Post-Occupancy Evaluation of ZooAtlanta’s Giant Panda ConservationCenter: Staff and Visitor ReactionsMegan Wilson,1,2n Angela Kelling,1,2 Laura Poline,3 Mollie Bloomsmith,2

and Terry Maple1,2

1School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia2TECHlab, Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia3Department of Education, Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia

Construction of a new zoo animal exhibit impacts animals, visitors, and staff,and considerable attention should be paid to evaluation of the exhibit.In November 1999, Zoo Atlanta received two giant pandas from the ChengduResearch Base of Giant Panda Breeding, Sichuan, China, which presented anopportunity to evaluate the new giant panda exhibit. The present studydocuments the reactions of staff and visitors to Zoo Atlanta’s Giant PandaConservation Center by a post-occupancy evaluation (POE). Confidentialinterviews were conducted with 23 staff, and 145 zoo visitors completedquestionnaires. Staff and visitors were asked to assign quality ratings tospecific areas of the exhibit, and complete a series of open-ended questions.The findings suggest that staff and visitors evaluated Zoo Atlanta’s giantpanda exhibit favorably. On a five-point scale, the exhibit received mean ratingsof 3.64 from the staff and 4.50 from the visitors. With a few exceptions, mostareas of the exhibit met or exceeded staff expectations. Staff and visitors identifieda number of strengths and weaknesses of the exhibit. Staff most frequentlyrecommended changes to the pandas’ space and the ability to address husbandryissues, while a large number of visitors did not suggest any changes, or did notrespond to the question. Visitors that did respond to the question most oftenrecommended that the zoo display additional pandas and modify the pandas’space. There were no significant differences in visitors’ ratings of the differentareas of the enclosure, or in their overall impressions of the exhibit, as a functionof the pandas’ location. The results are examined in terms of general implicationsfor zoo exhibit design, construction, and evaluation, and in light of the goals of

Grant sponsor: Zoo Atlanta.

nCorrespondence to: Megan L. Wilson, TECHlab, Zoo Atlanta, 800 Cherokee Ave. SE, Atlanta, GA

30315. E-mail: mwilson@zooatlanta.org

Received for publication April 2, 2003; Accepted April 7, 2003.

DOI 10.1002/zoo.10102

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

Zoo Biology 22:365–382 (2003)

�c 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

this facility. The study highlights the benefits of conducting POEs in a zoo setting.Zoo Biol 22:365–382, 2003. �c 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Key words: POE; Ailuropoda melanoleuca; welfare; education; zoos

INTRODUCTION

Environmental Design in Zoos

A new exhibit at a zoo or aquarium has the potential to improve animalwelfare, enhance the visitors’ experience, and increase staff job satisfaction. Concernfor captive animal welfare demands that zoo professionals understand how captiveenvironments affect animal behavior [Maple and Finlay, 1989]. Visitor behavior,such as the length of time visitors spend at a zoo exhibit, is also of considerableinterest. The amount of time visitors spend at an exhibit is affected by naturalism,exhibit size, and zoo size [Johnston, 1998], and the combination of animalcharacteristics and the exhibits in which they are housed [Bitgood et al., 1988].Zoo visitors spend more time watching free-ranging tamarins than caged tamarins[Price et al., 1994], and active tigers as opposed to inactive tigers [Jackson, 1994].Providing visitors with the opportunity to see animal training demonstrations alsoincreases visitor stay time [Anderson et al., in press].

In addition to direct behavioral observations of zoo visitors, surveys are oftenused to document visitors’ reactions to animals, exhibits, and enrichment. Modernzoos strive to create exhibits that simulate the animal’s natural environment, sincethe environment in which an animal is seen affects visitors’ perceptions of thoseanimals [Finlay et al., 1988]. Specifically, subjects who view slides of animals housedin wild and zoo environments generally rate zoo animals less favorably compared tothe wild animals. Coe [1985] proposed that naturalistic exhibits are novel andmemorable for zoo visitors, and are critical to visitor enjoyment and education.When surveyed, zoo visitors respond favorably to naturalistic exhibits; they reportthat they prefer to see tamarins maintained in naturalistic conditions rather than incages, and that free-ranging tamarins offer more educational opportunities thanthose that are caged [Price et al., 1994]. Surveyed visitors also report that ecologicallyrelevant sounds positively affect their visitor experience [Ogden et al., 1993].Although zoo visitors rate enriched exhibits favorably [Tripp, 1985; Wood, 1998],there is considerable variation in their responses to enrichment, depending on thecombination of enrichment and enclosure types [McPhee et al., 1998].

Although new exhibits directly affect zoo staff, there are few published studiesthat document staff reactions to new or modified exhibits. We found only onepublished experimental study that documents staff reactions to two different types ofzoo exhibits [see Shettel-Neuber, 1988]. The author conducted interviews with zoostaff to compare their opinions of second-generation exhibits (e.g., cement enclosuresurrounded by a moat) to third-generation exhibits (e.g., natural groups of animalshoused in a simulation of their home region). The staff thought that the newerexhibits were an improvement over the older exhibits, but found them harder tomaintain. In particular, the staff indicated that they had difficulty sustaining thenaturalistic elements of the exhibit, such as trees and plants.

