Unveiling welfare concerns in Japanese exotic animal cafes

Abstract

Exotic animal cafes are a growing phenomenon within Japanese cities. These cafes are registered under the same license as other animal exhibits such as zoos, often allowing visitors to directly touch the animals or interact with animals within close proximity. The aim of this research was to report on current standards of animal care found in Japanese exotic animal cafes according to animal class. We included 79 exotic animal cafes with data collected on observable husbandry and management conditions by four trained assessors. Qualifiable welfare standards under the quantifiable scores were used to support guidance in scoring methodology. Welfare categories were assessed to identify whether some animal classes received better care in exotic animal cafés. Kruskal–Wallis tests assessed differences in welfare scores across animal classes, with Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons identifying inter-class variation. Among 231 animals identified, 51% were mammals, 31% were birds and 18% were reptiles. Scores across all categories were low for all taxa assessed, with significant differences between animal classes for the environmental and nutritional provisions and the performance of natural behavior with birds scoring the lowest for all these categories. Results conclude a widespread lack of appropriate animal care provision across all facilities, resulting in poor welfare for a range of species. This study, the first comprehensive assessment of welfare standards in Japanese exotic animal cafes, concludes an urgent need for effectively enforced facility and national animal protection standards for captive exotic species in Japan.

INTRODUCTION

Japanese culture has a unique perspective on animals, based on the influence of religious philosophies such as the indigenous Shinto religion, Buddhism, and Confucianism and the concept of aigo ethics which means “loving, not killing, and protecting animals” [35]. Attitudes toward animals in Japan can vary depending on an individual’s familiarity with the species and the perceived roles or functions those animals serve [14].

A growing trend in Japan is for domestic and exotic animal cafes. These are businesses in which customers pay by the hour to have a drink and sit in a space filled with a range of domestic or exotic animals. Animal cafes are small, repurposed city-based spaces and are normally set up to receive the public at any notice, often play music, and allow unregulated movement and interaction between the animals and the visitors. They began to appear in Japan in 2004 as a part of the iyashi boom [33] considered to be the physical and emotional healing through engagement with animals. Animal cafes are an outgrowth of earlier Japanese businesses that commodify intimate relationships, allowing humans to have connections with animals, and their lower costs in comparison to owning them as a pet, make them accessible to a larger percentage of the Japanese population [32]. According to research carried out by WWF Japan [53] one in three people (33%) were interested in petting exotic animals, while one in six (17%) were interested in keeping them as pets. Sixty-eight percent said they knew little or nothing about their potential to spread infectious diseases, animal welfare, impact on the endangered status of many species, illegality of the trade, and risks from invasive species. A lack of awareness around the plight of these animals and potential risks associated is pervasive within Japan and poses concerns about biodiversity, animal welfare, and the potential spread of pathogens due to close interactions with consumers [34]. The use of wild animals as photo props is also prevalent across the globe and is widely recognized to represent a potential animal welfare concern [6], and the fascination with wildlife interactive experiences in the modern age may also contribute to the proliferation of such wild animal cafes [2]. Most exotic animal cafes opened in major cities between 2015 and 2017. These cafes are found all over the country but mainly congregate in larger cities such as Tokyo and Osaka, catering to both tourists and locals [37] with over 400 wild species being found [18, 37]. Current knowledge on the conditions and management of the animals in the cafes is limited outside of those who visit with no scientific publications evaluating the provisions.

Animal welfare legislation is important for the well-being of animals and promoting their ethical treatment in Japan. The protection of all animals in Japan is covered under the Act on Welfare and Management developed in 1973, [24] and in 2012 “animal welfare” was added in as a clause [33]. Under this Act, all animal handling businesses are classified as either type I or type II with the difference being type I businesses providing their services at a cost for the purpose of exhibition or interaction with people. Type I includes bear parks, zoos, aquariums, animal cafes, and pet stores; these are all held accountable under the same legal provisions. There are a total of 3,363 animal facilities registered as type I “exhibiting” animal handling businesses [1]. Type II businesses are where you are handling a business but do not take money for profit, for example an animal shelter. This Act acknowledges animal sentience but provides little consideration to the care of captive wild animals. Aside from including wild animals as “protected animals” and establishing criminal offenses for cruel treatment under Article 44 of the Act, the legislation does not specifically address the welfare needs of wild animals kept in captivity. Where there is general legal oversight, the Act devolves the responsibility of ensuring compliance to the prefectures who have the authority to inspect the businesses.

