How do you reckon zoos will evolve in the future?

[JezP100]

over the course of time, a lot of zoos have changed, with money being put in to expand and develop further unique and exciting exhibits for us zoo chatters to view and discover.

how do you reckon zoos will evolve in the future?

 

[Zoofan15]

Efficient use of space. Rotational exhibits, aerial pathways and the old favourite - mixed species exhibits.

Digital revolution. QR codes replacing physical signage and paper maps. Booking tickets online (in advance).

Improvements to welfare. Elephants housed in multigenerational herds comprised of related females. Larger exhibits.

Increased breeding success. Advances in husbandry and pioneering technology. The crucifix frog was bred for the first time in captivity at Melbourne Zoo in 2020, after staff simulated a thunderstorm (which induces breeding) via a YouTube video.

 

[15399]

If you are interested in hearing what some experts in the field have to say, I'd recommend this playlist of a symposium on the future of zoos ten years ago: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLj2-tunX7dPSgWfNOlnMKXaguUQkOJxIO&si=4M_hbzPT4RvHf6I5. Panelists in the symposium include the late great Bill Conway, Ron Kagan, Jeffrey Bonner, John Coe, and David Hancocks- amongst many others with immense expertise in the field. While parts of it are outdated since it is from ten years ago, much of it is still relevant to the decisions zoos will have to make today about their future.

 

[Carl Jones]

I wrote the attached article several years ago that may be relevant to this question.

 

[Jurek7]

My predictions:
Shrinking of the West. In the next 15 years, zoos in Europe and North America will build fewer and smaller exhibits, keep smaller animals, and keep fewer expensive animals like sea mammals or hippos. Zoos in East Asia will take over the lead.

Two-tier zoos. For less money, visitors could view animals from distance and be preached virtue of using less resources. For more money, guests will be able to view animals closely and pet them (hotels, special experiences, animal ambassadors) and do carbon-intensive activities (like hot balloon rides in SDWAP). Both tiers will be in one zoo or in different zoos.

Fewer species. Many less common species will disappear from zoos. Heavily hit will be smaller carnivores, monkeys, smaller ungulates and birds. The list of 'dead ends' among mammals is just being produced by Lintworm in another thread.

 

[Haliaeetus]

My predictions:
Shrinking of the West. In the next 15 years, zoos in Europe and North America will build fewer and smaller exhibits, keep smaller animals, and keep fewer expensive animals like sea mammals or hippos. Zoos in East Asia will take over the lead

I would be interested on any positive developments in East Asian countries.
They have a good potential but except a few world-class parks (as in Singapore, Thailand) most of them remain unknown for Westerners. Chinese zoos remain largely unknown. The zoos of some South-Eastern Asia and even Japan haven't got a really good reputation.
It seems that there are good zoos in India, but even this country remains unknown.

For less money, visitors could view animals from distance and be preached virtue of using less resources. For more money, guests will be able to view animals closely and pet them (hotels, special experiences, animal ambassadors) and do carbon-intensive activities (like hot balloon rides in SDWAP). Both tiers will be in one zoo or in different zoos.

"Animal ambassadors" seem to be non-existent in Europe, contrarily to North America where these shows are common, involving many species, even large cats as Pumas and Cheetahs.
The bird/falconry shows are quite widespread (but don't implicate extra fees for the guests in many cases), otherwise the other types of shows are probably on the decline (I remember circus-like shows with chimps, big cats... in French zoos till the late 1990s, now largely gone).

 

[dillotest0]

I wrote the attached article several years ago that may be relevant to this question.

Personally I find it quite a bizarre read myself.

In particular I find it a bit of a pessimistic view on things ... though that's just myself.

I think one idea of mine of how zoos could change in the future is that there could be more looking into how animals interact with their habitat and how it shapes their lives. And maybe even how zoos could exploit this for maximum activity. This could be simple things like providing coolers for anteaters so that they are active more often; or integrating vital minerals into the soil composition of an animal exhibit. And of course there won't always be 1:1 replicas, carnivores for instance, but I think that self-mechanical habitats are a way forward.

