Multimodal Technologies and Interaction

Review Choice, Control and Computers: Empowering Wildlife in Human Care

Jon Coe 1,* and Julia Hoy 2 1 Jon Coe Design, Pty Ltd., Healesville 3777, Australia 2 Hidden Vale Wildlife Centre, University of Queensland, Grandchester 4340, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-04-6737-8420



Received: 17 September 2020; Accepted: 9 December 2020; Published: 14 December 2020


Abstract: The purpose of this perspective paper and technology overview is to encourage collaboration between designers and animal carers in zoological institutions, sanctuaries, research facilities, and in soft-release scenarios for the benefit of all stakeholders, including animals, carers, managers, researchers, and visitors. We discuss the evolution of animal-centered technology (ACT), including more recent animal-centered computing to increase animal wellbeing by providing increased opportunities for choice and control for animals to gain greater self-regulation and independence. We believe this will increase animal welfare and relative freedom, while potentially improving conservation outcomes. Concurrent with the benefits to the animals, this technology may benefit human carers by increasing workplace efficiency and improving research data collection using automated animal monitoring systems. These benefits are balanced against cultural resistance to change, the imposition of greater staff training, a potential reduction in valuable animal-carer interaction, and the financial costs for technology design, acquisition, obsolescence, and maintenance. Successful applications will be discussed to demonstrate how animal-centered technology has evolved and, in some cases, to suggest future opportunities. We suggest that creative uses of animal-centered technology, based upon solid animal welfare science, has the potential for greatly increasing managed animal welfare, eventually growing from individual animal enrichment features to facility-wide integrated animal movement systems and transitions to wildlife release and rewilding strategies.

Keywords: animal-centered technology (ACT); captive; choice; conservation; enrichment; exhibit; reintroduction; wildlife; zoo

1. Introduction This perspective paper discusses a wide range of existing and proposed technologies for improving the welfare of wildlife managed in zoos, aquariums, sanctuaries, and research facilities, and is intended to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration among technology specialists and animal carers and managers. Our goal is the improvement of the wellbeing of animals in human care, whilst also benefiting a wide range of related stakeholders including caregivers, managers, and visitors. Our strategy is to present an overview of this subject whilst providing three case studies with more detail and suggesting references with still greater detail for those needing that specific level of information. As Zoos Victoria CEO Jenny Gray states: “Zoos have a social, moral and economic interest in the welfare of their animals”[1]. We would add that these interests intensify as concerns over animal welfare by both caregivers and communities increases. But even without such incentives our experience is that most carers and designers are driven to continuously improve the welfare of the animals and other stakeholders we serve; we owe them no less. Mellor et al., state: “Animal welfare includes physical, behavioral and psychological aspects usually rated as a gradient from poor to good or from surviving to coping to thriving as a means of promoting positive welfare

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92; doi:10.3390/mti4040092 www.mdpi.com/journal/mti Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 18

Mellor et al., state: “Animal welfare includes physical, behavioral and psychological aspects usually rated as a gradient from poor to good or from surviving to coping to thriving as a means of promoting positive welfare states.” [2] This includes subjective consideration of animal feelings [3]. For a more complete discussion see [4,5]. Considering animals’ lives in an integrated, holistic manner, the Five Domains Model [2] is gaining strong international support. In addition, Coe suggests animal welfare initiatives focus on increasingMultimodal animals’ Technol. choice, Interact. 2020control,, 4, 92 challenge, change and, ultimately, competence, the 5Cs,2 of 18 or “Five New Freedoms” [6]. Both approaches begin by asking “How can we help these animals to not only cope, but to thrive?”states.” Thus, [2] This in includes the most subjective progressive consideration facilities, of animal achieving feelings [3 optimal]. For a more animal complete welfare discussion receives the highest priority.see [4,5]. Initial welfare assessments are made of all existing animals, facilities and programs and remedialConsidering actions prioritized. animals’ lives in an integrated, holistic manner, the Five Domains Model [2] is gaining strong international support. In addition, Coe suggests animal welfare initiatives focus on “Environmental enrichment (EE) describes how the environments of captive animals may be changed for increasing animals’ choice, control, challenge, change and, ultimately, competence, the 5Cs, or “Five the benefitNew of Freedoms”the inhabitants [6]. Both” [7]. approaches “Research begin on by askingenrichment “How cansupports we help thesethe supposition animals to not that only cope,an enriched environmentbut to does thrive?” indeedThus, contribute in the most to a progressive captive animal’s facilities, well-being achieving.” optimal [7]. Environmental animal welfare receivesenrichment the items, methods,highest and settings priority. Initialcan be welfare though assessmentst of as tools, are made technologies, of all existing and animals, practices facilities for and improving programs animal welfare beyondand remedial basic actions needs. prioritized. It is important to consider that although the focus of environmental “Environmental enrichment (EE) describes how the environments of captive animals may be changed for the enrichment has been remedial items and actions to compensate for enclosure deficiencies, well- benefit of the inhabitants”[7]. “Research on enrichment supports the supposition that an enriched environment designeddoes enclosures indeed contribute are tothemselves a captive animal’s intended well-being to.” [be7]. Environmentalenriching, supplemented enrichment items, by methods, evolving EE practices.and In settingsour opinion, can be the thought best ofenvironmental as tools, technologies, enrichment and practices practices for improvingalso benefit animal animal welfare caregivers, as well asbeyond researchers, basic needs. and It zoo is important and aquarium to consider visitors. that although All stakeholders the focus of environmental should be enrichmentconsidered when developinghas beenenrichment remedial itemsprograms and actions and toanimals compensate especially for enclosure should deficiencies, become well-designed active co-designers enclosures [8]. We areuse themselves the term intended“animal-centered to be enriching, technology” supplemented (ACT) by evolving to include EE practices. a wide In range our opinion, of technologies, the best environmental enrichment practices also benefit animal caregivers, as well as researchers, and zoo some predatingand aquarium computers, visitors. Alland stakeholders including should the grow be considereding field when of animal-cen developingtered enrichment computing programs (ACI). and animals especially should become active co-designers [8]. 2. Evolution Weof useAnimal-Centered the term “animal-centered Technology technology” in Zoos (ACT) and to Research include a wide Facilities range of technologies, some predating computers, and including the growing field of animal-centered computing (ACI). Animal-centered technology and design in zoos and wild animal sanctuaries began long before the computer2. Evolution age. As of early Animal-Centered as 1925 Yerkes Technology suggeste in Zoosd chimpanzees and Research in Facilities his research colony should have an occupationAnimal-centered to occupy technologythemselves, and designas they in zoos had and in wild nature animal sanctuaries[9]. During began 1970–1980, long before thesome zoo professionalscomputer became age. As increasingly early as 1925 concerned Yerkes suggested with chimpanzees the welfare in of his the research animals colony under should their have care. an Many, inspired occupationby the writings to occupy of themselves, innovative as they Swiss had inbiologist nature [9 ].Hediger During 1970–1980, [10], sought some zooremedial professionals strategies to became increasingly concerned with the welfare of the animals under their care. Many, inspired by the improve existing facilities and management practice to reduce what were considered negative animal writings of innovative Swiss biologist Hediger [10], sought remedial strategies to improve existing behaviorsfacilities not found and management in nature. practiceEarly environmenta to reduce whatl were enrichment considered (EE) negative practices animal were behaviors developed not and evaluatedfound by inpioneers nature. Earlysuch environmental as Markowitz enrichment [11], and (EE) Chamove practices were [12]. developed Many pre-computer and evaluated by forms of environmentalpioneers enrichment, such as Markowitz including [11], and much Chamove of Markow [12]. Manyitz’s pre-computer pioneering formswork, of us environmentaled clearly artificial mechanicalenrichment, devices including as substitute much of Markowitz’ss for natural pioneering opportunities work, used to clearly simulate artificial or mechanical stimulate devices behavioral as substitutes for natural opportunities to simulate or stimulate behavioral opportunities like those opportunities like those found in the wild. For example, mechanisms from a commercial car wash found in the wild. For example, mechanisms from a commercial car wash were used to allow elephants were usedto giveto allow themselves elephants showers to at give the Washington themselves Park sh Zooowers in Portland at the inWashington 1980 [13]. An Park elephant-activated Zoo in Portland in 1980 [13].shower An elephant-act at Columbusivated Zoo (Figure shower1) as at suggested Columbus by Coe Zoo in 1991(Figure was shown1) as suggested to be used byby elephants Coe in 1991 was shown tothroughout be used by the elephants night to moisten throughout dry hay before the night consuming to moisten it. dry hay before consuming it.

FigureFigure 1. Elephant-activated 1. Elephant-activated shower shower at ColumbusColumbus Zoo Zoo (Photo: (Photo: H. Peachy). H. Peachy).

