Landscape Immersion and Beyond

[Ituri]

"Landscape immersion is a term coined to describe exhibits in which visitors share the same landscape (but not the same area) as the animals..."*

http://www.joncoedesign.com/pub/PDFs/LandscapeImmersion1994.pdf

Jon Coe highlights some features of a successful landscape immersion exhibit. They include; landscape simulation, continuity of landscape, consistency of design elements, respectful display of the animal, no visible barriers or boundaries, multiple viewpoints with zero crossviews.*

Taking these points in mind, much of what we often think of as immersion exhibits truly aren't. And many that were have been modified and aren't any longer. Landscape immersion exhibits require a lot of space and a considerable financial investment (though not necessarily more than most other exhibit styles if done right). Also landscape immersion is often criticized for placing too much distance between people and animals. The recent trend towards building more "interactivity" into zoo exhibits might possibly be a response to this. So now I have a question for all of you actual and would-be zoo designers. Is landscape immersion still possible in today's world? With budgets being tighter than ever, and zoo guests expecting more interactivity in their zoo-going experience, can a zoo prosper using the aforementioned design principles? In addition, landscape immersion is not something ever really successfully carried out in small zoos for both budgetary reasons along with spacial constraints. Is it possible to bring some but not all of these principles into play for designing in small zoos? Would the end result still be landscape immersion?

 

[Zooplantman]

@Ituri

Interesting questions and I'd have you consider another: is partial landscape immersion if well done acceptable? Or must it be some perfect presentation?

Of course, that raises another question: Is perfect landscape immersion possible? Give an example or two of real exhibits.

 

[Ituri]

@Ituri

Interesting questions and I'd have you consider another: is partial landscape immersion if well done acceptable? Or must it be some perfect presentation?

Of course, that raises another question: Is perfect landscape immersion possible? Give an example or two of real exhibits.

Zooplantman,

Excellent questions. To consider what is acceptable and what isn't, I think we need to look at the objectives of a landscape immersion exhibit. I would state those goals as giving guests a look into the ecology of a given habitat, while giving them a "thrill" of a seemingly wild encounter. Does this actually happen even in the most meticulously recreated landscape? How many guests actually come away from Seattle's Northern Trail having had an experience that made "the hair on the back of their neck stand up"? How many guests leave Seattle's African Savanna with an increased knowledge and awareness of tropical grassland ecology? Have their been studies done to this end?

 

[Ituri]

As for an example of "perfect" landscape immersion, how about the Desert Loop Trail at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Granted they already had the upland Sonora habitat there to work with...

 

[reduakari]

As for an example of "perfect" landscape immersion, how about the Desert Loop Trail at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Granted they already had the upland Sonora habitat there to work with...

Great example--totally agree.

The entry trail to Congo in the Bronx is pretty effective--when you first spot an okapi in the forest clearing, I know I've had a "semi-religious" experience there.

Not so much in February, however....

And then of course there's DAK's Kilimanjaro Safari--which would be close to perfect if you could go through at your own pace without 10 other vehicles on your tail.

 

[Zooplantman]

What Jon Coe outlined so many years ago may be impossible to achieve... not because we can't fund, design and build it but because a family that parked in the lot and hauled out the stroller and grabbed some sodas and needed a bathroom and is checking email on their smartphone is not capable of letting themselves have the experience.

I have seen numerous occasions of young children having the experience. They permit themselves to. All they need is greenery on the path to an animal experience.

But if we can set the stage (and I use that word intentionally) for zoo and aquarium visitors to think about wildlife on Wildlife's terms (rather than human development terms), we have created a successful immersion exhibit. I think this cannot be achieved in a straightforward architectural exhibit -- no matter how fine for the inhabitants -- such as Columbus Zoo's gorilla exhibit or even Chester Zoo's Realm of the Red Ape. Both are great places to marvel at animals, observe behavior... but not to confront our assumptions about human dominion and conservation. Two different things.
and that, IMO, is the reason for immersion exhibits.

 

[Zooplantman]

Also landscape immersion is often criticized for placing too much distance between people and animals.

And yet Jones + Jones' gorilla exhibit at Woodland Park Zoo has its viewing window. Most modern immersion exhibits do. Its the earlier Hagenbeck-inspired, moated exhibits that create distance. Certainly having close-up view and yet hiding barriers is difficult.
What does press the envelope of (now) traditional landscape immersion experiences is the keeper/animal interaction zone such as at Bronx Zoo's Tiger Mountain and Minnesota Zoo's Russia's Grizzly Coast. These are great "behind the scenes" moments but they are placed in front of the scene, right in the middle of the "Siberian wilderness"

 

[Ituri]

What Jon Coe outlined so many years ago may be impossible to achieve... not because we can't fund, design and build it but because a family that parked in the lot and hauled out the stroller and grabbed some sodas and needed a bathroom and is checking email on their smartphone is not capable of letting themselves have the experience.

I have seen numerous occasions of young children having the experience. They permit themselves to. All they need is greenery on the path to an animal experience.

But if we can set the stage (and I use that word intentionally) for zoo and aquarium visitors to think about wildlife on Wildlife's terms (rather than human development terms), we have created a successful immersion exhibit. I think this cannot be achieved in a straightforward architectural exhibit -- no matter how fine for the inhabitants -- such as Columbus Zoo's gorilla exhibit or even Chester Zoo's Realm of the Red Ape. Both are great places to marvel at animals, observe behavior... but not to confront our assumptions about human dominion and conservation. Two different things.
and that, IMO, is the reason for immersion exhibits.

I would agree. So is this something that is even possible in small-scale zoos with modest budgets? Or is this something that is only possible in big budget "mega-zoos"? Is it possible for a visitor to confront these assumptions if they happen to live in a smaller market?

 

[Ituri]

Great example--totally agree.

