In the Gallery I have posted several comments in which I recommend the "Swedish Model" for zoo enclosures: Whenever possible, simply put up a fence around an authentic, natural piece of forest, mountain, hill etc. Don´t mess too much with fake rocks or trying to make the exhibit look as "authentic" as possible. This just costs a lot of money and a lot more space can be available for the animals if my suggestion is followed. One of the examples I have used is the 7000 square meter big enclosure for African Wild Dogs at Borås Zoo. They live in a piece of genuine Swedish pine forest and I bet that they are very content and happy with that, compared to if they had spent their time in a multi-million dollar super-designed exhibit at maybe a tenth of that size. Here is a prime new example. This zoo is about to have a bongo exhibit: http://www.zoochat.com/759/one-part-new-bongo-exbith-49074/ (I fully understand, of course, that my suggestion is not relevant as far as old inner-city zoos are concerned.) What do you think?
What do I think? That zoos are not animal resorts. Exhibits designed with the twin goals of being inexpensive and a comfy place for animals may well turn out to dodge other obligations, like showing visitors why African wild dogs look and function as they do, why red pandas are colored as they are, how snow leopards manage to surprise blue sheep, etc. The model you describe strikes me as similar to the old deer parks of the Kings, where their collection could be showed-off to visitors. But we are no longer collectors of exotica alone. We have other responsibilities. That's what I think, Dan. And yet, many of the exhibits you have presented are in fact beautiful.
I totally get your point, Zooplantman. But honestly - how many zoo visitors actually care about the issues that you raise? I would think less than one tenth of a percent, honestly!
I agree with zooplantman, I think with the education role zoos play today, it's important to have the eductaion side of it, partly by replicating the animal's natural habitat. However these don't always seem to be as good for the animals, and the majority of the public don't pay any attention to the education, so the animals might as well be kept in enclosures like Dan suggests. It works out cheaper for the zoo
And it makes for much bigger enclosures for the animals to live their lives in, ashley-h! Happy zoo animals makes me happy when I see them...
Why should one rule out the other? In Nordens Ark in Sweden they have a huge genuine mountain side, fenced in to make a splendid enclosure for snow leopards. Here the visitors can really understand how difficult snow leopards are to spot in the mountains, between rocks and a few pine trees. This is the best snow leopard exhibit I have ever seen! And why can't such an exhibit be educational? I like both type of exhibits described here, both the huge nauralistic ones and the usually smaller "design-exhibits". I suppose it also depends on the species involved...
True, but it isn't all about space. Providing they have enrichment and that, animals can be perfectly happy in an average sized enclosure than in a huge, empty one. It's the whole furnished house/empty warehouse argument
Lol, I was actually agreeing with Dan, we posted at exactly the same time. But I agree with what you say too, it also depends a lot on species.
The large, "Swedish-style" enclosures are fantastic in terms of size, and I'm a massive fan of having enormous habitats for zoo animals as too often that is a major problem in all zoos worldwide. However, zoos also have to cater to visitors and having huge paddocks makes the animals difficult to view and thus uninteresting to observers. A happy medium needs to be attained via bridges that go over exhibits (Scandinavian Wildlife Park), tunnels that go into habitats (like the black bear enclosure at the Knoxville Zoo) or other innovative ways to view animals in large areas of land. As a self-confessed zoo fan I personally adore the huge paddocks that I see in zoos, but I realize that I am the exception to the rule and that educating the public should be the #1 task of any zoological organization. I have seen some wildlife parks with huge paddocks where every single enclosure looks the same, and from photos I can't tell which is the exhibit for the grizzly bear, the moose, the african wild dog and the cheetah. When that occurs then visitors get bored seeing the same old habitats without any distinctive features inside each one. It's a difficult thing to combine large enclosures with educational and learning possibilities.
Interesting post, Toddy. A couple of friends of mine visited Nordens Ark this summer and had nothing but praise for it. And ashely-h, I guess my point is that a big natural enclosure is enriched all the time. There will be so many things to check out...
