Abstract
Despite the importance of biodiversity, humans value some species more highly than others. Placing different levels of value on species can impact nonhuman animal welfare and conservation. Feelings are central to value recognition. It’s critical to better understand how to foster positive feelings toward different species. The purpose of this study was to test the Transcendent Feelings of Animal Valuation scale and evaluate the influence of a wildlife sanctuary visit on feelings toward moose and coyotes. The scale was piloted with 29 visitors and demonstrated good reliability. It was then administered to 100 visitors. At baseline, participants had a significantly stronger emotional valuation of moose compared to coyote, consistent with negative social constructions of coyotes. Both moose and coyote scores increased significantly from pre- to post-visit, suggesting that exposure to wildlife in a sanctuary setting can increase feelings of valuation toward diverse species. The experience may also influence wildlife stewardship.
Introduction
Humans and nonhuman animals live in a shared world (Hosey & Melfi, 2014). Within this shared space, coexistence with other creatures is essential for healthy and sustainable ecosystems. Species diversity is critical for crop pollination and maintaining balance to reduce disease vectors (Chivian & Bernstein, 2008). Beyond the utility of different species, many people view nonhuman animals as fellow creatures with their own inherent worth (Ricard, 2014). Teel and Manfredo (2010) have defined wildlife value orientations as “sets of basic beliefs about wildlife” (p. 129) within a continuum from “domination,” which views wildlife as existing to meet human needs, to “mutualism,” based on harmonistic human-wildlife relations. They suggest that modernizing trends such as urbanization are influencing a shift toward mutualism in which humans and nonhuman animals are viewed as equally deserving of care.
Despite both the intrinsic and instrumental value of diverse wildlife, studies have shown profound differences in human views toward animal species (George et al., 2016; Kellert, 1984). These differences have important implications for conservation and animal welfare. Humans impact the sustainability of wildlife populations both indirectly, through habitat conservation or destruction (Chivian & Bernstein, 2008), and directly, through human-wildlife interactions and wildlife management practices (DeStafano & Deblinger, 2005). Indeed, within a paradigm of presumed human sovereignty, “humans get to determine who lives and who lives where and what they can or cannot do” (Plevin, 2014, p. 83).
Human Preferences for Different Species
People generally have preferences for some species over others (George et al., 2016; Kellert, 1984; Woods, 2000). Humans are more likely to have positive attitudes toward species with which they share biobehavioral traits (Batt, 2009) and which they find physically attractive (Roque de Pinho et al., 2014, Stokes, 2007; Woods, 2000). Wildlife species identified as most charismatic are primarily large mammals (Albert et al., 2018). Animal intelligence has also been identified as an important characteristic of preferred species (Woods, 2000). This is notable because believing in an animal mind or attributing mental capacities to them is correlated with decreased support for animal use in personal decorations or experimentation (Knight et al., 2004). Public attitudes are also influenced by the abundance of a species and its associated impact in local contexts. Tolerance may be low when members of a species cause property damage or attack companion animals or humans (DeStafano & Deblinger, 2005). Perception of high risk can reduce acceptance of large species including carnivores (Riley & Decker, 2000) and elephants (Mayberry et al., 2017).
In addition to features of animals themselves, preferences toward species are also shaped by individual human interpretation (Woods, 2000). For example, willingness to support species conservation seems to be influenced not only by perceived likability of a species but also by personal moral values (Tisdell et al., 2005).
A national study in the United States on attitudes toward both wild and domestic species showed an increase in positive attitudes toward eight species in 2014 as compared to 1978. This included historically stigmatized animals such as sharks, vultures, and coyotes, and was attributed to rising concern for animal welfare (George et al., 2016). Cultural shifts may increase appreciation for particular species such as the transformation in public attitudes toward the Florida manatee (Goedeke, 2004). In sum, human perceptions regarding different species seem to be shaped by characteristics of the animals themselves as well as individual human interpretations and the socio-cultural- geographical context.
Human Emotions toward Wildlife
Emotions play an important role in human-wildlife relations (Manfredo, 2008). Emotion is a complex component of human affect composed of subjective, physiological, cultural, and behavioral dimensions (Manfredo, 2008). Affective response has an evolutionary basis as a survival mechanism, and the affective system is a critical component of sound decision-making (Manfredo, 2008; Slagle et al., 2012). Emotions play an important role in attitudes toward the conservation of particular species (Slagle et al., 2012). For example, increased fear of coyotes has been correlated with reduced support for their presence (Draheim et al., 2013). While numerous studies have focused on negative emotions toward wildlife, such as fear, less is known about positive emotions. There is a need to focus research on pathways of positive human-wildlife relations (Frank, 2016).
