# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Login to access and create your next design.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amazingly Simple Graphic Design Software - Canva

# data[].attributes.body
There are many organisations that fight against animals: PETA, FOUR PAWS, humane world, RSPCA, Stop Circus Suffering.

Stop Circus Suffering uses PINK. It’s a very bright obvious colour, and the writing is highlighted by this colour with a block behind it, making it stand out. Fairly unique colour- usually used for love, tenderness, tranquillity… however could be portraying thoughtfulness, caring, empathy.

https://www.stopcircussuffering.com/news/usa/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Verifying you are human. This may take a few seconds.

# data[].attributes.body
The font and layout seems purposely less aesthetically pleasing and more factual, however, the title is in a striking text that almost feels like a warning and shout for help. There are splashes of orange around the font so as to relate to the colour of the fox and as a warning. There is a singular picture of a fox at the end to get the audience feeling sad for that animal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Twenty years ago, the Hunting Act 2004 came into force - a landmark piece of legislation that sought to end the cruel and outdated practice of fox hunting. This was a victory for compassion, a moment when public opinion and political will combined to take a stand against needless suffering that hunting wild mammals with dogs entails.

Yet, two decades on, we find ourselves still fighting the same battle. While the Hunting Act was undoubtably a huge step forward, it has not been the silver bullet we had hoped for. The reality is that hunting with hounds persists across England and Wales. Loopholes, such as the exemption for 'research and observation', continue to be exploited by organised hunts, and the invention of so-called 'trail hunting' abuses weaknesses within the law to allow hunts to continue as they did before the ban.

This deception must end. The British public overwhelmingly supports a ban on hunting, and yet those determined to flout the law do so with shocking impunity. Too often, we see reports of foxes being chased and killed, with those responsible escaping justice. Increasingly, law enforcement has recognised the weaknesses of the Hunting Act too, senior police officers have said: "The Hunting Act is not working effectively, and illegal hunting is still common practice". Even the UN has urged exemptions within the law to be reviewed.

Since July, following a manifesto commitment, it has been UK government policy to strengthen the law on hunting. This is a momentous milestone in the campaign to end hunting with dogs once and for all. It is imperative, however, that we see that commitment followed up with legislation, warm words will not cut it. The time has come to strengthen the Hunting Act, close these loopholes, and ensure that it truly delivers on its promise of protecting wildlife from cruel and unnecessary persecution.

At the League Against Cruel Sports, we are calling for a tougher, more enforceable ban - one that removes exemptions, increases penalties for those who break the law, and ends the charade of 'trail' hunting once and for all. We need real consequences for those who continue to defy the law.

That's why we are urging you to take action. Sign the Time for Change petition today and help us demand a stronger Hunting Act. Your voice matters. Together, we can show that cruelty has no place in our countryside, that laws should be more than just words on paper, and that those who harm animals for sport must be held accountable.

As we reflect on 20 years of the Hunting Act, let's not just mark the occasion - let's make it a turning point. The fight for wildlife protection is far from over, but with your support, we can push for the stronger, watertight ban that our wildlife deserves.

Sign the petition today. Let's make history again.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/time-for-change-no-more-fox-hunting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20 years of the Hunting Act - let's end fox hunting for good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Twenty years ago, the Hunting Act 2004 came into force-a landmark piece of legislation that sought to end the cruel and outdated practice of fox hunting.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talked about the education of the vistitors. Free choice learning and educational outcomes occured often indirectly , by the visitor themselves rather than experienced zoo staff.

Animal ambassadors often came into educating visitors when they were megafauna.

An analysis of 1,900 overheard visitor conversations suggests that zoo animals are used to facilitate topical interaction among social groups and to explore the connections that people share with nonhuman animals.

# data[].attributes.body
conservation- this article investigates conservation in close contacr experiences by examining how zoos influence public perceptions of biodiversity and the support for reintroductionod native wild carnivores such as the european lynx. this study explores that zoo experiences with close contact animals could evoke emotional responses such as reducing fear, therefore encourages empathy and concern for biodiversity. this study also shows concerns between people and nature therefore wants to reintroduce the positive impact surrounding conservation causing people to become interested and help support zoos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

The present paper draws from a study of the role of zoos in forming attitudes towards biodiversity and native wild carnivores that are considered for reintroduction. The project is being developed by an interdisciplinary team (wildlife conservation, psychology, education) working towards the development of a questionnaire to investigate this topic in the UK. Research suggests that experiences with live animals in zoos may encourage empathy, through personal connection, which in turn facilitates greater concern towards biodiversity. Concomitantly, the reintroduction of wild carnivores to their native habitats may contribute to biodiversity by helping regulate ecosystem dynamics. Carnivores also carry a rich cultural and historical heritage. IUCN guidelines state the need for public support to establish a reintroduced population in the wild, therefore, carnivore restoration efforts benefit from the understanding of the human dimensions. A pilot study was carried out in Kent (spring 2015) using focus groups and interviews to investigate attitudes towards biodiversity, with particular focus on two species of carnivores native to the British Isles and currently considered for reintroduction (the European lynx Lynx lynx and the pine marten Martes martes) and the role of zoos in promoting support towards biodiversity conservation. Results suggest an association between seeing native wild carnivore species in the zoo and emotional responses such as 'breaking down fears', but also concerns about a disconnect between people and nature, and misunderstanding about the role of zoos in 'protecting' species. Below we offer a discussion of the themes that emerged from the analysis of focus groups and interviews in relation to biodiversity.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Get 10 units per month

Download Article/Chapter or eBook

1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter

Cancel anytime

Subscribe now
Buy Now

Softcover Book

USD 109.99

Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book

USD 109.99

Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

Article Open access

Notes

1. 1.

Aichi Strategic goal A. Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society; Target 1: By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268.

2. 2.

According to population viability analysis over 20,000 km ² of Scottish habitat exists and it is suitable to support around 450 lynx (Hetherington et al. 2008).

References

BBC News. (2015). Will wild lynx return to Britain?, Retrieved April 27, 2015 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32450051

BBC Radio. (2015). Reds Return: Could the return of the Pine Marten mean the end of the Grey Squirrel takeover? BBC Radio 4, Retrieved April 8, 2015 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pn674

BIAZA. (2016). http://www.biaza.org.uk/about-biaza/. Accessed on January 11, 2016.

Bjerke, T., Ødegardstuen, T. S., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998a). Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian children and adolescents: Species preferences. Anthrozoös, 11(4), 227-235.

Google Scholar

Bjerke, T., Ødegardstuen, T. S., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998b). Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian adolescents. Anthrozoös, 11(2), 79-86.

Google Scholar

Consorte-McCrea, A. (2011). Conservation of the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus): Carnivore and people relationships in the southeast of Brazil. Ph.D. thesis, UKC. http://create.canterbury.ac.uk/10662/

Gascon, C., Brooks, T. M., Contreras-MacBeath, T., Heard, N., Konstant, W., Lamoreux, J., et al. (2015). The importance and benefits of species. Current Biology, 25(10), R431-R438.

Hetherington, D. (2008). The history of the Eurasian Lynx in Britain and the potential for its reintroduction. British Wildlife, 20(2), 77-86.

Google Scholar

Hetherington, D. A., Miller, D. R., Macleod, C. D., & Gorman, M. L. (2008). A potential habitat network for the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in Scotland. Mammal Review, 38, 285-303. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2008.00117.x

Article Google Scholar

IUCN/SSC. (2013). Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission, viiii + 57 pp.

Google Scholar

Novacek, M. J. (2008). Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(Supplement 1), 11571-11578.

Pyle, R. (2002). "Eden in a Vacant Lot: Special Places, Species and Kids in Community of Life". In P. H. Kahn Jr and S.R. Kellert (Eds.). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 305-328). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Ray, J.C. (2005). "Large Carnivorous Animals as Tools for Conserving Biodiversity: Assumptions and Uncertainties" In J. Ray K. Redford R. Steneck & J. Berger (Eds.). Large Carnivores and the conservation of biodiversity. (pp. 34-56). Washington DC: Island Press.

Google Scholar

Reading, R. P. & Miller, B. (2008). Attitudes and attitude change among zoo visitors. In A. Zimmermann M. Hatchwell L. Dickie & W. Chris (Eds.). Zoos in the 21st century, catalysts for conservation? conservation biology (15th ed., pp. 63-91). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,

Google Scholar

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2014). Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Montréal, 155 pages. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo4/publication/gbo4-en.pdf Accessed on December 12, 2015.

WAZA. (2005). Building a future for wildlife-the world zoo and aquarium conservation strategy. ISBN 3-033-00427-X

Google Scholar

WAZA. (2011). Communiqué, World Association of Zoos and Aquariums mobilized for the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity. United Nations Decade on Biodiversity. http://www.waza.org/files/webcontent/1.public_site/5.conservation/un_decade_biodiversity/waza_involvement/UNDOB%20press%20release.pdf. Accessed on February 02, 2016.

WAZA. (2016). "Zoos and Aquariums of the World" http://www.waza.org/en/site/zoosaquariums. Accessed on January 1, 2016

Weprin, A. (2007). "Planet Earth Delivers for Discovery". Available at http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/programming/planet-earth-deliversdiscovery/30333. Accessed on January 11, 2016

Download references

Acknowlegments

The authors would like to thank the staff of Wildwood Trust and of the Aspinall Foundation, in particular Hazel Ryan and Claire Capdevila-Wright, Tony King, Neil Spooner, Amanda McCabe and Bryony Hatcher for their support and invaluable time. Many thanks to all the volunteers who took part in the focus groups and interviews.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Wildlife and People Initiative-Ecology Research Group, School of Human and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University-CCCU, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK

Adriana Consorte-McCrea, Siri McDonnell, Aïssa Morin & Oksana Grente

2. Auto/Biography and Narrative Research and Knowledge Exchange Group, Faculty of Education, Canterbury Christ Church University-CCCU, Canterbury, UK

Alan Bainbridge

3. Society & Environment Group, School of Psychology, Politics and Sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University-CCCU, Canterbury, UK

Ana Fernandez & Dennis Nigbur

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adriana Consorte-McCrea .

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Consorte-McCrea, A. et al. (2017). Understanding Attitudes Towards Native Wildlife and Biodiversity in the UK: The Role of Zoos. In: Leal Filho, W. (eds) Sustainable Development Research at Universities in the United Kingdom. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47883-8_17

Download citation

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Attitudes Towards Native Wildlife and Biodiversity in the UK: The Role of Zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The present paper draws from a study of the role of zoos in forming attitudes towards biodiversity and native wild carnivores that are considered for reintroduction. The project is being developed by an interdisciplinary team (wildlife conservation, psychology,...

# data[].attributes.body
looks at how zoos are offering more interactive experiences, like close encounters with animals. It discusses how these experiences can engage visitors and raise awareness about conservation, blending education and entertainment. but it also points out the challenges, particularly around animal welfare, and stresses the importance of designing these interactions carefully to make sure they’re good for both the animals and the visitors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11. Up Close and Personal: Rethinking Zoos and the Experience Economy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
11. Up Close and Personal: Rethinking Zoos and the Experience Economy was published in Zoos and Tourism on page 133.

# data[].attributes.body
This article investigated how the animal's welfare was affected during education programs, with eight ambassador species at the Zoo de Granby and the Ecomuseum Zoo in Quebec. they compared activity treatments involving handling and transport to a control treatment without activities and measured the animals faecal glucocorticoid metabolite levels and activity budgets to measure stress.

In their research they concluded that overall education programs did not significantly affect ambassadors' welfare, but targeted individual among the species were stress such as the camels during animal rides their FCM levels were raised

# data[].attributes.headline
Close contact experiences- guided tours vs un-guided tours

# data[].attributes.subject
Close contact experiences- guided tours vs un-guided tours

# data[].attributes.body
Very interesting- This study showed that a guided tour actually helped regulate and reduce the noise from visitors. This meant that the animals themselves didn't react to the visitors and weren't showing any signs of stressful behaviours. So the presence of a tour guided could influence welfare outcomes. Guided tours could also integrate education and conservation initiatives and could mean that the visitors are engaging positively with the zoo.

# data[].attributes.body
welfare - can be stressful and unnatural for the animals. Visitors are engaging in unnatural behaviours for the animals (such as letting them eat out of their hands and touching them)

researchers suggest that close experiences can be achieved whilst maintaining high standards of welfare, and enclosures and contacts can be designed in a way to reduce stress for the animal and minimise contact

increases people’s interest in having certain species as pets - species of which are not domesticated nor appropriate for people to keep as a pet - Ross et al. [36] discovered that the presence of a human or humanistic element (e.g., office background, human clothing) in photographs of chimpanzees increased presumptions that the animal was not endangered and that it would make a good pet

education - zoo keepers get to raise conservation issues and share information first hand with visitors, which educates them and has seen to increase their interest in conservation

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/1/11

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC 3125, Australia

Department of Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

1. Introduction

Modern, animal welfare-focused zoos are more than simply places for recreation and entertainment, with many prioritising conservation and education [ 1, 2]. Such zoos are vital for ex situ (such as captive breeding) and in situ (such as wildlife reintroduction) conservation efforts and often implement public education programs to encourage pro-conservation behaviour [ 3]. As the third-largest funder of conservation globally [ 4], zoos provide an opportunity for visitors to experience emotional sensitivity towards wildlife [ 5] as they observe and learn about animals that they would be unlikely to encounter in another setting. Seeing these animals up close can elicit feelings of 'connectedness' and kinship, strong conservation attitudes, and pro-environmental behavioural intentions amongst visitors [ 6].

There is a growing public expectation that zoos care for their animals, both physically and psychologically [ 4, 5]. To ensure public support, and thus funding for conservation efforts, these establishments must develop, achieve, and maintain best-practice standards in animal welfare [ 7, 8]. Visitors are less likely to support a zoo when they perceive an animal in their care to be suffering [ 8]. Conversely, viewing active animals engaged in natural behaviour can lead to positive visitor experiences and foster conservation learning [ 9]. Povey and Rios [ 10] and Packer and Ballantyne [ 11] argue that, to increase a visitor's emotional connection to wildlife, visit satisfaction, and pro-conservation behavioural intent, zoos must prioritise and highlight their dedication to animal welfare.

One indicator of good animal welfare is the performance of natural behaviours, defined as "behaviour(s) that animals tend to exhibit under natural conditions, because these behaviours are pleasurable and promote biological functioning" ([ 8] p. 77). Natural behaviour is often used as an indicator of animal welfare for captive animals as it demonstrates that the restrictions of captivity are not detrimental to the animal [ 12]. The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), for example, lists natural behaviour as a priority for all members [ 13].

1.1. Close Encounters

The close-encounter experiences commonly offered at zoos [ 14], which provide an opportunity for visitors to see an animal at close proximity, pose an interesting contradiction for the preference for natural behaviour. These experiences vary depending on the animals and institution involved, but may involve the animal engaging in what could arguably be seen as "unnatural behaviour"-such as feeding from the visitor's hand, or being held or touched. Although little research thus far has focused on animal welfare during close encounters, some evidence has suggested that human proximity to zoo animals can be a source of enrichment [ 15, 16], and that close observation of zoo animals can be achieved while having neutral or even positive impacts on the welfare of the animal [ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]. As suggested by Sherwen and Hemsworth [ 15], zoos may design their encounters to only feature species whose welfare is not negatively impacted by the practice and that willingly choose to engage in the process. Close encounters also provide an opportunity for zoos to engage with participants to foster a deeper appreciation for wildlife, as well as provide information on how the zoo ensures the welfare of the animal, and of conservation actions that visitors can engage in. Participating in close encounters can lead to visitors reporting greater levels of care and concern for the animal and intentions for further engagement in conservation behaviours [ 11, 24, 25]. These encounters will often include a photography opportunity, where visitors may take pictures themselves or have a photo taken with the animal. After their visit, these photos will often be shared on social media platforms.

1.2. Social Media

Social media is highly popular and expanding in popularity, providing an effective way to widely share information due to its expansive reach [ 26]. This phenomenon has been shown to influence a variety of social norms, cultures, and behaviours, with internet terms such as 'hashtag', 'selfie', and 'unfriend' becoming so popular that, in 2014, they were added to the Merriam Webster Dictionary [ 27]. However, the wide reach and social influence that social media can achieve can also have negative impacts, particularly on wildlife.

Close-encounter images have the potential to attract attention as they contain both novel and emotional components, which are features of the most popular social media content [ 31, 32]. As images target deeper levels of processing than text [ 33, 34, 35], they provide a great opportunity to instil information, if the messages received by viewers are those desired by the zoo. Due to their popularity, many close-encounter photographs are posted online, with over 137,000 posts on Instagram with the hashtag #animalselfie and a further 39,600 with the hashtag #closeencounter (as of 10 June 2021). These photos are often posted without any context of the situation they were taken in (e.g., in a zoo setting where the animals are cared for by professionals) or with little to none of the information that was provided to visitors during the experience. Without this context, what messages are the images sending to social media users about the featured animal and the zoo?

1.3. Images of Wildlife

With these few exceptions, there is limited research on the impact of visual representations of varying species on public perceptions of zoos and animals. Previous research mostly focuses on primates, though zoos host many species, and the animals used for close encounters vary across taxa [ 14]. Moreover, there is little research on the impact of viewing photo elements, such as a human's proximity to, and interaction with, the featured animals in photographs, particularly within a zoo setting.

This study aimed to determine the impact of varying human proximities to animals of different taxa in close-encounter images on viewers' perceptions of the zoo animal in the photograph. Perceptions are defined as "a thought, belief, or opinion, often...based on appearances" [ 40] and have historically been thought to determine attitudes along with a person's feelings and reactions [ 41].

2. Materials and Methods

Human ethics approval was granted for this project by Deakin University's Human Ethics Advisory Group, under the reference STEC-65-2019-SHAW. The study was exempt from animal ethics approval as the animal photography followed the strict protocol of the zoo for animal encounters.

2.1. Study Design

To investigate the impact of photographs on perceptions of zoos and animals, sixteen photographs were taken across two days at Zoos Victoria properties-Melbourne Zoo and Healesville Sanctuary-with full permission and assistance from the organisation. The four animals involved in the photos were already familiar and comfortable with human proximity and were closely monitored by zoo staff during the photography session, each of which lasted for less than 5 min. Each of the sixteen photographs featured one of four human positions and one of four Featured Animals. The lighting, human participant, and clothing were kept constant between all images. For each animal, the background was also kept constant. The human model within the photographs was a volunteer. The photos were taken in the manner and style commonly seen in close-encounter photos to create images that accurately represented these scenarios.

2.2. Selected Featured Animals

The four animals selected (hereafter referred to as "Featured Animals") were selected with two criteria: (i) the species were native to Australia, (ii) the species were representative of the taxa commonly included in close encounters. Australian species were chosen as the respondents in the samples were Australian, and thus these species were likely to be animals that the respondents would see in their local zoos. The four species, as shown in Figure 1, were from different classes: mammal-the Kangaroo Island kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus), bird-a male Eclectus parrot (Eclectus roratis), reptile-a Centralian carpet python (Morelia bredli), and insect-a female Monteith's leaf insect (Phyllium monteithi).

2.3. Human Position

The four human positions (hereafter referred to as "Human Positions") reflect those common in close-encounter images, ranging from touching to no human presence (see Table 1). This variable was designed to measure the effect of a human's position in the photograph, and, as such, the same model was used across all photos to control for any effect that the appearance of the person may have had on how the photo was perceived. We chose to include both a 30 cm and 1 m condition as, to our knowledge, the role of distance between a human and an animal in images on public perceptions has not yet been investigated. The role of human-animal proximity has been under scrutiny in recent years, with many studies finding that wild animals can experience negative welfare when in close proximity to humans [ 42]. Because of this, many reserves and shelters now have regulated distances for viewing wildlife [ 43]. As the Featured Animals in this study were relatively small, the distances of 30 cm and 1 m were selected so that the animal would be visible within the photograph. This also more closely relates to the close-encounter setting and could provide insight into whether altering the distance of a human from an animal in close-encounter imagery is discernible and whether it impacts perceptions gained from viewing these images.

2.4. Survey Design

Both the survey layout and questions were designed for clarity and consistency of interpretation. Pre-tests were conducted with a small group of 20 university students with various levels of familiarity with zoos, to ensure sufficient variation in responses and to revise any unclear or ambiguous questions or instructions [ 44].

The survey included (in order):

A link to a Plain Language Statement that outlined the research, participant rights, and ethics approval in more detail.

One photograph presented per participant depicting one Featured Animal and one Human Position (for all images, see Supplementary Figure S1). The photographs were equally but randomly assigned to participants to ensure comparable sample sizes. The choice to assign only one photograph was made to reflect the work of Ross, Vreeman, and Lonsdorf [ 36] and Leighty et al. [ 37] and to remove the impact of order effects. Respondents were not informed as to which zoo these images were taken at, nor were they aware that other participants potentially saw a different image.

A set of agreement statements measuring perceptions of zoos and the animals in the photographs:

These statements were chosen as they measured public perceptions of the zoo's care for the animals, both as an outright question and through a partial measure of animal welfare, or were consistent with previously established work on public perceptions of animals in photographs [ 36, 37]. The level of agreement with these statements was measured through a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, with the midpoint of 4 = neither agree nor disagree.

A set of attitude scales measuring respondents' attitudes towards wildlife and zoos. These questions form part of a different study and the results will be reported elsewhere.

A set of demographic questions (gender, age, level of education, residential location, zoo membership status, zoo visitation regularity, and conservation organisation membership status) to allow for the description of sample characteristics.

