I
EVALUATING ZOO DESIGN
THE IMPORTANCE OF VISITOR STUDIES
A thesis presented by Monika Ebenhöh
at the Universität für Bodenkultur Institut für Wildbiologie und Jagdwirtschaft Gregor Mendelstraße 33 A-1180 Vienna
Appraisal by O.Univ.Prof.Dr.rer.nat. Hartmut Gossow
Vienna, July 1992 II
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
"A good zoo looks like a nice park, even without animals." (Wolfgang Salzert, 2003)
Many things have changed since I wrote this book and many have not. I got married and changed my name to the short and easy Fiby. I became involved in zoo design, particularly by developing and managing the ZooLex website. The internet has evolved into a fascinating medium for spreading information quickly at low cost. With the support of my husband, Hans Fiby, I was able to establish ZooLex as a prime source on zoo design.
Visitor studies have always been an important tool in zoo design. The techniques described in this book have evolved over decades and are tried and tested. Thus, this little book has been a valuable resource for many people and has become even better known through ZooLex. The first edition was soon out of stock.
I wish to thank Dr. Wolfgang Salzert, former director of Zoo Rheine in Germany, for spreading the word about this book and for encouraging me to print a second edition. I also wish to thank Monika Lange who revised and edited the text. Without these two wonderful persons, the text of this book would still await retrieval from some outdated storage medium and for conversion from an outdated word processing program. It probably would have been lost to reproduction at some point.
When I worked on my thesis in 1991, my perspective was that of an educated Western European zoo visitor. After 15 years of experience with the global zoo industry, I would venture to say that the techniques described in this book are valid for zoos worldwide. Results of specific local surveys cannot be automatically and arbitrarily transfered to other places, but serve as examples of what is most relevant to investigate in the zoo environment.
But it was not only my name that changed. AAZPA also changed its name to AZA (American Zoo Association). IUDZG changed its name to WZO and then to WAZA (World Association of Zoos and Aquariums). Zoos' and aquariums' tasks however have not changed. The combination of recreation, conservation, education and research comprise the unique potential of these organizations.
I hope that readers who are involved in improving zoos and aquariums will find this book a helpful resource. If you have any comments and requests you are most welcome to contact the author. A glossary of technical terms used in this book can be found on www.zoolex.org.
Monika Fiby Diplomingenieur and Master of Landscape Architecture
Sobieskigasse 9/12 1090 Vienna, Austria Phone, Fax: +43-1-3101060 [email protected]
Vienna, July 2007 III
PREFACE
"As a designer, I am extremely aware, that most design decisions are either based upon tradition, personal or anecdotal experience or intuition." (Jon Charles Coe, 1989)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am indebted to the Chicago Zoological Society, Illinois, for using Brookfield Zoo and its library as a research field, Ms. Barbara Birney, Ph.D., Visitor Research and Exhibit Evaluation Department at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, and Mr. Jon Charles Coe, Landscape Architect and Principal of Coe Lee Robinson Roesch, Inc., Philadelphia, for their valuable support and for examplifying to me the many different aspects of zoo design. I wish to thank Mr. Hermann Schacht, O.Univ.Prof.DI, Institut für Landschaftsgestaltung und Gartenkunst, Universität für Bodenkultur, Wien, who encouraged me to choose planning and design of zoological parks as a topic for my thesis and Mr. Hartmut Gossow, O.Univ.Prof.Dr., Institut für Wildbiologie, Universität für Bodenkultur, Wien, for his guidance. I also wish to thank the Österreichisches Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Forschung which enabled me to study in the United States for four months by granting a scholarship.
Vienna, July 1992 IV
ABSTRACT
By evaluating zoo design these theses not just consider visual outcomes of design decisions made by architects, landscape planners or designers because these depend on given resources and policies within the zoos' managements. Thus they discuss the underlying ideas of what tasks zoos are supposed to have and examine how these tasks may be fulfilled. The emphasis of these theses is dealing with visitor studies for several reasons: 1. Visitor studies are an important feedback for the planning and designing of zoos and similar institutions.
2. It is a relatively new field of research in zoos.
3. They are completed on a systematic basis and evolving into a new science in the United States.
4. It seems to be useful to engage more in this field in Europe.
For researchers typical questions of concern are: ¾ Who is the zoo audience? ¾ How are people reacting to exhibits? ¾ How are they orienting? ¾ What do people learn at the zoo? Examples of visitor studies carried out at zoos or similar institutions in the United States illustrate their importance for decision making in zoo management and design and show ongoing trends in zoos. V
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Das Thema dieser Diplomarbeit ist die Erfolgskontrolle in der Zooplanung. Berücksichtigt werden nicht nur die sichtbaren Ergebnisse der Planungsentscheidungen von Architekten, Landschaftsplanern oder Designern, da diese von verfügbaren Ressourcen und Management- entscheidungen der Zoos abhängen. Es werden auch die grundsätzlichen Aufgaben des Zoos diskutiert und Wege, wie diese zu erfüllen wären. In den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika wird zu diesem Zweck das Instrument der Besucher- studien in Zoos eingesetzt. Besucherstudien bilden aus mehreren Gründen den Schwerpunkt dieser Arbeit: 1. Sie stellen ein wichtiges Feedback für die Planung dar.
2. Es handelt sich um ein relativ junges Forschungsgebiet in Zoos.
3. Besucherstudien werden in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika systematisch durchgeführt und entwickeln sich zu einer eigenen Wissenschaft.
4. Es scheint ein Aufholbedarf auf diesem Gebiet in Europa zu bestehen.
Typische Fragestellungen von Besucherstudien sind beispielsweise: ¾ Wer ist das Zoopublikum? ¾ Wie reagieren Zoobesucher auf die Exponate? ¾ Wie orientieren sich Zoobesucher? ¾ Was lernen Besucher in einem Zoo? Ausgewählte Beispiele aus der Praxis in Zoos und ähnlichen Institutionen der Vereinigten Staaten sollen die Bedeutung von Besucherstudien für Management- und Design- Entscheidungen zeigen und Trends in der Zooplanung veranschaulichen. VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
2. Tasks of a zoo 4 2.1 Recreation 5 2.2 Education 5 2.3 Research 6 2.4 Conservation 7 2.4.1 Facts 7 2.4.2 Opinions 8 2.4.3 Conclusive Vision 9
3. Research in zoos 11 3.1 Aims and methods 11 3.1.1 Goal-free and goal-referenced research 11 3.1.2 Formal and informal research 11 3.1.3 Direct and indirect observation, self-report 12 3.1.4 Dependent and independent variables 14 3.1.5 Reliability 14 3.1.6 Validity 14 3.1.7 Attracting power 14 3.1.8 Holding power 15 3.2 Visitor studies 15 3.2.1 Purposes 15 3.2.2 "State-of-art" 15 3.3 Descriptive studies 16 3.3.1 Definition 16 3.3.2 Application 16 3.4 Evaluative studies 17 3.4.1 Definition 17 3.4.1.1 Front-end evaluation 17 3.4.1.2 Formative evaluation 17 3.4.1.3 Summative evaluation 18 3.4.1.4 Remedial evaluation 18 3.4.2 Application 19 3.5 Predictive studies 20 3.5.1 Definition 20 3.5.2 Application 20 3.5.3 Example 21 VII
4. Learning in informal settings 23 4.1 Definition, characterization 23 4.2 How does one learn in an informal setting 23 4.2.1 Stimulus 24 4.2.2 Perception 25 4.2.3 Motivation 26 4.2.4 Distraction 27 4.2.5 Attention 27 4.2.6 Curiosity 27 4.2.7 Concreteness 28 4.2.8 Memory 29 4.2.9 Attitude 29 4.2.10 Behavior 30 4.3 Individual differences 32 4.4 Learning devices in zoos 32 4.4.1 Non-participatory learning devices 32 4.4.2 Participatory learning devices 33 4.4.2.1 Interactives 33 4.4.2.2 Docents 35 4.4.2.3 Programs 37 4.4.2.4 Self-scoring response systems 37 4.4.2.5 Evaluation 37 4.5 What can one learn in informal settings 38 4.5.1 Hierarchy of learning 38 4.5.1.1 Signal learning, conditioning 38 4.5.1.2 Operant learning 39 4.5.1.3 Discrimination 39 4.5.1.4 Concept learning 39 4.5.1.5 Rule learning 39 4.5.1.6 Problem learning 39 4.5.2 Problem solving 40 4.5.3 Facilitations and limitations to learning in zoo settings 40 4.5.4 Socialization 45
5. Zoo visitors 46 5.1 Demographics 47 5.1.1 Group composition 47 5.1.2 Age 47 5.1.3 Sex 49 5.1.4 Residence 50 5.1.5 Education 51 5.1.6 Frequency of zoo visit 51 5.1.7 Duration of zoo visit 52 5.1.8 Membership 53 5.2 Needs 53 5.2.1 Physiological needs 54 5.2.2 Safety needs 54 5.2.3 Social needs 54 5.2.4 Esteem needs 55 VIII
5.2.5 Arousal 55 5.2.6 Experiental needs 55 5.3 Perception 56 5.3.1. Perceptions, misconceptions, knowledge 56 5.3.2 Zoo related attitudes of various constituencies 68 5.4 Motivations related to zoos 62 5.4.1 Zoo visit 62 5.4.2 Attention to exhibits 62 5.4.3 Action 63 5.5 Behaviors 63 5.5.1 Spatial patterns 64 5.5.2 Temporal patterns 64 5.5.3 Behavioral patterns 67 5.5.4 Influencing factors 69
6. Zoo design 70 6.1 Orientation 70 6.1.1 Pre-visit orientation 70 6.1.2 On-site orientation 72 6.1.2.1 Conceptual orientation 72 6.1.2.2 Topographical orientation 73 6.1.2.3 Circulation 76 6.1.2.4 Maps 77 6.1.2.5 Guides 80 6.1.2.6 Signs 82 6.2 Exhibit 88 6.2.1 (No) principles for design 89 6.2.2 Accessibility 90 6.2.3 Attractiveness 93 6.2.3.1 Motion 94 6.2.3.2 Size 95 6.2.3.3 Anthropomorphism 96 6.2.3.4 Aesthetic 96 6.2.3.5 Mystery 97 6.2.3.6 Danger 97 6.2.3.7 Vertical depth 98 6.2.3.8 Novelty and rarity 98 6.2.4 Content 99 6.2.5 Sensual involvement 100 6.2.6 Triangulation 101 6.2.7 Fatigue and satiation 101 6.2.8 Safety 102 6.2.9 Location and surrounding 102 6.2.10 Adaptability 103 6.2.11 Live exhibits 104 6.2.11.1 Animal activity 104 6.2.11.2 Multi-species exhibit 105 6.2.11.3 Walk-through exhibit 106 6.2.11.4 Three generations 107 6.2.11.5 The immersion concept 109 IX
6.2.12 Participatory exhibits 116 6.2.12.1 Success 116 6.2.12.2 Evidence 117 6.2.12.3 Development 125 6.2.13 Audi-visuals 126 6.2.13.1 Attendance 126 6.2.13.2 Development 126 6.2.13.3 Evaluation 127 6.3 Support facilities 128 6.3.1 Parking 128 6.3.2 Entrance/exit area 128 6.3.3 Paths and transportation 129 6.3.4 Restrooms 130 6.3.5 Stroller rental and parking 131 6.3.6 Places to rest 131 6.3.7 Places to fool around 131 6.3.8 Restaurants and picnic areas 133 6.3.9 Gift shops 133 6.3.10 Security and first aid 133 6.3.11 Education facilities 133 6.4 Programs 134 6.4.1 Development 136
7. Perspectives 138 7.1 Horticulture 138 7.2 High-tech exhibits 138 7.3 Children's zoos 139 7.4 Native wild animal parks 140 7.5 Conservation obligations 141
8. Epilogue 142
9. References 144
10. Appendix 156
11. List of figures 158
12. List of tables 160
13. List of pictures 161
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The motivation to write a thesis on zoo design came from the idea that education of visitors is the only sufficient justification for exhibiting live animals in zoos. Neither recreational aims nor research on and conservation of wildlife seemed to necessitate zoos. The questions of interest therefore were - What can people possibly learn at the zoo? - and - What actually do people learn at the zoo? The hypothesis was that reasons for discrepancies between potential and real learning are management and design related. This thesis concentrates on the theoretical design aspect. Systematic observations of visitors at different zoos have shown that in fact distinguishing features of exhibits and facilities create different visitor responses although the original design aim might have been the same for these exhibits or facilities. Interviews with zoo staff have shown that it is mostly unknown what visitors really get from their visit to the zoo. This also means that common practice in planning and design of zoos does not use much direct feedback from visitors. However, scientists in the United States are developing evaluation instruments that should help designers decide more objectively and straightforward. A four months' stay in the United States of America was used for analyzing the relevant literature. The original ideas on zoos partly had to be revised. Zoos obviously can be useful promoters for research and conservation projects. Verification of above mentioned hypothesis led to the following disposition for the reading:
Figure 1 Disposition for the thesis 2
This thesis is structured according to the chronology of the approach to the topic and considers American literature almost exclusively. The first section
WHAT ZOOS WANT TO BE – WHY EVALUATE? describes what zoos in general stand for. It explains why evaluation processes are critical for the zoos' success and gives a general view concerning the tasks of zoos, their strengths and weaknesses. Besides some relevant American research institutions are listed.
WHAT ZOOS ARE – HOW DO WE KNOW? represents the main section of the thesis dealing with discrepancies between design intention and actual impacts upon visitors. Ways to find and evaluate them are shown. Research methods and evaluation instruments are defined and exemplified. Finally, results of completed studies are discussed. In order to evaluate educational efforts in zoos there is a detailed chapter on learning psychology. Another chapter explores the American zoo audience. The last chapter discusses the visitor's response to zoo design. It analyses how people are orienting in zoos, reacting to exhibits and using support facilities and programs.
WHAT ZOOS MAY BE – DO THEY CHANGE?
This section of the thesis draws conclusions from the preceding parts and gives an outlook. It summarizes current trends in zoo design and considers ecological requirements that may lead to a changing face of zoos. 3
WHAT ZOOS WANT TO BE – WHY WANT TO EVALUATE? 4
2. TASKS OF A ZOO
A zoo is defined by the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) as an organized and permanent institution, essentially educational or aesthetic in purpose, with professional staff, which owns and utilizes wild animals, cares for them, and exhibits them to the public on a regular schedule (SAUSMAN, 1982). Though this definition is valid since a long time the face of zoos has changed dramatically over the past decades: zoo directors are no longer hobbyists (circus professionals, traders, hunters) but have to meet definite criteria. Postage stamp collections with many species are changing to mixed species exhibits and breeding groups, identification signs are being replaced by comprehensive interpretive programs, plants are becoming botanical collections, animal records are developing to International Species Inventory Systems, breeding programs to International Species Survival Plans and what was a hundred-thousand-dollar exhibit is now a ten-million-dollar bioclimatic habitat. The rising costs suggest that "at some time in the future, state and federal funding agencies may require that zoos provide 'outcomes assessments' of institutional success before funding increases or continuations are granted. They will use the turnstiles (headcount) for determining success. Unless zoos have established precedents for conceptualizing and measuring 'success', 'productivity', and 'effectiveness' they will become easy prey for external groups to do it for them. Scientific analysis of visitor behavior can help bridge the gap between the intention of exhibit designers and the actual impact upon the visitor" (AVENI, 1989). Audience analyses and message development as well as formative evaluation are critical to exhibit success. When dealing with this kind of research one should become aware that the questions that an evaluation answers are no more totally subjective to the designer. Therefore evaluation should be an integral part of the exhibit design process and evaluators should be part of the major team players, but they usually are not. Most exhibit design teams consist of curators, educators and designers. The history of evaluation started in museums: Early studies of MELTON (e.g. "Some behavior characteristics of museum visitors") and ROBINSON (e.g. "The behavior of the museum visitor") in the 1930's were followed by a few random studies. However, visitors are systematically evaluated in the United States since the late 1960's in museums and, though far less frequently, in zoos. Still today only a few zoos are carrying out visitor studies although several departments need this information. The marketing department needs statistical analysis. The education department must know if visitors are learning what they intended. The design department needs feedback from visitors to determine if the visitors are receiving an aesthetic and comfortable experience and if they can easily find their way. Visitor studies certainly could help them fulfill their tasks. According to the AAZPA and the "Verband Deutscher Zoodirektoren" the tasks of a zoo are recreation, education, research and conservation of wildlife. 5
2.1 Recreation "A zoo provides a natural setting. The enjoyment of the outdoor park setting is recreational by itself. A zoo is also a source of entertainment. Indeed, the entertainment factor is perhaps one clue to the intrinsic popularity of zoos." Zoos are known to be among the heaviest attended year round civic attractions. One of the reasons is that zoos attract families as groups. This is "a value of considerable importance in this day of generally divided family activity" (CURTIS, 1968). Zoo visitors can recover from the stress caused by voluntary attention to the overwhelming stimulation of city environments. Zoos are environments that are "involuntarily interesting". Paying attention requires no effort because of the zoo's fascination. What exactly is fascination? First, people have strong reactions to wild animals. Things that are strange, moving, pretty, bright, watching skilled individuals carrying out some task, potential danger and mystery are contents that people find fascinating presumably because they are related to coping with the environment. Secondly, people are strongly motivated to comprehend and to understand. Recognizing (e.g. bird watching) and predicting are frequently fascinating and are the basis of making sense processes. Additionally, challenge, which involves an effort undertaken, curiosity and exploration are examples of involvement contributing to fascination. (Making sense without involvement characterizes the boredom with the familiar; involvement without making sense is the essence of being lost.) (KAPLAN et al., 1982) Some facts: In 1990 the AAZPA had more than 150 accredited member institutions which were visited by more than 102 million people. More people visit North American zoological facilities than the combined number of persons attending professional football, baseball, basketball and hockey games. (AAZPA, 1990) The conclusions suggest that the attraction of zoos is strong enough and so unrivaled that they could afford experimenting rather than being afraid of the public opinion. Zoos should be able to give direction (e.g. towards conservation issues) rather than stay static (perhaps erroneously) to please their visitors.
2.2 Education "The exhibits in a zoo, individually and/or collectively, should serve as a living demonstration of zoology or natural history. Educational interpretations in zoo exhibits have lifted zoos from the menagerie level of display towards the interpretative approach of museums" (CURTIS, 1968). Since the beginning of educational interpretation for a broad spectrum of zoo visitors the importance of informal education has steadily increased. People are seeking for information that makes sense of their environment in a pleasant way. What kind of educational interpretation zoos can offer will be dealt with in chapter 4.: "Learning in informal settings". A relatively new aspect of zoo education efforts is the conservation issue. For the first time zoos are facing the problem of conveying values besides scientific facts. Zoos are the only public institution dealing with live animals which is a specific strength in educational efforts (see 4.2.7). On the other side taking this task serious may be a turning point in zoo management and therefore design. 6
2.3 Research The common understanding of research in zoos is research on animals and so it generally is. "Behavioral and reproductive research in animals were found to be the most common types of scientific activity. But very little basic research is conducted" (FINLAY et al., 1986). However, zoos are prime sites for human research and this field is gradually explored in the United States. Applied research may be cost effective if a situation or service can be improved, but basic research depends on funding. There are several ways for research in zoos which may be suitable on a case-to-case basis: ¾ Hiring a consultant to direct the research ¾ Contracting a staff researcher ¾ Cooperating with other institutions such as zoos, aquariums, museums and universities
In a survey among 153 American zoos and aquariums FINLAY and MAPLE (1986) discovered a significant relationship between research activity and an affiliation with universities. Zoos and aquariums with such affiliations are also far more likely to engage in publications of their research findings. Where research was not being conducted, the main reason for its absence was indicated to be a lack of funds and a lack of trained staff. Interpretation suggests a lack of priority in using funds for research purposes. HEDIGER (1965) criticized the general lack of any research in zoos and the holding back of financial resources from this field more than 25 years ago. In order to encourage research cooperation between universities and zoos and aquariums the Consortium for Aquariums, Universities, and Zoos (C.A.U.Z.) was organized in the United States in 1985 as a communication network for the purpose of sharing ideas and collaborating on research and educational projects. The Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) was founded as an international multi-disciplinary organization of design professionals, social and behavioral scientists, educators, and facility managers for similar purposes, organizing conferences, scientific studies and publishing. Since 1985 the Center for Social Design at Jacksonville State University is publishing a newsletter that focuses on human behavior research. Above mentioned study also indicated that 70 % of the AAZPA member institutions encourage research and have engaged in recent research activities of some type. The authors admit the self-report bias by not having defined the term "research" in their questionnaire. The result therefore seems too optimistic and estimates suggest that a much higher percentage than 30 % of zoos is not conducting any research of scientific relevance. Besides, only members of the AAZPA were included in the survey whose research was already being estimated as underdeveloped earlier by SAUSMAN (1982). Assuming that institutions in the United States which decide not to join the AAZPA are even more probably lacking funds and trained staff, the vast majority of animals kept in zoos serve the pure objective of exhibition. There is no reason to believe that the situation regarding research is anywhere better than in the United States. The survey also enlightened the fields of common research: 7
"Most of the research consists of gathering information on the animals via data slips and animal history records and reviewing these periodically for trends and patterns that may help better manage the collection" (FINLAY et al., 1986).
The self-interest of this kind of research is obvious and leading to the question of zoos dealing with conservation.
2.4 Conservation
2.4.1 Facts In 1980, the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) in cooperation with the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) published the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) with 3 objectives: maintaining essential ecological processes and life support systems on which human survival and development depend; preserving genetic diversity as the base upon which species and ecological processes depend; and, assuring the sustainable utilization of species and ecosystems. The AAZPA was formed in 1924. Since a vote in 1980 conservation became the Association's highest priority (AAZPA, 1990). "While zoos do not breed all the species they get from the wild, in overall numbers they are net producers of wild mammals while biomedical researchers and pet dealers are net consumers." Though only a very small percentage of wild birds, reptiles and amphibians are bought by zoos they are still net consumers of these animals. Nevertheless "zoos are no significant factor in the endangering of wild animals" compared to the trade of animal products and habitat destruction (SAUSMAN, 1982). Following instruments were created for captive propagation of wild animals: IUDZG: International Union of Directors of Zoological Gardens CBSG: Captive Breeding Specialist Group of the IUCN is stimulating, coordinating and advising on the development of SSP programs worldwide SSP: Species Survival Plan is the main mechanism of the AAZPA for the captive propagation programs with the purpose to help preserve endangered species and their gene pools SMP: Species Management Programs in Australia EEP: Europäisches Erhaltungszucht-Programm, the European equivalent to the SSP "Zoos in Japan, China, Brazil and other countries are organizing SSP programs and establishing associations with conservation as a major goal." (FOOSE, 1986) Global Tiger Propagation Plan: "First global captive propagation program of the CBSC and IUDZG." (FOOSE, 1986) ISIS: International Species Inventory System is a data base using the microcomputer software A.R.K.S. (Animal Records Keeping System) 8
Some captive bred species have already been reintroduced to the wild, one of the first and most spectacular projects concerned the Golden Lion Tamarin. Obviously it was no contribution to the wild population of these monkeys in Brasilia (most of the 24 captive born animals died within some months), but there was much publicity for the conservation of rainforest as habitat of this species. The reintroduction of Rothschild's mynah, a nearly extinct bird, to its native island Bali may be more successful as the monitoring of an island is comparatively easier. The SSP's for very rare and endangered popular species such as the Lowland Gorilla are facing the problem of maintaining a stable zoo population in their own interest because they cannot get any more specimens from the wild. Zoo policy in reality seems to be motivated by prestige and popularity when aquiring and breeding certain species.
2.4.2 Opinions "Primary objective of captive propagation is to reinforce wild populations. Much the same genetic and demographic management must be applied to small populations whether they are captive or wild. In this regard population biologists in zoos are contributing much to the further development of conservation biology principles and applications" (FOOSE, 1986). "The methods of conservation, as they now are applied in some zoos and soon will be applied in most zoos, need to be carefully explained to the public. The practices I refer to are: planned euthanasia, female sterility implants, isolation of animals, artificial insemination, maintenance of stud stables, surgical sterilizations, intentional inbreeding and acceptance of high levels of infant mortality. I suspect that if such techniques are employed without first teaching their value to the public, the discovery of these practices, already in place, would, very likely, lead to a strong negative initial public reaction. Strong action, based on professional confidence, is far more effective than weak reaction, based on public criticism. The management methods I have discussed are indeed conservation methods. Their implementation can ensure the survival of many endangered species if public support can be won" (RHOADES, 1986). "I strongly suggest that we must be consistent in our ethic. The zoo can strive to be a conservation center for the community, but is must practice what it preaches. Recycling, composting, energy generation, a resource consciousness throughout the organization are consistent parts of the caring institutional persona we wish others to emulate. We have been timorous in communicating conservation through our institutions because it is a countercultural message" (RABB G.B., Ph.D., Brookfield Zoo, at the AAZPA Annual Conference, 1985). "The potential role of the AAZPA and its members in environmental education is extremely important. Your institutions represent the potential for bringing the message of ecologically sustainable development and conservation to millions of people. At the same time, because the people who visit your institutions are self-selected, you have a unique opportunity to actively focus your efforts on people who are already interested. Thus it is even more feasible to educate your visiting publics to the problems of conservation at the local, national and international levels. And, it is only with the support of such an educated public that the resources will be made available to undertake the measures which are needed to solve the 9
natural resources management issues" (LIEBERMAN G.A., Ph.D., Vice President, WWF- U.S. at the AAZPA Annual Conference, 1985). "Some educators at the AAZPA National Conference were pessimistic about the possibilities of zoos teaching nature conservation at all. The consensus of the participants was that conservation is an urgent and complex issue that is commonly approached by zoos and aquariums in a very superficial, simple-minded and often self-serving way avoiding the real underlying causes of the world conservation crisis" (MARCELLINI, 1985).
2.4.3 Conclusive Vision The zoo seriously devoted to conservation has only few live animals but a variety of activities for visitors to enjoy and to learn. Some animals which are easy to keep (mainly domestic) may be there for people to interact with them like children's zoos already practice today. Only a very few endangered species are kept the best way possible but most of them "behind the scenes", undisturbed by the public. The best way to keep animals should be determined by the requirements of the species not of the budget. If resources (financial, space, food, staff etc.) are not adequate the zoo should not be allowed to keep sane, productive animals of an endangered species. There should only be few places where groups of a specific endangered species are kept under the supervision of a specialist who is managing breeding but also research. Coordination of research in the field and in captivity allow to gain the knowledge necessary to conserve the species on a long-term basis in the wild. This would on one hand facilitate tracking research studies done on a specific species and recording all the knowledge gained which does not work at all at the moment. Findings now are spread all over the world; only a few enthusiasts try to collect these data in order to avoid trial and error again and again. On the other hand zoos would become more distinctive by concentrating on a specific endangered species. HEDIGER (1965) criticized already more than 25 years ago the trend of zoos to display a "complete collection". Nowadays you can travel around the world and observe institutions getting more and more similar in their cosmopolitan outfit. In zoos you can find about the same range of species everywhere such as you can find the same range of brands in shopping malls all over the world and the same menus in expensive restaurants all over the world. This does not mediate the feeling of distinctive homeland and therefore the desire to protect its vanishing native uniqueness which is indispensable for conservation.
10
WHAT ZOOS ARE – HOW DO WE KNOW 11
3. RESEARCH IN ZOOS
SCREVEN and BITGOOD who were among the first to carry out visitor studies gain merits for this new field of science. SCREVEN has developed instruments of evaluation and BITGOOD has been promoting contacts among scientist. He has been setting up a platform by publishing newsletters, founding the Center for Social Design and making efforts to standardize terminology and methodology of visitor studies. This chapter is based on following publications: BITGOOD (1986b, 1988a), CROCKETT (1977), FRIEDRICHS (1980) and SCREVEN (1986b, 1988).
3.1 Aims and methods
3.1.1 Goal-free and goal-referenced research Goal-referenced research is based on measurable outcomes that are specified before research begins. Goal-free research is useful during initial stages of a project to obtain information upon which to formulate goals and objectives. While goal-referenced research is using specific hypotheses, goal-free research may reveal new hypotheses. E.g. up-front information from staff can be a valuable field for goal-free research. Staff personnel often can describe patterns of behavior, attendance patterns, traffic patterns and provide valuable insights to supplement statistics. Uniformed staff is often approached by visitors with a variety of inquiries, requests and complaints. Nevertheless this is one of the least utilized resources for information. Data collection methods are designed with respect to the question asked and thus, an appropriate formulated problem is the first step. Research questions are most amenable to statistical analysis and interpretation when null and alternative hypotheses are specified. Determining what sorts of information are needed to answer the research question involves preliminary observations as well as reading relevant literature. If the project involves invasive manipulation knowing what has been done before may provide useful techniques and avoid unnecessary duplication.
3.1.2 Formal and informal research Imposing some kind of system will apply to formal research while informal research may be led by memory and the demand of the moment. Naturalistic evaluation is informal research relying on techniques like participant observation and informal discussion. It is qualitative in character with the goal to determine what the evaluand thinks is important (empirical information). By yielding subjective opinions that are particularly attuned to the minority viewpoint it often provides a totally new perspective. This is especially important when results of a former quantitative approach are conflicting. Formal research may use a qualitative or quantitative (statistical) approach to data analysis. The quantitative approach would summarize the results in terms of average scores, distribution of scores, etc. A qualitative approach would describe what people might say or do but would not provide numerical analysis of the results. In the extreme, both approaches are problematic. 12
Systematic observations and record keeping are essential for consistent advances in management of zoos. Casual observations of the outcomes of innovative exhibit modifications are of much greater value when supplemented by data collection using appropriate quantitative methods. Quantification is important because qualitative observations may provide inaccurate estimates of what is really going on. In order to systematically record data, appropriate categories must be defined. In general, defining recording categories for non-behavioral data is more straightforward than developing ethograms. A thorough literature research will reveal if adequate categories have already been defined. In formulating an ethogram, it is advisable to use objective names and definitions whenever possible. The unit of analysis might be the frequency of a behavior, its hourly rate of occurrence, the percent of time spent performing the behavior, the total duration of the behavior, or mean bout duration. Also the focus should be predefined in the methodology and could include a focal individual, a focal subgroup, sampling all occurrences of some behavior, sequence sampling, location etc.
3.1.3 Direct and indirect observation, self-report Direct observation is obtrusive (observed subject knows it is being observed) or unobtrusive recording of behaviors by tracking (following and recording at the same time) or focused observation at a specific exhibit area. Indirect measures use erosion techniques like worn pathways in the grass, leftover techniques such as pieces of litter, fingerprints and, more often, photos and video/audio recording. Self-report methods include such techniques as questionnaires, interviews, surveys, children's drawings, focus group methods (i.e. loosely structured in-depth discussion with groups of participants), rating scales, bipolar adjective checklists etc. Obtrusive observations and self-report methods are "reactive" since the research subject knows he/she is being treated in a special way. They may try to be "helpful" or tell the interviewer what he/she thinks is expected. "In a 1976 visitor survey at the San Francisco Zoo, 85 % of zoo-goers sampled said they would spend more time at each exhibit if more information were available. These expressions of 'wanting to learn more' may be more related to trying to please the interviewer and appear intelligent than actual interest in reading educational graphics" (SERRELL, 1988). Visitors are very likely to overestimate the time they spent at the zoo. They are fairly accurate reporting which exhibit areas they visited, but less accurate reporting the pathway they took: 13
Figure 2 Visitors' estimations of time they spent at the zoo (after BITGOOD et al., 1986)
Figure 3 Accuracy of visitors' reports of zoo areas visited and pathways taken (after BITGOOD et al., 1986) 14
3.1.4 Dependent and independent variables Variables are observable/measurable values used for the verification/falsification of hypotheses. The assumption of a relationship between variables is the hypothesis, e.g. weather conditions are influencing the length of stay in a zoo. Independent variables are the conditions of an hypothesis, e.g. the weather conditions, the dependent variables are assumably influenced by the independent variables, e.g. the length of stay, and measured while independent variables should be held constant to learn the relationship between these variables. After determining a research question (hypothesis), the next step is to identify the relevant dependent and independent variables. This is especially important because the independent variables may be more or less out of one's control and the best that can be done is to record them systematically. Visitor viewing time is a measure frequently used as dependent variable. Usually it is defined as the interval during which a visitor is within an exhibit's viewing area, completely stops, and faces the exhibit or relevant signage. If not only stationary time but total time at an exhibit is recorded, larger viewing areas will generate longer viewing times including activities unrelated to actual viewing.
3.1.5 Reliability Reliable measurements refer to the consistency and stability of measurements and depend upon objectivity and standardization. Sampling methods have been devised to insure unbiased estimates of behavior based on a subset of total time. Unbiased means that the estimates are representative of what is going on when observations are not being made, and that when data are collected, researchers do not inadvertently record data supporting their hypothesis. If the amount of time available for data collection is limited, observations should be made at the same time each day in order to eliminate the confounding factor of time of day.
3.1.6 Validity The accuracy of conclusions about measurements depends on several concepts of validity: Is your sample representative? Are your measurements really measuring the concepts you think they are? Does your measurement distort the system? Are the results due to the factors that you think? Do your results generalize? Etc. A common focus of zoo research is to determine the changes of behavior occurring as a result of a change in the zoo environment. To unambiguously assess the effect of this change, all other factors must be held constant. Since such control is often difficult or impossible in a zoo setting, the interpretation of results must take into account the possible effects of any extraneous, uncontrolled events, they are 'confounded'.
3.1.7 Attracting power The ability of an exhibit to attract the attention of visitors usually is measured as ratio of the number of visitors who stop at an exhibit to the total number of visitors who pass by this exhibit. For example, if 10 out of 20 people stop at an exhibit, the attracting power is 50 % (see 6.2.3). 15
"Many researchers have observed that in order for an exhibit to be educationally effective it must attract viewer attention, maintain attention, and provide useful information. However, the factor that was most important to learning was the length of attention" (KORAN et al., 1989).
3.1.8 Holding power A measure of time spent viewing an exhibit. Often used as a ratio of average viewing time by uncued visitors. The quotient of the mean viewing time and the minimum time needed, e.g. the length of the program, also is referred to as the program's holding power. For example, if the required minimum viewing time of an exhibit is 30 seconds and a person stops for 10 seconds (actual viewing time), the holding power is 0.33. In one of the earliest systematic studies, ROBINSON (1928) coined the term "holding power" to refer to the average time visitors devoted to exhibits in an art museum. The term and technique are still used today. (see 5.5.2 and 6.2.3) Time is the single measure most frequently used for evaluating exhibit quality / effectiveness and assessing visitor behavior. It is easy to measure and essentially objective. The inherent problem is to measure what is measurable rather than what is important. Time spent averaging between 15 and 30 seconds per display usually is far less than required for even the most elementary recognition of major ideas. This does not mean that viewers do not learn anything or acquire useful new perceptions - only that these results are different from what is being measured and (maybe) from the learning that was intended.
3.2 Visitor studies
3.2.1 Purposes Audience analysis provides ¾ an understanding of visitor knowledge, attitudes, expectations, and misconceptions concerning the exhibition's potential content; ¾ an objective basis for estimating where and how to organize and convey important information; ¾ a basis for motivating audiences to attend to and spend time with key exhibit elements; ¾ a point of departure for determining which messages are important for particular audiences and how to focus, sequence, and illustrate this information.
Audience research should be used as a design tool; it is no substitute for good planning, problem-solving, creativity, and personnel.
3.2.2 State-of-art SHETTEL (1988) summarizes that there is rather well documented evidence over at least 25 years that evaluation can make a substantive contribution to the effectiveness of exhibits and other educational programming in public access learning environments. Nevertheless the audience from USA and Canada at the First Annual Visitor Studies Conference held in Alabama in 1988 judged that less than 1 % of exhibits currently being produced (in museums, zoos, aquariums etc.) have any input from serious evaluation. 16
LITWAK (1989) assumes that there may be several reasons why designers do not take advantage of the visitor studies literature: ignorance that the literature exists; lack of accessibility; difficulty of comprehension; deficit in research on specific topics; lack of understanding of methodology and theory of research and evaluation. Besides "Still quantity counts if there is a choice e.g., between doing three exhibits that meet current standards for 'good' exhibits but had no evaluation, and doing two exhibits that include evaluation" (SHETTEL, 1988). The International Laboratory for Visitor Studies (ILVS) at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, is an organization devoted exclusively to visitor studies. Its publications include the "Journal of Visitor Behavior", a semi-annual journal focusing on visitor behavior, learning, perception, motivation, and exhibit communications and the "Visitor Studies Bibliography and Abstracts", a comprehensive listing of abstracted literature covering a period of sixty years. The Center for Social Design at the Psychology Institute of Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama, organizes an annual Visitor Studies Conference and publishes the proceedings of these conferences. It also publishes Visitor Behavior, a quarterly publication including summaries of articles dealing with visitor studies and announcements of relevant activities and events and Technical Reports, articles that deal with theoretical and research reports concerning visitor studies. In 1990 the Center for Social Design organized the Visitor Studies Association to promote visitor studies as a profession. Researchers in the field of visitor studies are invited to the annual meetings of the AAZPA since several years. Most visitor studies were and are being made in museums. As most zoos still perform like museums, showing "animal collections" and communicating scientific knowledge, it seems appropriate to a certain extent to use visitor research conducted in museums for describing zoo visitors. Examples of visitor studies quoted in this thesis are listed in an appendix according to the following classification.
3.3 Descriptive studies
3.3.1 Definition This method merely describes, often in a qualitative rather than quantitative manner and does not allow conclusions about the influence of specific factors.
3.3.2 Application Most research in zoos is non-experimental. For example, the researcher is usually unable to manipulate environmental conditions or group composition in a well-controlled manner. Thus, many studies are primarily descriptive and based on observational data.
17
3.4 Evaluative studies
3.4.1 Definition "Evaluation is the systematic and methodology assessment of the value of a display, exhibit, gallery, film, brochure, or tour with respect to some goal for the purpose of making decisions" (SCREVEN, 1976). The process of selecting or creating appropriate measuring instruments, using these instruments to collect data on actual visitor behavior, tabulating the data, analyzing the results, and making appropriate recommendations for change is the task of the evaluator.
3.4.1.1 Front-end evaluation (feasibility study, pre-design evaluation) This term refers to the evaluation of plans, ideas, and concepts for a proposed exhibit or program. It is used to establish goals and objectives of a project.
