Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 18 (1987) 5-18 5

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

Post-Occupancy Evaluation in the Zoo

TERRY L. MAPLE and TED W. FINLAY

Atlanta Zoological Park and Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Psychology, Atlanta, GA
30332 (U.S.A.)
(Accepted for publication 24 October 1986)

ABSTRACT

Maple, T.L. and Finlay, T.W., 1987. Post-occupancy evaluation in the zoo. Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci., 18: 5-18.

Post-occupancy evaluations (POE) of the built environment provide systematic information

about the success or failure of environmental designs. Research instruments developed for appli-
cation in human settings can also be adapted for use in zoos. The zoo environment must be eval-
uated for its impact on animal residents, zoo visitors and staff. Evaluations conducted by our
Atlanta research team included studies of the Atlanta Zoo and zoos in nearby cities.The range of
available methodologies are reviewed, and the unique constraints of zoo settings are discussed.
Our studies indicate that naturalistic environments facilitatethe expression of normal and com-
plex animal behavior patterns and tend to enhance the visitor experience. P O E represents an
exciting new dimension in zoo research and promises to contribute to the success of future gen-
erations of zoo design.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most powerful tools for understanding the effects of the built
environment is the "post-occupancy evaluation" or POE. Environmental psy-
chologists have been most interested in the human response to living, working
and recreational environments, and some studies have selected zoos as settings
for such inquiry (e.g. O'Reilly and Martin, 1981; Wolf and Tymitz, 1981).
However, our primary target in POE has been the captive animal, particularly
the non-human primates. The unique contribution of our research team is that
we have endeavored to understand why ( and how) some captive environments
succeed while others are doomed to failure.
POE may be defined as the "practice of using systematic methods to find
out exactly what makes designed environments work well for their users".
Complete post-occupancy evaluations of zoo environments will focus equally
on animal, staff and visitor behavior. In previous publications, we have studied
zoo visitor attitudes and behavior (e.g. Hoff and Maple, 1982; Maple and Fin-

0168-1591/87/$03.50 © 1987 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

lay, 1986). Wolf and Tymitz (1981) recently applied to such studies the label
"naturalistic evaluations", arguing thus: "It is naturalistic because we observed
and interacted with people as they were making their visit; we approached
them naturally, engaged them in natural conversation, and documented their
natural behavior. The approach is evaluative because we asked visitors to assess
the quality of their experience and to comment on what meaning the visit had
to them." (p. 49 ).
Nearly all zoos (and aquariums) have surveyed their visitors to discover
who is visiting the zoo and how they perceive it. With a few notable exceptions
{e.g. Kuehl, 1976; Serrell, 1977 ), such studies are not typically published. Our
recent studies of zoo visitors examined the overall ratings of exhibits and spe-
cific visitor perceptions. For example, through the use of semantic differential
scales we can determine the visitor's perception of how small, liveable, and
clean a given zoo exhibit may be. Such perceptions may be germane to the issue
of whether zoos are effectively educating the public about wildlife. The sub-
standard zoo environment tends to distort animal behavior and provides a
misleading caricature of wildlife. The environmental psychologist Robert
Sommer (1972) identified such environments as examples of "hard architec-
ture". Sommer was forced to conclude that: "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." (p. 27).
To be successful, naturalistic environments must be more than a landscape
simulation. A truly valid representation of nature provides appropriate social
groupings, and the physical features of these enclosures must function as they
do in the wild. For gorillas, the captive environment is naturalized by providing
large, complex and heavily landscaped areas for occupation by harem groups.
These gorilla "families" can be fed and managed in ways that simulate the
conditions and contingencies of a west African rainforest. Like their wild coun-
terparts, captive gorillas should spend much of their time foraging for food,
and they should be provided with opportunities to respond to novel stimuli.
The enriched gorilla resides in a changing and challenging environment. Such
environments are stimulating settings for the full expression of both human
and non-human primate behavior.
Our design philiosophy is akin to that stated so well by Gorski (1983): "The
sterile glass, steel and tile remnants of past exhibit philosophies are rightfully
challenged. In the face of rapid rates of animal extinction and loss of natural
habitat, there has never been a time in which a public understanding of the
web of life has been more crucial. Zoo administrators and designers realize that
the experience of visitors must be a positive one in which value is gained for
each related element in the biotic community. It is only through such an appre-
ciation that concern for the preservation of that resource will result." (p. 119).
TRANSLOCATIONSTUDIES

