Ranking the stars; what are the popular zoo animals?

[twilighter]

Here you go. Visited 60 + zoos, some of them multiple times. Never worked in a zoo.

Elephant 50
Giraffe 50
Giant Panda 50
Polar bear 47
Lion/Tiger 47
Gorilla 47
Great Apes, but Gorilla 44
Koalas 44
Rhino 44
Brown Bear 43
Penguins 42
Meerkats 42
Old world monkeys 42
Zebra 41
Hippo 41
Black Panther - Leopard/Jaguar 40
Flamingo 38
Kangaroos 38
Big cats, but Lion/Tiger/Black Panther 38
Lemurs 36
Gray Wolf 36
Bears, but Polar/Brown/ Giant Panda 36
Okapi 34
Red Panda 34
Cheetah + Puma 34
New world monkeys 32
Sharks 32
Pinnipeds 31
Cetaceans 30
Unique flagship animal for the zoo - Pangolin / Platypus / Spix's macaw 30
Komodo dragon 28
Painted dogs 28
Birds of pray 27
Small carnivores Otters/Raccoons/Small cats/ Mustelids 26
Colorful bovines: Bongo / Forest Buffalo / Sitatunga 26
Parrots 24
Venomous snakes 24
Crocodiles 24
Bactrian Camel/ Dromedary 23
Xentarthra 22
Marsupials, but Macropodes 22
Other Bovines 20
Tapirs 18
Deers 18
Canids, but Gray wolf/Painted dogs 17
Hyenas 16
Other Reptiles 16
Rodents 12
Equids but Zebra 12

 

[lintworm]

@lintworm I have a list, but thought that is much more authentic to ask 10 non-zoo nerds family and friends for their favorite zoo animals. Will summarize it and post it later .

Asking non-zoo nerds would be preferable, but contrary to the "expert-based approach" I am taking here, one would need a lot more data points (preferably hundreds). The idea of an expert-based approach is that it takes a lot less data points to get to a proper valid dataset, but it does indeed sacrifice some authenticity.

I feel that how an animal is presented and even its exact location can matter. I would guess normally people would prefer a macaque to a marmoset, but in one situation, the marmosets were in an attractive well signed exhibit near the entrance, where they attracted quite a bit of attention, whereas in another the macaques were somewhat less popular than normal, being in a somewhat bland exhibit towards the exit, where people were too lazy to actually focus on the creatures. Of course, this is not a rule, just an observation. I will try and post a list later, mainly focusing on animals found in Indian zoos.

I agree that exhibit quality is also important and I am still thinking of a way how to include such a thing, if possible at all.

If you post a list, please focus on all zoo animals, if you focus just on animals in Indian zoos, your list won't be of any use.

 

[Jogy]

...not so easy to find the right level of detail / aggregation.

But a really good question - I'm already curious on the consolidated results!

Echidnas: 12
Platypuses: 40
Tasmanian devil: 30
Wombats: 20
Koalas: 43
Kangaroos: 35
Tree kangaroos: 25
Hedgehogs: 10
Bats: 22
Lemurs: 35
Monkeys: 28
Baboons: 30
Gibbons: 32
Orang Utan: 45
Bonobo: 37
Chimpanzee: 39
Gorillas: 43
Giant anteater: 26
Sloths: 30
Rabbits and Hares: 18
Porcupines: 15
Squirrels: 25
Rats/mice: 8
Beavers: 18
Orcas: 48
Dolphins: 42
Meerkats: 34
Hyenas: 24
Smaller cats: 18
Lynx: 24
Cheetah: 33
Leopard: 37
Jaguar: 37
Snow leopard: 35
Tiger: 42
White Tigers: 45
Lion: 45
Foxes: 18
Wolves: 32
Brown bear: 38
Polar bear: 45
Other big bears: 34
Giant panda: 50
Red panda: 34
Raccoons: 26
Otters: 34
Sea lions: 38
Walruses: 40
Earless seals: 30
Manatees: 36
Elephants: 45
Zebras: 30
Wild asses: 20
Rhinos: 35
Tapirs: 24
Suidae: 22
Hippopotamus: 37
Pygmy hippopotamus: 26
Camelids: 25
Giraffes: 38
Okapi: 30
Large deer: 18
Smaller deer: 12
Bovids: 24
Antelopes: 22
Gazelles: 24
Mountain goats: 16
Takins: 20
Ibex: 25

