Zoo Biology 17:167180 (1998)

A Survey of Research in North American

Zoos and Aquariums
Tara S. Stoinski,1,2* Kristen E. Lukas,1,2 and Terry L. Maple1,2
1
2

TECHlab, Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia

School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia

To assess the current status of research in zoos and aquariums, a 36-item survey,
which replicated and expanded upon an earlier survey [Finlay and Maple, 1986],
was sent to 173 American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) institutions. A
response rate of 71% was achieved after a second mailing. The results show that
the role of research in AZA institutions has increased in the last decade. The
percentage of zoos and aquariums that report conducting research, that list research as an objective of the institution, and that have a research committee/
department have all increased. The number of individuals involved in research
per institution has approximately doubled since 1986, and slightly less than half
of responding institutions currently have a full-time position dedicated to administering research. Lack of available funds, time, and qualified personnel are the
most common reasons reported for not conducting research. Zoo Biol 17:167
180, 1998. 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Key words: animal parks; aquariums; scientific programs; zoos

INTRODUCTION

In 1986, Finlay and Maple documented the research activities of 120 zoos and
aquariums. Since then, research programs have developed a more prominent role in
the zoo and aquarium agenda [Hardy, 1996a]. A variety of reasons are cited for the
expansion of research in zoos and aquariums, including an increased interest in conservation and welfare, a desire to use applied research to solve management problems, the need for control over environmental or social variables, and a desire to
study animals that might be difficult to follow in the field [Hardy, 1996a; Kleiman,
1996]. Documentation of the changing role of research has included a variety of
analyses, such as examining the development of research programs [Hutchins, 1988;
Kleiman, 1992; Benirschke, 1996], reporting the types of studies that are conducted
[Hardy, 1996a,b], and reporting the types of publications produced [Wiese et al.,

*Correspondence to: Tara Stoinski, Zoo Atlanta, 800 Cherokee Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30315.
Received for publication November 18, 1997; revision accepted March 27, 1998

1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

168

Stoinski et al.

1992; Hutchins et al., 1996; Wemmer et al., 1997]. In an attempt to provide more
documentation on the changing nature of zoo and aquarium research, we replicated
and expanded the original Finlay and Maple [1986] survey to provide a direct comparison of current research programs to those 10 years ago.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

In October 1996, a 36-item survey was distributed to the 173 North American
institutions (excluding Canada and Bermuda) listed in the American Association of
Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) Directory. The survey was sent to the research coordinator,
as listed in the directory, or to the director if no research coordinator was listed. A
second round of surveys was sent to all institutions not responding by January 1997.
The survey questions addressed: (1) types of research conducted, (2) characteristics of individuals involved in research, (3) characteristics of research programs,
(4) financial support of research programs, and (5) research-related affiliations of the
zoo or aquarium. Additionally, respondents were asked to rate the scientific reputation of zoo and aquariums. Information on attendance size was obtained from the
1997 AZA Directory.
RESULTS

Of the 173 institutions surveyed, 123 (71%) responses were obtained (Table 1).
The respondents were comprised of 92 zoos, 2 zoo/aquariums, 13 aquariums, 3 marine parks, and 13 other institutions, including safari parks, wildlife centers, and wildlife parks (all respondents are here referred to as zoo and aquariums). Four
respondents who oversee research programs at multiple institutions submitted one
TABLE 1. Number and percentage of surveys distributed and returned in 1986 and current study
organized by institution type
Current study
Distributed

Returned

1986
Return rate

Distributed

Returneda

Return rate

Zoo
Zoo &
aquarium
Aquarium

122
3

92
2

75%
67%

110
na

93
na

85%
na

17

76%
(82%)

16

12

75%

Marine park

13
(total
representedb = 14)
3
(total
representedb = 7)
13
(total
representedb = 20)
123
(total
representedb = 135)

43%
(100%)

57%

65%
(83%)

20

11

55%

71%
(78%)

153

120

78%

Other

24

Totals

173

Refers to actual numbers of surveys received in each category.

