Page | 1
Chapter 50: ZOO VISITORS: CAN WE MAKE THEM BEHAVE?
Stephen Bitgood, Arlene Benefield, Donald Patterson, David Lewis, & Angela Landers
AAZPA 1985 Annual Proceedings
------
INTRODUCTION
Zoos have become increasingly concerned with the behavior of their visitors. From the perspective of zoo personnel, it is desirable to control visitor behavior in several ways: (1) to influence visitors to return to the zoo as many times as possible; (2) to inculcate visitors with educational information and attitudes such as conservation of wildlife; and (3) to direct visitors to engage in appropriate visitor behaviors (e.g., being courteous to other visitors, following directional signs and arrows) and refraining from inappropriate behaviors (e.g., feeding animals, teasing animals, littering, damaging property). The present study provided data on some of the factors that appear to influence visitor behavior at zoos.
A simple model of visitor behavior was formulated. This model assumed that visitor behavior is primarily controlled by three factors: (1) the attractiveness of the exhibit; (2) the physical and psychological comfort of the visitor; and (3) the types of controlling stimuli directed at the visitor.
Attractiveness of Exhibit
It has been quite obvious to zoo personnel that visitors are drawn to and remain longer at exhibits that are more attractive. The question is: “What makes an exhibit attractive to visitors?” One of the most frequently documented variables is animal activity (e.g., Hodges, 1978; Martin & O’Reilly, 1982). An active animal appears to be more interesting or entertaining than an inactive one. Although animal activity has been show to influence visitor behavior, to our knowledge, no one has systematically looked at other variables that make an exhibit attractive. Other variables such as animal size, animal beauty, artistic and dramatic characteristics of the exhibits, and proximity of animal to visitor may all play an important role in the visitors’ perception of exhibit attractiveness.
Visitor Comfort
A second factor related to the control of visitor behavior is visitor comfort. This factor is likely to be an important factor with zoo visitors or with people in any environment. Temperature, crowding, smell, lighting, and noise are all likely to affect the behavior of visitors. Common sense tells us that people are less likely to go outside on a rainy day. Although visitor comfort is an obvious factor, it has not been systematically studied in zoos. Under what conditions will visitor comfort play a more or less important role? Under what conditions will a visitor avoid viewing an otherwise attractive exhibit because of factors such as crowding, heat, or smell? Will visitors stay in the zoo longer if comfortable seating is provided?
Controlling Visual Stimuli
There are at least three types of stimuli used to control visitors. The first type exerts directional control (e.g., entrance-exit signs; traffic-flow arrows; orientation maps). The second type provides information about the exhibit (e.g., labeling signs and guide books). The last type of stimuli is an instruction-to-action cue (e.g., “Parents ask yur child to identify this animal,” or “Don’t feed the animals”). Several articles have been concerned with one aspect of directional control: orientation devices such as maps, information desk, and signboards (Cohen, Winkel, Olsen, & Wheeler, 1977; Levin, 1982; Sharpe, 1983). As an example, Cohen et al (1977) found that visitors to the National Museum of History became less disoriented when maps and signs were introduced in to the Museum.
The other types of controlling stimuli have been less frequently studied. Only one experimental study could be found that looked at sign-labelling, the most common type of information stimuli. Hodges (1978) found that the letter size and the amount of text on a sign affected visitor viewing time. Viewing time increased dramatically when the letter size was increased and the amount of text decreased. No studies could be found that evaluated the instruction-to-action stimuli.
METHOD
Visitor Viewing Time
Observers recorded the visitor viewing time in six areas of the Birmingham Zoo. These areas were: (1) the Predator House; (2) the Bear Area; (3) the Monkey Area (outside cages); (4) the Pachyderm Building; (5) the Reptile House; and (6) the Hoofed Animal Area. Three exhibits from each of these areas were selected for measurement of visitor behavior. In the Predator House, the exhibits were: the Spotted Leopard, the Couger, and the River Otter. In the Bear Area, the exhibits were: the Grizzly Bear, the Polar Bear, and the Asiatic Bear. In the Monkey Area the exhibits were: the Gibbon, the Guennon, and the Lemur. In the Pachyderm Building, the exhibits were: the Hippopotamus, the Elephant, and the Rhinoceros. In the Reptile Building, the exhibits included: the Reticulated Python, the Indian Cobra, and the Boa Constrictor. Finally, the Hoofed Animal exhibits included: the Tapir, the Greater Kudu, and the Dromedary Camel.
