See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229631570

Design and Perception: Making the Zoo Experience Real

Article  in  Zoo Biology · January 1985

DOI: 10.1002/zoo.1430040211

CITATIONS READS

110 2,576

1 author:

Jon Charles Coe

Jon Coe Design Pty Ltd , Healesville, Victoria, Australia
44 PUBLICATIONS   278 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Embeding environmantal enrichment into new zoo animal facility design View project

Article in Wild Mammals in Captivity, vol 2 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jon Charles Coe on 07 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY, pp 197-208
Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute.
Jon Coe is currently available at Jon@joncoedesign.com

Design and Perception:

Making the Zoo Experience Real
Jon C. Coe
Department of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia and
Coe & Lee Associates, Landscape Architecture, Architecture, Zoo Planning and Design, Newtown, Pennsylvania

The purpose of this paper is to encourage the application of theories of human

behaviour to zoo design so that zoo visitors are environmentally predisposed to
learn from and enjoy what they experience. The ultimate goal is to increase
public awareness and appreciation of the importance of habitat and its
protection to wildlife conservation and to present zoo animals in such a way that
their reason for being and rights to existence are intuitively self-evident to
viewers. Many of the concepts and guidelines presented appear to be suitable
subjects of behavioral research, whose findings would assist designers and other
zoo professionals in continued improvement of the zoo visitor’s experience.

Key words: zoo/design, habitat design, behavioural design, landscape immersion, landscape
replication, naturalistic habitats.

Introduction
The many branches of the behavioural science have made substantial
contributions to the understanding of both nonhuman and human animals. These findings
have been applied (often unconsciously) to many areas of human endeavour such as the
arts, religion, sports, merchandising, and recreation. Theories of animal behaviour are
increasingly being applied to the design of zoo animal enclosures [Heidger, 1968;
Eisenberg and Kleiman, 1977; Hutchins et al, 1984]. However, conscious application of
behavioural theory to the design of the zoo visitor’s experience has only recently been
attempted. Such applications of human behavioural theory can lead to new points of
view for both the zoo designer and zoo user, perhaps contributing substantially to the
very survival of both zoos and endangered species.
World wildlife conservation and habitat protection are financially supported
largely by concerned residents of the industrialized nations [Meyers, 1979]. If
conservation efforts are to succeed, we must broaden this base by successfully appealing
to a far greater audience. Zoos are in an ideal position to do so. Not only do they enjoy
high visitation but, unlike other education centers, they exhibit the live animals
themselves. Thus they have the opportunity, through careful design of the visitor
experience and exhibit areas, to present animals in such a way that their right to exist is

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY. Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute. Page 1 of 10
intuitively self-evident to the viewers. Such exhibits are designed to communicate at
both the conscious and unconscious levels. These communications reinforce each other
while presenting wildlife as interactive and indispensable parts of a wilderness landscape.
If zoos are to achieve their educational and conservation potential, they would do well to
heed the advice of Mary Akeley [1936]:
An animal cannot be isolated, even conceptually, from the particular
environment to which it has become adapted during eons of geologic time
without a serious misunderstanding of its true nature.

Unfortunately, this potential is far from realized in most zoos today. A sign
beside a gorilla exhibit may consciously present a noble creature endangered by habitat
destruction in Central Africa, but unconsciously the exhibit seems to present the gorilla as
a felon in a barred cage or as an institutionalized deviate in a tile-lined cell. These
contradictions can be avoided when designers become aware of the behavioral
consequences their exhibits have on viewers. Far better still, they can enlist behavioural
concepts to help them forcefully and attractively communicate their conservation
message to the public.

Behavioral Concepts
The author has found the following concepts to be fundamental to providing a
behavioural basis to zoo exhibit design.
Concept 1: Getting Attention
Studies by Brennan [1977] and others show that zoo visitors spend a surprisingly
short time actually viewing exhibits. How can we improve our ability to

Figure 1. Stimuli associated with danger are resistant to habituation. Figure 2. Common stimuli become “background” through habituation.

get and hold their attention? Our history as a species may hold the answer. The human
animal evolved over millions of years as a hunter-gatherer in extremely close association
with wild nature. Many primitive behaviors developed during this immense time can be
evoked by presenting the appropriate stimuli [Wilson, 1975]. As one example, a zoo
animal which appears to be unrestrained and dangerous should receive our attention
(possibly accompanied by an adrenal rush) until its potential for doing us harm is
determined. On the other hand, we soon become habituated to stimuli and objects we
perceive to be common, expected, and of limited potential to threaten or benefit us (Fig.

