Zoo Tourism: Biodiversity Conservation

Through Tourism
Corazon Catibog-Sinha
University of Western Sydney, Penrith South DC, NSW, Australia

Zoos endeavour to meet their conservation role through captive breeding, education,
research, animal welfare, environmental enrichment, reintroduction, and support for
in situ conservation of species and their habitats. Zoo tourism can be a tool in promot-
ing biodiversity conservation, especially through education and interpretation. This
paper discusses the challenges and constraints faced by zoos in meeting their conser-
vation role while at the same time providing opportunities for the public to learn
more about and enjoy nature, albeit in artificial conditions. A case study of the captive
breeding programmes that are implemented in the Philippines in collaboration with
certain leading zoos overseas is also presented. It examines the potential contribution
of tourism in sustaining these programmes. Zoos’ ability to balance the need to remain
economically viable and to play a major role in biodiversity conservation is a major
challenge that requires sustained public support and collaboration with other zoos
including relevant research and academic institutions. More research is needed to
determine the contribution of zoos and captive breeding centres as tourism attraction/
destination towards the promotion of conservation ethos and sustainable zoo tourism
practice.

doi: 10.2167/joe-0229.0

Keywords:  zoological gardens, captive breeding, Philippine threatened species, ex situ

conservation, visitor impact, collaborative partnerships

Introduction
A zoo is a collection of wild animals in captivity and may include ‘zoological
gardens, biological parks, safari parks, public aquariums, bird parks, reptile
parks, insectariums, and other collections of wildlife primarily for public 
exhibition, education, scientific, and conservation purposes’ (SEAZA, 2002: 1).
The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums states that a zoo is a ‘venue for
researchers and visitors to meet, thus assisting with the public understanding
of science and offering opportunities to raise awareness about research and 
its conservation implications . . .’ and has a ‘powerful part in achieving global 
sustainability. . . and should inspire people who visit zoos to become part of 
the same movement’ (WAZA, 2005: 6). As a tourist destination, zoos are the
‘primary institutional location of wild animal presentation’ and are very much
part of the ‘tourist trail’ (Beardsworth & Bryman, 2001: 87). Zoos as a tourist
attraction are controversial because of the perceived conflicting roles of zoos
(Harrison, 2004; Mazur, 2001).
Zoos have evolved from mere entertaining menageries to scientifically and
professionally managed zoological institutions (Hutchins & Conway, 1995;

1472-4049/08/2&3  155-019  $20.00/0  2008 Taylor & Francis

Journal of ecoTourism Vol. 7, No. 2&3, 2008

155
156 Journal of Ecotourism

Mazur, 2001; Rabb, 1996). With growing environmental consciousness that

began in the 1960s, the caging and maltreatment of captive animals have been
criticised especially by environmentalists and animal welfare groups. In the last
two decades, zoos, particularly those in western countries (e.g. UK, USA), have
re-evaluated their roles and practices, and several are now operating as conser-
vation or environmental centres (Rabb, 1996). Kelly (1997) supported the view
that zoos should be more than a collection of animals – it should be a tool to
conserve wildlife and their natural habitats. However, numerous zoos particu-
larly those in developing countries still operate under substandard condition
and animal care practices (Almazan et al., 2005; Bagarinao, 1998; Mallapur et al.,
2005b), and many are managed mainly to benefit human’s need for amusement
and entertainment.
There are about 10,000–12,000 zoos and animal parks in the world (WAZA,
2005), of which about 650–1000 are recognised internationally for their good
practice in animal management and species conservation (Armstrong et al.,
1993; Kelly, 1997; Van Linge, 1992). Zoos are urged by the global conservation
community to enhance their conservation commitment in relation to their rec-
reational and educational roles (WAZA, 2005). This is a great challenge for all
zoos worldwide because of the widespread degradation and loss of natural
habitats, where many of the zoo animals originated (UNEP, 1992). In fact, about
0.38% of the world’s forests, mostly from tropical regions, were converted 
annually to other land uses (FAO, 2003), and more than 50% of known species
are considered threatened or extinct (Baillie et al., 2004). Consequently, the
acquisition of zoo animals from their original habitats is becoming increasingly
difficult and controversial (Darby, 2006).
This paper, based on literature review and interviews, discusses the chal-
lenges and constraints faced by zoos in meeting their conservation role while at
the same time providing the venue and opportunities for the public to learn
more about and enjoy nature, albeit artificial condition. A case study of the cap-
tive breeding programmes in the Philippines that are operated by the govern-
ment in collaboration with certain leading zoos overseas is also presented.
Based on the results of personal interviews with key staff and researchers
(n 5 10) involved in these programmes and careful analysis of government
documents (i.e. memoranda of agreement, legislations, treaties, biodiversity
country reports and zoo accomplishment reports), this paper explores the con-
straints and challenges in captive breeding as well as the potential contribution
of tourism in sustaining these programmes.

Zoos as a Tourist Attraction

Some 1000 zoos and aquariums worldwide receive more than 600 million
visitors every year (WAZA, 2005). Visiting zoos is a popular family-oriented
leisure activity, usually involving a one-day visit (Ryan & Saward, 2004; Turley,
2001). Charismatic megavertebrates (e.g. elephants, big cats, giraffes, apes) that
are rare, unique, and active generally get the attention of visitors, especially
children (Churchman & Bossler, 1990; Turley, 2001; Ward et al., 1998). Such ani-
mals are, therefore, often selected for zoo display, although small and non-
mammals (e.g. lizards, frogs, spiders, butterflies) have been recently added as
zoo attractions because of the increasing interests of visitors in non-traditional
Zoo Tourism 157

animal exhibits, and probably because of the cost-effectiveness in rearing them

(Balmford et al., 1996).
The visitors’ motivations, expectations and experiences in zoo tourism are
varied and complex. In a UK study, the main factors that influenced zoo visits
were the location of zoos, previous visits, and recommendations from friends or
family members (Hunter-Jones & Hayward, 1998). The accessibility of zoos by
public transportation and availability of accommodations for families may also
influence leisure trip decisions (Stemerding et al., 1996). The visitors surveyed
in Cleveland Metropark Zoo ranked, in the following order of importance, the
factors that motivated them to visit the zoo: family togetherness, enjoyment,
novelty seeking, education and relaxation. This survey also revealed that adults,
who visited zoos often as children, tend to value the educational benefits from
zoo experience, visit various types of zoos, and have greater commitment to
zoos (Holzer et al., 1998). The visitors surveyed in Hamilton Zoo (New Zealand)
placed high value in viewing the animals but were less interested in obtaining
detailed information about them (Ryan & Saward, 2004).
Zoos can serve as stimuli to enthuse some visitors to travel and see wild 
animals face-to-face in natural settings (Mazur, 2001). Ryan and Saward (2004:
260), however, state that zoos cannot be an ‘effective substitute for viewing
wildlife in their natural settings’. In some cases, visiting zoos may help mini-
mise the need for in situ visitor–wildlife interactions, thus reducing the ­pressure
on free-roaming wildlife during these encounters (Catibog-Sinha & Bushell,
2004; Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001; Schakley, 1996).

