Chapter 11. Mahout-elephant relationships
A review of the literature
p. 213-231
Texte intégral
Introduction
1The millennia-long relationship between humans and Asian elephants has been dynamic throughout history and is still undergoing change today. Elephants have been employed for transport, warfare, religious ceremonies, logging and, more recently, tourism. In present times, many countries across the Asian elephant range in South Asia have an intimate relationship with elephants, which are of great cultural, logistic and economic importance. Consequently, over 25% of the remaining Asian elephants today live in captivity, mostly within their range countries (Figure 1), whilst factors such as poaching and habitat loss threaten the wild population. Whilst there has always been both cooperation and conflict between humans and elephants, major changes have occurred in the last century, especially recent decades, concerning the human-elephant relationship. For example, there have been shifts, particularly in the west, in general attitudes concerning the ethics of keeping elephants in captivity (Wemmer & Christen, 2008), modern technological developments have replaced traditional elephant use, such as in logging, transport and agriculture (Phuangkum et al., 2005; Hart & Locke, 2007; Suter et al., 2013), and there have been increasing conflicts between humans and elephants due to growing overlap between human and elephant habitats (Shaffer et al., 2019).
Figure 1. Population size estimates for Asian elephants in the wild and captivity.

Data from Sukumar (2006) plotted using the sf package in R (Pebesma, 2018).
2Over their long history living among humans, Asian elephants have never been fully domesticated through selective breeding, as their body size, resource demands, longevity and slow life history are incompatible with reproductive management, and capturing elephants of working age often carried financial and ecological advantages (Sukumar, 2006; Driscoll et al., 2009; Lainé, 2020). Elephants were, therefore, often captured from the wild as needed, and those breeding in captivity regularly mated with wild conspecifics. Therefore, rather than relying on selectively breeding docile and anthropophilic traits as has occurred for many domesticated species (Zeder, 2012), safe elephant handling has depended on local knowledge built up over generations of specialized elephant handlers. These specialists are known by many names across Asia, but I refer to them here by their Hindi name, mahout. Elephant handling was historically a well-respected profession, in large part linked to the cultural importance of elephants, with the Sanskrit origin of the term mahout translating to “a man of high rank” (Münster, 2016).
3The mahout profession has seen a lot of change in recent decades with a transition from logging work initiated during colonial rules towards tourism-based work in many regions in the contemporary period, which is likely to have had substantial consequences (Phuangkum et al., 2005; Hart & Locke, 2007; Vanitha et al., 2009; Suter et al., 2013). For example, in Myanmar, this transition has been linked to increased access to education and healthcare for mahouts but reduced household income and job satisfaction (Kyaw & Soe, 2020). In Laos, mahouts in the tourism industry tend to earn less than logging mahouts but work with elephants more out of choice than family tradition (Suter et al., 2013). In many parts of Asia, the respect shown towards elephant handlers is also diminishing, and there has been a loss of traditional mahouts (those with a family history of elephant handling). This will likely have implications for both mahout and elephant welfare (Lair, 1997; Hart & Locke, 2007; Srinivasaiah et al., 2014). A call for more studies (Lair, 1997) into the human-elephant relationship resulted in a wealth of knowledge on elephant-keeping cultures across Asia (Hart, 1994; Locke, 2011; Mumby, 2019; Shell, 2019; Lainé, 2020). However, there has been less focus on documenting the demographics within these communities and how this relationship specifically impacts the elephants. We must document changes in the human-elephant relationship across their range in order to understand the extent of changes and the impact these changes are likely to have on the elephants. It is also important to measure the outcome of change rather than assuming change is always negative. For example, there has been a massive increase in access to technologies such as mobile phones, solar panels, and mopeds in the last decade in Myanmar, with mobile phone use rocketing from <2% of the population to almost 100% from 2011 to 2016 (Ling et al., 2015). It could seem like these changes would threaten this profession which relies on mahouts living deep in the forest in prime elephant habitat. However, it allows mahouts improved communication and connection to their families and surrounding towns and cities whilst allowing their elephants to stay in prime forest habitat, perhaps persuading more traditional mahouts to continue in the profession.