As for what species there will be I think perhaps there could be a divide of sorts - an uprising perhaps of smaller institutions with rarer species; and on the other side large touristy zoos which specialise mainly in what megafauna everyone else specialises in. But I will say that the idea of 'domesticating' wild animals to make them better exhibits is a bit too much of a fantastical idea for my liking. And maybe some bigger zoos will find themselves at a crossroads. I think the species-landscape of zoos of the future will ultimately depend on how willing the public and private sectors are to interact.

 

[15399]

I wrote the attached article several years ago that may be relevant to this question.

While I don't fully agree with this article, and particularly disagree with domesticating common zoo animals, I did find it to be quite an interesting read. The emphasis on zoos as research institutions and applying things learned on captive populations to wild ones is really important, and I also found it very interesting the sections focusing on evolution in zoo populations. The selective pressures are of course very different in zoos than in the wild, however it doesn't often get talked about that zoo populations are evolving. In particular, antipredator behaviors can be "de-evolved" after only a few generations of captive breeding, and yet this is something that isn't talked a lot about despite being hugely important to any proposed re-introduction efforts or assurance populations. This article put a bigger focus on this evolutionary issue in zoos than I've ever seen expressed before, and honestly made me reconsider how I perceive the issue, as before I'd view zoos as having the "lack of selective pressures" more so than having "different selective pressures".

 

[JVM]

I think a lot of things being tinkered with right now -- catwalks and travel lines, contact experiences, rotating habitats - will become standardized in the future. I think allowing the animals mobility between habitats is a really effective way to undermine typical concerns about zoos by giving the animals access to a lot of space long-term while also delighting visitors, while also encouraging repeat visits and different experiences.

I think after another several years of homogenization, global species management will eventually become more of a factor as well, enabling zoos to return to the practice of sometimes holding regionally unique species as it becomes easier to learn from each other and coordinate. I don't expect this to standardize for a much, much longer time, but I think it will eventually happen.

I'm hopeful we will at some point see new major facilities being built again. We would really use more space for certain species and programs. I would consider it a very positive sign if we saw something like this, and I'm hoping St. Louis' new conservation park and Sacramento moving to a new location are a taste of things to come, but I'm hopeful we eventually see entirely new campuses being funded.

I really hope to see innovation in certain areas I feel have been neglected by current trends, but I don't know if I can predict that exactly. There's a strong emphasis on megafauna in the last twenty years of developments and a handful of excellent reptile buildings, but I'm hoping the future finds us new ways to display smaller animals as well - mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians alike - who feel like they are on the whole being ignored for public-facing work even as conservation behind the scenes improves.

 

[Batto]

The major zoos will become more uniform in regard to collections, husbandry standards, exhibit design (i.e. employing always the same zoo architecture firms), presentation etc. in accordance with EAZA / AZA etc. guidelines. "Problematic" species like venomous snakes and large crocodilians will disappear more and more from major zoos, save for a few specialist zoos.
Smaller non-EAZA/AZA zoos will try to keep up with more original, cost-effective ideas.
The general variety of available species will decrease due to increasing political pressure on private exotic keepers and breeders (=> Spain), while the financial pressure on all zoos to work economically will further go up.

 

[Haliaeetus]

The major zoos will become more uniform in regard to collections, husbandry standards, exhibit design (i.e. employing always the same zoo architecture firms), presentation etc. in accordance with EAZA / AZA etc. guidelines. "Problematic" species like venomous snakes and large crocodilians will disappear more and more from major zoos, save for a few specialist zoos.
Smaller non-EAZA/AZA zoos will try to keep up with more original, cost-effective ideas.
The general variety of available species will decrease due to increasing political pressure on private exotic keepers and breeders (=> Spain), while the financial pressure on all zoos to work economically will further go up.

