Rethinking Wildlife Tourism and Conservation during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Animal Ethics Perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 1423-1429
Author(s):  
Duo Yin ◽  
Quan Gao ◽  
Hong Zhu
2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 246-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanna Bertella

PurposeThis study raises and discusses questions concerning the assumptions of sustainability to uncover aspects that might lead to new critical ways of understanding it. More specifically, the aim of this study is to discuss the adoption of the sustainability approach in wildlife tourism and challenge its underlying anthropocentric assumptions.Design/methodology/approachThe approach adopted is one of animal ethics, more precisely Ecofeminism.FindingsThe discussion ends by highlighting the possibility for new thinking. In particular, the concept of entangled empathy is presented as a potentially central element for re-thinking wildlife tourism.Research limitations/implicationsThis study raises critical questions and starts the conceptualization of a non-anthropocentric approach in wildlife tourism. This can be viewed as a mental exercise that should be developed further and translated into practical suggestions.Originality/valueThis study views innovation as a process of re-thinking sustainability through the adoption of the animal ethics lens.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Rocklinsberg ◽  
Mickey Gjerris ◽  
Anna Olsson

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Bøker Lund ◽  
Sara Vincentzen Kondrup ◽  
Peter Sandøe

Author(s):  
Steve Cooke

AbstractAnimal agriculture predominantly involves farming social animals. At the same time, the nature of agriculture requires severely disrupting, eliminating, and controlling the relationships that matter to those animals, resulting in harm and unhappiness for them. These disruptions harm animals, both physically and psychologically. Stressed animals are also bad for farmers because stressed animals are less safe to handle, produce less, get sick more, and produce poorer quality meat. As a result, considerable efforts have gone into developing stress-reduction methods. Many of these attempt to replicate behaviours or physiological responses that develop or constitute bonding between animals. In other words, humans try to mitigate or ameliorate the damage done by preventing and undermining intraspecies relationships. In doing so, the wrong of relational harms is compounded by an instrumentalisation of trust and care. The techniques used are emblematic of the welfarist approach to animal ethics. Using the example of gentle touching in the farming of cows for beef and dairy, the paper highlights two types of wrong. First, a wrong done in the form of relational harms, and second, a wrong done by instrumentalising relationships of care and trust. Relational harms are done to nonhuman animals, whilst instrumentalisation of care and trust indicates an insensitivity to morally salient features of the situation and a potential character flaw in the agents that carry it out.


Author(s):  
Bastian Thomsen ◽  
Jennifer Thomsen ◽  
Kellen Copeland ◽  
Sarah Coose ◽  
Emily Arnold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Andersson ◽  
Sara Crone ◽  
Jesper Stage ◽  
Jorn Stage

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document