Zoo’s Role in Conservation: Challenges and Constraints

The mission of the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, an interna-
tional organisation of zoos and aquariums, is to ‘set standards for increasing
achievement of conservation’ among zoos worldwide (WAZA, 2005: 1). In
response to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, 2002), the
global zoo community developed the World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation
Strategy – an action blueprint by which zoos will have the ‘opportunity to estab-
lish themselves as models of “integrated conservation” and the means of achiev-
ing this in a collective fashion. . .’ (WAZA, 2005: 7). Integrated conservation
consists of ex situ breeding of threatened species, public education, training and
research, and support for in situ conservation of species (especially those with
small populations) and their habitats. The Strategy also promotes better linkages
among zoos and broader collaboration of zoos with other relevant organisations
and institutions in various conservation initiatives.

Captive breeding
Well-managed captive breeding programmes in zoos are essential in main-
taining a good collection of threatened species. However, the success of captive
breeding programmes is not always guaranteed because some animals, despite
many years of efforts to keep them in captivity, are sensitive and are likely to
die shortly after capture. For example, the endangered cheetah shows poor
reproductive success and exhibits prolonged chronic response when moved
between facilities (Wells et al., 2004). Zoos in UK reported that although the
overall percentage of threatened species increased from a median of 4.8 in 1988
158 Journal of Ecotourism

to 25.02 in 1997, the number of threatened species breeding during this period
did not differ significantly (Whitfort & Young, 2004).
Zoos are also facing new challenges in maintaining the genetic integrity of
captive animals. Westley and Miller (2003) state that many zoos have limited
capability to conserve the genetic diversity of even their prized collections not
only because of the expense involved in maintaining the animals but also of the
lack of technical expertise needed to sustain viable populations. On way to
address this concern is for zoos to carefully select and prioritise the species that
have to be bred in captivity. For each species, a genetic management strategy
that is built on the genetic and demographic characteristics of the captive popu-
lations should be developed to avoid inbreeding, early mortality, and conse-
quently population loss (Balmford et al., 1996; Ellis & Seal, 1996).

Reintroduction
Captive breeding for reintroduction may be ‘the only option for species
whose populations have become so small or fragmented that they cannot sur-
vive without human intervention’ (Hutchins et al., 1997: 593). Successful reintro-
duction of threatened species is considered a major and, probably, the most
difficult conservation challenge of zoos today (Balmford et al., 1995). More than
120 species have been reintroduced to natural habitats, but only 15–18 animal
species were able to establish self-sufficient populations. The most popular
among these reintroductions are the Arabian oryx, American bison and
Przewalski’s horse (Baillie et al., 2004).
Although the international guidelines on captive breeding (IUCN, 2004) and
subsequent reintroduction of species (IUCN, 1995) are in place, not all zoos are
prepared to pursue the latter because of financial and technological constraints
(R. Lacy, 15 November 2004, pers. comm.). Reintroduction following captive
breeding is a time-consuming, expensive, and complex process (Ellis & Seal,
1996). Armstrong et al. (1993) and WAZA (2005) suggest the creation of an effec-
tive network among zoos and relevant organisations to facilitate these activities
and promote long-term commitment to species recovery programmes.

Animal welfare issues

The public attitude towards caging animals has at times been negative
because captured animals in certain facilities are neglected or subjected to harsh
human intervention (Kiley-Worthington, 1990; Rabb, 1996). To address animal
welfare concerns as well as to promote biodiversity conservation, a number 
of leading zoos have re-designed their facilities and improved their services by:
(1) creating miniaturised ecosystems that simulate the natural habitats of zoo
animals; (2) providing more dynamic and spacious roaming area; (3) maintain-
ing stringent routine management regime in animal care (e.g. animal nutrition,
hygiene, disease control, transport and handling); (4) improving the social 
environment of animals (i.e. group size, age–sex composition) to promote 
wild-like behaviour; and (5) upholding animal management ethics (Mallapur &
Choudhury, 2003; Melfi & Feistner, 2002; Rouck et al., 2005). Construction of
strategically located viewing platforms for visitors is also considered essential
in improving animal welfare. For example, placing visitors at or below the ape’s
eye level is less stressful for the animal that seems to be threatened by people
when viewing decks are placed above the ape’s eye level (Halpern, 2005).
Zoo Tourism 159

While some zoos still maintain animals in small, barren, and lonely enclo-
sures, others (e.g. Western Plains Zoo in Australia, San Diego Zoo and Brookfield
Zoo in the United States) have invested in creating an artificial condition that is
as close as possible to nature to minimise animal stress while at the same time
providing visitors better leisure and learning experience. In the construction of
the primate exhibit in Chicago Lincoln Park, an extensive research on the behav-
iour and ecology of gorillas was conducted prior to the recreation of a suitable
environment under captive condition (Halpern, 2005). Mallapur et al. (2002)
observed that the activity budget of captive Indian leopards was enhanced
when activity-related features (e.g. logs) were separated from rest-related features
(e.g. trees, sleeping platforms); this setup simulates the habitat requirements of
the animals in the wild. When animal welfare concerns are incorporated in
designing animal enclosure, visitors will not only be educated about the ecology
of the species but also become more aware of the plight of threatened animals
in their natural habitats.
Visitors also cause adverse impact on zoo animals. The factors that are associ-
ated with behavioural disturbances (e.g. intra-group aggression, stereotypic
pacing and food begging) in captive animals include crowd size, visitor density,
proximity of visitors to the exhibits (Anderson et al., 2002; Blaney & Wells, 2004;
Davey, 2005; Davis et al., 2005; Mallapur, 2005; Mallapur et al., 2005a; Wells,
2005). Other threats are related to the flow pattern of visitors (Davey & Henzi,
2004) and location of viewing platforms (Halpern, 2005). Furthermore, loud
and unruly behaviour of some visitors can have arousing and provoking effects
on captive animals (Van Linge, 2002; Wells, 2005).
A systematic monitoring of the ethical practice and animal welfare condition
of zoos is necessary to ensure high quality standard in animal care and to imme-
diately address the factors detrimental to animal welfare (Agoramoorthy, 2004).
In addition, national polices on animal welfare have to be implemented, and the
maltreatment of animals has to be dealt with immediately. Apart from animal
welfare issues, Bender and Shulman (2004) emphasised that prevention of zoo-
nosis, especially in petting exhibits, should be incorporated in these policies.

