15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Global Review of Animal–Visitor Interactions in Modern Zoos and Aquariums and Their Implications for Wild Animal Welfare

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Simple Summary

          This study explores the characteristics of animal-visitor Interactions (AVIs) (interactions between people and captive wild animals) in zoos and aquaria across the globe. We reviewed information provided on public websites of institutions that are either direct members of the World Association for Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) or belong to regional and national associations that have WAZA membership. The opportunity for visitors to interact with wild animals was promoted on the majority of the facilities’ websites. Petting captive wild animals was the most common AVI activity advertised (43%) of facilities, and interaction with mammals was the most advertised taxonomic class (53%). Some activities involving direct contact with wildlife were promoted more commonly than expected (for example, hand feed and ride wild animals, and walk with or swim through wild animal enclosures). Some of the advertised AVIs have the potential to impact animal welfare; in light of this, we provide recommendations to balance and manage captive wild animal welfare in AVIs with other primary interconnected goals.

          Abstract

          We provide an initial insight into the occurrence and characteristics of animal-visitor interactions (AVIs) involving captive wild animals within zoos and aquaria. Using information provided online via official public websites of modern zoos and aquaria, we found that AVIs were provided by the majority of facilities. Our study revealed that a variety of AVI types were being offered. Globally, petting captive wild animals was the most prevalent AVI type advertised ( n = 1241 observations, 43% (534) of facilities) and Mammalia was the most advertised taxonomic class ( n = 5142; 53% (2739)). We found certain AVI types that were more commonly offered than predicted. These were opportunities to: (1) Hand feed captive wild animals in Asia, North America and Oceania; (2) ride wild animals in Europe and North America; (3) walk with or swim through wild animal enclosures in Asia; and (4) walk with wild animals in Asia and Europe. Given the global prevalence of AVIs in modern zoos and aquaria, and an apparent lack of animal welfare focused research, we provide recommendations to help effectively balance and manage captive wild animal welfare with other primary interconnected goals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Multiple Regression Approach to Analyzing Contingency Tables: Post Hoc and Planned Comparison Procedures

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Using false discovery rates for multiple comparisons in ecology and evolution

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows.

              This study examined the relationships between the attitude and the behaviour of the stockperson towards cows and the behavioural response to humans and the milk production of cows at 31 commercial dairy farms over one lactation. The attitude of the stockperson was measured on the basis of the stockperson's opinion of the cow's behaviour and how the stockperson evaluated his own behaviour. The behaviour of the stockperson was measured by recording the nature and frequency of the tactile interactions and some visual and auditory interactions directed towards the cows. The behavioural response of cows to humans was assessed by observing their approach behaviour to an unfamiliar experimenter in a standard test and production records were collected for the entire lactation at each farm. Correlation and regression analyses using farm averages were used to examine relationships between human and cow variables. Several cow behaviour variables, indicative of fear of humans, were moderately (P<0.05) to highly (P<0.01) correlated with milk yield and composition and regression analysis indicated that fear of humans accounted for 19% of the variation in milk yield between farms. The results suggest that at farms where milk yield was low, cows showed less approach to the experimenter in the standard fear test than at farms where milk yield was higher. A composite attitude score, based on the responses of stockpeople to questions about patting and talking to cows, ease of movement of cows and cows recognising unfamiliar stockpeople, was moderately (P<0.05) to highly (P<0.01) correlated with the behaviour of the stockperson. While a number of stockperson behaviour variables were correlated (P<0.05) with milk yield, the former variables were generally poorly correlated with cow behaviour. Therefore these preliminary findings provide evidence that, as seen in the pig industry, sequential relationships may exist between the attitude and behaviour of the stockperson and the behaviour and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Research is required to further examine these relationships because of the possible implications on cow productivity and welfare.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Animals (Basel)
                Animals (Basel)
                animals
                Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI
                MDPI
                2076-2615
                08 June 2019
                June 2019
                : 9
                : 6
                : 332
                Affiliations
                [1 ]World Animal Protection, 222 Gray’s Inn Rd., London WC1X 8HB, UK; gemmacarder@ 123456yahoo.co.uk
                [2 ]School of Science and Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, All Saints Building, All Saints, Manchester M15 6BH, UK; d.megson@ 123456mmu.ac.uk (D.M.); e.coulthard@ 123456mmu.ac.uk (E.C.); j.norrey@ 123456mmu.ac.uk (J.N.)
                [3 ]Wild Welfare, 63 Queenswood Road, London SE23 2QR, UK; sophie@ 123456wildwelfare.org (S.K.); georgina@ 123456wildwelfare.org (G.G.)
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8935-9092
                Article
                animals-09-00332
                10.3390/ani9060332
                6617332
                31181769
                0b19ecbd-b941-463f-9e6c-765312f9d03f
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 22 April 2019
                : 04 June 2019
                Categories
                Article

                conservation,education,tourism,wildlife,word association for zoo and aquariums

                Comments

                Comment on this article