Skip to main content

Abstract

As conservationists confront an accelerating extinction crisis, zoos are emerging as potentially significant players in the effort to protect global biodiversity, a role that will likely intensify in the coming decades. It’s an agenda, however, that raises a number of ethical and practical questions as zoological parks seek to balance a growing conservation mission alongside their traditional recreation and entertainment pursuits. Many of these questions were first addressed in Bryan Norton’s anthology, Ethics on the Ark, a milestone in applied ethics and zoo conservation published in 1995. In the decades since Norton’s book appeared, the function of zoos as conservation educators and as centers of public transformation has come into sharper focus, with new fields such as conservation psychology measuring the impact of the zoo visit on public perceptions, attitudes, and conservation behaviors. In this chapter, we explore some of this recent empirical work examining zoo visitors’ experiences and argue that Norton’s early writing in environmental ethics and conservation, particularly his notion of “transformative value,” offers a philosophical grounding for understanding the ethical potential of encounters with zoo animals. We close the chapter by discussing some of the challenges and tensions that emerge when Norton’s argument, which was originally presented as a justification for protecting wild biodiversity due to its ability to “transform” consumer preferences to more ecologically enlightened attitudes, is adapted to the zoo setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Norton’s embrace of a more expansive pluralistic understanding of environmental values beyond the confines of the dualistic intrinsic-instrumental framework perhaps explains why he didn’t continue to develop his earlier arguments for transformative value within the instrumentalist tradition, an evolution he discusses in his 2005 book Sustainability. But his growing emphasis on the linguistic dimensions of environmental deliberation is likely also implicated in this move away from traditional environmental value theory. In his 2015 book, Sustainable Values, Sustainable Change, Norton talks about “transformatives” in public debate as those “linguistic and cognitive tropes (e.g., metaphors, analogies, etc.) that can cause changes in perception and perspective regarding a situation or problem” (Norton 2015: 196). In other words, the dynamic use of language, rather than discrete encounters with wild species and ecosystems, now appears to serve as the key transformative agent in Norton’s evaluative system.

  2. 2.

    There is a potential further problem with the extension of transformative value in the zoo context, at least for achieving conservation goals. The personal identification with zoo animals and emotional affinity described in social scientific studies of visitor responses, in addition to (or rather than) catalyzing concern for the plight of wild populations and species, could reinforce anthropomorphic tendencies at the level of the individual animal that end up making population management (in both zoos and the wild) more contentious, as was the case with the controversial killing of Marius the Giraffe in the Copenhagen Zoo in 2014. Marius was deemed a “surplus animal” in the parlance of zookeeping and euthanized for zoo population control purposes (Minteer 2014). At the very least, such cases suggest that the emotional and ethical connection to animals in the zoo setting is a complex affair, and that more individualistic ethical responses are possible alongside the population- and species-level attitudes and outcomes described in the conservation psychology literature and surveyed in this chapter.

References

  • Ballantyne, R., J. Packer, and L.A. Sutherland. 2011. Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism Management 32: 770–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barongi, R., F.A. Fisken, M. Parker, and M. Gusset (eds.). 2015. Committing to conservation: The world zoo and aquarium conservation strategy. Gland, Switzerland: World Association of Zoos and Aquariums Executive Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow Jr., M.V. 2009. Nature’s ghosts: Confronting extinction from the age of Jefferson to the age of ecology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Byers, O., C. Lees, J. Wilcken, and C. Schwitzer. 2013. The one plan approach: The philosophy and implementation of CBSG’s approach to integrated species conservation planning. WAZA Magazine 14: 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos, C., P.R. Ehrlich, and R. Dirzo. 2017. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. PNAS 114(30): E6089–E6096, published ahead of print 10 July 2017. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704949114. Accessed on 14 May 2018.

  • Chamberlain, G. 2013. Orangutans fight for survival as thirst for palm oil devastates rainforests. The Guardian. December 14. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/orangutans-fight-for-survival. Accessed on 31 July 2017.

