Visitor Behavior in Zoos: a Review

Visitor behavior in zoos: A review

Gareth Davey Psychology and Life Sciences Research Group, University of Bolton, UK, and Psychology Department, University of Chester, Chester, UK. Abstract Visitors are integral components of zoological parks and their importance has led to a research area devoted to understanding the people–zoo relationship. This paper reviews, and provides a point of entry into, the literature relating to visitor research in zoos. The field emerged relatively recently and is diverse and interdisciplinary (it shares common ground with sociology, education, psychology, zoology, and other academic disciplines). Several areas can be identified in the literature (audience analysis, circulation and orientation, exhibit evaluation, and interactions with animals), and these areas have revealed visitors’ demographic and behavioral characteristics, people’s behavioral responses to endogenous and exogenous factors, the impact of exhibit design, and visitors’ movements around zoos. Limitations of existing work include independence between research areas, lack of international studies, limited generalizability of results, and the minority status of the field. Therefore, suggestions for future work include integrating different research areas, more research from outside Europe and America, and increased interaction within the visitor research community. Keywords: animal welfare, visitor; visitor effect, zoo People and Zoos ssociations between people and captive animals have developed during thou- sands of years—from the early Egyptian animal collections through to the contemporary zoological park; the modern-day zoo is an important social Aand cultural institution (Hediger 1969; Mullan and Marvin 1987; Davey 2005a). The importance of the people–zoo relationship has led to the emergence of a research area devoted to understanding zoo visitors. Visitor research is also conducted in a variety of other institutions, including museums, botanical gardens, science centers, and commercial visitor attractions; the analysis of people at these places is collectively known as “Visitor Studies” (Loomis 1988; Bitgood 1989; Bitgood 2002). Studies of zoo visitors are invaluable for several reasons. They help to understand how visitors engage with the zoo environment and interact with animals, identify people’s needs, aid planners in developing and evaluating appealing exhibits, understand and promote utilization of exhibit areas, attract a broad representation of audiences, enable people to gain maximum benefits, provide adequate amenities, and also investigate the visitor market to aid the development of business and marketing strategies (Ament 1994; Shettel and Bitgood 1996; Maitland 2000). Research is interdisciplinary and shares common ground with several academic disciplines, including sociology, education, psychology,

Address for correspondence: Dr. Gareth Davey, Psychology Department, University of Chester, Chester, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Davey Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 143 zoology, and market research. The majority of research has taken place in museums, and this bias is reflected in existing literature reviews that focus either on museums specifically (e.g., Shettel and Bitgood 1996) or the field in general (that is, many different types of institutions in which zoos are often grouped together with other visitor attractions under the umbrella term “museum;” Bitgood 2002). There appears to be no comprehensive summary of visitor-behavior studies exclu- sively within the zoo setting. Yet, museums and zoos can be considered to constitute distinct institutions with their own individual characteristics and, further, museum visitor research is not necessarily applicable to zoo audiences (Bitgood 1992; Milan and Wourms 1992). Also, the wide-ranging diversity of the field means that zoo-based work is scattered across the literature of different disciplines. To address this issue, this paper draws together zoo-based reports and sum- marizes the main thrust of research to date. The field’s history and scope is discussed and suggestions are offered to direct future research. The History and Diversity of Zoo Visitor Studies The earliest visitor studies took place in the museum-setting by Benjamin Gilman in the 1910s, Edward Robinson in the 1920s, and Arthur Melton in the 1930s. Their work focused on the influence of the museum environment on visitor behavior (Gilman, 1916; Robinson, 1928; Robinson, 1930; Melton, 1933, 1935, 1936). They studied visitor movement within museum galleries, the influence of gallery design on behavior, and visitor interest. Although they launched visitor research into the academic arena, they did not stimulate further work and instead represent a cluster of studies until several decades later, when visitor research re- appeared in the literature. There are several good historical accounts, although they focus on museum-based research (e.g., Shettel 1989; Bitgood and Loomis 1993; Bitgood 2002). Considering zoo studies specifically, research did not appear until the 1970s and, prior to this, focused on animals. This was illustrated in 1969 by Heini Hediger, an authority on zoos at that time, who wrote “Comprehensive analysis of the public who visit zoos...are still part of the future” (Hediger 1969, p. .4). This comment highlights the non-existence of even the crudest visitor studies as late as 1969. Even twenty-years later, in the late 1980s, similar consensus was prevalent, perhaps evidenced by the comments by Marcellini (1987, p. 6), “Now what do zoo visitors actually do at the zoo? Actually, we really don’t know. There are better documented behavioral observations on the bush dog and dorcas gazelle than on the zoo visitor.” The earliest attempts to collect and reflect on visitor information involved mere- ly counting visitor numbers at the zoo entrance. The emphasis changed somewhat during the 1970s as the aims of zoos shifted. Their roles changed from displaying taxonomic collections to housing and breeding endangered animals and raising environmental awareness, and studies began to focus on these new issues. The 1980s onwards witnessed an “explosion” in research, characterized by a dramatic increase in visitor research, and diversification of researchers’ academic backgrounds. The driving forces of this growth have been the shift towards financially self-supporting institutions (this is particularly true in the United Kingdom where most zoos currently receive little or no government funding), higher numbers of visitors, increased

