A September 2026 scientific commentary identifies important gaps in research on animal–visitor interactions. Its recommendations offer a constructive path toward more informed welfare assessments and more accountable practices in zoos and aquariums.
ㅤ
The zoological world of captive conservation should continue to evolve. That requires a willingness to examine familiar practices, recognize meaningful progress, and change course when the evidence warrants it. Animal encounters deserve that same scrutiny: their popularity and promotional appeal should be accompanied by a clear assessment of what participating animals experience.
ㅤ
Published September 26, 2026, in Animals, “Animal–Visitor Interactions: Where Do We Go from Here?” is a peer-reviewed commentary by Eduardo J. Fernandez, Claudia C. Martinez, James Edward Brereton, and Andrew Moss. It proposes research improvements rather than reporting a new experiment or establishing that all interactions are beneficial or harmful.
ㅤ
The authors identify three priorities: examining animal–staff relationships, studying more non-mammalian species, and improving research methods and welfare measurements. Much existing work relies on correlations, which cannot alone establish cause. Environmental conditions and other factors may influence responses attributed to visitors.
ㅤ
Their discussion also emphasizes species-specific interpretation. Increased activity does not automatically indicate improved welfare. Visitor numbers alone may overlook noise, behavior, proximity, and animals’ opportunities to retreat. Familiar keepers and unfamiliar visitors can represent different relationships. The authors recognize potentially positive visitor effects while calling for stronger assessment.
ㅤ
For institutions offering encounters, these considerations invite practical questions. What evidence supports the activity for this species and this individual? Can the animal move away, and what happens when it does? Are observations made before, during, and after participation? How are findings used to modify or discontinue a program?
ㅤ
These are questions for institutional accountability, rather than a claim that this commentary establishes mandatory procedures. They turn an assurance that an encounter is “good for the animal” into something that can be examined. The same discipline should apply to criticism: a photograph, a moment of increased activity, or a single observation cannot answer every welfare question.
ㅤ
Educational purpose deserves its own examination. What should visitors learn, and how is that learning assessed? Could the same objective be achieved through observation, recorded footage, or another approach requiring less animal involvement? These are additional questions raised by the broader responsibility to justify a program; this commentary does not resolve them.
ㅤ
What needs to change?
ㅤ
Institutions should make the evidence behind encounter programs more transparent and explain how welfare findings influence their decisions. A program’s continuation should remain open to reassessment, including changes that reduce public access when an animal’s needs warrant it.
ㅤ
Evolution in captive conservation means allowing evidence to improve practice. Stronger science can help institutions recognize beneficial interactions, identify problems, and make decisions that place the individual animal’s welfare at the center.

​

Source:
Animal–Visitor Interactions: Where Do We Go from Here?
Fernandez, E. J., Martinez, C. C., Brereton, J. E., & Moss, A. (2026). “Animal–Visitor Interactions: Where Do We Go from Here?” Animals, 16(19), 3035.

​

Related Reading:
“Zoo Interaction Programs and Animal Welfare”

Explore a comprehensive scoping review examining the welfare effects of animal interaction programs in zoos—and why stronger research, individual welfare assessments and evidence of positive outcomes are essential to responsible animal care.

KeepingWildlifeWild.org

Evidence • Education • Accountability

​

How You Can Help:

Awareness is the first step toward meaningful change. Help advance evidence-based education, transparency and accountability by sharing this article with others.

Together, we can encourage a more informed conversation about the treatment and protection of wildlife.