Naturalistic Exhibits More Effective Than Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes toward Apes

Naturalistic Exhibits May be
More Effective Than
Traditional Exhibits at
Improving Zoo-Visitor
Attitudes toward African Apes
Kristen E. Lukas* and Stephen R. Ross†
*Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
†Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago, Illinois, USA
ABSTRACT Zoos play a unique role in wildlife conservation, particularly in
the area of conservation education. Because of their popularity and flagship
status for broader conservation issues, great apes may prove to be one of
the most important educational conduits in zoos. In 2002, we surveyed
knowledge of and attitudes toward African apes in visitors to the Lester E.
Fisher Great Ape House (GAH) at Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, IL, USA. In
the current study, we replicated the survey to document attitudes to and
knowledge of the newly renovated and naturalistic Regenstein Center for
African Apes (RCAA) and compared results. We found RCAA was no more
effective than GAH in increasing visitor knowledge about apes, although
visitors answered more questions correctly upon exit than on entrance in
both buildings. We did find, however, that RCAA was more effective than
GAH at improving visitor attitudes toward chimpanzees. Specifically, upon
exiting, RCAA visitors showed increased naturalistic attitudes and reduced
utilitarian attitudes toward chimpanzees. Exhibiting apes in naturalistic settings
may therefore be an effective way to increase visitor concern for apes
in nature and in zoos. Zoos and aquariums investing in new, naturalistic
ape exhibits with the aim to educate about, provide emotional connections
to, improve attitudes toward, and ultimately increase conservation of apes,
need to then critically evaluate whether the actual effect of the designed
environment on visitors—above and beyond intended benefits for the animals—
is commensurate with the investment. The broader impacts of even
small shifts in visitor attitude in the right direction could be significant. These
findings may vary across species and settings, however, and should be
assessed accordingly.
Keywords: chimpanzee, gorilla, knowledge, renovation, survey, zoo exhibit
435 Anthrozoös DOI: 10.2752/175303714X14023922797904
ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 27, ISSUE 3 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2014
PP. 435–455 DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY
Address for correspondence:
Kristen E. Lukas, Ph.D.,
Curator of Conservation &
Science,
Cleveland Metroparks Zoo,
3900 Wildlife Way,
Cleveland, OH 44109, USA.
E-mail:
kel@clevelandmetroparks.com
The zoo and aquarium visit is a unique forum for educating the public about environmental
stewardship (Maple 1995). To inspire people to take conservation action, zoos
and aquariums must not only teach visitors facts about animals but engage them in
meaningful experiences that increase care and concern for wildlife (Rabb and Saunders 2005),
foster conservation learning and attitudes (Ballantyne et al. 2007), and motivate behavior change
(Heimlich and Ardoin 2008). A large-scale, multi-institutional assessment published by the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums (Falk et al. 2007) concluded that, overall, visits to zoos and
aquariums have a positive impact on conservation knowledge and attitudes.
A number of studies have evaluated the extent to which visitors demonstrate changes in
knowledge and attitudes in response to experiences at specific zoos or aquariums (Dierking et
al. 2002; Ogden et al. 2004; Nakamichi 2007). Some research efforts have focused on the effect
of overall zoo visits on knowledge or attitudes (Kellert and Dunlap 1989; Whittall 1992;
Holzer and Scott 1997; Adelman et al. 2000; Dierking et al. 2004) and others have focused on
specific exhibits (Yerke and Burns 1991; Saunders and Stuart-Perry 1997; Swanagan 2000;
Dierking et al. 2002; Anderson et al. 2003; Ross and Gillespie 2009; Pearson, Dorrian and
Litchfield 2013). All suggest that high-quality exhibits have the potential to teach, inspire, and
engage visitors in support of a mission to conserve and protect wildlife, particularly as experiences
aggregate over time (Falk et al. 2007). There remains, however, some skepticism of the
ability of these institutions to affect positive effects on visitor attitudes. Marino et al. (2010) were
highly critical of the methodology used in the Falk et al. (2007) study and insist that there remains
a complete lack of empirical evidence for the claim that zoos and aquariums promote positive
attitude change in their visitors. Clearly the need for further research on the effectiveness of zoo
exhibits is both relevant and necessary (Mason 2000).
Advances in exhibit design have resulted in an increasing number of naturalistic zoo exhibits
intended to benefit both animal behavior and visitor learning (Shettel-Neuber 1988; Bitgood
1999). In addition to meeting the behavioral needs of species, naturalistic exhibits by definition
use a stylistic approach and provide an aesthetically appealing framework for educating visitors
about wildlife (Polakowski 1987; Ballantyne et al. 2007). In contrast, animal exhibits or facilities
that permit expression of natural behaviors but do not simultaneously convey features of the
species’ natural habitats (i.e., laboratories or sanctuaries) might be considered functionally
naturalistic but not aesthetically naturalistic. In this paper, naturalistic exhibits are spaces that
contain both aesthetically and functionally naturalistic features, unless otherwise noted.
Naturalistic exhibits have been shown to increase visitor stay time (Johnston 1998;
Bitgood 1999; Ross et al. 2012), even when they result in reduced visibility of animals (Davey
2006). Perceptions of animals have been shown to improve when animals are in naturalistic
exhibits (Finlay, James and Maple 1988; Price, Ashmore and McGivern 1994; Yilmaz, Mumcu
and Ozbilen 2010), even when enrichment objects are not naturalistic in appearance (McPhee
et al. 1998; Kutska 2009). High quality, naturalistic exhibits predispose visitors to learn about
wildlife (Coe 1985) and inspire emotional connections with animals (Wagner et al. 2009). However,
direct comparisons of visitor knowledge and attitudes before and following exhibit
renovations are rare. As antiquated facilities are replaced by more naturalistic exhibits, there
is an opportunity to evaluate the effects of naturalistic exhibits on visitor knowledge and attitudes.
Scientific assessments of mission-related outcomes are increasingly gaining attention
in zoos and aquariums (Luebke and Grajal 2011), and measuring the impact of naturalistic
exhibits on conservation education objectives should be part of post-occupancy evaluations
or POEs (Zimring and Reizenstein 1980; Maple and Finlay 1987; Kelling and Gaalema 2011),
Naturalistic Exhibits May be More Effective Than Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes…
436 Anthrozoös
❖
with the goal of continuously improving the overall educational and conservation impact of the
zoo or aquarium visit.
