What Makes a Zoo "Major"?

Coelacanth18

Coelacanth18

Well-Known Member
10+ year member
Premium Member
Many people use the term "major zoo" to refer to a subset of zoos - as examples, I think most people would consider San Diego, Chester, Berlin and Singapore to be "major zoos" by nearly any metric. But how exactly do we all define what counts as a major zoo and what doesn't? A combination of different criteria would make sense - number of species, average visit time, breeding or conservation capability, regional or global reputation, etc - but what criteria takes priority when they don't all agree with each other? How might the term "mid-sized" overlap or be exclusive with the term "major"?

To preempt what is probably the most obvious answer: yes it is a spectrum, and some zoos will inevitably fall into a middle gray area. I am interested to know where most people would fall, however, on various "gray area" examples, and whether some people's metrics for what counts as "major" are very different than those of other people. Knowing what the average or median opinion is could help with future discussions or projects, so I thought this would be a good topic.

Responses from different continents and regions is highly encouraged and appreciated - as I think it may give insight into how opinions can vary depending on what zoos someone is accustomed to seeing.
 
birdsandbats said:
I have always used the metric that a "major" zoo is one that take at least five hours to see in its entirety.
Click to expand...

If I used that scale there wouldn't be many major zoos for me :p I think maybe ~10 of the ~50 traditional US zoos I've been to would qualify. But I'd take the point that arguably "major" zoos are going to make up a minority of zoos total.

Fallax said:
I think it depends what scale you use. On a national scale, I would say that Hamerton, Blackpool, and Paignton are major zoos. On an international scale, not so much.
Click to expand...

A good point - and to clarify either interpretation is relevant, although in my head I was thinking more on a regional rather than international scale (even though I did say "global reputation"). I suppose a lot of zoos are major regionally, but on a continental or global scale they would seem less so.
 
Interesting question. It got me thinking. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules but it is a combination of the following.

  • Species held - Both in terms of ABC species that the public would expect to see and rarities.
  • Quality of exhibits
  • Size - I wouldn't say size alone is a qualifier, but the more space a zoo has the more scope it has for a wider range of species in high quality enclosures.
  • Proximity of other collections - This doesn't mean you can't have two major zoos close to each other, but if one zoo is overshadowed by another nearby it would be difficult to describe it as a major zoo. On the other hand, where a collection is the most significant zoo for some distance it may still be regarded as the major zoo in that area.
On the subject of scale I would consider it to be regional. Wherever there is a population of X within Y distance/travelling time for a day out there will be a market for a major zoo in that area.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
If I used that scale there wouldn't be many major zoos for me :p I think maybe ~10 of the ~50 traditional US zoos I've been to would qualify. But I'd take the point that arguably "major" zoos are going to make up a minority of zoos total.
Click to expand...
Yeah, time definitely varies from person to person. For example, using my own metric Shedd Aquarium is a major zoo - but I have continuously been told by other members that it only takes a couple of hours to see and can be combined in the same day with Lincoln Park. Nope, not for the way I visit zoos at least. :p

But yes, "major zoo" is definitely a title that should be imposed only on a tiny minority of zoos. Looking through my own zoo list, I've only been to 12 "major" zoos about of the about 60 I've visited.

A few zoos I've been to that I would not consider major zoos but I have seen referenced as such before include Lincoln Park, Como Park, and Indianapolis.
 
birdsandbats said:
Yeah, time definitely varies from person to person. For example, using my own metric Shedd Aquarium is a major zoo - but I have continuously been told by other members that it only takes a couple of hours to see and can be combined in the same day with Lincoln Park. Nope, not for the way I visit zoos at least. :p

But yes, "major zoo" is definitely a title that should be imposed only on a tiny minority of zoos. Looking through my own zoo list, I've only been to 12 "major" zoos about of the about 60 I've visited.

A few zoos I've been to that I would not consider major zoos but I have seen referenced as such before include Lincoln Park, Como Park, and Indianapolis.
Click to expand...

IMO aquariums are a slightly different standard, given they're largely indoors and you can only do so much with that. Shedd is of course a major one.

I put places like Indianapolis and Philadelphia at the level below major (whatever term people want to use for that). They don't take a whole day and may not have as many species, but they're big enough that you probably can't do two in one day (with typical hours of 10am-5pm) and are still of a great quality.

Another metric to add, now that I think about it - number of eateries. Major zoos usually (and should) have an assortment of options. Below that, they might have an assortment in the summer, but only 1-2 opened in winter (again, by east coast/northern metrics). Smaller zoos have one option for food.
 
