Introduction: Human-animal relationships (HAR) develop from multiple human-animal interactions (HAI) and occur in a range of settings. In zoos, the recent scientific study of HAIs represents one of the most significant contributions to zoo animal welfare science (Meehan et al 2016). Within agricultural settings, methods to assess HAI/HARs have been extensively studied and tested for validity and reliability (see Waiblinger et al 2006). However, such methodological assessment has not yet been applied to HAR studies in zoos.
Key literature references to theory, concepts, evidence, or methodology that have been reviewed or reevaluated: This review evaluated the current methods used to assess HARs in zoos, and aimed to determine their suitability for use in zoos. Literature searches were conducted using three databases. Methods were assessed according to a panel of indicators including reliability, robustness, practical application and feasibility for use in a zoo environment.
Main findings: A total of five methods were identified and evaluated; latency and distance parameters during HAIs, qualitative behaviour assessments (QBA), avoidance tests, voluntary approach test and the reaction to handling test. It is essential that a prospective HAR method for use in a zoo environment be non-invasive, safe for both humans and animal, whilst also being practically achievable. Avoidance and reaction to handling tests were deemed inappropriate for use in a zoo setting. The type and extent of contact that occurs between zoo animals and humans varies dramatically by species, making these tests challenging to standardise or use for cross-species comparisons, whilst also introducing important safety and ethical concerns in many cases. Results indicated that methods such as ‘latency’, ‘qualitative behaviour assessment’ and ‘voluntary approach test’ methods were potentially viable to assess
HARs in a zoo environment. These methods now require empirical testing and comparison within a zoo environment.
Principal conclusions and implications for the field: Although data exist to demonstrate the potential for
HAI/HARs to significantly influence zoo animal welfare status, findings are derived primarily from preliminary zoo
studies or extrapolation from more comprehensively conducted animal welfare studies in agriculture. This current methodology review has highlighted three potential methods (qualitative behaviour assessment, latency and voluntary approach tests) that could be used to assess HARs within a zoo environment in order to empirically determine the impact that these HAI/HARs may have on animal welfare.