THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 1

Guest Essay

Int. Zoo Yb. (2005) 39: 1–26 © The Zoological Society of London

The future of zoos and aquariums: conservation and

caring
G. B. RABB1 & C. D. SAUNDERS2
1
President Emeritus, Chicago Zoological Society, 9236 Broadway, Brookfield, Illinois
60513 and 2Director of Communications Research and Conservation Psychology,
Brookfield Zoo, 3300 Golf Road, Brookfield, Illinois 60513, USA

The success of zoos and aquariums as conservation centres depends on the

holistic embrace of conservation, including acting as model citizen, wildlife
conservationist, agent for conservation and mentor/trainer. Success also
depends on truly reaching our audiences, from policy-maker to land man-
ager to citizen, to help them care about and care for nature. In pursuing
our conservation goal, we must acknowledge our general lack of experience
in effectively changing the behaviour of these different audiences, which
function at both the global and local level. To start with those closest to
us, the visitors to our institutions, we should appreciate that we do not
have deep understanding of the effect our business has on them by pro-
viding close-up experiences with a variety of animals. Nevertheless, by the
caring ways in which we express biophilia and carry out particular conser-
vation activities, our institutions can become transformative models,
inspiring and motivating urban people around the globe to have a more
harmonious and sustainable relationship with the natural world.

Key-words: biophilia, caring, conservation, conservation biology, conser-

vation psychology, environment, motivating, participation, valuing

The future of zoos and aquariums is in jeopardy. Unlike other kinds of public institu-
tions around the world, our business is threatened literally with extinction. Zoos and
aquariums have been providing people with direct access to and experience of wild
animals that are rarely available otherwise. These institutions are prime venues for con-
nections with nature, most especially for urban populations, who generally have only
indirect access to the natural world or, for some, limited encounters through travel or
direct experience in local natural urban green belts. If the extinction of many vertebrate
animal species proceeds as forecast by those who have tracked the processes involved,
eventually zoos and aquariums will simply be out of business.
It has been argued that the demise of our institutions would be a good thing, because
we present the make-up of nature unnaturally and reflect an unworthy dominionistic
attitude towards the wild creatures that inhabit the natural world. The counter to these
points is that the reason why we are in business has changed. By becoming conservation
2 GUEST ESSAY

Fig. 1. Evolution of zoos and aquariums. The subjects and concerns attended to at earlier stages in our institutional
evolution continue among current responsibilities of zoos and aquariums. To be holistically engaged conservation
centres, zoos and aquariums must embrace the roles of model citizen, wildlife conservationist, agent for conser-
vation and mentor/trainer.

centres, our institutions are contributing to the very survival of many wild species, while
continuing to satisfy, in some measure, the positive interest people have in these animals.
Over the last two decades there has been growing involvement of zoo and aquarium
people in wildlife conservation (e.g. Soulé & Wilcox, 1980; Wilson, E. O., 1988; Olney
et al., 1994; Conway, 2003) and in relevant debate about ethics as well as strategies
(Norton et al., 1995). Institutions worldwide are continuing to evolve as conservation
centres, a movement greatly stimulated by The World Zoo Conservation Strategy
(IUDZG/CBSG, 1993) (Fig. 1). Hutchins (2003) has identified three trends and chal-
lenges ahead for zoological institutions as conservation centres: (1) wildlife habitats will
decrease and more species will become endangered, (2) animal welfare and animal rights
will attract greater concern and (3) increasing urbanization will result in greater aliena-
tion of people from nature. Hutchins & Smith (2003) have also outlined the institutional
standards required to meet these challenges. These issues are considered in the course
of this essay, which focuses on the roles that zoos and aquariums must play as conser-
vation centres, both now and in the future. In the first section, we emphasize the role
of our public institutions as agents for conservation. In the second section of the essay,
it is argued that to succeed as conservation centres, zoos and aquariums need a much
better understanding of people’s fundamental psychological relations to animals and
nature. Furthermore, we believe that it is essential for us to foster caring concerns and
caring behaviour for animals and nature if we are to stay in business, and if we are to
carry out the world conservation strategy of Caring for the Earth (IUCN/UNEP/WWF,
1991).
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 3

1. ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS AS CONSERVATION CENTRES

Many activities of our institutions are relevant to the conservation mission adopted by
The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). Even activities not obviously
related, such as business contractual arrangements and investments, may be conducted
so as to reflect a conservation ethos. However, for convenience, we will consider the
following roles that our institutions can play as holistic conservation centres: model
citizen, wildlife conservationist, agent for conservation and mentor/trainer. Organiza-
tional evaluation questions to apply to our institutions as conservation centres have been
provided by Miller et al. (2004), and they touch on many of the points considered in the
following section and in a briefer published account (Rabb, 2004).

MODEL CITIZEN
Zoos and aquariums should operate their facilities in an environmentally favourable or
friendly manner.
• Recycling organic and inorganic materials.
• Re-using or reducing use of non-recyclable materials.
• Conserving energy and water.
• Using non-polluting fuels.
• Minimizing use of herbicides and pesticides.
• Offering earth-friendly food and merchandise.
• Employing biomimetic principles and products in any construction.

As model citizens there are many appropriate activities for our staff and suppliers. This
role offers opportunities for partnerships with utility firms or agencies, such as those
supplying electricity, natural gas and water, and with suppliers of recyclable materials
(Plate 1). In all communications, we can celebrate accomplishments by our institutions
and by members of our communities, and acknowledge areas that we are trying to
improve. Indeed, a prime benefit of environmentally friendly operations is that people
can readily see that our institutions are being consistent with our message to them about

Plate 1. Modelling environmentally sound behaviour is an important role for zoos and aquariums, and Brookfield
Zoo has taken it seriously. Among other initiatives, the zoo converted its motor tram fleet to operate on clean-
burning natural gas, initiated numerous programmes aimed at conserving water, paper and aluminum, and part-
nered with the US Environmental Protection Agency to reduce emissions and save energy. J. Schulz. Chicago
Zoological Society.
4 GUEST ESSAY

the welfare of the environment generally. There are various standards for such opera-
tions and Aalborg Zoo in Denmark has set a good example in meeting the international
standard for environmental management (ISO 14001). Another example is the Oregon
Zoo’s ‘green team’, which is being consulted by other local institutions on best practices
to minimize the impact of their operations on the environment. Sharing concern and
demonstrating commitment for the good health of the environment are basic goals of
conservation centres. The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) Green Prac-
tices listserv provides a useful forum, encouraging the exchange of relevant information.

WILDLIFE CONSERVATIONIST
The principal thrust of the activities of zoos and aquariums as conservation centres has
been to act as wildlife conservationists (Rabb, 1994; Hutchins & Conway, 1995; Kleiman
et al., 1996).
• Managing species held in collections sustainably and humanely.
• Extending our caregiving to diverse natural environments.
• Carrying out conservation-related studies on the animals in collections.
• Communicating the results of studies widely in professional media.

To date, the overriding concern has been to maintain viable populations of species for
the long term in captivity/ex situ (Lacy, 1987). This has required the development of a
common record system for individual animals, population-management models, and
agreements on the co-operation required among institutions for collective management
of small populations (Foose et al., 1986; Lacy, 1993, 1994; Ballou et al., 1995; Flesness
et al., 1995; Ballou & Foose, 1996).
Good population management of species in captivity has substantially reduced or
eliminated the need to take animals from the wild. Importantly, zoos and aquariums
have begun to apply their new-found competencies in population biology to the perilous
situations of many wild populations. In a few notable cases, animals bred in captivity
have been the basis of species reintroduction efforts (Beck et al., 1994; Stanley Price &
Soorae, 2003). However, zoos and aquariums will not be able to accommodate many
more taxa in existing facilities. The corollary here is that there must be more attention
given to conserving or restoring available wild habitat for species impacted by habitat
degradation, alien species, pollution and direct taking of animals from the wild. This
means that individually and collectively our institutions must engage in field-conserva-
tion enterprises, including in situ captive breeding (Durrell & Mallinson, 1998). An
important example of putting equipment and expertise into field conservation and com-
plementary ecological studies has been the Frankfurt Zoological Society’s long-term
efforts in Africa, inspired by the personal involvement of Grzimek & Grzimek (1960).
Worldwide, the premier institutional presence has been that of the Wildlife Conservation
Society of New York, which in recent years has been initiating interdisciplinary, long-
term conservation work for the maintenance of biodiversity and local human community
welfare (e.g. Weber et al., 2001). An AZA team has published a useful guide to the
diverse issues and institutional experiences in field conservation (Conway et al., 2001).
Few institutions are in a position to manage large natural areas by themselves and
those concerned with protected areas increasingly recognize the importance of the
involvement of local people in maintaining viable natural environments (Kiss, 1990;
Ishwaran, 1992; International Institute for Environment and Development, 1994;
McNeely et al., 1994; Roe et al., 2000). Partnerships established by Durrell Wildlife Con-
servation Trust have been outlined by Mallinson & Hartley (1997) (see also McHenry
et al., 1999). Parker & Punturiero (in press) have described the long-term involvement
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 5

of the Chicago Zoological Society in helping build community stewardship of protected