Refers to actual number of individual institutions represented in each category.
na = not available.
b

Research in Zoos and Aquariums

169

completed survey representing all the institutions. Thus we actually received information on 92 zoos, 2 zoo/aquariums, 14 aquariums, 7 marine parks, and 20 other
institutions (135 institutions, or 78% of those surveyed). However, the answers from
these four respondents were counted only once as it was impossible tell whether an
answer represented more than one institution. For example, if the respondent checked
that great apes were studied, we could not distinguish whether great apes were studied at one or all of the institutions represented in the survey.
All respondents did not answer all questions; the number of respondents for
each question is listed in the tables. Questions where only one answer was requested
but more than one answer was provided were not used in the analyses.
Status of Research

Table 2 reveals the status of research at zoos and aquariums. Of the 119 respondents who answered this question, the overwhelming majority reported that their
institution did conduct research (88%). Fifteen institutions (22%) reported that they
did not conduct research and these surveys along with the four without a response
were not used in the analyses unless noted. Of the 15 institutions that did not conduct research, five responded that they did cooperate with outside collaborators but
did not conduct any research of their own. Financial constraints (80%), time constraints (73%), and lack of qualified personnel (40%) were the most common reasons listed by these 15 institutions for not conducting research.
As in 1986, institutions were divided into five size categories according to
reported annual visitor attendance [Finlay and Maple, 1986]. Table 3 organizes institutions by their annual attendance figures and lists the percentages of institutions
TABLE 2. Status of research in zoos and aquariums in 1986 and current study*
A. Is research (defined as the systematic, empirical investigation of variables in conservation,
education, husbandry, medicine, nutrition, physiology, exhibitry, behavior, etc.) conducted or
financially supported by your institution?
Current study (n = 119)
1986 (N = 120)
Yes, conduct
No, do not conduct
Yes, financially support
No, do not financially support

88%
12%
78%
22%

70%
30%
na
na

B. Does research or science appear as an objective of your institution in any operating manuals,
publications, or mission statement? (Please provide documentation.)
Current study (n = 107)
1986 (n = 105)
Yes:
No:

83%
17%

59%
41%

C. If there is no research being conducted at your institution, to what do you attribute this outcome?
(Check all that apply.)
Current study (n = 15)
1986 (n = 35)
Financial constraints
Lack of qualified personnel
Time constraints
Other

80%
40%
73%
7%

77%
46%
26%
na

*Number of institutions answering the question is represented by n when the number is less than the
total number of respondents and N when the number equals the total number of respondents.
na = not available.

170

Stoinski et al.

TABLE 3. Percentage of institutions conducting research and expanding their research programs
as a function of attendance size in 1986 and current study
Current study

Attendance
size
(in 1,000s)

Number of
institutions
in category

0200
201400
401600
601800
801+

27
32
19
9
34

1986

Percentage of
institutions
Percentage of
with
institutions
expanding
conducting
research
research
programs
84%
73%
89%
100%
100%

3%
26%
33%
50%
78%

Percentage of
institutions
Percentage of
with
Number of institutions
expanding
institutions conducting
research
in category
research
programs
42
29
20
9
20

57%
60%
85%
78%
95%

26%
44%
56%
38%
75%

conducting research and expanding their research programs for each attendance-size
category. Since 1986, the percentage of institutions conducting research has increased
in all attendance-size categories. As in 1986, there was a significant positive relationship between attendance size and conducting research (X2 = 12.07; P < 0.02).
Types of Research

Table 4 illustrates the types of research being conducted, the subjects of zoo
and aquarium research, and the physical location of the subjects. As in 1986, behavioral and reproductive studies were the most common. Visitor activity was the subject of research at approximately four times as many institutions as in 1986. Over
half of the institutions reported studying the wild counterparts of their captive collection and 37% reported studying wild animals not represented in their captive collection. These figures suggest the involvement of zoos and aquariums in field research.
Characteristics of Researchers

