From Pets to Wildlife: An Ecological-Phenomenological Approach to Multispecies Tourism

Simple Summary

People often form close bonds with animals through pet ownership and wildlife tourism, yet how these relationships shape one another is not well understood. This study looks at how owning pets might influence the way people experience wildlife during a visit to the Panda Center in China. We asked over 1400 visitors to share their thoughts and feelings about their visit. Our results show that people who own pets tend to have more meaningful and frequent encounters with wildlife compared to those who do not. Even though pets were not physically present, their influence was still felt in how visitors related to animals. At the same time, the study points out that people still hold control over animals in tourism settings, even if that control appears kind or friendly. This research helps us better understand how human–animal relationships shape tourism and highlights the need to think carefully about how we treat animals—both at home and in the wild. The findings can inform future efforts to design more respectful and thoughtful wildlife tourism experiences that consider the roles pets play in our lives.

Abstract

Pet ownership and wildlife tourism are two prominent ways people interact with non-human animals in contemporary contexts. Despite this, there is a need for further exploration of the interconnections between pets, wildlife, and visitors. Utilizing an ecological-phenomenological framework, this study examines how these multispecies interactions contribute to experiences that extend beyond the human domain. This research is based on a quantitative survey of 1422 participants at the Panda Center that were analyzed using inferential statistical methods to assess differences in visitor experiences. The statistical results reveal that pet ownership and wildlife encounters mediate the environmental affordances and constraints encountered by visitors, creating a dynamic and intricate nexus among pets, wildlife, and tourists. Specifically, pet ownership is shown to enhance both the richness and frequency of wildlife encounters. Nonetheless, the study highlights that human dominance over non-human animals remains a central environmental constraint in multispecies interactions despite the adoption of a more humane approach to animal management through tourism activities.

1. Introduction

Pet ownership and wildlife tourism are prominent ways through which people interact with non-human animals in contemporary society. These diverse interactions are now firmly rooted in the tourism studies lexicon from many disciplinary contexts [1]. While there are now a handful of studies investigating the relationship between animals and tourism agents (i.e., brokers, tourists, and other stakeholder groups like government and associations), there is scant research in tourism studies on the relationship between tourism agents (especially tourists), wild and domesticated animals, as well as pet ownership.

This gap is particularly evident in the context of nature-based and wildlife tourism, which rely heavily on natural resources and wildlife populations to attract visitors. In their study of the Lukovska Spa area, Valjarević et al. [2] found that features such as topography, ecosystems, water systems, and landscape characteristics significantly enhanced visitors’ experiences. They note that tourism in such regions typically depends on relatively undeveloped natural settings. However, the authors also note that only a limited number of studies have evaluated the economic value of these nature-based attractions. Donici and Dumitras [3] conducted a literature review study on nature-based tourism research between 2000 and 2021, suggesting that tourism behavior and local communities/stakeholders have been the two main areas of focus. However, the researchers suggest that conservation responsibilities can be distributed among various stakeholders, promoting enhanced collaboration, upgrading current services, and generating positive outcomes [4,5,6] (see also). However, despite wildlife tourism often involving the direct use of animals as attractions, even fewer studies have explored how tourists’ lived experiences and interactions with wildlife contribute to value creation beyond their role as mere consumers of nature. Such highlights a significant gap in understanding the deeper value generated through these human–wildlife encounters.

A recent addition to the literature by Dashper and Brymer [7] is based on an ecological-phenomenological perspective to decenter human privileges. The authors suggest that non-human animals should be recognized as “intentional, responsive, interpreting agents” [7] (p. 403). All animate actors, Dashper and Brymer insist, are “individual embodied, active agents with their own set of intentions and individual constraints” (p. 10). Hence, all agents (pets, wildlife, and humans) can synchronize with the environment to carry out tourism activities. Based on the ecological-phenomenological framework, therefore, these actors establish their intentions and limitations as distinguished individuals, in the words of Morton [8], “solidarity” within the landscape of tourism.

The purpose of the present study is to use the ecological-phenomenological perspective to explore visitors’ experiences with non-human animals in a wildlife care organization (Panda Base). The two research questions are:

• How does pet ownership affect the emotional and cognitive responses of zoo visitors toward wildlife?
• What differences exist in the patterns of engagement with wildlife between individuals who own pets and those who do not?

With these two research questions, we aim to decenter human centrality by considering tourists as one (albeit an important) of three interactants in the pet–wildlife–human entanglement. As such, human experience can be significantly influenced by the presence of, and attachment to, wildlife and pets in multispecies tourism spaces.

Data supporting this study are based on a survey of 1422 visitors conducted at the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding (Panda Base). Panda Base is a renowned visitor attraction, boasting the largest population of captive-bred giant pandas in the world, with meeting giant pandas as the primary focus of the visitor experience. However, in this study, we specifically limit the wildlife encounter to free-roaming animals that are bred and live within the Panda Base (e.g., red pandas, swans, peafowls), as well as to wild animals (e.g., other birds, insects, and vertebrates) that naturally come to and inhabit the Panda Base but are not bred or managed by it. While the Panda Base affords abundant natural habitat for free-roaming and wild animals, the rationale behind this specification is that the wildlife encounter was not purposefully planned in contrast to the visitors’ search for the giant panda. Encountering free-roaming animals and wildlife share the ecological-phenomenological approach’s recognition of the role of the environment and the interdependence between actors. This animal-environmental mutuality, according to Dashper and Brymer [7], provides the foundation for investigating individual differences between animal species that move beyond a single focus on human experience. Thus, the designated questionnaire attempts to probe this mutuality through human experiences and consciousness in investigating the complex relationship between pets, wildlife, and humans.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Introduction to the Ecological-Phenomenological Approach

The ecological-phenomenological approach synthesizes two intellectual traditions, including ecological psychology and phenomenology, to better understand the dynamic ways (human) beings interact and perceive their surroundings. Ecological psychology, pioneered by J. J. Gibson and E. J. Gibson, seeks to find an embodied, situated, and non-representational approach to cognition [9], challenging traditions in cognitivism and behaviorism in three main ways: (1) the sensory stimulus is insufficient for complex perception; (2) stimuli are objective and physically independent from subjective perception; (3) perceivers of stimuli are passive recipients of external inputs. Against these mainstream theories, ecological psychology proposes a unified organism-environment system in which perception and behavior co-evolve and mutually shape each other through experience and environmental interaction. Ecological psychology prompts the key notion of affordance, which describes how the environment provides opportunities for interactions with beings through their relationship with it [7].

