What is a "Zoo" and what is an "Aquarium"?

or "The Ten Commandments"

The philosophical justification

Love or hate

Zoos are central to the Western experience of animals.¹
Few other areas of public life can engender the passions that zoos can raise.
The concept of a zoo is almost holy to some and a blasphemy to others. To the majority of the world, however, it is a place of entertainment.
It is probably fair to say that zoos are, at best, underestimated and, at worst, misunderstood.
Underestimated because their potential is so very great; as a means of education and understanding, as a living link between the natural and unnatural worlds, as a place to relax from care and stress, somewhere to touch the edges of our human past and a focus point for our future.
Misunderstood because good zoos aren't there to keep animals in captivity but to set them free. Unless people can appreciate at first-hand what wild animals are, no-one will understand why we should be trying to protect these species from extinction. Bad conditions are the fault of bad humans and bad management, just look at Enron, but they are in a (dwindling) minority. Animals in zoos live longer and are healthier than their wild counterparts. Although some of them may be closely genetically related to us, the gap is several million years wide and not getting closer. This is not a reason to treat these animals badly but one not to treat them as humans.

A short history of zoos

Ancient times

There seems to be a human need to keep other living creatures captive and from about 10,000 years ago, when people first became cultivators rather than hunters, they have caught and kept them in enclosures of various kinds. Over time, some of these captured creatures became domesticated, like dogs, cats, sheep, cattle and chickens. Some have remained at least half wild, such as elephant, ostrich, falcon and ferret, although they have been used for centuries by man. Others, like the lion, tiger, bear, gorilla, giraffe and crocodile are still so wild in their nature, even after having being kept captive for many generations, that they remain a real danger to human beings.
Five thousand years ago the kings of Mesopotamia, the area today called Iraq, had their zoos and the biblical "Hanging Gardens of Babylon" of King Sennacherib were probably an early attempt to recreate a mountain ecosystem and included areas for animals and birds.
Exotic animals were collected by the Pharaohs of Egypt about 2,700 BC and they built animal enclosures, fish ponds and bird cages.
During the Shang dynasty in China, 1,500 BC, there were royal parks for captive animals and Marco Polo reported on the great collection of the Kublai Kahn during his travels eight hundred years ago.
The Romans are particularly well known for the wild animals they kept for gladiatorial contests. The far-flung Legions were ideal for obtaining the necessary replacements, both human and animal.
When Cortés arrived in America, 1519 AD, he found the Aztecs and the Incas had many gardens and parks filled with animals and birds.
These menageries were little more than collections of local wildlife captured by hunters, supplied by trading merchants or the occasional exotic ones received as royal gifts. In 1255, Henry III of England had a house built in the Tower of London for an elephant he had been given by King Louis of France. His great white bear is notable for the fact we know that it cost four pence a day for his keep and that he wore a muzzle and chain while fishing, or washing himself, in the river Thames.
The 'Age of Exploration', in the 16th century after the Renaissance, brought a great number of new species into the animal collections of Europe. It became socially important for kings, cities and rich merchants to have large, varied ones and ships returning from voyages around the world brought newly discovered animals with them. Because of insufficient biological and ecological knowledge most of these animals did not live very long and replacements were always needed from the wild.
The first "zoos", as we know them, were created in the great capitals of Europe during the late 18th and 19th centuries. Most of them stemmed from the old royal menageries and remained for some time private property. The Vienna zoo at Schonbrunn was the result of a relocation of Prinz Eugen's royal menagerie in 1752, but the public had to wait until 1779 before being able to see (free!) the animals. The main differences from the older animal collections was an emphasis on research and scientific learning and a park-like setting. London Zoo was the world's first scientific zoo, opened in 1828, housing a collection of exotic animals that were studied by eminent scientists of the day. Again, the public were not admitted in London until 1847. The Zoological Society of London, founded in 1826, justified London's zoological collection as "the advancement of zoology and animal physiology and the introduction of new and curious subjects of the Animal Kingdom". No words about the value of entertainment. In 1848 a German animal collector, Carl Hagenbeck, built a zoo in Hamburg allowing animals outdoor access. He believed enclosures should resemble nature. However, only a relatively few zoological collections adopted his method and most animals remained indoors.
The park-like setting and the scientific interest were combined in the appellation "Zoological Garden", which Websters records as being first used in 1829 and meaning 'a garden or park where wild animals are kept for exhibition'. The first printed reference to a "Zoo" was in 1843. The captive animals were studied and some serious attempts made at breeding. We owe a great deal of our basic taxonomic and zoological knowledge to the scientific researches of those 19th Century zoos. It is interesting to note that the conceptual foundation for "zoos" was in the pre-Darwinian era, before a family relationship between humans and animals was suggested.
Until the middle of the 20th century zoos generally remained menageries, typified by rows of (almost identical) cages displaying different specimens. Display is the important word and not much thought was given to the individual requirements or the welfare of an animal species. If an one died, a new one was obtained. Animals were barely perceived to have physical needs, let alone mental and emotional needs, and many were kept in appalling conditions. Animals had to be easily seen and the epitome of a 'good' zoo was one with hundreds of exotic species. Heavy iron bars were generally used to hold every animal thought likely to be dangerous to humans and cage interiors were tiled for easy cleaning.
Zoos were very popular and the public paraded up and down at weekends to gawk at the 'beasts' on show. Education was neither universal nor very comprehensive at the time and few visitors had even a rudimentary idea about where the animals came from or their relationship to mankind. Little effort was made to explain the diversity of the animals, their habits or habitats.

