Enclosure Size Versus Animal Behaviour
- Thread starter Dabhidh
- Start date
Discrediting science that is inconvenient to our points of view is currently in vogue, consider Covid or climate change. Of course, our understanding of the world changes over time, but dismissing research or researchers just because their findings don't fit with your emotional reaction to an issue is never indicative of an open mind.
Hi StoppableSan,
You make an interesting point about lemurs and netted over habitats. I could see how that would work for them. In the Highland Wildlife Park the Japanese macaque enclosure is big and nice, but I would expected to see trees as macaques can live in forests. Instead there are climbing frames. And outside the enclosure? Lots of trees. There are probably reasons for this, but why deny a macaque some trees to climb? It would seem such an easy thing to provide for them.
Hi Ned,
I agree with your first sentence. However I would not say I dismiss research, only question it. The elephant in the room is money and many research projects have a financial motive to fund the research.
Is mine an emotional reaction? Yes. When I saw these animals pacing back and fore in small enclosures in Edinburgh in 1982 I felt that was wrong. I think many people today would have thought it was wrong. There didn't seem to be much enrichment either.
Do I have a closed mind? I don't think so. I value people's opinions and am trying to learn arguments for and against more space for zoo animals. Aardwolf has made some good points about the problems with larger spaces, but thinks size is important too.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Perhaps part of the issue you are having @Dabhidh is your focus on how animals feel in an enclosure. There is much research showing that animals do have emotional reactions to situations and other animals but what exactly do these feelings "look" like? Are they just like ours? In fact, are your understandings of your feelings the same as my experiences of my feelings? If you might feel trapped in a spacious enclosure does that mean a tiger feels the same?
Look to the work of Temple Grandin to question your assumptions of what and how animals feel. She has done some very insightful work
Temple Grandin on Looking through the Eyes of Animals
Look to the work of Temple Grandin to question your assumptions of what and how animals feel. She has done some very insightful work
Temple Grandin on Looking through the Eyes of Animals
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
I don't think that anyone who has posted disputed the value of space, only your assumption that more space is automatically better for the animals. It is the "more" part that is being debated.
I suppose the studies you pointed me to were not what I expected. For example when I read this
"For the five metrics that make up the HolisticWI; there was found to be a statistically significant difference between the metrics (χ2 = 170.165 (4, N = 133), p < .00001) with a Nemenyi post-hoc test revealing assessments of stereotypies and abnormal behaviours were significantly different from all other assessment criteria at the same level of significance (p < .00001, see Figure 1)."
Or this example
"Among the criteria within the HolisticWI, the animal carers' perceived prevalence of stereotypies and/or abnormal behaviours within each habitat, significantly correlated with their assessments of the extent to which habitats failed to cater for resident animal's social requirements (Spearman's correlation, rs (130) = .83431, p (two-tailed) = .000), curtailed behavioural freedoms (Spearman's correlation, rs (130) = .79575, p (two-tailed) = .000), predisposed resident animals to physiological and or physical challenges (Spearman's correlation, rs (130)= .74258, p (two-tailed) = .000), and curtailed their locomotor opportunities (Spearman's correlation, rs (130) = .67523, p (two-tailed) = .000, see Figure 6)."
I began to wonder whether this research was really on the right track.
Why? Because we are speaking about animals not statistics or formulas.
The study does also say there are differing animal welfare conceptions. I would agree with that and the study made me more aware of it.
I just think that big free ranging animals would prefer more space and here in the Highlands - with a bit of application - we can provide that for our animals. We don't have to suffer from the constraints of a city zoo.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Statistical analyses give me a headache... fortunately I am a landscape designer and don't need to understand them. But you asked for studies and that is how studies get done. There has to be data to be compared and supported or debunked.
Perhaps they would... or not. And your opinion is important and valuable. So let's stop discussing studies. You don't seem really to be interested in studies.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
Animals simply can’t be subjected to qualitative interview. Whether you or they like psychologists is also a bit left field - it can’t really matter can it?
Animals can be subject to behavioural analysis but that means collecting data. And analysing it in the context of established research principles.
No one here dismissed enclosure size as a factor in welfare indeed lintworm offered some great examples of real life enclosures which present an observable difference to regular zoo visitors who are not scientists or researchers.
The difference is really that it doesn’t appear to be the only factor.
Most detailed research deals with data that is collected to prove or disprove and test theories. Research that is funded also declares its funding.
If you don’t want to see any complex data analysis, citations for evidence, any rigour in analysis, any detailed statistics or any data presented in a way that is consistent in academic papers then how do you suggest these studies are conducted and presented?
You suggested new standards be created - how do you suggest they are established with no quantitative research?
The studies noted and everyone who has posted so far have all reflected that size of enclosure appears to be an important factor in animal welfare. And few people would argue that well sized, richly furnished enclosures (appropriate to the species) with the right sort of stimulation in the environment seem to be the best way to create the very best place for zoo animals to live. No one wants to see animals kept in poor or sub standard conditions. Particularly animal enthusiasts as you find in a forum like this one.
Not to say you shouldn’t hold whatever opinion you like. But not wanting to consider anything that doesn’t agree with one premise is a bit limiting in terms of a discussion.
