It's all very fine and noble for some to claim that the only legitimate reason for zoos to exist is for education, but we've got to be realistic - a zoo's existence as a recreation facility is quite a legitimate function and whether we like it or not that seems to be its main function. All that good zoos can do is keep trying to educate any way they can.
Which layout schemes do you prefer zoo's to have?
- Thread starter driftaguy
- Start date
99% of the people who visit a zoo don't care about education or conservation, they want to see interesting animals, see the lions get fed, feed the giraffes, and pat the farm animals,.
If every visitor was required to spend an hour in a classroom learning about natural history before entering the zoo nobody would turn up.
For many people its like a day at the beach, or disney land.
If every visitor was required to spend an hour in a classroom learning about natural history before entering the zoo nobody would turn up.
For many people its like a day at the beach, or disney land.
Absolutely agree - the evidence is clear that people don't necessarily see zoos as anything more significant than a beach or other recreational asset. I also agree that formal, overt education is largely ineffective - the research around the impact of interpretation (signage and exhibit information) supports this, i.e. the vast majority of zoo visitors don't read signage and those that do don't retain the key messages.
The challenge for zoos is to thread the important key messages using a variety of accessible media, techniques and approaches so that there is some take-away from a visit to the zoo. Innovative interp, engaging & effective exhibit design, well trained staff, supporting collateral, a good understanding of the visitor demographics and psychographics etc... There is no magic silver bullet and its a constant challenge, but its all part of running an effective zoo.
In a forum such as this, its important to remember that most people and the majority of zoo visitors don't have the same perspective about the natural world. I think the discussion here is an interesting and important one for the sector.
The challenge for zoos is to thread the important key messages using a variety of accessible media, techniques and approaches so that there is some take-away from a visit to the zoo. Innovative interp, engaging & effective exhibit design, well trained staff, supporting collateral, a good understanding of the visitor demographics and psychographics etc... There is no magic silver bullet and its a constant challenge, but its all part of running an effective zoo.
In a forum such as this, its important to remember that most people and the majority of zoo visitors don't have the same perspective about the natural world. I think the discussion here is an interesting and important one for the sector.
Enzothephotographer
Well-Known Member
When it comes to captive animal facilities, one aspect I look into is how the animal exhibits are categorized. Most places go by taxonomic order, some zoos can be based on habitat, others can be based geographic location. I personally prefer geographically themed exhibits in zoos and aquariums.
Which ones would you prefer?
Which ones would you prefer?
Personally, much prefer zoos to exhibit animals taxonomically.
Last edited by a moderator:
Enzothephotographer
Well-Known Member
I know this convo is old, but I like to have a geographically themed zoo that has it's galleries contain adjacent exhibits representing a taxonomic group, let's say a random Indonesian gallery has clouded leopards adjacent to fishing cats, that's how I would do taxonomic
The only problem here is that the presence of similar species can act as a stressor to captive animals. Wellington Zoo staff reported their Hamadryas baboon’s stress levels greatly decreased when moved out of the exhibit built adjacent to the Chacma baboon cage; while many small felid species won’t breed when housed in close proximity to big cats.
The best compromise is to have precincts arranged by geography, but common sense spacings between species that would be negatively affected by each other. The results are sometimes surprising. The Cheetah at Hamilton Zoo are enriched by having their exhibit overlook the ungulates in the Savannah; while their potential prey don’t give them a moment’s thought.
10 years on from when this thread started, the rampant new trend in layout/design is the reduction of species.
Many of the main zoos have halved the number of species - with those left housed in more spacious exhibits. The argument is welfare (the reasoning is likely a reduction in food costs coupled with a desire to project a positive public image); however the trend has been anything but crowd pleasing - with many taking to social media to complain their local zoo ain’t what it used to be.
The arrangement of exhibits by geography remains the accepted layout of the region’s main zoos (and is also my preference to address the question of this thread).
I’m greatly disappointed in Hamilton Zoo’s masterplan, which details the creation of a ‘Carnivore Corner’ containing a lowly two species. It feels like a backwards move towards zoos of the 20th century, when exhibits were arranged by taxonomy. It was replicated in equally uninspiring form by the Melbourne Zoo (who house four species within their carnivore precinct). Hopefully this is a design/layout trend that’s finished before its even started - even if the reduction in species is here to stay.
Many of the main zoos have halved the number of species - with those left housed in more spacious exhibits. The argument is welfare (the reasoning is likely a reduction in food costs coupled with a desire to project a positive public image); however the trend has been anything but crowd pleasing - with many taking to social media to complain their local zoo ain’t what it used to be.
The arrangement of exhibits by geography remains the accepted layout of the region’s main zoos (and is also my preference to address the question of this thread).