Animal welfare science has rapidly developed in the past 30 years, as we have an improved understanding of motivation, cognition and social behavior [4] and a focus on an animal’s ability to feel both positive and negative emotions and affective states [12, 26]. With the knowledge that animal sentience is common within the animal kingdom [27] more emphasis is now placed on animal feelings (affective states) as a measure of its welfare state. Good animal management practices address specific animal needs and impact areas that promote positive experiences and prevent or minimize unnecessary negative experiences [21, 22]. As our understanding of animal welfare and sentience continues, increased scrutiny should be expected on the quality of life provided to animals under human care and transparent assurance that acceptable standards are being provided [43]. Good animal welfare is important not only to the animals but also to the visitors in zoos, research indicates that poor animal welfare observations can influence visitors’ experiences and attitudes [23]. Zoo-based research has also focused on specific welfare-related activities including human-animal interactions [5]. This area of research shows that animal responses to visitor interactions vary, with both the potential for rewarding experiences and negative experiences depending on factors such as the interaction type, noise levels, and species concerned [13]. As visitors are key to successful animal cafe models, understanding the impacts of interactions is essential. However, concerns have been raised about the impact on animal welfare at exotic animal cafes due to the close interactions between animals and consumers, potentially leading to stress and discomfort for the animals [37].

In recent years, research has focused on the conservation threat or potential zoonotic influence that Japanese exotic animal cafes hold for wildlife, [19, 36] but to date, there are no publications evaluating the care and management of the animals in the cafes. This research addresses that gap in knowledge with a rapid welfare assessment specifically focused on the animals’ environment, visitor interactions, nutrition and feeding, animal behavior, and animal restraint, considering these conditions to identify whether any of these conditions have an impact on animal welfare, which may be of greater concern and also consider any welfare differences between the different classes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area

We identified 79 animal cafes that exhibited both domestic and exotic species in Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba, Osaka, Kyoto, Hiroshima, and Okinawa prefectures which were included in the study from October 2019 to August 2020. Prefectures were selected based on their accessibility and popularity as tourist destinations. All accessible cafes within the selected prefectures were subsequently visited, and the study was focused in these regions. All the cafes registered with their local governments are listed on the website of that local government with their address. We got all the lists which are open to public from the internet, made phone calls and site visits. Animal cafes that only housed companion animals such as cats or dogs were excluded from this study, those that exhibited only captive wild species or both wild and domestic species were included. All cafes included in this research have been kept anonymous.

Data collection

The cafes were visited during regular public opening hours during the daytime and on a week day, without advance announcement. The public entrance payment was made to enter the cafes and venue staff were not made aware of the data collection [9, 36] so as not to alter the species seen or for the management of these animals to change as a result of our observation, whilst collecting the data. Each visit to the animal cafes in this study was between 100–120 min.