144 Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 Davey leisure time, and also recent emphasis on zoos’ educational significance (Kotler and Andreason 1991; Loomis 1993; Bartos and Kelly 1998). The diversity of research to date can be categorized into four areas. The most topical area, audience research, is concerned with analyzing the demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal characteristics of zoo visitors. Another research tradition has focused on understanding people’s movements around zoos and their familiarization within specific locations. Third, exhibit evaluation focuses on assessing the impact of zoo enclosure designs. An emerging body of evidence has led to another research area about visitors’ interactions with zoo animals, and their implications for visitors and animal welfare. Audience Analysis:The “Who,” “What,” and “Why” of People’s Visits “Audience Research” endeavors to profile visitors’ attitudinal, behavioral, and demographic characteristics, and analyzes relationships within them. Motivations and attitudes underlying decisions to visit are also common research topics. This area can be divided, arbitrarily, into two divisions: the first scrutinizes information about visitors and is chiefly populated by market research professionals; the second division involves behavioral observations of visitors by academic and zoo staff. Research about visitors’ characteristics has perhaps received most attention (indeed, almost every visitor study includes demographic data). Visitor attributes commonly studied include demographics, leisure values, interests, expectations, and motivations (Hood 1983; Hood 1984; Whittall 1992; Morgan and Hodgkinson 1999). Who, then, visits zoos? A review of the literature reveals that the answer is not straightforward: there is no “typical” zoo-visitor as such. The words of Morgan and Hodgkinson (1999, p. 227) are perhaps very fitting; “attempting to profile the average zoo visitor is probably futile.” Considering the literature collectively, cate- gorizing visitors on the basis of demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education level, and socio-economic status is impossible, and classifications that do exist (e.g., Martin and O’Reilly 1989; Kellert 1996) are based on a very small number of studies. Generalization is problematic because of differences between sites, lack of standardization in instrument design, and difficulties associated with com- paring visitor profiles across zoos that operate differently and exist in diverse geo- graphical regions (Patterson 1990; Ament 1994). Therefore, it is unlikely that a standardized zoo visitor profile exists, even within specific geographic regions. Even so, visitor profiles are useful for individual zoos: for example, to identify under-represented groups, aid development of strategies to attract specific audiences, and to compare information with local visitor attractions and industry benchmarks. The second branch of audience analysis, the observation of visitor behavior, focuses on understanding how visitors utilize the zoo. Research themes include time budgeting, interactions with exhibits, behaviors associated with reading signs, and social interaction with other visitors (group behavior). Simple behavior principles have emerged that seem to hold true across zoos. They include the short durations and frequencies of visitor behaviors, predictable behavioral responses to endogenous and exogenous factors, and also circulation and orientation patterns (Bitgood, Patterson and Benefield 1986; 1988; Johnston 1998; Davey and Henzi 2004; Davey and Higgins 2005). For example, a large amount of work has focused

Davey Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 145 on the numerous factors that influence visitor behavior. These factors are either associated with the zoo environment, captive animals, or visitors. Animal factors include their presence, activity, size, color, rarity, and visibility; exhibit factors include design, location, age, sound, labelling, and signage, whereas visitor variables include demographic and personality attributes, as well as group influences (Wolf and Tymitz 1979; Bitgood, Patterson and Benefield 1986; 1988; Bitgood 2002; Davey, Henzi and Higgins 2005). Most studies are limited because they investigate only one or two factors using univariate statistical techniques. An excep- tion was that by Johnston (1998), who investigated factors that influenced visitors’ viewing times at polar bear exhibits. The scale of the study (involving ten zoos, visitor observations, ethnographic interviews, and discussions with zoo professionals), the large number of variables (initially 50), and multivariate analyses, distinguish it from previous work. Altogether, he found that twenty factors significantly affected visitors’ viewing times; structural aspects of exhibit appearance had the most significant effects, highlighting the important influence of exhibit design on visitor behavior, although animal characteristics and some visitor characteristics also had significant effects. However there were some aspects of his study that could have been improved. For instance, only one visitor behavior was studied (viewing durations) despite the large number of predictor variables measured. The study also gives the impression that the independent variables were not chosen on theoretical grounds, and future studies should base choice of predictor variables on past research (simply measuring lots of variables is somewhat meaningless). Orientation and Circulation A second research tradition focuses on how visitors travel around zoos. Circulation refers to patterns of visitor movement, whereas orientation character- izes the ways people familiarize themselves within a zoo (Martin and O’Reilly 1989; Bitgood 2002; Davey and Henzi 2004). This includes tracking of people during entire visits, within a specified area, or observations across a few exhibits. Research has also investigated the influence of maps, directions, and visitor guides on routing behavior (Martin and O’Reily 1989). Understanding visitor traffic is important because results help to decide where to locate exhibits (poorly posi- tioned exhibits will have low visitation rates), and to elucidate factors underpin- ning changes in visitor interest. Another reason centers on animal welfare issues, because large numbers of people at specific exhibits could threaten animals and thus compromise their welfare (e.g., Mitchell et al. 1990; Davey and Henzi 2004). The earliest circulation research took place in the museum setting during the 1920s and 1930s (Robinson 1928; Melton 1933, 1935) and led to the identifica- tion of characteristic behavior patterns. One principle, which has been identified in zoo visitor samples, is the notion that the majority of visitors turn right upon entering a gallery of exhibits, known as the “right-turn” bias (Melton 1935; Shettel-Neuber and O’Reilly 1981; Davey and Henzi 2004). Indeed, Robinson in 1931 (p. 422) stated “we find this tendency to be so strong that left walls in long halls and galleries are markedly inferior to right walls as places of exhibition.” This means that exhibits located on the right side of a room receive high numbers of visitors, whereas those on the left remain relatively unvisited. Davey and Henzi (2004) demonstrated the existence of the direction bias in a primate house at

