ZOO VISITOR SATISFACTION WITH ANIMAL VISIBILITY
By
Ashley S Couch

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies - Master of Science
2013

ABSTRACT
ZOO VISITOR SATISFACTION WITH ANIMAL VISIBILITY
By
Ashley S Couch
Millions of people visit zoos on an annual basis but we know very little about zoo visitor
satisfaction with animal visibility; a lack of animal visibility may negatively impact a zoo visit.
This study attempts to determine the overall satisfaction of zoo visitors, their satisfaction with
animal visibility, and how important they consider animal welfare and animal visibility. Also,
this study examines how often visitors expect the animals to be visible. Finally, wildlife tourists
and their satisfaction with animal visibility in the wild is compared to a zoo setting. These
questions will be analyzed between an array of demographic groups treated as the dependent
variables (men vs. women, zoo members vs. non members, age, income, presence of children,
weekday vs. weekend visitors, education level) or other visitor features (if they feel the zoo is a
good value, feel animals need a hiding place out of view of the zoo visitors, visit frequency).
Nearly 500 zoo visitors at two zoos completed an exit survey. T-tests were used to find
statistical significance. The results show that most zoo visitors are very satisfied with their zoo
experience but there were some statistically significant differences found. Overall, the value of
the zoo, zoo membership, and visit frequency were found to have significant differences in some
of the survey questions. Wildlife tourists were found to have higher expectations of visibility in a
captive setting. The results differed between the two zoos which could be due to the features of
each zoo, unique visitor experiences, or even outside factors such as mood. Overall, zoo
administrators can learn more about visitor satisfaction and expectations about their visit from
this type of research to ensure a positive experience for their visitors and welfare for the animals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my utmost gratitude to the people who have helped and supported
me throughout my master’s thesis. I am grateful to my advisor Dr. Linda Kalof for her
continuous support, guidance, encouragement, and advice throughout my graduate career. I
would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Christine Vogt and Dr. Cynthia Bennett. I
would not have been successful in this project without their invaluable assistance with writing,
designing, and finishing this project. I would have been lost without the support of my
committee members. Thank you!
A special thanks goes out to both the Detroit and Potter Park Zoo staff for allowing me to
collect data and being so friendly, helpful, and truly interested in my data collection. I could not
have done this project without the nearly 500 zoo visitors who took the time out of their day to
help.
Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends for their continued love, support and
encouragement throughout this process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vii
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1
Problem statement ...................................................................................................1
Purpose ....................................................................................................................2
Justification .............................................................................................................2
Delimitations ...........................................................................................................3
Limitations ..............................................................................................................4
Assumptions ............................................................................................................5
Hypotheses ..............................................................................................................5
Definition of terms ..................................................................................................6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................8
Zoo Visitors ............................................................................................................8
Satisfaction ..................................................................................................9
Visibility ...................................................................................................11
Demographics ...........................................................................................14
Reasons for visiting zoos ..........................................................................14
Importance of children ..............................................................................16
Visitor preferences ....................................................................................17
Wildlife Tourists ...................................................................................................17
Satisfaction ................................................................................................18
Visibility ...................................................................................................18
Expectations of animal visibility ..............................................................21
Distance to the animals .............................................................................22
Uncontrollable factors ...............................................................................23
Welfare ......................................................................................................24
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS ...........................................................................................................26
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS .............................................................................................................32
Survey numbers ........................................................................................32
Combined findings ....................................................................................33
Detroit Zoo results .....................................................................................36

iv

Potter Park Zoo results ...............................................................................43
Wildlife tourism ........................................................................................50
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................52
General discussion ................................................................................................52
Combined findings ................................................................................................55
Detroit Zoo ............................................................................................................59
Potter Park Zoo .....................................................................................................62
Wildlife tourism ....................................................................................................64
Comparison ...........................................................................................................65
FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................68
CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................70
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................73
LITERATURE CITED .....................................................................................................77

v

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 - Table of previous research on zoo visitor satisfaction ...............................................11
TABLE 2 - Previous findings concerning animal visibility in zoos ..............................................13
TABLE 3 - Previous findings concerning animal visibility in wildlife tourism settings ..............21
TABLE 4 - Survey dates ................................................................................................................33
TABLE 5 - Raw numbers of demographic variables for each zoo separately and totals ..............35
TABLE 6 - Raw numbers of survey responses to likert scale questions at the Detroit Zoo .........37
TABLE 7 - Results of a t-test of visitor satisfaction with their Detroit zoo experience ...............39
TABLE 8 - T-test of the importance of animal visibility to Detroit Zoo visitors ..........................40
TABLE 9 - Results of a t-test of visitor satisfaction with animal visibility at the Detroit Zoo .....41
TABLE 10 - T-test of the importance of animal welfare to Detroit Zoo visitors ..........................42
TABLE 11 - T-test results of the percentage of the time Detroit Zoo visitors expect animals to be
visible .............................................................................................................................................43
TABLE 12 - Raw numbers of survey responses to likert scale questions at the Potter Park Zoo .....
........................................................................................................................................................44
TABLE 13 - Results of a t-test of Potter Park Zoo visitor satisfaction with their overall zoo
experience ......................................................................................................................................46
TABLE 14 - T-test of the importance of animal visibility to Potter Park Zoo visitors .................47
TABLE 15 - Results of a t-test of visitor satisfaction with animal visibility at the Potter Park Zoo
........................................................................................................................................................48
TABLE 16 - T-test of the importance of animal welfare to Potter Park Zoo visitors ...................49
TABLE 17 - T-test results of the percentage of the time Potter Park Zoo visitors expect animals
to be visible ....................................................................................................................................50
TABLE 18 - Paired t-test with wildlife tourists .............................................................................51
TABLE 19 - Comparison chart of significant differences found at Detroit and Potter Park Zoos....
........................................................................................................................................................65

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 - A frequency distribution of the percentage of time the visitors expected the animals
to be visible at the Detroit Zoo. (For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other
figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this thesis) ...........................................37
FIGURE 2 – Animals that visitors to the Detroit Zoo most wanted to see ...................................38
FIGURE 3 - A frequency distribution of the percentage of time the visitors expected the animals
to be visible at the Potter Park Zoo ................................................................................................44
FIGURE 4 – Animals that visitors to the Potter Park Zoo most wanted to see .............................45

vii

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
AZA – Association of Zoos and Aquariums
IRB – Institutional Review Board

viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Millions of people visit zoos on an annual basis but we know very little about how
satisfied visitors are with their zoo experience. In particular, there is a paucity of research
concerning visitor satisfaction with the degree to which animals are visible in zoos. The goal of
my research is to learn more about visitors’ expectations and satisfaction concerning visibility of
zoo animals. I also will attempt to learn if visitors who have participated in wildlife tourism are
more satisfied with visibility of animals in the wild or in the zoo.

Problem Statement
The focus of this research project is to learn more about zoo visitor satisfaction with
animal visibility in zoos and compare their satisfaction with animal wildlife tourism experiences
to their to zoo experiences. It has been hypothesized that a lack of animal visibility may
negatively impact a zoo experience and the desire to return. Specifically, the goal was to answer
the following research questions:
1. Are there statistically significant differences in overall satisfaction, importance of
animal visibility, and importance of animal welfare between different demographic
groups (men vs. women; zoo members vs. non members; age groups; income
categories; children or no children; visitor category; weekday vs. weekend visitors;
education level) or other visitor features (if they feel the zoo is a good value, feel
animals need a hiding place, how often they visit the zoo in a year)?
2. How often do visitors expect the animals to be visible and are there differences
between the different demographic or visitor features mentioned above?

1

3. Are zoo visitors who have been wildlife tourists more satisfied with animal visibility
in their previous wildlife tourism experiences or the zoo?

Purpose
There is a lack of knowledge on zoo visitor satisfaction with the visibility of the animals
in the zoo. Additional information on zoo visitor satisfaction will help managers determine how
to increase the visitors’ satisfaction and intent to return. Determining expectations for animal
visibility will give zoos an appropriate goal for overall animal visibility. Finally, the comparison
of wildlife tourism to zoo visitors can help inform both subjects on visitor satisfaction with
animal visibility.

Justification
Zoos in the United States attract over 175 million people per year (aza.org, 2011) and
zoos are dependent on these visitors to financially support the zoo (Cain and Merritt, 1998).
Therefore, visitor satisfaction and return visits are important for the financial viability of the zoo
and the zoos ability to accomplish their mission statements. Zoo mission statements typically cite
animal conservation and education as their main goals (Turley, 2001), but visitors typically cite
entertainment and social reasons for visiting zoos (Tomas et al., 2003). A lack of entertainment,
including being able to see the animals, may decrease a zoo visitors’ desire to return to the zoo.
Zoo visitors emotionally connect to the animals they see and a lack of animals can lead to
dissatisfaction. In some situations, visitors may enjoy searching for the animals in exhibits
(Davey, 2006) but may not even visit exhibits that are further away from the front of the zoo or
off the main path (Davey, 2007). Satisfaction with animal visibility may be more important for

2

certain species or to specific visitors. The few published studies that examined zoo visitor
satisfaction focused primarily on services that the zoo offers such as concession, bathrooms, and
interactive family activities. There are no studies that focus on visitor satisfaction with the
visibility of the animals at the zoo, producing a gap in the knowledge of zoo visitor satisfaction
that has an effect on the visitors, the animals, and the managers of the zoo. Zoos must compete
with other social activities for the limited funds of a consumer so a clear understanding of visitor
expectations of and satisfaction with animal visibility can be valuable to zoo managers.
Zoos and wildlife tourism activities attract visitors with the expectation that visitors will
see animals. With this commonality, the research in one area can be informative to the other in
certain circumstances. For example, wildlife tourism can learn from the zoo environment
concerning the impact of a visit on conservation learning and behavioral outcomes (Ballantyne et
al., 2007). Satisfaction with animal visibility has been documented in wildlife tourism studies.
There are studies that document high overall satisfaction with low animal visibility and others
that document complaints about low numbers of animals and not being close enough to them.
There are no studies that compare animal visibility and satisfaction between a wildlife tourism
situation and a zoo setting.

Delimitations
There are many characteristics in this study that delimit the scope. The scope of the topic
of visitor satisfaction with animal visibility in zoos was determined through a literature review
on zoo visitors. A survey of zoo visitors was determined to be the most effective method to
investigate this gap rather than other methods such as focus groups. The scope of the survey was
focused on the questions necessary to perform statistical analyses on the acquired data. The

3

participants are only adults, at two zoos, during the study period in June 2012. These
delimitations were chosen due to practical and ethical concerns. The questions were focused on
satisfaction with animal visibility and the related area of how often the visitor feels the animal
should be visible. The demographic features were limited to variables that were found in
previous studies to be relevant in terms of visitor satisfaction with zoo experiences. All of these
factors delimit the scope of this research project.

Limitations
The following study cannot be generalized to all zoo situations. First, the study period is
in June. Therefore, the study cannot be generalized to other seasons or one entire zoo in general.
Second, it is limited to two zoos in Michigan. There may be regional differences within the
United States and this study would not be able to be generalized to international zoos. Third,
with the lack of children as participants, the study cannot be generalized to younger visitors.
The study is also limited by other factors that may influence participation. The survey is
an exit survey and some guests may not be willing to take the time to fill out a survey after their
zoo experience. Similarly, the additional exit at the Detroit Zoo for members only will exclude
those visitors who leave through this exit from my potential survey participants. The weather
may reduce participation by decreasing normal visitation patterns or changing the speed at which
the visitor leaves the zoo. The weather may also reduce the visibility of the animals more during
the summer months. Lastly, the short study period could also influence the potential sample size.
This study is also limited by the statistical method chosen. A parametric t-test was chosen
as the statistical method due to ease of understanding and interpreting the results. This
parametric statistic makes the assumption that the distribution of the data set is normal. This

4

assumption may be broken due to the positively skewed distribution of the data collected in this
survey. Therefore, non parametric statistical tests may be more appropriate in some of the
analyses presented. Also, with the large number of t-tests performed, there are bound to be some
statistically significant differences. The potential for broken assumptions in the statistical
analysis chosen limits the scope of this study.

Assumptions
The study was based upon the following assumptions:
1. Each zoo experience is unique to each individual.
2. Each zoo experience can be affected by outside factors such as social groups and
weather.
3. Satisfaction is based upon the visitors’ expectations of their experience.
4. Visitors answered questions honestly.

Hypotheses
This study was designed to test the following null hypotheses:
1. There are no statistically significant differences on dependent variables of overall
satisfaction with animal visibility, or importance of animal visibility or animal
welfare between the following independent variables: gender, members or non
members, children vs. no children, feel the animals need a hiding place or not, age,
feel the zoo is a good value or not, education, income, and visitor type.
2. There will be no statistically significant differences on the dependent variable of
amount of time visitors expect the animals to be visible between the following

5

independent variables: gender, members or non members, children vs. no children,
feel the animals need a hiding place or not, feel the zoo is a good value or not, and if
they feel welfare is important or not.
3. There will be no statistically significant differences in the dependent variable of
satisfaction with animal visibility compared between wildlife tourists and zoo
visitors. Additionally, there will be no statistically significant differences when using
the amount of time animals were visible in the wild compared to percent desired in
zoo settings.

Definition of Terms
Enrichment: Providing stimulating and challenging environments, objects, and activities for
animals (AZA.org, 2011).
Exhibit/enclosure: The area where an animal is kept in a zoo. First generation exhibits are
characterized by small cages and smooth walls. Second generation exhibits are surrounded by
moats. Third generation exhibits contain natural vegetation and proper species groups (ShettelNeuber, 1988).
Ex situ conservation: Conservation outside the animal’s natural habitat (i.e., at the zoo).
In situ conservation: Conservation in the animal’s natural location.
Satisfaction: “an emotional state of mind after exposure to the opportunity. It recognizes that
satisfaction may be influenced by the social-psychological state a tourist brings to a site (mood,
disposition, needs) and by extraneous events (for example climate, social group interactions) that
are beyond the provider’s control, as well as by the program or site attributes that suppliers can
control” (Baker and Crompton, 2000 page 788).

6

STATA: A statistical software program.
Visibility: The ability to see an animal in a zoo exhibit.
Wildlife tourism: “an area of overlap between nature-based tourism, ecotourism, consumptive
use of wildlife, rural tourism, and human relations with animals” (Reynolds and Braithwaite,
2001 page 32).
Zoo: A type of museum that holds a collection of wild animals for display and conservation
(Mason, 2000).

Zoos are incredibly popular in the United States. Yet, there is a lack of published research
on these visitors. The focus of this research project is to learn more about zoo visitor satisfaction
with animal visibility in zoos and compare their satisfaction with animal wildlife tourism
experiences to their to zoo experiences. The following chapter presents a literature review on
previous research involving both zoo visitors and wildlife tourists.

7

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review focuses on zoo visitors before moving to wildlife tourists. The areas
discussed concerning zoo visitors are: general information, satisfaction, visibility, demographics,
reasons for visiting zoos, importance of children, and visitor preferences. For wildlife tourism,
satisfaction, visibility, expectations of visibility, distance to the animals, uncontrollable factors,
and welfare are discussed in the literature review.

