Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter revolves on the collection, analysis, interpretation, and discussion of

correlated foreign and local related legal bases, literature, and studies; and its significant

bearings in the present undertaking on the habitat evaluation of endemic fauna in Albay

Park and Wildlife. Provided as well in this chapter are the synthesis of the State-of-the-Art,

gap to be bridged by the study, and the theoretical and conceptual frameworks and

paradigms.

Related Legal Bases

Animal welfare is a grave concern that numerous laws, both on a local and global

scale, are enacted to corroborate its essence, especially in zoological gardens or widely

known as zoos. In the Philippine setting, Republic Act No. 9147, which is passed by the

Congress and signed into law way back 2001, calls for stronger regulations in the said

avenue. The law, which is the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001,

primarily aims to conserve the wildlife within the archipelago and its habitats for

sustainability. Its main implication in the present study is that wildlife includes those in

captivity, as defined under Section 5, Chapter 2, thereafter, its habitat enclosures in zoos

are under close monitoring of the law. The present study aims to magnify the main policy

of the said law. Republic Act No. 9147 is further branched out into the following

objectives: (1) to conserve and protect wildlife species and their habitats to promote
 18

ecological balance and enhance biological diversity; (2) to regulate the collection and trade

of wildlife; (3) to pursue, with due regard to the national interest, the Philippine

commitment to international conventions, protection of wildlife and their habitats; and (4)

to initiate or support scientific studies on the conservation of biological diversity.

The following objectives, specifically the first one, connotes that welfare among

wildlife species, both flora and fauna, within the archipelago and of the jurisdiction of the

State, including zoos, is of national importance. It has bearing in the present study primarily

of the fact that one of the latter’s objective is to thrust the essence of animal welfare in

captivity further, which, subsequently, presses Republic Act No. 9147’s stance for

biodiversity. It was even stated on the fourth objective of the law under the Section 2 or

Declaration of Policy that the State recognizes the undertaking of scientific studies on the

avenue of promoting and protecting biodiversity, including the present study. It even

continued that the State, through Republic Act No. 9147, can and will initiate and support

relevant studies, and one is through appropriating funds for it.

Albay Park and Wildlife, the sole government-owned zoo in Bicol region, is under

the jurisdiction of the State, primarily of the environment and agriculture department

through Republic Act No. 9147. Chapter 3, Article 1 or the General Provisions of the

current law emphasizes in Section 8 that no person or entity shall be allowed possession of

wildlife unless such person or entity can prove its financial and technical capabilities to do

so. The need to highlight the capabilities of a person or entity, in this case the Albay Park

and Wildlife, to manage the possession of wildlife must always be reviewed, and in the

present study, the evaluation of the said capabilities is a top priority anchored on Republic

Act 9147’s vision. It was even furthered in Section 36 of Chapter 6 of the same law that
 19

the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Department of Environment and

Natural Resources shall “regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of

botanical gardens, zoological parks and other similar establishments for recreation,

education and conservation”. It denotes that the present study amplifies the goal of the

Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001 in safeguarding biodiversity

welfare.

Moreover, when it comes to animal welfare, the Philippine government, through

the Republic Act No. 10631, which is the amended version of the Republic Act No. 8485

(The Animal Welfare Act of 1998), promotes it in all terrestrial, aquatic, and marine

animals, either endemic or non-endemic. With the law, there shall be supervison and

regulation of the establishment and operations of all facilities utilized for breeding,

maintaining, keeping, treating or training animals, including zoos. The said law, together

with Republic Act No. 9147, strengthens the foundation of the present study in intensifying

the evaluation of the maintenance of zoos in the country, primarily of Albay Park and

Wildlife.

But the Animal Welfare Act of 1998 is not limited into keeping animal facilities in

the country in shape – it underscores the concept of animal welfare in all scope. Animal

welfare, as defined by the law, is the physical and psychological well-being of an animal.

It also states that it is the “avoidance of maltreatment of animals by humans” by

maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation and general care; and assurance of

freedom from distress and unnecessary discomfort, allowing animals to express normal

behavior. In the present undertaking on evaluating animal habitats in the sole zoo in Bicol,

the researchers aim to assess present factors in the habitat of endemic fauna and to
 20

determine its effects on the well-being of the species. In this notion, the present study aims

to know if “animal welfare” prescribed by the Animal Welfare Act is still observed in the

said zoo. It was even set in the amended Section 6 of the existing law that it is unlawful for

any person or entity to neglect to provide adequate care and sustenance to animals in zoos,

as it is their duty to do such, according to Section 4.

When it comes to animal facility, the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations

of the Animal Welfare Act stresses the role of the person or entity with custody of an

animal, and in this case, the zoo management in ensuring appropriate standards for the

species. The minimum animal facility standards imposed in the law are reflected in the

present study since that it will be primarily considered in assessing the animal enclosures

in Albay Park and Wildlife.

The basic standards in accordance to Rule 6.3, and are perused in the methodology

of the present study. The standards include (1) taking into account the natural habitat of the

animal, the animal should be able to express it natural behavior in the wild by removing

inhibitory effects in the facility; (2) elimination of unnecessary and/or extreme exposure

weather conditions in the habitat is a must; and (3) housing facilities for animals must be

designed and constructed so they are structurally sound. Moreover, (4) the enclosures must

be regularly checked to determine if its structural integrity is still in good condition; and

(5) the said facilities must be considered for abiotic factors including moisture, humidity,

extreme temperature, and inclement weather.

The protection of the environment and the life it contains is also a matter of national

priority as affirmed by the Philippine Constitution of 1987. Being the supreme and

organized structure of a nation’s laws, the Constitution serves as its backbone to administer
 21

its internal functions. Section 16 of the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Declaration of

Principles and State Policies Principles explicitly provides that “the State shall protect and

advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the

rhythm and harmony of nature.”

The said provision articulates the responsibility of each generation as trustee and

guardian of the environment for succeeding generations, as detailed in Senator Ramon

Revilla Jr.’s explanatory note on it (Senate Bill No. 961). He furthered that Section 16 not

only pertains the said responsibility for citizens of the Philippines but also citizens of the

world. Revilla contested that such provision may not be written in the Constitution or our

laws primarily because of the fact that such responsibility embedded in the provision traces

back to mankind’s obligation in the preservation of nature and its resources – meaning it is

an inherent, innate duty.

Since the right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative

duty to refrain it from utter destruction, it is a paramount obligation of the State to safeguard

the Earth, especially for the generations to come. The Constitution’s stance in preserving

wildlife further advances the present study’s alike objective. In the notion, it is postulated

that the environment is deemed important in the fundamental laws of the Philippines, and

the present study has significant bearing in honoring the said landmark.

In connection with Section 16, the Supreme Court upholds the ideal for

environment protection by issuing the legal remedy Writ of Amparo, which fosters Section

16 provision’s position to be “in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature” through

“judicious disposition, utilization, management, … and conservation of the country’s …

wildlife…” It is connoted that for the nation to thrive on sustainability, the role in
 22

preserving wildlife is a must, and one of the loci is zoos which hold numerous fauna in

captivity.

The Philippines, most especially its registered zoos, including Albay Park and

Wildlife, has linkages in regional and international zoo communities, and being and

institutional affiliate in all of it, the national zoos have obligations resting on their

shoulders. Albay Park and Wildlife, the target of the present undertaking on zoo evaluation,

is an institutional member of the Philippine Zoos and Aquariums Association

(PHILZOOS).

Comprising of 14 animal facilities in the archipelago, PHILZOOS is committed

into upholding the following ideals according to the organization’s constitutional

framework: (1) that zoos and aquariums in the Philippines should aim to be primary and

important centers for integrated conservation, education, recreation and scientific research;

(2) that zoos and aquariums in the Philippines should operate in adherence and accordance

with acceptable and agreed to standards; (3) That zoos and aquariums in the Philippines

should keep and exhibit animals in accordance with established welfare standards; and (4)

that zoos and aquariums in the Philippines should implement conservation breeding

programs and engage in cooperative scientific exchanges to ensure the survival of

threatened species

Additionally, the ideals stress out (5) that zoos and aquariums in the Philippines

should effectively promote wildlife appreciation and conservation awareness and action;

(6) That zoos and aquariums in the Philippines should educate the public on the values of

preserving biodiversity and natural habitats; and (7) that zoos and aquariums in the

Philippines should commit to teamwork and cooperation and share expertise and
 23

experiences with fellow members, as well as with other regional and national zoo

associations.

Such ideals not only foster wildlife within the archipelagic waters of the nation but

implement animal welfare and ethics strategies among its members, including Albay Park

and Wildlife. PHILZOOS Members are committed to adhere to acceptable animal welfare

standards and ethical animal management. Furthermore, the PHILZOOS ideals urges its

institutional members to adhere and adopt to existing Philippine laws and regulations

pertaining to animal welfare.

On the other hand, the PHILZOOS is also a member of the Southeast Asian Zoos

and Aquariums Associations or SEAZA. The only regional organization of zoos in the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region comprises of the states of Brunei,

Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and

Vietnam; and non-ASEAN affiliates like Taiwan and Hongkong. It was stated that those

part of the national organizations in the said states are also members of SEAZA, thus,

making Albay Park and Wildlife part of it as well. It is interesting to note that SEAZA, as

compared to other regional alike organizations in the world, does not have universal Ethical

and Welfare Standards across its zoos. However, all members must meet certain baselines

and provide certain animal rights to remain a part of the association. Animals should have

(1) access to sufficient drinking water; (2) a shelter to inclement weather; (3) a clean

enclosure to reduce the spread of infectious diseases; (4) responsible staff to care for them

when they are in distress; and (5) should be able to exhibit normal behavior in their

enclosures.
 24

Meanwhile, the SEAZA is also a regional association member of the World

Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). Continuing the flow of logic, Albay Park

and Wildlife has linkage with the international zoo community. Because of the position

that modern zoos confront nowadays due to its ethical stance, the WAZA had set up, as

well, guidelines for its members to adhere to, which are relevant to those of the SEAZA.

