Using Community Feedback to Identify Conservation Actions for a Zoo

Abstract

Background

Modern zoos seek to support their audiences in taking conservation action. To increase participation and maximize environmental impact, zoos should consider their community members’ perspectives from the outset -- i.e., in the selection of the action -- including understanding perceived barriers, benefits, current participation, and ease of taking the action.

Focus of the Article

This article focuses on a zoo’s process to integrate community perspectives when selecting conservation actions for messaging. We collected data from four audiences and applied community-based social marketing (CBSM) and other decision-making models to identify conservation actions in which efforts by the zoo could increase community engagement and behavior change.

Research Question

How can a zoo incorporate community perspectives into the process of selecting conservation actions for messaging?.

Importance to Social Marketing Field

Using the CBSM decision-making equation and a novel decision-making equation inspired by research with zoo visitors (the NERO model), the Queens Zoo balanced environmental impacts, community perspectives, and its’ expertise in developing and implementing conservation campaigns. Other institutions, like schools, museums, and universities looking to engage their communities in actions should apply this strategy to maximize the impact of their campaigns, especially when an action does not need to be done at home.

Methods

We used a two-phase mixed-methods design to answer our research question. Phase 1 included a content analysis, a survey of 42 zoo educators, interviews with 28 Queens Zoo visitors, and focus groups with 24 community members to identify eight conservation actions that were local priorities. We explored these actions more deeply in Phase 2, fielding an online survey to 400 residents of the New York City metro area. We used survey and environmental impact data to assign numeric values to the variables in two decision-making equations: CBSM and the NERO model, which is based on research with zoo visitors. Using the scores, we ranked the eight actions relative to each other and used these results to inform discussions with zoo leadership to strategically identify actions where the zoo’s expertise can support broad and sustainable behavior change.

Results

Conservation actions prioritized during Phase 1 primarily included protecting the environment in general and protecting wildlife and habitats. Phase 2 survey data and application of the decision-making equations highlighted four actions nested within those themes -- enrolling with a clean energy provider, advocating for green space, reducing plastic use, and creating wildlife habitat -- as having high potential to engage many people and have meaningful environmental impact. Discussions with zoo leadership focused on how these actions align with zoo priorities and expertise and how the zoo could support communities in conservation action.

Recommendations for Research or Practice

Conservation organizations seeking to support people in the behavior change process should consider how decision-making equations and data from their communities can help them select actions for campaigns. Incorporating community perspectives throughout the design of a conservation action campaign will increase relevance and interest and maximize participation and environmental impact.

Introduction

Modern zoos and aquariums are conservation organizations that protect wildlife and inspire the public to take action on behalf of the environment (Falk & Reinhard, 2007; Fraser & Sickler, 2009). Zoos and aquariums (from here, “zoos”) have an education mission (Bevan et al., 2022; McCallie et al., 2009), and many go beyond simply teaching about issues to also connecting the public with opportunities to act themselves (Cannataro et al., 2022; Wildlife Conservation Society, 2025). With climate change and other environmental threats only increasing in scale and severity, large-scale and effective action is needed more urgently than ever.

Conservation actions vary widely and motivating people to act requires understanding the conservation issues that matter to them, the perceived benefits and barriers to acting, as well as the impact (real and perceived) of the actions (Heimlich & Ardoin, 2008; McKenzie-Mohr, 2011b; Smith et al., 2010a). This study explores conservation issues with four audiences with various degrees of connection to their local zoo, with results informing the implementation of the zoo’s conservation action strategy. While local in scope, the research demonstrates how zoos can leverage their community connections and wells of public trust to motivate people to adopt new and sustainable environmental behaviors. With an audience of over 180 million visitors annually (Zoo and Aquarium Statistics, 2024), zoos can be a force for much-needed broad and sweeping conservation action.

Background and Literature

Conservation Education at Zoos

People visit zoos to see and learn about animals that they do not encounter in their everyday lives. In the 1980’s, conservation became an integral part of zoos’ missions (Fraser & Switzer, 2021) and these institutions broadened their educational goals beyond sharing information about species’ natural history to include connections to habitats, ecosystems, threats, and efforts to protect the animals in the wild. The shift to conservation messaging (Fraser & Switzer, 2021) has led to zoos tackling a variety of complex conservation issues, such as human-wildlife conflict, plastic pollution, climate change, and poaching, in their exhibits and programs (Baechler et al., 2021; Merlino, 2006; O’Bryan, 2015; Stoinski et al., 2002).