Penguines: 32
Birds of prey: 20
Flamingos: 20
Ostriches: 16
Parrots: 18
Waterfowl: 10
Pelicans: 16
Storks / Cranes: 14
Birds of paradise: 24
Other birds: 6

Crocodiles: 30
Giant tortoises: 22
Sea turtels: 20
Large snakes: 16
Venomous snakes: 14
Other snakes: 8
Komodo dragon: 24
Other lizards: 8

Whale shark: 42
Large sharks: 36
Small sharks: 15
Manta rays: 38
Other rays: 16
Colourful fish: 18
Other fish: 8

 

[amur leopard]

A few problems I came up against in my list are:

1) Where is the location? In Australia, people probably wouldn't be too interested in Platypuses, yet they are extremely popular over in San Diego because they are the only place that has them outside of Australasia! Similarly with other animals that are common in their native range yet rare or not exhibited outside of it.

2) How much signage is there? This is perhaps the more important one. If a Sira curassow were to be displayed next to a Nocturnal curassow, the visitors would just probably walk past both of them, or have a short look in and then walk on. Yet if there is plentiful and colourful, perhaps even interactive signage, the visitors would stop and look for the Critically endangered bird while without the signage they would have got just as much attention as the common bird. The same applies to species which are not commonly known to be rare.
An example, again involving curassows, was at the Berlin zoo in 2013. My sister, normally rather bored by birds of any sort really, was about to walk past an old curassow exhibit, when she saw the signage with a picture of a curassow on it. She liked the look of the curly crest and so we waited and watched by the exhibit until it came out.
Although it wasn't particularly excellent signage and this isn't the best example, though it is true, I reckon it is pretty important in deciding how much importance a normal visitor puts on a certain species.

 

[lintworm]

A few problems I came up against in my list are:

1) Where is the location? In Australia, people probably wouldn't be too interested in Platypuses, yet they are extremely popular over in San Diego because they are the only place that has them outside of Australasia! Similarly with other animals that are common in their native range yet rare or not exhibited outside of it.

2) How much signage is there? This is perhaps the more important one. If a Sira curassow were to be displayed next to a Nocturnal curassow, the visitors would just probably walk past both of them, or have a short look in and then walk on. Yet if there is plentiful and colourful, perhaps even interactive signage, the visitors would stop and look for the Critically endangered bird while without the signage they would have got just as much attention as the common bird. The same applies to species which are not commonly known to be rare.
An example, again involving curassows, was at the Berlin zoo in 2013. My sister, normally rather bored by birds of any sort really, was about to walk past an old curassow exhibit, when she saw the signage with a picture of a curassow on it. She liked the look of the curly crest and so we waited and watched by the exhibit until it came out.
Although it wasn't particularly excellent signage and this isn't the best example, though it is true, I reckon it is pretty important in deciding how much importance a normal visitor puts on a certain species.

1) As mentioned the analysis is firstly concerned with Europe.

2) That is a wholly different question that I do not think is directly related to what popular zoo animals are in general. My home zoo has been able to turn Fiddler Crabs into stars, but it is not crabs that people go to a zoo for. This exercise is mainly concerned about a priori expectations on what an average zoo visitor wants to see. Presentation (including signage) can help to elevate an experience one has with a certain species, but that is a different topic.

 

[twilighter]

Asking non-zoo nerds would be preferable, but contrary to the "expert-based approach" I am taking here, one would need a lot more data points (preferably hundreds). The idea of an expert-based approach is that it takes a lot less data points to get to a proper valid dataset, but it does indeed sacrifice some authenticity.

I can only agree. In the 10 top 5s I got more than 30 different animals. Used my kids and friends answers mainly as a guidline to create the list. The big carnivores definately lead, though.

 

[Junklekitteb]

If you post a list, please focus on all zoo animals, if you focus just on animals in Indian zoos, your list won't be of any use.

Um, I have no idea how popular an echidna or a cetacean is. I meant I will cover those species i have a knowledge of how popular they are.

 

[Jurek7]

I would add: active animal - multiple by 3, animal interacting with the public - multiple by 10. Possibly popularity of some animals, e.g. dull baboons attract more people than colorful guenons - comes from the fact they live in larger groups and there is more action.