The recent past

Massive material destruction and the traumatic human suffering and displacement brought about by the 2^nd World War (1939 - 1945) were instrumental factors in causing a change in the public attitude towards the environment. Perhaps so many people lost their homes and belongings that they became to appreciate more what was left behind. Those that returned 'home' from foreign lands often found nothing but tragedy. Life took on a new meaning for many and there was a general move towards achieving a 'better world'. One of the positive aspects of the war was that millions of people saw countries, creatures and cultures they would otherwise never had experienced. This view into the outside world was to have a profound influence on social thinking.
How much the rapid increase in the post-war human population, the extension of universal education, the revolutionary developments in the communications media or the dismantling of old imperial regimes made people think in new perspectives is open to debate. For whatever reasons, the 2^nd World War marks a watershed in public attitudes towards the environment and, consequently, zoos.
The reconstruction of war damage was important for the future of zoos too. Particularly the zoos in the cities of central Europe had suffered badly from the conflict. Since almost all of these, with the exception of Hagenbeck in Hamburg, were publicly owned, costs were not such an important factor. The new enclosures and buildings were, in the main, an improvement on the old. Zoos which had not been so devastated found they needed themselves to make improvements simply to maintain their status. This competitive struggle between zoos is very similar to the arms race where ever more architectural elegance and technical sophistication drives the spiralling costs even higher.
During the 1950s and 1960s a different type of zoo had come into being and had spread rapidly. These institutions were neither based on cultural tradition nor scientific interest but commercial ambition. Many of these were simply extensions of private hobbies and brought a very mixed breed of contestants into the zoological arena. These entrepreneurs recognised the potential money to be made by entertaining the public and satisfying their curiosity about the animal kingdom.
Naturally, the old zoological gardens followed these developments with unease and considered what they could do to protect themselves by distancing themselves from the newcomers. Unfortunately, the public came to view all institutions with animals as zoos and did not make distinctions. (Even as recently as 1999, the leading zoological gardens in Europe were still trying to get legal protection for the name "Zoo" - to no avail.) Zoos soon became established worldwide as recreational centres and the 'advancement of science' was largely forgotten.
If the initial interest in the environment focused on repairing the obvious, material damage caused by the war, it shifted gradually to secondary factors which might have longer term effects. A few influential people made a case for paying more attention to what human actions did to the natural environment. This idea generated an entirely new philosophy about human responsibility for changes in nature and, if only out of self-preservation, mankind should 'manage' more of it's actions.
International and national agencies began to develop these concepts and explore cause and effect. Universities taught more environmental subjects and science found fresh fields to conquer. Human population explosions in regions of the world where zoos obtained most of it's exotic exhibits caused fears of a Malthusian disaster. The questions raised were not ones zoos were well equipped to answer. Whereas zoos had previously occupied an unchallenged authority on matters concerning wildlife they were soon faced with competing experts who looked at the problems from an entirely different angle. Conflicts between the 'needs' of zoos and those of the 'environmentalists' began to occur and were invariably settled in favour of the environment.
Although the World Conservation Union (IUCN) was founded in 1948, progress at a political level was slow and their World Conservation Strategy was not published until 1980. During the intervening thirty years, the environmentalists had made substantial progress in scientifically supporting their case. They had achieved some legal milestones (CITES being the most publicised) and in doing so had encouraged a more environmentally conscious public. Public opinion was also changing with the development of sophisticated natural history television documentaries, the expanded opportunities for global travel, and an increased recognition of the welfare implications of captivity. People started to question the role of zoos and their commitment to conservation, education and animal welfare.
Unfortunately, the old adage "a little knowledge is dangerous" proved true and zoos were soon faced with a wave of public criticism, often quite unjustified, culminating in some sensational sit-ins by animal activists during the late 1980s. These dramatic events did, however, contribute to the pace of change in the zoo community.
The publication of the World Conservation Strategy in 1980 was an important stage in the development of environmental conservation efforts and was followed in 1991 by Caring for the Earth and the Global Biodiversity Strategy and the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992. These forward-looking documents and the positive public reaction to them forced zoos into thinking about some suitable response. Zoos had no option but to begin to change.
Although zoos may not have moved as fast as the environmentalists, changes had taken place in the 1970s and 1980s. Generations had changed and new faces had brought new ideas and new approaches with them. The onetime 'radical thinkers' of Jersey and San Diego had became the ruling gurus and their methods the object of international envy and duplication. A great deal of new building, among them the lofty Aviary in London Zoo and the massive concrete creations in Münster, had improved the optics and new discoveries and methods had improved animal care.
A number of the traditional zoos realised they needed to more actively combat criticism to reaffirm their classical identity. To do this they would have to bring their husbandry practices up to an unimpeachable standard and strengthen their marketing, nationally and internationally, to refurbish their image. Not all zoo directors were blind to the need for change and there were notable exceptions who had long acknowledged that they had responsibilities towards the "Wildlife" which they kept captive. On their initiative the World Zoo Conservation Strategy (WZCS), a singular document in zoo history, was published in 1993.
This defined the responsibilities and opportunities of the world’s zoos and aquariums towards conservation and global wildlife. It set out the strategic priorities which individual zoos and aquariums and their co-operative networks should concentrate on in order to harmonize with current public attitudes and essentially justify their existance.

  1.	Conservation should be the central theme of the zoo

  2.	Education must recieve priority as an essential conservation task.  

  3.	The zoo must directly contribute to species and habitat conservation.

  4.  	Zoos should continue scientific research in the interests of conservation.

Zoos & aquariums today

In the intervening ten years since publication of the World Zoo Conservation Strategy a great deal has changed, for the better, in zoos and aquariums throughout the world. The influence of the WZCS has reached all corners of the globe. All regional zoo organisations have adopted the WZCS as a standard guideline for membership and recent European Community directives have recognised it as a necessary philosophy for all "zoos".
The secretive, 'club' atmosphere which typified the International Union of the Directors of Zoological Gardens (IUDZG) was replaced in 1995 by a more publicity friendly and dynamic World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA).