Our local efforts to understand the needs of the great apes included exhaus-
tive reviews of the literature for each taxon (cf. Maple, 1980a,b; Maple and
Hoff, 1982, in preparation) and a program of applied research conducted in
various captive settings. Both recognized species of chimpanzee (Pan troglod-
ytes and Pan paniscus) are highly active, vocal and emotional primate taxa,
although there are distinct differences in their respective behavioral reper-
toires (e.g. Raeburn, 1983). However, since there are so few P. paniscus in
captivity, our research has focused on the so-called "common" taxon, P.
troglodytes.
By contrast, the orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) and the gorilla (G. gorilla)
are quiet, stoic and less active animals in captivity. Nevertheless, when arous-
ing stimuli are presented they may express a great range of emotions (c£ Maple
and Hoff, 1982). In designing appropriate environments for captive apes, we
must identify those species-specific behavior patterns and adaptations that are
relevant to the architecture of captivity. By failing to take into account the
differences among ape taxa, traditional zoo designers have created "generic"
ape habitats for chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. While vertical oppor-
tunities may not be so important to the largely terrestrial gorilla, the behavior
of the highly arboreal orangutan is greatly affected by an absence of climbing
structures.
Clarke et al. (1982) studied a group of chimpanzees before and after their
translocation from a laboratory environment to a naturalistic man-made island.
A basic repertoire of 40 behaviors was recorded sequentially and in code over
a six-month period. The pre-test environments consisted of 8-foot X 20-foot
laboratory enclosures. The post-test environment was about 125 feet X 40 feet
and lushly planted. Stereotyped and self-directed behaviors were dramatically
reduced on the island. There were also encouraging increases in social play and
social grooming.
In a POE conducted at the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans, we investigated
the effects of translocating great apes from barren cages to innovative natur-
alistic habitats. The former environments, textbook illustrations of "hard"
architecture, are depicted in Fig. la. The naturalistic environments (Fig. lb)
that replaced them are much larger, open and highly complex environments
that effectively simulate a natural habitat for the respective taxa.
The subjects of the Audubon study were a pair of gorillas and a pair of oran-
gutans that had lived in restrictive environments at the zoo for well over a
decade. We are painfully aware of the limitations of such a small sample size.
However, the trends obtained in this and other studies conducted in our labo-
ratory since 1975 provide an increasingly reliable record of enrichment effects.
In New Orleans, our research team was comprised of students from Tulane
University who observed the apes in their former cages, their new night quar-
ters, and finally within their new naturalistic environments. The project was
Fig. 1.(a) The former living environments for great apes at the Audubon Zoo were textbook
examples of "hard" architecture {T.L. Maple photograph).
{b) The naturalistic environments (designed by the New Orleans firm "Design Consortium")
for apes at the Audubon Zoo are conduciveto natural behavior patterns, comfort and well-being
(T.L. Maple photograph).

partially supported by funds from the zoo. Observations were initiated in 1979
and continued through the following year.
Perhaps the most interesting behaviors occurred during the first few days
after their translocation to the naturalistic surroundings. The male orangutan
was more inclined to explore than his female companion. He pulled up sod,
tested the roped pathway along the climbing structure, and used this apparatus
to engage in species-typical brachiation ( hand-over-hand locomotion) for the
first time in his captive life. Both the male and the female pulled plants from
the ground and constructed nests with the material.
The female gorilla was initially more active than the male. She immediately
explored the enclosure, manipulating foliage and attempting on many occa-
sions to scale the rock barriers at the back of the enclosure. The male was very
reticent about exploration, and he spent only 3 min in the enclosure during the
first and second weeks of observation. During this time, he preferred to remain
secluded in the tunnelway leading to his night quarters.
For both gorillas and orangutans, the new environments had the effect of
reducing the variety and frequency of aggressive interactions. Figures 2a and
b were obtained by plotting a weekly mean duration for aggression by taxon.
The orangutans were never observed to fight in the new enclosure. In the com-
plex environments, fights could easily be avoided or shortened by escape to
cover. In addition, for the gorilla pair, pro-social behavior occurred to a greater
extent in the new environments. Some behaviors, such as play-biting, were
recorded for the first time in the new enclosure.
Both gorillas were prone to regurgitation and re-ingestion (R and R) in their
former cages. However, in the naturalistic environments these abnormal

]
z
o ,o.

