Visitor Attitudes Toward Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) at Two Australian Zoos

Abstract

This study identified and compared the attitudes of visitors toward zoo-housed little penguins, their enclosure and visitor experience that may influence the way visitors behave toward little penguins at two Australian zoos. Visitor attitudes were assessed using an anonymous questionnaire, targeting visitor beliefs, and experiences, where visitors were randomly approached at the penguin exhibit after they had finished viewing the penguins. Visitors were given two options to complete the questionnaire, on an iPad during their zoo visit or online (URL sent via email) after their zoo visit. A total of 638 participants (495 at Melbourne Zoo and 143 at Taronga Zoo) completed the questionnaire, 42% were completed onsite during their zoo visit and 58% were completed online after their zoo visit. Most participants were living in Australia, non-zoo members, female, previously or currently owned a pet, aged between 26 and 35 years and had a University degree. Results showed that the attitude dimensions of visitors were consistent between the two zoos which indicates that these measures of attitudes were stable over time and location. Overall, visitors at both zoos had positive attitudes toward little penguins, penguin welfare, the enclosure, and visitor experience. However, whether these positive attitudes and positive visitor experience influenced the way visitors behaved toward the penguins remains unclear. There were some differences in visitor attitudes toward the perceived “aggressiveness” and “timidness” of little penguins, “negative penguin welfare”, “experience with the penguins”, “learning”, “visual barriers” and the way visitors rated their overall experience at the penguin enclosure. While the reasons for the differences in visitor attitudes and visitor experience between the zoos were not clear, some factors such as penguin behavior and enclosure design, may have been attributable to these differences. Also, a relationship was found between visitor attitudes and how visitors rated the welfare of penguins, the enclosure and visitor experience at the enclosure; more positive visitor attitudes were associated with higher ratings of penguin welfare, the enclosure and visitor experience. The practical implications of these results for zoos is unclear because the differences in visitor attitudes were numerically small. This requires further comparisons between zoos or enclosures that are more markedly different than the penguin enclosures in the present study and further research on how visitors assess zoo animals, enclosures and visitor experience.

Animal-Visitor Interactions and the Visitor Experience: Visitor Behaviors, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Learning in the Modern Zoo (Preprint)

“…It proposes that the beliefs a person holds regarding a particular object, forms the attitudes of a person and their subjective norms, which in turn can predict and determine a person's intention and behavior (Ajzen, 1985;Ajzen, 1991). Therefore, knowledge and measurement of the attitudes and perceptions of visitors is important because they are drivers of behavior, particularly attitudes (Ajzen 1991;Chiew et al 2021). In psychology, it is well established that an individual's attitude is defined by three interconnected components: A person's beliefs about the object such as zoo animals (cognition), their emotional response to the object (affect) and their behavioral tendency towards the object (conation) (Ajzen, 1985;Albarracín et al, 2014;Hemsworth & Coleman, 2011;Pickens, 2005).…”

“…Consequently, the model proposed in Learmonth (2019), the Chiew-Hemsworth model for zoo AVI's, highlights how the attitudes of visitors may be examined alongside the assessment of animal welfare to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the zoo visitoranimal relationship. However, examination of the attitudes and perceptions of visitors that may drive the way visitors behave towards zoo animals has been limited, with only a handful of studies thus far beginning to apply this model Chiew et al, 2021).…”

“…We must also focus more acutely on the effects that captive animals are having upon the perceptions and attitudes of visitors after AVIs, and whether these effects are more profound for visitors after close-contact experiences, or simply related to the visitors perceived "connection" to the animal(s) with or without a close-contact experience (D'Cruze et al, 2019;Godinez & Fernandez, 2019;Howell et al, 2019;Learmonth, 2020). Additionally, there is a need for further focus on understanding the attitudes of visitors that may drive the way visitors behave towards zoo animals to help better manage the interactions between visitors and zoo animals Chiew et al, 2021).…”

“…The effects of zoo visitors on zoo animals are now well documented, ranging from highly negative, to innocuous, to positive experiences (Claxton, 2011;Davey, 2007a;D'Cruze et al, 2019;Fernandez et al, 2009;Fernandez et al, 2021;Jones et al, 2016;Kreger & Mench, 1995;Mitchell et al, 1992;. Some examples of factors that influence animal responses to visitors have included visitor noise-level, proximity, and presence versus absence of visitors (Carder & Semple, 2008;Chiew, Butler et al, 2019;Chiew et al, 2020;Chiew et al, 2021;Larsen et al, 2014;Learmonth et al, 2018;Sherwen, Harvey et al, 2015;. Additionally, these visitor effects on zoo animals have been examined through both the behavioral responses of the animals and through physiological responses, such as the sampling of glucocorticoid concentrations through non-invasive fecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGM) (Chiew, Butler et al, 2019;Chiew et al, 2021;Fanson & Wielebnowski, 2013;Keay et al, 2006;Pifarré et al, 2012;Kuhar, 2008;Sellinger & Ha, 2005;Sherwen, Harvey et al, 2015;.…”

Animal-Visitor Interactions and the Visitor Experience: Visitor Behaviors, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Learning in the Modern Zoo

“…The effects of zoo visitors on zoo animals are now well documented, ranging from highly negative, to innocuous, to positive experiences (Claxton, 2011;Collins et al, 2016;Davey, 2007a;D'Cruze et al, 2019;Fernandez et al, 2009Fernandez et al, , 2021Jones et al, 2016;Kreger & Mench, 1995;Mitchell et al, 1992;. Some examples of factors that influence animal responses to visitors have included visitor noise-level, proximity, and presence versus absence of visitors (Carder & Semple, 2008;Chiew, Butler et al, 2019;Chiew et al, 2020Chiew et al, , 2021Larsen et al, 2014;Learmonth et al, 2018;Sherwen, Harvey et al, 2015;. Additionally, these visitor effects on zoo animals have been examined through both the behavioral responses of the animals and through physiological responses, such as the sampling of glucocorticoid concentrations through non-invasive fecal glucocorticoid metabolites (FGM; Chiew, Butler et al, 2019;Chiew et al, 2021;Fanson & Wielebnowski, 2013;Keay et al, 2006;Pifarré et al, 2012;Kuhar, 2008;Sellinger & Ha, 2005;Sherwen et al, 2014;Sherwen, Harvey et al, 2015;.…”