1  

Features Associated with High Viewing Figures in Wildlife Films and the Role of Conservation

Name of Student: Robert Harman

Project Supervisor: Amanda Webber

A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the Requirements of the degree of Master of Science by advanced study in Global Wildlife Health and

Conservation in the Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Sciences

The School of Veterinary Sciences University of Bristol

August 2014

Word Count: 3826

  2  

Abstract

Producing wildlife documentaries can be a useful method to spread knowledge about

the natural world nationally and internationally. Yet these productions are most often

made for television, thus their primary aim is to entertain viewers and gain revenue. For

this reason, they may choose features and content to suit this, while purposefully

omitting others, in an attempt to reach the highest viewing figures. One particular factor

that is often excluded is the theme of conservation, which is of growing importance in

the world. This is predominantly due to the interpretation of conservation being too

bleak for television’s entertainment theme. The aims of this investigation were to

determine the factors that were most important in securing a large audience and

establish the impact of a conservation message. First a set of prominent features that

often appear in wildlife documentaries was composed. Individual programme names

were then obtained along with other United Kingdom broadcast information, including

viewing figures, from the publicly accessible Broadcasters Audience Research Board

(BARB) website. The set of defined features along with the broadcast information was

then tested for an effect on the viewing figures using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney

U and Kruskal Wallis tests. Five of the 20 tested parameters showed a significant effect

on the viewing figures (channel, day, episode format, featuring Sir David Attenborough

and featuring celebrities from outside the wildlife documentary industry). Conversely,

the conservation value of the documentary did not produce a significant result. This

proposes that a conservation element in a production does not affect the programme

popularity and therefore should be integrated more often. This could be incorporated

with other popular features to increase the audience size and therefore the influence of

the conservation message.

Key Words: Wildlife, Documentary Features, Conservation, Education, Viewing Figures, Television.

  3  

Introduction

Wildlife documentaries are a popular broadcast topic on television currently and

hence play a major role in the international media industry, with some channels almost

entirely devoted to them (Dingwall & Aldridge, 2006). They compose a genre that is

situated between entertainment and education, not exclusively fitting into either

(Dingwall & Aldridge, 2006; Horak, 2006). Often their primary aim is to entertain

viewers by utilising interesting and captivating footage of a world unseen by most

(Bousé, 2003; Scott, 2003). However, wildlife documentaries also have the potential to

be a useful and effective education resource for viewers, be it about individual animals

or whole ecosystems (Fortner & Lyon; 1985; Fortner, 1985; Brothers, Fortner, &

Mayer, 1991; Barbas, Paraskevopoulos, & Stamou, 2009; Wright, 2010). This therefore

helps to increase public understanding of the natural world, which in turn can be utilised

to enhance conservation efforts (Burgess, 1990). Conservation awareness is becoming

increasingly essential as it is speculated that we are presently experiencing the Earth’s

sixth mass extinction event (Barnosky et al., 2011). Therefore, knowledge of the

environmental affairs within different countries and the impacts of current human

activity need to be shared in order to live more sustainably and learn the means to

alleviate any threats (Palmer, 1998).

Television however is a business, hence programmes are made principally in an

attempt to gain high viewing figures, which carry primary revenue by means of

advertising and secondary revenue through DVD sales and sales to other national and

international networks (Bousé, 2000; Blumenthal & Goodenough, 2006; O’Donnell,

2012). Therefore, these wildlife documentaries vary in many ways including the

structure, presentation and content in order to adapt and cater for the preferences of the

ever-changing audience (Scott, 2003). For this reason, many features may be

  4  

incorporated, or not, in an attempt to increase the popularity and therefore the viewing

figures (Bousé, 2000; Horak, 2006). However, there is no single catalogue of features

that guarantees a programme to be successful, since it is not known which features have

a significant effect on a programme’s popularity. A conservation message is an example

of a feature often intentionally omitted or kept minimalistic in wildlife documentaries.

This is due to the idea that it would reduce programme popularity by being too tragic

and depressing for an entertainment medium such as television, whose industry depends

on commercial distribution and corporate sponsorship (Cottle, 2004; Chris, 2006;

Horak, 2006; Wright, 2010).

In this investigation, wildlife documentaries are defined as factual-based films

that focus on animals, and occasionally other non-human life, in their natural habitat.