For example, in the traditional psychological view, a bird sees a branch and forms a mental perception of it before evaluating the feasibility of landing on it based on its size and strength. The branch is considered an objective and external condition influencing the bird’s systematic decision. In contrast, in ecological psychology, the bird perceives the branch as an affordance, namely a perch, and prepares herself for landing as she finds the appropriate flight path. The bird’s selection of flight path and her particular way of landing depends on her immediate coupling and interaction with the branch.

Phenomenology enriches ecological psychology with a subjective and first-person dimension to the individual’s interaction and perceptions of their environment [10]. Phenomenology is a philosophical branch proposed by Edmund Husserl in the early 20th century and further developed by prominent scholars, including Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Phenomenology emphasizes the embodied nature of perception and action, suggesting that individuals can introduce different meanings into their interactions with the environment [10]. Adding this phenomenological dimension to the bird perching on a branch example means that the bird’s decision to land on the branch resulted from its past experiences, current state, and the context of its flight. The bird interacted with the branch, not through a mechanical response but through a meaningful and subjective experience that the bird embodies, which allows for an expanded understanding of bird behavior.

Dashper and Brymer [7] consider constraints and affordance as two key concepts in the ecological-phenomenological perspective. While affordance in the ecological-psychological approach means opportunities for action within a given environment, constraints explore the boundaries that shape these actions and behaviors on individual, environmental, and task levels. Constraints guide “the animal to see stable and effective patterns of behavior during goal-directed activity” [7] (p. 5). For example, the individual constraints the bird might experience are her size, weight, muscle strength, bodily coordination, previous perching history, and health condition. Environmental constraints the bird needs to calculate are the branch’s stability, weather conditions, and the presence of predators. The bird’s perch can also be shaped by its tasks, such as perching for rest or safety, the time of day, and its type of landing. The bird’s subjective experience of her past, her own body, her previous interaction with branches, and her lived experience can influence how the bird perceives and approaches the branch through her bodily phenomenology.

In summary, the ecological-phenomenological perspective emphasizes the integration between animals and their environments, where the environment both affords and constrains the animals’ actions. Similarly, animals, as embodied phenomena, can also shape and influence the presence and context of the environment. As Read and Szokolszky [10] suggest, the ecological-phenomenological perspective stresses the mutualism between animal beings and the environment.

2.2. Human-Pet Relationships in the Anthropocene

In contrast to the mutualism of the ecological-phenomenological perspective, scholars have traditionally conceived pet ownership in contemporary society through an anthropocentric lens. In this theoretical strand, scholars believe that human participation consciousness will shape an animal’s interactions with people. Hence, the emergence of pets is a result of this anthropocentric dominance, even though pets can, to a certain degree, enjoy affection from their owners. For example, the prominent geographer and humanistic scholar Yi-Fu Tuan [11] states that pet-making combines dominance and affection in contemporary society. Tuan [11] (pp. 1–2) suggests that affection can mitigate and soften domination, but affection is “dominance’s anodyne—it is dominance with a human face.” Moreover, Tuan [11] explains that young children learn about this complex power dynamic with animals during their playtime; as the children care for and nurture animals, they also develop an awareness of superiority and power.

On the surface, the ecological-phenomenological perspective straightforwardly rejects Tuan’s theoretical approach, as Tuan asserts the centrality of human presence in human-pet interaction rather than a mutualism between pets and their environment. However, while Tuan’s account is often read as anthropocentric, this paper proposes a reinterpretation: Tuan’s phenomenological sensitivity to affection, spatial intimacy, and interspecies proximity can be productively re-read through a more-than-human lens. In contrast to posthumanist scholars such as Haraway [12], who emphasize co-becoming and situated ethics, or Despret [13], who foregrounds animal agency and epistemic vulnerability, Tuan remains tethered to a human-oriented emotional framework. However, it is precisely his emphasis on affection and play—as embodied, esthetic-cultural practices—that enables a reconsideration of interspecies relations in human-altered landscapes.

If we agree with Crutzen [14] (p. 13), and numerous other scholars, that we are firmly situated within the Anthropocene, we must also acknowledge that anthropocentric thinking and practice have become the lived and embodied manner of being for humans and their treatment of animals. In other words, the environment that shapes animals and their activities from an ecological phenomenological perspective is still largely anthropocentric. Hence, in pet ownership, animals interact with human-dominated environments, while the notion and experience of a pet, according to Tuan, result from the animal’s interaction with the Anthropocene. In this light, Tuan’s conceptualization of the pet lays the foundation for an ecological-phenomenological examination of the animal’s embodiment in a lived and anthropocentric environment.

Furthermore, Tuan [11] believes that it is in the esthetic-cultural realm that the exercise of the will manifests. Tuan [11] uses the example of an artist-gardener playing in their miniature gardens, who is likely to establish themselves as a figure of power through their domination of this miniature world. Tuan’s work–play dichotomy readily places tourism activities, the non-working and fun experiences [15,16], into the esthetic-cultural realm. Hence, Tuan’s [11] observation also suggests that the landscape of tourism can lead to a greater likelihood of owners’ domination over their pets through the playful exercise of their wills, while the pleasure people experience through play masks a transformed force of dominance. In other words, any intensified pleasure and affection people may experience with their pets during tourism activities indicates that the previously exploitative domination over animals has partially assumed a more humane guise. Tuan’s observation demonstrates that tourism activities can transform the human control and use of animals into a more affectionate and gentle form of domination.

