ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
A Descriptive Survey of Visitor Experience and Adoption Interest Among Patrons of a Rabbit Café
Silvija Grava, Lexis H. Ly and Alexandra Protopopova*
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Abstract
Introduction: Rabbits often experience long wait times in shelters, which may negatively impact their welfare. Pet cafés, where public members can interact with animals in a café setting, often partner with animal shelters to offer an alternative way to showcase animals to potential adopters. The use of pet cafés to promote the adoption of rabbits has yet to be studied. This study aimed to describe the motivations, experiences, and takeaways of the visitors at a rabbit café in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The secondary aim was to explore the impact of rabbit morphology, behavior, and sociability as reported by staff and volunteers on perceived adoptability and visitor preference.
Methods: This study collected 205 responses (quantitative and qualitative) in a post-visit survey for patrons of the rabbit café and 23 survey responses of staff and volunteers rating the sociability of the rabbits. Data were described through cross-tabulation and analyzed through inductive thematic analysis.
Results: The results indicate that most visitors did not intend to adopt rabbits, but mainly visited the café to spend time with animals, noting physical interaction as a meaningful experience. Highly social rabbits, as rated by staff and volunteers, were generally more preferred by visitors than shy rabbits.
Conclusion: Overall, our study suggests that the rabbit café was useful for visitors to interact with rabbits, but did not result in adoptions during the study period. Future studies could address methods to improve adoption rates and length of stay (LOS) based on visitor experiences.
Keywords: adoption; animal café; tourism; human–animal interaction; animal welfare
Citation: Journal of Shelter Medicine and Community Animal Health 2026, 5: 167 - http://dx.doi.org/10.56771/jsmcah.v5.167
Copyright: © 2026 Silvija Grava et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Received: 10 December 2025; Revised: 26 January 2026; Accepted: 6 February 2026; Published: 11 April 2026
Competing interests and funding: The study was funded in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the British Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals through a grant to AP as an Industrial Research Chair in Animal Welfare. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Correspondence: *Alexandra Protopopova. Email: a.protopopova@ubc.ca
Reviewers: Jessica Reed, Elizabeth Berliner
Rabbits are the third most popular companion animal after dogs and cats and are likely the third most common animal in shelters.1 In one animal shelter system, rabbits had a median length of stay (LOS) of 29 days, highlighting the need for more understanding of how to hasten adoption.1 In 2021, the first pet café for rabbits in Canada (the Bunny Café) opened in Vancouver, British Columbia.a The Bunny Café houses rabbits from a local rescue and allows members of the public to interact with and feed the rabbits. The rabbit rescue reported that partnership with the Bunny Café increased their adoption rates by 300% through improved visibility with the cafe.b However, to the best of our knowledge, no research has described or evaluated the use of pet cafés for rabbit adoption.
For other companion animals, namely cats, animal shelters have partnered with pet cafés to increase visibility of adoptable animals. Despite higher visibility, one study found that LOS was longer for cats housed in a cat café compared to foster homes.2 However, within the cat café, LOS was longer for cats that received negative comments about behavior and health from employees, suggesting that longer time to adoption may have been a result of individual characteristics of cats rather than the adoption setting.
One additional benefit of pet cafés is the opportunity for positive human–animal interaction. In a study on visitor behavior in a cat café, the most common human–cat interaction was approaching and stroking cats.3 Multiple studies have shown that visitors experience psychological benefits when spending time at pet cafés, including relaxation, healing, thrill, and connectedness.4 Interactions with animals can offer stress relief, physical affection, and social interaction.5
Previous research has examined characteristics of rabbits that may affect adoption in shelters. Public members preferred brachycephalic rabbits, while longer-faced rabbits were least preferred. Participants also preferred short-furred rabbits with medium-light fur color.6 Whereas there has not been research on the effect of rabbit behavior on adoptability, research on other species has shown that behavior can play a role. For example, LOS of interactive cats was significantly shorter (37 days) than unapproachable cats (119 days).7
The primary aim of this study was to describe the reasons and motivations of visitors coming to the rabbit café and describe their experiences and takeaways. The secondary aim was to explore associations between rabbit morphology, behavior, and sociability on perceived adoptability and visitor preference of rabbits in a pet café setting. We hypothesized that rabbits rated as more social by rabbit café staff and volunteers, as well as rabbits with short, light fur would be perceived as more adoptable at the rabbit café.
