Tourism at the intersection of animal ethics, human ecology, and conservation: Asian elephants in violation?

Given the common proposed use of wildlife tourism as a conservation tool, it is essential for conservation practice to determine the differential impacts of wildlife tourism on wildlife themselves in a manner that takes cross-cultural differences into account. With Asian elephants as a case study, this paper developed a conceptual approach (theory synthesis) that integrated the concept of symbiosis from biology, a scale of justice framework from philosophy, tourist typologies from tourism studies, and the concept of inviolate zones from conservation science. This approach case be used to determine the degree of impact different tourist types have on elephants, rendering them as either violate or inviolate “zones”. The paper employed a conceptual approach in the form of theory synthesis, which was later used as a framework from which to investigate how animal-based tourism scholars and students (19 Thai students in five groups after a teaching intervention) perceive 13 different uses of Asian elephants. Results indicate largely consistent responses by the scholars on these uses within the framework, while the consistency of student responses depended upon the type of elephant use examined. The challenges and prospects for a conceptually rigorous, multi-disciplinary evaluation of tourism’s impacts on Asian elephants and other wildlife are discussed.

Introduction

Writing on behalf of the Indian organisation Wildlife SOS, Dev (2021) argues that tourists frequently fall for the cruel practices of wildlife tourism operators that “violate an animal’s personal boundaries to get a perfect click” (online) in the collection of selfies for their social media. The suggestion that animals such as elephants have personal space requirements provides added context around the range of impacts these animals experience, starting with “brutal training methods to be ‘tamed’ and [the] abysmal conditions which profoundly impact their physical and mental well-being” (Dev, 2021, online; Rizzolo and Bradshaw, 2018). The suffering that captive animals endure for the pleasure and profit of tourism is a topic of increasing importance in tourism studies not only from the perspective of welfare (Carr and Broom, 2018) but also conservation (Moorhouse et al., 2015), the suppression of agency (Notzke, 2019), and stakeholder status (Sheppard and Fennell, 2019).

Nested within tourism is a sizeable global market interested in animals’ symbolic, visual, cultural, and physical consumption across an extensive range of attractions. Moorhouse et al. (2015) argue that upwards of 6 million tourists impact the conservation and welfare of hundreds of thousands of animals, including tigers, lions and dolphins in captivity, observing gorillas and gibbons in the wild, visiting bear-bile, sea turtle and civet coffee farms, viewing rehabilitated or rescued animals, or watching wildlife-based shows (Moorhouse et al., 2015). This level of impact exists outside the use of animals in zoos and aquaria and consumptive activities such as hunting.

Notwithstanding the altruistic efforts of many dedicated individuals and organisations that work for the welfare and conservation of animals used in tourism, evidence suggests that conservation is more about instrumental and utilitarian policy than on our moral obligation to nature (Piccolo et al., 2022). In attempting to change this mindset, we use several theoretical constructs in the development of a comprehensive model, grounded in human ecology, to investigate the use of Asian elephants in tourism. As an interdisciplinary field, human ecology recognises the inherent interconnectivity between social and natural sciences in efforts to solve complex, wicked problems (Berkes and Folke, 2000) and the recognition that ecology is often socially constructed (Zimmerer, 1994). Integration and inter-relationships in human, biological and environmental ecologies provide the foundation upon which different settings, scales and systems can be understood and equilibrated using ecological concepts (Adeleke et al., 2022; Johnston, 1986).

To accomplish integration and inter-relationships in our model we use a theory synthesis approach, which includes the biological concept of symbiosis, i.e., living together over a long period, and the many symbiotic relationships that exist between two different biological organisms—humans and elephants. From philosophy, we employ moral theory based on the scales of justice framework, outlining four different levels of justice for animals—from no justice to deep justice. Third, several tourism types (hard and soft path ecotourism, nature-based tourism, wildlife tourism, and general interest tourism) are included in the model to represent the heterogeneous nature of how Asian elephants can be used according to how these types are theorised. Finally, we engage theory from the conservation and protected areas science on inviolate spaces, defined as an entity that is “free or safe from injury or violation” (Oxford Online Dictionary, 2022) in assessing the degree of violation of elephants for tourism purposes.

The purpose of this exploratory study was to use the integrative framework to investigate how tourism scholars and students perceive 13 different elephant uses according to the parameters of the conceptual framework noted above. The intent was to better understand the violate to inviolate nature of elephant use as a function of this integrative classification of human-elephant interactions in tourism.

Literature review

This section provides a brief overview of the four main dimensions included in the study: symbiosis, the scales of justice, select tourism types, and inviolate zones. The objective is to discuss the theoretical basis of these four core elements as a foundation for the establishment of a novel conceptual model.

Symbiosis: biology

Symbiosis is defined as “any kind of relationship or interaction between two dissimilar organisms, each of which may receive benefits from their partners that they did not have while living alone” (Angelard and Bever, 2013, p. 595). Symbiosis, thus, emphasises a relationship between individuals from two different species and the costs and benefits inherent in this relationship. As illustrated by Boucher et al., (1982) in the case of mutualism, for example, there are both direct and indirect forms. In direct mutualism, two species interact directly with benefits either at the individual level (the relative fitness to the organisms) or the population level (typically operationalised as the positive growth rate of the population). Regarding indirect mutualism, both species benefit in the absence of direct contact. Symbiosis encompasses several different relationships and outcomes as outlined by Boucher et al. (1982); and Wildlife ACT (2017):

● Commensalism: one species benefits while the other is unaffected (+/0 interaction)

● Mutualism: Both species benefit (+/+ interaction)

● Parasitism: one species benefits while one is harmed (+/-)

● Competition: neither species benefits (-/- interaction)

● Predation: one species benefits while the other dies (+/- interaction)

● Neutralism: both species are unaffected (0/0 interaction)

In tourism studies, symbiosis has been used sparingly. Fennell and Butler (2003) used different ecological relationships to gauge the pressure that tourism stakeholders place on the resources of a tourism destination and other stakeholders. Boley and Green (2016) argue that a symbiotic relationship can advance in ecotourism destinations as the conservation value of natural assets leads to greater economic value and enhanced competitiveness. In the vernacular of the range of symbiotic interactions above, Boley and Green’s (2016) example would be viewed as mutualism since both “species” (nature and invested stakeholders in the ecotourism industry) benefit from the relationship. Other studies on the human dimensions of wildlife interaction and management have isolated two primary wildlife value orientations—mutualism and domination. The first is characterised by the extension of care and rights to animals, the rejection of animal death and harm, and behaviours that support the viewing and feeding of wildlife. In contrast, the dominionistic domain views wildlife as resources to be managed, used, and controlled by a constellation of approaches (including lethal control), with fishing and hunting as morally justifiable (Chase et al., 2016).

