Content uploaded by Martina Knezevic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martina Knezevic on Mar 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright © 2016 Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu – Institute for Social Research in Zagreb
Sva prava pridržana – All rights reserved 169
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
DOI 10.5673/sip.55.2.4
UDK 591.52:636.025(497.5Zagreb)
Stručni rad
Who is Visiting the Zagreb Zoo: Visitors’
Characteristics and Motivation
Martina Knežević
University of Zagreb, Croatian Studies, Psychology Department, Croatia
e-mail: martina.knezevich@gmail.com
Iva Žučko
Zoological Garden of Zagreb, Croatia
e-mail: iva@zoo.hr
Maša Ljuština
Zoological Garden of Zagreb, Croatia
e-mail: mljustenator@gmail.com
ABSTRACT In order to attract visitors despite a growing competition in entertainment
and recreation industry, the service quality in zoos needs to satisfy the ever increasing
demands and expectations of the modern visitor. The aim of this study was to examine
the socio-demographic characteristics of the Zagreb Zoo visitors, explore their motiva-
tion and satisfaction with offered services. A self-administered questionnaire was de-
signed, which included demographic data, frequency of visits, accompanying persons,
average spending, motivation and ratings of services and programs. The majority of
the Zagreb Zoo visitors were family groups who spend more money on tickets than
on gifts and souvenirs. As top motivators for their visit, participants listed children and
watching animals, while education was very low on the list. The Zoo staff, facilities
and entertainment programs were very highly rated. This was the first ever study of
the Zagreb Zoo visitors. These data can be used to help the Zagreb Zoo understand
the visitors’ demands and their perception of the zoo. They can also provide a basis
for actions to improve weaknesses and enhance the service quality, thereby increasing
the enjoyment of future visitors.
Key words: Zagreb Zoo, visitor studies, motivation, service quality, animal welfare.
Sociologija i prostor, 54 (2016) 205 (2): 169-184
170
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
1. Introduction
The Zagreb Zoo is situated in more than 200 years old Maksimir Park, almost in
the city centre. This makes it one of the city’s favourite places for relaxation and
entertainment. It was founded in 1925, and at first was situated on the Swan Island
with only 5 animals - 3 foxes and 2 owls (Milčec et al., 2012). Just one year after its
founding, due to numerous donations from wealthy city dwellers, the Zagreb Zoo
territory was expanded to land surface. Today, on 5.5 hectares of land surface (7
hectares together with the lake) visitors can see 338 species and around 6000 indi-
vidual animals from almost every continent – mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,
fishes and invertebrates (Zagreb Zoo records, 2014). When looking at the numbers
for the last 40 years, the Zagreb Zoo never had less than 215 000 visitors per year
(Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2014). Major data peaks (600 000 visitors per year) are
correlated with very important projects the Zagreb Zoo finished, like opening new
pavilions or exhibits. It seems that city dwellers and tourists followed the develop-
ment and progress of the Zagreb Zoo and were happy to give their support in form
of their visit.
Entertainment has traditionally been perceived as one of the primary roles of the
zoos. However, entertainment industry is constantly growing enabling individuals to
choose from various attraction, making it very hard for the zoos to provide compet-
ing and satisfactory experiences (Lee, 2015). People generally enjoy and appreciate
nature and wildlife in their day-to-day lives, and museums, zoos, aquariums and
other similar institutions, in addition to entertainment, now offer recreational and
educational opportunities to their visitors (Ballantyne, Packer and Hughes, 2008;
Kamolpattana et al., 2015; Kidd and Kidd, 1997; Ma et al., 2012; Marino et al., 2010;
Randler, Höllwarth and Schaal, 2007). In modern zoos there has been a shift in
emphasis from entertainment toward conservation of species under threat of extinc-
tion. They are promoted as places where visitors can learn about animals and how
to contribute to the survival of endangered species, but also as a place for social
interaction, relaxation or simple outdoor experience (Anderson, Kelling and Maple,
2008; Anderson et al., 2003; Yilmaz, Mumcu and Ozbilen, 2010). Who are modern
zoo visitors and what motivates them to spend their free time visiting animals in zoos?
Most zoo visitors studies have explored visitors’ motivation (Ballantyne et al., 2008;
Connell, 2004; Sickler and Fraser, 2009), behaviour (Anderson et al., 2008; Ander-
son, Maple and Bloomsmith, 2010; Hosey, 2000; McPhee et al., 1998; Yilmaz et al.,
2010), and attitudes (Ballantyne et al., 2008; Marino et al., 2010; Webber and Hill,
2014). They showed that zoos in general give people a chance to observe wildlife
that they may otherwise never see (Carr and Cohen, 2011; Randler et al., 2007). Visi-
tors believe zoos play an important role in conservation, animal care and education,
and that they experience a stronger connection to nature as a result of their visit
(Anderson et al., 2003; Carr and Cohen, 2011; Falk et al., 2007). During a three year
period, Falk et al. (2007) studied more than 5 500 visitors in 12 zoos and aquariums
using various quantitative and qualitative methods, like questionnaires, interviews
and tracking studies. They found that zoos and aquariums can enhance visitors’
knowledge and understandings of wildlife and conservation, as well as their con-
M. Knežević, I. Žučko, M. Ljuština: Who is Visiting the Zagreb Zoo...
171
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
nection to nature, prompting individuals to reconsider their role in environmental
problems and conservation actions. That is in line with the goal of the modern
naturalistic zoo exhibits to improve animal welfare standards through environmental
enrichment and naturalistic features in order to reduce their behavioural and physi-
ological problems, like stereotypic behaviours or obesity and nutrient deficiencies
(Anderson et al., 2008; Carr and Cohen, 2011; Marino et al., 2010).
