Entral Zoo Nepal Zoo Review

Central Zoo, Nepal – Zoo Review

The RIGHT-tourism Zoo Review is a quick but informed guide to the quality of places where the public can see animals, including zoos, dolphinariums and other attractions.

We’ve used a range of measures, taken from information available online, to judge how well the animals at the particular zoo or animal attraction are looked after. More than just a ‘review’, the results are actually a Quality Index which will allow tourists and the attractions themselves to judge how well the attractions are performing.

Please note, the information we use is taken from what we assume to be genuine and factually correct comments from reviews, blogs and news stories. If there are factual inaccuracies, please let us know and we will make the relevant changes.

RIGHT-tourism Zoo Review Rating for: Central Zoo, Nepal

Zoo_Review_Stamp_Average

Summary

Central Zoo in Kathmandu, which houses more than 700 animals of 108 different species, is the only zoo in Nepal. The zoo has received mixed reviews: some of the reviewers who were expecting the worst were surprised and relieved to see animals in comfort, while others were critical of the zoo for not being of international standard. Their main concern was the size of the cages.

The reviewers write how they were disappointed to see tiny animal enclosures which hardly matched the habitat required for the animals. On the other hand, some reviewers express that their visit to Central Zoo was ‘awesome’, ‘a fun experience’, ‘surprisingly impressive’ and as such appreciate Nepalese efforts in making the zoo a good place to visit. Our review shows that the Central Zoo in Nepal does well in some areas but some improvements would be welcome.

Central Zoo, Nepal

Section One: Social Media and News

This section looks at how the attraction is rated by people on key reviewing sites, and in blogs/the media. The reviews are often not concerned with animal welfare, so this section has a lower influence on the overall mark than other sections. However, it is an important measure of the way the attraction is viewed by visitors.

Number of negative TripAdvisor reviews

For the most recent 20 reviews which appear on the official TripAdvisor page for the attraction, how many mention animal welfare in a negative way. The score is worked out as a percentage (see method below).

Number of negative reviews:  12/20

Score: 1 Point

There were only 20 TripAdvisor reviews in total. Out of 12 negative reviews, the visitors had mixed feelings in terms of the zoo’s situation. Some of the visitors who wrote negative reviews in terms of animal welfare as well as cleanliness, while others expressed that they found the zoo better than their expectations and how they were pleasantly surprised by the variety of animal species in the zoo. They were of the opinion that the zoo, which is small by western standards, is comparatively doing a good job considering its resources.

Number of negative Google reviews

For the most recent 20 reviews which appear on the Google search page for the attraction, how many mention animal welfare in a negative way. The score is worked out as a percentage (see method below).

Number of negative reviews: 0/20

Score: 2.5 Point

There are a total of 22 Google reviews from the visitors. A total of 11 visitors considered it as a nice place. The rest of the visitors did not write any reviews. Among these, a total of six visitors rated it with 4 stars and 2 rated it with 3 stars and the one with 1 star. The reviewers do not mention animal welfare at all. The visitors seem happy with the only zoo in Nepal.

Number of negative news articles and blogs

For the most recent 10 independent blogs or news articles for the attraction, how many mention animal welfare in a negative way. The score is worked out as a percentage (see method below).

Number of negative mentions: 4/10

Score: 3 point

Out of the 10 blogs and news reports, a total of 4 reviewers had negative experiences of the Central Zoo in Nepal. They were mainly concerned about the limited space for the animals. One of the reviewers mentioned how s/he was disappointed to see heavy mesh wire cages and bars everywhere. A news report on Central Zoo Nepal covered a story on Central Zoo facing an alarming death rate among its captive animals since the zoo had lost 191 animals in just a one year.

Total Score for Social Media and News Section:  6.5/10

Section Two: General Quality of Life

This section looks generally at how the animals, as a whole, appear to be treated. It is based on the internationally recognised Five Freedoms, which focus on key aspects of animal welfare including feeding, housing, health, behaviour and protection from fear/distress.

Each item is scored as either two points for a Yes, zero points for a No or one point for Possibly. (The Possibly category also includes situations where the answer would be Sometimes; or if the answer is unknown).

Absence of prolonged hunger and/or thirst

Score: No   Points: 0

A few of the reviewers complained that the turtle enclosures ‘didn’t have an ounce of water in them’.

Being fed an appropriate diet based on their wild diet

Score: No   Points: 0

A reviewer saw two sloth bears who appeared to be eating some wood. The other reviewer also saw a man feeding cheese balls to a goat.

Ease of movement within living quarters

Score: No Points: 0

Many of the reviewers found almost all of the enclosures not suited to the wild habitat of the animals.

Enrichment in living quarters (eg climbing frame, toys etc)

Score: Possibly   Points: 1

Absence of injuries or disease

Score: No Points: 0

One of the reviewers saw a few of the birds with broken legs and limping around the enclosures.

