what research do zoos conduct

Zoo Atlanta will close early on Saturday, Sept. 21 for Sippin’ Safari. Gates will close at 1:30 p.m. and grounds will close at 3 p.m. 

Research in the modern Zoo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connect With Your Wild Side #onlyzooatl

• Latest News

Research power of zoos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the published research here

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

THIS IS WHAT WE DO

The Case for Zoos: A Scientist’s Perspective

Andrew Cunningham

Deputy Director of Science

Andrew Cunningham, Deputy Director of Science, considers why zoos are important... and whether we actually need them at all any more. 

How can zoos justify their ongoing existence in this modern age, when information and images of any species under the sun is just a click of the mouse away?

Certainly this is a question that even I still ask myself occasionally, two years away from my 30 year anniversary as a veterinarian and conservation scientist within the Zoological Society of London’s academic faculty, the Institute of Zoology.

Working for a research institution linked to one of the world’s most famous zoos means we’re able to see first-hand the impact zoos have on conservation, with global research projects benefitting from the input and support from zoos.  

Do all zoos deserve to keep operating?

Certainly standards of animal welfare, enrichment and conservation work in the zoos of many developed countries have come on leaps and bounds in recent decades, but there are still sadly zoos in some parts of the world where radical improvements in animal welfare and management are required.

All zoos should not be tarred with the one brush, however. 

The positive effects of zoos

Let’s also consider the many positive impacts that well-managed, scientific zoos can have.

For example, there are few more effective ways to demonstrate the amazing diversity of life on Earth to those who don’t have the privilege of seeing the huge range of wild animals in their natural habitats around the world.

Enabling visitors to see animals up close has a lasting effect on how they view the natural world.

The concepts of zoos as ‘arks’ can be overblown at times but, speaking as someone with a background in wildlife veterinary science, I can personally vouch for how important insights gained in zoos can be for the conservation of wildlife in the field, both in terms of understanding animal behaviour and for exploring best-practice in managing threatened species in their natural habitats. 

The project I was involved in to save vultures from extinction in Asia was just one field conservation project that very clearly benefited from insights gained in zoos – the design and management of breeding centres was informed by the zoological world, and knowledge gained from investigating and treating disease in zoo animals proved invaluable in the wild.

Other examples include the ongoing battle against the chytrid fungus that’s currently devastating amphibian populations worldwide.

Again, zoos like ZSL and our partners around the world have a definite role to play in terms of maintaining breeding populations in captivity for species facing imminent extinction in the wild and in bringing this important story to the public through our exhibits.

Public knowledge and pressure inform human behaviours and government policies which, in turn, impact the conservation of animals in the wild.  

Modern zoos maintain high animal welfare standards while also running conservation projects in the field. They do, however, need to keep pushing themselves to demonstrate and communicate the impacts their work is having on the ground, including the incorporation of public outreach both locally and at conservation field sites.

There is a need for greater collaboration between those at the coal face of zoological science and those managing animal collections, to ensure this connection between zoos, field conservation and public education is as tangible, genuine and widely-understood as possible.

But given the dramatic and accelerating collapse in biodiversity currently being witnessed all around the world, the case for responsibly-managed zoos remains strong.

We know we can, and we will, find the solutions to create a better future, because the possibilities to revive nature are endless if we stand together.

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Zoo Studies
• > Zoos and Research

Book contents

• Zoo Studies
• Copyright page
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• 1 Zoos and Research
• 2 Defining Zoos, Their Culture and Visitors
• 3 Zoos and Education
• 4 Anthrozoology and Visitor Behaviour
• 5 Zoo Organisation and Regulation
• 6 Ethics, Zoos and Public Attitudes
• 7 The Contribution of Zoos to Zoology
• 8 Animals and Their Enclosures
• 9 Animal Welfare
• 10 Enrichment and Training
• 11 Conservation Breeding, Reproduction and Genetics
• 12 Restoration, Rehabilitation and In-Situ Conservation
• 13 Animal Nutrition and Conservation Medicine
• 14 The Past and Future of Zoos
• Bibliography
• Subject Index
• Animal Species Index

1 - Zoos and Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2023

This chapter examines the nature of the research conducted in and on zoos. Much of the research undertaken in zoos is concerned with the behaviour, nutrition, welfare and reproduction of animals. However, work has also been published on the history of zoos, their place in culture, their conservation role, their educational value and the interactions between people and animals in zoos. Historical trends in zoo research are examined along with taxonomic bias in the species studied: most studies involve mammals. Although zoo research is published in a wide range of journals, in recent decades a number of specialist journals have been produced.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Zoos and Research
• Paul A. Rees
• Book: Zoo Studies
• Online publication: 12 May 2023
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108566049.002

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

• Study resources
• Calendar - Graduate
• Calendar - Undergraduate
• Class schedules
• Class cancellations
• Course registration
• Important academic dates
• More academic resources
• Campus services
• IT services
• Job opportunities
• Safety & prevention
• Mental health support
• Student Service Centre (Birks)
• All campus services
• Calendar of events
• Latest news
• Media Relations
• Faculties, Schools & Colleges
• Arts and Science
• Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science
• John Molson School of Business
• School of Graduate Studies
• All Schools, Colleges & Departments.
• Directories
• Future students
• Current students
• Alumni & friends
• Faculty & staff
• Arts & culture
• In the community
• Sports & wellness
• Student life
• University affairs
• Publications & reports
• Our experts
• News releases
• The Conversation

Science at the zoo

Zoos and aquariums are very popular tourist attractions, accepting over 200 millions visitors per year in North America , and around 7 00 millions in the world . While being a prime holiday and weekend destination, zoos also have their critics. Values and ethical concerns are usually put forward by people opposing zoos.

But not all zoos are created (or rather managed) equally. What are called “roadside zoos” often exhibit poor animal welfare and lack any educational, conservation or research efforts. On the contrary, accredited institutions are part of a network of zoos that value animal welfare, the preservation of species and their habitats, and science. They submit themselves to public scrutiny and regular inspections by legal and regulating bodies. As the research coordinator at a zoo (and of course part-time PhD candidate here at Concordia), I wish to highlight how doing research in a zoo can benefit animals, institutions and science in general.

Having diverse animals in the same place allows to conduct multi-species comparative research, a fruitful way to address many fundamental questions about biology, physiology, cognition and evolution. Zoos also offer the opportunity to study rare or endangered species that are difficult to observe in nature. For example, there are less than 100 individuals of the rare and elusive Amur leopard in the wild, but approximately 350 in captivity.

The opportunity to study wild populations of Amur leopards is very limited, therefore, studying captive individuals provides ample opportunity to better understand this species improving conservation efforts. For the Amur leopard, and many other of the 40 000 species threatened with extinction , captive research gives us important information on physiology, reproductive biology, health, behaviour and much more. This data is essential for a better understanding of the species’ biological requirements and to design effective management plans and policies.

Practically, researchers can test new methodologies and material very easily and quickly. Before spending a fortune to buy, transport and use materials in the field, it can be very cost-effective to do pilot-projects at a zoo. Some cutting-edge methods can also benefit from small projects in captivity before becoming widespread and exportable to the field.

Accredited zoos include many professions within their team: keepers, biologists, veterinarians, nutritionists, educators, tradesmen, to name a few. With the addition of outside researchers, including many university professors and students , this allows a multidisciplinary approach to research projects. It unlocks research possibilities and facilitates the development of new methodologies. It is also extremely convenient, for a biologist like me, to be able to simply ask colleagues about their expertise in other fields. Unlike in many other research environments, we are always exposed to different visions and practices, which makes it almost impossible to have a narrow and close-minded view on our research topics.

Research in zoos also allows for the evaluation of practices, systematically and objectively. Being under intense scrutiny, zoos and aquariums need to be transparent and honest about what works or not. Scientific research on our animals’ health and welfare, on the impact of animal care practices and the efficacy of educational efforts are crucial ways to do this. Additionally, when submitted to the peer-review process of scientific publications ( some academic journals are dedicated to zoo research ), our practices are evaluated by anonymous and professional reviewers, and available to the public.

Of course, there are downsides to research projects in captivity. Sample size (i.e. the number of animals that can be included in a study) is limited to animals living in the zoo, although multi zoo collaborations is a way to alleviate this hurdle. The ecological settings (weather, habitat, predators, competitors, human threats, diseases, etc.) are also extremely powerful forces affecting wildlife. Although we have better control on the environment and can focus on very specific questions in a zoo, captive research will never recreate the complexities of the natural habitat.

Overall, zoo research can eventually be funneled into conservation efforts (like the reproduction of endangered species, direct support of field conservation programs or reintroduction in the wild) which is another essential aspect of an accredited institution. As the zoological community strives to increase its investment in conservation in the future, zoos and aquariums will become a hotbed for scientific research , allocating millions of dollars annually on research and hiring more and more research-dedicated staff.

About the author

Louis Lazure is a doctoral candidate in Biology. He received a BSc in problem-based learning Biology (UQÀM, 2005), a master’s in International Ecology (Université de Sherbrooke, 2007) and a MSc in Biology (Western University, 2009).

