Contents
A
Candidate
Exhibit title
Animal and plant species list
Personnel
B
Applicant
C
Construction information
Timeline
Project costs
D
Narrative
Project planning process and goals
Physical description
Interpretive program
Safety
Conservation
Animal husbandry and management
Visitor experience and impact
E
Illustrative materials
Landscaping and building plans
Exhibit photographs
Press releases
F
Recognition
G
Image
H
Submitter
I
News release form
J
Winner’s release
Appendix
1
Evaluation
cover photo: Tom Crane
C o ntents
Title of exhibit: McNeil Avian Center
Animal and plant species contained in exhibit:
Atrium
birds
1.1 plants
Rhinoceros hornbill
Buceros rhinoceros
Abyssinian banana
Malabar chestnut
Monstera
Parrot flower
Red anthurium
Red ginger
Red ti
Ruffled fan leaf palm
Silver evergreen
Stromanthe
Variegated shell ginger
Ensete ventricosum
Pachira aquatica
Monstera deliciosa
Heliconia psittacorum
Anthurium spp.
Alpinia purpurata
Cordyline terminalis
Licuala grandis
Aglaonema commutatum
Stromanthe sanguinea
Alpinia zerumbet ‘Variegata’
A C an d i d ate
Exhibit title
Animal and plant species list
Personnel
African Sava n n a birds
plants
1.0
1.0 1.0 0.0.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 2.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 Blue-breasted kingfisher
Blue-bellied rollers
Buff-crested bustard
Cattle egret
Egyptian plover
Golden-breasted starling
Hammerkop
Magpie shrike
Pink-headed turtle dove
Snowy-headed robin chat
White-vented bulbul
Halcyon malimbica
Northern sea oats
Sausage tree
Sweet acacia
Chasmanthium latifolium
Kigelia pinnata
Acacia farnesiana
Coracias cyanogaster
Lophotis ruficrista
Bubulcus ibis
Pluvianus aegyptius
Cosmopsarus regius
Scopus umbretta Corvinella melanoleuca
Streptopelia roseogrisea
Cossypha niveicapilla
Pycnonotus barbatus
A1
Island Birds __ _ _ Gu a m birds
1.0 1.0 plants
T r o p i c a l Fo r e s t s
Guam rail
Micronesian kingfisher
Rallus owstoni
Aluminum plant
Dwarf bamboo
Mondo grass
Noni
Peanutbutter fruit
Perfume tree
Pilea cadierei
Sasa senanensis
Ophiopogon japonicus
Morinda citrifolia
Bunchosia argentea
Cananga odorata
Todiramphus c.cinnamominus
Island Birds __ _ _ Ha w a i i (note: includes bird species introduced to Hawaii)
birds
1.2 1.0 5.2 1.0 0.3 plants
Amakihi
Black-necked stilt
Java sparrows
Red-crested cardinal
Saffron finch
Hemignathus virens
Aluminum plant
Jatropha
Macarthur palm
Sapodilla tree
Pilea cadierei
Jatropha intergerrima
Ptychosperma macarthurii
Manilkara zapota
Himantopus mexicanus
Padda oryzivora
Paroaria coronata
Sicalis flaveola
Island Birds __ _ _ In do n e s i a birds
plants
1.1 1.1
0.2 2.0 0.1 0.1 1.1 Bali mynah
Bartlett’s bleeding heart dove
Blue-crowned hanging parrot
Goldie’s lorikeet
Jambu fruit dove
Mariana fruit dove
Palawan peacock pheasant
Leucopsar rothschildi
Dwarf poinciana
Green ti
Lemon grass
Caesalpinia pulcherrima
Cordyline terminalis
Cymbopogon citratus
Gallicolumba criniger
Loriculus galgulus
Trichoglossus goldiei
Ptilinopus jambu
Ptilinopus roseicapilla
Polyplectron emphanum
birds
plants
1.0 1.0 1.1 0.1.2 1.1 0.0.2 5.6 1.2 1.0 2.2 1.1 0.1.1 1.1 0.1 African pygmy goose
Collared imperial pigeon
Crested oropendola
Crimson-rumped toucanet
Fairy bluebird
Ivory-billed aracari
Metallic starling
Nicobar pigeon
Piping guan
Ringed teal
Roul roul
Victoria crowned pigeon
Violaceous turaco
Yellow-knobbed curassow
Areca
Black Olive
Bromeliad
Bromeliad
Doum palm
Dwarf Jamaican
Guiana chestnut
Hibiscus cultivar
Jaboticaba
King fig
Lady of the night
Laua’s fern
Manila tamarind
Pygmy date palm
Pinang yaki
Red powder puff
Sanchezia
Senegal date palm
Traveler’s tree
Warmin bamboo
Washington palm
White strelitzia
Nettapus auritus
Ducula mulleri
Psarocolius decumanus
Aulacorhynchus haematopygus
Irena puella
Pteroglossus azara
Aplonis metallica
Caloenas nicobarica
Aburria pipile cumanensis
Callonetta leucophrys
Rollulus roulroul
Goura victoria Musophaga violacea
Crax daubentoni
Areca catechu
Bucida buceras
Aechmea spp.
Tillandsia spp.
Hyphaene compresa
Heliconia humilis
Pachra insignis
Hibiscus rosa-sinensis
Myrciaria cauliflora
Ficus ‘Alii’
Brunfelsia americana
Microsorium scolopendrium
Pithecellobium dulce
Phoenix roebelenii
Areca vestiara
Calliandra haematocephala
Sanchezia speciosa
Phoenix reclinata
Ravenala madagascariensi
Bambusa vulgaris ‘Warmin’
Washingtonia robusta
Strelitzia alba
A2
Number of personnel maintaining exhibit on a daily basis:
Shade G row n C o f f e e birds
1.1 1.0 2.2 1.1 1.0 0.2 0.2
1.0 1.0 1.1 plants
Black-bellied whistling duck
Blue-grey tanager
Blue ground pigeon
Chiriqui quail-dove
Green and gold tanager
Guira cuckoo
Little tinamou
Sun bittern
Southern lapwing
White-lined tanager
Dendrocygna autumnalis
Aglaonema
Amazon elephant ears
Coffee
Fishtail palm
Giant taro
Heliconia
Ice-cream tree
Shampoo ginger
Spanish lime
Aglaonema nitidum
Alocasia amazonica
Coffea arabica
Caryota mitis
Alocacia macrorrhiza
Heliconia rostrata
Inga edulis
Zingiber zerumbet
Melicoccus bujugatus
Thraupis episcopus
Keeper staff
3 keepers
Claravis pretiosa
Education
1 staff member
Geotrygon chiriquensis
Volunteers
1 volunteer, Sept. 2 – May 29 (off-season)
3 – 4 volunteers, May 30 – Sept. 1 (in season)
Tangara schrankii
Guira guira
Crypturellus soui
Groundskeeping 1 man-hour
Eurypyga helias Maintenance 1 man-hour
Vanellus chilensis
Tachyphonus rufus
Has this program previously been submitted for an AZA award? No.
Off-exhibit h o l di n g/ br e e d i n g
1.0 1.0 2.2
Collared finch-billed bulbul Spizixos semitorques
Guam rail
Rallus owstoni
Todiramphus c. cinnamominus
Micronesian kingfisher
A3
b A pplicant
AZA membership number: IN-5463200
AZA membership category: Institutional
Institution: The Philadelphia Zoo
Address: 3400 West Girard Avenue
Philadelphia PA, 19104-1196
Director: Vikram H. Dewan
Signature: B1
c Co nstr ucti o n Info rmati o n
Timeline
Project costs
Date of official public opening: May 30, 2009
Total length of construction time (excluding planning stage): 17 months
Cost of project:
Design
$ 2.0 million
Construction
11.6 million
Interpretation
1.1 million
Other
2.3 million
Total:
$ 17.0 million
C1
d N arrative
Project planning process and goals
Physical description
Interpretive program
Safety
Birds are amazing
from your neighborhood sparrows to fantastic tropical species, each
Conservation
Animal husbandry and management
Visitor experience and impact
bird is a wonder of adaptation. As we humans change the environment,
locally and around the world, we threaten the survival of many of these
wonders. Join us to marvel at the beauty and variety of birds, and to
make our planet safer for them.
Welcome graphic, McNeil Avian Center
D
1. Project Planning Process and Goals
a) Conceptual Development Process: The McNeil
Avian Center was developed through our established planning and project management process.
The process is driven by cross-departmental teams
that include senior managers, curators, keepers,
education staff and engineering staff. As part of
this process, clear project goals and objectives were
developed within the framework of our mission, our
strategic plan and our master plan.
b) Mission and Master Plan: This project capitalizes on the unique attributes of birds (relevance to
everyday lives of visitors, opportunities for direct
post-visit conservation action by visitors and more
complete and barrier-free habitat immersion) to
implement the Zoo’s mission to: “Advance discovery,
understanding and stewardship of the natural world
through compelling exhibition and interpretation of
living animals and plants.”
The McNeil Avian Center is the second major renovation completed under our 1998 (updated 2003)
Master Plan — the first being award-winning Big
Cat Falls, opened in 2006. The Master Plan targets
the oldest facilities at the Zoo for major renovations to better meet the Zoo’s emerging goals and
standards for animal care, conservation impact and
guest experience.
The project also drove and supported key initiatives
of our 2007 Strategic Plan. The Plan noted that “the
opening of the McNeil Avian Center in 2009 will
provide a key opportunity for the Zoo to leverage
the ‘power of birds’ to connect our visitors with the
wild places around them and create a generation
of birdwatchers.” The Strategic Plan specifically
noted opportunities to create new conservation
partnerships, foster a visitor experience that encourages families to connect with each other and drive
attendance growth.
c) Interpretive Message: The primary interpretive message for the McNeil Avian Center is that “Birds are
amazing, they are in trouble and you can help.”
Supporting messages relate to diversity of physical
and behavioral adaptations; major conservation
threats to birds; and specific actions that guests can
take to help birds locally and internationally.
d) Goals and Objectives: Overall goals developed
for the McNeil Avian Center included: to create
innovative experiences that actively engage visitors
with birds at the Zoo and post-visit; to feature
strong educational messages that emphasize
conservation and influence guest action; to advance
avian management practices including animal
health, behavioral enrichment, and animal training
to enhance animal welfare and the guest experience; and to incorporate energy-efficient building
systems to support our sustainability objectives.
2. Physical Description:
The restored 1916 neoclassical façade welcomes
guests to the renovated McNeil Avian Center.
Elegant steps lead to a portico framed by classic
columns. A gently sloped sidewalk provides alternate access to the portico and automated doors,
making this facility fully accessible. A sunny entry
atrium makes graceful reuse of the original steel
structure, and visitors have their first bird encounter
at a rhinoceros hornbill exhibit stretching across one
full face of the atrium. Deliberate choice of exhibit
position and materials achieve “borrowed” views
behind the hornbill exhibit to a rainforest exhibit
beyond, creating a sense of space and allowing
calls from the rainforest inhabitants to permeate
the atrium. The atrium space also provides rest
rooms and seating.
Guests move from the atrium to an African Savanna
exhibit where they view a varied collection from
the open porch of an eco-lodge. This exhibit, as are
others in the Center, is designed to accommodate
keeper training sessions. Children have the opportunity to play in a giant hammerkop nest.
Next, visitors experience three distinct Pacific island
habitats, each represented by a meshed exhibit:
Guam, the Hawaiian Islands and Indonesia. Tropical
plants, murals, sound tracks, and building materials
(in this case heavy bamboo) immerse the guest in
the targeted environment, as they do in the savanna
and Central American habitats.