Methods and materials
All study procedures were approved by the Behavioral Research Ethics Board of The University of British Columbia (Ethics ID: H24-01607).
Study setting
This study took place in Canada’s first rabbit café, the Bunny Café, which opened in 2021 in Vancouver, British Columbia.a The café houses adoptable rabbits from a local rescue and splits their proceeds to support the rescue.c Patrons could either book appointments of 30–55 min or walk-in to spend time with the rabbits. The rabbits were available to visit from 1 pm to 7 pm on weekdays and 10 am to 7 pm on weekends. The café capacity was 14 people per visit and guests had to be at least 5 years old. Prior to each visit, the staff discussed guidelines for how to interact with the rabbits to maintain positive welfare, which included not picking them up, restricting their movement, running or chasing the rabbits, or speaking loudly. Patrons were given educational pamphlets with diagrams of what body parts are appropriate to pet and more information about adoption and fostering. Each patron was given a cup of lettuce and herbs to feed the rabbits when interacting with them. In the rabbit area, five pens contained pairs of bonded rabbits, and one pen had a single rabbit. Each pen had a description of the rabbits, similar to a kennel card in an animal shelter. One trio of bonded rabbits was given access to the rest of the space outside of the gated pens. Volunteers in the rabbit area were available to answer questions, but the visit was unstructured and patrons chose which gated pens to enter to interact with the rabbits. A separate area of the café sold pastries, drinks, and rabbit merchandise. The café also offered grooming services for owned rabbits including nail trimming, scent gland cleaning, and brushing.
Surveys
The primary survey contained 16 questions, including multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, select all, Likert-style, and short answer questions, which took participants approximately 5–10 min to complete (Appendix 1). The questions asked about the visitors (e.g. gender, age, their companion animals), their visit experience, their preferred rabbit at the café, and likelihood of future behaviors, such as visiting the café again or owning a rabbit. A question also asked about the likelihood of feeding rabbits in the wild, but these data were not analyzed for this study.
An additional survey for staff and volunteers asked participants to categorize each rabbit as highly social (“Rabbit readily approaches visitors and asks for food and allows petting”), mostly social (“Rabbit will receive food from a visitor but now allow/like petting. Rabbit needs some time to come around to new people”), or shy (“Rabbit will typically avoid visitors, not typically accept food, and/or typically hides”) (Appendix 2). There was also an open-text field to provide any notable personality descriptors. This categorization of socialization was adapted from Brown and Stephan, where shelter staff were given similar definitions to categorize shelter cats as interactive, approachable, or unapproachable.7
Participants
A paper version of the survey was administered from June 26 to August 7, 2024. The primary researcher visited the café twice per week approximately midday on Wednesdays and Fridays and approached a convenience sample of visitors as they exited the café. The participant response rate of the visitors who were approached was around 65% (193/300). In addition, a poster with a QR code was displayed in the café to fill out the survey online, through Qualtrics (June 2024). Only 12 participants completed the survey online, whereas 193 participants completed the survey in person.
A secondary survey was completed by café staff and volunteers during the same timeframe. All staff and volunteers were notified by email and word of mouth, and a folder with blank surveys was placed in the staff workspace to be completed at any time during the study period. Participants were asked to self-identify if they felt knowledgeable enough about the rabbits’ personalities before completing the survey. Twenty-three responses were recorded.
For both surveys, participants were allowed to skip any questions and stop at any point. No incentives or compensation were offered to complete the surveys.
Data analysis
Data from the paper surveys were entered manually into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and combined with the data from the online surveys. Answers to Likert-style questions were re-coded to numerical values ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely).
