purpose of zoo research

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Animal Biosciences

Volume 11, 2023, review article, open access, the role of zoos and aquariums in a changing world.

• Rafael Miranda 1 , Nora Escribano 1 , María Casas 1 , Andrea Pino-del-Carpio 1 , and Ana Villarroya 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Instituto de Biodiversidad y Medioambiente (BIOMA), Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain; email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
• Vol. 11:287-306 (Volume publication date February 2023) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-050622-104306
• First published as a Review in Advance on October 20, 2022
• Copyright © 2023 by the author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

Zoos and aquariums have evolved significantly. From their origins as enclosures for the mere entertainment of the public, these institutions have undertaken new functions responding to the biodiversity crisis and social demands. Modern zoos and aquariums have the opportunity to educate people, contribute to species conservation, and produce animal-related research. However, there is increasing criticism toward the outcomes of their actions and the holding of species in their facilities. This review offers an integrated analysis of the state of knowledge about the role that zoos and aquariums play today. It describes their performance regarding their conservation, education, and research functions, highlighting general patterns and offering future perspectives. It identifies some challenges common to all these institutions, concluding that the way they keep up with the ever-growing social and environmental expectations will be decisive hereafter.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• 1. Miller B , Conway W , Reading RP , Wemmer C , Wildt D et al. 2004 . Evaluating the conservation mission of zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, and natural history museums. Conserv. Biol. 18 : 1 86– 93 [Google Scholar]
• 2. Barongi R , Fisken FA , Parker M , Gusset M. 2015 . Committing to Conservation: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy Gland, Switz.: World Assoc. Zoos Aquar. Exec. Off. [Google Scholar]
• 3. Wineman J , Piper C , Maple TL. 1996 . Zoos in transition: enriching conservation education for a new generation. Curator 39 : 2 94– 107 [Google Scholar]
• 4. Collins C , Corkery I , McKeown S , McSweeney L , Flannery K et al. 2020 . Quantifying the long-term impact of zoological education: a study of learning in a zoo and an aquarium. Environ. Educ. Res. 26 : 7 1008– 26 [Google Scholar]
• 5. 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. 25 : 8 1231– 49 [Google Scholar]
• 6. Whitehead M. 1995 . Saying it with genes, species and habitats: biodiversity education and the role of zoos. Biodivers. Conserv. 4 : 6 664– 70 [Google Scholar]
• 7. Carr N , Cohen S. 2011 . The public face of zoos: images of entertainment, education and conservation. Anthrozoös 24 : 2 175– 89 [Google Scholar]
• 8. Lindholm J 2021 . Zoo history. Zookeeping: An Introduction to the Science and Technology MD Irwin, JB Stoner, AM Cobaugh 31– 42 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• 9. Rabb GB. 1994 . The changing roles of zoological parks in conserving biological diversity. Am. Zool. 34 : 1 159– 64 [Google Scholar]
• 10. Matthews LH. 1976 . The zoo: 150 years of research. Nature 261 : 5558 281– 84 [Google Scholar]
• 11. Mason P. 2000 . Zoo tourism: the need for more research. J. Sustain. Tour. 8 : 4 333– 39 [Google Scholar]
• 12. Ballantyne R , Packer J , Hughes K , Dierking L. 2007 . Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environ. Educ. Res. 13 : 3 367– 83 [Google Scholar]
• 13. Kisling VN. 2001 . Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press [Google Scholar]
• 14. Keulartz J. 2015 . Captivity for conservation? Zoos at a crossroads. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 28 : 2 335– 51 [Google Scholar]
• 15. Zippel K , Johnson K , Gagliardo R , Gibson R , McFadden M et al. 2011 . The Amphibian Ark: a global community for ex situ conservation of amphibians. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 6 : 3 340– 52 [Google Scholar]
• 16. Gippoliti S. 2012 . Ex situ conservation programmes in European zoological gardens: Can we afford to lose them?. Biodivers. Conserv. 21 : 6 1359– 64 [Google Scholar]
• 17. Fa JE , Gusset M , Flesness N , Conde DA. 2014 . Zoos have yet to unveil their full conservation potential. Anim. Conserv. 17 : 2 97– 100 [Google Scholar]
• 18. Rees PA. 2005 . Will the EC Zoos Directive increase the conservation value of zoo research?. Oryx 39 : 2 128– 31 [Google Scholar]
• 19. Ryder OA , Feistner ATC. 1995 . Research in zoos: a growth area in conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 4 : 6 671– 77 [Google Scholar]
• 20. Tribe A , Booth R. 2003 . Assessing the role of zoos in wildlife conservation. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 8 : 1 65– 74 [Google Scholar]
• 21. Pyott BE , Schulte-Hostedde AI. 2020 . Peer-reviewed scientific contributions from Canadian zoos and aquariums. Facets 5 : 1 381– 92 [Google Scholar]
• 22. Olive A , Jansen K. 2017 . The contribution of zoos and aquaria to Aichi Biodiversity Target 12: a case study of Canadian zoos. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 10 : 103– 13 [Google Scholar]
• 23. Milstein T. 2009 .. “ Somethin’ tells me it's all happening at the zoo”: discourse, power, and conservationism. Environ. Commun. 3 : 1 25– 48 [Google Scholar]
• 24. Conway W. 2003 . The role of zoos in the 21st century. Int. Zoo Yearb. 38 : 1 7– 13 [Google Scholar]
• 25. Escribano N , Ariño AH , Pino-del-Carpio A , Galicia D , Miranda R. 2021 . Global trends in research output by zoos and aquariums. Conserv. Biol. 35 : 6 1894– 902 [Google Scholar]
• 26. Hutchins M. 2006 . Death at the zoo: the media, science, and reality. Zoo Biol . 25 : 2 101– 15 [Google Scholar]
• 27. Fernandez EJ , Timberlake W. 2008 . Mutual benefits of research collaborations between zoos and academic institutions. Zoo Biol . 27 : 6 470– 87 [Google Scholar]
• 28. Mooney A , Conde DA , Healy K , Buckley YM. 2020 . A system wide approach to managing zoo collections for visitor attendance and in situ conservation. Nat. Commun. 11 : 584 [Google Scholar]
• 29. Trask A , Canessa S , Moehrenschlager A , Newland S , Medina S , Ewen J. 2020 . Extinct-in-the-wild species’ last stand. Science 369 : 6503 516 [Google Scholar]
• 30. Nicholson E , Watermeyer KE , Rowland JA , Sato CF , Stevenson SL et al. 2021 . Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5 : 10 1338– 49 [Google Scholar]
• 31. Silla AJ , Byrne PG. 2019 . The role of reproductive technologies in amphibian conservation breeding programs. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 7 : 499– 519 [Google Scholar]
• 32. Conde DA , Colchero F , Güneralp B , Gusset M , Skolnik B et al. 2015 . Opportunities and costs for preventing vertebrate extinctions. Curr. Biol. 25 : 6 R219– 21 [Google Scholar]
• 33. Gant JR , Mair L , McGowan PJK. 2020 . Fragmented evidence for the contribution of ex situ management to species conservation indicates the need for better reporting. Oryx 55 : 4 573– 80 [Google Scholar]
• 34. Maunder M , Byers O. 2005 . The IUCN Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex Situ Populations for Conservation: reflecting major changes in the application of ex situ conservation. Oryx 39 : 1 95– 98 [Google Scholar]
• 35. 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 [Google Scholar]
• 36. Schwartz KR , Parsons ECM , Rockwood L , Wood TC. 2017 . Integrating in-situ and ex-situ data management processes for biodiversity conservation. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5 : 120 [Google Scholar]
• 37. Bolam FC , Mair L , Angelico M , Brooks TM , Burgman M et al. 2021 . How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action prevented?. Conserv. Lett. 14 : 1 e12762 [Google Scholar]
• 38. Coonan TJ , Varsik A , Lynch C , Schwemm CA. 2010 . Cooperative conservation: zoos and in situ captive breeding for endangered Island fox Urocyon littoralis ssp. Int. Zoo Yearb. 44 : 1 165– 72 [Google Scholar]
• 39. Brereton SR , Brereton JE. 2020 . Sixty years of collection planning: What species do zoos and aquariums keep?. Int. Zoo Yearb. 54 : 1 131– 45 [Google Scholar]
• 40. 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 [Google Scholar]
• 41. Ward PI , Mosberger N , Kistler C , Fischer O. 1998 . The relationship between popularity and body size in zoo animals. Conserv. Biol. 12 : 6 1408– 11 [Google Scholar]
• 42. Martin TE , Lurbiecki H , Joy JB , Mooers AO. 2014 . Mammal and bird species held in zoos are less endemic and less threatened than their close relatives not held in zoos. Anim. Conserv. 17 : 2 89– 96 [Google Scholar]
• 43. Godinez AM , Fernandez EJ. 2019 . What is the zoo experience? How zoos impact a visitor's behaviors, perceptions, and conservation efforts. Front. Psychol. 10 : 1746 [Google Scholar]
• 44. Colléony A , Clayton S , Couvet D , Saint Jalme M , Prévot AC. 2017 . Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biol. Conserv. 206 : 263– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 45. Pritchard DJ , Fa JE , Oldfield S , Harrop SR. 2012 . Bring the captive closer to the wild: redefining the role of ex situ conservation. Oryx 46 : 1 18– 23 [Google Scholar]
• 46. Catibog-Sinha C. 2008 . Zoo tourism: biodiversity conservation through tourism. J. Ecotourism 7 : 2–3 160– 78 [Google Scholar]
• 47. Conde DA , Flesness N , Colchero F , Jones OR , Scheuerlein A. 2011 . An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science 331 : 6023 1390– 91 [Google Scholar]
• 48. Che-Castaldo JP , Grow SA , Faust LJ 2018 . Evaluating the contribution of North American zoos and aquariums to endangered species recovery. Sci. Rep. 8 : 9789 [Google Scholar]
• 49. Barbanti A , Martin C , Blumenthal JM , Boyle J , Broderick AC et al. 2019 . How many came home? Evaluating ex situ conservation of green turtles in the Cayman Islands. Mol. Ecol. 28 : 7 1637– 51 [Google Scholar]
• 50. Kleiman DG. 1989 . Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation. Bioscience 39 : 3 152– 61 [Google Scholar]
• 51. Ebenhard T. 1995 . Conservation breeding as a tool for saving animal species from extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10 : 11 438– 43 [Google Scholar]
• 52. Conway WG. 2011 . Buying time for wild animals with zoos. Zoo Biol . 30 : 1 1– 8 [Google Scholar]
• 53. Shier DM. 2015 . Developing a standard for evaluating reintroduction success using IUCN Red List indices. Anim. Conserv. 18 : 5 411– 12 [Google Scholar]
• 54. Zimmermann A 2010 . The role of zoos in contributing to in situ conservation. Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management DG Kleiman, KV Thompson, CK Baer 281– 87 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• 55. Balmford A , Leader-Williams N , Green MJB. 1995 . Parks or arks: Where to conserve threatened mammals?. Biodivers. Conserv. 4 : 6 595– 607 [Google Scholar]
• 56. Robert A. 2009 . Captive breeding genetics and reintroduction success. Biol. Conserv. 142 : 12 2915– 22 [Google Scholar]
• 57. Kelly JD. 1997 . Effective conservation in the twenty-first century: the need to be more than a zoo. One organization's approach. Int. Zoo Yearb. 35 : 1 1– 14 [Google Scholar]
• 58. Santika T , Ancrenaz M , Wilson KA , Spehar S , Abram N et al. 2017 . First integrative trend analysis for a great ape species in Borneo. Sci. Rep. 7 : 1 4839 [Google Scholar]
• 59. Armstrong DP , Seddon PJ. 2008 . Directions in reintroduction biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 : 1 20– 25 [Google Scholar]
• 60. Seddon PJ , Armstrong DP , Maloney RF. 2007 . Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conserv. Biol. 21 : 2 303– 12 [Google Scholar]
• 61. Braverman I. 2014 . Conservation without nature: the trouble with in situ versus ex situ conservation. Geoforum 51 : 47– 57 [Google Scholar]
• 62. Int. Union Conserv. Nat 2021 . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021-3 Fontainbleau, Fr.: Int. Union Conserv. Nat. https://www.iucnredlist.org [Google Scholar]
• 63. Tilman D , Clark M , Williams DR , Kimmel K , Polasky S , Packer C. 2017 . Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546 : 7656 73– 81 [Google Scholar]
• 64. Assoc. Zoos Aquar 2020 . Annual report on conservation and science: highlights Rep. Assoc. Zoos Aquar. Silver Spring, MD: [Google Scholar]
• 65. Harding LE , Abu-Eid OF , Hamidan N , al Sha'lan A. 2007 . Reintroduction of the Arabian oryx Oryx leucoryx in Jordan: war and redemption. Oryx 41 : 4 478– 87 [Google Scholar]