The scales of justice: ethics

The field of animal ethics is founded upon several theoretical perspectives that explore a wide range of human-animal interactions, the degree of animal use (or non-use), and the level of care extended to animals in such use. Main theories include contractarianism, ecocentrism, animal welfare, utilitarianism, and animal rights (see Fennell, 2024 for a comprehensive breakdown of all these theories in the field of tourism studies). Several other studies have used justice as a point of departure for understanding the fairness, equity, and the quality and quantity of care that animals receive (or not) in their use as tourist attractions (Kline et al., 2022; Rastegar, 2022).

The scales of justice framework developed by Fennell and Sheppard (2021) is designed to “weigh” the degree of justice provided to animals in various uses. Using the example of Asian elephants, the authors argued that deep justice is more akin to an animal rights perspective which has a stronger implicit connection to ecotourism and where animals should be left to live free and without control or manipulation. Intermediate justice based on, for example, utilitarianism can be found in some sanctuaries where the suffering of elephants is alleviated. However, the interests of human agents still outweigh the needs of elephants. Shallow justice for animals occurs when elephants are bred for the entertainment industry and made to paint or play polo, even though they are afforded a good captive environment and food. No justice occurs in cases where elephants are hunted or made to perform humiliating tricks for tourists at the hand of extreme cruelty and negative reinforcement (contractarianism). Table 1 provides a more comprehensive overview of these theories and examples of elephants used under these conditions (Fennell and Sheppard, 2021).

Table 1

Table 1. Scales of justice and elephant-based tourism.

Tourism types

Tourism encompasses a rich array of types or forms that range from the general, in which tourists do not have a specific objective for visiting a destination, to types that exploit specific niches. Four of the five tourism types used in the present analysis are chosen because of their direct connection to animal-based attractions. These include nature-based tourism, ecotourism (both hard path and soft path forms), and wildlife tourism. The acronym NEWT is used to cluster these different but related forms because of tourist motivations to experience nature. NEWT forms are compared against the much larger general interest tourism type, where tourists may visit an animal-based attraction as part of a broader overall excursion, i.e., to do something different. These types are explained briefly below.

A study by Donohoe and Needham (2006) distilled several characteristics of ecotourism, including nature-based, preservation, education, sustainability, distribution of benefits, and ethics and responsibility. Many of these characteristics are found in the following definition. Ecotourism is:

“Travel with a primary interest in the natural history of a destination. It is a non-invasive and participatory form of nature-based tourism that is built around learning, sustainability (conservation and local participation/benefits), and ethical planning, development and management” (Fennell, 2020, p. 20).

Past studies have indicated that ecotourism represents approximately 2-4% of international travel demand (UNWTO, 2002), with worldwide compounded annual growth rates of 14.24% to 2027 (Research and Markets, 2022). However, there is a near consensus that ecotourism is both an attitude and an ethic in how to approach the natural world and, thus, not all people who visit a protected area are de facto ecotourists. Nevertheless, matters of degree define the essence of the ecotourist, and these have typically fallen along the lines of hard path ecotourists and softer path ecotourists. The former demonstrates higher levels of environmental commitment, specialised and longer trips, smaller groups, fewer services, and more requirements on the part of the tourist (e.g., the requirement to be more physically active or to travel to more remote locales). The latter, or soft path group, shows moderate environmental commitment, multi-purpose and shorter trips with larger groups, the requirement of more services, and a lower degree of physical activity (Weaver, 2002).

Related to ecotourism is wildlife tourism, defined as “tourism based on encounters with non-domesticated (non-human) animals … [which] can occur in either the animals’ natural environment or in captivity” (Higginbottom, 2004, p. 2). Wildlife tourism deviates from ecotourism because the latter includes animals, plant life, and physiographic features (e.g., aspects of the environment other than wildlife). At the same time, the former encompasses both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of wildlife (Mkono et al., 2021). Wildlife viewing is a form of wildlife tourism, but so too is hunting, fishing, and keeping animals in captive environments like accredited and non-accredited zoos. Moorhouse et al. (2015) estimate that 3.6-6 million tourists per annum partake in wildlife tourism attractions, of which around 60% likely support attractions with negative impacts. This study also found that a subset of 24 types of WTA negatively impacted the animal welfare status of 230, 000-550, 000 individual animals and that 120, 000-340, 000 animals were maintained in WTAs, likely to reduce their species’ conservation status. Even though conservation is a primary motivation for wildlife tourism (and ecotourism), there is still the need to get as close as possible to animals for a more embodied and personally rewarding experience (Bulbeck, 2005). This desire for proximity (regardless of the tourist’s good intentions) can be detrimental to wildlife on many different levels (Rizzolo, 2017; Trave et al., 2017).

Nature-based tourism (NBT) is a much larger form of tourism compared to ecotourism and wildlife tourism. In fact, nature-based tourism encompasses both ecotourism and wildlife tourism, i.e., both ecotourism and wildlife tourism forms fall within the realm of NBT as identified in the following definition by Goodwin (1996).

“all forms of tourism – mass tourism, adventure tourism, low impact tourism, ecotourism – which use natural resources in a wild or undeveloped form – including species, habitat, landscape, scenery and salt and freshwater features. Nature tourism is travel for the purpose of enjoying undeveloped natural areas or wildlife” (p. 287).

In this definition, we see a tremendous range of tourism activities that qualify as NBT at various levels and scales and include many facets of nature—including wildlife, where there is often a constellation of impacts on different species, especially in the absence of knowledge and regard for the wellbeing of species.

Finally, the general interest tourist is characterised by a lack of targeted motivation at destinations. General interest tourism includes a type of tourism where “the general destination and its characteristics provides a major, [sic] part of the components of the tourism product and the overall motivation for tourism travel” (Brotherton and Himmetoglu, 1997, p. 12). Marketing strategies for this broad tourism type are directed to the characteristics of the destination, area, or specific resort and not towards any specific attraction that may be found in such areas (Brotherton and Himmetoglu, 1997). This type of tourism shares characteristics with mass tourism where the large scale and intensity of the sector (Weaver, 1999) and the overwhelming of carrying capacities often compromise ecological systems (Fantinato, 2019).

