a critical approach to the ecodisplay concept

After i heard several people praise burgers zoo for their quote ecosystem i have to clarify something

burgers zoo create a voncept they themaelf called ecodisplays and are nothing more and nothing less
a display and artificial enviorment and not an actual ecosystem

there is no question that this idea is formidable and is a lure joy to see how involved the visitors become within these themes

but the displays are limited and do have a detriment that is that they often fail to educate about the whole ecosystem ironically and essential parts of the nutrition circle

pretty much all invertebrates within burgers except ocean and recently mangrove too are accidentally brought into the buildings either by visitors or plants

with this concept more and more common whole group of animals are threatened that were allready overlooked before

so the concept is not perfect yet

even with examples like masoala that actually introduce species fromt he oeiginal inspiration fail in my opion at some degree to educate and display the whole ecosystem

another critical point is thaz omce a park earned a reputation some circumstances get overlooked

when i critized brugers on here i was critized for doing so when they themself even thanked me to hear constructive critic that could help them to further development and agreed that there were still things to improve
for example the gibbon and leaf monkey exhibit and the binturongs that were i just quote what they said were stressed due their coinhabitants

 

I think you are being too critical and unrealistic with what you can expect. Off course the Bush, Desert, Mangrove etc are not "real" ecosystems, they are by definition however ecosystems, just very artificial ones, in the same way a potato field is a simplified ecosystem. Several processes do take place that also happen in real ecosystems like intraspecific competition, nutrient cycling and decomposition of organic material. Off course Burgers' Zoo promotes it as living ecosystems, but they acknowledge themselves that they are not the real thing, most obvious is the extremely high abundance of vertebrates (and lower invertebrate abundance), but it remains a zoo, so that is a necessary choice.

The closest that Burgers' Zoo has come to a living self-functional ecosystem is the coral reef, which is home to a high diversity of invertebrates (50+ species of foraminifers) and can perform many functions reasonably well, like biological control of pests. The water is also less filtered artificially than the other tanks, but still of a higher quality because of a large number of sponges, bacteria etc. Also noteworthy is that as far as the Fiddler Crabs are concerned, it is a natural ecosystem, as they are not fed artificially and live completely from the algae.

I agree that Burgers' Zoo could (and possibly should) do more on educating visitors on functioning of ecosystems.

These "accidents" are however at least partly deliberate.

At the opening of the Bush this was envisioned and species like butterflies and orb-web spiders were released, the Bush has also been home to some colonies of stingless bees. With an unnaturally high vertebrate abundance these flying insects didn't really stand a chance. The Giant Millipedes in the Bush (and Mangrove) are however deliberate releases by the zoo itself.

It should be noted that the zoo is planning with a Leaf cutter ant display (the ants have been behind the scenes for 2 years now) and it was mentioned on the forum that they also want to release a beetle species. The director has said himself he wanted to focus more on invertebrate species.

I would say that the domes in Burgers' Zoo, together with Masoala still come the closest any zoo has managed so far with replicating tropical ecosystems and I don't think much more is possible in such a "small" system where visitors demand to see animals, which means that you need much higher vertebrate abundance than normally. If you have ever been in a real rainforest, these are surprisingly empty, which would be unacceptable in a zoo setting.

 

The ecosystem idea hasn't truly been explored in America besides a few museums. The closest you could get would probably be an indoor Jungle but there still wouldn't be many invertebrates that share the space with vertebrates.

 

I am not sure I understand what you are proposing... or criticizing.
Are you advocating the creation of actual functioning ecosystems in an enclosed space?
Or that the multi-layered complexity of ecosystems be better displayed?

