Reimagining Zoos Through a Nature-Centered Approach

KEYWORDS: zoos, animal ethics, zoochosis, conservation support DOI: https://doi.org/10.4079/2578-9201.1(2022).01

Reimagining Zoos Through A Nature-Centered Approach

TALBOT DE ST. AUBIN BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, CCAS ‘24, tdestaubin@gwu.edu

ABSTRACT

Zoos have been around for centuries, yet they rarely consider the needs of the animals within them. Although recent changes have allowed zoos to benefit conservation efforts and species as a whole, they still harm the individuals that reside there. Therefore, zoos must be redesigned to improve conditions. This paper argues that the best way to do this is through the Nature-Centered approach. This is similar to the safari style zoo, but limits the species allowed in a location. Due to this, animals are able to live in larger enclosures with more enrichment and privacy. A larger emphasis will be placed on conservation as well. This approach will eliminate the issues of current zoos, while simultaneously enhancing their benefits.

•

INTRODUCTION

Humans have always been fascinated by animals: they were painted on cave walls and even seen as divine in certain cultures. Unfortunately, this also led to them being domesticated or captured for displays, the latter of which evolved into the modern zoo. Yet rarely have the animals’ needs been seriously considered in this relationship (Foster, 1999; Tait, 2016). More recently they have entered into discussion, as the concern for animal rights and conservation has increased, but the desires of the human spectators are still more highly regarded than the needs of the animals they are viewing. This has led to most enclosures being much smaller than natural habitats, with no places to hide, creating unease and even illness in the animals (Chutchawanjumrut, 2015). This disregard for wellbeing is harmful. Nevertheless, zoos do benefit conservation support and efforts. This is especially found in facilities accredited by zoological associations. Therefore, I would argue that an evolution of zoos is needed, not an elimination, as Emma Marris calls for in her recent New York Times article (2021). The design of zoos should be more animal-focused and naturalistic because these institutions are beneficial for conservation, but currently harmful to the individual animals in their care. In this paper, I will argue that the evolution of zoos is best done through a naturecentered approach with larger enclosures, a focus on conservation, and enrichment and habitats, including climate, that replicate those found in the animals’ natural environment. This will enhance the animals’ welfare better than other propositions. I will start this defense by briefly looking at the history of zoos and the progress that has been made so far. Then, I will expand on the issues that continue in the current model. Next, I will introduce the Nature-Centered approach which makes zoos more naturalistic and animal-focused in order to eliminate the issues of modern zoos. I will follow this by elaborating on the current benefits of these institutions, and how this new approach will further enhance these. Finally, I will critique other possible approaches to redesigning zoos. BRIEF HISTORY OF ZOO

In order to understand the modern zoo, one must be aware of how it came to be. The first documentation of zoo-like structures is from over 4,000 years ago. Egyptian pharaohs and Mesopotamian rulers built their empires, and as part of that process created royal menageries (Foster, 1999). They collected animals from around the world as they traveled and expanded their lands. At this time, exotic animals were a symbol of status and were reserved for the elite. The rulers had private gardens of animals, but only they and visiting rulers were allowed to enjoy them. As this was a show of domination and wealth, the animals’ welfare was not the focus. They were seen as possessions instead of beings. The depictions of monkeys and bears being pulled around by leashes at this time exemplify this (Foster, 1999). The animals were only given what they needed to appear strong for their symbolic representation of the rulers, namely food and water. Their health otherwise was not considered.

This version of zoos, where animals were kept in the private collections of the elite, was the dominant form for centuries.

The next era of zoos consisted of animal fights and traveling menageries. The former was a large source of entertainment. In the Roman empire, animal fights were open to the public, but when they became popular in Europe in the 17th century they were mostly reserved for the elite (Tait, 2016). It was expensive to replace the animals killed in battle, so only the wealthy could afford to attend. This continued the separation in who was able to view these animals, but it worsened the conditions for the animals. Instead of simply being observed or paraded, they were forced to fight to the death. Animals were now seen as a means for human pleasure, instead of objects of status. Their wellbeing was even less of a consideration as the animals did not need to be well-fed or even survive the journey to the location of their fight, as only some were needed in the arena.

