The Role of Architectural Design in Promoting the Social Objectives of Zoos

A Study of Zoo Exhibit Design with Reference to Selected Exhibits in Singapore Zoological Gardens

by Michael Graetz


1.2 Historical Background

For the purposes of this study, the historical development of zoos is broken into three periods: pre-modern, ie. from ancient times to 1750 AD; modern, from 1750 to 1950; and the present period from 1950.

Modern zoos are often said to have begun with London's Regent's Park Zoo in the 1820's because it was founded with a scientific purpose. However, it will be seen that this step was a culmination of the Age of Reason which is conveniently dated from 1750. Likewise, an equally valid claim could be made for dating our current style of zoo design as beginning with Hagenbeck's zoo in Hamburg. However, so much change in science and technology, and in society, after World War Two places the tremendous innovations of Hagenbeck in a different era. The post-Second World War period is when the principals of what could be called the new architectural discipline of zoo design began to appear.

A note on the pace of change and the sources of innovation in the zoo world is warranted. New zoos are not a frequent event; and, once established, not easily changed. The history of zoo design, has tended to be one of ground breaking advances which renews interest in zoos and, hence, there is a spate of zoo building and existing ones change to follow the trend. Though seemingly revolutionary, the new order is always a product of the society that fosters it and, until now, has always followed the architectural styles of the time. The current trend to habitat design is still a product of its time, but has steered an independent architectural course. Existing mind-sets, financial and space constraints always present difficulties to older zoos with every new direction. Some zoos do not change, others undertake to completely make-over their displays to fit with new ideas. By-and-large, most zoos become a mix of epochs; building new exhibits more or less at the leading edge of design while retaining or making do with renovations to existing out-dated enclosures.

Pre-modern Zoos (up to 1750)

The zoos of ancient and even relatively recent societies are usually described disparagingly as menageries. To glorify and give private amusement to ruling classes has been the hallmark distinguishing menageries from ‘proper’ zoos. Today, the term ‘menagerie’ has come to mean any small collection of exotic animals which, by the way it is managed, is considered below ‘zoo’ standard. This is to overlook the fact that many menageries were established out of motives similar to the better zoos of today and were not always for private amusement, public spectacle or to enhance the prestige of the owner. In regard to the treatment of animals, it is obvious that whatever fate was to befall the specimens (display or destruction) they had to be maintained in the meantime and considerable knowledge of animal needs must have been available to enable this.

Assyrian lion
Fig. 4 Assyrian transport cage for lions, ca. 2300 BC

With the rise civilizations, there had probably already been in existence a habit of keeping non-domestic animals as curiosities. It took the establishment of settled civilised cultures, i.e., with the ability to produce agricultural surpluses to support urban centres to grow, to enable the organised keeping of wild animals. This knowledge was gained over tens of thousands of years of prehistoric development. Realising that neolithic cultures possessed a great deal of knowledge about wild animals from hunting and domesticating them, it becomes reasonable to assume that just as today, there were good and bad zoos, enlightened and backward ones. Scientific knowledge may have been virtually non-existent, but practical animal husbandry could have been quite as advanced as it is today. Fig. 4 shows an engraving taken from a Assyrian bas relief of a lion being released from a transport cage in exactly the manner in which it would be done today. The purpose of these ancient zoos tended to follow the proclivities of the rulers who established them, whether it be sport or spectacle. Referring to this figure, Loisel states that:

On arrival at the destination, the lions would have been placed in an enclosure in the royal palace or released in semi-liberty in vast, special parks, planted with palm trees, vines and flowers, and that the Greeks called Paradeisos. . . .[1]

The palace animals were groomed as pets; however, it was not paradise for the other animals. Loisel continues: “. . . in the Paradeisos, the lions were destined for sport, combats or the chase.”[2] For dynastic civilizations everywhere, menageries were a natural adjunct which served to show the wealth and splendour of their rulers. Still the main purposes of modern zoos - scientific study or public recreation - were not unknown. Many animal collections of ancient civilizations were also used for scientific study and may have qualified as zoos by today's standards.