I’m greatly disappointed in Hamilton Zoo’s masterplan, which details the creation of a ‘Carnivore Corner’ containing a lowly two species. It feels like a backwards move towards zoos of the 20th century, when exhibits were arranged by taxonomy. It was replicated in equally uninspiring form by the Melbourne Zoo (who house four species within their carnivore precinct). Hopefully this is a design/layout trend that’s finished before its even started - even if the reduction in species is here to stay.
I have been following this trend in most of the main stream zoos within the ZAA over the years. I believe the reduction in species held is due to a number of factors including hiring non zoo minded people to be real zoo directors as has been done in the past, But instead hire more of the business operators looking more for money return first, Less animals means less food, less keepers with less time spent of the overall looking after a wide ranging collection. As one example of a well known east coast zoo to have the bare minimum of species while trying to attract the public the attend and keep them coming back.
From what I can see in my view would be the rise of the smaller regional zoos within our region. I never saw this coming at any stage but glad to see this could be a better way to see a more comprehensive collection of species for the people that wish to see that. Another factor going in their favor are some of these smaller progressive zoos are importing fresh badly needed bloodlines for current species Like Zebras which our major zoos have failed to do.
I would like to see more innovation about the way animals are exhibited in zoos e.g. showing convergent evolution or perhaps having a big enclosure with a range of gliding animals. I like the concept of Bronx's 'World of Birds', where a big enclosure shows birds living at different levels of a forest.
I like being able to compare related species but I can't see the point in massive tanks of related fish that look very similar, unless you're an expert. I doubt if many visitors can be bothered to do this; it would probably be better to have tanks with very different species.
I don't like seeing many enclosures containing the same species, especially when other species are kept off-show and could be displayed using CCTV and other facilities..
I like being able to compare related species but I can't see the point in massive tanks of related fish that look very similar, unless you're an expert. I doubt if many visitors can be bothered to do this; it would probably be better to have tanks with very different species.
I don't like seeing many enclosures containing the same species, especially when other species are kept off-show and could be displayed using CCTV and other facilities..
Brayden Delashmutt
Well-Known Member
If I'm being totally honest, I've gotten rather bored with geographic exhibits. African and Asian exhibits are so predictable (always zebras, giraffes and lions or tigers, snow leopards and red pandas) and adding a few taxonomic exhibits to zoos would allow for more diversity in different zoos. Not only that, but for carnivoran and primate fans like me, a specific carnivore or primate house is a great place to spend most of your time at zoos to see the select few species you enjoy most.
Brayden Delashmutt
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. As a resident of Omaha who visits the zoo quite frequently, it seems that no other major institution has lost this many species. Sure, we have new world class exhibits, but our species list more than halved. The loss of tons of species has really changed the zoo in a drastic way, and unfortunately Omaha isn't the only major zoo this has happened too. Quite a disappointing trend, and something that really has changed my view on the zoo as of lately.
Really? Here in the USA at least, taxonomic exhibits are almost totally gone. They have their place, but once you've seen Africa and Asia more than 15 times at different zoos but with the same species, it gets really boring. At least here in the USA, bringing in a few more taxonomic exhibits could really help.
cloudedleopard611
Well-Known Member
I say random layout because I like when zoos come up with unique exhibits concepts and ways to group animals.
The thing with Australasian zoos is that historically we’ve been behind the trends of zoos overseas. Auckland Zoo opened a rainforest precinct in 1996, which featured species from South America and Asia, long after North American zoos had progressed to grouping exhibits by geography.
It’s a trend we’ve since adopted - Auckland Zoo now has South East Asia, Africa, New Zealand etc. as do most of the other New Zealand and Australian zoos, which is why it felt like a backwards move when Melbourne opened a Carnivore precinct (a concept that Auckland Zoo had in their masterplans from the 1990’s but subsequently scrapped).
Going forward, immersive exhibits seem to be the continuing trend - along with the provision of space. The consequence has been rampant phase outs, but I digress.
I'm of two minds. Growing up a lot of stories suggested that the move towards biogeographic exhibits was an incredible improvement for zoos and animals and better for education... over time though and as zoos have faced new challenges, it has shown that investment still seems driven by charismatic megafauna, there are sometimes instances a zoo may need flexible housing for species that do not fit obvious biogeographic spaces, specific biogeographic focuses have largely lead instead to continent-based generalization (very often Africa!) and we only really see a handful of very attractive habitats even represented, such as African savannahs, Amazon rainforests, Asian rainforests or highlands. Many budget-challenged zoos ultimately end up constructing large one-species habitats instead.