Research has demonstrated, however, that simply sharing information is not enough to change attitudes and motivate action (i.e., the Knowledge-Attitudes-Behavior model; Hungerford & Peyton, 1994); rather, other mechanisms feed into behavior change (Abrash Walton et al., 2022; McKenzie-Mohr, 2011b). Confirming this finding, a review of studies about zoo conservation messaging between 2011 and 2020 found that messages mostly contributed to increased content knowledge about issues or emotional outcomes, as opposed to behavioral outcomes (Schilbert & Scheersoi, 2023). As a result, zoos have started integrating alternative approaches that focus specifically on motivating conservation action into their messaging strategy.

Conservation psychology research suggests that inspiring people to take action requires thoughtfully selected actions that feel relevant, doable, and impactful (Smith et al., 2010a; Smith, Weiler et al. 2012a). Conservation actions highlighted at zoos are highly varied and the factors influencing their selection are complex. They range from messaging about the illegal wildlife trade and how to prevent it by asking questions about wildlife products (Rank et al., 2023), responsible consumer behaviors, such as purchasing products made with sustainable palm oil (Kelly & Skibins, 2020), and behavioral alternatives, such as blowing bubbles instead of releasing balloons at events (Mellish et al., 2019), among many others.

Despite the prevalence of conservation action messaging at zoos, there is little underlying research on how these specific actions encourage participation and ultimately, impact. One exception is a Zoos Victoria mobile phone recycling campaign that aimed to reduce gorilla habitat loss due to mining of minerals needed for electronics (Litchfield et al., 2018). This campaign provided free mailing envelopes to zoo guests and tracked the number of envelopes mailed, the number of phones recycled (115,369 total), and estimates of the recoverable elements saved (3,294 kg). More research that tracks participation, as well as public perceptions and conservation impact is needed to ensure that zoos are building not only an informed public, but one that is equipped and motivated to take action.

Theoretical Models of Behavior Change

Recently, the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (TTM) has received positive attention for its potential to inform how zoos encourage environmental behavior with audiences (Abrash Walton et al., 2022; Nageotte et al., 2024). Much of the research on TTM comes from healthcare (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997), but the model is relevant for conservation because it accounts for individual’s readiness to participate in an action and weighs the benefits and drawbacks of the action (Abrash Walton et al., 2022). Abrash Walton et al. (2022) suggested that a simple survey of the target audience can reveal relationships with a set of behaviors (i.e., action readiness); Nageotte et al. (2024) actualized this process by asking survey participants to identify their readiness to do behaviors (e.g. never thought about it, not interested) to inform priority conservation behaviors for the Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance.

Community-Based Social Marketing (CBSM) is another model focused on achieving behavior change by reducing barriers, elevating benefits, acknowledging social context, and accounting for actual environmental impact (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011a; 2011b), however it has been used on a limited basis in conservation (Green et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2018). The first step of CBSM encourages the use of an equation to assess the impact of an action within a particular context, accounting for environmental impact (Impact), the likelihood the behavior will be adopted (Probability), the number of people already doing the behavior (Penetration), and how many people could do the behavior (Applicability) (equation (1); McKenzie-Mohr, 2011b; McKenzie-Mohr & Schultz, 2014)

$\mathit{Impact}\times \mathit{Probability}\times \mathit{Penetration}\times \mathit{Applicability}=\mathit{Score}$

(1)

Identifying the action for a CBSM-informed behavior change campaign requires assigning values to these four variables, multiplying them, and ranking actions by their scores. Impact can be represented as the amount of CO₂ sequestered or saved or as expert ratings. Probability, penetration, and applicability are determined by surveying the target audience to gain insight into their perspectives (Berg et al., 2010; Ibrahim et al., 2018). Probability is the likelihood of doing a specific behavior, from not at all likely (0) to extremely likely (4). Penetration and applicability are both percentage values that assess participation relative to the total population. Unlike the other three variables, impact has no theoretical maximum value and therefore has the most influence on the final score, with CBSM developers rationalizing that it is best to select behaviors with the largest possible environmental impact (McKenzie-Mohr et al., 2012).

