Review Reports - The Societal Value of the Modern Zoo: A Commentary on How Zoos Can Positively Impact on Human Populations Locally and Globally

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This manuscript could use some restructuring of some of the concepts. What is the overall goal of

this paper? It is unclear from the organization of the manuscript if it is a call to arms, a challenge, or

a celebration of how zoos impact local and global societies. After defining the 5 aims of what these

authors feel a modern zoo should be, they go through the list of but leave out the fifth one entirely.

If you are going to systematically address each of them, be thorough and address all of them.

The authors seem to want zoos to focus on everything at once including save species, save lands,

save communities, and save humans. A larger, well-funded zoo may have the ability to meet a larger

and broader mission with a more global reach, but a smaller zoo that is limited in space and

resources can still be of great benefit to their community but may never be able to meet the lofty

goals outlined here. There is still a need and a space for them in the zoological industry.

Furthermore, this sounds very European (specifically, UK) -centric and it would behoove these

authors to recognize that speaking about UK zoos does not, in fact, speak for zoos globally. They

need to either broaden their use of terms, cite references for concepts like the ‘aims of the modern

zoo are’ (is this WAZA? EAZA?), or qualify their statements so they are not all-encompassing. ‘Aims

of a modern zoo should be…’ OR ‘Most zoos adhere to these goals as part of their overall mission…’

but you cannot speak from a Eurocentric perspective and speak for all zoos.

Thank you for your comments and useful edits and suggested improvements to this manuscript. We have attempted to action all in turn. We are sorry that you feel the manuscript is written from a restrictive viewpoint. We specifically chose a group of authors with a global reach, differing backgrounds and experience and that are currently based in / have worked in different countries to add a wider perspective. We’re sorry that you feel the manuscript has been written from a Eurocentric perspective but we do not feel this is reflective of the manuscript’s content. The entire manuscript contains examples from zoos globally, across organisations and zoo membership bodies. We have pushed no European agenda, except to show that zoos can make a positive difference to human communities globally when they attempt to work towards fulfilling their key aims.

We have cited the main aims of the modern zoo and that these were first published in 1985 from a US author in an AZA collection and are therefore a global concept. We’ve added further citations to show how their “universality” by other authors.

We are also sorry that you feel the manuscript lacks focus. We have attempted to clarify the stance of the paper by expressly stating that the manuscript is covering the conservation, education, recreation, and research aims of the zoo as the four established aims. And that wellbeing is a newer idea, that could provide further support for the zoo’s mission overall.

Lastly, there are several run-on sentences and grammatical errors. Please employ some

proofreading resources to address these.

Thank you for the comments and feedback. We are sorry that you have found the written English style to be lacking.

Line 19: Consider rephrasing: the words ‘well understood’, ‘well documented’, and ‘well known’ are

all used in one very long sentence.

We have edited this sentence.

Line 21: Citation needed. The authors are citing ‘The five aims of the modern zoo…’ but need a

reference for this.

We have edited this to avoid citing in an abstract.

Line 23: awkward modifier and ‘syntheses’ is a noun. Did you mean the verb synthesizes? Perhaps-

‘Employing a systematic review of the literature, this article synthesizes what such value may be,

and how it could be measured.’

Apologies, syntheses was a typo. This has been edited.

Line 26: Parentheses are unnecessary- list local communities, human populations, and human

Behavior

Edited

Line 35: delete the word ‘of’

We’re unsure of the edit here. The sentence to us reads fine. Please can you provide more detail?

Line 38: run on sentence with too many conjunctions: suggest ‘important messages such as

biodiversity, planetary health, human wellbeing, and sustainable living.’

Thank you for the feedback. Edited

Lines 43-45: These are laudable goals and are fairly common for most zoos but they are not an

industry standard nor are they required. The statements that list these as goals for all zoos should

be qualified in some way.

Thank you for the feedback. Coverage of the aims of the modern zoo is an industry requirement in some parts of the world. We have included further citation that emphasises the commonality of these goals within the literature to show how long they have been around, and how established they are globally.

Lines 53-59: these lists of definitions are not sentences. Restructure as a list or as complete

sentences.

Thank you for the feedback, we have edited this section.

Lines 59-63: This is a run-on sentence. Rephrase

We have edited this section of the paper and hopefully our point is now clearer.

Line 80: add a comma after ‘generates’

Edited

Lines 87-90: This sentence needs some citations to back this claim.