Zoo Visitors
Literature on zoo visitors can be found in a variety of subjects including visitor studies,
animal studies, tourism, and museum studies. The literature presented here includes the
following topics: satisfaction, animal visibility, reasons for visiting, importance of children, and
visitor preferences. The literature review will then shift to wildlife tourism which is organized
into the following topics: satisfaction, animal visibility, expectations of visibility, distance to the
animals, uncontrollable factors and welfare.
Over time, zoos have evolved from menageries to living museums to conservation
centers (Rabb, 1994; Hutchins and Smith, 2003; Knowles, 2003). The wide use of the word
conservation in current zoo mission statements is evidence of this evolution (Muraoka, 2008).
Further, world zoos contribute over $350 million to in situ and ex situ conservation efforts yearly
(Gusset and Dick, 2010). In addition to conservation of endangered species, modern zoos also
have economic, educational and entertainment benefits (Beri et al., 2010).
Decreasing government funds are forcing zoos to rely more on admission revenues and
other services such as gift shops and concessions (Cain and Meritt, 1998). Depending on the size
of the zoo, concessions can now make up 22-32% of zoo revenues (Cain and Meritt, 1998). Zoos

8

are expensive to maintain and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) believes that no
zoo earns more revenue than their operating expenses (Turley, 1998). In fact, U.S. zoos alone
spend over $1billion on operating expenses every year (Primack 2002 as cited in Miller et al.,
2004). However, zoos may not be charging high enough prices as willingness to pay studies
indicate people would pay more for their family outing to the zoo, particularly for additional
experiences such as touching or feeding animals or offering special behind the scenes tours (Cain
and Meritt, 1998; Beri et al., 2010; PGAV Destinations, 2011). According to annual attendance
records, more people visit American zoos than National Football League, National Basketball
Association, and Major League Baseball games combined (Tribe, 2004; Muraoka, 2008). It is a
surprise then, that with these massive attendance records, there are still many areas concerning
zoo visitors that need additional research and solid evidence. For example, it is still debated if
zoos actually increase the conservation knowledge and actions of their visitors (Smith et al.,
2008). In addition, we do not fully understand the educational impact of zoos or the visitors’
intent on being educated in this type of free learning situation. Finally, there is very little
information on visitor satisfaction with the actual animals at the zoo and little to no knowledge
about visitor concern for the welfare of these animals. We know more about visitor satisfaction
with service aspects of zoos such as concessions and restroom facilities than we do about the
visitor’s perceptions of the animals.

Satisfaction: The few studies that have focused on satisfaction with zoo experiences focus on
service aspects such as maps of the zoo and restroom facilities. One study found that the most
important factors to visitors were clean restrooms, appropriately sized exhibits with enrichment
social activities for the group of visitors, and good views of the animals (Ryan and Saward,

9

2004). Thus, the animals were only mentioned in two out of the four top importance factors to
zoo visitors in this study. Another survey found that visitors, who were surveyed before entering
the zoo, had highest expectations for the animals, information on the animals, cleanliness, and
general information (Tomas et al., 2003). Again, animals appeared in half of the items on the
importance list. While services consistently rank high in importance, a correlation of .64 between
visitor satisfaction and services provided (Tomas et al., 2002) showed that there are many
independent factors that influence visitor satisfaction (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Benkenstein
et al., 2003). However, behavioral intentions were also correlated with satisfaction and services
provided (Tomas et al., 2002) and the quality of these services and satisfaction (Baker and
Crompton, 2000). High importance low performance charts were typically used in these studies
to determine those aspects a zoo can improve on to increase visitor satisfaction with their zoo
experience (Wagner, 1989).
Visitors, when asked to explain their experiences with animals in captivity, noted positive
zoo experiences consisting of interacting with animals, learning, seeing a variety of animals,
good conditions and services, and memorable emotional experience (Woods, 2002). While these
studies contribute to our knowledge of zoo visitors, overall, satisfaction with zoo experiences
remains an area full of opportunities for future research. There are very few reports on how to
increase visitor satisfaction with zoo experiences. Researchers have found that increased
interactions, such as keeper talks and public animal feedings, may increase visitor satisfaction
(Ryan and Saward, 2010). The following table presents previous research on satisfaction in zoos
and provides a brief overview of information on those factors zoo visitors document as the most
satisfying.

10

Table 1: Table of previous research on zoo visitor satisfaction.
Authors
Year Journal
Top areas of satisfaction
Tomas,
2002 Managing
Wildlife enjoyment, family togetherness,
Scott, and
Leisure
companionship, escape, wildlife appreciation
Crompton
Woods
2002 Anthrozoos
Interactions with animals, learning, variety of
animals, good care/conditions of animals, facilities
and service
Benkenstein, 2003 Journal of
Lush and clean gardens, pleasing and informative
Yavas, and
Hospitality and displays, beautiful countryside, detailed
Forberger
Leisure
information on the animals, adequate sitting
Marketing
areas/benches
Tomas,
2003 Journal of Park Overall cleanliness and accessibility, wildlife
Crompton,
and Recreation information, wildlife, general information, staffing
and Scott
Administration
Ryan and
2004 Journal of
Place for bringing a family, animal enclosures
Saward
Sustainable
replicate native habitats, visitors have viewing
Tourism
platforms, family ticket for admission, zoo is
important for conserving wildlife
Hughes,
2005 Journal of
Educational emphasis, viewing rare animals,
Newsome
Ecotourism
enjoyed viewing wildlife, family/informative
and Macbeth
guide, seeing animal’s in natural habitat
Nowaki
2009 International
Plans/Maps, catering, directions/signs, information
Journal of
boards/panels, souvenirs
Tourism
Research
Sickler,
2009 Leisure Studies Meeting and hanging out with friends, group
Fraser
experiences, introspectively thinking about Earth
and human impacts, not crowded, becoming better
friends with those at the zoo

Visibility: Visitors may be mislead by nature documentaries that focus on exciting aspects of
animal lives, not the less exciting resting and sleeping periods often observed in the zoo (van
Linge, 1992). Visitors may be disappointed when they find the animals resting or out of sight
rather than performing exciting behaviors such as feeding or playing. Increased visibility of the
animals may increase satisfaction. Kuhar et al. (2010) believe that poor visibility may negatively
impact the experience of zoo visitors and therefore their decisions to return to the zoo or tell
others of their positive experience. Due to this concern, Disney’s Animal Kingdom arbitrarily

11

chose a goal of 80% visibility of their animals throughout the day. However, the researchers at
Disney admit this is an arbitrary percentage because there is no research on visitor satisfaction
with animal visibility to determine the appropriate percentage of time visitors feel animals
should be visible. Chester Zoo in the UK undertook a large visibility study and found that some
of their most popular and high profile publicized species had very low visibility. For example,
the Asiatic Lion was only visible for 4% of the time and the spectacled bear only 13%. These
numbers were only slightly higher when researchers counted partial views as well, 11% and 13%
for the lion and bear, respectively. Also, they found that the lion-tailed macaques and mandrills
were never viewed in their outdoor exhibit area during their study time period (Spruce and
Esson, 2005 as cited in Moss et al., 2010). Zoos are undertaking these types of visibility studies
to determine the visibility of their animals, but there are no documented studies that determine
how often the visitors expect the animals to be visible or their satisfaction with animal visibility.
Visitors spend more time looking at exhibits where the animals are visible (Nakamichi,
2007). In addition to visibility, visitors spend more time looking at (and were more committed to
viewing) free-range monkeys than monkeys in cages (Price et al., 1994). Other attributes, such as
active animals, keystone species, dangerous animals, proximity to the visitors, and presence of
animal infants, also increase visitor time at individual exhibits (Bitgood et al, 1988; Patterson
and Bitgood, 1989; Fernandez et al., 2009; Moss and Esson, 2010). Because people want to have
interaction with the animals, (Woods, 2002), interactive exhibit features such as being able to
crawl through tunnels or playing tug of war with the animals positively impact visitor stay time
(Bitgood et al, 1988; Patterson and Bitgood, 1989; Sandifer, 2003). Interpretive presentations
have been shown to increase information seeking and visitor viewing time by 336% compared to
a traditional exhibit where a chain link fence could have inhibited visibility (Povey and Rios,

12

2002). High visitor density at exhibits has been shown to decrease the time spent viewing the
animals (Marcellini and Jenssen, 1988). A lack of animal visibility at the zoo can leave a
negative impact on a visitor and negatively influence their future decisions to go to the zoo and
tell their friends and family about the zoo. The following table presents a variety of studies that
have documented some ideas on animal visibility in zoos.

Table 2: Previous findings concerning animal visibility in zoos.
Author
Bitgood,
Patterson,
and
Benefield
Andereck
and
Caldwell
Povey and
Rios

Year
1988

Journal
Environment
and Behavior

Findings on animal visibility
Longer viewing times were documented with easier
animal visibility. Also, visitors were more likely to stop
when the animals were close.

1994

Visitors were very satisfied with number, variety of
animals, activity level, and ability to see animals.

Woods

2002

Journal of
Travel
Research
Journal of
Interpretation
Research
Anthrozoos

Ryan and
Saward
Davey

2004

2002

2006

Nakamichi 2007
Zwinkels
2009
et al.
Kuhar et
2010
al.

Moss,
2010
Esson, and
Bazley

Sustainable
Tourism
Applied
Animal
Behaviour
Science
Anthrozoos
Visitor
Studies
Zoo Biology

Zoo Biology

A cat out of the exhibit accompanied by a staff member
increased viewing by 336% compared to the same cat
behind a fence in the exhibit
Visitors cited interactions with animals and large
variety of animals in their top 3of positive animal
experiences
Good views of the animals was in the top 5 importance
factors
More visitors stopped at exhibits when animals were
present. Visitors spent time looking for animals in
natural exhibits.
Time spent at exhibit increased with animal visibility
Stay time at exhibits decreased during high visitor
density periods which decreased exhibit visibility
Hypothesized that poor animal visibility negatively
impacts a zoo visitor experience and documented ways
to increase visibility. A goal of 80% visibility
arbitrarily chosen.
Found visibility numbers of 4% and 11% on most
publicized and popular animals

13

Demographics: Zoos attract a greater diversity of visitors than other types of museums (PGAV
Destinations, 2011). Zoo visitors tend to have a higher educational and socioeconomic status
than non-visitors (Andereck and Caldwell, 1994; Mason, 2000). There are more female than
males and more adults than children among those who visit zoos (Saayman and Slabbert, 2004;
Kutska, 2009; Ross and Gillespie, 2009). The most common visiting group type is the family
group with children (Saayman and Slabbert, 2004; Clayton et al., 2009; Ross and Gillespie,
2009). It is ordinary to find that visitors to zoos and aquariums are already more concerned with
the environment and conservation issues than the general public (Adelman et al., 2000; Dierking
et al., 2004). Previous zoo studies have documented demographics as an overview of the sample
population but studies have not compared demographic factors to determine if there are
differences in segments of zoo visitors (i.e. gender, age ranges).

Reasons for visiting zoos: Zoos typically cite animal conservation and education as their main
goals (Turley, 2001), but visitors typically cite entertainment reasons for visiting zoos (Tomas et
al., 2003). The primary reason people visit zoos are social aspects, such as a family outing.
Family togetherness consistently outweighs viewing wildlife, conservation, and education
motives (Tomas et al., 2003). In addition, social experiences were also found to be more
satisfying than cognitive (gaining information and understanding), introspective (reflecting on
experiences and emotional connections), and object experiences (seeing “the real thing”)
(Pekarik et al., 1999).
While social experiences are the major motivation for visiting zoos, there are many other
reasons as well (Morgan and Hodgkinson, 1999). Falk (2006) identified five types of museum
visitors based on their main motivations. They classified them as explorers, facilitators,

14

professional/hobbyists, spiritual pilgrims, and experience seekers. Falk et al. (2008) surveyed
zoo visitors and found that 55% of zoo visitors have one clear distinctive motivation for visiting
the zoo, the most popular being explorers and facilitators. Explorers are motivated by
entertainment, while facilitators enjoy seeing their loved ones enjoy the activity.
Professionals/hobbyists are interested in the zoo because of their own interests such as
photography, while experience seekers go to the zoo for the “been there, done that” aspect.
Finally, spiritual pilgrims, who are the smallest group, see the zoo as an escape from daily life.
Sickler and Fraser (2009), using different methodology from Falk, found four types of zoo
visitors that correlated with the five previously defined. Perspective A enjoys the opportunity for
a family social experience the most. Perspective B is very similar to A but was more focused on
the learning of their children. Perspective C enjoyed seeing the animals and the emotional
connection with them. Perspective D focused on social experiences with friends rather than
family (Sickler and Fraser, 2009). Comparing the motivations of these different perspectives
with the five types of museum explorers defined by Falk, we can see that A corresponds to
explorers, B is similar to facilitators, C corresponds to spiritual pilgrims and D is comparable to
experience seekers. While social benefits are consistently rated the highest motivator, zoos have
difficulty impacting the totality of group social experiences as there may be outside factors such
as family arguments and bad weather. Differing visitor types has not been utilized in research but
can provide valuable information on visitor satisfaction depending on their reasons for visiting.
In addition to researching why people visit zoos, it is equally important to research why
people choose not to visit zoos (Davey, 2007). The majority of non zoo visitors said the reason
they did not visit the zoo was because they could not be accompanied by a child (Turley, 1998,
2001; PGAV Destinations, 2011). Other cited reasons for not visiting zoos were other options for

15

entertainment and concerns about animal welfare (Turley, 2001). Previous experiences at zoos
and other wildlife attractions can deter zoo visitation. People who were asked to document their
best and worst wildlife experiences in an open ended survey noted poor conditions of captive
animals, bad service and other factors such as a personal dislike of the animals as the most
negative experiences (Woods, 2002).

Importance of children: Not having children can deter people from visiting the zoo. For families
with children, adult females typically initiate zoo visits (Turley, 2001). Their children can
influence recreational decisions merely by their presence or by actively taking part in decisionmaking discussions. Although the impact of children on tourism decision making is not entirely
clear, they may have a great influence on small scale family vacation decisions (Thornton et al.,
1997). While at the zoo or vacation location, the satisfaction of children may be more important
to the parents than their own satisfaction (Thornton et al., 1997; Turley, 2001). One study noted
that adults were observed asking their children’s opinions as they filled out a survey on their zoo
visit (Ryan and Saward, 2010). In addition to impacting the decision to visit zoos, children also
impact the actual zoo visit. Children can lead the pace of the group and patterns throughout the
zoo (Tomas et al., 2003) which may lead to the reason why groups with children tend to spend
less time at exhibits (Marcellini and Jenssen, 1988), interacting with signage (Ross and
Gillespie, 2009) and less time at each exhibit than solo and older visitors. Even though the pace
may be faster with children, one study found that 80% of the children who were asked if the
animals had positive, negative or indifferent impact answered positively (Olukole and Gbadebo,
2008), which could increase the children’s satisfaction and their motivation to visit the zoo in the
future.

16

Visitor preferences: Visitors prefer to view large vertebrates (Ward et al., 1998; Balmford,
2000), particularly mammals, which makes them the most popular animals in the zoo (Goulart et
al., 2009; Moss and Esson, 2010). Visitors were more connected to, and concerned for the
feelings and conservation of, gorillas than either okapi or snakes (Myers, 2004). Zoo visitors also
place greater value on endangered animals (Burghardt and Herzog, 1980). Comparing the same
species (Shettel-Neuber, 1988) and even the same animals (Nakamichi, 2007) in both natural and
non-naturalist exhibits, visitors stayed longer at the naturalistic exhibits and perceive animals
more positively in naturalistic exhibits (Fernandez et al., 2009). This held true in a Chinese zoo
where Davey (2006) found that visitors viewed natural exhibits longer than barren exhibits that
contained a hardened mud floor and no foliage. This disproved the hypothesis that natural
exhibits decreased visibility and therefore interest in the animals and perhaps gave some clout to
the idea that visitors enjoy searching for animals in natural exhibits. In fact, fewer people even
stop to view older moat style exhibits (Shettel-Neuber, 1988).
Zoos and wildlife tourism both focus on viewing exotic animals. These two subjects can
inform the other through research (Ballantyne et al., 2007). However, there have not been
published studies that compare animal visibility between a zoo setting and a wildlife tourism
setting. The focus of the literature review will now shift to satisfaction and visibility in wildlife
tourism settings.

