-->
As environmental issues become the main subjects in social, political and cultural scenes, studies from different fields point to human practice as both the reason as well as solution to the problem. Change of human attitude and practice in relation to nature is cried out. Amid numerous ways of approaching the “nature”, this project focuses on the relationship between human and non-human, urban wild animals in particular. While ‘some may argue, correctly, that humans have been always dependent upon animals’, they were ‘eliminated from everyday human experience’ and were never regarded as part of modern human society, ‘except as commodities’ (Wolch and Emel 1998)[1]. Seeing fox fur coats in a city does not come as a surprise, but a fox does. Such surprise leads to the question of how and why they live in an urban area. In fact, they are perceived to be “out of place”. Designed for human needs, urbanized area is meant to be exclusive to humans. Nevertheless, plastic garbage bags torn in the middle of a street by foxes ‘remind us that we share our cities with the “real” wilderness creatures’ and it ‘is terrorizing’ (Rotenberg 2004)[2]. The wild animals are perceived extrinsic, yet ‘these animals [are becoming] acclimated to residential living’ (Rotenberg 2004). However, the lack of interactions in the contact zones[3] leads to havoc in human society: they are “invading” our space. Since the celebration of the International Year of Biodiversity in 2010, many organizations boast to invite wildlife and maintain biodiversity in London. Nevertheless, with exception of a handful, the unwelcomed nonhuman neighbours are generally only regarded as a task for police, pest control or wildlife management. The objectives of this project, titled Species to Species, is to observe the status of coexistence of human and wild animal in London, to analyse the relationship between them, and to seek for new contact zones where they can better-acquaint with each other, creating an inclusive democratic nature.
What is Nature in City?
Urbanization and development go side by side. Development is accompanied by massive exploitation of land and natural resources, which then leads to wildlife loss and extinction. As the majority of people worldwide now live in urban areas, the longing for being close to nature becomes greater. Attempts people make nowadays to ‘re-connect’ with nature range from gardening to ecotourism to natural artefact stores. While the term indicates disconnection antecedent to the re-connection, the notion of nature and the degree of disconnection is questionable. The lexical definition of “nature” is the phenomena of the collective physical world opposed to humans or their creation; the images of “nature” generally depict grand landscape or sublime natural phenomena. Such concept of nature is somewhere far, away from urban zone. Yet, that nature was never abided outside city. Along with patches of brambles and travelling dandelion spores in the breeze, Rotenberg (2004) suggests wild animals and weather as elements of nature in urban area, building ‘different sensibilities and understandings’ of nature. Much like the uncontrollable weather, unexpected appearance of wildlife brings awe and terror to urbanites. They both form the sublime of nature with the capabilities to nullify human system, albeit they rarely become subject matters of conversations regarding the nature in city. Wolch and Emel’s (1998) nature is ‘populated by sentient creatures’. It is where history unfolds and humans and other organisms interact with care, friendship and solidarity. Both of the above descriptions are in contrast to the notion of nature/culture[4] widely imbedded in the society, which detached man from other animals and nature. Hence the nature seen by the recent nature-friendly endeavours (e.g., nature nurseries, ecopsychology, ecotourism, natural artefact stores) is crude, obscured and anthropocentric. 
Their definition of nature is assets in contrast to urbanization, human habitat. Here, the nonhuman nature is regarded as means for human well-being, background and props for human actors. It is such idea that has driven excessive exploitation, bringing current environmental issues as result. In order to reform the pattern of human-nonhuman nature relations, this project identifies nature to be everywhere, ranging from forest to out-of-place animals to degrading cement walls: nature is everything, including humans.
Their definition of nature is assets in contrast to urbanization, human habitat. Here, the nonhuman nature is regarded as means for human well-being, background and props for human actors. It is such idea that has driven excessive exploitation, bringing current environmental issues as result. In order to reform the pattern of human-nonhuman nature relations, this project identifies nature to be everywhere, ranging from forest to out-of-place animals to degrading cement walls: nature is everything, including humans.
