“The zoo, a unique and and multi-purpose institution, presents a design opportunity offered by no other type of land use.” (Polakowski, 1988, cited in Ebenhöh 1992, p. 70). Due to Architecture being of increasing interest, coupled with my own creative practice, I have started to look more and more into Zoo Design - specifically, Zoo Enclosure Design. Zoo Enclosure Design was brought to my attention through my experiences with working at Safari World Thailand. “Without the proper exhibits, holding facilities, and back of house support for the animals, zoos can’t exist as zoos” stated PJA Architects (2015), an architecture firm specialising in Zoo Design. Due to being influenced by Jack Self and his views regarding how one should perceive architecture, I was beginning to take note of how the four criteria brought forward by Jack Self lend themselves to the design of my workplace. Therefore, within this report, I would like to address and evaluate these criteria proposed by Jack Self in order to to begin to build an understanding of Zoo Enclosure Design. As one of the criteria - Function is a concept which concerns the guidelines and regulations which aids zoo designers as design suitable facilities as “Appropriately designed facilities can support animal training, husbandry and health care, and improve animal welfare” (Coe, J., Dykstar, G. 2006 p. 5), I have decided to structure my report in the format of that of an extended essay. I have chosen to structure my report this way due to the many academic papers and critical theories that have aided me in both the researching process as well as the analysing and evaluating process, thus, it is only suitable that I format my report in the same nature.

 

In Chapter 1, namely, “Zoo Design through Aesthetics and Programme”, I will be evaluating Aesthetics and Programme. I have chosen to evaluate two criteria within this chapter with the purpose of allowing enough space for a thorough evaluation. “We should be applying the same methods of deduction to the most banal and familiar spaces we inhibit today” stated Self (2016). Much like humans, habitat for animals ought to be able to provide its inhabitants with basic necessities. Therefore, when evaluating these designs, one must ask questions concerning how and why, in order to be able to build a structure that will facilitate the needs of its inhabitants as well as the needs of the animal care staff. Aesthetics, the judgement concerning ambition, strategy and moral priorities, in which the designer’s “particular interests and desires become manifested as spacial strategies”(Self, 2016), albeit important, only concerns the “how” and never the “why”. This is where the second criteria - Programme, lends itself. Programme or programming, concerns the factors in which surrounds how “the design of space predetermines our own response”(Self, 2016). The two criteria can be observed at The Lubetkin Pool. Designed by Berthold Lubetkin, the structure was considered by many, “an exquisite example of modernist architecture”(London Zoo, 2017). Inspired by the double helix and Le Corbusier’s work, The Lubetkin Pool strives to both mimic the penguin’s natural habitat, providing a stimulating environment for the inhabitants as well as a space where “the curved white walls are designed to echo penguin calls.” (Lubetkin Penguin Pool, Where Culture met Nature 2017)

 

Chapter 2, “Zoo Design through Function and Form” is a continuation of  Chapter 1. Within this chapter, I will be observing Zoo Design through the frames of Function and Form, the remaining two criteria proposed by Jack Self. When designing an animal enclosure, consideration must be given to the species’ original environments (M.C.Fabrigas et al., 2012 p. 363), suggesting that Function, a criteria which concerns “all the invisible parameters”(Self, 2016) that allows a design to exist is dictated by “finance, planning, regulations, standards and environmental factors” (Self, 2016) is considered within the designing phase. I will also be evaluating Zoo design through Form. Although separate, Form is considered to naturally follow Function and thus, the two are often interdependent. Furthermore, Form is the “spatial articulation of functions, programme and aesthetic”(Self, 2016) therefore, by touching upon it last, I will be able to bring in and interlace all arguments and their reasonings mentioned prior. These criteria can be seen in action at the Tiger Territory exhibit located at Safari World Thailand. Function-wise, the exhibit is made up of two adjacent enclosures, designed to recreate the tigers’ natural environment to promote enhanced welfare. Form-wise, the holding facility located behind the enclosures is made from natural materials, separated from the enclosure by a wooden fence, helping the building blend into the vegetation hence, allowing for the effect of a natural environment. By analysing this exhibit, I will be able to evaluate on the relationship of Function and Form.

