establishing a future for zoos

L

LARTIS

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
I think we all d have got an impression zoological gardens r going
simplified
more space for more species
and many of you have already voiced a concern that just reduction alone threatened both conservation and educational aspect of these institutions.
A lot of institutions relied on either support from the goverment or public attendance.
So is there any idea how these institutions d better manage the issue or are they just more or less victim.
 
Well there are a few problems. First of all the spacial needs of species are increasing which is good for the health of the animals. Second zoos are not built to handle this. Most older zoos were built with the idea that they put animals on small cages without proper group sizes so now as we learn more we discover this amount of space is not proper nor ethical for species. Third, if zoos want to avoid this issue but still care for large animals they have to move to larger spaces. But most larger spaces are not near large metropolitan areas so these zoos can’t get the same amount of visitors they would have in their old areas. ZSL is tiny but they can’t move to their other location because of how far away from London it is. San Diego could go to their Safari Park but it’s nowhere near San Diego, or any large city for that matter. And even if zoos do find larger spaces some people (lazy people) won’t want to travel larger zoos to see more animals. Sadly we will see a loss of species that require space or aren’t popular because zoos need to make cuts.
 
I believe that the future of Zoos lies in expansion. As it has been said before, Zoos need more room, and there are certainly many places, at least here in the US, where land is decently cheap. The issue, as has also been said before, is distance. Sure, you might be able to get a nice, cheap, 500 acre plot with the perfect climate and landscape, but if it is 3 hours away from any major city, nobody is going to show up. How do you solve this issue, well there are several ways.

For starters, Zoos/ Safari Parks can survive on their own even if they’re far away from urban centers, that is if they have reputation enough. San Diego Safari Park is quite a ways out of San Diego, but it attracts massive crowds on a daily basis. This is likely because it is associated with the San Diego Zoo brand which, in the zoo world, pretty much guarantees a good facility, and experience.

Now here we start to get into the more hypothetical range, but here goes anyway. Zoos, especially those far away from urban zones, could begin to develop partially as theme parks. Perhaps if some aspects of theme parks are meshed with zoos, they will appeal to a wider audience, and create a new experience which will warrant and incentivize a day long, or even multi-day trip. So long as Zoos keep their core values of conservation and education, I only see a few reasons why this may not work. One issue is that theming is expensive, as with most things, and would require a larger budget. Second, some may not like the cheesiness and over theming of a theme park incorporated into a Zoological facility. However, each of these issues can be solved by gradual theming. Perhaps one or two little rides, costing a bit less money, and a more natural theme, and both of these issues can be kept to a minimum.

Another possibility, is hotels at Zoos. Increasing amounts of Zoos are creating overnight stay programs, and even some like Pairi Daiza are incorporating full blown resorts. Granted, not every zoo is funded by a billionaire, but something on even a smaller scale would allow guests an overnight stay and ease of access when visiting. Whether it is a true zoo enthusiast looking for a holiday, or a simple family looking for a staycation, this concept could yield increased attendance and, in the long term, funds for zoos. A pool, lounge, and decent rooms is really all you need. Perhaps a VIP package for an included Animal Encounter, and you have, just like that, attracted more guests.

Ultimately, I think that using these ideas, and many others, Zoos located on the periphery of metropolitan areas can attract the guests and income to support them. Call me an Optimist, buy if some random summertime fair about the Renaissance can get millions of Coloradans to drive 3 hours out and back, then so can a Zoo.
 
ThatOneZooGuy said:
I believe that the future of Zoos lies in expansion. As it has been said before, Zoos need more room, and there are certainly many places, at least here in the US, where land is decently cheap. The issue, as has also been said before, is distance. Sure, you might be able to get a nice, cheap, 500 acre plot with the perfect climate and landscape, but if it is 3 hours away from any major city, nobody is going to show up. How do you solve this issue, well there are several ways.

For starters, Zoos/ Safari Parks can survive on their own even if they’re far away from urban centers, that is if they have reputation enough. San Diego Safari Park is quite a ways out of San Diego, but it attracts massive crowds on a daily basis. This is likely because it is associated with the San Diego Zoo brand which, in the zoo world, pretty much guarantees a good facility, and experience.