366 Wilson et al.

Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE)

Given the lack of published studies that examine the reactions of zoo staff tonew exhibits, there is a need for zoo professionals to use established evaluationtechniques to accurately document staff opinions. The POE is a technique that isused to study and improve designed environments [Zimring and Reizenstein, 1980].POEs vary considerably in both approach and in the nature of the building beingassessed, but generally involve observation, documentation, and description[Zimring and Reizenstein, 1980]. POEs can be used to evaluate a specific projector to inform future projects [Zimring, 2002]. They identify problems so they can becorrected before they become serious, and also serve as a basis for discussion[Zimring and Welch, 1988]. This latter benefit is particularly important, as interviewsand/or surveys that are conducted as part of a POE may be the only opportunity forstaff to confidentially express their opinions about the building. The variation inmethodology and goals of POEs make them ideally suited for the zoo setting. POEsof zoo exhibits allow designers to build facilities that reflect animal preferences [Rossand Lukas, 2001], and their use in zoo settings has been encouraged [Maple andFinlay, 1987].

Environmental Design for Giant Pandas

Giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) are critically endangered, and currentestimates suggest that approximately 1,000 pandas remain in the wild [Schaller et al.,1985; Maple, 2000]. There are approximately 136 giant pandas in captivity [Xie andGipps, 2001], and one focus of captive research has been the development of a self-sustaining, breeding population. Outside of China, seven institutions currently holdgiant pandas [Xie and Gipps, 2001]. As a result of detailed studies of captive giantpanda sexual behavior [Kleiman, 1983; Lindburg et al., 2001] and improvement ingiant panda management, the number of cubs born in captivity has increased in recentyears. In 1998, for example, 116 cubs were born, and just 3 years later (in 2001)142 cubs were born [Xie and Gipps, 2001]. Consequently, additional facilities mustbe built to house giant pandas. These facilities should be designed to allow theanimals to engage in species-typical feeding behavior, and enable animal care staff tomanage them in a social environment that is appropriate for their solitary nature[Schaller et al., 1985]. Currently, there are no published studies of giant pandaexhibits using POE; however, these data would be valuable to institutions that areinterested in acquiring pandas or improving existing enclosures for them.

Current Study

The present study applies POE techniques to Zoo Atlanta’s Giant PandaConservation Center to discern how well the facility has met its original goals. TheGiant Panda Conservation Center was designed to 1) facilitate a variety of researchprojects (e.g., behavior, nutrition, and veterinary medicine), 2) provide the bestpossible environment for the pandas, and 3) offer visitors educational opportunitiesto increase their awareness of giant panda conservation issues and inspire awe for thespecies. POEs in a zoo setting involve evaluating the animals, visitors, and staff[Maple and Finlay, 1987; Ogden et al., 1990]. The assessment of enclosure use by thepandas began in the spring of 2002, and when it is completed we will have conductedall aspects of a thorough POE. The present study reports the results from two

Evaluation of Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Center 367

experiments that documented the reactions of zoo staff (experiment I) and visitors(experiment II) to the Giant Panda Conservation Center.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Exhibit and Setting

The present study took place at Zoo Atlanta (Atlanta, Georgia), which housesone male and one female giant panda, Yang Yang and Lun Lun. The naturalisticexhibit was designed by Gary Lee of Philadelphia-based CLRdesign, Inc., and wasbuilt by Holder Construction Company (Fig. 1).

Panda space

The pandas’ space consists of three outdoor habitats (habitats 1–3), twooutdoor porches, two indoor dayrooms (dayrooms 1 and 2), four indoor bedrooms

Fig. 1. Illustration of Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Conservation Center.

368 Wilson et al.

(dens 1–4), and one cubbing den. Habitats 1 (232 m2) and 2 (325 m2) are viewable bythe public, and each contains grass substrate, a climbing structure, foliage, cave, andpool with running water (Fig. 2). Dry moats in the front of both of the habitatsseparate them from the visitor viewing area, and the two areas are furtherpartitioned by a glass wall and railing on the visitor side. A solid wall with a smallmesh window separates the two habitats. Habitat 3 (511 m2) is off-exhibit andsecluded from the public. It is surrounded by a chain link fence, and contains a tree,pool, and various logs on the ground. Such an off-exhibit area is required by theUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulations for giant pandas[Rappaport Clark, 1998]. Porches 1 (10 m2) and 2 (9 m2) are off-exhibit and consistof a concrete floor and walls that are enclosed by a wire-mesh top.

Dayrooms 1 and 2 (63 m2 each) are viewable by the public. The floors of thedayrooms are covered with wood chips, and both rooms contain a climbingstructure. Both artificial lighting and skylights illuminate the dayrooms, and eachroom is fronted by clear, tempered, laminated safety glass (2 cm thick) to allow forpublic viewing. The adjoining dayrooms are connected by a door that allows thepandas access to both rooms. Dens 1–4 (10 m2 each) are off-exhibit and consist ofconcrete floors and walls, with metal mesh along the front. Two of the dens containbuilt-in floor scales that also serve as elevated sleeping platforms for the pandas. Acubbing den (1 m2) is connected to den 1 and has the shape and color of the inside ofa tree. The dens are connected by a system of tunnels and hallways, with one tunnelcontaining a removable squeeze cage for medical procedures. The entire indoor

Fig. 2. Habitat 2, Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Conservation Center. Photo: Scott Paul.

Evaluation of Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Center 369

portion is equipped with a system that maintains the facility at a constanttemperature of approximately 651F with 30–70% humidity.

