The later posts (starting around 566 or so) of this thread Snowleopard's 2019 Road Trip: Netherlands, Belgium, France & Germany sparked a discussion that I feel deserves its own thread. That discussion is how valid or important are non-animal attractions in luring new visitors to zoos in an attempt to educate them? We are talking about things like 3D/4D theaters, zip lines, play areas and splash parks, shows (with or without live animals), and rides (from animal related safari jeeps to unrelated roller coasters). I believe most ZooChatters dislike these kind of additions and prefer an animal based experience. But these other attractions appear to be popular with the general public. Is there a value in adding them to increase attendance and/or revenue?
One question is do these type of extraneous attractions draw in people who would not otherwise visit the zoo (using a wide definition of "zoo" to include wildlife parks etc). In my observation the answer is yes. I know of at least three adults I work with who have either gone or expressed an interest to go to Out Of Africa wildlife park in my state of Arizona specifically to do the Predator Zip Line. One of them who actually went wears a t-shirt that says Predator Zip Line. It is virtually certain none of these people would have any desire to go just to see the animals. Still the question is did they learn anything about wildlife or conservation? Since the educational and conservation messages at this wildlife park are essentially absent, I would say no (but this is true whether or not the zip line is there). Perhaps the more important question is do people who visit more conservation-oriented zoos to participate in other activities still learn something?
I think this really is two distinct questions. The first being whether or not the non animal attractions increase attendance/revenue at zoos. I tend to agree with @Arizona Docent that they do. But, I can only say so anecdotally. I don’t know if the numbers are publicly available from any zoos to confirm this. The second question is do these attractions have an educational impact. Again, I tend to agree with the line of thought that this maybe somewhat dependent on the facility. It is also may be dependent on the type of attraction (a 4D movie arguably has much more educational potential than a zip line). It could also be hypothesized that if the attractions are able to get people in the gate who would have not otherwise come, the attractions are then potentially exposing the guests to educational components from other portions of the zoo. It’s an interesting question, I am curious to see if there is evidence that speaks to it.
I guess it is more likely that people who visit these kind of institutions already have a different general attitude towards nature, conservation and learning than the ones buying (and wearing) Predator Zip Line t-shirts...
This is a very interesting debate, and I do have some personal evidence showing that the non-animal stuff occasionally comes very handy even to a zoo nerd. As a case in point, I have visited the Granby Zoo in Canada with my family yesterday. My main goal was photographing their Japanese serows, and unfortunately the animals were resting very near the fence and did not want to cooperate. While I was fully prepared to spend half a day near their enclosure waiting for a good shot, my family would get bored very quickly. Fortunately, Granby Zoo has an entire amusement park section with rides, arcade games, etc., and, after touring the zoo, my wife and two kids happily spent several hours there, while I was busy photographing serows (I did get several good shots eventually), and even had time to go around the zoo two more times by myself (and took good shots of most of the animals). This is the most recent example, but I have many others. Whenever I visit zoos with my family (and my kids are fairly interested in animals and have visited scores of zoos), it is always great to send them to the non-animal amusement section for several hours and walk around the zoo on my own.