3.4.1.2 Formative evaluation (developmental evaluation) Formative evaluation attempts to assess an exhibit or program midway and use these results to improve the exhibit/program. Thus, in museum/zoo exhibits, formative evaluation involves obtaining input (direct observation, self-reports) from visitors and using the input to improve the impact of the exhibit on the visitors. Formative evaluation is usually carried out during the planning and development of new exhibits, although it can be used to make improvements on already existing exhibits also. Usually early formative testing employs low cost, quickly made versions of the most important labels, photos, objects, layouts, and instruction panels which are tested with small samples of target audiences. At early stages, these mock-ups are hand-made or computer generated and employ photos rather than actual objects, etc. Visually, mock-ups appear very different from final installations. However, research has indicated that responses to final installations are remarkably similar to mocked-up versions. Cued testing during early stages reflects the ability of the materials to communicate under motivated conditions. Cued visitors are aware they are to be observed and questioned. They typically give greater effort and attention to the exhibit materials which helps to identify problems with vocabulary, clarity, organization, misconceptions, or poor connections to visitor knowledge or experience. While early mock-up testing identifies potential problems in communicating exhibit content and behavior at individual display units, evaluation at later stages usually involves broader behaviors, disorientation and overall motivational effectiveness. At advanced stages groups show if visitors voluntarily attend and cooperate. The testing includes attraction (approaching, stopping or noticing an exhibit component), holding power, total time spent, interaction (manipulate in appropriate ways), following instructions, reading, exhibit linked socialization (talk about exhibit content, point), sensory overload and emotional involvement (smile, frown, fidget). Most problems will involve motivational factors and spatial and conceptual disorientation arising from text placement, topic headings, lighting, unexpected social and psychological factors, and visual competition among exhibits. These usually can be corrected at very low cost if they have been anticipated and "built-in" to the exhibit design so changes can be 18
made. Whenever possible, difficult to change components should be made in nonpermanent forms until adequate testing is possible. After an exhibit opens, fine tuning of signage and effectiveness, is recommended. Post- installation costs are minimized if those components most often in need of adjustments (text, graphics, headlines, and orientation devices) have been designed to allow easy changes. Though formative evaluation provides immediate answers about specific exhibit components or approaches identifying those not likely to work, it usually does not provide information about design features that will work better. Exhibit planning therefore requires some kind of theoretical framework that allows planners to make fairly good predictions about how something will work. The interaction between viewer motivation, exhibit content, museum environment, and visual design are complex and poorly understood by both psychologists and exhibit planners. At best, long experience and learning theory can only provide educated guesses about what viewers will or will not do, notice, feel, organize, or relate to once an exhibition is installed. These educated guesses can and do become the basis for prototype design concepts. Formative evaluation then reduces the likelihood of errors arising from many unknown influences operating in open exhibit environments and avoids the cost and demoralizing effects of failures revealed by later summative evaluations.
3.4.1.3 Summative evaluation (post-occupancy evaluation, post-design evaluation) This type of evaluation is generally focused on installed exhibits. It evaluates the extent to which an exhibit/program is meeting its objectives and is cost-effective for future exhibits. Summative evaluation should utilize a systems approach, investigating the effects of the exhibit on all of the users; i.e. in the case of a zoo exhibit effects on animals, staff and visitors. There is only one example of this type published (see 6.2.11.4, SHETTEL-NEUBER, 1988) and another project currently conducted (at Zoo Atlanta, Georgia). An obstacle to overcome in zoo visitor research is the "ceiling effect". As visitors generally feel good about being at the zoo, are relaxed and liberal, it may often be difficult to obtain constructive criticism. When a sample of visitors respond so positively to a programmatic effort that little information is gained from an investigation, one may assume a ceiling effect. This has special significance for evaluations of theatrical shows, slide shows (see 6.2.13) or film programs.
3.4.1.4 Remedial evaluation The term refers to a post-design evaluation with the intention of improving exhibits. "We hypothesized that visitors were not experiencing a high degree of satisfaction with many zoo services and sought a means to measure this" (WAGNER, 1989). This is a typical example for remedial evaluation and applicable to most existing zoos. See the summary of the cited article hereunder: The scope of research included parking, admissions, food service, souvenirs, grounds, restrooms and water fountains, directions and special events. Questionnaires were distributed to visitors exiting the zoo asking about the importance and performance of above mentioned services. Data were graphed in four quadrants illustrating the visitors' rating: high importance/high performance, low importance/high performance, low importance/low 19
performance and high importance/low performance. The last category was dealt with immediate attention and allocation of resources. The survey was planned to be repeated to assess the impact of changes (summative evaluation).
3.4.2 Application "Research conducted once an exhibit is complete is research undertaken too late. Rarely will managers find sufficient justification or resources to modify a completed exhibit. Front-end or formative testing of the exhibit during the planning and development stages, however, can more easily lead to useful modifications" (RUBENSTEIN, 1989). Course of an exhibit evaluation (See evaluation of the "Flying Walk" exhibit in 6.2.12 for example): ¾ discuss and define objectives and intended audience ¾ conduct preliminary interviews to establish the visitors' entering knowledge, experience and attitude base ¾ discuss and define objectives again, ultimately stating them in specific observable/measurable terms ¾ build prototypes as quickly and cheaply as possible ¾ observe and interview visitors ¾ make changes as necessary and continue until visitor outcomes are satisfactory ¾ build and implement final exhibit ¾ observe and interview visitors for a final report 20
Figure 4 Application of evaluative studies (after BIRNEY, 1990)
3.5 Predictive studies
3.5.1 Definition This kind of research uses models (theories) to predict specific phenomena, e.g. the theory that quality and content of an exhibit determine the visitor's behavior at this exhibit. This theory may be used to examine hypotheses predicting visitors' behaviors at exhibits.
3.5.2 Application If a certain phenomenon is to a certain extent predictable the underlying model can be used for decision making, e.g. the zoo can control visitor behavior through the manipulation of exhibit elements. This model implies (predicts) that an objective measure of exhibit quality could be defined. Predictive research in this field tries to find these criteria of exhibit quality. 21
3.5.3 Example Research designed to predict visitor behavior in museums or zoos is generally scarce. The one summarized hereunder seems especially interesting because it illustrates the different aspects of visitor behavior that must be kept in mind when doing any kind of visitor studies. FALK (et al., 1985) used the above described model correlating visitor behavior to exhibit quality (called the Exhibit Perspective) as well as two other models predicting visitor behavior. The Visitor Perspective suggests that the visitor's past experience and interests determine his behavior towards an exhibit. If he is not interested in the subject matter he may be attracted by an extreme dazzling display but probably will not stop and look at the exhibit. The best way therefore to predict visitor behavior is to know more about the visitors as individuals. The Setting Perspective finally assumes that the visitors' behavior is determined by large- scale social and environmental factors. For example, despite the diversity of people entering a movie theater at any given time during any film, well over 90 % of the people behave in very similar and predictable ways. At a minimum, people are seated, facing forward, attending to the movie, and even thinking and feeling closely related thoughts and emotions. Due to a combination of shared expectations, enforced "acceptable" behavior, and the general physical layout of the space visitors therefore behave in well-defined and predictable patterns, regardless of exhibit content and design or different experiences and knowledge. In FALK's study randomly selected visitors were obtrusively tracked through the Florida State Museum of Natural History. The results seem typical and may be similar in all zoos, though there was no comparable study found that was made in a zoo. Observational data in Falk’s study showed that over the initial 30 to 45 minutes of their visit the behavior of adults appears to be constant and relatively predictable. Initially, visitors are somewhat disoriented; they spend the first minute or two finding direction. This task is usually conducted in consultation with the people with whom they enter the museum; occasionally, it involves asking a stranger (e.g., guard or staff person). However, once the exhibits are found, a high degree of attention is focused on them. After 30 to 45 minutes, "museum fatigue" (see 6.2.7) seems to set in. Attention to exhibits rapidly drops to a lower plateau, and attention to setting increased. The primary change in visitor behavior during the observations was a change from moving slowly from exhibit to exhibit and reading labels to "cruising" through the halls, stopping occasionally and only very selectively. This would be characterized as a change from a "learning in the museum" mode to a "seeing the museum" mode. Attention to the own social group is very constant at a relatively high plateau and shows the social nature of such visits. Attention to oneself was virtually nonexistent. In a social environment, becoming totally immersed in one's own person is not a common or socially acceptable behavior. Attention to other people did practically not occur. This is contrary to ROSENFELD's (1979) observations that "people watching" was a major activity at a zoo. As a conclusion of the three perspectives outlined earlier, the Setting Perspective emerges as most consistently fitting the data. If exhibit quality was most important, one would expect to see consistent peaks and valleys in the attention to exhibits, corresponding to places 22
where visitors encountered particularly good or bad exhibits. Specifically, the data suggest that clusters of "bad" exhibits placed close to the entrance received more attention than "good" exhibits located towards the rear of the Museum. Also if the visitor perspective was most predictive attention to exhibit would have had an extremely high variance, reflecting the unique nature of each visitor's likes and dislikes. But the data suggest that most visitors came with a mental set to look at exhibits rather than to learn. They looked at exhibits until they got tired and/or bored; for most visitors, these reactions occurred at about the same time. Viewed as a whole, visitors behaved in a normal (in a statistical sense) rather than a random way. This means that museum professionals have some control over the visitors' predictable behavioral patterns but perhaps not as much as they think they have. 23
4. LEARNING IN INFORMAL SETTINGS
4.1 Definition, Characterization Informal learning is free-choice learning as opposed to formal learning in schools or courses. "It has been defined as nonlinear, self-paced, voluntary, and exploratory" (SCREVEN, 1986c). "Informal learning is not evaluated or assessed according to prescribed standards such as a letter grade or number and it occurs without preplanning" (BIRNEY, 1988). The learners' approach is individually chosen, he has to be active. Thus the heavy burden of decision making falls upon the visitor who must decide to move on or to stay, to avoid the crowd or be pushed on, to read or not to read the labels, to glance at or to study the exhibits. "A scheduled docent lecture given to a group of students would not be regarded as an example of informal learning, but spontaneous discussion by students on an unguided tour would be" (BIRNEY, 1988).
Museums, zoos, aquariums, visitor centers in national parks and similar institutions are informal learning settings. Informal learning has to be such a fascinating experience that visitors cannot tell it from recreation. It often is unconscious and usually driven by curiosity. Exhibits therefore should be appealing, easy to understand, encourage continuity of thought and create a sense of involvement. If they are not enjoyable, viewers will simply ignore them. Formal education is a comparatively recent event in human history while vicarious (by observing others) and exploratory learning are the most common ways in which people acquire information throughout their lives (BIRNEY, 1990c).
4.2 How does one learn in an informal setting? – Process of Learning The following diagram illustrates the process of informal learning ending ideally in changing behavior. The first part, showing off in bold frames, is described more detailed. This is the part of learning conditions and processes that can be more or less influenced by planning and design. 24
Figure 5 Process of informal learning
4.2.1 Stimulus The learning stimulus is anything evoking perception. Striking colors, forms, noises, spectacular or strange things and everything that does not make sense at first sight arouses curiosity. Attention then is directed to understand. "The first step in a sequence of learning and memory events is for the learner to focus his or her attention to the stimulus. Curiosity researchers also point out that as the novelty and complexity of the stimulus increase, attention, length of fixation, number of questions, and interest in manipulation increase accordingly" (KORAN et al., 1989). "The novel stimulus triggers a sequence of events which influences perception and curiosity and results in attention being focused on a particular exhibit or its components" (KORAN et al., 1984). For exceeding average attendance usually novelties are the reason: babies, new exhibits, new animals, new programs, performances, exhibitions and so on (see 6.2.3.8). 25
Zoo design faces the problem that "we soon become habituated to stimuli and objects we perceive to be common, expected, and of limited potential to threaten or benefit us" (COE, 1985). High arousal produced by stimuli associated with pain or danger to life (e.g. the roaring of a lion, an unfamiliar environment, or dark water) was found by to be markedly resistant to habituation by repetition or prolongation (BERLYNE, 1960). This idea was seized in developing the immersion concept (see 6.2.11.5).
4.2.2 Perception Learning depends on the different ways sources of information are perceived. Positive stimuli are perceived much easier than negative, i.e. disagreeable. Information supporting one's attitude is searched and learned preferably if there is no linkage to certain consequences. If useful for avoiding negative or for evoking positive consequences, disagreeable stimuli may be perceived easier and information may be learned easier even if discrepant with one's attitude (HERKNER, 1983). Therefore visitors should first be convinced of its usefulness before conveying disagreeable information. KORAN et al. (1989) assume that if we can provide visitors with information about the complexity of concepts or relationships presented or influence their perspective (see 4.5.3) we can foster a greater mental effort. Influencing how visitors perceive, think and act in relation to exhibits also is more adaptable to individual differences than influencing the exhibit environment in order to influence visitor behavior. COE (1984) deplores that "the distinction between what zoo visitors perceive unconsciously (message) and observe consciously (content) frequently nullifies the efforts of zoo educators and interpretive planners." He defines as follows: ¾ Context: the perceived environment surrounding the exhibit viewer, including people and public areas, animals and animal areas, interpretive displays and other features perceived consciously or unconsciously by the visitor. ¾ Content: the information and concepts which zoo designers and educators intend to convey to the public through their interpretive displays; what the graphics literally say. ¾ Message: the subjective mosaic of information and emotion which the zoo visitor actually experiences within the total environment of the exhibit context.
Consequently COE demands the integration of context and content in order to convey consistent messages to zoo visitors.
26
4.2.3 Motivation Motivation encourages visitors to attend, follow instructions, cooperate, and return. It derives from ¾ usefulness, ¾ coherence of content, ¾ timeliness, ¾ personal meaning, ¾ the opportunity to interact with (control) an exhibit, ¾ elements of surprise and/or challenge, ¾ feedback about visual content, ¾ questions, ¾ and tokens, scores, or privileges for achievement.
The reward need not be mere praise but may simply be a positive event or feeling that occurs when attending to a certain object. Visitors should feel no forced order or route. Topic panels should not depend on one another. While different exhibits may logically relate to one another, visitors should be able to skip among main topics without becoming lost. They like the freedom to choose routes, topics, approaches, and pacing. A "menu" of approaches, sequences, and structure can be made available on "orientation" panels or on maps that visitors can adapt to their own learning styles, time frames, and interests. Efforts to motivate viewers also can be counterproductive. Some motivational features of exhibitions actually compete with productive learning; they contribute to visitor enjoyment but not necessarily to useful learning. Exploratory and social activities (playing hide-and-seek, trying to find something exciting before one's companions do, using exhibits for trivial conversation) also can be incompatible with the focused attention needed for communicating ideas or attitudes. The apparent fun and involvement observed at popular exhibits (attracting/holding power) does not necessarily mean that exhibits are resulting in the educational experience envisioned by their producers. The challenge is to link communication objectives with exploratory, social, and recreational interests. One way to achieve this linkage is to make the fun elements of exhibits dependent on attending and learning. As mentioned above coherence is important for the motivation to attend and to learn. "Illustrations, questions, objects, processes etc., must clearly interrelate and be mutually supporting and logically coherent" (SCREVEN, 1986b). COE (1985) therefore pleads for adequate zoo design. The following quotation is one of his examples of incoherent message transmission: "A sign besides a gorilla exhibit may consciously present a noble creature endangered by habitat destruction in Central Africa, but unconsciously the exhibit seems to present the gorilla as a felon in a barred cage. It is doubtful that any amount of artistic excellence and clever wording in the interpretive material can overcome the multi-sensory chaos and feeling of revulsion created by such exhibits." 27
4.2.4 Distraction Novel environments and extraneous sights tend to distract visitors from focusing their attention as well as strange or loud noises or reflections. These sources of distraction should be minimized by design (see 6.2.9). Distraction from the visitors' own group often is the greatest obstacle to learning. Besides the attempts to fulfill the visitor’s needs this kind of distraction is more or less out of control to the institution.
4.2.5 Attention KORAN et al. (1984) found that attention must be focused if learning is to occur. The first learning experience functions to provide familiarity with the environment and consequently heighten the attention focusing (pre-instructional orientation). Since exhibits are often designed to present the novel or complex, designers need to focus their efforts on means that direct attention. A critical problem is the tremendous number of stimuli, many quite novel, for attention. Attention directing devices or cues help visitors orient themselves to the relevant attributes of an exhibit. Depending on the child's age, color was found to aid in directing attention for younger children, while shapes tended to be more compelling for older children. Both color and shape apparently stimulate curiosity and are major components incorporated to attract attention. Though these findings relate to museum environments they seem appropriate for zoo settings, too. Questions (written and oral) also help visitors to focus attention on the relevant attributes as well as a certain perspective (see 4.5.3). "Those exhibits of most interest receive the greatest attention, but this does not show any relationship between increased attention and learning. Preliminary preparation of school groups and casual visitors in the contents of the exhibits appears vital to the stimulation of interest and subsequent attention" (KORAN et al., 1989).
4.2.6 Curiosity "Curiosity is frequently defined as a verbal or nonverbal response to a novel, complex, or incongruous stimulus. It is exhibited when an individual scans the environment for novelty, approaches a new object or event either physically or psychologically, interacts with that object or event, and then persists in this behavior. Curiosity continues to interact with attention and perception as encoding of information occurs" (KORAN et al., 1984). Informal learning requires keeping the circulation of perception-attention-curiosity going. Reinforcing stimuli are therefore necessary. These can be obvious rewards as described above (see 4.2.3) that can be obtained for relatively sure. On the other hand, the situation of learning may be self-sufficiently pleasant, and learning then takes place for its own sake. 28
4.2.7 Concreteness Assumed the information found attention, will it be memorable? Research suggests (PEART, 1984) that information is better retained the more concrete it is conveyed. Concrete means that all senses are involved for getting the information. Reading is a very abstract way of learning. Numbers, words, patterns are easier to learn if they are grouped. Visual images are far easier to retain. Pictures, instructions to generate images, mnemonics and concrete words all facilitate memory. Observation and imitation are the best means for learning. Live models, videotape models, written models and audio tape models can all exhibit a sequence of behaviors that visitors acquire by observation. The more senses are involved (seeing, hearing, smelling, sensing) and the more intensive or frequent it happens, the more memorable is the experience. The following summary outlines evaluations of the use of live animals in presentations showing that live animals are in some respect more effective than non-live devices (WAKEMAN, 1986): The Institute of Environmental Sciences together with 5 university graduate students designed a study to analyze the effectiveness of the Cincinnati Zoo's Outreach Program and its use of live animals. Fourth to sixth grade students (10 to 12 years old) were exposed to presentations given as identically as possible but using four techniques: live animals with contact, live animals without contact, realia (fur, bones, puppets, etc.), and video. Student questionnaires were designed to test student attitudes in the subject area of preservation, habitat, extinction, and pet-image. Results showed that learning occurs in each of the four subject areas tested. Thus mean student responses showed no interrelationship between learning and the type of technique used in the areas of preservation, habitat, and extinction. Mean responses of students to the pet-image question indicated that having a live animal in the classroom was more beneficial in dispelling the pet-image than any of the other techniques used. An evaluation by teachers showed the hands-on contact by far most popular and the video last popular other judgments being similar for all four techniques such as importance of experience, meeting of program goals, effectiveness, and benefice for promotion of total healthier attitude. Another evaluation examined the impact of live and non-live animals on cognitive (learning) and affective (feeling) responses (BEVINS et al., 1989): The study has shown that there were more and changes obtained by videotaped demonstration plus contact with live or dried horseshoe crabs and sea stars than by videotaped demonstrations only. In the case of snakes students who participated in a live snake demonstration were more knowledgeable about the danger and usefulness of snakes. To a lesser extent, the emotional responses of the respondents appeared to be affected by the experience. Behavioral tendencies and interest level, however, were resistant to change. 29
4.2.8 Memory A memorable experience involves anticipation, lack of distraction, novelty, fulfilled expectation, emotional involvement and reinforcement. Objects which strongly catch our attention tend to have their dimensions overestimated, making them seem even more important (COE, 1985). The more senses were involved and the longer and repeatedly it takes place the more memorable is the event. Structuring of information also facilitates memory. This seems to be the biggest challenge for planning and design of learning devices but the biggest problem, too: "In light of the information load in most exhibits, 30 seconds of attention is barely time for activation of short-term memory and transfer of small bits of information to long-term memory. If existing knowledge is there to provide linkages, later retrieval cues can influence retrieval and a response" (KORAN et al., 1984).
Transfer to long-term memory is especially dependent on reinforcement. A single institution will not be able to reinforce information by repetition very effectively. For zoos, special events and programs may be ways to attract visitors repeatedly, thus being able to reinforce messages.
4.2.9 Attitude As outlined above (WAKEMAN, 1986), concreteness is important to have an impact on attitudes. Basically attitudes tend to be reinforced rather than changed. Therefore it is much easier to form new attitudes than changing existing ones. "It is possible that when attitudes are highly favorable to begin with, any attitude change that might occur is less likely to be detected" (PEART, 1984).
RAMSEY et al. (1976) looked at how high school students perceived the economic and environmental consequences of pollution and the trade-offs associated with clean-up costs. In sum RAMSEY found that subjects pre-disposed to anti-pollution measures were even more likely to believe in these measures once they had learned more about the topic. Subjects pre-disposed to being resigned about the costs of pollution were more likely to resist clean-up efforts after acquiring more knowledge about the benefits and costs of anti- pollution activities. Between the extremes, subjects who acquired more knowledge about anti-pollution benefits and trade-offs of clean-up were more likely to become more moderate in their views on pollution control. Knowledge then shaped primarily the attitudes of those who were not pre-disposed toward either extreme to begin with. Studies on the impact of modeling caring attitudes toward species traditionally viewed as noxious (e.g. snakes, spiders) have shown an increase in positive attitudes when modeling is done through live interpretation (see 4.2.7). It is essential that the model be a credible and calm individual such as an experienced animal handler or biology teacher (BEVINS et al., 1989). 30
An evaluative study at Cincinnati Zoo examined the effectiveness of live exotic cats in an educational program in forming positive attitudes in young people toward wildlife and conservation (HILKER, 1985). A cheetah, a North American mountain lion, tiger, lynx, serval, clouded leopard and domestic cat should be ambassadors in their own behalf, for the cause of conservation. Exposing students to animals that become personal to them should help form positive attitudes. The educators' talk in the Zoo's amphitheater illustrating "natural behavior". When they speak about the jumping ability of a cougar, that is exactly what the audience sees. In a program called "close encounter" the cats are allowed to run free in a specially constructed zoo facility with a large play yard. Visitors are thrilled by the speed of a cheetah or the free leap of the cougar. Educators also visited schools with a special program accompanied by live cats. The study indicated that conservative attitudes of students increased after seeing the program. A survey of students 3 to 5 months after seeing the program has shown that "our program not only does not cause a pet image, it actually dispels the image already held by children. Children who have not seen our cats for as long as a year have answered questions I have asked at later talks, showing an extremely high percentage of recall. Three 11-year old boys saw our cats at the exercise yard, went back to their schools, and personally organized and raised the money to share their experiences with their friends." "A distinction must be made between changing attitudes towards certain species and documenting attitude changes towards conservation issues. Attitudes towards species are usually a function of direct experience and cultural perceptions. One common position is that a favorable attitude towards animals will result in favorable attitudes toward conservation measures. It is not at all clear that a favorable attitude toward animals results in a more positive orientation to conservation management issues (see 6.2.12). If anything, there is evidence to suggest that people can have very strong positive feelings for wildlife while knowing little about wildlife conservation" (BIRNEY et al., 1991).
4.2.10 Behavior Informal learning of an individual will rarely change its behavior. First it is hard to change a person’s attitude. Second the motivation to act depends to a very large extent on social norms and the environment of the individual. They decide upon success and failing of behaviors and therefore reinforce or prevent it. Zoos consequently may reinforce existing attitudes and behaviors but will hardly change them. But they can present new aspects and ideas and thus contribute to changing public opinions and socially acceptable behaviors, especially when respecting the factors described hereunder. 31
Some specific variables had been empirically related to responsible environmental behavior (RAMSEY et al., 1989): ¾ Knowledge of environmental issues indicates one's information and understanding about specific environmental issues. ¾ Beliefs concerning environmental issues refer to those ideas that individuals hold to be true about environmental issues. An individual's perspective of an issue can depend upon his/her beliefs. ¾ Values related to the environment refer to the relative worth an individual places on something related to the environment. Therefore, how an individual feels and behaves with respect to an issue can be influenced by values. ¾ Individual locus of control is an individual's perception of whether a particular action will result in an anticipated reinforcement for acting. Some individuals believe that they are in control of situations that demand action. These individuals are said to have an internal locus of controls. Other individuals feel that they are not in control, believing that other factors will determine the outcome of an action. These individuals are said to have an external locus of control. ¾ Group locus of control refers to an individual's perception of his/her effectiveness acting with a group to bring about change in a given situation. This perception may have an internal or external locus of control. ¾ Environmental sensitivity indicates one's empathetic view of the environment. It encompasses the belief that humans must live in ecological harmony with the environment. ¾ Knowledge of, and skills in, environmental action strategies refers to one's knowledge of, and ability to use, citizenship action skills to influence decision making in a democratic society. ¾ Knowledge of ecological concepts is equated with the knowledge and understanding of natural ecological relationships.
In an attempt to find predictors of environmental responsible behavior members of American conservation organizations were surveyed (SIVEK et al., 1989). Three of the above mentioned variables most strongly correlated with responsible environmental behavior: perceived skill in using environmental action strategies, level of environmental sensitivity, and locus of control. Education, out-of-door activities, models and environmentally related mass media programs are important contributors in developing environmental sensitivity. The development seems to be longitudinal, cumulative, and directly related to experiences in outdoor settings. It also appears that the non-formal sector holds considerable promise for the development of sensitivity if it can capture learners for long periods of time and put them into aesthetically positive situations. This study strongly supports the thesis that instruction in environmental action strategies should help produce environmentally active citizens. 32
The authors caution that the results of the study are descriptive and cannot provide a cause- effect explanation for participation in responsible environmental behavior but recommend that above mentioned variables be addressed in formal and informal environmental education programs.
4.3 Individual differences In order to meet educational tasks programs should reach as many visitors as possible. The problem for design is that there is not one specific audience but an inhomogeneous number of individuals with different demands. There are the visitors' needs (see 5.2) which are common to most visitors and predictable to a certain extent. They have to be met before hoping to gain visitors' cooperation, their willingness to learn. But there are individual differences relevant to informal learning processes which are much harder to respect because they are very discriminative and mostly unknown: age, sex, entering knowledge (education, experience), intelligence, curiosity, timidity, perceptive abilities (seeing, hearing, smelling), mobility, concentration, motivation (attitudes, interests), language, disposition of time, to name some. "Children are sensory beings who learn more readily by feeling, seeing, hearing and smelling than by reading words. Children are also fun-loving beings who will tune into and remember facts and experiences acquired in a fun way. It is not important for children to remember everything they see. What is important is that the sensations and general impressions spark their desire to know more and to care" (SAUSMAN, 1982).
Consequently cost effective learning devices require thorough planning by stating clear educational objectives and testing visitors' performance (see 6.2.1 and 6.2.12).
4.4 Learning devices in zoos Considering the relevant literature it is obvious that zoos have been deriving their knowledge about education from museums though the tasks of these two institutions are more and more diverging. While museums seem to overtake traditional patterns of instruction by new means of interactive involvement their main task still remains the communication of scientific knowledge. Zoos on the other hand devote themselves to an additional task - conservation. Conservation related education demands everybody's action, not only scientific knowledge. This different task obviously requires a different performance. Today the performance of zoos regarding conservation is poor. Hardly anybody knows about the involvement of zoos in conservation (see 5.3, BIRNEY et al., 1990). Even stranger, the public is practically not involved in these efforts. Messages alerting people to conservation problems may be embedded in various programs as outlined below.
4.4.1 Non-participatory learning devices These are learning devices with a one-way flow of information to the public. Their inherent design problem is to reach many visitors and remain effective. 33
¾ exhibits: signs, panels, photos, animal enclosures, etc. ¾ hand-outs: reference materials for children, families, teachers to use during their visit to the institution ¾ lectures ¾ video stations ¾ theatre presentations
4.4.2 Participatory learning devices These are learning devices offering the possibility of interaction. They are more sensitive to variations in the composition of their audience. "They usually consist of passive or active devices that involve one or more senses or physical activities and always cause the visitor to act or react. The source of satisfaction is in the accomplishment and the tactile activity" (PETERSON, 1986).
4.4.2.1 Interactives Exhibits allowing some kind of interaction, such as pushing bottoms or moving some parts to get information (not necessarily verbal) or to change the display are called interactive exhibits or interactives. The best known interactives are video games. (see 6.2.12) Interactive technologies range from "carefully designed play activities for children to advanced technologies in computers and microscopes. Across the United States, these techniques are being used to the enhancement of institutions and visitors alike. In time, they will revolutionize our methods of public education" (JENKINS, 1985). Interactives may be predetermined such as push buttons and hinged flaps (see picture 16 in 6.2.12) but they should allow visitors to challenge their preconceptions. Visitors using their own knowledge and beliefs will discover the inconsistencies in their knowledge by making their own mistakes (KELSEY, 1989). Take for example a computer game at Bird Discovery Point, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago: Visitors there have to answer multiple choice questions on bird ecology. They realize their misconceptions by failing to get hatched as many chicks as possible. SCREVEN (1974) rejects push buttons as interactives unless their use is linked to the effective use of information. In his opinion only a few push button systems constitute effective teaching/learning systems because operating the button seldom depends upon understanding the concepts being presented in the displays. JENKINS (1985) tried to categorize interactive technologies based on the nature of the activity, as opposed to the nature of the device involved: 34
Comparison: There are probably five major types of comparisons which zoos and aquariums are most concerned with: biome/biome; plant/plant; plant/animal; animal/animal; and animal/human. In his survey JENKINS found examples of the latter two: ¾ Animal/animal comparison: e.g. graphics that can shift, changing illumination of graphics; ¾ Animal/human comparison: e.g. measuring size, weight, strength or performing abilities and comparing them to those of animals; see 4.5.3 and 6.2.12 for examples;
Extending human senses: By extending visitor senses into realms that are unknown to the majority, a degree of real discovery can be added to the zoo experience. JENKINS found this is a region of great, primarily untapped potential. In his survey he found ¾ magnifiers, microscopes; ¾ magnified models; ¾ stereoscopes; ¾ telescopes and ¾ video monitors.
Infrared, ultraviolet, sonar, magnetic and other senses are waiting for development in interactives.
Learning play: This is the broadest, and least defined of all of the categories. Many of the previous exhibits could also fit under this designation. Play is the primary learning process for young children and certainly the most practical way to reach them. Some of the activities designed to learn play are ¾ role playing by hand puppets, masks, costumes or just imagination (see 4.5.3 for examples); ¾ creating animals by turnable graphics, blocks, painting; ¾ making something to take home (e.g. footprints, potatoe prints, rubbings); ¾ exploring (e.g. pop-up view bubbles in a prairie dog exhibit, rope spider web, tree slide); ¾ touching and handling objects (e.g. feathers, bones, snakeskins, stuffed animals, models); ¾ touching and guessing hidden forms.
35
Conservation: Interactive techniques can reinforce this message in a number of meaningful ways. ¾ Monitored discovery labs, ¾ touch screen computers, ¾ posting pledge cards from visitors on a bullet board (visitors examine endangered species material and answer a series of questions, then create pledge cards, pledging what he or she will do to help wild life conservation), ¾ microfiche units to illustrate ISIS data, all have been tried to involve visitors in not just a learning experience but into meaningful action. The author's article ends with a list of existing interactive exhibits at 24 institutions in Canada and the United States and the address of the International Center for Conservation Education in Great Britain.
4.4.2.2 Docents "In Europe paid educators are usually the only source of staffing educational programs. In the United States, however, manpower to staff programs is available from volunteers, student interns (high school and college), scouting troops, keepers, school/university teachers and others" (SAUSMAN, 1982). They can walk around in uniform and approach people, be available at certain points, e.g. docent stations (see 6.2.12), touch carts, or certain times, e.g. guided tours. They are most flexible in their presentation and, if talented, can have the greatest impact on visitors. When comparing structured docent-led tours with lectures and unstructured teacher-led tours STRONK (1983) found that the former resulted in greater gains but that the latter produced more positive changes in attitude (BIRNEY, 1988).
36
Picture 1 Docent station at Lincoln Park, Chicago (1991)
Picture 2 Curiosity Cart with docent at Lincoln Part, Chicago (1991) 37
4.4.2.3 Programs These may be demonstrations, programs for special groups, community outreach programs, such as tours to schools, homes for the aged or disabled, teacher workshops etc. (see 6.4). Special events give an additional incentive to visit the zoo such as conservation days when the public may take advantage of various educational opportunities or simply social events like parades, contests, celebrations etc.
4.4.2.4 Self-scoring response systems Components that are dependent upon correct visitor responses may be built into interactive exhibits, e.g. electronically programmed circuits that sequence material, rotate panels, present slides, activate response buttons and change exhibit elements. The more common systems are tape cassettes with or without automatic-stop that direct attention, control the order in which different elements are examined, ask teaching questions and guide the listener to appropriate actions, generalizations, discriminations, etc. Though very effective (see evaluation below) these systems in my opinion are at the limit of what can be called informal learning because most of the approach is not individually chosen and self paced. SCREVEN (1974) tested the factual knowledge of museum visitors before and after exposure to an exhibit by means of a questionnaire. The exhibit related questions could be answered right or wrong. The results showed little difference between those who had studied the exhibit and those who had not. SCREVEN then found that scores were much better when visitors used guidance by an automatic-stop tape cassette that was individually worn by the visitors.
4.4.2.5 Evaluation Consequently educators should not expect visitors to acquire new information in an informal setting but to reinforce and improve already existing knowledge. Maybe results of SCREVEN's study would have been different if visitors were asked if they believe that the answers to given questions are "not", "maybe", "probably" or "for sure" right. For a zoo it also might be interesting to know what visitors have learned from the whole visit besides testing knowledge gained from single exhibits. But "visual learning is not as easily identified as textual learning, and knowledge gained through visual impression is intrinsically more difficult to express than the recitation of scientific facts. The initial stimulus which encourages learning is hard to measure" (DAVISON, 1989). "Field observations and experimental studies in museums or simulation settings that compared subjects exposed to objects which could be approached, perceived with all of their senses, and manipulated, with subjects who could only view similar exhibits tended to support arguments that participatory exhibits draw attention, stimulate interest, curiosity and participation" (KORAN et al., 1984). A study in a science center in Bombay, India (JAVLEKAR, 1989), for example, has shown the strength of participatory displays in an informal learning environment in comparison to formal education: "As hypothesized, the experimental group students who visited the exhibits at the science center achieved significantly higher scores on a test of science content than students in a control group, regardless of the socio-economic background. The inclusion in the research design of a control group that had only a classroom lesson permitted a comparison of the 38
relative educational effectiveness of a participatory museum exhibit and a classroom lesson. Even though the classroom lesson was concise and well-delivered by the investigator using a few small, common demonstration materials, the methodology used in the science center was found to be more effective due to its success in creating an effective learning environment. The majority of the children indicated that they had thoroughly enjoyed their visit. Active participation with exhibits constituted the primary reason given for their enjoyment. Teachers can be assured that the museum experience will stimulate an interest in learning science concepts by presenting them in a manner that students find exciting." "The need for children to manipulate and interact with objects during the learning process has not been adequately answered in most zoos. Perhaps this is why children in these settings spend a large amount of time trying to make the animals 'do' something" (KELSEY, 1989). The ability of interactive elements to communicate to different ages is suited to families who are captured longer than when only one age group is attracted.
4.5 What can one learn in informal settings?
4.5.1 Hierarchy of learning "GAGNE (1977) proposed a learning "hierarchy" in order of increasing complexity. Most goals in exhibits involve higher levels on this hierarchy. Mastery at higher levels assumes mastery at lower levels" (SCREVEN, 1986b). The following example illustrates the model. It may be used in an Austrian zoo to convey a conservation message. The visitor in this example should learn about the problem that road building can contribute to the endangering of species.
The Great Bustard (Otis tarda) is used as a spectacular vehicle. It is the largest flying bird and a very rare European species living in a small number in steppelike habitats close to the Hungarian border.
Figure 6 The Great Bustard (Otis tarda)
4.5.1.1 Signal learning, conditioning Conditioned reflexes are those produced by a stimulus that did not trigger this reflex before. They are learned when a stimulus is associated with a certain reaction. After a while part of the reaction becomes a reflex. It runs off involuntarily when the stimulus is perceived. 39
PAWLOW (1953) was the first to explain the phenomenon. His experiment with dogs became famous: The unconditioned stimulus was meat, the unconditioned response chewing, swallowing and salivation. For learning a neutral stimulus, the ringing of a bell, was offered just before food. Later on the bell alone triggered salvation which now was a conditioned response. A neutral stimulus so became a conditioned stimulus. In this example the learning environment should be designed in a way most people associate with positive stimulating feelings in order to gain their cooperation.
4.5.1.2 Operant learning (instrumental learning) An operant is a voluntary reaction, unlike a reflex, that has been learned to be successful by non-aimed acting. The likelihood of a particular response then is a function of the immediate consequences that have been associated with it. For example most of us associate reading with the acquisition of useful information. The zoo management therefore can rely that visitors will at least start reading labels. But they will stop reading as soon as they find it uninteresting.
4.5.1.3 Discrimination The ability to recall, regardless of sequence, responses to objects, symbols, or events results from learning to discriminate. It requires breaking the dependence of sequence that is necessary for conditioning and operant learning. In this example visitors discriminate the Great Bustard from other birds by learning its distinctive characteristics: the biggest bird that is able to fly, but does not fly well and is very alert, has extraordinarily large flight distances etc.
4.5.1.4 Concept learning The ability to group or name a class of objects, events, or symbols that differ among themselves on some common characteristics (knowing about a concept) is acquired through repeated exposure to sequences of examples and non-examples. Information should assist in distinguishing between important and unimportant characteristics. In this example the visitor should learn about the concept of habitats. The demands of Otis tarda on wide open spaces for its safety requirements serve as one example of the concept.
