Zoo Designers Make Their Case
- Thread starter Zooplantman
- Start date
designingzoos
Active Member
Not to be contrary, but if you really think deeply about zoos, you'll see that they are for visitors only. Everything done in the name of welfare for animals is to keep the animals happy and healthy to what end and for whom? For the visitor. A zoo without visitors is a wildlife reserve and is much much different! I know its a bit controversial to be so brash, but really, we have to accept that in order to understand design goals and how to move forward. I think we need to more fully understand our visitors in order to innovate... And the more we understand about them, the more and more complex the zoo becomes. I also disagree that a giraffe feeding has little difference than going to the Dippin Dots. Watching an adult or a child have that one-on-one connection with an animal is simply amazing. Maybe they dont understand the plight of the giraffe any more than they did before coming, but I guarantee you they will have a much stronger affinity to giraffes than they did before. And maybe, just maybe, that will affect future decisions...
BUT, I think it should be studied and documented...Research project anyone??
BUT, I think it should be studied and documented...Research project anyone??
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Yes, the director of that zoo made the same case to me. But from observing visitors I don't buy it. And one can see on-line numerous mommy-blogs and daddy flkr sites with kids and giraffe feeding. There is never much mention of the giraffes. Just how surprised or freaked out or whatever little Precious was.
On a related note: when I was a horticulture student, one professor stated that "Horticulture is to go against Nature." The class rebelled. And he was, as you are, correct.
So how do we get visitors excited and make zoos great places to go without prostituting the animals? I think that is a worthy challenge! We always said that the animals were ambassadors for their species and habitats. But ambassadors ought to maintain some dignity.
And if we raise another generation that does not know the dignity of animals I have little hope for wildlife.
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
Zooplantman is right, not a single guest at that zoo walked away with an appreciation for giraffe conservation or how giraffes are doing in the wild, but there was a reason for that. The zoo itself didn't care either.
If you are designing zoo exhibits, then you have to ask, what or who are you designing them for. If it is just for the people, then why not taxidermy dead animals, place them in life-like poses and have an "adventure" ride through caves, and rivers, and whatnot. Crap - I should stop that thought before someone thinks its a good idea.
I think ZPM hit it right in one word - dignity. If the animals and the people don't have dignity, then everyone involved has failed.
If you are designing zoo exhibits, then you have to ask, what or who are you designing them for. If it is just for the people, then why not taxidermy dead animals, place them in life-like poses and have an "adventure" ride through caves, and rivers, and whatnot. Crap - I should stop that thought before someone thinks its a good idea.
I think ZPM hit it right in one word - dignity. If the animals and the people don't have dignity, then everyone involved has failed.
Maybe you guys should look outside your beloved Ammerica.
Apenheul's gorilla island is older and much bigger than Bronx and since some years includes amfitheatre presentation of gorilla conservation which always draws crowds and doesn't stupify gorillas.
If you go to rainforest halls in Zurich or Arnhem (again, Burgers Bush is over 20 years old, nothing recent) you will have to search for animals.
Apenheul's gorilla island is older and much bigger than Bronx and since some years includes amfitheatre presentation of gorilla conservation which always draws crowds and doesn't stupify gorillas.
If you go to rainforest halls in Zurich or Arnhem (again, Burgers Bush is over 20 years old, nothing recent) you will have to search for animals.
If you were to take the philosophy of at least one zoo director I know, it doesn't matter if that person appreciates giraffe conservation after a giraffe feeding, because in his zoo, that entire 3 dollars the person paid to have that up-close encounter with the animal goes directly into funding field conservation for giraffes and other species. In his zoo, the most important animal in the conservation program is a group of barnyard goats. Guests pay to feed pellets to these domestic animals and they are the top fundraiser in the conservation fund program. So the argument could be made that these goats do more for conservation than an Amur leopard who's progeny will only ever know the confines of a zoo.
The philosophy is, even if you inspire people to care about animals, that doesn't mean that they'll actually do anything about it. But if the act of visiting a zoo becomes an act of conservation in itself, then we are finally getting close to ACTUALLY making a difference.
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
I could not agree with you more Jurek. Europe has a much more sophisticated view on conservation than does America. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from them and not treat our guests as only children with childish views.