"~
~"

"6.
t~J
~
{a)

8,

4.
AUDUBON PARK ENCLOSURE EVALUATION:
ORANGUTANS
Aggressive Behavior:
•
[]
.°,.

Female
01
~
o
F- 4
~r,-
=30.
a
(b) AUDUBON PARK ENCLOSURE EVALUATION:

"' 2 0 .
~9
GORILLAS

0 .
Aggressive Behavior:
I
~
F'-I Femo,e

r,- ,~

O, < O.
Former Night New Follow- up Former New Follow-up
House

Fig. 2. Data from the Audubon Zoo translocation study were recorded daily in 10-rain focal-animal
samples (4 per 1-h session). Aggressive behavior was plotted by weekly mean duration (s) for
each taxon. Orangutan data acquisition included a night-house phase, but no gorilla data could be
acquired during this phase. Both taxa were studied during a 1-month follow-up period which was
initiated 1 month after the animals first moved into their new exhibit.
10

behaviors were never observed. These observations confirm the hypothesis of

Akers and Schildkraut (1985), who predicted a reduction of R and R in stim-
ulating surroundings.
The results of this study were very encouraging in that many new behavior
patterns were generated. When an environment is stimulating and complex,
the occupants of the environment are more active and they engage in behaviors
that are typical of their counterparts in nature (Maple, 1979). Such exhibits
are also extremely popular with the public.

ENCLOSURE ENRICHMENT

Enclosure enrichment can be accomplished in many ways. The benefits of

enrichment were long-ago anticipated by both R.L. Garner (1896) and Robert
M. Yerkes (1925). We have combined into a hierarchy their early suggestions
for improving the lot of captive apes. Certain items have been re-phrased and
the order reflects our own assessment of their relative importance.
(1) Species companionship (Y).
(2) Opportunities for work and play (G,Y).
(3) Spacious quarters (Y).
(4) Variations and choice in diet (G,Y).
(5) Intelligent and sympathetic attendants (Y).
(6) Privacy ( G ).
( 7 ) Access to the open air (G,Y).
(8) Water for enrichment ( G,Y ).
(9) Variable temperatures (G,Y).
(10) High humidity and decaying vegetation ( G ).
In a previous publication by members of our research group (Maple and
Bloomstrand, in press) we discussed the importance of providing a variety of
food in captive settings. In that publication, we applied the findings of field-
workers who had observed pongid feeding habits in the wild. For example, the
free-ranging gorillas of Mt. Kahuzi (Zaire) consumed at least 104 different
types of vegetation (cf. A.G. Goodall, 1978), while Calvert (1985) recorded
the consumption of 50 species of plants by western lowland gorillas in Came-
roon. Similarly, Mackinnon (1974) counted 105 different foods consumed by
wild Sumatran orangutans. For chimpanzees (P. troglodytes), the data are even
more impressive. Nishida and Uehara (1983) discovered that chimpanzees in
the Mahale Mountains of Tanzania utilized 328 food items from 198 plant
species. Expanding upon this logic, John Aspinall (unpublished manuscript)
reported that his captive lowland gorillas at Howlett's Park are routinely fed
at least 130 varieties of food each year. According to Aspinall: "We still feel
guilty that we do not provide them with an even greater choice of food." (ms.
p. 10).
While the variety of feeding opportunities is certainly important, it is also
 11

TABLEI

Percentage of daily activity devoted to feeding, travel-feeding and resting by free-ranging groups
of chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas according to the data of field-workers (after Rijksen,
1978; Sabater-Pi, 1979; Rodman, 1979; Fossey, 1983)