With his expertise in ecology, zoology and animal behaviour, he worked and conducted wildlife research in many countries and in captive settings. Louis is also the Research Coordinator at Zoo de Granby since 2013. His current research precisely explores raccoon’s cognition within a context of human-wildlife interactions in protected areas

© Concordia University

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Animal Biosciences

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

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

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

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• 1. Miller B , Conway W , Reading RP , Wemmer C , Wildt D et al. 2004 . Evaluating the conservation mission of zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, and natural history museums. Conserv. Biol. 18 : 1 86– 93 [Google Scholar]
• 2. Barongi R , Fisken FA , Parker M , Gusset M. 2015 . Committing to Conservation: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy Gland, Switz.: World Assoc. Zoos Aquar. Exec. Off. [Google Scholar]
• 3. Wineman J , Piper C , Maple TL. 1996 . Zoos in transition: enriching conservation education for a new generation. Curator 39 : 2 94– 107 [Google Scholar]
• 4. Collins C , Corkery I , McKeown S , McSweeney L , Flannery K et al. 2020 . Quantifying the long-term impact of zoological education: a study of learning in a zoo and an aquarium. Environ. Educ. Res. 26 : 7 1008– 26 [Google Scholar]
• 5. Spooner SL , Jensen EA , Tracey L , Marshall AR 2019 . Evaluating the impacts of theatre-based wildlife and conservation education at the zoo. Environ. Educ. Res. 25 : 8 1231– 49 [Google Scholar]
• 6. Whitehead M. 1995 . Saying it with genes, species and habitats: biodiversity education and the role of zoos. Biodivers. Conserv. 4 : 6 664– 70 [Google Scholar]
• 7. Carr N , Cohen S. 2011 . The public face of zoos: images of entertainment, education and conservation. Anthrozoös 24 : 2 175– 89 [Google Scholar]
• 8. Lindholm J 2021 . Zoo history. Zookeeping: An Introduction to the Science and Technology MD Irwin, JB Stoner, AM Cobaugh 31– 42 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• 9. Rabb GB. 1994 . The changing roles of zoological parks in conserving biological diversity. Am. Zool. 34 : 1 159– 64 [Google Scholar]
• 10. Matthews LH. 1976 . The zoo: 150 years of research. Nature 261 : 5558 281– 84 [Google Scholar]
• 11. Mason P. 2000 . Zoo tourism: the need for more research. J. Sustain. Tour. 8 : 4 333– 39 [Google Scholar]
• 12. Ballantyne R , Packer J , Hughes K , Dierking L. 2007 . Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environ. Educ. Res. 13 : 3 367– 83 [Google Scholar]
• 13. Kisling VN. 2001 . Zoo and Aquarium History: Ancient Animal Collections to Zoological Gardens Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press [Google Scholar]
• 14. Keulartz J. 2015 . Captivity for conservation? Zoos at a crossroads. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 28 : 2 335– 51 [Google Scholar]
• 15. Zippel K , Johnson K , Gagliardo R , Gibson R , McFadden M et al. 2011 . The Amphibian Ark: a global community for ex situ conservation of amphibians. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 6 : 3 340– 52 [Google Scholar]
• 16. Gippoliti S. 2012 . Ex situ conservation programmes in European zoological gardens: Can we afford to lose them?. Biodivers. Conserv. 21 : 6 1359– 64 [Google Scholar]
• 17. Fa JE , Gusset M , Flesness N , Conde DA. 2014 . Zoos have yet to unveil their full conservation potential. Anim. Conserv. 17 : 2 97– 100 [Google Scholar]
• 18. Rees PA. 2005 . Will the EC Zoos Directive increase the conservation value of zoo research?. Oryx 39 : 2 128– 31 [Google Scholar]
• 19. Ryder OA , Feistner ATC. 1995 . Research in zoos: a growth area in conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 4 : 6 671– 77 [Google Scholar]
• 20. Tribe A , Booth R. 2003 . Assessing the role of zoos in wildlife conservation. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 8 : 1 65– 74 [Google Scholar]
• 21. Pyott BE , Schulte-Hostedde AI. 2020 . Peer-reviewed scientific contributions from Canadian zoos and aquariums. Facets 5 : 1 381– 92 [Google Scholar]
• 22. Olive A , Jansen K. 2017 . The contribution of zoos and aquaria to Aichi Biodiversity Target 12: a case study of Canadian zoos. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 10 : 103– 13 [Google Scholar]
• 23. Milstein T. 2009 .. “ Somethin’ tells me it's all happening at the zoo”: discourse, power, and conservationism. Environ. Commun. 3 : 1 25– 48 [Google Scholar]
• 24. Conway W. 2003 . The role of zoos in the 21st century. Int. Zoo Yearb. 38 : 1 7– 13 [Google Scholar]
• 25. Escribano N , Ariño AH , Pino-del-Carpio A , Galicia D , Miranda R. 2021 . Global trends in research output by zoos and aquariums. Conserv. Biol. 35 : 6 1894– 902 [Google Scholar]
• 26. Hutchins M. 2006 . Death at the zoo: the media, science, and reality. Zoo Biol . 25 : 2 101– 15 [Google Scholar]
• 27. Fernandez EJ , Timberlake W. 2008 . Mutual benefits of research collaborations between zoos and academic institutions. Zoo Biol . 27 : 6 470– 87 [Google Scholar]
• 28. Mooney A , Conde DA , Healy K , Buckley YM. 2020 . A system wide approach to managing zoo collections for visitor attendance and in situ conservation. Nat. Commun. 11 : 584 [Google Scholar]
• 29. Trask A , Canessa S , Moehrenschlager A , Newland S , Medina S , Ewen J. 2020 . Extinct-in-the-wild species’ last stand. Science 369 : 6503 516 [Google Scholar]
• 30. Nicholson E , Watermeyer KE , Rowland JA , Sato CF , Stevenson SL et al. 2021 . Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5 : 10 1338– 49 [Google Scholar]
• 31. Silla AJ , Byrne PG. 2019 . The role of reproductive technologies in amphibian conservation breeding programs. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 7 : 499– 519 [Google Scholar]
• 32. Conde DA , Colchero F , Güneralp B , Gusset M , Skolnik B et al. 2015 . Opportunities and costs for preventing vertebrate extinctions. Curr. Biol. 25 : 6 R219– 21 [Google Scholar]
• 33. Gant JR , Mair L , McGowan PJK. 2020 . Fragmented evidence for the contribution of ex situ management to species conservation indicates the need for better reporting. Oryx 55 : 4 573– 80 [Google Scholar]
• 34. Maunder M , Byers O. 2005 . The IUCN Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex Situ Populations for Conservation: reflecting major changes in the application of ex situ conservation. Oryx 39 : 1 95– 98 [Google Scholar]
• 35. Traylor-Holzer K , Leus K , Bauman K. 2019 . Integrated Collection Assessment and Planning (ICAP) workshop: helping zoos move toward the One Plan Approach. Zoo Biol . 38 : 1 95– 105 [Google Scholar]
• 36. Schwartz KR , Parsons ECM , Rockwood L , Wood TC. 2017 . Integrating in-situ and ex-situ data management processes for biodiversity conservation. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5 : 120 [Google Scholar]
• 37. Bolam FC , Mair L , Angelico M , Brooks TM , Burgman M et al. 2021 . How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action prevented?. Conserv. Lett. 14 : 1 e12762 [Google Scholar]
• 38. Coonan TJ , Varsik A , Lynch C , Schwemm CA. 2010 . Cooperative conservation: zoos and in situ captive breeding for endangered Island fox Urocyon littoralis ssp. Int. Zoo Yearb. 44 : 1 165– 72 [Google Scholar]
• 39. Brereton SR , Brereton JE. 2020 . Sixty years of collection planning: What species do zoos and aquariums keep?. Int. Zoo Yearb. 54 : 1 131– 45 [Google Scholar]
• 40. Melfi VA. 2009 . There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo animal welfare: a case for evidence-based zoo animal management. Zoo Biol . 28 : 6 574– 88 [Google Scholar]
• 41. Ward PI , Mosberger N , Kistler C , Fischer O. 1998 . The relationship between popularity and body size in zoo animals. Conserv. Biol. 12 : 6 1408– 11 [Google Scholar]
• 42. Martin TE , Lurbiecki H , Joy JB , Mooers AO. 2014 . Mammal and bird species held in zoos are less endemic and less threatened than their close relatives not held in zoos. Anim. Conserv. 17 : 2 89– 96 [Google Scholar]