Drew
Well-Known Member
I have the greatest respect for Steve Burns and the leadership at Zoo Boise for their dedication to conservation. I know it can't be easy in these financial times for them to give so generously to conservation but they continue to year after year and I wish more zoos would follow suit.
Last edited:
When what is arguably the largest aquarium in the country (and certainly the one that most loudly proclaims their pre-eminence) can proudly state that they won't use the term "Climate change" (much less "global warming") for fear of alienating their audience, it is clear that whatever leadership status US zoos/aquariums may have had in the 80s and 90s has been totally eclipsed by European institutions.
Drew
Well-Known Member
I think this is why I appreciate an immersive approach to zoo design so much, because I beleive it is the most effective way to get people to understand and respect the species and habitats on their (the species and habitats) terms as opposed to viewing an exhibit from a completely "humanized" environment as if viewing a picture on the wall in your house.
I've always thought that the most effective zoo experience would begin with education, follow with integration, and end with inspiration/call to action. By this I mean begin by educating in a more museum-like setting ala Artis Zoo (teaching about ecology, geology, botany, ect.) prior to releasing the visitor into the habitat for "integration" with the animals in the habitats they just learned about. Then finally after developing respect for these animals and habitats provide them with means to make a differance so they leave feeling inspired. If you regionalized the concept to apply to each zoogeographic area it would allow more direct focus on education, ect. of that specific area and provide means for specific conservation action.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
Well where this leaves me is here: why the conflict?
Yes, zoos must attract paying visitors and that means great entertainment and, often, experiences that create great family moments.
Yes, zoos must assure their animals a dignified, healthy, stimulating environment and that is, itself, terrific for visitors to see and experience.
I think it does matter whether visitors are merely fleeced out of their change for conservation or do indeed consider making conservation choices in their lives. Do we entirely trust in Conservation Capitalism to solve all of the problems? If we buy enough preserves and hire enough armed guards then wildlife is safe? We don't need to reduce human demand for wildlife and wilderness resources? No. We need their cash and their hearts. But not just where they say "Awwwww." Visitors need also to be brought to a position of "I cannot allow this to be done to elephants in Asia!" Little Precious, would you forgo the next five iPhone up-grades so that rare earth metals are not in such high demand?
So we have some clear goals.
Why must they all be met in that one moment where human faces animal? Why can't zoos be more complex experiences than that? As Drew says. As designingzoos says. I haven't been to Apenheul, but several Zoochatters have made me very curious! DAK manages to entertain and inspire visitors with a hint of what wild places are like. They don't dare challenge consumerism and population growth, of course, but still...
My problem is that this requires a larger and wealthier zoo (I hear UK Zoochatters howl!). What are the smaller zoos to do? Lately, exhibits that would have been planned for US$20,000,000 ten years ago are now being planned for US$4,000,000. And for that you get a pretty backdrop, decent housing, a few basic signs and -- often -- restrooms and a cafe. You do not get values-changing, thrilling experiences.
Yes, zoos must attract paying visitors and that means great entertainment and, often, experiences that create great family moments.
Yes, zoos must assure their animals a dignified, healthy, stimulating environment and that is, itself, terrific for visitors to see and experience.
I think it does matter whether visitors are merely fleeced out of their change for conservation or do indeed consider making conservation choices in their lives. Do we entirely trust in Conservation Capitalism to solve all of the problems? If we buy enough preserves and hire enough armed guards then wildlife is safe? We don't need to reduce human demand for wildlife and wilderness resources? No. We need their cash and their hearts. But not just where they say "Awwwww." Visitors need also to be brought to a position of "I cannot allow this to be done to elephants in Asia!" Little Precious, would you forgo the next five iPhone up-grades so that rare earth metals are not in such high demand?
So we have some clear goals.
Why must they all be met in that one moment where human faces animal? Why can't zoos be more complex experiences than that? As Drew says. As designingzoos says. I haven't been to Apenheul, but several Zoochatters have made me very curious! DAK manages to entertain and inspire visitors with a hint of what wild places are like. They don't dare challenge consumerism and population growth, of course, but still...