Descriptive analysis was done through Microsoft Excel by cross-tabulation. For questions where participants could write in a response under “other,” the primary researcher re-coded the responses to fit under existing options and created new categories where needed. Three short answer questions were coded through descriptive qualitative analysis. The primary researcher used inductive thematic analysis methods, by deriving themes from the data and revising the codebook with the other authors throughout coding. All codebooks for these questions can be found in the Appendix. Select quotes were included in the results to demonstrate the themes, followed by the participant ID.
Results
Visitor information
Table 1 shows the gender, age, and pet owner status of the survey respondents. The majority of respondents were women (128/205; 62%) and 35 years old or younger (133/205; 65%). The respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 72, with a median of 29. The majority of the respondents owned at least one companion animal (115/203; 57%) at the time of the visit. Of the pet owners, the number of companion animals ranged from one to eight, with a median of one pet. Of the pet owners, the most common species were cats (43/115; 37%) and dogs (34/115; 30%). As well, the majority of respondents (161/205; 79%) had never owned a rabbit before, while a minority (44/205; 22%) had owned a rabbit either in the past or at the time of visit.
Visit information
The majority of respondents (151/205; 74%) visited the Bunny Café for the first time. Spending time with animals was the most common reason for their visit (155/205; 76%; Table 2; Appendix 3). Very few respondents (3/205; 2%) were looking to adopt a rabbit. After their visit, only four respondents (4/205; 2%) planned to submit an adoption application, while two respondents (2/205; 1%) were unsure, and the remaining respondents (199/205; 97%) did not plan to submit an application or provided no response.
Respondents were asked three short answer questions about their experiences and interactions, which were qualitatively coded and displayed in Table 3 (Full codebook available in Appendix 4). Firstly, respondents were asked to reflect on their meaningful experiences while visiting the café. Physical interactions, especially petting and feeding, were the most common answer (160/202; 79%), such as “being able to pet them, feed them and share their space with them” [Participant 164].
Respondents were also asked if there was anything that they hoped to do but could not do during their visit. A third of the respondents (66/204; 32%) discussed something they were disappointed by, with the most common complaint being a lack of intensive interaction (42/204; 21%) (Full codebook available in Appendix 5). Examples of responses include “pick up and cuddle them” and “have them on our laps” [Participants 74 and 75].
Respondents were asked if they learned anything new about rabbits during their visit, and half the respondents (101/204; 50%) expressed a new fact or observation (Full codebook available in Appendix 6). The most common response was about rabbit care, such as “I learned how to properly pet and act around them” [Participant 33]. Six respondents (6/204; 3%) who stated they learned nothing new explained it was because they were already familiar with rabbits as owners.
Respondents were also asked Likert scale questions about their interests in owning a rabbit in the future and returning to the café, shown in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Likert 7-point scale data of likelihood to visit the café again (n = 204) and likelihood to have a rabbit as a pet (n = 202).
Rabbit preference
Across the study, 14 rabbits resided in the Bunny Café: eight males and six females, ranging from 2 to 4 years old, with a median of 3 years. Figure 2 depicts the rabbits present during the study.
Fig. 2. Physical characteristics and housing groupings of rabbits in the café.
Respondents were asked to list their preferred or most memorable rabbit after the visit and select which traits made them preferable (Full codebook available in Appendix 7). The results showed that personality (138/199; 69%) and behavior (106/199; 53%) were the most common answers (Table 4).
Based on the responses from the staff and volunteer survey, each rabbit was assigned an average sociability score between zero and two, with zero representing shy rabbits, one representing mostly social rabbits, and two representing highly social rabbits. Figure 3 shows the relationship between staff/volunteer reported sociability, breed, color, and visitor preference for each rabbit. Generally, more social rabbits seemed to be more preferred.
Fig. 3. Relationship between staff/volunteer-reported sociability, breed (indicated by marker shape), and color (indicated by marker color) with the number of people who listed the rabbit as their preferred/most memorable (n = 199).