Inviolate zones; conservation science

Sen (2019) writes that even before colonial occupation, local people in Southeast Asia implemented conservation approaches based on stewardship norms, such as inviolate sacred groves and restrictions on resource extraction. The US National Park Service predator policy of 1931 indicates that “predatory animals have a real place in nature, and that all animal life should be kept inviolate within the parks” (Dilsaver, 1994, online). Inviolate zones occur in UNESCO biosphere reserves, where the core zone (distinct from buffer zones and transition areas), comprises “a strictly protected zone that contributes to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation” (UNESCO, 2022). In Antarctica, inviolate zones have been suggested because tourism and research activities threaten microbial habitats, which frequently create new entry points and introduce non-indigenous species from clothes, backpacks, cargo, and other items (Wilmotte et al., 2015).

Other studies indicate that charismatic species like elephants, tigers, and snow leopards are now concentrated in inviolate zones (habitat islands) separated by even larger parcels of land unsuitable for wildlife due to human encroachment (Bhatnagar et al., 2001) as well as periodic poaching to protect livestock (Shahabuddin et al., 2007). These species are caught in the turmoil between use and conservation, which has only worsened because of population growth and habitat loss—among other biodiversity conservation issues. In regions such as India, debate continues over a type of conservation that is devoid of human populations (the fortress or exclusionary conservation model), versus multi-use, co-existence model where humans share space with animals such as elephants increasing the chance for human-wildlife conflict. Vasudev, Goswami, and Oli (2018) found that as core inviolate spaces diminished and human-animal conflict increased, mortality rates of elephants rose in human-dominated landscapes. Scholars argue that ecotourism can act as a development strategy for regional development and conservation in addressing the long-term needs of the region (Bhatnagar et al., 2001), including the introduction of new models of development with conservation for flagship species. As “inviolate” appears to apply to nature reserves for the purpose of protecting animals from human encroachment, we found no reference to animals themselves as inviolate zones. However, there has been increasing awareness of the spatial or embodied aspects of animal-based tourism (Haanpää and García-Rosell, 2020), which is congruent with our application of inviolate zones to wildlife-based tourism.

Methodology

Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) have been used as draught animals, in war, forestry, as idol bearers in religious and secular pageantries and festivals, and more recently in tourism in countries such as Nepal, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India (Rizzolo and Bradshaw, 2018). Vijayakrishnan and Sinha (2019) argue that the relationship between elephants and humans has benefitted through the personification of elephants as the elephant-headed benevolent god, Ganesha; however, the use of elephants in religious ceremonies has also led to abusive practices (Jaynes, 2009). Thus, conflicting levels of empathy and care threaten the well-being of elephants even though evidence points to their sophisticated social, cognitive, and affective aptitudes, placing elephants among the most advanced sentient beings (Bradshaw and Schore, 2007). The advanced mental aptitude of elephants is evident in Locke’s (2017) posthumanist account of the training and working as an apprentice mahout in a Nepali elephant stable. Locke (2017) concluded that the extension of personhood status was appropriate for elephants to recognise the mutual agency of humans and elephants and their role as social actors. The advanced psychological circuitry of elephants and their iconic status with humans on many levels, including tourism, makes this species an apt case study for the present analysis (Rizzolo & Bradshaw, 2018).

We used a conceptual approach to investigate the question of “What’s new” (Gilson and Goldberg, 2015, p. 128) in the deeply entrenched issues surrounding the use of elephants in tourism. Conceptual models are useful in developing novel insights on existing problems through the integration of theory, especially across disciplines (Gilson and Goldberg, 2015). Additionally, conceptual research often takes shape at the intersection of philosophical exploration and/or empirical analysis, which can manifest in one or several different conceptual themes, including the comparison of concepts, historical analysis, applications of concepts to practice, a synthesis of concepts, or the development of new concepts (Xin et al., 2013). As observed by Jaakola (2020), theory synthesis is characterised by “Conceptual integration across multiple theoretical perspective”, “Summarizing and integrating current understanding”, “Outlining the conceptual domain of a new phenomenon or idea.”, and “Structuring a fragmented field by analyzing it through a particular theoretical lens” (p. 22). We embark upon a process of theory synthesis through an adoption of different theoretical positions, and the integration of these concepts into a novel way in which to conceive elephant-human interactions and tourism. Based on this approach, an important aspect of our study is a theory-practice integration, which we view as essential in better understanding tourist-elephant interactions. Our strategy involved a comprehensive review of literature on existing uses of elephants for tourism purposes, personal-first-hand experience at elephant tourism venues in Thailand, as well as our past research on elephant-based tourism.

The second aspect of our methodology involved having two animal-based tourism experts, one on animal ethics and the other in conservation (the first two authors of the paper), score the 13 distinct uses of elephants in Table 2 independently as a means to determine differences or similarities regarding how these uses would be hypothetically perceived by five different tourism groups: hard-path ecotourism, soft-path ecotourism, nature-based tourism, wildlife tourism (consumptive), and general interest tourism. The 13 uses include products of Asian elephants, such as hair, skin, or ivory, are used for souvenirs or other consumptive practices (Sampson et al., 2018). Captive elephants are also present in transportation (Shell, 2015), logging (Suter et al., 2013), entertainment venues like circuses and elephant camps (Rizzolo and Bradshaw, 2018), and as objects of observation in zoos (Baskaran et al., 2011) or sanctuaries and rehabilitation and recovery centres (Cui and Xu, 2019). Further, Asian elephants have been used as companion animals (Lorimer, 2010), in competitions like polo (Subedi, 2014) and sport hunting (Sukumar, 1992), and as spiritual icons in religious events, festivals and pageantry (Vanitha et al., 2010), for scientific purposes (Plotnik et al., 2010), and education (Makecha and Ghosal, 2017), which reflect dominionistic, utilitarian, and instrumental values, attitudes, and behaviours. The final applied realm example, however, indicates a more intrinsic and preservation-oriented use of elephants through ecotourism based on a non-consumptive, low-impact, sustainable and responsible use of elephants.

Table 2

Table 2. Expert tourism scores applied to the use of Asian elephants.

The experts used a ranking scale of -2 (strongly disagree with the agreement or acceptance of a practice) to +2 (strongly agree with the agreement or acceptance of a practice) to indicate how each tourism type might hypothetically use Asian elephants for tourism purposes. Additionally, both experts provided an indication of the type of symbiotic relationship for each tourism type, as well as the type of justice for each type according to the scales of justice framework—deep to no justice based on the different animal ethics theories that help frame these justice types. Even though uses of elephants might represent a continuum across these measures, the authors agreed to choose only one symbiotic relationship and one of the four forms of justice in the scales of justice framework.

After completing this aspect of the study, the second objective was to ask the experts to place the 13 elephant uses into a four-cell matrix framed by justice, symbiosis, and the degree of violation of elephants. This was accompanied by a request to fix (in the form of a text box) where the five types of tourism would hypothetically exist within the matrix. The amalgamation of the four different domains in Figure 1 was geared towards the development of a better understanding of the status of Asian elephants as inviolate or “free or safe from injury or violation” or violate, where animals are abused, injured or killed ¹.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Expert assessment of variables.