At the end of the survey, participants were offered the opportunity to enter a draw for three AUD 50 gift cards. As a token of gratitude, participants were also given access to seven downloadable desktop backgrounds. The average response time for the survey was approximately 12 min.

2.5. Sample Recruitment

The study encompassed two different audiences:

Zoo members or zoo social media followers (hereafter referred to as the Zoo Community sample), who may be more likely to post and/or see photos of close encounters. This audience is likely to be more exposed to the previous work of zoos in both welfare and conservation efforts than the general public [ 45], as they have made the conscious choice to receive promotional and educational materials from the zoo across their social media platforms, and thus are likely to hold an interest in zoos and animals. This sample may access such knowledge when forming attitudes based on the images they see, such as seen in Cohen [ 46].

The Australian general public, members of which may also see these posts on social media, but may not be as familiar with zoos and wildlife (hereafter referred to as the General Public sample).

The two populations consisted of different audiences, who may thus respond in different ways. Thus, samples for each of these populations were recruited in different ways, to reflect the variation in these groups.

The Zoo Community sample consisted mostly of "followers" of zoo and Australian conservation organisations across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Reddit. A post containing a link to the online survey was shared 20 times (staggered, every two days) on the social media accounts of Zoos Victoria, researchers, and conservation groups (e.g., Field Naturalists of Victoria). Most of these groups encompass Australian residents only.

The General Public sample, selected to be demographically similar to the Australian public in age, gender, and urban/rural locality, was recruited from panel members of the Online Research Unit (comprising a list of 350,000 individuals) [ 47]. Panel members were directly emailed an invitation to participate, and recruitment continued until representative quotas of respondents were met. Surveys with no data, such as those who had only accessed the first page, or whose response time was under 2 min (as it was determined through the pre-test that the survey took at least 5 min to complete), were removed from analyses. Respondents who indicated that they were from outside Australia were later removed from analyses.

2.6. Analysis

The overall survey data were non-normally distributed, as indicated by Kolmogorov-Smirnov [ 48] and Shapiro-Wilk [ 49] testing, so we decided to analyse the impact of Human Position, Featured Animals, and other demographics on each agreement statement with a linear regression approach.

Following the approach of Van der Meer, Botman, and Eckhardt [ 38], we collapsed the 7-point Likert scale categories into 5 for each of the agreement statements, to allow for an adequate number of events for each variable. Thus, "strongly disagree" and "disagree" were combined, as were "strongly agree" and "agree".

Pearson's chi-square tests were then conducted to compare the two samples across each of the demographic questions. The results showed significant differences between the two samples for most demographic questions, so the samples were separated for further analyses. A principal components analysis was conducted of the three agreement statements for both samples, to determine if the agreement statements were measuring different perceptions. Results indicated that none of the three agreement statements were closely correlated with each other for either sample, so distinct statistical analysis was appropriate.

As the responses to each of the agreement statements represented a scale of agreement, we fitted ordinal regression models to each of the three statements for each sample, as done by Van der Meer, Botman, and Eckhardt [ 38], for a total of 6 models. As demographic information such as gender, age, and education level has been shown to impact our perceptions and attitudes towards animals [ 50, 51], all collected demographic information, including zoo visitation and zoo membership, was added to the original models, as well as the Human Position and Featured Animal that each respondent saw in their allocated image. All possible interactions between each of these variables were also added. Ordinal regression modelling was conducted with SPSS software version 25.0 [ 52] using forward selection and then a GENLIN procedure, which is centred on likelihood testing. An ordinal regression was not suitable for the second model that examined the relationship between the variables on agreement that the zoo cares for the featured animal for the General Public (Pearson's goodness of fit test p < 0.05, test of parallel lines p < 0.05). Instead, a multinomial regression was fitted. For all models, any variables and interaction terms that did not have a significance level (p-value) of > 0.05 were removed via forward selection (for a full list of variables tested, see Supplementary File 1, and any non-significant interaction effects). For comparison analyses, the Kangaroo was set as the reference animal as it was the most recognised species and least likely to be a pet. The animal-alone condition was also set as a reference category for comparison of analyses of Human Position effects.

For both samples the model fit to the statement "the featured animal is cared for by the zoo" and for the Zoo Community samples' model fit to the statement "the featured animal would make a good pet" included a significant interaction term between the Featured Animal and the Human Position, so post-hoc Pearson's chi-square testing with Bonferroni corrections were conducted to determine the nature of these interactions.

3. Results

A total of 2582 surveys were completed (Zoo Community sample, n = 963; General Public sample, n = 1619). There was a difference between the two samples by most demographics, including gender identity X ² (1, n = 2450 = 275 p < 0.001), age (H = 160.42, df = 1, p < 0.001), education (H = 29.44, df = 1, p < 0.001), zoo membership X ² (1, n = 2471 = 461, p < 0.001), frequency of zoo visitation (H = 327.72, df = 1, p < 0.001), and conservation organisation membership X ² (1, n = 2473 = 159, p < 0.001).

3.1. Demographics

3.1.1. Zoo Community

Approximately 60 respondents were allocated to each of the 16 images in the Zoo Community sample. Across the images, a maximum of 91.5% and a minimum of 68.4% of those allocated to each image were female, mean age varied from 39.12 ± 1.9 (mean ± SE) to 43.46 ± 2.1 (mean ± SE), and education level ranged from 9.89 ± 0.39 (mean ± SE) to 11.15 ± 0.368 (mean ± SE), which is the equivalent of an Australian Advanced Diploma (AQF Level 6) for the first and a Bachelor's degree (AQF Level 8) for the second. These variations in demographics between the populations who saw each image were due to the random allocations of the Qualtrics software.

3.1.2. General Public

Approximately 101 respondents were allocated to each of the 16 images in the General Public sample. Across the images, a maximum of 58.4% and a minimum of 41.6% of respondents allocated to each image were female, mean age varied from 47.38 ± 1.6 (mean ± SE) to 53.4 ± 1.7 (mean ± SE), and education level ranged from 9.24 ± 0.38 (mean ± SE) to 10.36 ± 0.30 (mean ± SE), which are the equivalent of an Australian Diploma (AQF Level 5) for the first and a Bachelor's degree (AQF Level 8) for the second.

Table 2 highlights the demographic characteristics for the Zoo Community sample, which are different from the 2016 Australian Demographic Statistics [ 53], particularly for gender and education. Females were heavily represented in the Zoo Community sample, which was also skewed towards university-educated respondents. However, the sample was similar in age distribution to Australian Facebook users [ 54]. The General Public sample broadly reflected the demographic profile of the Australian public, although it, too, differed in education level. Importantly, for both samples, each of the demographic variables was found to have no relationship with responses to each of the three agreement statements.

3.2. The Animal Is Cared for by the Zoo

3.2.1. Zoo Community

Overall, 86.5% of respondents agreed to at least some degree that the animal they saw was cared for by the zoo. Within the model, an interaction between the Featured Animal and the Human Position was found to impact the level of agreement with this statement (X ² = 17.32, df = 9, p = 0.04).

A post hoc chi-square analysis showed that a higher percentage of people disagreed that the animal they saw was cared for by the zoo when they saw the leaf insect at a distance to the human (~30 cm and ~1 m apart) and the snake ~1 m from the human (X ² = 101.829, df = 45, p ≤ 0.001) ( Figure 2).

3.2.2. General Public

Overall, 79% of respondents in the General Public sample agreed to at least some degree that the animal they saw was cared for by the zoo. A multinomial regression indicated that there was a significant interaction term that impacted the level of agreement with this statement (X ² = 62.91, df = 36, p = 0.04), with those who saw the Kangaroo ~30 cm away from the human having a slightly higher percentage of agreement with the statement. Those who saw the Leaf Insect ~30 cm away from the human had a much lower level of agreement with the statement (X ² = 136.096, df = 45, p < 0.001) ( Figure 3).

3.3. The Animal Is Displaying a Natural Behaviour

3.3.1. Zoo Community

Overall, 70.6% of respondents agreed to some degree that the animal they saw was displaying a natural behaviour. There was no significant interaction effect (X ² = 9.31, df = 9, p = 0.409). However, Human Position (X ² = 71.71, df = 3, p ≤ 0.001) and Featured Animal (X ² = 21.55, df = 3, p ≤ 0.001) both had an impact on the levels of agreement with this statement. Compared to the control image, where the animals were shown alone, those who saw the animal being touched by a human were 0.186 times less likely to agree that the animal was displaying a natural behaviour ( Table 3). A similar pattern occurred for the other positions, with those who saw the animal at ~30 cm away from the human 0.47 times and those who saw the animal at a ~1 m distance 0.5 times less likely to agree that the animal was displaying a natural behaviour ( Table 3 and Figure 4).

Compared to the Kangaroo, those who saw the Python were 1.55 times and those who saw the Stick Insect were 2.17 times more likely to agree that they were displaying a natural behaviour ( Table 3 and Figure 4).

3.3.2. General Public

Overall, 73.9% of respondents in the General Public sample agreed to some level that the animal they saw was displaying a natural behaviour. Again, there was no significant interaction term in the fitted model (X ² = 5.81, df = 9, p = 0.76), but Human Position X ² = 20.90, df = 3, p ≤ 0.001) and Featured Animal (X ² = 24.09, df = 3, p ≤ 0.001) both had significant main effects. Compared to the control images, where the animals were shown alone, those who saw the human touching the animal were 0.54 times and those who saw the animal and human ~30 cm apart were 0.47 times less likely to agree that the animal was displaying a natural behaviour ( Table 4 and Figure 5). Compared to the Kangaroo, those who saw the Python were 1.85 times and those who saw the Stick Insect were 1.66 times less likely to agree that the animal was displaying a natural behaviour ( Table 4 and Figure 5).

3.4. The Animal Would Make a Good Pet

3.4.1. Zoo Community

Overall, 16% of Zoo Community respondents agreed to some level that the animal they saw would make a good pet. The fitted model included an interaction term (X ² = 19.86, df = 9, p = 0.019). A chi-square analysis (X ² = 125.824, df = 60, p ≤ 0.001) showed that although most people who saw each image disagreed with the statement, a high proportion of those who saw the Parrot with a human (touching, 30 cm or ~1 m apart) and the Leaf Insect ~30 cm apart or without a human did agree with the statement to some level. Additionally, the groups who saw the Kangaroo ~30 m apart or without a human or the snake ~1 m from a human expressed lower agreement that the animal would make a good pet ( Figure 6).

3.4.2. General Public

Overall, 27.9% of respondents from the General Public sample agreed with the statement "the animal would make a good pet" to some level. The fitted model did not include a significant interaction term (X ² = 11.88, df = 9 p = 0.220), but both Human Position (X ² = 11.41, df = 3, p = 0.01) and Featured Animal (X ² = 162.83, df = 3, p ≤ 0.001) were found to have an impact on respondents' level of agreement with this statement. In comparison to the control images of each of the animals alone, those who saw the animal and the human at ~1 m apart were 1.29 times, those who saw the animal and human ~30 cm apart were 1.42 times, and those who saw the human and the animal touching were 1.56 times more likely to agree that the animal they saw would make a good pet ( Table 5 and Figure 7). In comparison to the Kangaroo, those who saw the Parrot were 4.32 times and those who saw the stick insect were 2.79 times more likely to agree that these animals would make a good pet ( Table 5 and Figure 7).

4. Discussion

This study highlights that the perceptions drawn from viewing close-encounter images can differ based on the animal featured, the human's presence and position in the frame, and the audience viewing the photograph. In particular, the Zoo Community agreed that the animals they saw in such photographs were cared for by the zoo 7.5% more than members of the General Public. For both samples, the presence of a human, and a human's proximity to a featured animal, lowered agreement that the animal was displaying a natural behaviour. In addition, the Parrot and Kangaroo were less likely to be considered as displaying natural behaviour in close-encounter photographs in comparison to the Python. Finally, when considering whether the Featured Animal would make a good pet, almost one third of the General Public stated that they agreed. The presence of a human in these images, as well as the Featured Animal species, also impacted agreement with this statement. These results somewhat reflect our hypotheses but emphasise that the impact of image features on different audience perceptions is a more complex relationship than anticipated.

These findings, as discussed in more detail below, may provide insight into how zoos and other wildlife organisations can best design their close-encounter experiences and deliver more precise messaging regarding their animal welfare and wildlife conservation priorities. Zoos providing close encounters typically determine whether photos can be taken, who takes them, and how elements are positioned within the photo frame (specifically, human presence, interaction with and distance to encounter animals in photographs, what species are involved, and the nature of the backdrop provided). Although zoos do not have control over the images that visitors post to social media, an understanding of how these images influence viewer perceptions is important in framing clear messages. Indeed, this study posits that the conditions of the close encounter have an important influence, specifically on the viewers' perceptions of animal welfare and wildlife conservation.

4.1. The Animal Is Cared for by the Zoo

Although the pattern of agreement for this statement was mixed in both samples, highlighted by the significant interaction term between Featured Animal and Human Position, there was a key difference in the overall levels of agreement between the Zoo Community and General Public samples, with 7.5% more of the Zoo Community sample agreeing that the animal they saw was cared for by the zoo than was the case with the General Public sample.

Zoo visits can help to facilitate a connection to animals [ 55] and are associated with greater levels of understanding about biodiversity and pro-environmental actions [ 56]. As the Zoo Community sample had higher levels of zoo visitation and zoo/conservation organisation membership than the General Public sample ( Table 2), these respondents may have had greater knowledge of how modern zoos ensure the welfare of the animals in their care and of their conservation work, or they may simply be more supportive of zoos in general.

With the Zoo Community sample's demographic similarity to Australian Facebook users, they may represent the subset of the population most likely to take encounter photos and share them on social media. They are also potentially the most likely to engage with zoo- and conservation-related social media content and, thus, be the first impacted by viewing such images. Hence, zoos and such organisations should continue to pay attention to this audience and how they are impacted by close-encounter images.

By comparison, the General Public sample may have less knowledge of zoos and animals than the Zoo Community sample. Although this group may not be first to engage with zoo social media content, social media allows people to post or share any content, and, thus, it is likely that both close-encounter images posted by visitors and content posted by a zoo or aquarium and shared by their followers will reach a more general audience than merely those who follow zoo or aquariums' social media. Indeed, even a study involving zoo visitors found that animal welfare was considered more of a concern when viewing zoo imagery than wild imagery [ 39], and these concerns are likely further exacerbated in non-zoo audiences. Without direct knowledge of zoos and animals, the messages that the general public may receive about zoo practices may differ from what was originally intended by the post and negatively impact a zoo's social licence.

4.2. The Animal Is Displaying a Natural Behaviour

There was a high level of consensus among each sample's pattern of agreement with the statement "the animal is displaying a natural behaviour", and these were also impacted by both the Human Position and the Featured Animal.

Indeed, for the General Public, both the touching and ~30 cm conditions resulted in significantly lower levels of agreement than the "alone" condition, whereas a human at a distance of ~1 m did not.

This pattern in results may have occurred due to a perception that an animal, particularly a non-domesticated species, may be less likely to behave naturally when a human is present and close to an animal. This is similar to the results of Spooner and Stride [ 39], who found that animal welfare was seen as a concern by viewers of animal-human imagery within a zoo context, and perhaps it was similar concerns that played a role in respondents' perceptions of natural behaviour here. Furthermore, studies of zoo animals show that species do alter their behaviour in the presence of humans and that negative effects seem to occur more frequently when a zoo visitor is interacting inappropriately with the animal or the animal is unable to escape the interaction [ 43]. Some viewers may have knowledge or perceptions around such animal behavioural changes, which may guide their responses. Viewers may believe that encounter images are engineered, unnatural, and that the animal is under human control, believing that the animal is unable to escape the interaction. Additionally, viewers may be subconsciously influenced by the height difference between the human and animal. In film semiotics, height is used to convey power; thus, a greater height of the human over the animal could imply that the human has dominance and power over it [ 57], which in turn would lead to the animal being unable to act naturally.

However, we must also consider what respondents believe "natural behaviour" is, and how these beliefs may guide responses. Research has shown that humans tend to misinterpret animal behaviour as we may base our understanding of animal behaviour on popular media, which often shows wild animal behaviour as active and free [ 58, 59, 60], and captive animal behaviour as stressed and stereotypic, such as in Blackfish [ 61]. This highlights that natural behaviour may likely be seen as the active behaviours of hunting, mating, and playing, as shown in wildlife documentaries, and that the behaviour shown by zoo animals is unnatural and a result of their "limited welfare". Furthermore, this argument is commonly reflected by animal welfare advocates [ 62]; thus, these results highlight that encounter images are sending negative animal welfare messages. Further research should determine how perceptions of "natural behaviour" play into people's understandings of animal welfare.

It is interesting to note that images showing a human at a slightly further distance of ~1 m from an animal do not receive significantly different agreement scores in the General Public sample to images showing an animal alone, but images showing humans at ~30 cm or touching the animal do. This could suggest that there is the perception amongst non-zoo followers that keeping one's distance, even at only 1 m, from animals does not impact animal behaviour or welfare. Such findings are intriguing as they suggest that there may be certain distances that the general public believe they can keep from wildlife that will ensure the animal's welfare, and that this may even be such a small distance as ~1 m. Future research could determine at what precise distances these perceptions change for different taxa, and how receptive the general public are to keeping their distance from wildlife in similar tourism experiences.

Levels of agreement that the animal featured was displaying a natural behaviour also differed based on which animals were featured in the image. Compared to the baseline species (the Kangaroo), the Leaf Insect and the Python were less likely to be considered as displaying a natural behaviour. Previous literature may provide some insight into the underlying perceptions guiding this trend in responses, highlighting that people tend to attribute more cognitive ability to bird and mammal species [ 63] and even prefer them to other species [ 64]. It is suggested that this is due to their relative similarity in behaviour and appearance to humans [ 65, 66, 67]. Thus, people may report stronger feelings of identification with, and empathy for, birds and mammals in comparison to insects and reptiles, which may, in turn, lead to a belief that they understand the behavioural and emotional needs of these species [ 64, 65, 66, 67]. These feelings of empathy could then lead to a lower level of agreement that mammals and birds are displaying natural behaviours due to the restrictions of captivity, which is not seen as strongly for the other species. We argue that these results further support the fact that respondents may see "natural behaviour" as an indicator of animal welfare.

Additionally, respondents may be influenced by their previous experiences with reptiles and insects, particularly in the media. Representations of reptiles and invertebrates are lacking in comparison to more "charismatic species" [ 68], which may also explain why understandings of such species are limited, and thus why levels of agreement are lower. Moreover, many studies show that there is an underlying fear of some reptiles and invertebrates within communities, with perceptions that such species are pests, dangerous, dirty, and unable to be controlled [ 69, 70], and even that they do not have active consciousness and thus do not perform active behaviours [ 63, 69]. Future studies could test the theory of prior species knowledge and feelings of affiliation on perceptions of animal behaviour, to determine how strong these impacts are on understandings of various species. We also note that feelings of ambivalence towards the featured species may have impacted how viewers responded.

4.3. The Animal Would Make a Good Pet

For the General Public sample, the level of agreement that the animal they saw would make a good pet was further impacted by the presence of a human within the image. Indeed, not only was a "touch" position more likely to increase this perception compared to the animal alone, but also positions where the human was at ~30 cm and ~1 m from the Featured Animal, reflecting the findings of Ross, Vreeman, and Lonsdorf [ 36]. However, these findings add further depth to this previous work, suggesting that although human presence in human-animal images does increase perceptions that the Featured Animal would make a good pet, the strength of this influence may also be impacted by the distance of the human from the animal in the photo, as shown in Figure 7.

We suggest that the presence and distance of a human from an animal in such images may play a strong role in perceptions of ownership or companionship with the Featured Animal, either by highlighting the dominance of humans over wildlife or by increasing perceptions that such behaviour is appropriate. Both suggestions are supported by Siriwat and Nijman [ 71], Otsuka and Yamakoshi [ 29], Van der Meer, Bockhart, and Eckman [ 38], and Stride [ 39], who have all found that imagery of humans and animals together on social media increases expectations that viewers can approach, touch, and own animals that are not considered domestic. As such images increase in popularity and number, the theories of social norms [ 42] and repeat messaging [ 72] suggest that these behaviours may increase in number and severity, as seen by Otsuka and Yamakoshi [ 29]. Thus, images with humans and animals together should be used with caution, as they may model the idea that owning illegal exotic wildlife is appropriate. We do note, though, that respondents are reporting a perception, not an actual behaviour, and this does not necessarily mean that all respondents would then seek such animals as pets.

The featured species within these images also impacted the level of agreement that the General Public showed with this statement, which suggests that our perceptions of what makes a "good pet" are also impacted by the species of animal. For example, compared to the Python, respondents were more likely to agree that the Parrot would make a good pet. Although we did not assess prior experience and knowledge of exotic pets, different species of Parrot are a common choice of pet worldwide, including the Eclectus Parrot [ 73]. However, the Python is also a common exotic pet worldwide but did not receive a high level of agreement in this study, although this could be due to the commonly held fear of snakes, and the view that they are dangerous [ 70]. The Leaf Insect also received higher agreement than the snake regarding this statement. Again, this perception may be driven by the view that invertebrates are "mindless" and thus are easier to control and take care of [ 69], with fewer welfare implications from their ownership.