Many people visit zoos to share experiences with their children, strengthen social
ties with family and friends, and even find psychological comfort by enjoying the
nature and interacting with animals (Lee, 2015; Sakagami and Ohta, 2010). Others
point out recreation and enjoyment as high motivators for their visit (Sickler and
Fraser, 2009). Lee (2015) conducted a survey at six public zoos in Korea, investigat-
ing the demands and satisfaction levels of zoo visitors. Convenience and safety in
observing animals were rated as very important, and children were a particularly
significant motivators for zoo visits. Animals’ welfare and information-seeking were
identified as the key determinants effecting overall satisfaction. Contrary to the origi-
nal image of zoos as primarily sites of entertainment, increasing interest in welfare
of the zoo animals pressure zoos to maintain high standards of service and provide
a variety of educational programs (Carr and Cohen, 2011; Lee, 2015).
Visitors also report appreciation of the aesthetic and rear qualities of plants, admira-
tion of gardens’ scenery and surroundings, as well as pleasure of being outdoors as
one of the key aspects of their enjoyment during zoo visitation (Ballantyne et al.,
2008). Spending time surrounded by nature provides peaceful and tranquil environ-
ment for leisure consumption. Research has shown that visiting zoos and parks gives
an opportunity to escape everyday life, with benefits for emotional, psychological,
and even spiritual values, enabling recreation in a quiet and enjoyable surroundings
(Connell, 2004). Several researchers have investigated the physical design of exhibits
(Cowan, Darwent and Riva, 1999; Jeggo, Young and Darwent, 2001; Jensen, 2007;
Kelling, Gaalema and Kelling, 2014; Yilmaz et al., 2010), and available services (Lee,
2015). For example, Jensen (2007) stressed the importance of the “hygiene” factors,
such as eating, parking and toilet facilities, because they can have a negative effect
on visitors’ overall perception and therefore satisfaction.
As a member of European and World Association of Zoos and Aquariums and in ac-
cordance with modern zoos around the world, the Zagreb Zoo takes special care in
designing and building new animal enclosures that resemble animals’ natural habi-
tat, conducts enrichment and other programs in order to achieve maximum animal
welfare (Hosey, Melfi and Pankhurst, 2009). It also organizes various educational
programs, some specialized for school groups, and others for everyday visitors, of-
fering information about the animals and the nature itself. Besides giving experience
to visitors through getting to know many wild animal species, the Zagreb Zoo has
more than 127 marked species of plants and very rich cultural and historical heritage
(Milčec et al., 2012). Through fostering an appreciation of biodiversity, it is becom-
ing an important venue for environmental education. As such, it has the potential
to promote the importance of plants and conservation, and to communicate the
significance of preserving not only endangered animal species, but also plants for
Sociologija i prostor, 54 (2016) 205 (2): 169-184
172
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
the future well-being of the planet (Ballantyne et al., 2008; Jordaan and du Plessis,
2011; Luebke et al., 2015).
In order to keep operating and to ensure economic viability, zoos need to attract
visitors. To be able to attract visitors despite the increasing competition in enter-
tainment and recreation industry, the service quality of the zoo needs to satisfy the
demands and expectation of the modern visitor. The aim of this study was to inves-
tigate socio-demographic characteristics of the Zagreb Zoo visitors and to explore
their motivation and attitudes towards the zoo, in order to obtain more information
regarding the demands and requirements for visitors’ satisfaction and to draw im-
plications for possible improvements. This information can be used for improving
existing exhibits and designing new ones more effectively, as well as visitor pro-
grams and facilities. It is up to the zoo exhibit designers to balance between the
welfare of the animals, zoo staff management requirements, and the needs of the
visitors (Hosey et al., 2009; Hosey, 2000). This is a very hard task, because the needs
and wishes of visitors are often not complementary with the needs of animals. The
results of this study will provide information for establishing strategies to improve
zoo experience and satisfaction and to enhance service quality, increasing thereby
enjoyment of future visitors.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
A total of 3052 visitors completed the questionnaire (64% females), ranging from 18
to 83 years of age (M = 36.32; SD = 10.72). The most common age group participat-
ing in the study were 25 – 39 year olds (56%), followed by 40 – 64 year olds (28%)
and 18 – 24 (14%), while only 2% were 65 or older. More details about participants
are outlined in the Results and discussion section.
2.2. Procedure
Trained research assistants were stationed at the main entrance, where they ap-
proached adult visitors aged 18 years and older. Only one volunteering adult per
group was asked to participate. They were informed that the Zagreb Zoo is conduct-
ing a research in order to better understand the visitors, and that the data will be
used to ensure the highest quality service. Also, it was highlighted that their partici-
pation in the study was completely voluntary, including the right to quit at any stage
if they did not feel comfortable continuing the process. If agreed, each participant
received a coded ticket with the time of entrance which they returned to the re-
searchers, marking the time of exit. Upon returning the coded thicket, participants
received the questionnaire which they completed before exiting. Each questionnaire
was coded with identification number in advance, thus ensuring the confidentiality
of the data. Data were collected in autumn, spring and summer of 2010 and 2011.
M. Knežević, I. Žučko, M. Ljuština: Who is Visiting the Zagreb Zoo...
173
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
During that time, we randomly selected one week every month, and collected data
every day during that week, including weekdays, weekends and holiday periods.
