research about zoo

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

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.

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

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

Biology, Social Studies, World History

Loading ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Credits

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

Illustrators

Educator reviewer, last updated.

October 19, 2023

User Permissions

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

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

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

Interactives

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

Related Resources

Research at the zoo

Oregon Zoo animals have helped answer a wide range of conservation questions. In the process, they're giving scientists the tools they need to protect wildlife in a rapidly changing world.

Everything we learn here is applied out there

How much energy does a polar bear expend while swimming? Can a dog detect the presence of turtles simply by sniffing water? What's the gentlest way to fit a GPS transmitter on a condor?

These are a few of the field conservation questions that Oregon Zoo animals have helped answer. In the process, they're giving scientists the tools they need to protect wildlife in a rapidly changing world.

Zoo animals can reveal insights that are often challenging and sometimes impossible to obtain in the wild. For that reason, zoo animals are more than ambassadors for their wild counterparts; they're aiding in their survival. The Oregon Zoo collaborates with universities, governments and other zoos to fill gaps in scientific knowledge on short- and long-term research projects.

Featured projects

Polar bear energetics.

In collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), keepers trained polar bear Tasul to wear a collar that recorded data about her movements. Scientists videotaped her wearing this "accelerometer" collar and matched the electronic signals with her behavior. Once the signals are calibrated, identical collars can be placed on wild bears, allowing researchers to remotely study their energy usage.

Borneo elephant genetics

Population and Conservation Genetics Group sought blood samples from Chendra, the western hemisphere's only Borneo elephant, for a study on the impact of fragmentation on the patterns of genetic diversity, social structure, and dispersal of Borneo elephants. Borneo elephants—the world's smallest—are critically endangered, and believed to be genetically distinct from other Asian elephants.

Steller sea lion diet

Determining the wild diet of Steller sea lions is important to understanding their impact on endangered salmon runs. Feeding zoo sea lions a diet of fish marked with tiny glass beads allowed researchers to develop a new technique that uses near-infrared spectroscopy to determine the species of fish in sea lion scat.

Condor satellite tracking

The USGS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fitted an Oregon Zoo turkey vulture with a non-invasive leg-loop harness to test the method for use with California condors. The technique may provide condor field biologists with a new tool and facilitate the testing of technologies for tracking large birds (e.g., cell phone/GPS) that require slightly heavier transmitters.

Turtle-sniffing dogs

The Oregon Wildlife Institute (OWI) trained conservation detector dogs to recognize the odor of western pond turtles and their nests for the purpose of canine-assisted nest searches. The Oregon Zoo supplied water samples containing scent of the target species. The dogs are trained to distinguish the target scent from other odors using operant conditioning procedures.

Polar bear diet

Polar bear siblings Tasul and Conrad participated in a USGS study that will help biologists measure the proportion of land and marine-based prey in wild polar bear diet. The study will assist researchers in understanding how wild polar bears adapt to changes in their food supply changes.

Zoo Research

" As with humans, research with individuals is leading to great progress in the fields of veterinary medicine and nutrition, allowing zoos and aquariums to provide their animals with the very latest care for their physical needs. But it’s not just about physical health: EAZA researchers are looking very carefully at how to reflect as fully as possible the psychological and behavioural needs of individual animals, and are expanding our understanding of how they think and interact. The findings of researchers in zoos and in the field can also help conservationists provide better care for rescued or sick animals. "

" UK zoos and aquariums have had a close relationship with science ever since the creation of the Zoological Society of London in 1826 and the later opening of Regent’s Park Zoo as a scientific establishment. "

Photo: Blair Drummond Safari Park

North America

Australasia

Photo: Chester Zoo

Zoos as Science Boosters

By the zoo scientist/ published in zoospensefull.

" The opportunity to be in close contact with these animals provides us with knowledge and data that can be of use in the management of wild populations. Hence, we can consider animals in captivity ambassadors for their wild counterparts. Research studies carried out by zoological institutions don’t always focus on animals in their collection only: a lot of work is conducted in situ, either directly by the zoos or supported by them. "

"Studying zoo animals: Why it's worth the effort"

By dr. paul rose/ published in current conservation.

" Zoos are a contentious issue for some, but for me, they are a necessary part of modern conservation because of their intrinsic value to learning more about the ecology, biology, and behaviour of animals. "

Other Resources

Other zoo missions.

Wildlife Conservation

Marwell Wildlife

Animal Welfare

Detroit Zoo

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

22k Accesses

15 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

Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps

Hannah S. Wauchope, Julia P. G. Jones, … William J. Sutherland

Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century

Sean L. Maxwell, Victor Cazalis, … James E. M. Watson

Novel data show expert wildlife agencies are important to endangered species protection

Michael J. Evans, Jacob W. Malcom & Ya-Wei Li

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.

share this!

January 27, 2023

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

fact-checked

trusted source

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

by University of Exeter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provided by University of Exeter

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Australia battles to save last 11 wild 'earless dragons'

41 minutes ago

Scientists discover how caterpillars can stop their bleeding in seconds

4 hours ago

Genetic secrets from 4,000-year-old teeth illuminate the impact of changing human diets over the centuries

5 hours ago

Advancing towards sustainability: Turning carbon dioxide and water into acetylene

Rock-wallabies are 'little Napoleons' when biting, thus compensating for their small size

New genetic analysis tool tracks risks tied to CRISPR edits

12 hours ago

Researchers show that introduced tardigrade proteins can slow metabolism in human cells

Examining the delicate balance of lepton flavors

Elephant hunting by early humans may explain proximity between extensive Paleolithic stone quarries and water sources

Behavior of ant queens found to be shaped by their social environments

Relevant physicsforums posts, metal, rock, instrumental rock and fusion.

22 hours ago

Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics?

23 hours ago

Who should have been the 4th laureate in the Nobel Prize in Physics?

Mar 25, 2024

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

Mar 22, 2024

For WW2 buffs!

Who is your favorite jazz musician and what is your favorite song.

Mar 20, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Zoo YouTube videos prioritize entertainment over education

May 11, 2021

Zoo enrichment could go further

Jan 27, 2022

Birds living in natural habits can help inform captive care

Feb 5, 2021

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

Feb 4, 2020

Could theatre be way forward in communicating conservation messages?

Feb 7, 2019

Flock size and structure found to influence reproductive success for flamingos

Jan 26, 2023

Recommended for you

Survey study shows workers with more flexibility and job security have better mental health

19 hours ago

We have revealed a unique time capsule of Australia's first coastal people from 50,000 years ago

Prestigious journals make it hard for scientists who don't speak English to get published, study finds

Mar 23, 2024

Using Twitter/X to promote research findings found to have little impact on number of citations

Exploration—not work—could be key to a vibrant local economy

New study suggests that while social media changes over decades, conversation dynamics stay the same

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

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

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

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

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

E-mail the story

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

Newsletter sign up

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

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

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

E-mail newsletter

The Zoo is free to visit, but entry passes are required for all guests, including infants.

Today's hours: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (last entry 5 p.m.)

Elephant Cam

See the Smithsonian's National Zoo's Asian elephants — Spike, Bozie, Kamala, Swarna and Maharani — both inside the Elephant Community Center and outside in their yards.

Now more than ever, we need your support. Make a donation to the Smithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute today!

Become a Member

Members are our strongest champions of animal conservation and wildlife research. When you become a member, you also receive exclusive benefits, like special opportunities to meet animals, discounts at Zoo stores and more.

Education Calendar

Find and register for free programs and webinars.

About the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute

: Meet the Animals of the National Zoo

Founded in 1889, the Smithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute sits on 163 acres in the heart of Washington, D.C.’s Rock Creek Park and is home to more than 2,200 animals representing almost 400 different species.

The Zoo’s commitment to conservation, research, and education also extends to its second campus in Front Royal, Virginia. There, scientists and animal care experts conduct veterinary and reproductive research to save wildlife and habitats for some of the world’s most endangered animals on the sprawling 3,200-acre property.

Meet the Animals

The Zoo's animal webcams are some of the most famous on the internet. Tune in to watch the Zoo's elephants, lions and naked mole-rats — live, 24/7!

Veterinary Care

Daily Animal Demos

Get a front-row seat to keepers working with animals in these daily demonstrations! Throughout the day, you can meet elephants, watch sloth bears slurp ants, see sea lions catch fish and more.

Animal News

Ducks of Our Lives

Breeding season at the Bird House can create some spectacular behavior among the Zoo’s raucous flock of ducks.

#GorillaStory: I’ll Have What Mom’s Having

At 10 months old, western lowland gorilla Zahra is healthy, feisty and eager to try new things. Get the latest update from Primates keeper Lynne McMahan.

