Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

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.

Keywords

Conservation action CBSM NERO decision-making equations community engagement

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)

Impact \times Probability \times Penetration \times Applicability = 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
Individual outcomes	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
Organizational actions	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:

Novel \times Ease \times Response Efficacy x Onsite = 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)
Action	n	%	On-site (Yes = 3, Maybe = 2, No = 1)
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.

Footnotes

Author’s Notes

Laura Velázquez is now at the New York Hall of Science.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Craig Piper and Karen Tingley of the Wildlife Conservation Society for their unwavering support for this research and in the power of zoos to foster a more sustainable planet.

Ethics Considerations

The Wildlife Conservation Society’s IRB (FWA #00016913) reviewed and approved all research materials and protocols finding that the research activity was exempt from IRB-review on May 31, 2023 (Ref #23-33).

Consent to Participate

Zoo Educator and Public Surveys: Participants were informed of the estimated completion time (7–10 minutes for the educator survey, 10–15 minutes for the public survey), that the survey was anonymous and minimal risk, and that they could skip any questions or stop participating at any time. They were informed that results will be shared in aggregate through reports, conference presentations, and journal articles. Consent was confirmed online with a clickable “I agree” option following consent. Zoo Visitor Interviews: Informed consent was waived because the questions were minimal risk to participants and the study could not practicably be carried without a waiver, given its format as a live interpretation activity. Community Focus Groups: Participants were informed of the time commitment (1 hour for focus groups), that what they shared would be anonymized, that questions were minimal risk, that they could skip any questions or stop participating at any time. They were informed that results will be shared in aggregate through reports, conference presentations, and journal articles. Focus group participants were also informed about compensation for their time. Consent was confirmed verbally.

ORCID iDs

Shelley J. Rank

Su-Jen Roberts

Michael T. Allen

Paige Grecco

Edna Roquez

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.*

Author Biographies

Shelley J. Rank, Research & Evaluation Manager, Wildlife Conservation Society. Shelley studies how zoo and aquarium audiences become connected with wildlife, wild places, and environmental action. She is an active steering committee member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ Social Science Research & Evaluation Scientific Advisory Group. She has previously led research and evaluation projects focused on environmental education, youth development, exhibit impacts, climate resilient cities, and public perceptions of zoos and aquariums.

Su-Jen Roberts, Ph.D., Director of Educational Research & Evaluation, Wildlife Conservation Society. Su-Jen oversees social science research and evaluation at the Wildlife Conservation Society’s zoos and aquarium and has over ten years of experience measuring the impact of informal education programs on children, youth, families, and teachers. She is committed to using research to broaden access to science and nature, with a particular focus on STEM identity development and conservation career pathways.

Michael T. Allen, Director, Queens Zoo. Mike earned a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Zoology and Psychology and a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of Washington. With experience in animal husbandry, behavioral research, product and brand management, international collaboration, and zoo leadership, Mike is passionate about ensuring that conservation organizations are well run. He is unwavering in his commitment to welcome the local community to the zoo and engage them in conservation.

Paige Grecco, Manager of Education, Queens Zoo. Paige has a bachelors in Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources with a focus in Wildlife Conservation and Education. As the Manager of Education for the Queens Zoo, she supports and leads zoo educators and interns who connect thousands of school children and families with wildlife and the environment. Paige is enthusiastic about engaging children and families with environmental stewardship. Prior to her current position she was an educator at Central Park Zoo.

Tom Hurtubise, Curator of Education, Queens Zoo. Tom has over 30 years of experience working in informal science organizations and leads the team of zoo educators, interns, and volunteers who connect thousands of schoolchildren and families to nature each year. He is dedicated to promoting the Queens Zoo as an educational and recreational place for New York City residents, including developing programs for local families to engage in STEM, nature play and stewardship.

Edna Roquez, Coordinator of Volunteers & Visitor Engagement, Queens Zoo. Edna received her master’s degree in marine conservation and policy from Stony Brook University. She is passionate about local and global conservation and has experience with shark tagging and data collection in Africa, Belize and the United States. She now centers her work on adult volunteer and youth engagement in conservation, education, and stewardship.