Each participant was rewarded with a poster of the one of the zoo animals upon
completion of the questionnaire.
2.3. The questionnaire
A self-administered questionnaire was designed for the purposes of this research, di-
vided into four sections: (1) demographic data, frequency of visits and accompany-
ing persons, (2) average spending (tickets, Zoo café, gifts and souvenirs, other) (3)
motivation, and (4) ratings of services and programs (scale 1 – lowest, 5 – highest,
0 – cannot evaluate). It also contained information about proposed changes for the
Zoo and the amount of time spent viewing the exhibit. Average time for the comple-
tion of the questionnaire was around 10 minutes.
2.4. Statistical analyses
We calculated frequencies, means, standard deviations, t-tests and ANOVAs for
group differences, with Bonferroni post-hoc test.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Demographic data, frequency of visits and average spending
Out of 3052 visitors who participated in this study, 47% reported having a high
school degree, 38% graduate and 14% undergraduate degree, while 1% had less than
high school degree. The majority of participants (64%) were Zagreb residents, with
27% from other parts of Croatia, and 9% from other countries. Given the large pro-
portion of participants from Zagreb, it is not surprising that only 12% were first time
visitors, and out of 88% of repeated visitors, 25% visits the Zoo several times a year.
Most participants came as a family group (72%), and 72% came with children. Par-
ticipants also came as couples (17%), friends (9%) or on their own (2%). They spent
approximately two hours (M = 114.87 minutes; SD = 42.81) on average in the Zoo.
Visitors spend most money on tickets (Table 1), and least on gifts and souvenirs, as
well as on other offerings in the Zoo, like buying ice-creams. Visitors with children
spend significantly more money in total, most on tickets, Zoo café and gifts and sou-
venirs, compared to visitors without children. There were no sex, but we found age
differences in spending. In Zoo café, 18 - 24 year olds spend less money than 25 - 39
(p < .01) and 40 - 64 (p < .01) year olds, which was also reflected in total amount of
spent money, showing that 18 - 24 year olds spend less money in total than 25 - 39
(p < .05) and 40 - 64 (p < .01) year olds. Visitors aged 64 or more did not differ in
average spending in Zoo café from other age groups (p > .05).
Sociologija i prostor, 54 (2016) 205 (2): 169-184
174
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
Table 1.
Average spending on various Zoo facilities during the visit.
All visitors
N = 3052
M (SD)
With children
N = 2183
M (SD)
a
Without children
N = 869
M (SD)
b tab df
Tickets
Zoo café
Gifts and souvenirs
Other
Total
64.75 (46.02)
18.36 (30.52)
7.54 (31.76)
6.02 (24.51)
96.42 (79.56)
67.35 (47.86)
20.26 (31.99)
8.83 (35.71)
6.54 (23.48)
102.62 (84.12)
58.22 (40.33)
13.59 (25.87)
4.32 (18.05)
4.72 (26.88)
80.84 (64.21)
4.96*
5.48*
3.55*
1.84
6.87*
3044
3046
3045
3046
3050
Males
N = 1096
M (SD)
Females
N = 1951
M (SD) t df
Tickets
Zoo café
Gifts and souvenirs
Other
Total
64.42 (41.63)
19.20 (32.95)
7.67 (36.28)
5.77 (25.78)
96.71 (84.48)
64.91 (48.34)
17.92 (29.09)
7.49 (28.95)
6.15 (23.76)
96.32 (76.74)
.28
1.11
.16
.41
.13
3040
3042
3041
3042
3045
age 18 – 24
N = 422
M (SD)
age 25 - 39
N = 1702
M (SD)
age 40 - 64
N = 837
M (SD)
age 64 >
N = 68
M (SD) F df
Tickets
Zoo café
Gifts and souvenirs
Other
Total
61.37 (71.01)
12.41 (32.31)
7.71 (63.25)
3.81 (12.15)
85.06 (128.75)
65.02 (39.05)
19.51 (30.19)
6.98 (21.37)
6.88 (29.63)
98.24 (68.23)
66.28 (43.88)
19.00 (30.23)
8.37 (25.18)
5.67 (17.71)
98.96 (68.68)
54.81 (33.12)
18.30 (25.21)
9.25 (32.14)
2.73 (8.36)
83.40 (62.49)
2.13
6.31*
.43
2.29
4.06*
3,3019
3,3021
3,3020
3,3021
3,3025
Note: values are in Croatian kunas; *p < .01.
The profile of the Zagreb Zoo visitors is similar to visitors from other zoological
gardens (Lee, 2014; Randler et al., 2007), showing that zoo visitors are likely to be
highly educated mid adults, married with children, who come in family groups.
There are several ways in which the Zoo could attract more tourists. Zoo gardens are
attractive to many people, not just those with a specific interest of seeing animals,
but also those who are looking for a pleasant day out or a way to spend time with
the loved ones. The Zagreb Zoo offers all this and more, and should be presented
as such, for example in stronger cooperation with Zagreb Tourist Board or other
marketing and tourism organizations. Evidence from a number of major European
cities suggest that individual zoos, like Berlin Zoo or Rotterdam Zoo, are indeed
major urban attractions (Catibog-Sinha, 2008; Ryan and Saward, 2010). Therefore,
strengthening collaboration with different tourist agencies could help in establishing
the Zagreb Zoo as a tourist attraction brand. Regarding marketing strategies, age is a
significant factor to consider. Connell (2004) found that visitors between 40 and 60
years of age are more likely than other age groups to be motivated to visit the gar-
M. Knežević, I. Žučko, M. Ljuština: Who is Visiting the Zagreb Zoo...
175
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
den by a leaflet or a flyer, those between 18 and 39 are more likely to use web sites,
while those over 60 are more likely to make use of word-of-mouth. The Zagreb
Zoo should take this into consideration while choosing how to present its offers.
