Assessing the Effects of New Primate Exhibits on Zoo Visitors' Attitudes and Perceptions by Using Three Different Assessment Methods

Abstract

Using three different methods, this study investigated how zoo visitors behaved in response to both old and new exhibits of four nonhuman primate species and how they perceived these primates. On-site observations showed that zoo visitors were more likely to stop in front of new exhibits and spend more time viewing new exhibits compared with old exhibits. Response to an on-site questionnaire also showed that zoo visitors perceived primates in the new exhibits more positively than the same animals in the old exhibits. The results from these two types of local assessment indicate that the attractiveness and holding power of the new exhibits was greater than that of the old. However, the results of a questionnaire given to zoo visitors on leaving the zoo showed that the preference ranks of the visitors for the four primate species did not increase after the new exhibits were established, indicating that the new exhibits did not change the zoo visitors' perception of primates relative to other zoo animals. Using all three assessment methods appears to be of considerable value for the assessment of visitors' perceptions towards new exhibits in terms of both the immediate locality and the zoo as a whole.Many zoological gardens have promoted innovations for zoo environments in order to better achieve the four roles of the modern zoo: conservation, education, research, and entertainment. Moreover, naturalistic exhibits are more likely to allow captive animals to display speciestypical individual and social behaviors, and reduce the stereotypic or abnormal behaviors, compared with more traditional, sterile exhibits (Clarke et al

Visitor Behaviors and Perceptions of Jaguar Activities

“…Past studies suggest that visitors have more positive perceptions of animals when they are housed in naturalistic exhibits, and tend to prefer naturalistic exhibits over pre-naturalistic exhibits (Finlay, James and Maple 1988;Davey 2006;Nakamichi 2007). Past research has also shown that some forms of stereotypy are directly related to species-typical foraging patterns of that animal (Carlstead, Sidensticker and Baldwin 1991;Wechsler 1991;Lawrence and Terlouw 1993;Fernandez 2010).…”

“…Previous studies suggest that visitors spend more time viewing exhibits when an animal is present and active (Bitgood, Patterson and Benefield 1988;Altman 1998;Anderson et al 2003;Davey 2006). There also appears to be a visitor preference for naturalistic exhibits that reflect an animal's wild habitat (Shettel-Neuber 1988;Davey 2006;Nakamichi 2007), and this preference may help create more positive perceptions of zoo animals (Maple 1983;Coe 1985;Finlay, James and Maple 1988;Fernandez et al 2009). …”

Postoccupancy evaluations in zoological settings

“…Additionally, to a smaller degree, stay times were affected by animal visibility and activity, external factors such as temperature, as well as by visitor characteristics. A similar study examined multiple measures of visitor behavior after four primate species were relocated from small cages to much larger exhibits [Nakamichi, 2007]. Visitors were more likely to pause and had increased stay times at the new exhibits.…”

Visitor interest in zoo animals and the implications for collection planning and zoo education programmes

“…In this study, we have adopted the tried and tested approach to quantifying visitor behavior, namely using unobtrusive observations of visitors in exhibit settings [see Serrell, 1998 for an extensive description of these techniques]. Although this method was developed in the museum studies field, it has also been widely used in wildlife attractions [Yalowitz and Bronnenkant, 2009; Zwinkels et al, 2009; Moss et al, 2008; Ross and Lukas, 2005; Ross and Gillespie, 2009; Nakamichi, 2007; Bitgood et al, 1988] increasing our confidence in the validity of implementing such an approach. Although, it must be added that the authors recognize other approaches that can be used to assess relative popularity of zoo animals, such as semantic differential scales [Sommer, 2008; Fraser et al, 2006] or conversation analysis [Clayton et al, 2009; Tunnicliffe, 1996], for example.…”