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 3 of 18 Many creative animal carers with low budgets began giving animals generally moveable objects such as homemade puzzles or large balls or tyres. A wide range of such ideas, as well as increasingly science-basedMany design creative and animal evaluation carers with processes, low budgets were began shared giving through animals publications generally moveable such as objects Shape of Enrichmentsuch as homemade[14] founded puzzles in 1991 or largeand now balls orprovidin tyres. Ag wideinternational range of such EE training ideas, as programs. well as increasingly Another EE science-based design and evaluation processes, were shared through publications such as Shape of landmark was the 1993 establishment of the biannual International Conference on Environmental Enrichment [14] founded in 1991 and now providing international EE training programs. Another Enrichment by Shepherdson and Mellen, who, with Hutchins, also edited the important text “Second EE landmark was the 1993 establishment of the biannual International Conference on Environmental Nature:Enrichment Environmental by Shepherdson Enrichment and Mellen, for Captive who, with Animals Hutchins,” [15]. also editedYoung’s the importantimportant text 2003 “Second book, “EnvironmentalNature: Environmental Enrichment Enrichment for Captive for Captive Animals Animals” [16]”[ 15balanced]. Young’s EE important method 2003ology book, with “Environmental practical “how- to” information.Enrichment for Coe Captive also Animals supported”[16 ]the balanced use of EEchangeable methodology naturalistic with practical enrichment “how-to” features information. [17]. Coe also supported the use of changeable naturalistic enrichment features [17]. 2.1. Enriching Landscapes; Early Development of Animal-Centered Soft Technology in Zoos 2.1. Enriching Landscapes; Early Development of Animal-Centered Soft Technology in Zoos One of the authors (Coe) [18], David Hancocks [19] and their colleagues actively participated in One of the authors (Coe) [18], David Hancocks [19] and their colleagues actively participated the transformation of zoos from the medically and behaviorally sterile cells or concrete grottos of the in the transformation of zoos from the medically and behaviorally sterile cells or concrete grottos of 1950s–1960s to highly naturalistic immersive habitat simulations in the mid 1970’s. This startling the 1950s–1960s to highly naturalistic immersive habitat simulations in the mid 1970’s. This startling contrastcontrast is illustrated is illustrated in Figure in Figure 2.2 .

Figure 2. (Left) sterile zoo gorilla display and (Right) landscape immersion gorilla display at Woodland Figure 2. (Left) sterile zoo gorilla display and (right) landscape immersion gorilla display at Park Zoo with many naturalistic enrichment features. Both were photographed in 1978 (Photos: J. Coe). Woodland Park Zoo with many naturalistic enrichment features. Both were photographed in 1978 (Photos:Highly J. Coe). naturalistic indoor exhibits include the Amazonia exhibit at the Smithsonian National Zoological Park developed by visionary director Michael Robinson in 1992 [20] and the Zoo Zurich MasoalaHighly naturalistic Madagascar exhibitindoor developed exhibits include by Alex Rübelthe Amazonia and opened exhibit in 2003 at [21 the]. Smithsonian National ZoologicalCoe Park and developed others continued by visionary to design director many zoo Mi exhibitschael Robinson using animal-centered in 1992 [20] technologyand the Zoo in theZurich Masoalaform Madagascar of naturalistic exhibit features developed such as artificial by Alex geology Rübel and shaped opened to optimize in 2003 solar [21]. azimuth angles to provideCoe and lions others with continued access to to sun design in winter many and zoo shade exhibits in summer. using animal-centered Hidden enrichment technology technology in the included electrically heated artificial rock for animals to lie on, mechanically cooled rocks to shelter form of naturalistic features such as artificial geology shaped to optimize solar azimuth angles to under, maintenance-free epoxy and steel artificial branches that swayed naturally when used by provide lions with access to sun in winter and shade in summer. Hidden enrichment technology primates and intended to increase balance and muscle control (Figure3), and pools with interactive includedunderwater electrically jets. In heated general, artificial visitors respondedrock for animals positively to tolie highly on, mechanically naturalistic and cooled immersive rocks animal to shelter under,display maintenance-free areas with unobtrusive epoxy and animal steel enrichment artificial features branches [22 –that24]. swayed naturally when used by primates and intended to increase balance and muscle control (Figure 3), and pools with interactive underwater jets. In general, visitors responded positively to highly naturalistic and immersive animal display areas with unobtrusive animal enrichment features [22–24].

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

MultimodalMultimodal Technol. Technol. Interact. Interact. 20202020, 4,, x4 ,FOR 92 PEER REVIEW 4 of 18 4 of 18

Figure 3. (Left) artificial geology designed to optimize solar azimuth for the lions’ comfort at Zoo Atlanta. (Right) artificial branch designed to sway naturally at the Denver Zoo (Photos: J. Coe).

2.2. EnrichingFigure Architecture 3. (Left) artificial geology designed to optimize solar azimuth for the lions’ comfort at Zoo Figure 3. (Left) artificial geology designed to optimize solar azimuth for the lions’ comfort at Zoo Atlanta. (Right) artificial branch designed to sway naturally at the Denver Zoo (Photos: J. Coe). ZooAtlanta. designers (Right) andartificial clients branch of early designed enriching to sway exhi natubitrally landscapes at the Denver also Zoodeveloped (Photos: enriching J. Coe). indoor animal2.2. areas, Enriching where Architecture animals may spend up to sixteen hours of each day and much longer when species2.2. Enriching areZoo designersnotArchitecture adapted and clientsto local of early conditions. enriching exhibitWhile landscapes enriching also landscapes developed enrichingare composed indoor of combinations of “soft” and “hard” technologies [25], enriching architecture, is mostly limited to animalZoo designers areas, where and animals clients mayof early spend enriching up to sixteen exhi hoursbit landscapes of each day also and muchdeveloped longer enriching when species indoor “hard” technology [5], but this can stimulate natural behaviours without looking natural. Martin and animalare areas, not adapted where to animals local conditions. may spend While up enriching to sixteen landscapes hours of are each composed day and of combinationsmuch longer ofwhen Shumaker“soft” andrefer “hard” to this technologies as “functional [25], enrichingnaturalism” architecture, [26]. We isextend mostly this limited term to to “hard” also describe technology synthetic [5], species are not adapted to local conditions. While enriching landscapes are composed of featuresbut thisthat can provide stimulate equivalent natural behaviours functions without to natural looking habitat natural. features Martin from and Shumakerwhat we referpresume to this to be combinations of “soft” and “hard” technologies [25], enriching architecture, is mostly limited to the animal’sas “functional perspective. naturalism” Examples [26]. We of extendanimal-cente this termred to architectural also describe technology synthetic features (Figure that 4) provide include the “hard” technology [5], but this can stimulate natural behaviours without looking natural. Martin and verticallyequivalent oriented functions gorilla to naturalgroup habitatroom available features from to the what apes we presume24/7 and to combining be the animal’s “hard” perspective. and “soft” ShumakerExamples refer of to animal-centered this as “functional architectural naturalism” technology [26]. (Figure We extend4) include this the term vertically to also oriented describe gorilla synthetic architecture with high windows providing distant views (Denver Zoo) and the Chimpanzee night featuresgroup that room provide available equivalent to the apes functions 24/7 and combining to natural “hard” habitat and “soft”features architecture from what with we high presume windows to be building penthouse at Los Angeles Zoo, allowing the apes to sleep securely under the stars when the animal’sproviding perspective. distant views Examples (Denver Zoo) of animal-cente and the Chimpanzeered architectural night building technology penthouse (Figure at Los 4) Angeles include the they choose. verticallyZoo, allowing oriented the gorilla apes togroup sleep securelyroom available under the to stars the whenapes they24/7 choose.and combining “hard” and “soft” architecture with high windows providing distant views (Denver Zoo) and the Chimpanzee night building penthouse at Los Angeles Zoo, allowing the apes to sleep securely under the stars when they choose.