Nature through Media: Indirect Contact with Far Nature
As ‘one expression of a long human tradition of investing the natural world with meaning’ (Wilson 1991), nature documentaries bring the grand nature to living rooms. BBC’s Planet Earth (2006) series narrated by a celebrated naturalist broadcaster David Attenborough followed up with the nature documentary series The Blue Planet (2001), repeating the formula of covering highlights of nature. With high audience appreciation ratings, its epic scale and thrill of wilderness contributed in shaping the image of ever-so-distant majestic nature. Distinguished from other documentaries, the Planet Earth series was accompanied by featurettes of behind-the-scenes, revealing the challenges in the process of filming the wildlife. Whilst viewing both the edited film and the experiences cameraman went through for the very footage, one could draw the following diagram of perceiving nature through media: 
Having been edited to represent certain aspects of nature, the risk of nature documentaries lies on misrepresentation. It is the produced effect, the composition of dynamic once-in-a-blue-moon phenomena that a viewer sees as “nature”. The nature depicted in films the viewers come in contact with via television must differ from that experienced by the locals and the camera people. General public are outside and distant from that nature. Their understanding of nature is ‘socially constructed rather than being grounded in direct experience with nature’ (Gullo et al. 1997)[5]. Ironically, the concept of wilderness and wildlife conservation was developed in western society, in which the “nature” is only rationally understood[6]. Despite the good intention, the case of wildlife conservation movement cutting the local people out of their ancestral land in Kenya implies conflicting pandemic idea of nature versus man in the era of rising environmental issues. Nature documentaries succeeded in introducing the far nature into the living room; howbeit, such grand image of “nature” caused distance between people and the nonhuman nature, belittling the near nature.
While the genre of nature documentary depicts the distant one, a home video recording the pristine wilderness with the cameraman in it sheds new light on man-nature, human-nonhuman relations. Although the documentary Grizzly Man (2005) itself is of an analysis on Timothy Treadwell who had lived with wild grizzly bears for 13 summers, the included footage taken by him captured the ‘glorious improvised moments[7]’ other nature documentaries could not. Some criticized him for crossing the boundary and showing the ultimate disrespect[8], yet his recordings revealed the omnipresent nature. Notwithstanding the theatrical quality of his character, his recording of artless nature discloses the collision between the human values and the wild. His camera succeeded in capturing the genuine environment he experienced (e.g., grassland, woods, rainstorm, playful nature of Canidae, etc.), allowing the viewers to have a second look at what they live with. As Treadwell strived to connect with the bears and ‘go native’ (Daston and Mitman 2005) amongst them, he failed to involve smaller animals such as flies and the predator-pray relations in “his Eden”[9]. Such biased perspective is contradictory to his claim for being the kind warrior protecting wildlife[10]. Additionally, his personal story brings attention to the importance of having a balanced understanding of wildlife. At the end of his series of attempts to fight against the authority; create wild bear awareness among the public; protect and communicate with the wild animals; “mutate into” one of them, Treadwell was killed by one of the grizzly bears, Bear 141[11], leaving the remained others with shock and the bare nature. In spite of still having contact via monitor, Treadwell’s take on nature allows the public audience to have a different look at where human stands in nature and wildlife.
Fabricated Animals Found in Cultural Landscape
The tragic ending of Timothy Treadwell is perhaps more shocking to contemporary men than it would have been to people in the past. No Teddy bear[12] is depicted with canine teeth. How people come to conceive animals now is greatly depended on social fabrications, through advertisement, toys, stories, animations, and cartoons. As a cultural critic Akira Mizuta Lippit (2000) put it, ‘modernity can be defined by the disappearance of wildlife from humanity’s habitat and by the reappearance of the same in humanity’s reflections on itself’. Animals have been playing main roles in fables of diverse cultures, yet they are not identified in the same way in modern cultural production (e.g., Lassie, Peanuts, Garfield, Bambi, 101 Dalmatians, Lion King and Finding Nemo). Either by humanizing animals or putting them in subjective positions, stories convey didactic lessons to people. In Wolch’s (1998)[13] opinion, granting animal subjectivity was a big first step in questioning animal standpoints. The degree of humanization became greater as time passed by. Daston and Mitman (2005) analysed that such anthropomorphism exhibits ‘the yearning to understand what it would be like to be’ nonhuman animals. However, the risk of anthropomorphism easily becoming anthropocentrism, which ‘project[s] [human] thoughts and feelings onto other animal species’, needs to be addressed. For generations, people have ‘credited bees with monarchies, ants with honesty, and dogs with tender consciences’. How much do people assume about nonhuman animals? Even Kafka’s brilliant account of what it is like to be a cockroach or an ape could only go so far in human imagination[14]. As a modern attempt to disembody and see from a different animal’s viewpoint, National Geographic Channel’s Crittercam, having animals be camera people by attaching cameras to their bodies, is revolutionary. Nonetheless, as Haraway (2008) asserts, the exciting ‘immediate experience of otherness’ only lasts short with the footage taken by animals, for the ‘actual Crittercam footage is … usually pretty boring and hard to interpret’. This reminds the fact that nature is not always full of dynamic actions and phenomena, much like the daily life of an ordinary man; people continue to have certain ideas and expectations for nonhuman.
