To understand the interaction mechanism between human and ecotourism in wildlife tourism, taking Chengdu Giant Panda Breeding and Research Base in Chengdu, Sichuan Province as an example, the environmental attitudes of wildlife tourists was analyzed based on demographic sociology and demography. Quantitative analysis methods such as cluster analysis and one-way ANOVA were used to measure the environmental attitudes of wild tourists who visited the semi-captive habitats on the basis of the new ecological paradigm scale. According to their different degrees of performance, wildlife tourists are divided into three categories — nearecocenters, near-anthropocentrists and neutrals, and the main environmental attitude of the semi-captive visitors are near-ecocentrism. In addition, the study analyzed the differences of the socio-demographic characteristics of the population towards environmental attitudes using the one-way analysis of variance and the Scheffe post-hoc comparison. The result showed that the respondents in the China Panda Base with different gender, age, income,
education level, and family background have significant differences in environmental attitudes. This result has certain practical significance for the planning and management of wildlife tourism destinations.

The study site is the Dolphin Discovery Center (DDC) in Bunbury, Australia. Based on New Environmental Paradigm, combined with cluster analysis and variance analysis to examine the extent of environmental attitude for DDC and demographic differences, the main conclusions are as follows. Firstly, taxonomies were proposed according to different environmental attitudes, and wildlife tourists are classified into anthropocentrism, neutrally and ecological-centre. Wildlife tourists’ environmental attitudes are ecologically-centered. In addition, tourists’ demographic characteristics differences in environmental attitude are examined. Gender and education have significant differences in non-consumptive environmental attitude (p≤0.05). Age, income and family status all do not have significant differences in environmental attitude (p≤0.05). Last, travel behaviours, information source from personal experience and willingness to revisit have a significant difference in the environment attitude (p≤0.05), and travel companion, spending and time stayed and satisfaction have no significant difference (p≤0.05). This study is likely to have a deep understanding of wildlife tourists and the complex process of tourists’ interaction with wild animals and is of great significance for wildlife tourism destination management.