What Types of Animals Should Be in the Future Zoo? Thoughts from United States Residents and Zoo and Aquarium Staff
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Description and Procedure
2.2. Data Clean-Up and Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of the Surveyed Groups
3.2. The Roles of Zoos and Aquariums
3.3. Design of Zoo Collections
3.4. What Do Visitors Want to See When They Visit a Zoo vs. What Zoo Directors Think Are Priority Species for Guests Currently?
3.5. What Animals Should Be Maintained in Zoos and Aquariums for Future Visitors?
3.5.1. Taxonomic Composition of Top 100 Lists
3.5.2. Agreement across Top 100 Lists
4. Discussion
4.1. Characteristics of Surveyed Groups
4.2. The Primary Roles of Zoos and Aquariums
4.3. Composing Zoo and Aquarium Collections
4.4. What Do Visitors Want to See When They Visit a Zoo vs. What Zoo Directors Think Are Priority Species for Guests Currently?
4.5. What Animals to Maintain in Zoos and Aquariums for Future Visitors
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Morris, D.; Morris, R. Men and Pandas; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Czech, B.; Krausman, P.R.; Borkhataria, R. Social construction, political power, and the allocation of benefits to endangered species. Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12, 1103–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conserv. Biol. 1993, 7, 845–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; Available online: https://books.google.com/books?id=Caq8BwAAQBAJ (accessed on 27 January 2023).
- Carr, N. Ideal animals and animal traits for zoos: General public perspectives. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlegel, J.; Rupf, R. Attitudes towards potential animal flagship species in nature conservation: A survey among students of different educational institutions. J. Nat. Conserv. 2010, 18, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tisdell, C.; Wilson, C.; Nantha, H.S. Public choice of species for the ‘Ark’: Phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival. J. Nat. Conserv. 2005, 14, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Minin, E.; Fraser, I.; Slotow, R.; MacMillan, D.C. Understanding heterogeneous preference of tourists for big game species: Implications for conservation and management. Anim. Conserv. 2013, 16, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macdonald, D.W.; Johnson, P.J.; Burnham, D.; Dickman, A.; Hinks, A.; Sillero-Zubiri, C.; Macdonald, E.A. Understanding nuanced preferences for carnivore conservation: To know them is not always to love them. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 37, e02150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macdonald, E.A.; Burnham, D.; Hinks, A.E.; Dickman, A.J.; Malhi, Y.; Macdonald, D.W. Conservation inequality and the charismatic cat: Felis felicis. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2015, 3, 851–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veríssimo, D.; Vaughan, G.; Ridout, M.; Waterman, C.; MacMillan, D.; Smith, R.J. Increased conservation marketing effort has major fundraising benefits for even the least popular species. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 211, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, D.J. An analysis of animal popularity. Int. Zoo Yearb. 1961, 2, 60–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Surinova, M. An analysis of the popularity of animals. Int. Zoo Yearb. 1971, 11, 165–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaltenborn, B.P.; Bjerke, T.; Nyahongo, J.W.; Williams, D.R. Animal preferences and acceptability of wildlife management actions around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 4633–4649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update. In Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1984; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984; pp. 177–213. [Google Scholar]
