned guides, crew, music, vessel characteristics, onboard atmosphere and the behaviour of other passengers, with both positive and negative accounts.

Some participants valued information from guides or marine specialists, while others described how crew decisions and the timing of information affected the experience. One participant wrote:

“The crew turned off the music and kept quite during the encounter, which I thought was good. They gave info about the wildlife afterwards, rather than interrupting the experience itself.” (P35)

Other passengers also contributed to the social atmosphere, while some aspects of the onboard environment were experienced as distracting. One participant stated:

“I did not really like the music on the boat” (P39)

These accounts show that the encounter included a social and operational environment as well as whales and the marine setting. Because guide activity, vessel characteristics, group size and operator practices were not systematically documented, the findings cannot compare operators or assess their effectiveness.

4.6.4 Perceived respect, autonomy, and non-disturbance

Twelve coded entries concerned perceived whale freedom, space and autonomy and whether participants considered the encounter respectful or non-intrusive.

One participant emphasised space and vessel distance:

“Seeing the whales with enough space to freely move around, as the boats were at a respectful distance.” (P36)

Another contrasted the experience with captivity:

“I like the fact that they are there of their own free will and not in captivity” (P39)

Not all accounts assumed that human activity was harmless. One participant reported:

“Anger that anyone would ever hurt the whales, whether intentional or otherwise. Especially when the ferries came by” (P29)

These accounts reflect participants’ interpretations of the circumstances in which the whales were observed. Perceived respectful distance, freedom, comfort or non-disturbance cannot establish regulatory compliance, appropriate vessel approaches or an absence of behavioural or welfare effects.

Across the four themes, participants located meaning in the whales and their perceived behaviour, the ocean and sensory setting, human influences on the excursion, and perceived space and autonomy. Accounts also included physical discomfort, distraction and concern about possible human impacts. The themes therefore cut across, rather than reproduce, the five-domain framework.

4.7 Exploratory associations addressing RQ4

RQ4 asked whether participants who reported greater perceived influence of the encounter on their feelings about whale protection also tended to give higher ratings on selected emotional, relational, proximity, familiarity and stated-action measures.

Higher perceived-influence ratings tended to occur alongside higher ratings of empathy or concern (Spearman’s ρ = 0.615, q < 0.001), connection with nature (ρ = 0.510, q = 0.001), excitement (ρ = 0.508, q = 0.001), curiosity (ρ = 0.422, q = 0.007) and awe or wonder (ρ = 0.331, q = 0.038). Stated likelihood of supporting protective action also showed a positive association with perceived influence (ρ = 0.425, q = 0.007). In practical terms, participants who gave higher perceived-influence ratings also tended to give higher ratings on these measures.

By contrast, feeling close to the whales (ρ = 0.265, q = 0.107), calm (ρ = 0.112, q = 0.571), perceived whale proximity (ρ = 0.094, q = 0.574) and prior familiarity with pilot whales (ρ = 0.085, q = 0.574) did not meet the adjusted criterion. The data therefore did not provide clear adjusted evidence that perceived influence varied with these measures in this sample. Full correlation and sensitivity results are provided in Supplementary Table 6.

Taken together, the RQ4 analysis identified a pattern of co-variation for several emotional and relational responses and for stated likelihood of supporting protective action, but not for proximity, calm or prior familiarity. Because the measures were collected at the same time and the analyses were post hoc, these results do not show that one response caused another, that the excursion changed attitudes, or that any response mediated another. The association with stated likelihood of supporting protective action also requires caution because the two items are conceptually related.

The supplementary Mann–Whitney comparisons asked whether first-time whale-watchers and participants with previous whale-watching experience differed on three conservation-related self-reports. None of the three comparisons met the adjusted criterion (adjusted p = 0.170 for each comparison), so these analyses did not identify clear group differences in this sample. Full results are provided in Supplementary Table 7.

The absence of adjusted group differences should not be interpreted as evidence that first-time and previous whale-watchers were equivalent.

5 Discussion

5.1 Principal findings

The principal finding was that participants’ immediate accounts of whale watching were multidimensional. Meaning was attached not only to seeing whales, but to perceived behaviour and sociality, emotional and relational responses, the ocean and sensory setting, and the wider human context of the excursion. Conservation-related self-reports were also uneven: support for whale protection was high, whereas retrospective reports of thinking differently were more mixed. Some emotional and relational responses varied with perceived influence on feelings about whale protection, while others did not. Together, these findings indicate that positive encounter experiences and conservation-related responses should not be treated as a single or uniform outcome.

