You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

3 December 2025

People and Zoos: The Role and Implementation of Direct Human–Animal Interactions in Zoological Establishments

,
,
and
University of Derby, Derbyshire DE22 1GU, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Zool. Bot. Gard.2025, 6(4), 61;https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg6040061
This article belongs to the Special Issue Examining Human-Animal Interactions in Zoos and Aquariums
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

Zoological establishments have five main roles: education, conservation, recreation, research, and provision of positive welfare to exhibited and housed animals. This review highlights the effect direct human–animal interactions had on the non-human animals’ physical and psychological wellbeing in relation to short- and long-term education and conservation engagement and action. The literature was reviewed from worldwide English sources, which focused on welfare, direct animal interactions, and alternative provisions. With over 700 million visits made to zoological establishments annually, only USD350 million in funds were reported to be reinvested into conservation efforts worldwide, with the true outcome and impact of this effort unknown. Currently, the main focal area is recreation, with 75% of those surveyed (N = 1241) worldwide found to offer direct human–animal interactions. This review takes a holistic approach to human–animal interactions and highlights key opportunities that are missed in the delivery method of these. Worldwide, direct human–animal interactions during the last 30 years have had no to limited regulations. Organisations such as Pan-Africa Association of Zoos and Aquaria and British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquaria aim to regulate and monitor welfare, breeding, and husbandry within collections; however, joining is entirely voluntary. This has led to only 13 zoological establishments in Africa accredited under PAAZA, compared to over 100 establishments accredited under BIAZA in the United Kingdom. This review highlights that clear training plans need to be implemented before and during human–animal interactions with particular focus on feeding time demonstrations, CGI models, film rooms, and no-contact interactive areas. Further research needs to quantify the significance of the taxonomy used in direct interactions.

1. Introduction

Zoological establishments have five main roles: education, conservation, recreation, research, and positive welfare [1]. In the current political climate, wherein focus on poor animal welfare is of high priority in local, national, and international government agendas, education and research in zoological establishments is paramount. In the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice (SSSMZP) have been updated to reflect a focus on monitoring welfare in captive collections [2,3]. This maps on to wider support from the National Animal Welfare Trust following recommendations within both the King and Queen’s speeches in 2021 and 2024. Internationally, the World Organisation for Animal Health has also undergone key development in the Global South [4] (p. 3446) to reduce direct activities, such as physical petting and selfie points, that negatively impact the welfare of livestock.
At present, however, zoological establishments predominantly focus on recreational aspects and monetary gain [5,6], which typically manifest through direct contact human–animal interactions. Standards of welfare and husbandry vary considerably depending on the location worldwide; this brings into question the regulation of these standards and implementation of outcomes. Recreational offerings, and ultimately the monetary rewards of direct interaction, often work in line with educational or conservational values, and key opportunities for education can be embedded in these practices but these are often missed. There is currently limited research on alternative practices to direct human–animal interactions, with the literature and the media often simply stating such human–animal interactions should not occur [7] (pp. 377–397). Without providing alternative provision, such as taught theoretical application and engagement in classroom sessions [8,9], captive animal establishments that contribute to education and conservation values will not operate [10]. There are often consequent financial and educational losses of awareness with only 54% of establishments meeting the American Association of Zoos and Aquaria (AZA) requirements of sufficient educational outreach [9] (p. 27).
Modern zoos, defined as establishments that contribute significantly to research and conservation [11] (pp. 636–649), and aquariums meeting current legislative guidance and strategic roles, play a vital role in animal and wildlife conservation efforts. However, this has not always been the case. Established during the Egyptian era [12], animal collections are widely referred to as zoological collections with their primary goals shifting from being social, monetary, and cultural venues to having a stronger economic and educational purpose and emphasis. This is due to the strategic goals of governments changing which has led to an increase in awareness and public perception on positive animal welfare being conducted [6] (p. 21) and improved, but still lacking consistency worldwide [10]. In the late 1880s zoological collections and animal circuses, such as that of the Ringwood brothers and Phineas T. Barnum, were prevalent and thriving [13]. For example, P.T. Barnum brought in crowds of 82 million visitors throughout the life of the circus [14] across the United States of America to see magnificent animals (and humans) performing for entertainment [15]. Forbes estimated that 15% of the Ringwood Bros USD1.3 million worth was from sales to their circus. However, the non-human animal circus saw a decline in sales following the removal of elephants in 2015 due to animal welfare concerns, which led to the closure of the circus in 2017 [16]. This coincided with negative public perceptions on the use of inappropriate training and poor animal welfare, largely due to there being minimal to no regulations in place that covered and protected these animals [17], albeit limited in research and true quantification of unbiased opinion.
In the context of developing ethical viewpoints, Duncan [18] found there was a greater emphasis on animal sentience, with Caviola et al. [19] noting humans morally valued non-human animal individuals as holding higher sentience and intelligence value. This morality perception and increased awareness of animal sentience contributed to the proposal of prohibiting animals being used in circuses [20], and England did ban the use of animals in circuses under the Wild Animals in Circuses Act, 2019, joining Scotland and Ireland, although circuses are still legal in Wales. Twenty-seven other countries have also banned wild and captive animals in circuses; however, circuses are still legal and thriving in the United Stated of America, with over 45 in current operation with over 300 individual animals [21]. Due to limited/no legislation or regulations being in place, educational values offered or animal welfare guidelines are needed to protect and safeguard the species and their handlers [20,22,23].