WAZA - World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
AZA - American Zoo & Aquarium Association 
EAZA - European Association of Zoos and Aquaria 
ARAZPA - Australian Regional Association of Zoological Parks/Aquaria Inc.
SEAZA - South East Asian Zoo Association 
PAAZAB - Pan-American Association of Zoological Gardens, Aquaria & Botanic Gardens 
AMACZOOA - Mesoamerican & Caribbean Zoo & Aquaria Association
CZA - Central Zoo Authority (India)
JAZA - Japanese Association of Zoos and Aquariums
SZB - Sociedade de Zoológicos do Brazil
FUNPZA - National Foundation of Zoological Parks and Aquaria

Membership of national and international associations is now subject to, admittedly sometimes flexible, publicly-acceptable standards. 'Bad' zoos are not admitted (approved) and behind-the-scenes pressure is used to encourage overdue improvements in laggard institutions. Some recalcitrant members have even been thrown out.
Perhaps the most impressive development has been the extent to which the associations have grasped the banner of 'conservation' in the last ten years in creating a huge number of ex-situ (away from the original animals' habitat) programmes with the aim of rescuing endangered species. These programmes ideally form a reserve population of the species and may one day be used to restock the wild population.
Captive breeding also means zoos nowadays have fewer wild caught animals and this reduces the pressure on the wild. Some of the breeding programmes have been so successful that animals have been given contraceptives to stop the captive population getting too large.
Several species have already been returned to the wild from zoo animals. These include the Black-faced Ferret, Przewalski's horse, Addax antelope, European bison, European otter, Lynx, Waldrapp ibis and European stork.
Every zoo worth a second glance today participates in several such programmes and proud notices trumpet the fact on every appropriate enclosure. It is perhaps churlish to note that few of the species are actually critically endangered according to the IUCN, but are mostly very popular zoo attractions.
Zoo marketing has become much more professional and several large zoos employ full-time marketing staff. The larger regional and international associations now boast modern offices with qualified personel and up-to-date equipment. Meetings are well publicised and reported in the press. Email press releases are common. Education, veterinary and enrichment sub-organisations complement the main structure. Zoo-friends societies support nearly all major zoos and a large number of the smaller ones. The Internet has been a boon and glossy web sites offers tempting glimpses to attract visitors.
Zoos contend that they have ceased to be private (mostly royal) collections of local wild animals, they have gone through the menagerie stage of displaying every variety of wildlife, they have attained the living museum status of being zoological gardens and they now aspire to become the "Conservation Centre", an environmental resource for future generations.