Table 5 reveals the types and numbers of individuals involved in research. As

in 1986, the majority of institutions reported encouraging outside scientists to conduct research at their institution (87%). Respondents reported that outside scientists
were individuals most frequently permitted to conduct research (94%), followed by
students (90%), keepers (86%), and curators (86%). The low percentage of dedicated research staff conducting research (51%) probably reflects the lack of such
staff at most institutions (see also Characteristics of Research Programs below).
The means for the number of individuals in each degree category conducting
research are low because many respondents did not provide a number, but rather
entered a check or a descriptor such as many. Most staff involved in research held

a bachelors degree (X = 6.3 individuals/institution), whereas the majority of col

laborators held a doctoral degree (X = 4.4 individuals/institution).
Guidelines for and Outcomes of Research

Table 6 provides information about written protocols and peer review for
research proposals, research publication forums, and staff compensation based
on research productivity. The majority of institutions reported providing written
guidelines for researchers to follow (64%) and subjecting research proposals to

Research in Zoos and Aquariums

171

TABLE 4. Types of research (including topics, subjects, and subject locations) being conducted
by zoos and aquariums in 1986 and current study
A. Which studies have been conducted at your
institution? (Check all that apply.)
Current study 1986
(n = 105) (n = 86)

B. Which taxa have been studied? (Check all

that apply.)
Current study
1986
(n = 105)
(n = 86)

Reproduction
Behavior
Physiology
Conservation
Husbandry
Exhibit design
Education
Cognition
Pathology
Genetics
Nutrition
Other animal health
Behavior modification
Demography
Visitor
Other

Great apes
Other primates
Small mammals
Marine mammals
Carnivores
Hoofstock
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fish
Birds
People
Other

75%
85%
58%
59%
66%
42%
43%
18%
43%
30%
51%
46%
43%
33%
67%
15%

72%
72%
30%
42%
42%
34%
34%
na
28%
20%
na
na
16%
14%
14%
16%

41%
47%
33%
28%
63%
50%
50%
21%
26%
53%
53%
18%

C. Which populations have been studied by your institution? (Check all that apply.)
Current study (n = 104)
Captive animals in collection
Captive animals in another collection
Wild counterparts to captive collection
Wild animals not represented by captive collection

99%
38%
53%
37%

38%
45%
na
22%
na
na
44%
na
19%
43%
14%
6%

1986
na
na
na
na

na = not available.

peer review (73%). The most common publication forums were proceedings/symposia and in-house publications. The most popular refereed journals were Zoo
Biology and Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine. However, 62% of respondents reported using journals not provided on our list, with the most common
being Conservation Biology, Animal Behaviour, and Journal of Reproduction. Only
9% of zoos and aquariums compensate employees according to success in publishing and grantsmanship.
Characteristics of Research Programs

Characteristics of research programs are listed in Table 7. Only 10% of institutions involved in research reported having neither a committee nor a department.
Institutions having either a research committee or research department had them in
place a mean of 6.4 years. Of the respondents, 49% indicated that their research
programs were expanding, 46% reported that they were remaining at the current
level of activity, and 5% reported they were declining.
The overwhelming majority of zoos and aquariums reported that the source of
research committee and department members was full-time staff (95%). The mean
number of staff involved with research was 15 individuals/institution, and the mean
number of staff whose positions are solely dedicated to research was 3 individuals/

172

Stoinski et al.