Environmental enrichment: Blending illusion with reality

Informed by recent research on the housing and biological needs of captive
animals, zoos are becoming increasingly competent in improving zoo environ-
ments that benefit both animals and visitors. Many leading zoos in developed
countries have already transformed some of their exhibits into ‘experience cen-
tres’, which offer specific thematic attractions (e.g. rainforest, wetlands, butter-
flies, primates, reptiles, cats) and learning experience (Rabb, 1996; Young, 2003).
The environmental enrichment of enclosures for harbour seals and grey seals
was found to increase mental stimulation and promote natural behaviour
(Hunter et al., 2002). Mallapur et al. (2005a) observed that adding some trees and
logs to serve as shelter and hideouts have reduced the stress level in macaques;
incorporating the use of ropes and vines also stimulates the animal’s free move-
ment which in turn catches the attention of visitors. In gorillas, placing a cam-
ouflage net barrier around the enclosure was found to reduce animal stress as
well as minimise visitors’ negative perception about captivity (Blaney & Wells,
2004). Strategically located viewing platforms for visitors were reported to be
important in improving visitor–ape interactions (Halpern, 2005).
160 Journal of Ecotourism

The reactions of visitors to the way animals are presented in zoos depend
largely on the aesthetic quality and variety of the exhibits (Luksetich & Partridge,
1997). Zoo landscaping can add variety and naturalistic sense of zoos ( Jackson,
1990; Maunder, 1990). Halpern (2005: 52) states that zoo landscaping enhances
the ‘sensory experience’ of visitors . . . and has ‘stories to tell’ about the animals
and their habitats. The enrichment of animal enclosure and zoo precinct, using
suitable plants and vegetation cover, has improved the quality of zoos as
­educational and conservation tools and has dramatically reduced the negative
impact of direct human–wildlife interactions (Michelmore, 1990). On the other
hand, zoo critics argue that contrived and ‘sanitised’ landscapes could convey
to visitors misleading or unrealistic perception of the real world situation.
Edensor (2001) even states that not all tourists enjoy contrived and regulated
tourist experience. The delineation between real and simulated tourism envi-
ronments in the context of visitor experience is actually unclear (Forrester &
Singh, 2005); thus, research on the impact of artificial settings, especially those
that are technologically generated, on improved conservation awareness is
needed.

Conservation-directed research
The large number and diversity of species maintained in zoos offer a range of
research opportunities for conservation and education (Mason, 2000; Mazur,
2001; WAZA, 2005). Collectively, zoos maintain about 1 million living wild ani-
mals from various parts of the world; of these, half a million are mammals,
birds, reptiles and amphibians (WCMC, 1992). The zoo-based studies on pri-
mates conducted during the period 1996–2000 in UK and Ireland (n 5 387) and
USA (n 5 319) were determined to have useful application to species conserva-
tion (12%), captive animal welfare (28.6%), and the combination of conservation
and welfare (59.4%) (Melfi, 2005).
There is a pressing need for zoos to excel in science and research. Conservation-
directed research in zoos can be more effective if done in partnership with other
research and academic institutions. One way for zoos to achieve their vision in
becoming ‘serious and respected scientific institutions’ (WAZA, 2005: 1) is to
integrate their research agenda intra- as well as inter-institutionally and to 
partner with universities, including those that offer tourism academic courses.
Zoo tourism research may include visitor impact management, visitor learning,
exhibit evaluation and marketing.

Education and interpretation

Zoos have important and leading role in education/interpretation in wildlife
tourism. Hunter-Jones and Hayward (1998) found that the visitors surveyed
from 200 zoos in UK placed great importance to watching and learning about
the exhibits. A well-planned educational/interpretation programme for zoo
visitors will greatly enrich the visitors’ recreational experience and increase
their appreciation of wildlife (Broad & Weiler, 1998; Higginbottom et al., 2003;
Rhoads & Goldworthy, 1979; Woods, 1998).
Providing interpretive messages in varying styles and methods can attract a
wide audience. Immersing visitors into a ‘realistic’ habitat recreation can be an
excellent means to awaken human’s potential ability to connect with nature and
Zoo Tourism 161

pave the way to developing or enhancing conservation ethos. A walk through

butterfly exhibits is an example of a zoo attraction where visitors can immerse
and get involved in learning about and appreciating butterflies and the plants
they use. Visitors, especially children which comprise the majority of zoo guests
(Hunter-Jones & Hayward, 1998; Ryan & Saward, 2004; Turley, 2001), can be
further enthused by engaging them in more interactive activities and interest-
ing interpretive materials (Tribe, 2001).
Educational and interpretation programmes, however, will not be complete
without an assessment of their effectiveness in terms of the improved knowledge
and wider understanding about biodiversity conservation gained by visitors
from their zoo experience (de Lapa, 1994). However, there is a dearth of research
data on the short- and long-term benefits of environmental interpretation on
improved conservation outcome (Broad & Weiler, 2004; Dierking et al., 2002).

Economic imperatives
The single most important challenge of modern zoos is how to balance conser-
vation goals with economic imperatives. Traditional attractions, such as zoos,
aquariums and museums in many countries are facing strong competition from
several leisure products (e.g. amusement theme parks, computer games) that are
emerging in recent years (Stevens, 2000). Using the product life cycle model, Turley
(1999b) found that visitor numbers in UK zoos are likely to be steady but at a lower
level than the new attractions. The sustainability of these zoos, however, was 
predicted to be positive. The study of US museums (including zoos) showed that
the demand for museum services is price inelastic and that museum quality has
important effects on visitor demand (Luksetich & Partridge, 1997). Effective and
efficient tourism management strategies can also affect visitor demand. For
instance, Hughes and Macbeth (2005) reported that Barna Mia (located in a low
profile regional area in West Australia) was showing slow progress in achieving
the status of an international tourism icon, despite the strong conservation stance
of the animal exhibits and highly satisfying visitor experience, primarily because
of insufficient business planning, weak promotion and marketing, poor commu-
nity support and inadequate tourism infrastructure.
Zoos depend heavily on user fees to offset operating expenses, but these fees
are often not enough to finance their conservation initiatives. Thus, zoos are
compelled to be innovative in developing new and additional funding mecha-
nisms, which include fund sourcing from admission fees, concessions, leases
and shares from gift shops and food outlets, zoo memberships, research and
development grants, and private donations. Many zoos have also been incorpo-
rating extra entertainments in zoo tourism and improving their marketing strat-
egies (Beardsworth & Bryman, 2001). However, Mazur (2001) was concerned
that economic imperatives would compromise the conservation objectives of
zoos. Zoos’ ability to balance the need to remain economically viable and to
play a major role in conservation is indeed a major challenge that requires
­sustained support from both the public and private sectors of society.

Collaboration with the tourism industry

The WAZA (2005) calls upon all zoos to form new alliances among other
members of the zoo community as well as with relevant academic and research
162 Journal of Ecotourism

institutions, including tourism-related agencies in the field of research, educa-

tion, and tourism management. While collaboration between/among some
zoos is relatively common in terms of animal exchange/transfer and genetic
data management, the partnership between zoos and tour operators/managers
in conservation is fairly new and not necessarily a smooth one. Zoo professionals
generally view the management of zoos differently from wildlife tour operators.
The study of Rodger and Moore (2004) found that wildlife scientists focus on
conservation in scientific research whereas tour managers/operators focus on
the immediate application of scientific knowledge on tourism, such as on visitor
impact management. Likewise, the priorities of zoo managers were found to be
different from those of visitors (Turley, 1999a). However, developing relation-
ships with accredited tour operators/tourism agency, as in the case between
Jersey Zoo and Jersey Tourism (Mallinson, 2001), can be mutually beneficial.
Collaborative efforts in zoo tourism between the marketing and the science/
research staff would be helpful in improving communication and pubic relations.
Such partnerships are likely to help move forward the conservation imperatives
and sustainability of any zoo.

