Exhibitry Themes/Styles You Wish Were More Common In Zoos

Interesting thread indeed and some great ideas. Free flight aviaries are well covered already in this thread but I find them a real treat!

I also thoroughly enjoy mixed exhibits, particularly birds, small mammals and primates. Walkthroughs where you can get unparalleled views of the animals without glass / wire are also a real highlight for me - the walkthroughs at Colchester with the small primates for example. Areas with more than one type of lemur are also good to see, for example at CWP and Dudley. The mix of planting, free flight birds and a variety of lemurs in CWP's walkthrough is particularly lovely.

Enclosures with various heights for both visitors and animals so you can see them without the wire and the animals can be up high as they want to etc are also great - Yorkshire Wildlife Park does a great job of this in a lot of their enclosures. Terrain variation also works well for seeing the animals exhibiting different behaviours than when held on the ground with just a climbing frame. YWP and Dudley's baboon enclosures are good examples.

As mentioned above foliage and planting makes a real difference - Shepreth's tiger enclosure for example is not the largest but it is varied and has great planting. There's something quite dramatic about watching a tiger weaving through foliage, seeing that camouflage in action. Similarly, a free flight aviary with interesting and diverse planting gives great viewing and allows the birds privacy when they want it.

Underwater viewing is also something I wish more zoos would have for species from otters to hippos. Colchester has some good underwater spaces. While fairly common for penguins it seems less common for other species in the UK to have an underwater viewing space . I would imagine some collections would be put off by the cost.
 
Lafone said:
Underwater viewing is also something I wish more zoos would have for species from otters to hippos. Colchester has some good underwater spaces. While fairly common for penguins it seems less common for other species in the UK to have an underwater viewing space . I would imagine some collections would be put off by the cost.
Click to expand...
If you want more underwater viewing, head to the United States where it is the norm. I can only recall ever seeing one otter exhibit without underwater viewing, and it seems that some zoos when designing hippo exhibits prioritize the inclusion of underwater viewing over providing enough space for the animals!
 
Neil chace said:
If you want more underwater viewing, head to the United States where it is the norm. I can only recall ever seeing one otter exhibit without underwater viewing, and it seems that some zoos when designing hippo exhibits prioritize the inclusion of underwater viewing over providing enough space for the animals!
Click to expand...

Yes you’re right it certainly seems more common in the US (I’ve been to a few zoos there and they all had some form of it) and some of the largest zoos in Western Europe - perhaps land / zoo size or just a general philosophy difference.

Mind you I’d rather the animal space had priority if it was a choice!
 
Zoos always default to the more popular and thus already overrepresented biomes due to limited space, a shame, since there are hundreds of ecoregions.
Personally i would love to see some more South-American biomes, the amazon doesn't cover the entire continent after all. Something based on caatinga, chaco or cerrado would be great.
 
Cassynatorium said:
Zoos always default to the more popular and thus already overrepresented biomes due to limited space, a shame, since there are hundreds of ecoregions.
Personally i would love to see some more South-American biomes, the amazon doesn't cover the entire continent after all. Something based on caatinga, chaco or cerrado would be great.
Click to expand...
Well, space and available animals. Exporting new collections is expensive, if the host country even allows it, not to mention that many in the public decry the wild animal trade.
 
Lafone said:
Yes you’re right it certainly seems more common in the US (I’ve been to a few zoos there and they all had some form of it) and some of the largest zoos in Western Europe - perhaps land / zoo size or just a general philosophy difference.

Mind you I’d rather the animal space had priority if it was a choice!
Click to expand...
Underwater viewing can be amazingly expensive: the large strong acrylic, the filtration (even if not crystal clear it needs to be clearer than a basic pool), additional building for pumps and energy. For many zoos it is a matter of in order to have the animal they cannot afford underwater viewing. Can a hippo/otter/sea lion only be appreciated with underwater view? Triples the cost
 
Cassynatorium said:
Zoos always default to the more popular and thus already overrepresented biomes due to limited space, a shame, since there are hundreds of ecoregions.
Personally i would love to see some more South-American biomes, the amazon doesn't cover the entire continent after all. Something based on caatinga, chaco or cerrado would be great.
Click to expand...
Zoos feature popular animals because they are... popular. And a zoo must cater to its paying patrons
A crappy polar bear exhibit brings in more guests than a great exhibit of rare ungulates.
As long as that is so, the status quo will remain mostly unchanged
 