Public Wildlife Education in Captive Settings
Education that reinforces the positive impacts of wildlife is an effective strategy to increase public acceptance (Goedeke, 2004; Slagle et al., 2013). Moreover, public education has broad stakeholder support (Slagle et al., 2013; Sponarski et al., 2015). Animal exhibits such as zoos are a potential source of learning about wildlife. Zoos have increasingly sought to link their mission with conservation education (Clayton et al., 2009; Jensen, 2014; Mennen et al., 2016). Although zoos have come under increased criticism regarding animal welfare in captivity (Doyle, 2019; Sherwen & Hemsworth, 2019), it can be helpful to examine the literature on zoo experiences regarding visitor emotions.
Affect is a key component of zoo visitor experiences, with emotional responses to animals explaining the largest proportion of variance in overall zoo visit ratings (Luebke & Matiasek, 2013). Experiencing an up-close encounter with an animal in the zoo, along with observing animal behavior, predicted positive affect in visitors, which mediated their perception of conservation issues as more meaningful (Luebke et al., 2016). Emotional connection to a species, or “conservation caring,” predicts zoo visitor willingness to engage in species-specific conservation behavior (Skibins & Powell, 2013).
Preferences for particular species have also been found in zoo research, with mammals being the most popular (Moss & Esson, 2010). A study measuring emotions of zoo visitors toward three animals (gorilla, okapi, and snake) found that the variable influencing the greatest number of emotions was the type of animal (Myers et al., 2004). Although zoos have typically selected charismatic species to highlight conservation messages, emotional connection is also influenced by an animal’s conservation status and relatability, suggesting possibilities for broader appeal (Skibins et al., 2017).
Concerns about animal welfare, such as being in a captive state, can create conflicting emotions for zoo visitors (Warren, 2018). Research at a polar bear exhibit showed that while a zoo visit could enhance positive feelings such as awe, a number of visitors expressed sadness seeing polar bears caged in a warm climate without their natural habitat of snow and ice (Marseille et al., 2012). Doyle (2017) suggests that individuals with conflicted attitudes about visiting zoos might prefer to visit wildlife sanctuaries, as these provide a clearer mission of rescuing animals.
Further research is needed on approaches to engender positive emotions toward less popular species within settings that are compatible with public concern for animal welfare. This study sought to address this gap through evaluating a scale that measures emotional valuation of wildlife and comparing feelings toward a desirable and less desirable species at a wildlife sanctuary park.
Philosophical and Theoretical Background
This study was guided by the theory of transcendent pluralism, developed by the principal investigator (PI), which builds on the cognitive philosophy of Bernard Lonergan. Lonergan (1972/2003) describes value as a notion of the good. It is important to note that Lonergan uses the term “value” differently than the human dimensions cognitive hierarchy in which values are defined as deeply held mental constructs that are resistant to change, such as “life” (Vaske & Manfredo, 2012). For Lonergan, values encompass a full range of concrete goods. For example, the life of an individual animal, habitat preservation, and public wildlife education are all “goods” that may be valued and chosen. Feelings are important in Lonergan’s philosophy because values are apprehended through feelings. Humans have the capacity to “grow in sensitivity and responsiveness to values” (Lonergan, 1972/2003, p. 51), which entails growth in feelings.
Transcendent pluralism views humans and other creatures as having value, or dignity, reflecting intrinsic good in each being’s existence (value in being) as well as a developmental capacity to contribute to good in the world (value in becoming; Perry, 2011, 2015). Both human and nonhuman animals have dignity as living beings as well as the capacity to develop and contribute to larger ecological systems.
Within this theory, feelings of devaluation reflect negative value judgments and feelings of valuation reflect positive value judgments (Perry, 2011). Prior research suggests that a personal encounter with another being within a safe setting can help to transcend biases and evoke new feelings of valuation that recognize the “Other” as good (Perry, 2011). Research using this theory has focused on overcoming bias within relationships between diverse groups of people, such as Israeli and Palestinian peacemakers. This study applies research from human intergroup relations to human relations with diverse species, specifically coyotes and moose.
Study Purpose and Background
The study was conducted in two parts during the summer of 2017. The purpose of Study 1 was to develop and test the Transcendent Feelings of Animal Valuation (TFAV) scale. The purpose of Study 2 was to evaluate the influence of visiting a wildlife sanctuary on feelings of valuation toward two species (moose and coyote) and explore overall visitor experiences. This research was part of a larger study that examined human-wildlife relations within the context of wildlife care. Human subjects approval was obtained from the institutional review board of the PI’s university.