146 Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 Davey Blackpool Zoo. They found that most visitors turned right when they entered the gallery of primate exhibits, and the pattern was upheld during all times of the day. More work is needed to explain why this turning pattern occurs, although recent findings indicate that a visitor’s handedness (that is, left- or right-handedness) plays a role (Davey, in preparation). Visitors have also been observed to determine their most popular routes within a zoo. For example, Deans et al. (1981) and Martin and O’Reilly (1982) found that the majority of people followed one path around a zoo’s boundary and some exhibits were unvisited; following on from this, Martin, O’Reilly and Albanese (1983) determined favorable places to locate exhibits based on popular routes taken by visitors. In another approach, Mitchell et al. (1990) found that a primate cage near an entrance was visited more frequently than a cage away from the entrance. Another cage, even further from the main path, received less patronage. All cages were almost identical in form and the location effects persisted even when the animal inhabitants were changed. Another visitor behavior pattern is “museum fatigue,” which describes decreases in visitor interest during visits (Davey 2005b). Museum fatigue is a complex concept, and is characterized by several behavioral changes amongst visitors. First, a visitor’s interest towards exhibits may decrease during an entire visit, or within a smaller area (such as a succession of exhibits). Fatigued visitors tend to cruise around exhibits, have rapid rates of viewing, and increased selectivity in terms of the exhibits they view; and, specific exhibits receive greater visitor interest earlier in the day (Davey, unpublished). Most research about the concept has taken place in museums (Melton 1935; Falk et al. 1985; Serrell 1997, 1998), although some zoo studies exist. Falk et al. (1985) observed people, during their entire visits, for the occurrence of museum fatigue. They found that people’s interest initially reached a high plateau, then remained constant for about 30 minutes, and later decreased to a lower level. Davey (unpublished) observed visitor interest at a primate exhibit and found that visit durations, viewing periods, and the proportions of people that stopped, all markedly decreased as the day progressed. Museum fatigue seems a likely explanation for this pattern because visitors later in the day are more likely to be at later stages of their visits, and therefore display decreased interest towards exhibits. The museum fatigue concept has be extended to include behavioral changes within smaller areas (Davey 2005b). For example, Bitgood, Patterson and Benefield (1986) described a situation whereby visitors in the reptile house at Birmingham Zoo (USA) viewed the first reptile they saw for longer periods than the second, and this pattern was upheld when visitor flow was reversed. Similarly, Marcellini and Jenssen (1988) tracked visitors as they travelled through a reptile house and also found that people viewed the first exhibit for longer periods than subsequent exhibits. This pattern remained when traffic flow was reversed. They stated (p. 235) “In normal flow, exhibits A–E were more attractive and held visitors significantly longer than areas D–F....However, reversing the traffic flow dra- matically reversed the situation. Areas D–F became more attractive and held visitors significantly longer than A–E.” More research is needed to understand museum fatigue in zoos, its causes, and how it can be counteracted. Particular emphasis needs to be placed on animal welfare implications, because exhibits Davey Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 147 closer to the zoo entrance, and at the beginning of exhibit galleries, are likely to receive greater visitor interest (Mitchell et al. 1990; Davey and Henzi 2004). Exhibit Design and Evaluation Visitor studies assess if zoos accomplish their goals with respect to the experience they aim to provide. This process, termed evaluation, serves to measure, and identify, best matches between zoo services and visitors’ needs and expectations. Evaluation is particularly important in exhibit design to ensure that exhibits are interesting and enjoyable. Also, modern zoo enclosures can be very costly and it is necessary to understand how these investments impact on people. Three types of evaluation can be distinguished in the literature and they operate at different times of exhibit development. Front-end evaluation occurs during the planning stage, before any designs are chosen, and involves a potential audience. The next stage is formative evaluation, which is a preparation stage usually involving trials of prototype exhibit elements. Lastly, summative evaluation occurs when the project is complete and uses the final exhibit to assess its effectiveness (Borun and Korn 1999). During the past few decades, zoo exhibits have characteristically evolved from the classic menagerie-type cages into modern naturalistic exhibitory that aims to improve animal welfare standards (Hancocks 1980; Shepherdson, Mellen and Hutchins 1998). Evaluation studies in the zoo literature have investigated the effects of these changes on visitor behavior. They have shown that visitors sometimes respond more positively to naturalistic exhibits with increased visit durations, viewing time, searching behaviors, social interaction, animal-related conversation, and positive attitudes, and thus add support to the on-going transformation of exhibits currently taking place in zoos (Price, Ashmore and McGivern 1994; Johnston 1998; Wood 1998; Namiki 2002; Totfield et al. 2003; Davey, Henzi and Higgins 2005). Recently, studies have surfaced from East Asian zoos—Namiki (2002) reported increased visitor interest at modern exhibits in a Japanese zoo and, similarly, research from Beijing suggests that Chinese visitors also respond positively (Davey, Henzi and Higgins 2005). However, more international research is needed, particularly from developing countries that are home to most of the world’s biodiversity. Furthermore, findings have not always shown that naturalistic exhibits enrich the visitor experience (e.g., Brennan 1977), some results are not always clear-cut (e.g., Shettel-Neuber 1988; McPhee et al. 1998), and some visitors may disapprove of enrichment features (e.g., Verderber et al. 1988; Ings, Waran and Young 1997), and these concerns need to be researched further. There is evidence to suggest that visitors become more conservation-focussed after visiting exhibits that have interactive elements linked to conservation issues. For example, Swanagan (2000) found that interactive elephant exhibits motivated people to return petitions and solicitation cards about elephant conservation. In another example, Dotzour et al. (2002) measured an exhibit’s effectiveness at promoting environmentally responsible behavior. Visitors that played an interactive game at an exhibit at Brookfield Zoo reported greater interest in taking part in environmental behaviors compared with visitors who did not play it. These findings are important because they link interactive exhibits with conservation education, and show that exhibits foster active support for conservation initiatives.

