Human–animal interactions (HAIs) in zoos can be rewarding for both humans and animals, but can also be fraught with ethical and welfare perils. Contact with animals can be beneficial for all parties involved, and can indeed lead to pro-conservation and respect for nature behaviours being adopted by humans after so-called “profound experiences” of connecting or interacting with animals. Yet, human–animal interactions may also increase certain individuals’ desires for inappropriate wild-animal ‘pet’ ownership, and can convey a false sense of acceptability of exploiting animals for “cheap titillation”. Indeed, this has been reflected in a recent research review conducted on animal–visitor interactions in zoos from a number of different countries and global regions. These are unintended consequences that ”modern, ethical zoos” would try to minimise, or avoid completely where possible, though most zoos still offer close-contact experiences with their animals. Three ethical frameworks that may be beneficial for ethically run zoos to incorporate when considering human–animal interactions are: Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care. These three ethical frameworks are concerned with the welfare state and outcomes for individual animals, not just the population or species. Human–animal interactions in zoos may be acceptable in many circumstances and may be beneficial to both animal and human participants; however, they must be closely monitored through welfare tracking tools. The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) has published guidelines for human–animal interactions that are mandatory for member institutions to adhere to, although whether these guidelines are taken as mandatory or suggestions at individual institutions is unknown. Some suggestions for relevant extensions to the guidelines are suggested herein. Melding Duty of Care and the two Conservation ethical frameworks would be ideal for assessing the ethical acceptability of such interactions as they currently occur, and for considering how they should be modified to occur (or not) into the future in zoological settings.
The behavior of zoo animals may be influenced by visitors, with possible implications on animal welfare. We examined the effects of the presence of visitors on the presence and visibility of free‐ranging quokkas (Setonix brachyurus) in preferred areas of a walk‐through enclosure at Melbourne Zoo, Australia. In a controlled experiment, two visitor treatments were randomly imposed: (1) enclosure open to visitors as normal (“Open”) and (2) enclosure closed to visitors (“Closed”). Treatments were imposed for 2‐day periods, with five replicates of each treatment (10 2‐day periods in total). Instantaneous point sampling of camera footage at 1‐min intervals from 09:00 to 16:00 hr each day recorded the location and visibility of quokkas. Data were analyzed using a two‐factor ANOVA (visitor treatment and study area), with 2‐day summary values as the unit of analysis. While the presence of quokkas in the study areas was not affected by treatment, fewer (p < 0.05) quokkas were visible from the visitor paths and more (p < 0.05) quokkas were obscured from the visitor paths in the “Open” treatment than the “Closed” treatment. Number of quokkas differed between study areas across treatments (p < 0.01), but there was no interaction (p > 0.05) between visitor treatment and study area. The reduction in quokka visibility when visitors were present indicates that visitors were at least moderately fear provoking for the quokkas in this experiment, but further research is required to examine the effects of visitor presence and behaviors on the behavior and stress physiology of quokkas in walk‐through enclosures, as there may be possible welfare implications.
The concept of sentience, how it is characterised and which non-human animals possess it have long been of contention in academic and intellectual debates. Many have argued that there is no way to empirically know that animals have conscious experiences. Yet others argue that consciousness, awareness and sentience in non-human animals can be quite obvious, and can indeed be measured empirically. Most modern declarations of animal sentience from official organisations and governments now include all vertebrate animals as sentient beings, including reptiles and fish. Some declarations also include some invertebrate species. This conceptual, ethical and scientific review first focuses on conceptual components and definitions of consciousness, awareness and sentience. It then specifically discusses how cognitive, neurobiological, ethological and comparative psychological research in non-avian reptiles over the last century has evidenced many capacities that historically were denied to this class of animals. Non-avian reptiles do indeed possess all of the necessary capacities to be declared as sentient beings, at least in the small proportion of reptile species that have actually been empirically investigated so far. It is suggested that much innovative future research will continue to uncover evidence of capabilities linked to sentience within a wide range of species, including non-avian reptiles, fish and invertebrates.
Animal-Visitor Interactions (AVIs) have become commonplace in zoological institutions and facilities globally. However, most AVI research focuses on the effects of visitors on the welfare of animals, with considerably fewer studies examining the visitor experience itself. Furthermore, robust evaluations of the efficacy of zoo education programs and engagements for increasing visitor awareness of conservation issues, and for fostering long-term pro-conservation behavior changes in them, are under-researched. This paper reviews the current literature that pertains to the effects of zoo visitation and AVIs on visitor perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes. We briefly note some of the known effects that zoo visitors have on zoo animals, then explore the effects that factors such as enclosure design, animal visibility and behaviors, and AVIs can have on visitors’ overall experience whilst attending the zoo. We suggest that future research needs to more closely examine the relationships and interactions between zoo visitors and zoo animals; why some zoo visitors over others repeat visitation; what the differences in beliefs and attitudes may be between “zoo visitors” and “non-zoo visitors” (i.e., other general public); and to make a concerted effort to understand: (1) what visitors do after they leave the zoo, and (2) whether visitors adopt long-term pro-conservation behaviors into their daily lives. We further suggest that future research needs to start investigating indirect measures related to the visitor experience, such as: (a) individual conservation support outside of the zoo; (b) internet activity; (c) changes in sustainable purchasing practices related to knowledge gains; (d) financial investment in sustainable or ethical companies after knowledge gains; (e) and the longitudinal effects of zoo visits.
Recent research has uncovered many complex cognitive traits and affective processes in many reptile species, such as the ability to make choices that are rewarding or pleasurable. The investigation herein was initiated after many years of anecdotal reports, and preliminary observations, that the two male Aldabran giant tortoises (Aldabrachelys gigantea), Wilbur and Little John, at Melbourne Zoo (Melbourne, Australia) would approach the fence‐line of their enclosure, sometimes multiple times daily, to “solicit” interactions from zoo visitors and/or zoo staff. Following other research with Galapagos giant tortoises (Geochelone nigra), this experiment was a novel preference test with two male Aldabran giant tortoises to assess their individual preferences for three stimuli: (1) human interaction (shell and neck rubs provided using hands); (2) food (highly palatable carrot pieces); and (3) an “enrichment” ball (a red “boomer ball”). The results found that Wilbur highly preferred human interaction and food over the ball; whereas Little John preferred food, and showed some initial interest in the ball, but did not approach the human on any of his 13 human interaction trials. These results reflect previous published findings, that human interaction is a preferred “enrichment,” but is dependent upon a multitude of other contextual factors, and is not preferred at all times by all individuals. Individual variation may be very important to understand to have greater positive effect on the welfare‐related needs of each giant tortoise housed in captivity. Further research is clearly required to enhance the welfare and well‐being of many types of zoo‐housed reptiles.
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.