1
|
McNally X, Webb TL, Smith C, Moss A, Gibson-Miller J. A meta-analysis of the effect of visiting zoos and aquariums on visitors' conservation knowledge, beliefs, and behavior. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2024:e14237. [PMID: 38305648 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14237] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2023] [Revised: 09/18/2023] [Accepted: 11/21/2023] [Indexed: 02/03/2024]
Abstract
Zoos and aquariums are well placed to connect visitors with the issues facing biodiversity globally and many deliver interventions that seek to influence visitors' beliefs and behaviors with respect to conservation. However, despite primary studies evaluating the effect of such interventions, the overall effect of engaging with zoos and the factors that influence this effect remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the effect of zoo-led interventions on knowledge, beliefs (attitudes, intentions, self-efficacy, and social norms), and behavior among zoo visitors. These outcomes were identified using the Theory of Planned Behavior as a theoretical lens. We identified and described the nature of zoo-led interventions in 56 studies and used the behavior change technique (BCT) taxonomy to identify 6 specific BCTs used in interventions to date. Multilevel meta-analyses revealed a small to medium positive effect of engaging with zoo-led interventions on outcomes (d+ = 0.40, 95% confidence interval = 0.28-0.51). Specifically, visitors were more knowledgeable about conservation issues, held more favorable attitudes toward conservation, and reported being more likely to act for the benefit of biodiversity. No evidence of publication bias was present. Effect sizes were, however, heterogeneous and subgroup analyses revealed that the nature of the intervention or type of outcome did not explain this variance. Larger effects were, however, found in studies conducted at a single institution relative to research at multiple institutions and studies that used within-participant designs relative to between-participant designs. Taken together, these findings demonstrate how behavior change frameworks can be used to describe zoo-led interventions and supports the assertion that zoos and aquariums can promote changes in beliefs and behaviors that may help protect biodiversity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thomas L Webb
- ICOSS building, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Access to Multiple Habitats Improves Welfare: A Case Study of Two Zoo-Housed Black Bears (Ursus americanus). JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL GARDENS 2023. [DOI: 10.3390/jzbg4010010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Using various forms of enrichment, animal care specialists encourage species-specific behaviors and discourage stereotypic behaviors. Within the zoo community, bears (Ursids spp.) are commonly housed, yet are prone to exhibiting stress-related behaviors. Here, we assess the effect of access to multiple habitats, including areas of off guest view, on the welfare of two American black bears (U. americanus) housed at the North Carolina Zoo. In this study, we looked at two behaviors, pacing and foraging to represent negative and positive welfare indicators. We performed logistic regressions to model the effect of access on these behaviors. Because having an animal visible to guests is important to consider when creating management plans, we also explored the effect of access on the bears’ visibility. We found that full access reduced the likelihood of pacing by an average of 13% and increased the likelihood of foraging by an average of 5%. Access to multiple areas reduced the probability of visibility by 57% for one individual but did not impact visibility of the other bear. This case study suggests the value of access to zoo animal welfare and should incite future research aimed at exploring the effects of access on various behavioral outcomes.
Collapse
|
3
|
Goodenough AE, Sewell A, McDonald K. Behavioural patterns in zoo-housed Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) revealed using long-term keeper-collected data: validation of approaches and improved husbandry. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2022.105811] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
|
4
|
The Effects of Live Feeding on Swimming Activity and Exhibit Use in Zoo Humboldt Penguins (Spheniscus humboldti). JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGICAL AND BOTANICAL GARDENS 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/jzbg2010007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Penguins are considered among the most popular animals for zoo and aquarium visitors to observe. Swimming is considered a desirable activity, both for the visitor experience and the welfare of the penguins. However, little is known about the amount of time exhibited penguins spend swimming, or how such swimming is related to regular feeding events. We examined the effects of introducing live prey in the form of trout on 22 Humboldt penguins living at the Woodland Park Zoo. Of primary interest was how the live feeds changed (1) daily and hourly swimming activity, and (2) variability in enclosure use. We hypothesized that the live feedings would increase swimming activity prior to and during the delivery of the live trout, as well as create an overall increase in total swimming activity for live feed days compared to non-live feed days. We also predicted that the penguins would be more likely to use the entire exhibit around these live feeds, since they are likely to chase fish throughout the exhibit. Penguins did show an increase in swimming activity in the hour prior to and during the live feed, with a small decrease in swimming activity following the live feed when compared to non-live feed days. There was also a more than 30% increase in the total swimming activity for live feed days when compared to all other non-live feed days. In addition, a single measure of variability in enclosure use (entropy) showed greater overall enclosure use for the live feed days compared to the non-live feed days. These results demonstrate that live fish can be a useful way of enriching the behavioural welfare of Humboldt penguins.
