P a g e | 352
Chapter 50: ZOO VISITORS: CAN WE MAKE THEM BEHAVE?
Stephen Bitgood, Arlene Benefield, Donald Patterson, David Lewis, & Angela Landers
AAZPA 1985 Annual Proceedings
Update: This paper was our first publication dealing with visitors in exhibition centers. After a
number of years dealing with experimental, clinical, and formal educational problems in
psychology, I began studying visitors in 1984 at the Birmingham Zoo and a year later at the
Anniston Museum of Natural History. At the time we were not aware of much of the visitor
literature as indicated by the citations in the paper. We began our studies by taking an
inductive approach – we simply attempted to select different types of animal exhibits and
carefully observe what visitors did (percent of visitors who stop, viewing time when stopped,
reading behavior, etc.). We were unaware of or unimpressed by theoretical explanations
others
have suggested and we were not constrained by the bias that often accompanies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------theory. Our approach was empirical and inductive, hoping that the relationship between
exhibit characteristics and visitor behavior would later suggest a viable theory. While our
approach may have been somewhat naïve at the time, we were immediately rewarded with
rich data.
INTRODUCTION
Zoos have become increasingly concerned with the behavior of their visitors. From the perspective
of zoo personnel, it is desirable to control visitor behavior in several ways: (1) to influence visitors to
return to the zoo as many times as possible; (2) to inculcate visitors with educational information and
attitudes such as conservation of wildlife; and (3) to direct visitors to engage in appropriate visitor
behaviors (e.g., being courteous to other visitors, following directional signs and arrows) and refraining
from inappropriate behaviors (e.g., feeding animals, teasing animals, littering, damaging property). The
present study provided data on some of the factors that appear to influence visitor behavior at zoos.
A simple model of visitor behavior was formulated. This model assumed that visitor behavior is
primarily controlled by three factors: (1) the attractiveness of the exhibit; (2) the physical and
psychological comfort of the visitor; and (3) the types of controlling stimuli directed at the visitor.
Attractiveness of Exhibit
It has been quite obvious to zoo personnel that visitors are drawn to and remain longer at exhibits
that are more attractive. The question is: “What makes an exhibit attractive to visitors?” One of the
most frequently documented variables is animal activity (e.g., Hodges, 1978; Martin & O’Reilly, 1982).
An active animal appears to be more interesting or entertaining than an inactive one. Although animal
activity has been show to influence visitor behavior, to our knowledge, no one has systematically looked
at other variables that make an exhibit attractive. Other variables such as animal size, animal beauty,
artistic and dramatic characteristics of the exhibits, and proximity of animal to visitor may all play an
important role in the visitors’ perception of exhibit attractiveness.
P a g e | 353
Visitor Comfort
A second factor related to the control of visitor behavior is visitor comfort. This factor is likely to be
an important factor with zoo visitors or with people in any environment. Temperature, crowding, smell,
lighting, and noise are all likely to affect the behavior of visitors. Common sense tells us that people are
less likely to go outside on a rainy day. Although visitor comfort is an obvious factor, it has not been
systematically studied in zoos. Under what conditions will visitor comfort play a more or less important
role? Under what conditions will a visitor avoid viewing an otherwise attractive exhibit because of
factors such as crowding, heat, or smell? Will visitors stay in the zoo longer if comfortable seating is
provided?
Controlling Visual Stimuli
There are at least three types of stimuli used to control visitors. The first type exerts directional
control (e.g., entrance-exit signs; traffic-flow arrows; orientation maps). The second type provides
information about the exhibit (e.g., labeling signs and guide books). The last type of stimuli is an
instruction-to-action cue (e.g., “Parents ask yur child to identify this animal,” or “Don’t feed the
animals”). Several articles have been concerned with one aspect of directional control: orientation
devices such as maps, information desk, and signboards (Cohen, Winkel, Olsen, & Wheeler, 1977; Levin,
1982; Sharpe, 1983). As an example, Cohen et al (1977) found that visitors to the National Museum of
History became less disoriented when maps and signs were introduced in to the Museum.
The other types of controlling stimuli have been less frequently studied. Only one experimental
study could be found that looked at sign-labelling, the most common type of information stimuli.
Hodges (1978) found that the letter size and the amount of text on a sign affected visitor viewing time.
Viewing time increased dramatically when the letter size was increased and the amount of text
decreased. No studies could be found that evaluated the instruction-to-action stimuli.
METHOD
Visitor Viewing Time
Observers recorded the visitor viewing time in six areas of the Birmingham Zoo. These areas were:
(1) the Predator House; (2) the Bear Area; (3) the Monkey Area (outside cages); (4) the Pachyderm
Building; (5) the Reptile House; and (6) the Hoofed Animal Area. Three exhibits from each of these areas
were selected for measurement of visitor behavior. In the Predator House, the exhibits were: the
Spotted Leopard, the Couger, and the River Otter. In the Bear Area, the exhibits were: the Grizzly Bear,
the Polar Bear, and the Asiatic Bear. In the Monkey Area the exhibits were: the Gibbon, the Guennon,
and the Lemur. In the Pachyderm Building, the exhibits were: the Hippopotamus, the Elephant, and the
Rhinoceros. In the Reptile Building, the exhibits included: the Reticulated Python, the Indian Cobra, and
the Boa Constrictor. Finally, the Hoofed Animal exhibits included: the Tapir, the Greater Kudu, and the
Dromedary Camel.
