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

Welfare Implications for Tigers in Travelling Circuses

There are very few studies that have focused on species-specific welfare implications for tigers in a travelling circus. The absence of scientific evidence to inform nationwide legislation means that tigers are still commonly used in travelling circuses across the world. A systematic review of relevant published studies was conducted using the bibliographic databases Web of Science and Scopus, supplemented by a narrative search. In total, 42 relevant studies were identified that assessed the welfare of tigers in captivity, including circuses and zoos. Only eight papers assessed the welfare implications for tigers in circuses directly, evidencing the lack of research in this area. Given that circuses provide a sub-optimal environment compared to zoos, implications for tiger welfare were also inferred from zoo research, within the Five Domains framework. Collectively, these papers infer that the travelling nature of a circus often negatively impacts the welfare domains of nutrition, physical environment, health, and mental state. This is due to limitations in enclosure size, as well as in both environmental and behavioural enrichment. There is also often difficulty in sourcing appropriate food and specialised routine veterinary care. The literature is divided concerning behavioural interactions, specifically whether training can improve welfare by offering mental stimulation. However, circus performances are often associated with negative welfare due to noise disruption from spectators. The collective scientific evidence indicates that tigers are not well suited to circus living, due to the inability of a travelling circus to provide for their species-specific psychological, physiological, and behavioural needs.

The perception of felid welfare by zookeepers in North America and the implications for zoo managers

Zookeepers working with felids were asked to complete an online survey to examine their perceptions of animal welfare. A total of 121 zookeepers in an AZA-accredited zoo completed the survey. Results from this study suggest that institutional offerings of professional development programming in animal welfare have the greatest potential to influence zookeeper perceptions of animal welfare. Participants also identified four areas of improvement for felid welfare, including 1) larger and more dynamic spaces, 2) increased attention to behavioral husbandry, 3) more unique diet presentations, and 4) the ability for the animal to remain out of the view of the public. In addition, there appear to be differences in perception between traditionally described "small cat" and "large cat" keepers in terms of the ability to deliver the Five Freedoms.

Don't use it? Don't lose it! Why active use is not required for stimuli, resources or "enrichments" to have welfare value

Current frameworks for designing and evaluating good enclosures and "enrichments" typically focus on animals' active interactions with these features. This has undoubtedly improved the welfare of zoo-housed animals over the last 30 years or more. However, literature reviews from this same period identify persistent gaps in how such frameworks are applied: experiences and behaviors that do not rely on active interaction with stimuli or resources are largely ignored, when evaluating the welfare value of enclosures and enrichments within them. Here, we review research evidence demonstrating that active interaction is not always a reliable measure of welfare value, showing that items that elicit little or no interaction can nevertheless still reduce stress and improve well-being. This evidence largely comes from research on humans, lab animals and farm animals, but also from some zoo studies too. We then investigate why. We review psychology and ethology literatures to show that such welfare benefits can arise from five, non-mutually exclusive, processes or mechanisms that are well-understood in humans and domestic animals: (1) some motivations are sated quickly by interaction with resources, yet still have large welfare benefits; (2) active interaction may just be a way to achieve a goal or solve a problem, without being beneficial for welfare in itself; (3) having opportunities for choice and control may be inherently beneficial, even when not acted on; (4) some enclosure features meet social needs for structure, landmarks, and blocked sightlines; and (5) some stimuli may be preferred because they signaled good environments to an animal's ancestors. We use this information to identify  improved ways of enhancing and assessing zoo animal welfare. Incorporating these concepts should expand the scope of behaviors and subjective experiences that are targeted, to now include those that involve little active interaction and yet still are important for good welfare.

The Effects of Choice-Based Design and Management on the Behavior and Space Use of Zoo-Housed Amur Tigers (Panthera tigris altaica)

Choice-based design allows animals in human care opportunities to move at will between multiple interconnected spaces. Some evidence suggests providing environmental choice confers benefits to animals, but there is a dearth of research in this area with large carnivores. To understand the effects of this design strategy on large felids, behavioral and space use data were collected on three Amur tigers housed in a new habitat at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo. Data were collected in two conditions: 1) restricted to a single habitat, and 2) access to two habitats. With choice, tigers were less frequently inactive (p = 0.003), and locomoted more frequently (p = 0.009). They also showed different preferences in space use with choice, and a strong preference for overhead runways between habitats (E* = 0.83, E* = 0.78). These results add to what is known about environmental impacts on zoo animal behavior and suggest this design and management strategy may be effective in conferring positive welfare benefits to tigers and other large carnivores.

