I think many people here will likely find this article of interest. It discusses the purpose of zoos, the history of zoo design, and the present and potential future of where zoos and zoo design may be going. Modern zoos could be creating a new kind of animal: wild by nature, shaped by captivity - The Washington Post
Great quote to pull out of the article Zooplantman, and the Riverbanks Zoo gorilla habitat is a pefect example of a lush, green, natural-looking exhibit that makes it pretty darn hard to find a gorilla in. I spent a long time at that enclosure in 2010 and I never once saw a primate except for sweaty tourists peering into a seemingly empty exhibit. The trick is to design a naturalistic animal habitat that also makes the occupants relatively easy to locate, or to simply have lots of animals in the enclosure! Kansas City has an awesome, 3-acre jungle for its chimpanzees but there are so many chimps that at some point a couple of them have to emerge from the forest and present themselves to the patient public.
SnowLeopard, a "a naturalistic animal habitat that makes the animals easy to locate" is a contradiction in terms for rainforest animals. A 'naturalistic habitat' for a gorilla would be one in which they are extremely hard to find, by definition and indeed evolutionary necessity. The compromise you propose, albeit inevitable for a zoo to have to make, does expose the point that all the hot-wired shrubbery and 'naturalistic' plastic rock work is not there for the animals but to salve the conscience of uneasy visitors.
That is an interpretation not a fact. No doubt what you mention is one big factor for such exhibits. But education about ecosystems and animals within living systems is another large part of it. Gorillas in "cages" -- no matter how large or challenging for the animals -- remain animals in cages and the public usually sees them as such. Those who observe animals in "naturalistic" exhibits -- of decent size and complexity -- walk away more often than not with a different set of basic assumptions about animals and our relationship to them. Well, that is my assumption anyway. (When Congo Gorilla Forest opened there were post-visit visitor studies done and the visitors did demonstrate greater awareness of and knowledge of rain forests and the Congo rain forest than before viewing the exhibit.) It would make a fascinating study to compare the experience of visitors to the Bronx Zoo's Congo Gorilla Forest with those of visitors to Howletts.
Of course the rockwork, "hotwired shrubbery" and other design elements are not for the animals, but are added because visitors are looking at the exhibits. Which gets to the larger point--zoos and the animals they display are for people. While there are non-public facilities devoted to conservation breeding and rescue/rehabilitation of wildlife, these are serving very different purposes than public zoos do. If visitors feel good about how the animals are presented in a zoo--which when done well includes creating the illusions of habitat and lack of confinement--empathy and understanding can follow.
Great article! Thanks for sharing. In a recent interview, I asked some similar questions to Stacey Tarpley, a zoo designer.
Amnesiac, I can appreciate that you want to promote your blog (which seems to be the main reason you visit Zoochat), but can you please not spam multiple threads doing it? Thanks.
I will admit to not reading the original post's article, but I've been thinking about this a little lately and thought I'd contribute. The big point is that AT THIS TIME, zoos exist so that people can see animals. There are plenty of other great reasons why they should exist and wonderful ancillary things they accomplish, but the primary, root reason zoos are around is for people to see live animals. Therefore, the primary concern should be to get people to see the animals...and unfortunately, people (at least in the US) are not patient. By and large, they will not wait around for an animal to emerge from the underbrush. So...the setting itself (to Zooplantman's point) is a secondary goal that needs to be defined when designing the exhibit. Are we trying to educate about the ecosystem as an entirety, or are we primarily concerned with people learning about the animal itself. In a perfect world, of course, we'd be targeting the whole ecosystem (and the animal would be a part of that as well). My question is...do we just simply respond to what the guests want / need right now, or do we work to push them beyond their comfort zone? Should we continue to build bigger, wilder, more natural, and hope that these efforts start to shape the evolution of their behavior (becoming more patient, etc) as they visit our institutions??? Or by not responding to how they behave now, are we sacrificing educational benefits we have in our grasp?
I would argue this has already been tried and largely rejected as a "failure.". In the late 70s into the 1980s, the mega-acre "utopian zoos" like Toronto, Minnesota, San Diego Safari Park and Miami opened, followed by a number of "purist" landscape immersion complexes at older urban zoos. People complained about not seeing animals, and in some cases stopped going to the zoos. The zoos countered by adding animal shows, non-animal attractions, and in many cases smaller, more traditional exhibits where viewing was guaranteed. While some sophisticated exhibits have been developed that create compelling illusions of great space yet provide up close viewing, there is no evidence zoos will move back in the direction of "bigger and wilder" spaces, and even less that visitor behavior has or ever will evolve to accept not seeing animals. Zoogoing will never be the same experience as the serendipity of hiking in the wild and "finding" animals, for better or worse. Instant gratification is pretty much the order of the day, I'm afraid.
Well I think there is a middle road. Congo Gorilla Forest has shown (yet again) that a really well done "immersive" experience is both educational and popular. Russia's Grizzly Coast ushered in the renaissance of the Minnesota Zoo while Giants of the Savanna has done the same for Dallas. Both appear large, natural and tell ecosystem stories, yet are very visitor-friendly. All three have active, interested animals. All three are popular with visitors. Yes, all were expensive. But I believe that is not necessary for every engaging exhibit. These happen to be big expansive multi-species "experiences" and the public enjoys that. John Ball Zoo's lion exhibit is smaller, inexpensive, "immersive" and also popular. If zoos concentrated more on doing what only they can do and doing it spectacularly well (that is, bringing people and live animals together) rather than scrounging quarters from visitors with "cooling stations" and gewgaws they could attract a middle class public hungry for experiences they can share as a family. And there must also be plenty of animal experiences for a less well-heeled audience as well. I believe this is true in North America and Asia. Europe..hard to say. Many of our UK ZooChatters seem to prefer a straight-out close up view of active engaged animals and never mind the "experience." But are they representative of the UK visiting public? Certainly the German, Danish and Dutch zoo goer appreciates an immersive experience.