The walk-through Tropical Forests exhibit features
a pan-tropical collection. This dramatic 30-foot tall
expanse allows for ample flight space, and varied
topography creates many opportunities to view birds
at eye level. The path leads the visitor to a bridge
crossing over a stream and misty gorge with a
waterfall splashing nearby. Periodic and localized
“rainstorms” bring birds flocking to bathe.
In the final bird exhibit in this counterclockwise
sequence, visitors view birds from the screened
porch of a Central American shade-grown coffee
plantation, with a focus on species that benefit from
this practice. Then, back in the atrium, guests have
the opportunity to enter the Migration Theater for
a ground-breaking interpretive experience through
which visitors accompany Otis the oriole on a virtual
migration from Fairmount Park in Philadelphia to a
Central American shade coffee plantation.
Behind the scenes, the McNeil Avian Center
includes keeper support areas for the entire bird
keeper staff (10)and collection management space
that were lacking or minimal in the original facility.
Bird management areas include shift cages attached
to each exhibit area, holding space for management
and breeding, an incubation room and an isolation
area with a separate entrance, which can be used
for quarantine if necessary. A large central kitchen is
supplemented by secondary food prep areas in each
major holding space. Storage areas provide for frozen
and dry foods, and include a specialized closet for
maintaining live insects. Keeper spaces include locker
rooms, work stations and a meeting/work space.
The first floor of the aviary building is approximately
13,000 square feet. About 48% is devoted to animal
exhibits and enclosures (split 60% to bird exhibits,
40% to off-exhibit holding), 14 % to keeper space
(office, locker-room, food preparation, circulation),
D1
39% to visitor space, and 8% to mechanical space.
In addition, there are two mezzanines and a partial
basement that comprise an additional 2,000 square
feet for mechanical systems.
3. Interpretive program:
The McNeil Avian Center employs a comprehensive
approach to interpretation, combining interpretive
graphics and interactives with training demonstrations, other staff interpretation and the first-ever use
of an object theater in a zoo setting. Interpretation
supports the main messages that: Birds are amazing; they face many threats to their survival; and
wherever we live, we can take action to protect
them. We were deliberate in our efforts to leverage
the fact that our visitors are able to have post-visit
experiences and direct conservation impact with
birds, in ways that are not possible for most other
major components of our collection (e.g. primates,
big cats), and that birds thus represent a unique
opportunity to engage our visitors in conservation
action. Knowledge and action targets to support
this effort included increasing awareness around
migration and our location on a main migration
route, increasing familiarity with local birds, and
encouraging bird-watching and visits to the nationally prominent birding locations around Philadelphia.
Interpretive “focus panels” located throughout the
exhibit support the “birds are amazing” message,
pointing out adaptations and behaviors that might
surprise and engage. Keepers regularly provide feeding and other demonstrations to illustrate the intelligence and unique abilities of the birds in our exhibit.
In the Tropical Forests, education staff members are
available for additional visitor interaction.
Other interpretive panels focus on “You Can Help”
or “Zoo at Work” graphics to highlight actions each
guest can incorporate in their daily lives to help
birds and the conservation efforts with which Philadelphia Zoo is involved. The Island Birds exhibits, for
example, focus on the impacts of invasive species.
In addition to the story of the brown tree snake and
its role in extinction of birds on Guam, we discuss
the impact of non-native birds, mosquitoes, and
diseases on the native birds of the Hawaiian islands
(the collection itself includes non-native birds now
found on Hawaii). Interactive panels demonstrate
how non-native species can be transported and
relate this “far away” story to the impact of nonnative plant species that have become invasive in
our own region.
Similarly, the Shade Grown Coffee exhibit highlights the importance of our own consumer choices
on wildlife habitat. While being introduced to the
concept of migration, visitors learn that many birds
that summer here in the Philadelphia area winter in
Central America, and that choices made here also
impact their distant wintering grounds.
In the Tropical Forests, we provide laminated cards
that guests carry with them to help locate and identify the inhabitants. This not only provides species
identification, but also engages visitors in birdidentification skills. We further this effort through
signage in the atrium featuring the tools of birdwatching, identification information for common
local birds, and local destinations for spectacular
birding experiences (e.g. Hawk Mountain, Cape May).
With the introduction of migration in the Shade
Grown Coffee exhibit, Migration Theater was
developed to further communicate the complicated
concept of bird migration and the importance of our
local region in the East Coast flyway. The audience
experiences a virtual migration from Fairmount Park,
where the Zoo is located, to a Central American coffee plantation, through a multi-media object theater
that utilizes animation and film footage on multiple
screens in addition to maps, set pieces, lighting and
special effects. The 14-minute experience presents
the many challenges faced by Otis the oriole and
the other birds that he meets, and in so doing, highlights actions that visitors can take.
In post-opening evaluation of the McNeil Avian
Center, 92% of post-visit interviewees were able to
suggest a way that people can help birds, and two
thirds (66%) noted a way they plan to help birds as
a result of their visit to the facility.
4. Safety:
Safety features built into and developed for the
McNeil Avian Center, as detailed below, encompass
fire protection; monitoring and backup of life safety
systems; design features that lower risks associated with introduction and capture; kitchen areas
designed to promote safe food handling practices;
building envelope design details that
reduce chances of bird impact; and monitoring
protocols for the primary walkthrough areas. Building HVAC systems are monitored via computer
24 hours/day. A sensitive aspiration-based smoke
detection system, sprinkler system, and smokepurge exhaust vents provide comprehensive fire
protection. Critical building systems are backed up
by a hard-wired emergency generator. Mechanical
spaces are key-restricted to engineering personnel
only, as is bird holding to animal husbandry staff.
Attached caging adjoins each exhibit to enable safe
introduction of birds and safe capture of exhibit
residents. Food preparation stations allow separation of meat and non-meat food items as do separate refrigerators and freezers. All exterior windows
and “greenhouse panels” are designed to be “bird
safe.” Greenhouse panels in the Tropical Forest are
either frosted or have vertical ribbing not more than
two inches apart, making the panels visible to birds
both inside and outside the building. The large viewing windows on the front and rear of the building
are frosted with a custom-designed bird pattern
to ensure visibility to wild birds. During operating
hours, the Tropical Forests “walkthrough” exhibit
is staffed with interpreters who monitor visitor and
bird behavior.
5. Conservation:
With regard to sustainable design, the building
itself is a creative re-use of the original 1916 Bird
House. All scrap metal removed from the build-
D2
ing was recycled. The building design incorporated
several energy initiatives. Most significantly, fifty-two
geothermal wells provide the primary heating and
cooling for the building.. Lighting in the exhibits and
public spaces is supplied primarily by natural light
through large greenhouse-type panels. Supplemental lighting is controlled by a photosensor during
the hours of occupancy, so that lights only come
on when the ambient light level drops below a set
point. The storage shed lighting is solar-powered.
Sustainable materials were used in the construction
process wherever possible. For example, all wood in
the exhibit areas is FSC-certified machiche, a tropical hardwood. An infiltration system captures the
first inch of rainwater from the roof of the new area
of the building, recharging it to ground water and
we are working to recover rainwater from the roof
of the original structure to supply make-up water
for a wetlands development project scheduled for
Fall 2010 in nearby Bird Lake.
Conservation messages throughout the McNeil Avian
Center focus on what the Zoo is doing for bird conservation and what the visitor can do at home. Specific conservation “action steps” suggested through
signage, interactives, live interpretation and Migration
Theater include creation of backyard bird habitats, use
of native plants in gardens, keeping cats indoors, and
purchase of shade-grown coffee. Tips on bird-watching, information on local bird species, and a guide to
local birding hotspots are all intended to encourage
engagement with birds after visitors leave the Zoo.
Additionally, we backed up these messages with an
increase in programming offered to members and
guests that included trips to local birding spots, visits
to our local conservation project sites, and workshops
on how to create backyard habitat for birds.
For the first year of operation, off-exhibit spaces
were primarily used for introduction and acclimation
of birds for the exhibits. We are now beginning to
establish breeding situations, starting with a focus
on our long-term commitment to the Micronesian
kingfisher breeding program. Philadelphia Zoo
staff members serve as Species Coordinator, Vice
Coordinator, Nutrition Advisor and Education
Advisor for this species, and the Coordinator and
Vice Coordinator sit on the USFWS Species Recovery
Committee. We are currently assessing opportunities
for making additional AZA program contributions
through work with another species or group of
conservation concern.
Several of the Zoo’s bird conservation programs link
to our interpretive program in the McNeil Avian
Center. Locally, we are partnered with Audubon
Pennsylvania and the American Bird Conservancy
on a Bird Collision Monitoring study in Center City
Philadelphia and a Migrant Stopover Ecology bird
banding project in nearby Fairmount Park. Additionally, the Zoo’s tree-planting programs restore wildlife
habitat for migratory birds in Fairmount Park, and
for rhinoceros hornbills (and many other co-occuring
species) in the Lower Kinabatangan Wildlife Sanctuary in Borneo.
6. Animal Husbandry and Management:
Exhibit concepts and therefore collection planning
for the McNeil Avian Center were driven in large
part by the main messages of the exhibit: that birds
are amazing; that many species are at risk of extinction; and that you (the visitor) can do something
to help. As an example, the Island Birds exhibits
were developed to highlight species of conservation
concern. The Shade Grown Coffee exhibit provides
a forum both to emphasize the impact of consumer
choices and to highlight the role of the Philadelphia
region in the eastern migration flyway, with attendant visitor conservation impact opportunities. The
African Savanna and (deliberately non-geographically restricted) Tropical Forests exhibit allowed a large
degree of flexibility in species selection, to create an
engaging (“amazing”) collection. Within these contexts, planning also focused on engaging visitors by
assembling a collection that was diverse in size and
appearance, included flocking species (e.g. metallic starlings), and captured a diversity of behavioral
characteristics (e.g. oropendolas and hammerkops
for nesting), as well as on AZA programmatic
recommendations.
To meet both husbandry and visitor experience
goals, the McNeil Avian Center was designed to provide a naturalistic environment that encourages bird
activity and display of natural behaviors. All
exhibits are naturally-lit and well planted with
shrubs, grasses and trees. UV-transmitting panels in
the greenhouse roof create sunspots that the birds
use for sunning and display—research has shown
that UV light can be important in mate choice and
successful breeding in birds. A programmable rainfall feature in the Tropical Forests provides a bathing
opportunity, which has become an anticipated
magnet for some species.
To increase the Philadelphia Zoo’s ability to
contribute to AZA programs for sustainable breeding populations of target bird species, collection
composition within exhibits was carefully planned
to minimize interspecific interference with breeding,
and dedicated off-exhibit space was designed to
provide maximum flexibility for housing and breeding. Panels dividing adjacent off-exhibit cages are
removable so that we can increase or decrease the
size of enclosures and allow for mesh introductions
between individuals. Each section has an 8-inch
curb that allows us to flood individual sections to
create a large bathing area or pools for housing
waterfowl. To implement isolation for any reason,
one area is separated from the rest of the building
and can be accessed through a separate entrance.
Off-exhibit areas also includes a dedicated space for
artificial incubation and hand-rearing.