Majestic tigers: personality structure in the great Amur cat

We explore individual differences in tiger personality. We first asked-is there evidence of personality dimensions (analogous to the Big Five in human personality research) in the Amur tiger? We then asked, are any discoverable personality dimensions associated with measured outcomes, including group status, health and mating frequency? 152 of our participating tigers live in the world's largest semi-wild tiger sanctuary in North Eastern China. Our second sample of 96 tigers also lives in a sanctuary. Having two samples allowed us to assess the replicability of the personality dimensions or factors reported in our first sample. We found that two factors (explaining 21% and 17% of the variance among items) which we call, for descriptive ease, Majesty and Steadiness, provide the best fit to the data. Tigers that score higher on Majesty are healthier, eat more live prey, have higher group status (among other tigers as assessed by human raters) and mate more often. We provide some ethological context to put flesh on the quantitative bones of our findings concerning these magnificent and charismatic animals.

Improving welfare assessment in aquaculture

While global aquaculture is rapidly expanding, there remains little attention given to the assessment of animal welfare within aquacultural systems. It is crucial that animal welfare concerns are central in the development and implementation of aquaculture as if they are not prioritized early on, it becomes much more difficult to adapt in future. To this end, it is important to ensure the availability of high-quality welfare assessment schemes to evaluate the welfare of animals in aquaculture and promote and maintain high welfare standards. This paper will first discuss some of the current certification and assessment frameworks, highlighting the primary limitations that need to be addressed, before going on to describe the recommendations for a best-practice welfare assessment process for aquaculture; with the hope that these considerations can be taken on board and used to help improve welfare assessment for aquaculture and, ultimately, to ensure animals used in aquaculture have a higher level of welfare. Any aquacultural system should be assessed according to a suitable framework in order to be considered adequate for the welfare of the animals it contains, and thus to maintain social license to operate.

Mobile Zoos and Other Itinerant Animal Handling Events: Current Status and Recommendations for Future Policies

Mobile zoos are events in which non-domesticated (exotic) and domesticated species are transported to venues such as schools, hospitals, parties, and community centres, for the purposes of education, entertainment, or social and therapeutic assistance. We conducted literature searches and surveyed related government agencies regarding existing provisions within laws and policies, number of mobile zoos, and formal guidance issued concerning operation of such events in 74 countries or regions. We also examined governmental and non-governmental guidance standards for mobile zoos, as well as websites for mobile zoo operations, assessed promotional or educational materials for scientific accuracy, and recorded the diversity of species in use. We used the EMODE (Easy, Moderate, Difficult, or Extreme) algorithm, to evaluate identified species associated with mobile zoos for their suitability for keeping. We recorded 14 areas of concern regarding animal biology and public health and safety, and 8 areas of false and misleading content in promotional or educational materials. We identified at least 341 species used for mobile zoos. Mobile zoos are largely unregulated, unmonitored, and uncontrolled, and appear to be increasing. Issues regarding poor animal welfare, public health and safety, and education raise several serious concerns. Using the precautionary principle when empirical evidence was not available, we advise that exotic species should not be used for mobile zoos and similar itinerant events.

Differing animal welfare conceptions and what they mean for the future of zoos and aquariums, insights from an animal welfare audit