Taxonomic exhibits for reptiles and birds survive partly because of husbandy concerns detailed elsewhere on zoochat and honestly, I believe partly because reptiles and birds are never very appreciated in biogeographic exhibits if there is a large mammal present, and they are almost always anchored by larger mammals. Small mammal houses have been almost entirely phased out and I would argue they are one of the categories of animals most threatened in captivity here. There are also no aquatic bird houses anymore, with only penguins really flourishing as more than ornaments to other animals as another member once put it well. I think amphibian exhibits would also be better for education than a small frog placed here and there in the middle of larger complexes, including reptile houses.
I think another example is it seems that while there is a lot of movement on improving welfare for apes, you don't see nearly as much investment in new habitats for other kinds of primates even though monkeys were once zoo superstars, with many of them reduced to the same overlooked spaces as reptiles and birds.
At the same time, I think exhibits like Detroit's Amphibian Center, Denver's Tropical Discovery (mostly herps with some fish and a couple mammals) and Primate Panorama, and Lincoln Park's Pepper Family Wildlife Center to an extent show that taxonomic display can still make for a fantastic exhibit if modern welfare standards are applied to design and that nothing about a taxonomic exhibit is inherently antiquated and out of date. It's a question of presentation and construction more than organization. It leaves me wanting for a modern effort at especially a small mammal complex at the very least, or an aquatic bird building or a carnivore house.
Taxonomic exhibits for reptiles and birds survive partly because of husbandy concerns detailed elsewhere on zoochat and honestly, I believe partly because reptiles and birds are never very appreciated in biogeographic exhibits if there is a large mammal present, and they are almost always anchored by larger mammals. Small mammal houses have been almost entirely phased out and I would argue they are one of the categories of animals most threatened in captivity here. There are also no aquatic bird houses anymore, with only penguins really flourishing as more than ornaments to other animals as another member once put it well. I think amphibian exhibits would also be better for education than a small frog placed here and there in the middle of larger complexes, including reptile houses.
I think another example is it seems that while there is a lot of movement on improving welfare for apes, you don't see nearly as much investment in new habitats for other kinds of primates even though monkeys were once zoo superstars, with many of them reduced to the same overlooked spaces as reptiles and birds.
At the same time, I think exhibits like Detroit's Amphibian Center, Denver's Tropical Discovery (mostly herps with some fish and a couple mammals) and Primate Panorama, and Lincoln Park's Pepper Family Wildlife Center to an extent show that taxonomic display can still make for a fantastic exhibit if modern welfare standards are applied to design and that nothing about a taxonomic exhibit is inherently antiquated and out of date. It's a question of presentation and construction more than organization. It leaves me wanting for a modern effort at especially a small mammal complex at the very least, or an aquatic bird building or a carnivore house.
An exhibit can be well-designed using multiple different approaches to layout, and as such, I'm not opposed to any way of organizing a zoo as long as it's well done. There are good complexes themed around reptiles, or primates, or big cats, and then there are also lousy ones and complexes that are relics of a different time. Likewise, there are both good and bad examples of South American, African, and Asian exhibits. Furthermore, claiming that this is a dichotomy where zoos must choose one of these layouts is false. While some zoos do choose to arrange exhibits purely in one method, others are very successful with utilizing multiple different ways to organize their zoo. Many of the major zoos, at least in the United States, have exhibits dedicated to both geographic areas, taxonomic designations, and other themes entirely.
Not mentioned yet in this thread, but something I personally am very fond of, is biome-themed exhibits. A lot of educational concepts that apply to a certain biome on one continent also apply to that same biome elsewhere. Rather than have strict Amazon Rainforest exhibits, a zoo can build an exhibit that is simply "The Rain Forest" or "Tropical Forest" and it allows a lot more flexibility species-wise, incorporating species from South and Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Likewise, I find Desert-themed exhibits to be criminally underrated, and wish more zoos would incorporate a desert-themed exhibit into their zoo. Similarly, another great exhibit idea is behaviorally-based concepts. Not the most common any more, but nocturnal houses are a great example of this, featuring animals active at night and the adaptations associated with that. Other ideas in this regards would be concepts themed around arboreal behaviors/animals that climb, a "flight" themed exhibit pairing birds with bats and flying insects, or exhibits themed around a diet (for example, if a zoo built an exhibit themed around insectivores, including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates that all eat insects). All of these are unique ideas that deserve consideration or inclusion by zoos when designing new concepts, and all have great educational opportunities within them.
Furthermore, and this is similar to @JVM's point about species not fitting "obvious biogeographical spaces", I find there is a need for zoos to have either standalone exhibits or exhibits themed around broad concepts (ex. adaptations- all animals have adaptations so could be included). Some species tend to be not included in zoos, or are kept by very few zoos, because they can't neatly fit into a box for a standard theme. An example of this would be Japanese Macaques. They aren't super common in US Zoos, which I feel is a shame since they are fascinating primates and one of the few that are cold tolerant. However, they don't neatly fit into a biogeographic zone (Japan doesn't have many species present in US Zoos), and often aren't included in primate-themed regions due to their different climactic needs. I wish more zoos would incorporate this incredible species into their collection, but doing so would require some creative or different theming, such as a macaque-only themed exhibit (such as at Lincoln Park Zoo), an exhibit themed around a broader concept (such as Central Park Zoo's temperate themed region), an exhibit that is seemingly randomly placed/not in a themed area, or getting creative with new and original themes that can fit various other species, for instance incorporating macaques into an exhibit themed around the world's Islands.