Now here we start to get into the more hypothetical range, but here goes anyway. Zoos, especially those far away from urban zones, could begin to develop partially as theme parks. Perhaps if some aspects of theme parks are meshed with zoos, they will appeal to a wider audience, and create a new experience which will warrant and incentivize a day long, or even multi-day trip. So long as Zoos keep their core values of conservation and education, I only see a few reasons why this may not work. One issue is that theming is expensive, as with most things, and would require a larger budget. Second, some may not like the cheesiness and over theming of a theme park incorporated into a Zoological facility. However, each of these issues can be solved by gradual theming. Perhaps one or two little rides, costing a bit less money, and a more natural theme, and both of these issues can be kept to a minimum.

Another possibility, is hotels at Zoos. Increasing amounts of Zoos are creating overnight stay programs, and even some like Pairi Daiza are incorporating full blown resorts. Granted, not every zoo is funded by a billionaire, but something on even a smaller scale would allow guests an overnight stay and ease of access when visiting. Whether it is a true zoo enthusiast looking for a holiday, or a simple family looking for a staycation, this concept could yield increased attendance and, in the long term, funds for zoos. A pool, lounge, and decent rooms is really all you need. Perhaps a VIP package for an included Animal Encounter, and you have, just like that, attracted more guests.

Ultimately, I think that using these ideas, and many others, Zoos located on the periphery of metropolitan areas can attract the guests and income to support them. Call me an Optimist, buy if some random summertime fair about the Renaissance can get millions of Coloradans to drive 3 hours out and back, then so can a Zoo.
Click to expand...
Well, we would need an innovator for that, someone with enough money to jumpstart the project. A person with a strong enough vision to develop the idea. Someone who is smart enough to figure out all the logistics. And on top of all of that be able to create good themeing people are interested in and expertly integrate education.
Sadly we are about 70 years late as that is one of Walt Disney's older ideas for Disneyland. It was in the section known as Adventureland where he wanted to make an educational boat ride that went past live animals in his theme park. He didn't have enough space so the plan never came to fruition but he is probably the best example of someone who could actually do this. People come from all over the world to see Disneyland, and they have since the Jungle Cruise started as an informational boat trip around the jungle. So if you want this I suggest you look into how Walt Disney built Disneyland and how he got the funding and attention and maybe you can find a few ways to make this possible.
 
Westcoastperson said:
Well, we would need an innovator for that, someone with enough money to jumpstart the project. A person with a strong enough vision to develop the idea. Someone who is smart enough to figure out all the logistics. And on top of all of that be able to create good themeing people are interested in and expertly integrate education.
Sadly we are about 70 years late as that is one of Walt Disney's older ideas for Disneyland. It was in the section known as Adventureland where he wanted to make an educational boat ride that went past live animals in his theme park. He didn't have enough space so the plan never came to fruition but he is probably the best example of someone who could actually do this. People come from all over the world to see Disneyland, and they have since the Jungle Cruise started as an informational boat trip around the jungle. So if you want this I suggest you look into how Walt Disney built Disneyland and how he got the funding and attention and maybe you can find a few ways to make this possible.
Click to expand...

That’s is a very good point, I think that zoos, to complete what I said before, will certainly need a larger budget, and like you said, a very creative vision, so DisneyWorld would certainly be a great example to analyze!
 
ThatOneZooGuy said:
That’s is a very good point, I think that zoos, to complete what I said before, will certainly need a larger budget, and like you said, a very creative vision, so DisneyWorld would certainly be a great example to analyze!
Click to expand...
No, I would not analyze Disney WORLD analyze the creation of Disney LAND in California. It was built far from any metropolitan area, but right next to a major highway to still get a propper guest flow. But yes you need someone passionate, creatie, well known, and with a large enough cash flow (doesn't particularly need to be personal wealth).
 
I think the future lies in city zoos keeping small and abc animals and doing most of the breeding and housing the bulk of their animals at preserves away from the city center. Zoos would need to prioritize what species go at what zoo. I think also the future in many zoos lies in consolidating herds and large groups to zoos with more land. Also limiting how many species ie only one species of big cat/ great ape.
 
I would like to add one small theory I had about the land issue. What if instead of people driving to zoos something took them there? I was thinking about a landmark out here in Los Angeles called the Getty Museum where people take a monorail to the actual museum because it is located at the top of a hill. So what if you took people to the zoo from a large metropolitan area by monorail? The monorail would take them out of the city to the actual zoo where designers and animals wouldn't be limited to the size constraints and building regulations of large metropolitan areas.
 
marmoset23 said:
Also limiting how many species ie only one species of big cat/ great ape
Click to expand...
Well, that takes away a zoo's right to choose what species they want to hold and means AZA facilities that are trying to be geared to one group of animals (a cat-rescue center or great ape conservation center) wouldn't be able to hold those species. If the AZA had that much control over what species zoos had we wouldn't have a homogenization problem and might actually have more SSP animals because of how well regulated each zoo would be.
 
