measuring the cultural impact of zoos and aquariums

Int. Zoo Yb. (2009) 43: 103–112

DOI:10.1111/j.1748-1090.2008.00064.x

Measuring the cultural impact of zoos andaquariums

J. FRASER & J. SICKLERWildlife Conservation Society, Public Research and Evaluation Program, Bronx, New York10460, USAE-mail: [email protected]

Zoos and aquariums claim to accomplish their conserva-tion mission, in part, through the learning experiencesthey create for visitors to their institutions. In this paper,the authors explore the disconnect that exists betweenmission, the experiences provided, assessments of suc-cess by zoos and aquariums, and the perspectives of thevisitors, funders and social influencers who intersect withthese institutions. Public perceptions of zoos are key andgreatly under-examined in the effort to advance a con-servation mission effectively and efficiently within com-munities. Based on their research in the United States, theauthors propose a new framework for studying andmeasuring how zoos and aquariums are valued in societyin order to provide zoo and aquarium professionals withthe tools for more targeted assessment of the greatestopportunities for social impact. They offer suggestionson how community perspectives can be leveraged inprogramme design to promote environmental sustainabil-ity, and what further research may be required to engagefully with the question of how zoos and aquariums cancontribute to a culture of sustainability. The authorsconclude that by thinking about how the social value ofzoos is perceived from a community lens, the zoo andaquarium community will be better equipped to alignprogrammes with community need without compromis-ing their core conservation mission.

Key-words: aquariums; conservation; cultural values;museum studies; public perceptions; zoos.

INTRODUCTION

At the close of the first decade of the 21stcentury, research undertaken by the PublicResearch and Evaluation Program of theWildlife Conservation Society (WCS) hasshown that the majority of Americans take itas self-evident that good zoos and aquariums(henceforth referred to simply as ‘zoos’) arecommitted to a conversation agenda. Surveysacross the New York Designated Marketing

Area and the nation found the public inagreement with this statement (Fraser et al.,unpubl. a,b). Although some zoos are able tocontribute to field conservation as part oftheir mission-driven activities, the mainte-nance of zoological parks is still the predomi-nant route by which American zoos worktowards their mission. The actual contribu-tion a zoo visit makes to conservation, how-ever, remains substantially open to debatebecause the practices, logic about learningobjectives and measurable outcomes result-ing from experiences at these institutionsremain without concrete and substantive evi-dence to support the claim. We believe thatthe lack of evidence regarding zoos’ contri-butions to a culture of sustainability is, inpart, related to assumptions about the role ofthese institutions in contemporary culture.Although zoos have largely sought to achievetheir mission through communication ofscientific and natural-history informationabout animals and habitats, this has notproduced measurable culture change. Further,we have found through our literature reviewsthat there is little social science or culturalanthropology research that can explain howzoos contribute to the advancement of socialnorms in order to meet their conservationgoals. The research has not considered howvisitors or other stakeholders value zoos asconservation organizations, nor how zooshave contributed to advancing issues of sus-tainability or new conservation-based socialnorms. Through this paper, we seek to revealhow popular perceptions of zoos can be used

MEASURING THE CULTURAL IMPACT OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS 103

Int. Zoo Yb. (2009) 43: 103–112. c� 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation c� 2009 The Zoological Society of London

to realign institutional assessments of theirrole in contemporary culture and how zoosmight find new ways to achieve their missionbased on an understanding of how thoseperceptions do or could contribute to devel-oping a culture of sustainability.

BACKGROUND

Choosing to engage in conservation beha-viours is the direct result of decision-makingthat is based in morality as much as it is inscientific information, if not more so. Whileconservation biology was first proposed as afield for active interchange between empiricalresearch and the development of ideas andguidelines for conservation action (Soule,1985), the action was always assumed to berelated to preservation of ecosystems onwhich people depend. Soule did not assumethat people would inherently adhere to guide-lines, but firmly placed his belief in theprinciple that world, national and communityleaders with decision-making power wouldbe rational actors who would follow thedeterminations of the science on behalf ofsociety. In fact, however, this model forputting conservation guidelines into actionhas not played out. Decision-makers andleaders have not simply followed the guide-lines produced by science. Social norms andbusiness interests have proven to be a stron-ger influence on conservation policy thanscience. As social scientists have demon-strated, cultural norms (Dietz & Stern,1995), egoistic self-interest (Stern & Deitz,1994; Schultz, 2000) or even ecological eco-nomics models (Daly, 1995; Sagoff, 1995)are insufficient to produce moral decisionsthat will protect the environment.