My problem is that this requires a larger and wealthier zoo (I hear UK Zoochatters howl!). What are the smaller zoos to do? Lately, exhibits that would have been planned for US$20,000,000 ten years ago are now being planned for US$4,000,000. And for that you get a pretty backdrop, decent housing, a few basic signs and -- often -- restrooms and a cafe. You do not get values-changing, thrilling experiences.
designingzoos
Active Member
Yes, again, I just have to iterate...look to the audience. In every audience you'll have a range of desires, backgrounds, knowledge, experiences, and prejudices. For me, I'm a designer with nearly 2 decades of experience studying audiences and zoos (including my time in school), and I personally still get an absolute high from a silly thing like giving a giraffe a piece of lettuce. It works for me. But it may not work for everyone. A passive experience with lots of educational aspects immersed in the wild of a zoo may work for others. But its not going to work for all. Most designers and zoos go for the 'what's gonna work for the most' approach since as Zooplantman points out, money is limited. And it has been shown, through scientific studies, that zoos do affect conservation attitudes--people DO learn and appreciate nature more for their visit. So even though maybe people aren't running out and sacrificing some major part of themselves for conservation, we are making incremental strides.
Also, as far as interactions go, animals are not forced to do it. Their meals are not withheld. They choose to participate. And I know of at least one study that indicates that feeding experiences are actually beneficial to the animal. It reduces stereotypical behavior by adding a simulated foraging experience and of course, believe it or not, interacting with the public is actually very stimulating for animals. Would it feel less dirty if people didn't pay for the experience?
I also question the statement that just because moms and dads are more concerned about whether or not Junior is having fun during an interaction means they are not affected positively. There are 5 segments of our audience: Experience seekers, spiritual pilgrims (which I can tell many of you on here are these!), professionals, explorers, and facilitators. The facilitators are the concerned mommy and daddy. Are we not meeting their needs by providing experiences that bring joy to their kids? If we meet their needs, they will continue to come back, and continue to experience and learn (and expose the children to learning). Its really really really hard to get the attention of parents at zoos...they are spending their time wrangling children and driving strollers, so if they have a moment where they feel proud as a parent--something that they feel is important enough to actually get out the camera then share with their friends online, I feel like that's a pretty big achievement.
On another note, all AZA accredited zoos contribute to conservation with monetary giving. Whether or not they are doing so by utilizing a specific experience or by a segment of their annual operating budget, it is being done. And many are leading conservation programs themselves.
Also, as far as interactions go, animals are not forced to do it. Their meals are not withheld. They choose to participate. And I know of at least one study that indicates that feeding experiences are actually beneficial to the animal. It reduces stereotypical behavior by adding a simulated foraging experience and of course, believe it or not, interacting with the public is actually very stimulating for animals. Would it feel less dirty if people didn't pay for the experience?
I also question the statement that just because moms and dads are more concerned about whether or not Junior is having fun during an interaction means they are not affected positively. There are 5 segments of our audience: Experience seekers, spiritual pilgrims (which I can tell many of you on here are these!), professionals, explorers, and facilitators. The facilitators are the concerned mommy and daddy. Are we not meeting their needs by providing experiences that bring joy to their kids? If we meet their needs, they will continue to come back, and continue to experience and learn (and expose the children to learning). Its really really really hard to get the attention of parents at zoos...they are spending their time wrangling children and driving strollers, so if they have a moment where they feel proud as a parent--something that they feel is important enough to actually get out the camera then share with their friends online, I feel like that's a pretty big achievement.
On another note, all AZA accredited zoos contribute to conservation with monetary giving. Whether or not they are doing so by utilizing a specific experience or by a segment of their annual operating budget, it is being done. And many are leading conservation programs themselves.
Drew
Well-Known Member
To expound on what designingzoos mentions in her reply here is a link to the recent paper addressing the 5 segments.
http://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/Education/why_zoos_matter.pdf
For those that haven't seen this, it is really interesting reading.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
@Drew,
Thanks for linking the Falk, et al article.
It reminds us that our audience is complicated. For example, a parent may have to act as a Facilitator with the kids, but the parent may basically be an "explorer" or "experience seeker." And the "Spiritual seekers" may be the most under-served population at a typical zoo.
A careful reading of the paper brings into question the spin put on the numbers.
Is that success or is that failure? Roughly half of our visitors "get it?" So roughly half do not!
Thanks for linking the Falk, et al article.