• 66. Parrott ML , Wicker LV , Lamont A , Banks C , Lang M et al. 2021 . Emergency response to Australia's Black Summer 2019–2020: the role of a zoo-based conservation organisation in wildlife triage, rescue, and resilience for the future. Animals 11 : 6 1515 [Google Scholar]
• 67. Eur. Assoc. Zoos Aquar 2020 . Annual report 2020 Rep. Eur. Assoc. Zoos Aquar. Amsterdam: [Google Scholar]
• 68. Gusset M , Dick G. 2010 . “Building a future for wildlife”? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in situ conservation. Int. Zoo Yearb. 44 : 1 183– 91 [Google Scholar]
• 69. MacDonald E. 2015 . Quantifying the impact of Wellington Zoo's persuasive communication campaign on post-visit behavior. Zoo Biol . 34 : 2 163– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 70. Bowkett AE. 2009 . Recent captive-breeding proposals and the return of the ark concept to global species conservation. Conserv. Biol. 23 : 3 773– 76 [Google Scholar]
• 71. Beck BB , Rapaport LG , Price MRS , Wilson AC 1994 . Reintroduction of captive-born animals. Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals PJS Olney, GM Mace, ATC Feistner 265– 86 London: Chapman & Hall [Google Scholar]
• 72. Berger-Tal O , Saltz D. 2014 . Using the movement patterns of reintroduced animals to improve reintroduction success. Curr. Zool. 60 : 4 515– 26 [Google Scholar]
• 73. Morell V. 2008 . Conservation biology: into the wild: Reintroduced animals face daunting odds. Science 320 : 5877 742– 43 [Google Scholar]
• 74. 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 [Google Scholar]
• 75. Waugh DR. 2000 . Parrot conservation and Loro Parque Fundacion, Puerto de la Cruz. Int. Zoo Yearb. 37 : 1 288– 98 [Google Scholar]
• 76. Resende PS , Viana-Junior AB , Young RJ , de Azevedo CS. 2020 . A global review of animal translocation programs. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 43 : 2 221– 32 [Google Scholar]
• 77. Grant TD , Hudson RD. 2015 . West Indian iguana Cyclura spp. reintroduction and recovery programmes: zoo support and involvement. Int. Zoo Yearb. 49 : 1 49– 55 [Google Scholar]
• 78. Moseby KE , Lollback GW , Lynch CE. 2018 . Too much of a good thing; successful reintroduction leads to overpopulation in a threatened mammal. Biol. Conserv. 219 : 78– 88 [Google Scholar]
• 79. Ceballos G , Ehrlich PR , Dirzo R. 2017 . Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. PNAS 114 : 30 E6089– 96 [Google Scholar]
• 80. Gusset M , Dick G. 2011 . The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biol . 30 : 5 566– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 81. Packer J , Ballantyne R. 2010 . The role of zoos and aquariums in education for a sustainable future. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 2010 : 127 25– 34 [Google Scholar]
• 82. Patrick PG , Matthews CE , Ayers DF , Tunnicliffe SD. 2007 . Conservation and education: prominent themes in zoo mission statements. J. Environ. Educ. 38 : 3 53– 60 [Google Scholar]
• 83. Roe K , McConney A. 2015 . Do zoo visitors come to learn? An internationally comparative, mixed-methods study. Environ. Educ. Res. 21 : 6 865– 84 [Google Scholar]
• 84. Coe JC. 1985 . Design and perception: making the zoo experience real. Zoo Biol . 4 : 2 197– 208 [Google Scholar]
• 85. Morgan JM , Hodgkinson M. 1999 . The motivation and social orientation of visitors attending a contemporary zoological park. Environ. Behav. 31 : 2 227– 39 [Google Scholar]
• 86. Ballantyne R , Packer J. 2016 . Visitors’ perceptions of the conservation education role of zoos and aquariums: implications for the provision of learning experiences. Visit. Stud. 19 : 2 193– 210 [Google Scholar]
• 87. Whitehouse J , Waller BM , Chanvin M , Wallace EK , Schel AM et al. 2014 . Evaluation of public engagement activities to promote science in a zoo environment. PLOS ONE 9 : 11 e113395 [Google Scholar]
• 88. Clayton S , Fraser J , Saunders CD. 2009 . Zoo experiences: conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biol . 28 : 5 377– 97 [Google Scholar]
• 89. Mellish S , Pearson EL , Sanders B , Litchfield CA. 2016 . Marine wildlife entanglement and the Seal the Loop initiative: a comparison of two free-choice learning approaches on visitor knowledge, attitudes and conservation behaviour. Int. Zoo Yearb. 50 : 1 129– 54 [Google Scholar]
• 90. Andersen LL. 2003 . Zoo education: from formal school programmes to exhibit design and interpretation. Int. Zoo Yearb. 38 : 1 75– 81 [Google Scholar]
• 91. 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– 31 [Google Scholar]
• 92. D'Cruze N , Khan S , Carder G , Megson D , Coulthard E et al. 2019 . A global review of animal-visitor interactions in modern zoos and aquariums and their implications for wild animal welfare. Animals 9 : 6 332 [Google Scholar]
• 93. Fernandez EJ , Tamborski MA , Pickens SR , Timberlake W. 2009 . Animal-visitor interactions in the modern zoo: conflicts and interventions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 120 : 1–2 1– 8 [Google Scholar]
• 94. Carr N. 2016 . An analysis of zoo visitors’ favourite and least favourite animals. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 20 : 70– 76 [Google Scholar]
• 95. Powell DM , Bullock EVW. 2015 . Evaluation of factors affecting emotional responses in zoo visitors and the impact of emotion on conservation mindedness. Anthrozoös 27 : 3 389– 405 [Google Scholar]
• 96. Swanagan JS. 2010 . Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 31 : 4 26– 31 [Google Scholar]
• 97. Smith L , Broad S. 2008 . Do zoo visitors attend to conservation messages? A case study of an elephant exhibit. Tour. Rev. Int. 11 : 3 225– 35 [Google Scholar]
• 98. Davey G. 2006 . Relationships between exhibit naturalism, animal visibility and visitor interest in a Chinese zoo. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 96 : 1–2 93– 102 [Google Scholar]
• 99. Collins C , Corkery I , McKeown S , McSweeney L , Flannery K et al. 2020 . An educational intervention maximizes children's learning during a zoo or aquarium visit. J. Environ. Educ. 51 : 5 361– 80 [Google Scholar]
• 100. Miller LJ , Zeigler-Hill V , Mellen J , Koeppel J , Greer T , Kuczaj S. 2013 . Dolphin shows and interaction programs: Benefits for conservation education?. Zoo Biol . 32 : 1 45– 53 [Google Scholar]
• 101. Falk JH , Heimlich JE , Vernon CL , Bronnenkant K. 2010 . Critique of a critique: Do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors?. Soc. Anim. 18 : 4 415– 19 [Google Scholar]
• 102. Hacker CE , Miller LJ. 2016 . Zoo visitor perceptions, attitudes, and conservation intent after viewing African elephants at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park. Zoo Biol . 35 : 4 355– 61 [Google Scholar]
• 103. Adelman LM , Falk JH , James S 2000 . Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’ conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator 43 : 1 33– 61 [Google Scholar]
• 104. Lukas KE , Ross SR. 2005 . Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes toward gorillas and chimpanzees. J. Environ. Educ. 36 : 4 33– 48 [Google Scholar]
• 105. Moss A , Jensen E , Gusset M. 2015 . Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums to Aichi Biodiversity Target 1. Conserv. Biol. 29 : 2 537– 44 [Google Scholar]
• 106. Jensen E. 2014 . Evaluating children's conservation biology learning at the zoo. Conserv. Biol. 28 : 4 1004– 11 [Google Scholar]
• 107. Learmonth MJ , Chiew SJ , Godinez A , Fernandez EJ. 2021 . Animal-visitor interactions and the visitor experience: visitor behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, and learning in the modern zoo. Anim. Behav. Cogn. 8 : 4 632– 49 [Google Scholar]
• 108. Davidson SK , Passmore C , Anderson D 2010 . Learning on zoo field trips: the interaction of the agendas and practices of students, teachers, and zoo educators. Sci. Educ. 94 : 1 122– 41 [Google Scholar]
• 109. Dierking LD , Adelman LM , Ogden J , Lehnhardt K , Miller L , Mellen JD. 2004 . Using a behavior change model to document the impact of visits to Disney's Animal Kingdom: a study investigating intended conservation action. Curator 47 : 3 322– 43 [Google Scholar]
• 110. Hughes K. 2013 . Measuring the impact of viewing wildlife: Do positive intentions equate to long-term changes in conservation behaviour?. J. Sustain. Tour. 21 : 1 42– 59 [Google Scholar]
• 111. 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– 38 [Google Scholar]
• 112. Nygren NV , Ojalammi S. 2018 . Conservation education in zoos: a literature review. Trace 4 : 62– 76 [Google Scholar]
• 113. Mallavarapu S , Taglialatela LA. 2019 . A post-occupancy evaluation of the impact of exhibit changes on conservation knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of zoo visitors. Environ. Educ. Res. 25 : 10 1552– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 114. Stoinski TS , Allen MT , Bloomsmith MA , Forthman DL , Maple TL. 2010 . Educating zoo visitors about complex environmental issues: Should we do it and how?. Curator 45 : 2 129– 43 [Google Scholar]
• 115. Funk SM , Conde D , Lamoreux J , Fa JE. 2017 . Meeting the Aichi targets: pushing for zero extinction conservation. Ambio 46 : 4 443– 55 [Google Scholar]
• 116. Kaufman AB , Bashaw MJ , Maple TL , eds. 2018 . Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• 117. Rose PE , Brereton JE , Rowden LJ , de Figueiredo RL , Riley LM. 2019 . What's new from the zoo? An analysis of ten years of zoo-themed research output. Palgrave Commun . 5 : 128 [Google Scholar]
• 118. Welden HLÅ , Stelvig M , Nielsen CK , Purcell C , Eckley L et al. 2020 . The contributions of EAZA zoos and aquaria to peer-reviewed scientific research. J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 8 : 2 133– 38 [Google Scholar]
• 119. Loh T-L , Larson ER , David SR , de Souza LS , Gericke R et al. 2018 . Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Facets 3 : 1 287– 99 [Google Scholar]
• 120. Finlay TW , Maple TL. 1986 . A survey of research in American zoos and aquariums. Zoo Biol . 5 : 3 261– 68 [Google Scholar]
• 121. Anderson US , Maple TL , Bloomsmith MA. 2010 . Factors facilitating research: a survey of zoo and aquarium professionals. Zoo Biol . 29 : 6 663– 75 [Google Scholar]
• 122. Anderson US , Kelling AS , Maple TL , Anderson U 2008 . Twenty-five years of Zoo Biology : a publication analysis. Zoo Biol . 27 : 444– 57 [Google Scholar]
• 123. Wemmer C , Rodden M , Pickett C. 1997 . Publication trends in Zoo Biology : a brief analysis of the first 15 years. Zoo Biol . 16 : 3– 8 [Google Scholar]
• 124. Hutchins M , Thompson SD. 2008 . Zoo and aquarium research: priority setting for the coming decades. Zoo Biol . 27 : 488– 97 [Google Scholar]
• 125. Anzai W , Ban K , Hagiwara S , Kako T , Kashiwagi N et al. 2022 . Quantifying the 60-year contribution of Japanese zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Animals 12 : 5 598 [Google Scholar]
• 126. Ceballos G , Ehrlich PR , Raven PH. 2020 . Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. PNAS 117 : 24 13596– 602 [Google Scholar]
• 127. Titeux N , Brotons L , Settele J. 2019 . IPBES promotes integration of multiple threats to biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 : 11 969– 70 [Google Scholar]
• 128. Burgass MJ , Arlidge WNS , Addison PFE. 2018 . Overstating the value of the IUCN Red List for business decision-making. Conserv. Lett. 11 : 3 e12456 [Google Scholar]
• 129. Pergl J , Brundu G , Harrower CA , Cardoso AC , Genovesi P et al. 2020 . Applying the Convention on Biological Diversity Pathway Classification to alien species in Europe. NeoBiota 62 : 333– 63 [Google Scholar]
• 130. Veasey JS. 2017 . In pursuit of peak animal welfare; the need to prioritize the meaningful over the measurable. Zoo Biol . 36 : 6 413– 25 [Google Scholar]
• 131. Albert C , Luque GM , Courchamp F. 2018 . The twenty most charismatic species. PLOS ONE 13 : 7 e0199149 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, effects of heat stress on postabsorptive metabolism and energetics, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (prrsv): pathogenesis and interaction with the immune system, amino acid nutrition in animals: protein synthesis and beyond, african swine fever epidemiology and control, genomic selection in dairy cattle: the usda experience *, the genome 10k project: a way forward, animal models of aging research: implications for human aging and age-related diseases *, 1000 bull genomes project to map simple and complex genetic traits in cattle: applications and outcomes, accelerating improvement of livestock with genomic selection, porcine circovirus type 2 (pcv2): pathogenesis and interaction with the immune system.