The present study is only one component of a POE that compared (1) animal behavior
and space use, (2) visitor behavior and space use, and (3) visitor knowledge and attitudes toward
gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) before and after exhibit
renovation at Lincoln Park Zoo (Chicago, IL, USA), where the Lester E. Fisher Great Ape House
(GAH) was replaced with the Regenstein Center for African Apes (RCAA). Comparisons of animal
behavior and space use in the two exhibits found the provision of larger, more complex
enclosures resulted in a range of changes in how both species used their environment (Ross
et al. 2009), and demonstrated species differences in behavioral impacts (Ross, Vreeman and
Lonsdorf 2011). For example, chimpanzees showed fewer abnormal behaviors and gorillas
were less aggressive in the new exhibit. Both species were less active and spent less time observing
animal keepers in the new facility. Visitor behavior data (Ross and Lukas 2005; Ross
et al. 2012) revealed longer stay times and more time observing apes and reading educational
signage in the new facility.
To assess the effect of the new facility on visitor knowledge and attitudes, we replicated
the survey conducted three years earlier at GAH (Lukas and Ross 2005). In 2002, we found
visitors to GAH correctly answered 60% of knowledge questions, performed better on exit
than entrance surveys, and correctly answered more chimpanzee- than gorilla-oriented questions.
However, we found no effect of visiting GAH on attitudes. In the current study, we tested
whether presentation of apes in a naturalistic exhibit (RCAA) was more effective than presentation
of apes in a non-naturalistic exhibit (GAH) for helping visitors to learn about, and
improving visitor attitudes toward, chimpanzees and gorillas. The renovated space was larger
and more complex for both animals and visitors, so any changes in knowledge or attitudes
would be attributed to the entire suite of variables associated with the improved spaces. We
were primarily interested in knowing whether the overall experience of visiting RCAA conferred
increased mission-related outcomes intended by the zoo, such as helping people to learn and
care more about African apes in the zoo and in nature.
Specifically, we wanted to answer three questions: (1) Was RCAA more effective than GAH
at helping visitors learn about chimpanzees and gorillas? We predicted visitors would show a
greater increase in knowledge after visiting RCAA than they did after visiting GAH. (2) Was
RCAA more effective than GAH at improving visitor attitudes toward chimpanzees and gorillas?
We predicted visitors to RCAA would demonstrate differences in attitude that were indicative
of a greater appreciation for wildlife and reduced negative affect related to apes. (3) Was there
a species difference in how RCAA influenced zoo-visitor knowledge of, and attitudes about,
chimpanzees compared with gorillas? We predicted the same species differences found in
GAH but no differential effect by species of RCAA on knowledge or attitudes.
Methods
Exhibits
GAH was in operation from 1976–2002 and RCAA opened in 2004. Photographic depictions
and descriptions of the animal spaces are published elsewhere (Ross et al. 2009, 2011) and
comparative information on animal spaces is provided in Table 1. Despite a relatively small
floor plan, lack of outdoor access, dull lighting, and hard architecture, GAH was functional
from an animal usage standpoint because it facilitated natural ape behavior with ample vertical
space and enough bedding to soften the floor substrate and permit extended foraging for
Lukas and Ross
437 Anthrozoös
Naturalistic Exhibits May be More Effective Than Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes…
438 Anthrozoös
Table 1. Overview of animal spaces and exhibit features in the Great Ape House (GAH) and
the Regenstein Center for African Apes (RCAA).
GAH RCAA
Indoors Outdoors Indoors Outdoors
Exhibit area
Gorilla 1 92 m2
362 m2
109 m2 1,127 m2
Gorilla 2 92 m2 125 m2 613 m2
Chimpanzee 1 35 m2 n/a 99 m2 490 m2
Chimpanzee 2 35 m2 n/a (Off public view)
Average (mean)
exhibit height 8.3 m n/a 10.3 m n/a
Exhibit features
Walls Concrete block, Concrete block, gray Concrete Flexible mesh,
yellow open air
Fixed climbing Steel poles, concrete Steel poles, wood Artificial tree struc- Artificial trees, large
structures/features benches poles, deadfall, rocks tures, steel bamboo piles of deadfall,
poles, logs, branches rocks, branches
Ceiling Inaccessible, None, open-top Accessible, steel Accessible, flexible
concrete mesh mesh (Gorilla 1 is
open-top)
Moveable climbing Ropes, fire hose, Ropes Artificial vines, ropes, Artificial vines
structures/features cargo nets rope nets
Elevated platforms Plastic crates, n/a Themed solid Rocks, rock
concrete blocks platforms outcroppings
Floor Concrete Grass, dirt Deep mulch Grass, dirt
Bedding materials Deep straw, hay Straw, hay Straw, hay, wood Straw, browse
wool, browse
Live plants, bushes, No Yes No Yes
or trees
Water features Fountains, nipple Nipple lixits, shallow Nipple lixits, animal- Shallow pools,
lixits, small pool pool controlled water spray large waterfall
Public barrier(s) Glass Glass Glass Glass, mesh, dry
moat
Keeper working Highly visible mesh n/a Less visible mesh in Distinct areas for
wall barrier(s) up entire rear wall multiple locations, training
including elevated demonstrations
areas, for training
demonstrations
Holding area Accessible via upper Not accessible Accessible via Accessible via
level ground level ground level
Average time apes
on exhibit/day ~22 hrs ~22 hrs
hidden food items. It was not, however, naturalistic in appearance as it was composed primarily
of steel and concrete with a lack of living plants anywhere in the space. In contrast, RCAA was
designed to be both functionally and aesthetically naturalistic, consisting of large indoor and
outdoor spaces, natural lighting, abundant vertical space, deep mulch substrate, and exhibit
features that were natural in appearance.
GAH displayed 14 gorillas in two groups each consisting of a single adult male, several
adult females, and immature offspring and six chimpanzees in two small sub-groups with one
adult male and two adult females each (Ross and Lukas 2006). RCAA displayed 12 gorillas in
two groups, one containing a single adult male and three adult females and the other
containing a single adult male, four adult females, and three immature offspring. RCAA also
displayed seven chimpanzees in one group containing a single adult male, three adult females,
and three immature offspring (Ross et al. 2011b).
Survey Content and Administration
Survey items were modified from Kellert and Dunlap (1989) to pertain only to African apes. The
RCAA survey was identical to the GAH survey (Lukas and Ross 2005) but with two exceptions.
We removed one knowledge question that required participants to identify a photo and added
one question asking respondents to identify if chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans are
endangered and why they do or do not think so. These results are published elsewhere (Ross
et al. 2008).
