research essays on zoos

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

100 Zoo Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Zoos are fascinating places that offer a unique opportunity to observe and learn about a wide variety of animals from all over the world. If you're tasked with writing an essay about zoos, you might be struggling to come up with a topic that is both interesting and informative. To help you out, here are 100 zoo essay topic ideas and examples that you can use as inspiration for your next assignment:

• The ethical implications of keeping animals in zoos
• The role of zoos in conservation efforts
• The impact of zoos on animal behavior
• The history of zoos and how they have evolved over time
• The benefits of zoos for education and research
• The controversy surrounding captive breeding programs in zoos
• The importance of zoos in preserving endangered species
• The challenges of managing a zoo and caring for its animals
• The role of zoos in promoting awareness of wildlife conservation issues
• The impact of zoos on local communities and economies
• The role of zoos in promoting animal welfare and ethics
• The debate over whether zoos should exist in the modern world
• The cultural significance of zoos in different societies
• The impact of climate change on zoos and their animal populations
• The role of zoos in public education and outreach programs
• The challenges of balancing conservation efforts with visitor experiences in zoos
• The impact of captivity on animal behavior and well-being in zoos
• The role of zoos in promoting environmental awareness and sustainability
• The ethics of using animals in zoo entertainment shows and performances
• The impact of zoos on biodiversity and ecosystem health
• The role of zoos in promoting animal rights and welfare legislation
• The impact of zoo closures and budget cuts on animal populations
• The challenges of reintroducing captive-bred animals into the wild
• The role of zoos in supporting local wildlife conservation efforts
• The benefits of zoos for public health and well-being
• The impact of zoos on visitor attitudes towards wildlife conservation
• The role of zoos in promoting sustainable tourism practices
• The challenges of managing invasive species in zoos
• The impact of zoo design and architecture on animal welfare
• The role of zoos in promoting cultural exchange and understanding
• The benefits of zoos for scientific research and discovery
• The impact of zoo accreditation programs on animal welfare standards
• The challenges of breeding endangered species in captivity
• The role of zoos in promoting animal enrichment and mental stimulation
• The ethics of using animals in zoo breeding programs
• The impact of zoos on local ecosystems and biodiversity
• The role of zoos in promoting public awareness of wildlife trafficking
• The benefits of zoos for educating children about conservation
• The challenges of managing a zoo during a pandemic
• The impact of zoo closures on animal welfare and conservation efforts
• The role of zoos in promoting sustainable food and waste management practices
• The ethics of using animals in zoo education programs
• The impact of zoos on wildlife populations in surrounding areas
• The challenges of managing zoo populations and genetics
• The role of zoos in promoting animal welfare legislation
• The benefits of zoos for promoting public engagement with wildlife
• The impact of zoos on local economies and tourism
• The role of zoos in promoting wildlife rehabilitation and release programs
• The challenges of managing zoo populations in the face of climate change
• The ethics of using animals in zoo research and experimentation
• The impact of zoos on animal behavior and social dynamics
• The role of zoos in promoting public awareness of wildlife conservation issues
• The benefits of zoos for promoting sustainable tourism practices

With these 100 zoo essay topic ideas and examples, you should have plenty of inspiration to get started on your next assignment. Whether you're interested in the ethical implications of keeping animals in zoos, the role of zoos in conservation efforts, or the impact of zoos on biodiversity and ecosystem health, there's sure to be a topic that piques your interest. Happy writing!

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 29 October 2019

What’s new from the zoo? An analysis of ten years of zoo-themed research output

• Paul E. Rose   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5375-8267 1 , 2 ,
• James E. Brereton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9104-3975 3 ,
• Lewis J. Rowden 4 ,
• Ricardo Lemos de Figueiredo 5 &
• Lisa M. Riley 6  

Palgrave Communications volume  5 , Article number:  128 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

27k Accesses

46 Citations

67 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental studies
• Science, technology and society

The modern zoo’s roles command empirical enquiry to determine the effectiveness of zoos locally and globally. Ten years ago, published work identified the need for empirical research on a diverse range of species beyond charismatic zoo megafauna. We review zoo-based research published in the decade since this original recommendation. We collectively evaluate zoo-themed research papers from those working in zoos and those external to zoos but studying zoo-housed animals. By systematically searching Web of Science © for zoo-based research and performing inductive content analysis to code year, journal, study animal’s taxonomic classification, and research aims and outputs we evaluate trends in zoo-themed research, contrasted with trends in species holding. Significantly more birds and fish are kept compared to mammals, reptiles and amphibians, but mammals are consistently the primary research focus. Whilst output generally rises, only for birds is a steady increase in publications apparent. Husbandry evaluation is a major aim/output, but papers on pure biology, cognition and health also feature. Most publications lead to “specific advancement of knowledge” including validation of methodologies. We show that: (1) trends in species holdings are unrelated to trends in publication; (2) zoo-themed research makes meaningful contributions to science; (3) zoo researchers should diversify their aim/output categories and chosen study species to close the persisting research gaps that we have identified. Finally, we discuss our findings in the context of evident species biases within research outputs across the broader fields of zoology, conservation and ecology.

Similar content being viewed by others

Biodiversity conservation as a promising frontier for behavioural science

A system wide approach to managing zoo collections for visitor attendance and in situ conservation

Decision-making of citizen scientists when recording species observations

Introduction.

Zoos and aquariums have the potential to be excellent locations to develop, implement and complete scientific research. Zoo populations enable hypothesis-driven questions to be answered on species/topics that would be challenging in the wild. This is evidenced by, for example, ground-breaking insights into the reproductive biology of the critically endangered Sumatran rhinoceros, Dicerorhinus sumatrensis (Roth et al., 2004 ) or results on the energetic costs of locomotion in bears, Ursidae (Pagano et al., 2018 ). Zoological databases that hold information on species’ biology can enhance the scientific literature on natural history and ecology (Conde et al., 2019 ); information that also informs animal management practices and species conservation strategies both in-situ and ex-situ. As centres for both pure and applied science, the output from zoological collections not only covers a range of disciplines (Loh et al. 2018 ) but is of increasing value to multiple stakeholders working in all parts of the world with all taxonomic groups.

The four aims of the modern zoo—conservation, education, research and recreation (Mason, 2007 , Fernandez et al., 2009 ) provide a framework for scientific investigation. The importance of research to the modern zoo is reflected in the number of pieces of national zoo legislation that require research activities to be conducted (Hosey et al., 2009 ). Conversely, entertainment is perceived as the least important role of the zoo (Reade and Waran, 1996 ), yet visitation must be maintained as zoos can be reliant on entrance fees for income. This income provides a means for zoos to fulfil their roles in conservation and education, hence zoos must remain attractive destinations to visit (Bueddefeld and Van Winkle, 2018 ). Research into the educational role of the zoo has scrutinised the effectiveness of zoos as learning environments (Marino et al., 2010 , Dawson and Jensen, 2011 , Moss and Esson, 2013 ). Despite an increase in zoo visitor studies over the past decade (Jensen, 2010 , Moss and Esson, 2010 ), there is little evidence that zoos promote understanding or pro-conservation behaviour. The importance of robust experimental design and application of “good science” is also evident in literature (Wagoner and Jensen, 2010 , Moss et al., 2017 ) promoting the need for an evidence-based approach.

Such an evidence-based approach extends to animal husbandry, central to which is researching animal behaviour. A majority of zoo scientific studies has previously been shown to be of a behavioural nature (Hosey, 1997 ). The relevance of behavioural science to conservation outcomes was postulated by Sutherland ( 1998 ) who states the importance of conserving behaviour as part of conservation objectives. A potential fifth aim of the zoo, to promote excellence in animal welfare (Fernandez et al., 2009 ) further supports the need to increase the amount of scientific study and application of such study, into zoo animal management. An increasingly ethically-aware public, who focus on the importance of good welfare and are not just concerned with animal cruelty (Whitham and Wielebnowski, 2013 ) emphasises the need for zoos to manage their populations to ensure a high quality of life can be attained and maintained for all individuals.

As scientific research that collects data to answer an hypothesis-driven question is key to ensuring husbandry regimes are most appropriate, zoos have invested in collaboration with academics (Fernandez and Timberlake, 2008 ), in the development of research methodologies (Plowman, 2003 , Plowman, 2008 ) and in the creation of research-focussed committees and working groups (BIAZA, 2018b ) to increase and develop their scientific output and its uptake by zoological collections. By expanding on how empirical research is applied within zoological collections (e.g., to husbandry routines, visitor engagement and interpretation objectives, or population management goals) the reach, impact and outcome of each of the zoo’s aims is strengthened.

With a new focus on collection planning for population sustainability (Traylor-Holzer et al., 2019 ), a paucity of scientific research for many familiar (i.e., commonly-kept, often-seen-in-the-zoo) species has been apparent (Melfi, 2009 ). This paper (Melfi, 2009 ) shows that researchers study a limited number of individuals of high-profile, charismatic species—a trend previously noted in the wider field of “wildlife research” (Bautista and Pantoja, 2005 ). Species less appealing to the public but housed in greater numbers across more zoological collections have been ignored. Likewise, when considering species responses to captivity, mammals are often focal subjects (Clubb and Mason, 2003 ) and ecological data are used to inform our understanding of their responses to captivity (Mason, 2010 , Kroshko et al., 2016 ). However, for other non-mammalian taxa we consider how they cope with the human-created environment of the zoo less often (Carere et al., 2011 ). Species with a long history of captivity, well-known and recognisable to the visiting public can still challenge us regarding their optimal captive care (Hatt et al., 2005 , Rose, 2018 ) and empirical, structured research programmes can help redress the balance between what a species needs to thrive and what is provided for survival in the zoo. Therefore, to move forward with species-specific Best Practice (husbandry) Guidelines (EAZA, 2019 ) less considered taxa, common but “ignored” species or animals perceived as less charismatic, e.g., reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates, (BIAZA, 2018a ) need to be the focus of future research attention. Melfi ( 2009 ) highlights this lack of research into non-mammals as the cause of anecdote or “rules of thumb” methods of providing captive care.

As such, the aim of our paper was to look retrospectively from 2009 to 2018 to see how much more scientific research has been conducted into the areas identified by Melfi ( 2009 ) as lacking a research focus. Specifically, we collected research papers from five different taxonomic groups, to evaluate the range of taxa now included in scientific publications and we investigated if/how uptake and output of evidence, useful for management, has diversified. We used Melfi ( 2009 )’s Table 1 (page 581) and Fig. 2 (page 582) as a guide to what constitutes “forgotten taxa”—focussing on those animals with large populations but limited scientific investigation. We have added invertebrates, amphibians and fish to our analysis that were excluded or not fully included in the original Melfi paper for reasons outlined below. Melfi ( 2009 )’s Fig. 2 shows the relationship between the number of individuals of specific animal species held by British and Irish association (BIAZA) zoos, as well as the number of zoos that hold each represented species, compared to the number of projects conducted on these species, based on records from the BIAZA research database. A bias towards the study of a small number of charismatic mammalian species, for example chimpanzees (Pan troglyodytes) , bonobos (P. paniscus) , orangutans (Pongo sp.) , elephants (Elephas maximus, Loxodonta africana) , is clear from this figure. Melfi notes that more projects between 1998 and 2008 were conducted on the two species of Pan compared to all projects on birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates in this sample of BIAZA institutions—90 against 84 studies. We aim to see if such a bias exists in a sample of wider zoo output in the ten years from this dataset being published.

Papers were collected using the bibliographic database Web of Science©. Key term searches were carried out by including zoo* combined with either behaviour*/behavior* or welfare or nutrition and research for each type of taxa (mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish), for example “zoo* bird behaviour*. Each author was assigned a specific taxon and asked to scrutinise search results in the same manner, inputting data into a standardised spreadsheet. In January 2019, the lead author searched for remaining papers in 2018 across all taxa and terms to complete the dataset. Papers were categorised by year, species (and later class, genus and order), aim and main output. Aim was defined as the reason why the research was conducted (e.g., to determine the effect of a change of husbandry routine, or the influence of enrichment on behaviour, or to benchmark positive indicators of welfare). Output was defined as the key finding of the study and how this helps to underpin evidence-based zoo management.

Papers that covered more than one species of the same taxa (e.g., free-flight aviaries) were categorised as “multiple mixed”. Papers that covered a range of species from different taxa (e.g., visitor studies research or research into common patterns of stereotypic behaviours) were categorised as “multiple taxa review”. Papers that detailed methodological advances or novel approaches to data collection were categorised as “theory”. Papers that focussed on people including where data could add information on best practice animal care (e.g., influences on collection planning based on visitor perception) were categorised as “visitor”. Only peer-reviewed scientific papers in the Web of Science© search were included. Conference papers were not counted. In total, 1063 papers were categorised from 236 publications.

The impact factor of each publication was recorded from the individual journal website or from www.bioxbio.com if the impact factor was not clear on the journal’s homepage.

Rationalising aims and outputs from each article

Using content analysis, two authors (PER and LMR) coded the description of a paper’s aim and outcome into an aim class and an outcome class and outcome gain (see Table 1 for explanation). Papers were checked at the original source if both reviewing authors (during coding) were unsure of the aims and outcomes of the paper from its abstract. Aims were prioritised based on the paper’s own statement of their original aim and not on subsidiary findings. The aim “Husbandry and training” also includes papers that investigated visitor effects because visitors are provided in the zoo whether the animal wants them or not and therefore they directly impact on daily husbandry and management decisions. For each paper, one author stated their interpretation of aim and outcome code and this was judged using a protocol (Table 1 ) by the second author who also ensured the first aim/outcome was prioritised. Triangulation was not necessary as the two authors agreed on 100% of codes. Codes were created using an inductive approach. If a new aim/outcome was coded or new example were added, all previously papers in that aim class, outcome class or output gain were re-coded to reduce bias.

Specialised journals and global species holding

To compare any trend in publication output seen in the main Web of Science © dataset with two specialist zoo journals that are i) an annual publication without an impact factor and ii) have only incomplete listing on this database, an analysis of the output from the International Zoo Yearbook, IZYB, (published annually since 1960 by the Zoological Society of London) and the new open-access Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, JZAR, (published by the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, EAZA) was conducted in the same manner (assessing the number of publications per taxa between 2009 and 2018). From these two journals, 354 papers were collected.

To provide context to research output gathered from searching for numbers of papers on specific taxa, data on species holdings of all zoos globally, published in the International Zoo Yearbook, were analysed alongside of the research-focussed data. These (unpublished) species holdings data were collected as part of an on-going additional research project (by author JEB) with the annual number of each species of mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian and fish kept at each zoo being recorded.

Invertebrates

Papers on zoo-applicable invertebrate research were sampled alongside of the main dataset. As we were keen to follow Melfi ( 2009 )’s categories of research subjects as closely as possible and because of the high number of papers to review between authors, details collected on invertebrate papers were restricted to: the name of the journal and year, the type of aim of the paper and the study subject. Again, only papers found in Web of Science © were recorded and the same categories for searching across the complete database were used: e.g., “zoo* invertebrate OR cephalopod OR arachnid welfare”. Abstracts of papers were read to ensure there was an application to zoo populations- i.e., the paper was not solely focussed on laboratory experimentation. A total of 17 papers were identified from 2011 to 2018 across 12 different publications.

Total sample size

Overall, 1434 zoo-focussed research papers were collected for analysis and evaluation (from the main dataset, from the IZYB and JZAR dataset, and for the separate search for invertebrate-specific research).

Data analysis

Data were analysed in R studio v. 1.0.136 (R Core Team, 2016 ). Where required, data were checked for collinearity using the “car package” (Fox and Weisberg, 2011 ), with values <2 taken as acceptable. Plots of residuals in R for each model were used to assess the distribution of data before further testing.

To compare differences between total counts of mammalian, avian and fish species held, a two-sample t -test was run. To determine any change in the number of species in each class housed by global zoos over the course of the study, a one-way ANOVA was run for species counts against year.

To compare the number of papers published against the taxonomic class of species held plus year of publication, a general liner model was run in R and post-hoc testing to ascertain differences between predictors was run using the “pbkrtest” and “lsmeans” packages for R studio (Halekoh and Højsgaard, 2014 , Lenth, 2016 ).

Fitted models were also run in R, with associated linear regression plots, for each outcome, gain and taxonomic class per year to identify any significant trend in the number of papers published on that theme.

For those papers with a focus on one taxonomic class only ( n  = 863), a multinomial logistic regression was run in R studio using “multinom” function from the package “nnet” (Venables and Ripley, 2002 ). The “AER” (Kleiber and Zeileis, 2008 ) and “afex” (Singmann et al., 2019 ) packages were used to generate P values of the model fit from ANOVA and Wald’s tests. Post-hoc testing was run using the “lsmeans” package (Lenth, 2016 ) using (model, pairwise ~ factor | object, adjust = “tukey”, mode = “prob”) to generate P values for each pair of factors for each outcome across taxonomic class.

A linear regression was run in R with follow-up ANOVA analysis of the fitted model to determine the significance of predictors (taxonomic class, aim, outcome, gain and year of publication) on journal impact factor.

To remove any chances of Type 1 error, the Benjamini and Hochberg ( 1995 ) method of correcting the level of significance was employed when comparing multiple P values.

Global species holdings and the taxonomic focus of research papers

Figure 1 shows that birds and fish are the most speciose taxa housed in zoos globally, and amphibians comprise the fewest number of species housed. Significantly fewer species of mammal are housed compared to birds ( t  = −21.07; df = 11896; P  < 0.001) and fish ( t  = −8.86; df = 9291; P  < 0.001). For each taxonomic class, there was no significant change in the number of species held by zoos globally between 2009 and 2018 (mammals P  = 0.985; birds P  = 0.809; reptiles P  = 0.488; amphibians P  = 0.559; fish = 0.999).

The mean number of species within each taxonomic class (white dot, no line) housed globally in zoological establishments that provided data to the International Zoo Yearbook from 2009 to 2018 compared to the number of publications (red dot, red line), per year, for that taxonomic class. Overall birds are the most speciose taxonomic class housed by zoos globally and show the biggest increase in research output

There is a significant relationship between the number of papers published on each taxonomic class, the year of publication and the mean number of species in that class held ( F 14,35  = 58.59; r 2  = 0.94; P  < 0.001). Across years the increase in the number of papers published for all taxonomic classes combined was not statistically significant (regression slope = 7.41; P  = 0.338), suggesting that the overall number of papers on all topics identified from this literature search remains similar.

Significant differences are noted for the output for mammals against reptiles (higher number of mammalian papers), for fish against mammals (lower number of fish papers) and for amphibians against mammals (lower number of amphibian papers), Table S1 (supplementary information). When evaluating the interaction between species held and taxonomic class (species_holding*taxonomic_class) there is no significant relationship, showing that the average number of each species (in each taxonomic class) held in zoos is not influencing the number of publications on these taxa (intercept = 1.16, P  = 0.976) even though the relationship between the overall number of papers published and taxonomic class of animal is still significant (F 9,40  = 74.65; r 2  = 93%; P  < 0.001). As there is no significant change in the number of species held over this time period, an increase in the holdings of one class is not causing an increase in research output in that specific class.