The second part of the study included a workshop in Thailand (Burapha University, International Studies Program) involving 19 tourism studies students randomly placed into five groups. These 19 students represented the entire population of students in the class, so drawing a sample was not required. After six hours of instruction on ethics and animal-based tourism over two days, the students were tasked with completing the same two stages as described above. As this was an exploratory study, using a novel integrative conceptual framework (which we feel is the major contribution of the paper), statistical machine testing was not used or required given the small size of the dataset (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Procedural map of the study. 1=Consumed for products/souvenirs 2=Workers (commercial); 3=Workers (agricultural); 4=Active performers; 5=Captive objects of observation; 6=Semi-captive participants in rehabilitation; 7=Companions; 8=Sport (non-consumptive); 9=Sport (consumptive); 10=Spiritual icons; 11=Science & research; 12=Education; 13=Watching in-situ. Tourism and animal ethics expert: Tourism conservation expert: Consensus: E-HP = Hard-path Ecotourism; E-SP – Soft-path ecotourism; NBT = Nature-based Tourism; GI = General Interest Tourism; WT = Wildlife Tourism.

Results: the violate-inviolate continuum

A. Expert analysis

Table 2 illustrates that in all 13 cases, both experts independently agreed on how hypothetically hard-path ecotourists would view these forms of practice. These ranged from strong disagreement over elephants consumed for products and souvenirs, as well as most other cases, to strong agreement over the use of elephants in education and wildlife viewing. Hard-path ecotourists would support mutualistic relationships and seek to have a deep justice relationship with elephants. Of the five types of tourism, therefore, hard-path ecotourism should represent positive net outcomes for animals and tourists in their relationship in primarily mutualistic set of relationships. Authentic hard path ecotourism, therefore, avoids meat consumption; refuses to use elephants as commercial transporters, painters, or for agricultural purposes; believes that elephants used in circuses and zoos are objectionable.

The second form of tourism, soft-path ecotourism, always shows consistency across almost all 13 categories, except for a minor inconsistency over ex-situ venues like zoos. There was also a difference in the type of symbiotic relationship with commensalism selected by the ethics expert compared to mutualism by the conservation expert. Both scholars felt that the relationship was more in line with intermediate justice. These tourists would still firmly agree with watching wildlife in situ, education, or science-based ventures. However, they would be neutral about consuming wildlife (mainly if consumption is framed as “sustainable use”) and about wildlife as companions or ex-situ captive objects of observation. These tourists may be less willing than hard path ecotourists to inconvenience or limit themselves to promote elephant well-being.

More differences between ratings were seen in the category of nature-based tourism, although, again, differences were minor. Nature-based tourists can be more likely than soft path ecotourists to find wildlife consumption, sport, and working wildlife acceptable. Nature-based tourism can range from intermediate to shallow justice; at the same time, these practices might adhere to some principles of justice (especially for wildlife populations or ecosystems, as opposed to individual animals), and animal welfare can widely vary at these venues. Nature-based tourism often involves visits to national parks. In some locations, this can involve little to no disruption to wild elephants; this occurs in numerous parks in Sri Lanka, one of the few locations that still have large populations of wild elephants (that can be viewed by Jeep). However, in Nepal, captive elephants are used in national parks both by rangers (to survey populations of wild animals) and by tourists (for elephant-back safaris). While these practices promote nature-based tourism, these captive elephants often suffer from severe deprivation and suboptimal welfare. Commensalism and shallow justice were indicated by both scholars.

Consumptive wildlife tourists strongly agree with the utilisation of wildlife (for various purposes); however, this violates some of the needs of wildlife and thus can only lead to no justice, as indicated by the experts. For elephants, this form of tourism often involves the purchase of items (such as souvenirs, jewellery, trinkets, etc.) made from elephant body parts such as ivory, hair, or skin. In some cases, tourist demand can be a leading cause for the persistence and scale of the trade in elephant products, and tourists may or may not be concerned with the sustainability and/or legality of their purchase. Further, types of consumption can co-occur; for example, tourists who visit elephant shows/rides are more likely to consume wildlife as food or souvenirs (Rizzolo, 2021).

The general interest tourism type is characterised by the consumption of elephants symbolically, visually, culturally, and physically as attractions of interest, mainly in the absence of knowledge about the welfare and conservation implications of use. Purchasing elephant products would be a novelty for these tourists, and it would be acceptable to ride elephants and witness them paint or perform other anthropomorphic tasks in circuses. Sanctuaries may be of less interest to this tourism type, or they may partake of such an experience incidentally within a broader set of interests and attractions. Elephants used as companions would be acceptable, as would their use as objects in sports and spiritual ceremonies. Science, education and in-situ experiences would be less important to this group. As such, parasitism, predation and commensalism are appropriate symbiotic relationships with elephants based on a culture of contractarianism, as elephants command only secondary or tertiary moral consideration. For example, many tourists to Phuket, Thailand ride elephants or give money to “begging elephants” on the beach. Parasitism was indicated by both experts as well as no justice.

Figure 1 illustrates the elephant inviolate–violate status of 13 Asian elephant uses from Table 2. Six different symbiotic relationships are arranged in the figure according to the work of Boucher et al. (1982), ranging from mutualism (+/+) to parasitism (+/-) and predation (+/-) as the most impactful outcomes on elephants. An inviolate status is compatible with mutualism and commensalism and is possible in elephant tourism: semi-captive objects of rehabilitation, education, and watching in situ. The results indicate a strong consistency between the two experts when it came to placing the 13 uses of animals in the matrix. Only one of these uses was different. While the tourism animal ethics expert felt that using elephants for science & research was a form of shallow justice and more towards neutralism, the conservation expert felt that such use was more intermediate justice and commensalism. Nine of the 13 uses were placed in the cell indicating a degree of violation, as well as predation, parasitism or competition.

B. Student analysis

The analysis of student-generated data (Table 3) reveals critical intersections between tourism typologies, ethical frameworks, and ecological impacts on Asian elephants. Ecotourism (hard path) demonstrated consistent opposition to exploitative practices (-2 scores for elephant skin trade, logging, and circus performances), while strongly endorsing in-situ wildlife observation (+2) and conservation education (+1 to +2). These practices align with mutualistic symbiotic relationships and deep justice principles rooted in animal rights theories. In contrast, General Interest Tourism exhibited paradoxical acceptance of invasive practices (+2 for captive zoo observation) and educational programs (+2), suggesting cognitive dissonance between entertainment preferences and conservation awareness. Wildlife (Consumptive) tourism scored most problematically, with +2 acceptance of hunting and skin trade, classified as predatory/parasitic relationships under no justice frameworks. Nature-based tourism occupies an intermediate ethical space, displaying neutral scores (0) for religious festival participation, which is classified as neutralism symbiosis, and reflecting shallow justice implementations where cultural traditions override welfare considerations.

