Captive Animals and Interpretation

Introduction

(Baba Dioum in Linton Craig, 1988.)

In the end, we will conserve only what we love. We willlove only what we understand; we will understand onlywhat we are taught.

Captive Animalsand

Interpretation A tale of two tiger

exhibits

Sue Broadand

Betty Weiler

Animals have been kept in captivity for thousands of years.Initially held for humankind's amusement and interest, in more recenttimes these facilities have been called on to defend their actions. Zoosattract hundreds of millions of visitors worldwide each year (lUDZG -The World Zoo Organisation and The Captive Breeding SpecialistGroup ofIUCN/SSC, 1993), and other attractions such as theme parksare increasing their use of captive animals (Martin & Mason, 1993).However, with the growth in the animal rights movement, the keepingof animals in captivity has received much attention and criticism.

The'Nationalt,ibrary supplies copi~ of this ... " -=-----:afticle under licence from the Copynght . .Agency Limited (CAL). Further reproductions of thiSarticle can only be made under licence.,

i

AbstractThis study examines the rolethat tourist attractions canplay in educating visitors. Inparticular, it compares thelearning opportunities at twover;)' different captive animalexhibits: one within atraditional %00 environment,the other within a touristtheme park. The researchcritically assessed theinterpretive content andtechniques used at each sitein relation to three levels orcategories oflearning:cognitive, affective andbehavioural learning. Thefindings revealed arelationship between the typeofdisplay and theinterpretive techniques used,the visitors' experience at thesite, and the quantity andquality oflearning that tookplace. These findings areimportant for managersattempting to use captiveanimal exhibits as touristdrawcards and as tools toimprove conservation.Recommendations are alsooffered for further researchlinking interpretation, visitorprofiles, the visit experienceand visitor learning at touristattractions.

Sue Broad is a PhD candidate inthe Department of Leisure andTourism Studies, University ofNewcastle, Australia.Or Betty Weiler is AssociateProfessor of Tourism, RMIT,Melbourne, Australia.

Zoos maintain that their activities in education, research andconservation justify keeping animals in captivity (Serrell, 1981;Chiszar, Murphy & Iliff, 1990). Their opponents, however, believethat these roles are not sufficient reasons for depriving animals oftheir freedom, and they argue that zoos are not effective atundertaking these roles (Sommer, 1972; Jamieson, 1985, 1995). Thecontent of zoo education messages in particular is questioned (DeLapa,1994), with many zoo professionals themselves acknowledging theneed for a change in focus regarding zoo education (Hancocks, 1995)and for the education of zoo visitors to be both improved and

14 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 9, No. 1, MAY '98

expanded, with more programsaimed at the general zoo visitor,instead of the traditional focus onformal school educational visits(Williamson, 1987; Hamilton,1993; Ollason, 1993). With theincreasing use of captive animalsas a drawcard for touristattractions, there is an urgentneed to examine whether theseexhibits play a role in educatingvisitors and thereby contribute tothe long-term conservation of thespecies.

This paper reports on a studycomparing the learning oppor-tunities at two very differentcaptive animal exhibits: onewithin a traditional zoo environ-ment, the other within a touristtheme park. The paper beginswith a review of the relevantliterature, followed by an outlineof the study's research objectives,methods and limitations. Thepaper concludes with a discussionof the results and their relevanceto the management of animalexhibits at tourist attractions,including recommendations forfuture research.

Education and learning are seento be important outcomes ofinterpretation. These two termsare used in this paper to refer tothe educational objectives,programs and opportunitiesintentionally provided to visitorsby the various forms ofinterpretation of captive animaldisplays, whether they are formalor informal, written or unwritten.In this paper, learning is notlimited to the cognitivedimension, but is also seen ashaving affective and behaviouraldimensions.

Literature review

In order to understand better therelationships between inter-pretation, the visit experienceand visitor learning, a number ofbodies of literature werereviewed, including the history ofcaptive animal displays, theoriesof learning, techniques foreducation in a captive animalenvironment and empirical

research published on the topic.Environmental educationliterature which focused oninformal education at exhibitswas also reviewed. For a morecomplete report on the findingsfrom this review of literature, thereader is referred to the thesisupon which this paper is based(Broad, 1996).

The literature concerning thehistory of zoos and the objectivesof zoo education uncovered fourca tegories of educationalobjectives. These were:

1. an educational experience thatis recreational, enjoyable andsatisfying;

2. cognitive learning of factsregarding the animals, and thefunction and management ofthe zoo or exhibit;

3. attitude change towards aconcern and commitment forwildlife and conservation; and

4. behavioural change, includingappropriate on-site behaviourand long-term environmentallyresponsible behaviour.

(Hunt, 1993; Serrell, 1981;Wheater, 1984; Whitehead, 1984;Donahoe, 1986; Wilson, 1987;Linton Craig, 1988; Chiszar,Murphy & Iliff, 1990; Nimon,1990; Roggenbuck, Loomis &Dagostino, 1990; IUDZG - TheWorld Zoo Organisation and TheCaptive Breeding SpecialistGroup of IUCN/SSC, 1993;DeLapa, 1994).

To maximise the effectiveness ofinterpretation, the literaturesuggests that planners must havea knowledge of both learningtheories and styles of learning(Orams, 1994; Christensen, 1994;Parker, 1996). Learning theoriesdescribe the process of howlearning occurs and are linked tothe latter three objectivesmentioned above. For example, ifa change in behaviour (objective4. above) is the educationalobjective of an exhibit, plannersmust be aware that this will not

automatically result from theprovision of facts about theanimal. To facilitate a change invisitors' behaviour, elements inaddition to the cognitive domainmust be targeted, usingtechniques such as positive ornegative reinforcement (e.g.,financial rewards for recycling;fines for littering) or an appeal tothe affective domain (e.g., thefeel-good adopt-an-animalprograms offered at many zoos)(Orams, 1994).

Learning styles relate to howparticular individuals respond tothe information that theyencounter, with differentindividuals having different'preferences' for one or morelearning styles (Christensen,1994; Parker, 1996). Christensen(1994) suggests information beprovided in a variety of ways,such as using auditory modality(e.g., talks, music), visualmodality (e.g., pictures, videos,graphics) and kinaestheticmodality (e.g., touch tables). Byproviding interpretive messagesin a combination of styles, thenumber of visitors having accessto information in their preferredlearning style will be increased.