It reminds us that our audience is complicated. For example, a parent may have to act as a Facilitator with the kids, but the parent may basically be an "explorer" or "experience seeker." And the "Spiritual seekers" may be the most under-served population at a typical zoo.
A careful reading of the paper brings into question the spin put on the numbers.
Is that success or is that failure? Roughly half of our visitors "get it?" So roughly half do not!
For me, that says we have a great deal of educating and inspiring to do!
Drew
Well-Known Member
How true this is......I often wonder how directors and leadership at smaller zoos react to the $20-$50 million dollar exhibits that are typically presented at the AZA conferance during the "on the boards" or "whats new and innovative" sessions when the majority of them will never have the kind of funding to build such an exhibit. Does it make them want to include a lot of "icing" and subsequently lose some of the "cake"?
Obviously a mantra on choosing species and habitats that are appropriate for your climate and native surrounding would significantly reduce the cost of habitat creation which I think if the budget is tight (or even if it isn't!) is the correct way to go. The more you can "borrow" from the existing site the better.
Drew
Well-Known Member
My thoughts exactly after reading the article. They definately put a positive spin on what I would consider below par numbers.
I don't accept that you need enormous amounts of money to create memorable and inspiring exhibits. The point I always use is the polar bear enclosure at the Highland Wildlife Park and also that of the skandinavisk dyrepark in Denmark. Relatively low budget and a lot more inspiring than many mock rock encased swimming pools in my view.
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
Something interesting to think about is the evolution of zoo exhibitry over the past 50 years. Each decade seems to be typified by a particular philosophy.
1960s and prior - stamp collecting - I want one of everything
1970s - Birth of concentrated breeding programs for endangered species (ex. SDWAP)
1980s - Landscape - put the animals in as naturalistic of a setting as possible (ex. Woodland Park)
1990s - Incorporation of story telling elements (ex. DAK, Congo Gorilla Forest)
2000s - rejection of animals in favor of the human (ex. Texas Wild!)
2010s - too early to tell... It might be CLRs "activity based design." We'll see in a few years time.
The 70s, 80s, and 90s all built on the past, but that trend seems not to have continued, or it has continued in a different direction. These trends tell me, at least in American zoos, that we have not progressed at all since the 1990s as far as animals are concerned, with the one exception of elephants. Elephant exhibits are better than they were 15 years ago, but only as a collective. You can look back to the exhibits at SDWAP and DAK and see we were already about where we are now just in limited numbers.
1960s and prior - stamp collecting - I want one of everything
1970s - Birth of concentrated breeding programs for endangered species (ex. SDWAP)
1980s - Landscape - put the animals in as naturalistic of a setting as possible (ex. Woodland Park)
1990s - Incorporation of story telling elements (ex. DAK, Congo Gorilla Forest)
2000s - rejection of animals in favor of the human (ex. Texas Wild!)
2010s - too early to tell... It might be CLRs "activity based design." We'll see in a few years time.
The 70s, 80s, and 90s all built on the past, but that trend seems not to have continued, or it has continued in a different direction. These trends tell me, at least in American zoos, that we have not progressed at all since the 1990s as far as animals are concerned, with the one exception of elephants. Elephant exhibits are better than they were 15 years ago, but only as a collective. You can look back to the exhibits at SDWAP and DAK and see we were already about where we are now just in limited numbers.
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
But to be fair, we'd have to chart out changes in economies and zoo finances. In the 60s and until the 80s, many zoos received a fair amount of government financial support. More importantly, they benefited from generations of philanthropists. That landscape has changed radically. Zoos must earn their operating income at the gates and the misting stations and the snack bars. Operation costs have gone up as well. The keepers of today are expected to have education and training. The keepers of the 60s walked in off the street and came up through the ranks... they were paid far less.
As a result, zoo management has changed as well. There are plenty of fine animal people running zoos, but they better have good business sense. And there are plenty of business people running zoos who try to learn to become animal people. But they think like MBAs
And society has changed. In the 60s there were no video games. In the 80s there was no popular internet.
The current focus on giving the visitors what they want is not, of course, really new. It has certainly changed its look and how deeply it affects zoo design and operation. But it took an evolutionary leap specifically because in the 80s and later, zoos were failing financially.