International Zoo News Vol. 61. No. 1 (2014), pp. 21-27

Animal-Themed Street Furnitureby Michael David William Richards

Zoological gardens, on a global scale, are typically home to sculptures, many of which act as unique way-finding cues and are also enjoyed by visitors. In many ways sculpture is part of the ‘zoo experience’, not as much so as the animals, but most people would expect a United Kingdom zoological garden to be home to works of art which compliment the grounds. A large percentage of these sculptures represent wildlife; this is far from surprising considering where they are situated. Other items of street furniture found within zoological gardens are also designed to look like animals and depending upon the degree of repetition on a site, these too can function as way-finding cues and are enjoyed by visitors. Further benefits also exist. Young children may be encouraged to deposit waste in a litterbin that looks like an animal. The process of putting litter in a plastic creature’s mouth offers entertainment and creatively designed seating is also engaging, often presenting photo opportunities for visitors. Images of an animal themed litterbin and a gorilla sculpture are shown below:

21

All of the aforementioned items of street furniture present a common concern. It is possible that a very small percentage of the population may misinterpret these items for real animals. For example, a visually impaired person or someone with dementia may fail to distinguish between the two, for very different reasons. A fear of animals, particularly ones that pose a danger to human health is a logical proclivity (Marks, 2005). Zoological gardens are often home to a range of large predators such as lions and bears. Due to an instinctive fear of certain creatures, visitors are naturally ap-prehensive about the possibility of a dangerous animal escaping. Even though safety is of paramount importance in modern zoological gardens, animals do break out of their enclosures. Gorillas have used bamboo to pole vault over moats, orangutans have fashioned escape ladders using branches and tigers have simply jumped over twelve-foot walls (Hribal, 2010).

With reference to litterbins and seats it is usually the case that these items are abstract representations of the animals they portray. Differences in size, colour and proportion make it instantly apparent that they are not real animals to most people. So while replacing them with traditional alternatives would assist a small number of people who cannot make the relevant distinction, it would in turn impact the expect-ed ‘zoo experience’, particularly for young children. A zoological garden installing animal themed litterbins, for example, does not increase accessibility in a traditional

22

sense for any group of users and may in a number of very infrequent instances cause concern for some individuals. Removing them would however fundamentally al-ter the ‘zoo experience’ for many children who, without doubt, represent a larger group than those who cannot differentiate between real and artificial animals. The number of children who visit zoological gardens is not insignificant. 32% of Edin-burgh Zoo’s visitors are children (The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, 2012). Patrick and Tunnicliffe (2012) support this argument, stating that children ‘make up the largest zoo audience’ (Patrick and Tunnicliffe, 2012: 38). Suggesting that litterbins and seats that resemble animals be removed would lead to suggestions to remove animal sculptures for comparable reasons. Animal sculptures are even more ingrained in what visitors expect than other items of street furniture.

In relation to function, sculptures play an emotive role. Litterbins and seats how-ever should be able to be identified as such so that people can make use of them. This is the second primary issue associated with street furniture that is designed to look like animals. It has already been established that these items are part of a visit to a zoological garden and important for young children. Nevertheless, for some people a litterbin that looks like a frog may not be recognisable as anything but a plastic frog. The addition of a pictogram for litter disposal and the word litter on such items allows the wider population to identify the function of these litterbins without inher-ently altering their appearance. Displaying a pictogram and text increases the per-centage of people who can use the litterbins in question without impacting access or

23

enjoyment for others and the use of pictograms to convey information to a wide au-dience is supported by related literature (Abdullah and Hubner, 2006; Berger, 2005; Mollerup, 2005). Providing two litterbins in one location is generally unnecessary (unless a specific recycling system is in place) however the provision of numerous and varied seating is useful in terms of accessibility. For this reason seats that are creatively designed in an animal related manner should be accompanied by more tra-ditional seats in close proximity. This approach permits children to enjoy interesting seating while other users can opt for an alternative, more traditional design should they wish to do so.

Other items of zoological street furniture can also be designed in a way which reflects their location. Bollard designs that take inspiration from animals can offer a creative way-finding cue. Bollards in zoological gardens that are designed to emu-late animals should offer bands of colour contrast to increase visibility, as stated by Hersh and Johnson (2008). Tigers and ring tailed lemurs offer two examples of how the natural world provides opportunities for creative bollard design which can still ensure visual contrast. It is particularly useful to utilise bollards at zoological garden entrances to confirm to people that they have arrived in the correct location.

24

25

Zoological gardens should consider the specific location of themed street furni-ture. Positioning a cartoon style litterbin next to a picnic area or children’s play area is fitting; however the same item would appear to be improper close to a centre of scientific research. Material of construction is also of relevance. It is appropriate to locate wooden items, for instance, in positions that plastic alternatives would look out of place, such as next to a naturalistic enclosure. Much depends on the specifics of each site and therefore more precise guidance on this sub-topic is not possible.

Guidance SummaryThemed street furniture which is designed to resemble animals is part of the visi-

tor experience and zoological gardens should not feel obliged to remove these items due to concerns over clarity of function or any other apprehension. They should nevertheless, whenever possible, offer more traditional seating in close proximity to themed variations and use waste disposal pictograms and supporting text on themed litterbins. Zoological gardens should also consider the material of construction and where animal themed street furniture is located on their grounds. There may be some locations, for instance close to information signs about scientific research, where the presence of plastic themed street furniture will be inappropriate.

Michael David William Richards, PhD student, University of SalfordEmail: m.d.w.richards@edu.salford.ac.ukhttp://michaeldwrichards.moonfruit.com

All photography by the author

ReferencesAbdullah and Hubner. (2006). Pictograms, Icons & Signs: A Guide to Information Graph-ics. London: Thames & Hudson LtdBerger, C. (2005). Wayfinding: Designing and Implementing Graphic Navigational Sys-tems. Brighton: RotovisionHersh and Johnson. (2008). Assistive Technology for Visually Impaired and Blind People. New York: Springer Hribal, J. (2010). Fear of the Animal Planet: The Hidden History of Animal Resistance. California: AK PressMarks, I. (2005). Living with Fear. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Higher EducationMollerup, P. (2005). Wayshowing: A Guide to Environmental Signage Principles and Prac-tices. Baden: Lars Muller PublishersPatrick and Tunnicliffe. (2012). Zoo Talk. London: SpringerThe Royal Zoological Society of Scotland. (2012). Annual Review 2011. Edinburgh: The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland

26