Zooplantman said:
Underwater viewing can be amazingly expensive: the large strong acrylic, the filtration (even if not crystal clear it needs to be clearer than a basic pool), additional building for pumps and energy. For many zoos it is a matter of in order to have the animal they cannot afford underwater viewing. Can a hippo/otter/sea lion only be appreciated with underwater view? Triples the cost
Click to expand...
Agreed. Sometimes too much gets sacrificed on the altar of underwater viewing. When Baltimore built their (now former) polar bear exhibit in the early 2000s, underwater viewing was a must... but an expensive "must." The result? The new polar bear exhibit actually had a smaller pool than the old one. Better in many other respects - better holding, more land area, natural substrate - but the pool was a step backwards.
 
Zooplantman said:
Underwater viewing can be amazingly expensive: the large strong acrylic, the filtration (even if not crystal clear it needs to be clearer than a basic pool), additional building for pumps and energy. For many zoos it is a matter of in order to have the animal they cannot afford underwater viewing. Can a hippo/otter/sea lion only be appreciated with underwater view? Triples the cost
Click to expand...

Yes agree, costs would be a big decider. And I'd rather there was more space for the animals. They can be lovely when done nicely though.
 
SwampDonkey said:
Well, space and available animals. Exporting new collections is expensive, if the host country even allows it, not to mention that many in the public decry the wild animal trade.
Click to expand...
Underrepresented biomes doesn't necessarily mean rarer animals, however. A lot of species can be found in multiple different habitats, so it can just be a matter of choosing a different way to feature species already in the collection or that are common in other zoos in the region.
 
Neil chace said:
Underrepresented biomes doesn't necessarily mean rarer animals, however. A lot of species can be found in multiple different habitats, so it can just be a matter of choosing a different way to feature species already in the collection or that are common in other zoos in the region.
Click to expand...
Great points :)
 
Aardwolf said:
Agreed. Sometimes too much gets sacrificed on the altar of underwater viewing. When Baltimore built their (now former) polar bear exhibit in the early 2000s, underwater viewing was a must... but an expensive "must." The result? The new polar bear exhibit actually had a smaller pool than the old one. Better in many other respects - better holding, more land area, natural substrate - but the pool was a step backwards.
Click to expand...
I also agree, and nowhere is this better proven true than modern hippo exhibits. Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Beauval, Dallas, Fort Worth, Prague, Saint Louis and others all sacrificed substantial land and grazing space to prioritize underwater viewing and are left worse off for it. Oftentimes these exhibits are far too small for even just two hippos and are not conducive to animal management. Cheyenne Mountain is the single outlier here being the only zoo in recent memory to open a new hippo complex without underwater viewing, and it's one of the only truly successful hippo exhibits built in the last 20 years. Make no mistake, I think underwater viewing is wonderful and I always enjoy it, but not at the expense of better animal welfare.

So there's an exhibit concept I wish was more common in zoos; hippo exhibits able to accommodate a large pod, include a spacious land area and have underwater viewing. It seems only DAK has accomplished this so far, although the planned complex at Sacramento's new location has the potential to be spectacular.
 
pachyderm pro said:
So there's an exhibit concept I wish was more common in zoos; hippo exhibits able to accommodate a large pod, include a spacious land area and have underwater viewing. It seems only DAK has accomplished this so far, although the planned complex at Sacramento's new location has the potential to be spectacular.
Click to expand...
DAK has the large pod, and a decent amount of land area, but the underwater viewing is at a different, smaller hippo exhibit on Gorilla Falls- which on my visit only had one hippo in it. The exhibit on the Safaris is great for hippos (not great that viewing is limited), but the other exhibit, with underwater viewing, is no where near as good and doesn't offer that same experience. I haven't seen it in person, but based on photos and videos another hippo exhibit that seems to do a really great job is the exhibit at Memphis Zoo.
 
Neil chace said:
DAK has the large pod, and a decent amount of land area, but the underwater viewing is at a different, smaller hippo exhibit on Gorilla Falls- which on my visit only had one hippo in it. The exhibit on the Safaris is great for hippos (not great that viewing is limited), but the other exhibit, with underwater viewing, is no where near as good and doesn't offer that same experience. I haven't seen it in person, but based on photos and videos another hippo exhibit that seems to do a really great job is the exhibit at Memphis Zoo.
Click to expand...
Disney still is able to provide all three elements I listed above, even if it's done through two separate enclosures.