areas in Australia (see also Sadowski, 2001). Conway (2000, 2003) has put forward the
proposition that zoos and aquariums should combine their strengths in collaboration
with governments and local communities to undertake long-term management of large
natural areas for biodiversity conservation. These areas might also serve as recipients of
captive-bred endemic species and as occasional sources of fresh genetic input for the
long-term welfare of captive populations. This survival insurance plan deserves the full
consideration and commitment of staff and financial resources from our institutions and
regional associations. In any case, zoos and aquariums can certainly collaborate more
fully with existing protected areas around the world (Rabb, 1995).
There has been an explosion of studies and reviews in conservation biology in recent
years and this has included reports on aspects of the wildlife-conservation role of zoos
(Soulé & Wilcox, 1980; Entwistle & Dunstone, 2000). Yet zoos and aquariums have
special needs for information and knowledge as wildlife conservationists. To await the
generation of pertinent data and techniques by others is unwise, given the rates of loss
of species and natural environments worldwide (Lawton & May, 1995; Baillie, 1996;
Rabb, 1997; Myers & Knoll, 2001). Moreover, zoos and aquariums have come to realize
the conservation value of focused studies in aspects of population biology, reproductive
biology, nutrition, animal behaviour and veterinary medicine, as well as of scrupulous
attention to documenting the status of animals in their collections.
This last activity may seem mundane, as is any form of inventory keeping, but it is
vital for the long-term maintenance of animal populations. The establishment and opera-
tion of the International Species Information System (ISIS), analyses of the data col-
lected, and population modelling are responsible responses of zoos and aquariums to
this challenge (Flesness, 2003). Unfortunately, appreciation of the necessity of updating
such systems has been lacking. Further refinements in wild- and captive-animal popu-
lation management will likely come with advances in modelling (see Beissinger &
McCollough, 2002). However, given the anthropogenic load on environments (Rabb,
1996), the application and extension to wild populations of studies on behaviour, nutri-
tion and stress factors for the welfare of wild animals in captivity may be more immedi-
ately vital to the survival of species (e.g. Palme et al., 1998; Berger et al., 1999). Similarly,
a strong argument has been made for habitat conservation work and population mon-
itoring as a complement to the long-term focus on extinction rates (Balmford et al.,
2003). However, we must also recognize that some global conservation problems cannot
be dealt with locally (e.g. Rabb, 1999).
Although zoos and aquariums can take pride in their development as wildlife conser-
vationists, our institutions need to publish our scientific studies and disseminate news
and information on our conservation activities much more widely and effectively in
professional media, as well as to policy and management decision-makers on natural
resources. While the primary reason for such communications is to spread information
and understanding, it is also valuable to stimulate critical review and engagement by
professionals in various disciplines, thereby adding to the overall effectiveness of our
studies and to recognition of our institutions as wildlife conservationists.
The Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG) of the IUCN’s Species Survival
Commission has provided a valuable link of this kind (Byers & Seal, 2003). This Group
draws upon expertise within the zoo and aquarium community, government agencies
and academic sources as it pursues analyses of conservation-biology issues for diverse
taxa and particular local geographic areas (e.g. Walker, 2000; Westley & Miller, 2003).
The entire network of specialist groups of the Species Survival Commission presents
numerous opportunities for collaboration (Rabb & Sullivan, 1995). Many national and
6 GUEST ESSAY

international conservation organizations, such as Conservation International, World

Wide Fund for Nature, Wildlife Trust, and Fauna and Flora International also offer
potential co-operative ventures. An emerging collaborative area of direct interest in
regard to viability of captive and wild populations of animals is conservation medicine
(Meffe, 1999). Special concerns in this field are zoonoses, and the need for ecologically
aware partners in epidemiology, microbiology and other medical sciences (Murphy,
1998; Daszak et al., 2000; Spear, 2000). The growth of the regional zoo and aquarium
associations in determining best strategies for collaborative conservation action with zoo
and aquarium collections, and the development of population-management capacities,
are auspicious. Alas, the challenges are increasing as globalization proceeds, alien species
spread, and natural areas shrink and disappear.

AGENT FOR CONSERVATION

As public institutions, being agents for conservation is the primary conservation role of
zoos and aquariums. Having a positive effect on the conservation outlook and behaviour
of visitors and other audiences is a distinct opportunity and obligation for our institu-
tions. Our credibility in this role will depend in part on the institutional engagements as
model citizens and wildlife conservationists, but we need to recognize fully and enhance
the contributions we can make by being able communicators, inspirers, motivators and
providers for participation.
Surprisingly, the basis of the attraction that animals have for people is little under-
stood, although there have been expositions on biophilia by eminent biologists and social
scientists (Wilson, E. O., 1984; Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Kahn, 1999), and studies of
people’s orientations or attitudes to the natural world (Kellert, 1996). Visits to our insti-
tutions are often carried out in social groups, and this complicates our ability to deter-
mine the fundamental attractiveness of the animals to individual visitors through
ordinary surveys and other evaluative instruments. Despite these deficits in under-
standing, we can look at how zoos and aquariums are executing their function as agents
for conservation.
As noted above, various studies convincingly forward the notion that local commu-
nities must be involved for wildlife and ecosystem conservation to be viable in the long
term. This idea implies that we must have broad yet specific appreciation of diverse
societies and their cultures, as well as their economic needs. If zoos and aquariums are
to be fully fledged agents for conservation, they must take up this larger conception of
the field, which has been examined in some detail by Western et al. (1994) (see also
Weber et al., 2001). In the process, zoos and aquariums may be able to develop more
long-lasting relations with their visitors and home communities. For example, although
‘sense of place’ is the feeling usually described in relation to private experiences, in
particular physical and social environments (Botts, 2000), zoos and aquariums could
well aspire to be more significant in representing special places in the natural world for
increasingly urban populations and to become beloved places in the process. Some insti-
tutions may feel that they already enjoy such affection, but to what degree is the relation-
ship dependent on social, physical or biophilic qualities? Our understanding of the
meaningfulness of ‘place’ is limited, but several studies find that great value is attached
to the social dimensions of places (Cantrill & Senecah, 2001; Hidalgo & Hernandez,
2001; Uzzell et al., 2002). We should also be aware that our understanding of the ecology
of cities, the environments where most people live and where our institutions are located,
is relatively undeveloped (Collins et al., 2000).
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 7

Communicator Animals and exhibits are extraordinary teaching aids that enable zoo-
logical institutions to convey basic information about the diversity of the biological
world, the ecological adaptations of animals (including behaviour), the relationships
within environments between animals, plants and physical surroundings, and the human
involvement in, and effects upon, ecosystems locally and globally. Although most zoos
and aquariums offer formal educational classes for school groups or individuals, they
are principally engaged in what has been termed ‘informal education’. Activities, such
as reading graphics or listening to a narrator, have the advantage of voluntary engage-
ment by the participants, which may be more meaningful than instructional classroom
learning (Falk & Dierking, 2000). Our institutions also appear to contribute to life-long
learning (Falk & Dierking, 1992; Carr, 1999; Lundmark, 2002). Zoo and aquarium
educators are still developing best approaches to educational opportunities that can lead
to greater public involvement in conservation (e.g. Adelman et al., 2000). An effective
approach that has widespread historical precedents is storytelling (DeYoung & Monroe,
1996; Anderson, 2001). This can be applied to exhibit design and interpretive instru-
ments, and can also be used in other communications media to unveil or even champion
related conservation projects, especially those in which the institution has had a lead or
unique role. Jacobson (1999) provides a useful review of other forms of communication
that can be employed successfully to convey the conservation message.
It is recommended that young children should not be exposed to all the conservation
woes of the world before they have bonded well with animals and nature (Sobel, 1995,
1996). Modern information technology, which has the potential to extend our commu-
nications to non-visiting audiences, will help us to challenge ecophobia (avoidance of
being informed about environmental maladies) and allows us to advise our visitors on
convenient ways to access additional information.

Inspirer The communications spoken of above are in the cognitive learning domain,
but they can be delivered with passionate commitment for the existence in nature of
other living beings. In this manner, they may stimulate people’s affective links to animals
and their natural habitat. Veritably every good exhibit in our institutions offers oppor-
tunities for people to make the acquaintance of representatives of the animal kingdom.
The primary justification for having animals on exhibit is that they are serving as ambas-
sadors of their species. The exhibits within zoos and aquariums are the embassies, and
they should be respectful of the inhabitants and communicate information about their
lives, ecological roles and conservation status.
Some species have become symbols or flagships of conservation and exhibiting them
can capitalize on the work and advocacy that led to their rescue from extinction. In
North America, Bison Bison bison, Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus and Alligator
Alligator mississippiensis represent successful salvage efforts of wide acclaim that people
wish to associate with. Elsewhere, the Arabian oryx Oryx leucoryx, Golden lion tamarin
Leontopithecus rosalia and Waldrapp ibis Geronticus eremita are examples of species
recoveries that involved propagation efforts in zoos. The idea, of course, is to inspire
people with the notion that other species of concern can be conserved similarly. We
know that people will rally to the aid of such Endangered species as the Giant panda
Ailuropoda melanoleuca, but our goal should be to extend this response to all threatened
species.
Indeed, introducing people to good models in conservation can inspire them to be
personally involved in similar programmes and projects, or to advocate that policy-
makers foster, and natural-resource managers undertake, appropriate actions. Models
can be local people or projects, such as citizens who have brought about community
8 GUEST ESSAY

recycling centres or organized restoration of a prairie, or more distant notable people,

such as Sir Peter Scott, who established the IUCN Red Data Books, set up The Wildfowl
and Wetlands Trust and helped rescue the Nene goose Branta sandvicensis from extinc-
tion. President Theodore Roosevelt is a national figure in the United States of America
and he is held up as a model for conservation because of his extensive actions on behalf
of national wildlife refuges and national parks. In this instance, the widespread affection
of children for toy teddy bears presents the opportunity to celebrate Teddy Roosevelt
annually (Plate 2).

Action motivator Communicating information and inspiring interest are formidable

undertakings in themselves. However, to motivate even well-informed and inspired
people to conservation action calls for much deeper thinking and effort on our part. A
promising start is the development and application of, for example, environmental psy-
chology (Bechtel & Churchman, 2002), evolutionary psychology (Wilson, M. et al., 1998)
and environmental sociology (Dunlap & Michelson, 2002). There is, however, legitimate
concern that activism and advocacy from a science base should be handled carefully,
otherwise credibility may be lost (Rubenstein, 1998).
In motivating conservation behaviour through institutional communications and serv-
ices, there are two avenues that are often accepted as having significant impact: valuing
and experiencing.

Valuing In attaching values to animals and natural resources, our institutions can pro-
vide an important informational service. At least five kinds of values can be considered
relevant: ecological, economic, cultural, aesthetic and ethical. In the ecological realm we
can give people insight into the major functions carried out in ecosystems by animals.
The essays assembled by Daily (1997) are particularly enlightening; for example, puri-
fication of air and water, pollination, generation and renewal of soils, and mitigation of
floods and droughts. The examples can be localized for emphasis, as in the case of the

Plate 2. Introducing people to good conservation models can inspire them to become involved in similar pro-
grammes and projects. Brookfield Zoo’s annual Teddy Bear Fair encourages visitors to celebrate the conservation
commitment of the teddy bear’s namesake: US President Theodore Roosevelt. J. Schulz. Chicago Zoological
Society.
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 9

recently recognized value of the Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica in cleaning Chesa-
peake Bay (McCormick-Ray, 1998).
Although putting a monetary value on the world’s biota and ecosystem functions may
seem a persuasive conservation tool for economists (Costanza et al., 1997), it can mislead
others into thinking that this kind of valuing is realistic and the only key to environ-
mental sustainability globally (see commentary by Weiskel, 1997). Unfortunately short-
changed in such analyses are nature’s evolutionary capital investment, the
interrelationships of biospheric systems, the temporal dimensions, including ecosystem
dynamics and stability, and the evolutionary potentials for dealing with environmental
change, much less other values. Nevertheless, in local situations people should be
informed about the economic benefits that generally accrue from wise, sustainable
management of ecosystems and species populations, including the substantial benefits of
well-regulated ecotourism. Sustainable use of natural resources is a complex subject, with
social as well as economic and ecological dimensions (Robinson & Bennett, 2000; Pres-
cott-Allen, 2001; Reynolds et al., 2001). In any event, unless we create much greater
awareness of the irrevocable damaging effects of unsustainable harvesting of species and
habitats, detrimental practices will continue.
One effect of destruction of ecosystems is destruction of human cultural diversity.
Exploiting parties have often not recognized the extent of the knowledge about particular
parts of the biota held by people in natural subsistence cultures (Balick & Cox, 1996)
and also about the ecosystem capacities and the people’s commitment to such a way of
life (e.g. Turner, 1993). We should value these different ways of viewing and relating to
the world highly.
Another kind of value is the aesthetic attraction that colourful plants and animals,
charismatic animals and natural landscapes offer people. This attraction may be rooted
in our evolutionary history (Orians, 1986; Orians & Heerwagen, 1992). The aesthetic
appeal, indeed Kantian sublimity, of biological diversity has been argued for by Kiester
(1996). At the landscape scale or biological diversity level we do not have much under-
standing of the basis of such aesthetic appeal (Bacon, 1996). At the individual level
certain physical attributes, such as symmetry, strike deep chords in our perceptions of
beauty (e.g. Perrett et al., 1998; Etcoff, 1999) and such characteristics have evolutionary
selective advantage (Moller & Thornhill, 1998). We also know that we are innately
attracted by neotenous appearances, such as displayed by human infants and other neo-
nates, the giant panda and other species (Lorenz, 1943). We can acknowledge these
inborn predilections openly, for this does not diminish the value of the positive experi-
ential effect that natural landscapes and the appearance of many animals can have on
people.
Other values that we have for nature include ethical precepts. Although typically con-
fined to human interrelationships, there is also growing consideration of people’s obli-
gations to other forms of life. Respecting rights to existence by other species seems an
appropriate extension of our notions of human rights and a great deal of attention has
been given to this belief in recent years (see Regan & Singer, 1989; Rachels, 1990; Lind-
burg, 1999). However, this is a novel, non-traditional concept in Western thought (Nash,
1989). What registers more immediately in people’s consciousness of environmental
values is reference to the heritage of rights owing to our children and future generations.
Most people willingly accept this obligation as part of parental and familial duties.
Because the concept is integral to environmental sustainability, we should not hesitate
to employ this kinship appeal. With grace, of course.
Norton (1991) argues that there does not need to be complete congruence on values
by people of different interests to proceed with conservation endeavours, and Barrett &
10 GUEST ESSAY

Plate 3. Exhibit features that enable visitors to experience the world as the animals promote learning in an
experiential or visceral way. Such emotional affinity is believed to be an important motivational driver for con-
servation behaviour. J. Schulz. Chicago Zoological Society.

Grizzle (1999) extend this argument for pluralistic stewardship of the environment. These
studies give zoos and aquariums guidance on how to appeal to the diverse interests of
our audiences, whatever people’s orientation to the natural world (see Kellert, 1996),
but a realistic appraisal is that rational arguments, even economically based, have not
been a panacea for resolving environmental problems (see Wilson, M. et al., 1998). More
attention to reciprocity in caring relationships with the environment, as examined for
restoration projects by Geist & Galatowitsch (1999), may be the most propitious
approach (see this Guest Essay, Section 2: Zoos and Aquariums as Centres of Caring).

Experiencing A second motivational avenue to offer people at our institutions is per-

sonal experience. Historically, zoos and aquariums were founded on people’s general
curiosity about other forms of life. We have moved away from the simple revelation of
other species in a menagerie setting to placing animals in naturalistic simulations of their
native habitats, including an appropriate repertoire of sounds where possible (Ogden
et al., 1993). We have thus added a dimension of knowing to people’s discovery of
nature, even though we feel our dioramas and immersion exhibits are limited. Although
it is difficult for us to help people see and appreciate the diverse life in our more complex
exhibits, people’s experience of being in proximity to a variety of creatures otherwise
remote is a powerful incentive to their fuller appreciation of nature. Early experiences
of nature with a caring adult are characteristically part of the life histories of conser-
vation scientists and citizens (Chawla, 1998). Such occasions will be increasingly rare
for those living in urban environments, and zoos and aquariums should realize fully the
opportunity for service in this area. We can take guidance from the papers assembled
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 11

by Driver et al. (1996) that explore philosophical, religious, spiritual and deep psycho-
logical experience aspects of natural land management inspired by the land ethic thinking
of Aldo Leopold (1933, 1949, 1966).
Several zoos now have exhibit features that offer involvement experiences whereby a
visitor can sense signals or circumstances in the environment in a way that is similar to
what an animal might experience (Plate 3). Participation of this kind promotes learning
in an emotional or visceral way, an advantage lacking in passive information devices,
inviting as they may be to people’s thinking and engagement. Furthermore, while we
should promote rational understanding of relevant factors, it would be foolish to ignore
the emotional, biophilic affinity for animals and nature that is likely bringing people to
visit our institutions. The studies of Kals et al. (1999) confirm that emotional affinity is
as important a motivational driver for conservation behaviour as cognitive interest or
indignation about the prevailing treatment of nature.
Feeling unity with other living creatures is a subject many scientists and others are
cautious about approaching. Yet recent studies and observations further support the
idea that we share not only fundamental biochemical, anatomical and physiological
attributes with other animals, but also cognitive and emotional capabilities (Bekoff,
2000; Griffin, 2001; Brosnan & de Waal, 2004). Our institutions have generally shied
away from explicitly equating human mental make-up and behaviour with those of other
animals, so-called anthropomorphizing, even though this is a powerful means by which
people can understand and relate more closely to animals and the natural environment
(Burghardt, 1997, 1998). The biological and evolutionary bases of human behaviour and
their relationship to those of other primates have long been studied and written about
(Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1971, 1989), and the zoo biologist Heini Hediger stimulated several
basic studies of people’s behaviour by his own ethological work (Rabb, 1993). With
sensitivity to some people’s aversion to the idea of biological evolution, we can do more
to utilize this avenue to have people connect to our animal relatives (Midgley, 1978, rev.
1995). The recent fuller recognition of niche construction as part of the evolutionary
process (Odling-Smee et al., 2003) provides a wonderful opportunity to link a pre-emi-
nent aspect of human behaviour with that of other animals.
Sharing wonder is another facet of experiencing nature that is commonplace among
visitors to our institutions, especially in the family context (Plate 4). In describing the
marvels of nature and the animals as species and individuals, do we offer as much
reinforcement to our visitors as we might? Simple factual comparisons between the abil-
ities of animals and humans can stimulate wonder and appreciation. The extension of
this sense of wonder to the intricacies of coexistence of plants and animals is a further
challenge but one that we should embrace. Although the biophilic basis of wonder (and
fear) is a new field of inquiry (Kahn, 1997), it is one to which our institutions can make
contributions that will be beneficial to our effectiveness as agents of conservation.

