P a g e | 376
Chapter 52: POST-OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF THE
PREDATOR HOUSE AT THE BIRMINGHAM ZOO
Stephen Bitgood, . J. T. Roper, Jr., Donald Patterson, & Arlene Benefield
Jacksonville State University
Visitor Behavior, 1986, 1(2) 4-5 and Technical Report No. 86-40.
Jacksonville, AL: Psychology Institute]
INTRODUCTION
The Predator House at the Birmingham Zoo was opened in March, 1985 (see a diagram of
the building at the end of the paper). The building was designed to house the Zoo’s large cats as
well as smaller predators such as the genet, jaguarondi, river otter, and arctic fox. The building
was constructed so that the visitor walks down a winding corridor usually observing only one
exhibit at a time; thus, there are minimal visual distractions and the visitor is able to attend to one
exhibit at a time. In addition to the signs describing each species on exhibit, there are nine
interpretive signs dealing with the topic of predation distributed throughout the building. The
exhibits consist of museum-like displays with glass barriers between visitors and animals and a
replication of the natural surroundings of the species. For example, the Cougar Exhibit is set in a
scene resembling the Grand Canyon. Air conditioning is provided for visitor comfort.
Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE), similar to summative evaluation, was initiated in the fall
of 1985 and continued into Spring of 1986. Data collected in the Summer of 1985 and reported
in previous manuscripts (Bitgood, Benefield, Patterson, Lewis, & Landers, 1985; Bitgood,
England, Lewis, Benefield, Patterson, & Landers, 1985) was also used as part of the overall
analysis. The project was funded by a grant from the Jacksonville State University Faculty
Research Committee.
METHOD
Several procedures were employed to collect data for the POE: (1) direct observation of
visitor behavior at the Birmingham Zoo; (2) direct observation of visitor behavior at similar
exhibits at other zoos; (3) surveys of visitors’ reactions to the Predator House; and (4) other data
collected in previous studies (general visitor survey of the Zoo and a study of visitor orientation
and circulation).
One of the direct observation procedures entailed a recorder tracking a randomly selected
visitor through the Predator House. A stop watch was used to measure the amount of time that a
visitor stopped and was visually oriented to the exhibit. Several measures were taken from the
P a g e | 377
recorded data including attracting power (percent of visitors stopping) and holding power
(average viewing time) of the exhibits and signs.
In addition to visitor tracking, observers were stationed at four exhibits to record data on the
above variables. Again, visitors were chosen at random as they approached the particular
exhibit. Throughout the study, an equal number of adults, children, males, and females were
selected for observation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In a general survey of visitors conducted in May, 1985, 33.3 percent stated that the predators
were their favorite exhibit and 29.6 percent reported that they would like to see more predator
exhibits. Since these percentages were much higher than responses referring to any other
animals, one might assume that the Predator House was extremely successful in pleasing the
visitors. The total average time in the Predator House was 13 min and 47 sec.
Results from the measurement of direct observation of visitors are summarized in Table 1. In
general, the larger species generated greater holding power (viewing time) than the smaller
species. Thus, larger cats (tiger, leopard, cougar) were viewed longer than small mammals
(genet, jaguarondi, arctic fox). This is consistent with our previous findings. However, this
difference is not necessarily inherent in the size of the animal. The smaller species are more
difficult to see and are better able to hide than are the larger animals, and this probably accounts,
at least somewhat, for the difference in holding power between the larger and smaller species.
For example, the three species with the shortest view time (cacomistle, genet, and jaguarondi)
were the best hiders. They quite often were difficult or impossible to see.
Contrary to the results of Falk, Koran, Dierking, & Dreblow (1985), the attracting and
holding power of exhibits did not decrease as visitors proceeded through the Predator House.
Holding power varied with the size of the animal and the amount of animal activity. For
example, the tiger, the largest animal in the Predator House, was one of the longest-viewed
animals, and it was the second-to-last exhibit viewed. Viewing decrements due to fatigue,
satiation, or exit gradients were not evident. Also of interest is the comparatively lower
attracting power for three exhibits: Eagle, Otter, and Genet. The Eagle and Otter exhibits were
on opposite sides of the corridor and thus may have produced competition for the viewers’
attention. Once the visitor made a choice, he/she was less likely to turn around and view the
exhibit on the opposite side of the corridor.
