CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 100Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal and Plant Science EducationMuseums and Cultural Heritage

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

Open access
D’Cruze, Neil, Khan, Sophie, Carder, Gemma, Megson, David, Coulthard, Emma, Norrey, John, Groves, Georgina·2019·Animals
DOI 10.3390/ani9060332PMC PMC6617332
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ani9060332

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The use of colour morph tigers in animal-visitor interactions is among the most popular but problematic forms of zoo experiences.

    “The situation is further complicated by the use of colour morph tigers in animal-visitor interactions, which are among the most popular but problematic forms of zoo experiences [58,68].”

    From Tiger colour morphs in zoos raise conservation and welfare concerns (2026) · cites this paper as [58]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says animal–visitor interactions can appeal to visitors and raise animal-welfare concerns. But the paper does not identify colour-morph tigers as a popular or particularly problematic zoo experience; its Results discuss prevalence at broader taxonomic levels. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 32 · Cited by 100

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [1]Moss A. Jensen E. Gusset M. Conservation: Zoo visits boost biodiversity literacy Nature 2014 508 186 10.1038/508186d 24717506 · DOI
  2. [2]Keulartz J. Captivity for conservation? Zoos at a crossroads J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015 28 335 351 10.1007/s10806-015-9537-z · DOI
  3. [4]Kreger M.D. Mench J.A. Visitor—Animal Interactions at the Zoo Anthrozoos 1995 8 143 158 10.2752/089279395787156301 · DOI
  4. [5]Hosey G.R. How does the zoo environment affect the behaviour of captive primates? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005 90 107 129 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.015 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [8]Mellor D. Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours N. Z. Vet. J. 2015 63 9 16 10.1080/00480169.2014.926800 24875367 · DOI
  6. [9]Schmidt-Burbach J. Ronfot D. Srisangiam R. Borragan S. Hodges J. Seidensticker J. Asian elephant (elephas maximus), pig-tailed macaque (macaca nemestrina) and tiger (panthera tigris) populations at tourism venues in thailand and aspects of their welfare PLoS ONE 2015 10 e0139092 10.1371/journal.pone.0139092 26407173 PMC4583339 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [10]Moorhouse T.P. Dahlsjö C.A.L. Baker S.E. D’Cruze N.C. Macdonald D.W. The Customer isn’t always right-conservation and animal welfare implications of the increasing demand for wildlife tourism PLoS ONE 2015 10 e0138939 10.1371/journal.pone.0138939 26489092 PMC4619427 · DOI
  8. [12]Moorhouse T. D’Cruze N.C. Macdonald D.W. Unethical use of wildlife in tourism: What’s the problem, who is responsible, and what can be done? J. Sustain. Tour. 2017 25 505 516 10.1080/09669582.2016.1223087 · DOI
  9. [14]Ronald M. Nowak Walker’s Mammals of the World: Monotremes, Marsupials, Afrotherians, Xenarthrans, and Sundatherians Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore, MD, USA 2018
  10. [15]Beasley T.M. Schumacher R.E. Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: Post hoc and planned comparison procedures J. Exp. Educ. 1995 64 79 93 10.1080/00220973.1995.9943797 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [16]Pike N. Using false discovery rates for multiple comparisons in ecology and evolution Methods Ecol. Evol. 2011 2 278 282 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00061.x · DOI
  12. [20]Manciocco A. Chiarotti F. Vitale A. Effects of positive interaction with caretakers on the behaviour of socially housed common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009 120 100 107 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.007 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [21]Wierucka K. Siemianowska S. Woźniak M. Jasnosz K. Kieliszczyk M. Kozak P. Sergiel A. Activity Budgets of Captive Cape Fur Seals (Arctocephalus pusillus) Under a Training Regime J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2016 19 62 72 10.1080/10888705.2015.1106945 26709628 · DOI