148 Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 Davey Interactions with Captive Animals Some visitors interact with captive animals. These interactions have been studied during educational demonstrations, animal rides, public feeding and at the petting zoo (Kreger and Mench 1995), or at cages where people may try to touch or feed animals. Interactive features have also been incorporated into exhibit designs; for example, Throp (1975) described an interactive exhibit that allowed a “tug of war” of a nylon rope between visitors and a captive gorilla, and Yanofsky and Markowitz (1978) described a game that allowed visitors and captive mandrills to interact. Cook and Hosey (1995) defined an interaction at an exhibit as a behavior that is performed by the captive animal or human observer and is directed at an individual of the other species. Studies of these exchanges have revealed intriguing findings. For example, Mitchell, Herring and Obradovich (1992) found that captive mangabeys were more aggressive towards visitors of the same sex. Also, male visitors harassed male mangabeys more than they did female mangabeys, but female visitors did not harass female mangabeys more than males. Visitor–animal interactions are not necessarily confined to single events, and interaction sequences have been observed, defined by Cook and Hosey (1995) as a succession of exchanges that come alternatively from two members of an animal–human pair. The authors found that more than half of visitor-initiated interactions with chimpanzees in Chester Zoo were prepared to exceed a sixth interaction, and food provision was the outcome in 25% of the sequences. They suggest that food acquisition is likely to be the primary motivation for chimpanzees to interact, but more work is needed to explain visitor motivations. Future research could investigate if visitors with certain personality characteristics interact with animals in specific ways, because previous research has linked personality with attitudes towards the treatment of animals (Mathews and Herzog 1997), and if the personality of captive animals influences the interaction. Unruly visitor behaviors present problems for every zoo. Teasing, feeding, shouting, throwing stones, vandalism, and even animal poisoning, cause distress, or death, to captive animals (Hediger 1969; Thompson 1976). Fortunately, research shows that these behaviors tend to be atypical and most visitors tend to simply watch, talk, or point at an exhibit. However, research since the 1970s has associated the mere presence, density, group size, and position of visitors, with animal behavioral and physiological changes indicative of stress (Hosey 2000; Davey 2005c). This relationship has dominated visitor research amongst animal welfare specialists, who endeavor to reduce or eliminate the stressful situations. Hosey (2000) reviewed the subject. He concluded that, in the main, studies do seem to associate visitor presence with stressful effects, and there is not sufficient evidence to support a contrasting hypothesis proposing that visitors are enriching to captive animals. However, almost all studies are limited to behavioral changes in captive primates, although a few have taken place with other animal groups (Thompson 1989; Nimon and Dalziel 1992; Condon and Wehnelt 2003). Also, recent studies have used physiological measures of stress (Wehnelt et al. 2004; Davis, Schaffner and Smith 2005). There is a disproportionate amount of research across different visitor variables: most research has focused on the effects of visitor presence and density,