The recording procedure involved marking off the primary viewing area for each exhibit and measuring the amount of time that individual visitors stopped to observe the animal exhibit. The primary viewing area was determined by visually inspecting the area in which visitors ordinarily observed the exhibit. Only one visitor was tracked per observation. At the beginning of the recording period, the recorder selected the first visitor entering the primary observation area and tracked this individual until he/she left the area. A stop watch was used to time the total duration that the visitor stopped and was visually oriented to the exhibit. Only time stopped was recorded since observation areas differed in size and total time in the observation areas as a measure would have been biased by the size of the observation areas. If the visitor did not stop to observe the exhibit, then a duration of zero was entered. Ten visitors were chosen for observation during each observation period. Visitors were selected such that one-half were adults and one-half were children. In addition to visitor viewing time, the recorder indicated whether or not the animal was active during the time the visitor was observing the exhibit. Other relevant information was also recorded such as time of day, temperature, weather conditions, and crowd conditions. The size of the viewing area was measured for each exhibit and approximate weights of animals were obtained from encyclopedias and other sources. Animal activity, size of viewing area, and animal size were later correlated with visitor viewing time. Recordings were taken on the following dates of 1985: 11 March, 14 March, 14 April, 2 May, 19 May, 1 June, and 15 June. A total of 30 visitors were observed for each exhibit on each day of recording.
Perceived Characteristics of Animals
Animals involved in this study were independently rated by 65 undergraduate and graduate students at Jacksonville State University to determine the perceived beauty, threat, and novelty of each animal. These results were then correlated with visitor viewing time to determine if perceived animal characteristics played a role in exhibit attractiveness.
One-Way Direction Manipulation
After four days of measuring visitor behavior in the Reptile House, the traffic flow was changed from two-way to one-way. The purpose of this manipulation was to see if the decrease in traffic congestion produced longer exhibit viewing times. It is assumed that traffic congestion is an unpleasant state for visitors and this unpleasantness is likely to reduce the viewing times of visitors.
Visitor Response to Signs
Visitors’ responses to the three types of zoo signs were measured: (1) entrance-exit signs; (2) exhibit labels and information signs; and (3) instructions-to-act signs (“Parents, ask your child….”). Observers recorded the number of visitors entering and leaving the Reptile and Predator Houses at both the entrances and exits of these buildings which were clearly marked by signs on the doors. In addition, throughout the study, observers recorded whether or not visitors read signs while they were viewing exhibits. Finally, 492 parents were observed at three exhibits with signs that attempted to prompt parents to ask their children a question about the animal.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Overall Visitor Viewing Time
Figure 1 is a graph of the visitor viewing time for each of the 18 exhibits in the study. The Pachyderm, Great Ape, and Bear Exhibits were viewed longest, while the Reptiles and Hoofed Animals tended to be viewed the shortest amount of time. These results cannot be explained simply in terms of animal popularity since big cats and monkeys tend to be most popular. The following analysis suggests the involvement of several variables that are associated with viewing time.
Factors Related to Exhibit Attractiveness
- Activity: Table 1 contrasts viewing time between active and inactive periods of animal activity. For each animal exhibit under study, viewing time was considerably greater during active periods than during inactive periods.
Table 1
Comparison of Viewing Times During Active and Inactive Periods
ANIMALACTIVENOT ACTIVE
View TimePercent ActiveView TimePercent Active
Otter59.5 sec80%24.5 sec0
Polar Bear62.310032.630
Asiatic Bears40.910010.90
Guennon48.06015.320
- Animal size/viewing area: Viewing times were correlated with the weights of animals (r = 0.65) and the size of the view area (r = 0.62). It is difficult to determine the relative importance of these variables since they are confounded in the present study. That is, larger animals tend to have larger exhibit areas and consequently larger viewing areas for visitors.
- Presence of young animals: The presence of a young animal appears to increase the attractiveness of an exhibit quite markedly. During the first three days we recorded visitor behavior at the Birmingham Zoo, a young Hippo was exhibited with its mother. This young animal was sold while we continued to collect data. The mean viewing time when the young animal was present was 84.2 sec (based on 90 observations). After the young animal was removed, the viewing time dropped to 43.2 sec (based on 60 observations). Similar effects have been observed for other exhibits in other zoos, although careful measurements have not been taken.
- Perceived animal characteristics: Figure 2 shows the relations between perceived beauty and view time. The reptiles and hoofed animals tend to be perceived as less attractive and viewed for shorter times than other animals. Although the pachyderms may be perceived as unattractive, their size and activity may be responsible for their longer viewing times. Bit cats, bears, and monkeys are perceived as most attractive and viewing times of these animals may be dependent mostly on the activity of the animal.