Feeding Travel-feeding Resting

Pan troglodytes 0.41 0.27 0.32
Pongo
pygrnaeus 0.46 0.11 0.39
abelii 0.40-0.54 0.09-0.18 0.40-0.42
Gorilla beringei 0.30 0.30 0.40

necessary to provide opportunities for sustained feeding. We are aware of field

data (cf. Rijksen, 1978; Rodman, 1979; Sabater-Pi, 1979; Fossey, 1983) that
illustrate this point. As Table I clearly reveals, great apes can spend as much
as 70% of their day in activities related to foraging and feeding. We have argued
elsewhere (Maple, 1979; Maple and Bloomstrand, in press) that foodstuffs
that require processing are an effective means of prolonging feeding (and
therefore reducing boredom).
We have also evaluated the enrichment potential of water (Brown et al.,
1982). In this study, an adult male gorilla spent more time in water when
humidity was high. Although this animal used the water-source for play and
during aggressive displays, water-contact did not correlate with the ambient
temperature or crowd-size. These observations, and our comprehensive review
of the literature, supports the contention of Garner and Yerkes that water is
an important element in the living environment of captive apes.
In a related study (Bloomstrand et al., 1986), we gathered data to evaluate
an enrichment device known locally as the "peanut puzzle box". This simple
apparatus can be operated by repetitive finger probing by the subject, who must
manipulate the peanut until it drops to each successive level of the box, even-
tually in reach for acquisition and consumption.
We first examined group-data to assess the effects of the device on aggres-
sive, abnormal and emotional behavior patterns. There were essentially no
significant group effects. That is, the availability of the device had no effect on
the level of aggression by group. However, when individual data were exam-
ined, it was evident that the puzzle box was utilized in different ways and to a
different extent by individuals. By application of an analysis of variance, we
determined that dominance status interacts with the box usage pattern
(F--142.9; df=6/48; P < 0 . 0 0 1 ) . Not surprisingly, subordinate animals are
frequently denied access to the "scarce resource". An interesting finding is that
some animals denied access to the box engaged in higher levels of abnormal
behavior (e.g. coprophagy).
12

TABLE II

Functions of plants in the environment accordingto Hediger ( 1950; as slightly modifiedby the
present authors )

(1) As food. leaves,seeds, bark, roots, stems

(2) As support. Opportunitiesfor climbing,
home, livingspace, sleeping/nestingplace
(3) As abrasive material. For sharpening of
incisors, tusks, beaks, claws
(4) As comfort.For rubbing the skin
(5) As signalposts. For depositingsecretions
(6) As stimulus substitutes. For re-directing
aggression
(7) As playthings.For manipulation
(8) As tools. For acquiring food,deterring
insects
(9) As buildingmaterial. For nesting
(10) As cleansers. To removevelvet
(11) As cover. To reduce tension; to hide
(12) As camouflage.To conceal bodily,as in the
algae which grow on snapping turtles

On an individual level, we demonstrated t h a t the presence of an enrichment

device can increase as well as decrease target behaviors. While the dominant
animal engages in less coprophagy when provided with an opportunity to
"work", the subordinate animal may engage in sustained coprophagy due to
the increased stress of competition. Such unforeseen effects should be amelio-
rated by the provision of several work stations. It may be safely concluded t h a t
enrichment devices such as the peanut puzzle box are valuable catalysts for
increasing the range of behaviors expressed by captive apes.
In naturalistic environments, the presence of browse and living vegetation
is conducive to activity. The behavior of the Audubon apes, described earlier,
may be interpreted in the light of a recent study by our former co-worker Susan
Fisher Wilson (1982), who discovered t h a t the presence of moveable objects
are correlated with the activity of captive apes. As Wilson suggested, the amount
of space is not nearly as important as the materials contained within it.
While vegetation can be an effective means of inducing foraging activity in
captive apes, plants can affect behavior in m a n y other ways. In his classic
volume Wild Animals in Captivity, Hediger (1950) outlined the various func-
tions of plants in the animal's environment. By considering these natural func-
tions, it should be possible to utilize plants in creative ways within the captive
environment. Table II is modified and extracted from Hediger to further illus-
trate this approach.
 13

Fig. 3. Innovative lowlandgorilla habitats as originallydesignedfor the Atlanta Zoologicalpark

by Jon Charles Coe.