Thus, zoos or menageries have been a feature of civilizations as ancient as that of Ninevah and pharoanic Egypt and as far removed as China and pre-Hispanic Mexico. The earliest known great zoo of the pre-modern past was that of Queen Hapshepsut of the Eighteenth dynasty in Egypt, who died in 1468 BC, around the time of construction of the great temple of Amon. Her own temple, associated with her tomb, is decorated with friezes depicting a trade expedition to Punt (Somalia) where among other things she collected a great many animals.[3] As Bernard Livingston says: by this time, at least, “. . . man the tamer had the capability of being man the zookeeper.”[4]

Alexander, Kublai Khan and Emperor Wen Wang of the Chou Dynasty in China (who created the famous “Garden of Intelligence”), Constantine, Charlemagne, Louis XIV and Montezuma were all founders of zoos. Alexander the Great, a pupil of Aristotle, established probably the first zoo as an educational institution. Aristotle, who described 300 animals in his History of Animals, wrote, “. . . We must therefore not draw back childishly from examining the meaner animals. In all natural beings there is something of the marvellous.”[5]

Chinese garden
Fig. 5 The Yu Hua Yuan, Imperial Palace, Beijing. ‘H’ marks a deer enclosure with dens beneath the terrace marked ‘I’ (from Keswick)

Ptolemy II assembled a procession for the feast of Dionysus in the city of Alexandria a mile long which took a full day to pass by. In Rome, animals were used in bloody spectacles, on a vast scale also. The Romans were not noted for zoos; as great collectors and consumers of wildlife, they were responsible for the extinction of much of the large wild mammals within their Empire, for example lions in Europe. However, some, like Pliny the Elder did have a scientific interest in animals. Constantine established public zoos at Antioch and Byzantium which were maintained until 538 AD when the Persians destroyed them. Charlemagne established zoos in several monasteries in the Seventh Century. “One order - the friars of St. Gallen in Switzerland - built a zoo of surprisingly modern design, with roomy quarters for the carnivores, work spaces for the keepers and well-kept outdoor paddocks for the hoofed animals.”[6]

In Britain, the famous zoo in the Tower of London was originally established by Henry I at his provincial residence at Woodstock from where it was moved to the Tower in 1230 by Henry III. Here its function was the keeping of animals for contests. It became a public zoo, the first publicly funded municipal zoo, when Henry III decided he was not going to provide for accommodating all the tourists who flocked to see first a Polar bear and then an elephant. It was reported in 1829 by Edward Turner Bennet that the Tower menagerie had contained 43 mammals, 11 birds and 4 reptiles in 1818.[7]

There were other royal and municipal menageries throughout Europe in the Middle Ages, notably the famous, or infamous, bear pit of Berne. But it was in the Renaissance that the royal menagerie reached its pinnacle with the first use of architecture designed around animals. In all ages, animals were probably housed in buildings which expressed the standing of their collectors. But for the first time animals were seen as part of a grand conception, as Jon Coe, notes:

Animals, like the topiary shrubs and embroidery parterres, are ornaments to amuse aristocrats. Even nature is under the control of king and court. Thus, what began at Nineveh as direct physical control of beasts (and nature) evolved to intellectual symbols of control. But human sovereignty over nature was unquestioned.[8]

After Renaissance Man had reached the New World in 1492, Tenochtitlán, the capital of the Aztec ruler, Montezuma, and site of his royal menagerie was destroyed in 1520 by Cortez. It is reputed to have been the greatest royal menagerie ever and must rank as an outstanding zoological collection. It was noted by its very destroyers for the quarters and care provided for the birds and animals. 300 men and women tended the vast aviary alone. It even had dedicated veterinary staff to care for sick animals.[9]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The evidence of ancient zoos is mostly anecdotal. Seeking an underlying theme in zoo development, Coe sees two separate strands, or ‘time lines’, of development in these extremes of great savagery and nobility.[10] He divides zoos into “displays of human power” where animals are used as symbols of power or popular amusement; and “educational and ethical exhibits” intended to “instruct and inspire”. These strands converge, he states, in the Victorian age. Expressions of power became more symbolic among the cultural elites while the brutish element continued in the lower orders of society with bear baiting and other entertainments. While this was happening, the interest in the natural world grew and lead to the flowering of the Age of Reason. The symbolic use of animals began to merge with notions of a well-ordered universe. This lead to the collection of live specimens for study rather than amusement, and hence the first scientifically established zoos of the modern world.