Case Study: Philippines

The Philippine Archipelago is considered one of the most biologically diverse
countries in the world. However, the effects of indiscriminate and excessive use
of its natural resources since the end of World War II have been extensive and
dramatic, resulting in the rapid destruction of many of the country’s irreplacea-
ble natural treasures (Catibog-Sinha & Heaney, 2006). The Philippines is one of
the ‘hottest’ of the 34 terrestrial hotspots in the world in terms of high vulnera-
bility and irreplaceability of threatened species (Mittermeier et al., 2004). The
Philippines is also on the top of the list of the 18 global marine hotspots (Roberts
et al., 2002).
Since Philippine endemic species are found nowhere in the world, their
extinction would mean a global loss. In response to the global call for a stronger
and wider collaboration among zoos in various conservation initiatives (WAZA,
2005; WZO, 1993), the international zoo community has been helping the
Philippines in establishing back-up populations of certain endangered endemic
species in ex situ facilities. Currently, a total of 10–12 collaborative captive
breeding programmes are in place in the country. Table 1 presents a partial list
of the zoo partners from North America, Europe, and Australia. All of these
captive breeding facilities aim to function as ‘reserved gene pools’ in the event
of species extinction in the wild. These zoos are also involved in various aspects
of in situ conservation, such as habitat restoration and protected area manage-
ment. They help develop and support national species recovery programmes as
an integral component of captive-breeding and reintroduction (Banks, 2005;
IUCN, 2004). Improving the contribution of zoo tourism in promoting
­bio­diversity conservation is a major challenge to the Philippines and its partner
organisations.

National policy
As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the
Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and
Zoo Tourism 163

Table 1    Collaborative wildlife captive programmes in the Philippines

Captive breeding Name of captive breeding facilities in Name of partner zoos
programme Philippines overseas
Philippine Palawan Wildlife Rescue   Melbourne Zoo
Crocodile   and Conservation Center (Australia)
Conservation Center for Tropical Conservation Gladys Porter Zoo*
Program (Dumaguete, Negros Occ.) (Texas, USA)
Philippine Spotted Center for Tropical Conservation Mulhouse Parc
Deer World (Dumaguete, Negros Occ.) Zoologique and
Herd Program Mari-it Conservation Center Botanique (France )
(Lambunao, Iloilo) West Berlin Zoo
Negros Forest and Ecological (Germany)
Foundation – Biodiversity and White Oak
Conservation Center (Bacolod, Conservation
Negros Island) Center (Jacksonville,
Florida, USA)
Philippine University of the Philippines at Los Vogelpark Avifauna
Hornbill Baños (Laguna) (Neitherlands) and
Conservation Mari-it Conservation Center the North of
Program (Lambunao, Iloilo) England Zoological
Negros Forests and Ecological Society
Foundation (Bacolod, Negros Island)
Philippine Katala Foundation. Inc. (focused more Espace Zoologique
Cockatoo on in situ conservation) (France)
Conservation
Program
Philippine Cloud Mari-it Conservation Center Zoologischer Garten
Rats (Lambunao, Iloilo) Berlin (Germany)
Conservation
Program
The Warty Pigs Center for Tropical Conservation San Diego Zoo
Conservation Studies (Silliman University, (California, USA)
Program Dumaguete City) Rotterdam Zoo (The
Mari-it Conservation Center (College Netherlands)
of Forestry – West Visayas State
University, Lambunao, Iloilo)
Biodiversity Conservation Center –
Negros Forest and Ecological
Foundation, Inc. (Bacolod)
The Philippine Center for Philippine Raptors, None currently
Raptors Makiling Botanical Garden (Los
Conservation Baños, Laguna)
Program
Philippine Eagle Philippine Eagle Research and Nature
Conservation Center – Philippine Eagle
Program Foundation (Davao, Mindanao)
*Gladys Porter Zoo has been authorised by the Philippine government to distribute
captive-bred crocodiles to other zoos in the United States under the Breeding Loan
Agreement. The recipient zoos with active loan agreements with GPZ include the
Pittsburgh Zoo and Aquarium, Cullen Vivarium, Omaha’s Henry Doorly Zoo, and 
St Augustine Alligator Farm (C. Adams, 24 July 2005, pers. comm.).
164 Journal of Ecotourism

Fauna (CITES), the Philippines has the legal obligation to protect its threatened
species from extinction. CBD stipulates the need for in situ and, if necessary, 
ex situ conservation measures to ensure the maintenance of biodiversity (UNEP,
1992). On the other hand, CITES provides regulatory procedures on the trade 
in threatened species across international borders, including the transport of
these species for zoo exhibits and/or captive breeding purposes (CITES, 2005).
The Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) under the auspices of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the main focal
government body responsible for implementing both treaties. PAWB, being a
country member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, is
also guided by the global policies on captive breeding (IUCN, 2004) and reintro-
duction (IUCN, 1995).
Creation of an effective network among zoos and relevant organisations is
necessary to facilitate conservation activities (Armstrong et al., 1993). Thus, col-
laborative captive breeding programmes between the Philippine government
and foreign-owned zoos is covered by formal agreements (i.e. memorandum of
agreement, memorandum of understanding). The agreements stipulate certain
provisions, namely the acknowledgement of Philippine ownership of the loaned
animals and their progeny, repatriation of any of these animals in the future,
provision of technical and financial assistance to support the conservation of
the focal species in the Philippines, and participation of Filipino counterparts in
all aspects of research and conservation.
It is necessary that foreign zoos involved in ex situ conservation programmes
agree to establish counterpart programmes in the original habitat of the concerned
species. These provisions are required under the Philippine laws – the Wildlife
Resources and Conservation and Protection Act of 2001 and its implementing
rules and regulations (C. Custodio, 7 July 2005, pers. comm.; PAWB, 2005). The
agreements underscore the role of zoos in biodiversity conservation, which include
the promotion of scientific research, professional training, development and trans-
fer of relevant technology, ecotourism, and habitat protection and restoration
(Hutchins et al., 1997; 2003; Kelly & English, 1997; Turley, 1999a; WAZA, 2005).

Captive breeding initiatives

Many foreign zoos depend on wild populations as the main source of exotic
animals for exhibit and breeding. Because of the emerging national and interna-
tional regulations on the collection, transport and export of native species, the
stocking and restocking of wild animals from nature have become complex
and, at times, political. As a result, zoos are now hard-pressed to improve their
captive breeding programmes and to make long-term commitment to captive
management.
The selection of Philippine species for captive breeding is based on certain
criteria, such as the conservation status of the species, relative ease in rearing
and breeding them, and their physical features. For instance, the endemic
Spotted deer (Cervus alfredi), considered one of the most endangered cervids in
the world (Catibog-Sinha & Heaney, 2006), is a prized collection of certain zoos
in Europe and USA. The Philippine crocodile (Crocodylus mindorenesis) is a 
popular attraction in Melbourne Zoo (Australia) and Gladys Porter Zoo (Texas,
USA). Large and charismatic animals are known to get the attention of donors
Zoo Tourism 165

as well as zoo visitors, especially among children (Churchman & Bossler, 1990;
Turley, 2001; Ward et al., 1998). The symbolic power of rare species to arouse
conservation awareness is also a major zoo attraction.
Although breeding of the captive animals listed in Table 1 has been relatively
successful compared to those in some other 200 zoo facilities in the country
(PAWB, 2001), it is too early to ascertain if their populations would be viable in
the long-term. International zoo data indicate that out of the 274 species of rare
animals kept in zoos, only 10% have an effective population size to sustain
genetic variability (WCMC, 1992).

