Visitor Perceptions of Animals in Caribbean Tourism Destinations

Among the 201 respondents who answered the relevant question, 54.2% remembered seeing roaming animals. Dogs were the most frequently reported, seen by 45.5% of the 212 respondents, followed by cats at 34.9%. These are reported visitor observations, not population estimates for any destination.

Animal encounters were not uniformly negative. Of 212 respondents, 36.3% said animals had affected their trip pleasantly, while 20.8% said they had affected it unpleasantly. The report covered wildlife, domestic animals, and both organized and unstructured encounters; it did not treat every encounter as the same type of visitor experience.

Unstructured encounters with domestic animals accounted for 72.5% of 40 negative open-ended comments. This is not the share of all tourists who had a negative experience; it is the share of negative comments assigned to that category. Within the comments analyzed, these encounters were more often described as unpleasant than unstructured wildlife or structured encounters.

Of 115 respondents who observed roaming animals and answered the condition question, 56.5% considered the animals' condition less than good. Those who perceived poorer condition more often reported concern, sadness, discomfort, or worry about personal safety. In the full sample, 31.0% wanted improvements in the treatment of animals in the Caribbean, and 23.5% thought the island had too many roaming animals.

The report did not establish that these encounters broadly prevented tourists from returning or recommending the destination. Of 212 respondents, 95.3% said they would visit the island again and 96.2% would recommend it. At the same time, 6.6% said seeing roaming animals had changed their view of the island. The authors concluded that negative experiences appeared to affect a relatively small proportion of respondents.

The research indicates that free-roaming, stray cats and dogs may be one component of the visitor experience in public and tourism-facing spaces. It does not show that these encounters determine destination performance, but it shows that some respondents noticed roaming animals and associated poorer condition with concern or discomfort.

For tourism businesses, the distinction between structured and unstructured encounters is operationally relevant. Negative comments were concentrated in unstructured domestic-animal encounters, not every type of animal interaction. This supports a respectful, informed approach to guest questions and local conditions rather than treating the issue solely as an isolated guest-service complaint.

For municipalities, the study reinforces the value of destination-specific understanding. Visitor exposure, animal conditions, tourism patterns, and local capacity may vary by location. The report does not support a single response for every destination.

For local animal welfare organizations, the findings underscore the importance of transparent, locally informed work. Visitor impressions may be influenced by the animals they see. Appropriate veterinary access, responsible care, and coordination with local authorities and tourism partners remain important local considerations.