Trends in the specific categories and aims of zoo-based papers

Analysis reveals that most of the papers have a husbandry and/or welfare focus (see Table S2, supplementary information), be that in the aim ( n  = 301) of the paper or the overall outcome ( n  = 435). The high number of papers coded as a pure biology outcome ( n  = 271) shows that zoos can be centres for the advancement of “blue sky” science, as well as for applied science. This idea is supported by the proportion of papers (75%) that add to our knowledge of the species or topics being investigated. With only 1.7% of papers having no specific gain (i.e., a need for more research to answer the paper’s aim) zoo-based papers are clearly able to impact on knowledge and practice in this area of science.

Is there a relationship between the question being asked and what type of animal is being studied?

The Analysis of Deviance (type II) tests from the model showed that a paper’s aim (likelihood ratio χ 2  = 81.65; df = 36; P  < 0.001), outcome (likelihood ratio χ 2  = 54.23; df = 20; P  < 0.001) and gain (likelihood ratio χ 2  = 30.13; df = 16; P  = 0.017) are all significant predictors of the taxonomic class of the paper. Year was not a significant predictor but may be trending in that direction (likelihood ratio χ 2  = 49.97; df = 36; P  = 0.06). Post-hoc comparison of outcomes for each taxonomic class identified multiple significant predictors (for example Table S3, supplementary information).

Surveying across single-taxonomic class papers only (for the aim, outcome and gain of each paper) shows differences in the proportion of papers on each specific theme by taxa. For fish, 43% of papers had a husbandry aim, 57% of fish papers had a pure biology outcome and 71% of fish papers were identified as having a gain of a specific advancement in knowledge.

Across those papers on reptiles, 45% had a veterinary medicine and animal health aim, 42% had an animal and ecosystem health outcome, and 52% of papers had a gain of a specific advancement in knowledge. For amphibians, 16% of papers had a behavioural aim and 16% had a veterinary medicine and animal health aim, 29% of amphibian papers had a husbandry outcome and 48% paper were identified as providing a gain by specifically advancing knowledge.

An aim of behaviour was identified for 31% of all papers focussing on birds, 39% of bird papers had a husbandry and welfare outcome and 69% of bird papers provided a gain of a specific advancement in knowledge. For papers on mammals, 32% had a husbandry and training aim, 43% had a pure biology outcome, and 70% provided a gain in the specific advancement of knowledge.

For those wishing to advance an evidence-basis for zoo animal husbandry, 23% of all papers provided a gain of how to advance practice (either species-specific or general) with 78% of these being on mammals. Most papers focussed on adding to our knowledge of the study subject(s). Table S4 (supplementary information) further evidences the popularity of specific taxonomic orders as subjects for zoo-themed research by illustrating the types of question asked and output gained on the different taxonomic classes identified in our dataset. Details are provided for the top five orders from mammals, birds and amphibians, for all three orders of reptiles and for all six orders of fish from the ten-year dataset. Bias in the questions being asked at a taxonomic level is evident for each order and may relate to the accessibility of this animal in a zoo or the expertise of the researcher conducting the science.

Predicting future trends

Assessing the main dataset ( n  = 1063) for increases or decreases in the number of publications per theme or on a particular taxonomic group type of animal identifies key areas where zoo research is growing in output. A significant relationship is found for the number of papers published on captive birds over the ten-year period, +3.5 papers/year ( F 1,8  = 26.99; r 2  = 74.3; P  = 0.001), supporting the trend illustrated by Fig. 1 . Papers with an overall methodology aim also increase, +1.01 papers/year, indicating that zoological research is continuing to publish new ways of assessing the animals within collections ( F 1,8  = 30.23; r 2  = 76.5; P  = 0.001). Papers with an aim of veterinary medicine and animal health also increase (+1.01 articles per year) significantly ( F 1,8  = 8.97; r 2  = 47.0%; P  = 0.017). Figure S1 (supplementary information) illustrates these trends over time.

There are also increases on year for outcome with 1.12 extra papers per year published on animal and ecosystem health ( F 1,8  = 9.69; r 2  = 49.1%; P  = 0.014). Output of papers with a visitor studies aim was not significant ( P  = 0.08, +0.2 papers/year). Husbandry and welfare outcome papers may tend towards a significant increase of +1.7 papers/year ( P  = 0.062). This general trend is supported by Fig. S1, which shows a rise in this outcome category over time (although this is not consistent from one year to the next). Finally, there is a significant increase (+5.8 papers/year) in the number of papers published that specifically advance our knowledge of zoo animals ( F 1,8  = 38.18; r 2  = 80.5%; P  < 0.001).

Conservation and population sustainability papers and those focussing on human behaviour change outcomes appear low overall, when compared to those on pure biology and on husbandry (Fig. S1). Such information highlights areas for research to expand into in the future to ensure output continues to be novel and relevant.

Patterns of publication from an annual and a new scientific journal

To compare with output taken from the impact factor-listed publications in the main dataset, Fig. S2, supplementary information, shows the publication trend for the IZYB and for JZAR. Trends in the IZYB data are harder to predict, even though overall the number of mammal-focussed papers is higher than for other classes (47% overall). However, a notable pattern of mammal-focussed publication is evident in each year of JZAR; since its first publication in 2013, 59% of papers are on mammals. All single-class taxonomic categories aside from mammals can be absent from each of these two publications (Fig. S2). Therefore, consideration for the theme of each volume or the breadth of papers included within may be needed to ensure that a wide-range of species are focussed on per edition.

Assessing impact

Differences are apparent in the spread of journal impact factors for where papers on each class of animal and each type of research topic are published (Fig. 2 ). The top five highest impact factor journals include research on multiple taxonomic classes and papers that provide a general advancement in knowledge (with one species-specific focus (elephants) that provides a specific advancement in knowledge). Of the 1063 papers from 2009–2018, two are published in journals with an impact factor of above 10, with the majority (75%) published in journals with an impact factor of below 2.

Boxplots to show the median impact factor of papers for each type of animal or research aim. Top: taxonomic class (A amphibians, All All classes included, B birds, F fish, M mammals, M+ Mammals plus another taxa, R Reptiles, RA+ Reptiles and amphibians plus another taxa). Middle: Aim category (BEH Behaviour, BPR Breeding programmes, HUS husbandry and training, MTH methods, NUT nutrition, PHY physiology, VET veterinary medicine and animal health, VIS visitor studies, WEL welfare). Bottom: Outcome category (AEH animal and ecosystem health, BCH behaviour change human, CSN conservation and sustainability, HUS husbandry and welfare, PUB pure biology, SCI scientific validity). Papers covering all taxa show the largest range in impact and the highest impact overall

Papers with Husbandry and welfare, Human behaviour change, and Conservation and sustainability outcomes are published in the highest impact journals. Papers with a Welfare, Visitor studies, Methods, and Husbandry aim are also found in these higher-impact publications. It is exciting to see that a wide range of topics can be published and disseminated widely across the breadth of the scientific literature- zoo-focussed research is not restricted to “zoo only” journals.

There is a significant relationship between several predictors and publication in a higher impact factors journal ( F 34, 1028  = 2.59; r 2  = 5%; P  < 0.001). Taxonomic class ( P  < 0.001), aim ( P  < 0.001) and outcome ( P  = 0.009) are all significant predictors of publication in a journal with a higher impact factor. Year of publication ( P  = 0.36) or gain (0.994) show no relationship to a journal’s impact factor. Model estimates for individual GLMs show significantly higher impact factor journals contain papers covering both reptiles and amphibians (estimate = 1.32, P  = 0.007) and papers on birds were more likely to be published in lower impact factor journals compared to other taxonomic groups (estimate = −0.57; P  < 0.001).

For the aim of the paper, those on nutrition (estimate = −0.49; P  = 0.012) and veterinary medicine/animal health (estimate = −0.33; P  = 0.006) were published in lower impact journals, whereas those on visitor studies were significantly more likely to be found in higher impact publications (estimate = 0.52; P  = 0.002). When assessing each paper’s outcomes, those relating to human behaviour change were more likely to be published in journals with higher impact factors (estimate = 0.94; P  < 0.001) compared to other outcome categories.

Comparing the interaction between taxonomic class and the paper’s aim ( F 61,1001  = 1.85; r 2  = 5%; P  < 0.001) shows that higher impact journals are successfully chosen for physiology papers that cover all classes (estimate = 2.36; P  = 0.04) and for methods papers published on reptiles and amphibians (estimate = 3.06; P  = 0.05). A significant interaction is present for papers on reptiles and amphibians with conservation/sustainability outcomes (estimate = 4.47; P  = 0.001), model summary F 39,1023  = 3.003; r 2  = 7%; P  < 0.001. No significant relationship is noted for any interaction between the paper’s gain and the taxonomic class used as the subject, and choice of higher impact journals.

What about invertebrates?

For the 17 relevant papers obtained on invertebrates, the highest number ( n  = 11, 65%) focussed on reviewing or providing commentary on, across taxa, bigger questions relating to welfare (including a paper on enrichment practices that covered other taxa as well invertebrates to determine preferences for a specific type of enrichment provided and a paper on how to design judgement bias tasks, both of which have important welfare connotations). Papers on cephalopods and those covering a review of invertebrate taxa as part of a wider question (e.g., enrichment or welfare assessment) made up several of the articles recorded ( n  = 5, 29%, respectively). Invertebrates articles could cover pure science (i.e., personality studies), as well as be used to inform the management of other taxa in the zoo (i.e., investigating food supplements for invertebrates that are then used as foods for other species). The median impact factor was 1.5, similar to output presented for other taxa in Fig. 2 . Papers published in the top-five impact factor journals were two articles that reviewed welfare (published in journals with an impact factor of 16), a cephalopod welfare paper (published in a journal with an impact factor of 5.23) and paper on cephalopod personality (in a journal with an impact factor of 4.13) and a review paper on welfare (in a journal with an impact factor of 3).

Our results show that zoo-themed researchers are increasing their research output year-on-year; Fig. 1 illustrates that, for bird research at least, the overall trend in output is positive. A bias in the study of large charismatic mammals dominates the overall number of papers published, but zoo-themed researchers are investigating a wide array of topics and increasing their output into areas of knowledge gain, as well as practical application (Fig. S1, supplementary information). This mammal bias appears similar to that noted in the wider field of zoology (Bautista and Pantoja, 2005 ) and the need for a more informed approach (such as our call for more scientific investigation for taxon-specific husbandry guides) is echoed by previous research that highlights a lack of scientific rigour within strategies implemented for habitat and wildlife conservation (Reichhardt, 1999 ).

Zoo-themed research output appears to be aligning with wider conservation messages, for example as emphasised by the One Plan Approach (CBSG, 2015 ), as well as with moves to encourage more direct pro-environmental human behaviour change (Smith et al., 2008 , Spooner et al., 2019 ) and wider usage of ecological evidence for the development of species-specific management plans (EAZA, 2019 ). We demonstrate that zoo-themed research output can cross academic boundaries and answer big questions that extend far beyond the animals housed at the zoo themselves. Increases in the number of papers adding to knowledge of species biology shows the wider relevance of zoos to “blue sky” science and an impact across different fields for all taxa investigated (Fig. 2 ). This expanding and considered research output appears to align with developments noted in other areas of biology too- for example the relative success of conservation initiatives in the United States (Schwartz, 2008 ) even though data to underpin these measures can often be lacking.

The focus on specific taxonomic groups compared to others (Table S1) may be a facet of the particular research interest of individual scientists, the commonality of a particular species in the zoo, or the availability of species in zoos close to the workplace of scientists that are publishing in this field. There are clear trends in the choice of taxonomic order when looking over the aims, outcomes and gains from research published on zoo-housed animals (Table S3), indicating that researchers opt for a particular taxonomic order as a study system when designing how to test an experimental hypothesis. A Husbandry and training aim and a Husbandry and welfare outcome predominates in this dataset (Table S2) showing that zoo research is focussing on key areas of management to improve captive care. This illustrates that the majority of these papers are adding to knowledge to strengthen the aims of the modern zoo, and it is encouraging that only 18 papers provided no firm conclusion to their way. Those researching the zoo are clearly able, in the vast majority of cases, to provide an answer to their question.

Our results identify some interesting trends in how zoo animals are used for research. Notably that reptiles feature more in veterinary and health-related papers than other taxonomic classes, yet whilst mammals are the most commonly studied class (Fig. 1 ), they show the least variation in research aim for across all classes (Table S3), with papers asking either behavioural or husbandry and training related questions. Amphibians are the class with the most diverse array of questions asked—covering breeding, husbandry, nutrition, physiology, behaviour, and veterinary medicine and animal health. This suggests that the conservation relevance of amphibians in zoos (Zippel et al., 2011 ) and the urgency by which captive-naïve populations have had to be created suddenly ex situ (Pavajeau et al., 2008 ) has created niches for variation in research questions more quickly than in mammal populations, for example, that have not been exposed to sudden changes in the novelty of species held.

We identify papers that cover each of the four roles of the modern zoo, demonstrating that zoos are prepared to research how well they are meeting their goals and be scrutinised on the outputs from such research. Given calls for good welfare to be a fifth aim of the modern zoo (Fernandez et al., 2009 ), the high number of papers with a full or in-part welfare outcome (41% of all identified papers) is encouraging. Welfare science is moving quickly, with novel approaches validated (Williams et al., 2018 , Richter and Hintze, 2019 , Yon et al., 2019 ) and an increasing use of natural ecology information as a keystone in determining the relevance of husbandry in the zoo (Rose, 2018 ). Therefore, the application of animal-based welfare assessment to ensure individual welfare is good, rather than a completely resource-based approach is a key area of research for zoos to focus upon (Whitham and Wielebnowski, 2013 ). And as 74% of identified papers that had either a specific or general advancement in practice ( n  = 245) were fully or partly focussed on a welfare outcome, zoos are forging ahead to evaluate many aspects of welfare of the animals they house. Our results indicate this is not confined to a single taxon but relevant to all investigated except reptiles where focus is on health and conservation. This may be because so little of the wild biology is known for many reptilian species that, when in captivity, immediate threats to survival (e.g., disease) must be the primary research concern. Whatever the underlying reason, here there is an identifiable opportunity for future zoo research.

Three key gaps in knowledge of zoo animal management were identified by Melfi ( 2009 ). Firstly, that research tended to investigate indicators of poor rather than positive welfare. Change is evident with research assessing animal-based indicators of a good quality of life now being published (Williams et al., 2018 , Yon et al., 2019 ), and methods for positive welfare assessment for zoo invertebrates, as well as an evidence-basis for captive invertebrate care (Bethell, 2015 , Tonkins et al., 2015 ) can also be found. We demonstrate that targeted research, evidenced by the year-on-year increase in bird research output (for example), with popular aims of husbandry and welfare and with an advancing knowledge outcome, means all aspects of welfare are being considered and investigated.

Secondly that housing and husbandry are historically based on anecdote or tradition. A scientific approach to inform husbandry is noticeable in our dataset, with housing style (Rowden and Rose, 2016 ), daily husbandry regimes (Rose et al., 2016 ), nutrition (Gussek et al., 2018 ), enrichment practices (Costa et al., 2018 ), breeding recommendations (Asa et al., 2011 ) and animal health measures (Greenwell and Montrose, 2017 ) being based on evidence gathered to determine optimal care. The asking of numerous questions (Table S4) with an amphibian model shows that zoo researchers are considering key knowledge gaps at different taxonomic levels when constructing an experimental design. Even within a taxonomic group bias persists as certain species (e.g., Pan spp. in the Primate order) command the evidence-based approach. This is not to say zoos specifically ignore other species as a myriad reasons may explain why the husbandry practices of one species are more science-led than another (for example, the number of individuals kept in zoos). And as Pan sp . studies continue to demonstrate, many research projects are required before an holistic approach to husbandry (and welfare generally) can be achieved. Our paper shows that for many species, zoo research is the start of this evidence-gathering journey.

Thirdly, a lack of species-specific biological data may be inhibiting zoo research output. Well-studied animals, such as Pan sp ., will continue to receive research interest because scientists have a reliable bank of background information to utilise. Consequently, equally important research candidates remain understudied due to this lack of baseline information. Use of ecological information on species’ habitat choices can be used to inform housing (Mason, 2015 , Kroshko et al., 2016 , Mellor et al., 2018 ) and suitability of husbandry can be evaluated via individual preference testing (Mehrkam and Dorey, 2015 , Troxell-Smith et al., 2017a , Troxell-Smith et al., 2017b ). Therefore, constructing “in-zoo” questions based on manipulations that can yield species-specific information means that these poorly understood species can be researched and improvements to their husbandry be made on an evidence-based approach.

We demonstrate that zoo-themed research output is slowly filling in these gaps for more and more species, and we have evaluated how this research can have wider impact across scientific publications with a broader readership (Fig. 2 ). From the output in Melfi ( 2009 ), 89% of the sample concerned mammals (60% of which was primate-focussed), with 8% on birds, 1% on reptiles and 1% on other taxa. Whilst the Melfi ( 2009 ) dataset was restricted to output from only one region (British & Irish facilities), the bias for investigating mammalian species is clear. Within our main Web of Science© dataset, 69% of papers focussed solely on mammals (40% on primates)- therefore highlighting a shift change towards the use of other species as research subjects that is unrelated to the number of species kept of a given taxa.

Inter-disciplinary research also identifies the usefulness of zoo information to big data questions, and such an approach helps further reduce the lack of biological information as identified by Melfi ( 2009 ). Information held in the Zoological Information Management System (ZIMS) database, managed by species360 (species360, 2018 ) has added to the bank of biological information held on non-domestic species (Conde et al., 2019 ) to improve our knowledge and understanding of many important areas of species biology, physiology and life history. To develop this research output, zoos should be increasing the number of scientific studies being published within higher impact journals. Our dataset shows that mammals remain considerably better represented in publications than all other taxonomic groups combined. Indeed, two mammalian Orders, Carnivora (154 papers) and Primates (294 papers), are both better represented in research output than all birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish together (204 papers) for papers covering a single taxonomic class.