Modern Development (1750 to 1950)

The period began with the establishment of a formal garden menagerie at Schonbrunn in Austria in 1752, just six years before Linnaeus published his work on systematic nomenclature for plants and animals. It was the last great royal menagerie of Europe. The first such animal collection kept for scientific purposes originated earlier (in 1624) as the royal Menagerie du Parc at Versailles. After the revolution of 1789, the naturalist, Cuvier, reorganised the collection on scientific principles and it was transferred to the Jardin des Plantes.[11] Perhaps the revolutionary fervour in which this new zoo enterprise was begun, and the arms-length at which the new regime in France was held by other nations with absolute monarchs, discouraged direct imitation of it or recognition of any innovation. France's legacy was profound, however, though indirect, through Rousseau's call to spiritual refreshment through a return to nature. Coe goes on to develop a philosophical lineage of present day zoo design from this through to the Romantic Movement in literature and art. It is traced through Wordsworth, Emerson to Thoreau and to the ‘wilderness ethic’ expressed through the American conservation and national parks movements. Intersecting this are two diverse strands of human thought: the Western rational philosophy of Utilitarianism and Eastern Buddhist philosophy.[12] The former gave rise to the animal welfare movement and respect for nature, and the second to advocacy of non-violence.

The Romantic spirit did come to influence zoos, primarily in America through the informal park design of Olmsted and Vaux. The next great developments, however, contained a strong element of man's domination over nature, rather than stewardship. They were the founding of the Zoological Society of London and the creation of Hagenbeck's zoo in Hamburg.

The London Zoological Society's zoo in Regent's Park was a product of the Age of Reason which was seen as civilisation's fullest flowering. The Industrial Revolution also provided ample demonstration of the power of man over nature and the means to this success was seen as knowledge, as expressed by the sturdy Victorian adage: ‘Knowledge is Power’.[13] The zoological gardens was founded on scientific principles by a scientific gentry as a tool for furthering knowledge. Regent's Park zoo was the product of a mature and confident social order, at the height of a period of certainty built on Newtonian mechanics, when it was felt everything was knowable and could be derived, given enough time and resources.

Regent's Park itself was part of a large urban development laid out by the architect, John Nash, from 1811 to 1830.[14] The zoo was established in it in 1826, near the end of his life (he died in 1835). In design terms, much is made of the title, London Zoological Gardens, as it implies more than a collection of specimens in indifferent surroundings. As we have seen with the royal menageries of Europe, and particularly France, the garden concept was not new. In these garden menageries, the formal layouts were not just symbolic of power; they were also designed to be seen from a single vantage point - the palace or chateau - by the king or lord. What was new about London Zoo was the social nature of a zoo visit and the need for many simultaneous views by a large populace. The founding of London Zoo set off the modern trend in public city zoos and significantly these were often also set in existing public parks, often against the wishes of their designers:

. . . the public no longer found relaxing naturalistic environments sufficient for recreation. They demanded entertainment, organized activity and variety. As the nineteenth century progressed, park administrators increasingly dealt with demands for new amenities. Favoured features included conservatories, bandshells and, most disruptive of all to landscape parks, menageries that usually grew into full-scale zoos. In older parks, such as Lincoln Park in Chicago, these were added as afterthoughts where space allowed (or at times really did not), often destroying the original concept of a pastoral retreat. Elsewhere, zoos were added to design programs as work progressed, producing more compatible solutions, but still subverting the real value of a large park.[15]

It can be seen from this that the progress in planning of zoos lagged behind that of parks. In fact, park landscape design and the placement of buildings in landscapes provided the model for zoo planning until well into this century when it can at last be said to have taken on a conceptual framework of its own:

While some favored the well-ordered symmetry of the Beaux Artes [sic] classic revival period, . . . others, . . . favored the informal, romantic park style initiated by Capability Brown and later popularized and modified for America by Frederic Law Olmsted.[16]

Seemingly immune to this, Carl Hagenbeck stands out as a unique innovator. Having a proletarian background in the strata of society among which bear-baiting and travelling menageries and circuses remained popular, he was not at all hide-bound by notions of correctness. An original thinker motivated by profit, he updated animal husbandry, and display methods which had not changed effectively in millennia, and successfully packaged and marketed them to the Hamburg public through the zoo which he opened at Stellingen in 1907. This business was largely run by his son after his death in 1914 and it should be noted that Hagenbeck senior's business was primarily as an animal dealer. It was through the holding of animals acquired for this trade which allowed Hagenbeck to formulate his ideas about animals, including the training technique now known as operant conditioning and the testing of jumping distances for his moat barrier designs.