Their different features will be investigated and the relationship which they have with

viewing figures in the United Kingdom determined, discovering which features, if any,

have a significant effect on viewing figures. There will also be a particular focus on the

effect of a conservation message in wildlife documentaries because, whilst it is

becoming increasingly imperative to promote conservation, we are not fully capitalising

on television’s ability to mass communicate this topic due to the fear that it might

reduce revenue.

Methodology

Data Collection

This investigation was a desk-based study carried out within the United

Kingdom. First, the publicly accessible Broadcasters Audience Research Board (BARB)

  5  

website was used to search for wildlife documentaries week by week in the top 30 of

the top five most popular channels in the United Kingdom (BBC One and Two, ITV

One, Channel Four and Channel Five) (BARB, 2014a). Once found, each

documentary’s name was recorded along with their viewing figures and broadcast

information (start time, day broadcast, year broadcast and channel on which it was

aired). The programme starting time was also categorised into hour slots, for example

17:00-17:59, 18:00-18:59, etc. Spanning from the beginning of 2007 to the end of 2012,

six years of archived data were collected from the website, resulting in 312 weeks

analysed, to ensure a large sample size of 512 wildlife documentaries. Median viewing

figures were calculated from each programme series which displayed uniform features

throughout, to produce one representative value for each, unbiased by outliers. The

series ‘Natural World’ was an exception here as each episode varies greatly in its

features; therefore each episode was separately assessed. This resulted in 188

documentary names and associated data.

A list of prominent features in wildlife documentaries was then created. First,

each programme was labelled as either part of a series or a one-off showing. The label

series was given to any programme that occurred with more than one episode under a

common name, whereas the label one-off was given to a programme that aired a single

episode. These were the categories under the Programme format feature. Secondly, the

Episode format was obtained, which was divided into magazine or continuous.

Magazine format entails multiple, smaller, unrelated segments within the episode with

no continuation, making sense in any order, whereas continuous format is one

continuing story with a plot (Wright & Huston, 1982). Next, the Presenting style of the

programme was assessed, which was split into three categories: presenter, narrator, or

a combination of the two. A presenter-led programme would convey knowledge, have

more human and animal interaction, and feature one, or more, personalities onscreen

  6  

through the majority of the programme (Bousé, 2000). A narrator would also convey

knowledge, but for the majority of the time does not feature onscreen and is a “voice of

God-style commentary” (Aldridge & Dingwall, 2003, p. 444). Many wildlife

documentaries may have a small overlap in terms of presenting style, however if the

ratio is fairly even between presenter-led and narrated then it would be categorised

under combination. One very notable narrator/presenter is Sir David Attenborough,

whose popularity in the genre has been unprecedented since his debut in Zoo Quest

(1954) (León, 1998). Whether the programme exhibited him or not was therefore made

a feature. Another feature, titled Celebrity, recorded whether any people, that were

famous from outside the wildlife documentary genre, were incorporated into the

programme either as a presenter or narrator.

The country in which the programme was filmed was categorised under the

heading Region into either national (inside the United Kingdom) or international

(outside the United Kingdom). Another feature observed was whether individual

animals, or groups of animals, were anthropomorphised by giving them names. The

number of genera featured in the programmes was also monitored and categorised as

either one or multiple. The wildlife classes or groups on which the programme was

focussed were also described, categorising under birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians,

freshwater, sea life (any animal classes exhibited mainly in the sea), invertebrates, or

multiple. Another feature was aimed towards equipment that reveals details that would

not otherwise be seen, like providing slow-motion, extreme close ups and infrared or

remote video cameras that could access areas inaccessible to humans and record

behaviours that may not be performed in the presence of a human (Scott, 2003; Cottle,

2004). This feature was termed Technology and was given a yes and no category.

Underwater equipment was not automatically classed as technology. Whether the

programme was aired live was another yes or no category, along with whether any

  7  

computer generated special effects featured. A kill scene occurrence was another feature

recorded; this would comprise footage of the moment an animal loses its life due to the

actions of another (including humans) (Cottle, 2004). Whether a wildlife documentary

held the characteristics of a typical “Blue Chip” documentary was also established.

These are usually high budget and their main features consist of megafauna, visual

splendour, dramatization and the absence of people and conservation issues (Bousé,

2000).