Table 3

Table 3. Focus group scores applied to the use of Asian elephants.

The inviolate-violate matrix framework exposed fundamental tensions between theoretical ideals and practical classifications. Inviolate zones emerged predominantly in Hard Path Ecotourism contexts featuring mutualistic relationships (+2 scores for wild observation) under deep justice frameworks, where elephant autonomy remains prioritised. Violate zones clustered around Wildlife (Consumptive) and General Interest Tourism, characterised by predatory symbiosis (+2 hunting acceptance) and no justice paradigms. Semi-violate zones contained contradictions: Soft Path Ecotourism’s sanctuary rehabilitation scored +2 but was classified as commensalism with intermediate justice, revealing persistent human-centric power dynamics in managed environments. Notably, education programs scored +2 across multiple tourism types despite variable symbiotic classifications (mutualism to neutralism), suggesting students prioritised knowledge dissemination over critical analysis of human-elephant power asymmetries. These findings underscore the need for standardised ethical benchmarks that reconcile tourism typologies with interspecies justice considerations in conservation practice.

In reference to Figure 3, we see a wide distribution of scores across all of the 13 variables except two. The five student groups indicated close proximity regarding two elephant uses. Variable one, elephants consumed as products or souvenirs was judged to be “no justice”, “violate”, leaning more towards predatory and parasitic. In contrast, variable 13, watching wildlife in-situ, was judged to be inviolate, deep justice, and mutualistic for all five groups. However, it is the middle 11 variables where consensus was not reached. For example, companions (rust colour) was located in three of the four cells of the matrix. Two of the four groups thought that having elephants as companions was close to neutralism and also close to no justice. Four of the five groups felt that this type of practice was more akin to neutralism, with one group suggesting that it was more mutualism somewhere between deep and intermediate justice. In general, most of these other 11 practices were in the top right cell (predatory, parasitism, competition; shallow to no justice), despite the range in which these practices were judged to be located.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Student assessment of variables. 1=Consumed for products/souvenirs (clear white); 2=Workers (commercial) (dark blue); 3=Workers (agricultural) (green); 4=Active performers (pink); 5=Captive objects of observation (purple); 6=Semi-captive participants in rehabilitation (dark grey); 7=Companions (Rust); 8=Sport (non-consumptive) (yellow); 9=Sport (consumptive) (light green); 10=Spiritual icons (light blue); 11=Science & research (black); 12=Education (light grey); 13=Watching in-situ (clear blue). Intensity of score for each of the 13 variables: e.g., largest circle means all five groups in relative agreement.

Discussion

Our work is congruent with, and builds upon, recent initiatives to incorporate nonhuman animals’ agency into tourism studies (Speiran and Hovorka, 2024; Kline and Fischer, 2023). As in the multispecies livelihoods model developed by Thomsen et al. (2023), our framework considers animal ethics as a conduit to balance the needs of human and nonhuman actors. Thomsen et al. (2023) discuss how animal ethics informs (and is informed by) of local perceptions of wildlife, education, changing values, sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, and community development. Building upon this centrality of animal ethics to wildlife tourism, we have further demonstrated how animal ethics can be integrated with human ecology to provide symbiotic classification of human-elephant interactions within tourism.

As noted by Jones (2000), the ethically visible other is one that is not reduced to a version of ourselves. In the case of nonhuman animals in tourism, this involves viewing justice as the interplay of the needs and desires of human and nonhuman actors or viewing nonhuman animals as stakeholders (Speiran and Hovorka, 2024). Therefore, part of an ethical approach to wildlife tourism is developing a typology of tourism forms that take, as much as possible, the perspective(s) of wildlife into account. For example, as noted by Speiran (2025), the term “wildlife sanctuary” is widely used in wildlife tourism but can actually refer to numerous types of venues (with varied ethical implications), such as greenwashed, transitional, and just sanctuaries. As Speiran (2025) does in outlining the conditions of each of these sanctuary types, so as to inform tourists and tourism operators, we have attempted to provide a method of ethically classifying various elephant-tourism venues to illuminate the ramifications of different touristic pursuits. Such a classification is an important step in helping tourists develop animal welfare literary, or a sense of how tourism affects the animals involved; many tourists lack such literacy despite its centrality to animal-based tourism (Fennell, 2022; Speiran and Hovorka, 2024).

The inclusion of nonhuman animals as individuals (who hold agency) has both theoretical and practical implications for tourism practice. On both a theoretical and practical level, this involves looking at the conservation-welfare nexus (Speiran and Hovorka, 2024). In other words, tourism researchers should consider the (intertwined) health of wildlife species and individuals when thinking about whether tourism venues are sustainable. For example, Meyer et al. (2021) developed a methodological framework to include industry tractability, socioeconomic values, conservation outcomes, animal welfare, and ecosystem impacts, and applied such a framework to shark-based tourism. Like these authors, our framework provides the tools to understand the impacts of a particular animal-based practice and provide opportunities for management to improve the scores on aspects that are lacking; our framework further incorporates an explicit accounting of ethics in order to reflect on which ethical paradigm is being perpetrated and how that reflects the values of the tourists involved. Understanding which values and priorities tourists are enacting through their behaviour, and their understanding of harms and benefits, is important for tourism practice (Macdonald and Wester, 2020). This information can be used either (or both) to educate tourists about their behaviours as well as to appeal to already-held values to better the treatment of nonhuman animals (Kline and Fischer, 2023).

Like recent work by Bertella et al. (2025) and Tomassini et al. (2024), which relied on a small number of expert researchers and thematic analysis to develop the field of animal ethnography and multispecies encounters in tourism, our methodology is designed to include the perspective of wildlife as individuals rather than merely as emblems or representatives of their species. As in Bertella et al. (2025) and Tomassini et al. (2024), our focus is on how to develop methodological tools to support justice in wildlife tourism. However, it is also important to note that limitations of the methods used. While the experts were diverse in their expertise on wildlife tourism, future research could expand this framework to a larger group of experts with additional forms of expertise. Further, given the strong spatial component of wildlife tourism (Tomassini et al., 2024), our scores (developed with the case study of Asian elephants) would likely need to be modified for species that are biologically related yet in a different geographic and cultural context, such as African elephants, though the methodology itself could be transferred.