Meet Our Addax Calf

Three’s company, too! The morning of Jan. 26, Africa Trail staff reported for duty and discovered a female addax calf.

The Animals

Chimpanzees stayed in an ‘invisible cage’ after zoo enclosure was enlarged – South African study

Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Warwick

Disclosure statement

Luke Mangaliso Duncan received funding from the Jane Goodall Institute and the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa.

University of Warwick provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Captive chimpanzees are one of the most popular species kept in zoos because of their charismatic appeal and similarity to humans . They are the closest living relatives of humans because of the shared genes and behavioural and psychological similarities .

Zoos are ethically bound to care for the animals they house . Many provide environments that care for animals’ welfare needs. However, the impact of zoo environment on the behaviour, psychology and welfare of animals is sometimes overlooked or poorly understood.

Historically, zoos have been criticised and labelled as “animal prisons”. But based on my experience and research , it’s clear that modern zoos play an important multifaceted role as centres of education, recreation, conservation and research.

Chimpanzees have been the focus of much zoo-based research, including research on their welfare. Most people – researchers, zoo workers and the public alike – assume that providing animals with larger, more “naturalistic” spaces to live in improves their welfare and existing evidence suggests that this is usually the case.

Few studies have focused on the long-term effects of these enclosures, however.

A recent paper I co-authored with colleagues fills this gap. We observed a stable group of eight chimpanzees at Johannesburg Zoo in South Africa five years after their outdoor housing was given a revamp to a more naturalistic design. The chimpanzees benefited from the new enclosure. But they appeared to use the space in an unusual way.

We found that the chimpanzees preferred to spend time in the space that was their original enclosure and that they formed groups that were remarkably tightly spaced.

We suggest that the chimpanzees’ perception of space had been altered by their experience of the previous, smaller, barren housing and that this limited their space use in the naturalistic enclosure through what appears to be a self-imposed “invisible cage”.

The role that the “invisible cage” might play in other settings is unclear. However, we believe our findings have implications for animal welfare, husbandry and broader conservation of endangered species.

Our paper shows that zoo-based research can teach us about the needs of animals in our care, and how their environment and experiences shape their biology and behaviour. It can even give us a glimpse into their minds and perceptions.

The Johannesburg Zoo turns 120 years old in 2024. Located in Saxonwold in Johannesburg, the zoo covers an area of 55 hectares and is the second-largest zoo in South Africa . It hosts 320 species of animals and is a member of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums .

In 2004, the chimpanzee outdoor enclosure at the Johannesburg Zoo which was built in the 1970s was extensively upgraded. The chimpanzee space was increased from a pair of concrete and wood enclosures, each measuring 10 metres by 10 metres, to a large, naturalistic enclosure encompassing about 2,500 square metres of grass, shrubs, trees, rocks and streams, occupying the same site as the previous housing. Most of the chimpanzees had lived their entire lives in the old enclosures while two had only lived there for a few years.

Upgrades to naturalistic designs have become the standard for zoos . They are often followed by evaluations to determine how the new space affects the welfare of the animals. Such evaluations typically find that welfare is improved with naturalistic enclosures . This was true at the Johannesburg Zoo too. Chimpanzees exhibited persistent beneficial changes in behaviour, such as decreased abnormal or repetitive behaviour, suggesting improved welfare in their naturalistic enclosure .

Our study started in 2009 , five years after the overhaul of the enclosure. In this study, the chimpanzees appeared to use all of the enclosure to some degree but showed a preference for the area where the previous enclosure had been.

Curiously, the chimpanzees also appeared to exhibit a strong tendency to form tightly spaced groups which matched the exact dimensions of the previous housing. These groups formed regardless of when or where in the enclosure the chimpanzees were, the environmental conditions at the time or which individual chimpanzees were involved.

This unusual pattern had not previously been reported and appeared contrary to what might be expected for a group of animals which had lived in such a large space for five years. This space-use behaviour appeared to reflect a perceived, self-imposed, intangible barrier to the spacing of the chimpanzees, as if an invisible cage surrounded the groups.

Animal welfare and the use of space

Space use is difficult to interpret in terms of animal welfare because it is often context-dependent and so is usually ignored when doing evaluations after an enclosure overhaul. When an animal chooses to use a small amount of space it may be because the space is attractive and meets their welfare needs. However, an animal may choose to remain in a small area because the larger space is perceived as unpleasant or even dangerous.

For the chimpanzees, nothing suggested that the spacing pattern indicated distress or compromised welfare. Other aspects of the chimpanzees’ behaviour suggested improved welfare in the naturalistic enclosure. Instead, it appeared that the invisible cage reflected a persistent psychological barrier, learned in the previous housing and then imposed in the naturalistic enclosure years later.

These findings mirror a psychological effect termed “learned helplessness” seen in many species, including humans . In situations where individuals are helpless or lack control, they learn that their actions cannot affect the outcome . This perception is carried into later situations where they can affect the outcome, acting as though still helpless.

Further research is needed to understand the welfare implications and broader application of these findings. However, they highlight some important issues around the role of zoos and how zoos affect species conservation.

The importance of zoos

Zoos help raise awareness around conservation issues. They also provide a haven for species under threat. Many facilities breed and reintroduce these species into nature. The Johannesburg Zoo particularly has several conservation programmes , including a breeding programme for the endangered Pickersgill’s reed frog.

As sanctuaries sustaining threatened populations, zoos actively conserve biodiversity on many ways (creating gene banks, breeding animals and conserving biological and behavioural diversity) while providing critical access to rare species for observation and research.

• Animal welfare
• Chimpanzees
• Animals in captivity

Research Fellow in Tropical Climate Variability

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

School of Social Sciences – Public Policy and International Relations opportunities

Deputy Editor - Technology

• Blog Archives
• Copy­right | Cookie policy
• Lit­er­a­ture
• (V)IPs Zoos
• Rest of the World
• Endan­gered Species
• Species Clas­si­fi­ca­tion
• (V)IPs Evo­lu­tion
• Lat­est Newsletter
• Newslet­ter Archive
• Sub­scrip­tion
• Video Gallery

Select a Zoo

Reviews — zoos in europe, his­tory description, his­tory documentary.

Dur­ing the sec­ond half of the nine­teenth cen­tury the first menageries in Moscow were estab­lished as enter­tain­ment facil­i­ties. The first was founded in 1855 by two French­men (names unknown), while the Kreuzberg fam­ily owned a pri­vate menagerie that opened its door to the pub­lic in 1862 . Together these ani­mal col­lec­tions formed the heart of the Moscow Zoo­log­i­cal Gar­den founded by the Soci­ety for Acclima­ti­za­tion of Plants and Ani­mals, which was estab­lished by pro­fes­sors of the Moscow State Uni­ver­sity. The ini­tial idea for such a zoo­log­i­cal gar­den came in 1857 , but it took the Soci­ety, includ­ing one of its found­ing fathers pro­fes­sor Ana­toly P. Bog­danov, until 1863 to be able to buy prop­erty for the future zoo. The Zoo was opened to vis­i­tors on 13 Feb­ru­ary 1864 at the loca­tion where it still exists until this very day. On open­ing day 287 ani­mals were on dis­play, of which 134 were domes­tic ani­mals, while the oth­ers were exotic spec­i­mens such as tigers, lions, jaguar, leop­ard and rhino.

In those days it was an unique exper­i­ment to cre­ate “a liv­ing museum out­doors,” as pro­fes­sor Bog­danov said, in such severe cli­matic con­di­tions of cen­tral Rus­sia. The pri­mary pur­pose of the Zoo­log­i­cal Gar­den accord­ing to the mem­bers of the Soci­ety was:

to col­lect alive spec­i­mens of higher ver­te­brates ( firstly — the ani­mals of Russ­ian fauna) for sci­en­tific observations;

to estab­lish a col­lec­tion of typ­i­cal ani­mals that could serve edu­ca­tional pur­poses, i.e. dis­tri­b­u­tion of zoo­log­i­cal knowl­edge among the wide pub­lic communities;

to carry out sci­en­tific exper­i­ments and obser­va­tions of impor­tant ani­mals, espe­cially domes­tic ani­mals of Russ­ian breeds.