I would add that large crocodilians would remain frequent, as there are specialized zoos that keep them (there are at least 2 crocodile zoos in France), in addition to the large generalist zoos. Smaller zoos have already chosen small species as Spectacled Caimans or Dwarf Crocodiles (Chinese Alligators would be a good choice too with their high threat status in the wild, but they remain too rare until this date). The Nile Crocs and American Alligators will remain frequent as popular and cheap, even if they haven't a special conservation value (the second species can even live easily in outdoor spaces, under temperate climates, that makes it even more attractive).
There are other large reptiles that gain popularity : I think to the Komodo Dragons, and the large Tortoises (African Spurred Tortoise, Aldabra Giant Tortoise...).
Unfortunately there isn't the same situation about venomous snakes, rare even within the reptile-themed zoos ; this is a French point of view, not necessarily representative of other European countries and probably irrelevant for non-European zoos.

 

[Batto]

I would add that large crocodilians would remain frequent, as there are specialized zoos that keep them

"Problematic" species like venomous snakes and large crocodilians will disappear more and more from major zoos, save for a few specialist zoos.

Even major zoos (at least in colder parts of Europe) have started to switch from larger to smaller crocodilians when building new enclosures due to legal / economic restrictions.

 

[lintworm]

Shrinking of the West. In the next 15 years, zoos in Europe and North America will build fewer and smaller exhibits, keep smaller animals, and keep fewer expensive animals like sea mammals or hippos. Zoos in East Asia will take over the lead.

I think this is a popular thing to say in economics too, but for the foreseeable future Asia will mostly be catching up and while cetaceans are something that I too expect to be slowly disappearing in Europe/US, they are already prevalent in Asia. Given different cultural attitudes towards animal welfare I expect Europe/US to continue to lead in naturalistic spacious enclosures. Zoos have never seen as many visitors in Europe and US as today so unless that abruptly changes I expect investment in zoos remaining high. Small extremely rich countries in Asia such as UAE and Singapore are somewhat of an exception due to the huge amounts of money pumped into new zoos, but that isn't enough to say the west will shrink imo...

Fewer species. Many less common species will disappear from zoos. Heavily hit will be smaller carnivores, monkeys, smaller ungulates and birds. The list of 'dead ends' among mammals is just being produced by Lintworm in another thread.

I am reserving judgment about mammals or birds, but I think that especially with reptiles, amphibians and freshwater fish we will see an increase in species kept in captivity with an ever-stronger focus on endangered species. Confiscations and partnerships with local institutions will remain important sources there as they have been for the past 2 decades.

The major zoos will become more uniform in regard to collections, husbandry standards, exhibit design (i.e. employing always the same zoo architecture firms), presentation etc. in accordance with EAZA / AZA etc. guidelines.

While I think you are right major zoos might become more uniform with regards to collections, I don't see that happening with exhibit desing. Yes there are a few dominant players on the market now such as Dan Pearlman, Rasbach and Erik van Vliet, but their portfolio is quite varied. I would even argue it is much more varied then enclosures that used to be built 40-50 years ago. Basically every 70s ape enclosure/ carnivore house / bird house is much more similar to its congenerics then is the case now.

 

[Batto]

While I think you are right major zoos might become more uniform with regards to collections, I don't see that happening with exhibit desing. Yes there are a few dominant players on the market now such as Dan Pearlman, Rasbach and Erik van Vliet, but their portfolio is quite varied. I would even argue it is much more varied then enclosures that used to be built 40-50 years ago. Basically every 70s ape enclosure/ carnivore house / bird house is much more similar to its congenerics then is the case now.

