Moving people who visit zoos

[Drew]

@Drew
At the zoo I work at for the larger exhibits they have more than one viewing points so maybe some could be reserved for quieter "contemplation". There are also most of the time second exhibits for each species as they separate males/females or separate two males. I don't see how it would increase the cost however? Or are you thinking of the construction of a second exhibit?

One of the reasons I appreciate the "landscape immersion"-like approach to exhibit design it because it is all about using the surrounding landscape to help heighten the sense of discovery and as such tends to make people want to move a little slower and talk a little softer because they are "in the animals habitat". They also tend to provide some measure of physical separation from the busy main circulation paths in order to effectively immerse guests in the experience. I think this is one reason the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum can be used as a model.

Regarding cost, I think it is highly dependent on the type of experience you are going for. I was thinking of an experience that would be completely separate from the training walls, amphitheater-style viewing, kids play structures, large viewing shelters, snow-cone stands, carousel, ect. Obviously if this is just a simple path with viewing through mesh or the like it can be done fairly inexpensively but in order to create a more immersive design that can stand on its own as a separate experience with designed sightlines, seemingly barrier-less containment, enough space for the animals to not feel surrounded by guests, enough visibility for guests to see the animals, and a myriad of other variables it would almost always increase the construction cost of such an exhibit. Being an avid backpacker I was thinking about this as more of a narrow, decomposed granite or stabilized dirt trail that is completely separate from the hustle and bustle of the main circulation route that crosses it at designed times (areas for restrooms, food) much like a hiking trail crosses a highway.

 

[TheMightyOrca]

I'm not sure if we've all got the same age definition for kids... I think you're thinking of under 18s? When I talk about kids, and I think @cleusk would agree, I think of under 10 years old...

I talk about under 13. Teenagers are a bit more difficult, though I think it can be done if the right approach is taken.

 

[gentle lemur]

This is a complicated subject. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned is exhibit design. Most visitors will be satisfied with an easily accessible path that gives good view into the enclosure so that they can spend a minute or two looking at the animals, in reasonably attractive surroundings, and then move on. However there can also be provision for anyone who wishes to stop and watch for longer without getting in the way or disturbing the animals, a side path to a different vantage point, perhaps screened by a bush, perhaps even with a carefully placed bench: not always possible of course particularly in small indoor exhibits, but the larger the exhibit the more opportunities there are.

Alan

 

[Batto]

Not at all, children should be the primary focus of most conservation messages in zoos.

I disagree. Focusing just on kids "cheapens" the message. Don't get me wrong: it's good to start at the grassroots level; the earlier, the better. However, a lot of (if not all) great conservation projects fail due to lack of proper financing (especially on the long run) and public attention. Most children aren't Richie Rich; they don't have direct access to lots of money. Their parents might have, but even more so, their grandparents. And if you only address kids, adults (especially childless ones) lose interest in all this "child's play"...
Senior citizens have both money (testimonial asssets!) and time to invest in conservation. And due to demographic changes, their number and thus importance is increasing.
jbnbsn99's example of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum is also a great example of how to integrate senior citizens successfully to the benefit of all.
In my opinion, conservation and also zoos should address all social levels of society, not just small kids and their accompanying adults (who are more interested in keeping the kids occupied and having a good time than anything else).

 

[Jules97]

I disagree. Focusing just on kids "cheapens" the message. Don't get me wrong: it's good to start at the grassroots level; the earlier, the better. However, a lot of (if not all) great conservation projects fail due to lack of proper financing (especially on the long run) and public attention. Most children aren't Richie Rich; they don't have direct access to lots of money. Their parents might have, but even more so, their grandparents. And if you only address kids, adults (especially childless ones) lose interest in all this "child's play"...
Senior citizens have both money (testimonial asssets!) and time to invest in conservation. And due to demographic changes, their number and thus importance is increasing.
jbnbsn99's example of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum is also a great example of how to integrate senior citizens successfully to the benefit of all.
In my opinion, conservation and also zoos should address all social levels of society, not just small kids and their accompanying adults (who are more interested in keeping the kids occupied and having a good time than anything else).

I agree with you that conservation and zoos should address all social groups/levels but I think you underestimate the influential powers of kids
Kids are able to literally manipulate their parents and grandparents into getting things for them! People in the marketing industry use that to advertise and sell more

 

[lamna]

True, don't underestimate kids. Their personal spending power is pitiful, but they can extort huge amounts from adults. If you can get them on-side they can be charity muggers that parents can't get away from.

