This study, conducted over a four-year period at Chester Zoo in the UK, sought to evaluate the impact on visitor behavior and interpretation use that a transition from second- to third-generation zoo exhibit might affect. Visitors spent more time in the newer exhibit (even when allowing for relative floor area) and visitor time budgets suggest a high degree of visitor interaction with different exhibit elements. Specific interpretive elements were analyzed in detail, using quasi-quantitative methods in addition to more standard timing and tracking measures. From this, a proportional relationship between time and visitor engagement is proposed. Areas that were highlighted as under-performing during evaluation were retrofitted with simple, but highly visible, instructional signage and this was found to increase the proportion of visitors that stopped, and how long they stopped in a significant way.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallantyneR., PackerJ., & HughesK. (2008). Environmental awareness, interests and motives of botanic gardens visitors: Implications for interpretive practice.Tourism Management, 29 (3), 439–444.
2.
BalmfordA., Leader-WilliamsN., MaceG. M., ManicaA., WalterO., WestC. (2007). Message received? Quantifying the impact of informal conservation education on adults visiting UK zoos. In ZimmermannA., HatchwellM., DickieL., & WestC. (Eds.), Zoos in the 21st Century: Catalysts for Conservation?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BarriaultC., & PearsonD. (2010). Assessing Exhibits for Learning in Science Centers: A Practical Tool.Visitor Studies, 13 (1), 90–106.
4.
BitgoodS., PattersonD., & BenefieldA. (1986). Understanding Your Visitors: Ten Factors that Influence Visitor Behavior. Technical report, Psychology Institute, Jacksonville State University, 86–60, 1–17.
5.
BitgoodS., PattersonD., & BenefieldA. (1988). Exhibit Design and Visitor Behavior: Empirical Relationships.Environment and Behavior, 20 (4), 474–491.
6.
BrewerC. (2001). Cultivating Conservation Literacy: Trickle-Down Education Is Not Enough.Conservation Biology, 15 (5), 1203–1205.
7.
BroadS., & WeilerB. (1998). Captive animals and interpretation–a tale of two tiger exhibits.Journal of Tourism Studies, 9 (1), 14–27.
8.
CampbellS. (1984). A new zoo?Zoonooz, 55 (9), 4–7.
9.
CoeJ. (1987). What's the Message? Exhibit Design for Education.AAZPA Northeastern Regional Proceedings, 19–23.
DerwinC. W., & PiperJ. B. (1988). The African Rock Kopje Exhibit: Evaluation and Interpretive Elements.Environment and Behavior, 20 (4), 435–451.
12.
FalkJ. H., MoussouriT., & CoulsonD. (1998). The effect of visitors’ agendas on museum learning.Curator, 41, 106–120.
13.
FraserJ., BicknellJ., SicklerJ., & TaylorA. (2009). What Information Do Zoo & Aquarium Visitors Want on Animal Identification Labels?Journal of Interpretation Research, 14 (2), 7–19.
14.
FuhrmanN. E., & LadewigH. (2008). Characteristics of Animals Used in Zoo Interpretation: A Synthesis of Research.Journal of Interpretation Research, 13 (2), 31–42.
15.
HaywardJ., & RothenbergM. (2004). Measuring Success in the “Congo Gorilla Forest” Conservation Exhibition.Curator: The Museum Journal, 47 (3), 261–282.
16.
HughesM., HamS. H., & BrownT. (2009). Influencing Park Visitor Behavior: A Belief-based Approach.Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 27 (4), 38–53.
17.
JohnstonR. J. (1998). Exogenous Factors and Visitor Behavior: A Regression Analysis of Exhibit Viewing Time.Environment and Behavior, 30 (3), 322–347.
18.
KimA. K., AireyD., & SzivasE. (2010). The Multiple Assessment of Interpretation Effectiveness: Promoting Visitors’ Environmental Attitudes and Behavior.Journal of Travel Research, 20 (10), 1–14.
19.
MarcelliniD. L., & JenssenT. A. (1988). Visitor behavior in the National Zoo's reptile house.Zoo Biology, 7 (4), 329–338.
20.
MossA., FrancisD., & EssonM. (2008). The Relationship Between Viewing Area Size and Visitor Behavior in an Immersive Asian Elephant Exhibit.Visitor Studies, 11 (1), 26–40.
21.
PhillpotP. (1996). Visitor viewing behaviour in the Gaherty Reptile Breeding Centre, Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust: A preliminary study.The Dodo, Journal of the Wildlife Preservation Trusts, 32, 193–202.
22.
PoveyK., & RiosJ. (2002). Using interpretive animals to deliver affective messages in zoos.Journal of Interpretation Research, 7 (2), 19–28.
23.
RennieL. J., & JohnstonD. J. (2004). The nature of learning and its implications for research on learning from museums.Science Education, 88(S1), 4–16.
24.
RossS., & LucasK. (2005). Zoo Visitor Behavior at an African Ape Exhibit.Visitor Studies Today, 8 (1), 4–12.
25.
RossS. R., & GillespieK. L. (2009). Influences on visitor behavior at a modern immersive zoo exhibit.Zoo Biology, 28 (5), 462–472.
26.
RSPCA (2006). Evaluation of the effectiveness of zoos in meeting conservation and education objectives. In The Welfare State: Measuring Animal Welfare in the UK, 2006 (pp. 95–98): Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
27.
SerrellB. (1998). Paying Attention: Visitors and Museum Exhibitions.Washington DC: American Association of Museums.
28.
Shettel-NeuberJ. (1988). Second and Third-Generation Zoo Exhibits: A Comparison of Visitor, Staff, and Animal Responses.Environment and Behavior, 20 (4), 452–473.
29.
SicklerJ., FraserJ., GruberS., BoyleP., WeblerT., & ReissD. (2006). Thinking about dolphins thinkingWCS working paper no. 27: New York; Wildlife Conservation Society.
30.
TribeA., & BoothR. (2003). Assessing the Role of Zoos in Wildlife Conservation.Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8 (1), 65–74.
31.
TubbK. N. (2003). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Interpretation within Dartmoor National Park in Reaching the Goals of Sustainable Tourism Development.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11 (6), 476–498.
32.
WAZA (2005). The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy: Building a future for wildlife.World Association of Zoos and AquariumsBerne, Switzerland.
33.
WeilerB., & SmithL. (2009). Does more interpretation lead to greater outcomes? An assessment of the impacts of multiple layers of interpretation in a zoo context.Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17 (1), 91–105.
34.
WilsonM., KellingA., PolineL., BloomsmithM., & MapleT. (2003). Post-occupancy evaluation of zoo Atlanta's Giant Panda Conservation Center: Staff and visitor reactions.Zoo Biology, 22 (4), 365–382.
35.
WoodsB. (1998). Animals on Display: Principles for Interpreting Captive Wildlife.Journal of Tourism Studies, 9 (1), 28–39.
36.
WoollardS. P. (1998). The development of zoo education.International Zoo News, 45 (7), 422–426.
YamadaN., & KnappD. (2010). Participants’ Preferences for Interpretive Programs and Social Interactions at a Japanese Natural Park.Visitor Studies, 13 (2), 206–221.
39.
ZwinkelsJ., OudegeestT., & LaterveerM. (2009). Using Visitor Observation to Evaluate Exhibits at the Rotterdam Zoo Aquarium.Visitor Studies, 12 (1), 65–77.