'Hagenbeck' exhibit
Fig. 6 Hagenbeck-style layered exhibits in Singapore Zoo: Oryx (Oryx dammah) and Cape hunting dog (Lycaon pictus)

Hagenbeck invented the naturalistic exhibit in which obviously man-made built and landscape elements are eschewed in favour of concealed barriers and simulations of natural landscapes. The resulting zoo was also a demonstration of the fact that tropical animals could acclimatize to temperate conditions.[17] He is also credited with originating mixed species exhibits, predator-prey illusions, the zoo-geographic (as opposed to taxonomic) organising principle and ethno-graphic displays related to animal exhibits. As mentioned, the Hagenbecks were driven to succeed, and as a showman, Carl Hagenbeck had a good understanding of what the public wanted. In exhibit design, Coe suggests that he based his panoramas on popular images which were based in turn on picturesque romantic landscapes of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, rather than actual natural habitats.[18] Coe also comments:

The “naturalistic” exhibits originated by the Hagenbecks usually placed the viewer on the outside of the romantic panorama. While the animals may be portrayed in the picturesque grottos of some imagined stage set, the public looked over pruned hedges and flower borders of a traditional park. People were separate from and in control of nature.[19]

As with London Zoo before, new zoos were built like Hagenbeck's Zoo, and existing zoos added Hagenbeck-style exhibits. In the period of successive of war, social upheaval and economic hardship that followed, zoos remained a mixture of London and Hamburg styles but there was never-the-less a tremendous amount of zoo development. The role of zoos in society had changed from a bourgeois intellectual toy to a social amenity for the masses for much the same reasons that gladiatorial battles between men and beasts were put on by the Romans (though with much less disastrous consequences for the animals). Modern civic authorities similarly subsidized zoos as free public entertainment during the Depression years. Another reason for growth in these years was job creation schemes:

Zoos and botanical gardens across the country were also the beneficiaries of federal make-work programs. . . . In San Francisco and Chicago, federally financed workers constructed modern open zoo exhibits with artificial rock made from gunite.[20]

In such an economic climate, however, real change and innovation were slow, and perhaps zoos were sowing the seeds of public concern a generation later:

The problems that this fashion for zoos produced cannot be overemphasized, as many cities continue to be affected by them. The problem is really threefold. First, zoos disrupt other park activities because they are popular and usually expand, displacing other use areas. Second, because of the small spaces available, facilities for animals are often minimal at best and inhumane at worst. Recent litigation against several major zoos has begun to improve this condition. Third, the presence of large animals in the midst of an urban park often causes serious environmental problems such as water pollution from uncontrolled sewage and vermin. The notion that zoos are merely a special type of recreational facility, and not a distinctly different institution, was disproved long ago when proposals for a large one in Central Park were turned down. (There is, of course, a small children's zoo.)[21]

London Zoo meanwhile again proved to be among the most innovative in the inter-war period, though many of its award winning exhibits, while outstanding architecturally are now discredited as examples of good captive habitats. for example, London Zoo’s penguin exhibit is an icon of the Modern Movement with its sweeping, interlocking concrete ramps. The penguins have no need for these ramps, however.[22] In his book, The Stationary Ark, Gerald Durrell gives an amusing account of a tour of another major addition to London Zoo (which he does not name), the Elephant House: a large building with little space allocated for the elephants but a roof high enough for the elephants to fly up and roost, if they had wings.

Never-the-less, improvements followed slowly on advances in the behavioural, veterinary and biological sciences until the next great period of innovation in the 1970's and 80's.

Development of Zoo Design Since 1950

The fixing of 1950 for the beginning of contemporary zoo design is arbitrary, but it is chosen because the changes in society and necessary pre-conditions which allowed the development of current zoo design practice began from around this time, as the world slowly stabilised following World War II. Before looking at the new practices themselves, the changes most relevant to zoo design will be briefly touched on in three areas: scientific advances, the growth of technology and social change.

By the time under consideration, from the 1950's on, the ‘information explosion’ was underway, and biological and behavioural sciences were seeing considerable advances. The structure of DNA was determined and in the succeeding decades there were developed: new antibiotics and drugs, which allowed safer handling of animals and greater freedom to husbandry regimes and display techniques; genetic fingerprinting, which allows subspecies issues and genetic viability to be determined for breeding programmes; in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer techniques which likewise greatly increased the scope for breeding endangered species; new knowledge of animals' behavioural, social and dietary requirements; and greater knowledge of the lives of animals in the wild and their relationships with their environments. In this last regard, the work of field biologists such as Schaller and Fossey and others would become highly significant for zoo designers later, while Hediger, focusing on animals in zoos, had a more immediate influence on husbandry practices.