4.4. Limitations and Future Research

This study should be considered an initial exploration of the role of animal photographs in public perceptions, with significant potential for further research. Although there were significant differences in perceptions, these were often small differences. It would be worthwhile for future researchers to investigate respondents' opinions of zoos and wildlife conservation organisations and how these impact responses to viewing these images. Researchers could also determine which of the images used in this study viewers find socially acceptable and whether they have participated in similar photographs themselves. Furthermore, it is noted that the animals used in this study cannot accurately represent all other species within their taxa, with species varying across an endless array of variables. Future research could also consider the inclusion of different species to determine the impact of viewing native versus non-native species.

Additionally, the agreement statements used were exploratory in nature and thus were subject to various interpretations by different respondents. We acknowledge that a variation in understandings of these statements may have impacted how respondents scored their level of agreement. The development of multiple items for each dependent variable would likely allow greater precision.

It should also be noted that these results could vary depending upon the human model used. The images included in this work featured only one human, a young, Caucasian male, as have previous studies in a similar area [ 36], including recent work on the use of celebrities for conservation campaigns [ 75]. Further work should aim to reflect the diversity of people using social media, and thus could explore the impact of different human models in conservation and animal imagery, varying by gender, ethnicity, age, ability, and role in the community.

As perceptions of different species tend to vary with culture and age [ 76, 77], cross-cultural, multinational, and cross-generational studies could also be conducted to understand these effects in more detail, and to determine how messaging efforts may differ internationally. Additionally, as described in the demographic overview, these samples are not entirely representative of the general public and all social media users. Previous participant knowledge of zoos and animals was unknown. Future research could determine the impact of viewing similar photos on audiences with clearly defined levels of knowledge towards zoos and the featured animals.

Lastly, natural behaviour is not the only criterion that can be used to determine animal welfare and, thus, a more detailed study including other measures may provide further insight into how photos and images can be used to best support the conservation objectives of the modern zoo.

4.5. Implications

5. Conclusions

This study has shown that viewing images of humans and animals together impacts perceptions of both the zoo and the animals seen. As such, this study informs our understanding of the possible outcomes associated with viewing images and highlights the importance of understanding the audiences who may see these images. The findings have important implications for how zoos and aquariums share imagery online in a way that promotes positive perceptions of wildlife and of how such organisations care for their animals.

Supplementary Materials

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.N.S., E.M.M., W.T.B.., K.K.M.; methodology, M.N.S., E.M.M., K.K.M., W.T.B.; formal analysis, M.N.S.; data curation, M.N.S.; writing-original draft preparation, M.N.S.; writing-review and editing, M.N.S., W.T.B., K.K.M., E.M.M.; supervision K.K.M., W.T.B., E.M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from Zoos Victoria to purchase an external survey panel.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by Deakin University's Human Ethics Advisory Group, under the reference STEC-65-2019-SHAW.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted on the unceded lands of the Woi wurrung, Wathaurong, and Boon wurrung language groups of the eastern Kulin Nations. We would like to acknowledge our volunteer model, Calum Bellofiore, the staff at Zoos Victoria for allowing us access to the zoo and providing careful supervision of the photography process, and the respondents of the survey for their time. We would also like to thank Anthony Rendall for his statistical assistance. Finally, we would like to thank Deakin University, particularly the School of Life and Environmental Sciences, as well as Zoos Victoria for supporting this project.

Conflicts of Interest

E.M.M. works for Zoos Victoria, who also provided funding to purchase an external survey panel. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

1. Gray, J. Zoo Ethics: The Challenges of Compassionate Conservation; CSIRO Publishing: Clayton, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]

2. Barongi, R.; Fisken, F.A.; Parker, M.; Gusset, M. Committing to conservation: The world zoo and aquarium conservation strategy. Gland. WAZA Exec. Off. 2015, 1-69. [Google Scholar]

3. Zoos and Aquariums. Code of Ethics and Animal Welfare. 2003. Available online: https://www.waza.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/WAZA-Code-of-Ethics.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2021).

4. Hosey, G.; Melfi, V. Anthrozoology: Human-Animal Interactions in Domesticated and Wild Animals; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]

5. Meikle, G. Social Media: Communication, Sharing and Visibility; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]

6. Webster, M. Dictionary and Thesaurus. (CD-ROM); Merriam Webster: Springfield, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]

7. Nekaris, B.K.A.A.I.; Campbell, N.; Coggins, T.G.; Rode, E.J.; Nijman, V. Tickled to Death: Analysing Public Perceptions of "Cute" Videos of Threatened Species (Slow Lorises-Nycticebus spp.) on Web 2.0 Sites. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e69215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]

8. Stride, J.R.; Stride, J.R. The Mis-Advertisement of Wildlife Tourism: A Media Investigation into the Conservation Threats Facing Wildlife from Two-Shot Imagery Posted on Zoo Websites and Social Media; Oxford Brookes University: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]

9. Oxford English Dictionary; Simpson, E.S.C.; Weiner, J.A. (Eds.) Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]

10. Glatfelter, K.; Plucinski, K.; Project Dragonfly, M.U. Using Facebook to Promote Conservation Awareness and Action in Zoo Audiences; American Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2020; p. 1. [Google Scholar]

11. The Online Research Unit. About the Online Research Unit. Available online: https://www.theoru.com/about.htm (accessed on 7 October 2021).

12. Hays, S.P. Changing Public Attitudes. In Community and Forestry: Continuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources; Lee, R., Field, D., Burch, W., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]

13. Roloff, M.E.; Miller, G.R. Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research; SAGE Publications, Incorporated: New York, NY, USA, 1980; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]

14. IMB Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25.0; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]

15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2016 Census; Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2016.

16. Sensis. 2018 Social Media Report Melbourne. 2018. Available online: https://2k5zke3drtv7fuwec1mzuxgv-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Yellow_Social_Media_Report_2020_Consumer.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2021).

17. Ellis, L.E. Social Stratification and Socioeconomic Inequality. Reproductive and Interpersonal Aspects of Dominance and Status; Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT, USA, 1994; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]

18. Kilborn, R. A walk on the wild side: The changing face of TV wildlife documentary. Jump Cut. 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

19. Jamieson, D. Against Zoos. In Morality's Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and Rest of Nature; Singer, P., Ed.; Basil Blackwell: New York, NY, USA, 1985; pp. 97-103. [Google Scholar]

20. Marshall, R.; Ward, I. A Guide to Eclectus Parrots as Pet and Aviary Birds; ABK Publications: Burleigh, QLD, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]

21. Maio, G.R.; Haddock, G. The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change; SAGE: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]

22. Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T.; Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In Communication and Persuasion; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

23. Waters, S.; Setchell, J.M.; Maréchal, L.; Oram, F.; Wallis, J.; Cheyne, S.M. Best Practice Guidelines for Responsible Images of Non-Human Primates; International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]

Animal alone

The animal by itself, without human presence

A "control" to assess the difference in participant attitudes to photographs with and without human presence

Touching

A visible touch of the animal by the human model

To measure the impact of viewing an interaction between the human and the animal

~30 cm apart

The same positioning as for touching, but without the touch interaction

To measure the impact of the human's distance from the animal

~1 m apart

The human and the animal positioned ~1 m apart

To measure the impact of the human's distance from the animal

Table 3. Test statistics and effect sizes for variables in the final model to assess respondents' agreement with the statement "the featured animal is displaying a natural behaviour". Parameter estimate (β), standard error (SE), Wald statistics (Wald), degrees of freedom (df), level of significance (p), cumulative odds ratio (Exp (β)), and 95% confidence interval of the cumulative odds ratio (95% CI Exp (β)) for variables in the model. The answer options disagree, slightly disagree, neither agree nor disagree, slightly agree, and agree were coded as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Table 4. Test statistics and effect sizes for variables in the final model to assess respondents' agreement with the statement "the featured animal is displaying a natural behaviour". Parameter estimate (β), standard error (SE), Wald statistics (Wald), degrees of freedom (df), level of significance (p), cumulative odds ratio (Exp (β)), and 95% confidence interval of the cumulative odds ratio (95% CI Exp (β)) for variables in the model. The answer options disagree, slightly disagree, neither agree nor disagree, slightly agree, and agree were coded as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Table 5. Test statistics and effect sizes for variables in the final model to assess respondents' agreement with the statement "the featured animal would make a good pet". Parameter estimate (β), standard error (SE), Wald statistics (Wald), degrees of freedom (df), level of significance (p), cumulative odds ratio (Exp (β)), and 95% confidence interval of the cumulative odds ratio (95% CI Exp (β)) for variables in the model. The answer options disagree, slightly disagree, neither agree nor disagree, slightly agree, and agree were coded as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human Positioning in Close-Encounter Photographs and the Effect on Public Perceptions of Zoo Animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the rising popularity of social media, conservation organisations and zoos need to understand its impact on public perceptions of the animals they house and their role in conservation. In addition, many zoos offer close-encounter experiences, and visitors frequently share images from these experiences online.

# data[].attributes.body
Experiment 1: 65 college students had animal talks. Took place in a zoo auditorium.

Students were split into 3 groups. Group 1 had a live presentation with live animals, group 2 had a recorded presentation with live animals, group 3 had a recorded presentation with no live animals.

Students took a pre-test collectively and a post-test individually.

Knowledge gain was measured using multiple choice species-specific questions in the pre and post test.

Results showed average knowledge gain did not differ between groups. The largest increase was a 27% increase in group 1 and a 16% increase in group 3. No major influence on knowledge gain was found.

# data[].attributes.body
How different experiences with ambassador Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) affected visitors conservation knowledge and improve conservation education goals in a UK zoo. Multiple visit types were used such as close encounters, penguin parades, exhibit viewing, and a comparative control group who did not experience any encounters. Before and After the visit data was collected on the visitor's knowledge and  engagement.

Overall, zoo visitors gained specific conservation-based knowledge and had higher behavioural intentions towards pro environmental behaviours following their zoo visit. However, the study found no evidence to prove the experience of the close contact interaction between visitors and animals itself was successful at further improving conservation education (Clifford-Clarke, et al., 2021).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Southwell NG25 0QF, UK

Derby College, University of Derby, Derbyshire DE7 6DN, UK

Education, Conservation and Research, Twycross Zoo, Atherstone CV9 3PX, UK

University Centre Reaseheath, Reaseheath College, Nantwich CW5 6DF, UK

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

1. Introduction

Conservation education (CE) aims to increase public awareness of biodiversity, including the environmental issues facing the natural world; CE activities therefore often involve imparting knowledge of actions that can be undertaken to mitigate these problems [ 1, 2, 3]. Given that the unsustainable consumption of natural resources is a significant factor in climate change and biodiversity loss [ 4], changing people's behaviours and encouraging them to think carefully about their consumption choices may make a significant difference to reducing anthropogenic environmental impacts [ 5]. Conservation education is subsequently aligned to the rationale that an increased environmental understanding and awareness promotes more positive attitudes and emotions toward conservation. This can lead to increased knowledge of conservation actions (CA), actions that can generally support the conservation of biodiversity such as 'protected areas' or 'sustainable resourcing' and are more likely to translate into pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) that individuals are able to perform such as 'recycling' or 'buying sustainable fish' [ 6, 7].

Attracting over 700 million visits a year worldwide [ 8], zoos (Zoo Definition: 'A place where live animals are kept, studied, bred and exhibited to the public' [ 9]) are in an opportune position to reach large audiences with CE. Carefully designed CE has the potential to also enhance visitor experiences as well as encourage pro-environmental behaviours [ 10] such that many zoos include the delivery of CE in their mission statements [ 11]. The zoo-based delivery of CE ranges from interpretive signage and enclosure design to animal presentations and encounters [ 12]. Animal presentations and feeding times utilise a 'free-choice' learning strategy [ 13, 14, 15, 16], allowing visitors to attend spoken presentations and encounters at their own discretion and convenience. This provides the chance to closely observe, touch or feed the animals [ 12] and may provide unique learning and entertainment opportunities [ 17].

Controlled animal interactions, where staff supervise experiences where visitors can become close to or physically interact with animals more so than is allowed during ordinary visits, are often used by zoos as part of their efforts to reach CE goals [ 1]. In addition to generating vital revenue for establishment running costs and conservation efforts, these interactions are anticipated to facilitate increased visitor connection to wildlife, subsequently enhancing the delivery of CE [ 18]. To appeal to large audiences, such encounters frequently use popular charismatic flagship species (A flagship species possesses popular traits that appeal to a target audience and are used as target specific for conservation marketing due to their charisma and appeal [ 19]), which are handled or trained specifically for this use and are termed animal 'ambassadors' [ 20] or 'programme' animals [ 21]. The use of animal ambassadors in visitor experiences has been found to increase visitor empathy toward animals, improve conservation learning outcomes and encourage pro-environmental behaviours amongst visitors [ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. Conservation education involving animal ambassadors also involves greater visitor engagement with zoo staff, who have been found to guide conversation to better CE outcomes and have a greater impact on visitor learning than what can be achieved through passive visitor learning alone [ 29, 30, 31]. For example, written interpretive information may be ignored during non-interactive experiences as visitor attention is typically directed towards the live animal [ 32].

However, the values of visitors related to conservation have not always increased from baseline values following animal interactions [ 24, 33] and there are concerns that using charismatic species as ambassadors may lead to a distraction from the learning goals [ 26] or inappropriate messaging [ 1]. Ethical and welfare concerns have also been raised for animal ambassadors where increased aggression, avoidance and stress behaviours have been observed in response to visitors, including stereotypies, unusual defecation, huddling and increased vigilance [ 34, 35].

Zoo visitors frequently place higher importance on entertainment value than learning (e.g., see Ballantyne and Packer, 2016 [ 36] which surveyed zoo visitors in four different countries) and conclusive evidence of the CE impact of zoos is somewhat limited in the literature. Moreover, in a study involving 170 zoos across 48 countries, only 15% of zoos reported using both formal (including questionnaires, surveys and structured interviews) and informal (including casual conversations and feedback, personal opinion and subjective observations) measures of visitor learning, with most zoos relying on less accurate informal data [ 37], possibly due to limited resources. Nonetheless, the importance of pro-environmental behaviours is becoming better understood by the public and zoo visitors appear to be increasingly choosing to engage with CE [ 38, 39].

The knowledge-attitude-behaviour link which forms a key focus of recent CE evaluations [ 24, 33, 40] has, to date, not been investigated in relation to the use of animal ambassador animals in zoos. Likewise, knowledge or attitudinal change following a zoo CE experience are not necessarily predictive or reflective of behavioural change. Where follow up studies have been conducted, findings for reported behavioural intention and actual behavioural outcomes in relation to visitors have been variable [ 41, 42, 43]. For example, Hughes [ 42] found that PEB intentions including composting, using reusable containers and purchasing products with less packaging were actioned by the majority of visitors three months after a CE experience, whereas Foster [ 41] found behaviours such as 'riding a bike', 'walking to work' or 'using public transport' were not, possibly due to difficulties in implementing these in modern lifestyles. Realised action may be linked to the type of PEB, as Foster [ 41] highlights that those behaviours most likely to be actioned were easy to do and could save money, but more research is needed to clarify this. Many studies use the Theory of Planned Behaviour [ 44] as a focal theory for researching such topics. According to this theory, social norms, perceived impacts of performing a behaviour and a person's perceived control over the behaviour influences their likelihood to perform it [ 45, 46]. Some of this research has revealed a significant link between intention and behaviour [ 47, 48]. Nonetheless, the call for more research on behavioural intentions is prominent in the current literature [ 49, 50, 51].

Our study aimed to begin to address this gap in behavioural intention by utilising varying zoo visitor experiences involving ambassador Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) to investigate the influence of CE delivery methods on visitor intention to perform specific pro-environmental behaviours. The study was focused around three main questions: (1) Does visitor intention to perform PEBs change following their zoo visit? If so, (2) Was this change affected by the experiences during the zoo visit (visit type)? and (3) Does visitor knowledge of conservation actions (CA) change following their zoo visit?

2. Methods

Visitors to a medium-large UK zoological facility (Twycross zoo, East Midlands, UK) were invited to participate in a repeated measures quasi-experimental study, whereby data were collected via questionnaires from participants on entry to and again on exit from the zoo [ 41, 52]. Visitors were asked questions about their current practice of PEB, their intent to perform such behaviours following their visit and their knowledge of CA in relation to the target species (Humboldt penguins).

2.1. Participant Recruitment

To explore the impact that different types of experiences at the zoo may have on intention to perform PEBs, four types of zoo visits were identified prior to the start of the study and participants were categorised into one of the four groups according to the visit type that they had chosen to engage with during their visit. Visit types targeted for investigation included: (a) 'penguin parade', participants observe trained penguins walking out from their enclosure into a separate viewing area, along with a 5-10 min educational talk delivered by education staff (referred to as a Penguin Parade by the zoo) but no physical penguin-visitor interaction occurs, (b) 'encounter', participants take part in a Penguin Encounter in which small groups of 1-4 visitors accompany keeping staff into the enclosure during a Penguin Parade and are able to interact with the penguins by hand-feeding them and asking questions of the staff, (c) 'exhibit viewing', participants make a passive observation of the penguins on exhibit outside of the Penguin Parade times, with voluntary use of the available interpretation material provided around the enclosure and no access to staff or (d) 'control' group of participants that do not view the penguins or their enclosure during their zoo visit. Visitors were not informed of these classifications of visit type and were free to choose how they engaged with zoo CE opportunities during their visit, although 'encounter' participants were required to pre-book this activity prior to their arrival at the zoo, according to standard zoo operations. For all other participants, it was unknown until they completed the post-visit questionnaire which group they would fall into. All participants had equal access to the zoo grounds and advertisement of zoo talk times, including the penguin parade, and this information was routinely pointed out to them by zoo staff upon ticket purchase/collection.

A convenience sampling strategy was used to collect visitor data between February and March 2018. Except for the 'encounter' group, visitors were approached by the first author and a research assistant as they entered the zoo and were invited to participate; every passing visitor possible was approached and surveyed upon giving consent. Participating visitors were issued a unique number to identify participants anonymously. Since Penguin Encounters were limited to eight participants daily (max. 4 per encounter session, with twice daily sessions) the convenience sampling strategy used for other groups was not predicted to yield sufficient data for this group. Therefore, participants who took part in an encounter were identified on each sampling day via their pre-existing booking for this experience type and were therefore specifically approached upon their registration at the zoo, although participation was still voluntary. At the post-visit survey point, participants were asked to return to the survey point at the end of their visit and were identified using their unique number provided during the pre-visit questionnaire. They were asked to provide information about the type of experience they had to enable classification during data analysis (as seen in Mellish et al., 2016 [ 38]).

Only Encounter experiences incurred a fee payable in addition to the zoo entrance fee. Penguin encounters and parades occurred simultaneously and participants from both groups heard the same presentation from an education team ranger. 'Penguin parade' visitor groups were able to observe other participants and non- participants involved in an encounter whilst observing the parade. Although presentations were not fully scripted and some information and delivery methods may have varied between Education staff, the zoo prescribed key themes to be covered; sustainable fishing and reducing plastic waste were always included in the presentation. In addition, participants engaged in an encounter also had a zookeeper engaging in a non-scripted dialogue with them during the feeding activity. Static interpretive material was available for all participants to utilise ( Figure 1) but was not available to participants in the 'control' group.

2.2. Survey Instrument

A questionnaire was used to determine participant behavioural actions prior to (pre-visit) and behavioural intentions following (post-visit) their visit to Twycross Zoo. A pilot test carried out over two days in February 2018 with 30 zoo visitors was used to refine the sampling and surveying methods. No question items were identified as problematic (i.e., based on pilot-participant understanding, ease of answering and time to answer). Each questionnaire took approximately five to ten minutes to complete.

Pre- and post-visit questionnaires included a mixture of rating scale items and open-ended questions ( Table 1). Visitors responded to statements about specific achievable PEBs that could be directly performed by all zoo visitors, as per Hughes [ 42], using a five-point scale. Self-reported measures of visitor engagement with select PEBs were measured before their visit using a five-point rating-scale (1 = Always, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Unsure, 4 = Rarely, 5 = Never). These were compared to post-visit reports of likelihood to perform those same behaviours (as per Foster [ 41]; Miller et al. [ 28]) on another five-point scale (1 = Very Likely, 2 = Likely, 3 = Unsure, 4 = Unlikely, 5 = Highly Unlikely), as a measure of intent to perform PEB. Open ended responses were also included to gain a greater understanding of visitor views of conservation [ 53] in both pre- and post-visit questionnaires. Some additional questions were included in the pre-visit questionnaire about non-target species to reduce risk of priming.

2.3. Data Collection

Questionnaires were administered via a face-to-face interview at the zoo entrance, but a self-reported response strategy was used to minimise social desirability bias among our sample population [ 54]. As such, questions were read aloud by researchers and participants were asked to self-record their responses on individual answer sheets. Post-visit questionnaires were delivered at the point of visitor exit using the same data collection method.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

This research was approved by the ethics committees of Twycross Zoo and Nottingham Trent University's School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences (ARE695). Participation was voluntary and participants were informed of the study purposes but were unaware of the study prior to their visit. Each participant was over the age of 18 years and gave written consent to use their answers in the study as well as confirming their understanding of their right to withdraw. No participants subsequently requested their data be withdrawn. Upon completion of the pre-visit questionnaires, participants were provided with a unique identification number for matching to post-visit questionnaires. This allowed for anonymous matching of pre-visit answers to post-visit answers.

2.5. Data Analysis

All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Software version 26 [ 55] and significance was set at p < 0.05. Sample characteristics (age and gender) were compared between the four experience types using a Chi-squared test of association. Reliability testing of PEB rating-scale items from all participants as well as responses from each experience type respectively were performed using Cronbach's alpha test of internal consistency and the Keiser -Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, respectively, to determine how data would be analysed. Cronbach's alpha and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure both returned results below the threshold for acceptability (<0.7) except for the 'encounter' group. Thus, further analysis was restricted to a question-by-question analysis instead of via a summation of scores and factor analysis.

