Conservation education in zoos: a literature review

Article (PDF Available) · November 2017with 1,722 Reads 
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
DOI: 10.23984/fjhas.66540
Cite this publication
Abstract
Zoos nowadays often claim that their main objective is nature conservation and that they strive to educate the visitors on this subject. A considerable amount of research has been undertaken on conservation education in zoos. This overview performs a qualitative meta-analysis of the methodology, concepts and results of research articles on zoo visitors, particularly regarding learning, education and conservation. Our main finding is that most of the research uses quantitative methodologies and the qualitative, lived experiences of zoo visits remain under-researched. Based on the articles analyzed, “nature conservation” (the substance of conservation education in zoos) becomes implicitly defined as captive breeding and far-off conservation projects, distancing the visitors and their daily lives from nature and issues of conservation.
Figures - uploaded by Nina Viktoria Nygren
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nina Viktoria Nygren
Content may be subject to copyright.
No caption available
… 
Conservation education in
zoos – a literature review
(Gusset & Dick 2011). Zoos organize
themselves into networks for coopera-
tion, research, certification, monitoring
and development purposes; these net-
works include the Association of Zoos &
Aquariums (AZA), the European Associa-
tion of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) and the
World Association of Zoos and Aquari-
ums (WAZA). In Europe, the mission of
EAZA is to facilitate cooperation within
the European zoo and aquarium com-
munity towards the goals of education,
research and conservation (www.eaza.
net). In fact, zoos are better conceptu-
alized as a network that circulates and
governs animals and information about
animals (Braverman 2013; 2015).
Zoos have undergone a tran-
sition over the past 40 years, moving
the focus from entertainment to con-
servation-based education (Roe et al
2014; Wijeratne ym. 2014; Bayma 2012;
1 Introduction
Zoos have a very long history: keeping
wild and/or exotic animals captive was al-
ready known in ancient Greek and Roman
times (e.g. Barantay and Hardouin-Fugier
2003; Kisling 2000; Miller 2013). Zoos and
aquaria differ from place to place, but in
general zoos can be understood as areas
designed for the public viewing of animals
(Anderson 1995; 1998). Viewing animals
is usually the main reason for the zoo visit
(Roe & McConney 2015, 879). Thus zoos
can be seen as choreographed and con-
structed places for controlled interaction
between human and non-human animals,
guiding the interaction between the vis-
itors and the captive animals in many
concrete, subtle and practical ways (e.g.
Braverman 2011).
In many of today’s cities, large
areas of land have been designated for
zoos, and annually more than 700 million
people visit zoos and aquaria worldwide
NiNa V. NygreN
Faculty of Management,
University of Tampere
SaNNa Ojalammi
The Nordic Africa Institute /
Research Cooperative Tapaus
trace fiNNiSh jOurNal fOr humaN-aNimal StudieS VOl 4. (2018)
OVerViewS
75
not paginated
nygren & ojalammi
Fernandez et al. 2009) to ask if seeing ani-
mals in the flesh contributes to the visitors
becoming more “conservation minded”.
2 Empirical Zoo visitor research and
environmental education
In this review, we look at how the alleged
conservation education in zoos has been
studied in empirical zoo visitor studies.
We have undertaken a qualitative me-
ta-analysis (Zimmer 2006; Evans 2008;
Walsh & Downe 2004) of the empirical
articles on zoo visitors and environmental
education, with a focus on methodology
and the nature of “nature conservation”.
We searched for empirical visitor research
particularly on learning, education and
conservation, and chose 31 articles for
Ballantyne ym. 2007; Patrick et al. 2007)
and this shift is still ongoing. The former
legitimation of zoos as places for view-
ing exotic animals has been increasingly
challenged, and new legitimation claims,
those of education and the conservation
of endangered animals, have been intro-
duced. (Bayma 2012; Beardsworth & Bry-
man 2001, 89; Fennell 2013). These two
are combined in the claim that zoos edu-
cate their visitors on conservation by ex-
hibiting live animals – zoos act not only as
reservoirs of endangered animals but they
also claim to make visitors more “conser-
vation-minded” after their zoo experience
(Fennell 2015; Fernandez et al 2009).
Thus, it is fundamental to the ethics of
keeping animals in zoos (Wijeratne et. al.
2014; Moss & Esson 2013; Fennell 2012;
New signs from the WAZA campaign Biodiversity is us”. Helsinki zoo, April 2016.
trace 2018
early view
standing and knowledge of actions to
help protect biodiversity had increased
as a result of zoo and aquaria visits (Moss
et al. 2014a). But establishing the leap to
conservation action (behaviour change)
is challenging (Moss et al. 2014a) and
the connection is not simple and linear
(Spannring 2017, 68).