2. Aims

This review aims to determine the need for novel evidence-based research in supporting and promoting positive animal welfare for animals in captivity, whilst also allowing zoological establishments to meet their roles of promoting positive welfare, offering recreational activities, engaging in conservation work, being educational, and conducting and disseminating relevant research through accredited bodies such as the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquaria (BIAZA), the World Association of Zoos and Aquaria (WAZA), and the Pan-Africa Association of Zoos and Aquaria (PAAZA). The effect that direct human–animal interactions can have on the non-human animals’ physical and psychological wellbeing, and the impact that directly interacting with an animal has on a human participant in terms of short- and long-term education and conservation engagement and action is reviewed.
Modern zoos have the purpose of educating the public, providing and undertaking research relevant to the species which they house ex situ and work with in situ, thereby actively contributing to conservation work and providing places to generate vital income through offering recreational experiences [5,6,24]. Whilst animal welfare and legislative laws are changing direction, there are often loopholes and their enforcement is not consistent throughout establishments and collections worldwide, with many countries such as Thailand, South Africa, and the Americas still overusing and exploiting animals for monetary gain and extended recreational purposes. It is imperative to stablish what legislative regulations occur throughout the United Kingdom in comparison to the rest of the world and ascertain the welfare implications of using non-human animals in human–animal interactions (HAIs). Clear alternatives that aim to benefit the non-human animal and enable the zoological establishment to continue to run will also be discussed.

3. Methodology

A scoping literature review was undertaken using databases of Science Direct, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The search consisted of the English written literature publications that were peer-reviewed and published over the past 20 years (i.e., 2005 to 2025). Selected articles consisted of journals, systematic reviews, and books, and were considered regardless of their country of origin. Inclusion criteria required focal zoological establishments to offer direct or indirect HAI, and was based on locality of human visitor perception, media influence, and advertisement of occasions utilising direct HAI opportunities. Article searches had to contain human–animal interactions or encounters within their subject, specifically utilising articles with key terms of welfare in captive animals, direct animal interactions, keeper training, and alternative provisions as these are often key focal points that initiate human–animal interactions. Exclusion criteria included news articles and non-peer reviewed journals.
Key words used to conduct this review were ‘human–animal interactions’ and ‘human–animal encounters’, ‘physical and psychological animal wellbeing’, ‘zoological legislative guidelines’, ‘roles of the modern zoo’ and ‘exotic animals as pets’ through the use of keeping in a domestic environment. The screening process undertaken was to utilise journals that have directly completed research in the field to quantify data on non-human animals used in direct human–animal interactions following the PRISMA guidelines [25]. There were initially 150 papers within the screening process, shortlisted down to 70 following screening criteria of concepts to focus on welfare, direct interactions, and offering in accredited and unaccredited collections, with 32 usable for data analysis and application to perceptions. Exclusions existed due to research not peer reviewed, animals not in a domestic setting, and limited links to welfare or direct petting. However, it is known that whilst key legislation and governing bodies such as accreditation by the Zoos and Aquaria organisations are in place in many countries, the regulation of these guidelines, policies, and procedures is not always adhered to, or followed up on, therefore leading to the allusion of the continuation of negative animal welfare and the over exploitation of animals in captivity for public benefit. Alternative methods of education and conservation awareness through varying mediums and outlets will be discussed, with the hope that these can be implemented in the future.

4. Analysis

4.1. Initial Findings

The aims are to identify if both in situ and ex situ human–animal interactions contribute to an increase in successful outcomes to achieve the main roles of a modern zoo: education, research, and conservation, and are thereby promoting positive animal welfare and recreation values [24]. Secondarily, it is well known that zoological collections cannot meet their strategic goals without monetary income [26]; therefore, zoos and aquariums must generate monetary income to support these roles through a variety of means: gift shops, food and water outlets onsite, opportunities to view endangered ‘flagship’ animals, and direct and indirect interactions, encounters, experiences, and shows with animals, to enable them to meet their own, as well as any governmental, strategic aims and goals. Thirdly, to highlight regulation of activities, purpose, governing bodies, and implementation. Supporting these aims [10,26,27,28,29,30,31], seven publications found direct human–animal interactions to significantly gain monetary income with encounters and interactions marketed differently worldwide, which was found to be a significant loophole in the application and regulation of encounters in particular those from the Americas to Asia [32,33].
From the reviewed articles, across 1241 zoological establishments within Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas, 75% advertised at least one type of human–animal interaction, with direct petting interactions accounting for 43% (534 establishments) [10]. Walk-through encounters, animal performance shows, non-handfeeding and handfeeding (dependent on species), diving, riding, and walking with animals were all, respectively, offered at these establishments in varying amounts dependent on the species that the zoological collection held, with a suggested 2% of domestic animals used and 98% of non-domesticated species used. Many aquariums were found to offer dive encounters in varying degrees to allow humans to directly feed the animals within the exhibit. These encounters are advertised on zoological collections’ websites and in leaflets disguised often as training opportunities for the animals, stating that they allow for the animal to ‘exhibit natural behaviours’. However, diving with wild marine animals has been shown to elevate stress levels and to alter natural behavioural displays due to the anticipation of the association between humans and food [34]. Part of utilising and offering direct human–animal interactions is to educate the participant and to generate positive connotations around animal welfare and conservation efforts on a global level [31].

4.2. Conservation Focal Opportunities

From a review of 32 papers linked specifically to conservation impact alongside welfare, with the quantification of this always stated as many, several were found to focus their conservation efforts on flagship species, those animals that are from ambassadorial species with key charismatic features, with predominant examples such as elephants, giant pandas, orangutans, and tigers [29,35,36]. Stated as predominantly mammals and birds, albeit full taxonomic quantification is not repeatedly published, Table 1 compares flagship species used throughout taxonomic groupings.
Table 1. Taxonomic groupings of flagship species [27].
Further there was no significant difference between mammals and birds using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance: taxonomic orders (birds, n = 28 orders, W = 0.350; mammals, n = 29, W = 0.573); these species have been found to draw in members of the public more readily than other taxonomic groups, such as amphibians, fish, reptiles, or flora species [27,28]. Table 2 further outlines this with flagship mammals and birds cited and utilised as flagship species published by Clucas, McHugh, and Caro [27].
Table 2. Nature and conservation magazine covers sampled [27].
Large footfall is what zoos initially focus and rely on to engage members of the public in their education and conservation programmes [27], but this has been shown to be lacking in efficacy for true visitor engagement [37], with Lewis et al. [38] highlighting that visitor footfall of a well renowned UK zoo was more likely (95%) to be willing to contribute to conservation programmes with community involvement over standalone threatened species projects. This highlights that whilst in situ conservation work is important to highlight, UK visitors are more likely to support and contribute towards native projects, and projects that they can resonate with and see benefits closer to home.