The final survey consisted of 18 knowledge and 28 attitude statements (contact KEL for
copy of full questionnaire). There were also eight demographic questions used to characterize
visitation frequency, sex, age class, ethnicity, and education level. Following the same protocol
used at GAH (Lukas and Ross 2005), one research intern administered the 54-item
survey to 1000 visitors to RCAA between May and August 2005. Every third adult entering or
exiting was approached, and entrance and exit sampling was temporally distinct to prevent duplicate
sampling. To participate, visitors needed to be at least 18 yrs of age and entering or exiting
the RCAA building at the locations most often used by patrons. Entrance surveys were
administered in two entrance locations and exit surveys in two exit locations. Each survey interview
lasted approximately 10 min and occurred Monday to Friday between 1000 and 1700
hrs. Non-respondent data were collected. A log was kept by the research intern to identify observable
characteristics of those refusing to participate in the survey including: sex, age class,
social group, and group size.
Visitor Knowledge: Visitor knowledge was assessed by 18 true/false statements in four categories:
taxonomy, natural history, behavior, and conservation (Lukas and Ross 2005). Relevant
content was widely available throughout GAH and RCAA via video kiosks, animal identification
signs, sculptures, maps, and signs (Table 2).
Visitor Attitudes: The same 28 attitude statements were used in the GAH and RCAA surveys,
even though only 20 (71%) of those statements loaded onto attitude factors in the
GAH survey. We conducted a principal component analysis (PCA) on the RCAA data and
found that as for the GAH survey, the factor structure used in Kellert and Dunlap (1989) was
only partially replicated. However, our analysis revealed that we replicated the Lukas and
Ross (2005) factor structure. The same 20 attitude statements from the GAH survey similarly
loaded onto six attitude factors for the RCAA surveys. Therefore, we combined both
datasets and ran a new PCA on the 20 attitude questions that loaded onto attitude factors
Lukas and Ross
439 Anthrozoös
in both years to determine the overall loading strength of each question (see Table 3).
Responses to individual statements were then adjusted to reflect the loading strength to its
respective factor by multiplying the response, ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 6 (Strongly
Disagree), to the factor loading score for each statement. Scores were summed across
relevant questions and adjusted to result in standardized scores, ranging from 0 (Disagree)
to 1 (Agree) for each attitude.
Data Analysis
To implement a simulated pre-posttest design, we conducted an equal number of entrance
and exit surveys in both years. To test for differences in visitors’ knowledge of and attitudes toward
chimpanzees versus gorillas, we compared two versions of the survey that were identical
in all respects but one: half contained the word “gorilla(s)” as subject of the question and
half “chimpanzee(s).”
We documented overall performance on knowledge questions and attitude scales and
looked for main effects of, and interactions between, the following independent variables:
Year/Exhibit (GAH vs. RCAA), Species (Chimpanzee vs. Gorilla), and Enter/Exit (Entrance
vs. Exit). To identify any differences between demographic characteristics of participants
completing GAH vs. RCAA, Chimpanzee vs. Gorilla, or Entrance vs. Exit surveys, we
conducted two-way chi-square analyses between groups for the overall sample and within
each exhibit. We analyzed data using a generalized linear mixed model procedure (SPSS
12.0, Chicago, IL, USA) so we could conduct a 2  2  2 analysis of covariance while
controlling for the effects of demographic variables, which were categorical variables. Each
outcome variable (four knowledge categories and six attitude factors) was analyzed
separately. Alpha was set at 0.05.
Naturalistic Exhibits May be More Effective Than Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes…
440 Anthrozoös
Table 2. Overview of visitor spaces and educational materials in the Great Ape House (GAH)
and the Regenstein Center for African Apes (RCAA).
GAH RCAA
Indoor Viewing Area Upper level: 311 m2
Lower level: 163 m2
460 m2
Indoor Interpretives
Video A short video about the history of the A longer video explaining the research
gorilla program at the zoo with information conducted at the zoo and in the field.
about ape behavior.
Animal ID Signs Listing the names and photos of each Listing the names and photos of each
individual housed in the building. individual housed in the building.
Sculptures Lifelike representations of the hands and Lifelike representations of the hands
feet (plastic molds) and heads (bronze (impressions) and heads (bronze molds) of
molds) of four ape species. four ape species.
Maps A flat-panel map of the United States Associated with the sculptures, these
depicting where apes born at the zoo were electronic maps displayed information
now living; a flat-panel map describing about the current and historical ranges of
current and former range of ape populations. the ape species.
Behavior Signs Flat-panel signage describing various Descriptions of some key behaviors
aspects of natural ape behavior. displayed by apes; some of these were
mildly interactive with moving parts and
buttons.
Lukas and Ross
441 Anthrozoös
Table 3. Direction and strength of factor loadings of each attitude statement on the various
attitudes, plus mean (SD) and mode score, for both survey years combined. Attitude statements
scored from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree).
Direction
and Strength n Mean Mode
of Loading (SD)
Dominionistic: Interest in Mastery and Control of Animals
1. I enjoy when gorillas/chimpanzees act in TV commercials 0.643 1,996 3.77 5
because they are funny when they act like humans. (1.6)
9. I would be interested in watching a person wrestle a 0.682 1,997 5.23 6
gorilla/chimpanzee. (1.3)
24. I think gorillas/chimpanzees should be trained to do tricks. 0.668 1,993 4.83 5
(1.2)
26. I would like to have a baby gorilla/chimpanzee as a pet. 0.744 1,999 4.92 6
(1.5)
Ecoscientistic: Concern for Environment as a System, Interrelationships between Wildlife and Habitat, and
Physical Attributes or Biological Functioning of Animals
2. I would enjoy learning about the ecosystem or population –0.679 1,999 1.99 2
dynamics of wild gorillas/chimpanzees. (0.9)
11. I am interested in learning about the evolutionary –0.809 1,997 2.43 2
classification of gorillas/chimpanzees. (1.2)
21. I am very interested in learning about the structure of –0.836 1,999 2.52 2
gorilla/chimpanzee populations. (1.0)
22. I am fascinated by the relatedness of different primate –0.783 2,000 2.25 2
species. (1.0)
Naturalistic: Interest and Affection for Wildlife and Outdoors
4. I like to see pictures of animals like gorillas/chimpanzees, 0.660 1,996 4.98 6
but I have little desire to see them in the wild. (1.3)
13 . I would be thrilled to take a tour in Africa to see –0.778 2,000 1.67 1
gorillas/chimpanzees in the wild. (1.1)
27. I would prefer to watch a TV program about wild 0.805 1,992 4.50 5
gorillas/chimpanzees than travel to see them in their (1.5)
natural habitat.