- Colléony, A.; Clayton, S.; Couvet, D.; Saint Jalme, M.; Prévot, A.C. Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 206, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorimer, J. Nonhuman charisma. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 2007, 25, 911–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frynta, D.; Šimková, O.; Lišková, S.; Landová, E. Mammalian collection on Noah’s ark: The effects of beauty, brain and body size. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e63110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Manesi, Z.; Van Lange, P.A.; Pollet, T.V. Butterfly eyespots: Their potential influence on aesthetic preferences and conservation attitudes. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morse-Jones, S.; Bateman, I.J.; Kontoleon, A.; Ferrini, S.; Burgess, N.D.; Turner, R.K. Stated preferences for tropical wildlife conservation amongst distant beneficiaries: Charisma, endemism, scope and substitution effects. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stokes, D.L. Things we like: Human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation. Hum. Ecol. 2007, 35, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cushing, N.; Markwell, K. I can’t look: Disgust as a factor in the zoo experience. In Zoos and Tourism: Conservation, Education, Entertainment? Frost, W., Ed.; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2011; pp. 167–178. [Google Scholar]
- Plous, S. Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. J. Soc. Issues 1993, 49, 11–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, A.; Bednar-Friedl, B.; Langers, F.; Dobrovodská, M.; Geamana, N.; Skogen, K.; Dumortier, M. Universal criteria for species conservation priorities? Findings from a survey of public views across Europe. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 998–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skibins, J.C.; Dunstan, E.; Pahlow, K. Exploring the influence of charismatic characteristics on flagship outcomes in zoo visitors. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2017, 22, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tisdell, C.; Nantha, H.S.; Wilson, C. Endangerment and likeability of wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for conservation? Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 627–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeKay, M.L.; McClelland, G.H. Probability and utility of endangered species preservation programs. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 1996, 2, 60–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitworth, A.W. An investigation into the determining factors of zoo visitor attendances in UK zoos. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e29839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shapiro, H.G.; Peterson, M.N.; Stevenson, K.T.; Frew, K.N.; Langerhans, R.B. Wildlife species preferences differ among children in continental and island locations. Environ. Conserv. 2017, 44, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindemann-Matthies, P. ‘Lovable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: How children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27, 655–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skibins, J.C.; Powell, R.B.; Hallo, J.C. Charisma and conservation: Charismatic megafauna’s influence on safari and zoo tourists’ pro-conservation behaviors. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 959–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moss, A.; Esson, M. Visitor interest in zoo animals and the implications for collection planning and zoo education programmes. Zoo Biol. 2010, 29, 715–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bitgood, S.; Patterson, D.; Benefield, A. Exhibit design and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships. Environ. Behav. 1988, 20, 474–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margulis, S.; Hoyos, C.; Anderson, M. Effect of felid activity on zoo visitor interest. Zoo Biol. 2003, 22, 587–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, P.; Mosberger, N.; Kistler, C.; Fischer, O. The relationship between popularity and body size in zoo animals. Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12, 1408–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frynta, D.; Lišková, S.; Bültmann, S.; Burda, H. Being attractive brings advantages: The case of parrot species in captivity. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marešová, J.; Frynta, D. Noah’s Ark is full of common species attractive to humans: The case of boid snakes in zoos. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 554–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turley, S.K. Exploring the future of the traditional UK zoo. J. Vacat. Mark. 1999, 5, 340–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R.; Case, D.J.; Escher, D.; Witter, D.J.; Mikels-Carrasco, J.; Seng, P.T. The Nature of Americans: Disconnection and Recommendations for Reconnection. The Nature of Americans. National Report. 2017. Available online: https://natureofamericans.org/sites/default/files/reports/Nature-of-Americans_National_Report_1.3_4-26-17.pdf (accessed on 27 January 2023).
