Can a zoo be too small?

It’s also great for the animals too, since the more space there is, usually the more exhibit space the animals are given.

It would be very interesting to know whether this relationship actually holds true. In theory, a physically large zoo has an advantage to provide their inhabitants more space. However, in practice they may also house more and larger species and use more space for visitor facilities or "green space". It is not hard to find examples of appallingly small enclosures in large major zoos (until recently TP Berlin was a prime example) or generous enclosures with abundant space in even the smallest of zoos.
 
I think they can to some degree. In my opinion, small zoos should generally aim for keeping many small species instead of only a few large ones. For example, if a 3-hectare zoo wanted to keep elephants, giraffes and rhinos, then these three species would probably take up the entire area, while if it aimed to only keep smaller mammals, birds and ectotherms, then it could possibly squeeze in 80 species.

A zoo with that small of a surface area and only 3 species would indeed feel very small to me, while a small zoo with a good selection of small species in well-done exhibits could easily be worth a visit.

And then of course distance can factor in: Driving for hours to visit a zoo that can be seen in 30 minutes can probably feel a bit disheartening, but it wouldn't necessarily be too small for a zoo within a few minutes' drive (or walking distance).
This is a very valid point, and for many small zoos they rely almost entirely on local visitors or tourists to the area. I think the perfect example of this is the Central Park Zoo. I would never recommend for someone to drive an hour to see the zoo, but if you are in the area for other reasons, it is a nice way to spend an hour (if that). This zoo also has a fair amount of large species for such a small Zoo- with Grizzly bears, snow leopards, penguins, japanese macaques, and california sea lions.
 
Today, I visited the Capron Park Zoo in MA. I realized that one could pretty much see the whole thing in 30-45 minutes even if they stop to look at the animals. While I am okay with the size, I can imagine some people will probably think it is too small for them.

This is when I ask.

Can a zoo be too small?
It mainly matters on the living animal standards
 
I’ve noticed a lot of people saying some zoos only take 10-15 minutes or 20-30 minutes etc. While I acknowledge that for some people this would be a problem, I personally could still spend hours at a zoo with only a few species as I do like to just sit down and watch an animal for a longer amount of time and I’m sure other members of this site have similar opinions. Obviously I can see how this kind of thing could be a negative for the public but personally I don’t see it as a problem at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MRJ
For me, a zoo is a zoo, and as others said, if it’s adequate for the animals, and I get to see animals, I’m satisfied. I just don’t want to have to walk extraordinarily long distances with almost nothing in between from one part to another (my biggest problem with Toronto when I went...)
 
A zoo can be too small, but that depends entirely on the animals it's trying to keep and also I'd say its general atmosphere.

I went to Crocodiles of the World a couple of years back and overall, it probably only takes an hour to walk around or so, but the general quality of its exhibits and what it is exhibiting in the first place mean it doesn't feel all that small and you feel the hour you spent was worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JT
I would say size doesn't completely matter. For example, smaller zoos like Big Bear Alpine Zoo have this appeal of being small and quick and almost personal. They can be way more intimate then larger zoos like San Diego even if they have lass land and animals. Also, size doesn't always restrict how great of a zoo it can be. Santa Ana Zoo at Prentice Park is about 10 acres but holds one of the best primate collections in North America. They hold 50 species of primates, San Diego has about half that number (I counted about 29) San Diego Zoo Complete Species List [San Diego Zoo]
So no size does not restrict zoos from being great and therefore zoos can't be too small if they manage their land properly.
 
My opinion is that a zoo can’t really be too small because small zoos can have small animals with good enclosures. An example of this is the Buttonwood Park Zoo in New Bedford, Massachusetts, because it is a small zoo, with animals that have very good enclosures.
 
To be fair, a zoo can literally just be one guy's room with some bugs and herps. I'd say as long as it's big enough to comfortably house whatever animals you have, you're good.

However, the term zoo can be used pretty loosely so a definition is needed
 
Bruemmer Park Zoo seems too small, but it isn't - it's just the deer exhibit is WAY to big and needs be split up into multiple exhibits.

That being said this zoo can and should expand into the surrounding park.
 
I think it really depends on what's in the zoo. ZooBizar is officially the smallest zoo in the Netherlands, stopping at all the animal exhibits and even going around twice you'll be done in less than an hour. But the very active, free-roaming armadillos and skunks are very interesting. As well as their grumpy fruit bat. I would actually love to go again simply for those animals
 
  • Like
Reactions: JT
I think it really depends on what's in the zoo. ZooBizar is officially the smallest zoo in the Netherlands, stopping at all the animal exhibits and even going around twice you'll be done in less than an hour. But the very active, free-roaming armadillos and skunks are very interesting. As well as their grumpy fruit bat. I would actually love to go again simply for those animals
There are no super tiny zoos in the Netherlands? There are several zoos near me that can be seen in 5 minutes.
 
Back
Top