• 43. Godinez AM , Fernandez EJ. 2019 . What is the zoo experience? How zoos impact a visitor's behaviors, perceptions, and conservation efforts. Front. Psychol. 10 : 1746 [Google Scholar]
• 44. Colléony A , Clayton S , Couvet D , Saint Jalme M , Prévot AC. 2017 . Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biol. Conserv. 206 : 263– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 45. Pritchard DJ , Fa JE , Oldfield S , Harrop SR. 2012 . Bring the captive closer to the wild: redefining the role of ex situ conservation. Oryx 46 : 1 18– 23 [Google Scholar]
• 46. Catibog-Sinha C. 2008 . Zoo tourism: biodiversity conservation through tourism. J. Ecotourism 7 : 2–3 160– 78 [Google Scholar]
• 47. Conde DA , Flesness N , Colchero F , Jones OR , Scheuerlein A. 2011 . An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science 331 : 6023 1390– 91 [Google Scholar]
• 48. Che-Castaldo JP , Grow SA , Faust LJ 2018 . Evaluating the contribution of North American zoos and aquariums to endangered species recovery. Sci. Rep. 8 : 9789 [Google Scholar]
• 49. Barbanti A , Martin C , Blumenthal JM , Boyle J , Broderick AC et al. 2019 . How many came home? Evaluating ex situ conservation of green turtles in the Cayman Islands. Mol. Ecol. 28 : 7 1637– 51 [Google Scholar]
• 50. Kleiman DG. 1989 . Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation. Bioscience 39 : 3 152– 61 [Google Scholar]
• 51. Ebenhard T. 1995 . Conservation breeding as a tool for saving animal species from extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10 : 11 438– 43 [Google Scholar]
• 52. Conway WG. 2011 . Buying time for wild animals with zoos. Zoo Biol . 30 : 1 1– 8 [Google Scholar]
• 53. Shier DM. 2015 . Developing a standard for evaluating reintroduction success using IUCN Red List indices. Anim. Conserv. 18 : 5 411– 12 [Google Scholar]
• 54. Zimmermann A 2010 . The role of zoos in contributing to in situ conservation. Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management DG Kleiman, KV Thompson, CK Baer 281– 87 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• 55. Balmford A , Leader-Williams N , Green MJB. 1995 . Parks or arks: Where to conserve threatened mammals?. Biodivers. Conserv. 4 : 6 595– 607 [Google Scholar]
• 56. Robert A. 2009 . Captive breeding genetics and reintroduction success. Biol. Conserv. 142 : 12 2915– 22 [Google Scholar]
• 57. Kelly JD. 1997 . Effective conservation in the twenty-first century: the need to be more than a zoo. One organization's approach. Int. Zoo Yearb. 35 : 1 1– 14 [Google Scholar]
• 58. Santika T , Ancrenaz M , Wilson KA , Spehar S , Abram N et al. 2017 . First integrative trend analysis for a great ape species in Borneo. Sci. Rep. 7 : 1 4839 [Google Scholar]
• 59. Armstrong DP , Seddon PJ. 2008 . Directions in reintroduction biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 : 1 20– 25 [Google Scholar]
• 60. Seddon PJ , Armstrong DP , Maloney RF. 2007 . Developing the science of reintroduction biology. Conserv. Biol. 21 : 2 303– 12 [Google Scholar]
• 61. Braverman I. 2014 . Conservation without nature: the trouble with in situ versus ex situ conservation. Geoforum 51 : 47– 57 [Google Scholar]
• 62. Int. Union Conserv. Nat 2021 . The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021-3 Fontainbleau, Fr.: Int. Union Conserv. Nat. https://www.iucnredlist.org [Google Scholar]
• 63. Tilman D , Clark M , Williams DR , Kimmel K , Polasky S , Packer C. 2017 . Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546 : 7656 73– 81 [Google Scholar]
• 64. Assoc. Zoos Aquar 2020 . Annual report on conservation and science: highlights Rep. Assoc. Zoos Aquar. Silver Spring, MD: [Google Scholar]
• 65. Harding LE , Abu-Eid OF , Hamidan N , al Sha'lan A. 2007 . Reintroduction of the Arabian oryx Oryx leucoryx in Jordan: war and redemption. Oryx 41 : 4 478– 87 [Google Scholar]
• 66. Parrott ML , Wicker LV , Lamont A , Banks C , Lang M et al. 2021 . Emergency response to Australia's Black Summer 2019–2020: the role of a zoo-based conservation organisation in wildlife triage, rescue, and resilience for the future. Animals 11 : 6 1515 [Google Scholar]
• 67. Eur. Assoc. Zoos Aquar 2020 . Annual report 2020 Rep. Eur. Assoc. Zoos Aquar. Amsterdam: [Google Scholar]
• 68. Gusset M , Dick G. 2010 . “Building a future for wildlife”? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in situ conservation. Int. Zoo Yearb. 44 : 1 183– 91 [Google Scholar]
• 69. MacDonald E. 2015 . Quantifying the impact of Wellington Zoo's persuasive communication campaign on post-visit behavior. Zoo Biol . 34 : 2 163– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 70. Bowkett AE. 2009 . Recent captive-breeding proposals and the return of the ark concept to global species conservation. Conserv. Biol. 23 : 3 773– 76 [Google Scholar]
• 71. Beck BB , Rapaport LG , Price MRS , Wilson AC 1994 . Reintroduction of captive-born animals. Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals PJS Olney, GM Mace, ATC Feistner 265– 86 London: Chapman & Hall [Google Scholar]
• 72. Berger-Tal O , Saltz D. 2014 . Using the movement patterns of reintroduced animals to improve reintroduction success. Curr. Zool. 60 : 4 515– 26 [Google Scholar]
• 73. Morell V. 2008 . Conservation biology: into the wild: Reintroduced animals face daunting odds. Science 320 : 5877 742– 43 [Google Scholar]
• 74. Gilbert T , Soorae PS. 2017 . Editorial: the role of zoos and aquariums in reintroductions and other conservation translocations. Int. Zoo Yearb. 51 : 1 9– 14 [Google Scholar]
• 75. Waugh DR. 2000 . Parrot conservation and Loro Parque Fundacion, Puerto de la Cruz. Int. Zoo Yearb. 37 : 1 288– 98 [Google Scholar]
• 76. Resende PS , Viana-Junior AB , Young RJ , de Azevedo CS. 2020 . A global review of animal translocation programs. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 43 : 2 221– 32 [Google Scholar]
• 77. Grant TD , Hudson RD. 2015 . West Indian iguana Cyclura spp. reintroduction and recovery programmes: zoo support and involvement. Int. Zoo Yearb. 49 : 1 49– 55 [Google Scholar]
• 78. Moseby KE , Lollback GW , Lynch CE. 2018 . Too much of a good thing; successful reintroduction leads to overpopulation in a threatened mammal. Biol. Conserv. 219 : 78– 88 [Google Scholar]
• 79. Ceballos G , Ehrlich PR , Dirzo R. 2017 . Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. PNAS 114 : 30 E6089– 96 [Google Scholar]
• 80. Gusset M , Dick G. 2011 . The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biol . 30 : 5 566– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 81. Packer J , Ballantyne R. 2010 . The role of zoos and aquariums in education for a sustainable future. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 2010 : 127 25– 34 [Google Scholar]
• 82. Patrick PG , Matthews CE , Ayers DF , Tunnicliffe SD. 2007 . Conservation and education: prominent themes in zoo mission statements. J. Environ. Educ. 38 : 3 53– 60 [Google Scholar]
• 83. Roe K , McConney A. 2015 . Do zoo visitors come to learn? An internationally comparative, mixed-methods study. Environ. Educ. Res. 21 : 6 865– 84 [Google Scholar]
• 84. Coe JC. 1985 . Design and perception: making the zoo experience real. Zoo Biol . 4 : 2 197– 208 [Google Scholar]
• 85. Morgan JM , Hodgkinson M. 1999 . The motivation and social orientation of visitors attending a contemporary zoological park. Environ. Behav. 31 : 2 227– 39 [Google Scholar]
• 86. Ballantyne R , Packer J. 2016 . Visitors’ perceptions of the conservation education role of zoos and aquariums: implications for the provision of learning experiences. Visit. Stud. 19 : 2 193– 210 [Google Scholar]
• 87. Whitehouse J , Waller BM , Chanvin M , Wallace EK , Schel AM et al. 2014 . Evaluation of public engagement activities to promote science in a zoo environment. PLOS ONE 9 : 11 e113395 [Google Scholar]
• 88. Clayton S , Fraser J , Saunders CD. 2009 . Zoo experiences: conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biol . 28 : 5 377– 97 [Google Scholar]