4In what follows, I carried out a review of the literature to provide a general overview of i) elephant-keeping systems across their captive range, and ii) how the mahout-elephant relationship impacts the elephants’ wellbeing. I argue that whilst the literature suggests that change has occurred across captive elephant populations, more systematic studies are needed to understand the nature and extent of the impact these changing relationships are having on both elephant and mahout welfare.
Methods
Literature search
5I searched for relevant documents using both the Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus databases with the search strings “(TI=mahout* OR TI=keep* OR TI=handl* OR TI=caretak* OR TI=traditional knowledge OR TI=indigenous knowledge) AND TI=elephant*” and “TITLE-ABS-KEY(mahout* OR keep* OR handl* OR caretak* OR traditional knowledge OR indigenous knowledge) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(elephant)” respectively. Searching between 1980-2021 (search date 21.06.2021) returned a total of 92 documents from WOS and 577 from Scopus. After excluding obviously irrelevant papers, there were 42 documents from WOS and 218 from Scopus in the subject areas. I chose terminology spanning different disciplines concerning the mahout-elephant relationship, but as this can differ greatly between studies, the resulting list should be regarded as a representation of the available literature rather than an exhaustive list. Moreover, this analysis mainly focuses on articles written in English, and further analyses encompassing more languages would be highly valuable. I focused mostly on quantitative documentation of experience and demography (question i), which are easier to document, though I included some anecdotal, qualitative research on the impact of elephant keeping systems on the elephants (question ii). Some papers did not provide specific handler experience but instead ascertained a threshold (e.g., only including handlers with 1+ years of experience), but as they did not provide a representation of the sample population, these data were not included in the summary tables. Some of the literature was pooled as the authors discussed similar research across different studies conducted over many years in the same population of elephants and their mahouts. For example, we pooled results for question i) from similar studies in India (Hart & Locke, 2007; Hart & Sundar, 2000; Hart, 2005) and Nepal (Hart, 2005; Hart & Locke, 2007; Hart, 1994) and Thailand and North America for question ii) (Bansiddhi et al., 2018, 2019 a, 2019 c; Brown et al., 2020).
6Throughout this paper, I define the term “traditional” as “a long-established practice existing in or part of a tradition”, “expert” as “someone exceptionally knowledgeable or skilful in a particular area”, and “wellbeing” as “the overall condition of an individual”.
Overview of the literature
7I explored the remaining 260 papers for relevance to questions i) and ii), finding a total of 45 studies with information on one or both questions (17 for i), 14 for ii), and 14 for both), 10 of which were not found in the search, but either referred to in the listed papers or previously known to the author (mostly due to being reports or books rather than primary literature). The findings relevant for question i) are shown in Table 1 and for ii) in Table 2 (see Appendix), along with the relevant references and the database in which they were found. The 31 studies for i) were conducted between 1946-2020, with over one-third of the studies (39%) focusing on mahouts from India (12/31), 13% from both Thailand and Nepal (4/31 each), 13% from either Europe or North America (4/31), 10% from both Laos and Myanmar (3/31 each), one study each from Malaysia and South Africa, and two focused on handling worldwide (see Table 1, Annex 1). The 28 studies concerning question ii) were conducted between 1946-2020, with 39% of the studies focusing on elephants in North America or Europe (11/28), 18% from India (5/28), 14% from Thailand (4/28), 7% from Nepal (2/28), one study each from Myanmar, Japan and South Africa, and one worldwide (see Table 2, Annex 1).