 

sorry i thought might have implied some of these things but to clarify
note i have stone age phone and had to type with another programm since the window is a bit small on zoochat
no critic just want to ensure i do not have that many typos

short answer for @Zooplantman
i neither critize the zoos nor the people that misunderstood the concept therefor propose improvement in form of an educational concept that both points out more clearly what an ecosystem is with all the components and would like to see more those like the invertwbrates mentioned before displayed kept

and a bit more clarifying longer explanation for @lintworm and those that liked his post since you seem to misunderstood my statement
i appreciate ur comment by the way even we still disagree afterwards

i can agree on being super critical with the concept rather than burgers since they were just a example but therefor do also apply but i have to say this is a form respect since we talk like i hope to made sure before of an elevated level and shows my respect for others since i am equally harsh on myself
but any way i have to disagree on being unrealistic because what i have mentioned above by the answer for zooplantman i am not asking for the impossible but an improvemt
i do neither blame any of the both parties since none of the misconception was intended
i just wanted to point out a need for clarification
this thread is just a critical approach

you mentioned zurich and masoala and i felt that since this work was most likely inspired by burgers and had therefor time and background to improve did better with the later part including terrariums paludariums and aquariums that give an insight on some of the inhabitants of the green house but yet lack a broughter range especially invertebrates and the role they play within the ecosystem

 

That was the intent of JungleWorld exhibit at the Bronx Zoo, with mammals, birds, nocturnal animals, fish, herps, insects all arranged to present an Asian rainforest. No diptocarps, sadly, but that was an insurmountable hurdle

 

I don't think I still quite understand the point you are trying to make. It seems to me

1) An ecodisplay should educate people about what an ecosystem is and how if functions
2) An ecodisplay should display the full range of species present (mixed or in separate enclosures?)

Is that what you mean?

 

So, if I understand it correctly, what you think is wrong with Burgers' ecodisplays is that it lacks separate vivaria to showcase key species that can't be kept free-ranging. Is that right?

If so, you're looking at the wrong zoo exhibit. The Bush was made to represent a rainforest as one cohesive system, instead displaying all the different units separately. Naturally, as is expected from such an experiment, some things did work out and some things didn't (e.g. the butterflies). They deliberately chose not to have a greenhouse filled with animal enclosures but let the greenhouse be the enclosure. This method certainly has multiple disadvantages (such as limiting visibility for certain species, like inverts and frogs), but also several advantages (such as providing the birds with the most enriching environment I've seen in a zoo). I think you may have confused your expectations on what an ecodisplay should be with what it actually is.

We can hopefully all agree that Burgers' Bush is not perfect, and I agree with you than invertebrates should be better represented in zoos. It is only normal for most zoos to be biased to vertebrates, but I do notice a lack of interest to build interesting and innovative displays with inverts in zoos. However, one of the major exceptions is Burgers' Zoo: from pioneering with corals in the Ocean to having fiddler crabs as one of the main attractions in the Mangrove. As for the Bush: I think there's a revamp of the restaurant area planned and there's a colony of leaf-cutter ants behind the scenes.

 

There indeed is.

The only big critical point I think the Bush could improve on for one of your points is to do more with education, since there isn't really any signage about how ecosystems function. However putting 10 signs down is just not how Burgers' intends you to learn. The philosophy behind the domes such as the Mangrove, Bush and Desert is that the visitor themselves learn how it is all one cohesive habitat. Doesn't mean they will fully understand how everything works. But they will experience the habitat as they possibly would if they were in the real places where they are based on. At least that is how I interpreted the vision of Burgers' Zoo.

 

for @lintworm
three options that are each allright tho to mention it is fine if one institutions does not keep these creatures or in general a few when to compensate othera still do
so information boards
either they species are kept yet not visible or not at all
second the invertebrates are visibly part of the ecodisplay
and third like the masoala greenhouse has a small information exhibition with seperate enclousures next to the restaurant

summary
like i mentioned before burgers is just a representation for a type and i should have noted that before an inspiration for a more adventurous concept with several parks with a even more reduced interpretation

so i the main elements i wanted to point out is the awareness that more information might be needed since the lack of it lead to misconceptions and that i think critical of the trend that praise more natural enviorments but totally drop essential parts of it

