research for zoos

Zoo Atlanta will close early on Sat., May 25 for Brew at the Zoo. Gates will close at 1:30 p.m. and grounds will close at 3 p.m. 

Research in the modern Zoo

Zoos have come a long way from their beginnings as menageries in the 19th century. Rather than showcasing exotic animals purely for profit and entertainment as early zoos did, modern accredited zoos are active participants in scientific research and wildlife conservation. Research and conservation go hand-in-hand: in order to protect wild animals and their habitats, we need to understand these animals and the threats they face. Our mission at Zoo Atlanta – to save wildlife and their habitats through conservation, research, education, and engaging experiences – drives our contributions to these efforts. Read on to find out how to connect your students to current research and inspire conservation action within your classrooms.  

There are two broad types of wildlife research: in-situ research and ex-situ research. In-situ research is conducted out in the wild. This type of research can directly study the threats facing wild animal populations. It allows scientists to monitor and evaluate animal behavior, population dynamics, and ecosystem processes. The benefit of this type of research is that you are studying wild animals in their wild habitats. 

Ex-situ research is that which takes place outside of an animal’s natural habitat, such as here at the Zoo. This type of research can focus on topics like veterinary medicine, animal training, and individual animal personalities and behavior. Ex-situ research allows researchers to study animals up close and evaluate individual animal behaviors, development, and physiology. Ex-situ research can help conservation efforts that help protect wild animals and their habitats by providing information that would be difficult to obtain in the wild. It also helps zoos learn how to take better care of their animals. 

Zoo Atlanta participates in both in-situ and ex-situ research projects. In-situ research efforts are conducted through field work by zoo teammates and by providing support for the research projects of trusted partners. One effort we have participated in is the discovery and  naming of new species of amphibians . Dr. Joe Mendelson, the Director of Research at Zoo Atlanta, is heavily involved in these efforts and argues that taxonomy is “central to our understanding of the planet and central to our efforts to conserve our increasingly threatened biodiversity.” The Zoo partners with the Central Florida Zoo’s Orianne Center for Indigo Conservation and Auburn University to track and monitor re-released  eastern indigo snakes , many of whom were reared at Zoo Atlanta, in the Conecuh National Forest. We also work closely with the  Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International , an organization devoted to researching and protecting gorillas in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. One of our flagship projects focuses on studying a deadly fungus that has caused  Panamanian golden frogs  to become extinct in the wild. We care for a small population of these frogs at the Zoo with the hope that they can one day be re-released into the wild.  

Zoo Atlanta also conducts many ex-situ research projects on Zoo grounds. As one of the only zoos in the United States to house giant pandas, we have been able to  study giant panda  maternal behavior and sensory perception. These studies can help zoos take better care of panda cubs and provide better enrichment for pandas, while also providing insights that may aid wild panda conservation. The Zoo is the headquarters for the  Great Ape Heart Project , which aims to understand heart disease in great apes such as gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, and chimpanzees. The project studies the causes, diagnosis, and treatment for heart disease in great apes. We also collaborate with researchers from Georgia Tech to study how  elephants can use their trunks  to delicately pick up objects and suck in large amounts of water.  Veterinary medicine ,  Komodo  dragon genome  sequencing, and  sidewinder snake  movement and biodesign are just a few of the other ex-situ research projects that Zoo Atlanta participates in. 

Both in-situ and ex-situ research efforts are vital to wildlife conservation. Zoos are particularly well-situated to conduct ex-situ research, which makes them valuable partners to conservation organizations seeking to learn more about how to protect wild animals. They also support in-situ research projects by contributing money, providing staff and expertise to assist with these efforts, and educating the public about the value of research. You and your students can learn more about Zoo Atlanta’s research efforts by visiting the  Research  section on our website or reading  Beyond the Zoo , which outlines more ways that Zoo Atlanta contributes to wildlife research and conservation efforts. Advanced students who are interested in pursuing biological research can peruse our list of  Zoo Atlanta scientific publications . If you want to visit the Zoo, meet some of the animals we care for and study, and talk to knowledgeable Zoo Atlanta staff members, check out our  Teacher Resources  to start planning your trip

Connect With Your Wild Side #onlyzooatl

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

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 28 June 2018

Evaluating the Contribution of North American Zoos and Aquariums to Endangered Species Recovery

• Judy P. Che-Castaldo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9118-9202 1 ,
• Shelly A. Grow 2 &
• Lisa J. Faust 1  

Scientific Reports volume  8 , Article number:  9789 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

23k Accesses

16 Citations

85 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Biodiversity
• Conservation biology

The challenge of recovering threatened species necessitates collaboration among diverse conservation partners. Zoos and aquariums have long partnered with other conservation organizations and government agencies to help recover species through a range of in situ and ex situ conservation projects. These efforts tend to be conducted by individual facilities and for individual species, and thus the scope and magnitude of these actions at the national level are not well understood. Here we evaluate the means and extent to which North American zoos and aquariums contribute to the recovery of species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), by synthesizing data from federal recovery plans for listed species and from annual surveys conducted by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. We found that in addition to managing ex situ assurance populations, zoos frequently conduct conservation research and field-based population monitoring and assessments. Cooperatively managed populations in zoos tend to focus on species that are not listed on the ESA or on foreign listings, and thus it may be beneficial for zoos to manage more native threatened species. Our results highlight the existing contributions, but also identify additional opportunities for the zoo community to help recover threatened species.

Similar content being viewed by others

A unifying modelling of multiple land degradation pathways in Europe

Frequent disturbances enhanced the resilience of past human populations

Rapid groundwater decline and some cases of recovery in aquifers globally

Introduction.

Due to the magnitude and complexity of the global extinction crisis, successful species conservation will require the engagement of all potential partners: state and federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, local communities and resource users, industry stakeholders, and wildlife managers 1 . These diverse partners each bring unique perspectives, expertise, and resources, not all of which will be appropriate or necessary in every case. However, a clear understanding of the potential contributions of each partner will help to identify the most relevant entities to call upon in each case.

Zoos and aquariums (hereafter, “zoos”) are becoming more broadly recognized as important partners for conserving threatened species 2 , 3 . There is a long history of zoos engaging in species recovery, from the American bison and California condor to the black-footed ferret and Panamanian golden frog 4 . However, the role of zoos in species conservation has often focused on ex situ species management, in particular ex situ breeding 5 , 6 . For example, the Conservation Measures Partnership’s Actions Classification 7 identifies 30 distinct types of conservation actions, but specifies a role for zoos in only two of those ( ex situ conservation, outreach and communications). The conservation value of ex situ breeding has also been somewhat controversial, with views ranging from it being a last resort that diverts resources from in situ efforts 8 , to part of a continuum of management actions for threatened species 9 . Even when ex situ breeding is acknowledged as part of the conservation strategy, the ability of zoos to sustain demographically and genetically viable populations for the long-term has been questioned 10 , 11 . Undoubtedly these issues and concerns must continue to be explored, but zoos also contribute to other conservation efforts beyond ex situ breeding 12 , 13 , 14 .

Several publications have explored generally how zoos contribute to species conservation, discussing both in situ and ex situ actions. Ex situ actions can directly target the species ( e . g ., ex situ population management, rehabilitation, gene banking) 7 , or indirectly support conservation through public outreach, biological and veterinary research, and fundraising for other organizations and projects 3 , 14 , 15 . In situ actions can include engaging and educating communities in the species’ native range, protecting and restoring habitat, supplying animals and/or staff for reintroductions, and field-based monitoring 3 , 15 . Although there are many case studies of these individual actions, the extent to which zoos contribute to conservation through these actions is not well understood. One study has evaluated the impacts of a subset of in situ conservation projects branded by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums 16 , and another summarized the number of breeding and reintroduction projects for threatened species conducted by four Canadian zoos 12 . Thus far, no study has quantified both the in situ and ex situ conservation actions conducted by zoos at a national scale.

In the U.S., all institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) include species conservation as a key part of their missions, in accordance with accreditation standards. To fulfill this part of their missions, zoos carry out an array of in situ and ex situ initiatives 4 , and collaborate with other conservation organizations and government agencies. This includes the agencies [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries] that implement the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), which was enacted in 1973 to protect threatened species through both extinction prevention and recovery actions 17 . However, the extent and scope of these zoo conservation efforts have not been systematically evaluated beyond annual reports within the zoo community.

The goal of this study was to evaluate the contribution of zoos to the recovery of threatened species in the U.S. by quantifying and summarizing their conservation activities. Our analysis consisted of three parts: (1) Summarize the management actions for which zoos are the responsible parties, based on data from federal recovery plans for listed species; (2) Summarize the recent conservation activities reported by AZA-accredited facilities in responses to the association’s annual field conservation and research surveys; and (3) Quantify the number of listed species that currently have managed populations in AZA facilities in order to identify additional opportunities for species conservation. Using multiple datasets allowed us to compare the contributions as self-reported by AZA facilities against those as recognized by the agencies responsible for implementing the ESA. Due to the scope of our study, we did not aim to quantify the impacts of these conservation activities, although it would be a valuable assessment that could be implemented following the methods of Mace et al . 18 .

In this study we focused on the terrestrial (including invertebrate and amphibian) and avian species listed under the ESA as of February 2017. Therefore, the large number of zoo conservation projects on marine and aquatic species, and the small number on plant species, were outside the scope of this assessment. Zoo conservation projects involving species with other risk statuses ( e . g ., Candidate, Under Review, or Proposed status under the ESA; state-listed; those ranked as Threatened (VU, EN, CR) or Extinct in the Wild (EW) under the IUCN Red List but not listed under the ESA) were also not represented in this assessment. Additionally, we focused on listed species whose native range included the U.S. ( i . e ., U.S. or U.S./foreign listings under the ESA; “U.S. listings” hereafter) in the first two parts of our analysis, but explored the overlap between both U.S. and foreign listings with managed zoo programs in the last section.

Roles of Zoos and Aquariums in Recovery Plans

The ESA requires every listed species to have a recovery plan, which documents the management actions and the criteria that determine when the species can be delisted. We gathered recovery plan data from the USFWS Recovery Plan Ad Hoc Report database ( http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/ore-input/ad-hoc-recovery-actions-public-report-input ), by querying all recovery actions that list a zoo, aquarium, or AZA (“zoos”) as the responsible party. As of September 2016, the recovery plans for 73 listed species (15.1% of the 482 listings that have recovery plans) named zoos as responsible for at least one recovery action. Of these, we focused on the 54 terrestrial and avian animals (6 amphibians, 31 birds, 7 invertebrates, and 10 mammals) for this analysis. Forty-two of these species are currently listed as Endangered and eight as Threatened, one is not listed due to extinction but was a species of concern at the time of recovery planning ( Moho bishopi ), and three have been delisted since the plan was written due to recovery ( Urocyon littoralis subspecies littoralis , santacruzae , and santarosae ).

In total, there were 38 recovery plans (some plans included more than one species) that described 468 recovery actions for which zoos were the responsible party. These actions involved 39 individual zoos or aquariums, or else listed AZA as the responsible party (see Table  S1 for complete list of institutions). We determined 11 keywords to represent the major types of conservation activities attributed to zoos (Table  1 ), which were derived through an iterative process. We started with 52 keywords used by AZA to categorize zoo conservation and science projects (see next section), and condensed them into 9 categories ( e . g ., anti-poaching/patrolling, disaster/emergency response, human-wildlife conflict, and wildlife trade were grouped into “threat mitigation”). We assigned these broader keywords to each recovery action based on the action descriptions from the plans, and added two keywords (fundraising, management/planning) to describe recovery actions that did not fit into existing keywords. In some cases multiple keywords were assigned to an action, resulting in a total of 605 keywords assigned.

The majority of recovery actions related to managing and/or maintaining an assurance population (36.1% of keywords), research (27.4%), and population augmentation (23.5%; Fig.  1A ). Research included a broad range of topics relevant to species recovery, from investigating the impacts of contaminants, to modeling disease dynamics, to evaluating methods for habitat restoration. Besides population augmentation, other in situ recovery actions primarily consisted of population monitoring and assessments (12.4%), but there were also a small number of projects related to mitigating threats (1.7%) and to protecting and restoring habitat (0.9%). An unexpected type of zoo recovery action was management and planning (8.3%), which included projects that either involved or supported decision-making by the recovery team, such as coordinating program components, prioritizing tasks, or evaluating existing strategies. These tasks help to improve efficiency and flexibility and therefore can contribute greatly to the success of a conservation program. Other previously recognized contributions from zoos such as education and outreach 7 , 19 and husbandry knowledge and veterinary care 13 were also represented in recovery plans (7.5% and 7.1%, respectively). Finally, zoos contributed to conservation by providing project funds (4.5%), which were raised not only through visitor fees 8 but also by securing state, federal, and private grants. The keyword related to providing rescue, rehabilitation, or sanctuary facilities did not apply to any zoo-based recovery actions described in these plans. However, they may be more likely to be included in plans for ESA-listed marine species ( e . g ., sea turtles).

Conservation activities carried out by North American zoos and aquariums for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, sorted by type using 11 keywords. The number of instances of each keyword is shown at the base of the bars. ( A ) Distribution of the 468 recovery actions for which zoos and aquariums are the responsible party as described in recovery plans; a total of 606 keywords were assigned. ( B ) Distribution of the 644 field conservation and research project submissions by zoos to the 2013–2015 Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS) survey; a total of 786 keywords were assigned.

Recovery actions were distributed unevenly across taxa (Fig.  2A ), with the majority of actions pertaining to birds (357 out of 468 actions). This was because the Revised Hawaiian Forest Birds Recovery Plan 20 included a very similar set of up to 19 recovery actions for each of 19 different bird species (for a total of 289 recovery actions) that involved either the San Diego Zoological Society or the Honolulu Zoo. To compare recovery action types among taxonomic groups, we further clustered the 11 project keywords into three broader categories: ex situ , in situ , and knowledge/capacity. Ex situ included the projects related to animal care and management at zoos (i.e., assurance population, husbandry/veterinary care, rescue/rehabilitation/sanctuary), whereas in situ included projects that took place at the species’ native range (i.e., population augmentation, monitoring/assessments, threat mitigation, and habitat creation/restoration/protection). The remaining project types all focused on increasing biological knowledge or the capacity for conservation (i.e. research, education/outreach, management/planning, fundraising). For birds, all three categories of projects were similarly common, with a slightly lower proportion of in situ projects (Fig.  2A ). In contrast, in situ projects were the most common category for invertebrates. Knowledge and capacity-building projects (primarily research) were the most common type of zoo recovery action for mammals and amphibians, accounting for 56% and 40% of their action keywords, respectively.

Conservation activities carried out by North American zoos and aquariums for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, by taxonomic group. Activities were aggregated into three categories based on the activity type keywords: conservation knowledge or capacity (research, education/outreach, management/planning, fundraising), ex situ (assurance population, husbandry/veterinary care, rescue/rehab/sanctuary), and in situ (population augmentation, monitoring/assessments, threat mitigation, and habitat creation/restoration/protection). The total instances of keywords for each taxonomic group are shown in parentheses. ( A ) Distribution of the 468 recovery actions for which zoos and aquariums are the responsible party from recovery plans; a total of 606 keywords were assigned. ( B ) Distribution of the 644 field conservation and research project submissions by zoos to the 2013–2015 Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS) survey; a total of 786 keywords were assigned.

In addition to working with federal agencies in recovery programs, zoos also collaborate with other partners, including academic institutions, research institutions, or universities (collectively “academic institutions”) and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Thus we also examined the involvement of these two types of partners in the recovery actions that specified zoos as a responsible party. All four recovery actions related to habitat creation/restoration/protection listed either academic institutions (2 actions) or other NGOs (2 actions) as additional responsible parties, suggesting such field projects may require larger collaborations to implement. Academic institutions were involved in nearly half of the actions with research as a keyword (54 out of 128 actions), but did not collaborate with zoos as much on other types of recovery actions (<13% for all other types). Other NGOs partnered with zoos most frequently on actions related to assurance populations (26 out of 169 actions) and research (26 out of 128 actions), but proportionally they collaborated primarily on actions related to education and outreach (14 out of 35 actions) and threat mitigation (2 out of 8 actions).

Although recovery plans provide an official documentation of the extent to which zoos participate in recovery programs when the plans were created, they do not provide the full picture. Nearly one-third of all U.S. listed animals do not have a recovery plan (482 out of 710 listed animal species had plans as of September 2016), and finalized plans are rarely updated and therefore tend to exclude more recent or current projects. Additionally, a zoo’s involvement may not have been explicitly described as a recovery action, or only the primary holding facilities may have been identified when multiple institutions are involved.

