A state-of-the-art-review of animals in tourism: key debates and future directions

Abstract

Alongside the growth in the animal-based tourism industry, the volume and diversity of research on related issues has increased considerably over the last half century. The extant literature explores a very broad range of themes on animals in tourism. Several scholars before us have provided useful analyses and summaries of the existing knowledge: the dominant themes; the various research methods used by researchers; the geographic spread of research contexts; and stakeholder roles and perspectives, among other categories. This brief state-of-the-art review, which aims to build on the existing work, is not intended to be exhaustive. Instead of merely rehashing what is addressed in the literature, we identify a few central and emerging debates on animals in tourism in the post-2000 era, organised under three broad categories: (i) human-animal relations (animal ethics); (ii) sustainability in animal tourism; and (iii) the growing influence of social media and its hashtag movements. The conclusion draws attention to some notable gaps in the literature, on which we invite further exploration. These include the opportunities and risks presented by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other technologies; divergent cultural lenses in interpreting the role of animals in tourism; and animals in tourism education curricula. We hope that this review enlivens interest among tourism geographers around these critical areas.

Keywords:

• Animal tourism
• animal ethics
• wildlife tourism
• sustainability

Introduction

From hunting expeditions in ancient Greece to animal shows and gladiator contests in Rome’s Colosseum, humans have a long history of using animals for entertainment and recreation (Alves & Barboza, 2018; Mkono et al., 2023). London’s first zoological gardens established in 1826 launched a global phenomenon of exhibiting animals in zoos and aquariums for visitors’ enjoyment (Turley, 1999). While the focus has since shifted towards education and conservation, these sites remain popular as places of leisure and recreation (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Mkono et al., 2023). Opportunities to view and interact with captive and non-captive animals have also proliferated, ranging from whale watching cruises to jungle walks, hunting tours, wildlife safaris, and bird watching tours, to name a few (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Mkono et al., 2023). Researchers estimate that wildlife tourism accounts for more than 20% of all international tourism (Moorhouse et al., 2017; Winter, 2020).

Alongside this growth in the animal-based tourism industry, the volume and diversity of research on related issues has also multiplied considerably over the last half century. The existing body of work explores a very broad range of themes in both captive and non-captive tourism contexts, including consumptive and non-consumptive forms of animal tourism (Bansiddhi et al., 2020; Fennell, 2012; Mkono & Holder, 2019). Others before us have also provided useful appraisals of existing knowledge: the dominant themes; the various research methods used by scholars; the geographic spread of research contexts; and stakeholder roles and perspectives, among other categories (see for example, Fennell, 2015; Haanpää et al., 2021; Markwell, 2015; Winter, 2020).

For its part, since the first issue in 1999, Tourism Geographies has had ongoing engagement with the subject of animal tourism, albeit constituting a rather small percentage of its total output. As Ong (2017) puts it, tourism geographers have yet to meaningfully engage with the realm of animal geographies. We posit that animals are just as relevant to the geographies of tourism as humans. They both occupy and compete in space and place. Moreover, the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of geography opens up even more angles from which to investigate the spaces where humans and animals interface in tourism. This relatively brief state-of-the-art review, which aims to build on the aforementioned work, is by no means exhaustive. Instead of merely rehashing what is covered in the literature, we highlight a few central and emerging debates on animals in tourism in the post-2000 era, organised under three broad categories: (i) human-animal relations (animal ethics); (iii) sustainability in animal tourism; and (iii) the growing influence of social media and its hashtag movements.

The conclusion identifies some notable gaps in the literature, on which we invite further exploration. These include the opportunities and risks presented by AI and other technologies; divergent cultural lenses in interpreting the role of animals in tourism; and animals in tourism education curricula. We hope that this review stimulates interest around these critical areas, to ensure that our scholarship is able to adequately inform the practice of animal tourism in the future.