In the 18th century, the viewing of animals in Europe was expanded to the public through traveling menageries (Tait, 2016). This transition made progress in terms of who was exposed to the animals, but traveling menageries still did not treat the animals well. As these exhibits traveled, the animals were kept in small caravans with bars on the sides (Tait, 2016). These enclosures did not provide any of the elements the animals would have had in their natural habitats. They were small and barren, not the ideal conditions for any species. Nevertheless, the aim of these was to display, not kill, the animals. Finally, some royals decided to open their menageries to the public, creating the more modern concept of a zoo. This shift strongly coincided with the increasing focus on pursuing knowledge, so many of these establishments viewed part of their task as scientific observation. Although this sounds promising for the animals’ conditions, many of their enclosures were purely concrete. There was no vegetation for them to hide in or to recreate their natural habitats (Elias, 2015). Therefore, the animals still suffered

Unfortunately, animals were not included in the ethical considerations of any of these eras. They went from symbols to objects to specimens, but they were never full beings in the minds of those containing or viewing them. The fact that animals are sentient should be sufficient reasoning for including them as stakeholders in ethical systems. However, if it is not, then the continuous discovery of new complexities and characteristics held by non-human animals should merit their inclusion. For example, elephants have rituals to mourn their dead, and dolphins have a complex language including grammar and names (Bradshaw, 2004; Ryabov, 2016). These are only two examples of the vast discoveries on animal culture and abilities. These creatures are not only sentient, they are intelligent. Their capacity for culture and communication, as well as for suffering, means that they should be considered in ethics. If they are included, then very few, if any, ethical theories can justify zoos in their modern form. For example, one key aspect of Kant’s philosophy is that no one can be treated as simply a means to an end, they must also be the end1 (Kant, 1997, 37). In these historical versions of zoos, animals were nothing but a means, as they were kept in zoos purely for the pleasure of the spectators. However, if the conditions of individuals living in zoos were improved, the purpose of keeping them in zoos would be their well-being as well as their benefits to conservation. Thus, Kantian philosophy would consider evolved zoos as more ethical. Utilitarianism would make a case for evolving zoos as well since utilitarians view something as ethical if it maximizes pleasure while minimizing pain (Mill, 1882, 9-10). Zoos currently maximize pleasure when they aid conservation efforts, but they are not minimizing pain because they do not treat the animals as well as they could. Thus, they are not ethical according to utilitarian principles. However, if zoos treated their animals better, they could be. The focus on conservation that I allude to here has started to become more common as public concern for animal welfare increases.

This rise in support has led to some improvement in zoos. One major factor in this advancement was the creation of organizations such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) in 1924 and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA)2 in 1935. These were created to uphold a higher standard of animal welfare. Over time their mission expanded and for accreditation by them today zoos and aquariums must also “(a) deliver a sound conservation message, or be of other educational value, (b) focus on natural behavior, [and] (c) not demean or trivialize the animal in any way” (“WAZA,” 2003, 2). Through these requirements, zoos are not only tasked with the improvement of their care for the animals, but also with putting an emphasis on educating the public about conservation. The creation of these organizations marked a new era for zoos where they actually benefited animals, in at least some regard. Nevertheless, these standards, although an improvement, do not sufficiently enhance the welfare of the captive animals. Thus, more progress is needed.

1 Although Kant did not view animals as rational beings, and as such did not include them in his philosophy, I am arguing under the premise of the previous sentence. Therefore, animals would be included as rational beings and would be considered in his ethical philosophy. 2 WAZA and AZA will be used interchangeably from now on as WAZA is international and bases its accreditations off of the accreditation given by the more local zoological associations. Therefore, all AZA-accredited zoos are also WAZA-accredited.

