Innovation or Replication. Proceedings of the 6 th International Symposium on Zoo Design 119 DO ZOO DESIGNERS KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT ANIMALS? Vicky Melfi, Andrew Bowkett, Amy Plowman and Kirsten Pullen Paignton Zoo Environmental Park, Totnes Road, Paignton, Devon, TQ4 7EU, UK Abstract We suggest that many modern and expensive zoo enclosures do not meet the needs of the animals as well as they do those of zoo visitors and staff. We believe that this is due to two reasons: first, that the visitor experience has become the overwhelming consideration in the design process and secondly, that when animal needs are considered they tend to be based on tradition, assumption or perception, rather than sound scientific knowledge, and therefore may be inaccurate. Evidence from previous Zoo Design Symposium proceedings, zoo design bibliographies and husbandry guidelines supports these claims. Through the use of specific examples we demonstrate how many types of scientific research in zoos and in situ could, and should, inform enclosure design for the benefit of the animals. Introduction Many modern and expensive zoo enclosures may not meet the needs of the animals as well as they do those of visitors and staff (e.g. Hancocks, 1995, 2001; Richardson, 1999). This appears to be due to two main reasons: 1. That in recent years the visitor experience 1 has become the overwhelming consideration in zoo design 2. That when animal needs are considered they tend to be based on tradition and assumption rather than scientifically determined requirements. The reasons that the visitor experience is the major determinant of exhibit design are clear: predominantly if there are no visitors there can be no zoo, but also that zoos need to get the conservation message across to visitors in an increasingly complex, urbanised society. We accept this and do not claim that the visitor experience should not be an extremely important consideration. We also accept that visitor and animal needs do not necessarily conflict, but unfortunately, as we will show, they may do. As has been said by many speakers at this and previous symposia (e.g. Veasey, this volume) an appropriate balance between the needs of all the various users of an exhibit must be reached. We believe that this balance may have swayed too far in favour of visitors in many modern exhibits. Has the visitor experience really become the overwhelming consideration? Inspection of the proceedings of the previous zoo design symposia reveals quite a drastic change in emphasis of the content between the first meeting in 1975 to this current one (fig.1). In 1975 the content of papers in the proceedings was more or less evenly balanced between matters related to visitors, animals and management; in 2004, based on the abstracts of papers, the content was very heavily biased towards the visitor experience. This could reflect a shift in the interests of the organisers but we believe it genuinely represents a shift in the emphasis of design in many zoos. This is supported by another source of information, the Zoolex bibliography. This web-based bibliography also shows a strong bias towards the visitor experience (fig. 2). We are not criticising ZooLex for this as we believe it is simply reflecting the literature in common use in the field. Although, there 1 By visitor experience we include all aspects of a zoo visit from the simply practical (seeing animals, eating, shopping and toilet facilities) to formal and informal education, interpretation and other ways of influencing visitors to achieve the aim of most modern zoos i.e. conservation directly or indirectly through education.