Especially in regard to the first two mentioned, their portfolio isn't that varied if you think about it. Thematically, we always end up with the very same scenarios:
- African savanna with pseudo-"African" "tribal" elements and crashed cars/planes
- Asian rainforest / Asian mountains with pseudo-"Asian" "tribal" elements (i.e. "temples")
- North American "Wild West / frontier" with log cabins and totem poles
- South American "Amazon" rainforest with pseudo-"tribal" elements
- "Polar regions" with underwater viewing areas
- "Australian outback" [in the European version, often lacking the "creme de la creme" aka venomous critters)
- Petting zoo / local wildlife
...slightly varied in accordance to local customs and with fewer and fewer rare exceptions, like desert houses, nocturnal houses, Asian steppe or swamp/mangrove exhibits. And the taxonomically themed bird / reptile / amphibian / insect houses / aquaria. The differences are superficial at best; the core is pretty much the same all over. Especially in US zoos, this generic monotony becomes more and more apparent once you visit one major zoo after another (in particular their gift shops).

 

[lintworm]

Especially in regard to the first two mentioned, their portfolio isn't that varied if you think about it. Thematically, we always end up with the very same scenarios:
- African savanna with pseudo-"African" "tribal" elements and crashed cars/planes
- Asian rainforest / Asian mountains with pseudo-"Asian" "tribal" elements (i.e. "temples")
- North American "Wild West / frontier" with log cabins and totem poles
- South American "Amazon" rainforest with pseudo-"tribal" elements
- "Polar regions" with underwater viewing areas
- "Australian outback" [in the European version, often lacking the "creme de la creme" aka venomous critters)
- Petting zoo / local wildlife
...slightly varied in accordance to local customs and with fewer and fewer rare exceptions, like desert houses, nocturnal houses, Asian steppe or swamp/mangrove exhibits. And the taxonomically themed bird / reptile / amphibian / insect houses / aquaria. The differences are superficial at best; the core is pretty much the same all over. Especially in US zoos, this generic monotony becomes more and more apparent once you visit one major zoo after another (in particular their gift shops).

But isn't that always the same. 50 years ago many zoos were ordered taxonomically in houses/enclosures that often looked similar too. Now a larger number of zoos follow a geographical theme (and plenty don't) and who knows what zoos will do in 50 years time. At least in Europe I don't think zoos are becoming more similar in design, far from it. As zoos continue to build on what they have and are constrained by their history, I think you can argue that established zoos are only becoming more unique, given they have to merge their history with modern developments.

 

[Batto]

But isn't that always the same.

Nope. Zoos, or least some of them (czech zoos in particular), tried more to do things differently in the past than they are doing now, as evidenced by the various concepts and plans you can find published on ZooChat and elsewhere. Some worked, some didn't and some were never realized, for various reasons.
Given the shift from mainly zoological-minded directors to economically driven stakeholders, CITES, the sociopolitical zeitgeist, technology, financial ressources, EAZA/AZA guidelines etc., zoos these days are considerably more restricted and regulated than they used to be. Which has its advantages, but also disadvantages. And European zoos are not excluded from that - on the contrary. Many a times, there's no merging of old and new, but the old has to go. Especially when the zoo director in charge is called A. Knieriem. Or Andreas K.

 

[15399]

"Problematic" species like venomous snakes and large crocodilians will disappear more and more from major zoos, save for a few specialist zoos.

Even major zoos (at least in colder parts of Europe) have started to switch from larger to smaller crocodilians when building new enclosures due to legal / economic restrictions.

Maybe in Europe you will see a drop in large crocodilians, but I don't foresee this habitat in US zoos. Here, the most popular crocodilian in zoos is by far the American alligator, and it's aided by the fact it is a native species. While I have known of zoos to keep only juvenile American alligators on loan from St. Augustine (including some who loan a different alligator each year), and perhaps that will become more common, but I can't foresee a world in which major US zoos move away from keeping the American alligator and other large crocodilians.

Venomous snakes seems more likely than large crocodilians to disappear from more zoos, and there's precedent for zoos removing them (e.g., recently Philadelphia did), but I'd say it is more likely to see more a phase-down than phase-out, with many zoos still keeping a few species. Again, like the crocodilians, this is aided by the fact the US has a number of native viperids, so this may make venomous snakes more accessible to zoos on this side of the pond.