Method

Unlike other review types that systematically amalgamate bodies of literature, state-of the-art reviews ‘embrace subjectivism’, recognising that the review outcomes are ‘value-dependent, growing out of the subjective interpretations of the researcher(s) who conducted the synthesis’ (Barry et al., 2022, p. 285). As such, we acknowledge that our research experiences, interests, biases and assumptions about what is salient may have a bearing on some of the arguments advanced in this review. We nevertheless sought to ensure that the review provides a broad and credible overview of the literature.

To gain a sense of the major debates, we began with an analysis of existing literature reviews on animals in tourism (for example, Fennell, 2015; Markwell, 2015; Newsome et al., 2005; Winter, 2020). From these, it was clear that animal ethics and sustainability have been the foremost themes driving animal tourism research in recent decades. Next, we used the search phrases ‘wildlife tourism’ and ‘animal tourism’ on Googlescholar to identify relevant publications since 2000. The first 100 book and journal article results for each search phrase revealed that the bulk of the discussions fell under animal ethics and sustainability. Other issues that emerged were the role of digital connectivity (social media) in (understanding) animal tourism experiences, the psychological benefits of wildlife viewing, the economic impacts of wildlife tourism, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on wildlife and wildlife tourism. The psychological and economic impacts of wildlife tourism can be considered a part of the broader sustainability debate and are therefore not treated separately. Notably, interest in the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on wildlife tourism appears to have waned rapidly in the post-pandemic era. No doubt, there are important lessons to be learned from the pandemic, but we believe these have been addressed ad nauseum (for example, Sumanapala & Wolf, 2022; Xu et al., 2022).

Key and emerging debates in the literature

Human-animal relations (animal ethics) in tourism

As expected, the most dominant debates in the literature are centred around human-animal relations (animal ethics), that is, the right-and-wrong of how humans interact with animals in tourism. This is a fraught subject, and it would be naïve to expect consensus. Indeed Winter’s (2020) review of a sample of 74 articles identifies a range of mostly irreconcilable ethical positions in the literature, including animal rights, animal welfare, ecofeminism, ecocentrism, biocentrism, utilitarianism, and instrumentalism. Fennell (2012) observes that the animal rights view is under-represented, which is unsurprising given that most people generally do not accord animals the same rights as humans. This still holds true 10 years later, with scholars advocating animal rights remaining in the periphery (e.g. Fennell, 2022a). As Winter (2020) notes, adopting an animal rights view would mean the end of all tourist activities that use animals, which most people would see as an unrealistic proposition. Nevertheless, Winter’s review reflects, as others have observed, that while viewing and interacting with wildlife is an attractive proposition to most, concerns about animal welfare, animal protection, and animal rights are on the rise, particularly in the case of captive wildlife tourism (Keulartz, 2015).

Relatedly, a growing body of literature explores the involvement of animals as workers in tourism. For example, Rickly and Kline (2021) interrogate the varied forms of ‘animal labour’ in the industry, arguing that most of this work goes unnoticed. Similarly, Dashper (2020) advocates a ‘more-than-human’ perspective in characterising labour in tourism contexts. The majority of critical studies in this space argue that animals are often exploited, manipulated, and coerced into performing unnatural behaviours for human entertainment or education (Bansiddhi et al., 2020; Fennell & Malloy, 1999; Winter, 2020). Where animals are entertainers, training is largely conducted ‘behind the scenes’, which fuels further speculation around the methods being used (Mkono et al., 2023; Winter & Frew, 2018). One of the most commonly examined contexts within which this criticism is raised is that of elephant tourism in Thailand (e.g. Bansiddhi et al., 2020; Duffy & Moore, 2011; Laws et al., 2020).

Zoos, aquariums and wildlife centres have come under increasing pressure to justify why animals should be kept in captivity. Researchers attribute such public censure to the influence of popular movies such as Free Willy and Blackfish (Mkono et al., 2023; Winter, 2020). Many industry actors who have been the target of the criticism have responded by designing more ‘naturalised’ open spaces, soundscapes and water features that mimic the animals’ natural environment; offering enrichment activities that encourage animals to behave as they would in the wild; and highlighting the importance of zoo breeding programs for ensuring a rich and varied gene pool and the long-term viability of some species both in captivity and in the wild (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Keulartz, 2015; Mkono et al., 2023). These strategies are important because they influence visitors’ perceptions of how well animals are being cared for (Mkono et al., 2023; Packer et al., 2018).