Zoos Victoria used CBSM to inform a multi-part campaign to encourage using bubbles instead of balloons at celebrations (Mellish et al., 2019). Research found that balloons and their attachments were one of the most commonly identifiable items found in the chicks of a marine bird and a major source of mortality (Mellish et al., 2019). Zoos Victoria conducted interviews with zoo visitors to identify the barriers to and benefits of switching from balloons to bubbles, which they then applied to their campaign messaging (Mellish et al., 2019).

An alternative model, NERO, comes from research at Melbourne Zoo, which sought to identify the types of conservation actions visitors wanted to hear about (Kneebone et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2010a; Smith et al. 2012a). Visitors felt that the zoo should focus conservation messaging on behaviors that were new to them (Novel), easy to do (Easy), clearly linked to wildlife conservation (Response Efficacy), and could be done during their zoo visit (On-site) (2024; Smith et al., 2010a; Smith et al. 2012a). These studies inspired the strategies of several zoo conservation action campaigns. For example, in the mobile phone recycling campaign mentioned earlier, Zoos Victoria provided free mailers to zoo visitors, making the action easier (Litchfield et al., 2018). Melbourne Zoo received many more donations for fur seal conservation when the ask was incorporated into fur seal demonstrations than when the ask was just part of a static exhibit (Mellish et al., 2017). At the New York Aquarium, guests were encouraged to sign a petition to support the designation of the Hudson Canyon as a National Marine Sanctuary, highlighting a novel place that most guests were unaware of (Rank et al., 2024).

Modeling approaches like TTM, CBSM, and NERO have high potential to yield insight that will support conservation strategy. These three models are all based on the idea that the audience needs to be ready for the action for it to be successful: TTM explores the stages of readiness, CBSM incorporates likelihood to do an action, and NERO includes the ease of doing the action. This study explored how a zoo can use decision-making equations informed by their audiences, hypothesizing that feedback from visitors, community members, and employees will increase participation in the action and overall environmental impact.

Study Context

We conducted this study at the Queens Zoo, which is operated by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and welcomes over 250,000 visitors per year to its 18-acre facility in New York City. The majority of visitors are local to Queens (67%), Kings (9%), and Nassau (12%) counties (Rank & Roberts, 2022). Queens is celebrated as one of the most linguistically, racially, ethnically, culturally, and economically diverse counties in the world (Mcgovern & Frazier, 2015; Perlin et al., 2021). Queens, like much of NYC, faces many environmental challenges, such as flooding, excessive heat, litter, and poor air quality (City of New York, n.d.). Queens Zoo regularly emphasizes conservation action in its messaging at animal exhibits and in programs and aims to ensure that these messages are relevant, actionable, and lead to impact.

We used a two-phase mixed-methods design (Punch, 2014). Phase 1 took place in Summer and Fall (2023) and aimed to identify conservation actions that were most relevant to a range of audiences. We did a content analysis of conservation actions (May 2023), then conducted a survey of zoo educators (June 2023), interviews with Queens Zoo visitors (July 2023), and focus groups with community members (September 2023) to identify local conservation priorities. We explored these actions more deeply in Phase 2, fielding an online survey with residents of the NYC metro area in February 2024 to measure participation and perceived barriers and benefits of those eight conservation actions. We used results from this survey to assign numeric values for each action to the variables in decision-making equations, ranking the actions relative to each other to inform the zoo’s strategy. The WCS IRB (FWA #00016913) reviewed and approved all research materials and protocols.

Phase 1: Identifying Local Conservation Priorities

Methods

Content Analysis

We sourced a list of over 140 conservation actions identified by the Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance (Nageotte, 2023), consolidated similar conservation actions, removed actions not relevant for NYC residents (e.g., xeriscaping), and removed ubiquitous actions (e.g., recycling), to create a smaller list of 28 conservation actions. The actions reflected five overarching conservation themes recognized in zoo-based research, signifying that our reduced list was appropriately distributed among types of conservation actions (Maynard et al., 2020; Nageotte et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2012b). We used the 28-item list (Appendix A) in Phase 1 data collection and analysis.

Zoo Educator Survey

We invited educators from the Queens Zoo and WCS’s network of NYC wildlife parks to take a 7–10-min survey about the 28 conservation actions identified in the content analysis. Zoo educators have extensive experience interacting with NYC residents who are a large proportion of our visitors and program attendees (Rank & Roberts, 2022).