Finally, the last two features recorded were in relation to conservation. The first

was the Conservation value, which was obtained by grading the programme using set

criteria (see Table 1) and giving it a value from zero to three, similar to methods used

by Margules & Usher (1981). The second was assessing this conservation message to

determine whether it communicated any human benefits of conservation.

The wildlife documentaries were then individually searched for and each

accessible documentary (total of 128) was independently viewed and assessed to

ascertain which defined features were present.

Data Analysis

Once the features were recorded and categorised for each documentary and the

appropriate viewing figures were associated, the analysis was implemented to discover

which features were having a significant effect on the viewing figures. First, a

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed on the viewing figure data as a test for

normality (Dytham, 2011), which illustrated that the data were not normal (dn=0.204,

df=128, p<0.001). Therefore, non-parametric tests were required to implement the

statistical analysis. The continuous dependent variable (the viewing figures) and

nominal independent variables (the features) lead to the use of the Mann-Whitney U

  8  

statistical test, for the features that held two independent groups, and the Kruskal-Wallis

statistical test, for the features that held more than two independent groups (Table 2)

(Dytham, 2011). Bonferroni correction was considered to counteract the problem of

multiple comparisons, but was decided against as it was considered too conservative

(Moran, 2003). The tests were executed using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics 21).

Table 1.

The criteria used in the assessment of conservation value (as adapted from Margules &

Usher (1981)).

Conservation

Value Criteria

0 No conservation message; no mention of any threats to animals

presented or any possible solutions to help them.

1

Small conservation message; may mention conservation very

briefly, perhaps in a concluding statement, or makes a comment on

potential threats.

2 Average conservation message; endangered animals presented, brief

reasons as to why they are threatened and possible solutions.

3

Strong conservation message; programme based around

conservation, critically endangered animals, threatened habitats,

outlines threats and solutions.

  9  

Results

During the investigation, 128 wildlife documentaries were assessed. Each of the

20 parameters were analysed using 95% confidence intervals, to determine the effect on

the viewing figures. This resulted in five significant outcomes and 15 non-significant

outcomes (Table 2).

Table 2.

Features exhibited in wildlife documentaries, along with the broadcast information (start

time, day broadcast, year broadcast and channel on which it was aired), and their

associated statistical output when tested against the viewing figures. Implemented using

95% confidence intervals.

Feature p-Value Outcome Test Used Degrees of

Freedom Test Value

Channel <0.001 Significant Kruskal Wallis 4 H=65.069

Day 0.002 Significant Kruskal Wallis 6 H=20.587

Celebrities 0.020 Significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=981.5

Episode Format 0.028 Significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=2428

David Attenborough 0.036 Significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=1592

Number of Genera 0.080 Not significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=2151

Live 0.098 Not significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=442

Technology 0.098 Not significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=2155

Blue Chip 0.130 Not significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=1359

Communicates Human

Benefits of Conservation

0.143 Not significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=378.5

Year 0.146 Not significant Kruskal Wallis 5 H=8.199

Conservation Value 0.162 Not significant Kruskal Wallis 3 H=5.133

Presenting Style 0.268 Not significant Kruskal Wallis 2 H=2.632

Start Time 0.329 Not significant Kruskal Wallis 4 H=4.618

Special Effects 0.373 Not significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=1461

Region 0.417 Not significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=1294.5

Kill Scene 0.441 Not significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=1869

  10  

There were two significant results among the broadcast information

components. First, the factor producing the greatest significant result was the channel

on which the programme was aired (H=65.069, df=4, p<0.001). BBC One secured the

highest viewing figures, followed by ITV One, then similar values for BBC Two and

Channel Four with BBC Two’s variability reaching higher, and finally Channel Five

(Figure 1). Secondly, the day the programme was aired also had a significant effect on

the viewing figures (H=20.587, df=6, p=0.002). However, this effect only occurred

between Thursday and Sunday (adjusted significance p=0.040) and Thursday and

Wednesday (adjusted significance p=0.001), where viewing figures were significantly

lower on Thursday (Figure 3).