Table 2 shows the comparison between Birmingham Zoo exhibits and similar exhibits at
other zoos. The attracting and holding power data are generally similar when activity level is
P a g e | 378
controlled. Sign reading, however, is lower in the Birmingham Zoo exhibits than in other zoos.
The long text and the poor lighting probably account for the lower sign reading in Birmingham.
P a g e | 379
P a g e | 380
An Exhibit –by-Exhibit Analysis (See Table 2)
Spotted Leopard: This is the first exhibit in the building. Table 2 suggests that the
Birmingham Zoo exhibit compares favorably with other zoos in terms of percentage of stopping
and viewing time. The average viewing time of 42.1 sec was the highest compared with similar
exhibits in three other zoos. However, the Birmingham Leopard exhibit received the lowest
label reading percentage 11.3 sec compared to 15-, 20-, and 27.5 sec for the other zoos.
Cougar: The percentage of visitors who stopped was high and comparable to other zoos in
the sample. The holding power was second lowest of the five zoos, but the low (4.1%) of animal
activity during viewing events must be considered. Again, the lowest percentage of label reading
occurred at the Birmingham exhibit compared with the other four zoos.
River Otter: The comparison zoos for this exhibit were San Diego and the Sonora-Desert
Museum. Both of these comparison zoos included more expensive and elaborate exhibit design
in their Otter exhibit. This design difference may explain the 25% difference in attracting power
(percent who stop). As with the other exhibits described above, less label reading occurred at the
Birmingham Zoo exhibits.
Tiger: The Birmingham tiger exhibit generated the highest percentage of visitors who stop
(95.7% compared with 90 and 91% for other zoos. However, the viewing time (holding power)
was lower (36.3 sec compared with 63.4 and 53.4 sec. Activity level differences are likely to
explain the viewing time variations. Only 8.5% of visitors read the exhibit label at the
Birmingham exhibit compared with 14 and 18.8% at other zoos.
Jaguarundi: Cincinnati Zoo also had a new exhibition house in which Jaguarundi’s were
exhibited. While attracting power was comparable (90.9 vs 95%), the viewing time was lower in
Birmingham (17.3 sec) compared with 32.1 sec) in Cincinnati.
Within Zoo Comparison of Exhibits
Two animals in the Predator House were also exhibited in other areas of the Birmingham
Zoo and thus provide another way to assess the Predator House. The Arctic fox had higher
attracting power (87.9% stopping) in the Predator House and 76.9% stopping in the Small
Mammal area. Viewing time in the Predator House was 20.7 sec and only 11.4 sec in the Small
Mammal area.
The Jaguarundi also had a higher attracting power in the Predator House (90.9% stopping)
compared with 70.8% in the Small Mammal area. Viewing time in the was 17.3 sec and in the
Small Mammal area, 9.2 sec.
P a g e | 381
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Overall, the Predator House at the Birmingham Zoo must be rated high in terms of visitor
appeal. Its exhibits have been shown to have excellent attracting and holding power when
compared with other zoos or with exhibits of similar species within the Zoo. Visitors report a
very favorable experience in the Predator House.
The primary shortcoming of the Predator House is the effectiveness of interpretive labels.
The lack of label reading has a profound impact on the educational objectives of the exhibition.
Visitors are likely to learn very little about predators if they do not read the interpretive material.
The text passages could be shortened or the font size increased as one way to increase reading.
Another approach would be to use prompting techniques to stimulate increased reading. A study
using a hand-out titled, “Predator Pursuit” demonstrated the viability of this approach. Ten
questions on the hand-out directed visitors to information within the label text. With the
handout, visitors increased their reading of exhibit labels.
REFERENCES
Bitgood, S., Benefield, A., Patterson, D., Lewis, D., & Landers, A. (1985). Zoo visitors: Can we
make them behave? 1985 AAZPA Proceedings.
Bitgood, S., England, K., Lewis, D., Benefield, A., & Patterson, D. (1985). Care and
management of Homo Sapiens at zoos and museums. Southeastern Association of Behavior
Analysis. Charleston, SC.
Falk, J., Koran, J., Dierking, L., & Dreblow, (1985). Predicting visitor behavior. Curator, 28(4),
249-257.
P a g e | 382