How can we improve Zoos and Aquariums?

Whilst I think going for the maximum performance is a dangerous and destructive game (not only in the case of zoos but in life in general), Olmen is as far as I know not doing anything at all with in-situ conservation and they aren't really contributing to many ex-situ programs. Besides them having some surplus males of giraffe and antelopes, a pair of clouded leopards and a few threatened/endangered crane species they breed and their newly acquired Philippine crocodiles (kept too small in my opinion) I can't really think of a species they keep that is contributing to ex-situ conservation. Maybe their pair of golden-cheeked gibbons will be added to the list in the future and their white lions are at least semi-subspecific. On the other hand they have hybrid tigers, hybrid leopards (and they breed them...), hybrid wolves (breeding of-course) and a non-breeding cheetah female. They are aspiring to join EAZA however, and after decades of mismanagement the new owner that took over 2 years ago could bring in real change. The big problem is however that before worrying about conservation he needs to make the place up-to-date, which means replacing most enclosures. Their chimp enclosure is simply horrid (Olmense zoo Olmen/Balen (BE) Chimp - ZooChat), their main cat building is outdated (constructed in 2005, but looks like something from the 70's/80's) and their bird enclosures are just rows of too small aviaries. I'd say it would take at least 20 - 30 years to just fix this mess. In the end they will have to start decreasing in both species like with the birds (mostly raptors, parrots and owls, but also their songbirds) and numbers of certain species like with the cats.

 

It depends indeed. For Planckendael and Antwerp I think they have a pretty decent balance at the moment, and a reduction would certainly lead to a loss of family visits. The problem that zoos have is that they compete not only with other zoos but also with other types of entertainment like attraction parks. In Antwerp they will have to remove their elephants due to space constraints, and that will hurt them. They have however recently acquired white rhino's which I believe are a partial replacement for them. Without those megafauna, their profits would decrease significantly and they wouldn't be able to sustain the multiple in-situ projects around the world and their local nature reserve. Planckendael's attendance numbers and profits actually skyrocketed since they added elephants and giraffes alongside new enclosures for lions and bonobo, not at the cost of Antwerp's visitors interestingly enough.

The only species of megafauna I would want to not appear is their planned Siberian tigers and snow leopards, as this is gonna be an example of what I would call "megafauna overload". They are planning on keeping 3 big cats closely together, and already present bears and sea lions nextdoor. I think a better decission was to keep their lions, bears and sea lions. Then to add a small type of large cat (sri-lankan leopard or clouded) and to use the rest of the space for a renovated nocturnal house, some new raptor aviaries and small diurnal mammals like martens and the previously present rescued raccoons. They are dealing with heavy space constraints, and three species of big cats is an overload for their space. Without side-species it's also going to feel very empty, the big problem with keeping to many big species next to each other.

On the other hand, in Planckendael I'd actually think they should add a species of megafauna to be honest. The addition of another big species like jaguars or Andean bears in their south-American area accompanied with several side-exhibits for smaller species would certainly be beneficial, not in the least because currently half their South-American section is made up of 3 enclosures of camelids. For the rest some additional small animals could be added. What is lacking is some reptiles and amphibians here and there. I think their Asian greenhouse cave has potential for that, as does their bonobo building.

In Olmen it's clearly a case of too many megafauna on a small space making for big costs.

So yeah, in a lot of cases I think removing megafauna does really hurt visitor numbers. Great care must be taken though in how many species you keep and even more in how close you keep those species together. Big fauna is very useful in attracting families and filling in large areas, but for them to be used most efficiently they need to be spread out enough and surrounded by smaller species. Keeping more then two species of megafauna exhibits next to each other without side-species is often a waste of potential, especially for large predators which are in general more expensive to keep then ungulates.

 

I do also believe that most zoos that could do with a reduction in megafauna don't benefit much from a large reduction of space taken up by megafauna but rather of a reduction of species (or spreading them out more).

A prime example of this is Tierpark Berlin. They kept 3 tiger subspecies in the same building and two rhino species and two elephant species in their pachyderm building. In that case I believe by removing one elephant species and one rhino species (the rhinos might be added somewhere else as it's a huge park) they would not do much harm. Wether people have two views of the same elephant herd (or as guidelines want it, a bull group and a breeding herd of the same species) or one view of each species, they see elephants so they are happy. The costs of feeding however are split in two. There is a limit of-course, as from a certain size the animals aren't often enough seen at the different viewing points.

