Let’s help the animals: The influence zoos can have on people’s sense of connection to animals and people’s donation behaviour

(1)

1

Let’s help the animals

The influence zoos can have on people’s sense of

connection to animals and people’s donation

behaviour.

Sara Vaessen

In collaboration Michèle Schoots, Svenja Jahn and

Amaryllis Clement

Master thesis Psychology, specialization Economic and Consumer Psychology

Institute of Psychology

Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences – Leiden University Date: 17-03-2019

Student number: 1135457

First examiner of the university: Dr. Henk Staats

(2)

2 ABSTRACT

This study examines if zoos can influence people’s view of animals and people’s

donation behavior. The variables examined were experience of scenic quality of the zoo, restorative quality of the zoo, sense of connection to animals, social norms as

experienced in the zoo, and donation behaviour. After a pilot study with Diergaarde Blijdorp subscription members a survey was emailed to a sample of 5.974 Diergaarde Blijdorp subscribers. 785 participants completed this survey. It was found that sense of connection was partly predicted by restorative qualities of the zoo, and in turn sense of connection partly predicted attitude towards animal conservation and people’s donation behaviour. Furthermore, attitude towards animal conservation was found to be an important mediator in the relationship between sense of connection and donation

behaviour, and between social norms and donation behaviour. This study shows that zoos can have a real impact on how people view animals and whether they donate money to animal conservation organisations. Future research could look at other donation

behaviour and take a better look at social norms in the zoo and how zoos can make use of this to help animals.

Keywords: donation behaviour, sense of connection, attitude, zoo, animals, physical

(3)

3 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Method 8 Pilot study ... 8 Participants ... 8 Measures ... 9 Procedure ... 9 Relevant results ... 9 Main study ... 10 Participants ... 10 Measures ... 10 Procedure ... 13 Results 13 Demographic Information ... 13 Exploratory analyses ... 17 Main analyses ... 18 Discussion 23 References 30 Appendix A 32 Appendix B 35

(4)

4

Introduction

Every year more than ten million people go to the zoo in The Netherlands

(https://pretwerk.nl/actueel/attracties/nvd-dierentuinen-trekken-7-meer-bezoekers/473480). Most of these people go to the zoo for entertainment, or as a social event, but that is not all (Reade, & Waran, 1996. Clayton, Fraser & Saunders, 2008). It turns out that multiple things can influence whether people go to the zoo or not. Previous research has shown that people associate zoos with feelings of happiness, relaxation and attentive interest in animals. A sense of connection to an animal, or animals, in the zoo can determine whether people keep going to the zoo, as well as the emotional reaction the zoo creates, and the attribution of social stereotypes to animals (Clayton, Fraser &

Saunders, 2008). Research has also shown that when people feel a sense of connection to the animal, they are more inclined to feel concern for the animal and even for the species that animal belongs to (Clayton, Fraser & Saunders, 2008). The relationships between a perceived sense of connection to animals, attribution of social stereotypes to animals and the emotional reaction people get from visiting the zoo may have a causal link to the development of conservation attitudes (Clayton, Fraser & Saunders, 2008). This could be of importance to zoos, Diergaarde Blijdorp in particular, because they use donations to build new animal enclosures and to breed animals. Diergaarde Blijdorp also gives you the option to become a ‘friend’ of the zoo. This means that you pay a yearly fee to become a member of ‘Vrienden van Blijdorp’ (friends of Blijdorp), and in return you get a few extras from the zoo. The money you donate will help the zoo and the animals living in it.

Since animal conservation is important to zoos, I think it is important to

investigate what can influence the way people feel about animal conservation, and what role the zoo can play in people’s attitude toward animal conservation. Therefore, my main research question is ‘does the zoo influence the sense of connection people feel to animals, and donation behaviour?’

Research has shown that the perception of an animal is influenced by the environment in which the animal is seen (Finlay, James & Maple, 1988). According to Burton and Ford (1991) a naturalistic setting of zoo enclosures leads to more positive responses towards captive animals. Results from Reade and Waran (1996) support this

(5)

5 view. They found that most respondents thought it was very important that an animal enclosure in the zoo was made as much like the animal’s natural habitat as possible. 96% of zoo visitors thought that the provision of apparatus for the animals to work or play with was very important to the animals’ welfare. On top of that, to 98% of zoo visitors it was very important that more apparatus should be provided for the zoo animals to work or play with. Earlier research shows that the perceptual characteristics that are attributed to an animal are very much influenced by the context in which that animal is viewed (Finlay, James & Maple, 1988. Reade, & Waran, 1996). Reade and Waran (1996) interviewed people in Edinburgh zoo and found that people thought the animals were lively and well occupied when they were in naturalistic enclosures with enough things to play with. In the study done by Finlay, James and Maple (1988) people were shown slides of eight species of animals in different settings: either in a caged zoo, naturalistic zoo or in the wild. They had to rate the animals on eleven different scales. There was also a control group that did not see any slides, but just animal names. Except for the

chimpanzee, all animals in a naturalistic zoo environment were rated as more tame, restricted and passive than animals in the wild. All animals in a caged zoo environment were rated as more tame, restricted and passive than animals that were in a naturalistic zoo. If zoos want people to pay more attention to animals, they should make sure that the zoo enclosures make the animal appear unrestrained and should refrain from making wild animals come across as tame pets (Finlay, James & Maple, 1988). As stated by Finlay, James and Maple (1988) the impact zoo exhibits can have on the attitudes and behaviour of zoo visitors is an important effect zoos and zoo designers should be aware of. Finding out what exactly these characteristics of a zoo are that influence how people view animals is, therefore, important. Is it purely functions like the size of the enclosure or how much bars and concrete is visible? Or are concepts like mystery, complexity, excitement, and restorative qualities the important factors?

H1: Physical characteristics of the zoo positively influence the sense of connection

people feel towards animals.

Thus, the environment might have a big impact on people’s opinions about animals and how they view these animals. This in turn influences the sense of connection

(6)

6 people feel to the animals. On top of that the zoo also suggests what the social norms are through the physical features of the zoo and the way the animals are living there.

Therefore, I think the environment, physical features, and opinions people have about animals are important to investigate in relation to the sense of connection people feel and the social norms they might experience.

As mentioned before, the relationships between a perceived sense of connection to animals, attribution of social stereotypes to animals and the emotional reaction people get from visiting the zoo may have a causal link to the development of conservation attitudes (Clayton, Fraser & Saunders, 2008). Attribution of social stereotypes to animals is that people attach certain characteristics to animals based on the image they have of that animal in their head. Regardless of the environment in which they see that animal (Finlay, James, & Maple, 1988). Taylor and Signal (2005) show that people with higher scores on empathetic concern have a more welfare-oriented attitude to animals. They also found that women have a more pro-animal welfare attitude than men, and that people who are currently living with a companion animal have a more pro-animal welfare attitude than people living without a pet. Thus, animals and the connection people feel to them are very important for the development of certain attitudes and behaviours. A visit to the zoo can increase people’s understanding of animals and this in turn can make people feel connected to these animals and have appreciation for animals in general. This can lead to people wanting to do something to help the animals, or to express their care for the zoo animals. Since the animals are in enclosures there are not a lot of ways to express care or to help the animal. Thus, people might want to donate money to show their care and to help the animals. Zoos can increase people’s concern for the wellbeing of animals. Results from Reade, and Waran (1996) show that perceptions of animals are positively affected by a visit to the zoo. When people can see that the animals are treated well and that they live in more naturalistic enclosures they feel more positive towards the zoo and towards captive animals (Reade & Waran, 1996). When people already have a positive disposition toward species protection a visit to the zoo might remind them of that and provide an opportunity to communicate that support within a social group (Clayton, Fraser & Saunders, 2008). Since people usually go to the zoo with others, this can also cause others to think about these kinds of topics and maybe make them concerned about

(7)

7 the wellbeing of animals as well. If zoos give information about the ways in which

animals are similar to people, this could enhance the connection people feel to animals and the understanding they have of animals (Clayton, Fraser & Saunders, 2008). Opportunities to donate money to projects in the zoo can then allow people to express this care for animals.

