Human-Animal Interactions in Zoos: Integrating Science and Practice

By Samantha J. Chiew, Courtney Collins, Jon Coe and 24 more

Human-Animal Interactions (HAI) are a primary welfare interest to both animal scientists and practitioners. In zoos and aquariums, the study of Animal-Visitor Interactions (AVI), including both the impact of visitors on animals (the visitor effect) and the impact of animals on visitors (the visitor experience), have become a focus for understanding HAIs in zoos. The study of HAIs in zoos has grown to consider a number of factors, including animal-staff interactions and bonds, modern exhibit design and technology, direct and indirect interactions, as well as positive and negative impacts on both animals and visitor alike.

This thought-provoking book summarizes the latest research concerning the impacts of HAIs in zoos, including considerations for conducting research and managing HAIs. The book:

Explores the interactions of animals with keepers, veterinary professionals, and other staff, and the effects of those interactions on the welfare of animals.
Considers the impact of visitors on the well-being of animals.
Covers the effects of interactions on education and the visitor experience.
Outlines the use of technology to enhance experience, and improve animal welfare.
Details theoretical, ethical, and practical considerations relevant to HAIs in zoos.

An invaluable resource for animal behaviour and welfare scientists, students and practitioners, as well as anyone working with zoo animals.

• Language: English
• Publisher: CAB International
• Release date: May 30, 2024
• ISBN: 9781800622715

Book preview

1An Introduction to Human–Animal Interactions in Zoos and Aquariums

EDUARDO J. FERNANDEZ

¹* AND SALLY L. SHERWEN²

¹School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; ²Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Abstract

Over the last several decades, the study of animal–visitor interactions has become one of the most examined areas of research in zoos and aquariums. Considered a subfield of human–animal interactions, research on interactions in zoos is often focused on the impact of visitors on animals (i.e. the visitor effect), and the impact of animals on visitors (i.e. the visitor experience). This chapter introduces the reader to the general study of human–animal interactions in zoos and aquariums, as well as serving as an introduction to the content and chapters of this book. In addition, we consider the ways in which this text can be used, including from the perspectives of practitioners, students, teachers and scientists.

An Introduction to Human–animal Interactions in Zoos and Aquariums

Animal–visitor interactions (AVIs) have become a frequently studied research topic in zoos and aquariums. As early as the 1960s, zoo personnel noted the possible adverse or beneficial effects of visitors on zoo animals (Morris, 1964; Hediger, 1969). Kreger and Mench (1995) detailed several of the common entertainment-focused endeavours of AVIs in zoos (e.g. animal rides and public feedings), as well as some of the adverse effects of these interactions on the welfare of the animals. Thus began one of the early focuses of AVIs: the potential negative welfare impacts that interactions with visitors may produce.

The field has since expanded rapidly and can be considered a branch of human–animal interactions (HAIs), also sometimes discussed as human–animal relationships or human–animal bonds (Netting et al., 1987; Mullin, 1999; Hosey and Melfi, 2014). HAIs can involve research examining interactions between stockpeople and livestock (Hemsworth, 2003), and therapeutic interventions for people with companion or other animals (e.g. Schaefer, 2002; Griffin et al., 2019; APA, 2021), including animal-assisted therapy and social work with prison inmates (Strimple, 2003). Such programmes highlight the potential positive welfare impacts of HAIs for both humans and non-human animals.

Additionally, the study of AVIs has been influenced by ‘visitor studies’, including research done through the field of museology (i.e. museum studies; Kirchberg and Tröndle, 2012) and research involving visitors and conducted in zoos (Bitgood and Shettel, 1996; Davey, 2006; Fernandez, 2019).

Several major reviews on AVIs in zoos and aquariums have been conducted (Hosey, 2000, 2005; Davey, 2007; Fernandez et al., 2009; Godinez and Fernandez, 2019; Sherwen and Hemsworth, 2019; Learmonth et al., 2021). Hosey (2000) produced one of the first reviews of the ‘visitor effects’ of AVIs (i.e. the effects of the visitor on the animals). Hosey also detailed three separate hypotheses for the impact that visitors have on an animal’s welfare: social facilitation (a largely neutral ‘audience effect’), stress and enrichment. Hosey (2005) went on to detail potential visitor effects on the welfare of primates, while Davey (2007) produced one of the first broader reviews of the visitor effects of AVIs. Fernandez et al. (2009) published the first review of AVIs that detailed both visitor effects and the effects of the animals on the visitors, part of what would later be described as ‘visitor experiences’. Sherwen and Hemsworth (2019) produced one of the first reviews of visitor effects that detailed numerous positive welfare benefits as a result of AVIs, while Godinez and Fernandez (2019) published the first review to focus on visitor experiences, specifically how such interactions impacted conservation efforts. Learmonth et al. (2021) produced the first review to consider the overall impact of the visitor experience in zoos. In addition, researchers have reviewed specific parameters of AVIs, including their enriching functions (Claxton, 2011), as well as animal training interactions (e.g. husbandry or enrichment device training) producing enrichment effects (Fernandez, 2022), ethical considerations for AVIs (Learmonth, 2020), and the different categorical types and frequencies of AVIs that occur in zoos and aquariums across the world (D’Cruze et al., 2019). This recent growth in the number of reviews on this topic, particularly over the past decade, highlights the interest and importance of gaining an in-depth understanding on the topic.