Laura Velázquez, Youth Engagement Assistant Coordinator, Queens Zoo. Laura is passionate about engaging teens in STEM. As the Youth Engagement Assistant Coordinator for Queens Zoo she oversaw Quests, themed activities and interactive games led by 100 youth Discovery Guides, which builds deep connections with animals, nature, and conservation stories with participating teens and zoo guests. Laura now works at the New York Hall of Science as the STEM Engagement Coordinator and continues to work with youth in exciting STEM experiences.

Appendix

Appendix A.

Conservation actions used in the zoo educator survey and corresponding themes.

Action	Theme
Donate money to a conservation organization	Support conservation organizations
Volunteer with a conservation organization	Support conservation organizations
Learn about wildlife and conservation	Individual outcomes
Spend time outside	Individual outcomes
Reduce confusion for wildlife by minimizing light pollution (e.g., shades at night)	Help protect wildlife and habitats
Reduce wildlife collisions with buildings and vehicles (e.g., drive slowly)
Responsibly hunt and fish (e.g., register for a hunting or fishing license)
Restore wildlife habitat (e.g., remove invasive species from designated sites)
Create wildlife habitat (e.g., integrate native/sustainable landscaping)
Create wildlife homes (e.g., bat boxes or bee houses)
Responsibly keep pets (e.g., keep cats indoors)
Mitigate human-wildlife conflict (e.g., wildlife-proof trash bins)
Consume wildlife-friendly foods (e.g., Bird friendly, sustainable seafood)
Use wildlife-friendly products (e.g., DEET-free, reef-safe sunscreen)
Consume a plant-based diet (e.g., vegetarian, vegan)	Help protect the environment in general
Responsible waste management (e.g. use trash cans, safe disposal of medication)
Waste reduction (e.g., choose products with minimal or no packaging)
Reduce plastic use (e.g., purchase glass or aluminum packaged products)
Compost
Use reusable products (e.g., food containers, water bottles, diapers)
Make sustainable product choices (e.g., recycled products, local vendors)
Select a clean energy provider
Install energy efficient appliances (e.g., Energy star appliances)
Install water efficient systems (e.g., low-flow toilets, rain barrels, shower heads)
Advocate for the environment and wildlife (e.g., sign petitions, vote)
Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife (e.g., green roofs, school yards)
Organize efforts for environmental policy change	Organizational actions
Increase green practices in businesses	Organizational actions

Appendix B.

Most frequently endorsed conservation actions by zoo educators.

Action	Number of times endorsed as most novel, easy, response efficient, and able to be done onsite
Advocate for the environment and wildlife (e.g. signing petitions, voting)	34
Learn about wildlife and conservation	31
Restore wildlife habitat (e.g. remove invasive species)	28
Create wildlife habitat (e.g. integrate native landscaping)	26
Spend time outside	25
Organize efforts for environmental policy change	24
Responsibly manage waste (e.g. safe disposal of medicine)	22
Reduce plastic use	22
Consume wildlife-friendly foods (e.g. Bird friendly coffee, sustainable seafood)	20
Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife	20

Appendix C.

Zoo visitors’ top of mind conservation actions.

Action	Number of times mentioned
Install (or use) energy efficient appliances (including vehicles)	6
Responsibly manage waste	6
Reduce plastic use	5
Create wildlife habitat	4
Select a clean energy provider (or use clean energy)	3
Advocate for urban green space	2
Advocate for wildlife and the environment	1
Compost	1
Install water efficient systems	1
Reduce waste	1

Appendix D.

Conservation actions used in Public Survey, original actions, and the rationale for updating the action and why we decided it would move forward.