Increasingly, researchers are drawing attention to issues of animal agency, animal voice and animal consent (for example, Äijälä, 2021; Ampumuza & Driessen, 2021; Bertella, 2022; Dashper, 2020; Fennell, 2022a). In doing so, they advocate foregrounding animal perspectives and approaches where animals are not viewed as completely or passively controlled by humans; they recognise that non-human animals may exercise agency in different ways (Dashper, 2020). As Ampumuza and Driessen (2021, p. 1606) put it, animal agency is not then a capacity that is either ‘possessed’ or ‘not possessed’ by animals, ‘but something that can be enacted, performed, and that emerges in interactions and relations’. Fennell (2022a) goes further and proposes an animal-informed consent framework, arguing that some animals can indeed provide or deny consent through their emotions, preferences, behaviours, and physical state.

Another emerging subject of discussion is the idea of animals as stakeholders. This view posits that animals should be viewed as stakeholders because of their significant contributions to a diverse range of tourism experiences, and their capacity to communicate their interests, and to affect and be affected by human–animal interactions and relationships (García-Rosell & Tallberg, 2021; Tallberg et al., 2022). Sheppard and Fennell (2019) argue that unless animals are considered stakeholders in the tourism industry, their rights will always be subordinate to economic and other destination attractiveness considerations. Whether these more progressive—some may say radical—views will be widely adopted in industry and in academia remains to be seen.

Sustainability and animal tourism

Sustainability is tackled by a vast array of studies, within an underlying assumption that animal-based tourism can be sustainable (Higham & Carr, 2003; Mbaiwa & Hambira, 2021). These studies indicate that when managed well, animal tourism has the capacity to satisfy tourists, create jobs, educate tourists to become more environmentally conscious, and promote a broader conservation ethic (Ballantyne et al., 2018; Packer et al., 2018). Within this theme, a number of scholars assert that interpretation is the centrepiece of sustainable wildlife tourism (e.g. Ballantyne et al., 2009; Higham & Carr, 2003; Lee et al., 2023). Interpretation is viewed as important for the environmental outcomes, but also as something that is valued by environmentally conscious tourists (Ballantyne et al., 2009; Higham & Carr, 2003).

Trave et al. (2017) adopt a broader view and advocate educating both wildlife tourism operators and tourists about sustainability, involving local communities in conservation efforts, and ensuring better enforcement of sustainability standards by local authorities. Similarly, scientific experts in the area of reef conservation argue that education and political advocacy should be at the heart of marine conservation activities (Hofman et al., 2020). What is also evident in such studies, however, is the mutability of the concept of sustainability itself, which has implications for how it is translated into practice (see Mkono & Hughes, 2022).

Notably, the impact of climate change on animal tourism is addressed by surprisingly few empirical studies (e.g. Dube & Nhamo, 2020), which could be in part due to the difficulty of isolating the contribution of climate change to specific wildlife variables. Hoogendoorn and Fitchett (2018, p. 748) observe that in regions such as the Okavango Delta, Kenya and Tanzania, a warming climate threatens to induce wildlife migration, potentially ‘detracting from and ultimately eliminating the key tourist attraction’. If such a reality were to materialise, the implications for African countries whose economies depend on wildlife tourism would be immense. Similar concerns have been raised in polar environments, where reductions in sea ice have negatively impacted on polar bears and other arctic animals. Ironically, the energy-intensive cruise industry which advertises ‘last chance’ opportunities to see these animals is significantly contributing to the problem (D’Souza et al., 2023). More research into the threats of climate change on animal populations and habitats is urgently required to inform the development of much needed adaptation and mitigation strategies (Hoogendoorn & Fitchett, 2018).