  14. [22]Dans S.L. Crespo E.A. Coscarella M.A. Wildlife tourism: Underwater behavioral responses of South American sea lions to swimmers Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017 188 91 96 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.12.010 · DOI
  15. [23]Larsen M.J. Sherwen S.L. Rault J.-L. Number of nearby visitors and noise level affect vigilance in captive koalas Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014 154 76 82 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.02.005 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [24]Orban D.A. Siegford J.M. Snider R.J. Effects of guest feeding programs on captive giraffe behavior Zoo Biol. 2016 35 157 166 10.1002/zoo.21275 26910772 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [25]Hogan L.A. Johnston S.D. Lisle A.T. Keeley T. Wong P. Nicolson V. Horsup A.B. Janssen T. Phillips C.J.C. Behavioural and physiological responses of captive wombats (Lasiorhinus latifrons) to regular handling by humans Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011 134 217 228 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.07.010 · DOI
  18. [27]Pintar K.D.M. Christidis T. Kate Thomas M. Anderson M. Nesbitt A. Keithlin J. Marshall B. Pollari F. A systematic review and meta-Analysis of the campylobacter spp. Prevalence and concentration in household pets and petting zoo animals for use in exposure assessments PLoS ONE 2015 10 e0144976 10.1371/journal.pone.0144976 26683667 PMC4684323 · DOI
  19. [28]Jones H. McGregor P.K. Farmer H.L.A. Baker K.R. The influence of visitor interaction on the behavior of captive crowned lemurs (Eulemur coronatus) and implications for welfare Zoo Biol. 2016 35 222 227 10.1002/zoo.21291 27142724 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [29]Collins C. Corkery I. Haigh A. McKeown S. Quirke T. O’Riordan R. The effects of environmental and visitor variables on the behavior of free-ranging ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) in captivity Zoo Biol. 2017 36 250 260 10.1002/zoo.21370 28547779 · DOI
  21. [30]Martin R.A. Melfi V. A Comparison of Zoo Animal behavior in the presence of familiar and unfamiliar people J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2016 19 234 244 10.1080/10888705.2015.1129907 26960022 · DOI
  22. [31]Woolway E.E. Goodenough A.E. Effects of visitor numbers on captive European red squirrels (Sciurus vulgaris) and impacts on visitor experience Zoo Biol. 2017 36 112 119 10.1002/zoo.21357 28221674 · DOI
  23. [33]Desmond T. Laule G. Use of positive reinforcement training in the management of species for reproduction Zoo Biol. 1994 13 471 477 10.1002/zoo.1430130509 · DOI
  24. [34]Breuer K. Hemsworth P.H. Barnett J.L. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial diary cows Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2000 66 273 288 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00097-0 10700627 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [35]Ross S.R. Vreeman V.M. Lonsdorf E.V. Specific image characteristics influence attitudes about chimpanzee conservation and use as pets PLoS ONE 2011 6 e22050 10.1371/journal.pone.0022050 21779372 PMC3135618 · DOI · Paper page
  26. [36]Tkaczynski A. Rundle-Thiele S.R. Beaumont N. Segmentation: A tourism stakeholder view Aaron Tkaczynski, Dr Sharyn, R. Rundle-Thiele, Dr Narelle Beaumont University of Southern Queensland Tour. Manag. 2009 30 169 172 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.05.010 · DOI

Authors
D’Cruze, N., Khan, S., Carder, G., Megson, D., Coulthard, E., Norrey, J., & Groves, G.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
  • Wild Welfare, 63 Queenswood Road, London SE23 2QR, UK
  • World Animal Protection (GB)
Corresponding author
D’Cruze, Neil
ORCID
Venue
Animals
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-06-08
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
332
ISSN
2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ani9060332
PMC
PMC6617332
OpenAlex
W2948597597
Cited by
100
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
11.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Animal and Plant Science Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Museology › Museums and Cultural Heritage
Keywords
zoos, aquariums, captive wildlife, animal welfare, petting, hand feeding, mammals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review