Conservation Activities Reported by Zoos and Aquariums

We next summarized zoo conservation activities based on the AZA’s field conservation and research surveys from 2013–2015. These surveys are used to produce the association’s Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS; http://www.aza.org/annual-report-on-conservation-and-science ). In the field conservation survey, AZA member institutions report only their conservation efforts that have direct impacts on animals and habitats in the wild. In the research survey, they report on any hypothesis-driven research conducted at these institutions or by their staff and the resulting publications. Response rates differed between surveys and years, with 86–92% of institutions responding for the field conservation survey and 52–64% responding for the research survey between 2013–2015. Although this dataset likely underrepresents the conservation and research projects in zoos for listed species, it still provides the most comprehensive current summary of these activities across AZA. Because of the specific focus of these surveys, the responses would also exclude education programs that do not directly target the local communities in the species’ native range. Therefore our analysis leaves out many of the conservation-oriented education projects carried out by zoos, which can also have significant impacts on achieving biodiversity conservation 21 .

We queried the database of field conservation and research survey responses for references to ESA-listed species in the project titles, descriptions, or the selected focal species. We tallied the number of conservation project submissions, representing unique combinations of institutions, projects, and species. That is, the same project may involve multiple institutions, and we count these as unique projects for each institution. This is because each institution may submit the project under a different name or description, thereby making it difficult to consistently delineate unique projects. Between 2013–2015, 142 AZA institutions reported a total of 644 active conservation projects involving 74 ESA-listed, U.S. terrestrial and avian species (23 mammals, 21 birds, 12 amphibians, 11 reptiles, and 7 invertebrates). Of these, 50 are currently listed as Endangered and 24 as Threatened. Although 54 of the 74 listings have finalized recovery plans, only 18 of those plans mentioned zoos as responsible parties for recovery actions.

Similar to the actions from recovery plans, we assigned each zoo project from the survey data to one or more of the 11 keywords representing different types of conservation activities (Table  1 ). Of the 786 keywords assigned, most were related to research (25.2%), monitoring/assessments (17.6%), population augmentation (16.0%), and managing assurance populations (12.7%; Fig.  1B ). Fundraising directed to recovery programs or conservation organizations (for purposes unspecified in the survey response) accounted for 11.3% of the keywords. Projects related to education and outreach (targeting local communities in the species’ native range) accounted for 5.2% of the keywords, and all other keywords were used fewer than 3% of the time. Compared to the conservation actions described in recovery plans, zoos reported a smaller proportion of activities related to assurance populations, but a larger proportion related to monitoring and assessments, and to habitat creation/restoration/protection. This suggests that zoos are contributing more to in situ conservation projects than is recognized in recovery plans. Zoos also reported more fundraising projects than represented in recovery plans, and additionally reported several projects related to providing rescue, rehabilitation, or sanctuary facilities. Both data sources agreed that research made up a large proportion of the conservation activities in zoos, and that there was great variation in the types of research conducted. Research projects reported by zoos ranged from understanding the genetic structure of Hawaiian petrel ( Pterodroma sandwichensis ) populations, to measuring stress levels of Guam kingfishers ( Todiramphus cinnamominus ) in human care, to developing gene banking methods for black-footed ferrets ( Mustela nigripes ).

Comparing among taxonomic groups, the majority of zoo conservation projects involved listed mammal species (318 of 644 projects), and only 25 projects involved invertebrates. Although the distribution of projects among taxa is similar to a previous assessment of in situ conservation efforts by zoos around the world 16 , none of the mammalian species in our dataset were primates due to our focus on U.S. species. Based on the keyword categories we assigned to each project, we found in situ projects were most common for listed amphibians and invertebrates (Fig.  2B ), and they primarily consisted of population augmentation projects. Knowledge and capacity projects were least common for amphibians and invertebrates, but they made up the largest proportion of projects for mammals, birds, and reptiles (consisting primarily of research projects). Ex situ projects made up less than 20% of all conservation projects reported by zoos for listed mammals, birds, and reptiles. Compared to the actions from recovery plans, a larger proportion of in situ projects were reported by zoos for all taxonomic groups, and a smaller proportion of ex situ projects were reported for all taxa except amphibians (Fig.  2 ).

We estimated the amount that AZA zoos spend on listed species by summing the project expenditures reported in the ARCS surveys. From 2013–2015, total spending on the reported field conservation and research projects specifically targeting the 74 ESA-listed species summed to $28.9 million, or on average $9.6 million per year. For context, the reported average spending per year on the same set of species in 2013–2015 was $146.4 million by all federal agencies, and $7.9 million by all state agencies 22 , 23 , 24 . Among the different types of conservation activities, the majority of funds were spent on assurance populations, followed by population monitoring and assessment and research (Fig.  3A ). Comparing across taxa, expenditures were greatest on conservation projects for bird and mammal species (Fig.  3B ).

Spending by North American zoos and aquariums on conservation projects for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, as reported in the 2013–2015 Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS) survey. The proportional spending (out of the total $28.9 M spent across 3 years) is shown by ( A ) project keyword and ( B ) taxonomic group.

Listed Species with Managed Populations in Zoos and Aquariums

The recovery plans and AZA surveys provide an overview of the extent to which zoos currently contribute to recovering listed species. However, additional opportunities for conservation may exist, as a number of ESA-listed species have ex situ populations in zoos that are cooperatively managed. Since the 1980s, zoos have collaborated in managing the animals in their care through goal setting, cooperative breeding, and exchanging animals across institutions, with the aim of improving the health (e.g., demographic viability, genetic diversity) of those zoo animal populations 25 , 26 . In North America, cooperatively managed populations are those with a Species Survival Plan ® (SSP) program, which is implemented by AZA member institutions. SSPs may also coordinate the conservation, research, and educational initiatives among institutions to support in situ species recovery. These programs therefore represent opportunities for zoos to contribute further to conservation efforts, because they have an established management structure and working partnerships across institutions. Cooperative management also generates a great deal of species-specific knowledge on breeding, veterinary care, behavior, and demography, which can inform or facilitate conservation actions. For example, knowledge on how to breed animals successfully and to care for and rear offspring may be important for helping to improve reproduction of a threatened species. Further, the establishment of an SSP program demonstrates a long-term commitment to the species by multiple AZA institutions, which may be leveraged to promote engagement in and support for wild populations of the same species.

Overall, 143 of the 482 SSP programs (29.7%) were for ESA-listed species, representing 154 listings (which included separate listings for Distinct Population Segments or subspecies of the same species). The majority of these were for species listed as Endangered (83.4%) and as foreign (77.9%). Of the 387 listings for U.S. terrestrial and avian species, 36 (9.3%) currently have zoo populations managed by an SSP program. Interestingly, only 14 of the 54 species whose recovery plans specified roles for zoos had SSP populations, and 24 of the 74 species identified in the AZA surveys had SSP populations. Only 10 species overlapped across the three datasets, meaning they have recovery plans that specified a role for zoos, conservation projects reported by zoos in AZA surveys, and zoo populations managed by an SSP program. This finding suggests that an SSP program is not required for zoos to participate in recovery programs, and many zoos work with listed species outside of the SSP framework. On the other hand, there are additional SSP programs that could participate in that species’ recovery but currently do not.

Most of the SSP programs for listed species involved mammals, with existing programs for 21 of the 74 (28.4%) U.S. mammal listings (Fig.  4A ). All other listed taxa were much less represented, especially invertebrates, for which the American burying beetle was the only listing (out of 148) with an SSP program. The picture was similar when including both U.S. and foreign listings, with 84 additional SSP programs for foreign-listed mammals, and a smaller number of additional SSP programs for foreign-listed birds and reptiles (14 and 13, respectively; Fig.  4B ). In summary, the majority of SSP programs did not manage listed species, but those that did tended to focus on species that were more at risk (listed as Endangered rather than Threatened). There was also a taxonomic bias for SSP programs to focus on mammals and a geographic bias for non-U.S. species, many of which were native to African and Central American countries. Our results parallel findings from a previous study that zoo and aquarium collections favor larger vertebrate species 5 . However, the bias of SSP programs toward non-U.S. species contrasts with an earlier finding that zoos tended to focus on mammal and bird species that are native to economically developed countries 27 .

The proportion of terrestrial and avian animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that have cooperatively managed populations in AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums, by taxonomic group and listing status (T = Threatened, E = Endangered). ( A ) The proportion of U.S. listings with managed programs for the listed species. ( B ) The proportion of U.S. and foreign listings with managed programs for the listed species. ( C ) The proportion of U.S. listings with managed programs for a congener of the listed species. ( D ) The proportion of U.S. and foreign listings with managed programs for a congener of the listed species.

Zoos have the potential to contribute even further to species recovery, as shown by the number of listed species that have a congener with a managed SSP population in zoos (Fig.  4C,D ). Management of a closely related species in the same genus produces valuable husbandry and biological information that may be useful for informing the conservation of the listed species. Institutions holding the congeners may also develop education programs or design exhibits to promote conservation actions for the closely related listed species. Additionally, since zoos already have the resources and facilities to house a closely related species, it may be possible for those institutions to house the more threatened species instead, if ex situ breeding or rehabilitation is deemed beneficial (of course, species-specific behaviors and requirements will determine the extent to which that would be feasible, while threats and recovery strategies will determine the appropriateness of an ex situ breeding program). Across all taxa, there were SSP programs for the congeners of 70 out of 387 (18.1%) U.S. listings, and 299 out of 969 (30.9%) U.S. and foreign listings of terrestrial and avian species. In particular, there were managed programs for the congeners of 36.5% and 41.4% of U.S. listings for mammals and reptiles, respectively (Fig.  4C ), and 51.5% and 53.2% of total (U.S. and foreign) listings for mammals and reptiles, respectively (Fig.  4D ). This represents a significant body of knowledge and resources that could greatly enhance species recovery efforts, but have yet to be broadly utilized.

Our evaluation showed that zoos contribute to a diverse array of in situ and ex situ conservation efforts, and serve as important partners in the recovery of threatened species in the U.S. Zoo conservation activities (Table  1 ) spanned many of the conservation actions previously described 7 . Beyond maintaining ex situ populations 5 and increasing public understanding of biodiversity 21 , zoos carry out many more in situ projects than typically recognized (though see Olive and Jansen 12 ), including a large number of monitoring projects. We also found that zoos conduct a range of field- and zoo-based conservation research projects, which were nearly as numerous as ex situ breeding efforts (Fig.  1 ). Biodiversity monitoring and research both help to support successful species recovery, but they are not commonly viewed as significant ways in which zoos contribute to conservation. Our findings support earlier studies that showed these critical conservation actions are increasingly being funded or conducted by NGOs 28 , 29 , including zoos.

However, additional opportunities exist. We found that similar to zoo holdings overall 27 , managed SSP populations currently focus on non-threatened species. Among listed species, however, managed programs do tend to prioritize species that are more at risk of extinction. There are many considerations that determine the selection of species for zoo exhibits, and management programs are increasingly including conservation status in their decision-making. However, if a species is especially difficult to house, cannot reproduce successfully, or has low survivorship in zoos, then establishing ex situ populations may not be feasible or worthwhile. Further, there are ways to contribute to conservation even if zoos are managing the less at-risk species that are closely related to a threatened species, as discussed above.

U.S. zoos may also increase their conservation efforts by managing more native threatened species, as our results showed a tendency for SSP programs to focus on foreign-listed species. Ex situ populations would ideally be established in the species’ native range 2 , but currently >90% of the U.S. listed avian and terrestrial species do not have an SSP population in North American zoos. Further research is needed to evaluate whether and the extent to which those listed species would benefit from ex situ population management. Zoos are also carrying out relatively few education and outreach programs that directly impact listed species in the wild (Fig.  1B ). By including more native threatened species, zoos could develop associated education and outreach programs to engage the community most likely to impact the species and promote direct conservation actions. Of course, zoo education programs that do not directly affect wild populations are still valuable 21 , and we reiterate that our review did not summarize the magnitude of those existing efforts.

Finally, our findings suggest a need for greater coordination across zoos and better engagement with other conservation science partners. For example, 40 institutions reported working on various field conservation and research projects for the polar bear in the AZA surveys, but it is unclear the extent to which these efforts were coordinated to maximize their effectiveness. Only 5 recovery plans (for 5 species) named two or more zoos as the responsible party for any recovery action, suggesting such coordination among zoos is infrequent or poorly represented in plans. Only a quarter of the recovery plan actions conducted by zoos involved either academic or NGO partners, although integrating efforts into larger collaborations could lead to better outcomes 29 . However, coordination with other conservation partners may be increasing, as more partnerships between zoos and academic institutions are being formed ( e . g ., Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation, the Phoenix Zoo - Arizona State University conservation partnership, the Living Earth Collaborative). Other zoo partnerships supporting species recovery include concentrated breeding centers and consortiums such as the Conservation Centers for Species Survival (C2S2), and AZA’s SAFE: Saving Animals From Extinction, a conservation framework launched in 2015 that prioritizes collaboration 14 . There are also efforts to integrate ex situ and in situ species management through the IUCN Conservation Planning Specialist Group’s One Plan Approach 30 , 31 .

In this assessment we focused on terrestrial and avian species listed under the ESA. Thus, the role of zoos in helping to conserve marine animals, plants, and species with other risk statuses remain to be examined. Additionally, further research is needed to evaluate the impacts of the many zoo conservation projects 18 , which could inform and improve future efforts. In summary, our study highlights the wide-ranging conservation actions conducted by North American zoos, and identify opportunities for better integration with the broader conservation community. By evaluating the current role of zoos in species conservation, our study provides a better understanding of the expertise, resources, and opportunities that zoos can offer as one of the many necessary partners in recovering threatened species.

Data availability

The recovery plan data analyzed in the current study are included in the Supplementary Information (Table  S2 ). The AZA survey data, except financial information, are available on AZA’s website ( http://www.aza.org/field-conservation ; http://www.aza.org/research-and-science ). Additional data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

McNeely, J. A. Expanding Partnerships in Conservation (Island Press, 1995).

Conde, D. A., Flesness, N., Colchero, F., Jones, O. R. & Scheuerlein, A. An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science 331 , 1390–1391 (2011).

Article   PubMed   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Zimmermann, A., Hatchwell, M., Dickie, L. A. & West, C. Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Minteer, B. A., Maienschein, J., & Collins, J. P. The Ark and Beyond (The University of Chicago Press, 2018).

Balmford, A., Mace, G. M. & Leader‐Williams, N. Designing the ark: Setting priorities for captive breeding. Conservation Biology 10 , 719–727 (1996).

Article   Google Scholar  

Salafsky, N. et al . A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22 , 897–911 (2008).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Conservation Measures Partnership. Classification of conservation actions and threats. Version 2.0, http://cmp-openstandards.org/tools/threats-and-actions-taxonomies/ (2016).

Snyder, N. F. R. et al . Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. Conservation Biology 10 , 338–348 (1996).

Scott, J. M. et al . Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3 , 383–389 (2005).

Conway, W. G. Buying time for wild animals with zoos. Zoo Biol. 30 , 1–8 (2011).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lacy, R. C. Achieving true sustainability of zoo populations. Zoo Biology 32 , 19–26 (2013).

Olive, A. & Jansen, K. The contribution of zoos and aquaria to Aichi Biodiversity Target 12: A case study of Canadian zoos. Global Ecology and Conservation 10 , 103–113 (2017).

Redford, K. H., Jensen, D. B. & Breheny, J. J. Integrating the captive and the wild. Science 338 , 1157–1158 (2012).

Article   PubMed   ADS   Google Scholar  

Grow, S., Luke, D. & Ogden, J. Saving Animals from Extinction (SAFE): Unifying the conservation approach of AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums. [Minteer, B., Maienschein, J. & Collins, J. (eds)] The Ark and Beyond 9, 122–128 (The University of Chicago Press, 2018).

Zimmermann, A. The role of zoos in contributing to in situ conservation. [Kleiman, D. G., Thompson, K. V. & Baer, C. K. (eds)] Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management. 23, 281–287 (The University of Chicago Press, 2010).

Gusset, M. & Dick, G. ‘Building a Future for Wildlife’? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in situ conservation. International Zoo Yearbook 44 , 183–191 (2010).

Evans, D. M. et al . Species recovery in the United States: Increasing the effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act. Issues in Ecology 20 (2016).

Mace, G. M. et al . Measuring conservation success: assessing zoos’ contribution. [Zimmermann, A., Hatchwell, M., Dickie, L. A. & West, C. (eds)] Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation. 21, 322–342 (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K. & Dierking, L. Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research 13 , 367–383 (2007).

