zoos are ethical essay

Are Zoos Ethical? Arguments for and Against Keeping Animals in Zoos

Zoos, if done right, could be a good thing for the animals and the public—yet many so-called zoos get it terribly wrong.

• University of Southern California

• Ohio Wesleyan University
• Brandeis University
• Northeastern University
• Animal Rights
• Endangered Species

A Brief History of Zoos

Arguments for zoos, arguments against zoos, the last word on zoos.

A zoo is a place where captive animals are put on display for humans to see. While early zoos (shortened from zoological parks) concentrated on displaying as many unusual creatures as possible—often in small, cramped conditions—the focus of most modern zoos is conservation and education. While zoo advocates and conservationists argue that zoos save endangered species and educate the public, many  animal rights activists believe the cost of confining animals outweighs the benefits, and that the violation of the rights of individual animals—even in efforts to fend off extinction—cannot be justified. Let's dive into whether zoos are ethical and if they truly encourage education and conservation.

Humans have kept wild animals for thousands of years. The first efforts to keep wild animals for non-utilitarian uses began about 2,500 BCE, when rulers in Mesopotamia, Egypt kept collections in enclosed pens.  Modern zoos began to evolve during the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment when scientific interest in zoology and the study of animal behavior and anatomy came to the fore.

Early zoos were a dismal affair. Animals were kept in small enclosures with little if any, greenery. With a scant understanding of what the various animals needed, many perished relatively quickly. In accredited zoos in the United States and globally, things are better. Primates have gone from barren cages with little furniture to naturalistic and sometimes semi-free-ranging designs. But is it enough?

• By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of other species.
• Zoos save endangered species by bringing them into a safe environment for protection from poachers , habitat loss, starvation, and predators.
• Many zoos have breeding programs for endangered species . In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding, and species could become extinct.
• Some zoos have conservation programs around the world that use the zoo's expertise and funding to help protect wildlife against poaching and other threats.
• Reputable zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums are held to high standards for the treatment of their resident animals. According to AZA, its accreditation guarantees the organization has undergone strict evaluation by recognized experts to ensure the highest standards of "animal management and care, including living environments, social groupings, health, and nutrition."
• A good zoo provides an enriched habitat where the animals are never bored, are well cared for, and have plenty of space.
• Seeing an animal in person is a much more personal and memorable experience than seeing that animal in a nature documentary. People are more likely to foster an empathetic attitude toward animals.
• Some zoos help rehabilitate wildlife and take in exotic pets that people no longer want or can no longer care for.
• Both accredited and unaccredited animal exhibitors are regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes standards for animal care.
• From an animal rights standpoint, humans do not have a right to breed, capture, and confine other animals— even if those species are endangered . Being a member of an endangered species doesn't mean the individual animals should be afforded fewer rights.
• Animals in captivity suffer from boredom, stress, and confinement. No pen—no matter how humane—or drive-through safari can compare to the freedom of the wild .
• Intergenerational bonds are broken when individuals are sold or traded to other zoos.
• Baby animals bring in visitors and money, but this incentive to breed new babies leads to overpopulation. Surplus animals are sold to other zoos, circuses , and hunting facilities . Some zoos simply kill their surplus animals outright.
• Some captive breeding programs do not release animals back into the wild . The offspring may be forever part of the chain of zoos, circuses, and petting zoos .
• Removing individual specimens from the wild further endangers the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and may have greater difficulty finding mates. Maintaining species diversity within captive breeding facilities is also challenging. 
• If people want to see wild animals in real life, they can observe wildlife in the wild or visit a sanctuary . (A true sanctuary does not buy, sell, or breed animals, but instead takes in unwanted exotic pets, surplus animals from zoos, or injured wildlife that can no longer survive in the wild.)
• The federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) establishes minimal standards for cage size, shelter, healthcare, ventilation, fencing, food, and water. For example, enclosures must provide "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns." Violations often result in a slap on the wrist and the exhibitor is given a deadline to correct the violation. Even a long history of inadequate care and AWA violations, such as the history of Tony the Truck Stop Tiger, does not necessarily ensure abused animals will be freed.
• Animals sometimes escape their enclosures, endangering themselves as well as people. Likewise, people ignore warnings or accidentally get too close to animals, leading to horrific outcomes. For example, Harambe, a 17-year-old western lowland gorilla , was shot in 2016 when a toddler accidentally fell into his enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo . While the child survived and was not badly injured, the gorilla was killed outright.
• Petting zoos have been linked with numerous incidents of diseases including E. coli infection, cryptosporidiosis, salmonellosis, and dermatomycosis (ringworm).

In making a case for or against zoos and whether zoos are ethical, both sides argue that they're saving animals. Whether or not zoos benefit the animal community, they do make money. As long as demand remains, zoos will continue to exist.

Since zoos are likely inevitable, the best way to move forward is to ensure zoo conditions are the best possible for the animals that live in captivity and that individuals who violate animal care health and safety sanctions are not only duly punished but denied any future access to animals.

One day we may look back at zoos and marvel at their barbarity. Or, one day we may look back at zoos and be grateful for the species they saved from extinction. Of these two scenarios, only time will tell.

Hosey, Geoff, et al. Zoo Animals: Behaviour, Management, and Welfare . Oxford University Press. 2013.

Hosey, G. (2023). The History of Primates in Zoos . In: Robinson, L.M., Weiss, A. (eds) Nonhuman Primate Welfare. Springer, Cham.

“ Species Survival Plan Programs .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums.

“ Accreditation Basics .” Association of Zoos & Aquariums .

“ Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Meagher, Rebecca K., Georgia J. Mason. “ Environmental Enrichment Reduces Signs of Boredom in Caged Mink .” PLoS ONE , vol. 7, 2012, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049180

Kleiman, Devra G., et al. Wild Mammals In Captivity: Principles And Techniques For Zoo Management, Second Edition . University of Chicago Press. 2010.

Gunasekera, Crystal Allen. “ The Ethics of Killing “Surplus” Zoo Animals .” Journal of Animal Ethics , vol. 8, 2018, doi:10.5406/janimalethics.8.1.0093

Brichieri-Colombi, Typhenn A., et al. “ Limited Contributions of Released Animals from Zoos to North American Conservation Translocations .” Conservation Biology , vol. 33, 2019, pp. 33-39., doi:10.1111/cobi.13160

Krasnec, Michelle O., et al. “ Mating Systems in Sexual Animals .” Nature Education Knowledge, vol. 3, no. 10, 2012, p. 72.

“ 9 CFR § 3.128 - Space Requirements .” Cornell University Legal Information Institute .

“ Animal Welfare Act Enforcement .” U.S. Department of Agriculture .

Conrad, Cheyenne C. Conrad et al. " Farm Fairs and Petting Zoos: A Review of Animal Contact as a Source of Zoonotic Enteric Disease ." Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, vol. 14, 2017, pp. 59-73., doi:10.1089/fpd.2016.2185

• Arguments for and Against Hunting
• What's the Difference Between a Zoo and a Sanctuary?
• How Animal Rights Activists View Zoos Keeping Endangered Species
• What's Wrong With Aquariums?
• Responses to Top Arguments Against Animal Rights
• Horse Racing and Animal Rights
• Key Facts About Animal Abuse
• Is Pet Ownership Ethical?
• Overview of Animal Cruelty
• Overview of the Animal Welfare Act
• The Top 10 Animal Rights Issues
• What Will Happen to the Animals If Everyone Goes Vegan
• Animal Cruelty in Circuses
• Police Search and Rescue Dogs: The Animal Rights Debate
• Historical Timeline of the Animal Rights Movement
• The Argument for Animal Rights

Law & Policy Policy

Resources for Journalists

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

Sentient Media

• Environmental Policy
• Code of Ethics
• Testimonials

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

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

Explainer • Entertainment • Policy

Words by Björn Ólafsson

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

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

What Are Some Pros and Cons of Zoos ?

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

Arguments Against Zoos

Poor conditions for animals.

Animals Often Only Have Quite Limited Space

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

Zoos Are  Crowded

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

Animals Are Trapped in Unnatural Environments

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

Confinement May Alter the Behavior of Animals

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

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

‘Surplus’ Animals Can Be Killed

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

Animals Are Often Mistreated 

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

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

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

Animals Don’t Like Being Visited

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

Animals Struggle to Form Connections

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

Zoos Are for Humans, Not Animals

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

Zoos Promote Human Superiority

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

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

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

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

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

Zoos Are Poorly Regulated

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

What Are the Pros of Having Zoos?

They Can Be Important for Researchers

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

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

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

Zoos Can Help Educate Children About Animals

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

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

Going to the Zoo Is Affordable

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

Conservation

Zoos Can Protect Endangered Species from Extinction

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

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

Are Zoos Good or Bad for the Environment?

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

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

Should Zoos Exist or Be Banned?

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

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

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

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

The Bottom Line

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

Independent Journalism Needs You

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

VP Candidate Tim Walz Has Deep Connections to Agriculture and Conservation

Future of Food • 5 min read

More Law & Policy

FBI Records Reveal Ironic Accusations Against Animal Activists

Law & Policy • 6 min read

How Big Ag Is Trying to Buck Regulations to Prevent Pollution

The state’s biggest business lobby helps two residents challenge a Polk County town’s restrictions on livestock feeding operations.

Law & Policy • 5 min read

The Best & Worst Countries for Animal Welfare Are Difficult to Measure

An imperfect but important ranking system, explained.

Law & Policy • 7 min read

Why Eating Organic Isn’t a Climate Solution

Climate • 8 min read

Investigation

On Organic Caviar Farms, Fish Still Suffer

Aquaculture • 4 min read

How Bacon for Breakfast Became an American Staple

Diet • 6 min read

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

Justice • 5 min read

Book Review: ‘Meet the Neighbors’ by Brandon Keim Compassionately Complicates the Narrative about Animals

Science • 8 min read

Most Read Today

• The Top U.S. Cities with Climate-Friendly Food Policies
• Organic Farming: What It Is — and Isn’t — Explained
• What Is a Food Web? A Simple Definition (With Examples)
• How Much Protein You Need to Be Healthy, Explained
• First U.S. Egg Producer Commits to End Chick Culling by Fall
• Plants and Their Pollinators Are Increasingly Out of Sync
• What Is Sustainable Agriculture?
• 13 Animals Going Extinct — in Large Part Thanks To Humans

• Designers + Brands
• Style + Trends
• Watches + Jewelry
• Founders Picks
• Wine + Spirits
• Destinations
• Hotels + Resorts
• Travel Guides
• Environment
• Transportation
• Bath + Body
• Skincare + Makeup
• Psychedelics
• Gender-Neutral

Is it ever ethical to visit a zoo? And what about sanctuaries, are they any better? The truth is the waters are a little bit murky on the issue.

Zoos have been around for so long, it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly when the first one opened its doors. But we do know it was likely in ancient times. In Egypt, tourists can visit the archeological site of Nehken, where the remains of old mummified captive animals, like hippos, an elephant, and baboons, lie. But the modern zoo industry in the U.S., of course, started many centuries later — in late 1800s Philadelphia. Since then, the business of keeping animals captive has exploded. 

Right now, IBISWorld notes there are 384 zoos and aquariums in the U.S. alone. But the actual number is likely much higher because unaccredited roadside zoos are also rife across the country. Tigers in America reports there are more than 3,000 roadside zoos — which are essentially just small private menageries with wild animals — in the U.S., all of which are unregulated.

Are zoos ethical? 

If we break the “are zoos ethical?” question down into a black-and-white answer then, no, zoos are not ethical. They hold animals captive, restrict their natural behaviors, and exploit them for profit. On the face of it, it all seems quite clear: zoos are bad for animals. It could also be argued that they’re bad for humans, too, by perpetuating a narrative that we are entitled to continue exerting oppressive behavior over others.

This is the view of most animal rights organizations and activists. “Many animals suffer in captivity as zoos can never recreate the complex environment [animals] are adapted to live in,” notes Frankie Osuch, policy support officer for U.K. nonprofit Born Free, noted in a blog post. “Deprived of their natural habitat and social structures, zoo animals can often suffer physical and psychological ailments not experienced by their wild counterparts.”

This is true. Zoochosis is a psychological condition that refers to stereotypical behaviors displayed by animals in captivity. It involves stress-induced behaviors that are “highly repetitive, invariant, and functionless” according to Born Free. So think of things like pacing, licking, or swaying, for example. PETA, the largest animal rights organization in the world, also agrees that zoos are wrong. But the group’s recent actions also indicate that the situation surrounding zoos and ethics isn’t black and white, and actually, it is perhaps more of a sliding scale.

Enter: The grey area 

In 2022, PETA rescued more than 60 animals from a roadside zoo in Maryland, called Tri-State Zoological Park. According to the animal rights organization, a legal settlement forced the facility to close “after years of violations” including chronic neglect. But inevitably, it needed somewhere to place these animals. So it looked not just to reputable sanctuaries, but also accredited, trusted zoos, like Oakland Zoo in California. 

“We are incredibly grateful to our zoo and sanctuary partners for helping us,” said PETA’s general counsel for captive animal law enforcement Brittany Peet. “If we didn’t have reputable zoos, such as Oakland Zoo, these animals would have to stay with neglectful owners, like Bob Candy [the owner of Tri-State Zoological Park], where they would be mistreated for years.” Unlike roadside zoos, Oakland Zoo is accredited by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA), which means it has certain animal welfare standards it must uphold. It also has the expertise, finances, and infrastructure to give rescued animals a decent place to recover from abuse and neglect.

Does accredited mean ethical?

While it is still a zoo, Oakland Zoo also aims to encompass the values of a sanctuary, in the sense that it actively prioritizes the safe rescue and care of vulnerable animals. Not all zoos behave this way, even if they are accredited. Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden, for example, is accredited by AZA, but the establishment has been named on In Defense of Animals’ “Worst Zoos for Elephants” list more than once.

“Cincinnati Zoo’s current elephant exhibit is a mere single acre and houses four Asian elephants. It deceptively claims renovations to its “Elephant Trek,” scheduled to be completed in 2024, will increase the space by five times from its current miserly 1 acre. This adds up to just 5 acres, but only 4 acres are for the elephants, which is still tiny,” notes the nonprofit. “The rest of the space goes to ticket holders as paths, picnic areas and gardens, and an event space that can accommodate 250 people,” it continues. “If the zoo’s breeding plans work, the elephants’ space will get even smaller.”

This brings up another tricky point: breeding. While many zoos claim they have animal conservation intentions with their breeding programs, bringing more animals into captivity instead of spending money to support vulnerable populations in the wild, is controversial. “The world is in the midst of an extinction crisis, but zoos do not offer a viable solution,” notes Osuch. “We must aspire to protect wild animals where they belong – in the wild.”