Conclusion

Humans understand the language of personal boundaries well. Fast (1970) wrote that all of us have a zone around our body referred to as inviolate as we attempt to preserve this space for ourselves—our personal space that we defend from attack by others. We argue that it is not just spaces in the form of zones within protected areas should be rendered inviolate, but also animals like elephants who need time to recover in cases where they have been over-used and pushed beyond their physiological and psychological limits (Rizzolo and Bradshaw, 2019; Wallach et al., 2020). The results of our theory synthesis indicates that elephant bodies are being violated through a range of practices. Such is supported by research which finds that elephants used for these practices suffer trauma (e.g., display symptoms of complex post-traumatic stress disorder) which impair the functioning of individual elephants as well as contributes to a breakdown in the social fabric of the elephant community (Rizzolo and Bradshaw, 2018).

If we treat elephants as inviolate, we appeal to the sentiments and expectations of a certain types of tourists, especially hard-path ecotourist, who, in theory, would disagree with almost all the uses of elephants described in Table 2. In this regard, the applied and theoretical branches of conservation science need to reconcile more directly with the ethical and operational differences between animals as individuals and animals as members of a species. If, on the other hand, we are appealing to a general interest tourism sector, contractarianism, ecocentrism, and marginal animal welfare interests would continue to prevail for supply (operators) and demand (tourists) purposes.

Our analysis recognises that the ethical framework around wildlife use in tourism is not dichotomous (e.g., “ethical” or “unethical”) but rather contextualised by both the cultural context and the type of ethical framework employed. This is apparent in our distinction between deep, intermediate, shallow, and no justice. While deep justice tends to correlate with hard path ecotourism since aspects of that experience are tailored more to the elephant’s needs than the tourist’s (e.g., the tourist may need to travel further outside the city, but the elephant gets more room to forage), some communities might not have the resources (money, space, etc.) to support deep justice ventures and must instead cultivate soft path ecotourism ventures that lead to intermediate or shallow justice for wildlife. This nuanced approach allows for both the principle that elephants are inviolate and the recognition that communities have different resources and contexts that inform and constrain wildlife tourism.

Further, our model applies beyond Asian elephants, particularly to animals with an interest in autonomy whose wellbeing relies upon their ability to maintain their social structure (see Rizzolo and Bradshaw, 2019). At a minimum, this encompasses animals with unique cultures, such as cetaceans (Whitehead et al., 2004) and pro-social mammals with complex social structures essential to the integrity of their communities, such as wolves (Rutledge et al., 2010). For these species, the maintenance of social communities (which is ruptured by tourism practices that rely upon the separation of related conspecifics, the deprivation of natural behaviours, etc.), is essential to a notion of “justice” and both informs and complicates the ethical analysis of ecotourism.

Given the common use of wildlife tourism as a conservation tool (e.g., Higginbottom and Tribe, 2004; Larm et al., 2018; Ballantyne et al., 2009), it is essential for conservation practice to determine the differential impacts of wildlife tourism on wildlife themselves in a manner that takes cross-cultural differences into account. Our model, therefore, provides a structured approach to ethics in wildlife tourism that can assist tourists, tourism operators, and communities in developing ecotourism opportunities that lead to mutual benefits for humans and wildlife.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

DF: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JR: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. WT: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KI: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

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.

Footnotes

1. ^ We acknowledge the argument that any use of an elephant for tourism purposes, or other past uses (warfare, logging, and pageantry), seriously violate the welfare of elephants as a result of the phajaan. The breaking of the spirit of elephants to render them “domesticated” has serious physiological and psychological impacts on each individual (Turesson, 2014).

References

Adeleke B., Cassim S., and Taylor S. (2022). Pathways to low-cost aquaponic systems for sustainable livelihoods and economic development in poor communities: defining critical success factors. Aquaculture Int. 30, 1575–1591. doi: 10.1007/s10499-022-00865-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Angelard C. and Bever J. D. (2013). Symbionts, genetics of. In brenner’s encyclopedia of genetics (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 595–597. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374984-0.01496-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ballantyne R., Packer J., and Hughes K. (2009). Tourists’ support for conservation messages and sustainable management practices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tourism Manage. 30, 658–664. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.11.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Baskaran N., Varma S., Sar C. K., and Sukumar R. (2011). Current status of Asian elephants in India. Gajah 35, 47–54.

Google Scholar

Berkes F. and Folke C. (2000). Linking social and ecological systems. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Google Scholar

Bertella G., Tomassini L., Vester H. I., and McArthur J. A. (2025). Animal ethnography and a relational approach to sustainability: methodological challenges and opportunities in wildlife tourism. J. Sustain. Tourism. 1–23. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2025.2505675

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bhatnagar Y. V., Mathur V. B., and McCarthy T. (2001). “A regional perspective for snow leopard conservation in the Indian trans-himalaya,” in the national workshop on regional planning for wildlife protected areas (New Delhi: India Habitat Centre, New Delhi as part of GEF – India Ecodevelopment Project Initiative, WII), 6–8.

Google Scholar

Boley B. B. and Green G. T. (2016). Ecotourism and natural resource conservation: the ‘potential’ for a sustainable symbiotic relationship. J. Ecotourism. 15, 36–50. doi: 10.1080/14724049.2015.1094080

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boucher D. H., James S., and Keeler K.H. (1982). The ecology of mutualism. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13, 315–347.

Google Scholar

Bradshaw G. A. and Schore A. N. (2007). How elephants are opening doors: Developmental neuroethology, attachment and social context. Ethology 113, 426–436. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01333.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brotherton B. and Himmetoglu B. (1997). Beyond destinations—special interest tourism. Anatolia. 8, 11–30. doi: 10.1080/13032917.1997.9687118

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bulbeck C. (2005). Facing the wild: ecotourism, conservation & animal encounters (London: Earthscan).

Google Scholar

Carr N. and Broom D. M. (2018). Tourism and animal welfare (Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI).

Google Scholar

Chase L. D., Teel T. L., Thornton-Chase M. R., and Manfredo M. J. (2016). A comparison of quantitative and qualitative methods to measure wildlife value orientations among diverse audiences: A case study of latinos in the american southwest, society & Natural resources. Vol. 29. 572–587. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1086455

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cui Q. and Xu H. (2019). Situating animal ethics in Thai elephant tourism. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 60, 267–279. doi: 10.1111/apv.12221

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dev R. (2021). Responsible tourism: 5 ethical practices to protect our wildlife. Available online at: https://wildlifesos.org/conservation-awarness/responsible-tourism-5-ethical-practices-to-protect-our-wildlife/ (Accessed February 28, 2023).