The Zoo was financed by the entrance fees and pri­vate dona­tions, includ­ing con­tri­bu­tions by mem­bers of the impe­r­ial fam­ily. In the first years the annual num­ber of vis­i­tors grew up to ten thou­sands. Nev­er­the­less, the incomes did not cover the expenses and the Moscow City Coun­cil refused to give finan­cial sup­port. So, the Zoo went into pri­vate hands of the Ryabinins’ fam­ily in 1874 . They trans­formed the Zoo into an amuse­ment park and in three years time ruined the place. In 1878 the Zoo was run by the Soci­ety for Acclima­ti­za­tion of Plants and Ani­mals again, includ­ing fund rais­ing activ­i­ties. This time the Soci­ety was able to man­age the Zoo suc­cess­fully, and even to buy a num­ber of ani­mals. But in the tur­moil of the Rev­o­lu­tion of 1905 the Zoo was severely dam­aged: the build­ings were ruined, the library was set on fire, many ani­mals per­ished. So, for the sec­ond time the Soci­ety was forced to turn over the Zoo to pri­vate owners.

Then in 1914 World War I broke out. For the Zoo this meant that in the autumn of 1914 the only build­ing that remain to this day was trans­formed from the director’s premises to a hos­pi­tal for wounded WWI sol­diers. The WWI impact com­pounded Russia’s suf­fer­ing from a num­ber of eco­nomic and social prob­lems, which resulted first in the 1917 Feb­ru­ary rev­o­lu­tion fol­lowed by the Octo­ber rev­o­lu­tion. In the after­math of the Great Octo­ber Social­ist Rev­o­lu­tion of 1917 and the fall of the Russ­ian Empire, the Soci­ety ceased to exist, and in 1919 the Zoo­log­i­cal Gar­den was declared national prop­erty and trans­ferred under the respon­si­bil­ity of the min­istry of Cul­ture of the com­mu­nist Moscow par­lia­ment, the Mossovet. In 1922 it was trans­ferred to the author­ity of Moscow City Coun­cil and since then it has been sup­ported by the City Author­i­ties. Con­struc­tion work began on the Zoo grounds. The Zoo­log­i­cal Gar­den premises almost dou­bled in size with the estab­lish­ment of the ‘New’ ter­ri­tory on the oppo­site side of Bol­shaya Gruzin­skaya street. New exhibits, which fol­lowed the prin­ci­ple of Carl Hagenbeck’s bar-​less enclo­sure design were estab­lished. One of the most inter­est­ing exhibits of the Zoo called ‘Ani­mal Island’ still exists. It was a high stony rock sur­rounded by a deep water ditch that sep­a­rated the vis­i­tors from bears, tigers, lions and other large preda­tors on the ‘Island’. The total size at the time was nearly 18 hectares.

In 1926 the Zoo­log­i­cal Gar­den was renamed ‘Zoo­log­i­cal Park’. At that time the range of activ­i­ties extended, the ani­mal col­lec­tion increased con­sid­er­ably with expe­di­tions col­lect­ing wildlife in Cen­tral Asia, the Far East and the Cau­ca­sus. New depart­ments were estab­lished, focussed on for instance sci­en­tific research, edu­ca­tion, vet­eri­nary sci­ence and nutri­tion. In those same years Moscow Zoo was the first zoo in the world where edu­ca­tional activ­i­ties were the main priority.

In 1924 the Zoo had estab­lished the Young Biol­o­gists Club that gath­ered like-​minded young peo­ple that joined in real sci­en­tific research. Many of them became a Zoo employee. The Club was founded by Petr Man­teifel, who also was the pio­neer father of the sci­ence called ‘zoo biol­ogy’. Man­teifel and his young biol­o­gists dis­cov­ered a way of arti­fi­cial breed­ing sables (Martes zibel­lina), which were on the verge of extinc­tion due to man’s insa­tiable pur­suit for its expen­sive fur. In the 1930 s dur­ing Stalin’s great purge many mem­bers of the Young Biol­o­gists Club were arrested accused of spread­ing anti-​soviet pro­pa­ganda and liberal-​minded ideas and hav­ing con­tact with Ger­man col­leagues at Berlin zoo, some were even exe­cuted as for­eign spies. The Club was con­sid­ered a non-​governmental organ­i­sa­tion beyond the direct con­trol of the author­i­ties, which in fact was partly true because the Club was a real democ­racy, with mem­ber­ship avail­able to all.

Although many ani­mals were evac­u­ated and many of the zoo staff were called to arms at the begin­ning of World War II the Zoo was kept open. Of the 750 employ­ees at autumn 1941 only 220 remained on the staff, most of them women. Get­ting enough food for the ani­mals was a con­stant chal­lenge, for instance car­casses of killed horse at the bat­tle­field around Moscow were brought to the zoo. More than six mil­lion peo­ple vis­ited the Zoo from 1941 to 1945 to enjoy the sights of ani­mals that had remained.

At wartime the sci­en­tific work pro­ceeded, per­haps even more intense than before or after the war. The sci­en­tific staff worked espe­cially on devel­op­ment of antibi­otics. But the most impor­tant mis­sion of the Zoo dur­ing the war was to give peo­ple hope. It pro­duced the illu­sion of a peace­ful life until peo­ple sur­vived through the des­per­a­tion of the war with the Red Army sol­diers as the most fre­quent vis­i­tors of the Zoo. Which were given the plea­sure of watch­ing new­born off­spring even dur­ing the war.

Dur­ing the soviet union period ( 1922 − 1991 ) not many highly ranked peo­ple cared about the zoo — no soviet leader had any inter­est in it. The city encroached on the zoo premises, while the zoo needed addi­tional space for the ever expand­ing zoo pop­u­la­tion of ani­mals. Because the breed­ing results were still excellent.

The Zoo lived up to the goal it had set for itself and made edu­ca­tional activ­i­ties the main pri­or­ity. Zoo staff dis­trib­uted knowl­edge in the field of nat­ural his­tory and tried to raise the pub­lic aware­ness and con­cern about the neces­sity for wildlife con­ser­va­tion. The zoo assisted school­child­ren and stu­dents with study­ing biol­ogy, actively par­tic­i­pated in sci­en­tific research, and actively con­tributed to sci­en­tific pub­li­ca­tions. So, the Zoo became one of the larger sci­en­tific insti­tu­tions in Moscow. And of course it still was the favourite recre­ational place for Moscow cit­i­zens and those who vis­ited the city.

As off 1974 when Igos Sos­novsky retired as direc­tor and his suc­ces­sor Vladimir Spit­syn took over Moscow Zoo became part of the inter­na­tional zoo com­mu­nity again. Sos­novsky as a WWII vet­eran hadn’t been able to brush aside the fear of repres­sion and avoided all inter­na­tional con­tacts for some rea­son. Spit­syn restored all inter­na­tional activ­i­ties from before the war and the Zoo became mem­ber of many Euro­pean and Inter­na­tional Breed­ing Pro­grammes in which it exchanged its rare and endan­gered ani­mals, shared expe­ri­ence and information.

Although already in the 1970 s improve­ment of all zoo facil­i­ties was needed and ideas of a new zoo in another region of Moscow were launched, noth­ing hap­pened due to local eco­nom­i­cal and social prob­lems. By the end of the 1980 s the Zoo’s con­di­tion became alarm­ing. Facil­i­ties were dete­ri­o­rat­ing, enclo­sures were dilap­i­dated and tech­ni­cal equip­ment needed to be replaced as well. And while a few improve­ments had been achieved — such as a par­tial ren­o­va­tion of the main entrance, the mon­key house and lion house — urgent mea­sures were still needed.

Then, in 1992 the new Moscow gov­ern­ment made a deci­sion to start the most ambi­tious recon­struc­tion project in Moscow Zoo’s his­tory with the first stage of the project to be com­pleted by 1997 , when the 850 th anniver­sary of the City would be cel­e­brated. Ana­toly A. Andreev who had been involved in the Zoo’s design and archi­tec­ture since the 1970 s headed the team of archi­tects. The project’s ren­o­va­tion objec­tives were focussed at (a) preser­va­tion or par­tial ren­o­va­tion of the his­tor­i­cally valu­able build­ings and exist­ing pools, (b) reduc­tion of the noise from the sur­round­ing streets, © con­nec­tion of the Old and the New ter­ri­tory via a foot­bridge, and (d) expan­sion of the Old ter­ri­tory by incor­po­rat­ing adja­cent areas and buildings.