Thus, there is a need to incor-porate a range of techniques intointerpretive programs so as toaccess a range of learning styles.Numerous books and articleshave been written providingcomprehensive recommendationsregarding how to increase theeducational effectiveness ofanimal exhibits. However, thereis often a lack of empiricalresearch cited as support for therecommendations given. Forinstance, Simpkin (1994) assertsthat signs are the least effectivemethod of education in a zoosetting, and that keeper talks andguided tours can providesubstantial educational benefits.Likewise, Whitehead (1984)declares that personal contact isthe most effective way of reachingvisitors. While these suggestionsappear to be based on theauthors' own experiences, neitherauthor cites evidence of empirical

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 9, No. 1, MAY '98 15

Critics of captive animal displays suggest that therehas been little research undertaken to ascertain theeffectiveness of education and interpretation withincaptive animal environments.

research as the basis for thesestatements.

Critics of captive animal displayssuggest that there has been littleresearch undertaken to ascertainthe effectiveness of education andinterpretation within captiveanimal environments (Sommer,1972; Jamieson, 1985). Much ofthe previous empirical researchrelevant to captive animal dis-plays has focused on the impactof exhibit design on visitors.These studies are largely con-cerned with visitor attitudestoward and/or satisfaction withthe exhibits, their enjoymentlevels and their on-site behaviour,rather than any examination ofvisitor learning, either short-term or long-term (Rhoads &Goldsworthy, 1979; Bitgood,Benefield, Patterson & Nabors,1986; Bitgood, 1987; Bitgood &Benefield, 1987; Maple &Finlay, 1987; Finlay, James &Maple, 1988; Shettel-Neuber,1988; Kidd, Kidd & Zasloff,1995). Research examininglearning within zoos has tendedto focus on assessing the effective-ness of formal education of schoolgroups, possibly because thisaudience is easier to identify,access and measure (Marshdoyle,Bowman & Mullins, 1982; Adams,Thomas, Lin & Weiser, 1989;Gutierrez de White & Jacobson,1994; Ford, 1995). Further,research into informal learninghas tended to use post-test designsonly to measure immediateimpacts of viewing exhibits (Wolf& Tymitz, 1979; Peart, 1984;Derwin & Piper, 1988).

A further gap within theliterature relates to the lack ofdiscussion as to whether otherattractions that exhibit animals,such as theme parks, are boundby or are achieving the sameeducational objectives.

Research objectives

This paper reports on a studyundertaken in Australia in 1996comparing informal education ata zoo exhibit (Western PlainsZoo's tiger exhibit) and at a

theme park displaying captiveanimals (Dreamworld's TigerIsland). The location and a moredetailed description of each ofthese two sites is presented inthe results section of the paper.The study sought to answer thefollowing question; to whatextent are attractions thatdisplay captive animals offeringvisitors an opportunity to learn,and how do visitors respond tothese opportunities?

The current paper will presentfindings in relation to thefollowing objectives;

1. to describe each exhibit inrelation to the interpretivetechniques used;

2. to document the range ofvisitors and 'visit experiences'

at each exhibit; and

3. to determine visitors' per-ceptions of what they learnedat the exhibit.

Methods and limitations

Data were collected from April toAugust 1996, using three methods;content analysis of primary andsecondary data; systematicobservations of visitors; andinterviews with visitors.Following is a description of eachof these methods as it relates tothe study objectives.

Tiger Island and Western PlainsZoo were visited on severaloccasions, during which timewritten material available tovisitors was collected, verbalmessages were recorded and therange of experiences open tovisitors was documented. Thisinformation allowed each exhibitto be described in relation to the

interpretive techniques used.with the information alsoanalysed to identify the styles oflearning catered for and therange of techniques present.

Systematic observations ofvisitors at each exhibit wereundertaken and involvedrecording visitor group charac-teristics, and a range of visitorbehaviours including length ofvisits, and activities such asreading interpretive materialand interactions with keepers.Semi-structured interviews wereconducted with a sample ofvisitors at each exhibit in order todetermine visitor groupcharacteristics and visitors'perceptions oflearning.

A systematic, stratified samplingtechnique was used in selecting

visitors for both observationand interviews, to ensure datawere collected at different timesof the day and week and inholiday and non-holidayperiods, and to reduce any biasfrom the researcher in theselection of individual visitorgroups for observation orinterview. Thus a level ofrepresentativeness was ob-tained, decreasing the probablesampling error (Babbie, 1989)and enabling some degree ofgeneralisations to be made tothe larger populations ofexhibit visitors. Altogether overa period of fourteen days, ninety-five groups were systematicallyobserved and seventy-four groupswere interviewed at Tiger Island,while at Western Plains Zoo,sixty-four groups were sys-tematically observed and sixty-two groups were interviewed.Group size ranged from one totwelve individuals at both sites.The response rate for interviews

16 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIESVo!. 9, No. 1, MAY'98

was 91% at Tiger Island and 98'70at Western Plains Zoo.

In order to classify the content ofcommunications, a number ofcategories were defined. Asmentioned earlier, the four maineducation objectives identifiedfrom the literature are anenjoyable experience; cognitivelearning; attitude change; andbehavioural change. As thelatter three objectives areconsistent with the literature onlearning theory, these were usedto develop three categories aimedat classifying whether com-munications related to thecognitive domain, the affectivedomain or the conservation /behaviour domain. Thesecategories formed the basis of thecontent analysis of the following:Tiger Island's and WesternPlains Zoo's interpretivemessages (written and verba\);visitors' questions to handlers/keepers and the handlers/keepers' answers; and visitors'responses to the semi-structuredinterview survey regarding whatthey perceived they had learnedat the exhibit.

In the results that follow, thecognitive domain is representedby the category Facts aboutTigers and includes interpretivemessages and visitor responsesdealing with tigers in general,such as how big tigers grow, andwhat tigers eat. The affectivedomain is broadly represented bythe category Feelings aboutTigers and includes communi-cations which are linked toemotional responses in visitorsand how they 'connect' with thesites' individual animals. Itincludes information such at thetigers' names, ages andrelationship to each other, andeach tiger's personality, favouritegames, toys and past-times. Thecategory Conservation representsinformation on conservationissues such as the number oftigers left in the world, why tigernumbers are declining, andsuggestions for behaviouralchange such as what visitorsshould do if they see tiger

products for sale or know anyoneusing them. Key words andthemes were used to determinethe classification of data amongthe three categories.

