Which layout schemes do you prefer zoo's to have?

Which layout do you think is best.
Thanks for voting

 

I voted "By animal habitat " because in my opinion, it's more educative (and in occasions realistic ) than no others.

 

I voted for "animal habitat", but I see that just about everyone else is voting the exact same way. There is nothing inherently wrong with the "animal family" style, but it is perceived as being a little outdated by many zoos. The message of conserving geographical areas of the world has replaced the notion of keeping similar animals contained within the same concrete building.

 

Well, it seems i'll go against the more popular opinion and say that I prefer a more random layout. I've nothing against a zoo laying out it's collection which ever way it wants, however the recent trend of every zoo lay out being geographical has frankly become dull, you see the same species displayed next to each other at every zoo, some originality wouldnt go a miss.
I know some members have critisized zoos that have the Wallabies next to the Rhinos who are opposite the Dholes, and behind them you have the Ocelots...and so on but it's a little more interesting imo.

 

Just for a stir I've gone against the majority and have voted for a layout by animal family, that is, carnivores together, monkeys together, grazing animals together etc.

Why? Because (1) It's more instructive. For example, I have a photo that I took at Melbourne zoo many years ago of a leopard and a jaguar in adjoining enclosures. The differences were obvious. (2) Because unless the zoo is really massive and has lots of animals it doesn't work to have geographic regions- it seems faintly ridiculous to have a "South American Region" if you only have three species to put in it, and you can see giraffes about 20 metres away. (3) I'm sure the staff would find it more efficient if all the meat-eaters were together; all the grazing animals together etc.

 

I too prefer zoos with animals arranged taxonomically; I agree 100% with your comments.

 

i think both geographically and taxonomically are equally educational and interesting in different ways. one is better for a lesson in biology the other ecology.

however, i have voted geographical without hesitation for two reasons.

1) i feel that of the two lessons, ecology probably serves as a better vehicle to teach about conservation. and thats an even more important to me.

2) i'm an commercial artist and an avid traveller. i ask girlfriends to stand in front of a boulder for a photograph but it's a front - i secretly just want to take a picture of the boulder. why? so that next time i do a piece of artwork that is set in say, vietnam, i have some reference as to the colour and shape of the landscape that typifies the region. i work in TV - i looove sets. i love coming up with artistic solutions to faking reality. and did i mention i love gardening? thus i don't go to the zoo to see animals. i go to see their enclosures. usually i'm disappointed. melbournes seal exhibit is like hell for me. its death to everything i enjoy about zoos.

anyhow to get to the point - geographical zoning in zoos allows for a better and bigger exploration of faking specific habitats. and thats my whole shtick.

 

Taxonomic, all the way.

A big Carnivore House, a stonking Reptile House (like Wroclaw's - superb), Bird House, Small Mammal House, Antelope House - the diversity of the animal kingdom laid out before you. That's what I enjoy. To walk through the monkey house and be able to compare and contrast colobus, langurs, baboons, sakis, gibbons, lemurs, guenons, tamarins... Tierpark Berlin's Elephant House with the two (traditional) species opposite each other, the same collection's run of paddocks with all three big hyaena species, Leipzig's Pongoland with five species of ape under one roof. Doesn't have to mean concrete houses, either (snowleopard )!


Of course, really I want diversity - some places using each of the approaches above. In fact, everywhere using a combination of the three would be even better. But forced to choose, always taxonomic.

 

By animal family, but only because I am a wild cat fanatic and it is easier for me to photograph them if they are all together. (That is why Memphis is one of my favorite zoos - ten cat habitats in a continuos loop).

But if I were not so obsessed and could speak objectively, I suppose geographic layouts would be the best option.

Someone mentioned liking random layouts because it allows for originality. When I first heard the theme of San Diego's Elephant Odyssey, I gave them high marks for coming up with something totally original that breaks the trend of every zoo going to geographic themes. It took guts, but unfortunately it turned out lousy (I know this has been talked to death, so I am NOT asking for replies about EO - just pointing out it was a great opportunity to do a totally different approach to zoo exhibit theming).

 

Modern zoos are tending to take a 'precinct' approach to their design. This makes the implementation of immersive enclosure design more effective and fits better with the concept of conservation education. This is my personal preference as well - for what that's worth.
It would be interesting to see whether there is any visitor effect or visitor behaviour research that shows any correlation between conservation message awareness and the design of the built environment/ use of precinct models etc....

 

... but has the habit of making all new exhibits look pretty much the same. May not be so much of an issue if zoos are widely separated (as is generally the case with major Australian zoos, for example) but much more so in the UK and Germany where there may be several large zoos close together. In these cases, the zoos need to be different if both are to survive, as they will be mroe reliant on people visiting both.

And we need both to survive if possible, as that provides the holding spaces so that healthy animal populations can be maintained.

I'm all in favour of conservation education but what about zoological education? Immersion exhibits often overlook this but it's crucially important to an understanding of wildlife. I would suggest that this can be accomplished more readily in a taxonomic exhibit. Thus there is a role for both approaches (a mixture of the two being my ideal, see above).