Meanwhile, society became increasingly concerned about the treatment of animals generally and in zoos in particular. Relative peace and greater prosperity, at least in the West, led to better educated, more leisured and wealthier populations with the time and energy to devote to such issues—the post-war ‘baby-boomers’. Conservation first emerged as a social concern in the sixties. Coe suggests that this generation were influenced by an earlier generation of thinkers and the wilderness ethic referred to earlier.

This combination of factors in America had the direct effect of communities having the political will to vote for publicly funded programmes through bond issues and tax surcharges, or to otherwise raise the necessary funds, to improve their local zoos. Zoos all over the USA initiated major new exhibits or renovations (worth $250 million per year by 1992[23]), or master plans. Several zoos are notable in leading the way: the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, established in 1952, and Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle; Bronx Zoo, New York; Point Defiance Zoo, Tacoma, Washington; Atlanta Zoo (which became ‘Zoo Atlanta’ after closing for a complete re-vamping); San Diego Zoo; Los Angeles Zoo; and Central Park Zoo (managed by the Bronx Zoo). The older zoos are reorganising their exhibits into bioclimatic or zoo-geographic themes.

Technological advances were vital to the new exhibit designs. In comparing London Zoo with that of Hagenbeck's, it is apparent the general solution to animal exhibit design of the latter arose not only from a different philosophical outlook, but also out of a consideration of the potential of available construction technology. Thus London is characterized by wrought iron and barred cages while Hamburg is characterized by the use of concrete and moats. Cages and ‘houses’ are appropriate to small sites of city zoos and to 19th century husbandry knowledge. Hagenbeck chose a sufficiently large site outside a major urban area for his ideas. He was liberated by concrete new acclimatization ideas. The advent of new materials and technologies and husbandry practices led present day zoo designers to likewise explore their possibilities. ‘Gunite’[24] was in use in the 1930's but as a more efficient means of imitating Hagenbeck's style of artificial rock.

In the 'Sixties and 'Seventies, fabricators became increasingly skilled at massing, shaping, carving and texturing concrete and, coupled with a variety of colouring methods, could create the appearance of almost any natural form from rock, to earth, to trees. Novel ways of reinforcing concrete, principally with glass fibres (GFRC), to enable thin-walled, light weight panels initially found use in cladding systems for buildings, but coupled with latex for mould making, fabricators found they could imitate rocks and wood much more accurately without the need for artists. Epoxy resin for simulating organic materials also allowed the possibility of introducing highly realistic and durable details in exhibits. Other technologies are discussed later in Part 2 of this dissertation.

Many of the new skills and technology came from the museum world; however, it was the coming together of social change, scientific advances as well as available technology which drew design practitioners to apply themselves to zoo design. The need and desire and philosophical framework to improve zoos plus the means to do so had arrived.

The changes that have taken place in zoos as a result of these wider developments represent possibly as significant a shift in thinking as any before. In dealing with such recent events it is difficult to assign causes and to credit innovations correctly. Immediately prior to the 'Seventies, zoos had been reacting to earlier concerns about squalid conditions for animals by creating ever-more sterile exhibits which permitted a high degree of disease and vector control. They were also exploiting glass and ceramic technology for the first time, possibly influenced by Modernist architecture.

In 1971 David Hancocks pointed out the short-comings of current zoo design.[25] Then in 1976, with a brief to reorganise Woodland Park Zoo “around ecological and ethological themes”[26] Jones and Jones, a Seattle, Washington-based landscape and architectural firm prepared the “Long-Range Plan”.[27] The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum[28] was probably closer to the origin of the ideas, the whole zoo representing a single biome and a direct link to the museum world but Woodland Park has had by far the greater influence.

Woodland Park’s plan came about through a collaboration between zoo and design professionals, and a non-zoo biologist, underwritten by city authorities whose electors voted overwhelmingly in favour of a tax surcharge to fund the redevelopment of a traditional zoo (established 1900) within a park designed by Olmsted. It showed the way forward for the majority of American zoos with a similar heritage.

