WHAT IS A MODERN ZOO FOR?

Conservation. Education. Recreation. Entertainment. When the Missions Overlap—and When They Collide.

Zoos have changed.

The iron-barred menageries of generations past have increasingly given way to naturalistic exhibits, conservation messaging, educational programs and institutions that describe themselves as important participants in protecting wildlife and biodiversity.

But another fundamental characteristic of the zoo has never disappeared:

People come to see animals.

They buy admission tickets. They bring their families. They take photographs. They attend presentations. They participate in animal encounters. They eat, shop and spend a day being entertained.

None of this automatically means that zoos cannot contribute to conservation or education.

It does, however, raise an important question:

What, exactly, is a modern zoo for?

And perhaps an even more important one:

When conservation, education, recreation and entertainment compete with one another, which purpose takes priority?

A Zoo Is Also a Tourist Attraction

In their 2018 paper Zoo Tourism: What Actually Is a Zoo?, researchers Lukáš Nekolný and Dana Fialová approached zoos from a perspective that is sometimes overlooked in public discussions about captivity: tourism.

They noted that zoos are among the world's most visited tourist attractions and argued that they should therefore be understood not simply as places where animals are maintained, but also as destinations designed for large numbers of human visitors.

The researchers also cautioned against treating all institutions called “zoos” as though they were interchangeable.

Some are modern institutions heavily involved in conservation. Others function primarily as popular animal-based attractions, including facilities where animal conditions may be inadequate. Even defining what constitutes a “zoo,” they argued, becomes surprisingly complicated when zoological gardens, wildlife parks, safari parks, aquariums and other animal attractions are considered together.

That observation provides an important starting point.

The word “zoo” describes an institution. It does not, by itself, demonstrate the institution's conservation, educational or animal-welfare outcomes.

The Modern Zoo Has Multiple Missions

Modern zoological institutions generally describe their work through several interconnected purposes: conservation, education, research and recreation.

A 2023 paper in Biological Conservation, The Value of Zoos for Species and Society: The Need for a New Model, makes a strong case for the continued relevance of conservation-oriented zoos.

Its authors argue that zoos can contribute to species conservation, research, education, human wellbeing and broader societal engagement with wildlife. They propose expanding the traditional model used to describe zoo functions because, in their view, modern conservation zoos have a sphere of influence extending considerably beyond simply exhibiting animals.

That perspective deserves to be taken seriously.

Zoos have participated in captive breeding and species-recovery programs. Some provide substantial financial or technical support for field conservation. Zoological researchers contribute to scientific knowledge. Educational programs can increase people's understanding of wildlife and environmental issues.

But acknowledging those contributions does not eliminate the need to evaluate them.

Quite the opposite.

The more important conservation and education become as ethical justifications for keeping wildlife in captivity, the more important it becomes to determine whether those claimed benefits can actually be demonstrated.

DOES VISITING A ZOO EDUCATE PEOPLE?

The answer from the research is more complicated than either “yes” or “no.”

A major 2019 review published in Frontiers in Psychology examined how zoo visits affect visitor behavior, perceptions and conservation efforts.

Researchers Andrea Godinez and Eduardo Fernandez found evidence that visitors can develop more positive perceptions toward animals, zoos and conservation, particularly through interaction with naturalistic exhibits, animals, programming and zoo staff.

But they also identified an important limitation in the existing research: much of it examines visitor reactions to particular animals, exhibits or programs rather than demonstrating lasting conservation outcomes resulting simply from visiting a zoo.

That distinction matters.

Providing information is an activity.

Learning is an outcome.

Changing behavior is another outcome entirely.

Those three things should not automatically be treated as equivalent.

Education Can Work—When It Is Deliberately Designed to Work

One of the more compelling studies comes from an experimental field study published in 2023.

Researchers tested visitors at 12 zoos and aquariums in North America and Australia, randomly assigning participants either to experience an ordinary visit or to receive additional values-based interpretive material.