But the difference is that the WAZA had included the responsibility and opportunities of

the international zoo and aquarium community to consolidate and increase their support

and involvement in species conservation.

Likewise, the United Nations, an intergovernmental organization where the

Philippines is a state member, is coping up with the trend of animal welfare. The SDGs or

Sustainable Development Goals is a plan of 17 goals for sustainability which is foreseen

to be fulfilled in all nations of the world by 2030. The goals included for quality education,

poverty alleviation, industrialization and modernization, and of course, preserving wildlife.

Two out of the 17 Sustainable Goals advocate for biodiversity, which is Number 14 or

“Life Below Water” and Number 15 or “Life On Land.” The United Nations, primarily of

the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), cites the exploitation of wildlife

and natural resources as basis for the creation of the two sustainable goals, and contests

that everyone in this world, including the Philippines, has its obligation of enforcing the

actions necessary in committing the goal, which includes species preservation.

The abovementioned discretionary actions to be fulfilled by zoos, inclusive of

Albay Park and Wildlife in Legazpi City, as stipulated by national and international

agencies further express that its bearing on the current study on the zoos’ habitats

evaluation is significant, as to say that it sustains conservation roles for the zoo while
 25

setting standards into achieving it. The said standards discussed above will be present in

the methodology and data analysis of the present research paper.

Related Literature

According to the European Union (EU) mentioned in the book of Rees, P. (2011),

a zoo is any establishment where wild animals are kept for display to be seen by the public

by more than or equal to seven days a year. To ensure the well-being of an animal, Kagan

R. et al. (2015), zoos need institutional knowledge, expertise, and commitment. Alongside

this, comprehensive and robust programs must be done by the zoo. These programs are for

measuring, implementing, and evaluating the animal care and welfare practices of the zoo.

Gray, J. (2012) mentioned that zoos have enormous power and resources. This must

be used properly in order to function as a center for conservation of biodiversity. Also, it

is the responsibility of the zoo to give everything they can for the animal since they chose

to take care of it.

In an article written by Fa, J. (2012), zoos’ goal of conserving animal best serves

those species who are in need of immediate response. An example of this kind of animal

are endangered species. These animals have small population and is in need of immediate

captive breeding. These species only need habitat for conservation and improved

population. These can be easily provided by zoos.

Lacy, R. et al. (2013) argued that zoos are not able to conserve the population of

the animals. These zoos are unable to do so because they do not have any clear goal as to

why they are conserving these animals. Because of this uncertainty, programs created for
 26

this sole purpose are not creating the desired result of the increase population of these

animals. Lacy, R. et al suggest that zoos can work together to have better results. These

zoos can exchange knowledge with each other to give the animals under their care what

they need.

Rees, P (2011) eloquently stated that zoos were just exhibits of caged animals.

However, as time changed, the zoos started to become centers for animal conservation.

Because of this, designs of enclosures are improved. The biological needs of the animal

are considered and standards are created to accompany the need of the animal.

There are different standards suggested by different organizations that zoos should

follow. According to the Australian government (2014), the operator of the facility or the

zoo must ensure that there is a facility perimeter fence that is secure, all enclosures are

maintained for the security, containment, and safety of the animals, and all moats are

capable of preventing the animals from escaping, floods, and entry of unauthorized

personnel. Also, the structural integrity of the enclosure must be inspected every day. The

enclosure must be able to provide the needs of the animals by providing abiotic factors

similar to their wild habitat such as spatial dimensions and natural behavior opportunities.

The substrates and drainages in the enclosure must not harm the animal. It must also be in

a hygienic state. Effective drainage must be possible and it must allow the animal for

appropriate natural behaviors.

According to the New Zealand government (2018), the operator has the

responsibility over the zoo. This includes the responsibility of giving the animals their

needs. One of their needs is the appropriate physical environment. This varies from each

species. New Zealand stated that arboreal animals such as primates need structure they
 27

climb on to, reptiles need pools wherein they can submerge in, birds need enough space to

fly and water spray for bathing especially when rain is not available, and grazing animals

need enough space to graze on and the presence of vegetation. Size of the cage is very

important. Without the proper size of the cage, it could cause overcrowding and stress for

the animals. The cage must be large enough and the utilization of the space must be

maximized.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources or also known as DENR

(2014) stated that an animal’s enclosure in a zoo must have the proper size to allow these

animals to be physically active. It must also contain what it needs to thrive such as shelter,

hiding places, perches, feeding, bathing, nesting, resting and isolation areas so that they

can live normally and easily indicate if something is wrong. Hides, perches, and shelters,

must be made from natural materials. It must also be free from edges and protrusions that

could injure the animal and provision of enclosure enrichment is encouraged. The

enclosure must contain a signage with the up-to-date information about the animal in the

enclosure.

As stated by the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria or EAZA (2014), to

provide proper accommodation to the animals, the zoo must provide sufficient space for a

specie, taking their spatial needs into consideration. They must also provide structures

needed for the well-being of the animal. Along with that, the zoo must give them an

enclosure designed to give them the environmental conditions suitable and comfortable for

each specie. Animals that lives in an outdoor enclosure must be given a shelter that can

house them from undesirable weather conditions.

 28

The Zoological Association of America or the ZAA (2016) classified animals into

three, the class I, II, and III. Each class have different facility requirements to be followed

by the zoos. All animals which has the genus Macaca is part of class II. All animals that

are part of class II must not be contained in a habitat constructed on a property that is less

than two and a half contiguous acres. They must also have a perimeter boundary to prevent

any unauthorized entry. The boundary cannot act as an animal exhibit barrier. And, they

shall be bounded by a fence with a height of greater than or equal to 8 ft. made of 11 ½

gauge chain link or a fence with the height of not less than 6 ft. with an inward angle

overhang that is 2 ft. and is inclined 45 degrees. Birds, deer, lizards, pigs, and porcupines

are part of class III. Their facility requirements are similar with the facility requirements

for class II. The only difference is that they can be bounded by 6-foot fence with no

overhang.

Other than facility requirements, they stated different caging requirements. The

cages of these animals must have structural safety barriers. The cages of class I and class

II animals that are less than 1,000 square feet must be covered at the top except for

paddocks, reptile enclosures, open-air habitats, and moated areas.

The association also gave additional structural caging requirements for specific

species. For animals with genus Macaca, outdoor facilities containing these animals must

be made of not less than 11 ½ chain gauge link while indoor facilities containing these

animals must have potential escape routes equipped with wires or gratings of not less than

11 ½ gauge. For class III mammals such as deer, pigs, and porcupines, outdoor facilities

that serves as habitat for these creatures must be made of not less than 14 ½ gauge wire

while indoor facilities that has these animals can be rooms as long as the construction
 29

materials exceeds or is structurally equivalent to outside caging, has secure potential escape

routes, and the size of the room is equivalent or is beyond the required for an enclosure.

They also created standards related for the structure of the habitats related to the

behavioral need of the specie. For macaques, the volume of the enclosure must be 10 feet

by 10 feet for one or two macaques and the original floor area must be increased by 25%

for every additional macaque. For a medium-sized deer such as the Philippine deer, a

paddock with a size of 800 square feet with a height of 8 ft. will suffice for one or two deer

and the original area must be increased by 25% for every additional deer. Old world

porcupines such as the Palawan porcupine must have an enclosure of 8 ft. by 8 ft. with a

height of 6 ft., its enclosure size must be increased by 25% for every additional porcupine,

and it must contain a gnawing item such as logs. Birds with the same size of a dove must

be enclosed in a 3 ft. by 2 ft. habitat with a height 3 ft. for up to two birds. Its size must be

increased by 10 % for every additional bird. For owls and eagles, the enclosure must be the

size of 2 wingspreads by 3 wingspreads and its roof must be high enough so that the bird

can perch erect on the highest perch. This size can only accommodate one bird. The size

of the enclosure’ length must be increased by 50% and its width by 25% for every

additional bird. For lizards with a length of 37 inches up to 6 feet like the sailfin lizard, an

enclosure of 6 feet by 3 feet with the height of 4 feet will suffice up to two lizards. An

increase of 25% of the original floor area is needed to accommodate every additional lizard.

These standards are created to cater to animal’s welfare. Nonhuman animal welfare

refers to the state of the animal in reference to its ability to adjust (Ward, et al., 2018). It

includes the animal’s mental and physical health, and nature. Giving great care to the

animal does not necessarily equate to great welfare.

 30

According to Draper (2013), Britain has created laws to uphold the minimum

standards that a zoo should maintain. However, majority of the British zoos is not able

meet these standards. Because of the actions of these zoos, animal welfare is considered to

be poor in those zoos. The welfare of this animals may not improve and might even decline

if nothing is changed.

According to Pierce & Bekoff (2018), there are 90% to 97% of zoos in the world

that should be closed. These zoos do not meet any standard for what a zoo should meet.

They should just close and release the animals or give them to zoos that can take care of

them better. This is to improve the welfare of the animals.

Turner (2014) reported that the European Union has created standards when it

comes to the enclosures of animals in zoos. However, misinterpretations of the

requirements needed to be attained by the zoos occurred. It was mainly because of the lack

of deeper explanation of the key terms. Because of this, the main goal of the standards,

which is the conservation of biodiversity, is not sufficiently addressed nor incorporated by

the zoos found within the countries who are part of the European Union.

Broom (2009) stated that the welfare of the animals will not be good in zoos if

unavoidable issues surfaces no matter how good the animals are taken care of the building

or the management system. An example of this is a social animal deprived of social contact.

He also stated that the attitude of the people in charge of taking care of the animals have a

huge impact on the welfare of the animals.

In 2017, Broom stated that the welfare of an animal depends on how it is coping

with its environment. Its habitat must provide its needs like water, food, etc. It must also

allow the animal to do certain activities so that the animal will be able to cope with the
 31

environment. If the animal does not cope well in its new environment, it will cause stress

to the animal.

Stress can be either beneficial or have negative effects in certain situations.

However, when it comes to animals, stress is bad. It is the result of the animal not being

able to adjust to its habitat. And, it is the effect of its environment wherein its health is

deteriorated. Because of this clear relationship of stress to the animal, it is considered as a

factor for poor welfare.