Reintroduction issues
The ultimate goal of captive breeding is to release the captive-bred progeny
back in the original habitat for the purpose of conservation. IUCN (1995) suggests
that reintroduction proposals should be carefully evaluated based on the conser-
vation value of the species to be released, availability of resources and technical
know-how, and acceptability of these proposals to the local community.
In the Philippines, reintroduction is a complex and controversial process; it
also requires long-term planning and commitment. The proposal to reintroduce
captive-bred Philippine crocodiles has been contentious because of the per-
ceived human risk associated with free-roaming crocodiles even though they
can enhance wetland biodiversity value and serve as a key wildlife tourism
attraction at the release site. Reintroduction, if not properly monitored, is 
basically ineffective. The Philippine Raptors Conservation Program reported
the release of 18 Brahminy kites; however, there are no official documents on
the outcome of this effort. Reintroduction may also fail despite careful planning
and surveillance. For instance, a captive-bred Philippine eagle (called Kabayan)
that was reintroduced in mid-2005 by the Philippine Eagle Conservation
Program met a fatal accident a few months after it was released into its natural
habitat. Unsuccessful reintroduction programmes, however, may trigger even
higher public support for in situ conservation. The National Aviary in Pittsburgh
(USA) is devoting a significant portion of its field conservation budget towards
a collaborative effort with the Philippine Eagle Foundation to further build their
research programmes on wild Philippine eagles. Many zoos in the USA would
like to display the Eagle to promote deeper conservation awareness among visi-
tors and to raise research funds for conservation in the Philippines (T. Katzner,
18 September 2006, pers. comm.).
The reintroduction of captive-bred animals, although a potential tourist 
wildlife attraction, could be a conservation issue if the genetic information and
phylogenetic structure of the animals to be released are not carefully evaluated.
Health-screening and monitoring of reintroduced animals should also be
­implemented to improve survival rate and avoid disease transfer to other 
animals and humans, including tourists (Matthews et al., 2006).

Animal welfare issues

All animals that are kept in captivity for research, entertainment, and recrea-
tion are protected from maltreatments under the Philippine Animal Welfare
Act of 1998 (RA No. 8485). Unfortunately, many zoos in the country, both 
publicly and privately owned, still have poor standard in animal care practices
166 Journal of Ecotourism

(Almazan et al., 2005; Bagarinao, 1998). Although the animals in Philippine-

based captive facilities listed in Table 1 receive acceptable level of care, the 
over-all quality of their enclosures and dwellings needs further enrichment.
The welfare evaluation of nonhuman animals conducted in three zoos in the
Philippines indicated the need to improve animal welfare standards (Almazan
et al., 2005). The visitors (n 5 25) of Ninoy Aquino Park and Wildlife Nature
Center who were interviewed casually in April 2006 expressed mixed emotions
regarding the state of the captive animals in the ‘mini-zoo’. About 65% of the
respondents felt that the animals need better care, although they stated that
viewing the animals at closer range has enabled them to learn about Philippine
wildlife.
Zoos stand to benefit in terms of improved visitor attendance, high tourism
revenue, and strong and wide support for conservation when the pubic percep-
tion about them is positive. According to Dawkins (2003), the welfare condition
of captive animals should be assessed objectively and scientifically, and research
has to be undertaken in order to advise zoo management on how to improve
animal welfare. The establishment of a strategic conservation and animal welfare
awareness program, particularly in zoos where visitor and management ethos
regarding proper treatment of animals is weak, was suggested (Mallapur, 2005).

Environmental enrichment
All organisations in the Philippines involved in the captive breeding pro-
gramme prefer to be called ‘environmental/conservation centres’ rather than
‘zoos’ to emphasise the conservation goals of these institutions and to espouse
higher environmental ethos among visitors (A. Lota, 20 July 2005, pers. comm.).
To facilitate the acclimatisation of animals for breeding and reintroduction,
some enclosures are constructed adjacent to native forests known to be the hab-
itats of the species. The enclosure of the Philippine tarsier (Tarsius syrichta) in
Bohol is continuous to the animal’s natural habitat (Jachowski & Pizzaras, 2005).
As a result, the cost of environmental enrichment is minimised, and the natural
behaviour of the enclosed animals is improved. Enclosures that have naturalistic
outdoor space for animals to play, exercise and socialise provide a less stressful
environment for animals and a much better leisure and viewing experiences for
zoo visitors (Gates & Ellis, 1999; Jackson, 1990; Jordan & Schwarze, 1990;
Mallapur et al., 2002; Wall, 1990; Young, 2003).

Research
Pure and applied research, such as the study of animal physiology, behav-
iour, nutrition, feeding habits, reproduction, parasitology and diseases can pro-
vide useful data for improving animal welfare in captivity, captive breeding,
zoo management and in situ conservation (Hosey, 1997; Laikre, 1999; Young,
1997). The majority of studies on Philippine captive species are rudimentary but
increasingly becoming robust. Some of the published studies include the repro-
duction of the Philippine deer (Catibog-Sinha, 1989) and hornbills (Lastica &
Georgii, 2001), hair morphology of the Philippine spotted deer (Maala et al.,
2003), and blood physiology of Philippine raptors (Manigbas et al., 2000). New
data on the ecology and taxonomy of the Philippine wild pigs have been useful
in the establishment of protected areas. The Philippine Cockatoo Conservation
Zoo Tourism 167

Program focuses on in situ conservation activities, such as population census of

cockatoos, habitat rehabilitation and protection, and pubic education and con-
servation awareness. One of the ultimate objectives of this program is to facili-
tate the establishment of Rasa Island (Palawan, southern Luzon) as a protected
area for biodiversity conservation and sustainable nature-based tourism. The
national animal recovery programmes of several species, such as the Philippine
crocodile, are also to be implemented (Banks, 2005).
Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive research on the impact of tourism
on captive animals in the Philippines. Plans are underway to study the linkage
between zoo tourism and species conservation.

Economic constraints
Tourism is considered in the Philippines as an important funding source for
ex situ conservation. The Ninoy Aquino Park and Wildlife Center (an urban
park with the ‘mini-zoo’ as a major tourist attraction) receives an average of
more than 400,000 tourists every year and generates an annual average income
of about A$78,000 from entrance fees, leases, and parking fees (PAWB, 2005).
However, the remitted amount is not enough to fully support the maintenance
of the Park and much less for conservation (I. Castillo, 7 July 2005, pers. comm.).
The crocodile farm on Palawan Island in southern Luzon, which is administered
directly by the corporate arm of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, is also a popular tourist attraction. Since the data on revenues from
this farm were not available during the time of the study, it is fare to assume that
the funds from tourism as well as from private donations and various fund- 
raising efforts/activities are adequate to cover the farm’s core operational costs
(L. Athea, 8 July 2005, pers. comm.).
The financial budget to sustain captive breeding programmes in the Philippines
has generally been minimal, and the lifespan of any one project is often subject
to the availability of funds from the national government and, occasionally, from
external grants and donations. For example, part of the special funds negotiated
by the government with the United States under the debt reduction agreement
(2002–2017) was allocated for the conservation and recovery of the Philippine
eagle (US State Department News, October 2002). Likewise, partner zoos in cap-
tive breeding programmes provide generous financial and technical assistance
to other captive breeding and in situ conservation initiatives.