The balance sheet approach

On the one hand, zoos are very different from other types of organisations but it is a mistake to divorce them from enterprises altogether.
Zoos, privately or publicly owned, are subject to all the normal strictures of business and the management is accountable to someone, a board, a city department or a bank. Finance, investment, cost control, planning, purchasing, sales, marketing, labour relations, wages, pension funds and profits are all day to day matters which occupy the attention of zoos. They have to operate within normal business parameters and their actions often need to be understood in relation to these constraints.
In many places in the world, economic conditions have changed a lot for the worse in the last decade. Public and private disposable income has risen in most cases but not as fast as the costs. Local governments in Europe, for example, are finding it increasingly difficult to continue providing traditional public services. These financial woes may not be catastrophic but they have caused a reappraisal of expenditure which has had an effect on zoos.
Most cities and town which have zoos value them as cultural, educational and commercial assets. Zoo funding, or hidden subsidies, have been always been part of communal budgets. In the good old days this largess was justified on scientific grounds or to maintain the status level expected of the zoo and income was sufficient to cover the needs. Rivalry between cities was sufficient grounds for funding a new animal enclosure or adding extra workers.
Recession, demography and, perhaps, complacency are all at fault. Taxes declined, pensions and unemployment grew, expectations continued unabated. No-one wanted to shout "fire!" until the place was burning.
Politicians can always describe a situation better than they can solve it. Terms like "cutting back" or"radical measures" are usually used for situations already out of control. Effectively, those least able to resist are the first to be subject to any 'savings'.
Zoos have come under attack in two ways. The budget upon which they relied, fought for, for many years has been reduced. This was often not all at once but spread over a number of years accompanied by exhortations to be more economically efficient. City governments have exerted public and private pressure to achieve cost reductions, sometimes to the point of moral blackmail. One recent example is an ultimatum given to a zoo, 'if we give you the money we will have to sack five fire-fighters'.
The other method has been to give the zoo independence and remove it from the town's area of responsibility. The creation of new zoo companies has gone apace. This has invariably meant the dethroning of the zoo director, who now finds a superior, a business director, in charge. This move is probably long overdue. Zoo directors who have been excellent biologists or zoologists have often not been very competent in business management. Nevertheless, it does indicate that the scientific justification for zoos and any resultant esteem has been relegated in favour of economic efficiency. At first glance the "Zoo Inc." may seem to be a good idea. The city has absolved itself of legal responsibility, the zoo continues to exist and is now free to forge new commercial partnerships.
Unfortunately, to date, the master plans of these zoo companies have demanded huge investments in infrastructure to make the zoo profitable in the future. No problem of course, loans have been guaranteed by amenable city governments. Despite arguing about the beauty of some of the enclosures, it has to be admitted that the Euro 50 million here and the Euro 50 million there have certainly raised the general attractiveness of the zoos. But even with low interest rates these loans have to be repaid.
Zoos can obtain income from concessions, the restaurants and stalls, from marketing T-shirts and souvenirs, from advertising, from animal adoptions and donations, from a zoo-friends society or from other enterprises, but their most important source remains gate receipts. Like every other firm in the entertainment industry, zoos rely on attracting their customers from a catchment area. Unlike previous times, this catchment area is not restricted to the local region but can extend for a hundred miles or so. If what the zoo offers is attractive enough, people will spend a few hours in the car to get to them. If they can offer enough new attractions, visitors will also return more frequently and not go to the competitors. If the attractions are really good, the entrance fees can be increased.