Google Scholar

Devi T. (2020). A friendly barrier: Assam’s innovative ‘Elephant Meal Zone’ plan spurs hopes of peaceful coexistence with wild pachyderms. Available online at: https://www.news18.com/news/india/a-friendly-barrier-assams-innovative-elephant-meal-zone-plan-spurs-hopes-of-peaceful-coexistence-with-wild-pachyderms-3109955.html (Accessed February 28, 2023).

Google Scholar

Dilsaver L. (1994). America’s national park system: The critical documents. Available online at: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anps/anps_2g.htm (Accessed February 28, 2023).

Google Scholar

Donohoe H. M. and Needham R. D. (2006). Ecotourism: the evolving contemporary definition. J. Ecotourism 5, 192–210. doi: 10.2167/joe152.0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fantinato E. (2019). The impact of (mass) tourism on coastal dune pollination networks. Biol. Conserv. 236, 70–78. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.037

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fast J. (1970). Body language (Toronto: Pocket Books).

Google Scholar

Fennell D. A. and Butler R. W. (2003). A human ecological approach to tourism interactions. International Journal of Tourism Research 5, 197–210.

Google Scholar

Fennell D. A. (2020). Ecotourism. 5th (London: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Fennell D. A. (2022). An animal welfare literacy framework for tourism. Ann. Tourism Res. 96, 103461. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2022.103461

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fennell D. A. and Sheppard V. (2021). Tourism, animals and the scales of justice. J. Sustain. Tourism 29, 314–335. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1768263

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fennell D. A. (2024). Tourism and animal ethics (2nd ed). (London: Routledge)

Google Scholar

Gilson L. L. and Goldberg C. B. (2015). Editor’s comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group Organ. Manage. 40, 127–130. doi: 10.1177/1059601115576425

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Goodwin H. (1996). In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity and Conservation 5, 277–291.

Google Scholar

Haanpä M. and García-Rosell J.-C. (2020). Understanding performativity and embodied tourism experiences in animal-based tourism in the Arctic. In Dixit S. K.(Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Tourism Experience Management and Marketing. (London: Routledge).

Google Scholar

Higginbottom K. (2004). “Wildlife tourism: an introduction,” in Wildlife tourism: impacts, management and planning. Ed. Higginbottom K. (Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd, Altona Vic, Australia), 1–11.

Google Scholar

Higginbottom K. and Tribe A. (2004). Contributions of wildlife tourism to conservation. Wildlife tourism: Impacts Manage. Plann., 99–123.

Google Scholar

Jaakkola E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Rev. 10, 18–26. doi: 10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jaynes M. (2009). From war elephants to circus elephants: humanity’s abuse of elephants. J. Crit. Anim. Stud. 7, 74.

Google Scholar

Johnston R. J. (1986). The dictionary of human geography, 2nd edn (Blackwell: Oxford).

Google Scholar

Jones O. (2000). (Un) ethical geographies of. Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-animal Relations. 10. 268, 269–291.

Google Scholar

Kline C. and Fischer B. (2023). Morality on holiday: Inspiring ethical behaviour in animal-based tourism through non-moral values. Tourism Recreation Res. 48, 147–158. doi: 10.1080/02508281.2021.1911273

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kline C., Hoarau-Heemstra H., and Cavaliere C. (2022). Wildlife equity theory for multispecies tourism justice. J. Travel Res. 62, 1–14. doi: 10.1177/00472875221129254

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Larm M., Elmhagen B., Granquist S. M., Brundin E., and Angerbjörn A. (2018). The role of wildlife tourism in conservation of endangered species: Implications of safari tourism for conservation of the Arctic fox in Sweden. Hum. Dimensions Wildlife. 23, 257–272. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2017.1414336

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Locke P. (2017). Elephants as persons, affective apprenticeship, and fieldwork with nonhuman informants in Nepal. HAU. J. Ethnographic Theory 7, 353–376. doi: 10.14318/hau7.1.024

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lorimer J. (2010). Elephants as companion species: The lively biogeographies of Asian elephant conservation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 41(4) Sri Lanka. Trans. Institute Br. Geographers 35, 491–506. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00395.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Macdonald C. and Wester J. (2021). Public understanding of wildlife tourism: Defining terms, harms, and benefits. J. Ecotourism. 20, 198–209. doi: 10.1080/14724049.2020.1817930

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Makecha R. N. and Ghosal R. (2017). Elephant conservation: Reviewing the need and potential impact of cognition-based education. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 30. doi: 10.46867/ijcp.2017.30.00.06

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meyer L., Apps K., Bryars S., Clarke T., Hayden B., Pelton G., et al. (2021). A multidisciplinary framework to assess the sustainability and acceptability of wildlife tourism operations. Conserv. Lett 14, e12788. doi: 10.1111/conl.12788

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mkono M., Rastegar R., and Ruhanen L. (2021). Empowering women to protect wildlife in former hunting tourism zones: a political ecology of Akashinga, Zimbabwe. J. Sustain. Tourism. 31, 1090–1106. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1900205

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Moorhouse T. P., Dahlsjö C. A., Baker S. E., D’Cruze N. C., and Macdonald D. W. (2015). The customer isn’t always right—conservation and animal welfare implications of the increasing demand for wildlife tourism. PloS One. 10, e0138939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138939

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Notzke C. (2019). Equestrian tourism: Animal agency observed. Curr. Issues Tourism 22, 948–966. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2017.1349081

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Piccolo J. J., Taylor B., Washington H., Kopnina H., Gray J., Alberro H., et al. (2022). Nature’s contributions to people and peoples’ moral obligations to nature. Nat.Biol. Conserv. 270. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109572

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Plotnik J. M., de Waal F. B., Moore D. III, and Reiss D. (2010). Self-recognition in the Asian elephant and future directions for cognitive research with elephants in zoological settings. Zoo Biol. 29, 179–191. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20257

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ranaweerage E., Ranjeewa A. D., and Sugimoto K. (2015). Tourism-induced disturbance of wildlife in protected areas: A case study of free ranging elephants in Sri Lanka. Global Ecol. Conserv. 4, 625–631. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2015.10.013

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rastegar R. (2022). Towards a just sustainability transition in tourism: A multispecies justice perspective. J. Hospitality Tourism Manage. 52, 113–122. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.06.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Research and markets (2022). The worldwide ecotourism industry is projected to reach $526 billion by 2027. Available online at: https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/06/14/2462116/28124/en/The-Worldwide-Ecotourism-Industry-is-Projected-to-Reach-526-Billion-by-2027.html:~:text=The%20Global%20Ecotourism%20Market%20is,at%20a%20CAGR%20of%2014.24%25 (Accessed February 28, 2023).