Collapse
|
5
|
Chiew SJ, Hemsworth PH, Melfi V, Sherwen SL, Burns A, Coleman GJ. Visitor Attitudes Toward Little Penguins ( Eudyptula minor) at Two Australian Zoos. Front Psychol 2021; 12:626185. [PMID: 33643156 PMCID: PMC7905343 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626185] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2020] [Accepted: 01/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
This study identified and compared the attitudes of visitors toward zoo-housed little penguins, their enclosure and visitor experience that may influence the way visitors behave toward little penguins at two Australian zoos. Visitor attitudes were assessed using an anonymous questionnaire, targeting visitor beliefs, and experiences, where visitors were randomly approached at the penguin exhibit after they had finished viewing the penguins. Visitors were given two options to complete the questionnaire, on an iPad during their zoo visit or online (URL sent via email) after their zoo visit. A total of 638 participants (495 at Melbourne Zoo and 143 at Taronga Zoo) completed the questionnaire, 42% were completed onsite during their zoo visit and 58% were completed online after their zoo visit. Most participants were living in Australia, non-zoo members, female, previously or currently owned a pet, aged between 26 and 35 years and had a University degree. Results showed that the attitude dimensions of visitors were consistent between the two zoos which indicates that these measures of attitudes were stable over time and location. Overall, visitors at both zoos had positive attitudes toward little penguins, penguin welfare, the enclosure, and visitor experience. However, whether these positive attitudes and positive visitor experience influenced the way visitors behaved toward the penguins remains unclear. There were some differences in visitor attitudes toward the perceived “aggressiveness” and “timidness” of little penguins, “negative penguin welfare”, “experience with the penguins”, “learning”, “visual barriers” and the way visitors rated their overall experience at the penguin enclosure. While the reasons for the differences in visitor attitudes and visitor experience between the zoos were not clear, some factors such as penguin behavior and enclosure design, may have been attributable to these differences. Also, a relationship was found between visitor attitudes and how visitors rated the welfare of penguins, the enclosure and visitor experience at the enclosure; more positive visitor attitudes were associated with higher ratings of penguin welfare, the enclosure and visitor experience. The practical implications of these results for zoos is unclear because the differences in visitor attitudes were numerically small. This requires further comparisons between zoos or enclosures that are more markedly different than the penguin enclosures in the present study and further research on how visitors assess zoo animals, enclosures and visitor experience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samantha J Chiew
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Animal Welfare Science Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Paul H Hemsworth
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Animal Welfare Science Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Vicky Melfi
- Animal & Agriculture Research Centre, Hartpury University, Gloucester, United Kingdom
| | - Sally L Sherwen
- Department of Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Alicia Burns
- Taronga Institute of Science and Learning, Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Mosman, NSW, Australia.,School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Grahame J Coleman
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, Animal Welfare Science Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ward SJ, Williams E, Groves G, Marsh S, Morgan D. Using Zoo Welfare Assessments to Identify Common Issues in Developing Country Zoos. Animals (Basel) 2020; 10:ani10112101. [PMID: 33198237 PMCID: PMC7696472 DOI: 10.3390/ani10112101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2020] [Revised: 11/05/2020] [Accepted: 11/10/2020] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Zoo animal welfare is a high priority for many institutions. Modern zoos try to ensure that animals are housed and managed at high standards, using animal welfare assessments based on scientific evidence-based practices. However, animal welfare standards for developing country zoos may not be as high, as the most up-to-date knowledge may not be available or understood. The aim of this research was to investigate if there were common welfare concerns associated with zoo animal provision across different developing country zoos. Zoo welfare audits were completed at 11 zoos in seven developing countries (Brazil, Egypt, Libya, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam). The results suggest that animal behaviour, animals’ positive mental states and human health and safety were areas that needed support. These common themes were likely due to a lack of knowledge and understanding that may be linked to historical and cultural differences. This research has helped to inform future intervention strategies for improving developing country zoo animal welfare. Abstract Zoo animal welfare is a high priority for many institutions worldwide, with modern zoos now ensuring that animals are housed and cared for to the highest standards. However, in countries where this knowledge is not as available or understood, standards may be lower. The aim of this research was to investigate if there were common zoo welfare concerns across developing country zoos. Wild Welfare is a charity working globally to improve welfare for zoo animals and has an independent welfare audit that is carried out before any intervention occurs. The Wild Welfare Audit, consisting of 110 questions, covering nine topics, was completed at 11 zoos in seven developing countries (Brazil, Egypt, Libya, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam) following a Likert scale score (1–3). A principal component analysis was also performed to evaluate the audit questions. The results suggest that common areas of concern were animal behaviour, positive animal mental states and human health and safety. These themes were likely due to the lack knowledge and understanding that may be linked to historical and cultural differences. This research has helped to revise the welfare audit as well as inform future intervention strategies for improving developing country zoo animal welfare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samantha J. Ward
- School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG25 0QF, UK;
- Correspondence:
| | - Ellen Williams
- School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG25 0QF, UK;
| | - Georgina Groves
- Wild Welfare, West Sussex RH10 1HT, UK; (G.G.); (S.M.); (D.M.)