As mentioned elsewhere, a key husbandry-related
facet to the design was the inclusion of “trap”
enclosures adjacent to each exhibit area. These
allowed and will continue to allow stepped introductions of species into each exhibit and have been
very effective in allowing us to segregate or catch
individuals from the larger exhibits. Since opening,
D3
we have caught dozens of individuals using these
enclosures, with minimal need for higher-risk netting
in the larger exhibit spaces.
In preparation for the opening of the McNeil
Avian Center, we invested heavily in the development of bird training skills in our keeper staff with
consultant-led keeper mentoring during multiple
periods in the years leading up to the opening of
the McNeil Avian Center. In addition, our nutrition
program is designed to facilitate training, through
designation of “base” and “training/enrichment”
diet components. As a result, we have improved
our bird husbandry and greatly enhanced the visitor
experience as the keepers work with the birds “onshow” to demonstrate husbandry-related and other
behaviors. Every feeding becomes an opportunity to
engage our visitors with birds and to give them a
better understanding of how we care for the birds in
our collection.
We believe that the training interactions between
birds and keepers have contributed greatly to the
ease with which the birds acclimated to their new
environments. We have been frankly amazed at
how comfortable and visible the vast majority of
birds became very quickly, of particular note in the
walk-through Tropical Forests. This has created an
excellent visitor experience, but also emphasized
the need for careful monitoring. Although we did
not anticipate reproduction during the first summer since the birds were introduced to the exhibits
fairly late in the breeding season, our first successful
hatching occurred shortly after opening, and to date
we have bred and reared three target species, with
another sitting on eggs at the time of writing.
We have made some post-opening modifications.
We have greatly increased the amount of high
perching in the Tropical Forests exhibit to lessen
bird pressure on live trees. Keeper access to the
lower portions of the Tropical Forest was improved
through the addition of more handholds. Additional
barriers were installed at the door from the atrium
to the African Savanna exhibit to improve bird
containment.
In order to address both animal husbandry and
guest experience issues going forward, the Zoo
has created a targeted endowment of $1.8 million,
representing 10% of the overall project budget. The
revenue from this endowment, at a 4% draw, will
fund upkeep and improvements to the McNeil Avian
Center on an annual basis. In addition, 1% of the
project budget ($180,000) has been set aside to
fund any issues identified over the next two years,
while the endowment matures.
7. Visitor Experience and Impact:
The Philadelphia Zoo coordinated a formal
summative evaluation of the McNeil Avian Center
in the months following its opening. Average visit
length documented during this evaluation was
9 minutes (range 2 to 33 minutes), not including
the 14-minute Migration Theater experience.
There was a great deal of enthusiasm for the McNeil
Avian Center among Zoo guests. 100% of post-visit
guests offered positive comments. The most enthusiastically cited highlights of their experience were:
•43% described an aspect of the exhibit experience such as having birds fly around them or
seeing birds up close
•25% cited seeing a specific bird
Other key results from the evaluation included:
• Over 25% of the guests surveyed felt that their
understanding of the Zoo’s role in helping wildlife had changed as a result of their visit to the
McNeil Avian Center.
•As noted elsewhere, 92% of post-visit interviewees were able to suggest a way that people can
help birds, and two thirds (66%) noted a way
they plan to help birds as a result of their visit to
the Center.
Evaluation results also directly support the Zoo’s
Strategic Plan goal of creating experiences that
engage visitors with each other as well as with the
animal collection.
•Over half of the study subjects either pointed
out a bird to another visitor or had another visitor
point out a bird for them to see in the Tropical
Forests (67%) and African Savanna (51%)
exhibit areas.
The Migration Theater show was particularly effective in conveying key local conservation messages.
•Approximately three-quarters of the interview
participants were able to provide an acceptable
explanation of the role of the Philadelphia region
in bird migration.
•Nearly every interviewee (97%) recalled hearing
about the plight of the red knot (a declining
shorebird featured in the show), and most
of the interviewees (84%) described the red
knots’ diminishing food supply as the challenge
they face.
•Almost 100% of the show interview participants
offered at least one positive comment about the
Migration Theater experience.
The success of the McNeil Avian Center is also
attested to by attendance patterns and external
recognition. The Philadelphia Zoo set a 15-year
high attendance record of nearly 1.3 million guests
during the opening year of the facility, surpassing
that achieved in years featuring new major big
cat and primate facilities. In 2009, the Center was
recognized as one of only 12 international award
recipients by the Themed Entertainment Association (TEA). This prestigious TEA award identified the
McNeil Avian Center as a destination that “has set
a new standard for educating the world about the
beauty, diversity, amazing instincts and endurance
of these creatures.”
D4
e I ll u strative
material
Landscaping and building plans
Exhibit photographs
Press releases
E
Project Location
Aerial view (prior to construction)
f
Location on Zoo grounds
North
E1
Site Plan
Geothermal well field
E2
First floor Plan — Public Areas
Public space
Exhibit space
Holding/Animal management
Keeper space
Mechanical /Storage
Tropical Forests
Shade Grown Coffee
Island Birds
Hormbill Exhibit
Migration Theater
Atrium
African Savanna
Women’s Room
Men’s Room
Portico
E3
First floor Plan — Behind the Scenes
Public space
Exhibit space
Shade Grown Coffee holding
Tropical Forests holding
Satellite kitchen
Holding/Animal management
Keeper space
Island Birds holding
Mechanical /Storage
Satellite kitchen
Holding
AV Closet
Main Kitchen
Holding
Dry Storage
Storage
Insect Closet
Locker Room
Staff Workstations
Staff Work Area
Incubation
African Savanna holding
Isolation
E4
Floor Plans
Public space
Exhibit space
Holding/Animal management
Keeper space
Mechanical /Storage
Mezzanine Plan
Basement Plan
E5
Exhibit Features
Tropical Forests
Bridge
Stream with periodic mist effect and rainfall
Waterfall
Island Birds
Indonesia
Hawaii
Shade Grown Coffee
Interactive graphic panel
Coffee plants
Guam
Screened porch viewing
Screened porch viewing area
Migration Theater
African Savanna
Seating for 45 visitors
Model of hammerkop
nest
Object theater set
Training demonstration
targeting station
Viewing porch open to bird exhibit
Atrium
Hornbill exhibit
Benches
Orientation graphics
E6
Sections
Section through Shade Grown Coffee, Tropical Forests and Island Birds exhibits.
Section through Island Birds and African Savanna exhibits.
E7
Representative Samples of Graphic Panels
The main interpretive message
throughout the exhibit is “Birds
are amazing, they are in trouble
and you can help” and is intended
to inspire observation and conversation. One of the Zoo’s goals was to foster an understanding and appreciation for local birds as
well as exotic species and to
make guests aware of the significance of the Philadelphia
region as an important stop for
many migrating birds.
Representative Samples of Graphic Panels
Graphics focus on ”amazing” and observable
features of birds in the exhibits.
In addition to encouraging guests to see
birds in new ways, a key message is that
many bird species throughout the world
are threatened. This message is
tempered with stories of how the Zoo is
helping birds and tips for simple things
visitors can do to help.
Representative Samples of Graphic Panels
Guests can carry laminated ID cards as
they look for birds among the trees of
Tropical Forests, a walk-through exhibit.
Young guests can take the
Bird Challenge and search for
clues using laminated game
cards in Tropical Forests.
Rail-mounted ID labels feature
photography, scale cues
and a new Threat Status graphic
gauge for each species.
photo: Tom Crane M c Neil Avi an Cen ter Faç ade
The Bird House, built in 1916, was renovated to create the
McNeil Avian Center. The historic façade, thought to be a fine
example of neoclassical architecture by the prominent firm of
Melior and Meigs Architects, was preserved.
E 11
T h e At r i um
photo: Tom Crane
A bright and spacious atrium features elements of the original
architecture and “borrowed” views through a hornbill
exhibit into the Tropical Forests exhibit beyond. Visitors are
introduced to the main messages of the exhibits. Birdfriendly products such as shade grown coffee and bird
feeders are offered for sale in season.
E 12
T he Hornb ill Ex hibit
A pair of rhinoceros hornbills, housed in an exhibit that
stretches across one face of the atrium, are the first birds to
amaze visitors in the McNeil Avian Center.
E 13
photo: Tom Crane
Th e Af ri can S avanna
The African Savanna design creates space and appropriate “furniture”
for husbandry-related and other training demonstrations. Nest
building is a featured concept in the exhibit and a life-size model of a
hammerkop nest invites children to explore.
E 14
photo: Tom Crane
Is lan d Bi r ds E x h i b i t
Exhibits on Guam, the Hawaiian Islands and Indonesia interpret
the impact of non-native species on vulnerable island birds.
The sound of a mosquito buzz underlines the role of mosquitoborne disease in decimating Hawaiian birds. Shift doors to
off-exhibit holding are incorporated into the murals.
E 15
Isl and Birds Interpretation
In the Island Birds exhibit, an interactive panel focuses
on invasive species and relates the exhibit messages
to issues in our local region through the use of “flip”
graphics and a “You Can Help” panel.
E 16
photo: Tom Crane
Th e Tr o p i cal F o r es t
The walk-through Tropical Forests exhibit takes full advantage of
the ability to immerse visitors in a barrier-free environment. Guests
visiting the McNeil Avian Center see birds up close and face to beak.
E 17
L iv e Interpretat io n
Education Department interpreters facilitate an engaging experience
in the Tropical Forests exhibit, support keeper training and feeding
demonstrations, and monitor Migration Theater. Additional staff and
volunteers provide a deeper experience during peak season.
E 18
T r o pica l Fore st
In te rpretation
In the Tropical Forests exhibit,
interpretation focuses on diversity
and highlights the distribution of the
world’s rainforests. Laminated species
identification cards engage guests of all
ages in active bird identification. Visitors
are often observed card-in-hand
tracking down particular species.
E 19
T h e T ro p i ca l F o r es t
photo: Tom Crane
Fog effects in the Tropical Forests “gorge” and a periodic local
downpour add to the guest experience. In addition, a misting system
maintains optimal humidity for birds and plants while as part of an
integrated HVAC system also reducing the need for air conditioning.
E 20
photo: Tom Crane
S h ad e Grow n C offe e
E xh ibit
This exhibit replicates a shade grown coffee
plantation in the Neotropics, while interpretation
introduces migration and the avian link between
the Philadelphia region and Latin America.
E 21
Mi g rat i on T h e at e r
Migration Theater is an immersive “object theater” that takes guests on a
virtual migration with Otis the oriole, starting in Fairmount Park near the Zoo
and ending in Central America. Before deciding on this technique, the Zoo
considered and researched a variety of options for bringing the layered story
of bird migration to life.
E 22
M i g rat i o n
Th e ate r Eff e c ts
Sound, mist and wind join an
array of visual effects to create a
thunderstorm and other immersive
experiences. A compass, mileage
gauge and animated maps provide
visual support to information on
how birds navigate, distances they
fly and routes they travel.
E 23
Awa r d W i nni ng
A ni mat i on
The story of Otis’s migration is brought
to life by an entertaining script and
appealing characters. The McNeil Avian
Center Migration theater show has
garnered two Golden Pixie Awards for
animation and split screen animation
from the American Pixel Academy.
E 24
photo: Tom Crane
H o l ding Are as
Our commitment to breeding and animal care
is reflected in the quality and quantity of space
devoted to holding areas. Holding/ introduction
cages are associated with each habitat and
additional holding is provided for other husbandry
needs. Each area is provided with a satellite sink/
prep station.
E 25
Rai nfores t Holdi ng
The rainforest holding/introduction cages separate the
main exhibit from the back of house. Caging throughout
the facility is modular to provide flexibility. An abundance
of natural light is a key feature of these areas.