Human–Animal Interactions in Zoos and Aquariums: Text Chapters

Our book focuses on the HAI component of such studies in zoos and aquariums for two reasons: (i) to fit the general topic of AVIs under the much broader field of HAIs; and (ii) to include the non-visitor HAIs that can occur in zoos, including animal interactions with staff. We have split the text into three broad sections: (i) Understanding HAIs in Zoos, (ii) The Visitor Effect, and (iii) The Visitor Experience. Four or five chapters are included in each section, as well as this chapter (Part I: Introduction) and a concluding chapter (Part V: Conclusions).

Part II: Understanding Human–Animal Interactions in Zoos starts with Chapter 2 where Bonnie Perdue and Terry Maple consider some of the ethical considerations for HAIs in zoos. In Chapter 3, Neil D’Cruze and Georgina Groves discuss the scope and scale of HAIs in zoos. Chapter 4 has Vicky Melfi, Sam Ward, Chris Pawson and Geoff Hosey examining animal–staff interactions as HAIs in zoos. In Chapter 5, Jon Coe discusses the effects of exhibit design on HAIs in zoos. Finally, in Chapter 6, Julia Hoy and Sarah Webber consider the intersection of the use of technology, propagation and reintroduction programmes, and HAIs in zoos.

In Part III: The Visitor Effect, Chapter 7 has Mark Learmonth and Paul Hemsworth considering how visitor effects are measured. In Chapter 8, Ashley Edes and David Powell discuss the potential positive, neutral and negative impacts of visitors on zoo animals. Given that a significant portion of the studies in this field have focused on primates compared with other taxa, we have dedicated a full chapter on this focus area: in Chapter 9, Geoff Hosey, Georgia Oaten, Sam Ward and Vicky Melfi examine visitor effects on primates. Finally, Chapter 10 has Ellen Williams, Violet Hunton, Sam Ward and Geoff Hosey discussing visitor effects on non-primate species, summarizing the work done on a range of other taxa and emphasizing the need to better balance the focus across the diversity of species housed in zoos and aquariums.

Part IV: The Visitor Experience starts with Chapter 11 with Samantha Chiew, Mark Learmonth and Lauren Hemsworth considering how visitor experiences are measured. In Chapter 12, Polly Doodson, Lucy Dumbell, Amanda Webber and Vicky Melfi discuss the types of visitor experiences that can occur. Chapter 13 has Courtney Collins examining how to use HAIs to maximize educational and learning experiences for visitors. In Chapter 14, Emily McLeod, Kelly Fielding and Angela Dean discuss how we can better understand and improve the perceptions and attitudes of visitors during any HAIs at the zoo. Finally, in Chapter 15, we (Sally Sherwen and Eduardo Fernandez) provide a book summary and future directions for the study of and practices based around HAIs.

Human–Animal Interactions in Zoos and Aquariums: A Guide

One of the primary purposes of our text is to provide a guide for both scientists and practitioners. As such, the book is organized into sections relevant to the key features of HAIs in zoos and aquariums, as well as visitor effects and visitor experiences. In addition, we detail below guides for practitioners, teachers/students and researchers interested in HAIs in zoos and aquariums. We expect readers of our text will fit under more than one of these categorical divisions, and possibly all of them. None the less, we feel that these guide designations may help facilitate how to approach each chapter and the text as a whole.

A practitioner’s guide

One of the primary functions for HAIs in zoos and aquariums is to identify ways that such interactions can simultaneously improve the welfare of the animals as well as the education and experience of those visiting the zoo (Fernandez et al., 2009; Sherwen and Hemsworth, 2019; Learmonth et al., 2021) and ultimately enhance support for conservation. One component of this might be practical solutions for assessing interactions, such as qualitative behaviour assessments (Wemelsfelder et al., 2000; Wemelsfelder, 2007), which have been used in zoos and aquariums to assess HAIs (Patel et al., 2019; Delfour et al., 2020). Similarly, the Five Domains Model of animal welfare (Mellor and Reid, 1994; Mellor, 2016) has been adapted to incorporate HAIs (Mellor et al., 2020), which can in turn help assess appropriate AVIs or other interactions in zoos and aquariums. Our text details a variety of methods that keepers or other non-research staff can effectively use to assess the impact of HAIs at their zoological facility.