Keepers’ space

The keepers’ space consists of a walk-in cooler, kitchen, locker room, andmedia room. The walk-in cooler is maintained at a temperature of approximately401F and is used for bamboo storage. It can be accessed both from inside the facilityby the keepers, and from the outside of the building at the loading dock bycommissary staff who deliver bamboo. The cooler is equipped with a misting systemon an automatic timer that keeps the bamboo moist, and the excess water drainsthrough the aluminum mesh shelves on which the bamboo bundles sit. The mediaroom houses two multiplex monitors that display images from 16 cameras locatedthroughout the facility, and all the cameras can be controlled from this centrallocation [Hezlep and Perkins, 2000]. The media room also houses the monitor for thebuilt-in scales that are located in the dens, and a computer used by the keepers forrecord keeping.

Visitor space

The visitor area of the exhibit consists of a queuing area, educational displays,viewing areas, and a gift shop. The queuing area (Fig. 3) is covered and housestelevision monitors that display an informational video about giant pandas and theChengdu Research Base for Giant Panda Breeding. A covered viewing hut is locatedin front of the dayrooms (Fig. 4). Within the viewing hut there are two televisionmonitors that display live video of the pandas. Docents, or volunteer zoo

Fig. 3. Visitor queuing area, Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Conservation Center. Photo:Megan Wilson.

370 Wilson et al.

interpreters, are frequently present near the viewing hut to provide information tothe visitors about giant pandas and to answer visitor questions. Educational itemsare located throughout the visitor portion of the exhibit, including a cart thatdisplays educational artifacts, such as an artificial panda skull and Chinese culturalitems. The path to the exhibit is lined with educational signs about giant pandas andgiant panda conservation, and informational kiosks with computerized touch screensare located near the end of the path. Visitors can view the pandas from severalviewpoints along the outdoor habitats. The distance of the visitors from the pandasin their habitats ranges from approximately 1–29 m. The gift shop is located near theentrance and exit of the exhibit, and sells primarily giant panda merchandise.

DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Experiment I: Staff Reactions

Participants

Twenty-three individuals participated in the study. They were either paidemployees of Zoo Atlanta (21 participants) or unpaid volunteers (two participants).The individuals were chosen from the following departments of the zoo: animal care(n¼6), administration (n¼6), education (n¼2), research (n¼7), and veterinaryservices (n¼2).

Fig. 4. Viewing hut, Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Conservation Center. Photo: Scott Paul.

Evaluation of Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Center 371

Questionnaires

Interviews were based on a questionnaire modified from Preiser and colleagues[1988] and Ross and Lukas (personal communication). The questionnaire consistedof 11 questions in three sections: general and demographic information, qualityratings of specific areas of the exhibit, and open-ended questions. General/demographic information included date, job title, length of employment at ZooAtlanta, average number of hours spent in or around the exhibit in a week, andinterviewer identification. Rating information was gathered on eight specific areas ofthe exhibit: cooler, dayrooms, dens, habitats, kitchen, locker room, media room, andworkspace. Open-ended questions addressed to what degree the exhibit had met staffexpectations, strengths and weaknesses of the exhibit, recommended changes, andadditional comments.

Questionnaire administration

Interviews were conducted in person (n¼20) or via telephone (n¼2) by the firstauthor. Participants were read a standard description of the purpose of the study,and then asked to accept or decline participation in the study. All those scheduled forinterviews elected to participate in the study. Each participant was then given aconsent form and asked to indicate that they elected to participate by providinghis/her name and signature, and date on which the interview occurred. Participantswere given the option to ask questions prior to the onset of the interview. Answerswere recorded by the interviewer by hand and tape-recorded to ensure responseswere accurately recorded. A period of debriefing also occurred with each participant,during which POE was described in more detail, and visitors were given anopportunity to ask questions. Interviews occurred between August 2000 and January2001. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 min.

Statistical analyses

Because of the nature of the instruments being used, and the goal of the study,ratings from staff interviews and visitor surveys were analyzed descriptively andassigned a value to calculate means (5¼excellent, 4¼good, 3¼satisfactory, 2¼fair,and 1¼poor); ratings of ‘‘not sure’’ were not considered in these calculations. Staffresponses to open-ended questions were categorized. Staff-reported strengths andweaknesses of the exhibit were placed into one of eight categories: educationalopportunities, panda space, panda husbandry, temperature and climate, visitorexperience, visitor space, visibility and proximity, and other. To accurately classifystaff opinions about the degree to which the exhibit had met their expectations, andtheir suggested changes to the exhibit, their responses were put into the followingcategories: aesthetics and visibility, audiovisual and technical, bamboo issues, keeperspace, maintenance issues, panda husbandry, panda inside space, panda outsidespace, visitor experience, and other. Over 620 staff comments were categorized.

RESULTS

Quality Ratings

Staff generally rated the exhibit favorably (Table 1). Not all staff membersrated each area of the exhibit (the number of respondents is listed in the table).