Discussion
Visitor experience
Our results indicated that the main purpose of visits to the rabbit café was to spend time with animals, rather than to adopt a rabbit. The lack of intention to adopt was much higher in this study compared to studies of animal shelter visitors in which 18 to 47% of visitors were simply browsing and not looking to adopt.8,9 This suggests that the primary purpose of the rabbit café from the perspective of visitors was human–animal interaction. Further efforts to promote rabbit adoption may be needed for rabbits in animal shelters and cafés.
The visitors reported that physical interactions with the rabbits were more meaningful than observations. This finding supports previous literature in which shelter dogs that engaged in play and lay near the adopter were more likely to be adopted, indicating the importance of human–pet interactions in promoting adoptions.8 For undersocialized or anxious cats in animal shelters, studies have shown that gentling (gentle stroking and vocalizations) as opposed to normal handling can increase positive affect, reduce anxiety, and encourage cats to spend less time at the back of the cage, which may contribute to higher adoption rates.10,11 Thus, in both shelters and pet cafés, direct interactions with rabbits could be encouraged to promote adoption and meaningful experiences. However, future research is needed to better understand whether increased human interaction would negatively impact rabbit welfare, as past research found that rabbits which were placed in children’s laps without space to retreat experienced negative emotional responses, such as pressed back ears, closed eyes, and freezing.12 Future research could investigate the impact of direct interactions on rabbit welfare at the rabbit café, and the potential trade-offs between methods of handling and promotion of adoption of rabbits.
Our study also showed that rabbit cafés can be used as an educational tool, as half of the visitors learned something new about rabbits, despite only a fifth of visitors listing learning as a purpose of their visit. This finding supports previous literature on animal shelter visitors, which discussed the importance of educating visitors about animal welfare and pet care even when they were not interested in adoption at the time.9
Rabbit preference
Our study suggested that rabbits rated as more social by staff and volunteers were preferred by visitors. This finding is supported by research on shelter cats in which more social cats had shorter LOS.7 However, every rabbit, even the ones rated most shy, had at least one visitor who preferred them, indicating that none were undesirable. The five rabbits with black fur were among the least preferred, perhaps because of their color or the lack of uniqueness. Both reasons are supported by previous research, as some studies have found longer LOS and lower adoption rates in black coated dogs13 and cats.14,15 Additionally, past research shows that people prefer unique breeds of dogs.16 Since five out of the 14 rabbits were similarly colored, they might have been perceived as less distinct. Future research could examine the impact of different color/breed combinations of rabbits on visitor preference.
Rabbits named Bo, Joni Mitchell, and Dolly Parton deviated from the sociability trend, as they were highly/moderately social yet received low counts of visitors who preferred them. All other rabbits were enclosed in pens in pairs of two, and visitors could enter the pens and directly engage with the rabbits. However, these three rabbits were allowed full access to the area and were not confined to a pen. Due to their increased mobility, visitors were likely less able to directly interact with them, potentially explaining why they were less preferred. Additionally, Bo was the only fully white colored rabbit, while Joni Mitchell and Dolly Parton looked very similar to each other, which could explain why Bo was the most preferred of the trio, as he was more unique.
Two of the most preferred rabbits, Charlie and Lola, were brachycephalic, a unique breed, and long-furred. Visitor interest for these rabbits is supported by other findings in which people preferred brachycephalic rabbits1,6 and unique breeds,16 yet this contradicts findings that people preferred short-furred rabbits.6 Charlie and Lola were the only two long-furred rabbits in the café, and some visitors specifically mentioned their fluffiness and fur as a reason for their preference.
When asked directly about why visitors preferred specific rabbits, respondents most often discussed personality and behavior. Future research could examine if methods of training rabbits to be more interactive could lead to higher adoption rates through increased visitor interest.
