I think that Toddy has made the best conclusion so far in this thread: If you gonna fence in a big piece of nature you must make sure that it's a biotop that fits the the particular species needs. For example you can't fence in a big open field and think put in a snow leopard there (extreme example, I know, but you get the point ) So if a zoo should go for the "swedish-style" all the way they have to plan their collection based on what kind of nature they own (or the other way around). Of course this really suits zoos with a lot of native animals, which is the case with many zoos in Sweden. So it's probably like Toddy said, it all comes down to what kind of species the zoo consider. And a big enclosure doesn't have to be better than a smaller exhibit, it's more about the furnishing and complexity of the exhibit. Quality before quantity. But again, it's depend on what species. About the education aspect I agree that one of the main focuses for the modern zoo. But unfortunately the Swedish zoos are far behind the majortity of the zoos in other countries in Europe and North America (there is exceptions of course) regarding the educational work.
Dan, I wish I could get references and links of these surveys for you - I think you'd be interested. In answer to your question: they are not only significant, they are the great majority of visitors. There have been also numerous surveys testing visitors' knowledge of conservation and ecology issues before and after viewing certain exhibits and in most cases the dolts actually learned something! I have a problem with pine forest of African wild dogs if visitors don't already KNOW where Africa is, the ecosystem that wild dogs inhabit, why that ecosystem is savanna instead of forest, etc., etc. If, on the other hand, all the visitors are so very well educated that they are fully aware of the artifice, then have at it! Here in the U.S., most college students would be hard pressed to know Zimbabwe is a country, let alone find it on a map. I believe, from my own zoo visits, I understand your position that visitors simply want to look at (or throw things at...) the animals. But, again here in the U.S., there is more going on. If indeed that is NOT the case in Sweden then your recommendation of "Swedish style exhibits" (I use quotes because I wasn't previously aware it was a national style) becomes problematic. These exhibits then simply pander to the visitors' lowest desires and do not challenge them to reach higher. This discussion makes me VERY curious about what Swedish zoo professionals would say. Do they feel that education is not so important? Do they feel they are educating the visitors but not in the way we here think of it? I know one American zoo director who feels that ecological immersion is not so important. Vivid animal encounters are all important for getting people to care about wildlife. Of course, his zoo location really limits what he can create, so it's fortunate he has another way to see things. Perhaps members from other countries with some good info can add their point of view on that.
One aspect of zoo exhibit design that is imho immensly important, but very often ignored in real life and hasn't been mentioned here yet: how well does the particular exhibit acknowledge and serve the needs and demands of the zoo staff? Some exhibits are great for the animals, look appealing and educational to the visitors, but are a real pain to work with. And within the staff, demands and requirements might differ, depending whether vets, keepers or the horticulture department are asked...
In my opinion, a decent exhibit caters for all of the above. The exhibit should be - Easy to maintain and keep decent by keepers and zoo staff - Catering for animal husbandry with things like seperation paddocks, crushes and behind the scenes resting area's when necessary. - Cater for the interest of zoo animals, with larger not always being better - Makes animals viewable for at least an 75 (or more) % of the time - Deliver bite-size information about the animals, with easy to read signs and with pictures where possible. - Show the animals in the surrounding they would be in naturally (plants, ground, rockworks etc.) - Give easy acces for visitors to and from the exhibit - Has the least amount of sight-obstructive fencing (piano-wire cage systems, non-mirror! glass or pits/elevations) I always totally HATE to see a pine forest with african wild dogs. It emphasises the fact the animals are outside of their natural habitat and in captivity. I LOVE a pine forest that's home to brown bears, wolves, lynxes, wolverines or wolves... The best exhibits are usually the ones that show a large group of animals (species dependent), in a large exhibit that contains a whole load of natural features that they would encounter in the wild. The mentioned "Swedish system" mentioned by Dan in the first post does not cover all these elements, so i don't always like them... (sometimes they look and feel like "the cheap option" to me).
Thats why safari parks are not really like safari. Sometimes half-solutions don't work. It became an obsession to exhibit only animals from the same continent in one shared enclosure or part of the zoo. However, it is nonsense when the surroundings are atrifical and animals don't even come from the same part of the continent (say, scimitar-horned oryx from north African deserts + lechwe from south African marshes + reticulated giraffe from east African dry forests). I would just relax. Just put kangaroos with llamas and antelope, if its best for animals. It takes more than a kangaroo to be mentally transported to Australia. I have nothing against un-natural exhibit if it is spacious and good for animals.