Study 1: TFAV Scale Development
The TFAV scale was derived from three prior qualitative studies by the PI focused on understanding how individuals transcended group differences in a variety of contexts. These included studies on Catholics who chose to support legalization of same-gender marriage despite Church teachings to the contrary, Israelis and Palestinians who renounced violence to work together for peace, and humanitarian health care providers who worked in diverse global settings. The present study was inspired following an encounter with a coyote which led the PI to notice similarities between inter-group bias among humans and bias against certain animal species.
The previous studies suggest a strong affective dimension in encounters that facilitate intergroup relations (Perry, 2011). Feelings of wonder, admiration, compassion, and embrace (deep positive connection) were particularly salient in participants’ descriptions of transformative encounters with the human Other. The studies suggest that apprehension of good in the Other stimulates self-transcendence by drawing the person toward the Other. Previously, the term “bridging feelings” was used, but this was later changed to “transcendent feelings of valuation” to better reflect the underlying theoretical construct. Transcendent feelings of valuation are defined as affective appraisals in which the person is drawn toward the Other, reflecting appreciation of the Other’s good, or dignity.
The two species chosen for this study tend to have different human valuations, with the moose viewed more positively (Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, n.d.) than the coyote (Way, 2007). The eastern coyote is a hybrid of the western coyote and the eastern wolf (Canis latrans × C. lycaon; Way & Lynn, 2016). Coyotes are predators whose broad diet, ranging from fruit to meat, helps maintain a balanced ecosystem. Coyotes are exceptionally adaptable, which has influenced their expanding numbers and range (Way, 2007). Increasing conflicts with humans have developed (Draheim et al., 2013). Human-coyote conflicts have often been related to predation on companion animals (Jackman & Rutberg, 2015), although a few attacks on humans have occurred as well (Baker & Timm, 2017). Despite their important role in both urban and rural ecosystems, coyotes are “viewed by many people as a pest or vermin, something undesirable to be disposed of” (Way, 2012, p. 11). The profound devaluing of this animal results in forms of lethal control such as poisoning or body-gripping traps that can result in prolonged suffering and death (Way, 2007).
The eastern moose, Alces alces americana, is a large mammal whose diet primarily consists of browse, leaves, and branches from woody plants (Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, n.d.). While moose are not predators, they do pose a potential danger to humans through moose/vehicle accidents and occasional aggression (Whittaker et al., 2001). However, in contrast to coyotes, they are a highly popular species and an “icon of the Maine woods” (Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, n.d.). Moose-watching tours generate important revenue for local economies (Robbins, 2013).
The hypotheses were that (a) participants would score higher on baseline feelings toward moose as compared to coyote and (b) follow-up scores would be higher for both species.
Materials & Methods
Participants and Setting
Participants were visitors to the Maine Wildlife Park who observed the moose and coyote exhibits, were age 10 or older, and were able to speak and write in English. The Maine Wildlife Park is a wildlife education center operated by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to teach the public about Maine’s fish and wildlife resources. The facility maintains over 30 species of native Maine wildlife across a natural, 40-acre setting. With about 100 animals, each species lives in an exhibit designed to appear as natural as possible, furnished by habitat components associated with the species or by enclosing a preexisting forested area. The park’s wildlife are permanent, non-releasable animals that are either human dependent or otherwise impaired.
In the interest of keeping only this type of population, animal breeding is not permitted. Since they can never be released into the wild, the park’s resident animals serve as “ambassadors” for their species and are viewed by over 120,000 people a year. The park’s unique setting, displays, educational mission, and non-releasable wildlife population make it a popular destination for local, out-of-state, and international visitors. The park is also a popular community entity, with hundreds of volunteers who are integral to the facility’s operation.
The wildlife park provides the possibility for the public to observe these ambassador animals in much closer vicinity than what is usually feasible in the wild. Subsequently, various misconceptions and misguided fears about wildlife may be eliminated. Educational presentations are provided at the park on a rotating basis. On the days of data collection, presentations were on species other than moose and coyote, so participants were exposed to only the animals and information on exhibit signs. At the time of the study, there were four moose and one coyote at the park.
Materials
The survey included the TFAV scale, open-ended questions, and demographics. The TFAV scale item composition was designed using data from prior studies adapted to a wildlife context. The scale includes seven items using a 5-point Likert scale (Table 1) tailored to each species. Possible scores range from 7 to 35.