Results and discussion
8The studies reviewed here provide valuable documentation of the mahout-elephant relationship worldwide, but they also suggest the mahout profession is threatened by low socio-economic status and diminishing knowledge and experience in elephant handling. There are, however, clear regional differences, with mahouts in India retaining the most expertise in elephant handling, along with Nepal and Laos (average 17 years). Mahouts from Myanmar and Thailand had the lowest recorded experience (three years) and shortest relationships (1.5-3 years). However, centralized populations, such as in Myanmar, may retain vital expertise within the mahout system as a whole, with senior mahouts having an average of 19 years of experience. There have been few empirical studies of how specific human-elephant relationships influence captive elephants in range countries, with most studies either anecdotal or carried out in Western zoo environments. Yet, the evidence we do have suggests the relationships between elephants and their handlers have substantial impacts on elephant wellbeing. Generally, we would benefit from more widespread systematic documentation of mahout-keeping systems across different countries and industries, with accompanying study of the impacts of relationships from the elephants’ perspectives as part of routine welfare assessments.
9Mahoutship has been studied most extensively in India, thanks to a large-scale effort by the Asian Nature Conservation Foundation (ANCF) to study the management and welfare of captive elephants, resulting in reports spanning 12 states in India by Varma and colleagues from 2005-2011. Here, we included these results from two of the main summary reports, which covered a total of 419 mahouts (Varma et al., 2010; Srinivasaiah et al., 2014). Although these studies still discuss declining knowledge as a major issue in India, mahouts generally had more experience than those in other parts of Asia, averaging 17 years in studies ranging from 1996-2013 (Hart & Sundar, 2000; Varma et al., 2010; Srinivasaiah et al., 2014). Generally, it seems that maintaining specific mahout-elephant relationships and retaining mahouts for the future is more of a problem, with an average mahout-elephant relationship length of eight years and mahout desire for their sons to follow them into the profession low, especially for non-tribal mahouts (Varma et al., 2010; Srinivasaiah et al., 2014). Similarly, in Nepal, mahout experience was relatively high, with an average experience of 17 years and a relationship with their current elephant of nine years, although studies only surveyed 27 mahouts between 1989-2019 (Hart, 1994; Mumby, 2019). Mahoutship has been well documented in Myanmar recently, with two studies covering a total of 467 mahouts (though there was likely overlap of the same mahouts across studies), who tended to be less experienced, with an average of three years of experience and a relationship of 1.5 years with their current elephant (Seltmann et al., 2018; Crawley et al., 2019). This is similar to the average three-year relationship found in a survey of 61 mahouts in Thailand (Bansiddhi et al., 2020). To my knowledge, this is the only study quantifying mahout experience in Thailand. The assessments in Myanmar were limited to the Sagaing region in the north of the country, which, while home to the largest population of captive elephants, may differ from other areas. Given the likely substantial regional differences in the retention of traditional mahouts, further systematic documentation is needed across these countries and throughout Asia, generally in a similar way to India. Notably, as I recorded in my previous research, senior mahouts in Myanmar still had an average of 19 years of experience (Crawley et al., 2019), suggesting expertise is still retained in this population for new mahouts to learn. Laos seems to have retained mahout experience, with a study of 142 participants in 2012 finding an average of 17 years of experience and a 10-year relationship. However, 30% of this sample were not mahouts but elephant owners, which may bias results (Lassausaie et al., 2015). Another study of 60 Laotian mahouts in 2019, however, also found that the majority (82%) had more than 10 years of experience (Dubost et al., 2019). Mahout demography also importantly seems to differ between industries in Laos. In her research, Suter found logging mahouts to be an ageing population, whilst tourist mahouts were younger and lacked experience (Suter et al., 2013). Although often not an exclusive relationship, keepers in Western zoos were found to have intermediate experience in elephant handling, with an average experience of seven years and an average relationship length of four years with a specific herd (Gore et al., 2006; Horback et al., 2013; Carlstead et al., 2019).