4.3. Legislative Practices Applied

It is outlined through the analysis of 12 papers that zoological establishments licenced under the Zoo Licencing Act, 1981 must ensure that they meet the animal welfare standards for their housed species [39], following the guidelines in the Animal Welfare Act, 2006 (UK), Animal Welfare Act, 1996 (United Stated of America), and the Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice guidelines (UK) (SSSMZP). Zoological establishments gain their zoo licence through approval from the establishments’ local authority or council. Over 50% of local authorities in the UK have a licenced zoo within their remit, which accounts for over 300 licenced zoological establishments in the United Kingdom [40,41]. However, whilst over 300 zoological establishments hold a licence, there is no published data on zoos that hold a dispensation as a smaller collection under the Zoo Licencing Act, 1981, nor is there available information on those zoological establishments refused application licences in terms of numbers and reasoning. These establishments, whilst still having to abide by the Animal Welfare Act, 2006, do not have to abide by the regulations set out in the Zoo Licencing Act, 1981, or the SSSMZP guidelines, and this therefore can lead to further exploitation and overuse of animals in direct and indirect interactions without directly breaking any legislative guidelines and laws. Exploitation in the form of basic neglect, such as untimed interactions, long periods without food or water provision, and continual mishandling by inexperienced personnel, are notable in six papers, with emphasis on the impact of perception of the non-human animal interactions and participation in these.
Zoological collections that hold a zoo licence under the Zoo Licencing Act, 1981 cannot legally sell animals to members of the public or other licenced or unlicensed establishments; however, they are able to donate and give away animals (vertebrate and invertebrate) free of charge to other collections (nationally and internationally), regardless of whether the receiver has a zoo licence or not. There are loopholes found to this regulation, with anonymous monetary donations received by the zoological establishment in return for the donation of these animals as per animals listed as surplus on ZIMS (Zoo Information Monitoring System) aligning with the monetary need for zoological collections to exist [10,26,27,28,29,30,31].
Whilst the zoological establishment is required to record where their animals go to, they are not required to follow up with the receiving establishment, collection, or individual later, which has a strong potential for certain species such as those deemed ‘domesticated pets’, such as marmosets (Callithrix and Mico spp.) and meerkats (Suricata suricatta), to ultimately end up in unsuitable pet homes. This means the positive welfare the animal has been exposed to in regulated establishments is again no longer regulated following the donation or sale of the animal by any governing body, local authority, or council, resulting in many animals being in homes not suitable for their physiological and psychological health and wellbeing. Hopper [30] observed that 50% of marmosets in pet homes had clinical health issues and therefore their quality of life was not comparable to wild or zoologically housed, captive marmosets, for whom extensive and knowledgeable care and welfare could be applied. Substantiated in 17 papers, a significant proportion of non-human animals had a decreased quality of life, supporting that the perception and connotations associated with human life keeping these exotic primates as pets overrides the negative welfare implications output.
Licenced zoological establishments can be governed and aligned with the guidelines set out by relevant associations that zoos may actively choose to work with; BIAZA, WAZA, and PAAZA to name a few. However, these guidelines are provided to ensure captive animals are cared for to minimum welfare and husbandry standards. These guidelines do not always cover the activities offered at these establishments, such as direct-human–animal interactions, facilitated nationally and internationally, or indirect encounters that have the potential to make the environment and home of the animal a stressful place due to perceived territory marking from human scent. The United Kingdom recently introduced the Animal Welfare (Licencing of Activities Involving Animals) Regulations, 2018, but this is only applicable to private collections offering direct human–animal interactions, many of which do not hold a zoo licence, and some of which do not meet welfare standards. There are many loopholes within this piece of legislation, which do not cover direct human–animal interactions for many species including the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), big cats, or birds in zoological and educational establishments. This, therefore, makes this legislation redundant in trying to protect these species and enhance the educational benefits that human–animal interactions can offer. Establishments applying for a zoo licence must adhere to basic animal welfare guidelines and manage the risk of danger to their visitors, employees, and animals. Welfare standards (Table 3) are determined by an independent inspector who must hold a minimum level three qualification in a relevant subject, or have been inspecting for one year [42]; this does not have to be in a zoological setting. This leaves the perception of whether a zoological establishment is suitable to be awarded a licence subject to a single inspector and may lead to inappropriate and detrimental licencing that may ultimately have a negative impact on the housed animals’ welfare both physically and psychologically. Long-term stress effects can lead to numerous health complications such as reduced breeding in captive animals and therefore has a potential to reduce the establishments’ contribution to conservation [43].
Table 3. Welfare standard guidelines under the Animal Welfare (Licencing of Activities Involving Animals Regulations), 2018 [42].
There are only five activities covered by the Animal Welfare (Licencing of Activities Involving Animals Regulations), 2018 Act; the selling of animals as pets, providing the provision of boarding for cats or dogs (does not apply to other species), hiring out horses, dog breeding, and keeping or training animals for exhibition. This indicates that direct human–animal interactions are not regulated under this new guidance. Establishments, providing that they are able to meet the five needs under the Animal Welfare Act, 2006, are still able to conduct direct non-human animal interactions with a broad range of species with no guidelines outlined. This has the potential to negatively impact the animals’ physical and psychological health and wellbeing.