On the other hand adding one of the two rhino species to another part of the park to keep with one of their many ungulate species could benefit them. People would still see rhinos twice, but because it's not a continuation of rhino exhibits people will be less likely to just speed past the second species because they have already seen the first.

Edit: you probably know this, but TP Berlin is truly huge. For most zoos having two rhino species would be far from beneficial. Also the more similar two species are in the public's eye, the quicker this saturation effect takes place. Having gorillas and orang-utans next to each other hits different then having two tiger subspecies or two rhinos next to each other.

 

Thats actually a really good point for more geographical areas and less houses based on species

 

Especially for larger zoos, and not only for large animals but in general for most animals. Too much of the same in a row and people lose interest. In small zoos like Antwerp, this house-approach can work because they don't have huge houses and thus not that much of the same to begin with. This however also makes mixed species enclosures all the more important. 15 aviaries with one bird species each feels repetitive, one big aviary with 15 species doesn't. What makes Antwerp's reptile house so great is that they have several good mixed displays, like 3 desert dioramas. They only have 44 enclosures + the nursery, but they have a total of at least 4 birds, 6 inverts, 11 or so amphibians and 70+ reptile species on-show there (forgive me for not wanting to try and count those out of my head right now, its nearly 3 a.m. here). It's also for that reason why aquaria are able to house so much species without public losing interest.

 

This is what makes the LAIR at the Los Angles zoo so different from other reptile houses too. They use combined themeing, special exhibits, and mixed species to show off the different species the whole exhibit has to offer

 

My change is a pretty small one, but I think a way to make zoos and aquariums better would be for them to put up information/identification signs for every animal the zoo or aquarium has on display. That way, people who are not the best at identifying animals, actually know what they are looking at. This change mainly applies to aquariums, especially in large community reef tanks, but I’ve been to a couple free-flying aviaries where some/all the birds don’t have identification signs.

 

Signs in aquaria is indeed a huge problem. I think some sort of electronic signs would be best suited, as collections in aquaria are by far the most fluid and often also the most extensive.

 

That would be a tad bit tricky for swarm animals like herrings, ant colonies etc. But I know what you mean. Unfortunately, even the most complete sign system will help little if people don't use it properly.

which are already used in several aquaria all around the world. They have one disadvantage: especially the touch screen displays break down quite often, due to visitors abusing them as toys.

 

True, the one in Blijdorp at least didn't work very well. A separate screen (or better, a separate non-electronic panel) for children might help, with the adult one a bit more bland. In Antwerp they wanted to switch years ago when they renovated, and they have installed the sockets already, but they keep using the normal ones. Most frustrating there is that every change in signs needs to go through a central system that does all the signs alongside other things, instead of the aquarium staff being able to change signs easily themselves.

 

This is an interesting conundrum that zoos face. Geographical or taxonomic?
Well there are advantages and disadvantages to both, as ever. Most of the older European zoos have (or had until recently), very taxonomically-arranged exhibits, with carnivore, pachyderm and bird houses (and of course still prevalent reptile houses).

However, there has been a recent trend towards renovating these exhibits towards more geographically-themed exhibits. Tierpark Berlin, to use your example, are in the process of building a number of Asian themed exhibits and the relatively recent construction of a number of exhibits like Islands around Europe has emphasised an intention to make the exhibits more immersive. Even ubiquitous reptile houses are disappearing, and a number of European zoos are turning to displaying their reptiles in geographically or habitat themed exhibits separately - a good example of this is Chester - a zoo with no official reptile house yet a number of species scattered around the zoo in their various continents and ecosystems.

However, there are multiple problems with this. Firstly, it costs a lot more to transform, say, a pachydern house into a large scale Congo or Polar exhibit than to simply renovate the house and keep the inhabitants largely as they are. Secondly, the maintenance fees are higher because the infrastructure for a specific group of animals has to be repeated in multiple places throughout the zoo instead of just one place (eg. A reptile house is the only place in the zoo needing infrastructure for reptiles as opposed to having terrariums scattered around the zoo each needing the same but separate infrastructure). In a similar vein, keepers assigned to a specific group of animals will have to walk across the zoo to perform their duties instead of just being in one or two buildings. This creates additional problems.