Negativistic: Orientation toward Avoidance of Animals Because of Indifference, Dislike, or Fear
3. I am offended by the smell of gorillas/chimpanzees. 0.683 1,974 4.47 5
(1.3)
5. I am afraid of gorillas/chimpanzees. 0.577 1,997 4.44 5
(1.5)
19. I think gorillas/chimpanzees are unclean and full of 0.591 1,989 5.09 5
disease. (0.8)
Utilitarian: Concern for Practical and Material Value of Animals and Habitat
6. I think love is an emotion that people should feel for other 0.571 1,994 5.11 6
people, not for gorillas/chimpanzees. (1.2)
8. I support the use of gorillas/chimpanzees for experimental medical research that benefits humans, regardless
of how painful or risky the procedure. 0.621 1,989 4.85
(1.3) 6
Results
A total of 3,262 surveys were attempted and 1,000 surveys were completed over 12 weeks of
study at RCAA for a response rate of 30.6% (compared with 27% in 2002). Non-respondents
were more likely to be with children (2 = 74.28, df = 3, p < 0.001); between 30–49 years of age
(2 = 13.19, df = 2, p = 0.001); Latino (2 = 72.42, df = 3, p < 0.001) and/or male (2 = 10.34,
df = 1, p = 0.001). Data from both survey years were combined for a total of 2,000 surveys
overall. Respondents in both years were similar in age, education, and area of residence.
Naturalistic Exhibits May be More Effective Than Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes…
442 Anthrozoös
Table 3. continued…
Direction
and Strength n Mean Mode
of Loading (SD)
Utilitarian: Concern for Practical and Material Value of Animals and Habitat – continued…
10. If there are plenty of gorillas/chimpanzees in Africa, I 0.572 1,993 5.30 6
believe people should be allowed to hunt them for their meat. (1.1)
14. I am, or could become, very emotionally attached to –0.506 1,985 2.98 2
some of the gorillas/chimpanzees I see at the zoo. (1.4)
Moralistic: Concern for Right and Wrong Treatment of Animals, Strong Opposition to Exploitation and Cruelty
toward Animals
12. I think it is acceptable to keep gorillas/chimpanzees in –0.796 1,998 2.20 2
zoos as long as they are treated properly. (1.0)
17. Keeping gorillas/chimpanzees in zoos, no matter how 0.807 1,996 4.19 5
large and attractive their surroundings are, strikes me as (1.2)
cruel and unusual.
Did Not Load Onto Any Factor:
7. I think strict discipline and punishment would be 1,987 5.25 6
essential to train a gorilla/chimpanzee in a zoo. (1.1)
15. If I were on safari in Africa, I would prefer to stay in a 1,995 3.80 5
modern facility than in an isolated spot where there might (1.8)
be wild gorillas/chimpanzees around.
16. I think African nations should sacrifice needed land to 1,982 2.34 2
protect gorillas/chimpanzees. (1.2)
18. I would approve of building farms on wild 1,977 3.57 2
gorilla/chimpanzee habitat if it would improve the lives of (1.5)
local people.
20. I believe that a zoo is obligated to keep a 1,991 2.50 2
gorilla/chimpanzee even if it no longer attracts the public. (1.5)
23. I care more about the well being of individual 1,982 4.53 5
gorillas/chimpanzees than I do about gorilla populations (1.1)
as a whole.
25. I think wild gorillas/chimpanzees have to be kept behind 1,987 3.95 5
fences if they damage farmers’ crops. (1.4)
28. I think gorillas/chimpanzees are ugly. 1,999 4.92 6
(1.5)
Note: The inverse direction for the ecoscientistic and naturalistic attitude factor loadings was used in Lukas
and Ross (2005, Table 4), resulting in inverse values for these variables in that paper. In the current analysis,
the present values are applied to data from both years.
Overall, there were more female (n = 1,171) than male (n = 828) participants but the proportion
of female participants was higher in 2005 (nFemale = 625, nMale = 374) than in 2002
(nFemale = 546, nMale = 454; F = 12.89, df = 1, p < 0.001). Overall, the number of first-time
(n = 1,044) and repeat (n = 956) visitors was equivocal, but the proportion of first-time visitors
Physical problems like hormonal imbalance, injury, prostate disease and nerve damage can reduce your arousal and you feel unable to achieve climax during sexual intercourse. buy viagra from india You have to fill up an online form and the medicine will reach to you in some buy cheap cialis http://www.heritageihc.com/buy5530.html days across the world. Now add Ghee (prepared from cow’s milk) ,Juice of Vidari kanda (Pueraria tuberosa), Sugar cane juice and Cow’s milk to this and boil discount viagra from canada heritageihc.com on a simmered controlled low heat . In the event all else is apparently disappointment, why not try build a very good slumber arrange to check out what goes buying that cialis generika on. in 2005 (nFirst-time = 672, nRepeat = 328) was higher than in 2002 (nFirst-time = 372, nRepeat =
628; 2 = 180.35, df = 1, p < 0.001). In 2005 only, we found we sampled more visitors without
children (2 = 13.14, df = 3, p = 0.004), and more visitors aged 18–29 (2 = 8.69, df = 2,
p = 0.013), on exit compared with entrance. There were no differences in the demographic
composition of visitors completing chimpanzee versus gorilla surveys. Based on these results,
we controlled for first-time vs. repeat visit, group composition, age category, ethnicity, and
gender in all analyses.
Knowledge
On average, visitors provided correct answers to 10.9 of the 18 knowledge statements (Table
4, Appendix 1). There was a significant main effect of year, entrance vs. exit, and species in
overall performance: visitors provided more correct answers in RCAA compared with GAH
(F(1,1844) = 5.31, p = 0.021), upon exit compared with entrance (F(1,1985) = 24.91, p < 0.001),
and for chimpanzees compared with gorillas (F(1,985) = 17.80, p < 0.001). There were significant
main effects of year, entrance vs. exit, and species in the four knowledge categories. Visitors
answered significantly more questions correctly upon exit compared with entrance in the
areas of behavior (F(1,1986) = 8.38, p = 0.004), conservation (F(1,1987) = 15.03, p < 0.001), and
taxonomy (F(1,1988) = 20.57, p < 0.001). However, visitors provided more correct natural history
answers in the RCAA than in the GAH (F(1,1942) = 17.31, p < 0.001). Visitors answered more
conservation questions correctly on gorilla than chimpanzee surveys (F(1,1986) = 55.46,
p < 0.001) but in natural history and taxonomy, visitors answered more questions correctly
on chimpanzee than gorilla surveys (F(1,1986) = 294.78, p < 0.001 and F(1,988) = 13.13,
p < 0.001, respectively).