Zoos’ goal of conserving animals might not be compatible when it comes to

considering the welfare of the animal according to Keulartz (n.d.). Limiting the space the

animal can dwell could already affect the animal’s welfare. A lot of activities are stripped

away from the animals. Because of this, Keulartz, J. (n.d.) argued that putting them in zoos

might be the cause of their poor welfare.

However, he also stated that putting them in zoos does not equate to poor welfare

especially if the habitat mimics the animal’s natural surrounding exactly. Providing the

animal a habitat with big space to roam around, environment enrichment such as treats,

and proper training that can help with the mental stimulation of the animal can lead to good

welfare.

The Philippines accommodate to the welfare of the animals in zoos. However, there

are still issues when it comes to some zoos in the Philippines. In an article made by ABS-

CBN (2012), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) urges authorities to

release Mali the elephant in a sanctuary in Thailand. Mali is an elephant who is under the

care of the Manila Zoo. PETA argues that Mali should be given enough space to roam

around and should not be deprived of social contact with other elephants. The organization
 32

says that the space given to Mali is inadequate for the elephant to thrive and the lack of

social contact is causing depression to the elephant. Not only that, after a careful

examination, it was found out that Mali is under poor health condition.

Agency France-Presse (2017) reported in an article about the death of Bertha, the

oldest living hippo. Bertha is a hippopotamus that is also under the care of the Manila Zoo.

It died due multiple organ failures. Because of this, it sparked another talk whether or not

it is right to have animals put in zoos.

Manila Zoo has been filled with controversy. In 2011, Grafilo, J. wrote an article

about the demand of PETA for the closure of the Manila Zoo. He says that the organization

is telling that the treatment of the animals is bad. They have photos of animals

malnourished, wounded, and/or caged within rusty cages.

According to the article written by Fernandez, R. (2019), the Manila Zoo is

temporarily closed. It is planned to be rehabilitated. Another reason is that there is an issue

in their waste management. It was discovered that they are the major pollutant of the Manila

Bay. The zoo is closed until further notice.

In conclusion, zoos are establishments that keeps animals for various purposes.

They are in charge of giving these animals the care they need. To do so, they need to follow

certain standards to ensure that the animals can attain great welfare. These standards should

be followed properly so that the desired outcome will be achieved. One of the aspects of a

zoo that has standards to follow are the habitats the animals are living in. Since these

habitats have huge effects on the animal’s welfare, zoos must properly abide to the

standards created by various organizations.

 33

Related Studies

Modern zoos’ success for upholding species preservation must be assessed, as

argued by Balmford, et. al (2007) in their study on evaluating the effectiveness of the

conservation projects of five zoo-based organizations in the United Kingdom. The

researchers looked into five primary projects – Research, Species, Habitat, Education, and

Training – of the North of England Zoological Society, Wildlife Conservation Society,

Zoological Society of London, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, and Marwell

Preservation Trust. The study made used statistical treatment in analyzing the data obtained

from the questionnaires and analysis of given information about the conservation projects

of the five zoo organizations. Results show that out of the 41 project types, 10 of it or

around 25% of the projects concern on the undertaking to enhance habitat quality, viability,

and persistence of animals.

There is a gap on the methodology of the study wherein the researchers only looked

into documents concerning the projects of the zoo organizations, specifically, on its cost-

effectiveness, duration, and percentage composition to zoos. In the present study, the need

to make use of a qualitative approach like field research on Albay Park and Wildlife,

primarily on the situations of habitats, will be enforced to provide a strong baseline in

investigating zoos’ contributions to animal welfare, while also reinforcing, as declared by

Balmford, et al. (2007) to be essential, related documents in data analysis. The researchers

of the present study will look into documents like population statistics and habitat

development reports to yield better conclusions.

 34

Moreover, in a study on comparing captive and non-captive wildlife tourism,

Ballantyne & Pecker (2012) defined that captive wildlife tourism includes zoos and

aquariums while non-captive ones are natural parks and eco-tourism experiences.

However, according to the researchers, there is existing conflict between the two tourism

sites: non-captive sites may disturb animals’ natural behavior and disturb their habitat

setting, while captive ones are criticized for keeping animals in captivity. The target of the

study are four marine-based wildlife tourism sites in Australia, including a marine theme

park (captive site), and whale watching tour and turtle-viewing experience (non-captive

sites), and the researchers conducted months-long of interview with visitors to assess their

attitude on the two types of wildlife tourism.

It was found out that non-captive wildlife tourism, as perceived by the study’s

respondents, was engaging, emotional, and provide an avenue for exploration of the

animals. Meanwhile, the significant findings on the visitors’ perception on captive wildlife

tourism show that the latter provides a new perspective and a closer look at animals. One

key component that may have raised this mindset is the habitat itself. As compared to non-

wildlife tourism, animals are contained in enclosures, creating a parallax shift in the

perspective of visitors as opposed to seeing them, in real life or digital screens, in the wild.

This connotes the essence of animal habitat itself in ensuring the functioning of captive

wildlife tourism.

Beginning in the mid-20th century, most of the world’s zoos began to re-evaluate

the spaces which housed their living creatures. As advances in science and technology

brought forward new information on animal welfare and care, zoos were soon faced with

choices on the treatment of their current building stock. In the study “The Architecture of
 35

Keeping Animals: Preservation Responses to Changing Animal Welfare Ideals in Mid-

Sized American Zoos,” McCollum (2018) perused three methodology types in assessing

four zoos built prior to 1950 in the United States of America, of which two will be

considered in the present study’s methodology – a necessary research on studying animal

welfare standards, and a case study with a focus group. The said study chose accredited

zoos, like Albay Park and Wildlife, which are Toledo Zoo, Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical

Garden, Philadelphia Zoo, and Lincoln Park Zoo – all accredited by the AZA.

Being part of the world’s oldest zoos, the four zoos, as discussed in the study’s data

analysis, all differ in their management priorities. One zoo was noted into attempting to

preserve its cultural and historical account, while one focuses on animal preservation, and

intends to expand its recovery spaces for them. But on a general overview, it was concluded

that throughout the years, there was numerous developments on the zoo’s physical state. It

included constructions, renovations, and demolition of disintegrating facilities. Overall, it

was included that preservation ethic is very high in the focused zoos, which is seen the

developments made.

Citing the standards of the Encyclopedia of the Worlds Zoos, the researchers found

out that the renovation projects in the zoos are traced on accommodating a change in

species and addressing their behavioral needs, primarily on their habitat enclosures. This

would contest the relationship of an animal’s habitat to its daily functioning, pertaining to

welfare already. In fact, Albay Park and Wildlife was renovated and reopened in 2016 to

cater to the inevitable changes in the zoos’ facilities. It is a role for the present researchers

now to assess the effectiveness of the developments made on the said zoo.
 36

It is commonly assumed that animals suffer if they cannot perform behaviors seen

in wild conspecifics. Although comparisons with the behavior of wild conspecifics are a

popular method of assessing the welfare of captive animals, Veasey, et al. (1996) attempted

to prove it validity on their paper “On Comparing the Behavior of Zoo Housed Animals

with Wild Conspecifics as a Welfare Indicator.” The researchers argued in their content

analysis that captivity does alter behavior, but the relationship between behavior in the wild

and behavior in captivity is misleading. Although a captive animal performing all the

behaviors within its wild repertoire is less likely to be suffering than one that is not, it does

not follow that an animal not performing all of its wild behavioral repertoire is inevitably

suffering. As to how the researchers claimed, one cannot assume therefore, that the absence

of wild behavior indicates impoverished welfare without considering the consequences of

this change.

The researchers enumerated some logistical problems primarily encountered in

comparing captive and non-captive behaviors of animals which will be deemed important

and considered in the application of behavioral assessments on the endemic fauna in Albay

Park and Wildlife. The researchers revealed that (1) an animal's behavior is highly

dependent upon short and long-term, biotic and abiotic factors such as age, sex, season,

weather, health status, predation pressure, etc.; and (2) comparing quantitative behavioral

measures alone is of little use other than as a guide. The environment can also influence

qualitative changes in behavior of a species. Also, the problems enumerated that (3) due to

the limited sample size in zoo populations, one may be forced to generalize across different

subspecies or even species (Veasey 1993). The genetic composition of a zoo animal may

therefore differ from its wild equivalent, thus compromising the validity of any conclusions
 37

made; and (4) within both wild and captive populations there is considerable individual

variation that makes interpretation problematic. Captive and wild behavioral measures are

rarely carried out by the same observers, and as a result, the validity of any conclusions

that may be drawn must be questioned.

Measures other than a direct comparison with wild behavior are ideally what the

researchers required in assessing the welfare of zoo animals, as this technique, though

appealing, is not flawless. In the same way that welfare is affected by health, but not

equivalent to it, Veasey, et al. (1996) validated that “behavioral expression affects the

welfare status of an animal, but does not dictate it”. This supports the claim that intensive

research on behavioral assessments is necessary to concur to valid conclusions.

Behavioral assessments are not enough alone to measure animal welfare in zoos –

physiological evaluation of animals must also be done. In one instance, birds are one of the

prevalent species group held captive in zoos. In fact, Albay Park and Wildlife houses a

diverse array of avifauna, with three endemic ones on the focus group of the present study.

Morphological and physiological adaptations have allowed birds to utilize flying as part of

the primary locomotion. However, birds in captivity are often deprived of this natural skill

due to limited living space or wing amputation. Chang, et. al (2013) on their paper “Welfare

Assessment of Flight-restrained Captive Birds: Effects of Inhibition of Locomotion” chose

the great mynahs Acridotheres grandis as experimental animals since they possess the

intelligence to be utilized in behavioral studies. The researchers used three animal-based

measurements – ethological, physiological, and pathological studies – to further visualize

and analyze the situation of birds within enclosed spaces, or restricted cages accurately.
 38

Results of the study show that the experiment showed that the birds preferred larger

cages and higher vertical altitude cages compare to the smaller one. Animals in captivity,

under proper care and management, generally live longer and healthier than their

conspecifics that have the freedom to live in their natural environment. However, not all

species adapt well in confined setting due to variation in susceptibility to stress and

subsequent physical and psychological behavioral changes. Captive birds are often kept in

confined cages or flight restrained through various procedures to restrict their ability to fly

in open display areas such as in parks or zoos. The researchers subsequently recommended

that more bird species should be considered in order to arrive at more reliable conclusions.