CURRENT PROBLEMS

Although animal wellbeing has increased with the evolution of zoos, there are still many issues that need to be addressed. One factor in this is that enclosures in zoos are much smaller than the territories wild individuals of the species would experience. For example, the enclosure of Gus the polar bear was 0.00009% of the size of his natural habitat in the Arctic, not an uncommon figure when comparing enclosure size to natural habitat (Chutchawanjumrut, 2015). Gus lived in the Central Park Zoo and became famous at the end of the 1900s because he would swim in figure eights for hours on end. Although this behavior may sound like a trick he was taught, it was actually a symptom of mental illness caused by his small living space and lack of stimulation. This illness is called zoochosis, a psychiatric disorder that is found in animals and caused by living in confinement (Maulana et al, 2020). This disease is commonly compared to schizophrenia as found in humans. Animals with this condition perform stereotypical behaviors, those that are repetitive and serve no purpose. This includes, but is not limited to: pacing, bar biting, vomiting, self-mutilation, and swimming in figure eights. All of these symptoms represent distress in the animals and they are extremely common. Oftentimes zoos will start treating their inhabitants that suffer from this with medication and behavioral therapy. However, that is an expensive route to take. Gus’s treatment alone cost over $25,000 (Chutchawanjumrut, 2015). For smaller zoos, this simply is not an option, so the animals may go untreated. The animals that are treated spend their lives drugged. This is a stark difference from how they would live in the wild. Furthermore, being watched causes stress in the animals (Maulana, 2018). As zoos are still focused on the humans’ enjoyment, they try to make the animals visible at all times, giving them no place to hide. This leads to chronic stress which contributes to zoochosis.

Another common cause of zoochosis is lack of stimulation. In nature, animals must be alert and problemsolve in order to survive. Predators have to hunt for their prey and prey have to be aware of possible predators nearby. This use of mental abilities is not found in zoos. Animals are given their meals without exerting mental effort, are safe from harm, and do not have a changing environment to keep them curious. It is thought that this lack of mental engagement is part of what causes the brain structure to shift, causing zoochosis (Grazian, 2012). One way to prevent this is to provide enrichment for the animals. This includes a wide array of tactics from sprinkling food around the enclosure to puzzle feeders to spraying perfume around in order to change the scent (Grazian, 2012). Although these additions may seem trivial, they allow the animals to forage, problem-solve, and experience something different. These are all behaviors that animals would engage in in the wild, despite using objects not found in nature. This enrichment is the best tool for fighting zoochosis, but it is not enough to make up for the problems caused by living in small enclosures and being watched (Grazian, 2012).

An even more fatal issue in zoos is the killing of ‘surplus’ animals. When zoos have more animals than they need or can house, they euthanize the excess individuals (Browning, 2018). These animals are not put down due to illness or old age, but simply because the institution in which they live already has enough of their species. A large portion of the public finds this practice inhumane when they are made aware of it, as can be seen from the outrage after the Copenhagen Zoo euthanized one of its young giraffes in 2014 (Browning, 2018). However, despite its frequency, many are unaware of its occurrence due to a lack of discussion surrounding it. Therefore, zoos continue to perform these euthanasias, but they should not.

It is important to note that all of the problems discussed so far have been those of AZA-accredited zoos. When looking at those that are not accredited, the situation is even more dire. AZA requires its members to promote conservation education, treat the animals with high standards, and provide enrichment opportunities. None of this is required by federal law (Grech, 2004). Therefore, zoos that are not members of the AZA do not need to do any of this. In terms of conservation efforts, many zoos do not provide funding, research, or educational benefits. Thus, non-accredited zoos tend to provide no benefits to animals. As for standards of care, the Animal Welfare Act of 1970 requires that the basic needs of the animals be met and that the mental well-being of primates is addressed (Grech, 2004). This act treats many species differently in terms of requirements and does not mention coldblooded animals at all, both of which are detrimental to the well-being of the zoo inhabitants. To demonstrate the quality of standards required, recall the situation of Gus mentioned above. He lived in an enclosure that was minute compared to his natural habitat, yet he lived in an AZA-accredited zoo. That means that his enclosure was considered to meet high standards of animal welfare. Animals held in zoos that are not AZA-certified are allowed to live in cages even smaller than that of Gus. So, the federal standards of welfare that zoos must meet are extremely low.