• 89. Mellish S , Pearson EL , Sanders B , Litchfield CA. 2016 . Marine wildlife entanglement and the Seal the Loop initiative: a comparison of two free-choice learning approaches on visitor knowledge, attitudes and conservation behaviour. Int. Zoo Yearb. 50 : 1 129– 54 [Google Scholar]
• 90. Andersen LL. 2003 . Zoo education: from formal school programmes to exhibit design and interpretation. Int. Zoo Yearb. 38 : 1 75– 81 [Google Scholar]
• 91. Moss A , Esson M. 2010 . Visitor interest in zoo animals and the implications for collection planning and zoo education programmes. Zoo Biol . 29 : 6 715– 31 [Google Scholar]
• 92. D'Cruze N , Khan S , Carder G , Megson D , Coulthard E et al. 2019 . A global review of animal-visitor interactions in modern zoos and aquariums and their implications for wild animal welfare. Animals 9 : 6 332 [Google Scholar]
• 93. Fernandez EJ , Tamborski MA , Pickens SR , Timberlake W. 2009 . Animal-visitor interactions in the modern zoo: conflicts and interventions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 120 : 1–2 1– 8 [Google Scholar]
• 94. Carr N. 2016 . An analysis of zoo visitors’ favourite and least favourite animals. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 20 : 70– 76 [Google Scholar]
• 95. Powell DM , Bullock EVW. 2015 . Evaluation of factors affecting emotional responses in zoo visitors and the impact of emotion on conservation mindedness. Anthrozoös 27 : 3 389– 405 [Google Scholar]
• 96. Swanagan JS. 2010 . Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior. J. Environ. Educ. 31 : 4 26– 31 [Google Scholar]
• 97. Smith L , Broad S. 2008 . Do zoo visitors attend to conservation messages? A case study of an elephant exhibit. Tour. Rev. Int. 11 : 3 225– 35 [Google Scholar]
• 98. Davey G. 2006 . Relationships between exhibit naturalism, animal visibility and visitor interest in a Chinese zoo. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 96 : 1–2 93– 102 [Google Scholar]
• 99. Collins C , Corkery I , McKeown S , McSweeney L , Flannery K et al. 2020 . An educational intervention maximizes children's learning during a zoo or aquarium visit. J. Environ. Educ. 51 : 5 361– 80 [Google Scholar]
• 100. Miller LJ , Zeigler-Hill V , Mellen J , Koeppel J , Greer T , Kuczaj S. 2013 . Dolphin shows and interaction programs: Benefits for conservation education?. Zoo Biol . 32 : 1 45– 53 [Google Scholar]
• 101. Falk JH , Heimlich JE , Vernon CL , Bronnenkant K. 2010 . Critique of a critique: Do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors?. Soc. Anim. 18 : 4 415– 19 [Google Scholar]
• 102. Hacker CE , Miller LJ. 2016 . Zoo visitor perceptions, attitudes, and conservation intent after viewing African elephants at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park. Zoo Biol . 35 : 4 355– 61 [Google Scholar]
• 103. Adelman LM , Falk JH , James S 2000 . Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’ conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator 43 : 1 33– 61 [Google Scholar]
• 104. Lukas KE , Ross SR. 2005 . Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes toward gorillas and chimpanzees. J. Environ. Educ. 36 : 4 33– 48 [Google Scholar]
• 105. Moss A , Jensen E , Gusset M. 2015 . Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums to Aichi Biodiversity Target 1. Conserv. Biol. 29 : 2 537– 44 [Google Scholar]
• 106. Jensen E. 2014 . Evaluating children's conservation biology learning at the zoo. Conserv. Biol. 28 : 4 1004– 11 [Google Scholar]
• 107. Learmonth MJ , Chiew SJ , Godinez A , Fernandez EJ. 2021 . Animal-visitor interactions and the visitor experience: visitor behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, and learning in the modern zoo. Anim. Behav. Cogn. 8 : 4 632– 49 [Google Scholar]
• 108. Davidson SK , Passmore C , Anderson D 2010 . Learning on zoo field trips: the interaction of the agendas and practices of students, teachers, and zoo educators. Sci. Educ. 94 : 1 122– 41 [Google Scholar]
• 109. Dierking LD , Adelman LM , Ogden J , Lehnhardt K , Miller L , Mellen JD. 2004 . Using a behavior change model to document the impact of visits to Disney's Animal Kingdom: a study investigating intended conservation action. Curator 47 : 3 322– 43 [Google Scholar]
• 110. Hughes K. 2013 . Measuring the impact of viewing wildlife: Do positive intentions equate to long-term changes in conservation behaviour?. J. Sustain. Tour. 21 : 1 42– 59 [Google Scholar]
• 111. Marino L , Lilienfeld SO , Malamud R , Nobis N , Broglio R. 2010 . Do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American Zoo and Aquarium Study. Soc. Anim. 18 : 2 126– 38 [Google Scholar]
• 112. Nygren NV , Ojalammi S. 2018 . Conservation education in zoos: a literature review. Trace 4 : 62– 76 [Google Scholar]
• 113. Mallavarapu S , Taglialatela LA. 2019 . A post-occupancy evaluation of the impact of exhibit changes on conservation knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of zoo visitors. Environ. Educ. Res. 25 : 10 1552– 69 [Google Scholar]
• 114. Stoinski TS , Allen MT , Bloomsmith MA , Forthman DL , Maple TL. 2010 . Educating zoo visitors about complex environmental issues: Should we do it and how?. Curator 45 : 2 129– 43 [Google Scholar]
• 115. Funk SM , Conde D , Lamoreux J , Fa JE. 2017 . Meeting the Aichi targets: pushing for zero extinction conservation. Ambio 46 : 4 443– 55 [Google Scholar]
• 116. Kaufman AB , Bashaw MJ , Maple TL , eds. 2018 . Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• 117. Rose PE , Brereton JE , Rowden LJ , de Figueiredo RL , Riley LM. 2019 . What's new from the zoo? An analysis of ten years of zoo-themed research output. Palgrave Commun . 5 : 128 [Google Scholar]
• 118. Welden HLÅ , Stelvig M , Nielsen CK , Purcell C , Eckley L et al. 2020 . The contributions of EAZA zoos and aquaria to peer-reviewed scientific research. J. Zoo Aquar. Res. 8 : 2 133– 38 [Google Scholar]
• 119. Loh T-L , Larson ER , David SR , de Souza LS , Gericke R et al. 2018 . Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Facets 3 : 1 287– 99 [Google Scholar]
• 120. Finlay TW , Maple TL. 1986 . A survey of research in American zoos and aquariums. Zoo Biol . 5 : 3 261– 68 [Google Scholar]
• 121. Anderson US , Maple TL , Bloomsmith MA. 2010 . Factors facilitating research: a survey of zoo and aquarium professionals. Zoo Biol . 29 : 6 663– 75 [Google Scholar]
• 122. Anderson US , Kelling AS , Maple TL , Anderson U 2008 . Twenty-five years of Zoo Biology : a publication analysis. Zoo Biol . 27 : 444– 57 [Google Scholar]
• 123. Wemmer C , Rodden M , Pickett C. 1997 . Publication trends in Zoo Biology : a brief analysis of the first 15 years. Zoo Biol . 16 : 3– 8 [Google Scholar]
• 124. Hutchins M , Thompson SD. 2008 . Zoo and aquarium research: priority setting for the coming decades. Zoo Biol . 27 : 488– 97 [Google Scholar]
• 125. Anzai W , Ban K , Hagiwara S , Kako T , Kashiwagi N et al. 2022 . Quantifying the 60-year contribution of Japanese zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Animals 12 : 5 598 [Google Scholar]
• 126. Ceballos G , Ehrlich PR , Raven PH. 2020 . Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. PNAS 117 : 24 13596– 602 [Google Scholar]
• 127. Titeux N , Brotons L , Settele J. 2019 . IPBES promotes integration of multiple threats to biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 : 11 969– 70 [Google Scholar]
• 128. Burgass MJ , Arlidge WNS , Addison PFE. 2018 . Overstating the value of the IUCN Red List for business decision-making. Conserv. Lett. 11 : 3 e12456 [Google Scholar]
• 129. Pergl J , Brundu G , Harrower CA , Cardoso AC , Genovesi P et al. 2020 . Applying the Convention on Biological Diversity Pathway Classification to alien species in Europe. NeoBiota 62 : 333– 63 [Google Scholar]
• 130. Veasey JS. 2017 . In pursuit of peak animal welfare; the need to prioritize the meaningful over the measurable. Zoo Biol . 36 : 6 413– 25 [Google Scholar]
• 131. Albert C , Luque GM , Courchamp F. 2018 . The twenty most charismatic species. PLOS ONE 13 : 7 e0199149 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