We have included citations here.

Line 88: add a comma after ‘programmes’

Edited

Line 93: ‘that have an anthropocentric focus.’ What is this describing? The societal impacts of zoos?

This seems like a misplaced modifier. Rephrase or remove

This sentence has been edited.

Line 105: How does this football program reduce human-wildlife conflict?

We have included more detail.

Line 108: Either ‘These football-focused projects’ or ‘This football-focused project’

Edited

Line 112: End sentence after ‘society.’ Next sentence ‘As some…’

Edited

Line 119: End sentence after ‘gains.’

We have changed this to a semi-colon to show the link between the need for habitat protection and the example from the zoo.

Lines 128-131: The word ‘and’ is used 5 times in this sentence. Please rephrase.

Edited

Line 133: ‘for example’ need commas bracketing it.

Line 134: the phrase ‘working on conservation activities’ is redundant, please remove

Edited

Line 140: the phrase ‘on the ground’ is an industry colloquialism. Rephrase or remove

Edited

Line 150: be cautious how you employ the phrase ‘can be used’ when referring to a species as it

sounds exploitative. Maybe ‘The issues plaguing Orangutans…allow zoos to illustrate conservation

problems such as those with the palm oil industry. These issues include…’

Thank you for the feedback and suggested edit. This has been altered.

Line 157: end the sentence after ‘changes.’ Next sentence ‘A great example of this is how the

Monterey…’

Edited

Line 163: ‘with by’- choose one

We have re-written this sentence but we don’t understand the edit, conservation ideas are engaged with by visitors to the zoo.

Line 169-173: ‘Further engagement…may engage…’ Perhaps choose a different verb

Edited

Line 176: Remove the comma before ‘should’

Edited

Line 177: Perhaps rephrase to ‘A school/university or family trip to the zoo to learn more…’

Edited

Line 183: End the sentence after ‘learning.’ It is unclear what this next phrase means- ‘eg, review of

the zoo interpretation…’ If the authors would like to keep this phrase, please clarify and make it a

standalone sentence.

Thank you for the feedback. This has been re-written.

Line 185: While animal demonstrations are high-impact to visitors and can inspire passion and love

of animals, they are rarely designed to convey information about biodiversity. How can the authors

infer guests gain knowledge of the importance of biodiversity to the planet from an animal

demonstration? (Citation 36 was a specific biodiversity campaign in one zoo and cannot be

extrapolated to all animal presentations in all zoos everywhere.)

Thank you for the information. We have added to the list of sources that show that zoo animal displays do contain biodiversity information that visitors can take away and use to improve their own education about the natural world.

Line 187: entrenched is a strong word. After an exposure or experience, knowledge will be gained

but entrenched? The authors are taking a pretty strong stance here.

Edited

Line 223: There is something missing in this sentence: ‘the underpinning [tenet?] of conservation

education’ [quality?]

Edited

Line 229-233: this is a really important statement

Thank you for the feedback. We are pleased that you have found this relevant.

Line 234: examples not example. More generally, zoos’ aims are often deliberately intended to

dovetail and are not meant to be mutually exclusive. Saying they are not always mutually exclusive

conveys they are intended to be and that is simply untrue. Maybe rephrase to ‘almost never

mutually exclusive’

Thank you for the feedback, we have edited accordingly.

Line 244: in Figure 1 caption: remove the word ‘that’

Edited

Lines 256-266: This is a good paragraph

Thank you for the feedback. We are pleased that you have found this relevant.

Line 272: zoos not zoo

Edited

Line 279-281: This is a bit of a stretch because many of the developments in zoos programs

occurred at the same time as domestic animal welfare. It is unclear that zoo welfare and enrichment

programs influenced domestic animal welfare programs. This area could benefit from some

citations beyond the fact that zoo literature was cited in farm animal literature.

Thank you for the feedback, we have edited accordingly and we have included further information from the literature.

Lines 327-333: This is a run-on sentence. Please rephrase

Thank you for the feedback. We have re-written this section.

Line 350: dangling participle: ‘that zoos are involved in’ to ‘in which zoos are involved’ Please end

sentence here and start a new one on Line 351.

Edited

Line 377: Recreation in no way trivializes the science that is conducted. Studies show that people

learn better when in a relaxed and fun learning environment. Allowing guests to enjoy themselves

is not just good for their health, it facilitates delivery of the zoo’s mission.