TABLE 5. Characteristics of zoo/aquarium researchers in 1986 and current study

A. Who is permitted to conduct research at your institution? (Check all that apply.)
Current study (n = 103)
Designated research staff
Curators
Outside scientists
Students
Keepers
Volunteers
Management personnel

51%
86%
94%
90%
86%
62%
na

B. Are outside scientists encouraged to conduct research at your institution?

Current study (n = 103)
Yes
No

87%
13%

1986 (n = 86)
na
na
78%
73%
71%
49%
80%
1986 (n = 86)
89%
11%

C. Indicate the education background of your researchers by estimating the number of employees and
collaborators who hold the following degrees
Mean number per institution:
Current study
1986
Employees
Doctoral/medical
Masters
Bachelors
Collaborators
Doctoral/medical
Masters
Bachelors

2.07 (n = 94)
Mode: 0; Median: 2
1.81 (n = 94)
Mode: 0; Median 1
6.30 (n = 85)
Mode: 0; Median 4

na

4.44 (n = 77)
Mode: 0; Median 3
1.90 (n = 81)
Mode: 0; Median 0
2.00 (n = 81)
Mode: 0; Median 0

na

na
na

na
na

na = not available.

institution. However, the majority of institutions reported having no employees dedicated solely to research (mode = 0).
Financial Support of Research Programs

The majority of zoos and aquariums provide support for their research programs (Table 8) from an operating budget (84%). Research comprises between 0%
and 5% of the budget at 91% of the institutions surveyed. Of the respondents, 74%
reported dissatisfaction with the level of funding for research at their institution.
Interestingly, 30% of respondents whose institutions do not conduct research reported that their research budget was satisfactory, which suggests that there are
institutions that are not interested in conducting research. Finally, a majority of
zoos and aquariums reported providing financial support for both domestic and
international field research projects.
Outside Affiliations

Table 9 provides information on the formal affiliation of zoos and aquariums

with universities, museums, and other research institutions. All surveys were included

Research in Zoos and Aquariums

173

TABLE 6. Guidelines for and outcomes of research in 1986 and current study
A. Are there written guidelines that researchers must follow?
Current study (n = 101)
Yes
No

64%
36%

B. Do you use peer review in evaluating research proposals?

Current study (n = 99)
Yes
No

73%
27%

C. Where have your research results been published? (Check all that apply.)
Current study (n = 95)
In-house publications
Refereed journals
Nonrefereed journals
Technical reports
Proceedings or symposia
Books or book chapters
Magazines or newsletters
Theses or dissertations
Other

68%
65%
46%
46%
75%
31%
64%
59%
3%

D. When you set out to publish your best work, which journal do you prefer?
Current study (n = 86)
Animal Keepers Forum
Der Zoologische Garden
International Zoo Yearbook
Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine
Zoo Biology
Other

12%
1%
21%
40%
48%
62%

1986 (N = 82)
21%
79%
1986
na
na
1986
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
1986
na
na
na
na
na
na

E. Do employees who carry out research receive compensation according to success in publishing and
grantsmanship?
Current study (n = 103)
1986
Yes
No

9%
91%

na
na

na = not available

in these results, regardless of the status of research at the institution. Although there
was not a significant correlation between having a university affiliation and conducting research (X2 = 2.96; P = 0.122), there was a significant correlation between having affiliations with other research institutions or museums and conducting research
(X2 = 7.84; P = 0.01). Additionally, 83% of institutions with a university affiliation
and 71% of institutions with a museum or other research facility affiliation reported
publishing in refereed journals. These numbers dropped to 54% and 59%, respectively, for institutions without formal affiliations.
Rating Research Programs

The top six rated zoos and aquarium research programs are listed in Table 10.
The Wildlife Conservation Society of New York and Monterey Bay Aquarium topped
the zoo and aquarium lists, respectively.

174

Stoinski et al.

