Zoos: Increasing Standards Of Animal Welfare

Zoos were historically regarded as sites for entertainment (Carr and Cohen, 2011). Zoos have now evolved from cages and maltreatment of captive animals to professional scientific institutions with a primary goal of conservation and education (Wickins-Dražilová, 2006; Catibog-Sinha, 2008) whilst striving to maintain highest standards of animal welfare (British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2014).

Animal welfare is defined by Sejian, Lakritz, Ezeji and Lal (2011) as the ability of an animal to cope physiologically, behaviourally, cognitively and emotionally with its physiochemical and social life environment. Carenzi and Verga (2007) state that a scientific definition of animal welfare must include biological functioning, health

In recent years, zoos have responded to increasing public concern about animal welfare standards and animal welfare legislation by increasing efforts to identify and address welfare issues by implementing policies which exceed minimum legal standards (World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2005; Whitham and Wielebnowski, 2013). Although zoos have made these welfare advances based on public concern, Driscoll (1995) and Stokes (2007) argue that the public are mostly concerned with animals they find to be attractive and pleasing. Support for conservation efforts often depends upon the attractiveness of the animal species involved and that it is easier to evoke support for conservation projects for animals deemed to be more attractive. When conservation is directed toward insects, reptiles or fish i.e. species considered less attractive, greater efforts to obtain public engagement are necessary (Driscoll, 1995). Furthermore, there is an association between animals that are cognitively, behaviourally and physically similar to humans and positive attitudes towards them when compared to animals that are dissimilar. However, animals that are regarded as being useful or beneficial to humans tend to evoke more positive attitudes towards them (Serpell,

Great apes are considered to be highly sentient (Balcombe, 2009; Piazza et al, 2014). Johnson and Barnard (2014) suggest this may be due to the similarity great apes share to humans, their cognitive abilities and capacity to experience severe psychological harm. Piazza et al (2014) suggest people prioritise concern to animals that are behaviourally or morphologically similar to humans.

It is often assumed that sentience and cognition are inextricably linked (Proctor, 2012) which may be detrimental to animal welfare. Species attributed with low cognitive abilities such as mice (Knight et al, 2004) may be regarded as having low capacity to suffer and treated as such. Therefore, developing an understanding of both animal sentience and animal cognition is imperative for positive attitudes towards