In the last 10 years, social scientists cameto realize that it was necessary to advance aconservation agenda by figuring out how tomotivate a change in social norms that coulddirectly produce more environmentally pro-tective behaviours in society (Saunders &Myers, 2003). Conservation psychology(Saunders, 2003), our primary field of in-quiry, quickly became adopted by socialpsychologists as an integrative framework

that could guide study and understanding ofhow people develop conservation attitudesand change their behaviours (Clayton &Brook, 2005). Simultaneously, similar con-cerns came together in other social-sciencedisciplines, such as economics, sociology,environmental history and political science(Mascia et al., 2003). Since that time, thesesocial-science groups have found a collabora-tive voice through the Society for Conserva-tion Biology’s Social Science Working Group(http://www.conbio.org/workinggroups/sswg/)and are working to offer conservation biologytools and practices that have greater potentialto advance conservation than relying on ra-tional action in response to the findings ofnature studies.

Early on, zoos and aquariums were con-sidered part of the conservation-biologyagenda, helping to found the Society forConservation Biology and advancing conser-vation principles through their field scienceendeavours and publications (WAZA, 2005).Many of the leading zoos and aquariums alsoreorientated their education programmes andexhibit goals towards advancing conservationvalues in society (Dierking et al., 2002).While this conservation aim was not withoutits challengers, our research has also shownthat conservation advocacy is now widelyaccepted by the public, at least in the UnitedStates, as a principal reason why zoos andaquariums exist.

At the beginning of this decade, Dierkinget al. (2002) demonstrated that there waslittle empirical research that demonstrablylinked zoo-education activities to conserva-tion outcomes. To our knowledge, theseinquiries are still rare and are limited to afew well-financed forward-thinking institu-tions. We propose that this failure to linkconservation outcomes with activities isnot the result of intentionality, but primarilybecause zoos have not been greatly studiedfor their capacity to accomplish a conser-vation goal through their display andmanagement of publicly accessible livingcollections and have not devoted the finan-cial resources necessary to undertake suchassessment.

104 SUSTAINABILITY OFACTIVITIES IN ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS


Zoos are not without their peers in othercultural institutions grappling with measuringeffectiveness and efficiency. The issue ofsocial relevance has been debated in the fieldof museum studies for some time. As Weil(1999, 2002), a leader in this thinking andphilosophy, has stated, good museums areabout something; they are formed with anexplicit purpose. However, their human andfacility assets establish their capacity, afterwhich determining the degree to which theyaccomplish their purpose is necessarythrough assessment of their effectiveness andefficiency at using those resources. Directresearch efforts have focused more on thetemporal experience of being in a museumand the instantaneous learning that takesplace. These efforts have primarily shownthat learning is inherently constructed byindividuals as part of a personal experienceand needs to be considered as such and notassumed to be prescribed by an exhibitioncreator (Hein, 1998). Similarly, Falk &Dierking (1992, 1995, 2000, 2002), throughtheir body of work, have also shown thatlearning through free-choice experience issituated in the social context of the visitingunit and that the intersection of this self-directed experience with the choreographedsequence of materials presented in the mu-seum is where such meaning occurs. Fromthe research, the philosophy and the desire tobe socially relevant, museums have increas-ingly sought to realign their role and contri-bution in society.

It is now taken as self-evident in theinternational zoo community that the purposeof zoo display is to advance a conservationagenda in contemporary culture (i.e. WAZA,2006). When the Editors approached us towrite for this volume, they asked us toaddress the question: ‘Do zoos and aqua-riums communicate issues of sustainabilityeffectively to our visiting public?’. We pro-pose that the general approach to this ques-tion, often repeated in the zoo community,limits how thoroughly we can understand ourcontribution and our ability to respond to theopportunities presented by visitors and com-munities through their use of our institutions.

Rather than questioning whether currentpractices communicate the issues effectively,our position is to consider first how ourconstituencies even think of zoos and theirrole in society, particularly in relation toissues of conservation and sustainability.Second, growing from this understanding,the question becomes how do zoos’ activitiesin all areas of business connect, conflict orleverage with the perceptions, values anduses of zoos by each constituency for con-servation outcomes. Thinking about a zoo’sactivities to promote sustainability from acontextual perspective, which includes theuser and their preconceptions, the approachto assessing effectiveness is broader and morecomplex, but also ripe with possibilities formaking greater change.

