Here's an idea that may or may not catch people's imagination. Can we develop a system of assessing zoo exhibits that objectively evaluates their effectiveness for both animals and visitors?
I'm thinking about a grading system that is out of 100 points. It should grade exhibits based on a number of criteria in two broad areas:
- Animal welfare factors: appropriateness of the exhibit based on usable space, carrying capacity of individuals of the species, topography, furnishings for the species exhibited, judged based upon the exhibit to allow animals to be healthy and engage in natural behaviours;
- Visitor impact factors: effectiveness as an exhibit for visitors, in terms of being able to view the animal engaging in natural behaviours, to educate them about the species, its environment, ecological niche and conservation status.
Perhaps you would break up the two sets of considerations into the following:
- Size appropriateness for the species - how well can the animal go about its daily life given the space provided? Very few exhibits can provide the sort of space that the animal might use in the wild, but can the animal/s get sufficient exercise within its territory? Does it have space to engage in natural behaviours such as territorial patrolling, burrowing, foraging and so on?
- Exhibit topography and furnishings - to what extent does the exhibit provide the animal with stimulae to encourage natural behaviours? Are there adequate climbing opportunities? Can the animal bathe? Can the animal forage through substrate for food?
- Social factors: does the exhibit have more, less or the appropriate number of individuals for the species concerned? If the species in question is a social species, can the group grow to the point where it might be of a similar size to those found in the wild? If the animal is solitary, are separate exhibits provided or, at the least, can the individuals form their own territories and ignore each other?
- Education - does the exhibit have interpretative information that helps visitors to learn about the species in question?
- Viewing - can the animal usually be seen engaging in natural behaviours? What are the visual barriers to doing so? How close is it possible to view the animals?
- Naturalism and immersion - to what extent does the exhibit approximate the environmental and ecological context the species lives in?
Here's a conception of how the scale of ratings might work in a specific category:
10 - The exhibit is clearly exceptional and world-class in that category for that species-type
9 - Very nearly world-class with much more than adequate achievement.
8 - Very high standard, more than adequate, but not exceptionally so.
7 - High standard, moderately more than adequate.
6 - Acceptable, slightly above adequate standard but not notably so.
5 - Adequate, but no more.
4 - Slightly below average, but not to the point of concern.
3 - Inadequate, with minor improvements required to bring up to an acceptable standard. Fit for ongoing habitation with plans for improvements in the future.
2 - Seriously inadequate, with significant improvements required to bring up to an acceptable standard. Fit for ongoing habitation only with definite and imminent plans for improvements.
1 - Exhibit in need of major improvements to bring up to an acceptable standard. Not currently fit for ongoing habitation, the exhibit should be closed and the animals housed elsewhere until exhibit replaced or revamped.
Over time, ratings should be roughly normally distributed with a mode around 5.5 and a standard deviation of about 1.6. Adjustments might be made, once enough exhibits for a species or group of species have been evaluated, so that the rankings are indeed normally distributed.
I'd welcome input on the relative weights that should be given to the varying categories within the 100 point system. Also, if people feel that I've missed important aspects of exhibit assessment that should be scored categories of their own, feel free to suggest them.
I'm thinking about a grading system that is out of 100 points. It should grade exhibits based on a number of criteria in two broad areas:
- Animal welfare factors: appropriateness of the exhibit based on usable space, carrying capacity of individuals of the species, topography, furnishings for the species exhibited, judged based upon the exhibit to allow animals to be healthy and engage in natural behaviours;
- Visitor impact factors: effectiveness as an exhibit for visitors, in terms of being able to view the animal engaging in natural behaviours, to educate them about the species, its environment, ecological niche and conservation status.
Perhaps you would break up the two sets of considerations into the following:
- Size appropriateness for the species - how well can the animal go about its daily life given the space provided? Very few exhibits can provide the sort of space that the animal might use in the wild, but can the animal/s get sufficient exercise within its territory? Does it have space to engage in natural behaviours such as territorial patrolling, burrowing, foraging and so on?
- Exhibit topography and furnishings - to what extent does the exhibit provide the animal with stimulae to encourage natural behaviours? Are there adequate climbing opportunities? Can the animal bathe? Can the animal forage through substrate for food?
- Social factors: does the exhibit have more, less or the appropriate number of individuals for the species concerned? If the species in question is a social species, can the group grow to the point where it might be of a similar size to those found in the wild? If the animal is solitary, are separate exhibits provided or, at the least, can the individuals form their own territories and ignore each other?
- Education - does the exhibit have interpretative information that helps visitors to learn about the species in question?
- Viewing - can the animal usually be seen engaging in natural behaviours? What are the visual barriers to doing so? How close is it possible to view the animals?
- Naturalism and immersion - to what extent does the exhibit approximate the environmental and ecological context the species lives in?
Here's a conception of how the scale of ratings might work in a specific category:
10 - The exhibit is clearly exceptional and world-class in that category for that species-type
9 - Very nearly world-class with much more than adequate achievement.
8 - Very high standard, more than adequate, but not exceptionally so.
7 - High standard, moderately more than adequate.
6 - Acceptable, slightly above adequate standard but not notably so.
5 - Adequate, but no more.
4 - Slightly below average, but not to the point of concern.
3 - Inadequate, with minor improvements required to bring up to an acceptable standard. Fit for ongoing habitation with plans for improvements in the future.
2 - Seriously inadequate, with significant improvements required to bring up to an acceptable standard. Fit for ongoing habitation only with definite and imminent plans for improvements.
1 - Exhibit in need of major improvements to bring up to an acceptable standard. Not currently fit for ongoing habitation, the exhibit should be closed and the animals housed elsewhere until exhibit replaced or revamped.
Over time, ratings should be roughly normally distributed with a mode around 5.5 and a standard deviation of about 1.6. Adjustments might be made, once enough exhibits for a species or group of species have been evaluated, so that the rankings are indeed normally distributed.
I'd welcome input on the relative weights that should be given to the varying categories within the 100 point system. Also, if people feel that I've missed important aspects of exhibit assessment that should be scored categories of their own, feel free to suggest them.