Limitations
One constraint of the study was the small number of rabbits present at the café during data collection (n = 14), which limited the sample size to analyze differences among rabbits. Furthermore, no rabbits were adopted during the study time frame of six weeks, thus there was no analysis of visitor preference leading to adoption. As well, social desirability bias potentially affected some respondents’ answers, since the survey was mainly administered in person with a researcher. Lastly, there was no opportunity to conduct both a pre- and post-survey for visitors. Due to café constraints, only post-visit surveys were conducted. Therefore, there is potential for hindsight bias when answering about the purpose of the visit. This study also did not collect data on rabbit behaviors or their welfare in a café setting, such as any behaviors that indicate a negative affective state due to interactions. The study also asked café staff and volunteers for their subjective assessments of rabbit sociability, and future research could conduct objective tests to measure rabbit sociability, which was not possible in this study.
Conclusion
This study provided novel findings into motivations and experiences of rabbit café visitors. We found that rabbits that were rated as more social by staff and volunteers were preferred by visitors; however, the primary purpose of the vast majority of visits was to spend time and interact with rabbits rather than adopt. The findings on visitor preferences and experiences may provide useful information for pet cafés and animal shelters to cater to the needs of visitors. Future research can investigate whether encouraging rabbit–visitor interaction can increase adoption rates. We conclude that pet cafés are an effective medium to learn and interact with rabbits, although more efforts may be needed to promote adoption.
Authors’ contributions
SG: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. LL: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AP: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Michelle Furbacher with the Bunny Café for the facilitation of the survey collection at the café and Sorelle Saidman with Rabbitats Rescue Society.
References
| 1. | U ASY, Hou CY, Protopopova A. Rabbit Intakes and Predictors of Their Length of Stay in Animal Shelters in British Columbia, Canada. PLoS One. 2024;19(4):e0300633. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300633 |
| 2. | Ropski MK, Pike AL, Ramezani N. Analysis of Illness and Length of Stay for Cats in a Foster-Based Rescue Organization Compared with Cats Housed in a Cat Café. J Vet Behav. 2023;62:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2023.02.002 |
| 3. | Hirsch EN, Navarro Rivero B, Andersson M. Cats in a Cat Café: Individual Cat Behavior and Interactions with Humans. Animals (Basel). 2025;15(22): 3233. doi: 10.3390/ani15223233 |
| 4. | Nghiêm-Phú B, Phạm-Lê DH. The Psychological Benefits and Costs, and the Servicescape Components of Animal Cafés: A Study in Japan. Serv Market Q. 2021;44(1):16–29. doi: 10.1080/15332969.2021.1995583 |
| 5. | Robinson AS. Finding Healing Through Animal Companionship in Japanese Animal Cafés. Med Hum. 2019;45(2):190–198. doi: 10.1136/medhum-2018-011635 |
| 6. | Harvey ND, Oxley JA, Miguel-Pacheco G, Gosling EM, Farnworth M. What Makes a Rabbit Cute? Preference for Rabbit Faces Differs according to Skull Morphology and Demographic Factors. Animals. 2019;9(10):728. doi: 10.3390/ani9100728 |
| 7. | Brown WP, Stephan VL. The Influence of Degree of Socialization and Age on Length of Stay of Shelter Cats. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2020;24(3):238–245. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2020.1733574 |
| 8. | Protopopova A, Wynne CDL. Adopter-Dog Interactions at the Shelter: Behavioral and Contextual Predictors of Adoption. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2014;157:109–116. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.04.007 |
| 9. | Southland A, Dowling-Guyer S, McCobb E. Effect of Visitor Perspective on Adoption Decisions at One Animal Shelter. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2019;22(1):1–12. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2018.1448275 |
| 10. | Gourkow N, Hamon SC, Phillips CJC. Effect of gentle stroking and vocalization on behaviour, mucosal immunity and upper respiratory disease in anxious shelter cats. Prev Vet Med. 2014;117(1):266–275. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.06.005 |