Based on our research, we offer a newframework for evaluating how zoos are per-ceived by their audiences, an overview ofhow these constructs can be used to assess thefit between conservation advocacy and theseaudience perceptions, and finally a structurethat will allow zoos to take advantage of whythey are uniquely popular to more directlyaccomplish a sustainable conservation agen-da. We believe that this framework may alsoallow zoos to identify which areas of theircurrent endeavours are most promising andwhich they might consider abandoning be-cause they are counter-productive to the self-declared conservation mission.

FOCUSING ON THE FIELD OFACTION

The world of conservation is very broad andzoos can only claim a part of that world astheir field of action for contributing to thegoal. Two recent publications have proposedspecific fields of action where zoos, as placesholding and displaying exotic, tractable andeven local fauna, can advance a conservationmission. Fraser & Wharton (2007) proposedthat the field of action for zoos is effectingcultural change on two populations: thosewho visit the zoo and those who have apolitical value tied to the future of zoos. Theyfelt a strong tool for doing this was by usingthe moral authority of those who work for and



with the zoo directly. Rabb & Saunders(2005), on the other hand, proposed that thezoo’s field of action is promoting behaviourchange, nurtured through choreographing theexperiences of caring and concern for theanimals within the zoo’s control. In bothcases, these futurist papers sought to addresshow zoos have the capacity to reach out inways that are unique to the form and withinthe capabilities of every zoo, no matter howsmall or specialized the collection. Throughthe framework below, we present results ofresearch that addressed the perceptions andvalues of American zoos by their constituen-cies to better define how they can work withinand leverage their fields of action for con-servation. While our research was conductedwith a focus on American perceptions, andour findings are tied to this Western context,we feel that the underlying ideal and researchapproach will be applicable to zoos interna-tionally.

THE FRAMEWORK

Starting in the autumn of 2005, the WCS’sfour zoos and one aquarium began an inves-tigation into how various stakeholders valuetheir local zoos. This question was ap-proached using a mixed-methods strategythat began with an in-depth qualitative phase,including grounded theory interviews (Glaser& Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998;Charmaz, 2000) with a range of local-community constituencies with a vested in-terest in the future of our institutions. Thesegroups ranged from those who are part of thezoo’s operations (from volunteers to fieldbiologists) to visitors who use the parks andthe stakeholders, such as politicians or spiri-tual leaders, who may view zoo experiencesas important to their constituents. The valuesand constructs that emerged from the qualita-tive phase grounded the subsequent use ofquantitative methodology. Over the courseof the research the quantitative methodolo-gies used ranged from existing psychometricscales (e.g. Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992; Clay-ton, 2003; Oreg & Katz-Gerro, 2006) toimplicit association tests (Schultz & Tabanico,

2007; Bruni et al., 2008), Q-methodology(e.g. Brown, 1993) and scales developed bythe research team. In the final phase ofresearch, our team explored the extent of thevalues discussed in interviews through aseries of national surveys with key publiccohorts.

Through examining these discussions ofperceived value and consideration of valuesin the context of our organization’s mission topromote a culture of sustainability, we havebegun to uncover how zoos are valued fromthe user’s perspective and reconsider how wemight connect with these communities toadvance our sustainability mission. Althoughspace constraints prevent us from delvinginto the details of each individual study inthis article, one of the most useful compo-nents to emerge from the body of work wasa multi-faceted framework of Americans’values of zoos, which we present here.

ZOO AS LEARNING TOOL

Historically, zoos have been promoted asinstitutions devoted to science learning. Tothe professional community, this feels like anatural fit with the conservation mission. Inorder to perform effective conservation in thewild, one must understand the science. In ourresearch, we found sufficient evidence thatscience learning is perceived by some groupsto be an important and significant outcome ofinteraction with a zoo. Zoo volunteers, tea-chers who had participated in zoo-facilitatedprogrammes and staff field biologists allbelieved that natural history/science learningwas an important value of zoos and had aconsequential connection to conservation ac-tions by the learners. The commonality be-tween these stakeholder groups, however, isthat each has already established agreementwith the conservation mission and believesthat this is a priority for the zoo’s efforts.These respondents all had repeated experi-ences and a relationship with the zoo. Tosome extent, the respondents who vocalizedthe zoo’s value in science education werethose who could be considered already partof the zoo’s structure; that is, members of



in-group cohorts. Many of these people alsoreported on the positive role that zoos playedin their personal lives, how they valuedscience as an essential part of their ownconservation values and their belief that nat-ural history/science learning was fundamentalto building a strong conservation ethic. Be-cause these groups and their values are em-bedded within the zoo, this perspective can bemagnified as they influence the structure anddevelopment of educational activities. How-ever, none of these interviewees representedthe views of a first-time or casual visitor orindicated that a different way of valuing thezoo could equally facilitate a conservationmindset through zoo experiences.