4.5.1.5 Rule learning As result from learning a rule (that defines a concept) one can use this rule by stating it and selecting new examples of the rule. The rule that heavily used roads cut habitats and therefore depreciate them should make sense considering the habitat requirements of Otis tarda.
4.5.1.6 Problem learning By combining rules one may recognize discrepancies and achieve solutions to solve problems. Considering that big alert animals need large undisturbed habitats on one hand, and that using roads causes disturbances on the other hand, visitors should be able to understand the problem of road building for conservation of certain species. 40
4.5.2 Problem solving Resolving problems first requires issue awareness and issue investigation. RAMSEY et al. (1989) suggest the following components of issue analysis for environmental issues. The authors define an environmental issue as a socially or ecologically significant problem, somehow related to the environment, about which there are differing human beliefs and values. ¾ Problem: A condition in which the status of someone or something is at risk. ¾ Issue: A problem or its solution about which differing beliefs and values exist. ¾ Players: The individuals or organizations having a role in the issue. ¾ Beliefs: Those ideas concerning the issue, whether true or fals, held by the players. ¾ Values: Those guides that tend to reflect the relative importance of beliefs in a given situation (aesthetic, cultural, ecological, economic, egocentric, social, etc.). ¾ Solutions: The various strategies available to resolve the issue.
Considering these components when analyzing environmental issues should allow learners to organize information about an issue in a sound conceptual framework thus accomplishing the issue awareness goal in environmental education.
4.5.3 Facilitations and limitations to learning in zoo settings Visitors are conditioned to a certain extent and will use this learned responses (reflexes and conditioned responses) in a zoo setting when appropriate. As this kind of entering knowledge (knowledge shown in pretests) is relatively homogenous among visitors it can be respected in the design of the setting. All other types of learning require some effort and therefore make high demands on designers. The design should minimize the effort of learning so that it takes place unconsciously. The first step to achieve this goal is to provide for visitors' needs (see 5.2). Considering the process of learning gives numerous hints how to facilitate learning in an informal setting in general. There are contents that can be learned from pure viewing but most need some sort of interaction and interpretation: Instrumental learning requires interaction (In children's zoos people learn about animals' reactions by feeding and patting them.) while discrimination can be learned by viewing examples of certain taxonomies, physiologies or behaviors. This is the traditional field of education in zoos and supports the idea of "stamp book" collections. Nevertheless this kind of knowledge does not contribute to a positive attitude towards conservation. Besides, the number of examples (species) representative for a specific taxonomy etc. need not be live to learn discrimination but can be replaced by models and suitable interpretation. What concepts and rules are currently presented in zoos? The adaptations of animals are topics frequently dealt with in interpretive materials and gadgets especially in children's zoos. Sometimes zoos try to convey concepts about animals' habitats by interpretation but only few exhibits support these. Rarely can you find interpretation about the status of an animal in the nature circle (e.g. predators' ecology) or concepts/rules of taxonomy (e.g. what makes a bird a bird?). As mentioned above (4.4.1.4) viewing of examples and non-examples is necessary to understand a concept. SAUSMAN (1982) defined parallel exhibits as juxtaposition of two or more exhibits to communicate some biological principle or thematic relationship. The classic examples of parallel exhibits are predator-prey displays. 41
In any case interaction and interpretation are indispensable to help visitors find the characteristics of a concept and understand a rule. "By blending the strong attractive power of an animal exhibit with the strong holding power of an interactive exhibit, understanding of a concept should be enhanced" (KELSEY, 1989). Learning about problems of habitat loss, conservation, saving of resources, ecosystems etc. requires considerable interpretation and mental efforts from visitors that are rarely achieved in informal settings. Special events (guided tours, performances etc.) are better suited because the audience is more motivated. In general, zoos have to refer to existing awareness. Assumed that most people coming to the zoo are concerned about nature it is remarkable that only very few zoos take the chance to give visitors an opportunity to act, motivate them to support certain projects etc. (see 4.2.10, SIVEK et al., 1989). The following hints for educational effective design are derived from visitor studies in informal settings. In order to duplicate such complex ideas as concepts or rules it is necessary to build a chain of reasoning. To encourage continuity of thought the visitor has to be guided past a series of exhibits in a certain sequence telling a story in stages. This generally requires a one-way traffic flow. Visitor studies have shown that the perspective is influencing learning. For example "Imagine you are a hungry woodpecker; you are searching for insects in the bark of trees" directs attention more effectively than the pure scientific presentation of the same information, such as "Woodpeckers feed on insects". "Dominance in human interactions is suggested in many ways, including posture and relative position: Kings on their thrones, conductors on their podiums, and teachers standing above their seated students all dominate those around them. If the positional or situational dominance observed in human interactions is transferable to human/animal encounters this has significant implications for zoo exhibit design. The simple procedure of locating the animal in a position or location superior to the viewer may relatively predispose the viewer to want to learn from the animal, be more attentive to it, and perhaps be even more respectful of it. On the other hand, could it be that placement of the animal in an inferior position stimulates human behavior to dominate, which, when frustrated by the animal's inattention to the visitor, could lead to harassment of the animal?" (COE, 1985).
Figure 7 Dominance – Animal in a position inferior and superior to the viewer (COE, 1985) 42
Learning about animals' abilities by "becoming the animal" is a concept frequently used in children's zoos. See 6.2.12 (Bird Discovery Point) and pictures 3 to 8 of exhibits (allowing the view of different animals by using special glass or mirrors, comparing width of jump to different animals, allowing to hear like a fox by amplifying background noises or using birds' nests, turtles' shells or horns).
Picture 3 Exhibit at Los Angeles' Children's Zoo allowing the view of a cougar, a prairie dog and an insect (1991) 43
Picture 4 Exhibit at San Diego's Children's Zoo allowing comparison with the width of jump of various animals (1991)
Picture 5 Exhibit at Bronx Zoo's Children's Zoo (N.Y.) allowing to hear like a fox: visitors put their head between foxes ears, thus hearing background noises amplified (1991)
Picture 6 Exhibit at Baltimore's Children's Zoo allowing to sit in birds' nests (1991) 44
Picture 7 Exhibit at Baltimore's Children's Zoo allowing to have a shell like a turtle (1991)
Picture 8 Kids' Corner at Lincoln Park's Children's Zoo (Chicago) allowing to wear antlers and horns (1991)
The more sophisticated versions found were electronic or video games asking for decisions between choices from the perspective of an animal with the goal to survive or raise the maximum of young ones etc. SCREVEN (1987) cautions that informal environments are not necessarily the places to teach facts, definitions, or technical details. The conditions necessary for factual learning (lots of reading, cumulative practice, time, effort, detailed analysis) are seldom present in the zoo environment long enough, often enough or focused enough to achieve this kind of learning. He believes that informal environments are better able to effectively communicate new ways to look at and think about things. They can present ways to explore, discover, ask questions and stimulate a greater self-confidence in science topics and activities. SCREVEN also suggests that informal learning environments are better able to improve motivations and attitudes. "Visitors need all the help we can provide them in learning what to attend to, how to attend to it, how to think about what is observed and to process relevant information, as well as how to monitor their thinking and retrieve information observed" (KORAN et al., 1989). This help usually is provided by written information. The relevant field has been concentrating substantial research efforts and resulting in extensive literature. The effectiveness of signs will be dealt with in 6.1.2.6. 45
4.5.4 Socialization Social interaction in exhibitions is a very important natural element of human behavior in zoo environments (see 5.2.3 and 5.5.3) and probably among their major attractions. On one hand these interactions may not serve the envisioned educational purposes but on the other hand educational objectives often do not respect this educational value to the extent it deserves. 46
5. ZOO VISITORS
The following examples are all from surveys of visitors to institutions in the United States. The conclusions cannot be easily transferred to the European or any other society. The restrictions originate from the diverse cultural background of American visitors and the different organization of zoos in the United States (membership, volunteers) to name just two important peculiarities. Thus, when exemplifying, my intention is to show the usefulness of such surveys for planning decisions. ------Research field Design application
Demographics Marketing Communication (education, public relations) Services with respect to certain populations (children, families, elderly, disabled) Capacity planning Basic data for evaluative studies
Needs Type, number of services Security Orientation Appearance of exhibits and facilities Suitability of facilities, services and programs
Perceptions, Attitudes, Knowledge Constituency identification Marketing Education
Motivation Public relations Layout of exhibits, facilities and graphics
Spatial patterns Arrangement of setting and viewing areas Orientation devices Placement of graphics Lightning
Temporal patterns Traffic flow planning Capacity planning Scheduling shows, programs Layout of graphics
Behavioral patterns Type of facilities, services Layout of setting, exhibits and facilities Communication Orientation Instruction Usability of interactives and facilities Security ------Table 1 Design applications of visitor surveys 47
5.1 Demographics "Zoo attendance is probably more broadly based, from a socio-economic viewpoint, than the attendance of most other kinds of cultural institutions" (SAUSMAN, 1982). At Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, demographic data are being collected from time to time to identify the various segments of visitor population, to enhance the zoo's ability to serve its public, and to communicate more effectively. Usually visitors are interviewed upon entering or leaving the zoo. They are surveyed for information on group size, age, sex, education, ethnic or racial background, place of residence, frequency of visit, membership status etc. Besides information on the zoo audience itself demographic data also offer some basis for comparison between samples of other surveys. The following findings of surveys carried out in 1985 (JOSLIN et al., 1986) and 1990 (BIRNEY, 1990) seem representative for characterizing zoo audiences in the United States.
5.1.1 Group composition Average group size has to be considered when designing visitor facilities and viewing areas at exhibits. At Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, from August to October 1985, children below age 6 and those who accompanied them represented about 69 % of the zoo's attendance not coming in groups by bus. Large groups (larger than 10 persons) accounted for about 12 % of zoo visitors. The study in 1990 found that size of the groups was normally distributed with 43 % coming in nuclear groups of 3 or 4 people, 31 % coming in extended groups, and 25 % coming in pairs.
5.1.2 Age Visitors' needs, abilities, perceptions and motivation highly depend on age. Thus design, education and marketing have to consider the age of the potential and actual zoo audience. A bimodal distribution characterized ages of zoo visitors to Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, in 1985. The largest peak was visitors below age 6 (about 23 % of all of the visitors). Attendance fell sharply with each advancing age cohort, reaching a low of 4 % for 16 to 20 years olds. Attendance increased to a second peak for age 26 to 35. Between 11 and 12 % of the zoo's attendance was between age 26 to 30, and another 11 to 12 % age 31 to 35. Attendance by each succeeding age above 35 declined to 2 % by age 51 to 55, and thereafter remained low. A comparison was made between the age structure of the zoo visiting population and that of greater Chicago. The percentage of preschool-age children visiting the zoo was approximately 2.5 times higher than in the community. For at least the first 3 years these children are dependent upon either parents or guardians for everything that they do, and are a full-time parental responsibility. At this age there are limited places and activities that parents can share with children outside the home. Shopping malls, playgrounds, and zoos are popular. Children age 6 to 10 were represented at the zoo more frequently, teenagers, especially those age 16 to 20, were represented less frequently than they were in the community. Age representation at the zoo by adults in general followed the profile of that existing in the community between age 21 and 65. However, in detail those 26 to 35 years old were 48
substantially overrepresented while those who were older were increasingly underrepresented with advancing age. Above age 65 representation was less than half that in the community. Senior citizens find the zoo less attractive perhaps because of less accessibility getting to and from the zoo, and greater difficulty in walking (see 5.3, VERDERBER, 1988). The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission developed a forecast for the population of greater Chicago for 2005. If there is a direct relationship between people in greater Chicago for each age group and those who attend the zoo, the forecast data for greater Chicago can be used to predict changes in the zoo population. Children below age 6 in the greater Chicago area will be 12 % less than at present and there will be more than 100.000 fewer women in the child-bearing ages 20 to 29. The population age 65 and older, on the other hand, will have increased 18 % by 2005 (for implications see 5.3, VERDERBER, 1988). Though the greater Chicago area is expected to show a net population gain of 11 %, Brookfield Zoo is not expected to experience a similar increase without a change in program emphasis.
Figure 8 Age distribution of the Zoo and greater Chicago populations (after JOSLIN et al., 1986) 49
Figure 9 Age distribution forecast for the Zoo and greater Chicago populations (after JOSLIN et al., 1986)
The results leave little doubt that young children are the overriding consideration in determining why most visitors come to the zoo. A marketing strategy which highlights the family experience and that caters to both children and parents with young children is more likely to attract attention than a less specific strategy, remembering that if the child is pleased, so too will be the parent. Zoos which consider viewing height limitations of small children, positive aspects of animal contact areas, etc. stand a greater chance of establishing a good relationship with the zoo's primary audience than those that do not. Access to milk and juice, diaper changing tables, access to all exhibits for strollers are special requirements of infants. Communicating with the public and affecting attitudes towards wildlife in a meaningful way takes a different perspective when the primary audience includes small children. Animal demonstrations, illustrated graphics, participatory exhibits, puppet shows, and educators in animal costumes, are a few ways to communicate with such an audience.
5.1.3 Sex Difference in gender representation among visitors at the zoo has practical consequences for design (see 6.3.4). Between the ages of 16 and 25 approximately twice as many females visited Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, in 1985 as did males. Thereafter the differences declined, averaging a third or less. Among young teenagers more teenage girls than boys are probably interested in visiting the 50
zoo. More men than women are employed in the work force during the early child rearing years and among senior citizens more females than males exist in the population. (JOSLIN et al., 1986) In 1990 64 % of the sample was female.
Figure 10 Sex representation as it relates to age distribution among zoo visitors to Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (after JOSLIN et al., 1986)
5.1.4 Residence Zoo visitors can be divided into three categories with respect to residence: those from the greater area (locals), those from outside the area (tourists), and those who come in groups consisting of both locals and tourists (mixed). Data on residence should be used for marketing strategies as programs for locals will differ from programs for tourists. In 1985 locals accounted for 65 % of the attendance to Brookfield Zoo between July and December, tourists 17 %, and mixed 18 %. If it is assumed that in mixed groups the locals were responsible for bringing the tourists, and if it is further assumed that half of the attendance in mixed groups were tourists, the local population brought one third of all tourists that came to the zoo. Attendance of pure tourists ranged from 24 % in July to 11 % in December. Attendance among locals was influenced by distance from the zoo. Those living within about 5 km constituted 16 % of total attendance or 5 times the percent of greater Chicago population. The data suggest that the zoo should continue to focus its primary marketing strategy toward the Chicago metropolitan population, favoring the region within 5 km distance. 51
5.1.5 Education Level of education has been shown to be an important factor in many of the evaluation studies that have been conducted at Brookfield Zoo. It has been associated not only with performance measures related to knowledge about wildlife or attitudes towards conservation issues, it has also been associated with the ability to use interpretive devices effectively (BIRNEY, 1990). In 1990 62 % of the respondents at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, had completed high school only. A significantly greater portion of those respondents who were sampled at the end of the week (Thursday, Friday, and Saturday) had higher levels of education. The U.S. Bureau of Census reported that 64 % of Americans completed high school or less. Thus the educational background of Brookfield Zoo visitors is representative of the national norm. BIRNEY (1990f) also found that the greater the level of education the respondent had achieved and the less television he or she watched, the more likely it was that respondents rated their visit as 'very successful'. Predictably education is associated negatively with the amount of time visitors report watching television. Yet this is the majority of Brookfield Zoo's audience.
5.1.6 Frequency of zoo visit Marketing and education have to be aware of the characteristics of their target audience. First time visitors can have needs and expectations quite different from repeat visitors. "Apparently, visiting a zoo at least once is almost universal among Americans, with 94 % of the sample reporting this experience. On the other hand this appeared to be a relatively low commitment activity, with only 16 % of the sample indicating frequent zoo attendance at some point in life" (KELLERT, 1977).
A survey at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, found that "visiting zoos was part of 93 % of the respondent's childhood experience. A third (36 %) recalled having visited zoos often as a child. These data suggest that the activity of visiting zoos is part of an on-going process of socialization. They also infer that those coming have some prior idea of what to expect. Only 12 % of the sample reported never having been to Brookfield Zoo before. Of the 47 % that report coming more than once a year, 30 % report coming between 2 to 4 times annually. This suggests that there exists a large audience segment that can be targeted with conservation messages on a repeat basis. "While 52 % of the first-time visitors were young adults, 18 % were over the age of 40. This suggests that orientation programs, membership recruitment programs, etc. aimed at first-time visitors need to be aware of the interests, concerns, and socio-economic status of these young adults." (BIRNEY, 1990)
The preferred time for visiting a zoo greatly depends on the climate. If visitation ought to be more balanced over the year, sufficient indoor activities have to be provided. Interviews at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, in 1987/88 revealed that 60 % of visitors only come in summer. This is also illustrated by data of another survey at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago:
52
Figure 11 Total attendance to Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, in relation to month during the second half of the year (after JOSLIN et al., 1986)
5.1.7 Duration of zoo visit Average visitor length of stay is one indicator in assessing the overall performance of the attraction in comparison with other attractions of a like nature (similar size and character). Consideration of expected visitor length of stay is a helpful tool to estimate sizing and capacity requirements of new facilities, major expansions and visitor expenditures (HAESELER, 1989). Besides "it is fairly well known that a correlation exists between the length of time people stay in zoos and the amount of money they spend" (SAUSMAN, 1982). The duration of a zoo visit is related to a variety of factors (after HAESELER, 1989): Internal factors (subject to design) ¾ Setting: Size and variation of environment are factors related to the setting. The change of pace when moving between individual attractions also determines total length of stay. ¾ Exhibits: The attractiveness (see 6.2.3) of exhibits has major impact on visitor length of stay. Outdoor attractions typically have a longer visitor stay than indoor attractions. ¾ Visitor services: The longer a visitor stays at the institution the more services he will require (see 6.3). ¾ Visitor fatigue: Visitor exposure to exhibits, particularly in an indoor setting such as a museum, may have a tolerance limit (see 6.2.7).
53
External factors (outside the design):
¾ Seasonality: For an outdoor facility, changes in temperature and other seasonal factors affect visitor length of stay during the course of the year. This can be seen indirectly in variations in visitor spending for food and beverages as the relevant amount of money is highly correlated with length of stay. ¾ Crowding: Crowded conditions on peak days (typically on summer weekends) at world's fairs and major theme parks appear to cause visitors to shorten their stay according to observations by management of these facilities. ¾ Visitor demographics: A study conducted at the National Museum of the Boy Scouts of America found that visitor parties containing children spent an average of two hours, 34 minutes at the museum while parties consisting only of adults spent an average of one hour, 52 minutes. ¾ Time budgets: Visitors often have a number of activities planned during the course of a day. This time budget will affect the amount of time spent at any one attraction (except for the largest theme parks, where spending the day is typical). This is particularly true for the out-of-town visitors. Parking meters, bus schedules, opening hours are other constraints also affect length of stay.
Recording entrance and exit times can be done by slips with entrance time marked which are handed out and collected at the exit or tracking of visitors throughout the course of their visit. If measurements are missing estimates are available from the management (often close to the actual average length of stay) or from the visitors (usually overestimating their time). Some reported average lengths of stay are (HAESELER, 1989): ------Melbourne Zoo, Australia 2 hours, 40 minutes (222 574 m2) Los Angeles Zoo, California 2 hours, 48 minutes Singapore Zoo 2 hours, 36 minutes National Aquarium, Baltimore 1 hour, 30 minutes (10 684 m2) Niagara Falls Aquarium, Canada 45 minutes (2 787 m2)
------Table 2 Reported average lengths of stay to some zoos (HAESELER, 1989)
5.1.8 Membership Programs for membership recruitment should first address potential members to be effective. Thus data on members are an important marketing tool. A survey at Brookfield Zoo showed that membership was not representative of the overall sample. Members were significantly more likely to be female (75 %) and significantly more likely to be in their 30s. Besides membership is associated with a higher overall level of education. Visiting the zoo more than once annually was reported by 93 % of the members.
5.2 Needs Visitors' needs have to be met to predispose them to experience exhibits, educational programs, and recreational activities. The basic needs can be categorized according to MASLOW's hierarchy of needs. The model is based on the assumption that people act to satisfy lower needs before satisfying higher ones. 54
For example, a hungry or thirsty visitor first devotes energy to finding food or a drinking fountain. A visitor with children or a baby in diapers first needs restrooms. With these basic needs satisfied, a visitor can spend more time on safety needs, reassured that he or she is not lost and is secure and protected within the park. Feeling safe, the visitor can deepen a sense of belonging, feeling at home, reassured by a familiar landmark, brought up-to-date about significant changes since the last visit. Thus settled, the visitor can pursue activities that will meet needs for self-and feeling good about himself or herself while at the zoo (PUGH, 1991).
5.2.1 Physiological needs Visitors need to have an overview of the park to find restrooms (see 6.3.4), restaurants and drinking fountains (see 6.3.8). When they get tired they need places to sit and to rest (see 6.3.6). Shade from trees and built structures and water should create a microclimate that prevents from heat.
5.2.2 Safety needs Visitors need to avoid getting lost to, from, and in the park (see 6.1 for orientation). They need to know how to find help when they need it (see 6.3.10). Those with disabilities need to know they can easily get around. The design of the park should implicate necessary regulations using signs only in addition or if inevitable. But visitors also need evidence of security (uniformed employees). In addition to MASLOW's model which is too simple to explain all visitor's needs the optimal arousal theory (see 5.2.5, RUSSELL et al., 1981) explains boredom by an all too safe environment.
5.2.3 Social needs Visitors come to the zoo for family togetherness and for community spirit particularly at special events. It was shown in visitor studies (ROSENFELD et al., 1978) that parents defined a successful zoo visit by their children having a good time. Consequently exhibits that cannot attract children have also little chance to be noticed by adults. In any case visitors need to talk to people, ask questions and share values and they need to see and hear people to enjoy the institution with. Forced social contact however can cause uncomfortable feelings. Crowding in a zoo can have several reasons such as popular exhibits, exhibits that are too close to an entrance/exit or other node, shelters from sun and rain, frequent visitor/staff interaction etc. "Crowds around one exhibit in an otherwise uncrowded area will often attract more viewers, probably due to curiosity. On the other hand, if the overall area is crowded, a particularly crowded exhibit may be avoided" (PATTERSON et al., 1988). "Perhaps the size of the crowd is a factor. Also, it is likely that the perception of how rewarding the experience might be plays an important role" (BITGOOD et al., 1987a). According to WESTOVER (1989) the perception of crowding includes spatial, social, psychological, physical and situational factors. Visual barriers between groups of people, comfortable microclimatic conditions, secluded areas for retreat reduce the perception while litter, noise, evidence of human use, inadequate space to engage in an activity (spatial limit), waiting in a line to use a facility (resource limits), incompatible activities (goal interferences), 55
different values or status of other people (conflicting behaviors) increase the perception of crowding. The more specific and inflexible the resource requirements, the more vulnerable the visitor is to perceive crowding. "Predicting holding power will allow the designer to avoid potential traffic congestion" (BITGOOD et al., 1986b). Visitors also have different desires for ownership of the zoo. They buy into belonging by signing up for programs and memberships. Visitors as members belong to an insider group. Visitors also feel like insiders by asking keepers questions individually.
5.2.4 Esteem needs Visitors earn self-esteem when they complete a self-guided tour. They also derive self- esteem by appearing informed, acquiring and sharing new information with others and from completing interactive zoo activities. Recognition can be gained from memberships, adoptions, donor thanks and from having ones handiwork displayed.
5.2.5 Arousal According to RUSSELL et al. (1981) there is an optimal level of arousal set at some moderate value for day-to-day activities. This moderate level of arousal is actively sought, is deemed pleasurable, and is best for effective behavior. When arousal is too low, active attempts will be made to heighten it to the moderate, optimal level. Many of our everyday behaviors can be interpreted as designed to raise a too low arousal level. We may read an exciting story, drive the car faster than is safe, go to a scary movie - or go to the zoo. There are experiences that are valuable at all times such as contact with water and plants and interacting with people or live animals. These can be provided in a cheap, rewarding and ecological way. Experiences that get boring after a while such as interaction with dead objects are comparatively expensive and wasteful. They often allow only for a few possible behaviors and just one way of use. These ideas will be found again in the immersion concept of exhibit design (see 6.2.11.5). When one is confronted with an environment that is too arousing, there will be active behavioral attempts to reduce the arousal or to simply leave the situation. For example a child confronted with a roaring lion may take the hand of its parent or run away.
5.2.6 Experiental needs The experience of other institutions (including family and home) will have created certain needs in a person's life that a zoo may be expected to fulfill. These expectations modify the needs according to MASLOW's model. Referential needs designate the visitor's need for a personal experience with something higher, more sacred, and out-of-the-ordinary than home and work are able to supply. The zoo may also provide an excuse or focus for a social occasion. The significance of these associated needs lies primarily in the fact that it is a shared experience. The zoo also is a cultural production from which many people expect to learn something about the world (educational needs). (after GRABURN, 1984)
56
5.3 Perceptions, Attitudes, Knowledge related to zoos Information on perceptions and attitudes toward animals as well as entering knowledge is useful in several management contexts such as constituency identification, multiple- satisfactions management, resource allocation, social impact and trade-off analysis, public awareness and environmental education. This chapter quotes research findings on perceptions, attitudes and knowledge related to wild animals versus animals in zoos, zoo settings and protection of wildlife. The first section states perceptions, attitudes and knowledge held by the general public. The second section exemplifies surveys of certain constituencies, i.e. urban population, children, zoo enthusiasts, visitors to Brookfield Zoo, and elderly people. In sum the findings show that the relationship between knowledge and attitudes is not a direct one.
5.3.1 Perceptions, misconceptions, knowledge "A study using semantic differential on public attitudes showed that first- time visitors viewed zoos a 'child-oriented', 'spicy', 'live', 'informal', 'simple', 'fast', and 'fun'" (PIERCE, 1989).
Considering the perception of animals three aspects are relevant according to KELLERT (1983a): ¾ The affective component refers primarily to the feelings and emotions that people attach to animals. ¾ The cognitive aspect refers to knowledge and factual understanding of animals. ¾ The evaluative aspect refers to beliefs and values associated with animals.
FINLAY et al. (1988) found that people rate qualities of animals shown in cages differently from those shown in natural surroundings. Caged zoo animals were seen as restricted, tame, and passive while wild animals were characterized as free, wild, and active. Animals viewed in naturalistic zoo settings were rated more positively than caged zoo animals, but not as favorably as the wild animals. When any barrier was visible in naturalistic exhibits, the animals were rated just as restricted and tame as the animals in traditional bar and glass cages. BIRNEY (1986) found that children felt that zoo animals had been trained not to attack, were safe, and being restricted in some way (feeding or space). The word "controlled" was commonly used and only 4 % of the children mentioned that the animals were still wild. In their study FINLEY et al. (1988) found some stereotypes of characteristics attributed to certain animals: The orangutan was rated as clumsy and lazy regardless of the environment in which it was seen (cage, naturalistic exhibit and wild) while the chimpanzee was rated as the most harmless, friendly, tame, and familiar of all the animals. The visitor standing in front of the old, barred, zoo cage may perceive that this lion is tame, passive, and lazy but not hold the attitude about lions in general. Thus the animal's enclosure type can influence perceptions and attitudes of the viewer (see 6.2.11.5). FINLAY concludes that in some cases traditional cage zoos may reinforce previously existing incorrect stereotypes but zoos are certainly not the only source of information, and misinformation, about animals. 57
"A common misconception about misconception is that they are held by children and replaced through formal instruction. Unless adults have experiences which cause them to become aware of the flaws or limitations in their early explanations, people hold on to them" (BORUN, 1989). "Sporadic interviewing of adults shows that the conceptions and preconceptions of adults are similar to those of the children interviewed. In other words a naive adult is in most ways equivalent to a typical twelve- year-old" (FEHER et al., 1985).
When searching for factors associated with the attribution of human traits to nonhumans HOGAN (1980) found that people who were non-authoritarian and women were most likely to attribute human traits to animals. Visitors to zoo exhibits may already be predisposed to supporting a range of wildlife conservation efforts. Knowledge, then, shapes primarily the attitudes of those who were not pre-disposed. Besides, there is a tendency for extremist positions to harden after education programs attempting to change attitudes (see 4.2.9). "Interviews on factual knowledge revealed that Americans (zoo and non- zoo goers) were most knowledgeable about animals known to inflict human injury and disease, as well as domestic animals commonly associated with superstition and myth. Perhaps most important, the American public appears to be only moderately familiar with even the most popular wildlife issues" (KELLERT, 1983).
In a national survey of randomly selected adults all over the United States KELLERT (1979) found major variables effecting public attitudes toward endangered species management: ¾ aesthetics ¾ phylogenetic relatedness (similarity to humans) ¾ reason for endangering: direct (e.g. overharvest) or indirect (e.g. habitat loss) ¾ economic value of species ¾ number and type of people affected by limits ¾ knowledge of and familiarity with species ¾ cultural and historical relationship ¾ humaneness of harvesting procedure
"Results suggest that emotional (i.e. affective) factors are far more critically related to a protectionist attitude than knowledge (i.e. cognitive) factors" (KELLERT, 1979). "Many policy-makers and political leaders have presumed a widespread public reluctance to inhibit socio-economic development to protect wildlife or natural habitat. Recent research, however, has revealed a far greater willingness to make these sacrifices than had been assumed, particularly for the sake of certain animal species" (KELLERT, 1983). 58
5.3.2 Zoo related attitudes of various constituencies In his surveys KELLERT uses a typology of attitudes toward animals as defined below for scores: ¾ Naturalistic: Primary interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors. ¾ Ecologistic: Primary concern for the environment as a system, for interrelationships between wildlife species and natural habitats. ¾ Humanistic: Primary interest and strong affection for individual animals, principally pets. ¾ Moralistic: Primary concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals, with strong opposition to exploitation or cruelty toward animals. ¾ Scientistic: Primary interest in the physical attributes and biological functioning of animals. ¾ Aesthetic: Primary interest in the artistic and symbolic characteristics of animals. ¾ Utilitarian: Primary concern for the practical and material value of animals or the animal's habitat. ¾ Dominionistic: Primary interest in the mastery and control of animals typically in sporting situations. ¾ Negativistic: Primary orientation an active avoidance of animals due to indifference, dislike or fear.
As zoos are mainly an urban phenomenon, perceptions, attitude and knowledge of this target audience should be respected. The following are some of the findings of a survey on "Urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment" (KELLERT, 1984): Findings suggest the humanistic perspective was by far the most frequently encountered attitude toward animals among urban residents. The additionally frequent occurrence of the negativistic attitude suggests basic variations in affective and emotional feelings among urban residents toward nature and animals. Another striking contrast was the relatively frequent occurrence of both the moralistic and utilitarian attitudes. The comparative unimportance of direct experiential contact with nature, as well as systemic relationships to wildlife and natural habitats, were suggested by the far less frequent occurrence of the ecologistic and naturalistic attitudes. Significant attitude and knowledge differences occurred among varying urban population areas, although the major scale results were typically between different demographic groups. The social characteristics of the urban respondent appeared to be a more important predictor of animal-related interest and perception than was the population of the person's urban residence. One important exception was the greater environmental knowledge of suburban respondents, particularly in contrast to residents of cities of more than 1 million people. People residing in large urban areas (more than 1 million population) may lack the closeness to animals and the natural environment of suburban communities which may reflect somewhat naive notions about animals and the natural world. Additionally, the suburbs and large cities were less willing than other urban areas to sacrifice environmental values for the practical advantage of human beings. Knowledge results suggest the need to develop wildlife education programs in the large cities. Age results clearly indicated the greater animal and outdoor recreational interests of younger (18 - 35) than older urban respondents. Younger persons would appear to be receptive of additional opportunities for natural resource-related recreational experiences. Americans 59
during this century have become more oriented toward the recreational, appreciative, and entertainment-related benefits of nature, and less inclined to regard animals or the natural world as primary sources of material gain and practical benefit. Differences among urban age groups probably reflect this shift by strikingly higher moralistic and ecologistic and lower utilitarian scale scores of younger respondents (18 - 35 years old). Among elderly respondents, limited appreciation of ecological values recommends additional information on the practical value of healthy ecosystems. Their relative lack of naturalistic interest and restricted mobility suggest outdoor recreational opportunities be provided in a convenient and accessible fashion. Education was an impressive differentiator of knowledge and attitudes toward the natural environment. Limited appreciation of the less educated of the need for environmental protection was tied to a greater inclination to exploit animals. The experience of college- education appeared to foster increased appreciation, knowledge, and affection for the natural world whether the respondents were natural science or liberal art majors. It may be that less practical reliance on animals or natural resources for an income and a grater exposure to the non-commodity values of animals through books and other media experiences, tend to create a greater likelihood of positive environment perceptions among higher educated respondents. While income results were often positively correlated with educational findings, income group differences were generally far less impressive and significant. This finding suggests appreciation and understanding of animals and the natural environment are not just a consequence of higher socio-economic status and more available leisure time. Another survey was made to find about the age-related development of attitudes toward animals among children 6 to 16 years old (KELLERT, 1983b): Three stages in the development of children's perceptions of animals were identified: The transition from six to nine years of age primarily involved major changes in affective, emotional relationships to animals. The change from ten to thirteen years of age was marked by a major increase in cognitive, factual understanding, and knowledge of animals. The shift from thirteen to sixteen years of age witnessed a dramatic broadening in ethical concern and ecological appreciation of animals and the natural environment. These results suggest educational efforts among children six to ten years of age might best focus on the affective realm, mainly emphasizing emotional concern and sympathy for animals. For the age of ten to thirteen years there is an apparent value of emphasizing factual learning. From the age of thirteen to sixteen years on children are far more interested in direct contact and recreational enjoyment of wildlife and the out-of-doors. The most basic change at this stage, thus, involved major increases in ethical concern for animals, appreciation of wildlife, and an ability to deal with abstract concepts such as ecosystems and biological diversity. A national study in 1977 (KELLERT, 1977) revealed the attitudes toward animals and characteristics of American zoo enthusiasts: "Over 77 % agreed to the notion that all zoos are fascinating and enjoyable. However, regarding the type of zoo preferred, 54 % strongly agreed and 24 % slightly agreed that, 'zoos which do not provide a natural habitat for animals should be eliminated'. Zoo 60
enthusiasts (those who frequently attended zoos at some point in life) were far less interested and knowledgeable about wild animals than one might have expected. Although the zoo enthusiast's naturalistic scale scores were relatively high compared to the general population, they were distinctively lower than found among other appreciatively oriented wildlife groups such as nature hunters, backpackers or birdwatchers. Additionally the humanistic attitude scores of zoo enthusiasts were far more impressive than their naturalistic scores, and generally higher than other wildlife-oriented groups. These results suggest that zoo enthusiasts may have been motivated more by generalized affections for animals, particularly pets, than by any special attraction to wild animals. Concern among zoo enthusiasts for protecting animals and natural environments was indicated by high ecologistic and moralistic scale scores. The possibility, however, of these views being more a consequence of sentiment than factual understanding was suggested by relatively low knowledge-of-animal scores." From his national survey on attitudes towards animals and characteristics of American zoo enthusiasts KELLERT (1977) concludes that zoos in general - even for their most frequent users - apparently are not very successful in fulfilling the function of educating persons about the dynamics and characteristics of wildlife populations. Based on the findings it appears that zoos serve largely as entertainment for people with strong affections for animals but with a desire to protect wildlife. A front-end evaluation carried out at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, in 1990 analyzed the responses to the interview question "What is the purpose of having a zoo like Brookfield Zoo?" (BIRNEY et al., 1990). Four principal reasons for maintaining a zoo emerged from the interview data reflecting the image (variety of exotic animals, strong educational programs) that Brookfield Zoo is successfully conveying to its visitors: ¾ Opportunity to see animals from other areas of the world (82 %). ¾ Teaching about animals and their lifestyles and habitats (52 %).In another survey among 12 years old children (BIRNEY, 1988) teaching people about animals was indicated as the purpose of zoos by 94 % of respondents. ¾ Necessity for breeding purposes and to ensure the survival of different species of animals (32 %). In another survey among children (BIRNEY, 1988) only 17 % indicated that zoos support research on and promote the conservation of wildlife. ¾ Opportunity for a family activity/family entertainment (14 %).
At study at Audubon Zoo, New Orleans, (VERDERBER, 1988) represents an attempt to explore responses to the zoological environment from the perspective of the elderly: A photo questionnaire was developed for use in data collection, depicting animal exhibit areas, zoo support service areas and nature settings. The respondents represented a range of physical mobility capabilities, though all were of roughly equal intellectual capacity and awareness levels. Most were ambulatory; a cane, walker, or support from another person was required by 32.3 % of the respondents, and 52 % were able to walk for only one-half hour, or less, at a time. The mean age was 76.2 years. The patterns of response collectively provide support for the first hypothesis: Elderly persons generally prefer nature and animal exhibits found to be understandable, legible, and inviting, that is, animals are confined behind bars and cages, fountains, and well-tended green areas. 61
The things best liked about zoos were animals, nature, seeing people riding on the miniature zoo train, water, and walking. The most disliked aspects of the zoo included heat, the amount of walking required, animal odors and climbing stairs and steep ramps. Additional reasons for not going to the zoo were apathy and overall disinterest, an inability to walk independently, the inaccessibility of the zoo to wheelchairs, overall poor health, a fear of crime, its distance from one's residence, and a belief that the zoo is too crowded or too expensive. This information supports the second hypothesis: These elderly persons did not perceive the zoo to be a highly preferred environment relative to their support needs and functional capabilities. This appears to be so because the elderly individual experiences a loss of personal control and autonomy. It was found that zoo scenes of nature settings and certain animal’s exhibits of traditional appearance set against or within a backdrop of nature, that is, trees, water, vegetation, were most preferred. Also, respondents were not enamored with the scenes that depicted animal exhibit areas recently redesigned or newly constructed. These exhibits, ironically, are considered by zoo designers and administrators to be successful in that few visual barriers exist between the animals and zoo visitors. The aged, however, may consider the openness a potential threat or danger. Elderly people may fear loss of support, unpredictability, and a reduction in control that would thereby risk diminished personal autonomy. Unlike zoos of a generation ago, these recent exhibits do not have bars and cages, which are perhaps perceived as amenities by the aged, and the absence (or reconfiguration) of these elements may be out of synchronism with what one "knows" to be appropriate and safe. This suggests that dangerous animals perceived as roaming freely near people may be a source of fear and anxiety in some aged. The current trend in U.S. zoological park design is to involve the visitor directly in a participatory experience. Yet, the pendulum must not swing too far in this direction for fear of disenfranchising the most rapidly growing segment of the U.S. population. The least-preferred zoo support service settings included scenes of washrooms, awkwardly positioned access ramps, a wheelchair, and the main parking lot. This may have occurred due to the minimal aesthetic content of these photos or because they may remind one of one's physical limitations, health status, or the probability of further reduction in functional independence in the coming years. Whether a zoo is in fact actually non-supportive or under- supportive is an entirely different issue. These results have obvious implications for zoo design and management, and suggest that special care should be taken to make zoos safe and accessible both in perceptual and in functional terms of what one actually experiences, as well as in terms of what one expects to experience at the zoo. The increasing share of elderly people should be respected in the programming and post-occupancy evaluation of zoos (VERDERBER, 1988).
