Buffer
Zones and Animal Welfare: Analyzing the Anthropocentric Design of Animal
Habitats
Samiran Bera
Independent Researcher
Abstract:
The
traditional concept of animal cages is rooted in confinement and control, but
contemporary views on animal welfare demand a re-evaluation of how animals are
housed in human-designed spaces. This paper explores the politics behind
reshaping animal enclosures and challenges the anthropocentric model that
defines modern architecture for animals. By examining different architectural
forms, it reveals how new animal habitats within human spaces mask underlying
anthropocentric motives, raising critical questions about human-animal
relations today.
While animal enclosures were once designed
for control and safety, architectural innovations now aim to create more humane
and sustainable environments. Paul Dobraszczyk’s Animal Architecture: Beasts,
Buildings, and Us explores the intersection of human architecture and the
animal kingdom, promoting a shift in how we think about these spaces. However,
this paper argues that these new habitats merely create “buffer zones”—spaces
that neither truly belong to animals nor humans. These zones, driven by human
interests, disregard the animals’ natural environments. Following Raymond
Williams’ idea of emerging cultures, this research critiques how these new
spaces reflect a deeper suppression of animals under the guise of care,
reshaping animal habitats in alarming ways.
Keywords:
Animal Welfare, Anthropocentric Architecture, Buffer Zones, Emerging Cultures,
Human-Animal Relations,
The
concept of animal cages has long been associated with confinement, control, and
containment, serving human interests in both zoological and agricultural
contexts. However, the rise of ethical concerns regarding animal welfare has
prompted a critical re-evaluation of how animals are housed within
human-designed spaces. Contemporary architecture has responded to this shift by
proposing more humane and sustainable designs that aim to improve the lives of
animals in captivity. However, this transformation is not without its own set
of ethical and political dilemmas, especially when considering the underlying
anthropocentrism in these designs.
In
his book Animal Architecture: Beasts,
Buildings, and Us, Paul Dobraszczyk explores how human-formed architecture
interacts with the animal kingdom, examining the tension between human
interests and animal welfare. Dobraszczyk argues that while contemporary
architectural designs may aim to enrich animal habitats, they are still
fundamentally rooted in human desires and perspectives (34). This raises a
critical question: are these redesigned spaces genuinely intended to benefit
animals, or do they serve to reinforce human dominance over nature?
In
India, various architectural forms designed to house animals reflect a similar
anthropocentric perspective. New trends in animal enclosure designs often
create “buffer zones,” neutral spaces that are neither for animals nor for
humans. These zones, while purportedly offering animals a more natural
environment, often fail to replicate the animals' true habitats, instead
reinforcing a sense of separation between human and animal spaces. As Raymond
Williams notes, emerging cultural forms often challenge or transform existing
structures, but they can also carry forward the power dynamics of the past (
121-127). In this case, the emerging culture of animal care through
architecture continues to prioritize human interests, disguising it as a
concern for animal welfare.
This
paper aims to critique the politics of these new architectural forms and how
they reshape human-animal relations in India. It argues that despite the shift
toward more “human” enclosures, these spaces ultimately perpetuate a system of
animal suppression under the guise of care.
The
term Anthropocentric architecture
refers to the design of spaces that prioritize human needs, desires, and
perspectives, often to the detriment of other species. In the context of animal
enclosures, this architectural approach canters on human interpretations of
what is suitable for animals, rather than considering the animals’ natural
habitats and behaviours. As Mike Hansell points out in Built by Animals, human-built environments are often based on our
understanding of nature, but they lack the intricate nuances of structures
created by animals themselves (72). This suggests that while humans may design
enclosures to imitate nature, they ultimately fail to account for the
complexities of the animal experience.
Paul
Dobraszczyk, in Animal Architecture:
Beasts, Buildings, and Us, furthers this argument by explaining how even
contemporary efforts to create more humane enclosures still reflect an
anthropocentric view. He argues that “architecture for animals is designed more
for human perception and satisfaction than for the actual needs of animals”
(56). These enclosures, although intended to provide animals with a better
quality of life, are based on human interpretations of what constitutes a
"natural" environment. For example, zoos often create artificial
landscapes that mimic the wild but are still fundamentally controlled,
structured, and maintained by humans, reinforcing a separation between humans
and animals.