Likewise, the text itself can be used as a guide to identify methods to improve positive interactions at any zoo or aquarium. This includes optimizing animal–staff interactions (Chapter 4), the use of exhibit design or technology (Chapters 5 and 6), visitor effects that produce positive welfare (Chapter 8), including effects on both primates (Chapter 9) and non-primates (Chapter 10), and visitor experiences that maximize educational experiences (Chapter 13). Thus, many of the points illustrated throughout the text should allow zoo practitioners to identify ideal methods to make the most of the HAIs that occur within their facility, including ways to create new and positive HAIs.

A student/teacher’s guide

Zoos and aquariums offer a number of opportunities for visitors to learn at their facilities. In some cases, this has been used as an opportunity to introduce learning laboratories for students, where university courses offer the ability to engage directly with animals or otherwise identify key features of behavioural principles or animal behaviour (Lukas et al., 1998; Fernandez and Timberlake, 2008). In addition, others have explored the effects of visiting a zoo on the education and learning of those visitors, including through HAIs (Collins et al., 2020; Learmonth et al., 2021). We believe that our text, particularly the chapters focused on the visitor experience (Chapters 11–14), will provide a plethora of teaching opportunities for educational staff looking to create greater learning opportunities for visitors and students alike.

Additionally, many of those reading this text are likely to be students looking to gain more knowledge about the modern practices in zoos and aquariums today. Whether your ultimate goal is to continue academic pursuits with research and teaching, to gain employment in a zoo or aquarium, or simply to learn more about applied animal behaviour and welfare research and practices, we believe you will find this text useful for learning about the new work being done in the name of understanding and optimally utilizing HAIs in zoos and aquariums. Specifically, Chapter 3 will provide you with an overview of the broad range of types of HAIs that frequently occur in zoos. This is a new field, emerging largely in the 21st century, and it will be the current students who will help shape the interactions of the future.

A researcher’s guide

Finally, we expect this text to function as a guide for researchers, both in understanding modern research involving HAIs in zoos and aquariums, and in developing new research for the future. Each chapter, while focused on practical solutions, takes an academic approach to outlining past and current research in the field. We believe that this text will serve as an encyclopaedia for the most up-to-date research that has been done so far. From a researcher’s practical standpoint, you might use this guide to better understand all the research that currently exists involving HAIs in zoos and aquariums, as well as highlighting the current gaps in our knowledge and opportunities for further exploration and discovery of new references and reading material.

Similarly, this text offers a unique opportunity to help inspire new research based on what we currently know. For instance, there is still a lack of direct comparisons to allow us to better understand what visitors learn at the zoo compared with non-zoo visitors, as well as how this impacts conservation efforts (Fernandez, 2019). There is also the continued difficulty in addressing experimental control when it comes to understanding differences in HAIs between visitor effects and visitor experiences. In other words, are the changes observed in both animal and visitor activity causally related to one or the other, or a result of a confounding variable that cannot be identified in the absence of experimental manipulation? Correlational observation-only studies, which are the primary research method for most HAI studies in zoos and aquariums, are likely to fail to address this concern (Fernandez and Chiew, 2021). For this reason, many researchers took advantage of a quasi-experimental manipulation induced by the global COVID-19 pandemic, where zoos closed to the public could compare differences between visitor and non-visitor periods and the effects on the animals (Carter et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2021, 2022). This text, along with the wide range of past research cited, should help inspire researchers to continue similar research, including consideration of the ethics involved in different methodological HAI manipulations (Chapter 2), as well as ways to measure both the visitor effect (Chapter 7) and the visitor experience (Chapter 11).

Human–Animal Interactions in Zoos and Aquariums: Summing Up

HAIs are an important component of welfare and conservation efforts in zoos and aquariums. In this sense, the wellbeing of visitors and other persons at the zoo becomes as critical to study as the welfare of the animals. Zoos and aquariums offer an ideal setting to evaluate all components of HAIs, including the effects that people visiting a zoo have on the animals and the experiences created by visitors observing and interacting with zoo animals. HAIs thus provide a unique method for assessing and improving all zoo welfare efforts. We hope this text is just one step towards advancing such efforts.

References

American Psychological Association (2021) Human–Animal Interaction, APA Division 17, Section 13. Available at: https://www.apa-hai.org/ (accessed 29 September 2021).