A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine if responses to rating scale items differed according to experience type on a question-by-question basis in either the pre- or post-visit responses. Qualitative data provided in open ended questions relating to CAs were coded into themes ( Table 2), a method reflected in Moss et al. (2014) [ 56]. Two researchers initially coded the data independently to generate an inter-rater variability model for validation of coding, as seen in Moss et al., (2014) [ 56].

Answers were further categorised into whether the visitor had identified a general overarching theme or an action that they could personally act upon, i.e., any individual could personally contribute, physically or financially, toward performing this action. To be a personally achievable goal, the individual must have responded in a way that indicated their involvement specifically, e.g., the use of first-person tense or an indication that it was them performing the action. For example, answers such as 'breeding programmes' were excluded from the personally achievable category as whilst they are valid actions, they are performed by other individuals/organisations. A Chi-squared test was used to test for difference between visit types in post-visit responses that either identified a personal or an overarching theme.

Where multiple CAs were specified, each valid answer was counted and given a theme; the number of recorded responses therefore exceeded that of the participants. Items were themed by two authors and the inter-rater reliability was tested using the Cohen's Kappa measurement of inter-rater agreement; this produced a score of 0.940 (max. score 1) indicating near-identical coding. The percentage of responses were then calculated for each theme and pre- and post-visit percentages were compared to identify how theme responses changed following a zoo visit. To identify the key overarching themes for a more detailed analysis, only the top five most represented themes were retained for analyses, each one representing a minimum of 9% of the total responses. All other responses were re-coded into the category 'other valid answer'.

To test for an association between visit type and CA response in the pre- and post-visit dataset, the frequency of each response was calculated. In the pre-visit dataset, only 'climate change', 'habitat protection' and 'no valid response' themes had frequencies >5 and were therefore eligible for analysis using the Chi-squared test. In the post-visit dataset, only two response codes (sustainable fishing and no valid response) were eligible for analysis. These response options were subsequently tested using a z-test for difference in proportions among visit types with a Bonferroni correction (separate tests were run for the pre- and the post-visit datasets).

3. Results

Of 180 pre-visit questionnaires completed, 134 (74.4%) participants completed the post-visit questionnaire; 26 (19.4%) took part in an 'encounter', 36 (26.9%) attended the 'penguin parade', 58 (43.3%) participated in 'exhibit viewing' and 14 participants (10.4%) comprised the 'control' group. Participants who did not complete a post-visit questionnaire were excluded. No data were available to determine the reasons for non-completion by these excluded participants. The chi-squared tests showed no detectable difference (p > 0.05) in age or gender between visit types. Of 134 participants, 80 were female, 52 were male and two preferred not to say. Most participants were between 20 and 39 years (87 participants). Thirty-five participants were between 40 and 59 years of age, and 11 were between 60 and 79 years of age, although one person did not provide their age.

3.1. Pro-Environmental Behaviours

The proportion of responses to each PEB rating scale item in either the pre- or post- visit questionnaires was compared across visit types ( Figure 2). No differences were detectable between groups at either of the sampling points. Since the questions asked at the two sampling points were not identical (i.e., behaviours performed versus intention to perform behaviours) no statistical analyses were performed. However, a numerical increase in intention to perform each behaviour was observed in the post-visit responses overall. There was an average increase in intention to perform positive behavioural changes for buying sustainable fish/encouraging others to do so (0.7. SD ± 1.24); volunteering for conservation (1.56. SD ± 1.16); telling friends what they can do to help conserve wildlife (1.04. SD ± 1.03); using re-usable shopping bags (0.16. SD ± 0.48) and donating money to conservation (0.37. SD ± 1.02).

No significant difference was found in baseline rating scale responses (p > 0.05) given in the pre-visit questionnaire between visit type groups on a question-by-question basis. The same test was conducted on post-visit rating scale items and no significant difference (p > 0.05) was found between visit type responses in these data either.

3.2. Conservation Actions

When asked to list a specific CA for the Humboldt Penguin, 155 unique responses were recorded pre-visit and 156 in the post-visit questionnaires ( Table 3). However, 33.6% of participants in the pre-visit and 29.1% of participants in the post-visit questionnaire provided invalid answers. Notable changes were identified for responses related to climate change and increasing sustainable fishing ( Table 3). In the pre-visit questionnaire, 24.7% of responses were related to climate change compared to just 7.1% in the post-visit questionnaire. In contrast, responses related to ensuring fishing stocks are sustainable increased from 10.4% in the pre-visit to 41.3% in the post-visit questionnaire.

For groups eligible for chi-squared analysis, no significant association was found between visit type and any of the tested CA themes for pre-visit data. Within the post-visit response dataset, no significant association between the visit type and whether the visitors provided a valid response was detected. However, a significant association was found within post-visit responses between the visit type and whether responses related to sustainable fishing (p = 0.017). A Bonferroni correction test determined that the proportion of visitors mentioning sustainable fishing was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the 'exhibit viewing' group compared with the 'control', but no difference was found for any other pair-wise comparison (p > 0.05 in all cases).

Only seven participants gave an identical valid answer in the pre- and post-visit questionnaires. Five participants who had not given a valid answer in the pre-visit questionnaire provided a valid response in the post-visit questionnaire. Overall, 87 participants (64.9%) changed their response to the question 'Can you list any specific conservation actions you can take for the Humboldt Penguin?' following their zoo visit. The key CA themes identified (i.e., with responses representing >9%) in the pre-visit questionnaire were: 'No valid answer', 'Climate change', 'Sustainable fishing' and 'Habitat protection/Environmental Conservation'. These changed in the post-visit survey to include the additional key theme of 'reduce, reuse, recycle' ( Figure 3).

Answers provided were also categorised into overarching and personally achievable actions as defined in the Section 2. No significant association (p > 0.05) was found between visit types and whether a personally achievable action or overarching theme was reported in post-visit open-ended responses.

4. Discussion

Using visitor experiences involving ambassador Humboldt penguins at Twycross Zoo, this study assessed the influences of CE experiences on visitor intentions to perform and knowledge of PEBs and if their experience type influenced these factors. A numerical increase in the intention to perform PEBs was observed between pre- and post-visit, suggesting the zoo visit positively impacted PEB intentions overall. However, the extent of intention was not affected by the type of experience. Overall change in the knowledge of PEB was also found from pre- to post-visit responses. This included a notable increase in responses related to sustainable fishing and a decrease in those related to climate change from pre- to post-visit responses in all responses given. There were significantly more responses related to sustainable fish post-visit in the 'exhibit viewing' group compared with the 'control' group, although no other significant differences were found. As sustainable fishing is a key focus of the Twycross Zoo's Penguin CE programmes, these results provide promising evidence that animal ambassadors and CE materials can positively influence visitor engagement with messaging on this topic. However, the use of more involved animal experiences appeared to be unnecessary in achieving this, which calls into question their role within CE. It is clear that CE efforts have made positive impacts on PEB, as has the use of the ambassador species as a focal point for advertising CE goals, although the use of close encounters may not be necessary.

4.1. Intention to Perform Pro-Environmental Behaviours

Intention to perform PEBs increased regardless of experience type across all tested PEBs, indicating a positive impact of CE based in the zoo environment. This supports previous research including Schonfelder et al. [ 57] and Seybold et al. [ 58] who found higher levels of interest and knowledge retention of conservation information in students who visited an animal attraction compared to those who received a classroom session. Wu et al. [ 59] discussed the role of context within PEB uptake, finding that the perceived available infrastructure to perform a behaviour is influential of behavioural uptake. They found that individuals were more engaged in PEB education within the home than in a nature-based tourism attraction, possibly due to this being perceived as more achievable to them in their daily lives. Our finding that 'using reusable shopping bags' was the most commonly selected PEB performed 'always' or 'sometimes' in the pre-visit questionnaire ( Figure 2),aligns with this. In the current study, a greater intention to participate in behaviours requiring minimal change to routine and cost (e.g., using re-usable shopping bags, telling friends about conservation or buying sustainable products) following the zoo visit was observed. In contrast, voluntary work was the least popular pre-visit activity, and the zoo visit had no impact on the intention to perform this PEB, with most indicating they were 'unsure' if they would take up this PEB. This may be due to time constraints or an uncertainty of how to perform this PEB or indeed what perceived positive impacts such activities may have. This can be further supported by the Theory of Planned Behaviour, whereby a perceived consequence of performing a behaviour influences the likelihood to perform it [ 44, 45]. If participants feel their actions will not have significant consequence, they could be less likely to perform them. The value belief norm theory suggests that creating clear pathways between the values, beliefs and actions of an individual will increase understanding and a sense of obligation to perform behaviours [ 19, 60]. Without certainty of the effects of their actions whilst performing a PEB such as volunteering, a key element creating intention is missing, which could explain the lower intention for this behaviour overall. Similarly, answers relating to donating money remained largely constant pre- and post-visit, possibly due to the inferred personal costs which have been found to influence likelihood to perform PEBs in other studies [ 61, 62]. Whilst this research highlights potential trends in types of PEB, it did not explore the reasoning behind differences in response for different PEBs. Future research to explore participants' motivations may enable zoos to capitalise on the most effective topics to target when developing new interpretive materials.

4.2. Influence of Experience Type on Intention to Perform PEBs from Pre- to Post-Visit Responses

Across all groups, an increased number of participants were 'likely' or 'very likely' to purchase or tell others about sustainable fish options. A larger increase was seen in the 'parade' group, potentially related to the spoken information being associated with improved CE outcomes. For example, Mellish et al. [ 38] found visitors attending an educational seal show with spoken information were 8.75 times more likely to learn something new and 23.54 times more likely to recall specific conservation actions than those who visited a self-interpreted exhibit. In another study, visitors who attended a presentation about survival plans of species reported increases in recycling, turning off lights and unplugging electronics than those who did not view the presentation [ 41]. Several studies have identified higher reports of visitor satisfaction as well as conservation mindedness when they witnessed a high behavioural diversity of animals at close range or physically interacted with them [ 27, 28, 30, 38, 63].

Staff interaction often occurs simultaneously to a visitor viewing or handling an ambassador animal, facilitating the provision of information by staff during situations where interpretive signage is often ignored [ 32]. Visitors who attended an elephant talk did not express increased conservation intent but those who interacted with a staff member did [ 30] and when families engaged with a staff member whilst viewing orangutans (Pongo spp.), themes of conservation were discussed more frequently, although these themes ceased once interaction was finished [ 31]. In contrast to this previous research, the 'encounter' group in this study elicited no greater behavioural intention than other groups, despite their closer contact to animals and their personal interactions with staff. This indicates that the additional interaction available during the 'encounter' visits was unsuccessful in stimulating additional changes in visitor PEBs. This is possibly due to the distraction from conservation messages through active participation and concentration on feeding the animals over learning about them. Given there was no evidence for increased intention to perform PEBs following an encounter, justification for this type of zoo visitor experience requires that the welfare of animals involved is not compromised. Any trade-off between animal welfare and CE goals must be examined carefully. Whilst this study did not investigate animal welfare parameters and therefore cannot speculate as to the impact of these encounters on the penguins involved, recent research elsewhere [ 64] has determined no effect of close contact between visitors and penguins on penguin or colony behaviour. It could be argued that the Penguin Parade still meets the criteria of close animal encounters, even though physical contact with the animals was excluded, and was sufficient to generate motivation for change in PEB. Furthermore, staff-led discussion with visitors at the parade could explain their higher PEB intention. Considering these points, specifically embedding CE messaging into all encounters that require active participation or physical contact with animals, rather than relying on passive learning of the participants depending on the questions they ask or presentations they hear in the background, could be beneficial in improving such programmes. This could be considered at the point of animal encounter programme design, whereby specific prescribed messages and information must be conveyed to participants as part of their experience.

In support of our finding of a relative lack of effect of the encounter on visitor PEB intention, touch pool encounters have been reported to encourage more basic scientific reasoning, rather than higher level understanding required for behavioural change [ 65], albeit without the use of a control or pre-encounter data. Since the present study included a control group, its validity is improved; participants in the 'control' group provided relatively stable responses (from pre- to post-visit), suggesting minimal response bias existed in the study. However, the 'encounter' group represented the smallest sample size, and larger samples will be necessary to confirm these findings.

Although numerically it appears that for some questions the increase in intent from pre- to post-visit responses was higher in some groups than others, this was not found to be statistically significant.

4.3. Influence of Experience Type on Intention to Perform PEBs in the Post-Visit Responses

Although our findings highlight the positive impacts of CE on behaviour intentions overall, no evidence for a role of experience type was detected when visitors were compared post-visit (note this differs to change in behavioural intention which was noted in Miller et al., [ 28] and Garcia-Cegarra and Pacheco [ 66]). It is also important to consider that intent to perform behaviours does not always translate to action. In a study by Ballantyne et al., [ 43] as low as 7% of participants engaged in new conservation activities because of their visit to animal attractions. This is further supported by Foster [ 41] and Hughes [ 42] who suggested that generally knowledge retention is higher than the uptake of conservation behaviours. Likewise, if intent is not translated into meaningful action, it could be argued that the aims of CE have not been met. It must also be considered that the limited difference between responses from individuals of differing experience types could be influenced by social desirability bias, where participants may not be truthful with their responses if they conflict with social norms and could be perceived as undesirable. This is particularly seen when subjective topics are being measured [ 43, 67, 68]. The present study used an interview style to mitigate the loss of data through missed questions, although participants answered on an answer sheet rather than aloud. Indirect sampling techniques typically yield results closer to the truth as it adds an element of anonymity, thus increasing willingness to answer truthfully [ 54]. Allowing visitors to non-verbally respond was related to the theme of indirect answering as part of the effort to mitigate social desirability bias.

4.4. Knowledge of Conservation Actions

Proportions of open-ended responses relating to sustainable fishing were significantly higher in the 'exhibit viewing' group compared to the 'control' group following a zoo visit. As significant differences in the pre-visit responses were not detected, it is likely that this post-visit difference between groups was at least partially influenced by the experience type undertaken. This finding gives support for the efficacy of self-led interpretation and the effectiveness of signage and other interpretation material at the zoo and has been documented elsewhere previously [ 69]. Signage provided at Twycross Zoo includes key pieces of information in short and clear bullet points, which may have assisted guests in accessing key information quickly and easily whilst they observed the animals in their enclosure. However, the finding that the more interactive experiences ('penguin parade' and 'encounter') were unable to elicit differences in CA knowledge among participants is contradictory to some previous research [ 28, 38, 70]. This could be due to differences in staff presenting information. Although each staff member's presentation may have differed slightly, variation was controlled somewhat by the use of scripted key information that must be conveyed by every staff member during talks; it is therefore unlikely that inter-presenter variation would be a key contributing factor. The lack of differences between groups could also be a seasonal effect. This study was carried out in the winter which suggests that visitors may have had pre-existing interests in the animals (i.e., in order to increase motivation for visiting during the cold weather). More research is required to investigate these factors and it is recommended that additional data on presenters and participant demographics are collected in future studies to explore their effects. A sample of 134 was used within this study which is small compared to other large-scale studies [ 71, 72, 73] and sample sizes within different experience categories were unequal. Whilst a large sample size was obtained for the 'exhibit viewing' group, a comparatively small sample for the 'control' was obtained.

Although no other significant associations were found, there was an overall increase in responses related to sustainable fish from 10.4% in the pre-visit to 41.3% in the post-visit questionnaire across all visit types. In contrast, responses relating to climate change decreased from 24.7% to 7.1% in the between pre- and post-visit responses. Although climate change is mentioned on other interpretive materials around the zoo, it is not an explicit focus during the penguin presentations or on the penguin signage whereas sustainable fish is, which may explain the shift. There are other indications in previous research where the knowledge or PEB intention change has been in line with the specific themes related to the CE they were exposed to [ 74, 75, 76], offering support for the efficacy of CE. In this study, by using a repeated-measures design, we were able to clearly highlight the change in the theme of responses from pre- to post-visit, indicating that the zoo visits influenced knowledge of conservation actions relating to the Humboldt Penguin. Whilst this highlights an improvement in knowledge and intention to perform PEBs, actual behaviour change following zoo visits could not be measured. It is recommended that future studies utilise a follow up study following the zoo visit to capture this information.

Open-ended responses have been found to provide a more in depth understanding of people's knowledge and attitudes toward a prescribed topic than closed responses [ 39, 70] although these are more subjective and difficult to interpret. It must be considered that increases in knowledge observed could be explained by the concept of priming; focus of attention in working memory suggests people perform better in tests when their attention is drawn to test-relevant content prior to the test [ 77]. This is further supported by similar increases in the 'control' group, although changes were not significant. Pre-visit responses were completely 'ad hoc' whereas visitors were expecting a post-visit questionnaire and had the duration of their visit to focus their attention on the available information. As part of the attempt to reduce potential bias via priming, additional questions were used in the pre-visit questionnaire directed at alternative animal ambassador species that were not the focus of this study (and were not subsequently analysed). This aimed to reduce the risk that participants would actively seek out penguin information in advance of their post-visit questionnaire.

Although experience type did not overall have significant effects on open-ended responses, except for sustainable fishing which was the most advertised theme within the zoo, it is likely that penguin CE materials in general have influenced the increase in sustainable fishing responses. However, seeking information about which participants actually viewed interpretive signage, who spoke with staff directly and their frequency of zoo visits or membership, for example, may aid in understanding the influences on CA knowledge retention. As discussed by Mellish et al. [ 78] other limitations of similar studies include the overrepresentation of Western country of origin samples which may overlook potential cultural differences in the results. Experiences and interpretations differ between establishments making a multi-establishment analysis difficult; however, extending research to multiple countries may highlight important differences in visitor views that may allow CE to be developed in a way that will be more effective and relatable to the audiences of that establishment. The results from the current study should not be extrapolated without caution to other cultures and geographic regions due to these potential differences.

5. Conclusions

Overall, this study has highlighted that zoo visitors gained specific conservation-based knowledge and had higher behavioural intentions towards PEBs following their zoo visit. However, this study found no evidence to support previous claims that close contact interactions between visitors and animals improved CE outcomes (as measured by PEB intention) beyond that achieved by other zoo experiences. To ensure best practice is followed and CE outcomes are considered equally alongside ambassador animal welfare concerns, further research is recommended.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.C.-C. and K.W.-T.; methodology, M.M.C.-C., K.W.-T. and C.F.E.; formal analysis, M.M.C.-C.; investigation, M.M.C.-C.; resources, M.M.C.-C., K.W.-T. and C.F.E.; data curation, M.M.C.-C.; writing-original draft preparation, M.M.C.-C.; writing-review and editing, K.W.-T. and C.F.E.; visualization, M.M.C.-C.; supervision, K.W.-T.; project administration, M.M.C.-C. and K.W.-T.; funding acquisition, K.W.-T. and M.M.C.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received partial funding from the School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Nottingham Trent University (protocol code ARE695 in October 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Anonymised data will be made available upon request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Twycross Zoo (East Midlands Zoological Society) for the use of their facilities without which this study would not have been possible. Thanks must go to Samantha Clifford for investing her time and interest to be a research assistant during data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

At the time of study, two of the authors were employed by Twycross Zoo. This research was not commissioned by Twycross Zoo, and all research was conducted independently and during non-working hours/days of the zoo role for which they were employed. The research was conducted as part of the first author's post-graduate study.

References

1. Whitehouse-Tedd, K.M.; Spooner, S.; Scott, L.; Lozano-Martinez, J. Animal Ambassador Encounter Programmes in Zoos: Current Status and Future Research Needs. In Zoo Animals: Husbandry, Welfare and Public Interactions; Berger, M., Corbett, S., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Chapter 2; pp. 89-140. [Google Scholar]

2. Whitehouse-Tedd, K.M.; Spooner, S.; Whitehouse-Tedd, G. Making training educational for zoo visitors. In Zoo Animal Learning and Training; Ward, S., Melfi, V., Dorey, N., Eds.; Wiley: Blackwell, NJ, USA, 2020; Chapter 10. [Google Scholar]

3. Thomas, S. Social Change for Conservation: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Education Strategy; WAZA Executive Office: Barcelona, Spain, 2020; p. 89. [Google Scholar]

4. Díaz, S.; Settele, J.; Brondízio, E.S.; Ngo, H.T.; Guèze, M.; Agard, J.; Arneth, A.; Balvanera, P.; Brauman, K.A.; Butchart, S.H.M.; et al. (Eds.) IPBES, 2019: Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany; p. 56. Available online: https://ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35329 (accessed on 7 January 2020).

5. Williamson, K.; Satre-Meloy, A.; Velasco, K.; Green, K. Climate Change Needs Behaviour Change: Making the Case for Behavioural Solutions to Reduce Global Warming; Rare: Arlington, VA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]

6. Feilen, K.L.; Guillen, R.R.; Vega, J.; Savage, A. Developing successful conservation education programs as a means to engage local communities in protecting cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) in Colombia. J. Nat. Conserv. 2018, 41, 44-50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

7. Collins. Definition of Zoo. 2020. Available online: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/zoo (accessed on 7 January 2020).

8. WAZA. Mission Statement. 2015. Available online: https://www.waza.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/WAZA-Conservation-Strategy-2015_Portrait.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2018).