And it's investing for the future. I imagine most people go to zoos because they went as a kid and enjoyed it. How many people here decided to start going to zoos after they turned 18?

 

[TheMightyOrca]

I disagree. Focusing just on kids "cheapens" the message. Don't get me wrong: it's good to start at the grassroots level; the earlier, the better. However, a lot of (if not all) great conservation projects fail due to lack of proper financing (especially on the long run) and public attention. Most children aren't Richie Rich; they don't have direct access to lots of money. Their parents might have, but even more so, their grandparents. And if you only address kids, adults (especially childless ones) lose interest in all this "child's play"...
Senior citizens have both money (testimonial asssets!) and time to invest in conservation. And due to demographic changes, their number and thus importance is increasing.
jbnbsn99's example of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum is also a great example of how to integrate senior citizens successfully to the benefit of all.
In my opinion, conservation and also zoos should address all social levels of society, not just small kids and their accompanying adults (who are more interested in keeping the kids occupied and having a good time than anything else).

Yep. I'm all for targeting stuff at kids (hence some of my earlier suggestions) but I wish more zoos did more things to cater to, and teach, adult visitors. Zoos are often just seen as a fun place to take children for the day, so zoos end up building themselves around that rather than maximizing educational and conservation potential.

 

[jbnbsn99]

I think too much emphasis is placed on kids at zoos. Kids will be enthralled by the simplest things. Zoos don't need to go out of their way to cater to them. Also, kids are really the smallest demographic of a zoo. Treat kids like adults, and they'll respect you (the zoo) more.

 

[Batto]

I don't underestimate kids. Neither should you underestimate senior citizens-and the size of their wallets that will pay for the way to said "future".

Maybe more people beyond 18 years would discover zoos for themselves if not everything was aimed at kids. A modern zoo should be on a par with cultural institutions such as museums or botanical gardens. Selling candy floss and joyrides doesn't help that, and doesn't do the capitivity of animals any justice. Again, I agree with jbnbsn99.

 

[Jurek7]

I think zoo should target different demographic and have different 'approaches' to the same animals and exhibits tuned to different audience.

About kids. Children are difficult audience and rarely approached well. Contrary to the common perception, good education for children is not a dumbed-down message for adults. Neither good is or a copy of lesson from a public schools, which are well known to be ineffective.

I know only a few zoo exhibits which were done with understanding of child psychology. Some make close-up exhibits for smaller animals (or contact sessions with small animals like insects and reptiles) which are tuned to child's size and perception system (but which adults may find boring). Others are children playground without live animals but illustrating situations and choics which real animal encounters in it's environment.

About elderly. I know of a zoo which appears to care rather little about its visitors, but maintains a circle of apparently rich elderly people and wives of rich businessmen. They raise funds for zoo wildlife projects. Effective on one field, but perhaps boring for everybody else.

 

[Drew]

This is a complicated subject. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned is exhibit design. Most visitors will be satisfied with an easily accessible path that gives good view into the enclosure so that they can spend a minute or two looking at the animals, in reasonably attractive surroundings, and then move on. However there can also be provision for anyone who wishes to stop and watch for longer without getting in the way or disturbing the animals, a side path to a different vantage point, perhaps screened by a bush, perhaps even with a carefully placed bench: not always possible of course particularly in small indoor exhibits, but the larger the exhibit the more opportunities there are.

Alan

I tried to address this in my earlier post and completely agree that such an experience need not be costly or complicated.

 

[Batto]

About elderly. I know of a zoo which appears to care rather little about its visitors, but maintains a circle of apparently rich elderly people and wives of rich businessmen. They raise funds for zoo wildlife projects. Effective on one field, but perhaps boring for everybody else.

The usage of the phrase "boring" has become disturbingly inflationary in this forum
http://memecrunch.com/meme/CV7F/boring-memes/image.png

What is "boring" for some might be highly interesting for others. There are many other ways to integrate senior citizens in zoos besides said situation.

 

[zooman]

I think too much emphasis is placed on kids at zoos. Kids will be enthralled by the simplest things. Zoos don't need to go out of their way to cater to them. Also, kids are really the smallest demographic of a zoo. Treat kids like adults, and they'll respect you (the zoo) more.