P a g e | 354
The recording procedure involved marking off the primary viewing area for each exhibit and
measuring the amount of time that individual visitors stopped to observe the animal exhibit. The
primary viewing area was determined by visually inspecting the area in which visitors ordinarily
observed the exhibit. Only one visitor was tracked per observation. At the beginning of the recording
period, the recorder selected the first visitor entering the primary observation area and tracked this
individual until he/she left the area. A stop watch was used to time the total duration that the visitor
stopped and was visually oriented to the exhibit. Only time stopped was recorded since observation
areas differed in size and total time in the observation areas as a measure would have been biased by
the size of the observation areas. If the visitor did not stop to observe the exhibit, then a duration of
zero was entered. Ten visitors were chosen for observation during each observation period. Visitors
were selected such that one-half were adults and one-half were children. In addition to visitor viewing
time, the recorder indicated whether or not the animal was active during the time the visitor was
observing the exhibit. Other relevant information was also recorded such as time of day, temperature,
weather conditions, and crowd conditions. The size of the viewing area was measured for each exhibit
and approximate weights of animals were obtained from encyclopedias and other sources. Animal
activity, size of viewing area, and animal size were later correlated with visitor viewing time. Recordings
were taken on the following dates of 1985: 11 March, 14 March, 14 April, 2 May, 19 May, 1 June, and 15
June. A total of 30 visitors were observed for each exhibit on each day of recording.
Perceived Characteristics of Animals
Animals involved in this study were independently rated by 65 undergraduate and graduate
students at Jacksonville State University to determine the perceived beauty, threat, and novelty of each
animal. These results were then correlated with visitor viewing time to determine if perceived animal
characteristics played a role in exhibit attractiveness.
One-Way Direction Manipulation
After four days of measuring visitor behavior in the Reptile House, the traffic flow was changed from
two-way to one-way. The purpose of this manipulation was to see if the decrease in traffic congestion
produced longer exhibit viewing times. It is assumed that traffic congestion is an unpleasant state for
visitors and this unpleasantness is likely to reduce the viewing times of visitors.
Visitor Response to Signs
Visitors’ responses to the three types of zoo signs were measured: (1) entrance-exit signs; (2) exhibit
labels and information signs; and (3) instructions-to-act signs (“Parents, ask your child….”). Observers
recorded the number of visitors entering and leaving the Reptile and Predator Houses at both the
entrances and exits of these buildings which were clearly marked by signs on the doors. In addition,
throughout the study, observers recorded whether or not visitors read signs while they were viewing
exhibits. Finally, 492 parents were observed at three exhibits with signs that attempted to prompt
parents to ask their children a question about the animal.
P a g e | 355
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Overall Visitor Viewing Time
Figure 1 is a graph of the visitor viewing time for each of the 18 exhibits in the study. The
Pachyderm, Great Ape, and Bear Exhibits were viewed longest, while the Reptiles and Hoofed Animals
tended to be viewed the shortest amount of time. These results cannot be explained simply in terms of
animal popularity since big cats and monkeys tend to be most popular. The following analysis suggests
the involvement of several variables that are associated with viewing time.
Factors Related to Exhibit Attractiveness
1.
Activity: Table 1 contrasts viewing time between active and inactive periods of animal activity.
For each animal exhibit under study, viewing time was considerably greater during active
periods than during inactive periods.
Table 1
Comparison of Viewing Times During Active and Inactive Periods
ANIMAL
ACTIVE
View Time Percent Active
NOT ACTIVE
View Time Percent Active
Otter
59.5 sec
80%
24.5 sec
0
Polar Bear
62.3
100
32.6
30
Asiatic Bears
40.9
100
10.9
0
Guennon
48.0
60
15.3
20
P a g e | 356
2. Animal size/viewing area: Viewing times were correlated with the weights of animals (r = 0.65)
and the size of the view area (r = 0.62). It is difficult to determine the relative importance of
these variables since they are confounded in the present study. That is, larger animals tend to
have larger exhibit areas and consequently larger viewing areas for visitors.
3. Presence of young animals: The presence of a young animal appears to increase the
attractiveness of an exhibit quite markedly. During the first three days we recorded visitor
behavior at the Birmingham Zoo, a young Hippo was exhibited with its mother. This young
animal was sold while we continued to collect data. The mean viewing time when the young
animal was present was 84.2 sec (based on 90 observations). After the young animal was
removed, the viewing time dropped to 43.2 sec (based on 60 observations). Similar effects
have been observed for other exhibits in other zoos, although careful measurements have not
been taken.