Besides the preser­va­tion and ren­o­va­tion of almost all impor­tant zoo con­struc­tions, includ­ing the ones that actu­ally were dilap­i­dated, many new enclo­sures and facil­i­ties were built. Already in 1993 the foot­bridge that con­nected the Old and New ter­ri­tory was com­pleted. It allowed vis­i­tors to avoid cross­ing the busy B. Gruzin­skaya street with its heavy traf­fic. In 1993 other con­struc­tions were com­pleted as well, such as an enclo­sure for large birds of prey and a com­plex of enclo­sures for feline species, includ­ing leop­ards, Pal­las’ cats and lynx. Next, the Hagenbeck-​style ‘Ani­mal Island’, one of the most remark­able exhibits in the New ter­ri­tory, was ren­o­vated. The his­toric appear­ance with enclo­sures that resem­bled the nat­ural habi­tats of Amur tiger, striped hyena, African wild dog and Asian black bear was pre­served. Later they intro­duced Asian lions in one of the enclo­sures around the large rock in the cen­tre of the ‘island’. Dur­ing the ren­o­va­tion they cre­ated the Exo­tar­ium, which held sev­eral aquar­i­ums, inside the rock on the sec­ond floor.

The fol­low­ing years many more enclo­sures were ren­o­vated, besides the new research and vet­eri­nar­ian facil­i­ties that were put into oper­a­tion in 1994 . In 1996 , the main entrance itself (fea­tur­ing a small arti­fi­cial water­fall) was recon­structed. The same year the old, dilap­i­dated ele­phant com­plex was demol­ished and a new ele­phant house was erected at the same spot, while the inhab­i­tants (four African ele­phants and four Asian ele­phants) were tem­porar­ily moved to a a for­mer tram depot that was com­pletely ren­o­vated and spe­cially equipped. A new children’s zoo was opened in the New ter­ri­tory, includ­ing a children’s the­atre that organ­ises shows with edu­ca­tional ele­ments. And besides sev­eral aviaries, a pavil­ion for water birds was built on the shore of the large pond in the New territory.

Although in those days 4 addi­tional hectares of space was added to the for­mer exist­ing 18 hectares, the Zoo still lacked space to cre­ate favourable con­di­tions for their species to breed. And its loca­tion in the cen­tre of Moscow didn’t con­tribute to the favourable breed­ing con­di­tions they wanted of course. There­fore, the 200 hectares area near the city of Voloko­lamsk (about 100 km from Moscow) that was given to the Zoo in 1996 for the estab­lish­ment of a breed­ing sta­tion was very much wel­comed (see also Breed­ing Cen­tre ).

The first major stage of the gen­eral recon­struc­tion of the Moscow zoo rep­re­sents a unique event. Not only over 50 facil­i­ties have been ren­o­vated ( 90 % of all exist­ing facil­i­ties) and newly built, but it was achieved in such a short period of time. But main­te­nance and small and larger refur­bish­ment is ongo­ing busi­ness in a zoo. So, i n 2002 , the Moscow City Gov­ern­ment and the City Coun­cil allo­cated the nec­es­sary funds to start con­struc­tion of a new pavil­ion for the Asian ele­phants. In 2003 the three ele­phants could move house already, and in spring 2009 , the first new­born ele­phant calf was welcomed.

The Moscow Zoo­log­i­cal Park has come a long way from the small zoo­log­i­cal gar­den it was to the large insti­tu­tion of sci­en­tific research, edu­ca­tion, con­ser­va­tion and recre­ation it is today. And due to the dynam­ics of the stan­dards used in the zoo com­mu­nity regard­ing ani­mal health and wel­fare, Moscow Zoo is con­stantly improv­ing its facil­i­ties, also dur­ing 2014 cel­e­brat­ing its 150 th anniversary.

(Source: Moscow Zoo web­site; Zoo with a Human Face, to the 150 th anniver­sary of the Moscow Zoo — a doc­u­men­tary by Darya Vio­lina and Sergei Pavlovsky, 2014 ; Zoo and Aquar­ium His­tory by Ver­non N. Kisling, Jr., 2001 ; Wikipedia)

An account of 150 years of his­tory of the Moscow Zoo

(A doc­u­men­tary by Darya Vio­lina and Sergei Pavlovsky)

The his­tory of Moscow Zoo shown through the per­spec­tive of the lives of the peo­ple who have been impor­tant to the Zoo’s devel­op­ment and con­tin­u­ous progress over those many years since 1864 . Thou­sands of pho­tographs, hun­dreds of chron­i­cles, accounts and rec­ol­lec­tions that have pre­served the story that began so long ago, against all odds, and lasts unin­ter­rupted to this day. A doc­u­men­tary about those who have devoted their lives to serv­ing a noble and reward­ing cause, those who have started from scratch, those who main­tained that work and about those who revive the Zoo as off today.

(Source: sdpavlovskiy YouTube channel)

20 . 06 . 2014

Finally, Moscow Zoo is paid a visit. I have been look­ing for­ward to this for quite some time. It has been on my to-​do list since I learnt about the large col­lec­tion of feline species on dis­play at the Zoo. So, I am here on this sunny day in June to sat­isfy my curios­ity, in the year they cel­e­brate the Zoo’s 150 th anniversary.

I am enter­ing as one of the 1 , 5 mil­lion pay­ing atten­dance yearly. Which is not even half of the total num­ber of vis­i­tors a year. This is about 4 mil­lion, because there are spe­cific cat­e­gories (e.g. dis­abled, pen­sion­ers, chil­dren, stu­dents, etc.) for whom the admis­sion is free.

OLD TER­RI­TORY

I turn left after the main entrance to visit the large preda­tor sec­tion of the Old ter­ri­tory. Not that only here you will find preda­tors, but the great­est part of their preda­tor col­lec­tion is grouped in this sec­tion. I will come back to the group­ing of Moscow Zoo’s ani­mal col­lec­tion later. After hav­ing walked along a fence that blocks most of the views on the work in progress at the lake I arrive at what they call here the ‘trop­i­cal cats’ sec­tion: Ben­gal tiger (unfor­tu­nately the genet­i­cally aber­rant ver­sion — a white tiger), jaguar and chee­tah. Both the tiger and the jaguar have their indoor enclo­sures in the same house built at the perime­ter of the premises. The chee­tahs have their shel­ter for the night and bad weather in their out­door pad­dock, so that can­not be vis­ited. The tiger and the jaguar how­ever have inter­est­ing hous­ing that serves the needs for both the cats and the vis­i­tors. The lat­ter are pleased with Asian and South Amer­i­can (Inca) orna­ments to make sure they under­stand the geo­graph­i­cal ori­gin of the species. While the walls have murals rep­re­sent­ing the species’ orig­i­nal habi­tat … Machu Pichu for the jaguar. The ani­mals them­selves have var­i­ous enrich­ment fea­tures at their dis­posal, includ­ing high level obser­va­tion posts, in rather small exhibits. The out­door facil­i­ties for these two species are acces­si­ble from the indoors. It has nat­ural veg­e­ta­tion, but not a lot. Like­wise there are not a lot of options to shel­ter from extreme weather or loud crowds. Although the cats have access to sev­eral rest­ing posts at dif­fer­ent lev­els, these enclo­sures can do with some improve­ments — at least more veg­e­ta­tion — to make them bet­ter fit for pur­pose, in my opin­ion. The enor­mous expo­sure of the cats is also due to the fact that they use win­dows to sep­a­rate ani­mal from man along almost the total length of the enclosures.

When I walk the few steps to the entrance of the Bear House, which is like the jaguar and tiger indoor enclo­sure built at the edge of the Zoo grounds, I pass in between the Pal­las’ cat exhibit and a sec­ond jaguar exhibit. The Pal­las’ cat has a flat grassy area with three large trees, some shrubs and a poten­tial pond (when filled with water) avail­able in its out­door enclo­sure. Win­dows all around and a wire mesh roof pre­vent the cat from flee­ing this scenery that doesn’t resem­ble the cat’s orig­i­nal Himalyan habi­tat. Across the foot­path there’s a jaguar enclo­sure that’s more inter­est­ing than the one directly neigh­bour­ing the tiger. This one has a small stream and loads of veg­e­ta­tion and a mul­ti­level rest­ing plat­form. Still the ani­mal is quite exposed.

The Bear House pro­vides a nice and secluded area where three adja­cent bear enclo­sures houses sloth bear and spec­ta­cled bear. As a vis­i­tor you walk via a roofed cor­ri­dor more or less in the dark along the enclo­sures hav­ing good views on the exhibit via man-​sized win­dows. The enclo­sures have a dry shal­low moat at the visitor’s side, but I don’t think this with­hold the bears from com­ing close to the win­dows. The enclo­sures are small but almost com­pletely filled with enrich­ment fea­tures includ­ing var­i­ous plat­forms, a tree trunk struc­ture, rub­ber ham­mocks and nat­ural veg­e­ta­tion. Con­sid­er­ing the design I think these enclo­sures offer peace and quiet for the bears, unless peo­ple start bang­ing the win­dows of course.