Publication output centring on a few species within taxonomic groups that are the focus of research attention is documented (Bautista and Pantoja, 2005 ) and similar reasons are postulated to ones that we cover in our evaluation (i.e., flagship for conservation). These authors also note that fish are an underrepresented group in “wildlife research” and again this echoes our own zoo-focussed findings. Given that aquarium-housed fish can be flagships for conservation research, e.g., McGregor Reid et al. ( 2013 ), there is the potential to build on key traits that make a specific taxa suitable for scientific study to increase its use for research. Increases in species-specific output may be based on active researchers investigating questions on the same taxa because these are considered the most appropriate for that question. However, scientists could consider diversifying the taxa used to ask a similar question. For example, the use of highly-cognitive birds instead of primates for cognition research, facilitating the use of non-mammalian species. Use of cephalopods to determine personality differences (Carere et al., 2015 ) can be a realistic alternative to primate studies given the complex cognition of these invertebrates (Mather and Dickel, 2017 ) that involves both short- and long-term learning and engagement in behaviours such as play.

However, we should also be mindful of the importance of knowledge gaps (e.g., the achievement of optimal welfare) for all captive species, regardless of taxonomic class and therefore zoos should actively engage in directed scientific research to answer key applied questions. A lack of background knowledge on such species, hampering effective evaluation of any results generated, may be causing researchers to choose more familiar species as study models. When considering zoo-specific and open access publications (Fig. S2, Supplementary information) there is an overall predominance of mammalian-research noted, even when annual volumes are themed around a particular taxa, such as freshwater fish (McGregor Reid, 2013 ), or area of work, such as reintroduction and translocation practice (Gilbert and Soorae, 2017 ).

The continuing decline in biodiversity is resulting in zoos providing care for species with a limited to non-existent captive history. Science has a role to play in informing practice for these species if species conservation initiatives are to be successful. Zoos and aquariums are unique in their capacity to provide direct conservation action to threatened species across the globe (Michaels et al., 2014 , Biega et al., 2019 ), and it is encouraging to see that many zoo research projects already focus on conservation breeding and the wider role of animals in ecosystem health. Zoo studies currently are used to better inform conservation projects for animals in situ (da Silva et al., 2019 , Lacy, 2019 ) and this trend is likely to continue into the future. The success of in-situ conservation initiatives can be hindered by a lack of evidence (Reichhardt, 1999 , Schwartz, 2008 ) and therefore decisions that influence population management, breeding recommendations and similar measures to conserve biological diversity ex situ must have an evidence basis to them.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (2020) is currently developing a post-2020 global biodiversity framework, which will aim to address the key drivers of extinction (CBD, 2019 ). A key area for future focus is the relatively poor representation of amphibians, both in zoo collection plans, and also in the research output. Zoos appear to be housing relatively few species of amphibians. In relation to biodiversity and conservation, there are over 7900 amphibian species, and roughly 40% of these species are threatened with extinction (IUCN, 2019 ). While some animal collections have produced excellent conservation education strategies centred around amphibians (Pavajeau et al., 2008 ), it is clear there is room for development of collection plans for these species. It may be difficult for visitors to appreciate the diversity of threatened amphibians if few are represented in captivity (Michaels et al., 2014 b).

Because zoological collections have the responsibility of maintaining populations of highly endangered species, prioritising research into areas of population sustainability, educational initiatives and human behaviour change, can help inform the overall conservation plan for species at the brink of extinction. Whilst our results show that current conservation and ecosystem health output appears low, there is evidence that the quantity of research output is growing. This range of publications has value for those engaged in direct conservation action, as well as to educators disseminating information to zoo visitors and beyond.

It is interesting to note that the best represented animals in our dataset also appear to be some of the favourite animals of zoo visitors (Carr 2016 ). Primates, carnivores and elephants are well-represented in the public’s top ten favourite animals (Courchamp et al., 2018 ) and whilst it is beyond the scope of this paper to determine why these animals appear to feature in both public interest and in zoo literature, we do suggest that public interest could act as a driver for research focus on this species (i.e., to better inform practice and scrutinise the extent to which species are presented to visitors). We do not suggest “less primates” in the output from zoos but more focus on other taxa, as well as the continuation of high levels of research on traditional study species. We would encourage researchers to consider their choice of study population carefully and think about other benefits to their research. It might be intriguing to study chimpanzees but is there more added conservation, education and recreational value if the waxy monkey frog (Phyllomedusa sauvagii) was studied instead…?

In conclusion, our results demonstrate that, globally, zoo-themed researchers have an impressive scientific output and are investigating a range of empirical, hypothesis-driven questions that relate to all the modern zoo’s key roles. Between 2009 and 2018, considerable progress has been made regarding the number of zoo-based publications, especially papers focussed on welfare assessment or improvement. Our results show that there remains a mismatch between the number of species within a taxonomic class held in captivity and the representation of this class in the peer-reviewed literature. Whilst it is relevant that some charismatic species are receiving considerable publication interest, further focus on species that are less represented in literature would help the zoological community to develop welfare indicators and evidence-based husbandry more rapidly for a wider range of taxa. The research output of zoological collections is worthwhile, not only for those working within the industry, but also for those working in other capacities with wild animals and in related disciplines (e.g., academia). As such, progress in increasing the number of questions being posed and output of answering such questions, both within and beyond the zoo, has value to people and animals worldwide.

Data availability

The dataset on publications gathered from scientific databases is available at Open Research Exeter: https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/39092 . The dataset generated on species holdings are not publicly available due to this project still be researched but are available from author James E. Brereton upon reasonable request.

Asa CS, Traylor-Holzer K, Lacy RC (2011) Can conservation-breeding programmes be improved by incorporating mate choice? Int Zoo Yearb 45(1):203–212

Article   Google Scholar  

Bautista LM, Pantoja JC (2005) What animal species should we study next? Bull Br Ecol Soc 36(4):27–28

Google Scholar  

Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B 57(1):289–300

MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Bethell EJ (2015) A “How-To” guide for designing judgment bias studies to assess captive animal welfare. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 18:S18–S42

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

BIAZA (2018a) Helping the less charismatic species. British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums. https://biaza.org.uk/news/detail/helping-the-less-charasmatic-species . Accessed 27 May 2019

BIAZA (2018b) Research. British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums. https://biaza.org.uk/research . Accessed 25 May 2019

Biega AM, Lamont M, Mooers A, Bowkett AE, Martin TE (2019) Guiding the prioritization of the most endangered and evolutionary distinct birds for new zoo conservation programs. Zoo Biol 38(3):305–315

Bueddefeld JNH, Van Winkle CM (2018) The role of post-visit action resources in facilitating meaningful free-choice learning after a zoo visit. Environ Educ Res 24(1):97–110

Carere C, Grignani G, Bonanni R, Della Gala M, Carlini A, Angeletti D, Cimmaruta R, Nascetti G, Mather JA (2015) Consistent individual differences in the behavioural responsiveness of adult male cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Appl Anim Behav Sci 167:89–95

Carere C, Wood JB, Mather J (2011) Species differences in captivity: where are the invertebrates? Trends Ecol Evolution 26(5):211

Carr N (2016) An analysis of zoo visitors’ favourite and least favourite animals. Tour Manag Perspect 20:70–76

CBD (2019) The 2020 biodiversity strategic planning timeline. Convention on Biological Diversity. https://post2020.unep-wcmc.org/ . Accessed 27 May 2019

CBSG (2015) The One Plan Approach to conservation. IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. http://www.cbsg.org/our-approach/one-plan-approach-conservation . Accessed 27 May 2019

Clubb R, Mason GJ (2003) Animal welfare: captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores. Nature 425(6957):473–474

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Conde DA, Staerk J, Colchero F, da Silva R, Schöley J, Baden HM, Jouvet L, Fa JE, Syed H, Jongejans E, Meiri S, Gaillard J-M, Chamberlain S, Wilcken J, Jones OR, Dahlgren JP, Steiner UK, Bland LM, Gomez-Mestre I, Lebreton J-D, González Vargas J, Flesness N, Canudas-Romo V, Salguero-Gómez R, Byers O, Berg TB, Scheuerlein A, Devillard S, Schigel DS, Ryder OA, Possingham HP, Baudisch A, Vaupel JW (2019) Data gaps and opportunities for comparative and conservation biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(19):9658–9664

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Costa R, Sousa C, Llorente M (2018) Assessment of environmental enrichment for different primate species under low budget: a case study. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 21(2):185–199

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Courchamp F, Jaric I, Albert C, Meinard Y, Ripple WJ, Chapron G (2018) The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biol 16(4):e2003997

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

da Silva R, Pearce-Kelly P, Zimmerman B, Knott M, Foden W, Conde DA (2019) Assessing the conservation potential of fish and corals in aquariums globally. J Nat Conserv 48:1–11

Dawson E, Jensen E (2011) Towards a contextual turn in visitor studies: evaluating visitor segmentation and identity-related motivations. Visitor Stud 14(2):127–140

EAZA (2019) Specialist programmes. European association of zoos and aquaria. www.eaza.net/conservation/programmes . Accessed 27 May 2019

Fernandez EJ, Tamborski MA, Pickens SR, Timberlake W (2009) Animal-visitor interactions in the modern zoo: conflicts and interventions. Appl Anim Behav Sci 120(1):1–8

Fernandez EJ, Timberlake W (2008) Mutual benefits of research collaborations between zoos and academic institutions. Zoo Biol 27(6):470–487

Fox J, Weisberg S (2011) An R companion to applied regression. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Gilbert T, Soorae PS (2017) Editorial: the role of zoos and aquariums in reintroductions and other conservation translocations. Int Zoo Yearb 51(1):9–14

Greenwell PJ, Montrose VT (2017) The gray matter: prevention and reduction of abnormal behavior in companion gray parrots (Psittacus erithacus). J Vet Behav 18(1):76–83

Gussek I, Große-Brinkhaus C, Südekum KH, Hummel J (2018) Influence of ration composition on nutritive and digestive variables in captive giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) indicating the appropriateness of feeding practice. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 102(2):e513–e524

Halekoh U, Højsgaard S (2014) A Kenward-Roger approximation and parametric bootstrap methods for tests in linear mixed models-The R package pbkrtest. J Stat Softw 59(9):1–30

Hatt JM, Schaub D, Wanner M, Wettstein HR, Flach EJ, Tack C, Hässig M, Ortmann S, Hummel J, Clauss M (2005) Energy and fibre intake in a group of captive giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) offered increasing amounts of browse. J Vet Med Ser A 52(10):485–490

Hosey GR (1997) Behavioural research in zoos: academic perspectives. Appl Anim Behav Sci 51(3–4):199–207

Hosey GR, Melfi VA, Pankhurst S (2009) Zoo animals: behaviour, management and welfare. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

IUCN (2019) Summary statistics. International Union for the Conservation of Nature. https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/summary-statistics . Accessed 27 May 2019

Jensen E (2010) Learning about animals, science and conservation: Large-scale survey-based evaluation of the educational impact of the ZSL London Zoo Formal Learning programme. Full Report: Large Scale Pupil Survey. ZSL London Zoo, London

Kleiber C, Zeileis A (2008) Applied econometrics with R. Springer-Verlag, New York

Book   MATH   Google Scholar  

Kroshko J, Clubb R, Harper L, Mellor E, Moehrenschlager A, Mason G (2016) Stereotypic route tracing in captive Carnivora is predicted by species-typical home range sizes and hunting styles. Anim Behav 117(1):197–209

Lacy RC (2019) Lessons from 30 years of population viability analysis of wildlife populations. Zoo Biol 38(1):67–77

Lenth RV (2016) Least-squares means: the R package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69(1):1–33

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Loh T-L, Larson ER, David SR, de Souza LS, Gericke R, Gryzbek M, Kough AS, Willink PW, Knapp CR (2018) Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. FACETS 3(1):287–299

Marino L, Lilienfeld SO, Malamud R, Nobis N, Broglio R (2010) Do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American zoo and aquarium study. Soc Anim 18(2):126–138

Mason GJ (2010) Species differences in responses to captivity: stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends Ecol Evol 25(12):713–721

Mason GJ (2015) Using species differences in health and well-being to identify intrinsic risk and protective factors. WAZA Mag 16(1):2–5

Mason P (2007) Roles of the modern zoo: conflicting or complementary? Tour Rev Int 11(3):251–263

Mather JA, Dickel L (2017) Cephalopod complex cognition. Curr Opin Behav Sci 16:131–137

McGregor Reid G (2013) Introduction to freshwater fishes and their conservation. Int Zoo Yearb 47(1):1–5

McGregor Reid G, Contreras MacBeath T, Csatádi K (2013) Global challenges in freshwater‐fish conservation related to public aquariums and the aquarium industry. Int Zoo Yearb 47(1):6–45

Mehrkam LR, Dorey NR (2015) Preference assessments in the zoo: Keeper and staff predictions of enrichment preferences across species. Zoo Biol 34(5):418–430

Melfi VA (2009) There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo animal welfare: a case for evidence-based zoo animal management. Zoo Biol 28(6):574–88

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mellor E, McDonald Kinkaid H, Mason G (2018) Phylogenetic comparative methods: harnessing the power of species diversity to investigate welfare issues in captive wild animals. Zoo Biol 37(5):369–388

Michaels CJ, Downie JR, Campbell-Palmer R (2014) The importance of enrichment for advancing amphibian welfare and conservation goals: a review of a neglected topic. Amphibian Reptile Conserv 8(1):7–23

Moss A, Esson M (2010) Visitor interest in zoo animals and the implications for collection planning and zoo education programmes. Zoo Biol 29(6):715–731

Moss A, Esson M (2013) The educational claims of zoos: where do we go from here? Zoo Biol 32(1):13–18

Moss A, Jensen E, Gusset M (2017) Impact of a global biodiversity education campaign on zoo and aquarium visitors. Front Ecol Environ 15(5):243–247

Pagano AM, Carnahan AM, Robbins CT, Owen MA, Batson T, Wagner N, Cutting A, Nicassio-Hiskey N, Hash A, Williams TM (2018) Energetic costs of locomotion in bears: is plantigrade locomotion energetically economical? J Exp Biol 221(12):jeb175372

Pavajeau L, Zippel KC, Gibson R, Johnson K (2008) Amphibian ark and the 2008 year of the frog campaign. Int Zoo Yearb 42(1):24–29

Plowman AB (2003) A note on a modification of the spread of participation index allowing for unequal zones. Appl Anim Behav Sci 83(4):331–336

Plowman AB (2008) BIAZA statistics guidelines: toward a common application of statistical tests for zoo research. Zoo Biol 27(3):226–233

R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

Reade LS, Waran NK (1996) The modern zoo: how do people perceive zoo animals? Appl Anim Behav Sci 47(1):109–118

Reichhardt T (1999) Inadequate science’in US habitat plans. Nature 397:287

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Richter SH, Hintze S (2019) From the individual to the population-and back again? Emphasising the role of the individual in animal welfare science. Appl Anim Behav Sci 212(1):1–8

Rose PE (2018) Ensuring a good quality of life in the zoo. Underpinning welfare-positive animal management with ecological evidence. In: Berger M, Corbett S (eds) Zoo animals: behavior, welfare and public interactions. Nova Science Publishers Inc, New York

Rose PE, Brereton JE, Gardner L (2016) Developing flamingo husbandry practices through workshop communication. J Zoo Aquar Res 4(2):115–121

Roth TL, Bateman HL, Kroll JL, Steinetz BG, Reinhart PR (2004) Endocrine and ultrasonographic characterization of a successful pregnancy in a Sumatran rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) supplemented with a synthetic progestin. Zoo Biol 23(3):219–238

Rowden LJ, Rose PE (2016) A global survey of banteng (Bos javanicus) housing and husbandry. Zoo Biol 35(6):546–555

Schwartz MW (2008) The performance of the endangered species act. Annu Rev Ecol, Evolution, Syst 39:279–299

Singmann H, Bolker B, Westfall J, Aust F (2019) afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments. R package version 0.23-0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex .

Smith LM, Broad S, Weiler B (2008) A closer examination of the impact of zoo visits on visitor behaviour. J Sustain Tour 16(5):544–562

species360 (2018) Data science for zoos and aquariums. species360. https://www.species360.org/products-services/zoo-aquarium-animal-management-software/ . Accessed 27 May 2019

Spooner SL, Jensen EA, Tracey L, Marshall AR (2019) Evaluating the impacts of theatre-based wildlife and conservation education at the zoo. Environ Educ Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1569201(0)

Sutherland WJ (1998) The importance of behavioural studies in conservation biology. Anim Behav 56(4):801–809

Tonkins BM, Tyers AM, Cooke GM (2015) Cuttlefish in captivity: an investigation into housing and husbandry for improving welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci 168:77–83

Traylor-Holzer K, Leus K, Bauman K (2019) Integrated Collection Assessment and Planning (ICAP) workshop: Helping zoos move toward the One Plan Approach. Zoo Biol 38(1):95–105

Troxell-Smith SM, Watters JV, Whelan CJ, Brown JS (2017a) Zoo foraging ecology: Preference and welfare assessment of two okapi (Okapia johnstoni) at the Brookfield Zoo. Anim Behav Cognition 4(2):187–199

Troxell-Smith SM, Whelan CJ, Magle SB, Brown JS (2017b) Zoo foraging ecology: development and assessment of a welfare tool for captive animals. Anim Welf 26(3):265–275

Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S. Springer, New York

Wagoner B, Jensen E (2010) Science learning at the zoo: evaluating children’s developing understanding of animals and their habitats. Psychol Soc 3(1):65–76

Whitham JC, Wielebnowski N (2013) New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Appl Anim Behav Sci 147(3–4):247–260

Williams E, Chadwick Cl, Yon L, Asher L (2018) A review of current indicators of welfare in captive elephants (Loxodonta africana and Elephas maximus). Anim Welf 27(3):235–249

Yon L, Williams E, Harvey ND, Asher L (2019) Development of a behavioural welfare assessment tool for routine use with captive elephants. PLoS ONE 14(2):e0210783

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zippel K, Johnson K, Gagliardo R, Gibson R, McFadden M, Browne RK, Martinez C, Townsend E (2011) The Amphibian Ark: a global community for ex situ conservation of amphibians. Herpetol Conserv Biol 6(3):340–352

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Loader for her help with compiling data from JZAR and the IZYB. We thank S. Bereton for assistance with the global species holdings dataset. The open access publication charge was covered by the University of Exeter’s Institutional APC Fund.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Washington Singer Labs, University of Exeter, Perry Road, Devon, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK

Paul E. Rose

WWT, Slimbridge Wetland Centre, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, GL2 7BT, UK

University Centre Sparsholt, Sparsholt College Hampshire, Sparsholt, Winchester, Hampshire, SO21 2NF, UK

James E. Brereton

Zoological Society of London, London Zoo, Outer Circle, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4RY, UK

Lewis J. Rowden

School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK

Ricardo Lemos de Figueiredo

Centre for Animal Welfare, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Winchester, Winchester, Hampshire, SO22 4NR, UK

Lisa M. Riley

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to data collection for and writing of the paper, under the direction of the corresponding author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul E. Rose .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Rose, P.E., Brereton, J.E., Rowden, L.J. et al. What’s new from the zoo? An analysis of ten years of zoo-themed research output. Palgrave Commun 5 , 128 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0345-3

Download citation

Received : 25 June 2019

Accepted : 07 October 2019

Published : 29 October 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0345-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

REVIEW article

What is the zoo experience how zoos impact a visitor’s behaviors, perceptions, and conservation efforts.

• 1 Museology Graduate Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
• 2 School of Behavior Analysis, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, United States

Modern zoos strive to educate visitors about zoo animals and their wild counterparts’ conservation needs while fostering appreciation for wildlife in general. This research review examines how zoos influence those who visit them. Much of the research to-date examines zoo visitors’ behaviors and perceptions in relation to specific exhibits, animals, and/or programs. In general, visitors have more positive perceptions and behaviors about zoos, their animals, and conservation initiatives the more they interact with animals, naturalistic exhibits, and zoo programming/staff. Furthermore, zoo visitors are receptive to conservation messaging and initiatives at zoos and are more likely to participate in on-site conservation opportunities as opposed to after their visits. The research also suggests that repeat visitors are even more inclined to seek out conservation efforts compared to those visiting zoos for the first time. While current research suggests that repeat visitors are more likely to engage in conservation efforts, little is known about causal factors related to such findings, and almost no research exists to-date comparing the conservation efforts of visitors vs. non-visitors. This latter comparison will likely play a greater role in future zoo visitor research, since it poses one of the most important metrics for evaluating the specific effects visiting a zoo can have on people engaging in conservation efforts in general.

Introduction

Modern zoos have a variety of functions both relative to the species exhibited and the conservation of wildlife in general. According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), some of these goals are: (1) the care and welfare of the animals they exhibit; (2) educating and engaging public, professional, and government audiences; (3) species/habitat conservation; and (4) internal and academic research that increases our knowledge of animals and promotes AZA’s other goals ( Reade and Waran, 1996 ; Fernandez et al., 2009 ; Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2013 ). In addition, zoos have a legacy of being a form of entertainment and are primarily a destination for visitors to attend in their leisure time ( Carr and Cohen, 2011 ). Approximately 700 million people visit zoos and aquariums worldwide annually ( Moss et al., 2014 ), with a 2011 survey indicating that participating zoos and aquariums spent at least $350 million on wildlife conservation internationally ( Gusset and Dick, 2011 ). In a 2012 report by the AZA, 2,700 conservation programs spent approximately $160 million on field conservation for 650 individual species, in addition to ecosystems ( Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2012 ). It is these high attendance levels and their associated income that gives accredited zoos the ability to fulfill their mission statements.

While zoos are expanding their missions and welcome a large number of visitors, these institutions also have their critics. Animal rights activists and others argue that many zoos contribute little to conservation efforts and also impair zoo animals’ welfare by placing them in captive environments ( Hancocks, 2001 ; Rose et al., 2009 ; O’Connor, 2010 ). It is crucial to measure the impact of zoos’ education and conservation initiatives to both indicate the extent of how these organizations are fulfilling their missions and continue to demonstrate the importance of the role of zoos in society despite their critics.

Ultimately, whether an opponent or a supporter of zoological institutions, it is critical to ask: How effective are zoological environments for meeting the welfare, conservation, education, and research goals of accredited zoos? More specifically, what can we learn about how particular captive environments help or hinder these goals? And what can visitors tell us about our ability to successfully meet these goals?

The following paper is a literature review of many peer-reviewed studies that examine how the zoo environment impacts visitors, as well as how these visits impact conservation efforts, both within and outside the zoo. We accomplish this by looking across a variety of disciplines and bodies of work that examine zoological institutions and visitor studies including psychology, museology, animal welfare, and environmental education. Keyword searches of “zoo visitor behaviors,” “zoo visitor perceptions,” “zoo visitor conservation,” “zoo visitor learning,” “animal-visitor interactions,” and other terms occurred in the University of Washington Library’s search engine, in Google Scholar, and in search engines of major publications across these fields. We specifically looked for articles where different factors of the zoo environment (the animals themselves exhibit design, programming/interacting with staff) affected visitor behaviors and perceptions. Articles that examined conservation awareness, attitudes, and behaviors with zoo visitors were also prioritized. In addition, reviewing references cited in relevant articles aided in compiling the studies cited in this literature review. Articles that did not look at visitor learning, post-visit outcomes, or observable zoo visitor behaviors were deemed irrelevant. Specifically, we examine (1) what visitors learn from their zoo experience, with an emphasis on how their behaviors and perceptions are changed and (2) how such visits change those visitors, specifically their conservation efforts. Specifically, we examine how visit frequency affects conservation actions and the need for more research on comparisons between visitors and non-visitors in terms of overall conservation support.

What Do Visitors Learn at the Zoo?

Zoos are by design an informal learning environment; unless visiting as part of a formal programmatic experience like a school tour, visitors are coming to zoos during their free time and choose which aspects of the zoo they engage with. Visitors to zoos come in with particular motivations like entertainment, bonding time with their families and friends, and also educational experiences ( Falk, 2005 ; Roe and McConney, 2015 ). For learning to occur, attention is an important pre-cursor for learning ( Altman, 1998 ), as well as connecting with visitors based on their prior knowledge ( Dove and Byrne, 2014 ) and providing entertaining or enjoyable experiences ( Spooner et al., 2019 ).

In order to establish the effectiveness of zoos as a learning environment, it is important to look at a variety of factors that influence visitor learning. Several studies have examined observable behaviors, as well as verbal responses from zoo visitors. These studies have looked at a variety of factors, including the social makeup of visitor groups, educational programming, and the animals in exhibits.

It is also important to understand how visitors cultivate perceptions and attitudes, in addition to studying their behavior, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of a zoo’s education, conservation, and recreation goals ( Anderson et al., 2003 ). Clayton et al. (2009) support the point that educational goals can be improved via perceptions. Specifically, positive perceptions can lead to a visitor who is interested in learning more about animals.

Effects of the Zoo Environment on Visitor Behaviors

One way to examine a visitor’s response to a zoo exhibit is by measuring observable behaviors displayed by visitors. Specifically, (1) time spent in front of or near an exhibit; (2) attention toward an exhibit (e.g., facing and/or talking about an exhibit); and (3) overall crowd size has been used as measures of interest and satisfaction ( Anderson et al., 2003 ; Margulis et al., 2003 ; Fernandez et al., 2009 ; Godinez et al., 2013 ). Attention is an important measure for visitor studies for which attention can suggest what information visitors are potentially processing and is a precursor to learning ( Altman, 1998 ).

Previous studies suggest that visitor behaviors are influenced by both the presence of a zoo animal and the behaviors it displays. These studies have analyzed and tested the “visitor attraction model”; the theory that active animals attract visitors and have used observable measures such as pointing, stopping, and length of time is facing the exhibit. Results suggest visitors attend more to animal behaviors the more visible and active the animal is and also tend to spend more time in exhibits when an animal is visible and active ( Bitgood et al., 1988 ; Altman, 1998 ; Anderson et al., 2003 ; Sellinger and Ha, 2005 ; Davey, 2006a ; Godinez et al., 2013 ).

Debate over visibility of an animal and its influence on visitor behavior has risen from previous research. Bitgood et al. (1988) found that zoo visitors stopped more often and spent more time at exhibits where the animal was more visible. Whereas Philpot’s (1996) study (as cited in Davey, 2006a , pp. 94–95) found that visitors spent more time searching for animals in naturalistic enclosures, which turned the exhibit and observing animal behaviors into an interactive experience.

In addition to the debate, over animal visibility is the size of the animal. Some studies suggest that visitors prefer larger-bodied animals ( Bitgood et al., 1988 ; Ward et al., 1998 ). These findings have the potential to influence zoo decisions on the types of animals they display, even considering larger species typically cost more to care for and exhibit. However, Balmford (2000) re-analyzed the results of the Ward et al.’s (1998) study at the Zurich Zoo, which suggested that zoo visitors preferred viewing larger-sized animals. After re-analyzing the data along with additional data collected from the London Zoo, Balmford argued that in terms of visitor length of time at exhibits, there was no discernible difference between time spent at large-bodied animal exhibits and small-bodied animals. Balmford cautions that measures of visitor attention such as time spent attending to an exhibit and crowd size are not necessarily indicators of popularity or preference; smaller animals are typically housed in smaller exhibits, which may make the exhibit itself less appealing, as well as making it difficult for larger visitor groups to form.

Visitor conversations have also been studied in order to examine the influence of animal presence on visitor attention. Altman (1998) analyzed zoo visitor conversations at three bear exhibits as an indirect measure of attention. Conversations were recorded and later categorized as one of four types: (1) animal-directed; (2) human-focused; (3) animal behavior (directed); and (4) other. The study found that animal activity levels appeared to influence visitor conversations, particularly highly animated behaviors. Animal behavior conversation increased and human-related conversation decreased when animals were “highly animated” and the opposite occurred when the animals were pacing or not visible.

Studies examining the impacts of exhibit designs suggest that the transition to naturalistic exhibits in recent decades improves the animal’s well-being as well as visitor behaviors ( Nakamichi, 2007 ; Fernandez et al., 2009 ). Although the majority of zoo visitors do not interact with signage ( Clayton et al., 2009 ), the context in which an animal is displayed can convey a wealth of information, increase visitor interest, and potentially create a more enjoyable experience. Research also suggests that naturalistic exhibits can increase visitor length of time at an exhibit ( Shettel-Neuber, 1988 ; Davey, 2006a , b ). These stay times are constant, even without the presence of an animal ( Davey, 2006a ; Nakamichi, 2007 ).

Effects of the Zoo Environment on Visitor Perceptions

While interacting with the zoo environment, visitors form perceptions of their surroundings. Previous research argues that zoos can encourage empathy in visitors for the care of zoo animals and, in turn, their wild counterparts and the ecosystems where these animals live. The catalyst for this empathy is positive experiences with animals in zoo environments ( Clayton et al., 2009 ; Kutska, 2009 ).

Previous studies examining visitor perceptions suggest that perceptions can be influenced and changed by their experiences at zoos. Factors that influence visitor perception can include exposure to and interactions with zoo animals, the exhibit’s design, and elements found within the exhibit space (e.g., signage, enrichment items, and feeding stations), public programming around the exhibit, the ability of visitors to interact with volunteers and staff, and preconceived notions of what certain behaviors (e.g., pacing and other potential stereotypic activity) suggest about the overall welfare of that animal. These aspects have the potential to equally foster or hinder respect and appreciation for zoo animals and the institutions that care for them.

Reade and Waran (1996) conducted a study of how zoo visitors and non-zoo visitors perceived zoo animals in general. The results of this study provided baseline data when examining visitor perceptions across many aspects of zoo operations. The study found that there were significant differences between non-visitors and zoo visitors’ perceptions of animals in zoos. Zoo visitors viewed zoo animals more positively in all questions in the study and thought of them as more attractive, happy, and well-kept. Non-visitors tended to have more negative views of zoo animals across all questions and were significantly more likely to perceive zoo animals as “bored.” In addition, non-visitors also viewed enrichment as less important than zoo visitors. The authors therefore concluded that this difference in perception suggests that the general public is not fully aware of the physical and psychological benefits enrichment has for zoo animals.

Exhibit design also appears to influence visitor perceptions. Zoos have undergone a substantial transformation over the past few decades in exhibit design, with a greater emphasis on naturalistic exhibits, both in terms of their appearance and functionality for the exhibited animals (e.g., ability to hunt and forage). Much of the support for displaying zoo animals in natural contexts is based on behavioral science and theory. In an article about achieving optimal visitor experiences in zoos, Coe (1985) argued that designs, or contexts, of zoo exhibits can reach visitors on both conscious and unconscious levels. These carefully planned contexts can grab the visitor’s attention, and strong multi-sensory exhibit environments have the potential to create strong behavioral responses, such as greater empathy and desire to conserve the exhibited species. This transition to naturalistic exhibits improves visitor perceptions and encourages appreciation and respect for zoo animals ( Maple, 1983 ; Finlay et al., 1988 ; Reade and Waran, 1996 ; Nakamichi, 2007 ).

Visitor perceptions can also be influenced by animal, keeper, and overall exhibit interactions they have while visiting a zoo. When analyzing how visitor perceptions were influenced by small-clawed otter activities, Anderson et al. (2003) found that public animal training and public animal training with interpretation produced more positive zoo experiences and perceptions of exhibit size than passive exhibit viewing or interpretation-only sessions. The educational approach to animal training programming has also been found to be an important factor in influencing visitor learning. A study by Visscher et al. (2009) found that after being told the same facts about Black Rhinoceros during two different types of animal training programs, the school group who received the interpretive presentation (i.e., audience encouraged to ask questions and could touch training tools) answered more post-program questions correctly than the students who attended a less interactive, fact-based presentation. In addition, a study by Lindemann-Matthies and Kamer (2005) found that visitors who attended a staffed “touch table” at a Bearded Vulture exhibit at the Goldau Nature Park and Zoo were more likely to know more about the biology, ecology, and conservation of vultures both immediately after their visit and 2 months post-visit than those who visited the exhibit but only had access to exhibit signage. In addition, educational zoo theater programming performed by staff with no animals present resulted in both children and adult visitors answering more survey questions correctly after attending the performance than answering the same questions before the theater program began ( Spooner et al., 2019 ).

How visitors perceive their experience, as well as the overall welfare of exhibited animals, can be greatly influenced by what behaviors they see the animals engaged in. Captive animal behavior is often broadly defined as positive, healthy behaviors (e.g., searching, foraging, and non-repetitive activity), and negative, “abnormal” behaviors (e.g., hiding, inactivity, and repetitive behaviors, such as pacing). While an operational classification and functional understanding of these behaviors goes beyond the scope of this paper, how such behaviors affect the visitor experience is critical to an overall understanding of what visitors learn at the zoo.

Bexell et al. (2007) examined visitor perceptions of Giant Pandas while playing or not playing. Those who witnessed Giant Panda play were significantly more likely to rate their experience more positively and have a more satisfying experience than those who did not observe playing. As noted previously, Altman (1998) found visitor conversations changed based on bear behaviors, with animal behavior conversations occurring the most when the bears were active compared to pacing and out of sight.

Another factor that influences visitor perceptions of animal behavior is stereotypic activity, broadly defined as repetitive, invariant behavior patterns with no obvious goal or function ( Ödberg, 1978 ; Mason, 1991 ). In a study by Godinez et al. (2013) , the researchers examined how different jaguar behavioral categories correlated with visitor activity and their ratings of the animals’ predominant behavior displayed, well-being, exhibit quality, and the visitor’s enjoyment. Overall, visitors were able to accurately describe a jaguar’s behavior as inactive, active, or out of sight. However, approximately half of all visitors questioned (~47%) defined pacing and other repetitive behaviors as stereotypic, while the other visitors questioned simply described those behaviors as active and non-repetitive. For visitors who described a pacing pattern or other repetitive behaviors as stereotypic, they were also significantly more likely to rate the jaguar’s well-being, exhibit quality, and visitor enjoyment lower than those who described the behavior as non-repetitive, active behavior. Therefore, it appears that acknowledgement of a behavior as a stereotypy can negatively impact multiple perceptions of a zoo visitor’s visit. Similarly, Miller (2013) found that participants rated the overall care of a tiger as lower when the animal engaged in pacing than inactivity. In addition, the participants who observed a tiger pacing were significantly less likely to support zoos after witnessing this behavior when compared to those who observed an inactive tiger. Furthermore, visitors reported have the most positive emotions regarding zoo animals they observed after experiencing up-close animal encounters with animals displaying active behaviors compared to when the animals were out of sight or engaged in other behaviors ( Luebke et al., 2016 ).

While zoos have made significant strides in reducing stereotypic activity displayed by their animals, these studies suggest that public education about such efforts is also necessary. It may be that part of the bias against such stereotypic activity on the part of the observing visitor is due to a lack of knowing what zoos and similar facilities do to deter such activity. Future studies could examine how educating visitors about behavioral enrichment and other welfare-oriented procedures affects their views of exhibited animals, in terms of both how they view the displays of potentially adverse behaviors and how they view the ability of zoos to care for animals.

Zoo Visitors Conservation Behaviors

Recent studies have focused on quantifying the effect of zoo visitation on the conservation efforts of those visitors. Most studies to-date have examined a visitor’s conservation knowledge related to a specific exhibit or program before and after interacting with those programs ( Hayward and Rothenberg, 2004 ; Lindemann-Matthies and Kamer, 2005 ; Lukas and Ross, 2005 ; Bexell et al., 2007 ; Chalmin-Pui and Perkins, 2017 ), as opposed to greater conservation awareness or analyzing a variety of exhibits and programs ( Reade and Waran, 1996 ; Yalowitz, 2004 ; Falk et al., 2007 ; Adelman et al., 2010 ; Moss et al., 2017a , b ). Research is emerging to suggest that visitors can have a relatively extensive awareness of human impacts on biodiversity conservation, even when they hold misconceptions regarding concepts about biodiversity and ecosystems ( Dove and Byrne, 2014 ).

When analyzing how zoo visitors respond to conservation efforts within zoos, several studies suggest that one of the most significant factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation knowledge, attitude, and behaviors is repeat visitation. Repeat visitors retain significantly more conservation information, have more positive attitudes about conservation, and conduct more conservation-related behaviors than visitors who are attending the same zoo for the first time ( Yalowitz, 2004 ; Lukas and Ross, 2005 ; Miller et al., 2013 ; Clayton et al., 2017 ; Moss et al., 2017a ). Thus, while we have some knowledge about how repeat visitors differ from first-time visitors, the extent to which this occurs is not known.

In order to evaluate the overall impact zoos may have on increasing visitor interest and activity in conservation efforts, we examine (1) the conservation perceptions, behaviors, and actions taken by the visitor during a given visit; (2) what type of conservation behaviors and perceptions visitors have after their visit; and (3) how do all of these conservation-related efforts differ in zoo visitors compared to those who do not attend zoos.

Visitor Conservation Opportunities at the Zoo

In situ opportunities for conservation activities provide visitors with a tangible way to contribute to conservation efforts, especially since previous work suggests that visitors are uncertain how to become involved beyond donating money ( Ojalammi and Nygren, 2018 ). On-site conservation activities may also reaffirm conservation behaviors and encourage long-term changes in zoo visitors. When comparing visitors’ conservation actions on-site versus off-site, Stoinski et al. (2002) found that visitors were 20 times more likely to do on-site conservation activities than after their visit to the zoo. Furthermore, facilitating conservation actions via staff and programs as opposed to passive visits may increase the potential for visitors to participate in conservation efforts during a visit. In a study conducted during an elephant program at Zoo Atlanta, 350 of 471 visitors studied signed petitions and took solicitation cards. Those who had the highest levels of interaction with the exhibit and elephant program were significantly more likely to return the solicitation cards than those who had lower interaction ( Swanagan, 2000 ).

Another way to encourage in situ conservation behaviors is by offering sustainably made items in zoo gift shops, where proceeds go to support conservation efforts (see Sigsgaard, 2009 , for a case study of one such effort, and the sustainability issues to consider when stocking souvenirs and other goods in zoo gift shops). An additional on-site conservation action is at the point of admission through the “Quarters for Conservation” program. In this program, the zoo adds 50 cents onto the price of admission and gives their visitors a chance to choose which conservation project they would like their quarter to support. This simple program can help frame the visitor’s entire zoo experience and has been implemented in over a dozen US zoos since the program was founded in 2007 ( Hance, 2015 ).

If zoos continue to strive to demonstrate their effectiveness as conservation organizations, then it is crucial that zoos provide on-site opportunities for their visitors to participate in conservation. In situ conservation actions allow zoos to fulfill their missions and demonstrate their impact now. This can also be of great importance when justifying the role of zoos as conservation contributors when critics and others question the effect of zoos on various conservation efforts.

Zoo Visitor Conservation Post-visit

When analyzing conservation knowledge retention, some studies have found that visitors’ conservation knowledge and interest persisted after a zoo visit ( Jensen, 2014 ; Moss et al., 2015 ), but this new understanding rarely results in new conservation actions ( Adelman et al., 2010 ; Miller et al., 2013 ). However, other studies suggest zoos prompt visitors to rethink their roles in conservation issues after their visit ( Falk et al., 2007 ; Clayton et al., 2017 ; Jensen et al., 2017 ). While this is an emerging area of research interest, several studies support that the level and type of engagement with conservation and animals during the zoo experience affect not only visitors’ knowledge retention but also post-visit behavior. Visitors who engaged with films and signage about biodiversity and conservation scored higher on biodiversity knowledge and intent to take part in post-visit conservation actions than those who did not interact with these elements ( Moss et al., 2017b ). Similarly, a study by Hacker and Miller (2016) indicated up-close encounters with elephants and witnessing active behaviors from the animals had positive effects on visitors’ intent to engage with conservation actions post-visit. In a multi-institutional study of dolphin programs in zoos and aquariums by Miller et al. (2013) , participants who witnessed dolphin programs retained much of their conservation knowledge learned from the shows and reported doing more conservation-related behaviors 3 months after witnessing the show than 3 months prior to their visit. Another study examining the effectiveness of touch tables on visitor’s knowledge of bearded vulture biology, ecology, and conservation issues found that visitors who used the touch tables knew more about these items both immediately after their visit and 2-month post-visit than visitors who had not attended the table ( Lindemann-Matthies and Kamer, 2005 ).

In a 2014 study by Jensen analyzing the conservation concerns and conservation self-efficacy of school children both pre- and post-visit, Jensen found an increase in students’ personal concerns about the extinction of species, but marginal differences in if the students felt they could do something about it. Furthermore, a study by Skibins and Powell (2013) suggests that visitors are more inclined to take conservation action for an individual species they connect with, as opposed to conservation of biodiversity on a larger scale. To combat this issue of awareness but lack of action (or widening the impact of said action), others who recommend zoos can take on stronger approaches to motivating visitors to do pro-conservation behaviors that are relevant and easy to implement for a diverse range of zoo visitors ( Smith et al., 2012 ; Grajal et al., 2018 ). However, providing materials for visitors to participate in post-visit conservation actions has occurred in only a few studies. Analysis that has been conducted to-date suggests that materials that coincide with visitors’ daily lives tend to be more effective in encouraging conservation-related behaviors than those that are less frequent and more in-depth actions. For example, at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, 51% of visitors who picked up a Seafood Watch Pocket Guide tried to use the guide when purchasing seafood after their visit to the aquarium. On the other hand, only 10% of visitors tried to use an “Ocean Allies Card” (a list of conservation organizations to join) after their visit, and no participants joined an organization ( Yalowitz, 2004 ).

Zoo Visitors Versus Non-visitor Conservation Actions

To understand fully the degree of impact zoos has on visitors’ conservation efforts, comparisons between zoo visitors and non-zoo visitors are necessary. However, most studies look at zoo visitors alone ( Swanagan, 2000 ; Yalowitz, 2004 ; Falk et al., 2007 ; Miller et al., 2013 ). At least one study to-date indicated that non-zoo visitors viewed zoos as playing an important role in conservation, although non-zoo visitors’ conservation knowledge and attitude were not measured ( Reade and Waran, 1996 ). Because of the importance of comparing differences between zoo visitors and non-zoo visitors to determine the impact zoos have on increasing conservation efforts in general, our final section draws on directions zoos could go in to make such assessments.

Future Research

Much of the studies done to-date examine changes in visitor behaviors and their perceptions in regard to exhibit design, the presence of animals and their displayed behaviors, and how visitors engage with singular exhibits and/or programs in individual zoos (see “Zoos and Visitors” section of this paper for examples of these studies). This work has laid the foundation for a variety of in-depth questions to be examined moving forward. Specifically, the nuances of how the zoo environment may influence zoo visitors’ appreciation for the animals exhibited, their species’ associated conservation needs, and how the zoo visitors themselves can take conservation actions to support conservation initiatives for the animals’ wild counterparts and their habitats.

As studies continue to examine the conservation impacts zoos have on their visitors, much of the research done to-date can be summarized in an assumed paradigm that zoo visitors go through that are a series of sequential steps with the intended outcome to be conservation-related actions.

Visit → Knowledge → Concern → Intent → Post-visit action

However, this paradigm assumes that knowledge is strongly linked to conservation actions. Recent research indicates that other factors like where you live and demographically related factors are more strongly correlated with conservation behaviors than knowledge ( Moss et al., 2017a ). Based on what studies cited in this literature review indicate, the paradigm could be reframed as follows:

Visit with in situ action → Knowledge → Concern → Intent → Post-visit action

Given the variety of factors influencing visitors in the free-choice learning environment of zoos and the variety of methodologies used to examine the impact zoos have on their visitors, there is a question beckoned to be asked: Is it possible to empirically measure the impact zoos have on their visitors? Many studies mentioned in this review have taken great strides in answering this question—especially when examining how the environment of the zoo (e.g. exhibits and programs) affects behavioral learning and general knowledge of both animal species and the individual animals housed.

Our recommendations are to continue measuring the impact—or to begin measuring the impact—of the following:

1. having a true control group (non-visitors) to understand the full impact zoos may or may not have on zoo visitor knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors;

2. increasing opportunities for on-site conservation activities that visitors can do during their visit; this could potentially improve their conservation knowledge and future conservation actions, as well as be a measurable impact of how zoos are contributing to conservation efforts;

3. providing more opportunities for tangible takeaways for visitors that directly contribute to conservation initiatives post-visit (i.e., Seafood Watch cards, pre-drafted letters to send to legislators, take-home electronic recycling kits) – and then measure the effectiveness of these tools; and

4. studying the phenomena of repeat visitors being more conservation-oriented than one-time visitors. Also begin to study how repeat zoo visitors compare to those who do not visit zoos at all.

On this last point, knowing that research to-date suggests that repeat visitation is a significant factor in conservation knowledge and appreciation for wildlife, we wonder: are repeat visitors continuing to visit zoos because they are already conservation-oriented and see zoological institutions as places to fulfill this area of interest? Or do they become more concerned with conservation issues over time as a result of the information and experiences they have in zoos? Additional studies that delve deeper into motivations of repeat visitors, and how these attitudes and behaviors develop, could shed light on these questions. Regardless of their motivation, these studies suggest that zoos are fostering conservation with this key group of visitors and that those who come to zoos appear to be receptive to and interested in conservation in the first place ( Falk et al., 2007 ).

Zoo membership is a key tool that is readily available to all zoological institutions to help foster the transition from infrequent to frequent visitors. Looking at the motivation, visitors have when signing up for zoo memberships (cost saving, entertainment, interest in animals, interest in conservation, etc.,), and comparing these motivations to conservation-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of members could provide a critical insight into the field.

Although we have described an array of studies for this review, most of them do not address an important aspect to the effectiveness of zoos—how visitors compare to those who do not attend these types of institutions. With the exception of the few studies mentioned earlier in this paper, we have not been able to find peer-reviewed, published research that compares zoo visitors to non-visitors. A plethora of topics, including conservation attitudes, knowledge of wildlife, and other environmental resources, or how these two groups perceive zoos themselves beckons further examination. We suspect that future visitor research will focus more directly on comparisons between zoo visitor and non-visitor conservation efforts, since this is one of the most important metrics for assessing the impact zoos have on increasing the conservations efforts of their visitors, and a necessary measure for evaluating the effect zoos have on the public supporting conservation efforts in general.

Author Contributions

AG and EF co-wrote and edited the manuscript, as well as researched literature for this review. AG formatted the manuscript in accordance with Frontiers in Psychology guidelines. EF submitted the manuscript for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We thank Kathryn Owen of Kathryn Owen Consulting for her recommendations on potential sources for this manuscript.

Adelman, L. M., Falk, J. F., and James, S. (2010). Impact of national aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’ conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator 43, 33–41. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2000.tb01158.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Altman, J. D. (1998). Animal activity and visitor learning at the zoo. Anthrozoös 11, 12–21.

Google Scholar

Anderson, U. S., Kelling, A. S., Pressley-Keough, R., Bloomsmith, M. A., and Maple, T. L. (2003). Enhancing the zoo visitor’s experience by public animal training and oral interpretation at an otter exhibit. Environ. Behav. 35, 826–841. doi: 10.1177/0013916503254746

Association of Zoos and Aquariums (2012). Annual report conservation science. Available at: http://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/Conservation/Commitments_and_Impacts/2012ARCS.pdf (Accessed March 14, 2013).

Association of Zoos and Aquariums (2013). Mission statement. Retrieved from: http://www.aza.org (Accessed March 14, 2013).

Balmford, A. (2000). Separating fact from artifact in analyses of zoo visitor preferences. Conserv. Biol. 14, 1193–1195. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99078.x

Bexell, S., Jarrett, O. S., Lan, L., Yan, H., Sandhaus, E. A., Zhihe, Z., et al. (2007). Observing panda play: implications for zoo programming and conservation efforts. Curator 50, 287–297. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2007.tb00273.x

Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., and Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit design and visitor behavior: empirical relationships. Environ. Behav. 20, 474–491.

Carr, N., and Cohen, S. (2011). The public face of zoos: images of entertainment, education and conservation. Anthrozoös 24, 175–189. doi: 10.2752/175303711X12998632257620

Chalmin-Pui, L. S., and Perkins, R. R. (2017). How do visitors relate to biodiversity conservation? An analysis of London zoo’s “BUGS” exhibit. Environ. Educ. Res. 23, 1462–1475. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2016.1259395

Clayton, S., Fraser, J., and Saunders, C. D. (2009). Zoo experiences: conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biol. 28, 377–397. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20186

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Clayton, S., Prévot, A., Germain, L., and Saint-Jalme, M. (2017). Public support for biodiversity after a zoo visit: environmental concern, conservation knowledge, and self-efficacy. Curator 60, 87–100. doi: 10.1111/cura.12188

Coe, J. C. (1985). Design and perception: making the zoo experience real. Zoo Biol. 4, 197–208. doi: 10.1002/zoo.1430040211

Davey, G. (2006a). Relationships between exhibit naturalism, animal visibility and visitor interest in a Chinese zoo. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 96, 93–102. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.04.018

Davey, G. (2006b). Visitor behavior in zoos: a review. Anthrozoös 19, 143–157. doi: 10.2752/089279306785593838

Dove, T., and Byrne, J. (2014). Do zoo visitors need zoology knowledge to understand conservation messages? An exploration of the public understanding of animal biology and of the conservation of biodiversity in a zoo setting. Int. J. Sci. Educ. B 4, 323–342. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2013.822120

Falk, J. (2005). Free-choice environmental learning: framing the discussion. Environ. Educ. Res. 11, 265–280. doi: 10.1080/13504620500081129

Falk, J., Reinhard, E. M., Vernon, C. L., Bronnenkant, K., Heimlich, J. E., and Deans, N. L. (2007). Why zoos & aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium . Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos & Aquariums, 24.

Fernandez, E. J., Tamborski, M. A., Pickens, S. R., and Timberlake, W. (2009). Animal-visitor interactions in the modern zoo: conflicts and interventions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 120, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.06.002

Finlay, T., James, L. R., and Maple, T. L. (1988). People’s perceptions of animals: the influence of zoo environment. Environ. Behav. 20, 508–528.

Godinez, A., Fernandez, E. J., and Morrissey, K. (2013). Visitor behaviors and perceptions of jaguar activities. Anthrozoös 26, 613–619. doi: 10.2752/175303713X13795775535850

Grajal, A., Luebke, J. F., and Kelly, L. D. (2018). “Why zoos have animals: exploring the complex pathway from experiencing animals to pro-environmental behaviors,” in The ark and beyond: The evolution of zoo and aquarium conservation . eds. B. A. Minteer, J. Maienschein, and J. P. Collins (University of Chicago Press).

Gusset, M., and Dick, G. (2011). The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biol. 30, 566–569. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20369

Hacker, C. E., and Miller, L. J. (2016). Zoo visitor perceptions, attitudes, and conservation intent after viewing African elephants at the San Diego zoo Safari Park. Zoo Biol. 35, 355–361. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21303

Hance, J. (2015). Zoos could become “conservation powerhouses.” The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/dec/08/zoosaquariums-conservation-animals-wildlife-funding (Accessed April 29, 2019).

Hancocks, D. (2001). A different nature: The paradoxical world of zoos and their uncertain future . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hayward, J., and Rothenberg, M. (2004). Measuring success in the “Congo Gorilla Forest” conservation exhibition. Curator 47, 261–282. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00125.x

Jensen, E. (2014). Evaluating children’s conservation biology learning at the zoo. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1004–1011. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12263

Jensen, E. A., Moss, A., and Gusset, M. (2017). Quantifying long-term impact of zoo and aquarium visits on biodiversity-related learning outcomes. Zoo Biol. 36, 294–297. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21372

Kutska, D. (2009). Variation in visitor perceptions of a polar bear enclosure based on the presence of natural vs. un-natural enrichment items. Zoo Biol. 28, 292–306. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20226

Lindemann-Matthies, P., and Kamer, T. (2005). The influence of an interactive educational approach on visitors’ learning in a Swiss zoo. Sci. Educ. 90, 296–315. doi: 10.1002/sce.20127

Luebke, J. F., Watters, J. V., Packer, J., Miller, L. J., and Powell, D. M. (2016). Zoo visitors’ affective responses to observing animal behaviors. Vis. Stud. 19, 60–76. doi: 10.1080/10645578.2016.1144028

Lukas, K. E., and Ross, S. R. (2005). Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes toward gorillas and chimpanzees. J. Environ. Educ. 36, 33–48.

Maple, T. L. (1983). Environmental psychology and great ape reproduction. Int. J. Stud. Anim. Probl. 4, 295–299.

Margulis, S. W., Hoyos, C., and Anderson, M. (2003). Effect of felid activity on zoo visitor interest. Zoo Biol. 22, 587–599. doi: 10.1002/zoo.10115

Mason, G. (1991). Stereotypies: a critical review. Anim. Behav. 41, 10–15.

Miller, L. J. (2013). Visitor reaction to pacing behavior: influence on the perception of animal care and interest in supporting zoological institutions. Zoo Biol. 31, 242–248. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20411

Miller, L. J., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mellen, J., Koeppel, J., Greer, T., and Kuczaj, S. (2013). Dolphin shows and interaction programs: benefits for conservation education? Zoo Biol. 32, 45–53. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21016

Moss, A., Jensen, E., and Gusset, M. (2014). Zoo visits boost biodiversity literacy. Nature 508:186. doi: 10.1038/508186d

Moss, A., Jensen, E., and Gusset, M. (2015). Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums to Aichi biodiversity target 1. Conserv. Biol. 29, 537–544. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12383

Moss, A., Jensen, E., and Gusset, M. (2017a). Probing the link between biodiversity-related knowledge and self-reported proconservation behavior in a global survey of zoo visitors. Conserv. Lett. 10, 33–40. doi: 10.1111/conl.12233

Moss, A., Jensen, E., and Gusset, M. (2017b). Impact of a global biodiversity education campaign on zoo and aquarium visitors. Front. Ecol. Environ. 243–247. doi: 10.1002/fee.1493

Nakamichi, M. (2007). Assessing the effects of new primate exhibits on zoo visitors' attitudes and perceptions by using three different assessment methods. Anthrozoös 20, 155–166. doi: 10.2752/175303707X207945

O’Connor, L. (2010). Bob Barker pays $1 million to bring elephants to California sanctuary, is moved to tears. Huffington Post . Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/21/elephants-bob-barker_n_4139404.html (Accessed December 12, 2014).

Ödberg, F. (1978). “Abnormal behaviours: (stereotypies)” in Preceedings of the first world congress on ethology applied to zootechnics (Madrid, Spain), 475–480.

Ojalammi, S., and Nygren, N. V. (2018). Visitor perceptions of nature conservation at Helsinki zoo. Anthrozoös 31, 233–246. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2018.1434063

Philpot, P. (1996). Visitor viewing behaviour in the Gaherty reptile breeding Centre, Jersey wildlife preservation trust: a preliminary study. Dodo J. Jersey Wildlife Preserv. Trust 32, 193–202.

Reade, L. S., and Waran, N. K. (1996). The modern zoo: how do people perceive zoo animals? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 47, 109–118. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)01014-9

Roe, K., and McConney, A. (2015). Do zoo visitors come to learn? An internationally comparative, mixed-methods study. Environ. Educ. Res. 21, 865–888. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2014.940282

Rose, N., Parsons, E. C. M., and Farinato, R. (2009). The case against marine mammals in captivity. 4th Edn . Washington, DC: Humane Society of the United States.