Both
Hansell and Dobraszczyk highlight how the architecture designed for animals
under the guise of welfare often perpetuates an anthropocentric agenda. While
these spaces may appear to prioritize animal welfare, they ultimately serve
human interests—whether aesthetic, educational, or recreational. As a result,
the so-called “buffer zones” between human and animal spaces fail to consider
the animal’s true ecological needs, reflecting a broader issue within
anthropocentric architecture.
In
the context of this research, animal welfare refers to the ethical and humane
treatment of animals, particularly in the design and construction of their
living spaces. Traditionally, animal welfare focused on providing basic needs
such as food, water, and protection from harm. However, with growing awareness
of animals' psychological and emotional well-being, the concept has expanded to
include more complex considerations, such as enrichment, socialization, and the
quality of life within captivity.
Modern
architectural innovations in animal enclosures aim to address these broader
aspects of animal welfare by designing spaces that mimic natural habitats,
encourage natural behaviours, and reduce stress (Dobraszczyk 41). These designs
attempt to move beyond simple containment, offering animals more space,
opportunities for exploration, and environments that are visually and
physically stimulating. However, despite these improvements, the underlying
issue of anthropocentrism remains. The very act of creating “human” enclosures
within human-dominated spaces raises questions about whether these efforts are
truly focused on the welfare of animals or are merely an extension of human
control.
In
India, the creation of “buffer zones” as part of animal welfare efforts
reflects this tension. While these zones are intended to provide animals with
more natural surroundings, they are still fundamentally shaped by human needs
and perspectives. As a result, they may fail to meet the true welfare needs of
the animals, prioritizing aesthetics and human comfort instead. This highlights
a critical paradox in contemporary approaches to animal welfare: the attempt to
improve animal care may inadvertently reinforce the very systems of control it
seeks to overcome.
In
the context of contemporary animal architecture, the term “buffer zone” refers
to a space that is intended to mediate between human and animal habitats. These
zones are designed to create a sense of shared space, yet they often remain
anthropocentric, serving human interests more than truly addressing the needs
of animals. While the concept of buffer zones might appear to foster
coexistence, they reinforce the human-animal boundary and reflect the control
humans exert over animal environments.
Timothy
Morton’s theory of ecological thought critiques such artificial separations
between humans and nature, suggesting that these zones create an “ambient”
division that falsely implies harmony while perpetuating ecological domination
(38-45). In The Companion Species
Manifesto, Donna Haraway also highlights how human-animal boundaries are
continually reinforced through spatial structures, even when framed as
collaborative or protective. She argues that “companion species” are often
positioned in ways that underscore human control, even in spaces meant for
their care (4-6).
Paul
Dobraszczyk, in Animal Architecture:
Beasts, Buildings, and Us, reflects on how these architectural innovations,
while seemingly more humane, continue to mask an underlying anthropocentrism.
Dobraszczyk describes buffer zones as “neutral spaces created by humans for
animals, but which ultimately serve neither” (68). These zones, though designed
to mimic natural environments, are constrained by human-centered aesthetics and
functionality, limiting their capacity to truly reflect the animals' needs.
In
reality, buffer zones operate as “ecological traps” where animals are confined
under the guise of care and protection, unable to experience genuine freedom or
autonomy. These zones blur the line between captivity and conservation,
reinforcing the human-centric model of control and care in contemporary
architecture.
In
the context of architectural spaces designed for animals, the term
“human-animal relationship” refers to the complex and often unequal
interactions between humans and animals within the built environment. This
relationship is not merely about coexistence but also reflects human dominance,
as seen in the way spaces are designed to accommodate animals while maintaining
human control. Timothy Morton’s theory of ecological thought offers a useful
framework for understanding this dynamic. Morton argues that humans are always
entangled with the nonhuman world in ways that defy clear boundaries(40-46). In
the design of animal enclosures, this entanglement is evident in the creation
of “buffer zones”—spaces that attempt to simulate natural habitats but are
ultimately shaped by human intentions. These zones, while appearing to
prioritize animal welfare, often reinforce human control over the animals’
living conditions.