NATURALISTICZOO DESIGN

It has been effectively argued that a full understanding of animal behavior

is necessary if designers wish to create successful captive environments (Hedi-
ger, 1969; Eisenberg and Kleiman, 1977; Maple, 1979, 1980a; Hutchins et al.,
1984 ). The heyday of generic ape habitats has ended, and it is increasingly the
case that zoo designs have been inspired by natural habitats ( e.g. Jones, 1982;
Coe, 1985; Coe and Maple, 1984). In fact, Hediger (1969) maintains that the
"...standard by which a zoo animal is judged should be according to the life it
leads in the wild..." (p. 1).
Designing with nature in mind requires that we incorporate both the social
and physical features of the wildlife experience. To this end, we have applied
our knowledge of the great apes to design species-specific habitats at the Atlanta
Zoo. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the concepts behind these exhibits.
For gorillas, the idea is to exhibit the animals in social groups that represent
their natural social organization. We have planned for at least two harem groups
14

ORANG UTAN o,,, , ,

Fig. 4. The Sumatran orangutan enclosure in Atlanta will simulate the natural habitat in form
and function (drawing by J.C. Coe).

led by silverback males. We expect that this arrangement will provide for some
measure of "perceived competition", which should stimulate reproduction in
an animal which has not bred well in captivity (cf. Maple and Hoff, 1982).
One of the keys to successful gorilla reproduction is apparently multiple females.
Each group is planned to contain at least three adult females and assorted
offspring. An additional feature of this design is the single-male exhibit, per-
mitting space for a long-time resident bachelor (beloved by city residents) who
will illustrate the existence of bachelor males in nature.
The orangutan exhibit is equally innovative. It will be vertical in its orien-
tation, permitting the arboreal residents to occupy the upper strata of the rain-
forest simulation. The propensity of receptive orangutan females to actively
select dominant males (cf. Maple et al., 1979 ) is encouraged by a design which
peripheralizes the males and permits female choice. This will be accomplished
 15

TABLE III

Some common mistakes of outside scientists who carry out research in the zoo and aquarium

( 1) Failureto explain the purpose of research in a conciseand lucid format

( 2) Failureto communicatewith key staff
(3) Failureof observers to adequately"know" their subject
(4) Failureto set a predictable schedulefor observations
(5) Failureto adequatelysupervise student or technicalcollaborators
(6) Failureto advise collaborators of institutional regulations
(7) Failureto provide periodicprogress reports to key staff
{8) Failureto bring a project to a timely conclusion
(9) Failureto publish or report research findings
(10) Failureto acknowledgekey staff in publications
( 11) Failureto send copies of publications to the institution
(12) Failureto become a member of the institutional support group

by a tube and gate system which, by virtue of its narrow dimensions and the
cooperation of vigilant caretakers, can be traversed only by females. Thus the
social organization as well as the physical features of the natural habitat are
successfully modeled.

THE ZOO AS A RESEARCH SETTING

In our experience there are many pitfalls to conducting systematic research

in the zoo. Small subject pools and unanticipated management changes can
compromise research designs. Some critics have asserted t h a t it is impossible
to conduct experiments in zoos. In fact, some of the best zoo studies are those
t h a t are tied to m a n a g e m e n t decisions. The patient and creative zoo researcher
designs clever experiments by collaborating with the administration and shar-
ing the information.
By fully integrating a research program within the fabric of management, it
is possible to evaluate manipulations which are made every day in the zoo. A
change in location, routine, or in the exhibitry itself may be regarded as a
management experiment. For example, animal introductions are rarely stud-
ied, but the information can be valuable in evaluating techniques of introduc-
tion and it can be used to better understand the propensities of the species in
question.
Modern zoos are dedicated to conservation, education, recreation and
research (Kleiman, 1985), and yet, as Hediger (1969) observed, "However
galling it may be for a zoologist it has to be admitted t h a t scientific research is
usually placed last in zoological gardens, if indeed it has any place at all". This
must be regarded as an unfortunate state of affairs, for it seems to us t h a t the
one category t h a t serves all others is research. The goals of conservation, edu-
cation and even recreation programs can be best achieved by the scientific
16