While the zoo in-group may hold firmly toscience or natural-history learning as key toaligning zoo learning to the mission, wecontend that visitors value the zoo for a hostof different reasons, which range from thosethat are deeply connected to our vision ofconservation messages and those that mayseem, on the surface, tangential. We also feelthat these existing value areas, if addressed bythe zoo, can be the raw materials for aligningvisitor perspectives and values with those ofthe zoo and its conservation mission. Wepropose that a zoo can be a more effectivetool for promoting learning and adherence toprinciples of sustainability if zoo profes-sionals step beyond viewing natural-historyknowledge as the only method to accomplishthis end. While some zoo professionals mayrecognize the broader definition of zoo learn-ing, the predominant educational program-ming and emphasis in the United States hasremained on science and natural-history con-cepts. We feel there is a need to approach thetopic from the perspectives of all those inter-ested in zoos, working with their motivationsand values, rather than trying to dictate them,to develop a shared vision for a sustainablefuture.

PERSONAL MEANING-MAKING

As we talked with visitors at our zoos, thecommon theme that emerged from the wealthof information was that visitors are using the

zoo to construct from the experience what-ever is personally meaningful to themselvesand to their group, just as has been shownin museum research (Hein, 1998; Falk &Dierking, 2000). That is not to say thatscience and conservation information wasabsent from the process. Research by ourcolleagues at the Institute for Learning Inno-vation demonstrated that visitors did learnincrementally through their zoo experiences,but that pre-existing knowledge of ecologyand conservation was already quite high(Wagner et al., 2006; Falk et al., 2007).However, their research also showed thatvisitors come to zoos with different motiva-tions for their visits (ranging from personalfulfilment to facilitating a group experience)and how those motivations shape the experi-ence and learning at a foundational level.

Building from this wealth of museum andzoo research emphasizing the influence of thepersonal connection and learning, we beganour research to understand the highly valuedexperiences of meaning-making taking placein our parks. What visitors described aspersonally meaningful was often not necessa-rily the logico-deductive science learningprioritized by zoos. However, it did, as wewill review, connect in very deep ways to theunderpinnings of developing a culture ofconservation and sustainability. We came todiscover that there was a link between publicvalue of zoos and our mission, a mission thatseems better described as a discipline of thehumanities – representing personal connec-tion, philosophy and morality – than thenatural sciences. We argue that thinkingabout institutions from this humanities andsocial-value lens will better allow zoos to putvisitors’ personally meaningful learning toservice for the mission of zoos if links can bemade between their values and conservationethic, rather than focusing only on the scien-tific argument.

Our interviews and observations of par-ents, in particular, showed that each familyused the exhibits and experiences as a un-iquely liminal (threshold of psychologicalresponse) opportunity for important conver-sation, protective coverings on which to build



a personal narrative for their group that isseparate from the zoo’s learning goals. Thesegroups used the opportunity to address withintheir groups those issues that were mostrelevant to them at the time. In a few exemp-lary cases, we learned from parents who hadnegative emotional experiences with aban-donment that they used ‘family’ groups ofanimals as examples of the importance ofclose family relationships. They talked totheir children about how love, bonding andmutually supportive relationships are consis-tent throughout the animal world and some-thing to which they should aspire as well,whereas other parents, whose concerns re-lated to their urban children’s disconnectionwith the land, emphasized the value of thezoo as a place to introduce nature into theirchildren’s lives. Both types of meaning werederived from the same exhibit experience. Inthese two examples, families had very differ-ent conversations that were meaningful tothem, revealing how they use and value thezoo, and revealing two ways in which aconservation message could be structured tofit within the family’s values.

FAMILIES AT THE ZOO

A review of a number of our studies invol-ving families revealed three broad themesthat frequently emerged about how parentsvalued the zoo and what motivated them tokeep coming back. We feel that each of theseconcepts is a prime target for leveragingmessaging strategies to communicate aboutsustainability more effectively to visitors.

