How Will Zoo Exhibit Design Benefit from Using More Research Findings?

Abstract

Zoo, aquarium, and sanctuary exhibit designers, both specialist “zoo architects”, and general practice architects, as well as landscape architects generally do not closely follow the evolving scientific literature on zoo biology, visitor experience, and managed animal welfare. Reportedly, this is because most zoo and aquarium clients do not require these efforts. Detailed requirements are provided by clients as project programs or briefs, which vary widely in quality and currency. Many clients and designers copy or adapt popular enclosure models without regard to their scientific foundations. Research papers frequently focus on discrete subject areas, such as animal behavior and welfare, visitor experience, or education, using their own methods and vocabulary. Relatively few studies integrate findings in ways useful to designers in preparing widely integrated systems. Regulatory standards set minimum rather than ideal standards. Knowledge of in situ animal behavior is lacking for many managed species. How can zoo and aquarium managers and designers be encouraged to increase research within the design process? This review article suggests that the long-term benefits of greater and better science integration outweigh initially higher design costs, resulting in improved facility and management design, benefiting all zoo, aquarium, and sanctuary stakeholders, and providing factual evidence underpinning community support.

1. Introduction

This paper was composed by a zoo designer and a welfare scientist, both with considerable international experience (J.C. and E.F., respectively), and supported by a zoo researcher (J.B.), combining over fifty years of zoo project design experience with another several decades of experience in zoo-related teaching, research, and publication. Having been active contributors through almost a combined century of zoo design and management evolution, and with combined knowledge of zoo biology and visitor studies extending even farther, we share the hope that many zoo design and management outcomes would be greatly improved with better integration of science in forms useful to designers and their zoo and aquarium clients. The design of zoos, related animal care, and visitor experience attractions require an informed, creative balancing of diverse yet related information, goals, and resources with a long-term perspective. Better and more integrated empirical knowledge should lead to better outcomes for all stakeholders. Thus, it is our aim to review the conditions that currently limit the use of science in the design of zoos, aquariums, and animal sanctuaries and recommend remedies that benefit all stakeholders as well as their surrounding communities.

2. Zoo Design and Science: The Problem

The following quote was taken from Melfi et al.’s (2005) conference paper, “Do Zoo Designers Know Enough about Animals?”:

“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…” [1]

The first issue raised in this valuable review by Melfi et al.; that zoo and aquarium enclosure design was overly focused on the visitor experience, is evident when comparing the conditions for animals in exhibit spaces viewed by the public, compared to the minimal animal provisions in overnight accommodation or back-of-house areas [1,2,3].

The question, “Do zoo designers know enough about animals”, however, does not address who zoo designers are and their varied roles in obtaining useful science, nor does it answer the logical following question: “Why don’t zoo designers use more science?” One of us (J.C.) provided a preliminary answer to this question at the 4th International Meeting on Zoo Research, Conservation and Biodiversity held in April 2024 at Serengeti-Park Hodenhagen, Germany with the question, “Why don’t zoo and aquarium designers use more research findings?” This response and continued inquiry was initiated with an informal questioning of four fellow international zoo design specialists. Their collective confirmation was that they did not attempt to follow scientific publications related to zoo biology and management, visitor experience, or animal welfare because their zoo clients did not require this service. Such detailed research is not in their training and is normally provided by their clients or specialists supplied by the zoo, aquarium, or sanctuary. Further examination of this question will be discussed later in this paper. The resulting conference presentation then discussed current barriers to zoo, aquarium, and sanctuary facility designers utilizing the latest empirical data and suggested remedies. While this review paper will present issues raised previously, we will focus on workable science-based solutions benefiting all stakeholders, including animals, visitors, and support staff, as well as education, conservation, and business programs.

2.1. What Is Good Zoo Enclosure Design

Good design meets or exceeds the symbiotic, reciprocal needs of all principal stakeholders, plants, animals, carers, conservationists, educators, all types of visitors, business, and community, balancing functionality and delight, underpinned with timely, integrated science [4].

