Decker Samuel, Lavery J Michelle, Mason Georgia J
Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.
Zoo Biol. 2023 Jul-Aug;42(4):467-475. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21756. Epub 2023 Feb 13.
Current frameworks for designing and evaluating good enclosures and "enrichments" typically focus on animals' active interactions with these features. This has undoubtedly improved the welfare of zoo-housed animals over the last 30 years or more. However, literature reviews from this same period identify persistent gaps in how such frameworks are applied: experiences and behaviors that do not rely on active interaction with stimuli or resources are largely ignored, when evaluating the welfare value of enclosures and enrichments within them. Here, we review research evidence demonstrating that active interaction is not always a reliable measure of welfare value, showing that items that elicit little or no interaction can nevertheless still reduce stress and improve well-being. This evidence largely comes from research on humans, lab animals and farm animals, but also from some zoo studies too. We then investigate why. We review psychology and ethology literatures to show that such welfare benefits can arise from five, non-mutually exclusive, processes or mechanisms that are well-understood in humans and domestic animals: (1) some motivations are sated quickly by interaction with resources, yet still have large welfare benefits; (2) active interaction may just be a way to achieve a goal or solve a problem, without being beneficial for welfare in itself; (3) having opportunities for choice and control may be inherently beneficial, even when not acted on; (4) some enclosure features meet social needs for structure, landmarks, and blocked sightlines; and (5) some stimuli may be preferred because they signaled good environments to an animal's ancestors. We use this information to identify improved ways of enhancing and assessing zoo animal welfare. Incorporating these concepts should expand the scope of behaviors and subjective experiences that are targeted, to now include those that involve little active interaction and yet still are important for good welfare.
当前用于设计和评估优质圈舍及“环境优化设施”的框架通常侧重于动物与这些设施的主动互动。在过去30多年里，这无疑改善了圈养在动物园里的动物的福利。然而，同一时期的文献综述指出，在这些框架的应用方式上仍存在持续的差距：在评估圈舍及其内部环境优化设施的福利价值时，那些不依赖于与刺激物或资源进行主动互动的体验和行为在很大程度上被忽视了。在此，我们回顾了研究证据，证明主动互动并不总是衡量福利价值的可靠指标，表明那些几乎不会引发互动或根本不会引发互动的物品仍然可以减轻压力并改善健康状况。这些证据主要来自对人类、实验动物和农场动物的研究，但也有一些来自动物园的研究。然后我们探究其原因。我们回顾心理学和动物行为学文献，以表明此类福利益处可源于五个并非相互排斥的、在人类和家畜中已被充分理解的过程或机制：（1）一些动机通过与资源的互动能很快得到满足，但仍具有很大的福利益处；（2）主动互动可能只是实现目标或解决问题的一种方式，其本身对福利并无益处；（3）拥有选择和控制的机会可能本身就有益，即使没有付诸行动；（4）一些圈舍特征满足了对结构、地标和遮挡视线的社会需求；（5）一些刺激物可能因其向动物的祖先表明环境良好而受到青睐。我们利用这些信息来确定改善和评估动物园动物福利的更好方法。纳入这些概念应能扩大所针对的行为和主观体验的范围，现在应包括那些几乎没有主动互动但对良好福利仍很重要的行为和体验。