Transcendent Feelings of Animal Valuation scale
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
Transcendent Feelings of Animal Valuation scale
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
Transcendent Feelings of Animal Valuation scale
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
Transcendent Feelings of Animal Valuation scale
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
Transcendent Feelings of Animal Valuation scale
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
The scale evaluation was based on the psychometric properties of precision, reliability, and validity (Vaske et al., 2017). Precision reflects the number of response items, which in this scale was five. Reliability was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha and inter-item correlations. Three types of validity were addressed (DeVellis, 2012). Content validity was determined by having the scale reviewed and refined based on recommendations from individuals with expertise in wildlife management, instrument development, and reading comprehension. Construct validity was addressed through development of theoretically based items. Criterion validity was addressed through having the hypothesis based on the literature and tested with the paired t-test as described in Study 2.
The open-ended questions were developed using transcendental method, a qualitative approach adapted from Lonergan’s philosophy (Perry, 2013). Qualitative responses can provide broader insight into participant experiences and strengthen validity through data triangulation (Patton, 2002). Based on Lonergan’s (1957/ 2000) philosophy that inquiry drives knowledge acquisition, we started with a broad pre-visit question to elicit visitor interests: “What are you interested in seeing/learning at the Maine Wildlife Park today?’ Following the visit, respondents were asked: “How has your visit to the Maine Wildlife Park influenced your views toward wildlife?” and “Will you do anything differently after your visit to the Maine Wildlife Park? If so, what?” Demographic questions included age, gender, type of geographic residence area, education level, home companion animal, prior visits to park, and hunting participation.
To be respectful of visitors’ time, the length of the survey was kept at two pages. The Flesch Kinkaid level for the scale items was calculated at grade 3.8 using Microsoft Word, and the level for the full survey, including instructions and open-ended questions, was grade 4.3. This is consistent with the recommended survey reading level being at no higher than age 12 (Streiner et al., 2015).
Procedure
A sign about the study was placed at the park entrance, and individuals waiting to enter the park were invited to participate by the PI. Some spontaneously asked to participate. The PI provided information on the study purpose and process. Each participant was given a clipboard with the survey and an information sheet indicating voluntary participation. For participants under age 16, oral assent was obtained along with oral consent by the accompanying parent or guardian. Completed pre-visit surveys were collected prior to entering the park. Surveys had ID numbers only; no personal identifiable information was collected. Each participant was given a numbered card for correspondence to the postsurvey, which was administered as visitors exited the park. After completion, each participant was provided with a “Moose Bucks” voucher worth $5.50 for future child admission. Paper survey results were entered into SPSS-24. The PI also took field notes of visitor comments.
Results
Twenty-nine visitors participated in the pilot survey, with a mean age of 43.6 (range 11–73). There were 12 males and 16 females (one gender response omitted). Three participants did not complete the post-survey, leaving a 90% completion rate.
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the scale pre- and post-visit for both moose and coyote; it ranged from .831 to .926. Inter-item correlations were all positive, and corrected-item total correlations were all greater than .40.
Discussion
The pilot survey findings suggested that the survey and procedures were amenable to use with a population of park visitors. Based on satisfactory reliability, the items in the TFAV scale were left intact. Participant comments reflected that some had previously visited the park, so a demographic question was added regarding prior park visits. A minor clarification was made to an open-ended question, and some text font was modified to enhance readability.
Study 2: Evaluation of Visitor Experiences
The survey was then administered to a sample of park visitors to evaluate feelings toward moose and coyote before and after a visit to the sanctuary.
Materials & Methods
Participants
The pre-visit survey was administered to 100 visitors (Table 2). The post-test completion rate was 92%. Five participants were removed from analysis due to the following: missing demographics (2; these same 2 did not complete the post-test); pre-test surveys taken into the park with participants (2); and opposing answers on survey compared to open-ended comments, suggesting misunderstanding of scale (1). This left an analytic cohort of 95 (pre-test only) and 89 (both pre-test and post-test). Less than 5% of responses were missing for any single item.
Materials
The survey was administered with minor changes as noted previously.
Procedures
Visitors were recruited at the entrance to the sanctuary, and data were collected using identical procedures to those in the pilot survey.
Results
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for moose and coyote pre- and post-visit; it ranged from .837 to .940. Inter-item correlations were all positive, and corrected-item total correlations were all greater than .40 except an item in one pairing at .39.
The distributions of difference scores were inspected and found to be normally distributed. A paired t-test was calculated for the four pairings (Table 3). Consistent with the first hypothesis, mean pre-visit feelings toward moose were significantly higher (M = 29.43, SD = 4.06) than coyote (M = 26.27, SD = 6.17), t(88) = 5.58, p = .000. Supporting the second hypothesis, pre-visit/post-visit scores demonstrated a statistically significant increase for both moose and coyote. Moose post-visit scores were significantly higher (M = 30.91, SD = 4.22) than moose pre-visit scores (M = 29.77, SD = 3.99), t(84) = −4.4, p = .000. Coyote post-visit scores were significantly higher (M = 28.05, SD = 5.96) than coyote pre-visit scores (M = 26.48, SD = 5.96), t(79) = −4.48, p = .000). The follow-up scores remained significantly higher for moose (M = 30.77, SD = 4.21) than coyote (M = 28.05, SD = 5.93), t(82) = 5.3, p = .000. The mean change in pre-visit/post-visit scores for coyote (M = 1.58) was higher than moose (M = 1.27), although this difference was not statistically significant, t(77) = .805, p = .423.