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY. Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute. Page 2 of 10
1, 2). Objects and experiences are observed in approximate proportion to their novelty,
provided they bear sufficient relation to our experience [Berlyne, 1960, p. 196]. Thus it
appears that if we want to get our zoo visitor’s attention and hold it we should not present
potentially dangerous wild animals as tame pets.
Concept 2: Making the Zoo Experience Memorable
When we discuss a memorable experience, we mean, of course, an experience
that is clearly imprinted on the long-term memory. In order for this to occur, now that
we’ve gotten the zoo visitor’s attention, we must create a situation which transcends the
average range of stimulation. Here is an example. Image yourself to be a Boy or Girl
Scout hiking in the woods some distance from camp. You know or imagine that there are
large wild animals in these woods. The forest is very quiet and you can’t see far ahead.
You come to a large clearing and there, 200 feet away at the far side of the clearing is a
black bear. Your hair stands on end and your pulse rushes. You hurry back to camp and
tell your parents, and days later you tell your friends at school about your adventure in
great detail.
This was a memorable experience. Note the elements involved: (1) anticipation –
you knew large wild animals could be nearby and the possibility of encountering one was
present; (2) lack of distraction—the woods were quiet; (3) novelty – hiking in the woods
was a novel experience so that habituation had not deadened your senses; (4) fulfilled
expectation – you did see a large animal, one you imagined (perhaps erroneously) to be
dangerous; (5) emotional involvement – the surprise and fear generated by seeing the
bear caused a strong bodily or “defensive reaction” [Berlyne, 1971], leaving a vivid
multi-sensory impression; (6) reinforcement – you relived the experience for parents and
later for you schoolmates. This not only helped fix the memory but gave positive
reinforcement from the attention you got as a storyteller and adventurer.
Compare this experience with one at a typical zoo bear exhibit. Again, you are a
child. You enter the zoo expecting to see the bears. Approaching the exhibit you are
aware of crowds of unconcerned people in a familiar urban park environment. You see
the bear where you expected to, about 30 feet away. It is a large grizzly sitting up and
begging. It is cute, like a friendly giant teddy bear. A wide, deep moat and high walls
separate the bear from the public. You watch for a moment and then you go on. There
isn’t really much to tell your parents about the bear.
In this example, two of the six elements (anticipation and fulfilment of
expectation) are more or less satisfied, but distractions (other people) and obvious lack of
danger prevent a strong emotional reaction. There is no reinforcement and the experience
may be forgotten soon.
Experiences need not be frightening to be memorable. The six stages above or
other equally affective ones could occur in a close encounter with a lamb in a zoo contact
area. Again, strong, multi-sensory stimuli would release strong behavioural responses
such as care-giving. Interestingly, Berlyne [1960] and others have found that objects
which strongly catch our attention tend to have their dimensions over estimated, making
them seem even more important.
Strongly aesthetic experiences may also often be memorable. Judging from the
cost people are willing to incur to witness the eruption of Old Faithful or stand under a
giant redwood, highly aesthetic outdoor experiences are valued by many in our culture.

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY. Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute. Page 3 of 10
Concept 3: The Importance of First Impressions
Work by Luchins [1957] and others indicates that first experiences seem to affect
our interpretation of later similar experiences even if the later information refutes the
earlier message. We suspect that this would be even truer if the first experience was an
especially vivid one. For example, if a child’s first experience of a gorilla was perceived
to be of a huge, morose boogie-man-like beast pounding on the glass “trying to get”
him/her, the impression of a felon or monster might create so strong a prejudice that it
could never be overcome. We suspect that this child, having reached adulthood, would
be unwilling to support efforts to protect gorilla habitat. “Despite excellent intentions,
even the best zoos may be creating animal stereotypes that are not only incorrect but that
actually work against the interests of wildlife preservation” [Sommer, 1972, p. 29].
On the other hand, if a child’s first experience of a gorilla is of an impressive
silverback interacting naturally with its troop in a lush, green setting, this vivid memory
may predispose the grown individual to support the protection of gorillas and their
habitats.
Concept 4: Subordination as an Educational Tool
Dominance in human interactions is suggested in many ways, including posture
and relative position [Morris, 1967] (Figs. 3, 4). Kings on their thrones, conductors on
their podiums, and teachers standing above their seated students all dominate those
around them. Can we assume that dominant individuals are predisposed to lead, direct,
and teach? Could it also be true that subordinate individuals are somewhat predisposed
to take direction and to learn? Carrying this thought further, is it possible that the very
position which signifies subordination could predispose one to learn and to be directed?
One could imagine difficulties if a professor attempted to lead a class from the center of
the student seating area while a student occupied the podium.