62
5.4 Motivations related to zoos
5.4.1 Zoo visit The main reason to come for most visitors is for an outing with family and friends. Pre-visit orientation (see 6.1.1) will determine the decision to go to the zoo. Nevertheless public relations and the directional system are design tasks often neglected. In a survey (KELLERT, 1980) Americans gave following reasons for attendance: educational benefit to the children (38 %), leisure (26 %), personal fascination with animals (24 %), and aesthetic reasons (11 %). Children (12 years old) however, seem convinced that "people go primarily to the zoo to learn more about animals" (75 %) and that they come "to see a variety of animals" (43 %) (BIRNEY, 1988). Fulfilling visitors' needs (COE, 1985) and total visit cost (entry, souvenir, food, transportation, parking) (FALK, 1983) were found to be major factors in visit frequency and duration. "Visitors appear to place a significant value on the time they spend at an attraction, as indicated by the relationship between the amount of time and the admission price they are willing to pay. At commercial attractions the visitor experience is valued at roughly US Dollar 3.00 per hour. The value of visitors' time at cultural attractions does not show the same pattern because many cultural attractions are priced below market rates or do not have the same degree of entertainment content. An exception is the National Aquarium in Baltimore which has been able to sustain a pricing of more than US Dollar 4.00 per hour" (HAESELER, 1989).
Reasonable entrance fees thus have the following side benefits: ¾ The perceived value of a visit conforms to its price. ¾ The actual value of a visit depends on fees as new exhibits and programs are made possible. ¾ The zoo's management is more sensitive to visitors' needs, heading to improve exhibit and program quality in order to justify the entrance fees.
Motivating visitors to come back again is best accomplished by heaving new things to offer, and promoting them (see 6.2.3.8).
5.4.2 Attention to exhibits For paying attention see also 4.2.3 and 4.2.5. Consistent with other researchers, HAGE (1990) concludes his analysis of visitors' behavior at the zoo: Visitors appear to be more interested in viewing active, attractive animals than learning about the natural history of animals. (see 4.2.3 for motivation and 6.2.3 for attractiveness) BIRNEY (1988) found that the affective elements of satisfaction, enjoyment and wonder involved in the informal-learning process are intrinsically rewarding and thus closely tied to the motivation to attend. Designers can provide for these elements by planning participatory activities (see 6.2.12) and following the immersion concept (see 6.2.11.5) Special interests of the visitors also affect the attracting power and viewing time of exhibits: In a survey of visitors to a natural history museum BITGOOD et al. (1986b) found a large number of people reported that the birds were their favorite exhibits, an equal number 63
reported birds were their least favorite. This attitude was correlated with whether or not they visited the bird exhibits. However, these interests need not affect the pleasure of the whole zoo visit: In a survey at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, (BIRNEY, 1990f) it was suggested that the success of a visit was related to seeing a certain species, actually lions. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. Whether visitors viewed the lions was not found to be an issue. Seeing all the animals that visitors came to see proved not to be a meaningful variable in this study. The rating of the visit does not seem to depend on the actual viewing of certain species. This means that zoos need not exhibit species just because people say they want to see them (such as lions, elephants or gorillas). Their performance more depends on whether they are able to offer pleasant experiences. "If visitors are told that they should not expect activity from certain species such as big cats, their viewing experiences may be less disappointing." Also the addition of motion to an otherwise static exhibit may prove useful (see 6.2.12 and 6.2.13). (BITGOOD et al., 1986a)
The social context of the visit is another very important factor for motivation. Besides influencing the visiting experience it "may determine whether learning is enjoyable" (BIRNEY, 1988). Favorably, the social context is largely subject to managment and design, e.g. interactives, docents, programs and events (see 4.4) enhance social activities.
5.4.3 Action For change of behaviors see 4.2.3 and 4.2.10. Incentives for the public to act as a consequence of their visit are largely missing in zoos. The few attempts found were demanding money from visitors to support zoo projects, asking them to separate garbage for recycling and to safe water.
5.5 Behaviors Knowing about zoo visitors' behaviors helps predicting and managing them. The following metaphor was imagined by FALK (1985) for predicting behavior of museum visitors but seems applicable to zoo visitors as well: "A museum is like a department store and museum visitors are like shoppers. Some 'serious shoppers' know exactly what they wish to buy, others are 'window shoppers'. They touch merchandise, stroll the aisles, and read the price tags. They rarely come alone; although they may not enter the store with the intention of spending money, if something nice strikes their fancy, they buy. Good displays and signage are essential with this audience. Typically, these visitors do not spend inordinate lengths of time in any one area. They try to see as much as they possibly can in the shortest amount of time. How many museums have made serious efforts to provide proper orientation for visitors? How many museums arrange their halls so that the most important exhibits (in terms of ideas to sell) are nearest to the entrance? Would most museums even know which ideas to put on 'sale'? Retail stores typically have the same commodity in varying qualities and prices in order to maximize sales. Do most museums offer the same information at varying levels of sophisitication or do they mostly aim for some middle ground?" 64
5.5.1 Spatial patterns The use of space by visitors is somehow predictable. Visitors' orientation and activity at different areas were examined in several studies (see 3.5.3). For circulation patterns see 6.1.2.3. Information on spatial patterns should be used when arranging the setting, placing exhibits, facilities and graphics and considering lighting and orientation devices.
5.5.2 Temporal patterns Patterns of time use in zoos are useful information for planning traffic flows, seizing buildings, paths and viewing areas, scheduling programs and shows and designing graphics. Analyses on how the average visitor spends his or her time often use mean times. Accordingly the average museum visitor is said to spend no more than two hours in a museum, nearly three-quarters of this time in walking around or visiting the bathrooms, gift shop, or cafeteria. FALK (1983) however cautions, that this measure actually describes very few people. Two typical examples of data sets on the holding power of exhibits show that most visitors spend very little time, while other visitors spend considerably longer periods of time at exhibits. Thus, the mean value does not accurately reflect the behavior of the population sampled.
Figure 12 Holding power of exhibits – Typical bimodal distributions of frequencies (after FALK, 1983)
In this way bimodal distributed frequencies usually imply that more than a single population is represented by the data and some procedure is required to separate these populations before further analysis can be done. Only one visitor tracking study with a sample size of 15 visitors could be found (HAESELER, 1989). At Melbourne Zoo the average time (in minutes) visitors spent on various activities was as follows: 65
------Activity Average time spent in minutes
Walking and viewing exhibits 126 (222 574 m2) Eating 27 (1 restaurant, 1 bistro, 2 take- outs, 4 kiosks, 1 picnic area) Shopping 2 (3 gift shops) Other 7
Total 160 ------Table 3 Average time visitors spent on various activities at Melbourne Zoo (HAESELER, 1989)
BITGOOD et al. (1986a) examined viewing durations across zoos for several similar exhibits separating the data into periods of animal activity. Generally viewing times for inactive animals were more consistent than for active animals. The following table after above mentioned author gives an idea of viewing times at animal exhibits: ------Animal mean viewing time mean viewing time for active animal for inactive animal in seconds in seconds
Polar Bear 55.1 33.3 Grizzly Bear 77.0 26.6 Asiatic Bear 40.4 20.9
Gibbon 61.2 14.8 Guenon 46.5 22.5 Lemur 20.4 08.1
Cougar 55.9 30.2 Leopard 40.2 27.6 Tiger 88.0 31.5 Otter 63.0 35.5
Elephant 76.4 45.2 Hippo 109.2 51.3 Rhino 60.3 40.1
Camel 28.0 13.4 Kudu 41.4 10.5 Tapir 26.0 16.9
Boa 73.6 21.8 Python 53.7 27.4 Cobra 28.7 15.1 ------Table 4 Viewing times at animal exhibits (BITGOOD et al., 1986a) 66
When considering these numbers one must respect the many influences on holding power (see 5.5.4 and 6.2.3.1 for the effects of animal activity) and the weakness of statistical means because of dispersions as outlined above. The time use of visitors at exhibits also was examined by SERRELL (1979): While readers almost consistently spend more total time than non-readers, they often spend more time looking at the exhibit also, but not always. Some readers may spend less time looking than non-readers.
Figure 13 Possible allocation of time comparing readers and non-readers of signs (SERRELL, 1979)
Most commonly, visitors look first, then read, then look again. Reading first, followed by looking may occur. Or visitors may look a while, then read, then walk away without looking at the exhibit again. And, some visitors read the sign and don't look at the exhibit at all.
Figure 14 Patterns of time use by readers (SERRELL, 1979)
There were no apparent differences in pointing behavior between readers and non-readers. The slow "zoo walk" past exhibits, walking by without stopping, but while still looking, is roughly equal to 1.65 km/h. The walking speed however is variable: "People conform their speed of walking to that of people around them. Larger crowds move more slowly than smaller crowds or people walking in the absence of crowds. People walk slower on carpeting than on bare floors and to some extent, people match their speed of walking to the pace of background music" (BITGOOD et al., 1987a). 67
5.5.3 Behavioral patterns "Zoo visitors engage in behaviors which include looking at animals, looking at other people, talking, reading, eating, walking, leaning, feeding, pointing, tapping on the glass, laughing, and all in all, trying to get the most enjoyment out of their visit through interactions with their own social group and with the opportunities provided by the zoo" (SERRELL, 1979). "Some move quickly through exhibitions, physically covering everything and seldom stopping at anything for long; their main goals seems to be to visually explore as many places as possible with the possibility of returning later if something interests them. Many wander more or less aimless but do not stop at what interests them; they may devote considerable time and efforts to exhibits with good organization and 'fun' elements. Some have preselected certain topic areas because of media attention, personal interests, or a perceived benefit for accompanying children or companions; they seek out these defined areas but often become sidetracked by other exhibits with attractive elements. And then there is a relatively small group of scholars, hobbyists, and students who have specific interests and goals and move directly to particular areas where they devote considerable time and effort" (SCREVEN, 1986b). "McMANUS (1988) found that behavior at exhibits was strongly correlated with group composition: Individuals who visited on their own, for instance, were very unlikely to interact with dynamic exhibits. Male/female dyads were also unlikely to participate. Both of these groups were more likely to attend to text. Adult groups were unlikely to read the text or interact with the dynamic exhibits unless females were present" (KELSEY, 1989). "Parents read graphics more and try to explain concepts to their children through both telling and showing. Children manipulate exhibits more and transmit information about location, operation and description of the exhibit phenomena" (DIAMOND, 1986). "Families have been in the business of learning together for many years. Their behavior (in museums) actually reflects a complex, well-balanced interweaving of personal and cooperative agendas to learn" (HILKE, 1988). It was shown in visitor studies (ROSENFELD et al., 1978 and HAGE, 1990) that children usually control the pattern and pace of the family's visit. The verbal and postural communications of family visitors was analyzed at the Minnesota Zoo (HAGE, 1990). They can be used as models in public relations as zoo visitors will identify with familiar scenes. Family groups in this study were generally comprised of a father, mother, and children. ¾ Parents appeared to act the role of teachers at the exhibit. ¾ Children led the group to the exhibit, but parents tended to make the decision to leave the exhibit. ¾ Human bonding behavior (e.g. friendly and intimate physical contact) was common among family members. ¾ Pointing was common for both adults and children. ¾ Parents tended to initiate conversations and asked more questions than children. ¾ Questions were directed to fathers and female children most often. Questions were answered by fathers more often. 68
¾ Parents were more likely than children to give directives (both instructive and disciplinary). ¾ Family members talked about the animals and their behavior, but rarely discussed past knowledge of the animal. ¾ Attitudes toward the animals were inferred from visitor humor, friendliness, disrespect, and anthropomorphic behavior. ¾ Visitors often mimicked behavior of monkeys (e.g. grooming). ¾ Male children were most likely to "talk to the animals".
Age and sex differences in behavior were observed in museum settings (KORAN et al., 1984). The findings illustrate the advantage of docents motivating and demonstrating how to use exhibits. They also show the requirement of seating near exhibits that are popular for children. "Adult males seem to peruse objects quickly and cover a lot of territory, while females focus attention on one object and linger longer with it. Adults of both sexes hesitate to manipulate objects while children freely touch and change the location of objects. Adults more more rapidly while children tend to linger at exhibits, particularly those they can touch. A higher percentage of adults admonish children with them not to touch even when exhibits are clearly designed for touching and signs invite hands-on participation. When adults can touch an object they spend more time with it than if they can only view the same object. Adults and children will model each others' manipulative behaviors." Much of what was found about 11 to 12 years old children's behavior on an unguided field trip to a science center (CARLISLE, 1985) seems to be true for zoos also: Most Children in this age are still at the concrete operational stage in their intellectual development and devoted to lively and enthusiastic exploration of new environments. The visit was a highly social experience - child talking to child, explainers, accompanying adults, and teachers. Students often looked for a friend with whom to share an experience, but the initial interaction with exhibits was predominantly a solitary experience. All of the observed children participated. Each child displayed curiosity through exploratory behavior, was self- directing, was in control, and enjoyed the experience. Children often stopped and/or paid attention to exhibits for fleeting moments of rapid choice-selection or rejection. A mean of 54,3 seconds was spent at a single exhibit. All of the children revisited one or more exhibits. The data do not show any significant differences between the sexes in levels of interaction, number of exhibits seen or length of visit. Children's behavior at exhibits was individualistic with a wide range but typical patterns arose: Children approached an exhibit, looked, went on, or waited and/or participated. Few read the graphics on the exhibits. Most worked by trial and error, imitated what others had done or were "instructed" by friends. However, most did what was intended by the exhibition. Children were as likely to approach the exhibit without touching it as they were to approach and touch but do not carry out the intention of the exhibit or approach, touch and carry out the intent of the exhibit, irrespective of the time spent at the exhibit. Initial visits and repeat visits did not show any increasing level of interaction. Two basic responses to exhibits were "roaming around" which describes a highly mobile, superficial, high-speed tour and "settling down" which describes a slower, more involved 69
contact with the exhibits. Some children never settled, a few never did roam around, while other interspersed settling-down behavior among periods of less involvement. The need of children to roam around should be answered by the zoo setting (see 6.3.7 "Places to fool around"). BIRNEY (1988g) found a high frequency of non-directed activity with 12 years old children occurring simultaneously with attending behaviors. She estimates it a means by which children release physical energy while listening to a docent or being quiet. Its frequency was much lower under informal conditions when children showed more overt physical activity. When comparing children's behaviors at a natural history museum and a zoo, BIRNEY (1988g) found that "more laughter, play, and manipulation of the environment were recorded at the zoo than at the museum. Children at the museum had more verbal reactions to exhibits than did children at the zoo." She concludes that "the open zoo setting may encourage more playful activity, while the museum's closed halls may encourage verbal expression."
5.5.4 Influencing factors Several factors or principles appear to have a significant influence on visitor behavior in zoos (after BITGOOD et al., 1985 and 1986b): ¾ attractiveness of exhibit ¾ physical and psychological comfort of the visitor ¾ types of controlling stimuli directed at the visitor: conceptual orientation devices (see 6.1.2.1) orientation devices for wayfinding (see 6.1.2.2) instruction-to-act cues (e.g. "Don't feed the animals")
The holding power of exhibits is related to visitor participation (see 6.2.5 and 6.2.9) whereas the attracting power of exhibits is inversely related to the number of visually competing stimuli (see 6.2.9). Ease of viewing (see 6.2.2), attractiveness of exhibits (see 6.2.3), visitor fatigue and satiation (see 6.2.7), placement of exhibits (see 6.2.9), salience of signs (see 6.1.2.6) seem related to attracting and holding power. 70
6. ZOO DESIGN
"Design is the entire performance, from the conception to the realization, of an idea. The zoo, a unique and multi-purpose institution, presents a design opportunity offered by no other type of land use development" (POLAKOWSKI, 1988). "The objective of any good (zoo) design is to utilize to advantage as many of the existing features as possible from an aesthetic, functional and cost point of view” (SAUSMAN, 1982). Some of the basic parameters are: ¾ surrounding land use, ¾ accessibility, ¾ off-site utility links, ¾ existing on-site facilities, ¾ climate, ¾ landform (topography, soils, drainage, water), ¾ vegetation, ¾ animal inventory, ¾ existing exhibit distribution."
"By far, the vast majority of zoos grow with buildings and exhibits constructed as immediate circumstances and interests dictate. The older a zoo, the more periods of re-evaluation and master planning it generally passes through since new ideas and new techniques of animal displays are constantly being developed, altered and then discarded in response to new philosophies of zoo functions" (CURTIS, 1968). The many aspects of the topic for sure deserve their own papers. This chapter is discussing visitor studies and findings from psychological research with respect to orientation and exhibit design.
6.1 Orientation BITGOOD (1988b) criticizes that orientation and circulation is the most neglected area of visitor studies though it is one of the most important areas since it influences whether or not people actually visit the zoo, whether or not they see particular exhibits, what they learn from their experience, what they tell friends and relatives, and whether they will return. Thus orientation and circulation play a key role in marketing/public relations, education, audience research, exhibit design, and visitor services.
6.1.1 Pre-visit orientation The various aspects of pre-visit orientation were summarized by BITGOOD (1988b). Orientation begins with the images and messages that inform the public of the existence and location of a particular facility. The public has some stereotyped beliefs of what zoos are like (see 5.3). Therefore they hold diverse expectations of what they will experience before they visit a zoo (see 5.2.6 and 5.4.1). These expectations have some impact on whether or not people visit a zoo. Positive word-of-mouth appears to be one of the most potent forces motivating attendance. 71
"Since 1984, when focus groups and mail-back studies were started at Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village (Dearborn, Michigan), visitors have consistently cited recommendations by word-of-mouth as the principal reason for visiting. Visitors' on-site experiences and their resulting impressions can be useful in developing pre-visit communication and on-site programs that will help lead to positive word-of-mouth" (ADAMS, 1988). Another survey on pre-visit orientation was made at Old Sturbridge Village, an outdoor history museum in Sturbridge, Massachusetts (HAYWARD, 1984): Over 70 % of the sample of visitors stated that they visited a similar place, 58 % stated that they had discussed Old Sturbridge Village with friends or relatives, 41 % had read about the facility, and 10 % received information from school trips. Visitors usually get their directions from brochures, from road signs, from tourist information centers, of from family and friends. In a study at the Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, it was found that 78.5 % of visitors attempted to use the special Space Museum/Space Center road signs directing people to the Center. Unfortunately, 18.9 % found these road signs confusing because of conflicts in the signage, a lack of signs at critical points, and the size of these signs was relatively small. Finding the entrance can be difficult in large facilities. Many large museums have multiple doors, only one of which is the correct entrance. The entrance is not always clearly marked. Evaluating word-of-mouth experiences and the orientation system thus helps planning the public relations efforts. The type of transportation used may also be important to investigate, since brochures that give directions should include public transportation and/or parking directions. Pre-visit orientation regarding what people will be seeing results in achieving more cognitive gains: A study of public school student groups visiting the National Zoo showed that students who were given pre-visit orientation (what they would see, when they would eat lunch, when they would visit the gift shop, etc.) learned more than other groups of students even when they were given a more learning-oriented pre-visit preparation. Advanced or pre-organizers can offer conceptual orientation (an overview of what can be seen, done and learned, a brief information about exhibits) and topographic information (simplified maps showing location of exhibits and support facilities). The information can be provided by staff, posters, kiosks, self-testing devices, headline questions, films, computers, videodiscs, flip panels, and other means. 72
6.1.2 On-site orientation Information on orientation can be presented as audiovisuals (see 6.2.13) and/or hand-outs (see 6.1.2.4) in separate orientation centers, at information kiosks or desks in a special area at the entrance or on displays in each theme area of the facility, on direction signposts (see 6.1.2.6) or by uniformed guides. "Providing multiple and variable (redundant) orientation cues aids orientation. Several studies suggest that visitors use more than one cue when they attempt to orient themselves in a new environment. In addition, there is no one device that is preferred by the vast majority of visitors. Some visitors prefer direction arrows; others, board maps; others, hand-held maps; and others, asking directions from staff" (BITGOOD et al., 1987a). Visitors to the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum were asked what information would have been most helpful before starting their visit (SHETTLE-NEUBER et al., 1987). 55.6 % wanted information on conceptual orientation (i.e. information about the exhibits and what to see). Only 18.5 % wanted wayfinding information. They were most likely to state that they prefer a short film (45 %) or signs and posters (33 %) than any other device. 64.7 % reported using the hand-held map, 44.1 % used exploring; 32.4 % used knowledge from a previous visit; and 35.5 % used direction signs. However, the self-report bias of this survey has to be taken into consideration. Orientation material should be designed to be easily accessible, attractive, easily understood and concisely displayed. It should involve multi-media and not compete with exhibits. When testing the effectiveness of guidance devices on visitor learning SCREVEN (1975) found that adjunct devices like tapes or booklets facilitate and improve visitors' learning though booklets were less liked because their reading competed directly with looking at the exhibits. "GRIGGS (1983) found that visitors did not use orientation devices as they were planned by the museum staff. Only 49 % of visitors were observed using the orientation exhibit and no visitor spent long enough to experience the entire content. GRIGGS suggested that the orientation material was in competition with the exhibits" (BITGOOD, 1988b). Maps and other complex orientation material therefore should be placed in undisturbed places so that visitors can concentrate.
6.1.2.1 Conceptual orientation (thematic orientation) This element to visitor orientation "includes an awareness and understanding of the themes and subject matter organization of the facility. Although visitor expectations and prior experiences play a key role in conceptual orientation, the most important factor appears to be on-site orientation systems" (BITGOOD, 1988b). Conceptual pre-organizers offer an overview "what can be seen, what can be done, what may be learned and approaches to topic areas; they help visitors anticipate the organization of upcoming information, to see alternative approaches, and to separate the main exhibit elements from the lesser details. Visitors then can better process what they see, adopt strategies appropriate to their interests and time, and ignore details and elaborations that may cause unnecessary confusion and overload" (SCREVEN, 1986b). 73
This kind of information can be found on board maps, labeling signs, in guide books, videos, slide shows etc. "Visitors can be influenced by written or visual materials to perceive learning from zoo exhibits as being easy or hard, educational or entertaining, thus influencing the effectiveness of a given exhibit" (KORAN et al., 1988).
KELSEY (1989) found that visitors in general have a poor conceptual picture of the display's theme. Their impressions tend to consist of isolated facts rather than a coherent story because of a lack of orientation devices. This risk can be reduced by reinforcing the theme throughout the display.
Picture 9 Brookfield Zoo's (Chicago) "Fragile Kingdom": The desert theme is supported by special cues and Arab inscriptions. (1991)
According to GRIGGS (1983) questions could be repeated in different locations to redirect attention to the theme. At Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, this is realized by adding a special symbol telling if the species exhibited is included in the Species Survival Plan (see picture 16 in 6.2.12)
6.1.2.2 Topographical orientation (locational orientation, wayfinding) This element to visitor orientation "involves being able to find or locate places in a facility. Orientation devices such as maps and direction signs are critical for wayfinding. Other factors such as the complexity of the facility can also have a profound impact on wayfinding" (BITGOOD, 1988b). It has been suggested (SADALLA et al., 1989) that spatial knowledge of a region involves at least two components: the directional relationship between places (landmarks or routes) and the distances between them. Allocentric orientation is maintained through the use of either environmental features such as landmarks, or coordinate systems (i.e., north-south, east-west), which are independent of the observer (SADALLA et al., 1989). Entrance-exit signs, direction signs, traffic flow arrows, orientation maps (Topographic pre-organizers) and landscape features are important cues for wayfinding. LYNCH (1960) divided cities in the following five key features that BITGOOD (1987b) found applicable to zoos: 74
¾ Landmarks are objects easily visible from a distance. They are features such as prominent exhibits, buildings, etc. that can be used as a means of identifying one's location within the setting. When we give directions we usually give landmarks as reference points. ¾ Paths are any routes that can be followed. They are often marked off with ropes, chains, directional arrows, etc. to control the direction in which visitors travel. If paths are not carefully delineated, visitors will often spontaneously determine them (e.g. walking across the grass to save time). As a general rule, visitors tend to take the shortest path unless there is something particularly attractive to lure them from this route or obstacle to prevent them from taking the shortest path. ¾ Intersections (nodes) are major points of focus or places where paths cross. The most useful intersections from an orientation perspective are those that are clearly marked such as in the case of traffic squares or circles. Intersections often cause problems for visitors, particularly if it is not clear which direction to turn. Too many intersections may be confusing to visitors. ¾ Districts are medium-sized subsections of the setting that have a common characteristic. In zoos, a district is often a theme area (e.g., geographic area such as "African animals", or biological theme such as "small mammals"). Clearly defined districts aid the visitor in both topographic and conceptual orientation. ¾ Boundaries are the edges or perimeters of the landmarks, districts, or the entire setting. They do not include paths. When visitors can clearly see when they pass a boundary from one exhibit area to another, they are more likely to know where they are and how to find their way.
Wayfinding cues must consider problems like finding specific exhibits, support facilities, the location of scheduled events (such as demonstrations, tours, etc.) and the exit. "Occasionally, a facility is well-marked for finding a specific location, but not for returning" (BITGOOD, 1988b). Egocentric orientation (SADALLA et al., 1989) involves cues that depend upon the position of the observer (i.e., left - right, in front - behind). The relative absence of external cues maximizes the likelihood that subjects will rely on egocentric reference systems. A number of reasons may be adduced to suggest that orthogonal reference axes constitute a fundamental component of egocentric orientation: ¾ The structure of the body provides referents for orthogonality. For example the arms when extended in the plane of the shoulders define turns at right angles to the direction of forward motion. ¾ The earth's gravitational field defines a unique vertical dimension that is orthogonal to the generally flat horizontal dimension.
The result of map drawing (cognitive mapping) tasks inform us about the way in which subjects remember information about the spatial structure of routes and landmarks. Such memories typically involve systematic distortions (i.e. straightening out variations from a grid system) that may be accounted for in terms of general principles of perception (SADALLA et al., 1989): 75
¾ Straightening out curves; ¾ representation of a variety of angles as right angle intersections (= quatric trend): highly accurate estimates on angles near orthogonal coordinates and decreasing accuracy on angles near the diagonals; ¾ tendency to regard the turn as more like 90° than it is: turns between 0° and 90° are overestimated, turns between 90° and 180° are underestimated; ¾ tendency to regard the direction toward the origin as closer to 90° from the direction faced than it is.
The findings of this descriptive study resulted in a "model of egocentric orientation" (SADALLA et al., 1989): Angular changes in a pathway are cognized in relation to a pair of reference axes. The first axis projects directly forward in the viewers egocentric frame; the second is orthogonal to the first projecting laterally in both directions from the subjects body. Angles close to a reference axis are more easily and more accurately estimated than are angles more distant from a reference axis (quartic trend). Use of the lateral axis for orientation may be associated with a type or error that might be called mirror image reversal. In a significant number of instances subjects correctly estimated the magnitude of turns, but erred in the left-right orientation of those turns. Unlike the front- back distinction there is no salient perceptual difference between the two sides of those many significant objects, including our own bodies that closely approximate bilateral symmetry. Memory for left versus right should thus be intrinsically more difficult than memory for forward versus backward. Traversed angles that are close to 0°, 90°, and 180° from the direction of forward motion are the least disorienting and are most accurately remembered with a pervasive tendency for all angles to be remembered as more like 90° than they actually are. Zoo design should provide for both allocentric and egocentric orientation. While the grid with right angles highly supports egocentric orientation it is of low aesthetic value. Naturalistic forms however make orientation more difficult unless sufficient cues for allocentric orientation are provided. A study at the Philadelphia Zoological Garden (WAGNER, 1989) tells that 88 % of the visitors there indicated that it was "always or usually" easy to find their way in the zoo. 91 % used directional signposts and 68 % relied on the free map brochure to aid them. "Nevertheless, zoo staff thinks that the system of directional signposts is unattractive and confusing. Either the visitors are more intelligent, have lower aesthetic standards, or just get lucky" (WAGNER, 1989). At Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, visitors have been tracked, observed, timed, interviewed, and tested to see what methods they use to find their way in the zoo, and how effective are the different devices provided (SERRELL et al., 1985). The main purpose of the evaluation studies was to gather data to help make decisions about the design, content, and number of wayfinding devices. In 1983 visitors were randomly selected to be tracked for the first 10 minutes of their visit to see what methods of wayfinding they used. 26 % of the sample did not use anything. The most to least used devices were: mapboard, brochure (the free handout at the gate, which 76
included a map of the zoo), and the directional signs. The low degree of wayfinding behavior was correlated with the high percentage of repeat visitors. Interviews with frequent and first-time visitors showed that complaints about getting lost or not being able to read the maps were not exclusive to new visitors. After the remedial evaluation of existing wayfinding devices in 1983 they were redesigned in a formative evaluation process. Finally a summative evaluation of the new devices was done in 1985 (see 6.1.2.4 and 6.1.2.6, SERRELL et al., 1985).
6.1.2.3 Circulation This element of visitor orientation "describes how visitors make their way through the facility" (BITGOOD, 1988b). Whether or not visitors actually do circulate through particular exhibit areas depends upon several factors (see 5.5.4). Cues that affect visitor behavior at the entrance include "other visitors' behavior, signs, tour group activities, schedules of special events or presentations, the presence or absence of a crowd, and visitor or animal noises in a specific area. These and other cues can serve to attract or repel visitors from certain areas and thus determine their route" (SHETTEL- NEUBER et al., 1987). "Visitors are reluctant to enter dark areas. They are more likely to follow lighted pathways" (BITGOOD, 1988b). Entrance and exit signs, physical barriers and direction arrows, special activities and attractive exhibits exert high control over visitor behavior and are therefore very effective in directing visitors. In a study at the Birmingham Zoo (BITGOOD et al., 1985) about 99 % of visitors obeyed entrance and exit signs when the traffic flow in the Reptile House was changed from two-way to one-way. A series of studies (MELTON, 1936) showed that, in the absence of more powerful factors, visitors have a strong tendency to turn right: "Many people when faced with a complex environment such as a museum or large shopping mall develop a strategy that follows the rule: 'Take a right when entering the facility and follow the perimeter until you reach your starting point." "DEANS et al. (1981) found that visitors to Reid Park Zoo in Tucson, Arizona, traversed the periphery of the zoo leaving the central areas unvisited. At the time of the study the zoo was relatively small, had a strong layout favoring a right turn after the entrance, and located major exhibits along the exterior perimeter of the zoo. Smaller exhibits, and less popular animal exhibits, were located in the center of the zoo" (MARTIN et al., 1988). At Zoo Zürich (STOLBA et al., 1990) just the contrary was found. The highest attendance was observed in the central area that also featured the most popular exhibits. Any kind of perceived attraction therefore will change this pattern as MELTON (1936) showed for the effect of motion (see 6.2.3.1). According to BITGOOD et al. (1987b) visitors also tend to turn in the direction of the closest visible exhibit if a more attractive exhibit is not visible in another direction. 77
BITGOOD et al. (1986b) found that usually over 90 % of visitors stop at animal exhibits. When the attracting power falls below 85 %, it appears that other factors are influencing the visitor's attention. However, at other times visitors appear to 'browse' in a 'random walk process', moving about without a clear pattern of progress toward any specific destination (MELTON, 1936). A study of visitor orientation and circulation (SHETTEL-NEUBER et al., 1987) was completed at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. It showed that the circulation route of the visitor determined, to some extent, how confused visitors became during their passage through the museum. By suggesting an order of viewing and marking directional exhibits on the map, much confusion can be avoided for first-time visitors: "Due to the sequential organization of many exhibits, an order of viewing seems to have been planned. If there was a planned sequence of exhibits, however, it is not clearly communicated to the public. Visitors expressed confusion about which way to go, walked through exhibits the wrong way, and were concerned that they would miss something. By suggesting a possible route on the map, people are not forced to use it but have it available if they desire."
"A valuable feature to be incorporated in zoo planning is a self-guided tour route such that, by following directional signs, the interested visitor may be certain to see all of the exhibits with a minimum of duplicated walking time" (CURTIS, 1968). Knowing the most-used route of visitors can prove useful in several ways (SHETTEL- NEUBER et al., 1987): ¾ If the desire for a suggested path arises, it is best to select one which visitors naturally chose. ¾ If a sequence of information is presented, planning the display and presentation sequence must conform to the visitors' physical movement sequences to be effective. ¾ Knowledge of the general route provides employees with ways of purposely altering behavior. They can foster behavior which they desire, discourage that which they do not, and be aware of the possible consequences of exhibit design.
For measuring circulation behavior, multiple measures (self-report and direct observation) are generally necessary because of the complexity of the problems. One instrument or device is unlikely to produce all of the information necessary to understand circulation problems" (BITGOOD, 1988b).
6.1.2.4 Maps Wall or board maps were found to be used primarily to determine which exhibits to visit (conceptual orientation). Casual observations also suggest that hand-held maps are important contributors to conceptual orientation if enough information is provided (BITGOOD, 1988b).
Board maps LEVINE (1982) suggests that a viewer must have two items of information in order to relate the map to the environment ("two-item theorem") (BITGOOD, 1988b): 78
¾ Either two pairs of points or one pair of points and a direction need to match in order to produce an overall figure match. ¾ A 'you-are-here' symbol telling the visitor where he/she is provides one useful piece of information. ¾ Signs and labels on the map can also provide important information. ¾ Distinctive landmarks (asymmetrical structures) can aid the viewer in identifying location. A good map will emphasize the most prominent landmarks, thus making it easier for visitors to find their way. ¾ Providing redundant cues by using several points of correspondence between the map and the terrain is helpful. ¾ The map should be arranged so that it parallels or is aligned with the environment ('forward-up equivalence').
LEVINE et al. (1984) could support in two experiments the alignment principle and the forward-up equivalence of map use: A laboratory symbolic wayfinding task and a field, real space task, yielded the same result: Contraligned maps are relatively difficult to use and the orientation of vertical maps is psychologically equivalent to the orientation of the map when laid flat. When the (vertical) map is aligned, then the upper part of the map corresponds to the area forward in the terrain. This produces a byproduct of the forward-up equivalence, namely, that users tend to assume that maps are aligned and, consequently, that up corresponds to forward, right to right, left to left, and so on. Whenever, therefore, this naive user-assumption is violated (whenever the map is badly misaligned), the user will tend to move off in the wrong direction. The experiments led to the following conclusions for design: "Place you-are-here maps so that they are aligned with the terrain. The identical map should not, for example, be used on opposite sides of a hallway. If one is aligned, the other will be contraligned. Also, placing a map wherever one finds a bare wall or a convenient location means indifference to alignment in placing the map and will typically lead to a misaligned placement. In other words, choose the location first, then design the map" (LEVINE et al., 1984). Applications to a board map such as arrows or symbols were observed to be regularly moved or removed by visitors (SERRELL et al., 1985). Besides the you-are-here spot is the first place to wear out. Thus, the surface of the map has to be plain and solid. At Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, the mapboards in use were evaluated (remedial evaluation, SERRELL et al., 1985). Their state of disrepair raised the question of whether they should be replaced or changed. By interviewing visitors who were engaged in using the mapboards, it was found that two thirds of those sampled were having some problems using the map: mainly interpreting the symbols correctly. Other suggestions visitors had for improvements were to make the you- are-here symbol more clear; label (with words) the major exhibits; indicate which way was north; make landmarks more apparent (e.g., less abstract); and put the legend in a better place. Mock-ups of new mapboards were tested with visitors for type size and height placement and with particular attention to increasing accessibility. 79
For a summative evaluation of the new map kiosks the number of groups (2 to 8 persons) who passed within an area nearby a kiosk was watched and the number of groups who stopped at the kiosk was noted. Close to 30 % of the people were attracted into entering the kiosks. This surprisingly high percentage was confirmed by data from exit interviews the same year. On the average, groups spent 1 minute in the kiosk; 20 % spent over 2 minutes. Half of them read information out loud to each other, and more than half touched the maps and/or the schedules. Interviews at the kiosk showed that 80 % of the visitors asked for a certain direction could point in the correct direction. The kiosk maps were bright colors and in a whimsical style to be attractive to young people, and many of the stops appeared to be initiated by a child in the group.
Picture 10 Map board kiosk at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991)
In the exit interviews it was found that use had more than doubled for the new mapboards. 63 % of those sampled said they used the mapboards, and the vast majority of the users felt the kiosks were well located and there were enough of them. Thus the new mapboards proved to be successful and meeting the objectives.
Hand-held maps Increasing size and complexity of the setting make the offering of hand-held maps to the visitors recommendable. In a study at the Birmingham Zoo (BITGOOD et al., 1986c) 77 % of visitors who received hand-held maps were observed using them. Visitors who were given hand-held maps viewed a greater percentage of the exhibit areas (86 %) compared with a group who were not given a map (78 %). At Old Sturbridge Village (outdoor history museum in Sturbridge, Massachusetts), a facility with great circulation complexity, (99 %) of visitors who were given hand-held maps used them (HAYWARD, 1984) while at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum 64.7 % reported using the hand held maps (SHETTEL-NEUBER et al., 1987). A remedial evaluation of hand-held maps was completed at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (SERRELL et al., 1985). In interviews of exiting visitors it was found that visitors did not 80
realize that the free handout brochure contained a map. Suggestions for improvements were similar to those for the boardmaps. After redoing the brochure and the map interviews were made with visitors who were in the process of using the handout map. From these interviews it was found that over 70 % were trying to find something in particular and about 67 % could point in the correct direction. Over 20 % of those sampled found the handout confusing or hard to follow, usually because they were having trouble orienting themselves to the map (problem of alignment and forward-up equivalence). In interviews at the exit 70 % said they used the handout and there were no more comments about not knowing they would be given a zoo map.