The bottom line: avoid zoos and support sanctuaries, where possible

The zoo issue is complicated. Sometimes they offer the necessary space and conditions for vulnerable animals, and sometimes they are nothing but exploitative. But as visitors, we can keep things very simple. Before you visit or give money to an establishment or organization, first, do your research. If a zoo keeps animals in small cages, it’s an immediate no-go. The same if it offers any form of paid interactions with animals (like holding tiger cubs, for example). These are likely roadside zoos, and they are not only cruel and exploitative to animals, but dangerous to people too. (See: Tiger King .) But you should also be wary of bigger zoos, even if they are accredited, as is the case with the Cincinnati Zoo, for example. Read reviews, news reports, and there’s something to be said for following your animal instincts: if it doesn’t feel right to you, it probably isn’t.

But this doesn’t mean you should avoid seeing animals completely. The Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS) accredits real, reputable rescue centers and sanctuaries that are doing their best for abandoned, injured, and displaced animals. But be wary of facilities that use the word “sanctuary” without accreditation or evidence to back it up, as these may be roadside zoos in disguise. “GFAS’ definition of “sanctuary” is any facility providing temporary or permanent safe haven to animals in need while meeting the principles of true sanctuaries,” it notes. “[This means] providing excellent and humane care for their animals in a non-exploitative environment and having ethical policies in place.”

For more guidance on the best animal facilities to visit, you can find all of the sanctuaries accredited by GFAS here . 

Related on Ethos:

• Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus Will Return. The Animals Won’t.
• ‘Mesoscale’ Ocean Sanctuaries May Be the Best Hope for Saving Coral Reefs
• Is Cotton Fabric Sustainable? Turns Out, It’s Complicated
• Fur May Be Out of Style, But Animal Cruelty In Fashion Hasn’t Gone Anywhere
• Human-Wildlife Conflicts Are Rising, and, Spoiler Alert: It’s Because of the Climate Crisis

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > From Farm to Zoo - The Quest for Animal Welfare [Working Title]

The Value and Ethical Status of Zoos

Submitted: 20 November 2023 Reviewed: 15 December 2023 Published: 30 April 2024

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.114119

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

From Farm to Zoo - The Quest for Animal Welfare [Working Title]

Dr. Jaco Bakker and Dr. Melissa Delagarza

Chapter metrics overview

53 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Ethical concerns surrounding the existence of zoos have recently come to the fore. Some argue for the complete phasing-out of zoos, citing concerns about the limitations they impose on animal liberty and dignity, coupled with perceived minimal benefits to both humans and animals. However, these arguments tend to downplay the potential value that zoos offer in terms of human enjoyment, educational opportunities, research initiatives, and conservation efforts. Moreover, they overlook other significant benefits zoos provide such as the positive impact of human-animal interactions and opportunities to appreciate nature’s beauty. Finally, zoo critics often emphasize the negative effects of zoos on animals while neglecting the substantial efforts made by zoos toward animal welfare research and implementation. By accurately recognizing the multifaceted values that zoos can provide and ensuring the highest standards of animal care, a strong case can be made for their continued existence and importance.

• animal welfare
• human-animal interactions
• esthetic value of nature

Author Information

Alan vincelette *.

• Pretheology, St. John’s Seminary, Camarillo, California, USA

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Institutions that place animals in captivity have increasingly come under attack of late, including circuses, aquariums, zoos, research laboratories, factory farms, and, in some cases, animal sanctuaries and domestic households. Critics have argued that holding animals in captivity violates their right to autonomy or dignity, or is harmful to their overall welfare [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Such claims have been especially common in regard to highly intelligent mammals such as elephants, polar bears, lions, and primates. Given their needs for intellectual stimulation and freedom of exploration, various ethicists have alleged that such creatures do not belong in captivity [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Philosophers have even written legal briefs alleging mistreatment of such mammals in zoos and aquariums [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].

This paper examines the arguments against maintaining captive animals in zoos, especially mammals [ 14 ], and responds to them. Some critics allege that zoos fail to provide for animal welfare to a sufficient degree to justify their existence, at least for sentient beings [ 15 ]. Others [ 16 , 17 , 18 ]) argue that in depriving animals of liberty and a natural way of life zoos are unable to furnish them a satisfying life. Finally, there are critics who claim that zoos are fundamentally oppressive in unauthentically offering up animals for display for human pleasure [ 19 , 20 , 21 ].

Against these critiques, this paper asserts that such authors exaggerate the harm done by zoos and the degree to which zoos are unable to provide for animal welfare. It looks at the extensive research on and changes made in zoos to provide satisfying lives for zoo creatures by allowing for a great degree of species-specific behavior and minimizing the presence of deleterious stereotypies. In addition, there are several values which, if properly understood, justify the holding of animals in captivity in zoos. Zoo critics often inaccurately minimize the ability of zoos to provide for research, education, and conservation. And the ability of zoos to offer human entertainment, foster human-animal interactions (a good for both parties), and allow for esthetic appreciation of nature is significant. With an accurate assessment of the welfare of animals in zoos, and an appreciation of the diverse values zoos can provide, there is every reason to see zoos as important cultural and conservational institutions that can and should continue to exist.

2. The ethical critique of zoos

Various philosophers have argued that the confinement of animals in zoos, or at least certain mammalian species, cannot be morally justified. Typically such a view is based either upon utilitarian grounds and a concern for animal welfare, or upon animal rights and a concern for animal freedom or dignity [ 14 ]. While noting that zoos have much improved in their ability to care for animals and not cause them overt physical or psychological harm, nevertheless many critics assert that it is still problematic to confine animals in zoos due to their being deprived of a fundamental right to liberty or of dignity [ 22 ]. It is not enough for zoos to provide for animal welfare (often cached in terms of the freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury, or disease, fear and distress [ 23 , 24 ]), nor a satisfying mental state, nor even to have large and naturalistic enclosures; rather zoos must enable the animals in them to enact the same (or very similar) behaviors that they do in the wild. This is something, however, that zoos, by their very nature, are often unable to do.

One of the earliest such critics was Dale Jamieson. Jamieson argued in his essays “Against Zoos” (1985) and “Zoos Revisited” (1995) that zoos involve “taking animals out of their native habitats, transporting them great distances, and keeping them in alien environments in which their liberty is severely restricted” ([ 17 ], p. 167). Consequently, zoos deprive animals of the good of behaving in ways natural to them, including the seeking and gathering of food, interacting with members of the same species in complex ways, and developing a social order. There is thus a moral presumption against keeping animals captive in zoos, as it deprives them of their interest in liberty; and such captivity would still be illicit even if zoo animals led overall less painful and more pleasant lives than their wild counterparts. Nor are the overall contributions zoos make to entertainment, education, research, and conservation enough to overcome this moral presumption, and indeed these ends could be accomplished in other ways, such as through films. Zoos, wherein human beings treat animals as “there for our pleasure, to be used for our purposes” ([ 17 ], p. 175), ought then to be abolished.

Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce argue along similar lines regarding zoo life that “Good welfare is not and can never be good enough … [as] the animals on display suffer from huge losses of freedom” ([ 16 ], p. 94). For even if zoos furnish naturalistic and enriched habitats (with varied and unpredictable environments with some capacity for exploration and play), and the animals there do not display any behaviors suggestive of poor physical or mental health, zoos still deprive animals of important freedoms, namely freedom of control and the ability to engage in the full range of behaviors indicative of their species. There are always limits on the behavioral choices available to zoo creatures. Coupled with the fact that visitors often do not learn much about animals at zoos, visiting each exhibit for a short period, nor leave the zoo much more likely to get involved in conservation efforts, zoos should be replaced with more enlightened animal sanctuaries that are either closed to the public or allow very limited access [ 25 ].

Tzachi Zamir, while defending the ethical legitimacy of companion and farm animals on the basis of their being able to live qualitatively satisfying lives, argues that placing animals in zoos cannot be similarly justified [ 18 ]. Just as it would be unwarranted to confine humans to cages, or to remove human infants from their parents, even in order to improve their overall wellbeing or extend their lives, so too placing animals in zoos is impermissible, even were their welfare to be enhanced. For most species of animals in the zoo (unlike companion and farm animals who owe their very existence to being placed in paternal relationships with humans) are capable of living in the wild apart from human interventions. Placing such creatures in zoos, therefore, whose exhibits can place severe restrictions on their movements (especially with birds, canines, felines, and primates), and are contraindicative to behaviors they would naturally engage in in the wild, is not in their best interest [ 18 ].

Other critics stress the inauthentic and imperialistic nature of zoos [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. Zoos involve the “praxis of imperialism,” opines Randy Malamud, wherein animals are taken out of their natural environments, confined, and exploited as “subalterns,” that is to say, placed on convenient display and subject to the gaze of countless spectators ([ 21 ], pp. 58-59). In addition, zoos are inauthentic as they fundamentally misrepresent and oversimplify the nature of the animals on exhibit ([ 21 ], p. 29). Visitors to zoos are duped into believing that the animals housed there show the full scale of behaviors they possess in the wild. Zoos, in the end, are unethical speciest institutions that unjustly confine animals and pander to base human interests. It is no wonder that Malamud thinks we should shutter zoos, when he describes them as “prisons for kidnapped, alienated, tortured specimens who are forced to live their lives in vastly unsuitable compounds for the titillation of ignorant crowds brought in by marketing and advertising campaigns that promise highbrow ecological experiences but actually pander to audiences’ less noble cravings for amusement parks, or even freakshows” ([ 30 ], p. 397).

Ralph Acampora highlights this deceptive nature of zoos ([ 19 ], p. 77). Zoos present as wild (animals exhibiting the natural behaviors they would perform in the wild as if visitors were not there) what is captive (animals as spectacle and exhibition in a “zoopticon” where they are subject to the gaze of humans). Indeed, zoos undermine the very conditions of encounter with a wild animal that they claim to provide. Zoo creatures are displayed as if at liberty, whereas, in reality, they “are incapable of living the lives they are purported to enjoy; they are prevented from participating in behavior presented as their defining characteristics. Precisely because they are unable to elude the gaze of others, to associate or refuse to associate with human beings, they are prevented from living the lives they are supposed to have” ([ 19 ], p. 78). Zoos then should be replaced with institutions that present animals more authentically such as certain types of animal orphanages or wildlife sanctuaries.

The zoo critic Lori Gruen [ 20 ], along with others [ 31 , 32 ], has more recently taken up the same hammer and wedge. Gruen argues that zoos deprive animals of autonomy and dignity. Even the best zoos, those with naturalistic enclosures, are often dignity denying as they place animals under constant surveillance, deny them privacy or any hiding place to which they can retreat, and force them to be spectacles on display for humans ([ 20 ], pp. 240-245). Zoos, in fact, “are designed to create a relationship between the human observer and the object of the observation that obscures the individuality and dignity of the animals. The enclosures are designed to satisfy human interests and desires, even though they largely fail at this. At worst the experience creates a relationship in which the observer, even a child, has a feeling of dominant distance over those being observed” ([ 20 ], p. 242). Zoos also deprive animals of autonomy for Gruen [ 33 , 34 ]. Zoo animals do not have the freedom to follow their own interests and engage in the behaviors typical of their species but instead are under the almost complete control of humans. They cannot choose where to dwell, nor the individuals with whom to spend time or to mate. Nor are zoo animals allowed to engage in ritualized combat to determine social hierarchies or territories. Zoos may not strictly speaking harm animals physically or psychologically, but, on account of their violating the dignity and autonomy of animals, they should be replaced with animal sanctuaries utilized primarily for conservation purposes.

While not rejecting the propriety of zoos altogether, several ethicists have proclaimed that they should be greatly modified in nature or limited in scope. For such thinkers, zoos should ideally only house animals that otherwise could not survive in the wild, or those that can be temporarily bred and reintroduced into the wild, and should generally be closed to the public [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ].

Emma Marris, for example, holds that the keeping of large mammals in zoos should definitely be phased out [ 40 ]. According to Marris, the fact that many large animals, such as elephants and lions, display stereotypies in the zoo and will escape from their cages when possible, indicates that they are not happy there. Moreover, the effectiveness of zoos in conservation is minimal. Though there have been a few successful reintroductions of species into the wild, the vast majority of zoo animals will spend their entire lives in captivity. Nor is there unambiguous evidence of the educational contribution of zoos to promoting conservation. People, in fact, says Marris, “do not go to zoos to learn about the biodiversity crisis or how they can help. They go to get out of the house, to get their children some fresh air, to see interesting animals. They go for the same reason people went to zoos in the ninetieth century: to be entertained” [ 40 ]. Indeed, suggests Marris, most animals in zoos should be put in refugees or allowed to live out their natural lives without being replaced. In the end zoos should house just a few animals–namely, endangered species with a real chance of being released back into the wild and some rescues, and the rest of their space dedicated to botanical gardens.

A similar view is found in the well-known philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who builds her case to limit the species kept in zoos on a capabilities approach [ 41 ]. In order for animals to flourish, argues Nussbaum, they must be able to manifest the capacities of life, health, integrity, sense, imagination, thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, relations with other species, play, and control over their environment ([ 41 ], pp. 95-108). On a capabilities approach then it is not enough for zoos to ensure the absence of pain and presence of pleasure in captive animals (an area in which zoos have greatly improved, admits Nussbaum), zoos must also provide environs in which animals can lead the particular “form of life” characteristic of their species, including activities such as play, self-direction, affiliation, sensory stimulation, and even predation. A confined space is justifiable “if and only if the animals within it have access to their characteristic form of life, spatially, sensorily, nutritionally, socially, emotionally” ([ 41 ], p. 239). Nussbaum grants that zoos often support valuable research, and conservation efforts. Yet it is not clear how, for many species, they can provide for a “social life and free movement in a group-typical space” ([ 41 ], p. 239). In the end Nussbaum favors the continued presence in zoos of small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, non-migratory birds, monkeys, and some apes, but is less confident that zoos can provide the necessary environments for large mammals such as rhinos, giraffes, elephants, polar bears, cheetahs, hyenas, lions, and tigers–unless temporarily and where there are no other alternatives for a species facing extinction in the wild.