E 26
K i t c hen
The main kitchen is used to prepare
diets for McNeil Avian Center
residents as well as the rest of
the Zoo’s bird collection. Food
preparation areas for meat and nonmeat products are segregated and
separate refrigerators and freezers
are used to store meat and non-meat
ingredients and prepared diets.
E 27
Incubatio n
A large space is devoted to incubation. There is ample room
for a variety of equipment .
E 28
Is o lat i on
The isolation area is designed to hold a
variety of species. It has direct access from
outside the building and a separate HVAC
zone, maintaining isolation and allowing —
as needed—for a significant temperature
variation from the rest of the facility.
E 29
Eas t E le vati o n
photo: Tom Crane
The new addition replaces a collection of unsightly earlier additions,
out-buildings and mechanical equipment (see inset). The external
support structure visible here removes internal perching opportunities
that would be too high to maintain. Shaded panels provide
optimum light levels for birds and plants without
solar gain overload of HVAC systems.
E 30
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Monday, May 25, 2009
E 31
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Friday, May 29, 2009
E 32
Click HERE to view
PRESS RELEASE
Contact:
Judith Rubin
+1 314 853-5210
rubin.judith@gmail.com
Gene Jeffers
+1 818-843-8497
gene@TEAConnect.org
Information Embargoed until 2.00 pm Pacific Time, November 17, 2009
Click the graphic above to view video of McNeil Avian Center
submitted for the Thea award.
Themed Entertainment Association (TEA)
Announces 16th Annual Thea Award Recipients
Annual awards for the themed entertainment industry seek, gauge and celebrate
excellence in the creation of compelling places and guest experiences
Las Vegas, Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2009 - “The annual Thea Awards, presented by the
Themed Entertainment Association (TEA), reflect the best among the projects and
people of our industry,” says TEA president Steve Thorburn of Thorburn Associates. “It
was a good year for museums as people vacationed closer to home, and as our Thea
Awards Committee found, museums are delivering superlative new guest experiences.
Other Thea Awards illuminate the growing Asian market and its steady flow of creativity
and innovation. The predominant thread of this awards cycle is a maturation in the use
of technology - we've mastered the seamless and transparent blend of media and
technology with live performers and physical elements - all in the service of storytelling.
Ours is an industry reaching for economic recovery, and we're pleased to note that TEA
grew more than 30 percent over the past two years. We extend hearty congratulations
to all the new Thea Award recipients and salute them for their contributions.”
The prestigious Thea Awards recognize and honor excellence in the creation of
outstanding visitor experiences, attractions, exhibits and places. Truly international in
their recognition of outstanding productions, the Thea Awards focus international
attention on innovation within the Themed Entertainment and Experience Design
Industry. The awards were created in 1994 by TEA to recognize and honor excellence
all up and down the chain of creative production. The Theas honor the vision and
dedication of the project owner while bestowing and recording credits for the work of the
designers, technicians, vendors and suppliers who realize the project.
The Thea Awards Nominating Committee (listed below) recommended the current slate
of 12 Thea recipients, with final approval by the TEA International Board of Directors.
The Awards will be formally presented March 6, 2010 at the 16th Annual Thea Awards
Gala, to be held at Universal Studios Hollywood and sponsored by Economics at
AECOM. The Awards Gala is a formal black-tie dinner event and is open to the public.
Tickets/more information: www.teaconnect.org.
McNeil Avian Center recognized by
the Themed Entertainment Association,
November 17, 2009
MORE
E 33
f R ec o gniti o n
Design Consultants
Contractors
Philadelphia Zoo In-House Team
Major Donors
Design Consultants
Architecture
SaylorGregg Architects
Exhibit Designers
The Portico Group
Interpretive Design Main Street Design
Lighting Design
Eclectic Precision
Civil Engineering
Ang Engineers
Structural/MEP/FP Engineering
CMX Engineering
Contractors
General Contractor
Hessert Construction Group
Interpretive Fabrication
Lynch Exhibits
Migration Theater Science North
F1
Philadelphia Zoo In-House Team
Major Donors
Project Management Nina Bisbee
Mr. and Mrs. Robert L. McNeil, Jr.
Porter Gould
The William Penn Foundation
Husbandry Dr. Andrew Baker
Kim Lengel
Dr. Aliza Baltz
Toni Flowers
Kelly Heilmann
Archie W. and Grace Berry Foundation
Andrea Hirsh
Mr. and Mrs. James M. Buck III
Amy Ivins
Mr. and Mrs. William C. Buck
Paul Kalka
Burke Family Foundation
JoAnne Kowalski
City of Philadelphia Cultural Corridors Fund
Wendy Lenhart
Leon Ellerson and Sandra Lee Curry
Elsa Mark
Mr. Peter G. Gould and Ms. Robin M. Potter
Catherine Vine
Mr. Arlin S. Green and Ms. Paula Yudenfriend
Interpretation Dr. Andrew Baker
Dr. Aliza Baltz
Kathy Wagner
Barbara McGrath
Art Direction
Barbara McGrath
Facilities
Matt Suydam
Conservation
Kim Lengel
Evaluation
Melissa Chessler
Public Relations
Amy Shearer
Mrs. J. Maxwell Moran
Bill Larson
RJM Foundation
Kirsten Wilf
Christa and Calvin Schmidt
Hope Coarse
Ms. Gail E. Seygal and Mr. David St. Clair
The Kresge Foundation
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell and the Pennsylvania General Assembly
Mr. W. Perry and Mrs. Tucker Gresh
Nathaniel P. Hamilton and Alta Wister Hamilton
Mr. and Mrs. S. Matthews V. Hamilton, Jr.
Mrs. Samuel M. V. Hamilton
The Hamilton Family Foundation
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Dr. and Mrs. Henry A. Jordan
Joanna McNeil Lewis
The McLean Contributionship
Mr. and Mrs. F. William P. McNabb III
Mr. and Mrs. Robert D. McNeil
A
F2
g I mage
G1
H S u bmitter
Name: Dr. Andrew J. Baker
Title: Chief Operating Officer
Signature: Date: April 29, 2010
E-mail: baker.andy@phillyzoo.org
H1
News Release Form
Institution Name: The Philadelphia Zoo
Award Category: Exhibit Award
Exhibit Title: McNeil Avian Center
Media Contact: Kirsten Wilf, Marketing Specialist
Phone Number: (215) 243-5336
E-mail Address: wilf.kirsten@phillyzoo.org
P R Dept Head: Amy Shearer, Chief Marketing Officer
General Contractor:
Architect: Exhibit Designer:
Hessert Construction Group
SaylorGregg Architects The Portico Group
Interpretive Designer: Main Street Design Theater Producer:
Science North I N ews R elease F o rm
Quote from Institutions’s Director:
Opened during our 150th anniversary year, the McNeil Avian Center is a re-imagining of our historic Bird House, itself opened in 1916, within just a few years of the extinction of the Carolina
parakeet and passenger pigeon. MAC represents our commitment to saving other animal species
from extinction, to being leaders in animal care, and to an exciting future as a source of joy and
engagement for the entire Philadelphia region.
Summary:
The Philadelphia Zoo’s new McNeil Avian Center, a reincarnation of the Zoo’s historic 1916 Bird House, is an environment of varied habitats where visitors can discover over 100 spectacular birds from around the
world. After encountering a pair of rhinoceros hornbills
in a skylit atrium, visitors start their journey in the African Savanna, featuring blue-breasted kingfisher, goldenbreasted starling, hammerkop and other species. The
Pacific Islands are home to some of the world’s most
endangered birds, including the Bali mynah, Micronesian
kingfisher and Guam rail. This three-exhibit sequence focuses on conservation issues facing island species and the
Philadelphia Zoo’s related conservation efforts.
The Rainforest walk-through features birds from both
the New World and Old World tropics. Victoria crowned
pigeons stroll the pathways and fairy bluebirds, metallic
starlings and blue-faced honeyeaters swoop by. The Central American Shade Coffee Plantation completes the bird
exhibit experience, focusing on how consumer choices
impact birds, and includes species such as sunbittern and
tanagers. Throughout the McNeil Avian Center, visitors may encounter a keeper working with one of the birds to show off natural abilities or demonstrate care-related behaviors such as stepping on a scale. Behind the scenes, in addition to creative reuse of an existing facility, the McNeil Avian Center incorporates numerous green initiatives, including a geothermal
heating and cooling system.
The McNeil Avian Center also houses Migration Theater, a pioneering multi-sensory experience which allows visitors to
follow Otis the oriole on his first migration south. Through the
use of multiple screens, animated and live footage, and special
effects, visitors fly along with Otis and other birds he encounters
during his trip, learning about the wonders of migration, the role
of the Philadelphia region on the eastern migration flyway, and
the conservation threats to migrating birds.
Through exciting experiences with exotic birds, engaging and interactive interpretation, and information on local birds
and bird-watching hotspots, the McNeil Avian Center’s message
is: Birds are amazing, but many are in trouble and you can do
something to help. I1
J W inner ’ s release
If yours is the winning application, would you be willing to have it posted on the AZA website?
Yes.
J1
A ppen d ix
Summative evaluation
a1
McNeil Avian Center Summative Evaluation Overview
Exhibit Goals
This McNeil Avian Center was developed and
designed to feature birds in habitat immersion
settings that encourage natural behaviors, to bring
visitors into close and often barrier-free proximity
and to foster new generations of bird-watchers.
The exhibit intends to inspire visitors to be amazed
by birds in all their beauty, diversity, adaptations
and fascinating behaviors. It reveals how birds are
in peril in many places throughout the world, and
connects visitors with this highly visible wildlife
around their own homes. Finally the exhibit shows
how the Zoo is helping birds and what visitors
themselves can do to help.
Evaluation Methods
Three complementary evaluation methods were
employed: traffic flow counts, timing and tracking,
and interviews with adult visitors. The same sampling strategy was applied across studies
to ensure that observations and interviews
represented weekday and weekend visitors and
morning, midday and late afternoon visitors.
A separate interview focused on the Migration
Theater object theater experience and its two
different show lengths.
Key Findings
Visitors are highly engaged with the exhibits, members of their own party and with other
visitors
•Visitors are watching birds—a key focus of the
exhibit. 91% of visitors in the Tropical Forests
exhibit and 47% in the African Savanna exhibit
watched birds and read labels.
•67% of visitors in Tropical Forests and 51% in African Savanna either pointed out birds themselves
or had others point out birds to them. Tropical
Forests seems to be particularly
successful in encouraging bird watching and
social interactions.
•32% of visitors exchanged information on birds
with other visitors.
Visitors demonstrate an understanding of conservation issues and an awareness of their roles as
agents of change both positive and negative.
•More than 90% of visitors identified specific
threats to the survival of bird species: 34% of
visitors cited pollution and trash and 40% cited
habitat loss.
•Almost all visitors described ways people could
help birds survive: 31% by creating/preserving
habitat and 20% by reducing pollution/trash.
•Among viewers of the Migration Theater shows,
47% (long show) and 26% (short show) noted
building and development as a threat to birds.
•Visitors spoke of planning to take action to help
birds: two-thirds of visitors described what they
would do: most planned to feed or continue to
feed birds or donate money to help birds; one
guest planned to buy shade-grown coffee and
one planned to keep a cat inside.
Visitors attend to messages delivered by the
Migration Theater show, graphics and by staff
•38% of visitor responses regarding conservation
actions are directly related to exhibit messages.