Exotic animal cafes held multiple species and so to maximize the data collected within the time allocation within each cafe, a rapid observational welfare record form was used to score conditions for a wide range of species. Identification of species varied based on the species level information available at each cafe and the researcher’s own knowledge, resulting in some animals being identified to species or subspecies level while others remained more generally classified. Grouping animals at the family level would have improved consistency, but we chose the retain species level distinctions where possible to capture important welfare relevant nuances. Data was collected around observable husbandry and management conditions that were considered to directly impact animal welfare. The welfare assessment contained key welfare themes (environment, visitor interactions, nutrition and feeding, behavior and animal restraint) with 15 questions across the themes (Table 1). Each question was scored 0, 1 or 2 per species where 0 was the poorest score for welfare and 2 the highest score for welfare. These were developed by Wild Welfare and are based on a scoring method used by Schmidt-Burbach and Ronfot [36], following a 0–2 scale instead of their 0–5 scale. However, our method comprised of 15 questions in comparison to 9, providing a more detailed score per theme. Assessed conditions included measures such as space, social needs, dietary provisions, climate suitability, human animal interactions, behavioral opportunities, and restraint use. A total of four observers were trained in the collection of the observable welfare data. Their scores were compared, and observers trained until scores were consistent before formal data collection. The scoring guidance set clear observable standards against each condition under the five categories to support the rapid evaluation of animal welfare. In must be noted, that an emergency declaration was issued in April 2020 due to COVID-19 in Japan and this is likely to have impacted visitor numbers to the cafes. However for the visitor interactions, the assessors considered the visitor’s and staff’s actions during an interaction rather than the animal’s response to that interaction; whether abnormal demands were made, suitable measures were in place to prevent animals from being provoked, and whether time spent within an interaction was limited and animals have the option to leave the interaction at any given time. Therefore, we did not feel that these measures would be affected by the number of visitors.

Table 1. Welfare scoring guidance form used by assessors.

Environment	Score of 0	Score of 1	Score of 2
Physical space and infrastructure allows for species-appropriate movement behaviors.	● Enclosure does not allow for appropriate species movement.	● Enclosure provides adequate species movement opportunities.	● Enclosure provides full species movement opportunities.
	● No visible signs of species-appropriate enclosure infrastructure.	● At least one species-appropriate apparatus/soft substrate/ pool/swinging apparatus.	● Enough species-specific apparatus per animal.
		● Semi-wild/vegetation environment.	● Full wild/vegetation environment.
Enclosure allows for species-appropriate social interaction and does not mix inappropriate species or individuals.	● Over-crowding observed, solitary confinement observed (dependent on species social needs).	● Some consideration given, but mixing of inappropriate species (i.e. close together in on show) still occurs.	● No over-crowding.
	● No consideration to species used that could result in fear, stress or predation as result of social interactions.	● Intermediate of 0 and 2.	● No solitary confinement (for social species).
			● No inappropriate mixing of species, all individual animal needs considered.
Environment allows for animals to feel secure and offers two or more escape routes or areas to hide.	● No visible hiding spaces for animals.	● Hiding opportunities for some animals.	● Hiding opportunities/shelter for all animals.
	● Direct vicinity to traffic, PA system, loud music noises, large crowds.	● Intermediate of 0 and 2.	● Occasional traffic or small visitor groups, no electronic noise or loud noises like loud music.