IF! As mentioned earlier, competition creates a spiral which is difficult to break. The more attractive a zoo becomes, the greater the incentive for competing entertainments to invest in more startling items to attract the customers back. As the visitors dwindle, the next Euro 20 million has to be found to build the elephant house. Zoo investments are sometimes out of necessity because enclosures have become so old that the welfare of the animals demands rehousing. So long as the money is carefully spent, a new enclosure can attract visitors and over a few years amortize itself.
The big question mark attached to the new breed of entrepreneurial "Zoo Inc." zoos is whether the investment will generate the expected increase in visitors and revenue. At the present time, it looks unlikely that the optimistic forecasts will be fulfilled in the medium-term. And, things being what they are, the next huge tranche of the master plan is about to be spent. Fortunately, if everything doesn't work out the way everyone hoped, the managing director can be sacked and the city will hold an urgent meeting to find funds to save the zoo.
Can zoos be profitable? Yes, without a doubt. However, one must consider the different markets. In the USA quite a few zoos are commercially viable, but very few in Europe. Copying the Americans is not a recipe for success in Europe since the consumer is not used to paying huge sums for entertainment. It may be unpalatable, but if Europeans wish to retain their major zoos in good shape, they must be prepared to finance them indefinitely.
So far the question of what a zoo could or should be like has not been mentioned. The reason for this is that aspirations and intentions cannot be divorced from the financial background. Talking about what zoos should do only makes sense if it is economically feasible.
Not surprisingly, a zoo has a different cost structure to most businesses.
Capital costs, as discussed, can be enormous but they do not have to be. At one time zoo buildings were planned almost to last forever, partly because the zoologists and biologists believed they had created the perfect enclosure. Nowadays it is recognised that new knowledge about species behaviour and ecology will require an appraisal of husbandry methods every ten to fifteen years. Master plans should work on the basis of renewing the whole zoo every fifteen to twenty years (perhaps less), so individual buildings either need to be constructed with flexibility in mind or should be kept relatively cheap. An expensive building does not mean it is attractive to the public and suitable for the animal. What may be suitable for the animal may not meet the demands of the visitor. Several zoos have managed at reasonable cost to combine optically pleasing enclosures without sacrificing biological requirements. We will return to this aspect later.
Personel are a major cost factor in zoos. That said, the curators and keepers are not very well paid. The historical wage for zoo workers was gauged on the length of the cleaning broom and the sums have not grown in line with other employment categories, despite the increased responsibility and technical expertise of modern keepers. Curators, veterinarians, scientists, technicians and upper management are better paid but no-one wishing to get rich has much chance in a zoo. Most have only a nucleus of permanent staff with a number of part-timers supplemented by volunteer labour. One reputable zoo in the US has 151 full-time, 33 part-time, 50 seasonal and 429 volunteers. The ratio is probably a good reflection of other zoos.
People who work in a modern zoo need to be keen, flexible and patient. A good zoo keeper can not only raise the quality of animal care through intelligent feeding and designing enrichment activities but can act as the zoo's ambassador to the visitors, explaining and motivating. A well-trained and enthusiastic zoo team can go a long way to compensating for the lack of optically attractive exhibits by interacting with the visitors and the animals. The visitor appreciates getting first-hand information and, where sensible, contact. From the zoo staff side this has to be spontaneous and is therefore more likely to create a long-lasting impression.