 

[CGSwans]

I’m not sure the 50-point scale is very meaningful. How much thought are people really putting into whether a species is ‘worth’ a 41 versus a 44? I’ll have a go at this as a 10-point scale instead, but multiplied out to 50.

My working theses are:
- People don’t care about rarities unless they are culturally prominent species. I’m sorry.
- People really only care about seeing animals they know, as opposed to ones they don’t.
- A highly active species boosts them a level or so on average.
- Most species within a category are interchangeable - I don’t think many zoo-goers care whether they see a Humboldt or King penguin, for instance. There are exceptions, particularly among well-known groups like cats and bears.
- The ‘standard’ species that are present in a typical collection constitute what people expect to see, and that these are clustered around the middle of the range - 20-35.

50 - Giant pandas
45 - Cetaceans, whale sharks
40 - koalas, maybe manatees
35 - elephants, great apes, polar bears, tigers, giraffes, pinnipeds, active-swimming sharks and rays
30 - lions, rhinos, hippos, meerkats, penguins, zebras, other bears
25 - other big cats, gibbons, monkeys, lemurs, large crocodilians, otters, red pandas, raptors, flamingoes, parrots, butterflies
20 - large canids, active small carnivores, kangaroos, anteaters, owls, Komodo dragons, reef fish
15 - distinctive hoof stock (tapirs, camels, okapi, large bovids like bison), bats, sloths, naked mole-rats, most nocturnal species, hornbills, giant tortoises, snakes
10 - nondescript deer and antelopes, most rodents, other reptiles, amphibians, octopi, seahorses
5 - nondescript birds, nondescript fish, other insects
-100 - Waldrapp bin-chickens

129 zoos visited, strictly amateur.

 

[15399]

I have visited approximately 20 zoos and have been a zoo volunteer for 4 years. Here is my list-
Baby Animals of Charismatic species- 50
Giant Panda-50
Koala- 40
Red Panda-40
Dolphins- 40
Lions and Tigers- 40
Giraffes- 35
Penguins-35
Seals and Sea Lions- 35
Meerkats- 30
Sloths-30
Elephants- 30
Great Apes- 30
Big Cars, Cheetah, Cougar (excl. lion and tiger)- 30
Bears- 30
Babies of non-Charismatic species- 30
All Primates- 25
Rhino and Hippo- 25
Zebra- 25
Wolves- 25
Fennec Fox- 20
Bald Eagle- 20
Macaws- 20
Kangaroo- 15
Crocodiliams-15
Large or venomous snakes- 15
Ducks and geese- 10
Bison- 10
Turtles and tortoises- 10
Everything Else- 1

 

[Andrew Swales]

Why not just simply look at the number of sponsors/adopters on the enclosures at your local zoo - rather than just guessing - or at the moment, I suppose, just ask their customer services. This will give you the actual data, as adopters will have put their hands in their pockets....

 

[lintworm]

Why not just simply look at the number of sponsors/adopters on the enclosures at your local zoo - rather than just guessing - or at the moment, I suppose, just ask their customer services. This will give you the actual data, as adopters will have put their hands in their pockets....

Number of sponsors / adopters doesn't work as adopting a meerkat can be >20 times cheaper than adopting an elephant, so this difference in cost explains more than the real popularity when looking at total adoptions. And this approach is also actual data, not just random guesses, it might not be first hand data of the highest quality, but once enough replies have come in, this is likely a pretty robust dataset, not the perfect dataset, but those don't exist anyway.

 

[Andrew Swales]

Number of sponsors / adopters doesn't work as adopting a meerkat can be >20 times cheaper than adopting an elephant, so this difference in cost explains more than the real popularity when looking at total adoptions. And this approach is also actual data, not just random guesses, it might not be first hand data of the highest quality, but once enough replies have come in, this is likely a pretty robust dataset, not the perfect dataset, but those don't exist anyway.

Not true. We band our sponsorships into just two categories A & B, and they are only a few pounds apart. The details are clearly shown on our web-site. We have the data on file to show you are wrong, and spp popularity is clearly shown by the number of adoptions.

 

[lintworm]

Not true. We band our sponsorships into just two categories A & B, and they are only a few pounds apart. The details are clearly shown on our web-site. We have the data on file to show you are wrong, and spp popularity is clearly shown by the number of adoptions.

