The annual stocktake is part of the zoo's requirement to retain its license and takes about a week to complete. The information is shared around the world with other zoos, and helps to manage the worldwide conservation breeding programme for endangered animals. Watch Live. All present and correct? London Zoo starts annual stocktake of 19, animals.
These cookies do not store any personal information. There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Applied primatology in the modern zoo. There is no really meaningful way to perform an absolute comparison of, say, a Tasmanian devil and capuchin exhibit, except perhaps in regards to their relation to recommended or average usable space requirements for each species, as will be discussed further on. Although there is a general consensus that there should be large and complex exhibits, this has not often translated into specific recommendations. Elisa Rose rated it it was amazing Jun 04,
It allows for assessment of exhibit quality, comparisons between exhibits, assessment of potential exhibit improvements and the possibility to improve exhibit size guidelines and recommendations. As discussed above, the usable space measure is not a perfect reflection of exhibit quality, as it does not entirely account for complexity, however, this measure will be closely linked with exhibit quality and certainly comes closer than existing basic measures of exhibit size.
This method will also allow for comparisons between exhibits. Again, such comparisons are currently based either on basic exhibit size measurements, or on subjective assessments of how good or bad an exhibit seems to the observer. A usable space score provides an objective means of making more meaningful comparisons between exhibits. It must be kept in mind that such comparisons are only meaningful when comparing similar exhibits — those housing the same species or species with the same requirements and those for which the same sets of features have been measured and included in the score.
There is no really meaningful way to perform an absolute comparison of, say, a Tasmanian devil and capuchin exhibit, except perhaps in regards to their relation to recommended or average usable space requirements for each species, as will be discussed further on. Usable space calculations give us a means for assessing the benefits provided by possible exhibit improvements, as well as for coming up with the best ways to create improvements. By understanding the usable space calculation and which features contribute to it, we gain means to figure out how to increase the usable space of existing exhibits, or to build new exhibits that maximize usable space.
One of the basic ways to increase usable space is still to increase exhibit size in terms of floor space. For entirely terrestrial animals, such as most hoofstock, this will be the primary method for increasing usable space. Another method for arboreal animals is through modifying walls or ceilings to allow for climbing — for example through use of mesh, hand-holds or cargo nets Maple and Finlay, Mesh is often avoided, due to its unnatural appearance, but its contribution to usable space is important and methods of using climbable walls and ceilings while still maintaining a naturalistic appearance should be investigated.
As seen in this study and as found by Wilson, , these factors can account for a high proportion of usable exhibit space and this means these values may represent the easiest way of increasing usable surface area within an exhibit. Following Kitchen and Martin and Maple and Finlay , finding ways of encouraging more use of this space — for example by providing woodchip for foraging — may help open up a lot of spatial opportunities for the animals.
Overall, it is likely to be more beneficial to increase usable space through increasing the complexity of an existing exhibit as opposed to replacing or upgrading. Due to space limitations within zoos, exhibit size will be restricted.
It is, however, possible for zoos to increase the usable space available for animals by increasing use of the vertical dimension — adding platforms and pathways that create more spaces the animals are able to use and occupy. Finally, this work could have important implications for exhibit size recommendations. Although this project was not one of determining what the ideal recommended exhibit sizes for animals should be — rather of improving the ways in which we measure current exhibits — these measures could be useful in building future recommendations. Though we are able here to give a measure of usable space, this is not particularly meaningful without comparison to recommendations of ideal exhibit size.
As current recommendations are usually based on floor space rather than more complex usable space, this will not give us much of a basis for determining whether exhibits are suitable. However, usable space recommendations could be incorporated into future exhibit recommendations and guidelines. Kelling and Gaalema note that there are not enough quantitative recommendations for exhibit design. Although there is a general consensus that there should be large and complex exhibits, this has not often translated into specific recommendations.
Currently, there is a tremendous range of enclosure size guidelines While each of these documents specifically notes the importance of other considerations such as vertical height and environmental complexity, it is clear that there is very little consensus on how much space is necessary to provide to this and other species. It is our hope that having a measure of usable exhibit space might go some way toward being able to develop such guidelines, though it will take separate research to determine the usable space requirements for different species. We can compare the measures found in this study to the traditional enclosure dimension measures to see their advantage.
Usual space measures for this exhibit would simply represent the floor space 24 m 2 and the exhibit height 3. For example, the EAPA requirements for pygmy marmoset housing simply state that the animals require floor space of 2. Although reference is made to suitable provision of climbing structures, this is quantified by number of platforms and pathways rather than the space afforded by these.
If we were to only consider floor surface area in this way, we would be underestimating the usable surface area of the exhibit by a factor of almost 5. Using the traditional methods, we could say that this marmoset exhibit exceeds minimum requirements by more than three times, but if we include all usable surface area this is much higher.
Using the minimum EAPA requirements, we come to a required volume of Using the measure of usable volume, this comes out at This cannot be compared to the total required volume, as this volume would necessarily also include the empty space for keeper access and animal movement. Expression of exhibit requirements in terms of percentage of usable volume within the required space, or just an absolute value of minimum usable volume, would help capture this.
There are a number of methods by which usable space recommendations for exhibits could be developed, such as preferred social distance, animal body size, preference testing, and exhibit use studies Innis et al. Of some use may be information about home range or territory space in the wild, though zoos are often unlikely to have the resources to match this space, and as these can often reflect resource availability rather than space requirements per se , conclusions based on wild ranges may be misleading.