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
• 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

28k Accesses

52 Citations

66 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental studies
• Science, technology and society

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Biodiversity conservation as a promising frontier for behavioural science

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

Decision-making of citizen scientists when recording species observations

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rationalising aims and outputs from each article

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

Specialised journals and global species holding

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

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

Invertebrates

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

Total sample size

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

Data analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global species holdings and the taxonomic focus of research papers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Predicting future trends

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

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

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

Patterns of publication from an annual and a new scientific journal

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

Assessing impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about invertebrates?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book   MATH   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Paul E. Rose

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

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

James E. Brereton

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

Lewis J. Rowden

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

Ricardo Lemos de Figueiredo

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

Lisa M. Riley

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul E. Rose .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 25 June 2019

Accepted : 07 October 2019

Published : 29 October 2019

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

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

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

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• The Challenge
• Our Mission, Vision & Values

Our Projects

• Animals in Tourism
• Annual Reports
• Make a Donation
• Elephant Appeal
• Welfare Warrior Membership
• Fundraise for Us
• Challenge Events
• Our Artists
• Leave a Gift in your will
• Animal-Friendly Tourism
• Latest News
• Position Statements
• Supporting Statements
• E-Learning Programme
• Enrichment & Animal Welfare
• Care For Us
• Webinar Learning Platform
• Animal Welfare
• Published Papers
• Zoo Animal Databases & Associations
• General Enquiries
• Report A Welfare Concern

The Conservation Mission of Zoos

Nabila comes from a background in biosciences and natural resource management and has worked on community-based resource mapping and conservation projects in the Himalayan regions of India and Nepal. She also worked as a business analyst with the International Species Information System (now called Species360 ), and was part of the team that developed standards on different animal and enclosure parameters. In this blog, Nabila considers the human fascination with animals – which starts very early in childhood – and the millions of people that visit zoos around the world each year to observe wildlife, as she explores the conservation mission of zoos.

History and Evolution of Zoos in a nutshell ?

This fascination for observing wild animals in captivity goes way back in time. Evidence of private menageries owned by ancient Egyptian kings and aristocrats puts them as early as 2500 BCE . They were later transformed into public institutions in the 1700s. The late 18th and early 19th century witnessed the formation of zoological societies such as the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). The 1900s saw the emergence of the modern zoo concept. Since the 1980s, zoos developed coordinated breeding programmes that brought dozens of animals (for example the golden lion tamarin of Brazil), back from the brink of extinction. Along with this transformation of zoos over the past few centuries, there was a parallel evolution in the role of zoos and they went from being purely recreational to incorporating elements of research and conservation into their agenda.

Zoos and Conservation ?

A study by Patricia et al., 2007 states that conservation and education are key elements in the mission statements of zoos. A survey conducted by The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) , revealed that the general public rate conservation and education as the most important roles of zoos (Fraser and Stickler 2008) . Most zoos mention conservation and education in their mission statements suggesting that these are rather important aspects of zoo culture.

So how do zoos help conservation? Zoos primarily deal with three aspects of conservation – practice, advocacy and research. Conservation practice entails captive breeding, species reintroduction programs, Species survival plans and the use of zoo revenue for conservation programs in the wild. Conservation advocacy includes public engagement, promoting awareness, advocating stewardship, and fundraising events and schemes – a good example of which is the ‘Adopt an Animal’ scheme at most modern zoos. Moreover, conservation research is conducted on wildlife biology, population dynamics, animal behaviour, health and welfare and there are also publications generated by zoos on animal care and captivity.

Zoos benefit conservation not only through direct efforts such as captive breeding, wild survival training and reintroduction, but also in indirect ways.

Nearly fifty percent of world’s people live in cities disconnected from nature and in such cities, zoos and aquariums have a great potential to win huge support for wildlife preservation. In order to instil conservation sense in the general public, it is important to educate them about animals, their behaviour, habitat, population changes, and why they need to be conserved.

In 2011, Conde et al. conducted a study aimed at estimating the total number of species in the world held in captivity and in order to do that they used the database from the International Species Information System (ISIS) (now called Species360 ) – the most comprehensive database on zoos and aquariums in the world. They obtained the threat category of each species from the database and it turns out that ISIS zoos hold nearly 15 per cent of the total IUCN threatened species in the world. However, the drawback here is that most ISIS zoos are concentrated in the temperate regions whereas most threatened species are tropical. Clearly there is a mismatch between the areas where the captive populations are held and their native ranges/habitats. Unfortunately, there are still large parts of the world with high biodiversity value whose zoos are not represented in the global zoo network.

Zoos do a lot for conservation. There are dedicated species survival programs which have helped species come out from the brink of extinction, good examples of that being the black-footed ferrets, the red wolves, the Przewalski’s wild horse, and the California condors. After 10 years of working to strengthen the population of the endangered California condor , Los Angeles Zoo and San Diego Zoo, were able to rebuild a population of fewer than two dozen birds to around 170. Successful breeding programs brought the Pere David’s deer back from extinction. Though this Asian deer became extinct in the wild, Chinese and European zoo programs enabled four of these deer to be released back into the wild in 1985, where they are now self-sustaining. These are just a few examples. The World Association of Zoos and Aquarium (WAZA)’s members are spending nearly US$ 350 million per year on conservation projects in the wild, making WAZA the third largest contributor to conservation in the world.

However, certain species have not been so fortunate – their reintroduction programs have failed for different reasons. Examples of such species include the Andean condor, the western lowland gorilla, the giant panda and the snow leopard. Of 145 reintroduction programs carried out by zoos in the last century, only 16 truly succeeded in restoring wild animal populations to the wild. Nonetheless, zoos are continuing to make efforts to help endangered species in every way they can. The Guardian newspaper highlighted the  top ten species fighting extinction with the help of zoos,  the nine animals (also included in the ten was Tanzania’s Verdcourt’s polyalthia tree) chosen from hundreds of zoo-backed conservation programmes were: the blue-crowned laughing thrush (China), mountain chicken frog (Dominica), the white-clawed crayfish (United Kingdom), the Amur Leopard (Russia), the Potosi pupfish (Mexico), Partula Snails (French Polynesia), the blue-eyed black Lemur (Madagascar), the Ploughshare Tortoise (Madagascar) and the scimitar-horned oryx (North Africa).

Zoo Pros and Cons ?

So even though zoos are doing their best to conserve species both ex-situ and in-situ, there are pros and cons of captive breeding. The pros include restoring population of threatened species or those losing habitats, maintaining numbers and genetic diversity through periodic release, research on captives and formulating new strategies for conserving wild species. Research on captive animals increases knowledge of animal biology, genetics, behaviour, interactions, food habits etc. Zoos engage in research, preserve biodiversity (genetic and species) that may be threatened or at times even extinct in the wild, and they provide much needed funding for research and conservation projects across the world. They also provide inspiration and fascination for children who very often get to interact with and learn about nature and wildlife only at zoos. On the flip side, the negatives of captive breeding are the heavy costs involved, the possibility of inbreeding depression, and only a limited portion of the gene pool being conserved. Sometimes zoos have to compromise the crucial skills for wild survival and captive breeding can also affect animal health and well-being.

There are certain points that all captive breeding programs need to consider to minimize any negative impacts on animals held in zoos.

Firstly, these programs should not be seen as an ’emergency room treatment’ – they should not be resorted to when there are only ten individuals left in the wild but much earlier than that. Secondly, all captive breeding programs should ideally be carried out in the country of species’ origin making sure to engage the local communities as well. In the case of the Arabian oryx, its reintroduction program in Oman had failed because the community was not sufficiently involved.

The historical debate on zoos ?