Clearly, the study design andmethods do not provide a truemeasure of behaviour change.Suggestions for how behaviourchange might be measured infuture research are provided atthe end of the paper. Also, due tologistics and resource con-straints, it was not possible toundertake a true objectivemeasure of learning using pre-and post-tests. The interviewstherefore used visitors' selfreported perceptions of what theylearned as a surrogate measureoflearning.

Results

This section firstly provides abrief description of each exhibit,and then outlines and discussesthe results with respect to eachobjective, presented in the formof a comparison of the two sites.

Tiger Island Dreamworld,The Gold Coast

Tiger Island is an interactivetiger exhibit, promoted as aunique attraction, one of only twosuch exhibits in the world(Dreamworld, 1995). It is locatedwithin the theme parkDreamworld, which is situated onthe Gold Coast, Queensland,Australia, a highly developed andpopular tourist destination forboth Australian and overseasvisitors. Dreamworld is aprivately owned, profit makingtourist attraction and was openedin December 1981, with TigerIsland opening in June 1995.Cost of admission to Dreamworldis $35 for adults and $21 forchildren. The park has anattendance of approximately onemillion visitors per year.

Tiger Island exhibits six Bengaltigers, including both white andgold tigers, in a 1600 squaremetre enclosure featuring athirteen square metre pool.

Throughout the day, a team ofeight handlers interact with thetigers, swimming, playing andrelaxing with them. Behind thevisitor viewing area is the BengalTeahouse which serves snacksand refreshments and providesseating that looks over TigerIsland from where visitors canhear and interact with handlers.

Western Plains Zoo . Dubbo

Western Plains Zoo is situatedapproximately five kilometresfrom the small inland city ofDUbbo, NSW, Australia. Dubbolies 400 kilometres northwest ofSydney, midway betweenMelbourne and Brisbane. TheWestern Plains Zoo has a worldclass reputation and is Dubbo'smost popular tourist attraction.The zoo, opened in 1977, isoperated by the Zoological Boardof NSW, and receives partialfunding from the NSW Govern-ment with additional financeraised through operations,sponsorship and donations.Admission in $14.95 for adults,and $7.50 for children.Attendance is approximately 250000 visi tors per year.

Western Plains Zoo is an openrange zoo, and displays morethan fifty species of animals.Visitors may drive, walk orbicycle around the zoo's sixkilometres of ringroad and tenkilometres of walking paths. Thezoo currently exhibits one whitemale Bengal tiger in anaturalistic enclosure.

Objective 1 Findings: Describethe Interpretive TechniquesUsed at Each Exhibit

As mentioned above, Tiger Islandand Western Plains Zoo werevisited on a number of occasionsduring which time, printedmaterial available to visitors wascollected and the range ofexperiences open to visitors wasdocumented. An analysis of thisinformation was then undertakento identify the styles of learningand type and range of inter-pretive techniques used by each

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!' 9, No. 1, MAY'98 17

exhibit, and to classify thecontent of interpretive messagesaccording to whether it related toFacts about Tigers (cognitivedomain); Feelings about Tigers(affective domain); or Conser-vation (behavioural change).

Each exhibit has a differentemphasis regarding the inter-pretive techniques used and theaccess visitors have to interpretation. Tiger Island isextremely resource intensive,relying heavily on its interactivenature. An analysis of theinterpretive techniques used atTiger Island indicates themajority of interpretivemessages at Tiger Island arepresented through handler talkswhich occur constantly through-out the day. During this time,one of the handlers uses amicrophone to talk to visitors,who are encouraged to askquestions, while they view theinteractions between handlersand tigers in the enclosure.Support for such talks and inter-action as 'an effective way ofeducating visitors was evident inthe literature (Simpkin, 1994;Andersen, 1992; Moscardo, 1996).

However, several othertechniques are also used. Visitorsmay read a number of freebrochures, a number of inter-pretive displays located at themain entrance to Tiger Island, ora souvenir book available forpurchase. Visitors may touchartefacts that are brought out byhandlers, and groups of up to fourvisitors may pay $250 to havetheir photo taken with a tiger,spending fifteen minutes pattingthe tiger and talking to itshandlers, as well as receiving aninformation kit. Visitors mayalso just watch the tigers, awayfrom the handler talk. Theavailability of these differentopportunities suggests thatmultiple styles of learning arebeing provided at Tiger Island(Christensen, 1994; Parker,1996), with visitors having accessto all interpretive elements atTiger Island every day, and atany time of the day.

In comparison, Western PlainsZoo is less resource intensive.The exhibit displays only onetiger, and while only one or twokeepers may be on duty at thetiger exhibit each day, thesekeepers are also responsible forseveral other exhibits and arerarely seen. Apart from the tigerenclosure, graphics and keepertalks are the main techniquesused to present interpretivemessages. A permanent inter-pretive sign and a smalltemporary sign with basicbiographical facts about the tigeron display are located at theenclosure. A ten minute keepertalk is given once a day at theexhibit during school holidaysand on weekends. Interactionsbetween the keepers and the tigeroccur only when keepers feed thetiger during the talks, withinteractions between keepers andvisitors only occurring duringquestion time after the talks.

The zoo also offers several otherinterpretive elements in relationto tigers which visitors mayaccess, such as a touch tabledisplaying various animalartefacts (operated by volunteerson an infrequent basis) and anumber of zoo tours (for anadditional fee). A guidebook ofWestern Plains Zoo is alsoavailable for purchase whichincludes approximately half apage related to tigers. While theliterature recommends presentinginformation in a variety of styles(Christensen, 1994; Parker,1996), the vast majority of zoovisitors have access to a verylimited range of learning styles,with visual learning thedominant style. Interpretivesignage and a single tiger usuallysleeping or reclining in arelatively large enclosure are theonly interpretive elements towhich all visitors have access. Onthe days when there are no talksgiven, the tiger exhibit is a static,naturalistic display, relying onthe use of graphics for inter-pretation. The additionalopportunities that enable visitorsto interact with volunteers orkeepers are limited (keeper talks

and touch table) or requireprearranging and additionalexpense (guided zoo tours).

To classify the content ofinterpretive messages, a contentanalysis was undertaken at eachsite. At Tiger Island, four writteninterpretive elements wereanalysed: the interpretive signs;free pamphlets; the photoinformation kit; and the souvenirbook. Figure 1 illustrates howinformation contained in eachwas distributed among the threecategories of Facts about Tigers(cognitive), Feelings about Tigers(affective) and Conservation(behavioural).

