OK, a lot for me to answer about my (our) statistical analysis, comparing the 5 top zoos in the USA. I'll try to do so in one posting, but I warn you, this may be long!
I think that the ranking was significantly flawed for various reasons and the whole ranking reaks of pseudoscience on a level that would make Sheridan jealous.
Yikes, I'm being compared to Anthony Sheridan. As unpopular as he is among some of you, that makes me nervous. But I'll stop and say I have respect for Sheridan and have enjoyed his books. While I would do the ratings differently, his ratings are not bad. The one big difference between his ratings and ours is that what we did was only for fun between the 3 of us. You will not see our ratings in a book, and frankly, I even hesitated to let SnowLeopard bring them up here, knowing the controversy they would ignite. But lintworm, our ratings system is not pseudoscience. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm bragging about my credentials, but I do know what I'm talking about when using statistics.
From a statistical point of view a sample size of three is extremely limited and even taxonomists will have problems accepting such an analysis. Additionally it would be very interesting to see how the 3 sampling points differed in their ranking of all categories and what would thus be the standard error of all scores.
Valid criticism, though once again, we were doing this for fun. But then again, it's not exactly true that our sample size was n=3. Each of us did 28 ratings, so it could be said that n=3*28= 84, though that introduces a high amount of inter-rater correlation. On top of that, the 3 of us have all been to hundreds of zoos worldwide, with SL and me having been to 300-400, so we have a lot of experience evaluating zoos. If you knew the 3 of us, you'd know that we have 3 very different viewpoints in looking at and rating zoos.
But to address this small sample size, if anyone out there would like to join us and have your ratings added to ours, let me know and I'll send you a ballot. The only requirements are that you have to have been to all 5 (San Diego, Omaha, St.Louis, Columbus, Bronx) of the zoos (within the past 10 years), and you have to pledge that your ratings will honest and not aimed to help or hurt any of the zoos.
Additionally did each zoonerd rank independently or did you come up with an average by ways of discussion, the first would be much preferable
We definitely did our ratings completely independently. But we did reserve the right to change a rating or two when we saw very different numbers from the other 2. This resulted when we might have forgotten a key new animal or key new exhibit that's been added perhaps since our last visit to the zoo. In such a situation, yes, we might have modified our ratings with more information.
I would respectfully challenge your assertion that this exercise is meaningful for ranking zoos. Statistical analysis is only as good as the data input into it. Your data is all subjective opinion. You are asserting that your opinions are superior to those of others because you have attached numbers to them, but this is not intellectually honest, as it only reflects your opinions. The statistical analysis confirms your opinions because it is all based on your opinions, as it would be of anyone's opinions that you feed into your model.
While you are correct that our ratings were subjective, one principle of ranking statistics is that if you accumulate enough of them, they become both more objective and more normally distributed. And we are NOT asserting that our opinions are superior to anyone else's, only that we did this analysis WITHOUT aiming for a particular result. We were open to whatever the final numbers would tell us.
The main problem is however on how you decide how to give a grade for each individual category (and how you minimize double counting the same thing in multiple categories, as there is some potential overlap). I assume that you had the assumption that more was better in most categories (except exhibits), which is a very debatable assumption (though maybe there is a cultural divide between the US and Europe).
Fully half of your analysis is fully species based. Are they rated solely by the number of species exhibited OR is there also a subjective basis on how they are displayed? For instance if a zoo has gorilla chimp bonobo 2 (or more!)
orangutan and 3 gibbons are they rated really really high even if kept in barren cages with a couple of tires? Or does a zoo that displays gorillas and chimps only but with spectacular exhibits do better?
With the majority of your categories on animals and exhibits, I am curious which is given priority when assigning a score, the size of the collection or the quality of the habitat? I'm not suggesting that your or any of your panel would disregard animal welfare, but how do you balance between the visitor experience of seeing the animal versus the quality of the habitat for the animal?
Good questions about how we came up with our ratings. First, we saw no problem with double counting. A good African elephant exhibit should help a zoo in its elephant rating, as well as its African animals rating. A giant panda exhibit helps the zoo with its Bonus Animals, Bears, and Asian Animals ratings. Secondly, hopefully you noticed most of the species categories are named "Animals & Exhibits" so both were important to us. Yes, having more animals from a category is good, but also are they "key" or important animals for most visitors. That is, most visitors will regard seeing hippos and rhinos as more important than seeing palm civets. And of course we strongly considered the Exhibit Quality of the exhibits, meaning are they visually pleasing to visitors, are they well themed, and most importantly, are they good for the animals -- so yes, m30t, we did strongly consider animal welfare.
To be honest those 28 categories don't mean much to me. It's great that that's how you all chose to come to your own conclusions. It's great you all have Master's Degrees. It's great you all published a book. At the end of the day it doesn't make your opinion law, it just means more people will hear yours. Your categories and your opinion are not objective to anyone other than yourself and those who agree with you.