2.3. Pet in Tourism Through Esthetic Domination

The endeavor to (re)place and (re)direct our attention towards animals in tourism is designed to break the anthropocentric view that has legitimized and prioritized the existence of human beings in tourism experiences [17]. Based on Tuan’s insights on human beings’ domination and affection towards pets, an ecological-phenomenological perspective suggests that tourism activities offer more than just spaces where animals and humans co-exist and collaborate. For example, Hidalgo-Fernández et al. [18] recently pointed out that families’ attachment to pets can motivate their travel plans with pets. Wei et al. [19] found out that human-pet interaction improves both travel motivation and quality of life by creating emotional and social value. Quan et al. [20] demonstrate a positive reinforcement in the tourist–pet bond during enjoyable, nature-rich travel experiences.

Nevertheless, Tuan’s [11] framework suggests that tourism provides an anthropocentric environment where human domination over animals is transformed into an effective form of control. Tourism activities facilitate this significant transformation, enabling human participants to exert stronger and more comprehensive control over animals. In contrast, animals respond by becoming beloved pets of their owners.

Such suggestions demonstrate that tourism is not an idealized landscape where equality and mutual respect are automatically established within the multispecies connection. The terrain of tourism demands careful examination regarding how dominance is transformed into human affection and enjoyment, masking the persistence of dominance beneath this benevolent facade. Beyond mere exploitation and instrumental use of animals, human–animal interactions within tourism settings underscore human desires for an alternative form of power or experience that presents itself as more humane [21,22]. As tourism offers a sphere where this alternative power dynamic is explored and enacted, it also reinforces human dominion over animals [23,24].

However, the most significant challenge that the ecological-phenomenological perspective presents in multispecies tourism is not that the tourism landscape is fundamentally anthropocentric but rather that animals have always been active participants in the tourism landscape. It is not after the “animal turn” [17] that animals emerge as active participants in tourism activities—the animals have co-evolved with tourism activities. Additionally, as active agents themselves, animals participating in tourism activities alongside humans are often made into endearing pets for their human owners [21,25,26]. It also means that animals were not voiceless as they interacted and negotiated with the human-dominated environment but that becoming pets has been the animals’ way of materializing and “speaking” with humans. This ecological-phenomenological conclusion can sound counter-intuitive and poses a significant challenge to the entrenched belief that studies need to “give some kind of ‘voice’ to non-human animals” [17] (p. 293). However, it also provides access to “animal subjects” or “animal agency” in an anthropocentric environment.

2.4. Beyond Pets: Implications for Wildlife Tourism

Wildlife tourism studies have framed the human–wildlife relationships through a range of interconnected concepts, including co-existence [27,28], conservation and stewardship [29,30], utilization and exploitation [31], habitat loss [32], climate change [33,34], and biodiversity decline [35,36]. In addition, several studies have explored human–wildlife relationships through the lens of pet attachment [37,38]. These studies typically adopt a one-directional approach, focusing on how pet ownership shapes human perspectives on wildlife. In contrast, there has been less emphasis on the inverse perspective—examining pets through interactions with wildlife. For instance, researchers have often considered pet ownership a variable influencing human attitudes and interests toward wildlife and conservation efforts. Shuttlewood, Greenwell, and Montrose [39] note that pet ownership can affect engagement with animal-related activities and wildlife management. Additionally, their empirical analysis of 220 participants revealed that pet owners are more likely to hold sympathetic attitudes toward animals and, consequently, support wildlife management strategies that benefit the well-being and welfare of wildlife. Work by Bjerke, Øsdahl, and Kleiven [40] echoes this study, showing that pet owners, compared to non-pet owners, are more likely to attend animal-related activities, feed wildlife more frequently, and enjoy the presence of other species.

Hepper and Wells [41] argue that pet ownership, as a form of closeness to animals, has been believed to play a crucial role in shaping the public’s attitudes toward animals since the 18th century. Studies demonstrate that pet ownership and animal welfare are two positively related factors [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. In general, people with intimate experiences with animals (either in adulthood or childhood) are more likely to support the progress of animal welfare and well-being policies that benefit animals. Hence, Hepper and Wells [41] conclude that pet ownership in households can significantly influence the public’s attitudes toward the use of animals and suggest that including family pet ownership as a significant factor can contribute to advancements in animal welfare policies.

The benefits provided by pets also increase people’s chances of exploring nature. Identifying pets as “friends with benefits”, numerous studies have suggested positive physical [50,51,52,53,54], psychological [55,56,57,58,59], and social [60,61,62,63] returns that human individuals receive through their attachment to pets. Further studies have revealed the complex relationship between humans and various pet species. Hajek and König [64], for instance, suggest that dog owners are less socially isolated and less lonely than cat owners and individuals without pets in older adults over 65. In a survey of 41,514 adults in California, Yabroff, Troiano, and Berrigan [65] concluded that dog owners walk for leisure 18.9 min more per week than non-pet owners and cat owners. Also, male dog owners reported higher self-esteem than individuals without pets, whereas female cat owners reported the lowest self-esteem [66]. Islam and Towell [67] reviewed 11 empirical studies on the relationship between pet possession and an owner’s health and well-being, suggesting that there was little evidence supporting the positive impacts of pets on companionship. The physical and psychological benefits pets generate can mean owners have greater opportunities and interest in interacting with other animals or wildlife.