It's not a requirement, but when I think of the great US zoos, I typically think of multiple animal houses or indoor buildings - like Bronx, National, St. Louis, Omaha, Cincinnati, etc have (San Diego and Miami, for example, don't have many buildings, but their climate excuses that, I believe). I think buildings are (for the most part) what allow for the housing of lots of smaller species and exhibits, which drive up both the diversity of the zoo and the time it takes to visit it. I was joking to a colleague the other day that my hallmark for how classy a zoo would be is how good their passerine collection is.

I've always been baffled, for example, when I see people call North Carolina a major zoo. I feel like I blow through it in no time, and then can stop at Greensboro or something on the way home. And that was when they still had the aviary...

Zoos that have lots of megafauna, but just megafauna and a few "token" small fry (red pandas, lemurs, otters, etc) can have great exhibits and great welfare - but someone seem to lack "greatness" as an institution to me.

If I were asked to rank how "great" a zoo is, though, I'd probably focus more on animal welfare, contributions to conservation, quality of exhibits, etc... but the question did ask about "major" not "great"
 
For me, calling something a major zoo primarily signals that they've achieved a certain level of power, influence and reputation (either within the zoo community, or within the scientific and conservation community, or with the general public, or preferably all three). Zoos that have this status on an international scale are the most worthy of the title, but it's also possible to talk on a smaller scale about major zoos within a specific country or region. Or to think of major aquariums or aviaries as representing a smaller subset.

Achieving and maintaining that level of power, influence and reputation can be done in many ways, through a combination of many factors. But those factors come together as more of a Rorschach test than a Venn diagram or a required checklist -- making it possible to have major power, influence and reputation even if you aren't leading in every individual factor (or even participating in some at all). The flip side of this is that it's possible for a "mid-size" zoo to be doing excellent work in every single category, but still not be upgraded to "major" because their power, influence and reputation aren't there.

And of course, the most powerful and influential zoos get to make policy and set the standards by which other zoos are judged. (and potentially, do so in ways that further consolidate their power, influence and reputation -- whether intentionally or subconsciously).

So rather than thinking about objective metrics, I tend to think about relational ones:
  • How influential are they in their international, regional, or accreditation bodies, including the TAGs, SSPs, EEPs, policy making boards, etc.?
  • How large is their international reach? (can be conservation oriented, or ability to import/export new species, or propping up and supporting smaller regional associations in money, training, policy).
  • How good (and widespread) is their marketing and publicity apparatus? (can include both public awareness, but also understanding how to influence breeding, conservation, welfare, and exhibit standards within policy making bodies).
  • When they depart from the recommendations of their regional association or a given TAG, is the expectation that they'll be shunned (a less powerful zoo), or that it will be quietly accepted (a mildly powerful zoo), or that the association will end up changing its recommendations to follow the zoo's lead in a few years (a very powerful zoo)?
I realize that thinking in terms of influence, power and reputation may sound quite Machiavellian in comparison to criteria like resources, number of species, guest experience, or exhibit quality. (All of which I think can be factors for how power, influence and reputation are achieved and maintained -- and many of which may be why we "think" we're going to the zoo). So I want to emphasize that power, influence and reputation can be used for good as well as bad.

Interestingly, I found an article on Chester Zoo's website that explicitly talks about Zoo Spheres of Influence. ( Zoo Sphere of Influence: A new perspective on the role of conservation zoos - What we do ). The article is of course focused on conservation (itself a way for zoos to flex and distinguish themselves, perhaps?), but it does suggest that at least this major zoo is accustomed to thinking in these terms.
 
I agree with many of the points made above by @birdsandbats, @TinoPup, @NMM, @Aardwolf, and @iloveyourzoos. A lot of things go into making a zoo a major zoo. Here’s how I’d rank various factors in my own head in terms of their contribution to “majorness”:

1. Collection – housing many species of diverse taxonomic groups and broad scope (e.g., both ABCs and rarities, both megafauna and small stuff).

2. Infrastructure – substantial buildings or other structures (such as artificial mountains), potentially of architectural or historic significance.

3. Industry impact – could be through major conservation or research programs, leadership in husbandry of particular taxa, commitment to regional animal programs, innovation in exhibitry, etc.

4. Exhibitry – emphasizes a design philosophy (not just utilitarian or haphazard). Same for landscaping.

5. Size – the main campus is big enough to accommodate (1) and (2) and takes a significant portion of a day to properly tour.

6. Amenities – multiple food and gift options, scheduled demonstrations/shows, interaction opportunities, train/monorail/safari truck/boat rides, designated play area for kids, etc.