But saying you have a Masters degree in statistics, so the analysis must be sound, is just an Argument from Authority.
Again, sorry if I sound like I'm bragging. I just thought some of you might appreciate it if you knew an actual school-trained, experienced statistician was behind this analysis.
On a similar note, you include an option for rides, which I know can be a divisive issue for some members of here. How does your analysis account for the tension between guests who want to view animals and guests who want to go on rides?
If anything, Rides were downgraded, as they are only 1 of 28 categories. So the ride-haters out there should not dislike our ratings for that reason!
I see the reasoning for why these categories were chosen, but this inherently applies that a good zoo needs a big collection with animals from all continents (except Europe
). I see several ways to disagree with such an assessment, as it very much favors San Diego over smaller zoos like Woodland Park Zoo.
Just an example. Many of y'all on Zoochat rank the North Carolina zoo as in the top 10 zoos in the US. It is my home zoo and I love it, but under your standards it would likely rank as one of the lowest in the US.It only has animals from 2 continents, .......
On the contrary, lintworm, a zoo that has a very "complete" animal collection (but not necessarily a big collection) would rate highest, and then only if those animals are displayed in high quality exhibits. This may surprise you, nczoofan, but I am also a fan of your home zoo and personally regard it as possibly a Top 10 in the US zoo. I actually think the North Carolina Zoo would do quite well with our ratings system. Sure, it would be at the bottom for Australian, Asian, and South American animals, but it would likely do quite well for almost all other categories. You have a great zoo there!
I am also puzzled by Omaha's ranking, as it is always ranked extremely high, even though a lot of the enclosures are substandard for the inhabitants (and some are outright despicable).
Puzzled? Really? I'm puzzled that more people don't recognize the excellence of Omaha! Their "big 3" exhibits (Lied Jungle, Kingdom of the Night, Desert Dome) are all among the Top 20 zoo exhibits in the nation. They have the best zoo aquarium, probably best insectarium, and so much more! And now they're opening a new top-rated children's zoo! Sure they have a few substandard exhibits, but this isn't "The Weakest Link". Those weaker exhibits are completely covered by their many excellent exhibits.
I think that if you really want to rank zoos (which I don't see a big point in, except doing it for fun) and do it somewhat realistically, you will have to rank based on conservation, education, entertainment and research. These are the 4 areas that modern zoos they stand for, so they should be evaluated based on them. I would say that entertainment is still the most important thing, as otherwise the zoo wouldn't exist, so you could give different weightings for each category.
What is objective is that conservation plays a major role in the visitor experience, at least at Bronx. The zoo bases their collection off of their conservation programs, and as such conservation dictates what species visitors will see. Signage and information about their conservation initiatives are also plastered all over the zoo, they even play videos about it in the line for the monorail, in Madagascar!, and in CGF. The guide that runs the monorail talks about the zoo's programs and some of the work they've done in Asia as part of the ride. The $6 admission fee to CGF goes towards the WCS's programs in the Congo. The zoo even has a well-publicised wildlife area around the Bronx River on their grounds. One cannot visit the zoo without being exposed to conservation, it is the biggest aspect of the visitor experience other than the exhibits and the animals themselves.
Conservation in my opinion is the only justification for a modern zoo (though I might make an exception for rescue shelters). It should be given the most weight in any ranking of zoos. It is not the entire weight - animal care and exhibit design are vitally important as well. But any ranking that does not consider conservation is a ranking I would pay no attention to.
I hope no one here thinks I'm saying conservation (or education or research) is unimportant. I've said many time, they are vitally important! I've only said that they are not important to the visitor experience. I am a travel guidebook author and my focus is the visitor. That doesn't mean I don't care about the animals, and quite frankly, most visitors would not enjoy their experience if they are seeing less than well-cared for animals. But in my hundreds of zoo visitor around the world, I've very rarely seen a visitor who got excited about conservation or even education. At my local Indianapolis Zoo, the dolphin show goes overboard with education and honestly, I've heard people around me complaining. Thylo is right that they almost "preach" conservation at his Bronx Zoo, but sorry, that's they way it's come across to many folks I've observed there, as "preachy".
Consider this example: What if we were rating the US Presidents. What would we be rating? I'm guessing most of you would rate them based on their "performance", meaning their record of bringing peace and prosperity (and victory) to the American people and the world. But should we also rate the Presidents on their morality, on how good a husband and father they are/were? If so, then George W Bush and Jimmy Carter would rate very, very high, as both were very moral men and wonderful family men. On the other hand, John Kennedy was famous for his many marital affairs, Harry Truman for his foul mouth, and Ronald Reagan was our first divorced president. Yet, JFK, Truman, and Reagan are all usually ranked among the Top 10 US presidents, while Bush and Carter usually fall much lower in the rankings. In my mind, this is similar to including conservation and education in our ratings. Yes, they are vitally important, just as being a moral, family man is vitally important, but they are not a part of the "performance" of the zoos, at least not for the visitors.
