Zoo Layout Preferences

[RatioTile]

I've thought about how zoos are spatially organized, and there are a few categories that most zoos have a mix of.

1) The older model appeared to be organizing animals by taxonomy. Examples include reptile houses, aviaries, primate houses, small mammal houses, and cat/lion houses. Typically historic zoos have these, and in some of them the exhibits and building designs are no longer adequate in terms of modern animal husbandry.

2) The relatively newer model seems to be organizing animals based on geography and biomes, such as African Plains sections, Asian Forest sections, rainforest houses, desert houses, and sections for animals local and endemic to the zoo's country. These exhibits tend to be newer and larger. The general trend in zoos of the world is to downsize or phase out taxonomic organization of animals in favor of geographic and biome organization.

3) Other: Other types of animal exhibit organization include buildings focusing on lifestyles (aquarium buildings for aquatic and semiaquatic species; nocturnal houses), and Children's Zoos (domestic livestock, wild animals tame enough for children to pet, and often other species with no discernible theme).

Which of these categories of exhibits do you prefer, and what are some pros and cons of each in terms of species representation, animal welfare, and guest user-friendliness?

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I've thought about how zoos are spatially organized, and there are a few categories that most zoos have a mix of.

1) The older model appeared to be organizing animals by taxonomy. Examples include reptile houses, aviaries, primate houses, small mammal houses, and cat/lion houses. Typically historic zoos have these, and in some of them the exhibits and building designs are no longer adequate in terms of modern animal husbandry. For example, a rainforest biome layout could display species from the tropics of South / Central America, Central Africa , South / South-East Asia and Australasia and allow the visitor to compare and contrast these.

2) The relatively newer model seems to be organizing animals based on geography and biomes, such as African Plains sections, Asian Forest sections, rainforest houses, desert houses, and sections for animals local and endemic to the zoo's country. These exhibits tend to be newer and larger. The general trend in zoos of the world is to downsize or phase out taxonomic organization of animals in favor of geographic and biome organization.

3) Other: Other types of animal exhibit organization include buildings focusing on lifestyles (aquarium buildings for aquatic and semiaquatic species; nocturnal houses), and Children's Zoos (domestic livestock, wild animals tame enough for children to pet, and often other species with no discernible theme).

Which of these categories of exhibits do you prefer, and what are some pros and cons of each in terms of species representation, animal welfare, and guest user-friendliness?

I think I prefer biomes / geography most of all but taxonomy is also quite convenient in terms of getting to see everything you want to see in one visit. The layout I like the least is the third one that you mention based on lifestyles and children's zoos.

I think the benefit of a biome based layout is that it gives visitors a fairly good macro level idea of the different species that occupy niches within similar biomes around the world and gives a good chance for the visitor to compare similarities and contrast differences between the biodiversity that occur in these. For example, a hypothetical tropical rainforest themed layout could allow visitors to appreciate the extent of the biodiversity that occurs across South-East Asia, South / Central America , Central Africa and Australasia.

The geography based layout gives a good micro level idea for visitors of the biodiversity that occurs within the same habitat and biogeographical region. For example, a hypothetical Neotropical based layout could have spider monkeys, jaguars, baird's tapir, toucans and Morelet's crocodiles allows a visitor to both experience something of the biodiversity of a region (without having to actually travel there in person) and become educated / aware about the importance of its conservation.

The benefit of a taxonomy based layout is that it allows the visitor to contrast the diversity of different families / species within the same order on both a macro and micro level. For example, with a hypothetical taxonomy layout focusing on primates a visitor may compare the vast size difference between a pygmy marmoset and a Western lowland gorilla.

 

[birdsandbats]

I personally prefer zoos that are organized geographically. I prefer to see animals together that actually live together. This also more focuses the conservation message, I think.

 

[TZDugong]

Personally, I like a bit of both. I think ideally, organization by geography or biomes is the best layout option but in practice it's sometimes underwhelming (animals placed in the wrong area, a lack of birds or herps). I also like taxonomic organization, although I think it works better for smaller animals like reptiles or amphibians, and less so for mammals.

 

[Someokapinextdoor]

I have to admit that I am a fan of unstructured zoo layouts that don't follow an overarching "masterplan". That way, you never know what the next exhibit will show you. Full Geographic zoos tend to blend together if you've seen a few. I like it when small clusters of enclosures or animal houses share a common theme, but if it extends to an entire zoo, it feels forced.

Especially, if master plan geographic reorganizations (pretty common in Germany right now, at least in early stages) force interesting species to leave to collection because they don't "fit in" anymore, I very much dislike them.

 

[TinoPup]

Both have their merits. Overall, geography tends to feel nicer. But places that are entirely geo-based, with no herp house, tend to have poor herp viewing. An example would be Virginia Zoo, which has some reptiles in the Africa area, built into mock-rock. Sun reflecting on the glass makes it nearly impossible to see into the exhibits. Same with the old giant salamander exhibit at Smithsonian, by the pandas.

I get kind of bored seeing the same theming over and over again for regional areas.

Forced to pick one, I'd go with taxon based, just because it's easier when I'm visiting with a parent to have them skip a herp building and not worry about coming across snakes elsewhere

 

[WalkingAgnatha]

, just because it's easier when I'm visiting with a parent to have them skip a herp building and not worry about coming across snakes elsewhere

what do you have against herps :c

 

[TinoPup]

what do you have against herps :c

I never said I have anything against herps

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I personally prefer zoos that are organized geographically. I prefer to see animals together that actually live together. This also more focuses the conservation message, I think.

