Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T14:48:28.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Do Zoos ‘Talk’ to Their General Visitors? Do Visitors ‘Listen’? A Mixed Method Investigation of the Communication Between Modern Zoos and Their General Visitors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

Katie Roe ,
Andrew McConney  and
Caroline F. Mansfield
Katie Roe*
Affiliation:
School of Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Andrew McConney
Affiliation:
School of Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Caroline F. Mansfield
Affiliation:
School of Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Katie Roe, 9 Gulf Way, Leschenault WA 6233, Australia. Email: katie.roe@westnet.com.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modern zoos utilise a variety of education tools for communicating with visitors. Previous research has discussed the benefits of providing multiple education communications, yet little research provides an indication of what communications are being employed within zoos today. This research is a two-phased, mixed-methods investigation into the communication between zoos and their general visitors. Phase 1 involved an online questionnaire to which 176 zoos from 50 countries reported on the types of education communications they typically use for their general visitors. The second phase comprised nine zoo case studies, enabling direct observation and face-to-face interviews on site with zoo staff and zoo visitors. The findings of this research provide a snapshot of education communications offered to zoo visitors, and indicate that zoo exhibit signage remains the most prevalent medium. The findings further indicate that 95% of visitors read at least some exhibit signs and that more than 70% of participating zoos utilise person-to-person education. The implications of these findings for improving zoos’ educational communication are discussed.