USFWS. Revised Hawaiian Forest Birds Recovery Plan, https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/060922a.pdf (2006).

Moss, A., Jensen, E. & Gusset, M. Impact of a global biodiversity education campaign on zoo and aquarium visitors. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 15 , 243–247 (2017).

USFWS. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures – Fiscal year 2013, https://www.fws.gov/ENDANGERED/esa-library/pdf/2013.EXP.FINAL.pdf (2015).

USFWS. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures – Fiscal year 2014, https://www.fws.gov/ENDANGERED/esa-library/pdf/20160302_final_FY14_ExpRpt.pdf (2016).

USFWS. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures – Fiscal year 2015, https://www.fws.gov/ENDANGERED/esa-library/pdf/2015_Expenditures_Report.pdf (2017).

Ballou, J. D. et al . Demographic and genetic management of captive populations. [Kleiman, D. G., Thompson, K. V. & Baer, C. K. (eds)] Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management. 19, 219–252 (University of Chicago Press, 2010).

Henson, P. American zoos: a shifting balance between recreation and conservation. [Minteer, B., Maienschein, J. & Collins, J. (eds)] The Ark and Beyond 5, 65–76 (The University of Chicago Press, 2018).

Martin, T. E., Lurbiecki, H., Joy, J. B. & Mooers, A. O. Mammal and bird species held in zoos are less endemic and less threatened than their close relatives not held in zoos. Anim Conserv 17 , 89–96 (2014).

Bakker, V. J. et al . The changing landscape of conservation science funding in the United States. Conservation Letters 3 , 435–44 (2010).

Lindenmayer, D. B. et al . Improving biodiversity monitoring. Austral Ecology 37 , 285–94 (2012).

Byers, O., Lees, C. M., Wilcken, J. & Schwitzer, C. The One Plan Approach: The philosophy and implementation of CBSG’s approach to integrated species conservation planning. WAZA Magazine 14 , 2–5 (2013).

Google Scholar  

Traylor-Holzer, K., Leus, K. & Byers, O. Integrating ex situ management options as part of a One Plan Approach to species conservation. [Minteer, B., Maienschein, J. & Collins, J. (eds)] The Ark and Beyond 10, 129–141 (The University of Chicago Press, 2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all of the AZA-accredited zoos, aquariums, and certified facilities that submitted information about their field conservation and research to AZA’s annual surveys. We also thank AZA’s Field Conservation and Research and Technology Committees for helping to refine surveys, review data submissions, and work with AZA members on their submissions. We thank A. Ahmad and S.Y. Kim for assistance with data compilation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Alexander Center for Applied Population Biology, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, IL, USA

Judy P. Che-Castaldo & Lisa J. Faust

Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Silver Spring, MD, USA

Shelly A. Grow

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.P.C., S.G. and L.J.F. co-developed the project. S.G. compiled and analyzed the AZA survey data, and J.P.C. compiled and analyzed the recovery plan and managed program data, and prepared the manuscript and figures. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judy P. Che-Castaldo .

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.

Electronic supplementary material

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.

Che-Castaldo, J.P., Grow, S.A. & Faust, L.J. Evaluating the Contribution of North American Zoos and Aquariums to Endangered Species Recovery. Sci Rep 8 , 9789 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27806-2

Download citation

Received : 01 March 2018

Accepted : 06 June 2018

Published : 28 June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27806-2

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

This article is cited by

Contrasting gut microbiota in captive eurasian otters (lutra lutra) by age.

• Yumiko Okamoto
• Natsumi Ichinohe
• Naomichi Yamamoto

Archives of Microbiology (2021)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

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

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

April 15, 2009

How Do Zoos Help Endangered Animals?

There are more to zoos than putting animals on display

Dear EarthTalk: Do zoos have serious programs to save endangered species, besides putting a few captives on display for everyone to see? -- Kelly Traw, Seattle, WA

Most zoos are not only great places to get up close to wildlife, but many are also doing their part to bolster dwindling populations of animals still living free in the wild. To wit, dozens of zoos across North America participate in the Association of Zoos and Aquarium’s (AZA’s) Species Survival Plan (SSP) Program, which aims to manage the breeding of specific endangered species in order to help maintain healthy and self-sustaining populations that are both genetically diverse and demographically stable.

The end goal of many SSPs is the reintroduction of captive-raised endangered species into their native wild habitats. According to the AZA, SSPs and related programs have helped bring black-footed ferrets, California condors, red wolves and several other endangered species back from the brink of extinction over the last three decades. Zoos also use SSPs as research tools to better understand wildlife biology and population dynamics, and to raise awareness and funds to support field projects and habitat protection for specific species. AZA now administers some 113 different SSPs covering 181 individual species.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

To be selected as the focus of an SSP, a species must be endangered or threatened in the wild. Also, many SSP species are “flagship species,” meaning that they are well-known to people and engender strong feelings for their preservation and the protection of their habitat. The AZA approves new SSP programs if various internal advisory committees deem the species in question to be needy of the help and if sufficient numbers of researchers at various zoos or aquariums can dedicate time and resources to the cause.

AZA’s Maryland-based Conservation and Science Department administers the worldwide SSP program, generating master plans for specific species and coordinating research, transfer and reintroductions. Part of this process involves designing a “family tree” of particular managed populations in order to achieve maximum genetic diversity and demographic stability. AZA also makes breeding and other management recommendations with consideration given to the logistics and feasibility of transfers between institutions as well as maintenance of natural social groupings. In some cases, master plans may recommend not to breed specific animals, so as to avoid having captive populations outgrow available holding spaces.

While success stories abound, most wildlife biologists consider SSP programs to be works in progress. AZA zoos have been instrumental, for instance, in establishing a stable population of bongos, a threatened forest antelope native to Africa, through captive breeding programs under the SSP program. Many of these captive-bred bongos have subsequently been released into the wild and have helped bolster dwindling population numbers accordingly.

Of course, for every success story there are dozens of other examples where results have been less satisfying . SSP programs for lowland gorillas, Andean condors, giant pandas and snow leopards, among others, have not had such clear success, but remain part of the larger conservation picture for the species in question and the regions they inhabit.

CONTACTS : AZA’s Conservation & Science Program, www.aza.org/Conscience .

EarthTalk is produced by E/The Environmental Magazine. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk , P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; [email protected] . Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php . EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook .

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to submit
• About BioScience
• Journals Career Network
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Potentially Offensive Content
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Types of collections, benefits of collaboration, challenges to collaboration and integration, actions moving forward, conclusions, acknowledgments.

• < Previous

Bridging the Research Gap between Live Collections in Zoos and Preserved Collections in Natural History Museums

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Sinlan Poo, Steven M Whitfield, Alexander Shepack, Gregory J Watkins-Colwell, Gil Nelson, Jillian Goodwin, Allison Bogisich, Patricia L R Brennan, Jennifer D'Agostino, Michelle S Koo, Joseph R Mendelson, Rebecca Snyder, Sandra Wilson, Gary P Aronsen, Andrew C Bentley, David C Blackburn, Matthew R Borths, Mariel L Campbell, Dalia A Conde, Joseph A Cook, Juan D Daza, Daniel P Dembiec, Jonathan L Dunnum, Catherine M Early, Adam W Ferguson, Amanda Greene, Robert Guralnick, Courtney Janney, Debbie Johnson, Felicia Knightly, Stephane Poulin, Luiz Rocha, Pamela S Soltis, Barbara Thiers, Prosanta Chakrabarty, Bridging the Research Gap between Live Collections in Zoos and Preserved Collections in Natural History Museums, BioScience , Volume 72, Issue 5, May 2022, Pages 449–460, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac022

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Zoos and natural history museums are both collections-based institutions with important missions in biodiversity research and education. Animals in zoos are a repository and living record of the world's biodiversity, whereas natural history museums are a permanent historical record of snapshots of biodiversity in time. Surprisingly, despite significant overlap in institutional missions, formal partnerships between these institution types are infrequent. Life history information, pedigrees, and medical records maintained at zoos should be seen as complementary to historical records of morphology, genetics, and distribution kept at museums. Through examining both institution types, we synthesize the benefits and challenges of cross-institutional exchanges and propose actions to increase the dialog between zoos and museums. With a growing recognition of the importance of collections to the advancement of scientific research and discovery, a transformational impact could be made with long-term investments in connecting the institutions that are caretakers of living and preserved animals.

Animal collections are a repository of our shared biodiversity and a valuable resource of scientific research and discovery (Dick 2017 , Miller et al. 2020 ). Natural history museums hold preserved biodiversity collections and associated specimen and ecological data that have long been recognized as an invaluable and irreplaceable resource for biodiversity research and society (Johnson et al. 2011 , McLean et al. 2016 , Funk 2018 , Nelson and Ellis 2019 , Watanabe 2019 , Lendemer et al. 2020 , NASEM 2020 ). Zoos and aquariums (hereafter, we use zoos to refer to both zoos and aquariums) hold living collections of animals and associated data on life history, demographics, pedigree (genealogy), genetics, physiology, morphology, and behavior but are not typically recognized for their value for biodiversity research (see Zehr et al. 2014 for exceptions, but see Conde et al. 2019 , NASEM 2020 ). Despite the potential for synergy that is apparent in the complementary and nonoverlapping specimen and data types held in zoos and natural history museums, formal partnerships between these two institution types are uncommon.

In the present article, we highlight how potential collaborations could enhance the value of both types of collections and advance collective missions of biodiversity conservation, research, and education. We begin by describing the types of collections and associated data held by each institution, with a particular focus on potential complementarity among types of specimens and data. We then describe benefits of collaboration to each institution type, highlight case studies of existing productive collaborations, and identify best practices for collaborations. We address logistical challenges to integrating collection types, including needs in human and cyberinfrastructure and differences in cultures and values between institution types. We conclude with a list of action steps that institutions can take to link and leverage biological collections to advance biodiversity research.

Biological collections can take various forms and encompass different geographic and taxonomic scales.

Living collections and associated data in zoos

Institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) hold roughly 800,000 living animals, primarily in the United States (table  1 ; AZA 2021b ). These collections are strongly biased toward vertebrates and, in particular, birds and fish (Conde et al. 2019 , Rose et al. 2019 ). Globally, zoos use a variety of collections software, with at least three million records digitized worldwide within the Species360 management system alone (Species360 2021 ), representing more than 21,000 species. In addition to living animals, zoos hold extensive records for each animal, starting with birth or transfer from the wild. Zoos record information on taxonomy, animal demography, and pedigrees, and they maintain longitudinal information on health, physiology, life history, behavior, and husbandry protocols used during the animal's life such as diet, veterinary treatments, and social groupings. As a part of routine health assessments, conservation breeding programs, or internal and external research projects, zoos periodically collect and preserve biological materials (whole blood, plasma, serum, DNA, gametes, etc.). Usually, zoos store these biological materials on site, either for the short or long term, depending on storage space and the conservation priority of the species. Typically, biobanks are not coordinated among institutions, but the recently launched European Association of Zoos and Aquaria biobank is an example of coordinated sample storage and coordination (Pérez-Espona 2021 ). In the event of an animal's death, the institution performs a thorough necropsy (Griner 1983 , Terio et al. 2018 ), after which the physical specimen is usually destroyed through incineration or other means. The other biological materials associated with the animals are sometimes maintained and stored after the death of the organism; however, the storage and maintenance of these materials are highly variable and dependent on each institution's own policies.

Characteristics of collections and specimen data from natural history museums and zoos.

For animals currently living within the collection, digital records are updated constantly using management software, such as ZIMS, Tracks, PopLink, or similar software (Cohn 2006 , Faust et al. 2019 ). This information is continuously recorded during an animal's life, which is a major difference from records kept at natural history museums, and is maintained in perpetuity after the animal's death. Within AZA-accredited zoos, information typically is shared. This is necessary for the effective management of the entire captive population, which is seen as a single unit despite the fact that individual animals may be spread out across multiple institutions. Each individual animal has a global accession number and one or more local identifiers. Collection management software tracks detailed husbandry data, pedigrees, and medical records. For animals that have died, records are kept digitally within the management software or, in cases of historical records prior to digitization, are kept on paper.

As the mission of modern zoos has evolved into one of conservation and species preservation, the composition of living collections in zoos has changed over time to reduce the percentage of wild-caught individuals and, correspondingly, to increase the number of captive-born animals. Moreover, zoos have increased their focus on rare or endangered species in need of conservation efforts (Conde et al. 2013 , Tapley et al. 2015 ) and have taken on larger numbers of nonreleasable animals from wildlife rehabilitation centers or confiscations from illegal trade (Fa et al. 2011 ). With each of these shifts, there is a corresponding effect on the scientific value of a collection's animals. For wild-caught animals, locality data may be of use, whereas captive-born animals can provide insights into genetics, health, and pedigree. Increased holdings of at-risk species that may be inaccessible elsewhere and rehabilitation of endangered species that are deemed “nonreleasable” provide the opportunity for research into animals that are in need of human intervention.

Preserved natural history collections in museums

Natural history museums hold roughly 500,000,000 to one billion biological specimens in US collections and three billion worldwide (table  1 ; NASEM 2020 ). These can be whole organisms (typically for smaller animals) or parts of those organisms (e.g., skins, skeletons, DNA, tissue, and associated ecto- and endoparasite samples). Natural history specimens typically include locality data, taxonomy, the collection date, and the collector, as well as information on the treatment (i.e., the method of preservation) of the specimen. Generally, the information available on a specimen in a natural history museum begins with a collection event in the field that results in the attainment of specimens. Once the initial specimen information is obtained, it can then be extended through various lenses (e.g., archaeological, paleontological, geological, societal, or taxonomic). Because specimens are normally euthanized for natural history research, the collection of information during the life of the animal is generally limited. Typically, natural history collection records only represent a single instance in the time of the animal's life—specifically, the period just before its death. However, it presents a transition to research that requires preserved specimens.

Specimen data are held in a range of collection management software platforms, such as Specify, Arctos, EMu, and Symbiota. Unlike in zoos, specimen data are typically not shared across institutions through the collection management software itself. Rather, collection management software platforms frequently use a consistent metadata standard (e.g., the Darwin Core), which allows data interchange (Wieczorek et al. 2012 ). In recent decades, museums have dramatically expanded the digitization and accessibility of specimen data, which has profoundly enhanced the value of specimens for biological research (Nelson and Ellis 2019 , Hedrick et al. 2020 , Miller et al. 2020 ). Data aggregators, such as VertNet, GBIF, DiSSCO, and iDigBio, provide access to collection information across institutions and software platforms and have, along with local institutional web portals, made collection information and specimen details increasingly publicly accessible (Constable et al. 2010 ). The digitization of museum records is an ongoing process, but to date, less than 40% of the specimens in US collections are represented online, with a substantial portion of specimen information remaining to be digitized.

Closer collaboration between zoos and natural history museums has clear benefits to both parties (figure  1 ).

Zoos and museums can maintain robust sharing networks across the United States. The Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History has received specimens from zoos across the US (network shown in orange), whereas the Oklahoma City Zoo has shared samples and specimens with universities and museums (network shown in blue). Both zoos and museums can maintain robust local and country-wide networks.

Benefits to zoos

Zoos typically do not have storage facilities or trained staff to curate preserved specimens in perpetuity. Instead, disposal of specimens is a logistical necessity and often a legal necessity, because of permitting or ownership requirements. As an alternative, if zoo specimens of high scientific value are deposited in natural history museums postmortem to become permanent specimens, this may lead to retrospective health information (figure  2 ) and genetic studies that could potentially contribute to assisted reproductive technologies that would benefit zoo collections in the future. Moreover, by extending the scientific lifespan of animals after death, zoos increase the usefulness of their collections and credibility as conservation-oriented and scientific organizations (figures  3 and  4 ; Miller et al. 2004 , Loh et al. 2018 ). This is particularly important for zoos accredited by the AZA, which has placed increasing emphasis on the need to invest in scientific advancement through basic and applied research (Rose et al. 2019 , AZA 2021a ). Collaborating with museums and having museums report back to zoos (or the AZA) about the impact of linking zoo animals with museum specimens would help to raise awareness of the added value of depositing zoo animals in museums and to help zoos articulate to supporters how their animals go on to promote science and conservation after their death. This kind of reciprocal illumination could aid in producing more fruitful collaboration between these institutions.