The most successful and most popular exhibits are
Tropical Forests, African Savanna, and
Migration Theater
•Tropical Forests and African Savanna saw the
most bird-watching, social interaction, and label
reading, and were identified as highlights
of a visit.
•Migration Theater (long show) was generally
praised by 97% of visitors and viewers demonstrated an understanding of the conservation
message presented. The show was particularly
effective in conveying three key regional conservation messages: the importance of the Philadelphia
region as a migratory flyway, the threat of building/development, and the plight of the red knot.
Visitors really like McNeil Avian Center
•96% of visitors offered positive comments and
most of them enthusiastically cited highlights
of their experiences: 43% described an aspect
of the exhibit experience such as having birds fly
around them or seeing birds up close, 25% cited
seeing a specific bird and 23% named a specific
exhibit area such as the tropical rainforest.
•13% expressed disappointment with some aspect
of their experience, with the greatest number voicing concern that the building is not large enough.
•Nearly 100% of Migration Theater participants
offered at least one positive comment about the
experience.
appendix
2
Summative Evaluation of the McNeil Avian Center
Melissa Chessler, Ph.D.
November 29, 2009
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
vi
1. Introduction
1
2. Methods and Participants
2.1. Traffic Flow Counts
2.2. Timing and Tracking
2.3. Pre-Visit Interview
2.4. Post-Visit Interview
2.5. Migration Theater Interview
1
2
3
5
5
10
3. Findings
3.1. Identification of Traffic Flow Patterns and the Effects of Traffic Conditions on
Visitors’ Length of Stay
3.1.1. Number of Visitors in Attendance During Different Times of the Day
and Week
3.1.2. Pathways and Patterns of Exhibit Visitation
3.1.3. Visitors’ Stay-Time
3.1.4. Number of Stops Within Exhibit Areas
3.1.5. Walking Speed Through Exhibit Areas
3.2. Description of Visitors’ Engagement with Exhibit Elements and Reactions to the
Exhibits and the Migration Theater Experience
3.2.1. Visitor Behaviors within the Exhibit Areas
3.2.2. Visitor Encounters with Zoo Staff
3.2.3. A Consideration of the Potential Impact of “Crowding” on Visitor
Behaviors and Staff Encounters
3.2.4. Visitors’ Reactions to and Interest in Exhibit Elements
3.2.5. Visitors’ Reactions to and Interest in the Migration Theater Experience
3.3. Assessment of Visitors’ Understanding of Exhibit Messages
3.3.1. Birds are Amazing
3.3.2. Birds are in Trouble/Threatened
3.3.3. The Philadelphia Zoo is Involved in Helping Birds
3.3.4. You Can Help Birds Too
3.3.5. Visitors’ Understanding of Migration
3.3.5.1.
Definitions of Migration
3.3.5.2.
Understanding of Philadelphia’s Role as a Major Flyway for Birds
3.3.5.3.
Understanding of the Plight of the Red Knot
3.3.5.4.
Most Interesting Facts Learned from the Migration Theater Show
3.3.6. Visitors’ Ability to Identify Local Birds
3.4. Examination of the Impact of a Visit to the McNeil Avian Center on Visitors’
Perceptions of the Philadelphia Zoo
16
4.
61
Summary
- ii -
16
16
18
19
22
23
24
24
27
28
29
33
39
39
41
44
46
52
52
54
55
56
58
59
5.
Recommendations
62
6. Appendices
6.1. Appendix A. Pre-visit Interview Protocol
6.2. Appendix B. Post-visit Interview Protocol
6.3. Appendix C. Migration Theater Interview Protocol
64
64
65
66
List of Tables
Table 1. Targeted Distribution of Study Participants within Specified Timeframes
for Timing and Tracking and Interview Studies
Table 2. Actual Distribution of Traffic Flow Counts within Specified Timeframes
Table 3. Actual Distribution of Timing and Tracking Study Participants within
Specified Timeframes
Table 4a. Distribution of Study Participants by Sex
Table 4b. Distribution of Study Participants by Age
Table 4c. Distribution of Study Participants by Group Type
Table 5. Actual Distribution of Pre-Visit Interview Participants within Specified
Timeframes
Table 6. Actual Distribution of Post-Visit Interview Participants within Specified
Timeframes
Table 7a. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Sex
Table 7b. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Age
Table 7c. Distribution of Pre-and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Group
Type
Table 7d. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Zoo
Visitation
Table 7e. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Zoo
Membership
Table 7f. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by
Visitation to the McNeil Avian Center
Table 7g. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by
Visitation to the Migration Theater
Table 7h. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by
Interest, Knowledge or Training in Birds
Table 7i. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by
Zip Code
Table 8. Actual Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants
within Specified Timeframes
Table 9a. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Sex
Table 9b. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Age
Table 9c. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Group
Type
Table 9d. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by
Frequency of Zoo Visitation
- iii -
1
2
3
4
4
4
5
6
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
11
12
13
13
13
Table 9e. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Zoo
Membership
Table 9f. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by
Visitation to the McNeil Avian Center
Table 9g. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Interest,
Knowledge or Training in Birds
Table 9h. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Zip Code
Table 10. Average Number of Visitors Present During Traffic Flow Counts by Exhibit
Area and Time of Day
Table 11. Average Number of Visitors Present During Traffic Flow Counts by Exhibit
Area, Time of Day, and Time of Week
Table 12. Length of Time Spent in Each Exhibit Area
Table 13. Comparison Between Stay-Times During Crowded versus Non-Crowded
Exhibit Conditions
Table 14. Viewing and Non-Viewing Stops Made Within Each Exhibit Area
Table 15. Walking Speed of Visitors as they Proceeded through the Exhibit Areas
Table 16. Percentage of Study Participants Showing Attention to Exhibit Features
Table 17. Number and Percentage of Study Participants who Attended to Exhibit Signs
Table 18. Percentage of Study Participants Exhibiting Interactive Behaviors in Exhibit
Areas
Table 19. Percentage of Study Participants who Encountered Opportunities and
Engaged in Interactions with Zoo Staff
Table 20. Comparison Between Study Participants’ Behavior and Staff Interactions
During Crowded versus Non-Crowded Exhibit Conditions
Table 21. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Recalling the McNeil Avian
Center’s Four Primary Exhibit Areas
Table 22. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Recalling Each Number of
Exhibit Areas
Table 23. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Identifying Interesting
Stories or Facts
Table 24. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Describing Highlights of
their McNeil Avian Center Visit
Table 25. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Expressing Disappointment
in their Visit to the McNeil Avian Center
Table 26. Migration Theater Interview Respondents’ General Reactions to the Show
Table 27. “Best Part” of the Migration Theater Experience Identified by Interview
Respondents
Table 28. Percentage of Interview Respondents Expressing Disappointment in their
Migration Theater Experience
Table 29. Migration Theater Interview Respondents’ Perceptions of the Length of
the Show
Table 30. Percentage of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Respondents Noting Each
“Amazing” Feature of Birds
Table 31. Percentage of Post-Visit and Front-End Evaluation Interview Respondents
Identifying Ways in Which People Threaten the Survival of Birds
- iv -
14
14
14
15
17
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
29
30
31
32
33
35
37
38
39
40
42
Table 32. Percentage of Migration Theater Interview Respondents Identifying ways in
Which People Threaten the Survival of Birds
Table 33. Percentage of Pre- and Post- Visit Interview Respondents Identifying
Ways in Which the Philadelphia Zoo Works to Promote the Welfare of Birds
and Other Animals
Table 34. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Identifying Ways that
People Can Help Overcome Threats to Bird Survival
Table 35. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Identifying Ways that
They Themselves Plan to Help Birds
Table 36. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Indicating Changes in
their Thoughts and Feelings about Birds
Table 37. Percentage of Migration Theater Interview Respondents Indicating
Changes in their Thoughts and Feelings about Birds
Table 38. Percentage of Migration Theater Interview Respondents Identifying
Various Concepts in their Definition of Migration
Table 39. Percentage of Migration Theater Interview Respondents Identifying
Reasons that Birds Migrate
Table 40. Percentage of Migration Theater Interview Respondents Indentifying
Roles of the Philadelphia Area in Bird Migration
Table 41. Percentage of Long-Show Migration Theater Interviewees Identifying
Challenges Faced by the Red Knot
Table 42. Percentage of Migration Theater Interviewees Identifying Interesting
Facts Learned
Table 43. Percentage of Pre- and Post-Visit Interviewees Recognizing and Naming
Each of Six Local Birds
Table 44. Percentage of Post-Visit Interviewees Identifying Ways That their Visit
to the McNeil Avian Center Changed their Understanding of the Zoo’s Role
in Helping Animals
44
46
48
49
50
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
60
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of Participants who Spent Each Amount of Time Visiting the
McNeil Avian Center
-v-
20
Executive Summary
Study Background
A summative evaluation of the Philadelphia Zoo’s newly opened McNeil Avian Center was
conducted during Summer 2009. The evaluation was designed to provide the Zoo with detailed
information about: visitors’ patterns of exhibit use, their levels of engagement and interest in the
exhibits and the Migration Theater experience, their understanding of the McNeil Avian Center’s
main messages, and their perceptions of the Zoo as a conservation organization.
Three complementary evaluation methods were employed: traffic flow counts, timing and
tracking, and interviews with adult visitors. The same sampling strategy was applied across
studies to ensure that observations and interviews represented both weekday and weekend
visitors and morning, midday and late afternoon visitors. A total of five evaluation studies were
completed:
1. Traffic Flow Counts. 159 rounds of traffic flow counts were conducted to determine the
extent to which different areas of the McNeil Avian Center captured visitors’ attention.
2. Timing and Tracking. The activities of 66 visitors were timed and tracked to provide data
on the length of time visitors spent in exhibit areas and to learn how this time was spent.
3. Pre-Visit Interview. 63 visitors were interviewed to assess their ability to recognize local
bird species before they entered the McNeil Avian Center. They were also asked to name
something they find amazing about birds and to describe the ways in which they think the
Philadelphia Zoo works to promote the welfare of birds and other animals.
4. Post-Visit Interview. 61 visitors were interviewed to capture their reactions to their
experiences in the McNeil Avian Center, to identify exhibit features perceived to be most
appealing and engaging, and to determine what was learned from the exhibits. They were
also asked to identify local birds, to name something they find amazing about birds, to
describe the ways in which they think the Philadelphia Zoo works to promote the welfare
of birds and other animals, and to discuss their own feelings toward birds and if they plan
to do anything to help birds as a result of their visit to the McNeil Avian Center.
5. Migration Theater Interview. 67 visitors, including 32 who attended the theater’s “long
show” and 35 who attended the theater’s “short show,” were interviewed to assess
visitors’ enjoyment of the theater experience, their perceptions of the length of the show,
and their understanding of migration, the plight of the red knot, and the Philadelphia
area’s role as a major flyway for migratory birds. In addition, Migration Theater
interviewees were asked to identify ways in which people threaten the survival of birds
and to report on any way in which their visit to the Migration Theater changed their
feelings about birds.