Figure 4. (Left) vertically oriented gorilla group room at Denver Zoo. (Right) Chimpanzee night Figurebuilding 4. (Left penthouse) vertically at Los oriented Angeles gorilla Zoo (Photos: group J. Coe).room at Denver Zoo. (Right) Chimpanzee night building penthouse at Los Angeles Zoo (Photos: J. Coe). Matsuzawa [27] and colleagues at the Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University developed threeMatsuzawa functionally [27] naturalisticand colleagues 15 m highat the chimpanzee Primate Research towers in Institute 1998 (Figure of 5Kyoto). These University provide elevated developed Figure 4. (Left) vertically oriented gorilla group room at Denver Zoo. (Right) Chimpanzee night threeshelter, functionally broad vistas, naturalistic and even 15 sway m likehigh great chimpanzee trees when towers chimpanzees in 1998 shake (Figure them during 5). These displays. provide building penthouse at Los Angeles Zoo (Photos: J. Coe). elevated shelter, broad vistas, and even sway like great trees when chimpanzees shake them during displays. Matsuzawa [27] and colleagues at the Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University developed three functionally naturalistic 15 m high chimpanzee towers in 1998 (Figure 5). These provide 2.3. Enriching Changes in Animal Management elevated shelter, broad vistas, and even sway like great trees when chimpanzees shake them during displays.In older animal management practice, carers used a combination of reward and coercion to elicit the animal behaviors they required. In the mid-1970s Pryor [28] developed a positive reinforcement 2.3. Enriching Changes in Animal Management In older animal management practice, carers used a combination of reward and coercion to elicit the animal behaviors they required. In the mid-1970s Pryor [28] developed a positive reinforcement

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18

training (PRT) method with dolphins in which coercion was used only in emergencies and the trainer no longer needed to be dominant. These techniques were expanded to land animal training and management by Pryor and others [29], revolutionizing the management of wildlife in human care. MultimodalCoe introduced Technol. Interact.facility2020 design, 4, 92 changes to support these important management changes [30]. 5 of 18

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18

training (PRT) method with dolphins in which coercion was used only in emergencies and the trainer no longer needed to be dominant. These techniques were expanded to land animal training and management by Pryor and others [29], revolutionizing the management of wildlife in human care. Coe introduced facility design changes to support these important management changes [30].

Figure 5. Two of the three functionally naturalistic chimpanzee towers developed by Tetsuro Matsuzawa Figure 5. Two of the three functionally naturalistic chimpanzee towers developed by Tetsuro (Photos: J. Coe). Matsuzawa (Photos: J. Coe). 2.3. Enriching Changes in Animal Management 2.4. Moving Outside the Box In older animal management practice, carers used a combination of reward and coercion to elicit the animalWild animals behaviors of many they required. species regularly In the mid-1970s move from Pryor place [28 to] developedplace to meet a positive their needs reinforcement using trail trainingnetworks (PRT) connecting method critical with dolphins and favored in which resource coercion locations, was used often only sharing in emergencies areas with and other the species. trainer no[10]. longer FigureWhy couldn’t needed 5. Two tozooof bethe animals dominant. three explorefunctionally These adjacent techniquesnaturalisti displayc werechimpanzee and expanded off-display towers to areas landdeveloped using animal bya trainingtime-sharingTetsuro and managementsystemMatsuzawa facilitated by (Photos: Pryor by animal-centered and J. Coe). others [29], revolutionizing technology? Coe the collaborated management on of wildlifethe design in human of several care. such Coe introducedfacilities at Zoo facility Atlanta design in 1986, changes in Louisville to support Z theseoo in 1996, important and Point management Defiance changesPark Zoo [ 30and]. Aquarium in2.4. 2004. Moving These Outside management the Box programs with raceway connections, called “animal rotation”, 2.4.“alternation” MovingWild animals Outside or “flex” of the many Boxexhibits species [31] regularly proved moveto be from enriching place toto placethe animals to meet usingtheir needs them using[32], trailand popular with visitors [33]. Could this idea be extended? Coe envisioned the development of artificial networksWild animalsconnecting of manycritical species and favored regularly resource move fromlocations, place often to place sharing to meet areas their with needs other using species. trail animal trails interconnecting multiple areas within zoos and sanctuaries and giving animals much networks[10]. Why connecting couldn’t zoo critical animals and favoredexplore resourceadjacent locations,display and often off-display sharing areas areas with using other a time-sharing species. [10]. larger and more complex areas to explore [34]. The first extensive example of this type of animal- Whysystem couldn’t facilitated zoo animalsby animal-centered explore adjacent technology? display and Coe o ffcollaborated-display areas on using the design a time-sharing of several system such centered engineering technology was the elevated animal rotation raceways or “trails” developed at facilitatedfacilities at by Zoo animal-centered Atlanta in 1986, technology? in Louisville Coe Zoo collaborated in 1996, and on Point the Defiance design of Park several Zoo such and facilitiesAquarium at the Center for Great Apes in Wauchula, Florida (Figure 6). As suggested by Coe in 2000, these Zooin 2004. Atlanta These in 1986, management in Louisville programs Zoo in 1996, with and raceway Point Defiance connections, Park Zoocalled and “animal Aquarium rotation”, in 2004. raceways presently extend to 2.5 km in length, connecting twelve night-houses and sixteen outdoor These“alternation” management or “flex” programs exhibits with [31] raceway proved connections,to be enriching called to “animalthe animals rotation”, using “alternation”them [32], and or enclosures [35]. “flex”popular exhibits with visitors [31] proved [33]. to Could be enriching this idea to be the extended? animals using Coe envisioned them [32], and the populardevelopment with visitors of artificial [33]. Couldanimal this trails idea interconnecting be extended? Coe multiple envisioned areas thewith developmentin zoos and of sanctuaries artificial animal and giving trails interconnecting animals much multiplelarger and areas more within complex zoos andareas sanctuaries to explore and [34]. giving The animalsfirst extensive much largerexample and of more thiscomplex type of areasanimal- to explorecentered [34 engineering]. The first technology extensive example was the of elevated this type animal of animal-centered rotation raceways engineering or “trails” technology developed was at thethe elevatedCenter for animal Great rotation Apes racewaysin Wauchula, or “trails” Florida developed (Figure at6). the As Center suggested for Great by Coe Apes in in 2000, Wauchula, these Floridaraceways (Figure presently6). As extend suggested to 2.5 by km Coe in inlength, 2000, connecting these raceways twelve presently night-houses extend and to 2.5 sixteen km in outdoor length, connectingenclosures [35]. twelve night-houses and sixteen outdoor enclosures [35].

Figure 6. Elevated animal rotation raceways or “trails” developed at the Center for Great Apes in Wauchula, Florida (Photos: Center for Great Apes).

Based upon the success of trail-ways at the Center for Great Apes, Philadelphia Zoo invited Coe and his colleagues to develop a zoo-wide trail system for their animals beginning in 2009. As of 2020, they have developed the 1 km round trip Treetop Trail used alternately by fifteen species of primate, Figure 6. Elevated animal rotation raceways or “trails” developed at the Center for Great Apes in Figure 6. Elevated animal rotation raceways or “trails” developed at the Center for Great Apes in Wauchula,Wauchula, FloridaFlorida (Photos:(Photos: CenterCenter forfor GreatGreat Apes).Apes).

Based upon the success of trail-ways at the Center for Great Apes, Philadelphia Zoo invited Coe and his colleagues to develop a zoo-wide trail system for their animals beginning in 2009. As of 2020, they have developed the 1 km round trip Treetop Trail used alternately by fifteen species of primate,

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 6 of 18

Based upon the success of trail-ways at the Center for Great Apes, Philadelphia Zoo invited Coe andMultimodal his colleagues Technol. Interact. to develop 2020, 4, x aFOR zoo-wide PEER REVIEW trail system for their animals beginning in 2009. As of 6 2020, of 18 they have developed the 1 km round trip Treetop Trail used alternately by fifteen species of primate, the GreatGreat ApeApe Trail Trail (380 (380 m m round round trip), trip), used used by by gorillas, gorillas, orangutans, orangutans, and and gibbons, gibbons, and and the Big the Cat Big Trail Cat (160Trail m(160 round m round trip) used trip) alternately used alternately by six speciesby six ofspecies large cats.of large Zoo cats. Guadalajara, Zoo Guadalajara, Mexico, followed Mexico, thisfollowed direction this indirection 2014 at in Coe’s 2014 suggestion, at Coe’s suggestion, developing developing a 120 m elevated a 120 m trailelevated loop trail for smaller loop for primates smaller (Figureprimates7). (Figure 7).