Many have tried to measure the
change that environmental education
in zoos attempts to make. Interestingly
most of these studies use different names
for the change they are trying to meas-
ure: e.g. “pro-environment sentiment”
(Powell & Bullock 2014), “conservation
ethos” (Catibog-Sinha 2008), “conserva-
tion intentions” (Smith & Sutton 2008;
Miller et al. 2013), “conservation minded-
ness” (Powell & Bullock 2014), “conserva-
tion caring” (Skibins & Powell 2013, 530),
“conservation attitudes and behaviour”
(Ballantyne et al. 2007), “environmen-
tal intentions” (Jacobs & Harms 2014)
and “biodiversity literacy” (Moss, Jensen
& Gusset 2014) were mentioned. These
concepts do not necessarily mean the
same thing and there doesn’t seem to
be a consensus on which concept to use.
Jacobs and Harms (2014) provide a slight-
ly broader interpretation (as compared
to many other authors) incorporating
the different, related concepts, and not-
ing that “values, attitudes, knowledge,
norms, awareness of consequences,
feelings of responsibility, and affect and
emotion” are “psychological antecedents
the analysis (see Tabl e 1 at the end). The
list is not meant to be exhaustive but we
have strived to choose the most relevant
articles regarding our research aim. Most
of the articles were published 2007-2016,
but we have included two older articles
since they were widely cited.
The overall evidence that the vis-
itors learn about conservation and biodi-
versity, and even more importantly, that
this learning results in behavioural chang-
es, remains quite weak. Irus Braverman
(2015) notes that the effectiveness of
education in zoos has rarely been tested
through comprehensive studies. A large
study conducted by the AZA (Falk et al.
2007) was heavily criticized because it
was based on self-reporting and did not
directly measure knowledge or behav-
iour changes, and also had other flaws
connected to the difficulty of surveys
and self-reporting in general (Marino, Lil-
ienfeld, Malamud, Nobis & Broglio 2010).
The authors later rejected the critique
(Falk, Heimlich, Vernon & Bronnenkant
2010). In 2012-2015 WAZA collaborated
with researchers and conducted a global
survey of zoo and aquaria visitors where
biodiversity literacy – “biodiversity un-
derstanding and knowledge of actions
to help protect biodiversity” – was eval-
uated. The results were published both in
a report (Moss, Jensen & Gusset 2014a)
and in scientific articles (Moss, Jensen &
Gusset 2014b; 2015; 2016). The report
concludes that both biodiversity under-
77
not paginated
nygren & ojalammi
but straightforward (Smith et al. 2008;
Spannring 2017).
For this reason, much of the re-
search has focused on which aspects of
the zoo visit might make a difference.
Studied variables include naturalness
and interactiveness of the exhibits (e.g.
Swanagan 2000; Ballantyne et al. 2007,
372; Ross et al. 2012; Lukas & Ross 2014),
animal activity and eye contact with the
animals (Powell & Bullock 2014), animal
charisma (Smith & Sutton 2008), inter-
pretation of conservation (by guides)
(Jacobs & Harms 2014) or duration of
stay (Smith & Broad 2008). The post-visit
material has also proved important (e.g.
MacDonald 2015; Wu et al., 2013).
To summarize the empirical re-
sults of the studies mentioned above,
they seem to indicate that the visitor
learns best if
1) s/he is already a “conservation mind-
ed” visitor,
2) the visit takes place in an interactive
and naturalistic setting
3) the animals are active and/or char-
ismatic
4) there is contact, such as eye contact
with the animal
5) the visit is comparatively longer
6) the social context (such as that of the
classroom) and the post-visit material
support the learning aims of the visit.
of environmental intentions, and by ex-
tension, wildlife conservation intentions.”
The studies also utilize different
methods of empirically operationalizing
the studied change in the analysis. Swan-
agan (2000) uses the evidence of visitors
signing a petition as a sign of commit-
ment to conservation, but mostly self-re-
porting has been in use, as when Powell
and Bullock (2014) ask about the visitors
emotional responses and willingness to
change their behaviour (e.g. change daily
activities or donate to conservation or-
ganizations).