There has been a great deal of debate going around zoos and they have faced plenty of criticism on welfare and ethical issues. While some people argue that zoos play an important role in conservation and research, others counter that they do more harm than good. However, the good news is that in a recent survey (Fraser & Sickler, 2008) conducted across WAZA zoos, only nice percent of the surveyed population felt that zoos are inhumane and animal captivity is wrong. Most of them held a positive opinion and felt that zoos care for their animals. All of WAZA’s 1,400 zoos have to abide by the WAZA Code of Ethics and Welfare . Most modern zoos set up naturalistic enclosures to give animals a feel of their natural habitat and design enrichment programs to emulate the natural behaviour of the captive animal. The vet departments at zoos also take care of animal health and well-being and treat sick or injured animals not only in captivity but also in the wild.

Challenges zoos face and potential solutions ?

Zoos face some serious challenges, the main one being how to balance the public experience with conservation. For most zoos, it is a challenge to be a force for conservation while continuing to put up a show. Another big challenge is prioritizing animals to be saved because very often there are too many animals in need of help and very little room and resources available with zoos. This forces zoos to make bitter choices at times. For example, American zoos are soon planning to drop the ion-tailed macaques even though there are only 4,000 left in the wild in the tropical rainforests of India. The macaques are being phased out because they can carry a form of herpes potentially deadly to humans. In order to house more animals of a single species for maintaining a viable population, zoos are forced to drop others. In another instance, the Mhor gazelles that had been squeezed out of the Saharan grassland by increased cattle ranching had to be phased out by the St.Louis Zoo because with only 50 of these left in American zoos, there was not enough genetic diversity without the risk of inbreeding depression. Zoos prioritize animals for conservation based on the following criteria: the animal must be endangered; it must have an important ecological role; and it should have a captive population big enough to grow the population without inbreeding. Another challenge zoos face is funding constraints which often tend to interfere with conservation efforts. Lastly, there is a potential danger from destruction caused by natural disturbances especially when zoos and aquariums are concentrated distribution of animals from all over the world.

So how do zoos overcome these challenges? For starters, they must choose quality over quantity. They should try and devote more resources to a chosen few rather than trying to conserve too many species together. Zoos should specialize in breeding a few at-risk targeted species rather than aiming to increase its species diversity as specialization increases breeding success. They should think beyond the visual appeal by placing less emphasis on attractive charismatic animals which are doing fine in the wild (for example the African Elephant and California sea lions) and focus more on animals in more urgent need of conservation (Monfort, 2012) . They should try and publicize their conservation credentials in more detail on their websites and through social media (Carr & Cohen, 2011) . They should try and work as a network because there is still a decent percentage (nearly 83 per cent) that needs to be represented in the global zoo network and it is important that they do that because membership to a regional association does influence their conservation effectiveness. After membership, the benefits in terms of conservation activity outweigh the monetary (membership) costs (Fabregas, 2011) . Zoos should also make efforts to expand their conservation department since its small size often hampers conservation programmes (Miller, et al., 2004). They should try and provide more room to animals to increase their natural reproductive behaviour (Monfort, 2012). They should also strengthen their record keeping system because good records are really the backbone of effective management of any zoological collection (Fabregas, 2011) . Lastly, zoos should try and move beyond the reintroduction paradigm because single species programs can often divert attention from ecosystem conservation (Zimmerman, et al., 2009) .

Miller et al. has come up with a list of indicators that can be really handy for zoos for improving their conservation performance:

Does conservation thought define policy decisions?

Is there sufficient organizational funding for conservation activities?

Is there a functional conservation department?

Does the institution advocate for conservation?

Do conservation education programs effectively target children and adults?

Does the institution contribute directly to habitat protection locally and internationally?

Do exhibits explain and promote conservation efforts?

Do internal policies and activities protect the environment?

According to Fabregas et al., 2011 , some key factors that influence conservation mission of zoos include the location of the zoo; the membership of a zoo association; and their record keeping practices. Private zoos and member zoos and those with a good record-keeping system are likely to contribution better to conservation.

It’s a never-ending debate on whether zoos are good or bad for animals.

In the end, it really depends on what zoo is in consideration. It also depends on whether we are referring to the well-being of a single animal held in a zoo or an animal in its actual home far away benefiting from the zoo’s research and conservation efforts. In a nutshell, zoos cannot be considered panacea for biodiversity conservation but there is enough scientific evidence to suggest they do play a critical role and have a great potential for conserving endangered species.

Image © B575 [CC BY-SA 3.0] Wikimedia Commons, Przewalski’s wild horses in El Paso Zoo – they narrowly avoided extinction thanks to worldwide zoo breeding programmes and are now being re-introduced to the wild

News & Blog

Read all our recent project updates, wild welfare’s response to the latest issues facing captive wildlife and our latest blog posts here.,              .

Search News & Blogs

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

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.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

By bits and pieces: the contributions of zoos and aquariums to science and society via biomaterials.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. convenience sample of zoos’ participation in externally-driven biomaterials research, 2.2. saint louis zoo participation in biomaterials research 2016–2022, 2.3. saint louis zoo participation in biomaterials research prior to 2016, 2.4. aza conservation and science database query, 3.1. convenience sample of zoo’s participation in externally-driven biomaterials research, 3.2. saint louis zoo participation in biomaterials research 2016–2022, 3.3. saint louis zoo participation in biomaterials research prior to 2016, 3.4. aza annual report on conservation and science database query, 4. discussion, author contributions, institutional review board statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Olney, P.J.S. London Zoo. In Great Zoos of the World: Their Origins and Significance ; Zukerman, S., Ed.; Weidenfeld and Nicholson: London, UK, 1980; pp. 35–48. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Our History. Available online: https://www.wcs.org/about-us/historical-timeline (accessed on 20 January 2023).
• Hutchins, M.; Wiese, R.J.; Smith, B. Introduction: Research in zoos and aquariums: Purpose, justification, utility, and welfare. In Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research ; Kaufman, A.B., Bashaw, M.J., Maple, T.L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 1–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loh, T.L.; Larson, E.R.; David, S.R.; de Souza, L.S.; Gericke, R.; Gryzbek, M.; Kough, A.S.; Willink, P.W.; Knapp, C.R. Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Facets 2018 , 3 , 287–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anzai, W.; Ban, K.; Hagiwara, S.; Kako, T.; Kashiwagi, N.; Kawase, K.; Yamanashi, Y.; Murata, K. Quantifying the 60-year contribution of Japanese zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Animals 2022 , 12 , 598. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kögler, J.; Pacheco, I.B.; Dierkes, P.W. Evaluating the quantitative and qualitative contribution of zoos and aquaria to peer-reviewed science. J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 2020 , 8 , 124–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hvilsom, C.; Welden, H.L.Å.; Stelvig, M.; Nielsen, C.K.; Purcell, C.; Eckley, L.; Bertelsen, M.F. The contributions of EAZA zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 2020 , 8 , 133–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wemmer, C.; Thompson, S.D. A short history of scientific research in zoological gardens. In The Ark Evolving: Zoos and Aquariums in Transition ; Wemmer, C.W., Ed.; Smithsonian Conservation and Research Center: Front Royal, VA, USA, 1995; pp. 70–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wharton, D. Research by zoos. In Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation ; Zimmerman, A., Hatchwell, M., Dickie, L., West, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 178–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, U.S.; Keiling, A.S.; Maple, T.L. Twenty-five years of zoo biology: A publication analysis. Zoo Biol. 2008 , 27 , 444–457. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Maple, T.L.; Bashaw, M.J. Research trends in Zoos. In Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management , 2nd ed.; Kleiman, D.G., Thompson, K.V., Kirk Baer, C., Eds.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010; pp. 288–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Melfi, V.A. Diversity of zoo primate research: A sampler. Int. J. Primatol. 2007 , 28 , 1413–1415. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kleiman, D.G. Behavioral research in zoos: Past, present, and future. Zoo Biol. 1992 , 11 , 301–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• EAZA Biobank. Available online: https://www.eaza.net/conservation/research/eaza-biobank (accessed on 8 February 2023).
• Australian Frozen Zoo. Available online: https://australianfrozenzoo.org.au (accessed on 8 February 2023).
• Mellen, J.; MacPhee, M. Animal learning and husbandry training for management. In Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management , 2nd ed.; Kleiman, D.G., Thompson, K.V., Kirk Baer, C., Eds.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010; pp. 314–328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barbosa, T.; Zavala, G.; Cheng, S.; Villegas, P. Full genome sequence and some biological properties of reticuloendotheliosis virus strain APC-566 isolated from endangered Attwater’s prairie chickens. Virus Res. 2006 , 124 , 68–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cray, C.; Hammond, E.; Haefele, H. Acute phase protein and protein electrophoresis values for captive Grant’s zebra ( Equus burchelli ). J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 2013 , 44 , 1107–1110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hammerly, S.C.; Morrow, M.E.; Johnson, J.A. A comparison of pedigree- and DNA-based measures for identifying inbreeding depression in the critically endangered Attwater’s prairie-chicken. Mol. Ecol. 2013 , 22 , 5313–5328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Norman, A.J.; Putnam, A.J.; Ivy, J. Use of molecular data in zoo and aquarium management: Benefits, challenges, and best practices. Zoo Biol. 2019 , 38 , 106–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hyde, E.R.; Navas-Molina, J.A.; Song, S.J.; Kueneman, J.G.; Ackermann, G.; Cardona, C.; Humphrey, G.; Boyer, D.; Weaver, T.; Mendelson, J.R.; et al. The oral and skin microbiomes of captive Komodo dragons are significantly shared with their habitat. Msystems 2016 , 1 , e00046-16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Redford, K.H.; Segre, J.A.; Salafsky, N.; del Rio, C.M.; McAloose, D. Conservation and the microbiome. Conserv. Biol. 2012 , 26 , 195–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, L.; Wang, J.; Barhndorff, S. Editorial: The wildlife gut microbiome and its implication for conservation biology. Front. Microbiol. 2021 , 12 , 697499. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amin, O.M.; Chaudhary, A.; Heckmann, R.A.; Swenson, J.; Singh, H.S. Redescription and molecular characterization of Pachysentis canicola Meyer, 1931 (Acanthocephala: Oligacanthorhynchidae) from the maned wolf Chrysocyon brachyurus (Illiger, 1815) in Texas. Acta Parasitol. 2021 , 67 , 275–287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bourque, J.; Desforges, J.P.; Levin, M.; Atwood, T.C.; Sonne, C.; Dietz, R.; Jensen, T.H.; Curry, E.; McKinney, M.A. Climate-associated drivers of plasma cytokinds and contaminant concentrations in Beaufort Sea polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ). Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 745 , 140978. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hopkins, J.B., III; Frederick, C.A.; Yorks, D.; Pollock, E.; Chatfield, M.W.H. Forensic application of stable isotopes to distinguish between wild and captive turtles. Biology 2022 , 11 , 1728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bishop, B.M.; Juba, M.L.; Devine, M.; Barksdale, S.M.; Rodriguez, C.A.; Chung, M.C.; Russo, P.S.; Vliet, K.A.; Schnur, J.M.; van Hoek, M.L. Bioprospecting the American alligator ( Alligator mississippiensis ) host defense peptidome. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0117394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bishop, B.M.; Juba, M.L.; Russo, P.S.; Devine, M.; Barksdale, S.M.; Scott, S.; Settlage, R.; Michalak, P.; Gupta, K.; Vliet, K.; et al. Discovery of novel antimicrobial peptides from Varanus komodoensis (Komodo Dragon) by large-scale analyses and de-novo-assisted sequencing using electron-transfer dissociation mass spectrometry. J. Proteome Res. 2017 , 16 , 1470–1482. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ségurel, L.; Thompson, E.E.; Flutre, T.; Lovstad, J.; Venkat, A.; Margulis, S.W.; Moyse, J.; Ross, S.; Gamble, K.; Sella, G.; et al. The ABO blood group is a trans-species polymorphism in primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012 , 109 , 18493–18498. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perez, S.E.; Raghanti, M.A.; Hof, P.R.; Kramer, L.; Ikonomovic, M.D.; Lacor, P.N.; Erwin, J.M.; Sherwood, C.C.; Mufson, E.J. Alzheimer’s disease pathology in the neocortex and hippocampus of the western lowland gorilla ( Gorilla gorilla gorilla ). J. Comp. Neurol. 2013 , 521 , 4318–4338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abegglen, L.M.; Caulin, A.F.; Chan, A.; Lee, K.; Robinson, R.; Campbell, M.S.; Kiso, W.K.; Schmitt, D.L.; Waddell, P.J.; Bhaskara, S.; et al. Potential mechanisms for cancer resistance in elephants and comparative cellular response to DNA damage in humans. JAMA 2015 , 314 , 1850–1860. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vazquez, J.M.; Lynch, V.J. Pervsasive duplication of tumor suppressors in Afrotherians during the evolution of large bodies and reduced cancer risk. eLife 2021 , 10 , e65041. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Damas, J.; Hughes, G.M.; Keough, K.C.; Painter, C.A.; Persky, N.S.; Corbo, M.; Hiller, M.; Koepfli, K.; Pfenning, A.R.; Zhao, H.; et al. Broad host range of SARS-CoV-2 predicted by comparative and structural analysis of ACE2 in vertebrates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020 , 117 , 22311–22322. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Poo, S.; Whitfield, S.M.; Shepack, A.; Watkins-Colwell, G.J.; Nelson, G.; Goodwin, J.; Chakrabarty, P. Bridging the Research Gap between Live Collections in Zoos and Preserved Collections in Natural History Museums. BioScience 2022 , 72 , 449–460. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Powell, D.M.; Meyer, T.G.; Duncan, M. By Bits and Pieces: The Contributions of Zoos and Aquariums to Science and Society via Biomaterials. J. Zool. Bot. Gard. 2023 , 4 , 277-287. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg4010023