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

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 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

24k Accesses

20 Citations

84 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

Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century

Effectiveness of management zones for recovering parrotfish species within the largest coastal marine protected area in Brazil

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.

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.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Animals (Basel)

Human–Animal Interactions in Zoos: What Can Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care Tell Us about the Ethics of Interacting, and Avoiding Unintended Consequences?

Simple summary.

This article is an examination of human–animal interactions in zoos from an ethical perspective, their benefits to both human and animal participants, and also their potential risks and ethical dilemmas. Contact with animals can be beneficial for all parties involved, and can indeed lead to pro-conservation and respect for nature behaviours being adopted by humans after so-called “profound experiences” of connecting or interacting with animals. Yet, human–animal interactions may also increase certain individuals’ desires for inappropriate wild-animal ‘pet’ ownership, and can convey a false sense of acceptability of exploiting animals for “cheap titillation”. Three ethical frameworks that may be beneficial for ethically run zoos to incorporate when considering human–animal interactions are: Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care. Human–animal interactions in zoos may be acceptable in many circumstances, and may be beneficial to both animal and human participants; however, they must be closely monitored through welfare tracking tools. Melding Duty of Care and the two Conservation ethical frameworks would be ideal for assessing the ethical acceptability of such interactions.

Human–animal interactions (HAIs) in zoos can be rewarding for both humans and animals, but can also be fraught with ethical and welfare perils. Contact with animals can be beneficial for all parties involved, and can indeed lead to pro-conservation and respect for nature behaviours being adopted by humans after so-called “profound experiences” of connecting or interacting with animals. Yet, human–animal interactions may also increase certain individuals’ desires for inappropriate wild-animal ‘pet’ ownership, and can convey a false sense of acceptability of exploiting animals for “cheap titillation”. Indeed, this has been reflected in a recent research review conducted on animal–visitor interactions in zoos from a number of different countries and global regions. These are unintended consequences that ”modern, ethical zoos” would try to minimise, or avoid completely where possible, though most zoos still offer close-contact experiences with their animals. Three ethical frameworks that may be beneficial for ethically run zoos to incorporate when considering human–animal interactions are: Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and Duty of Care. These three ethical frameworks are concerned with the welfare state and outcomes for individual animals, not just the population or species. Human–animal interactions in zoos may be acceptable in many circumstances and may be beneficial to both animal and human participants; however, they must be closely monitored through welfare tracking tools. The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) has published guidelines for human–animal interactions that are mandatory for member institutions to adhere to, although whether these guidelines are taken as mandatory or suggestions at individual institutions is unknown. Some suggestions for relevant extensions to the guidelines are suggested herein. Melding Duty of Care and the two Conservation ethical frameworks would be ideal for assessing the ethical acceptability of such interactions as they currently occur, and for considering how they should be modified to occur (or not) into the future in zoological settings.

1. Introduction

Human–animal Interactions (HAIs) are common occurrences in zoological institutions, from husbandry practices to interactions with visitors (both regulated and unregulated) [ 1 , 2 ]. Animal–visitor Interactions (AVIs) are often a large component of zoos’ appeal to visitors, and these experiences are also a large component of zoos’ operations and financial viability [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]. It has been estimated that global zoo attendance is over 700 million visitors annually [ 5 ]. Some of these zoo visitors attend purely for entertainment, and/or for direct interactions with animals (for which they are willing to pay) [ 4 , 6 , 7 ]; however, many visitors to modern zoos report considering zoos and aquaria as centres for education [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. AVIs may be classified as “direct contact” (such as holding, feeding, brushing or touching experiences) or “indirect contact” (such as visually viewing, gaze-following and/or mimicking through shared enclosure windows, “scattering” food for the animals from a unique vantage point, auditory communication from traditional enclosure perimeters, or the “solving” of combined human–animal input “puzzle walls” installed in some zoo exhibits for “cognitive enrichment” of the enclosure animals). Globally, zoos vary significantly in their offering of direct and indirect contact animal experiences, but almost all zoos surveyed in a 2019 study promoted one or more types of interaction experiences on their public websites [ 4 ]. Yet, these interactions may be at odds with many of the ethical principles upon which “modern, ethical zoos” have built their new moral foundations, and expound their virtues and “social license” [ 1 , 4 , 12 , 13 , 14 ], such as ensuring positive welfare of their captive animals, promoting "natural behaviours", and being compassionate towards individuals as well as populations in their conservation efforts. This article discusses how three prominent ethical frameworks (which are often explicitly or implicitly utilised by zoos) may be used to examine and justify HAIs in zoos (examining interactions with both visitors and with zookeepers), how new guidelines for AVIs published by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) [ 15 ] perform under these ethical frameworks, and whether the guidelines work in practice alongside the stated missions of some zoological associations and institutions. The three specific ethical frameworks discussed herein are: Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare, and Duty of Care. These three frameworks are not mutually exclusive, although it is suggested here that a deliberate melding of elements and tenets from all three frameworks could make a robust new framework that would be of relevance to zoological institutions. Furthermore, these three frameworks are concerned with the welfare of individual animals, rather than whole populations or ecosystems as most other Conservation or Environmental ethical frameworks are. Many forms of Environmental ethics and Conservation ethics have been espoused over almost the last 100 years [ 16 ], with the collective aim of saving Earth’s last remaining wild and natural places from being paved over by human expansion/exploitation. These ethical frameworks are mostly characterised by a focus on the overall ecosystem health rather than on individual welfare outcomes [ 16 , 17 ]. These ethics have more recently been criticised for perpetuating the status quo of ecosystem or population health always trumping considerations of individual animals’ welfare [ 16 ] (and a lack of empathy for suffering individuals), for sidestepping problematic issues arising from our increasing knowledge of animal consciousness and sentience (and increasing knowledge of harmful anthropogenic impacts) [ 17 ], and for perpetuating the influential, anthropocentric “land ethic” attitude that species conservation is important, yet often only prioritised after human interests (especially where that land, or the animals on it, are of utility or economic benefit to humans) [ 18 , 19 ].

D’Cruze et al. [ 4 ] list five inter-connected goals that many modern zoos and aquaria share: 1. Conservation; 2. Education; 3. Research; 4. Animal welfare; and 5. Entertainment. While many modern facilities place major emphasis only on the first four goals, and shy away from promoting their facilities as places for human entertainment, as mentioned above, many visitors still report entertainment or leisure as their first reason for attending these places [ 4 , 6 , 7 ]. Many zoos and aquaria exist as private, for-profit enterprises, meaning a certain level of revenue is required to remain operational, and then profit is required to financially contribute to their conservation goals. WAZA report conservation as zoos’ core purpose , but their core activity is animal welfare [ 12 ]. Likewise, the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) list their mission as “ helping member institutions and animals in their care thrive, through advancing animal welfare, public engagement, and the conservation of wildlife ” [ 20 ]; and the Australasian Zoo and Aquarium Association (ZAA) list saving (conserving) wildlife by inspiring best practice in conservation and (animal) welfare with support from government and community as their strategic mission for member institutions [ 21 ]. Both of these associations detail supporting member institutions’ financial and operational goals as key goals, as well as supporting and facilitating memorable visitor experiences, but they do not list “entertainment” as a key consideration in their strategic documents [ 20 , 21 ]. In fact, most accredited facilities oppose procuring and displaying animals for entertainment purposes, or training animals for “performances”, as part of their new “ecocentric” ethos [ 1 , 14 ]. It is important to note, too, that member institutions pay monetary fees and dues to continue to be members of these self-regulated associations, but the accreditation processes are independent of institutional membership. Accreditation processes with these associations are a benchmarking tool, for monitoring animal welfare standards and meaningful contributions to conservation within individual institutions [ 22 , 23 ]. Whilst human–animal interactions are not discouraged or banned by these associations, strict guidelines and policies around the acceptability of offering these (especially direct) interactions in accredited facilities are being written into modern documentation [ 13 ]. Here, the ethics and the welfare impacts of two types of HAIs shall be discussed: Animal–visitor Interactions; and lesser scrutinised Keeper–Animal Interactions (KAIs) and Relationships (KARs).

2. Human–Animal Interactions

HAIs have been extensively studied in the agricultural/production animal sector [ 24 , 25 ] and the effects of stockperson attitudes and behaviours on the behaviours and productivity of livestock have been well established, and typified in robust models, such as the Hemsworth–Coleman model [ 25 ] based on the psychological theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour [ 26 , 27 ]. Built upon the Hemsworth–Coleman livestock model, there are also a few models of HAIs in zoos, such as the Hosey model [ 28 , 29 ], and the Chiew–Hemsworth model of animal–visitor interactions (published in [ 30 ]). HAI research in zoos has steadily increased over the last few decades [ 14 ]. The results of many studies report mixed welfare effects of human interactions, from negative effects through to neutral and positive effects [ 4 , 14 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ], and many of the results have been found to be very individual specific. Most studies of zoo HAIs to date have focused on assessing AVIs, and, so far, very few studies have assessed and quantified KAIs or KARs [ 32 ].

3. Animal–Visitor Interactions

There are now quite a few studies that have uncovered negative effects of visitor presence and interactions on captive zoo animal behaviour and welfare, especially when those interactions are in uncontrolled circumstances [ 4 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. There are also many assumed detrimental (but currently unknown) effects of controlled interactions, such as in provided and promoted animal–visitor “experiences” within zoos, especially with understudied animals such as reptiles (e.g., handled snakes and lizards) [ 4 , 35 , 36 , 38 ]. Often, the current standards of housing conditions for these animals are also inadequate, however, and this is likely to increase or confound detrimental effects of other interactions or welfare-impacting conditions [ 45 , 46 , 47 ]. Although, there are also a number of studies that show that many zoo species are apparently unaffected by visitors and their behaviours, if only viewed from a distance (i.e., no direct physical interactions), and it has been supposed that these animals simply view visitors as a type of expected “environmental variation” [ 32 , 43 , 44 , 48 , 49 , 50 ].

Studies on the positive effects of AVIs are sparse [ 4 ], and are limited to very few species, such as lemurs [ 51 , 52 ], giant tortoises [ 35 , 53 ], and leopard tortoises [ 36 ]; and possible positive effects of visitors for orangutans [ 54 , 55 ] and meerkats [ 49 ]. Despite the dearth of research on positive AVIs, it is suggested here that, as research increases, more positive effects for some individual animals within captive groups (and possibly in some whole groups or populations) will be uncovered. This may further increase as AVIs are undertaken in a more controlled, ethical, and evidence-based manner, prioritising consideration of what the animal wants from the interaction, rather than the human [ 56 ]. When considering individual animal welfare as the ultimate priority for modern, ethical zoos [ 1 , 12 ] (especially those zoos adhering to Compassionate Conservation, Conservation Welfare and/or Duty of Care ethical frameworks), fostering positive AVIs (and positive HAIs in general) is of the utmost importance. There are countless anecdotal stories, passed between zookeeping and animal care staff, that exemplify positive human–animal interactions with animals under their charge. Properly recording and quantifying these relationships, to provide empirical evidence that these relationships are beneficial (or that they are not, in some circumstances) is suggested to be a next step in better understanding captive animals’ wants for, or against, these interactions.