These studies highlight that, despite the inclusion of various animals, such as farm animals and wildlife, the lens through which people evaluate their relationships with other animals is their connection with pets. This suggests that pet attachment significantly shapes and influences broader human–animal relationships. On the one hand, these studies examine whether the public’s affection for pets can extend to other animals through projects such as wildlife conservation, well-being, and welfare. On the other hand, pets generally provide direct or indirect benefits to people through their linkage to nature. Pet ownership, hence, expresses the anthropocentric needs of human beings through images of nature. This approach dominates human interaction with nature. As Tuan [11] (p. 163) suggests, the modern man

“May claim intimacy with nature—with wilderness itself. But this sense of ease in wilderness is possible only because wild animals and forests are no longer threatening. Wilderness, although not yet a pet to the degree that the garden and certainly the miniature garden is a pet, nonetheless is widely perceived by modern society to be a fragile existence that needs its care and protection.”

Tuan’s idea suggests that, despite wilderness and pet ownership being perceived as distinct, the presence of wilderness is also shaped by the dynamic interplay between the politics of domination and affection. The wild resembles the pet in terms of its perceived fragility and vulnerability, on which the human being can impose their care, protection, and dominance. Indeed, as studies [37,46,68,69] have shown, pet ownership, in general, positively reinforces people’s attitudes and activities with wildlife, indicating that pet owners are more likely to extend their dominance and affection towards wildlife. While existing studies have considered pet ownership a trigger for people’s further involvement and devotion to wildlife conservation and protection, Tuan’s [11] theoretical approach shows that people can be inherently attracted to the affective emotions and the bond to nature, to which pet ownership and wildlife conservation are mere manifestations of this human need and emotion. We will further show that the ecological-phenomenological perspective supports this interconnection between pets, wildlife, and human beings.

Despite this shared dominance-affection interplay between pets and wildlife, Tuan [11] maintains that there are also nuanced differences in people’s interactions with them. For example, owners enjoy emotional and physical intimacy with pets, which also usually grants the pets a family membership [70]. In contrast, modern people’s relationship with wildlife may not involve the same physical closeness or daily interactions but is instead contextualized within the lens of conservation and ecological significance [71]. Pets occupy and linger in the minds of their owners, presenting needs for constant personal responsibility and care [11]. In contrast, the wild and wildlife are cast in a more distant and sometimes mysterious ecological framework, requiring protection and concern from the public collective awareness [72]. These studies suggest that the power interplay between humans and animals can be dynamic and complex due to their interlinked and intersected relations in a given environment. Pet ownership indicates an established pattern within which animals interact with human beings, and this framework also extends to people’s perception of wildlife. Both pet animals and wild animals have engaged with the Anthropocene through their distinct agencies and shared the landscape of tourism with their human counterparts. In the following sections, we further explore this entanglement of pet–wildlife–human interactions through a survey-based study conducted at the Panda Base.

2.5. Summary of the Theoretical Framework

Taken together, the ecological-phenomenological perspective, the emerging patterns of pet tourism, and the broader implications for wildlife invite a rethinking of how interspecies encounters are shaped by—and help shape—our environments, habits, and ethical frameworks. Through Merleau-Ponty’s conception of embodied perception and relational space, we can begin to see pet tourism not merely as leisure but as a practice that conditions human sensitivities and expectations toward other species. These embodied encounters with pets, often domesticated and anthropomorphized, form experiential templates that are transported into wildlife tourism contexts, where animals are similarly framed as approachable, manageable, and emotionally legible. As such, pet tourism becomes not only a mirror of human desire but also a generative force in configuring the tourist gaze toward wildlife. This continuum challenges the moral and practical boundaries tourists draw between pets and wild animals, revealing the porous and performative nature of species categories in contemporary tourism. Understanding this interconnected dynamic is crucial for developing ethical wildlife tourism practices that are attuned to both human perceptual habits and the autonomy of animal life.

3. Methodology

To understand the entanglements between wildlife, pets, and humans in tourism activities, the research team conducted a survey at the Panda Base. A scientific research institute established in 1987 specializing in giant panda breeding, Panda Base claims to have the world’s largest ex situ giant panda population (200 pandas as of 2023). In addition to its scientific breeding achievement, Panda Base has become the most-visited tourist attraction in Chengdu for Chinese and international tourists. On TripAdvisor, Panda Base has been listed as the top tourist attraction in Chengdu, garnering as many as 6000 reviews. About 11.9 million tourists visited the Panda Base in 2023 [73]. The Panda Base has capped its daily visitor number at 60,000 to ensure safety and enhance visitors’ experiences. Recent studies [74,75,76,77,78] have employed the term “giant panda tourism” to describe the increasing tourist interest in visiting giant pandas in animal care centers, such as the Panda Base.

The survey was collected at the exit of Panda Base in 2023. Visitors volunteered to participate in the survey, and the research team compensated participants with a small gift (a giant panda magazine or a giant panda keychain). The survey was designed with the help of Wenjuanxing, a Chinese professional website that distributes and organizes online surveys. Wenjuanxing issued a QR code for the survey, which was printed out and allowed tourists to access the questionnaire on their mobile phones. The online system ensured that all submitted and recorded surveys were complete. Consistent with the research team’s previous data collection experience at Panda Base, the majority of the participating population consisted of young people under 40 and females. Young people were more interested in the survey due to their greater exposure to mobile technology and more advanced internet literacy compared to the older generation. The researcher working at Panda Base learned from the ticketing system that more female tourists were visiting the place than males. This knowledge justified the larger number of female participants in each of the surveys the research team had previously conducted at Panda Base.

The survey began with an Informed Consent form that detailed the purpose and process of the survey. The participants were asked to “Agree” or “Disagree” with the listed requirements in the consent form. For participants who disagreed, Wenjuanxing would end the survey. All data were collected anonymously, and the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Personal Privacy excluded the need for an ethical committee’s support on an anonymous questionnaire like this one. However, the design and distribution of the questionnaire strictly followed the Declaration of Helsinki to ensure the privacy and autonomy of each participant.