10One issue repeatedly discussed across studies was the low socio-economic status of mahouts, which has contributed, along with the inherent risks associated with working with elephants, to the profession being seen as one of necessity rather than choice (Lair, 1997). Vast improvements are needed to enhance mahout welfare, including mahout living conditions, salaries, health care provision and training in safe handling. In his report, Varma and his team found that even among mahouts employed by the government in India, only about one in two (55%) had health insurance, which came out of their own salary (Varma et al., 2010). There were substantial differences in salaries between countries and industries within countries. For example, mahouts from the forestry department in southern India (Tamil Nadu) were paid around twice the salary (114/month) of those employed by private institutions (58$/month) or temples (49$/month) in 2005 (Vanitha et al., 2009). In Laos, logging mahouts made almost five times the salary of those in the tourism industry in 2011 (Suter et al., 2013). Conversely, mahouts in Myanmar employed by the government logging department (12$/month) were paid less than half the salary of mahouts of privately-owned elephants (29$/month) in 1996 (Lair, 1997), and a recent report found income to be lower in the newly emerging tourism sector compared to timber camps (Kyaw & Soe, 2020).
11The socio-economic status of mahouts, in turn, has important impacts on their elephants, as was mentioned repeatedly across studies that elephant welfare directly relates to mahout welfare. For example, low salaries have deterred experienced mahouts from working with temple elephants in India which has been linked to their being overworked, mishandled and involved in more fatal mahout accidents (Vanitha et al., 2009, 2010). There was a general consensus suggesting that if mahouts are underpaid and overworked, they will be less able to care for their elephants, more likely to resort to violence, and more likely to seek extra work for their elephants (Vanitha et al., 2009; Vries, 2014). This issue is further complicated by the fact that as mahout socio-economic status improves and countries develop, their children will have greater access to education and may be less likely to choose to follow them into the difficult mahout profession, which disrupts the generational transmission of knowledge (Lair, 1997). Many studies have called for formal training to replace a general reliance on passive observation and apprenticeship in regions where this practice is threatened in order to achieve standard care (Srinivasaiah et al., 2014). Guidelines have been designed specifically for new mahouts (Phuangkum et al., 2005; Chowta, 2010) with an aim to introduce certificates of skills, similar to the movement towards accreditation and training in zoos (Hutchins et al., 2008). Such training may help to maintain care standards with changing mahoutship but must draw on expertise within traditional mahout communities.
12Studies have only recently begun to appreciate the importance of human-animal relationships for animal welfare, beginning with agricultural and companion animals, and recently expanding to zoo animals (Hosey & Melfi, 2014 a). This was reflected in my findings that over one-third of studies assessing the impact of the handler-elephant relationship on elephants were conducted in Western zoos. These studies provided important evidence that an elephant’s relationship and familiarity with its handler influence its stress and fear responses (Martin & Melfi, 2016; Carlstead et al., 2019) as well as their psychological and reproductive health (Greco et al., 2016; Sullivan et al., 2016). However, there are substantial management differences between elephants in Western zoos and the majority of captive elephants in Asia, the latter being generally managed in free contact with an exclusive relationship with one or more mahout(s). Free-contact elephants in range countries have been shown to have lower concentrations of faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGM), indicators of stress, than U.S. zoo elephants (Brown et al., 2020) and both higher survival and reproductive rates (Clubb et al., 2008, 2009). Many of the studies discussing the importance of the mahout-elephant relationship on captive elephants in Asia were based on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. These opinions are incredibly valuable, with studies generally agreeing that mahouts being underpaid and overworked, coupled with fewer experienced mahouts and faster mahout turnover, will have negative consequences for elephant welfare, as less-experienced mahouts are less able to predict and interpret elephant behaviour and are therefore more likely to resort to force.