Davey Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 149 whereas little work has explored the effects of size and position of visitors (Davey 2005c). Studies also seem to use vague and insufficient descriptions of visitor variables; an example is the division of visitor groups into “active and passive” (active groups are defined as “those in which at least one person attempted to interact with the animal”; Hosey and Druck 1987, p. 23; Mitchell et al. 1991). In another example, Davis, Schaffner and Smith (2005) used zoo attendance figures as measure of visitor numbers at a specific exhibit, and drew conclusions about the impact of visitors on urinary cortisol levels in primates. Research could be improved by using more specific definitions, and measures, of visitor variables- for example, a definition of active visitors could include different types of activity, such as pointing or waving, and different intensities of these behaviors. Likewise, the work by Davis, Schaffner and Smith (2005) could be improved by using absolute measures of visitor numbers at a specific exhibit, rather than relying on attendance figures. This is important if research findings are to be of practical benefit to animal welfare workers. Limitations and Future Directions Although efforts to understand the psychology of zoo visits have increased during the past two decades, there are several issues that limit existing work. They include limited integration of different research areas, variation between zoos, lack of international work, and the minority status of the field. A major problem is the variation between study sites. Different studies involve different visitor characteristics, enclosure designs, animal variables, and research methods. This variation, which is difficult to control, limits the applica- bility of studies and, as a consequence, studies tend to be descriptive and site-specific (Martin and O’Reilly 1989; Patterson 1990; Bitgood 2002; Davey 2006). These problems may also impact on the perceived quality of zoo-based research, with experimental design lacking scientific rigor (Dunlap and Kellert 1995). Future research can partly resolve this issue by replicating studies in different situations and across institutions, to ensure the generalization of research findings. Comparatively few academics conduct visitor research in zoos. Although the field is increasing in popularity, its size is relatively small. There are only two major associations (Visitor Studies Association in the USA and the Visitor Studies Group in the UK), and research is not widely represented in academic curricula-for example there is no taught higher education degree in Visitor Studies (Friedman 1995). The field’s minority status has fuelled debate about whether visitor studies constitute a separate academic field (Loomis 1988; Bitgood 1989). There are several justifications for recognition as a field, such as the increasing numbers of researchers and professionals, an established and rap- idly developing body of literature, and increased institutional support (Loomis 1988), but there are also weaknesses of existing research, such as those discussed above. A Visitor Studies profession would offer support and resources such as conferences and meetings, professional development opportunities, access to a body of previous research, advocacy of professional aims, recognized standards of practice, and recognition and acceptance by others (Bitgood 1989). Clearly, more emphasis is needed to increase communication and networking within the visitor studies community.

150 Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 Davey Visitor research represents a very diverse area and this situation causes problems for attempts to draw together these different strands. To exemplify the point, since the 1980s two largely independent but overlapping research areas have emerged: “Visitor Studies” (the study of visitors’ behavior) and “Visitor Effects” (the study of visitors’ influences on, and interactions with, captive animals). The independence of these two branches can be gauged from the different backgrounds of their researchers, dissimilar research settings, and their publication out- puts. The majority of “Visitor Studies” have been performed by non-zoologists, are conducted in a variety of settings (e.g., museums, science centers, botanical gardens, zoos, etc.), and research findings tend to be published in non-zoological literature (typical journals include Curator, Environment and Behaviour, Museum Management and Curatorship, and the Journal of Interpretation Research; Bitgood 2002). In contrast, “Visitor Effects” research is more commonly conducted by zoologists or animal workers, almost solely in zoos or other places housing captive animals, and usually published in animal-related literature (typical journals include Zoo Biology and Applied Animal Behaviour Science). Furthermore, researchers in one area rarely conduct studies or attend conferences related to the other area, and the two sides rarely discuss, and therefore hardly quote, each other in their publications. For example, Hosey’s (2000) excellent review of “Visitor Effects” failed to discuss fully the findings of “Visitor Studies,” even though there was substantial evidence to supplement his theoretical discus- sion and, similarly, an equally good review of “Visitor Studies” (Bitgood 2002) failed to acknowledge research on visitor effects. This independence is, of course, not confined only to these two reviews but is a characteristic feature prevalent in the majority of studies that form the background of this review. The independent status of these two research traditions is worrying, because they cover overlapping topics, and research would obviously benefit from interaction. Integrating both areas is also likely to lead to the provision of more effective zoo programs and exhibits. Exhibits are currently designed and evaluated by measuring and assessing visitor responses. These studies allow planners to assess how exhibits meet their original aims and probe the influences of proposed exhibits on visitor behavior, but not “Visitor Effects” research. Indeed, many studies have offered exhibit design recommendations that probably reduce animal stress. These include the positioning of viewing windows, the height of cages, designing walkways, the possibility of one-way viewing glass, the location of cages within zoos, the importance of visitor proximity, the creation of suitable signs, placing popular exhibits in less-visited areas, and housing animals that are less responsive to visitors where visitation rates are higher (Hosey and Druck 1987; Chamove, Hosey and Schaetzel. 1988; Mitchell et al. 1990; Mitchell et al. 1991; Margulis, Hoyos and Anderson 2003; Davey and Henzi 2004). Suggestions like these are valuable to exhibit designers because they propose design features that probably enhance animal welfare standards. In order to foster integration, this review offers a conceptual framework within which to integrate both research areas for the benefit of zoo audience researchers and exhibit designers. The framework will be called the “Integrated Zoo Research Model “ (IZRM). The model seeks to promote the consolidation of visitors’ experiences, needs and expectations (Visitor Studies) with knowledge Davey Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 151 Figure 1. The IZRM framework aims to integrate the “Visitor Studies” and “Visitor Effects” research traditions in the design of zoo situations, such as modifications to enclosures, environmental enrichment, or other programs.The framework is educational rather than procedural in focus.The starting point of the model is an understanding of both visitors’ needs and expectations along with possible visitor effects on animals.These areas are then merged to provide a “best fit” between visitor, animal, and institutional needs.The model is exemplified with exhibit design but can be extended to other situations where an understanding of visitor behaviors and visitor effects is important.