Finally, enrichment is not mandated by law. Although it is the best preventative measure against zoochosis, the Animal Welfare Act only mentions the psychological state of primates. All other animals, if mentioned at all, are only promised physical necessities. Thus, non-accredited zoos may not only lack the benefits, but also exacerbate the problems. If humans want to continue viewing these species live, they should improve the conditions of zoos so as to not harm others simply for their own pleasure.

NATURE-CENTERED APPROACH

In order to best address all of the current issues with zoos, larger enclosures, a greater sense of privacy, a more naturalistic design, and better enrichment opportunities are needed. These standards were chosen as they best address the current issues in zoos and prevent zoochosis. For this, I propose the Nature-Centered approach. This approach was designed by researching issues caused by modern zoos to see what needed to be addressed, as well as seeing how current proposals corrected these and if any fixed all of the issues. The main aspect of this proposal is founded in the current safari-style of a few zoos, in which the visitors are driven through a large area where multiple species coexist. However, there were three main distinctions added to this existing approach based on studies that found certain changes to be beneficial for the animals as well as studies that looked at the benefits of current zoos. These distinctions are:

1) Zoos will only be allowed to house animals from similar climates as they are located. This would allow all species contained in zoos to live in a more naturalistic, open setting. There will not be enclosures; instead, the species will coexist in a large plain or forest filled with flora from their natural habitats. This restriction is not to say that a zoo may only house animals native to its location, rather the climate the animals are native to must be the same as the zoo they are kept in. So, animals from the African savannah could live in a San Diego Zoo because these locations experience similar temperatures and humidity. However, sloths could not live there because they are prone to a more humid, rainforest setting. Therefore, larger roaming areas would be provided to all animals, and the areas would closely replicate the natural environments the animals are native to.

2) Included in this effort to reproduce animals’ habitats will be more natural enrichments,3 the second distinction. This draws from a study by Maulana and contributors where they added live fish to three captive jaguars’ ponds to initiate hunting behaviors. None of these jaguars were found to have zoochosis. The researchers attributed this to additional enrichment and a more natural enclosure in general, both of which led to more mental stimulation in the jaguars (2020). This natural enrichment will be incorporated in many ways, from planting bamboo koalas can actually scavenge off of themselves to providing a watering hole for elephants to play in. By replicating the stimulation animals experience in the wild, they will not only be kept mentally active, but the visitors will observe them doing the behaviors they actually would in nature. Instead of seeing an orangutan swing from a fire hose, they will see them on a vine. This benefits both the animals and the visitors.

3) The final aspect of this approach is that it would heavily emphasize conservation. As visitors are driven through the park, their guide will not only help spot animals and give fun facts about them, but will also talk about the conservation status of that species. This will include threats they face, the causes of those threats, the consequences if the species go extinct, and how visitors can help. The captive breeding programs within the facility, those that work to breed endangered species in captivity due to the extra challenges they face towards this in the wild, will also be discussed so that it is clear the institution directly impacts these efforts. This is important as it exemplifies to the visitors that they can make a direct impact as well, even if the species in need do not live nearby. This expands upon the current benefits that zoos offer towards conservation efforts, as discussed in the next section.