372 Wilson et al.

Expectations

Table 2 illustrates how well the exhibit has met staff expectations. Most of thecategories met or exceeded staff expectations, including aesthetics and visibility,audiovisual and technology capabilities, the ability to address husbandry issues, thepanda’s inside space, and the capacity of the exhibit to meet the visitors’ needs. Theability to manage bamboo, the keepers’ space, the ability to maintain the facility, andthe pandas’ outside space did not meet staff expectations.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Table 3 reveals that staff identified strengths and weaknesses of the giant pandaexhibit from the pandas’ perspective. Staff indicated that the ability to address

TABLE 1. Mean ratings of Giant Panda Conservation Center by staff and visitors on a five-point

scalen

Staff Visitors

Cooler (n¼20) 3.37 Not ratedDayrooms (n¼23) 3.75 (n¼133) 4.40Dens (n¼23) 3.62 Not ratedGift Shop Not rated (n¼86) 4.50Graphics Not rated (n¼128) 4.44Habitats (n¼23) 3.64 (n¼128) 4.59Kitchen (n¼20) 4.00 Not ratedLockeroom/restroom (n¼19) 4.00 Not ratedMedia room (n¼21) 3.80 Not ratedOverall impressions Not rated (n¼143) 4.52Touchscreens Not rated (n¼93) 4.43Viewing area Not rated (n¼142) 4.56Waiting area Not rated (n¼133) 4.53Workspace (n¼20) 2.95 Not ratedOverall mean 3.64 4.50 (excluding ‘‘overall Impressions’’)

n5, excellent; 1, poor.

TABLE 2. Percentage of total qualitative responses made by staff when asked about their

expectations of the different areas of the exhibitn

Categories Percentage of total responses

Met expectations Exceeded expectations Did not meet expectations

Aesthetics, visibility 3.0% 1.1% 1.6%A/V, technology 5.2% 2.3% 3.0%Bamboo o1% 1.1% 4.5%Husbandry 4.9% 5.6% 10.1%Keeper space 2.3% o1% 4.1%Maintenance issues o1% o1% 2.3%Panda inside 7.1% 1.5% 5.5%Panda outside 3.0% 1.5% 10.5%Visitor experience 1.9% 4.4% 4.6%Other 2.6% 2.6% 2.3%

nTotal number of comments made was 267.

Evaluation of Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Center 373

husbandry issues, the pandas’ space (indoor and outdoor housing), temperature andclimate control, and the pandas’ visibility and proximity to visitors provided morestrengths than weaknesses for the pandas.

Suggested Changes

Table 4 provides information about changes suggested by staff. Staff mostfrequently suggested changes to elements in the pandas’ outside space, and the abilityto address husbandry issues.

DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Experiment II: Visitor Reactions

Participants

A total of 145 individuals, who were visitors to Zoo Atlanta’s Giant PandaConservation Center between March 2002 and May 2002, participated in the study.

TABLE 3. Percentage of total qualitative responses of made by staff and visitors when asked

about the strengths and weakness of the exhibitn

Categories Percentage of total responses

Strengths forpandas

Weaknesses forpandas

Strengths forvisitors

Weaknesses forvisitors

EducationalStaff 0% 1.1% NA NAVisitors 0% 0% 5.3% 1.2%

HusbandryStaff 15.1% 10.6% NA NAVisitors 6.5% o1% 0% 0%

Panda spaceStaff 34.6% 24.0% NA NAVisitors 8.0% 7.7% 3.3% 4.4%

Temperature/climateStaff 8.4% 5.0% NA NAVisitors o1% o1% 0% o1%

Visibility/proximityStaff 1.1% 0% NA NAVisitors o1% 3.9% 8.6% 2.7%

Visitor experienceStaff 0% 0% NA NAVisitors o1% o1% 7.7% 1.5%

Visitor spaceStaff 0% 0% NA NAVisitors 0% 0% 3.6% 6.5%

OtherStaff 0% 0% NA NAVisitors 6.8% 2.7% 11.5% 4.4%

nTotal number of comments made by staff was 179 and by visitors was 338.

374 Wilson et al.

Questionnaires

The visitor questionnaire consisted of three sections: general and demographicinformation, quality ratings of specific areas of the exhibit, and open-endedquestions. General/demographic information included the visitor’s gender, zoomembership status (member or not a member), age, distance traveled to the zoo,number of previous visits to Zoo Atlanta, number of previous visits to the GiantPanda Conservation Center, and location of the pandas during their visit (outdoorhabitats, indoor dayrooms, or both). This section was followed by a short statementabout the purpose of the survey. Rating information was gathered on seven specificareas of the exhibit: computerized touch screens, dayrooms, gift shop, graphics,habitats, queuing area, and viewing area. Visitors were also asked to assign a ratingto their overall impression of the exhibit. Six open-ended questions addressed thestrengths and weaknesses of the exhibit, recommended changes, and additionalcomments.

Questionnaire administration

Participants were selected by the data collector as they exited the exhibit area.Data collection sessions took place for 8 days in March, 8 days in April, and 3 daysin May, and were balanced between morning (1000–1200 hr) and afternoon (1300–1600 hr) time periods. One visitor out of every third group of visitors was selected;the only criterion was that he or she appeared to be at least 18 years old. The datacollector approached the visitors and asked if they would be willing to fill out aquestionnaire about the giant pandas and the exhibit. Visitors who agreed toparticipate were given a clipboard, questionnaire, and pencil. The data collectorrecorded the date and time on the questionnaire prior to giving the participants thesurvey. The participants then completed the questionnaire on their own, which tookapproximately 2 min to complete. When the participants returned the questionnaireto the data collector, they were thanked and offered a detailed explanation about thePOE and its importance. During the study period, the number of people who visited

TABLE 4. Percentage of total qualitative responses made by staff and visitors when asked about

suggested changes that could be made to the exhibitn

Categories Percentage of totalnumber of responses

made by staff

Categories Percentage of totalnumber of responsesmade by visitors

Aesthetics, visibility 5.1% Ed. Opportunities 12.5%A/V, technology 6.2% Experience/aesthetics 0%Bamboo 7.3% Husbandry 0%Husbandry 19.8% Panda space 25.0%Keeper space 10.7% Temp./climate 0%Maintenance issues 5.0% Visibility/proximity 12.5%Panda inside 13.0% Visitor space 16.7%Panda outside 22.0% Other 33.3%Visitor experience 7.9%Other 2.8%

nTotal number of comments made by staff was 177 and by visitors was 48. Values rounded tothe nearest tenth of a percent.