13However, it is also important to have empirical evidence to understand the extent of the impact on elephants. For example, while mahout experience and specific mahout-elephant relationship lengths are low in Myanmar (three and 1.5 years, respectively), I did not find either to influence physiological stress indicators (FGM and heterophil:lymphocyte; Crawley et al., 2021), perhaps as the senior mahouts in Myanmar have enough remaining expertise (average 19 years) to train new mahouts and maintain quality care. Furthermore, findings from both this research (Crawley et al., 2021) and Srinivasaiah et al. (2014) suggest that specific relationships may be more important than overall experience in elephant handling, with muscle damage decreasing with longer relationships in working-age elephants in Myanmar, and elephants in India being more cooperative, sociable, and less aggressive towards their assistant mahouts than their main mahouts, who were more experienced but spent less time with them. Elephants also displayed more positive behaviours towards those with better “elephant keeper practices”, which were seen to decline with higher elephant turnover (Srinivasaiah et al., 2014), consistent with other studies finding that elephants were more responsive and sought out more interactions with familiar humans (Martin & Melfi, 2016; Rossman et al., 2017; Crawley et al., 2021). For example, elephants were more successful at behavioural tasks with their own mahout than an unfamiliar mahout, including when facing a novel situation, and responded faster when they had known their mahout for longer (Crawley et al., 2021; Liehrmann et al., 2021). This, along with findings that a high turnover of staff may increase the chance of attacks both in zoos (Gore et al., 2006; Hosey & Melfi, 2014 b) and range countries (Vanitha et al., 2009), suggests that changes we see in mahoutship across Asia may have important repercussions for mahout safety in free contact environments and should be taken seriously. Although a number of studies from camps in northern Thailand have shown that management style is incredibly important, with elephants showing higher FGM in the high tourism season, in observation-only camps and camps with ankus use, there has been little assessment of how specific relationships influence elephant welfare, with this highlighted as an important focus of future studies (Bansiddhi et al., 2018, 2019 a, 2019 c; Brown et al., 2020).
Conclusion
14Overall, it is promising to see many studies documenting elephant-keeping systems across Asia, highlighting the abundance of knowledge and expertise within local communities and the changes that have occurred over the last decades. I argue that we need further systematic study across a range of management systems in different regions and industries and, in particular, further research into how these changing relationships may be influencing the elephants in their care, which will be best achieved through collaborative interdisciplinary research. Particular attention should be paid to smaller, fragmented captive populations such as temple elephants, which may lack a reservoir of knowledge and regulations for handling practices. There is also a growing demand for more centralized governing bodies to standardize care (Bansiddhi et al., 2019 b) as well as for organized formal training and certification, but this should be routed in local mahout knowledge and used as an aid to transmit knowledge of experienced mahouts.
Annex 1
Detailed overview of literature
Table 1. Socio-economic profile of mahouts and assistants according to literature available.

F= Forestry/logging P=Privately owned; To= Tourism; Te=Temple, I=Indonesia 1993, M=Myanmar 1996, S=Sri-Lanka 1986; *Taken as year of publicationa70% mahouts, 30% owners, b28% keepers/mahouts, c55% covered by health insurance, dMuslim mahouts:2%; Tribal:98%, ePoll of civil service mahouts in Thailand, sScopus database, wWeb of Science database, SWBoth Scopus and Web of Science databases
Table 2. Assessment of Mahout-elephant relationships and their impact according to a literature review.

FGM= Faecal Glucocorticoid Metabolites, TB=Tuberculosis, H:L= Heterophil to Lymphocyte ratio, CK= Creatine Kinase, *Taken as year of publication, aAnecdotal SScopus database, WWeb of Science database, SWBoth Scopus and Web of Science databases
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Bansiddhi P., Brown J. L., Thitaram C., Punyapornwithaya V., Somgird C., Edwards K. L., Nganvongpanit K., 2018 ‒ Changing trends in elephant camp management in northern Thailand and implications for welfare. PeerJ, 6: e5996. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5996