Finally, Stephen Bennett recently advanced a utilitarian argument against the keeping of sentient animals in zoos (Bennett allows the keeping of non-sentient animals, however) [ 15 ]. Bennett claims that sentient animals will suffer from frustration and unhappiness if prevented from moving about and acting upon their natural desires as they could do in the wild. Hence they experience pain under the constraints on freedom imposed by zoos ([ 15 ], pp. 178-179). Furthermore, Bennett argues, invoking the antinatalism of David Benatar [ 42 ], that, all things being equal, it is better for a sentient being not to have come into existence at all, thereby avoiding the experience of any pain, than it is to come into existence and experience pleasure. That is to say, other things being equal, the harms that occur while existing outweigh the benefits. Now if it could be shown that zoos actively promote conservation efforts then this could compensate for the harms that occur during captivity; however, zoos have achieved few successful reintroductions of animals into the wild. Thus captive breeding programs, which merely bring into existence sentient creatures who are bound to suffer some things by the very fact of their existence, and whose prospects for successful reintroduction into the wild are minimal, should be done away with and sentient animals moved out of zoos ([ 15 ], pp. 182-183).

3. Getting accurate about the contributions zoos make to research, education, and conservation

The confinement of animals in zoos has traditionally been justified on four grounds: entertainment, education, research, and conservation [ 43 , 44 ]. The continued existence of zoos is said to be defensible if zoos can accomplish these goals, assuming that animals can be kept in a state of good physical and psychological health [ 45 ].

As we have seen, however, zoo critics often allege the failure of zoos to accomplish these goals, or to do much in their regard. Yet they often exaggerate these failures and so downplay the goods generated by zoos. This makes it easier to argue for their elimination. An important first step in the defense of zoos then is to accurately assess the ability of zoos to meet these four goals.

Several of the above critics have professed that zoos do not contribute much to academic research, or at least to research supporting conservation efforts ([ 24 ], p. 170, 40). Partly the claim is made that researchers are better off studying animals in the wild than in the artificial habitats found in zoos. Partly the claim is made that most of the research done in zoos involves studies on how to provide for zoo animal welfare, which would not be necessary if zoos did not exist, and little of it is solid peer-reviewed work that can assist in conservation.

While it is true that in the past zoos did not do as much as they perhaps could have to foster research, it is harder to make that case today. One study noted that from 1993 to 2013 North American AZA zoo and aquarium members contributed 5175 publications to peer-review journals, with 31.6% of those focused on veterinary science (some of which, of course, related to zoo animal welfare), 31.9% on zoology, 13.3% on ecology, and 7.3% on biodiversity conservation [ 46 ]. A similar study on German zoos, all member of ‘Verband der Zoologischen Gaerten’, described how between 2008 and 2018 such institutions produced 1058 peer-review articles, of which 13.9% were related to veterinary science, 25.1% to zoology, 7.6% to ecology, and 5.2% to biodiversity conservation [ 47 ]. And from 1998 to 2018 European EAZA zoo members produced 3345 peer-reviewed manuscripts, of which 29.1% were in veterinary science, 31.6% in zoology, 16.4% in ecology, and 12.7% in biodiversity conservation [ 48 ]. If we just limit ourselves to the areas of ecology and biodiversity conservation, zoos contributed over 2300 articles over the past 20 or so years (and the rate of publication has been increasing over time) [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. So, although zoos may not be research institutions to the same degree that universities are, and may employ few full-time researchers, they can provide for significant research in animal biology and behavior (often partnering with university researchers), and, in particular, help inform conservation efforts involving both in-situ and ex-situ programs.

Nor is it true that studies done on zoo animals are necessarily less revelatory than those done on animals in the wild. A careful biologist recognizes that animals in zoos may not behave in ways identical to those in the wild, and hence that complementary studies in the field can be very important. Yet a lot of information about animal biology and behavior can be gleaned from research on zoo animals, who do, in fact, replicate some of the behaviors observed in the wild. Indeed, zoo animals are often more accessible and easier to isolate and interact with than animals in the wild. Hence zoos can host a lot of valuable studies on zoology and animal behavior, whether via their own employees or outside investigators. For example, investigations on the breeding behavior of the Japanese Giant Salamander undertaken at Asa Zoological Park in 1989 subsequently led to the development of artificial nests to help the species propagate in the wild [ 54 ]. And in the field of primate cognition alone over 1000 papers have been published in the new century involving research done at zoos [ 55 , 56 ].

Similarly, in regard to the goal of education, critics have charged that zoos do little to change people’s behaviors in a way that make them more likely to actively support conservation efforts in the world ([ 15 ], p. 181), ([ 16 ], p. 112-115), ([ 18 ], p. 200), ([ 20 ], p. 241, 40). Moreover, they assert that most of the purported educational benefits of zoos could be arrived at equally well through other mediums, such as lectures, documentaries, books, or museums ([ 24 ], p. 169, 15, p. 181, 16, 18, p. 200).

Now the critics here are on somewhat solid ground. It is tough to demonstrate the effect of zoos on conservation attitudes or behavioral changes. In fact, critics have pointed to various studies showing that the average zoo-goer spends little time at each exhibit and leaves the zoo with views on conservation closely resembling those with which they entered [ 57 , 58 , 59 ]. As one author notes, “zoos seem to be successful in promoting feelings of caring and connection with wildlife, although efforts to increase visitor knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors appear to have been less effective. This may be the case because despite zoos’ efforts to position themselves as sites of conservation, research, and education, the reality is that by and large the public still views them as places of entertainment” ([ 60 ], p. 376).

However, we cannot ignore various studies that find zoos can have an impact on a visitor’s attitudes towards and behaviors involving conservation. One study noted that over fifty percent of zoo visitors found that their zoo experience reinforced their attitudes towards conservation and prompted them to reflect on their future role in its regard [ 61 ]. And while the validity of this study has been challenged [ 62 ], and responded to [ 63 ], similar studies have described small but positive impacts of zoos on conservation attitudes and behaviors, often based on feelings of connectedness with the animals rather than time spent reading exhibit signs [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ]. The bulk of these studies though are based on survey results rather than post zoo data about actual increases in conservation behavior or spending, so more investigation needs to be done. All the same zoos can continue to refine their educational programs, and experiment with providing ways to donate or volunteer for conservation activities on site, as some have already done [ 73 ].

In any case, most modern thinkers assert that the primary value provided by zoos, and what most justifies their continued relevance, is their ability to provide for the conservation of endangered species [ 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ]. Keulartz, for example, wants zoos to make sure that their core tasks are “all geared to wildlife conservation and the species collection clearly reflects the zoo’s conservation goals. A shift towards small species, which generally experience less welfare problems in captivity and fewer behavioral problems that make return to the wild difficult than large animals, would certainly tip the scales in favor of the zoo” ([ 85 ], p. 349).

Now how do zoos fare in conservation work? Are zoos able to assist in bringing back species from the brink of extinction? Here again there is mixed success, as critics have pointed out ([ 21 ], pp. 44-45, 24, pp. 172-173, 40). It is true that zoos contain many species that are not endangered (somewhere around 8000 out of 9000 species there, in fact), and that some of the zoo populations of endangered species are quite low and so there is a danger of deleterious genes being expressed due to inbreeding. It is also true that there have been a very limited number of successful reintroductions (around 20 with 40 ongoing) and that the overall success rate has been estimated at anywhere between 10 and 40% [ 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 ].

Still, the successful reintroductions that have occurred should not be disregarded. Captive-breeding programs in zoos have helped in the restoration to the wild of such endangered or threatened species as the California Condor, Przewalski’s Horse, Arabian Oryx, Red Wolf, Golden Lion Tamarin, Black-Footed Ferret, Bison, Iberian Lynx, Asian Crested Ibis, and Whooping Crane. Moreover, even when not directly involved in captive-breeding programs zoos provide personnel, know-how, and funding (up to $350 million each year) for conservation efforts [ 87 , 89 , 92 ]. Recently zoos have done a lot of work in assisting in the restoration of endangered reptile and amphibian species [ 54 , 92 ]. As has been noted, zoos help preserve threatened animal species generation after generation, by redirecting money spent on entertainment, and fostering an attitude of concern for the zoo animals who serve as ambassadors for their kin in the wild [ 74 , 93 , 94 , 95 ].

Moreover, with advancing biotechnology (CRISPR and cloning) and monitoring technology (drones, cameras, artificial intelligence, data loggers) increased success in reintroductions of endangered species via captive breeding might be possible in the future [ 95 , 96 ]. In any case, zoos can at least be important storehouses of genetic information and diversity wherein the gene pool of endangered species are maintained throughout the world through cooperative breeding programs (though here perhaps future technology might make this less necessary) [ 97 , 98 ].

4. Zoos as vehicles for esthetic appreciation of, interaction with, and enjoyment of/for animals

Zoos have sponsored important research studies on animal biology and conservation, aided in a few successful reintroductions of endangered species into the wild, and made some contributions to education and changing behavioral patterns of people vis-à-vis conservation. One traditional value of zoos, however, has yet to be discussed–zoos as providing entertainment.

Zoo critics on the whole have found the least amount of support for the existence of zoos in their ability to provide for human entertainment [ 19 , 21 ]. Jamieson finds it hard to see how providing entertainment to humans could possibly justify keeping wild animals in captivity ([ 24 ], p. 168). And several critics have found the very putting of animals on display in zoos to be demeaning and undignified. In the words of Gruen, “Thinking of animals as things to be looked at and believing that doing so makes for an enjoyable weekend outing, precludes seeing animals as having dignity” ([ 20 ], p. 242). For in such a case, argues Malamud, zoo life becomes merely “an amusement, a display, a spectacle in a menagerie,” where human visitors are deceived into thinking animals are exhibiting their “natural” behaviors ([ 21 ], p. 1). Tafalla expresses similar concerns in writing that “Zoos reduce animals to bodies, to a mere physical presence, to ornamental objects that can be exhibited and contemplated, to pleasant appearances we like to watch, but the true identity of an animal is much more than her body. They are subjects with different capacities, who develop and express their identity in complex behavior and through multiple relations with their environment, and with all the other individuals of the same and different species who inhabit it. This is the core of the problem. At a zoo, we cannot appreciate in a serious and deep way the esthetic qualities of wild species because zoos are not showing us wild animals on their own terms” ([ 99 ], p. 7).

Whence it might be thought that entertainment is the least important factor for those seeking to justify the existence of zoos. Yet it turns out that this, when fully explicated, is a vastly underemphasized value of zoos. Zoos can do a lot of good educating humans about animals and the environment, fostering conservation programs, and promoting research. However, zoos are primarily good as zoos , that is as a place where living creatures are kept in confinement for the purpose of being viewed and appreciated by humans. Indeed, the joy found in observing animals in the zoo is a driver of education, motivator of research, and foundation for conservation.

There is, in fact, great value in humans being able to view and be amazed by living creatures from around the world. Experiencing such animals in person allows humans to appreciate the grandeur of creation, the physical qualities, adaptations, beautiful forms, colors, and great variety of creatures living in the world. Indeed, humans can encounter species in zoos that they would not likely encounter anywhere else, such as bears, tigers, and wolverines, unless they were seasoned world travelers and expeditionists. Indeed, in very few places (perhaps one exception being the African Savannah) can one encounter such a diversity of life forms at once. Yes, it is true that one can also appreciate wildlife in films or magazines. But there is something worthwhile about seeing something in person that is hard to capture in other ways. Watching a live jazz jam session, or an orchestral performance in person, is quite different than watching the same thing on film. There are aspects of the experience that arguably cannot be duplicated virtually and the very aspect of being present at an event or occurrence encourages active engagement (though as technology develops and virtual three-dimensional presentations of material can occur there may be fewer overall differences).

So appreciation of the nature and beauty of zoo life is something that can and does occur in spite of the (mis)construals of zoo critics. If one has a conception that animals in zoos are presented in an undignified manner it may well be difficult to appreciate them esthetically. But this need not be the case (and one may be mistaken in one’s assessment of the situation–in thinking of zoo mammals as being put on display in an undignified manner). If, on the other hand, one is open to the beauty and magnificence of animals, it is there to be seen even in a zoo. Hence the fame of tigers, zebras, peacocks, toucans, and parrots. In addition, part of what makes animals esthetically appealing is their physical nature being adapted for a particular function, and this would certainly be visible in zoo creatures, and is often highlighted on informational displays [ 100 , 101 , 102 ]. Zoos provide a special diet for flamingos in giving them the canthaxanthin that they would normally eat in the environment to maintain their pink color but there is no reason to let this “artificiality” spoil one’s appreciation of their grace, long legs, and beauty.

Critics of zoos have asserted that one cannot have a deep appreciation of animals there as such creatures do not behave as they would in the wild. But the former in no way follows from the latter, and it is not even clear the latter follows. In a large enclosure, zoo animals can manifest many of the behaviors they do in the wild, including ones that humans can find esthetically pleasing. A lion in a zoo may not behave exactly as it does in the wild, but it can still display its magnificence as it walks with its piercing eyes, chest out, and powerful steps. So, too the plodding walk of elephants and their dexterity with their trunks, the speed of a cheetah, as well as the pacing gait and maneuverable tongue of giraffes can all be marveled at in a zoo. Zoos then can provide significant “entertainment” (perhaps “spectacle” might be a better term) for humans by allowing the aesthetical experience and appreciation of animals.

Moreover, in zoos visitors can interact with animals in various ways, such as by feeding and petting them. Many zoo critics find this artificial and problematic [ 25 , 41 ]. But why? Yes, training animals to perform in ways contrary to how they normally behave may look odd (as with bears riding bicycles), and we can debate its propriety. But animal training and human-animal interactions can take various forms. Animal species (such as rhinoceroses, giraffes, tigers, wolves, parrots, and hawks) can be socialized and trained to behave or interact with humans in different ways in encounters or shows. Giraffes and rhinoceroses or parrots can be trained to happily take food from the hands of humans and birds to fly to and fro in an animal show. And animals are often able to adapt to different environments, including interacting with invasive species or new species encountered as their environment expands or contracts. Wild animals, notes Learmonth, do not just interact with members of their own species, but also with those of other species, sometimes in mutually beneficial ways. Thus “human-animal interactions could actually be considered natural in a way, and notwithstanding, be very important to animals that initiate these interactions, especially for ‘a life worth living’” [ 103 ]. At the wildland-urban interface, where farmland, field, or forest meets city, wild animals such as birds, squirrels, rabbits, or deer interact with humans in visiting feeders or salt licks or gardens. Indeed, many animals adapted to the wild may become pets in human homes (though breeding in captivity seems best for the most positive adjustment to a domestic life).

Therefore, to completely disallow animal-human interactions in a zoo and claim that these are artificial, has itself the air of drawing an artificial boundary. Nussbaum does grant the legitimacy of human relationships with parrots and chimpanzees as such interactivity is consistent with their form of life ([ 41 ], p. 238). But the ability of animals to interact positively with humans is much broader than this. Certainly most mammals that live in social groups or form pair bonds seem quite capable of forming meaningful relationships with humans, but so do some more solitary species. It does not seem possible to draw an a priori boundary but rather let such a boundary arise from seeing how different human and animal species interact in a zoo and the benefits that arise therefrom.