The impact of social media and digital movements

An important scholarly conversation has also emerged around the impact of technology and, in particular, the influence of social media, on animal tourism consumption and the public discourse (Macdonald et al., 2016; Mkono & Hughes, 2022; Mkono et al., 2023). The conversation arises in a societal context where social media affordances have given rise to rapid communication and connectivity (George & Leidner, 2019; Kaun & Uldam, 2018). Specifically, social media networking has enabled a new kind of activism, namely ‘clicktivism’, centred on hashtags, thus ‘hashtag movements’ (George & Leidner, 2019). These movements often spread rapidly, and once they ‘go viral’, have the capacity to spark global conversations and debates, and to initiate cultural reckoning and change.

Several studies in the last decade highlight hashtag movements relating to animals in tourism (Carpenter & Konisky, 2019; Ram, 2021). One of the most impactful in terms of driving public engagement was the #Cecilthelion movement, which put trophy hunting in the spotlight (Carpenter & Konisky, 2019). When Cecil, a famous lion living at Hwange National Park was shot by Walter Palmer, an American tourist-trophy hunter, there was global outrage which led to calls for a hunting ban on charismatic megafauna (Carpenter & Konisky, 2019; Clemens, 2017; Mkono, 2018; Mkono et al., 2023). However, pro-hunting voices argued that trophy hunting is a necessary evil in Africa, claiming that it provides much needed conservation funding (Evans et al., 2023; Mkono, 2023). Other viral hashtag movements that have been the subject of scholarly debate include #Mariusthegiraffe and #Harambe, which saw public outcry over the killing of animals in captivity at the Copenhagen Zoo and the Cincinnati Zoo, respectively (Mkono & Holder, 2019).

Anti-cruelty social media campaigns also regularly target animals in sports (e.g. recreational hunting, greyhound racing horse racing), activities associated with experimentation (e.g. testing the safety of new products), and intensive farming practices (e.g. battery hens, piggeries (Mkono et al., 2023). Sometimes, the public support generated is strong enough to change practice. For instance, fox hunting has been banned in Britain (Munro, 2012), and under sustained public pressure, Australia’s racing industry has recently introduced padded whips and new whip rules (Racing Victoria, 2020).

While many scholars are positive about the impact of hashtag movements in driving social change, a number of studies point to their dangers and shortcomings. For example, the ease of clicking and sharing a post means that even social media users who have no actual investment in the success of the movement get to ‘participate’ (George & Leidner, 2019; Karpf, 2010). Social media virality can therefore create a false sense of impact and influence, where no tangible outcome is in fact achieved.

Gaps in the literature and future research directions

The opportunities and risks presented by AI and other technologies

A glaring gap in the literature pertains to the opportunities and risks that arise from developments in artificial intelligence (AI). The connections between AI and tourism have tended to be explored within the sphere of hospitality service delivery, primarily focusing, for example, on the adoption of robot waiters and bar tenders (Ayyildiz et al., 2022). Tourism researchers have only cursorily broached the subject of augmenting or replacing physical human-animal experiences with digital simulations, for instance (Burns & Benz-Schwarzburg, 2023).

Adopting a posthumanist stance, Burns and Benz-Schwarzburg (2023) question whether, given that captivity is under increasing ethical scrutiny, the future might be virtual. In what they describe as Virtual Wildlife Tourism (VWT), animals would be replaced by ‘non-real wildlife’, such as holographic models, thus obviating any animal welfare concerns. They assert that the ethical ideals of wildlife ecotourism, for example, can only be met virtually, stating ‘Our question then is: by removing the direct engagement with real animals, do we create an experience for both the people and the wildlife that is less ethically problematic and aligns better with the ideals of ecotourism?’ (Burns & Benz-Schwarzburg, 2023, p. 5). Their proposition is certainly interesting, although such a posthumanist, animal rights basis is unlikely to be met with broad acceptance, as we pointed out earlier.

