A system for monitoring and improving animal visibility and its implications for zoological parks

Publication Type:
 Journal Article
Year of Publication:
 2010
Authors:
 C. W. Kuhar, L. J. Miller, J. Lehnhardt, J. Christman, J. D. Mellen, T. L. Bettinger
Publication/Journal:
 Zoo Biology
Publisher:
 A Wiley Company, Inc., Wiley Subscription Services
Keywords:
 , , ,
ISBN:
 1098-2361
Abstract:

Abstract 10.1002/zoo.20245.abs With the growing trend in zoos to build complex, naturalistic exhibits comes the potential for exhibits to be so densely vegetated or complex that animals are not easily seen by zoo visitors. This can negatively impact the visitor’s visiting experience and the zoo’s ability to communicate conservation and education messages. Over the past 9 years, Disney’s Animal Kingdom® has developed a process for monitoring and improving the visibility of animals on display to the public. This animal visibility process utilizes a data collection system whereby systematic observations are collected each week. The percentage of observations where at least one animal was visible is recorded for each species and compared to an 80% visibility criterion. Species that do not reach this criterion for 4 consecutive weeks are discussed at animal management meetings. If the problems associated with animal visibility cannot be easily solved, the animal-care teams partner with the research team to conduct a second process, called the Visibility Issues Process. This process provides additional information for the animal-care team to utilize in developing a plan to improve visibility. Although the processes described here are specific to the infrastructure at Disney’s Animal Kingdom®, the basic concepts of (1) a formalized visibility data collection process, (2) a visibility criterion to which managers of species are held accountable, and (3) a process for planning to improve animal visibility without negatively impacting animal welfare are fundamental concepts that can be developed at individual institutions and incorporated into that zoo’s existing infrastructure. Zoo Biol 29:68–79, 2010. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Links:

Back to Resources