Another significant effect on viewing figures was whether Sir David

Attenborough featured in the programme (U=1592, df=126, p=0.036). Wildlife

documentaries that included Sir David Attenborough, produced viewing figures

significantly higher than ones in which he was absent. The parameter of celebrities also

had a significant effect on viewing figures (U=981.5, df=126, p=0.020), whereby

productions in which they were present attracted a significantly larger audience.

Episode format significantly affected viewing figures (U=2428, df=126,

p=0.028), whereby a magazine format displayed in a wildlife documentary experienced

significantly higher viewing figures in comparison to the continuous format. The

number of genera appearing in a wildlife documentary was not significant in accordance

to the 95% confidence intervals (U=2151, df=126, p=0.080). However, there was a

trend for multiple genera to secure higher viewing figures for the programme than if it

only exhibited one genus.

Wildlife groups 0.601 Not significant Kruskal Wallis 5 H=3.649

Named Animals 0.626 Not significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=1447.5

Program Format 0.859 Not significant Mann-Whitney U 126 U=440.5

  11  

Although there was a small increase from values 0-2, the conservation value did

not have a significant effect on the viewing figures (H=5.133, df=3, p=0.162) (Figure

2). Blue chip style productions and a featuring kill scene were also non-significant

(U=1359, df=126, p=0.130 and U=1869, df=126, p=0.441 respectively).

  12  

Figure 1.

The viewing figures reached by the wildlife documentaries aired on different channels.

The middle line in the box represents the median, while the top and bottom parts show

the upper and lower quartiles, respectively, for each channel. The protruding lines

display the variability, and the open circles and stars represent outliers and extreme

outliers respectively.

  13  

Figure 2.

The viewing figures reached by the wildlife documentaries exhibiting each conservation

value (0 = no conservation message, 1 = low conservation message, 2 = medium

conservation message, 3 = high conservation message). The middle line in the box

represents the median, while the top and bottom parts show the upper and lower

quartiles, respectively, for each conservation value. The protruding lines display the

variability, and the open circles and stars represent outliers and extreme outliers

respectively.

  14  

Figure 3.

The viewing figures reached by the wildlife documentaries aired on different days. The

middle line in the box represents the median, while the top and bottom parts show the

upper and lower quartiles, respectively, for each day. The protruding lines display the

variability, and the open circles and stars represent outliers and extreme outliers

respectively.

  15  

Discussion

The results have supported the initial proposal that there are differences between

the effects of features on the overall viewing figures of a wildlife documentary.

Variability Between Channels

The channels displayed a strong significant effect on the viewing figures of each

wildlife documentary. The order of channels in terms of the amount of viewing figures

achieved follows the trend of the overall shares of the television audience by the five

channels (BARB, 2014b), suggesting that this was not significantly affected by the

wildlife documentaries aired. This further implies that the channel on which a

programme is aired may be the most important determining factor in the amount of

viewing figures secured. This also follows the chronological order in which they were

launched (BBC, 2014; Brown, 2010; Channel 4, 2004; ITV, 2014), suggesting that the

length of time airing may influence the amount of channel, and therefore programme,

success.

Variability Between Days

The day of broadcast presented a significant effect on a programme’s viewing

figures; however this significant difference was only between Thursday and Sunday and

Thursday and Wednesday. This could have been heavily influenced by the programmes

that happened to fall on those days, the channels that may favour particular days for

wildlife documentaries or the fact that some days produced much fewer available

documentary data. Alternatively, it could suggest that some days are favoured for a

  16  

reason and actually incur higher viewing figures, particularly Sundays, Wednesdays and

Mondays (Figure 3).

Sir David Attenborough

Sir David Attenborough had a significant effect on the viewing figures, where

wildlife documentaries featuring him obtained a larger audience, helping to confirm his

influential role in the genre. This is unsurprising due to the fact that the growing

significance of his presence in wildlife documentaries is apparent and he is described as

irreplaceable (Jeffries, 2003). The drawback to this is the possible adverse impacts on

the wildlife documentary genre, and therefore mass environmental education, when Sir

David Attenborough retires. New personalities need to become established in the genre

in order to maintain peoples’ enthusiasm for wildlife documentaries and nature.