Evaluation of Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Center 375

Zoo Atlanta on the days the surveys were conducted ranged from 1,408 to 7,583 perday. Visitors to the Giant Panda Conservation Center during the study period rarelyhad to wait in line to see the pandas, and their time at the exhibit was not limited byzoo staff members.

Statistical analyses

Ratings from staff interviews and visitor surveys were analyzed descriptivelyand assigned a value to calculate means (5¼excellent, 4¼good, 3¼satisfactory,2¼fair, and 1¼poor); ratings of ‘‘not sure’’ were not considered in these calculations.Visitor questionnaire data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) todetermine whether there was a relationship between quality ratings and whether thevisitors saw the pandas in the outdoor habitats, the indoor dayrooms, or both.Visitor responses to open-ended questions were categorized. Visitor-reportedstrengths and weaknesses of the exhibit, and their suggested changes were placedinto eight categories: educational opportunities, panda husbandry, panda space,temperature and climate, visibility and proximity, visitor experience, visitor space,and other. Responses of ‘‘space’’ were included in both categories of panda spaceand visitor space. Visitor questionnaires were excluded from analysis if theparticipant failed to provide information about age and gender, or chose not toanswer any of the open-ended questions to ensure the quality of the data. Over 380visitor comments were categorized.

RESULTS

Quality Ratings

Zoo visitors generally rated the exhibit favorably (Table 1). Not all visitorsrated each area of the exhibit (the number of respondents is listed in the table). Therewere no significant differences in visitors’ ratings of the indoor dayrooms (F¼.7,P¼.50), the outdoor habitats (F¼1.5, P¼.24), or their overall impressions of theexhibit (F¼.8, P¼.45) as a function of the pandas’ location.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Table 3 reveals that visitors identified strengths and weaknesses of the giantpanda exhibit for both the pandas and the visitors. Visitors identified the ability toaddress husbandry issues and the pandas’ space as strengths for the pandas. Visitorsperceived visibility and proximity to the public as weaknesses for the pandas. Veryfew visitors identified temperature and climate or the visitor experience as eitherstrengths or weaknesses for the pandas. Visitors responded that educationalopportunities, the overall experience provided by the exhibit, and the visibility andproximity of the pandas were strengths for visitors. The pandas’ space and thevisitors’ space were cited by the visitors as having more weaknesses than strengths.

Suggested Changes

Table 4 provides information about changes suggested by zoo visitors. Visitorsmost frequently suggested changes to the pandas’ space and to elements categorizedas ‘‘other.’’

376 Wilson et al.

DISCUSSION

The present study documents staff and visitor reactions to Zoo Atlanta’s GiantPanda Conservation Center by a POE. The quality ratings of the different areas ofthe exhibit and responses to the open-ended questions are considered. The results arefirst examined in terms of their general implications for zoo exhibit design,construction, and evaluation, and then in the light of the original goals of thisfacility.

General Implications

Several issues emerged from this study that have general implications for zooexhibit design in terms of the visitor experience, and staff and animal needs. First,this study contributes to the existing body of literature that has assessed how animalvisibility and visitors’ proximity to the animals affect the visitor experience. Relativeto the percentage of qualitative responses, a moderate percentage (8.6%) of surveyedvisitors to Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Conservation Center reported that theprimary strengths of the exhibit were good visibility of the pandas and closeproximity to the pandas. Interestingly, nearly half as many of the surveyed visitors(3.9%) identified visibility and proximity to people as a weakness for the pandas.Specifically, visitors suggested that the amount of noise created by visitors wouldbother the pandas. The visitors’ comments appear to be related to the location inwhich they viewed the pandas: 83% of the 12 visitors who identified proximity to thepublic as a weakness for the pandas had viewed the pandas in the outdoor habitats.This result is not entirely surprising, because the pandas are not fully isolated fromthe noise created by the public when they are in the outdoor habitats. On the otherhand, the pandas are further away from the visitors when they are in the outdoorhabitats. It appears that the visitors’ perceptions may be influenced largely bytheir concern about how the noise affects the pandas, and not how close the public isto the pandas. Although a relatively small number of visitors expressed thisperception, it may be interesting evidence of the public’s increasing concern foranimal welfare.

