Due to the popularity of wild animal–visitor interactions (AVIs), there is a need for an ethical assessment of their impact on animal welfare, education, and conservation. The protocol presented in this study is designed to evaluate such interactions on an integrated level, using a transparent analysis of all the aspects involved, including all the stakeholders and the potential conflicts of values. The protocol consists of a six-step process encompassing dedicated data acquisition and a specific ethical assessment. When the protocol was applied to assess a “giraffe feeding” interaction, steps devoted to data acquisition found that animal welfare risks were low, and that visitors described giraffes with emotionally linked descriptors more often after the interaction. The net promoter score, which refers to how likely visitors would recommend to a friend to join the animal–visitor interaction, was 74%. The subsequent ethical assessment, which consisted of a comparison of the results of the previous steps with an ethical matrix highlighting the ideal situation for all stakeholders’ interests, allowed the overall identification of the ethical concerns entailed by the interaction. A final ethical checklist of the examined AVI had a “yes” in entries regarding animal welfare, emotional, and conservation mindedness outcomes and ethical assessment.
Simple SummaryIn southern Africa, several elephants are involved in ‘wildlife tourism interactions’ with tourists, whose acceptability is the focus of much media interest. It is important that the welfare of the animals involved in such activities is monitored in order to grant them an acceptable quality of life. Until now, protocols to assess welfare in African elephants have been developed only for zoo elephants. However, protocols developed for a different situation may not be suitable for these elephants, which live under different circumstances (for example, in some cases they tend to be able to roam free in the bush for a part of the day and to be allowed contact without protective barriers with people). We discuss the possible problem of extending findings found in zoo elephants to elephants involved in activities with tourists outside the zoos. This concern was also highlighted by elephant experts who said that in 23.6% of cases the main welfare problems of zoos’ elephants were different from those of elephants involved in interactions with tourists in South Africa. Moreover, their agreement was low when they were asked the acceptability of some procedures, which are often applied differently in zoos and in the facilities offering interactions with tourists.AbstractElephants are charismatic, cognitively highly-developed animals, whose management conditions can vary along a “wild–captive continuum.” Several protocols have been proposed for the assessment of zoo elephants’ welfare. It is important to investigate the possible limitations, if any, of extending findings from zoo elephants to conspecifics in a different dynamic in said “wild–captive continuum.” In this paper, findings regarding two issues will be discussed: those regarding the external validity and those regarding the acceptability of management procedures as applied to semi-captive (i.e., able to roam freely for part of the day) elephants involved in visitor-interaction programs in South Africa. In a questionnaire-based survey, half of the responding experts stated that at least some of the welfare issues they ranked as the five most important in captive elephants’ management had a different relevance for semi-captive individuals, resulting in 23.6% of the issues being rated differently. Moreover, there was no agreement among the experts on the ethical acceptability of any of the investigated procedures used in the management of semi-captive elephants involved in visitor-interaction programs. Caution is thus needed when exporting findings from one subpopulation of animals to another kept in different conditions and more scientific and ethical research is needed on the topic.
The future of the native European crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes depends on accurate conservation management. The goal of this paper is to attempt an investigation of the major ethical conflicts that can emerge in the conservation of this endangered crayfish threatened by invasive competitors, introduced diseases, and landscape alteration. To assess this issue, we will employ the Ethical Matrix, in a version explicitly tailored for its use in conservation. The filled Ethical Matrix will highlight several potential conflicts between values such as environmental protection, social and economic interests, animal welfare, cultural and aesthetic value, etc. We will discuss these conflicts, alongside some potential mitigating strategies present in the literature. We will stress in particular the need to take into account the ethical principle of fairness when assessing the economic and recreational value of invasive species, especially concerning the unfair distribution of costs. Moreover, we will assert the importance of conservation of A. pallipes both for its existence value and for its role as an umbrella and keystone species. Beyond its focus on A. pallipes, the Ethical Matrix here discussed might also provide insights on the value conflicts relative to analogous in situ conservation efforts involving a native species threatened by invasive alien competitors. Graphic abstract
Animal–Visitor Interactions (AVI) are activities offered by zoos and other tourism facilities, in which visitors come into close contact with animals. These activities can promote conservational and educational content, raise conservation mindedness and responsibility for the environment and animal welfare, but if not properly managed can jeopardize visitors’ and animals’ well-being and conservation efforts. The Animal-Visitor Interaction assessment Protocol (AVIP) has been designed to perform an integrated and multidisciplinary assessment of these activities, encompassing the “One Health, One Welfare” approach. AVIP throughout six different steps allows to assess the effects of AVIs both on animals, visitors, and the staff involved. Results can assist zoos to improve management decisions, ensure a transparent evaluation of their activities and promote conservation education goals. Lemurs walk-in enclosures have become increasingly popular among zoos, nevertheless studies focused on their assessment are still scarce. To validate AVIP to this particular AVI, we applied it to assess a walk-in enclosure hosting five Lemur catta in an Italian zoo. Results of behavioural and physiological analyses suggested no changes in animal welfare level and the Animal Welfare Risk Assessment showed low animal welfare risks. Two Visitor Experience Surveys were used to interview 291 visitors, showing that the assessed AVI could help promote the zoo’s conservation objectives and visitor education. Risk Assessment found low and medium risks to the health and safety of visitors. Results were then combined to perform a final ethical assessment. Some potential ethical concerns were detected, but the outcomes indicated that these conflicts were well managed. In the context of recent findings AVIP demonstrated its potential for application also in assessing AVIs involving primates. Our findings confirmed the usefulness of AVIP in assessing and monitoring AVIs, allowing to gain key information in a single process on multiple welfare-related parameters, educational impact, safety of the main stakeholders involved, and ethical concerns.
Nowadays, most zoos have taken prominent and active positions in endangered species conservation and educating visitors about the value of biodiversity. However, to be effective and trusted in their mission, they must act ethically and have a good reputation. Yet, the drivers that can influence their reputation are still little investigated, and there are still few studies focused on assessing the reputation of these institutions. In the present work, we report the development of a tool, the Zoo Ethical Reputation Survey (ZERS), and its pilot application to assess the opinions of the visitors of two zoos, one in Italy and one in Germany, on drivers that may influence the ethical reputation of zoos. Preliminary results based on the answers of 274 respondents show that visitors’ opinions on zoos acting with ethical responsibility are correlated with emotional appeal and familiarity with these institutions. The application of ZERS can help zoos identify weaknesses in their reputation and develop new strategies to improve people’s attitudes towards them, bringing many benefits to the individual zoo and zoological institutions in general.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.