2.2. Who Are Zoo Exhibit Designers

The term “zoo architects” is commonly used in the zoo and aquarium field for the architects, landscape architects, engineers, and design/build firms they employ. In North America, Central Europe, and Australia, there are specialist zoo and aquarium design firms, several with decades of international experience in this specialized field of practice. Several large zoos and aquariums have their own long-standing exhibit design departments. However, most exhibits and related support facilities worldwide are designed by non-specialist architecture firms with little or no previous experience in this field [5,6]. It is common in Europe for municipal zoos to have architects selected for them through design competitions, with little input from the zoos themselves. This practice encourages architectural fashion setters rather than experienced zoo design firms (M. Fiby, personal communication, 11 November 2009). Of course, all contracted designers provide professional services as directed by their client zoo or aquarium. Thus, leaders of the facilities directing design professionals may also be considered lead designers. Do they use more recent scientific data in their directions to zoo architects? In our experience (J.C.) this often is not the case.

2.3. Why Zoo and Aquarium Designers Do Not Closely Follow Scientific Publications

The simple answer is that zoo clients do not require this level of knowledge. Zoos and aquariums usually provide designers with detailed design briefs outlining the needs of their animals and professional staff. Designers assume these briefs will contain the appropriate scientific and technical information for their needs. When working with the world’s most advanced zoos and aquariums, this is largely true. For example, the design brief prepared by Zoos Victoria staff for upgrading the existing platypus facility at Healesville Sanctuary was based upon highly detailed and specific findings from their pre-design research on both wild and exhibited platypuses living in the project area. However, many zoo project aspirations and briefs are based upon traditional and outdated animal management and visitor experience practices [1,2]. Others are essentially copying the work of admired contemporaries; even copies of copies can be seen. For example, historic styles like those of the Hagenbeck family have been copied all over the world [7]. To give a relatively recent example, the 2014 viral press photo of the tiger crossing above visitors at the Philadelphia Zoo appears to have led to an almost immediate copying of this design by zoos in China and elsewhere without published scientific evidence supporting the benefits to the animals. (A. Baker, personal communication, 16 July 2011). Many zoo and aquarium leaders are risk-averse and choose familiar well-used design programs despite the lack of supporting evidence or consideration of alternatives. Other zoo leaders simply want to move on to the next urgent need. Changing architectural fashion, often irrelevant to animal welfare, is also an important influence. In many cases, methods and styles are copied and modified for other species or settings, even though few have been scientifically evaluated. These are not seeking science-based innovation.

2.4. Overreliance on Zoo Regulatory Standards

Another reason why zoo professionals (designers or design clients) are not seeking or using recent science is an overreliance on zoo regulation standards and present best practices. Regulatory standards, by the government, zoo, and aquarium organizations, are often old, slow to update, and state minimum rather than ideal animal management and welfare standards. As Melfi et al. [1] state, these “…contain few specific, scientifically determined recommendations for enclosure design”. Zoos with limited space and budgets may be inclined to use these minimum areas and barrier requirements, which may be contrary to more recent animal welfare science. Some zoos upgrading their facilities may aspire to achieving best practice. In our opinion, best practice is often a ten-year-old radical idea the zoo industry has finally caught up with and accepted. Advancements in scientific evaluation should encourage the development of next-generation best practice rather than aspiring to older trending methods.

2.5. There Are Not Enough Published Reviews Useful to Designers

Zoos and aquariums are complex organizations whose study and design require the input of many specialties. Examples include zoo biology and animal welfare, visitor messaging, wayfinding and experience, wildlife conservation support, operational safety and functionality, and marketing and fundraising. Each specialty has its own technical vocabulary and research methods. Indeed, design professions in general, and zoo and aquarium designers in particular, have their own technical terms that are not easily understood by researchers and managers. Studies tend to be siloed within each specialty and are rarely related to the findings in other specialties. Zoo and aquarium designers are responsible for delivering reasoned recommendations for features affecting and integrating all areas of zoo and aquarium operations, including some or all these varied areas. When scientific findings in various fields use different technical terms and metrics and are not integrated, it is difficult for designers to use this information.