CGSwans said:
I admire the bravery of coming onto Zoochat and suggesting the future of zoos should be having more roller coasters and hotels. :D
Click to expand...
I am actually a huge advocate of more hotels in zoos. I think its an idea that has limitless potential and I think there is a strong future in having more of them. Pairi Daiza is the most notable example with their polar bear and walrus underwater rooms which looks insane in the best possible way. Although the idea of a polar bear crashing into the water in the middle of the night sounds unsettling (I suppose they bring them indoors at night?). Either way, this looks pretty spectacular.

Also worth noting the National Zoo in Canberra, Australia has the Jamala Wildlife Lodge which looks simply brilliant. I linked a video below of this place and I encourage everyone to check it out. A balcony overlooking the giraffe exhibit, bathtub by sun bears, a main lobby with colobus monkeys, a shark tank and an outdoor pool. The upcoming hotel being built adjacent to the Singapore parks also looks fantastic. I think this is a market with tons of untapped potential. As long as it doesn't disrupt the zoo for an average visitor, I see no reason why not to add more hotels to zoos. They are sure to also generate plenty of money.

EDIT - I almost forgot to mention the greatest zoo hotel of them all, that Chinese polar bear hotel that recently opened! Truly an awe-inspiring experience for visitors and state of the art enclosure for the bears. Arguably the greatest zoo exhibit of all time.

 
I mean, sure, a hotel in a zoo is a nice hotel. But zoos are supposed to be democratic places - the whole point is to bring animal experiences to people who cannot afford to go traipsing off on safari to Africa. I understand the impetus to maximise revenue, but hotels are an exclusive operation encroaching on what is, or should be, at least semi-public space.

NZA is a private business and can do what it wants, but I do not think Jamala is something for us to celebrate.
 
CGSwans said:
I mean, sure, a hotel in a zoo is a nice hotel. But zoos are supposed to be democratic places - the whole point is to bring animal experiences to people who cannot afford to go traipsing off on safari to Africa. I understand the impetus to maximise revenue, but hotels are an exclusive operation encroaching on what is, or should be, at least semi-public space.

NZA is a private business and can do what it wants, but I do not think Jamala is something for us to celebrate.
Click to expand...
But what is wrong with having both? A zoo choosing to construct a hotel on their grounds has no real effect on the average visitor who cannot afford to stay at it. They can enjoy the zoo the standard way like they always have, while those who have some extra money to spend can enjoy a nice experience that brings them closer to animals - a key goal of the modern zoo - and also benefits the zoo in question. To suggest that adding a hotel would defeat the point of zoos seems bizarre. Every major zoo has premium experiences like behind the scenes tours and the like, does that infringe on that point as well?
 
Mmm, but what if a zoo - wanting to amp up the value of its product - decides to make some enclosures exclusively accessible by hotel guests? What if (as is already the case at some zoos) the hotel facilities interfere with sightlines and negatively impact exhibit quality?

Once you change the income structure of a zoo, you almost inevitably change its decision-making and values as well.
 
CGSwans said:
Mmm, but what if a zoo - wanting to amp up the value of its product - decides to make some enclosures exclusively accessible by hotel guests? What if (as is already the case at some zoos) the hotel facilities interfere with sightlines and negatively impact exhibit quality?

Once you change the income structure of a zoo, you almost inevitably change its decision-making and values as well.
Click to expand...
Of course locking certain species and exhibits behind a hotel is something I am 100% against. However, none of the examples I mentioned above do this. All of the animals on view from the hotel rooms can all be seen by traversing the zoo normally.

Would you be able to cite some specific examples of the addition of a hotel hindering the quality of an exhibit or view? I am not aware of any and would be curious to see what the issues are. If done correctly, it is absolutely possible to obscure a hotel from the normal visitor, or perhaps even integrate it into the overall theme of the area. For example, a Sumatran longhouse building that features a view into a tiger exhibit for general visitors, while also acting as an overnight accommodation with their own views and experiences of the same habitat.
 