Figure 7.7. Upper photosphotos ofof TreeTree Top Top Trail Trail (Photos: (Photos: J. Coe),J. Coe), lower lower left left photo photo of Greatof Great Ape Ape trail trail above above Big CatBig TrailCat Trail (Photo: (Photo: Philadelphia Philadelphia Zoological Zoological Society). Society). Lower-right Lower-right Sendarios, Sendarios, Zoo Guadalajara, Zoo Guadalajara, Mexico (Photo: J. Coe). Mexico (Photo: J. Coe). 3. How Can Animal-Centered Computer Advances Provide Animals with Increased Choice, Control,3. How andCan RelativeAnimal-Centered Freedom? Computer Advances Provide Animals with Increased Choice, Control, and Relative Freedom? Free-ranging wild animals are entirely reliant on themselves and each other, developing what can beFree-ranging called physical wild and animals behavioral are entirely competence reliant [ 6on]. Arethemselves agency and freedomeach other, related? developing Freedom what is relative.can be called Hediger physical stated: and “ behavioral... the free animalcompetence does not [6]. live Are in agency freedom; and neither freedom in space related? nor as Freedom regards itsis behaviorrelative. towardsHediger other stated: animals. “… ”the ([ 10free], p.animal 14). Wilddoes not freedom live in does freedom; not guaranteeneither in eitherspace nor comfort as regards or long its lifebehavior compared towards to other living animals. in a good” ([10], zoo p. or 14). aquarium. Wild freedom What wilddoes animalsnot guarantee do have either is increased comfort or agency long andlife compared choice. Thus, to living it can in be a saidgood the zoo organism or aquarium. with theWhat greatest wild animals degreeof do choice have is and increased control hasagency the mostand choice. relative Thus, freedom. it can be said the organism with the greatest degree of choice and control has the mostDespite relative freedom. the advances to built-in and changing environmental enrichment programs just summarized,Despite animalthe advances care sta fftostill built-in provide and for changing nearly all animalenvironmental needs. This enrichment practice isprograms not only veryjust labor-intensive,summarized, animal but also care leaves staff still animals provide with for little nearly agency, all animal sometimes needs. leading This practice to chronic is not stress, only poorvery physicallabor-intensive, and mental but also fitness, leaves in a animals welfare with state little of coping, agency, but sometimes not thriving leading [2]. to chronic stress, poor physicalRather and than mental asking, fitness, “What in a can welfare we do state for theseof coping, animals”, but not we shouldthriving ask,” [2]. What can these animals do forRather themselves?” than asking, How “What can we can facilitate we do for greater these independence?animals”, we should Animal-centered ask,” What can computing these animals may helpdo for animals themselves?” do more How for can themselves, we facilitate for examplegreater independence? by managing theirAnimal-centered ambient environments computing may [36], help animals do more for themselves, for example by managing their ambient environments [36], feeding schedules, access to alternative spaces, and social opportunities at all hours, much like they could have in the wild [37] and thus encouraging natural activity periods [38]. As a result, it is believed animal stress levels are reduced and welfare limitations like “learned helplessness” would

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 7 of 18 feeding schedules, access to alternative spaces, and social opportunities at all hours, much like they could have in the wild [37] and thus encouraging natural activity periods [38]. As a result, it is believed animal stress levels are reduced and welfare limitations like “learned helplessness” would decline [16]. Properly managed to avoid animal dependency, such systems can even support animals during post-release stages of wildlife recovery and rewilding projects [39].

3.1. Introductory References Covering a Wide Range of Animal-Centered Technology Applications This paper intends to provide a broad overview of animal-centered technologies. For more detailed reviews of this technology (including computer uses) in zoo visitor experience, education, research, and animal welfare through 2011, including a comparison of such uses in five North American zoos, see Clay et al. [36]. Whitham and Miller [40] provide an overview of monitoring systems such as accelerometers, GPS, bioacoustics, thermography, and radio frequency identification (RFID). As an excellent example of looking into a wide variety of computer-related uses in a single zoo, see Webber et al. [41].

3.2. Animal Activated Touchscreen Computers Touchscreen computers in primate cognitive research are described by Perdue et al. [42]. Egelkamp and Ross [43] survey the history and wide international uses of such systems. They suggest that advantages of computer use include the ability to record data while researchers are not present, thus avoiding experimenter bias and improving efficiency. They note the addition of peripheral equipment such as radio frequency identification (RFID), motion sensors, facial recognition, and eye-tracking devices add to the range of research opportunities. Staff and animal training are important considerations in the use of touchscreen technology. The intended setting is also important, for example, in public areas where visitor education and possible interaction is intended, or in off-exhibit areas and isolated research settings. Once learned, touchscreen use appears to be enriching to the animal users, with ninety percent of apes and macaques tested at Lincoln Park Zoo voluntarily participating [43] and even sun bears actively participated at Zoo Atlanta [42]. Beginning in 2008, the orangutan exhibit at Zoo Atlanta allowed visitors to observe orangutans doing touchscreen computer tasks, including virtual painting [36]. The Think Tank exhibit and research site at the Smithsonian National Zoo, opened in 1994, was a pioneer in the uses of touchscreen computers in visitor education, and cognitive testing and symbolic language training for orangutans [44]. Orangutans at the Indianapolis Zoo Simon Skjodt International Orangutan Center “ ... receive daily access ... to touch-panel and vending machine sessions at a publicly viewable laboratory space, opportunistic touch-panel task sessions using a portable cage-mesh mounted touch-panel device, and opportunities to gather food at a remotely controlled feeding apparatus located 27.5 m above the ground in their outdoor climbing area.” [26]. This source contains many details and photos for those seeking more specific information on their applications. Not all species have sensory or motor skills suited to touchscreen application and more extreme ambient environments may preclude their use. Hopefully, as the durability of this technology increases, opportunities for a much wider range of species will develop and perhaps underwater applications may become possible.

3.3. Animal-Activated Virtual Reality (VR) Research Dolins et al. [45] showed bonobo, chimpanzee, and human subjects using a joystick to navigate within 3D desktop virtual reality (VR) environments on a large, fixed monitor. Whilst this study focused on comparative spatial cognition, the authors suggest chimpanzees, bonobos, and possibly other primates, may be able to use VR to entertain themselves, solve spatial and foraging problems relative to their species, and enjoy a sense of spatial expansion of their otherwise limited quarters. For example, perhaps they could explore virtual complex landscapes modeled on their natural habitats, with rolling topography, vegetation for concealment and foraging and other animal species to hunt or interact with Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 8 of 18 in other ways based upon the animals’ choice and control. Perhaps future VR applications could allow animals and visitors to interact in virtual environments in ways supporting both entertainment and conservation outcomes. Dolins also relates an example of a research lab bonobo which can operate a ”robo-bonobo-bot” [45] well away from its enclosure, down office hallways, and even out-of-doors, allowing the ape to remotely explore actual landscapes and interact with real people in real-time.

3.4. Motion Sensor Technology Clay et al., note: “In state-of-the-art facilities, control over elements such as room temperature, access to outdoor areas, access to social partners or to privacy, for example, permits animals to make choices about their physical and social environments.” [36] (p. 492). Maple and Perdue ([5], p. 147) agree, saying “ ... the more that animals can do for themselves the better.” Over 25 years ago Coe [46] visualized uses for motion sensitive activators for chimpanzees and other laboratory animals, controlling indoor ambient conditions such as light levels and spectra, ventilation, temperature, and humidity in their individual areas simply by positioning themselves in the vicinity of motion sensors controlling these features. This could be a functionally naturalistic equivalent to wild animals meeting their ambient needs by moving through natural ambient gradients in their habitat. In both cases the animal maintains some agency in achieving its preferences. Underwater jets with variable water temperatures and velocities or air bubble curtains could be activated by aquarium animals and species such as platypus, otters, tapirs, tigers and bears by moving through motion sensor fields. However, to our knowledge such motion sensor activated features have never actually been developed, yet this opportunity remains open for experimentation. Motion sensors are used in parallel with RFID microchips to activate microchip feeders and doors as described later by Hoy.

3.5. Computer-Controlled Feeding Systems Highly specialized feeding systems are increasingly used in precision livestock management [47]. One widely used commercial product, Feedpods [48], was adapted from the livestock industry for zoos. It uses a cloud-based management system for remote control with smartphones and has been installed in twenty countries. A 35% increase in animal activity and foraging and 10% reduction in stereotypical behaviour is claimed for this product [48]. As an example, Dublin Zoo uses the Feedpod system as part of their after-hours elephant feeding system to encourage movement, physical condition, and enrichment. When combined with daytime manual feeding strategies, the zoo found their elephants travel 9 km per day between food sources, a distance similar to that measured with wild elephants [49]. Some zoos have developed their own timed-release feeders for nocturnal animals active after normal staff hours, reporting increases of both frequency and diversity of species-typical behaviours as a result [50].

3.6. Implantable Biosensors Present and next-generation miniature implantable biosensors “ ... have great potential in the diagnosis, monitoring, management and treatment of a variety of disease conditions “, and “ ... supporting new initiatives in livestock management” [51]. While such technology is presently used in biometric research, it appears to hold promise, along with related RFID systems, to measure body temperature and, in the future, other indicators of wellbeing, while animals engage in environmental enrichment and cognitive research programs.

