The general public's view of a zoo

jbnbsn99

jbnbsn99

Well-Known Member
It finally came to me last night after reading some guest comments about my zoo in the local paper. Your average zoo guest doesn't care how well designed an exhibit is or how rare an animal is they are there to see what I am going to refer to as the top ten zoo animals. From my experience these are animals that nearly every zoo goer expects to see at a zoo. Of course not all zoos have them. I have even figured out a formula to create an average visitors grade of a zoo based on this. If you assign the same percentage to each of these animals (10%) then you can get a zoos grade. Of course, we ZooChatters know better. It is not the quantity, but the quality. The top ten are:

Elephant
Giraffe
Zebra
Lion
Tiger
Bear (any species)
Rhino (any species)
Hippo
and two of the four species of great ape (gorilla, orangs, chimps, or bonobos)

So here would be the scores for these zoos I've visited this summer.

Dallas - 70
Fort Worth - 100
Caldwell - 50
Cameron Park - 70
Houston - 70
Ellen Trout - 60
Frank Buck - 30

To these some elite species such as Giant Pandas and Koalas can give an added 10 points for bonuses. To me this is how the average zoo visitor thinks. I am around them every day and know the most asked questions and almost all of them revolve around these animals. Of course any system that ranks Ellen Trout above Caldwell is utterly flawed, but still it gives you an idea.

Any thoughts? How many/few zoos would actually receive a 100 (or 110 or 120? The only other one I can think of is San Diego, but I'm sure there are others. BTW, if this grading system holds true, then it would explain away the great appeal of Fort Worth, a complete collection in the visitors eye.
 
That seems true actually. I do like all of the above, but it does get a bit boring seeing ringtailed lemurs, meerkats, ruffed lemurs and red pandas at every collection.
This is why people think Bristol zoo is bad, because it hasn't got giraffes, elephants or chimps. Can't people be happy with gorillas and okapis? :rolleyes:
 
Chester would come in at 90 (lacking hippos) and so would Whipsnade (lacking the 2nd species of ape) but I don't think any other UK ones match up using this scale.

London has 60
Twycross has 50
Edinburgh has 60 (+10 for Koalas)
 
Last edited:
Woodland Park Zoo would come in at 90 (lacking rhinos) but in all honesty there are many American zoos that would be close to 100. It's all about the collection in the eyes of the average visitor, and many don't give a damn if the orangutan enclosure looks like Singapore's or Colchester's.:)
 
Bioparc 80; no bonobos,orangutans,tigers,bears or pandas and koalas present.
 
Last edited:
Zoo Vienna: 110

(-10 for lacking 2nd species of apes, + 10 for giant pandas, + 10 for koalas)

Well, there should be another + 10 points for polar bears with twin cubs :D
 
Your list of certain popular crowd pleasers is nothing new. In fact, this attitude of what animals are popular for Joe Blow, worth being required and displayed hasn't changed since the earliest beginning of private and public animal collections. Colorful birds (flamingos, parrots), crocodiles and other (especially large) reptiles and certain fish are also among the species the average laymen associate with the term "zoo". Dozens of discussions about this aspect have been led on this as well as other zoo forums and in zoo literature for years (Conways Bullfrog Exhibit). The assumption of what animal is attractive to the public is also influenced by current trends and popular culture: I have observed whole school classes passing tigers and elephants in a hurry to get to the "Kim Possible" Naked Mole Rats...Or think of the wombats at Hannover Zoo, having become popular due to a local TV show.

I don't agree with this assumption of yours:
jbnbsn99 said:
Your average zoo guest doesn't care how well designed an exhibit is or how rare an animal is they are there to see what I am going to refer to as the top ten zoo animals.
Click to expand...

The average modern zoo guest lacks the sharp eye for details and the background knowledge to be able to correctly judge an exhibit (so does a certain number of self-acclaimed zoo fans/"experts" in this forum...), but (s)he nevertheless appretiates the "naturalistic" feeling of the exhibit or the opportunity to see the animal in question up close and/or from an interesting viewpoint (for example, underwater).
Rarity is still a criterion when it comes to the attractiveness of a zoo species; if told that this is "one of a kind" in captivity, the chance that heads are turned and cameras are switched on increases considerably, even if it's only for an additional second or two. Try and put a single guppy into a big fish tank and add a big flashy sign claiming it to be the "Rarest Fish in the World"; people will certainly take notice.

What is probably more popular than any of the "Big 10" species mentioned above in zoos are the petting zoo inhabitants; a zoo without them could probably feature everything, but the average visitor would still complain about their absence...
 
Last edited:
Dutch top scoring

Artis Amsterdam 90
Burgers 90
Safaripark Beekse Bergen 90
Amersfoort 80
Rotterdam 80
Ouwehands Rhenen 70
Emmen 70

Fun to note:
Walsrode: 0 (great park though :) ...)
 
Australia would be

Melbourne-90 (if pygmy hippos count as hippos?)
Werribee-50
Taronga-90 (same as Melbourne)
Dubbo-70
Adelaide-70 (not too sure though)
Monarto-50
Perth-80
 
I don't disagree with the idea behind the list, although I think you could make a case for adding a pinniped species and a penguin and some other sort of exotic bird - parrot/flamingo/crane or whatever.
There are other factors: cute baby animals, of course, are always an attraction and so is any sort of activity. People want to watch and hear lions roaring, monkeys playing, meerkats digging and so on: one of the reasons reptiles attract much less attention is that they are usually inactive.

Alan
 
The list is purely objective based on my experience at the zoo talking with customers. These are the animals that come up most frequently in the question "where is your ______" or "do you have a _____?"
 
The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum is the #1 tourist attraction in southern Arizona, the top-rated zoo in the state of Arizona, and it does not have any of the animals on your list. (Although they will have a black bear in the near future). So, with proper marketing and a well-done facility that lives up to the marketing hype, these "popular" animals are certainly not required.

Exhibit design also matters, even if people don't go to see a specific exhibit. It subconsciously affects their attitude towards the exhibited animal. This was confirmed by an AZA-sponsored survey many years ago. Visitors leaving sub-standard zoos had generally derogatory feelings about animals and wildlife conservation. Visitors leaving good zoos had positive feelings about animals and wildlife conservation.
 
I assume by "they" you mean Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. No they have not had jaguar since early 1990's, yet more proof that you don't need a "popular" animal to be successful. They have claimed all along they will have them again one day, but I'll believe it when I see it. They also no longer have margay or jaguarundi, and apparently have no plans to replace them, so their cat collection is going downhill (which pains me as a cat lover, but I must realize there are other animals in the world to show people besides cats).
 
Any news of new zoo planned developments. I prefer well designed natural habitats that provide animal comfort and good visitor viewing. Rockscape elements where appropriate and some atmosphere and dramatic elements. I am sorry but it must be really well done,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top