 

[PossumRoach]

With the AZA’s cooperation with animal rights organizations such as PETA I don’t think it is will be easy for US zoos. Say what you want about AZA and PETA having common ground on stopping roadside zoos, I think it is hazardous and naive to for AZA work with an organization years after it said on New York Times that zoos should act as a non breeding sanctuary without making a discrimination between accredited and unaccredited zoos. One might want to think through what will follow once both organizations reach the common goal of shutting down roadside zoos, confiscating their animals, further restricting the private trade and so on. Will PETA leave AZA alone just because they don’t do cub petting, or keep their animals in concrete pitts or corn crib cages? Definitely not. Animal rights activists will use any tactic against zoos, such as using records, paired with laymen’s lack of knowledge about zoo animal management to go against zoos. For example, I could see campaigns against using animal ambassadors, or PETA weighing more on campaigns such as the Non-human Rights Project and IDA’s. Zoos can barely afford defending themselves against smear campaigns and frivolous lawsuits and those that can end up using money that could have been going to improving the zoo or conservation projects.

To sum it all up, I see a bumpy road ahead for AZA zoos. And if (or when) that happens I wouldn’t be too shocked and go on with my day.

 

[Haliaeetus]

For me I can see different evolutions.

In my home country, I think that the urban zoos (Jardin des Plantes, Lyon, Montpellier, Lille, Maubeuge, Strasbourg... Mulhouse may be an exception but it is managed in the German style) will phase out the large animals and concentrate their efforts on small, threatened and possibly local species.

Conversely the numerous zoos located in the countryside, that often reach appreciable dimensions (tens or even hundreds of hectares) will host large exhibits for various animals.
I don't think only about Beauval, la Flèche, Sigean and large institutions but also to smaller and less notorious parks like Spay, Le Parc des Légendes or Le Parc de l'Auxois.
There may be more large naturalistic walkthrough aviaries (and less birds in open topped enclosures) in our zoos, as they are better for the animal welfare (no need to pinion the birds), and more secure to prevent the spreading of diseases as bird flu.

The creation of various small zoos and refuges (for example to house the former circus animals) will probably continue across the territory.

Local wildlife may be more present in many zoos in the future, as well as small cats, anteaters and lemurs. Some species like the true Gazelles seem to be more present now after two decades of near-absence and it's good news for their future (not only in zoos). I hope to see the Aye-ayes and nocturnal lemurs make a comeback, as well as "tropical" bears. And the arrival of new species as the Shoebill.
Conversely many guenons, macaques and "true" baboons will be declining (as @lintworm has said), as well as venomous snakes (except in a few numbers of private institutions or, regarding to local species, in zoos themed on native species). I don't think that France will be well suited for the comeback of Polar Bears and other Arctic species that may happen in more Northern countries.
The cetaceans will be phased out within a decade, and the animal shows (except free-flight bird displays) will disappear too within the same frametime.

The support of local and international conservation initiatives will strengthen in the coming years.

About zoos abroad, I can guess that some Asian and Middle Eastern zoos will gain importance and power, but not at the point to make the Western zoos "shrinking" in comparison. And the situation will probably be uneven across all the countries of these parts of the world, given the huge differences among them on economic development and on the perception of wildlife.
Maybe some African and Latin American zoos may become true references in the 20-30 next years.

 

[15399]

Before I provide my list of ways I think zoos will change, I want to preface it by saying this is not a list of the future I want zoos to have, and in many cases is more so the challenges and decisions zoos will face rather than an end-all-be-all list of predictions. One only needs to watch Back to the Future II to realize that predicting thirty years into the future can provide laughably wrong results, but I think the decisions being made by zoos now can give us some good insight into what the future might hold. For purposes of this post, I am going to evaluate how I think zoos will look in fifty years, and am focusing on US zoos since it is what I am most familiar with.