Bitgood, S. and Shettel, H.H. (1996) An overview of visitor studies. Journal of Museum Education 21, 6–10. DOI: 10.1080/10598650.1996.11510329

Carter, K.C., Keane, I.A., Clifforde, L.M., Rowden, L.J., Fieschi-Méric, L. and Michaels, C.J. (2021) The effect of visitors on zoo reptile behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens 2, 664–676. DOI: 10.3390/jzbg2040048

Claxton, A.M. (2011) The potential of the human–animal relationship as an environmental enrichment for the welfare of zoo-housed animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 133, 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.002

Collins, C., Corkery, I., McKeown, S., McSweeney, L., Flannery, K. et al. (2020) Quantifying the long-term impact of zoological education: a study of learning in a zoo and an aquarium. Environmental Education Research 26, 1008–1026. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2020.1771287

Davey, G. (2006) Visitor behavior in zoos: a review. Anthrozoös 19, 143–157. DOI: 10.2752/089279306785593838

Davey, G. (2007) Visitors’ effects on the welfare of animals in the zoo: a review. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 10, 169–183. DOI: 10.1080/10888700701313595

D’Cruze, N., Khan, S., Carder, G., Megson, D., Coulthard, E. et al. (2019) A global review of animal–visitor interactions in modern zoos and aquariums and their implications for wild animal welfare. Animals 9: 332. DOI: 10.3390/ani9060332

Delfour, F., Monreal-Pawlowsky, T., Vaicekauskaite, R., Pilenga, C., Garcia-Parraga, D. et al. (2020) Dolphin welfare assessment under professional care: ‘Willingness to Participate’, an indicator significantly associated with six potential ‘alerting factors’. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens 1, 42–60. DOI: 10.3390/jzbg1010004

Fernandez, E.J. (2019) What are we doing to measure conservation support from zoo visitors? AZA Conservation Education Committee Newsletter 13, 14–15.

Fernandez, E.J. (2022). Training as enrichment: a critical review. Animal Welfare 31, 1–12. DOI: 10.7120/09627286.31.1.001

Fernandez, E.J. and Chiew, S.J. (2021) Animal–visitor interactions: effects, experiences, and welfare. Animal Behavior and Cognition 8, 462–467. DOI: 10.26451/abc.08.04.13.2021

Fernandez, E.J. and Timberlake, W. (2008) Mutual benefits of research collaborations between zoos and academic institutions. Zoo Biology 27, 470–487. DOI: 10.1002/zoo.20215

Fernandez, E.J., Tamborski, M.A., Pickens, S.R. and Timberlake, W. (2009) Animal–visitor interactions in the modern zoo: conflicts and interventions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120, 1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.06.002

Godinez, A.M. and Fernandez, E.J. (2019) What is the zoo experience? How zoos impact a visitor’s behaviors, perceptions, and conservation efforts. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 1746. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01746

Griffin, J.A., Hurley, K. and McCune, S. (2019) Human–animal interaction research: progress and possibilities. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2803. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02803

Hediger, H. (1969) Man and Animal in the Zoo. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Reading, UK.

Hemsworth, P.H. (2003). Human–animal interactions in livestock production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81, 185–198. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0

Hosey, G.R. (2000) Zoo animals and their human audiences: what is the visitor effect? Animal Welfare 9, 343–357. DOI: 10.1017/S0962728600022946

Hosey, G.R. (2005) How does the zoo environment affect the behaviour of captive primates? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90, 107–129. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.015

Hosey, G. and Melfi, V. (2014) Human–animal interactions, relationships and bonds: a review and analysis of the literature. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 27, 117–142. DOI: 10.46867/ijcp.2014.27.01.01

Kirchberg, V. and Tröndle, M. (2012) Experiencing exhibitions: a review of studies on visitor experiences in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal 55, 435–452. DOI: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2012.00167.x

Kreger, M.D. and Mench, J.A. (1995) Visitor–animal interactions at the zoo. Anthrozoös 8, 143–158. DOI: 10.2752/089279395787156301

Learmonth, M.J. (2020) Human–animal interactions in zoos: what can compassionate conservation, conservation welfare and duty of care tell us about the ethics of interacting, and avoiding unintended consequences? Animals 10: 2037. DOI: 10.3390/ani10112037

Learmonth, M.J., Chiew, S.J., Godinez, A.M. and Fernandez, E.J. (2021) Animal–visitor interactions and the visitor experience: visitor behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, and learning in the modern zoo. Animal Behavior and Cognition 8, 632–649. DOI: 10.26451/abc.08.04.13.2021

Lukas, K.E., Marr, M.J. and Maple, T.L. (1998) Teaching operant conditioning at the zoo. Teaching of Psychology 25, 112–116. DOI: 10.1207/s15328023top2502_7

Mellor, D.J. (2016). Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond the Five Freedoms towards A Life Worth Living. Animals 6: 21. DOI: 10.3390/ani6030021

Mellor, D.J. and Reid, C.S.W. (1994) Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. In: Baker, R.M., Jenkin, G. and Mellor, D.J. (eds) Improving the Well-Being of Animals in the Research Environment. Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research and Teaching, Glen Osmond, Australia, pp. 3–18.