The first value was family bonding. Zoostudies have a long history of showing thatthe zoo experience is intrinsically social(Pekarik et al., 1999), and our interviews withparents showed that many place a great dealof emphasis on this factor, sometimes citing itas the sole value of visiting. During thequalitative phase of this study, for instance,one mother said, ‘I spend a lot of time withmy son in [the] monkey house. . . . I don’treally like zoos, but it’s worth it for the timewith my son’. She was not the only visitorwho highlighted a preference for observing

her children than for observing the animals.Research by Falk and his colleagues (Falk,2006) also revealed this type of motivation,which they defined as a ‘Faciliator’ role.Similarly, our studies found parents whovalued the zoo for its role in facilitatingbonding time with their families, providingthem with relatively unstructured time, activ-ities that make their children happy anda concentrated period spent doing thingstogether.

A second set of values that many parentsprioritized in zoo-going was providing theirchildren with first-hand opportunity to seeand connect with living animals. This wasoften framed as an appreciation of nature andnatural systems. In the urban setting sur-rounding our zoos and aquarium in New YorkCity, some parents expressed a great concernfor their children’s limited ability to accessthe natural world and, consequently, theirlimited literacy about the lives of animals.For many of these parents, we found that thezoo became the obvious tool for providingwhat they described as crucial experiences foradvancing their children’s healthy intellectualand emotional development.

Our inquiry yielded a third set of valuesassociated with zoo visiting, which was theadvancement of childhood moral develop-ment. While this way of valuing the zoo wasfrequently tied to family bonding or connect-edness to animals, a close look at parents’comments showed that this value was pur-sued quite overtly as part of the zoo visit.Repeatedly, parents stressed to our researchteam that they think of zoo experiences asbeing part of the proper upbringing of theirchildren. This was frequently rooted in asense that zoos facilitate teaching childrenrespect for animals and nature. Parentsviewed this level of respect as crucial to beinga good, humane person and felt the zoo isused as a primary tool for instilling thatrespect, empathy and sense of morality intheir children. Parents described using ele-ments of the zoo, such as zoo keeper care foranimals, children’s feelings of awe and evenconservation messaging, as tools for this,with learning being embedded in thinking



about human responsibility towards livinganimals. In these discussions, the idea of zooas a science learning centre did not emerge ascentral to value. The emphasis was instead ondirect teaching to encourage children to con-sider the needs and desires of these animals,to take the perspective of another livingcreature, to develop empathy for the animalsand even to consider the care-taking dis-played by animals as a metaphor for desirablesocial interactions. For these parents, therelevance, the value and the underlying func-tion of the zoo was to help them teach theirchildren how to be good world citizens, tocare for animals and to care for other people.

All three of these dimensions of howparents value the zoo as a place for the growthand enrichment of their children are rich withpotential for creating experiences that encou-rage the development of a conservation-minded society. While these were not thetraditional zoo values of scientific inquiry orintellectual knowledge, one can see howemphases on family interdependence, con-nection to nature and empathy for others iseach a foundational element for developingan ethic of care. It may require re-thinkinghow we approach family experiences andexhibit development, but we feel the set ofvalues presented to us by parents shows awealth of opportunity for interweaving ourmission into their family experience. As wepromote an institutional mission that focuseson saving animals, places and, by extension,humanity’s dependence on them, workingwith a visitor perception that already sees thezoo as a place to teach children about care,empathy and responsibility seems to offer aneven greater potential than a perspective thatlimits the zoo to a science education role.

IDENTITYAND ACTIVISM

Another area for zoos to reconsider their rolein fostering commitment to a culture ofsustainability relates to the intertwined psy-chological concepts of identity and collectiveaction (Baumeister, 1998; Fine & Harrington,2004). Often zoo rhetoric has addressed theidea of inspiring individual action as a result

of a visit, leading to rather disappointingfindings from empirical research into theimpact of a single zoo visit (e.g. Balmfordet al., 2007). In our research, we challengedthe paradigm that the zoo experience wasonly a stand-alone transformative event byinquiring into the experience and value ofthose most closely associated with our mis-sion; that is, the people who are volunteers ormembers in our organization. While identityis, in some respects, an incredibly personalelement of value, we sought to uncover howpeople describe the links between their iden-tity and the role of the zoo in their lives,looking for evidence of what motivates themtowards conservation values. Several of thesestudies have shown that some people doinvest a great deal of their self-concept in thezoo as an important place and organizationwhose mission is inextricably tied to whothey are.