This wide variety of concepts and
operationalizations probably reflects the
fact that measuring learning and tracing
behavioural changes is notoriously diffi-
cult. Learning is not a fast, simple, one-
way process, but complex, slow and inter-
active. Many writers admit that it is not
really possible to study the effects of zoo
visits per se since information and experi-
ence of the visit is processed differently
from individual to individual, depending
on different background knowledge and
attitudes (e.g. Ballantyne et al. 2007,
375). For example, Davidson et al. (2009)
conclude that learning during a student
field trip depends strongly on the soci-
ocultural context of the classroom and
is less dependent on the zoo educator’s
agendas. The most important thing for
the students is the social context – being
with friends. Even if the visitor learns, the
step from learning to action is anything
trace 2018
early view
Fundraising for snow leopard conservation. Helsinki zoo, January 2016
Snow leopard. Helsinki zoo, January 2016
79
not paginated
nygren & ojalammi
The material and methods vary in the
articles under analysis, but surveys and
self-reporting connected to quantitative
methods are common. The data from
surveys and structured interviews used
for quantitative analysis, however, give
only a narrow view of the different mean-
ings and experiences of zoo visits, and do
not seem a good measure of conserva-
tion education in zoos. We feel that qual-
itative, interpretive analyses of visitor ex-
periences are needed to understand this
aspect better.
3 What is “nature conservation” ?
Environmental and often more specifical-
ly conservation education and learning is
the objective of zoo education, and many
articles strive essentially to measure the
effects of this education. But how does
this volume of research envision nature,
nature conservation and the zoos’ role in
conservation?
Nature conservation spans a
broad field of practices big and small,
ranging from protected areas to inter-
national conservation agreements, to
zoos and the managing of biodiverse
gardens. Zoos have long advocated their
conservation role as genetic reservoirs
and captive breeding centres, and refu-
gia for species of animals whose natural
habitats are severely threatened (Dickie
et al. 2007), in addition to conservation
education. Some zoos have stronger con-
nections than others to in-situ conserva-
tion (see Gusset & Dick 2010) and many
have developed conservation campaigns
around select species, hoping to raise
public awareness and action for con-
servation among zoo visitors (Skibins &
Powell 2013, 529). The ongoing debate
between “new conservation” and tradi-
tional conservation (see e.g. Braverman
2015a; Gusset & Dick 2010; Soulé 2013)
makes defining conservation even more
difficult: if there is no wilderness and
pristine nature “out there”, what is nature
conservation all about?
Anderson (1995) and Braverman
(2012; 2014) have shown how zoos sepa-
rate humans from other animals and from
non-human nature. Zoos place humans
above and separate from non-human na-
ture, as a threat or a saviour, a learner, a
visitor, a tourist. Braverman concludes
that in zoos the public is educated about
the definition and identity of nature, as
well as the proper human relationship to
this nature. A zoo’s nature is juxtaposed
with modern urban life and it is seen as
a pre-existing entity that “reinforces the
notion of humans and nature as separate
and remote”. (Braverman 2012, 837; also
Braverman 2014; 2015.) “Zoo nature” –
“wild” animals – is portrayed as different
from non-wild nature such as pets but also
as inferior to the in situ nature of conserva-
tion projects. Zoos may separate the visi-
tors from non-human nature, rather than
connect them to it. The articles analyzed
trace 2018
early view
Perkins 2016). The research cited by Bal-
lantyne et al. (2007, 377) and Smith et
al. (2008, 547) suggests that in general
zoo visitors are already convinced that
conservation problems exist (the only
conservation related information often
provided by zoos), and they would want
to learn about solutions and actions they
can undertake themselves.
2. As a consequence of the above, (in situ)
conservation and endangerment is often
implicitly displayed in the articles as hap-
pening somewhere else, somewhere far
away from the city or country where the
zoo is located.
Zoos have a colonialist history, display-
ing exotic animals (sometimes even hu-
man animals) from faraway countries,
and this heritage is still alive today (An-
derson 1995). Most of the articles do not
take this into consideration at all. As an
exception among the articles studied,
Chalmin-Pui and Perkins (2016) note crit-
ically this same omission in the informa-
tion provided at the London Zoo’s BUGS
exhibit.
3. If visitor post-visit actions were meas-
ured (i.e. asked to self-report), these ac-
tions would appear rather modest (e.g. re-
cycling paper for hawk conservation as in
Smith et al. 2008) when compared to the
seriousness of the biodiversity crisis.
here do not take a critical stance on the
portrayal of nature in the zoos.
The “conservation” or “nature” of
“nature conservation” is often not explic-
itly defined in the articles studied. Implic-
itly, however, they reflect the zoos’ own
narrow view of conservation: zoos are
portrayed as reservoirs and as captive
environments for nonhuman and often
exotic and charismatic animals, involved
in in situ and reintroduction projects.
Examples of this separation in the
articles include the following:
1. Conservation is often implicitly por-
trayed as something that is done by some-
one else, not by the visitors.
This is evident in the way conservation
learning or behaviour changes are meas-
ured: in the surveys, conservation often
means donating money to a conservation
programme or signing a petition. Only oc-
casionally does it mean something more
personal and active, e.g. recycling (Smith
et al. 2008). This also seems to reflect the
expectations of zoos – Roe & McConney
(2014, 876, 881) found that the zoo rep-
resentatives believed their visitors are
least interested in learning about what
they can do themselves to help save the
animals. Some studies address the issue
of connecting visitors’ everyday lives and
the fates of endangered zoo animals (Bal-
lantyne et al. 2007, 377; Roe et al. 2014,
538; Smith et al. 2008; Chalmin-Pui &
In general, however, there seems to be
a move towards more effective actions
such as lifestyle changes as reported in
the more recent literature.
4. The role of human-animal relationships,
specifically the role of emotion and affect
between human and nonhuman animals
is mentioned in a number of articles, but
mostly these are studied quantitatively
and from survey material.
Analysis of the role of non-human animals
in zoo encounters and the relationships
between animal and human individuals
is largely missing. The so-called “animal
turn” is also slowly surfacing in environ-
mental education research (Spannring
2017) and clearly it would also require
more attentive and qualitative research
in zoos (see Ojalammi & Nygren, forth-
coming).
4 Conclusions
Our conclusions based on the literature
review are that the studied zoo visitor
literature doesn’t take a critical enough
stance on the zoos’ own conservation
views, which point to a rather narrow
set of practices and to a narrow view of
human-animal relationships. Research
based on surveys and quantitative meth-
ods also give little, if any, room for a di-
versity of meanings concerning zoo visits
and more-than-human practices in zoos.
We believe that more qualitative methods
should be used in visitor studies, and that
it is urgent to widen the view of nature
conservation, human-animal relations
and environmental education in zoos.
ackNOwledgemeNtS
This review stems from a project be-
tween the Helsinki zoo and research
cooperative Tapaus. The authors would
like to thank the director of Helsinki zoo,
Sanna Hellström for collaboration. In ad-
dition we would like to thank the editors
for helpful comments and Michael Ow-
ston for checking the language. The pho-
tos have been taken during the collection
of empirical material at the Helsinki zoo
in spring and summer of 2016.
trace 2018
early view
Reference Object of study Material and methods
1Moss, Jensen & Gusset
2016
Biodiversity-related
knowledge and self-reported
proconservation behaviour
Global survey of zoo visitors
2Moss, Jensen & Gusset
2015
Contribution of zoos and
aquaria to Aichi Biodiversity
Targ e t 1 .
Global survey of zoo visitors
3Chalmin-Pui & Perkins
2015
How visitors relate to
biodiversity conservation at the
London Zoo’s “BUGS’ exhibit
Personal meaning
mindmapping, cognitive
world maps. Descriptive and
statistical analysis
4 MacDonald 2015 Impact of Wellington Zoo’s
persuasive communication
campaign on post-visit
behaviour
Experimentation, survey,
quantitative analysis
5 Birenboim et al. 2015 Visitor experiences SMS reporting, geotagging
with GPS, quantitative
analysis
6 Roe & McConney 2015 Visitor learning Mixed methods:
questionnaire, staff
interviews, case studies.
Comparative, quantitative,
qualitative analysis
7Moss, Jensen & Gusset
2014
Biodiversity literacy Global survey of zoo visitors
8 Roe et al. 2014 Comparison of zoos’ reported
priorities and what visitors
believe they should be
Online questionnaire, mixed
methods in case zoos.
Quantitative and qualitative
analysis
9 Wijeratne et al. 2014 Delivering conservation
interpretations
Semi-structured interviews,
qualitative analysis
10 Powell & Bullock 2014 Factors affecting emotional
responses in zoo visitors and
the impact of emotion
Survey, statistical analysis
Table 1. Articles analyzed in this literature review
83
not paginated
nygren & ojalammi
11 Jensen 2014 Children’s conservation biology
learning at the zoo
Questionnaires and
drawings, qualitative
analysis
12 Luebke & Matiasek 2013 Zoo visitors experiences and
reactions
Questionnaires, quantitative
analysis
13 Wu et. al. 2013 Factors helping visitors
convert their short-term pro-
environmental intentions to
long-term behaviours
Survey, quantitative analysis
14 Millet et. al. 2013 Conservation education at
dolphin shows
Survey, quantitative analysis
15 Skibins & Powell 2013 Influence of zoo visitors’
connection to wildlife on pro-
conservation behaviors
Surveys, quantitative
analysis
16 Packer & Ballantyne 2012 Comparing visitor attributes,
experiences and outcomes
between captive and non-
captive wildlife tourism sites
Pre- and post-visit
questionnaires, quantitative
analysis
17 Marseille et al. 2012 Feelings and cognitions
in relation to a visitor’s
conservation attitude
Interviews with Likert
scale answers. Quantitative
outcomes.
18 Ross et. al. 2012 The impact of exhibit design on
visitor behaviour
Observation: Tracking
and timing. Comparative
analysis.
19 Carr & Cohen 2011 Public face of zoos Content and semiotic
analysis of the websites of
54 zoos worldwide
20 Marino 2010 Attitude change in visitors.
A critical evaluation of the
American zoo and aquarium
study (Falck et. al 2007)
Theoretical and
methodological critique
21 Wagner et. al. 2009 Measuring conservation
outcomes
Pre- and post-visit surveys,
quantitative analysis
22 Davidson et. al. 2009 Interaction of the agendas and
practices of students, teachers
and zoo educators
Observation, surveys,
interviews, students work.
Grounded theory approach.
trace 2018
early view
23 Mony & Heimlich
2008
Message communication in
docent-visitor Interactions
Mixed methods: semi-struc-
tured interviews, observa-
tion, quantitative analysis
24 Smith & Broad 2008 Attending to conservation
messages
Observations, quantitative
analysis
25 Smith et. al. 2008 Impact of zoo visits on visitor
behaviour
Structured interviews,
action research.
Quantitative analysis
26 Falck et. al. 2007 Impact of a visit to a zoo or
aquarium
Literature review, public
forums with zoo profes-
sionals, mixed methods:
quantitative and qualitative
methods, including written
questionnaires, interviews,
tracking studies, and Per-
sonal Meaning Mapping
(PMM).
27 Mason 2007 Role of zoos Survey, quantitative analysis
28 Ballantyne et al. 2007 Conservation learning Literature review
29 Lukas & Ross 2005 Zoo visitor knowledge and
attitudes toward gorillas and
chimpanzees
Survey, quantitative analysis
30 Swanagan 2000 Zoo visitors’ conservation
attitudes and behaviour
Survey, observation,
solicitation cards (self
reporting)
31 Broad & Weiler 1998 Comparing two different
captive animal exhibits
Interviews, self-reported
perceptions of learning.
Interpretive, quantitative
analysis
85
not paginated
nygren & ojalammi
refereNceS
Anderson, K. 1995. “Culture and Nature at the Adelaide zoo: at the frontiers of human
geography”. Transactions of the British Geographers 20, 275–294.
Anderson, K. 1998. “Animals, science, and spectacle in the city.” In J. R. Wolch, & J. Emel
(ed s.),Animal geographies. place, politics and identity in the nature-culture border-
lands. London: Verso. 25-50.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K., & Dierking, L. 2007. “Conservation learning in
wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums.”Environ-
mental Education Research13(3), 367-383.
Baratay, E., & Hardouin-Fugier, E. 2003. Zoo: A history of zoological gardens in the
west.Reaktion Books.
Bayma, T. 2012. “Rational myth making and environment shaping: The transformation
of the zoo.”The Sociological Quarterly 53(1), 116 -141.
Birenboim, A., Reinau, K. H., Shoval, N., & Harder, H. 2015. “High-resolution measure-
ment and analysis of visitor experiences in time and space: The case of Aalborg Zoo
in Denmark.”The Professional Geographer67(4), 620-629.
Bostock, S., C. 1993. Zoos and Animal Rights. The ethics of keeping animals. New York:
Routledge.
Braverman, I. 2011. “Looking at Zoos.”Cultural Studies,25(6), 809-842.
Braverman, I. 2012. Zooland: The Institution of Captivity. Stanford University Press.
SUNY Buffalo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-038.
Broad, S., & Weiler, B. 1998. “Captive animals and interpretation: A tale of two tiger
exhibits.”Journal of Tourism Studies9(1), 14.
Catibog-Sinha, C. 2011. “Zoo tourism and Conservation of Threatened Species: a col-
laborative programme in the Philippines.” In Frost, Warwick (ed.), Zoos and tourism:
conservation, education, entertainment? Bristol: Channel view publication. 133–142.
Clements, J. M., McCright, A. M., Dietz, T., & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. 2015. “A behavioural
measure of environmental decision-making for social surveys.”Environmental Soci-
ology1(1), 27-37.
Davidson, S. K., Passmore, C., & Anderson, D. 2010. “Learning on zoo field trips: The
interaction of the agendas and practices of students, teachers, and zoo educa-
tors.”Science Education94(1), 122-141.
Evans, J., & Jones, P. 2011. “The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place.”Ap-
plied Geography31(2), 849-858.
trace 2018
early view
Falk, J.H.; Reinhard, E.M.; Vernon, C.L.; Bronnenkant, K.; Deans, N.L.; Heimlich, J.E.,
2007. “Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit.” Silver Spring,
MD: Association of Zoos & Aquariums.
Fennell, D. A. 2012. “Tourism, animals and utilitarianism.” Tourism Recreation Re-
search37(3), 239 -249.
Fennell, D. A. 2015. “The status of animal ethics research in tourism: A review of the-
ory.” In K. Markwell (ed.),Animals and tourism. understanding diverse relationships.
Channel View Publications. 27-43.
Fernandez, E., J.; Tamborski, M., A.; Pickens, S., R. and Timberlake, W. 2009. “Animal–
visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions.Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 120, 1–8.
Fraser, D. 2009. “Assessing animal welfare: different philosophies, different scientific
approaches.” Zoo Biology 28 (6), 507-518.
Gusset, M., & Dick, G. 2011. “The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers
and conservation expenditures.”Zoo Biology30(5), 566-569.
Jacobs, M. H., & Harms, M. 2014. “Influence of interpretation on conservation inten-
tions of whale tourists.”Tourism Management42, 123-131.
Jokinen, A., Asikainen, E., & Mäkinen, K. 2010. “Kävelyhaastattelu tapaustutkimuksen
menetelmänä.”Sosiologia47(4), 255-269.
Kisling, V. N. 2000.Zoo and aquarium history: Ancient animal collections to zoological
gardens.CRC press.
Laatu, S. 2013. “The development of animal welfare in Finland and how people perceive ani-
mal welfare: Case study: Animals in tourism: Zoos.” Vaasa University of Applied Sciences.
Luebke, J. F., & Matiasek, J. 2013. “An exploratory study of zoo visitors’ exhibit experi-
ences and reactions.”Zoo Biology32(4), 407-416.
Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. 2005. “Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes toward gorillas
and chimpanzees.”The Journal of Environmental Education36(4), 33.
Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. 2014. “Naturalistic exhibits may be more effective than tra-
ditional exhibits at improving zoo-visitor attitudes toward african apes.”Anthro-
zoös27(3), 435-455.
Lummaa, K., & Rojola, L. (eds.). 2014.Posthumanismi. Tur ku : Ee tos .
MacDonald, E. 2015. “Quantifying the impact of Wellington Zoo’s persuasive communi-
cation campaign on post-visit behaviour.”Zoo Biology34(2), 163-169.
Marino,L., Lilienfeld, S., O., Malamud, R., Nathan N., Nathan and Brogliod, R. 2010. “Do
Zoos and Aquariums Promote Attitude Change in Visitors? A Critical Evaluation of
the American Zoo and Aquarium Study.” Society and Animals 18, 126-138.
87
not paginated
nygren & ojalammi
Marseille, M., Elands, B., H., M. and Brink, M. L. van den. 2012. “Experiencing Polar
Bears in the Zoo: Feelings and Cognitions in Relation to a Visitor’s Conservation At-
titude.Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17(1), 29-43.
Mason, P. 2007. “Roles of the modern zoo: conflicting or complementary?” Tou ri sm
Review International11(3), 251-263.
Melfi, V., A. 2009. “There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo
animal welfare: a case for evidence-based zoo animal management.” Zoo Biology 28
(6), 574-588.
Miller, I. J. 2013.The nature of the beasts: Empire and exhibition at the Tokyo Imperial
Zoo. University of California Press.
Miller, L., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mellen, J., Koeppel, J., Greer, T., & Kuczaj, S. 2013. “Dolphin
shows and interaction programmes: Benefits for conservation education?”Zoo Biol-
ogy32(1), 45-53.
Minteer, B. A., & Collins, J. P. 2013. “Ecological ethics in captivity: Balancing values and
responsibilities in zoo and aquarium research under rapid global change.”Ilar Jour-
nal54(1), 41-51.
Mony, P. R., & Heimlich, J. E. 2008. “Talking to visitors about conservation: Exploring
message communication through docent–visitor interactions at zoos.” Visitor Stud-
ies11(2), 151-162.
Moss, A., & Esson, M. 2013. “The educational claims of zoos: Where do we go from
here?”Zoo Biology32(1), 13-18.
Nygren, N. V., & Jokinen, A. 2013. “Significance of affect and ethics in applying conser-
vation standards: The practices of flying squirrel surveyors.”Geoforum 46(0), 79-90.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.006
Ojalammi, S., & Nygren, N. V. (forthcoming). “Visitor Perceptions of Nature Conserva-
tion at Helsinki Zoo.Anthrozoös, in print.
Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. 2012. “Comparing captive and non-captive wildlife tour-
ism.”Annals of Tourism Research39(2), 1242-1245.
Patrick, P. G., Matthews, C. E., Ayers, D. F., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. 2007. “Conservation and
education: Prominent themes in zoo mission statements.”The Journal of Environ-
mental Education38(3), 53-60.
Powell, D. M., & Bullock, E. V. 2014. “Evaluation of factors affecting emotional respons-
es in zoo visitors and the impact of emotion on conservation mindedness.Anthro-
zoös27(3), 389-405.
Roe, K., & McConney, A. 2015. “Do zoo visitors come to learn? an internationally com-
parative, mixed-methods study.”Environmental Education Research,21(6), 865-884.
trace 2018
early view
Roe, K., McConney, A., & Mansfield, C. F. 2014. “The role of zoos in modern socie-
ty. A comparison of zoos’ reported priorities and what visitors believe they should
be.”Anthrozoös2 7(4), 529 -5 41 .
Rothfels, N. 2002.Savages and beasts: The birth of the modern zoo.JHU Press.
Skibins J. C. and R. B. Powell. 2013. “Conservation caring: measuring the influence of
zoo visitors’ connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviours.Zoo Biology 32,
528-40.
Smith, L., & Broad, S. 2007. “Do zoo visitors attend to conservation messages? A case
study of an elephant exhibit.”Tourism Review International,11(3), 225-235.
Smith, L., Broad, S., & Weiler, B. 2008. “A closer examination of the impact of zoo visits
on visitor behaviour.”Journal of Sustainable Tourism16(5), 544-562.
Stoinski, T. S., Ogden, J. J., Gold, K. C., & Maple, T. L. 2001. “Captive apes and zoo ed-
ucation.” In B. B. Beck et al. (eds.), Great apes & humans: The ethics of coexistence.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 113–132.
Swanagan, J. S. 2000. “Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and be-
haviour.”The Journal of Environmental Education,31(4), 26-31.
Wijeratne, A. J., Van Dijk, P. A., Kirk-Brown, A., & Frost, L. 2014. “Rules of engagement:
The role of emotional display rules in delivering conservation interpretation in a zoo-
based tourism context.”Tourism Management42, 149-156.
Wolfe, Cary. 2012. Before the law: Humans and other animals in a biopolitical frame.
University of Chigago Press.
Wu, J., Huang, D., Liu, J., & Law, R. 2013. “Which factors help visitors convert their
short-term pro-environmental intentions to long-term behaviours?” International
Journal of Tourism Sciences,13(2), 33-56.
Zelezny, L. C. 1999. “Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviours:
A meta-analysis.”The Journal of Environmental Education,31(1), 5-14.
ONLINE SOURCES:
http://www.eaza.net/about-us/ (accessed 2.12.2015)
http:// www.aza.org/AboutAZA/mission/index.html (accessed 2.12.2015)
https://www.aza.org/StrategicPlan/ (accessed 18.12.2015)
  • ... Major criticisms of conservation education evaluations that examine changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavioural intentions warn that: knowledge is a minor factor in predicting whether visitors undertake conservation actions ; changes in intentions do not always translate into actual conservation actions (Ballantyne & Packer, 2005;Smith, Broad, & Weiler, 2008); and that measures of changes in conservation actions are seldom informative about the benefits to wild species or habitats, which are the truer measures of conservation success (Ferraro & Pattanayak, 2006;Hughes, 2013;Smith et al., 2010). While research does repeatedly detect small positive changes in visitor knowledge and attitudes (Khalil & Ardoin, 2011), persistent behaviour changes due to this education, or direct benefits to conservation, are rarely evaluated or confirmed (Nygren & Ojalammi, 2017). For example, recent research has persuasively demonstrated that zoo and aquarium visitors leave with an increased understanding of biodiversity and knowledge of actions to help protect it (Moss, Jensen, & Gusset, 2015), but over a longer time frame it is difficult to attribute persistent changes to the visit (Smith et al., 2008). ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    Zoos and public aquaria globally display numerous wild harvested, threatened species. To validate conservation credentials, displays are often associated with research projects, educational interpretation, or conservation-related activities. However, accompanying conservation benefits are rarely assessed. In this study, an approach to evaluate conservation benefits of captive wildlife experiences is modelled by assessing four Australian aquarium displays of the Critically Endangered largetooth sawfish Pristis pristis. Conservation impact scores were calculated for research, education, and conservation-related activities. In a novel approach, sawfish-related education (gaining knowledge, changing attitudes, and intentions to change behaviours) was evaluated using a before and after study design (n = 2 229), and conservation impact scores were calculated using effect sizes. Although visitors to all aquariums demonstrated significant positive attitudinal changes, and at one site gained knowledge, no significant change in behavioural intentions were detected. Educational messages addressing attitudes and behaviours were mostly generalised and untargeted. Formative and ongoing evaluations are needed to develop and maintain targeted and relevant messages. With one exception, research projects and conservation activities were unlikely to contribute substantially to sawfish conservation due to limited support from the aquaria. We recommend that increased support is directed to projects that are targeted towards impactful conservation goals.