It was not possible to undertake asystematic analysis of thehandler talks. This is becausethere is not a set 'script' forhandler presentations, with thecontent varying significantlyaccording to which handler is onthe microphone, the level ofvisitor interaction and theactivity of the tigers. However,from listening to and recordingsome of the talks during the datacollection period, it is possible tosay that at various times duringthe day handlers providedinformation in each category,with distribution between eachcategory varying in relation to theactivity of the tigers. When thetigers are active, and especiallywhen they are in the water, thecontent of messages relatesmainly to interpretation of thebehaviour being observed byvisitors, which would therefore beclassified as Facts about Tigers.In comparison, when the tigersare less active, information isprovided by handlers in eachcategory, with information fairlyevenly distributed between thecategories of Facts about Tigersand Feelings about Tigers,however Conservation is still amuch smaller category.

An analysis of the interactionsbetween visitors and handlers(Table 1) illustrates that thecategory Feelings about Tigers isthe focus of most questions andanswers, although as can be seen

18 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY '98

60

50;;: 40"~ 300;; 20".. 10

0Interpretive Signs Free Brochures Photo Info Kit Souvenir Book

Interpretive Element

a Facts about Tigers Feelings about Tigers a Conservation

The analysis of the interpretive signs included both text and photos,whereas only the text of the souvenir book was analysed.

Figure 1: Distribution of interpretive message content Tiger Island(Source: Broad, 1996 Content Analysis Data.)

(Source: Broad, 1996 Visitor Research Observation Data)

Table 1: Content of Interactions Between Visitors and Handlers TigerIsland.

Total 474 100% 565 100%* -highest content1 _ while observing 95 visitor groups during the 2-week on-site data collection

period

Content of No. of QuestionsQuestions/Answers Askedl

No. of Answers% Given1 ~

24% 169 30t;C74%* 363' 649l:*2% 31 6~

the souvenir book contains thirty-two pages. However, it doesappear that at Tiger Island, thereis a great deal of emphasis on theaffective domain, with thecategory Feelings about Tigersreceiving the greatest amount ofcoverage. In comparison, atWestern Plains Zoo the emphasisis on the cognitive domain, withthe category Feelings aboutTigers receiving the least amountof coverage. This difference inthe extent of cognitive versusaffective message content may bedue to a number of factors.Interpretive content at the zoomay be mainly cognitive becauseof the zoo's reliance on graphicsand static displays for inter-pretation. The tiger exhibit atthe zoo displays different tigersat various times, therefore it isdifficult for permanent signage tocontain information specific toindividual animals and othercontent of an affective nature. In

115350'

8

Facts about TigersFeelings about TigersConservation

the sites. All interpretiveelements at Tiger Island providesome information from each ofthe three categories Facts aboutTigers (cognitive domain),Feelings about Tigers (affectivedomain), and Conservation(behavioural change). Incomparison, at Western PlainsZoo the emphasis is on thecognitive domain. The categoryFeelings about Tigers receives theleast amount of coverage and isonly found on a small temporarysign listing several biographicalfacts relating to the tiger ondisplay.

It was not possible to determinewhat perc"entage of overallcoverage each category receives,due to vastly different amounts ofinformation being provided byeach interpretive element. Forexample, at Tiger Island the freebrochures are only the equivalentof a few pages in length, whereas

The contrast between Figures 1and 2 illustrates how themessage content varies between

from the numbers of answers inrelation to the number ofquestions, handlers may expandtheir answers to include morethan one category.

At Western Plains Zoo a contentanalysis was undertaken on thesigns and transcripts of twotaped keeper talks. While thehandler talks at Tiger Islandcould not undergo a conten tanalysis due to the variation intheir content, the keeper talks atthe zoo were able to be analysedas the talks are a standardlength of ten minutes, andkeepers stated that they haveguidelines on what information tocover. Figure 2 shows how theinformation for each element wasdistributed among the threecategories Facts about Tigers;Feelings about Tigers; andConservation.

An accurate content analysiscould not be undertaken on theopera tion of the touch tablebecause of the variation thatresults from visitor interaction.However, from witnessing theoperation of the touch table, thefocus appears to be onConservation and the use ofanimal products, along withFacts about Tigers.

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY'98 19

lOO ......--------------0080C

70i 60'"'0 50C 40t3 30il: 20

10o

Permanent InterpretiveSign

Temporary Sign

Interpretive Element

Keeper Talks

D Conservation'I a Facts about Tigers Feelings about Tigers----_..__. -.----~_._- ._._-----_._-----

Figure 2: Distribution of interpretive message content - Western Plains Zoo(Source: Broad, 1996 Content Analysis Data)

addition, the presence of sixtigers at Tiger Island means thatthere is more opportunity toappeal to the affective domain byproviding information on eachindividual tiger.

While both sites include factualinformation in the third category,Conservation, they lack messagecontent specifically related tobehavioural change. At TigerIsland there are suggestions forbehavioural change provided,however they are very limitedand only given during handlertalks. At Western Plains Zoothere is no evidence of attemptsto provide visitors withsuggestions on how they mightmodify their behaviour to helpensure the survival of tigers.According to one staff member,keepers are apparently supposedto inform visitors that they maysponsor zoo animals or becomeinvolved as volunteers, howeverthis information "seems to getleft out ... because it sounds likethe big hit at the end". The lackof suggestions regardingbehavioural change supportsLinton Craig's (1988) assertionthat this is one area where zoointerpretation is lacking.

Objective 2 Findings:Document the range ofvisitorsand 'visit experiences' at eachexhibit

A simple visitor profile developed

from interview and observationdata for each exhibit indicates avisitor profile that is surprisinglysimilar between the two sites.The sample consisted of slightlymore females than males with themost common group size beingthree adults without children. Apartial explanation for part ofthis profile is that females tend tofrequent tourist attractions andgenerally have a higher rate ofparticipation than males (Veal,1994). It should also be notedthat the deliberate exclusion ofschool groups from the visitorsample has skewed the results,and that the typical visitordescription would look different ifthis visitor segment was included,especially for the zoo, which has alarge number of school groupsvisiting.