Updated	Original	Rationale
Advocate for more public waste bins where you live to curb litter	Advocate for the environment and wildlife (e.g. signing petitions, voting)	Litter can be ingested by wildlife, clog storm drains, and be an eye-sore. Litter is especially problematic in areas lacking waste bins and we’ve heard from community members that their neighborhoods need more waste bins.
Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife (e.g. green roofs, green school yards)	Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife (e.g. green roofs, school yards)	Focus group participants valued the green space they had access to and advocating for more green space in cities helps mitigate urban heat island effects, can add wildlife habitat, mitigate storm water flow, and can sequester carbon.
Conduct an energy audit of your home to learn how to make your home more energy efficient	Install water efficient systems (e.g. rain barrels, shower heads, etc.) & Install energy efficient appliance (e.g. selecting Energy star appliances)	While conducting a home energy audit is not an environmental end-behavior, it has potential to lead to other environmental end-behaviors. Residents who participate in their home energy audit are more likely to make energy efficient changes to their home.
Create wildlife habitat with native flowers, shrubs, or trees near your home	Create wildlife habitat (e.g. integrating native/sustainable landscaping)	Although creating and restoring wildlife habitat have the same end-goal, the process and the actions leading to quality wildlife habitat are different, so these actions remain separated.
Discard of waste into proper receptacles	Responsibly manage waste	Litter can be ingested by wildlife, clog storm drains, and be an eye-sore. We’ve heard from community members that park users need to be better about cleaning up after themselves.
Reduce plastic by purchasing products in alternative packaging (e.g. glass or aluminum)	Reduce plastic use (e.g. purchasing glass or aluminum products)	Zoo visitors and staff were most likely to mention the importance of reducing plastic use. We suggest fostering consumer habits focused on reducing consumption of products with plastic packaging such as food and beverage.
Restore wildlife habitat by removing invasive plant species near your home	Restore wildlife habitat	Although creating and restoring wildlife habitat have the same end-goal, the process and the actions leading to quality wildlife habitat are different, so these actions remain separated.
Select a clean energy provider for electricity (e.g. Clean choice Energy through ConEd)*	Select a clean energy provider (e.g. Clean choice Energy through ConEd)	Although we initially thought we would forgo asking participants about any energy efficient actions, we decided to include it given: COP28, the call for the need to end fossil fuels by the WCS CEO, and natural gas powers almost half of NYC’s electricity.

Appendix E.

Actions, Project Drawdown category used, and rationale for selection.

Action	Category used	Rationale
Advocate for public waste bins	Average of composting, recycled metals, recycled paper, recycled plastics, recycling, reduced plastic	The point of public waste bins is to reduce litter on the streets. We used the average of multiple solutions to account for the different types of waste that require disposal.
Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife	Average of perennial biomass production, temperate forest restoration, & green and cool roofs	Used the mean of these solutions because perennials or trees could be used to create green space (including on roofs). The mean gives us a measure that approximates a mixed habitat type. We used temperate forest restoration because parts of NYC used to be forest.
Conduct an energy audit of your home	Average Insulation and LED lights	When people do a home energy audit, insulating their home tends to be the most practical and cost-effective way to make their home more efficient. Swapping LED lights with existing bulbs is also an easy way to reduce energy usage. We averaged these two solutions because they are both highly probable next steps.
Create wildlife habitat with native plants	Average of perennial biomass production & temperate forest restoration.	Used the mean of these solutions because perennials or trees could be used to create wildlife habitat. The mean gives us a measure that is a mixed habitat type.
Discard of waste into proper receptacles	Average of composting, recycled metals, recycled paper, recycled plastics, recycling, reduced plastic	We used the average of multiple solutions to account for the different types of waste that require disposal.
Enroll with a clean energy provider	Distributed solar photovoltaics	Distributed solar photovoltaics are systems that typically are sited on rooftops. Installing solar panels is a much larger ask than enrolling with a clean energy provider, however the individual nature of selecting a clean energy provider, we argue is more similar to the concept of “distributed solar voltaics” than for “utility scale photovoltaics”.
Reduce plastic with alternative packaging	Reduced plastics	“Project Drawdown’s reduced plastics solution involves reducing plastic production by eliminating unnecessary plastic and shifting to reuse models.” We would encourage consumers to select products without or with less plastic packaging.
Remove invasive plant species	Average of forest protection and Grassland protection	We selected these two habitat types for protection because we wanted to represent mixed habitat types. We selected protection because we felt that removing invasive plant species from an area suggests that other plants need protection.