3.7. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Microchip Activated Technology in the Captive Setting We emphasize the utility of a commonly used implanted device, the RFID microchip. Most animals in human care have been implanted with RFID microchips for identification. Scanners identify specific animals, allowing only pre-selected individuals to activate devices such as microchip-controlled doors and feeders [52]. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 9 of 18

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18 The Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University implanted RFID microchips in the wrists group.of chimpanzees,RFID “… technological enabling a devices computer such to as record the microchips data from individualjust described animals can enhance over multiple not only tasks, animal welfare,including but also work the quality designed and specifically quantity of for data that collected. animal,” which [36]. can work when it pleases, alone or in its group. RFID “ ... technological devices such as the microchips just described can enhance not only animal 3.8. RFIDwelfare, Tracking but also thefor qualityResearch and quantity of data collected.”[36]. 3.8.Dallas RFID Zoo Tracking has used for Research RFID ankle bracelets (Figure 8) to track elephants, gathering round-the- clock informationDallas Zoo on has herd used social RFID ankleorganization, bracelets (Figureexhibit8) utilization to track elephants, during gathering environmental round-the-clock enrichment trials,information movement on herdspeed, social distance organization, traveled, exhibit time utilization and location during environmentalof resting periods, enrichment and trials, weight managementmovement [53]. speed, This distance anklet traveled, features time anda break- locationaway of resting connection periods, to and prevent weight managementthe elephant [53 ].from becomingThis anklet tangled. features a break-away connection to prevent the elephant from becoming tangled.

FigureFigure 8. RFID 8. RFID tracking tracking anklet anklet developed developed by by Dallas Dallas ZooZoo (Photo: (Photo: Dallas Dallas Zoo Zoo Management Management Inc.). Inc.).

3.9. RFID Microchip Technology in Captive Wildlife Management. Brief Case Study A 3.9. RFID Microchip Technology in Captive Wildlife Management. Brief Case Study A Using microchip technology as enrichment for research animals was first trialed by Hoy in 2007 withUsing captive microchip owl monkeys technology (Aotus as enrichmentspp.) using afor prototype research microchip-controlled animals was first trialed feeder by device Hoy [ 54in] 2007 with(Figure captive9). owl Whilst monkeys successfully (Aotus proving spp.) using that thisa prototype species can microchip- control accesscontrolled to elements feeder of device their [54] (Figureenvironment 9). Whilst using successfully microchip proving devices, therethat werethis majorspecies limitations can control to available access technologyto elements at thatof their environmenttime, and using the eff ectivenessmicrochip of devices, the device there as a sourcewere major of enrichment limitations was inconclusiveto available [ 54technology]. at that time, andHigh the effectiveness cost was shown of the in device an international as a source zoo of surveyenrichment to be was considered inconclusive prohibitive [54]. to the widespreadHigh cost was adoption shown of suchin an microchip-activated international zoo equipmentsurvey to inbe captive considered wildlife prohibitive facilities [ 52to]. the widespreadFurther advancesadoption by of others such overmicrochip-activated a decade after the equipment Hoy microchip in captive feeder prototype wildlife resultedfacilities in [52]. Furtherthe advances manufacture by ofothers commercially over a decade available after microchip-controlled the Hoy microchip pet feeder feeders prototype and doors resulted by Sure in the Petcare [55]. These off-the-shelf devices are relatively inexpensive, making them more suitable for use manufacture of commercially available microchip-controlled pet feeders and doors by Sure Petcare with managed wildlife. [55]. These off-the-shelf devices are relatively inexpensive, making them more suitable for use with The first reported use of one of these Sure Petcare microchip pet doors was with a captive-bred managedbridled wildlife. nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata) trained to use such a door to access feed and refuge [56]. AThe wild-caught first reported captive use brush-tailed of one of these phascogale Sure Petc (Phascogaleare microchip tapoatafa pet) was doors later wa traineds with to a use captive-bred both a bridledSure nailtail Petcare wallaby microchip (Onychogalea door and feeder fraenata [57]. ) trained to use such a door to access feed and refuge [56]. A wild-caughtThere are a rangecaptive of brush-tailed potential benefits phascogale to the animals (Phascogale of adopting tapoatafa such) was technology, later trained including to use an both a Sureincrease Petcare in themicrochip frequency door and and variety feeder of enriching [57]. opportunities within the captive environment, which wereThere applications are a range considered of potential most benefits valuable to by the animal animals care of sta adoptingff globally such [52]. technology, Using ACI technology including an increaseto reduce in the human frequency contact and with variety wildlife of destined enrichin forg releaseopportunities will become within increasingly the captive important environment, into whichthe were future applications as these programs considered become most more common,valuable andby additionalanimal care remote staff management globally [52]. capabilities Using ACI are developed. technology to reduce human contact with wildlife destined for release will become increasingly important into the future as these programs become more common, and additional remote management capabilities are developed.

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 10 of 18 MultimodalMultimodal Technol. Technol. Interact. Interact. 2020 2020, ,4 4, ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 10 10 of of 18 18

Figure 9. Prototype microchip feeder developed for use with captive owl monkeys in 2007 (Photo: J. FigureFigure 9. 9. PrototypePrototype microchipmicrochip feeder developed for use use with with captive captive owl owl monkeys monkeys in in 2007 2007 (Photo: (Photo: J. Hoy). J.Hoy). Hoy).

3.10.3.10. RFID RFIDRFID Microchip MicrochipMicrochip Technology Technology in in Animal Animal Reintroductions. Reintroductions. Brief Brief Case Case Study Study B B CaptiveCaptive breeding breeding of of wildlife wildlife and and subsequent subsequent reintroduction reintroduction to to the the wild wild is isis becoming becomingbecoming increasingly increasinglyincreasingly importantimportant [ [58].58[58].]. One OneOne major majormajor challenge challengechallenge is the isis the needthe needneed to provide toto provideprovide food and foodfood refuge andand refuge fromrefuge predators fromfrom predatorspredators for released forfor releasedanimalsreleased untilanimals animals they until until are they ablethey are toare meetable able to theirto meet meet needs their their withoutneeds needs without without assistance assistan assistan [39].cece However,[39]. [39]. However, However, it is criticalit it is is critical critical that thatsupplementarythat supplementarysupplementary support supportsupport is not inadvertentlyisis notnot inadvertentlinadvertentl providedyy providedprovided to competitor toto competitorcompetitor or predator oror species. predatorpredator Historically species.species. HistoricallythisHistorically issue has this this not issue issue been has wellhas not not addressed, been been well well but addressed, addressed, now RFID but but microchip now now RFID RFID technology microchip microchip allowstechnology technology access allows allows to resources access access toonlyto resources resources on recognition only only on on ofrecognition recognition a microchip of of a implanteda microchip microchip under implanted implanted the skin under under of a the particularthe skin skin of of a individual.a particular particular individual. Toindividual. test this Totheory,To test test wild-bornthis this theory, theory, northern wild-bor wild-bor brownnn northern northern bandicoots brown brown ( Isoodonbandicoots bandicoots macrourus ( Isoodon(Isoodon) were macrourus macrourus trained) ) towere were use trained commerciallytrained to to use use commerciallyavailablecommercially microchip available available doors microchip microchip attached doors doors to a timber attached attached nest to to box a a timber timber in captivity nest nest box box (Figure in in captivity captivity 10)[39 ].(Figure (Figure 10) 10) [39]. [39].

Figure 10. (Left) commercially available Sure Petcare RFID microchip controlled pet door adapted for use FigureasFigure a wildlife 10. 10. ( Left( provisioningLeft) )commercially commercially station available available and refuge Sure Sure with Petcare Petcare a bridled RFID RFID nailtail microchip microchip wallaby controlled controlled (Photo: S.pet pet Muns) door door [adapted56 adapted]. (Right for for) usePrototypeuse as as a a wildlife wildlife microchip provisioning provisioning controlled station station nest box and and used refuge refuge with with with northern a a bridled bridled brown nailtail nailtail bandicoots wallaby wallaby (Photo: (Photo: (Photo: M. S. Edwards)S. Muns) Muns) [56]. [56]. [39, (59Right(Right]. ) )Prototype Prototype microchip microchip controlled controlled nest nest box box used used with with northern northern brown brown bandicoots bandicoots (Photo (Photo M. M. Edwards)Edwards) [39,59]. [39,59]. These bandicoots were then released back to the wild with the microchip nest boxes supplementing themTheseThese with feedbandicootsbandicoots and shelter, werewere while thenthen also releasedreleased allowing backback monitoring toto thethe wildwild of their withwith survival thethe microchipmicrochip [59]. The nest bandicootsnest boxesboxes supplementingrarelysupplementing used the doorsthem them with upon with feed release,feed and and butshelter, shelter, the technology while while also also showedallowing allowing great monitoring monitoring potential, of of andtheir their is survival survival likely to [59]. be[59]. more The The bandicootsebandicootsffective for rarely otherrarely speciesused used the the that doors doors are hollow upon upon dependentrelease, release, but but [59 the the]. Beingtechnology technology able to showed useshowed RFID great great controlled potential, potential, technology and and is is likelyaslikely well to toas be be other more more ACIeffective effective advancements for for other other species species could createthat that are are opportunities hollow hollow dependent dependent to improve [59]. [59]. Being theBeing success able able to to of use use wildlife RFID RFID controlledreintroductionscontrolled technology technology and monitoring as as well well as as ofother other threatened ACI ACI advancements advancements species in the could could wild create create when opportunities appropriateopportunities consideration to to improve improve the the is successgivensuccess to preventofof wildlifewildlife potential reintroductionsreintroductions issues such asandand learned monitoringmonitoring dependence ofof threatenedthreatened on the technology. speciesspecies inin thethe wildwild whenwhen appropriateappropriate consideration consideration is is given given to to prevent prevent pote potentialntial issues issues such such as as learned learned dependence dependence on on the the technology.technology.

