Summary
The authors begin with a literature review of various elements of wildlife tourism, finding positive developments from ecotourism and sustainability efforts, but a compelling need for stronger legislation and education to protect wildlife. The authors then used ethnographic methods (semi-structured interviews, archival research, human observation) to theorize a societal framework that values humans and animals in wildlife tourism. Thematic analysis categorized the data into four key themes. The wildlife perception theme found that older age groups, males, and rural dwellers are most likely to have negative attitudes toward wildlife. The conservation theme found that sanctuaries promote wildlife well-being and education, which is linked to positive attitudes and actions towards wildlife. The ecotourism theme found that environmentally conscious wildlife tourism has promoted education and conservation efforts. The policy theme found that industry lobbying and politicization of environmental issues are barriers to good governance around wildlife coexistence. The authors conclude by calling for more focus on increasing financial incentives for ecotourism, financial assistance for conservation organizations, and stronger enforcement of wildlife legislation.
Research on animal ethics in tourism has gained traction but posthumanist approaches to wildlife (eco)tourism remain sparse. There has never been a more urgent need to redress this paucity in theory and practice. More than 60% of the world’s wildlife has died-off in the last 50 years, 100 million-plus nonhuman animals are used for entertainment in wildlife tourist attractions (WTAs), more than one billion “wildlife” live in captivity, and some scholars argue that earth has entered its sixth mass extinction event known as the Anthropocene. This paper presents a posthumanist multispecies livelihoods framework (MLF) based on an applied ethnographic study of 47 wildlife ecotourism (WE) operators and wildlife researchers in protected area WTAs across four countries. Like any framework, it is a snapshot of the authors’ thinking at a particular time and must be improved upon. The MLF does not purport to solve the negative treatment of nonhumans that can occur in tourism settings, but rather responds to calls in the tourism literature to acknowledge our effects on other species and advocates for equitable human-nonhuman livelihoods. This paper argues that we have a moral responsibility to nonhumans and the environment, and the authors hope to generate reflexive discourse concerning the role tourism can play in redressing the ecological crisis and improving the treatment of individual nonhumans to foster wildlife-human coexistence.