India’s Zoos Emerge as Unexpected Powerhouses in the Global Fight to Save Biodiversity

India’s network of zoological parks, long dismissed by critics as mere menageries for weekend entertainment, may be one of the country’s most underappreciated weapons against the global biodiversity crisis. A new study published in Discover Conservation has, for the first time, systematically measured how well Indian zoos contribute to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the landmark agreement adopted at the 2022 UN biodiversity conference that aims to halt and reverse the loss of nature by 2030. The findings suggest that these institutions, when properly governed and funded, function not simply as cages for charismatic animals but as genuine nodes of ecological infrastructure woven into the fabric of India’s cities.

The research team, led by Brij Kishor Gupta and Smitha D. Gnanaolivu of the Greens Zoological, Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre in Gujarat, together with Sanjay Kumar Shukla of India’s Central Zoo Authority, analyzed 23 zoos drawn from the country’s 156 CZA-recognized facilities. Using a stratified sampling design, they captured the full spectrum of Indian zoo scales: nine large, eight medium, three small and three mini zoos, spread across India’s biogeographic zones. Data came from the zoos’ annual reports and master plans submitted under the Recognition of Zoo Rules, covering everything from designated green area and plant species counts to captive inventories, free-ranging wildlife records and conservation breeding program participation. The authors then tested a series of hypotheses linking institutional characteristics, such as zoo size, green space and visitor numbers, to measurable biodiversity outcomes aligned with specific targets of the global framework.

The strongest signal to emerge from the statistical analysis concerns conservation breeding. A chi-square test revealed a significant association between the presence of a Conservation Breeding Program and the number of threatened species held in a facility, with chi-square equal to 7.35, one degree of freedom and a p-value of 0.0067. Zoos running breeding programs housed disproportionately more threatened mammals, birds and reptiles than institutions without them. In practical terms, this means the zoos most committed to ex situ conservation are also the ones shouldering the greatest responsibility for species on the edge. India’s track record here is genuinely impressive: gharial breeding at Nandankanan Zoological Park and the Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, along with mugger crocodile recovery in the National Chambal Sanctuary, has boosted wild populations by more than 500 percent since the 1970s, enabling reintroductions that pulled these ancient reptiles back from the brink.

The study also documents how far ahead of the curve India’s zoo governance actually is. The Central Zoo Authority, established in 1992 under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, launched scientifically managed breeding programs for the red panda, Asiatic lion and gharial years before ex situ conservation became a formal pillar of international biodiversity policy. Its National Studbook Project, run with the Wildlife Institute of India, compiles pedigree records to guide genetic management, tracking founder representation and inbreeding across generations. The CZA has identified 73 endangered species for its breeding program, each with a species-specific recovery plan tied to protected area management and reintroduction strategies, an approach that mirrors the One Plan Approach now championed by the global conservation community. A hub-and-spoke system divides labor between Coordinating Zoos, which operate off-display breeding centers, and Participating Zoos, which support the network with upgraded enclosures and husbandry.

Perhaps the most surprising finding concerns what lives outside the cages. The CZA mandates that at least 30 percent of every zoo’s total area be maintained as dedicated green space, and the data show this rule pays ecological dividends. Pearson correlation analysis revealed a moderate positive relationship between designated green area and free-ranging mammal richness (r = 0.51, p = 0.030) and bird richness (r = 0.47, p = 0.048), with regression models confirming green area as a significant predictor for both groups. In other words, Indian zoos function as de facto urban nature reserves, sheltering small mammals, birds, reptiles and invertebrates that would otherwise be squeezed out by sprawling cities. Reptiles, however, told a different story: their richness showed no meaningful link to green area size, consistent with research showing that reptile diversity in urban landscapes depends more on microhabitat features, thermal refugia and substrate complexity than on patch area alone. Saving reptiles, the authors suggest, will require targeted habitat engineering rather than simply more land.