The opinions of the staff were quite different from those of the visitors: about1% of the surveyed staff members indicated that visibility to the public was astrength for the pandas, but no staff members indicated that visibility to the publicwas a weakness for the pandas. The disparity between visitor and staff opinions onthe proximity of the pandas to the visitors may be attributable to the differentexperiences each user group has with the pandas. For example, animal care staffhave daily interactions with the pandas and provide them with fresh food, a cleanenclosure, enrichment, and opportunities to participate in positive reinforcementtraining. Unlike the staff, zoo visitors are restricted to simply viewing the pandas,which is the primary method from which they form their perceptions of the pandas’welfare. Considering that previous studies have shown that visibility of, andproximity to, animals are positively correlated with the amount of time visitorsspend at an exhibit [Bitgood et al., 1988; Johnston, 1998], exhibits are typicallydesigned to meet the needs of the animals and also allow the visitors a good view ofthe animals. The zoo visitors’ experience with the animals affects not only theirenjoyment, but also their attitudes toward conservation. For example, Swanagan[2000] found that zoo visitors were more likely to actively support elephant

Evaluation of Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Center 377

conservation if they had an interactive experience with the elephants (e.g., ademonstration and bio-fact program) as opposed to visitors who simply viewed theelephants in their exhibit and read educational graphics. Although the present studydid not examine the panda exhibit’s impact on the visitors’ conservation efforts,interpretation of these data suggest that interactive experiences with the pandas (e.g.,training demonstrations) might negatively affect the visitors’ perceptions of thepandas’ welfare. These experiences, if conducted in the outdoor habitats, wouldexpose the pandas to more noise created by the public, which may affect the visitors’attitudes toward giant panda conservation. Future research should experimentallyassess the effects of interactive programs with giant pandas on zoo visitors.Additionally, studies should examine the effects of noise on the pandas’ behavior,given that previous studies have demonstrated that group size [Chamove et al., 1988;Birke, 2002] and activity level [Mitchell et al., 1992; Hosey and Druck, 1987] canaffect the behavior of captive animals.

Visitors to Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Conservation Center reported that theiroverall experience, and educational opportunities were strengths of the exhibit.Specifically, visitors emphasized the role of the volunteer interpreters. The presenceof an exhibit interpreter increases visitor stay time, particularly when the animalsbeing viewed are relatively inactive [Jackson, 1994], and animal inactivity may affectzoo visitors’ self-reports of their ability to find exhibit animals [Bashaw and Maple,2001]. Captive giant pandas spend much of their time feeding, resting, and sleeping[Mainka and Zhang, 1994], which may mean that exhibit interpreters can play acritical role in increasing visitor stay time at, and satisfaction with, a giant pandaexhibit. Increasing the amount of time visitors spend at the exhibit will ultimatelyinfluence the level to which visitors can be educated about giant panda conservationissues. Although the present results are positive and provide information about thevisitors’ perceptions of the interpreters, the data should be supplemented withbehavioral observations that document to what degree they interact with theinterpreters, the length of time the visitors spend at the exhibit under differentconditions, and how the visitors use available educational items.

Although visitors were generally pleased with their experience at the exhibit,they frequently indicated that they would like more space available to them to viewthe pandas. The most common change suggested by the visitors, however, was in the‘‘other’’ category. Specifically, visitors commented they would like to see morepandas at Zoo Atlanta, including a baby panda. Although Zoo Atlanta is workingtoward producing a panda cub when the pandas reach maturity, obtainingadditional pandas is not a realistic goal for Zoo Atlanta and may not be in thebest interest of the pandas. In agreement with staff, a small number of visitorssuggested a more realistic goal–that the exhibits be enlarged to provide the pandaswith additional room. A total of 88% of the 26 visitors who identified the amount ofspace available to the pandas as a weakness, and 85% of the 12 visitors whorecommended a change in the amount of space available to the pandas, reportedthey had viewed the pandas when they were housed in the outdoor habitats, or bothinside and outside. This result is somewhat surprising, as the outdoor habitats aresubstantially larger and more naturalistic than the indoor dayrooms.

Hediger [1964] introduced the issue of ‘‘quality vs. quantity’’ when he proposedthat the quality of space available to captive animals is more important to theirwelfare than the quantity of space. The degree to which an exhibit appears natural is

378 Wilson et al.

important to zoo visitors [Reade and Waran, 1996], and visitors spend more timeviewing ‘‘natural‘‘ exhibits [Johnston, 1998]. In addition, visitors spend more timeviewing exhibits that appear larger [Johnston, 1998]. The quantity of space availableto the giant pandas may greatly influence zoo visitors’ perceptions, and attemptsshould be made to increase the amount of space available to the pandas. This changemay also positively affect the pandas’ welfare. A second option, and one that is morerealistic, is to initiate an educational program for the zoo visiting public. Zoo visitorscould be provided with information about the indoor space and the off-exhibithabitat that are available to the pandas. Further research must be conducted toexamine how visitors perceive the dimensions of a variety of exhibits, as exhibit sizemay play an integral role in their perception of the animal and, ultimately, theirperception of the animal’s welfare. This perception may alter the effectiveness ofprograms designed to educate visitors about conservation.

The results from this study also have general implications for zoo exhibitdesign in terms of animal and staff needs. For example, staff indicated that thehabitats could be improved for the pandas by adding trees and increasing theamount of space available to the pandas. Exhibit design decisions are constrained byavailable money, land, and time. These constraints often prevent zoo designers fromcreating exhibits that simulate the amount of space and environmental complexityavailable to animals in the wild; however, design decisions regarding captiveenvironments must ultimately be based on field data [Maple and Finlay, 1989].Experimental studies that combine field data from wild pandas and enclosure-usedata from captive pandas will allow zoo professionals to document the behavioraleffects of these suggested changes on the pandas. These data can then be used toassess the pandas’ welfare.