Doing research requires statistics. In simple terms, statistics can tell us how likely it is that our hypothesis is correct in light of current data. It can also tell us how big the effect is, and which factors further influence that effect. This knowledge is absolutely essential to make strong predictions, and create an understanding of the phenomenon we study. I understand it sounds very mathematical and clinical, but that is the way it is supposed to work. Even studies on highly subjective things, like human-dog relationships for example, require statistics.
Animal welfare and behaviour are difficult to measure. There is not one way to do so. Recently, there has been a rise in more holistic approaches to animal welfare, taking into account not just objective behavioural measures, but also estimates of mental states and the opinion of the zookeepers, who often have a lot of experience interpreting animal body language. Research on specific topics (e.g., the effect of olfactory enrichment, conspecific visual contact, or indeed enclosure size) often include discussions on how the findings relate to the bigger picture. Zoo animal research is still a maturing field, requiring better and more experiments and larger sample sizes, but it is steadily providing us with more insights in how to keep animals successfully. And for me, it is the growth that matters, more so than the current state of things.
Hi Zooplantman,
Statistical analysis gives me a headache too. A very long time ago I got a degree in maths and statistics. In hindsight doing that was a mistake, but then again I was very young and very stupid at the time! Statistics do have their benefits and their pitfalls - the saying "lies, d@mn lies and statistics" is something we were actually taught to be aware of on the course. And one example of "statistical significance" on the course was an experiment measuring the pain score of cats. Yes I did say the pain score of cats. What was significant to me was how could anybody do that experiment. It was scientific yes, but deeply cruel and immoral.
I am interested in a particular type of study though. Put an animal like a tiger or a leopard in an acre of land and then in 5 acres of land and record any differences in behaviour. Design and enrich both. With 5 acres you have the space to add much more enrichment. Smell is very important to these animals. Just think how many interesting smells you could hide in that area.
Statistical analysis gives me a headache too. A very long time ago I got a degree in maths and statistics. In hindsight doing that was a mistake, but then again I was very young and very stupid at the time! Statistics do have their benefits and their pitfalls - the saying "lies, d@mn lies and statistics" is something we were actually taught to be aware of on the course. And one example of "statistical significance" on the course was an experiment measuring the pain score of cats. Yes I did say the pain score of cats. What was significant to me was how could anybody do that experiment. It was scientific yes, but deeply cruel and immoral.
I am interested in a particular type of study though. Put an animal like a tiger or a leopard in an acre of land and then in 5 acres of land and record any differences in behaviour. Design and enrich both. With 5 acres you have the space to add much more enrichment. Smell is very important to these animals. Just think how many interesting smells you could hide in that area.
Hi Lafone,
Standards are usually created because something has gone wrong in the past and people want to prevent whatever went wrong happening again.
They don't always work on the margins, but they are very good at dealing with obvious problems where we can all agree on a solution.
So record health, wellbeing, animal mood signs etc. in a study and check the results.
I think an animal would be happiest in the wild because it is free. If you can't give it freedom then give it as much space as possible. As a human I face barriers to places I am not allowed to go, e.g. a football stadium without a ticket., but there are plenty of places I can go, so I never feel enclosed. I suspect an animal would feel the same if it had more alternatives.
We have the space here in the Highlands to make the park much bigger and I think we could overcome the economic issues associated with providing more space. But there are to be a good reason for doing it before we start.
And I think zoos and parks of all sizes are important, so I do value city zoos with smaller spaces. Anything that saves a rare animal is good by me. We killed off all the large carnivores in the wild in Scotland long ago. Most people here won't have them back at the moment, but I think most would back a much bigger wildlife park.
Standards are usually created because something has gone wrong in the past and people want to prevent whatever went wrong happening again.
They don't always work on the margins, but they are very good at dealing with obvious problems where we can all agree on a solution.
So record health, wellbeing, animal mood signs etc. in a study and check the results.
I think an animal would be happiest in the wild because it is free. If you can't give it freedom then give it as much space as possible. As a human I face barriers to places I am not allowed to go, e.g. a football stadium without a ticket., but there are plenty of places I can go, so I never feel enclosed. I suspect an animal would feel the same if it had more alternatives.
We have the space here in the Highlands to make the park much bigger and I think we could overcome the economic issues associated with providing more space. But there are to be a good reason for doing it before we start.
And I think zoos and parks of all sizes are important, so I do value city zoos with smaller spaces. Anything that saves a rare animal is good by me. We killed off all the large carnivores in the wild in Scotland long ago. Most people here won't have them back at the moment, but I think most would back a much bigger wildlife park.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
So many variables to control: should the study sites have the exact same topography? Same landscaping with identical screened/hiding areas? Same size and number of water features? Same number of animals in each of the same gender and age mix? Same climate with same days of rain or cold or heat? Same viewing areas with same number of visitors?
I can't see any protocol to really do what you want to answer the question you want to answer. All we are saying (to dredge up old songs) is size is not a stand-alone factor.