A study of WCS members showed that asense of personal identification with the zooand with the zoo’s efforts in conservationgrew increasingly stronger among those whoretained memberships for many years, withvalues of visitation and the zoo as a venuedecreasing over time. This indicated that alink with long-standing support of the orga-nization was a sense of shared identity withthe institution and its mission. Even morenotably, our volunteers, a group of peoplewho choose to affiliate with the zoo, toidentify themselves as part of the organiza-tion and to work in service of the mission,showed strong and robust identity as zoovolunteers. Further, through the support ofthe social network and lifelong learningatmosphere of the group, they are some ofthe most likely individuals to become zoo andconservation advocates outside of the zoo.These studies showed that links betweenidentity and repeated social reinforcement ofconservation values led to highly desiredsocial norms supporting conservation acti-vism, self-directed behaviour change andtrue, personal commitment to a conserva-tion-minded society.

As we expand thinking about the culturalrole of zoos in society, we feel that looking to



those who already accept a deeply meaning-ful connection with the zoo as advocates andpartners, rather than just audiences, shifts thefocus of research and success measurementbeyond just the single visit. Zoos that lookclosely at what they may be able to do byactivating the social networks offered by theirmembers and volunteers have a unique op-portunity to advance a conservation mission.By serving the social-support needs of thesemembers, volunteers and committed staffmembers, it may be possible to magnify theeffectiveness of a zoo as a social changeagent.

ENJOYMENTAND FUN

Lastly, we tackled the visitor perspective thathas been described as the most obvious andalso the most challenging construct for zooprofessionals to define: the concept of whyvisiting zoos is fun. In the past, a challengehas been that fun and enjoyment were seen asa single categorical descriptor, rather than theproduct of an individual’s nuanced perspec-tive on his or her experiences and expecta-tions, all of which can be quite distinct. Inconversations with staff at our institutionsand through our professional careers, it oftenemerged that a variety of assumptions areassociated with visitor fun and enjoyment,many of which are negative and seem counterto the educational, science-learning and con-servation-promoting agenda of the zoo.

Research into visitor enjoyment at culturalinstitutions has shown that learning itself isoften perceived as fun, associated with ex-panding known relationships, solving puzzlesor encountering new structures for organizingexisting knowledge (Packer, 2006). From apsychological perspective, researcher P. Wes-ley Schultz has proposed that the relationshipof fun experiences with self and with per-spective-taking can either contribute to orinhibit conservation-minded thinking (P. W.Schultz, pers. comm., 2007). This theorysuggests that a fun experience based onsatisfying egoistic desires, such as havingfun by the thrill of a roller-coaster, will notlend itself to the perspective-taking necessary

for conservation thinking. In contrast, anentertainment source that involves connect-ing with or taking the perspective of ananimal will foster greater conservation think-ing. However, despite these theories aboutfun, we still lacked definition from visitors’perspectives of which experiences and sensa-tions within the zoo create the sense ofenjoyment. We lacked an understanding ofthe qualities that comprise these perspectivesand how they varied across the spectrum ofzoo visitors. We sought to examine how theseviews on fun had a coherence that could aidevaluation of programmes at zoos to enhancea conservation agenda.

Our study revealed four different perspec-tives on what adult visitors find enjoyable inthe zoo and what we found was that many ofthe other values discussed above (e.g. bond-ing, sharing values and learning, connected-ness to animals and connection to mission)emerged, but in different combinations and indifferent ways for visitors. Some of theseperspectives seem naturally suited to thecurrent structure of zoo exhibits and messa-ging, such as those who revel in awe over theanimals. Visitors from this perspective, whoderive enjoyment from individual emotionsof seeing animals, are often those who zooexhibits seem designed to reach. Other per-spectives, however, require a more creativeapproach to integrating conservation valueswithin the experience that draws them here.One of these is a dominant perspective thatplaces a priority on children’s experiencesand excitement, while showing less interestin explicit learning about animals or habitats.These visitors, who derive enjoyment fromthe experiences of their families, may notrespond as well to a straight conservationmessage. Instead, conservation-messagingstrategies that utilize the social experienceor the social perspective might be moresuccessful.

Each of these perspectives creates a uniqueblend of the stimuli and experiences of thezoo that depicts what creates an enjoyablezoo visit. This highlights the importance ofunderstanding a diverse array of values whenassessing zoo experiences and impact. The



emergence of all these values within narra-tives of enjoyment and fun show that thepublic’s ways of valuing the zoo are notisolated, but that they work in concert forindividuals to construct from the experiencewhat they need and want. The experiencesthat draw them to zoos are, at their core,personal and varied. It seems appropriate,therefore, to develop an agenda for promotingsustainability that works with, rather thanagainst, these personal values.

