purpose of zoo research

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

Kristian Steensen Nielsen, Theresa M. Marteau, … Andrew Balmford

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

Andrew Mooney, Dalia A. Conde, … Yvonne M. Buckley

Decision-making of citizen scientists when recording species observations

Diana E. Bowler, Netra Bhandari, … Aletta Bonn

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

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

A zoo is a place where animals live in captivity and are put on display for people to view. The word “zoo” is short for “zoological park."

Biology, Social Studies, World History

Loading ...

A zoo is a place where animals live in captivity and are put on display for people to view. The word “ zoo ” is short for “ zoological park.” Zoos contain wide varieties of animals that are native to all parts of the Earth. Though people have kept wild animals for thousands of years, those collections have not always resembled modern zoos . The first zoos were created as private collections by the wealthy to show their power. These private collections were called menageries . Wall carvings found in Egypt and Mesopotamia are evidence that rulers and aristocrats created menageries as early as 2500 BCE. They left records of expeditions to distant places to bring back exotic animals such as giraffes, elephants, bears, dolphins, and birds. There is evidence that ancient zoo owners hired animal handlers to make sure their animals thrived and reproduced . Zoos also existed in later civilizations , including China, Greece, and Rome. The Aztec emperor Montezuma II , in what is today Mexico, maintained one of the earliest animal collections in the Western Hemisphere . It was destroyed by Hernan Cortes during the Spanish conquest in 1520. Modern Zoos The model of the modern, public zoo became popular in 18th century, during the Age of Enlightenment . The Age of Enlightenment was a period in European history when science , reason , and logic were promoted as ideals of society and government . The scientific focus of the Age of Enlightenment extended to zoology . During this time, people started wanting to study animals for scientific reasons . Scientists wanted to research animal behavior and anatomy . To do this, scientists and zookeepers had to keep animals in places that were close to, or resembled , the animals’ natural habitats . The first modern zoo , built in 1793, opened in Paris, France. The menageries of French aristrocrats, including the king and queen, were taken by leaders of the French Revolution and relocated to the Ménagerie du Jardin des Plantes. The facility is still a busy and popular zoo in downtown Paris. Early zoos like the Menagerie du Jardin des Plantes were more like museums of living animals than natural habitats . Animals were kept in small display areas, with as many species as space would allow. Today, zoos are meant to entertain and educate the public but have a strong emphasis on scientific research and species conservation . There is a trend toward giving animals more space and recreating natural habitats . Zoos are usually regulated and inspected by the government . Types of Zoos Urban and Suburban Zoos Urban zoos , located in large cities, still resemble the smaller zoos that were popular 200 years ago. Often, these zoos sit in the middle of cities, making expansion difficult. There is little room for urban zoos to grow, and many of the zoo ’s buildings are historic landmarks that cannot be destroyed or redesigned. In many urban zoos , animals are kept in relatively small enclosures . Some animal activists argue that keeping animals in urban settings is cruel because of cramped conditions, noise, and pollution. Urban zoos are common in Europe, while many zoos in the United States developed as sprawling parks in suburbs outside cities. These open-range zoos give animals more territory to roam and provide more natural habitats . This popular technique of building realistic habitats is called landscape immersion . The San Diego Zoo , in southern California, is the largest zoo in the United States. It is a sub urban zoo that houses more than 4,000 animals (800 different species) in its 0.4 square kilometers (100 acres). Landscape immersion divides animals into their natural habitats , such as the tundra (with reindeer and polar bears) or bamboo forest (featuring pandas.) The San Diego Zoo also includes a wild animal park, which is even more expansive (almost 8 square kilometers or 2,000 acres.) Safari Parks Larger than urban and open-range zoos , safari parks are areas where tourists can drive their own cars to see non-native wildlife living in large, enclosed areas. These attractions allow the animals more space than the small enclosures of traditional zoos . Fuji Safari Park , in Susono, Japan, offers a traditional zoo as well as a drive-through safari park . Visitors can take their own cars or one of the park’s buses. Fuji Safari Park offers night tours, so visitors can see nocturnal animals, or animals that are active at night. At the park, visitors can also feed some animals, such as lions, from bus windows. Not all parks encourage or even allow visitors to feed animals.

Safari parks , especially in Europe, are often part of larger theme parks or resorts . They include golf courses and fairground attractions, such as games and rides. Game Reserves Game reserves are large swaths of land whose ecosystems and native species are protected. The protections allow animals to live and reproduce at natural rates. Animals are allowed to roam free. In the 1800s, a trip to hunt “ big game ” (large animals such as elephants or lions) was called a safari . While some game reserves allow traditional hunting safaris today, others limit visitors to a “photo safari ,” where visitors can shoot photographs, not animals. Animals in all game reserves are protected from illegal hunting , which is a threat to many endangered species . Legal hunts are regulated by the government . Hunters must purchase licenses and are strictly limited to the type and number of animals they can hunt . Poachers , or hunters without licenses, kill animals for valuable body parts. Elephants, for example, are killed by poachers for their ivory tusks. There are game reserves in Asia, the Americas, and Australia. However, most game reserves are in Africa. Millions of visitors flock to sites across Africa to see the same animals that captivated audiences thousands of years ago. The biggest attractions are Africa’s “ Big Five ” species—lions, leopards, rhinoceroses, elephants, and water buffalo. The Big Five are not Africa’s largest species (although the elephant is): They are the most difficult to find and, when legal, to hunt . Only recently has a single zoo , Gondwana Game Reserve in South Africa, offered all Big Five animals in one place. Gondwana sits on 10,000 hectares (24,710 acres) near the center of South Africa’s southern coast . Like many large game reserves , Gondwana has diverse ecosystems that occur naturally and has no need for landscape immersion . In Gondwana, grasslands coexist with shrubland called fynbos . Visitors to Gondwana, like many game reserves , can stay in hotels right in the park. Petting zoos Petting zoos feature domesticated animals that are gentle enough for children to pet and feed. Sheep, goats, donkeys, and rabbits are common petting zoo animals. These types of zoos are found at parks and inside of larger zoos . Sometimes mobile petting zoos travel with fairs or carnivals from city to city. Specialization Most zoos have specialized enclosures and habitats for specific animals. Zoos in cold climates , such as Novosibirsk, Russia, must recreate warm ecosystems for animals like lemurs . Lemurs are a type of primate native to the island of Madagascar, off Africa’s east coast . The summer temperatures of both Siberia and Madagascar are about the same—around 21 degrees Celsius (70 degrees Fahrenheit). However, Madagascar receives about 200 to 250 millimeters (8 to 10 inches) of rain each summer, making it a humid jungle environment. Novosibirsk gets just 60 to 65 millimeters (2 to 3 inches) of rain and snow. The difference in winter temperatures is even more drastic : Madagascar is about 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit). Lemurs ’ fur can keep them warm at this temperature . Winter in Novosibirsk is -10 degrees Celsius (13 degrees Fahrenheit). The Novosibirsk Zoo has two species of lemur with a specialized heated enclosure with high humidity . Some zoos are dedicated entirely to certain species. Aquariums are types of zoos that exclusively house aquatic animals. The Sydney Aquarium in Australia has exhibits of all of Australia’s major water systems and is home to more than 650 native Australian species. Aviaries and bird parks are another type of specialized zoo . The Jurong Bird Park in Singapore has more than 8,000 birds of 600 species from around the world. Jurong has more than 1,000 flamingoes in an African wetlands exhibit that features a daily simulated thunderstorm . Conservation The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums , the international organization for zoos , is concerned with the health of animals in zoos . The focus of environmental efforts takes the form of research , captive breeding of rare animals, and conservation . Researchers at zoos can study animals up-close. They can observe behavior such as mating and nutrition choices. Biologists and veterinarians are also available to treat sick or injured animals. Captive breeding of endangered species makes zoos valuable places for animal survival. Animals such as the black soft-shelled turtle, native to India and Bangladesh, are extinct in the wild . But they survive in several zoos around the world, with their health looked after by biologists .

The goal of many captive breeding programs at zoos is the re-introduction of animals into the wild. The California condor , a very large bird native to the west coast of the United States, has been re-introduced to its native habitat after breeding in zoos and wildlife parks. There are several breeding pairs of California condors in the wild today. Critics of captive breeding programs say that releasing a few animals into the wild does little to help the species population. Animals are extinct in the wild largely due to loss of habitat . The re-introduction of animals, especially large mammals that require vast territory for survival, does nothing to recover lost habitat . People continue to develop land for homes and businesses. Zoos often have conservation projects in the native habitats of the animals they keep in captivity. For instance, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums established a partnership with people in rural Papua New Guinea to save tree kangaroos . These rare species are threatened by loss of habitat and the growing population of Papua New Guinea: Villagers hunt the tree kangaroo for meat. A zoo program introduced a rabbit-farming program to address the nutritional needs of the villagers. Zoos also set up conservation sites where the hunting of tree kangaroos was outlawed. While zoos have put more importance on conservation and humane animal treatment in recent decades, some critics say it is cruel to keep animals in captivity. Critics argue that living in captivity takes away wild animals’ natural behavior and instincts . Supporters of zoos say they play an important role in protecting endangered species .

Modern Menageries People still enjoy collecting animals to display in their private homes. The American entertainer Michael Jackson, for instance, had a menagerie that included tigers, giraffes, parrots, and, of course, his pet chimpanzee, Bubbles. The Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar kept an enormous private zoo that included elephants, buffalo, and camels. Some of Escobar's hippopotamuses, native to Africa, escaped into the Colombian jungle. After Escobar's death, the rest of the animals were sold or donated to zoos around the world.

City of Brotherly Animals The first zoo in the United States opened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1874. The Philadelphia Zoo remains one of the most important zoos and facilities for breeding rare and endangered animals.

Zoo-Literacy Many books of fiction, nonfiction, and historical fiction concern zoos. Life of Pi is a novel by Canadian author Yann Martel. The father of the main character, Pi, is a zookeeper at the Pondicherry Zoo in India. When traveling across the Pacific Ocean, from India to Toronto, Canada, the boat carrying Pi, his family, and all the animals of the zoo sinks. The only survivors, alone on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean, are Pi and the zoo's Bengal tiger, whose name is Richard Parker. Faithful Elephants: A True Story of Animals, People, and War is a nonfiction book written by Yukio Tsuchiya and illustrated by Ted Levin. The book tells the story of three elephants of the Uneo Zoo in Tokyo, Japan, in the time leading up to World War II. Pride of Baghdad is a graphic novel written by Brian K. Vaughn and illustrated by Niko Henrichon. The factual story, of lions that escaped from the Baghdad Zoo as the war in Iraq began, is told from the lions' point of view.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Illustrators

Educator reviewer, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

More From Forbes

How zoos benefit society and the animals they protect.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

The benefits of zoos to local communities and to society in general are largely underestimated by the wider population

© Copyright by GrrlScientist | hosted by Forbes

Sun parrots (Aratinga solstitialis) eating food from the open hand of a member of the public in a ... [+] walk-in aviary at a zoo. Experiences such as these add greatly to people's sense of well-being as well as their desire to conserve wildlife.

Zoos, aquariums and aviaries are amongst the most popular tourist attractions in the world, with more than 700 million visitors annually. (Throughout this piece, I will collectively refer to zoos, aquariums and aviaries as ‘zoos’.) This staggering number of visitors alone suggests that these institutions have a unique platform for reaching the public, but — surprisingly — the benefits of zoos to society are generally underestimated.

In addition to making important contributions to nature conservation and to applied animal science, a newly published study finds that zoos also have an important role in how human society perceives and cares about the natural world.

To understand how zoos affect their human neighbors, an international team of researchers from the UK, Ireland and France conducted in-depth reviews of work done by zoos and catalogued zoo strategies for how they meet their four main goals — conservation, education, recreation and research (Figure 1).

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

F I G U R E 1 : Wider integration of the zoo’s aims helps to expand the societal impact they have ... [+] both over visitors directly and human populations further afield. (doi:10.3390/jzbg4010006)

As part of this study, the researchers also went online to assess the presence of zoos there and how well they meet their four established goals, to examine zoo publications, and the activities that they support. After analyzing this work, the researchers proposed that a fifth goal should be added to modern zoos’ established goals: human well-being. Human well-being, they argue, would greatly add to zoos’ wider societal value ( ref ) by providing a more complete picture of the obligations of modern zoos to the animals in their care and to nature as well as to their human visitors and workforce.

“A zoo is more than a place of entertainment and a collection of animals”, said animal behavior scientist Paul Rose, a Lecturer at the Centre for Research in Animal Behaviour and Psychology at the University of Exeter , and senior author of the new study. “Zoos allow us to experience nature and are a great resource for understanding more about conservation, biodiversity and sustainability, as well as bringing many positive benefits to human mental health and well-being.”

People’s well-being could improve as the result of engaging with a zoo’s collection of animals and plants, as well as experiencing the green spaces that a zoo manages. It can also be enhanced by accessibility to education about biodiversity and nature that is essential to inspire long-term, planet-friendly behavioral changes.

“We believe that a well-being aim covers both animal welfare and societal well-being and incentivises zoos to strive for better animal welfare and provide meaningful connection to nature to benefit humans that come into contact with the zoo’s work”, Dr Rose tweeted on Twitter ( here ).

And not to be underestimated is the fact that for many residents of high-density urban areas, zoos may be the only real connection they have with the natural world.

“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”, Dr Rose said in a statement.

Dr Rose and his collaborators suggest that further studying the wider impact of zoos on their local communities and on human populations and behavior more generally could help better integrate the relevance of a zoo’s animal collection and its needs, along with the needs, wants and ideals of people.

One of the main strengths of zoos, as I see it, is their combinations of attractive live animal displays with creative educational messaging, such that zoos have the opportunity to influence their visitors, eliciting actions and encouraging them to change their behavior to help conserve wildlife. Further, visiting immersive, naturalistic exhibits in zoos can improve human health and well-being, both physiologically and psychologically.

There is still more work to be done and many questions to investigate, such as evaluating the effect of educational messages on the community, and whether the zoos’ messages are influencing human behavior towards biodiversity, planetary health and sustainability issues.