Relatedly, Isabelle and Westerland (2022) provide a taxonomy of how AI approaches are currently being used to protect endangered species, study and predict animal behaviour patterns, and monitor illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade. Combined with drone technology, in particular, AI offers interesting opportunities in terms of the design of wildlife tourism experiences. Drones facilitate the location and monitoring of animals in the wild, increasing the frequency and reliability of sightings. They can also be used to supervise activities that have the potential to put tourists or wildlife at risk (Sevilla-Sevilla et al., 2023). But, while a boon for wildlife viewing tours and visitors, this increased ability to locate animals in the wild has the potential to lead to overcrowding and congestion and will need to be carefully monitored and regulated.

Some scholars are optimistic about how technological advances in augmented and virtual reality may change the way we view and use animals in tourism. A recent study by Hofman et al. (2022) demonstrates that a snorkelling tour delivered via virtual reality had a similar impact on visitors’ emotions and intentions to engage in conservation behaviours as a real snorkelling tour. It seems the positive impacts of viewing animals can be obtained without encroaching on the animals and their habitats at all—the ultimate in sustainability. Äijälä (2021) suggests that certain technologies (e.g. biosensing) could help us understand better what matters to animals in the context of animal welfare, thereby advancing animal agency. A few studies highlight how some wildlife parks and zoos now offer live streaming of their animals, providing viewers with a very up-close experience of animal behaviours remotely (Burke, 2016; Yan et al., 2022).

These are all intriguing possibilities and avenues of inquiry, within which the full range of implications for animal tourism are yet to be fully considered. We still need far more insight into what AI could offer different animal tourism stakeholders, including tourists/visitors, operators, policy makers, local communities, and the animals themselves. But, with every possibility that emerges from technology, new questions are raised: How receptive would tourists be to these digital innovations? Which market categories would be more embracing of the possibilities? In pursuing these potentialities, as many have cautioned, equal attention should be paid to understanding the risks, and to implementing the appropriate risk minimisation strategies.

Divergent cultural lenses in the interpretation of animals in tourism

As demonstrated, the animal ethics theme is well developed in the literature. However, there appears to be a partially blind spot where worldviews diverge in terms of how animal tourism is consumed and what is considered morally acceptable across cultures. Winter (2020) alludes to this gap in her review, as do Hoarau-Heemstra and Kline (2022), who point out that cultural interpretations of the role of animals vary considerably, within tourism and beyond. There are, however, a few insightful studies, which tend to be dominated by comparisons between Western and non-Western interpretations. For example, Packer et al. (2014) study compared Chinese and Australian tourists’ attitudes to nature, animals and environmental issues and found that Chinese visitors to Australia were more likely to dislike or fear animals in the wild. Zeppel and Muloin (2008) study at 14 Australian wildlife park and zoo sites found that, non-indigenous interpretation wildlife was ecologistic and scientistic, while indigenous interpretations were a combination of moralistic (spiritual), utilitarian (food), and aesthetic (totems, symbolic significance).

In some cases, tensions over the use of animals in tourism recreation arise between different societal groups due to differences in priorities. For example, in the controversy over trophy hunting in Africa, the leaders of African countries tended to adopt a more utilitarian view, prioritising the economic value of the activity over the animal welfare critiques raised by many in the West (Macdonald et al., 2016; Mkono, 2023).

To navigate such tensions, some researchers adopt a position best described as moral pluralism: the idea that there can be conflicting moral views that are each worthy of respect (Raus et al., 2018). This view may be seen for instance in Macdonald et al. (2016) work which argues that the West should show empathy for African countries’ utilitarian views on trophy hunting. Perhaps understandably, tourism scholars, who are predominantly Western, have been reluctant to engage with these delicate cultural divides. Scholars are also wary of appearing to essentialise particular groups of people in a way that might be viewed as prejudicial. Nonetheless, the literature would certainly benefit from more nuanced analyses of these cultural dynamics in animal tourism.