The demographics of the visitors included in the timing and tracking and interview studies are
mostly consistent with typical Zoo audience demographics (based on Philadelphia Zoo data
provided in the 2003 front-end evaluation report titled, “The Bird Experience”). Two
characteristics on which all three interview samples appear to differ from the typical Philadelphia
Zoo audience are age and group type. The age distributions for the interview studies indicate
that the interview participants tended to be somewhat older than the average adult Zoo visitor
(specifically, more were age 40 or above). Consistent with this skew in age is the fact that
somewhat more of the interview participants than would typically be expected visited the
- vi -
McNeil Avian Center without children. These sample characteristics may indicate that the new
birdhouse is a particular draw for older visitors and/or that younger adults, who are more likely
to have children in tow, may have been more likely to refuse to participate in the study. In fact,
across the three types of interviews, 72% of the 92 visitors who refused to be interviewed were
visiting in a group that included children. On a positive note, a review of the data showed that
interviewees’ responses did not appear to differ based on the respondents’ age or group type.
Findings
Findings related to each of the four primary evaluation goals are presented below.
1. Identification of Traffic Flow Patterns and the Effects of Traffic Conditions on Visitors’
Length of Stay
Number of Visitors in Attendance During Different Times of the Day and Week
Among the five bird viewing areas (including the open area of the Atrium, and the African
Savanna, Pacific Islands, Tropical Rainforest, and Shade Coffee Plantation exhibit areas), the
Tropical Rainforest had the highest average number of visitors across all timeframes. During the
busiest time of day for this area (Noon to 2:30), an average of 17 visitors were present. In
contrast, the Shade Coffee Plantation area had the lowest average number of visitors across all
timeframes. Typically, 4 or fewer visitors were present in this area. Within all timeframes, more
visitors were present, on average, on weekends than on weekdays for all five bird viewing areas.
Overall, the busiest time to visit the McNeil Avian Center was weekend afternoons. The least
busy time was weekday mornings.
Pathways and Patterns of Exhibit Visitation
Based on observations from the tracking and timing study, visitors to the McNeil Avian Center
followed one of five visitation patterns:
 55% entered the Atrium, proceeded to the African Savanna, and then completed a
counter-clockwise tour of the building.
 27% entered the Atrium, proceeded to the Shade Coffee Plantation area, and then
completed a clockwise tour of the building.
 9% entered the Atrium and proceeded directly into the Migration Theater before touring
the rest of the McNeil Avian Center.
 5% proceeded from the Atrium to the Shade Coffee Plantation area and then to the
Tropical Rainforest, but then backtracked after reaching the Tropical Rainforest, never
entering the Pacific Islands or African Savanna areas.
 5% entered the building and then exited without proceeding into the theater or anywhere
beyond the Atrium.
Almost a third of the tracking and timing study participants (29%) who began their visit to the
McNeil Avian Center with a tour of the exhibits chose to attend the Migration Theater show after
completing their tour. In total, 32% of the visitors observed in the tracking and timing study
visited the theater either upon entering the McNeil Avian Center or after a tour of the Center.
Visitors’ Stay-Time
On average, visitors spent a total of just over 9 minutes (9.2 minutes) completing a circuit that
included the Atrium, African Savanna, Pacific Islands, Tropical Rainforest and Shade Coffee
- vii -
Plantation exhibit areas. Stay-time ranged from 2 minutes to 33 minutes. The stay-time for most
participants was between 4 and 9 minutes. Participants who visited during the less-busy morning
hours spent an average of 9.0 minutes touring the building. Those who visited during the busier
afternoon hours spent an average of 9.3 minutes touring the building.
In addition to overall stay-time in the McNeil Avian Center, stay-time was calculated for each of
the areas that visitors passed through as they toured the building. Visitors spent most of their
time in the Tropical Rainforest (mean = 3 minutes, 22 seconds), the largest of the bird viewing
areas. The longest stay is this area was 18 minutes, 30 seconds. The second longest average
stay-time was observed for the African Savanna (mean = 1 minute, 31 seconds), followed by the
Pacific Islands area (mean = 1 minute, 6 seconds). On average, visitors spent more time in the
Atrium, both when they entered (mean = 54 seconds) and exited (mean = 1 minute, 2 seconds)
the building, than they spent in the Shade Coffee Plantation area (mean = 46 seconds).
Number of Stops Within Exhibit Areas
Most visitors stopped for bird viewing and/or sign reading in the Tropical Rainforest (98%),
African Savanna (86%) and Pacific Islands (70%) areas. Those who stopped to view birds
and/or read signs tended to make 3 to 4 stops in the Tropical Rainforest and 1 to 2 stops in the
African Savanna and Pacific Islands areas. In contrast, only 44% of visitors stopped in the Shade
Coffee Plantation area, typically making 1 stop.
2. Description of Visitors’ Engagement with Exhibit Elements and Reactions to the Exhibits
and the Migration Theater Experience
Visitor Behaviors within the Exhibit Areas
Participants in the tracking and timing study exhibited a variety of behaviors demonstrating their
engagement with the McNeil Avian Center exhibits:
 The most commonly observed behavior was bird watching, an activity that occurred most
frequently in the Tropical Rainforest (91%) and African Savanna (84%) exhibit areas.
Only 44% of the study participants watched birds in the Shade Coffee Plantation area
and fewer watched birds in the Atrium (39% upon entry, 12% just before exiting).
 Almost half of the tracked visitors were observed looking at graphics/signage displayed
in the African Savanna (47%) and Pacific Islands (46%) exhibit areas. About a quarter
of the study participants reviewed signage in the Shade Coffee Plantation (26%) and
Tropical Rainforest (25%) areas and fewer looked at signs in the Atrium (14% upon
entry and 12% on their way to the exit).
 28% of the tracked visitors explored the hammerkop bird’s nest.
 19% of the tracked visitors were observed using dive cards in the Tropcial Rainforest.
 5% of the tracked visitors were observed purchasing items in the Atrium.
Visitors who looked at graphics/signage within the McNeil Avian Center most often attended to
those that include bird IDs; each of the bird ID signs were attended to by 19% to 30% of the
tracked visitors. None of the remaining signs were viewed by more than 16% of the sample.
Additional analyses of the samples’ attention to exhibit signage revealed that 37% of the tracked
visitors did not attend to any signs throughout the McNeil Avian Center. Thirty percent of the
tracked visitors attended to one or two signs and 33% attended to more than two signs.
- viii -
Many timing and tracking participants were observed engaging in behaviors that involve
interaction with others:
 Over half of the study participants either pointed out a bird to another visitor or had
another visitor point out a bird for them to see in the Tropical Rainforest (67%) and
African Savanna (51%) exhibit areas.
 About a quarter of the study participants either called another visitor over or were called
over by another visitor to look at something in the African Savanna (26%) and the
Tropcial Rainforest (23%) exhibit areas.
 32% of the study participants exchanged information about birds with other visitors or
Zoo staff /interns in the Tropical Rainforest.
 26% of the study participants identified birds with other visitors or Zoo staff/interns in
the Tropical Rainforest.
 25% of the study participants spoke at least once with Zoo staff/interns in the Tropical
Rainforest area.
 25% of the study participants had at least one opportunity to observe a feeding and 36%
of those presented with the opportunity did watch the feeding. In total, however, only 9%
of the study participants watched a feeding.
Visitors’ Reactions to and Interest in Exhibit Elements
Fewer than half of the post-visit interview respondents were able to recall the names or themes of
the exhibit areas they had walked through. The African Savanna was recalled by the highest
number of interview respondents (48%), followed by the Tropical Rainforest (30%). Most postvisit interviewees also had difficulty recalling an interesting story or fact that they had learned
during their visit; only 43% offered a story or fact. This finding likely reflects visitors’ tendency
to not read exhibit signs. The most common type of story or fact offered by respondents was
related to migration habits (10%); a response offered only by interviewees who had attended the
Migration Theater show. The second and third most common responses related to invasive
species (10%) and shade-grown coffee (5%).
Post-visit interviewees were more successful at identifying highlights of their visit to the McNeil
Avian Center; almost every respondent (96%) readily offered a highlight, and most did so with
genuine enthusiasm. The largest number of respondents (43%) described an aspect of the exhibit
experience, such as having birds fly around them or seeing birds up close. A quarter of the
respondents (25%) described seeing a specific bird, such as the Victoria crowned pigeon, and
23% described an exhibit area or element, such as the Tropical Rainforest. When asked if they
were disappointed by any aspect of their visit to the McNeil Avian Center, only 13% of the postvisit interview respondents identified any areas of disappointment. Most of these respondents
complained that the McNeil Avian Center is not large enough.
Visitors’ Reactions to and Interest in the Migration Theater Experience
Almost 100% of both the long- and short-show interview participants offered at least one
positive comment about their Migration Theater experience. Most respondents offered general
praise for the experience (offered by 97% of those who viewed the long-show and 89% of those
who viewed the short show). Several specific aspects of the Migration Theater experience, such
as the multi-media components, were also praised. When asked to describe the best part of the
- ix -
Migration Theater experience, respondents from both groups most often described an aspect of
the theater’s “look and feel” (59% of long-show respondents and 46% of short-show
respondents). Within this category, the special effects, specifically aspects of the storm, were
most frequently mentioned (noted by 31% of long-show and 29% of short-show respondents).
Differences between the responses of those who viewed the long- versus short-version of the
Migration Theater show were found in response to a question about whether any aspect of the
experience was disappointing. Twenty percent of the short-show respondents expressed
disappointment compared with only 3% of the long-show respondents. The only complaint
offered by more than one respondent was that the show was too short. When directly asked if
the Migration Theater show was too long, too short, or just the right length, most interviewees
indicated that the show was just the right length (91% of the long-show respondents and 71% of
the short-show respondents) The remaining short-show interview participants (29%) felt that the
show was too short. One long-show interviewee (3%) also felt that the show was too short.
3. Assessment of Visitors’ Understanding of Exhibit Messages
Questions from the pre-visit, post-visit and Migration Theater interviews assessed the extent to
which the McNeil Avian Center is succeeding in delivering its main messages.
Birds are Amazing
When asked to describe something they find amazing about birds, the pre-visit interviewees
focused primarily on aspects of birds’ behavior (60%), such as their ability to fly, communicate
and adapt to diverse habitats. Only 34% of the post-visit interviewees described a type of bird
behavior. Instead, most of the post-visit group’s responses focused on aspects of birds’
appearance (61%), such as their colors, diversity and beauty. In contrast, only 35% of pre-visit
interview respondents made note of such features. These findings suggest that a visit to the
McNeil Avian Center has the effect of drawing visitors’ attention to birds’ appearance.
Birds are in Trouble/Threatened
Over 90% of the post-visit and Migration Theater interview groups were able to describe at least
one way in which people threaten the survival of birds. Note, however, that findings from the
2003 front-end birdhouse study suggest that many visitors are aware of such issues before they
ever enter the McNeil Avian Center.
More than 30% of the post-visit and Migration Theater interviewees identified threats related to
pollution and trash (34% of the long-show group, 37% of the short-show group, and 34% of the
post-visit group), and approximately 40% identified the issues of cutting down trees and habitat
destruction (38% of the long-show group, 43% of the short-show group and 44% of the post-visit
group). The only area in which there was a notable difference between the responses of the
Migration Theater interview participants and those of the post-visit interview participants was in
the category of building/development. Almost half of the long-show interviewees (47%) and a
quarter of the short-show interviewees (26%) noted this category compared with only 3% of the
post-visit interviewees. This difference between the groups suggests that the content of the
Migration Theater show, and in particular the longer version of the show, influenced
interviewees’ responses regarding threats to birds.
-x-
Also notable is the fact that 11% of the post-visit interviewees indicated that letting cats outside
is a threat to birds. A message about this type of threat to birds appears in the signage of the
McNeil Avian Center, thus at least some of the respondents who identified these threats may
have been influenced by this signage.
