As zoos’ goals, designers’ values, and guests’ expectations change, so do the structures seen at the zoo. Exhibit history is not clear cut, and – despite what some may claim – is not inherently linear. Exhibit strategies develop as a result of tensions, both social and operational, imposed from both inside and outside of zoos. This literature review examines the history of zoo architecture by defining six design periods and considering the lenses of race, class, and nature.

Today, some modern zoos, aquariums, and similar animal-exhibiting institutions continue to shift their priorities toward a focus on the conservation of wildlife. Conservation challenges span a broad subject area. The focus that any institution chooses can vary greatly in terms of magnitude and measures of significance. Many modern zoos often choose to make global conservation a central institutional priority: conservation of biodiversity, habitat protection, species extinction, and more. Some institutions, however, set conservation priorities on a smaller scale, focusing on contributions that have a more indirect effect on wild species and habitats, such as the welfare of populations in captivity, raising public awareness of conservation missions, and conservation education. By comparing the institutional priorities of two organizations within the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and the Phoenix Zoo, I explore how each institution manages its living collections and works toward its respective conservation mission. I interviewed members of each institution and analyzed the similarities and differences between the organizations based on their management of living collections, and how different mission statements might shape their work. This included investigating the focus each institution has on animal welfare, in situ and ex situ conservation, and maintaining public interest. This also required defining what conservation and welfare mean to each institution and how that affects the management of their living collections. From a literature review and interviews with representatives from each institution, I was able to determine that despite any differences in style or in the language of respective mission statements, each institution prioritizes connecting the public and conservation of biodiversity. While they employ different approaches - one institution takes a regional interest in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem and landscape; the other takes a more global approach to its experiences, exhibits, and collections - the core values and ultimately the vision remain the same. Conservation may serve as the primary motivator for both the Museum and the Zoo, but my thesis is that this rationale could not be realized by itself for these institutions. Rather, conservation as a core value relies upon the support of other critical institutional priorities working together. In this way animal welfare, public engagement, and conservation relate to one another as institutional values and create the impact that the zoo and museum have on their local communities, as well as on conservation as a whole.