Phillip J. Greenwell, Lisa M. Riley, Ricardo Lemos de Figueiredo , James E. Brereton , Andrew Mooney and Paul E. Rose (2023). The Societal Value of the Modern Zoo: A Commentary on How Zoos Can Positively Impact on Human Populations Locally and Globally , Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens , 4 (1):53-69 | doi: 10.3390/jzbg4010006

SHA-256 : 9ab94921e06b203a216cb219d873f92ea4083642075e2e0be632939cd42949aa

Socials: Mastodon | Post.News | CounterSocial | MeWe | Newsletter

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

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.

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
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Rationale for the Existence of Zoos

Patricia g. patrick.

1 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX USA

Sue Dale Tunnicliffe

2 Institute of Education, University of London, London, England UK

This chapter looks at the stated goals of zoo mission statements and provides examples of how zoos are addressing their missions. Moreover, with the pressure of zoos to become biological conservation mentors, zoos assume five roles as the executor of the relationship between society and nature. First, zoos take on the role of the “model citizen” by conveying a conservation message. They advocate for a sensible, sustainable use of natural resources and promote less wasteful, green-building alternatives. Many zoological institutions are developing organizational plans that include the use of solar, wind, and thermal power in their daily operations. Additionally, they are growing food for the animals, composting, and using recycled materials in their exhibit design. Second, zoos are maintaining a viable and genetically diverse collection. Zoos are managed under the premise that wildlife conservation is of foremost importance. As zoological institutions have become more active in field studies, their research findings are being applied to larger conservation efforts. Moreover, the conservation research that takes place in situ and ex situ is important in saving small fragmented wild populations. Third, zoos directly influence the attitudes and behaviors of the community in relation to the conservation of plants, animals, and habitats. Due to their urban locations within heavily populated cities, zoos have a unique geographic placement within the community. The urban location of zoos provides them with a unique opportunity to influence government policy. Fourth, the zoo is a conservation mentor. Through mentoring efforts, future generations of scientists and citizens will be more aware of the benefits of long-term conservation. As conservation mentors, zoos must lead the public to become citizen conservationist. Fifth, zoos are a place for people to learn basic facts about organisms and their behavior.

Ultimately, in this century, we have begun to realize that the way we display animals truly affects the way people view them and people speaking reverentially, and quietly before exhibits that were truly natural. Just as often standing before, old barren cages, I saw zoogoers yell, throw food and make fun of the animals inside. (Croke, 1997, p.93) Today’s zoos serve two basic functions: community resource and conservation entity (Hanna, 1996, p. 76). Some individuals and groups view zoos and aquariums as prisons for animals. If we, as zookeepers, maintain our facilities with humanity and high standards, we needn’t hang our heads and call ourselves wardens. We can instead look at our facilities with pride and see them as bridges between our visiting public and the wild they may never see. We can look our captive charges in the eye as we treat them with the respect due the highest-level ambassadors—ambassadors of the wild. (Hanna, 1996, p. 82)

Today, zoos, by their own definition, are conservation organizations and recognize themselves as places which are involved in the conservation of flora/fauna. However, the primary reasons cited by visitors for visiting a zoo are for the educational benefit of children and to see animals. Animals can and do interest visitors without the additional interpretation provided by institutions. As a specimen on display in a zoo, the animal becomes an “exhibit” and takes on the “mantle of history” and becomes part of the story that the zoo wants to tell. The animal specimen is part of the evidence for its species characteristics, just as a human artifact is evidence for aspects of human civilization. Furthermore, industrialization and urbanization are reducing students’ direct interactions with nonurban nature. Due to the reduced contact people have with nonurban nature, interest in the variety of living things is perhaps becoming redirected toward human artifacts. As the world becomes more urbanized, our personal experiences with animals become more isolated, in many cases limited to domesticated pets and urban species. No matter how zoos choose to get their message to visitors, education is their most important conservation function.

Today, more than ever, zoos need to think harder [about] why they are there and what role they will fill in conservation, education, and research. Millions of dollars go to house artwork in museums, but there are more Rembrandts in the world than there are Siberian tigers. (Hutchins, 2003 , p. 25)

As discussed in the second chapter, the functionality of zoos has evolved drastically since the 1820s, when the main focus was to display a vast collection of exotic animals for public enjoyment (Conway, 2003 ; Rabb, 2004 ). Zoos originally emerged as a place of scientific collections. The London Zoo is the predecessor of the modern zoo. This institution’s founding body, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), envisioned the zoo as a scientific collection for the advancement of zoology as well as comparative physiology of animals. In the beginning, the zoo was open only to members of the ZSL and their guests, but the financial demands of maintenance and upkeep influenced the opening of the zoo to a paying public. The business of the zoo would from then on be influenced by the zoo visitor, and the survival of zoos would be based upon the public’s perception of the everyday role it plays in society.

Originally, most zoos were created as a place for recreation with an emphasis on biological literacy. The conservation of wildlife diversity and biological conservation education were not the most pressing issues to zoo founders. Indeed, the original pedagogical approach of zoos was to display animals in rows of enclosures so that people could see strange creatures and make comparative observations of the physical form of different species. As zoos developed during the 1960s, in addition to places of fun and family recreation, they saw themselves as having four functions: recreation, education, research, and conservation (Nichols, 1996 ). In the 1970s, as ecological concerns began to emerge, zoos could no longer justify themselves as primarily entertainment facilities and started to consider making conservation their central role (Hancocks, 2001 ). During the 1970s, zoo professionals began conservation programs, and the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) maintained that conservation had become its highest priority (Hancocks, 2001 ; Reed, 1973 ). Today, due to the deteriorating link between humans and the nonurban natural world, zoos are coming under pressure to develop conservation plans and educate the public about the living world while maintaining financial stability. Therefore, zoos have evolved to include education as a priority along with conservation and research (Karkaria & Karkaria, 1998 ; Patrick, Matthews, Ayers, & Tunnicliffe, 2007a ; Patrick, Matthews, Tunnicliffe, & Ayers, 2007b ). Modern zoos work to bring biological conservation to the forefront of their educational programs and have the potential to shape public opinion, to encourage empathetic attitudes toward wildlife, and to educate the public about ecology, evolution, and wild organisms.

Presently, zoos must justify their existence against a constant barrage of anticaptivity and animal rights groups, who dispute that any education is taking place and promote the idea that zoos exist purely as a form of entertainment at the expense of the organism’s natural instincts. Some critics of zoos have gone so far as to compare the exhibits of animals to pornography and suggest there is a negative educational impact on zoo visitors (Acampora, 2005 ; Wagoner & Jensen, 2010 ). Acampora ( 1998 ) believes that zoos are not educationally beneficial because

…the public is largely indifferent to zoo education efforts (few stop even to look at, let alone read, explanatory placards); animals are viewed briefly and in rapid succession; people tend to concentrate on so-called babies and beggars—their cute countenances and funny antics capture audience attention (Ludwig 1981 ). Of course, this sort of amusement is at the heart of what a zoo is (scientific ideologies of self-promotion notwithstanding). Consequently, and insidiously, what visits to the zoo instruct and reinforce over and over again is the subliminal message that nonhuman animals are here in order to entertain us humans. Even when, during our deluded moments of enlightenment, we insist that they are here rather to edify—even then their presence is still essentially assigned to or for us . Thus the phenomenological grammar of their appearance precludes the possibility of full otherness arising; this is what it means to put and keep a live body on display (a structural inauthenticity [sic] that remains despite the best intentions of humanitarian/ecologic pedagogy). (p.2)

The evolution of how a zoo defines itself is dependent on the public’s perceptions of the zoo’s contributions to society. The problem is that the day-to-day operations of the zoo go unnoticed, and citizens do not realize that the zoo’s practices have an immeasurable and direct impact on the community and wildlife. Therefore, it is important to validate the existence of zoos through the programs they offer, their contributions to society, and the perceptions that the zoo-going public hold regarding these institutions. Zoos typically identify their own self-worth through their mission statement.

The [AZA] ( 2011a ) defines the mission of zoos as striving to be global leaders in “animal care, wildlife conservation and science, conservation education, the guest experience, and community engagement.” Patrick, Matthews, Ayers & Tunnicliffe, ( 2007a ) and Patrick, P., Matthews, C., Tunnicliffe & Ayers, ( 2007b ) analyzed AZA-accredited zoos’ mission statements and established that there are seven main themes in zoo mission statements: (1) education , (2) conservation , (3) recreation , (4) facilities , (5) research , (6) administration , and (7) culture . In addition to the seven themes found in mission statements, the literature identifies five main purposes of zoos: (1) exhibiting animals for the public (Mazur & Clark, 2001 ), (2) providing education (Clayton, Fraser, & Saunders, 2009 ; Ogden & Heimlich, 2009 ; Owen, Murphy, & Parsons, 2009 ; Price, Vining, & Saunders, 2009 ; Visscher, Snider, & Stoep, 2009 ), (3) conservation ( Ballantyne, Packer, Hughes, & Dierking, 2007 ; Wagoner, Chessler, York, & Raynor, 2009), (4) research (Fernandez & Timberlake, 2008 ; Hutchins & Thompson, 2008 ; Kolbert, 1995 ; Rabb, 2004 ), and (5) providing recreational opportunities for visitors (Bostock, 1993 ; Chizar, Murphy, & Lliff, 1990 ; Martin, 2000 ). There are overlaps in how zoos define themselves through their mission statements and how the literature defines the purposes of zoos. Even though modern zoos are placed in a unique position in which they can serve numerous functions, the average zoogoer does not understand the intricacies and mélange of their purposes (addressed in 10.1007/978-94-007-4863-7_4).

Part of realizing the zoo’s role in conservation is informing and involving the public in the conservation mission. Zoos are in a unique position to provide environmental education and biological conservation education to large numbers of visitors. In 2007, 132 (96%) of the 137 AZA-accredited zoo mission statements include education as a predominant theme (Patrick, Matthews, Ayers, et al., 2007 ; Patrick, Matthews, Tunnicliffe, et al., 2007 ). However, no mission statements made a direct or specific reference to biological conservation education. Mission statements used the words conservation and education but not together. Therefore, a reference to education in the mission statement does not match the literature’s specific call for biological conservation education. As early as 1989, the Zoological Society of Philadelphia stated that the modern zoo was failing to realize its potential for biological conservation education. Moreover, in 1994 , Koebner stated that biological conservation education had become the first priority of accredited zoos and aquariums. The 1993 Conservation Organization Strategy (IUDZG/CBSG, 1993 ) developed specific goals for zoo conservation education: “(1) make it clear that nature conservation affects everyone, (2) increase public awareness of the connections between consumption and lifestyle and the survival of species and biological systems, and (3) inform the public about the threatened status of animals (p. 25).” However, zoo mission statements do not state they are specifically interested in conservation education. Zoo mission statements identify education as a general term, which could include knowledge of plants and animals, taxonomy, habitats, behavior, etc. Since 1994, the literature has focused specifically on biological conservation education (Clayton, Fraser, & Saunders, 2009 ; Ogden & Heimlich, 2009 ; Owen, Murphy, & Parsons, 2009 ; Price, Vining, & Saunders, 2009 ; Visscher, Snider, & Stoep, 2009 ) instead of the previously mentioned learning about plants and animals. Now, individual zoos need to specify biological conservation education as a mission and purpose, if biological conservation education is in fact their main goal.

Zoo mission statements may not define zoos as responsible for conservation education, but today’s research literature specifically identifies conservation education as the prominent theme of zoos. A Google Scholar ( http://scholar.google.com ) search, inserting “zoo conservation education” as the search term, reveals that 5,500 documents are available on the topic since 2007. Therefore, zoo education research is shifting toward looking at zoos as sources of conservation education. The specific aim of biological conservation education is to develop lifelong knowledge and skills for conservation action. Biological conservation education recognizes the central role of people in all nature conservation efforts and is designed to people and their perceived roles in nature. Biological conservation education promotes the public education and awareness of the conservation of biodiversity by providing information about species and their natural habitats and working to develop a relationship between the public, wildlife, and wild habitats (AZA, 2011a ; International Zoo Educators Association [IZEA], 2011 ; World Association of Zoos and Aquariums [WAZA], 2011 ). The zoos of the world have a unique role to play in the global efforts to make people conscious of the role of zoos in biological conservation (Carr, 2011 ; Hancocks, 2001 ; IUDZG/CBSG, 1993 ; IZEA, 2011 ; Sommer, 1972 ). Therefore, it is not only important that zoos formally define their role in education, but it is imperative that they define their role in biological conservation education.

The World Conservation Strategy (IUDZG/CBSG, 1993 ) defines conservation education in zoos as

… explaining the irreplaceable value of the entire biological system of our planet and all of its constituent components…conservation education in zoos can make it clear that nature conservation affects everyone, and that everyone needs to be concerned with it. They should play an active role in increasing the public and political awareness of the connections between consumption and lifestyle and the survival of species and biological systems. Conservation education includes informing the public about the threatened status of the species of zoo animals, and other animals which are taxonomically and/or geographically related. Conservation education in zoos can make it clear that nature conservation affects everyone, and that everyone needs to be concerned with it. (p. 25)

The International Zoo Educators Association states that biological conservation education is

… the process of influencing people’s attitudes, emotions, knowledge, and behaviors about wildlife and wild places. This is done through the efforts of skilled educators and interpreters, who use a variety of techniques, methods, and assessments to reconnect people with the natural world. (IZEA, 2011 )

Zoos give visitors the opportunity to see unique organisms, as well as a chance to learn more about familiar animals. During these close encounters, zoos have the attention of individuals, which gives them an opportunity, be it short, to emphasize their importance and the importance of conservation (Falk & Dierking, 2000 ; Tunnicliffe, 1995 , 1996 ). Currently, conservation messages are shifting from endangerment and captive breeding to the importance of saving habitat (Mazur & Clark, 2001 ). As zoo programs continue to grow and improve, students and teachers remain a core audience served by classes, tours, outreach programs, and special curricular materials. Progress in conservation depends on reaching out to schools through educational opportunities and advancing public understanding of science issues and human roles in conservation.