We found a significant interaction of year with species and entrance vs. exit with species
for behavior questions only. In GAH, visitors answered more behavior questions correctly on
gorilla (M = 0.670, SD = 0.230) than chimpanzee surveys (M = 0.631, SD = 0.250), but in
RCAA, visitors answered more behavior questions correctly on chimpanzee (M = 0.662, SD
= 0.245) than gorilla surveys (M = 0.655, SD = 0.235; F(1,1985) = 5.36, p = 0.021). On
chimpanzee behavior questions, there was no difference in entrance (M = 0.646, SD = 0.247)
and exit (M = 0.648, SD = 0.248) scores when both years were combined; in contrast, lower
entrance scores for gorilla behavior questions (M = 0.635, SD = 0.239) increased significantly
upon exit (M = 0.690, SD = 0.224) in both exhibits (F(1,1986) = 7.75, p = 0.005).
There was no interaction between year, entrance vs. exit, and species for overall number
of questions correct or within any of the knowledge question categories.
Attitudes
Overall, visitors’ attitudes toward apes were predominantly “naturalistic” and “ecoscientistic”,
followed by “moralistic,” “negativistic,” “dominionistic,” and “utilitarian” (Table 4). There
was a main effect of year for five of the six attitude factors, where visitors to RCAA were more
naturalistic and ecoscientistic, and less moralistic, negativistic, and utilitarian than visitors to
GAH. There was also a main effect of entrance vs. exit for two of the attitudes. After experiencing
either exhibit, visitors scored even lower on the negativistic and utilitarian attitude
scales. A main effect of species was observed for three attitudes, where visitors scored
Lukas and Ross
443 Anthrozoös
Naturalistic Exhibits May be More Effective Than Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes…
444 Anthrozoös
Table 4. Knowledge and attitude scores by year (exhibit), entrance vs. exit, and species.
2002 2005
Overall GAH RCAA Entrance Exit Chimpanzee Gorilla
(n = 2,000) (n = 1,000) (n = 1,000) (n = 1,000) (n = 1,000) (n = 1,000) (n = 1,000)
Knowledge
Mean (SD) number of correct responses:
Overall 10.9 10.9 11.0 10.7 11.2 11.2 10.7
(2.4) (2.3) (2.4) (2.3) (2.4) (2.4) (2.3)
Mean (SD) proportion of correct responses by knowledge category:
Behavior 0.655 0.651 0.659 0.641 0.669 0.647 0.663
(0.240) (0.241) (0.240) (0.243) (0.237) (0.247) (0.233)
Conservation 0.544 0.551 0.536 0.528 0.559 0.515 0.573
(0.191) (0.189) (0.193) (0.188) (0.193) (0.186) (0.191)
Natural History 0.619 0.604 0.636 0.619 0.620 0.711 0.528
(0.256) (0.260) (0.251) (0.249) (0.263) (0.243) (0.235)
Taxonomy 0.644 0.638 0.650 0.620 0.668 0.663 0.625
(0.233) (0.229) (0.236) (0.234) (0.229) (0.227) (0.237)
Attitude
Mean (SD) standardized score ranging from 0 (Complete Disagreement) to 1 (Complete Agreement) by attitude factor:
Naturalistic 0.784 0.753 0.816 0.782 0.787 0.791 0.778
(0.206) (0.204) (0.204) (0.204) (0.208) (0.203) (0.209)
Ecoscientistic 0.738 0.734 0.741 0.732 0.744 0.735 0.740
(0.178) (0.164) (0.192) (0.179) (0.178) (0.175) (0.182)
Moralistic 0.302 0.318 0.286 0.299 0.305 0.291 0.313
(0.190) (0.188) (0.190) (0.182) (0.198) (0.188) (0.192)
Negativistic 0.274 0.283 0.265 0.286 0.263 0.258 0.291
(0.179) (0.172) (0.186) (0.178) (0.180) (0.174) (0.183)
Dominionistic 0.260 0.253 0.268 0.260 0.261 0.273 0.248
(0.201) (0.186) (0.215) (0.198) (0.205) (0.199) (0.204)
Utilitarian 0.228 0.242 0.213 0.237 0.219 0.230 0.226
(0.167) (0.163) (0.169) (0.167) (0.166) (0.163) (0.171)
GAH = Great Ape House; RCAA = Regenstein Center for African Apes.
higher on the moralistic and negativistic scale for gorillas and higher on the dominionistic
scale for chimpanzees.
Contrary to our predictions, we found no significant interaction between year and entrance
vs. exhibit or between year and species for any of the attitudes. There was, however, a
significant interaction between species and entrance vs. exit for moralistic and dominionistic
attitudes. As a result of experiencing either exhibit, moralistic attitudes increased for
chimpanzees (MEntrance = 0.277, SD = 0.172 vs. MExit = 0.305, SD = 0.201, F(1,997) = 4.44,
p = 0.035) but not for gorillas. In contrast, dominionistic attitudes decreased for chimpanzees
(MEntrance = 0.285, SD = 0.192 vs. MExit = 0.260, SD = 0.201, F(1,994) = 4.80, p = 0.029), but
not gorillas, in both buildings.
A significant interaction between year, entrance vs. exit, and species revealed a different
facility effect for the naturalistic, ecoscientistic, and utilitarian attitudes on chimpanzee and
gorilla surveys (Table 5). These results show that naturalistic attitudes toward chimpanzees
decreased in GAH but increased in RCAA, and utilitarian attitudes toward chimpanzees
increased in GAH but decreased in RCAA. Conversely, ecoscientistic attitudes toward
gorillas increased in GAH but decreased in RCAA.
Discussion
Clayton and Meyers (2009) noted zoos are poised to create exhibits and learning opportunities
that connect people and nature. Recognizing the role and potential of zoos as
conservation organizations reinforces the importance of evaluating the efficacy of zoo
exhibits and programs in achieving educational goals. By comparing visitor knowledge and
attitudes before and after experiencing a renovated ape facility, we provide evidence that
naturalistic exhibits may be more effective than traditional exhibits at improving zoo-visitor
attitudes toward African apes.
Lukas and Ross
445 Anthrozoös
Table 5. Mean (SD) naturalistic, ecoscientistic, and utilitarian attitude scores observed
between entrance vs. exit in GAH vs. RCAA for chimpanzees and gorillas.