Regardless of the origins of the new ideas, it is largely due to this publication and the subsequent ASLA award it received that authors like Pregill and Volkman, after scathing criticism of earlier zoos, credit the firm of Jones and Jones for the tendency for zoo to be, “enlarged and redesigned to emphasize an ‘ecological’ approach to the display and management of animals.”[29] The following quotation from the same authors indicates the degree of recognition the changes wrought in zoos have received in the landscape architectural profession:

Animals are also a focus of educational and recreational sites. In their modern conservation roles, zoos have become centres of protection and propagation for endangered wildlife. In keeping with this role, and in response to demand for more humane treatment of animals, many zoos have been redesigned to house and display their charges in social and environmental groupings similar to those found in their natural habitat. The Seattle firm of Jones & Jones has become nationally known for this type of work. One of their most significant projects was the ASLA award-winning redesign for Woodland Park Zoo in Seattle. Ten world bioclimatic zones were simulated, and in each zone display areas depict the landscape character of an animal's home region, provide the type of cover critical to each species, and allow unobtrusive human observation of animals.[30] (emphasis added)

Similar recognition can also be found in the architectural press over the last decade. As the bold text in the above quote shows, the redesign of zoos is attributed to their role in conservation and to demands for more humane treatment of animals. Whether influenced by the wilderness ethic, World’s Fair dioramas, Disney Land, museums or the achievements of zoos themselves, a significant number of zoo designers are developing the field independently of the mainstream of either architecture or landscape architecture. Towards this end, they research and go and see the actual habitats of animals for themselves rather than seek to impress their peers with architectural abstractions.

The direction of North American zoos has spread elsewhere in the world, notably Australia and Europe; but during this period of fertile development in the U. S., different directions were also developing elsewhere. Nouvel outlined some of these, most notably, safari parks, in 1975.[31] The self drive-through animal parks arise from modern awareness of the natural world through media, urbanisation and the use of the car. They are flawed, according to Nouvel, because they are, "based on the exploitation of the instinct which draws man to the animal world", by developers in search of easy profit.[32] Nouvel states that, "people are now much less keen just to look at them [animals], than to observe their behaviour and to interpret it in physiological, psychic or social terms."[33]

The influence of Hagenbeck is still strong in Europe and in modern interpretations is balanced by the same concern for humane treatment and portrayal of habitat as in the U. S. For example, the Nooder Dierenpark in Emmen, Holland, displays an excellent balance between animal and human needs, especially education. Its modernisation began in 1974. With the re-invention of the front-viewed enclosure, it is doubtful whether landscape immersion will ever fully supplant Hagenbeck panoramas or even cages. It is likely, however, that hybrids of the three will continue to be produced in zoos around the world. Polakowski sums up the continuing debate over how accurately habitat needs to be portrayed, thus:

. . . some designers believe that . . . in many instances a setting with simulated rock outcroppings is inappropriate to the animal's native habitat. . . . Many exhibits representing this design approach are unsuccessful because the essence of the native habitat was never realised and/or the physical abstraction of the essence was poorly conceived and executed. The lack of sufficient space for animal exhibits on the zoo grounds has helped perpetuate the need to abstract, in size and atmosphere, the natural habitat.[34]

Many zoos are already going beyond this debate and grappling with the question of whether they should also be museums. This trend in many ways contradicts the goals of landscape immersion. However, immersion landscaping should be viewed as a means to an end rather than the end in itself. The future of zoo design appears to be in seeking ways to convey greater meaning and message in exhibits while sacrificing neither accuracy of portrayal of habitat nor returning to the expression of man's dominance over beasts. As Coe says:

The coming challenge is to use behavioral knowledge to entice animals into ideal viewing positions. The trick is to provide as many positive incentives as possible to keep the animal in view rather than providing negative stimuli if the animal chooses to.[35]

Zoos must do more than show animals, but animals are the difference between zoos and museums and the experience of these must be maximised to make a deeper but correct impression on visitors. In Part Two, against this historical and contemporary background, various elements of exhibits are explored and the implications of landscape immersion are discussed more fully as well as the potential trend towards museology.
animals into ideal viewing positions. The trick is to provide as many positive incentives as possible to keep the animal in view rather than providing negative stimuli if the animal chooses to.[35]

Zoos must do more than show animals, but animals are the difference between zoos and museums and the experience of these must be maximised to make a deeper but correct impression on visitors. In Part Two, against this historical and contemporary background, various elements of exhibits are explored and the implications of landscape immersion are discussed more fully as well as the potential trend towards museology.

Top Previous Next