Ethical reasoning and participatory approach towards achieving regulatory processes for animal-visitor interactions (AVIs) in South Africa

Abstract

South Africa’s wide range of animal facilities offers many different types of Animal-Visitor Interactions, wild animal encounters where animals and visitors come closer than in normal circumstances. The aim of this study was to provide a map of the ethically relevant aspects involved in AVIs in South Africa as a first step towards regulating these activities. A participative approach based on the ethical matrix, a tool which organizes the ethical standings of the stakeholders by three bearing ethical principles (wellbeing, autonomy, fairness), was applied. The matrix was populated through a top-down approach and refined by engaging stakeholders in a workshop and two online self-administrated surveys. The outcome is a map of the value demands concerning Animal Visitor Interactions. This map shows how the ethical acceptability of AVIs is linked to different relevant issues like animal welfare, education, biodiversity conservation, sustainability, human competency, facility mission, impact on scientific research and socio-economic outcomes. In addition, results highlighted the importance of cooperation among stakeholders and suggested that attention for animal welfare can inform decision making and inspire a multidisciplinary approach in implementing a regulatory frame for South African wildlife facilities.

Community-Based Workshops to Involve Rural Communities in Wildlife Management Case Study: Bighorn Sheep in Baja California, Mexico

“…Wildlife management workshops often attract a large number of people in rural communities because local people see them as an opportunity to share their opinions, concerns and interests regarding the use and conservation of wildlife species, or to acquire new knowledge that will allow them to make better use of the resources they have in their area, or to engage in dialogue with all stakeholders to find a solution to a particular problem [54][55][56]. In the ejidos Cordillera Molina and Matomí, the workshops were well attended: in the case of ejido Cordillera Molina, 29% of the community members participated in the workshops, while in ejido Matomí only 9% of the community members participated, but these were the leaders of the different groups in the ejido, each representing the interests of at least ten people.…”

“…The participatory approach of community workshops offers several advantages for wildlife management programs: it builds bridges between stakeholders, improves understanding of resource-user interactions, raises awareness of the benefits of responsible wildlife management, and promotes cooperative and constructive action among participants [54,56]. However, the success of the participatory process depends on the workshops creating the necessary conditions for participants to be able to reconsider their positions based on the points of view of others, so that even if complete consensus is not reached, agreements are reached on the basic points of wildlife management [56][57][58].…”

“…The participatory approach of community workshops offers several advantages for wildlife management programs: it builds bridges between stakeholders, improves understanding of resource-user interactions, raises awareness of the benefits of responsible wildlife management, and promotes cooperative and constructive action among participants [54,56]. However, the success of the participatory process depends on the workshops creating the necessary conditions for participants to be able to reconsider their positions based on the points of view of others, so that even if complete consensus is not reached, agreements are reached on the basic points of wildlife management [56][57][58]. In the workshops held in the ejidos Cordillera Molina and Matomí, the participants were able to be open and reflective to the opinions of others by giving everyone the opportunity to state from the beginning the reasons why they decided to participate in this activity, and by showing that although the motivations of each person were different, they all converged on the same point: the conservation of the bighorn sheep.…”

How does perception of zoo animal welfare influence public attitudes, experiences, and behavioural intentions? A mixed-methods systematic review

“…In turn, positive emotional experiences and satisfaction were pivotal factors in the decision making of zoo visitors when considering revisiting [147], and emotional experience may also impact conservation learning [148]. In contrast, negative perceptions of welfare were reported to reduce the likelihood of visiting [2,9,56,67,106,[149][150][151][152], and donating to conservation efforts [2,88,103,153]. Yet, the qualitative data presented in several of the reviewed studies suggest that negative perceptions of welfare may not always impact visit likelihood.…”