Exhibit Design​

In fifty years, zoo exhibits and theming will be very different than they are today. One only needs to look at the immense innovation of the last fifty years to see proof of this. Many iconic zoo exhibits that have acted as models of exhibits to come came within the last fifty years, and it's likely that more innovation will occur and bring exhibit design in a new direction. Topeka Zoo's indoor Rainforest opened 49 years ago, in 1974. I suspect anyone sitting fifty years ago, in 1973, and predicting what zoo exhibit design looks like in fifty years, wouldn't have imagined that Rainforest buildings would become as prevalent and iconic as they have, but look at the sheer number of zoos with large Rainforest buildings inspired by what a little zoo in Kansas did. Omaha's Henry-Doorly Zoo, Bronx Zoo, Brookfield Zoo, Franklin Park Zoo, Buffalo Zoo, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Smithsonian's National Zoo, National Aquarium in Baltimore, and Sedgwick County Zoo are all zoos that have since built upon the idea of an indoor Rainforest building, along with many others, and yet this wouldn't have been thinkable fifty years ago.

From a species-specific look, the innovation that has occurred in the past fifty years is similarly incredible. Woodland Park Zoo opened their innovative gorilla exhibit 44 years ago, in 1979, and this has similarly inspired so many zoos to build new, innovative gorilla exhibits. Fifty years ago, Bronx's Congo Gorilla Forest or Disney's Gorilla Falls likely wouldn't be conceivable. For some species, the change has been much more recent. Only 24 years ago, in 1999, Detroit Zoo opened the Arctic Ring of Life- the first polar bear exhibit to feature a large, grassy tundra instead of extensive rockwork, inspiring essentially every polar bear exhibit since. For elephants, I'm not familiar with one, singular inspirational exhibit, but look at any of the fifteen featured in my "best exhibits for popular mammals" thread and all opened within the past fifty years.

Perhaps you could say that the writing was already on the wall for these innovations fifty years ago, and you'd probably be right with some of them, but the point stands that the entire direction zoos go with exhibitry could change completely in fifty years. Perhaps Omaha's upcoming orangutan complex will be as influential to orangutans as Woodland Park was to gorillas, or perhaps something innovative and influential will come out of a zoo none of us would expect (Topeka certainly wasn't a major player in the zoo world before its Rainforest opened).

Larger Exhibits, or Smaller Animals?​

It's clear that in recent years one major trend has been increased habitat sizes, and this is a trend I don't see stopping anytime soon. However, there are two approaches that have been taken in recent years to solve the problem of too small exhibits. One of those approaches is to expand an exhibit at the cost of other exhibits. This can lead to large exhibits, but also has the drawback of a potentially smaller collection. As a result of zoos taking this approach Smithsonian's National Zoo no longer has rhinos or giraffes (Elephant Trails), Lincoln Park Zoo no longer has tigers (Pepper Family Wildlife Center), and Buffalo Zoo only exhibits a single bear species (Arctic's Edge). There isn't necessarily anything wrong with this approach, and as a result the three spatially-limited zoos I mentioned created impressive habitats for megafauna, however it is worth considering an alternative approach as well.

What some zoos have done is instead of building larger habitats, switch to smaller species. Lincoln Park Zoo may no longer have elephants, but their Large Mammal House now holds more species than ever before as African Journey. The Bronx Zoo's Lion House may no longer hold any cats, but the zoo's collection was similarly increased through its renovation into Madagascar!. While I am not advocating for either of these approaches, and I think it is clear we are seeing a combination of both (though more of the former than the latter), which approach wins out in the end will have huge implications as to what species zoos are keeping and in what style of exhibits.