Enclosure provides varied climate and humidity range appropriate to specific species requirements at all times. Access to UVA/UVB light is available if required.	● No temperature or humidity control throughout enclosures or cafe space.	● Some variation in temperature and humidity control to meet species specific needs	● Full choice of appropriate temperature and humidity control and range provided throughout the enclosures and cafe spaces.
Environment is safe to prevent injuries and escape.	● Environment (enclosure or cafe space) is not escape-proof and has potential to cause injuries.	● Intermediate of 0 and 2.	● Environment is fully escape proof, parameters are in place to prevent injury which is regularly evaluated.
Visitor Interactions	Score of 0	Score of 1	Score of 2
Abnormal demands are not made on the animals by either the staff or visitors (e.g. continuous petting)	● No measures are in place to reduce abnormal physical or psychological demands on animals (e.g. staff observations/limited visitor interactions).	● Intermediate of 0 and 2.	● Fully supervised by experienced staff with regular evaluation to prevent stress by encounter.
Time spent in an interaction is limited to prevent stress and mitigate potential for injury.	● Time spent in interaction/environment where unregulated interactions take place is 75–100%.	● Time spent in environment is 25–75%	● Time spent in interaction/environment is 0–25%.
			● Interactions are fully regulated to prevent undue stress.
Encounter experiences ensure suitable environmental measures are in place to prevent animals from being provoked by visitors.	● No measures such as barriers, supervision by experiences staff are in place between animal and visitors.	● Intermediate of 0 and 2.	● Full consideration been given to appropriate measures to prevent animals being provoked by visitors.
Animals have the option to leave the interaction at any given time.	● No choice to leave interaction.	● Some ability to leave interaction or space occupied by public.	● Complete choice to leave interaction and retreat to shelter or hiding space.
Nutrition & Feeding	Score of 0	Score of 1	Score of 2
Varied, species-appropriate diet is offered and regulated.	● No variation in diet provided. Unregulated feeding by public/staff is allowed.	● Some variation in diet provided.	● Varied and species-appropriate diet provided.
		● Some regulated in feeding by public/staff.	● Regulated feeding of appropriate diet at all times.
Feeding opportunities encourages appropriate feeding behaviors from that species (grazing, foraging, hunting etc).	● No evidence of appropriate feeding behaviors observed.	● Individuals offered some appropriate feeding opportunities as well as visitor feeding observed.	● Individuals offered appropriate feeding opportunities.
	● Visitor feeding prevents species-appropriate feeding behaviors.		● Feeding by visitors prohibited.
Water Adequate supply of fresh water of appropriate temperature providing in a manner that is species-appropriate (running, still, etc).	● No evidence of clean, fresh water provided.	● Intermediate of 0 and 2.	● Clean and cool water provided in a species-appropriate manner.
Behaviors	Score of 0	Score of 1	Score of 2
A range of species-appropriate behaviors are observed and able to be displayed at all times.	● >75% Individual animals unable to perform natural behaviors.	● >50% Some natural behaviors are able to be performed but restrictions remain.	● Range of natural behaviors observed/expressed by 100% of animals.
Individuals can display rewarding behaviors (e.g. play, exploration, social interactions).	● >75% animals so no positive behaviors.	● Intermediate of 0 and 2.	● 100% Individuals display many positive behaviors throughout encounter and/or within their enclosure.
Restraint	Score of 0	Score of 1	Score of 2
Animals are not restrained by any form of restraint that limits natural and normal behaviors.	● Visible restraint is used that limits natural and normal behaviors for >75% (restraint can include ropes, leads, chains, feather removal).	● Visible restraint is used that limits natural and normal behaviors for >50%.	● No restraint used.