While a number of papers discuss the general term “naturalistic exhibits,” often without a clearly stated definition, the widely cited paper that establishes the basis for the specific highly naturalistic landscape immersion design [8] has never been scientifically evaluated (T. Maple, personal communication, 8 August 1989). For example, this paper postulates that (1) positioning exhibited animals above viewers predisposes viewers to feel more respectful about the animals and predisposes the animals to feel less stressed; (2) Immersing smaller groups of visitors in highly realistic re-creations of the animals’ natural habitat with no views of animal containment features or human structures (features common in other so-called “naturalistic enclosures”) may predispose viewers to feel some level of heighted arousal leading to greater focus on the animals and their surrounding environment. Specific scientific confirmation (or not) of these postulates would be of interest to designers and their clients. More generally, far more zoo and aquarium exhibits open annually than those that are ever scientifically evaluated.

2.6. Increased Time and Cost Uncertainty

Zoo and aquarium clients are also concerned that engaging independent or qualified internal scientists to research program needs, provide formative evaluations of mock-ups of suggested improvements, or prepare post-occupancy evaluations, increases traditional development costs and timelines and also add budget and schedule uncertainties. Factors which may make these costs worthwhile are suggested in the next section.

3. What Can Be Done: The Solution

The best way to ensure professional designers and their clients use recent useful science, and generate more science, is to increase awareness among zoo and aquarium leaders of the value of targeted data and thus create more demand for scientific knowledge production and integration. Can we change the Melfi et al. [1] question “Do Zoo Designers Know Enough About Animals” and the Coe [4] question “Why don’t zoo and aquarium designers use more research findings?” to “How will zoos and aquariums benefit from using more research findings?”.

3.1. Improved Animal Welfare

Upholding and improving animal welfare is a key role of modern zoos and aquariums [9,10,11]. This focus is driven internally by care staff, externally by concerned zoo patrons and the community at large through the power of social license [12]. However, continual improvement of welfare conditions may be especially challenging for facilities caring for species for which basic biology and behavior is still not well understood [13,14,15]. As new information on species’ physiology, natural history, and behavior becomes available, changes in animal husbandry and enclosure designs are required [1]. For instance, the use of circular aviaries can benefit increased flight time in birds and therefore improve their exhibited welfare [16]. By closely following and sponsoring welfare-based research, zoos and aquariums can both accelerate design and husbandry improvements and routinely monitor the welfare status of animals in their care. This is also likely to improve staff and community support.

3.2. Improved Facility Design and Future Proofing

Given the need to replace or retrofit aging facilities no longer fit for purpose, developing knowledge of zoo and aquarium species, and owing to competition with other public attractions, zoos and aquariums may be required to design and develop new exhibits [17]. By using, supporting, and sponsoring cutting-edge research, both in situ and ex situ, zoos and aquariums can to some extent forecast present trends to anticipate and accommodate flexible future design needs. Animal needs change as they age. Incorporating access opportunities for both fit and aging animals, especially in social groups, is one example of providing for future needs. Also, as some zoos specialize in fewer species having better facilities and conservation programs, they could welcome having more flexible facilities. Anticipating the need for future change, they can choose to build with flexible “bolt together” materials rather than developing buildings permanently “cast in concrete” [3].

3.3. Innovation and Replication Based on Science

Many clients in most fields are averse to risk and seek predictable design outcomes from standard models. As mentioned, exhibits are often replications of an existing design seen at another facility [7]. Copies or minor adaptations of standard models for new species will still be improved if the models copied were based upon good recent science. When zoo and aquarium design clients seek improved attendance and welfare outcomes, some turn to innovation and novelty. When innovations are tested scientifically and found effective, rather than only spawned from current trends or opinions, their chance of success likely increases.