Wildlife Tourists
Wildlife tourism occurs across the globe from safaris to whale watching to polar bears in
the arctic. These wildlife tourists travel long distances to see animals in their native locations.
This is drastically different from zoos, which are convenient locations where people can easily

17

go to see exotic animals without traveling across the globe. Wildlife tourism can be considered
“as an area of overlap between nature-based tourism, ecotourism, consumptive use of wildlife,
rural tourism, and human relations with animals” (Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001, page 32).
Experiences with animals in the wild are becoming more important to wildlife tourists (Curtin,
2005) and influence their levels of satisfaction (Patterson et al., 1998). The features that make a
wildlife experience more memorable include charisma of species, rarity, closeness, first
encounters, large numbers, and diversity of species seen (Curtin, 2010). It is logical to assume
that seeing the animals of interest would be incredibly important to wildlife tourists’ satisfaction.
However, research on satisfaction with animal visibility in wildlife tourism has conflicting
results with some studies finding visibility important while others find it has little impact on
satisfaction.

Satisfaction: The visibility of the animals cannot always be controlled. However, there are
factors within the control of the tourism operators that have been documented to increase
satisfaction. For example, smaller tour groups correlate with higher satisfaction (Schanzel and
McIntosh, 2000). A survey after a nocturnal animal tour in Australia found an inverse
relationship between the size of the group and satisfaction (Hughes et al., 2005). Other factors
that wildlife tourists find to be important are being in nature, close to wildlife, seeing a variety of
wildlife, and knowing the operators respected the wildlife (Pearce and Wilson, 1995).

Visibility: The main way for tourism locations to increase animal visibility is through
supplemental feedings (Orams, 2000), but this still does not guarantee animal sightings. Tourism
companies who provision wild animals with food in designated areas allows the animals to be in

18

their natural environment rather than enclosures but is not without problems. Baboon troops, in
one tourism location, do not come for provisioned food when their natural nuts and berries are
plentiful in the fall season (Knight, 2010). Also, to ensure shark sightings, it is becoming more
necessary to utilize bait (Topelko and Dearden, 2005). Provisioning food to wildlife comes with
a variety of negative consequences for the animals. These consequences include changes in
natural behaviors, unsustainable population levels leading to a dependence on provisioned food,
habituation to human contact, increased aggression, loss of teaching from one generation to the
next, changing migration patterns, home range, and predator prey relationships (Orams, 2002).
On the other hand, supplemental feeding can be positive as it has been used to increase the
population size of endangered species (Orams, 2002). Overall, providing food increases the
visibility of the animals but may also harm their populations for future tourism activities.
The animals themselves are an important factor in tourists’ satisfaction with their
experiences. Some factors related to the popularity of the animal for wildlife tourism are size,
danger, attractiveness, publicity, and rarity (Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001). Okello et al.
(2008) found that a lot of one species or mixed groups grazing, rare species, carnivores and
interactions attracted the most tourists. In the Cades Cove in the Great Smoky Mountains, survey
respondents’ expectations were met for the number of species seen, but they expected to see
more of the larger charismatic big game animals they came to see like black bears (Hammitt et
al, 1993). This survey found that, “not seeing a specific species can lead to less satisfied
participants” (Hammit et al., 1993 page 28). Seeing specific species is particularly prevalent
when thinking about the “big five” in African safaris as the presence of large mammals is the
main attraction of tourism in Kenya. However, a study at Amboseli National Park in Kenya
revealed tourists stopped to see the lion, cheetah, waterbuck, hippo, hyena, giraffe, and baboons

19

(Okello et al., 2008). Therefore, the “big five” were not actually the most sought after animals.
Animals that can harm humans seem to have an adventure seeking aspect for wildlife tourists
(eg. wolves, sharks, etc.) (Tremblay, 2002). For instance, one study found tourists who failed to
see crocodiles on a guided boat tour were dissatisfied (Tremblay, 2002). The following table
presents previous findings on animal visibility in wildlife tourism settings. These studies did not
focus on animal visibility, but the topic was mentioned in these studies.

20

Table 3: Previous findings concerning animal visibility in wildlife tourism settings.
Author
Year Journal
Findings on animal visibility
Hammit,
1993 Wildlife Society
Expectations were met for the number of species
Dulin,
Bulletin
seen but had higher expectations for the number of
Wells
larger charismatic animals such as black bears.
Pearce
1995 Journal of Travel Being close to wildlife and seeing a variety of
and
Research
wildlife are found to be important to wildlife
Wilson
tourists
Wright
1998 Wildlife Society
92% of respondents felt seeing wildlife was
Bulletin
important and 50% felt they would be dissatisfied
without seeing wildlife
Orams
2000 Tourism
Whale watching visitors still satisfied when no
Management
whales seen. The distance to the animals was not
found to be important.
Davenport 2002 Journal of Park
Viewing animals achieved a 4.63 average on a 5
et al.
and Recreation
point scale looking at visitor preferences
Admin
Orams
2002 Tourism
Feeding of wildlife increases close viewing of
Management
animals
Schanzel, 2002 Journal of
Visitors disappointed in closeness to animals.
McIntosh
Sustainable
Tourism
Cloke and 2005 Environment and Felt cheated if no animals seen.
Perkins
Planning D:
Society and Space
Leberman 2005 Journal of Park
Quality of animal viewing does not appear to play a
and
and Recreation
role in visitor experiences.
Holland
Administration
Montag et 2005 Human
Visitors described their experience as satisfying,
al.
Dimensions of
even when they did not see wolves
Wildlife
Lemelin
2006 Current Issues in Lack of polar bears and inability to approach
Tourism
documented as detracting from a tour experience.
Okello
2009 Journal of
85% surveyed documented wildlife as their primary
and
Sustainable
attraction to the area but overall satisfaction was
Yerian
Tourism
not dependent on this or number of species seen
Curtin
2010 Journal of
Closeness to animals documented as a most
Ecotourism
memorable feature of wildlife tourists
Knight
2010 Annals of
Baboons do not respond to supplemental food when
Tourism Research natural nuts and berries are plentiful.

Expectations of animal visibility: Marketing of tourism experiences can give tourists high
expectations. However, expectations can be very different than actual sightings. High

21

expectations can lead to low satisfaction if the experience does not live up to the lure of
marketing materials. In Africa, different types of media such as books and documentaries
influence what tourists expect on their safari experience (Okello and Yerian, 2009). Tourists
visiting Africa may believe that they will easily see the “big five” (lions, giraffes, elephants,
rhinoceros, and hippos) and are disappointed if they do not (Norton, 1996). One African park
visitor felt the park was “like a zoo” due to the large number of people (Norton, 1996 page 367).
Another example of misleading marking concerned penguin visitors who noted in their surveys
that the brochure gave customers higher expectations as to how close the people could get to the
animals (Schanzel and McIntosh, 2000).
The anticipation of potentially seeing animals in the wild is also important for wildlife
tourists (Curtin, 2010). In a national park, tourists were as interested in the possibility of seeing
wolves as they were actually seeing them (Montag et al., 1997). Even those who did not see
wolves described their experience as positive (Montag et al., 1997). Likewise, whale watching
passengers were still satisfied with their experience even when no whales were seen (Orams,
2000). However, those participants on cruises with “excellent” whale viewing did have higher
satisfaction levels than those cruises described as “okay” and “poor,” but the visitors on the
cruises with less visibility were still generally satisfied (Orams, 2000).

Distance to the animals: Close interactions with captive animals are an increasingly popular
activity at zoos and are also sought after in wildlife tourism. A survey of tourists found that they
felt their satisfaction stemmed from “the closer the better” particularly if they got closer than
they expected (Schanzel and McIntosh, 2000). In another study, it was found that, “Visitor
efforts to obtain a closer, longer, and better view of wildlife were important predictors of quality

22

viewing” (Hammit et al., 1993 page 28). This may vary with each tourism event because
proximity to whales was not important to overall satisfaction with a whale watching boat trip
(Orams, 2000). However, tourists forced to stay a large distance from the animals can lead to
dissatisfaction.

Uncontrollable Factors: Tourist attractions have little control over wild animals, the
environment, and if the tourists are actually going to be able to see the animals. Interviews in one
study determined that people who failed to see any cetaceans felt “cheated by nature” (Cloke and
Perkins, 2005 page 915). The inability to see animals is only one of many uncontrollable factors
that can decrease tourist satisfaction. Although whales and their behavior were the most
important aspect of satisfaction in a while watching cruise, participants also documented that
seasickness, number of whales, behavior of whales, length of cruise, boat characteristics, and
number of passengers all influenced satisfaction (Orams, 2000). Another uncontrollable factor
would be a decrease in the wild populations of the animal of interest. Tourist divers must have a
reasonable chance of seeing sharks and this is decreasing in many areas of the world due to
consumptive uses of sharks (Topelko and Dearden, 2005). Similarly, an arctic study found polar
bear tourists expected to see at least 20 bears which is 2-3 times the average number of bears
spotted on an outing (Lemelin, 2006). This lack of bear sightings and inability to approach the
bears was noted by survey respondents as detracting from their experience (Lemelin, 2006).
Finally, a survey in Denali National Park found that 92% of respondents felt that seeing wildlife
was important and half felt that they would be dissatisfied without seeing wildlife (Miller and
Wright, 1998 cited by Wright, 1998).

23

Welfare: Positive welfare of the animals being viewed can also affect the satisfaction of wildlife
tourists. A study of a variety of elephant camps in Thailand showed that the visitors were most
satisfied in the camps where the elephants were treated the best, even though elephant riding was
not provided at this camp which was the most important factor in satisfaction at all of the other
camps (Kontogeorgopoulous, 2009). The lack of barriers in wildlife tourism also increases
welfare and visitor satisfaction. To reduce disturbance to a colony of endangered penguins,
tourists observe the animals through dug out trenches so they are less noticeable to the animals
(Schanzel and McIntosh, 2000). Also, tourists preferred seeing moose in free ranging situations
rather than zoos (Brandin, 1999). A lack of barriers, even with captive animals, increases the
sense of being in the wild (Hughes et al., 2005) thus increasing overall satisfaction.
Exotic animals in zoos are regulated under the Animal Welfare Act in the United States.
To a lesser extent, there are laws to protect animals in wildlife tourism locations. Many marine
mammal watching cruises are regulated and have rules such as required permits, limits to the
number of boats and people in the water with the animals, and limits to how close the boats and
swimmers may come to the animals. However, these regulations are often disregarded as tour
operators attempt to give the customers a satisfying experience and closer views of the animals
(Cloke and Perkins, 2005).
Tourism is one of the largest industries in the world and keeping tourists satisfied is
important to tour operators and their finances. But the literature indicates that there is no clear
consensus on the importance of animal visibility in wildlife tourism.
Zoo visitors and wildlife tourists are both drawn to seeing animals. While there are
similarities in their preferences on animal features, there is little research comparing satisfaction
levels between zoo visitors and wildlife tourists. In general, this study focuses more on zoo

24

visitors and touches briefly on wildlife tourists. It is the purpose of this study to help fill the
research gaps in visitor satisfaction in zoos and the comparison between zoo visitors and wildlife
tourists.

25

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
There are five zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) located
in Michigan (aza.org, 2011). These zoos all have different exhibit styles, location within the
state, and size. These are important factors in this study because more natural exhibits may
impede animal visibility and larger zoos may have room for bigger species and a greater variety
of species. Larger zoos take longer to visit and perhaps more tiring for family outings. Finally,
different locations in the state may have more competition for family leisure time and visitors
may have different expectations due to these factors. Two locations in Michigan were selected:
the Potter Park Zoo was selected due to the location near the Michigan State University campus
and the Detroit Zoo was selected due to previous work done at the zoo by the researcher. These
zoos were also chosen due to differences between them. The Detroit Zoo is an urban zoo located
in Royal Oak, Michigan, just outside of Detroit. It is accredited by the AZA and has an annual
visitation of over 1 million visitors. It is a large zoo located on 125 acres. The Detroit Zoo is
home to over 1,500 animals of 260 species. The Potter Park Zoo is much smaller located in
Lansing, Michigan on only 58 acres. It is also accredited by the AZA and hosts over 500 animals
of 160 species and annual attendance records top 150,000 visitors. These differences between the
Detroit Zoo and Potter Park Zoo will provide information on two different types of zoos that
have the distinguishing features of size, animals in each zoo, and location within the state.
Exit surveys were given to zoo visitors to determine satisfaction with the visibility of zoo
animals. The questions on the survey were based on previous research and which questions
would benefit the research questions and hypotheses. The visitors were asked to rate their overall
experience to separate the visitors into those who felt they had a negative experience to compare
them to those who felt they had a positive experience. The question concerning why the visitors

26

came to the zoo was included so that visitors could be separated into different categories as
defined in previous research. The visitors were also asked if they felt the animals should have a
place to hide out of view of zoo visitors. This question was important to determine if visitors
could still be satisfied with their zoo experience even if they could not see the animals. Wildlife
tourism questions were included to compare animal experiences in a natural setting compared to
a zoo. The demographics were chosen based on previous research. Children were included to
determine if children affect the adults’ experience. The zip code was included to be able to
classify visitors as in county or out of county for the Potter Park Zoo due to different prices for
these groups. Income was also important to determine if those with a lower income have higher
expectations. The comments were included to be helpful to the zoo and to allow the visitors to
express any concerns that were not covered in the survey.
Data were collected from June 11 to June 24, 2012 during the operating hours of each
zoo. At the Detroit Zoo, data collection started two hours after opening at 11am to the closing
time at 5pm and one hour after opening at the Potter Park Zoo, 10am to the 6pm closing time.
The times were chosen according to the approximate amount of time a visitor would need to visit
each zoo based on the size of the zoo. The dates were chosen because most schools in Michigan
will be out for summer break which would eliminate many large school groups. Also, with
school out for the summer, families will be looking for activities to do with their children. These
weeks were also chosen as typical days at the zoo in the summer. Days were alternated so
research was collected one day of the week at each zoo. With the alternating, there was no two
days in a row spent at the same zoo which was designed to account for changes in weather
patterns. The total number of survey days for each zoo was two weekend days (both one

27

Saturday and one Sunday) and five week days (one day each: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday).
The researcher distributed surveys at the main exit of each zoo. The Potter Park Zoo has
only one main exit and the researcher was positioned inside the zoo at this main exit. The Detroit
Zoo has two exits; the main exit is located at the front of the zoo where visitors enter and
purchase tickets. The second exit is a special entrance for members of the zoo that is open
seasonally but non members may also exit at this location. The researcher collected data outside
the gates at the main exit of the Detroit Zoo, which means that some Detroit Zoo visitors were
lost out of the potential survey participants. However, there were many zoo members who left
through the main exit. Any visitor who exited the zoo before or after the times designated for
data collection were not included in this study. Additionally, visitors who were leaving the zoo
with the intent to return by getting a hand stamp to reenter the zoo were not asked to participate
in the survey. These visitors were expecting to return to the zoo so it was assumed that the
visitors were not finished with their visit. If these visitors did not return to the zoo or left through
the alternative exit at the Detroit Zoo, then they visitors were not included in the study. Any
adults that were part of a large coordinated group (school, day care, summer camp etc.) and
acting as a chaperone were also not invited to participate in the survey. The researcher did not
want to interrupt these groups due to the large number of students to each chaperone.
The researcher introduced herself at the beginning of the contact and explained to the
exiting visitors that the study was for a master’s thesis at Michigan State University. All
participants were at least 18 years of age. The first person/group to leave the zoo was approached
and asked to participate in the IRB approved survey of approximately 20 short questions that
would take 3-5 minutes to complete (See appendix 1). There was an attempt to collect 12 surveys

28

per hour, one survey every 5 minutes. This method allowed the maximum number of respondents
to participate in the survey. If a respondent chose not to participate in the survey, the next person
leaving was asked. Only one adult per group was asked to participate in the survey. The willing
respondents were given a clipboard and a pen with the survey. If requested, the researcher read
the survey out loud to the respondents and recorded the answers. After the respondent finished
the survey, their survey was placed in a collection location and they were thanked for their
participation.
Both zoos had other factors that could have impacted visitor participation in surveys.
Data were started around noon on Tuesday June 12, the first day of data collection at the Detroit
Zoo. On Friday June 15, the Potter Park Zoo had their annual AZA required fire drill. All zoo
visitors had to exit the zoo. Many visitors left the zoo and did not return after the fire drill was
completed. Sunday June 17 was Father’s Day and many survey respondents noted that this was a
reason for visiting. Father’s also received free entry at the Potter Park Zoo. On Wednesday June
20, the Detroit Zoo staff was approaching visitors to sign up for a zoo survey via email which
was noted as a reason why visitors did not participate in an additional survey at the exit. Finally,
on Friday June 22 the Detroit Zoo closed at 2pm for their annual fundraiser so data were only
collected from 11 am to 1pm. The researcher attempted to choose a data collection period that
had very few special events that could affect zoo visitation. However, this proved to be very
difficult as both zoos present many special events throughout the summer. It may be unrealistic
for a zoo to not host any special events in any given two week period in the summer. Therefore,
having a number of special events occurring may be considered normal during the summer
months. The ability to generalize these results to other times of year is difficult due to these
special events. There are fewer events during the cooler months at zoos.