GAH RCAA
Entrance Exit Entrance Exit Interaction
Chimpanzees (n = 250) (n = 250) (n = 250) (n = 250)
Naturalistic 0.776 0.757 0.795 0.834 F(1,991) = 4.918,
(0.181) (0.206) (0.218) (0.198) p = 0.027
Ecoscientistic 0.729 0.741 0.717 0.754 F(1,991) = 0.916,
(0.159) (0.158) (0.189) (0.192) ns
Utilitarian 0.243 0.251 0.235 0.190 F(1,992) = 6.583,
(0.154) (0.162) (0.165) (0.164) p = 0.010
Gorillas (n = 250) (n = 250) (n = 250) (n = 250)
Naturalistic 0.733 0.745 0.822 0.812 F(1,991) = 0.664,
(0.207) (0.218) (0.197) (0.199) ns
Ecoscientistic 0.721 0.745 0.760 0.735 F(1,990) = 5.284,
(0.172) (0.168) (0.192) (0.192) p = 0.022
Utilitarian 0.256 0.220 0.213 0.215 F(1,966) = 2.600,
(0.173) (0.161) (0.174) (0.173) ns
GAH = Great Ape House; RCAA = Regenstein Center for African Apes; ns = non-significant
Naturalistic Exhibits May be More Effective Than Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes…
446 Anthrozoös
Was RCAA More Effective Than GAH at Helping Visitors Learn about African
Apes?
In both years of the survey, respondents answered 11 of 18 (61%) of the knowledge questions
correctly, with the highest proportion of correct answers in the areas of behavior and taxonomy,
and the lowest in conservation. Visitors increased overall knowledge as a result of experiencing
the exhibits, and small, but reliable, increases in knowledge were observed for behavior,
conservation, and taxonomy questions. Visitors to RCAA scored better overall on natural history
questions, which means the improved, naturalistic RCAA may have attracted people who were
more knowledgeable about the natural history of apes than did GAH. These data suggest
visitors arrived with some knowledge of apes but still improved knowledge as a result of visiting
either exhibit. Increasing knowledge is an important first step in facilitating emotional connections
to animals and may lead to concern for wildlife conservation (Ballantyne et al. 2007;
Clayton, Fraser and Saunders 2009; Wagner et al. 2009).
Contrary to expectations, however, we found RCAA was no more effective at increasing
knowledge than GAH, as evidenced by the lack of interaction between year and entrance vs.
exit. Although exhibit quality is thought to be associated with increases in visitor knowledge
(Wagner et al. 2009), we did not find evidence that the presentation of apes in large, complex,
naturalistic settings—with the associated improvements in visitor spaces and educational
materials—was any better at facilitating learning than the previous environment.
A significant limitation is the fact that we used the same set of knowledge questions in
both years, a choice we made to facilitate cross-facility comparisons. However, as part of the
POE process, visitor feedback from baseline assessments was used to create more engaging
and interactive educational materials in the new ape facility, and animal social groups were
more complex in the new facility, as well. It is possible that the assessment tool failed to capture
the range of information available in the new exhibit, was not sensitive enough, or was otherwise
inadequate for detecting changes in knowledge that might occur in a single zoo exhibit.
It is also possible that the smaller, more intimate visitor experience of GAH conferred
educational benefits not available in RCAA or measured by us at all.
Although many of the educational materials available in RCAA were interactive, we did not
differentiate between learning after observing animals, engaging in conversations, or manipulating
signage. We also did not measure the influence of programming on learning outcomes.
The design of RCAA, for example, provided distinct areas for ape training demonstrations that
likely enhanced the educational impact of the exhibit. Interpretive presentations by zoo staff or
volunteers have been shown to be more effective at producing knowledge gain than facts
alone (Visscher, Snider and Stoep 2009) and may be necessary to capture, focus, and fully engage
the attention of zoo visitors before an appreciable impact on learning is obtained (Bitgood
2010). A range of factors including identity-related motivations influence visitor learning (Falk
and Storksdieck 2010), and future zoo exhibit POEs may therefore benefit by including more
nuanced analyses that link changes in zoo-visitor knowledge to design features.
Was RCAA More Effective than GAH at Improving Visitor Attitudes toward
African Apes?
In general, visitors to the African ape exhibits in both years were characterized by high naturalistic
and ecoscientistic attitudes. In other words, visitors were curious about the relationships
between apes and humans, enjoyed learning about apes, and would rather see them
in the wild than on TV or in pictures. These results are consistent with Kellert and Dunlap’s
(1989) work showing zoo-visitor attitudes were best characterized as naturalistic and ecoscientistic
(in addition to humanistic, or strong affection for individual animals, which did not
emerge as an attitude factor in this study). Other studies have confirmed that people primarily
visit zoos to see wild animals and to learn something, in addition to having an enjoyable
outing with friends or family (Clayton, Fraser and Saunders 2009; Clayton and Myers 2009;
Sickler and Fraser 2009).
Visitors to the African ape exhibits were further characterized by relatively low moralistic,
negativistic, dominionistic, and utilitarian attitudes toward apes. Low moralistic scores are
notable in that a low moralistic attitude required agreement with the statement, “I think it is
acceptable to keep gorillas/chimpanzees in zoos as long as they are treated properly” and
disagreement with the statement, “Keeping gorillas or chimpanzees in zoos … strikes me as
cruel and unusual.” In both years, visitors were characterized by relatively low moralistic scores,
which means visitors generally felt it was acceptable to keep apes in zoos if they were treated
properly. It is interesting to note that overall, moralistic attitudes were lower at RCAA compared
with GAH, meaning visitors to RCAA may have been slightly more comfortable seeing
apes in zoos than those visiting GAH. However, the entrance versus exit comparison revealed
no immediate effect on moralistic attitudes in either exhibit. Additional research is needed to
identify factors that influence such visitor perspectives.
In addition to the difference we observed in moralistic attitudes, we found a significant main
effect of year on all other attitudes—except dominionistic—in visitors to RCAA compared with
visitors to GAH. Visitors to RCAA scored higher on the naturalistic and ecoscientistic scales,
and lower on the negativistic and utilitarian attitudes, than visitors to GAH. One explanation
could be that overall public interest in environmental issues may have increased between 2002
and 2005. The Pew Research Trust (2005) reported that the percentage of the US public that
considered protecting the environment a “top priority” for its political leaders increased from
44% in 2002 to 49% in 2005. A more proximate explanation, however, would be that the
opening of a new, naturalistic exhibit for African apes may have attracted visitors interested in
seeing gorillas and chimpanzees in naturalistic exhibits. People interested in seeing apes in the
wild might have been more likely to visit RCAA than GAH. Visitors may have been prepared
to view RCAA as naturalistic because they had seen promotions for the exhibit or could see
the outdoor exhibits from entrance survey points.