9. Carr, N. Zoos and animal encounters: To touch or not to touch, that is the question. In Wild Animals and Leisure: Rights and Wellbeing; Carr, N., Young, J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]

10. Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Ambassador Animals. 2018. Available online: https://www.aza.org/ (accessed on 17 August 2018).

11. Skibbins, J.C. Ambassadors or Attractions: Disentangling the role of flagship species in wildlife tourism. In Animals and Tourism: Understanding Diverse Relationships; Markwell, K., Ed.; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]

12. Idema, J.; Patrick, P.G. Family conversations at an orangutan exhibit: The influence of zoo educators. Int. Zoo Educ. Assoc. J. 2016, 52, 61-63. [Google Scholar]

13. Foster, S.K. The Effectiveness of Visits to Dickerson Park Zoo on Guests' Conservation Mindedness and Behaviour. Master's Thesis, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]

14. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2016; Version 24.0. [Google Scholar]

15. Caplow, S. The presentation of environmental values, belies and norms in live animal interpretive experiences. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 25, 1-16. [Google Scholar]

16. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]

Figure 1. Interpretive signage available to all visitors at the Humboldt penguin enclosure at Twycross Zoo.

Figure 2. Percentage of responses belonging to each Likert category (where 1 = always and 5 = never in the pre-visit questionnaire, and 1 = very likely and 5 = highly unlikely) in the post-visit questionnaire completed by zoo visitors classified as having had one of four types of visit (viewed a penguin parade, had a penguin encounter, viewed the penguin exhibit or none of these experiences (control)).Answers were provided in response to how often they already/are likely to ( a) buy sustainable fish, ( b) volunteer for conservation, ( c) tell friends how they can help to conserve wildlife, ( d) use re-usable shopping bags and ( e) donate money to conservation, pre- and post-visit.

Figure 3. Percentages of themes derived from open-ended responses to the question 'can you think of any specific actions that can be taken for the Humboldt penguin?' belonging to each of the stated overarching themes in the pre- (n = 154) and post-visit (n = 155) questionnaires administered before and after a zoo visit, grouped by visit type.

Table 1. Statements in a repeated measure questionnaire used to assess the changes in behavioural intention and conservation action knowledge in visitors to a zoo following a penguin-related conservation education experience.

Statements rated on a five-point scale (where 1 = Always and 5 = Never): Pre-visit Questionnaire.
How often do you undertake the following?

Buy sustainable fish/encourage others to so

Volunteer for conservation

Tell friends how they can help to conserve wildlife

Use re-usable shopping bags

Donate money to conservation

Statements rated on a five-point scale (1 = Very Likely and 5 = Highly Unlikely): Post-visit Questionnaire.

How likely are you to undertake the following?

Buy sustainable fish/encourage others to so

Volunteer for conservation

Tell friends how they can help to conserve wildlife

Use re-usable shopping bags

Donate money to conservation

Open Ended Items: Pre-visit Questionnaire
Can you think of any specific conservation actions you can take for the Snow Leopard?
Can you think of any specific conservation actions you can take for the Ring-tailed Lemur?
Can you think of any specific conservation actions you can take for the Humboldt Penguin?
Are there any other specific conservation actions you already do?

Open Ended Items: Post-visit Questionnaire
Can you think of any specific conservation actions you can take for the Humboldt Penguin?
Are there any other specific conservation actions you have learned about today?

Table 2. Overarching themes used to categorise the responses to open ended questions and their definitions used as criteria to determine how the answers were categorised.

Any mention of learning about conservation, raising awareness of conservation or spreading knowledge/awareness of conservation.

Table 3. Percentages of overarching themes that were identified, as coded by the authors, from responses provided to the open-ended question 'Can you list any specific conservation actions you can take for the Humboldt Penguin' asked of participants visiting a zoo in a pre- (n = 154) and post-visit (n = 155) questionnaire.

Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conservation Education Impacts of Animal Ambassadors in Zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To mitigate the effects of anthropogenic environmental impacts, conservation education (CE) aims to increase public awareness of biodiversity and encourage the uptake of pro-environmental behaviours (PEB). One way of achieving this goal is the use of controlled animal interactions with animal ambassadors to promote CE goals.

# data[].attributes.body
Close contact giraffe (Giraffa) feeding sessions (2 times a day on weekdays - 3:20pm and 4:45pm and 3 times a day at the weekends - 12:15pm, 3:20pm and 4:45pm) were run by staff at a Northern Italian Zoological Park. Participation in each session was optional for the giraffes and they were able to control if they wanted to interact with the visitors. The giraffes' behaviour was observed to determine the impact of these sessions on their welfare. Results showed that there were no observed negative effects upon the giraffes' behaviour and individuals chose to participate during feeding times. Risk assessments paired with behavioural observation and analysis resulted in a low risk outcome for negative impacts on their welfare, especially in the absence of abnormal or stereotypical behaviours.

(Normando, S., Pollastri, I., Florio, D., Ferrante, L., Macchi, E., Isaja, V., and Mori, B., 2018. Assessing Animal Welfare in Aimal-Visitor Interactions in Zoos and Other Facilities. A Pilot Study Involving Giraffes. Animals. [e-journal]. 8(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8090153)

# data[].attributes.body
This is a review article that looks into weather or not using ambassadors for public encounters raises more awareness for the species and similar species than welfare problems it can cause for the animals. The article looks at previous studies comparing and contrasting the results. It concludes that its impossible to tell if animal encounters have a positive or negative impact on either education or welfare. Without this evidence, the justification for using animal encounters within zoos remains questionable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conservation Education: Are Zoo Animals Effective Ambassadors and Is There Any Cost to Their Welfare?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal ambassador encounters (AAE), where visitors come into close-contact with animals, are popular in zoos and are advocated as promoting connection to wild species. However, educational and animal-welfare implications are relatively unknown. We conducted a systematic literature review (PRISMA) to investigate visitor and animal outcomes of AAE. We identified 19 peer reviewed articles and 13 other records focused on AAEs. Although we found net positive or neutral impacts overall, several studies indicated that high-intensity visitor contact and long-term exposure may be detrimental to animal welfare. Most studies lacked rigour and claims were based on an absence of negative impacts rather than evidence of benefits. Multiple publications were derived from the same datasets and there were no standardised measures for either welfare or education impacts. Of the peer-reviewed articles, just two considered both education and welfare. Education studies often used perceived learning or only post-experience testing. Welfare studies used small samples (median n = 4; range 1–59), and limited measures of welfare. In order to justify the continued use of AAEs in modern zoos, animal welfare costs must be proven to be minimal whilst having demonstrable and substantial visitor educational value. Large-scale, standardised impact assessments of both education and welfare impacts are needed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conservation Education Impacts of Animal Ambassadors in Zoos 

# data[].attributes.subject
Conservation Education Impacts of Animal Ambassadors in Zoos 

# data[].attributes.body
Visitors who had taken part in a penguin encounter completed a questionnaire after their visit to assess their affected knowledge of conservation actions and their likelihood to perform pro-environmental behaviours in UK zoos. There was an average increase in intention to perform positive behavioural changes by buying sustainable fish, encouraging others to do so, volunteering for conservation, telling friends what they can do to help conserve wildlife, using reusable shopping bags, and donating money to conservation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Southwell NG25 0QF, UK

Derby College, University of Derby, Derbyshire DE7 6DN, UK

Education, Conservation and Research, Twycross Zoo, Atherstone CV9 3PX, UK

University Centre Reaseheath, Reaseheath College, Nantwich CW5 6DF, UK

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

1. Introduction

Conservation education (CE) aims to increase public awareness of biodiversity, including the environmental issues facing the natural world; CE activities therefore often involve imparting knowledge of actions that can be undertaken to mitigate these problems [ 1, 2, 3]. Given that the unsustainable consumption of natural resources is a significant factor in climate change and biodiversity loss [ 4], changing people's behaviours and encouraging them to think carefully about their consumption choices may make a significant difference to reducing anthropogenic environmental impacts [ 5]. Conservation education is subsequently aligned to the rationale that an increased environmental understanding and awareness promotes more positive attitudes and emotions toward conservation. This can lead to increased knowledge of conservation actions (CA), actions that can generally support the conservation of biodiversity such as 'protected areas' or 'sustainable resourcing' and are more likely to translate into pro-environmental behaviours (PEBs) that individuals are able to perform such as 'recycling' or 'buying sustainable fish' [ 6, 7].

Attracting over 700 million visits a year worldwide [ 8], zoos (Zoo Definition: 'A place where live animals are kept, studied, bred and exhibited to the public' [ 9]) are in an opportune position to reach large audiences with CE. Carefully designed CE has the potential to also enhance visitor experiences as well as encourage pro-environmental behaviours [ 10] such that many zoos include the delivery of CE in their mission statements [ 11]. The zoo-based delivery of CE ranges from interpretive signage and enclosure design to animal presentations and encounters [ 12]. Animal presentations and feeding times utilise a 'free-choice' learning strategy [ 13, 14, 15, 16], allowing visitors to attend spoken presentations and encounters at their own discretion and convenience. This provides the chance to closely observe, touch or feed the animals [ 12] and may provide unique learning and entertainment opportunities [ 17].

Controlled animal interactions, where staff supervise experiences where visitors can become close to or physically interact with animals more so than is allowed during ordinary visits, are often used by zoos as part of their efforts to reach CE goals [ 1]. In addition to generating vital revenue for establishment running costs and conservation efforts, these interactions are anticipated to facilitate increased visitor connection to wildlife, subsequently enhancing the delivery of CE [ 18]. To appeal to large audiences, such encounters frequently use popular charismatic flagship species (A flagship species possesses popular traits that appeal to a target audience and are used as target specific for conservation marketing due to their charisma and appeal [ 19]), which are handled or trained specifically for this use and are termed animal 'ambassadors' [ 20] or 'programme' animals [ 21]. The use of animal ambassadors in visitor experiences has been found to increase visitor empathy toward animals, improve conservation learning outcomes and encourage pro-environmental behaviours amongst visitors [ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. Conservation education involving animal ambassadors also involves greater visitor engagement with zoo staff, who have been found to guide conversation to better CE outcomes and have a greater impact on visitor learning than what can be achieved through passive visitor learning alone [ 29, 30, 31]. For example, written interpretive information may be ignored during non-interactive experiences as visitor attention is typically directed towards the live animal [ 32].

However, the values of visitors related to conservation have not always increased from baseline values following animal interactions [ 24, 33] and there are concerns that using charismatic species as ambassadors may lead to a distraction from the learning goals [ 26] or inappropriate messaging [ 1]. Ethical and welfare concerns have also been raised for animal ambassadors where increased aggression, avoidance and stress behaviours have been observed in response to visitors, including stereotypies, unusual defecation, huddling and increased vigilance [ 34, 35].

Zoo visitors frequently place higher importance on entertainment value than learning (e.g., see Ballantyne and Packer, 2016 [ 36] which surveyed zoo visitors in four different countries) and conclusive evidence of the CE impact of zoos is somewhat limited in the literature. Moreover, in a study involving 170 zoos across 48 countries, only 15% of zoos reported using both formal (including questionnaires, surveys and structured interviews) and informal (including casual conversations and feedback, personal opinion and subjective observations) measures of visitor learning, with most zoos relying on less accurate informal data [ 37], possibly due to limited resources. Nonetheless, the importance of pro-environmental behaviours is becoming better understood by the public and zoo visitors appear to be increasingly choosing to engage with CE [ 38, 39].

The knowledge-attitude-behaviour link which forms a key focus of recent CE evaluations [ 24, 33, 40] has, to date, not been investigated in relation to the use of animal ambassador animals in zoos. Likewise, knowledge or attitudinal change following a zoo CE experience are not necessarily predictive or reflective of behavioural change. Where follow up studies have been conducted, findings for reported behavioural intention and actual behavioural outcomes in relation to visitors have been variable [ 41, 42, 43]. For example, Hughes [ 42] found that PEB intentions including composting, using reusable containers and purchasing products with less packaging were actioned by the majority of visitors three months after a CE experience, whereas Foster [ 41] found behaviours such as 'riding a bike', 'walking to work' or 'using public transport' were not, possibly due to difficulties in implementing these in modern lifestyles. Realised action may be linked to the type of PEB, as Foster [ 41] highlights that those behaviours most likely to be actioned were easy to do and could save money, but more research is needed to clarify this. Many studies use the Theory of Planned Behaviour [ 44] as a focal theory for researching such topics. According to this theory, social norms, perceived impacts of performing a behaviour and a person's perceived control over the behaviour influences their likelihood to perform it [ 45, 46]. Some of this research has revealed a significant link between intention and behaviour [ 47, 48]. Nonetheless, the call for more research on behavioural intentions is prominent in the current literature [ 49, 50, 51].

Our study aimed to begin to address this gap in behavioural intention by utilising varying zoo visitor experiences involving ambassador Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) to investigate the influence of CE delivery methods on visitor intention to perform specific pro-environmental behaviours. The study was focused around three main questions: (1) Does visitor intention to perform PEBs change following their zoo visit? If so, (2) Was this change affected by the experiences during the zoo visit (visit type)? and (3) Does visitor knowledge of conservation actions (CA) change following their zoo visit?

2. Methods

Visitors to a medium-large UK zoological facility (Twycross zoo, East Midlands, UK) were invited to participate in a repeated measures quasi-experimental study, whereby data were collected via questionnaires from participants on entry to and again on exit from the zoo [ 41, 52]. Visitors were asked questions about their current practice of PEB, their intent to perform such behaviours following their visit and their knowledge of CA in relation to the target species (Humboldt penguins).

2.1. Participant Recruitment

To explore the impact that different types of experiences at the zoo may have on intention to perform PEBs, four types of zoo visits were identified prior to the start of the study and participants were categorised into one of the four groups according to the visit type that they had chosen to engage with during their visit. Visit types targeted for investigation included: (a) 'penguin parade', participants observe trained penguins walking out from their enclosure into a separate viewing area, along with a 5-10 min educational talk delivered by education staff (referred to as a Penguin Parade by the zoo) but no physical penguin-visitor interaction occurs, (b) 'encounter', participants take part in a Penguin Encounter in which small groups of 1-4 visitors accompany keeping staff into the enclosure during a Penguin Parade and are able to interact with the penguins by hand-feeding them and asking questions of the staff, (c) 'exhibit viewing', participants make a passive observation of the penguins on exhibit outside of the Penguin Parade times, with voluntary use of the available interpretation material provided around the enclosure and no access to staff or (d) 'control' group of participants that do not view the penguins or their enclosure during their zoo visit. Visitors were not informed of these classifications of visit type and were free to choose how they engaged with zoo CE opportunities during their visit, although 'encounter' participants were required to pre-book this activity prior to their arrival at the zoo, according to standard zoo operations. For all other participants, it was unknown until they completed the post-visit questionnaire which group they would fall into. All participants had equal access to the zoo grounds and advertisement of zoo talk times, including the penguin parade, and this information was routinely pointed out to them by zoo staff upon ticket purchase/collection.

A convenience sampling strategy was used to collect visitor data between February and March 2018. Except for the 'encounter' group, visitors were approached by the first author and a research assistant as they entered the zoo and were invited to participate; every passing visitor possible was approached and surveyed upon giving consent. Participating visitors were issued a unique number to identify participants anonymously. Since Penguin Encounters were limited to eight participants daily (max. 4 per encounter session, with twice daily sessions) the convenience sampling strategy used for other groups was not predicted to yield sufficient data for this group. Therefore, participants who took part in an encounter were identified on each sampling day via their pre-existing booking for this experience type and were therefore specifically approached upon their registration at the zoo, although participation was still voluntary. At the post-visit survey point, participants were asked to return to the survey point at the end of their visit and were identified using their unique number provided during the pre-visit questionnaire. They were asked to provide information about the type of experience they had to enable classification during data analysis (as seen in Mellish et al., 2016 [ 38]).

Only Encounter experiences incurred a fee payable in addition to the zoo entrance fee. Penguin encounters and parades occurred simultaneously and participants from both groups heard the same presentation from an education team ranger. 'Penguin parade' visitor groups were able to observe other participants and non- participants involved in an encounter whilst observing the parade. Although presentations were not fully scripted and some information and delivery methods may have varied between Education staff, the zoo prescribed key themes to be covered; sustainable fishing and reducing plastic waste were always included in the presentation. In addition, participants engaged in an encounter also had a zookeeper engaging in a non-scripted dialogue with them during the feeding activity. Static interpretive material was available for all participants to utilise ( Figure 1) but was not available to participants in the 'control' group.

2.2. Survey Instrument

A questionnaire was used to determine participant behavioural actions prior to (pre-visit) and behavioural intentions following (post-visit) their visit to Twycross Zoo. A pilot test carried out over two days in February 2018 with 30 zoo visitors was used to refine the sampling and surveying methods. No question items were identified as problematic (i.e., based on pilot-participant understanding, ease of answering and time to answer). Each questionnaire took approximately five to ten minutes to complete.

Pre- and post-visit questionnaires included a mixture of rating scale items and open-ended questions ( Table 1). Visitors responded to statements about specific achievable PEBs that could be directly performed by all zoo visitors, as per Hughes [ 42], using a five-point scale. Self-reported measures of visitor engagement with select PEBs were measured before their visit using a five-point rating-scale (1 = Always, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Unsure, 4 = Rarely, 5 = Never). These were compared to post-visit reports of likelihood to perform those same behaviours (as per Foster [ 41]; Miller et al. [ 28]) on another five-point scale (1 = Very Likely, 2 = Likely, 3 = Unsure, 4 = Unlikely, 5 = Highly Unlikely), as a measure of intent to perform PEB. Open ended responses were also included to gain a greater understanding of visitor views of conservation [ 53] in both pre- and post-visit questionnaires. Some additional questions were included in the pre-visit questionnaire about non-target species to reduce risk of priming.

2.3. Data Collection

Questionnaires were administered via a face-to-face interview at the zoo entrance, but a self-reported response strategy was used to minimise social desirability bias among our sample population [ 54]. As such, questions were read aloud by researchers and participants were asked to self-record their responses on individual answer sheets. Post-visit questionnaires were delivered at the point of visitor exit using the same data collection method.

2.4. Ethical Considerations

This research was approved by the ethics committees of Twycross Zoo and Nottingham Trent University's School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences (ARE695). Participation was voluntary and participants were informed of the study purposes but were unaware of the study prior to their visit. Each participant was over the age of 18 years and gave written consent to use their answers in the study as well as confirming their understanding of their right to withdraw. No participants subsequently requested their data be withdrawn. Upon completion of the pre-visit questionnaires, participants were provided with a unique identification number for matching to post-visit questionnaires. This allowed for anonymous matching of pre-visit answers to post-visit answers.

2.5. Data Analysis

All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Software version 26 [ 55] and significance was set at p < 0.05. Sample characteristics (age and gender) were compared between the four experience types using a Chi-squared test of association. Reliability testing of PEB rating-scale items from all participants as well as responses from each experience type respectively were performed using Cronbach's alpha test of internal consistency and the Keiser -Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, respectively, to determine how data would be analysed. Cronbach's alpha and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure both returned results below the threshold for acceptability (<0.7) except for the 'encounter' group. Thus, further analysis was restricted to a question-by-question analysis instead of via a summation of scores and factor analysis.

A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine if responses to rating scale items differed according to experience type on a question-by-question basis in either the pre- or post-visit responses. Qualitative data provided in open ended questions relating to CAs were coded into themes ( Table 2), a method reflected in Moss et al. (2014) [ 56]. Two researchers initially coded the data independently to generate an inter-rater variability model for validation of coding, as seen in Moss et al., (2014) [ 56].

Answers were further categorised into whether the visitor had identified a general overarching theme or an action that they could personally act upon, i.e., any individual could personally contribute, physically or financially, toward performing this action. To be a personally achievable goal, the individual must have responded in a way that indicated their involvement specifically, e.g., the use of first-person tense or an indication that it was them performing the action. For example, answers such as 'breeding programmes' were excluded from the personally achievable category as whilst they are valid actions, they are performed by other individuals/organisations. A Chi-squared test was used to test for difference between visit types in post-visit responses that either identified a personal or an overarching theme.

Where multiple CAs were specified, each valid answer was counted and given a theme; the number of recorded responses therefore exceeded that of the participants. Items were themed by two authors and the inter-rater reliability was tested using the Cohen's Kappa measurement of inter-rater agreement; this produced a score of 0.940 (max. score 1) indicating near-identical coding. The percentage of responses were then calculated for each theme and pre- and post-visit percentages were compared to identify how theme responses changed following a zoo visit. To identify the key overarching themes for a more detailed analysis, only the top five most represented themes were retained for analyses, each one representing a minimum of 9% of the total responses. All other responses were re-coded into the category 'other valid answer'.

To test for an association between visit type and CA response in the pre- and post-visit dataset, the frequency of each response was calculated. In the pre-visit dataset, only 'climate change', 'habitat protection' and 'no valid response' themes had frequencies >5 and were therefore eligible for analysis using the Chi-squared test. In the post-visit dataset, only two response codes (sustainable fishing and no valid response) were eligible for analysis. These response options were subsequently tested using a z-test for difference in proportions among visit types with a Bonferroni correction (separate tests were run for the pre- and the post-visit datasets).