The major difference between thesites' visitors relates to wherethey reside. At Tiger Island, mostvisitors were classified as local,whereas at Western Plains Zoo,most visitors resided withinNSW, outside the local region. Apossible explanation for thisdifference could be that TigerIsland is located in a moredensely populated region than isWestern Plains Zoo.

The visit experiences at eachexhibit are vastly different, due tothe different opportunitiesprovided, although somesimilarities can also be noted. At

first glance, the reading patternsof visitors at each exhibit appearquite different. At Tiger Island, asmall percentage (14%) of visitorgroups read any graphics,compared with half of the visitorsat Western Plains Zoo. However,when zoo visitors attended a talk,the percentage (11%) readinggraphics became similar to thoseat Tiger Island. This suggeststhat not only do exhibitsexperience competition from otherexhibits or attractions (Bitgood etaI., 1986; Bitgood, 1987; Bitgood& Benefield, 1987) but exhibitelements, such as graphics,compete with other elements,such as handler talks.

Differences were also identified inregards to visitors' interactionswith handlers and keepers. AtTiger Island 22% of observed andinterviewed groups interactedwith the keepers by askingquestions, with 22 questionsbeing the maximum number ofquestions asked by anyonegroup. Of observed visitors, 79%listened to interactions betweenother visitors and handlers. Incomparison, at Western PlainsZoo, of the observed and inter-viewed groups who attended akeeper talk, only 14% interactedwith keepers by asking questions,with two questions the maximumnumber asked by anyone group.N one of the observed visitorslistened to interactions betweenother visitors and keepers.


Visitors generally spend longer atTiger Island than visitors spendat the zoo's tiger exhibit. Theaverage time observed visitorsspent at Tiger Island was 16minutes, compared with only 6minutes for the zoo. Similarly,almost half (48%) of interviewedvisitors at Tiger Island reportedspending more than thirtyminutes at the exhibit, comparedwith a very small minority (10%)of zoo visitors, with all thesevisitors having attended a keepertalk.

The data collected in this studysupports the notion that TigerIsland has a much greaterholding power than the WesternPlains Zoo's tiger exhibit. Whileit is acknowledged that the tigerexhibit is only one of manyanimal exhibits at the zoo andthat this fact alone couldcontribute to the results (i.e.visitor fatigue), Tiger Island is ofcourse only one of manyattractions at Dreamworld, alsodemanding the time, attentionand energy of the visitor. Ittherefore seems reasonable toconclude that the nature of theTiger Island exhibit, theinterpretation and the overallexperience together result in agreater holding power overvisitors than the tiger exhibit,interpretation and experience ofWestern Plains Zoo.

This finding is consistent with theliterature that states that activeanimals (Bitgood et al., 1986;Bitgood, 1987; Bitgood &Benefield, 1987) increase holdingpower. Although the tigers atTiger Island have varying levelsof activity, they are consistentlymore active than the tiger atWestern Plains Zoo. In addition,the results support Andersen's(1992) claim that both activeanimals and keepers interactingwith animals attract and hold theattention of visitors. This isfurther supported by the resultsof research at Tiger Island, wherethe average length of timevisitors spent observing theexhibit was calculated andexamined according to whether

the tigers were active or inactive.When tigers were classified asactive, the average time observedvisitors spent observing theexhibit was nineteen minutes, incomparison to only ten minuteswhen the tigers were inactive.Interview data showed a similarpattern.

Objective Findings 3:Determine Visitors'Perceptions ofWhat TheyLearned at Each Exhibit

Given the vast differencesbetween the exhibits and theexperiences offered at the twosites, a surprising finding wasthat the percentage of visitorswho claimed to have learnedsomething (76% at Tiger Island,77% at the zoo), and the type ofinformation they learned as aresult of their visit (44% learnedFacts about Tigers at both sites)were almost identical at each site.However, upon closer exami-nation of the findings, the qualityof the responses provided ininterviews with visitors regardingoverall learning were quitedifferent. In response to aquestion asking visitors to giveexamples of what they hadlearned, half (51%) of theresponses from visitors atWestern Plains Zoo werestraightforward facts: "his nameis Bona"; "tigers are endangered";and "he's recovering from anoperation on his leg". However,at Tiger Island, only one fifth ofresponses were facts: "they don'thave sweat glands"; "they'reendangered"; and "these oneswere captive born". The majorityof responses at Tiger Island wereinstead generalisations andexplanations of the facts: "Ilearned their weights, names";"why they have ~tripes"; and"what the spots on the back oftheir ears are for". This seems tosuggest that as a result of thedifferences in the two exhibits,visitors to Tiger Island learnedmore detailed and contextualinformation, and were more likelyto process the facts acquired intotheir wider understanding oftigers and wildlife in genera!.

The quantity of the responses atthe two sites also differedsubstantially. At Tiger Island,while most responses in relationto learning about the plight oftigers were short answers of onlya few words such as"endangered", Itthreatened frompoaching", or "shortened lifespanin the wild", there were alsomany detailed answers such as:"there are several subspecies thatare already extinct like theCaspian and the Javan"; llmanyspecies are diminishing becauseof man, some people still use tigerproducts, for things likeaphrodisiacs and if you see tigerproducts for sale in shops, youshould alert the authorities"; and"there are no white tigers in thewild today, now they only exist incaptivity". In comparison, atWestern Plains Zoo all responseswere very brief, being of only afew words, such as "they'reendangered".

Thus, the differences in learningopportunities at the two sitesresulted in differences in thequality and quantity of cognitive,affective and behaviouralinformation that could be recalledby the visitors. The higherquality and quantity of learningat Tiger Island is consistent withthe literature (Christensen, 1994;Parker, 1996) and previousresearch into informal exhibits(Wolf and Tymitz, 1979; Peart,1984; Derwin and Piper, 1988)which suggests that informationpresented in a variety of styles,using a number of differenttechniques, provides a moreeffective interpretive experience.At Tiger Island, almost allvisitors aecessed more than oneinterpretive element, with 95%spending some time listening tohandlers in addition to watchingthe enclosure. In comparison, atWestern Plains Zoo's tigerexhibit, only half of the visitorsattending the basic exhibit (i.e.they did not attend a keeper talk)supplemented viewing of theenclosure by reading the maininterpretive sign.