Totally agree with you Jurek7 The shift to geo zones in zoos! In my experience a complete waste of time! The public are not more educated by this. The animals are not necessarily happier in an enclosure with other animals from that continent. The costs involved in construction of new exhibits. Where a zoo may have 4 large cat species in 4 different parts of the zoo. Disallows the possibility of rotation animals through several exhibits. Most notably the off exhibit area costs go through the roof.
Please specify your experience of wasting time? Allthough i don't have any scientific evidence by this, i beg to differ. I think that mixing species that would meet each other in the wild IS more educative, specially when it comes with decent signs. I do agree that animals that are mixed with species from other continents are not less happy. I don't think rotation really makes a huge difference to most species, so i don't see the value in that. I also doubt that off-exhibit costs would "go through the roof" compared to the non-geo design. The extra costs do not outweigh the benefits if you ask me. So more to the point. I like mixed exhibits with species that would encounter each other in the wild (and i can live with different subspecies). I dislike enclosures with animals from different continents because in my opinion it detracts a whole lot of educational value. Allthough i do think that Geo-zones are a lot easier to accomplish in Europe and the US due to the high number of species available. I also like the species-dividence (cats together, birds together, dogs together...) which is probably a lot handier for a continent that has less species to pick from...
I also think that there is an educational value of showing several species from the same region together, or at least close by. You can learn a lot about an animal from which species it co-exists with. I also think that the best zoo exhibits are the ones that give you a feeling of "beeing there". Where you really can gasp with awe and think: "Wow, this must be what Africa looks like". That also gives you a better understanding of the wildlife that lives there.
Thanks everybody for passionate and interesting response to my thread! My first post was a bit semi-provocative on purpose, because I really wanted to create a discussion. And yes: your posts show a whole spectrum of views on the subject. Now... I´m not totally as fanatic on this subject as I may seem to be. I can certainly appreciate efforts put into zoo landscaping in order to create realistic impressions of an animal´s natural enviroment. Of course! It is just that MY main priority as far as zoos are concerned will always be the welfare of the animal, hence my "obsession" with enclosure size. (At the same time I am fully aware of the fact that this is not the only important thing - or, like Jodea put it: "Quality before quantity."). A few words to Zooplantman: Nothing would please me more than if, in fact, I have underestimated the educational aspects of zoos. If seriously conducted surveys in the US shows that this is the case, I´m really glad! Also, I cannot in any way speak for Swedish zoo professionals, so don´t base any judgement on yours by my writings. (Jodeas comment on this subject was very interesting, though. But I have personally no knowledge or experience on that particular matter.) Last but not least: It looks as if I have coined a new phrase here at ZooChat, by writing about the "Swedish Model/Style" or whatever. This has, however, been done half jokingly - in all honesty I don´t think it is a relevant expression. The style of enclosure that I have discussed is of course to be found all around the world. So let´s bury the phrase....
I thought this was (is) an excellent discussion. It would not surprise me if a zoo visitor (no matter how avid) and a zoo professional saw the zoo public differently and had different experiences. And I expect that both perceptions - although apparently in conflict - are in fact completely valid
It's interesting that this discussion was also the topic of the last Harpij-congress (foundation of Dutch and Belgian zookeepers). One of the presentations indicated that a good design should balance following aspects: • Vision (masterplan) • Animal needs • Keepers needs • Wishes of the public • Educational wishes • Money available The last point has been forgotten a bit in the discussion. Whatever great plan you have and you can't pay for it, it then renders useless. Another point is that you should consider whether you can afford this specific type of spicies within the overall view. Maybe you should let go of animals you cannot afford or look at another type of solution. For instance, in Burgers' Zoo in Arnhem they decided not to have a breeding group of elephants, but to house elderly females instead. This makes a big difference in e.g. having a bull-enclosure, improving the stables to be suited for births, etc. This way they can still show elephants to the public and are telling the public that this kind of housing is also nessessary for the overall future of captive elephants in Europe. What's a better design? There's not an awful lot of zoos having money waiting to be spend in multi-million projects.