Education and interpretation

The Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau states that the role of zoo partners,
which is integrated in the national Information, Education, and Conservation
Campaign (IECC) programme, is fundamental in biodiversity conservation 
(M. Lim, 8 July 2005, pers. comm.). Captive-wildlife tourism in these facilities/
centres (Table 1), whilst public contact with breeding samples is at times regu-
lated, is seen as way to help increase public awareness and understanding 
of current conservation issues in the Philippines, especially those concerning
species endangerment and habitat fragmentation.
The majority of zoo visitors in captive facilities in the country consist of school
children. Conservation-focused programmes, both to educate and entertain zoo
visitors, can help promote public awareness about biodiversity and its values.
168 Journal of Ecotourism

Tunnicliffe (1992) states that zoo visiting by school children should not be
treated as an event in isolation; instead, it should be carefully planned as an
integral part of the learning experience. Thus, to make zoo visits a successful
experience in terms of conservation outcome, zoos and schools should closely
coordinate in developing an effective zoo educational programme, which
includes both the provision of information and the development of strategies to
help children construct fresh understanding and perspectives. The outreach
education program of PAWB called Dalaw Turo (‘visiting to teach’) can also be
a useful vehicle to promote zoo conservation to children in far-flung places. 
The protection of natural habitats of captive animals as the preferred option for
biodiversity conservation is emphasised in these programmes.
However, changing human behaviour with respect to improved conserva-
tion awareness is uncertain and complex, and the empirical data to demonstrate
the conservation benefits, particularly the long-term impacts from visiting 
zoos and wildlife captive facilities/centres in the Philippines, are non-existence.
The absence of adequate data on the impact of zoos on conservation was also
reported overseas (Broad & Weiler, 2004; Dierking et al., 2002; Mazur, 2001).

Summary/Conclusions
Zoos are facing new challenges in captive management of animals. These
challenges can provide zoos with a range of opportunities for a significant role
in biodiversity conservation, education and research. Zoos are urged by the
global conservation community to enhance their conservation commitment in
relation to their recreational and educational roles. Many leading zoos in the
world have redefined themselves to be more relevant to current conservation
issues and responsive to public’s demand for naturally aesthetic and ethically-
driven animal exhibits and attractions. The public support for zoo’s conserva-
tion initiatives can be reinforced with well-presented educational programme,
which focuses not only on the biological facts about the animals but also on the
captive breeding, reintroduction and in situ conservation programmes being
undertaken by zoos. Zoos’ ability to balance the need to remain economically
viable and to play a significant role in conservation is a major challenge that
requires public support and collaboration with other organisations and institu-
tions. Zoos can expand partnerships with other zoos as well as form new alli-
ances with relevant academic and research institutions, including tourism-related
agencies in the field of research, education, and tourism management.
Zoo’s role in ex situ conservation and species recovery programme in the
Philippines has been significant and has been integrated into the education and
information campaigns for conservation, especially through tourism which
generates additional funding, although often not enough to sustain these activi-
ties. Research is needed to determine the contributions of zoos and captive
breeding centres as tourism attraction/destination in promoting conservation
ethos and zoo tourism practice.

Acknowledgements
The author benefited from the interviews with the key staff of the Protected
Areas Bureau (Philippines), particularly Director Mundita Lim, Athea Lota,
Zoo Tourism 169

Inocensio Castillo, Carlo Custodio, and Josefina de Leon; Celestino Ulep and
Precy Calimag of the National Ecotourism Strategy Philippine Program; Collete
Adams of Gladys Porter Zoo (Texas); Director Todd Katzner of the National
Aviary (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania); and several conversations with Dr Robert
Lacy, Chair of the IUCN-SSC Captive Breeding Specialist Group.

Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Corazon Catibog-Sinha, University
of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia
([email protected]).

References
Agoramoorthy, G. (2004) Ethics and welfare in Southeast Asian zoos. Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare Science 7 (3), 185–195.
Almazan, R.R., Rubio, R.P. and Agoramoorthy, G. (2005) Welfare evaluations of 
nonhuman animals in selected zoos in the Philippines. Journal of Applied Animal
Welfare Science 8 (1), 59–68.
Anderson, U.S., Benne, M., Bloomsmith, M. and Maple, Y. (2002) Retreat space and
human visitor density moderate undesirable behavior in petting zoo animals. Journal
of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5, 125–137.
Armstrong, J., Gibson, N., Howe, F. and Porter, B. (1993) The role of ex situ conservation.
In C. Moritzand and J. Kikkawa (eds) Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania 
(pp. 353–357). Norton: Surrey Beatty & Sons.
Bagarinao, T. (1998) Nature parks, museums, gardens, and zoos for biodiversity conser-
vation and environmental education: The Philippines. Ambio 27 (3), 230–237.
Baillie, J.E.M, Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (2004) 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species: A Global Species Assessment. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge: IUCN.
Balmford, A., Leader-Williams, N. and Green, M.J.B. (1995) Parks or arks: Where to con-
serve large threatened mammals? Biodiversity and Conservation 4, 595–607.
Balmford, A., Mace, G.M. and Leader-Williams, N. (1996) Designing the ark: Setting pri-
orities for captive breeding. Conservation Biology 10, 719–727.
Banks, C. (2005) National Recovery Plan for the Philippine Crocodile, Crocodylus mindorensis,
2005–2008 (2nd edn). Quezon City, Philippines: DENR-PAWB and Victoria, Australia:
Royal Melbourne Zoological Gardens.
Beardsworth, A. and Bryman, A. (2001) The wild animal in late modernity. Tourist Studies
1 (1), 83–104.
Bender, J.B. and Shulman, S.A. (2004) Reports of zoonotic disease outbreaks associated
with animal exhibits. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 224,
1105–1109.
Blaney, E.C. and Wells, D.L. (2004) The influence of a camouflage net barrier on the
behaviour, welfare and public perceptions of zoo-housed gorillas. Animal Welfare 
13 (2), 111–118.
Broad, S. and Weiler, B. (1998) Captive animals and interpretation: A tale of two tiger
exhibits. Journal of Tourism Studies 9 (1), 14–27.
Broad, S. and Weiler, B. (2004) Achieving conservation outcomes through environmental
interpretation: A case study of Zoos Victoria. Working Paper 4/04. Monash University.
Catibog-Sinha, C.S. (1989) Female reproduction and parturition in penned Philippine
deer. Philippine Journal of Science 118 (1), 19–30.
Catibog-Sinha, C.S. and Bushell, R. (2004) Environmental management of wildlife 
tourism: A case study in Nelson Bay, Port Stephens. Proceedings Council for Australian
University Tourism and Hospitality Education Conference, 14–15 February 2004, Brisbane,
Australia.
Catibog-Sinha, C.S. and Heaney, L.R. (2006) Philippine Biodiversity: Principles and Practice.
Quezon City: Haribon Foundation, Inc.
170 Journal of Ecotourism

CITES (2005) Convention on international trade in flora and fauna. On WWW at http://
www.cites.org/eng/resources/species/html. Accessed 20/5/04.
Churchman, D. and Bossler, C. (1990) Visitor behaviour at Singapore Zoo. Resources in
Education 25 (8), 126.
Darby, A. (2006) Exotic extinction looms in zoos. The Sydney Morning Herald Weekend
Edition, p. 11, 5–6 August.
Davey, G. (2005) The ‘visitor effect’. Zoos Print Journal 20 (6), 1900–1903.
Davey, G. and Henzi, P. (2004) Visitor circulation and nonhuman animal welfare: An
overlooked variable? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7 (4), 2243–2251.
Davis, N., Schaffner, C.M. and Smith, T.E. (2005) Evidence that zoo visitors influence
HPA activity in spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyii rufiventris). Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 90 (2), 131–141.
Dawkins, M.S. (2003) Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare. Zoology
106 (4), 383–387.
de Lapa, M.D. (1994) Interpreting hope, selling conservation: Zoos, aquariums and envi-
ronmental education. Museum News May/June, 48–49.
Dierking, L.D., Burtnyk, K., Buchner, K.S. and Falk, J.H. (2002) Visitor Learning in
Zoos and Aquariums: A Literature Review. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning
Innovation.
Edensor, T. (2001) Performing tourism, staging tourism: (Re)producing tourist space and
practice. Tourist Studies 1 (1), 64–82.
Ellis, S. and Seal, U.S. (1996) Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP)
Process: Reference Manual. Apple Valley, MN: IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding
Specialist Group.
FAO (2003) The state of the world’s forest. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
On ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y7581e/y7581e01.pdf. Accessed 12/2/08.
Forrester, S.A. and Singh, S. (2005) Contrived landscapes: Simulated environments as an
emerging medium of tourism destinations. Tourism Recreation Research 30 (3), 69–76.
Gates, L.J. and Ellis, J.A. (1999) The role of animal presentation in zoo education.
International Zoo News, September 6.
Halpern, R. (2005) It’s a zoo in there. American Nurseryman March, 51–57.
Harrison, B. (2004) Natural order. Attractions Management 9 (2), 46–48.
Higginbottom, K., Tribe, A. and Booth, R. (2003) Contributions of non-consumptive
tourism to conservation. (Ecotourism Series No. 1) Nature-based Tourism, Environment
and Land Management (pp. 181–195). Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Holzer, D., Scott, D. and Bixler, R.D. (1998) Socialization influences on adult zoo visitation.
Journal of Applied Recreation Research 23 (1), 43–62.
Hosey, G.R. (1997) Behavioural research in zoos: Academic perspectives. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 51, 199–207.
Hughes, M. and Macbeth, J. (2005) Can a niche-market captive-wildlife facility place a
low-profile region on the tourism map? An example from Western Australia. Tourism
Geographies 7 (40), 424–443.
Hunter, S.A., Bay, M.S., Martin, M.L. and Hatfield, J.S. (2002) Behavioral effects of envi-
ronmental enrichment on harbor seals (Phoca vitulina color) and gray seals (Halichoerus
grypus). Zoo Biology 21 (4), 375–387.
Hunter-Jones, P. and Hayward, C. (1998) Leisure consumption and the United Kingdom
zoo: Tourism and visitor attractions. In N. Ravenscroft, D. Philips and M. Bennett
(eds) Leisure, Culture and Commerce (pp. 97–107). Brighton: LSA.
Hutchins, M. and Conway, W. (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., Wiese, R. and Willis, K. (1997) Priority setting for ex situ conservation
[Letter to the Editor]. Conservation Biology 11 (3), 593.
Hutchins, M., Smith, B. and Allard, R. (2003) In defense of zoos and aquariums: The ethi-
cal basis for keeping wild animals in captivity. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association 223 (7), 958–966.
Zoo Tourism 171

IUCN (1995) IUCN Guidelines for Reintroduction. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge:
International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
IUCN (2004) International Union for the Conservation of Nature – Technical Guidelines
on the Management of Ex-situ Populations for Conservation. On http://www.iucn.
org/themes/ssc/publications/policy/exsituen.htm. Accessed 12/2/08.
Jachowski, D.S. and Pizzaras, C. (2005) Introducing an innovative semi-captive environ-
ment for the Philippine tarsier (Tarsius syrichta). Zoo Biology 24 (1), 101–109.
Jackson, D.W. (1990) Landscaping in hostile environments. International Zoo Yearbook 
29, 10–15.
Jordan, B. and Schwarze, D. (1990) Designing a zoo for children. International Zoo Yearbook
29, 15–18.
Kelly, J.D. (1997) Effective conservation in the twenty-first century: The need to be more
than a zoo. An organisation’s approach. International Zoo Yearbook 35, 1–14.
Kelly, J.D. and English, A.W. (1997) Conservation biology and the preservation of biodi-
versity in Australia: A role for zoos and the veterinary profession. Australian Veterinary
Journal 75 (8), 568–574.
Kiley-Worthington, M. (1990) Animals in Circuses: Chiron’s World. Basildon: Little 
Eco-Farms Publishing.
Laikre, L. (1999) Hereditary defects and conservation genetic management of captive
populations. Zoo Biology 18 (2), 81–99.
Lastica, E.A. and Georgii, C. (2001) A preliminary report on the captive breeding of the
Visayan tarictic hornbill (Penelopides panini) at the Negros Forest and Ecological
Foundation, Inc. – Biodiversity Conservation Center, Negros Occidental, Philippines.
Philippine Journal of Veterinary Medicine 38 (1), 53–56.
Luksetich, W.A. and Partridge, M.D. (1997) Demand functions for museum services.
Applied Economics 29 (12), 1553–1559.
Maala, C.P., Santiago-Flores, M.L.A. and Lagapa, C. (2003) Gross and microscopic 
characterization of guard hairs from some body regions of the Philippine brown deer
(Cervus mariannus) and Visayan spotted deer (Cervus alfredi). Philippine Journal of
Veterinary Medicine 40 (2), 59–65.
Mallapur, A. (2005) Managing primates in zoos: Lessons from animal behavior. Current
Science 89 (7), 1214–1219.
Mallapur, A. and Choudhury, B.C. (2003) Behavioral abnormalities in captive non­
human primates. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6 (4), 275–284.
Mallapur, A. Qureshi Q. and Chellam, R. (2002) Enclosure design and space utilization
of Indian leopards (Panthera pardus) in four zoos in Southern India. Journal of Applied
Animal Welfare Science 5 (2), 111–124.
Mallapur, A., Sinha, A. and Waran, N. (2005a) Influence of visitor presence on the behav-
iour of captive lion-tailed macaques (Macaca silenus) housed in Indian zoos. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science 94, 341–352.
Mallapur, A.,Waran, N. and Sinha, A. (2005b) Factors influencing the behaviour and
welfare of captive lion-tailed macaques in Indian zoos. Applied Animal Behavior Science
91 (3/4), 337–353.
Mallinson, J. (2001) A sustainable future for zoos and their role in wildlife conservation.
First National Convention on Wildlife Tourism in Australia, 28-30 October 2001,
Tasmania. On WWW at http//:www.wildlifetourism.org.au/ppts/swtc_mallinson_
jeremy.pdf. Accessed 18/6/04.
Manigbas, E.P., Matawaran, V.S., Garcia, J.N. and Delima, E. (2000) Preliminary study
on haematological glucose and cholesterol values in some captive Philippine raptors.
Philippine Journal of Veterinary Medicine 37 (2), 87–91.
Mason, P. (2000) Zoo tourism: The need for more research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism
8 (4), 333–339.
Matthews, F., Moro, D., Strachan, R., Gelling, M. and Buller, N. (2006) Health surveil-
lance in wildlife reintroductions. Biological Conservation 131 (2), 338–347.
Maunder, M. (1990) Ecological display: Do botanic gardens need to bother? International
Zoo Yearbook 29, 22–28.
172 Journal of Ecotourism