Powell DM, Meyer TG, Duncan M. By Bits and Pieces: The Contributions of Zoos and Aquariums to Science and Society via Biomaterials. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens . 2023; 4(1):277-287. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg4010023

Powell, David M., Theodore G. Meyer, and Mary Duncan. 2023. "By Bits and Pieces: The Contributions of Zoos and Aquariums to Science and Society via Biomaterials" Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens 4, no. 1: 277-287. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg4010023

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

History of Zoos: Past, Present & Future (incl. Timeline)

Published by michael anderson on november 7, 2023 november 7, 2023.

During the history of zoos, zoological institutions have long stood as a testament to humanity’s enduring fascination with the natural world. Today, they serve as a nexus where education , conservation , and research converge, offering a glimpse into the lives of species that many might never see in the wild.

The journey of zoos from royal showpieces to modern conservation centers is a story of transformation and adaptation.

The History of Zoos: A Brief Overview

The origin of zoos, ancient civilizations and their menageries (2500 bce), greek and roman animal collections (500 bce – 500 ce), the middle ages to the renaissance, royal menageries as status symbols (1200s), the public’s introduction to exotic wildlife (1500s), the birth of modern zoos, the enlightenment and the rise of scientific zoos (1752), the proliferation of zoos in the 19th century (1828), the evolution of zoo design, the victorian era and the cage (1840s-90s), revolutionizing enclosures: the hagenbeck model (early 1900s), zoos in the 20th century, the world wars: a time of hardship for zoos (1915-1945), the post-war era: a new focus on conservation (1940s-50s), the role of zoos in research and conservation, breeding programs for endangered species (late 1900s), zoos as centers for wildlife research, ethical considerations and animal welfare, the debate over captivity, advancements in animal care, zoos in the 21st century, embracing technology for conservation (21st century), interactive and immersive exhibits, the future of zoos, supporting wildlife in their natural habitats, zoos and global biodiversity strategies, history of zoos – faqs, what is the origin of zoological gardens, how did ancient empires contribute to the development of zoos, when did zoos become accessible to the public.

Zoos have transitioned from ancient displays of power to centers for conservation and education. The Enlightenment sparked a shift towards scientific study, leading to the creation of the first modern zoos in the 19th century.

Design innovations like naturalistic habitats have replaced Victorian cages, focusing on animal welfare and enriching the visitor experience. Post-World War conservation efforts have positioned zoos as leaders in species preservation and research.

Modern zoos integrate technology for enhanced animal care and visitor engagement. They are pivotal in global conservation, aiming to sustain biodiversity and support wildlife in their natural environments. The evolution of zoos reflects a growing commitment to protecting and understanding our planet’s wildlife.

The origin of zoos is deeply rooted in the grandeur of ancient civilizations, where the collection of exotic animals was a pursuit of the powerful. These early zoos were a blend of spectacle, science, and status.

The earliest zoos can be traced back to ancient civilizations, where rulers would amass collections of exotic animals to display their wealth and power. In Egypt, pharaohs kept wild creatures as part of elaborate gardens, and hieroglyphs depict the collection of wild beasts from across the empire.

Similarly, in ancient China, emperors maintained grand menageries as part of their palatial complexes, showcasing their dominion over nature.

The Greeks and Romans continued this tradition, with animals playing a central role in their culture and mythology. Zoos during this era were not just about displaying power; they were also about understanding the animal kingdom.

Philosophers like Aristotle studied animals for scientific purposes, and his writings indicate a rudimentary approach to zoology.

During the Middle Ages, the keeping of exotic animals became a symbol of royal privilege. The Tower of London’s menagerie, established in the 13th century, included a range of animals from lions to elephants, often received as gifts from other monarchs and explorers.

By the Renaissance, these collections began to transition from private curiosities to public spectacles. The Medici family’s menagerie in Florence was one of the first to allow public access, setting the stage for the zoos that would follow.

The Age of Enlightenment, a period marked by a surge in intellectual and scientific progress, fundamentally altered the way humans interacted with the natural world. It was during this era that the concept of the zoo began to align more closely with the ideals of study and preservation rather than mere spectacle.

The Vienna Zoo , founded in 1752, was part of this movement, focusing on scientific research and the classification of species. As the world’s oldest existing zoo, it was initially part of the imperial menagerie at Schönbrunn Palace, intended for the scientific study of the animal kingdom.

The zoo was a pioneer in the movement to observe animals not as curiosities but as subjects worthy of study. It facilitated the classification of species, a task that became increasingly important as explorers and naturalists brought knowledge of new creatures from around the globe. For example, it was during this time that scientists found out that fish have brains ; something that surpised many people at that time.

The 19th century saw an explosion in the number of zoos. The opening of the London Zoo in 1828 marked a significant evolution in the concept of zoos. Unlike its predecessors, the London Zoo was established by the Zoological Society of London with a clear scientific mandate.

Initially, it served as a collection for scientific study, only accessible to members of the society and their guests. However, recognizing the educational potential, it soon opened its doors to the public.

It signaled a shift from the exclusive menageries of royalty and the elite to public institutions with a broader societal role. The zoo became a place where education, research, and leisure converged, allowing people from all walks of life to engage with and learn about the animal world. This was a time when many cities across Europe and North America began establishing their own zoos, often inspired by the model of the London Zoo.

The Victorian era was characterized by a utilitarian approach to zoo design, with animals kept in cages for the ease of the public. This period saw the construction of many of the world’s oldest surviving zoos, but the welfare of the animals was secondary to the display. Overall, the 1840s-90s marked a cruel era in the history of zoos. Animal abuse was completely common and accepted.

But don’t think that we are treating animals much better today. In fact, animal abuse in zoos is still common.

Carl Hagenbeck , a German animal trader and showman, revolutionized zoo design at the turn of the 20th century. He introduced spacious, open-air enclosures with naturalistic landscapes, a stark contrast to the barred cages of the past. This model emphasized the well-being of the animals and improved the visitor experience.

The world wars brought significant challenges to zoos, with many struggling to feed and care for their animals amid the chaos. Bombings and resource shortages led to the loss of many animals, and some zoos were forced to close. Due to the world wars, more than 80% of zoo animals died in European zoos alone; a destruction that has never been like that in the long history of zoos.

After the wars, zoos began to shift their focus from mere exhibition to conservation and education. Thus, this marked the beginning of ethical considerations for the first time in the history of zoos. The arrival of pandas in Western zoos and the subsequent public interest in these animals highlighted the potential role of zoos in global conservation efforts.

Zoos have become sanctuaries for endangered species , with breeding programs aimed at preserving genetic diversity and bolstering wild populations; a novety in the history of zoos. The success stories are numerous, from the recovery of the California Condor to the reintroduction of the Arabian Oryx .

Beyond breeding, zoos serve as living laboratories for wildlife research. They contribute to our understanding of animal behavior, physiology, and genetics, often in collaboration with universities and research institutions.

The ethics of zoos are hotly debated. Simply put, there are pros and cons of zoos .

Critics of zoos argue that confining animals to enclosures, regardless of size or quality, deprives them of their natural behaviors and habitats, leading to physical and psychological distress. They contend that the very nature of captivity is at odds with the animals’ inherent right to freedom and that the educational value of zoos does not justify this confinement.

Plus, they use the worst zoos of America to showcase examples of the poor conditions that animals have to live under, still today.

On the other side of the debate, proponents of zoos assert that modern zoos play a vital role in the conservation of species , many of which are threatened or endangered in the wild. They argue that zoos provide a sanctuary for breeding programs, research, and rehabilitation, which can lead to reintroduction into natural habitats. Furthermore, zoos are seen as critical in educating the public about wildlife and environmental issues, fostering a connection between humans and animals that can inspire conservation efforts on a broader scale.

In response to these debates, zoos have made significant advancements in animal care. They now prioritize naturalistic habitats, social enrichment, and mental stimulation to ensure the well-being of the animals in their care.

However, this is unfortunately mostly the case in developed countries only as there continue to be welfare concerns regarding zoos in developing countries.

For the first time in the history of zoos, modern zoos employ technology in innovative ways, from tracking animal health with sophisticated software to engaging visitors through interactive exhibits and mobile apps.

Digital tracking systems monitor everything from dietary intake to breeding cycles, allowing for precise management of individual animal care. These systems also facilitate the sharing of valuable data across global conservation networks, aiding in the management of species populations worldwide.

Remote monitoring technologies enable zookeepers to observe animals without intruding on their daily activities, minimizing stress and allowing for a more naturalistic behavior pattern. Additionally, genetic databases and biobanking play a crucial role in biodiversity conservation , providing resources for research and potential future reintroduction programs.