Floor maps The idea of placing maps on the floor was tested in a formative evaluation using a mocked- up floor map at the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (LOCKETT et al., 1989). The maps were to function as introductions to the geography of various areas covered by the galleries. The questions raised were: ¾ Would visitors ignore the maps? ¾ Would visitors notice the maps, feel inhibited about walking on them, and therefore have their access to adjacent exhibits impeded? ¾ Would people standing on the maps obscure the maps for other visitors? ¾ Would the maps be easy to read?
Observations and interviews of people using the wall maps and those using the mock-up provided useful data for design decisions: The map was not ignored. Some visitors avoided walking on the map, but even so the map did not impede access to adjacent exhibits. Visitors did not stand on the map except to look at it. Complaints on the ease of use of the map were minimal" (LOCKETT et al., 1989).
6.1.2.5 Guides Guides should serve as a link between the zoo's responsibility to educate and the visitor's desire to learn. Docents (volunteers and employees) should be trained to get familiar with the exhibits and the concepts that the zoo wants to impart. They should know how the audience learns and how they behave in a group. (For advantages see 4.4.2.2.) The common form of guides however is printed matter. Brochures are available for everyone but are not sensitive to visitors' feedback. Thus, formative evaluation is important to produce efficient guides. At Brookfield Zoo's Tropic World (Chicago) different two kinds of guides were subject to summative evaluation (BIRNEY, 1988a and 1990a). Upon opening of the building a brochure was distributed to visitors as they entered the Tropic World exhibits as primary source of exhibit interpretation for the general public. Different types of information were presented at different levels of complexity: 81
¾ Visual illustrations and common names to assist the visitor in identifying the animals they are viewing. ¾ Hand-written notes emphasize physical attributes of the animals that might assist identification. ¾ In italics, brief one-sentence descriptions of where the animal might be found in the exhibit. ¾ In the right margin, special "look for" columns intended to direct the visitors' attention to specific features of the exhibit or animal. ¾ The rear of the brochure poses and answers four questions about rain forests: what they are, why they are valuable, why they are being destroyed and what everyone can do to save this valuable resource.
The brochure had at least three main goals: to aid visitors in the identification of animals, to increase their knowledge of those animals, and to alert them to the problem of rain forest destruction. A survey (BIRNEY, 1988a) examined the visitors' use of and satisfaction with the brochure as well as their mastery of concepts about rain forest expressed in the brochure. 66 % reported (self-report!) use of the brochure which appears tied to the saliency of specific exhibit animals. 70 % reported to have retained the brochure after visit. The data suggested that the first two goals of the brochure were being met. The third goal was not. The messages on the rear of the brochure were a collection of vague topic sentences (e.g. rain forests play key roles in regulating global weather). For individuals who know little or nothing about a particular topic, vague statements merely lead to vague understanding, besides annual printing costs were prohibitive. A rotating guide then replaced the brochure. It is offered to the visitor in a bin at the entrance. The guide is similar to laminated placemats held together by metal rings. The large size of the guide was intended to encourage visitors to return them in an exit bin when leaving the building. The bin is then rolled to the entrance door allowing the same guides to be rotated through the exhibit again.
Picture 11 Rotating guides for taking out at the entrance of Tropic World, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991);
The rotating guide intends to
¾ increase visitors' ability to distinguish between species in the exhibit, ¾ to locate species in the exhibit and ¾ offers information on adaptations and communication as well as other behavioral patterns which were related to what the visitor could observe.
The content is similar to that of the former brochure besides the general questions on rain forests which are not included anymore. A research (BIRNEY, 1990a) examined the use and success of the rotating guide. 82
45 % were observed using the guide overall the exhibit unrelated to group size or age. Visitors do have more difficulty using the guide to locate animals in the exhibits than identifying animals seen in the exhibit on the guide. Usage was the highest in the first (South America) and lowest in the last (Africa) exhibit which may be due to "museum fatigue" as well as the better knowledge of visitors of African animals. The holding power of the Tropic World exhibit was increased on average. Additionally docents are stationed within exhibit sections. While they are a rich source of information there are limits to live interpretation: limited accessibility, docents' schedules that may leave an exhibit without coverage, variability among docents with respect to the quality and quantity of interpretation, and the public's perception that part of what makes a visit to an informal setting rewarding is the freedom to acquire new information at their leisure (BIRNEY, 1988a and 1990a). Obviously all three types of guides qualify for complementary use. Docents can reach other audiences than printed matter and convey different messages. Their limitations however may be overcome with hand-outs. Offering rotating guides has some striking advantages: ¾ They are ecologic and economic in comparison to free brochures. ¾ They are easy to handle and durable. ¾ It is social to lend them for free.
Those who want to keep the information however should have the possibility to buy an analogous brochure.
6.1.2.6 Signs Signs serve different purposes: ¾ orientation: directions, feeding times etc.; ¾ education: e.g. exhibit labels; ¾ instruction: for protection of animals (e.g. "do not feed"), grounds and visitors (e.g. "do not enter").
No reading Direct observation of unguided visitors reveals that few stop to read exhibit labels and fewer yet finish reading the entire label once they start. ROBINSON (1930) found that of those who stopped to view museum exhibits, only about 10 % read the label. Similar results were found at the Birmingham Zoo (BITGOOD et al., 1986c). Signs that attempt to prompt parents to ask their child a question (e.g. "What distinctive features can you see in the Kudu?") were tested at the Birmingham Zoo (BITGOOD et al., 1986a). None of the parents observed (500 families) asked one of these question proving their ineffectiveness for this purpose. "Signs in a zoo environment have to compete with a plethora of stimuli, much of it live and colorful. Couple this with the fact that almost all visitors are either standing or walking and it is not surprising that most signs fail to communicate" (SAUSMAN, 1982). Exceptions to these findings are directional signs that are frequently used for wayfinding (SERRELL et al., 1985). 83
Improvements BITGOOD (1987a) published "A standardized guide for evaluating and improving labels". He (BITGOOD et al., 1986b) summarizes that "the more salient the labels or signs of an exhibit, the greater the attracting and holding power of the exhibit. Salience refers to how effectively the sign demands the attention of the visitor. It is assumed that salience is increased ¾ by increasing the size of the letters, ¾ by increasing the size of the sign, ¾ by decreasing the number of words, ¾ by adding graphics and illustrations, ¾ by adding color, ¾ by the effective use of lighting, ¾ by adding another sense modality such as sound, and ¾ by placing the sign in the visual path of the visitor."
SERRELL (1979) reported an increase in label reading when the "visual content" of the label was increased. "That is information ¾ directing visitor attention to the exhibit at hand; ¾ asking questions which can, at least impart, be answered by looking at the exhibit; ¾ describing something that can be visually verified; ¾ asking the visitor to compare, contrast, or discover information from the exhibit itself.
Examples of subject matter which have visual content are shape, size, sexual dimorphism, mouth parts, feet, fins, flippers, feathers, behavior, care in captivity, frequent behavior, territoriality, color, camouflage, family characteristics, name explains and physical enclosure. Examples of content which should follow or be secondary to visual content are feeding habits in the wild, predator-prey relationships, danger to man, relation to man, ecosystems, method of capture, growth, parasites, diseases, reproduction, number of young, distribution, abundance, status in the wild, evolution, taxonomy. Misleading content talks about something the reader thinks he/she will be able to see, but actually cannot see it. Negative content - telling people what something is not - can backfire by actually reinforcing the wrong idea. Shedd Aquarium's (Chicago) orientation program called 'no whales in the basement' brought visitors to the lower level looking for whales. Uncertainty can lend an air of mystery (e.g. 'the age of the giant snapping turtle is not known'). The use of signs with high visual content assumes that visitors have come primarily to look, that they want to know more about what they see." It also helps parents who often assume the role of explainers to answer the specific, observation-oriented questions that their children ask. Supported by the successful installation of signs at the Monterey Bay Aquarium as proved by informal observation and visitor feedback in a summative evaluation during one year RAND (1985) formulated some techniques for translating and transmitting messages to the widest possible audience. 84
¾ Attract reader's interest and draw them into the subject. Surprise: attention-getting words in the beginning to hook the reader, at the end as a treat. Do not be afraid to use words you have never seen in labels before ('zaps', 'slurp', 'sex'). ¾ Use an easy understandable language aimed at the 12 to 13 years olds' reading level, relevant to topic and reader's experience, coupling technical terms with synonyms. ¾ Communicate in a conversational tone that is approachable, vivid language, familiar, often humorous, but not flippant or formal. Find your voice, than keep a steady tone (telling stories). ¾ Show your style: use catch phrases, play with idioms, make connections, paint pictures, use alliterations, onomatopoeias, metaphors, similes, puns. Make every word count. ¾ Use a reader-relevant approach to explain things. Address the reader directly (you, we, this, that), ask and answer questions, correct misconceptions, present problems, express a sense of the unknown, acknowledging unanswered questions, draw analogies.
For directional signs the formative evaluation of different prototypes at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (SERRELL et al., 1985) lead to the following design relevant conclusions: ¾ Simple drawings attract attention better than more detailed ones. ¾ Words must be used with symbols. ¾ High contrast is more important than bright colors for attraction, and green should be avoided (camouflage in a green park). ¾ Flat arrows have the disadvantage of some planes being out of view at some angles. ¾ Flat bands have the disadvantage of arrows pointing "up" for straight ahead, a feature confusing to some children and adults. ¾ Directions to the nearest restroom should always be indicated.
Evidence In a formative evaluation of new signs at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, (SERRELL, 1979) visitor behavior was observed and recorded, the frequency and duration of label reading was noted for each subject at each exhibit, along with total time at the exhibit, and social group interactions such as pointing and talking. Reading was defined as gazing at the sign for more than 5 seconds. New labels differed most from old ones in respect to the amount of information which related directly (concrete, not abstract) to the exhibit. New signs tended to have slightly more words, a few more sentences, fewer words per sentence, and fewer technical words than the "typical zoo sign" which is a categorical assemblage of encyclopedia facts. The average percent of people stopping at an exhibit who read the existing sign was 25 %. The average percentage readers for the new signs (= new text) was 51 % compared to the old signs (= old text produced in new format) was 41 %. More visitors appeared to finish reading the new signs, and readers of signs spent slightly more time looking at the animals than non-readers. The results suggest that more visitors can be attracted to read and interact with zoo interpretive labels when signs contain content which is visually relevant to each individual 85
exhibit. More consistent, appropriate content and sign placement, along with language designed for fast reading can increase visitor involvement with signage (SERRELL, 1979). It was found (BITGOOD et al., 1986b) that decreasing the number of words per sign from 150 to 50 increased sign reading by 25 % even when the total number of words was held constant at 150 (18-point letters). Increasing the letter size from 18 point to 36 point resulted in an increase of about 5 % sign reading. The greater the number of words in an exhibit label, the less reading it would generate, even when split into several labels. The highest percentage of sign-reading occurred in exhibits that had a sign with a red background and large letters that read "This is not a ... pig, rabbit, ostrich". "Grabbers as they are called in the newspaper business, are proven to be more effective in attracting visitor attention than traditional, descriptive labels. At the Anniston Museum of Natural History, labels entitled 'You are the Wolf', 'Hiss, Puff and Die', 'Run for your life', 'What Does a Grizzly Bear Eat?' and 'Poison Power' are receiving an average viewing time of 30 seconds by 79 % of passing visitors. Labels with equivalent-sized print and number of words, entitled 'Hyena', 'Jackel', 'African Wild Dog', 'Leopard' and 'Lion' receive an average viewing time of 5 seconds by 12 % of passing visitors" (CONROY, 1988). At the Anniston Museum of Natural History (Anniston) it was also shown (PIERCE, 1989) that the percentage of viewers reading correlated with the position, given the same content of the labels. This suggested that position is a powerful factor in attracting visitor attention, the position directly in line with the traffic flow being more attractive than those "out of position" (i.e., require turning around to read). Similar results of a study at the Birmingham Zoo showed that "there was a systematic decrease in visitor attention to labels as the number of words increased. In addition, for those who did read, reading time per word decreased as the number of words increased. There was a small but increasing difference in the percentage of visitors who read labels as a function of type size. In addition, larger type size was more effective than smaller type size in attracting visitor attention when the label was placed off the traffic path. Visitors also were more likely to stop and read labels placed along the traffic flow path than labels placed 10 feet (about 3 m) off the path" (THOMPSON, 1990). "At the University of Georgia, a label from a hallway whale vertebra exhibit caused 95 % of readers to react after reading that the whale's original size was 'from where you now stand, to the soda machine down the hall." (CONROY, 1988).
The remedial evaluation of directional signs at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (SERRELL et al., 1985) showed that they were confusing to some people. The signposts were three dimensional symbols pointing in the direction of some of the more popular exhibits and services. By interviewing visitors, showing them one symbol at a time and asking them what they thought it stood for, it was found that out of 25 different animal symbols, only 9 were completely unambiguous: camel, penguin, giraffe, seals, dolphin/porpoise, buffalo/bison, elephant, lion, and zebra. There was confusion over symbols for many of the horned ungulates, cats, exotic birds, and other unfamiliar animals. Another problem was created by the fact that some symbols stood for individual species (e.g. penguins) while others referred 86
to whole exhibits or buildings (e.g. aquatic birds). The only way to eliminate confusion for the majority of visitors seemed to identify symbols with words. In an attempt to find where and how many directional signs are needed different points around the zoo were checked to see how many groups of visitors passing by the area showed signs of "wayfinding behaviors", such as looking at their handout map, stopping and pointing/discussing directions (the classic "decision dance"). Figures ranged from 0 to about 18 % with an overall average of about 7 % who showed some wayfinding behavior. Points which ranked higher than the average were then slated to receive directional signs first.
Evolution The common single species interpretive signs, called ID's, (identification) are characterized by scientific descriptions.
Picture 12 Animal identification sign at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991)
Recent trends resulted in graphics that grab and educate in an entertaining way.
Picture 13 Graphic at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey (1991)
Visual content of graphics as recommended by SERREL (1979) seems appropriate for museum-like education but does not much serve conservation. Instead of the question "Can you see ...?" the question "What can you do?" is better suited to conservation efforts.
87
Picture 14 Graphic at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991)
The new challenge is to find answers to this question which go beyond the mere petition for money. New considerations may arise such as avoidance of consumption instead of recycling, public pressure on land use and other large scale conservation requirements.
Development "In the development of graphics, we should shift from the attitude of 'what we want to teach them' to the philosophy of 'what we want their experience to be like" (SERRELL, 1988). SERRELL (1979) gives hints for developing new graphics: "Most important when gathering ideas is to listen to the visitors. Comments from the public will tell you how they perceive the exhibit and what words they use to describe it. You may hear misinterpretations, you may hear some good jokes, too. By watching people you can get a feeling for how long they spend, what factors might be competing or distracting, and what interests them most. Concepts about evolution, extinction, or specialized physiological and behaviors adaptations of the species in the wild (and not visible to the casual visitor) appeal to a smaller percentage of the audience than might be hoped for. Let the number of words be dictated by how much the exhibit has to say, and how much visual content there is to work with. Before you have the final copy, stop ten different visitors at random in front of the exhibit and ask to read it out loud to their group. Or, type a copy and post it next to the exhibit and watch what happens. Either or both of these formative evaluation steps get valuable feedback from visitors. Listen to the people reading it to you and ask yourself: 88
¾ Does it sound smooth? ¾ Do they understand the words and pronounce them correctly? ¾ Do they understand the idea? ¾ Is it too long? ¾ Does it make them ask any question? ¾ Do they seem interested in looking at the exhibit again after reading it? ¾ What do they think of it?
If the sign gets the response you want from the percent of readers you want, get it produced and installed. Changes in staff often reflect a change in attitude about signs. A new curator comes in and throws out what was done before. Some of the resulting confusion can be avoided by keeping the written records of each sign's objective and its educational value. Judge signs by their success in communicating the intended message" (SERRELL, 1979). "Touching is part of using graphics. Visitors like to point out things to each other, or run their finger along the text as they read aloud, so a popular sign will quickly look worn. If graphics within reach still look new after six months, it is probably because the public is ignoring them" (SERRELL, 1988). There are two strategies to cope with wear and tear: ¾ Solid materials that withstand weather and visitor use and abuse like metal, stone and Plexiglas. These are expensive and may outlive the information on display. ¾ Cheap materials that can be easily replaced like plastic laminated paper, textiles and wood.
"In a survey done in the middle 1970s by the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, label writing at 86 % of the zoos and aquariums sampled involved the director, curator, and education department staff. Today the list has grown, and more likely includes a professional writer/editor, a public relations specialist, zoo keepers, graphic designers, and often a consulting firm" (SERRELL, 1988).
6.2 Exhibits In his article on exhibit planning, development and implementation procedures JONES (1986) gives a very theoretical and dry definition of exhibits: "An exhibit is defined as a serious, important, and professional presentation of ideas with the intent of educating the viewer. Exhibits are of no value if their primary purpose is to fill space or the merely entertain or occupy a visitor. A display as opposed to an exhibit is simply the showing of objects without serious interpretation." 89
His classification of exhibits according to their possible purpose also seems just of theoretical value: ¾ Aesthetic or entertaining: Emphasis is on pleasing the visitor. ¾ Factual: The intent is to convey information. ¾ Conceptual: The intent is to convey ideas or broad principles.
6.2.1 (No) principles for design In an evaluation of existing criteria for judging the quality of science exhibits SHETTEL (1968) found that studies of exhibit effectiveness have tended to concentrate on their popularity. Principles as to what constitutes a "good" or "effective" exhibit are based solely on expertise. If proved to be valid they could be used to measure the success of an exhibit and serve as a guide. Unfortunately SHETTEL found large areas of disagreement within the rating of a number of exhibits taken out by design experts at the American Museum of Atomic Energy at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Though they may agree on the nature of a particular deficiency, they may differ widely on the importance attached to that deficiency. With few exceptions, knowing how one rated individual aspects of an exhibit would tell relatively little about how another would rate the same aspects in that exhibit. The data analysis indicated the general inadequacy and unreliability of published criteria as over-all guides to determining exhibit effectiveness, and suggests that there would be little gain from an effort to test the validity of such criteria. It also indicates the importance of clearly stated objectives for exhibits against which to judge the various elements. SHETTEL concludes that it is probably true that prescriptions for effective exhibit design will never be reduced to a set of specifications that can be looked up in a handbook. "An exhibit must be designed so as to produce a particular measurable result. The first step in designing and developing an exhibit is to decide what is the purpose of the exhibit and the target audience. Good exhibits should have behavioral objectives" (JONES, 1986). "Instructional objectives have to be specified in observable terms. Such terms as 'understand', 'discover', 'know', 'grasp the meaning of' etc. are too vague and do not refer to behavior that can be directly observed. In contrast, observable behavior would be: 'name', 'arrange', 'compare', 'order', 'list', 'solve', 'distinguish', 'identify', 'reject', and so on. Objectives may be cognitive, or they may concern or attitudinal changes. Cognitive objectives may range from simple knowledge of facts (repeating information) to comprehension (giving new examples of a concept); they may include application of a rule to solve a problem, or analysis of a problem into its components, etc. Behavioral objectives can also be stated for attitudes; such objectives would involve observation of preference, avoidance behavior, assignment of adjectives, rating test scores, etc. 90
An instructional objective usually includes three factors: ¾ the specification of what the learner is expected to do as the result of exposure to the exhibit (list, order, solve, etc.) ¾ the conditions under which these actions are supposed to occur (e.g. choose between pairs, match pictures, etc.) ¾ a statement of the minimum acceptable visitor performance
In evaluating the value of an exhibit as a teaching/learning system, one must use some type of 'test' which measures the behavior to be taught before and after exhibit exposure" (SCREVEN, 1974). Selection of a theme is critical to aid in determining what to include and what to exclude from the exhibit and leads to the informational content (see 6.2.4). The decision on the duration of the exhibit (temporary or permanent) and the availability of material, maintenance and repair will determine the methods to be used to best present the content and link one exhibit part to another (see 6.1 for orientation and the following principles) (after JONES, 1986). PATTERSON et al. (1988) suggest principles of exhibit design that describe the relationship between visitor behavior and the characteristics of the exhibit environment. He devides: ¾ Exhibit design factors: interactive factors (see 4.4.2.1 and 6.2.12) motion (see 6.2.3.1) size (6.2.3.2) aesthetic factors (see 6.2.3.4 to 6.2.3.8) novelty or rarity (see 6.2.3.8) sensory factors (see 6.2.3.3. and 6.2.5.) triangulation (see 6.2.6) ¾ Visitor factors: psychological factors (see 5.2 and 6.2.3) demographic factors (see 5.1) special interests (see 5.4.2) visitor participation (see 6.2.5) object satiation (see 6.2.7) ¾ Architectural factors: visibility (see 6.2.2) proximity of animal/object (see 6.2.2) sensory competition (see 6.2.9) realism of exhibit area (see 6.2.11.5)
6.2.2 Accessibility and visibility There are accessibility standards for handicapped persons, e.g. for stairs, ramps and restrooms. However, in a public institution most facilities should be suitable to most of the users. If the same was required for all visitors it would not be possible to design anything challenging (step stones, hanging bridges, slides etc.). Evidently challenges for one part of the population are asking to much of another part that still can have pleasure watching those who are able to cope. 91
Strollers, wheelchairs and disabled persons must be respected when designing entrance and exit areas, viewing areas and ground surface. One should also remember that small children should be able to see without parents having to pick them up. An exhibit's attraction should not be affected by crowds. Viewing areas separated from the main paths, elevated areas that allow seeing from behind and traffic flow directions are ways to manage crowding. Because visitors tend to come in family groups, a group of three to four people should be able to view an exhibit at one time. "By arranging walks properly, it is possible to largely control the route that visitors take while giving them a feeling of freedom. One good method is to plan a main route, but provide some short cuts and large loops. In this way, visitors will be able to see almost everything, but will not have the impression of being herded through" (SAUSMAN, 1982).
Picture 15 Main path and loop with viewing area at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991);
"After four days of measuring visitor behavior in the Reptile House of Birmingham Zoo, the traffic flow was changed from two-way to one-way. The purpose of this manipulation was to see if the decrease in traffic congestion produced longer exhibit viewing time. The result may suggest that crowding (or congested traffic flow) is an important variable in visitor behavior. The average viewing time of exhibits was 16.6 seconds with a two-way traffic flow. When it was changed to one-way, the viewing time increased to an average of 26.7 seconds despite the fact that the temperature of the Reptile House remained uncomfortably hot throughout most of the study" (BITGOOD et al., 1985). BITGOOD et al. (1986a) describe proximity as an important factor for holding power. Visitors will view an exhibit longer if they can see the animals easily. The closer the animal is to the visitor, the more likely visitors will stop to view it. This effect of proximity on viewing time was proved for the Greater Kudu exhibit at the Birmingham Zoo. Visitor viewing times in this case were proportional to the distance of the animal from the visitor. (Unfortunately measure of the distance unit was not specified in the source.)
92
Figure 15 The attracting power of an exhibit as a function of proximity of visitor to animal (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a)
Visitors on one hand desire a close-up view of animals, but on the other hand favor spacious enclosures. Stretching enclosures along visitors' paths, multiple viewing points and changing viewing levels (ramps, caves, underwater viewing) allow visitors to get closer to animals in large exhibits. If the visual presence of visitors causes stress to animals, then the exhibits should be designed to screen or block the animals' view of visitors. Another way of optimizing visibility is animal management within the exhibit, i.e. by directing their activities (see 6.2.11.1 and 6.2.11.5 for behavior engineering). A study at Zoo Atlanta, Georgia, in 1988 (JACKSON et al., 1989) revealed low rates of visibility of gorillas in their new naturalistic exhibit, particularly during the peak hours of visitation and a considerable dissatisfaction of visitors with the visibility of the animals. Thus a new feeding protocol was initiated. The protocol required distribution of food into the portion of the enclosure where visitors can see them during the hour of peak visitation. The follow-up data suggest that the feeding intervention was very successful. Visibility probabilities went from 29 % to over 80 % during peak hours. It should be noted, however, that this increase in visibility occurred as summer temperatures began decreasing; thus, the impact of the treatment is confounded by weather changes, as it is by the novelty of the intervention. Visual barriers such as bars, fences, and glare from glass and visual obstructions such as places to hide, rocks, dirty glass, and posts also influence visibility but have not yet been carefully analyzed (BITGOOD et al., 1986a and 1988b). "Depending on the habitat preferences of the animal in nature (ground-living, tree-living, etc.) the visitors' eye-level should be considered accordingly in planning the floor and ceiling elevations of the exhibit." (CURTIS, 1968) "Split-level viewing can be very effective: underwater, above water, treetop level, cliff face, etc" (SAUSMAN, 1982). "Underwater observation windows are extremely effective but require clear water for successful operation" (CURTIS, 1968). The underwater viewing experience to a dolphin tank was part of an evaluation study at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (HEINRICH et al., 1991). While most reported that the underwater viewing met their expectations, several were disappointed because they saw fewer dolphins 93
than expected or non at all, they were unable to get a good view of the dolphins or the water was "cloudy". (This appearance was due to a lack of sunlight on days when the weather was overcast which made the salt particles more visible.) "While it would be difficult to affect the presence or movement of the dolphins in the holding tank to ensure that visitors leave the area satisfied, the addition of interactive exhibits or other new interpretive components could very well raise visitor satisfaction levels" (HEINRICH et al., 1991). This concept seems to work at the Shedd Aquarium, Chicago, where visitors are busy with interactives in the underwater viewing area. The level of lightening is another factor influencing visitor behavior. A research project at the Anniston Museum of Natural History, Alabama, in 1987 (PIERCE, 1989) showed that a medium level (.012, .030, .089 foot candles) of lighting was observed to cause the largest viewing times and prompted reports of better viewability, grater ease of understanding, and greater dramatic appeal of the exhibit. The differences in the levels of lighting were not considerable, yet this affected the behavior of visitors significantly. "As a general rule, the exhibits should be brighter than the viewing areas." Glare should be avoided at any time of the day during the year. "A due west viewing orientation of (outdoor) exhibits should be avoided so that the afternoon sun is not in the visitors' eyes" (SAUSMAN, 1982). The problem of exhibiting nocturnal and crepuscular species "has been confronted in the following ways: ¾ Light-reversal exhibits designed specifically for nocturnal animals. The night-day light cycle is actually reversed by substituting bright lights at night and subdued light in the daytime. ¾ Sleeping mammals: simulated burrows are used to allow the public to view the animal asleep, subdued light is used. ¾ Activity reversal: as care and feeding is accomplished during day light hours a kind of activity reversal may actually be occurring as a by-product of captivity" (SAUSMAN, 1982).
The display of nocturnal animals in darkened environments should be designed as a sequence of progressively darker exhibits as visitors cannot be expected to wait very long for their eyes to dark adapt (PATTERSON et al., 1988).
6.2.3 Attractiveness "Data on the perceived characteristics of animals can be used to predict the behavior of visitors. When designing viewing areas, the attracting power of exhibits should be considered" (BITGOOD et al., 1986b). A survey of the relevant literature (STOLBA et al., 1990) showed little relationship between expressed preference and observed popularity of animal species with few exceptions (big cats, bears, elephants, primates). While preference is dependent on previous experience, attitudes and knowledge, popularity (attracting and holding power) is mainly determined by exhibit design as following findings suggest. Most of the results given below were found by comparing visitor data from zoos throughout the United States (BITGOOD and PATTERSON). They describe correlations of empirical 94
relationships but do not allow to draw strong conclusions regarding cause and effect relations.
6.2.3.1 Motion The holding power of an exhibit is directly related to motion. There is a relatively consistent two-to-one relationship between animal activity (percentage of observation intervals in which visitors were viewing the animal and the animal was engaged in any type of activity) and duration of viewing. This relationship seemed to be relatively independent of the type of animal behavior, whether the behavior was the cute antics of an infant lowland gorilla, or the slow movement of a boa constrictor. It held for bears, primates, large cats, pachyderms, hoofed animals and reptiles across zoos in the United States. In a survey one of the reptiles produced about 15 seconds of viewing when inactive and about 30 seconds viewing when active. Active polar bears generated viewing times from 37.4 seconds (adult pacing) to 68.9 seconds (two cubs playful wrestling). Inactive polar bears were viewed from 32.0 to 38.1 seconds (all in traditional grotto exhibits with moats). Pacing therefore is perceived by visitors similar to inactivity.
Figure 16 Scattergram of the holding power of various types of animals in active and inactive states (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a)
STOLBA et al. (1990) found that holding power increased with the type of animal activity from resting to locomotion, interaction with environment and social interaction. This relationship held for most animal species. Viewing times of fish, however, did not depend on their type of activity, perhaps because viewers in general cannot read fish behavior. This suggests that visitors need support and interpretation to get interested in fish observation. Any kind of motion in an exhibit is assumed to increase attracting and holding power whether the exhibit is in a zoo, museum or aquarium. MELTON (1936) showed that introducing movement (in this case from a gear-shaper machine) in a museum gallery changed the circulation pattern from a right turn to traveling straight ahead toward the source of movement and increased the viewing of nearby exhibits. In this case, motion had a generalized effect on nearby motionless exhibits. 95
The effects of motion in nonliving exhibits are not yet proved, though the popularity of Disney World's and others' animation provide additional support for the principle. Animals' normal activity level is cyclical and they are often least active when the visitors are there. The design task is to introduce, increase, direct and add motion (see 6.2.11.1 and 6.2.13).
6.2.3.2 Size There appears to be a direct relationship between the size of an exhibit object or animal (in terms of its weight) and the holding power of the exhibit. The larger the animal, the longer the viewing time. This is ironic since the large animals are not the ones visitors mention as favorite animals.
Figure 17 The holding power of exhibits as a function of the size of the animals (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a)
Measuring visitors' responses to the same object presented in various sizes would provide stronger evidence of the effect. The perceived size of the animal therefore should help to predict the holding power of an exhibit (see 5.5.4). Perceived size refers to how large the animal appears relative to its surroundings. Thus, a smaller species would be perceived larger by placing in a smaller exhibit area (e.g. Insect World at the Cincinnati Zoo). Conversely, a large species placed in a huge environment where animals are dwarfed by their surroundings would create a smaller perceived size than actual size (e.g. Brookfield Zoo's Tropic World). Perceived size can be increased through scaling down the surroundings of the animals (smaller plants, water falls etc.) or magnification (telescopes, microscopes, magnifying glasses). 96
6.2.3.3 Anthropomorphism HEDIGER (1965) found that people like animals that have their body in an upright position like humans. Penguins, bears, cats and dogs when they stand up, sea-horse and parrots are all "cute" animals while species that move on four legs are less liked and "creepy" species like snakes are mostly disliked. Also animals that differ considerably in their activities from humans such as nocturnal species tend to be "weird". A negative attitude however does not seem to affect attractiveness of species. The appeal of infants' characteristics was found by LORENZ and also comes true in zoos: The presence of an animal infant increases the holding power of an exhibit. It increased the viewing time of the visitors by at least 100 % for the same exhibits (hippo and tapir).
Figure 18 The holding power of exhibits with and without an infant present (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a)
Several factors may have contributed to the larger difference in viewing times for the gorilla exhibits: a difference in the infants' activity levels during observations, differences in the number of specimens displayed, unique qualities of the species (humanlike appearance) and exhibit architecture (cage versus naturalistic outside moated exhibit).
6.2.3.4 Aesthetics "The factors which contribute to creating an aesthetically pleasing experience are novelty, complexity, surprise, ambiguity and uncertainty" (BERLYNE, 1971). There is a strong relationship between attracting power and perceived beauty besides for reptiles and pachyderms. Reptiles probably have a strong attracting power because of their perceived dangerousness. Pachyderms, although not considered physically attractive, may have a fascination because of their unusual shape and size (BITGOOD et al., 1986a).
97
Figure 19 The relationship between attracting power and perceived beauty of animal (beauty rated on a ten point scale by visitors) (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a)
6.2.3.5 Mystery The concept refers to those features of an environment that promise more to be seen if one could walk deeper into the environment. Curving pathways and partial concealment (by foliage, shadow, and other sources of screening) are major contributors to mystery. It is viewed as a factor that would maintain interest and sensual involvement in a setting. The result would be increased preference for the setting and, ultimately, greater exploration and useful knowledge (HERZOG et al., 1988). For viewing areas to animal exhibits this also means providing a number of selected views rather than creating a continuous view along the perimeter of an enclosure.
6.2.3.6 Danger Extreme and immediate environment hazards evoke fear and avoidance; mild hazards, however, are fascinating and attractive. Physical danger stems from the physical structure of the setting. Social danger stems from a human source. There is a negative relationship between danger and mystery. In an analysis of urban and non-urban nature the high-danger categories rated lowest in mystery. Urban nature (parks, alleys) has been shown to be high in both mystery and preference. Although danger and mystery are related, there is evidence that each can predict preference independently (HERZOG et al., 1988). Species that are perceived as dangerous have greater attracting power than species considered harmless. Nevertheless there is little relationship between holding power and perceived danger. 98
Figure 20 The relationship between attracting power and perceived dangerousness of animal (dangerousness rated on a ten point scale by visitors) (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a)
Many people have false perceptions of the characteristics of some animals. For example, people often do not realize that hippos can be dangerous. On the other hand, they often believe that harmless snakes are dangerous (BITGOOD et al., 1986a).
6.2.3.7 Vertical depth In an analysis of natural environments vertical depth emerged as a significant predictor of preference in its own right and not merely as a component of mystery or danger (HERZOG et al., 1988).
6.2.3.8 Novelty and rarity Having seen novel or rare things contributes to the self- of people and therefore can be attributed to human needs. There are several ways to create a sense of newness; according to SAUSMAN (1982) spring is the best time for acquisition, thus serving as the major attraction throughout the summer: ¾ opening of new facilities (not necessarily animal exhibits); ¾ phasing the breeding program to highlight the births of popular animals; ¾ acquisition of new stock of an equally attractive, easy to publicize nature; ¾ new programs, performances, exhibitions etc.
"For many years now our museum colleagues have been borrowing exhibits, using traveling exhibits to enhance collections. Zoos are just beginning to make use of the many interpretive traveling exhibits available to museums, and indeed are beginning to make some of their own. One of the restrictions that has kept many zoos from making use of these traveling exhibits is lack of appropriate exhibit space. But this factor is now less and less a problem. First of all, a few new exhibits have been designed that fit into a zoo setting, with modules that can be setup into several different animal houses thus making good use of what indoor space is available. Second, an increasing number of zoos have, or are constructing education centers or administration buildings with lobbies or halls for public gatherings. 99
The changing exhibit can be a useful public relations tool. It can also serve as a focal point for seminars, lecture series, field trips, or classes. Many institutions have found that when faced with a major exhibit that will open late, or a new building that needs 'filling up', traveling exhibits can be an effective short-term solution. Finally, traveling exhibits are very cost- effective. They save on your staff time and effort. They incorporate expertise you might not have. And they are far less expensive because you are sharing costs with many borrowers. The Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service published a practical guide for temporary exhibitions, discussing space, lighting, installation, security and calculation." (WHITE, 1988)
6.2.4 Content When persons are confronted with a complex visual situation, they will reduce the scene to some basic visual interrelationships in the shortest time interval. A visitor, when confronted with such a scene, will organize it according to the following factors (POLAKOWSKI, 1988): Nearness: The simplest method of visual organization; relating objects, although different in character, because of their spatial proximity. The distance between objects is as significant as the character of the objects.
Similarity: Objects will organize into a stable composition if they share common physical characteristics, such as size, shape, color and texture.
Closure: The eye seems to continue in the same time direction of the objects' form beyond the physical limits of the object. This phenomena helps the observer organize a scene by visually closing or establishing boundaries between objects. Whereby, individual objects are grouped into a larger visual unit relating to the surrounding landscape.
This suggests that the total spatial character or atmosphere of the scene must be visually satisfying before parts of the scene can be appreciated. Contrast and Repetition of visual objects are necessary to create pleasant environs. However, a scene with only contrasting elements will produce chaos and a scene with only repetition of a particular element will be dull. A regular reoccurrence of design elements in an exact or varied pattern can produce sequential or rhythmic movement that help produce a sense of unity.
Proportion is a principle that is used to combine the principles of contrast and repetition in a manner that will produce a dynamic sense of unity. Unity relies on rational appeal to the intellect and on the harmonious adaptation of the parts to the whole. There must be a harmony of function/character and harmony of design elements (line, form, color etc.) to achieve unity. Balance (symmetrical and asymmetrical) is a design term synonymous to unity. The primary and contrasting perceptual effects associated with natural habitats are serenity, grandeur, desolation, mystery, and gaiety.
Data of front-end evaluations at museums suggest that visitors are not interested in looking at cases with rows of objects arranged taxonomically. The thematic approach was preferred 100
overall (WALKER, 1988). This shows the importance of providing visitors with a context for objects (see 4.2.3, 4.5.3, 6.1.2.6).
6.2.5 Sensual involvement Sensual involvement is reduced by distraction (see 4.2.4) and increased by the concreteness of exhibits (see 4.2.7). The more senses are touched by an exhibit and the closer it gets to reality (see 6.2.11.5) the more concrete it is.
Figure 21 Classification of exhibit types by sensual involvement (modified after PEART, 1984)
The following assessments are from PATTERSON et al., 1987 and 1988: "All aspects of light, color, contrast, and pattern are subject to design. The amount of light available on a surface defines whether it can be seen clearly. The coloration of that light, time of day, and other factors affect the contrast and color of the surfaces. The ratio of contrast between an item on display and its background, surround, and other equally important objects nearby is an important visual clue to its value to the viewer. Hearing is highly variable throughout the population and is subject to conscious focusing. Exhibits that produce sounds should have the capacity to adjust themselves to variation in background noise. The use of focused sound is recommended to allow the intended users to hear clearly. Anecdotal evidence suggests that animals which are noisy in addition to visual produce longer viewing times. Smells can be provided by artificial means rather cheaply. Used appropriately, these kinds of sensory amplifications can be very effective. The sense of touch is highly developed and can discriminate between extremely fine differences in texture, temperature, and vibration. It is also one of the most gratifying sorts of stimuli since it affects the subconscious directly. Researchers found that exhibits which could be both seen and touched produced longer viewing times, even if the visitors did not touch them. 101
The movement of the whole body can be an important interaction in itself. The commitment to step forward is also a psychological commitment to participate. Large body movements, to step up on a platform, to reach out, or to embrace something can be a rewarding activity."