4. Ethical Frameworks

4.1. compassionate conservation.

Compassionate Conservation is an ethical framework that has flourished in the last decade, originally conceived to deal with many “wicked problems” [ 1 ] for individual animal welfare in wildlife management, that traditional Environmental and Conservation ethics could not effectively grapple with [ 16 , 57 ]. This framework has become an explicit ethical alignment within the code of ethics of some zoos, such as Zoos Victoria [ 1 , 58 ], although the framework as used in a pro-zoo manner [ 1 ] differs from the original Compassionate Conservation approach [ 57 ], which was largely concerned with wildlife management, and was generally aligned to anti-captivity principles. While its beginnings were of an in situ wildlife conservation focus, the principles of Compassionate Conservation as applied to ex situ conservation efforts within a captive zoo environment are largely the same [ 1 ]. Compassionate Conservation, in its different iterations, has been described by various proponents as ascribing mostly to a virtue ethic (the virtue of Compassion), a deontological ethic (Animal Rights theories), or to consequentialist ethics (the greatest good for the most number of animals) [ 59 ]. It is obviously a pluralistic approach, focused on the wellbeing of individual wild animals as well as larger populations and ecosystems. The main four tenets of Compassionate Conservation are: 1. First do no harm; 2. Individuals matter; 3. Inclusivity; and 4. Peaceful co-existence (an explanation of these principles is available in [ 59 ]). However, these tenets have also been criticised for a lack of clarity on how the specifics of this ethical framework can be applied to novel or complex dilemmas, such as individual suffering for the benefit of populations or ecosystems [ 59 ].

4.2. Conservation Welfare

A new ethic, Conservation Welfare (predicated mostly upon principles of Singer’s Utilitarianism [ 60 ]), has been proposed as a more legitimate and pragmatic framework for zoos, aquariums and other captive animal conservation organisations to become adherents of [ 59 ]. Conservation Welfare is the recent application of Animal Welfare ethics (and some principles of Conservation and Environmental ethics) to conservation practices for non-captive wild animals [ 59 ]. Like Compassionate Conservation, it differs from most Environmental ethics as it is largely focused on the wellbeing of individual animals, not just whole populations, species or ecosystems. Conservation Welfare, like Animal Rights and Compassionate Conservation, asserts that animals do indeed possess inherent value, meaning they are morally relevant, though the difference in Conservation Welfare is that this inherent value does not preclude the possibility of the imposition of individual suffering or death, if it is necessary and for the “greatest good” (i.e., it can be “traded-off”). Still, this ethic always endeavours to minimise pain and suffering in individual animals. Thus, as applied to in situ and ex situ conservation practices, a Conservation Welfare ethic is more pragmatic than Compassionate Conservation, in that the direct imposition of some suffering on some individuals is deemed acceptable (and this will not violate any tenets) as long as this suffering is necessary and justified . Although, what is deemed necessary, justified suffering is still somewhat ambiguous [ 59 ].

4.3. Duty of Care

The Duty of Care ethical framework (which was initially a humanistic ethical framework for humans caring for humans, then companion animals, and then other domesticated animals) is often an implicitly nurtured approach within zoos, distributed amongst the new generation of animal care managers and husbandry staff, as this ethical framework also promotes a duty to provide positive welfare conditions to captive animals which aligns with modern zoos’ goals. That is, as guardians of captive animals, we have a moral duty to provide all levels of care to those animals [ 61 , 62 ], including the provision of opportunities for animals to have “ a life worth living ” or to be able to thrive in captivity [ 1 , 63 , 64 ]. The duty of care ethic is a reasonable melding of two ethics—a deontological “duty-based” ethic (a moral obligation towards another), and a “virtue-based” care ethic (both active provision of care to others, and internally “caring about” (i.e., consideration for) others) [ 61 , 62 ]. Duty of care as a concept reaches far beyond simply an ethical framework, with “ currency in legal, philosophical, ethical, and general animal protection discourse ” [ 62 ]. As opposed to Conservation and Environmental ethics at large, these three specific ethical frameworks above are all concerned with the welfare of individual animals rather than populations.

5. WAZA Guidelines for AVIs

WAZA have specifically published a set of “ Animal-Visitor Interaction Guidelines ” [ 15 ], based on their 2003 Code of Ethics [ 65 ] and their 2015 Animal Welfare Strategy [ 12 ]. There are six key recommendations for AVI’s listed in the document, with further subsections devoted to recommended procedures to meet these guidelines. The six recommendations are:

Prima facie, these guidelines are sensible and easily interpretable ways for reducing the negative impacts of AVIs on animals. However, individual institutional adherence to these “guidelines” in varying regions may be incomplete, inadequate, or altogether ignored (in favour of financial viability or human experience, for example). Likewise, the auditing of guideline adherence seems to be self-prompted by each individual institution, rather than by a broader regulatory body. Institutional adherence to WAZA and regional association guidelines is largely unknown, or at least reviews are held confidentially. Properly assessing these guidelines would also take an individualistic approach, whereas many zoo facilities often keep “encounter groups” consisting of multiple animals of the same species, and often assess their welfare collectively. Individual welfare assessments are becoming more common globally, especially with the development of specific welfare-monitoring tools (following the Five Domains model), such as WelfareTrak ® (Chicago Zoological Society, Chicago, IL, USA) [ 14 , 66 ]. Other issues include interpretation of specific guidelines. For example, guideline 3 states, “ make no unnecessary demands on animals ”, though, what exactly necessary or unnecessary demands during human interaction encounters are is ambiguous. One of the most important guidelines is number 4—“ provide animals with choice of whether to participate or not ”. Choice and control over their immediate situation are now known to be important for an animal’s overall wellbeing and agency, which can lead to positive welfare states, and these concepts are currently being taught to new generations of zookeepers and animal husbandry professionals as crucial provisions for captive animals wherever possible and pragmatic [ 14 , 67 , 68 ]. It is also suggested that it would be pertinent to add an additional guideline here around safe interaction practices, as follows: “7. Only interactions with non-dangerous animals should be allowed and conducted, and if there is a reasonable chance of harm (even if minimal) to either the human or the animal participants, these interactive experiences should be terminated immediately. ” That is, direct physical contact “experiences” with large predatory animals, such as Tigers, Lions, Bears or Orcas, which could potentially cause serious injury or death to the human participants, should not be offered nor conducted by modern, ethical zoological and aquarium facilities. Currently, many of these offered experiences rely on harmful or abusive training practices, physical restraint, bodily mutilations (such as declawing or teeth removal), and punishments to maintain physical and psychological “control” over these large dangerous animals [ 69 ]. This does not preclude the possibility of beneficial positive HAIs between keepers and these animals, nor in fact between unfamiliar visitors and these animals, but direct contact in these situations is always of the highest risk. It should also be mentioned that most accredited zoological facilities have prohibited abusive and/or bodily mutilation practices in their codes of ethics [ 13 , 15 , 65 ], yet these practices still persist at many eco-tourism or unregulated destinations in many regions [ 69 ].

6. Keeper–Animal Interactions

Currently, AVIs are the focus of much research effort [ 4 , 66 , 70 , 71 ]. However, close examinations of keeper–animal interactions and relationships (KAIs; KARs) are sparse, with a few varying results [ 32 , 55 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 ]. Due to the persistence of many “ folklore husbandry ” practices [ 45 ], there is a strong possibility that we are currently ignoring many established negative relationships between zookeepers and animals under their charge [ 32 ]. Although, most modern zoological facilities and (nearly all) animal care professionals endeavour to minimise harmful interventions and to ameliorate possible negative HAIs before they become established negative HARs that would be detrimental to the animal’s overall welfare [ 1 , 75 ]. Furthermore, even though they are often communicated through folklore husbandry, many anecdotal stories and personal experiences (some documented in photographs or short videos) shared broadly over social media can sometimes be beneficial for improving KAIs and KARs in circumstances where objective, empirical evidence is not currently available. Folklore husbandry is a double-edged sword, however, and the established folklore is often very resistant to change even when presented with solid scientific evidence to the contrary [ 45 , 46 ].

To date, specific studies on positive KARs have found the following animal-focused results: increased reproductive success in small cats [ 76 ]; lower faecal glucocorticoid metabolites in clouded leopards [ 77 ], white rhinoceros [ 78 ], and Asiatic and African elephants [ 74 ]; reduced abnormal and stress-related behaviours after positive reinforcement training (PRT) in chimpanzees [ 79 ] and polar bears [ 80 ]; and increased responsiveness to husbandry cues after PRT in black rhinoceros, zebras and Sulawesi macaques [ 81 ]. Similarly, human-focused results found that zookeepers reported stronger, more positive KARs with tortoises that they conducted public-visible training sessions with [ 82 ]; another recent study found that zookeepers’ self-reported job dissatisfaction rose when “Keeper-Elephant Bonds” were weaker [ 74 ]. Apart from Alba et al. [ 82 ], all of these KAI studies have focused on mammalian species. Very little is known about KAIs with other classes of animal. It is strongly suggested that an increase in the empirical investigation of KAIs and KARs is necessary and warranted.

