In an ideal World what zoo layout for animals would you find best? Please select an option and say why you chose that particular one:
I'll have to vote 'No order', but my real feeling is that in my ideal world we'd see a mix of approaches at different zoos and within and individual zoo. It's nice for there to e a great African Rainforest area but still a really good Cat House - no reason for them to be exclusive. Forced by the options, then - no order at all.
Most definitely "no order". In any case, zoos with a long history end up like this,as time & entropy make a mockery of successive master-plans and the visions of successive generations of zoo management.Carefully elaborated "continents" suffer the effects of "globalization" and the cat house becomes the "Madagascar Experience" or somesuch.The majority of long-established great zoos are a veritable jumble and none the worse for it.When you come to think of it, even department stores are less departmentalized these days.There is no need for a zoo to impose unnecessary complications on itself - there are more than enough complexities involved in the remit already.
I agree with European Fauna and Maguari. I also think that ave a whole jumble of different animals measn you haven't a clue what might be around the next corner whereas with a geographical layout you can pretty much guess eg.g africa - lions, giraffes, zebra, various antelope etc South america - jaguar, tamarins, marmosets, etc
Err . . . none of the above. I guess I was born awkward, but I don't find any of these alternatives completely satisfactory. On the other hand I certainly don't want no order - which would mean a random arrangement: even Colchester isn't random! The main principle should always be to make the enclosure suitable for the species - so I would expect the physical environment, including the amount of space available, the building(s), natural substrate, existing vegetation and microclimate to be considered before anything else. I'm so old that I can remember the days when exam questions asked 'compare and contrast x, y and z' and that's what I want a zoo to do with their animals. This needs careful and thoughtful planning as there are so many relationships to illustrate and I don't think it's sensible to prefer one to another. The other thing to remember is the need to be flexible, however carefully planned a series of exhibits may be today, arrivals and departures may spoil the plans completely next month. Alan
For me I find that laying out a zoo geographically is the way I prefer them. A great zoo should tell a story to each visitor. Most often times I find that story is told through a journey to a place in search of their wildlife. Do many zoos achieve this? Of course not, but I know some that do. I would much rather take a journey through the jungles of Southeast Asia than to have a simple cat house. In fact I find taxinomic exhibits to be on the most part boring and uninspiring. Here's why - if you have a taxonomic exhibit you are more likely restrained into giving the animals there a generic enclosure, whereas if each exhibit were purpose built for that animal it would better serve the need of the animal and provide a better story line to the visitor as well as a greater understanding of that animal. If I were to give an example of the Tiger, let's have an exhibit in a traditional cat house and a second as part of a series of exhibits in an Asian jungle exhibit. The first exhibit tell the visitor nothing more than the Tiger is a cat, which they probably already know. The second tells the visitor that the Tiger comes from the rain forests of Southeast Asia. One exhibit tell the visitor something they probably already know whereas the other tells them something they may not know. Comparing species in a taxonomic way is great for zoologists, students, and maybe from a housing standpoint, but seeing one species of cat after another (or monkey, or pig, or what have you) doesn't really convey anything to the visitor other than, "hey look we have a lot of cats." If we have a biome exhibit, say a rainforest dome, then we will run into people thinking that gorillas and tapirs are next door neighbors. The story of an ecosystem is incredible. Present it correctly, with correct species, and you have just made a powerful message to the visitor. Does any of what I have said really apply to your average viewer? Probably not, but if a zoos puts the effort forward to present animals in a way that tells a powerful message of where they are from, then that message might resonate in someone who can do something. It might inspire a future generation of scientists, zoo people, exhibit designers, etc. I know it did me. Like I said, with all the great exhibits I've seen, the ones I find truly superior are those that take me on a journey to an exotic land. I have only ever been to two zoos that have been entirely or nearly entirely laid out this way, and they are by far the best zoos I've ever been to. The zoos that are just a random mixing of animals fall down in what I have seen. There is no coherent message there, no story, just animals.
A personal preference here (that i'm sure others also share), but I do like the classic taxonomic divisions within a zoo for the birds, lower vertebrates and inverts. It is like walking through a living museum and it is easy to draw comparisons with how each species in that house is uniquely suited to their environment without being overshadowed by any mammals that you would find in the same exhibit complex. For example (retic pythons aside) the reptiles, birds and inverts in Chester's Realm of the Red Ape are hardly every looked at when i visit as everyone is preoccupied with the Orangs. The best example of a zoo with these type of houses that I can think of is Bristol Zoo. It's invert house and aquarium are subdivided into habitat areas so you can see a range of insects from the rainforest before walking down a corridor and seeing a range from the desert and it is a similar situation for their fish. I may also be a sucker for the old nostalgic feel of being in a postage-stamp collection However, I do feel if mammals are going to be in an exhibit complex (as opposed to a stand-alone enclosure) then efforts should be made to ensure that the "supporting cast" represent the biogeographic regions that the mammal originates from. Hypocrisy, maybe? However, as mammals seem to be the most popular group within a zoo, if you clumped all the primates together (f.e.) then the magic of seeing an active group becomes diluted as you move from enclosure to enclosure and see near enough the same activity being performed by an animal which has only slight morphological differences. I don't believe this to be the case if you exhibited an active group of primates alongside an ungulate or small mammal species from a similar wild region.
