Animal Welfare, Weak Links, and the Future of Zoos & Aquariums in a Time of Change

As an Olympic summer draws to a close, I found myself reflecting on the difference between so-called strong-link sports like basketball or cricket, where a single exceptional player can carry a team to victory, and weak-link sports like a relay race or coxed eights, where the weakest team member often dictates levels of success. This got me wondering whether zoos were judged by their best-performing facilities and habitats, or their weakest links?

Curious to gather a broader perspective, I conducted a LinkedIn poll. The results were striking: 77% of respondents believed zoos are judged by their worst-performing facilities, while only 23% thought the best habitats set the standard for animal welfare.

While not definitive or necessarily representative of all zoo stakeholders, these findings aligned with my personal view—animal welfare in zoos is a weak-link issue, a conclusion which has significant implications for zoos and aquariums worldwide.

While the LinkedIn poll didn’t explore whether a single bad zoo has the same impact on the sector as a poor habitat might have on an individual zoo, the results suggest that the reputation of zoos and aquariums ultimately hinge on their poorest performing facilities, not their best.

Animal Welfare can't be "offset" - a poor habitat can never be justified by good work elsewhere

History supports this hypothesis where a poorly designed habitat or a badly managed animal overshadows the best a zoo has to offer elsewhere. We’ve all seen institutions embroiled in welfare controversies try to deflect criticism by pointing out their good work elsewhere, it never works - welfare can't be "offset"—a poor habitat can never be justified by good work elsewhere. Good deeds don't eliminate suffering and that's rightfully where attention should be focused, and no positive impact from is ever reliant on bad welfare; at best, it's just a very poor excuse for it.

For the 23% who believe zoos are judged by their best facilities, consider the closure of Bowmanville Zoo - North America’s oldest private zoo, after a video showing the mistreatment of a tiger went viral, or the impact of the story of Tilikum as portrayed in the film Blackfish, which transformed the regulatory framework and the cultural legitimacy of keeping marine mammals captive around the world. Welfare failures related to individual animals, whether real or perceived, can have profound and far-reaching consequences.

Public Perception vs. Expert Opinion:

Attempts by zoos to challenge public concerns on animal welfare matters are often premised on the position that zoo professionals are the best qualified to judge the welfare of their animals. However, while zoos are deeply committed to the welfare, and are undoubtedly well placed and in possession of considerable welfare expertise, the significance of external perspectives, including public opinion, shouldn’t be underestimated or so readily dismissed. In one of our whole-facility welfare audits where we assessed visitor perceptions of welfare, alongside independent, multi-metric evaluations of welfare drivers and indicators, we found that visitors were able to accurately predict the welfare performance of a diverse range of habitats. Interestingly, we also discovered that both actual and perceived levels of welfare directly impacted visitor experiences - "happy" animals make for happy visitors.

To those who dismiss public perceptions of welfare, let’s not forget that even among recognised experts, consensus on welfare and best practice is often lacking. Working around the world, I frequently encounter practices that are defended by experts in one region condemned by those in another. This situation arises because, while animal welfare is rooted in science, it elusive concept to define, and a challenging concept measure. It also encompasses diverse stakeholders groups and is continually evolving in moral relevance and scientific understanding. And so, whilst zoos should play a critical role in advancing the scientific understanding of zoo animal welfare, which consequently shapes societal expectations, they must also listen and adapt to those expectations, a lesson I quickly learned during my move from Europe to North America where attitudes toward animal welfare were quite different in a number of important areas.

Addressing the Weak Links in a Era of Accelerating Change

We live in an era of unprecedented technological, scientific, and societal change, with the next decade predicted to bring more change than the last century did. At the same time, trust in institutions is eroding, and the social license of zoos is in jeopardy if they fail to keep up with rapidly evolving societal expectations and scientific advancements in animal welfare science. Welfare is the principal lens through which society judges zoos, and if, as the poll suggests, zoos are indeed judged by their weakest areas, then raising standards from the bottom up is crucial to protecting their social license.

Welfare is the principal lens through which society judges zoos

At Care for the Rare, we believe the zoos that will emerge as leaders during this time of accelerating change will be those that are willing to disrupt rather than defend the status quo—not for the sake of it, but because it is critical to their viability. Last year, there were more than three times as many papers published on the subject of "zoo animal welfare" than during the entirety of the first decade of this century. This surge in understanding is happening at a pace zoos will increasingly struggle to keep up with. As scientific knowledge expands, societal expectations are shifting and outpacing the ability of zoos to update and build new habitats to meet these more demanding expectations, and existing models of delivering new habitats, will fail.

Unless zoos embrace change, and in fact be part of that change, they risk oblivion. A key component of this is abandoning a reactive mindset. Instead of aiming for compliance to accepted principles and responding to societal or scientific adjustments to those standards retrospectively, zoos must focus on driving change to avoid being left behind. Sadly, I currently see little evidence of this happening—countless large carnivore and elephant exhibits are coming on stream, or are in the pipeline, but few seem to understand or attempt to address the fundamental needs of these iconic species and instead, simply deliver more attractive, modestly tweaked versions of existing design concepts.

 The zoos that will emerge as leaders during this time of accelerating change will be those that are willing to disrupt rather than defend the status quo

At Care for the Rare, we specialise in leveraging the power of science, and a global network of experts to understand, and solve animal welfare challenges. Our whole facility, independently validated Welfare Fingerprint system provides a critical foundation for strategic planning and performance management, enabling zoos to understand strengths and weaknesses, and how welfare drivers interact with each other, and with welfare states across their institutions. This insightful tool is so much more than simply amassing a multitude of individual assessments; it’s a deeply analytical process that empowers continuous welfare improvement, on a solid, evidential basis. Our Animal Welfare Priority Identification System (AWPIS), which has so far harnessed the insights of around 200 experts worldwide, allows us to calibrate the fundamental needs of species free from the constraints of existing facility design conventions and traditional conceptions of best practice. This unique too empowers evidence-based innovation in facility design and welfare management, necessary to future-proof major capital projects during a time accelerating change. 

A Call to Action

As the poll results suggest, zoos and aquariums will continue to be judged disproportionately by their weakest areas. At a time of rapid societal and technological change, zoos must embrace the external forces that will continue to push expectations of welfare attainment at an ever-accelerating pace. By understanding institutional welfare performance, prioritising improvements in areas of weakness, and consistently overshooting existing conceptions of best practice, zoos can not only help ensure every animal receives the care they deserve, they can take important strides in protecting their social license, and with it their conservation potential at a time of catastrophic biodiversity loss.

Animal welfare might always be a weak link for zoos, but it can help shape a positive future

At Care for the Rare, we believe animal welfare is both an ethical obligation but also a strategic imperative, and so we are committed to pushing boundaries, questioning outdated practices, and harnessing science to drive innovation in the care and welfare of wild animals. Collectively, we can ensure that "weak-link" welfare issues help shape the future of zoos and aquariums, without jeopardising it.

Join the conversation:

If you have thoughts on how zoos can address their welfare challenges or suggestions of where you think they might be across the sector as a whole, we’d love to hear from you. Share your thoughts in the comments or reach out directly to discover how we can help you understand and address your weakest links, and embrace the latest insights in welfare science to stay ahead of the curve as you and your partner agencies develop new habitats.

Contact us at: info@carefortherare.com