 

I have decided to evaluate the criteria in existing zoos through case studies therefore, naming this chapter “The Interdependent Relationship between The Zoo’s inhabitants, it’s Visitors and it’s Design”. As education and conservation is required by the European Union (EU Council Directive 1999/22/EC) to be the goal of modern zoological parks. By evaluating the views visitors have on Zoo Design and it’s inhabitants’ welfare, I will be able to determine how favourable the criteria are when put into action in regards to the visitors. Naturalistic exhibit design holds the potential to “increase animal welfare as well as the education value for visitors” (H.Sieh et al., 2014) and often, “Aspects of enclosure design..influence the performance of stereotypic behaviour” (J.Lyons, 1997) suggesting that when the design is adequate, the animals’s welfare is enhanced and therefore, the animals will be able to perform natural behaviours. For example,“Exhibits that simulate the animal's natural environment and those that contain enrichment for their occupants have proven to be very popular with visitors”(Hutchins et al.,1983 ; Mellen et al., 1981, cited in Powel 2004, p. 362). Suggesting that in order for zoos to be able to educate its visitors about wildlife and conservation, the design has to be done right, and all other with fall into place.

 

The design not only will affect the welfare of its animals but how the visitors perceive the natural world hence, through watching animals displaying positive behaviours, a visitor’s connection to wildlife and knowledge is increased, turning the trip to the zoo into “an educative experienced that fosters an interest in conservation.”(Biolatti. C et al., 2016, p. 174). Therefore, in conclusion, I expect to be able to state how the four criteria work in real life and wether or not one holds any significance over the next.

 

Bibliography:

Biolatti. C et al.(2016) ‘Behavioural analysis of captive tigers (Panthera Tigris): A water pool makes the difference’. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 174, pp. 173-180.

Coe, J., Dykstra, G. (2010) 'New and Sustainable Directions in Zoo Exhibit Design', Wild Mammals in Captivity, Chicago, pp.1-25.

Ebenhöh, M. (1992) Evaluating Zoo Design ; The Importance of Visitor Studies. PhD Thesis.

Universität für Bodenkultur. Available at: http://www.zoolex.org/publication/fiby/thesis92/evaluating_zoo_design.pdf ( Accessed: 28 April 2017).

Fàbrigas, M.C. et al. (2012) ‘Do Naturalistic Enclosures Provide Suitable Environments for Zoo Animals?’. Zoo Biology , 31(3), pp. 362-73.

Hancocks, D. (1980) 'Bringing Nature into the Zoo: Inexpensive Solutions for Zoo Environments', International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 1(3), pp. 170-177.

Hsieh, H.I et al. (2014) ‘Effects of Enclosure Size on the Behaviour Patterns of Captive 

Tigers’. Available at: http://www.file.cloud.taipei.gov.tw/publication/

09CC6252-125E-4CFD-9ADE-2ECA4B6DD832/chapter/104-03-10頁-2校-空間大小對老虎行為影響_003.pdf (Accessed: 25 April 2017).

London Zoo (2017) Available at: https://www.architecture.com/Explore/Locations/LondonZoo.aspx (Accessed: 26 April 2017).

Lubetkin Penguin Pool, Where Culture met Nature, Display board at ZSL London Zoo, London, London, 21 April 2017.

Lyons, J. et al (1997) ‘The Effects of Physical Characteristics of the Environment and Feeding Regime on the Behaviour of Captive Felids’. Zoo Biology ,16(1), pp. 71-83.

Powell, D. (1995). ‘Preliminary Evaluation of Environmental Enrichment Techniques for African Lions (Panthera leo)’. Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 4(4), pp.361-370.

Self, J. (2016) 'What You Should think about Architecture', in Self, J. (ed.) Real Review 1. London: Real Foundation, pp.14-18.

What Makes for Good Zoo Design? (2015) Available at: http://www.pjarchitects.com/makes-good-zoo-design/ (Accessed: 25 April 2017 ).