The Megafauna We Have is the Megafauna We'll Have​

While there are exceptions, the days of large importation of megafauna is largely behind us. While there will still be some swaps between continents, most SSPs should act as if the genes they have now are all they will ever have. If we operate with this assumption that there will be no imports (likely true in many cases), it paints a potentially grim picture for the future of many popular species in zoos. However, this future doesn't necessarily need to be this way with enough dedicated individuals properly planning population management along with institutions dedicated to breeding the species consistently. Of course there will always be an element of luck involved that can't be controlled. However, I'd take my chances with luck in a well-managed population way more than I would in a poorly managed one, and as we are seeing with many phase out species today, poor management can have detrimental effects on a population. By viewing the management and breeding as the important element of ensuring demographically healthy populations, I am acknowledging that in most cases which species continue to be kept, and which are phased out, is in direct control of those in charge, both at the association level and at specific zoos.

It is important to acknowledge, however, that by assuming no imports will occur, we are setting up a scenario in which a phase out becomes a permanent, irreversible decision (it usually is). While I am not one to lose sleep over an obscure species of antelope or bird being phased out, and neither is the general public, we face a reality where it is important to acknowledge that even some charismatic megafauna may become completely unavailable to zoos in the future if management of their respective programs don't improve. While there are some species I am very confident will be around in fifty years (e.g., African lions, lowland gorillas), there are many more that I am less than confident in. Some of the charismatic megafauna that I believe have rather uncertain futures in US zoos, and are dependent on the dedication of facilities and management, include: polar bears, Andean bears, sloth bears, jaguars, African and Asian elephants, Masai giraffes, okapi, bonobos, white-cheeked gibbons, spotted hyenas, African wild dogs, Eastern black rhinos, and Malayan tapirs. While all of these species have strong potential of being present in zoos in fifty years, all of them also are at risk of extinction in zoos unless managed properly. As sad as a future without these species in zoos may be, it goes to show how important proper management of populations and perfecting breeding techniques are.

Smaller Species Tell a Different Story​

While I don't foresee many imports of larger species, smaller species are continually imported and/or acquired from outside the AZA to this day, especially reptiles. In the coming years, zoos are going to need to decide whether or not this is the route they want to continue taking. While I am not opposed to cooperation with outside groups, and I am not necessarily opposed to some limited importation of non-endangered species, the decision to do these things will need to either be stopped or defended by zoos. Whereas in mammals we have started to see the number of AZA-managed species decline as many phase outs occur, we may start seeing the opposite trend soon in the world of herps. Many species have historically been taken for granted, either acquired by outside sources or bred infrequently and poorly managed. In the cases of some popular species (e.g., reticulated python, green anaconda), these practices are starting to shift towards more AZA management. As more species become managed, it will be interesting to see whether or not the overall diversity of reptiles being kept in zoos declines or stays steady, as this is one area there is still a lot of rarities in zoos.

Furthermore, while increased exhibit requirements for elephants, bears, and other megafauna may be discussed quite often, one area less talked about is the welfare of smaller species, especially non-mammals. Once welfare for the large megafauna improves, I suspect many zoos will more critically evaluate the welfare of smaller species, and it is possible we will see a trend where reptile house diversity declines in favor of larger, more complex environments for a smaller number of species. Given this trend has already occurred in primate houses, carnivore exhibits, ungulate collections, and more, it is only a matter of time before herps face a similar fate. What species will remain in collections, versus which ones will be the first ones on the chopping block, remains to be seen.

More International Cooperation, or More International Separation​

In recent years, there has been both increasing moves towards managing species on a global level (e.g., US zoos joining the bonobo EEP; Action Indonesia managing Javan banteng, anoa, and babirusa as global populations; US populations of geladas, dhole, and bush dogs being off-shoots of the European program), but also a number of cases in which European and US zoos have diverged their collection plans. While US zoos are primarily managing sloth bears, the Asian bear species managed in Europe are the Asiatic black bears and sun bears. Similarly, some ungulate and primate species are managed quite successfully on one continent, but absent on the other.