6.2.6 Triangulation This term refers to the ability of some person or object to promote social interaction between viewers who otherwise would not interact (PATTERSON et al., 1988).
Figure 22 Triangulation between viewers and object or person
According to PATTERSON et al. (1987) interactives that promote triangulation tend to educate more than exhibits which do not.
6.2.7 Fatigue and satiation "Researchers found that visitors tend to sharply reduce their attention to exhibits after 30 to 45 minutes in the museum's exhibit hall. They attribute this effect to 'museum fatigue' (see 3.5.3). Fatigue can be minimized by providing opportunities for visitors to rest: seating distributed throughout the facility, designing small viewing areas with seating for video tapes, slide shows, or movies, sit-down snack bars etc" (BITGOOD et al., 1986a). "Placement of displays along the route can also be planned with factors such as fatigue in mind. A shady exhibit with plenty of seating will be more beneficial toward the middle or end of the tour than at the very beginning" (SHETTEL-NEUBER et al., 1987). "Reduced visitor interest or satiation is likely to occur when similar exhibits are placed together in close proximity so that visitors see many similar exhibits in a short period of time. In the Birmingham Zoo visitors were directed through the Reptile House in a clockwise direction on some says and a counterclockwise direction on other days. Whether they viewed the python or the boa, they viewed the first snake longer than the second. These snakes were on opposite ends of the Reptile House, although neither was the closest exhibit to the exit. Satiation may be prevented by mixing species and arranging the environment in order to encourage a slower pace in viewing" (BITGOOD et al., 1986a). 102
6.2.8 Safety The design of exhibits should not invite for misuse (see 5.2.2. and 6.3.10). Viewing areas should be open and look controlled in order to avoid abuse or feeding of animals. Following types of barriers have been used for animal exhibits: ¾ bars ¾ rails ¾ moats (dry and water-filled) ¾ walls and rocks ¾ vertical wires held under tension (piano wire) ¾ glass ¾ electrical ('shock' fences) ¾ thermal (refrigerated coild and hot water lines) ¾ psychological (such as birds exhibited in a well-illuminated exhibit area and reluctant to fly into a darkened visitor area)
Safety of interactives should be self-evident to visitors as not many people will try them otherwise.
6.2.9 Location and surrounding According to BITGOOD et al. (1987a) there is an exit gradient of viewing: Objects located along the shortest route between the entrance and the exit receive the greatest amount of viewing. If several attractive exhibits are placed in close proximity to one another, visitor traffic congestion may occur unless the viewing areas are carefully designed. SAUSMAN (1982) recommends avoiding cubicles and tight corners in the viewing areas, as the public will tend to get bottled up in such places. Popular exhibits should be distributed across exhibit area instead of packed together. If more things compete for the visitors' attention at the same time (competing stimuli), less time is spent on an exhibit. Visitors are easily distracted from viewing exhibits by the sound of animals vocalizing, the passing zoo train or noises from other locations. If two exhibits can be viewed at the same time, the less attractive exhibit is often skipped. Thus, visually competing exhibits decrease the attracting power of exhibits. In the Predator House of the Birmingham Zoo the attracting power of the Otter and Eagle exhibits which were placed on opposite sides of the hallway were 78 and 75 % while the attracting power of the four previous exhibits (Leopard, Arctic fox, Mongoose, and Cougar) averaged well over 90 %. The following figure shows the attracting power of similar species exhibits when exhibits are in visual competition with one another versus when no such competition occurs. In these cases competition occurred when two exhibits were placed on opposite sides of the visitors' path. 103
Figure 23 Percentage of visitors stopping with and without visually competing exhibits (after BITGOOD et al., 1988)
In an art gallery MELTON (1933) found that over 60 % of the visitors, once they started viewing paintings on the right-hand wall, never viewed paintings on the left-hand wall. Only about 10 % of the visitors made a complete circuit to view all of the paintings. Attention is focused by arranging parts of an exhibit that belong together within the field of vision and minimizing disturbances (glare, noise etc.) from the environment (BITGOOD et al., 1986a and 1988, PATTERSON et al., 1987 and 1988). When considering location of exhibits "the source, nature and frequency of i which might disturb either the animal or the visitor should be evaluated" (SAUSMAN, 1982), i.e. the effect of concentrated people noises on animals, stress caused by the presence of other species, characteristic animals odors and wind directions. Weather protection from wind, rain and sun is crucial for the wellbeing of animals and visitors. "Trees aid in dividing the landscape into smaller units around which exhibits can be planned. They can be used to advantage in hiding structures, in reducing visitor awareness of crowds, in providing cool, shaded areas for animals and people alike (see 6.3.6), and in lessening the effects of wind" (SAUSMAN, 1982). "From the visitors' standpoint outdoor-indoor exhibits may pose several design problems: Where the indoor environment of the visitor and the animal areas are the same, the designer must take care not to place the animal in an environment more appropriate to a human comfort range. The public will tolerate lower temperatures if they understand the reasons for them. Since there are two possible enclosures where the animals may be (outside and inside) visitors must be routed to the exhibit where the animals actually are. Part of the solution is operational and part is involved in the design of visitor traffic flow and walkways" (SAUSMAN, 1982).
6.2.10 Adaptability There are changing trends in visitor needs and behaviors, political climates and technology. Thus, exhibit structures should be designed very flexible in nature as their use may vary. Modules of exhibits should be flexible enough to be arranged in another way for different use. It would be worth thinking of planting modules that can be moved especially for indoor exhibits. A simple way is to use plants in containers, e.g tropicals for the outdoor in summer. 104
With zoos' commitment to conservation there will be much more activity behind the scenes than it used to be. Breeding facilities, research facilities, additional facilities to keep animals temporarily (quarantine, confiscation) will all require more space than most zoos were designed for. There is also some extra space necessary to keep animals somewhere during their sickness, repairs in their exhibits and other emergencies. To be cost effective these structures should be designed multi-use in form. "It is often possible to renovate older buildings much more economically than to build new facilities. A building that is sound structurally can be rehabilitated for less than one-half to two-thirds the cost of building a new one for the same purpose. Aquatic, bird, reptile, amphibian, children's zoo and small mammal exhibits can be housed in virtually any kind of shell. The advantages of reclaiming older buildings are that such projects usually require less capital investment and take less time to complete than new buildings. The public is increasingly aware that the conservation of existing structures is both less expensive and less socially disrupting than wasteful, costly new construction. Fund-raising efforts to "save" or renovate an existing landmark may have greater public appeal than those to build a new facility. Such a renovation is also politically expedient in securing public funds" (SAUSMAN, 1982).
6.2.11 Live exhibits The classic exhibit themes (CURTIS, 1968 and SAUSMAN, 1982) are ¾ taxonomic: groupings reflect the animals' taxonomic relationships; ¾ zoogeographic: animals of the same geographic origin; ¾ ecologic: design of a habitat common to several species; ¾ behavioral: design around the behavior or activity cycles of several species (e.g. nocturnal).
As the morphological and behavioral adaptations of wild animals are to a large extent governed by the combined effects of climate and vegetation COE (1980) rejects this conventional division for a scheme centered on the bioclimatic concept. This is a classification of world habitat zones formulated on the three parameters of temperature, precipitation and evapo-transpiration. ¾ bioclimatic: the site is organized into bioclimatic zones, chosen so as to make most efficient use of existing microclimates, landforms, vegetation and buildings and also, wherever possible, to preserve naturally occurring geographic transitions. The idea is to provide zoo animals with environments that are as close as possible to their native habitats. (See 6.2.11.5 for the immersion concept.)
6.2.11.1 Animal activity "Environments that stimulate animal activity will not only increase visitor viewing time (see 5.5.4 and 6.2.3.1), but they generally have a positive effect on the psychological well-being of the animal" (BITGOOD et al., 1986b). "During animal activities such as violence, loud noise, or mating large audiences and long viewing times often occur" (CONROY, 1988).
At Zoo Zürich, Switzerland, free ranging domestic hens were observed by visitors much longer than guinea fowl in their exhibit (STOLBA et al., 1990). This suggests that the holding power of free ranging behavior is stronger than that of exotic appearance. 105
Stereotype behaviors like pacing however are perceived unfavorably by visitors (see 6.2.3.1). They usually are a response to stress and/or boredom which should be avoided by exhibit design and management. Feeding devices are the common but still not very frequent means to enhance natural behaviors such as investigating and hunting. Unfortunately most behavioral engineering devices are very predictable and allow only few patterns of behavior that may become stereotype too. Objects to play with are often refused for their inherent risk of injuries. For example ropes may cause an orangutan to strangle himself. Total elimination of risks however is contradictory to occupation. "In a unique attempt to stimulate people/animal interactions, the exhibit designers have incorporated a bubble machine into the new Arctic Cancada beluga enclosure. Belugas are playful animals who seem to delight in chasing bubbles. The bubble machine can be activated by both visitors from outside the anclosure and the belugas from within" (KELSEY, 1989).
At one time or another animals need to be able to retreat from the visiting public. When inactive animals are hard to detect visitors rapidly move onward. "Smaller enclosures with several vantage points such as at the Sonora Desert Museum, or exhibits with sleeping/hiding areas in close proximity to the visitor such as at the Birmingham Predator House facilitate longer viewing of inactive animals" (BITGOOD et al., 1986b).
"Perhaps nowhere else in the zoo field is there greater disagreement than on the question of what constitutes an adequate living space for a given animal. It is doubtful if an excess of space is ever provided. We also must consider qualitative space, including shape, topography, hiding sites, observation or vantage points, plants, rocks, logs, water etc. Although not aesthetically pleasing or educational by nature, the sterile technique is the easiest alternative from an animal management standpoint. Every rock, log, or plant, real or artificial, creates places for potential bacterial growth and increases cage cleaning and disinfecting problems." However, the disadvantages are outweighed by the fact that "qualitative space affects breeding activity, social interaction, carrying capacity, public observation, visitor excitement, aesthetics etc" (SAUSMAN, 1982).
6.2.11.2 Multi-species exhibits By housing several species in one enclosure the level of activity in this exhibit is generally enhanced by the higher number of specimens, their different characteristic activities and intraspecies interaction. "Mixed species exhibits generally add an exciting display element to a zoo. They are not often successful, mainly because the problem of preventing stress or aggressive conflicts in the close confinement of captivity is a formidable one. Because so much visitor interest and communications value can be gained from such exhibit, efforts to create successful ones are well worthwhile and deserve additional attention" (SAUSMAN, 1982). The effect of multi-species exhibits on visitor attention was studied at the Jacksonville Zoological Park (FOSTER et al., 1988) and suggests that attractiveness is determined not 106
only by the grouping of species but also by setting quality: Several multi-species aviaries generally could not draw higher than average number of visitors. Their setting was poor with signs showing small print and no picture or description. Visitor attention at the African veldt was surprisingly high given, in fact that, aside from a pair of ostrich, they held hoofed stock, which in single species exhibits did not draw levels of visitors attention different than predicted. Previous findings on the attracting and holding power of hoofed stock (see 6.2.3) show that despite high levels of activity, relative size and perceived beauty or danger hoofed stock have low attracting and holding power. Quality of exhibit and of animal activity may account for a great deal of exhibit's attracting power. An elevated boardwalk is leading over the large exhibit of a simulated African veldt, that terminates at a gazebo complete with refreshment center, picnic tables and shaded observation points. Signs and high powered binoculars are provided along the boardwalk. Visitors could observe a great deal of inter- and intraspecies interactions and much free ranging behavior.
6.2.11.3 Walk-through exhibits Walkways that enable visitors to pass through exhibits provide an experience that is characterized by arousal and a sensual involvement similar to observing animals in the wild. "This display concept has the advantage of permitting closer contact between the visitor and the animal without a conspicuous barrier separating them. Such displays result in a more intimate and more aesthetically pleasing experience for the visitor. Walk-through exhibits are applicable with any relatively harmless animal species whose ability to escape can be effectively controlled with the necessary visitor entry and exit arrangement. Confinement of the animals to the exhibit area can be encouraged by supplying the proper psychological needs" (CURTIS, 1968). If the public does not stay on the pathways, control of the exhibit has been lost. Elevated walkways restrict the visitor by necessity to the pathway. Attendants should be constantly present, if for no other reason than to answer questions. Graphics in walk through exhibits are extremely important because the animals are so mobile. Therefore graphics should be placed where specific species are frequently visible and be duplicated if necessary (SAUSMAN, 1982). Most existing walk-through exhibits are aviaries. "This style of exhibit gained popularity very quickly. Unfortunately these aviaries typically had low reproduction potential and high mortality mostly because of too high density of birds, their incompatibility and improper management. Some of the biggest problems are inherent in its design such as the lack of control, inability to capture individuals, or at times obtain an accurate inventory" (BOHMKE et al., 1985). Walk-through exhibits have also been designed for butterflies, kangaroos, wallabies and small mammals. The latest trend is to create "tropic worlds" immersing the visitor into the tropical forest. 107
6.2.11.4 Three generations "Zoos and the philosophies of animal containment and display on which they have been based have dramatically, although slowly, evolved over the past two centuries" (SHETTEL- NEUBER, 1988). CAMPBELL (1984) characterized this evolution of zoo exhibit design as representing three generations of exhibits: ¾ First-generation exhibits, prevalent in the mid-eighteenth century, which generally displayed animals in small, side-by-side barred cages or in deep, smooth walled pits; ¾ Second-generation exhibits, most prevalent in U.S. zoos today, which utilize cement enclosures surrounded by dry or water-filled moats to display and contain animals; and ¾ Third-generation exhibits, which display animals in their species-natural groups in exhibits that contain vegetation and land formations that simulate the animals' home region.
CAMPBELL noted that first-generation zoos failed to provide for the animal's behavioral, psychological, and, frequently, physical needs. While second-generation exhibits gave animals more space, provided visitors better views, and were more open in appearance, they were cold, sterile, and boring to the animals. The third generation of zoo exhibits is expected to improve the zoo environment for those who use it - both animals and people. It has been suggested that the provision of elements of a species' natural setting (e.g., grass, trees, streams, termite mounds) will foster natural behavior patterns in captive animals. Further, visitors, by observing animals that are more active and engaged in natural patterns of behavior in these more naturalistic exhibits, may have more enjoyable and educational visits and develop greater respect for wild animals" (SHETTEL-NEUBER, 1988). A national survey in the United States (KELLERT, 1979) indicated very strong public support for increasing the amount of simulated natural habitat for animals in zoos, even if this results in substantially higher entrance fees. Indeed, only 10 % of the national sample disagreed with the notion. Only several studies have been conducted that assess the differential effects of environments on animal behavior. Very few studies of visitor responses to animal enclosures (see 5.3) and non of staff responses have been done. Thus, the systems approach used by SHETTEL-NEUBER (1988) is unique. Her study was designed to compare visitor, staff, and animal responses to two second-generation and two third-generation exhibits that displayed the same species of animals (Bornean orangutans and Pigmy chimpanzees) at the same zoo (San Diego Zoo). The following hypotheses were tested by behavior mapping, timing, a visitor questionnaire and staff interviews: 108
¾ There will be a greater number of visitors and visitors will stay longer at the third- generation exhibits than at the second-generation exhibits. ¾ Visitors will like the third-generation exhibits more than the second-generation exhibits. ¾ Animals will be more active, healthier, and display more naturalistic behavior in the third-generation exhibits than in the second-generation exhibits. ¾ Staff members wil report that they like the third-generation exhibits better but that they are more difficult to maintain than the second-generation exhibits.
Attitudinal measures showed a clear preference for the third-generation exhibits over the second-generation ones on the part of visitors and zoo professionals, whereas behavioral responses were less clear-cut. The first hypothesis was partially supported by data. The slower moving orangutans are more compelling to visitors in a naturalistic environment whereas the gregarious, "cute" chimpanzees are very interesting and entertaining for visitors even in a sterile environment. If viewing times are not consistently longer at third-generation exhibits it should not be concluded that they are not successful. The effects of the exhibits may be more complex (e.g., the important differences may be qualitative rather than quantitative with the experience at the exhibit more important than the length of time spent at that exhibit). The sample of visitors expressed greater liking for the new exhibits than the older exhibits for both species and indicated that they liked the new areas for features such as their beauty, openness, variety, and closeness to the animals. Combined with this was the visitor perception that the animals were not harder for them to see in the new exhibits. Animals in the new exhibits were not found to be significantly more active than the same species in the old exhibits. Staff members felt the animals' health was improved in the new exhibits due to the warmth of grass, wood, and trees as opposed to the hard, cold cement in the grottoes, which drained energy and warmth from the animals in cold weather making them more susceptible to illness. While the hypothesis that the animals were heathier in the new exhibits thus is supported by opinion, documented evidence of fewer instances of animal illness in the third-generation will require further monitoring. Perceptions of the effects of the enclosures on the behavior of the animals varied. Although systematic studies have not been performed, both species appear to display less problematic behavior in the third-generation exhibits that were designed specifically for them. Staff member liked the new exhibits better, but did feel they were more difficult to maintain. While materials in the new exhibits presented both short- and long-term maintenance challenges (e.g., glass, wood), the use of natural elements in the exhibits was not seen as an extra burden during daily cleaning. The plants and trees to which the animals had access, however, were difficult to sustain. The biggest maintenance problem for staff members was the extremely complex moat, water, and pump system in the new area, which was the source of great frustration for staff members when compared with the dry moat in the older exhibits. While many maintenance challenges were not related to exhibit naturalism, the involved staff members felt that positive benefits to the animals of naturalistic elements well outweighed increased maintenance on their part. Various issues were salient to different staff members, when asked to assess the exhibits. 109
In sum it was found that the effects of third-generation exhibits are not as consistent as anticipated because of conflicting needs and preferences among and within the groups of visitors, animals, and zoo professionals. Besides the degree to which an enclosure really is of the third-generation can vary. Stimulation of naturalistic animal behavior involves such factors as the animals' past experiences, the combination or grouping of animals, and the type and availability of fixed and removable objects in the environment. An exhibit that facilitates naturalistic behavior cannot merely be built, but must be achieved through a combination of design and ongoing animal management. The systems approach to assessment of zoo exhibits can contribute to a continuing cycle of exhibit improvement through systematic assessment, analysis, and interpretation of results, and modification of exhibits or their management. A clear concept of what is desired for the various groups that interact in the zoo combined with research results documenting the effects of zoo environments on these groups should enable zoo designers to optimize these environments (SHETTEL-NEUBER, 1988). An evaluation of new exhibits for great apes at Zoo Atlanta, Georgia, in 1988 supported above mentioned hypothesis that animals in naturalistic exhibits are more active, healthier and display more natural behaviors than in second-generation exhibits: "Naturalistic, or third-generation, exhibits have been found to be related to reproductive and parenting success in great apes. Additionally, such habitats have been found to increase activity to species-typical levels, to decrease stereotypic or abnormal deprivation behaviors and to encourage demonstration of species-typical levels of agressive and affiliative behavior. Additionally, animals have been found to prefer naturalistic complex exhibits over sterile exhibits" (JACKSON et al., 1989)
6.2.11.5 The immersion concept The following fundamentals were found in "Selected Research Papers" by COE (1980 - 1990). The immersion concept was developed by JONES & JONES, Architects and Landscape Architects, and applied at Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, for the first time in large scale (JONES et al.,1976). Exhibits of this type, however, were already opened during the 1960's (World of Birds at the Bronx Zoo, New York; Predator Ecology at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago; Small Cat Complex at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum). Hagenbeck's work strongly influenced the landscape immersion or natural habitat approach, particularly in terms of dramatic vistas and overlapping sightlines.
Objectives If large segments of the population are to appreciate the importance of conserving wildlife and preserving the wild landscapes these animals inhabit, zoos must make memorable demonstrations of the interdependence of animals and plants, of wildlife and habitat. The ultimate goal is to present zoo animals in such a way that their reason for being and rights to existence are intuitively self-evident to viewers. Landscape immersion is a term coined to describe exhibits in which visitors share the same landscape as the animals. Instead of standing on a cement walk looking at a zebra in an 110
African setting, for instance, both the zoo visitor and the zebra are in a landscape carefully designed to 'feel' like the African savanna. Invisible barriers separate the people from the animals. The entire setting is designed to look, smell and sound as if one left the zoo and entered the savanna. COE describes design objectives of the immersion concept that refer to context and message (see 4.2.2) making a comparison with common exhibits. Common animal exhibits: ¾ Viewing an exhibit that is not of the immersion type the context feels too safe and the setting is too obvious: ¾ The viewer is on safe and familiar ground. The animal, though known to be dangerous, is obviously well contained. The scene is dominated by unconcerned onlookers. ¾ The setting can be seen at a glance and understood in an instant. Very little is required of the viewers and very little is gained by them. ¾ There is a surfeit of superficiality and over-simplification. The very sterility and predictability not only bores the animals but bores the visitor as well. ¾ In nearly every zoo animals are presented in human-made edifices or gardens, surrounded by human spectators and dependent upon human keepers for their every need. Even the naturalistic animal exhibit as introduced by Carl Hagenbeck had a romantic disregard for reality. The animals are shown to have lost every reason for existence except one - to amuse us. ¾ Thus, the old exhibit types have one message in common - homocentricity - the concept of a human-dominated universe.
Immersion exhibits: ¾ The viewer is no longer in a safe and familiar park, but is now immersed in an unfamiliar multi-sensory landscape, replicating the animals' natural habitat. ¾ The realistic landscape simulation attempts to represent ecological and geographic characteristics of animal habitats. ¾ The landscape dominates the architecture, and the zoo animals appear to dominate the public. ¾ No barriers are perceived; every effort is made to remove or obscure contradictory elements, such as buildings, service vehicles, large crowds of people or anything that would detract from the image or experience of actually being in the wilderness. ¾ The animals are behaving naturally, interacting with the landscape and each other. ¾ The viewers actively participate in seeking the animals, stalking along the trail and passing observations on to others. They are rewarded for their efforts by experiencing what appears to be a chance encounter with animals in the wild. ¾ This type of exhibit is designed to appeal to both the unconscious and conscious areas of perception, and furthermore, the messages are complementary and mutually supporting. The experience "feels" real to the viewer and, with examination, tangible evidence supports this conclusion. ¾ The graphics need not be overly assertive, for if the viewing context is properly developed, many viewers will be stimulated to seek additional information, and it will be associated with vivid memories. 111
Realization Planning: Instead of first deciding to develop certain particular exhibits, the first decision is what message to communicate to zoo visitors, what attitudes, sentiments and facts they should take home with them and remember years from now? After deciding on the message then the types of exhibits and the design approach which will best present the message has to be chosen. Information on maintenance requirements, animals' physical and behavioral needs, education and interpretive objectives and visitor viewing concepts are to be integrated in the design process. When copying, nature should be copied instead of other zoos. The planning of the site with respect to zones emphasizes natural vegetation and minimizes the need for large and obtrusive buildings. The conceptual and organizational division represented by the exhibit barrier must be surmounted. Old stereotypes about where the boundaries of the exhibit begin and end, or where the limits of each other's contributions begin and end must be reassessed. The landscape architect and horticulturist are on the initial design team. Both, zoo horticulturists and the directors who supervise them must support the concepts before they can be realized. To alleviate the problem that zoo professionals usually cannot understand the technical drawings of the design professionals, large, detailed models of the outdoor exhibits and the holding facilities are prepared; keepers then transfer model animals in a realistic simulation of real-life operations. This practice allows keepers to make useful suggestions well before constructions begin. "Soft technology" as opposed to "hard technology" (materials of complex manufacture like concrete, steel, masonry, glass and acrylic represented as such.) is used to make exhibits look naturalistic. "Soft technology" is based upon living and/or "natural" materials such as plants, logs, rocks, and objects of simple fabrication, as well as "high-tech" objects which are meant to appear natural. These may be artificial rockwork, trees, wines and murals as well as mechanisms creating artificial microclimates. The work requires highly skilled specialists, many of whom are also sculptures. Follow-up is commonly the weakest part of zoo exhibit development. This is because the original design, the construction and the maintenance are often carried out by three separate parties, none really understanding the intentions or needs of the others. It is essential that someone in a decision making capacity be actively involved throughout all phases. An exhibit maintenance manual is assembled by the original designers to communicate their long term intentions to maintenance personnel years in the future. The original photos, drawings and slides used to convey the desired "image" of the project are kept intact to help guide long term maintenance. Plants: The landscape immersion approach depends heavily upon planting. For a realistic presentation of zoo animals zoo horticulturistssts play an important part. They move from their previous role of providing ornament to become the central context - creating a "landscape with animals". Zoo horticulturists must be encouraged to work with animal experts, educators and landscape architects in the design and maintenance of the landscape. The ideal of the manicured man-dominated landscape must be relegated to its true habitat - the entry plazas and public gathering places of the zoo. 112
The highest plant mortality occurs during the first year that an exhibit is open. The wise zoo official anticipates this and sets aside a special fund to replace plants or modify the exhibit as required. Visitors: Public areas become more highly manipulated by the designers to create dramatic effects and ensure the complete perceptual immersion of the visitors. The exhibit viewing relationship should be designed to enhance the animal's subjective position in the eyes of the zoo visitor: ¾ By taking parts of the animals' environment and extending it into the visitor space, the visitor enters perceptual space already occupied by the animal. (See 6.2.5 for sensual involvement) ¾ The design of viewing areas with just a touch of disorientation and unpredictability and the recreation of animals' habitats puts the person on the edge of a novel, unfamiliar setting to see the animal in the center of a setting appropriate to it. (See 6.2.3.5 for mystery) ¾ Several observation points instead of one large viewing area are less obtrusive and avoid crowding. ¾ Cross-viewing other people and exhibits is avoided, thus eliminating distraction. ¾ Sequence, scale, perspective, novelty and position are manipulated in a way that the person is hidden, encounters the animal by surprise and looks up to the animal. ¾ Exhibit technology is used with the goal that the visitor sees animals with no visible barrier between them creating a certain amount of anxiety or perceived threat (see 6.2.3.6 for danger). ¾ Buildings, barriers, plant protection and other functional necessities are masked or hidden realistically to be unobtrusive. ¾ The use of heating elements in basking rocks encourages certain animals (e.g. cats) to lie in ideal locations for viewing. The same rockwork areas can be equipped with cooling elements to make them more enticing in the summer. (The Mountain exhibit at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum features evaporative air coolers in the visible shelters of cougars, bears and wolves. Mechanisms that produce fog for cooling and atmospheric effects have been used in Jungle World at the Bronx Zoo and at the Tiger River exhibit at San Diego Zoo.)
Animals: Animal areas are "softer" and less deterministic than previously. The modernists assumed that science knew or would discover everything needed by the animals. The new approach assumes that science indeed knows relatively little and attempts to recreate a close simulation of the animals' indigenous landscape. Thereby, it hopes to meet animal needs which are not yet even known to exist. Characteristic features are replicated to simulate the appearance of the landscape. Details are developed with great precision from field vistas and photos of actual site: geologic expressions, soil color, rock or boulder characteristics, plants, visible traces of native animals such as termite mounds, burrows, grazing etc. Zoos will never be able to simulate all conditions found in virgin wilderness, nor should they. Yet the closer they come to providing enclosures which give animals maximum choice and optimal diversity, the more likely they are to provide animals' needs. The design should provide animals with optimal rather than minimal facilities regarding social environment, available space, occupation and behavioral enrichment. 113
"Soft" furnishing such as wood and natural branches allows animals to modify their habitat and can be replaced at need. Man-made substitutes for occupation such as beer kegs, tires, chains and other playground equipment encourage an c view by spectators. Feeding or searching for food is the principal occupation many animals spend their time with. Replicating natural feeding situations assists in development of feeding strategies for behavioral enrichment. Newer devices should provide a large degree of randomness to counter habituation and maintain novelty. Interactives: The new exhibit technologies not only transmit information but themselves represent a style or attitude, their selection and placement must be carefully integrated within the overall exhibit context to present the desired overall message. Exhibits of technology should not compete with exhibits of nature, e.g. interpretive exhibits with animal exhibits.
Evaluation For evaluating the immersion concept see 4.2 (process of learning), 5.2.5 (arousal), 6.2.11.4 (evaluation of third-generation exhibits compared to second-generation exhibits by SHETTEL-NEUBER, 1988) and 6.2.3 (attractiveness of exhibits). Casual observations suggest that visitors react with more respect to the overwhelming environment created by immersion (see 4.5.3 for dominance): In exhibits of this (immersion) type visitors have been observed to speak in quiet tones and hush their children, pointing out the animals' location. Visitors have been heard to say, "It looks like the animals could just walk up behind you and tap you on the shoulder!" HUTCHINS et al. (1984) report that people visiting the new gorilla exhibit at Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, "tend to be quiet, even talking in whispers. One rarely hears the typical jokes or ribald comments, and never expression of pity. It is clear from unsolicited comments and letters that people genuinely enjoy the experience of this naturalistic habitat." Further describing a new macaque exhibit, HUTCHINS, goes on to say "it is not unusual to hear people refer to the animals as 'beautiful'; similar sentiments were seldom expressed when they were housed in traditional cages." Behavioral analysis of visitor reactions to several immersion exhibits at Woodland Park Zoo in 1991 (COE, 1983) were based upon unobtrusive observations: The visitors generally made positive comments about the exhibits, 41 % strongly approved, 57 % moderately approved and 2 % disapproved. Although the animals were often not active, there were positive comments about the exhibit itself. This suggests that people were observing the exhibit itself, not just the animals. With proper landscape design and horticultural maintenance exhibits improve over time as plantings grow, rather than deteriorating with age as buildings do. Since landscape immersion exhibits appear to be works of nature they are resistant to stylistic obsolescence as well (COE, 1980 to 1990). The African Rock Kopje exhibit at San Diego Zoo has many features characteristic of immersion exhibits: The animals' natural habitat is replicated, visitors share the environment with animals, landscape dominates the setting, barriers are unobtrusive, people are dispersed by winding paths, cross-viewing is avoided, animals interact with the landscape and each other; the style of graphics and interactives is adjusted to the setting in placment 114
and color; however, the graphics are conspicuous and overcharged; the setting is to a certain extent unpredictable, mysterious and surprising but too small to feel real. A summative evaluation was conducted (DERWIN et al., 1988) to assess the effectiveness of interpretive elements of the African Rock Kopje exhibit and to aid in long-term planning for future, more complex exhibits: A kopje is an independent ecosystem in Africa. It is a fortress of rocks in a vast plain, attractive to man and animal because of its vegetation, protection, and year-round water trapped in the rocks. The African Rock Kopje exhibit groups animals in their proper bioclime and in more natural settings. It is a rocky outcropping with a meandering path, four enclosures including a large enclosure with three viewing area, and interpretive signs at each of the viewing areas. Outstanding features of the kopje are the hands-on interactive elements that provide multisensory experiences for visitors, among them a touch pool at the base of a rock, a cluster of simulated termite mounds, and a simulation of the hair and feet of a klipspringer. Several of the manmade rocks are climbable and there is a touchable "hot rock" heated as if for reptiles. There also is a rotating drum of bird pictures and information, a miniature kopje in sand, and peepholes that display the answers to questions about the kopje. The broad goal of the exhibit was to communicate the concept and beauty of the interdependent ecosystem and to increase the knowledge and appreciation of wildlife in people of all ages. Among the cognitive objectives were requirements that visitors describe the kopje as an ecosystem, identify the secret of life that makes the kopje a viable environment, and describe at least one physical or behavioral adaptation to the kopje for the hyrax, the klipspringer, and the pancake tortoise and explain the adaptation's survival value. Affective objectives included requirements that visitors speak of and behave toward plants and animals with respect, express appreciation for nature and wildlife, and support conservation efforts when given the opportunity, as demonstrated in candid comments, the absence of noncompliant behavior, and answers to the questionnaire. Interactive elements were designed on the basis of stated educational objectives. Zoo educators predicted that visitors would enjoy the interactives and retain more information if interactive elements were combined with graphic panels. It was thought that the upper klipspringer viewpoint would be the most popular viewing area, based on the design of the exhibit and anticipated traffic flow patterns. The viewpoint included two interactive elements, two interpretive panels, and the largest standing area. The klipspringers had shown a preference for staying in that area. Based on experience with other exhibits, it was also expected that the simulated klipspringer hair and feet would be the most popular interactive element. Three main visitor groups were targeted as learners. They were a school-age child, his or her accompanying parent (a female with some college education), and a male tourist approximately 40 years old. Four methods were used to collect data. These were tabulations of visitor behavior, the recording of candid comments made by visitors, visitor tracking, and questionnaire administration. During peak days, over 800 visitors visited the kopje per hour (72 to 1,096) with an average length of stay from 5.7 minutes to 7.7 minutes. Children constituted approximately 18 % of exhibit visitors, while 82 % were adults. 115
Overall, the visitors reported enjoying the exhibit. There was a strong correlation between the length of time spent in the exhibit, the number of panels read, and the number of elements explored. On the average, younger visitors were more likely to use the interpretive elements than to read panels, while older visitors were more likely to read the panels than to use the interactive elements. In total, 91 % of the visitors looked at or read at least one panel, and 30 % read 3 or more signs - more than previous studies have shown to be typical (i.e. 37 % to 47 %). The younger the visitor, the less often they chose to view panels about the animals or elements. The Rock climber panel which included an interactive element, was the most read panel. Visitors were unable to answer questions about the exhibit if they had not read the interpretive signs. The interactive elements significantly helped cognitive recall when compared to information presented without interaction. A noteworthy 79 % touched or used at least one interactive exhibit element. The younger the visitor, the more they chose to explore the interactive elements. Unexpectedly, the most successful hands-on element for the observed visitors was the peephole component. People waited in line and held up their children to see into the viewers. Most people did not look into all six windows during the high-density times but saw only two or three. When the crowds were less dense, people tended to look into all six windows. The difference between the percentages for the klipspringer hair and feet suggest that the adults were not as comfortable touching the feet as children but that children were equally comfortable with touching both the simulated hair and the feet. That the element was the third most popular, behind the peepholes and the hot rock, may be attributable, from observations and recorded candid comments, to the fact the feet and to a lesser extent the hair were so life-like. People often spoke in low tones. Most of the comments concerned the animals on exhibit and were positive in nature. People discussed previously learned or exhibit panel information and expressed questions. Overall, the visitors acted in a manner consistent with people who respect and appreciate wildlife. The upper klipspringer opposite the termite mounds, as expected, was the most popular viewing area. The observation railing was longer there, accommodating more people and for most of the traffic it represented the last chance to see the main enclosure. It was also the best vantage point from which to observe the klipspringers, hyraxes, and mongooses interacting with each other. Although it was not encouraged, the people could stand on the base of the simulated termite mounds (on the path) and see over heads into the enclosures during dense crowd times. Overall, the majority of visitors were not able to give acceptable answers to cognitive questions regarding the kopje as an ecosystem. Only 10 out of the 70 tracked visitors read or looked at the Island in the Plain panel, which explained how everything worked together. The rock hyrax and the pancake tortoise each had a panel and no interactive element to explain their physical adaptations to the kopje while the klipspringer had a panel and a separate interactive element. In comparing the responses concerning the adaptations of the three animals, it was found that only 14 % of the visitors could recall an adaptation of the hyrax and 12 % could recall an adaptation of the pancake tortoise while significantly more (40 %) of the visitors could recall an adaptation of the klipspringer. When asked to rate importance a majority of visitors thought that signs were important, that understanding nature's parts was important, and that having things to explore was important. 116
Of the visitors, 58 % reported no change in their interest level of conservation of animals as a result of their trip through the kopje but about 25 % said their interest level was high initially. In total, 37 % thought their interest was higher after their visit. An overwhelming 85 % of the visitors reported that the kopje was an interesting, pleasant, and beneficial exhibit while 12 % were undecided. No one reported the kopje as boring, unpleasant, or worthless. Concluding this study, cognitive objectives obviously were too demanding (see 4.5.3, SCREVEN, 1987). The kopje is an ecosystem too far away from personal experience and relevance to be interesting in detail. Knowing about survival strategies of rare and distant species does not seem useful to the general public. Besides, people visiting a zoo of the size of San Diego Zoo for some hours cannot be expected to read many signs. However, interactives succeeded in conveying even special facts to a substantial part of the visiting public. Affective objectives regarding visitors' behavior were generally met. Attitudes towards conservation and education however, cannot be expected to change from viewing one setting and cannot be tested by questionnaires (see 4.4.2.5: DAVISON, 1989). Attitudes are partly unconscious and the method applied influences results (see 3.1.3 for self-report bias and 3.4.1.3 for ceiling effect).
6.2.12 Participatory exhibits
6.2.12.1 Success "Participatory exhibits are a recent and popular phenomenon in zoos. They elicit a response from the visitor, they are suited to the needs of family visitors offering an experience that all ages can try, or in some way get something out of it" (WHITE, 1986). Visitor participation increases the holding power of an exhibit. The task remains of evaluating the precise quantitative relationship between different types of participatory devices and various aspects of visitor behavior and to determine what characteristics of such devices make them effective (BITGOOD et al., 1986b). Features that proved to be successful are touching, looking closely, finding answers to questions, having activities for different ages, and ones that a family can do together. "A successful interactive exhibit is one that is easy to approach, operates in an obvious way, works each and every time and pays off" (PETERSON, 1986). In a zoo, visitors throwing food and the consequent begging by the animal is an example for misled interaction. Children's zoos often fulfill this need for interaction in a controlled manner (patting areas, food devices). "As it is not always possible or even desirable to have people elicit behaviors from animals, exhibits which are associated with animal enclosures should be designed to include opportunities for manipulation" (KELSEY, 1989). Participatory devices need not be high tech but can be simple, inexpensive, requiring only low maintenance. A popular example is the simple panel with hinged flaps asking questions. The visitor guesses by raising the hinged panel. Under the panel is either the correct answer or a message that the visitor made an error.
117
Picture 16 Panel with hinged flaps at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991)
Good examples also have been found to be pets to pat. A more sophisticated example found were black and white painted stones offering a hot/cold sensation which obvious why color is important in thermoregulation.
6.2.12.2 Evidence Interviews with visitors to the learning labs at the National Zoo in Washington in 1986 enlighten the specific aspects of participatory exhibits that appeal to families: "People said they liked activities, in which there is something active to do. Many people appreciated an activity that was self-guided, that is, without a formal teacher. Many appreciative comments had to do with being able to touch and handle real things (like a shed snakeskin, a bird's egg, a nest). Looking closely is another valued experience. Finding answers to questions is another activity people told us they like. People enjoy being challenged, and answers hidden behind doors are especially fun. Frequent comments we heard in interviews had to do with the fact that a successful experience is one that is suitable for a wide range of age levels. Families appreciated that. And along with these comments were many others about how families enjoyed doing activities together. The fact that both children and parents can do something together may be the key to the popularity of good participatory exhibits" (WHITE, 1986).
KORAN et al. (1986) reported increased viewing time with more opportunity for participation at a museum seashell exhibit. "Visitors were timed at the exhibit when the shells were covered, uncovered, and when a microscope was available to examine the shells. Visitors spent the most time at an exhibit when the microscope was available and least time when the shells were covered" (PATTERSON et al., 1988).
A comparison was made of river otter exhibits that differ primarily in terms of visitor participation. 118
The Arizona Sonora Desert exhibit had a button which, when pressed, illuminated the otter's den; the San Diego Zoo exhibit did not have such a device at its den viewing area. The exhibit with the light button appeared to generate much longer viewing times even when the amount of animal activity was approximately equal (BITGOOD et al., 1986a). The Brookfield Zoo's Bird Discovery Point is a series of interactive exhibits in the Aquatic Bird House. It was subject to a thorough evaluating process from the very beginning of planning (BIRNEY, 1987a; BIRNEY, 1987b; BIRNEY, 1988b; BIRNEY, 1988d; BIRNEY 1988e; BIRNEY 1988f; BIRNEY, 1990c; BIRNEY, 1990d, BIRNEY et al., 1991): The Aquatic Bird House and its exhibits did not appear to retain the interest of those lacking an intrinsic interest in birds. The intention therefore was to increase visitor use of an exhibit area previously under-utilized and to increase visitors' understanding of birds both by offering new information and by correcting existing misconceptions about the bird behavior and biology. In designing Bird Discovery Point, it was hoped that the zoo would provide a forum for group interaction and be responsive to the different ages and intellectual abilities of group members. Interactives also serve a promotional function when they are popular, provide amusement, and photo opportunities. To the six live exhibits in the Aquatic Bird House the new Bird Discovery Point added three special interactive devices, two video games and a docent station. The formative evaluation of one of the devices will be outlined below: The "Flying Walk" exhibit specifically addresses the common misconception that birds "flap" their wings up and down when they fly. While there are several types of wing movements, developers sought to convey to the public that birds essentially scoop the substance of air with their wings and through a complex motion vaguely similar to a figure-8, they create lift for flight. The correct movement is demonstrated by models on video.
Picture 17 Video demonstration as part of Bird Discovery Point at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991)
The exhibit is intended to make use of several sensory systems. Visually, the exhibit resembles waves of water with troughs and crests. As users move forward, landscape 119
scenes appear beneath their feet. Tactilely, the exhibit forces the user to move the upper body and arms, simulating the figure-eight motion of normal wing movement. For the exhibit component on bird wing movement a target audience was set for 6 to 11 years old children. Planners expressed the concern that the exhibit would hold little interest for the general public entering the Aquatic Bird House. The question was raised as to whether the exhibit would be used as a "jungle gym" and therefore pose a safety hazard. Additional concerns were raised about whether the exhibit was cost-effective. Thus a prototype (mock-up) of the "Flying Walk" was constructed in 1987 and the following questions were investigated by observation and interviews: ¾ What do visitors already know about bird wing movement? ¾ What portion of Aquatic Bird House visitors are attracted to the exhibit and does the exhibit influence the length of time they spend in the house overall? ¾ How do visitors make use of the exhibit? ¾ Do visitors demonstrate the ability to simulate wing motion without the exhibit to guide them? ¾ What are visitors' perceptions of what they have learned?
According to the data 47 % of the groups entering the Aquatic Bird House were attracted to the Flying Walk exhibit. Groups using the exhibit (17 %) or watching others use it (30 %) stayed in the building significantly longer (5:43 minutes) than those who did not (4:41 minutes). The mean time that it took to complete the exhibit was 18.7 seconds. The percentage of children ages 6 to 11 was twice as high in groups that used the exhibit than in groups that either observed others on the exhibit or did not use the exhibit. The height of the exhibit was most appropriate for this age group as well. While the exhibit is too tall to permit toddlers to follow through with the appropriate movement, toddlers often repeat the experience of going through the exhibit many times and their facial expressions indicate that they enjoy their explorations. The majority of visitors used the exhibit in the way in which it was designed to be used although behavioral differences occur due to age. All visitors moving through the exhibit went in the correct direction. Rarely were inappropriate behaviors such as shoving observed. Subjects who approached the exhibit too rapidly, and found the curvature of the crest more severe than they anticipated, were observed to "rock back" on their rear foot. The curvature of the wave crests were subsequently modified to provide visitors with greater comfort. The "rock back" motion disappeared. Additional testing revealed that subjects did not increase the speed with which they moved through the exhibit significantly when using the further modified prototype. Earlier studies determined that visitors could more easily demonstrate the wing movement than try to explain it verbally. While only 4 % of the naive sample could replicate bird wing movement, 45 % of the sample who used the exhibit were able to demonstrate that they learned the appropriate concept. Visitors who correctly performed the wing movement indicated they had acquired new knowledge. Visitors who failed to demonstrate the correct movement maintained that they already knew how birds move their wings. Thus, there seems to be a disparity between participants' perceptions of whether they have learned something and their actual behavior. 120
Observations were made for a summative evaluation upon opening of Bird Discovery Point in 1990 which are cited in extracts:
Flying Walk exhibit Overall, 72 % of the sample participated in some way on the Flying Walk exhibit with 67 % observing others using the exhibit and 35 % using the exhibit component themselves. For free-standing exhibits, these are extremely high success rates. Observing others is a major behavior associated with visitors' use of the Bird Wing Movement component. Overall participation and observation of others on the exhibit was not found to be related to group size but significantly more visitors (88 %) who used the exhibit component were in groups containing children in contrast to non-users (52 %). Thus, the component is attracting its target audience.
Picture 18 Flying Walk exhibit at Bird Discovery Point, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991)
Flight Strength exhibit This component is intended to draw visitors’ attention to the primary source of power birds use for flight. It was also intended to engender visitors' appreciation of the relative power of birds' flight muscles by offering visitors the opportunity to compare the strength of birds against their own strength which is familiar to them. Live interpretation accompanies the Flight Strength exhibit component on a regular basis. Overall, 83 % participated on the Flight Strength exhibit component either by watching others (83 %) or by using the component themselves (18 %). Users are most likely to come from groups who stayed for the longest time periods with 45 % in groups that spent over 10 minutes in the exhibit. Participating visitors were significantly more likely to come from groups with children. The Flight Strength exhibit component is too demanding for younger children. Nonetheless, stronger group members often place younger children in front of them, encircling them with their bodies, and using the exhibit. 121
This component commanded the highest level of observation and the lowest level of actual use. This could be due to the prominent position it occupies at the entrance, the length of time visitors stand in line waiting and watching users, and the capacity of the exhibit.
Picture 19 Flight Strength exhibit at Bird Discovery Point, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 122
Demonstration Area Interpreters at the Demonstration Area offer visitors two programs. The first uses models of birds' heads to show how different beaks are specialized and enable birds to gather different types of food. The second offers information on the different functions of feathers: They enable birds to fly; keep them dry; and warm them by trapping heat near the body. The live interpretation given by a docent at the Demonstration Area offers information to children but has the flexibility to be readily responsive to adult inquiries. Overall, 40 % participated in the Demonstration Area; 39 % watched others use it, and 22 % of the sample used it. Visitors that participated were significantly more likely to be in groups who spent a high amount of time at Bird Discovery Point. 91 % of groups using the component contained children. Adult participation is almost exclusively a function of observing others. The Demonstration Area represents a commitment of time on the part of visitors since live interpretation is more in-depth. Furthermore, access to this component is limited by its configuration. A step up gives children access to hands-on activities while adults watch from behind.
Picture 20 Docent at the Demonstration Area, Bird Discovery Point, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 123
Bird Discovery Point overall The average amount of time visitors spent in the Aquatic Bird House before installation of Bird Discovery Point was 2:30 minutes. Upon opening of the interactive exhibits the median time was 7 minutes, 22 % spent over 10 minutes. No relationship was found for the amount of time visitors spent in Bird Discovery Point and the amount of time they spent in front of live exhibits in the same building. In other words time spent at live exhibits did not drop when the additional exhibits were installed. Total zoo attendance was found to be unrelated to how long groups stayed in the exhibit, refuting the suspicion that Bird Discovery Point might be visited for shorter periods of time on days of high attendance. While large groups and children tended to spend more time with the interactive exhibits, small groups and adults tended to spend more time at live exhibits within the Aquatic Bird House. 95 % of the groups had members who either watched others using an exhibit component or used one themselves. 63 % of the groups had members who used one or more exhibit components. Groups with children were significantly more likely to spend longer amounts of time in Bird Discovery Point. This finding suggests that exhibit planners have been successful in targeting their audience. Bird Discovery Point clearly offers a variety of options to visiting groups. Finally, visitors of all ages recorded their reactions in a comment box available to them. Though these individuals are self-selected the joy and warmth that characterizes their assessment of Bird Discovery Point cannot be dismissed. Many comments were brief and indicated that the exhibit was "great", "excellent" or "awesome". Some are poignant with visitors signing their names to "Thank you" and "Love". Many of the respondents demonstrate that they perceive the exhibit as an exciting way to discover more about the world around them. An extraordinarily high portion of those exiting Bird Discovery Point in July of 1988 were first- time visitors to the zoo (29 % in comparison to 12 % normally). This suggests that, contrary to popular belief, the gradual opening of an interactive exhibit to "work out the bugs" does not necessarily mean that the exhibit has failed to serve a promotional function and attract a new segment of the public. The impact of Bird Discovery Point on visitors' knowledge of bird biology and behavior was tested by a questionnaire in 1990 (BIRNEY, 1990d): Part of the difficulty of assessing a multi-media exhibit is that visitors have the opportunity to learn so many things, many of which may not be directly related to acquiring biological concepts. For instance, they may learn that zoos are places where they can actively participate discovery learning. BIRNEY felt that the major limitation of this evaluation is that it examines only those specific biological concepts that developers were seeking to communicate. Actual use of the exhibit's components was significantly associated with the types of responses visitors gave when asked questions about what is necessary for bird flight and structural adaptations associated with diversity among bird species. Use of the Flight Strength component was significantly related to whether visitors correctly identified the primary source of a bird's power for flight. The vast majority of visitors with a college or higher degree did not actually use the Flight Strength component but watched others instead. They appear to have extracted the message without actually using the 124
component. Thus, the impact of educational background on performance of exhibit users compared to non-users was confounded. Use of the Demonstration Area presentation significantly and positively impacted visitors' ability to identify why birds have different beaks.
Picture 21 Interpretive graphic at the Demonstration Area, Bird Discovery Point, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991);
When bird species were familiar to the visitors, the only variable that significantly impacted their response was educational background. For strange bird beaks (such as the flamingo), visitors performed poorly overall and exposure to the docent presentation had a significant impact on visitors' ability to answer correct. This is consistent with other findings that interpretation is most powerful whenever species are unfamiliar to the public. Visitors who used the Demonstration Area were significantly more likely to identify insulation as a function of feathers. In a surprise finding, visitors who identified insulation as a function of feathers were significantly less likely to give the most obvious and common answer - that feathers aid in flight. This is exciting and suggests that interpretation does indeed enable some visitors to be more sophisticated in their understanding of birds. The visitors' attitudes toward conservation issues related to birds was surveyed in 1988 (BIRNEY, 1988b) and 1991 (BIRNEY et al., 1991) after the opening of the new Bird Discovery Point: The issues of the questionnaire were not addressed directly in Bird Discovery Point, thus to see whether higher conservation scores are attained on the basis of increasing biological knowledge and positive feelings alone, or whether attitudes toward conservation must be directly taught. The questions dealt with whether certain hunting practices were legitimized, with human disturbances of the habitat areas, the common needs humans and birds have for clean air, 125
and water protection, specific threats such as the continued use of DDT in South America, oil spills, or illegal pet trade practices. The results showed no differences between the mean scores of visitors sampled who had not been to Bird Discovery Point and those who had. Low attitude scores could result from either of two conditions. Subjects may not be oriented to conserve or they may lack the knowledge to respond in an informed way. Neutral attitude scores were most likely the result of subjects who were unsure of the issues but they might also result from subjects whose responses vacillated widely between a weak and a strong orientation to conservation. High scores reflect both a knowledge of the issues and a willingness to conserve. Currently, visitors to Brookfield Zoo have no access to information that would promote their understanding of their personal impact on conserving local birds. The respondents were not sure whether effective laws are in place to prevent the import of bird products or what the impact of importation of birds to pet stores is. These visitors were even more unsure about the nature of major threats such as how DDT may negatively impact migrating birds or how foreign species may negatively impact resident species. While this sample was realistic about hunting in general, more species specific information is required to aid the public in differentiating between sound policies for hunting. In sum, the public tends to support general goals for conservation but the reaction is more mixed to specific policy recommendations that may be tied to these goals. The one factor that did significantly impact visitors' conservation scores was their educational background. The responses indicate that there is a need to educate visitors about specific threats to habitat destruction. To address conservation issues, zoos must teach values and model appropriate attitudes in addition to providing scientific information (BIRNEY, 1988b and BIRNEY et al., 1991).
6.2.12.3 Development "Participatory exhibits require a lot of work to develop and than more work to maintain. Therefore it is important to find out as much as possible about the target audience before starting a project" (WHITE, 1986). When developing an interactive exhibit, physical aspects of the user (anthropometrics) have to be respected as well as their psychological limits and possibilities. To make a successful exhibit it also should be appropriate in scale, impact and importance to its use (telesis) and support its subject matter without undue attention to the material or medium. The mechanism, location and function of the design should be reliable and durable or easily exchangeable at low cost. It may service a lot of people with a short message for each, or require a long time to transmit a message to one person depending on who the exhibit is intended to serve (PETERSON, 1986). "Interaction with live animals, such as those in tide pools, creates problems for the staff in terms of visitor control and maintenance of animals and facilities. Interactive components are susceptible to mechanical breakdown, rough handling, and vandalism. Visitors may feel disappointed when interactive exhibits don't work. The experience of the exhibit is then a negative one and it has failed to meet its and affective objectives" (DERWIN et al., 1988). 126
At any time "we must be prepared to fail. To only copy the success of others will lead to stagnation. We must experiment and evaluate" (JENKINS, 1985).
6.2.13 Audi-visuals
6.2.13.1 Attendance "Evidently is that, in general, audiovisuals are poorly attended in terms of both time and attention, though the visitors' response to audiovisuals is favorable" (MILES, 1989). According to MILES (1989) the following common uses would suggest increasing success as we move from A to D: A to present complex issues in a compact manner;
B to provide a summary or overview and to tie together loose ends in a story;
C to provide an introduction to an exhibition;
D to show movement, change over time and other processes.
For example audiovisuals can be used to add motion to a static exhibit for attractiveness (see 6.2.3). In the San Francisco Zoo a short film clip on koalas near a koala exhibit added to the popularity of these normally inactive animals. "All other things being equal, an audiovisual located at the beginning of an exhibition is more likely to attract visitors than one placed near the end (see 6.3.2 for exit gradient). Audiovisuals may be presented in open gallery space of various integration with other exhibits or shown in enclosed auditoria (mini-theaters or booths). Visitors watch for longer when environmental conditions are quiet. Seated visitors stay longer than those who are standing, certainly for programs that last for more than say 3 minutes" (MILES, 1989). "Few visitors stop at headphone stations and listen to commentary when in walk-through exhibits such as the Florida Cave in the Florida State Museum. But the use of docents or experimenters modeling listening behavior and verbalizing about what is heard on the headphones significantly increases visitor attention to and use of headphones" (KORAN et al., 1984). "If the message is of sufficient interest, or if the audience is sufficiently highly motivated, it is possible to break all the rules and get away with it" (MILES, 1989).
6.2.13.2 Development "Audiovisuals are expensive to produce, difficult to mock-up and test during development, and expensive to modify once produced. They often restrict the freedom of visitors to proceed at their own pace, to go forward or backward, to skim, to pause and reflect and to appreciate the detail without being distracted by it. In the automaton mode audiovisuals run independently of any action by the visitor. They may run continuously, or intermittently (e.g. every 20 min.). Audiovisuals in the operand mode are started by the visitor, by pressing a button, touching a screen or entering a small theatre. Visitors arriving at the beginning of a program stayed for much longer than visitors arriving after it had started. Therefore, there is some advantage in the operand mode, in that more 127
visitors should start at the beginning. However, visitors are attracted by open sound and movement. This is argument in favor of the automaton mode, though a better solution might be to have a 'trailer' playing until the program is started by the visitor. Audiovisuals should let visitors know what is going on, i.e. how long the program and its intervals last, what stage the showing has reached (e.g., just started or just about to finish), and what its title and purpose are" (MILES, 1989). A study on visitors' reactions to a slide-show produced originally for adults revealed that the main complaint was the noisy level from the children in the audience. Programs such as these need to be responsive to this very young audience or interpretive planners need to communicate effectively to the general public who these programs are targeted to when visitors come through the gates (BIRNEY, 1988c). "Good communication is selected for a purpose and has a sound logical structure. Messages have to be communicated in a familiar language and connected with the recipient's everyday world, including his or her everyday interests and concerns. The sound should not disturb visitors looking at other exhibits or interfere with another audiovisual or confuse visitors looking at a silent film or slide show. The use of telephone handsets discourages social interaction among groups of visitors, and therefore work against educational effectiveness which is promoted by group discussion" (MILES, 1989).
6.2.13.3 Evaluation The Discovery Center at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, shows an orientation multi-image slide show which was undergoing a summative evaluation (BIRNEY, 1988c). 300 slides are shown by 12 projectors within 12 minutes. The zoo is represented as an institution that contains a diverse collection of animals from all over the world and attempts to recreate the habitats of those animals. It is portrayed as a multipurpose institution that offers a variety of experiences for visitors year-round. The staff is portrayed as caring and the facilities as humane. The orientation show consists, then, as a potpourri of images representative of the daily and seasonal activities at the zoo. Images are glitzy and move rapidly. The music conveys various moods ranging from festive to touching. The show dominates the entire theatre by its vast screen. In order to gain useful information the evaluation of the orientation show was done at the same time and in the same way as an evaluation of a 12 minutes abbreviated version of the TRAFFIC (U.S.A.) show which is a dual-slide program produced by the World Wildlife Fund about the illegal trade and consumption of wildlife products. Although a ceiling effect (see 3.4.1.3) was to be expected interviews were completed in order to find qualitative differences between the visitors' responses to both shows. Unexpectedly, the majority of visiting groups in both the post show survey and interview treatment groups stayed to see both shows which was not desirable for analysis. The results show that 42 % of the post-survey sample had just arrived at the zoo - the Discovery Center is nearby the entrance and first viewed when entering. Nevertheless over 50 % of zoo visitors stated they were not aware that the zoo offered an orientation show and additional 29 % stated their agenda for visit does not include the show (came to see animals, be outdoors, kids may become fatigued, etc.). The more often the visitor reported coming to the zoo, the more likely they were to indicate they had plans to see the show - which means 128
that these frequent visitors may be confronted with more specific information. Plans are already arising to change the topics of the show to behind-the-scenes and field research work done by the zoo. Interesting seems the post-show interview subjects' opinion about whether the orientation show would be of interest to other visitors. Both shows were recommended by 91 % of visitors. Visitors appear to perceive the different missions of the shows and imply that the orientation show is appealing and upbeat while TRAFFIC exposes a serious problem and is appropriate to a zoo setting where people have a special interest in animals. In sum visitor expectations are generally vague and appear to be easily met.
6.3 Support facilities The question most frequently asked in zoos is said to be "Where are the restrooms?". This illustrates the importance of meeting the visitors' needs (see 5.2) before thinking about conveying any message to them. Adequate information for wayfinding is crucial. When planning support facilities the questions of concern are their capacity, maintenance, and location. This reveals again the importance of visitor studies: their number on peak days, age, sex, and circulation patterns.
6.3.1 Parking The difficult or uncomfortable way to reach a facility may be a reason for not visiting. If public transportation is not available nearby parking for private cars should be provided in sufficient numbers. "Features to be kept in mind when planning a parking area include capacity, traffic flow, special parking areas, security and landscaping. In a large lot it is essential to erect signs with letters, numbers or other symbols so the motorist can find his way back to his car when he leaves. Special parking areas should be provided for the handicapped, tour buses, recreational vehicles and taxis. Protection against theft and vandalism should be provided. Pedestrian aisles should be marked clearly to prevent accidents caused by mixing foot and car traffic. A well landscaped lot with planter beds for trees and hedgerows gives a far better initial impression than one covered with barren asphalt" (SAUSMAN, 1982). However, the unplanted lot can be controlled much easier. Parking fees charge those using the lot for maintenance and security. "If an entrance fee and/or parking charge is to be collected before entering the parking area, than allow both for ample ticket booths and a sufficient length of approach road to prevent cars from backing up onto a main thoroughfare" (SAUSMAN, 1982).
6.3.2 Entrance/exit area "Generally, a combination entrance and exit for the public is most practical and preferable. Obviously, the fewer entrances and exits, the better the grounds security and visitor control" (CURTIS, 1968). "The pedestrian entrance ought to be visible from anywhere in the parking lot. If the structure itself is not conspicuous then its location can be identified by means of colorful banners. Ideally, the approach is from the south side with the visitors looking away from, rather than into the sun" (SAUSMAN, 1982). "Turnstiles with counters afford actual 129
attendance checks which are always of interest in measuring the popularity of the zoo, evaluating peak loads, etc." (CURTIS, 1968). "The flow of visitor traffic into the zoo must be designed so as not to conflict with traffic exiting the facility. The number of ticket windows required depends on the maximum number of visitors expected daily. Our experience indicates that one ticket window can accommodate 2500 people per day" (SAUSMAN, 1982). Visitors are likely to head for the restrooms immediately upon their arrival and before leaving. They also need a place to gather and rest (see 6.3.6) at the entrance and exit. Especially groups need space to give instructions, introduction, and physically group and organize themselves (BITGOOD et al., 1986b). "There is a great tendency for 'pile-ups' to occur by the entrance. People have just paid for their tickets and are putting away change, they are studying the maps and getting oriented to the layout. This is a natural spot for visitors to hesitate and, thus, causes congestion at times" (SHETTEL-NEUBER et al., 1987). "The needs of a visitor who is leaving are different from one who is arriving. He or she is usually more interested in purchasing gifts and postcards at this time than at any other. While the fronts of stroller rentals and film sales may best be directed towards those arriving, it is better if the gift shop faces the visitors as they leave" (SAUSMAN, 1982). "Exits compete with exhibit objects such that visitors often walk out an exit, whether or not they have viewed all or even most of the exhibits objects in a gallery, museum or science museum" (BITGOOD, 1988b). There is some evidence that exhibits closest to an exit are viewed for a shorter time than exhibits farther from the exit. Though this effect is not always found it may be minimized by placing exhibits a respectable distance from exits (BITGOOD et al., 1986b). "Unsightly features which are visible when exiting may be masked with attractive fencing or plantings. A sign thanking the visitors for coming may leave the zoo patron with a favorable impression" (SAUSMAN, 1982). When leaving visitors should not have problems to find either public transportation (direction signs), a taxi (public telephone) or their own car (parking lot marked with numbers and color codes).
6.3.3 Paths and transportation For orientation devices see 6.1. By designing a zoo spacious and the paths wide, there should be no crowding problems even if people use a variety of routes. Different colored and textured materials can be used to separate or link exhibits and areas within the zoo setting. Heavy used main paths and malls should be more durable than other walks. Care should be taken to avoid materials that become slick in the rain. Buses, steam-driven, engine-driven and electrical trains, small trams, flumes, sky rides and moving sidewalks are all in use for public transportation on the sites of American zoos. The disturbances by noise, smell, use of space on the paths and contrasting with the landscape are sometimes considerable. 130
"Our experience has been that a transportation system should be capable of accommodating at least 40 % of the total number of visitors, with loading and unloading structures and systems designed to eliminate as much waiting time as possible. The optimum system would accommodate the greatest number of visitors with the least amount of labor and maintenance cost" (SAUSMAN, 1982).
Hopefully the European zoo goers agree that the optimum system for an outdoor facility housing wild animals ought to be human power driving body movement.
6.3.4 Restrooms "Inadequate and/or unclean restroom facilities do more to give a public institution an unsatisfactory reputation than any other condition" (CURTIS, 1968). "In addition to employee restrooms, an ample number of public restrooms should be located conveniently around the grounds, the number based on attendance to the institution" (SAUSMAN, 1982). Given the higher attendance of women to zoos (see 5.1.3) there should be more female restroom units than the number provided for men. When one adds to this the high percentage of zoo visitors below age 6, and that it is generally the woman and not the man that takes the child to the restroom when assistance is needed, the difference in restroom requirements as it relates to gender is even greater. A ratio of two female units to one male unit probably comes closest to achieving equality of service (JOSLIN et al., 1986). Children's zoos and museums often have some sinks and lavatory pans adapted to child's height. This is nice for children and respects their high share in public attendance.
Picture 22 Restroom facilities at Children's Museum in London, Ontario (1991);
Diaper changing facilities are a usual service to American zoo goers though not always adjacent to both men's and women's restrooms. "Thought should be given to means of conserving water by installing faucets that turn off automatically" (SAUSMAN, 1982). 131
6.3.5 Stroller rental and parking Stroller and wheelchair rental is a common service to visitors in North American zoos. The parking of strollers in front of buildings always involves some risk of theft. It would be worth thinking about a system avoiding this risk such as locking devices.
Picture 23 Stroller parking at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991)
6.3.6 Places to rest "Since considerable walking is usually necessary in zoo visiting, rest areas for visitors should be available throughout the grounds. Benches are best located on paved areas to simplify litter" (CURTIS, 1968). Also people want to rest or wait while more energetic members of their party enjoy the activities. Thus, places to sit should offer an outlook on things to watch and some comfort. At the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum it was observed that a "long, wooden bench between the entrance and exit gates is heavily used. People were observed to sit here for long periods of time. It provides a good vantage point for people watching, and the shade and breeze that are generally present make it physically comfortable" (SHETTEL-NEUBER et al., 1987).
6.3.7 Places to fool around People like challenges in their monotonous lives in the city. They like feelings which are different from what they usually are (see 5.2.5) and they like to prove their skills themselves and others. Contact with animals is as effective as with water, plants and fire to create a sense of arousal and is resistant to habituation (KAPLAN et al., 1982). If there is anything to climb, people, especially children, will climb up guardrails, rocks, trees, logs etc. Hanging bridges and stepping stones are often used several times and for considerable periods of time. The desire for climbing should always be kept in mind during 132
planning. Structures should either be allowed to climb up or prevent from climbing by their layout.
Picture 24 Log at Baltimore's Children's Zoo (1991)
Picture 25 Stepping stones at Brookfield Zoo's Children's Zoo, Chicago (1991) 133
6.3.8 Restaurants and picnic areas "Food facilities should be available at convenient sites throughout the grounds in heavily trafficked areas. Following basic concessions have proven to be effective in zoos: ¾ Cafe and restaurant facilities; ¾ Refreshment stands for minor food and beverage items; ¾ Vending machines for beverages and snacks.
Picnic areas should also be provided as a service to those bringing in their own food. These should offer comfortable seating, shade and trash containers and should be near a food stand offering extra beverages and snacks. Certain animals which constitute special problems for one reason or another, e.g., musk producers, should not be located near a refreshment stand or restaurant" (SAUSMAN, 1982).
6.3.9 Gift shops "Gift facilities should be located in heavily trafficked areas, near the entrance and near popular exhibits" (SAUSMAN, 1982). Located near the exits visitors should face or pass through the gift shop when leaving. Depending on the location of the zoo and the items available (postcards, books etc.) people may come specifically to the gift shop to browse or to purchase. In these cases visitors should be allowed to shop without paying entrance fees. At Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, the special gift shop in the Seven Seas (sea mammals) exhibit area was subject to an evaluation (HEINRICH et al., 1991). The number of visitors going into the gift shop, their transitions and durations of stay were recorded. The data were part of a front-end evaluation process with the goal to find the best type and location for additional educational interpretation in this area.
6.3.10 Security and first aid Fencing, foot and car patrol, cameras and raised hides, even if unoccupied, are some possibilities to control the site. Fire and emergency access lanes have to be provided for public safety. For locating lost children and lost or found items a public address system or special facility should be available. "A specified 'lost children' area is helpful because parents can instruct children to go there if they become separated" (SAUSMAN, 1982). Properly supplied first-aid facilities with trained personnel are a must. "Even though extensive first aid is rarely required, there are usually frequent requests for band-aids for blisters and scraped knees" (SAUSMAN, 1982).
6.3.11 Education facilities Planning should include a classroom for lectures, talks, demonstrations etc. If docents are working at the zoo they need lockers and a room for their brakes. Access to the zoo library should be considered. Amphitheatres for animal shows are built in many zoos. "A recent trend in zoo design is to install visitor observation windows in food preparation facilities so that the public can see the complexities involved in these formerly 'behind-the- scenes' activities. Valuable byproducts of such installations are neater employees and more 134
orderly and better kept facilities. Other applications of the same principle have been made with public view windows installed for specialized equipment such as filters and pumps. Even operating, post mortem and examination rooms and laboratories have been made viewable, resulting in excellent visitor reception with consequently improved public education to the total zoo operation" (CURTIS, 1982).
6.4 Programs "Today, interpretation must be viewed not as a luxury it may have been considered in the past, but as a cornerstone of good zoo and aquarium management. Interpretive programs not only foster an awareness and understanding of the displayed collections, they also affect the attitudes of visitors about the animals and their total environment" (SAUSMAN, 1982). "Performances offer several advantages: They confine large numbers of people to a small area, thus freeing up space for other visitors and raising the level of attendance required to saturate the zoo. A series of performances can be used to maintain this effect throughout the peak period of the day. Public interest can be maintained by periodically changing shows, which is much less expensive than periodically constructing new exhibits" (SAUSMAN, 1982). American Sea Worlds can be viewed as extreme of this concept offering animal shows almost exclusively. This way, large crowds are channeled on relatively small sites. At Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, there are on-site and outreach programs for special populations since about 1980. The groups served include elderly, physically disabled, hearing impaired, visually impaired, mentally retarded, learning disabled, multiple disabled, behaviorally disordered, stroke patients, alcohol and drug abusers, cancer patients and some mixed groups. Few zoos offer programs of these types and evaluations of these programs are even more infrequent (TRIEGLAFF, 1991): Evaluation forms were given to the tour leaders who were asked to return them at their convenience. Both the on-site and outreach program respondents were asked whether the program was at the appropriate level, whether they would recommend it to another party, whether the staff was effective, and whether they had suggestions for changes to the program. Though the respondents suggest a great success of the program when formulating their answers to open-ended questions, respondents included feedback on program weaknesses. The design related points of importance include: 135
¾ Railings which are at eye level/visual height for persons seated in wheelchairs and small children; ¾ Ramps which are not safe or too steep; ¾ Lack of tables accessible to wheelchairs; ¾ Accessibility of restrooms; ¾ Rental of carts, so senior citizens would not have to walk a long distance; ¾ Provision of shaded areas; ¾ Place where a group can be seated for a special talk or presentation.
This set of responses may be obtained in almost every zoo and illustrates why a qualitative analysis of surveys can be helpful. Philadelphia Zoo pilot-tested a program in summer 1985 in which two short plays were given adjacent to the zoo's main walkway. The goal was to present a message about conservation to visitors in an entertaining and memorable way (FREEMAN, 1985). One play told the tale where in the village of Agfanafasville enterprising villagers grazed one too many cows on their village commons. In the second play Johnny Jones learns about the connection between the rain forest he loves to read about and the hamburgers he loves to eat. Viewers' comments included: 'Thank you for the play and the treatment of a real subject'. In the evaluation survey, 94 % rated the plays as either excellent or good; 88 % said they were entertaining; 76 % said the message was appropriate. Clearly this method was a hit with the zoo visitor. Also at the National Zoo good conservation programs turned out to increase attendance and to be fun. Every summer there is a festival that includes mimes, drama, puppets and so forth for the zoo visitor (FREEMAN, 1985). Special presentations or interpretive talks can also be planned with the circulation path in mind. For example, if the average stay is 2.5 to 3.5 hours and large crowds enter around 9 a.m., the best time for a demonstration might be between 11 and 11:30 a.m." (SHETTEL-NEUBER et al., 1987). "Potentially, animal shows provide a more powerful means of communicating with the public than do signs, passive exhibits, listening to narrators, reading brochures, pushing buttons etc." (SAUSMAN, 1982). At Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, the Children's Zoo "Animals in Action" program has been operating since 1979, with modifications being made periodically to include new animals or behaviors in the show (BIRNEY, 1990). The overall objective of the program is to highlight special abilities of the animals and how people and animals work together. The program was also designed to provide physical and mental stimulation for the animals. The shows are narrated, audience participation is encouraged and involves posing questions to the visitors. After each show, those who attended are invited to come to the arena fence to visit with the animals and trainers. In 1990, it was agreed that there was a need to determine if the shows' messages were getting through. The developers of the "Animals in Action" shows were interested in finding out how much of the information contained in their shows was being retained by visitors and 136
also what visitors considered most salient about the shows when asked six weeks after they had attended. Two separate surveys were conducted to meet this need: personal interviews immediately following the shows and telephone interviews of a separate sample of visitors six weeks after they had seen the shows, both using open-ended questions. The Animal All-Star Show includes various animals such as dogs, mule, pig, llama, ox, reindeer, sheep etc. Its objectives are to highlight special skills of the animals and to emphasize that a method of positive reinforcement or reward is employed to train them. Results showed the visitors' extraordinarily high retention of the idea of positive reinforcement. The main purpose of the Bird Show is to introduce visitors to a variety of birds and to demonstrate their natural behaviors. Visitors who attended the Bird Show were most impressed with the bald eagle, in particular its dramatic appearance, and they appreciated having the opportunity to see this bird up close. When visitors were asked to indicate how owls differ from other birds and what they learned about bald eagles, it was apparent that with the passing of time, they remembered less detailed information. The Horse Show reviews the history of why horses were domesticated as well as what they can do in both work and recreational settings. Visitors achieved remarkably high retention of the message that backing up is the hardest maneuver for a horse to do when hitched to a cart. These results demonstrate that if a specific message is continually emphasized in a show through verbal and visual communication channels, the message will be retained. About half of the visitors attending the Bird and Horse Shows reported that they did visit with the animals and trainers afterward, while about one-third of the visitors who attended the Animal All-Star Show said they visited. The Animal All-Star Show, most often scheduled at 2:00 p.m., tended to have the highest visitor attendance of the three shows. Since the number of visitors that can be accommodated after the show is limited, it is possible that proportionately fewer visitors attending the Animal-All-Star show were able to participate in this activity.
6.4.1 Development Manpower availability should be considered when designing activities that require supervision or interpretation. "The development of any interpretive program is a continuous process and involves on-going evaluation. Interpretive settings and situations differ so much that every presentation needs evaluation. Modify or expand educational programming as time, personnel, finances, goals and public demand dictate. A static program will soon discourage visitors, volunteers and staff members. 'A Guide to Costs and Benefits' by Marty Marion, AAZPA publication, 1979, can be helpful in planning and evaluating programs" (SAUSMAN, 1982). 137
WHAT ZOOS MAY BE – DO THEY CHANGE? 138
7. PERSPECTIVES
There is a change going on in how zoos perceive themselves and how visitors may experience zoo visits. This change is on one side caused by the ever growing importance of conservation and therefore education. On the other side and much more obvious zoo design is changing.
7.1 Horticulture "Plants in zoos are used as a primary food source, food supplement, recreational devices, or exhibit space enhancement. Naturalistic zoo exhibits which simulate wild habitats are becoming the standard mode of presenting animals to the public. Zoos could become the botanical gardens of the future with the opportunity to show the richness and diversity of living collections in their proper context. This requires of course suitable climatic conditions. if not available, horticulturists actually try simulation by analysis of the natural system, abstracting characteristic plant communities and other key features to a three dimensional design image. Also that makes a substantial difference in the quality of an animal's life through meeting their browse needs. It is allowed to choose and experience changes due to seasonal influence or other natural conditions. The educational value of this approach has not yet been explored. Unfortunately there is hardly any exchange of information between zoos concerning current browse practices. A horticultural history should be developed for each naturalistic exhibit. Starting with the architect's drawings, it will include a description of its animal population, browse provided, detailed information on the nature of the original landscape installation, and prescribed horticultural practices. Changes in the animal population, landscape features, and general observations concerning the exhibit will become a part of the history. As documentation of exhibit experiences, these histories will be valuable resources for employee training and design reference" (COBURN, 1985). "The total value of plants in many zoos far exceeds the total value of the animal collection. The success of elaborate plantings in zoo exhibits can be attributed to two things - improved technology in plant support systems (irrigation, drainage, supplemental lighting, etc.) and staffs of trained horticulturists" (COE, 1988).
7.2 High-tech exhibits "Anyone who has recently visited progressive zoos, aquariums and natural history museums will find that they have become amazingly similar. Today they all abound with high tech (interactive) exhibits. The Arizona Sonora Desert Museum and the Oregon High Desert Museum embraced the concept of full integration of zoo, aquarium, museum and botanical garden approaches from their very genesis" (COE, 1986). The AAZPA is reacting to this development by improving communication with museums on the technical, exhibitry and strategic planning level. Consequently the fora for visitor studies, the Center for Social Design at Jacksonville, Alabama, and the International Laboratory for 139
Visitor Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, are used by museums as well as by zoos and aquariums. There are trends trying to duplicate habitats in buildings. Tropic exhibits, desert exhibits, nocturnal exhibits are examples for these artificial environments. This kind of high tech exhibits has some serious disadvantages: ¾ Especially those which require climatic conditions different from the surrounding all year round are extremely cost and labor intensive. It seems contradictory to conservation efforts to create energy intensive exhibits. ¾ The misconception that man can imitate nature derives from human arrogance. The many failures and problems with such exhibits prove that it will always be an experiment to make them function. This kind of 1 : 1 laboratory may be of value even for ecological research. Still, they do not pay off for the scientific findings that are generally got. ¾ Indoor exhibits miss a lot of it, causing unnecessary boredom in captive animals. The impacts of weather, the changing vista, wild sparrows and pigeons, plants growing and leaves falling into the exhibit are all stimuli randomly provoking some reaction from captive animals. Indoor exhibits mostly fail in providing this kind of behavior enrichment.
7.3 Children's zoos Children's zoos are not new. In fact the first opened in Portugal in 1908 but they are undergoing a rapid evolution. According to the AAZPA Directory 50 % of US zoos had a children's zoo in 1984 with 200 to 25000 visitors per day ranging in size between approx. 750 and 65000 m2, 4000 to 20000 m2 being most common. "By the time the AAZPA published Zoological Park Fundamentals in 1968, children's zoos had become identified with certain kinds of exhibits: an observation nursery, a farm-in-the- zoo, a contact area, and a theater area for shows and programs." Evolving from patting zoos children's zoos' design is getting more and more sophisticated. "Today besides children's zoos there are children's coves, touch tanks, zoo labs, discovery rooms, and educational resource centers. Across all museum disciplines, children's facilities have increased in number and institutional distinctions by discipline are less perceptible. Hands-on and participatory exhibits have moved into the mainstream and discovery carts are in the halls and on the grounds. Discovery rooms are everywhere, and though many are child-oriented, they are also serving families, multigenerational audiences, and the disabled. Children's zoos and children's museums also have a common philosophical bond in their approach to conservation. Both are primarily concerned with education and not the long-term preservation of collections in the sense of rare, unique, or endangered. It now appears that the only difference between children's zoos and children's museums is that one starts with live collections and adds non-living and the other begins from the opposite perspective. An interesting variation is Treehouse at the Philadelphia Zoo which opened in 1985 and is designed for children four to eleven. It has no live animals (FLEISHER ZUCKER, 1986). An evaluation of the children's zoo at Bronx Zoo, New York, (NORMANDIA, 1986) revealed as did other studies before that the visitors' expectation of the main zoo were different from their expectations of the children's zoo. 140
"Visitors perceive the zoo as a context for family fun with 70 % of their reasons for coming referring to social interaction or entertainment." The expectations of the children's zoo going beyond by "having an active, close-up experience with animals and the opportunity to introduce children to domestic animals." The Bronx Zoo's 14000 m¨ children's zoo consists of natural habitat zones where wild animals in naturalistic enclosures are interspersed with participatory devices and a traditional barnyard style exhibit of domestic animals. Considering visitors' agendas, it is not surprising that wild animal exhibits were slighted by repeat visitors and interactive exhibits and exhibits of animals they can touch were favored. The exhibits with the highest interactive component had the highest level of attractiveness and holding power, the most favorite exhibits being a tree's slide and a rabbit. The time spent by repeaters was significantly shorter at wild animal exhibits than at interactive exhibits and in the domestic areas. This leads to the conclusion "that if you are designing a new children's zoo and you are depending on it to stimulate repeat visitation, it may be wiser to place a larger percentage of your budget in interactive exhibits and a smaller portion in wild animal exhibits" (NORMANDIA, 1986). Given the wide range of activities, children's zoos can offer to meet the needs of the general zoo audience. There is no use of separating them from the main zoo by a particular name. In fact children are led around the main zoo too and therefore its design should respect this audience. By spreading participatory facilities over the grounds kids probably would get less bored and try less to annoy animals to make them react. The viewing times of animals need not be affected adversely as the evaluation of the Bird Discovery Point at Brookfield Zoo (see 6.2.12) has shown. The display of domestic animals which have to be separated from their wild relatives because of the risk of infections may serve a new task: many domestic breeds are endangered, too.
7.4 Native wild animal parks The exhibition of native animals (wild and domestic) has some important advantages: ¾ Ecology/economy: Low maintenance and low energy consume are characteristics of these exhibits. ¾ Flexibility: The setup of a naturalistic native habitat is easy to change at low cost for any new purpose. ¾ Education: Locally relevant impressions are more effective than education about strange and remote topics. ¾ Conservation: The breeding of endangered species is most effective in their native surrounding for obvious reasons like availability of food, adaptation to climate, no need for long travels or even transfers etc.
Unfortunately these ideas seem to be relatively uncommon as not many examples of such exhibitions could be found. They have the reputation not being successful. HEDIGER (1965) cautions that native animals may not attract enough visitors and that they are often more difficult to keep than many exotic animals. However, the examples found are not only successful but famous: e.g. Alpenzoo Innsbruck in Austria, Sonora Desert Museum and Monterey Bay Aquarium in the United States of America, Belize Zoo in Belize. Theoretical 141
support was found from only one contribution to the Annual Conference of the AAZPA in 1988 by WOOD: "Most zoos are located in large metropolitan areas where rapid and widespread development is taking place. These zoos are in an ideal position to teach visitors about the local environment and to encourage its preservation. Many children (and adults) have no idea what the natural predecessors of their urban communities were once like. Although some wild remenants remain near most of our cities, most people never get a chance to visit or learn about them. The twin mission of education and conservation are perfectly suited to the presentation of locally important natural landscapes. While zoo exhibits emphasizing global issues such as tropical deforestation, desertification, and species diversity are very important, some visitors may feel helpless to affect these huge problems. These environmental issues are geographically remote and difficult to clearly understand and identify with. On the other hand, local issues provide a way for people to begin their involvement with conservation, on a small scale, close to home. The concept 'think globally, act locally' is relatively new to the zoo world. Our ability to best bring about change within our own community forms the basis for this theory, along with the idea that 'every little bit counts'. We probably have the most impact on the environment where we live."
7.5 Conservation obligations The Species Survival Plans and similar programs are optimistic in their targets to breed and reintroduce endangered species to the wild. Yet, they are not very successful but in reducing the consumption of wild animals by zoos. Sometimes such programs seem to be an excuse to keep endangered animals in captivity far away from their home. If conservation was meant seriously it is most important to protect and preserve wild animals in their native habitats. Sure, there are many cases that habitats are already too small or devastated. Also, the home countries of many endangered species are often unable or unwilling to care for conservation. In these cases it makes sense to study and breed them elsewhere. But there is no need of the current tourism of exotic animals as breed loans etc. For successful breeding and reintroduction to the wild it seems more adequate to keep the animals close to their habitats and close to their kindred in order to avoid stress by travelling, different climate, environment and diet. It also does not seem useful to bring them into contact with humans more than inevitable in order to preserve their "wild" behavior. Still the question remains if it really makes sense to keep a few aesthetic examples from vanished habitats captured as last reminders for human ignorance? Sooner or later this selected population will not have much similarity to its former relatives neither in genetic characteristics nor in behavior. In my opinion it is important to safe such reminders to alert people and motivate them to care for conservation, particularly for more promising though endangered species. 142
8. EPILOGUE
When visiting zoos in Europe, Australia and the United States the first impression was that they are very much improving in general. Everywhere new exhibits are generally built as naturalistic habitats. But still, looking at details and behind the scenes changes the image. Being naturalistic does not yet mean that exhibits meet the animals' needs. Besides how many of the zoo animals enjoy the benefits of these design trends? Most exhibits still do not meet the minimum requirements of their inhabitants; not only old ones viewed by visitors. A substantial part of zoo animals is kept behind the scenes - surplus, sick, breeding animals - suffering from environments which seldom offer the essentials: nutrition, light, climate, space, activity. The expensive exterior of some exhibits often fools the public successfully about the general living conditions of zoo animals. Nevertheless these exhibits have the reputation to be educational though there is not much research done on how educational they really are. At least, there does not seem to be a good reason for exposing a variety of exotic animals to the public. Learning about and caring for animals is probably achieved by other means too. Films, programs, interactive exhibits and docents can reach much more people with messages on conservation than the mere exhibition of animals ever can. "It is unsettling to realize that we are building exhibits for many millions of dollars, money that other-wise may be used to purchase land, support conservation efforts, and satellite breeding centers where the majority of animals could be kept in captive breeding programs. The purpose of zoos and the zoo community are broad and continue to expand. Funds are limited and may become yet further limited. Zoo staff must give careful thought to prioritizing their funds" (ANDERSON, 1985).
And why after all are many new exhibits so poorly designed? "Contracts for zoo design are commonly awarded piece meal to local architectural- engineering firms having little, if any, experience in designing zoo facilities. Limited to on-the- job training, usually with neither the time nor the money to visit more than a handful of zoos, if that, they all too often come up with outmoded design solutions containing basic errors that could have been avoided. A better approach is to involve zoo staff. However, many otherwise excellent animal curators may not have any familiarity with the latest successful concepts in exhibit design. They may also not have either the time or the interest. A third approach, and the one recommended for most institutions, is to consider contracting the task to one of the handful of zoo master planning firms. Larger zoos may consider a fourth approach, namely to include planners among their full- staff. Full-time planners have the opportunity to evolve with the institution. They have unlimited access to all levels of staff and are closer to the day-to-day constraints created by changes in layout and design" (SAUSMAN, 1982). The trend towards natural/naturalistic exhibits may create some jobs for landscape architects who should be aware that this is one of the most complex fields to work in. You do not only 143
serve one population but three: a variety of animals, the people working with them and the visiting public. Their needs - if after all known - are hardly to reconcile. 144
9. REFERENCES
ADAMS G.D. (1988) Understanding and influencing word-of-mouth. Visitor Studies 1988. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF ZOOLOGICAL PARKS AND AQUARIUMS (1990) Zoological Parks and Aquariums in the Americas, 1990 - 1991. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
ANDERSON D.E. (1985) What to tell the architect. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
AVENI A.F. (1989) What sociology has to offer visitor studies. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
BERLYNE D.E. (1960) Conflict arousal and curiosity. McGraw-Hill. New York.
BERLYNE D.E. (1971) Aesthetics and psycho-biology. Appleton-Century-Crofts. New York.
BEVINS R.A., BITGOOD S. (1989) Developing a device to assess attitudes towards snakes. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
BIRNEY B.A. (1986) A comparative study of children's perceptions and knowledge of wildlife and conservation as they relate to field trip experiences at the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History and the Los Angeles Zoo. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California. Los Angeles, California. Summary in AAZPA 1986 Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
BIRNEY B.A. (1987a) Formative evaluation of "Flying Walk" prototype I, Bird Discovery Point, Aquatic Bird House. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1987b) Formative evaluation of "Flying Walk" prototype II, Bird Discovery Point, Aquatic Bird House. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1988a) Retention of rain forest conservation messages: Visitors' use of Brookfield Zoo's Tropic World brochure. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1988b) A survey of visitors' attitudes towards conservation issues related to birds. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1988c) Visitor use of and response to Discovery Center's orientation and TRAFFIC (U.S.A.) shows. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1988d) Visitors' use of Bird Discovery Point's "Flying Walk" component: A follow-up study. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois. 145
BIRNEY B.A. (1988e) Brookfield Zoo's "Flying Walk" exhibit. Formative evaluation aids in the development of an interactive exhibit in an informal learning setting. Environment and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 4. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
BIRNEY B.A. (1988f) Preliminary report on the impact of three types of text on visitors' appropriate use of the "Flying Walk", Bird Discovery Point. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1988g) Criteria for successful museum and zoo visit: Children offer guidance. Curator 31/4. American Museum of Natural History. New York.
BIRNEY B.A. (1990a) Using rotating guides to interpret immersion exhibits: A solution to public display problems in Brookfield Zoo's Tropic World. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1990b) The impact of a six-week delay on visitors' retention of animal demonstration themes: Three Children's Zoo shows. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1990c) A study of visitor behavior on interactive exhibits in Bird Discovery Point, Aquatic Bird House. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1990d) The impact of Bird Discovery Point on visitors' knowledge of bird biology and behavior. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1990e) Characteristics of Brookfield Zoo visitors: Five analyses of our audience. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A. (1990f) African Scenes: A survey of visitors' use of Brookfield Zoo's northwest quadrant during July 1989. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A., HEINRICH C. (1990) What zoos have to offer: Our visitors' perspective. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
BIRNEY B.A., HEINRICH C. (1991) The impact of Bird Discovery Point on visitors' attitudes toward bird conservation issues.
BITGOOD S. (1987a) Knowing when exhibit labels work: A standardized guide for evaluating and improving labels. Technical Reports, no. 86-70. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
BITGOOD S. (1987b) When is a zoo like a city? Visitor Behavior, vol. I, no. 4. Psychology Institute. Jacksonville State University. Jacksonville, Alabama.
BITGOOD S. (1988a) An overview of the methodology of visitor studies. Visitor Behavior, vol. III, no. 3. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
BITGOOD S. (1988b) Problems in visitor orientation and circulation. Visitor Studies 1988: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama. 146
BITGOOD S., BENEFIELD A. (1986a) Visitor behavior: A comparison across zoos. Technical Reports, no. 86-20. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
BITGOOD S., PATTERSON D. (1987a) Principles of orientation and circulation. Visitors Behavior, vol. I, no. 4. Psychology Institute. Jacksonville State University. Jacksonville, Alabama.
BITGOOD S., PATTERSON D. (1987b) Principles of exhibit design. Visitor Behavior, vol. II, no. 1. Psychology Institute. Jacksonville State University. Jacksonville, Alabama.
BITGOOD S., PATTERSON D., BENEFIELD A. (1986b) Understanding your visitors: 10 factors influencing visitor behavior. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
BITGOOD S., PATTERSON D., BENEFIELD A. (1988) Exhibit design and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships. Environment and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 4. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
BITGOOD S., RICHARDSON K. (1986c) Wayfinding at the Birmingham Zoo. Visitor Behavior, vol. I, no. 4. Psychology Institute. Jacksonville State University. Jacksonville, Alabama.
BOHMKE B., HEALY M. (1985) Mixed species walk through aviaries. Blessing or burden? AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
BORUN M. (1989) Naive notions and the design of science museum exhibits. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
CAMPBELL S. (1984) A new zoo? Zoonooz, 55 (9), 4-7.
CARLISLE R.W. (1985) What do school children do at a science center? Curator 28/1. American Museum of Natural History. New York
COBURN C. (1985) Exhibit philosophy and process. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
COE J.C. (1980) The waterfowl exhibit at Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle. International Zoo Yearbook, 20: 282-286. London Zoological Society. London, Great Britain.
COE J.C. (1982) Bringing it all together: Integration of context, content, and message in zoo exhibit design. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
COE J.C. (1983) A greensward for gorillas. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
COE J.C. (1984) Pittsburgh's new zoo: A wilderness walk. Place, The Magazine of Livability, vol. 4, no. 4. 147
COE J.C. (1985) Design and perception: Making the zoo experience real. Zoo Biology, 4: 197-208.
COE J.C. (1986) Towards a coevolution of zoos, aquariums and natural history museums. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
COE J.C. (1987) What's the message? Exhibit design for education. AAZPA Northeastern Regional Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
COE J.C. (1988) How should we manage the new exhibit technology? "Soft" technology. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
COE J.C. (1990) Exhibits: Aesthetic and educational considerations. Wild mammals in captivity, vol. 1. Kleinmann D., Ed. Smithsonian.
COE J.C., LINDBURG D. (1989) Captive conservation of primates. Captive Conservation of endangered species. (in press) B. Durrant, Ed.
COE J.C., MAPLE T.L. (1984) Approaching Eden - A behavioral basis for great ape exhibits. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
CONROY P. (1988) Cheap thrills and quality learning. Visitor Studies 1988: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
CROCKETT C. (1977) Methods of observational research in the zoo setting. Applied Behavioral Research. Pika Press. Seattle, Washington.
CURTIS L. (1968) Zoological Park Fundamentals. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. National Recreation and Park Association. Washington, D.C.
DAVISON M. (1989) Information from museum security personnel. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
DEAN C., MARTIN J., NOON K., NUESA B., O'REILLY J. (1981) A zoo for who: A pilot study in zoo design for children. Technical Reports, no. 87-10. Psychology Institute. Jacksonville State University. Jacksonville, Alabama.
DERWIN C.W., PIPER J.B. (1988) The African Rock Kopje exhibit. Evaluation and interpretive elements. Environment and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 4. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
DIAMOND J. (1986) The behavior of family groups in science museums. Curator 29/2. American Museum of Natural History. New York.
FALK J.H. (1983) The use of time as a measure of visitor behavior and exhibit effectiveness. Museum Education Anthology. Museum Education Roundtable. American Association of Museums. Washington, D.C. 148
FALK J.H., KORAN J.J., DIERKING L.D., DREBLOW L. (1985) Predicting visitor behavior. Curator 28/4. American Museum of Natural History. New York.
FEHER E., RICE K. (1985) Development of scientific concepts through the use of interactive exhibits in a museum. Curator 28/1. American Museum of Natural History. New York.
FINLAY T., LAWRENCE R.J., MAPLE T.L. (1988) People's perceptions of animals: The influence of zoo environment. Environment and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 4. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
FINLAY T., MAPLE T.L. (1986) A survey of research in American zoos and aquariums. Zoo Biology, vol. 5, no.3: 261-268.
FINLAY T., WOEHR D.J., MAPLE T.L. (1984) Evaluation techniques in zoo environments: Visitor attitudes and animal behavior. Paper presented at Southeastern Psychological Association Conference.
FLEISHER ZUCKER B. (1986) Fifty years of American children's zoo. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
FOOSE T.J. (1986) Species Survival Plan - Today and tomorrow; North America and the world. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
FOSTER J.S., KORAN J.J., KORAN M.L., STARK S., BLACKWOOD A., LANDERS H. (1988) The effect of multi-species exhibits on visitor attention at the Jacksonville Zoological Park. Visitor Studies 1988: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
FREEMAN H. (1985) Conservation education: What's new? AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
FRIEDRICHS J. (1980) Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung. Westdeutscher Verlag. Opladen, Germany
GRABURN N. (1984) The museum and the visitor experience. Museum Education Anthology. Museum Education Roundtable. American Association of Museums. Washington, D.C.
GRIGGS S. (1983) Orienting visitors within a thematic display. International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 2: 119-134.
HAESELER J.K. (1989) Length of visitor stay. Visitor Studies 1989: Visitors - Behavior. Center for Social Design, Jacksonville, Alabama.
HAGE S.R. (1990) An analysis of the verbal and postural communications of family visitors at the zoo. Summary of master's thesis at the University of Minnesota. Visitor Behavior, vol. V, no. 1. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama. 149
HAYWARD G., BRYDON-MILLER M. (1984) Spatial and conceptual aspects of orientation: visitor experiences at an outdoor history museum. Journal of Environmental Systems, 13(4): 317-332.
HEDIGER H. (1986) Mensch und Tier im Zoo: Tiergarten-Biologie. Alber Müller Verlag. Zürich, Switzerland.
HEINRICH D., BIRNEY B.A. (1991) Visitors' use of and traffic patterns in the Seven Seas underwater viewing area. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
HERKNER W. (1983) Einführung in die Sozialpsychologie. Verlag Hans Huber. Bern, Switzerland.
HERZOG T., SMITH G.A. (1988) Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 3. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
HILKE D.D. (1988) Strategies for family learning in museums. Visitor Studies 1988: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
HILKER C. (1985) Exotic cats as teachers: A bold approach to attitude change. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
HOGAN H.W. (1980) Factors associated with the attribution of human traits to nonhumans. The Journal of Social Psychology.
HUTCHINS M., HANCOCKS D., CROCKETT C. (1984) Natural solutions to the behavioral problems of captive animals. Der Zoologische Garten, no. 54. Gustav Fischer Verlag. Jena, Germany.
JACKSON D.M., Ogden J.J., MAPLE T.L. (1989) Making visual contact at the gorilla interpretive center: A study of visitor traffic flow and gorilla visibility. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
JAVLEKAR V.D. (1989) Learning scientific concepts in science centers. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
JENKINS D.M. (1985) A survey of interactive technologies. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
JONES W. (1986) Exhibit planning, development, and implementation procedures. Technical Reports, no. 87-60. Psychology Institute. Jacksonville State University. Jacksonville, Alabama.
JONES G.R., COE J.C., PAULSON D.R. (1976) Long range plan for Woodland Park Zoo. Department of Parks and Recreation. Seattle, Washington. 150
JOSLIN P., GRUNAUER S., NAPOLITANO G., NICHOLS M., SARRIS A., STEADMAN A., URBANICK R. (1986) A demographic profile of the zoo visitor. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
KAPLAN S., KAPLAN R. (1982) Humanscape. University of Michigan. Ulrich's Books, Inc. Michigan.
KELLERT S. (1977) Attitudes towards animals and characteristics of various animal activity groups other than hunters. Behavioral Sciences Study Center. Yale University School of Medicine. New Haven, Connecticut.
KELLERT S. (1979) Public attitudes toward critical wildlife and natural habitat issues: Phase I. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
KELLERT S. (1980) Knowledge, affection, and basic attitudes towards animals in American society, Phase III. National Technical Information Service. Arlington.
KELLERT S. (1983a) Affective, cognitive, and evaluative perceptions of animals. Behavior and the natural environment. Plenum Publishing Corporation.
KELLERT S. (1983b) Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. Journal of Environmental Education. Heldref Publications. Washington, D.C.
KELLERT S. (1984) Urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment. Urban Ecology, 8: 209-228. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.. Amsterdam, Netherlands.
KELSEY E. (1989) Parameters for consideration in the planning and design of a new exhibit - Arctic Canada. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
KORAN J.J., FOSTER J.S., KORAN M.L. (1989) The relationship among interest, attention, and learning in a natural history museum. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
KORAN J.J., KORAN M.L. (1984) The roles of attention and curiosity in museum learning. Museum Education Anthology. Museum Education Roundtable. American Association of Museums. Washington, D.C.
KORAN J.J., KORAN M.L., FOSTER J.S. (1988) Individual differences in learning in informal settings. Visitor Studies 1988: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
KORAN J.J., KORAN M.L., FOSTER J.S. (1989) The (potential) contributions of cognitive psychology to visitor studies. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama. 151
KORAN J.J., KORAN M.L., LONGINO J.R. (1986) The relationship of age, sex, attention, and holding power with two types of exhibits. Curator 29/3. American Museum of Natural History. New York.
LEVINE M. (1982) You-are-here maps: Psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior, vol. 14, no. 2. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
LEVINE M., MARCHON I., HANLEY G. (1984) The placement and misplacement of you-are- here maps. Environment and Behavior, vol. 16, no. 2. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
LIEBERMAN G.A. (1985) The world conservation strategy and the role of international agencies. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
LITWAK H. (1989) Wanted: Guidelines for exhibit design. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
LYNCH (1960) The image of the city. M.I.T. Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
MARTIN J., O'REILLY J. (1988) Contemporary environment-behavior research in zoological parks. Environment and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 4. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
McMANUS P. (1988) The filtering of the audience for museum communication. ICOM CECA Conference. Paris, France.
MELTON A.W. (1933) Some behavior characteristics of museum visitors. Psychological Bulletin 30, 720-721.
MELTON A.W. (1933) Studies of installation at the Pennsylvania Museum of Art. Museum News, 10 (15): 5-8.
MELTON A.W. (1936) Distribution of attention in galleries in a museum of science and industry. Museum News, 14 (3): 6-8.
MILES R.S. (1989) Audiovisuals, a suitable case for treatment. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
NORMANDIA S. (1986) Children's zoo evaluation and design. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
PATTERSON D., BITGOOD S. (1987) Exhibit design with the visitor in mind. Technical Reports, no. 87-40. Psychology Institute. Jacksonville State University. Jacksonville, Alabama.
PATTERSON D., BITGOOD S. (1988) Some evolving principles of visitor behavior. Visitor Studies 1988: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
PAWLOW I.P. (1953) Sämtliche Werke. Akademie. Berlin, Germany. 152
PEART B. (1984) Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitude change and behavior. Curator 27/2. American Museum of Natural History. New York.
PETERSON J.F. (1986) "User-friendly" exhibit design. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
PIERCE M. (1989) Four years of visitor evaluation at the Anniston Museum of Natural History. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
POLAKOWSKY K.J. (1988) Increasing design consciousness: A prerequisite for the improvement of zoological exhibits. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
PUGH C. (1991) Summary report of findings: Visitor orientation and preparation. Memorandum. Brookfield Zoo. Chicago, Illinois.
RABB G.B. (1985) Facing up to conservation education. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
RAMSEY C.E., RICKSON R.E. (1976) Environmental knowledge and attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 8 (1).
RAMSEY J.M., HUNGERFORD H.R. (1989) The effects of issue investigation and action training on environmental behavior in seventh grade students. Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 20, no. 4.
RAMSEY J.M., HUNGERFORD H.R., VOLK T. (1989) A technique for analyzing environmental issues. Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 21, no. 1.
RAND J. (1985) Fish stories that hook readers: Interpretive graphics at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
RHOADES D.S. (1986) Conservation methods: A search for a global consensus. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
ROBINSON E.S. (1928) The behavior of the museum visitor. No. 5 in Publications of the American Association of Museums. News Series. Washington, D.C.
ROBINSON E.S. (1930) Psychological problems of the science museum. Museum News, 8(5): 9-11.
ROSENFELD S. (1979) The context of informal learning in zoos. Roundtable Reports, 4/2. Museum Education Roundtable. American Association of Museums. Washington, D.C. 153
ROSENFELD S., TERKEL A.S. (1978) Naturalistic study of casual visitors at an experimental mini-zoo. Lawrence Hall of Science. Berkely, California.
RUBENSTEIN R. (1989) Bridging the applicability gap between research and planning. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
RUSSELL S.A., WARD L.M., PRATT G. (1981) Affective quality attributed to environments: A factor analytic study. Environment and Behavior, vol. 13. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
SADALLA E.K., MONTELLO D.R. (1989) Remembering changes in direction. Environment and Behavior, vol. 21, no. 3. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
SAUSMAN K. (1982) Zoological Park and Aquarium fundamentals. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
SCREVEN C.G. (1974) Instructional design. Museum News, vol. 52, no. 5.
SCREVEN C.G. (1975) The effectiveness of guidance devices on visitor learning. Curator 18/3. American Museum of Natural History. New York.
SCREVEN C.G. (1976) Exhibit evaluation - A goal referenced approach. Curator 19/4. American Museum of Natural History. New York.
SCREVEN C.G. (1986a) Educational exhibitions. Some areas for controlled research. Roundtable Reports, 11/1: 7-11. Museum Education Roundtable. American Association of Museums. Washington, D.C.
SCREVEN C.G. (1986b) Exhibitions and information centers: Some principles and approaches. Curator 29/2. American Museum of Natural History. New York.
SCREVEN C.G. (1987) Teaching science to voluntary learners and the role of evaluation. Proceedings: Science learning in the informal setting. The Chicago Academy of Sciences, pp 229-240. Chicago, Illinois.
SCREVEN C.G. (1988) Formative evaluation: conceptions and misconceptions. Visitor Studies 1988: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
SERRELL B. (1979) Zoo labels: an evaluation study. Final Report. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
SERRELL B. (1985) We are here: Three years of wayfinding studies at Brookfield Zoo. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
SERRELL B. (1988) The evolution of educational graphics in zoos. Environment and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 4. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
SHETTEL H. (1968) An evaluation of existing criteria for judging the quality of science exhibits. Curator 11/2. American Museum of Natural History. New York. 154
SHETTEL H. (1988) Do we really, really need to do visitor studies? Visitor Studies 1988: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
SHETTEL-NEUBER J. (1988) Second- and third-generation zoo exhibits: A comparison of visitor, staff and animal responses. Environment and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 4. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
SHETTEL-NEUBER J., O'REILLY J. (1987) "Now where?" A study of visitor orientation and circulation at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum. Technical Reports, no. 87-25. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
SIVEK D.J., HUNGERFORD H. (1989) Predictors of responsible behavior in members of three Wisconsin conservation organizations. Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 21, no. 2.
STOLBA A., MÜLLERS B. (1990) Die Bedeutung von Tierart, Gehege und Verhalten für den Schauwert im Zoo. Zoologischer Garten N.F. 60, 6: 349-368. Gustav Fischer Verlag. Jena, Germany.
STRONK D.R. (1983) The comparative effects of different museum tours on children's attitudes and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20/4: 283-290.
TRIEGLAFF M. (1991) Evaluation of on-site and outreach programs. Report to the Chicago Zoological Society. Brookfield, Illinois.
VERDERBER S, GARDNER L., ISLAM D., NAKANISHI L. (1988) Elderly persons' appraisal of the zoological environment. Environment and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 4. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
WAGNER K.F. (1989) Maintaining a high quality visitor experience. Visitor Studies 1989: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
WAKEMAN B.N. (1986) An evaluation of zoo educational techniques (including the use of live animals). AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
WALKER E. (1988) A front-end evaluation conducted to facilitate planning the Royal Ontario Museum's European galleries. Visitor Studies 1988: Theory, Research and Practice. Center for Social Design. Jacksonville, Alabama.
WESTOVER T.N. (1989) Perceived crowding in recreational settings. An environment- behavior model. Environment and Behavior, vol. 21, no. 3. Sage Publications. Newbury Park, California.
WHITE J. (1986) More than just hands-on! Thoughtfully developing participatory exhibits. AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia.
WHITE J. (1988) Traveling exhibits. Something new, something borrowed ... AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia. 155
WOOD J. (1988) Local landscape conservation: What can zoos do? AAZPA Annual Conference Proceedings. American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Wheeling, West Virginia. 156
10. APPENDIX
Examples for descriptive studies (see 3.3) ¾ For attitude shaping see 4.2.9 (WAKEMAN, 1986) ¾ For predictors of environmental responsible behavior see 4.2.10 (SIVEK et al., 1989) ¾ For effectiveness of participatory exhibits see 4.4.2 (KORAN et al., 1984; JAVLEKAR, 1989) and 6.2.12 (WHITE, 1986; KORAN et al., 1986; BITGOOD et al., 1986a) ¾ For attitudes towards zoos see 5.3 (PIERCE, 1989; VERDERBER, 1988) ¾ For attitudes towards animals see 5.3 (KELLERT, 1977 and 1983b) ¾ For perception of animals see 5.3 (FINLEY et al., 1988; BIRNEY, 1986; KELLERT, 1984) ¾ For reasons for zoo attendance see 5.4.1 (KELLERT, 1989; FALK, 1983) ¾ For time use of zoo visitors see 5.5.2 (BITGOOD et al., 1986a; SERRELL, 1979) ¾ For behavioral patterns of zoo visitors see 5.5.3 (SCREVEN, 1986b; KELSEY, 1989; DIAMOND, 1986; ROSENFELD et al., 1978; HAGE, 1990; KORAN et al., 1984; CARLISLE, 1985; BIRNEY, 1988) ¾ For egocentric orientation see 6.1.2.2 (SADALLA et al, 1989) ¾ For map use see 6.1.2.4 (LEVINE et al., 1984) ¾ For criteria for judging exhibit quality see 6.2.1 (SHETTEL, 1968) ¾ For exhibit visibility see 6.2.2 (BITGOOD et al., 1986a) ¾ For exhibit attractiveness see 6.2.3 (STOLBA et al., 1990; BITGOOD et al., 1986a and 1988; PATTERSON et al., 1988; HERZOG et al., 1988) ¾ For visual competition of exhibits see 6.2.9 (BITGOOD et al., 1986a and 1988; PATTERSON et al., 1987 and 1988)
Examples for evaluative studies (see 3.4)
Front-end evaluation ¾ For the use of live animals see 4.2.7 (BEVINS et al., 1989) ¾ For demographics see 5.1 (JOSLIN et al., 1986; BIRNEY, 1990) ¾ For people's attitudes towards a zoo see 5.3 (BIRNEY et al., 1990) and 5.4.1 (BIRNEY, 1988) ¾ For pre-visit orientation see 6.1.1 (ADAMS, 1988; BITGOOD 1988b) ¾ For on-site orientation see 6.1.2 (SHETTEL-NEUBER et al., 1987) ¾ For people's interests in museums see 6.2.4 (WALKER, 1988) ¾ For comparison of second- and third-generation exhibits see 6.2.11.4 (SHETTEL- NEUBER, 1988) ¾ For attitudes towards conservation issues related to birds see 6.2.12 (BIRNEY, 1988b and BIRNEY et al., 1991)
Formative evaluation ¾ For exhibit labels see 6.1.2.6 (SERRELL, 1979 and 1985). ¾ For wayfinding devices see 6.1.2 (SERRELL et al., 1985; LOCKETT et al., 1989) ¾ For exhibit visibility see 6.2.2 and 6.2.11.4 (JACKSON et al., 1989) ¾ For participatory exhibits see 6.2.12 (BIRNEY, 1987a, 1987b, 1988d, 1988f and 1988e) ¾ For programs see 6.4 (FREEMAN, 1985) 157
Summative evaluation ¾ For outreach programs see 4.2.7 (WAKEMAN, 1986) ¾ For use of live animals see 4.2.9 (HILKER, 1985) ¾ For on-site orientation see 6.1.2 (SERRELL et al., 1985; SHETTEL-NEUBER et al., 1987; BIRNEY, 1990a) ¾ For comparison of second- and third-generation exhibits see 6.2.11.4 (SHETTEL- NEUBER, 1988) ¾ For participatory exhibits see 6.2.11.5 (DERWIN et al., 1988) and 6.2.12 (BIRNEY, 1990c; 1990d, 1991) ¾ For visitors' attitudes towards conservation issues related to birds see 6.2.12 (BIRNEY, 1988b and BIRNEY et al., 1991)
Remedial evaluation ¾ For zoo services see 3.4.1.4 (WAGNER, 1989). ¾ For on-site orientation see 6.1.2 (SERRELL et al., 1985) ¾ For visibility of animal exhibits see 6.2.2 (JACKSON et al., 1989) ¾ For audivisuals see 6.2.13 (BIRNEY, 1988c) ¾ For programs see 6.4 (BIRNEY, 1990 and TRIEGLAFF 1991) 158
11. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Disposition for the thesis 1
Figure 2 Visitors' estimations of time they spent at the zoo (after BITGOOD et al., 1986) 13
Figure 3 Accuracy of visitors' reports of zoo areas visited and pathways taken (after BITGOOD et al., 1986) 13
Figure 4 Application of evaluative studies (after BIRNEY, 1990) 20
Figure 5 Process of informal learning 24
Figure 6 The Great Bustard (Otis tarda) 38
Figure 7 Dominance – Animal in a position inferior and superior to the viewer (COE, 1985) 41
Figure 8 Age distribution of the Zoo and greater Chicago populations (after JOSLIN et al., 1986) 48
Figure 9 Age distribution forecast for the Zoo and greater Chicago populations (after JOSLIN et al., 1986) 49
Figure 10 Sex representation as it relates to age distribution among zoo visitors to Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (after JOSLIN et al., 1986) 50
Figure 11 Total attendance to Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, in relation to month during the second half of the year (after JOSLIN et al., 1986) 52
Figure 12 Holding power of exhibits – Typical bimodal distributions of frequencies (after FALK, 1983) 64 159
Figure 13 Possible allocation of time comparing readers and non-readers of signs (SERRELL, 1979) 66
Figure 14 Patterns of time use by readers (SERRELL, 1979) 66
Figure 15 The attracting power of an exhibit as a function of proximity of visitor to animal (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a) 92
Figure 16 Scattergram of the holding power of various types of animals in active and inactive states (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a) 94
Figure 17 The holding power of exhibits as a function of the size of the animals (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a) 95
Figure 18 The holding power of exhibits with and without an infant present (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a) 96
Figure 19 The relationship between attracting power and perceived beauty of animal (beauty rated on a ten point scale by visitors) (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a) 97
Figure 20 The relationship between attracting power and perceived dangerousness of animal (dangerousness rated on a ten point scale by visitors) (after BITGOOD et al., 1986a) 98
Figure 21 Classification of exhibit types by sensual involvement (modified after PEART, 1984) 100
Figure 22 Triangulation between viewers and object or person 101
Figure 23 Percentage of visitors stopping with and without visually competing exhibits (after BITGOOD et al., 1988) 103 160
12. LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Design applications of visitor surveys 46
Table 2 Reported average lengths of stay to some zoos (HAESELER, 1989) 53
Table 3 Average time visitors spent on various activities at Melbourne Zoo (HAESELER, 1989) 65
Table 4 Viewing times at animal exhibits (BITGOOD et al., 1986a) 65 161
13. LIST OF PICTURES
Picture 1 Docent station at Lincoln Park, Chicago (1991) 36
Picture 2 Curiosity Cart with docent at Lincoln Part, Chicago (1991) 36
Picture 3 Exhibit at Los Angeles' Children's Zoo allowing the view of a cougar, a prairie dog and an insect (1991) 42
Picture 4 Exhibit at San Diego's Children's Zoo allowing comparison with the width of jump of various animals (1991) 43
Picture 5 Exhibit at Bronx Zoo's Children's Zoo (N.Y.) allowing to hear like a fox (1991) 43
Picture 6 Exhibit at Baltimore's Children's Zoo allowing to sit in birds' nests (1991) 43
Picture 7 Exhibit at Baltimore's Children's Zoo allowing to have a shell like a turtle (1991) 44
Picture 8 Kids' Corner at Lincoln Park's Children's Zoo (Chicago) allowing to wear antlers and horns (1991) 44
Picture 3 Brookfield Zoo's (Chicago) "Fragile Kingdom" - The desert theme is supported by special cues and Arab inscriptions. (1991) 73
Picture 10 Map board kiosk at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 79
Picture 11 Rotating guides for taking out at the entrance of Tropic World, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 81 162
Picture 12 Animal identification sign at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 86
Picture 13 Graphic at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey (1991) 86
Picture 14 Graphic at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 87
Picture 15 Main path and loop with viewing area at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 92
Picture 16 Panel with hinged flaps at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 117
Picture 17 Video demonstration as part of Bird Discovery Point at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 118
Picture 18 Flying Walk exhibit at Bird Discovery Point, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 120
Picture 19 Flight Strength exhibit at Bird Discovery Point, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 121
Picture 20 Docent at the Demonstration Area, Bird Discovery Point, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 122
Picture 21 Interpretive graphic at the Demonstration Area, Bird Discovery Point, Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 124
Picture 22 Restroom facilities at Children's Museum in London, Ontario (1991) 130
Picture 23 Stroller parking at Brookfield Zoo, Chicago (1991) 131
Picture 24 Log at Baltimore's Children's Zoo (1991) 132 163
Picture 25 Stepping stones at Brookfield Zoo's Children's Zoo, Chicago (1991) 132