Zoo creatures, it could be argued, even have the unique opportunity, one lacking with wild animals, of being able to have interactions with human visitors (such as being fed or petted). This human-animal interrelationality allows for novel but positive experiences not necessarily observed in the wild, but which one might call “seminatural.” Researchers have just begun to appreciate how such animal-visitor interactions [AVIs] enhance the life of zoo creatures and of humans as well [ 64 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 ]. For such human-animal interactions, if done appropriately, can be of great importance to zoo animals and enhance their mental well-being. Many animals seem to take delight in interacting with humans, and seek out such forms of contact, especially if trained or with known individuals. Indeed, zookeepers and caregivers and veterinarians are typically quite loving and kind and thoughtful when it comes to how to interact with zoo animals. Though she generally favors private and public animal sanctuaries over zoos, Rudy is quite right when she states that “some animals are generally better off when they are enmeshed with and connected to humans who work with them, advocate for their well-being, and love them” ([ 113 ], p. 112). Such rich and engaging relations with animals can in turn help humans bond with them, feel connected to them, experience great joy, and perhaps reinforce conservation activities. And such interactions are carefully subscribed, regulated, and evaluated for welfare impacts on the zoo creatures.

Thus, as Cochrane has argued, zoo animals are, in a way, neither wild nor domestic [ 114 ]. They live in miniature worlds, are provided with food and medicine, monitored, and moved around. They are somewhat adapted to living with humans, either being born in captivity and raised from youth with humans, and/or being extensively trained by zookeepers (indeed this is one reason why they often fail to do well when reintroduced into the wild). For these reasons, Cochrane labels zoo animals “biotic artifacts,” or creatures of “immaturation” [ 114 ]. In any case many zoo animals seem to value human interactions and such interactions can also provide positive experiences for humans and enhance their valuing of nature.

5. Some reflections on animal welfare in zoos

Still even the ability to make important contributions to research, education, conservation, and human entertainment, may not be enough to justify the placing of animals in zoos if their welfare is compromised. Most zoo critics are well aware that zoos have changed in their philosophy, and have devoted much time, energy, resources, and study to animal welfare [ 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 ]. They are also typically aware that zoos are accredited on the basis of various standards by such agencies as the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), the Zoological Association of American (ZAA), the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA), and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIZA), have dedicated nutritionists, animal caregivers, and veterinary staff, and have expansive enclosures that feature naturalistic and enriched environments [ 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 ]. Hence it is much harder to attack zoos for their failure to provide for the core physical and mental needs of creatures in their care (though there may still be issues with particular zoos, or with certain practices such as the culling of surplus animals in overpopulated zoo enclosures, removing animals from the wild and transferring them to zoos, or questions as to whether certain species can lead fully satisfactory lives in a zoo [ 134 , 135 ]).

Yet zoo critics still argue that zoos are unsatisfactory as zoo animals lack complete freedom in captivity and cannot duplicate the full scale of their activities in the wild [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 41 , 136 , 137 ]. It is worthwhile exploring these issues in more detail.

Firstly, this appeal to “naturalness” is misleading, and commits the Moorean fallacy of asserting that what is “natural” is good. Producing a carbon-copy version of life in the wild in a zoo may not be optimal as far as welfare goes [ 138 ]. Browning even argues that natural functioning is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for animal welfare, and he puts forward instead the criteria of behavioral preference and enjoyment. For some natural behaviors may decrease welfare and some unnatural behaviors increase it [ 139 ]. In the wild, animals experience predation, are challenged or attacked in social dominance conflicts, and may suffer from malnutrition, harsh environments, or disease. In captivity zoo animals are given highly nutritious food, continually monitored, provided with veterinary care, and though they may suffer from some issues not observed in the wild, in general face less overall threat to their welfare. As some have noted, in terms of comparable quality of life, zoo animals often have it better than their kin in the wild ([ 115 ], pp. 180-183, 141).

Secondly, the “natural” environment of animal species can change over time and animals may be quite adaptive, often (though not always) able to alter their behavior in response to environmental differences and do quite well. Animals such as crows and pigeons seem to flourish in cities and they are not the only species to do so.

Thirdly, zoos today continually evaluate and seek to bring about positive mental states in animals, and hence to provide them with outlets for exercise of many of their natural behaviors including habitat choice, locomotory opportunities, shelter, and foraging options [ 45 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 ]. Indeed, I would assert that by nearly all measures the vast majority of animals in accredited zoos lead happy and fulfilling lives. Moreover, it seems that even large mammals such as elephants, giraffes, bears, tigers, and lions, can lead satisfactory lives in a zoo with an appropriate environment [ 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 ]. Critics point out that many zoos no longer house elephants and attribute this to increased recognition that they do not belong in zoos. Now it is true that the welfare needs of elephants are harder to meet than for many other mammals. But it is also true that elephants get a lot of press and have motivated a lot of protests [ 12 , 13 ]. Hence some of the zoos that have dropped elephants may have simply found it better from a public relations point of view to no longer house elephants rather than holding there is anything fundamentally wrong with it. In any case it does not seem there is a pressing need for zoos to switch from housing large charismatic species to insects, gastropods, amphibians, and reptiles as some have claimed ([ 16 ], p. 13) and [ 113 , 157 ].

It is worth noting that determination of animal “happiness” or welfare is difficult. Animals cannot communicate their mental states as humans can and humans might falsely interpret it by misreading certain behaviors. Zoo personnel seek to make sure animals are not exhibiting signs of fear, discomfort, pain, or distress, noticeable through verbal or locutory or behavioral cues [ 23 , 24 , 120 , 123 , 141 , 145 , 157 ]. New techniques are even being developed for assessment of positive emotional states in animals and their connection to indicators such as facial expressions, vocalizations, behavior, and engagement in play and affiliation [ 142 , 144 ]. It is recognized that the enclosures of zoo animals must provide places for shelter, rest, and access to water and food. Efforts are taken in order that zoo animals do not become “bored,” but can actively engage with their environment, and exhibit the bulk of their natural behaviors and socialize with members of their own kind [ 23 , 24 , 45 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 137 , 143 , 149 ].

There are also ongoing studies and debates about the degree to which cortisol levels in the body or stereotypic behaviors are reflective of poor welfare. Though there seem to be definite links of cortisol levels with stress, in certain cases there can be high levels of cortisol with little obvious stressors or low levels of cortisol in spite of fairly clear signs of stress. Again, stereotypic behaviors, such as pacing, can be indicative of boredom and stress and linked to higher cortisol levels, though such behaviors may also be anticipatory (linked to expected arrival of a keeper or the opening of a door to a new location) or compensatory (a means of reducing stress) [ 144 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 ]. Research continues in these areas. And other questions arise. Is inability to reproduce a sign or poor welfare or not? Animals often adjust reproductive rates due to match environmental size, so it may not be. Is proclivity to flee cages a sign of distress? Perhaps, or it may merely reflect the natural curiosity of certain species and individuals. Such questions can and are being studied. Much work remains to be done to determine the best markers of optimal and poor welfare among zoo animals. Further study, of course, might suggest requirements for the wellbeing of certain animal species in captivity that some (or even all) zoos are not capable of meeting. And if the evidence suggests some species are just not capable of a quality life in a particular zoo (or zoos in general) then modifications should be made or the animal species moved to more appropriate locations such as sanctuaries.

It is true that zoo animals have less freedom than their kin in the wild, but the question is whether or not zoo animals, including mammals, suffer as a result. Is freedom a true value for non-human species or sentient ones? Arguably not. Freedom only seems to be an overriding value for a creature that can know it is not free. Freedom must be missed for absence of freedom to be a true deficit. Yet most animals have no conception of such a thing. They cannot contrast their current state of life with that of a life in the wild and regret missing out on the latter. So, it is not clear that zoo animals perceive enclosures as a restriction of freedom or their zoo home as a limitation of their own choices [ 162 , 163 ]. As Cochrane notes: “Most animals cannot frame, revise and pursue their own conceptions of the good. This is not to say that sentient animals do not have different characters, nor is it to deny that they can make choices. It is simply to make the point that most animals cannot forge their own life plans and goals. Given this, restricting the freedom of these animals does not seem to cause harm in the same way that it does for humans. … As autonomous agents, most human beings have a fundamental interest in being free to pursue their own life plans, forge their own conception of a good life and not to have a particular way of life forced upon them” ([ 164 ], p. 669). There is a sense for sure, as Jamieson notes, that it is morally preferable to be free rather than captive ([ 24 ], p. 180). Hence taking animals out of the wild and placing them in captivity does come with a certain “cost” and must be done for an appropriate reason [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. Nature may offer opportunities for exploration and socialization not available in captivity. Yet nature also offers challenges and potential suffering, and a life in captivity may be just as fulfilling as one in the wild for many animal species. Thus, placing animals in zoos, where they can lead happy lives, even if they lack certain opportunities found in the wild, does seem justifiable if done for the reasons noted above, human appreciation and interaction, education, research, and conservation. Such captive animals need not see lack of freedom as a disvalue and may find all the requirements they need for a good and satisfying life in a captive situation, and indeed find unique opportunities not available in the wild (such as forming animal-human relationships). In any case ongoing studies and efforts are being undertaken to make sure animal species in zoos are receiving the “liberty” needed to lead quality lives. Animals are not as intelligent as humans, or as aware of their environment and possibilities of choice, and so arguably do not require the same level or range of freedoms as humans; still some level of freedom to explore their environment and behave as they want to does seem necessary for zoo animals [ 164 ]. The challenge is to understand what level of freedom is necessary. Placing animals in zoos does seem valid as long as animals are provided a certain level of freedom and important values can be met by placing them in captivity.

6. Defenders of zoos

In short, zoos overall have great value and should continue to exist. They provide for human entertainment, human appreciation of creation, interspecific interactions between humans and animals, education, research, and conservation. They should, all the same, continue to monitor and improve in their ability to maintain animal welfare, impart education, and contribute to conservation activities.

Similar sentiments are found in a few other philosophers [ 98 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 ]. Bostock, for example, in his Zoos and Animal Rights (1993), argues that zoos are very valuable in terms of safeguarding the genetic information of various species and reintroducing these species into the wild if and when necessary [ 169 ]. Bostock finds zoos particularly important in allowing humans to observe wildlife, something that millions of people could never do by visiting the wild, without irreparably changing it for the worse. Bostock points out that zoo animals are partially domesticated and so do not require the same range of behaviors to be satisfied as completely wild animals do, and that, in turn, domestic animals themselves have retained a large number of the behaviors they had in the wild. Zoos can and should maintain their exhibits and programs in conservation and education as long as they can provide for the well-being of captive animals in terms of health and ability to engage in a variety of natural behaviors.

DeGrazia also defends the existence of zoos as long as they are able to provide their captive residents with at least as good a life as they would otherwise have in the wild ([ 170 ], pp. 294-297), ([ 171 ], pp. 759-760). For life in the wild is often nasty, brutish, and short, to use the words of Hobbes, and full of hunger, disease, and pain. Conversely zoos, though they confine animals, are able to provide them with a good life as long as they can meet their basic needs and furnish enough opportunities for fulfilling their typical behaviors; indeed, with their advanced veterinary care zoos may furnish longer life spans for animals than in the wild. According to DeGrazia, zoo exhibits which allow for a good life for captive creatures, while also allowing for humans to admire them, contrary to what critics have claimed, do show the animals respect. Being subject to the observation of humans need not deprive animals of dignity. DeGrazia, though, is not a fan of capturing wild animals and transferring them to zoos (especially intelligent species such as birds and mammals), but instead favors breeding them in captivity.

Finally Gray, in her Zoo Ethics (2017) argues that zoos can increase the likelihood of humans taking action to preserve animal species by enhancing people’s appreciation and understanding of biotic communities ([ 172 ], pp. 181-182]). Zoos can help keep the remaining representatives of endangered species alive as they work to secure populations in the wild for these species in the future. Gray, however, does push for compassionate conservationism and the need to carefully provide for the welfare of each animal in the zoo.

7. Conclusion

Animal rights ethicists and activists have criticized the treatment of animals in zoos of late. We can be grateful for some of their efforts. For it has given impetus to the investigation and improvement of the welfare of animals in zoos. At the same time, many of their critiques are based on dubious philosophical grounds, such as the premise that the best life for a creature is one that mimics its life in the wild, that zoo animals suffer harm from a lack of freedom, or that animals in zoos are merely there as cute artifacts for the eyes of visitors and that putting them on display denies them dignity. Critics of zoos also tend to exaggerate the mistreatment of animals and zoos or devalue the positive contributions zoos can make to research, education, and conservation.

In modern zoos great effort is put into maintain the welfare of the creatures there (at least with institutions accredited through prominent associations such as the AZA, BIZA, EAZA, and ZAA). Zoo animals are well cared for, given fairly large and enriched environments, and offered a variety of foods and activities. Indeed, zoo animals can interact with other members of their species, as well as members of other species including humans. Thus, animals in zoos are provided with a broad array of activities, some even going beyond those afforded in the wild. Moreover, zoo animals will typically enter into such activities voluntarily and find pleasure in them. They can take pleasure in being fed or petted by humans. This is reflective of the adaptivity of animals living in the wild and the extent to which they are able to interact with members of their own, other species, or new “invasive” or encountered ones. Such novel interactions need not be considered unnatural or artificial or improper. Just as parrots or pigs or monkeys can come to find value and satisfaction living in humans’ homes, so too can other species that are typically restricted to the wild. All of which is to say that zoos can furnish a quality life to the animals in them, including even large mammals if provided with a proper enclosure.

While taking care of and providing positive forms of existence for the creatures in them, zoos can also achieve several other goods. They can provide for an enjoyable day for human visitors, help humans appreciate the grandeur and diversity of creation, and allow for mutually positive interactions between humans and zoo animals. Zoos can, in addition, help educate humans about animals and their danger of extinction, connect people to animals and motivate conservational attitudes and behavior, promote research into zoology, animal welfare, and conservation, and help to preserve the gene pools of species and prevent them from going extinct in the future. This paper is thus a call for zoo critics, or at least those of them with open minds, to reconsider their positions, and to recognize there is no reason that zoos should not exist long into the future.