  • ... As a part of our research, we reviewed literature on zoo visitors (Nygren & Ojalammi, 2018) and concluded that most studies used quantitative methods and failed to critique the understanding of conservation in conservation education. The fundamental problem with conservation education research in zoos is that zoos create visual spectacles of animals in captive environments and present them as representative of their wild counterparts (c.f., Braverman, 2015;Spannring, 2017). ...
    Article
    Full-text available
    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.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    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.
  • Article
    First Published in 2004. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.
  • Article
    Full-text available
    The theoretical perspective of this study is to integrate Visitor Environmental Learning (VEL) into the Theory of Planed Behavior (TPB). The Xiangjiang Safari Park, which is one of the largest theme parks in Asia, was selected to test the conceptual model to examine whether Post-Visit Action Resources (PVAR), Ease of Behavior (EB), and Sunk Cost (SC) have the mediate/moderate effect on the relationship between short-term pro-environment intentions and long-term behaviors. The sample consisted of 269 tourists who have travel experience with the Xiangjiang Safari Park. Findings from a Structural Equation Model analysis show that post-visit action resources partially mediate the relationship between tourists’ short-term proenvironmental intentions and behaviors, and that ease of behavior and sunk cost both have moderating effects on this relationship. These findings indicate that a high level of post-visit action resources, ease of behavior and sunk cost are instrumental in encouraging visitors’ pro-environmental intentions to turn into behaviors.
  • Article
    The notion of consumer and user experience has become dominant in our society in recent years, especially in relation to leisure activities. In this study we used the experience sampling method (ESM) data collection technique in Aalborg Zoo, Denmark, to understand the distribution of subjective experiences within this site. Visitors to the zoo were asked to send phone messages (SMS) about their subjective feelings in real time and to carry with them Global Positioning System (GPS) devices that recorded their movement. This method allowed us to geotag experiences of visitors throughout the zoo compound. The results indicate that the quality of experience of visitors varies both in time and in space. We conclude that there is a need to further explore the effect of place on experiences using repeat, high-resolution measurements. In this regard we believe that geographers, who have a long tradition of studying human-environment relations, have the tools to lead this type of exploration.
  • Article
    There is great benefit in using measures of environmentally significant behaviour - rather than just behavioural intentions or self-reported behaviour - if we are to advance our understanding of the individual and structural factors that influence environmental decision-making. Along these lines, to supplement the use of behavioural intention and self-reported behaviour measures in environmental decision-making research, we identify and validate a simple measure of one form of environmentally significant behaviour: financial support for environmental movement organizations. Using the values-beliefs-norms theoretical framework, we conducted an experiment to examine the performance of this measure of actual behaviour. This behavioural measure meets multiple dimensions of validity - including face, concurrent criterion-related, and construct - as a measure of environmentally significant behaviour in environmental decision-making research. As would be expected, we find that actual donations are smaller than hypothetical donations; hypothetical donations overestimate what would actually be donated by approximately 27%. Also, while environmental beliefs better predict hypothetical donation and willingness to act, key values measures (i.e. biospheric altruism and self-interest) better predict actual donation. We suggest that scholars consider using actual behavioural measures such as the one we test here in future scholarship on environmental decision-making.
  • Article
    Zoos potential to facilitate visitor conservation behavior is commonly articulated. Few studies, however, have quantified whether zoos’ conservation messages result in visitors implementing the behavior. To test if zoo conservation messages are adopted at home, I implemented a persuasive communication campaign which advocated keeping cats indoor at night, a behavior that is a potential solution to cats depredating native wildlife. Furthermore, I tested if a public commitment (signing a pledge card) strengthened the relationship between on-site intention to engage in the behavior and actual implementation of the behavior at home. The conservation behavior was included in the twice-daily animal presentations in the amphitheater. A sample of 691 visitors completed a survey as they exited the amphitheater that measured their recall of the conservation behavior and intention to engage in the behavior at home. The last 311 visitors to complete the survey were asked to sign a pledge card which was publicly displayed in the amphitheater. Six weeks after their zoo trip, visitors were contacted and asked if they had implemented the behavior. Recall of the conservation behavior was high (91% for control, 100% for pledge group) and the entire pledge group had implemented the behavior whereas just half (51%) of the control group did. Furthermore, signing the pledge card strengthened the relationship between onsite intention and at home behavior (r = 1.0 of for the pledge group and r = 0.21 for the control group). Overall, the zoo's conservation message was recalled and behavior implemented at home. Zoo Biol. 9999:1–7, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.