CONCLUSION

We hope that zoo professionals will recognizethe substantial deficit that exists between thepractice of creating exhibits of living animalsin zoos and the practical effort to assesswhether these displays effectively and effi-ciently advance a conservation and sustain-ability mission. We believe these institutionsare capable of accomplishing this task, butonly if the people operating zoos are willingto reconsider their practice and their missionfrom the perspective of their communities. Asour research has revealed, there is not a singleroute or formula for an exhibit that willalways create conservation thinking. Theresearch has shown that some of the standardprinciples, such as focusing on science con-tent, are not even speaking to the communityin the language of their values. Looking atthose community values specifically, in fact,has revealed a host of ways in which thepublic uses, views and judges our institutionsthat fall largely outside of the exhibit inter-pretation currently in place. It is these per-spectives on the zoo’s value, we argue, thatshould be leading the effort to re-think inter-pretation strategy rather than looking only atmeasurement of the existing model’s effec-tiveness.

While many of these values may seemremoved from the issue of sustainability, suchas family bonding, the data have shown thatthere are natural connections between ourconservation values as committed environ-mentalists and those of visitors at zoos. Ourstudies were limited to the perceptions andcontext of those living in the United States,

but we feel the purpose of our work isrelevant to zoos globally, highlighting theopportunities that can be created by consider-ing the institution from the eyes of the peopleit serves. Reconsidering exhibits in light ofcommunity values does not require a com-promise of the conservation mission. Rather,it creates new opportunities for leveragingour communities’ existing values and identi-ties as a springboard for approaching sustain-ability as a shared concern. A culture ofsustainability will only be possible whenpeople are motivated to make decisions thatshow responsibility for protecting and con-serving the biosphere. As conservation orga-nizations whose field of action is in theirintersection with the public at large, it is zoos’opportunity and responsibility to examinehow we can communicate with these com-munities, in their language, to move theculture towards that responsible decision-making.

REFERENCESBALMFORD, A., LEADER-WILLIAMS, N., MACE, G., MANICA,A., WALTER, O., WEST, C. & ZIMMERMANN, A. (2007):Message received? Quantifying the impact of informalconservation education on adults visiting UK zoos. InZoos in the 21st century: catalysts for conservation: 120–136. Zimmermann, A., Hatchwell, M., Dickie, L. &West, C. (Eds). London: Zoological Society of London.BAUMEISTER, R. F. (1998): The self. In The handbook ofsocial psychology: 690–740. Gilbert, D., Fiske, S. &Lindzey, G. (Eds). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.BROWN, S. R. (1993): A primer on Q methodology.Operant Subjectivity 16: 91–183.BRUNI, C. M., FRASER, J. & SCHULTZ, P. W. (2008): Thevalue of zoo experiences for connecting people withnature. Visitor Studies 11: 139–150.CHARMAZ, K. (2000): Grounded theory: objectivist andconstructivist methods. In Handbook of qualitativeresearch (2nd edn). 509–535. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln,Y. S. (Eds). London: Sage.CLAYTON, S. (2003): Environmental identity: a conceptualand an operational definition. In Identity and the naturalenvironment: the psychological significance of nature:343. Clayton, S. & Opotow, S. (Eds). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.CLAYTON, S. & BROOK, A. (2005): Can psychologyhelp save the world? A model for conservation psychol-ogy. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 5:87–102.DALY, H. E. (1995): Reply to mark Sagoff’s ‘‘carryingcapacity and ecological economics’’. Bioscience 45:621–625.



DIERKING, L. D., BURTNYK, M. S., BUCHNER, K. S. & FALK,J. H. (2002): Visitor learning in zoos and aquariums: aliterature review. Annapolis, MD: Institute for LearningInnovation.DIETZ, T. & STERN, P. A. (1995): Toward an individualmodel of choice: socially embedded preference construc-tion. The Journal of Social-Economics 24: 261–279.FALK, J. H. (2006): An identity-centered approach tounderstanding museum learning. Curator 49: 151–166.FALK, J. H. & DIERKING, L. D. (1992): The museumexperience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.FALK, J. H. & DIERKING, L. D. (1995): Public institutionsfor personal learning: establishing a research agenda.Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.FALK, J. H. & DIERKING, L. D. (2000): Learning frommuseums: visitor experiences and the making of mean-ing. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.FALK, J. H. & DIERKING, L. D. (2002): Lessons withoutlimit: how free-choice learning is transforming educa-tion. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.FALK, J. H., REINHARD, E. M., VERNON, C. L., BRONNEN-