3.4. Updating Regulatory Standards

Old regulatory standards, including current practices based upon them, tend to discourage innovation. When regulatory standards for animal facility design and care are updated based upon recent science and optimal rather than minimal conditions, the zoo and aquarium fields are likely to benefit. Also, the use of performance standards, such as measures to calculate usable surface areas and volumes for arboreal animals and birds, based on empirically observed wild and captive animal behavior, should supersede simply zoo area standards measured in area rather than volume of accessible space, will greatly improve facility design. Fortunately, many international zoo organizations have produced updated husbandry guidelines [18], though these often focus on commonly housed species, or a broader taxonomic rather than species-specific differences [19]. Some zoo organizations have moved toward a focus on Best Practice Guidelines (BPG), as demonstrated by the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria Best Practice [20]. However, these standards are available only for a minority of species at present. American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) Animal Care Manuals (ACM) [21] and the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) guidelines [22] are updated frequently with the latest science and best practices for many species.

3.5. Better Design Briefs

Design briefs and programs prepared by zoo and aquarium clients to instruct designers are important for enclosure design development [23]. We have observed a wide range in the depth and quality of design briefs and facility development program requirements provided to zoo architects by zoo and aquarium clients. Some zoo design specialist firms, having already designed many facilities for the species in question, may be more familiar with the needs and design opportunities for the species than the zoo or aquarium client. Perhaps national and international zoo and aquarium organizations could collaborate with experienced zoo architects to develop and provide standards and training to member institutions in the development of these important design guidelines.

Table 1. Outline of suggested contents for design briefs.

Category	Consideration Points
General	Project vision and aim Project scope Location of proposed facility Project schedule and milestones Project budget Definitions Terms of engagement Fees and charges
Exhibit Design: Animal and Habitat Requirements	Species and habitat description Requirements for animal habitats and support   areas General animal welfare needs Individual animal welfare histories
Exhibit Design: Building, Staff, and Structural Requirements	Functionality and flexibility Safety Sustainability goals Lighting and audio requirements Building and site character and tradition
Exhibit Design: Visitor Experience and Wayfinding	Theory and messaging General design guidelines Interpretation and wayfinding Events and functions Educational requirements Commercial experiences and products
Research Considerations	Benchmarking (needs and pilot research) Formative evaluation (pre-occupancy) Post-occupancy evaluation Welfare assessment

is our suggestion for a general outline for a zoo or aquarium design brief. Contents would vary for different projects.

3.6. Pre-Design Studies

Design briefs and development programs could benefit from pre-design studies such as benchmarking reports on best practice and emerging trends in the design of intended facilities and related management programs [24]. Baseline studies of both the natural history and behavior of species in the wild are another important area of pre-design inquiry. Veasey [19] and colleagues are developing a curated information source of in situ research for a large variety of wildlife as a standard basis for zoo design. An example of pre-design in situ research benefiting final design was the participation of the designer (J.C.), primate behavior expert Dr. T. Maple, and zoologist and curator Dr. D. Schaaf, on field studies with in situ research scientists to observe gorillas and their habits in Rwanda, Cameroon and Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1987, contributing to the final design of the Ford African Rainforest at Zoo Atlanta [25,26]. A second example of pre-design in situ experience was the previous field work by the designer (J.C.) in the boreal forests of Canada and Alaska, and Alaska field studies by zoo naturalist G. Mozel, which shaped the design of the award-winning Woodland Park Zoo Northen Trails exhibit which opened in 1995 [27]. An important third area of pre-design research is the recording of individual activity and preferences of specific animals to be housed in planned facilities. Such individual files, including regular welfare audits, could follow the animals if they are moved to other facilities. Pre-design studies can be assembled by qualified researchers on zoo or aquarium staff, including in collaboration with external researchers, such as those from universities [28,29,30,31]. Alternatively, scientific consultants can be hired by the institutions or the zoo design firm. This cost should be offset by achieving more functional and effective facilities and husbandry programs over the long term.

Table 2. Recommended types of pre-design and formative (during-design) research.