To snowleopard: Wise words as always. But judging from the relative success of the Swedish zoos I would suggest that some of them have struck that perfect balance. For instance, I have only just learned that the size of the savanna at Borås zoo is 23 000 square meters big. It is big enough to hold an elphant herd together with african buffaloes as well as giraffes and other species. Seeing this as a kid was one of my main turn-ons at a young age. I loved it!
And again, snowleopard - like I wrote to Zooplantman: how many of the zoo visitors actually take in the educational aspect? Extremely few...
You have some great points Dan, and as you know from having read my road trip thread I think that less than 10% of people even bother reading most of the hugely expensive graphics and signs that adorn enclosures at zoos. I stood with my wife inside the Madagascar house at the Bronx Zoo and watched people file by the literature on the walls without even giving the signs a second glance. All most people want to do is look for the red ruffed lemurs so that they can tell their kids: "See the monkeys!" I may be slightly exaggerating, but the vast majority of zoo visitors don't give a damn about anything but the actual animals. In today's day and age perhaps zoos need to spend more money on multi-media technology to encourage individuals to learn about animals, but at least exhibitry has come a long way with the gradual phasing out of pits, bars, grottoes and other horrible cages.
In all honesty I am a bit pessimistic about the "multi-media technology" that you suggest. I think that, in general, many of the enthusiasts here at ZooChat overvalue the educational aspect of zoos. I mean, we all know the deal: screaming kids - crying for ice cream -while impatient parents try to settle them down: "Look at the elephant, dear!". But then again, sometimes - just like the 400 active members on this forum - some of the kids obtain a life long interest. That´s good! But it is an exception to the rule, I am afraid.
I very strongly believe in the education value of zoos. In fact, it is one of their two primary objectives (the other being saving endangered species). But like I said earlier: Why can't huge naturalistic enclosures be educational?
Well, here in the U.S., numerous polls, surveys etc. have indicated that visitors consider the educational aspect of zoos extremely important. They apparently like the idea of a family outing having some additional value. I understand that zoo visitors in other countries may have different interests. Also, should zoos be run and designed simply for the preferences of the majority of visitors? Most zoos are not-for-profit institutions whose Mission Statements declare that conservation education is among their top three goals.
I would guess that Zooplantman was not referring specifically to graphics when he writes of the educational content of exhibits, but rather the overall messages conveyed by seeing animal in the context created for them by a zoo. This gets right to the heart of the argument for "immersion" exhibits--that by showing animals (and putting visitors "into") in a recreation of the animal's natural habitat, including plants, geology, other animals, climate etc, a more complete picture of the animal or animal community is created. Graphics and other interpretation can augment this, but the basic message is conveyed by seeing the animal in an accurate and compelling setting. Just putting animals into giant paddocks does not necessarily achieve this. Especially if visitors can't see the animals. It is too much of an "Emperor's new clothes" approach to assume that zoo visitors will continue to come to zoos with invisible animals and be told it is good for them. Many of the giant "utopian zoos" established in the US during the 1970s (e.g. SDWAP, Miami, Minnesota, North Carolina, Wichita) are scrambling to correct this conceit by building exhibits where people get the close encounters with animals that result in memories and--hopefully-concern.
I quite agree. Animals shown as part of larger ecosystems are more exciting and very welcomed by visitors. Personally, I feel no one reads the signs. (yes, yes, someone does) AND animals that are hard to see ruin the zoo experience. In all my work my first concern is "What can we do to make sure the animals are where people can see them?" There is no inherent conflict between instructive exhibits, exciting exhibits, large exhibits, animal-caring exhibits, etc. There is only bad design (spoken like a designer, heh?)
I respect and enjoy every new answer to this thread of mine. But I can´t help but to question Zooplantman, quote: "Well, here in the U.S., numerous polls, surveys etc. have indicated that visitors consider the educational aspect of zoos extremely important." Are the respondants really "statistically relevant"? (Don´t know if that expression is proper English...). To redakuari: I get your points, too. Thanks! But then again: big naturalistic enclosures might still enable the visitors to see the animals. Just make them very long (and not so wide).