KANT, K., DEANS, N. L. & HEIMLICH, J. E. (2007):Why zoos& aquariums matter: assessing the impact of a visit.Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos & Aquariums.http://www.aza.org/coned/documents/why_zoos_matter.pdfFINE, G. A. & HARRINGTON, B. (2004): Tiny publics:small groups and civil society. Sociological Theory 22:341–356.FRASER, J.S., WHARTON, D. (2007): The future of zoos.Curator 50: 41–54.FRASER, J.S., SICKLER, J. & CENTER FOR SURVEY RESEARCH

AND ANALYSIS (Unpublished a): National survey of publicperceptions of zoos and aquariums. Unpublished rawdata, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, USA,2008.FRASER, J., SICKLER, J. & ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL (Unpub-lished b): WCS brand awareness assessment. Unpub-lished internal report, Wildlife Conservation Society,Bronx, NY, USA, 2007.GLASER, B. & STRAUSS, A. (1967): The discovery ofgrounded theory: strategies for qualitative research.New York, NY: Aldine Publishing.HEIN, G. E. (1998): The constructivist museum. NewYork, NY: Routledge.LUHTANEN, R. & CROCKER, J. (1992): A collective self-esteem scale: self-evaluation of one’s social identity.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18: 302–318.MASCIA, M. B., BROSIUS, J. P., DOBSON, T. A., FORBES, B.C., HOROWITZ, L., MCKEAN, M. A. & TURNER, N. J.(2003): Editorial: conservation and the social sciences.Conservation Biology 17: 649–650.OREG, S. & KATZ-GERRO, T. (2006): Predicting proenvir-onmental behavior cross-nationally: values, the theory ofplanned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Envir-onment and Behavior 38: 462–483.

PACKER, J. (2006): Learning for fun: the unique contribu-tion of educational leisure experiences. Curator 49:329–344.PEKARIK, A., DOERING, Z. & KARNS, D. (1999): Exploringsatisfying experiences in museums. Curator, The Mu-seum Journal 42: 117–129.RABB, G. & SAUNDERS, C. D. (2005): The future of zoosand aquariums: conservation and caring. InternationalZoo Yearbook 39: 1–26.SAGOFF, M. (1995): Carrying capacity and ecologicaleconomics. BioScience 45: 610–620.SAUNDERS, C. D. (2003): The emerging field ofconservation psychology. Human Ecology Review 10:137–149.SAUNDERS, C. D. & MYERS JR, O. E. (2003): Exploring thepotential of conservation psychology. Human EcologyReview 10: iii–v.SCHULTZ, P. W. (2000): Empathizing with nature: theeffects of perspective taking on concern for environmen-tal issues. Journal of Social Issues 56: 391–406.SCHULTZ, P. W. & TABANICO, J. (2007): Self, identity, andthe natural environment. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology 37: 1219–1247.SOULE, M. E. (1985): What is conservation biology?Bioscience 35: 727–734.STERN, P. & DEITZ, T. (1994): The value basis ofenvironmental concern. Journal of Social Issues 50: 65–84.STRAUSS, A. & CORBIN, J. (1998): Basics of qualitativeresearch: techniques and procedures for developinggrounded theory (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications Inc.WAGNER, K., FALK, J., VERNON, C., OGDEN, J., ROUTMAN,E. & WINSTEN, K. (2006): Why zoos aquariums matter:results from the multi-institutional research program(MIRP). Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos andAquariums.WAZA (2005): Building a future for wildlife. The worldzoo and aquarium conservation strategy. Bern, Switzer-land: World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. http://www.waza.org/conservation/wzacs.phpWAZA (2006): Zoos and aquariums of the world. Bern,Switzerland: World Association of Zoos and Aquariums.http://www.waza.org/network/index.php?main=zoos (asat 30 September 2006).WEIL, S. (1999): From being about something to beingfor somebody: the ongoing transformation of the Amer-ican museum. Daedalus 128: 229–258.WEIL, S. (2002): Making museums matter. Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Manuscript submitted 16 January 2008;revised 25 July 2008; accepted 13 August2008



measuring the cultural impact of zoos and aquariums

Documents