4.4. Accredited Governing Organisations

Implementation of policies and procedures, those set out by accredited bodies, is not always fulfilled due to lack of funding. Zoological establishments that have signed up to the governing body WAZA, have pledged that by 2023, all national and regional associations “must have an animal welfare evaluation in place, and such a process must include specific elements approved by WAZA … and that all institutional members must be complaint with this process” [44], agreeing with proposals proposed by D’Cruze et al. [10] and Winter [45] and considered in five further papers.
Although possible, it is not mandatory for zoos to sign up to be governed or accredited by associations such as WAZA, and third-world countries provide little emphasis and guidance on animal welfare in establishments or private collections to follow these global guidelines. This lack of commitment in joining these bodies leads to a reduction in focus on providing high welfare standards in line with worldwide counterparts.
Of the 1241 zoos studied by D’Cruze et al. [10], only 23 of these were based in Africa; nevertheless, it is widely published through social media outlets that there are many establishments on the African continent offering these interactions. With social media being paramount and articles published regularly critiquing zoological and aquarium establishments, zoos must ensure that they portray themselves in a positive light with positive connotations [1], offering fun activities that members of the public can engage in, whilst meeting their strategic aims and targets. This emphasis is paramount for zoos to provide key immersive and engaging experiences directly and immediately onsite without detriment to the animal or collection that in turn encourages the public member to repeat visit for recreational purposes [46,47].
Even with a low focal number of African zoos, due to access being limited and true reporting being often biassed, 70% of the zoos studied were found to offer direct human–animal interactions in varying forms. PAAZA, a governing body for zoos within Africa, established in 1989, only has 13 zoos accredited within its body across the entire African continent, with one in Egypt, one in Ghana, one in Ethiopia, one in Zambia and the remaining eight in South Africa (ZoosAfrica, 2020), compared with 240 accredited zoological establishments under the American Association of Zoos and Aquaria (AZA) (AZA, 2020), and over 1000 establishments under BIAZA [48]. These huge numerical differences in accredited zoological collections highlight the lack of emphasis on animal welfare in third-world countries, and the key role the USA plays in developing understanding and awareness for animals in captivity and use within interactions. These differences highlight how the tourism industry regulations across the world vary amongst continents, in terms of visitor attendance [49] and implementation of key roles. Gusset and Dick [22] and Moss et al., [24] highlight that although the implications and effect this money has on a wider scale and on the specific conservation projects, the money is implemented into is not known with Moss et al., [50] highlighting that the public make over 700 million visits annually to zoological and aquarium establishments across the globe. Further research and dissemination are required in this area to ensure that the support visitors are giving zoos is used to provide the animals with the best possible welfare standards and care, whilst also being aligned to re-invest into education and conservation for flagship and non-flagships species in situ and ex situ [5,6,39].
Education and conservation work can only be truly valuable if it works alongside recreational elements within an establishment to ensure that a holistic approach of enjoyment but also awareness is shared amongst visitors. This is an area in which zoological establishments need to provide a further holistic approach that works for the visitors, but also for the establishment and the animals housed within it.

4.5. Training of Human and Non-Human Animals

In 17 of the 70 papers considered it was highlighted that holding animals for exhibition allows zoological establishments to train their animals for the purposes they deem suitable; this could be to receive medical care, habituate the animal for interactions and encounters with humans, and to ensure suitability for exhibition within the collection. The act does not require that the zoological establishments hold any risk assessment for the training of any species, regardless of listing in risk categories; for example, category 1: likely to cause serious injury; category 2: may result in injury or illness; and category 3: least risk—any animal not listed in category 1 or 2 [51]. Whilst the purpose of this legislation is meaningful, it does not prevent the use of animals in direct or indirect human–animal interactions, nor does it account for any welfare implications that may arise from these activities. The act does not state the qualified level of keeper needed in order to interact with these animals; therefore, this puts not only the animal but the human and any participant in the training at risk of serious injury or death. Animals are ultimately unpredictable, and although training may reduce stress in certain activities, including medical procedures, there is limited literature on the long-term effects of different humans interacting and engaging with animals.