10.7717/peerj.5996 :Bansiddhi P., Brown J. L., Khonmee J., Norkaew T., Nganvongpanit K., Punyapornwithaya V., Angkawanish T., Somgird C., Thitaram C., 2019 a ‒ Management factors affecting adrenal glucocorticoid activity of tourist camp elephants in Thailand and implications for elephant welfare. PloS One, 14(10): e0221537. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221537
10.1371/journal.pone.0221537 :Bansiddhi P., Brown J. L., Thitaram C., Punyapornwithaya V., Nganvongpanit K., 2019 b ‒ Elephant Tourism in Thailand: A Review of Animal Welfare Practices and Needs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 23 (2): 164-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2019.1569522
10.1080/10888705.2019.1569522 :Bansiddhi P., Nganvongpanit K., Brown J. L., Punyapornwithaya V., Pongsopawijit P., Thitaram C., 2019 c ‒ Management factors affecting physical health and welfare of tourist camp elephants in Thailand. PeerJ, 7: e6756. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6756
10.7717/peerj.6756 :Bansiddhi P., Brown J. L., Thitaram C., 2020 ‒ Welfare Assessment and Activities of Captive Elephants in Thailand. Animals, 10 (6): 919. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10060919
10.3390/ani10060919 :Brown J. L., Paris, S., Prado-Oviedo N. A., Meehan C. L., Hogan J. N., Morfeld K. A., Carlstead K., 2016 ‒ Reproductive health assessment of female elephants in North American zoos and association of husbandry practices with reproductive dysfunction in African elephants (Loxodonta africana). PLOS One, 11 (7): e0145673. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145673
10.1371/journal.pone.0145673 :Brown J. L., Bansiddhi P., Khonmee J., Thitaram C., 2020 ‒ Commonalities in management and husbandry factors important for health and welfare of captive elephants in North America and Thailand. Animals, 10 (4): 737. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040737
10.3390/ani10040737 :Carlstead K., Paris S., Brown J. L., 2019 ‒ Good keeper-elephant relationships in North American zoos are mutually beneficial to welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 211: 103-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.11.003
10.1016/j.applanim.2018.11.003 :Chowta P., 2010 ‒ Elephant Code Book. Bangalore, Asian Nature Conservation Foundation and Aane Mane Foundation, 123 p.
Clubb R., Rowcliffe M., Lee P., Mar K. U., Moss C., Mason G. J., 2008 ‒ Compromised survivorship, fecundity and population persistence in zoo elephants. Science, 322 (5908): 1649.
Clubb R., Rowcliffe M., Lee P., Mar K. U., Moss C., Mason G. J., 2009 ‒ Fecundity and population viability in female zoo elephants: Problems and possible solutions. Animal Welfare, 18 (3): 237-247.
10.1017/S0962728600000488 :Crawley J. A. H., Lahdenpera M., Seltmann M. W., Htut W., Aung H. H., Nyein K., Lummaa V., 2019 ‒ Investigating changes within the handling system of the largest semi-captive population of Asian elephants. PloS one, 14 (1): e0209701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209701
10.1371/journal.pone.0209701 :Crawley J. A. H., Liehrmann O., Franco dos Santos D. J., Brown J., Nyein U. K., Aung H. H., Htut W., Oo Z. M., Seltmann M. W., Webb J. L., Lahdenperä M., Lummaa V., 2021 ‒ Influence of handler relationships and experience on health parameters, glucocorticoid responses and behaviour of semi-captive Asian elephants. Conserv. Physiol., 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coaa116
10.1093/conphys/coaa116 :Driscoll C. A., MacDonald D. W., O’Brien S. J., 2009 ‒ From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106 Suppl.: 9971-8
Dubost J. M., Lamxay V., Krief S., Falshaw M., Manithip C., Deharo E., 2019 ‒ From plant selection by elephants to human and veterinary pharmacopeia of mahouts in Laos. Journal of ethnopharmacology, 244: 112157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2019.112157
10.1016/j.jep.2019.112157 :Gore M., Hutchins M., Ray J., 2006 ‒ A review of injuries caused by elephants in captivity: An examination of predominant factors. International Zoo Yearbook, 40: 51-62.
10.1111/j.1748-1090.2006.00051.x :Greco B. J., Meehan C. L., Hogan J. N., Leighty K. A., Mellen J., Mason G. J., Mench J. A., 2016 ‒ The days and nights of zoo elephants: Using epidemiology to better understand stereotypic behavior of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) and Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in North American zoos. PloS one, 11 (7): e0144276. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144276
10.1371/journal.pone.0144276 :Hart L. A., 1994 ‒ The Asian elephants-driver partnership: the drivers’ perspective. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 40 (3-4): 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(94)90070-1
10.1016/0168-1591(94)90070-1 :Hart L. A., 2005 ‒ « The elephant-mahout relationship in India and Nepal: A tourist attraction ». In Knight J. (ed.): Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Intimacies, Oxford/New York, Berg: 163-189.
10.4324/9781003135883 :Hart L. A., Locke P., 2007 ‒ « Nepali and Indian Mahouts and their unique relationships with elephants ». In Bekoff M. (ed.): Encyclopedia of human-animal relationships: A Global Exploration of Our Connections with Animals, London, Greenwood Publishing : 510-515.
Hart L. A., Sundar, 2000 ‒ Family traditions for mahouts of Asian elephants. Anthrozoös, 13 (1): 34-42. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279300787000055
10.2752/089279300787000055 :Horback K. M., Miller L. J., Kuczaj S. A., 2013 ‒ Personality assessment in African elephants (Loxodonta africana): Comparing the temporal stability of ethological coding versus trait rating. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 149 (1-4): 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.09.009
10.1016/j.applanim.2013.09.009 :Hosey G., Melfi V., 2014 a ‒ Human-Animal Interactions, Relationships and Bonds: a Review and Analysis of the Literature. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27 (1):117-142. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2011.5.6700
10.5811/westjem.2011.5.6700 :Hosey G., Melfi V., 2014 b ‒ Are we ignoring neutral and negative human-animal relationships in zoos? Zoo biology, 34(1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.46867/ijcp.2014.27.01.01
10.46867/ijcp.2014.27.01.01 :Hutchins M., Smith B., Keele M., 2008 ‒ Zoos as responsible stewards of elephants. In Wemmer C., Christen C. (eds.): Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press: 285-307.
Kyaw K. K., Soe K. K., 2020 ‒ Effect of Elephant Conservation Based Tourism Development on Living Status of Mahouts (Elephant-keepers) in Ngalaik Elephant Camp, Myanmar. 2nd Myanmar Universities’ Research Conference, 2020.
Lainé N. 2020 ‒ Living and working with giants: a multispecies ethnography of the Khamti and elephants in Northeast India. Paris, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 272 p. https://doi.org/10.5852/nes02
10.5852/nes02 :Lair R., 1997 ‒ Gone Astray: The Care and Management of the Asian Elephant in Domesticity. Bangkok, UN FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 300 p.
Lassausaie J., Bret A., Bouapao X., Chanthavong V., Castonguay-Vanier J., Quet F., Mikota S. K., Theoret C., Buisson Y., Bouchard B., 2015 ‒ Tuberculosis in Laos, who is at risk: The mahouts or their elephants? Epidemiology and infection, 143 (5): 922-931. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268814002180
10.1017/S0950268814002180 :Liehrmann O., Crawley J. A. H., Seltmann M. W., Feillet S., Nyein U. K., Aung H. H., Htut W., Lahdenpera M., Lansade L., Lummaa V., 2021 ‒ Handler familiarity helps to improve working performance during novel situations in semi-captive Asian elephants. Scientific Reports, 11: 15480. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95048-w
10.1038/s41598-021-95048-w :Ling R., Soas E. O., Aricat R.G., Panchapakesan C., Lwin M.O., 2015 ‒ The use of mobile phones among trishaw operators in Myanmar. Int. J. Commun., 9: 3583-3600.
Locke P., 2011 ‒ The Ethnography of Captive Elephant Management in Nepal : A Synopsis. Gajah, 34: 32-40.
Martin R. A., Melfi V., 2016 ‒ A Comparison of Zoo Animal Behavior in the Presence of Familiar and Unfamiliar People. Journal of applied animal welfare science, 19 (3): 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2015.1129907
10.1080/10888705.2015.1129907 :Mumby H., 2019 ‒ Mahout perspectives on Asian elephants and their living conditions. Animals, 9 (11): 879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110879
10.3390/ani9110879 :Münster U., 2016 ‒ Working for the Forest: The Ambivalent Intimacies of Human-Elephant Collaboration in South Indian Wildlife Conservation. Ethnos, 81: 425-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2014.969292
10.1080/00141844.2014.969292 :Pebesma E., 2018 ‒ Simple Features for R: Standardized Support for Spatial Vector Data. R Journal, 10 (1): 439-446.
Phuangkum P., Lair R., Angkawanith T., 2005 ‒ Elephant Care Manual for Mahouts and Camp Managers. Bangkok, Forest Industry Organisation and UN FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 169 p.
Rossman Z. T., Padfield C., Young D., Hart L. A., 2017 ‒ Elephant-initiated interactions with humans: Individual differences and specific preferences in captive African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 4: 60. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fvets.2017.00060
10.3389/fvets.2017.00060 :Seltmann M. W., Helle S., Adams M. J., Mar K. U., Lahdenpera M., 2018 ‒ Evaluating the personality structure of semi-captive asian elephants living in their natural habitat. Royal Society Open Science, 5: 172026. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172026
10.1098/rsos.172026 :Shaffer L. J., Khadka K. K., van den Hoek J., Naithani K. J., 2019 ‒ Human-elephant conflict: A review of current management strategies and future directions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00235
10.3389/fevo.2018.00235 :Shell J., 2019 – Giants of the Monsoon Forest: Living and Working with Elephants. New York, WW Norton, 263 p.
Srinivasaiah N. M., Varma S., Sukumar R., 2014 ‒ Documenting Indigenous Traditional Knowledge of the Asian Elephant in Captivity. Bangalore, Asian Nature Conservation Foundation, 64 p.
Sukumar R., 2006 ‒ A brief review of the status, distribution and biology of wild Asian elephants Elephas maximus. International Zoo Yearbook, 40 (1) : 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2006.00001.x
10.1111/j.1748-1090.2006.00001.x :Sullivan K., Kerr K., Wanty R., Amaral B., Olea-Popelka F., Valdes E., 2016 ‒ Dietary management, husbandry, and body weights of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) during successful pregnancies at Disney’s Animal Kingdom. Zoo biology, 35 (6): 574-578. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21311
10.1002/zoo.21311 :Suter I., Hockings M., Baxter G. S., 2013 ‒ Changes in Elephant Ownership and Employment in the Lao PDR: Implications for the Elephant-Based Logging and Tourism Industries. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 18 (4): 279-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2013.788235
10.1080/10871209.2013.788235 :Vanitha V., Thiyagesan K., Baskaran N., 2009 ‒ Socio-Economic Status of Elephant Keepers (Mahouts) and Human-Captive Elephant Conflict : A Case Study from the Three Management Systems in Tamil Nadu, Southern India. Gajah, 30: 8-12.
Vanitha V., Thiyagesan K., Baskaran N., 2010 ‒ Status of Mahouts and Human-captive elephant conflict in three management systems in Tamil Nadu, India. Indian Forester, 136 (6): 767-774.
Varma S., Verghese G., Sarma K. K., Kalaivanan N., Monoharan N. S., Abraham D., Sujata S. R., 2010 ‒ Captive Elephants in forest camps of India: An Investigation into the Population Status, Management, and Welfare Significance. Bangalore, Compassion Unlimited Plus Action (CUPA)/Asian Nature Conservation, CUPA/ANCF-Technical Report (17), 284 p.
Vries de L., 2014 ‒ An Elephant is not a Machine. A survey into the welfare of private captive elephants in Sauraha Chitwan National Park. Kathmandu, Animal Nepal, 83 p.
Wemmer C., Christen C. A. (eds.), 2008 ‒ Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 483 p.
10.56021/9780801888182 :Zeder M. A., 2012 ‒ The Domestication of Animals. Journal of Anthropological Research, 68 (2): 161-190.
10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201 :Auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Composing Worlds with Elephants
Interdisciplinary dialogues
Nicolas Lainé, Paul G. Keil et Khatijah Rahmat (dir.)
2023
Voix végétales
Diversité, résistances et histoires de la forêt
Joana Cabral de Oliveira, Marta Amoroso, Ana Gabriela Morim de Lima et al. (dir.) Michel Riaudel (trad.)
2023