Where there was more than one animal of the same species, the score considered all the animals in that group. Individual welfare conditions were only noted if they were an exception to the standard guidance. Demographic data collected from each cafe included the number of animal species and total number of animals observed.

Data analysis

Observed animals were categorized into animal classes (reptile, bird and mammal) and again further into smaller, more general classifications for the benefit of descriptive statistics (Table 2). Differences between the animal classes were analyzed according to the different welfare categories, to investigate if there were certain classes that were better cared for within the exotic animal cafes. For this, average scores were calculated across each of the survey themes. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests were used in SPSS (IMB SPSS Version 29; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) where the dependant variables were the animal classes and the independent variables were the welfare scores across the categories. Pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjusted P values were calculated to identify differences between the classes.

Table 2. Summary of the total number of animals assessed at the exotic animal cafes. Where possible, animals have been categorised into classifications or similar groups for example according to size or origins. Some species were unidentifiable by the observers, these were listed as ‘lizard’ or ‘snake’ and here categorised as non-specific lizards or snakes.

Class	General classification	Species included (when identified)	Number observed	Percentage observed	Number of cafes observed with
Reptiles	Snakes	Non-specific	11	5%	12
	Lizards	Iguana, bearded dragon, teguixin, chameleon, gecko, monitor, non-specific	24	12%	17
	Chelonians	Turtles	6	2%	6
		Total	41	19%
Birds	Domestic	Chicken, quail	3	2%	3
	Aquatic	Penguin	1	1%	1
	Bird of Prey	Owls, falcons	49	20%	35
	Psittaciformes	Parakeet, parrot	11	4%	11
	Small Bird	Myna, pigeon, kookaburra, kingfisher, java sparrow, aracari	8	3%	7
		Total	72	30%
Mammals	Domestic	Rabbits, hamsters, degu, rat, guinea pigs, chinchilla, micro pig, ferret, goat	54	23%	29
	Small	Hedgehog, mouse, dormouse, squirrel, meerkat, fennec fox, sugar gliders, prairie dog	53	23%	31
	Medium	Capybara, otters, binturong, mara	10	4%	10
	Primate	Common marmoset	1	1%	1
		Total	118	51%

Ethics statement

This was an observational study at exotic animal cafes that did not involve any animal handling or animal experiments. Data were collected during regular customer visits during opening hours. This study was approved from Nippon Veterinary and Life Science University and their Institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) approval number is 2025S-16.

RESULTS

There were 231 individual animals or groups of the same species identified (animals from the same species were counted more than once when found in different cafes) across the cafes visited (Table 2), 51% were mammals, 31% were birds and 18% were reptiles (See supplementary information for the list of species observed and the scoring). Birds of prey (specifically owls), domestic mammals and small mammals were the categories of animals housed most commonly across most cafes. All other categories of animals accounted for less than 20% of the number assessed. The least frequently housed animals were penguins (n=1) and primates (n=1). Lizards were housed in 17 different cafes but only accounted for 12% of the total number of animals suggesting that cafes would generally house a small number of them. Overall, the average welfare scores per theme were generally low across all classes examined (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

The Average scores across the categories for all taxa and cafes combined. Horizontal bar shows overall average welfare scores and box plots represent the median, interquartile range (25th–75th percentiles) for each animal classes in the vertical bar.

The environment scores showed a significant difference between the classes (H₂=32.136, P<0.001). Figure 2 shows that there were significant differences between reptiles and birds (adjusted P<0.01) with reptiles scoring significantly higher than birds and a significant difference between birds and mammals (adjusted P<0.01) with mammals scoring higher than birds. However, it is also noticeable that within the mammalian class, there were a few outliers with particularly low scores.

Fig. 2.

Average environment scores at the exotic animal cafes according to taxa. Horizontal bar shows average environmental scores and box plots represent the median, interquartile range (25th–75th percentiles) for each animal classes in the vertical bar.

There was no significant difference between the average interaction scores (H₂=3.026, P=0.220) (Fig. 3). The nutrition scores showed a significant difference between classes (H₂=25.385, P<0.001). Figure 4 shows that there were significant differences between reptiles and birds (adjusted P<0.01) with reptiles scoring significantly higher than birds and a significant difference between birds and mammals (adjusted P<0.01) with mammals scoring higher than birds. Mammals however again have some noticeable outliers both scoring higher and lower than the average scores. Birds were lower than mammals and reptiles but not a significant difference between reptiles and mammals. The behavior scores showed a significant difference between classes (H₂=21.177, P<0.001). Figure 5 shows that there were significant differences between birds and mammals (adjusted P<0.01) with mammals scoring higher than birds. However, it is also noticeable that within the bird class, there were a few outliers with particularly high scores. For the restraint category, there was a significant difference between classes (H₂=76.262, P<0.001). There were significant differences between reptiles and birds (adjusted P<0.01) with birds scoring significantly lower than reptiles and a significant difference between birds and mammals (adjusted P<0.01) with birds scoring lower than mammals.

Fig. 3.

Average interaction scores at the exotic animal cafes according to taxa. Horizontal bar shows average interaction scores and box plots represent the median, interquartile range (25th–75th percentiles) for each animal classes in the vertical bar.

Fig. 4.

Average nutrition scores at the exotic animal cafes according to taxa. Horizontal bar shows average nutrition scores and box plots represent the median, interquartile range (25th–75th percentiles) for each animal classes in the vertical bar.