Mellor, D.J., Beausoleil, N.J., Littlewood, K.E., McLean, A.N., McGreevy, P.D. et al. (2020) The 2020 Five Domains Model: including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 10: 1870. DOI: 10.3390/ani10101870

Morris, D. (1964) The response of animals to a restricted environment. In: Edholm, O.G. (ed.) Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 13. Academic Press, London, pp. 99–118.

Mullin, M.H. (1999) Mirrors and windows: sociocultural studies of human–animal relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology 28, 201–224.

Netting, F.E., Wilson, C.C. and New, J.C. (1987) The human–animal bond: implications for practice. Social Work 32, 60–64. DOI: 10.1093/sw/32.1.60

Patel, F., Wemelsfelder, F. and Ward, S.J. (2019) Using qualitative behaviour assessment to investigate human–animal relationships in zoo-housed giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis). Animals 9: 381. DOI: 10.3390/ani9060381

Schaefer, K. (2002) Human–animal interactions as a therapeutic intervention. Counseling and Human Development 34, 1–18.

Sherwen, S.L. and Hemsworth, P.H. (2019) The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare. Animals 9: 366. DOI: 10.3390/ani9060366

Strimple, E.O. (2003) A history of prison inmate–animal interaction programs. American Behavioral Scientist 47, 70–78. DOI: 10.1177/0002764203255212

Wemelsfelder, F. (2007) How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of behaviour. Animal Welfare 16, 25–31.

Wemelsfelder, F., Hunter, E.A., Mendl, M.T. and Lawrence, A.B. (2000) The spontaneous qualitative assessment of behavioural expressions in pigs: first explorations of a novel methodology for integrative animal welfare measurement. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67, 193–215. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00093-3

Williams, E., Carter, A., Rendle, J. and Ward, S.J. (2021) Impacts of COVID-19 on animals in zoos: a longitudinal multi-species analysis. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens 2, 130–145. DOI: 10.3390/jzbg2020010

Williams, E., Carter, A., Rendle, J., Fontani, S., Walsh, N.D. et al. (2022) The impact of COVID-19 zoo closures on behavioural and physiological parameters of welfare in primates. Animals 12: 1622. DOI: 10.3390/ani12131622

* Email: [e-mail]

2The Ethics of Human–Animal Interactions at the Zoo

BONNIE M. PERDUE

¹* AND TERRY L. MAPLE²,³,⁴

¹Agnes Scott College, Decatur, GA, USA; ²Formerly Elizabeth S. Watts Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology, GA, USA; ³Formerly Scholar in Residence, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, USA; ⁴Formerly University of North Florida, Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens, Jacksonville, FL, USA

Abstract

Zoo visits generate a variety of interactions both within and between humans and animals. Given this high degree of connectivity, there are numerous ethical considerations that might arise in response to meeting the differing needs of the various constituents. Historically, decision making was more oriented towards optimizing the visitor experience, but more recent shifts have attempted to advance experiences for both the animals and the visitors. Here, we review several ethical frameworks that might aid in navigating this decision process in terms of how to resolve potential ethical dilemmas that arise. We also encourage the intentional design of creative solutions that can maximize the experience of both animals and visitors to the zoo.

Introduction

Humans, by nature, often frame their experiences in the world in relation to themselves. As such, a visitor to the zoo is likely to reflect on or process their experiences in an egocentric or anthropocentric manner. What will I learn? Which animals will I get to see? How will I feel when reflecting on the visit? Will I feel reconnected to nature? Am I inspired to seek change in the world?

While all of these reflections are meaningful and certainly a transformative part of a zoo visit, there is far more complexity in the interaction than is necessarily reflected when this more egocentric perspective is taken. Far from the unidirectional flow of meaningfulness or relevance to an interaction, zoo visits are inherently multi-layered, multi-directional interactions that influence the visitor, the animal, the staff, the broader community – and all of the interactions in between. This complexity inherently generates a number of ethical questions, issues and even dilemmas at times. Here, we seek to outline and gain an understanding of the ethical implications of human–animal interactions (HAIs) in zoos.