Feelings of valuation toward moose and coyote previsit and postvisit
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
Feelings of valuation toward moose and coyote previsit and postvisit
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
Feelings of valuation toward moose and coyote previsit and postvisit
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
The baseline scores were compared between those who had visited the park previously and those who had not. There were no significant differences. Similarly, no significant differences were present in baseline scores between those having a current or past companion animal versus those who did not. A baseline difference was found for gender, with women having a significantly higher feelings score toward moose (M = 30.26, SD = 3.62) than did men (M = 28.4, SD = 4.48, t(90) = −2.186, p = .031), but there was no significant difference in feelings toward coyote. A significant baseline difference was found in feelings toward coyote for nonhunters (M = 27.47, SD = 5.85) as compared to hunters (M = 24.36, SD = 5.86, t(88) = 2.334, p = .022), but the difference was not found for moose. The increase in feelings scores toward coyotes was significant for both hunters (p = .025) and nonhunters (p = .000).
Open-Ended Questions
Responses to each open-ended question were analyzed using conventional content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Both the PI and research assistant coded responses with >90% interrater reliability (Table 4). On the pre-visit survey, two thematic responses emerged about what visitors wanted to experience at the park: seeing wildlife firsthand and family sharing. A number of participants had a desire to see specific animals, particularly moose and bears. Several individuals expressed interest in wildlife native to Maine.
Thematic responses to open-ended questions
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
Thematic responses to open-ended questions
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
Thematic responses to open-ended questions
Citation: Society & Animals 2023; 10.1163/15685306-bja10071
The first follow-up question asked participants how the visit had influenced their views toward wildlife. Visitors enjoyed seeing the animals in “real life” and “up close.” While a few individuals expressed sadness seeing animals in enclosures, a number of visitors appreciated that the animals were “in [their] own habitat as much as can be.” A couple of participants indicated a preference for the natural setting of the wildlife park and noted that animals were “not treated like a zoo.” Four themes emerged regarding perceived influence of the visit on views toward wildlife: (a) increased/reinforced appreciation; (b) closer connection to wildlife; (c) expanded horizons and learning; and (d) increased awareness of wildlife needs and human impact.
A second question asked participants if they would do anything differently after their visit. Although many respondents stated that they would not do anything new, a number of them indicated that they were already taking action to help animals, which they would continue. For those who responded that they would do something different (N = 33), the two main themes were (a) increase time outdoors and be more attentive looking for wildlife (15/33; 45.5%) and (b) take action to help (11/33; 33.3%). For many individuals, seeing animals at the park inspired them to be more attentive to wildlife in the outdoor world. They also expressed intentions to protect wildlife through efforts such as conservation, donating money, and teaching others.
Discussion
The TFAV scale demonstrated good psychometric properties and consistency in Cronbach’s alpha for both moose and coyote, suggesting its potential use in other studies. Testing with different species would be helpful.
Reduced feelings of valuation of the coyote as compared to moose at baseline are consistent with literature on negative attitudes toward coyotes (Plevin, 2014; Way, 2007). This finding is concerning because reduced valuation of certain species may lead to human actions that increase animal suffering as well as have negative consequences for conservation.
The findings suggest, however, that a personal experience observing a nonhuman animal may stimulate feelings of valuation toward that species. This is congruent with literature on zoo visits influencing positive emotions toward animals (Clayton et al., 2009). Responses to the open-ended questions suggest that being in the presence of a wild creature evokes transcendent emotions. Words such as “beautiful,” “fascinated,” “amazing,” and “love” reflect experiences of beauty, mystery, and awe. These responses are consistent with prior studies of human-to-human transformation through personal knowing (Perry, 2011). Personal encounters within a safe environment can evoke feelings of wonder, appreciation, and love that draw the person toward the animal.
A sanctuary setting, which aids animals in need of lifelong care, may also arouse feelings of compassion and empathy. These emotions reflect apprehension of the animal as being good and worthy of concern. This is consistent with Lorimer’s (2007) emphasis on affect as the motivating force through which nonhuman charisma engenders human concern for nonhuman beings.