Appendix F.

CBSM decision-making equation using Project Drawdown data for environmental impact.

Action	Impact	Probability	Penetration	Applicability	Score	Rank
Advocate for public waste bins.	3.73	2.62	94%	86%	7.94	5
Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife.	7.98	2.38	95%	88%	15.76	4
Conduct an energy audit of your home.	14.92	2.42	91%	86%	28.36	2
Create wildlife habitat with native plants.	11.71	2.43	91%	84%	21.74	3
Discard of waste into proper receptacles.	3.73	2.58	97%	33%	3.07	8
Enroll with a clean energy provider.	26.65	2.38	93%	83%	48.93	1
Reduce plastic by purchasing products in alternative packaging.	3.76	2.50	99%	52%	4.84	7
Remove invasive plant species.	4.45	2.21	87%	88%	7.53	6

Appendix G.

NERO decision-making equation.

Action	Response efficacy	Ease	Novelty	On-site	Score	Rank
Advocate for public waste bins.*	15%	2.62	6%	3	0.07	5
Advocate for urban green space for people and wildlife.	21%	2.38	10%	3	0.15	1
Conduct an energy audit of your home.	9%	2.42	8%	1	0.02	8
Create wildlife habitat with native plants.	23%	2.43	8%	2	0.09	3
Discard of waste into proper receptacles.	42%	2.58	2%	2	0.04	7
Enroll with a clean energy provider.*	19%	2.38	8%	2	0.07	4
Reduce plastic by purchasing products in alternative packaging.	49%	2.50	5%	2	0.12	2
Remove invasive plant species.	10%	2.21	14%	2	0.06	6

Note. * Ranked according to third decimal place score: Enroll with a clean energy provider, scored 0.072 and advocate for public waste bins, scored 0.071.

References

Abrash Walton

Nageotte

N. L.

Heimlich

J. E.

Threadgill

A. V.

(2022). Facilitating behavior change: Introducing the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change as a conservation psychology framework and tool for practitioners. Zoo Biology, 41(5), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21704

Baechler

B. R.

Granek

E. F.

Carlin-Morgan

K. A.

Smith

T. E.

Nielson-Pincus

(2021). Aquarium visitor engagement with an ocean plastics exhibit: Effects on self-reported intended single-use plastic reductions and plastic-related environmental stewardship actions. Journal of Interpretation Research, 25(2), 88–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/10925872211021183

Berg

C. J.

Ling

P. M.

Guo

Windle

Thomas

J. L.

Ahluwalia

J. S.

L. X.

(2010). Using market research to characterize college students and identify potential targets for influencing health behaviors. Social Marketing Quarterly, 16(4), 41–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15245004.2010.522768

Bevan

Rosin

Mejias

Wong

Choi

(2022). Food for thought: Immersive storyworlds as a way into scientific meaning-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(9), 1607–1650. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21768

Burger

J. M.

(1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 3(4), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0304_2

Cannataro

DeHart

Grow

Hart

(2022). 2021 Annual Report on Conservation and Science. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2332/arcs_report_2021_final.pdf.

City of New York . (n.d.). Environment and health data portal: Understand how environments shape health in New York city. Retrieved February 21, 2024, from. https://a816-dohbesp.nyc.gov/IndicatorPublic/neighborhood-reports/flushing_clearview/climate_and_health/

Falk

J. H.

Reinhard

E. M.

(2007). Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit to a Zoo or Aquarium. Institute for Learning Innovation. https://www.aza.org/.

Fraser

Sickler

(2009). Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Handbook of Research Key Findings and Results from National Audience Surveys. Institute for Learning Innovation. https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/Why_Zoos%26Aquariums_Matter_Handbook.pdf.

10.

Fraser

Switzer

(2021). The social value of zoos. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108644679

11.

Green

K. M.

Crawford

B. A.

Williamson

K. A.

DeWan

A. A.

(2019). A meta-analysis of social marketing campaigns to improve global conservation outcomes. Social Marketing Quarterly, 25(1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500418824258

12.

Heimlich

J. E.

Ardoin

N. M.

(2008). Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 215–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802148881

13.