Visitor Behavior Studies Scope of Project Visitor research has shown how The visitor research findings are people behave as different exhibits considered alongside the original and factors that underpin behav- aims of the project, and also limi-

ioral differences. tations such as time and funding. Visitor Studies

Visitor Research Visitor-Oriented Plan A large body of literature exists All of the information from visitor on program design and evaluation, research is used to propose rec- along with visitor satisfaction stud- ommendations for exhibit design. ies.This knowledge, in combination with commissioned studies, is used by exhibit designers to create appealing and enjoyable exhibits.

PROPOSED PLAN The two plans recommend design aspects that integrate, and also cater to, both visitors and animals.The two plans are then explored and used to create a final plan on which exhibit designs are created.

Visitor Effect Research Animal- Previous research, and also new Oriented Plan studies commissioned on behalf of Information from “visitor Visitor Effects the exhibit designers, can be used effects” research is combined to assess the effects of proposed with project aims to propose situations, such as new exhibits, on recommendations. the well-being of captive animals.

Scope of Project The “visitor effects” research findings are considered alongside the original aims of the project and limitations such as time and funding.

152 Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 Davey about visitor effects on, and interactions with, animals. The model (Figure 1) pres- ents two arbitrary divisions: the first partition covers the “Visitor Studies” area and requires zoo professionals (such as exhibit designers) to use visitor research to pre- dict how visitors will behave at their proposed situation, such as a particular exhibit. These findings are then put into the context of the original scope of the project, and a visitor-orientated plan is formulated that matches both institutional and visitor requirements. The second section of the framework follows a similar approach, but focuses on the possible effects of the predicted visitor behavioral changes on animal well-being (Visitor Effects) and subsequent recommendations for exhibit design. Both the visitor-orientated plan and the animal-orientated plans are then pooled together and used to design a situation that offers a “best fit” between both plans. Conclusion This review has summarized the current status of zoo visitor research. The field has revealed important information about people’s behavior in zoos, including visitors’ attitudinal and behavioral characteristics, responses to exhibit design, and interaction with captive animals. This information demonstrates the importance of zoos as cultural and social institutions. However, although efforts to understand the psychology of visitors have markedly increased during the past two decades, an array of limitations constrain the impact of research. These issues need to be addressed if the field is to establish deserved credibility. Some of the barriers discussed above can probably be remedied without difficulty: for example, this review provides a tool (IZRM) to help integrate distinct areas of visitor research. Zoos offer several advantages for visitor researchers-they are places where people and animals are concentrated together, provide a variety of animals and human subjects, and are generally low-cost in terms of field work. Zoo visitor research is comparatively young and has come a long way in a short time. References Ament, S. 1994. Zoos and marketing research. Zoo Federation News 68: 38–52. Bartos, J. and Kelly, J. 1998. Towards best practice in the zoo industry: developing key performance indicators as bench-marks for progress. International Zoo Yearbook 36: 143–157. Bitgood, S. 1989. Professional issues in Visitor Studies. In Visitor Studies: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 2, 8–19, ed. S. Bitgood, A. Benefield and D. D. Patterson. Jacksonville, AL: Jacksonville Center for Social Design. Bitgood, S. 1992. Does audience research from museums apply to zoos? Curator 35(3): 166–169. Bitgood, S. 2002. Environmental psychology in museums, zoos, and other exhibition centers. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology, 461–480, ed. R. Bechtel and A. Churchman. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bitgood, S., and Loomis, R. 1993. Introduction: Environmental design and evaluation in museums, Environment and Behavior 25(6): 683–697.