Conservation

Conservation of endangered species and their habitats is a key role of zoos. Through their mission statements, zoos characterize their role in conservation as practice and/or advocacy (Patrick, Matthews, Ayers, et al., 2007a ; Patrick, Matthews, Tunnicliffe, et al., 2007b ). AZA defines zoos as conservation centers that are responsible for ecosystem health and species survival. To inform AZA of their conservation and research contributions, each AZA-accredited zoo submits data to the AZA Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS) database. The ARCS database accounts for the $90 million that zoos spend each year on conservation initiatives and tracks over 3,700 conservation projects (AZA, 2011b ). The World Association for Zoos and Aquariums has branded over 185 projects as conservation endeavors. Fifty percent of these projects were directed at the conservation of mammals (Dick, 2010 ). Zoos’ conservation programs are important because the rate at which species are becoming extinct or threatened is occurring at a faster rate than at any time in Earth’s recent history (Rogers, & Laffoley, 2011 ; Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010 ).

Zoological institutions are continuing to evolve into centers of wildlife conservation (Rabb & Saunders, 2005 ). Human population growth has led to the loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, overhunting, climate change, and invasive species producing unnatural environmental stresses on wild populations (Bertram, 2004 ). The extinction of a single plant or animal has an unmeasurable effect on the surrounding ecosystem and represents not only the loss of a plant or animal but also the loss of millions of years of genetic evolution and adaptation (Cameron et al., 2011 ; Fonseca, 2009 ). In order to combat the loss of genetic variability, many zoos have frozen zoos, in which they freeze plant seeds and/or animal tissue. Plant-frozen zoos have been established by the Millennium Seed Bank Kew Gardens (UK) and the Missouri Botanical Garden (USA). Animal-frozen zoos were first established at the San Diego Zoo in the 1970s (Linington, 2000 ). In 2004, the Frozen Ark Project was established and invited zoos to be active participants. The Frozen Ark Project saves animal tissue with the goal of saving “the genetic material of threatened animals species and, where possible, their viable cells before they become extinct” (Clarke, 2009 , p. 222). Each 1 cm² tissue contains thousands of cells and holds the entire genome of the animal. By sampling and preserving DNA, viable somatic cell cultures, and gametes in cryogenic labs, the Frozen Ark Project offers researchers the ability to develop new in vitro and ex situ techniques which can save some species from complete extinction, especially those which are difficult to breed in captivity (Clarke). These vast databases can lead to a better understanding of the interplay of cytogenetics and infectious disease and play a more crucial role in biosurveillance. With the recent outbreaks of West Nile virus, SARS, and monkeypox, researchers have turned to zoos’ frozen collections for genetic samples and tissue.

All AZA-accredited zoos are required to have a conservation plan in their mission statement, and the goal of each institution should be to have a “measureable impact on wildlife conservation” (AZA, 2011b ). However, setting zoos’ goals and policies for conservation action is increasingly a scientific, monetary, and political endeavor with numerous factors influencing the selection of ecosystem species (Leader-Williams et al., 2007 ). Some AZA-accredited zoos do participate in restoration programs. People believe that zoos are saving large numbers of mammalian species, when in reality, much of the conservation that occurs is the sustainability of small populations of animals. The conservation of these small numbers is safeguarding the species against extinction with the prospect of reintroducing them into the wild. Additionally, many of these species are used to raise funds and public awareness of environmental issues such as deforestation and habitat destruction (Bertram, 2004 ; Turley, 1999 ).

There are several examples of the conservation work zoos do with small, localized populations. One such example is the California Condor. In 1952, the San Diego Zoo established a captive breeding program to increase the wild populations. In the 1980s, growing concern of high mortality rates for the California Condor led to a massive effort to rescue this majestic animal from sure extinction as a result of lead poisoning from ingesting bullets lodged in carcasses. By 1987, only 27 individuals remained, but breeding efforts saw an exponential growth of captive populations, and by 1992, reintroduction efforts began. By 1999, 88 birds had been released in 16 separate attempts (Meretsky, Snyder, Beissinger, Clendenen, & Wiley, 2000 ). Currently, the Los Angeles Zoo, the San Diego Wild Animal Park, the Portland Zoo, and the World Center for Birds of Prey in Idaho have very successful captive breeding programs. There are around 370 living California Condors with about 180 living in the wild, but the threats of lead poisoning and habitat destruction are still difficult barriers in the wild populations. Other US reintroduction programs include the black-footed ferret at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and the Smithsonian National Zoo, the Karner blue butterfly at the Toledo Zoo, and the desert antelope and the Mexican wolf also at the Smithsonian (AZA, 2011c ; Smithsonian National Zoological Park [SNZP], 2011 ; Sweet, 2006 ).

One of the main tenets of zoo mission statements is the involvement of zoo staff and researchers in zoo wildlife conservation programs. However, zoos need to involve the public in their conservation and reintroduction programs to make them more successful. For example, the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust runs the Toadwatch campaign. The Toadwatch campaign asks people in the community to report when and where they see the Jersey toad ( Bufo bufo ), known locally as crapaud. Since 2005, the trust has recorded over 300 separate sightings and determined that the Jersey toad population is declining in natural ponds and increasing in garden ponds. In addition to reporting their Jersey toad sightings, volunteers participate in the Toads on Roads campaign. On wet, warm winter nights, volunteers pick up toads, weigh and measure them, and carry them across busy roads (Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, 2011 ). Zoos are also working with local farmers and local community environmental watch programs to develop conservation programs. For example, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is working with Indonesian farmers in southern Sumatra to develop a peaceful coexistence with local elephants ( http://www.wcsip.org/ ). Moreover, the WCS has worked with the local community and conservation groups to bring back the Bronx River in New York. The Bronx River was heavily polluted but is now home to native fish species that have since returned.

The work at the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust proves that citizen scientists are an important resource in gathering large amounts of data over a vast area and citizen conservationists are an essential part of ensuring the survival of a species. Citizen conservationists are individuals who are inspired to take action in caring for natural resources, maintaining local wildlife habitats, and participating in local environmental conservation efforts. It is now the role of the zoo to figure out how their work in conservation and their animal displays can be a bridge between people and conservation action, inspiring individuals to become citizen conservationist .

Recreation or Entertainment

Even though zoos tout conservation and biological conservation education as their main goals and promote a conservation image, 69% of AZA-accredited zoo mission statements state that the zoo is for recreation (Patrick, Matthews, Ayers, et al., 2007a ; Patrick, Matthews, Tunnicliffe, et al., 2007b ). Moreover, public perceptions persist that zoos are places of entertainment rather than institutions of scholarly, scientific, or conservation pursuits (Bitgood, 1988 ; Frost, 2010 ; Kellert & Dunlap, 1989 ). Even though 60% of US zoo visitors state that zoos are places for education (Lessow, 1990 ), few people visit zoos with the declared aim to be educated. People generally visit zoos to be entertained (Martin, 2000 ). Zoos in developed countries compete with other attractions for the leisure time of visitors, while zoos in less-developed countries are one of the few available places for recreation. Even when adults recognize the educational importance of zoos, they do not visit the zoo intending to learn, but they encourage their children to do so (Lessow, 1990 ). As far back as 1885, the prospectus of the Zoological Society of London suggested that “vulgar admiration” was not the objective of their animal collection (Jordan & Ormrod, 1978 ). However, despite the educational and scientific aspirations of the learned society, the zoological garden became a place for a leisure visit.

Balancing the role of conservation advocate, educator, and recreational promoter is a major issue facing zoos (Tribe, 2004 ). However, when zoo specialists say that “you should use your selling experiences to advocate your mission (Holst, 2010 )” and that zoo websites are “places to increase revenue (Israel, 2011 )” and “the website’s number one job is commerce not conservation education (Israel, 2011 ),” then the mission is entertainment not conservation. In the past, zoos have relied solely on live animals to draw visitors to the zoo. Today, the mission is selling an experience that the zoo hopes will bring people to the end goal of recognizing the importance of the zoo. In the past, zoos have utilized animal shows, 3D IMAX adventures, traveling art shows, informational carts, overnight camps, Halloween celebrations, and the announcement of babies on display to entertain people and increase visitorship. In today’s digital world, these ploys are not enough. To address the need for more entertainment experiences, zoos provide enrichment activities for the visitor as well as for the animals. The Ocean Park zoo of Hong Kong and the Chessington World of Adventures in England combine animal exhibits with entertaining, rollercoaster rides. Visitors are provided with the opportunity to get their photo taken with an elephant, wash an elephant, participate in ropes courses, ride on zip lines, and ride in swan boats (Ellis, 2010 ; Garner, 2010 ; Holst, 2010 ). The John Ball Zoo recently added ropes courses to get 12–13-year-olds to visit the zoo. Holst stated that since the ropes courses were added, sales in the gift shop had increased, and zoo visitors stayed 20 minutes longer, thus increasing the zoos opportunity to deliver their biological conservation message to visitors. Providing zoo visitors with entertainment for an additional 20 minutes does not translate to more time to teach them the conservation message of the zoo, but 20 minutes of involvement in a conservation-related project does.

Facilities have been addressed in 54% of AZA mission statements. Patrick, Matthews, Ayers, et al. ( 2007 ) and Patrick, Matthews, Tunnicliffe, et al. ( 2007 ) have found that the term most prominently used when describing the zoo’s facilities is exhibits. The educational importance and influence of exhibits are discussed in 10.1007/978-94-007-4863-7_5; therefore, exhibits are not discussed in detail in this chapter. At present, zoos are changing their approach to exhibit design and their facilities. Hands-on laboratories, interactive technology, computer simulations, teleconferencing centers, discovery rooms, and immersion exhibits are now an integral part of what zoos have to offer. Classrooms are being built around themes such as habitats, biogeography, and educational expeditions. Zoos are taking into account their own learning objectives and that of national and state educational standards. Zoos are developing zoo schools in cooperation with their local school system. The idea of education for all visitors is apparent in their more recent pursuits to build libraries and teaching resource centers (Carr, 2011 ).

In addition to exhibiting animals, the institution’s facilities must be maintained. The everyday maintenance of the zoo, including animal care, is a sensitive matter that requires knowledge and skill. The average visitor may think that animal care means that the animals are clean, properly fed, and have adequate space, but there are many facets of animal care. Superior health, husbandry, and welfare of zoo collections are of paramount importance to any AZA – (AZA, 2011b ) and European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA, 2011a ) – accredited institution. The priority of the zoo is not merely feeding the animals. Animal diet is an important aspect of maintaining healthy, breeding animals. EAZA ( 2011b ) states that:

Providing a good diet, which fulfills as many aspects of natural feeding ecology as possible, is an essential consideration in the welfare of zoo animals. As a basic foundation of animal management, nutrition is also integral to longevity, disease prevention, growth and reproduction. Proper feeding management incorporates husbandry skills and applied nutritional sciences.

During the 1960s, many zoos employed the services of licensed veterinarians to monitor the health and breeding of captive animals (Puan & Zakaria, 2007 ). The AZA recommends that all accredited institutions employ an on-site veterinarian. However, in some cases, zoos do not have the financial support to employ a full-time veterinarian. Therefore, all zoos are required to have a part-time veterinarian that inspects the collection twice a month and is able to respond quickly in case of emergencies. In other words, zoos must have a veterinarian available 24 hours a day. Additionally, zoos participate in year-round pest control, test for pathogens that could potentially ravage their collections, and use preventative measures such as quarantining newly arrived and sick animals (AZA, 2011c ).

AZA ( 2011b ) states that A commitment to scientific research, both basic and applied, is a trademark of the modern zoological park and aquarium. An AZA accredited institution must have a demonstrated commitment to scientific research that is in proportion to the size and scope of its facilities, staff and animal collections (p. 14).

Even though research is considered essential by zoological institutions (Benirschke, 1987 ) and 37% of AZA-accredited zoos include research as a mandate in their missions (Patrick, Matthews, Ayers, et al., 2007 ; Patrick, Matthews, Tunnicliffe, et al., 2007 ), historically, zoos have not been regarded as elite research institutions. Previously, zoos have worked with each other to share animal collections and study behavior of captive animals. The in situ and ex situ research conducted by zoos has traditionally been considered isolated from universities and research institutions (Turley, 1999 ). Today, however, zoological institutions are becoming more engaged in collaborative studies with major research institutions. Moreover, the EAZA states that one of their main objectives is “to promote the potential conservation value of zoo and aquarium research among authorities, universities, and conservation bodies (EAZA, 2011c ).” Zoos are involved in animal research programs at universities and in research concerning infectious diseases (McNamara, 2007 ; Turley, 1999 ).

Zoological institutions’ in situ scientific research has driven the standards of animal husbandry and behavior and has produced visible results. Animals in zoos provide valuable data concerning the behavior of both captive and wild-living populations (Barbosa, 2009 ; Watters, Margulis, & Atsalis, 2009 ). Since the 1980s, much of the research conducted in zoos has involved the psychological health of captive animals. Monitoring the animals’ daily behaviors plays a significant role in the assessment of animal well-being. The psychological health of captive animals can have drastic consequences on its physiological health. To address the psychological, social, nutritional, and physical health of the animal collection and the public’s view of zoos, modern zoos aim to display animals in what are deemed naturalistic environments. Traditional cages are no longer considered healthy for the animals and the visitor.

Zoological institutions have concluded that in situ behavior may not mimic the behaviors normally seen in the organism’s natural environment. For example, zoological institutions have found that breeding success is not a determinant of an animal’s mental health. Some domestic animals breed readily in captive environments and in close proximity to humans. This might explain why these animals were selected for domestication. Domestic dogs will breed even in cramped and unsanitary conditions, such as breeding farms and puppy mills. A number of wild animals living in captivity also follow this breeding pattern, including certain species of monkeys, anteaters, and birds. The previously named organisms have been documented reproducing in small cages and under stressful stimuli. Conversely, some animals such as the giant panda, mountain gorilla, and rhinoceros have difficulty breeding in captivity and require assistance from zoo personnel. The welfare of the organism is a priority (Wickins-Drazilova, 2006 ), but breeding is paramount from a conservation standpoint. In fact, the in situ research at zoological institutions has made great advances in animal husbandry. As a result of the research conducted, zoos have reduced the need to capture wild animals to maintain their collections and are striving to release animals back into their natural environment (AZA, 2011d ). The genetic exchange programs zoos have developed help maintain the genetic diversity of the collection (Bertram, 2004 ; Bostock, 1993 ; Watters et al . , 2009 ; Wickins-Drazilova, 2006 ).