The survey asked respondents to select the top three actions that they felt NYC residents would consider to be: novel, easy to do, high conservation impact, and effectively messaged at the zoo. We selected these four characteristics to align with the NERO model research (Smith et al., 2010b; Smith et al., 2012a) that indicated zoo visitors’ preferences for conservation actions. The CBSM decision-making equation also accounts for ease of the action and which actions are relevant to audiences.

We posted an invitation and survey link on an internal message board accessed regularly by approximately 120 Education Department staff members. We kept the survey open for two weeks, posting a reminder on the same message board after one week. Forty-two staff members took the survey (35% response rate). To reduce survey length, we programmed the survey so that each respondent would see either items 1 to 14 or items 15 to 28, with the set viewed assigned randomly at survey launch. In our final sample, 18 respondents answered items 1 to 14; 24 respondents answered items 15 to 28. We summed the votes for each conservation action across all four characteristics, generating a ranked list from most to fewest number of votes.

Zoo Visitor Interviews

We developed a gameshow-inspired activity to prompt informal interviews with Queens Zoo visitors about environmental behaviors. The format of the game mimicked a typical zoo activity station with hands-on interaction facilitated by a trained interpreter who engaged in dialogue with visitors. Visitors spun a wheel to select one of seven questions about environmental behaviors, strategies, technologies, or issues. While children often spun the wheel, we only interviewed adults in the group. Three questions asked about their current practices taking care of the environment and four questions prompted visitors to think about eco-friendly cities, unique environmental products, getting rid of pollutants, and being an environmental superhero.

We styled the engagement similar to other live interpretation activities at zoos or aquariums, allowing guests to approach the station based on their interest. Anyone who approached was invited to participate in the game and asked follow-up questions as part of the activity, with consent waived given the format. The researcher posed the question, wrote down responses, and asked follow-up questions. Interactions took two to 4 minutes. We interviewed 28 adult visitors over approximately 4 hours. We coded the interviews using the 28 conservation actions from the content analysis (Appendix B).

Community Focus Groups

We conducted two focus groups with 24 Queens residents who were not regular zoo visitors to discuss conservation actions relevant to them. We recruited participants in partnership with a local community-based organization that provides workforce development and other support for residents. We conducted the focus groups at the partner location and provided food, beverages, and small thank you gifts for participating.

The focus group protocol included questions about what participants thought their neighborhoods did well with their environment, local environmental problems, possible solutions to those problems, and how the Queens Zoo can support these solutions. Participants reflected individually and discussed their answers with others before sharing with the full group.

Each focus group took 1 hour. Focus group 1 included 11 participants and was conducted in Spanish and English, with Spanish interpretation provided by the community-based organization partner. Focus group 2 included 13 participants and was conducted in English. One researcher facilitated the discussion, one researcher took notes, and we audio recorded both sessions for transcription. We coded the focus groups using the 28 conservation actions identified in the content analysis.

Selecting Actions

We generated a combined list of high-priority actions from the zoo educator survey, zoo visitor interviews, and community focus groups. We identified actions that generated similar and different responses across the three audiences.

Results

For the educator survey, we identified the top ten actions that were endorsed most frequently for novelty, ease, response efficiency, and ability to be done on-site (Appendix B). The action with the most endorsements was advocating for the environment, followed by learning about wildlife and conservation. Installing energy efficient appliances, responsible hunting and fishing, and increasing green practices in businesses were selected the least often, possibly because they are infrequent behaviors or not relevant for many New Yorkers.

Ten conservation actions emerged from interviews with zoo visitors. Energy-efficient appliances, waste management, and plastic reduction came up most frequently (see Appendix C).

Focus group participants spoke about seven conservation actions. They prioritized managing waste and advocating for urban green space, describing the need for more trees, better-quality green space, and less pollution. They felt that volunteering with a conservation organization and learning about wildlife and conservation was important. Participants also spoke about the importance of green business practices and government responsibility, which they connected to advocacy.

There were 17 unique actions across the three datasets, which reflected the five conservation themes (Table 1). The actions that showed up across all three datasets had to do with protecting the environment in general, particularly advocacy and managing waste. Zoo visitors almost exclusively spoke about protecting the environment in general and described many specific ideas that were not high-priority for the other audiences. The community focus group participants shared some unique actions such as volunteering, learning, organizing, and business practices.

Table 1.

High-Priority Conservation Actions Across Three Study Audiences.