I totally agree it seems that in Australasian Zoo's that the focus has definitely moved to the kids 0-10 year olds!

 

[MRJ]

I think too much emphasis is placed on kids at zoos...Also, kids are really the smallest demographic of a zoo...

You are very wrong here. It is widely understood in the zoo industry that the majority of visits are "child-led" and this is supported by research. For instance Turley in "Children and the demand for recreational experiences: the case of zoos" (Leisure Studies 20, 1-18, 2001) concluded that children were particularly significant in the decision to visit zoos, while their absence inhibited visits. Regardless how you feel zoos should treat them, they are the primary market for most zoos.

 

[snowleopard]

You are very wrong here. It is widely understood in the zoo industry that the majority of visits are "child-led" and this is supported by research. For instance Turley in "Children and the demand for recreational experiences: the case of zoos" (Leisure Studies 20, 1-18, 2001) concluded that children were particularly significant in the decision to visit zoos, while their absence inhibited visits. Regardless how you feel zoos should treat them, they are the primary market for most zoos.

You are 100% correct, as the AZA (Association of Zoos & Aquariums) and various other organizations have released studies over the years that often contain a quote that states how "80-90% of all zoo visitors are children under the age of 12" or something similar. The trend is for parents of young children to purchase zoo or aquarium memberships, visit such attractions on a regular basis, and then at a certain point in time (usually when the children morph into teens) the zoo visits end. Those teens can potentially go 15 years without stepping foot inside of a zoo before having children of their own and then restarting the entire process.

Zoos have always been focused on young children, whether it be carousel rides, train rides, giraffe feeding stations or the multitude of colourful displays, edible treats and millions of plush souvenirs that are annually produced in factories and shipped to zoos across the globe. Anyone visiting their local zoo can glance around and see that on any given day there are a few senior citizens puttering around, a few couples out on dates, the odd loner (usually with an expensive camera slung around their neck) and then the other 85% of visitors come bearing children. I often analyze the crowds at zoos I visit as I find it fascinating, and I always scratch my head in disbelief when people make statements about how zoos should focus less on kids. That is the bulk of the market for zoos! When it comes time for special events (Christmas holiday specials, Halloween, Easter, holiday excursions) then it seems that a zoo is populated 95% of the time by families with young children. There are some exceptions (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum being one) but those are few and far between.

 

[Batto]

Said AZA studies strongly indicate that mothers are actually the main decision makers within the family pro/against the zoo visit, not the children, who, apart from antiautoriatarian/rottenly spoiled exceptions, shouldn't usually be the ones managing the family. Therefore, the things you think are directed at kids are actually designed according to what the mothers think is "child-adequate". Thus, the "cute, cuddly and colorful" aspect with baby animals and a Disneyesque depiction of the animal world prevails, because Mum thinks that this is what her offspring should see. If you do observe zoo visitors, take notice of who in the family is usually the one ostentatiously cooing around juvenile mammals and dramatically execrating reptiles and invertebrates (hint: it's neither the kids nor Dad).

Zoos have not always been centered around young children. As Elizabeth Hanson and other zoo historians have pointed out, the exaggerated focus (and thus the downgrading of zoological gardens in the public eye from institutions equal to botanical gardens or museums to amusement parks for kids with carnival food and attractions) on children started (at least in the US) after WW2, with the rise of public television intertwining increasingly popular shows aimed at children and zoos. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Attractions-Nature-Display-American/dp/0691117705/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1405177527&sr=8-9&keywords=american+zoos]Amazon.com: Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos (9780691117706): Elizabeth Hanson: Books[/ame]

The general interest in entertainment (and growing wealth and mobility at least in the West to afford such) in the 1950s and 1960s, potentially as a psychological coping mechanism by the survivors of the war, also had an influence, leading to concepts such as specialised animal attractions (like reptile/bird roadside zoos) and the now diminishing Safari Parks.

I wonder whether a less mother/children focus might attract another part of society, including teens. The mentioned exceptions at least seem to work pretty nicely.