  • Clayton, S., and G. Myers. 2009. Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S., J. Fraser, and C.D. Saunders. 2009. Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology 28: 377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S., J. Fraser, and C. Burgess. 2011. The role of zoos in fostering environmental identity. Ecopsychology 3: 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clubb, R., and G. Mason. 2003. Animal welfare: Captivity effects on wide-ranging carnivores. Nature 425: 473–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conde, D.A., N. Flesness, F. Colchero, O.R. Jones, and A. Scheuerlein. 2011. An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science 331: 1390–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, W. 2011. Buying time for wild animals with zoos. Zoo Biology 30: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushing, N., and K. Markwell. 2011. I can’t look: Disgust as a factor in the zoo experience. In Zoos and tourism, ed. W. Frost. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davey, G. 2007. Visitors’ effects on the welfare of animals in the zoo: A review. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 10: 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fa, J.E., S.M. Funk, and D.M. O’Connell. 2011. Zoo conservation biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, J.H., E.M. Reinhard, C.L. Vernon, K. Bronnenkant, N.L. Deans, and J.E. Heimlich. 2007. Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, E.J., M.A. Tamborski, S.R. Pickens, and W. Timberlake. 2009. Animal–Visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, J., S. Gruber, K. Condon. 2007. Exposing the tourist value proposition of zoos and aquaria. Tourism Review International 11(3): 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godinez, A.M., E.J. Fernandez, and K. Morrissey. 2013. Visitor behaviors and perceptions of jaguar activities. Anthrozoös 26: 613–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grajal, A., J.F. Luebke, L.-A. DeGregoria Kelly, J. Matiasek, S. Clayton, B.T. Karazsia, C.D. Saunders, S.R. Goldman, M.E. Mann, and R. Stanoss. 2017. The complex relationship between personal sense of connection to animals and self-reported proenvironmental behaviors by zoo visitors. Conservation Biology 31: 322–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grazian, D. 2015. American zoo: A sociological safari. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gusset, M., and G. Dick. 2011. The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biology 30: 566–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, C.E., and L.J. Miller. 2016. Zoo visitor perceptions, attitudes, and conservation intent after viewing african elephants at the San Diego zoo safari park. Zoo Biology 35: 355–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, E. 2002. Animal attractions: Nature on display in American zoos. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancocks, D. 2010. The history and principles of zoo exhibition. In Wild mammals in captivity. Principles and techniques for zoo management, 2nd ed, ed. D.G. Kleiman, K.V. Thompson, and C. K. Baer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, M., and R. Wiese. 1991. Beyond genetic and demographic management: The future of the species survival plan and related AAZPA conservation efforts. Zoo Biology 10: 285–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN. 2011. Connect-understand-act model engages zoo visitors in fighting extinction. https://www.iucn.org/content/connect-understand-act-model-engages-zoo-visitors-fighting-extinction. Accessed on 31 July 2017.

  • IUCN/SSC. 2014. Guidelines on the use of ex situ management for species conservation. Version 2.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • IUDZG/CBSG (IUCN/SSC). 1993. The world zoo conservation strategy: The role of zoos and aquaria of the world in global conservation. Brookfield, IL: Chicago Zoological Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, D. 1985. Against zoos. In In defense of animals, ed. P. Singer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, E. 2014. Evaluating children’s conservation biology learning at the zoo. Conservation Biology 28: 1004–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kisling Jr., V.N. 2000. Zoological gardens in the United States. In Zoo and aquarium history: Ancient animal collections to zoological gardens, ed. V.N. Kisling Jr. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keulartz, J. 2015. Captivity for conservation? Zoos at a crossroads. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 335–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolbert, E. 2015. The sixth extinction: An unnatural history. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luebke, J.F., J.V. Watters, J. Packer, L.J. Miller, and D.M. Powell. 2016. Zoo visitors’ affective responses to observing animal behaviors. Visitor Studies 19: 60–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maple, T.L., and B.M. Perdue. 2013. Zoo animal welfare. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marino, L.S., O. Lilienfeld, R. Malamud, N. Nobis, and R. Broglio. 2010. Zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American zoo and aquarium study. Society and Animals 18: 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPhate, M. 2016. Gorilla killed after child enters enclosure at Cincinnati Zoo. New York Times, May 29, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/us/gorilla-killed-after-child-enters-enclosure-at-cincinnati-zoo.html?_r=0. Accessed on 31 July 2017.

  • Mellor, D.J., S. Hunt, and M. Gusset (eds.). 2015. Caring for wildlife: The world zoo and aquarium animal welfare strategy. Gland, Switzerland: World Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minteer, B.A. 2014. Can zoos save the world? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/can-zoos-save-the-world-32356. Accessed on 31 July 2017.