Participation As a provider of opportunities for conservation-related activities, few

kinds of institutions can offer the range that zoos and aquariums do. There are five
main relational roles available to people involved with our institutions.
• Associating: visitor, correspondent, vendor.
• Affiliating: member, zoo-animal adoption parent, tour member.
• Supporting: donor, sponsor, grantor, tax-paying citizen.
• Participating: volunteer, intern, protégé, employee, governing member.
• Advocating: all of the above, suitably informed.
12 GUEST ESSAY

Plate 4. Zoos and aquariums should reinforce and expand upon the sense of wonder visitors experience as they
discover nature at our institutions. Instead of simply offering details about an individual animal species, encour-
aging visitors to reflect on the sense of themselves in relation to various animals can stimulate wondering appre-
ciation. J. Schulz. Chicago Zoological Society.

Zoos and aquariums should be facilitating all ways of linking to our institutions; from
smoothing visitor access through our gates and providing information in readily com-
prehensible forms, to giving direct personal interactions wherever feasible. The latter
service and other informational processes can help us motivate those who associate,
affiliate, support and participate to become conservation actors and advocates.
An experience we can offer with little difficulty is making it easy for people to affirm
their appreciation of nature by joining in exercises showing their conservation concern.
In our zoos and aquariums, we can have voting booths, surveys, focus groups, listservs
and other means for visitors to express their outlook to us and the wider world. If we
illustrate that our institutions are engaged in a range of conservation issues, then it is
more likely that people will indicate their agreement in sharing our concerns.
The activities listed above, and in the agent-for-conservation role generally, can be
enhanced by collaborating with partners to enable us to understand better the psycho-
logical fundamentals in people’s relations with the natural world. Just as we can work
with various conservation-minded biologists on wildlife conservation issues (ex situ and
in situ), we can engage and help psychologists, social scientists, marketers and others
involved in research with our visiting audiences to increase understanding of these fun-
damentals, which can then be applied everywhere to the benefit of conservation. Such
studies might also contribute to resolution of major philosophical differences about the
role of our species in nature (Soulé & Lease, 1995).

MENTOR AND TRAINER

Zoos and aquariums should enhance their efforts at being mentors and trainers of new
generations who may come to staff our institutions or pursue conservation-related
careers elsewhere. Most of our institutions are accustomed to offering public educational
services and to training new employees in animal-husbandry techniques. There are
various ways we can carry out this mentor role; for example, by providing special group
educators, special information resources, individual career coaches and facilitating guides
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 13

for governing parties. There are many disciplinary fields in which we can offer exposure
and training.
• Animal behaviour.
• Population biology.
• Animal nutrition.
• Veterinary medicine.
• Wildlife conservation.
• Conservation psychology.
• Technical information management.
• Communications methodology.

These services can be offered at various levels, from student beginner to people already
experienced in one or more facets of institutional operations. For young people, a
powerful means for learning and behavioural modelling is peer groups (Harris, 1998)
and we can offer special classes and volunteer teams as, for example, provided by other
organizations, such as the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts (Plate 5).
A long-time formal effort in zoo biology/conservation training that has been of benefit
to many institutions is that of Jersey Zoo (Fa et al., 1995). In a broader effort, staff of
the Conservation and Research Center (CRC: Front Royal, VA, USA) of the Smith-
sonian’s National Zoological Park (Washington, DC, USA), have offered conservation
courses and workshops in various locales, especially in Asia, to facilitate the participants’
understanding of modern conservation science, field methods and communications
(Rudran et al., 1990; Wemmer et al., 1993). Over the last 23 years 3400 people from 81
countries have been engaged in this training; 1000 more have been mentored by CRC
and zoo staff. The Wildlife Conservation Society has also fostered a similar effort in
south-east Asia (Rabinowitz, 1993) and other institutions have also been involved in
such activities.
We should not forget that there is a special mentoring function that is important to
the welfare of our institutions and their conservation commitment. This involves our

Plate 5. Zoos and aquariums that embrace the role of mentor/trainer may be the ultimate beneficiaries. Brookfield
Zoo’s Youth Volunteer Corps, part of a larger zoo programme called Career Ladder for Youth, offers children
the chance to explore science and nature. By providing opportunities for and encouraging these interests, the zoo
is helping to develop the conservationists of the future. J. Schulz. Chicago Zoological Society.
14 GUEST ESSAY

orientation and guidance of people new to the responsibility of governing our institutions
(Rabb, 2001a). These people may have important positions in government agencies, on
city councils or on the boards of directors or trustees of our institutions, and they should
understand our core commitment to conservation service. Such people may be able to
spread the conservation effects of an institution in ways that would not be achievable
by staff or volunteers.

2. ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS AS CENTRES OF CARING

The preceding section on the roles of a conservation centre emphasized the connections
that our institutions must make to environmental conservation and some of the chal-
lenges we must face in the process of helping our audiences to express, in their own
behaviour, their concern about the conservation of animals and the natural world. These
expressions of concern are ways of caring and not simple reflections of attitude. It has
been suggested that caring can be considered at different levels of engagement: thinking
or ‘caring that’, feeling or ‘caring about’ and acting or behaving in ‘caring for’ (Schultz,
2002; G. Brown, pers. comm.). There seem to be no firm relationships among these
intellectual, emotional and behavioural dimensions of caring. In other words, ‘caring
that’ may or may not lead to ‘caring about’, and ‘caring that’ or ‘caring about’ may or
may not lead to ‘caring for’. However, the routine of caring for animals can lead to
caring deeply about their welfare and future.
In agreement with Bostock (1993), we venture that our institutions as conservation
centres are, in essence, centres of caring in respect to the natural world (Rabb, 2001b).
Modes of fostering caring at different levels correlate with roles that our institutions
play as agents for conservation (Fig. 2). Moving people to caring actively for the
environment in an ecologically sustainable fashion is certainly a major endeavour, but
should be the ultimate goal for our institutions as conservation centres. There are guides
for the task (Geller, 1995), outlines of the work ahead from a psychological viewpoint
(Oskamp, 2002) and educational frameworks for caring (Oliner, 1979, 1986). As our
institutions move in this direction, diverse aspects of our behaviour as a species will need
examination and reflection. These include our original non-conservationist character
(Mace, 2000), biophilia (Wilson, E. O., 1984), the close spiritual and knowledge con-
nections to nature by many people (Hamilton, 1993; Kemf, 1993), the roles of self-
interest and altruism (Kellert, 1997; Sober & Wilson, 1998), the construction of attitudes

Fig. 2. Components of conservation caring. As conservation centres, zoos and aquariums are, in essence, institu-
tional centres of caring with respect to the natural world. In the role of agent for conservation, our institutions
should foster caring in each mode of engagement.
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 15

(Eiser, 1994) and moral development (Haan et al., 1985: Damon, 1999). Taking an evo-
lutionary standpoint, Penn (2003) has given a stimulating and helpful overview of these
dimensions of human behaviour.

Distance in Caring We must bear in mind that caring generally becomes more abstract
as the object of care is more distant or larger in scope. Conversely, the immediacy of
caring and consequential relationships are greater the closer one is (physically, tempo-
rally or conceptually) to an entity (Fig. 3). Given the substantial effect of proximity in
a person’s caring relationships, it seems that a fruitful approach for our institutions is
to engage people in ‘caring about’ and ‘caring for’ individual animals, then local species
and local habitats (see Kahn & Kellert, 2002). The dilemma for us is obvious; the exotic,
the distant, the distinctively different plant and animal species draw people to our insti-
tutions, but caring behaviour is most readily expressed for those creatures close at hand
and familiar, that might be considered part of the family and certainly part of the
neighbourhood. If our institutions are to achieve maximal impact in the conservation
of biological diversity globally, we have to help extend the close caring relationships of
people and understand the challenges inherent in moving people across what are emo-
tional as well as intellectual bridges to larger and more distant entities.
An example of the difficulties faced by zoos and aquariums in helping people extend
their caring behaviour is our necessary management or prohibition of a caring action
manifested around the world by our visiting public, namely, feeding the animals. In this
case, the focus is on individual animals, and while some people will take up an indirect
surrogate activity, such as joining a zoo animal-adoption programme, others may simply
feel deprived of an opportunity to interact with and to show caring for the animals.

Fig. 3. Relationships in caring: human, biotic and environmental axes. The intensity of caring is greatest towards
the people, animals, plants and environments closest to oneself. Recognizing that people act not only individually
but also in social units, the conservation challenge for zoos and aquariums is to transpose this intensity of caring
to more distant entities.
16 GUEST ESSAY

Nevertheless, by engaging people about animal welfare and environmental health close
at hand, we believe that positive benefits can emerge for the maintenance of biological
diversity and environmental values. There are certainly differences in perspective between
conservationists and those focused on individual-animal welfare but there is also com-
monality of interest that can be put to positive use (Rawles, 1996). An evolutionary
perspective on animal welfare has been provided by Dawkins (1998), who reviews stan-
dard measures and the question of consciousness in other animals. The practical side of
these matters has been taken up by Mallinson (1995).
As a positive example of starting close to home in caring relationships, over 170 local
institutions, conservation organizations, corporations and municipalities in the Chicago
area have joined with federal, state and county agencies, and other holders of natural
lands, in a coalition called Chicago Wilderness to conserve the biodiversity of the greater
Chicago region (Hutcherson, in press). This initiative has produced many studies and
an Atlas of Biodiversity (Sullivan, 1998), the Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Recovery
Plan (Chicago Region Biodiversity Council, 1999), a more specific guidebook for com-
munity planning (Navota & Dreher, 2000), and Chicago Wilderness, a popular quarterly
magazine featuring conservation issues, citizen conservationists and special sites of
interest (see also http://www.chiwild.org/pubprod/index.cfm). There are extensive com-
munications outreach efforts to the metropolitan public in which zoos, aquariums,
museums and nature centres are involved. Several thousand volunteers, who are linked
through Chicago Wilderness member organizations and a switchboard network hosted
at Brookfield Zoo, carry out a substantial part of the field activities needed for environ-
mental conservation and restoration. An eventual outcome of this collaborative effort
may be the first urban biosphere reserve (Elder, 1998).
As these examples suggest, we can start close to home to counter what has been
described as the discounting of concern for more remote and larger entities (Hannon,
1987, 1994). The close-up experiences of our exhibits provide a stimulating base from
which to encourage our audiences in ‘caring that’, ‘caring about’ and ‘caring for’ the
biota and the biosphere, the most distant subjects of conservation concern. In the course
of this, we must be conscious of fearful and domineering aspects of relationships to
other people, pets and plants, and wild animals and environments throughout history
in different civilizations (Tuan, 1984; Kellert, 1997).

Development of Caring Although social scientists do not fully comprehend caring in all
its dimensions, conservation depends on caring by as many people in as many places as
we can influence. This leads us to recommend that we give more penetrating attention
to our audiences than ever, going beyond standard marketing studies to the very nature
of people’s association with favoured places (Gallagher, 1993) and with other living
beings (see Driver et al., 1996). For example, an interesting technique for accessing the
emotional dimension of people’s reactions has been developed by Gerald Zaltman (as
described by E. Eakin, New York Times, 23 February 2002, B9). Another technique, a
variation of the experience sample method developed by Csikszentmihalyi (2000), has
been employed at Brookfield Zoo (Plate 6).
We must approach this challenge with sensitivity to the dual influences of inborn and
cultural predispositions to perception of the world and to the ways in which we think
and feel (Nisbett et al., 2001; Laland & Brown, 2002; see also Kellert, 1996). Encour-
aging for this endeavour are the cross-cultural studies of Kahn (1999) and his collabo-
rators, who document the universality of generally positive feelings and thoughts about
the natural world, primarily using revealing methodologies with children. Also pertinent
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 17

Plate 6. To comprehend better the many dimensions of caring, social scientists must go beyond standard survey
techniques. In an effort to develop a tool for mapping the emotional landscape of a zoo visit, Brookfield Zoo
researcher Carol Saunders equips visitors with a beeper and response booklet. When the beeper sounds, partici-
pants note in the booklet their feelings about what they are experiencing at a zoo exhibit. Many participants
have concluded their report with essays on caring. J. Schulz. Chicago Zoological Society.

are studies of children’s philosophy in regard to environmental aesthetics and ethics

(Nevers et al., 1997).
Caring in terms of reciprocal relationships has been examined by Noddings (1984)
and the instinctual nature of caring has been taken up by Taylor (2002), who also points
out differences between genders in expression of caring behaviour in most cultures. A
fascinating aspect of zoo visitation patterns is that mothers bring their young infants to
see the animals before the infants have much visual resolution power. We need to under-
stand what this behaviour means in terms of familial caring and of biophilia.
Caring for plants, animals and the environment can be nourished as part of elementary
school education (Noddings, 1992). Even earlier engagement of young children can be
pursued, as suggested by the work of Gopnik et al. (1999). Myers & Saunders (2002)
and others give useful perspectives on how our social nature determines how as children
we develop caring relationships with those entities close at hand. Specially designed play
experiences in zoos can capitalize on this facet of behaviour (Winsten, 2001) (Plate 7).
Our institutions need to build upon such explorations of human receptivity to caring
opportunities as we find out how best to offer our audiences experiences that bring
progressive changes in caring behaviour for the environment locally and globally. This
kind of application need is already stimulating the nascent field of conservation psy-
chology, which incorporates caring into environmental psychology (Brook, 2001; Saun-
ders & Myers, 2001). Our institutions can contribute to and benefit from testing the
several approaches to building this emerging field (Vining & Ebreo, 2002).
A troubling aspect of attending to the development of caring on the cognitive axis
[providing for the ‘connectedness’ advocated by Schultz (2002)] is that the larger prob-
lems in sustainability and human population growth are not easily received and assim-
ilated by individuals. Despite the rationality of pertinent treatises on conservation, such
as that provided by Holdgate (1996), our institutions need to exercise prudence in
addressing these global subjects, lest we stimulate an adult form of ecophobia. Finger
(1993a,b, 1994) found that, in response to their fears about generally deteriorating
environmental conditions, Swiss people who did not have early experience with nature
18 GUEST ESSAY

Plate 7. Specially designed play experiences can encourage children to care for plants, animals and the environ-
ment. At Brookfield Zoo’s Hamill Family Play Zoo, this young girl practises caring for animals as a veterinarian.
J. Schulz. Chicago Zoological Society.

engaged in learning more about the environment. Unfortunately, this learning was a
substitute for conservation action for the environment. While heeding this finding, for
the more inquiring members of our public, we should be prepared to speak to redress
delusions about the state of the natural world (e.g. Lomberg, 2001). In countering such
messages, we should strongly encourage support if not direct participation in the deter-
mined efforts needed to correct imbalances in the global ecosystem, including the econ-
omies, agricultural practices, consumption patterns and numbers of humans Homo
sapiens, which may well be considered the super-alien invasive species.
In general, in making the case for caring for natural environments and the biota, it
seems wise to marshal positive values and to use local examples. For example, Daily &
Ellison (2002) give examples of pragmatic approaches to making conservation econom-
ically beneficial. Similarly, we can highlight the basic ecological services provided by
ecosystems in maintaining watersheds, mitigating flooding, providing pollination and so
on (Daily, 1997). We can also indicate the benefits of conserving the diversity of life for
our mental well-being and aesthetic pleasure. These benefits include not only experi-
encing the visual beauty of species and natural environments but also satisfaction of our
curiosity, problem-solving proclivity and collecting tendency (Rabb, 2001c). On the
ethical side, we can even propose that, whatever values we assign to them, the over-
whelming gifts of nature to us demand reciprocity if we are to be part of nature and
true to ourselves.

Institutional and Societal Change Although caring appears to be an innate component

of our individual behaviour (Taylor, 2002) and co-operation has a neural basis (Rilling
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 19

et al., 2002; see also N. Angier, New York Times, 23 July 2002, D1, D8), we must appre-
ciate that we are a social species that has developed culture to a superordinate level
governing much of our societal behaviour (Blackmore, 1999). In whatever ways it may
be constituted (Aunger, 2002; Ings, 2002), a deep conservation meme seems to be charac-
teristic of only a fraction of people in western societies. If we in zoos and aquariums
wish conservation to be pervasive societal behaviour, wherein it is the way of life for
the majority of people, we need to become more able to move society generally to what
Gladwell (2000) has called the tipping point. We also need to evaluate continuously our
progress in this mission to become societal change agents (Rabb & Saunders, 1999),
employing whatever tools in social marketing and public environmental education that
are workable in different societies (Dietz & Stern, 2002), while keeping in mind the
findings of Finger (1993a,b), and acknowledging the uncertainties in evolution of human
social behaviour (Laland & Brown, 2002). Given the evident need for vastly improved
environmental relationships at all levels (e.g. Western & Pearl, 1989; Choucri, 1993),
such commitment to assess how well we are doing in changing people’s behaviour is
obligatory if our institutions wish to be justifiable societal entities.
Although spoken of in terms of immediate action, the societal change or conscious
evolution envisioned here for the behaviour of humans will not occur the moment we
enrol our institutions fully in the effort as conservation centres. It is a long-term process,
rewarded by our sense of what is right for people, for nature and for our institutions.
In this quest, if we are not overly dismayed by the grim analysis of species conservation
by Meyer (2004), and instead share faith in the future of life with Edward O. Wilson
(2002), perhaps we should look to other institutional domains, such as medicine, sports
and education, for ways to organize our institutions better for best conservation impact
at local-community and global-network levels. The recent work of David Sloan Wilson
(2002) probes the domain of religion in looking at evolutionary processes operative on
groups. We can take off from his examination of this kind of memeplex and posit our
ministry to be establishing conservation as the universal religion for the future. We might
then well consider how to utilize our institutions as churches or temples for the biota,
how best to spread the ecological gospel, how to inculcate a catechism of environmen-
tally good personal and societal behaviour, how to foster societal control of the excesses
of use of natural resources, and how to celebrate the miracle of all life so as to secure
caring for all life in the natural world.