Sellinger, R. L., and Ha, J. C. (2005). The effects of visitor density and intensity on the behavior of two captive jaguars ( Panthera onca ). J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 8, 233–244. doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0804_1

Shettel-Neuber, J. (1988). Second- and third-generation zoo exhibits: a comparison of visitor, staff, and animal responses. Environ. Behav. 20, 452–473. doi: 10.1177/0013916588204005

Sigsgaard, N. S. (2009). Conservation in zoo shops today and in the future: a case study and discussion. Inter. Zoo Yearbook 43, 91–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2008.00063.x

Skibins, J. C., and Powell, R. B. (2013). Conservation caring: measuring the influence of zoo visitors' connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviors. Zoo Biol. 32, 528–540. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21086

Smith, L., Weiler, B., Smith, A., and van Dijk, P. (2012). Applying visitor preference criteria to choose pro-wildlife behaviors to ask of zoo visitors. Curator 55, 453–466. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2012.00168.x

Spooner, S. L., Jensen, E. A., Tracey, L., and Marshall, A. R. (2019). Evaluating the impacts of theatre based wildlife and conservation education at the zoo. Environ. Educ. Res. 1–19. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2019.1569201

Stoinski, T. S., Allen, M. T., Bloomsmith, M. A., Forthman, D. L., and Maple, T. L. (2002). Educating zoo visitors about complex environmental issues: should we do it and how? Curator 45, 129–143. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2002.tb01187.x

Swanagan, J. S. (2000). Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 31, 26–31. doi: 10.1080/00958960009598648

Visscher, N., Snider, R., and Vander Stoep, G. (2009). Comparative analysis of knowledge gain between interpretive and fact-only presentations at an animal training session: an exploratory study. Zoo Biol. 28, 488–495. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20174

Ward, P. I., Mosberger, N., and Kistler, C. (1998). The relationship between popularity and body size in zoo animals. Conserv. Biol. 12, 1408–1411. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.97402.x

Yalowitz, S. S. (2004). Evaluating visitor conservation research at the Monterey Bay aquarium. Curator 47, 283–298. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00126.x

Keywords: human-animal interactions, zoo visitors, zoo research, visitor perceptions, visitor behaviors, visitor education, conservation

Citation: Godinez AM and Fernandez EJ (2019) What Is the Zoo Experience? How Zoos Impact a Visitor’s Behaviors, Perceptions, and Conservation Efforts. Front. Psychol . 10:1746. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01746

Received: 01 May 2019; Accepted: 15 July 2019; Published: 30 July 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Godinez and Fernandez. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Eduardo J. Fernandez, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages Essay

The expediency of zoos and similar institutions is controversial since no artificially created conditions correspond to the natural range of animals’ origin. However, people seek to tame or at least be closer to animals. Therefore, the emergence of zoos, detention centers, or theme parks is an obvious decision. Instead, it is worth determining the expediency of keeping wild animals in captivity and outlining possible compromises.

Today, zoos follow the trend of creating conditions similar to animals’ natural habitats. Thus, one can observe an improved diet, natural plant species of the respective region, and an expanded area of maintenance enclosures. Moreover, children really like zoos because there, one can see animals not native to the region, take cute photos, and have a good time. Unfortunately, no artificial environment will make animals as happy as they could be in the wild. They are unable to make seasonal migrations, some are unable to mate to have offspring, and predators are unable to hunt. In addition, not all zoos follow elementary sanitary standards or the appropriate temperature regime. Thus, animals cannot live freely and happily while in captivity.

Summarizing the advantages and disadvantages of zoos, one can find a compromise regarding the conditions for keeping wild animals in artificial conditions. The only optimal option is to keep only those animals unable to function normally in wild conditions. Thus, the employees of the relevant institutions must ensure the capture and treatment of those animals that need it. If continued captivity under the supervision of specialists is a better option than release into the wild, this option should be chosen. In this way, animals will live in the comfort they deserve, and visitors to zoos will enjoy the beauty of the wild world.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 11). Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages. https://ivypanda.com/essays/zoos-advantages-and-disadvantages/

"Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages." IvyPanda , 11 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/zoos-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages'. 11 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages." February 11, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/zoos-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

1. IvyPanda . "Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages." February 11, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/zoos-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Zoos: Advantages and Disadvantages." February 11, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/zoos-advantages-and-disadvantages/.

• Setting Up a Safari Zoo in the UAE
• Zoos: Cruel or Educational?
• Should Animals Be Kept in Zoos?
• The Future for Zoos and Aquariums Bibliography
• The Role of Zoos in Endangered Species Protection
• The Australia Zoo Rescue Unit Project
• Negotiating About Pandas for San Diego Zoo
• The Effectiveness of Sustainable Practices, Plans, Programs and Initiatives Implemented by Australian Zoo
• Animal Behavior in San Diego Zoo
• The Analysis of Siamangs’ Behavior in a Zoo Setting
• Social and Behavioral Science: Animals in Society
• Happy Cows Case: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Kitties
• Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry
• Wearing Clothes Made of Animal Fur

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Debating the Morality and Value of Zoos

Some readers decry keeping animals in captivity while others tout the educational benefits.

To the Editor:

Re “ The Case Against Zoos ,” by Emma Marris (Sunday Review, June 13):

Ms. Marris argues that leading zoos and aquariums spend an outsized amount on “operations and construction” compared with their expenditures on “conservation projects.”

The reason modern zoos spend so much on operations is simple — effective, science-based zoological institutions focus on the welfare of animals in their care, a moral obligation that does not come cheap. American Humane , the country’s first national humane organization, certifies the humane treatment of animals in more than 60 zoos and aquariums around the globe. These zoological institutions receive our Humane Certified seal as they meet or exceed a science-based set of criteria evaluated by independent auditors who have no stake in the outcome of their decision.

Money spent on proper veterinary care, enrichment activities and nutritious food is not money wasted but rather an investment in the social, and moral, contract we have with animals. To pressure zoos and aquariums to spend less on their animals would lead to inhumane outcomes for the precious creatures in their care.

Robin R. Ganzert Washington The writer is president and chief executive of American Humane.

I am a veterinarian who was a zoo and wildlife park employee for years before obtaining my veterinary degree. Both the wildlife park and zoo claimed to be operating for the benefit of the animals and for conservation purposes. This claim was false. Neither one of them actually participated in any contributions to animal research or conservation. They are profitable institutions whose bottom line is much more important than the condition of the animals.

Animals such as African lions that bred in captivity were “culled” (killed) when their numbers exceeded the financial capability of the zoo to feed them. Baby bears, seals, beavers and other animals were taken in and used by the zoos for financial profit until they were no longer useful, and then either “culled” or released into the wild without the ability to survive. I was taught to recite a spiel on conservation to zoo visitors that was false.

Animals despise being captives in zoos. No matter how you “enhance” enclosures, they do not allow for freedom, a natural diet or adequate exercise. Animals end up stressed and unhealthy or dead.

It’s past time for transparency with these institutions, and it’s past time to eliminate zoos from our culture.

Teri Byrd Vashon Island, Wash.

As a zoology professor and, thanks to my kids, a frequent zoo visitor, I agree with Emma Marris that zoo displays can be sad and cruel. But she underestimates the educational value of zoos.

She cites studies showing that most zoo visitors do not closely read educational signs, arguing that few people experience the zoo other than as a simple family outing. However, those few who gain a serious interest in conservation add up to a lot, given that millions of people visit zoos.

The zoology program at my State University of New York campus attracts students for whom zoo visits were the crucial formative experience that led them to major in biological sciences. These are mostly students who had no opportunity as children to travel to wilderness areas, wildlife refuges or national parks. Although good TV shows can help stir children’s interest in conservation, they cannot replace the excitement of a zoo visit as an intense, immersive and interactive experience. They also get to meet adults who have turned their love for animals into a career, and with whom they can identify.

Surely there must be some middle ground that balances zoos’ treatment of animals with their educational potential.

Karen R. Sime Oswego, N.Y.

Emma Marris briefly mentions sanctuaries. Sanctuaries are a growing and ethical alternative to animals kept in captivity and “on display.” The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries is the accrediting body for sanctuaries, with 200 members in the United States and abroad. One hundred percent of the focus of our organization and its member sanctuaries is on the humane care of their animals.

Unlike zoos, sanctuaries receive no government or municipal funding, rely on small staffs supplemented by volunteers, and operate on shoestring budgets. They also take on the additional cost of providing lifetime care for every animal. They do not buy, sell or trade animals and restrict access to the animals, forgoing the lucrative revenue of general admission and attractions. Instead, they rely primarily on public donations for support.

For wild animals that cannot be returned to their natural habitats, true sanctuaries offer the best alternative. It’s what animals deserve and is the moral choice.

Valerie Taylor Phoenix The writer is the executive director of the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries.

“The Case Against Zoos” is an insult and a disservice to the thousands of passionate, dedicated people who work tirelessly to improve the lives of animals and protect our planet. Ms. Marris uses outdated research and decades-old examples to undermine the noble mission of organizations committed to connecting children to a world beyond their own.

I’ve specialized in zoo and aquarium marketing as a consultant for 20 years, working directly with animal keepers and their animals to produce commercials that feature everything from sharks to lemurs. I’ve never met more dedicated people in my life. They care for their animals as a parent would care for a child.

Zoos and aquariums are at the forefront of conservation and constantly evolving to improve how they care for animals and protect each species in its natural habitat. Are there tragedies? Of course. But they are the exception, not the norm that Ms. Marris implies. A distressed animal in a zoo will get as good or better treatment than most of us at our local hospital.

The Association of Zoos and Aquariums has been on a continual path of improvement, constantly examining its practices related to animal care and conservation throughout the world.

Most important, Ms. Marris glosses over the true value of zoos and aquariums. When a child looks a gorilla or otter or shark in the eye, something wondrous takes place. A connection is made to a world beyond our own that will live with them forever.

Greg Newberry Cincinnati The writer is president of Animal Instinct Advertising.

I quite agree with Emma Marris. Having lived in Kenya, driving in the Nairobi National Park early in the morning as the animals were beginning to move around, and experiencing the thrill of a black mane lion lying in the middle of the road as if he owned the kingdom, I do not go to zoos. To see the animals no longer able to roam, pacing in small areas, is too cruel to watch.

Frances McClure Oxford, Ohio

As a fellow environmentalist, animal-protection advocate and longtime vegetarian, I could properly be in the same camp as Emma Marris on the issue of zoos. But I believe that well-run zoos, and the heroic animals that suffer their captivity, do serve a higher purpose. Were it not for opportunities to observe these beautiful, wild creatures close to home, many more people would be driven by their fascination to travel to wild areas to seek out, disturb and even hunt them down.

Zoos are, in that sense, akin to natural history and archaeology museums, serving to satisfy our need for contact with these living creatures while leaving the vast majority undisturbed in their natural environments.

Dean Gallea Tarrytown, N.Y.

Emma Marris selectively describes and misrepresents the findings of our research . Our studies focused on the impact of zoo experiences on how people think about themselves and nature, and the data points extracted from our studies do not, in any way, discount what is learned in a zoo visit.

Zoos are tools for thinking. Our research provides strong support for the value of zoos in connecting people with animals and with nature. Zoos provide a critical voice for conservation and environmental protection. They afford an opportunity for people from all backgrounds to encounter a range of animals, from drone bees to springbok or salmon, to better understand the natural world we live in.

John Fraser Susan Clayton Wesley Schultz Dr. Fraser is the author of “The Social Value of Zoos.” Dr. Clayton and Dr. Schultz are professors of psychology.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Animals (Basel)

Dilemmas for Natural Living Concepts of Zoo Animal Welfare

Simple summary.

This ethical discourse specifically deals with dilemmas encountered within zoological institutions, namely for the concept of natural living , and a new term— wilding . Wilding refers to extrapolation of the natural living concept to treating an animal as wild, residing in a wild habitat . The problems associated with wilding are detailed. Complexities of natural living versus natural aesthetics as judged by humans, as well as the possibility of innate preference for naturalness within animals are examined. It is argued that unintended and unavoidable genetic and epigenetic drift favouring adaptations for life in a captive environment may still occur, despite zoos best efforts to prevent this from occurring. This article further discusses the blurred lines between natural and unnatural behaviours, and the overlaps with more important highly-motivated behaviours , which may be better predictors of positive affective states in captive animals, and thus, better predictors of positive well-being and welfare. Finally, as we are now in the Anthropocene era, it is suggested that human-animal interactions could actually be considered natural in a way, and notwithstanding, be very important to animals that initiate these interactions, especially for “a life worth living”.

This ethical discourse specifically deals with dilemmas encountered within zoological institutions, namely for the concept of natural living , and a new term— wilding . It is agreed by some that zoos are not ethically wrong in principle , but there are currently some contradictions and ethical concerns for zoos in practice . Natural living is a complicated concept, facing multiple criticisms. Not all natural behaviours, nor natural environments, are to the benefit of animals in a captive setting, and practical application of the natural living concept has flaws. Expression of natural behaviours does not necessarily indicate positive well-being of an animal. Herein it is suggested that highly-motivated behaviours may be a better term to properly explain behaviours of more significance to captive animals. Wilding refers to extrapolation of the natural living concept to treating an animal as wild, residing in a wild habitat . This definition is intrinsically problematic, as quite literally by definition, captivity is not a wild nor natural environment. Treating a captive animal exactly the same as a wild counterpart is practically impossible for many species in a few ways. This article discusses complexities of natural living versus natural aesthetics as judged by humans, as well as the possibility of innate preference for naturalness within animals. Zoos nobly strive to keep wild animals as natural and undomesticated as possible. Here it is argued that unintended and unavoidable genetic and epigenetic drift favouring adaptations for life in a captive environment may still occur, despite our best efforts to prevent this from occurring. This article further discusses the blurred lines between natural and unnatural behaviours, and the overlaps with more important highly-motivated behaviours , which may be better predictors of positive affective states in captive animals, and thus, better predictors of positive well-being and welfare. Finally, as we are now in the Anthropocene era, it is suggested that human-animal interactions could actually be considered natural in a way, and notwithstanding, be very important to animals that initiate these interactions, especially for “a life worth living”.

1. Introduction

To preface this article, I would acknowledge and address the implicit assumptions about animal welfare science and philosophy that have brought us to the ethical position herein. I would refer the readers to other published articles which explore the history of animal welfare and ethics in much depth, as these are used as a basis for our understanding and arguments [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. This article specifically deals with competing ideals of optimal animal welfare within zoological institutions, namely concepts of natural living , and a new term— wilding . This discourse does not necessarily apply to other captive animal industries such as farms or laboratories.

As other ethicists have written, I agree that zoos are not ethically wrong in principle , but there are currently some contradictions and ethical concerns for zoos in practice [ 5 ]. It should be understood that I am a supporter of zoological institutions and their betterment, although I may disagree with some zoo practices, and between myself and other researchers in ethical views of the specific dilemmas herein. It is also acknowledged that zoos are not going away any time soon (see [ 5 ]), so it is the pragmatic duty of researchers and philosophers to work with zoos constructively. I would also like to acknowledge the positions of other researchers in the field, such as Weary and Robbins [ 9 ], and Yeates [ 10 ]. This article is not intended as a refutation of these other recent articles about natural living and holistic welfare, but rather to present an alternate conception of one part of overall animal welfare that may have been misconstrued in certain zoo environments, leading to in practice incongruence and dilemmas. I acknowledge that my arguments are formulated from my moral and ethical position that humans have an obligation for special protection of captive animals , especially zoo animals, and I subscribe to many (but not all) elements of compassionate conservation ethical theory of contemporary philosophers such as Bekoff [ 11 ] and Gray [ 12 ] over purely utilitarian or consequentialist approaches. At the moment compassionate conservation remains very anti-zoo in its position, however, as Gray [ 12 ] posits, there is much merit in using this ethic to work with zoos constructively, to enhance zoos’ ethics and practices.

I acknowledge the currently accepted academic focus on the three conceptual frameworks (orientations) of animal welfare: biological functioning, affective states, and natural living [ 2 , 13 ]. This is how the science of animal welfare is commonly taught to undergraduate and postgraduate learners in our discipline. It is acknowledged, however, that this not the only way to conceptualise the entire picture of captive animal welfare [ 3 , 9 ], and that these three conceptual frameworks do not encompass all relevant information in all situations. I acknowledge that a predominant model for characterising and assessing good welfare, especially within zoos, is the Five Domains Model of Mellor and Reid [ 14 ] and Mellor and Beausoleil [ 15 ]. Whilst incorporating pluralistic scientific elements of welfare, at its core the Five Domains Model assumes a hedonistic priority of animal welfare, that is, what the animal feels about its life and environment is the most important factor in holistic welfare. In this article a pluralistic basis of welfare is acknowledged, though for the sake of argument a hedonistic basis is prioritised. It is understood, however, that a hedonistic priority also misses some of the whole picture [ 3 ]; hedonism-based welfare conceptions are not dogma. The two scientific concepts of biological functioning and affective states will only be touched on in this article, as my primary focus is to shine a light on how the concept of natural living may have been pushed past its useful bounds in zoo situations.

It should be stated that whilst hedonistic conceptions of welfare are mostly concerned with “how the lives of sentient animals are going, for the sake of, and from the perspective of, the animals themselves” [ 6 ], it is strongly suggested here that (as written by Weary and Robbins [ 9 ]) relationships matter . That is, not only are the self-derived internal states of the individual highly important, but also those emotion-inducing relationships that are important to the individual—such as relationships to conspecifics, other animals, and humans including carers and visitors— and some relationships that others have with that individual may also be important to welfare outcomes (for example, the specific values and attitudes a person holds will affect their relationship with an individual animal, and reinforcers to this relationship create a bi-directional, perpetual feedback loop). These relationships may then be reflected by the internal affective states of both (or all) agents in that interaction [ 16 , 17 ]. This has been characterised by the general Hemsworth-Coleman model of human-animal interactions [ 18 , 19 ]. The general model has been specifically adapted for zoo visitor-animal relationships [ 20 ], pictured below ( Figure 1 ). A very similar model has been proposed for zookeeper-animal interactions as well [ 20 ]. Human values and attitudes towards animals, and the relationships formed between them, can strongly influence subjective (hedonistic) experiences of welfare.

Proposed visitor-animal interaction model (adapted from Hemsworth-Coleman model (2011) by S. Chiew and L. Hemsworth, pers. comms. , 2016) [ 20 ].

2. Natural Living

Natural living is a (sometimes) useful key concept in the assessment of animal welfare, often defined as “providing opportunities for animals to engage in natural, species-specific behaviours” [ 1 , 2 , 10 ]. As a concept, it suggests that animals’ well-being may be considerably improved if they are able to perform species-specific behaviours from their natural repertoire , especially innate behaviours. In practice, this has often been achieved by removing restrictions to these behaviours (whether they are physical or environmental restrictions) and by providing appropriate objects, resources or enclosures with/in which to perform the behaviour(s). Often, definitions of the concept also include phrases about housing animals in natural environments . However, not all natural behaviours, nor natural environments, are to the benefit of animals in a captive setting, and practical application of the concept has many flaws. A main criticism of the use of natural living has been that “the concept of natural is usually too poorly defined to provide a sound basis for animal welfare assessment, and thus when applied uncritically it may lead to poorer welfare instead of an improvement” [ 21 ]. This criticism has been expressed quite commonly in the past few decades [ 1 , 2 , 10 , 19 , 22 ].