Thank you for the comment and the useful feedback. We have edited accordingly.

Lines 381-406: very well said

Thank you for the feedback.

Line 393: change ‘it’ to ‘in’

Edited

Lines 381 & 438 contradict each other. Please find consistency and cite appropriately

On Line 381: ‘Green prescribing, now a respected therapeutic practice…’ citing #84

On Line 438: ‘Green prescribing… is in itself an emerging health strategy, with very little known of

its efficacy, constraints and opportunities.’ citing #101

Thank you for the feedback. We have completely re-written and re-worked this section.

Lines 446-450 is a run-on sentence. End after ‘demographics.’ Next sentence ‘More effort is

necessary to identify opportunities to reach a broader audience. One way to do this is to support

diversity in zoo staffing and encourage hiring of staff from traditionally marginalized areas. Other

areas of science have been successful with these efforts and could provide good models for zoos.’

Thank you for the help. This has been edited accordingly.

Table 1 needs to be reworked and condensed. It does not need to be 2 pages long

Can the reviewer provide more information on why Table 1 is too long? We have evaluated areas for further review and exploration that we think are helpful and useful. There is no word limit (as far as we believe) for this journal and we have been specific to future ideas for each established zoo aim.

Line 473: ‘can, and should,’ is unnecessary

Edited

Lines 483-485: This sentence is very unclear. Please reword it and clarify.

Thank you for the feedback, this section has been rewritten.

Reviewer 2 Report

Possibly due to the wide scope of the review, and the fact that it covers so many different aspects of zoos contributions to society, I believe there are some inconsistencies that can be easily amended. Please refer to the notes I made throughout the manuscript attached. I hope you may find them useful.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for this highly interesting review. It aims to achieve a fairly ambitious task, it is extensively well informed, it has many strong points, and highly relevant recommendations. I have not seen a review with this focus before, and I believe it is a valuable contribution to the field. Possibly due to the wide scope of the review, and the fact that it covers so many different aspects of zoos contributions to society, I believe there are some inconsistencies that can be easily amended. Please refer to the notes I made throughout the manuscript attached. I hope you may find them useful.

Thank you for your useful and relevant feedback. We have reviewed your pdf file, and the notes within and we have actioned all in the re-worked article. We appreciate your thorough and helpful review and commentary.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Very interesting manuscript, written with visible scientific experience. However, I am obliged to present the following comments from the reviewer's duty:

1. In the introduction, it is worth emphasizing the role of EAZA/WAZA in the reorganization and impact on zoos in the past and referring in summary to the role of organizations in the current modern zoo.

2. In my opinion, table 1 is quite unpleasant to read, too long, divided, unattractive for the reader, although of course from the point of view of scientific work it is correct. I leave it to the authors to decide whether to consider a different form of visualization of the content contained in the table.

3. The chapter Engaging visitors and societal benefit requires some organization of the content. The order of the described issues should be consistent with the whole work and give a sense of exhaustion of content. The discussion of phenomena refers to education, scientific research in the construction of a rather random order, although with the preservation of correct references to literature, rather than a compact construction of the assessment of the problem of separation.

4. The summary could be enriched with a clear bullet point of 2-3 most important conclusions.

Despite the above-mentioned remarks, the manuscript gave me pleasure to read and after making minor corrections I recommend printing it. The described phenomena have been documented with correctly indicated literature. I encourage the authors to continue the direction of their social observations.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been thoroughly edited and reviewed based on the other reviewer's comments and we feel that we have fully covered the points made in your helpful review. However, we are happy to provide further edits if these are not sufficient. Thank you for taking the time to help develop this manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

In this paper, Greenwell and colleagues discuss, as the well constructed title suggests, the value of the modern zoo to society based on the defined overarching goals that modern zoos mostly aim toward. This paper (under the journal’s categorization of “Review”) is a bit of a combination of a position paper (with admirable subtext positions) and literature review. It is a bit unclear whether the literature review was conducted systematically and, if so, what methods were used to do so. (Authors, please address this.)

There are also a couple of inconsistencies and perhaps a slight but important omission (described below), but, in general, this is a valuable paper essentially publishable as is!

First, I really appreciate the clear and succinct definition of the phases of zoos – especially that of the modern zoo (lines 53-59). I think I disagree with this definition a bit (in my perception, I think the more conservation focus of modern zoos started to take hold in the 1980s and 1990 and I am very skeptical that its roots can really be traced back (e.g., to the WWII origin that the authors highlight) beyond the 1960s environmental movement. With that said, I am entirely confident that the authors know more about this than I do, but I would still like to hear their thoughts on my claim and perhaps a clear citation reaching back to the 1940s or 1950s.

Major note:

The only major oversight in this paper is the lack of thorough discussion about the socioeconomic impact of zoos. In fact, the authors highlight a lack of knowledge about this. However, I think this is an error because of the background of the authors: had there been an author with experience in American zoo governance, then I think this section would have been among the most thoroughly documented. That is, having been an employee at a US zoo, close to the administration, I know, firsthand, that American zoos somewhat obsessively follow their socioeconomic impact; it is quite common for this calculus (perhaps compiled by an outside firm) to be used in efforts to lobby local and regional governments for financial and social support. For instance, a zoo might bring to the local government a statement saying something like: “In the last year, we had X million visitors. X% of them came from X miles away and spent, on average $X each. X% of them spent the night in our region and they spent $X. Given these statistics, would you please support X (a road, parking lot, bond issue, etc.)?” These types of efforts are discussed at the society meetings (e.g., the AZA conference) and almost all medium and larger zoos have these data – though it might not always be publicly available. I suppose my major recommendation is to either pore into this data a bit more, or even get a US colleague to add this perspective?

Medium note:

The authors make a compelling case for the modern zoo goals to be five-pronged instead of the slightly older four-pronged conceptualization. It seems clear that the authors prefer that five-pronged approach intellectually and, therefore, I think they should revise their figure and table to that framework.

Minor notes:

I think it is a bit unfortunate that the clear aim of the study (lines 75-79) is buried in the middle of a paragraph. Maybe that paragraph can be edited so that it is in a more prominent early part of the paper?

Conjugation error on line 108.

The first reference to “Green prescribing” (a concept that I was unfamiliar with) is on line 381 but it is not defined until line 438.

One capital X in the table. Maybe add to the table description a note about the meaning of “x”?

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. We have not attempted a meta-analysis or any re-evaluation of published data. We have created a commentary around examples available in the literature. All sources used are available in the reference list.

There are also a couple of inconsistencies and perhaps a slight but important omission (described below), but, in general, this is a valuable paper essentially publishable as is!

Thank you for the kind words on the paper. We are pleased that you feel it is useful and we are grateful to your useful and developmental feedback.

Thank you for the comment. We state as this simply the period of history that the modern view developed in. And we have stated when the aims of the modern zoo were first published.

Major note:

Thank you for the comments. We appreciate the extra viewpoints. We have deliberately not discussed economic realities of zoos, and have suggested that these be covered by other authors in the manner that you suggest. What this paper aims to achieve is an explanation and synthesis of what zoos can do around their conservation, research, recreation and education roles in terms of the benefits to people that visit and / or help with these aims. We appreciate your ideas and suggestions for a wider review of the economic nature of zoos, but we did not set out to write that manuscript.

Medium note:

Thank you for the comment. We have edited the paper based on other reviewer comments that wished to cover the four established aims of the zoo, and therefore we have suggested that our fifth aim be added on top of this. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback in this regard however.

Minor notes:

Thank you for the comment. We have restructured and reviewed this section of the manuscript.

Conjugation error on line 108.

Edited

The first reference to “Green prescribing” (a concept that I was unfamiliar with) is on line 381 but it is not defined until line 438.

Edited

One capital X in the table. Maybe add to the table description a note about the meaning of “x”?

Edited

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This first round of revisions has significantly improved the quality of the manuscript. It is clearer and more concise. The authors have clarified several points and provided better support with relevant citations. The run-on sentences have been fixed, which enables the reader to more easily understand the authors' perspectives.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the helpful comments and useful feedback We have actioned the edits suggested.

We have edited the table to increase the fluency of the text, and have attempted to remove hyphenated words by changing the column widths. We have re-written the values and outcomes for clarity where needed. We appreciate the idea to present these suggested questions in a different format, but we have struggled as to how to do this. And several aborted attempts at creating a new figure later, we would like to keep the table as some readers may find it useful.

We have included the edit to line 174 as suggested by the reviewer.

We have included the Veasey Zoo Biology reference as a further example, as recommended by the reviewer.