4.6. Non-Human Animal Behaviour and Welfare

Zookeepers can become complacent when working with their species, often feeling they understand the animal without fully appreciating the unpredictability of the animals’ behaviour, which has led to numerous unfortunate events worldwide [52]. There have been many annual deaths of zookeepers within their role, with seven deaths in the UK alone between 1980 and 2017 [53,54], with five of these tragic and fatal incidents involving tigers (Panthera tigris) and two involving elephants—animals that are often used in public encounters and direct human–animal interactions. The annual deaths of zookeepers worldwide are not always accurately reported on due to negative connotations following the media’s influence, but Romain [52] suggests that worldwide there have been 33 zookeeper deaths and 256 zookeeper injuries from captive animal attacks alone between 1990 and 2016. This number of deaths in zoological establishments highlight that further training when working with dangerous animals is required [55] and that emphasis should be placed on no or limited contact when working with captive animals, especially those listed under the Dangerous Wild Animal Act and those listed in category one, with mandatory training programmes proving beneficial, alongside implementations of breaking down language barriers in Asian collections. Non-human animals must be respected in terms of their sentience value, unpredictability, and strength, as, although there are many establishments following good practice, minor health and safety mistakes lead to detrimental consequences that are irreversible.
Rizzolo and Bradshaw [56] found that direct interactive activities had significant stress implications on the Asian elephant, both physically and psychologically, in a study conducted in Thailand, Asia. However, it has since been found that captive-kept elephants showed no evidence of stress during ridden or non-ridden activities with tourists [57]. To note, the sample size of Olivares et al. [57] study was extremely small, only covering four elephants in a single captive setting. In contrast, Rizzolo and Bradshaw [56] completed a review of 106 different elephant camps/establishments, with 1688 individual elephants, having a higher impact due to the larger sample size and reduction in bias or skewing effect. Rizzolo and Bradshaw [56] found 90.4% of these 106 establishments in Asia offered elephant riding as an activity, with over a quarter (28.5%) of the same animals also involved in circus shows—often as night-time activities—suggesting that the elephants are extremely over worked during the day and night, which coincides with the poor physical and psychological wellbeing suggested for the elephants. Schmidt-Burbach et al. [58] highlighted that within the same establishments in Thailand offering ridden and non-ridden experiences, 71% offered no educational element and only 6% offered comprehensive education programmes. These establishments do not fall under the same regulations as accredited establishments, and it is not mandatory to offer education programmes. Many tourists partaking in these activities are not educated and have limited knowledge of good animal welfare. Highlighted specifically by Clayton et al., [7] as participants want connectedness to the animal, derived from 1900 overheard conversations, emphasis and focus was found to be on generating conversation of lesser prior knowledge held. Therefore, these activities continue with minimal to no refusal from members of the public as the individual is unaware of the poor standards being met or maintained, and their main focal point is to only obtain a selfie. Further emphasis and research into the welfare of both the psychological and physical wellbeing of elephants and other under-researched species are required in larger sample sizes, including over 200 individuals and 50 establishments, to promote positive educational experiences.
Interactions focus on the inclusion and use of flagship and charismatic species, no negative welfare effects were determined on the non-human animal [59,60]; however, these studies only analysed the short-term effects of human–animal interactions, and these do not provide clarity or analysis on the long-term physical and psychological effects of these interactions on the animals’ welfare. Further emphasis on the benefits and detriments to both the non-human animal and human are required to outline the purpose and effects of these direct and indirect interactions; alongside a required emphasis on alternative provisions such as CGI. Sherwen and Davey [61,62] state that only since the 1970s has research begun to focus on the impact of visitor interactions in zoological collections, with Hemsworth [61] going on to state that there is limited research on the impact that these interactions have on the perception and attitude of conservation and the role of zoological establishments and aquariums’ purpose. Moss et al. [50] stated that research in this field is still scarce and under-researched and under-published. To meet the roles of the modern zoo, zoos must demonstrate that they provide examples to educate and raise awareness of conservation within the animals they house and the in situ habitats in which the animals are found throughout. There is limited published literature on the impact of these interactions. Similarly, there are no display boards or resource materials on what is offered at zoological establishments, missing key opportunities to highlight if the general public gains a better insight into wildlife conservation through these establishments and if these interactions promote active lifestyle changes, such as donations, adoptions, dietary adaptations in terms of reduction in palm oil, and further awareness through networking with friends and family members, or if these establishments are purely tourism attractions [59].

4.7. Human Connectedness to Non-Human Animals and Nature

Human closeness to ‘wild’ (non-domesticated species) is more effective at educating members of the public on conservation and wildlife issues [63] than only using physical non-living resources [64,65,66]. However, when it comes to underwater interactions, it is difficult to educate the public while these activities are undertaken as spoken language and physical resources cannot be utilised [66]. Thus, whilst diving with these species enables the zoological establishment to gain monetary funds and provide unique experiences, there is limited research that suggests these experiences and interactions are truly of any short- or long-term educational value in captivity and no definitive evidence on whether these interactions have any educational capacity to raise awareness of marine conservation issues [67,68]. It is hoped that further research will highlight the purpose of these encounters, and that alternatives can be offered to generate the same awareness and monetary income for the establishment without posing a physical or psychological health risk to the animal.
Establishments analysed by D’Cruze et al. [10] that offered direct handfeeding were found to be in the Middle East and North America, where the tourism industry is thriving due to demand for animal selfies (taking of oneself in photo) and ‘dangerous’ experiences [46,69,70] with category one-listed species such as tigers or elephants. Human–animal interactions were found to be most prevalent in Asia due to the lesser focus on animal welfare in the education of citizens [7]. The focus in third-world country education is on feeling close to the animal, and in turn nature, with limited awareness of positive welfare.
Most zoological collections offered walking and swimming with sentient animals; however, collections and establishments in Europe also offered riding interactions, walking with wild animals, and riding wild animals, with these riding elements involving elephants, horses (Equus ferus caballus), donkeys (Equus africanus asinus), camels (Camelus spp.), and ostriches (Stuthio camelus) (to name a few). For a small fee, ranging from USD5 to USD50, participants can ride an elephant around an enclosure or have a sloth selfie [70]; often with these then posted on social media outlets. These animals are ridden, or petted, daily, and are often said to be trained to enjoy this activity; however, due to limited to no legislation or regulations in place for animal welfare, particularly in Asia, these animals are worked for up to 12 h a day, in the hot sun, “beaten… and drugged” and with most chained for the remaining period [45] (p. 84), leading to welfare concerns and poor physical and psychological implications for the animal, short-term and long-term. These same animals are trained to walk in circles and take participants on their backs through their keepers utilising hooks to dig into their skin, drugged to be docile, or kept on short leads to reduce injury to humans [45,71].
Whilst in the moment, visitors gain photo opportunities and have a positive human-centric opinion [72] they then leave the animal for the next visitor, and this is an ongoing negative experience for the animal with no consistency in human behaviour contact. These animals have been found to exhibit atypical (abnormal) behaviours leading to a reduction in life span and the initiation of self-harm behaviours whereby veterinary intervention is costly. Therefore, further guidance and effective management strategies need to be published and disseminated considering the animals physiological and psychological health and wellbeing [73].
Public visits occur in varying forms to zoological establishments, with many establishments offering recreational activities, both directly and indirectly. AZA recently analysed the demographic of their 183 million annual visitors and found that 69% attended in the presence of one or more children, with a non-significant split (54% and 46%) of female to male visitors, respectively. AZA [74] explains that two out of three visitors are visiting predominantly for recreational purposes, with 57% of these visitors being children aged 11 and under. In this age demographic, whilst education is critical for the next generation, the impact zoo visits have at this age is understudied, with many visits only lasting for up to four hours [75] and with the long-term effects of education in this setting at this age being unknown.