An Asian elephant from the Oklahoma City Zoo passed away from unknown causes (global accession no. 21,517,980). After the Museum of Osteology (also in Oklahoma) prepared the specimen as a skeleton and found affected and deformed molars, that diagnosis was determined to be the cause of death. The zoo now uses new dental monitoring techniques on its elephants because of this interaction with the museum. Photograph: Jennifer D'Agostino.

One example of a collections management system that can connect living and preserved specimen databases is the Arctos Collection Management system, a web-based multi-institutional collection management platform that currently handles thousands of records of specimens and biosamples from zoo–museum collaborations. Arctos museum records can be reciprocally linked to any external URL, creating the potential to form direct links with zoo databases such as ZIMS. Linking data between museum collection records and zoo databases will allow tracking of samples and their usage over the lifetime of individuals and beyond across multiple facilities and institutions. Data approved for public access can be searched through the main Arctos portal at https://arctos.database.museum and through biodiversity aggregators such as GBIF, enabling sample, project, and trait-based queries to extend the value of these samples and data for future research. Image: Mariel Campbell.

Since 2010, the Sedgwick County Zoo (SCZ) has partnered with the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History to provide materials for use in a wide range of scientific studies including CT scanning, morphology studies and genome sequencing. SCZ has contributed over 770 specimens and samples to the Museum, including tissues and carcasses representing taxa from Gymnophiona to Proboscidea, and hopes to broaden communication with other potential partners to ensure maximum use of SCZ's resources. To date, specimens and tissue samples that the Zoo donated to the Museum have been used in more than 22 research projects and in university courses. Several SCZ specimens were scanned as part of the openVertebrate (oVert) Thematic Collections Network (NSF grant no. DBI-1,701,714), including YPM HERA 23,166 (Potamotyphlus kaupii), which is one of two specimens of the species (each from SCZ) used to fill in a vital taxonomic gap in the oVert sampling. Scan data and reconstructions are now available via MorphoSource for use by researchers and educators globally ( https://doi.org/10.17602/M2/M389815 , https://doi.org/10.17602/M2/M389823 ). Image reconstruction: Jaimi A. Gray. The image is a rendering of a 3D reconstruction created from CT scan of specimen YPM HERA 23,166. CT scanning done at Nanoscale Research Facility at the University of Florida, with a GE phoenix v|tome|x m 240 micro-CT scanner, and was funded by oVert TCN (NSF grant no. DBI-1,701,714). Segmentation and rendering performed using VG Studio Max (version 3.5.1).

Benefits to natural history museums

Museums receive clear benefits of expanding their collections with a deeper collaboration with zoos (figure  4 ). This includes not only whole or part of the physical specimen but also eggs or embryos, DNA, tissue, and other biological samples and accompanying information. Because many animals in zoos represent species that are rare, endangered, or even extinct in the wild, collecting new specimens from the field could be difficult, impossible, or potentially unethical. Furthermore, zoo specimens are typically accompanied by a lifetime of data on demography, behavior, reproduction, health, husbandry, and more. For smaller collections or collections used primarily for teaching, the broad diversity of species held by zoos may allow for considerable expansion of taxonomic representation in a collection, especially for nonmodel species. In addition, data collected from specimens of captive origin may be valuable to studies in which the taxon would otherwise be lacking (figure  5 ). Natural history museums would certainly benefit from the rich life history records that zoos focus on, because these data are largely unavailable to the museum community.

Patricia Brennan has worked with dozens of collaborators from farms to zoos to acquire specimens that died in captivity and whose bodies are ultimately preserved at museums for posterity, with Brennan facilitating that exchange after she completes her research. These include specimens of snake hemipenes (Nerodia rhombifer; M1) that are inflated with vaseline (M2) and then made into 3D models (M3). Specimens such as these require careful postmortem handling of animals, including rapid preservation. The connections and collaborations necessary to obtain such specimens have not been easy to establish, particularly as it is not always clear whom to contact for this kind of work at these facilities and this collaborative work is not usually part of the research mission of these facilities. Photograph: Bernard Brennan. 3D Images: Genesis Lara Granados and Juliet Greenwood.

Current collaborative efforts

Existing collaborations between zoos and museums may illustrate shared opportunities and mutually beneficial relationships. In figures  1 – 4 , we show several examples of existing collaborations between zoos and museums and demonstrate a range of benefits for these collaborations. Although zoos and museums occasionally exchange specimens, samples, or data, these exchanges are still relatively infrequent and represent a very small percentage of the collection holdings of either zoos or natural history museums. When exchanges do occur, they are typically the result of connections between individual museum staff (collection managers or curators) and zoo staff (curators or veterinarians), instead of a systemic and long-term collaboration that is established between the institutions. Although the AZA accreditation guidelines encourage specimens to be deposited in natural history museums postmortem (AZA 2021a ), large-scale collaborations are typically not initiated by the leadership of zoos or museums or specifically by interinstitutional organizations (e.g., AZA, the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections, and other scientific societies). We recommend the staff at zoos and aquariums consider the long-term benefits of having a largely intact specimen (versus the destructive sampling of a full necropsy) for future study at a museum, when it is possible to do so. Even in cases in which the entire voucher specimen may not be available for depositing at museums, the tissue or DNA samples from these animals (along with the associated data) can continue to be a valuable resource (Buckner et al. 2021 , Card et al. 2021 , Thompson et al. 2021 ).

Zoos and natural history museums have distinct cultures, values, organizational structures, research agendas, data management systems, professional societies, and funding strategies. In addition, there are logistical challenges of linking two different types of institutions. These differences can create barriers to effective communication and productive collaborations, but articulating the differences clearly can help identify commonalities and focal points for collaboration. In the present article, we highlight some of the challenges to working across collection types, and identify actions to surmount these challenges.

Distinct institutional cultures and values

The underlying cultural differences between staff in zoos and natural history museums are multifaceted and complex, although they each hold at their core a passion and keen interest in biodiversity and the natural world. In the present article, we focus on several tangible and relevant elements of these differences such as different terminologies and attitudes toward specimens. Different terminologies used between institutions (box 1 ) can inhibit effective collaboration. Because of distinct and largely separate cultures, perceptions of one institution type by another may be outdated or erroneous. Making these misconceptions explicit and correcting them may help bridge cultures and find common institutional values and research objectives (see the “Different research priorities and agendas” section).

AZA. Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the primary organization that accredits zoos and distinguishes among modern zoos and roadside zoos or private animal collections. AZA requires high standards for animal care, recordkeeping, and engagement in scientific research.

Biobank. A repository for biological samples, typically for medical purposes.

Biocuration. Linking metadata about specimens so that information obtained from work with the specimens is retained or connected with the specimen's data in a digital framework.

Biofact. An artifact of organic origin (skull, fur, shell, horn, etc.), frequently used in zoos.

Cosmetic necropsy. Necropsy performed with minimal disruption to the body equal to a surgical incision. Often precludes full diagnostic value.

Conserve. Protect (something, especially an environmentally or culturally important place or thing) from harm or destruction.

Darwin Core. A body of data standards intended to facilitate the sharing of information about biological occurrences. Used by natural history museums, Darwin Core standards allow for data interoperability among software platforms.

Dynamic links . For example, a hyperlink between GenBank and a museum collection's database that would allow a user to find voucher information about the source of genetic data by clicking on a link. As opposed to static (unchanging) links that connect data repositories, which have a static catalog number that doesn't provide taxonomic or collection information and that cannot be automatically updated.

Extended specimen concept. A recent concept that a natural history specimen is more than a singular physical object, and instead that the specimen has extensions to potentially limitless additional physical preparations and digital resources.

iDigBio. Integrated Digitized Biocollections, the US National Resource and Coordinating Center for facilitating digitization and mobilization of information about vouchered natural history specimens. iDigBio aggregates specimen information from natural history collections across institutions.

MorphoSource. A digital repository of three-dimensional models of biological specimens.

Noninvasive research. Research that does not involve physical harm or distress to a living animal or specimen, i.e., photography or sound recording of living animals, CT scanning of preserved specimens.

Preserve. To safeguard and store the body, or parts of the body, of an organism, typically with a “preservative” such as ethanol and formalin or taxidermy, and associated data for future study.

Species360. A nonprofit NGO that produces ZIMS software, a database used by zoos to collect and store information on animals in zoo collections.

Specimen. A live or preserved organism (part of an organism) housed in a collection.

SPNHC. The Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections.

SSP. Species Survival Plan Programs, AZA's programs to cooperatively manage ex situ populations for long-term sustainability.

TAG. Taxonomic Advisory Group, AZA's organized groups of taxonomic specialists who guide and facilitate cooperative animal management and conservation programs.

Voucher. A permanently preserved specimen deposited in an accessible collection.

ZIMS. Zoological Information Management Software, a software platform created by Species360 used by many zoos for collection and management of live animal collections.

One major critical distinction between the values of zoos and museums is an affective attachment to living animals in zoos (Hosey and Melfi 2012 ), to which there is little to no apparent analog in museums. Through close daily interaction with individual living animals, long-term bonds between zoo staff and the animal they care for can be formed (Meehan et al. 2016 ). Such affection toward a specimen is rarely demonstrated for preserved museum specimens by museum staff. Comparatively, in museums, care for and attachment to specimens takes on several different forms: performing regular preventative conservation and maintenance; ensuring that specimens used for research are not damaged in such a way that could negatively affect their integrity; and ensuring that specimens are properly identified, and cataloged and that they have data that is made accessible to the public and researchers. In many cases, the history of the specimen tells a story that appeals to museum staff and may lead to some genuine attachment to the specimen and its story (such as who collected it, how long ago it was collected, whether it is a type specimen used to describe a new species, etc.). The sense that a specimen represents the past, but can be used into the future often leads to a great sense of responsibility among museum staff, who realize that their work today affects its usefulness in the future including in ways that are yet to be discovered or realized (NASEM 2020 ).

Different research priorities and agendas

The research priorities and agendas of zoos and museums vary, both in terms of their history and involvement in research and in terms of their research focus. Although both institutions may be involved in research, there is a longer history of scientific research and discovery within museums that may have aided in the development of more research-centric views in their institutional mission, whereas more emphasis is given to animal health and welfare within zoos. Museums typically list the contact information of curators and researchers openly on their websites, making research requests and collaboration relatively easy for users (e.g., other scientists interested in collections, members of the public). In comparison, the process of gaining access to information on zoo collections is less clear, and contact information is not readily available for most zoo collections.

In terms of research focus, collection-based research at natural history museums tends to have a wider focus, including basic biology (e.g., anatomy, biogeography, taxonomy, and systematics), evolution (Funk 2018 ), and more applied research (e.g., conservation and global change, Johnson et al. 2011 , emerging infectious disease, Dunnum et al. 2017 , Cook et al. 2020 , Colella et al. 2021 , Thompson et al. 2021 ). In contrast, several recent studies have reviewed research areas targeted by zoos, which illustrate most publications focus on applied research, such as animal sciences, behavior, cognition, husbandry, reproductive biology, welfare, veterinary care, or field conservation (Loh et al. 2018 , Rose et al. 2019 , Hvilsom et al. 2020 ). Museums also largely serve a research community outside of their walls, through specimen loans and, ever more frequently, digital data (e.g., CT scans online). Although zoo research also extends beyond the boundaries of the footprint of the institution, zoo collections are largely inaccessible to the broader research community.

Some museums may consider zoo specimens of low scientific value, because of the lack of locality data (i.e., the coordinates associated with the source population), possible effects of captivity on phenotypes (O'Regan and Kitchener 2005 , Hartstone-Rose et al. 2014 , Zack et al. 2021 ), potential adaptations to captivity (Williams and Hoffman 2009 ), hybridization of recognized or unrecognized taxa in breeding programs (Witzenberger and Hochkirch 2011 ), or necropsy practices. Although these issues may alter some aspects of the scientific value of specimens, there is considerable new research potential in using specimens from zoo collections to understand life history and demographics (Conde et al. 2019 ), to assess and predict the success of ex situ breeding and conservation translocation programs (Poo and Hinkson 2020 , Poo et al. 2021 ), and for diverse downstream genetic and biochemical analyses (Witzenberger and Hochkirch 2011 ). In addition, the use of zoo specimens in systematics or anatomical studies, among others, is still of significant value, given the rarity of some taxa in the wild or the lack of availability of wild-origin specimens in museum collections. In other words, the benefits of using a zoo animal may outweigh the potential effects of captivity or the lack of locality data.

Another example of distinct research agendas (and agendas in potential conflict) involves destructive necropsies. When a zoo animal dies, there is a critical internal research need and institutional responsibility to conduct a detailed necropsy to determine a cause of death (Griner 1983 , Terio et al. 2018 ). These necropsies are necessary in captive populations, because identifying the cause of death can lead to the prevention of similar issues arising in the remaining zoo population. In contrast, destructive necropsy can make some specimens less valuable to natural history museums, because it interferes with the study of morphology. However, for some taxa, a sample of tissue or blood alone may be invaluable to museums for future research, although it is important to consider that broad sampling of different tissue types may permit organ- or disease-specific sampling or unanticipated research by a broader range of interested parties. In addition to taking potential steps to reduce the destructiveness of necropsies for zoo specimens that are intended for museum transfer, improved communication and collaboration efforts on both sides would work to align research agendas to maximize the value of specimens to both zoos and museums.

Separate and nonoverlapping data management systems

The digitization and integration of biodiversity collection data have opened vast frontiers in scientific discovery (Conde et al. 2019 , Nelson and Ellis 2019 ). Although both zoos and museums hold digitized data in sophisticated data management systems (Cohn 2006 , Nelson and Ellis 2019 ), zoo and museum data are not currently integrated. Moreover, although both types of institutions purchase collections management software, those designed for natural history collection data are generally integrated with community science platforms that are publicly accessible through data aggregators, whereas those used in zoos are not accessible to the public or the larger scientific community through data aggregators or other means.

Legal, political, and ethical barriers to collaboration

There are significant institutional barriers that can prevent effective collaboration. The ownership of individual animals in zoo collections is complex; individual animals may belong to the zoo where they live; may be on loan from another institution; or may be owned by state, federal, or foreign governments. A zoo that is holding an animal may require permission from the owning institution to provide samples to other institutions (even those collected noninvasively), and in some cases, the terms of a loan or holding rights may preclude the collection of samples from an animal or require the destruction of the specimen following its death. Although zoo animals that are of high scientific value may be worth these regulatory obstacles, advance planning may often be required long before the collection of samples from a zoo specimen or transfer of a deceased animal to a museum. Some foresight in negotiating these agreements may go a long way to negating these issues.

Hostility toward zoos by animal rights activists may also prevent sharing sensitive zoo data, including data related to primates, cetaceans, and elephants (Hosey et al. 2020 ) and other charismatic fauna. Some staff or administrators at zoos may feel that the nature—or the very existence—of their institutions and jobs are threatened by animal rights activists (Norton et al. 2012 ). Although the AZA has high standards of animal care that are continually raised and updated, there is concern that bad actors will seek to misrepresent any data and specimens that zoos make available. This alone may make many zoos reluctant to voluntarily share data on husbandry or medical records or even share samples or specimens from these sensitive groups.

Other regulatory barriers may exist in the forms of institutional animal care and use committee protocols, the Nagoya Protocol, and various permitting regulations including the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Endangered Species Act, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as well as biosafety and chemical safety regulations. The Nagoya Protocol itself may prevent the transfer of genetic resources (including samples or genetic data) without reference to the original permit or explicit permission from the country of origin. Even the physical process of transferring a sample will have regulatory concerns related to the International Air Transport Association, the USDA, or the US Department of Transportation, and possibly others. In general however, both zoos and museums are required to abide by many of the same laws and regulations, despite the change of some of these issues at the time of the animal's death. Navigating the regulatory labyrinth is key to successful collaboration. Although substantial obstacles may exist, given the degree of overlap in regulatory oversight, such navigation is not insurmountable. In fact, collaborating with museums with more experience with and infrastructure in shipping preserved specimens may benefit zoos; likewise, collaborating with zoos that have high standards of animal care and welfare could benefit museum staff that are collecting, handling, and euthanizing animals in the field.

Increasing the connection between zoos and museums requires concrete steps to be taken to link their digital data, transfer physical specimens across institutions, and create a shared, collaborative, research culture.

Data link and data accessibility

Both zoos and natural history museums have extensive databases critical to the holistic understanding of animal biodiversity (Suarez and Tsutsui 2004 , Cohn 2006 , Conde et al. 2019 , Heberling 2020 ). Although the databases are currently not connected, the opportunity to link their data exists through the Darwin Core metadata standards (Wieczorek et al. 2012 ), which would permit greater integration of data. Although it may not be possible to fully integrate zoo and museum databases using existing infrastructure, integrating data under a common format is certainly an achievable goal in the near future. A shared data language standard will ultimately lead to connecting the information of living and preserved specimens.