TABLE 7. Characteristics of research programs in zoos and aquariums in 1986 and current study
A. Is there a research committee/department at your institution?
Current study (n = 97)
Committee
Department
Both committee and department
Neither

58%
11%
20%
10%

B. How long as the committee/department been in operation?

Current study (n = 64)
Mean number of years

6.4
Mode: 5; Median: 5

C. In what direction is your research program going?

Current study (n = 100)
Expanding
Declining
Remaining at current level

49%
5%
46%

1986 (n = 86)
Asked as yes or no question:
Yes committee/department: 39%
No committee/department: 61%
1986 (n = 31)
14.5
Mode: na; Median: na
1986 (n = 102)
46%
2%
52%

D. What is the source of committee/department members? (Check all that apply.)

Current study (n = 91)
1986 (N = 36)
Zoo/aquarium full-time staff
Zoo/aquarium part-time staff
College/university professors
Other scientists
College/university students
Volunteers

95%
14%
47%
42%
21%
29%

Zoo/aquarium staff (full- and

part-time): 92%
Colleges and universities (no
distinction between professors
and students): 72%

E. Approximately how many staff, including keepers, have been involved in research?
Current study (n = 98)
1986
Mean number per institution

15.1
Mode: 10; Median 12

F. Is your research leader full-time or part-time in a research capacity?

Current study (n = 88)
Full-time
Part-time

48%
51%

G. Please list dedicated/paid research staff.

Current study (n = 94)
Mean number per institution

2.98
Mode: 0; Median: 0

7.9
Mode: na; Median: na
1986
na
na
1986
na
Mode: na; Median: na

H. Which statement best describes the relationship of education, conservation, and research units at
your institution?
Current study (n = 98)
1986
Well integrated, with a single leader
Separate but with good communication
Separate but with little communication

24%
66%
10%

na
na
na

na = not available.

DISCUSSION

The similarity of our questions and return rate to those of the 1986 study permit comparisons between the two sets of data. Additionally, with a return rate of
71%, we feel comfortable generalizing our findings to all AZA institutions, although
with the same caution as Finlay and Maple [1986] that the results are subject to self-

Research in Zoos and Aquariums

175

TABLE 8. Financial support for research programs in 1986 and current study
A. What are the sources of financial support for your research program? (Check all that apply.)
Current study (n = 101)
Zoo operating budget
Selected benefactors
Outside grants
Outside scientists
Other

84%
34%
62%
56%
25%

B. Approximately what percentage of your annual operating budget is dedicated to research?

Current study (n = 99)
05%
610%
1115%
1620%
> 20%

91%
8%
1%
0%
0%

C. Are you satisfied with the current level of funding for research at your institution?
Current study (n = 99)
Yes
No

26%
74%

D. Does your institution financially support domestic or international field research projects?
Current study (n = 101)
Domestic
International
Both domestic and international
Neither

21%
17%
54%
21%

1986
na
na
na
na
na
1986
na
na
na
na
na
1986
na
na
1986
na
na
na
na

E. In what capacity does your institution financialy support field research projects? (Check all that
apply.)
Current study (n = 98)
1986
Financial support of field site
Financial support of field scientist
Donation of supplies to field site
Expert consultation to field site
Other
None

43%
44%
44%
52%
19%
18%

na
na
na
na
na
na

na = not available.

report bias. For example, we did not define terms such as expanding research programs (Table 2), outside scientist (Table 5), or formal affiliation (Table 9), and
thus there may be a large discrepancy in how respondents interpreted these terms.
One of the most striking comparisons between the 1986 and current data is the
emerging role of research in AZA institutions. For example, the percentage of institutions that report conducting research increased from 70% to 88%, and it is particularly exciting to see the large increases in the percentage of institutions conducting
research in the two smallest attendance-size categories. Additionally, the number of
institutions that report using the term research or science as an institutional objective has increased, and approximately half of the institutions in the current study
report employing a research leader full-time in a research capacity.
With the expansion of research has come an increase in regulation. Both the
number of institutions with an appointed research committee and the percentage of
zoos and aquariums with written guidelines for researchers have more than doubled

176

Stoinski et al.