Davey Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 153 Bitgood, S., Patterson, D. and Benefield, A. 1986. Understanding your visitors: Ten factors that influence visitor behaviour. In American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria Annual Conference Proceedings, 726–743. Wheeling, WV: American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria. Bitgood, S., Patterson, D. and Benefield, A. 1988. Exhibit design and visitor behaviour: Empirical relationships, Environment and Behavior 20: 474–491. Borun, M. and Korn, R. eds. 1999. Introduction to Museum Evaluation. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. Brennan, T. 1977. Typical zoo visitor social group behaviour. In American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria Annual Conference Proceedings, 109–116. Wheeling, WV: American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria. Chamove, A., Hosey, G. and Schaetzel, P. 1988. Visitors excite primates in zoos. Zoo Biology 7: 359–369. Condon, E. and Wehnelt, S. 2003. The effect of visitors on the behaviour of Humboldt’s penguins at Chester Zoo. Federation Research Newsletter 4(2): 3. Cook, S. and Hosey, G. 1995. Interaction sequences between chimpanzees and human visitors at the zoo. Zoo Biology 14: 31–440. Davey, G. 2005a. Is zoo-going a human instinct? Biophilia and zoo. International Zoo News 52(8): 452–459. Davey, G. 2005b. What is museum fatigue? Visitor Studies Today 8(3): 17–21. Davey, G. 2005c. The visitor effect. Zoos’ Print Journal 20(6): 1900–1903. Davey, G. 2006. Zoo visitor density and its role as a confounding variable. Zoo Research News 7(1): 3–4 Davey, G. and Henzi, P. 2004. Visitor circulation and nonhuman animal welfare: An over- looked variable? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7(4): 243–251. Davey, G., Henzi, P. and Higgins, L. 2005. The influence of environmental enrichment on Chinese visitor behavior. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 8(2): 131–140. Davey, G. and Higgins, L 2005. Western visitor behaviour principles are applicable to Chinese zoos. International Zoo News 52(16): 26–31. Davis, N., Schaffner, C. and Smith, T. 2005. Evidence that zoo visitors influence HPA activity in spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyii rufiventris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90(2): 131–141. Deans, C., Martin, J., Noon, K., Nuesa, B. and O’Reilly, J. 1981. A zoo for who?: A pilot study in zoo design for children. Technical Reports, no. 87–100. Psychology Institute, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama. Dotzour, A., Schulz, K., Manubay, G., Smith., J. and Saunders, C. 2002. Crossing the bog of habits: Measuring an exhibit’s effectiveness at promoting environmentally responsible behaviour. Paper presented at the 31st Annual North American Association for Environmental Education Conference, Boston, USA, 6–11 August, 2002. Dunlap, J. and Kellert, S. 1995. Animal welfare and rights: Zoos and zoological parks. In Encyclopaedia of Bioethics, 184–187, ed. W. Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Falk, J., Koran, J., Dierking, L. and Dreblow, L. 1985. Predicting visitor behaviour. Curator 28(4): 249–257.

154 Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 Davey Friedman, A. 1995. Creating an academic home for informal science education. Curator 3: 214–220. Gilman, B. 1916. Museum fatigue. Scientific Monthly 12: 67–72. Hancocks, D. 1980. Bringing nature into the zoo: Inexpensive solutions for zoo environ- ments. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 1: 170–177. Hediger, H. 1969. Man and Animal in the Zoo. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd. Hood, M. 1983. Staying away: Why people choose not to visit museums. Museum News 61: 50–57. Hood, M. 1984. The role of audience development in strategic planning. In Annual Proceedings of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 97–103, Wheeling, WV: American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria. Hosey, G. 2000. Zoo animals and their audiences: what is the visitor effect? Animal Welfare 9: 343–357. Hosey, G. and Druck, P. 1987. The influence of zoo visitors on the behaviour of captive primates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 19–29. Ings, R., Waran, N. and Young, R. 1997. Attitude of zoo visitors to the idea of feeding live prey to zoo animals. Zoo Biology 16: 343–347. Johnston, R. 1998. Exogenous factors and visitor behavior: A regression analysis of exhibit viewing time. Environment and Behavior 30: 322–347. Kellert, S. 1996. The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington: Island Press. Kotler, P. and Andreason, A. 1991. Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organisations. 4th edn. Prentice Hall. Kreger, M. and Mench, J. 1995. Visitor–animal interactions at the zoo. Anthrozoös 18: 143–158. Loomis, R. 1988. The countenance of visitor studies in the 1980s. In Visitor Studies: Theory, Research and Practice, 11–24, ed. S. Bitgood and J. Roper. Jacksonville, AL: Jacksonville Center for Social Design. Loomis, R. 1993. Planning for the visitor: the challenge of visitor studies. In Museum Visitor Studies in the 90s. 13–24, ed. S. Bicknell and G. Farmelo. London: Science Museum. Maitland, H. 2000. A Guide to Audience Development. Arts Council of England. Marcellini, J. 1987 The general visitor-the family group. In Education/Interpretation Trends for the Future. Proceedings of the IZE Congress, Copenhagen, 6–10, ed. L. L. Anderson. Switzerland: International Zoo Educators Association. Margulis, S., Hoyos, C. and Anderson, M. 2003. Effect of felid activity on zoo visitor interest. Zoo Biology 22: 587–599. Martin, J. and O’Reilly, J. 1982. Designing zoos for children: an alternative approach. Knowledge for design. Proceedings of Environmental Design Research Association 13: 339–346. Martin, J. and O’Reilly, J. 1989. The emergence of environment-behavior research in zoological parks. In Public Places and Spaces, 173–192, ed. I. Altman and E. Zube. New York: Plenum Press.