4. Perceived animal characteristics: Figure 2 shows the relations between perceived beauty and
view time. The reptiles and hoofed animals tend to be perceived as less attractive and viewed
for shorter times than other animals. Although the pachyderms may be perceived as
unattractive, their size and activity may be responsible for their longer viewing times. Bit cats,
bears, and monkeys are perceived as most attractive and viewing times of these animals may be
dependent mostly on the activity of the animal.
5. Visitor barriers: The exhibits observed in the present study had three kinds of barriers: bars or
fence; glass; or a moat. Bars/fence gives the poorest view of the animal while a moat gives the
P a g e | 357
best view. When the viewing times are averaged across the type of barrier, the moat average is
51.6 sec, the glass barrier average is 27.1 sec, and the bars/fence barrier is 25.2 sec.
6. Visual satiation: Viewing times were compared over successive similar-species exhibits and it
was found that viewing times were longer for the initial exhibits than for subsequent ones. In
addition to direct observation, the order of viewing snakes was experimentally manipulated by
directing visitor traffic flow in different directions on different days. The animal viewed first was
always viewed longer than the one viewed last. This finding will be reported in more detail in
another paper (Bitgood, England, Lewis, Benefield, Patterson, & Landers, 1985).
7. Factors related to visitor comfort: The results of changing traffic flow direction in the Reptile
House may suggest that crowding (or congested traffic flow) is an important variable in visitor
behavior. The average viewing duration of exhibits was 16.6 sec with a two-way traffic flow.
When the Exhibit House was changed to one-way, the viewing time increased to an average of
26.7 sec. This increased viewing time occurred despite the fact that the temperature of the
Reptile House remained uncomfortably hot throughout most of the study.
Effects of controlling visual stimuli
1. Directional control: Entrance and exit signs exert surprising control over visitor behavior. In the
Reptile House over 1500 observations were made on visitors. Over 99 percent of visitors
obeyed the direction signs. A similar result was observed in the Predator House.
2. Information control: The most important questions with this type of control are: (1) do visitors
read the signs/labels; and (2) what do they learn from these sources of information?
Throughout all of the exhibits studied, sign-readiing behavior occurred from 5.6 to 34.9 percent
of the time. The highest percentage of sign-reading occurred in exhibits that has a sign with a
red back ground and large letters that read, “This is not a …. pig, rabbit, ostrich.”
3. Instruction-to-action control: The Birmingham Zoo has several signs that attempt to prompt
parents to ask their children a question about an animal in one of the exhibits. For example, the
sign for the Greater Kudu instructs parents to ask their child, “What distinctive features can you
see in the Kudu?” Over 500 families were observed and not one parent was observed to ask
one of these questions to their children. In their present form, these signs are ineffective.
DISCUSSION
The results of the study support the proposed three-factor model of visitor behavior. In particular,
some of the parameters of the three factors were explored. It seems reasonable to conclude, based on
the results, that exhibit attractiveness is facilitated by: (1) animal activity; (2) animal size; (3) presence of
young/infant animals; and (4) minimal or no visual barriers (e.g., bars, fences). The relative weightings
of these factors and the identification of other important variables are yet to be studied.
One of the possible factors in visitor comfort was also studied: traffic congestion in an exhibit
building. When traffic congestion was reduced in the Reptile House by making traffic flow one way,
P a g e | 358
viewing durations increased. Another factor affectiving visitor comfort is the weather. Every zoo has
documented the impact of bad weather on gate attendance. For example, during the Birmingham Zoo
during the Spring Vacation for Alabama schools, there was 25 percent lower visitor attendance on a
weekday in which a rain shower occurred compared with a weekday in which the entire day was warm
and sunny. Variables such as temperature, noise, and smell have yet to be systematically studied.
Finally, the effects of several controlling visual stimuli were assessed in the present study. Some of
these stimuli influenced visitor behavior to a much greater degree than others. For example, directional
control stimuli (entrance and exit signs in buildings) exerted considerably more control than did stimuli
that attempted to influence by giving information or instructions-to-action commands.
REFERENCES
Bitgood, S., England, R., Lewis, D., Benefield, A., Patterson, D., & Landers, A. (1985). Visusl satiation at
the zoo: Enough is enough! Paper presented at the Southeastern Association for Behavior Analysis,
Charleson, SC.
Cohen, M., Winkel, G., Olsen, R., & Wheeler, F. (1977). Orientation in a museum – An experimental
visitor study. Curator, 20: 85-97.
Hodges, S. (1978). An ecological approach to the study of zoo visitor behavior: Implications for
environmental management and design. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State
University.
Levine, M. (1982). You-Are-Here maps: Psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior, 14:
221-237.
Martin, J., & O’Reilly, J. (1982). Designing zoos for children: An alternative approach. Proceedings of the
International Conference of Environmental Design Research Association, 13: 339-346.
Sharpe, E. (1983). Touch-screen computers: An experimental orientation device at the National Museum
of American History. Office of Public & Academic Programs, National Museum of American History,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
FOOTNOTES
1. This study was partially funded by the Alabama Zoological Society.
2. We would like to express our appreciation to Richard Mills, Assistant Director of the Birmingham
Zoo, and to Jack Bradford of the Alabama Zoological Society for their helpful assistance during
the course of this study.