| 11. | Liu S, Paterson M, Camarri S, Murray L, Phillips CJC. The effects of the frequency and method of gentling on the behavior of cats in shelters. J Vet Behav. 2020;39:47–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2020.07.007 |
| 12. | Součková M, Přibylová L, Jurčová L, Chaloupková H. Behavioural reactions of rabbits during AAI sessions. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2023;262:105908. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2023.105908 |
| 13. | Kay A, Coe JB, Young I, Pearl D. Factors Influencing Time to Adoption for Dogs in a Provincial Shelter System in Canada. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2018;21(4):375–388. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2018.1436917 |
| 14. | Brown WP, Morgan KT. Age, Breed Designation, Coat Color, and Coat Pattern Influenced the Length of Stay of Cats at a No-Kill Shelter. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2014;18(2):169–180. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2014.971156 |
| 15. | Carini RM, Sinski J, Weber JD. Coat Color and Cat Outcomes in an Urban U.S. Shelter. Animals. 2020;10(10): 1720. doi: 10.3390/ani10101720 |
| 16. | Brown WP, Davidson JP, Zuefle ME. Effects of Phenotypic Characteristics on the Length of Stay of Dogs at Two No Kill Animal Shelters. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2013;16(1):2–18. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2013.740967 |
Appendices
Appendix 1. Café visitor survey
| Your gender: |
| Woman |
| Man |
| Nonbinary |
| A different gender that is not listed |
| Prefer not to answer |
| Your age (specify): |
| or Prefer not to answer |
| Number and type of pets in your household: |
| Have you ever owned or currently own a rabbit: |
| Yes |
| No |
| Purpose of your visit today (circle all that apply): |
| Looking to adopt |
| Spend time with animals |
| Social activity |
| Tourist attraction |
| Learn about rabbits |
| Other (specify): |
| Have you visited the Bunny Cafe before: |
| Yes |
| No |
| How did you find out about the Bunny Cafe (circle all that apply): |
| Search engine (e.g., Google) |
| Recommended by other person |
| Social media |
| News report |
| Café |
| Other (specify): |
| How likely are you to visit the Bunny Cafe again: |
| Very unlikely |
| Unlikely |
| Somewhat unlikely |
| Neutral |
| Somewhat likely |
| Likely |
| Very likely |
| Do you plan to submit an adoption application: |
| No |
| Yes (list rabbit’s name): |
| Which rabbit did you prefer or was most memorable (list rabbit’s name): |
| Why did you prefer this rabbit (circle all that apply): |
| Age |
| Sex |
| Breed |
| Colour |
| Ear position |
| Size |
| Personality |
| Staff/volunteer description |
| Behaviour (specify what behaviours): |
| Other (specify): |
| In what ways did you interact with the rabbits that were meaningful to you: |
| Was there something you hoped to do with the rabbits that you did not get to do: |
| Did you learn something new about rabbits today? If so, what did you learn: |
| How likely are you to feed rabbits in the wild in the future: |
| Very unlikely |
| Unlikely |
| Somewhat unlikely |
| Neutral |
| Somewhat likely |
| Likely |
| Very likely |
| How likely are you to have a rabbit as a pet in the future: |
| Very unlikely |
| Unlikely |
| Somewhat unlikely |
| Neutral |
| Somewhat likely |
| Likely |
| Very likely |
Appendix 2. Café staff/volunteer survey
| Behavioural category | Definitions | |
| Highly social | Rabbit readily approaches visitors and asks for food and allows petting. | |
| Mostly social | Rabbit will receive food from a visitor but not allow/like petting. Rabbit needs some time to come around to new people. | |
| Shy | Rabbit will typically avoid visitors, not typically accept food, and/or typically hides. | |
| Rabbit name | Sociability category (select one) | Other notable personality descriptors (open response) |
| Joni Mitchell | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Dolly Parton | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Bo | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Cecil | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Carlos | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Oscar | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Felix | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Tootsie | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Jojo | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Roger | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Charlie | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Lola | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Angie | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