To add to Reduakari's point.....I recently visited some friends that moved to Kansas City from Wichita. In all there were three differant families and they all really like Sedgwick County Zoo so we decided to go to the Kansas City Zoo (whose african section would definately be considered an "immersion" experience and fall into the category Reduakari described above). After the trip I decided to make an effort to ask each one of them individually their thoughts about the zoo. 5 out of 6 of them really disliked it! They were saying stuff like "If I pay to go to the zoo I want to see animals", "the animals looked so bored", and "it was okay but i would definately not get a membership". I genuinly like KC zoo so their reaction really caught me off guard for a moment. I just have to keep on reminding myself that most visitors have a differant set of expectations and tolerance for the spaces we design and that truly successful zoos need to have enough variety (viewing opportunities, immersion vs. non-immersion, animal interactions, educational opportunities, interpretives, species, ect.) to keep people engaged so they genuinly enjoy thier experiance and keep them coming back. It also seems that the "Hype Cycle" is in play here (see image below). We started with caged menageries and traditional zoo displays and one could agrue landscape immersion was a technology trigger that peaked with the "Utopian Zoos" as Reduakari coined them and the failure was the trough of disillusionment and we are now on our way to the plateau of productivity which gives a higher standard of both visitor and animal welfare that works and will become the new norm. I beleive the next componant of the zoo going experience that will go through this cycle will be technology. Technology will become so advanced in the near future that we will start to lose touch with the tangible feelings of the zoo experience but thankfully it will ripple back and provide us with a quality, educational animal experience with innovative technology to supplement our experience. There will probably be other splits (technozoos, semi-wild safari-type parks, ect. as mentioned in the "Future of Zoos Symposium" that was recently held) that will challenge what we know a zoo to be but in the end they will follow the hype curve and end up as a differant experiences but not as pronounced as they first where. That's just my personal thoughts though. Also, I agree with Rob that there is definately a middle road and the near future of zoo design will hover around this road for some time. Which is a good thing!
QUOTE I beleive the next componant of the zoo going experience that will go through this cycle will be technology. Technology will become so advanced in the near future that we will start to lose touch with the tangible feelings of the zoo experience but thankfully it will ripple back and provide QUOTE Hi Drew, Curious, please provide some examples of the technology that will be used in zoos in the future? Personally l would have thought automated food enrichment devices in enclosures would have been popular by now. I imagined keepers loading food into devices located throughout a primate enclosure that would randomly release food during the day encouraging the primates to check these devices throughout the day. EG oranges loaded into a PVC tube with a release mechanism, releasing a orange every hour or so. Yes animal diatry Issues would have to be monitored, however l am surprised this sort of enrichment is not found in zoos. Is this what u mean by technology Drew?
Actually Stuart this has been done in zoos. One example is the Tiger exhibit at Zurich. They have quite a few automated food boxes that are hidden within the eexhibit that open at random intervals throughout the day. It is a brilliant enrichment device and if what I am told is true appears to be very effective, not sure why it is not done more. We were planning on doing this at the Sedgwick County Zoo Tiger Trek but for one reason or another it was taken out. Although I beleive it was something the zoo ended up saying they would install themselves in the future so hopefully that will come to pass. What I meant about technology is the interpretive and educational side of things. For example (on the extreme of technology) someone standing in front of an exhibit that flips down his headset and instantly transports him into a holograohic world with a tiger chasing prey within a dense forest while a narrative explains how a tiger hunts and the web of life. They would then move on to the next station to be dazzled by technology for the next animal...essentially making the live animal a passing supporting character to the technology. Eventually (thank god) I beleive the technology will get so rediculous that people will start to miss the tangible experience with seeing an animal "in the flesh" and the typical zoo experience of the future will put the animal back in the leading role with advanced technology to support the educational experience and improve the animal experience. For example, I always thought that having a way to track or find the animal as an app for an ipad that uses infrared or gps tracking for those hard to spot animals in thier immersive exhibits would be an excellent way to do this. You could even have links to camera traps/live feed video within the exhibit in those favorite hiding places that visitors can feel like field scientists using technology to find the main attraction. It could not only educate visitors on how technology is helping in conservation but also allows the animal freedom to use thier exhibit how they want to. It might not replace the visitors need to see the live animal right in front of them but at least they have seen the animal in the exhibit and maybe the wow factor of the cool technology will be enough to satisy thier needs and keep them coming back so they could have the chance to see the actual animal the next visit.
Bronx Zoo, JungleWorld, 1980 - gibbon feeder tree (there was a feeder tre in Wild Asia for the elephants as well but not sure when it was built) (shudder) I feel a disturbance in the Force, Drew Bronx Zoo, Congo Gorilla Forest 1999: a very simplified version suggested by the GPS tracking of the Okapi (the exhibits people could never get it to really work, but it would be easier now)
Hi Drew, I would have been surprised if automated enricment feeder were not already in use. What l don't understand is why hey are not common in zoos. Also the gps to locate animals again why is this not common? I think in a big aviary I woud spend allot more time if l could search with a gps individual birds and potentially read a short bio on a led screen. This Device could be hired at the entrance, really a similar principle to the key system in use at your fantastic SCZ.
Not only would it bring in additional revenue but it might convince today's youth (some of whom seem to be so obsessed with technology) to give the zoo a try and hopefully learn something abouht the natural world they live in.