- Visitor barriers: The exhibits observed in the present study had three kinds of barriers: bars or fence; glass; or a moat. Bars/fence gives the poorest view of the animal while a moat gives the best view. When the viewing times are averaged across the type of barrier, the moat average is 51.6 sec, the glass barrier average is 27.1 sec, and the bars/fence barrier is 25.2 sec.
- Visual satiation: Viewing times were compared over successive similar-species exhibits and it was found that viewing times were longer for the initial exhibits than for subsequent ones. In addition to direct observation, the order of viewing snakes was experimentally manipulated by directing visitor traffic flow in different directions on different days. The animal viewed first was always viewed longer than the one viewed last. This finding will be reported in more detail in another paper (Bitgood, England, Lewis, Benefield, Patterson, & Landers, 1985).
- Factors related to visitor comfort: The results of changing traffic flow direction in the Reptile House may suggest that crowding (or congested traffic flow) is an important variable in visitor behavior. The average viewing duration of exhibits was 16.6 sec with a two-way traffic flow. When the Exhibit House was changed to one-way, the viewing time increased to an average of 26.7 sec. This increased viewing time occurred despite the fact that the temperature of the Reptile House remained uncomfortably hot throughout most of the study.
Effects of controlling visual stimuli
- Directional control: Entrance and exit signs exert surprising control over visitor behavior. In the Reptile House over 1500 observations were made on visitors. Over 99 percent of visitors obeyed the direction signs. A similar result was observed in the Predator House.
- Information control: The most important questions with this type of control are: (1) do visitors read the signs/labels; and (2) what do they learn from these sources of information? Throughout all of the exhibits studied, sign-readiing behavior occurred from 5.6 to 34.9 percent of the time. The highest percentage of sign-reading occurred in exhibits that has a sign with a red back ground and large letters that read, “This is not a …. pig, rabbit, ostrich.”
- Instruction-to-action control: The Birmingham Zoo has several signs that attempt to prompt parents to ask their children a question about an animal in one of the exhibits. For example, the sign for the Greater Kudu instructs parents to ask their child, “What distinctive features can you see in the Kudu?” Over 500 families were observed and not one parent was observed to ask one of these questions to their children. In their present form, these signs are ineffective.
DISCUSSION
The results of the study support the proposed three-factor model of visitor behavior. In particular, some of the parameters of the three factors were explored. It seems reasonable to conclude, based on the results, that exhibit attractiveness is facilitated by: (1) animal activity; (2) animal size; (3) presence of young/infant animals; and (4) minimal or no visual barriers (e.g., bars, fences). The relative weightings of these factors and the identification of other important variables are yet to be studied.
One of the possible factors in visitor comfort was also studied: traffic congestion in an exhibit building. When traffic congestion was reduced in the Reptile House by making traffic flow one way, viewing durations increased. Another factor affectiving visitor comfort is the weather. Every zoo has documented the impact of bad weather on gate attendance. For example, during the Birmingham Zoo during the Spring Vacation for Alabama schools, there was 25 percent lower visitor attendance on a weekday in which a rain shower occurred compared with a weekday in which the entire day was warm and sunny. Variables such as temperature, noise, and smell have yet to be systematically studied.
Finally, the effects of several controlling visual stimuli were assessed in the present study. Some of these stimuli influenced visitor behavior to a much greater degree than others. For example, directional control stimuli (entrance and exit signs in buildings) exerted considerably more control than did stimuli that attempted to influence by giving information or instructions-to-action commands.
REFERENCES
Bitgood, S., England, R., Lewis, D., Benefield, A., Patterson, D., & Landers, A. (1985). Visusl satiation at the zoo: Enough is enough! Paper presented at the Southeastern Association for Behavior Analysis, Charleson, SC.
Cohen, M., Winkel, G., Olsen, R., & Wheeler, F. (1977). Orientation in a museum – An experimental visitor study. Curator, 20: 85-97.
Hodges, S. (1978). An ecological approach to the study of zoo visitor behavior: Implications for environmental management and design. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.
Levine, M. (1982). You-Are-Here maps: Psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior, 14: 221-237.
Martin, J., & O’Reilly, J. (1982). Designing zoos for children: An alternative approach. Proceedings of the International Conference of Environmental Design Research Association, 13: 339-346.
Sharpe, E. (1983). Touch-screen computers: An experimental orientation device at the National Museum of American History. Office of Public & Academic Programs, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
FOOTNOTES
- This study was partially funded by the Alabama Zoological Society.
- We would like to express our appreciation to Richard Mills, Assistant Director of the Birmingham Zoo, and to Jack Bradford of the Alabama Zoological Society for their helpful assistance during the course of this study.