Mazur, N.A. (2001) After the Ark? Environmental Policy Making and the Zoo. Melbourne:
Melbourne University Press.
Melfi, V.A. (2005) The appliance of science to zoo-housed primates. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 90, 97–106.
Melfi, V.A. and Feistner, A.T. (2002) A comparison of the activity budgets of wild and
captive Sulawesi crested black macaques. Animal Welfare 11 (2), 213–222.
Michelmore, A.P.G. (1990) Use of plants in zoo. International Zoo Yearbook 29, 31–34.
Mittermeier, R.A., Robles, G.P., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C.G.,
Lamoreux, J. and da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2004) Hotspots: Revisited. Mexico City: CEMEX.
PAWB (2001) Statistics on Philippine Protected Areas and Wildlife Resources. Quezon City:
Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau.
PAWB (2005) Philippine Protected Areas and Wildlife Resources (unpublished report).
Quezon City: Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources.
Rabb, G.B. (1996) The changing roles of zoological parks in conserving biological diver-
sity. Biological Conservation 76, 210.
Reynolds, P. and Braithwaite, D. (2001) Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife
tourism. Tourism Management 22, 31–42.
Rhoads, D.L. and Goldsworthy, R.J. (1979) The effects of zoo environments on public
attitudes toward endangered wildlife. International Journal for Environmental Studies
13, 283–287.
Roberts, C.M., McClean, C.J., Veron, J.E.N., Hawkins, J.P., Allen, G.R., McAllister, D.E.,
Mittermeier, C.G., Schueler, F.W., Spalding, M., Wells, F., Vynne, C. and Werner, T.
(2002) Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs.
Science 295 (5558), 1280–1284.
Rodger, K. and Moore, S.A. (2004) Bringing science to wildlife tourism: The influence of
managers’ and scientists’ perceptions. Journal of Ecotourism 3 (1), 1–19.
Rouck, M. de, Kitchener, A.C., Law, G. and Nelissen, M. (2005) A comparative study of
the influence of social housing conditions on the behaviour of captive tigers (Panthera
tigris). Animal Welfare 14 (3), 229–238.
Ryan, C. and Saward, J. (2004) The zoo as ecotourism attraction – Visitor reactions, per-
ceptions and management implications: The case of Hamilton Zoo, New Zealand.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12 (3), 245–266.
Schakley, M. (1996) Wildlife Tourism. London: International Thompson Business Press.
SEAZA (2002) South East Asian Zoos Association Constitution, Article 1 – Name. On
WWW at http://www.seaza.org/AboutPolicies.html. Accessed 28/7/04.
Stemerding, M.P., Oppewal, H., Beckers, T. and Timmermans, H.J.P. (1996) Leisure
market segmentation: An integrated preferences/constraints-based approach. Journal
of Travel and Tourism Marketing 5 (3), 161–185.
Stevens, T. (2000) The future of visitor attractions. Travel and Tourism Analyst 1, 61–85.
Tribe, A. (2001) Captive Wildlife Tourism in Australia, Fact Sheet. CRC Sustainable Tourism,
Queensland, Australia.
Tunnicliffe, S.D. (1992) Zoo education. International Zoo News 39 (3), 15–22.
Turley, S.K. (1999a) Conservation and tourism in the traditional UK zoo. Journal of
Tourism Studies 10 (2), 2–13.
Turley, S.K. (1999b) Exploring the future of the traditional UK zoo. Journal of Vacation
Marketing 5 (4), 340–355.
Turley, S.K. (2001) Children and the demand for recreational experiences: The case of the
zoo. Leisure Studies 20, 1–18.
UNEP (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity. Nairobi: United Nations Environment
Programme.
US State Department News (2002) U.S. signs Tropical Forest Agreement with the
Philippines. Media note from the Office of the Spokesman, Washington (DC), 
1 October. On WWW at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/13950.htm.
Accessed 17.6.04.
Van Linge, J.H. (1992) How to out-zoo the zoo. Tourism Management, March 115–117.
Wall, V. (1990) Streamside: An endangered species garden. International Zoo Yearbook 
29, 28–31.
Zoo Tourism 173

Ward, P.I., Mosberger, N., Kistler, C. and Fischer, O. (1998) The relationship between
popularity and body size in zoo animals. Conservation Biology 12 (6), 1408–1411.
WAZA (2005) Building a Future for Wildlife – The World Zoo and Aquarium Strategy. Bern,
Switzerland: World Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
WCMC (1992) Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. World Conservation
Monitoring Center. London: Chapman and Hall.
Wells, A., Terio, K.A., Ziccardi, M.H. and Munson, L. (2004) The stress response to envi-
ronmental change in captive cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife
Medicine 35 (1), 8–14.
Wells, D.L. (2005) A note on the influence of visitors on the behaviour and welfare of
zoo-housed gorillas. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 93, 13–17.
Westley, F.R. and Miller, P.S. (2003) Experiments in Consilience. Washington DC: Island
Press.
Whitfort, H. and Young, R.J. (2004) Trends in the captive breeding of threatened and
endangered birds in British zoos, 1988–1997. Zoo Biology 23 (1), 85–89.
Woods, B. (1998) Animals on display: Principles for interpreting captive wildlife. The
Journal of Tourism Studies 9 (1), 28–39.
WSSD (2002) World Summit on Sustainable Development – Plan of Implementation. 
On WWW at http:// www. wssd/implementation.html. Accessed 12/2/04.
WZO (1993) The World Zoo Conservation Strategy: The Role of the Zoos and Aquaria of
the World in Global Conservation. World Zoo Organisation – Chicago Zoological
Society, Brookfield, Illinios. On WWW at http://www.5tigers.org/wzcs.htm.
Accessed 12/2/04.
Young, R.J. (1997) The importance of food presentation for animal welfare and conserva-
tion. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 56 (3), 1095–1104.
Young, R.J. (2003) Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.