To what extent is space necessary in an enclosure?

animalszoos

animalszoos

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
This has been something that I haven't been able to grasp lately. How do we determine how much space a captive animal needs? I'm not sure there is an answer to this, however zoos must base their enclosure size off some sort of observation/facts.

For example, will birds of prey like Griffon vultures soar miles in the sky if there is no need - they are soaring in search of carcasses, but if these carcasses are provided to them, what is the need? This is the same with every species since animals move in search of food/mates/water, however if all these needs are catered for in a limited space, then wild animals will simply stay within this space.

This can be seen at bears in campsites, where they can live off food provided by campers and therefore do not need to travel in search of food.

Therefore, is the argument that "zoos do not offer enough space for animals" really valid, if even wild animals will not move if they do not have to?
 
Space is, in many ways, one of the least important enclosure aspects. I'm not saying it should be ignored, different animals have different space requirements, but in most cases it is the contents of the enclosure (hides, enrichment, ect.) that mean more to an animal's wellbeing.

The argument that animals travel long distances in the wild and need more space because of that is highly flawed. Animals travel far in order to obtain food, and because they do not need to travel to get food in captivity that argument it invalid.
 
birdsandbats said:
Space is, in many ways, one of the least important enclosure aspects. I'm not saying it should be ignored, different animals have different space requirements, but in most cases it is the contents of the enclosure (hides, enrichment, ect.) that mean more to an animal's wellbeing.

The argument that animals travel long distances in the wild and need more space because of that is highly flawed. Animals travel far in order to obtain food, and because they do not need to travel to get food in captivity that argument it invalid.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and it is what is done with the enclosure which really matters. For example, an a-boreal animal will most likely be totally fine with a small exhibit, as long as the exhibit provides climbing opportunities.
 
I think it’s also dependent on activity levels. I would argue that baboons would require larger exhibits because they move around much more and with them being in large groups then the exhibit should accommodate that. Lions on the other hand while they do need a large enough exhibit to promote natural behaviors, I don’t think it needs to be 6 acres or something massive if lions are going to just find a spot to sleep for a majority of the day. I’m sure there are exceptions to this kind of thought process but I agree that animals that travel long distances in search of water or food don’t need as massive as an exhibit that is needed since they get all the needed care from the zoo.
 
An animal needs enough space to do necessary behaviors to maintain high welfare. This means an elephant or an orca will need lots of space as their behaviors require it (to feed, use enrichment, socialize) this is generally a lot less than most people think if they go off of the “an elephant will travel x amount a day in the wild” as to find food, water and socialization in zoos, the animal doesn’t need to travel far. A snake will need less relative space but recent studies are showing that for high welfare, there needs to be more space given to them than what is generally accepted. There have been studies on enclosure usage in many species from apes, to elephants, to cetaceans, to snakes and generally, animals will only utilize the space given to them if there is a reason. In many zoo enclosures, an animal will remain where there is shade, food, and easy access to keepers, socialization, or enrichment often ignoring massive areas of their enclosure. Because of this, different opportunities, spaces, and ways to utilize their enclosure are becoming more important than total amount of space as even many “outdated” exhibits give animals enough space to have decent welfare. All in all it’s not a black and white issue and as we learn more about what different species need, exhibit design will probably become more important that giving every animal acres of space that it won’t use. Many sanctuaries will use the rhetoric that they give animals enormous amounts of space but what’s the point when it’s just a giant grassy field and the animal has nothing to do in most of it?
 
Some great responses already so far - I'll try not to repeat points already made.

It's worth clarifying for this discussion also that "space" holds different meaning depending on the species we're talking about - vertical glass walls are space for geckos, ropes and tree limbs are space for monkeys, and pools are space for pygmy hippos, while none of these things are space to a duiker. For that reason, things like climbing opportunities, hiding areas, shade, etc are considered part of an animal's "space" and are thus very important to an animal's well-being. Enclosure size or area is only one variable in determining enclosure space - an important distinction that (I believe) is often misunderstood by members of the general public (and by people on the forum - we're not immune! :p)

Considering the countless thousands of enclosures and species held in captivity across the world, whether or not animals have enough space is something to be determined on a case-by-case basis - it's not a general statement you can apply across the board.

animalszoos said:
I'm not sure there is an answer to this, however zoos must base their enclosure size off some sort of observation/facts.
Click to expand...

Modern zoos and zoo organizations write up husbandry manuals and documents that make recommendations for things like enclosure size, dimensions and design. These guidelines and recommendations are based on observation, experience, and behavior for that particular species - so in terms of basing "enclosure size off some sort of observation/facts", this is where that knowledge and expertise primarily comes from.
 
