Is Museum Planning different than Zoo Planning?
I’m often baffled by interpretive sites such as museums, zoos, botanical gardens, parks, and nature centers, that operate from a deep-seated belief that what they do is completely unique and so only a museum planner can plan museums, and a zoo planner zoos, etc. The reality is that there are definitely design issues that are unique to these facilities – for example, live animal exhibits in nature centers and zoos or “living” museums like the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, require certain critical factors not found in typical park visitor centers or artifact-laden museums). But sound principles of planning transcend the type of facility. Terminology can easily be changed to fit the situation – a “site” can refer to a building, or a geographic land mass. “Resource” may mean the collection at a museum or the physical or cultural features of a landscape. Terms are interchangeable, but skill sets are not.
And therein lies one of the biggest problems I’ve seen associated with planning projects – the lack of distinction between planning and design. Generally speaking, planners are not designers and conversely, designers are not planners. Having said that, some people have both skill sets and can take a project through planning and design phases successfully. Others should stick to what they are good at, and recognize that these skill sets are not interchangeable. The best designers will know when a plan has not been well thought out and may even ask to bring in a planner to help ensure that best practices are followed so that everyone ends up satisfied.
Planning helps determine the most appropriate media to communicate a specific message to a targeted audience in support of the agency’s mission, goals, and objectives. Design helps create the media once good planning has determined what the most appropriate media will be. That may be a subtle distinction for some, but have you ever worked with someone who decides what the solution needs to be before fully identifying the problem? Usually, the problem is not “we need a trail.” The problem might be “we need to have people interact appropriately with the forest environment.” A trail with interpretive signs may be the best approach, but if the primary users of this forest are equestrians, interpretive signs are not going to fill the bill. In fact, they create a trail hazard for horses and riders and cannot reasonably be posted at a height that would be necessary for ease of reading by equestrians.
Planning makes you step back and check yourself – are you asking the right questions without assuming you already know the answers? Good planning saves time and money. I was recently asked to work on a plan by someone who assumed that writing a plan simply meant listing as much media as you could fit on the page and into the site. In fact, at this particular site, less is more and there is little reason to put a lot of media on the ground, given the purpose of the site and the interests of the audience. Going through a planning process and matching the needs of the visitors with the needs of the agency and the physical features of the site and resource clearly pointed out some significant cost-saving measures.
So going back to the original question – is museum planning different than zoo planning? Well, it depends, to a certain extent. According to the fourth principle of interpretive planning, every project is unique so every process will be different. But that doesn’t mean that each venue type needs a completely different approach to planning in general. The 5-Ms still work, whether you’re looking at a museum, a nature center, a botanical garden, a zoo or a commercial theme park. Learn to ask the right questions and your plan is halfway done. The other half, of course, is coming up with the answers to those questions. Then, and only then, are you ready to start designing the media called for in the plan.