We found no entrance versus exit differences for any of the attitudes in our previous study
(Lukas and Ross 2005), but when the data from both years were combined, we did find a significant
main effect of entrance versus exit for negativistic and utilitarian attitudes toward apes.
In other words, visitors decreased negativistic and utilitarian attitudes toward apes as a result
of visiting either exhibit. The effect was relatively small but statistically significant, suggesting
that seeing apes in zoos might reduce negative perceptions of apes, lower assessments of the
material value of apes (i.e., for biomedical research or as bushmeat), and/or increase emotional
attachments to apes. This finding complements the increase in knowledge of behavior,
conservation, and taxonomy we observed and provides additional evidence that people may
develop or deepen emotional connections to African apes during a single zoo visit.
In an associated study, we found visitors had longer stay times and thus increased overall
time spent watching apes in RCAA (7:45 min) compared with GAH (5:40 min; Ross et al.
2012). Although the mean time spent watching apes and engaging with interpretives increased
in RCAA, the proportion of time dedicated to these activities actually decreased in RCAA in lieu
of “other” behaviors, which included socializing with other zoo visitors. Bitgood’s (2010)
Lukas and Ross
447 Anthrozoös
attention-value model of museum visitors considers the behavior of talking to others to be an
indicator of engaged attention. If this is the case, it is at least possible that RCAA provided a
better venue for visitor conversations that may have played a role in positively influencing
attitudes toward chimpanzees. For example, the indoor viewing area in RCAA was larger and
permitted more dispersed use of space compared with the circular flow of GAH that, when
crowded, kept people moving rather steadily in a linear fashion through the space. In addition,
specific design features were incorporated in RCAA with the intent of increasing the likelihood
that apes would be highly visible to guests. Such considerations may help set the stage for
zoos to provide an engaging forum for meaningful conversations about animals and conservation
(Clayton, Fraser, and Saunders 2009). Whether increased stay time and socialization
with other zoo visitors actually positively influences attitudes toward zoo animals deserves
further study and empirical testing.
Is There a Difference in Zoo-Visitor Knowledge of, and Attitudes about,
Chimpanzees and Gorillas?
Overall, visitors answered more conservation questions correctly for gorillas than chimpanzees,
perhaps because movies like “Gorillas in the Mist” have popularized the fragile conservation
status of mountain gorillas. There is growing evidence that people underestimate the conservation
status of chimpanzees in part because of their use as animal actors and how they are
portrayed in the media (Ross et al. 2008; Ross, Vreeman and Lonsdorf 2011; Schroepfer et
al. 2011). In this study, however, visitors underestimated chimpanzee abundance in the wild.
Our data therefore support the notion that there may be unique challenges in educating the
public about chimpanzee conservation. Although visitors scored relatively low on conservation
questions, the increase from entrance to exit in both buildings suggests a single zoo visit can
have an impact.
Interestingly, visitors correctly answered more natural history and taxonomy knowledge
questions for chimpanzees than gorillas. The natural history category difference was driven by
one question: most visitors incorrectly thought that gorilla females—like chimpanzee females—
had visible swellings when ready to mate. The taxonomy category difference was similarly
driven by one question: visitors taking chimpanzee surveys were more likely to report that
gorillas are closer to humans in their genetic makeup than are chimpanzees. Visitors taking
gorilla surveys were more likely to incorrectly mark that statement as “true.”
Although visitors improved performance on gorilla behavior questions from entrance to exit
in both facilities, a significant interaction between year and species revealed visitors scored
better overall on gorilla behavior questions in GAH but better on chimpanzee behavior questions
in RCAA. The number of gorillas and chimpanzees displayed in the facilities remained
relatively constant across survey years, but a much larger and more naturalistic space for
chimpanzees permitted the display of an age-diversified social grouping of chimpanzees in
RCAA (mean age: GAH chimpanzees = 35.6, RCAA chimpanzees = 11.3). In comparison,
gorillas were exhibited as large, age-diversified social groups in both exhibits. Our previous
research (Ross et al. 2009; Ross et al. 2011b) found abnormal behavior and attention to
caretakers decreased for chimpanzees in RCAA. More natural chimpanzee behavior—
including that of three active juveniles—was therefore on display in RCAA.
We did not differentiate time spent observing chimpanzees vs. gorillas in the visitor
behavior portion of this POE (Ross et al. 2012), but visitors did spend more time observing
apes and reading educational materials in the new facility. We suspect the more prominent
Naturalistic Exhibits May be More Effective Than Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes…
448 Anthrozoös
placement of the chimpanzee exhibit within RCAA compared with GAH may have had an
impact. In addition, displays of chimpanzee termite-fishing behavior allowed zoo visitors to test
their own skills at termite fishing in the new building. These design elements may have
increased visitor attention to chimpanzee behavior in RCAA and thus created a more
engaging venue to observe and learn about chimpanzees (Bitgood 2010). Other data also
show chimpanzee exhibits have superior potential to attract and maintain the attention of
visitors compared with other species (Moss and Esson 2010).
In both survey years, we found higher negativistic and moralistic attitudes toward gorillas
than chimpanzees, meaning visitors felt more negatively about gorillas and less comfortable
keeping gorillas in zoos. As a result of experiencing either exhibit, however, moralistic attitudes
increased for chimpanzees but not gorillas, leading to equivocal scores upon exit from RCAA
(see Table 5). Even if visitors felt differently before entering the ape facilities, visitors achieved
a comparable level of discomfort with maintaining chimpanzees and gorillas in zoos after experiencing
either exhibit.
The higher negativistic attitude toward gorillas was likely driven by fear: visitors were more
likely to agree with the statement, “I am afraid of gorillas” than “I am afraid of chimpanzees.”
One explanation for this may be found in popular culture where gorillas have been portrayed
as extremely dangerous (i.e., “King Kong,” Gott and Weir 2013). In addition, gorillas are simply
larger than chimpanzees. Gorillas are the largest of all the primates and more than twice the
size of chimpanzees, which are more than double the size of the next largest primate species
(Harcourt and Stewart 2007). Fear of gorillas may interfere with zoos’ attempts to encourage
emotional connections between visitors and gorillas. Blaney and Wells (2004) applied a camouflage
net to obscure the visitors’ view of gorillas and found visitors perceived the gorillas to
be less aggressive when observed through the net. They concluded netting made the exhibit
appear naturalistic and created a more respectful setting for observing gorillas. Such physical
interventions might also prove useful for mitigating fear of gorillas.