Even though zoological institutions have established that there is a relationship between long life and overall health (Bostock, 1993 ), the animals that live in zoos, on average, enjoy a longer lifespan than most captive animals. This is a result of being kept in a controlled environment with access to routine expert veterinary care. Zoo animals receive superior medical care and may play a key role in public health. Exotic animals are highly susceptible to foreign pathogens. Therefore, they are monitored daily through observations and blood tests. The results of the test can alert the animal management team and the public health organization of possible epidemics. For example, in 1999, wild crows began dying at an alarming rate, and epidemiologists were scrambling to find the cause, and exotic birds began to die at the Bronx Zoo. When the zoo-owned birds began to die, the zoo’s veterinarian rushed to uncover the underlying cause in fear that other collections might become infected. The zoo uncovered the link between mass avian deaths and human disease when they determined that the West Nile virus was responsible for the birds’ deaths. Even though zoos had played a vital role in the detection of the disease common in Africa and the Middle East, the results were not immediately released to the public. In 1999, zoos were not seen as a viable research institution and were considered disconnected from the mainstream public health (McNamara, 2007 ).

When animals are kept in captivity, they may exhibit undesirable and unnatural behaviors such as pacing, head swaying, and staring (Bostock, 1993 ; Wickins-Drazilova, 2006 ). The monitoring programs at zoos identify the circumstances in which stereotypic behaviors exist. As zoos have evolved so has their management of captive animals. They have been active in pursuing optimal care for the organisms and designing zoo exhibits. In situ research in zoological institutions provides a wealth of knowledge in captive breeding, behaviors, and effective environmental stimuli.

Animal husbandry, behavioral monitoring, and epidemiology are not the only scientific endeavors that take place within zoo collections. Contemporary research is concerning itself with climate change and global warming and the effects these have on captive and wild animals. As geologists have uncovered the geological patterns of long-term climate change, they have revealed periods of glaciation and extreme drought. Geologists believe glaciation and drought, in particular regions of the world, may have lead to megafaunal extinctions. Taking these geological patterns into consideration, zoological institutions are paying closer attention to the changes in the health of their animal collections and wild populations as they relate to environmental health. Although zoo animals live in controlled environments, they may offer some insight into parasitic infections and zoonotic diseases (Barbosa, 2009 ). As the climate warms, infections and diseases may become more prevalent. The Wildlife Conservation Society has found an increase of fly larva infecting baby birds in Argentina due to an increasingly muggy climate. The parasitic maggots burrow into the skin of nesting chicks and can kill the baby birds or cause abnormal growth (WCS, 2010 ).

The science of global warming and climatology is a relatively new research frontier for zoos. Because zoos have 150 years of meteorological, climatological, and geographical data (Barbosa, 2009 ), they are well positioned to be research leaders in climate change and its effects. We term this new science bio-climatogeography . Bio-climatogeography uses the meteorological data gathered by zoos and their geographical locations to determine how ecosystems, plants, and animals will react to global climate change and climatic patterns. Research into understanding the role zoos play in the critical issues of conservation is only beginning.

Culture and Society

Zoos are cultural institutions (Wharton, 2011 ). Throughout the historical development of zoos, they have been a part of society and have matured into important institutions that reflect current cultural and societal changes ( Ballantyne et al., 2007 ; Fraser & Wharton, 2007 ; Hoage & Deiss, 1996 ; Marino, Lilienfeld, Malamud, Nobis, & Broglio, 2010 ). Zoos’ architectural and exhibit designs reflect the past and present cultural impacts and subsequently project cultural perspectives to zoo visitors (Tarlow, 2001 ).

Society has and will probably continue to view zoological collections as centers of recreation. However, zoos perceive themselves as providing society with an enriching connection to conservation, biology, and organisms. Although the mission statements of zoos emphasize conservation, education, and research, zoos appear to be devoted to providing an enjoyable experience in a fun atmosphere. Now, zoos’ goals need to focus on devising a plan that utilizes enjoyable, entertaining experiences to encourage informal education as the zoo increases much-needed revenue. Zoos need to utilize their marketing strategies and present information regarding their scientific activities. The style in which they choose to publicize their scientific and conservation endeavors must be interesting and entertaining. For example, the North Carolina Zoological Park produces ZooFilez with a local television news station. ZooFilez provides viewers with an opportunity to learn about organisms and the zoo’s conservation efforts. According to a survey of 270 high school students living in the same county as the North Carolina Zoological Park, 90 students were aware of ZooFilez and stated their knowledge of zoos was gleaned from ZooFilez (Patrick & Tunnicliffe, 2009 ). Zoos can fulfill their commitments to conservation and research as well as deliver quality conservation education.

Globalization and other environmental factors have led to a not-so-promising future. The relationship between human impact and habitat sustainability may not be easily conveyed through a simple visit to the zoo, but zoos must continue to communicate their message. Zoos hold the key to shaping the future relationship between society and nature. Most zoos have a limited capacity and are not able to manage large areas of natural habitats. However, all zoos assume five roles as the executor of the relationship between society and nature.

First, zoos take on the role of the “model citizen” by conveying a conservation message. They advocate for a sensible, sustainable use of natural resources and promote less wasteful, green-building alternatives. Many zoological institutions are developing organizational plans that include the use of solar, wind, and thermal power in their daily operations. Additionally, they are growing food for the animals, composting, and using recycled materials in their exhibit design. Second, zoos are maintaining a viable and genetically diverse collection. Zoos are managed under the premise that wildlife conservation is of foremost importance. As zoological institutions have become more active in field studies (i.e., dallaszoo.com/conservation/cs3_current), their research findings are being applied to larger conservation efforts. Moreover, the conservation research that takes place in situ and ex situ is important in saving small fragmented wild populations. Third, zoos directly influence the attitudes and behaviors of the community in relation to the conservation of plants, animals, and habitats. Due to their urban locations within heavily populated cities, zoos have a unique geographic placement within the community. The urban location of zoos provides them with a unique opportunity to influence government policy. Fourth, the zoo is a conservation mentor. Through mentoring efforts, future generations of scientists and citizens will be more aware of the benefits of long-term conservation (Rabb, 2004 ). As conservation mentors, zoos must lead the public to become citizen conservationist. Fifth, zoos are a place for people to learn basic facts about organisms and their behavior.

This is a technological era in which electronics rule our daily lives, and their use has become second nature. Information is available at the click of a button, but nothing can replace the mental health that interacting within nature provides (Louv, 2006 ). Even though most organisms in zoos are exotics, they do represent organisms in a simulated natural setting. Viewing animals in a naturalistic, though simulated, setting provides a sensory response that two-dimensional representations cannot duplicate (Broad & Smith, 2004 ; Rabb, 2004 ). Although it is difficult to measure the impact of a single zoo visit on an individual’s behavior, zoos frequently ask visitors to participate in surveys that gauge the efficacy of the biological conservation message. Zoo visitors, even if it is their first visit, have preexisting knowledge of zoos (Patrick, 2010 , 2011 ). A zoo visit may be the only interaction that a person living in an urban setting has with wildlife. Children are out of touch with nature, and their knowledge of organisms and biological conservation may be based on media, books, and formal classroom education (Falk et al., 2007 ; Patrick & Tunnicliffe, 2011 ; Rabb & Saunders, 2005 ). The number of zoo visitors each year looks promising. Each year, AZA-accredited institutions tout approximately 140 million visits. However, this statistic does not take into account repeat visitors who have a deeply rooted curiosity of organisms and biological conservation. How can zoos encourage people who are not interested in research, conservation, education, or the use of organisms for entertainment to visit? How can teachers utilize zoos as places for student research and education? Zoos and educators should capitalize on the human need to experience the diversity of the natural world and the knowledge people have of zoos.

