The Museum of Natural History is incredible, and I had a really good time exploring the Hall of Biodiversity and seeing how the public interacted with the exhibits. I chose the sea otter exhibit and the endangered species exhibit, the latter of which contains gibbons, pandas, tigers, tortoises, and many other endangered animals.
The sea otter exhibit is meant to provide information on the otter’s ecosystem and biology. It is in the Hall of Ocean Life, so the otter is put in context of the larger ocean and the many marine ecosystems. There is also behavioral information in this exhibit, like how the sea otter uses rocks as a tool to open clams. It helps the public to understand the specific needs and niches of the sea otter, while putting it in perspective of the greater ocean ecosystem.
The endangered species exhibit is intended to educate people on the plight of particularly threatened species, who face possible extinction by loss of habitat, human conflict, pollution, and a great many other factors. By educating the public on endangerment, the exhibit is trying to foster a more aware and more compassionate populace, thus making conservation a popular issue and avoiding extinction where possible.
People were generally more interested in the endangered species exhibit rather than the sea otter one. I believe this is mainly because the endangered species exhibit contains many more animals, and is probably seen as more interesting than the sea otter in absolute terms. Of course, I’m sure there are sea otter fanatics who’d rather spend prolonged periods with the otter,
but I didn’t happen to observe these people. There were more people observing the endangered spe
cies exhibit rather than the sea otter – 57 visitors in fifteen minutes as opposed to 45 visitors. Commentary on both exhibits was about the same though – “Oh, he’s so cute! I want to pet him!” or just simply, “Sea otter!” and, “Panda!” While there were some visitors (mainly adults, speaking to children) who were interested in the actual information on the animals, most people maintained an only superficial and brief interest. In both exhibits, people looked at the animal(s) involved and, after a moment, just walked away. Very few stayed to read the information on the animals. People were most interested by far, though, in the roaring tiger. People copied his face, roared, and took photos. Perhaps if the good people at the museum could, when they acquire animals in the future, position them in engaging poses/positions, it would hold people’s attention for longer. For example, like having a gorilla beat its chest, or having a crow caw – these would engage the audience. This suggestion might be implausible, however. I also feel like the exhibits are great as they are, and people just have short attention spans and don’t care to read about one animal, especially when there are so many others to briefly observe. This, I believe, is largely due to the time in which we live, where people can’t go five minutes without checking their phone, and can barely pay attention to one thing continuously.
I think perhaps if the exhibits were more interactive, and thus engaging, people would be more inclined to seriously contemplate conservation. As are, the exhibits seem to lack dimension. Of course, for an animal lover they’re great – but animals don’t intrigue everyone immediately. Some people need to be shown how cool and interesting animals are – and this is where interactive exhibits would greatly benefit conservation.
Overall, I think the Hall of Biodiversity is great. Even if not everyone wanted to read all the text, people seemed to love being able to see such a variety of animals the likes of which they’d never seen before. It was lovely to see how enthusiastic the children were when viewing the exhibits. To think that if the Hall of Biodiversity didn’t exist that it would deprive thousands of people of this experience – well, that’s unthinkable.
P.S. We also saw Lonesome George and the Taung Child. They were awesome.