TABLE 9. Formal outside affiliations of zoos and aquariums in 1986 and current study
A. Is your institution formally in partnership with a college or university?
Current study (n = 116)
Yes
No

41%
59%

B. Would your institution like to form a future partnership with a college or university?
Current study (n = 89)
Yes
No

88%
12%

1986 (N = 120)
40%
60%
1986
na
na

C. Does your institution have partnerships with other research institutions or museums?
Current study (n = 116)
1986 (N = 120)
Yes
No

53%
47%

29%
71%

D. Are there any research internships or fellowships for students available at your institution?
Current study (n = 118)
1986 (N = 120)
Yes
Paid
Unpaid
No

54%
19%
47%
46%

23%
na
na
77%

na = not available.

in the last 10 years. Additionally, a majority of the current respondents report using
peer review to evaluate research proposals. These large increases in regulation are
not surprising, given that research departments/committees have been in existence
for a mean of 6.4 years and, therefore, most have developed since the last survey.
Research topics and subjects have changed over the last 10 years. Although
reproduction and behavior remain the most frequently studied topics, physiology,
conservation, husbandry, behavior modification, and visitors now receive substantially increased research attention. The percentage of zoos and aquariums that study
humans has changed dramatically, such that humans are now the second most popular subject. This trend suggests an increasing interest in the visitor experience.
As research programs at zoos and aquariums expand, staff and outside individuals
such as students, outside scientists, and volunteers should benefit from increased opportunities to become involved in research [Finlay and Maple, 1986]. The current results
show that the number of staff involved in research has doubled since 1986, and more
opportunities have been created for students and volunteers to participate in research.
Zoo and aquarium scientists have repeatedly stressed the role of research in
wildlife conservation [Hediger, 1964; Maple, 1981; Hardy, 1996b; Kleiman, 1996]
and many credit the increase in scientific research in zoos and aquariums to their
expanding role in conservation [Hutchins et al., 1996]. The current results lend
further support to the idea that zoos and aquariums are taking an active role in
contributing to wildlife conservation through either conducting scientific research
in the field or contributing to domestic and international field research projects.
Zoo and aquarium professionals have argued for collaboration among institutions [Finlay and Maple, 1986; Hardy, 1996b; Hutchins et al., 1996; Kleiman,
1996; Lukas and Maple, 1997], as small sample sizes and few resources often
limit the contribution an individual institution can make to tackling a research
question. By collaborating with universities or other research institutions, the
research program of an individual institution can be strengthened. For example,

Research in Zoos and Aquariums

177

TABLE 10. Ratings of research programs in the current study*

A. Taking into account the range in budget, size, and resources, which six zoos do you consider to have
the best overall scientific reputation? (Need not be rank-ordered.)
Current study (n = 109)
1986
Wildlife Conservation Society
San Diego
National Zoo
Brookfield
St. Louis
Cincinnati

91%
80%
71%
57%
39%
31%

na
na
na
na
na
na

B. Taking into account the range in budget, size, and resources, which six aquariums do you consider
to have the best overall scientific reputation? (Need not be rank-ordered.)
Montery Bay Aquarium
National Aquarium (Baltimore)
John Shedd Aquarium
Sea World
Vancouver
New York Aquarium

Current study (n = 80)

1986

74%
69%
56%
54%
29%
25%

na
na
na
na
na
na

*Numbers represent percentage of respondents who listed the institution as one of the top six in terms
of overall scientific reputation.
na = not available.

the current results reveal that there is an increase in peer-reviewed publications

in institutions with a university or research affiliation. The large increase found
in this study in the percentage of institutions with partnerships with other research institutions and museums may be due in part to the facilitation of collaborative research by AZA committees, such as the Research Coordinators
Committee (RCC) and scientific advisory groups, which serve to address questions related to research, to coordinate collaborative studies, and to provide a
network for zoo and aquarium biologists and collaborating scientists [Hutchins
et al., 1996]. It is important to remember that the current results do not report
affiliations between individual researchers and universities or other research facilities, but such affiliations also may play an important role in the research programs of zoos and aquariums.
The current study reveals that a majority of zoos and aquariums are publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Zoo Biology and Journal of Zoo and Wildlife
Medicine were the most popular journals in the current study, and the same results were found in an analysis of the publications reported by AZA institutions
in the Annual Report on Conservation and Science (ARCS) between 1990 and
1994 [Hutchins et al., 1996]. However, a majority of the current respondents
reported using journals other than those provided on the survey form, with Conservation Biology, Animal Behaviour, and Journal of Reproduction as the most
common journals listed. It is promising to see zoo and aquarium research being
published in these journals, as it results in circulation outside the immediate zoo
and aquarium community.
There are some differences between the results of the current study and
other analyses of zoo and aquarium research programs. For example, in both
1986 and the current study, a majority of institutions reported studying behavior

178

Stoinski et al.

and reproduction and using birds and reptiles as subjects. However, a database
on research projects currently underway by members of the Consortium of Aquariums, Universities and Zoos (CAUZ) reveals that CAUZ members report conducting substantially fewer behavior and reproduction studiesand using birds
and reptiles as subjects far less frequently [Hardy, 1996a]. These differences may
be due to differences in the subject pools and methodologies of the studies. For
example, CAUZ members: (1) include university scientists as well as zoo and
aquarium professionals, (2) could list a maximum of five projects, whereas the
respondents of this study had no limitations, and (3) were reporting on their own
studies instead of those conducted by their institutions.
There are also differences between the current results and previous studies
in terms of the types of research being conducted and the types of research being
published. For example, an analysis of the 19911992 ARCS revealed that 0.6%
of reported publications dealt with exhibit design or evaluation and 3.6% dealt
with enrichment [Hardy, 1996b], yet 42% and 43%, respectively, of the current
respondents reported conducting research in these areas. Birds and reptiles, studied at 50% of the institutions in the current study, represent only ~15% of the
19901994 ARCS bibliography and <10% of the Zoo Biology publications in the
last 15 years [Wemmer et al., 1997]. The disparity between our results and those
of studies looking at published papers may be partially due to inflated numbers
resulting from self-report bias in the current study. However, there are probably
other, nonmethodological factors contributing to the differences between conducted and published research. Specifically, it appears that much of the research
being conducted, particularly in specific fields, is not being published. The lack
of publication could be a result of the informal nature of many zoo and aquarium
projects, or due to the fact that the majority of institutions do not reward employees for publishing. However, the difference does not appear to be due to a
lack of research, at least involving birds and reptiles, as suggested by Wemmer
et al. [1997]. If the research suggested by our results is indeed occurring, the
results need to be published and disseminated outside the immediate community
to ensure that zoos and aquariums earn respect as places of valid scientific investigation.
Although the current findings suggest that research is alive and well in the zoo
and aquarium setting, there is still room for improvement. For example, the percentage of institutions that report expanding research programs has decreased for all
classes of attendance size except the two largest. Additionally, the current data reveal
that the majority of zoos and aquariums have no staff employed solely for research
purposes, which suggests that research is not yet fully integrated and supports the
finding that the majority of research occurs at a few large institutions [Hutchins et
al., 1996; Wemmer et al., 1997]. Finances are clearly a problem; the majority of zoos
and aquariums that do not conduct research report being limited by financial constraints and a majority of the respondents from institutions conducting research are
not satisfied with the amount of available funds for research. However, it should be
noted that many zoos and aquariums are incorporating research as a cost of doing
business, as suggested by Bernischke [1996]. Hopefully, the amount of financial support given to research programs will increase in the next century. In spite of financial
and other limitations, it does appear that a scientific revolution is underway in American zoos and aquariums.