• Acampora R. Extinction by exhibition: Looking at and in the zoo. Human Ecology Review. 1998; 5 (1):1–4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Acampora R. Zoos and eyes: Contesting captivity and seeking successor practices. Society and Animals. 2005; 13 (1):69–88. doi: 10.1163/1568530053966643. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). (2011a, January 12). AZA 5-year strategic plan . Retrieved from http://www.aza.org/StrategicPlan/
• Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). (2011b, January 12). The accreditation standards and related policies . Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Retrieved from http://www.aza.org/accreditation/
• Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). (2011c, February, 8). Animal care and management . Retrieved from http://www.aza.org/animal-care-and-management/
• Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA). (2011d, February 10). Health, husbandry, and welfare . Retrieved from http://www.aza.org/health-husbandry-and-welfare/
• Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K, Dierking L. Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research. 2007; 13 (3):367–383. doi: 10.1080/13504620701430604. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbosa A. The role of zoos and aquariums in research into the effects of climate change on animal health. International Zoo Yearbook. 2009; 43 :131–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2008.00073.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benirschke K. Why do research in zoological gardens? Canadian Veterinary Journal. 1987; 28 :162–164. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertram B. Misconceptions about zoos. Biologist. 2004; 51 (4):199–206. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bitgood, S. (1988). A comparison of formal and informal learning (Technical Report No. 88–10). Jacksonville, AL: Jacksonville State University: Center for Social Design.
• Bostock SS. Zoos and animal rights: The ethics of keeping animals. London: Routledge; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Broad, S., & Smith, L. (2004, February). Who educates the public about conservation issues? Examining the role of zoos and the media . International Tourism and Media Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
• Cameron S., Lozier J., Strange J., Koch J., Cordes N., Solter L., Griswold T. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011; 108 (2):662–667. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carr, B. (2011, February 19). Conservation Education in (AZA) Zoos and Aquariums . Retrieved from http://www.izea.net/education/conservationed_aza.htm#top
• Chizar D, Murphy J, Lliff N. For Zoos. Psychological Record. 1990; 40 :3–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke A. The Frozen Ark Project: The role of zoos and aquariums in preserving the genetic material of threatened animals. International Zoo Yearbook. 2009; 43 :222–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2008.00074.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clayton S, Fraser J, Saunders CD. Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 :377–397. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20186. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Convention on Biological Diversity. (2010). Global diversity outlook 3 . Retrieved from www.cbd.int/GBO3
• Conway W. The role of zoos in the 21st century. International Zoo Yearbook. 2003; 38 :7–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2003.tb02059.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Croke V. The modern ark. The story of zoos: Past, present and future. New York: Scribner; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dick, G. (2010, September). Evolution of zoos . Paper presented at the Association of Zoos and Aquariums Conference, Houston, TX.
• Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust. (2011, July 11). Toadwatch . Retrieved from http://www.durrell.org/In-the-field/Campaigns/Toadwatch/
• Ellis, R. (2010, September). Elephant barn open houses . Paper presented at the Association of Zoos and Aquariums conference, Houston, TX.
• European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA). (2011a, October 11). EAZA collection planning . European Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Retrieved from http://www.eaza.net/activities/cp/Pages/Collection%20Planning.aspx
• European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA). (2011b, October 11). EAZA collection planning . European Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Retrieved from http://www.eaza.net/activities/Pages/Nutrition.aspx
• European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA). (2011c, October 11). EAZA collection planning . European Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Retrieved from http://www.eaza.net/activities/Pages/Research.aspx
• Falk JH, Dierking LD. Learning from museums: Visitor experience and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Falk JH, Reinhard EM, Vernon CL, Bronnenkant K, Heimlich JE, Deans NL. Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandez E, Timberlake W. Mutual benefits of research collaborations between zoos and academic institutions. Zoo Biology. 2008; 27 (6):470–487. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20215. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fonseca CR. The silent mass extinction of insect herbivores in biodiversity hotspots. Conservation Biology. 2009; 23 (6):1507–1515. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01327.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser J, Wharton D. The future of zoos. Curator. 2007; 50 (1):41–54. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2007.tb00248.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frost W. Zoos and tourism: Conservation, education, entertainment? Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garner, J. (2010, September). Elk Bugling, photo and keeper tours . Paper presented at the Association of Zoos and Aquariums conference, Houston, TX.
• Hancocks D. A different nature: The paradoxical world of zoos and their uncertain future. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanna J. Ambassadors of the wild. In: Richardson N, editor. Keepers of the kingdom: The new American zoo. Charlottesville, VA: Thomasson-Grant & Locke; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoage R, Deiss WA, editors. New animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holst, A. (2010, September). Zip lines and rope courses . Paper presented at the Association of Zoos and Aquariums conference, Houston, TX.
• Hutchins M. Zoo and aquarium animal management and conservation: current trends and future challenges. International Zoo Yearbook. 2003; 38 :14–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2003.tb02060.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hutchins M, Thompson S. Zoo and aquarium research: Priority setting for the coming decades. Zoo Biology. 2008; 27 (6):488–497. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20167. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• International Zoo Educators Association (IZEA). (2011, February 18). Conservation education theory and practice . Retrieved from http://www.izea.net/education/conservationed.htm
• Israel, M. (2011). How to position and package special tours and programs for revenue maximization. How to Generate Revenue Through Your Web Site . Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Atlanta, GA, 15 September 2011, Conference Presentation.
• IUDZG/CBSG (IUCN/SSC). (1993). Executive Summary, The World Zoo Conservation Strategy; The Role of the Zoos and Aquaria of the World in Global Conservation.
• Jordan W, Ormrod S. The Last Great Wild Beast Show: A Discussion on the Failure of British Animal Collections. England: Constable; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karkaria D, Karkaria H. Zoorassic Park: A brief history of zoo interpretation. Zoos’ Print. 1998; 14 (1):4–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kellert, S., & Dunlap, J. (1989). Informal learning at the zoo: A study of attitude and knowledge impacts . Philadelphia, PA: Zoological Society of Philadelphia.
• Koebner L. Zoo book: The evolution of wildlife conservation centers. New York: Tom Doherty Associates; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolbert C. What are we trying to teach? Journal of the International Association of Zoo Educators. 1995; 32 :6–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leader-Williams N, Balmford A, Linkie M, Mace GM, Smith RJ, Stevenson M, et al. Beyond the Ark: Conservation biologists' views of the achievements of zoos in conservation. In: Zimmermann A, Hatchwell M, Dickie LA, West C, et al., editors. In Zoos in the 21st century: Catalysts for conservation? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 236–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lessow, D. (1990). Visitor perceptions of natural habitat zoo exhibits . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
• Linington, S. H. (2000). The Millennium Seed Bank Project. In B. S. Rushton, P. Hackney, & C. R. Tyne (Eds.), Biological collections and biodiversity. Linnean Society occasional papers (vol. 3, pp. 358–373). Otley: Westbury Publishing/London: Linnean Society.
• Louv R. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig, E. G. (1981). Study of Buffalo Zoo. In M. Fox (Ed.), International journal for the study of animal problems . Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Animal Problems.
• Marino L, Lilienfeld S, Malamud R, Nobis N, Broglio R. Do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American zoo and aquarium study. Society and Animals. 2010; 18 :126–138. doi: 10.1163/156853010X491980. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin, S. (2000). The value of shows . Presented at the International Association of Avian Trainers and Educators National Conference, Memphis, TN.
• Mazur N, Clark T. Zoos and conservation: Policy making and organizational challenges. Bulletin Series Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. 2001; 105 :185–201. [ Google Scholar ]
• McNamara T. The role of zoos in biosurveillance. International Zoo Yearbook. 2007; 41 :12–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2007.00019.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meretsky V, Snyder N, Beissinger S, Clendenen D, Wiley J. Demography of the California Condor: Implications for reestablishment. Conservation Biology. 2000; 14 (4):957–967. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99113.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nichols M. Keepers of the kingdom: The new American zoo. Richmond, VA: Thomasson-Grant and Lickle; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ogden J, Heimlich JE. Why focus on zoo and aquarium education? Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 :357–360. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20271. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owen K, Murphy D, Parsons C. ZATPAC: A model consortium evaluates teen programs. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 (5):429–446. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20203. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patrick, P. (2010, September). What middle school students know about zoos . Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Houston, TX.
• Patrick, P. (2011, April). Zoo acuity model: Middle level students’ knowledge of zoos . Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL.
• Patrick P, Matthews C, Tunnicliffe S, Ayers D. Conservation and education: Prominent themes in mission zoo mission statements? Journal of Environmental Education. 2007; 38 (3):53–60. doi: 10.3200/JOEE.38.3.53-60. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patrick P, Matthews C, Tunnicliffe S, Ayers D. Mission statements of AZA accredited zoos: Do they say what we think they say? International Zoo News. 2007; 54 (2):90–98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patrick, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. (2009, November). Zoo acuity model: Students’ knowledge of the role of zoos in conservation . Paper presented at the National Association of Biology Teachers Conference, Denver, CO.
• Patrick, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. (2011). What plants and animals do early childhood and primary students’ name? Where do they see them? Journal of Science Education and Technology . Invited article and Special Issue: Early Childhood and Nursery School Education. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/content/e27121057mqr8542/
• Price E., Vining J., Saunders C. Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in a nonformal environmental education program. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 (5):361–376. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Puan C, Zakaria M. Perception of visitors towards the role of zoos: A Malaysian perspective. International Zoo Yearbook. 2007; 41 :226–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-1090.2007.00009.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rabb GB. The evolution of zoos from menageries to centers of conservation and caring. Curator. 2004; 47 (3):237–246. doi: 10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00121.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rabb G, Saunders C. The future of zoos and aquariums: Conservation and caring. 2005; 39 (1):1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed, T. (1973). American Zoo and Aquarium Association Records, 1970–1994 . Archives, Manuscripts, Photographs Catalog. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Research Information System.
• Rogers, A. D., & Laffoley, D.d’A. (2011). International Earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts (Summary report). International Programme on the State of the Ocean, Oxford.
• Smithsonian National Zoological Park (SNZP). (2011, January 14). Recovery of the desert antelope . Retrieved from http://nationalzoo.si.edu/SCBI/ReproductiveScience/AntelopesCervids/default.cfm
• Sommer R. What do we learn at the zoo? Natural History. 1972; 81 (7):29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweet, C. (2006, January 11). Mexican wolves, wild once again . Retrieved from http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/2006/1/mexican_wolves.cfm
• Tarlow S. Decoding ethics. Public Archaeology. 2001; 1 :245–259. doi: 10.1179/146551801793157214. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tribe, A. (2004). Zoo Tourism. In K. Higgenbottom (Ed.), Wildlife tourism: Impacts, management and planning (pp. 35–36). Melbourne: Common Ground.
• Tunnicliffe, S. (1995). Talking about animals: Studies of young children visiting zoos, a museum and a farm . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, King’s College, London.
• Tunnicliffe S. Conversations with primary school parties visiting animal specimens in a museum and zoo. Journal of Biological Education. 1996; 30 (2):130–141. doi: 10.1080/00219266.1996.9655491. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turley SK. Conservation and tourism in the traditional UK zoo. The Journal of Tourism Studies. 1999; 10 (2):2–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Visscher N, Snider R, Stoep V. Comparative analysis of knowledge gain between interpretive and fact-only presentations at an animal training session: An exploratory study. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 (5):488–495. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20174. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagoner K, Chessler M, York P, Raynor J. Development and implementation of an evaluation strategy for measuring conservation outcomes. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 (5):473–487. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20270. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagoner B, Jensen E. Science learning at the zoo: Evaluating children's developing understanding of animals and their habitats. Psychology and Society. 2010; 3 (1):65–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watters JV, Margulis SW, Atsalis S. Behavioral monitoring in zoos and aquariums: At tool for guiding husbandry and directing research. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 :35–48. doi: 10.1002/zoo.20207. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wharton, D. (2011). Poetry and the Wild: The Language of Conservation Project . Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Atlanta, GA. 15 September 2011. Conference Presentation.
• Wickins-Drazilova D. Zoo animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2006; 19 :27–36. doi: 10.1007/s10806-005-4380-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). (2010, March 12). Climate change: Prime time for parasites . Retrieved from http://www.wcs.org/new-and-noteworthy/prine-time-for-parasites.aspx
• World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). (2011, February 20). Environmental education . Retrieved from http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/environmental-education

Today's Announcements

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

ADVANCE NOTICE: Please be aware that the Kid's Safari Play Area will be closed on Wednesday 24th April due to maintenance work taking place.

Visits between 15th April and 18th May 2024

From 15th April 2024, you may experience heavy traffic around the surrounding area on your journey home due to planned roadwork closures along the A12 southbound carriageway between J26 Stanway and J25 Marks Tey. Route diversions will be in place but traffic may be increased due to this.

Find out more here .

ADVANCED NOTICE: Please be aware that our indoor soft play, Jungle Tumble, will be closed on the following dates due to annual maintenance and a thorough deep clean.

• Tuesday 7th May to Friday 10th May 2024
• Monday 13th May to Friday 17th May 2024

Go digital and download the Colchester Zoo App. Find out more here

Research Opportunities

Colchester Zoo is open to collaboration on research projects for academic, zoological, and professional research institutions and researchers.

Colchester Zoo is dedicated to encouraging, supporting and conducting research that improves captive animal management, benefits conservation programmes and contributes to the body of scientific knowledge about animals and their natural habitats. The World Zoo and Aquaria Conservation Strategy highlights research as a major role for modern zoos.

Click the below headings for information about how to be involved in research at Colchester Zoo:

Application Process

Application form, research handbook.

Case Studies

Colchester Zoo’s research includes both animal-based studies and visitor studies . Animal-based studies can focus on behaviour, welfare, nutrition, husbandry, environmental enrichment, ecology, reproduction and conservation. All animal-based research undertaken in the Zoo is non-invasive and mostly conducted through observation of the animals in their captive environment.

Research studies assist Colchester Zoo in a number of ways:

• Helping develop successful animal management practices , by assessing effects on the animals of factors, such as: enclosure design, diet and social grouping
• Benefiting conservation of species and habitats , by improving the success of captive breeding programmes and in-situ programmes
• Promoting conservation through education , by assessing visitor attitudes and perceptions

For further information about research at Colchester Zoo, please contact: [email protected] for diploma and undergraduate research [email protected] for postgraduate research and visitor studies

The Research Coordinator works closely with animal management staff and the Education team to identify priority topics and Colchester Zoo encourages applications for research within these priority areas.

Applications focusing on priority topics are more likely to be approved. To receive a copy of this priority list, please email: [email protected] for diploma and undergraduate research and [email protected] for postgraduate research and visitor studies .

All applications received will be assessed by the Zoo Director and Zoo Curator. Animal Management staff will accept applications on the basis of the subject area, including the value to science, ethical considerations, and the logistics of the study, including staff time and resources.

Please see the BIAZA Research Resources (click to open in a new window) for more details about research in BIAZA institutes, as well as resources and other information to help you develop your research project.

All applications should be sent to the Research Coordinator a minimum of one month in advance of the perspective start date.

All researchers wishing to conduct a project at, or in association with Colchester Zoo, must submit an application form.

Please read the research handbook. This document details the guidelines and processes all researchers must follow whilst conducting research at Colchester Zoo. Details of the research fee are also included in the handbook.

Click here to download the Colchester Zoo Research Handbook

Example Case Studies

Click on any image below to see examples of research conducted at Colchester Zoo.

Click here for the archive of past research projects conducted at Colchester Zoo.

• Sea Lion Research
• Elephant Research
• Bush Dog Research
• Past Research Projects

Newsletter Signup

Sign up to our newsletter for all the latest deals, news and more!

Privacy Overview

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

Liquid droplets shape how cells respond to change, shows study

Rice bran nanoparticles show promise as affordable and targeted anticancer agent

Advance in forensic fingerprint research provides new hope for cold cases

How spicy does mustard get depending on the soil?

Electron videography captures moving dance between proteins and lipids

2 hours ago

New findings shed light on how bella moths use poison to attract mates

AI tool creates 'synthetic' images of cells for enhanced microscopy analysis

Announcing the birth of QUIONE, a unique analog quantum processor

World's oases threatened by desertification, even as humans expand them

3 hours ago

NASA's Voyager 1 resumes sending engineering updates to Earth

Relevant physicsforums posts, biographies, history, personal accounts.

21 hours ago

Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics?

Cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better.

23 hours ago

History of Railroad Safety - Spotlight on current derailments

For ww2 buffs.

Apr 20, 2024

Who is your favorite Jazz musician and what is your favorite song?

Apr 19, 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

Many prisoners go years without touching a smartphone—it means they struggle to navigate life on the outside

Data-driven music: Converting climate measurements into music

Apr 18, 2024

Researchers find lower grades given to students with surnames that come later in alphabetical order

Apr 17, 2024

Study reveals how humanity could unite to address global challenges

Apr 16, 2024

Are the world's cultures growing apart?

Apr 10, 2024

Building footprints could help identify neighborhood sociodemographic traits

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

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Make a “Good” Presentation “Great”

• Guy Kawasaki

Remember: Less is more.

A strong presentation is so much more than information pasted onto a series of slides with fancy backgrounds. Whether you’re pitching an idea, reporting market research, or sharing something else, a great presentation can give you a competitive advantage, and be a powerful tool when aiming to persuade, educate, or inspire others. Here are some unique elements that make a presentation stand out.

• Fonts: Sans Serif fonts such as Helvetica or Arial are preferred for their clean lines, which make them easy to digest at various sizes and distances. Limit the number of font styles to two: one for headings and another for body text, to avoid visual confusion or distractions.
• Colors: Colors can evoke emotions and highlight critical points, but their overuse can lead to a cluttered and confusing presentation. A limited palette of two to three main colors, complemented by a simple background, can help you draw attention to key elements without overwhelming the audience.
• Pictures: Pictures can communicate complex ideas quickly and memorably but choosing the right images is key. Images or pictures should be big (perhaps 20-25% of the page), bold, and have a clear purpose that complements the slide’s text.
• Layout: Don’t overcrowd your slides with too much information. When in doubt, adhere to the principle of simplicity, and aim for a clean and uncluttered layout with plenty of white space around text and images. Think phrases and bullets, not sentences.

As an intern or early career professional, chances are that you’ll be tasked with making or giving a presentation in the near future. Whether you’re pitching an idea, reporting market research, or sharing something else, a great presentation can give you a competitive advantage, and be a powerful tool when aiming to persuade, educate, or inspire others.

• Guy Kawasaki is the chief evangelist at Canva and was the former chief evangelist at Apple. Guy is the author of 16 books including Think Remarkable : 9 Paths to Transform Your Life and Make a Difference.

Partner Center

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:

Key facts about Americans and guns

Guns are deeply ingrained in American society and the nation’s political debates.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and about a third of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun. At the same time, in response to concerns such as rising gun death rates and  mass shootings , President Joe Biden has proposed gun policy legislation that would expand on the bipartisan gun safety bill Congress passed last year.

Here are some key findings about Americans’ views of gun ownership, gun policy and other subjects, drawn primarily from a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2023 .

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to summarize key facts about Americans and guns. We used data from recent Center surveys to provide insights into Americans’ views on gun policy and how those views have changed over time, as well as to examine the proportion of adults who own guns and their reasons for doing so.

The analysis draws primarily from a survey of 5,115 U.S. adults conducted from June 5 to June 11, 2023. Everyone who took part in the surveys cited 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 .

Here are the  questions used for the analysis on gun ownership , the questions used for the analysis on gun policy , and  the survey’s methodology .

Additional information about the fall 2022 survey of parents and its methodology can be found at the link in the text of this post.

Measuring gun ownership in the United States comes with unique challenges. Unlike many demographic measures, there is not a definitive data source from the government or elsewhere on how many American adults own guns.

The Pew Research Center survey conducted June 5-11, 2023, on the Center’s American Trends Panel, asks about gun ownership using two separate questions to measure personal and household ownership. About a third of adults (32%) say they own a gun, while another 10% say they do not personally own a gun but someone else in their household does. These shares have changed little from surveys conducted in 2021  and  2017 . In each of those surveys, 30% reported they owned a gun.