On the visitor front, zoos have adopted interactive technology to enhance educational outreach. Mobile apps can provide a multimedia tour, offering information about the animals, conservation status, and zoo initiatives at the touch of a screen. Today, you can install an animal identifier app and find out what kind of animal you have in front of you, simply by using the camera of your phone. These apps often include gamification elements, such as scavenger hunts and quizzes, to engage younger audiences in wildlife education.

However, there’s still criticism about zoos today. For example, the animal rights organization PETA publicly communicated their negative opinion about zoos. In the end they received a wave of hate for this …

The use of augmented and virtual reality in zoos provides visitors with immersive experiences that are both educational and entertaining, without disrupting the animals’ lives. This is a novety in the history of zoos. These technologies are truly changing the way how zoological institutions operate and have become one of the top alternatives to traditional zoos .

AR experiences can overlay digital information onto the real-world environment, allowing visitors to see the layers of an animal’s habitat or even simulate interactions with animals in a controlled and safe manner. For example, visitors might use an AR device to watch a virtual elephant roam through the savannah, while in reality, the elephant is comfortably resting in its enclosure.

Virtual reality takes this a step further by immersing visitors in a completely digital world. Through VR headsets, individuals can experience lifelike simulations of natural environments from the perspective of an animal , or dive into underwater ecosystems without getting wet. These experiences can be particularly powerful in conveying conservation messages, as they allow visitors to witness the impact of human activity on natural habitats in a visceral and impactful way.

As we look to the future, the role of zoos is set to evolve beyond the confines of their physical locations. The emphasis is shifting towards a holistic approach to conservation, with zoos playing a pivotal role in supporting wildlife in their natural habitats. This involves a multifaceted strategy that includes in-situ conservation efforts, such as habitat preservation and restoration, which are crucial for the survival of many species.

Zoos are increasingly involved in field conservation projects that protect the ecosystems of the animals they house. This can take the form of direct financial support, expertise in wildlife management, and research that informs habitat conservation strategies. For instance, many zoos participate in reforestation projects to rebuild the natural habitats of endangered species, allowing for a more sustainable approach to conservation.

Breeding programs in zoos are becoming more sophisticated, with a focus on reintroducing animals to the wild where possible. This requires not only breeding animals in captivity but also ensuring that they are capable of surviving and thriving in their natural environment. Zoological institutions, such as zoos and aquariums in California, are also working to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts in natural habitats, promoting coexistence through community education and innovative solutions.

Zoos are becoming key players in the implementation of global biodiversity strategies while the impact of climate change is becoming increasingly worrying. They contribute to the achievement of targets set by international agreements like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By participating in these global efforts, zoos help to address critical issues such as habitat loss, climate change, and species extinction.

The expertise and resources of zoos are invaluable in efforts to monitor and protect biodiversity. They serve as repositories of genetic material, which can be crucial for restoring genetic diversity in wild populations. Zoos also engage in research that advances our understanding of diseases, reproductive biology, and animal behavior, all of which are essential for effective conservation planning.

Furthermore, zoos are uniquely positioned to educate the public about global biodiversity issues . Through immersive exhibits and educational programs, they can raise awareness about the importance of biodiversity and the threats it faces. This educational role is vital in fostering a conservation ethic among the public, encouraging behavior change and support for conservation initiatives.

Zoological gardens evolved from menageries, with the oldest known collection dating back to around 3500 BCE in Hierakonpolis, Egypt. This collection included a variety of exotic animals such as hippopotami, elephants, and wildcats.

Throughout history, many rulers maintained collections of animals. Notable examples include King Solomon, Queen Semiramis, and King Nebuchadnezzar. These collections often symbolized power and wealth. The Greek city-states and Roman emperors also kept collections of animals, some for study and others for entertainment in arenas.

The concept of public zoological gardens emerged in the 18th century. One of the earliest examples is the Tiergarten Schönbrunn in Vienna, Austria, which opened in 1752 and became accessible to the public in 1765. The London Zoo, which opened in 1828, was among the first to be established with the intention of providing access to the general public for education and entertainment.

Michael Anderson

Michael is a dedicated veterinarian and the owner of a thriving animal hospital. With a passion for animal welfare, he sees himself as an ambassador for animals, advocating for their health and well-being. Michael regularly publishes expert articles on a variety of animal health topics, sharing his extensive knowledge and experience with a broader audience. His writings are a valuable resource for pet owners and animal lovers, offering insights into best practices for animal care. Through his work at the hospital and his contributions to the field of veterinary science, Michael is committed to enhancing the lives of animals and promoting compassionate care.

Related Posts

How Sad are Zoo Animals? The Tragedy of Sad Animals in Zoos

The sight of exotic creatures entertains visitors, but behind the bars and glass enclosures lies the reality of sad animals in zoos. These majestic beings, meant to roam vast landscapes, find themselves confined to artificial Read more…

5 Ways How Zoos Are Saving Endangered Species

Modern zoos have evolved beyond their not so glamorous history and traditional roles of showcasing (sad) animals; they have become critical sanctuaries and breeding grounds for endangered species. Through innovative breeding programs, reintroduction initiatives, cutting-edge Read more…

Top 20 Worst Zoos in America in 2024

Welcome to our comprehensive guide to the 20 Worst Zoos in America. Our team of animal experts, which includes: veterinarians, ethologists, mammalogists, and ornithologists, have personally visited each of these zoos to provide you with Read more…

8 Reasons that Zoos are Critically Important for Conservation

A couple of weeks ago, there was an accident at Cincinnati zoo . A child fell into an enclosure with a gorilla named Harambe , and to protect the child the gorilla was shot. I’m not going to recount the story, for three reasons:

• Dozens and dozens of articles have poured over the minutia of the events already.
• I very much doubt I have anything new I could add.
• This one event, however tragic, simply doesn’t interest me very much, when there are vastly more important things to write about.

Yet what this events has done, is reignite the debate over the role of zoos (and aquaria). Whilst much of attention that generates is unfortunately negative, it does give folks like me an opportunity to shout about the great and critically important work zoos do for conservation (and how they might get better at it in the future).

Normally, one would hope that zoos themselves would be proudly showcasing their work, but as I discovered last week on Al Jazeera given the barrage of attacks that Cincinnati experienced, many zoos are reluctant to speak up. So with the debate being a little one-sided, here’s some of the reasons zoos are critical to conservation.

The Role of Zoos in Conservation

1. There are 39 animal species currently listed by the IUCN as Extinct in the Wild. These are species that would have vanished totally were it not for captive populations around the world, many of which reside in zoos. For me, this is the single most important role zoos can play. Incidentally, it’s the same for botanic gardens too, but no-one seems to care about those!

2. For species whose survival in the wild looks in doubt, zoos often set up ‘insurance’ populations. These are captive groups of  animals that could in a worst case scenario assist in reintroduction to the wild, should the original population go extinct. The Amur leopard, for example: There are perhaps 35-65 left in the wild, a species teetering right on the brink. But fortunately there is a long running breeding program with over 200 surviving in captivity. The Zoological Society of London , as an example, participates in over 160 of these programmes.

3. Reintroduction. It is often argued that zoos are bad because so few reintroduction actually happen. I would argue that it’s not the zoos at fault, it’s that a reintroduction can’t occur if the reason they went extinct in the first place hasn’t been resolved. Amongst the most well known and successful reintroductions are:

• The Scimitar-Horned Oryx , having become extinct in Africa in the 1980s, zoos around the world maintained a captive population and at last this year, a reintroduction led by the Sahara Conservation Fund has begun .
• The Californian Condor , only 23 existed in the wild in the early 1980s. The last of the wild population was taken into captivity in a last ditched attempt to save the species, with chicks being reared at San Diego zoo . It worked. There are now more than 400 in the wild.
• The Golden Lion Tamarin , perhaps the most famous of all reintroductions. In 2003, the Golden Lion Tamarin was downlisted from Critically Endangered to Endangered after thirty years of tireless conservation efforts involving the Smithsonian National Zoological Park and the Associação Mico-Leao-Dourado in Rio de Janeiro. More than one-third of the wild population are descendants of the reintroduction program which has contributed significantly not only to the numbers of living in the wild, but also to the protection 3,100 ha of forests within their range.

Indeed the very idea of reintroducing species is new, and fraught with difficulties. It’s risky and hard. No-one wants it to go wrong, so give them your support.

4. In 2014, 700 million people visited zoos worldwide. OK, not all zoos are good at engagement. Indeed not all zoos are good full stop. But, surely that number of visits had to create some sort of connection with the natural world that might not have occurred otherwise.

5. Zoos are a living museum. What we learn about wild animals in captivity can help us manage and conserve them in the wild. From animal behaviour, to reproductive rates to dietary requirements.

6. Zoos raise money for conservation efforts. It’s difficult to engage people with conservation efforts taking place half a world away, believe me, I know. But by enabling people to experience wildlife first hand, and using that as a vessel in which to tell a story, we can I hope increase participation in international conservation efforts.

7. Helping respond to emergencies. In the last 20 years, an estimated 168 amphibian species have gone extinct. In addition to habitat loss, chytrid fungus has emerged as a deadly threat to worldwide amphibian populations. Responding to threats such as this, especially in small or medium sized vertebrates is surely one of the greatest uses of zoos around the world. In fact, many zoos have set up specialist amphibian centers and are pioneering treatment and breeding programmes.

8. They remind us that we can succeed. Conservation is full of bad news stories, yet on many occasions I have stood peering through glass at a species that shouldn’t exist. At WWT Barnes on the outskirts of London I have stood on a wet Winter day watching Nene , which was once the world’s rarest goose (now, incidentally, successfully reintroduced). In Antsohihy, Madagascar I have peered through the mesh fence at the world’s only population of Malagasy pochard , a duck thought to be extinct for years and then rediscovered. In the UK I’ve stood while a Bali Myna flew over my head, a bird numbering less than 100 in the wild (but thankfully more than 1000 in captivity). For me at least, zoos remind us that conservation does work, we just need more of it.

So where Do Zoos Go In the Future?

But zoos are not perfect. Should they continue to keep large predators, or intelligent primates? Over the next few decades, probably not. Should large new animals be collected from the wild? No, unless there is a compelling case to develop a captive breeding program. But are zoos changing and developing? Yes! More than ever, good zoos are aware of their evolving role in conservation and responding to it.

Would I rather have a species in captivity, than not at all. One hundred times, yes. What we don’t need is knee-jerk reactions to tragic accidents.

It’s easy to attack zoos

It’s absolutely right that there are bad zoos too , both in the UK and around the world. But I would argue that it’s easy to criticise something with a visible and physical presence. What is much, much harder is taking action to support conservation in the field, to reduce the impact of climate change or tackle pollution.

These things are a lot less tangiable, a lot harder to get to grips with. It’s difficult for one individual to feel that they have made much of a difference, and so often we don’t get the same feeling of satisfaction or achievement. That I think is why so many animal rights groups attack zoos, when instead I would argue that they could achieve a much greater net good by working together and protecting natural habitats.

Zoos are run by people who love animals, but as with any passion project, we might differ in our views on how best to achieve what we want. So I would urge you to support the good ones, improve the bad ones, don’t tar them all with the same brush and remember: The focus should be on protecting natural habitats and that zoos can help achieve that.