Although zoos are understandably reluctant to make sensitive animal data public, the collection management software used by zoos could offer public access to limited data—at a minimum, as a list of species held by an institution or the number of individuals currently held for each species with their accession numbers. Given the public nature of many zoos, some of this information (e.g., the number of species and individuals) is already present for visitors to see and, therefore, sharing such information should not be controversial. Even this basic level of transparency would allow scientists anywhere with research needs to be able to find zoos that hold animal species they might find useful for noninvasive research projects. This level of accessibility would also allow natural history museums to search for individuals at zoos and make requests for tissues or to arrange for transfer of specimens to research collections at the end of an animal's life. We have found that one of the most common frustrations among zoo and museum researchers is not knowing whom to contact at the other institution type in order to begin a collaboration (figure  5 ). Having a website or accessible documentation listing the various roles and contact information for researchers would help facilitate valuable cross-institutional collaborations. We recommend that at least one email address (potentially anonymized for sensitivity) be a dedicated contact for research inquiries. Although it is possible that unwanted inquiries may occur when contact information is made public, the benefits likely outweigh the potential costs. We suggest, as a more localized first step, that zoo and museum staff in relatively close proximity reach out to one another to open lines of communication; we also suggest that interested zoo and museum researchers build coordination and collaboration networks to better address some of the issues raised in the present article.

Specimen and accompanying data transfer

Natural history museums have the capacity to preserve animal specimens, samples, and data in perpetuity. Many zoo animals have high scientific value as living or preserved specimens: rare or endangered animals that cannot be responsibly collected in the wild today, populations destined for reintroduction programs (especially those from which DNA or germlines can be stored for future use; e.g., in long-term longitudinal studies of population genetics), or individuals that have been intensely studied during their lives that can serve as important vouchers for future study. The transfer of specimens from zoos to museums can be divided into two categories: during an animal's lifespan (tissues, blood, DNA , gametes) and postmortem (skeleton, organ, whole specimen). In the former case, collections space within museums can provide a long-term repository permitting the use and study of these samples along with the many other “wild” collections made by these institutions from natural history fieldwork. In the latter case, transfer of animals to natural history museums postmortem would allow research in these individuals to continue for decades or centuries, including research that could help protect and restore biodiversity in the future. To minimize physical damage to zoo animals during postmortem examinations, “cosmetic” necropsies can be performed to preserve the integrity of the scientific specimen. Although less destructive pathology techniques would be valuable, museums are also accustomed to finding great value in some field-collected specimens in less than pristine condition, including highly degraded road kills or specimens freed from the stomach contents of other preserved specimens (Hoving et al. 2013 , Hieb et al. 2014 ). When a zoo specimen is transferred to a natural history museum, both zoo and museum databases should cross-list unique identifiers (e.g., catalog or accession number), so that each institution can track transfer of the specimen. When possible, dynamic links that can allow information from both collection databases to be updated simultaneously should be used, these dynamic data links are for the benefit of both institution types and anyone searching for this information (figure  3 ).

Contributing to the extended specimen concept and greater accessibility

During the first two decades of the twenty-first century, biological specimen collections held in museums and academic institutions have been heavily affected by technological and collections-based innovations. The advent and rapid rise of digitization, for example, has resulted in huge numbers of digital replicas (e.g., CT scans, photographs) of physical specimens being made accessible online. This has led museum curators and collections managers to explore methods for linking their specimen records to related data within and outside of their institutions (e.g., related records from the same collecting event, GenBank records and other sources of genomic data, field notes recorded by collectors, and taxonomic treatments). The publication of The Extended Specimen (Webster 2017 ), follow-up work by the Biodiversity Collections Network (Lendemer et al. 2020 ), a National Academies biological collections report (NASEM 2020 ), and the Alliance for Global Biodiversity Knowledge Discourse consultation facilitated by GBIF (phase 1, www.gbif.org/event/2rUVeHayibJnajGOYgimja/digital-extended-specimen-first-phase-community-consultation , and phase 2, www.gbif.org/event/6FF3aaAHoIkD9JToJjN4Vw/digital-extended-specimen-2nd-phase-community-consultation ) have secured this concept in the literature and launched efforts to more precisely circumscribe the concept of turning a physical specimen into a linked and digitally extended specimen that would have added value for enriching biodiversity research.

The integration of zoo and museum data collected from a single animal is a fitting paradigm for the digital extended specimen concept. The data collected on living animals in zoos (e.g., blood and tissue samples, dietary patterns, behavioral repertoire, disease and illness records) may be far richer and more complete than museum specimens normally provide, especially for animals sampled across a lifetime. Assuming that zoo animals are deposited as specimens in natural history museums on their death, coupling records at these different institutes with bidirectional digital links ensures availability of these data to a broad range of researchers. These shared data can then be added to data aggregators (e.g., iDigBio, GBIF) that make these linked records even more widely accessible and underscore their important role in subsequent scientific efforts (Buckner et al. 2021 ). Specimens, living or dead, that have their metadata in databases will allow for a digital record to exist between the original collectors, caretakers, and curators. Likewise, these databases, when they are public, allow for accessibility that is often a barrier to equity when they are kept completely private. Some sensitive information may be restricted, but the more metadata that are publicly available and accessible, the more equitably the data can be used.

Bridging cultures

Bridging institutional cultures and creating a shared vision of how collections of living and preserved animals can be better integrated are key to advance scientific discovery of biodiversity as a whole. As zoos continue to build up their capacity for research (see AZA 2021a ), there is a clear desire within the research community of both zoos and museums to increase cross-institutional collaboration and exchange of ideas. Scientists from both institutions can make progress through collaborative workshops, shared training sessions, expanding the pipeline for students and younger researchers from diverse backgrounds to work in both settings and for grants to foster the establishment of cross-institutional networks. Ultimately, broad institutional support is needed for lasting change, but a good place to start is through invitations to give seminars, tours of the different facilities, and other exchanges that foster sharing ideas and research by both institution types. It is important to recognize that although there may be cultural differences between institutions, many zoos and museums share the same ultimate goal of conserving species in the wild for the future. Recognizing the idea of an extended specimen concept and acknowledging that the best way to honor an animal may be to preserve it for generations to come can help bridge the differing cultures of zoos and museums. Ultimately, the pathway to bridging cultures requires collaborative initiatives with representatives from both zoos and museums, the development of human connections, and mutual understanding and trust. Although such a pathway may not be easy to traverse, it holds transformative potential for institutions and their staff, for the collections in their care, and for their wild counterparts that both institutions seek to conserve in perpetuity.

Increased coordination between living collections of zoos and the traditional collections of natural history museums is a logical and mutually beneficial relationship. Although nascent collaborations exist that demonstrate the potential of coordination, we argue that the interactions among institutions are severely underdeveloped. We identified areas where the most immediate connections could realize near-term goals, including specimen transfer postmortem, data transfer postmortem, and permanent preservation of zoo specimens and associated data in natural history museums. Furthermore, we point to where a transformational impact could be made with long-term investments in bridging gaps between institutions, such as integrating zoo data with other biodiversity databases and expanding access to and the use of zoo data for biodiversity conservation and global change research. Ultimately, it will have to be the people who work at these institutions who bring cultural change by sharing their scientific ideals and approaches while creating personal connections that lead to collaborations and progress toward shared goals.

The present article was born in digital captivity out of the workshop “Linking and Leveraging Biological Collections: Zoos and Natural History Museums” hosted by iDigBio, Memphis Zoo, Zoo Miami, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, and University of Notre Dame and funded by the US National Science Foundation (under grant no. DBI-1547229). The images were provided by Bernard Brennan, Mariel Campbell, Jennifer D'Agostino, Genesis Lara Granados, Jaimi A. Gray, and Juliet Greenwood. Sinlan Poo and Steven M. Whitfield contributed equally to this work.

Author Biographical

Sinlan Poo, Allison Bogisch, Daniel P. Dembiec, Courtney Janney, and Felicia Knightly are affiliated with the Memphis Zoological Society, in Memphis, Tennessee, in the United States. SP is also affiliated with Arkansas State University, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, in the United States. Steven M. Whitfield is affiliated with Zoo Miami and with Florida International University, both in Miami, Florida, in the United States. Alexander Shepack is affiliated with the University of Notre Dame, in Notre Dame, Indiana, in the United States. Gregory J. Watkins-Colwell is affiliated with the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, in New Haven, Connecticut, in the United States. Gil Nelson, Jillian Goodwin, David C. Blackburn, Robert Guralnick, and Pamela S. Soltis are affiliated with the Florida Museum of Natural History and with iDigBio, in Gainesville, Florida, in the United States. Patricia L. R. Brennan is affiliated with Mount Holyoke College, in South Hadley, Massachusetts, in the United States. Jennifer D'Agostino and Rebecca Snyder are affiliated with the Oklahoma City Zoo, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in the United States. Michelle S. Koo is affiliated with the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, at the University of California, Berkeley, in Berkeley, California, in the United States. Joseph R. Mendelson III is affiliated with Zoo Atlanta and with the Georgia Institute of Technology, in Atlanta, Georgia, in the United States. Sandra Wilson is affiliated with the Sedgwick County Zoo, in Wichita, Kansas, in the United States. Gary P. Aronsen is affiliated with Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut, in the United States. Andrew C. Bentley is affiliated with the University of Kansas, in Lawrence, Kansas, in the United States. Matthew R. Borths and Amanda Greene are affiliated with the Duke Lemur Center, in Durham, North Carolina, in the United States. Mariel L. Campbell, Joseph A. Cook, and Jonathan L. Dunnum are affiliated with the Museum of Southwestern Biology, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in the United States. Dalia A. Conde is affiliated with Species360 and with the University of Southern Denmark, in Odense, Denmark. Juan D. Daza is affiliated with Sam Houston State University, in Huntsville, Texas, in the United States. Catherine M. Early is affiliated with the Science Museum of Minnesota, in Saint Paul, Minnesota, in the United States. Adam W. Ferguson is affiliated with the Field Museum, in Chicago, Illinois, in the United States. Debbie Johnson is affiliated with Brookfield Zoo, in Brookfield, Illinois, in the United States. Stephane Poulin is affiliated with the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, in Tucson, Arizona, in the United States. Luiz Rocha is affiliated with the California Academy of Sciences, in San Francisco, in the United States. Barbara Thiers is affiliated with the New York Botanical Garden, in New York, New York, in the United States. Prosanta Chakrabarty is affiliated with Louisiana State University, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in the United States; with the Canadian Museum of Natural History, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; with the American Museum of Natural History, in New York, New York, in the United States, and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, in Washington, DC, in the United States.

[AZA] Association of Zoos and Aquariums . 2021a . The Accreditation Standards and Related Policies . Association of Zoos and Aquariums .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

[AZA] Association of Zoos and Aquariums . 2021b . Zoo and Aquarium Statistics . Association of Zoos and Aquariums . www.aza.org/zoo-and-aquarium-statistics .

Buckner JC , Sanders RC , Faircloth BC , Chakrabarty P. 2021 . The critical importance of vouchers in genomics . Elife 10 : e68264 .

Card DC , Shapiro B , Giribet G , Moritz C , Edwards SV. 2021 . Museum genomics . Annual Review of Genetics 55 : 633 – 659 .

Cohn JP. 2006 . New at the zoo: ZIMS . BioScience 56 : 564 – 566 .

Colella JP et al.  2021 . Leveraging natural history biorepositories as a global, decentralized, pathogen surveillance network . PLOS Pathogens 17 : e1009583 .

Conde DA , Colchero F , Gusset M , Pearce-Kelly P , Byers O , Flesness N , Browne RK , Jones OR. 2013 . Zoos through the lens of the IUCN red list: A global metapopulation approach to support conservation breeding programs . PLOS ONE 8 : e80311 .

Conde DA et al.  2019 . Data gaps and opportunities for comparative and conservation biology . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 : 9658 – 9664 .

Constable H , Guralnick R , Wieczorek J , Spencer C , Peterson AT , The VertNet Steering Committee . 2010 . VertNet: A new model for biodiversity data sharing . PLOS Biology 8 : e1000309 .

Cook JA et al.  2020 . Integrating biodiversity infrastructure into pathogen discovery and mitigation of emerging infectious diseases . BioScience 70 : 531 – 534 .

Dick G. 2017 . Natural history museums, zoos, and aquariums . Pages 155 – 167 in Dorfman E , ed. The Future of Natural History Museums . Routledge .

Dunnum JL , Yanagihara R , Johnson KM , Armien B , Batsaikhan N , Morgan L , Cook JA. 2017 . Biospecimen repositories and integrated databases as critical infrastructure for pathogen discovery and pathobiology research . PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 11 : e0005133 .

Fa JE , Funk SM , O'Connell D. 2011 . Zoo Conservation Biology . Cambridge University Press .

Faust L , Bergstrom Y , Thompson S , Bier L. 2019 . PopLink, version 2.5 . Lincoln Park Zoo .

Funk VA. 2018 . Collections-based science in the 21st century . Journal of Systematics and Evolution 56 : 175 – 193 .

Griner L. 1983 . Pathology of zoo animals: A review of necropsies conducted over a fourteen-year period at the san diego zoo and san diego wild animal park . Zoological Society of San Diego .

Hartstone-Rose A , Selvey H , Villari JR , Atwell M , Schmidt T. 2014 . The three-dimensional morphological effects of captivity . PLOS ONE 9 : e113437 .

Heberling JM. 2020 . Global change biology: Museum specimens are more than meet the eye . Current Biology 30 : R1368 – 1370 .

Hedrick BP et al.  2020 . Digitization and the future of natural history collections . BioScience 70 : 243 – 251 .

Hieb EE , Nelson DH , Morris AB. 2014 . Oviductal eggs from road-kill turtles provide a novel source of DNA for population studies of the alabama red-bellied turtle . Conservation Genetics Resources 6 : 837 – 839 .

Hosey G , Melfi V. 2012 . Human–animal bonds between zoo professionals and the animals in their care . Zoo Biology 31 : 13 – 26 .

Hosey G , Melfi V , Ward SJ. 2020 . Problematic animals in the zoo: The issue of charismatic megafauna . Pages 485 – 508 in Angelici F , Rossi L , eds. Problematic Wildlife II . Springer .

Hoving HJT , Zeidberg LD , Benfield MC , Bush SL , Robison BH , Vecchione M. 2013 . First in situ observations of the deep-sea squid grima l diteuthisbonplandi reveal unique use of tentacles . Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280 : 20131463 .

Hvilsom C , Åhman Welden HL , Stelvig M , Nielsen CK , Purcell C , Eckley L , Frost Bertelsen M . 2020 . The contributions of EAZA zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research . Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research 8 : 133 – 138 .

Johnson KG et al.  2011 . Climate change and biosphere response: Unlocking the collections vault . BioScience 61 : 147 – 153 .

Lendemer J et al.  2020 . The extended specimen network: A strategy to enhance US biodiversity collections, promote research and education . BioScience 70 : 23 – 30 .

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

McLean BS , Bell KC , Dunnum JL , Abrahamson B , Colella JP , Deardorff ER , Weber JA , Jones AK , Salazar-Miralles F , Cook JA. 2016 . Natural history collections-based research: Progress, promise, and best practices . Journal of Mammalogy 97 : 287 – 297 .

Meehan CL , Mench JA , Carlstead K , Hogan JN. 2016 . Determining connections between the daily lives of zoo elephants and their welfare: An epidemiological approach . PLOS ONE 11 : e0158124 .

Miller B , Conway W , Reading RP , Wemmer C , Wildt D , Kleiman D , Monfort S , Rabinowitz A , Armstrong B , Hutchins M. 2004 . Evaluating the conservation mission of zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, and natural history museums . Conservation Biology 18 : 86 – 93 .

Miller SE et al.  2020 . Building natural history collections for the twenty-first century and beyond . BioScience 70 : 674 – 687 .

[NASEM] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . 2020 . Biological Collections: Ensuring Critical Research and Education for the 21st Century . National Academies Press .

Nelson G , Ellis S . 2019 . The history and impact of digitization and digital data mobilization on biodiversity research . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 374 : 20170391 .

Norton BG , Hutchins M , Maple T , Stevens E. 2012 . Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation . Smithsonian .

O'Regan HJ , Kitchener AC . 2005 . The effects of captivity on the morphology of captive, domesticated and feral mammals . Mammal Review 35 : 215 – 230 .