Figure 3. Formal dominance situation in the classroom. Figure 4. Formal dominance situation at the symphony.

Heidger [1950] defined “social rank” as the relative dominance among a group of
animals of the same species and used the term “biological rank” to indicate relative
dominance between different animal species (Fig. 5, 6). Although the term “biological
rank” is not usually used to describe interactions between human and other animals,
humans do almost always dominate the encounter. Given a choice, even powerful
predators generally avoid human contact (Fig. 7, 8).
It is often observed that a number of small animals may dominate a single
individual of a more powerful species. This is equally true when a large group of humans

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY. Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute. Page 4 of 10
surround and dominate a group of zoo animals. Does this perceived dominance inhibit
learning about animals by zoo visitors?
Concept 5: Anthropomorphism as an Education Tool
Anthropomorphism, the act of transferring human characteristics and motives
onto other animals, is a common human activity, one encouraged by zoos when they have
chimpanzee birthday parties, put playground equipment into exhibits, and publicly name
animals. These are generally considered negative examples of anthropomorphism.
However, if we are so facile at unconsciously interpreting human motives in animal
behaviour, is it possible that we might unconsciously interpret the position of an animal
in such a way that the animal’s position implied and perhaps even conferred upon it a
social rank relative to our own? For example, if we were to look down on a lion or even
an elephant would we assume ourselves to rank over these animals? Would the opposite
also be true?

Figure 5. Social rank. Figure 7. Masai dominate a lion.

Figure 6. Biological rank. Figure 8. Zoo visitors dominate a bear more subtly.

And if this is so, does the rank implied by relative position carry with it a
predisposition on the part of the human to direct (if in the superior position) or to learn (if
in the inferior position)? If biological rank is unconsciously communicated to humans by
the relative placement of animals in zoo exhibits, then this has significant implications for
zoo exhibit design. If relative position enhances or retards our ability to learn from
animals and their exhibits, then the implications are even greater (Fig. 9). For example,
the simple procedure of locating the animal in a position or location superior to the
viewer may relatively predispose the viewer to want to learn from the animal, be more
attentive to it, and perhaps be even more respectful of it. On the other hand, could it be
that placement of the animal in an

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY. Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute. Page 5 of 10
 Figure 9. Does relative position affect visitors’ perceptions?
inferior position stimulates human behaviour to dominate, which, when frustrated by the
animals’ inattention to the visitor, could lead to harassment of the animal?
If the positional or situational dominance observed in human interactions is
transferable to human/animal encounters, there are a number of situations which could
consciously be designed into the exhibit viewing relationship to enhance the animal’s
subjective position in the eyes of the zoo visitor:
1. Person enters perceptual space already occupied by animal.
2. Person on edge of space, animal in center of space.
3. Person hiding sees animal in full view.
4. Person looking up at animal.
5. Person encounters animal by surprise
6. Person in novel, unfamiliar setting sees animals in setting appropriate to it.
7. Person (diurnal) encounters animal in nocturnal habitat.
8. Person alone or in small group appears to be surrounded by animals.
9. Person sees dangerous animal with no visible barrier between them.
10. Person discovers animal very close at hand.