- Dibb, S. Understanding the level of marketing activity in the leisure sector. Serv. Ind. J. 1995, 15, 257–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mooney, A.; Conde, D.A.; Healy, K.; Buckley, Y.M. A system wide approach to managing zoo collections for visitor attendance and in situ conservation. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roe, K.; McConney, A.; Mansfield, C.F. The role of zoos in modern society—A comparison of zoos’ reported priorities and what visitors believe they should be. Anthrozoös 2014, 27, 529–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gusset, M.; Dick, G. The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biol. 2011, 30, 566–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gusset, M.; Dick, G. ‘Building a Future for Wildlife’? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in situ conservation. Int. Zoo Yearb. 2010, 44, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kohl, J. Zoos behind the wild façade. Int. J. Wilderness 2004, 10, 23–27. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, J.; Hodgkinson, M. The motivation and social orientation of visitors attending a contemporary zoological park. Environ. Behav. 1999, 31, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, C.; Kasperbauer, T.J.; Sandøe, P. Bears or butterflies? How should zoos make value-driven decisions about their collections. In The Ark and Beyond: The Evolution of Zoo and Aquarium Conservation; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2018; pp. 179–191. [Google Scholar]
- Reade, L.S.; Waran, N.K. The modern zoo: How do people perceive zoo animals? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1996, 47, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clayton, S.; Fraser, J.; Saunders, C.D. Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biol. 2009, 28, 377–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Turley, S.K. Children and the demand for recreational experiences: The case of zoos. Leis. Stud. 2001, 20, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akerman, S. Best practices for building empathy through live animal encounters. J. Mus. Educ. 2019, 44, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, A.; Khalil, K.A.; Wharton, J. Empathy for animals: A review of the existing literature. Curator Mus. J. 2018, 61, 327–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hiroyasu, E.H.; Miljanich, C.P.; Anderson, S.E. Drivers of support: The case of species reintroductions with an ill-informed public. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2019, 24, 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Courchamp, F.; Jaric, I.; Albert, C.; Meinard, Y.; Ripple, W.J.; Chapron, G. The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biol. 2018, 16, e2003997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kirchgessner, M.L.; Sewall, B.J. The impact of environmental, social, and animal factors on visitor stay times at big cat exhibits. Visit. Stud. 2015, 18, 150–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rabb, G.B.; Saunders, C.D. The future of zoos and aquariums: Conservation and caring. Int. Zoo Yearb. 2005, 39, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuhrman, N.E. Predicting Commitment to Engage in Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Using Injured and Non-Injured Animals as Teaching Tools. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2007; 178p. [Google Scholar]
- Schwartz, J.B. Raptors in Education: How Educators Use Live Raptors for Environmental Education. Master’s Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2013; 84p. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11299/187548 (accessed on 27 January 2023).
- Kreger, M.D.; Mench, J.A. Visitor—Animal interactions at the zoo. Anthrozoös 1995, 8, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danley, B.; Sandorf, E.D.; Campbell, D. Putting your best fish forward: Investigating distance decay and relative preferences for fish conservation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2021, 108, 102475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCann, C.; Powell, D.M. Is there any more room on the Ark? An analysis of space allocation in four mammalian taxa. Zoo Biol. 2019, 38, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Powell, D.M. Collection planning for the next 100 years: What will we commit to save in zoos and aquariums? Zoo Biol. 2019, 38, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Comparison | Categories Collapsed for Agreement Calculation |