This approach improves all four of the objectives discussed at the beginning of this section. The enclosures will be much larger because species are able to share them. This will allow the animals to explore and exercise in a more vast environment, without requiring the zoo’s overall area to expand much. In terms of enrichment, there will be a wide variety available. These will also be much more naturalistic than many of the current methods. For instance, the elephants will be given an actual canopy to walk under, rather than a ceiling replicating the shadows of one, like that implemented in Zurich (Maulana, 2018). There will also be less stress caused by a lack of privacy as there will not be an endless stream of viewers surrounding the animals. Furthermore, they will be free to roam away from the vehicles if they are not enjoying the attention they are receiving. All of this works to improve the conditions that cause zoochosis in order to greatly reduce the cases of it, if not prevent them altogether. In addition, this model aims to be as naturalistic as possible. It does so by requiring a similar climate and utilizing the same plants and other landmarks of their natural habitats. All of this is centered around the animals’ needs and works to raise their quality of life. While removing the current problems of zoos, the Nature-Centered approach would also enhance the conservation benefits seen today. BENEFITS

Current zoos provide benefits for conservation, but not as much as the Nature-Centered approach would. This conservation focus is crucial due to the estimations that if humans continue their current activities, half to

3 Enrichment is a tactic used to keep the animals mentally stimulated. How this is done varies a lot, but it all has the goal of engaging the animals’ curiosity or problem-solving skills. By natural enrichment I mean that the methods and tools for this will be natural, not man-made, items.

two-thirds of all species on the Earth will go extinct before the end of the century (Miller et al, 2004). Thus, zoos are extremely beneficial in their work to preserve species. Their efforts at this are threefold. First, they educate the public on this topic. A study was organized by AZA in order to find out if their efforts towards this were successful. This research collection lasted over three years and involved surveying over 5,500 visitors to AZA-accredited zoos. According to this study, over half of the visitors reported that the zoo reinforced their support for conservation, strengthened their connection to nature, and caused them to rethink their role in environmental problems to instead see themselves as part of the solution (Falk et al, 2007). Therefore, zoos are critical in gaining public support for conservation. A day at the zoo is often considered a fun pastime with the family, but it is also an important tool in growing awareness and involvement in the public. Many people live in urban areas where they are not exposed to a great deal of animals or nature. By experiencing the majesty of these creatures first hand, they are more motivated to get involved in their preservation.

The Nature-Centered approach would further promote this. A study done about elephants in the San Diego Safari Park found that visitors had a greater intent of taking action towards conservation when they experienced the elephant up-close or saw them performing diverse types of behavior (Hacker and Miller, 2016). With the NatureCentered approach, both of these experiences will be increased. Since the visitors are driven through the park, they are able to get closer to the animals than they would in a typical zoo setting. There will be no barriers or trenches separating them from the inhabitants, only the side of the vehicle. As for the behaviors, the enrichment provided causes the animals to act in a way that is natural to them, which they would not if they were in a basic enclosure. This combined with the natural enrichment aspect will more closely reproduce their typical behaviors. Furthermore, the general emphasis on reproducing animals’ native habitats will allow for many behaviors that ordinary enclosures would not. For instance, visitors could see zebras running through a savannah or a leopard climbing a tree. All of this will increase the engagement and enjoyment of the visitors, which will, in turn, strengthen their support of conservation. These changes are for the benefit of the animal, but many of them happen to enhance visitors’ experiences as well. Through these modifications, visitors strengthen their connection to the animal and increase their conservation efforts.