Absence of pain (eg being not being chained, or not being hit by staff)

Score: Yes Points: 2

The reviewers do not report chained animals or any incidents of animals being hit by the staff. Rather, there are reports of animals being well cared for. One of the reviewers mentions that the animal care standards in this zoo are surprisingly high, with a dedicated and compassionate vet.

Ability to express natural and social behaviours in living quarters

Score: No Points: 0

Since the living quarters are small, it is expected that the animals are not getting natural habitat to express their natural and social behaviours.

Good human-animal relationship with staff

Score: Possibly   Points 1

Absence of general fear/distress/apathy

Score: No Points: 0

Ability to seek privacy/refuge from humans and other animals

Score: No   Points: 0

Total Score for General Quality of Life:  4/20

Section Three: Interaction with the Public

This section focusses on the way the attraction allows the public to touch, play with, photograph, feed or otherwise interact with the animals. The focus is on whether or not the interactions are causing harm or stress/discomfort to the animals, and if they could be dangerous to the public.

Each item is scored as either two points for a Yes, zero points for a No or one point for Possibly. (The Possibly category also includes situations where the answer would be Sometimes; or if the answer is unknown).

The interactions are not harmful in any way for the animal’s welfare

Score: Possibly   Points: 1

The interactions are not harmful in any way for the public’s welfare (any previous history of dangerous incidents)

Score: Possibly   Points: 0

One of the reviewers mentioned that s/he saw a little kid almost get his arm ripped off by a primate.

The animals are not forced to interact with the public – they can refuse

Score: Possibly Points: 1

The public are not allowed to handle the animals and touch them

Score: Possibly   Points: 1

The interactions are supervised by staff and in an educational context

Score: Possibly   Points: 1

A few reviewers mentioned that they hardly see any staff during their visit inside the zoo. On the other hand, one of the reviewers mention that the schools use the zoo extensively for education – there is a very good curriculum in place for visiting students. In this case, it is expected that the interactions are supervised by the staff during educational trips.

Total Score for Interaction with the Public:  4/10

 

Section Four: Conservation and Education

This section looks at whether or not the attraction has a focus on conservation – for example does it support animals in the wild through breeding programmes, research or donations; and education – are visitors informed about the animals so they are not simply seen as objects for human amusement/entertainment.

Each item is scored as either two points for a Yes, zero points for a No or one point for Possibly. (The Possibly category also includes situations where the answer would be Sometimes; or if the answer is unknown).

Are some of the animals part of international breeding programs?

Score: Possibly   Points 1

Is there evidence of them having released animals into the wild?

Score: Possibly   Points 1

Do they actively undertake scientific research into conservation/behaviour of their animals?

Score: Yes   Points: 2

A blog mentions the efforts  of a conservation organisation in making this zoo a centre for conservation, education and wildlife research in Nepal.

Does the attraction give money to conservation or animal protection programmes?

Score: Possibly   Points: 1

Does the attraction provide educational talks or written displays to inform visitors about the animals?

Score: Possibly Points: 1

Total Score for Conservation and Education:  6/10

 

Zoo Review Final Score for Central Zoo Nepal:  20.5/50

Rating: Average – the attraction scores well in some areas but improvements would be welcome

Do you agree or disagree with this Zoo Review? Please let us know in the Comments below.
If you are from this attraction and would like to comment on this Zoo Review, we’ll be happy to publish your response. Please email info@careforthewild.com or click
here

Notes

  1. This report was compiled on: 21st November 2014 by Sangita Shrestha. Find out more about our Zoo Review campaign here.
  2. Zoo Review Final Score is given out of 50 as a sum of the four sections, then a RIGHT-tourism Zoo Review rating is awarded based on this score:

0-10: Unacceptable – the animal welfare at this attraction appears to be of a very low standard and a cause of great concern
11-20: Poor – it appears that significant improvement is needed in order to meet welfare standards
21-30: Average – the attraction scores well in some areas but improvements would be welcome
31-40: Good – Public opinion and animal welfare measures suggest that the animals here are looked after well
41-50: Best in Class – the welfare of the animals appears to be of a very high standard

  1. TripAdvisor and Google scores are worked out by dividing the number of negative welfare reviews by the total (20) and multiplying by 100 to give a percentage, then giving a score out of 2.5 as follows:

0-19% negative 2.5 points
20-39% 2 points
40-59% 1.5 points
60-79% 1 point
80-89% 0.5 point
90–100% 0 points

  1. News and blog scores are worked out by dividing the number of negative welfare reviews by the total (10) and multiplying by 100 to give a percentage, then giving a score out of 5 as follows:

0-19% negative 5 points
20-39% 4 points
40-59% 3 points
60-79% 2 point
80-89% 1 point
90–100% 0 points

 





Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

Subject

Your Message