At both sites, the majority of


visitors indicated that they didnot learn anything in relation tothe site's role in tigerconservation. In addition, forthose reporting that they didlearn something, the majority ofresponses were incorrect, withcaptive breeding the mostcommon response. (Education isthe main role each site has inregards to tiger conservation.) Ageneral perception that zoosbreed captive animals forconservation may have ledvisitors to infer this role to thetiger exhibit, and also to TigerIsland. This perception issubsequently supported by TigerIsland handlers who frequentlydiscuss future plans for breedingduring their talks.

The majority of visitors at bothsites indicated that what theyhad learned had come fromhandler/keeper talks. This isconsistent with claims in theliterature that keeper talks andinteraction are effectiveeducational techniques(Moscardo, 1996; Andersen, 1992;Simpkin, 1994). However, atWestern Plains Zoo thepermanent interpretive sign wasalso attributed as the source ofone third of the stated learning.The literature (Whitehead, 1984;Nimon, 1990) suggests thatsignage needs to be eye-catchingto attract attention. WesternPlains Zoo appears to haveachieved this goal at the tigerexhibit. The main permanentinterpretive display includes agraphical depiction of the declinein tiger numbers, a map showingthe range of tigers today ascompared with 100 years ago,some facts on tigers, and a life-size painting of a tiger. Thedisplay is looked at by almost halfof all visitor groups (however seefollowing section for discussion ofsome problems), compared toprevious research that found onlyone quarter of visitors readsignage (Greene, 1988).

None of the factual responsesprovided by visitors at either sitewere inconsistent with theinterpretive messages presented

at that site. However, there wereinconsistencies between the twosites, and between individualkeepers at Western Plains Zoo.For instance, at Tiger Island allhandlers were heard informingvisitors that there areapproximately four hundredwhite tigers in the world today.At Western Plains Zoo, onekeeper informed visitors therewere one hundred white tigersremaining, while on another day,a different keeper said there wereone thousand white tigers. Whilefew visitors are likely to attendmore than one keeper talk at thezoo, several visitors at the zoowere overheard discussing theirprevious visit to Tiger Island, andmaking comparisons with the zoo.As identified in the literature, theobj ectives of interpretivetechniques should includedeveloping accurate perceptionsand maximising thecomprehension of interpretivemessages. The World ZooConservation Strategy (lUDZG -The World Zoo Organisation andThe Captive Breeding SpecialistGroup of IUCN/SSC, 1993:10)also recommends promoting aglobal perspective. Therefore, ifvisitors hear conflictingstatements at each site, theimpact of interpretive messagesmay be reduced, as visitorsbecome unsure of the truth.

Additional observations

Some interesting observationswere made during the datacollection period, which althoughnot directly related to the studyobjectives, are worth discussing.

At Western Plains Zoo, manyvisitors to the tiger exhibitdemonstrated a desire to talkwith a 'perceived knowledgeableperson', in this case, theresearcher. On numerousoccasions during the datacollection period, the researcherwas approached at the tigerexhibit and asked questions.Visitors seemed to believe thatthe researcher, who was holding aclipboard and probably appearedto be staying at the exhibit for a

longer time than most visitors,was 'connected' to the zoo in somemanner, and could answerquestions. In a number ofinstances, the researcher spokewith the visitors and answeredquestions without giving anyexplanation as to her role; onother occasions she explainedthat she was not employed by thezoo and was in fact studyingvisitor behaviour. In bothsituations however, visitorsappeared pleased to discuss thetiger and the exhibit, acceptinganswers from the researcherwithout hesitation. This seems tosupport the findings of Wolf andTymitz (1979) that visitors have astrong preference for interactionswith keepers or guides.

Many visitor comments were alsooverheard at both exhibits thatdemonstrate a number ofinteresting points. Visitors'expectations regarding the levelof tiger activity appeared to bequite different at each site. AtTiger Island, if the tigers werenot playing with the handlers,swimming, or chasing each other,visitors were often overheardmaking comments suggestingthey were disappointed that thetigers were not 'doing anything'.This was despite the fact thatsome of the tigers may have beenwalking around or groomingthemselves. In comparison, atthe zoo's tiger exhibit, visitorswere often overheard makingcomments indicating they weresatisfied when the tiger had onlylifted its head, yawned or swishedits tail.

In addition, informal observationssupport Ford's (1995) assertionthat many visitors appearedunable to perceive a naturalsituation simply from watchingthe exhibit. At the zoo, manyvisitors were overheard com-menting that the tiger wasprobably lonely and needed a'friend'. Visitors could notperceive from viewing the exhibitof a single tiger, that the speciesis inclined to be solitary. Whenone visitor was informed of thisfact by the researcher, the visitor

22 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 9, No. 1, MAY '98

DLearning Opportunity

"

Figure 3: Variables influencing the learning process(Source: Broad, 1996)

,r

B

Visitor Variables- motivations, expectations,attitudes, previousknowledge or experience

education. These suggest thatacademics and professionalswithin the field believe thatcaptive wildlife exhibits shouldbe providing opportunities forenjoyable learning experiences,cognitive learning, thedevelopment of positive attitudestowards wildlife, and asubsequent commitment to long-term conservation behaviour.The latter three were able to beused as benchmarks to examine aspecific zoo and a theme park.

As Figure 3 illustrates, theexamination of learningopportunities and visitors'perceptions of what they learneddemonstrates that there is arelationship between theinterpretive techniques used (Box- A), the visit experience (Box -C), and the extent of learningachieved (Box - D), including thequantity and quality of learningthat occurs. These resultssupport previous research claimsin the literature (Derwin & Piper,1988; Peart, 1984; Nimon, 1990;

Interpretive Variables- objectives, interpretivetechniques employed

"c

A

nationality of observed visitors inthis study was recorded only asCaucasian or non Caucasian.However, of those visitorscategorised as non Caucasian(14% of all observed visitors), allwere believed to be of Asianorigin. The length of time thatvisitors of Asian origin spentobserving the exhibit wascalculated, with ten minutes theaverage time. This comparedwith an average of sixteenminutes for Caucasian visitors.Possible explanations for thisdifference could be that visitors ofAsian origin have difficultyunderstanding the talks due tolanguage barriers, or that theyare on an organised tour withlimited time at Dreamworld.