3. Results

Of 180 pre-visit questionnaires completed, 134 (74.4%) participants completed the post-visit questionnaire; 26 (19.4%) took part in an 'encounter', 36 (26.9%) attended the 'penguin parade', 58 (43.3%) participated in 'exhibit viewing' and 14 participants (10.4%) comprised the 'control' group. Participants who did not complete a post-visit questionnaire were excluded. No data were available to determine the reasons for non-completion by these excluded participants. The chi-squared tests showed no detectable difference (p > 0.05) in age or gender between visit types. Of 134 participants, 80 were female, 52 were male and two preferred not to say. Most participants were between 20 and 39 years (87 participants). Thirty-five participants were between 40 and 59 years of age, and 11 were between 60 and 79 years of age, although one person did not provide their age.

3.1. Pro-Environmental Behaviours

The proportion of responses to each PEB rating scale item in either the pre- or post- visit questionnaires was compared across visit types ( Figure 2). No differences were detectable between groups at either of the sampling points. Since the questions asked at the two sampling points were not identical (i.e., behaviours performed versus intention to perform behaviours) no statistical analyses were performed. However, a numerical increase in intention to perform each behaviour was observed in the post-visit responses overall. There was an average increase in intention to perform positive behavioural changes for buying sustainable fish/encouraging others to do so (0.7. SD ± 1.24); volunteering for conservation (1.56. SD ± 1.16); telling friends what they can do to help conserve wildlife (1.04. SD ± 1.03); using re-usable shopping bags (0.16. SD ± 0.48) and donating money to conservation (0.37. SD ± 1.02).

No significant difference was found in baseline rating scale responses (p > 0.05) given in the pre-visit questionnaire between visit type groups on a question-by-question basis. The same test was conducted on post-visit rating scale items and no significant difference (p > 0.05) was found between visit type responses in these data either.

3.2. Conservation Actions

When asked to list a specific CA for the Humboldt Penguin, 155 unique responses were recorded pre-visit and 156 in the post-visit questionnaires ( Table 3). However, 33.6% of participants in the pre-visit and 29.1% of participants in the post-visit questionnaire provided invalid answers. Notable changes were identified for responses related to climate change and increasing sustainable fishing ( Table 3). In the pre-visit questionnaire, 24.7% of responses were related to climate change compared to just 7.1% in the post-visit questionnaire. In contrast, responses related to ensuring fishing stocks are sustainable increased from 10.4% in the pre-visit to 41.3% in the post-visit questionnaire.

For groups eligible for chi-squared analysis, no significant association was found between visit type and any of the tested CA themes for pre-visit data. Within the post-visit response dataset, no significant association between the visit type and whether the visitors provided a valid response was detected. However, a significant association was found within post-visit responses between the visit type and whether responses related to sustainable fishing (p = 0.017). A Bonferroni correction test determined that the proportion of visitors mentioning sustainable fishing was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the 'exhibit viewing' group compared with the 'control', but no difference was found for any other pair-wise comparison (p > 0.05 in all cases).

Only seven participants gave an identical valid answer in the pre- and post-visit questionnaires. Five participants who had not given a valid answer in the pre-visit questionnaire provided a valid response in the post-visit questionnaire. Overall, 87 participants (64.9%) changed their response to the question 'Can you list any specific conservation actions you can take for the Humboldt Penguin?' following their zoo visit. The key CA themes identified (i.e., with responses representing >9%) in the pre-visit questionnaire were: 'No valid answer', 'Climate change', 'Sustainable fishing' and 'Habitat protection/Environmental Conservation'. These changed in the post-visit survey to include the additional key theme of 'reduce, reuse, recycle' ( Figure 3).

Answers provided were also categorised into overarching and personally achievable actions as defined in the Section 2. No significant association (p > 0.05) was found between visit types and whether a personally achievable action or overarching theme was reported in post-visit open-ended responses.

4. Discussion

Using visitor experiences involving ambassador Humboldt penguins at Twycross Zoo, this study assessed the influences of CE experiences on visitor intentions to perform and knowledge of PEBs and if their experience type influenced these factors. A numerical increase in the intention to perform PEBs was observed between pre- and post-visit, suggesting the zoo visit positively impacted PEB intentions overall. However, the extent of intention was not affected by the type of experience. Overall change in the knowledge of PEB was also found from pre- to post-visit responses. This included a notable increase in responses related to sustainable fishing and a decrease in those related to climate change from pre- to post-visit responses in all responses given. There were significantly more responses related to sustainable fish post-visit in the 'exhibit viewing' group compared with the 'control' group, although no other significant differences were found. As sustainable fishing is a key focus of the Twycross Zoo's Penguin CE programmes, these results provide promising evidence that animal ambassadors and CE materials can positively influence visitor engagement with messaging on this topic. However, the use of more involved animal experiences appeared to be unnecessary in achieving this, which calls into question their role within CE. It is clear that CE efforts have made positive impacts on PEB, as has the use of the ambassador species as a focal point for advertising CE goals, although the use of close encounters may not be necessary.

4.1. Intention to Perform Pro-Environmental Behaviours

Intention to perform PEBs increased regardless of experience type across all tested PEBs, indicating a positive impact of CE based in the zoo environment. This supports previous research including Schonfelder et al. [ 57] and Seybold et al. [ 58] who found higher levels of interest and knowledge retention of conservation information in students who visited an animal attraction compared to those who received a classroom session. Wu et al. [ 59] discussed the role of context within PEB uptake, finding that the perceived available infrastructure to perform a behaviour is influential of behavioural uptake. They found that individuals were more engaged in PEB education within the home than in a nature-based tourism attraction, possibly due to this being perceived as more achievable to them in their daily lives. Our finding that 'using reusable shopping bags' was the most commonly selected PEB performed 'always' or 'sometimes' in the pre-visit questionnaire ( Figure 2),aligns with this. In the current study, a greater intention to participate in behaviours requiring minimal change to routine and cost (e.g., using re-usable shopping bags, telling friends about conservation or buying sustainable products) following the zoo visit was observed. In contrast, voluntary work was the least popular pre-visit activity, and the zoo visit had no impact on the intention to perform this PEB, with most indicating they were 'unsure' if they would take up this PEB. This may be due to time constraints or an uncertainty of how to perform this PEB or indeed what perceived positive impacts such activities may have. This can be further supported by the Theory of Planned Behaviour, whereby a perceived consequence of performing a behaviour influences the likelihood to perform it [ 44, 45]. If participants feel their actions will not have significant consequence, they could be less likely to perform them. The value belief norm theory suggests that creating clear pathways between the values, beliefs and actions of an individual will increase understanding and a sense of obligation to perform behaviours [ 19, 60]. Without certainty of the effects of their actions whilst performing a PEB such as volunteering, a key element creating intention is missing, which could explain the lower intention for this behaviour overall. Similarly, answers relating to donating money remained largely constant pre- and post-visit, possibly due to the inferred personal costs which have been found to influence likelihood to perform PEBs in other studies [ 61, 62]. Whilst this research highlights potential trends in types of PEB, it did not explore the reasoning behind differences in response for different PEBs. Future research to explore participants' motivations may enable zoos to capitalise on the most effective topics to target when developing new interpretive materials.

4.2. Influence of Experience Type on Intention to Perform PEBs from Pre- to Post-Visit Responses

Across all groups, an increased number of participants were 'likely' or 'very likely' to purchase or tell others about sustainable fish options. A larger increase was seen in the 'parade' group, potentially related to the spoken information being associated with improved CE outcomes. For example, Mellish et al. [ 38] found visitors attending an educational seal show with spoken information were 8.75 times more likely to learn something new and 23.54 times more likely to recall specific conservation actions than those who visited a self-interpreted exhibit. In another study, visitors who attended a presentation about survival plans of species reported increases in recycling, turning off lights and unplugging electronics than those who did not view the presentation [ 41]. Several studies have identified higher reports of visitor satisfaction as well as conservation mindedness when they witnessed a high behavioural diversity of animals at close range or physically interacted with them [ 27, 28, 30, 38, 63].

Staff interaction often occurs simultaneously to a visitor viewing or handling an ambassador animal, facilitating the provision of information by staff during situations where interpretive signage is often ignored [ 32]. Visitors who attended an elephant talk did not express increased conservation intent but those who interacted with a staff member did [ 30] and when families engaged with a staff member whilst viewing orangutans (Pongo spp.), themes of conservation were discussed more frequently, although these themes ceased once interaction was finished [ 31]. In contrast to this previous research, the 'encounter' group in this study elicited no greater behavioural intention than other groups, despite their closer contact to animals and their personal interactions with staff. This indicates that the additional interaction available during the 'encounter' visits was unsuccessful in stimulating additional changes in visitor PEBs. This is possibly due to the distraction from conservation messages through active participation and concentration on feeding the animals over learning about them. Given there was no evidence for increased intention to perform PEBs following an encounter, justification for this type of zoo visitor experience requires that the welfare of animals involved is not compromised. Any trade-off between animal welfare and CE goals must be examined carefully. Whilst this study did not investigate animal welfare parameters and therefore cannot speculate as to the impact of these encounters on the penguins involved, recent research elsewhere [ 64] has determined no effect of close contact between visitors and penguins on penguin or colony behaviour. It could be argued that the Penguin Parade still meets the criteria of close animal encounters, even though physical contact with the animals was excluded, and was sufficient to generate motivation for change in PEB. Furthermore, staff-led discussion with visitors at the parade could explain their higher PEB intention. Considering these points, specifically embedding CE messaging into all encounters that require active participation or physical contact with animals, rather than relying on passive learning of the participants depending on the questions they ask or presentations they hear in the background, could be beneficial in improving such programmes. This could be considered at the point of animal encounter programme design, whereby specific prescribed messages and information must be conveyed to participants as part of their experience.

In support of our finding of a relative lack of effect of the encounter on visitor PEB intention, touch pool encounters have been reported to encourage more basic scientific reasoning, rather than higher level understanding required for behavioural change [ 65], albeit without the use of a control or pre-encounter data. Since the present study included a control group, its validity is improved; participants in the 'control' group provided relatively stable responses (from pre- to post-visit), suggesting minimal response bias existed in the study. However, the 'encounter' group represented the smallest sample size, and larger samples will be necessary to confirm these findings.

Although numerically it appears that for some questions the increase in intent from pre- to post-visit responses was higher in some groups than others, this was not found to be statistically significant.

4.3. Influence of Experience Type on Intention to Perform PEBs in the Post-Visit Responses

Although our findings highlight the positive impacts of CE on behaviour intentions overall, no evidence for a role of experience type was detected when visitors were compared post-visit (note this differs to change in behavioural intention which was noted in Miller et al., [ 28] and Garcia-Cegarra and Pacheco [ 66]). It is also important to consider that intent to perform behaviours does not always translate to action. In a study by Ballantyne et al., [ 43] as low as 7% of participants engaged in new conservation activities because of their visit to animal attractions. This is further supported by Foster [ 41] and Hughes [ 42] who suggested that generally knowledge retention is higher than the uptake of conservation behaviours. Likewise, if intent is not translated into meaningful action, it could be argued that the aims of CE have not been met. It must also be considered that the limited difference between responses from individuals of differing experience types could be influenced by social desirability bias, where participants may not be truthful with their responses if they conflict with social norms and could be perceived as undesirable. This is particularly seen when subjective topics are being measured [ 43, 67, 68]. The present study used an interview style to mitigate the loss of data through missed questions, although participants answered on an answer sheet rather than aloud. Indirect sampling techniques typically yield results closer to the truth as it adds an element of anonymity, thus increasing willingness to answer truthfully [ 54]. Allowing visitors to non-verbally respond was related to the theme of indirect answering as part of the effort to mitigate social desirability bias.

4.4. Knowledge of Conservation Actions

Proportions of open-ended responses relating to sustainable fishing were significantly higher in the 'exhibit viewing' group compared to the 'control' group following a zoo visit. As significant differences in the pre-visit responses were not detected, it is likely that this post-visit difference between groups was at least partially influenced by the experience type undertaken. This finding gives support for the efficacy of self-led interpretation and the effectiveness of signage and other interpretation material at the zoo and has been documented elsewhere previously [ 69]. Signage provided at Twycross Zoo includes key pieces of information in short and clear bullet points, which may have assisted guests in accessing key information quickly and easily whilst they observed the animals in their enclosure. However, the finding that the more interactive experiences ('penguin parade' and 'encounter') were unable to elicit differences in CA knowledge among participants is contradictory to some previous research [ 28, 38, 70]. This could be due to differences in staff presenting information. Although each staff member's presentation may have differed slightly, variation was controlled somewhat by the use of scripted key information that must be conveyed by every staff member during talks; it is therefore unlikely that inter-presenter variation would be a key contributing factor. The lack of differences between groups could also be a seasonal effect. This study was carried out in the winter which suggests that visitors may have had pre-existing interests in the animals (i.e., in order to increase motivation for visiting during the cold weather). More research is required to investigate these factors and it is recommended that additional data on presenters and participant demographics are collected in future studies to explore their effects. A sample of 134 was used within this study which is small compared to other large-scale studies [ 71, 72, 73] and sample sizes within different experience categories were unequal. Whilst a large sample size was obtained for the 'exhibit viewing' group, a comparatively small sample for the 'control' was obtained.

Although no other significant associations were found, there was an overall increase in responses related to sustainable fish from 10.4% in the pre-visit to 41.3% in the post-visit questionnaire across all visit types. In contrast, responses relating to climate change decreased from 24.7% to 7.1% in the between pre- and post-visit responses. Although climate change is mentioned on other interpretive materials around the zoo, it is not an explicit focus during the penguin presentations or on the penguin signage whereas sustainable fish is, which may explain the shift. There are other indications in previous research where the knowledge or PEB intention change has been in line with the specific themes related to the CE they were exposed to [ 74, 75, 76], offering support for the efficacy of CE. In this study, by using a repeated-measures design, we were able to clearly highlight the change in the theme of responses from pre- to post-visit, indicating that the zoo visits influenced knowledge of conservation actions relating to the Humboldt Penguin. Whilst this highlights an improvement in knowledge and intention to perform PEBs, actual behaviour change following zoo visits could not be measured. It is recommended that future studies utilise a follow up study following the zoo visit to capture this information.

Open-ended responses have been found to provide a more in depth understanding of people's knowledge and attitudes toward a prescribed topic than closed responses [ 39, 70] although these are more subjective and difficult to interpret. It must be considered that increases in knowledge observed could be explained by the concept of priming; focus of attention in working memory suggests people perform better in tests when their attention is drawn to test-relevant content prior to the test [ 77]. This is further supported by similar increases in the 'control' group, although changes were not significant. Pre-visit responses were completely 'ad hoc' whereas visitors were expecting a post-visit questionnaire and had the duration of their visit to focus their attention on the available information. As part of the attempt to reduce potential bias via priming, additional questions were used in the pre-visit questionnaire directed at alternative animal ambassador species that were not the focus of this study (and were not subsequently analysed). This aimed to reduce the risk that participants would actively seek out penguin information in advance of their post-visit questionnaire.

Although experience type did not overall have significant effects on open-ended responses, except for sustainable fishing which was the most advertised theme within the zoo, it is likely that penguin CE materials in general have influenced the increase in sustainable fishing responses. However, seeking information about which participants actually viewed interpretive signage, who spoke with staff directly and their frequency of zoo visits or membership, for example, may aid in understanding the influences on CA knowledge retention. As discussed by Mellish et al. [ 78] other limitations of similar studies include the overrepresentation of Western country of origin samples which may overlook potential cultural differences in the results. Experiences and interpretations differ between establishments making a multi-establishment analysis difficult; however, extending research to multiple countries may highlight important differences in visitor views that may allow CE to be developed in a way that will be more effective and relatable to the audiences of that establishment. The results from the current study should not be extrapolated without caution to other cultures and geographic regions due to these potential differences.

5. Conclusions

Overall, this study has highlighted that zoo visitors gained specific conservation-based knowledge and had higher behavioural intentions towards PEBs following their zoo visit. However, this study found no evidence to support previous claims that close contact interactions between visitors and animals improved CE outcomes (as measured by PEB intention) beyond that achieved by other zoo experiences. To ensure best practice is followed and CE outcomes are considered equally alongside ambassador animal welfare concerns, further research is recommended.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.C.-C. and K.W.-T.; methodology, M.M.C.-C., K.W.-T. and C.F.E.; formal analysis, M.M.C.-C.; investigation, M.M.C.-C.; resources, M.M.C.-C., K.W.-T. and C.F.E.; data curation, M.M.C.-C.; writing-original draft preparation, M.M.C.-C.; writing-review and editing, K.W.-T. and C.F.E.; visualization, M.M.C.-C.; supervision, K.W.-T.; project administration, M.M.C.-C. and K.W.-T.; funding acquisition, K.W.-T. and M.M.C.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received partial funding from the School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Nottingham Trent University (protocol code ARE695 in October 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Anonymised data will be made available upon request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Twycross Zoo (East Midlands Zoological Society) for the use of their facilities without which this study would not have been possible. Thanks must go to Samantha Clifford for investing her time and interest to be a research assistant during data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

At the time of study, two of the authors were employed by Twycross Zoo. This research was not commissioned by Twycross Zoo, and all research was conducted independently and during non-working hours/days of the zoo role for which they were employed. The research was conducted as part of the first author's post-graduate study.

References

1. Whitehouse-Tedd, K.M.; Spooner, S.; Scott, L.; Lozano-Martinez, J. Animal Ambassador Encounter Programmes in Zoos: Current Status and Future Research Needs. In Zoo Animals: Husbandry, Welfare and Public Interactions; Berger, M., Corbett, S., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Chapter 2; pp. 89-140. [Google Scholar]

2. Whitehouse-Tedd, K.M.; Spooner, S.; Whitehouse-Tedd, G. Making training educational for zoo visitors. In Zoo Animal Learning and Training; Ward, S., Melfi, V., Dorey, N., Eds.; Wiley: Blackwell, NJ, USA, 2020; Chapter 10. [Google Scholar]

3. Thomas, S. Social Change for Conservation: The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Education Strategy; WAZA Executive Office: Barcelona, Spain, 2020; p. 89. [Google Scholar]

4. Díaz, S.; Settele, J.; Brondízio, E.S.; Ngo, H.T.; Guèze, M.; Agard, J.; Arneth, A.; Balvanera, P.; Brauman, K.A.; Butchart, S.H.M.; et al. (Eds.) IPBES, 2019: Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany; p. 56. Available online: https://ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35329 (accessed on 7 January 2020).

5. Williamson, K.; Satre-Meloy, A.; Velasco, K.; Green, K. Climate Change Needs Behaviour Change: Making the Case for Behavioural Solutions to Reduce Global Warming; Rare: Arlington, VA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]

6. Feilen, K.L.; Guillen, R.R.; Vega, J.; Savage, A. Developing successful conservation education programs as a means to engage local communities in protecting cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) in Colombia. J. Nat. Conserv. 2018, 41, 44-50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

7. Collins. Definition of Zoo. 2020. Available online: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/zoo (accessed on 7 January 2020).

8. WAZA. Mission Statement. 2015. Available online: https://www.waza.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/WAZA-Conservation-Strategy-2015_Portrait.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2018).

9. Carr, N. Zoos and animal encounters: To touch or not to touch, that is the question. In Wild Animals and Leisure: Rights and Wellbeing; Carr, N., Young, J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]

10. Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Ambassador Animals. 2018. Available online: https://www.aza.org/ (accessed on 17 August 2018).

11. Skibbins, J.C. Ambassadors or Attractions: Disentangling the role of flagship species in wildlife tourism. In Animals and Tourism: Understanding Diverse Relationships; Markwell, K., Ed.; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]

12. Idema, J.; Patrick, P.G. Family conversations at an orangutan exhibit: The influence of zoo educators. Int. Zoo Educ. Assoc. J. 2016, 52, 61-63. [Google Scholar]

13. Foster, S.K. The Effectiveness of Visits to Dickerson Park Zoo on Guests' Conservation Mindedness and Behaviour. Master's Thesis, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]

14. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2016; Version 24.0. [Google Scholar]

15. Caplow, S. The presentation of environmental values, belies and norms in live animal interpretive experiences. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 25, 1-16. [Google Scholar]

16. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]

Figure 1. Interpretive signage available to all visitors at the Humboldt penguin enclosure at Twycross Zoo.

Figure 2. Percentage of responses belonging to each Likert category (where 1 = always and 5 = never in the pre-visit questionnaire, and 1 = very likely and 5 = highly unlikely) in the post-visit questionnaire completed by zoo visitors classified as having had one of four types of visit (viewed a penguin parade, had a penguin encounter, viewed the penguin exhibit or none of these experiences (control)).Answers were provided in response to how often they already/are likely to ( a) buy sustainable fish, ( b) volunteer for conservation, ( c) tell friends how they can help to conserve wildlife, ( d) use re-usable shopping bags and ( e) donate money to conservation, pre- and post-visit.

Figure 3. Percentages of themes derived from open-ended responses to the question 'can you think of any specific actions that can be taken for the Humboldt penguin?' belonging to each of the stated overarching themes in the pre- (n = 154) and post-visit (n = 155) questionnaires administered before and after a zoo visit, grouped by visit type.

Table 1. Statements in a repeated measure questionnaire used to assess the changes in behavioural intention and conservation action knowledge in visitors to a zoo following a penguin-related conservation education experience.

Statements rated on a five-point scale (where 1 = Always and 5 = Never): Pre-visit Questionnaire.
How often do you undertake the following?

Buy sustainable fish/encourage others to so

Volunteer for conservation

Tell friends how they can help to conserve wildlife

Use re-usable shopping bags

Donate money to conservation

Statements rated on a five-point scale (1 = Very Likely and 5 = Highly Unlikely): Post-visit Questionnaire.

How likely are you to undertake the following?