The topic of ethics has long been of great interest to zoos from both a practical and a theoretical perspective. As zoos have evolved, so have the ethical concerns relating to zoo animals and visitors. Historically, ethical concerns arose in relation to the care of the animals themselves (see Norton et al., 1996, for early work on these issues). Many of these early considerations about animal care have been addressed through the science and understanding of animal welfare and improvements in attention to diet, social structure, physical space, environmental enrichment, behavioural needs and veterinary care. While providing excellent animal care in captivity continues to be of utmost importance, there has been a more recent shift towards exploring the ethics of zoo visitors and their interactions with the animals they seek to visit, and how to balance the needs of zoo visitors with the needs of the animals. As with many ethical dilemmas, there is unlikely to be a single best response, but caretakers and stakeholders should consider the various ethical models and perspectives in an effort to optimize the experience of both the zoo animals and the visitors (Fig. 2.1).

A portrait of a lion with a human emphasizes the lion's profile and is shot with a bokeh.

Fig. 2.1. Zoo visitor and lion in close proximity. Photograph courtesy of Adam K. Thompson/Zoo Atlanta.

A number of ethical frameworks have been developed to capture the complexities in housing animals in a captive environment. Zoos, over time, have evolved from places focused almost exclusively on human viewing and pleasure to more animal-centred, and eventually animal-oriented places, and justified in the broader lens of research and conservation. Carr and Cohen (2011) reviewed some of this history and complexities of public-facing messaging about zoo missions in light of these shifting priorities. Through these shifts, the ethical concerns and considerations have also changed and evolved (reviewed by Fernandez and McWhorter, 2023).

HAIs at the Zoo: The Crux of the Ethical Problem

In recent years, there has been an increase in research on HAIs, and more specifically animal–visitor interactions (AVIs), in zoos (reviewed by Hosey, 2000; Davey, 2007; Fernandez et al., 2009; Sherwen and Hemsworth, 2019; Learmonth et al., 2021). At the root of ethical dilemmas in HAIs is the potentially necessary trade-off between: (i) enhancing visitor experience; and (ii) mediating the effect of visitors on animal welfare. Within AVIs, the ‘visitor experience’ describes the effects of animals on a person, whereas the ‘visitor effect’ describes the potential influence of the visitor on the animals themselves (Fernandez and Chiew, 2021; see also Chapter 1, this volume). The centre point of the balancing act between visitor experiences and visitor effects is the individual animal’s welfare.

Animal welfare

The consideration of the welfare of animals in captivity is not new (Maple, 2019), but continues to be of critical importance, especially as we navigate ethical issues relating to HAIs. Modern zoos align with the goals of research, education, conservation and recreation (Kleiman, 1985). These are foundational to continued existence of such institutions, but more recently a fifth focus of animal well-being has also become dominant (Maple and Bocian, 2013; Rose and Riley, 2022). The current authors (Maple and Perdue, 2013) and many others (e.g. Fernandez et al., 2009) agree with this perspective and have expanded on it in other volumes. The topic of zoo animal welfare, sometimes called well-being, is too vast to describe sufficiently in one chapter, but we will offer a brief history and current conceptions of the topic as it relates to ethics and HAIs.

Animal welfare may not have always been a direct focus of zoological institutions, but that does not diminish its importance or the role that it may have played in influencing visitors and policy more broadly. Zoos have existed for thousands of years, with the modern conception of zoos emerging in the 18th century (see Mason, 2000, for a summary). Using the CERR (conservation, education, research, recreation) framework for understanding the goals, recreation was at the forefront of zoos historically. The enjoyable experience of the zoo visitor was the primary goal for institutions. As such, decisions in animal husbandry and exhibit design were made to showcase the animal to the visitor, regardless of the potential detriment to the animal. These practices led to many concerns about the care being provided to this captive wildlife. Welfare started to come into focus more in the 20th century with an increased understanding of the effects on the animals. Initially, decisions in the realm of welfare were largely made to keep animals from suffering. As Browning and Veit (2021) discussed, the language of the Five Freedoms (Brambell, 1965: (i) freedom from hunger and thirst; (ii) freedom from pain, injury and disease; (iii) freedom from discomfort; (iv) freedom from fear and distress; and (v) freedom to perform normal/natural behaviour) are almost entirely based on freedom ‘from’ rather than freedom ‘to’. Mellor (2016) described how the Five Freedoms were important in shaping welfare policy, but focusing on the more positively oriented Five Provisions/Animal Welfare Aims (good nutrition, good health, good environment, appropriate behaviour and positive mental experience) is an important direction to move in to provide more room for growth and aspiration in animal care (Fig. 2.2).