A total of 1440 questionnaires were collected. Eighteen records with unrealistic age numbers (e.g., older than 90 years or younger than 10) were excluded from the sample, leaving 1422 valid answers. This criterion of exclusion was based on the researcher’s on-site data collection process, as the participation of very young children and older people was rare. These entries were flagged during the data quality checks as potentially indicative of data entry errors or misreporting. The questionnaire had three sections. The first section collected demographic information (gender, place of origin, educational background, and first-time versus returned visitors) from participants. The second part included eight Likert-scale questions (rated on a 1–5 scale, with 5 indicating the highest rating—most satisfied, happiest, etc.) that asked visitors to evaluate their experiences at Panda Base. The first three questions evaluated the biodiversity, natural environment, and visiting experiences of Panda Base, and the other five questions assessed the enjoyment of nature, the calming effect, the willingness to learn about wildlife, the willingness to donate, and the willingness to become a wildlife conservation volunteer at Panda Base. The last section examined participants’ experiences with animals—whether they had encountered wildlife or kept pets at home. Specifically, the wildlife encounter in this study referred to visitor–animal interactions with free-roaming or captive animals, excluding giant pandas, at Panda Base. The median time it took visitors to complete a questionnaire was 54 s. The collected data were stored in a saved file, which the researcher downloaded for further analysis in SPSS Version 26 Mac. On SPSS, the researcher performed descriptive analysis to allow the underlying patterns of the sample to surface.

4. Data Analysis

To display our results holistically, we took the following steps: First, a summary of the dataset, based on the demographic characteristics and visitation experiences of Panda Base, was displayed to introduce the samples included in this study. Frequency and percentage were the primary statistical methods in this section. Second, pet ownership and wildlife encounters were further explored as two independent variables in the dataset. T-tests were employed to determine whether pet ownership and wildlife encounters yielded distinct results in visitors’ experiences (measured using a 5-Likert scale) at the Panda Base. Although our data were based on 5-point Likert scales and not normally distributed, we used independent sample t-tests due to our large sample size (n > 1000), which ensured robustness through the Central Limit Theorem. Prior research has shown that t-tests and Mann–Whitney tests yield similar power and acceptable Type I error rates for Likert items, even under skewed distributions [79]. Third, the intersection between pet ownership and wildlife encounters was studied through the Kruskal–Wallis test. We used boxplots to inspect the distribution of the data and found relatively similar distribution shapes across groups, supporting the assumption of the Kruskal–Wallis test that differences were due to medians rather than distribution shape. Lastly, we delved into the details of pet ownership, including the various types of pets owned by visitors. Kruskal–Wallis and Chi-square tests were used to explore this dimension.

4.1. Demographic Profile and Visitation Summary

Table 1. Demographic profile of the sample.

Measure	n	%
Age	1422	Mean = 29.83; Median = 28.00; SD = 10.863
Gender
Female	958	67.4
Male	464	32.6
Level of education
Junior high school and less	152	10.7
High school	232	16.3
College and university	508	35.7
Postgraduate and above	530	37.3
Your place of residence in the past three years:
First-tier region (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Shenzhen)	309	21.7
Second-tier region (Chengdu included)	517	36.4
Third-tier region (Other regions)	596	41.9
The length of the visit
1–2 h	489	34.4
3–4 h	763	53.7
5 h and more	170	12.0
Visiting purpose
Vacation and holiday	1016	71.4
Hanging with friends	257	18.1
Scientific education	62	4.4
Business	35	2.5
Other	52	3.7
This is my first time visiting Panda Base
Yes	1224	86.1
No	198	13.9

provides an overview (frequency and percentage) of the participants based on their demographic characteristics and visitation experiences at Panda Base. The sample is consistent with previous survey samples collected from Panda Base. For example, females (67.4%), visitors coming for vacation (71.4%), and young people (Age_median = 28.00) dominated the respondent pool. More than half of the participants had a college degree or more. On average, tourists spent 3–4 h at the Panda Base, and 13.9% of tourists revisited the place.

4.2. Pet Ownership and Wildlife Encounter as Independent Variables

Table 2. Wildlife encounters and pet ownership as independent variables.

	Pet Owner (%) (PO)	Non-Owner (%) (NO)	Total
Had wildlife encounters (WE)	238 (48.87%)	387 (41.39%)	625
Had no wildlife encounters (NE)	249 (51.13%)	548 (58.61%)	797
Total	487	935	1422
Pearson correlation	r = 0.072	p = 0.007
Chi-square statistics	χ2 = 7.273	p = 0.007

shows that pet ownership and wildlife encounters at Panda Base are positively related (r = 0.072, p = 0.007), and significant discrepancies are observed between the groups (χ² = 7.273, p = 0.007). Specifically, pet owners were more likely to have wildlife encounters (48.87%) than non-owners (41.39%). Non-owners (58.61%) had fewer wildlife encounters than pet owners (51.13%). The table suggests that pet ownership influences visitors’ interactions with wildlife, meaning that pet owners, as tourists, were more likely, consciously or unconsciously, to search for interactions with free-roaming wildlife at animal care organizations such as the Panda Base.

Table 3. t-test on visitation experiences evaluation based on pet ownership (PO/NO).