• 1. Schmidt AT. Why animals have an interest in freedom. Historical Social Research. 2015; 40 (4):92-109
• 2. Giroux V. Animals do have an interest in liberty. Journal of Animal Ethics. 2016; 6 (1):20-43
• 3. Delon N. Animal agency, captivity, and meaning. The Harvard Review of Philosophy. 2018; 25 :127-146
• 4. Streiffer R, Killoren D. Animal confinement and use. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 2019; 49 (1):1-21
• 5. Wilcox MG. The intrinsic value of liberty for non-human animals. Journal of Value Inquiry. 2020; 55 (4):685-703
• 6. Abbate C. On the ill-being of animals: From factory farm to forever home. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 2022; 46 (1):325-353
• 7. Hancocks D. Most zoos do not deserve elephants. In: Wemmer CM, Christen CA, editors. Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2008. pp. 259-284. ISBN: 9780801888182
• 8. Ross SR. Captive chimpanzees. In: Gruen L, editor. The Ethics of Captivity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 57-76. ISBN: 978-0199978007
• 9. Doyle C. Elephants in captivity. In: Linzey A, Linzey C, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 181-206. ISBN: 9781137366702
• 10. Jacobs B, Rally H, Doye C, O’Brien L, Tennison M, Marino L. Putative neural consequences of captivity for elephants and cetaceans. Reviews in the Neurosciences. 2021; 33 (4):e100
• 11. Andrews K, Comstock G, Crozier G, Donaldson S, Fenton A, John T, et al. The Philosophers’ Brief on Chimpanzee Personhood. New York State Court of Appeals. 2018. Case Number 2018-268
• 12. Comstock G, Crozier GKD, Fenton A, John T, Johnson LSM, Jones RC, et al. The Philosophers’ Brief on Elephant Personhood. New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. 2020. Case Number 2020-02581
• 13. Nussbaum MC. Amicus brief. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 2023; 66 (1):15-28
• 14. Emmerman K. Moral arguments against zoos. In: Fischer B, editor. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2020. pp. 381-393. ISBN: 9781138095069
• 15. Bennett S. Are zoos and aquariums justifiable? A utilitarian evaluation of two prominent arguments. Journal of Animal Ethics. 2019; 9 (2):177-183. at 178-179
• 16. Bekoff M, Pierce J. Zooed animals. In: The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Beacon Press; 2017. pp. 91-116. ISBN: 9780807045206
• 17. Jamieson D. Against zoos (1985) and zoos revisited (1995). In: Morality’s Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press; 2002. pp. 166-175 and 176-189. ISBN: 9780199251445
• 18. Zamir T. The welfare-based defense of zoos. Society and Animals. 2007; 15 (2):191-201
• 19. Acampora R. Zoos and eyes: Contesting captivity and seeking successor practices. Society and Animals. 2005; 13 (1):69-88
• 20. Gruen L. Dignity, captivity, and an ethics of sight. In: Gruen L, editor. The Ethics of Captivity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 231-247. ISBN: 9780199978007
• 21. Malamud R. Exhibiting imperialism. In: Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity. New York, New York, USA: New York University Press; 1998. ISBN: 978-0814756034
• 22. Regan T. Are zoos morally defensible? In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple TL, editors. Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1995. pp. 38-51. ISBN: 9781560986898
• 23. Demartoto A, Soemanto RB, Zunariyah S. Zoo agent’s measure in applying the five freedoms principles for animal welfare. Vet World. 2017; 10 (9):1026-1034
• 24. Miller LJ, Chinnadurai SK. Beyond the five freedoms: Animal welfare at modern zoological facilities. Animals. 2023; 13 (11):e1818
• 25. Bekoff M. Zoos, wildlife theme parks, and aquariums: Should humans hold animals captive? In: Animals Matter: A Biologist Explains Why We Should Treat Animals with Compassion and Respect. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Shambala; 2007. pp. 90-103. ISBN: 9781590305225
• 26. Bradshaw GA, Smuts B, Durham D. Open door policy: Humanity’s relinquishment of ‘right to sight’ and the emergence of feral culture. In: Acampora R, editor. Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter after Noah. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books; 2010. pp. 151-170. ISBN: 9870739134542
• 27. Rollin BE. Through a frame darkly: A phenomenological critique of zoos. In: Acampora R, editor. Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter after Noah. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books; 2010. pp. 57-66. ISBN: 9870739134542
• 28. Tyson E. Speciesism and zoos: Shifting the paradigm, maintaining the prejudice. In: Linzey A, Linzey C, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 165-179. ISBN: 9781137366702
• 29. Tyson L, O’Brien N. What zoos teach us: Speciesism, colonialism, racism, and capitalism in the captive animal industry. In: Trzak A, editor. Teaching Liberation: Essays on Social Justice, Animals, Veganism, and Education. New York, New York, USA: Lantern Books; 2019. pp. 73-88. ISBN: 978590565926
• 30. Malamud R. The problem with zoos. In: Kalof L, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies. New York, New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2017. pp. 397-410. ISBN: 978-0199927142
• 31. Pepper A. Glass panels and peepholes: Nonhuman animals and the right to privacy. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 2020; 101 :628-650
• 32. Loder RE. Animal dignity. Animal Law. 2016; 23 :1-64
• 33. Gruen L. Dilemmas of Captivity. Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2011. pp. 140-176. ISBN: 9781108986571
• 34. Gruen L. Incarceration, liberty and dignity. In: Linzey A, Linzey C, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Practical Animal Ethics. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 153-164. ISBN: 9781137366702
• 35. Kemmerer L. Nooz: Ending the exploitation of zoos. In: Acampora R, editor. Metamorphoses of the Zoo: Animal Encounter after Noah. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books; 2010. pp. 37-56. ISBN: 9870739134542
• 36. Milstein T. Somethin’ tells me it’s all happening at the zoo: Discourse, power, and conservationism. Environmental Communication. 2009; 3 :25-48
• 37. Fitzgerald AJ. Zoos and aquaria: Species conservation, education, or unethical imprisonment? In: Animal Advocacy and Environmentalism: Understanding and Bridging the Divide. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2018. pp. 85-110. ISBN: 9780745679341
• 38. Palmer C, Morrin H, Sandøe P. Defensible zoos and aquariums. In: Fischer B, editor. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2020. pp. 394-406. ISBN: 9781032474953
• 39. Fischer B. Zoos. In: Animal Ethics: A Contemporary Introduction. London, UK: Routledge; 2021. pp. 170-188. ISBN: 9781138484436
• 40. Marris E. Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost. The New York Times; 2021. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/opinion/zoos-animal-cruelty.html [Accessed: November 5, 2023]
• 41. Nussbaum MC. Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility. New York, New York, USA: Simon and Schuster; 2023. ISBN: 9781982102500
• 42. Benatar D. Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2006. ISBN: 9780199549269
• 43. Conway WG. Zoos: Their changing roles. Science. 1969; 163 :48-52
• 44. Carr N, Cohen S. The public face of zoos: Images of entertainment, education and conservation. Anthrozoös. 2011; 24 (2):175-189
• 45. Rose PE, Riley LM. Expanding the role of the future zoo: Wellbeing should become the fifth aim for modern zoos. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 13 :e1018722
• 46. Loh TL, Larson ER, David SR, Souza LS, Gericke R, Gryzbek M, et al. Quantifying the contribution of zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. FACETS. 2018; 3 (1):287-299
• 47. Kögler J, Barbosa Pacheco I, Dierkes PW. Evaluating the quantitative and qualitative contribution of zoos and aquaria to peer-reviewed science. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research. 2020; 8 (2):124-132
• 48. Hvilsom C, Åhman Welden HL, Stelvig M, Nielsen CK, Purcell C, Eckley L, et al. The contributions of EAZA zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research. 2020; 8 (2):133-138
• 49. Mendelson JR, Schue GW, Lawson DP. Krogh’s principle and why the modern zoo is important to academic research. In: Kaufman AB, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018. pp. 586-617. ISBN: 9781108183147
• 50. Hosey G, Harley J, Ward S. Research and research training in BIAZA zoos and aquariums. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research. 2019; 7 (4):210-217
• 51. Rose PE, Brereton JE, Rowden LJ, Figueiredo RL, Riley LM. What’s new from the zoo? An analysis of ten years of zoo-themed research output. Palgrave Communications. 2019; 5 :e128
• 52. Escribano N, Ariño AH, Pino-del-Carpio A, Galicia D, Miranda R. Global trends in research output by zoos and aquariums. Conservation Biology. 2021; 35 (6):1894-1902
• 53. Anzai W, Ban K, Hagiwara S, Kako T, Kashiwagi N, Kawase K, et al. Quantifying the 60-year contribution of Japanese zoos and aquariums to peer-reviewed scientific research. Animals. 2022; 12 (5):e598
• 54. Hopper LM. Cognitive research in zoos. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2017; 16 :100-110
• 55. Perdue BM. Comparative cognitive research in zoos. In: Kaufman AB, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018. pp. 490-510. ISBN: 9781108183147
• 56. McEwen ES, Warren E, Tenpas S, Jones B, Durdevic K, Munro ER, et al. Primate cognition in zoos: Reviewing the impact of zoo-based research over 15 years. American Journal of Primatology. 2022; 84 (10):e23369
• 57. Skibins JC, Powell RB. Conservation caring: Measuring the influence of zoo visitors’ connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviors. Zoo Biology. 2013; 32 (5):528-540
• 58. Spooner SL. Evaluating the effectiveness of education in zoos [dissertation]. York, UK: University of York; 2017
• 59. Ojalammi S, Nygren NV. Visitor perceptions of nature conservation at Helsinki zoo. Anthrozoös. 2018; 31 (2):233-246
• 60. Staus N. The educational value of zoos: An empirical perspective. In: Fischer B, editor. The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2020. pp. 367-380. ISBN: 9781138095069
• 61. Falk JH, Reinhard EM, Vernon CL, Bronnenkant K, Deans NL, Heimlich JE. Why Zoos and Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit. Silver Springs, Maryland, USA: Association of Zoos and Aquariums; 2007
• 62. Marino L, Lilienfeld SO, Malamud R, Nobis N, Broglio R. Do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American zoo and aquarium study. Society and Animals. 2010; 18 :126-138
• 63. Falk JH, Heimlich JE, Vernon CL, Bronnenkant K. Critique of a critique: do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? Society and Animals. 2010; 18 (4):415
• 64. Clayton S, Fraser J, Saunders CD. Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 (5):377-397
• 65. Packer J, Ballantyne R. The role of zoos and aquariums in education for a sustainable future. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2010; 127 :e378
• 66. Swanagan JS. Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior. Journal of Environmental Education. 2010; 31 (4):26-31
• 67. Clayton S, Fraser J, Burgess C. The role of zoos in fostering environmental identity. Ecopsychology. 2011; 3 (2):87-96
• 68. Moss A, Jensen E, Gusset M. Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums to Aichi biodiversity target 1. Conservation Biology. 2015; 29 (2):537-544
• 69. Hacker CE, Miller LJ. Zoo visitor perceptions, attitudes, and conservation intent after viewing African elephants at the San Diego zoo Safari Park. Zoo Biology. 2016; 35 (4):355-361
• 70. Clayton S, Prévot AC, Germain L, Saint-Jalme M. Public support for biodiversity after a zoo visit: Environmental concern, conservation knowledge, and self-efficacy. Curator: The Museum Journal. 2017; 60 (1):87-100
• 71. Jensen EA, Moss A, Gusset M. Quantifying long-term impact of zoo and aquarium visits on biodiversity-related learning outcomes. Zoo Biology. 2017; 36 (4):294-297
• 72. Moss A, Jensen E, Gusset M. Probing the link between biodiversity-related knowledge and self-reported proconservation behavior in a global survey of zoo visitors. Conservation Letters. 2017; 10 (1):33-40
• 73. Godinez AM, Fernandez EJ. What is the zoo experience? How zoos impact a visitor’s behaviors, perceptions, and conservation efforts. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019; 30 (10):e1746
• 74. Clifford-Clarke MM, Whitehouse-Tedd K, Ellis CF. Conservation education impacts of animal ambassadors in zoos. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens. 2022; 3 (1):1-18
• 75. Hancocks D. A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and their Uncertain Future. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California Press; 2001. ISBN: 9780520236769
• 76. Mazur N. After the Ark? Environmental Policy-Making and the Zoo. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press; 2001. ISBN: 9780522849479
• 77. Zimmermann A, Hatchwell M, Dickie L, West C, editors. Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. ISBN: 9780521618588
• 78. Bowkett AE. Recent captive-breeding proposals and the return of the ark concept to global species conservation. Conservation Biology. 2009; 23 (3):773-776
• 79. Conde DA, Flesness N, Colchero F, Jones OR, Scheuerlein A. An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science. 2011; 331 :1390-1391
• 80. Monfort SL, Christen CA. Sustaining wildlife populations in human care: An existential value proposition for zoos. In: Minteer B, Maienschein J, Collins JP, editors. The Ark and beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 313-319. ISBN: 9780226538464
• 81. Iwuchukwu CS, Ajang AJ, Bassey SA. Confinement for conservation: An ethical overview of zoos. Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences: Zoology. 2020; 39 (2):327-337
• 82. Minteer BA, Collins JP, Raschke AB. Zoos and conservation. In: Hale B, Light A, Lawhon L, editors. Routledge Companion to Environmental Ethics. London, UK: Routledge; 2022. pp. 554-568. ISBN: 9781138784925
• 83. Keulartz J. Towards a futureproof zoo. Animals. 2023; 13 (6):e998
• 84. Spooner SL, Walker SL, Dowell S, Moss A. The value of zoos for species and society: The need for a new model. Biological Conservation. 2023; 279 :e109925
• 85. Keulartz J. Captivity for conservation? Zoos at a crossroads. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2015; 28 (2):335-351
• 86. Griffith B, Scott JM, Carpenter LW, Reed C. Translocation as a species conservation tool: Status and strategy. Science. 1989; 245 (4917):477-480
• 87. Beck BB, Rapaport LG, Stanley Price MR, Wilson AC. Reintroduction of captive-born animals. In: Olney PJS, Mace GM, Feistner A, editors. Creative Conservation: Interactive Management of Wild and Captive Animals. London, UK: Chapman and Hall; 1994. pp. 264-286. ISBN: 9780412495700
• 88. Price MRS, Fa JE. Reintroductions from zoos: A conservation guiding light or a shooting star? In: Zimmermann A, Hatchwell M, Dickie L, West C, editors. Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 155-177. ISBN: 9780521618588
• 89. Jule KR, Leaver LA, Lea SEG. The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: A review and analysis. Biological Conservation. 2008; 141 (2):355-363
• 90. Alroy J. Limits to captive breeding of mammals in zoos. Conservation Biology. 2015; 29 (3):926-931
• 91. Che-Castaldo JP, Grow SA, Faust LJ. Evaluating the contribution of north American zoos and aquariums to endangered species recovery. Scientific Reports. 2018; 8 :e9798
• 92. Brichieri-Colombi TA, Lloyd NA, McPherson JM, Moehrenschlager A. Limited contributions of released animals from zoos to north American conservation translocations. Conservation Biology. 2019; 33 (1):33-39
• 93. Conway W. Zoo conservation and ethical paradoxes. In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple TL, editors. Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1995. pp. 1-8. ISBN: 9781560986898
• 94. Miranda R, Escribano N, Casas M, Andrea Pino-del-Carpio A, Villarroya A. The role of zoos and aquariums in a changing world. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. 2022; 11 :287-306
• 95. Berger-Tal O, Saltz D. Using the movement patterns of reintroduced animals to improve reintroduction success. Current Zoology. 2014; 60 (4):515-526
• 96. Friese C. Cloning in the zoo: When zoos become parents. In: Minteer B, Maienschein J, Collins JP, editors. The Ark and beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 267-278. ISBN: 9780226538464
• 97. Hobbs RJ, O’Brien JK, Spindler RE. Strategic gene banking for conservation: The ins and outs of a living bank. In: Kaufman AB, Bashaw MJ, Maple TL, editors. Scientific Foundations of Zoos and Aquariums: Their Role in Conservation and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2018. pp. 112-146. ISBN: 9781108183147
• 98. Hutchins M, Smith B, Allard R. In defense of zoos and aquariums: The ethical basis for keeping wild animals in captivity. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2003; 223 (7):958-966
• 99. Tafalla M. The aesthetic appreciation of animals in zoological parks. Contemporary Aesthetics. 2017; 15 :1-14
• 100. Parsons G. The aesthetic value of animals. Environmental Ethics. 2007; 29 :151-169
• 101. Hettinger N. Animal beauty, ethics, and environmental preservation. Environmental Ethics. 2010; 32 :115-134
• 102. Hanson E. Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press; 2018. ISBN: 9780691117706
• 103. Learmonth JM. Dilemmas for natural living concepts of zoo animal welfare. Animals. 2019; 9 (6):e318
• 104. Claxton AM. The potential of the human-animal relationship as an environmental enrichment for the welfare of zoo-housed animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2011; 133 :1-10
• 105. Palmer A, Park J, Malone N. Caregiver/orangutan relationships at the Auckland zoo. Society and Animals. 2016; 24 (3):230-249
• 106. Rossman ZT, Padfield C, Young D, Hart LA. Elephant-initiated interactions with humans: Individual differences and specific preferences in captive African elephants (Loxodonta africana). Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2017; 4 :e60
• 107. D’Cruze N, Khan S, Carder G, Megson D, Coulthard E, Norrey J, et al. A global review of animal-visitor interactions in modern zoos and aquariums and their implications for wild animal welfare. Animals. 2019; 9 (6):e332
• 108. Learmonth MJ. 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? Animals. 2020; 10 (10):e2037
• 109. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, et al. The 2020 five domains model: Including human-animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals. 2020; 10 :e1870
• 110. Escobar-Ibarra I, Mota-Rojas D, Gual-Sill F, Sánchez CR, Baschetto F, Alonso-Spilsbury M. Conservation, animal behaviour, and human-animal relationship in zoos: Why is animal welfare so important? Journal of Animal Behaviour and Biometeorology. 2021; 9 (1):e21011
• 111. Learmonth MJ, Chiew SJ, Godinez A, Fernandez EJ. Animal-visitor interactions and the visitor experience: Visitor behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, and learning in the modern zoo. Animal Behavior and Cognition. 2021; 8 (4):632-649
• 112. Fraser J, Switzer T. The Social Value of Zoos. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2021. ISBN: 9781108731812
• 113. Rudy K. Where the wild things ought to be: Sanctuaries, zoos, and exotic pets. In: Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press; 2013. pp. 111-152. ISBN: 9780816674688
• 114. Cochrane A. Born in chains? In: Gruen L, editor. The Ethics of Captivity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 156-173. ISBN: 9780199978007
• 115. Maple TL, Purdue BM. Zoo Animal Welfare. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2013. ISBN: 9783642359545
• 116. Maple TL, McManamon R, Stevens E. Defining the good zoo: Animal care, maintenance and welfare. In: Norton BG, Hutchins M, Stevens EF, Maple TL, editors. Ethics on the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1995. pp. 219-234. ISBN: 9781560986898
• 117. Wickins-Dražilová D. Zoo animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2006; 19 :27-36
• 118. Donahue J, Trump E. The Politics of Zoos: Exotic Animals and their Protectors. DeKalb, Illinois, USA: Northern Illinois University Press; 2008. ISBN: 9780875806136
• 119. Hill SP, Broom DM. Measuring zoo animal welfare: Theory and practice. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 (6):531-544
• 120. Melfi VA. There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo animal welfare: A case for evidence-based zoo animal management. Zoo Biology. 2009; 28 :574-588
• 121. Kleiman DG, Thompson KV, Baer CK. Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management. 2nd ed. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2010. ISBN: 978-0226440101
• 122. Brando S, Buchanan-Smith HM. The 24/7 approach to promoting optimal welfare for captive wild animals. Behavioural Processes. 2018; 156 :83-95
• 123. Shepherdson D, Mellen JD, Hutchins M, editors. Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Washington, DC, USA: Smithsonian Institution Press; 1998. ISBN: 9781560983972
• 124. Swaisgood RR, Shepherdson DJ. Scientific approaches to enrichment and stereotypies in zoo animals: What’s been done and where should we go next? Zoo Biology. 2005; 24 (6):499-518
• 125. Shyne A. Meta-analytic review of the effects of enrichment on stereotyped behavior in zoo mammals. Zoo Biology. 2006; 25 (4):317-338
• 126. Mason GJ, Clubb R, Latham N, Vickery S. Why and how should we use environmental enrichment to tackle stereotypic behavior? Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007; 102 :163-188
• 127. Clubb R, Mason G. Natural behavioural biology as a risk factor in carnivore welfare: How analysing species differences could help zoos improve enclosures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007; 102 :303-328
• 128. Markowitz H. Enriching Animals’ Lives. Pacifica, California, USA: Mauka Press; 2011. ISBN: 9780983357919
• 129. Fàbregas MC, Guillén-Salazar F, Garcés-Narro C. Do naturalistic enclosures provide suitable environments for zoo animals? Zoo Biology. 2012; 31 (3):362-373
• 130. Braverman I. Zooland: The Institution of Captivity. Stanford, California, USA: Stanford University Press; 2013. ISBN: 9780804783583
• 131. Mellor DJ. Enhancing animal welfare by creating opportunities for positive affective engagement. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 2015; 63 :3-8
• 132. Azevedo CS, Cipreste CF, Pizzutto CS, Young RJ. Review of the effects of enclosure complexity and design on the behaviour and physiology of zoo animals. Animals. 2023; 13 (8):e1277
• 133. Englund MD, Cronin KA. Choice, control, and animal welfare: Definitions and essential inquiries to advance animal welfare science. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2023; 10 :e1250251
• 134. Kagan R, Allard S, Carter S. What is the future for zoos and aquariums? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2018; 21 :59-70
• 135. Clay AS, Visseren-Hamakers IJ. Individuals matter: Dilemmas and solutions in conservation and animal welfare practices in zoos. Animals. 2022; 12 (3):e398
• 136. Leotti LA, Iyengar SS, Ochsner KN. Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Science. 2010; 14 :457-463
• 137. Pierce J, Bekoff MA. Postzoo future: Why welfare fails animals in zoos. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2018; 21 :43-48
• 138. Swaisgood RR. Current status and future directions of applied behavioral research for animal welfare and conservation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007; 102 :139-162
• 139. Browning H. The natural behavior debate: Two conceptions of animal welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 2019; 23 :325-337
• 140. Whitham JC, Wielebnowski N. New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2013; 147 :247-260
• 141. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiology and Behavior. 2007; 92 (3):375-397
• 142. Green TC, Mellor DJ. Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’ and related concepts. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 2011; 59 :263-271
• 143. Mellor DJ. Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. 2015; 63 :17-23
• 144. Wolfensohn S, Shotton J, Bowley H, Davies S, Thompson S, Justice WSM. Assessment of welfare in zoo animals: Towards optimum quality of life. Animals. 2018; 8 (7):e110
• 145. Veasey JS. Differing animal welfare conceptions and what they mean for the future of zoos and aquariums: Insights from an animal welfare audit. Zoo Biology. 2022; 41 (4):292-307
• 146. Hutchins M, Smith B, Keele M. Zoos as responsible stewards of elephants. In: Wemmer CM, Christen CA, editors. Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2008. pp. 285-306. ISBN: 9780801888182
• 147. Mellen JD, Barber JCE, Miller GW. Can we assess the needs of elephants in zoos? Can we meet the needs of elephants in zoos? In: Wemmer CM, Christen CA, editors. Elephants and Ethics: Toward a Morality of Coexistence. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2008. pp. 307-324. ISBN: 9780801888182
• 148. Mason GJ. Species differences in responses to captivity: Stress, welfare and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2010; 25 :713-721
• 149. Mason GJ, Veasey J. How should the psychological well-being of zoo elephants be objectively investigated? Zoo Biology. 2010; 29 (2):237-255
• 150. Shepherdson D, Lewis KD, Carlstead K, Bauman J, Perrin N. Individual and environmental factors associated with stereotypic behavior and fecal glucocorticoid metabolite levels in zoo housed polar bears. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2013; 147 :268-277
• 151. Meehan CL, Mench JA, Carlstead K, Hogan JN. Determining connections between the daily lives of zoo elephants and their welfare: An epidemiological approach. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (7):e0158124
• 152. Vaz J, Narayan EJ, Kumar RD, Thenmozhi K, Thiyagesan K, Baskaran N. Prevalence and determinants of stereotypic behaviours and physiological stress among tigers and leopards in Indian zoos. PLoS One. 2017; 12 (4):e0174711
• 153. Veasey JS. Can zoos ever be big enough for large wild animals? A review using an expert panel assessment of the psychological priorities of the Amur Tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) as a model species. Animals. 2020; 10 :e1536
• 154. Finch K, Sach F, Fitzpatrick M, Masters N, Rowden LJ. Longitudinal improvements in zoo-housed elephant welfare: A case study at ZSL Whipsnade zoo. Animals. 2020; 10 (11):e2029
• 155. Bandeli M, Mellor EL, Kroshko J, Maherali H, Mason GJ. The welfare problems of wide-ranging Carnivora reflect naturally itinerant lifestyles. Royal Society Open Science. 2023; 10 :e230437
• 156. Rose P. Identifying essential elements of good giraffe welfare: Can we use knowledge of a species’ fundamental needs to develop welfare-focused husbandry? Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens. 2023; 4 (3):549-566
• 157. Palmer C, Kasperbauer TJ, Sandøe P. Fourteen bears or butterflies? How should zoos make value-driven decisions about their collections? In: Minteer B, Maienschein J, Collins JP, editors. The Ark and Beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation. Chicago, Illinois, USA: The University of Chicago Press; 2018. pp. 179-191. ISBN: 9780226538464
• 158. Watters JV. Searching for behavioral indicators of welfare in zoos: Uncovering anticipatory behavior. Zoo Biology. 2014; 33 (4):251-256
• 159. Cless IT, Lucas KE. Variables affecting the manifestation of and intensity of pacing behavior: A preliminary case study in zoo-housed polar bears. Zoo Biology. 2017; 36 (5):307-315
• 160. Rose PE, Nash SM, Riley LM. To pace or not to pace? A review of what abnormal repetitive behavior tells us about zoo animal management. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2017; 20 :11-21
• 161. Cambrelen D, Slater MN. Case study: Modifying repetitive behavior in a polar bear (Ursus maritimus). Zoo Biology. 2023; 42 (3):390-396
• 162. Tidière M, Gaillard JM, Berger V, Müller DWH, Lackey LB, Gimenez O, et al. Comparative analyses of longevity and senescence reveal variable survival benefits of living in zoos across mammals. Scientific Reports. 2016; 6 :e36361
• 163. Browning H, Veit W. Freedom and animal welfare. Animals. 2021; 4 (11):e1148
• 164. Cochrane A. Do animals have an interest in liberty? Political Studies. 2009; 57 (3):660-679
• 165. Keekok L. Zoos: A Philosophical Tour. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. ISBN: 9781403986245
• 166. Taylor MA. Zootopia: Animal welfare, species preservation and the ethics of captivity. Poultry, Fish, and Wildlife Science. 2014; 2 :1-4
• 167. York T. The End of Captivity?: A Primate’s Reflections on Zoos, Conservation, and Christian Ethics. Eugene, Oregon, USA: Cascade Books; 2015. ISBN: 9781625647535
• 168. Rees P. Ethics, zoos, and public attitudes. In: Zoo Studies: Living Collections, their Animals and Visitors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2023. pp. 120-139. ISBN: 9781108566049
• 169. Bostock SSC. Zoos and Animal Rights: The Ethics of Keeping Animals. London, UK: Routledge; 1993. ISBN: 9780415755566
• 170. DeGrazia D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Washington, DC, USA: George Washington University Press; 1996. ISBN: 9780521561402
• 171. DeGrazia D. The ethics of confining animals: From farms to zoos to human homes. In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford, USA: Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 738-768. ISBN: 9780199351978
• 172. Gray JH. Zoo Ethics: The Challenges of Compassionate Conservation. Ithaca, New York, USA: Cornell University Press; 2017. ISBN: 9781501714429