Category	Consideration Points
Pre-design and Benchmarking	In situ research Studies of existing standards, species   recommendations, and current best   practice exemplars Surveys of future trends Pilot studies
Formative research during design	Use of Temporary Exhibit Design (TED) for   exhibit, service area and environmental   enrichment concepts Use of mock-up interpretive and way-finging   graphics
Pre-Occupancy (comissioning) Evaluation	Examinations of responses to established   exhibit structures Modification of design and re-evaluation
Welfare Assessment and Staff/Visitor Interaction	Assessment of overall welfare (behavioral,   physical, and physiological) Inclusion and examination of keeper records Research on visitor effects and experiences   (animal-visitor interactions; AVIs) Staff interactions with exhibits/animals

are our recommendations for the type of research that could be done in conjunction with exhibit design.

3.7. Formative Design Studies

Qualified independent or staff researchers could continue participation in pre-design studies to become active members of the design team. At least two benefits can be imagined. Having a scientist with individual- and species-specific experience on the design team could ensure that new facilities not only meet animal welfare needs but also support visitors’ education about the animals they will be seeing. An example from the planning stage was the integrated participation of ecologist Dr. Dennis Paulson in the formulation of the award-winning and influential Woodland Park Zoo Long-Range Plan and exhibit designs [32]. Later, having a researcher with experience in behavior and welfare of animals in human care on the design team could also provide early testing of exhibit concepts through prototyping and simulation studies.

Formative evaluations using early prototypes are commonly used in museum exhibit design [33] to improve the way information is presented or how visitors interact with exhibits. As an example of zoo interpretive graphic formative evaluation see [34]. Formative research, including temporary exhibit design testing (TED) [35,36] during design can lead to important new design trends. For example, the design and operation of the Treetop Trail overhead cable mesh tunnel system for small- to medium-sized primates near the entry to Philadelphia Zoo proved the exercise and enrichment benefits for the animals and the animal activity attraction benefits for visitors (A. Baker, personal communication, 16 July, 2011 leading to the zoo-wide adaption of animal trail systems including the tiger (“Big Cat Trail”) crossing mentioned earlier. This formative TED process would support the positive iterative evolution of the design and identify insufficiencies before expensive features are built. Such a process could add to initial design cost and time but could also result in greater functionality and reduce remedial changes later, for a net overall cost reduction [36]. This approach would be especially important in planning specialized animal enrichment features engaging in co-design with animals and human-animal interactions. An excellent example of co-design prototyping research is the orangutan controlled light show where apes can actively engage with visitors or play by themselves at the Melbourne Zoo. This was developed by Webber et al. in collaboration with Microsoft Lab [37]. A second useful example is the early co-design with elephants done by French et al. [38]. A third example integrating pre-project researchers within the design team is demonstrated in the ongoing design for the updated platypus exhibit at Healesville Sanctuary. Dr. J. Thomas, lead platypus researcher, is also leading the client team’s participation with the design team. Her in situ field observations and field testing of design parameters are driving major design innovations benefiting both visitors and platypuses. For example, Dr. Thomas collaborated with project designers to measure natural stream flow variations and recreate them through exhibit design of pool shapes and aquatic life support systems. Such habitat and behavioral-based design will multiply platypus behavioral opportunities. We believe more active animals displaying novel natural behaviors will support visitor attraction and learning goals, and conservation awareness through both immersive experiences, and updated interpretation. This project is also notable for the scientific quality of the client’s pre-design brief. It should be noted that these two exemplary projects have not yet been built beyond the prototyping TED stage, although the platypus project is on track for completion. This underlines the need for research integration throughout the full design process including completion and commissioning, post occupancy evaluation and publication.

3.8. Post Occupancy Evaluation

Post occupancy evaluations (POEs) evaluating exhibits and other facilities are useful to learn from both successes and mistakes after they are made [39,40]. However, in our experience, a low percentage of award-winning exhibit designs have published POEs. Even excellent evaluations of exemplary zoo enclosure designs [40], focus on only a few aspects, leaving many features important to designers unaddressed. While institutional resources may not enable the breadth of post-occupancy studies designers may seek,

Table 3. Post-occupancy findings of interest to exhibit designers.