Articulation of the concept, and its transposition to practical application in many captive settings have somewhat missed the point entirely. Natural behaviour , natural living and naturalness are poorly-defined key terms that are too often conflated with other concepts and measures of an animal’s overall well-being, such as feelings (affective state) or function (biological functioning) [ 10 ]. Expression of natural behaviours does not necessarily indicate positive well-being of an animal; likewise absence of some natural behaviours does not necessarily indicate suffering [ 23 , 24 ]. Nor should the term natural behaviour be used when actually referring to other conceptual types of behaviours, such as highly-motivated behaviours , which may be natural or unnatural, however there is often significant overlap between these two terms. Herein I will suggest that highly-motivated behaviours may be a better term to properly explain behaviours of more significance to captive animals, and discuss where boundaries between harmless and harmful highly-motivated behaviours may lie (as we still have an ethical obligation to protect animals from harming themselves, whether intentionally or accidentally, in captivity).

3. Wilding: The Natural Living Dilemma

Natural living has been a useful tool for improving welfare, but its practical application, especially within zoos, has been extended beyond its theoretical usefulness, and in many instances has been misinterpreted as what I will herein refer to as wilding . Wilding is a new term created to refer to extrapolation of the natural living concept to treating an animal as wild, residing in a wild habitat . Wild here refers to “living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated” [ 25 ]. From a decade of first-hand experience within the zoo industry, this wilding conception of natural living has been encountered often enough to be considered pervasive amongst many zoo personnel’s implicit beliefs and taught knowledge about how zoos should approach animal welfare, though actual prevalence rates have not been systematically investigated. Indeed, many welfare assessment and monitoring tools deployed by zoos focus somewhat on natural environments and natural behaviours [ 26 ]. This wilding conception is intrinsically problematic for any captive animal industry (especially zoos) as, quite literally by definition, captivity is not a wild nor natural environment [ 27 ]. To place a wild animal in an artificial environment (no matter how accurate a recreation of a natural setting) and still presume to treat it exactly the same as a wild counterpart is practically impossible for many animal species, in a few obvious ways.

Firstly, truly wild animals in nature are not treated by humans in a particular way—they are not under the direct care of humans, however, they may yet be influenced by humans [ 28 ]. These wild animals may be exposed to humans in multiple situations, and even have interactions with humans, but their lives are not solely dictated by humans as captors/guardians. This does not preclude the possibility of interactions (both positive and negative) or conflicts arising between humans and animals, animals venturing into “human spaces”, or encroachment of humans into an animal’s native space [ 28 ]. However, as soon as an animal is placed in captivity, no matter how wild its behaviours or instincts, its care (and indeed its survival) is then determined and controlled by those humans that placed it there. A person cannot place an animal in a captive environment then refrain from providing basic cares or resources (such as food, water and shelter), and yet expect the animal to survive, let alone to thrive. Even in a highly accurate recreation of a natural environment, those basic resources must still be provided by the controlling humans—that is, the environment has been created and curated to provide those resources for the animal, through natural or artificial structures.

Secondly, even if it were the case that humans could provide a perfect replica of an animal’s wild environment with wild conditions, would it be morally or ethically permissible? Would it be (morally) right? Forgetting for a second that this perfect replica would still have been constructed upon another natural or wild environment (thereby destroying a natural habitat and causing displacement of many native species), if truly a replica of natural conditions, then the animals placed in this environment would be subject to both the boons and significant hardships of nature. Nature is often bountiful and has allowed the rise of an amazingly diverse array of living beings, but has also borne witness to countless extinctions and ecological changes. Wild animals often must endure very harsh conditions to survive—conditions that objectively lead to periods of very poor welfare, when measured through scientific welfare concepts (biological functioning and affective states) [ 10 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Inclement weather and natural disasters such as droughts, fires or floods, are all common occurrences in nature. Animals must endure a lack of shelter, food or water in many areas; they must avoid predation, injury, and disease; they may experience miscarriages, offspring mortalities or reproductive issues; they often have to compete with other animals (both of their own and other species) for access to resources; and they have to navigate oft-unfair social interactions and hierarchies. Often, living in nature leads to prolonged suffering and ends in premature death for individuals.

Many wild-type or natural behaviours are also maladaptive in a captive environment (such as fratricide or infanticide for extreme examples; to significant inbreeding in closed populations; group ostracism of certain individuals; or unfulfillable migratory behaviours/motivations) [ 12 , 30 , 31 ]. Thus, if it was indeed the objective of captive animal industries, such as zoos, to perfectly replicate natural environments so their animals may live wildly , it follows that all of the hardships of nature would also occur, or would have to be imposed. This is not a tenable ethical position that any zoo organisation is known to advocate. Instead, natural recreations of wild environments in zoos try to focus mainly on positive elements of nature, without imposition of events or states that may significantly diminish the animal’s well-being [ 5 , 26 , 30 , 32 ]. Ethically, one will not find much (or any) opposition to this mode of treatment of the captive animals. This also provides a pro-captivity argument against some anti-captivity, animal freedom -based philosophies—captivity does indeed curtail some freedom of the captive animal, but it also provides solace and shelter from significant welfare-affecting hardships, which may be especially of benefit to those animals whom are most vulnerable to suffering. Indeed, if captivity is providing all of the needs and wants of an animal (including positive affective experiences), but without liberty, then liberty is not necessarily a basic interest of the animal [ 5 ]. Zoos are often the last bastion of hope for many endangered species, as their wild homes have been irreparably damaged or overtaken by ever-expanding human populations [ 12 , 28 , 30 , 33 ]. This is an ever more salient point after the United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released a 2019 report which estimates that anthropogenic influences may cause the extinction of 1 million species of animals and plants [ 33 ].

It should be noted that whilst zoos tend to focus mostly on recreating positive elements of nature and reducing negative circumstances, many zoos also understand the impossibility of complete elimination of all negative circumstances, events, or negative feelings within an animal. In fact, many zoos will impose slight negative circumstances if it is believed that they may be of benefit to the animals’ health, fitness, or experience of life [ 34 ]. That is, harmless or minimally harmful negative circumstances are sometimes imposed to increase stress resilience and/or physiological arousal of an animal [ 35 , 36 ]. For example, it has been reported that reliably signalling startling husbandry events can improve stress resilience and welfare of zoo-housed capuchins ( Sapajus apella ), whilst still leading to physiological arousal within the animals [ 37 ]. However, where is the distinction drawn between harmless, minimally harmful and very harmful negatives? And who makes these categorical judgements?

Through collaborative practices shared between many zoos, a few common circumstances for imposing minimally harmful negative events include: rotational predator-prey housing (where predatory species and prey species are rotated into the same enclosure at separate times); predator-prey adjacent housing with visual proximity; olfactory proximity between predator-prey species or dominant-subordinate species (sometimes in the form of “enrichment”, like adding predator bedding material to a prey enclosure); or auditory proximity between predator-prey species (such as housing prey species within earshot of vocalising predators or dominant species, or playing recorded audio of predator/dominant animal vocalisations near prey/subordinate species) [ 26 , 31 ]. These circumstances are thought to confer some resilience to animals through arousal of certain fear and vigilance responses, which can have a wide range of beneficial physiological effects, if not experienced for prolonged periods (acute stressors versus chronic stressors) [ 35 , 36 ]. Therefore, some mild harms are actually of high instrumental value within a captive environment. However, there should be a trepidation of pushing such stress responses too far in prey species, or causing inadvertent frustrations to these animals, for example in adjacent predator-prey housing where predators can visually see prey in very close proximity, but not actually reach them. Repeated frustration of consummatory outcomes may lead to development of negative affective states, as indicated by frustration-type behaviours [ 24 , 34 ]. More evidence is needed of the overall effects of the imposition of these stressors on individual animals, to ensure that the intended arousal and stress resilience is being achieved whilst avoiding unintended frustrations or development of negative affective states in these animals.

4. Natural Living, or Just Natural Looking?

Erstwhile, when considering and implementing positive natural enclosures, zoos may tend to focus only on those that, aesthetically, lead people to believe that the environment is natural . For example, lush plant-life (or well-designed arid/desert habitats), water features, painted backdrops or “mock-rock” walls, absence of artificial structures, and/or limiting contact with visitors (or even staff/keepers) whether the limitations are visual, tactile or proximal. Much of the time, considerations of what is aesthetically pleasing may eclipse considerations of what is functional and appropriate, with respect to evidence-based practices [ 31 ]. More than just looking natural, zoo animals’ enclosures must be able to provide necessary features and structures to allow animals to display a range of important behaviours, provide access to perform positive husbandry practices, and allow ease-of-access for emergency procedures to be adhered to (for both animal emergencies, and other visitor or human emergency situations which may occur). If a natural look is considered forefront, this may lead to functional inadequacies in many enclosures. Sometimes artificial structures in enclosures may be more appropriate to facilitate specific animal behaviours—whereas natural structures may weaken, deteriorate or break (such as tree branches or vines), suitable artificial replacements may provide the necessary environment for the behaviour and be a considerably more durable, sturdy or clean provision, which would require far less maintenance (and therefore monetary cost). As is becoming apparent in novel affective state research, interactions with humans may actually be beneficial and rewarding for some zoo-housed species in some situations [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. If a zoo is too focused on wilding their animals, opportunities to truly provide the best positive welfare conditions for the captive animals may be missed or ignored. Therefore, mixed natural/artificial enclosures for animals in zoos, that consider function, aesthetics, appropriate contact with humans, and practicality, may be much more fitting than the natural-only enclosures of the recent past. Two questions we might ask ourselves of mixed natural-artificial environments are as follows:

• Does the animal have the capacity to know that the environment is (partly) artificial?
• Does the animal care if the environment is (partly) artificial?

These are open-ended questions that might be addressed in a separate paper, drawing from current knowledge of animal neurobiology and cognition, and their needs and wants for a “life worth living” [ 4 , 42 ]. There is some evidence that some species do indeed display an innate preference for naturalistic “enriched” enclosures as opposed to basic artificial environments without many features (barren environments) (Box Turtles [ 43 , 44 ]; Coal tits and blue tits [ 45 ]), suggesting that some animals may indeed have a capacity to identify natural environments. Alternatively, perhaps they just innately prefer non-barren , enriched environments—perhaps these animals would be just as likely to select enriched artificial environments over any basic or barren environments. Utilising current animal welfare research and expert consensus a new era of evidence-based enclosure design, natural or not, which consider the animals’ needs foremost, should be the next step forward for zoo institutions [ 46 ]. As will be explored later, unnatural or artificial environments can still be compatible with promoting the expression of natural behaviours.

A dilemma with wilding , then, is that attempts to treat captive animals as wild are partly or wholly incongruent with their actual situation. As has been said in this article before, captive animals are not, nor will they be, wild animals living in a wild environment . Their living environment is completely curated by humans, who must make many decisions for the animals for their best interests. This does not mean that we should attempt to treat all captive animals as we would extensively domesticated animals such as livestock or companion animals (i.e., dogs and cats). Zoos indeed strive to keep their wild animals as “undomesticated” as possible [ 12 ]. This, however, may be an unattainable ideal, due to unintended and unavoidable genetic and epigenetic drifts favouring adaptations for life in a captive environment, despite our best efforts to otherwise prevent this from occurring. Indeed, in a human-animal interaction review chapter, Hemsworth et al. [ 18 ] write about the possibility of unintended domestication in zoos, citing research such as Price [ 47 , 48 ]—“While zoo animals are generally not considered to be domestic animals, domestication can obviously occur with wild animals kept and bred in captivity, such as zoos, but the extent of the domestication process will depend on the rate of artificial selection” [ 18 ]. The chapter also highlights the distinction between domestication of a group of animals, and taming of an individual animal—domestication can be defined as “a process by which a population of animals becomes adapted to man and to the captive environment by genetic changes occurring over generations and environmentally induced developmental events reoccurring during each generation” [ 48 ]; whereas taming is simply “an experiential (learning) phenomenon occurring during the lifetime of an individual animal” [ 47 ]. Domestication is a process most likely to happen to animals that are purposefully kept in captivity, and artificially bred or selected, or genetically altered, by humans. Individual taming may more frequently occur in both captive and wild animals that are in regular contact with humans.

To unpack this, we should consider other historical animal domestications. The domestication process has taken thousands of years for those animals that we now consider domesticated. In that time, these animals have been subject to multiple selective pressures including artificially imposed selective breeding, turning them from a “wild-variant” into domesticated animals, specifically chosen for their desirable adaptations. A strong argument against the concept of natural living for these domesticated animals, therefore, is that these animals don’t actually represent or reflect any animal which may be found in the wild or in nature [ 10 ]. They have transformed into animals that don’t fill any natural ecological niche, whose existence is solely reliant upon human intervention and care, and their persistence is reliant upon humans’ continual propagation of that lineage. Of course, if all human interference or interaction were to cease, these “unnatural” animals are still a part of the biotic community of Earth, and they would be able to freely breed and propagate themselves. Yet still they would not be a part of the current natural ecosystem , they still would not have a natural ecological niche, and many cases of free-living livestock or pets (feral animals) in many inappropriate locations have led to irreparable habitat degradation or even ecosystem collapse [ 28 , 30 ].

Many researchers posit the co-evolution of wolves and humans, rather than the one-way domestication of the animal [ 49 ]. Both species adapted to working with each other (for the benefit of both) over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Wolf-human co-evolution is now suggested to have happened at multiple historical intervals in different geographical regions, leading to the rise of an entire species (or sub-species), dogs ( Canis familiaris , or Canis lupus familiaris ), and a multitude of breeds [ 49 ]. This co-evolution theory may plausibly explain the domestication process of most modern livestock and pets. Novel research also suggests that the co-evolution of humans and many of our domestic species may have been modulated and propagated by the shared experience of bonding, through the ubiquitous neurotransmitter oxytocin [ 50 , 51 ]. While general consensus would not consider zoo-housed animals as domesticated, we must consider that humans have unintentionally started these animals down a similar domestication pathway, as we now approach the third century of keeping animals in zoos, with many captive animal lineages able to be traced back over 100 years in captivity [ 12 ]. This generational captive breeding (including artificial selection of mates) will certainly have profound effects on the prevalent adaptations of these captive animals—adaptations to life in a captive environment and in close proximity with humans. Speculatively, it is possible that close contact with humans may be activating oxytocin pathways in many captive zoo species, leading to positive affiliative (or bonding) human-animal interactions. Indeed, some researchers are starting to focus on reported keeper-animal bonds in zoos [ 52 , 53 ]. However, 300 years is still a shorter timespan than the domestication process for most other animals we keep today (with exception for some farmed species, such as rapidly “domesticated” mink and foxes), and most animals displayed in zoos still resemble and behave like their wild counterparts far more than any newly bred type of domesticated animal.

One of the core tenets of zoos is to display wild animals that have, and will retain, a certain wildness to visitors, not to breed new types of domesticated animals [ 12 ]. Therefore, many practices and safeguards are employed by zoos to try to maintain this wildness . However, the efficacy of our attempts to retain wildness may eventually be mooted by uncontrollable selective pressures of generational life in captivity. If zoos exist 1000 years from now, zoo animals may have significantly drifted from true representations of their wild counterparts (many of which will be extinct in the wild). But, zoos will still strive to maintain wildness. And for many animals, zoos’ careful management will at least succeed in slowing the rate of domestication, but inevitably some genetic or epigenetic drift (mitochondrial drift), or even morphological drift, might still occur regardless of our procedures and safeguards. Thus, these captive animals that still resemble wild species must have specific requirements for care and housing that may differ from common practices for domesticated animals. This is the care that zoos should, and do, provide. But zoos must also make many ethical judgements and decisions which will benefit the animal for a full and rich life in captivity, whether wild or domesticated or somewhere in-between.

There is significant pressure on zoos to exist to advance both animal welfare and wildlife conservation priorities. Indeed, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) cite conservation as zoos’ core purpose , but fostering positive animal welfare is their core activity [ 32 ]. However, this animal welfare strategy document also quite plainly acknowledges that often conservation priorities may compromise optimal welfare, but zoos should always endeavour to minimise welfare-reducing conditions [ 32 ]. A strong priority of zoos is to avoid genetic drift towards domestication of their captive held wild animals, but, as explained above, there is still a risk that time will change these animals in unknowable ways. This is not written intentionally as an inflammatory argument against genetic selection and diversity processes utilised by zoos, but merely as an acknowledgement of the inherent entropy of many natural systems, and an acknowledgement that humans do not have absolute control of natural processes. But, we do our best with the science and technology that we have available. This ethical wildness dilemma has been explored in context of other arguments, such as human-controlled facilitated adaptation to climate change impacts [ 29 ]. It should also be considered that there may be negative impacts of zoos maintaining wildness in their non-releasable captive animals, especially in species known to have low behavioural plasticity [ 30 ]. For example, some wild animals may be very prone to negative welfare states due to captivity, manifesting in fear or anxiety responses and behavioural patterns [ 24 , 30 ], whereas domesticated or semi-domesticated species (or wild species with high behavioural plasticity) may potentially cope better in captive environments [ 30 ].

5. (Un)Natural Behaviours

Part of the natural living concept is a focus on allowing animals to express natural behaviours . As has been pointed out by many, however, the definition of natural behaviour is problematic, especially when referring to domesticated species with no natural or wild equivalent animal, and therefore, no known natural behaviours (for review, see [ 10 ]). Again, wilding runs into problematic territory here, by over-emphasising or reinforcing only those natural behaviours that are generally displayed by the species in the wild . Academics have suggested multiple alternative terms for natural behaviour that may better define what is intended, such as normal behaviours or species-typical behaviours [ 1 , 10 , 18 , 34 ]. However, these terms still struggle to articulate which behaviours are definitely included as natural, and behaviours classified in this way may be adaptive or maladaptive for a captive environment. For example, migratory behaviour would be considered normal or typical for a migratory bird species, but is maladaptive in captivity as the animal can not fulfill that motivation [ 30 ]. Many behaviours that are displayed by a species in nature have no function or purpose in a captive setting. Simply because a natural behaviour is not displayed in captivity does not infer that the animal is in a state of distress or suffering. If a natural behaviour serves no purpose for the animal in its captive environment, the motivation to perform the behaviour may be very low or non-existent [ 19 , 23 , 24 , 34 ].

Therefore, more important measures of welfare-positive behaviours for captive animals are highly-motivated behaviours , and highly-rewarding behaviours . These behaviours may be part of a natural repertoire, or wholly unnatural —only displayed in captivity. So-called unnatural behaviours may be the most adaptive for the animal’s captive environment, and may be important for positive affective experiences for that animal. Unnatural behaviours do not fit with the ethos of the concept of natural living or wilding , and attempts may be made to extinguish these behaviours. However, this may actually be of more harm to the animal than benefit—if the behaviour is highly motivated, frustration of that motivation may lead to a negative affective state, and possibly a negative welfare state [ 24 ]. Restricting an animal’s behaviours to only those which are considered natural may also significantly reduce that animal’s ability to make choices (reducing self-determined agency), which in turn leads to a perceived lack of control over their situation, which is known to negatively affect coping efforts and welfare of captive animals [ 31 , 54 , 55 , 56 ].