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 11 of 18 Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

3.11. Animal-Activated Light Proje Projectionction Games. Brief Case Study C During a Melbourne Zoo meeting on orangutanorangutan environmental enrichment in June 2014 Coe suggested installinginstalling anan apeape activatedactivated light light organ organ projecting projecting in in both both animal animal and and adjacent adjacent public public areas. areas. It wasIt was thought thought this this would would entertain entertain both both apes apes and and visitors visitors while while giving giving orangutansorangutans somesome choicechoice and control over visitor behavior. Then in 2015, the UniMelb Social NUI Centre (funded by Microsoft Research and the Victorian State Government) approachedapproached Zoos Victoria, suggesting developing an animal interactive system using a Microsoft Kinect device. They explored a variety of options before deciding on interactive projections. The final final system uses the input from the infra-red depth sensor and camera on a Microsoft Kinect device to detect touches on a projected screen, using a standard LCD projector (Figure 1111).). These touches then become inputs to games or applications running in the Unity game engine [[60].60]. An evaluation by Webber et al. [[8]8] found that animals using it showed more play behaviors and overall activity when an application was activated, but habituation lessened this eeffectffect overover time. However, the evaluation form selectedselected by the client required this enrichment system to bebe fixedfixed throughoutthroughout thethe evaluationevaluation periodperiod andand inin thethe endend “ “...… the quantitative data gathered did not contribute to understanding which aspectsaspects of the installation were of most value to the orangutansorangutans or support improvement.””[ [8]8] (p. 1720). The The principal principal author author later suggested that an iterative rather than fixedfixed evaluation process could have better allowed designers to home in on key features of the study of most interest to the participating orangutansorangutans [[61].61].

Figure 11. PrototypePrototype light light game game between between orangutan orangutan and andresearcher researcher at Melbourne at Melbourne Zoo (Photo: Zoo (Photo: Zoos ZoosVictoria). Victoria).

4. Promising but Untested Opportunities What is our perspective on opportunities buildingbuilding upon the enriched landscapes, buildings, and animal-centered technology systemssystems describeddescribed earlier?earlier?

4.1. Giving Animals More Control of Rotation Exhibits and Trails At presentpresent animal animal rotation rotation and and movement movement between betw areas,een areas, as described as described in Section in Sections2.4 and Figures 2.4 and6 andFigures7, is managed6 and 7, is by managed animal care by staanimalff. However, care staff. could However, RFID-controlled could RFID-controlled smart gates and smart smart gates feeders, and assmart described feeders, previously, as described be animal previously, controlled be animal using ACTcontrolled programs, using giving ACT programs, animals more giving control animals over accessmore control while ensuring over access safety while for animalsensuring and safety staff for[34 ]?animals Could and these staff also [34]? be programmed Could these remotely also be byprogrammed animal care remotely staff, as by Dublin animal Zoo care has staff, done as withDublin their Zoo elephant has done feeders with their [62]? elephant What would feeders such [62]? a systemWhat would be like? such For a example,system be on like? a Monday For example, the tiger on may a Monday choose itsthe desired tiger may trail choose route andits desired destination. trail Thenroute theand leopard destination. may beThen able the to leopard take any may trail be segment able to take it wants any trail except segment the one it occupiedwants except by the the tiger. one occupied by the tiger. The order can be changed through the week or selected randomly by the staff

Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 12 of 18

The order can be changed through the week or selected randomly by the staff or a master animal movement control system. Could presently staff-operated gates like those in the animal trail system at Philadelphia Zoo (Figure7) be animal-operated in the future?

4.2. Master Animal Movement Control Systems Ultimately, as zoo animal trails become increasingly interconnected, perhaps a computer-based monitoring and recording system, like a mini-metro train control system, could be developed to ensure safe operation while recording animal movements. Present and next-generation implantable biosensors [51] could record body temperature and other biometrics each time a specific animal passes through a smart gate. This action could also prompt surveillance videos of the animal passing through and visitor and staff activity in the area. The resulting records of the animal’s activities, exertions and time budgets would assist scientists in monitoring physical, behavioral, and psychological wellbeing. Visitor reactions, including hoped-for experiential enrichment associated with animal’s movements, could also be assessed. Smart gates could also automatically update electronic public information and Wi-Fi systems to let visitors with smartphone apps know where specific animals are in the trail system.

5. Concerns and Opportunities What problems should be considered in adapting computer technology in zoos, aquariums, and related settings? All animal-centered technology must of course be suited to both the needs and capabilities of the animal users, the context within which it is expected to operate and the theme or message it is intended to convey to stakeholders (see later discussion in Section 5.5 “message”).

5.1. Site and Service Considerations Both mechanical and electronic equipment must not only be durable enough for use by the intended species and weather-proof, but also may need to compensate for local unavailability of power or telecommunications services and protected against invasion by local rodents. It must be safely and conveniently accessible for needed service, ideally without the need to remove the animals from the area. Some fixtures such as solar panels and batteries, surveillance cameras, remote control systems, RFID and motion sensor systems may need only infrequent access and present an opportunity to reduce maintenance and support infrastructure. Direct contact animal-operated controllers such as joysticks and touchscreens should be located where trainers can conveniently work with the animals. Timers and other controllers requiring frequent change and automated feeders needing frequent provisioning require convenient access.

5.2. Efficiency and Perceived Value In the 1990s, the expense, delays, and inconvenience caused by repair, scheduled service, and replacement of equipment, together with rapid obsolescence of computer-aided educational systems, give computer-based systems a bad name in the zoo industry. The most voiced concern seemed to be: “But is it worth the cost? Is there an easier way?”[63]. Today, animal care staff always have more to do than their allocated time allows [64]. To be accepted by them, technical apparatus must not only clearly benefit the animals, but must also save them time. Additional time for training to operate technical apparatus must be justified by real convenience later. Also, some excellent carers may not be proficient with novel gadgets, and overcoming natural resistance is essential to long-term success. Fortunately, advances in human-friendly systems now appear to have reduced staff opposition. Devices operated by familiar smartphone and tablet technology should be more widely accepted if design, installation, and operating costs are well justified by improvements in animal welfare, carer efficiency, and visitor approval. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 13 of 18

5.3. Are Positive Personal Relationships between Caregivers and Animals Threatened by Increased Automation?

Positive personal relationships between carers and animals are essential to good animal husbandry and are a major professional motivator for caregivers [65]. As animals gain greater choice, control, and self-sufficiency using ACT, this relationship may be eroded, perhaps resulting in less personal satisfaction for carers and increased wildness and willfulness of animals. This “wildness” is an essential characteristic for animals scheduled for future release and has benefits in terms of communicating valuable educational messages to visitors. However, increased management and research efficiency should be planned to increase and not diminish staff access to activities they find to be both enriching to themselves and the animals if carer support is to be maintained.

5.4. Safety All apparatus must be safe for all users, human and animal, initially and in the long-term. While the Shape of Enrichment safety database [14] is a rich source of information on safety considerations for traditional enrichment features based upon animal taxa, type of enrichment, and type of hazard, we are unaware of published recommendations specifically for computer-based forms of enrichment. However, better zoo, aquarium, sanctuary, and lab animal facilities have well-defined safety protocols and awareness which should always be applied to design reviews.