---|---|
Director-reported guest priorities vs. public’s priorities to see when visiting a new zoo/aquarium | California sea lion + sea lion, elephant + African elephant + Asian elephant, camel + Bactrian camel, African lion + lion, domestic goat + goat, wildcat + felids, ray + stingray, raptor + bird of prey, large cat + big cat, cuttlefish + cephalopod, butterfly + tropical butterfly, gorilla + w. lowland gorilla, python + large constrictor snake, seal + sealion + seal/sea lion |
Public’s Top 100 List vs. AZA Member Top 100 List | Elephant + Asian elephant + African elephant |
Public’s Top 100 List vs. AZA Director Top 100 List | Elephant + Asian elephant + African elephant, orangutan + Sumatran orangutan, ray + stingray |
Public’s Top 100 List vs. Zoo Personnel Top 100 List | Elephant + Asian elephant + African elephant, ray + stingray |
AZA Member Top 100 List vs. AZA Director Top 100 List | Elephant + Asian elephant + African elephant, orangutan + Sumatran orangutan, |
Public vs. AZA Member vs. AZA Director Top 100 Lists | ray + stingray |
Survey | # Responders | # Answers | # Valid Answers | # Valid, Taxonomically Assignable Answers |
---|---|---|---|---|
STL Public | 1420 | 6879 | 5412 | 4490 |
AZA Public | 1217 | 11,173 | 10,738 | 9322 |
Total Public | 2637 | 18,052 | 16,150 | 13,812 |
AZA Members | 1372 | 29,174 | 28,965 | 25,851 |
AZA Directors | 128 | 3714 | 3700 | 3203 |
Total Zoo Staff | 1500 | 32,888 | 32,665 | 29,054 |
Total | 4137 | 50,940 | 48,815 | 42,866 |
Public Top 100 (%) | Public Top 20 (%) | AZA Member Top 100 (%) | AZA Member Top 20 (%) | AZA Director Top 100 (%) | AZA Director Top 20 (%) | All Surveys Top 100 (%) | All Surveys Top 20 (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mammal | 66.0 | 75.0 | 70 | 85.0 | 69.0 | 80.0 | 70.0 | 17.0 |
Bird | 13.0 | 10.0 | 11.9 | 5.0 | 12.4 | 10.0 | 12.0 | 1.0 |
Reptile | 6.0 | 10.0 | 7.9 | 5.0 | 11.5 | 0.0 | 9.0 | 0.0 |
Amphibian | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 |
Fish | 8.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 |
Invertebrate | 7.0 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 2.7 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 |
Public Top 100 List % of Mammal Entries (Responses) | AZA Member Top 100 List % of Mammal Entries (Responses) | AZA Director Top 100 List % of Mammal Entries (Responses) | All Surveys Top 100 List % of Mammal Entries (Responses) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Artiodactyla | 19.7 (15.1) | 12.7 (14.3) | 15.4 (17.6) | 14.3 (14.1) |
Carnivora | 42.4 (45.2) | 45.1 (44.2) | 39.7 (39.2) | 42.9 (44.3) |
Cetacea | 6.1 (6.8) | 2.8 (1.6) | 2.6 (1.4) | 4.3 (4.2) |
Chiroptera | 1.5 (0.4) | 0.0 (0.0) | 1.3 (1.2) | 1.4 (0.6) |
Marsupialia | 3.0 (2.7) | 7.0 (4.9) | 2.6 (3.0) | 2.9 (2.9) |
Monotremata | 1.5 (0.3) | 1.4 (0.7) | 0.0 (0.0) | 1.4 (0.5) |
Perissodactyla | 6.1 (5.3) | 7.0 (6.8) | 6.4 (6.4) | 7.1 (6.2) |
Primates | 9.1 (12.8) | 12.7 (15.6) | 17.9 (17.5) | 14.3 (15.1) |
Proboscidea | 3.0 (8.6) | 4.2 (5.2) | 3.8 (5.9) | 4.3 (7.2) |
Rodentia | 3.0 (0.6) | 1.4 (0.8) | 2.6 (2.2) | 1.4 (0.5) |
Sirenia | 1.5 (0.9) | 1.4 (0.9) | 1.3 (0.9) | 1.4 (1.0) |
Xenarthra | 3.0 (1.3) | 4.2 (5.0) | 6.4 (4.8) | 4.3 (3.4) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Powell, D.M.; Meyer, T.G.; Dorsey, C.; Vernon, R. What Types of Animals Should Be in the Future Zoo? Thoughts from United States Residents and Zoo and Aquarium Staff. J. Zool. Bot. Gard. 2024, 5, 157-178. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg5020011
Powell DM, Meyer TG, Dorsey C, Vernon R. What Types of Animals Should Be in the Future Zoo? Thoughts from United States Residents and Zoo and Aquarium Staff. Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens. 2024; 5(2):157-178. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg5020011
Chicago/Turabian StylePowell, David M., Theodore G. Meyer, Candice Dorsey, and Rob Vernon. 2024. "What Types of Animals Should Be in the Future Zoo? Thoughts from United States Residents and Zoo and Aquarium Staff" Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens 5, no. 2: 157-178. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg5020011