Variables	PO	NO	Difference	t	p
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
The biodiversity of Panda Base (BD)	4.22 (1.200)	4.21 (1.129)	0.01	0.255	0.799
The natural environment of Panda Base (NE)	4.44 (1.107)	4.47 (1.047)	−0.03	−0.432	0.665
My overall visiting experience (OV)	4.19 (1.173)	4.15 (1.162)	0.04	0.649	0.516
I enjoy nature at Panda Base (EN)	4.40 (1.007)	4.52 (0.835)	−0.12	−2.262 *	0.024
I feel calm at Panda Base (FC)	4.21 (1.184)	4.22 (1.179)	−0.01	−0.162	0.871
I am willing to learn about wildlife conservation (LC)	4.36 (1.071)	4.40 (1.015)	−0.04	−0.719	0.472
I am willing to donate to wildlife conservation (DC)	4.04 (1.395)	4.04 (1.365)	0.00	−0.022	0.982
I am willing to become a wildlife conservation volunteer (CV)	4.35 (1.145)	4.24 (1.218)	0.11	1.623	0.105

* p < 0.05.

presents the t-test results of visitors’ evaluations of their visit experiences at Panda Base based on pet ownership. The results show that pet ownership did not significantly influence people’s overall visitation experience at the Panda Base. Non-owners (m = 4.52) believed that they enjoyed nature significantly more (p = 0.024) than pet owners (m = 4.40).

Table 4. t-test on visitation experiences evaluation based on wildlife encounter (WE/NE).

Variables	WE	NE	Difference	t	p
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
BD	4.25 (1.194)	4.18 (1.120)	0.07	1.165	0.244
NE	4.44 (1.142)	4.47 (1.007)	−0.03	−0.603	0.546
OV	4.21 (1.203)	4.12 (1.134)	0.09	1.469	0.142
EN	4.53 (0.860)	4.43 (0.927)	0.10	2.094 *	0.036
FC	4.33 (1.075)	4.12 (1.250)	0.21	3.342 *	0.001
LC	4.42 (0.999)	4.35 (1.061)	0.07	1.338	0.181
DC	4.12 (1.321)	3.98 (1.413)	0.14	1.986 *	0.047
CV	4.37 (1.101)	4.21 (1.258)	0.16	2.631 *	0.009

* p < 0.05.

shows that wildlife encounters have a significant influence on tourists’ visiting experiences at the Panda Base. For example, visitors’ enjoyment of nature (p = 0.036), feelings of calmness (p = 0.001), willingness to donate (p = 0.047), and willingness to volunteer (p = 0.009) were significantly higher for visitors who had wildlife encounters. Table 4 shows that wildlife encounters may be a more significant factor than pet ownership in mediating tourists’ immediate experiences of Panda Base.

4.3. Pairwise Analysis Based on Pet Ownership and Wildlife Encounter

The interconnectedness of pet ownership and wildlife encounters means that the two variables do not produce exclusive tourist groups. On the contrary, POs can also be either WEs or NEs. Such means that a pairwise analysis is needed to probe the interconnectedness between pet ownership and wildlife encounters. The normality test is needed to determine whether a parametric analysis, such as ANOVA, is possible. Data transformation or non-parametric analysis are the alternatives if the data are not normally distributed.

The results of

Table 5. Normality test on evaluations of the visitation experiences of participants.

Variables	Kolmogorov–Smirnov			Shapiro–Wilk
	Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
BD	0.326	1422	0.000	0.700	1422	0.000
NE	0.392	1422	0.000	0.552	1422	0.000
OV	0.311	1422	0.000	0.723	1422	0.000
EN	0.393	1422	0.000	0.638	1422	0.000
FC	0.345	1422	0.000	0.706	1422	0.000
LC	0.378	1422	0.000	0.652	1422	0.000
DC	0.334	1422	0.000	0.725	1422	0.000
CV	0.374	1422	0.000	0.657	1422	0.000

show that the data in the evaluated experiential dimensions of Panda Base were not normally distributed. Log, square root, and box–cox transformations demonstrated that none of these achieved a Shapiro–Wilk p-value greater than 0.05, indicating the data’s departure from normality in spite of the data transformation. Hence, to minimize statistical errors, Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted to investigate how pet ownership and wildlife encounters may impact visitors’ experiences at Panda Base.

Table 6. Kruskal–Wallis and post hoc tests on pet ownership and wildlife encounters.

Measures	PO-WE	PO-NE	NO-WE	NONE	PO-NE vs. NONE	PO-NE vs. NO-WE	PO-NE vs. PO-WE	NONE vs. NO-WE	NONE vs. PO-WE	NO-WE vs. PO-WE	Kruskal–Wallis
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	p	p	p	p	p	p	p df = 3
BD	4.25 (1.260)	4.20 (1.142)	4.25 (1.153)	4.17 (1.112)	- #						0.072
NE	4.39 (1.203)	4.48 (1.008)	4.46 (1.104)	4.47 (1.007)							0.773
OV	4.21 (1.246)	4.17 (1.102)	4.21 (1.178)	4.10 (1.149)							0.053
EN	4.54 (0.874)	4.26 (1.104)	4.53 (0.852)	4.51 (0.824)	0.007 *	0.001 *	0.002 *	0.365	0.255	0.783	0.003 *
FC	4.38 (1.039)	4.04 (1.288)	4.30 (1.097)	4.16 (1.231)	0.219	0.019 *	0.004 *	0.160	0.037 *	0.383	0.017 *
LC	4.39 (1.036)	4.33 (1.105)	4.45 (0.976)	4.36 (1.041)	-						0.509
DC	4.12 (1.343)	3.96 (1.441)	4.12 (1.310)	3.99 (1.401)							0.349
CV	4.47 (1.026)	4.24 (1.240)	4.31 (1.142)	4.20 (1.267)	−0.645	0.584	0.022 *	0.231	0.002 *	0.047 *	0.021 *

^# Note. Mann–Whitney U comparisons are not performed because the overall test does not show significant differences across samples; “-” means the mean rank is higher in the first group. * p < 0.05.

shows that wildlife encounters and pet ownership can mutually influence visiting experiences such as the enjoyment of nature (p = 0.003), feeling of calmness (p = 0.017), and participation in conservation volunteering (p = 0.021). It shows that pet owners who did not encounter wildlife enjoyed nature less significantly than other tourists. Pet owners who experienced wildlife encounters reported significantly more calmness than non-owners without such encounters (p = 0.037). However, the difference was not pronounced between owners and non-owners with wildlife encounters (p = 0.383). Pet owners who experienced wildlife encounters were significantly more likely to participate in conservation volunteer programs than other tourists. Table 6 illustrates the highly complex and intertwined relationship between pet ownership and wildlife encounters during visiting experiences at Panda Base.

