CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesWildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Law and Welfare

Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) and tiger (Panthera tigris) populations at tourism venues in Thailand and aspects of their welfare

Open access
Schmidt-Burbach, Jan, Ronfot, Delphine, Srisangiam, Rossukon·2015·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0139092PMC PMC4583339
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study focused on determining the size and welfare aspects of Asian elephant, pig-tailed macaque and tiger populations at facilities open to tourists in Thailand. Data were gathered from 118 venues through direct observations and interviews with staff. A score sheet-based welfare assessment was used to calculate scores between 1 and 10, indicating each venue's welfare situation. Factors such as freedom of movement for the animals, access to veterinary care, environmental noise quality, hygiene standards and work intensity were included in the score sheet. 1688 elephants, 371 macaques and 621 tigers were found at the venues. 89 venues exclusively kept elephants, 9 designated 'Monkey schools' offered macaque shows, 4 venues kept primarily tigers, mostly for petting and photo opportunities, and the remaining venues kept a mix of these animals. A strong imbalance in female to male gender ratios was recorded with about 4:1 for adult elephants and 1:4 for adult macaques. Severely inadequate welfare conditions were common, with 75% of macaques and 99% of tigers being kept at venues with scores less than 5. 86% of elephants were kept in inadequate conditions at venues with scores between 3 and 5, but a significant number of venues with scores above 5 were found. 4.6% of elephants were provided commendable conditions, reaching assessment scores of 8 and above. 71% of venues did not offer any sort of education about animals to visitors. This study is the first to assess welfare aspects of captive wild animals at tourism venues across Thailand. It concludes that significant concerns exist about the welfare of wild animals in the tourism sector of Thailand. Urgent attention needs to be given to address these concerns and prevent further suffering. But also to ensure the demand for wild animals doesn't have a negative impact on wild populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0139092

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Surveys of thousands of elephants in hundreds of tourist venues across Thailand, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, and Malaysia suggest that more than half (63%) are kept in inadequate conditions.

    “Finally, surveys of thousands of elephants in hundreds of tourist venues across Thailand, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, and Malaysia suggest that more than half (63%) are kept in inadequate conditions (51–53).”

    From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Results report that a majority of assessed elephants in Thailand—1,414 animals, or 86%—were kept in inadequate conditions. But this paper surveyed 118 venues in Thailand, not hundreds across the seven listed countries, and it does not report 63% for elephants. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • WAP assigns low scores if elephants are used for tourist activities like riding, bathing, or feeding, chains are used for restraint, and the mahout carries an ankus.

    “Low scores are assigned if elephants are used for tourist activities like riding, bathing, or feeding, chains are used for restraint, and the mahout carries an ankus.”

    From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [52]

    Materials and Methods (page unavailable) says the score sheet rates mobility, entertainment intensity, and animal management, with inadequate conditions receiving lower scores. Results > Welfare situation (page unavailable) reports widespread daytime chaining and elephant trekking, and says those three categories were among the lowest-scoring. Our copy does not establish that bathing or feeding tourists leads to low scores, or that a mahout carrying an ankus does. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • WAP assessments have been conducted on thousands of elephants in tourist venues throughout southeast Asia.

    “Welfare assessments based on the Five Freedoms and Welfare Quality models have been conducted on thousands of elephants in tourist venues throughout southeast Asia (Thailand, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, and Malaysia) by WAP (51–53).”

    From Comparison of animal welfare assessment tools and methodologies: need for an effective approach for captive elephants in Asia (2024) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Results (page not provided) report welfare assessments of 1,644 elephants at tourist venues in Thailand, and the Discussion links the assessment criteria to the Five Freedoms. The paper does not establish assessments of thousands of elephants across the listed countries or identify these assessments as conducted by WAP. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Thailand has a thriving wildlife tourism industry that capitalises on animal-visitor interactions in a range of zoos housing captive wildlife, especially with tigers and elephants.

    “Thailand also has a thriving wildlife tourism industry that capitalises on animal-visitor interactions in a range of zoos housing captive wildlife, especially with tigers and elephants [44][45][46][47].”

    From Tiger colour morphs in zoos raise conservation and welfare concerns (2026) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Introduction describes a growing wildlife-entertainment sector in Thailand, and the Results describe visitor interactions with captive tigers. But the Introduction explicitly says the study covers entertainment venues “excluding zoos,” so it does not support characterising the venues it studied as zoos. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Tigers are often displayed in zoos that prioritise public interaction.

    “Tigers are often displayed in zoos that prioritise public interaction [43,44,47]”

    From Tiger colour morphs in zoos raise conservation and welfare concerns (2026) · cites this paper as [44]

    The Results (Welfare situation; page unavailable) report that eight tiger tourism venues offered photographic posing, five offered cub feeding, and four chained some tigers for visitor interaction. This supports the public-interaction aspect, but the study concerns tourism venues in Thailand, not zoos generally, and does not establish that those venues prioritised interaction. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [4]Baker S, Dutton A, MacDonald D. The wildlife trade in east and southeast Asia—An overview and analysis of the trade with specific reference to animal welfare Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford; 2006 1.
  2. [22]Kleiman DG, Thompson KV, Kirk Baer C. Wild Mammals in Captivity—Principles & Techniques for Zoo Management. 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press; 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schmidt-Burbach, J., Ronfot, D., & Srisangiam, R.
Affiliations
  • World Animal Protection (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Schmidt-Burbach, Jan
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2015-09-25
Volume
10
Issue
9
Pages
e0139092
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0139092
PMC
PMC4583339
OpenAlex
W1534942536
Cited by
66
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
Keywords
Asian elephant, Macaca nemestrina, tiger, captive animal welfare, wildlife tourism, captive wildlife, welfare analysis, gender ratio imbalance, veterinary care, animal shows, Thailand
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Behavior, Animal, Elephants, Macaca nemestrina, Population Dynamics, Species Specificity, Thailand, Statistics, Nonparametric, Tigers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review