In slightly larger enclo­sures they keep Amur leop­ard, snow leop­ard and cougar ( Puma con­color ). At all of these felid species enclo­sures the dis­tance between the pub­lic bar­rier and the fence does allow con­tact when peo­ple lean far forward.

Fur­ther along the foot­path around the cor­ner the arc­tic fox and the dhole are housed in enclo­sures that have a sim­i­lar inte­rior design as those for the felids. Despite the fact that these species live under dif­fer­ent nat­ural cir­cum­stances in the wild (for­est and tun­dra habi­tat respectively).

When I walk back to have a look at the large birds of prey aviary I can­not pre­vent myself to have a brief look at the giraffe enclo­sure as well. It’s obvi­ously a relic of the past that is not fit for pur­pose any­more. Still they have one retic­u­lated giraffe on dis­play at a sad­den­ing small area. It loves to be fed by the pub­lic that doesn’t care about the warn­ing not to feed the ani­mals. On the other side of the build­ing a sim­i­lar piti­ful sit­u­a­tion for the sin­gle white-​tailed gnu can be seen.

One of the most extra­or­di­nary group of species brought together on dis­play can be found right after the row of preda­tor enclo­sures. The maned wolf from South Amer­ica has the red-​necked wal­laby and emu from Aus­tralia as neigh­bour. But also in the same area the African wild dog is on dis­play as well as white-​tailed gnu (Africa) and kiang (Asia) in the row of sta­bles along the rim of the premises.

The rac­coon exhibit is worth men­tion­ing con­sid­er­ing the afore­men­tioned acci­dent risks. It has a very typ­i­cal enclo­sure design with elec­tri­cal wire on top of win­dows sur­round­ing the entire exhibit. The elec­tri­cal wire is within reach of the pub­lic. So, there are numer­ous warn­ing signs! But why they installed elec­tri­cal wire on top of win­dows that are unclimbable for rac­coons? To keep out the pub­lic perhaps?

In the bird house, in the far end cor­ner from the main entrance, birds from all geo­graph­i­cal regions are grouped together, includ­ing Hum­boldt pen­guin and African pen­guin. The house con­sists of two part with one part half empty, and has also very com­mon species on dis­play, such as wild turkey, com­mon pheas­ant and Euro­pean hedge­hog. Out­side this build­ing sev­eral aviaries com­prise a large array of par­rot species (South Amer­ica and Australia).

Pro­ceed­ing with my tour around the Old ter­ri­tory I have a look at the Asian ele­phant house and its sur­round­ing grounds. The fancy steel with blue details of the ele­phant house doesn’t appeal to me, but that is just a mat­ter of taste. It is def­i­nitely the most mod­ern exhibit in the Zoo I’ve seen yet, in style and in size, with a nice pool at the visitor’s side.

I skip the rep­tile house to save some time, and money too, because an addi­tional fee com­plies. So I walk straight to another mod­ern enclo­sure — the bar-​less and moated wolf exhibit. Although it has a Hagenbeck-​style design, the space avail­able for the wolves is ridicu­lously small. The wolves will never be able to cross the water-​filled moat and climb the wall and thus break out, still there is impres­sive elec­tri­cal wiring in place on top of the wall. Again, prob­a­bly to keep out the public.

Mak­ing my way to the foot­bridge that con­nects the Old and New ter­ri­tory I pass along a very old-​fashioned row of enclo­sures built in a semi­cir­cle in front of the 16 metres high sculp­ture by Zurab Tsereteli called ‘Tree of Fairy Tales’, 1996 . The enclo­sures house sev­eral species of mustel­idae (sable, Euro­pean pole­cat, stone marten), as well as African wild cats. Then fol­lowed by sev­eral aviaries again. At this point I am really lost regard­ing the way they group the Zoo’s ani­mal collection.

NEW TER­RI­TORY

Pro­ceed­ing clock­wise I find the doors of the Trop­i­cal House closed for ren­o­va­tion. So, no but­ter­flies for me this time. But in one of the two spa­cious aviaries around this house I dis­cover sev­eral ducks, such as the man­darin duck and the black-​bellied whistling duck, together with the com­mon kestrel ( Falco tin­nun­cu­lus ), though nei­ther rare nor endangered.

Then a rather spe­cial exhibit appears, the Ani­mal Island, which was devel­oped in the 1920 s as one of the first Hagenbeck-​style enclo­sures in the New ter­ri­tory. Although it took some ren­o­va­tion activ­i­ties it still exists to this very day. In the cen­tre of this moated area they have erected a fake ruined fortress, which serves as the back­ground for the species in the sur­round­ing exhibits. These bar-​less exhibits have a more mod­ern appear­ance but it isn’t nec­es­sar­ily an improve­ment for the ani­mals. For instance the Asian black bear has a bare envi­ron­ment with minor enrich­ment avail­able and no veg­e­ta­tion, but the brown bear is even worse off in a sim­i­lar enclo­sure but next to noth­ing of enrich­ment fea­tures. The tun­dra wolf ( Canis lupus alba ) and the striped hyena have a lit­tle bet­ter place at their dis­posal, but the Asian lions have by far the best enclo­sure. They have sev­eral rest­ing plat­forms, trees and a stream that ends in the moat. Again to save time I skip an exhibit. This time the Exo­tar­ium with its aquar­i­ums that has been cre­ated inside the ruined fortress and by the way requires an addi­tional fee to get in.

One of the rare areas in Moscow Zoo where you find mixed-​species exhibits is called ‘Fauna of the Savan­nah’. It has a South Amer­i­can sec­tion with capy­bara vicuna and gua­naco, and — very impor­tantly — a large pool at the dis­posal of the largest rodent on earth. Though absolutely not endan­gered, these water-​loving capy­baras should have access to water at all times, in my opin­ion. The real savan­nah area with African species has sev­eral enclo­sures. A mixed species exhibit with sable ante­lope and dikdik. And Grevy’s zebra together with ostrich and giraffe. Also this time there’s only one giraffe in the pad­dock. The loca­tion of the meerkat enclo­sure is well cho­sen, because when they sit on top of one of their hills they can watch the other ani­mals. Although it is the largest and prob­a­bly the most mod­ern facil­ity at the Moscow Zoo I still think it is dis­ap­point­ingly mediocre com­pared to other zoos I have seen in Europe and North America.

Before I go to the pri­mate sec­tion I buy myself an ice cream and walk along the horse sta­bles on the east­ern edge of the New ter­ri­tory premises. Look­ing for an answer to the ques­tion “why are there horse sta­bles at this place?” The ques­tion still waits for an answer.

At Moscow Zoo they keep both Suma­tran as Bornean orang­utans, which is quite unusual. The out­doors for the five indi­vid­u­als, includ­ing 2 young, of the Suma­tran species looks impres­sive due to the enor­mously high rock face at the rear. The wall looks extra impres­sive because it is rather close to the view­ing win­dows. Unfor­tu­nately, the exhibit lacks trees and veg­e­ta­tion other than grass while the enrich­ment is scant and I don’t see puz­zle feed­ers. The Bornean orang­utans have a sim­i­lar out­door enclo­sure, but it is sug­gested that olive baboons ( Papio anu­bis ) are on dis­play here as well. It could be that they alter­nate in the same out­door enclo­sure, but this is not very clear.

The west­ern low­land goril­las also have a sim­i­lar out­door enclo­sure design due to which the ani­mals are enor­mously exposed to the inquis­i­tive pub­lic. Con­sid­er­ing the num­ber of young­sters Moscow Zoo appears to be hav­ing good results breed­ing orang­utans and gorillas.

Indoors, all the great ape exhibits have much enrich­ment and jungle-​like murals, but the agile gib­bon has even more enrich­ment inside. I haven’t seen a spe­cific out­door enclo­sure for the agile gib­bon but it could be pos­si­ble that it alter­nates with the Suma­tran orang­utans. Only this enclo­sure lacks high trees or other options for the gib­bon to brachi­ate, which is its nat­ural behav­iour in the canopy of the gibbon’s native habi­tat, the rain­forests of south­east Asia.

The ter­rar­ium build­ing, located behind the Pri­mate House, is beau­ti­fully dec­o­rated with lit­tle mosaic tiles. They have the usual row of exhibits, but in this case espe­cially the larger rep­tiles and tor­toises (python, croc­o­diles, alli­ga­tor, tor­toise) are kept. And out­side they have two giant tor­toise species, the Aldabra and the Gala­pa­gos tortoise.