REFERENCES
Adelman, L. M., Falk, J. H. & James, S. (2000): Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on visitors’
conservation attitudes, behavior, and knowledge. Curator 43(1): 33–61.
Anderson, J. L. (2001): Stone-age minds at work on 21st century science: how cognitive psychology can
inform conservation biology. Conservation Biology in Practice 2(3): 18–25.
Aunger, R. (2002): The electric meme: a new theory of how we think. New York: Free Press.
Bacon, W. (1996): Multisensory landscape aesthetics. In Nature and the human spirit: toward an expanded land
management ethic: 311–320. Driver, B. L., Dustin, D., Baltic, T., Elsner, G. & Peterson, G. (Eds). State College,
PA: Venture Publishing.
Baillie, J. (1996): Analysis. In 1996 IUCN red list of threatened animals: 24–43. Baillie, J. & Groombridge,
B. (Eds). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Balick, M. J. & Cox. P. A. (1996): Plants, people, and culture: the science of ethnobotany. New York: W. H.
Freeman.
Ballou, J. D., Gilpin, M. & Foose, T. J. (Eds) (1995): Population management for survival & recovery.
Analytical methods and strategies in small population conservation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ballou, J. D. & Foose, T. J. (1996): Demographic and genetic management of captive populations. In Wild
mammals in captivity: 263–283. Kleiman, D. G., Allen, M. E., Thompson, K. V. & Lumpkin, S. (Eds). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
20 GUEST ESSAY

Balmford, A., Green, R. E. & Jenkins, M. (2003): Measuring the changing state of nature. Trends in Ecology
& Evolution 18: 326–330.
Barrett, C. B. & Grizzle, R. (1999): A holistic approach to sustainability based on pluralism stewardship.
Environmental Ethics 21(1): 23–42.
Bechtel, R. B. & Churchman, A. (Eds) (2002): Handbook of environmental psychology. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Beck, B. B., Stanley Price, M. R. & Wilson, A. C. (1994): Reintroduction of captive-born animals. In
Creative conservation: interactive management of wild and captive animals: 265–286. Olney, P. J. S., Mace, G.
M. & Feistner, A. T. C. (Eds). London: Chapman and Hall.
Beissinger, S. R. & McCullough, D. R. (Eds) (2002): Population viability analysis. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Bekoff, M. (2000): Animal emotions: exploring passionate natures. BioScience 50: 861–870.
Berger, J., Testa, J. W., Roffe, T. & Monfort, S. L. (1999): Conservation endocrinology: a non-invasive
tool to understand relationships between carnivore colonization and ecological carrying capacity. Conservation
Biology 13: 980–989.
Blackmore, S. (1999): The meme machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bostock, S. St. C. (1993): Zoos and animal rights: the ethics of keeping animals. London: Routledge.
Botts, S. E. (2000): The development of psychometric scales to measure sense of place. PhD dissertation, Col-
orado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Brook, A. T. (2001): What is ‘conservation psychology’? Population and Environmental Psychology Bulletin
27(2): 1–2.
Brosnan, S. F. & de Waal, F. B. M. (2004): Animal behavior: fair refusal by capuchin monkeys. Nature 428:
140.
Burghardt, G. M. (1997): Amending Tinbergen: a fifth aim for ethology. In Anthropomorphism, anecdotes,
and animals: 254–276. Mitchell, R. W., Thompson, N. S. & Miles, H. L. (Eds). Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Burghardt, G. M. (1998): Critical anthropomorphism. In Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare:
71–73. Bekoff, M. & Meaney, C. A. (Eds). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Byers, O. & Seal, U. S. (2003): The Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (CBSG): activities, core com-
petencies and vision for the future. International Zoo Yearbook 38: 43–53.
Cantrill, J. G. & Senecah, S. L. (2001): Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’ construct in the context of environ-
mental policy-making and landscape planning. Environmental Science & Policy 4: 185–203.
Carr, D. (1999): The need for the museum. Museum News March–April: 31–35, 56.
Chawla, L. (1998): Significant life experiences revisited: a review of research on sources of environmental
sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Education 29(3): 11–21.
Chicago Region Biodiversity Council (1999): Biodiversity recovery plan. Chicago, IL: Chicago Region Bio-
diversity Council.
Choucri, N. (Ed.) (1993): Global accord: environmental challenges and international responses. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Collins, J. P., Kinzig, A., Grimm, N. B., Fagan, W. F., Hope, D., Wu, J. & Borer, E. T. (2000): A new
urban ecology. American Scientist 88: 416–425.
Conway, W. G. (2000): The changing role of zoos and aquariums in the 21st century. Communiqué January:
11–12, 47.
Conway, W. (2003): The role of zoos in the 21st century. International Zoo Yearbook 38: 7–13.
Conway, W. G., Hutchins, M., Souza, M., Kapetanakos, Y. & Paul, E. (2001): The AZA field conservation
resource guide. Atlanta, GA: Zoo Atlanta.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., deGroot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,
O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. (1997): The value of the world’s
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–259.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000): Beyond boredom and anxiety: experiencing the flow in work and play (2nd edn).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Daily, G. C. (Ed.) (l997): Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Daily, G. & Ellison, K. (2002): The new economy of nature: the quest to make conservation profitable. Wash-
ington, DC: Island Press.
Damon, W. (1999): The moral development of children. Scientific American August: 72–78.
Daszak, P., Cunningham, A. A. & Hyatt, A. D. (2000): Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife—threats to
biodiversity and human health. Science 287: 443–449.
Dawkins, M. S. (1998): Evolution and animal welfare. Quarterly Review of Biology 73: 305–328.
DeYoung, R. & Monroe, M. (1996): Some fundamentals of engaging stories. Environmental Education
Research 2: 171–187.
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 21

Dietz, T. & Stern, P. C. (Eds) (2002): New tools for environmental protection: education, information, and
voluntary measures. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Driver, B. L., Dustin, D., Baltic, T., Elsner, G. & Peterson, G. (Eds) (1996): Nature and the human spirit:
toward an expanded land management ethic. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Dunlap, R. E. & Michelson, W. (Eds) (2002): Handbook of environmental sociology. Westport, CT: Green-
wood Press.
Durrell, L. & Mallinson, J. J. C. (1998): The impact of an institutional review: a change of emphasis
towards field conservation programmes. International Zoo Yearbook 36: 1–8.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1971): Love and hate: on the natural history of basic behavior patterns. London: Methuen.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989): Human ethology. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Eiser, J. R. (1994): Attitudes, chaos and the connectionist mind. Oxford: Blackwell.
Elder, J. (1998): First metropolis of the future. Chicago Wilderness Fall: 30–31.
Entwistle, A. & Dunstone, N. (2000): Priorities for the conservation of mammalian diversity. Has the panda
had its day? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Etcoff, N. (1999): Survival of the prettiest: the science of beauty. New York: Doubleday.
Fa, J. E., Clark, C. C. M. & Hicks, S. D. J. (1995): Training in zoo biology at the Jersey Wildlife Preservation
Trust: a retrospective look and a glance at the future. Dodo. Journal of the Wildlife Preservation Trusts 31:
28–40.
Falk, J. & Dierking, L. (1992): The museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.
Falk, J. & Dierking, L. (2000): Learning from museums: visitor experiences and the making of meaning.
Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Finger, M. (1993a): Environmental adult learning in Switzerland. Occasional Papers Series No. 2. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Finger, M. (1993b): Does environmental learning translate into more responsible behavior? Environmental
Strategy. Newsletter of the IUCN Commission on Environmental Strategy and Planning 5: 17–18.
Finger, M. (1994): From knowledge to action? Exploring the relationships between environmental experiences,
learning, and behavior. Journal of Social Issues 50: 141–160.
Flesness, N. R. (2003): International Species Information System (ISIS): over 25 years of compiling global
animal data to facilitate collection and population management. International Zoo Yearbook 38: 53–61.
Flesness, N. R., Lukens Jr, D. R., Porter, S. B., Wilson, C. R. & Grahn, L. V. (1995): ISIS and studbooks:
very high census correlation for the North American zoo population: a reply to Earnhardt, Thompson, and
Willis. Zoo Biology 14: 509–517.
Foose, T. J., Lande, R., Flesness, N. R., Rabb, G. & Read, B. (1986): Propagation plans. Zoo Biology 5:
139–146.
Gallagher, W. (1993): The power of place: how our surroundings shape our thoughts, emotions, and actions.
New York: Poseidon Press.
Geist, C. & Galatowitsch, S. M. (1999): Reciprocal model for meeting ecological and human needs in
restoration projects. Conservation Biology 13: 970–979.
Geller, E. S. (1995): Actively caring for the environment: an integration of behaviorism and humanism.
Environment and Behavior 27: 184–195.
Gladwell, M. (2000): The tipping point: how little things can make a big difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown
& Company.
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. N. & Kuhl, P. K. (1999): The scientist in the crib. Minds, brains, and how children
learn. New York: William Morrow.
Griffin, D. R. (2001): Animal minds: beyond cognition to consciousness. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Grzimek, B. & Grzimek, M. (1960): Serengeti shall not die. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Haan, N., Aerts, E. & Cooper, B. A. B. (1985): On moral grounds: the search for practical morality. New
York: New York University Press.
Hamilton, L. S. (Ed.) (1993): Ethics, religion and biodiversity: relations between conservation and cultural values.
Cambridge: White Horse Press.
Hannon, B. (1987): The discounting of concern. In Environmental economics: 227–241. Pillet, G. & Murota,
T. (Eds). Geneva: R. Leimgruber.
Hannon, B. (1994): Sense of place: geographic discounting by people, animals and plants. Ecological Eco-
nomics 10: 157–174.
Harris, J. R. (1998): The nurture assumption: why children turn out the way they do. New York: The Free
Press.
Hidalgo, M. C. & Hernandez, B. (2001): Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 21: 273–281.
Holdgate, M. (1996): From care to action: making a sustainable world. London: Earthscan.
22 GUEST ESSAY