In the present study, three species of birds will be part of the focus group. Although the

researchers will not perform experimental procedure on the captive avifauna, behavioral

evaluation will be utmost considered, together with physiological examinations through

field inspections.

Physiological assessment of animals in zoos is also inclusive of immuno-

pathological analysis and its relation to its environment or habitat setting. The state of well-

being of animals in a zoo is also an indicator of the zoo’s welfare standards. In a related

study “An Outbreak of Sarcocystosis in Psittacines and a Pigeon in a Zoological Collection

in Brazil,” De Araujo, et al. (2008) described an outbreak of acute pulmonary sarcocystosis

in different species of captive psittacines and in a Luzon bleeding-heart pigeon

(Gallicolumba luzonica) in a zoological collection in Brazil. The Luzon bleeding-heart

pigeon is also part of the focus endemic fauna in the present study.

Data show that the total number of birds present in the aviary that died of

Sarcocystis included 15 ring-necked parakeets, three bare-eyed cockatoos, two African

 39

grey parrots, and one Luzon bleeding-heart pigeon. A majority of the birds were found

dead and had exhibited no previous clinical signs. Grossly, pulmonary congestion and

edema were the most-common findings. Enlarged and congested livers and spleens were

also frequently observed. Microscopically, there was edema, fibrin exudation, congestion,

and perivascular and interstitial lymphoplasmacytic infiltration associated with numerous

sinuous schizonts of Sarcocystis sp. in the lungs. Mild to moderate myocarditis, hepatitis,

splenitis, and interstitial nephritis were also observed in the birds. Immunohistochemistry

confirmed Sarcocystis sp. in the capillaries of lungs, hearts, livers, and spleens of most of

the birds, but also in the pancreas, kidney, intestine, proventriculus, and brain of a few

birds. The probable source of Sarcocystis sp. in these birds was the wild opossum

(Didelphis albiventris), a common inhabitant of a local forest that surrounds the Belo

Horizonte Zoo, the focused zoo the study.

Ahasan, et al. (2009) in a study “Histopathological Identification of Histoplasmosis

in Animals at Dhaka Zoo” investigated the outbreak of histoplasmosis in animals at Dhaka

Zoo to ascertain animal health, welfare and public health safety standard. Twenty five out

of 36 study animals were suffering from granulomatous diseases of mycotic and/or

bacterial origin. Among them three animals were found suffering from histoplasmosis.

Clinical history, nodular lesions from necropsy findings, granulomatous reactions with

fungal spores on histopathology; macrophages laden with histoplasma organisms on

histopathology and on special staining were revealed histoplasmosis in six rhesus

macaques (Macaca mulatta).

Ahasan, et al. (n.d.) studied in a separate paper “Histopathological Investigation of

Cryptococcosis in Animals at Dhaka Zoo” the prevalence of cryptococcosis in animals at

 40

the same zoo in Bangladesh. In the said hispathological undertaking, one hundred and two

opportunistic tissue samples were collected and preserved in 10% neutral buffered formalin

at necropsy for 36 animals of 25 different species from Dhaka Zoo during the study period.

Twenty-five among the study animals were found suffering from granulomatous diseases,

of them nine cases were identified cryptococcosis first ever in Bangladesh. Clinical history,

nodular lesions on necropsy findings, granulomatous reactions with fungal spores & both

Langhang’s & foreign body giant cells on histopathology and characteristic spores with

wide gelatinous band around endospores on special staining revealed cryptococcosis in

eight rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) and one greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros).

The two studies provided evidence of existing histoplasmosis, cryptococcosis and

similar long-standing zoonotic diseases in majority of rest of the animals with health risk

that shades health safety standard at Dhaka Zoo. Also, noticeably zoonotic histoplasmosis

that invaded Dhaka zoo was traced by the researchers from importation of animals from

endemic area, dusty storm, having eucalyptus tree and pigeon drooping, bird nesting and

immunosuppression. Both studies also made use of photography methods to further

represent the findings in histological analysis of the animal’s internal organs. Same method

will be used in the present study to provide a clear visualization of the well-being of animals

inside their enclosures in Albay Park and Wildlife.

Within the Philippine archipelago, Bandal, et al. (2015) identified in their study the

enteroparasites in captive long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis), whose species are

also part of the centralized group of inquiry in the present study, from National Wildlife

Research and Rescue Center, Diliman, Quezon City. Fifty fecal samples were collected

and analyzed using formalin-ether concentration technique. Prevalence, intensity and

 41

correlation between different variables tested were determined employing different

statistical tools.

Out of 50 macaques examined, 49 were infected with one or several species of

intestinal parasites. Identified parasites represented 11 protozoans (Blastocystis hominis,

Chilomastix mesnili, Cyclospora sp., Endolimax nana, Entamoeba chattoni, Entamoeba

coli, Entamoeba hartmanni, Iodamoeba butschlii, Isospora sp., Entamoeba

histolytica/dispar, Giardia lamblia) and two nematode species (Strongyloides sp. and

Trichuris trichura). Protozoa had higher intensity and prevalence (98%) recorded. Among

the species identified, E. coli was the most prevalent (82%) and had the highest intensity

(1557 E/CPG) observed. Correlation between BMI and parasite intensities demonstrated a

weak positive association but showed no significant difference between sexes of M.

fascicularis. Though most of the infections were nonpathogenic, M. fascicularis harbor

important parasites that pose potential danger to public health, livestock and wildlife

animals. The high prevalence of amoebic parasites may indicate that the food they fed on

is contaminated. Proper food preparation and sanitation of cages are recommended by the

researchers to decrease transmission of parasites. The researchers even questioned the

captivity of the said long-tailed macaques, arguing that they should be released in the wild.

The abovementioned physiological assessments on various fauna made use of

medical and clinical procedure, which are all quantitative. The gap present from the said

studies is the qualitative approach itself, which will be adapted in the present study.

Qualitative approach aims to discern the inhibitory effects in a research methodology by

literally exposing the researchers in the field of study and the respondents or focus group.
 42

Lastly, physical and environmental reports on habitat for captive animals are vital

in indicating welfare standards since that parameter evaluations on the habitat will put into

question the situation of the animals themselves within the enclosed spaces. Having

appropriate animal welfare strategies can help zoos to be progressive and proactive in their

achieving high welfare standards. These strategies need to demonstrate commitment to

applied welfare research, individual welfare monitoring and regular assessments of

potential risks to, and opportunities to enhance, animal welfare.

Gilmour, et al. (2017) on their paper “Adaptation of the Animal Welfare

Assessment Grid (AWAG) for Monitoring Animal Welfare in Zoological Collections” set

out to find an approach that could be integrated with current zoo practices to provide a

continuous welfare monitoring system which could flag up welfare problems as they arose.

The researchers applied the animal welfare assessment grid (AWAG) computer system and

used four physical parameters – physical, psychological, environmental and procedural –

to assess the situation of zoo primates in one zoological institution in the United Kingdom.

For the purpose of the present study, the environmental factors will be highlighted

to be reviewed and also applied in the study’s methodological process. The factors assessed

within this parameter class were housing, group size, enclosure furnishings (with respect

to how they contribute to the expression of natural behavior), nutrition (according to the

requirements of both the individual and the species), access and contingent events. Housing

was initially assessed jointly by all three scorers, for primates, so that a baseline could be

established.

All reported housing changes during the three-month period were then scored

according to the following framework: good space provision, lighting, ventilation,

 43

available shelter, materials used, temperature, drainage, humidity, ultraviolet light (if

needed) and low noise levels. Group size referred to how the number and structure of

animals in the group compared with that typically found in nature and to the optimal group

size for the enclosure. Access to all of the available space in an animal enclosure may be

reduced for a variety of management or veterinary reasons; therefore, this factor was

assessed according to the space available to the individual (relative to species) and the

period of time over which the restriction took place. The influence of contingent events

including moving animals between enclosures and any works carried out in the enclosure

or nearby was also determined.

According to the researchers, The AWAG tool is not designed to allow comparison

between species or between individuals held in different institutions (as each collection can

set up its own factors as part of each parameter), but it could be used for individuals within

institutions, for example, to monitor those that move to different enclosures.

It was concluded in the study that the AWAG can be successfully adapted in related

studies like the present one, but Gilmour, et al. (2017) recommended that their focus group

of primates is not enough to prove the validity of the AWAG, thus related procedure on

other taxa should be considered. The researchers also insinuated that the factors may need

to be adjusted based on the conspecifics on various species groups. By doing this, the

system should become more sensitive to perceived changes in welfare state and the output

more valuable for decision-making.

A holistic evidence-based approach to welfare assessment was investigated by

Beausoleil, et al. (2018) on their scientific study “An Animal Welfare Risk Assessment

Process for Zoos.” The process used by the researchers was configured to facilitate
 44

institutional risk assessment, using an adapted version of the Five Domains Model for

animal welfare assessment. It is designed to systematically analyze information gathered

from zoo personnel in order to highlight areas of welfare risk, as well as areas that are

performing well and areas requiring further investigation.

The study took three years to assess three zoos in Australia using the configured

Five Domains Model. The process consists of a total of 20 indicators, including 15

resource-based welfare risk factors and five animal-based measures. These

indicators/measures were categorized across an adapted version of the four

physical/functional domains of the Five Domains Model, reconfigured as (1) Environment

(physical/social); (2) Behavior; (3) Physical Health/Nutrition and (4) Husbandry. The eight

assessment indicators for the environmental parameter used in the said study are (1) Space

allowance; (2) Complexity: provision of species-appropriate behavioral opportunities in

enclosure; (3) Substrate quality and variation; (4) Sensory environment: vision, sound,

olfactory, and tactile; (5) Animal safety; (6) Access to appropriate thermal range; (7) Social

group; and (8) Facilities to allow effective management of the individual or group

A total of 628 assessments, involving over 339 species across a range of taxa were

conducted at the three zoos over a three-year period in the study. The study, therefore, is

deemed successful in its practicality in determining trends and causal relationships of

welfare status across the three-year period and defining welfare risks. The assessments also

highlighted that the main gaps in knowledge existed in the animal behavior domain,

including measures such as behavioral diversity and frequency of abnormal behavior. This

nevertheless needs a qualitative approach to be conducted and analyzed which will be

reflected in the present study.

 45

Wild baselines are not always the most accurate indicator of what is right for an

animal in captivity, which makes the identification of factors to include within species-

specific welfare assessment even more challenging, as claimed by Bowley, et al. (2018) on

their study “Assessment of Welfare in Zoo Animals: Towards Optimum Quality of Life.”

According to them, there is no “one size fits all” welfare strategy as it should account for

the range of biological requirements and needs, which it is not possible to define for some

zoo species. The different approaches for welfare assessment are reviewed in the study,

including the development of the Animal Welfare Assessment Grid which offers an

evidence-based tool for continual welfare assessment using technology. Besides from

considering the habitat of animals, it was stated that physiological and behavioral

assessments must also be taken into account to concur to a valid “welfare assessment.” The

first stage in assessing an animal’s wellbeing is to become familiar with the normal

appearance and behavioral repertoire for that species. Animals have not evolved to live in

man-made enclosures and the behavior observed due to the constraints of the captive

environment may not be the normal behavioral repertoire.

Meanwhile, there are various components that can be used to contribute to the

objective assessment of an animal’s welfare. Traditional measures of welfare include

indicators of physiological stress which focus on monitoring autonomic responses, such as

changes in heart rate, respiration rate, blood pressure and/or temperature. In the present

study, an objective behavioral, physiological, and environmental assessment of endemic

fauna in Albay Park and Wildlife is ensured using a qualitative approach.

Additionally, Bowley, et al. (2018) eloquently stated that is a challenge for zoo

researchers to collect enough data on the range of environmental parameters that are
 46

important for the huge variety of species kept in zoos, ideally from behavioral research

performed in their wild environments, to inform management best practice. Especially that

when developing factors to be scored for each species, there is huge variability in the

available information about the natural biology for some species and even less information

concerning those animals in captivity. The researchers furthered that when considering zoo

animal welfare, each animal’s individual temperament or “personality” may play a role in

its ability to cope with the captive environment.

Browne, et al. (2013), in their study “Do Formal Inspections Ensure that British

Zoos Meet and Improve on Minimum Animal Welfare Standards?” analyzed two

consecutive inspection reports for each of 136 British zoos made by government-appointed

inspectors between 2005 and 2011 to assess how well British zoos were complying with

minimum animal welfare standards. Having the same zoo inspector at both inspections

affected the outcome of an inspection; animal welfare criteria were more likely to be

assessed as unchanged if the same inspector was present on both inspections.

This, and erratic decisions as to whether a criterion applied to a particular zoo,

suggest inconsistency in assessments between inspectors. In the present study, a group of

purposively-chosen evaluators, consisting of biologists, engineers, and experts, will be

considered to provide an evaluation report on a multifaceted perspective. This, to ensure a

qualitative approach where patterns and themes from the evaluations of the diverse experts

will be reviewed and will be paramount data for consistency. The lack of consistency in

the way the criteria appear to be assessed, including whether a criterion even applies to a

particular zoo, was cited by the researchers that undermined the value of the data collected.
 47

This and the earlier analysis highlight the need for more rigorous assessments to

facilitate future analyses. Until better quality data are available, it is hard to monitor

changes in zoo animal welfare standards, and identify areas where improvements are

needed, according to the researchers. It was recommended that central analyses of general

trends across zoos should be complemented by more detailed studies to assess the influence

that animal care recommendations have on the welfare of individual animals.

Draper & Harris (2012) authored “The Assessment of Animal Welfare in British

Zoos by Government-Appointed Inspectors,” which became the basis and prior to Brown,

et al.’s in 2013. The authors analyzed the reports of government-appointed inspectors from

192 zoos between 2005–2008 to provide the first review of how animal welfare was

assessed in British zoos since the enactment of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. The effects of

whether or not a veterinarian was included in the inspection team, type of inspection,

license status of the zoo and membership of a zoo association on the inspectors’

assessments of animal welfare standards in five areas that approximate to the Five

Freedoms was all examined in the said study.

At least 11% of full license inspections did not comply with the legal requirement

for two inspectors. The inspectors’ reports were unclear as to how animal welfare was

assessed, whether all animals or only a sub-sample had been inspected, and were based

predominantly on welfare inputs rather than outcomes. Of 9,024 animal welfare

assessments across the 192 zoos, 7,511 (83%) were graded as meeting the standards, 782

(9%) as substandard and the rest were not graded. Of the 192 zoos, 47 (24%) were assessed

as meeting all the animal welfare standards. Membership of a zoo association was not
 48

associated with a higher overall assessment of animal welfare standards, and specialist

collections such as Farm Parks and Other Bird collections performed least well.

The analyses of Draper & Harris (2012) indicate that the following changes to the

inspection process should lead to substantial improvements in the assessment of zoo animal

welfare. It will be noted in the present study’s methodology that analyses of records from

the zoo management of Albay Park and Wildlife, inclusive of population records and

habitat developments, will be included in the study. However, Draper & Harris (2012)

contested that auditing zoo records for accuracy and consistency is important, but should

be a separate part of the inspection process. Simply summarizing a zoo’s own welfare

assessments during the inspection process adds little to the overall assessment of zoo

animal welfare. An inspection should be an independent review in which zoo inspectors

are required to record which indicators were used to assess animal welfare, the researchers

concluded.

In an investigation on welfare standards on zoos in Peninsular Malaysia, Corrigan

(2009) focused on ten zoos of most concern from an animal welfare perspective. They are

Saleng Zoo, Danga Bay Petting Zoo, Melaka Butterfly and Reptile Sanctuary , Kuala Lipis

Mini Zoo, Taman Teruntum Mini Zoo, Kemaman Mini Zoo, Kuala Krai Mini Zoo, Lye

Huat Garden Mini Zoo, Bukit Merah Laketown Resort Ecopark, and Port Dickson Mini

Zoo. Using qualitative approach with, it was found out in their physiological,

environmental, and behavioral assessments that at all of the zoos, most or all of the animals

were housed in wholly substandard conditions. Also, at every zoo most or all enclosures

and husbandry practices failed to meet the minimum international standards.

 49

Furthermore, results from the study revealed that (1) in 44.7 percent of enclosures,

animals were housed in a constantly noisy environment; (2) in 22.0 percent of enclosures,

animals were not provided with sufficient shelter to give protection from inclement weather

and excessive sunlight; (3) 94.3 percent of the enclosures were rusty or contained harmful

items. Many enclosures were in a state of disrepair with extensive areas of rust. This posed

a safety and health risk for the animals; (4) 64.2 percent of enclosures had poor drainage,

with many enclosures having extensive algal growth on the floors; (5) 100 percent of

enclosures had little or no enrichment and there was no evidence of an kind of ongoing

behavioral enrichment programs at any facility. Many animals were inactive, indicating a

need for more stimulation; and (6) 92.5 percent of enclosures failed to offer any or

sufficient private areas for the animals to escape from visitor view or from the view of

animals in neighboring enclosures. This lack of private areas can be highly stressful for

animals.

In a qualitative perspective, it was found out that some animals were housed in old-

style enclosures, such as oppressive cages and pits, which are known to be detrimental;

many animals were also found to be exhibiting abnormal behaviors such as stereotypies.

These are widely recognized as a clear indication that an animal is living in or has been

living in suboptimal conditions. Most stereotypic behaviors occur when animals have

failed to cope with or remove themselves from stressful situations. At some zoos, wounded

and apparently sick animals were on display, instead of receiving treatment away from

visitor view. Finally, some animals did not have access to drinking water- one of their

most basic needs.

 50

The researchers utilized a qualitative-quantitative approach with instruments used

of questionnaires, photography, and statistical tools to further visualize and interpret the

data collected. The animal housing and husbandry standards at the ten Malaysian zoos

profiled in this report fell far short of meeting the ACRES Acceptable Standards for the

Well-being of Animals, which are based on international guidelines and legislation.

Clearly, there is much that needs to be urgently improved in these zoos, to ensure a higher,

more acceptable standard of welfare is experienced by the animals. It was apparent from

assessing the living conditions of the designated focus animals that most were housed in

entirely inappropriate environments and that husbandry standards in these facilities were

poor. Focus on housing animals in their naturalistic habitats where they can engage in more

natural behaviors, instead of detrimental management, was recommended by Corrigan

(2009).

In a research anchored in not measuring animal welfare scientifically but

identifying, rectifying, and preventing ethics and welfare-related problems in zoos, its

author Agoramoorthy (2004), chairperson of the Ethics and Welfare Committee of the

Southeast Asian Zoos Association, focused on 12 members zoos in Malaysia, Thailand,

and Indonesia. The researcher looked primarily at the minimum welfare standards—with

special emphasis on animals in distress and unsatisfactory living conditions. Whenever

problems were identified, recommendations were given to the respective zoo directors for

rectification. A similar approach will also be adapted in the methodology of the present

study.

Representatives from the SEAZA executive board, local animal welfare

organizations, wildlife professionals, and members of the local zoo participate in the
 51

collection of data. In the present study, members of the local zoo will be excluded as

evaluators of the habitat of endemic faun to uphold fairness and equal regard, although

Agoramoorthy (2004) contended in including them to make them understand how to

evaluate their own facilities and management. The questions are organized in seven broad

categories which are freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from thermal and physical

discomfort; freedom from pain, disease and injury; freedom to express normal behavior;

freedom from fear and distress; general management; and conservation programs, finance,

and responsibility.

In a situation during the evaluation of Taman Safari Indonesia in December 2003,

Agoramoorthy (2004) visited the primate exhibit and saw Charlie, the chimpanzee.