Even if we were to include conservation in our ratings, it would be like Rides (see above), only 1 of 29 categories. So while Bronx would definitely rank as #1 for conservation, this would not pull up its overall ranking much at all. Of course you might suggest that we give this category more weight. But we completely rejected the idea of weighting our categories, as this would definitely make our ratings completely subjective.
Thinking of the impact of this noise on the animals brings me to the most notable/objectionable part of your analysis; the assumption that visitor experience is the determining factor (the only factor in your analysis) for what makes the best zoo. To your credit you are very explicit about prioritizing this, but ultimately I think that it needs to be underscore that your analysis finds the best zoo for visitor experience, not the best zoo.
Finally, I'm treating this as a separate observation as I think it's more of a discussion point that I'm really not sure on the answer to; if we prioritize visitor experience, what type of visitor should zoos cater to? I would wager that the zoochat population makes up a very small percentage of zoo visitors, so would be the best zoo for visitor experience being one that gives us the greatest visitor experience or one that gives the majority of its guests the greatest visitor experience.
By having the 28 very different categories to rate, we hoped that we would be catering to the entire spectrum of different zoo visitors, from bird-lovers, to reptile fans, to children who want to do many rides.
Another category I believe we forget is affordability. The vast majority of people will never see a wild elephant, rhino or lion. A zoo will be the only opportunity for this to happen. In the United States we have massive wealth disparity and a large difference in the wealth of individuals based on their race. If a zoo is supposed to be a resource for the public & education, they need to be accessible to the community they seek to serve. Bronx on most days, way to expensive in my opinion. Yet every single Wednesday its free day, and people can tour most of the zoo for free. San Diego costs $54 dollars for a single day and has no free days. St. louis obviously would do great in this category with its free admission. But if one of your goals is education, then pricing admission so high, than you most defined are disadvantaging lower-income people from going to the zoo. Their is a right middle ground, where the zoo can be a resource for the public & still protecting its bottom line.
I'm curious about the omission of such items as parking, accessibility of pathways, and as
@nczoofan suggests, affordability. These are all factors that impact the visitor experience (the first two particularly for visitors with mobility issues). It is not that including these factors would radically alter your results, but I think they would provide a more comprehensive overview.
We did consider including affordability (cost), but we concluded this would be mixing up the concepts of quality and value. Consider buying an automobile. I could buy a new Toyota Corolla for starting at $19,000 (US$), and I'd be getting a good value car that is very reliable and gets great mileage. On the other hand, I couldn't touch a new Porsche for less than $60,000 (probably a lot more). While arguably the Toyota is a much better value, who would argue the Porsche isn't the better vehicle? We thought, back to zoos, price should not be included in the ratings, but they do matter when deciding if paying more for San Diego is worth it, due to it being the top-rated zoo. Yes, parking is important, but (outside of cost) there's not all that much difference between the zoos in parking. Plus it's somewhat of an "outside the zoo" factor. Should we also consider the roads and highways used to get to the zoo, and if it has good public transportation access? Maybe, but we thought not.
Wow, those are strong words. You have the right to believe San Diego is better than Bronx (or even Omaha or any zoo if you want) but calling those who believe Bronx is the top 1 zoo in the U.S desperate when it is clearly a matter of opinion and is quite subjective doesn't seem right to me.
Bronx is my favorite zoo and, to me, the best zoo due to its overall excellent exhibits, overall very large and extremely natural enclosures, insanely large collection size, extremely diverse collection including many rarely seen species, its display of its own grand history, and most importantly superb conservation programs/captive breeding initiatives. Those are my criteria for evaluating a zoo and just because you have a fancy statistical analysis that excludes several of those doesn't mean you get to declare one zoo better than the other and call anyone who disagrees "desperate". ~Thylo
@ANyhuis' entire post is a declaration of San Diego's definitive superiority and of Bronx's definitive interiority, saying that these things are quantifiable (something I find odd considering the numbers I provided in my short-essay yesterday suggest very different results, implying the entire analysis was handled almost purely from a subjective point of view) and flatout insulting anyone (namely myself) who is of a different opinion.
This thread contains some borderline personal attacks, which is one of the things I track as a moderator (as do my fellow moderators). Please remember to keep it civil, as any posts that are deemed inappropriate are subject to being edited or deleted.
I'm sorry if anyone thinks I was intentionally insulting anyone. I did mean to. Thylo, you are obviously a huge fan of your Bronx Zoo, from all the things you've said. You are clearly having a hard time accepting that your Bronx may not only be America's #1 zoo, but at least one statistical study says it's no better than #5. That's not an insult of either you or the Bronx Zoo. The #5 zoo in the USA is still a very high ranking! I love the Bronx Zoo!