Hutcherson, L. (In press): Chicago Wilderness: a collaborative model for urban conservation. In The urban
imperative: urban outreach strategies for protected area agencies. California Institute of Public Affairs Publi-
cation No. 109. Trzyna, T. (Ed.). Gland: IUCN—The World Conservation Union and Santa Monica Moun-
tains Conservancy.
Hutchins, M. (2003): Zoo and aquarium animal management and conservation: current trends and future
challenges. International Zoo Yearbook 38: 14–28.
Hutchins, M. & Conway, W. G. (1995): Beyond Noah’s Ark: the evolving role of modern zoological parks
and aquariums in field conservation. International Zoo Yearbook 34: 117–130.
Hutchins, M. & Smith, B. (2003): Characteristics of a world-class zoo or aquarium in the 21st century.
International Zoo Yearbook 38: 130–141.
Ings, S. (2002): Memetic mohicans: review of The Electric Meme, R. Aunger. New Scientist 175(2350): 58.
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (1994): Whose Eden? An overview of
community approaches to wildlife management. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development.
Ishwaran, N. (1992): Biodiversity, protected areas and sustainable development. Nature and Resources 28(1):
18–25.
IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991): Caring for the Earth: a strategy for sustainable living. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/
UNEP/WWF.
IUDZG/CBSG (IUCN/SSC) (1993): The world zoo conservation strategy: the role of the zoos and aquaria of
the world in global conservation. Brookfield, IL: Chicago Zoological Society.
Jacobson, S. K. (1999): Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kahn Jr, P. H. (1997): Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: children’s affiliation with
nature. Developmental Review 17: 1–61.
Kahn Jr, P. H. (1999): The human relationship with nature: development and culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Kahn Jr, P. H. & Kellert, S. R. (Eds) (2002): Children and nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolu-
tionary investigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D. & Montada, L. (1999): Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis
to protect nature. Environment and Behavior 31: 178–202.
Kellert, S. R. (1996): The value of life: biological diversity and human society. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kellert, S. R. (1997): Kinship to mastery: biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O. (Eds) (1993): The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kemf, E. (Ed.) (1993): The law of the mother: protecting indigenous people in protected areas. San Francisco,
CA: Sierra Club Books.
Kiester, A. R. (1996): Aesthetics of biological diversity. Human Ecology Review 3(2): 151–157.
Kiss, A. (Ed.) (1990): Living with wildlife: wildlife resource management with local participation in Africa. World
Bank Technical Paper 130. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Kleiman, D. G., Allen, M. E., Thompson, K. V. & Lumpkin, S. (Eds) (1996): Wild mammals in captivity.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lacy, R. C. (1987): Loss of genetic diversity from managed populations: interacting effects of drift, mutation,
immigration, selection, and population subdivision. Conservation Biology 1: 143–158.
Lacy, R. C. (1993): vortex: a computer simulation model in population viability analysis. Wildlife Research
20: 45–65.
Lacy, R. C. (1994): Managing genetic diversity in captive populations of animals. In Restoration and recovery
of endangered plants and animals: 63–89. Bowles, M. L. & Whelan, C. J. (Eds). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Laland, K. N. & Brown, G. R. (2002): Sense and nonsense: evolutionary perspectives on human behavior.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lawton, J. H. & May, R. M. (Eds) (1995): Extinction rates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leopold, A. (1933): The conservation ethic. Journal of Forestry 31: 634–643.
Leopold, A. (1949): A Sand County almanac and sketches here and there. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leopold, A. (1966): A Sand County almanac: with essays on conservation from Round River. New York:
Ballantine Books.
Lindburg, D. G. (1999): Zoos and the rights of animals. Zoo Biology 18: 433–448.
Lomberg, B. (2001): The skeptical environmentalist: measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Lorenz, K. (1943): Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 5: 235–409.
Lundmark, C. (2002): Lifelong learning. BioScience 52: 325.
Mace, R. (2000): The evolutionary ecology of human population growth. In Behaviour and conservation: 13–33.
Gosling, L. M. & Sutherland, W. J. (Eds). London: The Zoological Society of London.
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 23

Mallinson, J. J. C. (1995): Zoo breeding programmes: balancing conservation and animal welfare. Dodo.
Journal of the Wildlife Preservation Trusts 31: 66–73.
Mallinson, J. J. C. & Hartley, J. R. M. (1997): Partnerships in conservation. Dodo. Journal of the Wildlife
Preservation Trusts 33: 8–13.
McCormick-Ray, M. G. (1998): Oyster reefs in 1878 seascape pattern—Winslow revisited. Estuaries 21:
784–800.
McHenry, T., Brady, W., Candland, D., Echeverria, J., Ferguson, J., Jensen, J., Koontz, F., Jolly, A.,
Mars, V., Model, A., Pearl, M. & Tuten, J. (1999): Wildlife Preservation Trust International’s conservation
perspective and strategic directions. Dodo. Journal of Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust 35: 116–123.
McNeely, J. A., Harrison, J. & Dingwall, P. (Eds) (1994): Protecting nature: regional reviews of protected
areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Meffe, G. K. (1999): Conservation medicine. Conservation Biology 13: 953–954.
Meyer, S. M. (2004): End of the wild. The extinction crisis is over. We lost. Boston Review 29(2): 20–25.
Midgley, M. (1978, rev. 1995): Beast and man. The roots of human nature. London: Routledge.
Miller, B., Conway, W., Reading, R. P., Wemmer, C., Wildt, D., Kleiman, D., Monfort, S., Rabinowitz,
A., Armstrong, B. & Hutchins, M. (2004): Evaluating the conservation mission of zoos, aquariums, botanical
gardens, and natural history museums. Conservation Biology 18: 86–93.
Moller, A. P. & Thornhill, R. (1998): Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. American
Naturalist 151: 174–192.
Murphy, F. A. (1998): Emerging zoonoses. Emerging Infectious Diseases 4: 429–435.
Myers, N. & Knoll, A. H. (2001): The biotic crisis and the future of evolution. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98: 5389–5392.
Myers Jr, O. E. & Saunders, C. D. (2002): Animals as links toward developing caring relationships with the
natural world. In Children and nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations: 153–178.
Kahn, P. H. & Kellert, S. R. (Eds). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nash, R. F. (1989): The rights of nature: a history of environmental ethics. Madison, WI: University of Wis-
consin Press.
Navota, J. & Dreher, D. W. (2000): Protecting nature in your community: a guidebook for preserving and
enhancing biodiversity. Chicago, IL: Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission.
Nevers, P., Gebhard, U. & Billmann-Mahecha, E. (1997): Patterns of reasoning exhibited by children and
adolescents in response to moral dilemmas involving plants, animals, and ecosystems. Journal of Moral Edu-
cation 26: 169–186.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I. & Norenzayan, A. (2001): Culture and systems of thought: holistic vs.
analytic cognition. Psychological Review 108: 291–310.
Noddings, N. (1984): Caring: a feminine approach to ethics & moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Noddings, N. (1992): The challenge to care in schools: an alternative approach to education. New York:
Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Norton, B. G. (1991): Toward unity among environmentalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norton, B. G., Hutchins, M., Stevens, E. F. & Maple, T. L. (Eds) (1995): Ethics on the Ark: zoos, animal
welfare, and wildlife conservation. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N. & Feldman, M. W. (2003): Niche construction: the neglected process in
evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ogden, J. J., Lindburg, D. G. & Maple, T. L. (1993): The effects of ecologically-relevant sounds on zoo
visitors. Curator 36(2): 147–156.
Oliner, S. P. (1979): Compassion and caring. Journal of Education 161(4): 36–60.
Oliner, S. P. (1986): Implementing and legitimating prosocial education. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations
13: 389–408.
Olney, P. J. S., Mace, G. M. & Feistner, A. T. C. (Eds) (1994): Creative conservation: interactive management
of wild and captive animals. London: Chapman and Hall.
Orians, G. H. (1986): An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In Landscape meanings
and values: 3–25. Penning-Rowsell, E. C. & Lowenthal, D. (Eds). London: Allen and Unwin.
Orians, G. H. & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992): Evolved responses to landscapes. In The adapted mind: evolutionary
psychology and the generation of culture: 555–579. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (Eds). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Oskamp, S. (2002): Summarizing sustainability issues and research priorities. In Psychology of sustainable
development: 301–324. Schmuck, P. & Schultz, W. P. (Eds). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Palme, R., Bobia, C., Messman, S. & Moestl, E. (1998): Measuring faecal cortisol metabolites: a non-invasive
tool to evaluate adrenocortical activity in mammals. Advances in Ethology 33: 27–46.
Parker, P. & Punturiero, M. (In press): Community-driven stewardship of an Australian government pro-
tected area, with a metropolitan zoo as an international partner. In The urban imperative: urban outreach
24 GUEST ESSAY

