Blog: is there a need for policy and guidelines on developing technologies for animals in zoos and aquariums?

Dr Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas, lecturer at University of Glasgow, on the use of technology in zoo animal research, enrichment and welfare, and the guidance this may require... 

Technologies for animals to use in zoos and aquariums are emerging as great opportunities to provide enrichment activities for animals and to support visitor education. While animals have used technologies for a long time, computer systems are increasingly being developed and designed to cater to animals' specific needs and preferences, serving as valuable tools for research into animal cognition and behaviour. Examples of technologies include systems for non-human primates to control the temperature of their enclosure, play music and watch videos.

However, the results of these technologies are mixed, having both positive and negative effects on animals. Currently, neither BIAZA nor AZA provide guidelines or policy for animal technology usage. I believe there are excellent opportunities for guidelines to steer our use of technology for zoo animals in the right direction. These guidelines should include safe and ethical approaches, including how to give the animal choice, agency and consent when using technologies, and a list of best-practice policies.

After spending the last several years developing technologies for chimpanzees, lemurs, white-faced saki monkeys, giraffes, and parrots, I have extensive experience with what can go wrong and what works in building animal technologies. From white-faced saki monkeys' tiny fingers getting into technology holes to chew on wires to parrots' sharp beaks attacking tablet screens, each group of animals and zoo enclosure comes with unique situations and challenges.  

Part of the challenge when developing new systems for zoos is to measure their impact. In previous studies outlined in research papers, we can see that computers which provide zoo animals with enrichment have decreased scratching, reduced frustration, increased socialisation and provided togetherness. On the other hand, computers have also been turned off, ignored, destroyed, increased aggression, and had other adverse effects on animals.

To increase the chance of positive reactions, I recommend including all those involved with the animals as stakeholders, such as the head of research and the zookeepers caring for the animals, when developing technology systems. This inclusion does not entirely remove the potential for things to go wrong. However, early input from those with the most complete understanding of the animals' personalities and preferences can reduce potential problems.

An additional facet is that most technologies developed for animals are uniquely developed, meaning that how animals will react to technology is often unknown. However, the technology creator's experience plays a part here, too. I can walk into a lemur or white-faced saki monkey enclosure with a new piece of tech, and they will largely be inquisitive, with only minor risks of guarding behaviours if food is somehow involved. Testing new interfaces for these animals is straightforward, mainly as they mouth and grab their way through, seeing new items' features.

When I began with chimpanzees in Blair Drummond Safari Park and Zoo, even carrying a new item they do not recognise into keepers' areas off exhibit that they can see triggers a fear response, as I discovered when developing a projector interface for them. After getting a neophobic reaction to carrying in a projector, the keepers advised my research team to leave the projector there for them to get used to it, which we did. However, not knowing what to do next, I got on a call with the principal researcher at Kyoto City Zoo and asked them how they did it with their chimpanzees. They replied much of the same - leaving items there until all the chimpanzees had used them and only then starting the system up entirely. Knowing this, I prepared for the long, slow introduction phases of slowly introducing the technology features.

As a result of my work, researchers in other zoos have contacted me for advice on technology systems. Reid Park Zoo in Arizona asked for my input while looking for technology enrichment to increase social opportunities for their gibbon. Here, they were interested in how technology can help with everyday husbandry. After seeing my technology on parrots using the internet to video call each other, they wondered if the same was available for primates. I shared my experiences developing primate video callers. I suggested they start by playing back videos of their gibbon to check for fear responses before showing unknown gibbons.  

From these experiences, I realised how much hidden knowledge there was on integrating technologies into animal enclosures, in myself and others. Much of this knowledge is within silos. With many zoos and aquariums dipping their feet into the water of how technology can benefit animals, I ask myself how guidelines and policies could shape the next generation of technologies at the zoo.

With the chimpanzees, for example, if there were introduction practices that advised a slow introduction, this would have been better for the animal's welfare. As I consult with zoos worldwide, part of our conversation inevitably turns to sharing best practices on technology introduction and stories of how to develop technology systems. Much of my advice concerns the ethical implications of developing systems that animals can control to increase their choice of how they wish to augment their home.

I believe that pooling our experiences and putting these practices into guidelines and policies can only further improve the welfare of the animals that zoos and aquaria look after while also assisting others in creating new systems. Through this joint knowledge, we can learn how to best support the animals in our care in ways that align with zoos' and aquaria conservation and welfare missions.

- Dr Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas, She/Her, Lecturer at University of Glasgow

All blogs reflect the views of their author and are not a reflection of BIAZA's positions.