Each of these situations is almost exactly the opposite of what is found in most
zoos, where the public clearly is intended (perhaps unconsciously) to dominate the
animals.
Concept 6: Making the Message Clear
“Much of our response to what we see is modified by the context in which we
find ourselves and from which we view the subject. The distinction between what zoo
visitors perceive unconsciously and observe consciously frequently nullifies the efforts of
zoo educators…:” [Coe, 1982, abstract]. Too often, zoos present ambiguous or even
contradictory messages to the public. We have already referred to some. Linda Taylor
[1983] gave a telling presentation of how poor zoo housekeeping reflects upon the
seriousness of the zoo’s intentions.
Sommer [1972, p. 26] states, “The list of behaviours common in the zoo, but
relatively uncommon in nature, includes sexual aberrations, a heavy incidence of
aggression, and the blahness common to many animals that don’t have anything to do…”
Hutchins et al [1984, p. 26] also make a very good point: “If zoo visitors see nothing
more than animals in ugly conditions, engaging in aberrant behaviour, they are likely to

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY. Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute. Page 6 of 10
feel nothing more than revulsion and its counterpoint, pity.” It is common for us, when
faced with unpleasantries beyond our control, to withdraw our interest and support –
exactly the opposite of what the zoo wishes from its visitors.
“Conversely, animals viewed in naturalistic environments, exhibiting natural
patterns of behaviour, should provide an opportunity for the viewer to develop a greater
appreciation for the animals’ place in nature. The beauty of this approach is that it does
not require a technical educational program to be effective; the impact on the public is
immediate and emotional” [Hutchins, et. al, 1984, p. 16]. The realistic exhibit
communicates a consistent message subjectively and objectively; the architectural exhibit
communicates contradictory messages.
We have all heard the admonition “do as I say, not as I do” and we have all
realized the weakness of this approach to education. Zoo exhibits should teach by
example.
Concept 7: Making the Zoo Experience Enjoyable
The author has been asked, “Should zoo exhibits frighten people?” I am certainly
not proposing to seriously frighten anyone. Yet the underlying assumption of the
question, that fear or anxiety is a negative emotion which must be avoided, require
scrutiny. Berlyne [1960, p. 214] quoting Hebb, states that “it looks as if there is a
‘positive attraction of risk taking’ or mild fear, ‘and of problem solving, or mild
frustration.’” Although the great attraction of “horror shows” and “fun rides’ seems to
center on the adolescent population, less extreme activities involving risk such as hiking,
bicycle riding and skiing are widely popular. Furthermore, millions of viewers
vicariously enjoy the subjective thrills and danger of “action-packed” adventure movies
and television shows. Our purpose is not to suggest to visitors that dangerous animals are
to be feared and persecuted, but rather that they should be respected and appreciated on
their own terms. Further, Taylor [1955] suggests that anxiety improves experiential
(nonverbal) learning.
Other behavioural activities which bring pleasure in addition to care giving and
aesthetic appreciation, which have already been mentioned, include discovery and
communication. Traditional exhibits generally present animals in obvious locations.
There is no mystery and little drama. The viewer invests little effort or attention and,
based upon the short attention time observed [Brennan, 1977], gets little in return. In
contrast, visitors in a realistic waterfowl exhibit at Woodland Park Zoo “seem to spend
much more time watching the birds in this exhibit than at the more traditional waterfowl
yards…” [Hutchins et al, 1984, p. 7].
The very sterility and predictability of traditional exhibits not only bores the
animal but bores the visitor as well. “A surprising number of lines of research have
demonstrated the motivational importance of factors like novelty, complexity, surprise,
ambiguity, and uncertainty… These seem to be identifiable with the irreducible essential
ingredients of art and of whatever is aesthetically appealing” [Berlyne, 1971, p. 18].
When we talk of making exhibits enjoyable, we are dealing with what is generally
considered to be recreation and, whether or not they care to admit it, zoos are primarily
recreational attractions. However, “the purpose of exhibiting exotic animals is both to
entertain effectively and to educate accurately. Good entertainment is educational and
good education is recreational. Both aspects will enrich the lives of zoo visitors and
bring them back, along with their friends. The recreation function…is not satisfied only