An illustration presents the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Fig. 2.2. Image created by Julia Hanuliakova to connect animal welfare to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Originally published by J. Hanuliakova (WAZA, 2015).

Research on welfare of zoo animals has followed a similar evolution. Initially, the focus of much zoo animal research was on how to reduce ‘negative’ indicators of welfare. This might include reducing stereotypic behaviour such as pacing. However, more recent work has shifted towards a more holistic view that attempts to optimize the positive elements of welfare and move towards animals thriving in captivity. Similarly, the effect of visitors on animals (e.g. Sherwen and Hemsworth, 2019; Rose et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2021, 2023) can be viewed along a similar continuum as animal welfare. Some conceptions have focused on ensuring that visitor experiences do not impose a negative cost to the animal’s welfare (WAZA, 2020; reviewed by Learmonth, 2020), but arguably the focus should be shifting away from simply avoiding negative outcomes and moving towards seeking positive or optimal welfare experiences.

HAIs at the Zoo: Potential Ethical Dilemmas

An understanding of potential ethical dilemmas in zoos is enhanced by revisiting the goals of zoos. Returning to the CERR framework, there has been an increased focus on education in zoos in the last several decades. A rich literature has explored the extent to which the visitor is changed in knowledge, attitudes or behaviour by observing zoo animals (e.g. Swanagan, 2000; Lukas and Ross, 2005; reviewed by Godinez and Fernandez, 2019; Learmonth et al., 2021) (Fig. 2.3). Visitor educational experiences can take many forms, but one must consider how any of these interactions might inadvertently be detrimental to the welfare of captive animals and evoke ethical concerns. These experiences can range from indirect to direct (visual or physical) contact to more abstract forms of interaction (D’Cruze et al., 2019).

A toddler looking at a gorilla through safety glass in a zoo. The gorilla in a crouched position looks to its right holding a leaf in its right hand.

Fig. 2.3. Young child observing a gorilla at the zoo. Photograph courtesy of Adam K. Thompson/Zoo Atlanta.

An example of an indirect form of interaction is visitors observing animals on exhibit. Research suggests that naturalistic exhibits in particular might offer benefits to both the animals and visitors (e.g. Finlay et al., 1988). Presumably, visitor observation of an animal on exhibit during such a presentation would not yield a high threat to welfare. However, the recent closures of zoos because of the COVID-19 global pandemic have yielded an especially interesting body of work on the effect of there being no visitors to zoos during an extended time frame (e.g. Boultwood et al., 2021; Carter et al., 2021; Edes et al., 2022; Hamilton et al., 2022; Powell and Edes, 2023). If the absence of visitors offers some benefit to the animals, how does that factor into ethical decision making for zoos? Ongoing work is critical to reveal the nuanced ways in which visitors influence the animals themselves in a zoo setting.

Kreger and Mench (1995) provided an excellent review of more direct forms of interaction in zoos that bridge the visitor experience with the potential effect on animals, including demonstrations, animal feeding, animal rides and children’s zoos. An example is a trained docent (staff member or volunteer) sharing information with visitors while viewing or orienting towards an animal or group of animals on exhibit (e.g. Anderson et al., 2003). These interactions might also involve animals more directly, either in the form of a performance or an opportunity for physical interaction such as feeding the animals (Fig. 2.4). In many cases, these experiences offer valued and desired benefits to the visitor including enhanced engagement, empathy and financial support, but are these gains worth the potential costs? For example, feeding an animal might offer a unique connection opportunity for the visitor, but it creates a number of potential risks such as disease transmission, or injury to the visitor or the animal from conspecifics (Kreger and Mench, 1995). Similarly, children’s zoos have the potential to engage and inspire a new generation to feel a connection to wildlife or domesticated animals that might otherwise never exist, but this comes with the potential cost of portraying an unrealistic vision of the animals and farm life. In addition, according to Kreger and Mench (1995), interactions such as children’s zoos or opportunities to ride animals might inadvertently send a message of the animal as pets, which runs counter to the conservation-oriented goals of zoos. The ethical balance in these scenarios arises from the idea that these interactions might be very enriching for the visitor and even profitable for the zoo – which could be used for funding conservation or other related efforts – but there is a potential threat to animal welfare or miseducation of visitors. Furthermore, there is complexity in how to determine whether the overall effect is positive or negative and how to quantify this across contexts and individuals (D’Cruze et al., 2019). Therefore, decisions must be made to try to provide these kinds of interactions while limiting the potential for harm.

A visitor feeding food to the giraffe, with a safety guard standing nearby.