Animals in tourism education curricula

Another literature gap relates to what we are teaching tourism students at tertiary level on the themes highlighted in this review. This is important to understand because the students we teach become the practitioners and often the leaders in industry. Moreover, our syllabi should reflect what our research suggests, if we are genuinely evidence driven. To date, very little is known on what we are disseminating at our institutions of learning.

Notable studies on animal ethics curricula in tourism, and the only two we could find on this topic, include Fennell et al. (2022) and Fennell (2022b). Fennell et al. (2022, p. 1072) contend that ‘if we want a caring and compassionate tourism industry, significantly more effort should be placed into animal welfare education and literacy in preparing tourism students as practitioners’. Fennell et al. (2022) further propose an animal welfare syllabus for tertiary students, arguing that animal welfare is the most widely embraced framework for human-animal relations in tourism, as it is in many other contexts. Importantly, they also concede that different stakeholders will have different priorities and seek different outcomes, thus requiring flexibility in any educational agenda. It could be argued here that educators have an obligation to expose students to various schools of thought on ethics, rather than being ‘activists’ pushing a particular stance. In other words, educators should teach their students not what to think, but how to think about animals in tourism. Either way, it would be interesting to learn which animal ethics approaches are taught or advocated across different geographical contexts, and why. Further, how have curricula evolved over time, as societal attitudes have changed?

Conclusion

Animals exist in places and spaces—tourism related or otherwise—that are largely the social and political constructions of human actors, giving rise to contestation on multiple levels. This review highlights key and emerging scholarly debates on animals in tourism, top among them the growing ethical criticism noted by many studies. These concerns and issues are not restricted to one or two geographical areas, but rather, are being widely discussed and debated in both developed and developing economies around the world. It is evident that campaigns and public opinion can prompt reckoning over the way animals are treated, trained, and presented. Industries reliant on activities that could be perceived to be cruel, coercive, and inhumane face an uncertain future. Animal welfare activists will continue to push for a future where animals are not mere commodities for entertainment, while others might continue to defend the status quo.

There are important questions to address: How does the animal tourism industry respond to its critics and reinvent its image to deal with changing societal attitudes towards animals in captivity, for example? What challenges will industry actors likely encounter in that quest? In agreement with McGreevy and McManus (2017), we argue that the industry can protect its social license through taking responsibility for improving animal welfare in everyday practices, and committing to greater transparency in reporting animal welfare metrics that are of interest to the public.

Social media is highlighted in recent studies as playing an important role in shaping the public discourse on animals in tourism. There are both risks and opportunities therein, which should be managed responsibly by all actors in the tourism system. It is also important to keep in mind the limitations to the transformative power of digital activism.

Our review also notes that sustainability rightly occupies a key part of the animal tourism debate. But while a range of important themes are covered in the literature, the implications of climate change are yet to be fully considered. As noted by the pioneers in this area, this gap should be a top research priority for tourism geographers, given that many of the regions that would be affected lie in an already vulnerable Global South. Some species, habitats and regions are likely to be more vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change and tourism than others. Perhaps these are the areas where wildlife tourism should be restricted or even curtailed.

We invite further research into several other areas. One, we call upon tourism geographers to expand their lens of inquiry to take advantage of a scholarship era that more enthusiastically embraces interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary studies, through strategic connections and collaborations with other fields and disciplines. Two, within the human-environment interaction tradition (integrated geography), we need more critical studies that explore how cultural differences shape different cultures’ interpretations of the role of animals in tourism. Three, as AI makes its way into virtually every sphere of life, we need to better understand its current and future connections with animal tourism. Finally, we also need to examine whether our tertiary education curricula are rich enough to equip future leaders for a dynamic wildlife tourism industry.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mucha Mkono

Mucha Mkono teaches tourism management at the University of Queensland. She has published in the areas of sustainability, wildlife tourism, trophy hunting and ethical tourism.

Karen Hughes

Karen Hughes is an Associate Professor at the University of Queensland’s Business School, Australia. She has taught and published in the areas of interpretation, visitor management, sustainable tourism, tourist behaviour and wildlife tourism.