Theme	Actions	Educator survey	Zoo visitor interviews	Community focus groups	Total
Support conservation organizations	Volunteer with a conservation organization			1	1
Individual outcomes	Learn about wildlife and conservation	1		1	2
	Spend time outside	1			1
Help protect wildlife and habitats	Create wildlife habitat (e.g., integrate native landscaping) a	1	1		2*
	Restore wildlife habitat (e.g., remove invasive species) a	1			1*
	Consume wildlife-friendly foods	1			1
Help protect the environment in general	Advocate for the environment and wildlife a	1	1	1	3*
	Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife	1	1	1	3*
	Responsibly manage waste a	1	1	1	3*
	Reduce plastic use a	1	1		2*
	Compost		1		1
	Reduce waste a		1		1
	Install water efficient systems a		1		1
	Enroll with a clean energy provider a		1		1*
	Install energy efficient appliances a		1		1*
Organizational actions	Organize efforts for environmental policy change	1		1	2
	Increase green practices in business			1	1

Notes. *action moved forward for testing in Phase 2.

^awe made slight changes to wording from Phase 1 to Phase 2. See Appendix D for details.

We discussed the list with Queens Zoo leadership, focusing on how the themes and actions align with the zoo’s expertise and priorities. We aimed to select a subset of actions that Queens Zoo is well-positioned to support; these actions would be studied further in Phase 2.

Zoo leadership felt that the two advocacy actions – specifically for urban green space – reflected WCS’s expertise working with government officials to shape environmental policy. They also prioritized actions related to wildlife habitat; Queens Zoo is located in a city park, providing many opportunities to create and restore wildlife habitat for native plants and animals right outside the zoo gates. They prioritized two waste-reducing behaviors, recognizing that the public tends to focus on tangible and visible problems. They prioritized selecting a clean energy provider because natural gas powers almost half of NYC’s electricity and there have been a number of local programs to incentivize energy alternatives. A related action – selecting energy-efficient appliances – was also a priority, however, we modified this to “conduct an energy audit”; while an energy audit is not an environmental end-behavior, doing this action has the potential to lead to other environmental behaviors, (Burger, 1999) such as selecting more efficient appliances. These eight actions represented two of the five major themes and we advanced them to Phase 2 (Appendix D).

Phase 2: Creating and Applying Decision-Making Equations

Methods

We conducted an online survey of residents of the NYC metro area to understand current participation, readiness for, and interest in the conservation actions identified in Phase 1. We used the results of the survey to fill in the decision-making equations and rank conservation actions to inform Queens Zoo’s conservation action strategy.

Creation of Equation

CBSM uses equation (1) to identify conservation actions to focus on. We created a similar equation using NERO:

$\mathit{Novel}\times \mathit{Ease}\times \mathit{Response}\hspace{0.17em}\mathit{Efficacy}\hspace{0.17em}\mathrm{x}\hspace{0.17em}\mathit{Onsite}=\mathit{Score}$

(2)

We used results from the public survey and other sources to assign values to each of the variables.

Data Sources

Survey Measures

Questions measured readiness to do an action and interest in actions. We included an attention check question in the survey to ensure data quality.

Screening Question

Participants shared the county where they live. Participants who lived in Brooklyn, Queens, and Nassau counties (the three counties where most Queens Zoo visitors live) were directed to continue the survey, all others were directed out of the survey.

Action Readiness Scale

Participants selected their current perceptions of or participation in each of the eight conservation actions using a seven-point Likert-scale with options extracted from the TTM (i.e. never thought about it, not interested, slightly interested, thinking about it, planning on doing it, already doing this) (Nageotte et al., 2024). We included a seventh option of does not apply to me (Nageotte et al., 2024).

Action Efficacy Scale

Participants selected two actions from the list of eight that they thought had the greatest positive impact on the environment. Knowing that an action is effective can help sway people to act (Smith et al., 2010a).

Demographics

Participants indicated age, number of children in household, annual household income, zip code, zoo membership status, and frequency of visiting the Queens Zoo. We asked about home ownership and type of residence (e.g., apartment, house) because these factors can be relevant for certain conservation actions.

Environmental Impact

We calculated the value for impact using Project Drawdown (Table of Solutions, n.d.), a leading resource for climate solutions. The Table of Solutions includes estimates of the amount of carbon dioxide reduced or sequestered by a range of environmental actions. We used the value for the action most closely related to the action we tested (Appendix E).