| | - Simon Marsh
- Wild Welfare, West Sussex RH10 1HT, UK; (G.G.); (S.M.); (D.M.)
| | - David Morgan
- Wild Welfare, West Sussex RH10 1HT, UK; (G.G.); (S.M.); (D.M.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Chiew SJ, Butler KL, Sherwen SL, Coleman GJ, Melfi V, Burns A, Hemsworth PH. Effect of Covering a Visitor Viewing Area Window on the Behaviour of Zoo-Housed Little Penguins ( Eudyptula minor). Animals (Basel) 2020; 10:ani10071224. [PMID: 32708420 PMCID: PMC7401515 DOI: 10.3390/ani10071224] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2020] [Revised: 07/16/2020] [Accepted: 07/16/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Penguins are a common zoo-housed species and have been shown to display behaviours indicative of fear such as huddling, vigilance and avoidance towards zoo visitors. However, this evidence has been obtained from a single public zoo in Melbourne, Australia. Therefore, we investigated the effect of covering a visitor viewing area window on fear behaviour of zoo-housed little penguins at another zoo in Sydney, Australia. Covering one out of four visitor viewing area windows reduced the number of visitors and the occurrence of potentially threatening visitor behaviours at this window such as banging on the window, loud vocalisations and sudden movement. When the viewing window was covered, the number of penguins visible and preening in the water increased and the number of penguins vigilant near this viewing window reduced. Also, the adjacent corner area, which was not visible to visitors, was found to be a preferred area for the penguins whether the viewing window was uncovered or covered. While there were limited effects, the reduced presence, reduced preening in the water and increased vigilance by penguins near the viewing window when this window was uncovered, together with the general preference for the corner area, provides evidence of some avoidance of visitors. These results suggest that visual contact with visitors and/or other types of visitor contact, such as visitor-induced sounds and vibrations, may be fear-provoking for zoo-housed little penguins. Therefore, these results suggest that penguins in zoos may benefit from modifications to the enclosure that may ameliorate penguin fear responses to visitors such as one-way viewing glass, barriers reducing close visitor contact and areas for penguins to retreat. Abstract Studies on the effects of visitors on zoo animals have shown mixed findings and as a result, the manner in which visitors affect zoo animals remains unclear for many species, including a rarely studied taxa such as penguins. Penguins are a common zoo-housed species and have been shown to display huddling, vigilance and avoidance towards zoo visitors which can be indicative of fear. Here, we examined the effects of covering one visitor viewing area window, out of four, on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviours that may be indicative of fear. Two treatments were randomly imposed on different days: (1) The main visitor viewing area window, where most visitor-penguin interactions occurred, was uncovered (‘Main window uncovered’) and (2) The main visitor viewing area window was covered (‘Main window covered’). Penguin numbers and behaviour were recorded near the main visitor viewing area window and the three other visitor viewing area windows, as well as one area not visible to visitors (‘Corner’ area). Furthermore, visitor numbers and visitor behaviour were recorded at all four visitor viewing area windows. Covering the main visitor viewing area window reduced the proportion of visitors present at this window by about 85% (p < 0.001) and reduced potentially threatening visitor behaviours at this window such as tactile contact with the window, loud vocalisations and sudden movement (p < 0.05). When the main visitor viewing area window was covered, the proportion of penguins present increased by about 25% (p < 0.05), the proportion of visible penguins preening in the water increased by about 180% (p < 0.05) and the proportion of visible penguins vigilant decreased by about 70% (p < 0.05) in the area near this main window. A preference for the Corner area was also found whereby 59% and 49% of penguins were present in this area when the main window was uncovered and covered, respectively. These results provide limited evidence that the little penguins in this exhibit showed an aversion to the area near the main visitor viewing area window when it was uncovered based on the increased avoidance and vigilance and decreased preening in the water in this area. This suggests visitors may be fear-provoking for these little penguins. However, it is unclear whether visual contact with visitors per se or other aspects of visitor contact, such as visitor-induced sounds and vibrations, were responsible for this apparent aversion when this window was uncovered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samantha J. Chiew
- Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (K.L.B.); (G.J.C.); (P.H.H.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +61-433-713-022
| | - Kym L. Butler
- Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (K.L.B.); (G.J.C.); (P.H.H.)
- Biometrics Team, Agriculture Victoria Research, Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, Hamilton, VIC 3300, Australia
| | - Sally L. Sherwen
- Department of Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia;
| | - Grahame J. Coleman
- Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (K.L.B.); (G.J.C.); (P.H.H.)
| | - Vicky Melfi
- Department of Animal and Agriculture, Hartpury University and Hartpury College, Gloucester GL19 3BE, UK;
| | - Alicia Burns
- Taronga Institute of Science and Learning, Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Mosman, NSW 2088, Australia;
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
| | - Paul H. Hemsworth
- Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; (K.L.B.); (G.J.C.); (P.H.H.)
| |
Collapse
|