7. Are the Benefits Worth Allowing These Interactions?

As just described above, there are some reported benefits (for both humans and animals) of positive KARs in zoos. There is also marginal evidence to suggest that positive AVIs can be beneficial for the animals involved and documented evidence that these interactions do indeed improve visitor experiences, conservation caring and learning [ 4 , 70 ]. So, is there a good case for allowing and promoting AVIs in zoos? The answer is complicated, but yes. As with all complex dilemmas, the devil is in the details, as it were. Firstly, the guidelines as set out by WAZA, plus the suggested 7th recommendation above, should be closely adhered to, to prevent negative effects of close interactions. However, a new model for clearly identifying when these interactions are being “ asked for ” by captive animals needs to be developed (i.e., being more attentive to what animals actually “ want ”, and aware of how we interpret it [ 56 ]). Interactions that are “asked for” by animals means circumstances where animals have been observed “soliciting” interactions from people, either through glass or other barriers, or by direct contact at shared fence lines (as in the case of the Aldabran Giant Tortoises studied in [ 35 ]). Currently, many zoos have moved towards a highly “hands-off” model of animal keeping, such that most direct contact interactions between humans (both visitors and zookeepers) have been minimised, or totally abolished, and are discouraged as much as possible. Yet, this may be a counter to enhancing the overall welfare of animals in some circumstances, especially in situations where the animals are highly motivated to interact but are denied this rewarding outcome. Sufficient time should be dedicated by animal care managers to allow zookeepers or other staff qualified in animal behaviour to observe daily interaction solicitation or engagement by individual animals under their charge, to identify more opportunities for “ positive affective engagement ” interactions that may currently be overlooked or unnoticed. Furthermore, identifying specific individuals that may benefit from positive KAIs or AVIs should be prioritised by zoos as well. These animals may not always solicit interactions, but other personality factors may be apparent that could predict higher enjoyment of these interactions were they to be offered—factors such as high levels of boldness and curiosity are suggested to be a good starting point for investigation. For human participants, provision of these so-called “ profound experiences ” [ 1 ] in safe, controlled zoo environments can indeed be very beneficial for inciting pro-environmental and pro-conservation behaviour and attitudinal change in visitors, ultimately contributing to the zoos’ conservation goals in meaningful ways [ 3 , 43 , 66 , 83 , 84 ]. “Connecting” with wildlife has been rated as a top priority by zoo visitors, although the type of “connections” that they are seeking can vary significantly [ 71 ].

8. Unintended Consequences

Although AVIs may potentially be rewarding for all parties involved in some circumstances, there are also a number of risks associated with close contact experiences offered within zoos. Obviously, there are a number of health and safety issues for both animal and human participants that are involved in these interactions (especially direct physical contact interactions), some of which have been detailed elsewhere [ 4 , 14 , 69 ]. There is also a growing worry among zoo researchers, managers, educators and behaviour change specialists that providing opportunities to directly interact with animals in zoos may “normalise” the behaviours and promote a false sense of acceptability of engaging in these same behaviours in inappropriate circumstances, such as with wild animals or at unregulated “roadside zoos” and eco-tourism destinations with very poor animal welfare standards [ 4 , 69 , 85 , 86 ]. Interactive experiences that present these animals as “tame” or “cute” may also increase the desire to own these types of animals as exotic pets [ 87 ], and celebrities posing with animals at “roadside zoos” and poorly regulated eco-tourism destinations in social media posts can further normalise this problematic behaviour in unaware members of the public. There is a very real potential that “behavioural spill-over” [ 88 ] could occur after these experiences; thus, approach and interaction behaviours would be attempted by visitors in inappropriate circumstances (such as encounters with animals in the wild), especially because the interaction experienced in the zoo environment is likely to be highly rewarding emotionally and physiologically, leading to an increased motivation to engage in these types of behaviours more often [ 88 ].

Compounding these concerns, the ethical values and beliefs that certain individuals hold about interacting with wildlife may very likely increase the risks of inappropriate or ill-advised behaviours occurring. Historically, zoos were created as displays of imperial majesty—purely for elevating social/cultural status, human awe and entertainment [ 1 , 89 , 90 , 91 ]. Modern zoos are attempting to transform into ethical biodiversity conservation organisations that promote education and positive animal welfare [ 3 , 10 , 11 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 ], yet entertainment and leisure are still two commonly reported reasons for attending these destinations by patrons [ 1 , 89 , 90 , 91 ]. Indeed, a zoo visitor survey conducted by the author [ 96 ] found that one of the five extracted ethical alignments of visitors was labelled “ human interaction and entertainment priority ”. Visitors that aligned with this component had high agreement responses on questionnaire items such as “ humans should be allowed to interact with ALL animals in the zoo ”, “ zoo animals are like pets ”, “ zoo animals should be treated like pets ”, and “ I believe that it is acceptable to keep ALL types of animals in zoos ”. Patrons that hold these types of ethical views about interactions with wildlife are likely to be minimally concerned with the animal welfare risks associated with these interactions. They may also be less concerned with evaluating or acknowledging unsatisfactory animal handling and keeping conditions at unregulated, poor-welfare eco-tourism destinations, as their main priority in those moments is their own enjoyment (and they will engage in behaviours that are contrary to their usual moral attitudes) [ 97 ]. To counter this problem, engaging (yet stringent) educational elements must be built into interactive animal experiences offered by zoos, to attempt to change perceptions of these interactions as being harmless enjoyable interactions for all parties involved towards a realistic understanding of how the animals may actually feel about such interactions (and why this matters).

9. What Do the Ethical Frameworks Say?

From a Compassionate Conservation perspective, these types of human–animal interactions would usually be discouraged quite strongly. This is because there are many potential risks of harm to the animals involved (even though minor or non-existent in ideal settings), which would violate the first tenet. The repercussions and undesirable consequences listed above would also likely violate the tenet of peaceful co-existence, as most wild animals would be quite fearful or defensive towards humans approaching them for interactions. Whilst the controlled interactions in zoo environments could be beneficial to fostering pro-environmental attitudes if participants were educated correctly, the inherent risks of direct contact interactions are probably too great to allow. The Conservation Welfare framework would only allow these interactions to occur in very controlled circumstances, but would not completely discourage nor prohibit all of these types of direct interactions. The main principle that would have to be followed, however, is that only those interactions that are “asked” for by the captive animals (not the humans), and could be delivered in an absolutely safe and controlled manner, would be deemed acceptable. Although, uncontrolled HAIs at shared fence lines or through glass viewing windows would likely also be acceptable in circumstances where the animals were initiating or soliciting such interactions. Ergo, if the animal is “asking” for the interaction, and the interaction is deemed safe and minimal or zero risk, then this interaction could be used to increase both the individual animal’s wellbeing and welfare, and conservation caring in humans. Though Conservation Welfare would also be opposed to and concerned about negative “behavioural spill-over” into inappropriate circumstances with wildlife or poor welfare destinations, as this is counted-productive to conservation efforts and to fostering respect for nature. Duty of Care ethics would be mostly concerned with the impacts upon the individual animals within that particular captive environment, so many more HAIs in these circumstances would be deemed acceptable. The main principle followed would be to provide that which is best for the overall welfare for individual animals, and hence allowing and facilitating HAIs and AVIs that are positive and rewarding would be best practice. These interactions would have to be assessed for risks and for safety; however, the framework would only be concerned with the participants as they are in the immediate environment, not what the humans could potentially do in other circumstances or other times outside of the interaction. Therefore, effective communication and education for pro-environmental or conservation caring behavioural change in the human participants would not be considered a priority during these allowed interactions.

10. Conclusions: Promoting Positive Interactions

There are many potential risks inherent in HAIs in all circumstances. However, in specific settings there are also many potential benefits, with the potential to greatly enhance animal welfare conditions and human attitudes towards animal (and natural habitat) conservation and environmental caring. They could potentially be a very powerful tool to increase public awareness, engagement, and support for conservation practices and for achieving the goals of many zoological institutions. However, risks to animal and human participants, as well as the risks of inciting future inappropriate behaviours need to be thoroughly assessed and appropriately mitigated, and all direct HAIs should only be conducted in strictly “very low-risk” scenarios. There is great potential to vastly improve positive affective engagement in animals that are highly motivated to engage in these interactions, providing them with more choice and control over their captive environments [ 64 , 67 , 98 ]. Welfare monitoring tools (such as WelfareTrak ® ) should be utilised during all encounters, and direct behavioural observations from each and every session should be rigorously recorded, to ensure that only animals that are benefitting from interacting are continually used in “encounter programs”. Those animals that display fear, avoidance and/or defensive behaviours before, during, or after encounters should cease being used for these types of close-contact experiences. Behavioural observers must also become much more acutely aware of reptile species’ particular behaviours, as these animals’ full behavioural repertoires are still somewhat unknown [ 38 ]. Likewise, more accurate recognition of unreactive, torpid animals (that may be overwhelmed mentally and physiologically by both acute and chronic stressors) as animals that are not coping with their environments and/or handling must be treated as a priority for relevant behaviourists and animal care staff. Melding Duty of Care and the two Conservation ethical frameworks would be ideal for assessing the ethical acceptability of such interactions as they currently occur, and for considering how they should be modified to occur (or not) into the future in zoological settings.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge the help of Paul Hemsworth in testing and tempering the conceptual, ethical and scientific arguments presented within. The author also wishes to thank Peter Sandøe for honing his argument formulation and philosophical and ethical thinking over the course of his PhD as well as the Animal Welfare Science Students of the University of Melbourne (AWSSUM) graduate student group members for their critiques, comments and support throughout the construction of this paper. This paper represents an ethical chapter of a broader ethical and experimental animal welfare PhD thesis conducted through the Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia. https://www.animalwelfare-science.net/ .