4.8. Zoological Establishments as Educational Platforms

Zoos are classified predominantly as informal learning environments [76], with many visitors wanting to visit for recreational experiences only [77]. Zoo visitors want animal enclosures and their experience to be aesthetically pleasing and immersive, to replicate the naturalistic environments of the animals they are observing [56,78] and to perceive the animals demonstrating naturalistic behaviours, as affirmed by Godinez and Fernandez [76] who highlight that zoo visitors are more likely to engage in conservation and education activities whilst onsite visiting the zoological establishment than they are when they return home. However, this is often not the case with many of the zoo animals being crepuscular or nocturnal and often hidden away out of public view [56], thereby reducing positive public perception of these animals.
Environmental enrichment that promotes social and motor learning within individuals is often used within animal enclosures and well received by the public as this allows the animal to demonstrate naturalistic behaviours that would be exhibited in the wild and provides a ‘performance’ for the public to observe, with many of these behaviours deemed typical by the public and therefore accepted. Zoo visitors do not want to see any atypical or stereotypical behaviours [43], and these often generate negative reviews on zoo platforms, social media, and within the wider news media. Zoos must ensure that they allow the animals to demonstrate natural behaviours (often sleeping), whilst also allowing zoo animals to be active to allow the engagement of the public. It is assumed from media publications and social media comments on establishment pages that members of the public are disheartened if they cannot see and observe their favourite species, usually a flagship mammal, demonstrating what they deem as naturalistic behaviours that the individual may have observed on documentary or TV programmes. The often-negative comments and published media on social media as suggested in over eight papers, and clearly by Winter [45], can lead to negative public experiences, poor word of mouth feedback and ultimately a reduction in a repeat visit to the establishment. Fukano et al. [79] found that people visited a particular zoological collection after watching the zoological establishment on a television programme and generating their own positive perception of the zoo; however, it is not known whether these perceptions were carried forward after physically visiting the same zoological collection in person. Fukano et al.’s [79] study further suggests the importance of positive public perception in maintaining and increasing visitor numbers and engagement with zoological collections worldwide. If negative attitudes are established amongst members of the public, engagement diminishes and the overall impact that zoological establishments can have both within in situ and ex situ conservation efforts is reduced.

5. Summary and Conclusions

The zoo experience is a vital tool drawing 700 million visitors to collections annually [49] through engagement in key recreational activities such as hands on petting, animal feeding displays, and animal shows. Education and conservation engagement occurs on repeated visits, not only on the first visit [76], with clear emphasis that zoological collections must have a unique selling point such as housing charismatic and active animals, young offspring, or interactive immersive activities to encourage the public to return, which in turn will lead to an increase in conservation engagement [35,36], ultimately leading to an increase in positive engagement with education. Whilst zoological establishments provide key opportunities for members of the public to engage directly and indirectly with animals, opportunities are often missed on both measuring the impact of the interaction and providing resources and key take-home messages to support the establishments in their strategic aims and goals of meeting the roles of the modern zoo [17]. It has been substantiated that within education and conservation [36], there are no consistent regulations on human–animal interactions worldwide and therefore there are missed opportunities to educate and standardise the value and importance of animals as sentient beings, with differing cultural perceptions throughout third-world and first-world countries.
Zoos must ensure that in addition to individualised strategic aims and goals, that they include suitable and sustainable recreational activities for visitors leading to monetary gain [5,6,26] that is reinvested into conservation efforts; with alternatives offered such as puzzle boards that humans can participate in, CGI opportunities, and the use of film rooms to reach out and portray key conservation messages. There is limited published research on the welfare implications of non-flagship species, and a further lack of quantification of true numbers in sample sizes, thereby suggesting published articles just quantify to refrain from the use of ‘many’ when articulating a point on the significance of human presence in direct correlation with animal welfare.