A lot of smaller zoos also don't have themed areas, and I don't have any problem with this either. As long as the exhibits are well-designed and placed logically (not thematically, but physically placed logically, i.e. there's a logical path to take around the entire zoo), then I don't necessarily find that all exhibits need to be part of some themed realm, and there is a benefit to zoos having areas that exhibit everything but the kitchen sink. Theming can be really cool when done correctly, but isn't essential to designing a good layout!
Not mentioned yet in this thread, but something I personally am very fond of, is biome-themed exhibits. A lot of educational concepts that apply to a certain biome on one continent also apply to that same biome elsewhere. Rather than have strict Amazon Rainforest exhibits, a zoo can build an exhibit that is simply "The Rain Forest" or "Tropical Forest" and it allows a lot more flexibility species-wise, incorporating species from South and Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Likewise, I find Desert-themed exhibits to be criminally underrated, and wish more zoos would incorporate a desert-themed exhibit into their zoo. Similarly, another great exhibit idea is behaviorally-based concepts. Not the most common any more, but nocturnal houses are a great example of this, featuring animals active at night and the adaptations associated with that. Other ideas in this regards would be concepts themed around arboreal behaviors/animals that climb, a "flight" themed exhibit pairing birds with bats and flying insects, or exhibits themed around a diet (for example, if a zoo built an exhibit themed around insectivores, including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates that all eat insects). All of these are unique ideas that deserve consideration or inclusion by zoos when designing new concepts, and all have great educational opportunities within them.
Furthermore, and this is similar to @JVM's point about species not fitting "obvious biogeographical spaces", I find there is a need for zoos to have either standalone exhibits or exhibits themed around broad concepts (ex. adaptations- all animals have adaptations so could be included). Some species tend to be not included in zoos, or are kept by very few zoos, because they can't neatly fit into a box for a standard theme. An example of this would be Japanese Macaques. They aren't super common in US Zoos, which I feel is a shame since they are fascinating primates and one of the few that are cold tolerant. However, they don't neatly fit into a biogeographic zone (Japan doesn't have many species present in US Zoos), and often aren't included in primate-themed regions due to their different climactic needs. I wish more zoos would incorporate this incredible species into their collection, but doing so would require some creative or different theming, such as a macaque-only themed exhibit (such as at Lincoln Park Zoo), an exhibit themed around a broader concept (such as Central Park Zoo's temperate themed region), an exhibit that is seemingly randomly placed/not in a themed area, or getting creative with new and original themes that can fit various other species, for instance incorporating macaques into an exhibit themed around the world's Islands.
A lot of smaller zoos also don't have themed areas, and I don't have any problem with this either. As long as the exhibits are well-designed and placed logically (not thematically, but physically placed logically, i.e. there's a logical path to take around the entire zoo), then I don't necessarily find that all exhibits need to be part of some themed realm, and there is a benefit to zoos having areas that exhibit everything but the kitchen sink. Theming can be really cool when done correctly, but isn't essential to designing a good layout!
I don't mind so much what arrangement a zoo chooses. The most important thing is that the animal's needs are met and considered in the zoo design. This could be done well with any arrangement or even no arrangement. It could also be done badly with any arrangement.
One disadvantage of a geographic arrangement I can think of is that it can limit the possibilities for replacements if a zoo does go out of a species.There are several examples in the last few years where one of my local zoos has gone out of a species and the replacement is from a different continent, for example, banteng replacing sable antelope, binturong replacing fossa or red river hog replacing peccaries.
One interesting example of replacement species in a geographically zoned zoo was at Whipsnade. A few years ago they went out of Eurasian wolves. This exhibit happened to be the border between the European and African sections. The wolves were replaced with African hunting dogs and the boundary between the European and African areas was redrawn.
One disadvantage of a geographic arrangement I can think of is that it can limit the possibilities for replacements if a zoo does go out of a species.There are several examples in the last few years where one of my local zoos has gone out of a species and the replacement is from a different continent, for example, banteng replacing sable antelope, binturong replacing fossa or red river hog replacing peccaries.
One interesting example of replacement species in a geographically zoned zoo was at Whipsnade. A few years ago they went out of Eurasian wolves. This exhibit happened to be the border between the European and African sections. The wolves were replaced with African hunting dogs and the boundary between the European and African areas was redrawn.