4.4. Different Pets and Their Influence on the Visiting Experience

In total, 487 visitors reported being pet owners. Cats (36.34%) were the most popular pets among POs, followed by dog owners (26.28%). More people had multiple pets (22.59%) than other pets (14.78%), such as birds, goldfish, reptiles, and hamsters (Figure 1).

Table 7. Kruskal–Wallis tests on POs with different types of pets.

Measures	Cat	Dog	Other	Multiple	Kruskal–Wallis
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	p
BD	4.15 (1.231)	4.28 (1.216)	4.42 (1.004) *	4.14 (1.245)	0.287
NE	4.40 (1.154)	4.44 (1.121)	4.57 (0.917)	4.43 (1.137)	0.849
OV	4.19 (1.166)	4.20 (1.151)	4.31 (1.070)	4.11 (1.280)	0.845
EN	4.32 (1.103)	4.40 (1.037)	4.53 (0.919)	4.44 (0.852)	0.487
FC	4.12 (1.269)	4.34 (1.074)	4.25 (1.148)	4.15 (1.190)	0.506
LC	4.29 (1.145)	4.36 (1.128)	4.37 (1.054)	4.44 (0.883)	0.895
DC	4.01 (1.408)	4.10 (1.419)	3.99 (1.419)	4.06 (1.343)	0.839
CV	4.26 (1.306)	4.41 (1.097)	4.40 (1.083)	4.41 (0.951)	0.918

* Note. The bold highlights the highest mean in the four groups.

shows whether owning different types of pets could produce distinctive visitor experiences for pet owners. It shows no significant difference between pet owners (p > 0.05). However, we observed that owners of other pets were most likely to enjoy all aspects of visiting Panda Base, followed by dog owners. In contrast, cat owners consistently rated their visiting experiences as worse than those of other pet owners.

Table 8. Wildlife encounter frequency and pet types.

	Cat (%)	Dog (%)	Other (%)	Multiple (%)
WE	81 (45.8%)	51 (39.8%)	44 (61.1%)	62 (56.4%)
NE	96 (54.2%)	77 (60.2%)	28 (38.9%)	48 (43.6%)
Total	177 (100%)	128 (100%)	72 (100%)	110 (100%)
Chi-square statistics	χ2 = 19.088	p = 0.001

shows that pet owners experienced wildlife encounters in different ways (p = 0.001). Owners of other pets (61.1%) were more likely to observe wildlife encounters at Panda Base, whereas dog owners (39.8%) were the least sensitive to wildlife.

5. Discussion

As the first study to explore the entanglements of wildlife, pets, and humans in animal care organizations, this paper employs an ecological-phenomenological lens to understand the interconnected and complex relationships between visitors and non-human beings in tourism, using Panda Base as a venue. While previous research on nature-based tourism has highlighted the potential influence of pets on wildlife tourism experiences—particularly through their impact on ecological systems and their emerging role as active stakeholders [2,3,6]—the specific relationship between pet ownership and wildlife tourism remains underexplored. This study addresses this gap by offering an initial investigation into how pet–human dynamics shape wildlife encounters and tourism practices.

Affordance and constraint are two key concepts that the ecological-phenomenological perspective employs to understand animal interactions with their environment. Specifically, affordances contribute to how individuals experience and interact with their surroundings in a subjective, direct, and meaningful way. The most straightforward influence of affordance in this study is that visitors with pets were much more likely to observe and interact with wildlife. According to Dashper and Brymer [7], affordance focuses on what is offered to individuals rather than mere physical descriptions. Pet owners’ previous experiences with pet animals shape their ability to perceive and interact with wildlife, manifesting in their tendency to observe and interact with wildlife at Panda Base actively. Rather than seeing wildlife as a mere physical presence at Panda Base, pet owners were more attuned to the unstructured and random presence of wildlife. It also means that pet owners’ intimacy with pets enhances their ability to perceive and appreciate wildlife’s behaviors and presence more closely.

The pet owner’s higher rate of engagement with wildlife at Panda Base also means they were agents mobilized to interact with the environment in a dynamic fashion with other agents [7] (p. 6). Pet owners approached their tourism activities in the natural environment at Panda Base with a varied understanding of the functional opportunities the environment affords, which led to their sensitivity to the presence of wildlife and greater appreciation of interactions with wildlife. For example, pet owners without wildlife encounters enjoyed the nature of Panda Base the least (Table 6), indicating that pet owners’ functional approach and goal-directed behaviors [7] influenced their participation in tourism activities and the natural environment.

Pet ownership is also an embodied experience that affords a difference in visitors’ ability to perceive and respond to the wildlife they encounter, emphasizing a mutual influence between visitors, pets, and wildlife. For example, Table 6 shows that wildlife encounters generate significant differences in pet owners’ feeling of calmness at the Panda Base, while this impact was not observed among non-owners. Wildlife encounters generated the highest level of calmness among pet owners, while the lack of wildlife encounters caused the greatest anxiety among this group. This embodied experience of the Panda Base environment, influenced by the presence or absence of wildlife, means that pet owners, in general, tend to have richer wildlife observation experience and greater engagement than non-owners. Additionally, this sensitivity to wildlife encounters in pet owners’ feelings of calmness can pose a significant constraint to pet owners’ experience of the Panda Base. As pet owners naturally seek “stable and effective patterns of behavior” [7] (p. 5), such as encountering wildlife during their visit to Panda Base, the lack of wildlife encounters presented significant constraints in pet owners’ enjoyment of this venue.