7. Outreach/marketing materials – quality website, advertisements, maps, newsletters/magazines, perhaps even a guidebook.

Ultimately, the best single number that captures all of these is probably annual operating budget. Looking at United States zoos specifically, different budget brackets tell the story.

<$15 million: small zoos

$15-30 million: includes well-regarded zoos that don’t have a massive collection or area (like Atlanta) as well as underfunded zoos that seem to lack impact (like San Francisco).

$30-50 million: Places like Cincinnati, Lincoln Park, Minnesota, and Philadelphia are here. Often have significant collections, infrastructure, industry impact, etc. Might be as well regarded as the biggest zoos in a particular category but perhaps not a heavy-hitter for everything. I’d consider these major zoos, others might not.

$50-100 million: Brookfield, Columbus, Houston, National, Omaha, St. Louis are examples. I think this grouping would universally be considered major zoos. It’s typical for zoos in this category to have big collections, impressive campuses, active conservation/research programs, and award-winning exhibits as a package. It’s also common for zoos in this tier to own or manage secondary sites.

>$100 million: Right now I think Bronx and San Diego are the only US zoos in this bracket, and both are flagships for operations that have budgets far beyond that number (WCS and ZSSD each have operating budgets of around $400 million). The zoos themselves have everything from the previous group, and probably not coincidentally in my zoo visits are the ones that take the longest to see, with perhaps only Omaha being in the same ballpark for time needed to visit. From my standpoint it’s also relevant that they are really the only US zoos whose related conservation and research activities are at a similar level of impact and influence to major government agencies and globally ranked universities.
 
This is an interesting question. I definitely would define it more broadly than some other users in this thread. In my mind, 'major' is more like 'significant' than indicative of quality, so it wouldn't strictly cover every high-quality zoo so much as those that are either well-regarded or famous. I definitely feel like a list of the best zoos would come from a smaller portion of a list of major zoos.

To compare my three major local examples, I would probably say Lincoln Park feels more like a major zoo to me than Brookfield or Milwaukee, both of which meet the size criteria more than either of those, and I would actually say among non-zoo nerds, Lincoln Park is probably the most well-known of the three, even if a zoochatter could blow through it in three or four hours. They are also one of the most historic zoos in the country which definitely helps it feel significant.

To use Gondwana's standards, it sounds like I would consider most anything above $30 million a major zoo, plus possibly a few lower ones with historical points of interest.
 
I would agree with several people on this thread that the factor of time is a prime example of what makes a zoo "major". On innumerable occasions on ZooChat, someone has asked how long they should expect to be at a zoo while planning a trip and 5+ hours seems to indicate a major facility. That being said, somewhere like the International Crane Foundation (all 15 species can be seen here) would arguably be a major facility in its own field, even though it can be toured in an hour or two.

Overall, I feel that @Gondwana has done a superb job of breaking down several categories that illustrate exactly what a major zoo is like.
 
snowleopard said:
I would agree with several people on this thread that the factor of time is a prime example of what makes a zoo "major". On innumerable occasions on ZooChat, someone has asked how long they should expect to be at a zoo while planning a trip and 5+ hours seems to indicate a major facility. That being said, somewhere like the International Crane Foundation (all 15 species can be seen here) would arguably be a major facility in its own field, even though it can be toured in an hour or two.

Overall, I feel that @Gondwana has done a superb job of breaking down several categories that illustrate exactly what a major zoo is like.
Click to expand...

ICF wouldn't be a major zoo though. Major bird facility, maybe?
 
Apologies for leaving my own thread abandoned for a week...

Re: time to see a place... this is a factor that I probably use subconsciously, but certainly with a lower threshold than 5 hours or majority of the day. If a zoo takes me 3 hours or more I'd usually consider it "major": thinking of the examples Indy, Philly and North Carolina (all of which I've been to) as well as Fresno which I just visited - a very casual half-day for ~100 species.

I think maybe there is some overlap/gray area between "major" and "mid-sized"; I don't think of them as mutually exclusive, but maybe some people would.

Another consideration besides collection size might be what species make up said collection. For example, is a bird park with 250 species "major"? Or can a zoo be a "major" zoo with only 40 species if those species include lion, tiger, giraffe, elephant, hippo, rhino and three great apes?

I think @Gondwana's suggestion of looking at annual operating budget isn't a bad way to go, as it could encapsulate many considerations like staffing, maintenance, animal collection and conservation/education funding in a more concise number - although even then there might be differences based on location, type of facility, taxed vs tax-exempt, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JVM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top