© 2024 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

IntechOpen Author/Editor? To get your discount, log in .

Discounts available on purchase of multiple copies. View rates

Local taxes (VAT) are calculated in later steps, if applicable.

Support: [email protected]

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Agriculture and the Environment
• Case Studies
• Chemistry and Toxicology
• Environment and Human Health
• Environmental Biology
• Environmental Economics
• Environmental Engineering
• Environmental Ethics and Philosophy
• Environmental History
• Environmental Issues and Problems
• Environmental Processes and Systems
• Environmental Sociology and Psychology
• Environments
• Framing Concepts in Environmental Science
• Management and Planning
• Policy, Governance, and Law
• Quantitative Analysis and Tools
• Sustainability and Solutions
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Ethics of the zoo.

• Jozef Keulartz Jozef Keulartz Department of Social Sciences, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.162
• Published online: 27 February 2017

The animal world is under increasing pressure, given the magnitude of anthropogenic environmental stress, especially from human-caused rapid climate change together with habitat conversion, fragmentation, and destruction. There is a global wave of species extinctions and decline in local species abundance. To stop or even reverse this so-called defaunation process, in situ conservation (in the wild) is no longer effective without ex situ conservation (in captivity). Consequently, zoos could play an ever-greater role in the conservation of endangered species and wildlife—hence the slogan Captivity for Conservation .