However, zoos do not only educate about conservation. They also assist these efforts financially. It has been found that the community of WAZA members is one of the largest funders of conservation globally. In 2008 they spent well over $350 million in this area (Gusset and Dick, 2011). This funding goes towards projects all around the world that work to save natural habitats, assist in breeding endangered animals, and protect the environment and its inhabitants. Through this, WAZA members directly make an impact that reaches far beyond their gates. Furthermore, they help with these efforts by carrying out their own research and conservation programs. One type of program that WAZA-accredited zoos conduct is captive breeding. This is crucial in saving threatened species that are facing too much habitat destruction to breed in the wild (Conde et al, 2011). In these situations, the animals are unable to find mates due to the urbanization of their habitats and are facing new threats as foreign species are introduced to the ecosystem. However, animals do not face these same challenges in captivity and are able to reproduce, preventing the species from going extinct. The goal of many captive breeding initiatives is to be able to maintain these populations and eventually release them back into the wild. However, this stage is not always successful. Although current zoos are large players in protecting and preserving the natural world, their design is still not ideal for the animals held within them. The Nature-Centered approach will include captive breeding programs and will educate the public on these practices. It will enhance the benefits of the modern zoo, while simultaneously addressing the current issues.

This section not only demonstrates the ways in which this new approach magnifies the benefits of zoos, but also addresses why we should not abolish them. If zoos were eliminated completely, the public would not be as invested in animal conservation or welfare (Safina, 2018). The studies above show the importance of seeing these creatures in order to feel connected to them; without that, the public would become distanced from this issue. This may seem like an unsubstantiated claim, but consider how this is already true in the meat industry. Even though many people know about the cruel conditions animals are put in when they are raised to become food for humans, they continue to eat meat. Part of the reason is due to the fact that they do not see these creatures or conditions firsthand. Zoos allow people to see endangered animals in person. Witnessing these creatures first hand creates more compassion towards saving them (Safina, 2018). Without zoos, the general public could become too separated from the issue to continue supporting conservation efforts. Thus, zoos must not be eliminated. CURRENT SUGGESTIONS

Many changes have been proposed to enhance animal welfare in zoos, but none are as complete as the Nature-Centered approach. As stated above, a zoo designed according to this approach would include larger enclosures, a greater sense of privacy, a more naturalistic design, and better enrichment opportunities. There are multiple ways in which zoos can be reimagined to meet these requirements. In the examples below, a range of current possible solutions will be provided. Although all

of them are improvements over the current design, they are not as complete as the Nature-Centered approach.

The Philadelphia Zoo, for example, created a network of elevated walkways that the animals could use to explore all parts of the property (Chutchawanjumrut, 2015). Through this, they were given more space to walk and be active. They also get to explore different areas and choose where to go, causing mental stimulation. Finally, they are above visitors at many points which could cause them to feel less viewed and they have the ability to walk away if they are feeling stressed. Thus, the simple addition of pathways gave the animals a much better quality of life. Although this is a good option, it is not as natural as the Nature-Centered approach. The animals may be able to explore, but they are limited to caged pathways, as opposed to the open park I suggest. This option also only minorly improves enrichment, as it does not require the expansive options the Nature-Centered approach does.

The park proposed by Thorfun Chutchawanjumrut in “The Zoological Paradox” requires an even more radical shift. His goal is to not only improve the animals’ conditions but also make it a more interactive experience for humans. His suggestions for this include a wolf exhibit where the humans can race the wolves.4 This would give the wolves some exercise, which can be hard in the small enclosures of current zoos, and provides them enrichment. Another part of Chutchawanjumrut’s proposal is a lynx exhibit where every week the visitors shift the paths available to the lynx so that the animals are able to explore a new area and the visitors get to be directly involved. By providing a variety of experiences to the lynx, they will remain curious and mentally stimulated. They will also be given more room to move about. Although this project has not officially been accepted or built yet, it provides a great example of innovative ways in which zoos can be changed to benefit the animals. It also shows that making the zoos more animal-focused does not have to compromise the experience of the viewers. Still, it is not a very naturalistic design. The enrichment opportunities would mainly be made with metals and the animals are not able to hide from visitors. Furthermore, while interaction with visitors can be beneficial for the animals, this is only true under specific, controlled conditions (Learmonth, 2020). So, there would have to be research conducted to see if these interactions would be good for the animals or not, as their welfare is the top priority. Moreover, the proposed exhibits are specific for each species. Thus, for each animal added, a new exhibit would have to be designed and new research would have to be done to see if that interaction benefitted the animal. This makes it a very inefficient and costly change. The Nature-Centered approach allows for the visitors to see the animals performing natural behaviors without directly interacting with them. Therefore, costly research would not be needed. The Nature-Centered Approach is also much more versatile as its enclosure is geared towards ecosystems, rather than individual species.

The final example, which addresses all four standards, is Denmark’s Zootopia. It is currently being redesigned so that there will be no animal cages at all. The park will be divided into three continents and the visitors will explore them in reflective pods. In Asia they will float along a river; in Africa, they will bike through the plains; in America, they will fly on a lift above the animals (“Zoo,” n.d.). The aim of these pods is two-part. They both allow visitors to get close to the animals without limiting the animals’ space and they are made reflective with the goal of minimizing awareness of the animals that they are being watched. For animals where these pods do not provide enough safety, such as with lions, the observation stations will be hidden within hills, behind bamboo, or within stacks of lumber (“Zoo,” n.d.). These designs are aimed at preventing stress to the animals caused by being watched. In this project, animals will be able to live in a more natural environment that includes interaction with other species and excludes metal bars. They will be able to have a greater variety of experiences, which will help with stimulation, and not be aware of their viewers. However, the level of enrichment provided by this model is only slightly greater than current designs. Providing more natural opportunities for the animals to problem-solve would enhance this option. Furthermore, there are no guides in this proposal. The visitors are able to see the animals, but they are not being told about the importance of conserving them or how the zoo aids these efforts, as they would be in the Nature-Centered approach. So, while this solution greatly reduces the problems of current zoos, it does not necessarily enhance their benefits towards conservation. This is why the Nature-Centered approach is needed. CONCLUSION

Animals have been held in captivity for centuries, but only recently have their interests been considered. With the growth of animal rights movements and concern for conservation, zoos have started to raise their standards of care. This has been greatly assisted by the creation of organizations such as WAZA and AZA. Currently, zoos accredited by these organizations benefit conservation efforts and provide a higher quality of life than is required by governmental laws alone. They also require enrichment to be provided for the animals, which helps maintain their psychological well-being and prevent zoochosis. Nevertheless, zoos still put the visitors’ needs above the

4 The animals will have a track to run on between their dens and the visitors can race them on a bike from the other side of a wall that provides both visibility and protection (Chutchawanjumru, 2015).

animals. This leads to small enclosures with no hiding places so that the animals can be viewed at all times. Furthermore, zoos that are not accredited continue to neglect the psychological needs of their inhabitants. The priorities need to be shifted so that a zoo’s animals are considered before its visitors. The main aspects that need to be improved are the size of exhibits, the privacy of the animals, the extent to which nature is replicated, and the enrichment provided. It is also crucial that an emphasis is put on conservation education so that these institutions benefit the species as a whole. There are infinite ways in which a zoo can do this, as can be seen in the variety of examples given. Whether it is the simple addition of fish to a pond or a complete reinvention where no cages exist, these changes benefit the animals. However, many of these do not improve every aspect. Therefore, I propose the Nature-Centered approach. Zoos would be run similar to the safari style, but restricted to only species from similar climates. They must also focus on creating habitats and providing enrichments that are more naturalistic. In addition, conservation must be heavily focused on in the tours. This will enhance all four of the stated objectives. Happier, more active animals also lead to more enjoyment by the visitors, which causes them to increase their investment in conservation efforts. Therefore, by emphasizing the animals’ needs, the visitors and the natural world in general benefit as well. Thus, zoos should be redesigned through the Nature-Centered approach to enhance current benefits while minimizing detrimental effects. 1. Bradshaw, I. G. 2004. Not by Bread Alone: Symbolic

Loss, Trauma, and Recovery in Elephant Communities.