Celebrities

Due to the fact that other ‘general’ celebrities being featured in wildlife

documentaries also had a positive significant effect on viewing figures further

reinforces the need for influential personalities in wildlife documentaries. Using

celebrities to increase the popularity of a product, action or even an opinion is a

commonly used tactic throughout our culture (Thompson, 2006). This may be due to the

public’s growing obsession with popular culture presently, especially among the

younger generation where celebrities can often become role models (Giles & Maltby,

2004). The influence which they have over people can be utilised and could be a

powerful feature to incorporate in order to increase the popularity of the programmes.

  17  

Episode Format

The statistically significant effect of the episode format on the viewing figures

potentially reflects the shorter attention spans common of today, triggered by the ability

and the want to multitask, thus gain information faster and more easily using current

technology (Barnes, Marateo, & Ferris, 2007). By creating a wildlife documentary with

a magazine format, it allows high pace programmes characterised by change, variety

and novelty, resulting in a larger range of information than a longer continuous story

(Wright & Huston, 1982). A continuous format may also produce higher intellectual

demands on the viewer through anticipation and organisation into a coherent story,

whereas a magazine format makes fewer demands, each segment containing stand-alone

entertainment with less confined continuity (Wright & Huston, 1982).

Kill Scene

Whether a wildlife documentary featured a kill scene did not have a significant

effect on the viewing figures. This contradicts the common belief that kill scenes are

extremely popular in wildlife documentaries acting as the chief guarantor of authenticity

(Bousé, 2000; Cottle, 2004). This therefore suggests that a kill scene is not required in a

wildlife documentary in order for the audience to enjoy it, and there are other features

that people prefer.

Blue Chip

The traditional blue chip documentary originally became popular partly due to

its universal appeal across all cultures, no matter the lifestyle differences, and its ability

  18  

to convey beautiful landscapes and ecosystems that most people had never seen

(Palmer, 1998; Cottle, 2004; Wright, 2010). The obtained result may be due to a small

sample size of the blue chip productions (n=21), compared to non-blue chip (n=107).

However, this result could alternatively support the opinion that viewers are no longer

demanding big budgeted films, focussing on animal behaviour in isolation, instead they

want identifiable stories (Cottle, 2004). In my opinion, as there have been so many

productions on television featuring megafauna and visual splendour, especially on

channels devoted to wildlife, I believe that viewers now desire something different,

unusual and not often shown.

Conservation Value

The conservation value result in this investigation is one of the most important,

since it challenges the perception that conservation has an adverse effect on the viewing

figures of wildlife documentaries. It is speculated that a conservation element in a

production is detrimental to viewing figures as they are construed as boring, too one-

sided and tend to convey a depressing message, often making viewers feel powerless

(Cottle, 2004; Chris, 2006; Horak, 2006; Palmer, 2008; Wright, 2010). For this reason

they are often omitted. Tim Martin, a veteran BBC wildlife film producer said, “For

most of the last 15 years that I've spent in television, the stupidest, most naïve idea for a

wildlife film you could suggest was one about environmental and wildlife conservation.

It is the dreaded ‘C’ word.” (Palmer, 2008, p2). However, in this study, no significant

effect on the viewing figures determined by the strength of the conservation message

emerged, the median figures even peaked at ‘2’ (the medium strength) (Figure 2). This

suggests that the common opinion is a misconception and conservation messages do not

detrimentally influence the audience size.

  19  

This result may be due to the growing market for conservation films, pressured

by the public’s growing interest in the topic recently and their desire for knowledge and

the ability to contribute (Palmer, 2008).

Communicates Human Benefit of Conservation

Only nine out of the 128 documentaries analysed mentioned, even briefly, the

potential benefits for humans through conservation. Examples could be related to

tourism income, a predator controlling pest populations or just saving a notable species

that people cherish. This encourages people to conserve for their own gain, rather than

just out of empathy, which should be more effective (Wright, 2010). However, this has

been omitted from most documentaries, probably to keep the conservation message

smaller as to not overpower the viewers.

Conclusions

Overall, it can be seen that it is not exclusively the features within a wildlife

documentary which affect the viewing figures; the broadcast information also needs to

be considered. The channel seemed to be the largest predictor of the size of the viewing

figures, which means that no matter what features are present, wildlife documentaries

are limited, or enhanced, by the channel they are aired on. This is depicted when

looking at the first and second season of Orang-utan Diary where the first series was

aired on BBC One gaining viewing figures above three and sometimes four million,

whereas the second series aired on BBC Two received viewing figures of around two

million (BARB, 2014a).