Additional suggested changes, such as an improved ability to address certainmaintenance issues, would greatly impact the ability of Zoo Atlanta’s animal carestaff to care for the pandas. Specifically, animal care staff indicated they had troublewith both draining and filling the pools in the habitats, as they must enter theoutdoor habitats to adjust the flow of the water. Thus, if the pandas are on exhibit inthe habitats, the keepers are unable to drain or fill the pools. It is important for zoomanagers to consider such needs and design facilities that enable keepers to meet theneeds of the animals in their care.

Goals of the Facility

The Giant Panda Conservation Center at Zoo Atlanta was designed tofacilitate a variety of research projects. Staff suggested only a small number ofspecific changes that would directly impact their ability to conduct research, whichindicates that the facility is accomplishing this goal. For example, staff suggestedmodifications to the observational cameras, the addition of microphones and audioequipment, and a place to sit while collecting data outdoors. The role of research inAmerican Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) accredited zoos and aquariumshas recently expanded [Stoinski et al., 1998], and zoos will be faced with the task ofdesigning facilities that incorporate equipment that enables researchers to collectbehavioral data from a remote location, document vocalizations, and send real-timevideo to the Internet. The ability to conduct research is particularly important forU.S. institutions that may acquire giant pandas in the future, since an institutionmust have a well-developed research program before it can request the importation

Evaluation of Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Center 379

of giant pandas [Rappaport Clark, 1998]. The ability to conduct scientific researchshould be periodically evaluated, however, given that the facility may not equallyaccommodate all types of projects.

The second major goal of the facility was to provide the best possibleenvironment for the pandas, and results from the present study indicate the facility isachieving this goal. Staff assigned high ratings to the pandas’ space, including thedens, dayrooms, and outdoor habitats. Staff reported that the exhibit had a numberof strengths for the pandas, and that the majority of categories related to the pandas’welfare had met or exceeded their expectations. On the other hand, staff specificallycited the outdoor habitats and the bamboo cooler as aspects of the exhibit that hadnot entirely met their expectations. They rated the bamboo cooler fairly well(mean¼3.4) but assigned a relatively low rating to the available workspace(mean¼3.0). Specifically, animal care staff reported it was difficult to properly storebamboo in the cooler, weigh bamboo, and provide bamboo to the pandas. Thecooler was described as small, and staff reported they had difficulty maneuveringbamboo through the hallways of the facility. We believe that these issues are largelydue to the lack of published information about giant panda facility design andconstruction. Zoo Atlanta’s pandas show considerable variation in their preferencesfor bamboo depending on the time of year and the growing season of the bamboo.As such, the facility needs to accommodate bamboo of many different lengths duringdifferent seasons based on these preferences, and the current facility does not readilyallow this.

Cleaning the indoor portions of the exhibit was also a source of frustration foranimal care staff. Specifically, water does not easily flow into the drains in the floorsof the indoor portion of the facility. Keeper areas (e.g., corridors and food storageareas) should be designed so animal care staff can easily perform their daily tasks, asfailure to do so can negatively affect employee morale and job satisfaction[Rosenthal and Xanten, 1988]. In addition to increasing job satisfaction, modifica-tions to the facility can also improve the keepers’ abilities to address husbandryissues and properly clean the facility.

Finally, the Giant Panda Conservation Center was designed to provide zoovisitors with educational opportunities that increase their awareness of giant pandaconservation and inspire awe for the species. The results of the present studydemonstrate that the exhibit is accomplishing this goal. Visitors assigned extremelyhigh ratings to all areas of the exhibit, including those areas and elements that arecompletely designed for visitors, such as the waiting area, gift shop, viewing area,graphics, and computerized touch screens. Furthermore, the visitors’ overallimpressions of the exhibit were favorable. Additional research should be conductedto assess whether the educational opportunities available to the visitors are effectiveat increasing their awareness of, or involvement in, giant panda conservation.

The results of the present study indicate that Zoo Atlanta’s Giant PandaConservation Center is meeting the goals originally set forth. In addition, the resultsalso provide information about the visitor experience and the needs of staff, and thisinformation has implications for exhibit design for all species. The creation of zooexhibits requires continuous management [Shettel-Neuber, 1988], and it is importantto include staff and visitors in the assessment process. It appears that while staff andvisitors could benefit if minor adjustments were made to Zoo Atlanta’s Giant PandaConservation Center, many aspects are functioning quite well for both user groups.

380 Wilson et al.

The present study successfully employed an established evaluation technique in azoological setting. The contributions of POEs to exhibit design are not yet fullyrealized. We recommend that zoos routinely assess new and renovated exhibits byPOEs.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Staff and visitors evaluated the Giant Panda Conservation Center favorably,and the Center is generally meeting the goals originally set forth.

2. Some visitors reported that the pandas’ proximity to the visitors mightnegatively affect the pandas’ welfare; however, staff did not report such a concern.

3. A POE was successfully employed in a zoo setting, and should becomecommon practice in zoos.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Neb Shearhouse for his help in collecting visitor surveydata. We also thank Zoo Atlanta staff and visitors for taking the time to participatein this project. We appreciate the help Kenn Harwood and Wendy Gardner providedin the final preparation of this manuscript. We thank CLRdesign, Inc., for providingthe illustration in this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Anderson US, Swilled A, Pressley-Keough R, Jones M, Bloomsmith MA,Maple TL. Enhancing the zoo visitors’experience by public training and oral interpreta-tion at an otter exhibit. Environ Behav(in press).

Bashaw MJ, Maple TL. 2001. Signs fail to increasezoo visitors’ ability to see tigers. Curator 44:297–304.

