Adding two giraffes to an enclosure changes more than the number of animals a visitor can see. It can make the group appear more social, while leaving less space per animal. Which impression shapes a visitor's judgment of how well the giraffes are living?
A 2022 study at Oakland Zoo found that visitors rated the giraffes' social group more positively after its size increased from four to six. They did not show a clear corresponding change in their assessment of enclosure space. The finding concerns an important part of zoo communication: people can respond differently to different aspects of the same scene.
The enclosure stayed the same
Wilson C. Sherman, Darren E. Minier, Caterina N. Meyers and Michelle L. Myers surveyed adults viewing a mixed-species exhibit. Before the introductions, it housed two female and two male giraffes. Two additional males, aged four and one, subsequently joined them.
The team collected one set of responses in March and April 2021 and another in June and July. The later survey began when all six giraffes were consistently on exhibit. The physical exhibit area had not increased, so the number of giraffes per unit of space was greater.
This was not a panel following the same visitors as they reconsidered their opinions. It compared different samples before and after the introductions: 269 adults in the first phase and 230 in the second. Changes in visitor composition, season and pandemic restrictions could accompany the change in herd size.
Visitors completed the questionnaire themselves, usually in a few minutes. The recruitment procedure excluded groups in which young children outnumbered adults, because supervising children could interfere with answering. The sample therefore represents the adults who participated under those conditions, rather than every person who passed the exhibit.
Five judgments that need not move together
The questionnaire separated perceived happiness, health, quality of care, adequacy of exhibit space and adequacy of the social group. It also asked about visitors' positive feelings while watching and their existing interest in animals, nature and conservation.
This separation was useful. A visitor might believe that animals receive excellent care while still wondering whether their space is sufficient. Combining those responses into one score can hide the part of the scene that prompts concern.
Health and care received the highest mean ratings in both phases. Space received lower ratings, while happiness fell between them. The survey did not ask people to diagnose disease or calculate an animal's space requirements; it recorded the judgments they made while viewing the exhibit.
After the introductions, mean ratings rose on all five welfare items. But after accounting for multiple comparisons, only the assessment of social-group adequacy showed a statistically clear increase, from about 7.3 to 8.0 on a ten-point scale.
The combined welfare score rose too, but its adjusted result fell just outside the study's significance threshold. Thus the most defensible finding is the specific change in how suitable the social group appeared. It would be too strong to describe the study as showing a clear improvement in every aspect of perceived welfare.
A bigger group, without a crowding penalty
The space rating barely changed and did not show a significant decline. Visitors did not simply divide the unchanged enclosure area by the larger number of animals and judge conditions worse.
There are several possible reasons. A larger group might suggest more opportunities for companionship. The addition of a young giraffe might also make the group look more like a family, despite the actual relationships among the animals. Alternatively, people might judge spaciousness from the overall landscape rather than from a density calculation.
The survey did not directly test those explanations. Group size, age composition and the appearance of the animals changed together. A design using carefully varied images or repeated observations across different introductions would be needed to isolate which visual cues altered the response.
Visitors who gave more favourable welfare ratings also tended to report more positive feelings while watching. The relationship was modest, and existing interest in nature showed a stronger association with positive feelings. Neither correlation establishes the direction of causation. Feeling delighted could colour a welfare judgment, perceived good welfare could make watching more enjoyable, or both could share another influence.
There was no clear increase in the positive-feelings scale between the two survey phases. Nor did the study follow visitors to measure later conservation actions. Those are possible implications for educational work, not outcomes demonstrated by this introduction.
The giraffes need a different kind of assessment
A separate study of giraffe feeding programmes illustrates the evidence needed on the animal side. Keepers recorded behaviour of giraffes and the zebra sharing their habitat before and during public feeding season. The investigation asked what animals did, including repetitive behaviour, feeding and movement; it did not rely on visitors' impressions of whether they looked happy.
Even that behavioural study had limits, including brief observation windows and no accompanying hormone measurements. The comparison is useful because neither a favourable human impression nor a single animal measure can answer every welfare question.
The Oakland result gives educators a concrete starting point. Visitors distinguished care, space and social life rather than assigning one undifferentiated verdict. Explaining how a zoo evaluates those needs could connect the visible group to less visible questions: whether each animal can feed comfortably, rest undisturbed and approach or avoid particular companions.
A larger herd looked socially more suitable to this sample of visitors. That is evidence about perception. Its value increases when it prompts a clearer explanation of the evidence used to assess the giraffes themselves.
Sources
- Wilson C. Sherman, Darren E. Minier, Caterina N. Meyers and Michelle L. Myers (2022). “The More the Merrier? Zoo Visitors’ Affective Responses and Perceptions of Welfare across an Increase in Giraffe Density.” Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens 3, 289–299. Full paper.
- Sarah E. Koopman, Lindsay Brinda and Louis DiVincenti (2023). “Behavioural effects of a giraffe public feeding programme on Masai giraffe Giraffa tippelskirchi and plains zebra Equus quagga in a mixed-species exhibit.” Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research 11(1), 249–258. Full paper.