The entry trail to Congo in the Bronx is pretty effective--when you first spot an okapi in the forest clearing, I know I've had a "semi-religious" experience there.

Not so much in February, however....

And then of course there's DAK's Kilimanjaro Safari--which would be close to perfect if you could go through at your own pace without 10 other vehicles on your tail.

True, Kilimanjaro Safaris is an amazing experience. I would agree that the pace and abundance of Safari vehicles detracts from it. I also think the contrived poacher chase is also a bit much. has anyone been recently enough to see if the infrastructure added for the upcharge foot safari detracts from the experience on the ride?

 

[Ituri]

What does press the envelope of (now) traditional landscape immersion experiences is the keeper/animal interaction zone such as at Bronx Zoo's Tiger Mountain and Minnesota Zoo's Russia's Grizzly Coast. These are great "behind the scenes" moments but they are placed in front of the scene, right in the middle of the "Siberian wilderness"

That relates to the interactivity I was talking about. The question is, do these sorts of things add value to the experience, or do they take away from it?

 

[Zooplantman]

That relates to the interactivity I was talking about. The question is, do these sorts of things add value to the experience, or do they take away from it?

Both
They add value to the visitor's experience and their understanding of modern zoo animal management practices.
They take away from the immersion experience is they are plopped down in the middle of the "journey"

 

[Zooplantman]

I would agree. So is this something that is even possible in small-scale zoos with modest budgets? Or is this something that is only possible in big budget "mega-zoos"? Is it possible for a visitor to confront these assumptions if they happen to live in a smaller market?

To varying degrees, yes.

It's more about quality than size. It also... oddly... depends on the habitat being recreated. To do landscape immersion of a savanna in a small place doesn't work. You can do the scrub part but the larger savanna experience requires space and sky. An Asian forest, or a bamboo forest, doesn't really require much. Nashville Zoo's Bamboo Trail is small, simple, and very effective.

 

[Ituri]

Both
They add value to the visitor's experience and their understanding of modern zoo animal management practices.
They take away from the immersion experience is they are plopped down in the middle of the "journey"

Is it possible to have the best of both worlds here? Perhaps after experiencing an immersive experience, their is a dedicated space that "pulls back the curtain" to deliver the keeper interaction?

 

[reduakari]

Both
They add value to the visitor's experience and their understanding of modern zoo animal management practices.
They take away from the immersion experience is they are plopped down in the middle of the "journey"

I'd agree with this, although in both of these instances the animals are still in their "natural" environments when interacting. I find this less discordant than similar hybrid situations in Dallas, Portland and Denver where the animals are "brought in" to a confined space--undeniably a cage adjacent to the outdoor habitat--to "perform" in the training demonstrations. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one, IMO.

 

[Zooplantman]

Is it possible to have the best of both worlds here? Perhaps after experiencing an immersive experience, their is a dedicated space that "pulls back the curtain" to deliver the keeper interaction?

I don't see why not but it makes the exhibit configuration more complicated... the keeper interaction is connected to the main exhibit usually and so you pull the animal(s) "off exhibit" for the "show." That has problems for other visitors.
But it could be figured out. Depends also on the animals and how many the zoo has.

 

[Jurek7]

Masoala in Zurich and Burgers Bush, Desert and Ocean in Arnhem are examples which fit this immersion.

Masoala is close to my experiences of wandering in real rainforest. It is also impossible to see more than a third or so of species at any one attempt. Normal visitors seem to like it - they go more for rainforest atmosphere, which is superb. Strangely, it is zoo freaks who complain that they cannot see all species.

 

[Jurek7]

I think immersion exhibits could be more numerous, but often planning is faulty.

For example, forgetting sight lines, making viewing points facing obvious buildings in background, poor fake rocks and plants.

 

[Shirokuma]

There is also the old hotwire question: how much of the exhibit is accessible to the animals and how much is 'framing' which looks stunning but isn't part of the exhibit despite appearances to the contrary for the visitor.

 

[snowleopard]

The use of glass/acrylic viewing windows is something that always intrigues fans of immersion exhibits, as an argument can be made that glass clearly separates human visitors from zoo animals and thus is not immersive. However, having glass could be the icing on the cake as far as immersion landscape is concerned as the visitors can literally be inches from the zoo inhabitants.

Woodland Park Zoo has been mentioned a number of times on this thread, and the highly praised habitats there include great enclosures for these species in award-winning sections of the zoo: jaguar, gorilla, colobus monkey, lion, African wild dog, orangutan, lion-tailed macaque, siamang, Humboldt penguin, grizzly bear and river otter. Those eleven exhibits are all fairly impressive and ALL of them feature prominent glass viewing windows. Seeing mammals in spacious enclosures is sometimes diminished by the fact that the animals are difficult to see properly, but glass viewing in medium-sized exhibits is showcased to perfection in Seattle.

The transformation of an exhibit can be achieved via glass in the simplest manner, as illustrated by Detroit Zoo's new lion enclosure. A grotto from 1928 has been radically altered by simply filling in the dry moat and adding large glass viewing panels. Now the lions have a larger area to roam, the historic elements of the enclosure are maintained, and visitors can be inches away from the "king of the jungle". It many not be a truly immersive experience but zoo visitors don't want to gaze out at lions in a vast grassy field (Kansas City) but they want to see them up close and personal. Haven't folks been immersed?

 

[Zooplantman]

The use of glass/acrylic viewing windows is something that always intrigues fans of immersion exhibits, as an argument can be made that glass clearly separates human visitors from zoo animals and thus is not immersive.

I can't see anyone seriously making that case. The alternative to separating visitors and animals is often carnage. So is glass inherently less immersive than a moat? I think neither one is really an issue. There will be a barrier. The question is: What sort of wildlife experience is created?