The mission of helping animals seemed to resonate with park visitors. A number of participants expressed increased awareness of negative human impacts on wildlife and a desire to help wild animals. For example, one young boy went up to the PI after his visit and announced, “did I tell you that I am going to be an animal saver?” The PI asked if he had any ideas about how he would go about doing that. He answered, “well, I’ll start how you guys are doing it.”
In recent years, there has been increasing public concern for animal welfare in captive settings such as zoos (Packer et al., 2018; Sherwen & Hemsworth, 2019). Although the conservation mission of zoos is often emphasized, Clayton et al. (2009) found that zoo visitors “were significantly more likely to agree that the zoo had an obligation toward the individual animal than the species” (p. 382).
Obligation toward individual animals raises questions over how animals are obtained for public display. Unlike zoos, which breed captive animals for exhibits, sanctuaries care for animals that have been harmed and need care (Hartigan-Shea, 2014; Doyle, 2017). Many of the injuries that bring wild animals into care are due to human actions. Wildlife whose injuries are too severe to return to the wild are sometimes placed in sanctuaries as education animals. However, available facilities for such animals are limited. Animals that cannot be placed are often euthanized (Perry, 2020).
The euthanasia of wild animals with misfortunes of human making while other animals are captured or bred for display raises important ethical questions. If the sanctuary model were utilized more broadly, there could be expanded refuge for injured wildlife. Some zoos have sought to align their missions more with a sanctuary model, but to do so requires a primary focus on individual animal welfare rather than species conservation (Doyle, 2017).
Doyle (2017) raises critical questions about the ethics of captivity, which can never fully replicate life in the wild. Even when captivity is necessary to meet animal needs, it is important that public viewing be moderated to avoid animal harm. Visitors can have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on captive animals (Sherwen & Hemsworth, 2019). Wildlife sanctuaries may offer “responsible” encounters by allowing the public to view animals while avoiding exploitive practices sometimes associated with wildlife tourism such as holding animals for selfies (Lenzi et al., 2020). However, public viewing may not always be feasible due to animal stress (Hartigan-Shea, 2014; Doyle, 2017).
Any educational benefits of wildlife viewing, including the positive emotions highlighted in this study, must be achieved within settings that respect the dignity of each creature, both in the animal’s being and the animal’s becoming. This requires providing an environment that supports the development of natural capacities. For example, developmental dignity is fostered through enrichment activities such as hiding food so that wildlife can engage cognitive capacities and develop foraging skills (Perry, 2020).
Sanctuaries with native species may encourage the application of knowledge, as illustrated in the open-ended comments. A number of visitors were eager to spend more time outdoors watching for native wildlife. This may yield benefits for human health, as recent studies have linked nature contact with greater physical and mental well-being (Williams, 2017).
Limitations and Strengths
Generalizability of this study is limited due to its nonrandomized design and single setting. Recruitment of visitors at a wildlife park may lead to a participant sample with more interest in wildlife than the general population. Although participation was excellent, the venue setting limited determination of a precise response rate. The study was restricted to measuring feelings before and immediately after the park visit. Longitudinal studies could be useful to examine retention of feelings. Future research with wildlife education programs may help to correlate feelings of valuation with knowledge acquisition. Qualitative research can provide deeper insight into the complexities of emotional responses to wildlife, particularly regarding different species and the role of sanctuaries. Strengths of the study include a strong philosophical/theoretical basis informing scale development, use of a novel instrument, and a naturalistic focus.
Conclusion
This study found differences in human emotional valuation of one species (moose) over another (coyote). Yet the findings also suggest that exposure to animals within a wildlife sanctuary can increase feelings of valuation toward diverse species. This suggests a greater perceived value of the good, or dignity, of the nonhuman animal. The TFAV scale may be a useful tool for future studies in human-animal relations. Human feelings toward different species have important implications for animal welfare and conservation. Wildlife sanctuaries offer opportunities for education as well as provide care to animals in need, which is congruent with public values that increasingly support animal welfare.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the UMass Chan Medical School Tan Chingfen Graduate School of Nursing Seed Grant. The authors would like to extend special thanks to the following: Reviewers and editors of the Society & Animals journal; Staff and volunteers of the Maine Wildlife Park; and Dean Joan Vitello, Dr. Carol Bova, Dr. Sybil Crawford, Dr. Nancy Morris, Elizabeth Earl Phillips, Kathleen Averka, and Moonshadow the coyote.
References
Albert, C., Luque, G. M., & Courchamp, F. (2018). The twenty most charismatic species. PLoS ONE, 13(7), 1–12.
Baker, R. O. & Timm, R. M. (2017). Coyote attacks on humans, 1970–2015: Implications for reducing the risks. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 11(2), 120–132.