management of resources and manpower. Systematic observations can iden-

tify the variables that control breeding, lead to improved classroom instruc-
tion, and provide guidelines for the most lucrative placement of concession
stands. Science provides tools that can be applied to every aspect of zoo
management.
While scientists are welcome at most zoos ( Maroldo, 1978; Finlay and Maple,
1986), some institutions have had unpleasant experiences with outside inves-
tigators. Table III was constructed to summarize some of the more salient mis-
takes that zoo researchers can make. As we have consistently argued elsewhere
(cf. Maple and Finlay, 1986), there are few insoluble animal problems, but
people all too frequently obstruct the simplest solutions. Hediger's (1969) sage
commentary is timely: " W h e n practical management is permeated by scien-
tific activity, difficulties naturally arise, particularly at the outset; these can
be avoided, however, providing there is mutual respect, a careful delineation
of authority and above all by harmonious personal relations." (p. 60).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful for the support provided by N I H Grant RR00165 to the

Yerkes Primate Research Center of Emory University, from the Division of
Research Services, N I H Contract NO1-RS-7-2142, to the University of Texas
System Cancer Center at Science Park, and grants to the senior author from
the Wildlife Preservation T r u s t International and the Atlanta Zoological Soci-
ety. The observational powers of J.M. Kerley, R. Paulson-O'Neill and J.K.
Yakubik are gratefully acknowledged. In New Orleans, we benefited greatly
from the helpful advice and participation of D. Anderson, B. O'Donoghue and
Professor Elizabeth Watts. The data for the Audubon evaluation were orga-
nized by Jane Branch. For permission to conduct research at the Audubon Zoo
and the Science Park chimpanzee facility, we thank L. Ronald Forman and
Dr. M.E. Keeling.

REFERENCES

Akers, J.S. and Schildkraut, D.S., 1985. Regurgitation/reingestion and coprophagy in captive
gorillas. Zoo Biol., 4: 99-110.
Aspinall, J. Some aspects of behaviour in the Howlett's gorilla colony with special referenceto the
reaction of males to their infant progeny. Unpublished manuscript.
Bloomstrand, M.A., Riddle, K., Alford, P. and Maple, T.L., 1986. Objectiveevaluation of a behav-
ioral enrichment device h)r captive chimpanzees. Zoo Biol., 5: 293-300.
Brown, S.G., Dunlap, W. and Maple, T.L., 1982. Notes on the water-contact behavior of captive
lowland gorillas. Zoo Biol., 1: 243-249.
Calvert, J.J., 1985. Food selection by western gorillas (G. g. gorilla) in relation to food chemistry.
Oecologia, 65: 236-246.
 17