Recommendations for futureresearch

Recommendations andconclusions

Visit Experience-length of stay, visitor's useof interpretive elements

A review of the literatureidentified four objectives of zoo

At Western Plains Zoo, a numberof additional inaccurate per-ceptions were overheard relatingto the interpretive graphics. Themain interpretive sign includes alife-size painting of a tiger, with alife-size painting of a domesticcat underneath it, presumably todemonstrate the difference insize. However there is no labelindicating that the smaller cat isa domestic cat. As a result manychildren, and also some adults,perceived the cat to be a babytiger, with comments overheardthat "the baby tiger looks justlike a cat". In addition, manyvisitors were heard to questionwhat sort of tiger was on exhibit.The site map indicates that aBengal tiger is on exhibit. At theexhibit, the main interpretivesign says "Bengal Tiger" andincludes the life-size painting of agold and black tiger. The actualtiger on exhibit is a white Bengaltiger. A temporary sign indicatesthat this is "Bona, the white tigerfrom Ragunan Zoo, Indonesian.Comments overheard includedthat the tiger was not a BengalTiger, but was instead "analbino", "a white tiger"; tl aoIndonesian tiger"; lIa snow tiger";and "a Siberian tiger",

indicated that she understoodthis, and then immediatelycommented "but it would still benice for him if he had somecompany". Other commentsoverheard at the zoo when thetiger was asleep included that thetiger was "1azytl and "boredll AtTiger Island, the presence ofhandlers inside the exhibit withthe tigers generated manycomments relating to how thissituation was possible. Theseincluded that "the tigers musthave just been fed, otherwise thekeepers wouldn't be safe" and"the tigers are obviously overfedto keep them lazy so that theydon't attack the men".

Discussions at Tiger Islandduring the research periodrevealed that staff believedvisitors of Asian origin stayed forshorter times at the exhibit thanthe average visitor. The


Andersen, 1992; Moscardo, 1996;Simpkin, 1994) which state thatinterpretation programs thatoffer variety and interaction (Box- A) are more enjoyable, whichleads to increased visitorattention (Box - C), and are moreeffective, which leads to increasedvisitor learning (Box - D). Ofcourse, there is still much to belearned about these relationships.For example, what are the effectson learning of placement and sizeof interpretive signage; theattributes of the keeper, includingkeeper training; and the contentand style of keeper talks (Box -A)?However, not all learning can beexplained by differences ininterpretation. Despite thedifferences between the twoattractions examined in thisstudy, and the differences in theoverall experience and learningopportunities offered by each site,some aspects of visitor learningwere surprisingly similar at thetwo sites. As illustrated in Figure3, visitor variables (B) may havean impact on the visit experience(C) and subsequent learningopportunities (D). This researchfocused on the interpretationvariables (A) and not on thedifferences between visitors thatmay exist and that may haveinfluenced learning. Furtherresearch is needed that examinesvisitor characteristics (B) such asthe size of the visitor group, andthe frequency of visits to this andsimilar attractions. Comparisonsbetween sub populations such asold and young visitors; males andfemales; and differences betweennationalities would also bevaluable.

Further research should also beundertaken into visitor profilesexamining psychographic infor-mation such as motivations,expectations, and conservationattitudes and behaviour, as wellas visitors' previous experiencewith wildlife tourism. Are bothtourist attractions preaching tothe converted? Are visitors tozoos and/or theme parks in astate of mind that encourages

learning to occur? Furtherresearch into visitor profiles mayconfirm the visitor similaritiesidentified in this study, or mayidentify differences between eachsite's visitors that were not founddue to the interview andobservation methods employed inthis study, which did not attemptto measure psychographicinformation, relying instead onbasic demographic information.

Perhaps most importantly,longitudinal research is needed inorder to employ a pre- and posttest study design to measureactual learning, to compare short-term versus long-term learning,and to measure whether learningtranslates in to behaviouralchange, either short or long term.An important element withinsuch a study would be to examinethe relative effects of cognitiveversus affective learning onbehavioural change. In otherwords, are tourist attractions,and specifically captive animalexhibits, changing the behaviourof visitors in ways that contributeto long-term environmentalconservation?

Management implications

The results of this research havea number of practicalmanagement implications fortourist attractions. Staff need tobe made aware of the fact thatvisitors who attend talks do notnecessarily read interpretivesignage. If management wantvisi tors to be exposed toconservation messages, they musttherefore repeat any writtenconservation messages duringtalks. In addition, graphics needto clearly state basic concepts andideas in order to avoid anypossible errors in interpretation.Talks were found to result in allvisitors attending them statingthat they had learned something,therefore consideration shouldalso be given to increasing thefrequency of talks oralternatively, using volunteers asl rov ing interpreters', if visitornumbers do not warrant thescheduling of additional

structured talks.

At both sites, the majority ofvisitors indicated that they hadnot learned anything about thesite's role in tiger conservation,with the majority of those whoindicated that they did learnsomething providing an incorrectresponse. If tourist attractionssee this as an important publicrelations or marketing tool, thenmanagement needs to ensure thatclear messages relating to theirconservation role arecommunicated to visitors. Thisincludes the provision of allinterpretive messages in a varietyof languages, so as to overcomeany language barriers.

Conclusion

The purpose of this research wasto investigate how attractionsthat display captive animals offervisitors an opportunity to learn,and to examine how visitorsrespond to these opportunities.The findings contribute to agreater understanding of therelationship between the use ofinterpretive techniques, the visitexperience, and learning. Theyalso highlight the need for furtherresearch on the role of touristattractions in educating visitorsand contributing to environ-mental conservation.


ReferencesAdams, C.E., Thomas, J.K., Lin, P., & Weiser, B. (1989). Promoting

wildlife education through exhibits. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 26(2), 133-139.

Andersen, L.L. (1992). Informative animal shows. Journal of theInternational Association ofZoo Educators, 25, 1-4.

Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research. Belmont,California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Bitgood, S.C. (1987). Understanding the public's attitudes towardand behaviour in museums, parks, and zoos. Technical ReportNo 86-60. Psychology Institute, Jacksonville State University.

Bitgood, S., & Benefield, A. (1987). Visitor behaviour: A comparisonacrosS zoos. Technical Report No. 86-20. Psychology Institute,Jacksonville State University.

Bitgood, S., Benefield, A., Patterson, D., & Nabors, A. (1986).Understanding your visitors: Ten factors that influence theirbehaviour. Technical Report No. 87-30. Psychology Institute,Jacksonville State University.

Broad, S. (1996). Wildlife in captivity: A case study of the learningopportunities of two tiger exhibits. Unpublished honours thesis.University of Newcastle.