Echobeast said:
An animal needs enough space to do necessary behaviors to maintain high welfare. This means an elephant or an orca will need lots of space as their behaviors require it (to feed, use enrichment, socialize) this is generally a lot less than most people think if they go off of the “an elephant will travel x amount a day in the wild” as to find food, water and socialization in zoos, the animal doesn’t need to travel far. A snake will need less relative space but recent studies are showing that for high welfare, there needs to be more space given to them than what is generally accepted. There have been studies on enclosure usage in many species from apes, to elephants, to cetaceans, to snakes and generally, animals will only utilize the space given to them if there is a reason. In many zoo enclosures, an animal will remain where there is shade, food, and easy access to keepers, socialization, or enrichment often ignoring massive areas of their enclosure. Because of this, different opportunities, spaces, and ways to utilize their enclosure are becoming more important than total amount of space as even many “outdated” exhibits give animals enough space to have decent welfare. All in all it’s not a black and white issue and as we learn more about what different species need, exhibit design will probably become more important that giving every animal acres of space that it won’t use. Many sanctuaries will use the rhetoric that they give animals enormous amounts of space but what’s the point when it’s just a giant grassy field and the animal has nothing to do in most of it?
Click to expand...


I think that enclosures not being used fully says very little over actual space requirements, more about bad design. If the space given is well-structured for the species, they will use it (though Tarantulas are never going to use 1 hectare), even if it is massive from a zoo perspective, see for example Squirrel Monkeys in Apenheul.

I personally think that many zoo enclosures are currently more on the small side and will need to become bigger in the future. The behavioral differences that I see between a current standard enclosure and a large well-structured enclosure (which often can accomodate larger groups as well) are huge, with especially in monkeys much higher activity and foraging levels.
 
Space is (atleast for birds and mamals) one of the major factors for animal welfare. If used effectivly, it is an extrem effective tool for enrichment. Giving the animals the ability to show natural behavior. And allowing them to effectivly retreat. If it is not an slow moving unactive animal (like koalas for example) should it be a top priority for all kind of facilities.
 
animalszoos said:
This has been something that I haven't been able to grasp lately. How do we determine how much space a captive animal needs?
Click to expand...

Hi, this topic was discussed several times before, and it looks like every few months a new member pops up asking this. You can get much more info looking in the archives.

As others said, space is less important than social environment and furnishing of this space. So a baboon in a group of 20 in a zoo will be usually happier than in a group of 3 in a safari park. Migratory birds and soaring birds do not need enormous space per se. Migratory birds readily stop migrating if food is available. As seen by many birds which stopped migrating in few decades because humans offer readily supply of food.

How much space is needed? I would say about that of a big city zoo and less than a safari park. I know of no study which demonstrated that animals in safari park-sized enclosures are by itself any better than ones in large city zoos.

However, there are still few cases where animals regularly do not get enough space in zoos. Canids and mustelids, like foxes, coyotes, martens or wolverines, have a drive to run around and need more space they usually get. Big not colonial birds, like storks, amazon parrots and hornbills usually have too small aviaries. Crocodiles, too, often get too little space. Snakes need exhibit long enough to stretch completely. Some groups, like big tropical birds, elephants, rhinos and hippos, regularly have too small indoor areas in northern zoos, often small cages or barns. The practice of closing carnivores and ungulates in small 'holding pens' at night or outside zoo working hours should probably be stopped.
 
lintworm said:
I think that enclosures not being used fully says very little over actual space requirements, more about bad design. If the space given is well-structured for the species, they will use it (though Tarantulas are never going to use 1 hectare), even if it is massive from a zoo perspective, see for example Squirrel Monkeys in Apenheul.
Click to expand...

That was mostly my point. Large spaces are generally pointless if it is not designed for the animal to utilize it in novel ways.
 
I'd say many enclosures are too small, but not because the animal doesn't have enough space but because they don't allow decent furnishing or decent group-structures. Whilst each individual might spend a large part of his time in only a part of an exhibit, this is different for each individual. One might prefer to spend a bit more time in the sun whilst another prefers to stay more in the shadows. Some seek shelter in vegetation whilst others are more audacious and use open areas more often. Especially for animals that have these different options in their natural habitat such choices should be made available. And whilst still controversial, providing animals with the option to get some privacy from visitors is also one of those choices many species should be given, wether this is by providing shelters, vegetational cover, quiet zones, larger distances from the public or whole private rooms depends a bit on the species' physiology. Some species that come to mind are bears, rodents, many songbirds, rattlesnakes and tetras.
 
Jarne said:
I'd say many enclosures are too small, but not because the animal doesn't have enough space but because they don't allow decent furnishing or decent group-structures. Whilst each individual might spend a large part of his time in only a part of an exhibit, this is different for each individual. One might prefer to spend a bit more time in the sun whilst another prefers to stay more in the shadows. Some seek shelter in vegetation whilst others are more audacious and use open areas more often. Especially for animals that have these different options in their natural habitat such choices should be made available. And whilst still controversial, providing animals with the option to get some privacy from visitors is also one of those choices many species should be given, wether this is by providing shelters, vegetational cover, quiet zones, larger distances from the public or whole private rooms depends a bit on the species' physiology. Some species that come to mind are bears, rodents, many songbirds, rattlesnakes and tetras.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you with what you've said here @Jarne, there often isn't enough attention paid to these kinds of considerations and the nuance.