Google Scholar

Rizzolo J. B. (2017). Exploring the sociology of wildlife tourism, global risks, and crime. Conserv. Criminology. 133–154. doi: 10.1002/9781119376866.ch8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rizzolo J. B. (2021). Wildlife tourism and consumption. J. Sustain. Tourism. 31, 1181–1194. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1957903

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rizzolo J. B. and Bradshaw G. A. (2018). “Human leisure/Elephant breakdown: Impacts of tourism on Asian elephants,” in In Wild animals and leisure (London: Routledge), 113–131.

Google Scholar

Rizzolo J. B. and Bradshaw G. (2019). Nonhuman animal nations: Transforming conservation into wildlife self-determination. Soc. Anim. 29, 393–413. doi: 10.1163/15685306-00001679

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rutledge L. Y., Patterson B. R., Mills K. J., Loveless K. M., Murray D. L., and White B. N. (2010). Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs. Biol. Conserv. 143, 332–339. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.017

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sampson C., McEvoy J., Oo Z. M., Chit A. M., Chan A. N., Tonkyn D., et al. (2018). New elephant crisis in Asia—Early warning signs from Myanmar. PloS One. 13, e0194113. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194113

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sen A. (2019). Human-wildlife conflicts in the Sundarban Biosphere Reserve and the politics of forest conservation. Decision. 46, 321–333. doi: 10.1007/s40622-019-00224-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shahabuddin G., Kumar R., and Shrivastava M. (2007). Creation of ‘inviolate space’: Lives, livelihoods and conflict in Sariska Tiger Reserve. Economic Political Weekly. 42, 1855–1862.

Google Scholar

Shell J. (2015). When roads cannot be used: the use of trained elephants for emergency logistics, off-road conveyance, and political revolt in south and southeast asia. Transfers. 5, 62–80. doi: 10.3167/TRANS.2015.050205

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sheppard V. and Fennell D. A. (2019). Progress in tourism public sector policy: Toward an ethic for non-human animals. Tourism Manage. 73, 134–142. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.11.017

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Speiran S. I. (2025). The ‘Sanctuary Gap’: Reviewing the research on captive wildlife sanctuary tourism. Animals 15, 496. doi: 10.3390/ani15040496

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Speiran S. I. and Hovorka A. J. (2024). Bringing animals in-to wildlife tourism. Sustainability 16, 7155. doi: 10.3390/su16167155

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Subedi B. R. (2014). Prospective and challenges: Tourism development at Meghauli. J. Advanced Acad. Res. 1, 74–84. doi: 10.3126/jaar.v1i2.16591

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sukumar R. (1992). The Asian elephant: ecology and management (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Google Scholar

Suter I. C., Hockings M., and Baxter G. S. (2013). Changes in elephant ownership and employment in the Lao PDR: implications for the elephant-based logging and tourism industries. Hum. Dimensions Wildlife. 18, 279–291. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2013.788235

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thomsen B., Thomsen J., Copeland K., Coose S., Arnold E., Bryan H., et al. (2023). Multispecies livelihoods: A posthumanist approach to wildlife ecotourism that promotes animal ethics. J. Sustain. Tourism. 31, 1195–1213. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2021.1942893

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tomassini L., Bertella G., Grasso C., and Lenzi C. (2024). The space of animal justice in wildlife sanctuaries: a posthuman perspective. J. Ecotourism. 23, 38–55. doi: 10.1080/14724049.2022.2122480

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Trave C., Brunnschweiler J., Sheaves M., Diedrich A., and Barnett A. (2017). Are we killing them with kindness? Evaluation of sustainable marine wildlife tourism. Biol. Conservation. 209, 211–222. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.020

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Turesson V. (2014). On the back of an Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) – The backside of the elephant tourism with focus on welfare. Swedish Univ. Agric. Sci. Department Anim. Environ. Health. 587, 2–35.

Google Scholar

UNESCO (2022). What are biosphere reserves? Available online at: https://en.unesco.org/node/314143 (Accessed February 28, 2023).

Google Scholar

Vanitha V., Thiyagesan K., and Baskaran N. (2010). Daily routine of captive Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in three management systems of Tamil Nadu, India and its implications for elephant welfare. J. Sci. Trans. Environ. Technov. 3, 116–122. doi: 10.20894/STET.116.003.003.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vasudev D. and Goswami V. R. (2018). “Inviolate spaces act as refugia for conflict prone Asiatic elephant,” in Conservation India. Available online at: https://www.conservationindia.org/articles/inviolate-spaces-act-as-refugia-for-conflict-prone-asiatic-elephant.

Google Scholar

Vijayakrishnan S. and Sinha A. (2019). Human-captive elephant relationships in Kerala: Historical perspectives and current scenarios. Gajah 50, 29–35.

Google Scholar

Wallach A. D., Jasinghe S., Fernando S., and Rizzolo J. B. (2020). Compassionate conservation and elephant personhood. Anim. Sentience. 5, 16. doi: 10.51291/2377-7478.1576

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weaver D. (1999). Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya. Ann. Tourism Res. 4, 792–816. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00044-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weaver D. B. (2002). The evolving concept of ecotourism and its potential impacts. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 5, 251–264. doi: 10.1504/IJSD.2002.003753

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Whitehead H., Rendell L., Osborne R. W., and Würsig B. (2004). Culture and conservation of non-humans with reference to whales and dolphins: review and new directions. Biol. Conserv. 120, 427–437. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.017

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wildlife A. C. T. (2017). Symbiosis: commensialism, mutualism, parasitism, neutralism, competition & predation. Available online at: https://www.wildlifeact.com/blog/symbiosis-commensialism-mutualism-parasitism-neutralism-competition-predation/:~:text=Mutualism%20%E2%80%93%20both%20species%20benefit.,Neutralism%20%E2%80%93%20both%20species%20unaffected (Accessed February 28, 2023).

Google Scholar

Wilmotte A., Willems A., Verleyen E., Vyverman W., Velazquez D., Quesada A., et al. (2015). “A plea for the creation of inviolate areas to protect reference areas for future microbiology research in Antarctica,” in 6th symposium on polar and alpine microbiology (University of Ceske Budejovice, Center for Polar Ecology, Ceske Budejovice, Czechia).

Google Scholar

UNWTO (2002). International Year of Ecotourism launched in New York. Available online at: https://www.unwto.org/international-year-ecotourism-2002 (Accessed January 10, 2003).

Google Scholar

Xin S., Tribe J., and Chambers D. (2013). Conceptual research in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 41, 66–88. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2012.12.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zimmerer K. S. (1994). Human geography and the `new ecology’: the prospect and promise of integration. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geographers 84, 108±125. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1994.tb01731.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar