Transformative epistemologies for regenerative tourism: towards a decolonial paradigm in science and practice?

Abstract

There is a growing scholarly interest in the potential of regenerative tourism approaches to address sustainability challenges. Drawing from an ecological worldview that interweaves Indigenous and Western knowledge systems, regenerative tourism approaches seek to increase the capacity of support systems for fulfilling net-positive social-ecological effects. We argue that Western scientific paradigms drive current tourism research methodologies and are sometimes insufficient and unfit to (advance) regenerative tourism research. The extent to which new research methodological approaches can align with the ecological worldview and regenerative paradigm is an underpinning premise. As part of a broader study of the emerging regenerative tourism concept, a scoping review of 84 peer-reviewed and 116 grey literature articles, supplemented by consultations with nine regenerative tourism practitioners, six Indigenous practitioners and one cultural knowledge holder, identified nine research gaps that explicate this mismatch. An analytical framework guided the gap analysis and the formulation of a future research agenda. Findings suggest that tourism scholarship is not keeping pace with the evolution of regenerative tourism, requiring additional and new approaches. A transformational decolonial, transdisciplinary research paradigm is proposed that fully embraces the regenerative tourism paradigm and thus enables knowledge production that facilitates plural regenerative tourism futures.

Keywords:

• Regenerative tourism
• indigenous methodologies
• decolonial research
• sustainability science
• epistemological decolonisation
• tourism epistemology

Introduction

Tourism scholars increasingly recognise that tourism studies are dominated by European and Anglo-derived knowledge production systems and extractive paradigms (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Stinson et al., 2021). Tribe et al. (2015) define tourism paradigms as tourism knowledge systems that inform the study of tourism. Tribe et al. (2015), Tribe and Liburd (2016) and Munar and Jamal (2016) assert that there are no overarching tourism paradigms due to tourism being a field of “multiple-extra-disciplines” and drawing from a complex web of heterogeneous knowledge systems. However, in the race to privatise, profit and prioritise demands for lands and resources, colonising structures has rendered sustainability silent to the environmental and ecological collapse that is imminent and in motion (Paradies, 2020). The neoliberal paradigm, which extracts from nature, dominates tourism research and actively suppresses other paradigms that challenge it, such as sustainability (Dwyer, 2018; Tribe et al., 2015). Research insights increasingly highlight the diverse modes of Western domination, such as neoliberalism that govern marketing and business and the hegemonic qualities of modernity, to drive extractive growth agendas (Gibson, 2021; Lee, 2017; Tribe et al., 2015). Modernity is informed by “rationalism, realism, and objectivism, driving post-positivistic research paradigms in both the physical and social sciences” (Munar & Jamal, 2016, p. 192).

Rooted in thinking that separates humans from the rest of nature, the industrialisation of travel practices underpins the modern tourism paradigm (Ateljevic, 2020; Owen, 2008). Despite Brundtland seeking to protect nature for future generations, sustainability approaches reinforce a growth-driven and modernistic paradigm that deems nature subservient to and separate from humans (WCED, 1987). Nature consequently becomes captive as a tool for growth and a flow of services primarily extracted for human benefit (Gibson, 2021; Mang & Haggard, 2016; Mika & Scheyvens, 2022). Consequently, tourism systems are inextricably linked to processes of modernity and are considered deeply entwined and unable to exist without assemblages of colonialism and imperialism (Hall, 2022; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2022; Paradies, 2020; Schultz, 2018). While modernity has enabled significant societal benefits, the prevailing sustainable development paradigm is limited in questioning how it replicates or reinforces imperialism and colonisation (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015). Critical scholars call for a departure from neoliberalism and deeply critique modernity as driving extractive paradigms of tourism (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2018; Tribe et al., 2015). Challenges to overcoming modernity/coloniality involve applying alternative ontologies and epistemologies in critiquing anthropocentric and colonial design principles promoted as universal truths (Mika & Scheyvens, 2022; Schultz, 2018).

Sustainability in tourism and development, viewed primarily through a Western lens, is contested as useful and encompassing, especially concerning the deliberate exclusion of Indigenous and local peoples’ ways of knowing, being and doing (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017). Additionally, Du Plessis (2012) argues that “dominant sustainability paradigms are reaching the limitations of their usefulness due to their conceptual foundation in an inappropriate mechanistic worldview and their tacit support of a modernization project preventing effective engagement with a complex, dynamic and living world” (p. 7). To this end, the sustainability paradigm is limited by its Western, linear and reductionist lenses. Various new tourism scholarship positions are premised on recovery, resilience and rebuilding, with many questioning existing paradigms and development trajectories catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic (Gibson, 2021; Sheller, 2021).

Tourism research applying holistic, complex, and relational perspectives of land and resource relationships is countenanced as the potential for addressing system failures impacting social, environmental and economic outcomes (Dwyer, 2018; Farsari, 2021; Fodness, 2017; Harrison & Sharpley, 2017). We posit that regenerative tourism is an alternative paradigm that reorientates tourism goals towards an “interdependent and interconnected living world, in which humans are an integral part of nature and the processes of co-creation and co-evolution that shape the world” (Hes & Du Plessis, 2015, p. 39). Hence the regenerative tourism paradigm is focused on stewardship rather than extraction.

Regenerative tourism weaves Indigenous and Western knowledge systems and practices to repair the harms of exclusion by accommodating human and non-human stakeholders to become more resilient and self-sustaining. Non-Western epistemologies such as Buddhism are also beginning to influence the concept’s evolution (Pollock, 2020). Visitors, communities and hosts act as stewards actively involved in tourism development within their places. Our concept of regenerative tourism draws upon the Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Briceño Fiebig, et al. (2022), Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Nygaard (2022) working definition:

Regenerative tourism is a transformational approach that aims to fulfil the potential of tourism places to flourish and create net positive effects through increasing the regenerative capacity of human societies and ecosystems. Derived from the ecological worldview, it weaves Indigenous and Western science perspectives and knowledges. Tourism systems are regarded as inseparable from nature (p. 9).

Regenerative tourism is an emerging tourism paradigm premised upon regenerative development (Mang & Haggard, 2016). While progress is made in regenerative tourism, as evidenced in pioneering praxis work over the last 20 years, scant scholarly attention has been paid. Consequently, it is constrained by limited theories, with few scientific articles having conceptualised or investigated regenerative tourism’s transformational basis or the validity of its claims to address sustainability challenges (Becken & Kaur, 2022; Cheer, 2020; Mathisen et al., 2022; Sheller, 2021). There is a critical lacuna in regenerative tourism research, out of step with the growing attention to regeneration concerns (Caniglia et al., 2020; Teruel, 2018). The regenerative tourism paradigm challenges the modern separation of research and practice by inviting scholars to become embedded and reciprocal partners with fluid roles. We investigate scientific approaches that align with this paradigm to guide the advancement of tourism research and practice transformations.

Taking a dialectical stance, we have respectfully and intentionally drawn from the transformative and Indigenous research paradigms to bridge diverse knowledge systems (Cronenberg, 2020). A scoping review and supplementary practitioner consultations underpin this investigation. This article crystalises the regenerative tourism discussion, identifying critical gaps in research knowledge, methodologies and approaches within the context of dominant tourism epistemologies, and proposes a transformational regenerative tourism research agenda framed by a decolonial approach. Drawing from earlier contributions to the transformational apparatus underpinning regenerative tourism thinking (Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Briceño Fiebig, et al., 2022; Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Nygaard, 2022), we address how a transformational research agenda can contribute to creating healthy places and communities from an ecological worldview. It is beyond the scope of this article to outline the decolonial discourse in extensive detail. However, a decolonial research agenda is proposed to address the challenges of power (and its discontents) and exploitation as outputs of modernity, neocoloniality and postcoloniality.

Materials and methods

To explore a new paradigm in tourism, it is essential to make transparent that we are Indigenous, settler Australians and European scholars who have come together in a spirit of gratitude and acknowledgement to Indigenous Peoples, Elders, ancestors and communities who have cared for Country (term used by some Indigenous Peoples to describe lands and waters to which they are connected) for tens of thousands of years. A multicultural and multidisciplinary team of researchers was considered necessary as the study seeks to provide a comprehensive review of a concept drawing from Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges, perspectives and practices across several fields. We write with humbleness in our hearts and offer deep respect for the cultures that have welcomed us and a place of belonging. From this position, we explore the research (mis)alignment of current tourism research approaches to understand the gaps and to propose a regenerative tourism research agenda. We undertake this as part of a broader study of what is known about the transformational basis of “regenerative tourism” (Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Briceño Fiebig, et al., 2022; Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Nygaard, 2022). A scoping review protocol was prepared following the methodological framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). As an emerging tourism practice and nascent tourism research area, this approach enabled a comprehensive and systematic review, synthesis and analysis of extant literature from multiple disciplines, fields and industry sectors. An analytical framework is submitted that maps out a research agenda for enabling regenerative transformations (methods employed are summarised in chronological order) (Figure 1):

Figure 1. Scoping review flowchart (Source: adapted from Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Briceño Fiebig, et al. (2022) and Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Nygaard, et al. (2022)).

An initial search of academic and grey regenerative tourism literature was undertaken to ascertain which practitioners and researchers were writing about regenerative tourism and to identify the concept’s epistemological, ontological and methodological underpinnings. The initial search of regenerative tourism literature found early (pre-2020) formations of regenerative tourism were dominated by foundational regenerative design and development principles and frameworks (Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Briceño Fiebig, et al., 2022; Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Nygaard, 2022). Following Levac et al. (2010), the scope of the inquiry and an effective search strategy was established by combining a broad research question with a clearly articulated scope of inquiry. The search focused on articles intersecting with tourism and regenerative design and development, as conceptualised by recognised pioneers who have authored seminal books and scientific articles (Mang & Haggard, 2016; Mang & Reed, 2012, 2019; Pollock, 2015). These publications articulated key concepts in the regenerative paradigm, which guided the selection of search terms and sources from academic and grey literature. First, a comprehensive review, synthesis and analysis of a wide range of literature sourced from multiple disciplines (geography, architecture and business), fields (urban studies, tourism, Indigenous studies, sustainability science and regenerative development) and industry (tourism, regenerative development and regenerative economics) published from 2007 to July 2020 were undertaken.

Second, two rounds of consultation involved practitioners in extending and enriching the analysis of the scoping review findings. Round one comprised individual interviews followed by a focus group discussion with nine practitioners of regenerative tourism. The consultation process was repeated in the second round of consultations with six Indigenous practitioners and one cultural knowledge holder (a non-Indigneous person given cultural guidance and permission by Indigenous Elders to apply and share their cultural knowledges and practices).

The search strategy initially involved a systematic scientific database search in identifying suitable peer-reviewed articles: EBSCOhost; Scopus; Web of Science; and manual searching of relevant articles identified through reference lists of previously selected articles. Grey literature was then identified using Google Scholar (“regenerative tourism” was the only search term used), industry blogs, books and other articles; peak body and government reports; and conference proceedings and articles. Aside from Google Scholar, sources by recognised regenerative tourism practitioner pioneers and scholars publishing in non-academic mediums were used.

Search terms applied in the peer-reviewed searches included: regenerative tourism, regenerative and tourism, regenerative travel, conscious travel, conscious tourism, tourism and regeneration, travel and regeneration, regenerative development and tourism, regenerative design and tourism, turismo regenerativo (Spanish). Spanish-speaking articles were included to investigate regenerative tourism practice and research in Latin America. Spanish-speaking articles were translated using Google Translate. Quotes and key points derived from those articles were cross-checked with native Spanish-speakers. Conscious travel and tourism were included as these terms were used before “regenerative tourism” consolidating as the widely used term (Pollock, 2012).

Additional search terms derived from an initial review of key articles were: tourism AND regenerative economy; sustainable futures; stewardship; beyond sustainability; living system; whole systems; ecological worldview; “story of place”. Decolonising and decolon* were also included because the concept draws significantly from Indigenous epistemologies. Also, some key authors, such as Matunga et al. (2020), Pollock (2012) and Pollock (2015), employ decolonising practices regarding regenerative approaches to tourism. The inclusion of decolonisation was considered necessary to comprehensively understand the regenerative tourism paradigm’s potential transformational contributions to knowledge and practice. We recognise there are some similarities with concepts, such as “Indigenous tourism” and “sustainable tourism” however, they were excluded as search terms to ensure regenerative tourism was investigated as a distinct concept derived from the ecological worldview that is ontologically divergent from sustainable development or Indigenous worldviews. From publicly available grey literature, the following search terms were applied: regenerative tourism, regenerative travel, conscious travel and conscious tourism.

1889 publications were identified during the initial screening. Duplicate publications were eliminated using Endnote’s automated scanning features. An analysis of the text words in the title, keywords and abstract of retrieved articles was undertaken to exclude irrelevant publications, such as those related to regenerative medicine and braking systems that are evidently outside of regenerative development or tourism. The screening involved reviewing 359 full texts and selecting the articles subject to review. Publications excluded did not meet the following inclusion criteria: relates to underpinning concepts such as the ecological worldview or living systems; describes stewardship or draws from Indigenous knowledge systems and perspectives. Most of the eliminated studies investigated urban and regional regeneration from a sustainable development perspective, leaving 59 peer-reviewed publications (52 journal articles and seven book chapters) and 116 grey literature publications for inclusion.

NVivo was used to devise an initial list of themes, and deductive and inductive coding was employed to identify research themes. The research gaps and recommended methodologies and approaches were then synthesised.

To strengthen the validity and rigour of the study, we followed Arksey and O’Malley (2005) to undertake a consultation exercise with practitioners (see Supplementary materials for the consultation exercise protocol). A small sample of 15 participants reflecting the emergent nature of regenerative tourism practice comprised practitioners with relevant and demonstrated track records, Indigenous practitioners and cultural knowledge holders with varied tourism expertise (see Tables A and B in Supplementary materials for participants’ details). A stringent checking process ensured that findings accurately reflected regenerative and Indigenous practitioner thinking and that researchers’ assumptions were illuminated. The findings were updated following these consultations.

The regenerative tourism conceptual framework (Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Briceño Fiebig, et al., 2022; Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Nygaard, 2022) and tourism living systems (Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Briceño Fiebig, et al., 2022; Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Nygaard, 2022) were then developed and published to complete the first two study components. Using the notions in these frameworks, we mapped the core concept elements to refine and categorise the research gaps and recommended research approaches.

Analytical framework

The framework compiled by sustainability scientists Mehmood et al. (2020) guided the research gaps categorisation and identification of suitable approaches for regenerative tourism. This conceptual framework was chosen as it aligns with the regenerative tourism’s purpose to “build the capacity of support systems for net positive impact and sustainability of social, economic and ecological systems” (Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Briceño Fiebig, et al., 2022; Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Nygaard, 2022, p. 11). Furthermore, it seeks to guide and examine transformative place-based social innovations that align with Indigenous conceptualisations (Martin & Mirraboopa, 2003). The analysis drew upon the interconnected lenses of regenerative action (doing), transformative learning (knowing) and experiencing place (being) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Analytical framework for analysing regenerative tourism research gaps (Mehmood et al., 2020).

We adopted the following definitions by Mehmood et al. (2020) to understand each lens. Transformative learning is about understanding and unpacking the social constructions of the current systems and developing new ways to address sustainability issues. Learning is acquired through building capabilities to engage “with local places and place-based knowledges” experientially (Mehmood et al., 2020, p. 458), and it facilitates radical shifts in mindset or consciousness, enabling sustainability transformations and transitions. Experiencing place refers to “sense-making to help people relate closely to their values and meanings of place” (Mehmood et al., 2020, p. 455). Regenerative action “initiates transformation and highlights the need to constantly re-evaluate and adapt to new conditions” (Mehmood et al., 2020, p. 462). Regenerative action strives for humans to regenerate the health of places so human and natural systems can thrive (Mehmood et al., 2020).

We matched the analysed gaps with the recommended research approaches identified in the literature review and consultations. Finally, we determined the fields of study by collating the recommended methodologies and approaches. In some instances, authors from the identified fields suggested suitable research approaches; in others, authors recommended approaches from fields other than their own. We then categorised the methodologies and approaches according to the analytical framework.

The study was updated by reviewing 25 additional regenerative tourism peer-reviewed articles published since the initial document selection process (published between August 2020 and November 2022), taking the peer-reviewed articles to (n = 84). Twelve additional articles were viewpoint articles; one was a systematic review, two were editorials, and 10 were research articles. Twenty-two of the 25 were tourism-focused articles; the others drew from ecology and land system science. Upon adding the 25 additional peer-reviewed articles, the gap categorisation and descriptions were revised and suggested approaches were updated.

Results

Results showed that regenerative tourism scholarship is a rapidly emerging area of inquiry, with few empirical studies directly investigating this concept. The gaps and suggested research agenda identified reflect the concept’s emergence in academia and critiques of tourism scholarship more broadly.

Research gaps in regenerative tourism

The literature review and consultation exercise identified nine research gaps in tourism scholarship according to the Mehmood et al. (2020) three lenses: transformative learning, experiencing place and regenerative action (Table 1). Analysis of the peer-reviewed articles specifically addressing regenerative tourism revealed diverse understandings of the concept and, in some cases, poor understanding of its ontological roots. As an under-researched concept, it was unsurprising that few articles were based on empirical studies or systematic reviews. Most regenerative tourism articles were exploratory and recommended further empirical investigation and conceptual development. Five gaps pertaining to regenerative tourism were found (see Table 1 for gaps 1, 6, 7 − 9). Four gaps originated from literature using decolonisation approaches and were mainly derived from decolonial, regenerative development and regenerative tourism articles (see Table 1 for gaps 2 − 5). These latter gaps highlight the limitations of tourism scholarship more broadly.

Table 1. Identified research gaps charted across three lenses (Source: Authors).

Lens (Mehmood et al., 2020)	Regenerative tourism research gaps (Authors)
Transformative learning	Poor understanding of ecological worldview and regenerative paradigm Tourism knowledge is mostly limited to Western and colonial framings and capitalist industrial models Exclusion of Indigenous and marginalised knowledges and analysis of power relations
Experiencing place	Narrow framings of place and its associated power relations Exclusion of place-specific knowledge holders and Indigenous modes of place inquiry Lack of regenerative tourism case studies
Regenerative action	Universally accepted measures are elusive and contested Lack of collaboration between civil society actors, scholars and practitioners for regenerative tourism actions Poor understanding and evidence for translating regenerative tourism into practical regenerative actions

Transformative learning

In the three transformative learning research gaps, we found insufficient effort and space devoted to critiquing the dominant Western, colonial scientific framings of tourism development in favour of regenerative thinking. Regenerative thinking will arguably stimulate new or revised theories, and develop capabilities for place-based knowledges and methodologies in tourism scholarship.

Poor understanding of ecological worldview and regenerative paradigm is highlighted by practitioners (Pollock, 2015; Teruel, 2018) and tourism scholars (Becken & Coghlan, 2022; Becken & Kaur, 2022; Cave et al., 2022; Nandasena et al., 2022; Zaman et al., 2023) including confusion between regeneration and sustainability (Becken & Kaur, 2022; Teruel, 2018). Various scholars highlighted the lack of conceptual development and understanding of its foundations, including frameworks and tools to guide thinking and practice (Becken & Coghlan, 2022; Becken & Kaur, 2022; Cave et al., 2022; Mathisen et al., 2022). The absence of a regenerative mindset in the broader tourism sector was identified as contributing to this poor understanding (Boluk & Panse, 2022; Dredge, 2022). Consultation participants cautioned about producing a universal regenerative tourism definition, considering it inappropriate and incompatible with regenerative thinking. They highlighted the lack of understanding of regeneration and regenerative tourism among tourism practitioners and perceived few scholars have distinguished regeneration from sustainability or its interconnectedness with sustainability. Furthermore, they advocated for investigating regenerative tourism as a paradigm-shifting approach.

Tourism knowledge is mostly limited to Western and colonial framings and capitalist industrial models, according to scholars writing about decolonisation and tourism (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017; Mura & Wijesinghe, 2023; Lee, 2017; Yang & Ong, 2020 Grimwood et al., 2019 #6148). There is limited evidence of decolonising tourism inquiry (Jacobsen, 2020) and a lack of holistic regenerative approaches and frameworks exploring Indigenous and other marginalised worldviews, values and practices (Becken & Coghlan, 2022; Dredge, 2022). Few studies relate to economic alternatives in tourism to overcome extractive and exploitative growth-focused approaches (Becken & Kaur, 2022; Cave & Dredge, 2020; Dwyer, 2018; Major & Clarke, 2022). Studies focused on tourism and healing (restoring harmonious connections to self, community, culture and place) are rare (Blau & Panagopoulos, 2022; Colton & Whitney-Squire, 2010). Additionally, notions of wellbeing and value are defined narrowly and require (re)conceptualisation within a regenerative paradigm (Becken & Kaur, 2022; Mathisen et al., 2022). Consultation participants called for a reconceptualisation of tourism from profit-driven economic development towards promoting wellbeing and holistic development. They mirrored the claims by Dredge (2022) that the tourism field is shaped by science and strategic management approaches reinforcing reductionism, individualism, separation of people from nature and marketisation of cultures, places and communities.

The exclusion of Indigenous and marginalised knowledges and analysis of power relations is evidenced by the lack of tourism and regenerative development studies exploring power, identity, and Othering (type of subjugation of suppressed peoples) (Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017; Jacobsen, 2020). Limited tourism scholarship comprises Indigenous-led research that challenges the positioning of non-Western knowledges as inferior. Pellow (2020) found that while the regenerative development literature highlights class inequalities, colonisation and patriarchy are neglected. Dredge (2022) claims that academia inhibits non-Western approaches. Practitioners identified the compartmentalisation and exclusion of Indigenous and other marginalised perspectives and knowledges as hampering beneficial inquiry of complex whole systems. Researchers often exacerbate the hegemony, as evidenced by Indigenous practitioner Dean Stewart, who stated they “often do more harm than good because researching from a different worldview, quite foreign to the one that they’re actually looking at (…) In actual fact, that means that often your blind spots actually devalue what you’re trying to achieve”. Decolonising work is more than theory; it also involves actions towards inclusion and empowerment, especially for Indigenous Peoples, their worldviews and perspectives.

Experiencing place

Place is a central tenet of regenerative tourism, especially the more-than-human agency that binds Indigenous and local place knowledges. Three gaps regarding experiencing place were detected, emphasising the lack of scientific inquiry methods and approaches for place sense-making.

Narrow framings of place and its associated power relations

Tourism research methods offer little insight into power relations in Indigenous communities (Colton & Whitney-Squire, 2010). Chambers and Buzinde (2015) critique the tendency of tourism scholarship to universalise knowledges, mirroring exploitative power relationships and systems that negate place contexts. According to Tomassini and Cavagnaro (2022), the dominant paradigm inhibits seeing land, waterways and place beyond resources for human consumption. Furthermore, limited researcher reflexivity and positionality practised by scholars diminish critical analysis of power relations (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017). The consultation participants also identified this gap when describing a need for more connection between researchers, the people and the places they are researching.

Exclusion of place-specific knowledge holders and Indigenous modes of place inquiry

Place-specific knowledge holders refer to marginalised groups, particularly Indigenous Peoples, with deep connections to place being made objects of tourism rather than producers of tourism knowledge. Their perspectives, knowledges and peoples are often excluded, “othered” or rendered invisible, enforcing “essentialised inferiority” (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017; Jacobsen, 2020; Sheller, 2021; Lee, 2017). The gaps in suitable research methodologies and low adoption of Indigenous place inquiries recognising the agency of place as an active stakeholder risk continued failures to contribute to the transformations of tourism towards sustainability and regeneration (Becken, 2019; Carr, 2020; Kramvig & Forde, 2020). Consultation participants advocated adopting equitable, participatory processes that include local community members as crucial knowledge holders of their places and research corroboration in “building territory” and connecting with the essence of place.

Additionally, the perspectives and knowledges derived from sources, such as senses and intuition are often excluded from tourism scholarship and practice (Dredge, 2022; Grimwood et al., 2019; Pollock, 2015). These ways of knowing are often defined by the places people are from (Chassagne & Everingham, 2019). Mathisen et al. (2022) found that researchers often regard subjective feelings as lacking substance. Place-sourced knowledges were reinforced by the consultation participants, who criticised attempts by some researchers to define and know places categorically and objectively. Excluding non-written, non-verbal ways of knowing and cultural place knowledge holders risk our ability to understand the unique essence of places. Understanding essence is essential for regenerative design and development (Mang & Reed, 2012). Indigenous consultation participants highlighted the lack of studies employing Indigenous frameworks to understand place relations. Few studies are undertaken or led by Indigenous researchers in the tourism field or involve Indigenous Peoples (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Jacobsen, 2020). We found only one article by Indigenous scholars regarding regenerative tourism (Matunga et al., 2020). Despite most regenerative tourism practitioner participants claiming strong engagement with Indigenous communities, perspectives and knowledge systems, few regenerative tourism publications were written by Indigenous practitioners.

A lack of regenerative tourism case studies hinders efforts to reimagine tourism systems (Ateljevic, 2020; Bhalla & Chowdhary, 2022; Cave & Dredge, 2020). According to the consultation participants, a lack of case studies restricts efforts towards advancing the concept, assessing or demonstrating its benefits.

Regenerative action

The three identified regenerative action lens gaps show that the practices of regenerative tourism are under-explored. These gaps highlight the lack of case studies, ways of understanding these actions and multi-stakeholder collaborative approaches for enacting transformative shifts in tourism development and their interrelated social-ecological systems.

Universally accepted measures are elusive and contested in regenerative tourism (Bhalla & Chowdhary, 2022; Cave & Dredge, 2020; Cheer, 2020; Zaman et al., 2023). Profit and Gross Domestic Product are inappropriate primary measures and not fit for regenerative tourism underpinnings of wellbeing and net gain (Becken & Kaur, 2022; Cheer, 2020; Dredge, 2022; Fountain, 2022; Hartman & Heslinga, 2022; Mathisen et al., 2022; Nandasena et al., 2022; Sheldon, 2021). Some consultation participants argued for applying locally defined qualitative baseline measures for comparison with the effects of interventions at key intervals retrospectively, despite being rarely applied.

There is a lack of collaboration between civil society actors, scholars and practitioners for regenerative tourism actions, and interdisciplinary and collaborative research is scarce (Becken, 2019; Matunga et al., 2020; Sheldon, 2021). Therefore, transdisciplinary knowledge production and actions are stifled (Caniglia et al., 2020; Dredge, 2022; Lwanga-Thomson, 2016). Similarly, consultation participants challenged siloed, discipline-orientated research approaches hampering the capacity to “see things as a whole” and contribute towards regeneration projects. Consultation participants regarded the separation of academia and practice knowledge as unhelpful, preventing dialogue, collaboration and co-production. Bridging knowledge production was foremost, where participants highlighted the lack of agreed regenerative tourism principles and frameworks to advance transformative changes.

There is a poor understanding and evidence for translating regenerative tourism into practical regenerative actions (Bhalla & Chowdhary, 2022; Boluk & Panse, 2022; Cheer, 2020; Zaman et al., 2023). Consultation participants highlighted the minimal scholarly engagement in co-producing actionable knowledge and limited access by practitioners to scholarly-produced knowledge. Gaps highlighted in regenerative tourism articles included limited: regenerative tourism design applications and transformational experiences impact assessments (Morón-Corujeira & Fusté-Forné, 2022; Nandasena et al., 2022); actor capability for regenerative approaches studies (Bellato & Cheer, 2021); regenerative tourism approaches to changing resistant systems, paradigms and creating transformational systems shifts (Ateljevic & Sheldon, 2022; Bellato & Cheer, 2021; Boluk & Panse, 2022; Cave et al., 2022; Dredge, 2022; Morón-Corujeira & Fusté-Forné, 2022); gender and women’s contributions scholarship (Boluk & Panse, 2022); and, actor leadership roles that promote wellbeing (Becken & Kaur, 2022; Bellato & Cheer, 2021; Cave et al., 2022; Major & Clarke, 2022; Mathisen et al., 2022; Nitsch & Vogels, 2022). Limited evidence for implementing practical regenerative actions was also identified in the broader regenerative development literature by Caniglia et al. (2020) and consultation participants. Frequent claims were made about the significant potential of regenerative tourism, however, the evidence is lacking.

Research methodologies and approaches needed for the regenerative tourism paradigm

Analysing the gaps revealed that they are complex and multifaceted and could be classified in multiple ways. Therefore, each gap should be considered relational when embarking upon a regenerative tourism research program. The analysis indicated that rethinking tourism research approaches is needed as there are significant research gaps for regenerative tourism and in tourism scholarship more generally.

A decolonising approach

The identified gaps and suggested approaches guiding regenerative tourism research point towards adopting a decolonising approach and rethinking epistemologies to align with the regenerative paradigm. The gap identification process illuminated the need for examining the extractive and colonising tendencies that dominate tourism scholarship. Undertaking this examination requires adopting research methods and approaches that decolonise tourism epistemologies. A decolonising approach involves reclaiming Indigenous epistemologies through processes engaging with colonialist discourses to expose and challenge power relations, attitudes, values, perspectives, knowledge systems and methodologies reinforcing colonisation (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Grimwood, 2021; Lee, 2017). Decolonising work in tourism involves challenging and changing knowledge systems and practices that dominate colonised and marginalised people and their lands. Epistemological decolonisation improves current research approaches and enables researchers to expand beyond limits imposed by discipline-specific approaches towards pluriversal perspectives (Everingham et al., 2021; Peters, 2017). The Indigenous consultation participants saw tourism practices and research as vehicles for partnering, gathering and sharing stories for safekeeping, cultural revival and healing social-ecological systems.

Tourism scholars have begun to recognise links between the regenerative paradigm stemming from Western science and Indigenous perspectives and knowledge systems and a future decolonial research agenda (Matunga et al., 2020; Sheller, 2021). However, the Indigenous practitioners from Australia noted that colonisation has interrupted and distorted the nature of Indigenous knowledge systems to varying degrees across Australia, and care must be taken to accentuate cultural revival rather than loss (Janke, 2021). Paradies (2020) sees decolonisation as an opportunity to address the rapid acceleration of ecological catastrophe by disrupting the entwined relationship between coloniality and modernity. From this basis, we propose that regenerative tourism research adopt a decolonial approach as a guiding and foundational approach to its development.

Consultation participants used the language of healing when advocating for applying Indigenous and other non-Western ways of knowing, being, and doing to regenerative tourism research and practice. For example, they resisted attempts to universalise understandings of the concept, insisted tourism developments ensure Indigenous Peoples’ meaningful participation and leadership concerning their places, and proposed that research should challenge the dominant mechanistic worldview of science and tourism practice. Indigenous consultation participant Laurissa Cooney described the healing approach as, “We are all one people, with just different perspectives of how we see the world, and it is this diversity that helps complement how we move forward to create a better, more connected world for all. We all have an innate knowing and connection to nature within us. Indigenous cultures practice this wisdom daily and can help bring this to life for all people”. Healing approaches repair relationships and reconnect people with nature and with one another through the revival and restoration of marginalised cultures, knowledges and practices to transform dominant oppressive systems and paradigms for the benefit of all humans and non-humans.

Consultation participants advocated developing reciprocal relationships and joint projects between researchers, cultural knowledge holders and practitioners. They recommended incorporating concepts practitioners use for regenerative tourism work, including that outside academia. For example, incorporating Indigenous frameworks, values and principles was suggested. Consultation participants advocated regenerative tourism inquiry to challenge dominant academic approaches and knowledge systems, such as industrialised tourism constructs. Some regenerative tourism practitioners described working actively with Indigenous Peoples and communities to develop regenerative projects and advancing initiatives that include the principles, perspectives, knowledges and practices of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous practitioners and cultural knowledge holders advocated for respectful and ethical research approaches that uphold the cultural integrity of Indigenous perspectives, knowledges and practices. Cultural integrity also involves learning, acknowledging using and sharing, or not if permission is not given, cultural knowledge on the terms of the Indigenous knowledge holders.

In Table 2, we summarise our analysis of how decolonial research takes a transversal approach to address the research gaps identified for a regenerative tourism paradigm. We propose various decolonial methods and approaches for consideration.

Table 2. Decolonial approaches to address regenerative tourism research gaps (Source: Authors).

Lens	Regenerative tourism research gaps	Proposed decolonial approaches to address regenerative tourism research gaps
Transformative learning	Poor understanding of ecological worldview and regenerative paradigm	Adopting Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies (Dredge, 2022; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2009; Lupton & Samy, 2022; Matunga et al., 2020); Critical approaches problematising ‘Western knowledges and research methods’ (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Grimwood et al., 2019; Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017; Sheller, 2021; Stinson et al., 2021; Lee, 2017; Yang & Ong, 2020); Critical border thinking (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015); Tourism researchers developing fluid acumen (Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017); Working with wholes/complexity (Stinson et al., 2021)
	Tourism knowledge is mostly limited to Western and colonial framings and capitalist industrial models	Privileging Indigenous epistemologies and local tacit knowledges (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Chassagne & Everingham, 2019; Jacobsen, 2020; Stinson et al., 2021; Lee, 2017); Epistemological de-linking from Western ways of thinking (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Grimwood et al., 2019; Kramvig & Forde, 2020; Lee, 2017); Epistemological mode of not knowing (Grimwood et al., 2019) Alternative values based and wellbeing frameworks, rethinking how humans relate with nature (Becken & Kaur, 2022)
	Exclusion of Indigenous and marginalised knowledges and analysis of power relations	Ethical frameworks established and promoted by Indigenous Peoples and cultural integrity (Grimwood et al., 2019; Jacobsen, 2020; Lee, 2017); Relational ways of knowing place and communities (Stinson et al., 2021) Not doing some types of research or with some communities due to the ethics or lack of consent of communities (Stinson et al., 2021) Deep listening to marginalised voices (Grimwood et al., 2019; Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017); Pluriversal ways to create new research methods (Kramvig & Forde, 2020; Stinson et al., 2021; Lee, 2017; Yang & Ong, 2020)
Experiencing place	Narrow framings of place and its associated power relations	Imagining and living regenerative ways of being (Grimwood et al., 2019; Lee, 2017); Power and agency (Lee, 2017) Indigenous values guide tourism management and marketing (Fusté-Forné & Hussain, 2022) Caring for and knowing place – sense of place (Jacobsen, 2020; Stinson et al., 2021);
	Exclusion of place-specific knowledge holders and Indigenous modes of place inquiry	Reflexivity and positionality (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Grimwood et al., 2019; Jacobsen, 2020; Stinson et al., 2021); Role and capacity of researchers, transformation of the researcher (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Grimwood et al., 2019; Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017; Stinson et al., 2021); Participation and collaboration with Indigenous Peoples (Bellato & Cheer, 2021; Higgins-Desbiolles, 2009); Relational being (Stinson et al., 2021) Locally embedded storytelling, narrative (Kramvig & Forde, 2020; Stinson et al., 2021; Lee, 2017)
	Lack of regenerative tourism case studies	Privileging context (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2009; Stinson et al., 2021; Lee, 2017);
Regenerative action	Universally accepted measures are elusive and contested	(Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Grimwood et al., 2019; Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017; Jacobsen, 2020; Kramvig & Forde, 2020; Lwanga-Thomson, 2016; Matunga et al., 2020; Stinson et al., 2021; Lee, 2017) Wellbeing outcomes (Becken & Kaur, 2022)
	Lack of collaboration between scholars and practitioners for regenerative tourism actions	Transdisciplinary – Indigenous and allied academics, practitioners, civil society actors (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015; Kramvig & Forde, 2020; Stinson et al., 2021) Co-production of knowledge (Kramvig & Forde, 2020; Lwanga-Thomson, 2016; Matunga et al., 2020; Stinson et al., 2021); Co-designing research (Kramvig & Forde, 2020); Research reciprocity, equitable relations and respect between researcher, researched and place (Grimwood et al., 2019; Jacobsen, 2020; Stinson et al., 2021; Lee, 2017); Participatory approaches/Collaborative engagement (Kramvig & Forde, 2020); Dialectical relationships (Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017); Plurality of ways to speak (Hollinshead & Suleman, 2017)
	Poor understanding and evidence for translating regenerative tourism into practical regenerative actions	Demonstration projects to show actions in practice (Chassagne & Everingham, 2019)

Key fields relevant to regenerative tourism research

Without a well-established body of fit-for-purpose research methodologies aligning with a decolonial approach, the emerging regenerative tourism paradigm must draw upon a range of Western and “Indigenous science” approaches, supplemented by local knowledges and practices. Decolonising approaches support a range of intersectional methodologies, including Indigenous, feminist, critical, participatory and others, enabling disruptions to modernity/coloniality. Scholars, such as Hollinshead and Suleman (2017), Jacobsen (2020) and Lee (2017) call for the decolonisation of tourism inquiry and outline the multiple ways tourism studies reinforce colonisation. “Epistemological decolonisation” “demonstrates how a decolonial perspective can enable us to envisage other ways of thinking, being and knowing about tourism”, thus supporting paradigm shifts sought by regenerative tourism proponents (Chambers & Buzinde, 2015, p. 4). Rather than employing Western science methodologies and approaches derived from Western paradigms, a decolonial approach requires place-sourced, context-relevant and transdisciplinary ways of designing and implementing research projects, critiquing the dominant tourism paradigm and producing pluriversal knowledges.

The synthesis revealed diverse research fields with varying approaches and research methodologies relevant to the study of regenerative tourism. The suggested research approaches are identified in Table C of the Supplementary materials. While the tourism, regenerative development, and regenerative tourism foci (Table C) partially address the analysed research gaps, promising sustainability science and Indigenous science methodologies and approaches were also identified (Dwyer, 2018; Grimwood et al., 2019). Given their potential to advance regenerative applications to tourism, the publications from these fields were collated and categorised in relation to the gaps (Table D).

We use the term Indigenous science, as explained by Janke (2021) and Whyte et al. (2016), to describe Indigenist research and Indigenous methodologies and approaches. Indigenist research approaches are based on Indigenous Peoples’ philosophies, principles and practices and are designed and conducted only by Indigenous researchers within their communities. Indigenous methodologies and approaches are based on Indigenous Peoples’ philosophies and principles that Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers may be authorised to undertake (Rigney, 2006). The suggested approaches from the reviewed articles are listed in Table D of the Supplementary materials.

While sustainability science is a broad interdisciplinary applied science field aiming to address sustainable development (Clark & Harley, 2020), it was found to be an evolving approach relevant to regenerative tourism. Sustainability science examines transformative shifts of systems and paradigms by adopting methodologies and approaches, such as transdisciplinary research, action research and experiments, social learning and co-production. Recently, this field has begun investigating regenerative approaches, with some seminal articles included in this review being published in journals, such as the Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology (Mang & Reed, 2019). Notably, a small proportion of the concepts and research methodologies commonly used in sustainability science were identified in this study (see Table D of the Supplementary materials), suggesting a need for more engagement between tourism and sustainability science. Farrell and Twining-Ward (2004) identified few tourism researchers engaged with sustainability science and hypothesised a reticence by tourism researchers to abandon simple linear frameworks in short-lived attempts to ensure certainty. Becken and Coghlan (2022) nominated this reticence as an ongoing shortcoming of sustainable tourism approaches.

Discussion

Before embarking upon research to advance regenerative tourism knowledge and practices, epistemologies and methodologies must be developed, aligning with an ecological worldview and regenerative paradigm. However, the findings suggest that Western-centric, extractive paradigms tend to prevail in tourism research and practice. Therefore, alternative research approaches will require more than developing additional theories and frameworks. Instead, research that supports dismantling the dominant extractive neoliberal paradigm is needed to enable the co-creation of new paradigm/s that transform tourism towards regenerative approaches.

Towards a decolonial regenerative tourism research agenda

Rather than integrating conflicting Western and non-Western paradigms, Held (2019) argues that decolonisation requires new paradigms jointly developed by Indigenous and Western scholars. Decolonisation promotes improving current research methods and enables researchers to expand beyond the limits imposed by discipline-specific approaches rather than subsuming Indigenous epistemologies into Western approaches (Peters, 2017). Research informed and shaped by Indigenous approaches is essential to reclaim Indigenous epistemologies and promote knowledge system co-existence or de-link from unitary Western epistemologies (Held, 2019). Regenerative tourism must overcome extractive forms of modernity/coloniality for research and practice to transform the tourism sector.

Ongoing decolonisation processes can create opportunities for diverse epistemologies to support the co-evolution and co-creation of transformative ways of knowing, being and doing tourism. Finally, the linking of healing and decolonisation proposed by non-tourism Indigenous scholars, such as Laenui (2000) and Johnson and Sigona (2022) can offer insights into how the revival of Indigenous epistemologies can support regenerating social-ecological systems. Healing work involves reconnecting humans with the rest of nature and building capabilities of diverse tourism stakeholders to restore social-ecological systems and live harmoniously by leveraging the innate potential of each community and place for the wellbeing of all. Researchers are encouraged to research “care-fully” and use healing tools and modalities to investigate tourism’s contributions to creating healthy living systems (Stinson et al., 2021). Decolonial, transdisciplinary research can address this challenge by including all tourism stakeholders in addressing wicked problems and is an underlying approach for weaving multiple knowledges and practices held within places and building regenerative capability.

We adopt three interconnected lenses of the Mehmood et al. (2020) framework to organise the foreground research pathways as summarised below.

1. Transformative learning lens:

Research work under the transformative learning lens involves experientially and intellectually engaging with regenerative development concepts and their tourism applications to change mindsets. Transformative learning is an evolving process that draws from the essence and practices of specific places and is nurtured and shared among tourism stakeholders according to their diverse roles and positionalities in a community.

1. Experiencing place lens:

Regenerative tourism calls for approaches that integrate place as a central and inextricable element of inquiry. Rather than a static backdrop, place is understood as the relations between people and nature (Lwanga-Thomson, 2016; Matunga et al., 2020). Critical place inquiry examines place in its “social and material manifestations” and commits to Indigenous sovereignty. This approach frames relational validity via accountability to people and place in the present and future generations and regards the prioritisation of economic validity as harming people and places (Tuck & McKenzie, 2015). Experiencing place will be facilitated using case studies, critical place inquiry and other place-based methodologies and approaches to investigate regenerative tourism. Place-sensing work will involve partnering and honouring the unique essence of each place.

1. Regenerative action lens:

Our proposal that the regenerative tourism research agenda must serve the regeneration of places and communities through epistemological decolonisation has implications for tourism researcher roles. Jacobsen (2020) and Higgins-Desbiolles (2018) echoed calls by the consultation participants for researchers to adapt their roles away from separated, reductive, linear, Western science-dominated researchers towards knowing, being and doing in much more connected, critical, reflexive, fluid, pluriversal, transdisciplinary partnerships and ecosystems orientated ways. As part of this decolonial work, regenerative tourism proponents must decolonise themselves and the tourism systems they seek to transform. The suggested approaches outlined in Tables C and D of the Supplemental materials can act as a starting point.

Without ethically embracing Indigenous and other alternative ways of knowing, being and doing, the regenerative tourism approach risks reinforcing imperialistic and colonisation practices. Lwanga-Thomson (2016) claims existing regenerative development frameworks have, thus far, only acknowledged fragments of Indigenous worldviews, have often not appropriately acknowledged the worldviews and values of the communities from their places, and hence failed to facilitate harmony between regenerative and Indigenous ways. More involvement and leadership of Indigenous scholars and communities are needed to adequately investigate and overcome such patterns, including the dominance of English language publications from ‘developed’ countries. When considering the interconnected roles among researchers and other tourism stakeholders, Höckert et al. (2021) invite us to reflexively apply ideas of welcome and hospitality to tourism research by negotiating, reciprocating, swapping and evolving roles. Improved capabilities are needed by researchers for the successful development and implementation of collaborative regenerative initiatives.

Conclusions

Tourism scholarship was appraised by investigating critical research gaps and recommending future regenerative tourism research directions. Two regenerative tourism conceptual frameworks previously published as part of this overall study (Bellato Frantzeskaki, Briceño Fiebig, et al., 2022; Bellato, Frantzeskaki, Nygaard, 2022) supported the examination. We recommended weaving practitioner, Indigenous and non-Western academic perspectives and knowledge systems requiring a revision of Western science and researchers’ roles for undertaking regenerative tourism knowledge production guided by a decolonising approach. Furthermore, linking healing and decolonisation can offer insights into how the revival of Indigenous epistemologies can support the regeneration of social-ecological systems. Conventional Western science methodologies were applied to this study. However, implementing our recommendations involves adapting and tailoring research weaving Indigenous and non-Western research paradigms and methodologies to address more in-depth inquiry and develop decolonial approaches appropriate to each context.

To evolve from narrative descriptions to a progressive theory of change for the tourism sector, we have suggested two potential research fields, sustainability science and Indigenous research. Indigenous science offers research approaches and practices aligning well with the ecological worldview, thus enabling researchers to make the paradigm shift necessary to engage with and significantly advance regenerative tourism research. It also enables the evolution of paradigmatic understanding and offers methodologies and approaches to gain new understandings of complex social-ecological systems and change processes. Sustainability science offers robust methodologies for investigating and advancing transformational sustainability shifts towards more regenerative futures. These two fields can support the advancement of existing tourism methodologies and approaches to enable rigorous and congruous research. Therefore, further studies investigating the potential contributions of these research methodologies and approaches would advance regenerative tourism research. In places disconnected from their Indigenous heritages, such as Western Europe, sciences, such as ecology and anthropology and societal actors with connections to nature hold immense promise for this work. They may open pathways to identifying place-sourced potential.

A comprehensive base to develop a decolonial transformative regenerative tourism research agenda is submitted. However, investigations of additional compatible research methodologies and approaches, drawing from more diverse knowledge sources, would strengthen future regenerative tourism research. Future studies mapping regenerative tourism gaps and research agendas would benefit from including regenerative practitioners, Indigenous Peoples and tourism scholars in knowledge co-production. Sustainable tourism scholars are well placed to advance critical understandings of regenerative approaches by contributing their expertise in linking theory and practice with tourism and sustainability issues. The interconnectedness between sustainability, resilience and regeneration and the significant advancements of sustainable tourism scholarship opens numerous opportunities to partner with regeneration proponents for our collective wellbeing.

Acknowledgements

Ethics approval by Swinburne University was obtained to undertake the consultation exercise (Ref: 20204108-5148). We thank the scoping review consultation participants who shared their expertise. They are: Anna Pollock – Founder, Conscious Travel; Matt Sykes – Founder, Regeneration Projects; Sonia Teruel - Co-founder of The RegenLab for Travel; Portia Hart – Co-Founder, Blue Apple Beach House, Townhouse & Green Apple Foundation; Elke Dens – Marketing Director, Visit Flanders; Jeremy Smith - Co-founder, Tourism Declares a Climate Emergency; Author, Transforming Travel; Carlos Briceño Fiebig – Co-founder/Creative Director, Global Initiative for Regenerative Tourism & Camina Sostenible; Martín Araneda – Co-founder/Director of Development, Global Initiative for Regenerative Tourism & Camina Sostenible; Bill Reed – Principal, Regenesis Group; Robert McGowan (Pa Ropata) non-Indigenous Rongoā Māori practitioner originally from the Whanganui River, Aotearoa New Zealand; Ashleigh Bartley, Bwgcolman Ewamian, Specialist in Aboriginal Tourism for Visit Victoria, Australia; Dean Stewart, Victorian Wemba Wemba Wergaia man, Director of “Aboriginal Tours and Education Melbourne” A-TAEM, Australia; Alana Marsh, Meriam woman, regenerative system resetter and Wayapa Wuurrk practitioner, Australia; Laurissa Cooney, Te Ati Haunui-a-Pāpārangi iwi descent, Professional Director and Fellow Chartered Accountant, Aotearoa New Zealand; one anonymous Indigenous practitioner, Australia. We also thank the anonymous peer reviewers for their rigorous reviews and insightful suggestions. We greatly appreciate Associate Professor Alexandra Coghlan’s adept management of the review process and article finalisation. Finally, we would like to acknowledge Country by recognising all the lands, waterways and the beings that co-create this Earth, have nourished our ancestors for thousands of years and have formed the basis of vital knowledges for life.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This article was supported by Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, through the Swinburne University Postgraduate Research Award (SUPRA).