Fig. 5.

Average behavior scores at the exotic animal cafes according to taxa. Horizontal bar shows average behavior scores and box plots represent the median, interquartile range (25th–75th percentiles) for each animal classes in the vertical bar.

DISCUSSION

The 79 Japanese exotic animal cafes visited showed a huge variety in species. The care and management practices assessed across species of different taxa were low scoring, indicative of providing poor animal welfare conditions. Limited usable and suitable environmental space, poor animal interaction oversight and controls, inadequate feeding opportunities, restricted behavioral opportunities, and restraint all result in poor welfare conditions for animals housed in these exotic animal cafes. While results showed that domestic mammals were also commonly housed in these cafes, the scores for those species are still consistently poor. The presumption that a species is adapted to a highly constrained environment if they are considered domestic, may overlook major biological needs of that species and thus still result in significant deficiencies [28] The low scores and likely poor welfare are indicative that these mammal species are not part of mutually beneficial interactions, an identified element of domestication [48]. It must therefore not be presumed that a domesticated species is easier or better cared for within animal cafe environments better than non-domesticated species.

Although not systematically recorded, it was also observed that many exotic animal cafes had multiple different species in close proximity to each other. While quantitative data were not collected on enclosure distances, this recurring pattern raised concerns about interspecies stress, biosecurity risks and general welfare implications [50].

Environmental conditions

Results demonstrated that the environmental needs of animals in exotic animal cafes are not being met. Conditions included whether animals were safe from injury, had appropriate climatic parameters, the infrastructure allowed for normal and natural movement and social interactions, and the ability to feel secure. Birds scored poorly under environmental conditions as most birds were unable to fly either due to restraint, the small size of the room, or small cage holdings. Birds of prey (in particular owls) were the most observed species and they were unable to remove themselves or hide from the public at any time, impacting their ability to feel safe/secure. Aversion to humans is common among owls, and close human interactions of a negative nature may be a significant stressor [40], and an inability to remove themselves from such interactions will likely contribute further to high stress levels. Sources of stress for animals in captivity include a multitude of factors [25], including limited environments, forced proximity to humans and reduced retreat space, and limited environments in captivity that do not resemble their natural habitats. These can lead to stress and behavioral issues in animals [10]. When contained, the environmental space and design for birds were either a simple perch or basic cage with no ability to carry out normal movement behaviors. Within the observed cafes, unrestrained birds (not tethered or in a cage setting), had environmental needs that were considered far more complex than can be offered in cafe settings, such as the Spheniscidae (penguins) [18].

Most reptile species are solitary in nature due to environmental filtering and adaptive evolution [42]. They require less environmental space for normal movement than birds, likely resulting in the significantly higher scores observed. However, snakes function more successfully in large, naturalistic enclosures [46, 47, 51] and captivity -stress–related behaviors are also commonly associated with snakes in small enclosures [17, 47] and animal cafes are too limited in space and design to adequately provide for enclosures that are likely to provide meaningful environments. Results showed that mammals scored the highest for their environmental provision and were significantly higher compared to birds. This could be due to the human-animal interactive nature of the cafes with mammals expected to be more accommodating and safer to touch or handle compared to large birds such as owls. As a result, it could be that more effort is made to provide environments where they can move around and interact with visitors while also having the ability to retreat and move away from the visiting public. However, there were some outliers within the data, with some mammal species scoring particularly low in this category including multiple cases of otters (Lutrinea). Providing adequate space for otters to exhibit natural behaviors such as swimming, diving, and foraging can be a challenge in captivity [29] and were not observed to be provided within the cafes.

