It is important to establish from the outset that the economic impact of marine wildlife tourism is only part of a much bigger picture in terms of its overall economic value. Wells (1997) distinguishes between the economic impact of nature tourism, which he defines as the amount of money spent by nature tourists in the economy on travel, accommodation, food, souvenirs, etc., and the total economic value, which covers 'the broader economic benefits of conservation which can be associated with a nature tourism destination. Direct use by tourists is only one of the economic values which flow from nature tourism destinations' {Wells, 1997, p. 9). Furthermore, the direct effects are only one of the three classes of multiplier effects in the economy: the other two being indirect effects arising from establishments which receive the tourist expenditure purchasing goods and services from other sectors within the local economy; and induced effects which occur from local residents spending their wages, salaries, distributed profit, rent and interest on goods and services in the local economy (Cooper et al., 1998). These positive multiplier effects are, however, limited by leakages which reduce the positive economic impacts of tourism.