Data Collection

We used Alchemer panel services to recruit 400 survey respondents from Queens, Brooklyn and Nassau counties, where most Queens Zoo visitors live. These counties have over six million residents and about 20% of them live with children under 18 in their household (US Census Bureau, 2023). This sample size allowed us to achieve a 95% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error (Maple Tech International, n.d.). We purposefully over-sampled for participants with children under 18 in their household because zoos attract audiences with children.

Survey Respondents

More participants were from Queens (40%), followed by Brooklyn (38%), and Nassau County (22%). Half the sample had children under 18 years of age living in their household; most (84%) of these participants had one or two children. A little more than half (57%) reported annual household incomes of less than $75,000 per year, which is less than the median household income for these three counties (US Census Bureau, 2023).

About half of the participants identified as white (44%) and 7% identified as Asian or Asian American; these race and ethnicities were unintentionally over- and under-sampled respectively. The remaining self-reported race and ethnicities reported were comparable to US Census data (US Census Bureau, 2023).

About half of participants lived in apartments (49%) and 35% in single-family homes; the remainder lived in multi-family homes, town homes, or another dwelling type. Almost half owned their primary residence (44%), similar to home ownership rates in these counties (US Census Bureau, 2023). Seventeen percent were members of WCS.

Data Analysis

For each of the eight actions, we calculated scores using two decision-making equations – CBSM and NERO – and ranked the actions. For the CBSM equation, we used Project Drawdown’s Table of Solutions and the responses from the survey to the Action Readiness scale to estimate probability, penetration, and applicability (Table 2).

Table 2.

Variables in the CBSM Equation.

Variable	Description	Source
Impact	Environmental impact	Gigatons of CO2 sequestered from project Drawdown’s table of solutions
Probability	Likelihood that people will adopt the action	Action readiness scale: Not interested = 0, Never thought about it = 1, Slightly interested = 2, Thinking about it = 3, Planning on doing it at the next opportunity = 4
Penetration	Percent of people who do the action	Inverse percent of respondents who selected I already do this in the action readiness scale (i.e., people who do not do the action)
Applicability	Percent of people for whom the action applies	Inverse percent of respondents who selected does not apply to me in the action readiness scale

We created a second equation that uses NERO (Table 3) to generate scores for conservation actions (Kneebone et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2010a; Smith, Weiler et al., 2012a). We used the Action Efficacy scale to determine the response efficacy of each action. We used the Action Readiness scale to calculate ease and novelty using the probability score for ease and the percentage of people who had never heard about the action for novelty. Based on our experience working at a zoo, we made a decision about whether or not the action could be done on-site.

Table 3.

Variables in the NERO Equation.

Variable	Description	Source
Response Efficacy	Perception of positive impact the action has on the environment.	Percentage of people who indicated the action was one of the top two most impactful environmental actions.
Ease	Likelihood that people will adopt the action.	Mean action readiness. Scale: Not interested = 0, Never thought about it = 1, Slightly interested = 2, Thinking about it = 3, Planning on doing it at the next opportunity = 4
Novelty	Familiarity with an action.	Percent of participants who selected Never heard about it from the action readiness question set.
On-site	Ability to do an action at the zoo.	Categorical scale (can be done on-site = 3, sometimes can be done on-site = 2, and cannot be done on-site = 1).

We calculated two scores for each of the eight conservation actions – one for CBSM and one for NERO – and then ranked the actions from highest to lowest for each decision-making equation.

Results

Values for Decision-Making Equations

Action Readiness

Respondents identified their relationship to the eight actions. Most felt that they were already discarding waste in proper receptacles and almost half felt like they were reducing plastic by purchasing items made from alternative materials (Figure 1). There were several behaviors where respondents were primarily in the contemplative and preparative stages (i.e., thinking about doing the behavior, but had not yet taken action), specifically advocating for more public waste bins and advocating for urban green space for people and wildlife, with around two-thirds of respondents indicating they were slightly interested, thinking about it, or planning on doing it. Removing invasive plant species was the least thought about action (14%) and almost as many participants (13%) felt this action did not apply to them, resulting in the lowest action readiness percentage.

Figure 1.

Action readiness responses. Note. Values less than 8% not shown.

Action Efficacy

Respondents selected up to two actions that they believed had the largest positive impact on the environment (response efficacy). Almost half felt that the greatest environmental impacts could be made by reducing plastic by purchasing products in alternative packaging and discarding waste in proper receptacles (Table 4).