Chiszar, D., Murphy, J.B., & Iliff, W. (1990). For zoos. ThePsychological Record, 40, 3-13.

Christensen, J. (1994). Capture your entire audience. Legacy,July/August, 17-19.

DeLapa, M.D. (1994). Interpreting hope, selling conservation: Zoos,aquariums, and environmental education. Museum News, 73(2),48-49.

Derwin, C.W., & Piper, J.B. (1988). The Mrican Rock Kopje Exhibitevaluation and interpretive elements. Environment andBehaviour, 20(4), 435-45l.

Donahoe, S. (1986). Developing the conservation ethic in zoo visitors.International Association of Zoo Educators Journal, 15(43), 43-45.

Dreamworld (1995). Dreamworld press release - Dreamworld's TigerIsland: A wildly different experience. Coomera.

Finlay, T., James, L.R., & Maple, T.L. (1988). People's perceptions ofanimals the influence of zoo environment. Environment andBehaviour, 20(4), 508-528.

Ford, J.C. (1995). Informalleaming in zoos: How do visitors perceivecaptive animals. Proceedings from the Interpretation AustraliaAssociation Annual Conference, November 1995. Canberra.

Greene, M. (1988). Stalking the average American zoogoer. MuseumNews, 67, 50-5l.

Gutierrez de White, T., & Jacobson, S.K. (1994). Evaluatingconservation education programs at a South American zoo.Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 25(4), 18-22.

Hamilton, G. (1993). Zoo and education - It's time. Journal of theInternational Association of Zoo Educators. Proceedings of the11th IZE Congress, Taronga Zoo, 1992,29, 13-14.

Hancocks, D. (1995). Lions and tigers and bears, Oh No! In B.G.Norton, M Hutchins, E.F. Stevens, & T.L. Maple (Eds.), Ethicsof the Ark: Zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation (pp31-37). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hunt, G. (1993). Environmental education and zoos. Journal of theInternational Association of Zoo Educators. Proceedings of the11th IZE Congress, Taronga Zoo, 1992. 29,74-77.

IUDZG - The World Zoo Organisation and The Captive BreedingSpecialist Group of IUCN/SSC, (1993). The World Zooconservation strategy: The role of the zoos and aquaria of theworld in global conservation. Brookfield, Ill.: ChicagoZoological Society.


Jamieson, D. (1985). Against zoos. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defence ofanimals (pp 108-117). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Jamieson, D. (1995). Zoos revisited. In B.G. Norton, M Hutchins, E.F.Stevens, & T.L. Maple (Eds.), Ethics of the Ark: Zoos, animalwelfare, and wildlife conservation (pp 52-65). Washington:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Kidd, A.H., Kidd, RM., & Zasloff, RL. (1995). Developmental factorsin positive attitudes toward zoo animals. Psychological Reports,76,71-81.

Linton Craig, T. (1988). Changing the way people think. MuseumNews, 67, 52-54.

Maple, T. (1995). Towards a responsible zoo agenda. In B.G. Norton,M. Hutchins, E.F. Stevens, & T.L. Maple (Eds.), Ethics of theArk: Zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation (pp 21-30).Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Maple, T.L., & Finlay, T.W. (1987). Post-occupancy evaluation in thezoo. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 18,5-18.

Marshdoyle, E., Bowman, L., & Mullins, G.W. (1982). Evaluatingprogrammatic use of a community resource: The zoo. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 13(4), 19-26.

Martin, B., & Mason, S. (1993). The future for attractions: Meetingthe needs of the new consumers. Tourism Management,February, 34-40.

Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. AnnalsofTourism Research, 23(2), 376-397.

Nimon, A.J. (1990). Making the zoo a positive educationalexperience. Bulletin ofZoo Management, 28, 17-20.

Ollason, RJ. (1993). Getting the message across. Journal of theInternational Association of Zoo Educators. Proceedings of the11th IZE Congress, Taronga Zoo, 1992, 29, 186.

Orams, M.B. (1994). Creating effective interpretation for managinginteraction between tourists and wildlife. Australian Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 10,21-34.

Parker, M. (1996). Conservation through interaction: Can zooseducate people more effectively? In Proceedings of the ARAZPAConference 1996. Healesville, Victoria (forthcoming).

Peart, B. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitudes,and behavior. Curator, 27(2), 220-235.

Rhoads, D.L., & Goldsworthy, R.J. (1979). The effects of zooenvironments on public attitudes toward endangered wildlife.International Journal ofEnvironmental Studies, 13,283-287.

Roggenbuck, J.W., Loomis, RJ., & Dagostino, J. (1990). The learningbenefits ofleisure. Journal ofLeisure Research, 22(2), 112-124.

Serrell, B. (1981). The role of zoological parks and aquariums inenvironmental education. Journal ofEnvironmental Education,12(3), 41-42.

Shettel-Neuber, J. (1988). Second-and third-generation zoo exhibitsA comparison of visitor, staff and animal responses.Environment and Behaviour, 20(4), 452-473.

Simpkin, L. (1994). Interpretation - Starting with the tourist.Interpretation attached to heritage. Papers presented at theThird Annual Conference of Interpretation AustraliaAssociation Inc. 5th - 7th December 1994. Albury: CharlesSturt University, 184-188.

Sommer, R (1972). What do we learn at the zoo. Natural History,81(26/27),26-85.

Veal, A.J. (1994). Leisure policy and planning. Harlow: Longman.Wheater, RJ. (1984). The zoo in the Community. Biologist, 31(2),

112-114.Whitehead, M. (1984). Zoos are for learning too: Education and

interpretation. Biologist, 31(2), 115-117.


WiIliamson, L. (1987). Towards an environmental education policy.Bulletin ofZoo Management, 25, 62-65.

Wilson, B.R. (1987). The role of zoos in the development of aconservation ethic. Bulletin ofZoo Management, 25, 77-79.

Wolf, R.L., & Tymitz, B.L. (1979). Do giraffes ever sit? A study ofvisitor perceptions at the National Zoological Park, SmithsonianInstitution. Washington: Smithsonian Institute.


E:\9908078\990807812.tifimage 1 of 14image 2 of 14image 3 of 14image 4 of 14image 5 of 14image 6 of 14image 7 of 14image 8 of 14image 9 of 14image 10 of 14image 11 of 14image 12 of 14image 13 of 14image 14 of 14

Documents

Captive Animals and Interpretation