Pérez-Espona S. 2021 . Conservation-focused biobanks: A valuable resource for wildlife DNA forensics . Forensic Science International: Animals and Environments 1 : 100017 .

Poo S , Bogisich A , Mack M , Lynn BK , Devan-Song A. 2021 . Post-release comparisons of amphibian growth reveal challenges with sperm cryopreservation as a conservation tool . Conservation Science and Practice e572 .

Poo S , Hinkson KM. 2020 . Amphibian conservation using assisted reproductive technologies: Cryopreserved sperm affects offspring morphology, but not behavior, in a toad . Global Ecology and Conservation 21 : e00809 .

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 Communications 5 : 128 .

Species360 . 2021 . Data Science for Zoos and Aquariums. Species360 . zims.species360.org .

Suarez AV , Tsutsui ND. 2004 . The value of museum collections for research and society . BioScience 54 : 66 – 74 .

Tapley B , Bradfield KS , Michaels C , Bungard M. 2015 . Amphibians and conservation breeding programmes: Do all threatened amphibians belong on the ark? Biodiversity and Conservation 24 : 2625 – 2646 .

Terio KA , McAloose D , Leger JS. 2018 . Pathology of Wildlife and Zoo Animals . Academic Press .

Thompson CW et al.  2021 . Preserve a voucher specimen! The critical need for integrating natural history collections in infectious disease studies . Mbio 12 : e02698 – 02620 .

Watanabe ME. 2019 . The evolution of natural history collections: New research tools move specimens, data to center stage . BioScience 69 : 163 – 169 .

Webster M. 2017 . The Extended Specimen: Emerging Frontiers in Collections-Based Ornithological Research . CRC Press .

Wieczorek J , Bloom D , Guralnick R , Blum S , Döring M , Giovanni R , Robertson T , Vieglais D. 2012 . Darwin core: An evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard . PLOS ONE 7 : e29715 .

Williams SE , Hoffman EA. 2009 . Minimizing genetic adaptation in captive breeding programs: A review . Biological Conservation 142 : 2388 – 2400 .

Witzenberger KA , Hochkirch A. 2011 . Ex situ conservation genetics: A review of molecular studies on the genetic consequences of captive breeding programmes for endangered animal species . Biodiversity and Conservation 20 : 1843 – 1861 .

Zack EH , Smith SM , Angielczyk KD. 2021 . Effect of captivity on the vertebral bone microstructure of xenarthran mammals . The Anatomical Record 1 – 18 .

Zehr SM , Roach RG , Haring D , Taylor J , Cameron FH , Yoder AD. 2014 . Life history profiles for 27 strepsirrhine primate taxa generated using captive data from the duke lemur center . Scientific Data 1 : 140019 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3244
• Copyright © 2024 American Institute of Biological Sciences
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Zooscape ecology: a conceptual analysis of zoos and landscape ecology

• Perspective
• Published: 16 June 2022
• Volume 37 , pages 1733–1745, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Daniel Bisgrove   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1720-5358 1  

4571 Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Zoos are a unique landscape with fascinating connections to the principles of landscape ecology. These ‘zooscapes’ have a focus on managing wild species.

This article examines the multiple scales of zoos as urban green spaces, exhibit landscapes, and resources for resilience. I identify that landscape ecology can inform zoo evolution and note how zoos may provide a novel research site for landscape ecology.

I provide a brief history of American zoos and insight into lingering questions within zoos, including their representations of animals and humans. Additionally, I note conceptual overlap between zoo design/function and landscape ecology literature.

Zoos provide habitat for native species and valued cultural ecosystem services. Zoo exhibits developed a landscape focus as modern landscape ecology emerged in the 1980s. Patches, corridors, and matrices exist within a zoo, and these facilities have value for the genetic support of fragmented populations. Zoos’ strategies for disease management are increasingly relevant for global health. Simultaneously, zoos must exhibit sustainable landscapes, not just ecological simulacrums for threatened species.

Conclusions

Zoos must promote humanity’s continued coexistence with other species. A landscape view is essential to achieving this goal. Zoos need to model sustainable landscapes of our present and future.

Similar content being viewed by others

Multi-scale studies and the ecological neighborhood.

Urban Biodiversity and Landscape Ecology: Patterns, Processes and Planning

Introduction: The Broad Contours of Exurban Landscape Change

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

From its humble beginnings in the early 1980s, the field of landscape ecology has set its sights on understanding the complex relationships between ecological patterns and processes across scales (Wiens 2008 ). Unlike other traditional ecologies, landscape ecology has not hesitated to consider and actively engage the human presence in the natural world. Landscape ecologists have even used metrics initially developed to examine swaths of undeveloped land to examine and compare rapidly expanding metropolitan areas (Wu et al. 2011 ). Despite the aversion many disciplines have had to thinking across human and nonhuman animal divides, landscape ecology has long inhabited this conceptual space as it has worked to find more sustainable arrangements of human development amidst natural systems. Humans and animals often exist near one another and directly impact one another. Nowhere is this reality more readily apparent than in the zoo.

Landscape ecology thinking is therefore a natural fit for zoos, which historians and ecologists alike have often ignored in their analyses due to zoos’ unique locus at the intersection of natural and built environments. Zoos also are well-suited to landscape ecology analyses given their stated aims of creating ways for humans to live in harmony with nature (Association of Zoos & Aquariums 2020 ; World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, n.d.). Landscape ecology has emerged as a sustainability-minded field as the holistic thinking of the long-term impact of land use and land change has become a major research thrust (Wu 2013b ). Zoos can similarly incorporate this kind of thinking in their operation and designs to exemplify the most sustainable forms of landscape architecture.

According to zoo historian Baratay, “To tour the cages of a zoo is to understand the society that erected them” ( 2002 , p. 13). In essence, the pattern of a zoo reflects its societal purpose and the ecological processes at play there. Landscape ecology seeks to examine the relationships between spatial pattern and flows of energy, materials, and organisms (Forman 1983 ). Zoos reflect our relationships with nature, with animals, and with other humans. Depending on how zoo exhibits are stylized, they can advance the unhelpful idea that we as humans are completely separate from nature, especially if they reinforce notions of a mythological, people-free wilderness (Cronon 1996 ). As ecologically informed exhibit design has developed, zoo exhibits have begun to more accurately represent diverse habitats (Hancocks 2001 ), though they have often lagged in considering the human element. Many zoo exhibits stress how humanity’s actions directly jeopardize the continued survival of many species (Merlino 2006 ), though more zoo exhibits must go further and stress the real actions people and society as a whole can take to have a more sustainable relationship with the natural world (Fig. 1 ).

As public attitudes toward animals have become more considerate of their biological and social needs, so too has veterinary care in zoos improved. Animals once considered valuable only for their ability to be seen by visitors have become valued by their communities as individual beings with personalities and interests (Bender 2016 ). Zoological collections started as royal menageries that acted as physical representations of aristocratic power, but the 18th-century democratization of European countries led to the creation of the scientifically-oriented public zoological garden we recognize today (Baratay 2002 ). As European Empires grew, zoos sourced animals and cultural artifacts through new colonial avenues (Rothfels 2002 ; Bender 2016 ). As pre-Nazi Germany became increasingly nationalized, its zoos even touted the superiority of the country’s native fauna (Mohnhaupt 2020 ). In the United States, American zoos brought in their own racist undertones, substituting chimp performers for black-face minstrels as racial segregation became widespread within urban areas (Uddin 2015 ; Bender 2016 ). Now, zoos have continued to struggle as they find appropriate and accurate ways to depict humans in the natural environment. One zoo hired “cultural interpreters” only to be faced with a media firestorm (Valdes 2007 ). In 2007, Seattle’s Woodland Park Zoo hired several Western-educated Maasai men in western garb to lead tours of the zoo’s new Africa exhibits and talk to guests about their lived experiences and the importance of conservation. Unfortunately, much of the zoo’s marketing for the attraction focused on the guides rather than the exhibits, leading to some outcries from local academics at the University of Washington who asserted that human culture has no place in a zoo. Despite the bad press, the tours and exhibit were well received by thousands of visitors, who were often struck by the personal stories the Maasai guides shared about their lives alongside African wildlife. The Maasai guide program even received a national award from the American zoo community in 2008 (Woodland Park Zoo 2008 ). Perhaps, by thinking of zoos as their own miniature landscapes, we can find more just and ideal arrangements of the natural, animal, and human elements that make up the modern zoo.

In this article, I will be examining how zoos, as an often-overlooked element of the urban landscape, embody and exemplify the concepts of landscape ecology, as well as how the two fields might inform one another as they continue to develop. In my analysis, I will examine how some of the principles and research areas of landscape ecology may play out in zoos, at a variety of scales. History shows that zoo design and function has slowly broadened from an individual and species-specific approach to a more collective and ecologically informed one (Hanson 2002 ). By broadening further to include the human factors present in a landscape ecology approach, zoos can further their contributions to a shared sustainability mission.

To put zoos in productive conversation with the concepts of landscape ecology, I will examine zoos through three functional perspectives. The first perspective will concern zoos as urban green spaces. How have zoos provided natural spaces in urban areas throughout their history, and what value do zoos pose to native species and zoo visitors today? The second perspective will consider the campus of individual zoos as landscapes. For example, how have zoos developed the exhibit design approach of landscape immersion, and how does this mirror the development of landscape ecology as a discipline? Some special consideration of how Forman and Godron’s ( 1981 ) patch/corridor/matrix framework can be applied in zoo exhibits will also be included. Finally, with the third perspective I will examine zoos as an untapped resource in the growing efforts to keep both wild populations and human society safe and healthy in a world of increasing habitat fragmentation and inter-species interaction, with special attention to the topic of emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

Zoos as a unit: green spaces in the urban landscape

America’s earliest zoos developed closely alongside the first major cities. The Philadelphia Zoo, traditionally considered America’s first zoo, opened in 1874 after the American Civil War delayed the establishment of a facility envisioned by a local zoological society founded in 1859 (Kisling 2000 ). These first zoos were often created in tandem with the American Urban Parks Movement in the early 1900s (Henson 2018 ). Many zoos were even initially managed by cities’ park departments (Braverman 2012 ). The famed American landscape architect Frederick Olmsted, known best for his co-design of New York City’s Central Park, was one of the giants of this movement and was even involved in the design of several major zoos (Hanson 2002 ). Thomas Jefferson had earlier advocated for the park movement’s core concept of pastoral utopianism, leading to the idea that life in the city represented some kind of moral hazard to people, and that the consumption of a manicured, tamed nature was necessary in order to counteract those harms (Baratay 2002 ). To achieve this, the proper kind of nature had to be curated in these urban parks and in zoos. Ideally, these parks would provide a delicate taste of a romanticized nature, one that would be safe enough to explore but still beautiful enough to make it worth enjoying (Uddin 2015 ). In these early pastoral zoos, animals were organized in a very clear fashion in large typically single-species exhibits where the animal didn’t overwhelm the visitor’s view of the greenery (Hanson 2002 ). Animals were to fit within the scene, but not dominate the image as a centerpiece (Uddin 2015 ). The controversial founding director William T. Hornaday of the Bronx Zoo was very particular in what he allowed in his zoo. Animals were to be presented as a perfect picture, with realistic social groups and painted backgrounds. Hornaday even prohibited guest photography to ensure that the only public photos of his zoo would be carefully curated (Hanson 2002 ). Zoos have long considered themselves through the lens of a landscape, albeit a highly contrived and artificial one (Fig. 2 ).

The zoo landscape is designed for people, but for much of their history zoos have been exclusionary institutions. Some of the first formal Western zoos, such as the London Zoo, began as expensive entertainment-focused member-only institutions (Rothfels 2002 ). This stockholder-based zoo structure quickly fell out of favor when several institutions adhering to the model, such as the Rome Zoo, went bankrupt in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Baratay 2002 ). As the middle class grew in affluence, they suddenly had the time and wealth necessary to attend expanding zoological institutions, choosing to imitate the promenade of aristocrats at the zoo rather than attend the theater, an act that was considered morally degradative (Baratay 2002 ; Hanson 2002 ). Hornaday considered the Italian immigrants who collected firewood in the woods around the Bronx Zoo to be delinquents and carried a pistol with him at all times as a result (Bender 2016 ). While Hornaday actively killed and collected avian specimens himself, he considered immigrants who hunted native songbirds for food to be less than human and called the police in to shoot at them (Uddin 2015 ). Hornaday actively fought against a disordered zoo landscape. During one day of Hornaday’s war against littering visitors, 126 visiting men, women, and children were arrested (Bender 2016 ). While segregation was present at many zoos, zoos were typically less segregated than many other urban institutions (Levy 1992 ; Baratay 2002 ; Wells 2018 ). Still, the racist views of their leaders were clearly visible in messaging about biological European superiority or their colonial conservation approaches. One of the most visible of these instances was the brief exhibition of Ota Benga, a young Congolese Pygmy tribesman at the Bronx Zoo in 1906 (Howard 2018 ). Despite this lack of a warm welcome, many minorities flocked to the zoo given few alternative sites for recreation. For decades until the 1960s, African Americans would come to roll eggs on Easter Sunday in the National Zoo because black children were excluded from the event at the White House (Baratay 2002 ). Zoos are mirrors of society, including collective views toward not only animals but also groups of people. As a result, zoos have actively engaged with and contributed to racist historical frameworks of science and conservation. Simultaneously, they have been an important restorative landscape for city-dwelling humans for decades. By equitably considering all community members in urban landscapes through inclusive frameworks such as landscape ecology, zoos may be better able to disentangle themselves from their colonial past for a more inclusive future.

Today, zoos are increasingly recognized for the value they pose to native species and human visitors as a reservoir of natural surroundings in urban settings. One recent study demonstrated the value of zoos as habitat for small mammal species (Elwell et al. 2021 ). The authors suggested that because zoos often are located in cities but not immediately adjacent to residential areas and additionally utilize barriers such as perimeter fencing, zoos indirectly may have smaller local populations of feral cats than that of the surrounding area (Elwell et al. 2021 ). This suggests that zoos act as valuable urban green spaces for native small mammals. Small mammals are not the only species to benefit from zoos, however. Zoos, with their generally significant amount of horticulture, shelter, and perennial water sources also act as stopover sites for the migration of many species of birds (Totha 2019 ). The Phoenix Zoo was even the site of the first known sighting of a Trumpeter Swan in the Phoenix Metro area in 2018 (12News 2018 ). India’s Delhi Zoo has long acted as a crucial nesting ground for hundreds of wild, near-threatened Painted Storks, and one study even used the site to research the species’ reproductive behavior and threats (Meganathan and Urfi 2009 ). Though currently underutilized, it is possible that many zoos around the world offer similar study sites for species of conservation interest.

Through cultural ecosystem services, even human beings benefit from the green space provided by zoos. Journalist Richard Louv has coined the term “nature deficit disorder,” a theoretical ailment in many children today that results from a substantial disconnection from nature due to Americans’ increasingly urban and technological lifestyles (Louv 2006 ). Studies have found that visits to the zoo can be beneficial for young children in terms of educational and moral outcomes (Fraser and Switzer 2021), though these kinds of claims often are debated (Kahn et al. 2008 ; Marris 2021 ). Some zoos have found very simple natural elements to be an especially charming part of the zoo experience. Constructed with the surplus dirt from a publicly funded excavation project in the 1930s, “Monkey Hill” at the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans, has long been—albeit somewhat falsely—credited as the tallest point in the famously low-lying city, standing a meager 26 feet above sea level (Campanella 2014 ). Nearly a hundred years later, the children of New Orleans continue to find endless joy log-rolling down the hill, one of the few points of geographic elevation in the region (Campanella 2014 ). Sometimes, very simple elements of heterogeneity, such as relatively minor differences in plant density or elevation can make a world of difference for people’s connection to the natural world.

Within the zoo: landscape ecology in exhibit design

The principles of zoo exhibit design have also changed drastically over the decades, with notable developments in the 1970s and 1980s, allowing one to draw some fascinating parallels with the history of landscape ecology. Today, landscape ecologists are continuing to study the impact of spatial planning and landscape design in order to create more sustainable landscape arrangements and uses (Milovanović et al. 2020 ; Hersperger et al. 2021 ). During the foundational period of modern landscape ecology signified by the 1983 Allerton Park Workshop (Wiens 2008 ), zoo exhibits were similarly developing towards a spatially aware ecological mindset. By the 1980s, American zoos began recognizing the interconnections between humans and nature and represented that through exhibit messaging (Uddin 2015 ). At the same time, zoos faced increasing scrutiny about animal welfare (Jamieson 1985 ). Zoos suddenly realized the need for change within the institution, and began developing more meaningful and effective conservation programs, though the measures for success in this area still often lack consensus. Zoos could no longer stand on the sidelines, claiming to act as “Noah’s Ark” by protecting species from the storm of species extinction; the world was changing too quickly and the Zoo Ark didn’t have the space necessary to protect all the creatures facing destruction (Keulartz 2015 ). All zoos could do was buy threatened species some extra time (Conway 2011 ). Zoos had to improve the care of their animals while also creating meaningful change to support species in the wild.