Birke L. 2002. Effects of browse, human visitorsand noise on the behavior of captive orangutans.Anim Welfare 11:189–202.

Bitgood S, Patterson D, Benefield A. 1988. Exhibitdesign and visitor behavior: empirical relation-ships. Environ Behav 20:474–91.

Chamove AS, Hosey GR, Schaetzel P. 1988.Visitors excite primates in zoos. Zoo Biol7:359–69.

Coe JC. 1985. Design and perception: making thezoo experience real. Zoo Biol 4:197–208.

Finlay T, James L, Maple T. 1988. People’sperceptions of animals: the influence of zooenvironment. Environ Behav 20:508–28.

Hediger H. 1964. Wild animals in captivity. NewYork: Dover Publications. 207 p.

Hezlep R, Perkins L. 2000. Panda pipeline: audiovideo application in giant panda conservation.In: Proceedings of the American Zoo andAquarium Association Annual Conference, Or-lando, FL. p 75–82.

Hosey GR, Druck PL. 1987. The influence of zoovisitors on the behaviour of captive primates.Appl Anim Behav Sci 18:19–29.

Jackson DM. 1994. Animal activity and presenceof docent interaction: visitor behavior at ZooAtlanta. Vis Behav IX:16.

Johnston RJ. 1998. Exogenous factors and visitorbehavior: a regression analysis of exhibit viewingtime. Environ Behav 30:322–47.

Kleiman D. 1983. Ethology and reproduction ofcaptive giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca).Zeitschrift Tierpsychol 62:1–46.

Lindburg DG, Czekala NM, Swaisgood RR.2001. Hormonal and behavioral relationshipsduring estrus in the giant panda. Zoo Biol20:537–43.

Mainka SA, Zhang H. 1994. Daily activity ofcaptive giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) atthe Wolong Reserve. Zoo Biol 13:13–20.

Maple TL. 2000. Saving the giant panda. Atlanta,GA: Longstreet Press. 137 p.

Maple TL, Finlay TW. 1987. Post-occupancyevaluation in the zoo. Appl Anim Behavi Sci18:5–18.

Maple TL, Finlay TW. 1989. Applied primatologyin the modern zoo. Zoo Biol Suppl 1:101–16.

McPhee ME, Foster JS, Sevenich M, SaundersCD. 1998. Public perceptions of behavioralenrichment: assumptions gone awry. Zoo Biol17:525–34.

Evaluation of Zoo Atlanta’s Giant Panda Center 381

Mitchell G, Tronborg CT, Kaufman J, Barabus S,Simoni R, Geissler V. 1992. More on the‘influence’ of zoo visitors on the behavior ofcaptive primates. Appl Anim Behav Sci 35:189–98.

Ogden JJ, Finlay TW, Maple TL. 1990. Gorillaadaptations to naturalistic environments. ZooBiol 9:107–21.

Ogden JJ, Lindburg DG, Maple TL. 1993. Theeffects of ecologically-relevant sound on zoovisitors. Curator 36:147–56.

Preiser WF, Rabinowitz HZ, White ET. 1988.Post-occupancy evaluation. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold Company. 198 p.

Price EC, Ashmore LA, McGivern AM. 1994.Reactions of zoo visitors to free-ranging mon-keys. Zoo Biol 13:355–73.

Rappaport Clark J. 1998. Department of theInterior Fish and Wildlife Service policy on giantpanda permits. Fed Registr 63:45839–54.

Reade LS, Waran NK. 1996. The modern zoo:how do people perceive zoo animals? Appl AnimBehav Sci 47:109–18.

Rosenthal MA, Xanten WA. 1988. Structural andkeeper considerations in exhibit design. In:Kleiman DG, Allen ME, Thompson KV, LupkinS, editors. Wild mammals in captivity. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. p 223–30.

Ross SK, Lukas K. 2001. Exhibit use by great apesas part of a post-occupancy evaluation. Am JPrimatol 54:31.

Schaller GB, Hu J, Pan W, Zhu J. 1985. Giantpandas of Wolong. Chicago: University ofChicago Press. 298 p.

Shettel-Neuber J. 1988. Second-and third-genera-tion zoo exhibits: a comparison of visitor, staff,and animal responses. Environ Behav 20:452–73.

Stoinski TS, Lukas KE, Maple TL. 1998. A surveyof research in North American zoos and aqua-riums. Zoo Biol 17:167–80.

Swanagan JS. 2000. Factors influencing zoovisitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior.J Environ Ed 31:26–31.

Tripp JK.1985. Increasing activity in captiveorangutans: provision of manipulable and ediblematerials. Zoo Biol 4:225–34.

Wood W. 1998. Interactions among environmentalenrichment, viewing crowds, and zoo chimpan-zees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biol 17:211–30.

Xie Z, Gipps J. 2001. The 2001 internationalstudbook for giant panda: Ailuropoda melanole-cua). Beijing, China: Chinese Association ofZoological Gardens. 177 p.

Zimring C. 2002. Postoccupancy evaluation: issuesand implementation. In: Betchel RB, ChurchmanA, editors. Handbook of environmental psychol-ogy. New York: John Wiley & Sons. p 306–19.

Zimring CM, Reizenstein JE. 1980. Post-occupancyevaluation: an overview. Environ Behav 12:429–50.

Zimring CM, Welch P. 1988. POE: building on20-20 hindsight. Prog Arch 7:55–8.

382 Wilson et al.