Live Debate on Al Jazeera

Yet despite zoos popularity with the public, it seems that finding someone willing to defend and support zoos work on live TV is difficult. In fact the zoos themselves were reluctant to send their own representatives for fear of going head to head with vocal animal rights activists. And so instead, I volunteered to voice my views. Let me know what you think!

Photo: Jeroen Kransen

B ook james for a speaking event:.

James is a highly acclaimed public speaker, delivering keynotes, lectures and debates to a wide range of audiences including students, the public, conservation practioners and scientists. Rather than further polarizing already divisive conservation topics, James aims to explain the complexity and nuance of conservation. What we choose to do over the next five decades, will profoundly influence the diversity of life on eath for the next 5 million years. It’s never been a more important, or more exciting time to be a conservationist.

“You had the audience hanging off your every word.”

“You gave a splendid talk – cogent, passionate, clear and compelling.”

“Interesting, informative and pitched at exactly the right level for our students.”

“It was refreshing to have a speaker who talked with such passion”

Today's Announcements

IMPORTANT INFORMATION:

Visits before 19th August 2024

You may experience heavy traffic around the surrounding area on your journey home due to planned roadworks along the A12 southbound carriageway between J26 Stanway and J25 Marks Tey.

Find out more here .

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

Law & Policy Policy

Resources for Journalists

• Food & Farming Media Network
• How to Pitch Us
• Freelance Charter
• Work With Us

Sentient Media

• Environmental Policy
• Code of Ethics
• Testimonials

Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? The Argument, Explained

Debates about the ethics of zoos abound — but when it comes to animal welfare, there are certainly more cons than pros.

Explainer • Entertainment • Policy

Words by Björn Ólafsson

For many people, zoos are the only chance they’ll have in their entire lives to see beautiful animals native to far-flung ecosystems — lions, elephants, pandas, lemurs — the list goes on. And they’re popular — over 181 million people visit a U.S. zoo every year . But zoos face criticism from animal welfare organizations and environmental activists for inhumane treatment of the animals they claim to protect. Zoos maintain that they are important aspects of conservation and education. 

So, what are the advantages and disadvantages of zoos ?  Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of these controversial organizations. 

What Are Some Pros and Cons of Zoos ?

First, not all zoos are created equal. While it is easy to imagine animal ethics as a binary of evil and moral, zoos can vary widely on how they treat their animals, how much space they are given and how the animals are obtained. Still, most zoos tend to have the same positives and negatives overall. 

Arguments Against Zoos

Poor conditions for animals.

Animals Often Only Have Quite Limited Space

Many zoos’ enclosures are too small, especially for animal species that are used to roaming, flying or swimming large distances in the wild. For example, polar bears are used to home ranges of about 1,000 square kilometers in the wild — large swaths of land and ice they enjoy exploring . In zoos, they get a couple hundred square feet. 

Zoos Are  Crowded

In addition to limited space, many zoos cram in as many animals as possible into the enclosures. Many visitors prefer seeing animals up close, instead of peering at them from afar, hidden in their dens or nests. This encourages zoos to increase the number of animals per exhibit,  increasing the likelihood of visitors seeing animals on the move near the boundaries of the enclosure. 

Animals Are Trapped in Unnatural Environments

Anyone who has visited a zoo knows the exhibits are a far cry from the natural landscape they are trying to imitate. Nearly all zoo enclosures contain fences, glass or other barriers for visitors to look through, which are inherently artificial. And the natural-seeming landscapes can sometimes be made out of astroturf, concrete or plastic.

Confinement May Alter the Behavior of Animals

The lack of space, unnatural environments and crowded conditions can directly affect the behavior of animals ; most notably in the form of what’s known as “stereotypy.” Stereotypy is a condition in which non-human animals engage in repetitive behaviors with no apparent purpose, such as pacing for hours on end, wagging tails abnormally or picking their own fur. 

The structure of zoos increases the likelihood of stereotypic behavior due to a lack of enrichment, mundane environments and boring, repetitive schedules. This prevalence of stereotypy in zoos even has its own name: “zoochosis,” or psychosis caused by zoos . 

‘Surplus’ Animals Can Be Killed

After an animal has reproduced successfully and the zoo no longer requires the animal to maintain an exhibit, the animal is deemed “surplus.” At this point, the animal’s welfare is no longer profitable . Zoos can sell the animal to private owners (who may keep the animal in tiny cages for amusement or kill the animal for taxidermy purposes), sell the animal to other zoos or enclosures, or “euthanize” the animal. 

Animals Are Often Mistreated 

Animal mistreatment is much more than hitting or beating an animal. It also includes harmful training techniques, separation from family members and forcing animals to behave in abnormal ways. 

In a report from World Animal Protection, three-fourths of zoos include human-animal interactions , many of which can be very stressful or physically harmful for animals. In some extreme cases, visitors rode on the backs of animals (causing injury) or encroached on the animals’ enclosure (causing stress).

Investigations into popular zoos sometimes reveal that caretakers don’t always clean the exhibits frequently , leaving the animals to live near their feces. The research also reveals many zookeepers hitting animals who “misbehave,” and not helping animals with injuries sustained in the enclosures. While not all animal caretakers behave this way, the reporting suggests many zoos around the world are lax with animal welfare. 

Animals Don’t Like Being Visited

The mere presence of human beings can negatively affect wild animals, especially in massive crowds that are common at zoos. Being bombarded by the sounds, smells and appearances of swaths of humans can trigger the stress responses of some animals . Some studies show that the number of visitors correlates with the amount of stress hormones in many animal species. 

Animals Struggle to Form Connections

Many animals are highly social creatures. Elephants, lions, pigs, cows and many more species are shown to have complex connections, hierarchies and relationships with members of their own kind — especially with friends and family. However, zoo animals rarely stay with the same herd or family for their entire lives. Instead, zoos opt to transfer, sell, buy or relocate animals throughout their lifespans, making it difficult for animals to form social connections . This lack of bonding can harm the animals emotionally. 

Zoos Are for Humans, Not Animals

Most zoos are for-profit enterprises, meaning they have one goal in mind: maximizing revenue. It is easy to see how making more money can come at the expense of animal welfare. For example, a zoo is unlikely to fund an exhibit expansion if it isn’t cost-effective, regardless of its benefits for the animals inside. While many zookeepers form real bonds with their animal companions, the animals still exist under a for-profit, human-centered organization. 

Zoos Promote Human Superiority

The aesthetic nature of zoos — animals in panopticon-like enclosures, viewed 24/7 by members of a different species — can reinforce human superiority. As moral philosopher Lori Gruen writes in her book, “visitors leave the zoo more convinced than ever of human superiority over the natural world.” Of course, zoos also reinforce the idea that humans have a right to take away animals’ freedom and bodily autonomy.

Zoos Don’t Always Help with Conservation — Some Wild Animals Have to Be Caught to Bring Them to Zoos

Many animals in zoos are born in captivity, but that’s not the case for all. Many animals are taken directly from the wild , often when they are babies, to make the transition to captivity a bit easier. At times, this is done in the name of conservation, or when a wild animal is very ill. But many zoos will take animals from the wild, or buy animals from unethical animal traders. 

It’s Often Not Possible to Return Animals to the Wild

Releasing an animal into the wild isn’t always successful, especially if the animal has spent time in climates different from their native regions, like jungles, savannas or ice caps. Properly preparing animals for success in the wild is a multi-stage process that can require thousands of dollars — and it doesn’t always work . Captive-born predator species — disadvantaged by being born and raised in an artificial environment — only have a survival rate after being released into the wild of 33 percent , according to one study. As a result, re-release is not a priority for many zoos.

Zoos Are Poorly Regulated

While there exist many laws that protect animals, such as the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and the Endangered Species Act , they only offer minimum protections . For example, the AWA excludes entire species of animals, like mice, farmed animals, birds and all cold-blooded animals. Its “minimum” standards of care usually ensure the animals’ safety, not their welfare or happiness. Many animal law experts say these regulations don’t go far enough . 

What Are the Pros of Having Zoos?

They Can Be Important for Researchers

Biologists and zoologists can benefit from studying animals in zoos. Some breakthroughs in animal behavior and treatment, like why elephants swing their trunks or how gorillas develop heart disease, have been made possible because of zoos’ ease of access . However, not all animals behave the same in captivity as they do in the wild, so not all research is possible in zoos. 

Zoos Are Educational — People May Behave “Eco-friendlier” After Going To the Zoo

Zoos can kickstart individuals’ interest in biodiversity, which is a critical aspect of environmental protection. Many zoos include calls to action in their exhibits, highlighting how endangered animals are being poached, driven away, or otherwise killed by human activity. This can inspire some people to behave more conscientiously. One limited survey found that 35 percent of eco-friendly people learned sustainable behavior from zoos . ‘

Zoos Can Help Educate Children About Animals

Zoos are a quintessential school experience for many young people. Children love learning about animals up-close in a safe environment — in fact, education is possibly the biggest advantage of modern zoos. Many programs, like school presentations, guided tours, informational exhibits, and talks with zookeepers can trigger a lifelong love of animals in children .  

But zoos aren’t perfect in this regard. According to a study of zoo visitors in the UK, only 34 percent of children learned more about animals at zoos (the result was slightly better when the children were given  a guided tour). Worse, children did not feel empowered to help with conservation efforts after visiting a zoo. This suggests that if zoos care about education, they need to more actively reach out to schoolchildren for empowerment and education. 

Going to the Zoo Is Affordable

More ethical ways of engaging with animals without removing them from their natural habitats — like whale watching, safaris, hikes, or excursions — are usually expensive or inaccessible for many people. Zoos tend to be relatively cheap for the average family that wants to learn about animals. 

Conservation

Zoos Can Protect Endangered Species from Extinction

Zoos often claim they can protect entire species from extinction through conservation programs that involve breeding more animals in captivity and then releasing them into the wild. This is especially important for endangered species like pandas. 

While these conservation efforts are truly important, they don’t represent the majority of a zoo’s activities, nor are zoos leaders in conservation worldwide. At the National Zoo, for example, only one-fifth of animals are endangered . In North America, zoos only contribute about 14 percent of all animals reintroduced into the wild as part of a conservation program. Zoos also tend to focus on headline-grabbing endangered animals to bring in visitors, like pandas, elephants or tigers, as opposed to lesser-known but crucial species, like tamarins, kakapos or wombats. 

Are Zoos Good or Bad for the Environment?

Zoos claim to support global biodiversity through conservation efforts like protecting endangered animals. This is somewhat true, although it varies greatly from zoo to zoo. 

On the other hand, zoos are big polluters and use up lots of resources , especially energy and water . Aquariums in particular use tons and tons of water. Zoo animals also generate waste that may or may not be composted or disposed of correctly.

Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?

Given the many ways that zoos are unethical to animals, the flawed attempts to contribute to conservation, and the positioning of humans as superior to animals, many animal ethicists believe zoos should not exist — or at least, not exist in their current form . 

For example, animal philosopher Dale Jamieson says in his book Ethics on the Ark that zoos primarily “alleviate our sense of guilt for what we are doing to the planet, but they do little to help the animals we are driving to extinction.” He continues to argue that zoos exist for humans alone , and that it is very difficult to wave away the inherent immorality of depriving animals their liberty for the sake of human amusement. 