I don't know why providing species with the option to have privacy away from the gaze of the public is considered controversial, who considers this controversial ?
 
Jurek7 said:
However, there are still few cases where animals regularly do not get enough space in zoos. Canids and mustelids, like foxes, coyotes, martens or wolverines, have a drive to run around and need more space they usually get.
Click to expand...

I would say small cats get the short end of the stick in that regard too.

The size of the enclosure for fishing cats at the Nurnberg zoo should become the norm for the keeping of small felids in my opinion.
 
And Now I feel bad about creating lots of huge space for animals in my dream zoo.........:eek:
 
Especially in low-key zoos this problem seems more apparent. However also in some mayor zoos like Pairi Daiza, Artis, Planckendael, Burgers' Antwerpen and Blijdorp exhibits come to mind for me, in some zoos the norm (Pairi Daiza) whilst in others the rare exception (Burgers').

Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Yes, I agree with you with what you've said here @Jarne, there often isn't enough attention paid to these kinds of considerations and the nuance.

I don't know why providing species with the option to have privacy away from the gaze of the public is considered controversial, who considers this controversial ?
Click to expand...
If you don't design your habitat well you risk species not showing themselves at all. If you don't give an option for privacy, an animal can't hide. If you do give the option of privacy, you might need to nudge shy animals to show themselves or get creative (soundproof windows, one-way viewing panels, cameras, ...).
 
Jarne said:
If you don't design your habitat well you risk species not showing themselves at all. If you don't give an option for privacy, an animal can't hide. If you do give the option of privacy, you might need to nudge shy animals to show themselves or get creative (soundproof windows, one-way viewing panels, cameras, ...).
Click to expand...
There is a difference between lots of space and privacy. Plenty of small animals I never see in zoos because their hiding so well in their small habitats, reptiles and amphibians for example. Just because an exhibits small doesn't mean it can't have privacy, same for an exhibits that's large. Im not regarding all zoo exhibits for this, just some habitats in general.
 
Jarne said:
Why? A large space isn't bad on it's own.
Click to expand...
If you read a lot of the thoughtful and informational posts above, you would understand. I'm talking simply I could have added a lot more animals and be more efficient with my animal habitats If I created some smaller more necessary habitats for some of my animals.
 
Jarne said:
If you don't design your habitat well you risk species not showing themselves at all. If you don't give an option for privacy, an animal can't hide. If you do give the option of privacy, you might need to nudge shy animals to show themselves or get creative (soundproof windows, one-way viewing panels, cameras, ...).
Click to expand...

Yes, perhaps, but then again you could simply just not bother with making the animals show themselves and let the public see them whenever the animals want to be seen.
 
CheeseChameleon2007 said:
There is a difference between lots of space and privacy. Plenty of small animals I never see in zoos because their hiding so well in their small habitats, reptiles and amphibians for example. Just because an exhibits small doesn't mean it can't have privacy, same for an exhibits that's large. Im not regarding all zoo exhibits for this, just some habitats in general.
Click to expand...
Yes, but in those case you're often talking about (mostly) nocturnal species that sleep in dens during the day or reptiles and amphibians that sit still for large parts of the day. If you have a species like monkeys however, you will need more private space due to their active nature during daytime.

When we are talking about reptiles and amphibians it's also often not the privacy problem but other problems (overcrowding and competition for basking/hiding spots for example) that are present.

CheeseChameleon2007 said:
If you read a lot of the thoughtful and informational posts above, you would understand. I'm talking simply I could have added a lot more animals and be more efficient with my animal habitats If I created some smaller more necessary habitats for some of my animals.
Click to expand...
Nothing stops you from having large and decent exhibits. Creative methods to make a large space better furnished don't always need to cost huge amounts of money.

Onychorhynchus coronatus said:
Yes, perhaps, but then again you could simply just not bother with making the animals show themselves and let the public see them whenever the animals want to be seen.
Click to expand...
It's kind of a major point of zoos to show animals to people, so I'd say not bothering at all with that is not an option in most exhibits.

There are in general 3 methods to make animals visible whilst still giving them the choice of privacy. Either you use nudging making the visible areas attractive in some way, you make the viewing points hidden for the animal or you have multiple animals in multiple enclosures so that visitors will likely see an animal in at least one of them. In Planckendael for example the bonobos have 4 rooms on-show, 1 room of-show and multiple corridors of-show that they can use. Because of the large group and differences in each room you will always see bonobos in at least one or two rooms, even though certain individuals might not be visible most of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top