Everyday running costs can vary dramatically from one time of the year to another. The demand for energy, needed in every zoo, will not only be seasonal but depend heavily on the animals kept. Rainforest exhibits consume huge amounts of energy in colder climates. Aquariums, aquatic mammal show cases and reptile displays need regular heating as well as the constant pumping and cleaning of water. The technical support areas, mostly concealed from visitors, are sometimes bigger than all the display tanks put together. Provision must also be made in temperate climates for winter quarters for some birds, hoof stock and large mammals normally on show outside. Although some species generate enough body heat to keep indoor stalls above freezing, a lot of additional energy is used in winter quarters. The more up-to-date a zoo is, the more energy will be required to run offices, staff facilities, veterinary and quarantine stations, school classrooms and static exhibits.
All animals require feeding and a very large percentage of zoo expenditure goes in purchasing food, just like human households. The composition of this varies according to the type of species and the number of individual animals. Big carnivorous cats require a lot of good quality meat, hoof stock need mountains of prime hay and specialised feeders, like Koalas for example, have to have bunches of particular leaves flown in. The species specific feeding is necessary but expensive. As we understand more about the animals held in zoos from research in the wild, it will become more rather than less expensive.
Administration costs are no doubt relatively higher for small zoos. Telephone receptionist, typist and ticket saleswoman are often one and the same person, frequently a relative of the director or owner since family businesses are still common. However, even these have a computer to keep records and have ceased to do their inventories on the back of an envelope. Despite initial resistance to the technology in the early 1990s, all but the tiniest communal zoos now have a computer and use it to do accounts, wages, correspondence, animal stock lists, zoo education leaflets, enclosure labeling, designing zoo brochures, advertising material and manage their web sites. The increased efficiency is obvious and undoubtedly the expenditure is cost effective.
Not only have the associations found a need to market themselves but also the individual zoo finds it necessary to publicize itself to attract visitors. The larger zoos have marketing departments dedicated to presenting a comprehensive, positive image and to insuring that the zoo remains constantly in the local news and public eye. The smaller zoos are restricted by the budget they can allocate. Nevertheless, through contacts in the local press, staging periodic special events in the zoo and using zoo-friends to drum up support most are able to maintain a public presence. Since figures are hard to come by, it is difficult to judge the value of these marketing efforts in the longer term.
The animal stock, the living inventory, also is a cost factor not to be underestimated. Animal planning Zoos - Frequently asked questions Why do bats hang when roosting? Although these are successes, Zoos are not involved enough in captive breeding and in-situ conservation. Particularly, more needs to be done supporting in-situ projects. All captive breeding programmes designed to rescue a species from extinction should also be involved with habitat conservation. Species and habitat are inextricably linked. If we want to save a species, we must also save the habitat. The modern "Conservation Centre" zoo SHOULD be a way of displaying captive animals (in their natural habitat and with sufficient environmental enrichment) so that the animals feel no stress and visitors have an empathy with the species. Zoos SHOULD participate with financial and material resources in both ex-situ and in-situ programmes to rescue endangered wildlife. Zoos SHOULD educate visitors about endangered species and explain how ordinary people can participate in species conservation.

Zoos & aquariums tomorrow

EDUCATION

RECREATION

CONSERVATION

RESEARCH

CULTURE

, and

ECONOMICS

.
1. Dr Cornelius Holtorf, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm, Sweden; Dr David Van Reybrouck, Department of History, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. (Corresponding author: Cornelius Holtorf, cornelius.holtorf@raa.se)