Davey Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 155 Martin, J., O’Reilly, J. and Albanese, C. 1983. Master Plan and Exhibit Development Plan. Tucson: Brooks & Associates. Mathews, S. and Herzog, H. 1997. Personality and attitudes towards the treatment of animals. Society & Animals 5(2): 169–175. McPhee, M., Foster, J., Sevenich, M. and Saunders, C. 1998. Public perceptions of behavioural enrichment: Assumptions gone awry. Zoo Biology 17: 525–534. Melton, A. 1933. Studies of installation at the Pennsylvania Museum of Art. Museum News 10: 5–8. Melton, A. 1935. Problems of Installation in Museums of Art. New Series No.14. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. Melton, A. 1936. Distribution of attention in galleries and museums of science and industry. Museum News 14: 6–8. Milan, L. and Wourms, M. 1992. A zoological park is not just another museum. Curator 35: 120–136. Mitchell, G., Herring, F. and Obradovich, S. 1992. Like threaten like in mangabeys and people? Anthrozoös 5(2): 106–112. Mitchell, G, Herring, F., Obradovich, S., Tromborg, C., Dowd, B., Neville, L. and Field, L. 1991. Effects of visitors and cage changes on the behaviours of mangabeys. Zoo Biologyy 10: 417–423. Mitchell, G., Obradovich, S., Sumner, D., DeMorris, K., Lofton, L., Minor, J., Cotton, L. and Foster, T. 1990. Cage location effects on visitor attendance at three Sacramento Zoo mangabey enclosures. Zoo Biology 9: 55–63. Morgan, J. and Hodgkinson, M. 1999. The motivation and social orientation of visitors attending a contemporary zoological park. Environment and Behavior 31: 227–239. Mullan, B. and Marvin, G. 1987. Zoo Culture. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Namiki, M. 2002. Understanding visitors’ viewing experiences of zoo animal exhibits. Ph.D. thesis, Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan. Nimon, A and Dalziel, F. 1992. Cross-species interaction and communication: a study method applied to captive siamang (Hylobates syndactylus) and long-billed corella (Cacatua tenuirostris) contacts with humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33: 261–272. Patterson, D. 1990. The generality of visitor studies. In Visitor Studies: Theory, Research and Practice, Vol. 3, 40–46, ed. S. Bitgood, A. Benefield and D. D. Patterson. Jacksonville, AL: Jacksonville Center for Social Design. Price, E, Ashmore, L. and McGivern, A-M. 1994. Reactions of zoo visitors to free-ranging monkeys. Zoo Biology 13: 355–373. Robinson, E. 1928. The Behavior of the Museum Visitor. New Series No. 5. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. Robinson, E. 1930. Psychological problems of the science museum. Museum News 8: 9–11. Robinson, E. 1931. Exit the typical visitor. Journal of Adult Education 3: 418–423. Serrell, B. 1997. Paying attention: The duration and allocation of visitors’ time in museum exhibitions. Curator 40: 108–125. Serrell, B. 1998. Paying Attention: Visitors and Museum Exhibitions. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.

156 Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 Davey Shepherdson, D., Mellen, J. and Hutchins, M. 1998. Second Nature: Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Washington, DC. Smithsonian Institute Press. Shettel, H. 1989. Evaluation in museums: A short history of a short history. In Heritage Interpretation. Volume 2: The Visitor Experience, 129–137, ed. D. Uzzell. London: Beihaven Press. Shettel, H. and Bitgood, S. 1996. An overview of visitor studies. Journal of Museum Education 21: 6–10. Shettel-Neuber, J. 1988. Second- and third-generation zoo exhibits: A comparison of visitor, staff, and animal responses. Environment and Behavior 20: 452–473. Shettel-Neuber, J. and O’Reilly, J. 1981. Now where? A study of visitor orientation and circulation at the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Swanagan, J. 2000. Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and behaviours. The Journal of Environmental Education 31: 26–31. Thompson, V. 1976. Observation of the great apes in a naturalistic zoo environment. Unpublished manuscript, Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago. Thompson, V. 1989. Behavioural response of 12 ungulate species in captivity to the presence of humans. Zoo Biology 8: 275–297. Throp, J. L. 1975. People involvement innovations at the Honolulu Zoo. International Zoo Yearbook: 266–268. Totfield, S., Coll, R., Vyle, B. and Bolstad, R. 2003. Zoos as a source of free choice learning. Research in Science and Technological Education 21: 67–99. Verderber, S., Gardner, L., Islam, D. and Nakanishi, L. 1988. Elderly persons’ appraisal of the zoological park. Environment and Behavior 20: 492–507. Wehnelt, S., Fishlock, E., Condon, E., Coleman, R. and Schaffner, C. 2004. Visitor numbers effect endocrinological stress levels and behaviour in orangutans at Chester Zoo. Paper presented at the Primate Society of Great Britain Meeting “The Diversity of Zoo Primate Research,” Paignton Zoo, UK, 29–30 March, 2004. Whittall, R. 1992. A walk on the wild side: how do visitors perceive their zoo visit? In American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria Annual Conference Proceedings, 335–341. Wheeling, WV: American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria. Wolf, R. and Tymitz, B. 1979. Do Giraffes Ever Sit? A Study of Visitor Perceptions at the National Zoological Park. Washington, DC. Smithsonian Institution. Wood, W. 1998. Interactions among environmental enrichment, viewing crowds, and zoo chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biology 17: 211–230. Yanofsky, R. and Markowitz, H. 1978. Changes in general behaviour of two Mandrills (Papio sphinx) concomitant with behavioural testing in the zoo. The Psychological Record 28: 269–373.

Davey Anthrozoös, 19(2) – 2006 157