strategies for protected area agencies. California Institute of Public Affairs Publication No. 109. Trzyna, T.
(Ed.). Gland: IUCN—The World Conservation Union and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
Penn, D. J. (2003): The evolutionary roots of our environmental problems: toward a Darwinian ecology.
Quarterly Review of Biology 78: 275–301.
Perrett, D. I., Lee, K. J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., Henzi, S. P.,
Castles, D. L. & Akamatsu, S. (1998): Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Nature 394:
884–887.
Prescott-Allen, R. (2001): The wellbeing of nations. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Rabb, G. B. (1993): Heini Hediger—a pioneer in the science of animal behavior. Der Zoologische Garten
(N.F.) 63(3): 163–167.
Rabb, G. B. (1994): The changing roles of zoological parks in conserving biological diversity. American Zool-
ogist 34: 159–164.
Rabb, G. B. (1995): The evolution of zoos, aquaria, and botanic gardens in relation to protected areas. In
Expanding partnerships in conservation: 82–87. McNeely, J. A. (Ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Rabb, G. B. (1996): Factors affecting survival. Species 25: 1–2.
Rabb, G. B. (1997): Global extinction threat. Defenders 72(1): 34–36.
Rabb, G. B. (1999): The amphibian crisis. In Seventh world conference on breeding endangered species: linking
zoo and field research to advance conservation: 23–30. Roth, T. L., Swanson, W. F. & Blattman, L. K. (Eds).
Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden.
Rabb, G. B. (2001a): Leadership in zoos and aquariums. Communiqué August: 20–21.
Rabb, G. B. (2001b): Caring—the essence of conservation. Biota November: 1.
Rabb, G. B. (2001c): Facing the challenge. In The red book. The extinction crisis face-to-face: 29–30. Robles
Gil, P., Perez Gil, R. & Bolivar, A. (Eds). Mexico City: IUCN & Cemex.
Rabb, G. B. (2004): The evolution of zoos from menageries to centers of conservation and caring. Curator
47(3): 237–246.
Rabb, G. B. & Saunders, C. D. (1999): God, unicorns, and toilets: mission-inspired evaluation. AZA Annual
Conference Proceedings 1999: 354–359.
Rabb, G. B. & Sullivan, T. A. (1995): Coordinating conservation: global networking for species survival.
Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 536–543.
Rabinowitz, A. (1993): Wildlife field research and conservation training manual. New York: Wildlife Conser-
vation Society.
Rachels, J. (1990): Created from animals: the moral implications of Darwinism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rawles, K. (1996): Conservation and animal welfare. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
Regan, T. & Singer, P. (Eds) (1989): Animal rights and human obligations (2nd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Reynolds, J. D., Mace, G. M., Redford, K. H. & Robinson, J. G. (Eds) (2001): Conservation of exploited
species. London: The Zoological Society of London.
Rilling, J. K., Gutman, D. A., Zeh, T. R., Pagnoni, G., Berns, G. S. & Kilts, C. D. (2002): A neural basis
for social cooperation. Neuron 35: 395–405.
Robinson, J. G. & Bennett, E. L. (Eds) (2000): Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Roe, D., Mayers, J., Grieg-Gran, M., Kothari, A., Fabricius, C. & Hughes, R. (Eds) (2000): Evaluating
Eden. Exploring the myths and realities of community-based wildlife management: series overview. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development.
Rubenstein, D. (1998): Behavioral ecology and conservation policy: on balancing science, applications, and
advocacy. In Behavioral ecology and conservation biology: 527–553. Caro, T. (Ed.). New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Rudran, R., Wemmer, C. & Singh, M. (1990): Teaching applied ecology to nationals of developing countries.
In Race to save the tropics: ecology and economics for a sustainable future: 125–140. Goodland, E. R. (Ed.).
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Sadowski, M. (2001): Search for sustainability: creating a model for community-based conservation. Biota 2:
6–9.
Saunders, C. D. & Myers Jr, O. E. (2001): Using conservation biology as a model for thinking about
conservation psychology. Population and Environmental Psychology Bulletin 27(2): 7–8.
Schultz, P. W. (2002): Inclusion with nature: the psychology of human-nature relations. In Psychology of
sustainable development: 61–78. Schmuck, P. & Schultz, P. W. (Eds). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Sobel, D. (1995): Beyond ecophobia: reclaiming the heart in nature education. Orion Autumn: 11–17.
Sobel, D. (1996): Beyond ecophobia. Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society.
THE FUTURE OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 25

Sober, E. & Wilson, D. S. (1998): Unto others. The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Soule, M. E. & Wilcox, B. A. (Eds) (1980): Conservation biology: an evolutionary–ecological perspective.
Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Soule, M. E. & Lease, G. (Eds) (1995): Reinventing nature? Responses to postmodern deconstruction. Wash-
ington, DC: Island Press.
Spear, J. R. (2000): Conservation medicine: the changing view of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 14:
1913–1917.
Stanley Price, M. R. & Soorae, P. S. (2003): Reintroductions: whence and whither? International Zoo Year-
book 38: 61–75.
Sullivan, J. (1997): An atlas of biodiversity. Chicago, IL: Chicago Region Biodiversity Council.
Taylor, S. E. (2002): The tending instinct: how nurturing is essential to who we are and how we live. New York:
Henry Holt & Co.
Tuan, Y.-F. (1984): Dominance & affection: the making of pets. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Turner, T. (1993): The role of indigenous peoples in the environmental crisis: the example of the Kayapo of
the Brazilian Amazon. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 36: 526–545.
Uzzell, D., Pol, E. & Badenas, D. (2002): Place identification, social cohesion, and environmental sustain-
ability. Environment and Behavior 34: 26–53.
Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (2002): Emerging theoretical and methodological perspectives on conservation
behavior. In Handbook of environmental psychology: 541–558. Bechtel, R. O. & Churchman, A. (Eds). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Walker, S. (2000): CBSG Regional Networks as conservation engineers: India as a case study. International
Zoo Yearbook 37: 1–17.
Weber, W., White, L. J. T., Vedder, A. & Naughton-Treves, L. (Eds) (2001): African rain forest ecology
and conservation: an interdisciplinary perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Weiskel, T. C. (1997): Selling pigeons in the temple: the dangers of market metaphors in an ecosystem. Occa-
sional Papers Series No. 8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School
Wemmer, C., Rudran, R., Dallmeier, F. & Wilson, D. E. (1993): Training developing-country nationals is
the critical ingredient to conserving global biodiversity. BioScience 43: 762–767.
Western, D. & Pearl, M. C. (Eds) (1989): Conservation for the twenty-first century. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Western, D., Wright, R. M. & Strum, S. C. (Eds) (1994): Natural connections: perspectives in community-
based conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Westley, F. R. & Miller, P. S. (Eds) (2003): Experiments in consilience: integrating social and scientific
responses to save endangered species. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Wilson, D. S. (2002): Darwin’s cathedral: evolution, religion, and the nature of society. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1984): Biophilia: the human bond with other species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, E. O. (Ed.) (1988): Biodiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Wilson, E. O. (2002): The future of life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Wilson, M., Daly, M. & Gordon, S. (1998): The evolved psychological apparatus of human decision-making
is one source of environmental problems. In Behavioral ecology and conservation biology: 501–523. Caro, T.
(Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winsten, K. (2001): What’s the ‘big idea’? Hamill Family Play Zoo finds meaning in children’s play. Com-
muniqué October: 20–21.

Manuscript submitted 2 May 2001; accepted 19 February 2003; revised 13 August 2004

GEORGE B. RABB, PhD

President Emeritus of the Chicago Zoological Society, George B. Rabb served as Director of Brookfield Zoo
from 1976 until 2003. His pioneering work led the Zoo towards its current position as a conservation centre,
a concept he has championed for zoos everywhere. George B. Rabb received both a Masters and Doctorate
in Zoology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a Bachelor of Science in Biology from the
College of Charleston, South Carolina. He also has an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from the
College of Charleston. In 1956 he joined Brookfield Zoo as Curator of Research, going on to create the
Education Department. He was also instrumental in the use of naturalistic exhibits to provide visitors with
environmental immersion experiences. In addition, while he was Director a new approach to help children
develop caring attitudes towards nature was pioneered at Brookfield Zoo. George B. Rabb has affiliations
with conservation organizations worldwide and is a respected spokesman on wildlife conservation issues. Most
26 GUEST ESSAY

notably, he is past chairman of the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN, the largest species conservation
network in the world, and he founded the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force. On the local scene,
George B. Rabb is active with the biosphere-reserve initiative of Chicago Wilderness, a multi-organizational
effort to maintain the exceptional biological diversity of the metropolitan region, and serves as President of
Chicago Wilderness magazine. He has long been a member of the Committee on Evolutionary Biology of the
University of Chicago, and a Research Associate of The Field Museum. George B. Rabb currently serves as
Chairman of the Illinois State Museum Board and is on the Board of Defenders of Wildlife. He is a published
authority on the behaviour of mammals, reptiles and amphibians, notably on the social behaviour of a captive
wolf pack, behavioural development in okapi and breeding behaviour of pipid frogs. His other studies have
ranged from the evolutionary relationships of viperid snakes to diabetes in tree shrews.

CAROL D. SAUNDERS, PhD

Carol Saunders is the Director of Communications Research and Conservation Psychology at Brookfield Zoo.
This department uses a variety of research methods to explore why people visit zoos, which zoo experiences
are most meaningful, and the role of zoos as conservation organizations. Carol Saunders has a Masters in
Psychology from the University of Virginia and a PhD in Behavioral Biology from Cornell University. For
her dissertation, she studied the ecology of baboon grooming behaviour in Amboseli National Park in Kenya.
Her current research involves how people develop caring relationships with animals and nature, and factors
that promote conservation behaviour. She has been leading efforts to form a network of ‘conservation psy-
chology’ professionals to address the human dimensions of conservation issues. Carol Saunders was a major
participant on several exhibit development teams at Brookfield Zoo: for example, Tropic World, Quest to Save
the Earth, Explore! A Child’s Nature, and Butterflies!. She contributed to the creation of the Rainforest Con-
servation Fund and the Chicagoland Environmental Network. Carol Saunders currently serves on the Board
of the Biodiversity Project, provides guidance for Chicago Wilderness Communications, and volunteers for
the Illinois Butterfly Monitoring Network. In addition, she is one of the national advisors for the Multi-
institutional Research Project of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, which is documenting the
impact of zoos and aquariums on the conservation-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of their
visitors.