Fig. 2.4. A feeding experience between a zoo visitor and a giraffe. Photograph courtesy of Adam K. Thompson/Zoo Atlanta.

Fernandez et al. (2009) provided an excellent overview of many studies that investigate the potentially positive or negative effects of these practices for both the visitor and the animals (see also Sherwen and Hemsworth, 2019; Edes and Hall, 2023; Powell and Edes, 2023). Their review highlights instances in which visitor presence might negatively affect animals in terms of behaviour and physiology (e.g. Mallapur and Chellam, 2002 (behaviour); Carlstead and Brown, 2005 (physiology), as reviewed by Fernandez et al., 2009). In addition to visitors to the zoo, one of the most direct areas of interaction occurs between animal care staff and the animals. This is a growing field of study on keeper–animal interactions (KAIs; e.g. Hosey and Melfi, 2012; Ward and Melfi, 2015; see also Chapter 4, this volume). Behind-the-scenes interactions with care staff represent the most direct connections between people and animals and are likely to have profound effects on both parties. Ethical considerations in the domain of KAIs might include how the presence or absence of certain caretakers might affect animal welfare and how to balance that with the logistical needs of both the animals and the staff.

Moving in a more abstract direction, there are variants of HAIs that do not involve direct or even indirect interactions between animals and people; rather, these occur at a more conceptual level. How do the behaviours of humans affect wild habitats (Learmonth, 2019)? Do visits to the zoo alter the nature of those human behaviours in meaningful ways? Are laws passed that benefit or detract from animal welfare, either individually or for broader species survival? Finally, there is the idea of general social licence (Hampton et al., 2020), or broad public support, for housing animals in captive settings such as zoos that may be gained or lost at various times and relies on careful reflection of the ethical questions outlined here. Given the complexity of how HAIs interface with ethical issues, there is no simple framework through which answers can easily be obtained. Instead, our goal here is to outline a sampling of these frameworks that might better inform our thinking and decision making about such complex issues, especially as they directly influence the welfare of animals in captivity.

The Ethics of Balancing Animal Welfare and Visitor Experience

There are a number of questions to consider when evaluating the ethical questions that arise about a practice or experience in a zoo setting. The path towards determining the ‘most ethical’ outcome will never be straightforward, but these questions – and the following ethical frameworks – might provide useful guidelines for discussion around whether and how certain practices should be implemented (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1. Questions to consider when evaluating a potential human–animal interaction.

In addition to these broad questions, Learmonth (2020) provides an overview of three ethical frameworks that are more relevant to modern zoos. These perspectives might also help ground decisions that arise regarding ethics. Specifically, they outline compassionate conservation, wildlife conservation and duty of care. Table 2.2 briefly summarizes these approaches and how they focus on individuals versus populations of animals, as well as the embedded considerations of interactions with humans. These categories are not exhaustive, nor are they mutually exclusive, but Learmonth’s conception provides a valuable starting point to understand how different ethical dilemmas regarding HAIs might be debated.

Table 2.2. Summary of several ethical approaches including the focus of interest as well as general tenets. Adapted from Learmonth, 2020.

The previously described frameworks do not offer a detailed blueprint for how to balance the need for animal welfare and the experience of the visitor, but they provide some important guidelines for how zoos might frame these discussions about how to make decisions that attempt to optimize both (Sherwen and Hemsworth, 2019). One tangible way to visualize some of these ethical considerations is by considering the created or man-made environments. Physical structures may reflect the values embedded in the institution and caretakers (Fig. 2.5). As an example, an exhibit focused on the visitor experience will showcase the animal in a highly visible way that does not account for the animal’s welfare. In contrast, a naturalistic exhibit design that is focused primarily on providing the animal opportunities for species-specific behaviours and interactions will often diminish the visitor experience if the animals are not visible. Much of this difference could be modified by education on the practice. For example, a docent or signage explaining why an animal is not always visible or otherwise helping the visitor to fully process the experience can help to bridge goals of animal welfare and visitor experience (Zager and Jensvold, 2021).

A group of visitors take a photo of the elephant inside the fence. A barrier has a signage with a world map and information about elephants.

Fig. 2.5. Photo of zoo visitors, signage and elephants. Photograph courtesy of Adam K. Thompson/Zoo Atlanta.

Initially, it might seem that decisions to enhance the visitor experience will inherently impose a cost on animal welfare, but there are creative ways that might be conceived and implemented that serve to enhance both. For example, Blaney and Wells (2004) found that a camouflage net in front of the exhibit reduced aggression in gorillas and enhanced the public perception and visitor experience. Perdue et al. (2012) studied both orangutans