| Lucy | Highly social Mostly social Shy | |
Appendix 3. Other purpose of visit fill-in response qualitative codebook
| Code | Definition |
| Birthday | Respondent discusses a birthday as the purpose of the visit |
| Family | Respondent discusses family members as the purpose of the visit |
| Volunteer | Respondent discusses volunteering or knowing a volunteer at the café as the purpose of the visit |
| Café Services | Respondent discusses rabbit grooming services of the café as the purpose of the visit |
| Pets | Respondent discusses considering rabbits as pets, enjoying rabbits, or missing their own rabbit as the purpose of the visit |
Appendix 4. Meaningful experience qualitative codebook
| Parent Code | Child Code | Definition |
| No Response | Respondent does not write an entry | |
| Interactions: | Respondent discusses a specific interaction with the rabbits as meaningful | |
| Petting | Respondent discusses petting or touching the rabbits as meaningful | |
| Cuddling | Respondent discusses cuddling or having the rabbits in their lap as meaningful | |
| Feeding | Respondent discusses feeding treats or lettuce to the rabbits as meaningful | |
| Talking | Respondent discusses talking to the rabbits as meaningful | |
| Playing | Respondent discusses playing with the rabbits as meaningful, ex. playing, encouraging them to climb, having them stand on hindlegs | |
| Rabbits approach | Respondent discusses the rabbits approaching/interacting with them as meaningful, ex. approached, climbed/jumped/came up to lap, socialized, came out from hiding, tapped, sniffed, bit, responded actively, booped, groomed visitor | |
| Observations: | Respondent discusses simply watching, observing, or spending time with the rabbits as meaningful | |
| Family | Respondent discusses observing their family members enjoying the experience as meaningful | |
| Pictures | Respondent discusses taking photos of the rabbits or their group as meaningful | |
| Rabbits interacting with each other | Respondent discusses observing the rabbits’ interactions with each other as meaningful, ex. sharing, playing, grooming, chasing each other | |
| Reflections: | Respondent discusses internal reflections about the rabbits as meaningful | |
| Benefit to rabbit | Respondent discusses acting in a way that benefits the rabbit as meaningful, ex. making them happy, trustful, relaxed, comfortable, calm, purring, giving them space | |
| Learning | Respondent discusses learning about the rabbits and their personalities as meaningful | |
| Reminder of pet | Respondent discusses the rabbits reminding them of their past or current pets | |
| Benefit to visitor | Respondent discusses the experience being beneficial to themselves, ex. therapeutic, calm, relaxing, bonding with rabbit |
Appendix 5. Disappointment qualitative codebook
| Parent Code | Child Code | Definition |
| No Response | Respondent does not write an entry | |
| No | Respondent states that nothing disappointed them | |
| Yes: | Respondent discusses something they were disappointed by | |
| Rabbit low energy | Respondent discusses the rabbits as too low energy and that they couldn’t interact much, ex. sleepy, napping, hiding, wanting them to run/play more | |
| Intensive interaction | Respondent discusses wishes to interact more physically with rabbits, ex. rabbits sit/climb in lap, pick them up, hug them, hold them | |
| Adoption | Respondent discusses wishes to adopt a rabbit | |
| Café issues | Respondent discusses issues with the café, ex. too busy, café style/setup, too little food for rabbits, lack of baby bunnies, and few food options for visitors |
Appendix 6. Learnings qualitative codebook
| Parent Code | Child Code | Definition |
| No Response | Respondent does not write an entry | |
| No: | Respondent states that they did not learn | |
| Already knowledgeable | Respondent discusses not learning anything new as they are previously educated, ex. previous/current rabbit owners | |
| Yes: | Respondent discusses something new that they learned or through what methods they learned, ex. staff, pamphlet | |