The economics of these green oases are staggering. A study by The Energy and Resources Institute estimated that the National Zoological Park in Delhi, roughly 176 acres wedged between the 16th-century Purana Qila fort and Humayun’s Tomb, delivers ecosystem services worth 422.76 crore rupees annually, with one-time services such as carbon storage and land value valued at 55,209.45 crore rupees. The zoo supports free-ranging jackals and colonies of painted storks amid one of the densest urban landscapes on Earth. Similar stories play out at the Assam State Zoo cum Botanical Garden, embedded within the Hengrabari Reserve Forest in Guwahati, and the Indira Gandhi Zoological Park in Visakhapatnam, which spreads across 625 acres of the Kambalakonda Reserve Forest in the Eastern Ghats and draws around ten million visitors a year.

Not every hypothesis survived contact with the data, and the failures are as instructive as the successes. Zoo size showed only a weak, statistically insignificant correlation with captive species diversity, and while an ANOVA found overall differences in species counts across zoo categories, post-hoc Tukey tests revealed no significant pairwise differences. Bigger, it turns out, is not automatically better; funding streams, institutional priorities and donor appeal for particular species appear to shape collections more than facility scale. Likewise, plant species richness showed no relationship with green area size or zoo category, suggesting zoos are not yet leveraging their green zones for climate resilience as envisioned under the framework’s Target 8. The authors argue that zoos, with their horticultural expertise and living plant collections, are uniquely positioned to model high-value nature-based solutions through multi-layered plantings, water-retention features and climate-adapted species selection, but only if green space is designed ecologically rather than merely designated on a map.

The education findings carry a blunt message for zoo managers worldwide. Visitor numbers correlated only moderately with education program participation (rho = 0.423, p = 0.0498), and regression analysis showed that annual footfall explained barely five percent of the variation in educational engagement. Packing more people through the gates does not automatically create a more nature-literate public. The study calls for a shift from transactional to transformative education: curriculum-aligned programs for schools, multilingual interpretation, accessible design, digital outreach and participatory platforms where visitors join citizen science projects, habitat restoration and enrichment tasks. India’s Vision Plan for Zoos 2021 to 2031 embraces this direction through its concept of Participatory Zoos, embedding local communities, academic institutions and traditional knowledge holders into conservation programming, an inclusive governance model that aligns with the framework’s emphasis on equitable benefit-sharing.

Challenges remain, and the authors do not sugarcoat them. Free-ranging species data are largely self-reported with no standardized methodology, records vary in completeness across institutions, and the study captures only a single snapshot in time. Genetic bottlenecks persist in some captive populations, notably the Asiatic lion program at Sakkarbaug Zoo in Gujarat, though meticulous pedigree management and transfers with other centers, including the participatory breeding work at the Greens centre, are working to widen the gene pool. Long-term captive care is expensive, with large mammals costing between 15,000 and 75,000 dollars annually, and many animals raised in captivity cannot survive release because critical survival behaviors have been lost. The authors also flag tensions between conservation and indigenous rights, warning that policy shifts such as the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act of 2023 risk marginalizing communities like Karnataka’s Soliga tribe, whose traditional ecological knowledge has protected sacred groves habitat for the Indian giant squirrel.

What emerges from this analysis is a blueprint for reimagining zoos as active components of national biodiversity strategy rather than isolated islands of captivity. The authors argue that Indian zoos should be formally integrated into national and state biodiversity action plans, positioned as vital nodes bridging ex situ stewardship, public education and nature-based urban development. With mandated green space requirements, a statutory breeding network spanning 73 endangered species, renewable energy mandates and waste management rules already in force, India’s regulatory architecture offers a template other nations could adapt. The ultimate measure of success, the study concludes, will not be footfall or enclosure counts but the ability to fuse ecological design, inclusive governance, strategic partnerships and rigorous impact assessment, transforming zoos from reactive caretakers into proactive engines of species recovery in the planet’s sixth mass extinction.

Subject of Research: The contribution of Indian zoos to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework targets

Article Title: Assessing the contribution of Indian zoos to achieving international biodiversity conservation goals

Article References: Gupta, B. K., Gnanaolivu, S. D., & Shukla, S. K. (2025). Assessing the contribution of Indian zoos to achieving international biodiversity conservation goals. Discover Conservation, 2(1), Article 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44353-025-00063-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44353-025-00063-x

Keywords: Indian zoos, Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, Central Zoo Authority, conservation breeding, ex situ conservation, urban biodiversity, green spaces, biodiversity education, species recovery, gharial, nature-based solutions, urban ecology