Limitations

This review indicates the key aspects in terms of managing the legislative practices imposed worldwide and their application, but it does not fully outline what further quantification of reporting is required. It highlights significant discrepancies in management of welfare and understanding worldwide. Accordingly, more work on a consistent and united message needs to be delivered to the public, the media and to zoological establishments. Whilst this review considered worldwide published articles that were peer reviewed, over three quarters were focused on the West, posing a bias to western culture and assuming negative connotations of non-human—animal interactions. Future work should address this gap. There is a notable absence of peer reviewed publications that cover the full range of taxonomic groups, in particular few of the articles included were of invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians; future research should include these taxonomic omissions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, validation and analysis: S.J.H.; Review and Editing: D.F., D.S. and M.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article. The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Miller, L.J.; Chinnadurai, S.K. Beyond the five freedoms: Animal welfare at modern zoological facilities. Animals 2023, 13, 1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Diana, A.; Salas, M.; Pereboom, Z.; Mendl, M.; Norton, T. A systematic review of the use of technology to monitor welfare in zoo animals: Is there space for improvement? Animals 2021, 11, 3048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. GOV.uk. Standards of Modern ZooPractice. 2025. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/secretary-of-state-s-standards-of-modern-zoo-practice (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  4. Ssuna, P.; Crump, A.; Siegmund, K. Animal Welfare Guidelines for International Development Organisations in the Global South. Animals 2024, 14, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Higgs, S.J.; Van Eck, E.; Heynis, K.; Broadberry, S.H. Humans as Enrichment: Human-Animal interactions and the perceived benefit to the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), human and zoological establishment. Int. J. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2018, 12, 82–88. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fancovicova, J.; Prokop, P.; Repakova, R.; Medina-Jerez, W. Factors influencing the sponsoring of animals in Slovak zoos. Animals 2021, 12, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Clayton, S.; Fraser, J.; Saunders, C.D. Zoo Experiences: Conversations, connections and concern for animals. Zoo Biol. 2008, 28, 377–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Frost, W. Zoos and Tourism: Conservation, Education, Entertainment? Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2011; p. 117. [Google Scholar]
  9. Patrick, P.G.; Tunnicliffe, S.D. Zoo Talk; Springer Science and Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; p. 27. [Google Scholar]
  10. D’Cruze, N.; Khan, S.; Carder, G.; Megson, D.; Coulthard, E.; Norrey, J.; Groves, G. A global review of animal-visitor interactions in modern zoos and aquariums and their implications for wild animal welfare. Animals 2019, 9, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bacon, H.; Vigors, B.; Shaw, D.J.; Waran, N.; Dwyer, C.M.; Bell, C. The Modern Zoo: Demographics and Perceptions of Two International Groups of Zoo Staff. J. Zool. Bot. Gard. 2021, 2, 636–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Davey, G. Visitor behaviour in zoos: A review. Anthrozoos 2006, 2, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hancock, D. A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wallace, I.P.T. Barnum American Showman. 2021. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/biography/P-T-Barnum (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  15. Wright, J.R., Jr. How the public autopsy of a slave Joice Heth launched P.T. Barnums career as the Greatest Showman on Earth. Clin. Anat. 2018, 31, 956–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Britannica. Ringling Brothers American Circus Proprietors. 2021. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ringling-Brothers (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  17. Neumann, R.; Whittier, L. Redefining the modern circus: A comparative look at the regulations governing circus animal treatment and Americas neglect of circus animal welfare. Hein Online 2015, 36, 167. [Google Scholar]
  18. Duncan, I.J.H. The changing concept of animal sentience. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 100, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Caviola, L.; Everett, J.A.C.; Faber, N.S. The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 116, 1011–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McCulloch, S.P.; Reiss, M.J. A proposal for a UK ethics council for animal policy: The case for putting ethics back into policy making. Animals 2018, 8, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pawsome Advice. Disturbing Circus Animal Statistics and Facts to Know in 2024. 2024. Available online: https://pawsomeadvice.com/wild/circus-animals-stats/ (accessed on 18 February 2024).
  22. Nurse, A. A question of sentience: BREXIT, animal welfare and animal protection law. JAEL 2018, 10, 32. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tallo-parra, O.; Salas, M.; Manteca, X. Zoo Animal Welfare Assessment: Where do we stand? Animals 2023, 13, 1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Moss, A.; Jensen, E.; Gusset, M. Conservation: Zoo visits boost biodiversity literacy. Nature 2014, 508, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Malamud, R. The problem with zoos. Oxf. Handb. Anim. Stud. 2017, 21, 397–410. [Google Scholar]
  27. Clucas, B.; McHugh, K.; Caro, T. Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 12, 1517–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Douglas, L.R.; Verissimi, D. Flagships or Battleships. Environ. Soc. 2013, 4, 98–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jepson, P.; Barua, M. A theory of flagship species actions. Conserv. Soc. 2015, 13, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hopper, J. Common Marmosets. In Handbook of Exotic Pet Medicine; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; Chapter 3. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zinsstag, J.; Schelling, E.; Waltner-Toews, D.; Whittaker, M.; Tanner, M. One Health: The Theory and Practice of Integrated Health Approaches; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bohm, A.; Ullrich, J. Introduction—Animal encounters: Contact, interaction and relationality. In Animal Encounters; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wilson, H.F. Animal encounters: A genre of contact. In Animal Encounters; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 25–41. [Google Scholar]
  34. Gallagher, A.J.; Vianna, G.M.S.; Papastamatiou, Y.P.; Macdonald, C.; Guttridge, T.L.; Hammerschlag, N. Biological effects, conservation potential and research priorities of shark diving tourism. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 184, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. MacGowan, J.; Beaumont, L.J.; Smith, R.J.; Chauvenet, A.L.M.; Harcourt, R.; Atkinson, S.C.; Mittermeier, J.C.; Esperon-Rodriguez, M.; Baumgartner, J.B.; Beattie, A.; et al. Conservation priortisation can resolve the flagship species conundrum. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Skibins, J.C.; Dunstan, E.; Pahlow, K. Exploring the influence of charismatic characteristics on flagship outcomes in zoo visitors. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2017, 22, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wijeratne, A.J.C.; Van Dijk, P.A.; Kirk-Brown, A.; Frost, L. Rules of engagement: The role of emotional display rules in delivering conservation interpretation in a zoo-based tourism context. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lewis, A.R.; Young, R.P.; Gibbons, J.M.; Jones, J.P.G. To what extent do potential conservation donors value community-aspects of conservation projects in low income countries. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fernandez, E.J.; Tamborski, M.A.; Pickens, S.R.; Timberlake, E. Animal-visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 120, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. APHA. Zoos in the UK: Found at UFAW, 2020, Zoo Animal Welfare. 2018. Available online: https://www.ufaw.org.uk/why-ufaws-work-is-important/zoo-animal-welfare (accessed on 25 February 2025).