On my return to the exit I pass the exhibits of a few of the many preda­tor species they have on dis­play at Moscow Zoo. The polar bear is pro­vided with a big heap of arti­fi­cial ice, but that’s about it when it comes to enrich­ment, though there are some plas­tic drums to play with. The enclo­sure as such is the pro­to­type of polar bear enclo­sures world­wide, rear wall of cement and large bricks, con­crete floor, large and deep water-​filled moat. Unfor­tu­nately, again here the annoy­ing reflect­ing win­dows. The yellow-​throated marten I do not see, and the same counts for the Eurasian otter in its large elon­gated out­door exhibit with a shal­low pool along the whole length. It must be great to see the sub­merged otters swim in this pool.

Con­clu­sion There are sev­eral ways to group a col­lec­tion of ani­mals which can sup­port a zoo’s edu­ca­tional efforts. Of course, some peo­ple just come to the zoo to be enter­tained, but when an indi­vid­ual is ready to learn some things the worst thing you can do is con­fuse him or her. And to be fairly hon­est, con­fus­ing it is. Some­times they group the col­lec­tion accord­ing their tax­o­nomic tree, which is the case with the felids, the bird species and the pri­mates. Then again they have decided to present the col­lec­tion by geo­graph­i­cal ori­gin, like in the ‘Fauna of the Savan­nah’, or accord­ing orig­i­nal habi­tat like the mountain-​dwelling tur and mark­hor. And at some point they just make a mess of the group­ing, for instance in the area with the maned wolf, the red-​necked wal­laby and oth­ers. In the end it seems the Zoo just want to have on dis­play as many species as pos­si­ble, because all species that live in herds they keep them in small num­bers. I do under­stand that it is not easy, requires tough deci­sions and cer­tainly is not cheap to rearrange your entire col­lec­tion, espe­cially when it is that huge as it is here at Moscow Zoo. Any­way, fur­ther ren­o­va­tion is fore­seen and prob­a­bly some rethink­ing as well.

I hope that they get rid of all these win­dows they have at so many exhibits. For some sit­u­a­tions it is inevitable I under­stand, but I sin­cerely hope they will return to the orig­i­nal Hagen­beck idea of bar-​less enclo­sures, tak­ing into account mod­ern hus­bandry stan­dards of course. As the posi­tion of the sun makes it some­times hard to get even the slight­est glimpse of the ani­mals due to the reflec­tions in the win­dows. And last but not least they have the ten­dency to have win­dows all around or at more than 50 per­cent of the perime­ter of an enclo­sure. Most of the time lead­ing to more expo­sure of the ani­mals to the pub­lic and pos­si­ble unrest.

Suma­tran orang­utan young­sters at Moscow Zoo

Just another day at the zoo for these orang­utans ( Pongo abelii ) — noth­ing much excit­ing going on in this safe and secure envi­ron­ment. But wouldn’t it be nice to see them swing­ing and romp­ing in the forests of Sumatra.….

Rac­coons at Moscow Zoo

Rac­coons are known for their habit to clean their food in the water before eat­ing it. It seems they also want to have a clean ball before play­ing with it.

Breed­ing Centre

Infor­ma­tion and education, zoo details, breed­ing farm.

The Moscow Zoo has always been try­ing to cre­ate the most favourable con­di­tions for their ani­mals to ful­fil their basic needs. Not only for ani­mal health and wel­fare pur­poses but also to breed the ani­mals suc­cess­fully. These spe­cific breed­ing con­di­tions could not be achieved due to its loca­tion in the City cen­tre and the lack of space. In 1996 the Zoo came into pos­ses­sion of an area of 200 hectares near the city of Voloko­lamsk (about 100 km from Moscow). In this pic­turesque hilly area of the for­mer quar­ries of the Sychovo min­ing fac­tory, with streams, springs and arti­fi­cial ponds bet­ter oppor­tu­ni­ties were avail­able for breed­ing var­i­ous — pre­dom­i­nantly rare — species of animals.

The main goals of the Breed­ing Cen­tre, besides main­tain­ing rare and endan­gered species of ani­mals, are estab­lish­ing breed­ing pairs and groups and devel­op­ing new hus­bandry meth­ods. Since exces­sive dis­tur­bance is likely to have adverse effect on the breed­ing efforts, the actual Breed­ing Cen­tre is not open to the public.

The con­struc­tion of the Breed­ing Cen­tre started in March 1996 . The first inhab­i­tants of the Cen­tre were birds of prey and water­fowl and they have been suc­cess­fully breed­ing birds ever since. The col­lec­tion of water­fowl has grown notably since the begin­ning. Apart from the numer­ous mal­lards and ruddy shel­ducks, the inhab­i­tants of the ponds include pin­tails, pochards, tufted ducks and black geese of the genus Branta. Bewick’s swans are thriv­ing, rais­ing their chicks every year. Japan­ese, white-​naped and Siber­ian cranes are also breed­ing suc­cess­fully and many other species, includ­ing par­rots. The breed­ing cen­tre for birds of prey is con­tin­u­ously expand­ing, with Himalayan grif­fon vul­tures, golden eagles, impe­r­ial eagles, Steller’s sea eagles, and black vul­tures among its most promi­nent inhab­i­tants. Reg­u­lar breed­ing has also been achieved in saker fal­cons ( Falco cher­rug ).

They keep car­niv­o­rous mam­mals as well at the Breed­ing Cen­tre. These include endan­gered species such as Amur leop­ard, Pal­las’ cat, chee­tah, Amur tiger, dhole, wolver­ine, and yellow-​throated marten. Of these species the Amur leop­ard is listed Crit­i­cally Endan­gered accord­ing the IUCN Red List of Threat­ened Species™ , with about 45 indi­vid­u­als left in the wild. The Zoo’s track record says they have pro­duced off­spring from Pal­las’ cat, dhole, yellow-​throated marten, and Amur tiger.

For the ungu­lates that are kept at the Cen­tre the envi­ron­ment is almost ideal. There are bac­trian camels as well as kiangs, Saiga antelopes, blue sheep and vicu­nas. Hoofed ani­mals orig­i­nat­ing from moun­tain­ous areas have large pad­docks at their dis­posal that are sit­u­ated on the slopes of the sur­round­ing hills, more or less sim­i­lar to their nat­ural habitat.

Besides the more rare and endan­gered species the Cen­tre also has an inter­est­ing col­lec­tion of domes­tic hens, a horse sta­ble and a dog-​breeding cen­tre, mainly for the breed­ing of Cen­tral Asian sheep dogs. Fur­ther­more, there is a small quail farm and a poul­try farm with layer hens.

More­over a sub­sidiary farm in Loto­shino houses some cat­tle, smaller live­stock, and the main herd of bac­trian camels and yaks. The area of the sub­sidiary farm is about 51 hectares and it com­prises hay­fields, pas­tures, a sheep­fold and an api­ary. Most impor­tantly it pro­vides the Moscow Zoo with eco­log­i­cal feed for its animals.

The Breed­ing Centre’s col­lec­tion com­prises 10 species of car­ni­vores, 6 species of ungu­lates, 74 species of birds and a great num­ber of domes­tic ani­mals, but the col­lec­tion is expand­ing con­stantly. Although it is still closed to vis­i­tors, the Zoo’s goal is to open part of the farm (as they call the Breed­ing Cen­tre them­selves) to out­side vis­i­tors soon. They plan to cre­ate an addi­tional safari park at the loca­tion of the Breed­ing Centre.

(Source: Moscow Zoo web­site; Zoo with a Human Face, to the 150 th anniver­sary of the Moscow Zoo — a doc­u­men­tary by Darya Vio­lina and Sergei Pavlovsky, 2014 )

Infor­ma­tion pan­els and Edu­ca­tion at the Zoo

First thing to be noticed of course is that the infor­ma­tion on the pan­els around Moscow Zoo is given in the Russ­ian lan­guage. And no other lan­guage. This is not unex­pected as most of the infor­ma­tion pro­vided in Moscow is only in Russ­ian. For­tu­nately, the name of the species on dis­play is given in Eng­lish as well, together with its sci­en­tific name. As far as I can tell and under­stand no infor­ma­tion is pro­vided on the species con­ser­va­tion sta­tus (or IUCN Red List sta­tus). On the new revamped web­site this infor­ma­tion is avail­able but only in Russ­ian and no icons or logos are used, so you have to rely on machine trans­la­tion ser­vices. The pan­els show geo­graphic maps of the species dis­tri­b­u­tion and some­times the IUCN sta­tus and if the species is part of EEP /​ESB, as well. But this is not done con­sis­tently, and I am not sure how reli­able the infor­ma­tion is. Nev­er­the­less I have been able to find on the inter­net a list of species that rep­re­sent the Moscow Zoo con­tri­bu­tion to the Euro­pean Endan­gered species Pro­grammes (EEPs).