29

The survey data were entered into an excel spreadsheet. Any question that utilized a
Likert scale was coded with a number system. If the respondent circled two answers (i.e., very
satisfied and satisfied) then the answer was coded as the average (very satisfied and satisfied
coded as 5 and 4 respectively would be coded as 4.5). Yes and no questions were coded as a 0
for no and a 1 for yes. On occasion, multiple people worked on the survey together. If
respondents provided demographic information for more than one person, (i.e., ages, gender) this
information was excluded from the survey. A few respondents provided an age range (over 18,
65+) and this was also excluded. On the question concerning the percent of time the visitors
expected the animals to be visible, many visitors provided ranges or a written description. The
average of the range was used for analysis. If the visitor documented the number of hours, this
was converted to a percentage based on the hours the zoo was open (i.e., 4 hours at Detroit
would be 50% while 4 hours at Potter Park would be 44%). If the respondents provided a
percentage that was unclear if it was a percent or a number of hours (4, 5) it was excluded from
the data. If the handwriting was unreadable, the data were not used.
Education, income, age, and visit frequency were all separated into two groups for data
analysis. For all of these variables, there were more than two choices on the survey so the data
were grouped together for analysis. Education was separated into those who have a college
degree and those who do not. Therefore, no high school degree, high school diploma, and some
college were one group while two year college, four year college, and graduate degree were
combined into the second group. Household income was separated into the two groups as well:
$49,999 or less and $50,000 or more. The median income for Michigan in the year 2011 was
$48,432. The rounded number of $50,000 was used as the cutoff for an indicator as above or
below median income. The average age was used to separate the respondents into above or

30

below average age. At both Detroit and Potter Park, 37 was the average age. Finally, visit
frequency was separated into first time visitors or visitors who come to the zoo once per year.
The second group consisted of visitors who came to the zoo twice per year or more.
Graphs of the animals visitors documented that they wanted to see were created in
Microsoft Excel. T-tests were run on STATA statistical software. The t-test was chosen as a
robust statistical method that produces results that are easy to understand and interpret. Also, the
t-test is more likely to find statistical significance when compared to non parametric tests. The ttest can be negatively affected by extreme outliers. This is not a concern with the data presented
in this study as five point likert scales were used so there are not any outliers. The t-test has three
main assumptions. The first assumption is that the data set is normally distributed. Equal
variance between the two populations is the second assumption. Finally, the third assumption is
that the samples are independent. The first assumption may be broken in this survey data. Due to
the positively skewed data, the data set does not follow a normal distribution. A non parametric
test may prove to be an alternative statistical test. The second assumption was tested prior to
running a t-test. Any t-tests that utilized unequal variance are noted in the result tables.

31

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The focus of this research project is to learn more about visitor satisfaction with animal
visibility in zoos and compare animal visibility and satisfaction in wildlife tourism experiences
to zoo experiences. The results presented here start with general numbers about the quantity of
surveys collected on each day, the temperature, and any other notes. Next, the raw data are
presented. Some of the variables have been grouped into categories that differ from how the
participants were presented with the questions on the survey (i.e., ages were grouped into
ranges). The Detroit Zoo and Potter Park Zoo data are presented next in the same order. First,
each zoo has a graph of the animals that visitors documented they wanted to see. Second, the
results for the t-test on overall visitor satisfaction, importance of animal visibility, satisfaction
with animal visibility and importance of animal welfare are presented. Third, is a chart that
shows the results of a t-test utilizing the question of how often the visitors feel the animals
should be visible. Fourth, results are presented concerning wildlife tourists.

Survey Numbers
Surveys were collected from June 11 to June 24, 2012. Days were alternated between the
Potter Park and Detroit Zoos so each zoo had one day per week. Table 4 shows the number of
survey participants and the high temperature on each day. The notes column documents any
other factor that could have affected the number of surveys collected.

32

Table 4: Survey dates.
Day of
Week

Date

Zoo

Monday

June 11

Potter Park

Tuesday

June 12

Detroit

Wednesday June 13

Potter Park

Thursday

June 14

Detroit

Friday

June 15

Potter Park

Saturday

June 16

Detroit

Sunday

June 17

Potter Park

Monday

June 18

Detroit

Tuesday

June 19

Potter Park

Wednesday June 20

Detroit

Thursday

June 21

Potter Park

Friday

June 22
June 23

Potter Park

Sunday
Total

June 24

Detroit

10:00 am
to 6:00pm
11:00 am
to 5:00 pm
10:00 am
to 6:00pm
11:00 am
to 5:00 pm
10:00 am
to 6:00pm
11:00 am
to 5:00 pm
10:00 am
to 6:00pm
11:00 am
to 5:00 pm
10:00 am
to 6:00pm
11:00 am
to 5:00 pm
10:00 am
to 6:00pm
11:00 am
to 1:00 pm

Detroit

Saturday

Hours

Participants

High
temperature

37

83

39

80

40

72

43

78

43

88

47

89

37

81

27

83

17

93
93

31

86

18
10:00 am
to 6:00pm
11:00 am
to 5:00 pm

23

82

53

Fire Drill
Father’s
Day and rain

Rain

Zoo iPad
surveys

83

42
497

Notes

85

Rain
Data
collection
11-1pm

Combined Findings
A total of 497 surveys were collected, 239 at the Detroit Zoo and 258 at the Potter Park
Zoo. Table 5 describes the demographic factors of age (survey question 16), gender (survey
question 15), education (survey question 17), income (survey question 18), zoo membership

33

(survey question 14), presence of children (survey question 12), if the respondent felt the zoo
was a good value or not (survey question 11a), the number of wildlife tourists (survey question
10a), and the number of respondents who felt the animals need a hiding place (survey question
8). Ages were grouped into the categories shown as the survey asked for age rather than an age
range. Any respondent who documented their age in a range (18+, 65+) rather than just one
number was omitted. The visitors were categorized by the researcher depending on their
responses about why they came to the zoo that day (survey question 2). Facilitators were any
visitors whose answers revolved around bringing their children for a day at the zoo or a day of
recreation or fun. Professionals were the visitors who came to the zoo primarily to take
photographs of the animals. The “general atmosphere” and “fresh air” answers were categorized
as spiritual pilgrims. The experience seekers category was quite large and encompassed answers
such as feeding the giraffes, checking out other zoos, specific events that were not related to the
animals, people who had never visited before and those who were visiting because they were in
town. Visitors who said they came to the zoo to see specific animals or animals in general were
categorized as explorers. Finally, the uncategorized visitors were any visitors whose answers did
not fit into any of the other visitor types. Some typical answers for the uncategorized visitors
were specific events (Father’s Day, an organized walk, overnight trip), passive reasons (by
chance, had a day off), to get exercise, and just utilizing a membership.

34

Table 5: Raw numbers of demographic variables for each zoo separately and totals.
Demographic Factor
Age
18-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
Total
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Education
No high school diploma
High school diploma
Some college
2 year college degree
4 year college degree
Graduate degree
Total education
Income
$0-$24,999
$25,000-$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000 or greater
Total income
Membership
Zoo members
Non zoo members
Total
Children
Children present
No children present
Total
Value
Zoo is good value
Zoo is not good value
Total

Detroit Zoo

Potter Park Zoo

Total

9
63
65
44
13
21
5
1
221

9
70
79
28
25
24
2
0
237

18
133
144
72
38
45
7
1
458

78
154
232

76
174
250

154
328
482

1
14
29
16
44
37
141

4
24
41
24
43
38
174

5
38
70
40
87
75
315

20
25
28
25
27
125

36
40
27
25
26
154

56
65
55
50
53
279

120
119
239

45
206
251

165
325
490

155
84
239

207
51
258

362
135
497

220
9
229

239
10
249

459
19
478

35

Table 5 (cont’d)
Wildlife tourists
Wildlife tourists
Non wildlife tourist
Total
Hiding place
Hiding important
Hiding not important
Total
Day of Week
Weekday
Weekend
Total
Visit Frequency
First time visitor
One time per year
2-3 times
4-5 times
More than 5 times
Total
Visitor Category
Facilitator
Professional
Spiritual Pilgrim
Experience Seeker
Explorer
Uncategorized
Total

21
121
142

30
141
171

51
262
313

221
10
231

232
18
250

453
28
481

150
89
239

168
90
258

318
179
497

20
64
48
18
80
230

53
66
70
16
51
256

73
130
118
34
131
486

89
4
2
35
44
62
236

117
0
0
51
39
50
257

206
4
2
86
83
112
493

Detroit Zoo Results
Table 6 below shows the number of survey respondents who answered each of the
questions on the survey that included a likert scale.

36

Table 6: Raw numbers of survey responses to likert scale questions at the Detroit Zoo
Very
Satisfied/ Neutral
Unsatisfied/
Very
Satisfied/ Important
Unimportant Unsatisfied/
Very
Very
Important
Unimportant
Overall Visitor
163
67
6
1
1
Satisfaction
(68.2%)
(28.03%) (2.51%)
(.42%)
(.42%)
Satisfaction with
98
114
10
7
1
Animal Visibility
(42.61%) (49.57%) (4.35%)
(3.04%)
(.43%)
Importance of
69
111
46
2
1
Animal Visibility
(30.13%) (48.47%) (20.09%)
(.87%)
(.44%)
Importance of
209
21
1
0
0
Animal Welfare
(90.48%)
(9.09%)
(.43%)
(0%)
(0%)

Figure 1 below shows a frequency distribution of the percentage of time that the visitors
expected the animals to be visible at the Detroit Zoo.
40
35

Frequency

30
25

20
15
10
5
0
Percentage

Figure 1: A frequency distribution of the percentage of time the visitors expected the animals to
be visible at the Detroit Zoo. (For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other

37

Figure 1 (cont’d)
figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this thesis).
Figure 2 shows the animals that the visitors listed as an answer to the question of “which
animals did you most want to see today?” (survey question 9) The red bars (otters, bears, camels)
were the species who had baby animals. The green bars (hippos, elephants, dolphins) are animals
who are not present at the Detroit Zoo.

Detroit Zoo
No babies

Babies

Do not have

60
50
40
30
20
10

Polar bears
Giraffes
Lions
Tiger
Penguins
Otters
Bears
Gorillas
Monkeys
Butterflies
Rhino
Chimps
Prarie dogs
All
Hippos
Zebras
Elephant
Camels
Kangaroos
Wolverine
Apes
Frogs
Red pandas
Reptiles
Sloth
Snakes
Alligator
Flamingo
Anteater
Bald eagle
Birds
Cats
Cougars
Dolphins
Horse
Lemurs
Meerkats
Peacock
Primates
Seals

0

Figure 2: Animals that visitors to the Detroit Zoo most wanted to see.

Table 7 shows the results of a t-test concerning overall visitor satisfaction with their zoo
experience (survey question 1). Statistically significant differences at the .05 alpha level were

38

only found in the variable value which is dependent on if the visitors felt the zoo was a good
value for the entrance cost.

Table 7: Results of a t-test of visitor satisfaction with their Detroit zoo experience.
Mean
(5 point
Variable
n scale) St.Dev T-score P-value
Gender
Male
78 4.62
0.59
-0.21
0.84
Female
154 4.63
0.63
Membership
Non zoo member
119 4.60
0.60
-0.83
0.41
Zoo member
120 4.66
0.63
Children
No
84 4.64
0.55
0.13
0.89
Yes
155 4.63
0.65
Hiding Place
No
10 4.40
0.52
-1.18
0.24
Yes
221 4.64
0.62
Value
Not good
9
3.61
1.27
-2.50
.04*
Unequal variance Good
220 4.67
0.54
Day of Week
Weekday
150 4.64
0.56
0.21
0.83
Unequal variance Weekend
89 4.62
0.70
Age
37 and below
126 4.62
0.64
0.15
0.88
38 and above
95 4.61
0.61
Education
No college degree
44 4.65
0.57
0.47
0.64
College degree and above
97 4.60
0.59
Income
Below $50,000
45 4.60
0.54
0.17
0.87
Above $50,000
80 4.58
0.63
Visit Frequency First time visit or once per year 84 4.62
0.49
-0.48
0.63
Unequal variance Twice per year or more
146 4.65
0.61
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

Table 8 shows the results of a t-test that utilized the importance of rating animal visibility
to the zoo visitors (survey question 7). Statistically significant differences at the .05 alpha level
were found with membership, value of the entrance fee and visit frequency.

39

Table 8: T-test of the importance of animal visibility to Detroit Zoo visitors.
Mean (5
point
Variable
n scale) St.Dev T-score P-value
Gender
Male
74
4.12
0.70
0.81
0.41
Female
148 4.03
0.79
Membership
Non zoo member
115 4.20
0.74
2.64
.01**
Zoo member
114 3.94
0.76
Children
No
81
4.02
0.69
-0.67
0.51
Yes
148 4.09
0.79
Hiding Place
No
10
4.40
0.84
1.44
0.15
Yes
215 4.05
0.75
Value
Not good
9
4.56
0.53
2.00
.05*
Good
215 4.04
0.76
Day of Week
Weekday
142 4.05
0.78
-0.52
0.60
Weekend
87
4.10
0.72
Age
37 and below
124 4.01
0.79
-1.30
0.20
38 and above
91
4.14
0.71
Education
No college degree
44
4.07
0.66
1.21
0.23
College degree and above 97
3.91
0.76
Income
Below $50,000
45
3.98
0.69
0.30
0.77
Above $50,000
80
3.94
0.75
Visit Frequency First time visit or once per year 4.20
83
0.69
2.26
.02*
Twice per year or more 141 4.00
0.77
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

Table 9 shows the results of a t-test concerning visitor satisfaction with animal visibility
(survey question 5). The visitors feeling about the animal having a hiding place and if they felt
the zoo was a good value or not were the only statistically significant variables at the .05 alpha
level.