Donna
Haraway, in The Companion Species
Manifesto, also explores human-animal boundaries, emphasizing that humans
and animals are co-constitutive, meaning they shape each other’s lives and
existences (4). This co-constitutive relationship, however, is complicated by
the power imbalance that exists when humans design spaces for animals. In the
architectural examples cited by Paul Dobraszczyk in Animal Architecture, such as modern zoos or urban animal shelters,
animals are often placed in environments that reflect human ideals rather than
their natural habitats (57). These spaces are meant to “care” for animals, but
they also maintain clear boundaries between human and nonhuman spaces,
reinforcing a hierarchical relationship.
Thus,
while efforts to redesign animal enclosures may reflect a growing awareness of
animal welfare, they also perpetuate an anthropocentric view that prioritizes
human needs. The “buffer zones” discussed in Dobraszczyk’s work embody this
tension, serving as spaces of supposed care that, in reality, maintain human
dominance over animals.
The
term “emerging culture” refers to new cultural practices and ideas that develop
in response to changing social, political, and environmental conditions. In the
context of animal architecture, this concept is particularly relevant as it
highlights the ongoing transformation in how humans perceive and interact with
animals within built environments. Raymond Williams emphasizes that emerging
cultures often arise from the need to challenge or redefine existing structures
and ideologies (123). This can be seen in the contemporary architectural trends
aimed at creating more humane animal enclosures, which reflect a shift toward
recognizing animal welfare as a critical concern.
Paul
Dobraszczyk, in Animal Architecture:
Beasts, Buildings, and Us, explores how architectural practices can embody
emerging cultures that prioritize animal well-being. He discusses innovative
designs that strive to create environments that mimic natural habitats, thereby
promoting the psychological and physical health of animals (98). For instance,
the development of open-air enclosures in zoos reflects an emergent cultural
understanding that values the needs of animals over traditional containment
practices. These spaces aim to provide animals with a semblance of freedom and
agency, challenging the longstanding paradigm of confinement.
However,
while these designs represent a progressive shift, they can also mask
underlying anthropocentric motives. As Williams notes, emerging cultures often
retain elements of the past, which may include the ongoing dominance of human
interests in shaping animal habitats (123-124). For example, while a zoo may
implement larger, more naturalistic enclosures, the fundamental goal of
displaying animals for human entertainment remains unchanged. Thus, the concept
of emerging culture in animal architecture reveals both the potential for
progress and the challenges of genuinely prioritizing animal welfare in a
human-centered world.
In
conclusion, the exploration of animal architecture through the lens of emerging
culture reveals a complex interplay between evolving societal values and
entrenched anthropocentric practices. As contemporary architectural designs
increasingly aim to create more humane and sustainable environments for
animals, they reflect a growing recognition of animal welfare as a significant
concern. However, this transformation is not without its contradictions. While
innovative enclosures may enhance the quality of life for some animals, they
often continue to prioritize human interests, perpetuating a sense of control
and dominance over nature.
Paul
Dobraszczyk’s examination of animal architecture underscores the need for a
critical perspective on these developments. Although new designs can offer more
enriching habitats, they must be scrutinized for their underlying motivations
and potential to maintain existing power dynamics. As Raymond Williams
highlights, emerging cultures have the capacity to challenge old paradigms but
can also inadvertently sustain them.
Ultimately,
this research encourages a re-evaluation of our relationship with animals
within architectural contexts. To genuinely promote animal welfare, it is
essential to move beyond mere aesthetics or functionality in design, embracing
a more holistic approach that prioritizes the needs and rights of animals as
sentient beings. By acknowledging the intricate connections between architecture,
culture, and animal welfare, we can strive for a future where animal habitats
are not just human-imposed constructs but authentic environments that foster
coexistence and respect for all living beings.
Work
Cited
Dobraszczyk,
Paul. Animal Architecture: Beasts,
Buildings, and Us. Reaktion Books, 2022.
Hansell,
Mike. Built by Animals: The Natural
History of Animal Architecture. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Haraway,
Donna. The Companion Species Manifesto:
Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press, 2003.
Morton,
Timothy. The Ecological Thought.
Harvard University Press, 2012.
Williams,
Raymond. “Dominant, residual, and Emergent”. Marxism and Literature. Oxford University Press, 1977.