The Philadelphia Zoo is Involved in Helping Birds
Both pre- and post-visit interviewees were asked to describe ways in which the Philadelphia Zoo
works to promote the welfare of birds and other animals. The most notable difference between
the pre- and post-visit interview groups was in the percentage of respondents who were unable to
offer a response. The pre-visit interviewees were almost five times as likely to fail to respond to
this question as the post-visit interviewees (23% of pre- versus 5% of post-visit interviewees).
This finding suggests that a visit to the McNeil Avian Center helps visitors understand how the
Zoo promotes the welfare of animals. Many respondents, however, simply indicated that the
Zoo provides education and information to others (49% of the pre- and 67% of the post-visit
interviewees), thus their understanding of the Zoo’s role in helping animals appears to be limited.
More specific responses offered by the post-visit participants (e.g., that the Zoo works to prevent
the extinction of animals, participates in breeding programs and works to protect animal habitats
outside of the Zoo) may be attributable to reading “Zoo at Work” signs within the exhibits.
Note, however, that each of these responses was offered by no more than 11% of interviewees
and that fewer than 20% of tracked participants were observed reading the related signs.
You Can Help Birds Too
Post-visit interviewees were the only summative evaluation participants asked: Do you know of
anything people can do to help overcome threats to bird survival? Almost all (92%) of the postvisit interviewees suggested a way that people can help birds. The most commonly offered
responses involved creating/preserving habitat (31%) and reducing pollution/trash (20%). The
responses of 38% of the interviewees are directly related to messages presented in the McNeil
Avian Center either through signage or the Migration Theater show. Respondents, who
suggested feeding birds (12%) and increasing awareness of the plight of birds (10%), may have
been influenced by the content of the Migration Theater show. Those who indicated that cats
should not be let outside (8%), as well as those who talked about planting trees/expanding habitat
(5%), building birdhouses (3%), and/or buying shade-grown coffee (3%), may have been
influenced by signage within the McNeil Avian Center. Over a quarter of the participants (26%)
in the timing and tracking study were observed reading the sign titled “Keep Kitty Indoors,”
however, fewer than 10% were observed reading signs about nest-friendly backyards (9%) or
shade-grown coffee (5%).
Almost two-thirds (66%) of the post-visit interviewees noted a way in which they plan to help
birds as a result of their visit to the McNeil Avian Center. Most of these respondents indicated
that they would either feed or continue to feed birds (28%) or that they would donate money to
help birds (13%). One respondent planned to buy shade-grown coffee (2%) and one planned to
keep a cat inside (2%).
Over a third of the the short-show and post-visit interviewees (34% and 36%, respectively) and
over half of the long-show interviewees (56%) indicated that their visit to the McNeil Avian
Center made them feel more positive toward, more interested in, or more concerned about birds.
- xi -
The higher percentage for the long-show group suggests that the portion of the Migration Theater
show that portrays the plight of the red knot (a segment that is missing from the short version of
the show) may be particularly effective in increasing viewers’ positive feelings toward and
concern about birds, and possibly in turn, their likelihood of taking action to help birds.
Approximately 25-30% of the interviewees who indicated that their thoughts and feelings about
birds had not changed as a result of their visit to the McNeil Avian Center or their Migration
Theater experience, noted that they continue to hold a positive impression of birds. Thus, a total
of 51% of the post-visit and short-show interviewees and 69% of the long-show interviewees
directly indicated that they have a positive impression of or care about birds. Presumably, those
with a positive or caring attitude toward birds are also more likely to take action to help birds.
Visitors’ Understanding of Migration
In addition to the main messages discussed above, visitors to the Migration Theater are exposed
to messages about migration, Philadelphia’s role as a major flyway for birds, and the plight of
the red knot. When asked to define the word “migration,” almost every long-show (97%) and
short-show (97%) interview participant indicated that migration involves movement, and over
70% of each group also indicated that this movement is from place to place (78% of the longshow group and 71% of the short-show group). Note, however, that a comparison with findings
from the 2003 front-end study suggests that viewing the Migration Theater show, whether the
long or short version, has little impact on the way that visitors define migration.
When asked to describe reasons that birds migrate, both long- and short-show interviewees were
more likely than front-end study participants to mention food (97% of the long-show
interviewees and 86% of the short-show interviewees compared with 68% of the front-end
interviewees). These results suggest that both the long- and short-versions of the Migration
Theater show focused viewers’ attention on birds’ need to find food. This tendency appears to
be somewhat stronger for the long show than the short show.
Migration Theater interview participants were also asked to describe the role of the Philadelphia
area in bird migration; three-quarters of the respondents expressed some understanding of this
role. Similar percentages of interviewees in the two groups identified the Philadelphia area as a
stopover (41% of long- and 37% of short-show interviewees) and as a starting point for
migration (28% of long- and 26% of short-show interviewees). The one area in which the two
groups differed is in the percentage who mentioned Cape May, “the Shore,” or the bay; more
long-show participants (34%) than short-show participants (20%) mentioned these areas in their
responses. This finding is not surprising given the extended focus on the shore-based feeding
habits of the red knot in the longer version of the Migration Theater show.
Only the longer version of the Migration Theater show included a segment presenting the
difficulties faced by migrating red knots. Almost every long-show interviewee (97%) recalled
hearing about the plight of the red knot, and most of the interviewees (84%) described the red
knots’ diminishing food supply as the challenge they face.
Visitors’ Ability to Identify Local Birds
The pre- and post-visit interviews addressed one more exhibit goal: to improve visitors’ ability to
identify local birds. None of the differences between the pre- and post-visit interviewees’
- xii -
responses were found to be statistically reliable. The lack of reliable differences between the
pre- and post-visit groups is not surprising given the finding from the timing and tracking study
that only 12% of tracked visitors stopped to look at the sign in the Atrium that provides
photographs, names of, and information about the local birds that pre- and post-visit interviewees
were asked to identify.
4. Examination of the Impact of a Visit to the McNeil Avian Center on Visitors’ Perceptions
of the Philadelphia Zoo
Only 25% of the post-visit interviewees felt that their understanding of the Zoo’s role in helping
animals had changed as a result of their visit to the McNeil Avian Center. Respondents’
explanations of the ways in which their understanding had changed varied with no more than 5%
of the respondents offering the same explanation. Overall, respondents’ explanations were very
general, suggesting that they, in fact, have little understanding of how the Zoo helps animals or
of the Zoo’s role as a conservation organization.
Additional data related to the issues of visitors’ perceptions of the Zoo as a conservation
organization and their perceptions regarding animal welfare within the Zoo is drawn from
responses to the pre- and post-visit interview question that asked interviewees to describe ways
in which the Philadelphia Zoo works to promote the welfare of birds and other animals. Overall,
the scarcity of these responses and their lack of specificity suggest that few visitors to the
McNeil Avian Center have a strong understanding of the Zoo’s role as a conservation
organization and, although several visitors indicated that they have positive perceptions of the
Zoo as an organization that cares for and protects animals, few visitors appear to have given
much thought to the issue of animal welfare within the Zoo.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Visitors to the McNeil Avian Center clearly enjoyed their bird-viewing and Migration Theater
experiences as demonstrated by interviewees’ enthusiastic descriptions of the highlights of their
visits. In contrast, relatively few were able to recall a story or fact learned during their visit.
Many interviewees, however, demonstrated at least some understanding of the McNeil Avian
Center’s main messages. Visitors who viewed the longer version of the Migration Theater show
were most likely to demonstrate such understanding. The following recommendations are
geared toward enhancing the potential of the McNeil Avian Center to successfully deliver its
intended messages.
1. Present the longer version of the Migration Theater show whenever feasible.
2. Rely on Zoo staff/interns rather than signage to increase visitors’ understanding of how
the Zoo promotes the welfare of birds and other animals and the Zoo’s role as a
conservation organization.
3. Help visitors increase their ability to identify local birds by offering them an opportunity
to purchase a local bird ID card.
4. Identify ways to increase the appeal of the Shade Coffee Plantation exhibit area.
5. Offer visitors an opportunity to take action on behalf of birds somewhere within the
McNeil Avian Center.
- xiii -
1. Introduction
A summative evaluation of the Philadelphia Zoo’s newly opened McNeil Avian Center was
conducted during Summer 2009. The four primary goals of the evaluation were to:
1. Identify traffic flow patterns and the effects of traffic conditions on visitors’ length of
stay.
2. Describe visitors’ engagement with exhibit elements and reactions to the exhibits and the
Migration Theater experience.
3. Assess visitors’ understanding of exhibit messages.
4. Examine the impact of a visit to the McNeil Avian Center on visitors’ perceptions of the
Philadelphia Zoo.
Three complementary evaluation methods were employed: traffic flow counts, timing and
tracking, and interviews with adult visitors. Evaluation findings addressing each of the four
primary goals are presented below.
2. Methods and Participants
Five evaluation studies were conducted between July 24, 2009 and August, 16, 2009. The
studies include:
1. Traffic flow counts
2. Timing and tracking
3. Pre-visit interview
4. Post-visit interview
5. Migration Theater interview
Details of the methodology applied for each study are presented below. The same sampling
strategy was applied across studies to ensure that observations and interviews represented both
weekday and weekend visitors and morning, midday and late afternoon visitors.
For the timing and tracking and interview studies, equal numbers of randomly selected
participants were targeted from each of the six timeframes indicated in Table 1.
Table 1. Targeted Distribution of Study Participants within Specified Timeframes for Timing
and Tracking and Interview Studies
Time of Day
9:30 AM - Noon
Noon – 2:30 PM
2:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Weekday
10
10
10
Weekend
10
10
10
Totals
20
20
20
-1-
A full sample for each study was projected to be approximately 60 visitors. The actual number
of participants in each study is presented below along with demographic data for each sample.
For the traffic flow count study, a minimum of 60 counts were planned, with approximately the
same distribution represented in Table 1. The actual number and distribution of traffic flow
counts is presented below.
2.1.
Traffic Flow Counts
To determine the extent to which different areas of the McNeil Avian Center captured visitors’
attention, defined exhibit areas were repeatedly scanned at different times of the day and week.
Discrete exhibit areas that could be fully observed at one time were systematically defined.
These included: the open area of the Atrium, the theater line in the Atrium, the shopping area in
the Atrium, and the African Savanna, Pacific Islands, Tropical Rainforest, and Shade Coffee
Plantation exhibit areas. Each count began in the Atrium where the observer wrote down the
date and time of day when the count began. The observer then scanned the area and recorded the
number of visitors who were present, then moved on to count and record the number of visitors
in each of the remaining areas. A minimum of 15 minutes elapsed between the start times of
consecutive rounds of counts. Evaluation staff conducted a total of 72 rounds of counts.
To increase the number of counts that could be obtained over the course of the evaluation,
Philadelphia Zoo education staff/interns conducted additional scans during 11 days (including 7
weekdays and 4 weekend days) beginning on August 6, 2009 and ending on August 16, 2009.
Counts were recorded once per hour for each of the designated areas. A minimum of 30 minutes
elapsed between the start times of consecutive rounds of counts. Zoo education staff/interns
conducted a total of 87 rounds of counts (one count was skipped on one weekend day).
In total, 159 rounds of traffic flow counts were conducted. Within each weekend/weekday
timeframe, a minimum of 20 counts were completed. Table 2 presents the distribution of traffic
flow counts across timeframes.
