Visitor behavior in zoos: A review

Abstract

Visitors are integral components of zoological parks and their importance has led to a research area devoted to understanding the people–zoo relationship. This paper reviews, and provides a point of entry into, the literature relating to visitor research in zoos. The field emerged relatively recently and is diverse and interdisciplinary (it shares common ground with sociology, education, psychology, zoology, and other academic disciplines). Several areas can be identified in the literature (audience analysis, circulation and orientation, exhibit evaluation, and interactions with animals), and these areas have revealed visitors' demographic and behavioral characteristics, people's behavioral responses to endogenous and exogenous factors, the impact of exhibit design, and visitors' movements around zoos. Limitations of existing work include independence between research areas, lack of international studies, limited generalizability of results, and the minority status of the field. Therefore, suggestions for future work include integrating different research areas, more research from outside Europe and America, and increased interaction within the visitor research community.     

The Role of Zoos in Modern Society—A Comparison of Zoos' Reported Priorities and What Visitors Believe They Should Be

Modern zoos are required to fulfill a growing number of responsibilities including scientific research, wildlife conservation, public recreation, and education. With so many roles and responsibilities and limited funds, zoos have to prioritize their activities in relation to their own specified goals, objectives, and mission statements. Given their desire to nurture community relations and educational opportunities, it is important to determine the extent to which zoos are prioritizing their activities, according to visitors' expectations. This paper presents empirical research of a two staged mixed-methods investigation into zoo priorities from both zoos' and visitors' perspectives. The first stage involved an online questionnaire to which more than 190 zoos across 52 countries reported their priorities and activities. We then undertook in-depth case studies in nine institutions, enabling direct observation of each site within its context, including face-to-face visitor interviews. Our research contrasts the priority given to zoo activities from each perspective and indicates that educating visitors, including school children, is the highest priority activity from the zoos' perspective and that of their visitors. The findings also show that visitors place high value on learning about actions they can take to help conservation efforts. Some inconsistencies between zoos' and visitors' priorities were also evident, such as the different emphasis placed on viewing endemic species, and zoos being a place for people to relax and socialize. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Educational Claims of Zoos: Where Do We Go from Here?

Zoos exude a certain self‐confidence regarding their roles as education providers. Indeed, the education outputs of zoos are, at face value, pretty impressive, with most investing in learning opportunities for leisure visitors, education groups and in some cases, as part of their in situ programs. However, these outputs are not necessarily reliable indicators of the educational achievements of zoos. Quantity does not necessarily equate to quality, just as outputs do not necessarily lead to outcomes. Zoo‐accreditation organizations such as the AZA and EAZA offer us clear insight into the strategic vision underpinning the education goals for zoo visitors; a heightened appreciation of the value of biodiversity and a connectedness with the natural world. Unsurprisingly, most zoos have educational goals that ally neatly with the vision of their respective accreditation body. Consequently, we are left with fairly narrow, top‐down educational goals. This does not necessarily sit well with what we know about the unpredictability of “free choice” learning in environments such as zoos and aquariums, or what is known about public science communication. Research that seeks to explore the impacts of zoo visits often focuses on evaluating performance based on educational goals and the findings are used as a means of providing evidence of institutional achievement. However, any visitor outcome that falls outside of this narrow range could well be missed by the research. In this article, we propose that research that takes unpredictable and unexpected outcomes into account is necessary and overdue. Zoo Biol. 32:13‐18, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

What Can Zookeepers Tell Us About Interacting With Big Cats in Captivity?

Despite the potential dangers involved, interactions between zookeepers and captive big cats are increasing. Research with other animals, particularly nonhuman primates, suggests that closer interactions can be beneficial not only for the animals and their keepers, but also for zoo visitors. This study sought to determine whether the same benefits may apply to keeper‐big cat interactions. An online questionnaire was completed by 86 keepers worldwide, assessing which types of handling (hands‐on, protected, hands‐off) they practice with their big cats, whether they practice training, and what their opinions of these methods are (through a series of rating scales and open‐ended questions). Protected contact was the most frequently used handling method among this sample, particularly with lions, tigers, and cheetahs, and training was practiced by the majority of participants with all big cat species. Participants perceived protected contact as the most beneficial handling practice for big cats, keepers, and visitors, noting how it can allow a close bond between keeper and cat, as well as its educational value for zoo visitors. Contrastingly, concerns were raised about the use of hands‐on approaches, particularly with regard to the safety of all parties involved and the potential for wrong messages to be sent to visitors. Further, training was reported to be more beneficial for each group than any handling practice, yielding similar potential benefits as protected contact. Consistent with existing information with other species, these findings will be useful in directing objective research examining the use of different handling and training methods with big cats. Zoo Biol. 32:142–151, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Visitor Perceptions of Nature Conservation at Helsinki Zoo

These days zoos often claim that their main objective is the promotion of nature conservation and that they strive to educate their visitors about animals and nature conservation. But how do zoo visitors themselves perceive this emphasis on conservation education? In order to determine how Helsinki Zoo visitors perceive nature conservation during their visit, we undertook a qualitative analysis of 75 structured situational interviews and five autoethnographical visits. Our results show that there was only a limited understanding of nature conservation among the zoo visitors. Their perception follows the typical framing of nature conservation in zoos: conservation projects that embrace captive breeding, in-situ conservation collaboration, and the reintroduction of those species. Moreover, in the Helsinki Zoo case these perceptions may have been influenced by the fact that the zoo did not give concrete advice on how the visitors themselves can contribute to conservation, except in terms of donating money. Framing nature conservation in such ways distances it from visitors’ everyday lives.