Batt, S. (2009). Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: A multivariate approach. Bioscience Horizons, 2, 180–190.
Chivian, E. & Bernstein, A. (2008). How is biodiversity threatened by human activity. In E. Chivian & A. Bernstein (Eds.), Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity (pp. 29–73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Clayton, S., Fraser, J., & Saunders, C. D. (2009). Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology, 28, 377–397.
DeStefano, S. & Deblinger, R. D. (2005). Wildlife as valuable natural resources vs. intolerable pests: A suburban wildlife management model. Urban Ecosystems, 8, 179–190.
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Series Eds.), Applied social research methods series: Vol. 26. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Doyle, C. (2017). Captive wildlife sanctuaries: Definition, ethical considerations and public perception. Animal Studies Journal, 6(2), 55–85.
Draheim, M. M., Patterson, K. W., Rockwood, L. L. Guagnano, G. A., & Parsons, E. C. M. (2013). Attitudes of college undergraduates towards coyotes (Canis latrans) in an urban landscape: Management and public outreach implications. Animals, 3(1), 1–18.
Frank, B. (2016). Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence: An introductory comment. Society & Natural Resources, 29, 738–743.
George, K. A., Slagle, K. M., Wilson, R. S., Moeller, S. J., & Bruskotter, J. T. (2016). Changes in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014. Biological Conservation, 201, 237–242.
Goedeke, T. L. (2004). In the eye of the beholder: Changing social perceptions of the Florida manatee. Society & Animals, 12(2), 99–116.
Hartigan Shea, R. (2014). Are wildlife sanctuaries good for animals? National Geographic. Retrieved July 3, 2020, from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140320-animal-sanctuary-wildlife-exotic-tiger-zoo/.
Hosey, G. & Melfi, V. (2014). Human-animal interactions, relationships and bonds: A review and analysis of the literature. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27(1), 117–142.
Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. F. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.
Jackman, J. L. & Rutberg, A. T. (2015). Shifts in attitudes toward coyotes on the urbanized East coast: The Cape Cod experience, 2005–2012. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20, 333–348.
Jensen, E. (2014). Evaluating children’s conservation biology learning at the zoo. Conservation Biology, 28, 1004–1011.
Kellert, S. R. (1984). American knowledge of and attitudes toward animals: An update. In M. W. Fox & L. D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1984/1985 (pp. 177–213). Washington, DC: Humane Society of the United States.
Knight, S., Vrij, A., Cherryman, J., & Nunkoosing, K. (2004). Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös, 17(1), 43–62.
Lenzi, C., Speiran, S., & Grasso. C. (2020). “Let me take a selfie”: Reviewing the implications of social media for public perceptions of wild animals. Society & Animals.
Lonergan, B. F. J. (1972/2003). The human good. In Method in theology (pp. 27–55). Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press.
Lorimer, J. (2007). Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(5), 911–932.
Luebke, J. F. & Matiasek, J. (2013). An exploratory study of zoo visitors’ exhibit experiences and reactions. Zoo Biology, 32, 407–416.
Luebke, J. F., Watters, J. V., Packer, J., Miller, L. J., & Powell, D. M. (2016). Zoo visitors’ affective responses to observing animal behaviors. Visitor Studies, 19(1), 60–76.
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. (n.d.). Species spotlight: Moose. Retrieved July 3, 2020, from http://www.maine.gov/ifw/fish-wildlife/wildlife/species-information/mammals/moose.html.
Manfredo, M. J. (2008). Understanding the feeling component of human-wildlife interactions. In Who cares about wildlife? Social science concepts for exploring human-wildlife relationships and conservation issues (pp. 49–73). New York, NY: Springer.
Marseille, M. M., Elands, B. H. M., & Van Den Brink, M. L. (2012). Experiencing polar bears in the zoo: Feelings and cognitions in relation to a visitor’s conservation attitude. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17, 29–43.
Mayberry, A. L., Hovorka, A. J., & Evans, K. E. (2017). Well-being impacts of human-elephant conflict in Khumaga, Botswana: Exploring visible and hidden dimensions. Conservation and Society, 15(3), 280–291.
Mennen, F., Beumer, C., & Martens, P. (2016). The sustainable zoo: Mediating the sustainability message through education in GaiaZOO Kerkrade. Maastricht, NL: International Centre for Integrated assessment and Sustainable development (ICIS), Maastricht University.
Moss, A. & Esson, M. (2010). Visitor interest in zoo animals and the implications for collection planning and zoo education programmes. Zoo Biology, 29, 715–731.
Myers, O. E., Saunders, C. D., & Birjulin, A. A. (2004). Emotional dimensions of watching zoo animals: An experience sampling study building on insights from psychology. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(3), 299–321.
