We examined the effects of regulating the viewing proximity of visitors and the intensity of visitor behaviour on behaviours indicative of fear and stress physiology of 15 zoo-housed little penguins (Eudyptula minor). A 2 × 2 factorial fully randomised design was used to examine the effects of regulating: (1) the viewing proximity of visitors to enclosure, ‘normal viewing distance’ and ’increased viewing distance’ (using a physical barrier set up 2 m away from the enclosure), and (2) the intensity of visitor behaviour, ‘unregulated visitor behaviour’ and ‘regulated visitor behaviour’ (using signage and uniformed personnel). In addition, a treatment consisting of closing the enclosure to visitors was included. Penguin behaviour, visitor numbers and visitor behaviour were recorded by CCTV video recordings and direct observations, respectively. Penguin faecal glucocorticoid metabolites were also analysed as a measure of stress physiology. We found that increased viewing distance reduced (p < 0.05) all visitor behaviours except for loud vocalisations and tactile contact with penguins. However, there were no direct effects of signage and uniformed personnel on visitor behaviour (p > 0.05). As the regulation of viewing proximity increased from a closed exhibit to an open exhibit with increased viewing distance, and then to an open exhibit with normal viewing distance, this increased the proportion of penguins huddling (p = 0.0011), vigilant (p = 0.0060) and retreating (p = 0.00013), and decreased the proportion of penguins within 1 m of the visitor viewing area (p = 0.00066), surface swimming (p = 0.00091) and preening in the water (p = 0.042). There were also limited effects of regulating visitor behaviour on penguin behaviour. No treatment effects were found on faecal glucocorticoid metabolites (p > 0.05). These results indicate that regulating visitor viewing proximity affects penguin behaviours indicative of fear and visitor behaviour. This suggests that close visitor contact can be fear-provoking for little penguins but increasing the distance between visitors and penguins can reduce fear responses of penguins by regulating both viewing proximity and visitor behaviour. However, it is unclear whether these changes in penguin behaviour are due to the increased separation between visitors and penguins and/or specific visitor behaviours associated with close viewing proximity to the enclosure, such as leaning over the enclosure or tactile contact with the pool, which are impeded when visitors are further away.

Animal-Visitor Interactions (AVI) within zoos and aquariums have become an increasingly studied topic. Influenced by both the broader field of Human-Animal Interactions (HAI), as well as visitor studies conducted in museums, AVI studies can be separated into two areas of focus: (1) Visitor effects, or the impact visitors have on the animals housed within a zoo, and (2) visitor experiences, or the impact zoo animals and visiting a zoo have on the visitors. Historically, visitor effects have been of primary concern to the study of AVIs, as have the potential negative impacts on the welfare of animals, particularly those of zoo primates. This special issue examines the impact of AVIs in greater detail through twelve recent papers on the topic, equally addressing visitor effects and experiences. Many of the papers focus on positive welfare indices, as well as less traditional measures to examine both visitor effects and experiences, such as visitor proximity and visitor interviews. In addition, we discuss the relevance of future AVI work, with particular attention to (a) increased interest in visitor experience research, (b) examinations of signage effects, and (c) continued focus on positive welfare indices and direct interactions, such as public feedings.

Studies on the effects of visitors on zoo animals have shown mixed findings and as a result, the manner in which visitors affect zoo animals remains unclear for many species, including a rarely studied taxa such as penguins. Penguins are a common zoo-housed species and have been shown to display huddling, vigilance and avoidance towards zoo visitors which can be indicative of fear. Here, we examined the effects of covering one visitor viewing area window, out of four, on little penguin (Eudyptula minor) behaviours that may be indicative of fear. Two treatments were randomly imposed on different days: (1) The main visitor viewing area window, where most visitor-penguin interactions occurred, was uncovered (‘Main window uncovered’) and (2) The main visitor viewing area window was covered (‘Main window covered’). Penguin numbers and behaviour were recorded near the main visitor viewing area window and the three other visitor viewing area windows, as well as one area not visible to visitors (‘Corner’ area). Furthermore, visitor numbers and visitor behaviour were recorded at all four visitor viewing area windows. Covering the main visitor viewing area window reduced the proportion of visitors present at this window by about 85% (p < 0.001) and reduced potentially threatening visitor behaviours at this window such as tactile contact with the window, loud vocalisations and sudden movement (p < 0.05). When the main visitor viewing area window was covered, the proportion of penguins present increased by about 25% (p < 0.05), the proportion of visible penguins preening in the water increased by about 180% (p < 0.05) and the proportion of visible penguins vigilant decreased by about 70% (p < 0.05) in the area near this main window. A preference for the Corner area was also found whereby 59% and 49% of penguins were present in this area when the main window was uncovered and covered, respectively. These results provide limited evidence that the little penguins in this exhibit showed an aversion to the area near the main visitor viewing area window when it was uncovered based on the increased avoidance and vigilance and decreased preening in the water in this area. This suggests visitors may be fear-provoking for these little penguins. However, it is unclear whether visual contact with visitors per se or other aspects of visitor contact, such as visitor-induced sounds and vibrations, were responsible for this apparent aversion when this window was uncovered.