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY. Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute. Page 7 of 10
with public viewing of beautiful, active, and unusual animals. It is the additional
elements of drama, mystery, and sequentially staged personal experience that creates
really memorable zoo visits.” [Coe, 1980, p. 2].
Concept 8: Making the Zoo Experience Real
Here we are talking about a subjective reality: does the viewing experience or
perceptual context seem “real,” or is it obviously and ineffectively contrived. Zoo
exhibits, like stage sets and museum dioramas, are representational constructs. When
Carl Hagenbeck and Urs Eggenschwiller began constructing their famous naturalistic zoo
panoramas in1907, the emphasis was on realistic or even supernatural-appearing
landscapes. Since that time, the tendency has been to create more and more abstract
representations of nature. Wrinkled concrete came to represent geologic formations,
packed clay replaced waving grasses, and a few house plants portrayed the tropical forest.
These weak abstractions often were abandoned altogether in favour of “functional”
exhibits which made no pretence of habitat representation.
While it is true that abstractions and symbols can trigger emotional responses
through association, I believe that a more direct and universally applicable method is to
represent the whole perceptual contexts (landscapes in this case) as realistically and
completely as possible. Bruner [1957, p. 127] has asserted “that under any conditions of
perception, what is achieved by the perceiver is the categorization of an object or sensory
event in terms of more or less reliable clues.” If this is so, then the most effective
“categorization” or recognition will occur when there are abundant and reliable (highly
believable) clues supporting it. This should especially be true when the clues are multi-
sensory. For maximum effectiveness, the perceptual context we create must be totally
free of contradictory clues and we must be in the midst of it. It must unequivocally
support the message we intend to convey to the public.
“Landscape immersion” [Jones et al, 1976] is a term coined to describe exhibits in
which visitors share the same landscape (but not the same areas) with the animals. In
other words, instead of standing in a familiar city park (known as a zoological garden)
and viewing zebra in an African setting, both the zoo visitors and the zebras are in a
landscape carefully designed to “feel” like the African savanna. Barriers separating the
people from the animals are invisible and, no matter where the viewer turns, the entire
perceptual context appears consistently and specifically African. Here, tall grasses, seed
heads waving in the breeze, represent tall grasses in the savanna. Artificial termite
mounds look and feel like the species-correct termite mounds in Africa. Abstractions are
minimized, specifics emphasized. The entire setting looks, smells, and feels as if one left
the zoo and entered the African savanna.
This is what we mean by making the zoo experience real. The experience will be
novel enough to most visitors to get their full attention. If the scene is dramatic, beautiful,
and/or subtly unsettling and touches a chord of recognition in the primitive unconscious,
it may even become memorable. If it thus succeeds, it will register a strong image on the
long-term memory, a compelling image of beautiful and independent wildlife living in a
landscape undisturbed by humankind. Thus prepared, the visiting public should be much
more open to information about the importance of wildlife preservation and the role of
their zoo in this collective effort.

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY. Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute. Page 8 of 10
Application
“Naturalistic” zoo exhibits are not new [Hancocks, 1971]. However,
Hagenbeck’s complex exhibits with multiple viewing points and an emphasis on natural-
appearing landscapes integrated with the site were largely forgotten or misinterpreted by
generations of copies. Exhibits such as those at the Basel Zoo and the Arizona Sonora
Desert Museum are the exception. However, zoos where perceptual clues were
consciously manipulated by zoo designers to heighten visitor awareness of landscape and
wildlife are much more recent.
The new exhibits at Woodland park Zoological Garden are now 5 years old and
appear to be a success, though scientific analysis of visitor attitudes and perceptions has
not been carried out in a systematic way. Hutchins et al [1984] report that people visiting
the new gorilla exhibit “…tend to be quiet, even talking in whispers. One rarely hears the
typical jokes or ribald comments, and never expression of pity. It is clear from
unsolicited comments and letters that people genuinely enjoy the experience of this
naturalistic habitat.” Further describing a new macaque exhibit, Hutchins goes on to say
“it is not unusual to hear people refer to the animals as ‘beautiful;’ similar sentiments
were seldom expressed when they were housed in traditional cages.”
In 1981 Linda Sterns made an unpublished behaivoral analysis of visitor reactions
to several new exhibits at Woodland Park Zoo. Her preliminary conclusions, based upon
unobtrusive observation, were quite interesting. “The visitors generally made positive
comments about the exhibits. When it was possible to subjectively determine the
visitors’ opinion, 41% of them strongly approved, 57% moderately approved and 2%
disapproved. Although the animals were often not active, there were positive comments
about the exhibit itself. This suggests that people were observing the exhibit itself, not
just the animals.” (p. 4)

Conclusions
Zoo designers can learn much from the original work that has gone before. The
addition of our present understanding of both human and other animal behaviour and
recognition of an ecological point of view about animals suggested by Akeley [1936]
presents the opportunity to create far more varied, complex, and exciting zoos and
exhibits. Initial public response to exhibits created in this way has been strongly positive,
but much more testing is needed.
Concepts such as the role of dominance or subordination in learning and the
effectiveness of relative position in affecting the mood of the viewer are worthy subjects
of scientific inquiry. As a designer working at a general intuitive level, the author
welcomes scientific input into design and systematic analysis of completed zoo exhibits.