40

Table 9: Results of a t-test of visitor satisfaction with animal visibility at the Detroit Zoo.
Mean (5
point
Variable
n scale) St.Dev T-score P-value
Gender
Male
74
4.23
0.67
-1.29
0.20
Female
149 4.36
0.75
Membership
Non zoo member
116 4.23
0.75
-1.59
0.11
Zoo member
114 4.39
0.71
Children
No
81
4.26
0.75
-0.75
0.45
Yes
149 4.34
0.72
Hiding Place
No
10
3.80
0.79
-2.21
.03*
Yes
215 4.32
0.73
Value
Not good
9
3.22
1.20
-2.85
.02*
Unequal variance Good
216 4.37
0.64
Day of Week
Weekday
143 4.24
0.76
-1.70
0.09
Weekend
87
4.41
0.67
Age
37 and below
124 4.29
0.77
-0.95
0.35
Unequal variance 38 and above
92
4.38
0.63
Education
No college degree
44
4.18
0.72
-0.89
0.37
College degree and above
97
4.29
0.63
Income
Below $50,000
45
4.20
0.66
-0.40
0.69
Above $50,000
80
4.25
0.68
Visit Frequency First time visit or once per year 84
4.33
0.66
0.22
0.83
Twice per year or more
141 4.31
0.73
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

Table 10 shows the results of a t-test concerning the importance of animal welfare to the
visitors (survey question 6). Gender was the only variable that was statistically significant at the
.05 alpha level.

41

Table 10: T-test of the importance of animal welfare to Detroit Zoo visitors.
Mean (5
point
Variable
n scale) St.Dev T-score P-value
Gender
Male
74
4.82
0.42
-2.07
.04*
Unequal variance Female
150 4.93
0.25
Membership
Non zoo member
117 4.89
0.33
-0.15
0.88
Zoo member
114 4.90
0.30
Children
No
81
4.94
0.24
1.50
0.14
Unequal variance Yes
150 4.88
0.35
Hiding Place
No
10
4.60
0.70
-1.40
0.19
Unequal variance Yes
215 4.91
0.28
Value
Not good
9
4.78
0.44
-1.16
0.25
Good
216 4.90
0.31
Day of Week
Weekday
144 4.90
0.30
0.15
0.88
Weekend
87
4.90
0.34
Age
37 and below
124 4.89
0.31
0.09
0.93
38 and above
92
4.89
0.35
Education
No college degree
44
4.91
0.29
0.53
0.60
College degree and above
97
4.88
0.36
Income
Below $50,000
45
4.91
0.29
0.38
0.70
Above $50,000
80
4.89
0.36
Visit Frequency First time visit or once per year 84
4.92
0.28
0.72
0.47
Unequal variance Twice per year or more
141 4.89
0.34
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

The results of the t-test that compares the percentage of the time that the visitors expect
the animals to be visible is presented in table 11 (survey question 4). The .05 alpha level was
utilized and significant differences were found with zoo membership, education level, income
level, and visit frequency.

42

Table 11: T-test results of the percentage of the time Detroit Zoo visitors expect animals to be
visible.
Mean (out
Variable
n of 100%) St.Dev T-score P-value
Gender
Male
57
75.70
18.24 -0.01
0.99
Female
103
75.73
17.73
Membership
Non zoo member
84
80.33
16.16
3.15 0.00**
Zoo member
81
71.82
18.50
Children
No
56
77.19
17.40
0.53
0.59
Yes
109
75.62
18.08
Hiding Place
No
10
77.75
22.31
0.35
0.73
Yes
153
75.73
17.47
Value
Not good
8
85.00
12.82
1.45
0.15
Good
152
75.66
18.00
Day of Week
Weekday
108
76.67
18.04
0.51
0.61
Weekend
57
75.18
17.50
Age
37 and below
94
74.65
17.01 -0.93
0.35
38 and above
62
77.38
19.10
Education
No college degree
35
79.71
17.61
2.01
0.05*
College degree and above
73
72.36
17.85
Income
Below $50,000
34
80.44
18.52
2.32
0.02*
Above $50,000
63
71.47
17.92
Visit Frequency First time visit or once per year 59
80.13
15.96
2.20
0.03*
Twice per year or more
101
73.79
18.52
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

Potter Park Zoo Results

Table 12 below shows the number of survey respondents who answered each of the
questions on the survey that included a likert scale.

43

Table 12: Raw numbers of survey responses to likert scale questions at the Potter Park Zoo.
Very
Satisfied/ Neutral
Unsatisfied/
Very
Satisfied/ Important
Unimportant Unsatisfied/
Very
Very
Important
Unimportant
Overall Visitor
141
100
14
3
0
Satisfaction
(54.65%) (38.76%) (5.43%)
(1.16%)
(0%)
Satisfaction with
104
132
11
2
0
Animal Visibility
(41.77%) (53.01%) (4.42%)
(0.8%)
(0%)
Importance of
68
150
26
2
0
Animal Visibility
(27.42%) (60.48%) (10.48%)
(.81%)
(0%)
Importance of
210
34
3
0
0
Animal Welfare
(85.02%) (13.77%) (1.21%)
(0%)
(0%)
Figure 3 shows a frequency distribution of the percentages that zoo visitors documented
as their expectations to how often the animals should be visible.

45
40
35

Frequency

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Percentage
FIGURE 3 - A frequency distribution of the percentage of time the visitors expected the animals
to be visible at the Potter Park Zoo

44

Figure 4 shows the animals who the visitors listed as coming to the zoo to see (survey
question 9). The red bars (tigers, bongo) had baby animals. The green bars (elephants, giraffes,
bear, baboon, bear cat, dragon, gorillas, platypus, sea turtles) are animals who were not present at
Potter Park zoo.
Potter Park Zoo
No babies

Babies

Do not have

Tigers
Lions
Penguins
Otters
Rhino
Monkeys
Cats
Red panda
Snow leopard
Birds
Elephant
All
Camels
Wolves
Arctic fox
Giraffe
Bald eagle
Goats
Mandrills
Meerkats
Peacocks
Snakes
Bear
Kangaroo
Ponies
Bongo
Owl
Porcupine
Reptiles
Turtles
Baboon
Bear cat
Budgies
Cavy
Chickens
Deer
Dragons
Farm
Fish
Gorillas
Lemurs
Llamas
Mud puppy
Ostrich
Platypus
Red tailed hawk
Sea turtles
Yak

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 4: Animals that visitors to the Potter Park Zoo most wanted to see.

Table 13 shows the results of a t-test concerning visitor satisfaction with animal visibility
(survey question 5). Statistically significant differences at the .05 alpha level were found in the
variables of yearly zoo visit frequency and if the visitors felt that the animals needed a hiding
place or not.

45

Table 13: Results of a t-test of Potter Park Zoo visitor satisfaction with their overall zoo
experience.
Mean (5
point
Variable
n scale) St.Dev T-score P-value
Gender
Male
76
4.41
0.72
-1.11
0.27
Female
174 4.51
0.61
Membership
Non zoo member
206 4.44
0.67
-1.73
0.08
Zoo member
45
4.62
0.53
Children
No
51
4.37
0.75
-1.17
0.24
Yes
207 4.49
0.63
Hiding Place
No
18
4.28
0.67
-1.40
0.16
Yes
232 4.50
0.63
Value
Not good
10
3.70
1.06
-2.38
.04*
Unequal variance Good
239 4.50
0.61
Day of Week
Weekday
168 4.43
0.70
-1.02
0.22
Unequal variance Weekend
90
4.53
0.56
Age
37 and below
141 4.43
0.66
-0.91
0.37
38 and above
96
4.51
0.63
Education
No college degree
69
4.38
4.20
-1.40
0.16
Unequal variance College degree and above
105 4.52
4.41
Income
Below $50,000
76
4.36
0.74
-1.86
0.07
Unequal variance Above $50,000
78
4.55
0.55
Visit Frequency First time visit or once per year 119 4.38
0.69
-1.98
.05*
Twice per year or more
137 4.54
0.62
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

The following Table 14 shows the results of a t-test that utilized the question of
importance of animal visibility to the zoo visitors (survey question 7). Statistically significant
differences at the .05 alpha level were found with zoo membership.

46

Table 14: T-test of the importance of animal visibility to Potter Park Zoo visitors.

Variable
Gender

n
Male
72
Female
168
Membership
Non zoo member
199
Zoo member
43
Children
No
51
Yes
197
Hiding Place
No
17
Yes
225
Value
Not good
10
Good
232
Day of Week
Weekday
162
Weekend
86
Age
37 and below
134
38 and above
94
Education
No college degree
69
College degree and above
105
Income
Below $50,000
76
Above $50,000
78
Visit Frequency First time visit or once per year 111
Twice per year or more
135
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

Mean
(5 point
scale)
4.21
4.12
4.17
3.95
4.03
4.18
4.29
4.12
0.50
0.26
4.17
4.10
4.10
4.18
4.13
4.11
4.06
4.16
4.18
4.12

St.Dev T-score P-value
0.63
1.01
0.31
0.63
0.61
2.06
.04*
0.72
0.60
-1.47
0.14
0.64
0.59
1.10
0.27
0.63
0.12
1.69
0.09
0.20
0.63
0.84
0.40
0.64
0.61
-0.88
0.38
0.67
0.59
0.16
0.87
0.66
0.63
-0.97
0.33
0.66
0.60
0.77
0.44
0.66

Table 15 shows the results of a t-test concerning visitor satisfaction with animal visibility
(survey question 5). There were four statistically significant variables: zoo membership, presence
of children, if the zoo was found to be a good value by the visitors, and weekend vs. weekday
visitors.

47

Table 15: Results of a t-test of visitor satisfaction with animal visibility at the Potter Park Zoo.
Mean (5
point
Variable
n scale) St.Dev T-score P-value
Gender
Male
72
4.43
0.55
1.12
0.26
Female
169 4.34
0.61
Membership
Non zoo member
200 4.30
0.61
-3.32 .00**
Zoo member
43
4.63
0.54
Children
No
51
4.20
0.60
-2.15
.03*
Yes
198 4.40
0.60
Hiding Place
No
17
4.12
0.60
-1.76
0.08
Yes
226 4.38
0.59
Value
Not good
10
3.40
0.70
-5.46 .00**
Unequal variance Good
233 4.41
0.57
Day of Week
Weekday
162 4.29
0.62
-2.41
.02*
Unequal variance Weekend
87
4.48
0.67
Age
37 and below
135 4.36
0.55
-0.12
0.90
38 and above
94
4.37
0.60
Education
No college degree
69
4.19
0.65
-1.13
0.26
College degree and above
105 4.30
0.59
Income
Below $50,000
76
4.18
0.65
-1.21
0.22
Above $50,000
78
4.31
0.61
Visit Frequency First time visit or once per year 112 4.29
0.62
-1.46
0.15
Unequal variance Twice per year or more
135 4.41
0.60
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

Table 16 shows the results of a t-test that questioned the importance of animal welfare to
the zoo visitors (survey question 6). There were no statistically significant differences found at
the .05 alpha level.

48

Table 16: T-test of the importance of animal welfare to Potter Park Zoo visitors.
Mean (5
point
Variable
n scale) St.Dev T-score P-value
Gender
Male
72
4.81
0.43
-0.79
0.43
Female
167 4.85
0.39
Membership
Non zoo member
198 4.82
0.42
-1.55
0.12
Unequal variance Zoo member
43
4.91
0.23
Children
No
50
4.84
0.37
0.04
0.97
Yes
197 4.84
0.41
Hiding Place
No
17
4.71
0.59
-0.95
0.35
Unequal variance Yes
224 4.84
0.39
Value
Not good
10
4.50
0.71
-1.57
0.15
Unequal variance Good
231 4.85
0.38
Day of Week
Weekday
162 4.85
0.39
0.75
0.46
Weekend
85
4.81
0.42
Age
37 and below
133 4.82
0.41
-0.30
0.76
38 and above
94
4.85
0.39
Education
No college degree
68
4.82
0.38
0.64
0.52
Unequal variance College degree and above
105 4.78
0.48
Income
Below $50,000
76
4.82
0.42
0.64
0.53
Above $50,000
78
4.77
0.48
Visit Frequency First time visit or once per year 110 4.84
0.42
-0.01
0.99
Twice per year or more
135 4.84
0.39
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

The results of the t-test that compares the percentage of the time that the visitors expect
the animals to be visible is presented in table 17 (survey question 4). The .05 alpha level was
utilized and significant differences were found with many variables including gender, zoo
membership, hiding place, value of the zoo for the money, and income level. Additionally, visit
frequency and weekend vs. weekday visitors were nearly significant with a p-value of .06, just
above the cutoff level of .05.

49

Table 17: T-test results of the percentage of the time Potter Park Zoo visitors expect animals to
be visible.
Mean (out
Variable
n of 100%) St.Dev T-score P-value
Gender
Male
51
74.40
16.01 -2.46 0.02*
Female
117
80.36
13.74
Membership
Non zoo member
142
79.71
13.74
2.17
0.03*
Zoo member
28
73.25
17.38
Children
No
32
78.82
12.15 -0.06
0.95
Yes
142
78.69
15.04
Hiding Place
No
11
93.18
9.02
3.73 0.00**
Yes
158
77.10
14.08
Value
Not good
9
94.44
7.26
6.26 0.00**
Unequal variance Good
162
77.71
14.45
Day of Week
Weekday
118
80.09
13.95
1.90
0.06
Weekend
56
75.64
15.34
Age
37 and below
104
80.10
12.51
1.58
0.12
Unequal variance 38 and above
59
76.05
17.25
Education
No college degree
51
80.20
12.25
1.12
0.26
College degree and above
89
77.43
14.98
Income
Below $50,000
61
80.16
11.87
2.08
0.04*
Unequal variance Above $50,000
66
75.09
15.50
Visit Frequency First time visit or once per year 75
81.08
13.36
1.89
0.06
Twice per year or more
98
76.90
15.21
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

Wildlife Tourism
There were a total of 51 wildlife tourists with 31 coming from the Potter Park Zoo and 20
from the Detroit Zoo (survey question 10a). Since there were such a small number of wildlife
tourists, the data here is combining all of the wildlife tourists and not separating them by each
zoo. Table 18 shows the paired t-test for wildlife tourists. The results show us that there is not a
statistically significant difference in satisfaction level between the zoo and wildlife tourism
experience (survey question 10c) but that there is a difference in the amount of time visitors

50

expect to see the animals in the zoo vs. the amount of time that they saw the animals on their
wildlife tourism experience (survey question 10b).

Table 18: Paired t-test with wildlife tourists.

Variable
Satisfaction

n
Zoo
51
Wildlife Tourism 51
Percent
Zoo
36
Wildlife Tourism 36
*= p-value <.05 **=p-value<.01

Mean (5
point
scale) St.Dev T-score P-value
4.18
0.82
-1.71
0.09
4.39
0.60
72.06
16.23
2.03
0.05*
61.67
30.40

There were statistically significant differences found at both the Detroit and Potter Park
Zoos. Some variables were significant in multiple tests. For example, zoo membership, visit
frequency, and if the visitors felt the zoo was a good value for the entrance cost were significant
more than once. The discussion of these results follows in the next chapter.

51

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION

General Discussion
This study included two zoos in Michigan. Collecting data at multiple zoos provides a
way to compare the zoos but it also gives a better understanding of zoo visitors in general. As
discussed above, there are many differences between the two zoos studied. The various zoo
attributes between them could attract different types of visitors who have distinctive reasons for
visiting and expectations about their visit. Therefore, the results of the study can differ between
the two zoos. However, other aspects of a zoo visit, such as the importance variables and the
animals that the visitors wish to see, could be similar between the zoos studied and zoos in
general. Multiple research locations can inform zoo managers about the similarities and
differences between zoo visitors at multiple zoos.
The Potter Park Zoo has smaller exhibits than the Detroit Zoo in addition to being smaller
overall. This smaller size could improve animal visibility at the Potter Park Zoo. Therefore,
frequent visitors to this zoo may have higher expectations of animal visibility. This is supported
by the data. The overall average amount of time the Potter Park Zoo visitors expected the
animals to be visible was 78.6% while the expectations at the Detroit Zoo were lower at 68.8%.
This shows a nearly 10% difference between the zoos. This difference could be attributed to
previous experiences at the zoo and therefore better expectations of visibility or could show that
visitors expect better visibility at smaller zoos or even that the zoos attract different visitors. The
reason for this difference cannot be determined through this study. While the expectations for
visibility differed by 10%, the satisfaction with visibility was the nearly the same with an
average of 4.3 at Detroit and 4.4 at Potter Park out of a 5 point scale. Therefore, the visitors were

52

in general very satisfied with the animal visibility at both zoos, even though their expectations of
visibility were different.
The satisfaction variables are more likely to change between zoos but we would expect
the importance variables to remain relatively consistent no matter which zoo is being visited.
This is supported by the data in this study. The importance of animal welfare was rated very high
at both zoos; 4.8 at Potter Park and 4.9 at Detroit out of a five point scale. There is social
pressure to declare a concern for animal welfare. However, we do see similar results at both zoos
as we would expect for a general importance factor at zoos. The second importance factor, the
importance of animal visibility, should also be similar at both zoos. Both zoos had an overall
average of 4.1 out of a 5 point scale for the importance of animal visibility. This shows that the
importance variables should remain relatively consistent between zoos.
Visitors at the Potter Park Zoo were better represented in this study. There are fewer
visitors at Potter Park, as compared to Detroit, and since data were collected at each zoo for
seven days, visitors were perhaps over represented at Potter Park Zoo when compared to the
Detroit Zoo. Also, with the slower exit rate at Potter Park, a higher percentage of exiting visitors
were asked to participate in the survey.
The number of visitors who participated in the survey varied on a daily basis. Weather
appeared to impact the number of survey participants. The temperature was over 90 degrees on
June 19 and June 20 and these days correspond to two out of the three days with the smallest
number of surveys collected. Temperature could have decreased attendance at the zoo and
therefore the number of potential participants or made the zoo visitors less willing to take the
survey due to heat. Rain could also prevent people from visiting the zoo or participating in the

53

exit survey. During heavy rain, the researcher did not attempt to collect surveys. The researcher
did attempt to collect surveys during light rain.
The summer time frame can decrease animal visibility in addition to affecting visitor
participation. This research was collected during the summer months and visitor participation
may vary if data collection was attempted during different seasons. The results collected during
summer hours may be vastly different than results of a survey collected during other times of the
year. The summer is typically very busy for zoos in temperate locations such as Michigan. Very
hot temperatures could have a negative impact on animal visibility and activity level. Large or
loud groups of visitors, which are more common during summer days, can have a negative
impact on the animals which could also decrease their visibility. Previous research has found that
noise and visitor activity can negatively impact zoo animals. Orangutans have been observed
placing paper sacks over their heads and holding their infants more often during times of high
visitors and noise (Birke, 2002). Visitors who try to get the attention of the animals through
actions such as knocking and yelling have been shown to increase conspecific aggression, and
decrease foraging, object-using, playing, and grooming in primates (Mitchell et al., 1992; Wood,
1998). Similarly, larger crowd sizes may increase wait time at services, such as concessions and
bathrooms, and also decrease ability to see the animals due to many people crowding around one
exhibit. Therefore many of the results presented here, particularly concerning the different
satisfaction variables, cannot be generalized to other seasons. Other parts of the survey, such as
desired animals and importance factors, may be similar to surveys collected during other
seasons.

54

Combined Findings

The majority of survey participants were in the age range of 20 to 39. This was true at
both the Detroit and Potter Park Zoos. These age ranges are typical for adults who have school
aged children. As discussed in the literature review, children are a major reason why people
decide to go to the zoo and this could explain the large numbers of participants in this age range.
There were very few participants in the 18-19 year old category, which could be due to only 2
potential ages in this category, a variety of alternative activities for people of this age or a limited
income for these young visitors. There were also very few participants over 70 years old and
only one in the 80+ age category. Potential physical limitations (limited walking ability,
susceptibility to heat etc.) of people in older age categories could be a reason why visitors in
these age groups are not abundant in zoo settings. The mean age was 37.5 and the median was 35
at both zoos. The ranges were different, with Detroit participants ranging in age from 18-85 and
Potter Park from 18-74. The majority of participants at both zoos came to the zoo with children.
This result is not surprising due to the large influence that children have on the decision to visit
zoos and previous research documenting the majority of family groups at zoos have children
(Saayman and Slabbert, 2004; Clayton et al., 2009; Ross and Gillespie, 2009).
The gender proportions were similar at both zoos with each having approximately half
the number of male participants as female participants. Higher numbers of females to males
correspond to previous research findings (Saayman and Slabbert, 2004; Kutska, 2009).
Concerning education level, very few participants were in the lowest category of not having a
high school diploma. The next smallest categories were for high school diplomas and two year
college degrees. Some college, four year degree, and graduate degree were the highest three

55

categories at both Detroit and Potter Park Zoos. Previous research found that zoo visitors have
higher education level than non zoo visitors (Andereck and Caldwell, 1994; Mason, 2000). We
cannot make that conclusion based on the research here, but the results show a large proportion
of survey participants at least had some sort of college education.
The results for income level were slightly different between the two zoos. For the Detroit
Zoo, each of the five income levels had nearly equal numbers of participants. Potter Park had
higher numbers of participants who documented their income level in the lowest two categories
and the higher three categories were all evenly distributed. The median family income in
Oakland County where the Detroit Zoo is located is $66,390 according to the census in 2011
(www.census.gov, 2012). Ingham County, location of the Potter Park Zoo, has a lower median
family income of $45,808 according to the census (www.census.gov, 2012). The lower median
income in Ingham County could be a reason why the lower income levels were higher. Likewise,
a higher median income in Oakland County could account for a more even distribution among
the income levels. Previous research has shown that zoo visitors have a higher socioeconomic
status than non zoo visitors (Andereck and Caldwell, 1994; Mason, 2000) but this cannot be
confirmed by this study. Nevertheless, we can still observe that at the Detroit Zoo, the more
expensive of the two zoos in this study, had a more even distribution of income levels while the
Potter Park Zoo had more visitors of a lower income level.
Concerning zoo membership, half of the participants at the Detroit Zoo were members
while at Potter Park only about one fifth of the participants were zoo members. Since the Detroit
Zoo is much larger and more expensive than the Potter Park Zoo, visitors may feel that buying a
membership at Detroit is worth the money compared to the smaller less expensive Potter Park
Zoo. The price for one adult at Detroit is $14.00 (detroitzoo.org, 2012) and Potter Park is $4.00

56

(potterparkzoo.org, 2012). For an individual membership, the cost is $43.00 at Detroit
(detroitzoo.org, 2012) and $40 at Potter Park (potterparkzoo.org, 2012). Thus, a membership at
Detroit pays for itself in as little as 3 visits but the Potter Park membership takes 10 visits. This
higher cost for the Potter Park Zoo membership in comparison to the entrance price could deter
visitors from purchasing a membership at the rate that memberships are purchased at the Detroit
Zoo. The vast majority of survey participants answered that the zoos were a good value with
only 9 at the Potter Park Zoo and 10 at the Detroit Zoo who did not feel the zoo was a good value
for the cost. The higher price of the Detroit Zoo could lead to higher expectations of the animals
and experience. The non-resident increase in price at the Potter Park Zoo ($10 for adults,
compared to $4 for residents; potterparkzoo.org, 2012) was noted by many survey participants as
being too expensive.
There were few visitors who felt they had at some point participated in wildlife tourism at
both zoos for a total of 51. It is possible that many visitors did not consider some of their
activities as wildlife tourism, especially if their activity did not use these specific words. An
increase in examples could have increased the number of self-described wildlife tourists. Also, it
may have helped to ensure that the visitors understood that local small scale activities were also
considered wildlife tourism.
Most survey participants felt that the animals needed a place to hide out of view of the
zoo visitors with only 28 out of 481, nearly 6%, surveys felt the animals should not have a place
to hide. However, many visitors contradicted themselves in these answers by saying they
expected the animals to be visible 100% of the time. This contradiction shows visitors believe
the animals should be able to hide, but they may still believe that their ability to see the animals
whenever they want is more important.

57

The number of times participants visited the Potter Park Zoo increased from the first time
visitor, to the visitors who came once per year, followed by visitors who came two to three times
per year. The four to five times per year category showed a large drop and was the lowest
category but the distribution rose again in the over five visits per year category. This could be
because the over 5 times per year category is a large range. Also, the small size of the Potter Park
Zoo could decrease visits due to visitors believing they saw everything during their visit. There
were fewer first time visitors at the Detroit Zoo. The highest category was over five times per
year followed by one time per year. This could be due to the cost of the zoo. Zoo members may
visit more often due to their membership investment and first time visitors may only visit once
due to the high price of one visit. The large size of the Detroit Zoo could also increase multiple
visits in a year. Families with small children, who may get tired of walking at the zoo, may
choose to visit a small area of the zoo and come back another time to visit another area.
Likewise, they may feel they did not get a good view of a certain animal and may just come back
and try again on another day.
The visitors were separated into five different visitor types based on previous research
(Falk, 2006; 2008). At both the Detroit and Potter Park zoos, facilitators were most abundant.
Next, at the Detroit Zoo, explorers were most abundant followed by experience seekers,
professionals and spiritual pilgrims. The second most abundant category at Potter Park was
experience seekers followed closely by explorers. There were no visitors categorized as either
professionals or spiritual pilgrims at Potter Park. Both zoos had at least 50 visitors who were
uncategorized. These findings correspond to the original research findings that spiritual pilgrims
and professionals were the least abundant visitor types at zoos (Falk, 2006; 2008). The Detroit
Zoo may have had more explorers than the Potter Park Zoo because the size of the Detroit Zoo

58

has more large mammal species that are typically advertised to visitors and visitors who
documented wanting to see a specific species were categorized as explorers.

Detroit Zoo

At the Detroit Zoo, participants documented that they most wanted to see polar bears,
giraffes, lions, and tigers. All of these animals are large charismatic species. Baby animals are
also highly advertised and three animals with babies were on the list (otter, bear, camel). These
baby animals could be a draw to the zoo as babies are often highly advertised on websites and
local news stories. Finally, some survey participants documented animals who are no longer
housed at the Detroit Zoo. These animals were hippopotamus and elephants. Both of these
species used to be displayed at the Detroit Zoo. However, the elephants were moved to a
sanctuary in 2004 so they have not been at the Detroit Zoo in many years. The hippo passed
away in 2011, a year prior to this study. The only other animal noted that the zoo does not have
is dolphins which was only mentioned by one person. Finally, of the top 10 animals, 8 were
mammals, 1 was a bird, and 1 insect. Previous research has found that visitors prefer to view
large vertebrates (Ward et al., 1998) and mammals are the most popular in the zoo (Moss and
Esson, 2010).
The first research question examined if there were statistically significant differences
between demographic variables on the topics of the visitor’s overall experience, satisfaction with
animal visibility, and the importance of animal welfare and animal visibility. Concerning overall
visitor satisfaction, the only statistically significant difference was found concerning if the visitor
felt the zoo was a good value for the entrance cost. The visitors who felt the zoo was not a good

59

value were less satisfied. However, there were only nine visitors who felt the zoo was not a good
value compared to the 220 who felt the zoo was a good value. A higher number of participants
who fell into these categories could alter these results (there were only 19 total visitors between
both zoos who felt the zoo was not a good value). No previous research studies mention how the
visitors feel about the value of the zoo in connection with their satisfaction levels, however, this
may vary with the financial stability of the survey participant.
The first research question also examined the importance of animal visibility. Three
statistically significant results at the Detroit Zoo were found and none of them are unexpected.
First, zoo members had lower documented levels of importance for animal visibility than non
zoo members. Zoo members do not incur an additional entrance cost when coming back to the
zoo another time which may make the importance of seeing every animal less than non zoo
members. Also, members may be using their membership primarily for different reasons such as
getting out of the house, having a play date with another family or getting exercise thereby
reducing the importance of animal visibility. The second statistically significant factor was if the
visitors felt the zoo was a good value. Visitors who felt the zoo was not a good value had a
higher level of importance than visitors who felt the zoo was a good value for the entrance cost.
As noted above, there were few visitors who felt the zoo was not a good value and a higher
number of these visitors could alter these results. Finally, visit frequency was also statistically
significant. First time visitors and visitors who only come to the zoo once per year had a higher
importance value than visitors who came twice per year or more. This is similar to the reasons
discussed above concerning membership.
Concerning the satisfaction with animal visibility at the Detroit Zoo, there were two
statistically significant differences. These two differences were found concerning the variables of

60

if the visitor felt the animals should have a hiding place or not and if the visitor felt the zoo was a
good value for the entrance cost. Those who felt the animals should not have a hiding place were
less satisfied than those who felt the animals should have a hiding place. Similarly, those who
felt the zoo was not a good value were less satisfied than those who felt the zoo was a good
value. Both of these variables have very few visitors in the negative answers. More respondents
in these categories could change these results. These results are not unexpected as it is reasonable
to assume that the visitors who did not feel the animals should have a place to hide were
unsatisfied if they could not see all of the animals.
Gender was the only variable that was found to be statistically significant concerning the
importance of animal welfare. Females placed a higher importance value on animal welfare than
men. There were about twice as many females that participated in the survey than males. This
comparison was the final part of the first research question.
The second research question concerns the percentage of the time that the visitor feels the
animal should be visible. A statistically significant difference was found between zoo members
and non members. The average amount of time that zoo members felt the animals should be
visible was nearly nine percentage points less than non zoo members. The same issues discussed
above concerning the importance of animal visibility apply here as well. Also, zoo members may
come to the zoo more often and have more knowledge and more realistic expectations about how
often they may be able to see the animals. There were three other categories where significance
was also found. First was education level, divided by those having a college degree and those
that did not have a college degree. The higher education category had a lower expectation of
visibility. Visitors who are more highly education may have some knowledge about animal
behavior or welfare and therefore have lower expectations about visibility. A similar result was

61

found with income level. Those with a higher income level had a lower expectation of visibility.
Higher income visitors may feel that they can just return to the zoo at a different time without
having to feel that it is a financial burden as visitors with a lower income may feel. Finally, the
frequency of yearly zoo visits also presented a statistically significant difference. Visitors who
came twice per year or more had lower expectations than those that came to the zoo once per
year or if this was their first visit. There could also be a correlation between membership and
visit frequency so these survey participants may contain a core group of visitors. It is logical to
believe that zoo members come to the zoo more often and would also have a higher visit
frequency.