Of the Animals, For the People, By the People: A Visit to Zoo
For an urbanite, zoo arises as the space of coexistence with nonhuman animals. Zoos fulfil the desire of urban audience for nonhuman animals. The welcoming words by the director of ZSL London Zoo also convince the public so: “Have you ever wondered what it would be like to spot a toucan in the Amazon, head to the treetops with a sloth or come face to face with a gorilla? At ZSL London Zoo, you’re about to find out. … [T]his patch of paradise in the urban sprawl … will make your wild day out wilder than ever[15]”. ‘Zoos are urban institutions. Not only did the zoo bring nature into Western popular culture, it also imported it to the city’ (Anderson 1998)[16]. Although the beginning of zoo was to scientifically observe wildlife by keeping them in simple concrete enclosures, it is now recognized as a place to see exotic animals and child-friendly place for a family day out. April brings loads of families to the “living landmark” ZSL London Zoo, which was voted London’s Best Tourism Experience in 2010[17]. While providing the chance to get closer to over 16,299 animals[18], it boasts to focus on animal conservation and provide sanctuary to endangered species. The modern zoo today clearly has changed much from the zoos back in the days, creating more suitable environment for the animals. The words from grandparents who brought their grandchildren to the zoo reflect the change the zoo went through: it has become more spacious with more animals, and it is equipped with more entertaining events[19]. The hard work zoo has put in to bringing people and animal closer is evident in every section of the zoo: the generous detailed descriptions inform people; the sound effect and modern exhibit designs came a long way to give people a sense of animals’ natural habitats; face painting allows one the sense of being an exotic animal.
Zoo seems to encourage people to immerse in with the animals. As a way of providing experiences of proximity to animals to the public, bestowing names to “charismatic” animals has became a tradition since 1883, starting with Miss Siam the elephant at Adelaide Zoo in Australia[20]. Unlike Bear 141, who was identified as the killer of Treadwell, giving human names to certain animals brought people closer to animals: famous Winnie the Pooh was based on an American black bear named Winnie who came to the London Zoo in 1914. It is obvious that the named animals were treated better and received more attention. Their accommodations were “decorated” and they became the pet of the public. Reports on the recent death of the celebrated polar bear Knut at Berlin Zoo proffer how much public attention a named animal receives[21]. At present, Raja the Komodo dragon, Mijukuu the Gorilla and a few selected named others can be met on one’s visit to London Zoo. The named animals certainly offered ‘immediate encounters with nature’ without fear; however, such ‘normative human identity (Anderson 1998)’ leads to illusion of the relationship. Alongside the effort of creating the ground for eye-to-eye contact of human and nonhuman animal, other measures of the zoo are yet to be based on the notion of human versus nonhuman. The Animal Adoption programme at ZSL London Zoo is the case. While the term “adoption” refers to familial relations, it is no more than a case of animal being commodity. The Zoo is yet to break through the social construction of nonhuman externalization and commodification. Despite its motive to support conservation work, catch phrases such as “Special promotion -20% off” and “Personalised e-certificate to … proudly display” in bold letters in addition to the limited selection of animals, composed of animals thought to be charismatic in human eyes out of over 750 species at the zoo, simply steer the human-nonhuman relationship back to subject-object relations. 
Named, they might be, but the animals are not who they are in their one rights[22]. In spite of that, a brighter aspect is seen in the series of gorilla portraits, maximizing the features of individual gorillas. Looking straight in the eyes, these images create a different level of relationship between the people and the nonhuman animals.
Named, they might be, but the animals are not who they are in their one rights[22]. In spite of that, a brighter aspect is seen in the series of gorilla portraits, maximizing the features of individual gorillas. Looking straight in the eyes, these images create a different level of relationship between the people and the nonhuman animals.
As a cultural geography scholar Anderson (1998) asserted, the development of zoo was ‘accompanied by nostalgia for lost natures and for the animals who were progressively removed from everyday life [and it] is evident in the ambivalent human responses to nature that persist to this day’. Becoming more aware of animal conservation and the survival of threatened species might have led people to be more sympathetic towards animals, expanding the boundary of animal house design and encouraging their natural behaviour; yet the animals at zoo have adapted to the slightly “zoomorphed” human habitat. Urban audience is aware as well. The majority of the interviewed visitors identified the zoo animals as ‘not exotic, not wild, but captive and protected’ animals[23]. The comment “I know what to expect from a zoo. That is why I bring my grandchildren.” of an elderly man displays the firm position the zoo and the animals have established in the urban area. No matter how frequent and how close people get to the animals, and how many times people “transform” into wild animals, whether it be by painting tiger stripes on face or taking pictures with their faces merged with animal body drawn on panel, people do not get to know about the animals any better than through National Geographic magazine and nature programs. ‘Metropolitan zoo [is] a space where nature is abstracted from its contexts and shaped into an image and experience by, and for, humans’ (Anderson 1998) in ‘people-friendly and socially equitable ways’ (Emel and Wolch 1998). Zoo has become more of a place of entertainment in proximity to animals, not necessarily a place to learn about them. A 1909 news report of Adelaide Zoo in Australia that ‘just by looking, visitors get an object lesson in natural history, animal behaviour and world geography’ (Advertiser, 28 July 1909) brings up a question this day. Does a zoo, a collection of animals; a creation to satisfy the urban experience of nature, still mean the same to contemporary urbanites living in the era of globalization and environmental crises?
A Look at Series of Others’ Attempts
While the existence of zoo arouses mixed emotions and thoughts on human-nonhuman animal relations, the field of art and design has made endeavours to re-establish the human-nonhuman animal relationship. Such works reflect human attitudes to animals in the sense they are reforming the established ideas and/or practices. By reviewing the following artistic experiments, one could refine the state of human understanding of nonhuman.
Chris Woebken’s Animal Superpowers (2008)[24] in collaboration with Kenichi Okada is an attempt to understand how people can be more in tune with technology and the environment by exploring perspectives of nonhuman animals. A desire to transform oneself to something different as the motive, the set of Animal Superpower devices allow people to perceive the surroundings from different standpoints: the ant apparatus allows to see magnified earth through hands; the bird device with GPS mimics bird’s ability to navigate by sensing magnetic fields; the giraffe device raises one’s sight by 30cm. While recognising highly of the differences and trying to figure what others’ worlds are like, Woebken’s work does not go beyond playfulness. Parallel to face painting or animal mask, it simply reinforces the established ideas of the animals.
In collaboration with Natalie Jeremijenko, Woebken’s Bat Billboard (2010)[25] takes an approach that is more environmentally aware. Addressing an urgent bat issue in New York, it suggests giving a new role to bats and creates a new means of interaction between bats and humans via billboard, a highly visible means of communications. Incorporating voice recognition software to decode bat calls, it also attempts to understand their conversations. Despite its frivolity, the idea of supporting contact across species certainly intends to bring bat awareness to the public. As Jon LaRocca and Ned Dodington, founders of Animal Architecture[26], suggest, ‘a greater understanding of biotic and ecological relationships can influence design, reshape our cities, and restructure our homes—benefiting the human and non-human animals that interact with and around them’. While a biologist Jakob von Uexküll argued that it is wrong to understand organisms to be genuinely for something, an attempt to appreciate another species’s ability and find ways to integrate functionalities should lead to a positive direction.
Instead of attempting to understand the ecological relationships with animals and work together, Safety Gear for Small Animals (1994-2007)[27] and The Flora and Fauna Information Service, 0.800.0Fauna0Flora (2008) by Bill Burns explore the role of human as a responsible guardian of vulnerable animals. Forming a complete work in combination, his work contains a vast array of human safety gears in the scale of a small animal, animal rescue manuals as well as the interactive voice mail system. The details in objects as well as manuals humorously indicate the possible fiasco in utilizing such in a real situation. Generating a rhythm of irony, Burns suggest people to reflect upon the present state of animals and analyse one’s own readiness in case of a future catastrophe.
Motivated by concern for the state of nonhuman, Kalle Laar’s Call me! Calling the Glacier (2009) allows the public to personally experience the climate change by calling and listening to melting glacier. Acoustically connected to a real-time natural phenomenon, the work had ‘a strong emotional impact [on people] that could not be controlled’ (Laar 2009). Allowing people to take the glacier as a living partner to communicate with, the issue of global warming becomes an emotional matter, bringing awareness more so than any other publications shouting its seriousness. Amid the above-mentioned attempts, use of simple everyday technology such as billboard, voice mail system and telephone seems to be the most effective way of engaging people and bringing awareness of nonhuman. The approach Call me! Calling the Glacier took is especially differentiated from all the other, for it positions nonhuman as a partner rather than an object to look after or a means for human welfare. The glacier is not a background or prop, but an actor in the scenario.
On a Learning Curve
Despite the aspiration and numerous attempts, it is a ‘great, perhaps insurmountable obstacle [for humans] when they try to understand what it would be like to be nonhuman’ (Daston 2005)[28]. In this sense, it is reasonable for anthropomorphism to become anthropocentrism. Nevertheless, Anna Tsing’s suggestion that ‘human nature [has been] an interspecies relationship’ (n.d.; Haraway 2008) conceivably opens up a novel window to understanding human-nonhuman relationship. As Kirksey and Helmreich bring light to other species in their essay “The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography” (2010), Donna Haraway’s (2003) definition of “companion species” makes a clear sense. It is ‘a bigger and more heterogeneous category than companion animal … [it is] all of whom make life for humans what it is—and vice versa’. Humans have never stood alone in the world nor can they be the same without their companion species. Take a quick look around the surroundings and one should realize all matters that come to define oneself and one’s world are formulated by other species: from housing materials to cosmetics to medicine to food. ‘Humans, animals, and spirits participate in the same world, although with different sensory apparati, with the effect of generating only partially overlapping ontologies’ (Kirksey and Helmreich 2010). Through the understanding of how human species and other species come together and act as a whole, in other words, interspecies dependence, one discovers a possible nature in which every being is a companion. Hence it is more crucial to learn and understand what human/nonhuman animal is in the more-than-human world, prior to the attempt of figuring out one’s role in the relationship.
Steps to an Inclusive Democratic Nature
While nonhuman animals, especially the unselected, are not integrated in the general perception of city in human society, the series of investigations (e.g., the visit to the zoo, literature and film survey, interviews, and design examples) one has made points to the need for a re-comprehension of the human-nonhuman animal relationship. Unlike the “welcomed” domesticated and captive animals, feral and wild animals are thought to stand up against human system. This project identifies the relationship of humans and wild animals in city as the subject of research, and defines “wild” as the state of conducting own survival by foraging. Given that many animals in the zoo are bred in captivity, zoo animals are omitted from the project. Consequently, the wild animals in urban area are considered nuisance[29] in many incidents, for they ‘erase the boundary construct[ed] between a nature governed by fundamental laws of survival and culture governed by symbolic constructions of property, civility, and morality’ (Rotenberg 2004). Comparable to domestic animals, wild animals do adapt significantly to human nature: going through garbage bags at night became an attribute of London foxes. Like such, what seems to be wild animals’ “transgression” collides with human order, which creates a bond of sympathy among humans to expel wild animals out to where they should belong. However, such division only exists in human theoretical thinking.
Focusing on the area of Greater London, it was learned that 1.4 million nonhuman species are verified to reside in London[30]. Such figure reminds the hidden wildlife people overlook. Unfortunately, many Londoners do not have the eyes to see or the patience to wait for them. How can one become aware of what is around? The perception of city as a fortress walled against all nonhuman nature’s danger needs to be rectified. While the established pattern of human-nonhuman animal interactions, which was formed by human dependency on animals throughout the history, has dulled human senses towards wildlife, Wolch (1998) pinpoints the impact animal town within city has had on shaping practices of urbanization. Wild animals always accompanied human civilization. Although very utopia-like, Wolch’s “zoöpolis” is conceivable. ‘Re-establish[ing] networks of care, friendship, and solidarity between people and animals’ becomes possible with thorough understandings of one another. With such hope to create a peaceful trans-species space in the air, this project Species to Species is to design a series of contact zones for Londoners and London wild animals, in which the both sides become actors in coexistence. The nonhuman animals are not to be mere objects human actors reach to.
As the first step to learning about oneself and about the neighbour species, the first Species to Species design product is a printed directory of wild mammals in London. Mammal was accounted to be the most appropriate category to initiate the project with, for one reckoned the widening of the circle of empathy and sympathy can only start from oneself. Humans, known taxonomically as Homo sapiens, are categorized under the class off mammal. As for the form of design, the book takes after the format of telephone directory, providing a space for nonhuman animals to proclaim their residence in London. While the concern for anthropomorphisation of animals arises, the intention is to visualize the coexistence of humans and wild animals in London, bringing awareness to the neglected others’ existence. While general human means of communication does not apply to the relationship between human and nonhuman animals, this project regards appearance of nonhumans as a sign of their claim of residence. By locating the wild mammals in own area, it is intended that one becomes aware of the environment as well as practice and has a second look around one’s habitat. It is certain that London’s wildlife is not restricted to the listed animals or the listed areas; however, the data of wildlife is constructed only with the information submitted by those who came in contact with animals. The wildlife data provided by GiGL (Greenspace Information for Greater London) is to remain within Goldsmiths, University of London due to its sensitivity.
The Bigger Picture of Species to Species
The directory of wild mammals in London as the genesis, Species to Species is to take on a series of design works in order to create new contact zones for humans and wildlife. According to Haraway (2008), ‘contact zones are where the action is, and current interactions change interactions to follow’. While some wild animals are taken as problems among the humans, the very contact points can ‘map out a public space profoundly different from what is usually recognized’ (Latour 2005). What the project aims to do is expanding the contact points to zones, in which the relationship becomes reciprocal and the differences between species create synergy. Such communion is to be made possible with thorough in
terspecies understanding. Although acquisition of accurate wildlife information is fraught with difficulties, the means of gathering information can be better-designed. Species to Species could possibly develop into providing improved multispecies communication portals in collaboration with wildlife organizations, eliminating misrepresentation and lessening misunderstandings; broadening the circle of compassion; building a progressive nature; ultimately cultivating keen awareness for the more-than-human world. Reformation of human understanding of nature brings change to the attitude and everyday practice, which would alter everything in relations. Species to Species suggests that the commonly neglected nature, urban wild animal, is the starting point for contemporary urbanites where ‘connection’ with the nature humans seek in television monitors happens.
[1] Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (1998). Witnessing the Animal Moment. In: Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (eds.) Animal Geographies. London, New York: Verso.
[2] Rotenberg, R. (2004). On the Sublime in Natures in Cities. In: Barlett, P. (ed.) Urban Place: Reconnecting with the Natural World. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[3] The term “contact zone” defined by Donna Haraway in “Training in the Contact Zone” in When Species Meet (2008) is a space where different species meet, clash and grapple with each other.
[4] The notion of nature/culture was developed by contemporary anthropology, drawing boundaries between social entity and biophysical entity.
[5] Gullo, A. et al. (1997). The Cougar’s Tale. In: Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (eds.) Animal Geographies. London, New York: Verso.
[6] Grown out of British and French interest, movements to protect endangered wild species direct land use and wildlife policy against the interests of the locals living alongside the habitat of those animals.