Table 4.

Values for Action Efficacy and On-Site Performance for Each Action.

Action	Response efficacy		On-site (Yes = 3, Maybe = 2, No = 1)
	n	%
Reduce plastic by purchasing products in alternative packaging	204	49	2
Create wildlife habitat with native plants	97	23	2
Advocate for urban green space	86	21	3
Discard of waste into proper receptacles	174	42	2
Enroll with a clean energy provider	80	19	2
Advocate for more public waste bins where you live	64	15	3
Conduct an energy audit of your home	39	9	1
Remove invasive plant species	41	10	2

On-Site Performance

We determined that the two actions that involved advocacy could easily be done at a zoo by signing a petition (Table 4). Conducting an energy audit of one’s home can only be completed at one’s home. All other actions could be done on-site if the zoo provided the proper resources, such as purchasing items not packaged in plastic.

Estimated Environmental Impact

Using Project Drawdown’s Table of Solutions, we selected solutions that best matched the actions on our survey and used the value for gigatons of CO₂ sequestered (Appendix E). For some actions, there was not a perfect fit for one Project Drawdown solution, so we selected multiple relevant solutions and averaged the values for CO₂ sequestered. We used the impact values directly in the CBSM equation. We also tested the model with the reverse rank order of the impact values to test the stability of the results (Table 5).

Table 5.

Environmental Impact Scores From Project Drawdown’s Table of Solutions.

Action	Gigatons of CO2 sequestered	Reverse rank order	Category used
Enroll with a clean energy provider	26.65	8	Distributed solar photovoltaics
Conduct an energy audit of your home	14.92	7	Average of insulation & LED lights
Create wildlife habitat with native plants	11.71	6	Average of perennial biomass production & temperate forest restoration
Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife	7.98	5	Average of perennial biomass production, temperate forest restoration, & green and cool roofs
Remove invasive plant species	4.45	4	Average of forest protection & grassland protection
Reduce plastic with alternative packaging	3.76	3	Reduced plastics
Advocate for public waste bins	3.73	1.5	Average of composting, recycled metals, recycled paper, recycled plastics, recycling, & reduced plastic
Discard of waste into proper receptacles	3.73	1.5	Average of composting, recycled metals, recycled paper, recycled plastics, recycling, & reduced plastic

Decision-Making Model Rankings

The CBSM decision-making equation prioritized: (1) enrolling with a clean energy provider, (2) conducting an energy audit of homes, and (3) creating wildlife habitat with native plants (Table 6; Appendix F). When we substituted the reverse rank value for impact in CBSM, the overall rankings were the same for the top four and eighth action; actions ranked fifth, sixth, and seventh were ordered differently. The NERO decision-making equation prioritized: (1) advocating for urban green space for people and wildlife, (2) reducing plastic by purchasing products in alternative packaging, and (3) creating wildlife habitat with native plants (Table 6; Appendix G). When we substituted the reverse rank value for response efficacy in the NERO equation, everything stayed the same except reducing plastic by purchasing products in alternative packaging and create wildlife habitat swapped second and third ranks. Given the top-ranked actions were relatively stable, increased our confidence in the impact values to use to inform decision-making.

Table 6.

Overall Score and Ranks for Decision-Making Equations.

Rank	CBSM	NERO
1	Enroll with a clean energy provider	Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife
2	Conduct an energy audit of your home	Reduce plastic with alternative packaging*
3	Create wildlife habitat with native plants	Create wildlife habitat with native plants*
4	Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife	Enroll with a clean energy provider
5	Advocate for public waste bins*	Advocate for public waste bins
6	Remove invasive plant species*	Remove invasive plant species
7	Reduce plastic with alternative packaging*	Discard of waste into proper receptacles
8	Discard of waste into proper receptacles	Conduct an energy audit of your home

Note. *indicates an alternate ranking when using alternative measures of impact (CBSM) or response efficacy (NERO).

Aligning Actions with Zoo Priorities

We discussed the rankings with Queens Zoo leadership to consider how the zoo could support the community in taking these actions and their alignment with the goals and expertise of a wildlife conservation organization.

