What Do Adolescents Talk about When They Visit an Aquarium? A Case Study at the Marine Aquarium of Rio De Janeiro

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

“…Beliefs involving animals’ freedom of choice included access to preferred food items [39], chosen activities such as swimming or playing [16, 41] (as animals should be able to “ do whatever they want” [41]), and ability to remain within private areas unseen by visitors [38, 46, 47, 54, 55, 70] and away from noise [50]. Furthermore, an animal’s right to choose to participate in direct interactions including training, performance activities, and receiving direct human contact was highlighted as important to welfare and thus linked to ethical acceptability of these practices [10, 11, 36, 71, 72]. This view was captured by one participant who shared: “ it’s one thing if the animal wants to do it, and it’s a different thing if you stab him with a stick” [11].…”

“…The participation of animals in encounters and shows was often perceived as unnatural and thus potentially detrimental, both by visitors taking part in these encounters and by general visitor populations [10, 32, 36, 42, 52, 73]. Direct or close physical contact with humans was highlighted as particularly concerning [10, 37, 71, 74, 75], though this was not the consensus view of study participants. Conversely, direct/close contact was frequently perceived positively as an indication of a close bond between trainers/zookeepers and the animals, which increased perceptions of quality care and welfare [9, 36, 46, 62, 72, 73, 76].…”

“…Even if the enclosure is naturalistic, the presence of barriers was perceived negatively if the materials used were reminiscent of bars and/or cages as animals were perceived as confined and imprisoned [29, 39, 47, 52, 64, 65], even where the use of these barriers can increase the animals’ useable space [130]. However, enclosures perceived to allow for (apparent) free ranging were perceived as beneficial to welfare [32, 51, 124], even if these same enclosures exposed animals to perceived risk of harm [32, 51, 71]. Ultimately, how visitors weigh the relative benefits of so-called natural environments against behaviour expression is unclear, suggesting the need for further research [95].…”

“…Other visitors' behaviours were perceived to impact zoo animal welfare [43,44]. Behaviours perceived to negatively impact welfare included: feeding animals [11,32,51,68,70,78]; touching animals when they were not supposed to [51,70] or not following guidelines when doing so [11,71]; using flash photography in aquariums (e.g. perceived to "scare the little creatures" [71]), making too much noise [32,68,79]; teasing [11,78,80]; and throwing items at animals [11,68].…”

“…Behaviours perceived to negatively impact welfare included: feeding animals [11,32,51,68,70,78]; touching animals when they were not supposed to [51,70] or not following guidelines when doing so [11,71]; using flash photography in aquariums (e.g. perceived to "scare the little creatures" [71]), making too much noise [32,68,79]; teasing [11,78,80]; and throwing items at animals [11,68]. Informing visitors of which behaviours can be detrimental to welfare and requesting a reduction or end to these behaviours may therefore not only improve the welfare of the animals, but also improve the welfare perceptions of other visitors.…”