I think that the cost/benefit ratio (where 'cost' is all the keeper labor, prep, knowledge required, and risk of hassle/failure; and 'benefit' is improved animal well being on some specific metrics) is much higher for naturalistic enclosures than it is for "full bioactive", for the species under discussion here.
Also, keep in mind that no enclosure ever created has been anything close to a 'self sustaining ecosystems'. (Look up 'Biosphere 2' for context.) Ignoring the catchphrases and focusing on exactly which element of the enclosure design provides what benefit is a good way forward, in my opinion.
Reply With Quote