One meaningful innovation that helped address both of these issues was the new zoo exhibit design approach called “landscape immersion” (Hyson 2000 ). Seattle’s Woodland Park Zoo pioneered this approach during its redesign in the late 1970s while under the directorship of David Hancocks, a zoo architect. These exhibits were a drastic change from the harshly modern, cement-forward, barred exhibits of the mid-twentieth century (Hancocks 2001 ). Such former “sanitary modernism” style exhibits sought to meet animals’ needs without any natural features; they were bare, quick to hose down, and often placed the viewer far above the animal (Hyson 2000 ). Landscape immersion built in the reverse by seeking to achieve necessary biological functionality through natural forms; this school of thought contended that the best way to meet every known and unknown need of an animal was to make as accurate of a recreation of their natural habitat as possible (Braverman 2012 ). Consequently, landscape immersion exhibits were lushly planted and placed the animals at or above visitor eye level (Hanson 2002 ). Defining the term in 1975, leading zoo architect John Coe explained that a landscape immersion exhibit places the animal in the context of nature, rather than the context of architecture, and that it makes the visitor feel part of nature rather than an outside observer of it (Braverman 2012 ). The approach quickly became the standard for new exhibits built at American zoos in the 1980s (Hanson 2002 ). The rapidly growing field of ecology inspired not only landscape ecology, but also landscape immersion. The value of ecosystems was suddenly blatantly obvious, and the former architectural styles that ignored such benefits were quickly replaced by new designs that included more meaningful natural features.

Landscape immersion style exhibits provide a very direct way to consider the landscape ecology of zoo exhibits. All landscapes are made up of patches and corridors within a particular matrix (Forman and Godron 1981 ). Why should zoo landscapes be any different? When architects Jones and Jones were in the design process for the first major landscape immersion exhibit in America at Woodland Park Zoo, they measured tiny differences in environmental conditions at the site in order to map out microclimates (Hancocks 2001 ). Minor heterogeneity matters greatly when considering the scale of a zoo exhibit, which is typically much smaller than an animal’s natural range. There are some unique factors present in zoos that create patch types we might not expect to find in other landscapes. One is the element of public viewing. Individual animals are differentially affected by this presence, leading to preferences in different areas throughout an exhibit. One study measured the favored spaces for individual okapi within an exhibit, and the factors that influenced those choices (Troxell-Smith et al. 2017 ). Another fascinating element is that of multispecies exhibits. In the wild, animals would be able to move away from one another easily enough to find private spaces or food sources only accessible to them. Even in large, enclosed areas, this is less feasible. One way that zoos get around this is by creating species-specific barriers. Like a backyard bird feeder targeting finches as opposed to pigeons through careful perch and dispenser design, zoos create food containers that ensure only the target species can access them. In the same vein, zoos will establish barriers that only smaller or more nimble species can navigate, thus ensuring that gazelle have a space they do not have to share with giraffe, for example. Thus, even the areas that animal species are found within a zoo exhibit can take the form of small discrete patches as opposed to the large gradients we might expect in nature.

Some zoos have now even begun to experiment with the use of habitat corridors as exhibits. The Philadelphia Zoo, given its central urban location and small size, has had to become creative as it’s worked to improve its exhibits. Their solution: Zoo360, a collection of mazelike passages that allow a wide number of animal species to move around the zoo for different sights, smells, and experiences (Philadelphia Zoo 2016 ). The trails have been continuing to expand since the first set opened in 2011: now lemurs and monkeys have access to a treetop trail and tower, great apes have a climbing path, big cats have an overhead passageway, and gorillas have an elevated walkway (Philadelphia Zoo 2016 ). Opened in 2014, the Indianapolis Zoo’s Simon Skjodt International Orangutan Center includes a network of massive cables suspended 80 feet in the air that the great apes climb in order to visit a number of satellite areas (Beard 2014 ). In so doing, the zoo has utilized vertical space and corridors to maximize animal welfare by giving the animals the opportunity to choose who they spend their time with and where in the complex they prefer to reside (Beard 2014 ). This represents the unique spatial configuration of zoo landscapes.

For many species, the ability to travel longer distances than what is typically possible in a traditional exhibit can be a medical necessity. Captive elephants in particular can suffer from major infections in their feet if they are not walking around enough and fail to receive the proper maintenance to support their foot health (Mehren 2003 ). To combat this, some new elephant exhibits have provided pathways for elephants to explore and thus increase their walking distance. When the National Zoo reopened their renovated elephant exhibit in 2013, it included a one third of a mile uphill walking trail for the elephants to use to exercise and explore a different part of the zoo (Associated Press 2013 ). Corridors can drastically change the behavior and opportunities for many species; by thinking more about the social and ecological interconnections between animal individuals and species, zoos may be able to further expand the use of these structures in zoo exhibits.

Patches and corridors also shape visitors’ experience of a zoo. As discussed, recreation areas within a zoo represent an important opportunity for people to connect with their local environment. Patches of parking lots, food venues, and animal exhibits are all connected through public pathways. As they go along, families collectively decide their path through the zoo that day. The exploratory space within a zoo offers valuable opportunities for individuals to connect with one another as groups make shared meaning through their interactions with wild animals (Clayton et al. 2009 ). Paths are also useful dividing tools for the sake of managing foot traffic. Careful path design allows visitors to have a more personal experience with the animals. Zoos hope that this these shared and private moments with wildness inspire visitors to act for biodiversity and sustainability.

So far, we’ve seen how zoos have embodied the concepts of patches and corridors, but what about matrices? Depending on the scale of concern, we could consider zoos as green space patches in a matrix of urban centers, or we could see zoo exhibits as wild patches within a matrix of public recreation space. Some zoos even blur the line between where we end and where wildlife begins. In any case, landscape ecology can contribute to a conversation about diversifying the types of patches, corridors, and matrices in zoos. What might it look like for a zoo where the matrix is wild space, and only the patches and corridors are areas and paths for people to move around in? Safari parks, which appeared in America in the second half of the twentieth century, give us some idea of what an ‘inverted cage’ might look like (Baratay 2002 ; Bender 2016 ). Some other facilities, such as the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum outside of Tucson, has used traditional zoo techniques with a beautiful backdrop with great success. By controlling sightlines, minimizing the visible barriers between visitors and animals, and by incorporating exhibit infrastructure seamlessly into the beautiful desert surroundings, the Desert Museum makes it easy to suspend disbelief to a whole new degree, and actually leaves visitors startled when they suddenly find themselves face to face with a coyote (Grazian 2015 ). Granted, this same effect will likely be more difficult to achieve in zoos located directly within cities, but perhaps it is still possible. More work needs to be done as we strive to create these wild spaces in city centers where they can be more easily accessed by the growing numbers of urban families.

Zoos as a resilient institution: pan situ approach and one health

Zoos may be able to model sustainable means through which people and animals can safely coexist in the Anthropocene, even as habitat loss, climate change, and pandemics prove to be existential threats to our way of life. As we begin to understand the full complicated impact of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity, it’s important for us to take measures to reinforce natural systems against new anthropogenic disturbances (Wilson et al. 2016 ). Zoos may have some valuable approaches that have yet to be fully utilized.

Researchers are recognizing the potential catastrophes of isolated populations. Metapopulation ecology provides a means to examine the degree of interaction between two or more distinct populations (van Nouhuys 2016 ). Landscape genetics takes things one step further to understand how landscape structure interacts with population genetics and evolutionary change (Holderegger and Wagner 2006 ). Zoo animals, simply labelled as ex situ populations, have long been ignored in the discussion of fragmented wild in situ populations. Yet, in a growing number of cases, zoo populations may amount to a large portion, if not the entire population, of a threatened species (Mendelson 2018 ). There is a need to re-integrate zoos’ captive populations within the conversation of metapopulation management in what have some have termed a “ pan-situ ” approach (Minteer and Collins 2013 ). There is no denying that zoo animals are an isolated metapopulation, however, in an increasingly fragmented world, wild populations are also becoming similarly limited. In such a situation, re-integrating zoo populations with wild ones through re-introduction, head-starting, and cross-fostering programs may not only supplement the continued recovery of threatened species, but it may also provide the high genetic flow necessary for species to adapt to the dynamic environment of the Anthropocene (Scharis and Amundin 2015 ). The Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ (AZA) Species Survival Program (SSP) for Mexican Wolves recently partnered with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in order to cross-foster twenty captive-born Mexican wolf pups into several wild packs in Arizona and New Mexico (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2020 ). By more effectively integrating captive zoo populations into wildlife management, zoos can become a genetic reservoir for wild populations. Instead of culling a particularly problematic wild animal that cannot be effectively relocated, perhaps wildlife managers can place the animal in an accredited zoo or wildlife center. There, that animal can be included in a breeding program that aims to release their offspring, ensuring that its genes can still support the species’ survival in the wild. Working with the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the IUCN Red List, the Conservation Planning Specialist Group is seeking to make these kinds of comprehensive conservation efforts, which they term the “One Plan Approach,” more widespread (Byers et al. 2013 ). Several endangered species, including the golden lion tamarin, have already benefited from this novel approach. Through creative and innovative partnerships, zoos can help conservationists preserve genetic diversity in wild populations even as human disruption to their habitat increases.

Zoos have long had to navigate animal health using longstanding common practices such as quarantines for animals arriving from different facilities and continents (Hanson 2002 ; Bender 2016 ). Great ape exhibits started to implement glass rather than open air bars in large part due to a growing understanding of the possibility of humans passing minor ailments that became virulent diseases in captive apes (Baratay 2002 ; Braverman 2012 ). This virological awareness in zoos has only grown as zoo veterinarians have incorporated a growing number of responsibilities, often becoming population managers, wildlife rehabilitators, and reintroduction specialists (Braverman 2021 ). Some American zoos are now even part of a Center for Disease Control (CDC) sponsored program where they report any cases of West Nile virus in their bird collections. Wild birds can be expensive to monitor due to the challenge of permitting and capture while zoos regularly carry out bloodwork and examinations on their avian collections. In open air aviaries, wild birds infected with the virus can easily pass it to zoo birds. Through this monitoring network, zoos act as sentinels for local outbreaks of West Nile (Nolen 2003 ).

Zoos have begun to embrace the One Health concept, best described as the growing understanding that wildlife health is directly related to human public health (Braverman 2021 ; Sulzner et al. 2021 ). The One Health concept is closely related to landscape connectivity and landscape epidemiology in particular (Meentemeyer et al. 2012 ). Given their unique operational practices providing frequent inter-species interaction, zoos not only have the space to develop and test transdisciplinary One Health solutions, but they also have an audience that can be educated regarding the epidemiological impacts of animal–human interactions (Robinette et al. 2017 ). In early 2021, the AZA began the “Reduce the Risk” initiative, a joint effort between the AZA, experts in safe animal transport, and their partner, the Wildlife Trafficking Alliance (Association of Zoos & Aquariums, n.d. 2021 ). The goals of this initiative include advocating for new legislation (such as the Preventing Future Pandemics Act), educating the public of the dangers of the wildlife trade, and contributing to efforts to halt wildlife trafficking.

Research within the field of landscape ecology is coming to conclusions that only further encourage this public health initiative for zoos. Landscape epidemiology is emerging with a focus on the socio-ecological interactions of pathogens at a variety of scales, including the habitat conditions that put global health at risk (Cumming et al. 2015 ). For example, new research demonstrates that habitat fragmentation can increase the risk of future pandemics (Azevedo et al. 2020 ). By raising funds and public support for habitat protection, zoos can come alongside other conservation organizations, international governments, and local communities to reverse the progress of global habitat fragmentation. Other researchers in landscape ecology have recognized that pandemic risk is not only dependent on habitat fragmentation, but also the ways in which people interact with wild places and the wildlife that lives there. Bloomfield et al. ( 2020 ) found that certain behaviors brought people to the core of fragmented habitat, such as pole cutting (from large trees that nonhuman primates often reside in) along with hunting and foraging, increased the likelihood of humans encountering non-human primates. These encounters provide opportunities for zoonotic diseases to jump between the two parties, with potentially devastating impacts for both species’ populations. Perhaps, through partnerships with local communities and organizations, zoos can provide the personal protective equipment and behavioral techniques necessary to reduce the risk of disease transfer when community members need to engage in these high exposure risk activities. Zoos have decades of experience establishing clear and healthy boundaries for the benefit of ourselves and wildlife. It seems like, amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it’s time to include zoo managers in the conversation around practical zoonotic disease prevention measures.

One recent editorial in Landscape Ecology has noted the value of green infrastructure for societal resilience to the growing risks of climate stress and public health crises (Pamukcu-Albers et al. 2021 ). They define green infrastructure as “a system of natural and artificial green spaces that provide ecological and social functions in urban areas” (Pamukcu-Albers et al. 2021 ). Zoos fit naturally into this network. As we discussed earlier, zoos represent an important ecological reservoir for many wild species in urban areas (Elwell et al. 2021 ). Zoos are also a clear social resource. They provide key opportunities for connections to wildlife that can foster action for conservation (Skibins and Powell 2013 ). Zoos may also be a very valuable site to understand the local and global relevancy of climate change and our actions to mitigate it (Grajal et al. 2017 ). As the pandemic has shown us, outdoor green spaces provide immensely valuable spaces for safe recreation to support good mental health (Pamucku 2021 ). Zoos, given their primarily outdoor situation, have proven to be an especially valuable local activity amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The Phoenix Zoo, for example, was able to reopen for regular drive-through “Cruise the Zoo” events during the peak of COVID-19 lockdowns (AZ Family 2020 ). The One Health principle ties together zoos’ mission to serve their visitors, care for their animals, and support global conservation efforts.

Even beyond the One Health principle, zoos pose an important forum to discuss the proper relationship between humans and the natural world. The wildness of zoos is constructed and artificial, and the zoo itself is ultimately built for people (Hancocks 2001 ; Rothfels 2002 ). By embracing rather than concealing the human-ness inherent in the institution, zoos can provide a space to explore what more environmentally sustainable landscapes might look like, both in terms of our environmental ethics and geography. Zoos must bring a human-aware sustainability approach into their design and operation (Cerezo and Kapsar 2018 ; Norton 2018 ). As landscape sustainability science suggests, not all landscape patterns are equally effective at contributing to global biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human wellbeing (Wu 2021 ). Landscapes are complex, with unique interactions between scalar levels and often unpredictable disturbances from outside the systems (Wu 2013a ). As zoos create architecture and exhibits, they can model green infrastructure to a wide public audience. For example, the Cincinnati Zoo constructed their Hippopotamus exhibit (home of the famous prematurely born hippo “Fiona”) with a cistern to collect 400,000 gallons of rainwater, as well as a series of advanced and natural filtration systems, for use in exhibits around the zoo. Signage in the exhibit communicates to the public how various natural components, such as tilapia fish in the hippo pool, all contribute to clean water for the hippos and human viewers to enjoy (Meek 2017 ). By applying landscape ecology principles, zoos can not only illustrate ecosystem function and biodiversity, but also human wellbeing and flourishing.

As this discussion has demonstrated, it is useful to consider the implications that landscape ecology has on social institutions, since doing so can lead to new ideas and innovations of significant value. In this analysis, we have (1) identified the value of zoos within cities for urban wildlife and human recreation; (2) created a vision of zoo exhibits as landscapes with unique forms of heterogeneity and novel patch dynamics; and (3) recognized zoos’ ability to contribute to landscape sustainability, biodiversity resilience, and public health in response to habitat fragmentation.

