How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Here in Kurdistan Region of Iraq, particularly in Duhok zoo, animal welfare is mostly neglected. Animals are not treated normally. As far as the author is aware, there is no study undertaken to understand the students or public attitudes toward animals in Duhok zoo. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of the students of the University of Zakho, Faculty of Sciences, Departments of Environmental Sciences, and Biology about animal welfare concerns of Duhok Zoo. The study was undertaken at University of Zakho, Faculty of Sciences. Two hundred questionnaires were divided into the students of both Environmental Sciences and Biology Departments. The questionnaire comprised of 15 questions with 3 sections, which were: first, students identification including name, age, and sex. Second, information on animal welfare, and the last one was recording their opinions on the questionnaire. With each question, students had chosen one of the following opinions: Completely Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neither Disagree nor Agree, Somewhat Agree, and Completely Agree. All participants agreed to answer the questionnaire voluntarily. Results revealed that most of the students were of opinion that Duhok zoo should be improved; in addition, most of them were entirely or somewhat disagreed that Duhok zoo is acceptable in general. They had an agreement with the idea that there should be educational programs inside the zoo, and in addition, the zoo does not cover environmental needs for the most, if not all, captive animals. Students were also agreed that there should be conservation programs to conserve captive animals, especially endangered and rare species. However, almost all of the students did not want the zoo to be closed entirely. According to the findings of the students' attitudes obtained, it can be concluded that the zoological park of Duhok city has many shortages regarding the welfare of animals in dealing with their captive animals.
- Nekoln & FialovD. (2018). Zoo Tourism: What Actually Is a Zoo?. Czech Journal of Tourism, 7(2), 153-166.
- Turan, ., & True, E. M. (2019). Research on Awareness of Zoos: Landscape Architecture Students. Journal of International Environmental Application and Science, 14(2), 59-69.
- Jamieson D, (2017) Against Zoos. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application, Chapter Seven Edition, Cengage Learning, ISBN: 978 - 1285197241, Part I, Ch. 3, Animal Rights, pp: 121 -128.
- Carr, N., & Cohen, S. (2011). The public face of zoos: Images of entertainment, education and conservation. Anthrozo24(2), 175-189.
- Mackay, R. (2002): The atlas of endangered species: 9495. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
- Gusset, M., & Dick, G. (2011). The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biology, 30(5), 566-569.
- Gurusamy, V., Tribe, A., Toukhsati, S., & Phillips, C. J. (2015). Public attitudes in india and australia toward elephants in zoos. Anthrozo28(1), 87-100.
- Durrell, l. and mallinson, J. 1987. Reintroduction as a political and educational tool for conservation. Dodo: Journal of the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust 24: 619.
- Reade, L. S., & Waran, N. K. (1996). The modern zoo: How do people perceive zoo animals?. Applied animal behaviour science, 47(1-2), 109-118.
- Rees, A. P. (2015) Studying Captive Animals: A Workbook of Methods in Behaviour, Welfare and Ecology, First Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Oxford, UK.
- Serpell, J. A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal welfare-potters bar then wheathampstead-, 13, S145-S152.
- Burghardt, G. m. and herzog, h. a. (1989).
- animals, evolution, and ethics. In Perception of Animals in American Culture, 129151, ed. R. hogue. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
- Driscoll, J. W. (1992). attitudes toward animal use. Anthrozo: 3239.
- Plous, S. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues 49: 1152.
- Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozo4: 204215.
- Myers, G. (2002). Symbolic animals and the developing self. Anthrozo5: 1936.
- Kendall, H. A., Lobao, L. M. and Sharp, J. S. (2006). Public concern with animal wellbeing: Place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology 71: 399428.
- Kellert, S. R. and Berry, J. K. (1980). Knowledge, Affection and Basic Attitudes toward Animals in American Society: Phase III. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
- Kellert, S. and Dunlap, J. (1989). Informal Learning at the Zoo: A Study of Attitude and Knowledge Impacts. Philadelphia: Zoological Society of Philadelphia.
- Braithwaite, J. and Braithwaite, V. (1982). Attitudes toward animal suffering: an exploratory study. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 3: 4249.
- Wickins-DrailovD. (2006). Zoo animal welfare. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics,19(1),27-36.
- 22. Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods in ethology. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 20: 410433.
- 23. Ings, R., Waran, N. K., & Young, R. J. (1997). Attitude of zoo visitors to the idea of feeding live prey to zoo animals. Zoo Biology: Published in affiliation with the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, 16(4), 343-347.
- 24. Tribe, A., & Booth, R. (2003). Assessing the role of zoos in wildlife conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8(1), 65-74.
- 25. Kirkwood, J. K., & Hubrecht, R. (2001). Animal consciousness, cognition and welfare. Animal welfare, 10(1), 5-17.