There is also a zoo school that is pri­mar­ily focussed on chil­dren, and I assume that the Young Biol­o­gists Club still exist. Fore­most because it has been very suc­cess­fully deliv­er­ing a range of impor­tant staff mem­bers over the years.

• Direc­tions

direc­tions to Moscow Zoo

Address : B. Gruzin­skaya 1 123242 Moscow Rus­sia

pub­lic transport

The metro sys­tem can be quite intim­i­dat­ing for for­eign­ers because of the lan­guage issue, but I can assure you it is the best way of nav­i­gat­ing the city. The metro sta­tions are the most beau­ti­ful I’ve ever seen and buy­ing tick­ets can be done using sign lan­guage (see the tri­pad­vi­sor web­site how it is done). When you are not able to deci­pher the Cyril­lic alpha­bet on the fly it is best to pre­pare your metro trip before­hand and make sure that you know how many stops you have to travel from the depar­ture sta­tion to your des­ti­na­tion, includ­ing trans­fer sta­tions. Another way of travel sup­port is the Art-​Lebedev metro map , which has the names of the sta­tions both in Russ­ian and Eng­lish men­tioned. The most fancy way how­ever is by using the Russ­ian metro app on your smart­phone. The Yandex.Metro app — pro­vides a bilin­gual metro map which can even build con­nec­tion routes for you and esti­mate travel times.

Moscow Zoo’s main entrance is con­ve­niently located right across from the Krasno­pres­nen­skaya metro sta­tion on the Brown Cir­cu­lar line (no. 5 ). Also the Bar­rikad­naya metro sta­tion is rather close to the main entrance, Pur­ple line (no. 7 ).

by bicy­cle

As men­tioned already Moscow is a very large city. So, it really depends on how close you already are to the Zoo if cycling could be an option. The obvi­ous chal­lenge is the traf­fic which has grown dra­mat­i­cally in recent years — the cen­tre of Moscow is a non-​stop traf­fic jam. Fur­ther­more the poor dri­ving habits of Moscow motorists are noto­ri­ous, from road rage to rear-​ending. In addi­tion, knee-​deep snow and the grimy slush that inevitably fol­lows dur­ing the long and fear­some win­ters doesn’t make cycling in Moscow a very attrac­tive mode of trans­port. Nev­er­the­less the City Coun­cil tries to make the city more bike-​friendly with a bike rental scheme like in many major cities around the world. I decided to use the metro.

There is no ded­i­cated park­ing avail­able at the Zoo, but if you really want to drive your­self you can get direc­tions below by pro­vid­ing your point of departure.

From : --  Choose source      -- Moscow Zoo or

Down­load the zoo map here .

Goal: 7000 tigers in the wild

“ Tiger map” ( CC BY 2 . 5 ) by Sander­son et al., 2006 .

Latest Additions

Tallinn zoo­log­i­cal gar­dens, tallinna loomaaed, stadt haag zoo, tier­park stadt haag, salzburg zoo, krefeld zoo, cerza zoo, cerza parc zoologique lisieux, bratislava zoo, rheine zoo, natur­zoo rheine.

Columbus Zoo's 'Unextinct' brings extinct and endangered animals to all ages

When the sun goes down at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, animals not usually seen there come to life, some of them for the first time in centuries.

"Unextinct," the zoo's new interactive digital experience , is composed of 15 areas where projected illusions of extinct species and critically endangered critters swim, jump, frolic, fly and roam.

A scattered selection of hardy souls braved the bitter cold on Thursday night to walk through the wildlife wonderland.

"It really offers something different to do," zoo guest Liz Gruhalla, of Columbus, said.

Eggs, Paws and Claws at the zoo: Where to find Easter egg hunts in the Columbus area

The display, which debuted on March 14, drew more than 1,000 guests on its opening weekend, according to Anthony Sabo, the zoo's vice president of operations and guest services.

"(The experience) is the first of its kind in Ohio and the second in the United States," Sabo said. "It's a completely different way to see the zoo, a totally different vibe than what the zoo usually has."

The immersive event will be open from 7:30-10:30 p.m. on select Thursdays (March 21 and March 28), Fridays and Saturdays through April 6, after which it will run Fridays and Saturdays through April 27.

When guests arrive, they are greeted by the Living Water display at the central pond, where ghost-like visions of coelacanths , sawtooth sharks, humpback whales and other underwater denizens soar through the air, an effect achieved with a semi-translucent aqua screen.

The 14 other "worlds" in "Unextinct" include Arachnoglitch, an exhibit of eight-legged crawlies; Soaring Panorama, a world of long-extinct birds; and an ultraviolet art tunnel where African and Asian elephants , a Javan green magpie and other winged creatures, vultures and more burst from the scene in DayGlo colors.

The ground-breaking technological wonder is the work of Mangolin Creative , a Los Angeles-based studio specializing in immersive experiential design.

Mangolin co-founder Morgan Lee Richardson said "Unextinct" was six years in the making, shifting and morphing before it was unveiled at the Sacramento Zoo last year.

Zoo opens elephant lab: Lab at Columbus Zoo and Aquarium aims to detect and prevent deadly elephant virus

"'It was built off the notion that animals perceive the world differently than we do," Richardson said, adding that besides blending art and entertainment, "Unextinct" is meant to call attention to global wildlife conservation .

The installation is indeed equal parts entertaining, educational and environmentally edifying, with fact-filled narratives accompanying the visuals at each stop.

Though the project is his baby, Richardson admitted he was slightly biased when he selected the species to feature in "Unextinct."

"I was playing favorites when I picked the animals I wanted to include. I also wanted to choose animals you would not see in a zoo," he said, listing the hellbender salamander among his favorites.

Richardson said public reaction to "Unextinct" thus far has been positive. "It feels great. It's always fantastic to see and hear the guests chattering," he said.

Sabo said the experience has attracted guests from preschoolers to grandparents. "'Unextinct' is great for all ages," he said.

As evidence of this, Tad and Vernonica Delicath, of Columbus, turned out with their three sons, Hal, 4, Xavier, 2, and Remy, 6 weeks. "We love glow-in-the dark stuff, so when we heard about this, we said, 'We're there,'" Veronica said.

Citing the Living Water exhibition, her husband agreed: "That was so cool!"

General admission to "Unextinct," which is separate from zoo admission, costs $28.99 for those 10 and older and $25.99 for children ages 3-9. Upgrade to a premium ticket for $38.99 and receive an interactive glow bracelet and souvenir cup. Members of the zoo, Zoombezi Bay and The Wilds receive discounts on admission prices.

Before you go, you can download the zoo's free mobile app from the Apple or Google Play store to see the animals featured in "Unextinct," along with conservation information about each.

For more information about "Unextinct," go to columbuszoo.org .

[email protected]

“Exceptional animal” : Two-head snake recovering from surgery at Saint Louis Zoo

S T. LOUIS, Mo. (First Alert 4) - A two-headed rat snake had her statewide tour interrupted by a health scare and is now recovering after surgery at the Saint Louis Zoo.

A two-headed western rat snake named Tiger-Lily is recovering well after having surgery at the St. Louis Zoo in March. Tiger-Lily, who is cared for by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), was on a statewide tour and left the Powder Valley Nature Center for the Saint Louis Zoo for surgery on her ovaries.

Concerns were raised after Tiger-Lily sneezed up traces of blood during a feeding the week prior.

“This immediately raised a red flag with our staff, and we quickly got her an appointment with the Animal Health Team at the Saint Louis Zoo,” said MDC Naturalist Lauren Baker. “We appreciate the Saint Louis Zoo’s quick response and expert treatment. I am so happy that our two-headed gal is getting the care she needs, and we’re all wishing her a safe and speedy recovery.”

Veterinarians at the zoo discovered that Tiger-Lily’s ovaries were in pre-ovulatory stasis.

“Under normal circumstances the ovary would grow follicles, then ovulate them as eggs to eventually be laid. In Tiger-Lily’s case, she began the reproductive cycle, but the follicles did not ovulate and instead continued to grow and remain static in her ovary,” said Dr. Michael Warshaw, Staff Veterinarian at the Saint Louis Zoo. “Over time, this led to inflammation and the risk of infection.”

It was determined that the best course of action was to remove the abnormal ovaries.

The surgery was performed on March 11 by the Saint Louis Zoo Endangered Species Research Center and Veterinary Hospital.