Appropriate environmental conditions are important contributors to better mental and physical health of a captive animal [30]. Environmental conditions should optimize the opportunity for natural behavioral repertoires in natural frequencies and appropriate social interactions dependent on age, sex, and individual personality traits. The species observed in the cafes visited all have complex species-specific behavioral needs that would be very hard to provide for within public cafe-like settings. Smaller species such as those within the reptile taxa, may score higher as a result of having enough enclosure space to allow for more normal behavioral movement. Where species were free-ranging, i.e. not restrained or in a cage, the environmental conditions still scored low as there were limitations on freedom of movement due to visitor interactions or the lack of ability to retreat. For example, a binturong (Arctictis binturong) was free-ranging but could not remove itself from the cafe environment where visitors were. Another example included a solitary capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) that was able to wander freely within one cafe, among the visitors and other species. Capybaras are semi-aquatic rodents, which plays a strong role in their natural behavior and physiological needs [5]. No adequate access to water for capybaras to submerge or just sit in within their environmental space was observed, likely leading to a compromised welfare state.

Human-animal interactions

Results showed that all taxa scored low and there were no significant differences between taxa in potential welfare compromise because of such interactions. This is likely because the focus of these exotic animal cafes are predominantly used for interactive experiences with wildlife [37]. Whether because of free-roaming animals within the cafe environment or through paid interactions, visitors and animals often have the opportunity for direct contact such as petting, holding, or placing animals on their laps and indirectly interacting by being close to the animal.

Species are housed in open-top enclosures, small cafe spaces or tethered in a manner that means visitors could touch the animal, often with no or minimal supervision. Human-animal interactions relating to exotic animals and visitors have been studied extensively within zoo environments; mainly with the animals being in a species-specific designed enclosure and visitors being separated with a barrier [45]. Some studies are suggestive of positive responses [7], but a high proportion is indicative of negative or neutral responses from the animals [52]. While habituation to the interactions may occur if there is neither a reward nor punishment from the interaction [44], this does not necessarily negate poor welfare. Choice and control over an animal’s immediate situation are now known to be important for an animal’s overall welfare [15] and an inability to remove themselves from an interaction in the cafe is likely to result in distress. Close wild animal and human interactions have been implicated in high-impact viral epidemics [3]. The opportunities for injuries, disease, and zoonotic disease transmissions such as salmonellosis or cryptosporidiosis [31, 38, 54], is high within confined, overcrowded spaces as well as diseases becoming less host-specific under these conditions [8]. For example, sugar gliders (Petaurus breviceps), which were observed, may act as carriers of potentially pathogenic agents for humans [41]. The transmission rate is likely to be increased within confined and overcrowded conditions where animals are under ongoing stress, such as those found in most animal cafes. The risk of injury as a result of being bitten, scratched, or attacked by a wild animal remains high while wild animals can freely roam and as interactions between species and visitors at animal cafes vary, it highlights the importance of maintaining appropriate safeguards. These interactions should only take place when thorough risk assessments, preventative measures, and expert supervision are in place to minimize potential hazards.

Nutritional provision

The nutritional conditions included whether a species-appropriate diet was offered, whether feeding opportunities encouraged appropriate feeding behaviors, and whether there was an adequate supply of fresh water. Reptiles had a significantly higher score than mammals and birds. Reptiles likely scored higher as they were able to be fed live insects that would have met nutritional needs and encouraged natural feeding behaviors. It is likely that the birds scored poorly due to many birds of prey (Order: Strigiformes) being restrained to single perches without free access to water.

Figure 4 shows that some mammals that were observed scored highly (score of 2) compared to other mammals. This is likely due to the cafes holding domesticated species such as rabbits and hamsters, as well as exotic species. Due to these animals being commonly housed as pets, more knowledge is available on how to provide for these species and the necessary dietary requirements for them could be considered much easier to source and provide for in comparison to the exotic species.

Food and its provision can play an important role in good physical health and maximizing rewarding behavioral opportunities for captive animals. Mimicking foraging, social eating or hunting behaviors can provide challenges and choices that can be beneficial to animal welfare [20]. The limited environmental space and indoor cafe conditions meant opportunities to present food in a species-appropriate manner is extremely difficult. It is recognized that a potential limitation of the research is that the observational data was collected in a limited time period. Therefore, the nutritional results, particularly those pertaining to the condition scoring whether a varied and species appropriate diet is offered and regulated, to some degree, might have been under or overestimated due to the food not necessarily being a permanent feature of the animal’s environment.

Behavioral opportunities

The behavioral conditions assessed included whether a range of species-appropriate behaviors were observed and whether individuals were enabled to perform rewarding behaviors (e.g. play, exploration, social interactions). We found that in the cafes observed, birds scored significantly lower than mammals. As we observed, birds are commonly restrained within exotic animal cafes, particularly birds of prey such as owls and this restraint prevents natural and normal flight behavior, which would account for their low scores. Figure 5 shows some higher-scoring outliers for birds. These are likely a result of free-flying bird displays, where smaller species of birds such as Parakeets are sometimes able to fly around the cafe.

Many of the mammals observed were nocturnal, including fennec foxes (Vulpes zerda), sugar gliders, hamsters (Family: Cricetinae), hedgehogs (Family: Erinaceinae), prairie dogs (Genus: Cynomys) and chinchillas (Chinchilla lanigera). These animals were observed and presumed to be resting, which was scored as an appropriate behavior due to the time of day. However, with only a small amount of time for data collection, it is difficult to assume that these nocturnal species were able to achieve actual rest due to the noise and lighting or whether this behavior is linked to a lack of stimulation from their environment. We would recommend further research to observe these animals’ behavior over a longer period of time and over times when they would be active, to gather a more accurate representation of the animals’ behavioral repertoire.

Social species were observed to be kept solitary or in abnormal social groupings, for example, meerkats (Suricata suricatta) that normally live in social groups of between three and fifty individuals [16] were observed being kept individually in small cages. Meerkats are behaviorally complex and have dynamic social structures, forming large groups where they have evolved multiple cooperative behaviors such as foraging and predator avoidance [11]. As an evolutionary adaption, sociality in meerkats is important to their well-being and being kept in solitary confinement is likely to cause ongoing stress and frustration.

Restraint

Restraint was assessed separately to behavior and considered whether animals were restrained by ropes or other forms of visible restriction that limited their natural and normal behaviors. Birds were seen commonly restrained with a lead or tethering rope that restricted both their behavior and movement. The most commonly restrained species were owls through tethering. Close human interactions with owls that led to aversion were identified as significant stressors for the owls, suggesting that the nature of the interaction, rather than the frequency, impacts the owl’s level of stress [40]. An inability to move away from such interactions through tethering will only contribute to higher stress levels.

The restriction of movement caused by severe restraint, prevents an animal’s ability to exercise agency, which is described as the capacity of animals to engage in voluntary, self-generated, and goal-directed behavior that they are motivated to perform [38, 49]. A lack of agency will negatively impact the animal’s welfare through the inability to perform strongly motivated behaviors. This is likely to result in frustration and stress for animals in cafes as seen in other contexts such as companion animal restraint through tethering [39]. Multiple mammals such as fennec foxes, otters, and meerkats were observed to be on leads, primarily for visitor interaction opportunities. Potential physical harm may result from the incorrect or over-use of a poorly fitted lead.

This research aimed to investigate the welfare standards found within exotic animal cafes in Japan according to animal class. Results revealed that poor animal care standards were prevalent across all taxa and all welfare factors assessed. The current suitability of cafes to provide a standard of welfare is extremely poor and it is our interpretation that the welfare considerations of all the animals observed were not considered in the operation of all the cafes visited and there was no application of best practice standards pertaining to animal care within these spaces. It is important that clearly defined animal care requirements through facility operational standards and legal oversight are applied consistently across captive all wildlife facilities in Japan. As the popularity of these cafes prevails it is necessary that such facility operational and legal measures are put in place with immediate effect, with a future focus on carefully considering the place of such exotic animal café in a modern, ethical society.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there were no conflicts of interest in the research or writing of this paper. All findings and conclusions were made independently and without any external influence.