We identified creating wildlife habitat with native plants as an action where the zoo’s focused efforts could increase community participation and conservation impact. This action was ranked third by CBSM and second/third by NERO, making it one of the few that was highly-ranked by both models. The zoo is located in a 900-acre public park in Queens and a close relationship with the NYC Parks Department would provide many opportunities to support visitors in becoming more active stewards of the park, including both on and off zoo grounds.

We eliminated the other highly-ranked options based on lack of alignment with the zoo’s expertise. Although enrolling with a clean energy provider and conducting a home energy audit were the two highest-ranked actions using CBSM, the connection between these two energy reduction actions and wildlife conservation is not as direct as the other actions. While advocating for urban green space was ranked fourth using CBSM and first using NERO, we prioritized stewardship of the park where the zoo is located before identifying opportunities for new green space in the neighborhood. Reducing plastic with alternative packaging was ranked second using NERO but low using CBSM, likely because of the difference between measures of perceived impact (high) and actual impact (low); we decided not to focus on this action because we want to support not only participation, but actual impact. We identified creating wildlife habitat with native plants as the action that achieved this balance.

Discussion & Conclusions

Increasing participation in conservation actions relies on understanding the perspectives of potential participants. Soliciting feedback from a purposefully-sampled range of audiences is a common method to understand a particular phenomenon (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007), in this case: what conservation actions are relevant to the Queens Zoo community? Hearing from zoo visitors, Queens community members, and a broader local audience helped ensure that their perspectives were integrated into the zoo’s strategy.

We used decision-making equations to weigh options against each other. The two equations, CBSM and the new NERO equation we tested, considered different factors when weighing conservation actions. CBSM includes true environmental impact (McKenzie-Mohr, 2011b), while NERO considered perceived environmental impact (response efficacy), a meaningful difference because the value that people attribute to their actions are not usually aligned with scientific consensus on environmental impact (Truelove & Parks, 2012; Wynes et al., 2020). In this study, the public focused on litter and plastic, however, according to Project Drawdown, clean energy is a better investment for the climate. We decided to prioritize creating wildlife habitat using native plants which is effective but people are not aware of its efficacy to support wildlife and benefit urban environments. Targeted messaging can help raise awareness about the actual efficacy of conservation actions to close the gap between the two.

Both equations allowed us to score conservation actions and rank them, which we were then able to compare and contrast while considering our organization’s strengths, assets, and resources. We believe that using both these decision-making equations will be useful for other organizations developing campaigns that consider their resources, their audiences, and potential impact. While collecting these data from audiences is time-intensive, these efforts can pay dividends by ensuring audience engagement while remaining true to mission and being realistic about resources.

One limitation of this study included using Project Drawdown’s values to measure CO₂ sequestered for each action; while we used the best match based on the information available, the alignment was not always perfect. Additionally, the gigatons of carbon sequestered for each solution listed was calculated on a global scale and does not represent the scale of actions at a community level in a particular ecological, political, economic, and social context. However, when we used the inverse rank of the gigatons sequestered, the results did not change significantly, highlighting that smaller order values did not change the outcome of the rankings. An alternative method of calculating impact is to ask experts to weigh in and rate the impact of the actions.

Another limitation was the reliance on open-ended conversations with zoo visitors and Queens residents, which prioritizes issues that were top-of-mind for these audiences. These environmental issues did not always align with larger environmental issues (Truelove & Parks, 2012; Wynes et al., 2020). For example, although Queens has been subjected to several devastating floods in the last few years, causing significant damage and loss of human life, participants in the focus groups did not bring up the problem themselves. In other words, this issue was not top-of-mind. Generally, we saw discrepancies in how zoo visitors, Queens community members, and the larger public prioritized conservation actions compared with Project Drawdown’s measurements of solutions.

This research aimed to identify high-impact conservation actions for the Queens Zoo to integrate into messaging, campaigns, and programs. The first phase of the project identified actions that staff, zoo visitors, and Queens community members felt were the most relevant. To select conservation actions for the Queens Zoo to focus on with its community came down to discussing the results of the decision-making equations and what made sense for Queens Zoo given its history, assets, resources, and partnerships. Staff from the Queens Zoo agreed that the action that made the most sense to focus on over the next three to five years was creating wildlife habitat using native plants. We suggest that as zoos continue to engage communities around them they collect data to build decision-making equations and use both the CBSM and NERO models to identify actions to prioritize. Using decision-making equations to drive priorities ensures that zoos are acting in partnership with communities and in ways that leverage their expertise.