Tiger-Lily will not be on display during her recovery, which the zoo estimates will be about a month. After recovery, Tiger-Lily will travel to MDC’s Anita B. Gorman Discovery Center in Kansas City, continuing a statewide tour of MDC sites.

“The Saint Louis Zoo and MDC have a long history of partnering together for the care of Missouri’s native wildlife, and we are happy to have played a part in caring for this exceptional animal,” said Dr. Chris Hanley, Director of Animal Health at the Saint Louis Zoo.

Tiger-Lily was discovered in 2017 in Stone County, Missouri. She is a pair of conjoined identical snake twins that never fully separated, which is considered rare in the wild due to a low survival rate. She is a western rat snake, which is non-venomous and a common native species in Missouri.

Burrowing Owl Research Associate I - San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance

Job posting for burrowing owl research associate i - san diego zoo wildlife alliance at san diego zoo wildlife alliance.

San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance is a nonprofit international conservation leader, committed to inspiring a passion for nature and creating a world where all life thrives. Empowering people from around the globe to support our mission to conserve wildlife through innovation and partnerships, we support cutting-edge conservation, and bring the stories of our work back to our two world-famous front doors - the San Diego Zoo and San Diego Zoo Safari Park - giving millions of guests, in person and virtually, the opportunity to experience conservation in action. The deep and extensive knowledge gained from more than a century of experience in wildlife care, health, veterinary services, nutrition and conservation makes us invaluable in the global effort to save species. Our team members play a crucial role in driving our conservation efforts forward and bringing us closer to a world where all life thrives.

HOW YOU WILL IMPACT OUR MISSION The Research Associate I performs assigned laboratory, wildlife/plant care, field duties and/or training initiatives in support of a variety of research, endangered species propagation, and/or community initiatives. The position reports to a Supervisor level or higher in the Conservation Science Department. WHAT YOU WILL DO

• Perform a variety of laboratory, diagnostic, wildlife care, and/or field duties, depending on the assignment.
• Collect, collate, maintain, process, and analyze records relevant to current projects (e.g., data and biological samples).
• Collect, record and analyze data utilizing spreadsheet and database systems.
• Document, file, and maintain records.
• Conduct a variety of assigned research, husbandry, and training activities.
• Work with team of administrative assistant to maintain supply inventories and prepare purchase requisitions.
• Ensure laboratory, wildlife/plant care, and field equipment are properly maintained and calibrated and coordinates repairs and maintenance of equipment and facilities with administrative assistant.

WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR

The successful candidate will work with site leads to monitor two newly established burrowing owl breeding nodes in addition to other key burrowing owl sites in San Diego County. The candidate will be responsible for monitoring resident and translocated owls along with associated movements, and reproduction. The candidate will work with the team and land managers to implement and assess the efficacy of new methods to document site occupancy and to quantify important site covariates including vegetation conditions, prey base, and relative abundance of burrows and the ecosystem engineers that create burrows. The ideal candidate will have experience with avian monitoring in southern California, particularly burrowing owls, and the ability to identify important species within the grassland community and their sign. Avian handling experience to include trapping and banding, maintaining wildlife cameras, field data collection, photo processing, and photo review, and experience with passive acoustic monitoring devices such as Song Meters or AudioMoths is highly desirable. Interest in or experience contributing to the development of machine learning models to detect burrowing owls and other grassland species in wildlife camera photos and acoustic recordings is also desirable. Timely data entry and proofing, participation in team meetings, and working as a team to ensure that project objectives, milestones, and research goals are met are essential. The new team member will play an essential role in our Burrowing Owl Recovery Program and increase our capacity for burrowing owl conservation in San Diego County. This position requires successful completion of a physical ability test. This position involves work with susceptible species; you will be required to show proof of Measles vaccine as a condition of employment.

JOB EXPERIENCE

• One year of experience and/or certification in conducting laboratory or field-based research required.
• Experience with science communication or interpretation of scientific concepts preferred.

EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATIONS

• Bachelor's Degree in biological sciences or a specialized field specific to the position is required.

SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE

• Trained in methodology and equipment used in the assigned area of biological research, animal care, diagnostics, social science or science communication
• Proficient in data and record keeping.
• Able to operate moderately complex computer software programs.
• Able to communicate effectively both orally and in writing.
• Able to work effectively with others in a diverse environment
• Able to attend to the needs of assigned research collections and/or community members.

SOME OF THE PERKS YOU WILL ENJOY AS A TEAM MEMBER

• Free admission to the San Diego Zoo and the San Diego Zoo Safari Park
• Family Passes
• Complimentary Tickets
• Local and In-House Discounts
• Employee Assistance Program
• Wellness Program

IMPORTANT DETAILS

• Location: Escondido, CA
• Position Type: Hourly Full-Time Non-Exempt Position
• Hourly Range: $25.77 - $28.48

Be an ally for wildlife by joining our team!

At San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, we thrive on celebrating our differences. Diversity is vital for the benefit of our team members, our guests, our community, and our wildlife.

All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, disability, veteran status, or other legally protected status.

If you require a reasonable accommodation to complete an application, please email your request to and provide the job title and location to which you are applying.

As a Federal Contractor, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance is required to participate in the E-Verify Program to confirm eligibility to work in the United States.

San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance is a drug free workplace.

• 15600 San Pasqual Valley Rd, Escondido, CA 92027, USA

Apply for this job

Receive alerts for other Burrowing Owl Research Associate I - San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance job openings

Report this Job

Popular Search Topics

Sign up to receive alerts about other jobs with skills like those required for the burrowing owl research associate i - san diego zoo wildlife alliance ..

Click the checkbox next to the jobs that you are interested in.

Building Lifecycle Management Skill

• Facilities Senior Supervisor Income Estimation: $88,517 - $117,401
• Facilities Manager Income Estimation: $105,521 - $142,133

Carpentry Skill

• Janitor III Income Estimation: $40,461 - $55,233
• Carpenter Apprentice Income Estimation: $41,065 - $51,057

Job openings at San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance

Not the job you're looking for here are some other burrowing owl research associate i - san diego zoo wildlife alliance jobs in the escondido, ca area that may be a better fit., we don't have any other burrowing owl research associate i - san diego zoo wildlife alliance jobs in the escondido, ca area right now..

Wildlife Care Associate - Full Time - San Diego Zoo Safari Park

San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance , Escondido, CA

Construction and Maintenance Worker I - San Diego Zoo Safari Park

Academics challenge Florida law restricting research exchanges from prohibited countries like China

Two graduate students from China whose studies were put on hold, and a professor who says he is unable to recruit research assistants, are suing Florida education officials

MIAMI -- Two graduate students from China whose studies were put on hold, and a professor who says he is unable to recruit research assistants, sued Florida education officials on Monday, trying to stop enforcement of a new state law which limits research exchanges between state universities and academics from seven prohibited countries.

The law passed last year by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature and signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis was designed to stop the Chinese Communist government and others from influencing the state’s public colleges and universities. The countries on the prohibited list are China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, and Venezuela.

The law is discriminatory, unconstitutional and reminiscent of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which instituted a 10-year ban on Chinese laborers immigrating to the United States, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami.

The new law also usurps the power of the federal government, which has exclusive authority over immigration , national security and foreign affairs, the lawsuit said.

The law has forced two of the plaintiffs who are from China to put their graduate studies at Florida International University on hold and denied them entry into their research labs. The University of Florida professor who also is originally from China said the law has stopped him from recruiting the most qualified postdoctoral candidates to assist with his research, which has slowed his publishing productivity and research projects, according to the lawsuit.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs said they aren't members of the Chinese government nor the Communist Party.

According to the law, international students from the prohibited countries can be hired on a case-by-case basis with approval from the Board of Governors which oversees state universities or the state Board of Education, but the lawsuit said the law's “vagueness and lack of adequate guidance empowers and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement across Florida.”

The law “is having and will have far-reaching stigmatizing effects against individuals from China and of Asian descent who are seeking academic employment in Florida public universities and colleges, including plaintiffs, as Florida law now presumptively deems them a danger to the United States,” the lawsuit said.

The governor's office and the state Department of Education didn't respond to emails seeking comment.

Top Stories

What we know about the Baltimore bridge collapse

• Mar 26, 9:42 PM

Baltimore bridge collapse live updates: Search and rescue efforts suspended

• Mar 26, 8:01 PM

RFK Jr. names lawyer Nicole Shanahan as his running mate

• Mar 26, 6:10 PM

Diddy's Los Angeles, Miami homes raided by federal agents

• Mar 25, 5:10 PM

Kevin Hart joined by his family as he receives Mark Twain Prize for American Humor

• Mar 25, 12:13 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events