There are also many advantages to geographically themed exhibits. While in a reptile house, the species housed are often from many different ecosystems and hence need different foliage and landscaping. However, if they are housed in a building with other species in the same ecosystem, it is easier to firstly build and secondly maintain these enclosures along with the other exhibits in their ecosystem. Furthermore, the exhibits are more coherent and educational - visitors can see the links between the animals in the exhibit and learn the food webs that exist among the species they are seeing as opposed to the species being lumped together with other animals that sometimes aren't even taxonomically related. This contrasts with, for example, pachyderm houses which traditionally hold elephants, rhinos and hippos, three species who aren't even in the same order.

Zoos like Pairi Daiza seem to be taking this to a new level, creating distinct 'worlds' for different ecosystems and heavily theming each one of them to emphasise the differences and 'immerse' the visitors into each of them. Whether it is effective or not is rather up to the individual, but this style seems to be becoming more and more popular and somewhat echoes some of the exhibits found in North America currently.

 

The "positive" thing is that most old houses are no longer fit for housing several species. How many pachyderm houses do you know that are able to house more then 1 or 2 large species adequately with this days standards? The Antwerp Egyptian temple once housed hippo's, rhino's (possibly more then one species at a time), 2-3 species of elephants, giraffes and several large antelopes. Now only the elephants and giraffes remain, together with newly added zebra's. And those elephants won't be there for many years left to come. Similarly the old pachyderm building in Berlin Tierpark is made to accommodate only one species of elephant and one species of rhino in the future if I recall correctly, instead of 2 rhino species, 2 elephant species, manatees and 2 hippo species like it did before.

The problem with having dispersed facilities is also one that depends on the size of each subfacility. If you have let's say a few dozen reptiles in your zoo, it's probably most efficient to have them in one reptile house. If you however have a hundred or so reptile species separating these into a few buildings gives much less problems. Some necessary facilities (incubators, rearing tanks, live food housing, supply stocks) can be accommodated inside each building then on a decent scale. Keepers also don't need to switch between buildings every hour or so as they then have enough work to do in one single building.

So I believe in taxonomical exhibits, but only on a small enough scale. For a zoo like Antwerp, London or Artis I believe a more taxonomical (and historical) way of working is great. Even if a certain taxonomical group is only represented by one living species in the zoo. I think with space restrictions preserved specimens are a great way of showing the wider taxonomic group.

 

I meant that zoos and aquariums should put up a sign for every species they have on display, not every individual animal.

 

I know what you meant; I was just pulling your legs. Hence the
And some people still maintain that only Germans have no sense of humor... ""

 

How about neither? What about exhibit complexes showcasing species from similar habitats to highlight typical adaptations, may it be desert, tundra, rainforest, swamp etc. species?

 

Yes, I mentioned that way of doing things later on in the post a couple of times, but I think it can lead to confusion as well as highlighting the adaptations - while clearly placed signs delineating ranges or different continents can eliminate such confusion, it can lead to people thinking that eg. American alligators live with Giant otters and Sunda gharials. Other than that, it is a good system in theory, but has the same intrinsic difficulties implicated as geographical areas.

 

Just hesitate for a moment and try to think like Joe Average Zoo Visitor. Forget everything you know about wild animals and switch off your common sense. OK, ready? Do you aka Joe a) know what a giant otter or a Sunda gharial is, b) where it hails from and c) do you actually care? If Joe is a stereotypical American, he'll have a hard time finding Brazil or Indonesia on the map, anyway...and his peer European / Asian / South American etc. counterparts aren't much better. Zoos have been doing zoogeography for 100 years, and still some visitors believe that tigers live in Africa, brown bears with a faible for jam sandwiches exist in Peru and sweet beverage drinking polar bears & dancing penguins coexist in some melting icy place next to Santa Claus and the occasional white walker.
So instead of beating a dead zebra that even its inventors in Munich have given up upon, a habitat-orientated approach might make more sense, both from a logistic and educational pov. No fancy pseudo-ethnic artwork required that might offend some ever-offended activists, no mental twisting on how you're going to shoehorn those penguins next to your polar bears (*cough* Hanover). And for those few nerds who dig geography, you can still mark the signs accordingly.

 

Well said and I'll admit that I tend to have exactly the same cynicism about Joe Average Zoo Visitor's knowledge of biogeography / geographic awareness.

I suppose in general I have a cynicism about the basic knowledge and grasp of geography of the public and I think that goes for even the "educated public" too (I've seen some pretty shocking cases of this).

If whatever topic at hand is happening / occurs in a far off country or region then the average person couldn't care less let alone be able to pin point the location on a map of the world.

This is even the case if it is in some way relevant to their everyday daily lives.

That is just the sad and frustrating reality that we have to acknowledge exists I'm afraid.