Keywords

zoo educationzoo communicationzoo visitorsinterpretationsignage
Type
Feature Articles
Information
Australian Journal of Environmental Education , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , December 2014 , pp. 167 - 186
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, L. (2003). Zoo education: From formal school programmes to exhibit design and interpretation. International Zoo Yearbook, 38, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, U., Kelling, A., Pressley-Keough, R., Bloomsmith, M., & Maple, T. (2003). Enhancing the zoo visitor's experience by public animal training and oral interpretation at an otter exhibit. Environment and Behaviour, 35, 826–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K., & Dierking, L. (2007). Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research, 13, 367–383.Google Scholar
Bramley, F. (1989) Graphics before evaluation? Even with the cart before the horse, it's possible to finish the race. Visitor Studies, 2, 62–64.Google Scholar
Bramley, F. (1992). Laugh a little, learn a lot: making your message stick. Visitor Studies, 5, 99–104.Google Scholar
Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 100–107.Google Scholar
Coe, J. (1994). Landscape immersion — Origins and concepts. 1994 AZA Convention Proceedings. Bethesda, MD: American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA).Google Scholar
De Herder, J. & Streiter, C. (2010) Sustainability to implement. Retrieved from http://www.waza.org/en/site/conservation/environmental-sustainabilityGoogle Scholar
Denzin, N. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Dierking, L., Burtnyk, K., Buchner, K., & Falk, J. (2002). Visitor learning in zoos and aquariums — A literature review. Annapolis, MD: American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA).Google Scholar
Falk, J. (2006). The impact of visitor motivation on learning: Using identity as a construct to understand the visitor experience. Curator, 49, 15–166.Google Scholar
Falk, J., Reinhard, E., Vernon, C., Bronnenkant, K., Deans, N., & Heimlich, J. (2007) Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium. Silver Spring, MD: American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA).Google Scholar
Fiby, M. (2008) Trends in zoo design — Changing needs in keeping wild animals for a visiting audience. Topos 62 — The International Review of Landscape Architecture and Urban Design. Retrieved from www.zoolex.org/publication/fiby/zootrends08/fiby_topos62.htmlGoogle Scholar
Fraser, J., & Sickler, J. (2008, April). Visitors’ preconceptions about zoos and aquariums Connect, 16–19.Google Scholar
Green, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.Google Scholar
Gutierrez de White, T., & Jacobson, S. (1994). Evaluating conservation education programs at a South American zoo. Journal of Environmental Education, 25, 18–22.Google Scholar
Hancocks, D. (2001) A different Nature — The paradoxical world of zoos and their uncertain future. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (1990) Changing learner behaviour through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 8–17.Google Scholar
International Zoo Educators Association (IZE). (2011, April.). IZE Newsletter, 9.Google Scholar
Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.Google Scholar
Keen, M. (1991). The effect of the Sunship Earth Program on knowledge and attitude development. Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellert, S. (1979). Zoological parks in American society. In American Zoo Association Annual Meeting Proceedings (pp. 88–126). Wheelings, WV: AAZPA.Google Scholar
Kellert, S. (2005). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Kohl, J. (2004). Zoos behind the wild façade. International Journal of Wilderness, 10, 23–27.Google Scholar
Kola-Olusanya, A. (2005). Free-choice environmental education: Understanding where children learn outside of school. Environmental Education Research, 11, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, J. (2002, Summer). To label or not – visitors win; new life for an immersion exhibit. Visitor Studies, 11–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Marty, P., Alemanne, N., Mandenhall, A., Maurya, M., Southerland, S., Sampson, V., . . . Schellinger, J. (2013). Scientific inquiry, digital literacy and mobile computing in informal learning environments. Learning, Media and Technology, 38, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConney, A., Rudd, A., & Ayres, R. (2002). Getting to the bottom line: A method for synthesizing findings within mixed method program evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 121–140.Google Scholar
Miller, B., Conway, W., Reading, R., Wemmer, C., Wildt, D., Kleiman, D., . . . Hutchins, M. (2004). Evaluating the conservation mission of zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens and natural history museums. Conservation Biology, 18, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, M. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviours. Human Ecology Review, 10, 113–125.Google Scholar
Morgan, J., & Hodgkinson, M. (1999). The motivation and social orientation of visitors attending a contemporary zoological park. Environment and Behaviour, 31, 227–239.Google Scholar
Newhouse, N. (1990). Implications of attitude and behaviour research for environmental conservation. Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 26–32.Google Scholar
O'Connor, T. (2010). Trends in zoo and aquarium exhibit interpretation. Newport, OR: Oregon Coast Aquarium.Google Scholar
Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2010). The role of zoos and aquariums in education for a sustainable future. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, P., Matthews, C., Ayres, D., & Tunnicliffe, S. (2007). Conservation and education: Prominent themes in zoo mission statements. Journal of Environmental Education, 38, 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Peart, K. (1993). What a zoo! (or whatever . . .). Scholastic Update, April, 16–19.Google Scholar
Perdue, B., Stoinski, T., & Maple, T. (2012). Using technology to educate zoo visitors about conservation. Visitor Studies, 15, 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, K., & McConney, A. (2014). Do zoo visitors come to learn? An internationally comparative, mixed-methods study. Environmental Education Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.940282Google Scholar
Roe, K., McConney, A., & Mansfield, C. (2014a). The role of zoos in modern society — A comparison of zoos’ reported priorities and what visitors believe they should be. Anthrozoos, 27, 529–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, K., McConney, A. & Mansfield, C. (2014b). Using evaluation to prove or to improve? An international, mixed method investigation into zoos’ education evaluation practices. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 2, 108–116.Google Scholar
Serrell, B. (1981a). The role of zoological parks and aquariums in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 12, 41–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrell, B. (1981b). Zoo label studies at Brookfield Zoo. International Zoo Yearbook, 21, 54–61.Google Scholar
Serrell, B (1988). The evolution of educational graphics in zoos. Environment and Behaviour, 20, 396–415.Google Scholar
Smith, L. (2013). Visitors or visits? An examination of zoo visitor numbers using the case study of Australia. Zoo Biology, 32, 37–44.Google Scholar
Smith, L., & Broad, S. (2008) Do visitors attend to conservation messages? A case study of an elephant exhibit. Tourism Review International, 11, 225–23.Google Scholar
Sommer, R. (1972). What do we learn at the zoo? Natural History, 81, 26–29, 84–85.Google Scholar
Swanagan, J. (2000). Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Education, 31, 26–31.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Van Den Brink, J. (1981). The role of labels in the zoo. International Zoo Yearbook, 21, 61–63.Google Scholar
Vernon, C., & Boyle, P. (2008, April). Understanding the impact of a zoo or aquarium visit. Connect, 7–9.Google Scholar
Wagner, K. (2002). Taking a look at trends – conservation education in AZA zoos and aquariums. Communiqué; September, 5–6.Google Scholar
World Aquarium and Zoo Association (WAZA). (2005). Building a future for wildlife — The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. Geneva: World Aquarium and Zoo Association (WAZA).Google Scholar
World Aquarium and Zoo Association (WAZA). (2012). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.waza.org/en/site/homeGoogle Scholar
Weiler, B., & Smith, L. (2009). Does more interpretation lead to greater outcomes? An assessment of the impacts of multiple layers of interpretation in a zoo context. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17, 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J., & Marcellini, D. (1986). HERPlab: A family learning centre at the National Zoological Park. International Zoo Yearbook, 24, 340–343.Google Scholar
Wineman, J., Piper, C., & Maple, T. (1996). Zoos in transition: Enriching conservation education for a new generation. Curator, 39, 94–107.Google Scholar
Zoological Society of London (ZSL). (2009). Zoos and aquariums of the world. International Zoo Yearbook, 41, 223–398.Google Scholar