These numbers are largely consistent with rates of gun ownership reported by Gallup , but somewhat higher than those reported by NORC’s General Social Survey . Those surveys also find only modest changes in recent years.

The FBI maintains data on background checks on individuals attempting to purchase firearms in the United States. The FBI reported a surge in background checks in 2020 and 2021, during the coronavirus pandemic. The number of federal background checks declined in 2022 and through the first half of this year, according to FBI statistics .

About four-in-ten U.S. adults say they live in a household with a gun, including 32% who say they personally own one,  according to an August report based on our June survey. These numbers are virtually unchanged since the last time we asked this question in 2021.

There are differences in gun ownership rates by political affiliation, gender, community type and other factors.

• Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are more than twice as likely as Democrats and Democratic leaners to say they personally own a gun (45% vs. 20%).
• 40% of men say they own a gun, compared with 25% of women.
• 47% of adults living in rural areas report personally owning a firearm, as do smaller shares of those who live in suburbs (30%) or urban areas (20%).
• 38% of White Americans own a gun, compared with smaller shares of Black (24%), Hispanic (20%) and Asian (10%) Americans.

Personal protection tops the list of reasons gun owners give for owning a firearm.  About three-quarters (72%) of gun owners say that protection is a major reason they own a gun. Considerably smaller shares say that a major reason they own a gun is for hunting (32%), for sport shooting (30%), as part of a gun collection (15%) or for their job (7%). 

The reasons behind gun ownership have changed only modestly since our 2017 survey of attitudes toward gun ownership and gun policies. At that time, 67% of gun owners cited protection as a major reason they owned a firearm.

Gun owners tend to have much more positive feelings about having a gun in the house than non-owners who live with them. For instance, 71% of gun owners say they enjoy owning a gun – but far fewer non-gun owners in gun-owning households (31%) say they enjoy having one in the home. And while 81% of gun owners say owning a gun makes them feel safer, a narrower majority (57%) of non-owners in gun households say the same about having a firearm at home. Non-owners are also more likely than owners to worry about having a gun in the home (27% vs. 12%, respectively).

Feelings about gun ownership also differ by political affiliation, even among those who personally own firearms. Republican gun owners are more likely than Democratic owners to say owning a gun gives them feelings of safety and enjoyment, while Democratic owners are more likely to say they worry about having a gun in the home.

Non-gun owners are split on whether they see themselves owning a firearm in the future. About half (52%) of Americans who don’t own a gun say they could never see themselves owning one, while nearly as many (47%) could imagine themselves as gun owners in the future.

Among those who currently do not own a gun:

• 61% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats who don’t own a gun say they would consider owning one in the future.
• 56% of Black non-owners say they could see themselves owning a gun one day, compared with smaller shares of White (48%), Hispanic (40%) and Asian (38%) non-owners.

Americans are evenly split over whether gun ownership does more to increase or decrease safety. About half (49%) say it does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, but an equal share say gun ownership does more to reduce safety by giving too many people access to firearms and increasing misuse.

Republicans and Democrats differ on this question: 79% of Republicans say that gun ownership does more to increase safety, while a nearly identical share of Democrats (78%) say that it does more to reduce safety.

Urban and rural Americans also have starkly different views. Among adults who live in urban areas, 64% say gun ownership reduces safety, while 34% say it does more to increase safety. Among those who live in rural areas, 65% say gun ownership increases safety, compared with 33% who say it does more to reduce safety. Those living in the suburbs are about evenly split.

Americans increasingly say that gun violence is a major problem. Six-in-ten U.S. adults say gun violence is a very big problem in the country today, up 9 percentage points from spring 2022. In the survey conducted this June, 23% say gun violence is a moderately big problem, and about two-in-ten say it is either a small problem (13%) or not a problem at all (4%).

Looking ahead, 62% of Americans say they expect the level of gun violence to increase over the next five years. This is double the share who expect it to stay the same (31%). Just 7% expect the level of gun violence to decrease.

A majority of Americans (61%) say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in this country. Another 30% say the ease of legally obtaining a gun is about right, and 9% say it is too hard to get a gun. Non-gun owners are nearly twice as likely as gun owners to say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun (73% vs. 38%). Meanwhile, gun owners are more than twice as likely as non-owners to say the ease of obtaining a gun is about right (48% vs. 20%).

Partisan and demographic differences also exist on this question. While 86% of Democrats say it is too easy to obtain a gun legally, 34% of Republicans say the same. Most urban (72%) and suburban (63%) dwellers say it’s too easy to legally obtain a gun. Rural residents are more divided: 47% say it is too easy, 41% say it is about right and 11% say it is too hard.

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, and 15% favor less strict gun laws. The percentage who say these laws should be stricter has fluctuated a bit in recent years. In 2021, 53% favored stricter gun laws, and in 2019, 60% said laws should be stricter.

About a third (32%) of parents with K-12 students say they are very or extremely worried about a shooting ever happening at their children’s school, according to a fall 2022 Center survey of parents with at least one child younger than 18. A similar share of K-12 parents (31%) say they are not too or not at all worried about a shooting ever happening at their children’s school, while 37% of parents say they are somewhat worried.

Among all parents with children under 18, including those who are not in school, 63% see improving mental health screening and treatment as a very or extremely effective way to prevent school shootings. This is larger than the shares who say the same about having police officers or armed security in schools (49%), banning assault-style weapons (45%), or having metal detectors in schools (41%). Just 24% of parents say allowing teachers and school administrators to carry guns in school would be a very or extremely effective approach, while half say this would be not too or not at all effective.

There is broad partisan agreement on some gun policy proposals, but most are politically divisive,   the June 2023 survey found . Majorities of U.S. adults in both partisan coalitions somewhat or strongly favor two policies that would restrict gun access: preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns (88% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats support this) and increasing the minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old (69% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats). Majorities in both parties also  oppose  allowing people to carry concealed firearms without a permit (60% of Republicans and 91% of Democrats oppose this).

Republicans and Democrats differ on several other proposals. While 85% of Democrats favor banning both assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, majorities of Republicans oppose these proposals (57% and 54%, respectively).

Most Republicans, on the other hand, support allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools (74%) and allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places (71%). These proposals are supported by just 27% and 19% of Democrats, respectively.

Gun ownership is linked with views on gun policies. Americans who own guns are less likely than non-owners to favor restrictions on gun ownership, with a notable exception. Nearly identical majorities of gun owners (87%) and non-owners (89%) favor preventing mentally ill people from buying guns.

Within both parties, differences between gun owners and non-owners are evident – but they are especially stark among Republicans. For example, majorities of Republicans who do not own guns support banning high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault-style weapons, compared with about three-in-ten Republican gun owners.

Among Democrats, majorities of both gun owners and non-owners favor these two proposals, though support is greater among non-owners. 

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Jan. 5, 2016 .

• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues

About 1 in 4 U.S. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year

Striking findings from 2023, for most u.s. gun owners, protection is the main reason they own a gun, gun violence widely viewed as a major – and growing – national problem, what the data says about gun deaths 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

Institutional Research and Assessment

Annual assessment academy, aaa registration is now open click here to apply.

The purpose of the Howard University Annual Assessment Academy is to engage faculty and staff in the assessment of academic and administrative assessment reports and to offer professional development opportunities related to assessment. The Annual Assessment Academy will welcome colleagues to the assessment community and provide learning opportunities related to assessment foundations, how to utilize learning outcomes in the assessment process, and sharing assessment results. 

Assessment of  Assessment Reports

Throughout the academic year, all academic programs and many administrative programs submit an assessment report. These reports include a mission statement, a set of learning outcomes, appropriate measures to track student learning, targets, results, and suggested improvements. Using a rubric, faculty will rate reports over a four-week period. Colleagues will be trained by attending an informational meeting and participating in a calibration exercise. Trainings will be recorded and made available via Canvas.  

How to Participate

If you are interested in participating in the Annual Assessment Academy, please complete the short application linked below. We hope to invite all participants who apply to participate, but may not be able to accommodate all who wish to participate depending on the number of applications.

To apply, click here.

Qualifications

All Howard University full-time and part-time faculty, and staff with assessment responsibilities are encouraged to participate.  

Important Date(s)

The Annual Assessment Academy application will open  April 22, 2024  and close on June 3, 2024.

Academy invitees will be informed on June  10, 2024 .

Trainings and calibration exercises will be held on July 8th (administrative) and 9th (academic) . While we ask that participants attend synchronously, they will be recorded with the aim of ensuring that participants can participate asynchronously.

The assessment window for assessment reports and learning activities will be open from July 1, 2024  until July 31, 2024 . 

April 19, 2024

Related Announcements

SUMMARY: Findings of research misconduct have been made against Gian-Stefano Brigidi, Ph.D. (Respondent), who was a Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Neurobiology, University of California San Diego (UCSD), and was an Assistant Professor, Department of Neurobiology, University of Utah (UU). Respondent engaged in research misconduct in research supported by U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) funds, specifically National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant F32 MH110141, National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), NIH, grant T32 HG000044, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), NIH, grant P30 NS047101, and National Library of Medicine (NLM), NIH, grant T15 LM011271. The research was included in grant applications submitted for PHS funds, specifically R01 NS131809-01, R01 NS133405-01, DP2 NS127276-01, and R01 NS111162-01A1 submitted to NINDS, NIH, and R21 MH121860-01, R21 MH121860-01A1, F32 MH110141-01, F32 MH110141-01A1, and F32 MH110141-01AS1 submitted to NIMH, NIH. The administrative actions, including supervision for a period of five (5) years, were implemented beginning on March 24, 2024, and are detailed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila Garrity, JD, MPH, MBA, Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 240, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:

Gian-Stefano Brigidi, Ph.D., University of California San Diego (UCSD) and University of Utah (UU): Based on the report of an assessment conducted by UU, and inquiry conducted by UCSD, the Respondent's admission, and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Gian-Stefano Brigidi, former Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Neurobiology, UCSD, and former Assistant Professor, Department of Neurobiology, UU, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by PHS funds, specifically NIMH, NIH, grant F32 MH110141, NHGRI, NIH, grant T32 HG000044, NINDS, NIH, grant P30 NS047101, and NLM, NIH, grant T15 LM011271. The research was included in grant applications submitted for PHS funds, specifically R01 NS131809-01, R01 NS133405-01, DP2 NS127276-01, and R01 NS111162-01A1 submitted to NINDS, NIH, and R21 MH121860-01, R21 MH121860-01A1, F32 MH110141-01, F32 MH110141-01A1, and F32 MH110141-01AS1 submitted to NIMH, NIH.

ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by knowingly or intentionally falsifying and/or fabricating data and results by manipulating primary data values to falsely increase the n-value, manipulating fluorescence micrographs and their quantification graphs to augment the role of ITFs in murine hippocampal neurons, and/or manipulating confocal images that were obtained through different experimental conditions in twenty (20) figures of one (1) published paper and four (4) PHS grant applications, one (1) panel of one (1) poster, and seven (7) slides of one (1) presentation:

• Genomic Decoding of Neuronal Depolarization by Stimulus-Specific NPAS4 Heterodimers. Cell . 2019 Oct 3;179(2):373-391.e27. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.09.004 (hereafter referred to as “ Cell 2019”).
• Genomic mechanisms linking neuronal activity history with present and future functions. Poster for “The Brigidi Lab--a neuronal activity lab in the Department of Neurobiology at the University of Utah” (hereafter referred to as the “UU Department of Neurobiology poster”).
• Decoding neural circuit stimuli into spatially organized gene regulation. Presentation presented to the UU Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy on January 23, 2020 (hereafter referred to as “UU Department of Neurobiology presentation”).
• DP2 NS127276-01, “Decoding neuronal activity history at the genome through the spatially segregated inducible transcription factors,” submitted to NINDS, NIH, on August 20, 2020, Awarded Project Dates: September 15, 2021-August 1, 2023.
• F32 MH110141-01, “Regulation of excitatory-inhibitory balance by the local translation of the immediate early gene Npas4,” submitted to NIMH, NIH, on August 10, 2015.
• F32 MH110141-01A1, “Regulation of Excitatory-Inhibitory Balance by Local Translation of the Immediate Early Gene Npas4,” submitted to NIMH, NIH, on December 8, 2015, Awarded Project Dates: August 1, 2016-July 31, 2018.
• F32 MH110141-01A1S1, “Regulation of Excitatory-Inhibitory Balance by Local Translation of the Immediate Early Gene Npas4,” submitted to NIMH, NIH, on December 8, 2016, Awarded Project Dates: December 1, 2016-July 31, 2017.

The falsified and/or fabricated data also were included in twenty-three (23) figures in the following five (5) PHS grant applications:

• R01 NS131809-01, “Regulation and function of dendritic mRNA that encodes the neuronal transcription factor Npas4,” submitted to NINDS, NIH, on June 6, 2022.
• R01 NS133405-01, “Assessing the impact of the inducible transcription factor NPAS4 on spatial tuning in the mouse hippocampus,” submitted to NINDS, NIH, on October 5, 2022.
• R01 NS111162-01A1, “Molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying activity dependent gene regulation in neurons,” submitted to NINDS, NIH, on March 5, 2019, Awarded Project Dates: December 15, 2019-November 30, 2024.
• R21 MH121860-01, “Identification of dendritically-localized transcription factor mRNAs as a mechanism for conveying multiple streams of information to the nucleus,” submitted to NIMH, NIH, on February 19, 2019.
• R21 MH121860-01A1, “Identification of dendritically-localized transcription factor mRNAs,” submitted to NIMH, NIH, on March 16, 2020.