Understanding visitor attitudes toward zoo animals can inform the way zoos manage visitor-animal interactions by identifying the factors that may influence visitors and the way visitors interact with animals. Consequently, we investigated the relationship between visitor attitudes and penguin behavior and the effects of regulating visitor-penguin interactions on visitor attitudes and experience. Visitor attitudes toward little penguins (Eudyptula minor), their welfare, enclosure, visitor effects, enclosure manipulations and visitor experience at an Australian zoo were assessed. A 2 × 2 fully randomized factorial design was used to examine potential factors that may influence visitor attitudes: (1) Viewing proximity of visitors to the enclosure: “Normal viewing distance” and “Increased viewing distance” (using a physical barrier set up 2 m from the enclosure) and (2) Intensity of visitor behaviors: “Unregulated visitor behavior” and “Regulated visitor behavior” (using signage and researcher in zoo uniform). Visitor attitudes were assessed using an anonymous attitude questionnaire. Visitors were approached after they had finished viewing the penguins and were given two options to complete the questionnaire, either on an iPad on site during their zoo visit or online (URL sent via email) after their zoo visit. A total of 495 surveys (48% during zoo visit, 52% after zoo visit) were completed. Majority of respondents were non-zoo members, females and aged between 26 and 35 years old. Results revealed a significant relationship (p < 0.05) between little penguin behavior and visitor attitudes where the more visible, active and close penguins were to the visitor viewing area, the more positive several visitor attitude scales were. In contrast, there were only a few treatment effects of regulating visitor viewing proximity and behavior on visitor attitudes in which attitudes toward “Positive penguin characteristics” (p = 0.024), “Neutral visitor effects” (p = 0.0023) and “Physical barriers” (p = 0.013) were affected. This suggests that physical barriers and/or signage are factors that influence visitor attitudes. However, it is unclear if the treatment effects influenced visitor attitudes directly, or if it was the changes in penguin behavior as a consequence of the treatments that were associated with visitor attitudes. These findings have increased our understanding of the multifaceted nature of visitor attitudes and have identified some influencing factors on attitudes that can be used to inform the way zoos manage visitor-penguin interactions, but clearly further research is required.

This study identified and compared the attitudes of visitors toward zoo-housed little penguins, their enclosure and visitor experience that may influence the way visitors behave toward little penguins at two Australian zoos. Visitor attitudes were assessed using an anonymous questionnaire, targeting visitor beliefs, and experiences, where visitors were randomly approached at the penguin exhibit after they had finished viewing the penguins. Visitors were given two options to complete the questionnaire, on an iPad during their zoo visit or online (URL sent via email) after their zoo visit. A total of 638 participants (495 at Melbourne Zoo and 143 at Taronga Zoo) completed the questionnaire, 42% were completed onsite during their zoo visit and 58% were completed online after their zoo visit. Most participants were living in Australia, non-zoo members, female, previously or currently owned a pet, aged between 26 and 35 years and had a University degree. Results showed that the attitude dimensions of visitors were consistent between the two zoos which indicates that these measures of attitudes were stable over time and location. Overall, visitors at both zoos had positive attitudes toward little penguins, penguin welfare, the enclosure, and visitor experience. However, whether these positive attitudes and positive visitor experience influenced the way visitors behaved toward the penguins remains unclear. There were some differences in visitor attitudes toward the perceived “aggressiveness” and “timidness” of little penguins, “negative penguin welfare”, “experience with the penguins”, “learning”, “visual barriers” and the way visitors rated their overall experience at the penguin enclosure. While the reasons for the differences in visitor attitudes and visitor experience between the zoos were not clear, some factors such as penguin behavior and enclosure design, may have been attributable to these differences. Also, a relationship was found between visitor attitudes and how visitors rated the welfare of penguins, the enclosure and visitor experience at the enclosure; more positive visitor attitudes were associated with higher ratings of penguin welfare, the enclosure and visitor experience. The practical implications of these results for zoos is unclear because the differences in visitor attitudes were numerically small. This requires further comparisons between zoos or enclosures that are more markedly different than the penguin enclosures in the present study and further research on how visitors assess zoo animals, enclosures and visitor experience.

Little penguins ( Eudyptula minor ), or Kororā in Māori, show variation in their behavioural responses towards zoo visitors in Australian zoos. We experimentally examined the effects of visitor presence on the behaviour and stress physiology of little penguins at Wellington Zoo, New Zealand. The two treatments were: (1) Visitor presence – the exhibit was open to visitors; and (2) Visitor absence – the exhibit was closed to visitors. We found that when the exhibit was closed to visitors, the percentage of penguins observed close to the visitor viewing pier increased from about 1% to 9%, but there was little effect on other behaviours and faecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations. This result of increased avoidance of the visitor viewing pier when the exhibit was open to visitors suggests close visitor contact, particularly from above, may be fear‐provoking for these penguins. We conclude that designing enclosures to allow close viewing proximity of visitors, such as visitors looming over the pool, may be futile in improving visitor experience, since this species of penguins is likely to avoid these types of viewing areas when visitors are present. Visitors positioned close to and above penguins may be particularly problematic since visitors in this position may be perceived as threatening.