Broadening marketing strategies to social media, e.g. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn,
could help in reaching younger generations prone to using technology in everyday
life, making information about the Zagreb Zoo activities more available and possible
increase the frequency of their visits.
Attracting elderly population may be another factor to consider. The Zagreb Zoo is
very suitable for those seeking a relaxed and peaceful environment, and research
shows this is one of the highest motivators for elderly visitors (Ballantyne et al.,
2008; Dzhambov and Dimitrova, 2014; Jensen, 2007.; Lee, 2015). Therefore, visita-
tions could be encouraged by highlighting peaceful and relaxing aspects of the
zoo, with activities like music concerts, art and craft lessons etc., while first-time el-
derly visitors may appreciate more discovery activities like themed quizzes, maps or
guided walks. Season tickets or loyalty programs through which visitors could gain
reward points for frequent visitations during the season could warrant their return.
The fact that visitors spend least amount of money on gifts and souvenirs can be
changed with changes in offer or souvenir shop improvements. For example, it
seems that orienting the main offer towards families with children is the way to go.
Since visitors rarely come on their own, activities that encourage and enhance social
interaction, e.g. jigsaw puzzles shaped like specific animal or animal playing cards,
may be effective for all age groups and extend the popularity of the Zoo souvenir
shop. It could also offer practical items for the visit, such as rainwear, sunglasses or
sunscreen, as well as toys, puzzles, games, unique gifts and souvenirs depicting the
Zoo. All this should be presented in spacious and colourful shop, ensuring com-
fortable browsing and shopping of the offered items. Considering that the souvenir
shop is currently located in a very small, confined space, before any changes in the
offer, increasing and modernizing the space of the shop should be a top priority.
Research shows that shopping satisfaction is not derived only from acquiring goods,
but shopping environment itself becomes a part of the shopper’s experience influ-
encing subsequent shopping behaviours (Yüksel, 2007).
3.2. Identifying motivation for zoo visit
Motivation is usually defined as an internal state that activates, directs and maintains
one’s behaviour (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Zoo visitors are not a homogenous group,
and their motives for visit can range from recreation to education or social interaction
with friends and family. A number of studies revealed that children accounted for a
very large proportion of zoo visitors (Mason, 2000; Wagoner and Jensen, 2010). Oth-
ers have categorized the zoo mainly as a place of relaxation and personal enjoyment
(Car and Cohen, 2011). Jordaan and du Plessis (2014) showed that some people visit
the zoo in order to have a self-directed zoo experience (e.g., relaxation, recreation),
while other visit the zoo to promote the welfare of others (e.g., family together-
ness). Motivational research broadly distinguishes between two types of motivation:
Sociologija i prostor, 54 (2016) 205 (2): 169-184
176
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
(1) intrinsic, which refers to doing something because it is inwardly rewarding or
enjoyable, and (2) extrinsic, which refers to doing something that results in external
(outside of the individual) rewards (Ryan and Deci, 2000). What motivates the Zagreb
Zoo visitors? In order to answer this questions, we asked visitors to write down what
motivated them to come to the Zagreb Zoo. Their answers are shown in Figure 1.
Most of the Zagreb Zoo visitors listed animals, zoo and children as their motivation.
Others listed several motivators for their visit, including children, watching animals,
enjoying nature and spending quality time. According to the motivators that the Zagreb
Zoo visitors listed, they can be classified as primarily intrinsic (doing an activity for its
inherent satisfaction), and our results are in line with most contemporary zoo visitor
research (Jordaan and du Plessis, 2014; Ballantyne et al., 2008; Falk, Heimlich, and
Bronnenkant, 2010). Studies have shown that people are more likely to continue with
their behaviour and invest more time in it if they are intrinsically motivated (Morgan
and Hodgkinson, 1999; Falk, et al., 2010) and thus such activities should be promoted.
Figure 1.
Frequency of visitors answers to the question “What motivated you to come and see the animals in the
Zagreb Zoo?”
The fact that many visitors are accompanied by children suggests that topics and
activities that encourage family sharing and conversations are likely to be attractive.
For example, seeing animals up close, perhaps in walk-through enclosures, and
talking to their caretakers, setting up corners with sketch books and crayons for ob-
serving animals and sketching the observation, organizing birthday parties or wee-
kend workshops in the zoo, is something that any member of the family could enjoy
(Anderson et al., 2003; Ballantyne et al., 2008; Connell, 2004; Davey, 2007). These
activities could increase the popularity of the zoo among families with children, but
also ensure their return. The Zagreb Zoo has some entertainment programs, like
birthday parties or eco academy program, mostly during weekends or in connection
to celebrating important nature conservation dates (Milčec et al., 2012). Advertising
and promotion of these family sharing activities should be upgraded and enhanced
so the visitors become aware of what is offered in the Zagreb Zoo.
M. Knežević, I. Žučko, M. Ljuština: Who is Visiting the Zagreb Zoo...
177
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
Interestingly, only 5% listed education as one of the motivators for visiting the
Zoo. In this respect, the Zagreb Zoo visitors are similar to botanic gardens visitors
(Ballantyne et al., 2008; Connell, 2004) and other modern-day zoo and aquarium
visitors (Jordaan and du Plessis, 2011; Ryan and Saward, 2010), determining zoos
as primarily places of family-oriented trips, and emphasizing enjoyment in animals,
nature, and spending quality time with children, friends and family, rather than
learning. Even though education is not very high on the list of motivators for visiting
the Zagreb Zoo, modern zoos should be places where visitors learn about animals
and should demonstrate how an individual can contribute to the survival of endan-
gered species (Carr and Cohen, 2011; Lee, 2015). If the Zagreb Zoo is to introduce
more educational activities, they need to give careful consideration to how these
are planned and promoted. Since activities with a strong educational emphasis are
unlikely to appeal, preparing visitors for learning experience by, for example, using
inspirational panels or pamphlets to prompt their interest in conservation and ani-
mal care or giving suggestions how to “get the most” out of their visit may prompt
spontaneous, accidental learning and increase interest for learning more about both
individual animals and/or species (McGregor and Gribble, 2015; Thwaites, 2014).
Hands on sessions that make connections between visitors and animals, such as
holding, petting or feeding, are also likely to be popular, enabling each visitor to
form emotional connection with a specific animal and evoke concern about the
importance of protecting wildlife (Wagner et al., 2009). It should also be tested if
conservation oriented education conducted by zoo staff increases knowledge and
understanding or change in behaviour of visitors in any way that would benefit spe-
cies conservation or conservation of nature in general.
Since not everyone can be intrinsically motivated for any particular activity (Ryan
and Deci, 2000) whether for doing it for the first time or repeating the activity, intro-
ducing extrinsic motivators as additional element could make a successful marketing
strategy. Classic examples of very successful extrinsic motivators are rewards. When
used well, they can even enhance intrinsic motivation (Cameron, Banko and Pierce,
2001). For example, zoos could offer gift certificates or credits for future participa-
tion in educational or entertainment programs. In this way, the zoo could promote
those activities in which visitors are not engaged at all or are engaged to a small pro-
portion. Such external motivators could help leveraging motivation toward repeated
visit, however one should be careful since offering excessive rewards can actually
lead to a decrease in intrinsic motivation (Cameron, et al., 2001).
3.3. Ratings of Zoo facilities and programs
Visitors rated the Zagreb Zoo facilities with high grades (Table 2). They gave the
highest rates for “the keeper’s talk” program, informative panels and friendliness of
the staff, and lowest for the number of animal species and services of the Zoo café.
Unfortunately, because of the small size of the Zagreb Zoo, number of animals is
not easy to change. This also emphasizes the importance of education on animal
welfare, which is closely linked to number of animals that can be held in good con-
ditions in the zoo (Davey, 2007; Hosey, 2000; Randler et al., 2007).
Sociologija i prostor, 54 (2016) 205 (2): 169-184
178
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
Table 2.
Average ratings of Zoo facilities and programs
All visitors
M (SD)
Zoo facilities
Friendliness of the staff
Services of the Zoo café
Appearance of animal enclosures
Number of animal species
Signs/directions
Informative panels
Zoo programs
Lake boat-ride (N = 175)
Photo-safari (N = 140)
Keeper’s talk (N = 363)
4.41 (.92)
3.98 (1.03)
4.03 (.88)
3.82 (.90)
4.34 (.95)
4.56 (.76)
4.45 (.99)
4.39 (1.01)
4.59 (.82)
Two questions from the questionnaire were asked in order to assess overall satisfac-
tion with the Zagreb Zoo: “Is there something you would change in Zagreb Zoo?”
and “Would you recommend visiting Zagreb Zoo”. Visitors’ answers are presented
in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Percentage of participants who would (not) recommend some changes/visit to the Zagreb Zoo.
Out of visitors who suggested changes in the Zoo, 25% did not know quite what
would they change, and 7% where undecided. Interestingly, only one visitor sug-
gested expanding offers in the Zoo shop.
What could change is the fact that only a small proportion of visitors used available
programs: 6% lake boat-ride, 5% photo-safari, 12% keeper’s talk, but rated them with
high grades. Out of these, 70% of lake boat-ride, 64% of photo-safari and 77% of
M. Knežević, I. Žučko, M. Ljuština: Who is Visiting the Zagreb Zoo...
179
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
keeper’s talk consumers were visitors with children. Zoo staff could promote their
programs more and try to engage more visitors in them. For example, some zoos
produce printed leaflets, guidebooks, maps and brochures to inform visitors about
the species on show, but also to promote ongoing events, shopping possibilities or
programs (Anderson et al., 2010; Luebke et al., 2015; Sickler and Fraser, 2009). They
could also try to investigate why visitors do not engage in certain programs in order
to develop best approaches consistent with actual visitors’ needs. For example, Carr
and Cohen (2011) investigated the contents of websites of 54 zoos throughout the
world in order to assess the general public image that they are currently portraying.
They showed that in order to respond to the market demands, zoos nowadays offer
entertainment opportunities beyond simply coming and seeing the animals (Carr
and Cohen, 2011). Besides involving more visitors in available programs, zoo staff
could also try to change amount of time spent in the zoo, which is less than two
hours, and for that purpose, visitors’ answers to the question where they stopped
and spent most of their time in the Zagreb Zoo could be used. For example, since
majority stopped to spend some time watching sea lion feeding, this could mean
that more public feedings could be of interest and prolong their stay in the zoo.
Also, since many say that they spent more time watching African lions, monkeys
and apes, providing environmental enrichment in their exhibits and making animals
more active could have the same effect. Especially since some studies showed that
visitor interest is generally greater when animals are active (Margulis, Hoyos, and
Anderson, 2003) and enriched exhibits influence activity of animals (Hosey et al.,
2009).
One third (33%) of the visitors that would change something in the zoo would
like zoo to acquire new animals. As mentioned before, it is not always possible to
acquire new animals, especially since it is to some extent in collision with 20% of
visitors who suggest improvement of animal housing. Zoo visitors clearly identify
that some animals need better and bigger enclosures (such as large carnivores, es-
pecially bears and cats). On the other hand, most of the animals that people want
the zoo to acquire are the animals that need large, spacious exhibits (such as el-
ephants or giraffe). Modern public zoos have made substantial efforts to move from
old-fashioned barred cages, and improve animal housing through more naturalistic
exhibits. Since dissatisfaction with the animal housing is strongly associated with a
reason for not visiting zoos (Lee, 2015), it seems that further efforts should be made
to educate visitors of the limits in acquiring some of the wanted animals. A number
of studies have shown that zoo environment influences visitors’ perception of the
animals (Finlay, James and Maple, 1988; Hosey, 2000; McPhee et al., 1998; Reade
and Waran, 1996; Webber and Hill, 2014; Yilmaz et al., 2010).
This is the first ever study of the Zagreb Zoo visitors. It provided some interesting
and so far not known insights into the motives and interests of a large sample of
visitors, which can be used to help the Zagreb Zoo to understand visitors’ demands
and their perception of the zoo services and performance. It can also provide a basis
for actions to improve the weaknesses and enhance the strengths for better service
quality. Using some advanced analysis techniques in zoo visitor studies could help
provide greater insights into visitor needs and for managerial decision-making.
Sociologija i prostor, 54 (2016) 205 (2): 169-184
180
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
One of the limitations of this study is the generalization of the results, since this re-
search was undertaken during a defined short-time period, avoiding special events
and celebrations in the Zagreb Zoo. For that reason, the results may not be general-
ized across a wide range of zoos, but the data can be used as a complement infor-
mation about visitors’ characteristics and demands, as a source for benchmarking
and comparison, as well as organizational considerations about how to enhance
visitors’ satisfaction.
4. Conclusion
To attract visitors, modern zoos must be both entertaining and educational, without
jeopardizing the animals’ welfare. Investigating visitors’ demographics, motivation
and satisfaction, this study found that the majority of the Zagreb Zoo visitors are
family groups, specifically parents with children, who spend more money on tickets,
than on gifts and souvenirs. As top motivators for their visit, participants listed view-
ing animals, visiting the zoo as a whole, and their children, while education was
very low on the list. Zoo staff, facilities and entertainment programs were rated with
very high grades. It seems that expectations of the Zagreb Zoo visitors are more ori-
ented on entertainment and family bonding than education. Therefore, the Zagreb
Zoo needs to continue its role as a place for recreation and family bonding, but also
to focus attention to more diverse educational programs that will suit the needs and
requirements of the visitors, and most importantly, invest more in marketing strate-
gies. Further research is required in order to, for example, measure the impact of the
zoo experience on visitors’ conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviours or to
understand how and what visitors learn during their visitations.
References
1. Anderson, U. S.; Kelling, A. S. and Maple, T. L. (2008). Twenty-five years of
Zoo Biology: a publication analysis. Zoo Biology, 27 (6): 444-457. Doi: 10.1002/
zoo.20177.
2. Anderson, U. S.; Kelling, A. S.; Pressley-Keough, R.; Bloomsmith, M. A.; Maple,
T. L. (2003). Enhancing the zoo visitor’s experience by public animal training
and oral interpretation at an otter exhibit. Environment and Behavior, 35 (6):
826-841. Doi: 10.1177/0013916503254746.
3. Anderson, U. S.; Maple, T. L. and Bloomsmith, M. A. (2010). Factors facilitating
research: a survey of zoo and aquarium professionals. Zoo Biology, 29 (6): 663-
675. Doi: 10.1002/zoo.20306.
4. Ballantyne, R.; Packer, J. and Hughes, K. (2008). Environmental awareness, in-
terests and motives of botanic gardens visitors: Implications for interpretive prac-
tice. Tourism Management, 29 (3): 439-444. Doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.006.
5. Carr, N. and Cohen, S. (2011). The Public Face of Zoos: Images of Entertain-
ment, Education and Conservation. Anthrozoos, 24 (2): 175-189. Doi: 10.2752/1
75303711X12998632257620.
M. Knežević, I. Žučko, M. Ljuština: Who is Visiting the Zagreb Zoo...
181
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
6. Cameron, J.; Banko, K. M. and Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects
of rewards on intrinsic motivation: the myth continues. The Behavior Analyst,
24 (1): 1-44.
7. Catibog-Sinha, C. (2008). Zoo Tourism: Biodiversity Conservation Through
Tourism. Journal of Ecotourism, 7 (2&3): 155-173. Doi: 10.2167/joe-0229.0.
8. Connell, J. (2004). The purest of human pleasures: the characteristics and mo-
tivations of garden visitors in Great Britain. Tourism Management, 25 (2): 229-
247. Doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.021.
9. Cowan, K., Darwent, M. and Riva, C. (1999). The design of first impressions, a
new multi-species enclosure at Jersey Zoo. Dodo, 35: 8-25.
10. Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2014). Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croa-
tia 2014. Zagreb: Croatian Bureau of Statistics.
11. Davey, G. (2007). Visitors’ effects on the welfare of animals in the zoo: a re-
view. Journal of Applied Animal Wealfare Science, 10 (2): 169-183. Doi:
10.1080/10888700701313595.
12. Dzhambov, A. M. and Dimitrova, D. D. (2014). Elderly visitors of an urban park,
health anxiety and individual awareness of nature experiences. Urban Forestry
& Urban Greening, 13 (4): 806-813. Doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.05.006.
13. Falk, J. H.; Heimlich, J. and Bronnenkant, K. (2010) Using identity-related visit
motivations as a tool for understanding adult zoo and aquarium visitor’s mean-
ing-making. Curator: The Museum Journal, 51 (1): 55-79. Doi: 10.1111/j.2151-
6952.2008.tb00294.x.
14. Falk, J. H.; Reinhard, E. M.; Vernon, C. L.; Bronnenkant, K.; Deans, N. L.; Heim-
lich, J. E. (2007). Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit.
Association of Zoos & Aquariums. Silver Spring, MD.
15. Finlay, T.; James, L. R. and Maple, T. L. (1988). Peoples Perceptions of Animals -
the Influence of Zoo Environment. Environment and Behavior, 20 (4): 508-528.
Doi: 10.1177/0013916588204008.
16. Hosey, G.; Melfi, V. and Pankhurst, S. (2009). Zoo Animals: Behaviour, Manage-
ment, and Welfare (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Hosey, G. R. (2000). Zoo animals and their human audiences: What is the visitor
effect? Animal Welfare, 9 (4): 343-357.
18. Jeggo, D.; Young, H. G. and Darwent, M. (2001). The design and construction
of the Madagascar teal aviary at Jersey Zoo. Dodo, 37: 50-59.
19. Jensen, J. M. (2007). An empirical investigation of the relationships be-
tween hygiene factors, motivators, satisfaction, and response among visi-
tors to zoos and aquaria. Tourism Review International, 11 (3): 307-316. Doi:
10.3727/154427207783948784.
20. Jordaan, Y. and du Plessis, G. M. (2011). Motivators to visit the National Zoologi-
cal Gardens of South Africa. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure,
3 (1): 1-15.
21. Kamolpattana, S.; Chen, G.; Sonchaeng, P.; Wilkinson, C.; Willey, N.; Bultitude,
K. (2015). Thai visitors’ expectations and experiences of explainer interaction
within a science museum context. Public Understanding of Science, 24 (1): 69-
85. Doi: 10.1177/0963662514525560.
Sociologija i prostor, 54 (2016) 205 (2): 169-184
182
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
22. Kelling, N. J.; Gaalema, D. E. and Kelling, A. S. (2014). A Modified Operational
Sequence Methodology for Zoo Exhibit Design and Renovation: Conceptual-
izing Animals, Staff, and Visitors as Interdependent Coworkers. Zoo Biology, 33
(4): 336-348. Doi: 10.1002/zoo.21134.
23. Kidd, A. H. and Kidd, R. M. (1997). Aquarium visitors’ perceptions and attitudes
toward the importance of marine biodiversity. Psychological Reports, 81 (3):
1083-1088. Doi: 10.2466/pr0.1997.81.3f.1083.
24. Lee, H. S. (2015). Measurement of visitors’ satisfaction with public zoos in Ko-
rea using importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management, 47: 251-260.
Doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.006.
25. Luebke, J. F.; Clayton, S.; Kelly, L. A.; Grajal, A. (2015). Global climate change
attitudes and perceptions among south American zoo visitors. Zoo Biology, 34
(4): 385-393. Doi: 10.1002/zoo.21224.
26. Ma, J.; Liao, I.; Kwan-Liu, M.; Frazier, J. (2012). Living Liquid: Design and Evalu-
ation of an Exploratory Visualization Tool for Museum Visitors. IEEE Trans-
actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18 (12): 2799-2808. Doi:
10.1109/TVCG.2012.244.
27. Margulis, S. W.; Hoyos, C. and Anderson, M. (2003). Effect of felid activity on
zoo visitor interest. Zoo Biology, 22 (6): 587-599. Doi: 10.1002/zoo.10115.
28. Marino, L.; Lilienfeld, S. O.; Malamud, R.; Nobis, N.; Broglio, R. (2010). Do Zoos
and Aquariums Promote Attitude Change in Visitors? A Critical Evaluation of the
American Zoo and Aquarium Study. Society & Animals, 18 (2): 126-138. Doi:
10.1163/156853010X491980.
29. Mason, P. (2000) Zoo Tourism: The Need for More Research. Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism, 8 (4): 333-339. Doi: 10.1080/09669580008667368.
30. McGregor, H. R. and Gribble, P. L. (2015). Changes in visual and sensory-motor
resting-state functional connectivity support motor learning by observing. Jour-
nal of Neurophysiology, 114 (1): 677-688. Doi: 10.1152/jn.00286.2015.
31. McPhee, M. E.; Foster, J. S.; Sevenich, M.; Saunders, C. D. (1998). Public percep-
tions of behavioral enrichment: Assumptions gone awry. Zoo Biology, 17 (6):
525-534. Doi: 10.1002/(Sici)1098-2361(1998)17:6<525::Aid-Zoo6>3.0.Co;2-W.
32. Milčec, M.; Filipović, M.; Vitez, G.; Kušan, I.; Hitrec, H.; Pavličić, P.; Maljković,
D. (2012). Divlja djeca Maksimira: knjiga o zagrebačkome Zoološkom vrtu. Za-
greb: Ustanova Zoološki vrt grada Zagreba.