for @zootycoon and also applies for @Ursus
like i mentioned above rather the lack of information given with the potential to show these creatures in additional vivaria
the bush like the desert mangrove and ocean was made and called a display that immitates the natural inspiration to enable the visitor to experience the best way possible and the later opening of desert is showcase yet limited of the concept i proposed and also given with the exhibition at zurich masoala
burgers both published guides and put up signs to educate the people so saying this is not how it is intended is not actually correct it might have been just not a level some people less interest in reading might catch up on

i did not confuse expectation but noticed a misconception and proposed a solution
not telling any one what to do yet adding a critical analysis
i studied zoos for more than twenty yeara now and went thru stages so hopefully gained a bit proffesionality

to make this clear once more this is not an instead but an addition that would enable the best education like these themes were intended

 

Take a look
Search Results for Query: JungleWorld - ZooChat

 

thanks @Zooplantman for sharing the bronx concept

i like the exhibition that reminds me a bit of cologne tho that appears less well designed and placed than the ny version with constantly staying in way when people wanted to pass and the old emmen concept that i actually liked a lot tho it was allready a bit old but displayed several special and even interactive displays that potrayed both natural and cultural related themes next to most of the exhibits
tho potentially part of the animals enviorment i found the later limited applicable for other institutions since it could distract from the ecosystem shown itself
not the biggest fan of man made or artificial structures like what some might call the parks interpretation or style of fake rock

also a lil note is that i would like to see more accurate representation of geographical themes even within a country concept or further national park that can each reach a vast spectrum of biodiversity and take the relation totally out of context
a kiwi and kea from new zealand next to one another are like a harbour seal beside an alpine ibex from germany

new guinnea is neither australia nor asia
the bali star does occur from india to the moluccas

i really can not hear it any fuerher how zoos still come up with the same old concept that is neither fish nor flesh and mixes the classic or taxonomical concept that could also include habitat themed displays and the geographic concept that is self speaking

i do not have to visit different zoos when they all have thr africa asia and whatever theme were species that exist only because they were seperated in nature are presented next to one another

this way since the majority of visitors is not comparable enthusiastic and therefor most often educated on these topics get an image that the animals live within the same area and totally undermines the understanding why there is a need for several protected areas

there is such a thing like the african savanna where all antilopes and zebras along with giraffes and rhinos live

tho i understand the historic background of hagenbecks polar exhibit i expected something generic that also would not include an outdated polar bear grott and a sea bird aviary that felt too small for the birds comfort and safety with some of them getting dangerously close to the stream of people walking thru it

 

Please use some punctuation marks, I don't unterstand what you're trying to say here.

I absolutely get your point, but this purist view of how zoos should build their themed areas or exhibits is very difficult to pull off in reality. Zoos have to deal with population management, regional collection plans, animal availability and husbandry, and a thousand other factors that influence their species choice. Some of those factors may be more important than having the "right" (sub)species - availability being a prime example. Furthermore, I don't think that it is really harmful for education to have, for example, the "wrong" (sub)species of antilope, fruit dove or catfish in a mixed exhibit.

 

guess punctation would have made it easier to get what i meant sorry and would not lead to further misinterpretations

so for @Mr.Zootycoon and those that liked his comment and seem to equally misunderstood what i wanted to say

first of all zoochat is plattform for enthusiasts and not necessarily proffesional what brings me to the first clarification the institutions that display animals and their enviorment come from different background therefor cover a brought spectrum of approaches to do so and please different crowds

some r scientific and got an elevated standard and some intend rather purely entertainment
but what i and you just like everyone else on here or further the public think s of these differences and what they prefer is a whole topic on its own and would need another thread i guess

i did not and still do not mean that these concepts should or even have to be adoped by every park

that would be a generalization like imply a certain sediment and for example call it purist

i know it is provocative to say but sometimes i found the reactions om zoochat a bit to black and white

less to the things i said but others thaz critized certain aspects of the zoo world and where imediately deemed radical when i thought u should list from time to time to ur oponents since they might actually be right to a certain degree