A total of 1,174 participants completed surveys immediately following their visit and again four weeks later.

The additional interpretive material improved visitor engagement and learning and increased participants' reported adoption of environmentally responsible behaviors.

That is meaningful evidence supporting the educational potential of zoological institutions.

But it also illustrates an important distinction.

The conservation-related outcomes did not simply arise because visitors were physically present around captive animals.

Purposefully designed interpretation mattered.

The question therefore becomes more sophisticated than whether zoos “educate.”

We should ask:

What education is being delivered?

How is its effectiveness measured?

How long does the effect last?

And does increased knowledge ultimately translate into behavior that benefits wildlife?

Researchers Are Increasingly Asking Those Questions

A 2025 study published in Environmental Education Research addressed precisely this measurement problem.

Researchers developed tools for evaluating zoo educational programs according to outcomes including connection to nature, interest in species conservation, environmental concern and attitudes toward biodiversity loss.

Their premise is revealing in itself: environmental education requires regular evaluation if institutions are to determine whether their programs are actually achieving their objectives.

Another 2025 study examining teachers and prospective teachers found generally neutral to slightly positive attitudes toward zoos, while younger respondents tended to evaluate zoos less favorably than older participants, particularly regarding their functions and educational value.

Together, these studies point toward a reasonable standard:

Educational impact should be measured rather than presumed.

WHAT ABOUT GETTING CLOSER TO WILDLIFE?

This question becomes particularly important as zoos increasingly offer experiences intended to create a personal connection between visitors and animals.

Feeding opportunities.

Behind-the-scenes encounters.

Animal presentations.

Ambassador-animal programs.

Close-up photographs.

Walk-through habitats.

Some institutions argue that these experiences build connections that encourage people to care about wildlife.

There is evidence that emotional connection can indeed matter.

A 2025 Frontiers in Psychology study examined zoo visitors' perceived connection to animals and conservation. Researchers found relationships between people's feelings of connection toward animals and their interest in learning about and protecting wildlife.

That deserves recognition.

But it does not establish that ever-increasing physical proximity to wildlife produces ever-increasing conservation concern.

And that distinction deserves considerably more attention.

WHEN ANIMAL INTERACTION BECOMES ENTERTAINMENT:

A particularly revealing 2024 study examined animal–visitor interactions at zoological facilities across Southeast Asia.

Researchers identified 1,165 animal–visitor interactions at 225 zoos and aquariums across nine countries.

These included feeding, animal photographs and selfies, shows, rides and other interactions.

The researchers evaluated those experiences according to both animal-welfare concerns and the conservation messages communicated to visitors.

Their findings were troubling.

Photographs with animals and animal rides received particularly high “dysfunctionality” scores, meaning researchers found that these experiences could conflict with animal welfare or conservation objectives.

They also found that the number of animal–visitor interactions was not lower among accredited facilities within the Southeast Asian sample.

That finding requires an important qualification.

The study concerned Southeast Asian facilities and regional accreditation. It should not be extrapolated to conclude that accreditation by organizations such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in the United States produces the same result.

But the larger question travels well beyond Southeast Asia:

At what point does an experience intended to connect people with wildlife instead teach people that wildlife exists for human interaction?

That question becomes especially relevant when conservation messaging and entertainment occur simultaneously.

CONNECTION IS NOT THE SAME AS ACCESS:

Perhaps one of the most important ideas emerging from this research is that appreciating an animal does not necessarily require touching it.

Caring about wildlife does not necessarily require holding wildlife.

Learning about an animal does not necessarily require that animal to perform.

And developing empathy does not necessarily require eliminating the physical and behavioral boundaries that make a wild animal wild.

This matters because conservation ultimately asks human beings to do something fundamentally different from entertainment.

Entertainment frequently asks:

How close can we get?

Conservation sometimes requires asking:

When should we stay away?

Those are very different lessons.

THE CONTRADICTION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IGNORED:

None of this research demonstrates that zoos are inherently harmful.