Size requirements will depend on species-specific factors, as well as individual preferences of the animals involved. Preference tests can be a valuable tool in determining how much extra space is important to the animals — if the animals will work to gain access to extra space as has been shown in studies on hens and rodents , then this space must be valuable to them; and at the point at which they would stop working for it, then it becomes welfare-neutral Petherick, Finally, exhibit use studies can tell us how much of the space, and what type of space, the animals prefer to use, and can shed light on what would be an appropriate amount of usable space.
There are many reasons to think that the size of exhibits provided for zoo animals will have important effects on their lives and welfare, through allowing more opportunities for choice and control, to exhibit natural behavior, and to maintain social groups. Currently, most exhibit size recommendations only refer to basic exhibit dimensions, without considering the space afforded by usable features within the exhibit. Here, we used measurements of a sample pygmy marmoset exhibit to develop two possible methods for measuring the usable space of zoo exhibits — usable surface area and usable volume.
For arboreal species like the marmosets, usable volume calculations seem to better capture the contribution made to usable space by different exhibit features. Usable surface area calculations are simpler and could be applied to most solely terrestrial species. Having a measure of usable space in place will give a better indication of the quality of different exhibits, and allow for comparisons between exhibits. Use of digital methods for modeling and measuring exhibits may help make the process faster and more accurate, and this is a promising direction for future research.
With an increasing focus on positive animal welfare, zoo professionals aim to ensure animals are thriving in their environment, as opposed to merely coping Maple, Increasing usable space is one way to promote this end. If we try to arrange exhibit features to encourage thriving, exhibits will need sufficient size and complexity to achieve these results. Measurement of usable volumetric space will permit zoos to enhance wellness by attention to the details of space and the usable features within that space.
HB conceived the method, performed the measurements and calculations, and wrote the manuscript. TM contributed to the idea and planning, and helped to shape the manuscript. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We extend thanks to the staff at the National Zoo and Aquarium Australia for access and assistance for this project. We also thank Holly Molinaro, Joseph Soltis, and Michelle Wood for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Anderson, M. Reaching new heights: The effect of an environmentally enhanced outdoor enclosure on gibbons in a zoo setting. Burton, F. Zoo praxis and theories. College Sci. Google Scholar. Clark, F. Space to choose: network analysis of social preferences in a captive chimpanzee community, and implications for management.
Coe, J. Facility design for bachelor gorilla groups. Zoo Biol. The myth of a simple relation between space and aggression in captive primates. EAPA Goerke, B. Behavioral changes of a juvenile gorilla after a transfer to a more naturalistic environment. Hebert, P. Orangutan use of vertical space in an innovative habitat. Hediger, H. Wild Animals in Captivity.
London: Butterworths Scientific Publications. Herrelko, E. Perception of available space during chimpanzee introductions: Number of accessible areas is more important than enclosure size. Hosey, G. How does the zoo environment affect the behaviour of captive primates?
Innis, G. On spatial requirements of captive social animals. Kelling, A. Postoccupancy evaluations in zoological settings. Kitchen, A. The effects of cage size and complexity on the behaviour of captive common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus jacchus. Lukas, K. Nest building in captive Gorilla gorilla gorilla. Maple, T. Erwin, T. Maple, and G. Orang-utan Behavior.
Toward a science of welfare for animals in the zoo. Elevating the priority of zoo animal welfare: the chief executive as an agent of reform. Evaluating the Environments of Captive Nonhuman Primates. In Primates. New York, NY: Springer, — Applied primatology in the modern zoo. Zoo Animal Welfare. Berlin: Springer. Kleiman, K.
Thompson, and C. Baer Chicago: University of Chicago Press , — Mellen, J. Environmental enrichment for felids: an integrated approach. Zoo Yearbook 35, — Miller, A. How access to exhibit space impacts the behavior of female tigers Panthera tigris. Perkins, L. Variables that influence the activity of captive orangutans.
Petherick, J. Jeffrey Rushen. Edward N. Home Contact us Help Free delivery worldwide. Free delivery worldwide. Bestselling Series. Harry Potter. Popular Features. New Releases. Description Zoo Animal Welfare thoroughly reviews the scientific literature on the welfare of zoo and aquarium animals. Maple and Perdue draw from the senior author's 24 years of experience as a zoo executive and international leader in the field of zoo biology.
The authors' academic training in the interdisciplinary field of psychobiology provides a unique perspective for evaluating the ethics, practices, and standards of modern zoos and aquariums.
Searching Library: san diego zoo global. For: Count 2. Zoo animal welfare. Maple, Terry L ISBN: Pub. Date: c Call Number. STEM Storiez - Counting Zoo is an interactive picture book that engages children in learning through a board book and a . Terry Pearson marked it as to-read.
The book offers a blueprint for the implementation of welfare measures and an objective rationale for their widespread use. Recognizing the great potential of zoos, the authors have written an inspirational book to guide the strategic vision of superior, welfare-oriented institutions. The authors speak directly to caretakers working on the front lines of zoo management, and to the decision-makers responsible for elevating the priority of animal welfare in their respective zoo.
In great detail, Maple and Perdue demonstrate how zoos and aquariums can be designed to achieve optimal standards of welfare and wellness. Product details Format Paperback pages Dimensions x x Illustrations note 3 Tables, black and white; XIX, p. Other books in this series. The Welfare of Cats Irene Rochlitz. Add to basket. The Welfare of Horses Natalie Waran. Zoo Animal Welfare Terry L.