According to the study, the chimpanzee was isolated in an indoor facility because he had

challenged the dominant male and become an outcast of the group. The researcher did an

assessment and recommended that Charlie be transferred to another facility, as it would be

psychologically damaging for social apes like the chimpanzees to be kept alone for

extended periods. When the researcher met Charlie again at Taman Safari Indonesia, “I

was pleasantly surprised when he actually came up to greet me and started his social

vocalizations and displays,” according to him. This indescribable sensation of delight, of

seeing the product of one’s efforts, is what an animal lover—be that lover an animal rights

activist, conservationist, or zoo biologist—should aspire to achieve, Agoramoorthy (2004)

contested. He added that such a binding arbitration among different conservation, zoo, and

animal rights interest groups would certainly accomplish much more for the welfare and

ethical standards in the region and beyond, and the alleviation of animal sufferings in zoos.
 52

On an animal welfare study titled “Ethics and Animal Welfare Evaluations in South

East Asian Zoos, the authors Agoramoorthy & Harrison (2002) procured data from three

zoos in Thailand by making use questionnaires and data forms. The survey questions were

organized into seven broad categories regarding animal rights including: freedom from

hunger and thirst; freedom from thermal and physical discomfort; and freedom from pain,

disease, and injury. Evaluators then rated each category from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning “best”

and 5 meaning “worst.” They checked exhibits for animal welfare issues, and they also

reviewed records on zoo management, nutrition veterinary care, research, and hygiene

among many other important issues.

The participants from the zoos tended to rate their own zoos more highly on animal

welfare than the external reviewers did. All three zoos obtained acceptable mean scores,

but the Khao Kheow Open Zoo scored the highest on animal welfare measures. The first

zoo, the Nakhon Ratchasima Zoo, had problems revolving around enclosure sizes being

too small, not enough enrichment devices, underfeeding, and hygiene issues. The second

zoo, the Khao Kheow Open Zoo, had issues revolving around cage size, not enough

enrichment devices, and a failure to address sick animals. The final zoo, the Dusit Zoo, had

hygiene issues, a lack of enrichment and sunlight, and no water in certain exhibits. The

researchers resolved that all of the zoos had acceptable average standards, but there was

clear room for improvement in every institution.

In the Philippine setting, Agoramoorthy, et al. (2005) conducted a study “Welfare

Evaluations of Nonhuman Animals in Selected Zoos in the Philippines” which was

published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (JAAWS). The said study

evaluated 3 zoos in the Philippines: the Wildlife Rescue Center and Mini Zoo, Manila
 53

Zoological and Botanical Garden, and Cavite Botanical and Zoological Park to determine

the standards of nonhuman animal welfare. The study measured and compared the cage

sizes of various animals to the international minimum standards.

According to the categories of management and husbandry, the 3 zoos showed a

significant difference on the mean scores of ranking, via quantitative approach. The

Wildlife Rescue Center and Mini Zoo ranked first, followed by Manila Zoo and Cavite

Zoo. Although most cages in the 3 zoos followed acceptable minimum standards, the study

identified several problems related to animal welfare, hygiene, husbandry, and

management. The used questionnaire consisted of questions categorized into the following,

as established by Agoramoorthy, which revolves on sufficiency of food and water; quality

of veterinary care and living conditions; animal safety; sufficiency of cage size relevant to

animal’s size and number; environmental and behavioral enrichment; conditions of animals

to exhibit normal behavior; relevance and adequacy of conservation, finance, and welfare

programs; accuracy and availability of documentation and identification of the animals

including signage, records, and reports; and efficiency of management practices.

In the Wildlife Rescue Center and Mini Zoo, Cage measurements were taken for

animals that included Philippine brown deer, parrots, red-eared sliders, binturong, and

green iguana. Based on the floor area per individual, the cage measurement exceeded the

minimum requirement as much as 18.03 m 2 because the standard measurement was set at

40m2 for two individuals. Space was emphasized on a per individual basis and the

recommended enclosure requirements were satisfied. The cage size in terms of floor per

bird was 1.5m2. Short of the minimum standard, in terms of height requirement, it exceeded

the set standard by 9 m. Following the recommended cage sizes, the confinement was
 54

sufficient for about seven birds with due consideration for their sizes. The measured floor

area for the lizards was short by as much as 3 m2. and cage height was short by 0.2 m. The

entire enclosure did not meet the acceptable minimum standard. The area was sufficient

for housing only two individual lizards but several lizards were packed in the small cage.

Although the majority of the cages follow acceptable minimum standards,

overcrowding was one of the biggest problems cited by Agoramoorthy, et al. causing

undue stress and uncomfortable spacing among animals. The researchers that the center

needs to implement stricter measures to develop a favorable environment for rehabilitation

and reintroduction of animals because some animals appeared to have lost their feral nature

or otherwise might have imprinted on human staff or visitors. This was evident in the case

of talking birds, many of whom recently have learned to talk. In the quarantine section of

the rescue center, animals either were overcrowded or kept in small cages. Therefore, the

center needs more space with better enclosures for animals. The staff should pay careful

attention to issues related to animal welfare. This should be a priority, accomplished with

accuracy and consistency, as concluded by the authors.

In the Manila Zoological and Botanical Garden or Manila Zoo, enclosures were

measured for tigers, white-bellied sea eagles, and turtles. The depth of the tiger moat was

short by half, but the width of the moat exceeded the standard for dry moats by 6 m. The

whole enclosure was good enough in providing sufficient space for the animal, although a

deeper moat is preferred. The suggested minimum area usually was for a group of 5 raptors,

but it meets only half of the requirement at 24.2 m 2 for a group of 5 while exceeding the

minimum height and width by 1 and 5.5 m, respectively. The whole cage could

accommodate only a maximum of 12 individuals of mixed and compatible raptors. The

 55

number of turtles was too dense for the given enclosure, making all other considerations

for measurements inapplicable. The whole enclosure was sufficient to house only six

turtles, so the enclosure did not pass the minimum requirements in terms of the floor area

for each individual turtle. therefore, cleanliness should be a priority both inside and outside

enclosures. It was found out that most of the animals lacked environment and behavioral

enrichment. The environment outside the enclosure was natural; enclosures inside looked

pitiable with unnatural surroundings. Most animals also were kept individually, rather than

with a companion or in a social group in larger enclosures with adequate enrichment

devices. The majority of the cages can house only 1 or 2 individuals according to

international standard but they were observed to house 12 to 40 individuals in a stressful

situation. Furthermore, poor hygienic conditions were noted in several cages;

environmental and behavioral enrichment for animals should receive a high priority. As

soon as possible, staff is recommended to receive training in basic husbandry, veterinary

care, and enrichment techniques.

In the Cavite Botanical and Zoological Park or Cavite Zoo, the animals displayed

appeared to be in good health. In June 2003, the zoo had 168 animals; in July, the number

decreased to 147. The cages measured included palm civets, cattle egrets, and reticulated

pythons. In terms of the minimum standard required for caging, the area was sufficient to

meet standards. Although the cages were adequate in terms of size and space requirements,

some animals did not have enough protection from visitors. Visitors interacted closely with

animals, escalating the animals’ stress levels. The zoo’s hygienic conditions needed

improvement. Lack of environmental and behavioral enrichment was evident in most of

 56

the enclosures; therefore, the need for trained keepers is urgent, as insinuated by

Agoramoorthy, et al. (2005)

The presented studies had attested into the notion that habitats directly affect the

well-being of the animals, and having the habitat restricted into enclosures in zoos had

changed how animals behave from its wild conspecifics. Similar undertakings on welfare

assessments in zoos found within and outside the Philippine biogeographical range had

showed the current status of various endemic and non-endemic animals. From the related

studies discussed, three parameters have been commonly used to establish welfare

standards. They are the environmental, behavioral, and physiological parameters which

will be adopted in the present study. Conclusions from the related studies had shown

overall that zoos still have a long way to go into keeping its captive animals in good

conditions of living. Moreover, gaps mostly in the methodological process have been

evident in the related studies.

Synthesis of the State-of-the-Art

Much of the related legal bases, literature, and studies present different angles and

opinions which are relevant to the current study. The related literature and studies selected

and collected for this study are similar with the present study since the researchers focused

on the topic of animal welfare and its implementation in zoos.

Laws have had been enacted to exercise the State’s responsibility in protecting

wildlife, as Article II, Section 16 of the Philippine Constitution states. Republic Act No.

9147, which is the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act of 2001, primarily
 57

aims to conserve the wildlife within the archipelago and its habitats for sustainability.

Meanwhile, Republic Act No. 8485, or the Animal Welfare Act, and its amended version

prescribed by Republic Act No. 10631, underscores the supervision and regulation of the

establishment and operations of all facilities utilized for breeding, maintaining, keeping,

treating or training animals, including zoos. Also, the definition of animal welfare and

standards in spearheading it was adapted by the said law.

Albay Park and Wildlife is an institutional member of the Philippine Zoos and

Aquariums Association (PHILZOOS), Southeast Asian Zoos and Aquarium Association

(SEAZA), and World Association of Zoos and Aquarium (WAZA). As part of the

zoological community, the wildlife park is mandated to conform to the organizations’

standards in maintaining welfare among its captive species. Moreover, the United Nations,

through the Sustainable Development Goals, had included amongst its vision the protection

of life on land, and life below water, being an international concern that it is.

A zoo is an establishment that keeps animals in captive for the public to see (EU,

2011). According to Kagan, R. et al (2015), the zoo must have enough understanding as to

what a zoo is and how it should function. Gray, J. (2012) states that zoos have enough

resources to give the animals its needs and these resources should be used properly. Fa, J.

(2012) argues that the animals that will best benefit to what a zoo can provide are animals

with considerably small populations. Lacy, R. et al (2013) suggests that zoos need to work

together to be able to conserve the animals in their zoos.

In 2011, Rees, P. states that standards for zoos to follow are created to give the

animals better welfare. Different organizations have come up with different standards for

what a zoo should maintain specifically when it comes to the habitats of the animals in the
 58

zoos. Some of these organizations are the Australian government, the New Zealand

government, the DENR of the Philippines, the EAZA, and the ZAA.