5.5. What’s the Message? There is a long and contested debate between supporters of naturalistic versus functionally naturalistic enrichment feature over the impact on visitor education and experience of “unnatural” looking enrichment features in naturalistic animal display settings. For the purpose of this paper, we urge designers to be aware of the “message” implied to visitors experiencing their work [66]. Designers should collaborate with zoo or aquarium educators and find design solutions benefiting the animals, the institution’s educational objectives, and other stakeholders on a case-by-case basis. However, when enrichment interventions are intended to support a high-tech educational message, such as in the National Zoo Think Tank or the Indianapolis Zoo Simon Skjodt International Orangutan Center, or are applied in non-public areas, the technical medium can become the desired message.

6. Design Process for Developing ACT Technology Here follows a typical planning sequence; the process will vary with each client and project. For a detailed specific example see Webber et al. ([8], p. 1719) for an excellent study of interactive technology and human-animal interaction at Melbourne Zoo.

6.1. Design Team Depending upon the overall project context, either in a public display or a non-public research and animal management area, the design team should include a diverse group of client staff, including decision-makers as well as hands-on operators, animal welfare and training specialists, educators, and evaluators, exhibit designers, including IT specialists, and the client animals.

6.2. Pre-Occupancy Testing Ideally, the animals and staff for whom the enrichment features are being designed would be tested ahead of time to determine baseline behaviours which can later be compared to final post-occupancy testing to determine what benefits have been achieved.

6.3. Co-Design with Animals Finding ways to include the animals as co-designers is a key discussion point. See Webber et al. ([8], p. 1715) for an example with orangutans and French et al. [67] with elephants for more detailed case-specific considerations. Both studies determined that prototyping and testing ideas directly with Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 14 of 18 the animals on an iterative trial and error basis was the best way to determine the animal’s level of interest, ability to use the feature, and the project’s likely success. This requires flexible and timely methods of evaluation throughout the design process, and not simply post-occupancy evaluation upon final installation.

6.4. Design Workshops The first meeting, often called the vision session, unusually includes the institution’s senior staff as well as animal care workers to define their overall “vision” or aspiration for the project, including goals, objectives, and available resources. This is then developed by an interdisciplinary client group into a formal project brief containing all critical information needed by the ACT and other designs. This document must remain somewhat flexible to adapt to creative opportunities or changing conditions during the early design stages.

6.5. Site Inspection and Appreciation of the Design Brief The second meeting begins with a site inspection for the design team (consultants and staff) lead by zoo staff with a briefing on both visitor experience and education expectations and animal care concerns, to fully understand both the project context and the nature of the animal clients, including their unique sensory preferences, motivations, and personalities, both as species and individuals. This meeting would include presentation and discussion of the client’s draft project brief clearly identifying the need for the work (problem definition), project location and area, available funds, time, and other critical resources and constraints. Zoo staff may also point out enhanced enrichment examples from other locations illustrating their initial ideas, but these should not be fixed at this early stage nor simply copied without improvement. An interdisciplinary brainstorming session follows, identifying several prioritized options for further development. The meeting concludes with a clear understanding of the client’s brief, project objectives and evaluation criteria, and progress expectation for the next design meeting.

6.6. Preliminary Design The designers review the brief, do additional research, and develop promising directions which are then presented to the client team, including general costs, development time, and other requirements. After discussion and evaluation, the group selects the preferred design option for the iterative prototyping and testing which follows.

6.7. Prototype Testing Using Animal Co-Design Strategies Both Webber [8] and French et al. [67] describe alternate animal co-design strategies, which may vary widely depending upon the species being accommodated. They emphasize the need to use flexible evaluation techniques, allowing iterative experimentation and prototype evolution. These must follow the animal’s lead and, where appropriate, a visitor’s lead (formative evaluation), caregiver’s lead, and researcher’s lead, thus homing in on the most suitable design for serving the interests of all stakeholders.

6.8. Final Design Based upon staff and assumed animal approval (evaluated through testing and experienced caregiver perceptions) of the final prototype, the design team finalizes their design, confirming costs, time, and any project restrictions or additional work required by the client. Clear client approval of this stage is needed before proceeding further. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 15 of 18

6.9. Final Development and Post-Occupancy Testing After final client approval is received, the design team will assist in providing and installing the final working ACT assembly and training staff in its use and maintenance and would later assist with maintenance and repairs for an agreed-upon period. The zoo or other client would carry out a scientific post-occupancy evaluation, considering benefits to animals, staff, and visitors.

7. Conclusions and Further Collaborative Opportunities Zoos, aquariums, animal sanctuaries, and animal research facilities, like most human societies, are evolving towards greater automation to reduce human labor costs. However, rather than reducing behavioral opportunities and welfare for managed animals, creative use of ACT technology, based upon solid animal welfare science, has the potential for greatly increasing managed animal choice, control and self-sufficiency, and thus relative freedom. As we have shown, we are only at the beginning of this journey, in terms of utility, durability, and affordability. Yet on the horizon could be institution and even community-wide IT networks coordinating, safeguarding, and recording activities of semi-free-ranging animals as they manage themselves and some graduate to sustainable release and rewilding. So, as animal carers and technology designers collaborate in the creation of educational, welfare and research enhancing ACT prototypes, we are creating a widely collaborative future with the animals in our care. Adopting and advancing ACT technology in the care of wildlife can translate to potential improvements in both welfare and conservation outcomes and increases in workplace efficiency and satisfaction. This makes a strong case for ongoing collaborative development in this promising field.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C. and J.H.; writing—review and editing, J.C. and J.H. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Gray, J. Zoo Ethics the Challenges of Compassionate Conservation; CSIRO Publishing: Clayton South, Australia, 2017. 2. Mellor, D.J.; Beausoleil, N.J. Extending the ‘Five Domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Anim. Welf. 2015, 24, 241–253. [CrossRef] 3. Veasey, J.S. In pursuit of peak animal welfare, the need to prioritize the meaningful over the measurable. Zoo Biol. 2017, 36, 413–425. [CrossRef][PubMed] 4. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA). Caring for Wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy. Available online: https://www.waza.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/WAZA- Animal-Welfare-Strategy-2015_Portrait.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2020). 5. Maple, T.; Perdue, B.M. Zoo Animal Welfare; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. 6. Coe, J.C. Embedding environmental enrichment into zoo animal facility design. In Proceedings of the Zoo Design 2017 Conference, Wroclaw, Poland, 5–7 April 2017; pp. 20–32. 7. Mellen, J.; Sevenich Macphee, M. Philosophy of environmental enrichment: Past, present, and future. Zoo Biol. 2001, 20, 211–226. [CrossRef] 8. Webber, S.; Carter, M.; Smith, W.; Vetere, F. Co-Designing with Orangutans: Enhancing the Design of Enrichment for Animals. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 6–10 July 2020; pp. 1713–1725. 9. Yerkes, R.M. Almost Human; Century: New York, NY, USA, 1925. 10. Hediger, H. Wild Animals in Captivity; Dover: New York, NY, USA, 1964. 11. Markowitz, H. Behavioral Enrichment in the Zoo; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1982. 12. Chamove, A.S.; Anderson, J.R. Examining environmental enrichment. In Housing, Care and Psychological Well-Being of Captive and Laboratory Primates; Segal, E.F., Ed.; Noyes Data Corporation: Park Ridge, NJ, USA, 1989; pp. 183–202. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 16 of 18