Hungerford

H. R.

Peyton

R. B.

(1994). Procedures for developing an environmental education curriculum. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000130454

14.

Ibrahim

Knox

Rundle-Thiele

Arli

(2018). Segmenting a water use market: Theory of interpersonal behavior insights. Social Marketing Quarterly, 24(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500417741277

15.

Kelly

Skibins

J. C.

(2020). Inspiring wildlife conservation behaviors through innovations in zoo exhibit design. Visitor Studies, 24(1), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2020.1824881

16.

Kneebone

Boulet

Jungbluth

Macklin

(2024). Getting ready to Deep Dive: Defining, identifying and prioritising behaviours. In Smith

Bragge

Curtis

Kellner

(Eds.), Inspiring change: How to influence behaviour for a better world. Monash University Publishing. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353210760

17.

Litchfield

C. A.

Lowry

Dorrian

(2018). Recycling 115,369 mobile phones for gorilla conservation over a six-year period (2009-2014) at zoos Victoria: A case study of ‘points of influence’ and mobile phone donations. PLoS One, 13(12), e0206890. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206890

18.

Maple Tech International

(n.d.). Sample size calculator. https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html

19.

Maynard

Monroe

M. C.

Jacobson

S. K.

Savage

(2020). Maximizing biodiversity conservation through behavior change strategies. Conservation Science and Practice, 2(6), e193. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.193

20.

McCallie

Bell

Lohwater

Falk

Lehr

Lewenstein

Needham

Wiehe

(2009). Many experts, many audiences: Public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report, March, 1–83. https://www.informalscience.org/documents/public_engagement_with_science.pdf%5Cn: https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/eth_fac/12/

21.

Mcgovern

Frazier

J. W.

(2015). Evolving ethnic settlements in Queens: Historical and current forces reshaping human geography. Focus on Geography, 14(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/foge.12045

22.

McKenzie-Mohr

(2011a). An introduction. In Social marketing to protect the environment. Sage Publications, Inc. https://www.cbsm.com/

23.

McKenzie-Mohr

(2011b). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community based social marketing. New Society Publishers.

24.

McKenzie-Mohr

Lee

N. R.

Schultz

P. W.

Kotler

(2012). Social marketing to protect the environment: What works. Sage Publications, Inc.

25.

McKenzie-Mohr

Schultz

P. W.

(2014). Choosing effective behavior change tools. Social Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500413519257

26.

Mellish

Pearson

E. L.

McLeod

E. M.

Tuckey

M. R.

Ryan

J. C.

(2019). What goes up must come down: An evaluation of a zoo conservation-education program for balloon litter on visitor understanding, attitudes, and behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(9), 1393–1415. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1625908

27.

Mellish

Sanders

Litchfield

C. A.

Pearson

E. L.

(2017). An investigation of the impact of Melbourne Zoo’s “Seal-the-Loop” donate call-to-action on visitor satisfaction and behavior. Zoo Biology, 36(3), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21365

28.

Merlino

(2006, November 18). Bronx Zoo - Tiger Mountain. Zoo Lex. https://zoolex.org/gallery/show/817/

29.

Nageotte

(2023). Conservation action campaign report.

30.

Nageotte

N. L.

Steele-Inama

Frederick

Elvove

McDonald

S. E.

(2024). Engaging internal and external audiences to develop and promote zoo-based conservation efforts. PLoS One, 19(4), Article e0298813. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298813

31.

O’Bryan

(2015, September 19). Louisville Zoo - Glacier Run: Bears. Zoo Lex. https://zoolex.org/gallery/show/1483/

32.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Collins

K. M. T.

(2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281–316. https://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-2/onwuegbuzie2.pdf

33.

Perlin

Kaufman

Turin

Daurio

Craig

Lampel

(2021). Mapping Urban Linguistic Diversity in New York City: Motives, Methods, Tools, and Outcomes, 15, 2021. https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/74664

34.

Prochaska

J. O.

Velicer

W. F.

(1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP, 1(12), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38

35.

Punch

K. F.

(2014). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

36.

