A mixed-methods study published in Frontiers in Conservation Science collected immediate post-excursion self-reports from 47 adults following commercial whale-watching trips in southwest Tenerife, with short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) as the questionnaire’s focal species. The research, led by independent researcher Lavinia Mitchell, set out to examine what visitors find meaningful in these encounters and how different dimensions of the experience are reported together, a question that remains poorly understood despite whale watching’s growth as a global tourism activity.

The study was designed with the encounter at its centre. Five domains organised the evidence: participant background and prior context; encounter context and setting; emotional and relational responses; meaning and interpretation; and conservation-related self-reports. Participants completed a post-excursion questionnaire containing closed-response and open-text items, accessed through a QR code on their own devices between 7 and 17 March 2026. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively, with exploratory Spearman rank correlations, multiple-comparison correction and sensitivity analyses. Open-text responses were examined using hybrid deductive-inductive reflexive thematic analysis.

The emotional results were striking. Awe or wonder was reported by 44 of 47 participants, or 93.6 percent. Excitement followed at 91.5 percent, and curiosity at 89.1 percent. But empathy or concern was more variable, endorsed by only 59.6 percent of respondents. Participants commonly described pilot whales as social or family-oriented animals, with 34 of 46 respondents, or 73.9 percent, selecting that descriptor. Open-text accounts located meaning in perceived whale behaviour and sociality, free-ranging status, the ocean and sensory setting, and the human context of the excursion.

Support for whale protection and limits on tourism-related harm was high. Agreement reached 93.6 percent for stronger regulations to protect whales from disturbance, 93.6 percent for limits on whale-watching trips if the activity were harming whales, and 95.7 percent for a human duty to prevent tourism-related harm. Yet reports of thinking differently about whales were more mixed, with only 53.2 percent agreeing that the encounter made them think differently. Perceived influence on feelings about whale protection varied with several emotional and relational responses, but not clearly with perceived whale proximity.

That proximity finding is the study’s most provocative. When participants were asked which element most influenced their feelings about whale protection, seeing the whales up close was the most frequently selected influence, chosen by 22 of 46 respondents, or 47.8 percent. But neither reported physical proximity nor feeling close to the whales met the adjusted association criterion with perceived influence. In the exploratory correlation analysis, higher perceived-influence ratings tended to occur alongside higher ratings of empathy or concern, connection with nature, excitement, curiosity and awe or wonder, while calm, prior familiarity with pilot whales and both proximity measures did not show clear adjusted associations.

The open-text material helps explain the tension. Some participants emphasised the value of seeing free-ranging whales with space, at what they perceived to be a respectful distance and without disturbance. One participant wrote about seeing the whales with enough space to freely move around, as the boats were at a respectful distance. Another valued the fact that the animals were there of their own free will and not in captivity. 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.

The study is careful about what its findings do and do not show. The analyses identify exploratory patterns among concurrently collected responses, not evidence of attitudinal change, later behaviour or conservation outcomes. An emotion is not an attitude, a participant’s retrospective sense of influence is not measured change, and an intention is not behaviour. Stated intention is also an imperfect proxy for action, and the substantial intention-behaviour gap documented in psychological research means that what participants said they were more likely to support immediately after the excursion tells us little about whether they later acted on those intentions.

The limitations are equally clear. The sample was small and context-specific, recruited through non-probability convenience sampling, 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, and self-selection, the English-language questionnaire and socially desirable responding may also have influenced who participated and what was reported.

Yet the implications for management are significant. The findings do not support progressively closer approaches as a route to greater meaning or conservation relevance. Close observation was valued, but participants also valued free-ranging animals, space and perceived respectful distance. This matters because vessel presence and underwater noise have been associated with changes in cetacean behaviour and acoustic activity, and experimental approaches in the same area found that a louder vessel reduced the proportion of time mothers spent resting. The challenge, the study concludes, 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. Future work should combine visitor responses with independent measures of vessel practice and whale response, pairing what people find meaningful with what the animals actually experience.

Subject of Research: Whale-watching visitor experience and conservation responses in Tenerife

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

Article References: Mitchell, L. (2026). Whale-watching encounters in Tenerife: an exploratory mixed-methods study of visitor experience, interpretation, and conservation-related responses. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 7, Article 1932374. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2026.1932374

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fcosc.2026.1932374

Keywords: whale watching, pilot whales, Tenerife, conservation psychology, wildlife tourism, visitor experience, Whale-watching, encounters, exploratory, mixed-methods, visitor, experience