However, the integration of zoo-based tools and techniques in species conservation has led to many conflicts between wildlife conservationists and animal protectionists. Many wildlife conservationists agree with Michael Soulé, the widely acclaimed doyen of the relatively new discipline of conservation biology, that conservation and animal welfare are conceptually distinct, and that they should remain politically separate. Animal protectionists, on the other hand, draw support from existing leading accounts of animal ethics that oppose the idea of captivity for conservation, either because infringing an individual’s right to freedom for the preservation of the species is considered as morally wrong, or because the benefits of species conservation are not seen as significant enough to overcome the presumption against depriving an animal of its liberty.

Both sides view animals through different lenses and address different concerns. Whereas animal ethicists focus on individual organisms, and are concerned about the welfare and liberty of animals, wildlife conservationists perceive animals as parts of greater wholes such as species or ecosystems, and consider biodiversity and ecological integrity as key topics. This seemingly intractable controversy can be overcome by transcending both perspectives, and developing a bifocal view in which zoo animals are perceived as individuals in need of specific care and, at the same time, as members of a species in need of protection.

Based on such a bifocal approach that has lately been adopted by a growing international movement of “Compassionate Conservation,” the modern zoo can only achieve its conservation mission if it finds a morally acceptable balance between animal welfare concerns and species conservation commitments. The prospects for the zoo to achieve such a balance are promising. Over the past decade or so, zoos have made serious and sustained efforts to ensure and enhance animal welfare. At the same time, the zoo’s contribution to species conservation has also improved considerably.

• Anthropocene
• captivity for conservation
• One Plan Approach
• animal welfare
• animal ethics
• environmental ethics
• wildlife conservation
• compassionate conservation

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Environmental Science. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 07 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

Character limit 500 /500

There is a moral argument for keeping great apes in zoos

Michael Gwyther Jones/Flickr

by Richard Moore   + BIO

I get apprehensive whenever someone asks me about my job. I’m a philosopher who works on the question of how language evolved, I reply. If they probe any further, I tell them that I work with the great apes at Leipzig zoo. But some people, I’ve discovered, have big problems with zoos.

Plenty of philosophers and primatologists agree with them. Even the best zoos force animals to live in confined spaces, they say , which means the animals must be bored and stressed from being watched all the time. Other critics claim that zoos are wrong even if the creatures aren’t suffering, because being held captive for human entertainment impugns their dignity. Such places ‘are for us rather than for animals’, the philosopher Dale Jamieson has written , and ‘they do little to help the animals we are driving to extinction’.

But I want to defend the value of zoos. Yes, some of them should certainly be closed. We’ve seen those terrible videos of solitary apes or tigers stalking barren cages in shopping malls in Thailand or China. However, animals have a good quality of life in many zoos, and there’s a strong moral case for why these institutions ought to exist. I’ve come to this view after working with great apes, and it might not extend to all species equally. However, since great apes are both cognitively sophisticated and human-like in their behaviour, they offer a strong test case for evaluating the morality of zoos in general.

The research my colleagues and I conduct isn’t harmful to the animals and, if it goes well, it will help us get a better grasp on the cognitive differences between humans and apes. For example, we did a study with pairs of orangutans in which we tested their ability to communicate and cooperate to get rewards. We hid a banana pellet so that one orangutan could see the food but couldn’t reach it. The other orangutan could release a sliding door and push the pellet through to her partner, but wasn’t able to take it for herself. They did okay (but not great) when playing with me, and they mostly ignored each other when playing together. We then performed a similar set of studies with human two-year-olds. Compared with the apes, the two-year-olds were very good at getting the reward (stickers) when they played with an adult.

Taken together, these studies tell us something about human evolution. Unlike apes, humans are good at pooling their talents to achieve what they can’t do alone. It’s not that the apes don’t care about getting the food – they got frustrated with one another when things were going wrong, and one orangutan in particular would turn his back and sulk. However, unlike humans, they don’t seem to be able to harness this frustration to push themselves to do better.

The value of research aside, there’s an argument for zoos on the grounds of animal welfare. In the best zoos, such as Leipzig, great apes live in spacious enclosures modelled on their natural habitats, and are looked after by zookeepers who care about them deeply. Large jungle gyms keep them stimulated and stave off boredom; they’re also kept busy with ‘enrichment’ puzzles, which they can unlock with tools to get food. Zoos recognised by the two main accrediting bodies in Europe and the United States are rigorously vetted and required to take part in education and conservation programmes. And there’s no solid evidence that apes living in well-designed enclosures get stressed or disturbed by human observation.

Of course, zoos can’t provide their animals with conditions such as those in an untouched forest. But for the great apes in captivity, there’s rarely a viable alternative. There are estimated to be more than 4,000 great apes living in zoos worldwide. Most of the regions where they are found in the wild – orangutans in Indonesia, chimpanzees and gorillas in Central and West Africa, bonobos in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – are ravaged by habitat loss, civil war, hunting and disease. As few as 880 remaining mountain gorillas survive, in two small groups in the eastern reaches of the DRC, while orangutan habitats have declined 80 per cent in the past 20 years. While some conservationists dream of rehoming zoo apes in the wild, these vanishing forests mean that it’s rarely feasible. The orangutans in Leipzig are certainly better off than they would be trying to survive in forests razed to make way for palm-oil plantations.

Since zoo apes cannot be returned to their natural environments, specialised sanctuaries are another option. But these require large plots of land that are both safe and uninhabited by existing populations, and such locations are scarce. As things stand, sanctuaries are already struggling to survive because they’re almost exclusively dependent on charitable donations. And most of them are full. In Africa and Indonesia, inhabitants are typically orphans that have been taken from the forest by hunters or palm-oil workers, who kill larger apes and kidnap the babies to sell or keep as pets. Elsewhere, sanctuaries are overflowing with retired lab apes or rescued pets. These institutions lack the capacity to accommodate the thousands of apes currently living in zoos, let alone the money that would be needed to support them.

Given the obstacles and the great expense of rehoming apes, very few places try to do so. Damian Aspinall of Howletts Wild Animal Park in England leads one of the few programmes that release gorillas back into the wild, by taking them to a protected reserve in Gabon. His intentions are heroic and hopefully the plan will succeed. Some gorillas have resettled well. But the results so far have been mixed; in 2014, five members of a family of 11 were found dead within a month of their release. We also don’t really know whether zoo-born apes possess the skills they need to survive, including the ability to retrieve different local foods, and knowledge of edible plants. Young apes learn these skills in the wild by watching the knowledgeable adults around them – but that’s an opportunity that creatures in captivity simply don’t have.

Now, all of this isn’t necessarily an ethical argument for continuing to breed apes in zoos. You might argue that if we can’t save the apes already in captivity, we should at least end breeding programmes and let the existing populations die out. However, captive breeding helps preserve the genetic diversity of endangered species. Moreover, research shows that visiting zoos makes people more likely to support conservation efforts – an effect that’s amplified by more naturalistic enclosures. So first-person encounters in zoos serve to educate visitors about the incredible lives animals lead, and to raise money for wild conservation programmes.

Allowing the ape populations in zoos to wither assumes – without justification – that their current lives are so bad as to be not worth living. It also risks inflicting harm. Boredom is a real risk for zoo animals, and it’s widely believed (although not yet scientifically established) that the presence of infants brings both interest and happiness to the families. Mixed-aged groups create collective dynamics that more closely resemble those in the wild. If we care about the welfare of captive apes, we should allow them to breed – at least in controlled ways.

One day, the prospect of returning captive apes to their natural habitats or housing them in well-funded, spacious sanctuaries might be realistic. Currently, it is not. Instead of condemning zoos, we should dedicate our efforts to supporting them: to pushing bad zoos to reform or close; to funding more research into the welfare of captive animals; and to encouraging all zoos to strive to do more for their inhabitants. That way, perhaps, I will no longer need to shy away from telling strangers what I do.

Computing and artificial intelligence

Algorithms associating appearance and criminality have a dark past

Catherine Stinson

Childhood and adolescence

For a child, being carefree is intrinsic to a well-lived life

Luara Ferracioli

Meaning and the good life

Sooner or later we all face death. Will a sense of meaning help us?

Warren Ward

Philosophy of mind

Think of mental disorders as the mind’s ‘sticky tendencies’

Kristopher Nielsen

Philosophy cannot resolve the question ‘How should we live?’

David Ellis

Rituals and celebrations

We need highly formal rituals in order to make life more democratic

Antone Martinho-Truswell

Are Zoos Ethical?

This essay about the ethical considerations surrounding zoos. It discusses both the arguments for and against zoos, highlighting their roles in conservation and education, as well as the concerns regarding animal welfare and exploitation. While zoos contribute to species preservation and public awareness, ethical dilemmas persist regarding the captivity of animals and the commodification of wildlife. The essay emphasizes the need for thoughtful reflection and proactive measures to ensure the ethical integrity of zoological institutions in our ever-evolving society.

How it works

Delving into the realm of wildlife sanctuaries, we find ourselves grappling with a moral dilemma as old as the concept of zoological parks themselves. These bastions of biodiversity evoke both fascination and controversy, prompting us to question the ethical underpinnings of their existence. Do zoos truly serve as benevolent stewards of endangered species, or are they complicit in the exploitation of sentient beings for human entertainment?

Advocates champion zoos as vital institutions for conservation and education, emphasizing their role in preserving endangered species and fostering public awareness of environmental issues.

Through interactive exhibits and educational programs, zoos aim to inspire empathy and cultivate a sense of responsibility towards the natural world. Additionally, the captive breeding programs conducted within zoo facilities contribute to the genetic diversity of endangered populations, offering a glimmer of hope amidst the looming threat of extinction.

Nevertheless, skeptics raise valid concerns regarding the welfare of animals confined within zoo enclosures. Critics argue that captivity deprives animals of their innate freedom and subjects them to physical and psychological distress. Despite efforts to replicate natural habitats, the artificial environments of zoos cannot fully satisfy the complex behavioral needs of wild animals, leading to behaviors indicative of stress and boredom. Furthermore, the practice of breeding animals in captivity for the primary purpose of exhibition raises ethical questions regarding the commodification of living beings for human entertainment.

Moreover, the efficacy of zoos as educational institutions is subject to scrutiny. While zoos offer firsthand encounters with exotic wildlife, critics contend that the educational value derived from these experiences may be superficial and limited in scope. Alternative forms of environmental education, such as nature documentaries and ecotourism, may offer more immersive and authentic learning experiences without the ethical implications associated with animal captivity. Additionally, the portrayal of animals as mere spectacles for human amusement may perpetuate harmful stereotypes and misconceptions about wildlife, undermining the educational objectives of zoos.

As we navigate the ethical terrain of zoos, we must confront the complex interplay of conservation, education, and animal welfare. While zoos undeniably contribute to species preservation and public awareness, ethical concerns regarding animal captivity and exploitation cannot be dismissed lightly. As stewards of the natural world, we are tasked with reconciling our desire to connect with wildlife with our ethical responsibilities towards sentient beings. Only through thoughtful reflection and proactive measures can we ensure the ethical integrity of zoological institutions in an ever-changing world.

Cite this page

Are Zoos Ethical?. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/are-zoos-ethical/

"Are Zoos Ethical?." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/are-zoos-ethical/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Are Zoos Ethical? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/are-zoos-ethical/ [Accessed: 7 Sep. 2024]

"Are Zoos Ethical?." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed September 7, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/are-zoos-ethical/

"Are Zoos Ethical?," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/are-zoos-ethical/. [Accessed: 7-Sep-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Are Zoos Ethical? . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/are-zoos-ethical/ [Accessed: 7-Sep-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Share full article

Opinion Guest Essay

Modern Zoos Are Not Worth the Moral Cost

  Credit... Photographs by Peter Fisher for The New York Times

Supported by

By Emma Marris

Ms. Marris is an environmental writer and the author of the forthcoming book “Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-Human World.”

• June 11, 2021

After being captives of the pandemic for more than a year, we have begun experiencing the pleasures of simple outings: dining al fresco, shopping with a friend, taking a stroll through the zoo. As we snap a selfie by the sea lions for the first time in so long, it seems worth asking, after our collective ordeal, whether our pleasure in seeing wild animals up close is worth the price of their captivity.

Throughout history, men have accumulated large and fierce animals to advertise their might and prestige. Power-mad men from Henry III to Saddam Hussein’s son Uday to the drug kingpin Pablo Escobar to Charlemagne all tried to underscore their strength by keeping terrifying beasts captive. William Randolph Hearst created his own private zoo with lions, tigers, leopards and more at Hearst Castle. It is these boastful collections of animals, these autocratic menageries, from which the modern zoo, with its didactic plaques and $15 hot dogs, springs.

The forerunners of the modern zoo, open to the public and grounded in science, took shape in the 19th century. Public zoos sprang up across Europe, many modeled on the London Zoo in Regent’s Park. Ostensibly places for genteel amusement and edification, zoos expanded beyond big and fearsome animals to include reptile houses, aviaries and insectariums. Living collections were often presented in taxonomic order, with various species of the same family grouped together, for comparative study.

The first zoos housed animals behind metal bars in spartan cages. But relatively early in their evolution, a German exotic animal importer named Carl Hagenbeck changed the way wild animals were exhibited. In his Animal Park, which opened in 1907 in Hamburg, he designed cages that didn’t look like cages, using moats and artfully arranged rock walls to invisibly pen animals. By designing these enclosures so that many animals could be seen at once, without any bars or walls in the visitors’ lines of sight, he created an immersive panorama, in which the fact of captivity was supplanted by the illusion of being in nature.

Mr. Hagenbeck’s model was widely influential. Increasingly, animals were presented with the distasteful fact of their imprisonment visually elided. Zoos shifted just slightly from overt demonstrations of mastery over beasts to a narrative of benevolent protection of individual animals. From there, it was an easy leap to protecting animal species.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

• Site search

Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos?

By Bridget M. Kuehn

Is the idea of the zoo as an ark archaic? Are zoos exploiting animals for profit? Are they prisons for wild animals? Does the need for species conservation outweigh the costs to individual animal welfare? These are some of the question zoos face as they try to respond to the criticism from animal rights groups and justify their existence to a public increasingly concerned about the welfare of captive animals.

Michael Hutchins, PhD, director and William Conway Chair of the Department of Conservation and Science for the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, addressed these questions in his presentation "In defense of zoos and aquariums: The ethical basis for keeping wild animals in captivity" at the 2002 AVMA Animal Welfare Forum in Milwaukee Oct.11. The forum was co-sponsored by the American Association of Zoo Veterinarians.

According to Dr. Hutchins, one of the problems reputable zoos and aquariums face is guilt by association. He explained that there are really two kinds of zoos: AZA-accredited zoos, and zoos that don't meet AZA standards. Of the 2,400 animal exhibitors licensed by the Department of Agriculture, fewer than 10 percent meet AZA standards for accreditation, Dr. Hutchins said.