Packer, J., Ballantyne, R., & Luebke, J. F. (2018). Exploring the factors that influence zoo visitors’ perceptions of the well-being of gorillas: Implications for zoo exhibit interpretation. Visitor Studies, 21(1), 57–78.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perry, D. J. (2008). Catholic supporters of same gender marriage: A case study of human dignity in a multicultural society. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Perry, D. J. (2011). The Israeli-Palestinian peace movement: Combatants for peace. New York, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Perry, D. J. (2013). Transcendental method for research with human subjects: A transformative phenomenology for the human sciences. Field Methods, 25(3), 262–282.
Perry, D. J. (2015). Transcendent pluralism: A middle-range theory of nonviolent social transformation through human dignity. Advances in Nursing Science, 38(4), 317–329.
Perry, D. J., & Averka, J. P. (2020). Caring for the Circle of Life: Wildlife rehabilitation and sanctuary care. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 14(2), 309–324.
Plevin, A. (2014). How wild do we want it? “Wiley” coyote versus Fluffy. Society & Animals, 22, 80–101.
Ricard, M. (2014). A plea for the animals: The moral, philosophical, and evolutionary imperative to treat all beings with compassion (S. C. Kohn, Trans.). Boulder, CO: Shambhala Publications.
Riley, S. J. & Decker, D. J. (2000). Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5, 50–62.
Robbins, J. (2013, Oct. 14). Moose die-off alarms scientists. New York Times. Retrieved July 3, 2020, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/science/earth/something-is-killing-off-the-moose.html.
Roque de Pinho, J., Grilo, C., Boone, R. B., Galvin, K. A., & Snodgrass, J. G. (2014). Influence of aesthetic appreciation of wildlife species on attitudes towards their conservation in Kenyan agropastoralist communities. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e88842.
Sherwen, S. L. & Hemsworth, P. H. (2019). The visitor effect on zoo animals: Implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare. Animals, 9(6), 366.
Skibins, J. C. & Powell, R. B. (2013). Conservation caring: Measuring the influence of zoo visitors’ connection to wildlife on pro‐conservation behaviors. Zoo Biology, 32(5), 528–540.
Skibins, J. C., Dunstan, E., & Pahlow, K. (2017). Exploring the influence of charismatic characteristics on flagship outcomes in zoo visitors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 22(2), 157–171.
Slagle, K. M., Bruskotter, J. T., & Wilson, R. S. (2012). The role of affect in public support and opposition to wolf management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17, 44–57.
Slagle, K., Zajac, R., Bruskotter, J., Wilson, R., & Prange, S. (2013). Building tolerance for bears: A communications experiment. Journal of Wildlife Management, 77, 863–869.
Sponarski, C. C., Vaske, J. J., & Bath, A. J. (2015). Differences in management action acceptability for coyotes in a national park. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 39, 239–247.
Stokes, D. (2007). Things we like: Human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation. Human Ecology, 35(3), 361–369.
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Teel, T. L. & Manfredo, M. J. (2010). Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, 24, 128–139.
Tisdell, C., Wilson, C., & Swarna Nantha, H. (2005). Association of public support for survival of wildlife species with their likeability, Anthrozoös, 18(2), 160–174.
Vaske, J. J. & Manfredo, M. J. (2012). Social psychological considerations in wildlife management. In D. J. Decker, S. J. Riley, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human dimensions of wildlife management (2nd ed., pp. 43–57). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Vaske, J. J., Beaman J., & Sponarski, C. C. (2017). Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach’s alpha. Leisure Sciences, 39, 163–173.
Warren, S. (2018). Encounters at the zoo: The role of emotions in contributing to the wildlife conservation mission. Field Studies, 14(4), 1–5.
Way, J. G. (2007). Suburban howls: Tracking the eastern coyote in urban Massachusetts. Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing.
Way, J. G. (2012). Love wolves and hate coyotes? A conundrum for canid enthusiasts. International Wolf, 22(4), 8–11.
Way, J. G. & Lynn, W. S. (2016). Northeastern coyote/coywolf taxonomy and admixture: A meta-analysis. Canid Biology & Conservation, 19(1), 1–7.
Whittaker, D., Manfredo, M. J., Fix, P. J., Sinnott, R., Miller, S., & Vaske, J. J. (2001). Understanding beliefs and attitudes about an urban wildlife hunt near Anchorage, Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29, 1114–1124.
Williams, F. (2017). The nature fix: Why nature makes us happier, healthier, and more creative. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Woods, B. (2000). Beauty and the beast: Preferences for animals in Australia. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 11(2), 25–35.