Instead, private conservation programs can benefit endangered animals without showcasing them to the public. Animal sanctuaries, which are  areas of land in which endangered and other animals are protected by humans, are also advantageous for both individual animals and global biodiversity . 

Zoos do have advantages — fostering curiosity and education chief among them. But experts believe there are other ways of accomplishing these goals without resorting to zoos with tiny enclosures. Excursions, nature documentaries, safaris, local gardens, hikes, boat tours and other ways of interacting with nature don’t involve taking animals out of their natural habitats. 

The Bottom Line

If you do choose to visit a zoo, opt for zoos that have certifications from independent animal welfare organizations. If you are interested in animal conservation, you’d be more impactful donating to a non-zoo animal protection organization instead. And if you do want to visit animals, consider an animal sanctuary or an ethical safari, where you can see animals in their native environments.

Independent Journalism Needs You

Björn Jóhann Ólafsson is a science writer and journalist who cares deeply about understanding the natural world and her inhabitants through stories and data. He reports on the environmental footprint of the meat industry, the alternative protein sector and cultural attitudes around food. His previous bylines include the EU Observer and Elemental. He lives in Spain with his two lovebirds.

The Loss of Chevron Could Also Be a Major Loss for Animals

Law & Policy • 6 min read

More Law & Policy

How the Amy’s Kitchen Boycott Worked, and What It Might Mean for Other Labor Organizers

Justice • 5 min read

Investigation

Inside the Billion-Dollar Feed Industry’s Ploy to Greenwash Emissions

A new law would allow the livestock industry to fast-track federal review of feed additives.

Law & Policy • 4 min read

Are National Parks Safe Spaces for LGBTQ People This Pride Month — and Beyond?

An email from Interior Secretary Deb Haaland about park officer uniforms did not quell the controversy completely.

Justice • 7 min read

• 13 Animals Going Extinct — in Large Part Thanks To Humans

Climate • 8 min read

Impossible’s New Ad Campaign Doubles Down on Dudes

Food • 6 min read

Humans Can Get Bird Flu, and Here’s What You Need to Know

Health • 8 min read

When Marine Parks Close, Whales and Dolphins Face Uncertain Future

Entertainment • 7 min read

Scientists Are Making Honey Without the Hive

Breakthroughs • 5 min read

Most Read Today

• The 30 Most Intelligent Animals in the World Might Surprise You
• What Are Hot Dogs Really Made Of?
• How Does Dairy Farming Cause Water Pollution?
• The 14 Best Vegan Sources of Omega-3
• What Foods to Avoid If You Are Lactose Intolerant
• Is Salmon Good For You? 6 Alleged Salmon Benefits Debunked
• New Research on Animal Communication Shows Their Cultures Are Often Complex and Cumulative

share this!

June 8, 2015

Zoos talk, but do people listen?

by Rob Payne, Science Network WA

A study involving 176 zoos from more than 50 countries has found zoos are missing opportunities to educate visitors about conservation and sustainability.

Murdoch University research associate Katie Roe collected data from online questionnaires and conducted in-person interviews across six continents.

Her mission was to determine how zoos engaged the public, the variety and quality of their education programs and their methods of evaluating effectiveness.

Overall, basic signage was responsible for engaging the highest number of people, with 95 per cent reading some signs and 58 per cent reading at least half.

However, she found the messages were not always motivational.

"With over 600,000 million visitors per year, zoos are ideal places to let people know how they can live more sustainably," Dr Roe says.

"But if you go to most zoos and look for positive or negative messages about conservation, most messages are negative and you come away wondering 'what's the point' and thinking there's nothing you can do.

"I'd like to see zoos reframe issues from problems to 'here's a problem but here's a way you can help'.

"Giving people simple alternatives can help the planet."

She points to palm oil being linked with rainforest destruction and orangutan deaths, noting some snacks use palm oil whereas others, such as Australia-owned Vege chips, do not.

"If people remember and buy Vege Chips, before long their competitors have to make a change," she says.

Dr Roe says educational talks could also use improvement.

While three-quarters of participating zoos used educational talks, zoo presenters' ability to use appropriate knowledge and communicate effectively was rare, she says.

"Talks and guided tours entertain and create a personal connection with the animals and the message," Dr Roe says.

"But I discovered zoo keepers are not all public presenters; and if a person is mumbling and uncomfortable, it doesn't achieve anything.

"Zoos should definitely have keeper talks, but the presenter doesn't have to be the keeper—it's more important to have a dynamic, informed presenter."

In terms of school visits, money didn't always translate into effectiveness.

The study found the zoo education program with the best student engagement didn't have internet access and relied on donated recycled goods for craft material.

"But they were clear about what they wanted kids to learn, they kept their messaging simple and they knew how to measure their effectiveness," Dr Roe says.

Provided by Science Network WA

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Mathematical models used to calculate speed of disease spread in early ocean travel

27 minutes ago

Researchers explore a single cell using advanced X-ray imaging techniques

30 minutes ago

Fruit fly post-mating behavior controlled by male-derived peptide via command neurons, finds study

35 minutes ago

New car smell reaches toxic levels on hot days, researchers find

Researchers elucidate biogeographic context of human evolution in East African Rift System

36 minutes ago

Dual action antibiotic could make bacterial resistance nearly impossible

Room-temperature defluorination method uses light to clean up forever chemicals

46 minutes ago

Nature-inspired novel catalyst paves the way for efficient hydrocarbon decomposition

49 minutes ago

Innovative method uses oxygen and light to recycle unsaturated polymers

Smart guide RNAs: Researchers use logic gate-based decision-making to construct circuits that control genes

Relevant physicsforums posts, the predictive brain (stimulus-specific error prediction neurons).

Jul 21, 2024

Contradictory statements made by two different professors

The cass report (uk).

Jul 19, 2024

Understanding COVID Quarantine Guidance

Innovative ideas and technologies to help folks with disabilities.

Jul 18, 2024

New and Interesting Publications Relevant to the Origin of Life

Jul 15, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Study reveals value of zoos and aquariums in boosting biodiversity understanding.

Mar 16, 2015

Are zoos really a setting for ecotourism?

Sep 23, 2013

Group wants to stop elephants' move from one zoo to another (Update)

Apr 3, 2015

Research shows a visit to a zoo boosts science and environment knowledge

May 27, 2011

North Yorkshire zoo offers blueprint for conserving native wildlife

Feb 7, 2014

Danish zoo kills giraffe to prevent inbreeding

Feb 9, 2014

Recommended for you

Heat-sensitive trees moving uphill due to rising temperatures, study finds

Cocaine found in muscle and liver of sharpnose sharks off coast of Rio de Janeiro

Chimpanzees gesture back and forth quickly like in human conversations, researchers find

23 hours ago

Smell of human stress can affect dogs' emotions, leading them to make more pessimistic choices

Jul 22, 2024

Genetic breeding offers new method for mosquito population control

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

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:

Changing Partisan Coalitions in a Politically Divided Nation

1. the partisanship and ideology of american voters, table of contents.

• What this report tells us – and what it doesn’t
• Partisans and partisan leaners in the U.S. electorate
• Party identification and ideology
• Education and partisanship
• Education, race and partisanship
• Partisanship by race and gender
• Partisanship across educational and gender groups by race and ethnicity
• Gender and partisanship
• Parents are more Republican than voters without children
• Partisanship among men and women within age groups
• Race, age and partisanship
• The partisanship of generational cohorts
• Religion, race and ethnicity, and partisanship
• Party identification among atheists, agnostics and ‘nothing in particular’
• Partisanship and religious service attendance
• Partisanship by income groups
• The relationship between income and partisanship differs by education
• Union members remain more Democratic than Republican
• Homeowners are more Republican than renters
• Partisanship of military veterans
• Demographic differences in partisanship by community type
• Race and ethnicity
• Age and the U.S. electorate
• Education by race and ethnicity
• Religious affiliation
• Ideological composition of voters
• Acknowledgments
• Overview of survey methodologies
• The 2023 American Trends Panel profile survey methodology
• Measuring party identification across survey modes
• Adjusting telephone survey trends
• Appendix B: Religious category definitions
• Appendix C: Age cohort definitions

The partisan identification of registered voters is now evenly split between the two major parties: 49% of registered voters are Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, and a nearly identical share – 48% – are Republicans or lean to the Republican Party.

The partisan balance has tightened in recent years following a clear edge in Democratic Party affiliation during the last administration.

• Four years ago, in the run-up to the 2020 election, Democrats had a 5 percentage point advantage over the GOP (51% vs. 46%).

The share of voters who are in the Democratic coalition reached 55% in 2008. For much of the last three decades of Pew Research Center surveys, the partisan composition of registered voters has been more closely divided.

About two-thirds of registered voters identify as a partisan, and they are roughly evenly split between those who say they are Republicans (32% of voters) and those who say they are Democrats (33%). Roughly a third instead say they are independents or something else (35%), with most of these voters leaning toward one of the parties. Partisan leaners often share the same political views and behaviors as those who directly identify with the party they favor.

The share of voters who identify as independent or something else is somewhat higher than in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As a result, there are more “leaners” today than in the past. Currently, 15% of voters lean toward the Republican Party and 16% lean toward the Democratic Party. By comparison, in 1994, 27% of voters leaned toward either the GOP (15%) or the Democratic Party (12%).

While the electorate overall is nearly equally divided between those who align with the Republican and Democratic parties, a greater share of registered voters say they are both ideologically conservative and associate with the Republican Party (33%) than say they are liberal and align with the Democratic Party (23%).

A quarter of voters associate with the Democratic Party and describe their views as either conservative or moderate, and 14% identify as moderates or liberals and are Republicans or Republican leaners.

The partisan and ideological composition of voters is relatively unchanged over the last five years.

(As a result of significant mode differences in measures of ideology between telephone and online surveys, there is not directly comparable data on ideology prior to 2019.)

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Education & Politics
• Election 2024
• Gender & Politics
• Party Identification
• Political Parties
• Race, Ethnicity & Politics
• Religion & Politics
• Rural, Urban and Suburban Communities
• Voter Demographics

10 facts about Republicans in the U.S.

An early look at black voters’ views on biden, trump and election 2024, in tight presidential race, voters are broadly critical of both biden and trump, key facts about hispanic eligible voters in 2024, key facts about black eligible voters in 2024, most popular, report materials.

• Party Identification Detailed Tables, 1994-2023

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

• 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 .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Newsletters

IE 11 Not Supported

Opinion: what project 2025 could mean for education, from abolishing the u.s. department of education to cutting title i funding and certifying teachers based on ideology, a controversial proposal from a conservative think tank would upend public education nationwide..

ABOLISHING THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

• Cutting federal funding for schools that are “pushing critical race theory or gender ideology on our children,” and opening civil rights investigations into them for race-based discrimination.
• Barring trans youth from sports leagues that correlate with their self-identification rather than their assigned sex.
• Creating a body that certifies teachers who “embrace patriotic values.”
• Rewarding districts that do away with teacher tenure.
• Adopting a parents’ bill of rights.
• Having parents directly elect school principals, instead of electing school boards who then hire and supervise principals.

IMPACT ON STUDENT LOANS

Scientific research, can project 2025 happen.