Potter Park Zoo

The animals that the visitors to the Potter Park Zoo wished to see were similar to the
Detroit Zoo. Mammals again dominated the top 10 most listed animals, with the first nine as
mammal species and the generic “bird” category in the tenth spot. Babies were a large draw for
the Potter Park Zoo as well. There were three tiger cubs at the zoo during this survey period and
tigers were the number one listed species that visitors wished to see. There was also a baby
bongo, but this species was not a large draw for visitors getting only a few mentions. Visitors
also documented animals who are not on exhibit at the Potter Park Zoo. Elephants, giraffes,
bears, baboons, gorillas, and sea turtles were all listed as animals who the visitors wished to see
but are not at the Potter Park Zoo. These results align with previous research.
The first research question first examined visitor satisfaction with their overall experience
which yielded two categories that reached statistical significance. First concerns if the visitors

62

felt the zoo was a good value. The visitors who felt the zoo was not a good value were less
satisfied than those who felt the zoo is a good value. Out of the 10 visitors who claimed the zoo
was not a good value, 9 documented that they were outside the resident area and would have paid
a higher entrance fee. The last visitor did not provide a zip code. These visitors that paid a higher
price may have had higher expectations and felt disappointed with the experience compared to
the entrance price paid. The second area of significance was visit frequency. Visitors who visited
the zoo twice per year or more were more satisfied than visitors who were first time visitors or
once yearly visitors. Frequent visitors may have more realistic expectations. Hence, a visit that
may be excellent for a casual visitor may just be a normal visit for a regular visitor. Income and
membership were almost significant with a p-values of .07 and .08 respectively, just above the
.05 cutoff.
The importance of visibility was also part of the first research question and found only
one significant factor. Zoo members had a lower importance value for visibility. Zoo members
could be visiting the zoo for many other reasons besides seeing the animals and therefore have a
lower importance value on animal visibility. It is also possible that they have a better idea of
what level of visibility was expected.
Four factors were statistically significant with the satisfaction with animal visibility. Zoo
membership, presence of children, if the visitor felt the zoo was a good value, and weekend vs.
weekday visitors were these factors. First, zoo members were more satisfied than non zoo
members. Second, were groups that came with children were more satisfied. The satisfaction of
the children could influence the satisfaction of the adults. If the children were very happy and
enjoyed their visit then their parents would be satisfied seeing their children enjoy the zoo. Third,

63

those who say the zoo is not a good value with those who felt the zoo was a good value being
more satisfied. Fourth, weekend visitors were more satisfied than weekday visitors.
The importance of animal welfare at the Potter Park Zoo yielded no variables of
statistical significance. Welfare was the final factor in the first research question.
The second research question concerned the amount of time the visitors expected the
animals to be visible found five statistically significant factors. Females and non zoo members
had higher expectations for the amount of time they felt the animals should be visible. Also
visitors who felt the animals should not have a hiding place, felt the zoo was not a good value,
and have an income less than $50,000. Membership and income were discussed above in relation
to the Detroit Zoo and these reasons also apply to the Potter Park Zoo. Potter Park also has a
gender difference. More females took the survey than males and that could impact the results.
Visitors who do not believe that the animals should have a place to hide had a higher expectation
of visibility than the visitors who do feel the animals should have a place to hide. This result was
not surprising and the difference was nearly 16% between the two groups. Finally, visitors who
felt that the zoo was not a good value had higher expectations. As previously discussed, there
were very few visitors who felt the zoo was not a good value and the vast majority of them were
outside the resident area and paid a higher entrance fee.

Wildlife Tourism
The third research question examined the relationship between wildlife tourists and zoo
visitors. The small number of wildlife tourists in this study makes it difficult to generalize the
results. The satisfaction level of the visitors between the zoo visit and the wildlife tourism
experience was not significant at the .05 level with a p-value of .09. However, the results

64

concerning the percentage of time the visitors expected the animals to be visible in the zoo
compared to how often animals were visible in the wild was statistically significant. Wildlife
tourists have higher expectations for viewing animals in a zoo than they experience in wild
settings. Visitors may feel that the captive setting should allow for increased visibility even
though many zoos strive to design exhibits that are as close to the animals’ natural environment
as possible.

Comparison
The results at the two zoos provided some similar and dissimilar results. Table 19
presents the statistically significant results at both zoos for the questions asked.

Table 19: Comparison chart of significant differences found at Detroit and Potter Park Zoos.
Variables

Detroit Zoo

Potter Park Zoo

Overall Experience

Value

Importance of Animal Visibility

Membership
Value
Visit Frequency
Hiding Place
Value

Value
Visit Frequency
Membership

Satisfaction with Animal Visibility

Importance of Animal Welfare
Amount of Time Visitors Expected
Animals to be Visible

Gender
Membership
Income
Education
Visit Frequency

65

Membership
Presence of children
Value
Day of week
Membership
Income
Gender
Hiding Place
Value

Concerning the overall experience, both zoos found the value of the entrance cost to be
statistically significant but the Potter Park Zoo also found visit frequency to be significant. The
Potter Park Zoo is a small zoo and the visitors who come more often may have a better
expectations of the zoo compared to first time visitors and infrequent visitors. This difference
between the zoos may be due to the size of the zoo. The Detroit Zoo is much larger and has a
greater variety of animals when compared to Potter Park and therefore first time or infrequent
visitors could be more satisfied with the larger variety.
The importance of animal visibility found membership significant at both zoos. However,
the Detroit Zoo found the value and visit frequency to also be significant. Zoo members probably
visit the zoo more often than non zoo members so membership and visit frequency may be
highly correlated. There were a higher number of members at the Detroit Zoo than at the Potter
Park Zoo and this difference could be the reason that visit frequency was significant at the
Detroit Zoo and not the Potter Park Zoo. The value of the zoo entrance fee was significant at the
Detroit Zoo but there were very few visitors who felt the zoo was not a good value. A higher
number of visitors in this category could change the results.
Value was again significant at both zoos concerning the satisfaction with animal
visibility. However, hiding place was significant at Detroit but not Potter Park. Similar to value,
there were very few visitors who felt that the animals did not need a place to hide out of view of
the zoo visitors and more survey participants in this category could easily change this result.
Membership, presence of children, and day of visit were all significant at the Potter Park Zoo but
not the Detroit Zoo. Potter Park Zoo has a smaller percentage of members than the Detroit Zoo
and this difference could explain why membership was not significant at the Detroit Zoo. Also,
members who visit the zoo often may be accustomed to animal visibility and it may take a more

66

memorable experience for members to say their visit was excellent. Similarly, a non frequent
visitor and a frequent visitor may rate the same visibility at different levels of satisfaction due to
previous experiences at the zoo. The presence of children was significant at the Potter Park Zoo.
The higher visibility at Potter Park may have impacted this result. The smaller size may also
impact this result. The Potter Park Zoo is much smaller and children may have a better attention
span for this zoo and a better ability to walk throughout the zoo compared to Detroit. Weekend
visitors were more satisfied than weekday visitors at the Potter Park Zoo. There were fewer
weekend visitors surveyed than weekday visitors which could impact these results. Also, visitors
who visit on weekdays may visit more often and have similar reactions as zoo members with
their expectations.
Gender was the only significant difference found in the category of importance of animal
welfare. Gender was only significant at the Detroit Zoo. At both zoos there were more females
than males who participated in the survey. Having a more equal distribution between genders
could give a clearer picture of this issue.
There were many factors that were significant at both zoos concerning the amount of time
the visitors expected the animals to be visible. Both zoos had membership and income in
common. Detroit also had education and visit frequency. As discussed above, visit frequency
could be highly correlated with membership. Similarly, education and income are typically
highly correlated where those with a higher education also have a higher income. At the Potter
Park Zoo, gender, hiding place, and value were also significant. Value and hiding place had very
few visitors in the negative answers of these variables and this small number could skew the
results. Finally, the unequal distribution of survey participants concerning gender could affect
this result as well.

67

It is not unexpected to find these differing results between the two zoos studied. The zoos
are very different and may attract different types of zoo visitors. Certain aspects of each zoo may
be more important to the visitors. Also, previous experiences at the zoo visited as well as other
zoos may impact the visitors’ responses to the survey questions. In general, some of the factors
were found to be important at both zoos while others differed.

FUTURE RESEARCH
There are a variety of topics that could benefit from increased future research. It would be
beneficial to determine if there is a specific set of animals that zoo visitors expect to see at every
zoo. Visitors at both the Detroit and Potter Park Zoos were interested in seeing elephants, even
though neither zoo has elephants. The elephants at the Detroit Zoo were moved to a sanctuary
and the small area at Potter Park Zoo only allowed one elephant at a time and the elephant was
sent to another zoo to live in a herd. Many visitors asked their children which animals they most
wanted to see that day. Asking this question as an exit survey may have biased the results. While
there were still many responses for animals that are not at each zoo, children may just remember
the best animal they saw that day, not which animals they wanted to see before visiting the zoo.
Future research on this question may be better if asked before visitors go through the zoo. Along
these same lines, future research could determine if visitors are less satisfied if the zoo does not
have all of the animals they expect to see.
This study included one large and one small zoo. Increasing the number of zoos would
help determine if the statistical significance found in this study is consistent when repeated at
other zoos. A larger sample size of visitors, particularly of zoo visitors who are dissatisfied, is
necessary to learn more about their expectations and how zoos can increase their satisfaction.

68

This study only had a couple questions about wildlife tourism and very few visitors
defined themselves as wildlife tourists. Therefore, increased visitor participants could provide
additional information. Also, we know very little about how the expectations of a zoo visit differ
from expectations in a wildlife tourism experience. It may be better to distribute surveys at a
wildlife tourism location to the tourists and ask these participants about zoos rather than trying to
have zoo visitors remember their wildlife tourism experience. This may be beneficial because
many people may visit zoos more often than participating in wildlife tourism.
The vast majority of people answered that animal welfare was very important to them.
Every category had an average of at least 4.5 out of the 5 point scale at both zoos. Zoo visitors
may have a lack of knowledge about zoo animal welfare. Also, visitors may not have been
entirely honest when answering this question as it may seem socially unacceptable to admit that
they do not care about the welfare of the animals in the zoo. In addition, there was no question
trying to determine if the zoo visitor felt the welfare of the animal was more important to them
than their ability to see the animal which could be a very interesting and informative area of
future research.
The visitors’ ratings about if the zoo was a good value for the entrance cost was
statistically significant at both zoos and with five of the t-tests. Along with membership, the
value of the entrance cost was found to be statistically significant more than the other variables.
It would be interesting to see satisfaction levels for visitors of a free zoo. The National Zoo in
Washington D.C., the St. Louis Zoo, and Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo are all very popular free
zoos. Researchers could learn more about the satisfaction levels of zoo visitors when admission
price is not a factor.

69

Finally, the survey could be improved in a few ways. It would have been better to have a
category of less than one time per year as some visitors had not been to the zoo in many years,
but it was also not their first visit. Some visitors may not have understood the question asking
how much time they expect the animals to be visible. Some visitors answered four or eight and
may have misunderstood the question and were perhaps documenting hours rather than a
percentage. Rephrasing the question may produce less confusion. A place was provided for the
survey participants to note any comments and concerns about their visit. However, a better way
to format the question may have been to ask which zoo features would make the visitor return.
This may give the zoos some very good ideas from the visitors about what they would like to see
happen in the zoo rather than just providing a place for negative comments.

CONCLUSIONS

Each zoo had statistical significance in different factors that were researched in this
study. Therefore, in some situations the null hypothesis is rejected and in others the null
hypothesis has failed to reject. At the Detroit Zoo, there was statistical significance with overall
satisfaction with zoo experience with only visitor belief about the value of the zoo. This was also
statistically significant at the Potter Park Zoo, in addition to visit frequency. Concerning the
importance of animal visibility, membership, value, and visit frequency were significant at the
Detroit Zoo. At Potter Park, membership was the only significant factor in the importance of
animal visibility. Next, there was statistical significance with the satisfaction with animal
visibility in the areas of hiding place and value at the Detroit Zoo. Membership, presence of
children, value, and weekday vs. weekend visitors were all significant at the Potter Park Zoo.

70

The importance of animal welfare to the zoo visitors was statistically significant with gender at
Detroit and nothing was significant at the Potter Park Zoo.
These findings correspond to the first research question and are important for zoos to
increase satisfaction levels for their visitors. From these results we learn that there are a few
factors that were significant in many instances. Membership, the value of the entrance cost, visit
frequency, income and hiding place were significant at least twice throughout the study. These
are factors that can significantly influence a zoo visit and should be taken into consideration by
zoo managers. Zoos are increasingly competing with other types of entertainment for leisure time
and it is important for their visitors to enjoy their visit to ensure return trips. Every zoo can learn
from these types of studies to determine what features of a zoo are most important to the visitors
and how they can improve a zoo experience based on what the research determines. For
example, increasing the visibility of the animals while still maintaining a hiding place for the
animals (i.e. one way glass) benefits both the welfare of the animal and increase visibility which
could increase visitor satisfaction.
Hypothesis two concerning the amount of time visitors felt the animals should be visible
found some statistical significance at both zoos. At Detroit, zoo membership, education, income,
and visit frequency were all significantly different. The Potter Park Zoo also had many factors
that were statistically significant. These were gender, zoo membership, hiding place, value of the
zoo and income. The results of this hypothesis are directly relevant to both the two zoos included
in this study and can be helpful for all zoos in general. Overall, the average expected visibility
percentage was 78%. This was very close to the goal of 80% in the study based in Disney (Kuhar
et al., 2010). This study provided visitor research to confirm that 80% visibility is a goal that
corresponds to visitor expectations of visibility. It is very important for zoos to determine visitor

71

expectations on visibility. These zoos can now try to increase visibility with the goal of near
80%.
The relationship between zoo visitors and wildlife tourists is an area that is full of
potential research. The few cursory questions researched in this study provide a first look at the
expectations of wildlife tourists when visiting zoos. Wildlife tourists noted that the animals
during their wildlife tourism experience was less than the amount of time they expected to see
the animals in the zoo. Therefore, the visitors expected to see the animals more when visiting
them in the captive setting of a zoo. The difference in the satisfaction level between their wildlife
tourism and zoo experience was almost statistically significant with satisfaction higher during
wildlife tourism, but was above the .05 cutoff. This is important to zoos because many zoos
strive to provide an environment that is as close to the animals’ natural habitat as possible but
must also realize the higher expectations of zoo visitors compared to wildlife tourists.
Overall, several areas of statistical significance were found at both zoos included in this
study. These results can provide important information to zoo administrators and it has identified
several areas of future research. Zoo visitor satisfaction with animal visibility is an important
area of research for zoos to ensure a positive experience for their guests.

72

APPENDIX

73

Survey

Hello, my name is Ashley Couch and I am studying zoo visitor satisfaction with animal visibility
for a Masters degree at Michigan State University. The survey should only take about 5 minutes
to complete. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning
this survey. However, if you choose not to complete all or part of the questions, you will not
suffer any penalty. Your complete survey would be very helpful but you are free to discontinue
your participation at any time. Your responses will be kept confidential and your privacy will be
protected. Thank you very much for your help today!
1. How would you rate your overall zoo experience today?
Excellent

Good

Average

Fair

Poor

2. Please describe your primary reason for visiting the zoo today. _____________________
3. How many of the animals you wanted to see today were visible?
Few

All

Most Some

None

4. What percentage of the time do you feel the animals should be visible during hours the
zoo is open?_________
5. How satisfied are you with the overall visibility of the animals during your visit today?
Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neutral

Unsatisfied

Very unsatisfied

6. How important to you is animal welfare for the zoo animals?
Very important

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

Very unimportant

7. How important for your zoo visit was animal visibility?
Very important

Important

Neutral

Unimportant

74

Very unimportant

8. Do you think the animals should have a place to hide from the view of zoo visitors? Yes
No
9. Which animals did you most want to see today? _________________________________

10a. Have you ever participated in a wildlife tourism activity? (such as any organized activity
from local bird watching to traveling internationally specifically to view animals?

Yes

No
10b. If yes, what approximate percentage of the time were the animals visible in the wild?
_________
10c. Thinking of your most memorable wildlife tourism trip, how satisfied were you with
the overall visibility of the animals?
Very satisfied

Satisfied

Neutral

11a. Do you think the zoo is a good value for the cost?

Unsatisfied
Yes

Very unsatisfied

No

11b. If no, why? _______________________________________________________________
12. Did you come to the zoo with children today?