For tiger behavior (for example) what is the difference to the cat between 5 empty acres and 20 empty acres? Sooner or later she's seen all there is to see, smelled all there is to smell. It just took one extra day to do it. You'd accomplish more by adding a few rabbits to the smaller (sic) enclosure than by adding the acres.
Or try comparing a large open site with one individual and a site half the size, well landscaped with visual barriers and topographic variety for starters and compare animal behavior.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
This statement is the heart of the problem. These concepts have no reality.
You are not the animal and the animal is not you. Even the animals who did get into the stadium do not have the same experience, needs, preferences, perceptions as the animal in the zoo or in the wild.
Animals have emotions but do they reason? If so, to what extent? You console yourself for being excluded from the football stadium because you can think of what else you could be doing. Do animals go through the same self-reflection and strategic planning when they encounter an insurmountable barrier (like a river or a cliff or a pack of wolves?) Your assumptions are all based on this false equivalency
Last edited:
I think “free” is a complex concept both for humans and other animals. As is happiness… If I gave up my job with no plan or income I would be “free” of responsibility and accountability but I wouldn’t be able to live a good life or pay my rent without money.
America is often described as the land of the free but are you free if you can’t afford healthcare and have no social safety net?
Similarly, an animal might have freedom in the wild but in a zoo it is free from threat, free from predation, free from starvation, free from poaching, free from habitat destruction. So it’s not easy to say which animal actually has the most freedom, one in a good zoo or one living wild in a forest.
I think happiness is equally hard to define, maybe even harder with non-human animals. Finland is ranked as the world’s happiest country. But it doesn’t mean people are laughing and smiling and dancing in the street. It means they are broadly content living in a broadly decent society in an imperfect world.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
And even human happiness isn't all it is cracked up to be
The No. 1 ‘happiest country’ in the world also has one of the highest suicide rates — economists have a theory why
Lafone
Well-Known Member
Studies require some degree of statistical analysis and research practice that is thorough and robust.
It’s unfortunately a contradiction to want the analysis you are asking for with no data collection or presentation.
While it is valid to argue for really good conditions I think you’re at risk of projecting your feelings onto animals and their behaviour.
If I say I like tiny spaces I could then suggest animals would too and be equally valid in this argument. Perhaps I enjoy pot holing and once had a great time doing it. Doesn’t it therefore follow that cheetahs should like it? I don’t happen to like tiny spaces or big ones particularly as it happens but how I feel about either probably isn’t very relevant to how an animal feels.
The studies being done are becoming more sophisticated and taking into account all sorts of inputs as mentioned in other posts - all of them suggest enclosure size is a factor in animal welfare but reflect that other things make a difference too. I know you don’t like these studies but without the sort of rigour they have we are left with how you think an animal might feel. Which isn’t something which can’t be turned into action.
Unfortunately I must say the academic zoo literature is filled with studies that either do not or cannot control for these factors. This is partly because zoos do not cooperate enough to make bigger research projects possible, partly because many zoos are hesitant to do anything that can even lightly be considered an 'experiment' (much of the literature is about observations when a change would have taken place anyway), and partly because zoos often invest just enough to have some research carried out but not enough to actually support a long-term or in-depth project. The result is a literature filled with studies that are rife with unaddressed variables, extremely low sample sizes, and too many caveats to count. These studies can still be valid if the authors are honest about the shortcomings and frame the findings right (e.g., as a proof of concept or a case study, if the sample size is low), but they lack the power of more large-scale research.
A lot of zoo research is actually carried out as we speak, probably more than most people here would guess, but too much of it never sees the light of day. Too often research is not communicated to the public, is locked within the zoo where it was carried out, or at best is lost in an endless swamp of grey literature, unavailable for meta-analyses or review articles. It is time for zoos to step up their game and take their research seriously. Luckily there are a few zoos that do better, and there are promising developments that may clear the way for the larger zoo community to follow.
I'm an enjoying the discussion here and there are a lot of great points made toward the complexity of animal welfare. Since welfare is indeed a combination of many factors and space is the topic of debate, I'd like to see zoos push habitats into more diverse tropes. Open-range, rotational, and Trail systems have all tried to do this, and there will never be a an end-all form of habitats. I'd very much like to see new experimentation of animal habitats as that expands our view and understanding of animal welfare even if it fails. Lets try a combined rotational, open-range,and trail system habitat and see what happens. Maybe Highland Wildlife Park could be a test center for new types of habitats as it has been.
Before I respond to the previous posts, I'd like to say its nice to see such an active forum and so many people who are concerned about zoo and park animal welfare.
And also to say I am very surprised at the lack of support for more space in zoos and parks! Is this because many people associated with zoos have always had to live within financial constraints and have spent a lot of time developing and enriching small spaces? Have they become very good at it and want to defend and support it? Is it simply a way of life?
And is there anyone reading this thread who, like me, actually thinks larger spaces for animals could be a good idea and worth trying out?
And also to say I am very surprised at the lack of support for more space in zoos and parks! Is this because many people associated with zoos have always had to live within financial constraints and have spent a lot of time developing and enriching small spaces? Have they become very good at it and want to defend and support it? Is it simply a way of life?
And is there anyone reading this thread who, like me, actually thinks larger spaces for animals could be a good idea and worth trying out?