  41. BornFree. Zoos and Aquaria: UK. 2020. Available online: https://www.bornfree.org.uk/uk-zoos (accessed on 25 February 2025).
  42. GOV.uk. Local Authorities: Regulating Zoos and Circuses. 2015. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-authorities-regulation-of-zoos-and-circuses (accessed on 25 February 2025).
  43. Vaz, J.; Narayan, E.J.; Kuman, D.R.; Thenmozhi, K.; Krishnamoorthy, T.; Baskaran, N. Prevalence and determinants of stereotypic behaviours and physiological stress among tigers and leopards in Indian Zoos. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. PAAZA. WAZA: 2023 Goal Regarding Animal Welfare. 2020. Available online: https://www.waza.org/news/extension-of-the-waza-2023-animal-welfare-goal/ (accessed on 20 February 2025).
  45. Winter, C. A review of research into animal ethics in tourism: Launching the annals of tourism research curated collection on animal ethics in tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 84, 102989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lenzi, C.; Speiran, S.; Grasso, C. Let me take a selfie: Reviewing the implications of social media for public perception of wild animals. Soc. Anim. 2019, 31, 64–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Brooks, H. Monkeying around on Twitter (now X): How big data and social media can be harnessed by zoos and other animal care facilities to examine public opinion trends. J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 2024, 12, 185–194. [Google Scholar]
  48. BIAZA. Current Accredited Zoos and Aquariums. 2020. Available online: https://biaza.org.uk/accredited-associate (accessed on 20 February 2025).
  49. Gusset, M.; Dick, G. The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biol. 2011, 30, 566–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Moss, A.; Jensen, E.; Gusset, M. Impact of a global biodiversity education campaign on zoo and aquarium visitors. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 243–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. DEFRA. Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice. 2020. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69596/standards-of-zoo-practice.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2025).
  52. Romain, A. How Many Zoo Accidents Are There Per Year? They’re Rare and Largely Avoidable. Romper. 2016. Available online: https://www.romper.com/p/how-many-zoo-accidents-are-there-per-year-theyre-rare-largely-avoidable-11784 (accessed on 20 February 2025).
  53. Quinton, M. How Safe Are Our Zoos? From Escaping Gorillas to Elephants Crushing Keepers… We Look at the Failings of UK Zoos Endangering Staff, Visitors and Animals. The Sun. 2017. Available online: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3712001/from-escaping-gorillas-to-elephants-crushing-keepers-we-look-at-the-failings-of-uk-zoos-endangering-staff-visitors-and-animals/ (accessed on 27 February 2025).
  54. Guardian. Zookeeper Killed by Tiger Was Found by Visitor; Press Association: Westminster, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  55. Bacon, H.; Vigors, B.; Shaw, D.J.; Waran, N.; Dwyer, C.M.; Bell, C. Zookeepers—The most important animal in the zoo? J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2021, 26, 634–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rizzolo, J.B.; Bradshaw, G.A. Chapter 7: Human leisure/elephant breakdown: Impacts of tourism on Asian elephants. In Wild Animals and Leisure Rights and Wellbeing; Carr, N., Young, J., Eds.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  57. Olivares, A.; Kiley-Worthington, M.; Rendle-Worthington, J. Evaluation of heart rates to measure emotionality and “stress” in semi-domestic African elephants engaged in activities with humans. J. Vet. Res. Adv. 2019, 1, 62–79. [Google Scholar]
  58. Schmidt-Burbah, J.; Ronfot, D.; Srisangiam, R. 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. [Google Scholar]
  59. Whitworth, A.W. An investigation into the determining factors of zoo attendance in UK zoos. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e29839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Martin, R.; Melfi, V. A comparison of zoo animal behaviour in the presence of familiar and unfamiliar people. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2016, 19, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sherwen, S.L.; Hemsworth, P.H. The visitor effect on zoo animals: Implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare. Animals 2019, 9, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Davey, G. Visitor effects on the welfare of animals in the zoo: A review. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2007, 10, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Vining, J. The connection to other animals and caring for nature. Res. Hum. Ecol. 2003, 10, 87–99. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sanders, C.R. Actions speak louder than words: Close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals. Symb. Interact. 2011, 26, 405–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Massen, J.; Sterck, E.; De Vos, H. Close social associations in animals and humans: Functions and mechanisms of friendship. Behaviour 2010, 74, 1379–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Castillo-Huitron, N.M.; Naranjo, E.J.; Santos-Fita, D.; Estrada-Lugo, E. The importance of Human Emotions for Wildlife Conservation. Comp. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Frohoff, T.G.; Packard, J.M. Human interactions with free-ranging and captive bottlenose dolphins. Anthrozoos 1995, 8, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Grassman, M.; McNeil, B.; Wharton, J. Sharks in Captivity: The role of husbandry, breeding, education, and citizen science in shark conservation. Adv. Mar. Biol. 2017, 78, 89–119. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lindholm, J. Wild Animal Selfies. Bachelor’s Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 2020. Volume 56. pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  70. Essen, E.V.; Lindsjo, J.; Berg, C. Instagranimal: Animal welfare and animal ethics challenges of animal-based tourism. Animals 2020, 10, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zenithson, N. Chapter 2: Advocacy and rethinking our relationships with animals: Ethical responsibilities and competencies in animal-assisted interventions. In Transforming Trauma: Resilience and Healing Through Our Connections with Animals; Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2019; pp. 55–90. [Google Scholar]
  72. Mehrkam, L.R.; Fad, O. Animal welfare science and “a life worth living” for wild and captive elephants. Anim. Sentience 2020, 28, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bansiddhi, P.; Brown, J.L.; Thitaram, C. Welfare Assessment and Activities of Captive Elephants in Thailand. Animals 2020, 10, 919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. AZA. Currently Accredited Zoos and Aquariums. 2020. Available online: https://www.aza.org/current-accreditation-list (accessed on 24 November 2025).
  75. AZAb. Visitor Demographics. 2020. Available online: https://www.aza.org/data-surveys-trends (accessed on 24 November 2025).
  76. Godinez, A.M.; Fernandez, E.J. What is the zoo experience? How zoos impact a visitor’s behaviour, perceptions and conservation efforts. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Roe, K.; McConney, A. Do zoo visits come to learn? An internally comparative, mixed-methods study. Environ. Educ. Res. 2015, 21, 865–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mehrkam, L.R.; Verdi, N.T.; Wynne, C.D.L. Human interaction as environmental enrichment for pair-housed wolves and wolf-dog crosses. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2014, 17, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fukano, Y.; Tanaka, Y.; Soga, M. Zoos and animated animals increase public interest in and support for threatened animals. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 704, 135352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a Binturong (Arctictis binturong): A Case Report of Pancreatic Islet Amyloidosis
Previous