 

[snowleopard]

Zoos have not always been centered around young children. As Elizabeth Hanson and other zoo historians have pointed out, the exaggerated focus (and thus the downgrading of zoological gardens in the public eye from institutions equal to botanical gardens or museums to amusement parks for kids with carnival food and attractions) on children started (at least in the US) after WW2, with the rise of public television intertwining increasingly popular shows aimed at children and zoos.
Amazon.com: Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos (9780691117706): Elizabeth Hanson: Books

The general interest in entertainment (and growing wealth and mobility at least in the West to afford such) in the 1950s and 1960s, potentially as a psychological coping mechanism by the survivors of the war, also had an influence, leading to concepts such as specialised animal attractions (like reptile/bird roadside zoos) and the now diminishing Safari Parks.

I wonder whether a less mother/children focus might attract another part of society, including teens. The mentioned exceptions at least seem to work pretty nicely.

This section of your response made me smile as I just finished reading Hanson's book last week...what are the odds? You are correct that she points out (as do other zoo historians) that children's zoos and even family farm-type areas did not really take a foothold in zoological parks until after WW2. If we go back a century then zoos were not aimed at children, although that has dramatically changed now as clearly 80% or more of visitors are families with young kids. I'd personally love to see zoos create a more teen-friendly atmosphere but the truth of the matter is that many young children who initially adore zoos simply grow out of such interests at a certain age. I myself was a fan of zoos when I was in my teens, but as a high school teacher I find it difficult to name a single student who goes out of their way to visit a local zoo or aquarium unless they are on a field trip. Many of the kids that I've taught over the years have been involved in either sports, video games or they have become glued to some kind of electronic device.

 

[Drew]

This section of your response made me smile as I just finished reading Hanson's book last week...what are the odds? You are correct that she points out (as do other zoo historians) that children's zoos and even family farm-type areas did not really take a foothold in zoological parks until after WW2. If we go back a century then zoos were not aimed at children, although that has dramatically changed now as clearly 80% or more of visitors are families with young kids. I'd personally love to see zoos create a more teen-friendly atmosphere but the truth of the matter is that many young children who initially adore zoos simply grow out of such interests at a certain age. I myself was a fan of zoos when I was in my teens, but as a high school teacher I find it difficult to name a single student who goes out of their way to visit a local zoo or aquarium unless they are on a field trip. Many of the kids that I've taught over the years have been involved in either sports, video games or becoming glued to some kind of electronic device.

I wonder what everyone feels makes a teen-friendly atmosphere? Obviously many (not all) teens (many adults too I suppose!) have a fascination with technology so are zoos destined to adopt a greater embrace on hand-held technology if they are to appeal to them? I think they will but I hope it can be done in a way that doesn't make the technology the star instead of the animals and habitats.

 

[Batto]

@snowleopard: if you knew those facts beforehand, then why did you generalize that zoos have always been focused on young children, when you know that this statement of yours is incorrect?

As an English teacher, you might recognize the original source of the following quote: "(...) you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" This is also very true for zoos.

Zoos can't rely on just one level of society as a source of income. "Children are the future!" everyone touts, but as a teacher, you probably know better than me how this tune changes immediately in reality when more ressources for education are required.
To achieve better results in conservation, public education, dealing with the anti-zoo lobby and last but not least general acceptance as well as a better quality of entertainment, modern zoos should strive to be more than amusement parks for young children and their parents (without excluding them!). Less cotton candy, more wholesome meals.

As for teenagers: thankfully, not all of them are that tech-savvy. Dealing with live animals, animal welfare, serious conversation and that all clearly steering away from presentations aimed at young kids... is actually a great way to get to them personally; you just have to get that buggy-hugging PETA filth out of some of their heads first.

 

[gentle lemur]

I feel that it's a mistake to generalise too much. Here in the UK zoos differ widely, some aim largely at local families with young children, some at holiday makers, some are trying to go upmarket with 'glamping' (glamorous camping) overnight experiences, one or two safari parks are linked to stately homes, some zoos are adjuncts of theme parks (or funfairs as we used to call them).
The big zoos study their visitors closely and link their new developments to their marketing strategy, for example Chester realised some years ago that they needed a large all-weather attraction to boost visitor numbers in the winter after a detailed analysis (which the zoo published): when the huge 'Heart of Africa' development ran into funding problems, they chose the 'Islands' project as a lower cost alternative and this will open next year including the Monsoon Forest, the largest indoor zoo exhibit in the UK.
Under the terns of our Zoo Licensing Act, zoos have to show that they educate the public about conservation matters but again the style and contents of the messages vary widely.

Alan