A preliminary assessment of how zoo visitors evaluate animal welfare according to enclosure style and the expression of behavior

Abstract

A preliminary assessment of how zoo visitors evaluate animal welfare according to enclosure style and the expression of behavior Abstract Visitors to zoos make judgements about animal welfare on the basis of what they see during their visit. There has been a considerable amount of research and debate surrounding the use of enclosure style and/or animal behavior to act as indicators of animal welfare. There are assumptions, supported by some studies but contradicted by others, that naturalistic enclosures and the expression of "wild behavior" inherently promote good welfare. These assumptions also appear to be used by the public to judge the welfare of zoo-housed animals. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether visitors to Paignton Zoo Environmental Park, UK, were using these assumptions to judge the welfare of zoo-housed animals. Visitors (n=42) were shown two series of photographs (n=8 in each series), one representing different primate enclosure styles and one depicting different tiger behaviors. The visitors were asked to rank the photographs in response to a series of questions (n=4 primate enclosure; n=5 tiger behavior). The public were consistent in their assessment of enclosure styles, which confirmed they held the assumption that naturalistic enclosures are good; all respondents rated the greenest enclosure highly and thought its inhabitants would have the best welfare. The interpretation of captive tiger behavior was also consistent across respondents, but this did not clearly indicate that they thought wild behavior was good. Most respondents thought that tigers in captivity and in the wild performed similar behavior. However, they did not think that expression of wild-type behavior was indicative of good welfare in captivity.

Do naturalistic enclosures provide suitable environments for zoo animals?

“…Our data support the general belief among zoo visitors regarding the suitability of naturalistic enclosures for the animals housed [Melfi et al, ]; nearly 80% of naturalistic enclosures in our sample proved to be suitable, and the ones that did not, failed in only one Aspect of the seven that were evaluated. The suitability of the environment provided by naturalistic designs may seem obvious to many, especially when analyzing the great body of literature that associates naturalistic enclosures to improved animal welfare [e.g.…”

“…This result is somewhat surprising, as given the complex planning process behind the design of a naturalistic exhibit, and the high costs related to their construction and maintenance [Davis, ], it seems reasonable to expect that the biological needs of the animals to be housed were taken into account in the design of the enclosure [Seidensticker and Doherty, ; Shepherdson, ; Andersen, ; Shepherdson, ]. However, Melfi and et al [] had already pointed out that the aesthetics of an enclosure was not a suitable tool for assessing how well the enclosure met the needs of its occupants, highlighting that, in fact, it could even be misleading. On the context of official inspection and licensing processes these results are important, as inspectors must guarantee the suitability of zoo enclosures (among many other aspects of the zoo's operations, policies, strategies, etc.)…”

“…In doing so, zoological parks intend to raise awareness among the public of the importance of biodiversity preservation [Coe, ; Johnston, ; Wood, ; Namiki, ; Totfield et al, ] by simulating the habitat of the species housed [Coe, ; Polakowski, ; Bayne and Henrickson, ; Davey, ]. This change in enclosure design has induced a more positive attitude toward species in captivity among the general public [Coe, ; Rhoads and Goldsworthy, ; Finlay et al, ; Melfi et al, ], who not only prefer naturalistic enclosures over non‐naturalistic ones [Wolf and Tymitz, ; Price et al, ; Reade and Waran, ], but also consider the former to ensure the welfare of the animals housed [Melfi et al, ].…”

“…Despite the importance of this statement, to our knowledge, such provision of a suitable environment in naturalistic enclosures has never been evaluated, but it has been assumed instead. In this regard, some authors have shown concern, pointing out that enclosures designed purely in the interest of aesthetic naturalism may offer as little to the animals in terms of behavioral opportunities as the sterile exhibits of old [Shepherdson, ], noting that the aesthetics of an enclosure is not a suitable tool for assessing how well it meets the needs of its occupants [Melfi et al, ]. Accurate evaluations of the suitability of animal enclosures are particularly important during official zoo inspections and licensing processes, where inspectors can be lured by appearance, failing to identify those aspects that should be assessed to assure that the enclosure is actually functional and suitable from the animals' perspective.…”

The Relationship between Viewing Area Size and Visitor Behavior in an Immersive Asian Elephant Exhibit

“…Research into zoo visitors' enclosure preferences suggests they prefer naturalistic exhibits and that naturalistic exhibits are perceived by visitors as being better for animal welfare (Melfi, McCormick, & Gibbs, 2004). In a study by Price, Ashmore, and McGivern (1994) zoo visitors spent longer watching marmosets in a free-range setting compared with a caged exhibit.…”