The author was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) merit-based PhD Scholarship.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

April 15, 2009

How Do Zoos Help Endangered Animals?

There are more to zoos than putting animals on display

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

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

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

On supporting science journalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an age of extinction, what role do zoos and aquariums have in conservation?

New book explores stories of hope and despair in global biodiversity crisis

The last known male northern white rhinoceros is dead.

Sudan was a captive rhino that lived at a zoo in Czechia for 34 years before being moved to the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya, where he died in March of this year, apparently from complications related to old age. When Sudan was just 2 years old, he was captured along with five other white rhinos and spent the rest of his life in confinement.

After their subspecies was declared extinct in the wild, Sudan and three other northern white rhinos were relocated to the conservancy with hopes that a breeding program would be more successful in a more "natural" environment. It was not.

Humans are causing potentially irreversible harm to wild animal species and their habitats. Due to habitat damage and fragmentation, poaching and pollution, scores of wild species and ecosystems around the world are threatened; many are on the brink of extinction.

At the same time, zoos find themselves on the front lines of conservation — trying to figure out what their role is in tackling this global biodiversity crisis.

In his new book titled “The Ark and Beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation,” Arizona State University School of Life Sciences Professor Ben Minteer brings together an impressive roster of authors that collectively traces the history of zoos and aquariums and investigates their potential role as conservation organizations. 

“Zoos have always been somewhat invested in conservation. As someone who works in the ethics and history of conservation, it’s interesting to find out where that came from, what explains this recent push in the zoo community toward conservation, and what they mean by it,” said Minteer. “As it turns out, they don’t all mean the same thing. I was particularly interested in the challenges of zoos making this push, and potentially the opportunities.” 

Minteer has served as the Arizona Zoological Society Endowed Chair at Arizona State University for the past five years. He has recently been renewed in the position through 2023. Moving forward, he plans to develop several projects that build from the insights of “The Ark and Beyond,” including one exploring zoos and their relationships to the wild, and collaborative work with the Phoenix Zoo focused on conservation psychology and zoo visitor experience. 

“There is definitely a shift in the community going on right now — not across the board,” said Minteer, “but among many leading zoos and aquariums. Although zoos have been making moves toward conservation for decades now, this commitment seems to be getting deeper and far more serious. The institution is changing, and the end result might be something quite different from the zoos of old.”

Minteer edited the book, along with ASU professors Jane Maienschein and James P. Collins. The book, published by the University of Chicago Press, features 30 chapters from four dozen authors including zoo and aquarium leaders, academic biologists, historians, ethicists and social scientists. Here, Minteer answers a few questions about the work.

“The Ark and Beyond” explores the whole range of research and conservation practices that spring from zoos and aquariums while emphasizing the historical, scientific and ethical traditions that shape these efforts. Here, Minteer speaks at the Phoenix Zoo during one of two events to launch the book.

Photo by Dave Seibert

"The Ark and Beyond," published by the University of Chicago Press, features 30 chapters from four dozen authors including zoo and aquarium leaders, academic biologists, historians, ethicists and social scientists.

Image by Rob and Julia Campbell

In 1962, a few wild Arabian oryx were captured near the Arabian Peninsula in order to start a breeding program in Arizona. This critical effort safeguarded the species from extinction. Since that time, hundreds of the oryx have been returned to a fenced preserve in Jordan, but the animals' future remains uncertain.

Photo by Sandra Leander/ASU

Ben Minteer, a professor with ASU School of Life Sciences, serves as the Arizona Zoological Society Endowed Chair at Arizona State University. He edited "The Ark and Beyond," along with professors Jane Maienschein and James P. Collins.

Question: What are the big takeaways from the book?

Answer:  Zoos have really been in the conservation business for a long time, at least 100 years or more. They have a claim to being wildlife-protection organizations. The old zoo idea was to preserve and display animals so people can come to see them, be entertained by them, and to indirectly benefit wildlife protection by making the public interested in exotic animals. By the early 20th century with the Bronx Zoo, we see the start of more direct conservation efforts with the breeding and reintroduction of the American bison, which was then near extinction. This became a model, and zoos do this quite well.

The other piece of the story is that by the late 20th century, zoos began offering more professionally run education programs, partnering with communities and supporting field conservation programs. While some conservation leaders think zoos are spreading themselves too thin, others think zoos should and will become more like field-based conservation programs. 

Q: Is there an outside pressure on zoos to be involved in conservation?

A:  Zoos are trying to navigate all of this. They face a global extinction crisis — what many believe is the sixth mass extinction event on Earth. They are staring that down, trying to do more to arrest it and are becoming more robust in terms of their educational programs. And zoos are working to bring more people through their gates to transform them by giving them experiences that will encourage pro-conservation behaviors. Some recent empirical studies suggest that zoos are having some positive impact in these areas.

Q: Are zoos connecting with researchers in the field?

A:  Yes. The Phoenix Zoo is a good example. The local, native-species conservation focus, the work they do with Arizona Game and Fish, their connections with communities around the world for providing grants — to me, this is really interesting. This is different than just having animal exhibits so people can come to see what is there. It’s creating an important kind of engagement and leveraging place in productive ways.

Q: When working on the book, did you find any poignant stories?

A:  Many. To give just a couple of examples, there is a chapter authored by one of my former graduate students who traces the journey from despair to hope in a large zoo in South Korea that has worked hard to turn itself around. This particular zoo went from being what locals considered a “sad” zoo to a “happy” one, with improved animal-welfare standards and a growing commitment to conservation. It’s still a work in progress, but the overall trajectory is encouraging.

At the Phoenix Zoo, the Arabian oryx and black-footed ferret are two stories that moved from despair to hope — when those species were on the brink of extinction and now are closer to a recovery.

It’s a convenient metaphor in this case, but the elephant in the room is obviously the extinction crisis. There are nagging concerns about a lack of resources to meet this challenge and about priorities within zoo management. Zoo conservation leaders, including several who contributed to “The Ark and Beyond,” argue that an investment of only 1 to 2 percent of their budgets will not get the job done. But there is a sense of great potential for zoos to take this opportunity and do more than what they are doing for conservation, while fully realizing they can’t do it alone.

Q: What is happening with stories about poaching and the illegal animal trade — is there a specific role that zoos can fill to help fight these activities?

A:  Absolutely. We have a chapter in the book examining the role of zoos in gorilla conservation, which hinges on collaborative efforts to combat poaching and a global campaign to raise the public profile of the issue. Another chapter promotes a more expansive and ambitious form of zoo conservation planning that sees zoos as part of a larger continuum — they are not isolated organizations but part of a wider biodiversity network linking communities, field conservation organizations and governments in the cause of biodiversity protection. There is a real effort to pull zoos into this mix in a more deliberate and systematic way.

You can find the book on  Sun Devil Shelf Life  or  Amazon  or the  Ark and Beyond website .

Top photo: Sudan, the last-known male northern white rhinoceros, is dead. He lived out his life at the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Kenya. Photo courtesy Ol Pejeta Conservancy

More Science and technology

Barrett alum's publication of undergraduate research as first author a rare feat

Two years ago, when Angela Oreshkova was still a biology student in Barrett, The Honors College at Arizona State University, she spent many of her days in a lab, leaning over a plexiglass dish with a…

ASU researcher is your daily steps accountability partner

Daily exercise is as essential for a healthy body as an oil change is to a properly operating car. It improves performance, increases clarity of thinking and can enable you to live longer. Yet, in…

AI to connect small and medium manufacturing companies with larger clientele

Editor's note: This article was adapted from one originally published on Full Circle, the news publication for ASU's Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering. To read the full-length article, click here.…

LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Create a new account.

Can't sign in? Forgot your password?

Enter your email address below and we will send you the reset instructions

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Change Password

Your password must have 8 characters or more and contain 3 of the following:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Verify Phone

Your Phone has been verified

• This journal
• This Journal
• sample issues
• publication fees
• latest issues

Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research

Information & authors, metrics & citations, view options, introduction, materials and methods, magnitude and trend of publishing by aza organizations, explaining research productivity at aza organizations.

Case studies of top-publishing organizations

Acknowledgements

Supplementary materials, information, published in.

Data Availability Statement

• biodiversity conservation
• research in zoos and aquariums
• research productivity
• publishing trends
• science communication
• scientific credibility
• Integrative Sciences
• Conservation and Sustainability
• Science and Society

Plain Language Summary

Affiliations, author contributions, competing interests, other metrics, export citations.

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

• Breanna E. Pyott ,
• Albrecht I. Schulte-Hostedde , and
• David Lesbarrères

View options

Share options, share the article link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Previous article, next article.