H2: Sense of connection to animals positively influences attitude towards animal

conservation.

H3: Sense of connection to animals will have a positive influence on zoo visitors’

donation behaviour regarding animal conservation organisations.

As social environments, zoos convey social norms about the appropriate

relationship between humans and nonhuman animals (Clayton, Fraser & Saunders, 2008). There are two types of social norms. The first one is injunctive norms; these norms affect behaviours because they give information about which behaviour is appropriate. This could be through the use of signs that have information on them about what is

appropriate. The second type is descriptive norms; these norms affect behaviour because they give information about what kind of behaviour is most common in a situation (Keizer, Lindenberg & Steg, 2008). For example, if people see a lot of trash on the ground, they will think it is common to dump your trash on the ground and will likely do it too. In a zoo, social norms can convey what the zoo thinks is the correct relationship between humans and animals, but also whether donating money is something that is common or appropriate. Research has shown that a zoo visit encourages contemplation of the relationship between human and nonhuman animals. Zoos should keep in mind that they communicate norms about the relationship between human and nonhuman animals. Although in general people view zoos as caring for animals, which promotes a norm of doing so, it is also possible that people will think a zoo is unmindful of animals’ well-being. If that is what people see, then it could suggest that it is normative to objectify animals so people can be entertained (Clayton, Fraser & Saunders, 2008). But zoos can also use this role they have to make sure more people care about animal conservation and help to accomplish this.

(8)

8 H4: Social norms regarding the importance of animal conservation to Diergaarde

Blijdorp, as experienced in the zoo, will have a positive influence on people’s attitudes towards animal conservation.

H5: Social norms regarding the importance of animal conservation to Diergaarde

Blijdorp, as experienced in the zoo, will have a positive influence on zoo visitors’ donation behaviour regarding animal conservation organisations.

Goals of the study

Discovering the relationships between physical characteristics of the zoo, sense of connection people feel to animals, social norms people might experience in the zoo, attitude towards animal conservation, and donation behaviour.

Hypothesis 1: Physical characteristics of the zoo positively influence the sense of connection they feel towards animals.

Hypothesis 2: Sense of connection to animals positively influences attitude towards animal conservation.

Hypothesis 3: Sense of connection to animals will have a positive influence on zoo visitors’ donation behaviour regarding animal conservation organisations.

Hypothesis 4: Social norms regarding the importance of animal conservation to

Diergaarde Blijdorp, as experienced in the zoo, will have a positive influence on people’s attitudes towards animal conservation.

Hypothesis 5: Social norms regarding the importance of animal conservation to Diergaarde Blijdorp, as experienced in the zoo, will have a positive influence on zoo visitors’ donation behaviour regarding animal conservation organisations.

Method Pilot study

Participants

A total of eleven people was interviewed for the pilot study. The participants of the pilot study were people with a subscription to Diergaarde Blijdorp. They were all 18 years or older and most lived in or near Rotterdam. Eight of the eleven participants were female. Participants were recruited via an email sent by the zoo. Diergaarde Blijdorp has a database of all the people with a subscription to their zoo, from which a sample was

(9)

9 recruited. People could voluntarily sign up to participate in the pilot study. At the start of the face-to-face interviews, participants were informed about the purpose of the study and that it was anonymous and confidential. Diergaarde Blijdorp provided us with coupons for a free coffee and piece of cake that we gave to everyone who participated in the pilot study.

Measures

We asked open-ended questions about the following topics: identity, educational and physical features of the zoo, place attachment, sense of connection to animals, pro-environmental behaviour, stewardship, feeding of animals, and donation behaviour. Some examples:

- Do you feel a connection to an animal or species in the zoo? - Do you financially support Diergaarde Blijdorp?

- What is your motivation for visiting Diergaarde Blijdorp? - Do you feel connected to Diergaarde Blijdorp?

For the full pilot study questionnaire, see Appendix A.

Procedure

The pilot study consisted of face-to-face interviews with eleven subscribers. They were all asked questions about the same topics, questions were open-ended. We used the results from these interviews to develop a questionnaire with closed-ended questions for our research.

Relevant results

Most of the participants visit Diergaarde Blijdorp during the quieter hours and leave when the zoo gets too crowded. Most participants stated that they visit regularly, ranging from once a week to once per two months. The average duration time of their visits is 3.5 hours. Overall, the participants liked the natural look and the plants at Diergaarde Blijdorp and thought that the enclosures had improved a lot in the past years. However, a frequent complain we heard was that Diergaarde Blijdorp is often busy making these improvements by rebuilding a lot. Because of this comment we added a question to the final survey about whether people were bothered by the construction work that was happening at the zoo. Some participants complained about the lack of a clear

(10)

10 walking route, while others considered this one of the charms of the zoo. Some

participants felt a sense of connection to a specific animal in the zoo, but other participants felt a sense of connection to animals in general instead of one particular species. Therefore, in the final survey we asked three questions related to sense of connection to animals in general and one question where we asked about a sense of connection to a specific animal or species in Diergaarde Blijdorp. None of the

participants said that they had donated money to Diergaarde Blijdorp in a different way than their subscription. But, two participants were considering becoming a member of ‘Vrienden van Diergaarde Blijdorp’ soon. The opinions about whether Diergaarde Blijdorp could influence their donation behaviour were divided. Though, one participant stated that the zoo was already influencing people with signs that read “the friends of Diergaarde Blijdorp funded this”. Another participant said that when she would die, she would leave money to Diergaarde Blijdorp. Since people did not seem to donate money to Diergaarde Blijdorp we decided to ask about general donation behaviour as well and to add a question to our final survey regarding donation to animal conservation

organisations.

Main study Participants

We sent the survey to 5,974 people and got a response of 918 participants. Participants of this study are people with a subscription to Diergaarde Blijdorp. They are all 18 years or older and most live within 40 kilometres of Rotterdam. Participants were recruited via the zoo. Diergaarde Blijdorp has a database of all the people with a

subscription to their zoo, from which a sample was recruited. Measures

The material we used to conduct the study was a questionnaire that we developed ourselves. We used the results from the pilot study to develop this questionnaire. Almost all questions in the survey were closed-ended. The first few questions were more general questions about demographics and the type of subscription they had. After that all the questions were aimed at one of the (underlying) constructs we were trying to measure.

(11)

11 informational model mentioned and tested in Kaplan, Kaplan and Brown (1989). It

consists of thirteen items all measuring different types of experiences. All items were asked about Diergaarde Blijdorp and measured on a five-point scale. Examples include “not much to see – a lot to see”, “unpleasant place to be – pleasant place to be”, “unsafe – safe”, “badly kept – well kept” and “ugly – beautiful”. Since the research was done in The Netherlands, we used a Dutch translation of these items. For analysis of the

experience of physical features, the new variable ‘Scenic Quality’ was created in SPSS. For this new variable an average score was calculated of the answers to the thirteen items, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .912. The ‘scenic quality’ variable represents low scenic quality vs high scenic quality. On average participants scored 4.29 (SD=.53) on scenic quality on a scale from 1 (low scenic quality) to 5 (high scenic quality).

Restorative qualities were measured by questions based on a model used in the article by Staats, Kieviet and Hartig (2003). The scale consists of six items, divided over the three concepts being away, fascination, and restoration likelihood. All items were adapted to ask about Diergaarde Blijdorp and were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Examples are “In Diergaarde Blijdorp I unwind” and “In Diergaarde Blijdorp I can withdraw from all the things that usually take up my attention”. A Dutch version of these questions was used. The variable represents the restorative qualities of Diergaarde Blijdorp, as experienced by the

respondents. With low scores suggesting low restorative quality and high scores

suggesting high restorative quality. Participants scored an average of 4.01 (SD=.59) on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high). The Cronbach’s alpha of this variable was .824.

Sense of connection to animals was measured with four items. Three of these items were based on the questions used in the researches by Luebke and Matiasek (2013), and Packer, Ballantyne, and Hughes (2014). These three items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The fourth item was “Do you experience a sense of connection to a specific animal or animal species at Diergaarde Blijdorp?” (Grajal et al., 2017) answer options were: No, I don’t feel a connection; Yes, I feel a weak connection; Yes, I feel a reasonable connection; Yes, I feel a strong connection; Yes, I feel a very strong connection. If people answered yes to this question, they would get a follow up question asking them which animal or species they

(12)

12 feel the strongest connection with. We created a new variable in SPSS for sense of

connection by taking people’s average score on the four items just mentioned.

Participants scored an average of 3.59 (SD=.62) on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high). The variable had a Cronbach’s alpha of .639, which is a bit on the lower side but still

acceptable. The variable’s mean inter-item correlation had an average of .320 and ranged from .200 to .521, which is an acceptable correlation range (Clark & Watson, 1995).

Experienced social norms were based on the results from the pilot study and were measured with two items. “Do you think that your visit to Diergaarde Blijdorp influences you attitude towards animal conservation?” and “Is it clear to you that animal

conservation is important to Diergaarde Blijdorp?”. Both questions had three answer options: No; Yes, a little bit; Yes. The Cronbach’s alpha for these two questions was .369, which is low. I decided to look at the two items separately, instead of combining them into one variable.

Attitude towards animal conservation was measured with five items, based on questions used in the research by Clayton, Fraser and Saunders (2009). An example is “I think animal conservation is important”. Items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The original scale was in English and we translated the items to Dutch. We created a variable for this in SPSS by taking the average of the scores on the five beforementioned items. Participants scored an average of 4.26 (SD=.54) on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high). The Cronbach’s alpha of the new variable was .758.

Donation behaviour was measured with three different questions. “Are you a member of ‘Vrienden van Diergaarde Blijdorp’?”, “Do you financially support

Diergaarde Blijdorp in any other way than your current subscription” and “Do you donate money to organisations that work for conservation of animals?”. All of these had three answer options: No; No, but I did/was in the past; Yes. For analysis I chose to use “do you donate money to organisations who work for conservation of animals?” as the

variable for measuring donation behaviour, because the other two had almost no variation in answers. “Are you a member of Vrienden van Blijdorp” got a response of 8.8%

answering yes and the other 91.2% answering no. To the question “Do you financially support Diergaarde Blijdorp in any other way than your current subscription” 3.8%

(13)

13 answered yes and 96.2% answered no. In contrast to that, the question “Do you donate money to organisations who work on the conservation of animals?” got a response of 42.3% answering yes, 23.3% answering no, but I did in the past, and 34.4% answering no, have never done that.

There were more questions in the survey regarding other topics, for the full questionnaire see Appendix B. These other questions were not relevant to this study; therefore, they are not described here.

Procedure

Participants were recruited via the zoo. Diergaarde Blijdorp has a database of all the people with a subscription to their zoo, from which a sample was recruited. A pilot study with eleven participants was done first. After the pilot study was done and we had developed a questionnaire for our research, a sample of 5,974 people with a subscription to Diergaarde Blijdorp got an email with a link to the questionnaire, asking them to participate in our study. Before people got to the questions in the survey, they were informed that results would be anonymous and confidential. At the end of the survey a short thank you and debriefing message was shown. After about two weeks we closed the online questionnaire.

Results Demographic Information

Data was analysed with the statistical software package IBM SPSS statistics 25. In total 918 people filled out part of the survey, 785 of them completed the entire survey. Since most of the questions about donation behaviour were the final questions of the survey, I decided to clean the data by removing everyone who had not filled out the entire survey. I did not want the results of my analyses to be influenced by the difference

between people who only filled out the first part of the survey and people who filled out the entire survey. Of the 785 participants 63.7% were female (the average Dutch

population consists of 50.4% females; CBS, 2018), see Table 1. Of the 785 participants, 45.9% were between 31 and 40 years of age (the average age of the Dutch population is 41.8 years; CBS, 2018). This was the largest group, see Table 2 for all age groups. A mistake was made here though, since the group of participants aged between 61 and 70 is

(14)

14 missing from our research. This answer option was not added in Qualtrics by accident. We don’t know if these people continued the survey by choosing a different age group or if they dropped out. The biggest group of people visit Diergaarde Blijdorp five to six times a year (36.3%), the next biggest group was people who visited the zoo once a month (26.6%) (Table 3). 40% of participants have had a subscription to the zoo for one to three years, and 30.3% for six months to one year (see Table 4). Of all participants, 25.5% had a subscription only for adults, the other 74.5% had a subscription for adults plus kids (see Table 5). 60.9% of the participants spend two to four hours at Diergaarde Blijdorp when they visit (Table 6). 95% of the participants lives 40 kilometres or less from Diergaarde Blijdorp (Table 7), and 75.3% of all participants go to the zoo by car (Table 8).

Table 1. Gender distribution

Gender Number of participants Percentage

Male 285 36.3

Female 500 63.7

Note. N=785.

Table 2. Age distribution

Age Number of participants Percentage

≤ 20 years old 5 .6 21-30 years old 106 13.5 31-40 years old 360 45.9 41-50 years old 134 17.1 51-60 years old 151 19.2 71-80 years old 29 3.7 > 80 years old 0 0 Note. N=785.

(15)

15

Table 3. Visit frequency distribution

Number of visits Number of participants Percentage

1-2 times a year 15 1.9 3-4 times a year 90 11.5 5-6 times a year 285 36.3 Once a month 209 26.6 Twice a month 153 19.5 Once a week 25 3.2

More than once a week 8 1.0

Note. N=785.

Table 4. Subscription duration distribution How long have you had your

subscription

Number of participants Percentage

Less than half a year 79 10.1

Between half a year and 1 year 237 30.2

Between 1 and 3 years 314 40.0

Between 3 and 6 years 98 12.5

6 years or longer 57 7.3

Note. N=785.

Table 5. Subscription type distribution

Type of subscription Number of participants Percentage

One adult without children 139 17.7

One adult with children younger than 3 years

68 8.7

One adult with children between the ages of 3 and 17

54 6.9

(16)

16 and between the ages of 3 and 17

Two adults without children 59 7.5

Two adults with children younger than 3 years

124 15.8

Two adults with children between the ages of 3 and 17

211 26.9

Two adults with children younger than 3 and between the ages of 3 and 17

119 15.2

Note. N=785.

Table 6. Visit duration distribution

Visit duration Number of participants Percentage

Less than 2 hours 83 10.6

2 to 4 hours 478 60.9

4 to 6 hours 197 25.1

6 to 8 hours 23 2.9

8 hours or longer 4 .5

Note. N=785.

Table 7. Distance between home and Diergaarde Blijdorp

Distance Number of participants Percentage

≤ 10 km 266 33.9

10-20 km 277 35.3

20-40 km 203 25.9

≥ 40 km 39 5.0

Note. N=785.

Table 8. Mode of transportation distribution

Mode of transportation Number of participants Percentage

By foot 50 6.4

(17)

17 By public transport 59 7.5 By car 591 75.3 Other 7 .9 Note. N=785. Exploratory analyses

To check whether any of the demographic variables had an effect on sense of connection, a multiple regression analysis was run with a hierarchical procedure. Step 1: age, gender, visit frequency, duration of subscription, time spent at the zoo per visit; step 2: scenic quality and restorative quality (see Table 9). In the first model age was a significant predictor, p= .002 as were visit frequency, p=.009 and time spent at the zoo,

p< .001. The second step caused a significant R2 change (.215, see Table 10). Once scenic quality and restorative quality were added to the model (model 2), visit frequency was no longer a significant predictor of sense of connection. Age and time spent at the zoo were less significant in model 2, but still significant (see Table 9). A problem with the significance of age here is that we missed the group of respondents aged between 61 and 70 in our research. Results might have been different had we included this group in our research.

We also tested whether there was a difference between men and women regarding attitude towards animal conservation, since that was found in an earlier study (Taylor & Signal, 2005). There did not seem to be a difference, the mean score for men was 4.26 (SD=.56) as was the mean score for women, 4.26 (SD=.52).

Table 9. Linear regression model for demographic variables predicting sense of connection Variables B [CI] SE B β t p Step 1 (Constant) 2.736 [2.39, 3.08] .175 15.634 <.001 Age .065 [.02, .11] .021 .114 3.129 .002 Gender .010 [-.08, .10] .046 .008 .214 .830 Visit frequency .051 [.01, .09] .019 .093 2.612 .009

(18)

18 Subscription duration -.005 [-.05, .04] .021 -.008 -.226 .821 Time spent at the zoo .176 [.11, .24] .032 .195 5.519 <.001 Step 2 (Constant) 1.111 [.70, 1.53] .211 5.273 <.001 Age .043 [.01, .08] .019 .075 2.314 .021 Gender -.035 [-.12, .05] .041 -.027 -.852 .394 Visit frequency .033 [.00, .07] .017 .061 1.934 .053 Subscription duration -.002 [-.04, .04] .019 -.003 -.100 .920 Time spent at the zoo .098 [.04, .15] .029 .108 3.412 .001 Scenic quality .005 [-.07, .08] .038 .004 .122 .903 Restorative quality .499 [.43, .57] .035 .473 14.459 <.001 Note. N=785.

Table 10. Model summary for sense of connection predictors

Model R2 R2 Change F Change p

1 .052 .052 8.529 <.001

2 .267 .215 114.073 <.001

Main analyses

First, a multiple linear regression analysis was performed to see if the sense of connection people feel to animals can be predicted with restorative qualities of the zoo and scenic quality of the zoo as predictors. The overall model was significant, F(2,782)= 129.494, p< .001 with R2 = .249. Restorative qualities of the zoo significantly predicted the sense of connection people feel to animals (Table 11). Scenic quality of the zoo did not significantly predict sense of connection when restorative qualities was included in the model. With regard to the first hypothesis (physical characteristics of the zoo

(19)

19 positively influence the sense of connection people feel towards these animals), strictly speaking we have to reject it. When looking at collinearity diagnostics we can see that scenic quality partly loads on the same dimension as restorative qualities (Table 12). This might be a reason why, when both predictors are in the model, scenic quality fails to predict sense of connection.

Table 11. Linear regression model for SQ and RQ predicting sense of connection (H1).

Variables B [CI] SE B β t p

(Constant) 1.392 [1.04, 1.74] .179 7.776 <.001 Scenic Quality .030 [-.05, .10] .038 .026 .787 .431 Restorative Qualities .517 [.45, .59] .034 .490 15.050 <.001 Note. N=785. Variables were measured on a five-point scale.

Table 12. Collinearity diagnostics of predictors of sense of connection to animals. Variance Proportions Dimension Eigenvalue (Constant) Scenic Quality Restorative

Qualities

1 2.980 .00 .00 .00

2 .013 .06 .31 .92

3 .007 .94 .69 .07

We also checked the individual effects of scenic quality and restorative qualities on sense of connection, by performing two linear regression analyses. The first one was to see if sense of connection can be predicted from the scenic quality of the zoo, see Table 13. The overall model was significant, F(1,783)= 25.224, p< .001 with R2 = .031. The second analysis was to see if sense of connection can be predicted from restorative qualities of the zoo, see Table 14. The overall model was significant F(1,783)= 258.494, p< .001 with R2 = .248. Both models are significant, but as we can see the R2 is a lot higher for

restorative qualities than for scenic quality. As mentioned before, a reason for this might be that scenic quality partly loads on the same dimension as restorative qualities, when looking at collinearity diagnostics (Table 12) for the multiple regression analysis.

(20)

20

Table 13. Linear regression model for SQ predicting sense of connection

(Constant) 2.711 [2.36, 3.06] .177 15.301 <.001 Scenic Quality .206 [.13, .29] .041 .177 5.022 <.001 Note. N=785. Variables were measured on a five-point scale.

Table 14. Linear regression model for RQ predicting sense of connection

(Constant) 2.711 [2.36, 3.06] .177 15.301 <.001 Scenic Quality .206 [.13, .29] .041 .177 5.022 <.001 Note. N=785. Variables were measured on a five-point scale.

Second, a mediation analysis was performed to test the relationship between sense of connection, attitude towards animal conservation, and donation behaviour. This was done using version 3 of the PROCESS macro for SPSS, developed by Hayes (Process v2 mentioned in Field, 2013). There was a significant indirect effect of sense of connection on donation behaviour through attitude towards animal conservation, b= .165, CI [0.121, 0.212]. The confidence interval for the indirect effect is a bootstrapped CI based on 5000 samples. While there was a significant direct effect of sense of connection on donation behaviour when attitude towards animal conservation was not in the model, b= .137, CI [0.038, 0.234], p= .007. This direct was non-significant when attitude was taken into account. We can accept H3 (sense of connection to animals will have a positive influence on zoo visitors’ donation behaviour regarding animal conservation organisations), but when the mediator attitude towards animal conservation is in the model the effect of sense of connection on donation behaviour disappears completely, indicating full mediation. The mediation analysis also showed that there was a significant direct effect of sense of connection on attitude towards animal conservation, b= .305, CI [0.248, 0.362], p< .001, with R2 = .125. Which means we can accept H2, Sense of connection to

(21)

21 animals positively influences attitude towards animal conservation.

Figure 1. Mediation model for donation behaviour with sense of connection as predictor and attitude as

mediator. *p< .01, **p< .001.

Lastly, two mediation analyses were performed to test the relationship between experienced social norms, attitude towards animal conservation, and donation behaviour. Experienced social norms were measured with two different questions: “Do you think that your visits to Diergaarde Blijdorp influence your opinion about animal

conservation?” and “Is it clear for you that animal conservation is important to

Diergaarde Blijdorp?” I will look at these two variables separately. If it is clear to people that animal conservation is important to Diergaarde Blijdorp, then it is likely that the zoo communicates their social norms to their visitors. In the rest of the thesis I will refer to this variable as Blijdorp’s communicated social norms. People’s answers to the first question indicate whether they think they are affected by the zoo’s social norms, and I will refer to this as (self-reported) social norms sensitivity. There was a significant indirect effect of “Do you think that your visits to Diergaarde Blijdorp influence your opinion about animal conservation?” on donation behaviour, b= .131, CI [0.095, 0.172],

p <.001 (see Figure 2). The confidence interval for the indirect effect is a bootstrapped CI

based on 5000 samples. While there was a significant direct effect of ‘whether people think they’re affected by the zoo’s social norms’ on donation behaviour when attitude towards animal conservation was not in the model, b= .194, CI [0.108, 0.280], p< .001. This direct effect was non-significant when attitude was taken into account. The

Figure 2. Mediation model for donation behaviour with social norms sensitivity as predictor and attitude as mediator. **p<.001

(22)

22 mediation analysis also showed that there was a significant direct effect of self-reported social norms sensitivity on attitude towards animal conservation, b= .263, CI [0.213, 0.313], p< .001, with R2 = .119. Which means we can accept H4: social norms regarding the importance of animal conservation to Diergaarde Blijdorp, as experienced in the zoo, will have a positive influence on people’s attitudes towards animal conservation.

There was a significant indirect effect of Blijdorp’s communicated social norms on donation behaviour, b= 0.147 CI [0.089, 0.216] (see Figure 3). The confidence interval for the indirect effect is a bootstrapped CI based on 5000 samples. The direct effect of Blijdorp’s communicated social norms on donation behaviour was non-significant. The mediation analysis did show there was a significant direct effect of Blijdorp’s communicated social norms on attitude towards animal conservation, b= .277, CI [0.190, 0.363], p< .001 with R2 = .048.

Figure 3. Mediation model for donation behaviour with Blijdorp's communicated social norms as predictor

and attitude as mediator. **p< .001.

The results of these two mediation analyses (see figure 2 and 3) indicate that we can accept H4: Social norms regarding the importance of animal conservation to

Diergaarde Blijdorp, as experienced in the zoo, will have a positive influence on people’s attitudes towards animal conservation. Based on the results we can carefully accept H5 (social norms regarding the importance of animal conservation to Diergaarde Blijdorp, as experienced in the zoo, will have a positive influence on zoo visitors’ donation behaviour regarding animal conservation organisations), but when the mediator ‘attitude towards animal conservation’ is in the model the effect of social norms on donation behaviour disappears completely, indicating full mediation.

(23)

23

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate if a zoo can influence people’s sense of connection to animals as well as donation behaviour. First, we tested what factors predict sense of connection to animals. Second, we tested whether this sense of

connection influences donation behaviour and attitude towards animal conservation. Last, we investigated if social norms influence donation behaviour and attitude towards animal conservation.

It was predicted that the physical characteristics of the zoo would predict the sense of connection people feel to animals. These predictions were partly supported by the data. We looked at the scenic quality and the restorative qualities people experience in the environment of Diergaarde Blijdorp. When both variables were added as predictors in the same model, restorative qualities seemed to predict the sense of connection people feel to animals, but scenic quality was not a significant predictor. However, the

participants in this study were people who regularly visit the zoo which means there are multiple factors that play a role, that we cannot all measure. Restorative qualities people experience might predict sense of connection, but because people then feel a stronger connection, the next time they visit Diergaarde Blijdorp they might experience the

environment as more restorative. This could also mean that even though we did not find a significant effect for scenic quality when restorative qualities was in the same model, it does not mean that scenic quality has no effect. These variables all influence each other, especially when people are frequent visitors. Earlier research showed that the perception of an animal is influenced by the environment in which the animal is seen, with

naturalistic zoo enclosures leading to more positive responses towards zoo animals (Burton & Ford, 1991; Finlay, James & Maple, 1988). Clayton, Fraser, and Saunders (2008) found that zoo visits enable an experience of shared identity between humans and nonhuman animals. They found that a conceptual or behavioural connection between animals and humans was trying to be made by zoo visitors. It was suggested that a more positive view of animals would also make people feel more connected to these animals. Therefore, we examined if the scenic quality of the zoo would positively influence sense of connection. When having both scenic quality and restorative quality in the model as predictors for sense of connection to animals, scenic quality was not a significant

(24)

24 predictor. When we used scenic quality as the only predictor in the model it turned out to be a significant predictor for people’s sense of connection to animals (Table 13). A reason for this difference between the two models might be that scenic quality partly loads on the same dimension as restorative qualities when looking at collinearity diagnostics (Table 12). Which suggests scenic quality might partly measure the same underlying concept as restorative qualities. Though there was no direct effect of scenic quality on sense of connection when restorative qualities was in the model, it might be that scenic quality has an effect on sense of connection through a mediator. Though Finlay, James and Maple (1988) found a connection between physical features and ratings of animals, they did not research what exactly it was about the physical features that caused this influence. Thus, we also looked at the restorative qualities of a visit to Diergaarde Blijdorp. We found that sense of connection was partly predicted by

restorative qualities, both when it was the only predictor in the model and when it was a predictor together with scenic quality (see Table 14 and Table 11). The model with scenic quality and restorative qualities as predictors, explained 24.9% of the variance in sense of connection to animals. This is quite a lot for concepts that are seemingly unrelated. More research with regard to scenic quality and restorative qualities of a zoo and its relation to sense of connection to animals is needed. Since we did not measure the perception people have of the zoo animals we do not know if this might have been a mediator in the first part of our study. Or if the perception of animals is not as important for sense of

connection as was thought. Future research could maybe focus more on the view people have of animals and whether this influences sense of connection. It might also be interesting to look at why people try to feel a connection to zoo animals. A topic to start with could be whether sense of connection to animals has a positive effect on people’s well-being. Research done by Sable (2014) found that pets make us experience positive feelings like laughter and joy, and that they make people feel less lonely. The attachment, or sense of connection, people feel to their pets has a positive effect on their well-being. This might be the reason why people try to make a connection with zoo animals. We predicted that sense of connection to animals would positively influence attitude towards animal conservation and donation behaviour. We tested this by using a mediation analysis, this way we could also check for a mediation effect of attitude on

(25)

25 donation behaviour. We found that sense of connection was positively related to attitude towards animal conservation and explained 12.5% of the variance in attitude towards animal conservation, so we can accept hypothesis 2 (sense of connection to animals positively influences attitude towards animal conservation). This is in line with earlier research that suggests that sense of connection may have a link to the development of conservation attitudes (Clayton, Fraser & Saunders, 2008). Research by Taylor and Signal (2005) shows that people with higher scores on empathetic concern have a more welfare-oriented attitude to animals, just like people who are living with a pet, and that women have a more pro-animal welfare attitude than men. This last finding could not be replicated by our study, we found no difference in scores on attitude towards animal conservation between men and women. Future research could investigate the relationship between sense of connection and attitude towards animal conservation in more detail by adding variables such as those mentioned in the study by Taylor and Signal (2005). According to our results sense of connection predicts donation behaviour when we do not take attitude towards animal conservation into account (p= .007) but explains only 0.9% of the differences in donation behaviour, independent of attitude towards animal conservation. Which means that the direct effect of sense of connection on donation behaviour is significant, when no other variables are included in the model, but it explains less than 1% of the differences in donation behaviour. We also found a significant indirect effect of sense of connection on donation behaviour, when attitude towards animal conservation was added as a mediator. But, the direct effect of sense of connection on donation behaviour disappeared then, so attitude fully mediated the effect of sense of connection on donation behaviour. That attitude is an important factor to predict a certain behaviour is in line with earlier research (Ajzen, 1991). Though Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour model looks at attitude towards the measured action and this research looked at attitude towards a different construct than the measured action. According to Ajzen (1991), intentions cause behaviour, and these intentions come from subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, and attitude towards the behaviour (Figure 4). Following this model, we would have measured attitude towards donation behaviour, but we looked at attitude towards conservation behaviour (Figure 5). As you can see below in Figure 4 and 5 there is a difference between the Theory of Planned

(26)

26 Behaviour model, and the model used, yet attitude is still an important predictor in our model. Which I think is a strong indicator of how important attitude towards animal conservation is when it comes to donation behaviour regarding animal conservation organisations.

Figure 4. Theory of Planned Behaviour

Figure 5. Model to illustrate pathways between social norms, attitude and donation behaviour, and sense of connection, attitude and donation behaviour.

When people feel connected to animals this can lead to them wanting to do something to help these animals or express their care for animals. Since there are not a lot of ways to express care or help an animal in the zoo people might want to donate money to show they care. Unfortunately, results from our study indicated that most people (96.2%) do not financially support Diergaarde Blijdorp in any other way than with their current membership. Yet, 42.3% of the participants donate money to animal conservation organisations. Thus, it might be that if Diergaarde Blijdorp offered more or different donation options for their zoo, people might choose to donate their money to Diergaarde Blijdorp.

(27)

27 connection people feel and the attitude they have towards animal conservation is the same for all animals. Or do people feel a stronger sense of connection to certain animals, and care more about the conservation of certain animal species (Luebke, Watters, Packer, Miller, & Powell, 2016)? An interesting thing that was found in a study done by Finlay, James and Maple (1988) was that some species were always a rated in a certain way, regardless of the setting in which the animal was seen. The cheetah was rated as the most beautiful, healthy, active, graceful, unfriendly, energetic and wild. The orangutan was seen as the most passive, lazy, clumsy, and ugly, and seen as the least healthy. Another animal that was consistently rated in the extremes was the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee was rated as the most friendly, harmless and tame, and as the most common of all the animals. It would be interesting to see if these differences in opinions about certain animals also hold true for sense of connection and attitude towards animal conservation. In the last two hypotheses it was predicted that social norms regarding the

importance of animal conservation to Diergaarde Blijdorp, as experienced in the zoo, would influence donation behaviour regarding animal conservation organisations and attitude towards animal conservation. We tested this by performing a mediation analysis, that way we could also check for a mediation effect of attitude on donation behaviour. Self-reported social norms sensitivity significantly influenced attitude towards

conservation behaviour in a positive direction. As did Blijdorp’s communicated social norms. This is in line with H4 (social norms regarding the importance of animal conservation to Diergaarde Blijdorp, as experienced in the zoo, will have a positive influence on people’s attitudes towards animal conservation), which we can thus accept. These results are in line with earlier research that showed that zoos convey social norms about the appropriate relationship between humans and nonhuman animals (Clayton, Fraser & Saunders, 2008). This earlier study also warned that the possibility existed that people would view zoos as heedless of animals’ well-being, and that this could suggest that it is the norm to objectify animals for the entertainment of people. Luckily, results from our research show that 81.9% of the participants said it was clear to them that Diergaarde Blijdorp cares about animal conservation. Which means that Diergaarde Blijdorp shows people that the appropriate relationship between humans and nonhuman animals is one where people care about the animals.

(28)

28 We found an indirect effect of social norms sensitivity on donation behaviour when attitude towards animal conservation was added as a mediator. Attitude towards animal conservation fully mediated the effect of social norms sensitivity on donation behaviour. Similar results were found for the effect of Diergaarde Blijdorp’s

communicated social norms on donation behaviour with attitude as a mediator. That attitude is an important factor to predict a certain behaviour is in line with earlier research (Ajzen, 1991). We had hoped to find a direct effect of social norms on donation

behaviour since there are a lot of signs in Diergaarde Blijdorp that make it clear to zoo visitors that certain enclosures were made possible because of donations. But, as was the case for the effect of sense of connection on donation behaviour, attitude seems to be an important factor in predicting donation behaviour. Though these results are not

completely unexpected as Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour states that all components in the model you use to predict behaviour should be at the same level of specificity (Staats, 2003). In this case the action is donation behaviour. Thus, if you want to measure everything at the same level of specificity the attitude measured should be attitude

towards donation behaviour, and the social norms should be social norms regarding donation behaviour. This could explain why we did not find a direct effect of social norms on donation behaviour. It is great that we still found a significant result for attitude towards animal conservation on donation behaviour. Since the attitude is not about the donation behaviour but a different construct. The results for the effect of social norms on donation behaviour could also be explained by our measurement scales. Because the questionnaire covered a lot of topics and we could not manipulate anything in our study, the measure of social norms consisted of only two questions. That both measured a different underlying construct. I think future research could focus on using more accurate methods for measuring social norms and see if this gives different results or not. There seems to be some effect of social norms on donation behaviour though, so this is promising and an important implication for zoos and animal conservation organisations to keep in mind.

There are a few key limitations to this study. The survey was quite long with a lot of different topics which meant that people might have gotten tired while answering the survey questions and stopped before they finished the survey. It could also result in

(29)

29 people not giving the best answers because they are just trying to get through the survey quickly. Because of the different topics, some concepts were measured with only a few items which might not have been the most accurate measure. Another limitation, that was a mistake on our side, was that there were no participants aged between 61 and 70 in our study. Or at least not that we know of. Somehow, we forgot to add this answer option into Qualtrics. Since it was an online survey, we could not manipulate things like physical features or experienced social norms. Maybe a manipulation could have resulted in stronger effects.

Apart from the future research suggestions already mentioned above it would also be interesting to see if results are different when a study like this is done amongst people who do not have a subscription to a zoo, and how results differ between zoos.

In conclusion, this study shows that zoos can impact the sense of connection people feel to animals and whether they donate money to animal conservation

organisations. Thus, zoos can have a real impact on animal conservation through their influence on visitors. This study shows that restorative qualities are an important predictor for the sense of connection people feel to animals. One clear result is that attitude towards animal conservation is a very important predictor for donation

behaviour. Both sense of connection and social norms became insignificant when attitude towards animal conservation was taken into account. Research by Clayton, Fraser and Saunders (2008) showed that when people already have a positive disposition towards species protection a visit to the zoo might remind them of that. Therefore, more research is needed on the predictors of attitude towards animal conservation that are present in a zoo. Future research should also look into other donation behaviour, maybe sense of connection and social norms are better predictors when the donation behaviour is related to a specific zoo instead of animal conservation organisations. Though there are some key limitations to our study, I think the insights can be of importance to zoos and animal conservation organisations.

(30)

30

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50, 179 – 211.

Burton, T., & Ford, J. (1991). Environmental enrichment in zoos – Melbourne Zoo’s naturalistic approach. Thylacinus, 16, 12-16.

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS). (2018). Retrieved from the website:

https://opendata.cbs.nl/#/CBS/nl/

Clark, L.A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319.

Clayton S., Fraser J., & Saunders C.D. (2008). Zoo experiences: conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology, 29, 1-21.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th edition). London: Sage.

Finlay T., James L.R., & Maple T.L. (1988). People’s perceptions of animals: the influence of zoo environment. Environment and Behavior, 20, 508-528. Grajal, A., Luebke, J.F., DeGregoria Kelly, L-A., Matiasek, J., Clayton, S., Karazsia, B.T., Saunders, C.D., Goldman, S.R., Mann, M.E., & Stanoss, R. (2017). The complex relationship between personal sense of connection to animals and self- reported proenvironemntal behaviors by zoo visitors. Conservation Biology, 31, 322-330.

Hayes, A.F. (2012). The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved from the website:

http://www.processmacro.org/index.html

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, B. (1989). Environmental preference. A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and Behavior, 21, 509-530.

Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322, 1681-1685.

(31)

31 Luebke, J., & Matiasek, J. (2013). An exploratory study of zoo visitors’ exhibit

experiences and reactions. Zoo Biology, 32, 407-416

Luebke, J., Watters, J., Packer, J., Miller, L., & Powell, D. (2016). Zoo visitors’ affective responses to observing animal behaviors. Visitor Studies, 19, 60-76.

Packer, J., Ballantyne, R., & Hughes, K. (2014). Chinese and Australian tourists’

attitudes to nature, animals and environmental issues: implications for the design of nature-based tourism experiences. Tourism Management, 44, 101-107. Reade L., & Waran N. (1996) The modern zoo: how do people perceive zoo animals?

Applied Animal Behavior Science, 47, 109-18

Sable, P. (2014). The pet connection: an attachment perspective. Clinical Social Work

Journal, 41, 93 – 99.

Staats, H. (2003). Understanding proenvironmental attitudes and behaviour. An analysis and review of research based on the theory of planned behaviour. In: M. Bonnes, T. Lee, and M. Bonaiuto (Eds.), Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues

(pp. 171-201). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Staats, H., Kieviet, A., & Hartig, T. (2003). Where to recover form attentional fatigue: an expectancy-value- analysis of environmental preference. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 23, 147-157.

Taylor N., & Signal T.D. (2005). Empathy and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoös, 18, 18-27.

(32)

32

Appendix A

Pilot study questionnaire

Algemene vragen

- Komt u uit Rotterdam?

- Hoe ziet uw abonnement eruit? - Komt u hier regelmatig?

- Hoelang bent u al abonnee?

- Hoelang blijft u gemiddeld tijdens een bezoek?

Identiteit

- Wat is uw motivatie om Diergaarde Blijdorp regelmatig te bezoeken? - Met wie bezocht u Diergaarde Blijdorp in het afgelopen jaar?

- Wat was voor u de reden om een lidmaatschap op Diergaarde Blijdorp te nemen? - Zouden de redenen of behoeftes die u hiervoor heeft genoemd ook gelden op een

andere plek of alleen bij Diergaarde Blijdorp?

Educatie en fysieke eigenschappen

- Vindt u dat Diergaarde Blijdorp genoeg educatie aanbiedt? U kunt hierbij denken aan informatiebordjes bij de verblijven van de dieren, shows of voorstellingen die gegeven worden of andere vormen van educatie.

- Wanneer u in Diergaarde Blijdorp bent, leest u dan de bordjes bij de dieren? - Gaat u wel eens naar een praatje (de dierverzorger vertelt) van een dier?

(Zeeleeuwen, gieren, koeneusroggen, arapaima’s en andere vissen, haaien, pinguïns, pelikanen). Zo ja, hoe regelmatig doet u dit, en wat is uw motivatie om dit te doen?

- Gaat u wel eens naar het infopunt Amazonica of naar het Publiekslab? Zo ja, hoe regelmatig doet u dit, en wat is uw motivatie om dit te doen?

- Heeft u wel eens een rondleiding gehad door Diergaarde Blijdorp? Zo ja, hoe regelmatig doet u dit, en wat is uw motivatie om dit te doen?

- Vindt u Diergaarde Blijdorp een prettige dierentuin? Wat vindt u bijvoorbeeld van dierverblijven zijn deze afgestemd op de behoeftes van de dieren, of ervaart u een prettig gevoel wanneer u door Diergaarde Blijdorp loopt vanwege de mooie natuur?

Place attachment

- Voelt u zich verbonden aan Diergaarde Blijdorp?

- Wat betekent het voor u om lid te zijn van Diergaarde Blijdorp?

Gevoel van een band met dieren

- Voelt een u een speciale band of heeft u affiniteit met een bepaald dier of een diersoort in Diergaarde Blijdorp? Zo ja, met welk dier(soort)?

- Zijn deze dieren de voornaamste reden van uw bezoek?

Milieubewust gedrag

(33)

33 - Kent u anderen in uw omgeving die zich milieubewust gedragen?

- Denkt u dat Diergaarde Blijdorp invloed zou kunnen hebben op uw milieubewuste gedrag? Zo ja, hoe?

- Hoe staat u tegenover de voordelen van milieubewust gedrag?

(voordelen zoals: toekomstgericht, iets goed achterlaten voor de volgende generatie etc.)

- Hoe staat u tegenover de nadelen van milieubewust gedrag?

(nadelen zoals: meestal duurder dan niet-milieubewust gedrag, soms ook tijdrovender (als je gaat fietsen in plaats van met een auto))

Stewardship en vrijwilligerswerk

- Doet u of heeft u wel eens vrijwilligerswerk gedaan voor Diergaarde Blijdorp? Zo ja, wat heeft u dan gedaan? Zo nee, heeft u wel eens vrijwilligerswerk gedaan voor een andere instantie?