5.2 Participant background, encounter context, and setting

Participants entered the encounter with differing levels of prior experience. For many, this was their first whale-watching excursion, and familiarity with pilot whales also varied considerably. The strongest shared motivation was the opportunity to see whales in the wild. Broader expectations, values and prior ideas about cetaceans may also have shaped how the encounter was interpreted, but these were not comprehensively measured (Servais, 2005; Curtin, 2006; Hurtado-Pampín et al., 2026).

Overall, participants described an encounter in which they felt able to watch the whales clearly and at what they considered an appropriate distance, while retaining a strong sense that the animals were being encountered in a natural setting. This overall pattern is shown in Figure 3.

The open-text accounts show why the setting matters. The ocean, vessel atmosphere and opportunities to watch and listen became part of the experience, sometimes positively and sometimes through discomfort or distraction. The contribution of location to meaningfulness was also not uniform across participants (Figure 5B). This fits wildlife-tourism research describing encounters as embodied and socially situated (Curtin, 2009). For these participants, meaningfulness appears to have involved attending to free-ranging whales within a wider ocean setting, rather than simply achieving a sighting or getting physically close.

5.3 Emotional and relational responses

Emotional responses were prominent but not uniform. Figure 4 shows especially high endorsement of awe or wonder, excitement and curiosity, while empathy or concern was more varied. Participants therefore differed in the types and strength of emotional responses they reported.

The open-text accounts help show what these emotions were attached to: hearing whales breathe, watching movement and perceived interaction, experiencing quiet and seeing the animals within the scale of the open ocean. Wildlife-tourism research similarly describes free-ranging animal encounters as sensory and emotionally significant (Curtin, 2009), while recent whale-watching work has linked awe with pro-environmental intent and examined the contribution of natural soundscapes to the visitor experience (Kjaer et al., 2025).

The exploratory associations add a further distinction. Empathy or concern, connection with nature, excitement, curiosity and awe or wonder showed positive associations with perceived influence on feelings about whale protection, whereas calm did not meet the adjusted criterion. One possible interpretation is that these emotional and relational responses were part of how some participants experienced the salience of the encounter, so stronger reporting of them occurred alongside stronger perceived influence. This remains tentative: the analyses cannot show that these responses produced the conservation-related self-report. Related whale-tourism research has also reported associations among empathy, connectedness to nature and conservation intention (Maguire et al., 2020). The different result for calm further suggests that positive emotional responses should not be treated as interchangeable.

Emotion was therefore one part of a wider encounter, connected in participants’ accounts with what they saw, heard and interpreted rather than standing apart from the whales and setting.

5.4 Meaning and interpretation

Participants commonly described the pilot whales as social or family-oriented, intelligent, wild and vulnerable to human activities (Figure 5A). These descriptors show that participants were not only identifying an animal they had seen; they were interpreting the whales and attaching characteristics to them.

The open-text material provides a useful counterpoint because participants independently referred to perceived interaction, mother-calf relationships, movement, breathing, freedom and space. These accounts record how participants understood what they believed they observed, not independent evidence about whale cognition, social relationships or welfare. Long-term social associations have been documented in short-finned pilot whales elsewhere in Macaronesia (Esteban et al., 2022), but this does not verify the relationships of the whales observed here.

Interpretations may have drawn both on the excursion and on ideas visitors brought with them. Previous research shows that prior conceptions and cultural understandings can enter cetacean encounters (Servais, 2005; Curtin, 2006), while Maguire et al. (2020) reported associations involving empathy, anthropomorphism and connectedness to nature. In the present study, however, terms such as social or family-oriented should not automatically be treated as anthropomorphic: the data show how participants described the animals, not why they chose those descriptions.

Because several descriptors were offered as questionnaire options, the open-text references to relationships, freedom, space and behaviour are especially useful in showing what participants raised in their own words.

Meaning and interpretation were thus closely tied to the whales as perceived living animals within a particular setting, while remaining participant accounts rather than animal-based measurements.