33. Morgan, J. M. and Hodgkinson, M. (1999) The motivation and social orientation
of visitors attending a contemporary zoological park. Environment and Behav-
ior, 31 (2): 227-239. Doi: 10.1177/00139169921972074.
34. Randler, C.; Höllwarth, A. and Schaal, S. (2007). Urban Park Visitors and
Their Knowledge of Animal Species. Anthrozoos, 20 (1): 65-75. Doi:
10.2752/089279307780216696.
35. Reade, L. S. and Waran, N. K. (1996). The modern zoo: How do people per-
ceive zoo animals? Applied animal behaviour science, 47 (1-2): 109-118. Doi:
10.1016/0168-1591(95)01014-9.
36. Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitiions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25: 54-
67. Doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
M. Knežević, I. Žučko, M. Ljuština: Who is Visiting the Zagreb Zoo...
183
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
37. Ryan, C. and Saward, J. (2010). The Zoo as Ecotourism Attraction – Visitor
Reactions, Perceptions and Management Implications: The Case of Hamil-
ton Zoo, New Zealand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12 (3): 245-266. Doi:
10.1080/09669580408667236.
38. Sakagami, T. and Ohta, M. (2010). The effect of visiting zoos on human health
and quality of life. Animal Science Journal, 81 (1): 129-134. Doi: 10.1111/j.1740-
0929.2009.00714.x.
39. Sickler, J. and Fraser, J. (2009). Enjoyment in zoos. Leisure Studies, 28 (3): 313-
331. Doi: 10.1080/02614360903046649.
40. Thwaites, P. (2014). Maximizing learning from written output. ELT Journal, 68
(2): 135-144. Doi: 10.1093/elt/cct098.
41. Wagner, K.; Chessler, M.; York, P.; Raynor, J. (2009). Development and Imple-
mentation of an Evaluation Strategy for Measuring Conservation Outcomes. Zoo
Biology, 28 (5): 473-487. Doi: 10.1002/zoo.20270.
42. Wagoner, B. and Jensen, E. (2010). Science learning at the Zoo: evaluating chil-
dren’s developing understanding of animals and their habitats. Psychology and
society, 3 (1): 65-76.
43. Webber, A. D., and Hill, C. M. (2014). Using Participatory Risk Mapping (PRM)
to Identify and Understand People’s Perceptions of Crop Loss to Animals in
Uganda. Plos One, 9 (7): e102912. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102912.
44. Yilmaz, S.; Mumcu, S. and Ozbilen, A. (2010). Effects of spatial differences on
visitor perceptions at zoo exhibits. Scientific Research and Essays, 5 (16): 2327-
2340.
45. Yüksel, A. (2007.). Tourist shopping habitat: Effects of emotions, shopping
value and behvaiors. Tourism Management, 28 (1): 58-69. Doi: 10.1016/j.tour-
man.2005.07.017.
46. Zagreb Zoo records (2014). Inventory list of species for 2014 by Zoological Infor-
mation Management System. Zagreb: Zoological Garden of Zagreb.
Sociologija i prostor, 54 (2016) 205 (2): 169-184
184
S o c i o l o g i j a i p r o s t o r
Stručni rad
Martina Knežević
Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Hrvatski studiji, Odjel za psihologiju, Hrvatska
e-mail: martina.knezevich@gmail.com
Iva Žučko
Zoološki vrt grada Zagreba, Hrvatska
e-mail: iva@zoo.hr
Maša Ljuština
Zoološki vrt grada Zagreba, Hrvatska
e-mail: mljustenator@gmail.com
Tko su posjetitelji zagrebačkog Zoološkog vrta: karakteristike i motivacija
posjetitelja
Sažetak
Kako bi mogli privući posjetitelje unatoč sve većoj konkurenciji u industriji zabave i rekre-
acije, kvaliteta usluga zooloških vrtova mora zadovoljiti zahtjeve i očekivanja suvremenog
posjetitelja. Cilj ovog istraživanja bio je ispitati sociodemografske karakteristike posjetitelja Zo-
ološkog vrta grada Zagreba te istražiti njihovu motivaciju i zadovoljstvo ponuđenim uslugama.
Za potrebe istraživanja izrađen je upitnik koji je uključivao demografske podatke, učestalost
posjeta, osobe u pratnji, prosječnu potrošnju, motivaciju i ocjene usluga i programa. Većina
posjetitelja zagrebačkog zoološkog vrta obiteljske su grupe, koje troše više novca na ulaznice
nego na poklone i suvenire. Sudionici su naveli djecu i promatranje životinja kao najvažnije
motivatore za posjet, dok je edukacija vrlo rijetko na popisu. Osoblje zoološkog vrta kao i
postojeći zabavni programi ocjenjeni su vrlo visokim ocjenama, iako su zabavni programi
rijetko posjećeni. Ovo je prvo ikad provedeno istraživanje posjetitelja Zoološkog vrta grada
Zagreba, u kojem su uz dosad nepoznate informacije o posjetiteljima, ponuđene i mogućnosti
za poboljšanje ponude s obzirom na iskazane interese i u skladu s praksom drugih zooloških
vrtova. Podaci se mogu iskoristiti za razumijevanje potreba posjetitelja te njihove trenutne
percepcije zoološkog vrta, a mogu poslužiti i kao osnova za poboljšanje kvalitete usluga, što
će u konačnici povećati broj posjetitelja kao i njihovo zadovoljstvo.
Ključne riječi: Zoološki vrt grada Zagreba, istraživanje posjetitelja, motivacija, kvaliteta usluge,
dobrobit životinja.