I specifically left out Memphis when I listed the recent hippo exhibits because it indeed looks much better compared to the others. It's still not huge, but the land space is much larger than what's provided at the zoos I mentioned above and it looks like they could house at least four. comfortably. They still lack access to grass and doesn't include any proper separation areas, but its definitely one of the better rounded hippo exhibits built in recent years.
 
pachyderm pro said:
Cheyenne Mountain is the single outlier here being the only zoo in recent memory to open a new hippo complex without underwater viewing, and it's one of the only truly successful hippo exhibits built in the last 20 years. Make no mistake, I think underwater viewing is wonderful and I always enjoy it, but not at the expense of better animal welfare.
Click to expand...

Honestly, Cheyenne’s eye level poolside viewing is as good as underwater viewing. I think one of the coolest things about hippos is how large they are but how easily they can go undetected underwater. In my opinion, seeing one of them pop up right at the edge of the infinity pool a few feet away is a much more exciting and much more of a “wow” moment.

There are very few spectacular underwater viewings for land animals that aren’t in an aquarium, with Columbus Zoo’s polar bear exhibit being at the top of the list. For a lot of them, the chance for a casual visitor to see an animal in the pool is slim and ultimately disappointing when they don’t. I think money is better spent on thick acrylic for close encounters on the surface. Keeping the only face-to-face opportunity underwater water is a waste.
 
Many fantastic enclosure concepts have been mentioned upthread, so here are a few other suggestions:

- Labyrinth-style walkthroughs: The most immersive walkthroughs are the ones that don't give you a single, artificial pathway to stick to, instead offering a maze of different trails that allow you to escape crowds and obviously man-made barriers. The best example of this is the Burgers' Bush; there were many instances in that wonder of a zoo building where only the glass roof above my head reminded me that the animals were, in fact, captive. I have seen similar things done elsewhere, but never on the same scale, and I would love for that to change.

- Live coral tanks: The use of live coral as opposed to the fake models used elsewhere can really bring a tank to life. It is common to see a few specimens mixed in among the fakes (including at my local Horniman Museum), however a whole tank in which the coral is live feels like a genuine ecosystem, enriching, captivating and beautiful, in a way that other tanks are not. Yet again, Burgers' is the only zoo I have seen to have attempted such a concept on a large scale, however it does appear to be a very rare sight.

- Live trees: Somewhat similar to the last one, I find that any enclosure displaying an arboreal mammal can be made infinitely more memorable by allowing that species to scale live trees. My favourite example of this, yet again, comes from Burgers' with their fantastic coati enclosure, but I also adored the sloth enclosure at Chester and the gibbon enclosure at Paignton to name just a few. In general, I would love to see this become a more common site.

I am happy with my three picks, but all of them have one thing in common - I have seen them in use. As I travel more and visit more zoos, I will notice more exhibit styles that are criminally underused, and I look forward to doing so! :)
 
There is one building style that I wish zoos would use more often. In a world were vast expenses of mock rock and intricately themed visitor areas are becoming the norm, I would personally love to see zoos revert back to a different style. One that uses clever landscaping and natural elements like soil, water, rocks and most of all, growing vegetation. A style where indoor housing does not have to be a "temple taken over by nature" or an "arctic research vessel" but instead can just be a tasteful building that fits the surrounding landscape. A more low key situation if you will. Good animals in good exhibits, nothing more nothing less. Perhaps not as spectacular, but at least as lovely. And a lot cheaper too!

full


full


full


full


full


Pictures from NaturZoo Rheine, Tierpark Nordhorn and Apenheul.
 
Golden Takin said:
Exhibits of disappeared biomes.
-eg. 2000 years ago, there were Yun-Meng Lakes along the Yangtze River, occupied with Pere David's deers, asian elephants, south China tigers, rhinos, buffalos and lots of birds&reptiles. Most of them are gone due to both climate change and human activities, but we can still find the same or similiar species to introduce this fauna.
Click to expand...

I really like this idea. The concept could be replicated by any zoo anywhere. Exhibiting animals no longer found in the country or region where the zoo is located.

Also, where the OP referred to the use of rocks in enclosures it made me think of Paignton Zoo where the enclosure that has held Barbary Sheep and Tahr at different times features a cliff face.

Barbary Sheep Enclosure - 3/8/15 - ZooChat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top