FAMILY - but only because I am a cat fanatic and it makes it easier for me to photograph cats if they are all together. If I could pull myself away from my feline obsession and speak objectively, then I suppose geographic or biome is the best way to go. I must say, I do like the fact that snakes are FINALLY being put into geographic exhibits alongside other classes of animals, and not being kept only in the reptile house (although this is still the norm). Of course, if I was a snake fanatic then I would want them in the reptile house to photograph them all together!
There are actually a number of good reasons for keeping all the reptile exhibits together. For example: - it saves on heating bills - only one building to heat to the high temperature most species need - makes it more straightforward for keepers - herpetology is generally a separate division and all the reptiles being together saves keeper time as they're not forever travelling from place to place - it means the facilities needed for venomous species are all at hand (extra security, maybe antivenoms) - and a well-stocked reptile house can make a very nice (and very educational) display! Don't get me wrong - it's nice to see some reptiles being thrown in around the zoo; but there are many good reasons for the more traditional approach.
But I would argue that the majority of visitors spend at most five seconds at each display, it may be practical but can get very boring for the "normal" zoo-goers who have no interest in reptiles.
Oh absolutely. I love how peole spend quite while at the first few exhibits, then speed up as they go round! I'm not saying it's the only way (or even the best), but just that there are solid reasons for why many zoos stick with this approach.
I chose the continental option. For example, Africa... My ideal Zoo would have a nice mixed paddock in the middle surrounded by a Lion enclosure, small swamp house for Nile Crocodile and waders etc, and aviaries for Turacos etc etc, Meerkat and other small mammal enclosures etc etc. Visitors would know they've entered Africa by a big banner over the walkway saying "Welcome to Africa" with African like tribal markings etc etc.. How amazingly educational would that be?! xDD
Thanks to everyone who has replied to my thread so far. What do people think of a zoo arranging animals by their status in the wild?
It would depend entirely on the quality of the exhibits and interpretation within the area. Otherwise all it teaches people is that the animals come form Africa (which isn't a bad thing, of course, but hardly 'amazingly educational'). It would be difficult to arrange, impractical and subject to change over time. Asian Lions don't stop being cats, or being from Asia, but they may change status (hopefully in a less-endangered direction). It would also be very difficult to get over to the public (compared to the other options). Plus - what message does it send about the animals in the Lower Risk part of the zoo?
It sends the message that there is still good news in the world and not EVERYTHING is endangered and being driven out by people. Although I am the first to agree that the planet is in bad shape, I think there is a danger in overloading people with bad news to the point that they stop caring (becuause it is just too emotionally draining). Finding the balance is important - showing what we are doing right to give people hope and gently pointing out what needs to be improved so they are inspired to take action. Arranging a zoo by IUCN classification is a truly novel concept and I think it might be worth someone trying just because it has not been done before. Wouldn't want to see every zoo done this way, but it might be interesting if someone did.
But we also need to be careful not to encourage complacency. I take your point but I still feel it's far too artificial and arbitrary. It just feels like exhibiting animals by how many 'e's they have in the name. You'd just end up with a random-looking assortment of animals in each area and nothing to really distinguish the areas. How, educationally, would you differentiate between (say) Vulnerable and Endangered to make a themed zone? 'The animals in this area are slightly more endangered again' is all it would boil down to. I don't see that it's really worth the effort. More interesting might be an area of animals threatened by deforestation, another animals threatened by hunting etc. There could be some interesting educational angles in that (although of course very few animals are only threatened by a single factor, I think you could make some good themed areas).
To be honest I couldn't care less as to how a zoo is arranged so long as the animals are well housed.
It is interesting that one of North America's best zoos, Omaha's Henry Doorly, has now announced a $174 million overhaul that will turn the zoo's zones into a geographical layout. The massive Cat Complex and Bear Canyon (a series of grottoes) will all be demolished as there will be a creation of an African Savanna, Asian Highlands, etc. Without a doubt more zoos in the United States have altered their footprint into a biome/geographical layout over the past couple of decades. However, when it comes to reptiles and amphibians for the most part it appears to be much easier to maintain those animals in a separate, heated building.
I chose no order as to be honest I think this would provide the best oportunities, more productive work... I am not bothered on the other side aslong as there is top quality enclosures... For example, a zoo may have a small forest within the zoo, of say about 2 acres, then have a few exhbits which suit the woodland, have a reptile house to save on bills etc.
I do like exhibits by continent better, but as long as the animals are in great exhibits then it doesn't matter to me.