  20  

However, it has been seen that some features within wildlife documentaries do

significantly affect the audience viewing figures. By incorporating these attractive

features more often, this genre may be able to further increase its popularity.

Furthermore, as long as education remains a key component of this genre, then this

growth in popularity will increase the public’s environmental knowledge and

awareness.

The significance of Sir David Attenborough’s presence reflects the popular

opinion that the public look for influential personalities to attach themselves to, learn

from, and become inspired by (Giles & Maltby, 2004). Sir David Attenborough stands

out currently as he has followed a long successful career for which he is best known as a

wildlife documentary presenter. For this reason, people believe he has seen more than

anyone and is an authoritative figure in regards to knowledge of the natural world

(Jeffries, 2003). The presence of a figure such as Sir David is very important for the

wildlife genre in our society, as he is able to influence a large amount of the public and

provide a great role model to inspire the younger generation with nature. Although he is

suggested to be irreplaceable, he cannot continue indefinitely. When he eventually

retires, another figure, perhaps one he has inspired, will have to attempt to take his place

in order to retain the influential force driving the passion for the natural world.

The non-significant effect of the conservation value means that conservation can

start to become increasingly integrated into future wildlife documentaries without a

threat of losing viewers and income. Furthermore, by integrating other features/factors

that have had a significant positive effect on the viewing figures, such as featuring

celebrities, most obviously Sir David Attenborough, producing a magazine format and

airing on BBC1, it could heighten the audience size, increasing the impact of the

conservation messages in the programme. Furthermore, once conservation becomes

embedded into wildlife documentaries, human benefits should be incorporated

  21  

alongside to educate people as to why they should care about a creature with which they

may have no overt association. Unfortunately some less developed countries, where the

threats to conservation may originate, do not have access to televisions. Nevertheless,

various nongovernmental organisations working in these countries are now using films

as part of their conservation education methods (Wright, 2010).

As species and populations continue to decline in number, including the much-

loved megafauna, stronger conservation action is required involving governments, laws

and the cooperation of multiple nations. Wildlife documentaries are a way of mass

communicating the information about animals and ecosystems, and therefore could be

utilised to enhance conservation efforts worldwide.

Limitations and Further Developments

There are a few limitations to the implementation of this investigation. First, due

to the low specificity and generalisation of viewing figures, the exact public preference

of features is not obtained and has to be inferred. To improve this specificity, a sample

of questionnaires could be distributed in addition to obtain more information thus

supplementing the large-scale results acquired.

In addition, only the 30 most highly viewed programmes for each channel, each

week, were publicly accessible. Obtaining a larger sample size including less popular

wildlife documentaries with lower viewing figures, would produce more representative

results and possibly also indicate whether a presence or absence of certain features has a

correlation with poor viewing figures. This would also most likely produce a normally

distributed data sample, providing the ability to use more powerful parametric statistical

tests (Vickers, 2005), because the number of wildlife documentaries would decrease as

the viewing figures neared zero just as they did where the viewing figures increased

  22  

past the most common range. Increased accessibility to individual documentaries would

also reduce the amount of data obscured due to the inability to view and assess the

programme.

Furthermore, the channels that mainly air nature programmes may receive

audiences with different preferences to the general public. These viewers may already

be more enthusiastic and passionate about the natural world and therefore may desire

different features, perhaps more scientific information or more information about

conservation and the relevant current affairs. To determine this, these channels need to

be incorporated into a similar study by obtaining viewing figures for the programmes

aired.

This investigation could also be carried out internationally to determine whether

the preferences of other countries are similar. This is especially important as most

conservation efforts need to be implemented outside the United Kingdom and therefore

these other nations need to be educated to provide the ability, and encourage them, to

support the natural world (Brothers et al., 1991; Blanchard, 2000; Wright, 2010).

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr Amanda Webber for guidance throughout the study and for

providing useful ideas and suggesting different directions in which to take the study. I

am also grateful to BARB for archiving viewing figures and allowing a selection to be

publicly accessible.

  23  

References

Aldridge, M., & Dingwall, R. (2003). Teleology on television? Implicit models of evolution in

broadcast wildlife and nature programmes. European journal of communication, 18(4),

435-453.