[7] It was a comment by Werner Herzog, the director and narrator of Grizzly Man.
[8] The wildlife management of Alaska used such expression at an interview in Grizzly Man.
[9] While mourning for a baby fox killed by wolves, Treadwell cursed flies off the carcass. He called the Alaska National Park ‘his Eden’ whilst violating park regulation.
[10] Treadwell repeatedly emphasized his role as the ‘kind warrior’ protecting the animals.
[11] The bear suspected to have killed Treadwell was given a number, 141, by the wildlife management of Alaska.
[12] Teddy bear is identified as a stuffed toy bear first manufactured in 1902, which became a major 20th century icon.
[13] Wolch, J. (1998). Zoöpolis. In: Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (eds.) Animal Geographies. London, New York: Verso.
[14] See Kafka’s The Metamorphosis and A Report to an Academy.
[15] Theses are comments from the welcome statement of Director General of Zoological Society of London in the Visitor’s Guide to ZSL London Zoo.
[16] Anderson, K. (1998). Animals, Science, and Spectacle in the City. In: Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (eds.) Animal Geographies. London, New York: Verso.
[17] Such title is proudly mentioned at the website of ZSL London Zoo and London Tourism information lists ZSL London Zoo as one of the top places to visit.
[18] The number was indicated in the ZSL London Zoo Visitor’s Guide (2010).
[19] Such is a summary of comments from the survey taken place at ZSL London Zoo on April 16th, 2011.
[20] A female elephant was gifted to Adelaide Zoo on the 2nd of January 1884 and was named Miss Siam.
[21] Knut the polar bear died March 19th 2011 and quite a number of reports addressed the incident. There is also a Wikipedia page dedicated to the bear.
[22] Donna Haraway’s assertion in Training in the contact zone. When Species Meet (2008)
[23] Such is a summary of comments from the survey taken place at ZSL London Zoo on April 16th, 2011.
[24] For details, see http://chriswoebken.com/animalsuperpowers.html
[25] For details, see http://chriswoebken.com/bat_billboard.html
[26] Animal Architecture is a project bringing the roles of ecology and biology together in architecture. http://www.animalarchitecture.org/
[27] For details, see http://www.safetygearforsmallanimals.com/SGSA.html
[28] Daston, L. (2005). Intelligences: Angelic, Animal, Human. In: Daston, L. & Mitman, G. (eds.) Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia Press
[29] Wild animal complaints become political issues. The Guardian
[30] The figure was mentioned by Chloë Smith, Data Officer at Greenspace Information for Greater London (GiGL) in person on April 11th 2011.
Reference
Abram, D. (1997). The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York: Vintage Books.
Barlett, P. (ed.) (2005). Urban Place: Reconnecting with the Natural World. Cambridge: MIT Press.
BBC. (2006). Planet Earth [DVD]. Goldsmiths College Library Collection, 574.9 PLA. Goldsmiths College Library. London.
BBC. (2006). Planet Earth: The Future [DVD]. Goldsmiths College Library Collection, 577 PLA. Goldsmiths College Library. London.
Daston, L. and Mitman, G. (eds.) (2005). Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia Press
Haraway, D. (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Haraway, D. (2008). When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Herzog, W. (2005). Grizzly Man. [DVD]. USA: Lionsgate
Kirksey, S. and Helmreich, S. (2010). The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography. Cultural Anthropology. 25 (4) p. 545 – 576.
Latour, B. (2005). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik- or How to Make Things Public. In Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lippit, A. (2000). Electric Animal: Toward a Rhetoric of Wildlife. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tsing, A. (In press). Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species. In: Thinking with Donna Haraway. Ghamari-Tabrizi, S. (ed.)
Uexküll, J. (2010). A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans [Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen] (J. O’Neil, trans). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wilson, A. (1991). The Culture of Nature: North American Landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Toronto: Between the Lines.
Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (eds.) (1998). Animal Geographies. London, New York: Verso.
ZSL London Zoo visitors. A Zoo Visitor Survey. [Interview] ZSL London Zoo with J Y Lee. 16th April 2011.