Specifically, ORI found that:

• Respondent knowingly or intentionally combined two to three real data sets and two to five fabricated data sets to falsely increase the n-values reported in:
• Figures 1B, 1D, 1E, 1G, 1I, 1J, 1M-1O, 1Q-1T, S2B-S2D, S2F-S2H, S3I, S3L, S3M, and S6H of Cell 2019 and Slides 6-10, 13, and 28 of the UU Department of Neurobiology presentation representing the quantification of NPAS4 immunohistofluorescence.
• Figures 2H, 2I, 2K, 2P, 3C, 3E, 4D-4G, 4K-4N, 4P-4Q, S3G, S5B, and S5C of Cell 2019 representing the quantification of Npas4 mRNA or puro-PLA puncta.
• Figures S1E, S1G, and S1H of Cell 2019 representing the quantification of whole-cell clamp recordings of CA1 PN.
• Figures 2 (lower panel) and 3c of F32 MH110141-01, Figures 1g, 2b, 2d, and 4 of F32 MH110141-01A1S1, and Figures 1g, 2b, 2d, and 4 of F32 MH110141-01A1 representing time points of NPAS4 quantification after no stimulation or post-stimulation in the alveus or radiatum SR, SO, SP, SLM, with or without the addition of an inhibitor.
• Respondent knowingly or intentionally manipulated confocal images that were obtained through different experimental conditions in:
• Figures 1A, 1C, and 1F of Cell 2019 and Slides 6-9 of the UU Department of Neurobiology presentation representing confocal images of hippocampal slices immunostained for NPAS4 and Neu.
• Figures S2A and S2E of Cell 2019 by manipulating and misrepresenting the GFP signals as NPAS4 signals in wildtype mice.
• Figures 1H, 1L, 1P, S3K, S6F, and S6G of Cell 2019 and Slides 9 and 28 of the UU Department of Neurobiology presentation by manipulating the raw images of hippocampal slices immunostained with NPAS4 and Neu and/or ARNT1 or ARNT2 by generating a mask of NPAS4 immunofluorescent signal through GFP signal from tissue obtained from Thy1-GFP mice to intentionally enhance the appearance of the dendritic NPAS4 signal.
• Figures S6F and S6G of Cell 2019 by manipulating the raw images of hippocampus slices by overlaying a GFP channel over ARNT1 channel and using the multiply feature in Photoshop to restrict ARNT1 signal through GFP to enhance the ARNT1 signal in three panels.
• Slides 7, 9, and 28 of the UU Department of Neurobiology presentation by manipulating six images representing post-stimulation with different time points by using a GFP mask overlaid on top of raw NPAS4 immunofluorescence.
• Figure 4 of DP2 NS127276-01 and panel 1 of the UU Department of Neurobiology poster representing twelve images in columns 2-4 labeled EGR, FOS, ATF4 by mislabeling the microscope images as immunofluorescent stained with antibodies against EGR, FOS, and ATF4 when they actually were stained with anti-NPAS4 and selected images to support the immunofluorescence data in the ITF induction graphs.
• Figure 5 of DP2 NS127276-01 representing two confocal images in the far-right column by intentionally and selectively enhancing the brightness of the anti-NPAS4 immunofluorescent channel within the dashed box and left brightness unchanged in surrounding areas of the images.
• Figure 6 of DP2 NS127276-01 in twelve images in columns 2-5 labeled Egr2, Fos, and Atf4 by intentionally mislabeling the microscope images as RNA in situ hybridization with probes against Egr2, Fos, and Atf4 when they actually were stained with NPAS4 probes and intentionally selecting and quantifying images in the quantification graphs to support the conclusions of the grant application.
• Respondent knowingly or intentionally manipulated the fluorescence micrographs and their quantification graphs to augment the role of ITFs in murine hippocampal neurons in Figures 2B-2G, 2J, 2L-2O, 3B, 3D, 3F-3H, 4C, 4J, 4O, S1A-S1D, S1F, S1I-S1J, S3A-S3F, S3H, S3J, S3N-S3T, S5D-S5G, and S6A-S6E of Cell 2019; the falsified/fabricated data also were included in Figures 2B-2H, 3, 4B-4E, and 5C-5G of R21 MH121860-01, Figures 2, 3B-3E, 4B-4C, 4E-4I, and 5B-5E of R21 MH121860-01A1, Figures 3, 5, 6B, 7, 8, 10B-10D, 11A-11C, and 11E-11F in R01 NS131809-01, Figure 8 of R01 NS133405-01, and Figures 3B-3C, 3E-3I, 4B-4I, 5, 9, 10B-10E, and 11-12 of R01 NS111162-01A1.

Respondent entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement (Agreement) and voluntarily agreed to the following:

• Respondent will have his research supervised for a period of five (5) years beginning on March 24, 2024 (the “Supervision Period”). Prior to the submission of an application for PHS support for a research project on which Respondent's participation is proposed and prior to Respondent's participation in any capacity in PHS-supported research, Respondent will submit a plan for supervision of Respondent's duties to ORI for approval. The supervision plan must be designed to ensure the integrity of Respondent's research. Respondent will not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is approved by ORI. Respondent will comply with the agreed-upon supervision plan.
• A committee of 2-3 senior faculty members at the institution who are familiar with Respondent's field of research, but not including Respondent's supervisor or collaborators, will provide oversight and guidance for a period of five (5) years from the effective date of the Agreement. The committee will review primary data from Respondent's laboratory on a quarterly basis and submit a report to ORI at six (6) month intervals setting forth the committee meeting dates and Respondent's compliance with appropriate research standards and confirming the integrity of Respondent's research.
• The committee will conduct an advance review of each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved. The review will include a discussion with Respondent of the primary data represented in those documents and will include a certification to ORI that the data presented in the proposed application, report, manuscript, or abstract are supported by the research record.
• During the Supervision Period, Respondent will ensure that any institution employing him submits, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported and not plagiarized in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract.
• If no supervision plan is provided to ORI, Respondent will provide certification to ORI at the conclusion of the Supervision Period that his participation was not proposed on a research project for which an application for PHS support was submitted and that he has not participated in any capacity in PHS-supported research.
• During the Supervision Period, Respondent will exclude himself voluntarily from serving in any advisory or consultant capacity to PHS including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee.
• Respondent will request that the following paper be corrected or retracted:
• Cell . 2019 Oct 3;179(2):373-391.e27. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.09.004.

Respondent will copy ORI and the Research Integrity Officer at UCSD on the correspondence with the journal.

Please direct all inquiries to:

Sheila Garrity, JD, MPH, MBA, Director

Office of Research Integrity

1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 240

Rockville, MD 20852

(240) 453-8200

Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files .

• For Journalists
• For Faculty and Staff
• News Archive
• 2023 Top 10 Stories

Research showcases Indigenous stewardship’s role in forest ecosystem resilience

CORVALLIS, Oregon – Oregon State University researchers have teamed with the Karuk Tribe to create a novel computer simulation model that showcases Indigenous fire stewardship’s role in forest ecosystem health.

Western scientists and land managers have become increasingly cognizant of cultural burning but its extent and purpose are generally absent from fire modeling research, said Skye Greenler, who led the partnership when she was a graduate research fellow in the OSU College of Forestry.

“We developed this project in collaboration with the Karuk Tribe to explore the impact of cultural burning at a landscape scale in a completely new way,” she said. “The information that went into this model is not new at all – it’s been held by Karuk Tribal members for millennia – but we developed new methods to bring the knowledge together and display it in a way that showcases the extent of Indigenous cultural stewardship across this landscape.”

Greenler and collaborators including Chris Dunn and John Bailey of Oregon State say that understanding the interactions among humans, fire processes and pathways towards coexistence with wildfire has become increasingly urgent as the social, ecological and economic impacts of fire have intensified in recent years.

The research focused on 1,000 square miles of Karuk Aboriginal Territory in the western Klamath Mountains of northern California. Working with the Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources, OSU scientists developed historical estimates for cultural ignition locations, frequency and timing. Statistical parameters were collaboratively developed and honed with Tribal members and knowledge holders using interviews, historical and contemporary maps, ethnographies, recent ecological studies and generational knowledge.

Published in Ecological Applications, the findings show that before the arrival of European colonizers, cultural burning was extensive across the landscape, with an estimated 6,972 cultural ignitions occurring annually, averaging about 6.5 ignitions per year for each Indigenous fire steward.

The researchers, who included scientists from the University of Washington, the Mid-Klamath Watershed Council, and the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest research stations, found that the timing and location of burning was often guided by the ecology of specific cultural resources, fuel receptivity, seasonal movement patterns and spiritual practices.

“The ignition characteristics we document align closely with data on historical fire regimes and vegetation but differ substantially from the location and timing of the ignitions happening now,” Greenler said. “This work shows the importance of cultural burning for developing and maintaining the ecosystems present at the time of colonization and underscores the need to work collaboratively with Indigenous communities to restore ecocultural processes.”

Northern California’s western Klamath Mountains are a diverse and highly fire- prone ecosystem that historically burned frequently at low or moderate severity but have recently experienced many extensive or severe wildfires, the researchers point out.

“Collaboratively integrating western and Indigenous fire science and knowledge systems in this research will help reinstate fire on this landscape to achieve socioecological resource values with benefits both to tribes and the public,” said the Forest Service’s Frank Lake, a Karuk Tribal descendant who earned a doctorate from the OSU College of Forestry.

The study area is one of many fire-prone landscapes in the western United States that have a long history of cultural burning, defined as the purposeful use of fire by an Indigenous group to promote food, medicinal and material resources. Cultural burning also alters wildfire risk and how fires spread.

“It would be incredible to go back in time and experience the study landscape with open oak groves, hillsides of high quality and abundant first foods, frequent, small cultural burns in the mornings or late afternoons, and little fear of large wildfires when dry lightning storms passed over the mountains in August,” Greenler said. “A recent shift within western scientific and management communities is towards a greater interest in supporting Indigenous fire stewardship practices that better balance relationships between people and fire.”

The increased interest follows decades of work from Indigenous communities to assert sovereign rights to land stewardship, emphasize the importance of cultural burning and build collaborative relationships and policies that integrate cultural burning into research, management and restoration practices, the scientists say.

“The lens with which scientists view data in observational scientific studies affects their interpretation of the results,” Dunn said. “As our acceptance of Indigenous Knowledge grows, we are experiencing a shift in our interpretation of fire regimes, ecological outcomes and humans in these systems. This does not invalidate previous studies but builds upon them for a more accurate understanding of history, and with that, where we are going in the future.”

Indigenous fire stewardship is deeply place-based, Greenler said, meaning the collaborators’ findings are not directly transferable to other landscapes, but the process that was used to develop and model estimates of cultural ignitions could “absolutely be applied” in other landscapes to better understand the impacts and patterns of cultural burning.

“It was a real pleasure to work on this project,” said Bill Tripp, director of natural resources and environmental policy for the Karuk Tribe. “Being able to incorporate Karuk Indigenous Knowledge, practice and belief systems into a product that can help assess historic fire regimes in a way that protects our proprietary information and locational data in regard to the site-specific resources we are working to enhance is of vital importance to our ecocultural revitalization efforts.”

Greenler stresses the importance of remembering that cultural burning remains an important practice on many landscapes today, including in northern California. She would like the collaboration with the Karuk Tribe to help provide information for society to use in restoring balanced human-fire relationships – which in some ways may emulate historical practices and in other ways may not, she said.

“I hope for all of us that we can continue to learn from Indigenous communities, uplift Indigenous Knowledge and sovereignty, and work towards a future where we can better co-exist with fire on our landscapes,” Greenler said.

College of Forestry

About the OSU College of Forestry:  For a century, the College of Forestry has been a world class center of teaching, learning and research. It offers graduate and undergraduate degree programs in sustaining ecosystems, managing forests and manufacturing wood products; conducts basic and applied research on the nature and use of forests; and operates more than 15,000 acres of college forests.

Steve Lundeberg, 541-737-4039, [email protected]

Skye Greenler, [email protected] ; Chris Dunn, 541-737-1194, [email protected]

Click photos to see a full-size version. Right click and save image to download.

Contact Info

Grab a feed of news and stories for your site.

Nix the oven? A skinny fridge? Tips on designing a tiny kitchen in your ADU

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Unlike European kitchens, which are designed for efficiency rather than luxury, American kitchens often emphasize open-concept designs simply because they are larger.

But now that people are adding accessory dwelling units, or ADUs , in their backyards to house family members and generate passive income, the European model is becoming more attractive to homeowners struggling to fit everything they want into a tiny footprint.

“I wish appliance companies made cooler and more compact appliances,” says designer Samantha Karim, who added an ADU in her Mid-Wilshire backyard. “This is especially true as people are trending towards smaller living spaces.”

Los Angeles architect Bo Sundius agrees. “No one is making an inexpensive small refrigerator,” he says. “You have to go with European models. I would always do under-counter fridges and freezers if I could, but there’s nothing on the market that’s affordable.”

Designing a kitchen for an ADU requires careful planning, says designer Kirsten Blazek, author of the new book “A 1000 X Better. A Rebel by Design .” “I like to start by really thinking about the main purpose of the space and plan accordingly,” she says. “Will there be long-term guests there? Who would benefit from a full kitchen? Is this more of an overflow, entertaining or work space? Space planning and functionality are important, so don’t forget to get the correct-sized appliances. Measure everything carefully. Also, give the same attention to design details as you would in a full-size kitchen.”

Ready to build or rent out an ADU? Here’s how to win over nervous neighbors

Neighbors have reason to be nervous about ADUs. Construction, new tenants and street parking can be inconvenient. Here’s how to smooth things over before you start construction.

March 5, 2024

Blazek is not alone in wanting her kitchen to be efficient. Here, architects and homeowners share their small-space tips for ADUs to help you maximize your space and living experience.

Sunny, open kitchen with clerestory windows

Project: Two-bedroom rental on a dense lot in Highland Park

ADU size: 850 square feet

Total cost of ADU: $250,000

Kitchen details: This rental includes a full kitchen with custom cabinets and standard, full-sized appliances, including a refrigerator and a 30-inch range. There is no dishwasher, but there is room for one. Clerestory windows bring in light and make the space feel bigger. Despite the small footprint, architects Bo Sundius and Hisako Ichiki of Bunch Design added a tall cabinet opening for storing a large Kitchen Aid mixer, shown above, top right.