In both survey years, visitors held more negative attitudes toward gorillas and demonstrated
significantly less knowledge about the natural history of gorillas compared with chimpanzees.
Identifying ways for zoos to help visitors appreciate the natural history and positive
attributes of gorillas, and the effect of doing so on influencing attitudes, is one area for future
investigation. People may relate better to chimpanzees than gorillas in part because of widespread
portrayal of chimpanzees in the media as having human characteristics or because
people are familiar with the taxonomic relatedness between humans and chimpanzees, as
indicated by performance on knowledge questions. These data support research by Clayton,
Fraser and Saunders (2009), who reported gorillas were likely to evoke sympathy from visitors
but found chimps were the species most likely to evoke perspective-taking and reactionseeking
behavior by zoo visitors.
Dominionistic attitudes were higher toward chimpanzees than gorillas overall but decreased
for chimpanzees as a result of experiencing either exhibit. Higher dominionistic attitudes toward
chimpanzees meant they had more interest in seeing chimpanzees do tricks or having a baby
chimpanzee as a pet. Even if widespread portrayal of chimpanzees in the media plays a role
in engendering such attitudes, it is notable that our data suggest seeing live chimpanzees in
a zoo setting may shift visitor attitudes in a direction more in line with the conservation
education mission.
Naturalistic attitudes toward chimpanzees decreased after visiting GAH but increased after
visiting RCAA. Visitors scoring higher on the naturalistic scale expressed interest in seeing
Lukas and Ross
449 Anthrozoös
apes in the wild. Features of GAH appear to have diminished visitor interest in seeing wild
chimpanzees but RCAA may have inspired visitor interest in seeing chimpanzees in nature. To
our knowledge, this is the first evidence that a naturalistic exhibit may elicit zoo-visitor interest
in free-ranging or wild counterparts of the species on display. Features of RCAA that may have
contributed to this effect were the termite fishing mound, soft floor substrate and ample vertical
space that permit species-typical nest building, and educational materials focused on
chimpanzees in nature. Although similar features were available for gorillas as well, we suspect
any potential increases in naturalistic attitudes toward gorillas may have been thwarted by fear
of encountering gorillas in nature.
Utilitarian attitudes toward chimpanzees increased in GAH but decreased in RCAA, which
meant visitors were more likely to feel emotional attachments to chimpanzees and less likely
to agree that chimpanzees should be used in biomedical research or hunted as food. These
results suggest presenting social groups of chimpanzees in naturalistic zoo exhibits might
help visitors develop emotional connections to chimpanzees and increase concern regarding
their use in biomedical research. Zoo visitors may be more receptive to information about
conservation threats to chimpanzees once an emotional connection is established (Clayton,
Fraser and Saunders 2009; Wagner et al. 2009). Future research might determine the features
of designed animal environments and visitor spaces that are most relevant for creating
such connections.
The fact that ecoscientistic attitudes toward gorillas increased after experiencing GAH but
decreased after experiencing RCAA is a bit counter-intuitive and deserves further study. A high
score on the ecoscientistic scale would reveal visitor concern for the environment as a system,
interrelationships between wildlife and habitat, and physical attributes or biological functioning
of animals. One possible explanation might be that seeing an active and age-diversified family
group of gorillas in the hard architecture environment of GAH left visitors wondering about the
natural environment in which they live, while the more naturalistic features of RCAA satisfied
visitor interest in these areas. Additional research is clearly needed in this area.
In conclusion, this is the first study to comprehensively examine the effect of renovating
a zoo animal exhibit on the knowledge and attitudes of visitors toward the species
affected by the modification. Zoos play a unique role in wildlife conservation, particularly in
the area of conservation education (Hutchins 2003). Because of their popularity and flagship
status for broader conservation issues, great apes may prove to be one of the most
important educational conduits in zoos. A review of case studies highlighting the education
efficacy of ape exhibits suggests they play a distinctive and essential role in educating the
public about conservation issues (Stoinski et al. 2001). Gorillas have been shown to generate
high emotional appeal to visitors compared with other species (Myers, Saunders and
Birjulin 2004), and such emotional connections are thought to play a pivotal role in
increasing zoo-visitor interest in conservation (Myers and Saunders 2002). A zoo or
aquarium is likely to devote millions of dollars when building a new exhibit with the goal of
advancing aspects of the institutional mission, including improving animal care, conservation,
research, and education objectives. Applying POE tools as part of the design process
can help institutions determine whether their goals are actually achieved, illustrate strengths
and weaknesses of design projects, inform areas for improvement in future projects, and
continually advance industry standards.
Attitudes are formed with experience and are relatively stable over time. Therefore, it may
have been completely unreasonable to expect one visit to one zoo exhibit to result in attitude
Naturalistic Exhibits May be More Effective Than Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes…
450 Anthrozoös
change toward apes. However, the results of this POE suggest that although visitors increased
knowledge of apes in both exhibits, the new, naturalistic exhibits at RCAA were more
effective than the former GAH exhibits at improving visitor attitudes toward apes and better
at improving attitudes toward chimpanzees than gorillas. This is an important contribution to
our understanding of the impact of zoo visits on visitor attitudes, but it illustrates the challenge
at hand. The effects we observed were statistically significant and likely meaningful, but they
were relatively small. Zoos and aquariums investing in new naturalistic ape exhibits with the
aim to educate about, provide emotional connections to, improve attitudes toward, and
ultimately increase conservation of, apes need to then critically evaluate whether the actual
effect of the designed environment on visitors—above and beyond intended benefits for the
animals—is commensurate with the investment. The broader impacts of even small shifts in
visitor attitude in the right direction could be significant if one considers that more than 175
million people visit zoos and aquariums each year (Association of Zoos and Aquariums 2011).
To achieve maximum conservation education impact, it is important that the passive benefits
afforded by superbly designed ape exhibits and educational graphics are complemented
and strengthened by active interpretation and programming (Stoinski et al. 2001; Visscher,
Snider and Stoep 2009; Wagner et al. 2009).
Future studies might (a) explore the relationship between knowledge and attitudes toward
chimpanzees versus gorillas; (b) explore the relationship between various attitude types and
likelihood to change conservation behavior; and (c) explore the role of zoological institutions in
influencing, reinforcing, or changing public attitudes toward wildlife. It is also important to consider
how pre-existing knowledge about, and attitudes toward, different species of apes, and
popular cultural phenomena, might help or hinder conservation education efforts in zoos.