Not true for Hamerton and I would be interested in your data to validate my findings. Preferably one would need the data of 20 zoos that have such a system, as Hamerton alone doesn't have many of the ABC animals. I can't say I know much about adoption systems in the UK, but for zoos in Germany & Netherlands that do adoptions there are clear price gaps between adoption costs, ranging from 25 to 10.000 euros per year even within the same zoo. I didn't know of any zoo which has just two relatively similar price categories.

 

[pipaluk]

Not true for Hamerton and I would be interested in your data to validate my findings. Preferably one would need the data of 20 zoos that have such a system, as Hamerton alone doesn't have many of the ABC animals. I can't say I know much about adoption systems in the UK, but for zoos in Germany & Netherlands that do adoptions there are clear price gaps between adoption costs, ranging from 25 to 10.000 euros per year even within the same zoo. I didn't know of any zoo which has just two relatively similar price categories.

Hamerton is not necessarily the best zoo to judge the popularity of animals on, because of all the rarities, but I suspect most would adopt the animals they recognise - I would guess white tiger and meerkat would be among the most popular, possibly flamingos, gibbons. Wombat might be an outside bet but I'd be surprised if cassowary or grison were high on the list

 

[Andrew Swales]

Hamerton is not necessarily the best zoo to judge the popularity of animals on, because of all the rarities, but I suspect most would adopt the animals they recognise - I would guess white tiger and meerkat would be among the most popular, possibly flamingos, gibbons. Wombat might be an outside bet but I'd be surprised if cassowary or grison were high on the list

Yes indeed. Interestingly gift shop sales also correlate quite closely with popularity, as would be expected. We always try to offer examples of what we have in the collection, as there is always more demand for a souvenir of what people have seen. Then only exception is the giraffe. Off the top of my head if we were ordering product for the shop with all else being equal, it would be 50-75% white tiger, with 'orange' tiger next, probably followed by giraffes, flamingos and meerkats and now sloths. The rest would make up very small percentages, with binturongs, wombats, anteater etc next. Fourth tier down would be 'small' cats including cheetahs which have little interest for the public, followed by the rest. It will be interesting to see where the bears fit into this, as historically without bears in the collection, demand for such toys has been zero. Along with rhinos and hippos, we would always reject any such lines.

 

[lintworm]

I have made a simple online survey with the same question:

Zoo animal popularity

For the people who have already answered in this thread, there is no need to do the same exercise again. I hope that others will also take a bit of their time (10-15 minutes) to fill in the questionnaire, as currently I don't have enough replies yet to do any analyses based on them.

You can spread the link to other zoo nerd groups (e.g. some on Facebook), I am no member of such groups and don't aspire to become one. If you share, please ensure it will only be filled in by fellow zoo nerds/ zoo employees., NOT by the general public.

 

[amur leopard]

Not true. We band our sponsorships into just two categories A & B, and they are only a few pounds apart. The details are clearly shown on our web-site. We have the data on file to show you are wrong, and spp popularity is clearly shown by the number of adoptions.

Yes but zoos like Prague have adoption programs where it costs 50000 CZK (£1,600) to adopt a giraffe or a tiger but 1000 CZK (£32) to adopt a Butterfly lizard. Admittedly, one could look at the tiers they have used (I used to use their list as a species list it is so detailed), and combine that with the number of people who have adopted the animals in a feasible ratio and that might work. However, @lintworm has found his own way of doing it and I reckon it works quite well, although I would be interested to see what answers normal folks would give.

 

[Andrew Swales]

Yes but zoos like Prague have adoption programs where it costs 50000 CZK (£1,600) to adopt a giraffe or a tiger but 1000 CZK (£32) to adopt a Butterfly lizard. Admittedly, one could look at the tiers they have used (I used to use their list as a species list it is so detailed), and combine that with the number of people who have adopted the animals in a feasible ratio and that might work. However, @lintworm has found his own way of doing it and I reckon it works quite well, although I would be interested to see what answers normal folks would give.

Wow - we wish they would pay thousands to adopt one of our tigers. Just shows again how different zoos are, with the animals being the only real common denominator...

 

[amur leopard]

Wow - we wish they would pay thousands to adopt one of our tigers. Just shows again how different zoos are, with the animals being the only real common denominator...

I'm not sure I know anyone who would actually pay £1600 to adopt a tiger, but? Maybe they like their tigers in Prague . I think adopting a Chinese Giant salamander cost £640. You could buy a pretty good camera lens for that price.