Food for Thought: Assessing Visitor Comfort and Attitudes toward Carcass Feeding at the ABQ BioPark Zoo

Roth, Ellen K.; Visscher, Nick C.; Ha, Renee Robinette

doi:10.1080/08927936.2017.1310987

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Free-range enclosures, which promote natural or species-specific behavior in zoo animals, have also been shown to improve visitor perceptions of the welfare of zoo animals, visitor experience and increase visitor viewing times (Bryan et al, 2017;Mun et al, 2013;Price et al, 1994;Wilson et al, 2003). Additionally, enclosures that have enrichment items for zoo animals have been found to increase visitor ratings of the enclosures, to be associated with positive perceptions of zoo animals and their welfare, to increase positive attitudes towards enrichment items, and to increase viewing times and interactions with zoo animals at exhibits by visitors (Davey et al, 2005;Davey, 2007a;Kutska, 2009;Roth et al, 2017;Tripp, 1985;Wood, 1998). For example, Roth et al (2017) found that visitor attitudes towards carcass feeding were positive, which also increased positive attitudes towards animal welfare and behavior.…”

Section: Visitor Attitudes and Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Additionally, enclosures that have enrichment items for zoo animals have been found to increase visitor ratings of the enclosures, to be associated with positive perceptions of zoo animals and their welfare, to increase positive attitudes towards enrichment items, and to increase viewing times and interactions with zoo animals at exhibits by visitors (Davey et al, 2005;Davey, 2007a;Kutska, 2009;Roth et al, 2017;Tripp, 1985;Wood, 1998). For example, Roth et al (2017) found that visitor attitudes towards carcass feeding were positive, which also increased positive attitudes towards animal welfare and behavior. However, there is variation within the literature on the effect of different types of enrichments (e.g., naturalistic vs. unnaturalistic) on visitor perceptions and attitudes where some have argued there can be substantial variation in visitor responses to enrichment, in particular to where it is provided (e.g., on exhibit or off exhibit; Cottle et al, 2010;Ings et al, 1997;McPhee et al, 1998), whereas others have found no effect of enrichment type on visitor perceptions (Kutska, 2009).…”

Section: Visitor Attitudes and Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Animal-Visitor Interactions and the Visitor Experience: Visitor Behaviors, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Learning in the Modern Zoo

Learmonth¹,

Chiew²,

Godinez³

et al. 2021

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Visitor Attitudes and Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Visitor Attitudes and Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal-Visitor Interactions and the Visitor Experience: Visitor Behaviors, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Learning in the Modern Zoo

Learmonth¹,

Chiew²,

Godinez³

et al. 2021

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies found that behaviours which visitors perceived to be active and natural were considered positive indicators of welfare [10,16,19,35,38,41,43,46,52,54,59,62,70,77,88,[94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105]. In contrast, behaviours perceived as abnormal or inactive were thought to be negative indicators [2,16,19,38,40,41,47,61,64,71,73,95,99,104,[106][107][108].…”

Section: Animal Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does perception of zoo animal welfare influence public attitudes, experiences, and behavioural intentions? A mixed-methods systematic review

Phillips,

Maréchal,

Ventura

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The public expects zoos to provide high standards of animal care. Failing to meet public expectations can have detrimental impacts on public experiences and behaviour, which in turn can compromise zoos’ organisational goals relative to conservation and public education. Despite increased research interest in understanding how the public perceives animal welfare in zoo settings, to date the factors that influence such perceptions are still unclear. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a mixed methods systematic review using a PRISMA approach to identify the factors that influence public perceptions of zoo animal welfare and the potential ramifications of these perceptions on public attitudes, experiences, and behaviours. A total of 115 peer reviewed journal articles were analysed: 43 provided qualitative data for thematic synthesis and 85 reported quantitative data for content analysis. Three main groupings were identified that impacted public perception of animal welfare in zoos: human, animal, and environmental factors. Within the human factors, ethical justifications, direct interactions, and inappropriate visitor behaviours were important. For the animal factors, animals’ behaviour, apparent health status, and the suitability of certain taxa for captivity were found to be key. Finally, several aspects of the environment -- conditions of the facility, the exhibit, and welfare-related educational material --were influential. Overall, negative perceptions of animal welfare resulted in negative visitor attitudes towards zoos, detrimentally impacted experiences, and lowered likelihood to visit zoos and engagement in conservation efforts. The articles in this review provided valuable insights into the factors affecting public perception of zoo animal welfare; however, future research may benefit from a more structured approach to increase comparability and validity of results across studies. We conclude by proposing seven recommendations to increase the robustness and validity of future research in this area.

show abstract

“…Free-range enclosures, which promote natural or species-specific behavior in zoo animals, have also been shown to improve visitor perceptions of the welfare of zoo animals, visitor experience and increase visitor viewing times (Bryan et al, 2017;Mun et al, 2013;Price et al, 1994;Wilson et al, 2003). Additionally, enclosures that have enrichment items for zoo animals have been found to increase visitor ratings of the enclosures, to be associated with positive perceptions of zoo animals and their welfare, to increase positive attitudes towards enrichment items, and to increase viewing times and interactions with zoo animals at exhibits by visitors (Davey et al, 2005;Davey, 2007;Kutska, 2009;Roth et al, 2017;Tripp, 1985;Wood, 1998). For example, Roth et al (2017) found that visitor attitudes towards carcass feeding were positive which also increased positive attitudes towards animal welfare and behavior as a result of this feeding enrichment.…”

Section: Visitor Attitudes and Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Visitor Attitudes and Perceptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal-Visitor Interactions and the Visitor Experience: Visitor Behaviors, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Learning in the Modern Zoo (Preprint)

Learmonth¹,

Chiew²,

Godinez³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 less 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, and conversely 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 maintain repeat visitation over others; 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 are doing after they leave the zoo, and (2) whether visitors are adopting 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.

show abstract

Food for Thought: Assessing Visitor Comfort and Attitudes toward Carcass Feeding at the ABQ BioPark Zoo

Abstract: Food for Thought: Assessing Visitor Comfort and Attitudes toward Carcass Feeding at the ABQ BioPark Zoo

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Animal-Visitor Interactions and the Visitor Experience: Visitor Behaviors, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Learning in the Modern Zoo

Animal-Visitor Interactions and the Visitor Experience: Visitor Behaviors, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Learning in the Modern Zoo

How does perception of zoo animal welfare influence public attitudes, experiences, and behavioural intentions? A mixed-methods systematic review

Animal-Visitor Interactions and the Visitor Experience: Visitor Behaviors, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Learning in the Modern Zoo (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About