The architects dislike upper cabinets because they are inefficient. “Don’t do upper cabinets,” Sundius advises homeowners interested in adding an ADU . Instead, add a wall of storage. “You can hide a cheaper standard refrigerator because it is in plane with the cabinets. If the cabinets and refrigerator are white, it will look integrated.”

Goodbye carport, hello ADU: A tiny parking spot is reborn as a stunning live-work studio

A 380-square-foot ADU with plenty of storage offers flexibility for a Los Angeles couple and their extended family, including working from home and housing.

Feb. 20, 2024

Pro tip: “People are always obsessed with picking out the countertops,” Sundius says. “They believe that Caesarstone never stains or scratches. That’s not true. They always choose white Caesarstone and then are disappointed when it stains. Granite and quartzite are always going to be the best-performing stones. Pick something with movement in it — darker stone will hide stains.”

Glamorous chef’s kitchen with high-end appliances

Project: Studio garage conversion in Pacific Palisades

ADU size: 290 square feet

Kitchen details: Homeowners Nicole Fitzgerald and Rick Steil wanted a full kitchen in their former one-car garage, despite its small footprint.

“We imagined the space as a multi]purpose room for multiple tenants,” says Fitzgerald. “So we thought a full kitchen would be an important functional feature. In addition, we love to cook and entertain and spend a tremendous amount of time in our current kitchen.”

Pros: “We love the Arabescato stone — it’s absolutely gorgeous and strikes a perfect balance between elegance and playfulness,” says Fitzgerald. “The blue-green cabinetry color (Portola Half Moon Bay) really drives the personality of the entire space while enveloping the beautiful ILVE range and custom plaster hood as a beautiful focal point for the entire room.”

Cons: In retrospect, Fitzgerald believes they could have gone without the dishwasher. “I believed that a dishwasher would add important functionality for hosting and entertaining groups of people, but in reality, the space is more suited for one to two people,” Fitzgerald adds. “If I could tweak the ADU, I might opt for more storage/pantry space instead of the dishwasher.”

Clean-lined efficiency for a flexible studio

Project: Multipurpose garage conversion in Mid-City

ADU size: 300 square feet

Total cost of ADU: $180,000

Kitchen details: The studio’s kitchen consists of a full-sized narrow fridge, a single sink with garbage disposal, two countertop gas burners, a counter microwave and a narrow dishwasher.

“So far, it has been the right decision for us to have a microwave and a stovetop as both get used,” says homeowner Nicole Lemoine. “We generally just use the stovetop or microwave when we stay in other homes. We also have an Instant Pot and toaster in the unit, but I don’t think those have been used yet. Maybe for someone staying longer term, but for now, our guests have picked up easy-to-heat-up items from local stores, leftovers while out, or used the stovetop for easy meals.”

Pros: “It’s easy to clean,” says Lemoine’s husband, Alex Mason.

Cons: No oven. “Our tiny space invites people to cook if they want, but since you can’t really host a gathering, not many singles or couples want to make full-on roasts and such,” Mason says. “If someone wants an oven, there’s always the option of a toaster oven.”

Old-school kitchen designed to accommodate full-time living

Project: Garage turned ADU rental for a family of three in Eagle Rock

ADU size: 825 square feet

Total cost of ADU: $300,000

Kitchen details: Mona Field transformed her garage into a two-bedroom ADU for her daughter, Nadine Levyfield, son-in-law and grandson. (They recently switched and the young family is now in the main house and Field is living in the ADU.)

Pros: “For our ADU kitchen, we were most excited about getting a dishwasher, which we had never had before,” says Levyfield. The family wanted a fully functional kitchen, so they installed “a full-size fridge, stove, dishwasher and large farmhouse sink.” They got the Frigidaire appliances during a Black Friday sale at Lowe’s, and were happy with the purchases until the fridge needed an expensive repair out of warranty. They opted for an 8-foot kitchen island, pantry and a stackable washer and dryer. “We thought cohesively about kitchen and storage for our ADU entry and kitchen area.”

How L.A. architects designed a 300-square-foot ADU that pulls in $1,750 a month

L.A. architects making the case for communal living built a tiny ADU above their garage. Design choices make the most of 300 square feet with soaring ceilings and inventive storage.

March 12, 2024

Cons: Now that Field has moved into the ADU, she jokes that the large kitchen is more than she needs. “I will never fill the gigantic fridge, and I still can’t figure out how the washer and dryer work,” she says. “My lifestyle simply doesn’t support using the dishwasher at all. It’s all way too fancy and high-tech for me.”

Bold bright blue kitchenette

Project: Two-story multipurpose guest house in Mid-Wilshire

ADU size: 600 square feet

Total cost of ADU: $186,000

Kitchen details: Architect Barrett Cooke of Arterberry Cooke designed the ground floor of the ADU to include a tiny banquette for eating meals, a kitchen with a stackable washer and dryer, bathroom and living space. Simple concrete floors allow a smooth transition from the pool to the unit and easy indoor-outdoor access for guests and pets.

Pros: “I love the bright blue color — it makes me happy every time I see it,” says homeowner Samantha Karim. “Sometimes it is easier to go bold and take risks in smaller spaces than your primary residence. I love the inset drawers and cupboards that show off the 9-ply birch plywood. I love how the stripes frame each cabinet door or drawer. This plywood trim is replicated in all the built-in furniture to give the living space a cohesive look. Inset kitchen cupboards are more expensive to build than overlays, but I think it’s worth splurging in a small area like a kitchenette.”

When under-the-counter appliances proved too costly, Karim settled on an extra slim, tall refrigerator. The Summit counter-depth fridge with icemaker “provides a ton of vertical space.”

The unit also features an 18-inch dishwasher. “The only issue with these appliances is that they are more expensive than standard-sized appliances,” says Karim.

Cons: “We squeezed every inch out of the floor plan,” says Karim, comparing it to Tetris. She wishes they could fit an oven, but that would squeeze out the seating nook. When the microwave dies, she plans to replace it with a toaster oven/microwave combo. She also regrets the unglazed Zellige tile backsplash. “I would use a glazed tile if I had to do it again because the unglazed is harder to clean.”

IKEA kitchen designed with disability in mind

Project: New construction ADU designed for disabled family member in Culver City

ADU size: 500 square feet

Total cost of ADU: $260,000

Kitchen details: The IKEA kitchen includes an electric stove, microwave, refrigerator, dishwasher and sink.

“We love our ADU kitchen,” says homeowner Andrea Villicana-Chavez. “The architect suggested we get the kitchen from IKEA, and it’s larger than I thought it would be, with ample countertop space. It takes up two walls; it could have been smaller, taking up less space, but as it turns out, it’s better this way.”

How a Spanish bungalow in L.A. went from sad to sexy (Hint: There’s an ADU rental)

Priced out of the Bay Area and South Pasadena, a couple bought a Spanish fixer-upper in Eagle Rock, assisted by the earning potential of an ADU.

Sept. 6, 2023

Pros: Villicana-Chavez is pleased with the kitchen’s design and overall price. “It was very affordable compared to other kitchens,” she says.

Cons: “The only con I see is the electric stovetop. It’s hard to clean at times with just soap and water. I just ordered some cleaner for glass-top stoves to see if I can remove the burned food that doesn’t seem to come off.”

Modern minimalism in a one-bedroom rental

Project: One-bedroom predesigned rental in Fairfax District

ADU size: 400 square feet

Total cost of ADU: $400,000

Kitchen details: The former one-car garage turned rental includes a panel-ready Fisher and Paykel refrigerator, a 24-inch Bertazzoni oven range, a sink and a dishwasher. “We like panel-ready appliances because when you reduce clutter, it makes the place feel bigger,” says architect Sundius, who also designed the Highland Park rental. The washer and dryer are in the bathroom.

Pro tip: Although ADUs are a modern solution to the housing shortage, Sundius notes that it is “still a suburban model, and everyone wants a laundry machine.” He prefers to house the laundry in the bedroom or bathroom, not the kitchen. “Even a studio has a bathroom, and it’s nice if you have a slight vestibule so the door is not right there. We’ve also done the laundry machine combo under the vanity in the bathroom, but people complain that [compact appliances] break.”

Country kitchen for prefab rental

Project: Prefab ADU rental for family members in the South Bay

Total cost of ADU: $475,000

Kitchen details: The prefab ADU from Villa Homes came with standard, full-size appliances: an electric range/oven, dishwasher, refrigerator, microwave and washer and dryer.

“The kitchen appliances are all Whirlpool by default and have a coordinating stainless-steel style, which was fine with us,” says Melanie Guevara, who lives in her parents’ backyard with her husband, Devon Hollowood. “Devon and I had spent so much of the last decade, while in college and graduate school, living in student-grade apartments with shared laundry rooms and no dishwasher. So it was important to us to have our ADU feel like a fully functional and comfortable home.”

The ADU is fully electric. “We did have the option to run a gas line during construction and have a gas stove instead. While I prefer cooking with a traditional gas stove, we decided it was not worth the extra expense and potential health and safety risks . We hope to install solar panels someday so our home is as efficient and environmentally friendly as possible,” says Guevara.

Pros: The couple love their refrigerator, which conveniently dispenses filtered water and ice, and their giant farmhouse-style apron sink. “We love our kitchen island, which provides extra counter space, storage and electrical outlets.”

Cons: “I am not a fan of the glass cooktop on our electric oven; it scratches easily and requires a lot of maintenance to keep it looking clean,” says Guevara. “The stainless steel faces of our appliances also take more cleaning than I expected to eliminate water streaks and small rust spots.”

Streamlined modern European-style kitchen

Project: A prefab ADU by Cover in West Hollywood

ADU size: 450 square feet

Total cost of ADU: $295,000

Kitchen details: The appliances in the studio are all by Sub-Zero and Wolf. There is an induction cooktop and hood by Wolf and a Sub-Zero under-counter pullout refrigerator and freezer that look like two drawers.

“I love that the kitchen blends seamlessly into the decor of the ADU,” says homeowner Xiyin Tang. “Since the ADU is a studio, it’s important that the kitchen is unobtrusive in the space — the fridge/freezer blends in with the rest of the cabinetry; the induction cooktop is almost unnoticeable as part of the countertop. And yet, it is a full kitchen (rather than a kitchenette). You can have four pots going on the induction at the same time, and when we have parties, we often have all four induction burners being used.”

Pros: “The hood, being Wolf, is high-functioning and draws any odors right out of the studio,” Tang says, an important attribute since one sleeps right next to the kitchen. “Guests are always surprised and delighted when they pull open the drawers to reveal the under-counter freezer and refrigerator.”

Cons: Tang only has one complaint. “The induction top makes weird beeping sounds if you place items on it but don’t actually have it on,” she says, an annoyance when she runs out of counter space and items end up on the induction cooktop when it’s not turned on.

No-nonsense kitchenette for studio rental

Project: Above-garage studio rental in Mar Vista

Total cost of ADU: $200,000

Kitchen details: Architect and homeowner Jefferson Schierbeek describes the kitchen in the ADU he and wife Su Addison designed, and lived in for more than a year, as “an attempt at what we might consider the elegant minimum. You can get everything done in a very small space, and it has all the required items. Sink, under-counter refrigerator, cooktop (electric), and oven (convection/ microwave).” They now rent the ADU.

Pros: “Higher ceilings always make a space feel more generous,” Schierbeek says. “We made the compact kitchen feel larger by placing ample windows near and in the space and wrapping the rubber/cork composite floor surface up the wall for continuity with the living space.”

Cons: “It is a challenge to cook complicated meals, but the space works reasonably well for its size and has everything you need. The biggest challenge might be storage. ... We designed as much storage as we could. Winnowing down to the basic pots, pans, utensils and service wear was necessary, and using open shelving does allow for some flexibility.”

Modern minimalist galley kitchen

Project: Second-floor permanent residence located behind a rental in Echo Park

ADU size: 740 square feet

Total cost of ADU: $575,500 (the site is on a hillside, so the foundations were more costly)

Kitchen details: Homeowner Gail Otter’s chic galley kitchen includes a Liebherr 24-inch-wide refrigerator, GE Profile 18-inch dishwasher and Hallman range.

Pros: “I love the refrigerator because it’s tall and narrow, plus counter depth. I love the size of the dishwasher, 18” versus 24”, which is standard. For one person, it’s perfect. I chose this model because it was white and, at the time, the only white option,” says Otter.

Cons: “I wish I would have bought a Miele or Bosch dishwasher as they have the top cutlery drawer instead of the cutlery basket,” says Otter. “I didn’t buy either because they only come in stainless steel. I like the controls hidden at the top and the built-in handle instead of a handle that sticks out. For me, it’s more visually appealing.”

She’s also less excited about the range and wishes she had more options in the European style in white. “Bertazonni made a white option, but it didn’t get great reviews. After purchasing [the Hallman oven], I found a Viking range in white that I wish I had bought. The Hallman oven is complicated to use, and I had to laminate the instructions to keep them handy, so I always pull them out when I need to use the oven. Silly!”

More on Los Angeles ADUs

You Do ADU newsletter Is an ADU right for you? L.A. homeowners and experts share what you need to know This gorgeous Craftsman-inspired ADU in Hollywood was once a rickety garage They built an ADU that’s ready for rules that don’t exist yet Tiny hideaway inspired by Richard Neutra has terrarium vibes and a rooftop deck How an aging Tudor’s ADU reunited a family and brought them closer together They turned a one-car garage into a stunning ADU to house their parents He challenged himself to build an ADU for under $100,000. What’s his secret? SoCal small-space living: 44 homes that inspire

Subscriber Exclusive Alert

If you're an L.A. Times subscriber, you can sign up to get alerts about early or entirely exclusive content.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Lisa Boone is a features writer for the Los Angeles Times. Since 2003, she has covered home design, gardening, parenting, houseplants, even youth sports. She is a native of Los Angeles.

More From the Los Angeles Times

World & Nation

Inspired by reality TV, Buddhist monks become matchmakers

April 22, 2024

Meet the homeless L.A. immigrants who built a DIY home in gentrifying Highland Park

A celebrated L.A. astrology influencer’s stunning fall from ‘healer’ to solar eclipse killer

April 19, 2024

Travel & Experiences

This must be Topanga Canyon