These standards are created to cater to the animal’s welfare. Animal welfare,

according to Ward, S. et al (2018), refers to the animal’s state in reference to its ability to

cope. Not meeting these standards create poor welfare for the animals was stated by Draper,

C. (2013). Pierce, J. & Bekoff, M. (2018) suggests that zoos that do not meet the standards

should be closed to improve the animal’s welfare. If zoos misinterpret these standards,

animals might not be conserved according to Turner, D. (2014). In 2009, Broom, D. states

that recurring issues in zoos will lead to bad welfare and the attitude of the caretakers of

the animals towards taking care of the animals might play a role in it. He said 2017 that

poor welfare might be caused by stress which is brought by the habitat of the animal.

Keulartz, J. (n.d.) states that providing a suitable habitat for the animal will lead to good

welfare.

The Manila Zoo has housed Bertha the hippopotamus which died their (Agence

France-Presse, 2017) and Mali the elephant (ABS-CBN, 2012). Written in an article by

Grafilo, J. (2011), Manila Zoo was demanded by PETA to shut down. It was reported by

Fernandez R. (2019) that the Manila was finally shut down in 2019.

Three basic assessments are all studied in the related studies into evaluating captive

fauna tourism standards: physiological assessment, environmental assessment, and

behavioral assessment.

Veasey, et al. (1996) attempted to prove the validity of behavioral assessments on

their paper “On Comparing the Behavior of Zoo Housed Animals with Wild Conspecifics

as a Welfare Indicator.” It was found out that absence of wild-based behaviors on captive
 59

animals doesn’t necessarily equate to perishing animal welfare. Also, conspecifics are

important since that animals have varying behavioral enrichments, needs, and activities,

and must be prioritized in future behavioral-based researches.

Physiological assessment of animals in zoos is also inclusive of immuno-

pathological analysis and its relation to its environment or habitat setting. The state of well-

being of animals in a zoo is also an indicator of the zoo’s welfare standards. Studies by De

Araujo, et al. (2008), Ahasan, et al. (2009), Bandal, et al. (2015), and the like proved that

the well-being of animals are at stake if its habitat are prone to hazards.

Physical and environmental reports on habitat for captive animals are vital in

indicating welfare standards since that parameter evaluations on the habitat will put into

question the situation of the animals themselves within the enclosed spaces. Having

appropriate animal welfare strategies can help zoos to be progressive and proactive in their

achieving high welfare standards. These strategies need to demonstrate commitment to

applied welfare research, individual welfare monitoring and regular assessments of

potential risks to, and opportunities to enhance, animal welfare. Usage of various verified

standards and specifications is not only enough into assessing habitat standards, but

correlational studies and analyses is needed to yield to more valid and appropriate bases.

Gaps and further areas of research are also evident in the related studies. Much of

it are seen revolving on a more inclusive approach using qualitative tools like photography;

integrated analyses of reports, documents, and narratives; and concentrated focus groups

to concur to valid results and conclusions.

All of these gathered references contributed a great threshold of knowledge which

aided in the formulation of background to the current study and gave the study a firm, well
 60

supported, and well documented foundation. Much of the related references dealt with

animal welfare itself, and its conspecifics.

Gap to be Bridged by the Study

Primarily induced by scarce resources, gaps in the concept of animal welfare are

still ever-present, although advancements in the said areas of research continue to surge.

In a study on the gaps in the study of zoo and wild animal welfare, Azevedo, et al. (2009)

contested that studies focusing on the welfare of animals are increasing in number since

the last decade, and in different areas, such as farmed and production animals, laboratory,

zoo, and wild animals, as well as pets. Ethics and societal demands are the main reasons

for this increase, since social issues involving zoos continue to be part of the trend over the

years. This no doubt reflects the greater concern with which human societies have about

animal well-being, this being particularly pertinent for animals with which the general

public have contact, such as zoo animals. Despite this, there are still further areas of

research that are still not in the limelight of the academe. For an instance, there are only

few studies revolving on zoo evaluations on a local scale basing from the present study’s

scope of related researches.

In connection with Azevedo, et al. (2009), their same study had found out gaps in

animal welfare science that will be intended to be filled in by the present study.

Specifically, their analysis demonstrates gaps in knowledge concerning (1) fish, amphibian,

reptile and invertebrate welfare; (2) the link between health, physiology and zoo animal

welfare; (3) the welfare of wild animals; (4) how to convert theoretical knowledge into
 61

practical solutions for zoo animal welfare; and (5) how zoo environments affect animal

welfare outside of Europe and North America

The present study would also fill in the knowledge gaps of endemic fauna in the

Philippine setting in a centralized perspective. Especially that references are limited

involving studies on Albay Park and Wildlife, the sole zoo in Bicol Region, Philippines.

Studies on animal welfare standards in zoos commonly do not have focus groups of

animals, wherein in the present study, a chosen eight endemic species will be its scope of

research. This is significant since a lesser number of scopes would equate to an intensive

and integrated review on them. Moreover, a variety of studies have reported a bias towards

conducting animal-welfare-type studies with mammals (Azevedo et al., 2006; Melfi, 2005),

despite mammals not being the most common or threatened group of animals held in

captivity. The present study will uphold inclusivity by having a diverse number of scope

of animals involving birds, mammals, and reptiles. Having been able to provide an

assessment in three parameters: environmental, physiological, and behavioral, the present

study is deemed wide concurring to more gaps being filled. In terms of methodology,

studies on animal welfare standards in zoos commonly use qualitative approaches and

statistical treatments. However, the present study will fill in the gap on the ones involving

a qualitative approach.

Theoretical Framework

Certain theories concerning animal welfare amplify ethical standards and roles of

zoos within the context of endemism, such as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Maslow’s
 62

Hierarchy of Needs, Loeb’s tropism theory, Paul Weiss’s System Conceptions, and the

Universal Welfare Framework for Zoos.

Charles Darwin (1859), in the Theory of Evolution visualized evolutionary changes

as a result of the competition amongst individuals under changed environmental

conditions, which acted as a selective agent. Under such selection, those individuals

possessing favorable variations survived and reproduced, passing on their variations to

their offspring, and those without them were eliminated. To conceptualize the position of

endemism in Darwinism, the advantage of an evolutionary approach to conservation

biology that considers evolutionary history at various levels of biological organization was

discussed by Mignot, et al. (2015).

In their study, the authors reviewed the works on three separate plant taxa, spanning

from one to multiple decades, illustrating extremes in metapopulation functioning. They

showed how the rare endemics Centaurea corymbosa (Clape Massif, France) and Brassica

insularis in Corsica (France) may be caught in an evolutionary trap: disruption of

metapopulation functioning due to lack of colonization of new sites may have counter-

selected traits such as dispersal ability or self‐compatibility, making these species

particularly vulnerable to any disturbance. This particular case study suggest that

management strategies should promote evolutionary potential and evolutionary processes

to better protect extant biodiversity and biodiversification. This also exposes the situation

of endemic species in the world, and as to how they must be prioritized in terms of

conservation biology. In the present study, eight purposively-chosen animals in Albay Park

and Wildlife will be the focus group, where several factors of animal welfare standards will

be used to assess them, and identify their habitat state in captivity.

 63

Even Darwin’s studies on the Galapagos islands, a group of remote islands west of

Ecuador, which lead him to the formulation of the Theory of Evolution had been basis

enough for scientists today into believing a new theory on endemism. In an online article

by wired.com in 2012, island biodiversity really is different from that of the mainland.

They predicted that islands closest to the mainland would be the least unique and that the

islands with the highest biodiversity would have been separate from the mainland for the

longest period of time. The notion that islands were ecologically and evolutionarily

different from the mainland due to their isolation was mostly uncontested until 2005, when

a group of international ecologists published a study in Nature indicating that the number

of unique species in mainland areas such as the Amazon basin and central African

rainforests rivals that of many islands. In the regional setting, the Philippines and Indonesia

are both considered biodiversity hotspots, proving a very wide array of rare and endemic

species. Just like the Galapagos Island, they are both archipelagos, composing of thousands

of islands and islets, in fact.

Continuing the flow of ideas, this theory supported by scientists regarding island

biodiversity was furthered in the Theory of Island Biogeography, a 1967 book by Robert

MacArthur & Edward Wilson. The book posits that species richness is determined by the

rates of colonization and extinction and that both these processes are influenced by island

size and isolation. Main points in the book include that insular species richness depends on

island size and isolation from source regions. Also, the immigration rates and extinction

rates both complements each other, but continues to increase or decrease. The authors

postulated a model which states that the probability for successful colonization is

dependent on birth rate, death rate, and carrying capacity of the environment. This much
 64

presents that captive wildlife facilities like zoos are indicators of these global trends of

biogeography, like in the Philippine setting.

To express the desire of the World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy,

the researchers cited the overlaying of Maslow's order of requirements pyramid with a tree

to raise attention to animal welfare (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Animal Welfare in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The critical foundational requirements for survival are represented by the roots. The

trunk is where the health care meets the animals’ physical and safety needs. On the crown

lies the most varied and complex animal welfare-related activities that the zoo, aquarium

or management would make available to the animals. As for the birds flying close from the

tree represents an ideal zoo and aquarium which encourages the animals to retain their

natural abilities and instincts. As the tree provides a complex habitat for other species, a
 65

zoo or aquarium has the responsibility to cater to the captive animals’ needs and should

foster the welfare of animals beyond its own confinement. With that being said the zoos

must be committed in ensuring that the animals in their care will thrive and not just survive.

This is the fundamental basis of the framework created by Kagan, Carter, & Allard (2015).

To be committed, zoos must have a sense of responsibility in giving the animals great life

experiences all the time. This concept is based on the fact that an animal has the ability to

create their own decisions and control and is important to an animal’s welfare. This means

that zoos must adopt an “animal-centered” approach, much like the “patient-centered”

model adopted by humans in different health care systems.

The Five Domains model is not intended to be an accurate physical and functional

representation of the body, but is designed to facilitate animal welfare understanding and

assessment. This model outlines four physical/functional domains of ‘nutrition’,

‘environment’, ‘physical health’ and ‘behavior’, and the fifth domain, which is the animal’s

‘mental’ state (Fig. 2.2).

