There's a growing trend in the UK, and probably elsewhere(?) for our zoos to bring in 'novelty' features like 'Splash Zones,' 'Zooropia'(animal-linked climbing course at Bristol) and even Crazy Golf is planned for Chester. Is this happening in Zoos in other countries too and what are Forum members views on this trend?
I suppose with the development of kids and there exposure to certain things means that kids are not in awe of a sleeping lion or tiger nowadays. Which has lead to this change in educating the future generations, and well play is one of the best whys to learn. Some of us “hardcore” zoo goers will see this as a nuisance, but in reality it’s a good thing. It hopefully will get the future generations interested and the fight to save the rich diversity we have on this plant when were gone.
I think its good for the benefit of the zoo. A family seeing that a zoo had a "child-friendly" attraction will most probably encourage them to visit. Most zoos are designed to suit all visitors needs and a playground is a basic requirement for families, it gives the kids a chance to let off steam and the adults a chance to rest. Playgrounds integrated into exhibits can only have a positive effect on a childs learning. They can observe how the animals behave and even mimic it if they wish. It can also be a good way for the kids to actually appreciate the animals for once. How many families have you seen dragging round unhappy bored children, for me its been several times. I see a playground just as one of those things that a zoo needs for good publicity and of course a benefit to the families visiting.
I wouldn't say that this is a new and never seen before trend, but rather just another kind of attractions next to the animals some zoos feel inclined to invest in. I can remember European institutions like the German Vogelpark Walsrode heavily investing in playground areas in the 1970/80s to draw more people in, and zoos like the ones in Budapest, Hamburg or Frankfurt did such things decades (sometimes even more than a century) ago. Currently, especially some American zoos (but also European) seem to build more and more features you usually find in waterparks or amusement parks(f.e. Columbus new Polar Frontier or maybe soon the big wheel in Zoo Berlin). Of course these additional features might attract more visitors, and thus benefit the zoo financially (the standard argument). However, don't forget that this stuff is often rather labour, space and cost intensive (also in regard to the maintenance), and needs constant updates to be attractive. And whether this is useful in the struggle of some zoos to become more than just a place to take your small children to, is another question. Honestly, if a zoo wants to invest in such a thing, why not? But make sure that this does not result to the disadvantage of the animals kept.
Great thread Pertinax, and it is common to see "splash zones" and even more extravagant children's areas in North American zoos. In the past decade just in the United States zoos spent over one billion dollars in improvements and upgrades, and to some degree much of that was aimed at children and families. And why not? If I occasionally do go to the zoo alone (which is rare as I am married) then I can walk around for 5 hours at the Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle and see maybe five other people by themselves. Families and children make up something like 80% of all zoo visitors, and so zoos in North America have been erecting giraffe feeding stations, stingray/shark touch-tanks, splash zone waterparks, mini souvenir shops, and other kid-friendly amenities along with the African Savannas and Asian Rainforest animal displays. The Pittsburgh Zoo has a massive 7-acre children's zoo, which is more than quadruple the size of the infamous RSCC in England. Of course young men (whom there are a lot of on ZooChat) often don't care about children's zones, but there will only be more kiddie activites at zoos in the future. Prepare for the onslaught.
Zoochat members Blackrhino, reduakari and Pygathrix already mentioned in another thread several reasons why just focusing on kids and their needs (or what some adults think are their needs...) when designing exhibits and other aspects in zoos might backfire. http://www.zoochat.com/22/must-see-american-zoos-87887/index3.html I don't think that these valid points are derived from the posters being "child-unfriendly young men" or due to carelessness/ignorance about the important role of families with kids for zoos. It's more about what modern zoos are supposed to be or rather, become: serious (yet, mainly via the animals and their presentation, entertaining) institutions of culture and science, on a par with first-class museums, theaters or operas, to which also(sic!) adults without kids won't be ashamed to go to , or amusement parks with animals, aimed at children's and accompanying adults needs. That's the main question that certainly does not trigger any "onslaught". The more amusement (or "theme") park elements a zoo invests in, the more it tends to become the second version-at least in my book. Some will refer to Disney's Animal Kingdom as a prime example of a perfect combination of the two aspects; I don't think so. For me, institutions similar to the Arizona Desert Museum, Jersy and Rheine Zoo are the way to go for modern zoos.
@Sun Wukong: I agree with much of your statement, and that is one of the reasons why after visiting Disney's Animal Kingdom I chose not to place it in my top 12 North American zoos. I'd take the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum over DAK any day of the week! With Disney, Busch Gardens and establishments like the Seaworlds commercialism is king, and whether that is a positive or a negative thing has been debated often here on ZooChat. Without a doubt most people on this forum believe that the less rollercoasters in a zoo the better, but I fear that more "theme park" attractions are popping up in zoos all over the world because the members here do not in any way represent the majority of zoo visitors. Zoos have to cater to children and families first, and there also has to be a large number of people coming through the doors. Beautifully landscaped animal exhibits might not be enough for some families.
@snowleopard: "(...)Zoos have to cater to children and families first,(...)" Why? What about trying to get more of the singles, childless couples, teenagers and seniors in? Especially the latter are a growing part of the population, in particular in the nations of the 1st World (= the main zoo countries)-and they have quite a lot of spare money to spend... Vogelpark Walsrode made a lot of money out of the hords of seniors brought to the park by the means of promotional day trips, the so called "Kaffeefahrten". Trends like rollercoasters come and go; Grzimek had one installed at Frankfurt Zoo after WWII, and now it's long gone. Making zoos more 'august', serious, and thus more interesting for parts of the population other than families with small children, might be the way to go.
