A Protocol for the Ethical Assessment of Wild Animal–Visitor Interactions (AVIP) Evaluating Animal Welfare, Education, and Conservation Outcomes

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Animal–visitor interactions are the experiences offered by zoos, sanctuaries, and other tourism facilities in which people can be very close, and even touch, wildlife. This proximity could damage animal welfare and be a risk for the health of both animals and visitors. Proximity, however, has a positive emotional impact on visitors, representing an excellent opportunity to communicate conservation and educational messages. We present a protocol to evaluate interaction activities, and describe its application in a “giraffe feeding” interaction evaluation. Behavioral observations and a risk assessment evaluated the impact on animals. A risk assessment related to both visitors and staff and a questionnaire investigated the risks for people and the emotional, educational, and conservation outcomes. An ethical analysis, using an ethical matrix and a checklist, integrated the results, and identified the possible ethical concerns of the interaction. Giraffes’ behavioral freedom and welfare were safeguarded, and a positive emotional and conservation oriented impact was found, the only improvement that could be suggested, in case of restructuring of the facility, being the absence of hand washing facilities after the interaction. The protocol showed its potentiality to protect animal welfare and human health and to promote an ethical use of the interactions. ABSTRACT: Due to the popularity of wild animal–visitor interactions (AVIs), there is a need for an ethical assessment of their impact on animal welfare, education, and conservation. The protocol presented in this study is designed to evaluate such interactions on an integrated level, using a transparent analysis of all the aspects involved, including all the stakeholders and the potential conflicts of values. The protocol consists of a six-step process encompassing dedicated data acquisition and a specific ethical assessment. When the protocol was applied to assess a “giraffe feeding” interaction, steps devoted to data acquisition found that animal welfare risks were low, and that visitors described giraffes with emotionally linked descriptors more often after the interaction. The net promoter score, which refers to how likely visitors would recommend to a friend to join the animal–visitor interaction, was 74%. The subsequent ethical assessment, which consisted of a comparison of the results of the previous steps with an ethical matrix highlighting the ideal situation for all stakeholders’ interests, allowed the overall identification of the ethical concerns entailed by the interaction. A final ethical checklist of the examined AVI had a “yes” in entries regarding animal welfare, emotional, and conservation mindedness outcomes and ethical assessment.