Research in Zoos and Aquariums

179

CONCLUSIONS

1. The percentage of zoos and aquariums that report conducting research has
increased in the last decade. Research regulation and the number and type of individuals involved in research have also increased.
2. Lack of funds, time, and personnel are the most commonly reported reasons
for not conducting research.
3. There is no correlation between having a university affiliation and conducting research, but there is a significant positive correlation between (1) affiliation
with a museum or research institution and conducting research and (2) attendance
size and conducting research.
4. The most common types of zoo and aquarium research are behavioral and
reproductive studies, whereas nonhuman mammals, humans (visitor behavior), birds,
and reptiles are the most commonly studied taxa.
5. A majority of zoos and aquariums reported studying the wild counterparts of
their captive collections, indicating a role for these institutions in field research.
6. Whereas many of the current results correspond to results from other analyses of zoo and aquarium research programs, there are discrepancies between (1) research that is reportedly being conducted and research that has been published and
2) the subjects and types of research projects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are extremely grateful to the 123 individuals who took the time to complete and return the research survey. Thanks to D. Forthman, who reviewed the survey before it was distributed, and to M. Bloomsmith and three anonymous reviewers
who made helpful comments on the manuscript. During the course of this study, T.
Stoinski was financially supported by the Elizabeth Smithgall Watt Fellowship, which
is funded by Zoo Atlantas Charles T. Bailey Endowment. K. Lukas was financially
supported by Zoo Atlanta.
REFERENCES
Bernischke, K. The need for multidisciplinary research units in the zoo. Pp. 537544 in WILD
MAMMALS IN CAPTIVITY. D.G. Kleiman,
M.E. Allen, K. Thompson, S. Lumpkin, eds. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Finlay, T.W.; Maple, T.L. A survey of research in
American zoos and aquariums. ZOO BIOLOGY
5:261268, 1986.
Hardy, D.F. Current research activities in zoos. Pp.
531536 in WILD MAMMALS IN CAPTIVITY.
D.G. Kleiman, M.E. Allen, K. Thompson, S.
Lumpkin, eds. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press, 1996a.
Hardy, D.F. The diversity of research: Summary
of recent applied and informal research in zoos
and aquariums. Pp. 514 in THE WELL-BEING
OF ANIMALS IN ZOOS AND AQUARIUM
SPONSORED RESEARCH. G.M. Burghardt, J.
Bielitzki, J. Boyce, D. Schaeffer, eds. Greenbelt,
MD, Scientists Center for Animal Welfare,
1996b.

Hediger, H. WILD MAMMALS IN CAPTIVITY.

New York, Dover, 1964.
Hutchins, M.; Paul, E.; Bowdoin, J.M. Contributions of zoo and aquarium research to wildlife
conservation and science. Pp. 2339 in THE
WELL-BEING OF ANIMALS IN ZOOS AND
AQUARIUM SPONSORED RESEARCH. G.M.
Burghardt, J. Bielitzki, J. Boyce, D. Schaeffer,
eds. Greenbelt, MD, Scientists Center for Animal Welfare, 1996.
Kleiman, D.G. Behavioral research in zoos: Past,
present and future. ZOO BIOLOGY 11:301312,
1992.
Kleiman, D.G. Special research strategies for zoos
and aquariums and design of research programs.
Pp. 1522 in THE WELL-BEING OF ANIMALS
IN ZOOS AND AQUARIUM SPONSORED RESEARCH. G.M. Burghardt, J. Bielitzki, J. Boyce,
D. Schaeffer, eds. Greenbelt, MD, Scientists Center for Animal Welfare, 1996.
Lukas, K.E.; Maple, T.L. Comparative psychology

180

Stoinski et al.

and primate conservation: the synergistic relationship between the zoo and university. Pp. 537
543 in PROCEEDINGS, AMERICAN ZOO
AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION REGIONAL
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS. Wheeling,
WV, AZA, 1997.
Maple, T.L. A zoo story: Confessions of a zoo psychologist. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION MONITOR Aug/Sept:2021, 1981.

Wemmer, C.; Rodden, M.; Pickett, C. Publications

trends in Zoo Biology: A brief analysis of the first
15 years. ZOO BIOLOGY:38, 1997.
Wiese, R.J.; Hutchins, M.; Willis, K.; Becker, S.;
eds. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS ANNUAL REPORT ON CONSERVATION AND
SCIENCE. Bethesda, MD, American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 1992.