BARB (2014a). Top 30 Programmes. BARB [online]. Retrieved from www.barb.co.uk

BARB (2014b). Channel viewing share. BARB [online]. Retrieved from

www.barb.co.uk

Barbas, T. A., Paraskevopoulos, S., & Stamou, A. G. (2009). The effect of nature

documentaries on students’ environmental sensitivity: A case study. Learning, Media

and Technology, 34(1), 61-69.

Barnes, K., Marateo, R., & Ferris, S. (2007). Teaching and learning with the net generation.

Innovate 3(4), 1-8.

Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., . . .

Maguire, K. C. (2011). Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature,

471(7336), 51-57.

BBC (2014). History of the BBC – Where Next?. BBC [online]. Retrieved from

www.bbc.co.uk

Blanchard, K. A. (2000). Rachel Carson and the human dimensions of fish and wildlife

management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5(1), 52–66.

Blumenthal, H. J., & Goodenough, O. R. (2006). This business of television: Random House

LLC.

Bousé, D. (2000). Wildlife films: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bousé, D. (2003). False intimacy: close-ups and viewer involvement in wildlife films. Visual

Studies, 18(2), 123-132.

Brothers, C. C., Fortner, R. W., & Mayer, V. J. (1991). The impact of television news on public

  24  

environmental knowledge. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(4), 22-29.

Brown, M. (2010, July 23). Channel Five: A Timeline. Guardian News and Media.

Retrieved from Theguardian.com

Burgess, J. (1990). Making sense of environmental issues and landscape representations in the

media. Landscape Research, 15(3), 7-38.

Channel 4 (2004). Channel 4 timeline. Channel 4 [online]. Retrieved from

www.channel4.com

Chris, C. (2006). Watching wildlife (1st ed.). Minneapolis: Univ Of Minnesota Press.

Cottle, S. (2004). Producing nature (s): on the changing production ecology of natural history

TV. Media, Culture & Society, 26(1), 81-101.

Dingwall, R., & Aldridge, M. (2006). Television wildlife programming as a source of popular

scientific information: A case study of evolution. Public understanding of Science,

15(2), 131-152.

Dytham, C. (2011). Choosing and using statistics: a biologist's guide: John Wiley & Sons.

Fortner, R. W. (1985). Relative effectiveness of classroom and documentary film presentations

on marine mammals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 115-126.

Fortner, R. W., & Lyon, A. E. (1985). Effects of a Cousteau television special on viewer

knowledge and attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 16(3), 12-20.

Giles, D. C., & Maltby, J. (2004). The role of media figures in adolescent development:

Relations between autonomy, attachment, and interest in celebrities. Personality and

individual differences, 36(4), 813-822.

Horak, J. C. (2006). Wildlife documentaries: From classical forms to reality TV. Film History:

An International Journal, 18(4), 459-475.

ITV (2014). About ITV – History. ITVPLC [online]. Retrieved from www.itvplc.com

Jeffries, M. (2003). BBC natural history versus science paradigms. Science as culture, 12(4),

527-545.

  25  

León, B. (1998). Science popularisation through television documentary: A study of the work of

British wildlife filmmaker David Attenborough. Paper presented at the 5th International

Conference of Science and Technology.

Margules, C., & Usher, M. (1981). Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: a

review. Biological Conservation, 21(2), 79-109.

Moran, M. D. (2003). Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies.

Oikos, 100(1), 403-405.

O'Donnell, V. (2012). Television criticism. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Palmer, C. (2008). Conservation Filmmaking. Retrieved from

http://www.mffeducation.org/pubs/ConservationFilmmaking.pdf

Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and

promise (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

Scott, K. D. (2003). Popularizing science and nature programming: The role of “spectacle” in

contemporary wildlife documentary. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 31(1), 29-

35.

Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: investigating antecedents to consumers' strong

attachments to celebrities. Journal of marketing, 70(3), 104-119.

Vickers, A. J. (2005). Parametric versus non-parametric statistics in the analysis of randomized

trials with non-normally distributed data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5(1),

35.

Wright, J. C., & Huston, A. C. (1982). The Information Processing Demands of Television and

"Media Literacy" in Young Viewers. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED498566)

Wright, J. H. (2010). Use of film for community conservation education in primate habitat

countries. American journal of primatology, 72(5), 462-466.