Acknowledgements
Many of the concepts presented in this paper evolved during the preparation of
the Long Range Plan for Woodland Park Zoo [Jones et al, 1976] and during the planning,
design, construction and subsequent observation of a number of zoo-related projects
carried out by the architectural and landscape architectural firm of Jones & Jones in
Seattle, Washington. Special credit goes to Mr. Grant R. Jones, partner, and Dr. Dennis
R. Paulson, staff ecologist, who participated in the evolution of these concepts.
Acknowledgements must also be made to perceptive and demanding clients, particularly

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY. Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute. Page 9 of 10
 Mr. David Hancocks, past Director at Woodland Park Zoological Gardens, for not only
challenging the designers with difficult and exciting concepts but for having the courage
to implement these untested techniques. The author also thanks Dr. Terry Maple for
giving a designer encouragement to publish in a scientific journal and to Dr. Lucy Paul
for her invaluable assistance in suggesting appropriate references among the sea of
psychological texts and journals.

References
Akeley, M., Restless Jungle, New York, National Travel Club, 1936
Berlyne, D.E., Conflict Arousal and Curiosity, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1960
Berlyne, D.E., Aesthetics and Psycho-Biology, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971
Brennan, T., Typical Zoo Visitor Social Group Behavior, pp. 109-1116 in AAZPA Annual Proceedings,
1977
Bruner, J.S., On Perceptual Readiness, Psychological Review 64:123, 1957
Coe, J.C., Pittsburgh Zoo Development Plan, Jones & Jones for the City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh
Department of Parks and Recreation, 1980
Coe, J.C., Bringing It All Together: Integration of Context, Content and Message in Zoo Exhibit Design,
pp. 268-274 in AAZPA Annual Proceedings, 1983
Coe, J.C., A Greensward for Gorillas: Adventures in Zoo Horticulture, pp. 177-185 in AAZPA Annual
Proceedings, 1983.
Eisenberg, J.F., Kleiman, D.G., The Usefulness of Behavior Studies in Developing Captive Breeding
Programs in Captive Mammals, International Zoo Yearbook, 17:81-88, 1977
Hancocks, D., Animals and Architecture, New York, Praeger, 1971
Hediger, H., Wild Animals in Captivity, London, Butterworths, 1950
Hediger, H., Man and Animal in the Zoo, New York, Delacorte Press, 1970
Hutchins, M.; Hancocks, D.; Crockett, C., Natural Solutions to the Behavioral Problems of Captive
Animals, Der Zoologische Garten, No. 54, 1984
Jones, G.R.; Coe, J.C.; Paulson, D.R., Woodland Park Zoo: Long Range Plan, Development Guidelines and
Exhibit Scenarios, Jones & Jones for Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976
Luchins, A.S., Primacy-Recency in Impression Formation, in The Order of Presentation in Persuasion, C.I.
Hovland (ed.), New Haven, Yale University, 1957
Meyers, N., The Sinking Arc, New York, Pergamon, 1979
Morris, D., The Naked Ape, New York, Dell, 1967
Sommer, R., What Do We Learn at the Zoo? Natural History, 81(7), 1972
Stearns, L., The Woodland Park Zoo: Visitor Response, 1981 (unpublished)
Swanson, J.R.; Paulson, D.R.; Coe, J.C., Concept Plan—Point Defiance Park Zoo Aquarium, Vol. 3, Book
1, Jones & Jones for Metropolitan Tacoma Parks and Recreation Department, 1979
Taylor, J.A.; Chapman, J.P., Anxiety and the Learning of Paired Associates, American Journal of
Psychology, 68:671, 1955
Taylor, L., Of Potholes and Potoroos, pp. 117-122 in AAZPA Annual Proceedings, 1983
Wilson, E.O., Sociobiology, Belknap Press, 1975

© Zoo Biology, Volume 4, Number 2, 1985, Alan R. Liss, Inc. NY. Copyrighted material, do not reproduce or distribute. Page 10 of 10

View publication stats