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

The public expects zoos to provide high standards of animal care. Failing to meet public expectations can have detrimental impacts on public experiences and behaviour, which in turn can compromise zoos’ organisational goals relative to conservation and public education. Despite increased research interest in understanding how the public perceives animal welfare in zoo settings, to date the factors that influence such perceptions are still unclear. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a mixed methods systematic review using a PRISMA approach to identify the factors that influence public perceptions of zoo animal welfare and the potential ramifications of these perceptions on public attitudes, experiences, and behaviours. A total of 115 peer reviewed journal articles were analysed: 43 provided qualitative data for thematic synthesis and 85 reported quantitative data for content analysis. Three main groupings were identified that impacted public perception of animal welfare in zoos: human, animal, and environmental factors. Within the human factors, ethical justifications, direct interactions, and inappropriate visitor behaviours were important. For the animal factors, animals’ behaviour, apparent health status, and the suitability of certain taxa for captivity were found to be key. Finally, several aspects of the environment -- conditions of the facility, the exhibit, and welfare-related educational material --were influential. Overall, negative perceptions of animal welfare resulted in negative visitor attitudes towards zoos, detrimentally impacted experiences, and lowered likelihood to visit zoos and engagement in conservation efforts. The articles in this review provided valuable insights into the factors affecting public perception of zoo animal welfare; however, future research may benefit from a more structured approach to increase comparability and validity of results across studies. We conclude by proposing seven recommendations to increase the robustness and validity of future research in this area. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.