Unlike the Disney , Seaworld , Busch establishments in the US and the likes of Chessington in the UK , who are first and foremost there to make money for their shareholders , Chester and Bristol Zoos new child-oriented , non-animal attractions should , provided they are profitable , help either the animal collection or the out-reach programmes as they are both Charitable organisations . The more visitors through the gates and the more they spend once there , the more the collection is able to develop . I must admit to being personally dismayed by the sight of the mini-golf at Chester Zoo , but I am a 'Grumpy Old Man' .
Well, children are like that - they got bored after 10 minutes and need a dumping ground. And they refuse to stay at home when parents want to go somewhere. Wise zoos could do well to design a bar overlooking children playground, especially surrounded by a hedge so that children don't need to be watched all the time. And separate it from animals, so the rest of visitors have some peace.
How true that is SL.... here in the UK we have the whole spectrum so to speak. At one end Chessington 'World of Adventures' is a large theme/adventure park with an animal collection almost tacked on (it has always had a zoo but the themepark aspect has grown immensely in recent years, dwarfing the animal collection) At the other end are probably Howletts/Port Lympne-still 'pure' animal collections though even Howletts have (perhaps rather grudgingly?) installed a children's play area in recent years. Whats interesting is how several of the more conventional zoos here are now seeing the need to provide more and more of these 'immersion experiences' so that viewing animals is made more 'interactively 'fun' for visitors. Obviously as you say, the target audience being families with young children. If you go to Bristol in particular(a long established small urban zoo) it nowadays has the atmosphere of a childrens' party more than a zoo in some respects. I mustn't be a 'killjoy' though and I guess we will just have to get used to more of this type of thing in the future as these things catch on more and more. Now, when we've seen the tigers, anyone for some Crazy Golf?
I don´t understand a consternation some forum members expressed towards a minigolf as a part of a zoo? There exist some for quite a long time, f.e. the currect minigolf tracks at Usti nad Labem zoo were constructed in 1984. I see the development of playgrounds in zoos as something natural - zoo exhibits are improving with the time, animal management techniques are improving, technical equipment is more and more advanced, so why not playgrounds? They grow and change as well as zoos themselfs.
Zoos have to provide what their visitors want. I was surprised by the mini-golf (or crazy golf) at Chester - but I don't have a problem with it and I recognise that there are no other child-friendly activity areas nearby, except for the very small climbing frame beside the spider monkeys. On the other hand, I do hope that they will have reopened the footpath through the Miniature Monkeys exhibits before I visit next. I have written before that I think it is a long term trend that zoos with twin sites will tend to become children-centred on the urban site and large animal zoos on the rural one. This always has happened to some extent at Regents Park & Whipsnade and it's starting to happen now at Edinburgh & HWP. I am sure it will be very obvious at Bristol & Hollywood Towers - when it eventually opens. This doesn't just mean play areas, it includes 'educational' presentations and walk-through exhibits, particularly butterfly houses and lorikeet feeding aviaries. Not what I want, but I do remember that the thing that my youngest brother liked best was having a hissing cockroach walk up his arm at an early version of a bug show, many years ago. Alan
Our zoo (Reid Park) did add a small children's water spray area a few years ago, but we are in Tucson, Arizona, so it is well justified. It creates an incentive for young families to visit during the summer, when the entire economy of Tucson slows down (except perhaps the air-conditioned movie theatres). Surprisingly, however, neither of the zoos in Tucson (Reid Park and Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum) have a children's zoo. These are long-standing attractions that most major zoos have had for decades, but we both seem to get along fine without them. San Diego in it's early days even charged extra admission for the children's zoo section. Since several people have mentioned Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, I should let you know they have added one small attraction for kids. It's a dig site where children can wear goggles and dig in the sand for fake fossils.
The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum's dig site for children is in my mind a brilliant idea, and when I was there last summer there were loads of kids in the sand getting intrigued by the idea of hunting for fossils. Miami Metrozoo and Minnesota Zoo are two more locations with the same setup for unearthing dinosaur treasures.
I agree with snowleopard-the digging site at the ADM is a very good idea, especially at the given location.
Disney's Animal Kingdom is not only among the Top 10 in North America, but repeatedly many sources (ie, Forbes) are listing it among the Top 10-15 in the entire world! It's exhibits are picture perfect, its conservation record is top-notch, and face it -- attendance figures don't lie. As for Arizona-Sonora, it's beautiful, but not really a crowd-drawer. It's also located in the only place in America (Arizona) where it could survive -- with almost zero child-friendly attractions. Only in Arizona, a place filled with old retirees, could ASDM survive. Not "commercialism", just economic reality -- which is very good thing. Exactly!!!!!!! And this is exactly why zoos should NOT automatically cater to the complaints of this tiny minority -- ZooChatters. Well said. But don't fight it, embrace it!
but at the same time, zoos should not completely focus on children and risk alienating other demographics... By all means build a few child-friendly attractions (playgrounds etc) as a means of keeping kids busy (enrichment ) but I know when I was younger the animals were enough to captivate me at the zoo and that is how zoos should promote themselves (Chester used an image in a marketing campaign of a young child standing a few inches away from a jaguar - in my opinion, that is how zoos should market towards children, not by promoting rides and similar attractions above the animals). There's a zoo in the UK named Drusillas, which by most accounts is a good little zoo, however due to it's marketing directly aimed at children, I would probably be unwilling to make the effort to visit whereas Chester and London (which market themselves as family days out, but not completely aimed at children) appeal to me more.