I tend to agree with what you've said here.

Keeping animals that are from the same geographic area within the same area / zone of a zoo layout does seem to help to focus and highlight the overarching conservation threats that they commonly face and convey this message more effectively to the public.

It also could be said that this may help to highlight the importance of a broad ecosystem approach to biodiversity conservation to the visitor.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I also like taxonomic organization, although I think it works better for smaller animals like reptiles or amphibians, and less so for mammals.

I think the challenge of having herps as part in a geographical or biome type zoo layout is that depending on the amount of reptiles / amphibian species kept you would need a herp house in each biome area of the zoo.

I imagine that this would significantly push the expenses of heating / electricity up and particularly in zoos in the Northern hemisphere. Most zoos therefore probably wisely choose to have a single reptile house which is more cost-effective.

Of course, for zoos that are based in regions of the tropics (in most cases) there isn't really such a need for electricity or heating for most reptile species due to the fairly constant exposure to sunlight , heat and humidity.

As such, you can have outside open topped enclosures for tortoises, crocodilians, iguanas, tegus, constricting snakes and even some venomous snakes dotted around within a biome / geographical themed layout (with provision of a red incandescent heat lamp during season dips in temperature).

 

[Westcoastperson]

I've thought about how zoos are spatially organized, and there are a few categories that most zoos have a mix of.

1) The older model appeared to be organizing animals by taxonomy. Examples include reptile houses, aviaries, primate houses, small mammal houses, and cat/lion houses. Typically historic zoos have these, and in some of them the exhibits and building designs are no longer adequate in terms of modern animal husbandry.

2) The relatively newer model seems to be organizing animals based on geography and biomes, such as African Plains sections, Asian Forest sections, rainforest houses, desert houses, and sections for animals local and endemic to the zoo's country. These exhibits tend to be newer and larger. The general trend in zoos of the world is to downsize or phase out taxonomic organization of animals in favor of geographic and biome organization.

3) Other: Other types of animal exhibit organization include buildings focusing on lifestyles (aquarium buildings for aquatic and semiaquatic species; nocturnal houses), and Children's Zoos (domestic livestock, wild animals tame enough for children to pet, and often other species with no discernible theme).

Which of these categories of exhibits do you prefer, and what are some pros and cons of each in terms of species representation, animal welfare, and guest user-friendliness?

I very much like the second option but if the 1st or third options are done very well then I can appreciate them.

 

[dinosauria]

Honestly I think that both have their own merits. Although I do think that geographically-arranged or biome-arranged exhibits are cool because they're atmospheric and show animals that would actually live together, ! feel like people don't give taxonomic theming enough credit because if done correctly it really allows you to see the differences and similarities between closely-related species (and to me that's pretty neat).

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Honestly I think that both have their own merits. Although I do think that geographically-arranged or biome-arranged exhibits are cool because they're atmospheric and show animals that would actually live together, ! feel like people don't give taxonomic theming enough credit because if done correctly it really allows you to see the differences and similarities between closely-related species (and to me that's pretty neat).

I sometimes get the impression that taxonomic theming is more a thing / trend of the past century when it comes to zoo layouts.

 

[DaLilFishie]

I prefer exhibits to be grouped by geographical location/habitat, or by some other theme, like jellyfish, seahorses, oddballs, or something like freshwaters of the world or something similar.

 

[RatioTile]

I sometimes get the impression that taxonomic theming is more a thing / trend of the past century when it comes to zoo layouts.

I do think reptile houses and aviaries are still good ideas, as they group animals with similar needs together, which is convenient for the keepers.

 

[imaginarius]

I’ll agree with what most have said: organizing by geographic biome is best, because it most closely simulates their natural environments. But it’s next to impossible to do this with reptiles/amphibians, birds, and invertebrates, so dedicated herpetariums, insectariums, and aviaries are perfectly fine. It also really lessens the workload for keepers specializing in certain taxa; a herpetologist, ornithologist, or entomologist can spend most of his/her day in one part of the zoo, maximizing time spent on animal care and minimizing time wasted on walking back and forth all day.

 

[BenFoxster]

I myself definitely love the organization by geographic biome the best. It is an extraordinary experience to see animals from the same region as close to each other as possible, as it highlights which animals live where and avoids major confusion (I am ashamed to admit that for years silly me used to think that malayan tapir, mandrills, and okapi were all from South America!) and enforces the concepts in an educational matter that makes it much easier for children and adults alike to understand. That's what I'm loving most about Fresno Chaffee Zoo's renovations, that now it has most of its African animals in "African Adventure," Asian animals in "Kingdoms of Asia," and soon per the master plan, will be implementing a California section near it's Sea Lion Cove exhibit, where it will follow a California theme of including California animals like the mountain lion, North American river otters, bald eagle, kit and grey foxes, grey wolves, pronghorn, and various swamp birds, reptiles, and amphibians.

The cool thing about Fresno Chaffee's geographic biome reorganization is that it will not be phasing out animals that don't fit any of their new biomes, like its Galapagos tortoise, lemurs, parrots, macaws, or anteaters. Instead, these animals along with their red wolves and new reptile house will be housed in a separate section titled "Conservation Corridor," with the theme being animals in need of conservation rather than create a separate biome theme or phase out animals that don't fit into their other biomes. And the zoo's flamingos and small primates (assumingly their squirrel monkeys) will be moved alongside the petting zoo in their new children's section after it's constructed.