Early American zoos were myopically focused on creating picturesque landscapes of pastoral wilderness (Baratay 2002 ). This was often an overly narrow lens, in large part influenced by patriotic ideals of the wilderness, but it stressed animals’ existence within an environmental context (Hancocks 2001 ; Hanson 2002 ). In the mid-twentieth century, zoo animals were deprived of that context and generally exhibited as specimens within markedly unnatural surroundings (Hyson 2000 ). Since the 1980s, zoo animals have been frequently exhibited with a greater focus of their ecological roles and needs (Hanson 2002 ). Yet, the landscapes presented by many of these exhibits omit any reference to a key species: Homo sapiens . Human presence and impact on the landscape is largely omitted. Zoos must engage in the Anthropocene and provide examples of sustainably coupled socioecological systems within their exhibits (Grazian 2015 ). They must demonstrate how human society can develop with minimal harms to the environmental systems upon which we and all other species depend (Norton 2018 ). Just as human society is no island, zoos are no ark. In order to preserve species in such an interconnected world, zoos must collaborate with diverse institutions and disciplines to address broad sustainability challenges (Cerezo and Kapsar 2018 ). Zoos must become more than a collection of enclosures; they must engage in the larger ecological and human community. Through new transdisciplinary partnerships with zoos, landscape ecologists may find that ‘zooscapes’ are an example of novel, human-influenced landscapes that can assist in the preservation of endangered species and threatened ecosystems. By carefully applying landscape ecology principles in planning and design within zoos, we can create sustainable zooscapes that not only display wild animals, but also contribute to landscape sustainability.

Depiction of the London Zoo in 1835 (Scharf 1835 )

Early Model of National Zoo Grounds, prepared by William T. Hornaday (United States National Museum Photographic Laboratory 1888 )

12News (2018). Photos show what might be 1st trumpeter swan sighting in Phoenix. 12news.Com. https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/photos-show-what-might-be-1st-trumpeter-swan-sighting-in-phoenix/75-509278019

Arizona Game and Fish Department (2020) Mexican wolf population gets genetic boost with a record 20 captive-born pups cross-fostered into wild packs. https://www.azgfd.com/mexican-wolf-population-gets-genetic-boost-with-a-record-20-captive-born-pups-cross-fostered-into-wild-packs/

Associated Press (2013) National Zoo opens elephant center after overhaul. The Mercury. https://www.pottsmerc.com/national-zoo-opens-elephant-center-after-overhaul/article_bf1b5aaa-84d2-58f1-8203-49020bad1adb.html

Association of Zoos & Aquariums (n.d.) Reduce the risk. https://www.aza.org/reduce-the-risk . Accessed 28 Feb 2022

Association of Zoos & Aquariums (2020) Strategic plan. AZA.Org. https://www.aza.org/strategic-plan?locale=en

Association of Zoos & Aquariums (2021) AZA launches new initiative aimed at zoonotic disease threats. https://www.aza.org/aza-news-releases/posts/aza-launches-new-initiative-aimed-at-zoonotic-disease-threats?locale=en

AZ Family (2020) New “Cruise the Zoo” lets you visit Phoenix Zoo from the comfort of your car | Coronavirus in Arizona | azfamily.com. https://www.azfamily.com/news/continuing_coverage/coronavirus_coverage/new-cruise-the-zoo-lets-you-visit-phoenix-zoo-from-the-comfort-of-your-car/article_cc910146-8fe3-11ea-a1d3-53d13856d64b.html

Azevedo JC, Luque S, Dobbs C, Sanesi G, Sunderland TCH (2020) The ethics of isolation, the spread of pandemics, and landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 35(10):2133–2140

Article   Google Scholar  

Baratay É (2002) Zoo: a history of zoological gardens in the West. Reaktion Books, London

Google Scholar  

Beard SJ (2014) A look inside the International Orangutan Center at the Indianapolis Zoo. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/2014/05/16/interactive-international-orangutan-center/9182315/

Bender DE (2016) The animal game: searching for wildness at the American zoo. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Book   Google Scholar  

Bloomfield LSP, McIntosh TL, Lambin EF (2020) Habitat fragmentation, livelihood behaviors, and contact between people and nonhuman primates in Africa. Landsc Ecol 35(4):985–1000

Braverman I (2012) Zooland: the institution of captivity. Stanford University Press, Stanford

Braverman I (2021) Zoo veterinarians: governing care on a diseased planet. Routledge, New York

Byers O, Lees C, Wilcken J, Schwitzer C (2013) The One Plan approach: the philosophy and implementation of CBSG’s approach to integrated species conservation planning. WAZA Mag 14:2–5

Campanella R (2014) Monkey Hill, which turns 80 this summer, isn’t the highest spot in New Orleans, but it’s one of the most beloved. NOLA.Com. https://www.nola.com/entertainment_life/home_garden/article_dbdf317c-651c-5c8c-985e-d9fbf1eb66a9.html

Cerezo A, Kapsar KE (2018) Zoo conservation Disembarks: stepping off the ark and into global sustainable development. In: The ark and beyond. University of Chicago Press

Clayton S, Fraser J, Saunders CD (2009) Zoo experiences: conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biol 28(5):377–397

Conway W (2011) Buying time for wild animals with zoos. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20352

Cronon W (1996) The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environ Hist 1(1):7–28

Cumming GS, Abolnik C, Caron A, Gaidet N, Grewar J, Hellard E, Henry DAW, Reynolds C (2015) A social–ecological approach to landscape epidemiology: geographic variation and avian influenza. Landsc Ecol 30(6):963–985

Elwell E, Leeson C, Vaglio S (2021) The effects of a zoo environment on free-living, native small mammal species. Zoo Biol 40(4):263–272

Forman RTT (1983) An ecology of the landscape. Bioscience 33(9):535–535

Forman RTT, Godron M (1981) Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. Bioscience 31(10):733–740

Grajal A, Luebke JF, Kelly L-AD, Matiasek J, Clayton S, Karazsia BT, Saunders CD, Goldman SR, Mann ME, Stanoss R (2017) The complex relationship between personal sense of connection to animals and self-reported proenvironmental behaviors by zoo visitors. Conserv Biol 31(2):322–330

Grazian D (2015) American zoo: a sociological safari. Princeton University Press, JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77m4k

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

Hanson E (2002) Animal attractions. Princeton University Press, JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv39x66f

Henson PM (2018) american zoos: a shifting balance between recreation and conservation. In: The ark and beyond. University of Chicago Press

Hersperger AM, Grădinaru SR, Pierri Daunt AB, Imhof CS, Fan P (2021) Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent developments. Landsc Ecol 36(8):2329–2345

Holderegger R, Wagner HH (2006) A brief guide to landscape genetics. Landsc Ecol 21(6):793–796

Howard M (2018) Ota Benga (1883–1916). https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/benga-ota-1883-1916/

Hyson J (2000) Jungles of eden: the design of American Zoos. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Jungles-of-Eden%3A-The-Design-of-American-Zoos-Hyson/a8c3487b9d8bb6d7eb309f03c1782f8bb8405a19#paper-header

Jamieson D (1985) Against zoos. https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/Zoos_Revisited.pdf

Kahn PH, Saunders CD, Severson RL, Myers OE, Gill BT (2008) Moral and fearful affiliations with the animal world: children’s conceptions of bats. Anthrozoös 21(4):375–386

Keulartz J (2015) Captivity for conservation? Zoos at a crossroads. J Agric Environ Ethics 28(2):335–351

Kisling VN (2000) Zoo and aquarium history: ancient animal collections to zoological gardens. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

Levy PB (1992) Let freedom ring: a documentary history of the modern civil rights movement. Praeger, New York

Louv R (2006) Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder, Rev., 1. pbk. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill

Marris E (2021) Opinion | The case against zoos. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/opinion/zoos-animal-cruelty.html

Meek K (2017) The world’s most sustainable hippo exhibit | Cincinnati zoo blog. http://blog.cincinnatizoo.org/2017/11/20/the-worlds-most-sustainable-hippo-exhibit/

Meentemeyer RK, Haas SE, Václavík T (2012) Landscape epidemiology of emerging infectious diseases in natural and human-altered ecosystems. Annu Rev Phytopathol 50(1):379–402

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Meganathan T, Urfi AJ (2009) Inter-colony variations in nesting ecology of Painted Stork ( Mycteria leucocephala ) in the Delhi Zoo (North India). Waterbirds 32(2):352–356

Mehren KG (2003) The elephant’s foot: prevention and care of foot conditions in captive Asian and African elephants. Can Vet J 44(7):591

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mendelson J (2018) Frogs in glass boxes: responses of zoos to global amphibian extinctions. In: The ark and beyond. University of Chicago Press

Merlino (2006) Zoolex exhibit—tiger mountain. https://www.zoolex.org/gallery/show/817/

Milovanović A, Milovanovic Rodic D, Maruna M (2020) Eighty-year review of the evolution of landscape ecology: from a spatial planning perspective. Landsc Ecol 35:1–21

Minteer BA, Collins JP (2013) Ecological ethics in captivity: balancing values and responsibilities in zoo and aquarium research under rapid global change. ILAR J 54(1):41–51

Mohnhaupt JW (2020) The zookeepers’ war (Frisch S, Trans.). Simon Schuster Paperbacks. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Zookeepers-War/J-W-Mohnhaupt/9781501188503

Nolen RS (2003) Nation’s zoos and aquariums help track West Nile virus. American Veterinary Medical Association. https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2001-11-15/nations-zoos-and-aquariums-help-track-west-nile-virus

Norton B (2018) Zoos and sustainability: can zoos go beyond ethical individualism to protect resilient systems. In: The ark and beyond. University of Chicago Press

Pamukcu-Albers P, Ugolini F, La Rosa D, Grădinaru SR, Azevedo JC, Wu J (2021) Building green infrastructure to enhance urban resilience to climate change and pandemics. Landsc Ecol 36(3):665–673

Philadelphia Zoo (2016) Philadelphia Zoo’s Zoo360 trails provide animals more room to roam (plus more ways for visitors to see ‘Em) [Sponsor Content]. Philadelphia Magazine. https://www.phillymag.com/sponsor-content/philadelphia-zoo-animal-trails/

Robinette C, Saffran L, Ruple A, Deem SL (2017) Zoos and public health: a partnership on the One Health frontier. One Health 3(C):1–4

Rothfels N (2002) Savages and beasts the birth of the modern zoo. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

Scharf G (1835) Zoological Gardens. Regent’s Park . [Lithograph]. The British Museum. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1862-1108-577

Scharis I, Amundin M (2015) Cross-fostering in gray wolves ( Canis lupus lupus ). Zoo Biol 34(3):217–222

Skibins JC, Powell RB (2013) Conservation caring: measuring the influence of zoo visitors’ connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviors. Zoo Biol 32(5):528–540

Sulzner K, Fiorello C, Ridgley F, Garelle D, Deem SL (2021) Conservation medicine and One Health in zoos: scope, obstacles, and unrecognized potential. Zoo Biol 40(1):44–51

Totha A (2019) Urban refuge: why zoos are important green spaces for migrating birds. April/May 2019, 46(4 & 5)

Troxell-Smith S, Watters J, Whelan C, Brown J (2017) Zoo foraging ecology: preference and welfare assessment of two Okapi ( Okapia johnstoni ) at the Brookfield Zoo. Anim Behav Cognit 2017:187–199

Uddin L (2015) Zoo renewal: white flight and the animal ghetto. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 1–287. https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816679119.001.0001

United States National Museum Photographic Laboratory (1888) National Zoological Park, Relief Model of Rock Creek Park and Zoo Grounds [Black-and-white photographs]. Smithsonian Institution Archives Capital Gallery, Washington. https://www.si.edu/object/national-zoological-park-relief-model-rock-creek-park-and-zoo-grounds%3Asiris_arc_399328

Valdes M (2007) A misguided use of zoo guides? The Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/a-misguided-use-of-zoo-guides/

van Nouhuys S (2016) Metapopulation ecology. In: Encyclopedia of life sciences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0021905.pub2

Wells CW (2018) Environmental Justice in Postwar America. University of Washington Press; JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/stable/j.ctvcwngjr

Wiens JA (2008) Allerton Park 1983: the beginnings of a paradigm for landscape ecology? Landsc Ecol 23(2):125–128

Wilson MC, Chen X-Y, Corlett RT, Didham RK, Ding P, Holt RD, Holyoak M, Hu G, Hughes AC, Jiang L, Laurance WF, Liu J, Pimm SL, Robinson SK, Russo SE, Si X, Wilcove DS, Wu J, Yu M (2016) Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landsc Ecol 31(2):219–227

Woodland Park Zoo (2008) Zoo wins national award for Maasai Journey. https://blog.zoo.org/2008/09/zoo-wins-national-award-for-maasai.html

World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (n.d.) About WAZA - WAZA. https://www.Waza.Org/ . https://www.waza.org/about-waza/. Accessed 5 Jan 2022

Wu J (2013a) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9

Wu J (2013b) Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the Allerton Park workshop. Landsc Ecol 28(1):1–11

Wu J (2021) Landscape sustainability science (II): core questions and key approaches. Landsc Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01245-3

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wu J, Jenerette GD, Buyantuyev A, Redman CL (2011) Quantifying spatiotemporal patterns of urbanization: the case of the two fastest growing metropolitan regions in the United States. Ecol Complex 8(1):1–8

Download references

No outside funding supported this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85281, USA

Daniel Bisgrove

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Bisgrove .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bisgrove, D. Zooscape ecology: a conceptual analysis of zoos and landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 37 , 1733–1745 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01433-9

Download citation

Received : 07 January 2022

Accepted : 13 March 2022

Published : 16 June 2022

Issue Date : July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01433-9

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

• Biodiversity conservation
• Landscape design
• Human–wildlife interactions
• Landscape sustainability
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Debating the Morality and Value of Zoos

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

To the Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teri Byrd Vashon Island, Wash.

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

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

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

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

Karen R. Sime Oswego, N.Y.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frances McClure Oxford, Ohio

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

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

Dean Gallea Tarrytown, N.Y.

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

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

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

• Latest News

Research power of zoos

Alongside conservation and education, one of the core tenets of a modern zoo is research – but what exactly is the contribution to science from eaza zoos this new piece of fascinating research involving chester zoo’s research officer, dr. lindsay eckley, set out to find out just that..

In this multi-institutional collaboration, comprising of researchers from Chester Zoo, Copenhagen Zoo, and Manchester Metropolitan University, the research team reviewed over 3,300 publications from 291 institutions, which included research topics such as zoology, veterinary sciences, and environmental sciences and ecology. While they found that 65% of institutions had contributed to peer-reviewed science, seven institutions, including Chester Zoo, made up 37% of all publications!

The study also identified a general increasing trend in the number of publications by EAZA members, notably with a more than three-fold increase between 2008 and 2018.

“This paper highlights the tremendous value of zoo research to conservation and the significant contribution that European zoos in particular make to doing practical research that is directly applied to solving welfare and conservation problems on the ground.” – Dr. Simon Dowell, Chester Zoo’s Science Director.

By ensuring that research goes through the peer-review process, zoo researchers ensure their work is of high scientific quality. However, while the study focused on peer-reviewed publications, the authors also highlight the many contributions that zoos have to science outside of peer-reviewed publications through things like contributions to magazines, book chapters, and Best Practice Guidelines, through training opportunities, and by opening their facilities and animal collections to external researchers.

“Scientific evidence is vitally important for making decisions to benefit in-situ and ex-situ conservation. However, to be applied and make a difference on a wider scale, evidence needs to be trustworthy and disseminated. This analysis has shown that zoos and aquaria have the ability to publish valid research in a variety of relevant subjects, but there is room for more. I believe that zoos and aquaria are in a unique position to lead on scientific research and they should be supported to share the results.” –  Dr. Lindsay Eckley, Chester Zoo’s Research Officer.

Figure 1. The number of publications in the top 10 research areas from EAZA zoos between 1998 and 2018.

Read the published research here

OUR TEAM OF EXPERTS WORK IN SIX REGIONS AROUND THE GLOBE – REPRESENTING SOME OF THE PLANET’S MOST BIODIVERSE HABITATS. Discover more about our SCIENCE AND CONSERVATION work.

THIS IS WHAT WE DO

REVIEW article

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

What Do Visitors Learn at the Zoo?

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

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

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

Effects of the Zoo Environment on Visitor Behaviors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effects of the Zoo Environment on Visitor Perceptions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zoo Visitors Conservation Behaviors

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

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

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

Visitor Conservation Opportunities at the Zoo

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

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

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

Zoo Visitor Conservation Post-visit

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

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

Zoo Visitors Versus Non-visitor Conservation Actions

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

Future Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author Contributions

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

Conflict of Interest Statement

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewed by:

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

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

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

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Rationale for the Existence of Zoos

Patricia g. patrick.

1 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX USA

Sue Dale Tunnicliffe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The International Zoo Educators Association states that biological conservation education is

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

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

Conservation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recreation or Entertainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Culture and Society

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

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

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

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

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

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