This comparison of information shows that figures for the size and costs
of exhibits are hardly comparable. It also shows that the information on
plants used in exhibits is inconsistent because it was provided for different
states of the exhibits. The exhibit description needs to specify whether
the plants listed were planned for use or actually planted. Finally the
comparison shows that considerable time is necessary to get suitable plans
and pictures and digitally reproduce them.
| Criteria |
Woodland Park Zoo's
Brown Bears |
Zoo Zürich's
Spectacled Bears |
Zoo Schönbrunn's
Elephants |
| Location |
No problem.
|
| Key Words |
Extracted from descriptions. (Input
from professionals is useful as to what they would search for.) |
Animals
(Species, Number) |
Specified numbers and species may
change over time. (Date of revision is stated on each ZooLex page.) |
| Description |
Compiled from AZA exhibit award application. |
Compiled from various publications.
|
| Size |
Figures only available for the whole
Northern Trail, as exhibit was designed a part of this entity. |
Only figure for whole
site available. |
Separate figures for indoors, outdoors,
single pens, barn, and pools available. |
| Costs |
Figures only available for the whole Northern
Trail, as exhibit was designed a part of this entity. |
Total costs available, costs for
design only as estimated percentage of total costs. |
| Opening Date |
No problem.
|
| Design, Construction |
Usually well documented, some request for details were necessary.
|
| Local Conditions |
Added from Walter and Lieth's Atlas of Climatic Diagrams.
|
| Plants |
Planted species were available from Zoo's horticulturists
with no distinction between animal and exhibit space. |
List of planned species was available, separate
for animal and visitor space. Actual species might be different. |
Not provided. Existing live trees
should be added. |
| Features dedicated to animals, keepers,
and visitors, interpretation, management, research, conservation, and local
resources |
Compiled from AZA exhibit award application. |
Compiled from various publications. |
| Compilation from several sources
results in various degrees of detail for each criterion, depending on the
purpose of the original publication. |
| Overview Plan |
No problem to use the official zoo map.
|
| Site Plan |
Only earthwork plan available, which
is hard to read. |
Only poor-quality slides or copies
of plan available. |
Only picture in journal
available. |
| Zoos had no appropriate
illustrative plans at hand and referred to planners' copyrights. Planners
were careful about having site plans published. Illustrative plans are
usually suitable for publication, but planners did not make the effort
of sending a copy. |
| Pictures |
Slides were available, but no slide
scanner. Hard to get scans without being present. |
Slides were available, but no slide
scanner. I borrowed slides for scanning. |
Pictures were available,
but no scanner. I borrowed pictures for scanning. |
| Pictures available mainly
show animals. Pictures of holding facilities and interpretive devices were
scarce. I used mostly my own pictures. |