Category	Consideration Points
Human-Animal Interactions (HAIs)	Visitor effects (impact on animal welfare) Visitor experiences (impact on visitors) Staff interactions (exhibit and animal)
Pre- and Post-Comparisons	Do measured outcomes match or exceed stated   design goals? Use of assessment and data to guide   innovation Published findings (exposure)
Staff and Human Resources	Does the collaborative design process lead to   better team building and capacity   building? Improvement in facility-designer relations Improved staff funcionality
Sustainability	Long-term results of design process Construction and operation effects (changes in   durability, trends toward zero-carbon   emissions and circular economy)
Cost-Benefit Assessment	Financial result and long-term operational   projections for 10-year net cost   projections Staff resources Time impact
Zoo and Visitor Impact	Overall visitor numbers Food and gift sales Local support and community license
Industry Effect	Impact on design trends Buy-in from other designers and facilities

suggests areas of integrated post-occupancy research most useful to designers. This may give some guidance to the selection of areas of study. Perhaps new facility project budgets, supported by successful fundraising, may better support the cost of post-occupancy research rather than being supported later by normal operational funding.

3.9. Integrate Key Stakeholders into the Design Team

In our early experience (J.C.) architect-client design meetings were small. Usually, the director only invited the curator and veterinarian to join the planning discussion. No pre- or post-design research was considered. Decisions, for better or worse, were imposed upon other stakeholders, including animal carers, educators, food and beverage operators, and visitors. While in our experience this hierarchical approach is still common, we support the more integrative, consensus-building trend to add a broad base of stakeholder participation into design discussions and decision making. Notable examples from our (J.C.) experience include Zoo Atlanta Ford African Rainforest (1986–1990), Louisville Zoo Islands (1994), Woodland Park Zoo Northern Trail (1994), Brookfield Zoo Wolf Woods (2002), and Zoos Victoria Platypus Exhibit (2024), While we find the hierarchical approach generally produces faster results, the consensus approach contributes to team and individual capacity building and helps to ensure designed features are actually used to their fullest over time.

3.10. Learn from Successes as Well as from Problems

Scientific or engineering studies are sometimes undertaken when built facilities fail to meet identified needs; for example, when a zoo animal escapes, or aquarium water quality is insufficient. However, we (J.C.) note a paucity of studies of exhibit design award winners by national zoo and aquarium organizations with a low percentage having published POEs. Judging notes tell us what initially makes these award winners special. Longer-term independent studies assessing key features and functions in well integrated combination will benefit future design by establishing a proven baseline and metric to evaluate developing plans [12]. Hopefully, such studies can lead to an evaluation system balancing science and emotion [4].

3.11. Use a Common Design and Research Vocabulary

The wide range of scientific study specialization has led to specialty research silos in areas such as animal welfare, visitor experience, wayfinding and conservation messaging, as common examples. Section 2.5 above described how this caused difficulties in comparing research findings from various disciplines. Having a standard reference for professional vocabulary across zoo and aquarium design and research would be valuable to stakeholders in each of these areas if widely used.

3.12. Conduct and Publish More Science Useful to Designers and Managers

Based upon our experience, we note that far more zoo and aquarium facilities are opened globally each year than research papers published on related subjects. Thus, there is a need to increase both the amount and usefulness of empirical evidence supporting zoo and aquarium planning, design, and management.

4. Conclusions

We began with the questions, “Do zoo designers know enough about animals” [1] and, “Why don’t zoo designers use more research findings?”, and ended with the question, “How will zoos and aquariums benefit by using more science?” We believe that when the long-term benefits of timely incorporation of increased, improved, and better communicated and integrated science outweigh the additional initial cost becomes widely realized by zoo, aquarium, and sanctuary managers, good science will advance in all its varied aspects. Both zoo designers and their zoo and aquarium clients will be able to access empirical support for useful innovations. Design inspiration can be tested and supported by science. Costly design errors can be minimized. Exhibit and support facility design can become more resilient to predicted future changes. Improvements in animal welfare can be integrated with better visitor experiences and operational functionality, combined to improve conservation messaging and attendance. Community support can be increased with improved visitor experiences and informed by empirical evidence of positive animal welfare programs and outcomes.