Rank

Nageotte

N. L.

Pletcher

Jackson

(2023). Educating the public about illegal wildlife trade: Commonalities in investigating messages for visitors. Journal of Museum Education, 48(3), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2023.2166732

37.

Rank

Roberts

S.-J.

(2022). Queens zoo: Audience research report 2022. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/queenscountynewyork/PST045221

38.

Rank

Wellington

Roberts

S.-J.

(2024). Sea Lions in the big city: Evaluation of the New York aquarium’s Sea lion celebration. Internal Wildlife Conservation Society report: unpublished.

39.

Robinson

B. S.

Creasy

M. J. S.

Skeats

Coverdale

Barlow

(2018). Global survey reveals a lack of social marketing skills in the conservation sector and shows supply of training doesn’t meet demand. Social Marketing Quarterly, 25(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500418813542

40.

Schilbert

Scheersoi

(2023). Learning outcomes measured in zoo and aquarium conservation education. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 37(1), Article e13891. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13891

41.

Smith

Curtis

Van Dijk

(2010a). What the zoo should ask: The visitor perspective on pro-wildlife behavior attributes. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(3), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2010.00033.x

42.

Smith

Curtis

Van Dijk

(2010b). What the zoo should ask: The visitor perspective on pro-wildlife behavior attributes. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(3), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2010.00033.x

43.

Smith

Weiler

Smith

van Dijk

(2012a). Applying visitor preference criteria to choose pro‐wildlife behaviors to ask of zoo visitors. Curator: The Museum Journal, 55(4), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2012.00168.x

44.

Smith

L. D. G.

Curtis

Mair

Van Dijk

P. A.

(2012b). Requests for zoo visitors to undertake pro-wildlife behaviour: How many is too many? Tourism Management, 33(6), 1502–1510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.004

45.

Stoinski

T. S.

Allen

M. T.

Bloomsmith

M. A.

Forthman

D. L.

Maple

T. L.

(2002). Educating zoo visitors about complex environmental issues: Should we do it and how? Curator: The Museum Journal, 45(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2002.tb01187.x

46.

Table of Solutions . (n.d.). Project Drawdown. Retrieved June 24, 2024, from. https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions

47.

Truelove

H. B.

Parks

(2012). Perceptions of behaviors that cause and mitigate global warming and intentions to perform these behaviors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.04.002

48.

US Census Bureau . (2023). Quick facts: Kings county, NY; Nassau county, NY; Queens county, NY. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/kingscountynewyork,nassaucountynewyork,queenscountynewyork/PST045223

49.

Wildlife Conservation Society . (2025). Give a sip. https://www.wcs.org/get-involved/give-a-sip

50.

Wynes

Zhao

Donner

S. D.

(2020). How well do people understand the climate impact of individual actions? Climatic Change, 162(3), 1521–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02811-5

51.

Zoo and Aquarium Statistics . (2024). Association of zoos & aquariums. https://www.aza.org/zoo-and-aquarium-statistics

Using Community Feedback to Identify Conservation Actions for a Zoo

Abstract

Background

Focus of the Article

Research Question

Importance to Social Marketing Field

Methods

Results

Recommendations for Research or Practice

Keywords

Introduction

Background and Literature

Conservation Education at Zoos

Theoretical Models of Behavior Change

Study Context

Phase 1: Identifying Local Conservation Priorities

Methods

Content Analysis

Zoo Educator Survey

Zoo Visitor Interviews

Community Focus Groups

Selecting Actions

Results

Phase 2: Creating and Applying Decision-Making Equations

Methods

Creation of Equation

Data Sources

Survey Measures

Screening Question

Action Readiness Scale

Action Efficacy Scale

Demographics

Environmental Impact

Data Collection

Survey Respondents

Data Analysis

Results

Values for Decision-Making Equations

Action Readiness

Action Efficacy

On-Site Performance

Estimated Environmental Impact

Decision-Making Model Rankings

Aligning Actions with Zoo Priorities

Discussion & Conclusions

Footnotes

Author’s Notes

Acknowledgements

Ethics Considerations

Consent to Participate

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Author Biographies

Appendix

References