Another curiosity of nature is what I will term unexpected natural behaviours . These are behaviours that will be performed by wild animals in specific unnatural situations, such as interacting with artificial running wheels or mirrors placed in wild environments. Quite a few “popular science” documentaries and online videos show the effects of placing these sorts of objects in nature. Often animals in these videos will run in the artificial wheel, or stare at their reflection for long periods [ 57 ]. These are wholly wild animals that are interacting naturally with artificial ( unnatural ) objects. Following from this, many behaviours in captive animals may be incorrectly classified as unnatural , as they are behaviours that are also displayed by wild animals with access to the same or similar unnatural objects.

To increase well-being and assist positive welfare outcomes for captive animals, focus needs to shift from a fixation on what are considered natural behaviours to those behaviours which the animal appears highly-motivated to perform. Thus, rather than focus on treating animals as though they were wild , it would be more pertinent to focus on allowing animals to express highly-motivated behaviours , particularly if deprivation or frustration of these behaviours results in significant stress, reduced fitness and/or a negative affective state [ 24 ]. Expressing highly-motivated behaviours may also afford the animals more agency and choice within their environments [ 54 ], which should be allowed within reasonable limits—the allowed behaviours must not compromise the safety or health of the individual performing the behaviours, or of the other animal(s) or human(s) involved (i.e., allowing a predator to hunt for live prey does not consider the ethical obligations for the safety of the intended prey animal). This may be categorised into harmless and harmful wants of an animal. Harmless wants may include highly-motivated behaviours such as foraging, climbing, playing or resting. Harmful wants may include highly-motivated behaviours such as feeding, hunting or fighting without restriction . The important factor here is that harmful wants without restriction can lead to harmful consequences (negative, self-injurious or self-destructive outcomes) for the individual performing the behaviour, or for individuals that are the target of the behaviours. A classic example is allowing Labradors access to food ad libitum will often result in excessive overeating causing multiple long-term health problems, such as obesity and other related conditions. These limits need to be examined carefully and thoroughly, as they will be very species- and individual-specific behavioural limitations. Many zoos are already doing this, however consensus for an ethical and practical realignment towards promoting highly-motivated behaviours instead of natural behaviours needs to be agreed to and endorsed by zoological institutions, associations, workers and allies.

6. Are Human-Animal Interactions Natural?

Whether zoos focus on natural behaviours or highly-motivated behaviours, both of these may still include direct interactions with humans. It is often supposed or assumed that human-animal interactions in zoos are an unnatural phenomenon, however, there is one clear way to counter this presumption. In nature, wild animals encounter many other species around them, to which they must adapt, and often interact with, in positive, negative and neutral ways (from symbiotic relationships to parasitic or predatory relationships). Most wild animals now have to adapt not only to their historically natural ecosystem conspecifics, but also to a multitude of invasive species that were previously unknown to them or their ancestors [ 28 , 30 ]. Also, as we now live in the Anthropocene era, wild animals increasingly have to adapt to the ever-growing and ever-encroaching human population, in an increasingly human-affected world [ 28 , 30 , 33 ]. In captivity, then, are not humans one of those species to adapt to, and to interact with? Humanity often assumes some removal of our species from the rest of nature, that we are somehow a step apart from other animals. It is doubtful that this is how other animals view humans, however. Often one of the great curiosities of the natural world is how competing animal species may form symbiotic balances that benefit all, and actively help each other in interactions. These would be deemed natural behaviours . Therefore, if many species actively interact with other species as a mode of adaptation to their environment, would it not follow that human-animal interactions in zoos could actually be considered quite natural adaptations? And if those interactions are highly-motivated in the animal, should we encourage them?

Whether these interactions are deemed natural or unnatural , allowing for positive human-animal interactions may be one avenue of increasing positive affective experiences for animals, especially if those animals are highly motivated to interact with humans (whether it be zookeepers or zoo visitors) [ 39 ]. These interactions must be subject to rigorous safety evaluations for all participants, of course. However, the current status quo of wilding frameworks often view these interactions as undesirable in any and all situations, regardless of the animal’s motivations behind the intended behaviours. Again, frustration of these motivations may actually be detracting from an animal’s well-being. If an animal is highly motivated to interact with humans in or around its environment, and if those interactions are considered safe for all participants, then those interactions should be allowed to occur, or even promoted (through supervised offerings of such interactions). Obviously some interactions are exempt from these stipulations, when considering an animal’s overall health or best interests (such as veterinary procedures or restraint for medical treatment), though positive reinforcement training schedules can often remove some of the harshest penalties to the animals these situation might present (such as training for quick, mildly-aversive hand-injections, blood sampling, or “crate training” for restraint and transport) [ 37 , 58 ].

An animal’s motivation to engage in positive human-interactions may vary from day-to-day, based on other internal and external factors, but the animal should never be confined to, or negatively coerced into, an interaction scenario. The choice to interact should always be on an animal’s own terms. This may not be the case for all human-animal interactions currently deployed by zoos across the world. Often, many “encounter” or “interaction” animals are not afforded a choice of whether to participate or not, or are housed in inadequate areas that may increase their desire to escape that area, even if it means having to interact when they are unwilling [ 59 , 60 ]. Most industry-accredited zoos have their own welfare charter, and have processes and policies implemented to safeguard encounter animal well-being, and to try to offer as much choice as possible to the animals before being handled for interactions. Indeed, the guidelines published by WAZA [ 32 ] state that: “ Interactive experiences should be non-invasive, safe and non-stressful for animals. Monitoring of all animals involved in interactions must be ongoing and have professional oversight. Risks to animal welfare should be minimised by carefully considering whether interactive experiences are appropriate, and if they are, by accommodating the animals’ particular needs ” (p. 74).

7. Conclusions

Natural living may be a useful concept for developing robust measures of holistic zoo animal welfare, but care must be taken to avoid the pitfalls and dilemmas explored in this article. Specifically, wilding is a concept that may not truly be providing zoo personnel with an appropriate ethical or conceptual basis for optimizing evidence-based animal welfare. Zoos will continue existing well into the future, and so more appropriate measures of what is important to an animal for a “life worth living” in captivity should tend towards highly-motivated behaviours rather than just natural behaviours . Human-animal interactions in zoos are a source of debate and controversy, however, if implemented appropriately, they may significantly enhance animal well-being and holistic animal welfare (which may still be distinctly different concepts, even though the words are now often used interchangeably [ 10 ]), as they are often relationships of great importance to captive animals. Further exploration of what might constitute positive human-animal interactions, both scientifically and ethically, as well as ways of implementing such interactions without leading to unintended or “undesirable” human behavioural patterns emerging (such as an increased desire to “own” exotic wildlife) shall be forthcoming as a follow-up to this article.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge the immense help of Peter Sandøe in testing and tempering the ethical arguments presented within. Thank you, Peter. The author also wishes to thank Paul Hemsworth, Sally Sherwen and Jenny Gray for their critique, comments and guidance. This paper represents an ethical chapter of a broader ethical and experimental PhD thesis conducted through the University of Melbourne, Australia.

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

share this!

January 27, 2023

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

The impact of zoos on society is largely underestimated, says study

by University of Exeter

The benefits of zoos to society and local communities are largely underestimated by the wider population, new research shows.

Researchers found zoos have a unique platform to engage visitors with important messages that contribute to human health and well-being and sustainability.

Zoos and aquariums are some of the most popular tourist attractions, with an estimated 700 million visitors globally each year.

The value of zoos to nature conservation and applied animal science is well understood, but the new study says zoos also have an important role to play in how human society thinks of, and cares about, the natural world , which is not widely known.

As part of the study, researchers conducted an in-depth review of the work of zoos, specifically relating to how they fulfill their four key aims—conservation, education, recreation and research—and how each aim has "added value" in representing the benefits of zoos to society.

The online presence of zoos, the publications they generate, and the activities that they support outside of the zoo, were also analyzed by researchers.

Researchers say that integrating zoos as a resource for human health, and educating visitors on biodiversity, conservation, planetary health, human well-being and sustainable living , and enabling a pro-conservation behavior change within the wider society, will enhance the role of zoos further.

"A zoo is more than a place of entertainment and a collection of animals. Zoos allow us to experience nature and are a great resource for understanding more about conservation, biodiversity and sustainability, bringing many positive benefits to human mental health and well-being," said Dr. Paul Rose, Lecturer at the Center for Research in Animal Behavior and Psychology at The University of Exeter.

"We need places of conservation, such as zoos, to provide us with the education and understanding about the natural world, and for us to be educated, the aims of the zoos need to incorporate increased and meaningful engagement with society and local communities ."

The research found there is still more work to be done and there are many questions for scientists and zoo personnel to explore, as well as evaluating the effect of educational messages, and if the messages are making an impact to human behavior towards planetary health and sustainability.

The paper, written by the University of Exeter, University of Winchester, University of Birmingham, Sparsholt College Hampshire and Dublin Zoo, is published in the Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens and is titled "The Societal Value of the Modern Zoo: A Commentary on How Zoos Can Positively Impact on Human Populations Locally and Globally."

Provided by University of Exeter

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Managing meandering waterways in a changing world

2 hours ago

New dataset sheds light on relationship of far-red sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence to canopy-level photosynthesis

How much trust do people have in different types of scientists?

3 hours ago

Scientists say voluntary corporate emissions targets not enough to create real climate action

4 hours ago

Barley plants fine-tune their root microbial communities through sugary secretions

A shortcut for drug discovery: Novel method predicts on a large scale how small molecules interact with proteins

Yeast study offers possible answer to why some species are generalists and others specialists

Cichlid fishes' curiosity promotes biodiversity: How exploratory behavior aids in ecological adaptation

Climate change could become the main driver of biodiversity decline by mid-century, analysis suggests

First-of-its-kind study shows that conservation actions are effective at halting and reversing biodiversity loss

Relevant physicsforums posts, cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better.

8 hours ago

Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics?

Apr 24, 2024

Great Rhythm Sections in the 21st Century

Biographies, history, personal accounts.

Apr 23, 2024

History of Railroad Safety - Spotlight on current derailments

Apr 21, 2024

For WW2 buffs!

Apr 20, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Zoo YouTube videos prioritize entertainment over education

May 11, 2021

Zoo enrichment could go further

Jan 27, 2022

Birds living in natural habits can help inform captive care

Feb 5, 2021

Size matters! What drives zoo attendance and how does footfall impact conservation?

Feb 4, 2020

Could theatre be way forward in communicating conservation messages?

Feb 7, 2019

Flock size and structure found to influence reproductive success for flamingos

Jan 26, 2023

Recommended for you

Maternal grandmothers' support buffers children against the impacts of adversity, finds study

7 hours ago

The magic of voices: Why we like some singers' voices and not others

Social change may explain decline in genetic diversity of the Y chromosome at the end of the Neolithic period

Study finds rekindling old friendships as scary as making new ones

Understanding the spread of behavior: How long-tie connections accelerate the speed of social contagion

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

More pandas are coming to the US. This time to San Francisco, the first time since 1985

The san francisco zoo is preparing to welcome giant pandas after mayor london breed asked china president xi jinping for them back in february. the timing has not yet been determined..

Just a few weeks after the San Diego Zoo announced that they were bringing back pandas to the United States, the San Francisco Zoo said that they're bringing the cuddly bears to northern California.

"We’re thrilled for the return of the Giant Panda to San Francisco Zoo & Gardens after all these years," Tanya Peterson, the zoo's executive director said in a statement. "The Giant Panda symbolizes hope for conservation collaboration and bridges divides between cultural differences." We thank Mayor London Breed, city leaders, and colleagues in China for returning these amazing ambassadors to beautiful San Francisco!"

The pandas are being brought to San Francisco as part of China's Panda Diplomacy program, Mayor London Breed's office said in a news release .

Breed said that the city was thrilled to be welcoming the giant pandas that efforts to bring them to the zoo had been ongoing for nearly a year, prior to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ meeting in San Francisco last November, during which U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Chinese President Xi Jinping met.

"These Giant Pandas will honor our deep cultural connections and our Chinese and API (Asian/Pacific Islander) heritage," the mayor said. "It’s an honor that our city has been chosen for the first time to be a long-term home for Giant Pandas. They will bring residents and visitors from all over who come to visit them at the SF Zoo."

Pandas last came to San Francisco in 1985

The pandas were last at the San Francisco zoo on temporary visits in 1984 and 1985, according to the mayor's office and the zoo.

"In 1984, two pandas named Yun-Yun and Ying-Xin visited the zoo for three months as part of the 1984 Summer Olympics tour, and drew more than 260,000 visitors to the San Francisco Zoo, roughly four times the average attendance during the time," the mayor's office said.

The pandas visited the zoo again for three months in 1985.

When are the giant pandas coming to the San Francisco zoo?

The timing of the arrival of the pandas has not been announced.

The mayor's office said that a date will be set once the panda enclosure at the zoo is complete. Preliminary work on that has already begun and engineers from the Beijing Zoo travelled to San Francisco to meet with officials of the zoo and assist in the preparations.

Why did pandas get removed from zoos in the US?

Zoos across the country returned their pandas last year because of the rocky relationship between the U.S. and China.

Three beloved pandas, Tian Tian, Mei Xiang, and Xiao QI Ji, were sent back to China from the Smithsonian National Zoo in Washington, D.C., in November after attempts to renew a three-year agreement with China Wildlife Conservation Association failed.

The decision to return them came after Jinping, who called pandas "envoys of friendship between the Chinese and American peoples," met with Biden in November.

"I was told that many American people, especially children, were really reluctant to say goodbye to the pandas and went to the zoo to see them off," Xi said.

Mayor Breed sent a letter to Jinping in Feburary along with over 70 local Chinese and API community and merchant leaders and requested for San Francisco to receive the pandas.

China's history of loaning out pandas

China gifted the first panda to the U.S. in 1972 after President Richard Nixon formalized normal relations with China. The practice was dubbed "panda diplomacy."

Over the years, China has loaned pandas to other foreign zoos in hopes that it will build ties with those countries.

Contributing: Julia Gomez, USA TODAY

Saman Shafiq is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at [email protected] and follow her on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter @saman_shafiq7.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

True crime podcasts are popular in the U.S., particularly among women and those with less formal education

True crime stands out as the most common topic of top-ranked podcasts in the United States, according to a new Pew Research Center study . So who, exactly, listens to true crime podcasts?

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to explore U.S. adults’ views of and experiences with podcasts as a part of the news and information landscape.

To examine the ways Americans get news and information in a digital age, the Center surveyed 5,132 U.S. adults from Dec. 5 to 11, 2022. Everyone who completed the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology .

In the questionnaire, U.S. adults who said they are currently listening to at least one podcast were asked in an open-ended question to write in the name of the podcast that they listen to most. If respondents answered with the names of more than one podcast, only the first one was coded. In total, 1,563 open-end responses were coded.

Here are  the questions used  in the survey, along with responses, and  its methodology .

As part of the study, the Center also took a close look at key characteristics of top-ranked podcasts. Researchers identified these top podcasts by analyzing daily lists of the top 200 podcasts on Apple Podcasts and Spotify from April 1 to Sept. 30, 2022. The average chart position of each podcast that appeared on either list was calculated, and the top 300 podcasts from each site were included as top podcasts. Researchers identified 451 top podcasts by combining these lists so that podcasts that were among the top 300 on both sites were not counted twice.

A team of trained researchers then analyzed these 451 podcasts to determine podcast affiliation, topic, format and other key characteristics of each podcast. Additional data on episode length and frequency was analyzed after collecting data on all episodes published in 2022 through the Spotify and Apple Podcasts application programming interface.

Here are the detailed tables for this analysis of 451 top-ranked podcasts, and the methodology .

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. This is the latest analysis in Pew Research Center’s ongoing investigation of the state of news, information and journalism in the digital age, a research program funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

Overall, 34% of U.S. adults who have listened to a podcast in the past year say they regularly listen to podcasts about true crime, according to a 2022 Center survey . But some demographic groups are more likely than others to do so:

• Among U.S. podcast listeners, women are almost twice as likely as men to regularly listen to true crime podcasts (44% vs. 23%).
• Podcast listeners with less formal education are more likely than those with higher levels of education to listen to shows about true crime. Looking at podcast listeners who have a high school diploma or less, 45% regularly listen to true crime podcasts. A third of podcast listeners with some college education say the same, as do 27% of those who have at least a bachelor’s degree. This pattern persists even when accounting for age.
• While women are more likely to listen to true crime podcasts overall, women with lower levels of formal education are the most likely to do so. A majority (57%) of women with a high school diploma or less say they regularly listen to true crime podcasts, compared with 34% of men with the same education level and 36% of women with a college degree.
• Younger podcast listeners are more likely than the oldest listeners to report tuning in to shows about true crime. Among U.S. podcast listeners ages 18 to 29, 41% regularly listen to true crime podcasts. This compares with 15% of listeners ages 65 and older.

The Center’s new study finds that true crime is the most common topic among top-ranked podcasts – defined as those with the highest average daily rankings on Apple’s and Spotify’s lists of top podcasts in a six-month period in 2022. Almost a quarter (24%) of these top podcasts are primarily about true crime.

True crime podcasts are often investigations into murders, scandals and other criminal events. Serial, which helped to popularize the genre , is a series that provides in-depth investigations into particular crimes or events. Due to its popularity, Serial is often credited for drawing national attention to the conviction of Adnan Syed.

Other top-ranked podcasts in this genre include 20/20, Crime Junkie, Dateline NBC, and My Favorite Murder. Crime Junkie and Dateline NBC are among the most popular podcasts cited by podcast listeners who gave a name for the show they tune in to most – 1% named each of these podcasts.

While true crime is the most common topic among top-ranked podcasts, it is not the most popular topic Americans report listening to, according to the Center’s recent survey . About a third of podcast listeners in the United States (34%) say they regularly listen to podcasts about true crime.

Other topics – such as comedy (47%) and entertainment, pop culture and the arts (46%) – are more popular than true crime.

While the Center’s survey did not specifically ask why podcast listeners turn to specific topics such as true crime, we can look at the reasons that people said they listen to podcasts in general – and among those who said the podcast they listen to most is true crime.

Of those who said their main podcast is about true crime, the most common major reasons for listening were for entertainment (85%) and to have something to listen to while doing something else (84%). They were less likely to cite reasons like learning, hearing other people’s opinions, or staying up to date about current events.

Note: Here are the detailed tables for this analysis of 451 top-ranked podcasts, and the methodology . Here are the questions used for this analysis, and our survey methodology .

• Audio, Radio & Podcasts
• Entertainment

Sarah Naseer is a research assistant focusing on news and information research at Pew Research Center

Jane Doe is a a research analyst focusing on social and demographic research at Pew Research Center

Most Top-Ranked Podcasts Bring On Guests

An audio tour through america’s top-ranked podcasts, q&a: how we used large language models to identify guests on popular podcasts, news platform fact sheet, for national radio day, key facts about radio listeners and the radio industry in the u.s., most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy