Amaryllis Clement
Education at Zoos
The use of education at zoos moderated by
visiting motivations
S1398113 Supervisor: Henk Staats Second evaluator: Niels van Doesum Master thesis Economic and Consumer Psychology January 2019 Leiden University
1
Contents
1. Introduction 3 1.1. Communication channels 4 1.2. Visitor motivations 4 1.3. Research question 5 2. Method 8 2.1 Educational features 8 2.2. Pilot study 8 2.3. Main study 9 3. Results 11 3.1. Demographic Information 11 3.2. Visitor Motivations 14 3.3. Demographic aspects 17 3.4. Communication 19 4. Discussion 28 5. References 31Appendix A. Summary of the Pilot Study 33
2 Abstract
In times at which animals are becoming more and more extinct and nature is disappearing, more people find it important that zoo offer environmental and conservation education. However, there is still a gap between this education and the primarily motivatio n to visit a zoo. This study found that at Diergaarde Blijdorp found that most subscription holders that visit the zoo have ‘Facilitator’ or ‘Spiritual Pilgrim’ motivations. Visitors with ‘Facilitator’ motivations are recognizable, because they visit the zoo with younger children. The most used communica t io n channel of the zoo are signs, which are mostly used by visitors with high scores on the motivation ‘Professional/hobbyist’ or ‘Spiritual Pilgrim’. The different visitor motivations have all different reasons to (not) use communication channels. Future research should indicate whether one-time visitors have the same reasons and should explore those reasons further.
3 1. Introduction
The world is shrinking: we are losing species 100 to 1000 times above the normal level. This exponential species loss is related to human activities like habitat degradation and fragmentation, isolation of species and increasing contact between humans, domestic anima ls and wild animals (Deem, 2007). With more than 134 million visitors a year, zoos are in a unique position to provide the nowadays much needed environmental and conservation education to large numbers of people of each part of the population (Roe, McConney & Mansfield, 2014). Educating visitors seems to be one of the most important aspects of zoos, as it is included in most of the accredited zoo associations (Moss & Esson, 2013). This focus on education can also be found in the mission statements of individual zoos: 131 out of 136 mission statements of zoos in the United States contained the education theme. With education being even more frequently mentioned than conservation, which occurred in 118 out of 136 mission statements (Patrick, Matthews, Ayers & Tunnicliffe, 2007).
While the high visitor rates provide the zoos a unique position to educate the public, this might also be a large obstacle. The visitors are diverse and have different visiting motivat io ns and personal identities. For example, Morgan and Hodgkinson (1999) studied the primary motivations of zoo visitors. They found that the primary intent of visitors is entertainment for themselves and others. Knowing that visitors visit a zoo with different intentions, with most of them visiting because of entertainment, they may not all engage in the educational messages that zoos provide. Subsequently, although people may believe that education is important, they do not visit a zoo to be educated. The research of Reade and Warran (1996) found that beliefs and behavioral intentions are not the same. Most people find education at zoos ‘very important’, while just 4% of respondents visited a zoo with the intention to learn more about animals and 5% to see rare and exotic animals, as opposed to 36% that visited because of social gatherings and 12% because of entertainment. These findings were also found by the study of Ballant yne and Packer (2016), which found that there is still a gap between the conservation mission of zoos and aquariums and visitors’ own motivations, which are primarily orientated towards the social aspects of the visit, while they indicate that they find conservation education extremely important.
Apparently, people see the need of education, but don’t want the education for themselves. The question that rises, is how zoos nevertheless can educate visitors that do not come to be educated.
4 1.1. Communication channels
Zoos use different kinds of communication channels to educate their visitors. The presence of the different communication channels has been researched by Roe, McConney and Mansfield (2014). Most of the zoos use multiple communication channels, varying from pamphlets, worksheets, verbal presentations, animal shows and zoo keeper talks to the most used channel: signage. They found that 95% of the visitors did read the signs, however mostly to only find out what animal they were looking at. Reasons why visitors were not looking at the signs were mostly because of the signs’ design or because of the time required to read the signs. The authors claim that free-choice (education is offered and the visitor has the choice to be educated or not) and immersive (when you can enter an exhibition, for example by a bridge) learning combined with person-to-person contact via keepers and shows, facilitates a connection between visitors and the animals and are thus more effective. However, to improve the communication between the zoos and visitors, further in-depth investigation is required to examine the effectiveness of the various current communication channels. This study seeks to find these differences in the types of communication and their effectiveness. Knowing that different kinds of communication techniques are more effective than others, in relation to the various identities, would help zoos to make their education programs more effective and personal.
1.2.Visitor motivations
The effectiveness of environmental education may not only depend on the presented different communication forms, but may also be dependent on the motivations and expectations of the visitor. Learning experience is dependent upon the preferences of visitors for particular types of experiences (Pekarik, Doering & Karns, 1999). Based upon this finding is the identit y-related motivation model of Falk, Heimlich and Bronnenkant (2008). Falk et al. clustered the different motivations to visit a free-choice learning environment to the next five identities:
1. Explorers: visitors that are curiosity-driven, seeking to learn about the institute they are visiting
2. Facilitators: focused on enabling the experience and learning of other members in their social group.
3. Professional/Hobbyist: visitors that feel a close tie between the institute content and their profession/hobby.
5 4. Experience seekers: visitors that derive satisfaction from the fact that they are
visiting an important site.
5. Spiritual pilgrims: visitors that seek to reflect, contemplate and being restored by a site. The site is seen as an escape form the work-a-day world.
These five identities are very different in expectations and character. Having a clearer understanding of how these different groups interact with and learn from environme nta l education at a zoo may help to understand why some people react in different ways and help educators to know the effectiveness of different education techniques. Figure 1 is proposed, to show that educational features have effect on knowledge; however, if this effect is being moderated by the various identities is being researched in this paper.
Figure 1. Educational model.
1.3. Research question
This study seeks out to find how these identity-related motivations play a role in the education of visitors of the Dutch zoo Diergaarde Blijdorp and their various channels of communicat io n. Diergaarde Blijdorp aspires visitors to learn about and create a connection with the anima ls. They use education to motivate visitors to be responsible towards the environment. However, as previously described, this education is not always as effective hoped for. The main question this study seeks to answer is:
To what extent do the Identity-Related Motivations of visitors of Diergaarde Blijdorp affect the information use of the environmental education at the zoo?
Q1 & Q2 Q3
6 To answer the research question, the following sub questions will also be addressed:
(Q1) What are the Identity-Related Motivations of visitors at the Blijdorp Zoo?
In the study of Schultz and Joordens (2014) they found that there was a difference in the composition of visitors between the zoos in the United States and the Toronto zoo. This might indicate that the Identity-Related Motivations differ per country, and maybe per zoo. Because the identity ‘Facilitators’ is the highest at both the Toronto zoo and the zoos in the United States, it is expected that will also be applicable to the Dutch zoo, thus the following hypothesis has been formed:
H1: The identity ‘facilitators’ will be the most common at Diergaarde Blijdorp.
However, for a zoo it is difficult to identify in practice these psychological profiles. This raises the question whether there are easier, more practical ways for the zoo to identify the visitor motivations. The same study of Schultz and Joordens (2014) indicated that the success of the environmental education of zoos may not be related to satisfaction, but to the demographic compositions of the different identities. This indicates that the identities may differ in demographic aspects. The follow-up question will be (Q2) To what degree differ the various identities in demographic aspects?
If some visitor motivations are highly linked with certain demographical aspects, it would be easy for a zoo to explore the demographical aspects of their visitors and indicate what visitor motivations they might have.
Since the motivation of Facilitators is to enable the experience for someone else, it is assumed that visitors that do score high on the motivation Facilitator, do not visit the zoo alone, but could visit the zoo with children, since children cannot come to the zoo alone, thus needing an adult to enable this experience. This has also been found by the study of Schultz and Joordens (2014) at the Toronto zoo. The visitor motivation of Spiritual Pilgrims however, is to come to contemplate and find peace and to escape the daily life. This would indicate that visitors who score high on this motivation do not visit with younger children and would most likely be alone to seek peace. Thus the following hypothesis are formed:
H2a: Visitors of Diergaarde Blijdorp with children identify the most with the visitor motivation ‘Facilitator’.
H2b: Visitors that score high on the visitor motivation ‘Spiritual Pilgrim’ visit Diergaarde Blijdorp alone.
7 Lastly, the effect on the visitor motivations on the use of the communication channels will be explored. Proposing the following question: (Q3) Are there differences in the use of various communication techniques based on the visitor motivations? This question will be divided in two parts: the use of the communication channels and the reasons to (not) use the communication channels.
According to Roe, McConney and Mansfield (2015) signage is the most important education channel of zoos and as previously described, they found out that the signs were frequently used. Another study found that visitors considered it extremely important to read about the animal’s name, species and genus, and very important to read about conservatio n (Ballantyne & Packer, 2016). Considering these studies, it is expected that the signs will also be the most used communication channel at Diergaarde Blijdorp, thus the following hypothesis is formed:
H3a: Signage is the most used communication channel at Diergaarde Blijdorp.
Looking at the different visitor motivations, it is expected that visitors that score high on the motivation ‘Explorer’ would use the communication channels more often than other visitor motivations, since Falk, Heimlich and Bronnenkant (2008) described the explorer as curiosity driven. The study of Schultz and Joordens (2014) found that the facilitators at the Toronto zoo had the least knowledge gain after a visit to the zoo. Thus indicating that visitors that score high on the motivation ‘Facilitator’ use the communication channels the least.
H3b: Visitors who score high on the visitor motivation ‘Explorer’ use communica t io n channels more often than all other visitor motivations.
H3c: Visitors who score high on the visitor motivation ‘Facilitator’ use communica t io n channels less often than all other visitor motivations.
An in-depth study about signs found that a main reason why people don’t read signs is because of spending time (Roe, McConney & Mansfield, 2014). They implied that people with children have less time and attention for education. This indicates that families would prefer something less time consuming, or something that children would understand, like an animal show. Therefore, the last hypothesis will be:
H3d: The motives of visitors who score high on the visitor motivation ‘Facilitator’ to (not) use communication channels are related to the will others.
8 2. Method
2.1 Educational features
The research was held at the Dutch urban zoo ‘Diergaarde Blijdorp’. The zoo offers plenty of diverse educational features. For instance, they offer zoo keeper talks, animal shows, lectures, they have signs and a magazine. This study will focus on the three most important educationa l channels of the zoo: signs, information booths run by volunteers and expositions. The expositions used in this study will be the Publiekslab¸a laboratory where volunteers give information about water test and microscopic observations about food culture for fish, and the Greenpeace exposition, about the North Sea.
Participants
All participants of this study will be visitors with a subscription to Diergaarde Blijdorp. The participants have the minimum age of 18 and maximum age of 80. The participants were contacted by email.
2.2. Pilot study Goal
Firstly, a pilot study was held. The goal of the pilot study was to perform a qualitative study of the visitors and their behavior and to gain insights in their reasoning and language use. This pilot study is, together with the theoretical study, the basis of the questionna ire for the quantitative study.
Method
A group of subscriber holders was emailed with the question whether they were willing to participate in a study on the behavior of subscriber holders of Diergaarde Blijdorp. If they were willing, they could sign up for the study via a link in the email. The signed-up subscriber holders were invited to be interviewed at the zoo. This interview contained open questions about their visiting behavior, educational and physical features at the zoo, their pro-environmental behavior and feeding behavior at the zoo. All interviews were recorded and later written out. To thank the participants for participating in the study, they are given vouchers for them and their family for coffee and cake at the zoo.
The outcome was used to explore the behaviours, attitudes and language use of the subscriptio n holders. This was used in drawing up the main questionnaire. A summary of the outcome of the pilot study can be found in appendix A.
9 2.3.Main study
Data collection and Participants
On basis of the theoretical study and the pilot study a questionnaire was formed. The questionnaire was created with the Qualtrics Survey Software of Leiden University. A large group of subscription holders of the zoo (N = 5974) were emailed with a link to this questionnaire. The questionnaire could be filled anywhere and lasted approximately twenty minutes. The survey was online for a few weeks from may till mid-June. At the beginning of the survey, the subscription holders were informed of the goal of the study, that the survey is voluntary, their anonymity, and the confidentiality of the questionnaire. Subscription holder who finished the questionnaire could win a gift voucher worth €10,- to spend at Diergaarde Blijdorp. At the end of the survey, they were thanked for their participation and, when they wanted to get a chance to win this voucher, registered their email address. 10 participants, who finished the questionnaire, were randomly selected to win the voucher.
Demographic information
Participants were asked to fill in their age and gender. They were also asked to state what kind of subscription they had. The subscriptions can vary in number of adults, number of children and age of the children. To have a clearer view of the visitor was asked how long they had their subscription, with whom they usually visit the zoo, how far they lived from the zoo, what means of transportation they used to visit the zoo, how much time the transportation costs and how long they spent at the zoo on average.
Visiting motivations
The visiting motivations was measured by a modified scale developed by Falk, Heimlich and Bronnenkant (2008). This scale was originally created to measure the different identities of visitors to museums. The scale was translated from English to Dutch and slightly rephrased to suit the Dutch context and has been made relevant for zoos instead of museums. The scale consists of twenty items: four for each motivation identity. Items consisted of statements why they would visit the zoo. Examples of items are: “I visit Diergaarde Blijdorp because it gives me the feeling that it helps me to escape normal life.” and “I visit Diergaarde Blijdorp, because it is the kind of place where people like me go to”. Each item could be rated “strongly disagree”, “mildly disagree”, “not agree, not disagree”, “mildly agree”, and “strongly agree”.
10 Education
To measure the effectiveness of education questions were formed loosely based on the model of persuasion by William McGuire (1968). This model contains six steps in which attitude change is made possible, something zoos want to achieve with their education. The first step in the model is exposure to the stimuli, next comes the awareness of the stimuli, follow ing comprehension of the stimuli. The fourth step is acceptance of the stimuli, thereafter retention and finally action. In this questionnaire, there is a focus on the first few steps of the model. These first steps are crucial to undergo the latter steps and lastly causing attitude change. This questionnaire studies the awareness of the communication channels, the use of the channels and what the motivations are to (not) use these channels.
The awareness of an education channel was measured with the question “Did you notice that there are signs at Diergaarde Blijdorp?” The same was asked for the volunteer talks and both of the expositions. Participants could answer with “yes” or “no”. The use of the education channel was measured with the question “Do you read the signs at Diergaarde Blijdorp?” This question was also asked for the volunteer talks and both of the expositions. People could answer “no”, “yes, sometimes”, “yes, regularly” and “yes, always”.
Furthermore, the reasons to use or not to use the signs and volunteer talks were asked. This was not done for the expositions, because of the length limitation of the questionnaire. Considering the expositions are less important education channels, it was chosen not to further explore the motivations on using the expositions. To measure the reasons of participants to (not) use the signs, they were shown five statements why the do read the signs and five statements why they do not read the signs. Participants were asked how much they agreed with the statements. Examples of statements are: “I read the signs to know at which animal I’m looking at” and “I don’t read the signs, because it takes too much time”. All the statements can be found in appendix B.
For the reasons to listen to volunteer talks, participants were asked how much they agreed to three statements why they would listen and five reasons why they wouldn’t. Examples are “I listen to the volunteers, because I want to learn about the animals” and “I don’t listen to the volunteers, because it does not interest me”.
All statements were based upon reasons mentioned in the pilot study and the study of Schultz and Joordens (2014)
11 3. Results
3.1. Demographic Information
All data was analyzed with the statistical software IBM SPSS statistics 23. 5974 subscriptio n holders were e-mailed the questionnaire of which 792 participants filled in the questionnaire up until at least the questions about the education. There were 287 males (36.24%) and 506 females (63.89%). Table 1 shows the age distribution of the participants. Participants between 31 and 40 years old were most represented and participants under 20 years were the least represented. This could indicate that people in age group 31 till 40 years have more often a subscribed to a zoo or they are more willing to participate in the research. Furthermore, was there a mistake made in the questionnaire: there wasn’t an age group from 61 till 70 years. Most likely did those people fill in 51 – 60 years or 71 – 80 years. This could mean that the percentages in those age groups should be less high.
Table 1. Distribution of age groups of the participants in pecentages. Age group Percentage
< 20 years .63 21 – 30 years 13.62 31 – 40 years 45.40 41 – 50 years 17.40 51 – 60 years 19.17 71 – 80 years 3.76
In table 2 the duration of the subscription of the participants can be found. Most of the subscription holders had their subscription between one and three years and the least had them for more than six years.
Table 2. Duration of the subscription to Diergaarde Blijdorp in years in percentages. Duration of subscription Percentage
Less than half a year 10.0 Between half a year and a year 30.1 Between 1 year and 3 years 40.0 Between 3 and 6 years 12.5
12 Table 3 shows how often the participants visited Diergaarde Blijdorp on average. Most of the participants visit Diergaarde Blijdorp five till six times a year. The smallest group is more often than once a week.
Table 3. Visitation frequencies of the participants to Diergaarde Blijdorp. Visitation frequencies Percentage
1 to 2 times a year 1.8 3 to 4 times a year 11.3 5 to 6 times a year 36.3 1 time a month 26.6 2 times a month 19.4 1 time a week 3.4
More than 1 time a week 1.1
The visitors were asked with whom they mostly visit the zoo to get an indication what the visitor compositions are. Multiple selections were allowed. As is seen in table 4. the most frequent visitor composition is with children under the twelve years old and the least (after other options) is with older children older than twelve years.
Table 4. Distribution of visitation compositions in percentages and on total picked answers. Visitation composition Percentage Percentage of cases
Alone 7.2 11.9
With partner 24.1 39.6
With young children (< 12 years) 45.9 75.3 With older children (> 12 years) 3.2 5.2
With other family members 8.8 14.4
With friends 8.8 14.5
13 Diergaarde Blijdorp has also different subscription. As can be seen in table 5. The most used subscription is the family membership consisting of two adults with children in the age 3-17. The least used subscription is that of one adult with both children in the age of 0-3 and in the age of 3-17.
Table 5. Distribution of the different kinds of subscriptions in percentages.
Subscription Percentage
1 adult, no children 17.5
1 adult, young children (0-3 years) 8.6 1 adult, older children (3-17 years) 6.8 1 adult, young and older children 1.4
2 adults, no children 7.7
2 adults, young children (0-3 years) 15.8 2 adults, older children (3-17 years) 27 2 adults, young and older children 15.3
14 3.2. Visitor Motivations (Q1) – What are the Identity-Related Motivations of
visitors at the Blijdorp Zoo?
A reliability analysis was performed to measure the reliability of the items of the scale of Falk, Heimlich and Bronnenkant (2008). The results can be found in table 6. The items that measured the presence of Facilitator motivations are reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = .73. The items that measured the presence of Professional and Explorer motivations were somewhat doubtful, respectively Cronbach’s alpha = .68 and .66. However, the items that measured the presence of Spiritual Pilgrim and Experience seeker motivations are not reliable, Cronbach’s alpha = .58 and .52.
Indicating that the item was not a good measurement of the visitor motivations or that the scale of Falk, Heimlich and Bronnenkant (2008) is not reliable.
Table 6. Sum of scores per visitor motivation
Visitor motivation Cronbach’s alpha M SD
Professional .68 11.28 3.24
Spiritual pilgrim .58 15.10 2.66
Explorer .65 11.67 3.00
Facilitator .73 15.36 3.27
Experience seeker .51 13.74 2.19
To further explore the underlying constructs of the scale, a principal axis factor analys is with a varimax rotation was performed on the items for the visitor motivations. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure supports an adequate sample size, KMO = .874. Furthermore, all the individual items were sufficient, with KMO = .710 being the lowest score. Five factors had eigenvalues above 1, explaining a cumulative variance of 56,81%. As can be seen in table 7. the factor labels as proposed by Falk, Heimlich and Bronnenkant (2008) do not suit the extracted factors. Only factor 1 is answered by the visitor motivation Facilitator. Furthermore, there can be a rough distinction found, since factor 2 contains three items of Explorer, factor 3 contains three items of Spiritual pilgrim, factor 4 contains three items of Professional/hobb yist and factor 5 contains two items of Experience seeker. Therefore, it was chosen that, despite the fact that most items did not suit the proposed factor labels by Falk, Heimlich and Bronnenka nt (2008), the model will be continued to use. The scores of the items were added up per proposed visitor motivation to compute the total visitor motivation scores.
15 Table 7. Factor loadings and communalities based on a principle axis factor analysis with varimax rotation for the 20 items for measuring the visitor motivations.
Factors Items 1 2 3 4 5 Communalities Professional 1 .416 .307 .323 Spiritual 1 .517 .357 Explorer 1 .512 .362 Facilitator 1 .691 .518 Experience 1 .422 .251 Explorer 2 .384 .357 Facilitator 2 .608 .381 Explorer 3 .552 .355 .455 Professional 2 .322 .472 .385 Spiritual 2 .435 .252 Professional 3 .693 .671 Spiritual 3 .489 .383 Experience 2 .624 .415 Facilitator 3 .647 .475 Spiritual 4 .457 .348 Facilitator 4 .670 .539 Professional 4 .442 .494 .556 Experience 3 .435 .508 .532 Explorer 4 .544 .400 .592 Experience 4 .520 .369
Note. Factor loadings <.3 are suppressed.
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to compare the means of the five different visitor motivations. The assumption of sphericity has been violated, X² =637.87, p <.001. Therefore, the Greenhouse-Geisser ( = 212.30) degrees of freedom will be used to test the repeated measures ANOVA.
The results show that there is a difference between the levels of visitor motivations at Diergaarde Blijdorp, F (2.68, 2124.90) = 527.63, p <.001.
The Post-Hoc analysis (Pairwise comparisons) using the Bonferroni correction show that all levels of visitor motivations differentiate from each other, except the identities Facilitator and Spiritual Pilgrims do not differ from each other (see table 8). This means that H1 (The identity ‘facilitators’ will be the most common at Diergaarde Blijdorp) has to be rejected. The identity of Facilitator is indeed more common than the identities of Professional, Explorer and Experience seeker. However, it is not significantly higher that the identity of Spiritual pilgrim.
16 Table 8. Posthoc pairwise comparisons of the visitor motivations showing the mean differe nces (I-J) Visitor motivation 1 2 3 4 1. Professional 2. Spiritual pilgrim 3.82** 3. Explorer .40** -3.43** 4. Facilitator 4.08** .26 3.69** 5. Experience seeker 2.46** -1.36** 2.06** -1.62** * = p < .05, ** = p <.01, *** = p < .001
17 3.3. Demographic aspects (Q2) - To what degree differ the various identities in
demographic aspects?
In answering Q2, people were asked with whom they visit the zoo usually. They could select more options. To find the correlation between the different visitor motivations and visitor compositions a point-biserial correlation (𝑟pb) has been calculated. Because multiple responses were possible on the question with whom they visited the zoo, a multiple respons variable set was defined with all the possible options. Next, the correlation between this multiple respons variable set and each of the visitor motivations has been separately calculated.
Table 9. Point-biserial correlations between the visitor motivatio ns and visitor composition. Visitor motivations Alone With
partner Children <12 years Children >12 years Other famil y member Friend(s) Other Professional/ hobbyist .168*** .073* -.298*** .065 .071* .100** .011 Spiritual Pilgrim .127*** .021 -.244*** .056 .082* .065 -.018 Explorer .052 .066 -.138*** .037 .062 .052 -.004 Facilitator -.480*** -.018 .499*** .004 .029 -.071* .038 Experience seeker .060 .019 -.134*** .025 .053 .007 .042 * = p < .05, ** = p <.01, *** = p < .001
Interesting, is that the presence of children under the twelve years old is significantly correlated with all the visitor motivations; for the facilitator positively correlated and for the others negatively. Meaning that the presence of children under the twelve years, comes together with a high score on the motivation ‘Facilitator’ and with lower scores on the other motivations.
According to table 9 facilitator motivations are thereby negatively correlated with coming alone to the zoo and with coming with friends. A visitor who has high scores on the motivation ‘Facilitator’ is therefore easily recognizable as someone with children under the twelve years old. H2a (Visitors of Diergaarde Blijdorp with children identify the most with the visitor motivation ‘Facilitator’) is thus correct, and more specified that they visit with children under the twelve years old.
The visitors who score high on the motivation ‘Spiritual pilgrim’ is correlated with coming to the zoo alone or another family member, but is also negatively correlated with children under twelve years old. H2b (Visitors that score high on the visitor motivation ‘Spiritual Pilgrim’ visit Diergaarde Blijdorp alone) is thus partly correct, since they are significant positively correlated with coming alone, but also with coming with other family members.
18 Futhermore, the visitors who score high on the motivation ‘professional/hobbyist’ is correlated with visiting the zoo alone, with a partner, other family member(s) or a friend, but is negative ly correlated with children under the twelve years old. Based upon this outcome, the identit y ‘Professional/hobbyist’ can be difficult to predict, since they come in all visitor compositio ns, except families with children.
The visitor motivation ‘Explorer’ is not correlated with any of the visitor composition, except negatively with children under twelve years. The same is for the visitor motivation ‘Experience seeker’.
19 3.4. Communication (Q3) - Are there differences in the use of various
communication techniques based on the visitor motivations?
There were three communication methods examined: the informational signs, zoo volunteer talks at information booths and two expositions; the public lab and the green peace expositio n. The first step to identify if a communication channel is effective, is to explore if the visitors are even aware of the communication channel. The awareness of the communication channel was explored by asking ‘Have you seen said information channel’, answering ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Figure 2 shows the awareness of the communication channels. As can be seen, are the signs at the zoo most noticed (97%) and the information booths the least (78%).
Figure 2. Scores on the question ‘Did you see the communication channel at the zoo?’
Next, the usage of the communication channel was explored. there was asked per communication channel if they use that communication channel, options were ‘no’, ‘sometimes’, ‘regularly’ and ‘always’. Table 10 shows the distribution of the usage of the different communication channels in percentages.
Interesting is that the Greenpeace exposition is the least used. Almost half of the participants (46.8%) never visit the exposition. Furthermore, the signs are the most used, with almost no-one never using the signs (2.4%).
These results cofirm H3a (Signage is the most used communication channel at Diergaarde Blijdorp) 97% 78% 86% 04% 22% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Signs Information booths Expositions
A w a re n e s s o f c o m m u n ic a ti o n c h a n n e ls Communication channels Yes No
20 Table 10. Distribution of on the usage of the different communication channels at the zoo in percentages.
Signs Information booths Public lab Greenpeace
No 2.4 19.4 24.0 46.8
Sometimes 54.1 55.8 43.4 38.8
Regularly 38.3 21.3 23.2 10.7
Always 5.2 3.5 9.5 3.7
Communication channels and visitor motivations
To identify if there are differences in the usage of the communication channels per identit y motivation, there was a multiple regression analysis performed per communication channel. The five visitor motivations were used as predictors and the usage of the concerned communication channel as outcome variable. Table 11 shows that for all communica t io n channels a significant linear correlation between that statement and at least one of the visitor motivation (p is in all cases <.001). However, the explanation of variance is weak with 8.1% being the highest.
Table 11. The F-scores and determination coefficients for the four multiple regression analysis of the visitor motivations on the concerned communication channel.
Statements F (5,759) p R² R² adjusted
Signs 11.32 <.001 .069 .063
Information booth 11.94 <.001 .089 .081
Public lab 7.77 <.001 .047 .041
Greenpeace exposition 5.06 <.001 .031 .025
Table 12 shows the standardized regression weights for the visitor motivations on the four communication channels. As can be seen in the table, the visitors who score high on ‘Professionals/hobbyists’ were the ones who used the most often communication channels and the visitors with high scores on ‘Explores’ or ‘Experience seekers’ use the communica t io n channels the least, compared with other high scores on other motivations. Thus rejecting H3b (Visitors who score high on the visitor motivation ‘Explorer’ use communication channels more often than all other visitor motivations) and H3c (Visitors who score high on the visitor motivation ‘Facilitator’ use communication channels less often than all other visitor
21 motivations). The signs were significantly more used by visitors with high scores on ‘Professionals/hobbyist’ (β = .091) or ‘Spiritual Pilgrims’ (β =.072). The information booths were significantly more used by also the visitors with high scores on ‘Professionals/hobbyis ts’ (β =.122) or ‘Facilitators’ (β =.175). The public lab was only significantly more used by the visitors with high scores on ‘Professionals/hobbyists’ (β =.143) and the Greenpeace expositio n by the visitors with high scores on ‘Facilitators’ (β =.142).
Table 12. regression weights of the multiple regression analysis with the visitor motivations as predictor and the different communication channels as outcome variable.
Signs Information booths Public lab Greenpeace
Professionals/hobbyists .091** .122** .143*** .043 Spiritual Pilgrims .072* -.010 -.041 .010 Explorers .020 .035 .010 .029 Facilitators .001 .175*** .064 .142*** Experience seekers .049 .022 .013 -.037 * = p < .05, ** = p <.01, *** = p < .001
Motives to (not) use communication channels
Subsequently, the reasons why visitors do (not) use signs or information booths were explored per different visitor motivation. On each reason, a multiple regression analysis was performed to identify for which visitor motivation that reason was relevant.
Signs
To explore which reasons visitors had to (not) read the signs, the participants were shown reasons why they do or do not read the signs. They were asked to indicate to what extent the statement applied to them on a likert-scale (1 = low tot 5 = high). A multiple regression analysis was performed with the statements as predictors and the usage of the signs as outcome variable. The overall prediction of the model is good (F(10,754)=30.76, p < .001) explaining 29% of the variance (adjusted R² = .28). Significant positive predictors to reading the signs were wanting to learn about the animals, wanting to learn about nature and wanting to inform someone. The only significant predictor to not reading the signs is because reading the signs takes too much time.
22 Table 13. Linear model for reasons to (not) read signs as predictors and the frequency of sign usage as outcome variable.
Statements B β T P
I read the signs…
to know which animal I’m looking at. .017 .020 .564 .573
to learn about the animals .205 .242 5.479 .000
to learn about nature .111 .176 4.460 .000
to inform someone .054 .102 3.049 .002
because I’m waiting on my family member/friend -.028 -.055 -1.682 .093
I do not read the signs, because…
it takes too much time -.072 -.117 -3.181 .002
it does not interest me -.040 -.051 -1.298 .195
the texts are too long -.050 -.078 -1.911 .056
the signs are unattractive .010 .018 .486 .627
I already know the information -.012 -.020 -.635 .526
To answer Q3 for the signs there were ten multiple regression analysis performed: for each reason one. For each multiple regression analysis, the five visitor motivations were used as predictor and the concerned statement as outcome variable.
Table 13 shows that for all the statements a significant linear correlation exists between that statement and at least one of the visitor motivations (p is in all cases <.001). However, the explanation of variance is weak with 18.7% being the highest.
23 Table 14. The F-scores and determination coefficients for the ten multiple regression analysis of the visitor motivations on the reasons to (not) use the signs.
Statements F (5,759) p R² R² adjusted
I read the signs…
to know which animal I’m looking at. 5.87 <.001 .037 .031
to learn about the animals 12.50 <.001 .076 .070
to learn about nature 30.70 <.001 .168 .163
to inform someone 36.04 <.001 .192 .187
because I’m waiting on my family member /friend 13.07 <.001 .058 .051
I do not read the signs, because…
it takes too much time 5.31 <.001 .034 .027
it does not interest me 4.75 <.001 .030 .024
the texts are too long 6.85 <.001 .043 .037
the signs are unattractive 4.91 <.001 .031 .025
I already know the information 6.02 <.001 .038 .032
Table 14 shows the standardized regression weights of the five visitor motivations on all of the statements. As can be seen, are for all the reasons at least one visitor motivat io n significant.
Visitors with high scores on ‘Professionals/hobbyists’ agree that they read the signs because they want to learn about nature and they disagree that they read the signs, because they want to know at which animal they’re looking at. The agree that they do not read the signs, because the already know the information and they disagree that they do not read the signs because the texts are too long or that the signs are unattractive.
Visitors with high scores on ‘Spiritual pilgrims’ agree that they read the signs, because they want to know at which animal they’re looking at, to learn about the animal and to learn about nature. The disagree they do not read the signs because it takes too much time, because it does not interest them and because the texts are too long. Interestingly, they do not agree with all the reasons to not read the signs.
Visitors with high scores on ‘Explorers’ only agree that the read the signs to learn about nature.
24 Visitors with high scores on ‘Facilitators’ agree that the read the signs because they want to know at which animal they’re looking at, to learn about the animals, to inform someone and because they’re waiting on someone else. Thus accepting H3d (The motives of visitors who score high on the visitor motivation ‘Facilitator’ to (not) use communication channels are related to the will others.) Since, they do indeed have motivations related to the will of others, but they also want to know at animal they’re looking at and want learn about the anima ls themselves.
Visitors with high scores on ‘Experience seekers’ do not agree nor disagree with any of the reasons why they would (not) use the signage.
Table 15. standardized regression weights (β) of the ten multiple regression analyses with the visitor motivations as predictor variables and the different reasons as outcome variable.
Professional/ hobbyist
Spiritual Pilgrim
Explorer Facilitator Experience seeker
I read the signs…
to know which animal I’m looking at. -.116* .129** .036 .114** .048
to learn about the animals*** .075 .185*** .008 .106** .017
to learn about nature*** .225*** .090* .117* .047 .041
to inform someone** .020 .039 .076 .398*** .011
because I’m waiting on someone -.079 .014 .034 .226*** -.001
I do not read the signs, because…
it takes too much time** -.097 -.125** .071 .054 -.036
it does not interest me -.090 -.107* .016 -.054 -.005
the texts are too long -.174*** -.105* .083 .058 .002
the signs are unattractive -.190*** -.049 .066 .012 .011
I already know the information .272*** -.074 -.085 .026 -.023
25 Information booths
To explore which reasons visitors had (not) listened to volunteers at the information booths, the participants were shown reasons why they did or did not use of the information booths. They were asked to indicate to what extent the statement applied to them on a likert-scale (1 = low tot 5 = high). A multiple regression analysis was performed with the statements as predictors and the usage of the signs as outcome variable.
The overall prediction of the model is good (F(8,611)=72.390, p < .001) explaining 48.7% of the variance (adjusted R² = .480). Significant positive predictors to using the information booths are wanting to learn about the animals and because a family member /friend wants to. Significa nt predictor to not use the information booths are because they don’t have time and because the ir family member /friend doesn’t want to.
Table 15. Linear model for reasons to (not) listen to volunteers at information booths as predictors and the information booth usage as outcome variable.
Statements B β T P
I listen to volunteers at information booths…
to learn about the animals .202 .286 5.203 <.001
to learn about nature .066 .101 1.945 .052
because a family member/friend wants to .112 .196 6.253 <.001
I do not listen to volunteers at information booths, because…
it does not interest me -.027 -.035 -.851 .395
I don’t have the time -.138 -.211 -5.205 <.001
my family member /friend doesn’t want to -.092 -.146 -4.090 <.001
the threshold is too high -.031 -.040 -1.251 .211
26 Next, the influence of visitor motivation on the various reasons was explored. There were eight multiple regression analyses performed: for each reason one. For each multiple regression analysis, the five visitor motivations were used as predictor variables and the concerned statement as outcome variable.
Table 16 shows that for two of the statements there was no significant linear correlation between that statement and at least one of the visitor motivation: the statements ‘I don’t want to listen to volunteers at information booths, because I don’t have the time’ and ‘I don’t want to listen to volunteers at information booths, because the threshold is too high’ are not significa nt ly correlated with the usage of the information booths (see table 16). All statements have a very weak to weak explained variance, with adjusted R² = .133 being the highest.
Table 16. The F-scores and determination coefficients for the ten multiple regression analysis of the visitor motivations on the reasons to (not) listen to the volunteers at information booths.
Statements F(5,614) P R² R² adjusted
I listen to volunteers at information booths…
to learn about the animals 12.07 <.001 .090 .082
to learn about nature 18.26 <.001 .129 .122
because a family member /friend wants to 19.92 <.001 .140 .133
I do not listen to volunteers at information booths, because…
it does not interest me 7.04 <.001 .054 .047
I don’t have the time 1.83 .104 .015 .007
my family member /friend doesn’t want to 5.27 <.001 .041 .033
the threshold is too high .90 .479 .007 -.001
27 Table 17 shows the standardized regression weights of the visitor motivations on all of the statements.
Visitors with high scores on ‘Professionals/hobbyist’ agree with all the reasons for listening to volunteer talks. They also agree that they do not listen to volunteer talks, because they already know the information. They disagree with that they don’t listen to volunteer talks, because it does not interest or that they don’t have the time.
Visitors with high scores on ‘Spiritual pilgrims’ only disagree with that they listen to volunteer talks, because a family member /friend wants to listen. Visitors with high scores on ‘Explorers’ or ‘Experience seekers’ do not agree nor disagree with the presented reasons why they would (not) listen to volunteer talks at information booths.
Visitors with high scores on ‘Facilitators’ agree that they do listen to volunteer talks, because they want to learn about the animals and because a family member /friend wants to. They also agree that they do not listen to volunteer talks, because a family member /friends doesn’t want to. Thus accepting H3d (The motives of visitors who score high on the visitor motivation ‘Facilitator’ to (not) use communication channels are related to the will others) Moreover, they also use the communication channel to learn about the animals themselves. Table 17. regression weights of the eight multiple regression analyses with the visitor motivations as predictor variables and the different reasons as outcome variable.
Professional/ hobbyist
Spiritual Pilgrim
Explorer Facilitator Experience seeker
I listen to volunteers at information booths…
to learn about the animals*** .201*** .054 .002 .129** .050
to learn about nature .245*** .052 .053 .067 .055
because a family member /friend wants to*** .120* -.114* .072 .339*** -.039
I do not listen to volunteers at information booths, because…
it does not interest me -.200*** -.019 .005 -.038 -.037
I don’t have the time*** -.081* -.016 .028 .036 -.015
my family member /friend doesn’t want to*** -.080 -.050 -.056 .141*** .007
the threshold is too high -.064 .028 .092 -.038 -.070
I already know the information .140*** -.030 -.015 -.049 .004
28 4. Discussion
Findings, implications, limitations and future research
The aim of this study was to find out if the visitor motivations have an influence on the effectiveness of education at the zoo. Firstly, it was explored which visitor motivations were present at Diergaarde Blijdorp. Next, the correlations between visitor compositions and these visitor motivations were explored. Lastly, the use of the different communication channels at Diergaarde Blijdorp was tested, if the visitor motivations had an effect on the use of the communication channels and if they had different reasons to (not) use the communica t io n channels.
It was found that most frequent visitor motivations at Diergaarde Blijdorp were visitors that scored high on the motivations ‘Facilitator’ and ‘Spiritual pilgrim’. The visitors with high scores on ‘Facilitator’ will be most recognizable at a zoo, since this motivation was the only one with a positive correlation on visiting with children under the twelve years old. The visitors with high scores on ‘Spiritual pilgrim’ are recognized by coming alone or with another family member that is not their household. The visitors with high scores on ‘Professional/hobbyis t’ can be difficult to predict, since they come in all visitor compositions, except families with children. The visitors with high scores on ‘Explorer’ or ‘Experience seeker’ are also difficult to predict, since they are not correlated with any of the visitor composition, except negatively with children under twelve years.
These results indicate that there is not an easy, practical way to recognize and different iate the different visitor motivations, except for the visitors that score high on ‘Facilitator’ and in some extent on ‘Spiritual pilgrim’.
The communication channels at Diergaarde Blijdorp are not used much. Indicating there is much room for growth, since it has been found that visitors do find education very important (Ballantyne & Packer, 2016). The signs are currently the most used communication channel of the zoo, mostly used by the visitors with high scores on ‘Professional/hobbyist’ or ‘Spiritua l pilgrim’. Interestingly these are the only visitor motivations that also do come alone at the zoo. Thus indicating that coming alone has a positive effect on reading the signs. The informa t io n booths mostly used by visitors with high scores on ‘Professional/hobbyist’ or ‘Facilitators.’ The public lab is mostly visited by visitors with high scores on ‘Professional/hobbyist’ and the Greenpeace exposition by visitors with high scores on ‘Facilitator’. All these various visitor motivations have all different reasons to (not) use the different communication channels. Diergaarde Blijdorp could focus on the group that use that communication channel the most
29 and make it more specifically for that target audience. However, they could also explore if there are ways to make the communication more attractive for the target audiences that do not use the signs. For example, visitors that score high on ‘Facilitator’ are the largest group at Diergaarde Blijdorp. However, these visitors do not read the signs, the most common communication channel at the zoo. When looking at the reasons not to read the signs, there are no significant reasons on which they agree, so there has to be other reasons why they do not read the signs. This would be interesting to further explore. Furthermore, it would be interesting to further explore which education methods do work for this group of visitors. This study found that they use the information booths run by volunteers and the Greenpeace exposition. Both of them are an interactive education method. Study of Jensen (2014) found that educator-guided tours at zoos were more successful in educating children and stating that unguided, interpret ive (think of signage) materials are insufficient for achieving the best education outcomes for children. They also state that guided education resulted in less negative attitude change. Diergaarde Blijdorp could think how they could ‘guide’ children more and could play to the strengths they already have: the interactive guiding of volunteers at information booths.
This study however does contain some limitations. Firstly, the research may not be a good representation of the average zoo visitor. The research was done at only one zoo, which was a city zoo. It could be that the visitors of Diergaarde Blijdorp is not a real representation of the Dutch people. Furthermore, only subscription holders filled in the questionnaire. A subscriptio n holder comes more often than once at a zoo and may have other behavior than people that visit for only a day. Those people usually have less time for a visit and may skip many opportunit ies for education. On the other hand, subscription holders may already read some signs or developed an attachment to a particular animal, thus indicating that they may skip the information they already know or skip the lesser interesting parts of the zoo. Concluding, one time visitors may have totally different reasons to (not) use communication channels and the zoo might need other ways to educate those visitors. Future research should explore the visit or motivations and communication channel usage of both subscription holders as one-time visitors and compare those groups. The difference between a city zoo and a regional zoo, would also be interesting to explore in future research. Besides the fact that only subscription holders of Diergaarde Blijdorp were studied, it is not known if the sample of participants were representative for all the subscription holders of Diergaarde Blijdorp. A comparison between the sample and the population needs to be made, to estimate whether the sample is representative.
30 Secondly, the model as proposed by Falk, Heimlich and Bronnenkant (2008) could not be reproduced by a factor analysis. This could indicate that the visitor motivations, apart from the motivation ‘Facilitator’, might not be very useful. According to a study of Falk (2011) there is compelling evidence for a basic validity and reliability in the model. However, there is much critique on using the model for segmentation of visitors (Dawson and Jensen, 2011). Not only do they state some measurement biases, but also state that there are some fundamental errors in some assumptions. They plead to ‘widen the analytical lens’, since education is more holist ic than a visit to a museum or a zoo. Visitors do not have a ‘tabula rasa’ when they visit with certain motivations, but have already some knowledge. Therefore, the visitor motivation should have less effect on the learning curve of a visitor.
Thirdly, the reasons to (not) use the communication channels in this study were very limited and there could be many more reasons why people do (not) engage in the education communication channels at zoos. In future research, there should a qualitative research to further examine the different reasons whether (not) to use communication channels or education in general.
Conclusion
This study found that there are indeed some indications that the different identities of visitor motivations play some role in the usage of the different education communication channels at zoos. However, the current education communication channels are not much used. Zoos should further research their visitors and their motivations and develop visitor oriented communica t io n channels in these times that information is getting more and more personal and interactive.
Acknowledgements
I want to thank the following people for their support throughout this project: my supervisor, Dr Henk Staats, for his enthusiasm and guidance throughout the whole study. Dennis Faasse and Diergaarde Blijdorp for their collaboration and helpfulness in opening the zoo for us and providing in all our needs. My teammembers Michèle, Svenja and Sara. The Nederlandse Vereniging van Dierentuinen for enabling a great experience to share all zoo knowledge and studies. And finally all the participants who participated in the pilot and main study.
31 5. References
Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2016). Visitors’ Perceptions of the Conservation Education Role of Zoos and Aquariums: Implications for the Provision of Learning Ecperiences. Visitor Studies, 19 (2), 193-210.
Dawson, E., & Jensen, E. (2011). Towards A Contextual Turn in Visitor Studies: Evaluat ing Visitor Segmentation and Identity-Related Motivations. Visitor studies, 14 (2), 127-140.
Deem, S. L. (2007). Role of the zoo veterinarian in the conservation of captive and free-ranging wildlife. International Zoo Yearbook, 41 (1), 3-11.
Falk, J.H. (2011). Contextualizing Falk's Identity-Related Visitor Motivation Model. Visitor studies, 14 (2), 141-157.
Falk, J.H., Heimlich, J., & Bronnenkant, K. (2008). Using Identity-Related Visit Motivatio ns as a Tool for Understanding Adult Zoo and Aquarium Visitors' Meaning-Making. Curator: The Museum Journal, 51 (1), 55-79.
Jensen, E. (2014). Evaluating Children’s Conservation Biology Learning at the Zoo. Conservation Biology, 28 (4), 1004-1011.
McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and attitude change: An information-processing theory. In A. G. Greenwood, T. C
Moss, A., & Esson, M. (2013). The Educational Claims of Zoos: Where Do We Go from Here? Zoo Biology, 32, 13-18.
Patrick, P., Matthews, C., Ayres, D., & Tunnicliffe, S. (2007). Conservation and education: Prominent themes in zoo mission statements. Journal of Environmental Education, 38, 53–59.
Pekarik A. J., Z. D. Doering, and D. A. Karns.1999. Exploring Satisfying Experiences in Museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 42 (2), 152–173
32 Reade, L., & Warran, N. 1996: The modern zoo: how do people perceive zoo animals? Applied Animal Behaviour Sience, 47:,109-18.
Roe, K., McConney, A., & Mansfield, C.F. (2014). How Do Zoos ‘Talk’ to Their General Visitors? Do Visitors ‘Listen’? A Mixed Method Investigation of the Communication Between Modern Zoos and Their General Visitors. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 30(2), 167–186, 2014
Schultz, J. G. W., & Joordens, S. (2014). The effect of visitor motivation on the success of environmental education at the Toronto Zoo. Environmental Education Research, 20 (6), 753– 775
33 Appendix A. Summary of the Pilot Study
The participants – an overall review
In total, 11 participants were interviewed for the pilot study. The participants all had different places of residence – most of them lived in Rotterdam but one of the participants lived in The Hague who thus has to travel relatively far to visit Diergaarde Blijdorp. Some of the participants had an individual subscription, others had one with their whole family. Most of the participants visit Diergaarde Blijdorp at times that it is quiet, and leave when the zoo is too crowded. Most participants stated that they visit regularly, which varied from once a week to once per two months. They mean duration of their visits is 3.5 hours. One
participant stated that her visit normally takes six hours, while another participant likes to come for just two hours. The duration of their subscription varied from 1 year to 30 years. Motivation-identity
Most participants mentioned their families when asked about their motivation to visit Diergaarde Blijdorp; visiting a zoo is a family-trip. Some participants also mentioned their hobby as a reason the visit the zoo, like taking pictures. Others mentioned that it was just a great way to relax and to recover from their busy (work)week. When asked about with whom they visited the zoo, family was mentioned the most. However, some participants stated that they had also visited the zoo alone or with friends. Participants of the pilot study were divided on the issue of whether their needs could also be satisfied at another place than Diergaarde Blijdorp. Some participants were really place dependent, while others were not.
Education in and physical features of the zoo
Participants were divided on the issue of whether there is enough education in Diergaarde Blijdorp. One participant stated that the education was too much focused on children, while another participant stated that the education was perfect for children and adults as well. Some participants said that they educate themselves at the zoo by reading the signs, visiting the “Publiekslab”, and talking to volunteers. Some had even taken a guided tours. Others however, stated that they did not read the signs or were more focused on educating their children than to learn something themselves. Overall, the participants liked the natural look and the plants at Diergaarde Blijdorp. They also stated that the residences have improved a lot. However, the fact that Diergaarde Blijdorp is often busy with making these
improvements, by rebuilding a lot, was a frequently heard complaint. Some participants also complained about the lack of a clear walking route, while others called this one of the
charms of the zoo. One participant stated that as a main entrance she prefered the Rivièra -entrance over the Oceanium--entrance.
Place-attachment
Most participants felt place-attachment to Diergaarde Blijdorp. They called it their place to come home to, their garden or a significant part of Rotterdam. However, one participant stated that if there would be other zoos in Rotterdam, Diergaarde Blijdorp would not be the clear choice to go to for him.
Sense of connection
Some participants had a sense of connection with a specific type of animal. The animals mentioned were the gorillas, seahorses, forest buffalo and the okapi. Other participants
34 stated that they felt a sense of connection to animals, but to animals in general instead of one specific specie.
Pro-environmental behaviour
Most participant stated that they tried to be a pro-environmental person, but they all felt that they did not do enough to call themselves that. A lot of the participants thought that Diergaarde Blijdorp could influence their pro-environmental behaviour. One participant wondered whether it was up to Diergaarde Blijdorp to promote this behaviour. Others saw a clear connection between visiting a zoo and being made aware of the environment and how to act pro-environmental.
Stewardship and volunteering
None of the participants had ever volunteered in Diergaarde Blijdorp. One participant had intention to do so, but thought it was a lot of work to become a volunteer. Therefore, she started a fanpage on Facebook. This was her way to do her share. Most participants stated that if they would have the time, they were willing to become a volunteer. A lot of
participants thought that Diergaarde Blijdorp could influence people to become a volunteer, while others were not so sure of this influence.
Feeding behaviour
Most participants were against visitors feeding the animals. Some even had seen this
behaviour and spoke up to the visitor who showed this behaviour. Others were to scared for the reaction of others, so they tried to show their disapproval indirectly. Of all the
participants, only one said that he had ever fed an animal in the zoo. He said that he had given three crumbs of bread to a fish once. However, he would speak up to others and was against this behaviour. Another participant stated that he once fed an apple to an elephant, but that it was when he was a child and he did not know the consequences of feeding animals. Now, he is against this behaviour. Some people suggested signs to stop the behaviour, while one stated that this might trigger the idea of feeding animals. Three participants suggested to have volunteers walking around to tell visitors that this behaviour is forbidden. Others said that there should be signs with the consequences of feeding animals (e.g pictures of sick animals who were fed with the wrong food). One participant even suggested sanctions for people who feed the animals. Another participant stated that Diergaarde Blijdorp could not influence visitors’ behaviour, and that they should learn this at home. He thought that if Diergaarde Blijdorp would have volunteers walking around, it would decline the positive feeling one gets while walking in a zoo.
Projects and funds
None of the participants stated that they donated money to Diergaarde Blijdorp in another way than their subscription. One participant stated that becoming “a friend of Diergaarde Blijdorp” does not have many advantages for oneself if you already have a subscription. Two participants were considering to become a friend soon. The opinions about whether
Diergaarde Blijdorp could influence this donating behaviour were divided. One participant stated the Diergaarde Blijdorp was already influencing people with signs stating: “the friends of Diergaarde Blijdorp funded this”. One participants said that if she would die, she would leave money to Diergaarde Blijdorp.
35 Appendix B. Questionnaire of the main study
Wat is uw leeftijd? (klik op het pijltje om uw antwoord te kiezen)
