Do naturalistic enclosures provide suitable environments for zoo animals?
Abstract
Zoo visitors perceive naturalistic enclosures (i.e. those attempting to replicate identifiable parts of the landscape of the species' habitat) as those that best satisfy the biological needs of the animals, and ensure therefore their welfare. However, the provision of a suitable environment with the resources that will allow the animals to satisfy their main biological needs in naturalistic enclosures has never been systematically explored; instead, it has been assumed. In this study we provide evidence that supports the general idea that naturalistic designs provide suitable environments for the animals. For that purpose, we analyzed 1,381 naturalistic and non-naturalistic enclosures in 63 Spanish zoological parks. In order to assess the suitability of the environment provided within each enclosure, a number of aspects related to the animals' main biological requirements were analyzed. We found a relationship between naturalistic designs and the suitability of the environment for the species housed. Most naturalistic enclosures (77.8%) provided suitable environments for their inhabitants. Non-naturalistic ones also had suitable environments, but in a lower percentage (39.7%). These results should be taken into account during zoo inspection and accreditation appointments, where enclosure suitability must be assessed in an accurate and fast manner. In this regard, a naturalistic design can be used as an adjunct indicator of enclosure suitability, but not exclusively, as not ev…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Enclosure suitability can be assessed by the degree to which it meets the biological requirements of its inhabitants.
“In terms of animal welfare, enclosure suitability can be assessed by the degree to which it meets the biological requirements of its inhabitants (Fabregas et al., 2011; WAZA, 2005).”
From Husbandry and enclosure influences on penguin behavior and conservation breeding (2016) · cites this paper as Fabregas et al., 2011
Enclosure naturalism does not necessarily indicate suitability for animal residents.
“Thus, enclosure naturalism does not necessarily indicate suitability for animal residents [5].”
From The Benefits of Increased Space and Habitat Complexity for the Welfare of Zoo-Housed King Penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) (2023) · cites this paper as [5]
Cites
Animal–visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions
Fernandez, E. J., Tamborski, M. A., Pickens, S. R., & Timberlake, W. (2009) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.06.002 · Cited by 311 · see citing works
Post-occupancy evaluation in the zoo
Maple, T. L., & Finlay, T. W. (1987) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/0168-1591(87)90250-4 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Husbandry and enclosure influences on penguin behavior and conservation breeding
Marshall, A. R., Deere, N. J., Little, H. A., Snipp, R., Goulder, J., & Mayer-Clarke, S. (2016) · Zoo Biology · doi:10.1002/zoo.21313 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Fuller, G., Jones, M., Gartland, K. N., Zalewski, S., Heintz, M. R., & Allard, S. (2023) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani13142312 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fàbregas, M. C., Guillén‐Salazar, F., & Garcés‐Narro, C.
- Affiliations
- Universidad Cardenal Herrera CEU (ES)
- P.A.S.A.C.T.A., Veterinary Faculty Cardenal Herrera University Moncada (Valencia) Spain
- Corresponding author
- Fàbregas, María C.
- Venue
- Zoo Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-06-17
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 362-373
- ISSN
- 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2361
- OpenAlex
- W1943195642
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
- Keywords
- zoo animal welfare
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Environment, Controlled, Housing, Animal, Spain
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review