Buy sustainable fish/encourage others to so

Volunteer for conservation

Tell friends how they can help to conserve wildlife

Use re-usable shopping bags

Donate money to conservation

Open Ended Items: Pre-visit Questionnaire
Can you think of any specific conservation actions you can take for the Snow Leopard?
Can you think of any specific conservation actions you can take for the Ring-tailed Lemur?
Can you think of any specific conservation actions you can take for the Humboldt Penguin?
Are there any other specific conservation actions you already do?

Open Ended Items: Post-visit Questionnaire
Can you think of any specific conservation actions you can take for the Humboldt Penguin?
Are there any other specific conservation actions you have learned about today?

Table 2. Overarching themes used to categorise the responses to open ended questions and their definitions used as criteria to determine how the answers were categorised.

Any mention of learning about conservation, raising awareness of conservation or spreading knowledge/awareness of conservation.

Table 3. Percentages of overarching themes that were identified, as coded by the authors, from responses provided to the open-ended question 'Can you list any specific conservation actions you can take for the Humboldt Penguin' asked of participants visiting a zoo in a pre- (n = 154) and post-visit (n = 155) questionnaire.

Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Conservation Education Impacts of Animal Ambassadors in Zoos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To mitigate the effects of anthropogenic environmental impacts, conservation education (CE) aims to increase public awareness of biodiversity and encourage the uptake of pro-environmental behaviours (PEB). One way of achieving this goal is the use of controlled animal interactions with animal ambassadors to promote CE goals.

# data[].attributes.body
this study assessed visitor experiences of training and enrichment sessions of African Elephants in a zoo in Florida. they focused on the visitor perceptions of welfare and said that if visitors perceive the animals welfare to be poor and if they looked unhappy, they would be less likely to visit. Their results showed that the visitors saw Elephants and being "happy, calm, comfortable" ect (positive emotions). because of this the visitors perceived the welfare of the animals to be good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoo Visitors’ Most-Liked Aspects of Elephant Encounters and Related Perceptions of Animals’ Emotions and Welfare States: A Pragmatic Approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos strive to provide excellent welfare for resident animals, including those belonging to endangered species involved in captive breeding programs while addressing visitors’ concerns regarding the ethics of captivity. Zoos also rely on income and support from visitors to provide exceptional care for their animal residents. It is essential, therefore, that zoos consider how visitors perceive their animals’ well-being, including physical and psychological welfare. This pragmatic, qualitative research explores the aspects of training-focused enrichment activities provided for a resident herd of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) that visitors liked/disliked, and it assesses perceptions of the animals’ emotions and welfare. Data were collected via surveys following live encounters at Zoo Tampa, Florida (USA). Reflexive Thematic Analysis generated key themes related to visitors’ most/least-liked aspects of the encounters, including proximity, elephant–caregiver relationships (ECRs), educational content, and teaching/learning opportunities for the elephants themselves. Participants in the research perceived the elephants as happy, content, calm, comfortable, engaged, excited, good, playful, and safe (among other emotional descriptors) and as having excellent welfare. Expressions of dislike referred to visitors’ inability to have contact with the elephants, such as via touching or feeding. While focused on one case-study zoo and a charismatic species, this study nonetheless provides zoos with insight into the impact that animal–caregiver interactions can have on visitors’ perceptions, and it offers a model that could be applied to other species and at other zoological institutions. These visitor experiences and visitor perceptions of animal welfare drive future visitor actions, including support for zoos.

# data[].attributes.body
research has shown many people go to these interactions for knowledge and education on animal and conservation issues.

many studies have show that there is not long term impacts on conservation knowledge retention and if it makes the visitor adopt pro conservation efforts after visiting.

interacting with the animals is shown to increase visitor empathy and perceptions of good welfare for the animals. for example if a visitor sees a meerkat playing while interacting with them, they make think they are happier than the ones who arent playing therefore changing if they think they have good welfare or not.

# data[].attributes.body
(Tapiridae) spp. Appendix I – except species Tapirus terrestris in Appendix II

Species considered at high risk of extinction and international trade is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

Strict Regulations ensuring that any trade is legal and doesn’t threaten the survival of the species.

Zoos would require an export & import permit, health certificates via a qualified vet & transport permits, and documentation of origin.

# data[].attributes.headline
Commonly found zoo animals and CITIES appendix

# data[].attributes.subject
Commonly found zoo animals and CITIES appendix

# data[].attributes.body
Meerkats and Capybara's are not under any CITIES apendices as they are not considered endangered pr threatened.

Giraffes are under Appendices 2. They are not considered to be threatened with extinction but could become so if trade is not monitored and regulated.

Red Pandas are under Appendices 1. They are considered endangered and therefore trade is restricted. They can only be moved under extreme circumstances- for Conservation or scientific research.

# data[].attributes.body
1. African Elephant:

Listed on CITES Appendix I.

Appendix I includes species that are threatened with extinction and are prohibited from international trade except under exceptional circumstances. Zoos wishing to import or export African elephants must obtain special permits and demonstrate that the trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild.

2. Red Panda:

Listed on CITES Appendix II.

Appendix II includes species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction but may become so if trade is not regulated. Zoos can import or export red pandas, but they must have the appropriate permits and follow regulations to ensure that the trade is sustainable and does not negatively impact wild populations.

# data[].attributes.body
Black tree monitor (Varanus beccarii) is in Appendix ii meaning to export this monitor lizard a permit is required but no permit is required to import, however a permit may be required in some countries with stricter measures. permits are only granted if the relevant authorities are satisfied that certain conditions are met.

# data[].attributes.body
meerkats are listed under appendix II ( not immediately threatened with extinction) but this still means in order to import/export zoos have to follow specfiic regulations to make sure the trade wont harm wild populations. 1. CITES export permit to confirm the trade is legal and wont be harmful to the species survival in the wild. 2 CITES import permit- not mandatory but some countries will require as part of their national laws. 3.compliance with national laws - could possibly be stricter than CITES. 4. ethical and welfare considerations - many zoos follow WAZA guidelines to ensure ethical sourcing. 5. quarantine and health regulations - meerkats may be subject to quaratnine and veterinary checks before transport to stop the spread of diseases.

# data[].attributes.body
Bearded dragons are not listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Since bearded dragons are not listed under CITES, zoos do not need to obtain CITES permits for their import or export

While CITES permits aren't needed for bearded dragons, zoos must still follow all national and local regulations related to wildlife trade, animal health, and ethical sourcing when importing or exporting these reptiles.

# data[].attributes.body
Seal- appendix 2, zoos must obtain CITES permits to import/export this animal.​

​

​

Condor- appendix 1, wild species could become extinct without severe trade restrictions. Trade is only permitted in exceptional circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
Research Focus : Establishing a decision-making framework for geriatric zoo mammals

Method : Investigated 70 mammals in 5 European zoos, assessing their physical condition and quality of life.

Retrospective cases were studied the medical and necropsy reports

Findings : geriatric animals have a significantly reduced quality of life, and therefore welfare, and often experience mild-to-severe pain before euthanasia is considered

Suggests a scoring system and framework to provide reliable decision-making for euthanasia so animals don't suffer during deliberations

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/scoring-system-to-evaluate-physical-condition-and-quality-of-life-in-geriatric-zoo-mammals/000E48CCCE63CD4CCE9A51F139A289CA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A scoring system to evaluate physical condition and quality of life in geriatric zoo mammals | Animal Welfare | Cambridge Core

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A scoring system to evaluate physical condition and quality of life in geriatric zoo mammals - Volume 16 Issue 3

# data[].attributes.body
Browning, H. (n.d.). No Room at the Zoo: Management Euthanasia and Animal Welfare. [online] doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9741-8(.

‌

Focus : The discussion if euthanasia is an effective method to manage surplus animals within a zoo and the ethical considerations along side it. As well as if other methods should be used.

The article used various sources , opinions and reviews to form evidence for either side of the topic. As well as gathering information of other methods to a manage surplus of animals.

# data[].attributes.body
the research focus - the ethical implications of management euthenasia within zoos

method - uses literature reviews on existing ethical discussions on euthenasia focusing on moral and welfare issues. analyses real world case studies.

findings - public backlash - public reactions usually negative, welfare implications - could be emotionally distressing for zoo staff. ethical concerns - euthanising healthy animals could make the animals be seen s resources rather than beings with actual value.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No Room at the Zoo: Management Euthanasia and Animal Welfare - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The practice of ‘management euthanasia’, in which zoos kill otherwise healthy surplus animals, is a controversial one. The debate over the permissibility of the practice tends to divide along two different views in animal ethics—animal rights and animal welfare. Traditionally, those arguments against the practice have come from the animal rights camp, who see it as a violation of the rights of the animal involved. Arguments in favour come from the animal welfare perspective, who argue that as the animal does not suffer, there is no harm in the practice and it is justified by its potential benefits. Here, I argue that an expansion of the welfare view, encompassing longevity and opportunities for positive welfare, give stronger considerations against management euthanasia, which then require greater benefits to justify its use.

# data[].attributes.headline
Lewandowski, A.H. (2003). Surplus animals: the price of success. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 223(7), pp.981–983. doi:https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2003.223.981.              

# data[].attributes.subject
Lewandowski, A.H. (2003). Surplus animals: the price of success. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 223(7), pp.981–983. doi:https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2003.223.981.              

# data[].attributes.body
‌Research focus: discuses what surplus animals are and the problems behind it and goes into the other options for surplus animals such as the animals going to another zoological instituted, using brokers to set up a transfer of surplus animals, giving the animal to a private breeder that has suitable experience and space for the animal, and the finals option for any zoological institutes is euthanasia if the animals are too expensive, too dangerous, too ill or too old to be rehomed

# data[].attributes.headline
Zoo Euthanasia- Staff and Zoo professionals welfare

# data[].attributes.subject
Zoo Euthanasia- Staff and Zoo professionals welfare

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/20/2925

This article actually spoke about the loss and grief that is experienced among zoo professionals and the impact it has on their welfare.

Zoo professionals and volunteers obviously have an essential role to the wellbeing of many animals and in their conservation efforts so it's important to keep their needs in order too.

A questionnaire was sent out to various zoo professionals and asked whether they had experienced loss of the animals in their care, whether it be sudden or expected.

74% came back and said that they had experienced an anticipated loss... meaning euthanasia.

Many Zoo professionals mental health are affected by such losses and could potentially have a huge affect on their ability to work.

Many zoos need to work harder to prepare their staff and volunteers for these losses. And to have better knowledge in how to help with mental health as many professionals felt responsible for the deaths of the animals in their care. And to provide more support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Experiences of Animal Loss and Grief among Zoo Professionals and Volunteers: A Qualitative Study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoo professionals and volunteers play essential roles in the wellbeing and conservation of a diverse array of animal species. Despite the growing body of literature revealing the psychological impacts of pet loss, there remains a dearth of information describing the experience of animal loss among those who work in zoo settings. This qualitative study explored the personal experiences of zoo animal loss among volunteers (n = 12), animal care and health professionals (ACHPs) (n = 135), and other zoo staff (n = 35) who participated in a larger mixed-method study. Participants responded to five open-ended questions exploring their most significant zoo animal death loss, where or from whom they found the most support, how the zoo community could better support them, advice for zoo leaders, and other thoughts about their grief and animal-related loss experiences. Using thematic analysis, two key themes were identified: the lasting toll of zoo animal loss and zoo professionals’ and volunteers’ interpersonal experiences. Participants described their experiences with animal transfers and both expected and unexpected deaths. Requests for support focused on better communication, grief resources, and opportunities to recognize and mourn animal losses. These findings suggest that zoo animal loss can negatively impact zoo professionals’ and volunteers’ psychological health.

# data[].attributes.body
https://philarchive.org/archive/BRONRA-5

Research focus: whether or not euthanasia is a good enough tool for dealing with surplus in zoos, or alternatives should be considered. Mentions Copenhagen Zoo with the male Giraffe.

Methods: Researches the different options/literature review of dealing with surplus animals aside from euthanasia, and the different causes of surplus animals to begin with and how to manage this in a better way. Looks into the view of animal rights versus animal welfare.

Findings: Zoos can be used for trade instead of culling animals. There are potential benefits to welfare but other drawbacks to this. Contraception can have its own benefits and disadvantages. Reintroduction/release to the wild and dispersion to other institutions. Potentially dangerous trade to private collections is an option for some species. Euthanasia itself is argued for and against for several reasons.

# data[].attributes.body
Research focus: The aim of this research was to determine the most common complications when euthanasia is performed in undomesticated species.

Methods: A 57 question online survey was sent out to professional veterinarian groups that were the most likely to have performed euthanasia on zoo-housed or exotic species. Multiple choice questions were mainly used with additional optional open ended questions to obtain further details. All responses were anonymous and related directly to euthanasia complications, with voluntary participation.

Findings: After data analysis, 41 cases were described containing complications, 29% using excessive medication for outcome, 22% couldn't stop heart function, 10% animal woke up afterwards and 29% had other unspecified complications. 56% of these cases occurred in mammals, 20% avians & 17% reptiles. Research hypothesized that mammals would have the lowest rate of complications due to the common practice in small animal veterinary medicine, however results showed that mammals had the highest complication rate (56%).

Reference: Keeney, C., Harrison, T., 2022. Euthansia Complications in Non-Domestic Species. Journal of Zoological Botanical Gardens. [e-journal]. 3(4), pp 616 - 623. https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg3040045

# data[].attributes.headline
No Room at the Zoo: Management Euthanasia and Animal Welfare

# data[].attributes.subject
No Room at the Zoo: Management Euthanasia and Animal Welfare

# data[].attributes.body
the research focus here has been focused primarily on debating the ethics of the euthanasia in the instance of surplus animals specifically. while including points that would be expected on the ethical consequences, it draws an interesting suggestion to the question of the sociological effect regarding the population of the city the zoo/animal belongs to

# data[].attributes.headline
contraception as a management tool for controlling surplus animals

# data[].attributes.subject
contraception as a management tool for controlling surplus animals

# data[].attributes.body
space is valuable and lack of appropriate housing is a problem for zoo breeding programs. Certain species underrepresented whilst other more popular species are being overbred, taking up space,

AZA formed to contraceptive task force to investigate he safest and most effective form of contraception for animals

steroid hormones - progestins - interrupt sperm and ovum transport - these are added to food and have been found

effective in almost all mammals

These contraceptives are reversible so if certain species needed to breed again they could, but ultimately the goal was to find alternatives to euthanasia and transport. Animals loved by the public could be kept, and those that were overbreeding could be stopped to make space for the breeding of more important species.

Wild Mammals in Captivity: Principles and Techniques for Zoo Management ... - Google Books

page 470

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos, aquaria, and wildlife parks are vital centers of animal conservation and management. For nearly fifteen years, these institutions have relied on Wild Mammals in Captivity as the essential reference for their work. Now the book reemerges in a completely updated second edition. Wild Mammals in Captivity presents the most current thinking and practice in the care and management of wild mammals in zoos and other institutions. In one comprehensive volume, the editors have gathered the most current information from studies of animal behavior; advances in captive breeding; research in physiology, genetics, and nutrition; and new thinking in animal management and welfare. In this edition, more than three-quarters of the text is new, and information from more than seventy-five contributors is thoroughly updated. The standard text for all courses in zoo biology, Wild Mammals in Captivity will, in its new incarnation, continue to be used by zoo managers, animal caretakers, researchers, and anyone with an interest in how to manage animals in captive conditions.

# data[].attributes.body
The goal of this study was to survey veterinarians to determine what complications may commonly occur during the euthanasia of non-domestic species. An online survey was developed and sent to veterinary professionals, the survey asked whether they had ever experienced a euthanasia complication involving a non-domestic species. Forty-five practitioners responded to the survey, ten respondents included more than one complication including: taking an excessive amount of euthanasia solution, the heart would not stop, the animal awoke at a later time and a secondary method of euthanasia was required.

This study shows that various complications can occur with euthanasia, not making it 100% reliable and effective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Euthanasia Complications in Non-Domestic Species

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are very few studies describing euthanasia complications in non-domestic species. The goal of this study was to survey veterinarians to determine what complications may commonly occur during the euthanasia of non-domestic species. An online survey was sent to seven professional organization listservs containing veterinarians most likely to practice on non-domestic species. Forty-one cases of euthanasia complications were reported. The most common taxa reported were mammals, (23/41, 56%), followed by avian (8/41, 20%), reptile (7/41, 17%), and fish (3/41, 7%). Most animals were reported to have been anesthetized prior to euthanasia (28/41, 68%). The most common method of euthanasia was pentobarbital (27/41, 66%). The reported euthanasia complications included “took an excessive amount of euthanasia solution” (12/41, 29%), “heart would not stop” (9/41, 22%), “animal awoke at a later time” (4/41, 10%), “a secondary method of euthanasia was required” (4/41, 10%), and “other” (12/41, 29%). This study reports complications that can occur during the euthanasia of non-domestic species. The concept of dysthanasia, a euthanasia with an undesirable outcome, has not been previously discussed in the context of zoo, wildlife, aquarium, and exotic pet practice. Strategies to reduce dysthanasia from both animal and human perspectives are explored, including alternative euthanasia techniques, principal-based euthanasia, and mental health implications.

# data[].attributes.body
temerature/humidity: Eurasian lynx thrive in cool temerature regions, generally between -30 degrees celsius to 15 degree celsius. they are found in areas with moderate to low humidity such as boreal forests and mountain regions.

substrate: natural soil for a comfortable surface,wood chippings these can be used in sleeping areas to provide cushioning ,sand for digging, grass to pay on/lie on.

enrithcment: branches for climbing, hiding spots such as bushes/dens, interactive toys such as puzzle feeders which can help for stimulation and mental challenges, scent enritchment such as herbs for the animal to explore the enclosure more which will help with excersie, food enritchment, scatter feed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Eurasian Lynx - G1 Alex, Beth, Nox, Sophie

# data[].attributes.subject
Eurasian Lynx - G1 Alex, Beth, Nox, Sophie

# data[].attributes.body
Bioactivity

Ensure plants are non-toxic, easy to maintain and able to thrive in the local climate, and will mimic the lynx’s natural habitat (promotes natural behaviours)

-          Varied terrain: woodchips, rocks, soil, etc

-          Dense vegetation & shrubbery give the lynxes space to hide

-          Dense, low-growing shrubs (e.g. juniper, bush clover)

-          Small/Medium tress (e.g. birch, oak, pine) provide climbing and shade

-          Herbs (e.g. thyme, lavender) for enrichment

-          A small pool/stream will provide enrichment and potentially offer a place for the lynxes to drink and cool off.

-          Aquatic plants (e.g. water lilies, cattails)

# data[].attributes.body
Temperature: 20-25 degrees

Humidity: 40%-60%

bioactive- Doesn't necessarily need to be in a bioactive enclosure. Would need a large mew/falconry shed, although they're not the biggest birds of prey. With access to inside and outside. Sparrow Hawks live in woodland areas so you could provide coir/soil at the base of enclosure, with your usual clean up crew (springtails and woodlice), leaves, if you had a big enough enclosure, that was contained, you could plant small trees. They'd provide perches for the sparrow hawks or nesting areas as they nest within the fork of a tree.

Biosecurity measures- Double doors so one can be closed on entering to prevent the bird escaping. Would need the enclosure to be fairly secure from outside wildlife, such as rodents, you wouldn't want your hawk to catching anything that you're not feeding it, will prevent possible diseases. Hand washing area and somewhere to keep disinfectants. Vaccinate bird against illness's as bird flu is on the rise. Remove any uneaten food. Regularly clean and disinfect equipment and enclosure. Wear protective clothing

Structures:
Perches- different sizes and heights, made out of wood to be natural and comfortable
Shelter: wooden box- for security
Water source: for drinking and bathing, needs to be shallow
Climbing structures: branches - to keep them active
Enrichment
Rock piles: acts as perches as well as hiding spot
Nesting platforms- practice natural behaviour

Fence/ wire meshing around and above enclosure
Doors to get in
Flight pole- exercise

# data[].attributes.body
Axolotls benefit from habitat complexity that mimics their natural environment. Enclosures should include hiding spots like caves, plants (live or artificial), and textured substrates to promote natural behaviours. Including elements like driftwood or marimo moss balls provides both physical and mental stimulation

A bioactive setup includes live plants, beneficial bacteria, and substrate layers that support natural nutrient cycling. Plants like pothos or aquatic species can reduce nitrates and improve water quality while offering hiding spots. Maintaining a fully cycled aquarium is crucial, as axolotls are sensitive to ammonia and nitrate levels

Strict biosecurity is vital to protect axolotls from pathogens. Quarantine any new tank additions, such as plants or live food, to prevent disease. Regular water testing and dichlorination with appropriate conditioners ensure water remains safe. Avoid substances like iodine or aloe vera in treatments, as these can harm axolotls

To keep nitrate levels at 20 ppm or below, axolotl tanks need weekly water changes and other routine maintenance. It is crucial to keep an eye on water characteristics including nitrites, ammonia, and pH (6.5–8.0). Maintaining a steady and healthy atmosphere is also aided by appropriate filtration and cleaning procedures.

Axolotl Central, 2024. Axolotl care guide: Water quality and enrichment. Available at: Axolotl Central.

Decoding Biosphere, 2023. Species Spotlight: Axolotl – The regenerating wonder. Available at: Decoding Biosphere.

MDPI, 2023. Effects of enclosure complexity and design on captive animals. Available at: MDPI.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rainbow Lorikeets  (Trichoglossus moluccanus)

# data[].attributes.subject
Rainbow Lorikeets  (Trichoglossus moluccanus)

# data[].attributes.body
Guinea pigs, rabbits, gerbils, hamsters, other small animals.

Allows burrowing, natural looking, absorbent, free of dust, dyes and irritants, odour controlling properties, easy to clean, creates some insulation and warmth.

