Understanding visitor experiences in captive, controlled and non-captive wildlife based tourism settings

There is considerable debate about the ethics of captive wildlife-based setting such as zoos and aquaria, and there is concern about the negative impacts wildlife watchers can have on animals in both captive and noncaptive settings. An important claim made by both captive wildlife-based tourist attractions and those who support wildlife viewing in noncaptive settings is that these wildlife experiences provide opportunities to encourage visitors to develop greater wildlife conservation awareness. This claim is, however, largely untested in any setting and there has been very little research comparing visitors and their experiences across different types of wildlife-based tourism. This study compared wildlife-based tourism attractions in three different groups—captive, controlled, and non-captive—in terms of visitor profiles, encounters with wildlife, images of wildlife, and learning about the wildlife. The results indicated significant and substantial differences between the three types of setting on many of the variables analyzed. Overall the results provide little support for the claims that any wildlife-based tourism experiences enhance wildlife conservation awareness