Nor does it demonstrate that zoos cannot educate visitors or contribute meaningfully to conservation.

In fact, some of the research demonstrates exactly the opposite: thoughtfully designed zoo education can improve knowledge, engagement and reported environmentally responsible behavior. Conservation-oriented zoos can contribute expertise, funding, research and species-management resources.

But acknowledging those benefits should not require us to stop asking questions.

It should require us to ask better questions.

If conservation is a central mission:

How much conservation is actually occurring, and how is success measured?

If education is a central mission:

What are visitors learning, and does that knowledge endure after they leave?

If animal encounters are justified as educational:

What evidence demonstrates that increased proximity produces greater conservation outcomes?

If an experience generates revenue:

How do we determine whether the experience exists primarily because it benefits wildlife, because it benefits visitors—or because it benefits the institution?

And when those interests conflict:

Who comes first?

PERHAPS WE HAVE BEEN ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION:

The debate surrounding zoos is frequently reduced to two opposing positions.

Zoos are necessary for conservation.

Or:

Animals should never be kept in zoos.

The research suggests that reality is considerably more complicated.

There are enormous differences among institutions, programs, species, exhibits, educational approaches and conservation contributions.

Perhaps, then, the more productive question isn't simply:

Are zoos good or bad?

Instead:

What does this zoo do?

What does this program accomplish?

What does this animal experience?

What does the visitor actually learn?

What measurable benefit reaches wildlife in the wild?

Those questions allow conservation claims to be evaluated without dismissing legitimate accomplishments—and allow shortcomings to be examined without pretending those accomplishments don't exist.

CONSERVATION SHOULD BE MORE THAN A MESSAGE:

The modern zoo asks society to accept the captivity of wild animals partly because that captivity is said to produce benefits beyond human recreation.

That creates an obligation.

Not an obligation to be perfect.

An obligation to demonstrate the outcome.

When conservation succeeds, document it.

When education changes behavior, measure it.

When animal encounters benefit wildlife, demonstrate how.

And when entertainment conflicts with animal welfare or conservation messaging, acknowledge the conflict rather than hiding it behind institutional language.

Because ultimately, the most important question isn't what we call a zoo.

It isn't even what a zoo says its mission is.

It is what happens to the animals, what happens to the visitors—and what ultimately happens to wildlife beyond its gates.

KeepingWildlifeWild.org

Evidence • Education • Accountability

Research discussed

Nekolný, L. & Fialová, D. (2018). Zoo Tourism: What Actually Is a Zoo? Czech Journal of Tourism, 7(2), 153–166.

Godinez, A.M. & Fernandez, E.J. (2019). What Is the Zoo Experience? How Zoos Impact a Visitor's Behaviors, Perceptions, and Conservation Efforts. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1746.

Leeb, J. et al. (2023). Does Values-Based Interpretation Make a Difference? Testing Impacts on Visitors' Environmental Learning and Reported Adoption of Environmentally Responsible Behaviors.

The Value of Zoos for Species and Society: The Need for a New Model. Biological Conservation, 279 (2023), 109925.

Fourage, A. et al. (2024). High Prevalence of Dysfunctional Animal–Visitor Interactions in 225 Southeast Asian Zoos and Aquariums. Animals, 14(22), 3167.

Costa, R. et al. (2025). Reconnection with Nature Through Empathy: Rewiring People and Animals by Assessing Zoo Visitors' Connection to Species and the Need for Their Conservation. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1517430.

Feucht, V. et al. (2025). Environmental Education in Zoos: Analysis of Different Scales to Measure the Impact of Educational Programs. Environmental Education Research, 31(4), 776–793.

Wolf, R.L., Dierkes, P.W. & Kleespies, M.W. (2025). Zoos as Educational and Conservation Spaces: Perspectives From (Future) Teachers. Frontiers in Education, 10.
 

Conservation. Education. Recreation. Entertainment. When the Missions Overlap—and When They Collide.

➡️ KeepingWildlifeWild.org