| Rabbit Personalities | Respondent discusses learning about the rabbits’ personalities, ex. shy, timid, social, anxious, chill, what toys they like | |
| Physical Attributes | Respondent discusses learning about rabbit physical characteristics and/or gives physical descriptors, ex. cute, soft, so big, fluffy, big/warm ears, long tail, eye colour | |
| Social interactions | Respondent discusses learning about how rabbits interact or socialize with each other or other species, ex. enjoy being in pairs, sexual partnerships, territorial, groom each other, social needs, don’t like cats | |
| Biological | Respondent discusses learning about biological functions ex. lifespan, sleep, birthing, life in the wild, breeds, grinding/biting | |
| Rabbit Husbandry | Respondent discusses learning about rabbit husbandry | |
| Husbandry Subcodes: | ||
| Nutrition/Feeding | Respondent discusses learning about rabbit nutrition and diet or how rabbits act when eating, ex. what they do and do not eat | |
| Petting | Respondent discusses learning about what body parts are/aren’t acceptable to pet or how rabbits act when pet, ex. sensitive areas | |
| General Care | Respondent discusses learning about rabbit care as pets, ex. grooming requirements, training, environment |
Appendix 7. Reason for preference fill-in response qualitative codebook
| Grandparent Code | Parent Code | Child Code | Definition |
| Behaviour: | Respondent circles the behaviour option. | ||
| Descriptor: | Respondent lists a descriptor (personality trait) of the rabbit | ||
| Social | Respondent lists one of the following descriptors about the rabbit’s high sociability level toward the visitor: friendly, not shy, loving, affectionate, sweet, cuddly, engaging, assertive, outgoing, social, interactive, happy, snuggly, kind, warmed up after a while, fun | ||
| Curious | Respondent lists one of the following descriptors about the rabbit’s curiosity or exploration: curious, inquisitive | ||
| High energy | Respondent lists one of the following descriptors about the rabbit’s high energy level: playful, active, energetic | ||
| Low energy | Respondent lists one of the following descriptors about the rabbit’s low energy level: calm, chill, sleepy, gentle, shy, relaxed | ||
| Humorous | Respondent lists one of the following descriptors about the rabbit as humorous: silly, funny, quirky, cheeky | ||
| Food motivated | Respondent lists one of the following descriptors about the rabbit’s food motivation: gluttonous, food-motivated, likes food | ||
| Specific behaviour: | Respondent lists a behaviour of the rabbit | ||
| Accepts pets | Respondent lists that the rabbit accepts pets from the visitor | ||
| Accepts food | Respondent lists that the rabbit accepts food from the visitor | ||
| Flops | Respondent lists that the rabbit flops or ‘sploots’ | ||
| Climbs | Respondent lists that the rabbit climbs | ||
| Hops | Respondent lists that the rabbit hops | ||
| Chitters | Respondent lists that the rabbit chitters | ||
| Grooms | Respondent lists that the rabbit grooms itself | ||
| Eats carpet | Respondent lists that the rabbit eats the carpet | ||
| Plays | Respondent lists that the rabbit plays with toys | ||
| Explores | Respondent lists that the rabbit explores | ||
| Approaches visitor | Respondent lists that the rabbit approaches/interacts with them, ex. follows, says hi, socializes, enjoys attention, hangs out, interacts | ||
| Interacts with other rabbits | Respondent lists that the rabbit interacts with another rabbit, ex. interacting or affectionate towards each other | ||
| Other: | Respondent circles the other option. | ||
| Physical attributes | Respondent discusses the physical attributes of the fluff/fur of the rabbit, or physical descriptors ex. handsome, cute, adorable | ||
| Solo rabbit | Respondent discusses the rabbit being alone/needing a partner | ||
| Name | Respondent discusses the rabbit’s name | ||
| Mild preference | Respondent discusses that their preference wasn’t strong towards the rabbit | ||
| Relationship to other rabbits | Respondent discusses the rabbit’s relationship with another rabbit ex. bonded with mom, polyamorous |
Footnotes
a. Inside The Bunny Café: Western Canada’s only bunny café | Food & Drink. Accessed September 29, 2025. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bunny-cafe-vancouver
b. Rabbitats Report: 2022. Rabbitats. Accessed September 29, 2025. https://rabbitats.org/blog/rabbitats-report-2022/
c. About. The Bunny Cafe. Accessed January 14, 2026. https://www.bunnycafe.ca/about