Animal welfare is a growing public concern that has the potential to undermine the social license of zoos and aquariums. The lack of consensus on how animal welfare is defined across such a diverse sector combined with and a widespread belief that commercial priorities such as entertaining visitors conflicts with animal welfare, hinders efforts to effectively address this fundamental issue for the sector. Data derived from an audit of habitats across a major North American wildlife attraction revealed that holistic animal welfare assessments undertaken by animal carers embracing three principal constructs of animal welfare, correlated strongly with visitor perceptions of animal happiness. Visitor assessments of animal happiness also correlated with animal carer assessments of social, behavioural and locomotor opportunities and inversely with the prevalence of stereotypic behaviours, supporting the proposition that folk conceptions of animal welfare are more accurate than may have previously been considered to be the case. However, the holistic animal welfare assessment inversely correlated with assessments of a habitat's capacity to safeguard welfare as determined by the facility's veterinary staff, supporting the proposition that tensions exist between physical and psychological components of captive animal welfare provisioning. This further underlines the importance of clarity on how animal welfare is conceived when developing institutional animal welfare strategies. Finally, the data also showed that both holistic animal welfare assessments and visitor perceptions of animal happiness strongly correlated with the level of enjoyment experienced by visitors, challenging the belief that animal welfare competes with the commercial priorities of zoos and aquariums. The audit supports the case that maintaining high animal welfare is a commercial imperative as well as a moral obligation for zoos and aquariums and underlines the necessity to utilize conceptions of animal welfare that acknowledge the centrality of the affective states of animals in maintaining those standards.

Welfare Through Competence: A Framework for Animal-Centric Technology Design

Digital technologies offer new ways to ensure that animals can lead a good life in managed settings. As interactive enrichment and smart environments appear in zoos, farms, shelters, kennels and vet facilities, it is essential that the design of such technologies be guided by clear, scientifically-grounded understandings of what animals need and want, to be successful in improving their wellbeing. The field of Animal-Computer Interaction proposes that this can be achieved by centering animals as stakeholders in technology design, but there remains a need for robust methods to support interdisciplinary teams in placing animals' interests at the heart of design projects. Responding to this gap, we present the Welfare through Competence framework, which is grounded in contemporary animal welfare science, established technology design practices and applied expertise in animal-centered design. The framework brings together the “Five Domains of Animal Welfare” model and the “Coe Individual Competence” model, and provides a structured approach to defining animal-centric objectives and refining them through the course of a design project. In this paper, we demonstrate how design teams can use this framework to promote positive animal welfare in a range of managed settings. These much-needed methodological advances contribute a new theoretical foundation to debates around the possibility of animal-centered design, and offer a practical agenda for creating technologies that support a good life for animals.

Welfare Assessment Tools in Zoos: From Theory to Practice

Zoos are increasingly implementing formalized animal welfare assessment programs to allow monitoring of welfare over time, as well as to aid in resource prioritization. These programs tend to rely on assessment tools that incorporate resource-based and observational animal-focused measures. A narrative review of the literature was conducted to bring together recent studies examining welfare assessment methods in zoo animals. A summary of these methods is provided, with advantages and limitations of the approaches presented. We then highlight practical considerations with respect to implementation of these tools into practice, for example scoring schemes, weighting of criteria, and innate animal factors for consideration. It is concluded that there would be value in standardizing guidelines for development of welfare assessment tools since zoo accreditation bodies rarely prescribe these. There is also a need to develop taxon or species-specific assessment tools to complement more generic processes and more directly inform welfare management.

Why Are Enrichment Practices in Zoos Difficult to Implement Effectively?

Simple Summary

Zookeepers often introduce enrichment practices in which they provide animals with diverse stimuli and challenges to stimulate mental and physical activity, but enrichment can be difficult to implement and the enrichment used in zoos is not always effective at improving animal welfare. Limited information is available on how zookeepers apply enrichment practices in zoos. To identify some of the reasons that zoos cannot always provide effective enrichment, we interviewed keepers across multiple zoos. Keepers that work with big cats were deemed particularly well suited to the study, given the extensive recommendations in the literature for this group of animals in zoos. We discovered that many impediments obstructed the capacity of zookeepers to enrich animals effectively, such as conflicting priorities, uncertainty about which enrichment practices are effective, and concerns about the perceptions of visitors. To illustrate, zoos often impose routines for keepers to address more immediate and visible problems, such as sick animals or visitors who do not like unnatural objects in the enclosure. Hence, the enrichment and stimulation of animals is not always perceived as important or pressing and, therefore, may be deferred or neglected. We suggest that greater clarity and increased transparency on the objectives and means of assessing enrichment could curb confusion surrounding enrichment practices in zoos.