CGSwans said:
Mmm, but what if a zoo - wanting to amp up the value of its product - decides to make some enclosures exclusively accessible by hotel guests? What if (as is already the case at some zoos) the hotel facilities interfere with sightlines and negatively impact exhibit quality?

Once you change the income structure of a zoo, you almost inevitably change its decision-making and values as well.
Click to expand...

You make a very good point, I do, however think I have solutions to the plausible issues presented.

For sight lines, and exhibit quality, there are several ways to go about this. Firstly, theming hotels around the locations they are in is a good way to go about it. Rather than building a towering apartment building in the middle of the savanna, build instead a Safari camp, or in a polar exhibit, build a large log cabin for resort guests. Theming can certainly be an effective tool at hiding things. After all, elephant houses, and maintenance areas would look quite out of place if not for heavy theming to expertly disguise them. Another way to tackle this issue is, like I discussed earlier, more land. Of course this does not solve the issue for city zoos, but for those with plenty of acreage to spare, the resort could simply be placed outside of the actual zoo boundaries, and, similarly to DisneyWorld and other attractions, run shuttles or monorails, or even golf carts between the zoo and resort daily.

Now the bigger issue comes with unique species for resorts. While resorts want to offer a certain dose of exclusivity for their guests, exhibits and animals are not the way to go about it. Sure, having exhibits in the resort isn’t a bad idea, so long as the same animals are exhibited elsewhere. Rather than special resort exclusive animals, zoo resorts could instead take included behind the scenes encounters, or perhaps access to the zoo for an hour before and after opening and closing. Maybe even all-inclusive resorts could be a viable option, providing resort guests with a good incentive to stay at the resort, while not necessarily imposing upon the general public’s experience.

What I’m getting at here is that resorts can be a very good way of bringing in new customers and revenue to the zoo industry, and, if done right, can be set up as not to impose upon the experiences of everyday guests.
 
I'm not going to get into the weeds of this, my intention was to state high-level objections to the underlying values behind such an approach.

I will say that, broadly, your ideas represent a fundamental change to what zoos are and can be, and in ways that go beyond aesthetics and revenue. It isn't the case that all zoo visitors can simply hop in a car and go to a major theme park (sorry, zoo) miles away down a freeway. Inner urban sites impose space restrictions, but they come with the compensating ability to reach and be reachable by the communities they serve. This is particularly important for zoos to be able to maintain equitable access for people of lower socio-economic status.

I think your intention is fine, but you are burning down the village in order to save it. And frankly, save it from what? It is time we move past this "how do we save zoos from themselves" argument. We've been having this discussion for 50 years, and while there is always room for a conversation about how zoos can continue to improve, the old collected wisdom - that zoos must move away from small cages, etc etc - is tired and out of date. Across the developed world, the vast majority of urban zoos have already achieved precisely that.

The solutions for species of welfare concern are known and, for the most part, implemented at zoos that have the space and resources. Zoos that don't have those resources are more often than not making the correct decision to phase out of species they cannot maintain well, leaving them to those they can.

And, coronavirus disruptions aside, the zoo sector as a whole is stunningly successful. More than a billion people visit zoos every year. Major urban zoos attract revenue in the tens of millions and are regularly able to invest in exhibit complexes of eye-watering cost, which rather suggests rumours of the death of zoos have been exaggerated. There is of course also a great many small zoos, many of them private businesses, that scratch a living too.

All of the above is before we come to the core point that people who enjoy theme parks - and resort hotels, for that matter - are already amply served by those industries. Why shouldn't those of us who enjoy zoos continue to enjoy a type of institution that has been successful now for 200 years?
 
CGSwans said:
Mmm, but what if a zoo - wanting to amp up the value of its product - decides to make some enclosures exclusively accessible by hotel guests?
Click to expand...

As *is* the case at some collections..... including the aforementioned Pairi Daiza :P contrary to what @pachyderm pro claims.

There are also some collections - Dvur Kralove comes to mind - where certain species are all-but-impossible to see if one doesn't spring for the hotel costs due to their activity patterns and/or only being allowed onshow exhibit access outside of ordinary visiting hours.
 
Now I do have one idea of making space and it is building multiple story animal houses for smaller species. Bronx’s World of birds comes to mind. However I am sure that such animal houses would still cover a huge horizontal area. And it definitely would cone with its own problems despite the fact that I can’t put a finger on one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top