In the future, when neither continent has a sustainable population of a species, a decision will have to be made as to which approach is taken. In some cases, zoos have exported large numbers of a species across the ocean as part of a phase out. For instance, multiple sloth bears were brought from European to US zoos, while a number of golden-bellied mangabeys and Mhorr gazelles took the opposite journey. Sometimes, these decisions may occur and species may be managed separately on both continents, however in other cases it may be more successful to choose a global management style. Whether one of these two approaches ends up winning in the future, or if both are prevalent to some degree, it does appear as though we are heading in a direction where the decision will need to be made more frequently as to whether it is beneficial to globally manage a particular species.

The Future of Animal Rights May Include Shifting Targets​

I am probably slightly more approving of the animal rights movement than the average zoochatter, despite disagreeing with them a lot. One thing I will say, however, is that pressure from the ARAs has done tremendous benefit to the welfare of elephants in US zoos, by encouraging facilities to build much larger and naturalistic habitats for elephants. While I disagree with the end goal, and IDA's worst ten elephant exhibits lists have become laughably bad, it was for the better when many zoos decided to either end their elephant programs or change the way the species is managed.

While elephants and cetaceans are currently the main targets of ARAs, that may not always be the case. In the case of cetaceans, there's a strong chance they may disappear completely from zoos (barring an occasional rescue), and as for elephants the ARAs will have a choice to make. Are they in it for the long game, with the goal of no elephants in zoos? Or will they decide that there work on elephants has improved welfare substantially enough that it is time to focus on another species? Which approach is taken has yet to be determined, however it is a decision that will have to be made.

In the case they change targets, I suspect the welfare of other charismatic megafauna will be subject to improvements similar to elephants. Despite the best efforts of the AZA to self-regulate, there are still many shockingly inadequate exhibits for hippos, great apes, and bears. If these species start gaining more ARA attention, then zoos may be more apt to improve welfare for these species or phase them out entirely. While I am generally not a supporter of ARAs, when their actions do lead to the betterment of animal welfare (like they have with elephants), it is important to give credit where credit is due, in my opinion.

Climate Matters​

Out of all aspects of the environmental and biological sciences (excluding medicine), none have received as much popular attention in recent years as climate change. While zoos have started to incorporate climate change into their educational messaging, it is going to have a profound impact on the future of our zoos. At the most basic level, the effects of climate change will challenge zoos just like they do any other industry. More severe weather will require construction projects to be more durable, and require zoos to be prepared for more fluctuating attendance rates. Increased drought in some areas may cause zoos to reconsider keeping aquatic species or those that require lots of live plants.

While species from other climates have long been a staple of zoos, I'm not convinced this will be the case for much longer. If climate patterns continue to trend the way they have headed, it will be more and more difficult for zoos to maintain species from drastically different climates than their own, especially in outdoor conditions. While luckily there aren't many Southern zoos keeping polar bears or snow leopards any more, it does seem likely that there will be increasing consideration made as to whether or not a species can thrive in a particular climate. This may mean less tropical species in Northern zoos, and could also mean less cold-weather species in Southern zoos.

While in recent years the trend has been towards more outdoor habitats, the changing climate means I am not convinced that will always remain the trend. In some places (e.g., Phoenix), hotter summers may mean people are less likely to visit a predominately outdoor zoo. Just like many Northern zoos focused on indoor attractions historically as a way to attract more visitors in the winter, Southern zoos may soon construct more indoor attractions for the opposite reason: to attract people during the summer heat. Whether or not this shift includes building indoor exhibits for megafauna is less likely, although I do wonder if it will reach a point where climactic conditions cause zoos to prioritize innovating excellent indoor exhibits to excellent outdoor ones. While I don't foresee us ever returning to a world in which Brookfield's Tropic World is a gold standard ape exhibit, I do think we may reach a world in which a modern, innovative indoor exhibit (perhaps one utilizing technology we can't yet envision) becomes the gold standard- and perhaps necessary in certain regions.