# data[].attributes.body
Coconut husk or coir, non toxic substrate used for reptiles, invertebrates, snails. Can be used both dry and moist and it has good water retention, and allows burrowing behaviours

# data[].attributes.body
coconut coir can also be used for gerbils as it is natural and absorbent. allows for burrowing as well as soil and wood shavings - but shavings can introduce dust

# data[].attributes.body
Coco coir which is make up of the hust of coconuts in a good substrate for tortoises which allows them to did and aids humidity

# data[].attributes.body
moist paper towels for naked mole rats to allowing for digging and burrowing behaviours

# data[].attributes.body
Coir:

Tarantulas, snakes, lizards

replicates loose soil, allows the animals to set up burrows and holds humidity well while not having as much of a risk of parasitic hitchhikers that you might find with topsoil

# data[].attributes.body
Soil/ compost- Rodents are typically hamsters and burrowing animals like gerbils. Provides a place to dig and also is more naturalistic environment

# data[].attributes.body
Sand is used for reptile enclosures, particularly for reptile species originating from arid areas. This substrate enables digging, scavenging and burrowing behaviours. It also maintains heat within the enclosure, adding to the natural environmental conditions reptiles require.

# data[].attributes.body
rabbits, straw, provides insulation in hutch

# data[].attributes.body
Zoo registrar, zoo inspector, volunteer coordinator

# data[].attributes.body
Education officer, curator, zoo keeper internship

# data[].attributes.body
Head keeper, zoo keeper, trainee keeper

# data[].attributes.headline
Zookeepers doing a full water change of the penguin pool

# data[].attributes.subject
Zookeepers doing a full water change of the penguin pool

# data[].attributes.headline
Zookeeper performing a training demonstration to the public with the sealions 

# data[].attributes.subject
Zookeeper performing a training demonstration to the public with the sealions 

# data[].attributes.headline
Zookeepers getting the adult boa constrictor ready for transport

# data[].attributes.subject
Zookeepers getting the adult boa constrictor ready for transport

# data[].attributes.body
Add notes in comments below

# data[].attributes.body
Write your groups research and enclosure specifications in the comments below

# data[].attributes.body
Write your groups research and enclosure specifications in the comments below

# data[].attributes.body
Write your groups research and enclosure specifications in the comments below

# data[].attributes.body
Write your groups research and enclosure specifications in the comments below

# data[].attributes.body
Ellie C Sophie B Beth B Sofie

# data[].attributes.body
Chloe, Alex, Nox and Oliver.

Visitor engagement with different types of zoo signage.

# data[].attributes.body
Morgan, Alesha and Bronwyn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Visitors Knowledge before and after visit.pptx - Microsoft PowerPoint Online

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159109001890

The Aims of this research were to see how the exhibit/enclosure design effects how the visitors interacted with the animals and vice versa, how the animals would interact with the visitors. Some enclosures that looked appealing to public, or the public concerned the welfare of the animal, were found to have more viewings.

They measured the number of visitors viewing the exhibit and the time they spent there.

They found that depending on how the enclosures were set up, determined how visitors would behave and the length of time they spent there. For example, a zoo placed camoflage over the viewing glass to a gorilla enclosure. This meant that visitors approached the area in a calmer manor, and actually felt they could see the gorillas being more active because the gorillas felt less 'watched'. It also ensured that there were no big crowds surrounding the glass. Zoos need to be both entertaining and educational. Naturalistic enclosures with active animals is more affective in fulfilling both of these. But attracting large amounts of visitors to certain enclosures is counterproductive in the zoos welfare objectives.

Fernandez, E.J., Tamborski, M.A., Pickens, S.R. and Timberlake, W. (2009). Animal–visitor Interactions in the Modern zoo: Conflicts and Interventions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 120(1-2), pp.1–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.06.002.

Just a FYI: Really interesting article, but it does seem to be more of a research article, lots of us useful information but I would delve deeper on their references to find out more about the methods used.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About ScienceDirect
Shopping cart
Contact and
supportTerms and
conditionsPrivacy policy

# data[].attributes.body
Research aims : Factors that influence visitor behaviour and the possible implications that can be made to improve guest satisfaction and education. To investigate the predictors of animal popularity of a range of zoo species, using well-established measures of visitor interest. To put these findings into the context of the modern zoos’ education mission and the way that collections are planned.

Methods: Visitors were observed at multiple enclosures and monitered. Notes were taken invloving stay time and when the peak of visitors were at an enclosure , and what the reason for this was. Guests were timed and observed.

Key findings: Mammals are by far the most popular taxonomic group for visitors to observe. However , it is suggested people stayed for the most charismatic animals since they wanted the "zoo experience" and came with a pre exisiting expectation.

Vertebrae and birds were the least interesting groups to visitors.

# data[].attributes.body
https://jzar.org/jzar/article/view/439

AIM: to evaluate the impact of an in-school repeat-engagement zoo education program provided by the Safari Rangers of Chester zoo

METHODS: they designed repeated measures survey that was used to measure a positive or negative change over the course of the program. the surveys were distributed on paper to all participants immediately prior to the program and a one month before the last session. providing the with both quantitative and qualitative data

FINDINGS: it revealed a positive change in conservation understanding between the pre and post surveys

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Authors Gregory Counsell Chester Zoo Anya Moon Carrie Littlehales Hannah Brooks Elinor Bridges Andrew Moss Chester Zoo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evaluating an in-school zoo education programme: an analysis of attitudes and learning: Evaluation of zoo education | Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2020 the Convention on Biological Diversity will deliver the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The promotion of conservation and biodiversity knowledge will form at least one of the targets set out in this framework. According to the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) zoos and aquariums receive around 700 million annual visits, making them well placed to contribute towards these targets. The scope of the field of zoo and aquarium education research has greatly increased over recent years demonstrating the educational value of visits. This study evaluated the impact of an in-school repeat-engagement zoo education programme provided by the Safari Rangers of Chester Zoo, UK. A pre- and post-programme survey design was used to measure conservation understanding, knowledge of pro-conservation behaviours and conservation attitudes. In total, 445 students from seven participating schools were surveyed. The results show an increase in both conservation understanding and in knowledge of pro-conservation behaviour between the pre- and post-programme surveys. Participating students showed an aggregate increase of 60.5% in their conservation understanding, and a 24% increase in their knowledge of pro-conservation behaviours. Those surveyed also demonstrated a positive change in attitude towards conservation self-efficacy. This study demonstrates that repeat-engagement in-school zoo-education programmes can successfully deliver desired learning outcomes, adding to the body of evidence that demonstrates the valuable role that zoos can play in raising the level of conservation knowledge amongst school-aged children.

# data[].attributes.body
https://jzar.org/jzar/article/view/439/310

Research Aims : To measure effectiveness of in-school education services supplied by Chester Zoo Safari Rangers

Method : Providing multiple workshops, both theoretical and practical, to multiple schools. Also organised a zoo trip. Results gathered using a repeated measures survey.

Key Findings : Revealed a positive correlation between education and understanding; however there was no significant difference between students who attended the zoo trip and those who didn't.

Counsell, G., Moon, A., Littlehales, C., Brooks, H., Bridges, E., Moss, A., (2020) Evaluating an in-school zoo education programme: an analysis of attitudes and learning. Journal of Zoo & Aquarium Research, pg 100-104.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
View of Evaluating an in-school zoo education programme: an analysis of attitudes and learning

# data[].attributes.body
research aims- exploring the gaps in understanding how zoos and tourism works together to help protect animals and the environment. it focuses on how zoos cn better teach visitors about conservation. method - includes reviewing current literature on zoo tourism, identifying ideas that are lacking research. key findings- highlight the need for further studies on the educational and conservation impact of zoos when it comes to visitors.

Olivia

# data[].attributes.body
Bronwyn-

The aims were to see if a school education programme was giving these children a greater and better understanding of conservation efforts.

Method was to go to some workshops and then the children would be tested on what they have learnt and their understandings Evaluating an in-school zoo education programme: an analysis of attitudes and learning: Evaluation of zoo education | Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research (jzar.org)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Authors Gregory Counsell Chester Zoo Anya Moon Carrie Littlehales Hannah Brooks Elinor Bridges Andrew Moss Chester Zoo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evaluating an in-school zoo education programme: an analysis of attitudes and learning: Evaluation of zoo education | Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2020 the Convention on Biological Diversity will deliver the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The promotion of conservation and biodiversity knowledge will form at least one of the targets set out in this framework. According to the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) zoos and aquariums receive around 700 million annual visits, making them well placed to contribute towards these targets. The scope of the field of zoo and aquarium education research has greatly increased over recent years demonstrating the educational value of visits. This study evaluated the impact of an in-school repeat-engagement zoo education programme provided by the Safari Rangers of Chester Zoo, UK. A pre- and post-programme survey design was used to measure conservation understanding, knowledge of pro-conservation behaviours and conservation attitudes. In total, 445 students from seven participating schools were surveyed. The results show an increase in both conservation understanding and in knowledge of pro-conservation behaviour between the pre- and post-programme surveys. Participating students showed an aggregate increase of 60.5% in their conservation understanding, and a 24% increase in their knowledge of pro-conservation behaviours. Those surveyed also demonstrated a positive change in attitude towards conservation self-efficacy. This study demonstrates that repeat-engagement in-school zoo-education programmes can successfully deliver desired learning outcomes, adding to the body of evidence that demonstrates the valuable role that zoos can play in raising the level of conservation knowledge amongst school-aged children.

# data[].attributes.body
their main research aim is conservation and eductaion.

the method they are using is their challnegings within the zoo and doing research around that area and linking it conservation and eduction.

their key finsings are finding reccomendations within the public which can stregnethen their conservation and education aspects of the zoo

# data[].attributes.body
aims: to find the role of zoos in education

method: not stated in summary text

key findings: zoos overemphasis their importance in education

there are many ways for zoos to educate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoos and Education (Chapter 3) - Zoo Studies

# data[].attributes.body
1. Research aims: to understand the challenges and successes of an education program. To recommend the best course of action for future program implementation.

2. Method: Participants were invited to complete an online survey, a follow up telephone interview. This is after keeper talks and digital signage with information about species.

3. Key findings: Equal mixture of challenges and successes. Challenges with program implementation including staffing issues. Staff supervision increased visitor engagement.

Mellish, S, et al. 2021, Challenges and successes to the implementation of a zoo conservation-education program, Evaluation and Program Planning, 88.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About ScienceDirect
Shopping cart
Contact and
supportTerms and
conditionsPrivacy policy

# data[].attributes.body
The aim of this research was to see how engaged children were when learning about conservation in zoos they did by this asking the results and the children draw there responses. The results showed a 38% positive change.

JENSEN, E. (2014). Evaluating Children’s Conservation Biology Learning at the Zoo. Conservation Biology, [online] 28(4).

Ellen

‌

# data[].attributes.body
Applied Research and Zoo Education: The Evolution and Evaluation of a Public Talks Program using Unobtrusive Video Recording of Visitor Behavior

Research aims - To find out how successful public talks about animals were with visitors and their attentiveness.

Method - by using unobtrusive recording equipment showed depending on where a visitor was and if there vision was obscured.

Key findings - visitors were less attentive to the talks when there was poor visibility.

Moss, A., Esson, M., & Bazley, S. (2010). Applied Research and Zoo Education: The Evolution and Evaluation of a Public Talks Program using Unobtrusive Video Recording of Visitor Behavior. Visitor Studies, 13(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645571003618733

# data[].attributes.body
Collins, C., Corkery, I., McKeown, S., McSweeney, L., Flannery, K., Kennedy, D., O'Riordan, R., 2020. Quantifying the long-term impact of zoological education: a study of learning in a zoo and aquarium. Environmental Education Research. [e-journal]. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1771287

Research aims: The aim of this research was to determine if the time spent at a zoo impacts learning and whether learning is recalled after a visit.

Method: Children were tested on their knowledge after a 5 day zoo camp visit and then again 6 months after the visit. Initial knowledge tests were undertaken at the start of the zoo trip to determine what level of understanding the children had beforehand.

Key findings: Children learnt more when they were interacting with experiences provided by the zoo and when they had previous zoo knowledge. Girls were more likely to retain knowledge compared to boys however longer visits meant more knowledge was retained after the visit regardless of gender.

Lucy

# data[].attributes.body
The research aims: to measure the impact of an in-school zoo education outreach programme run by Chester Zoo, UK. Specifically, this programme delivered multiple workshops under a common conservation sub-theme to the same group of students within the UK Key Stage 2 year groups (age 7).

Method: four workshops delivered over multiple visits to selected schools. The first three workshops delivered theoretical content, the fourth was a practical hands-on session that focused on reinforcing the core messages. For the final workshop, zoo volunteers also assisted.

Key findings: that the multiple-visit Safari Ranger pilot programme correlated with a positive, measurable and statistically significant impact in the student learners, particularly in terms of conservation-related knowledge but also student attitudes toward conservation and zoo-related issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
View of Measuring the impact of an in-school zoo education programme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Return to Article Details Measuring the impact of an in-school zoo education programme

# data[].attributes.body
research aims: to measure the impact of an in-school zoo education outreach programme run by Chester Zoo.

methods: this programme delivered multiple workshops under a common conservation subtheme to the same group of students within the UK Key Stage 2 year groups (ages 7 to 11). A repeated measures survey was used as the primary instrument for assessing impact.

key findings: the programme correlated with a positive, measurable and statistically significant impact in the student learners, particularly in terms of conservation-related knowledge but also student attitude to conservation and zoo-related issues.

reference:

Moss, A.G., Littlehales, C., Moon, A., Smith, C. and Sainsbury, C. (2017). Measuring the impact of an in-school zoo education programme. The Journal of zoo and aquarium research, [online] 5(1), pp.33–37. doi:https://doi.org/10.19227/jzar.v5i1.217.

‌

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Moss, A. G., Littlehales, C., Moon, A., Smith, C., & Sainsbury, C. (2017). Measuring the impact of an in-school zoo education programme. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 5(1), 33-37. https://doi.org/10.19227/jzar.v5i1.217

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Measuring the impact of an in-school zoo education programme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Moss, A. G., Littlehales, C., Moon, A., Smith, C., & Sainsbury, C. (2017). Measuring the impact of an in-school zoo education programme. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 5(1), 33-37. https://doi.org/10.19227/jzar.v5i1.217

# data[].attributes.body
research aims: measure the impact of an in-school zoo education outreach programme run by Chester Zoo, UK

method: delivered multiple workshops to the same group of students (7-11 years old) then a repeated survey was used to test their knowledge.

findings: students had a positive attitude to the programme, increased conservation knowledge and changed attitudes to conservation and zoo issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
View of Measuring the impact of an in-school zoo education programme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Return to Article Details Measuring the impact of an in-school zoo education programme

# data[].attributes.body
Research aims:

To find out how successful an in school zoo education program had been in giving children a better understanding of conservation

The method:

445 students from seven participating schools were surveyed using pre and post program surveys to evaluate how much they had learnt

The key findings

students showed an increase of 60.5% in their understanding of conservation, and a 24% increase in understanding pro-conservation along with a positive change in attitude towards conservation showing that the in school program is successful

https://jzar.org/jzar/article/view/439

# data[].attributes.body
research aims: to see if peoples knowledge increase after attending workshops

method: attent 3 workshops one being practical. then tested on their understanding of conservation .

key findings: more understanding and yes responses. dome had better understanding of one learning objective than others

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Authors Gregory Counsell Chester Zoo Anya Moon Carrie Littlehales Hannah Brooks Elinor Bridges Andrew Moss Chester Zoo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evaluating an in-school zoo education programme: an analysis of attitudes and learning: Evaluation of zoo education | Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2020 the Convention on Biological Diversity will deliver the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The promotion of conservation and biodiversity knowledge will form at least one of the targets set out in this framework. According to the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) zoos and aquariums receive around 700 million annual visits, making them well placed to contribute towards these targets. The scope of the field of zoo and aquarium education research has greatly increased over recent years demonstrating the educational value of visits. This study evaluated the impact of an in-school repeat-engagement zoo education programme provided by the Safari Rangers of Chester Zoo, UK. A pre- and post-programme survey design was used to measure conservation understanding, knowledge of pro-conservation behaviours and conservation attitudes. In total, 445 students from seven participating schools were surveyed. The results show an increase in both conservation understanding and in knowledge of pro-conservation behaviour between the pre- and post-programme surveys. Participating students showed an aggregate increase of 60.5% in their conservation understanding, and a 24% increase in their knowledge of pro-conservation behaviours. Those surveyed also demonstrated a positive change in attitude towards conservation self-efficacy. This study demonstrates that repeat-engagement in-school zoo-education programmes can successfully deliver desired learning outcomes, adding to the body of evidence that demonstrates the valuable role that zoos can play in raising the level of conservation knowledge amongst school-aged children.

# data[].attributes.body
Environmental Education in Zoos—Exploring the Impact of Guided Zoo Tours on Connection to Nature and Attitudes towards Species Conservation by Kleespies et al. (2022). This study investigates how guided zoo tours affect participants’ connection to nature and their attitudes toward species conservation.

Research Aims: The study aimed to determine if a one-hour guided zoo tour could positively influence visitors' connection to nature and their conservation attitudes. It also explored whether the type of tour (e.g., general tour, themed, or involving animal feedings) had different effects.

Methods: The researchers surveyed 269 participants before and after their zoo tours. The surveys measured changes in nature connectedness and conservation attitudes. The study included different types of tours to compare their effectiveness.

Key Findings: All tour types positively impacted participants’ connection to nature and conservation attitudes. Notably, those with a higher pre-existing connection to nature benefited the most from themed and animal-feeding tours. The study demonstrates that even simple zoo programs can effectively enhance environmental awareness.

# data[].attributes.body
Please add a comment below with the general educational signs you selected in our Zoo Education lecture

# data[].attributes.body
Please add a comment below with the conservation signs you selected in our Zoo Education lecture

# data[].attributes.body
Please add a comment below with the directional signs you selected in our Zoo Education lecture

# data[].attributes.body
Chloe

Farrand, A., Hosey, G. and Buchanan-Smith, H.M. (2014). The visitor effect in petting zoo-housed animals: Aversive or enriching? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 151, pp.117–127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.11.012.

Species- Mixed breed goats, llama, and Vietnamese pot bellied pigs.

Method of Study- They carried out a behaviour observation, observing how the animals reacted to the visitors. Behaviour was categorised into: affiliate with conspecifics, aggression towards visitors, avoid visitors, contact with visitors, contact with conspecifics, contact with non- conspecifics, feed, proximity to conspecifics, rest, retreat area, sit, survey, respond to grooming, tolerate grooming. Human behaviour: affiliate with animals, pursue animals, visitor grooming, visitor aggression.

Key findings- weather was an unlikely variable.

Goats interacted most with visitors, pigs slightly less, and llamas less of all. Neither the goats or pigs directed aggressions towards visitors, but llamas did slightly.

Goats wanted to spend more time with visitors if the visitors were grooming them. They had less interest if they were not being groomed.

Ultimately, goats and llamas behaviour was unaffected by the presence of visitors. But pigs exhibited less undesirable visitor-directed behaviour meaning it had a negative visitor effect in the pigs.

How visitor effect could have been mitigated- The animals had a fenced in space they could go into if they wanted to not be touched by visitors, however, the pigs didn't have access to this as it was a small fence they could not go under or over. If the pigs had access to this area, they may be more inclined to interact with visitors when they want to, rather than having to interact with them all the time.

# data[].attributes.body
Morgan

Article:Thicks, S. (2008) 'Is there a visitor effect on Abyssinian Ground Hornbills (Bucorvus abyssinicus), Papuan Wreathed Hornbills (Aceros plicatus), Wrinkled Hornbills (Aceros corrugatus) and Toco Toucans (Ramphastos toco) in a captive zoo environment?', The Plymouth Student Scientist, 1(2), pp. 30-55.

Species Assessed:

‌Abyssinian Ground Hornbills, Papuan Wreathed Hornbills, Wrinkled Hornbills and Toco Toucans.

Method:

One of the species was randomly selected from a name in a hat and every minute the number of visitors, children, pushchairs and wheelchairs were recorded. So were the noise level, location of the bird, height, and the behaviour. This was then repeated for each individuals.

Findings:

The main findings from this study were Abyssinian Ground Hornbill 1 and 3 were the only two birds to show an association between visitor numbers and behaviour. Papuan Wreathed Hornbill 1, the Toco Toucans, Wrinkled Hornbill 2 and Abyssinian Ground Hornbill 1 and 3 all demonstrated an association between visitor number and location within the enclosure, with some occurring more often in the outside zones with increasing visitor number. An association was also seen with regards to height (m) and visitor number for Wrinkled Hornbill 2, Abyssinian Ground Hornbill 1 and 2. All of the birds were not using their enclosure evenly, with some worst than others.

Abyssinian Ground Hornbill 1 showed a similar pattern in behaviour when exposed to numbers of children and visitors; this could suggest that the bird was not influenced by the type of visitor, but rather one or more aspects, for example noise or activity. This study cannot define which aspects of the visitor condition are causing a significant change in behaviour- further studies would be needed to establish this.

Possible mitigation strategy:

Relocate the enclosures of the hornbill species or toucan species that showed a negative correlation between number of visitors and there behaviour to an area of the zoo with less visitor traffic.