A question of ethics

Despite the high standards of AZA zoos and aquariums, some individuals object to zoos on an ethical basis.

Some people believe that animals have an intrinsic right to liberty and, therefore they conclude all zoos are inherently wrong, Dr. Hutchins said. Others are concerned that living in a zoo diminishes animals' quality of life, that captive breeding is of limited value, or that entertainment is not a sufficient justification for keeping animals in captivity.

To satisfy these concerns, zoos and aquariums have to weigh the costs and benefits.

"The central question we need to answer as caring people is: do the benefits of accredited zoos to society outweigh cost to individual animal welfare?" Hutchins said.

The primary benefits zoos provide to society are education and conservation of species and habitats, he said.

"I think the central ethical justification for zoos and aquariums in the modern world is their commitment to conservation," Dr. Hutchins said.

He explained that, during the past decade, zoos have shifted their focus from preserving species through captive breeding programs to preserving habitats and species in the wild.

Zoos support conservation by educating the public, raising money for conservation programs, developing technology that can be used to track wild populations, conducting scientific research, advancing veterinary medicine, and developing animal handling techniques.

By studying animals in captivity and applying that knowledge to their husbandry, zoos can provide valuable and practical information that may be difficult or impossible to gather in the wild.

"We need to know about the biology of animals to conserve," Dr. Hutchins said.

Zoos also help by participating in collaborative efforts with other zoos and conservation groups, or directly supporting a wildlife reserve by contributing expertise, training, funding, and other resources.

The AZA tracks the conservation efforts of member zoos with biennial reports on conservation science. According to the most recent report, AZA members participated in or supported 1,400 field conservation projects worldwide, and over 300 projects in North America between 1999 and 2000.

Putting welf​are first

Conservation alone is not enough to justify the existence of zoos, Dr. Hutchins said, "A strong commitment to individual animal welfare is equally important."

To improve animal welfare, AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums must ensure quality care, promote natural behaviors and natural environments, assess and improve their training and education programs, and address the problem of surplus animals, Dr. Hutchins said. They also must reach out to nonaccredited zoos and promote high-quality care for all captive animals, he said.

The AZA is taking a number of steps to promote improved animal welfare at accredited and nonaccredited zoos and aquariums, including:

• Developing species-specific resource manuals and standards for animal care
• Requiring AZA zoos and aquariums to develop and implement enrichment programs.
• Training USDA-APHIS inspectors
• Lobbying the government for more funding for APHIS
• Reducing the number of surplus animals by giving "do not breed" recommendations
• Developing a system to track animals and setting policies that forbid the transfer of animals to substandard facilities and hunting ranches

Outreach to substandard zoos has been a priority; in fact, the AZA Roadside Zoo Task Force helped develop model state and local legislation to close the worst facilities.

"By reaching out in this way, AZA zoos and aquariums are demonstrating their concern for animal welfare outside their realm," Dr. Hutchins explained.

Dr. Hutchins concluded his presentation by stressing the importance of advancing both conservation and animal welfare.

"I think having these dual goals of animal welfare and conservation provides a strong ethical justification for zoos and aquariums."

Quick links

• Make a Gift
• Directories

"Moral Arguments Against Zoos"

Given advancements in animal welfare science and public opinion, zoos can no longer justify holding non-human animals captive for entertainment purposes alone. It is now suggested that zoos are justifiable sites of animal captivity because they serve the dual public service of education and species conservation. This paper examines these two justifications and offers moral arguments against zoos through the lens of utilitarian, rights, and ecofeminist theories.

•   Twitter
•   YouTube
•   Facebook
•   Newsletter
•   More ways to connect

Are zoos ethical? The pros and cons of visiting the zoo

Are zoos ethical? This is a question that more and more people have been asking in recent years. In fact, many people have boycotted zoos altogether in response to stories about maltreatment and unnatural environments provided for the animals housed in zoos. Whilst there is certainly an element of truth to this, this is very short-sighted, in my opinion.

The problem is that too many people take things at face-value. They don’t dig a bit deeper or look at a situation from different perspectives. Objectivity is key in making rational and justified decisions in life. This is an integral skill that doesn’t always come naturally. BUT it is one that can be developed, and studying at degree level or above is a great way to do this. If you want to learn more about this you can read about why I believe that doing a degree can you make you a better person. Anyway, I digress… back to the question- are zoos ethical.

There is a lot more to zoos than many people realise. Yes, some are exploitative and demonstrate less than adequate treatment of their animals, but nowadays these types of zoos are largely concentrated in developing countries, where regulation isn’t as strict as it is elsewhere in the world. And what many people don’t realise about zoos is that there is a lot going on behind the scenes, including conservation efforts, breeding programs and important ecological research.

Before you decide to take (or not to take) a visit to the zoo in your local area or on your travels, I suggest that you consider both the advantages and the disadvantages, this helps you to make a decision about whether zoos are ethical or not. Fortunately, I have done all of the research for you- read on to learn all about the good and bad aspects of zoos.

Conservation 

Dependency , are zoos ethical do your research before you go, are zoos ethical the advantages of a zoo.

When it comes to answering the question of ‘are zoos ethical’, there is a lot to consider. Below you’ll find the main advantages of zoos. The zoo makes for a fun family day out, and on top of that they do some great things to give back…

In practice, conservation within zoos includes captive breeding, species reintroduction and species’ survival plans. Zoos are able to save certain species from going extinct- that is pretty amazing, don’t you think!?

A great example of this is the Pere David’s Deer : they were completely extinct in the wild, until various zoo programs teamed up to breed and release four deer. They were released into the wild in 1985 and are now self-sustained. Zoos continue to make an effort in this way, aiming to protect and improve the conservation status of various species. 

Periodic release of animals bred in captivity ensures genetic diversity of the species in the wild. This population restoration is definitely a big advantage of zoos. The work they do with animals in captivity often directly supports their wild counterparts. Of course, the fact that captive breeding helps to maintain the numbers of different species in existence is a definite positive feature of zoos.

When it comes to learning about animals, there are few better (and safer) places to do so than a zoo.

Many people will never get the chance to see elephants, tigers and giraffes (for example) in the wild. But with over 10,000 zoos worldwide, there are other ways to get up close and personal with all of these amazing animals and more.

Zoos usually have information boards next to each exhibit, meaning there is plenty to learn. Find out:

• Where this species lives in the wild (in global terms)
• What type of habitat they would have in the wild
• Their conservation status
• What they eat, both in the zoo and in the wild
• What habits they have
• Individual animal names, skills and personalities 

On top of this, many zoos have ‘classroom areas’. School trips are common, and students will get the chance to listen to talks from zookeepers, conservationists and researchers. They might learn in depth knowledge about certain species, or hear an overview of the work the zoos do. 

Visiting a zoo is a sure fire way to encourage children – and animals – to take an interest in animal welfare! Nearly fifty percent of the world’s population live in cities, meaning they are mostly disconnected from nature and that this is the only opportunity they may have to experience wildlife tourism . In these cities, zoos (as well as aquariums and urban farms) are a fantastic way to win huge support for wildlife preservation and conservation.

Another thing to consider when asking ‘are zoos ethical’ is the amount of research zoos do.

Zoologists and the zoos themselves contribute so much to our overall knowledge of animals which ultimately leads to scientific breakthroughs and just a better understanding of various species. I saw this first-hand when I visited Chengdu with the kids – I was super impressed with the research that took place at the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding!

So what sort of things do zoos research? They look into the following:

• Wildlife biology
• Population dynamics
• Animal behaviour, health and welfare 
• Reproduction
• Environmental enrichment 

The EAZA – the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria – sets out guidelines for zoo research. Their mission is to:

• Make a significant contribution to ethical and highly effective research,
• particularly in the areas of biodiversity conservation and animal welfare;
• Produce and use excellent science to increase knowledge which improves the
• quality of decision-making and management of collections, programmes and
• Engage in and foster scientific education, training and benefit sharing.

EAZA ensures that all zoos in Europe do the following:

• Provide the necessary facilities, tools and staff to conduct effective research
• and to develop a thriving scientific culture ;
• Create a meaningful expenditure plan for research purposes;
• Keep abreast of contemporary research in its widest context and use this to
• inform and improve zoo programmes and guide future direction;
• Develop new scientific perspectives, linking basic and applied research and
• using existing and new methodologies and innovative technologies;
• Produce and publish high-quality scientific research in increasingly greater
• Engage in collaborative partnerships with peer institutions and kindred
• organisations at home and abroad;
• Share research results and contribute to broad-based education and training
• as well as wider communications exercises.

While this is specific to Europe, there are similar guidelines in place worldwide. This ensures that zoos give back. It means that there is an overwhelmingly positive impact – going some way to answering the question ‘are zoos ethical?’

Are zoos ethical? The disadvantages of a zoo

In order to answer the question of ‘are zoos ethical’, it is pertinent to examine the negative sides of things too. I have outlined some of the negative impacts of zoos below…

Zoos are dependent on humans. The work they do (as mentioned above) is dependent on the money that comes from visitors in the form of entrance fees, refreshment and souvenir sales and more. If the visitors don’t come, the money doesn’t exist.

The global pandemic born from the Covid-19 outbreak has had an undeniable impact on zoos. In order for people to follow the stay-at-home guidelines and reduce the spread of coronavirus, zoos were forced to close. This meant that many zoos were facing cash crises. In the UK, government rescue packages were available for businesses facing this type of hardship, but they were inaccessible to many zoos. By October 2020, only one zoo had been able to successfully claim this financial assistance according to a BBC article . Zoos were instead forced to ask for donations to ensure they could continue to take care of their animals.

Likewise, many elephants have faced prospects of starvation in Thailand . Without the tourists, zoos, orphanages and elephant sanctuaries in Thailand have struggled to meet the needs of these precious animals. It is a sad reality that demonstrates the dependency that zoos have on people and their cash. When they are so dependent on humans in order to even stay open, the question should certainly be asked: are zoos ethical?

Zoos also create a world where animals, to a degree, are dependent on humans. The animals in these institutions would, for the most part, be unable to go out into the wild as they wouldn’t understand how to hunt/prey/forage – and they might be unable to keep themselves safe. On the other hand, many of these animals wouldn’t exist at all if it wasn’t for the conservation work that zoos do across the world. So as with many ethical dilemmas, there are two sides to the story…

Unfortunately, it seems that some zoos are not always entirely focused on animal welfare. In many places, zoos fall short when it comes to taking care of their animals.

Generally, standards are much better now than they were in the past – laws have tightened around animal welfare, meaning that there are certain rules and guidelines that zoos must stick to in terms of enclosures, feeding schedules, animal treatment and more. Animals are not used for entertainment as frequently as they were – shows and tricks are much less common nowadays. In the early days of zoos, animals were often tied up in small spaces and obviously mistreated. Thankfully in most zoos this isn’t the case now!

But that isn’t to say animal welfare is 100% of the focus. A report by World Animal Protection found that many zoos across the globe still fall short. They found that around 43% of facilities allow animal petting, with around 1/3 of zoos also offering the chance to walk or swim through an enclosure. 23% of zoos also offer hand feeding experiences. Clearly these activities are not entirely for the animals – they are for guest entertainment too. WAZA, the World Association of Zoos and Aquaria, says that zoos must “focus on natural behavior” and “not demean or trivialize the animal in any way”. However, these experiences blatantly go against the WAZA guidelines.

When it comes to the question of ‘are zoos ethical?’ it mostly boils down to personal ethics and opinions. In fact, zoos are frequently a conversation in ethical tourism debates. If you believe that keeping animals in captivity is cruel and unnecessary, then it is likely that you would be one to disagree with the concept of zoos. Whereas if you are on board with animals being kept in captivity given then positives that this has, then of course you would agree with zoos.

So are zoos ethical, and is there really an answer? It is definitely a matter of opinion. They offer so much in terms of education and (more importantly) conservation. But keeping animals in captivity can lead to them becoming stressed – there are many arguments against it, on top of the dependency issues discussed above. There is no easy yes/no answer to the question of whether or not zoos are ethical!

Depending on the research you do and the people you listen to, there are different conclusions to draw. For example, people can find holes in the best conservation programmes – while others would easily be able to find positives in the fact that zoos (and the animals within them) are dependent on humans. The ethics of zoos are mostly right, it seems, but there is always a question to be asked.

So, we have determined that the questions ‘are zoos ethical’, is not one with a simple answer. And matters are further complicated by the wide range fo zoos around the world that operate under differing regulations, laws and company values.

I strongly recommend that you research any zoo before you visit it. If it is a well-known zoo then there will be plenty of reviews on Trip Advisor- these will give you a good idea about the operations and practices at said zoo.

However, if you are visiting a lesser-known zoo, there may be less reviews from which you can draw a conclusion. This has caught me out many times, and I have been angry at myself for visiting a place that clearly has little regard for animal welfare. Whilst it is difficult to generalise, Russia , India and China have demonstrated inadequate respect for animals at wildlife tourist attractions, in my personal experience. But there are poor examples like this throughout much of the developing world.

My advice, if you do have a negative experience is to share what you learnt. I do this myself- I have written about the truth about bullfighting in Spain and elephant sanctuaries that are not and ‘ethical’ as they claim to be , for example on this website.

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Animal Welfare — Why Should Zoos Be Banned

Why Should Zoos Be Banned

• Categories: Animal Welfare

About this sample

Words: 516 |

Published: Mar 20, 2024

Words: 516 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Animal welfare, conservation.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 569 words

4 pages / 1668 words

3 pages / 1387 words

1 pages / 552 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Welfare

As the debate surrounding marine mammal captivity continues to gain traction, the case of Lolita, a captive killer whale at the Miami Seaquarium, serves as a focal point for discussions on animal welfare, conservation, and [...]

Paraveterinary workers play a crucial role in the veterinary field, providing support to veterinarians and ensuring the well-being of animals. This career path offers a unique opportunity to work closely with animals and make a [...]

From a young age, I have always had a deep love and respect for animals. Whether it was caring for my family's pets or volunteering at local animal shelters, my passion for animals has always been a significant part of my life. [...]

Lolita, a female orca, has been living in captivity at the Miami Seaquarium for over five decades, captivating audiences with her performances and interactions. Yet, behind the spectacle lies a story of captivity and ethical [...]

 The job of a marine biologist is to study and conserve the ocean, and all the creatures within it. While their main focus is the water, a lot of their work is conducted on dry land, as they fight for regional laws, fisherman [...]

Animals kept in zoos, aquariums, and circuses are treated poorly by humans and inevitably suffer of disease, pain, starvation, and fear so they will perform seamlessly for the public. Animals are forced by their owners to carry [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free