When combined, pet ownership and wildlife encounters can lead to a significant difference in visitors’ interest in volunteering for wildlife conservation programs (see Table 6). It means pet ownership and wildlife encounters were necessary affordances, allowing visitors to become attuned to volunteering opportunities. From an ecological-phenomenological perspective, individuals engage in goal-directed activities [7]. The volunteer program is one of the tourism activities at Panda Base, oriented toward specific goals. At the same time, this study reveals that pet owners’ experiences with wildlife also increase their awareness of wildlife and animal conservation, making them more likely to recognize the importance of volunteer roles. In contrast, visitors without pets and those who had wildlife encounters experienced significant constraints in their perception of volunteer opportunities, which may have led to their lack of interest in participating in the volunteer programs.

Tuan’s (2017) [11] approach to human dominance and affection in contemporary pet ownership suggests that human affection towards pets evolved from their control and power over animals. Multispecies tourism offers activities and spaces that facilitate the transformation of human dominance into affectionate bonds with non-human beings. This suggests that multispecies tourism also provides opportunities to explore and enact alternative power dynamics. A comparison between Table 3 and Table 4 validates this observation. Table 3 shows that pet ownership only generated a significant difference in the enjoyment of nature in POs and NOs, whereas, in Table 4, whether visitors had wildlife encounters or not created significant deviances in terms of the visitors’ enjoyment of nature, feeling of calmness, willingness to donate, and willingness to volunteer. The wildlife encounter played a more dynamic and robust role in mediating the affordances and constraints of the Panda Base environment.

A closer look at Table 4 reveals that wildlife encounters, as a random yet dynamic factor, did not significantly alter visitors’ perceptions of Panda Base (e.g., biodiversity and natural environment). Rather, the wildlife encounter could produce significant changes in more subjective and, hence, anthropocentric experiences of the visitors (e.g., their feelings, pleasure, and willingness). This suggests that the presence of wildlife did not benefit visitors’ more objective evaluation of Panda Base but was specifically oriented towards visitors’ well-being and experience. Tuan [11] believed that affection towards pets is a form of human dominance’s anodyne. In parallel, our study shows that visitors’ interest in wildlife encounters also entails a form of dominance through human centrality. This anthropocentric experience at Panda Base introduces an implicit sociological factor into the environmental constraints [7], as visitors may have adopted an affectionate yet dominant stance when encountering wildlife. Although this connection with wildlife was shared as an enjoyable, pleasant, and willing experience for the visitors, it maintains human dominance by affording exclusive benefits to human beings.

The result of the survey supports the ecological-phenomenological perspective that wildlife, pets, and human participants experience entangled relationships in multispecies tourism venues. Table 7 and Table 8 further show that this interaction can be rather dynamic and complex depending on the types of pets owners and non-owners have. There are also nuanced differences caused by whether people had pet ownership or wildlife encounters. While pet ownership and wildlife encounters triggered different environmental affordances and constraints in the multispecies tourism experiences, this study also demonstrates the persistent influence of anthropocentrism in people’s tourism experiences. We concur with Tuan’s point that affection and domination provide the specific framework with which people interact with non-human beings. While pets experience family affinity and affection from their human owners, tourists’ affection towards wildlife is expressed through their enjoyment of the visitation experience and interest in wildlife conservation programs.

6. Conclusions

This paper studied the interactions between pets, wildlife, and human visitors in a multispecies tourism setting. The ecological-phenomenological perspective was employed to understand how these interactions become deeply rooted in the interplay between individuals and these settings. Key concepts such as affordance (the environment’s offering of meaningful interaction) and constraint (limitations imposed by the environment) explain the link between pet ownership and wildlife encounters at the Panda Base. This study contributes to the understanding of pet-wildlife relationships in the context of wildlife tourism. It shows that pets are a significant advantage, providing owners with richer and more frequent wildlife encounters. Although pets are not allowed at the Panda Base, owners’ interactions with pets continue to influence their interests in wildlife encounters and observations. The key insight is that multispecies interactions in tourism activities can be complex and dynamic, and different types of pets, pet ownership, and wildlife encounters could all influence visitors’ experiences in nuanced ways.

This study shows that anthropocentrism remains the inevitable constraint that structures and orients multispecies tourism experiences despite non-human animals being active participants in these activities. Dominance and control over non-human animals thus become the norm in a setting where animals, although free to roam, are still relatively confined within a formal built environment. We characterize this as a form of “affectionate domination” over wildlife: spaces where people’s anthropocentric dominance partakes in a seemingly benevolent and affectionate transformation yet still manifests a human–animal dichotomy.

This paper provides several empirical implications for practitioners and managers in animal care facilities. First, the study’s results demonstrate that wildlife encounters can create a significant gap in visitors’ experiences, as they encourage visitors to appreciate wildlife better and acknowledge its presence. For an animal care organization like the Panda Base, the giant panda is often seen as the organization’s most ubiquitous attraction, whereas visitors’ encounters with other wildlife, whether captive or free roaming, are largely overlooked. This study demonstrates that Panda Base can enhance visitors’ satisfaction and foster their willingness to learn about animals by incorporating and introducing animals other than giant pandas. For example, education programs on birds, insects, or other small mammals can effectively build human–animal connections. Hence, animal care organizations can benefit from recognizing visitors’ pet ownership when introducing conservation messages and programs.

For academics, this interconnection between pet ownership and wildlife encounters warrants further investigation as a key human–animal connection where domination and affection intersect. The ecological-phenomenological perspective offers a lens to probe this persistent anthropocentric power interplay and can, therefore, play a crucial role in creating a more inclusive society for all species. We argue that zoological venues would be a suitable place to initiate these changes, as they already house multiple species.