5.5 Conservation-related self-reports and cross-domain associations

The conservation-related findings are most informative when kept separate rather than combined. Participants showed high support for whale protection and measures limiting tourism-related harm, yet retrospective reports of thinking differently were much less uniform. Figure 6 also shows relatively high ratings of perceived influence and stated likelihood of supporting protective action. These are different forms of self-report, not a single conservation outcome.

Baseline conservation values were not measured, so the study cannot determine whether the excursion introduced new views, reinforced existing ones or simply provided an opportunity to express concerns already held. Wildlife-tourism research indicates that pre-visit attributes can influence longer-term outcomes and that immediate post-activity effects may not persist over time (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Marcías et al., 2025). This matters because environmental identity and moral norms have been linked with pro-environmental intentions among whale tourists (Clark et al., 2019). The very high agreement on several protection items also left little variation between participants, and self-reported environmental attitudes can be influenced by socially desirable responding (Vesely and Klöckner, 2020).

The association between perceived influence and stated likelihood of supporting protective action is consistent with these two conservation-related self-reports varying together, but the items are conceptually close and should not be treated as evidence of a progression from perceived influence to later action. Intentions do not always translate into behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; Sheeran and Webb, 2016), and no later behaviour was measured here.

The useful pattern is therefore the contrast: strong conservation-consistent attitudes sat alongside more varied retrospective reports of changed thinking, while only some emotional and relational responses co-varied with perceived influence. The quantitative findings narrow, rather than resolve, the question: they identify which responses tended to occur together in this sample, while leaving the direction and explanation of those relationships open for future research. This makes visitors’ pre-existing values and expectations an important target for future work rather than an unmeasured assumption.

Across the five domains, participants’ immediate responses overlapped without collapsing into one experience or one conservation-related outcome.

5.6 Proximity, visitor experience, and whale welfare

Proximity brings several findings together. “Seeing the whales up close” was the most frequently selected element when participants identified what had influenced their feelings about whale protection. However, neither reported physical proximity nor feeling close to the whales met the adjusted association criterion. In relation to RQ4, this means the quantitative analysis did not provide clear evidence that participants reporting greater closeness also reported greater perceived influence. Some open-text accounts also emphasised the value of seeing free-ranging whales with space, at what participants perceived to be a respectful distance and without disturbance.

For some participants, “up close” may therefore have reflected more than physical distance alone, potentially capturing the immediacy of being able to see or hear a free-ranging whale and attend to its movement and perceived behaviour. This interpretation is tentative, but it offers one possible explanation for why “seeing the whales up close” was frequently selected as influential while the two proximity measures did not show adjusted associations with perceived influence. More importantly, the present findings provide no evidence that progressively closer approaches would make encounters more meaningful or more conservation-relevant.

The participants’ perceptions also need to be distinguished from the animals’ experience. Describing an encounter as natural, respectful or non-disturbing does not establish whether the conditions were appropriate for the whales. Experimental whale-watch approaches to short-finned pilot whales off Tenerife have identified behavioural responses to vessel-noise exposure and highlighted the importance of acoustic characteristics alongside vessel presence (Arranz et al., 2021, 2024). In the present study, participants’ perceptions of respectfulness or non-disturbance therefore cannot be used as evidence of whale welfare; determining this would require independent animal-based measures that were not collected here.

Visitor expectations around proximity are also evident elsewhere: in a Juneau whale-watching study, getting close to whales and seeing interesting behaviours were the two leading reported determinants of trip quality (Lopez and Pearson, 2017). Other cetacean-tourism research suggests that reducing interaction or proximity for welfare reasons need not necessarily be unacceptable to visitors. At one managed dolphin-tourism site, more than 80% of surveyed visitors accepted reduced interaction time and proximity when the changes were linked to welfare concerns and clearly explained (Bach and Burton, 2017). Wider research has similarly argued for cetacean-tourism experiences that do not increase negative pressure on the animals (Sumanapala and Wolf, 2024).

The present findings add an important nuance. Many participants identified seeing whales “up close” as influential, while some open-text accounts also valued space, freedom and perceived respectful distance. Within these data, proximity therefore did not operate as a simple measure of encounter quality. Future research could examine this relationship directly by pairing visitor responses with independent measures of vessel distance, acoustic exposure and whale behaviour.