13. Mellen, J.D.; Stevens, V.J.; Markowitz, H.A.L. Environmental enrichment for Servals, Indian elephants and Canadian otters at Washington Park Zoo, Portland. Int. Zoo Yearb. 1981, 21, 196–201. [CrossRef] 14. Shape of Enrichment Inc. Available online: https://theshapeofenrichmentinc.wildapricot.org/ (accessed on 9 November 2020). 15. Shepherdson, D.J.; Mellen, J.D.; Hutchins, M. Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals; Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. 16. Young, R.J. Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals; Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2003. [CrossRef] 17. Coe, J. Naturalistic Enrichment. In Proceedings of the ARAZPA Conference, Perth, Australia, 26–31 March 2006. 18. Coe, J.C. Naturalizing habitats for captive primates. Zoo Biol. 1989, 8, 117–125. [CrossRef] 19. Hancocks, D. A Different Nature: The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their Uncertain Future; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2001. 20. Smithsonian’s National Zoo. Amazonia. Available online: https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/exhibits/ amazonia (accessed on 9 November 2020). 21. Bauert, M.R.; Furrer, S.C.; Zingg, R.; Steinmetz, H.W. Three years of experience running the Masoala Rainforest ecosystem at Zurich Zoo, Switzerland. Int. Zoo Yearb. 2007, 41, 203–216. [CrossRef] 22. Bronwyn, B.; Ford, J.C. Environmental Enrichment in Zoos: Melbourne Zoo’s Naturalistic Approach. Thylacinus 1992, 16, 12–17. 23. Ross, S.R.; Melber, L.M.; Gillespie, K.L.; Lukas, K.E. The Impact of a Modern, Naturalistic Exhibit Design on Visitor Behavior: A Cross-Facility Comparison. Visit. Stud. 2012, 15, 3–15. [CrossRef] 24. Lindholm, J. Zoo History. In Zookeeping: An Introduction to the Science and Technology; Irwin, M.D., Stoner, J.B., Cobaugh, A.M., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013; pp. 31–42. 25. Sommer, R. What Do We Learn at the Zoo? Nat. Hist. 1972, 81, 26–29. 26. Martin, C.F.; Shumaker, R.W. Computer tasks for great apes promote functional naturalism in a zoo setting. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction, Atlanta, GA, USA, 4–6 December 2018. 27. Matsuzawa, T. WISH cages: Constructing multiple habitats for captive chimpanzees. Primates 2020, 61, 139–148. [CrossRef] 28. Pryor, K. Karen Pryor on Behavior: Essays & Research; Sunshine Books, Inc.: North Bend, WA, USA, 1995. 29. Laule, G.E.; Desmond, T.J. Use of positive behavioral techniques in primates for husbandry and handling. In Proceedings of the AAZV Annual Conference Proceedings, South Padre Island, TX, USA, 21–26 October 1990; pp. 269–273. 30. Coe, J.C. Activity-Based Design and Management: New Opportunities for Apes and People. In Proceedings of the Apes: Challenges for the 21st Century, Brookfield, IL, USA, 10–13 May 2000; pp. 143–145. 31. Coe, J.C. Zoo Animal Rotation: New Opportunities from Home Range to Habitat Theater. In Proceedings of the AZA Annual Conference Proceedings, Wheeling, WV, USA; 1995; pp. 77–80. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/27347849/Zoo_Animal_Rotation_New_Opportunities_from_Home_ Range_to_Habitat_Theater (accessed on 8 December 2020). 32. Lukas, K.E.; Hoff, M.P.; Maple, T.L. Gorilla behavior in response to systematic alternation between zoo enclosures. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 81, 367–386. [CrossRef] 33. Walczak, J. Multi-Species Rotation: A New Concept for Animal Display and Management Louisville Zoo’s New Islands Exhibit. In Proceedings of the AZA Annual Conference Proceedings, Bethesda, MD, USA; 1995; pp. 543–544. 34. Coe, J.C. Next generation rotation exhibits, raceway networks and space to explore. In Proceedings of the ZAA Annual Conference Proceedings, Auckland, New Zeland, 25–28 March 2014. 35. Ragan, P.; Center for Great Apes, Wauchula, FL, USA. Personal communication, 2017. 36. Clay, A.W.; Perdue, B.M.; Gaalema, D.E.; Dolins, F.L.; Bloomsmith, M.A. The use of technology to enhance zoological parks. Zoo Biol. 2011, 30, 487–497. [CrossRef] 37. Brando, S.; Buchanan-Smith, H.M. The 24/7 approach to promoting optimal welfare for captive wild animals. Behav. Process. 2018, 156, 83–95. [CrossRef] Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 17 of 18

38. Hirskyj-Douglas, I.; Pons, P.; Read, J.; Jaen, J. Seven Years after the Manifesto: Literature Review and Research Directions for Technologies in Animal Computer Interaction. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2018, 2, 30. [CrossRef] 39. Edwards, M.C.; Hoy, J.M.; Fitzgibbon, S.; Murray, P.J. Bandicoot bunkers: Training wild-caught northern brown bandicoot (Isoodon macrourus) to use microchip-automated safe refuge. Aust. Mammal. 2020. [CrossRef] 40. Whitham, J.C.; Miller, L.J. Using technology to monitor and improve zoo animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2016, 25, 395–409. [CrossRef] 41. Webber, S.; Carter, M.; Smith, W.; Vetere, F. Interactive technology and human-animal encounters at the zoo. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2017, 98, 150–168. [CrossRef] 42. Perdue, B.M.; Clay, A.W.; Gaalema, D.E.; Maple, T.L.; Stoinski, T.S. Technology at the zoo: The influence of a touchscreen computer on orangutans and zoo visitors. Zoo Biol. 2012, 31, 27–39. [CrossRef] 43. Egelkamp, C.L.; Ross, S.R. A review of zoo-based cognitive research using touchscreen interfaces. Zoo Biol. 2019, 38, 220–235. [CrossRef] 44. Broda-Bahm, C. Think tank: Evolution and revolution. Mus. News 1997, 76, 44–48. 45. Dolins, F.L.; Schweller, K.; Milne, S. Technology advancing the study of animal cognition: Using virtual reality to present virtually simulated environments to investigate nonhuman primate spatial cognition. Curr. Zool. 2017, 63, 97–108. [CrossRef] 46. Coe, J.C. Giving Lab Animals Choices. Lab Anim. Mag. 1994, 24, 41–42. 47. Banhazi, T.M.; Black, J.L. Precision Livestock Farming: A Suite of Electronic Systems to Ensure the Application of Best Practice Management on Livestock Farms. Aust. J. Multi Discip. Eng. 2009, 7, 1–14. [CrossRef] 48. Feedpods: Automatic Feeder with App Control for Zoos, S.P.a.A. Feedpods. Available online: https: //www.feedpods.com (accessed on 9 November 2020). 49. Creighton, G.; Carrigy, K.; Dublin Zoo, Dublin, Ireland. Personal communication, 2020. 50. Dubois, A. Developing and evaluating the impact of an automatic food dispenser on Potos flavus and Vulpes zerda. RATEL J. Assoc. Br. Ir. Wild Anim. Keep. 2020, 47, 12–16. 51. Gray, M.; Meehan, J.; Ward, C.; Langdon, S.P.; Kunkler, I.H.; Murray, A.; Argyle, D. Implantable biosensors and their contribution to the future of precision medicine. Vet. J. 2018, 239, 21–29. [CrossRef] 52. Hoy, J.M.; Murray, P.J.; Tribe, A. The potential for microchip-automated technology to improve enrichment practices. Zoo Biol. 2010, 29, 586–599. [CrossRef] 53. Gibson, K.; Dallas Zoo Savanna Curator, Dallas, TX, USA. Personal communication, 2020. 54. Hoy, J.M. Microchip-Automated Husbandry as Enrichment for Captive Animals. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2010. 55. Sure Petcare. The Story so Far. Available online: https://www.surepetcare.com/en-gb/about/the-story-so-far (accessed on 27 August 2020). 56. Muns, S.J.; Hoy, J.M.; Murray, P.J. Microchips for macropods: First use of a microchip-automated door by a bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata). Zoo Biol. 2018, 37, 274–278. [CrossRef] 57. Edwards, M.C.; Hoy, J.M.; Fitzgibbon, S.; Murray, P.J. Training a wild-born marsupial to use microchip-automated devices: The brush-tailed phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) as proof of concept. Aust. Mammal. 2019, 41, 279–282. [CrossRef] 58. Harley, D.; Mawson, P.; Olds, L.; McFadden, M.; Hogg, C. The contribution of captive breeding in zoos to the conservation of Australia’s threatened fauna. In Recovering Australian Threatened Species: A Book of Hope; Garnett, S., Woinarski, J., Lindenmayer, D., Latch, P., Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2018; pp. 281–294. 59. Edwards, M.C.; Hoy, J.M.; Fitzgibbon, S.; Murray, P.J. Monitoring with microchips: Microchip-automated doors as a potential novel method for tracking the survival of released Northern Brown Bandicoots. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2020.[CrossRef] 60. Carter, M.; The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Personal communication, 2020. 61. Webber, S.; University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Personal communication, 2020. 62. Creighton, G.; Dublin Zoo, Dublin, Ireland. Personal communication, 2020. 63. Routman, E.; Korn, R. The Living World Revisited: Evaluation of high-tech exhibits at the St Louis Zoo. Museumedia 1994, 3, 3–5. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 92 18 of 18

64. Hoy, J.M.; Murray, P.J.; Tribe, A. Thirty years later: Enrichment practices for captive mammals. Zoo Biol. 2010, 29, 303–316. [CrossRef][PubMed] 65. Hosey, G.; Melfi, V. Human-animal bonds between zoo professionals and the animals in their care. Zoo Biol. 2012, 31, 13–26. [CrossRef][PubMed] 66. Coe, J.C. What’s the Message? Exhibit Design for Education. In Proceedings of the AAZPA Regional Conference Proceedings, Wheeling, WV, USA; 1987. Available online: http://joncoedesign.com/pub/PDFs/ WhatMessage1987.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2020). 67. French, F.; Mancini, C.; Sharp, H. More than human aesthetics. In Designing Interactive Systems, Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1661–1672. [CrossRef]

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).