Yes No

13. What is your home zip code? ___________
14. Are you a member of the zoo? Yes

No

15. Gender: Male Female

16. Age: ______
17. What is the highest level of education you finished?
No High school diploma

High school diploma Some college 2 year college 4 year college
degree Graduate degree

18. What was your household income? (in 2011 before taxes)
$0-$24,999;

$25,000-$49,999;

$50,000-$74,999;

75

$75,000-$99,999;

>$100,000

19. How many times per year do you normally visit this zoo?
First time visitor

One

Two to Three

Four to Five

More than 5 times per year

20. Please write any comments or concerns about your visit today or any explanations
about your answers above
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

If you have questions about this research contact Dr. Linda Kalof, Michigan State University,
lkalof@msu.edu If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a
research participant, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, Michigan State University
Human Research Protection Programs at (517) 355-2180 or irb@msu.edu, or regular mail:
202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

76

LITERATURE CITED

77

LITERATURE CITED

Adelman, L.M., Falk, J.H., and James, S. (2000). Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on
Visitors’ Conservation Attitudes, Behavior, and Knowledge. Curator. 43: 33-61.
Andereck, K.L., and Caldwell, L.L. (1994). Variable Selection in Tourism Market Segmentation
Models. Journal of Travel Research. 33: 40-46.
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Retrieved March 26, 2010. http://aza.org/
Baker, D.A., and Crompton, J.L. (2000). Quality, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions. Annals
of Tourism Research. 27: 785-804.
Ballantyne, A., Packer, J., Hughes, K., and Dierking, L. (2007). Conservation Learning in
Wildlife Research Settings: Lessons from Resarch in Zoos and Aquariums.
Environmental Education Research. 13: 367-383.
Balmford, A. (2000). Separating Fact from Artifact in Analyses of Zoo Visitor Preferences.
Conservation Biology. 14: 1193-1195.
Benkenstein, M., Yavas, U., and Forberger, D. (2003). Emotional and Cognitive Antecedents of
Customer Satisfaction in Leisure Services: The Case of the Rostock Zoo. Journal of
Hospitality and Leisure Marketing. 10: 173-184.
Beri, V., Tranent, A., and Abelson, P. (2010). The Economic and Social Contribution of the
Zoological Industry in Australia. International Zoo Yearbook. 44: 192-200.
Birke, L. (2002). Effects of Browse, Human Visitors and Noise on the Behaviour of Captive
Orang utans. Animal Welfare. 11: 189-202.
Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., and Benefeild, A. (1988). Exhibit Design and Visitor Behavior:
Empirical Relationships. Environment and Behavior. 20: 474-491.
Brandin, E. (2009). Versions of “Wild” and the Importance of Fences in Swedish Wildlife
Tourism Involving Moose. Current Issues in Tourism. 12: 413-427.
Burghardt, G.M., and Herzog Jr., H.A. (1980). Beyond Conspecifics: Is Brer Rabbit Our
Brother? BioScience. 30: 763-768.
Cain, L.P., and Meritt Jr., D.A. (1998). The Growing Commercialism of Zoos and Aquariums.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 17: 298-312.
Clayton, S., Fraser, J., and Saunders, C.D. (2009). Zoo Experiences: Conversations,
Connections, and Concern for Animals. Zoo Biology. 28: 377-397.

78

Cloke, P., and Perkins, H.C. (2005). Cetacean Performance and Tourism in Kaikoura, New
Zealand. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 23: 903-924.
Curtin, S. (2005). Nature, Wild Animals and Tourism: An Experiential View. Journal of
Ecotourism. 4: 1-15.
Curtin, S. (2009). Wildlife Tourism: The Intangible, Psychological Benefits of Human-Wildlife
Encounters. Current Issues in Tourism. 12: 451-474.
Curtin, S. (2010). What Makes for Memorable Wildlife Encounters? Revelations From ‘Serious’
Wildlife Tourists. Journal of Ecotourism. 9: 149-168.
Davenport, M.A., Borrie, W.T., Freimund, W.A., and Manning, R.E. (2002). Assessing the
Relationship Between Desired Experiences and Support for Management Actions at
Yellowstone National Park Using Multiple Methods. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration. 20: 51-64.
Davey, G. (2006). Relationships Between Exhibit Naturalism, Animal Visibility and Visitor
Interest in a Chinese Zoo. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 96: 93-102.
Davey, G. (2006). Visitor Behavior in Zoos: A review. Anthrozoos. 19: 143-157.
Davey, G. (2007). Visitors’ Effects on the Welfare of Animals in the Zoo: A Review. Journal of
Applied Animal Welfare Science. 10: 169-183.
Davey, G. (2007). Public Perceptions in Urban China toward Zoos and Their Animal Welfare.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 12: 367-374.
Detroit Zoo. Retrieved September 24, 2012. http://detroitzoo.org/
Dierking, L.D., Adelman, L.M., Ogden, J., Lehn-Hardt, K., Miller, L., and Mellen, J.D. (2004).
Using a Behavior Change Model to Document the Impact of Visits to Disney’s Animal
Kingdom: A Study Investigating Intended Conservation Action. Curator. 43: 322-343.
Falk, J.H. (2006). An Identity-Centered Approach to Understanding Museum Learning. Curator.
49: 151-166.
Falk, J.H., Heimlich, J., and Bronnenkant, K. (2008). Using Identity-Related Visit Motivations as
a Tool for Understanding Adult Zoo and Aquarium Visitors’ Meaning-Making. Curator.
51: 55-79.
Fernandez, E.J., Tamborski, M.A., Pickens, S.R., and Timberlake, W. (2009). Animal-Visitor
Interactions in the Modern Zoo: Conflicts and Interventions. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science. 120: 1-8.

79

Goulart, V.D., Azevedo, P.G., Van De Schepop, J.A., Teixeira, C.P., Barcante, L., Azevedo,
C.S., and Young, R.J. (2009). GAPs in the Study of Zoo and Wild Animal Welfare. Zoo
Biology. 28: 561-573.
Gusset, M., and Dick, G. (2010). The Global Reach of Zoos and Aquariums in Visitor Numbers
and Conservation Expenditures. Zoo Biology. 29: 1-4.
Hammitt, W.E., Dulin, J.N., and Wells, G.R. (1993). Determinants of Quality Wildlife Viewing
in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 21: 21-30.
Hughes, M., Newsome, D., and Macbeth, J. (2005). Case Study: Visitor Perceptions of Captive
Wildlife Tourism in a Western Australian Natural Setting. Journal of Ecotourism. 4: 7391.
Hutchins, M., and Smith, B. (2003). Characteristics of a World-Class Zoo or Aquarium in the
21st Century. International Zoo Yearbook. 38: 130-141.
Knight, J. (2010). The Ready-To-View Wild Monkey The Convenience Principle in Japanese
Wildlife Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 37: 744-762.
Knowles, J.M. (2003). Zoos and a Century of Change. International Zoo Yearbook. 38: 28-34.
Kontogeorgopoulous, N. (2009). Wildlife Tourism in Semi-Captive Settings: A Case Study of
Elephant Camps in Northern Thailand. Current Issues in Tourism. 12: 429-449.
Kuhar, C.W., Miller, L. J., Lehnhardt, J., Christman, J., Mellen, J.D., and Bettinger, T.L. (2010).
A System for Monitoring and Improving Animal Visibility and its Implications for
Zoological Parks. Zoo Biology. 29: 68-79.
Kutska, D. (2009). Variation in Visitor Perceptions of a Polar Bear Enclosure Based on the
Presence of Natural vs. Un-Natural Enrichment Items. Zoo Biology. 28: 292-306.
Leberman, S.I., and Holland, J.D. (2005). Visitor Preferences in Kruger National Park, South
Africa: The Value of a Mixed-Method Approach. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration. 23: 21-36.
Lemelin, R.H. (2006). The Gawk, The Glance, and the Gaze: Ocular Consumption and Polar
Bear Tourism in Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Current Issues in Tourism. 9: 516-534.
Marcellini, D.L., and Jenssen, T.A. (1988). Visitor Behavior in the National Zoo’s Reptile
House. Zoo Biology. 7: 329-338.
Mason, P. (2000). Zoo Tourism: The Need for More Research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism.
8: 333-339.

80

Miller, B., Conway, W., Reading, R.P., Wemmer, C., Wildt, D., Kleiman, D., Monfort, S.,
Rabinowitz, A., Armstrong, B., and Hutchings, M. (2004). Evaluating the Conservation
Mission of Zoos, Aquariums, Botanical Gardens, and Natural History Museums.
Conservation Biology. 18: 86-93.
Mitchell, G., Tromborg, C.T., Kaufman, J., Bargabus, S., Simoni, R., and Geissler, V. (1992).
More on the ‘Influence’ of Zoo Visitors on the Behaviour of Captive Primates. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science. 35: 189-198.
Montag, J.M., Patterson, M.E., and Freimund, W.A. (2005). The Wolf Viewing Experience in
the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 10: 273284.
Morgan, J.M., and Hodgkinson, M. (1999). The Motivation and Social Orientation of Visitors
Attending a Contemporary Zoological Park. Environment and Behavior. 31: 227-239.
Moss, A., and Esson, M. (2010). Visitor Interest in Zoo Animals and the Implications for
Collection Planning and Zoo Education Programmes. Zoo Biology. 29: 715-731.
Moss, A., Esson, M., and Bazley, S. (2010). Applied Research and Zoo Education: The
Evolution and Evaluation of a Public Talks Program using Unobtrusive Video Recording
of Visitor Behavior. Visitor Studies. 13: 23-40.
Muraoka, D. (2008). The Mission of Accredited U.S. Zoos and Aquarium. Review of Business
Research. 8: 146-150.
Myers Jr., O.E., Saunders, C.D., and Birjulin, A.A. (2004). Emotional Dimensions of Watching
Zoo Animals: An Experience Sampling Study Building on Insights from Psychology.
Curator. 47: 299-321.
Nakamichi, M. (2007). Assessing the Effects of New Primate Exhibits on Zoo Visitors’ Attitudes
and Perceptions by Using Three Different Assessment Methods. Anthrozoos. 20: 155165.
Norton, A. (1996). Experiencing Nature: The Reproduction of Environmental Discourse
Through Safari Tourism in East Africa. Geoforum. 27: 355-373.
Nowacki, M.M. (2009). Quality of Visitor Attractions, Satisfaction, Benefits and Behavioural
Intentions of Visitors: Verification of a Model. International Journal of Tourism
Research. 11: 297-309.
Okello, M.M., and Yerian, S. (2009). Tourist Satisfaction in Relation to Attractions and
Implications for Conservation in the Protected Areas of Northern Circuit, Tanzania.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 17: 605-625.

81

Olukole, T.O., and Gbadebo, O.S. (2008). Patterns of Visits and Impacts of Zoo Animals on
Visitors. An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research. 19: 237-249.
Orams, M.B. (2002). Feeding Wildlife as a Tourism Attraction: A Review of Issues and Impacts.
Tourism Management. 23: 281-293.
Orams, M.B. (2000). Tourists Getting Close to Whales, is it What Whale-Watching is All
About? Tourism Management. 21: 561-569.
Patterson, D., and Bitgood, S. (1988). Some Evolving Principles of Visitor Behavior. Visitor
Studies: Theory, Research, Practice. 1: 41-50.
Pearce, D.G., and Wilson, P.M. (1995). Wildlife-Viewing Tourists in New Zealand. Journal of
Travel Research. 34: 19-26.
Pekarik, A.J., Doering, Z.D., and Karns, D.A. (1999). Exploring Satisfying Experiences in
Museums. Curator. 42: 152-173.
PGAV Destinations. (2011). Releasing Wild Success. http://www.pgavdestinations.com/insights/
January 22, 2012.
Potter Park Zoo. Retrieved September 24, 2012. http://potterparkzoo.org/
Povey, K.D., and Rios, J. (2002). Using Interpretive Animals to Deliver Affective Messages in
Zoos. Journal of Interpretation Research. 7: 19-28.
Price, E.C., Ashmore, L.A., and McGivern, A-M. (1994). Reactions of Zoo Visitors to FreeRanging Monkeys. Zoo Biology. 13: 355-373.
Rabb, G.B. (1994). The Changing Roles of Zoological Parks in Conserving Biological Diversity.
American Society of Zoologists. 34: 159-164.
Reynolds, P.C., and Braithwaite, D. (2001). Towards a Conceptual Framework for Wildlife
Tourism. Tourism Management. 22: 31-42.
Ross, S.R., and Gillespie, K.L. (2009). Influences on Visitor Behavior at a Modern Immersive
Zoo Exhibit. Zoo Biology. 28: 462-472.
Ryan, C., and Saward, J. (2004). The Zoo as Ecotourism Attraction – Visitor Reactions,
Perceptions and Management Implications: The Case of Hamilton Zoo, New Zealand.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 12: 245-266.
Saayman, M., and Slabbert, E. (2004). A Market Analysis of Visitors to the Pretoria National
Zoo. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation.
26: 89-96.

82

Sandifer, C. (2003). Technological Novelty and Open-Endedness: Two Characteristics of
Interactive Exhibits That Contribute to the Holding of Visitor Attention in a Science
Museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 40: 121-137.
Schänzel, H.A., and McIntosh, A.J. (2000). An Insight into the Personal and Emotive Context of
Wildlife Viewing at the Penguin Place, Otago Peninsula, New Zealand. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism. 8: 36-52.
Shettel-Neuber, J. (1988). Second- and Third-Generation Zoo Exhibits: A Comparison of
Visitor, Staff, and Animal Responses. Environment and Behavior. 20: 452-473.
Sicker, J. and Fraser, J. (2009). Enjoyment in Zoos. Leisure Studies. 28: 313-331.
Smith, L., Broad, S., and Weiler, B. (2008). A Closer Examination of the Impact of Zoo Visits
on Visitor Behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 17: 544-562.
Thornton, P.R. (1997). Tourist Group Holiday Decision-Making and Behaviour: The Influence
of Children. Tourism Management. 18: 287-296.
Tomas, S.R., Scott, D., and Crompton, J.L. (2002). An investigation of the Relationships
Between Quality of Service Performance, Benefits Sought, Satisfaction and Future
Intention to Visit Among Visitors to a Zoo. Managing Leisure. 7: 239-250.
Tomas, S.R., Crompton, J.L., and Scott, D. (2003). Assessing Service Quality and Benefits
Sought Among Zoological Park Visitors. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration.
21: 105-124.
Topelko, K.N., and Dearden, P. (2005). The Shark Watching Industry and Its Potential
Contribution to Shark Conservation. Journal of Ecotourism. 4: 108-128.
Tribe, A. (2004). Zoo Tourism. In K. Higginbottom, Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management,
and Planning (35-56). Australia: Common Ground Publishing.
Tremblay, P. (2002). Wildlife Icons: Attractions or Marketing Symbols? Tourism. 9: 164-180.
Turley, S.K. (1998). Exploring the Future of the Traditional UK zoo. Journal of Vacation
Marketing. 5: 340-355.
Turley, S.K. (2001). Children and the Demand for Recreational Experiences: The Case of Zoos.
Leisure Studies. 20: 1-18.
United States Census Bureau. Retrieved September 24, 2012. http://www.census.gov/
Van Linge, J.H. (1992). How to Out-Zoo the Zoo. Tourism Management. 13: 115-117.

83

Wagner, K.F. (1989). Maintaining a High Quality Visitor Experience. Visitor Studies: Theory,
Research, and Practice. 2: 40-50.
Ward, P.I., Mosberger, N., Kistler, C., and Fischer, O. (1998). The Relationship Between
Popularity and Body Size in Zoo Animals. Conservation Biology. 12: 1408-1411.
Wright, R.G. (1998). A Review of the Relationships Between Visitors and Ungulates in National
Parks. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 26: 471-476.
Wood, W. (1998). Interactions Among Environmental Enrichment, Viewing Crowds, and Zoo
Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biology. 17: 211-230.
Woods, B. (2002). Good Zoo/Bad Zoo: Visitor Experiences in Captive Settings. Anthrozoos. 15:
343-360.
Zwinkels, J., Oudegeest, T., and Laterveer, M. (2009). Using Visitor Observation to Evaluate
Exhibits at the Rotterdam Zoo Aquarium. Visitor Studies. 12: 65-77.

84