- Kent u anderen in uw omgeving die wel eens vrijwilligerswerk hebben gedaan voor Diergaarde Blijdorp?

- Denkt u dat Diergaarde Blijdorp invloed zou kunnen hebben op of u vrijwilligerswerk zou willen doen? Zo ja, hoe?

- Hoe staat u tegenover de voordelen van vrijwilligerswerk doen?

(voordelen zoals: je goed voelen, steentje bijdragen voor de dierentuin) - Hoe staat u tegenover de nadelen van vrijwilligerswerk doen?

(nadelen zoals: je krijgt er geen geld voor terug, tijdrovend)

Voeren van dieren

- Heeft u ooit anderen iets zien voeren aan dieren van Diergaarde Blijdorp? - Heeft u toen de neiging gehad om diegene op zijn gedrag aan te spreken/Zou u,

als u iemand de dieren ziet voeren, de neiging hebben om diegene op zijn/haar gedrag aan te spreken?

- Denkt u dat Diergaarde Blijdorp invloed zou kunnen hebben op de neiging om iemand aan te spreken op zijn gedrag, namelijk het voeren? Zo ja, hoe?

- Heeft u zelf ooit de neiging gehad dieren van Diergaarde Blijdorp te voeren? - Denkt u dat Diergaarde Blijdorp invloed zou kunnen hebben op het voeren van

dieren? Zo ja, hoe?

- Hoe staat u tegenover de voordelen van het voeren van dieren?

(voordelen zoals: dieren lokken zodat je ze beter kunt zien, dieren in actie laten komen als ze om een stukje eten gaan vechten)

- Hoe staat u tegenover de nadelen van het voeren van dieren?

(nadelen zoals: het is slecht voor de gezondheid van dieren, dieet wordt verstoord)

Projecten en fondsen

- Steunt u Diergaarde Blijdorp financieel (anders dan door middel van uw lidmaatschap) of heeft u dit ooit gedaan? (Bijvoorbeeld door middel van een eenmalige donatie of door een vriend te zijn van Diergaarde Blijdorp)

- Steunt u andere goede doelen die te maken hebben met natuur en natuurbehoud door middel van een donatie?

(34)

34 - (Als mensen zeggen dat ze dat financieel niet kunnen nu; vragen of ze dat wel

zouden doen als ze het zouden kunnen).

- Denkt u dat Diergaarde Blijdorp invloed kan hebben op het donatiegedrag van mensen?

(35)

35

Appendix B

Complete survey as programmed in Qualtrics.

Wat is uw leeftijd? (klik op het pijltje om uw antwoord te kiezen)

o

≤ 20 jaar (1)

o

21 - 30 jaar (2)

o

31 - 40 jaar (3)

o

41 - 50 jaar (4)

o

51 - 60 jaar (5)

o

71 - 80 jaar (6)

o

81 jaar of ouder (7) Wat is uw geslacht?

o

Man (1)

o

Vrouw (2)

(36)

36

Hoe ziet uw abonnement bij Diergaarde Blijdorp eruit?

o

Eén volwassene zonder kinderen (1)

o

Eén volwassene met kinderen jonger dan 3 jaar (2)

o

Eén volwassene met kinderen van 3 t/m 17 jaar (3)

o

Eén volwassene met kinderen jonger dan 3 jaar en kinderen van 3 t/m 17 jaar (4)

o

Twee volwassenen zonder kinderen (5)

o

Twee volwassenen met kinderen jonger dan 3 jaar (6)

o

Twee volwassenen met kinderen van 3 t/m 17 jaar (7)

o

Twee volwassenen met kinderen jonger dan 3 jaar en kinderen van 3 t/m 17 jaar (8) Hoelang bent u al abonnementhouder bij Diergaarde Blijdorp?

o

minder dan een half jaar (1)

o

tussen half jaar tot 1 jaar (2)

o

tussen 1 en 3 jaar (3)

o

tussen 3 tot 6 jaar (4)

(37)

37

Hoe vaak heeft u Diergaarde Blijdorp ongeveer bezocht sinds u abonnementhouder bent?

o

minder dan 1 keer per jaar (1)

o

1 tot 2 keer per jaar (2)

o

1 keer per maand (5)

o

2 keer per maand (6)

o

1 keer per week (7)

o

vaker dan 1 keer per week (8)

Met wie bezoekt u Diergaarde Blijdorp meestal? (Er zijn meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)

▢

Alleen (1)

▢

Met mijn partner (2)

▢

Met mijn (klein)kind(eren) van 12 jaar of jonger (3)

▢

Met mijn (klein)kind(eren) ouder dan 12 jaar (4)

▢

Met een ander familielid (5)

▢

Met vriend(en) of vriendin(nen) (6)

(38)

38

Hoe ver woont u van Diergaarde Blijdorp af?

o

≤10 km (1)

o

10-20 km (2)

o

20-40 km (3)

o

≥40 km (4)

Wat is uw meest gebruikte vervoermiddel om naar Diergaarde Blijdorp te komen?

o

Te voet (1)

o

Fiets (2)

o

Openbaar vervoer (3)

o

Auto (4)

(39)

39

Hoeveel tijd spendeert u gemiddeld aan de reis naar Diergaarde Blijdorp (met uw gebruikelijke vervoermiddel: lopend/fietsend/auto/openbaar vervoer e.d.)

o

0 - 10 minuten (1)

o

11- 20 minuten (2)

o

21 -30 minuten (3)

o

31 - 40 minuten (4)

o

41 - 50 minuten (5)

o

51- 60 minuten (6)

o

langer dan 60 minuten (7)

Hoeveel tijd spendeert u gemiddeld aan een bezoek aan Diergaarde Blijdorp?

o

minder dan 2 uur (1)

o

2 tot 4 uur (2)

o

4 tot 6 uur (3)

o

6-8 uur (4)

(40)

40

Als u een bezoek brengt aan Diergaarde Blijdorp, zou u uw bezoek dan eerder als passief of actief omschrijven?

Bij een actief bezoek kunt u denken aan een bezoek waarbij u de informatieborden leest, (voeder)shows bezoekt, en af en toe een praatje maakt met een vrijwilliger of dierenverzorger. Bij een passief bezoek kunt u denken aan een bezoek waarbij u vooral door de dierentuin heenloopt, maar waarbij u zich niet perse bezighoudt met alles wat er te doen is.

Heel passief (1)

Tamelijk passief (2)

Niet passief, maar ook niet

actief (4) Tamelijk actief (5) Heel actief (6) Ik zie mijn bezoek als (2)

o

Er zijn verschillende redenen denkbaar waarom mensen ervoor kiezen om (regelmatig) Diergaarde Blijdorp te bezoeken. Hieronder zijn een aantal van die redenen als stellingen

weergegeven. Wij verzoeken u om voor elke stelling aan te geven in welke mate deze toepasselijk is voor u.

(41)

41 Sterk oneens (1) Enigszins oneens (2) Niet mee eens, niet mee oneens (3) Enigszins mee eens (4) Sterk mee eens (5) Het nuttig is in verband met mijn