  • Minteer, B.A. 2018. The parallax zoo. In The ark and beyond: The evolution of zoo and aquarium conservation, ed. B.A. Minter, J. Maienschein, and J.P. Collins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Minteer, B.A., and J.P. Collins. 2013. Ecological ethics in captivity: Balancing zoo and aquarium research under rapid global change. ILAR Journal 54: 41–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minteer, B.A., and S.J. Pyne (eds.). 2015. After preservation: Saving American nature in the age of humans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, A., E. Jensen, and M. Gusset. 2015. Evaluating the contribution of zoos and aquariums to Aichi biodiversity target 1. Conservation Biology 29: 537–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G. 1987. Why preserve natural variety?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G. 1991. Thoreau’s insect analogies: Or, why environmentalists hate mainstream economics. Environmental Ethics 13: 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G. 1994. Thoreau and Leopold on science and values. In Biodiversity and landscapes: A paradox of humanity, ed. K.C. Kim and R.D. Weaver. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G. 1995. Integration or reduction: Two approaches to environmental values. In Environmental pragmatism, ed. A. Light and E. Katz. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G. 1999. Pragmatism, adaptive management, and sustainability. Environmental Values 8: 451–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G. 2005. Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G. 2015. Sustainable values, sustainable change: A guide to environmental decision making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B.G., M. Hutchins, E.F. Stevens, and T.L. Maple (eds.). 1995. Ethics on the ark: Zoos, animal welfare and wildlife conservation. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, J., and J.E. Heimlich. 2009. Why focus on zoo and aquarium education? Zoo Biology 28: 357–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, E.L., R. Lowry, J. Dorrian, and C.A. Litchfield. 2014. Evaluating the conservation impact of an innovative zoo-based educational campaign: ‘Don’t Palm Us Off’ for orangutan conservation. Zoo Biology 33: 184–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlman, D.G., and G. Adelson. 1997. Biodiversity: Exploring values and priorities in conservation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, D.M., and E.V.W. Bullock. 2014. Evaluation of factors affecting emotional responses in zoo visitors and the impact of emotion on conservation mindedness. Anthrozoös 27: 389–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redford, K.H., D.B. Jensen, and J.J. Breheny. 2012. Integrating the captive and the wild. Science 338: 1157–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H. III. 1994. Conserving natural value. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H. III. 2009. Converging versus reconstituting environmental ethics. In Nature in common? Environmental ethics and the contested foundations of environmental policy, ed. B.A. Minteer. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S. 2005. Biodiversity and environmental philosophy: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sartore, J. 2017. The photo ark. One man’s quest to document the world’s animals. Washington, D.C. National Geographic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, C.D. 2003. The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review 10: 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling, E., J. Lee, and T. Wood. 2007. Conservation education in zoos: An emphasis on behavioral change. In Zoos in the 21st century: Catalysts for conservation?, ed. A. Zimmermann, M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, and C. West. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stott, R.J. 1981. Historical origins of the zoological park in American thought. Environmental Review 5: 52–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanagan, J.S. 2000. Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education 31: 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takacs, D. 1996. The idea of biodiversity: Philosophies of paradise. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traylor-Holzer, K., K. Leus, and O. Byers. 2018. Integrating ex situ management options as part of a one plan approach to species conservation. In The ark and beyond: The evolution of zoo and aquarium conservation, ed. B.A. Minteer, J. Maienschein, and J.P. Collins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright, O. 2014. Denmark’s cage-free zoo will put humans in captivity. Guardian, August 5. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/aug/05/denmark-cage-free-zoo-will-put-humans-in-captivity. Accessed on 31 July 2017.

  • World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 2005. Building a future for wildlife—The world zoo and aquarium conservation strategy. Bern, Switzerland: WAZA Executive Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). 2012. Fighting extinction. WAZA Magazine 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, A., M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, and C. West (eds.). 2007. Zoos in the 21st century: Catalysts for conservation? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Sahotra Sarkar for his helpful comments on and suggestions for an earlier version of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben A. Minteer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Minteer, B.A., Rojas, C. (2018). The Transformative Ark. In: Sarkar, S., Minteer, B. (eds) A Sustainable Philosophy—The Work of Bryan Norton. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92597-4_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics