Animals on Display, Principles for Interpreting Captive Wildlife

28 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 9, No. 1, MAY ‘98

Animals onDisplay:

Principles forinterpreting captive

wildlife

Barbara Woods

The effect of the lion's roar was remarkable. It was an overcastday at suburban Taronga Zoo in Sydney, and a steady stream ofvisitors wandered through the "Africa” section of the zoo. Thelions were asleep on their ledges, with only a tail and rump inview. The zebras were standing around swishing flies with tailsinappropriate for the task. The weather was steamy, childrenwere complaining. Suddenly a roar echoes around the fake rockledges. The male lion stands in all his magnificence on theledge, roar after roar echoing around the enclosures, tinglingdown the spines of visitors. The zebras raise their heads andprick their ears, the whites of their eyes registering mild alarm.The sound of their natural predator did little more than raisetheir interest. Yet the effect on the visitors was dramatic andimmediate. They ran from far and wide to view the lions,crowding at the window to the enclosure. Voices were raised inexcitement, people enjoying the sensation of mild fear. Evenafter the lion flopped back down to doze, crowds remained at thewindow. Children were talking about the lions. People asking"did you hear him roar? Did you see how big he was?” Manysaying the sound was scary, spooky, or spine tingling. Peoplereading the information signs. Excitement. Interest. Maybeeven appreciation and respect.

This event reinforces the view of Robinson (1994, p. 41) that thebiological and conservation messages of zoos are “best reinforced bybeautiful, exciting and mind expanding activity from our animals”.Arguably, the primary attraction of zoos are the animals themselves.Yet the methods used to present these animals to visitors can have acritical impact on capturing the interest of visitors, encouraginglearning and increasing the information and attitudinal messages

AbstractThe goals of modern zoosinclude education, research,conservation andpreservation. As tourismventures, they also dependupon visitor enjoyment. Toachieve these goals withpeople at leisure requirescareful planning andinterpretation. The exotic,fascinating and beautifulanimals on display oftentrigger the curiosity,appreciation and respect thatzoo staff are seeking to instillin visitors. However, it isimportant to assist visitors tointerpret what theyexperience through accessibleand interesting information.In addition, it is vital to avoidgiving visitors incorrect ormisleading informationthrough presenting wildlife ina manner that is alien totheir natural state. Thispaper reviews research todevelop a set of principles forinterpreting and displayinganimals in captiveenvironments such as zoos,sanctuaries and wildlifeparks.

Barbara Woods is a ResearchOfficer for the CRC for TropicalRainforest Ecology andManagement at James CookUniversity, Australia.

they take home. Although theanimals can easily generateinterest and wonder through suchimpromptu performances, inter-pretation and zoo design shouldstimulate interest even if, in thiscase, the lion remained sleepingon the ledge.

Zoos and wildlife sanctuarieshave changed radically in thepast one hundred years. In thelate 1800's zoos were places to seewild, exotic animals primarily forentertainment. Wide formalwalkways d isplayed cages ofanimals, and the main emphasiswas species identification andclassification (Wineman & Choi,1991). The aim was for 'scientificpresentation' in uniform,systematic rows. A typical viewwas that “Birds look best, on thewhole, in uniform rows, assortedaccording to size as far asclassification allows” (Hancock inWonders, 1989, p. 135).

The greatest revolution in zoodesign was led by the GermanCarl Hagenbeck, who introducedthe park concept. His first parkopened outside Hamburg in 1900,with landscaping, moats andtrees to give the il lusion offreedom (Shackley, 1996). Zooshave been progressively movingtoward presenting animals innatural surroundings and inmodern zoos, visitors no longerexpect to see animals confined insmall, barred cages. This pro-gression has been paralleled bychanges in visitor attitudes.Animal rights have becomeregarded as an important issue.The keeping of animals incaptivity is regarded by many asethically indefensible, even foreducational purposes (Shackley,1996). Visitors to zoos are “betterinformed, better travelled and farmore environmentally aware thantheir 1950's counterparts”(Shackley, 1996, p. 105). Further-more, the primary concerns ofmost visitors are that captivity iscomfortable, and the animalsappear healthy and happy (Wolf& Tymitz, 1981).

Where once the philosophy of zoos

was to exhibit as many species aspossible, regardless of crampedconditions, modern zoo manage-ment takes a different view.Zoos are still places of recreationand enjoyment, but changes inpublic expectations and scientificviews have added education,research, and the conservationand preservation of wildlife totheir roles (Dengate, 1993). Howcan zoos achieve these goals?This paper reviews research onmethods of presenting wildlife tovisitors, to achieve the goals ofenjoyment, education andencouraging pro-conservationattitudes. Although the word'zoo' will be used, the principlesare applicable to a wide range ofsituations where captive animalsare displayed to visitors.

Interpretation in zoos

When contemplating inter-pretation in zoos, it is difficult toseparate specific techniques suchas signs from the wholeexperience (Blakely, 1981).Interpretation involves the wholeanimal and its exhibit, as well asthe relevant graphics, signs,booklets, keeper talks and guides.The entire zoo experience andatmosphere provide both formaland informal, conscious and sub-conscious learning opportunities.However, evaluating learningand attitude change is difficult.Little is known about howeffective different methods are ineducating visitors about theanimals and conservation, andcreating favourable perceptions ofzoos (Ford, 1995). Major diffi-culties include the complexity ofattitude change and learning, andthe huge variety in exhibit stylesand features which mean thatresearch results are often highlyspecific. However, despite thesedifficulties it is possible to provideuseful principles for inter-pretation in zoos.

Accurately representingnature

Being natural

Zoos are representational

constructs. Many authors (e.g.,Bacon & Hallett, 1981; Wineman& Choi, 1991) argue that zoosshould present landscapes andcontexts as realistically aspossible. Swensen (1984 inShettel-Neuber, 1988) foundvisitors spent more time atnaturalistic enclosures andvisitors felt that animals shouldhave spac ious enclosures.Shettel-Neuber (1988) comparedvisitor responses to ‘secondgeneration’ and ‘third generation’exhibits, and found that visitorsclearly liked the third generationexhibits more than the older ones.A second generation exhibit is onewhich utilises cement enclosuressurrounded by dry or water filledmoats to display animals. A‘third generation’ or naturalisticexhibit is one which “simulatesthe environmental conditionstypical of the habitat of thespecies exhibited. . . such anenclosure should stimulate itsinhabitants to use theirrepertoire of behavioural,physiological and anatomicaladaptations as fully as possible”(Bacon & Hallett, 1981). Coe(1985) refers to ' landscapeimmersion' and argues thatenclosures should provideabundant, believable and reliablecues, that the landscape should“feel” right. The aim is that thevisitor experiences the animal asif he/she came upon it in the wild.The success of this depends onhow well the illusion ismaintained (Wineman & Choi,1991). Methods of encouragingthis illusion include controllingviews of other people andanimals; limiting people-peopleinteraction by reducing the socialarea around enclosures; providingself-directed experiences; andallowing the animals to retreatfrom the public gaze (Coe, 1985).Other factors encouraging animmersion experience includelimiting sight of buildings andcontradictory visual cues(possibly even exhibit signs) andmaking the environment asaccurate as possible (Bitgood,1990). In a study using slidesdepicting animals in differentenvironments, Finlay, James &

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 9, No. 1, MAY ‘98 29


become adapted ... without aserious misunderstanding of itstrue nature”.

Encouraging naturalbehaviour

Natural environments encouragenatural behaviours. Naturalbehaviours inspire visitors. It istherefore important to ensurethat animals have outlets for thebeautiful and fascinatingmovement typical to theirspecies. Robinson (1994) outlinessome methods of functional sub-stitution for wild behaviour. Atthe National Zoo in WashingtonDC a mechanical devicesimulates a moving animal andprovides their cheetahs withsomething to chase. This is notonly beneficial to the animals, thesight of a cheetah in full flight isguaranteed to be memorable tovisitors. Howlett’s Zoo in the UKhave a gorilla enclosure wherethe animals are fed from the topof an enormous wire meshenclosure. They must continuallyforage for food, a naturalbehaviour pattern which keepsthem active (Shackley, 1996).Taronga Zoo in Sydney givemongooses whole eggs to eat - itmay take them hours to breakthe shell, but that is how theywould deal with eggs in the wild(Dengate, 1993). Markowitz(1979) outlines techniqueswhereby captive primates ‘earn’food through sequences ofactivities. This provides theprimates with the opportunity toexercise, problem solve and havecontrol over their environment.It also provides visitors withunique opportunities to witnessspecies-typical behaviour and thecapabilities of the animals. Theexamples provided by Markowitz(1979) are particularlyinteresting because thebehavioural enrichment tech-niques were used in traditionalbar-and-concrete style cages. Itis important to note thatnaturalistic enclosures do notautomatically produce naturalbehaviours. These depend on amixture of the animals previousexperience, enclosure design and

Maple (1988) found that theanimal’s environment influencedthe perception of that animal. Avisible barrier resulted inrespondents perceiving theanimal as ‘restricted’ and ‘tame’and this result was the samewhether the barrier was a moator a traditional bar and glasscage. They conclude thatdesigners should lessen theperceptual cues that remindpeople that they are in a zoo.

Being accurate

Emphasis should also be placed(as far as possible) on accuracy.Wineman & Choi (1991) refer tothe development of Atlanta Zooin the 1950's when enclosureshad the appearance of naturalareas, but they did not accuratelyrepresent the habitats and

groupings of the animals. Thishindered the full educationalimpact of the exhibits. Manymodern zoos are now attemptingto provide enclosures withvegetation and landscapes whichmimic those of the animals'natural habitat. This is not onlyfor the benefit of visitors, but alsofor animals. Environmentswhich are as natural as possibleshould encourage the animals toengage in species typicalbehaviour (e.g., feeding, playing),which in turn is educational andexciting for visitors. Such anapproach provides plentifulopportunity for indirect learning -the experience of watching a wildanimal interacting with itsenvironment can provide more,and different, information than asign. Ackley (1936, p. 11) arguesthe case for accurate presentationof environments when stating “ananimal cannot be isolated, evenconceptually, from the particularenvironment to which it has

Natural environments encourage naturalbehaviours. Natural behaviours inspire visitors.


Table 1: Principles for Attracting the Attention of Visitors

Principle Application to Zoo Environments

Size Larger animal size results in longer viewingtimes

Motion Moving animals will gain greater attentionfrom visitors

Asthetic factors Shapes, colours and patterns increase attention

Novelty/rarity Visitors are attracted to novel/rare animals

Sensory factors Multisensory exhibits produce longer viewingtimes

Interactive factors Visitors will be attracted to animals they cantouch or interact with

Visitor participation Greater attention and recall are likely wherevisitors can participate/assist with animalsand their keepers, e.g., feeding

Object satiation and Repetition of enclosure style is related tofatigue decreased attention

Special interests Visitors will pay more attention to animalsthey are interested in. Baby animals havewidespread appeal

Visibility of exhibit Barriers to visibility reduce viewing times

Proximity of exhibit The closer visitors can get to exhibits, thelonger they stay

Realism Naturalistic exhibits provide more memorableexperiences

Sensory competition Exhibit stimuli compete for visitor attention

Source: Moscardo, 1996. For an explanation of these principles applied to zoo settings see also Bitgood et al., 1986.

behavioural enrichmenttechniques (Shettel-Neuber,1988). Such methods ofbehavioural enrichment providestimulation, exercise and thesatisfaction of natural instinctsfor the animal, and untoldlearning and appreciationopportunities for the visitor.

Using the sounds of nature

One method which may assist inthe more accurate representationof nature is the use of ecologicallyrelevant sounds. A study byOgden, Lindburg & Maple (1993)found that the use of thesenatural sounds positively affectedthe experience of zoo visitors bymaking them feel as though theywere (in this case) in a rainforest.Almost twice the number ofrespondents reported that theyhad learned something from theexhibit when the sounds wereturned on, and the soundsappeared to encourageappreciation of the naturalenvironment and positive feelingstoward the animals. However, itis important to note that thesystem in question was highlysophisticated, and the exhibitwas designed for a landscapeimmersion experience. Soundswere recorded in Africa usinganimal vocalisations (birds,insects, monkeys) and environ-mental sounds (rustling foliage).The enclosure had 111 speakersand 27 sensors which detectedvisitor movement and controlledoutput levels depending on crowdsize. Furthermore, the fore-ground sounds such as animalnoises were layered randomly ontop of the background sounds.Thus the favourable results inthis study may not be applicableto less sophisticated systems.

Getting attention

Some studies (e.g., Brennan,1977) indicate that zoo visitorsspend surprisingly little timeviewing exhibits. However,traditional exhibits presentanimals in obvious locations,housed in repetitive enclosures.There is little effort required, no

twice as long looking at animalsthat are active as opposed tothose which are not (Bitgood,Patterson & Benefield, 1988).The principles discussed byMoscardo also suggest thatnatural exhibits are morememorable; that barriers tovisibility (e.g. , bars) reduceviewing times; that being able toget close to animals encouragesvisitors to stay longer; thatsensory competition occursbetween exhibits; and thatrepetitive exhibit style con-tributes to fatigue and satiation(Bacon & Hallett, 1981). Theseprinciples are confirmed in anempirical study by Bitgood et al.(1988, 1987). Coe (1985) arguesfor concealed barriers insuggesting that animals whichappear unrestrained should getour full attention. Open areas,natural settings and waterfeatures also attract the attentionof visitors (Martin & O’Reilly,1988).

drama, surprise or novelty. Thispredictability bores not only theanimal but the visitor as well(Bacon & Hallett, 1981). Table 1(developed from Moscardo, 1996)summarises principles which canbe used in interpretation toattract the attention of visitors.These principles are based onvariables which have been foundto be significantly effect theattention and learning of visitors.Many of these principles can beextrapolated to the zooenvironment. For example,popular exhibits at zoos are oftenthose which have large animals(e.g., elephants), rare animals,dangerous animals (lions, tigers,bears) colourful animals oranimals of special interest (e.g.,new or endangered animals), andinfant animals (Bitgood,Patterson & Benefield, 1988;Shaw & Copper, 1980 inShackley 1996). Active or movinganimals also attract attentionand visitors appear to spend

Avoiding incorrectperceptions

Anthropomorphism

How do visitors perceive zooanimals? Coe (1985) suggeststhere are often contradictionsbetween what zoo visitorsperceive unconsciously andobserve consciously. Anthro-pomorphism (transferring humancharacteristics and motives toanimals) has been cited as one ofthe major problems that zoos facein educating visitors accurately(Ford, 1995). Use of pet names,animal birthdays, adoptionschemes and the generalhandling of animals may inter-fere with the perception that zooanimals are wild. The difficultyis that anthropomorphism canbe a useful technique to engagethe interest of the visitors, andchildren in particular understandanthropomorphic explanationsbecause they can relate it totheir lives. Children tend to useanthropomorphic comments tointerpret behaviour (Rosenfeld,1982) and the explanations thatparents (particularly mothers)provide to their children arehighly anthropomorphic (Wolf& Tymitz, 1981). The question iswhether the understandinggained is accurate, and whetheranthropomorphism is appropriate.

Wild or tame?

Issues such as anthropo-morphism and handling animalscan create the impression thatzoo animals are not wild animals.Captivity itself contributes tothese impressions. Ford (1995)found that 12-13 year oldstudents did not perceive zebrasas wild animals. This was thecase in empirical studies of boththe free range zoo and the smallenclosure zoo. However, animportant distinction was thatthe zebras in the free range zoowere not considered tame. Ford(1995) suggests that the reasonbehind the students not per-ceiving the animals to be wildwas the overriding perception ofcaptivity. Whilst it is true that

zoo animals may not beconsidered wild because they arecaptive, it is important not topresent them as domesticatedpets as this may interfere withencouraging desired messagesabout behaviour and conser-vation in the wild (Ford, 1995).

Issues of rank

Coe (1985) raises the interestingissue of the perceptual position ofthe animal relative to the visitor.If the visitor is looking down onthe animal, does this suggestrank? Coe suggests that if ananimal is in a “position or locationsuperior to the viewer it mayrelatively predispose the viewerto want to learn from the animal,be more attentive to it, andperhaps be even more respectfulof it” (p. 203). Coe (1985) suggestsa number of ways this may beachieved:

a) person enters perceptual spacealready occupied by animal

b) person on edge of space,animal in centre of space

c) person hiding, sees animal infull view

d) person looking up at animal

e) person encounters animal bysurprise

f) person (diurnal) encountersanimal in nocturnal habitat

g) person sees dangerous animalwith no visible barrier

h) person discovers animal veryclose at hand.

Hancocks (1971) affirms thisconcept from the animals’ pointo f view, maintain ing thatanimals should never be lookeddown upon. This is unfavourablebecause of the psychologicalconnotations inferred, and alsobecause it can be disturbing foranimals to view potentiallydangerous enemies from such anunnatural viewpoint. However,the assumptions underlying this

philosophy have not beendirect ly tested (Martin &O’Reilly, 1988).

Captive behaviours

Sommer (1972) expresses theconcern that visitors and par-ticularly children are learningincorrect animal stereotypes bywatching behaviour that iscommon to captive animals butnot in nature. Such behaviourincludes animals pacing theircages, swaying, “sexual aber-rations, a heavy incidence ofaggression, and the blahnesscommon to many animals thatdon’t have anything to do in aconcrete cage”. Hutchins et al.(1984, p. 16) refer to suchbehaviour when arguing that “ifzoo visitors see animals in uglyconditions, engaging in aberrantbehaviour, they are likely to feelnothing more than revulsion andits counterpart, pity . .. Con-versely, animals viewed innaturalistic environments,exhibiting natural patterns ofbehaviour can inspireappreciation.” Exhibits thereforecommunicate at both theconscious and unconscious levels.While it is obvious that zoosshould attempt to avoid suchcaptive behaviours, if they occurit is best to explain how theunnatural behaviour arises andwhat is being done to manage it(Van den Brink, 1981). There arereports of naturalistic enclosuresreducing aggression and stereo-typic behaviour in primates andother zoo animals (e.g., Shettel-Neuber, 1985). However, it isimportant to realise that whiletypical captive behaviours maybe more frequent in unnaturalor restrictive enclosures, theya r e not necessarily removed byplacing the animal in a ‘thirdgeneration’ naturalistic environ-ment. Stimulation of behaviourtypical in the wild involves theanimals’ past experiences as wellas the design of the enclosureand behavioural enrichmenttechniques. Thus an exhibitwhich encourages naturalbehaviours depends on bothdesign and ongoing management



(Shettel-Neuber, 1988).

Facilitating enjoyment

Most visitors go to the zoo for anenjoyable day trip, particularlyfamily groups and visitors withchildren. A study reported byShackley (1996) found that in1992, 48% of respondents went tothe zoo for a day out, and afurther 40% to entertainchildren. Enjoyment is thereforea primary concern. Wilson (inRobinson, 1994) refers to'biophilia ', or the fascinationhumans have with other livingthings, to partly explain thepopularity of zoos. Given ournatural attraction and interest inanimals, a zoo which presentshealthy animals behavingnaturally in appropriate,naturalistic enclosures is morelikely to create visitor enjoyment.

Knowing what visitors don'tlike

A useful way to approach theissue of creating enjoyment is tolook at what visitors don't likeabout zoos. Wolf & Tymitz (1981)found that people did not likeexhibits where they could not seethe animals, where they wereconcerned that the animals were

people to allow good view ofanimals' (5%).

Dealing with animalinactivity

Visitors find the inactivity ofanimals frustrating (Bacon &Hallett, 1981). This is a problemfor zoos attempting to replicatethe animal's natural habitat -they are often well camouflagedand retreat from public view.Once at the zoo, some visitorswant to see the animals perform,and popular animals are thosewhich interact with the visitor orother animals (Wolf & Tymitz,1981). Bitgood, Patterson &Benefield (1988) found thatviewing time of visitors wasdoubled when the animal wasactive, and this seemed to be truefor all types of behaviour.Modern audiovisual equipmentcan help solve this frustration.Film loops, audio tapes andinterpretive signs can help tosatisfy the visitor 's curiosity.Adding motion to the exhibit,such as water features and shortfilm clips can also assist inholding visitor attention. Bitgoodet al. (1986) suggests that visitorsneed to be educated about animalactivity. Many species (such asbig cats) are rarely active and ifvisitors are told that they shouldnot expect activity from thesespecies, their viewing experiencemay be less disappointing.

Dealing with animals that aredifficult to see

Naturalistic exhibits can meanthat animals util ise theircamouflage capabilities effective-ly. While natural habitatexhibits provide numerousbenefits to both animal andvisitor, Churchman (1985) pointsout that some visitors walk awayfrom such exhibits because theycannot find the animals.Polakowski (1987, p. 2)summarises this difficulty:

the display of animals incaptivity presents a dilemmabetween the inherent nature ofnearly all animals to resort to

not comfortable and unhappy,and where animals weredisplayed in small, unclean orinappropriate settings. Manyvisitors dislike seeing othervisitors feed the animals, and feelthe zoo should take strongermeasures in warning visitors notto feed the animals (Wolf &Tymitz, 1979). Further, visitorsdid not l ike crowds as theyinterfered with their view of theanimals, or zoos with poororientation which resulted inthem getting lost. Wolf andTymitz concluded that “visitorreactions to the integrity ofexhibits was a major factorinfluencing the total zooexperience” (1981, p. 51) and that“one cri terion was c lear:captivity must be comfortable”(1979, p. 22). A 1992 study byShackley (1996) found thatwhen asked what most annoyedthem on their zoo visit , 25%replied 'not enough space for theanimals' and 15% replied that the'animals seemed unhappy ordisturbed'. This supports theidea that exhibit design iscrucial. Other importantresponses were 'not enoughinformation about the animals'( 1 0 % ) , ' some animal s youwanted to see were not ondisplay' (9%) and 'too many

Figure 1: Relative position: Does it affect perceptions?Source: Coe (1985, p. 204)


deception for protection and theneed to display them in settingswhere they are easily seen andrecognizable by zoo visitors.

This dilemma provides anopportunity for interpretation tochange a potentially negativeimpression (not being able to seethe animal) to a positive learningexperience in terms of respect forthe camouflage capabilities of theanimal. Interpretive signs canask the question “Can you seeme?” and give suggestions forfinding the animal. Exhibits canalso be designed with multipleviewing platforms designed to aidvisibility and recognition, providelife-sized models of smalleranimals or include good qualitygraphics in the event that thevisitor does not see the animal.Much of the difficulty stems fromthe visitor expectation that theyshould be able to see the animalsat the zoo. Interpretation canalter these expectations byexplaining why visitors may notbe able to see the animalimmediately. Doing so mayreduce potential disappointmentand frustration.

Meeting the needs of children

A necessary condition for anenjoyable family day is theenjoyment of the children.Parents often plan their zoo visitfor the children's benefit, thuscatering for children is critical(Rosenfeld, 1982). Most zoovisitors are in family groups,and children under 12 make upover 33% of all visitors(Wineman, Piper & Maple, 1996).At the basic level, catering forchildren includes adequate toiletsand facilities for families, andpaths that are accessible forstrollers. Wineman et al. ( 1 9 9 6 )suggest that zoos are missingopportunities to capture theattention of young children andteenagers. They suggest thatchildren need experiences thatare appropriate to their age suchas manipulative materials,pictures, small intimateexperiences and places to let offsteam. Interactive experiences,

contact with animals, andopportunities to talk to keepersare also suggested as methods ofreaching young children.Learning through play is alsoeffective, where children learnabout animals by imitat ingthem (Wineman, Piper & Maple,1996). Ollason (1981) highlightsthe importance of animal signsaimed at very young children.These have basic informationand attractive graphics andh a v e proven popular atEdinburgh Zoo. Martin &O’Reilly (1988) i llustrate theimportance of including childrenin visitor research at zoos. Forexample, one zoo assumed it wasmeeting the needs of childrenuntil empirical studies foundthat children encounteredobstacles to learning such asvisual barriers, competingsources of stimulation and inter-pretation designed for a d u l t s(Martin & O’Reilly, 1988).Martin & O’Reilly (1987) recom-mended incorporating factorswhich usually distract children(such as movement and water)into the exhibit design. Deans eta l . (1987) conducted surveys of

children and adult zoo visitorsand recommended that childrenbe provided with sensory andtactile experiences which enablethem to learn through obser-vation and physical activity.Examples include replica modelsof animals next to exhibits whichchildren can touch and mani-pulate, and the use of elevatedviewing platforms.

Providing opportunities to getclose and nurture

Children, as well as adults, areparticularly attracted to theopportunity to nurture. Thismakes nurseries and animalhospitals particularly popular.Bacon & Hallett (1981) recom-mend using an 'open window'exhibit, where visitors can lookdirectly into the keeper's workarea. Routine work such asweighing animals is done inpublic view.

At the World of Birds at NewYork Zoo, the display area forhand-reared birds was so popularthat they needed to build a newnursery with large viewing areas

Figure 2: Visitors at an animal hospital


(Bruning, 1981). These areasprovide the opportunity forvisitors to get close to the animaland ask questions of the keepers.Such opportunities provideenjoyment (Figure 2).

Providing high qualityinterpretation

Signs

Signs and labels are integral tothe exhibit as a whole. Theanimal is of primary importancein the exhibit, “yet to theuntrained eye and without properinterpretation it remains of onlyslightly more interest than ananimated toy” (Blakely, 1981, p.1). A study of school childrenfound that exposure alone to wildanimals appeared to beinsufficient to obtain affectiveand cognitive gains. This castsdoubt on the traditional approachwhich has been to simply exposechildren to animals and assumethis resulted in improvedattitudes toward wildlife con-servation (de White & Jacobson,1994). Signs therefore areessential in assisting visitors tointerpret what they see. Theyare also particularly important inexhibits where the animals maybe difficult to see. There are anumber of ways that signs can bedesigned to encourage the visitorto read and understand them.Table 2 provides a summary.

Live interpreters,interactives and shows

Live interpreters (such as keepertalks) and animal shows arepopular at zoos because theycombine many of the features ofexhibits that attract the attentionof visitors (Table 1). They areinteractive, often involve somelevel of participation, visitors canget close to the animals and havegood visibility, and often theanimals are displaying theirnatural behaviours. Morgan andGramann (1988) found that mereexposure to snakes did notimprove positive attitude scores,however ‘modelling’ (watching akeeper handle the snakes

Table 2: Principles for Effective Signs.

Principle Explanation

Emphasise important Underlining or otherwise drawing attention to thepoints point aids learning (Kool, 1985)Use point form Readers prefer this to the paragraph format as it

appears shorter and easier to read (Woods, Berry & Moscardo, 1996)

Use headings Headings provide clear visual cues to indicate what is important. They allow the visitor to select topics of interest and assist in recall of information (Hartley & Trueman, 1983)

Order your Primary information, that which can be visuallyinformation verified or understood by looking at the exhibit,

should be the first thing visitors read. The secondary information, which goes into moredetail, follows the primary (Serrell, 1980)

Emphasise inform- This is information that directs the visitor’s ation with “visual attention to the exhibit by asking questions, or content” makes comparisons using information which can

be visually verified (Serrell, 1981)Keep labels succinct Reading decreases as the number of words

increase. (Borun & Miller, 1980). The general consensus is that signs should have around 50-75 words (Davenish, 1990; Borun & Miller, 1980)

Use a clear font and This makes signs easier to read (Borun & Miller, large lettering 1980)Use colour and Colour and contrast can invite reading behaviour, contrast and makes a more lasting impression on the

reader. Bright colours command more attention, and dark letters on a light background are more readable than light letters on a dark background (Knudson, Cable & Beck, 1995; Wolf & Smith,1993)

Use photographs and These can present information in a way that would other illustrations be difficult to describe with words. They add to the

appeal of the sign and help the reader interpret the information (Borun & Miller, 1980)

Use signs with catchyphrases, interesting These catch the attention and interest of visitorstitles, novelty, conflict (Moscardo, 1996; Serrell, 1981)and surpriseAsk questions Questions can arouse the curiosity of visitors and

draw their attention to the exhibit. Care must be taken to ensure the questions are not too difficult or wordy (Serrell, 1981; Kanel & Tamir, 1991; Moscardo, 1996)

Use an active writing Use a writing style which involves the visitor. style Visitors approach the text in an interactive

manner, as if someone were talking to them. Thisaids interaction and discussion (McManus, 1989;Rand, 1985)

Use personal This helps visitors to relate to the information.connections Examples include comparing zoo animals to pets,

making reference to the everyday lives of visitors(Tilden, 1977; Serrell, 1981)

Use humour This can illustrate points and increase enjoyment(Bruning, 1981)

Use models Models can assist explanations and can be particularly useful when dealing with small animals or insects, by providing a clear view of theanimal in question (Ross, 1981)

Use age appropriate Include some signs for young children (Ollason,signs 1981)


confidently) and direct contactopportunities improved attitudescores significantly. Wolf andTymitz (1979) suggest thatvisitors have an unmistakabledesire to ask questions, listen toresponses and continue asking.They believe that questioningreflects a desire to learn, and theability of keepers to answerquestions and thereby facilitatelearning explains why keepertalks are so popular (Wolf &Tymitz, 1979). Use of shows andlive interpreters are particularlygood for children (Wineman et al.,1996). Being able to talk tokeepers gives visitors a 'behindthe scenes' appreciation of theanimals and the zoo in general.These provide the opportunity todiscuss wildlife issues andprovide direct animal contactexperiences under controlledsupervision (Wineman et al.,1996). Shows that encourageanimals to i llustrate species-typical behaviour can beeducational as well as enter-taining. However, care should betaken to avoid anthropomor-phising live animals or turningthe show into an exhibitionpurely for entertainment.

Computers and interactive multi-

media software are being used atsome zoos. These can be usefulfor children and visitors withlimited mobility, as well ashaving potential for use by publicand educational institutionsoutside of the zoo. Detroit Zooopened a new exhibit called theWildlife Interpretive Gallery in1996 (D’Angelo & Cavagnol,1996). This uses photographs,video and audio elements toprovide interactive informationon items such as ‘how do we savethe animals’ and ‘behind thescenes at the zoo’ along withinformation on species exhibited.Initial feedback for the exhibitwas positive.

Creating memories

Evaluating specific learning andattitude change in zoo visitors isdifficult. This may be becausevisitors take home a mixture ofperceptions, feelings andinformation which may bedifficult to quantify and express.What do people remember?Often it is the things that caughttheir attention. Some examplesof negative memories are from azoo in Scotland, where a visitorremembered the golden eagle atthe top of its small mesh

enclosure, staring up at the bluesky, or the brown bear in aconcrete pit. The zoo’s guide bookrecognised the inappropriatenessof these enclosures, saying thatthe eagle was injured and cannotbe released, and “we agree thather (the bear's) enclosure is notideal, but it has been improvedwith a deep litter of bark and wehave no plans to house brownbears when she is gone” (Smith,1997). However, visitors may notread the guidebook. At anEnglish zoo, a gorilla stood at thebars to his cage, gazing into thefaces of passing visitors. Fewvisitors stopped for any length oftime, and many expresseddiscomfort with the experience(Figure 3). Are these thememories we want visitors totake away? Can any amount ofpositive education erase thesememories and the feelings theyevoke?

Compare this with the commentsfrom visitors exiting a nocturnalhouse in Australia. Many in thegroup said they felt like they hadentered a secret world, and werethrilled to watch a platypusforaging for food on the simulatedcreek bottom. Or comments fromvisitors to the National Zoo in theUSA, saying “I could watch thebirds in here all day…this area isperfect for them. Its like atropical garden. They look sonatural in here.” (Wolf & Tymitz,1979). There is a need forcontinuing research to determinewhat characteristics andinterpretive methods contributeto enjoyment, learning andappreciation. There is also aneed for these methods to beworkable in the daily practicalmanagement of zoos.

Conclusion

The goals of zoos have changedfrom that of pure entertainmentor scientific study to broadergoals of recreation, education,research and conservation. Toachieve these goals with peopleand families at leisure requirescareful planning and inter-pretation. The rare, exotic and

Figure 3: A negative image


ReferencesAckley, H. (1936). Restless jungle. New York: National Travel Club. Bacon, J.P., & Hallett, M. (1981). Exhibit systems for reptiles and

amphibians at the San Diego Zoo: Dioramas and graphics.International Zoo Yearbook, 21, 14-22.

Bitgood, S. (1990). The role of simulated immersion in exhibition.Technical Report No. 90-20: Jacksonville State University.

Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit design andvisitor behaviour. Environment and Behaviour, 20(4), 474-491.

Bitgood, S., & Benefield, A. (1987). Visitor behaviour: A comparisonacross zoos. (Tech. Rep. No. 86-20). Jacksonville: JacksonvilleState University.

Bitgood, S., Benefield, A., Patterson, D., & Nabors, A. (1986).Understanding your visitors: Ten factors that influence visitorbehaviour. (Tech. Rep. No. 86-60). Jacksonville: JacksonvilleState University.

Blakely, R. L. (1981). Formulating an exhibit policy. InternationalZoo Yearbook, 21, 1-5.

Borun, M., & Miller, M. (1980). To label or not to label? M u s e u mNews, 58(4), 64-67.

Brennan, T. (1977). Typical zoo visitor social group behaviour.AAZPA Annual Proceedings. pp.109-116.

Bruning, D. (1981). The world of birds at the New York zoo.International Zoo Yearbook, 21, 22-24.

Churchman, D. (1985). The educational impact of zoos and museums:A review of the literature. Paper presented at a meeting of theAmerican Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

Coe, J. C. (1985). Design and perception: Making the zoo experiencereal. Zoo Biology, 4, 197-208.

D’Angelo, D., & Cavagnol, R.M. (1996). Technology goes wild at the

beautiful animals are the mostimportant focus for achievingthese goals. Their activity andbehaviour in natural environ-ments can often trigger wonderand appreciation in the humansvisiting them. However, visitorsneed assistance with interpretingwhat they see and hear. It isimportant to provide them withinformation that is accessible andinteresting through signs andother interpretive techniques.Yet it is just as important not togive them incorrect informationand misleading perceptionsthrough presenting wildlife in amanner and in environmentsthat are completely alien to theirnatural state.

The principles presented in thispaper are based on a wide rangeof studies on the interpretation ofwildlife in captivity. Much of theresearch in zoos has been drivenby practical problems rather than

the need to develop or test theory(Martin & O’Reilly, 1988). Thusmany studies are site specific andresults are not easily condensedinto general principles. However,there are a number of theorieswhich are potentially useful tointerpretation in zooenvironments. The concept ofmindfulness (Langer, 1989) asapplied to interpretation(Moscardo, 1996) provides auseful theoretical base fromwhich research results may begeneralised across settings. Thistheory is able to identify featuresof exhibits which are attractive tovisitors. Kellert (1996) describesfactors which shape attitudestowards wildlife, and thesefactors may provide avenues forresearch in terms of visitors ’perceptions of species. Overall,there is a need for continuingresearch to guide the develop-ment and management of zoos forthe achievement of educationaland conservation goals.


zoo. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 10(4), 26-30. Davenish, D.C. (1990). Labelling in museum display: A survey and

practical guide. Museum Management and Curatorship, 9, 63-72.

Deans, C., Martin, J., Noon, K., Nuesa, B., & O’Reilly, J. (1987). Azoo for who? A pilot study in zoo design for children at the ReidPark Zoo. (Tech. Rep. No. 87-10). Jacksonville: Center forSocial Design.

Dengate, H. (1993). Taronga Zoo Guidebook. Bartel Publications:Sydney.

deWhite, T. G., & Jacobson, S. K. (1994). Evaluating conservationeducation programs at a South American zoo. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 25(4), 18-32.

Finlay, T., James, L.R., & Maple, T.L. (1988). People’s perceptions ofanimals: The influence of the zoo environment. E n v i r o n m e n tand Behaviour, 20(4), 508-528.

Ford, J.C. (1995). Informal learning in zoos: How do visitors perceivecaptive animals? Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conferenceof the Interpretation Australia Association, Canberra, 13-15Nov., pp. 78-81.

Hancocks, D. (1971). Animals and architecture. London: HughEvelyn.

Hartley, L., & Trueman, M. (1983). The effects of headings in text onrecall, search and retrieval. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 53(2), 205-214.

Huthchins, M., Hancocks, D., Crockett, C. (1984). Natural solutionsto the behavioural problems of captive animals. Der ZoologischeGarten, 54, 63-74.

Kanel , V., & Tamir, P. (1991). Different labels, different learnings.Curator, 34(1), 14-26.

Kool, R. (1985). The effects of label design on exhibit effectiveness.Muse, Summer 1985, 32-36.

Knudson, D.M., Cable, T.T., & Beck, L. (1995). Interpretation ofcultural and natural resources. PA: Venture Publishing.

Markowitz, H. (1979). Environmental enrichment and behaviouralengineering for captive primates. In J. Erwin, T.L. Maple & G.Mitchell (eds)., Captivity and behaviour: Primates in breedingcolonies, laboratories and zoos (pp. 217-238). New York: VanNostrand Reinhold.

Martin, J., & O’Reilly, J. (1987). Research and design at the ReidPark Zoo. (Tech. Rep. No. 87-15). Jacksonville: JacksonvilleState University.

Martin, J., & O’Reilly, J. (1988). The emergence of environment-behaviour research in zoological parks. Environment andBehaviour, 20(4), 173-192.

McManus, P.M. (1989). Oh, yes they do: How museum visitors readlabels and interact with exhibit text. Curator, 32(3), 174-188.

Morgan, J.M., & Gramann, J.H. (1988). A theoretical basis forpredicting effectiveness in wildlife education programs.Southwest Texas State University.

Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. Annalsof Tourism Research, 23(2), 376-397.

Ogden, J.J., Lindburg, D.G., & Maple, T.L. (1993). The effects ofecologically-relevant sounds on zoo visitors. Curator, 36(2), 147-157.

Ollason, R.J. (1981). The animal labelling system at Edinburgh Zoo.International Zoo Yearbook, 21, 25-26.

Polakowski, K.J. (1987). Zoo design: The reality of wild illusions.Michigan: University of Michigan School of Natural Resources.

Rand, J. (1985). Fish stories that hook readers: Interpretive graphicsat the Monterey Bay Aquarium. (Tech. Rep. No. 90-30).Jacksonville: Centre for Social Design.


Robinson, M.H. (1994). The new zoo and the old Adam. M u s e u mNews, Jan/Feb 1994, 40-43.

Rosenfeld, S. (1982). A naturalistic study of visitors at an interactivemini-zoo. Curator, 25(3), 236-248.

Ross, J. (1981). The insect world at the Cincinnati Zoo. InternationalZoo Yearbook, 21, 36-41.

Shettel-Neuber, J. (1985). The Whittier Southeast Asian Exhibits: Apost-occupancy evaluation and comparison with older exhibits.(Tech. Rep. No. 86-80). Jacksonville State University.

Shettel-Neuber, J. (1988). Second and third generation zoo exhibits:A comparison of visitor, staff and animal responses.Environment and Behaviour, 20(4), 452-473.

Serrell, B. (1980). A plan for writing interpretive signs. C u r a t o r ,22(4), 161-167.

Serrell, B. (1981). Zoo label study at Brookfield Zoo. InternationalZoo Yearbook, 21, 54-61.

Shackley, M. (1996). Wildlife tourism. London: Thompson BusinessPress.

Smith, J. U. (1997). Back to nature: Guidebook for the HighlandWildlife Park: Scotland.

Sommer, R. (1972). What do we learn at the zoo? Natural History,81(7), 26-29, 84-85.

Tilden, F. (1977). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.), Chapel Hill:North Carolina Press.

Van den Brink, J. (1981). The role of labels at the zoo. InternationalZoo Yearbook, 21, 62-63.

Wineman, J., Piper, C., & Maple, T. (1996). Zoos in transition:Enriching conservation education for a new generation.Curator, 39(2), 95-107.

Wineman, J., & Choi, Y.K. (1991). Spatial/visual properties of zooexhibition. Curator, 34(4), 304-315.

Wolf, L.F., & Smith, J.K. (1993). What makes museum labels legible?Curator, 36(2), 95-110.

Wolf, R.L., & Tymitz, B.L. (1979). Do giraffes ever sit? A study ofvisitor perceptions at the National Zoological Park, SmithsonianInstitution. Washington: Smithsonian Institute.

Wolf, R.L., & Tymitz, B.L. (1981). Studying visitor perceptions of zooenvironments: A naturalistic view. International Zoo Yearbook,21, 49-53.

Wonders, K. (1989). Exhibiting fauna - from spectacle to habitatgroup. Curator, 32(2), 131-156.

Woods, B., Moscardo, G., & Berry, M. (1996). Stinging Tree signs.Unpublished paper, James Cook University.

Animals on Display, Principles for Interpreting Captive Wildlife

Documents

Transcript of Animals on Display, Principles for Interpreting Captive Wildlife