5.7 Strengths, limitations, and future research

A strength of this exploratory study is its hypothesis-generating role: it identifies patterns and questions that can now be tested using larger samples, validated measures and more targeted study designs. Combining immediate quantitative and qualitative responses made it possible to see where aspects of the encounter converged, differed or produced tensions, particularly around emotion, conservation-related reporting and proximity. The study therefore acts as a useful doorway into how visitors experience free-ranging whales within a managed marine setting.

The limits of that doorway are clear. The sample was small and context-specific, and a single post-excursion questionnaire cannot separate pre-existing values from responses associated with the encounter or show what persists over time. Several measures were researcher-developed single items; detailed information about specific excursions, vessel practices and whale responses was limited; and the qualitative material was brief. Responses may not have been fully independent because some participants may have been clustered within the same vessels, operators or individual excursions. As operator and excursion identifiers were not recorded, this potential clustering could not be assessed or accounted for statistically. Self-selection, the English-language questionnaire and socially desirable responding may also have influenced who participated and what was reported (Vesely and Klöckner, 2020).

These limitations point directly to future research. Larger and more diverse samples could test whether the same patterns recur across operators, seasons and visitor groups. Pre- and post-excursion designs and longitudinal follow-up could examine the contribution of prior values and whether perceived influence or stated intentions persist. More detailed qualitative work and validated measures could explore how visitors understand awe, connection, sociality, freedom and respectful observation.

A particularly important next step is to bring visitor and animal evidence together. Pairing visitor responses with independent measures of vessel practice, acoustic and spatial exposure, and whale response would allow research to ask not only what people find meaningful, but which forms of meaningful encounter are also compatible with the needs of the whales.

6 Conclusion

Participants’ immediate accounts of whale watching were multidimensional, bringing together encounters with free-ranging whales, perceived behaviour and sociality, emotional and relational responses, the ocean and sensory environment, human influences on the excursion and conservation-related responses. These dimensions overlapped within individual experiences, but did not form a uniform pattern. This complements recent research across Tenerife and other Macaronesian whale-watching destinations showing that visitor experiences are not homogeneous and are shaped by the wider tourism context, visitor profiles and expectations (Hurtado-Pampín et al., 2026).

Some of the most interesting findings lay in the contrasts. Strong support for whale protection coexisted with more mixed reports of thinking differently about whales. In the exploratory quantitative analysis, greater perceived influence on feelings about whale protection tended to occur alongside several emotional and relational responses and stated likelihood of supporting protective action, but not clearly alongside calm, prior familiarity or the two proximity measures. Proximity was therefore particularly complex: seeing whales “up close” was frequently identified as influential, yet neither perceived physical proximity nor feeling close to the whales met the adjusted association criterion, while some participants also placed value on the whales having space, freedom and what they perceived as respectful distance.

This proximity finding is particularly relevant alongside Hurtado-Pampín et al. (2026), whose Tenerife participants showed strongly proximity-oriented expectations, with 62% preferring close contact before the activity. The present study did not measure pre-excursion expectations and cannot test expectation–experience alignment, but its immediate post-encounter findings add a complementary perspective: valuing an experience described as “up close” did not provide evidence that greater perceived physical proximity was associated with greater perceived conservation influence. Instead, participants’ accounts suggest that immediacy, observation of behaviour, free-ranging status, space and perceived respectful distance can coexist within what makes an encounter meaningful. Taken together, these findings make proximity less straightforward than a simple measure of encounter quality and strengthen the case for examining visitor expectations and experiences alongside the conditions experienced by the whales.

These findings leave important questions rather than simple answers. What makes a whale-watching encounter meaningful may involve far more than proximity alone, including the animals themselves, what visitors believe they are observing, the sensory qualities of the marine setting and the way the encounter is mediated. As whale-watching activity continues to grow (Sumanapala and Wolf, 2024), understanding these different elements alongside independent evidence of how the encounter is experienced by the whales becomes increasingly important. The challenge is not simply how close people can get to whales, but how meaningful encounters can occur while keeping the needs and welfare of the whales at their centre.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2026.1932374/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Christian Kiffner, Leibniz Center for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Germany

Reviewed by: Serban Proches, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Marie Cholley-Gomez, Université Paul Valéry, France