Abstract

The good intentions of zoos to introduce enrichment practices that stimulate animals mentally and physically are not always achievable. Changes to the policies and procedures in organisations are difficult to fulfil for a range of reasons frequently investigated in change management literature. The implementation of these changes can be the source of ineffective attempts to generate positive interventions in organisations. In this study, we investigate whether interventions to improve animal management in zoos through enrichment are subject to implementation impediments. Qualitative data gathered from interviews with 23 keepers working with big cats across 12 zoos globally provided valuable insights into the barriers and enablers to the implementation of enrichment. Keepers participated voluntarily and worked in accredited zoos across Australia, New Zealand, Europe, south-east Asia, South Africa, and the United States of America. Thematic analysis of the data revealed five key themes that described some of the challenges zoos and keepers experience when implementing enrichment for big cats, in their words: “let’s just be cautious”, “purely surviving”, “struggle to understand the goal”, “can’t always provide what you should”, and “judge the effectiveness”. These themes provide additional insights into potential areas for improvement, including greater attention to the benefits of enrichment for animal mental health and increased transparency around enrichment objectives in zoos.

Supporting Zoo Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) Welfare and Herd Dynamics with a More Complex and Expanded Habitat

Ensuring good health and welfare is an increasingly important consideration for conservation of endangered species, whether free-ranging or managed to varying degrees under human care. The welfare-based design of a new habitat for Asian elephants at the Oregon Zoo focused on meeting the elephants' physical, physiological, psychological, and social needs 24 h a day and across life stages. The habitat was designed to encourage activity, promote species-typical behaviors, support changing social dynamics, offer increased opportunities for choice, and provide biologically meaningful challenges. In this 4-year study, we monitored elephant health and welfare indicators throughout the transition and acclimation from the previous habitat to the new habitat. Several welfare indicators obtained through longitudinal hormone analyses, behavior assessments, and GPS measurement of walking distance and space use provided evidence that these goals were achieved. The elephants were more active and walked farther on a daily basis in the new habitat, with an average walking distance of over 15 km per day. A switch from primarily caretaker-delivered food to seeking food on their own indicates that the disbursement of food with less temporal and spatial predictability increased foraging opportunities, which better satisfies appetitive motivations important for psychological well-being. All individuals showed adaptive and normal adrenal responses to change and challenge, with the highest fecal glucocorticoid metabolite (FGM) concentrations and variability during the construction phase, and a return to previous baseline concentrations in the new habitat, suggesting they acclimated well to the new environment. The elephants expressed a diverse range of species-typical behaviors and demonstrated social dynamics of a healthy herd in both habitats with transitions of individuals through life stages. They exhibited more autonomy in choosing whom to associate with socially and also by choosing different aspects of their environment with regular indoor/outdoor access and extensive resource use in the new habitat. Findings indicate that the complexity and flexibility of the new habitat and habitat management has been effective in improving overall welfare by providing meaningful challenges and the opportunity to express appetitive behaviors, by offering choice in environmental conditions, and by providing the space and resource distribution to support evolving herd dynamics and increased social equity for individuals.

Freedom and Animal Welfare

Simple Summary

There is an ongoing debate on the ethics of keeping animals in captivity and particularly as to whether freedom matters to their welfare. Freedom is a continuum, and zoo animals are provided with some freedoms that wild animals are not (such as freedom from hunger or disease) but may also lack some freedoms (such as behavioural choice). In this paper, we look at how freedom may benefit animal welfare by allowing them access to the resources they need, as well as through the additional value of a free life itself. In the end, we call for more scientific work on comparisons between the welfare of captive and wild animals, as we cannot guess what is good for animals without conducting research to find out. Knowing more about the welfare of captive and wild animals and how it relates to the amount of freedom they experience will allow us to discover what is important for animal welfare and make decisions that better reflect the animals’ own point of view.

Abstract

The keeping of captive animals in zoos and aquariums has long been controversial. Many take freedom to be a crucial part of animal welfare and, on these grounds, criticise all forms of animal captivity as harmful to animal welfare, regardless of their provisions. Here, we analyse what it might mean for freedom to matter to welfare, distinguishing between the role of freedom as an intrinsic good, valued for its own sake and an instrumental good, its value arising from the increased ability to provide other important resources. Too often, this debate is conducted through trading intuitions about what matters for animals. We argue for the need for the collection of comparative welfare data about wild and captive animals in order to settle the issue. Discovering more about the links between freedom and animal welfare will then allow for more empirically informed ethical decisions regarding captive animals.