Clarke, A.S., Juno, C.J. and Maple, T.L., 1982. Behavioral effectsof a change in the physical
environment: a pilotstudy of captive chimpanzees. Zoo Biol.,i: 371-380.
Coe, J.C., 1985. Design and perception:making the zoo experience real.Zoo Biol.,4: 197-208.
Coe, J.C. and Maple, T.L., 1984. Approaching Eden: a behavioral basis for Great Ape exhibits.
Annu. Conf. Proc. Am. Assoc. Zool. Parks Aquariums, Wheeling, W V A , pp. 117-128.
Eisenberg, J.F.and Kleiman, D.G., 1977. The usefulnessof behavior studiesin developing captive
breeding programs in captive mammals. Int.Zoo Yearb., 17:81-88.
Finlay, T.W. and Maple, T.L., 1986. A survey of research in American zoos and aquariums. Zoo
Biol.,5: 261-268.
Fossey, D., 1983. Gorillasin the Mist. Houghton Mifflin,Boston.
Garner, R.L., 1896. Gorillasand Chimpanzees. Osgood Mcllvaine, London.
Goodall, A.G., 1978. On habitatand home range in easterngorillasin relationto conservation.In:
D.J. Chivers and W. Lane-Petter (Editors), Recent Advances in Primatology. Vol. 2. Aca-
demic Press, London, pp. 81-84.
Gorski, A.F., 1983. The roleof vegetation in animal exhibits:Natural habitatsimulation as exem-
plifiedby two Pacificnorthwest zoos.Bull.Am. Assoc. Bot. Gardens Arboreta, 17: 114-124.
Hediger, H., 1950. Wild Animals in Captivity.Butterworths, London.
Hediger, H., 1969. M a n and Animal in the Zoo. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Hoff, M.P. and Maple, T.L., 1982. Sex and age differencesin the avoidance of reptileexhibitsby
zoo visitors.Zoo Biol.,1: 263-269.
Hutchins, M., Hancocks, D. and Crockett, C., 1984. Natural solutionsto the behavioralproblems
of captive animals. Zool.Gart. 54: 28-42.
Jones, G.R., 1982. Design principlesfor presentationof animals and nature. Ann. Conf. Proc. Am.
Assoc. Zool. Parks Aquariums, Wheeling, W V A , pp. 184-192.
Kleiman, D.G., 1985. Criteriafor the evaluationof zoo researchprojects.Zoo Biol.,4: 93-98.
Kuehl, P., 1976. An analysisof visitorsocioeconomic, behavioral and attitudinalcharacteristics
at the National ZoologicalPark. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institutionpublication.
Mackinnon, J., 1974. The behavior and ecology of wild orang-utans. Anita. Behav., 2: 3-74.
Maple, T.L., 1979. Great apes in captivity:the good, the bad, and the ugly. In: J. Erwin, T.L.
Maple and G. Mitchell (Editors),Captivityand Behavior. Van Nostrand Reinhold, N e w York,
pp. 239-272.
Maple, T.L., 1980a. Orang-utan Behavior. Van Nostrand Reinhold, N e w York.
Maple, T.L., 1980b. Chimpanzee reproduction, rearing, and rehabilitationin captivity.Report
submitted to the Ad Hoc Task Force, National Chimpanzee Breeding Program, N I H Inter-
agency Steering Committee, 93 pp.
Maple, T.L. and Bloomstrand, M.A. Feeding, foraging and mental health. Proc. 1984 Meet. Dr.
SchoU Conf. Nutrition.Lincoln Park Zoo Publications,Chicago, in press.
Maple, T.L. and Finlay,T.W., 1986. Evaluating captiveprimate environments. In: K. Benirschke,
(Editor), Primates: The Road to Self-SustainingPopulations. Springer,N e w York.
Maple, T.L. and Hoff, M.P., 1982. GorillaBehavior. Van Nostrand Reinhold, N e w York.
Maple, T.L. and Hoff, M.P. Chimpanzee Behavior. In preparation.
Maple, T.L., Zuker, E.L. and Dennon, M.B., 1979. Cyclic proceptivityin a captive female orang-
utan. Behav. Process., 4: 53-59.
Maroldo, G.K., 1978. Zoos worldwide as settings for psychological research: A survey. Am. Psy-
chol., 33: 1000-1004.
Nishida, T. and Uehara, S., 1983. Natural diet of chimpanzees (P. troglodytes schweinfurthii):
Long-term record from the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania. Afr. Study Monogr., 3: 109-130.
O'Reilly, J. and Martin, J., 1981. The use of post-occupancy evaluations in an aviary: implications
for a continuing assessment program in museums. EDRA, 12: 318-325.
Raeburn, P., 1983. An uncommon Chimp. Science, 83: 40-48.
Rijksen, H., 1978. A Field Study on Sumatran Orang Utans. H. Veenman and Zonen, Wageningen,
420 pp.
18

Rodman, P.S., 1979. Individual activity patterns and the solitary nature of orangutans. In: D.A.
Hamburg and E.R. McCown, {Editors), The Great Apes. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park,
CA, pp. 235-255.
Sabater-Pi, J., 1979. Feeding behaviour and diet of chimpanzees in the Okorobiko Mountains of
Rio Muni. Z. Tierpsychol., 50: 265-281.
Serrell, B., 1977. Survey of visitor attitudes and awareness at an aquarium. Curator, 20: 48-52.
Sommer, R., 1972. What do we learn at the zoo? Nat. Hist., 81: 26-27, 84-85.
Wilson, S.F., 1982. Environmental influences on the activity of captive apes. Zoo Biol., 1:201-210.
Wolf, R.L. and Tymitz, B.L., 1981. Studying visitor perceptions of zoo environments: a natural-
istic view. Int. Zoo Yearb., 21: 49-53.
Yerkes, R.M., 1925. Almost Human. Century, New York.