anyway back to the topic
but since some institutions allready made the impression that their goal is reach for what i was promoting
simplified a less centric method of displaying the habitats i do not really understand the critic at this point

i do not want to comment on sub or full species status since opions differ on this topic too but i can say one thing it is allready done and could be expanded

i reguarly checked the species kept and which the zoos intended to keep either online or from people working at the zoo that both mentioned the obstacles and threads this concept includes and agreed with me that hood managment and a spectrum of concept does allright to cover the need for education and conservation

but this is something not all institutions do and might others agree or not in my opinion all creatures have rights and when we keep them in captivity we have the responsibilty to protect and promote them

to state it is not harmfull is a further generalization
since i quoted what impact the misconception had

people that do not understand the geographical differences and why they are an essential key for the species and their existence can not get why more work and financial resources are needed to protect them

might this take place at a classical collection or a accurately geographic concept

 

You keep saying that people are going to walk away not understanding the full ecosystem and the many roles and niches in them (if I’m understanding your posts correctly) but I can’t agree with you on this point. You say these things as if it’s a fact that if guests don’t understand the ecosystem fully, then they will not make changes to protect them. Do you have evidence or even anecdotes to prove this point? In my opinion, people learn about the ecosystems well enough at most good zoos and are willing to protect those animals and their ecosystems without the need to see every single niche or aspect of that ecosystem in a zoological facility. Would it be neat to see that? Of course! But I doubt it has a significant effect on an average guest’s perception of that ecosystem vs an exhibit that just has larger fauna such as the Lied Jungle in Omaha. Do you have anecdotes that support your points?

 

I fear the vast majority of the population has no idea about geography at all let alone why resources are needed in one area vs. another. Too many studies showing that people cannot locate even their own national capital when shown a map
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313564045_The_making_of_geographical_ingorance
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newf...ts-can-t-identify-continents-on-map-1.1324022

Anecdotes?
I prefer studies but I'd be happy with any indication that zoo visitors change their behaviors (purchasing, energy use, voting, whatever) after visiting a zoo. And whether a "good" exhibit has more effect on future visitor behavior than a "bad" one. There are studies showing visitors wish to change, some showing that later they claim they have made some changes, but the ROI seems scant

 

That's why I asked for anecdotes because I'd be surprised if there are studies on the specific situation @LARTIS is describing. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and asking for less than the bare minimum in terms of proof of his claims.

 

When what is your point exactly?

There's not a lot of research and large-scale robust studies are almost non-existent. I think one of the main papers on the effectiveness of zoo education is Falk et al. (2007), though from memory I was not entirely conviced. Lukas and Ross (2014) talk about the effectiveness of naturalistic exhibits but I wasn't terribly impressed either. One of the more interesting papers is from Lindemann-matthies and Kamer (2006), who explored the idea of interactive education. Their whole study however was limited to one zoo and one species (Bearded Vulture). I've read several more papers but nothing particularly noteworthy.

Personally I'm not entirely conviced that current zoo education actually works. I'm equally unconvinced that zoos have explored all possiblities. Fostering appreciation and fulfilling the desire to see and connect with animals are more reachable goals in current zoos, though that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to enhance their education. Tiny Aquazoo Düsseldorf seems to do a much better job than many major zoos, for example.

 

for @Echobeast
i am not too sure what u mean what i d stated fact so u d have to clarify what the anecdotes should relate after zooplantman allready mention two possible options and the only i could think of

and for @Mr_Zootycoon
sorry i do not know how to write ur name to get it linked but any way
i do not really get what u mean either
should not be my point what came right below the parr u quoted

sorry

 

There haven’t been any facts or studies posted that support your specific conclusions. I asked for anything, a story, an interaction with a guest on a visit to a zoo, anything that supports your specific points that the current naturalistic zoogeographic displays have less effect on people’s ability to understand an ecosystem than this display type you propose. It’s also been mentioned here that logistically, this idea would be nearly impossible to bring into reality due to current captive populations, etc. You can’t just say you’ve stated fact when the vast majority of people here are questioning your conclusion.