As welfare is a state within an animal and is understood in terms of what the animal

experiences subjectively, this model identifies the two main sources of those mental

experiences. The first is the feelings and sensations (collectively known as ‘affects’) that

motivate animals to undertake behaviors considered to be essential for their survival. These

include thirst motivating an animal to drink, hunger motivating it to eat and pain indicating

things to avoid. These and other survival-related factors are typically covered within the

domains of ‘nutrition’, ‘environment’ and ‘physical health’.

The fourth domain of ‘behavior’ captures the second source of subjective

experiences, which can be negative or positive, and relates to animals’ perception of their
 66

external circumstances. Negative examples include: threat eliciting fear, isolation leading

to loneliness and low stimulation to boredom; and positive examples include: security

engendering confidence and pleasure giving rise to a sense of reward.

Figure 2.2. The Five Domains Model

Reference to the first four domains enables systematic consideration of a wide

range of conditions that may give rise to a range of subjective experiences found within

the fifth ‘mental’ domain. The net impact of all of these experiences is assessed as

representing the animal’s welfare status.

It is the nature of factors aligned with the physical/functional domains to change

over time, as do the animal’s related perceptions and experiences, which are assigned for

consideration to the mental domain of the model. Thus, an animal’s welfare state at any

one time is located on a continuum between the extremes of very poor and very good, and

at different times its welfare may decline or improve. The purposes of animal welfare

assessment and management are to monitor, detect and correct poor welfare when it occurs,
 67

and to maintain good welfare and preferably very good welfare when that is practically

feasible.

Opportunities for promoting positive animal welfare states aligned with the Five

Domains model can include the following: (1) Nutrition, the appropriate consumption of

nutritious foods is an ongoing pleasurable experience; (2) Environment, benign conditions

offer ongoing comfort and safety; (3) Physical health, ongoing good physical health secures

robustness and vitality; (4) Behavior, activities involving variety, choice and benign

challenge are rewarding.; and (5) Mental or affective state, survival-related negative

experiences are minimal, and comfort, pleasure, interest and confidence are common

positive experiences.

As the key elements of this approach are based on biological understanding of well-

studied mammals and birds, its wider application to other such species can occur, provided

that unique features of their biology are taken into consideration. On the other hand,

application of the model to other species in zoos and aquariums will require input from

experts in their specific biology. Nevertheless, use of the model helpfully raises questions

about how the basic survival needs of each species are met, whether or not they might have

the capacity for pleasurable experiences and, if so, how those experiences might be

expressed and under what circumstances.

‘Potential zoo environment stressors’ are stimuli whose effects have been

demonstrated, but not necessarily within a zoo or aquarium environment. Organisms

possess a ‘stress response’ that has evolved through natural selection exerted by exposure

to environment stressors in the past. Empirical evidence shows that species-specific

‘modulating factors’ may modify the ‘stress response’. The ‘consequences’ are increased
 68

energy requirements, and decreased food assimilation efficiency, reproductive activity and

success, immunological competence and survival (Hofer & East, 2012). The framework

for the study of ‘stress’ in zoos and aquariums is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3. Framework for the study of ‘stress’ in zoos and aquariums

On several occasions it has been pointed out that areas with a high species diversity

frequently have many endemics. The Mediterranean and the wet tropics are such areas, for

example. "If taxon distribution of different extent showed a high degree of concentricity

(Atmar & Patterson,1986; Cutler, 1991) or order (Gilpin & Ryti, 1987) then areas of

extreme endemism would indicate areas of extreme richness" (Gaston & Williams, 1986:

207). The more species coexist, the smaller the habitat of each species in the biocoenosis,

the lower the differences in the morphological features of ecologically similar groups, and

the richer the trophodiversity. Some factors of an increasing species density which may
 69

influence positively the evolution and preservation of endemic species are the enlargement

of structural and habitat diversity in miniature, and a slowing down of the genetic flow.

Cardona & Constandriopoulos (1979) examined the distribution of endemic plants

in the Mediterranean area. They found that separation must be an important factor in the

evolution of endemics. The geographical distribution of endemics and corresponding taxa

indicates these areas which have has species in common, isolation being the principal factor

in speciation" (Cardona & Constandriopoulos, 1979; Haffer, 1969).

Hendrych (1982) analyzed the composition of endemic plant species in Europe. He

noted that their distribution is very uneven. Endemics are concentrated in high mountain

areas such as the Alps, Sierra Nevada, Greater Caucasus. He suggested a " ... better

possibility... of thriving (both preservation and evolution) of endemics in the more divided

... territories than in the undivided (both vertically and horizontally) and open ones"

(Hendrych, 1982: 339).

All the best-known radiations, such as Darwin's finches in the Galapagos

Archipelago, snails of the genus Achatinella in the Hawaii Islands, the Cichlidae in the

great African lakes, the genera Aeonium, Argyranthemum and Echium in Macaronesia,

Eucalyptus in Australia, the Ericaceae of the South African Cape, have evolved and

developed in connected areas of land or water (Losch, 1988). The pattern of land and sea,

of mountains, rivers, great plains, islands and archipelagos is an important factor for the

distribution and the number of species within a genus or family. It is thought that only a

large area of land or lake which is undisturbed over a long period can originate great

adaptive radiations.
 70

The ability of animals to make their own decisions and exert control over their lives

is critical, as stated earlier. So, when it comes to their habitat each animal should be able

to decide, as much as possible, where to spend their time inside, the times they choose to

demonstrate certain behaviors (e.g., feeding, moving between their provided habitat), when

and with whom they engage with socially, including the same species and humans, their

proximity to others, including staff and zoo visitors. These are all necessary components

of welfare, but these alone do not ensure good welfare (Kagan & Veasey, 2010). The most

important step is to ensure that conditions exist so that each animal living in captivity can

experience great welfare. This step requires the development and use of techniques to

assess all potential indicators of welfare, including the emotions or affective states of

animals. In connection to this in Paul Weiss’s System Conceptions (1997), he related the

Loeb’s tropism theory to the animals’ welfare, where he stated that the behavior of an

animal and their reaction is affected by the environment outside the organism from

physical, chemical, and to other aspects. This is why the zoo’s environmental design must

develop from an understanding of the sensory ecology and natural history of a species when

it is in its natural habitat to incorporate species-appropriate conditions such as

environmental and social features like lighting, temperature, noise, scents, and other factors

that will allow animals to express their natural behaviors as stated by Kagan & Veasey

(2010). The design must include consideration of animals, their welfare must be

fundamental to thinking and planning. Environmental design, as well as physical and

programmatic planning, must consider the 24-hour lives of animals and not just based on

the demands and expectations of zoo visitors.

 71

In the theoretical paradigm of the current study, environmental enrichment has a

vital role in concerning welfare among captive animals in zoos. Environmental enrichment,

also known as behavioral enrichment, provides species-appropriate challenges,

opportunities and stimulation. Environmental enrichment includes the regular provision of

dynamic environments, cognitive challenges, social opportunities, positive interactions

with humans and other means of engaging individual animals. The practice of enrichment

has now been integrated as a basic principle of zoo and aquarium animal husbandry, which,

to date, has been applied mainly to mammals and birds. Opportunities to apply enrichment

to all species held by zoos and aquariums should be incorporated as knowledge grows.

An enriched environment should promote a range of normal behaviors that animals

find rewarding. It should also allow animals to respond in positive ways to potential

stressors. Such responses potentially allow animals to avoid or reduce their exposure to

such stressors. Thus, a well-enriched exhibit space provides opportunities for performing

behaviors such as hiding, climbing or running, as appropriate for the species.

Animals with good mental health tend to be engaged in their environment. Thus,

they rest peacefully, without an over-expression of vigilance; behave in a fashion that is

not overly fearful with minimal and non-exaggerated startle responses; assimilate new

information, demonstrated through learned tasks or modified behaviors; perform no

abnormal behaviors; and have a diverse behavioral repertoire that includes regular

exploration and investigation. With regard to their physical health, animals should be able

to be physiologically relatively stable, grow and reproduce effectively and also be supplied

with opportunities to have appropriate forms of exercise.

 72

Environmental enrichment promotes animals’ mental and physical health by

enabling them to engage in behaviors that give rise to a range of positive experiences. Such

rewarding behaviors may involve food, space, temperature, social partners, activities such

as swimming or dust-bathing, information gathering and many others.

Neuropsychologists have known for decades that animals raised in enriched

environments have higher cognitive capacity than those from un-enriched environments.

As early as 1947, for example, it was demonstrated that rats kept as pets were more capable

of performing problem-solving tests than laboratory-reared rats. Later work demonstrated

differences in brain anatomy between animals raised in enriched and un-enriched

environments, and, importantly, that even adult brains remained capable of beneficial

reorganization of neural processing in response to enrichment.

The theoretical paradigm of the study is illustrated in Figure 2.2.

 73

Figure 2.4. Theoretical Paradigm of the Study

 74

Conceptual Framework

The present study is focused on conducting a habitat evaluation of eight endemic

animals in Albay Park and Wildlife, Legazpi City, as presented concretely by the present

study’s procedural paradigm. Notice that the variables of the study are explicit in the

conceptual paradigm of the study, citing Figure 2.3. The independent variables are the three

basic parameters to be used in the assessment of the endemic fauna in Bicol Region’s sole

zoo. The three parameters are: physiological, environmental, and behavioral. The three

parameters were selected basing from the literature review and discussion. Meanwhile, the

results of the three assessments will greatly affect the evaluation on the overall state of the

habitat of the endemic animals.

Prior to the actual assessment, a standardized tool will be created by utilizing the

frameworks, questionnaires, and models presented in the review of related literature and

studies in the same chapter. The procedure to be used, as to be presented in this study’s

methodological approach, is qualitative. Through this approach, the researchers aim to fill

in the gaps in the methodological processes of studies on animal welfare.

The conceptual paradigm of the study is illustrated in Figure 2.3.

 75

Figure 2.5. Conceptual Paradigm of the Study