I think a naturalistic exhibit would probably help promote conservation awareness. I don't think it would have any effect on understanding of the animals themselves (particularly not in the extreme cases where the animals become difficult to view), which I feel is just as important. I also think visitors probably notice 'all these are rainforest animals' much more readily than they would register 'all these are African animals'. As it's so difficult to be really strict about geography, I'd rather zoos didn't worry too much about it, overall. Even the best zoogeographic exhibits have to make compromises - Zurich's Masoala is by far the best geographically-themed exhibit I've seen but it certainly doesn't limit itself to animals from the Masoala reserve, or even from Madagascar (Rodrigues Fruit Bats and Aldabran Giant Tortoises being notable 'ex-pats').

 

You make some excellent points Maguari. I agree that there is a commercial imperative to make 'your' zoo stand out amongst the group. Here in NZ this is not an issue but in the UK I know that it is - were you have the option of visiting a number of zoos each within easy traveling distance.
Compromise and balance are the key to any successful zoo - blending the needs of the visitors with the needs of the animals and the broader conservation issues. A blend of tax and geo based exhibits is certainly an option. Given that few zoos have the luxury of starting from a completely clean piece of paper, there will always be representatives of both concepts evident.

I think that the potential for a good precinct based exhibit(s) using well thought out immersive design is that it creates that sense of not only understanding of the animals but also of the complex ecosystem that they are a part within it; and the issues that it faces. Research is clear that visitors need to know more than just - 'this is a Sumatra Tiger' to feel 'touched' by the conservation plight of a species. They need to understand the Tiger's place in the Sumatran ecosystem and the issues that are impacting on it. If you then want to translate that sense of 'its a shame that they beautiful animals will be extinct in our lifetime' into where can I donate to their conservation fund & what can I do in my life to help, then you need to immerse them in the world of the tiger. I am not sure that having the big cats together for example would accomplish this as well as having conspecifics from Sumatra together would.


This probably is not well explained and I'm sure that others on the forum more articulate than I will contribute.

 

Maybe I'm a cynic but I just don't think that whether the next exhibit has orang-utans or whether it is Jaguars has that great an effect on visitors' perceptions of a Sumatran Tiger. The conservation message can be put forward superbly in a Big Cat House and very badly in 'Sumatran Forest Experience' (apologies if that's a real exhibit somewhere!). That's down to how good the zoo's Education (or equivalent) department is and to how well the exhibit is designed.

As I say, give me a good mix of both styles and I'll be quite content. But I do think it's important to keep some of those taxonomic houses.

 

There is certainly room for a variety of approaches - so long as they are of a high quality and have a clear conservation component to them.

Fundamentally there is scope for far more research into this issue to fully understand how visitors interact with exhibits of different designs and what messages they take away and also what they do with that new knowledge.

At the end of the day so long as visitors leave the zoo better informed and with a sense of action, then its all good.

 

I know some of this hasn't been part of the discussion here, but given what I feel should be the actual priority:

Cynic in me again, but even with the very most conservationally-orientated zoo (say, Jersey), what proportion of visitors genuinely will leave 'with a sense of action'? None. Or as near to none as makes no odds. Better informed, certainly - zoos are great opportunities for education, but they're not going to turn more than a handful into overnight Greenpeace members or Prius drivers. Visitors come to the zoo to see animals. The first priority (once the animals' needs are met) is to give them what they want - it's the only way to keep them coming back and keep raising funds for both in situ and ex situ conservation, and keep exposing them to the conservation message.

 

daveb and Maguari - lots of good points from you two!

This topic is very important and maybe should be moved to the General Discussion forum?

 

Again, not disagreeing and good points accepted. I like to think that people do leave with the knowledge and the tools for action but in my experience I would have to agree that the numbers we're talking about that actually do anything meaningful are minimal. There has been some success with the anti-Palm Oil campaign at Auckland Zoo but that is more of an aboration than the norm.

Research tends to support the notion that people come to zoos to look at animals and that they see them as little more than organic attractions. The research that we conducted amongst zoo members (a group that at first glance should be the most engaged cohort of visitors) strongly suggested that there was little or no real interest in the zoo conservation messages and that the zoo was seen as a venue in the same light as the local beach, domain or shopping mall. Depressing I know.
The need to recognise and accept this is important for zoos. It allows them to focus on good husbandry, breeding and education whilst making sure that they maximize visitor income to provide income to do the work zoos actually should exist to do.

 

Sounds about right - I'd love it if every zoo visitor was won over but at the end of the day very few will be. But if zoos can keep them coming and spending money then even those who read not a single sign in the place and spend most of the day in the cafe or the play area can make a conservation contribution. So on this we're in total agreement!

 

Running an organisation that is trying to educate, empower and mobilise people to make a positive difference in the natural world when they fundamentally don't really give a crap is one of the biggest challenges that the zoo sector faces.

Its a slightly depressing realization that most people don't really care very much about things external to their immediate lives.

Yes we're in agreement

 

Sorry got slightly carried away with the discussion. Happy to move it to a more suitable location and continue if others have opinions.

Its an interesting subject and perhaps fundamental to the role of zoos going forward. If, as is often quoted, the only legitimate for zoos to exist is education, then how can zoos educate the mainstream visitor into actually making a difference in the natural world