Society and Animals 12(2): 143-158. Bradshaw, I. G. 2004. Not by Bread Alone: Symbolic Loss, Trauma, and Recovery in Elephant Communities. Society and

Animals 12(2): 143-158. 2. Browning, H. 2018. No Room at the Zoo: Management

Euthanasia and Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31: 483-498. 3. Chutchawanjumrut, T. 2015. The Zoological Paradox.

Architecture Senior Theses 424. 4. Conde, D., et al. 2011. An Emerging Role of Zoos to

Conserve Biodiversity. Science 331(6023): 1390-1391. 5. Elias, A. 2015. “Zoos and camouflage.” In Camouflage cultures: beyond the art of disappearance, edited by E. Ann, H. Ross, and T. Nicholas, 33-46. Australia:

Sydney University Press. 6. Falk, J. H., et al. 2007. Why zoos and aquariums matter: assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium.

Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 7. Foster, K. P. 1999. The Earliest Zoos and Gardens.

Scientific American 281(1): 64-71. 8. Grazian, D. 2012. Where the Wild Things Aren’t:

Exhibiting Nature in American Zoos. The Sociological

Quarterly 53(4): 546-65. 9. Grech, K. S. 2004. Detailed discussion of the laws affecting zoos. Michigan State University College of

Law: Animal Legal and Historical Center. 10. Gusset, M., and G. Dick. 2011. The Global Reach of Zoos and Aquariums in Visitor Numbers and Conservation

Expenditures. Zoo Biology 30(5): 566-569. 11. Hacker, C. E., and L. J. Miller. 2016. Zoo Visitor

Perceptions, Attitudes, and Conservation Intent After

Viewing African Elephants at the San Diego Zoo Safari

Park. Zoo Biology 35(4): 355-361. 12. Kant, I. 1997. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, translated by M. Gregor. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press. 13. Learmonth, M. J. 2020. 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 10(11): 2037. 14. Marris, E. “Modern zoos are not worth the moral cost.” New York Times, June 1 15. Maulana, R. 2018. Architecture for Animals: The

REFERENCES

Expanding Challenges of Sustainable Development. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 195. 16. Maulana, R., J. M. Gawi and S. W. Utomo. 2020. 3. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 426. 17. Mill, J. S. 1882. Utilitarianism. London, UK: London Green and Co. 18. Miller, B., et al. 2004. Evaluating the Conservation Mission of Zoos, Aquariums, Botanical Gardens, and Natural

History Museums. Conservation Biology 18(1): 86-93.Ryabov, V. A. 2016. 19. The Study of Acoustic Signals and the Supposed Spoken Language of the Dolphins. St. Petersburg Polytechnical

University Journal: Physics and Mathematics 2(3): 231-239. 20. Safina, C. 2018. Where Are Zoos Going—or Are They Gone? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 21(1): 4-11. 21. Tait, P. 2016. “Ferocious lion acts.” In Fighting nature: travelling menageries, animal acts and war shows, 1-36.

Australia: Sydney University Press. 22. “WAZA code of ethics and animal welfare.” World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, November. 23. “Zoo.” Bjarke Ingels Group, accessed April 10.

About the Author

Talbot is a sophomore from Milwaukee, Wisconsin majoring in Biological Sciences with a concentration in Ecology, Evolution and Environment. Her research interests are in zoology, specifically animal well-being, human-animal relations and conservation efforts. She is a member of the Global Bachelor’s Program and is currently studying in Santiago, Chile. She is also part of the University’s Honors Program.

Mentor Details

Dr. Eyal Aviv is an Assistant Professor of Religion at the GW Columbian College of Arts and Sciences and the Honors Program. His main areas of study include Buddhist philosophy and intellectual history. His recent book is titled, “Telling Pearls from Fish-Eyes: Ouyang Jingwu and the Revival of Scholastic Buddhism,” that discusses how Indian Buddhist philosophy impacted the creation of modern Chinese Buddhism.