Visitors' perceptions of zoo‐housed lesser anteater (Tamandua tetradactyla) welfare: Observation plays a larger role than a brief informative talk

Abstract

There is a growing ethical concern in modern society about animals' quality of life. We hypothesize that zoo visitors' perception of zoo animal welfare, particularly in the case of lesser anteaters, changes positively after listening to scientific information. Visitors observing active lesser anteaters in their enclosures at Córdoba Zoo (Argentina) were asked to respond to a questionnaire about animal welfare. The treatment group (T) answered the questionnaire after listening to a brief informative talk based on local scientific studies on lesser anteaters. The control group (C) answered the questionnaire without hearing the informative talk. Visitors (87.2%) considered biological, sanitary, and sociocultural aspects to be necessary conditions for optimum wild zoo‐housed animal welfare. The majority of visitors considered that natural surroundings provide the highest level of welfare for wild animals. Visitors in the T group ranked the zoo as providing a higher level of animal welfare than those in group C. In reference to management measurements, the T group agreed on the positive effect of the application of environmental enrichment (Likert Medians: C = 4 and T = 5; p = .0443). On the basis of their perception, most visitors in both groups stated that the lesser anteaters at Córdoba Zoo appeared to be in a good state of welfare. We interpret this as meaning that, what these Córdoba zoo visitors personally perceived while observing the lesser anteaters carried greater weight than what they learned from the informative talk, though the talk did slightly affect their opinion.

Non-Invasive Assessment of the Seasonal Stress Response to Veterinary Procedures and Transportation of Zoo-Housed Lesser Anteater (Tamandua tetradactyla)

“…In this sense, studying the zoo-housed lesser anteater ( Tamandua tetradactyla) reactivity to management procedures would be useful to support future management decisions. Therefore, we utilized validated, non-invasive methodologies to evaluate the behavioural and physiological stress responses in this species [ 27 , 28 , 29 ].…”

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

“…However, some clear contributing factors that influence visitor perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors have been identified, and more factors are being discovered with continued research in this area (Clayton et al, 2009;Fernandez et al, 2009;Godinez & Fernandez, 2019). Some of these identified factors are: animal type/taxonomic group Whitworth, 2012), enclosure/exhibit design (Bitgood et al, 1988;Davey, 2006a, b;Nakamichi, 2007;Skibins & Powell, 2013), animal visibility, activity and behaviors (Bitgood et al, 1988;Davey 2006a, b;Hacker & Miller, 2016;Luebke et al, 2016;Margulis et al, 2003;Miller, 2013;Philpot, 1996;Ridgway et al, 2005), perceived animal wellbeing and welfare (Bexell et al, 2007;Chiapero et al, 2021;Davey, 2007b;Escobar-Ibarra et al, 2021;Howell et al, 2019;Melfi et al, 2004;Miller, 2013;Miller et al, 2018;Packer et al, 2018;Razal & Miller, 2019), proximity to the animal Howell et al, 2019;Luebke et al, 2016;Whitehouse-Tedd et al, 2018), visual messaging/signage (Clayton et al, 2009;Read & Waran, 1996), live animal training, educational programs and live-animal presentations (Alba et al, 2017;Anderson et al, 2003;Esson & Moss, 2014;Fernandez et al, 2009;Kimble, 2014;Mann-Lang et al, 2016;…”

“…Visitor interests have most often been studied through direct measures of their behaviorsuch as dwell time (sometimes referred to as "holding time") in front of or nearby enclosures/exhibits, attention towards an enclosure/exhibit (e.g., facing or talking about an exhibit), level of interaction with signage and/or interactive displays, and overall crowd size at presentations or an enclosure/exhibit Clayton et al, 2009;Fernandez et al, 2009;Godinez et al, 2013;Godinez & Fernandez, 2019;Margulis et al, 2003;Read & Waran, 1996) or through visitor surveys conducted onsite at these destinations, with both formal (i.e., scientifically published) and informal (i.e., internally reported within the organization only) reporting outcomes (Chiapero et al, 2021;Dove & Byrne, 2014;Clayton et al, 2017;Godinez & Fernandez, 2019;Howell et al, 2019;Jensen, 2014a;Moss et al, 2015Moss et al, , 2017aPenn, 2009;Spooner et al, 2019;Spooner, Jensen et al, 2021). However, as Spooner et al (2019) and others note, "reporting on others' experience is prone to bias and must be viewed with caution" (p.1233) (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002;Jensen, 2014bJensen, , 2017.…”

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

“…However, some clear contributing factors that influence visitor perceptions, attitudes and behaviors have been identified, and more factors are being discovered with continued research in this area (Clayton et al, 2009;Fernandez et al, 2009;Godinez & Fernandez, 2019). Some of these identified factors are: animal type/taxonomic group Whitworth, 2012), enclosure/exhibit design (Bitgood et al, 1988;Davey, 2006a;2006b;Nakamichi, 2007;Skibins & Powell, 2013), animal visibility, activity and behaviors (Bitgood et al, 1988;Davey 2006a;2006b;Hacker & Miller, 2016;Luebke et al, 2016;Margulis et al, 2003;Miller, 2013;Philpot, 1996;Ridgway et al, 2005), perceived animal wellbeing and welfare (Bexell et al, 2007;Chiapero et al, 2021;Davey, 2007b;Escobar-Ibarra et al, 2021;Howell et al, 2019;Melfi et al, 2004;Miller, 2013;Miller et al, 2018;Packer et al, 2018;Razal & Miller, 2019), proximity to the animal Howell et al, 2019;Luebke et al, 2016;Whitehouse-Tedd et al, 2018), visual messaging/signage (Clayton et al, 2009;Read & Waran, 1996), live animal training, educational programmes and live-animal presentations (Alba et al, 2017;Anderson et al, 2003;Esson & Moss, 2014;Fernandez et al, 2009;…”

“…scientifically published) and informal (i.e. internally reported within the organization only) reporting outcomes (Chiapero et al, 2021;Dove & Byrne, 2014;Clayton et al, 2017;Godinez & Fernandez, 2019;Howell et al, 2019;Jensen, 2014a;Moss et al, 2015;2017a;Penn, 2009;Spooner et al, 2019;Spooner, Jensen et al, 2021). However, as Spooner et al (2019) and others note, "reporting on others' experience is prone to bias and must be viewed with caution" (p.1233; Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002;Jensen, 2014b;2017).…”