Table 2. Actual Distribution of Traffic Flow Counts within Specified Timeframes
Time of Day (n = 159)
9:30 AM - Noon
Noon – 2:30 PM
2:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Evaluation
Zoo
Evaluation
Zoo
Evaluation
Zoo
Staff
Staff/Interns
Staff
Staff/Interns
Staff
Staff/Interns
Weekday
12
21
12
14
9
21
Weekend
12
12
13
7
14
12
Totals
24
33
25
21
23
33
-2-
Note that an effort was made to also conduct counts of the number of visitors who attended the
Migration Theater show. Zoo education staff/interns were provided with data sheets and
instructions for conducting hourly counts and they attempted to do so over a period of 10 days.
Unfortunately, a review of the data revealed that at least some of the Zoo staff/interns must have
misinterpreted the instructions for this study because several of the counts were higher than the
capacity of the theater. It was not possible to determine what type of error had been made so the
data could not be used. Because fewer Zoo staff/interns were onsite late in the summer, it was
not possible to redo these counts.
2.2.
Timing and Tracking
Timing and tracking studies provide data on the length of time visitors spend in an exhibit and
how they spend their time. Study participants were randomly selected as they entered the
McNeil Avian Center. Their path through the exhibits and their activities, including time spent
bird watching, reading signs, engaging with Zoo staff, and using interactive exhibit elements,
were unobtrusively observed and recorded. Coding sheets were used to record frequency and
duration of activities and to calculate visitors’ length of stay in the McNeil Avian Center.
Tracking of visitors did not include the Migration Theater or wait time to see the show.
A total of 66 visitors were tracked as they visited the McNeil Avian Center. The distribution of
tracked participants by timeframe is presented below in Table 3.
Table 3. Actual Distribution of Timing and Tracking Study Participants within Specified
Timeframes
Time of Day (n = 66)
9:30 AM - Noon
Noon – 2:30 PM
2:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Weekday
11
14
10
Weekend
10
11
10
Totals
21
25
20
Detailed demographics for the tracked visitors are presented in Tables 4a through 4c below.
(Note that percentages may sum to more than 100% due to rounding.) The demographics for the
timing and tracking study are consistent with typical Zoo audience demographics (based on
Philadelphia Zoo data provided in the 2003 front-end evaluation report titled, “The Bird
Experience”). The sample includes more females (65%) than males (35%), and the largest
proportion of interviewees was estimated to be in their 30s (40%). Another 40% of the
participants were estimated to be in either their 20s or 40s. Almost three-quarters (73%) of the
participants visited in a group that included both adults and children.
-3-
Table 4a. Distribution of Study Participants by Sex
Characteristic Total in
Percentage of
Sex
Sample
Sample
(n = 46)*
Male
16
35%
Female
30
65%
*Note that sex was not recorded for 20 additional participants.
Table 4b. Distribution of Study Participants by Age
Characteristic –
Total in
Percentage of
Age
Sample
Sample
(n = 63)*
Under 20
0
0%
20s
13
21%
30s
25
40%
40s
12
19%
50s
7
11%
60s+
6
10%
* Note that age was not recorded for 3 additional participants.
Table 4c. Distribution of Study Participants by Group Type
Characteristic –
Total in
Percentage of
Group Type
Sample
Sample
(n = 66)
Adults and Kids
48
73%
Adults Only
17
26%
Alone
1
2%
-4-
2.3.
Pre-Visit Interview
A pre-visit interview was conducted to assess visitors’ ability to recognize local bird species
before visiting the McNeil Avian Center. Interview participants were asked to identify the same
set of birds that post-visit respondents were asked to identify during interviews that took place
after the completion of a visit to the McNeil Avian Center. In addition, pre-visit interview
participants were asked to name something they find amazing about birds and to describe the
ways in which they think the Philadelphia Zoo works to promote the welfare of birds and other
animals. The latter two questions were also asked in the post-visit interview. Visitors’ responses
were recorded verbatim on the interview form. The pre-visit interview protocol appears in
Appendix A.
A total of 63 visitors were interviewed before they entered the McNeil Avian Center.
Continuous random sampling was used to select interview participants. More specifically, the
interviewer imagined a line on the ground and approached the first visitor to cross that line.
After completing that interview (or accepting a visitor’s refusal) the interviewer waited in the
same place and approached the next visitor to cross the imaginary line. Twenty-four of the 87
visitors who were approached declined to participate, resulting in a refusal rate of 28%.
The distribution of pre-visit interview participants by timeframe is presented below in Table 5.
Of the 63 visitors who participated in the interview, six indicated that they had previously visited
the McNeil Avian Center. The interviews from these visitors were excluded from the study, thus
only 57 of the 63 interviewees are represented in Table 5.
Table 5. Actual Distribution of Pre-Visit Interview Participants within Specified Timeframes
Time of Day (n = 57)
9:30 AM - Noon
Noon – 2:30 PM
2:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Weekday
7
10
10
Weekend
9
11
10
Totals
16
21
20
To facilitate comparisons between the demographics of the pre- and post-visit interview groups,
detailed demographics for both groups are presented below in the section titled Post-Visit
Interview (see Tables 7a through 7i).
2.4. Post-Visit Interview
A post-visit interview was conducted to capture visitors’ reactions to their experiences in the
McNeil Avian Center, to identify exhibit features that visitors find most appealing and engaging,
-5-
and to determine what visitors’ learned from the exhibits. In addition, post-visit interviewees
were asked to identify local birds, to name something they find amazing about birds, to describe
the ways in which they think the Philadelphia Zoo works to promote the welfare of birds and
other animals, and to discuss their own feelings toward birds and if they plan to do anything to
help birds as a result of their visit to the McNeil Avian Center. The post-visit interview protocol
appears in Appendix B.
A total of 61 visitors participated in the post-visit interview after proceeding through the African
Savanna, Pacific Islands, Tropical Rainforest, and Shade Coffee Plantation exhibit areas, but
before they entered the Migration Theater. Continuous random sampling was used to select
interview participants. Thirty of the 91 visitors who were approached declined to participate,
resulting in a refusal rate of 33%. The distribution of post-visit interview participants by
timeframe is presented below in Table 6.
Table 6. Actual Distribution of Post-Visit Interview Participants within Specified Timeframes
Time of Day (n = 61)
9:30 AM - Noon
Noon – 2:30 PM
2:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Weekday
9
10
11
Weekend
10
10
11
Totals
19
20
22
Detailed demographics for the pre- and post-visit interview participants are presented in Tables
7a through 7i below. (Note that percentages may sum to more than 100% due to rounding.) The
demographics for both the pre- and post-visit interview study groups are mostly consistent with
typical Zoo audience demographics (based on Philadelphia Zoo data provided in the 2003 frontend evaluation report titled, “The Bird Experience”). Both the pre- and post-visit interview
samples include more females (57% and 55%, respectively) than males (43% and 45%,
respectively). The two groups reported similar rates of visitation to the Zoo with 29% of the previsit interview sample and 23% of the post-visit interview sample reporting that they were
visiting the Philadelphia Zoo for the first time. Thirty-nine percent of the pre-visit interview
sample and 51% of the post-visit interview sample were Zoo members. Similar numbers of preand post-visit interviewees reported that they have a special interest in or knowledge of birds
(25% and 23%, respectively), and similar numbers of interviewees in the two groups were from
Pennsylvania, New Jersey or Delaware (86% of the pre-visit interview and 87% of the post-visit
interview participants, respectively).
As required for the pre-visit interview, none of the participants who were included in the analysis
had previously visited the McNeil Avian Center. Of the post-visit interview participants, 23%
-6-
had previously visited the McNeil Avian Center and 35% had seen the Migration Theater show
prior to their interview.
Two characteristics on which the pre- and post-visit interview samples appear to differ from the
typical Philadelphia Zoo audience are age and group type. Within both the pre- and post-visit
interview groups, the largest percentage of interview participants was in their 40s (37% and 27%,
respectively). Interestingly, 33% of the remaining pre-visit interview participants were age 50 or
above, and 40% of the remaining post-visit interview participants were age 50 or above. For
both groups, approximately 30% of the interviewees were under age 40. These age distributions
indicate that the interview participants tended to be somewhat older than the average adult Zoo
visitor. Consistent with this skew in age is the fact that 40% of the pre-visit interviewees and
47% of the post-visit interviewees visited the McNeil Avian Center without children. These
sample characteristics may indicate that the new birdhouse is a particular draw for older visitors
and/or that younger adults, who are more likely to have children in tow, may have been more
likely to refuse to participate in the study. In fact, across the pre-, post-, and Migration Theater
interviews, 72% of the 92 visitors who refused to be interviewed were visiting in a group that
included children. On a positive note, a review of the data showed that interviewees’ responses
did not appear to differ based on the age of the respondent or their group type.
Table 7a. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Sex
Characteristic
– Sex
Pre-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 54)*
Pre-Visit
Percentage
of Sample
Post-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 60)**
Post-Visit
Percentage
of Sample
Male
23
43%
27
45%
Female
31
57%
33
55%
*Note that sex was not recorded for three additional participants.
**Note that sex was not recorded for one additional participant.
-7-
Table 7b. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Age
Characteristic
– Age
Pre-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 57)
Pre-Visit
Percentage
of Sample
Post-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 60)*
Post-Visit
Percentage of
Sample
Under 20
0
0%
2
3%
20s
5
9%
6
10%
30s
12
21%
12
20%
40s
21
37%
16
27%
50s
8
14%
13
22%
60s+
11
19%
11
18%
* Note that age was not recorded for one additional participant.
Table 7c. Distribution of Pre-and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Group Type
Characteristic –
Group Type
Pre-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 57)
Pre-Visit
Percentage
of Sample
Post-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 59)*
Post-Visit
Percentage of
Sample
Adults and Kids
34
60%
31
53%
Adults Only
19
33%
26
44%
Alone
4
7%
2
3%
* Note that group type was not recorded for two additional participants.
Table 7d. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Zoo Visitation
Characteristic
– Frequency of
Zoo Visitation
Pre-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 56)*
Pre-Visit
Percentage
of Sample
Post-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 61)
Post-Visit
Percentage of
Sample
First visit
16
29%
14
23%
1-2 times/year
14
25%
14
23%
More than 2
times/year
14
25%
21
34%
One time every
2-3 years
6
11%
3
5%
Less than once
every 3 years
6
11%
9
15%
*Note that visit frequency was not recorded for one additional participant.
-8-
Table 7e. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Zoo Membership
Characteristic
– Zoo Member
Pre-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 57)
Pre-Visit
Percentage
of Sample
Post-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 61)
Post-Visit
Percentage of
Sample
Yes
22
39%
31
51%
No
35
61%
30
49%
Table 7f. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Visitation to the
McNeil Avian Center
Characteristic
– First Visit to
McNeil Avian
Center
Pre-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 57)
Pre-Visit
Percentage
of Sample
Post-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 61)
Post-Visit
Percentage of
Sample
Yes
57
100%
47
77%
No
0
0%
14
23%
Table 7g. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Visitation to the
Migration Theater
Characteristic
–Visited
Migration
Theater
Pre-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 57)
Pre-Visit
Percentage
of Sample
Post-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 51)*
Post-Visit
Percentage of
Sample
Yes
0
0%
18
35%
No
57
100%
33
65%
* Note that theater visitation was not recorded for two additional participants and the theater
was closed during the visits of 8 participants who are not represented in the table.
-9-
Table 7h. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Interest,
Knowledge or Training in Birds
Characteristic
– Special
Interest,
Knowledge or
Training in
Birds
Pre-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 57)
Pre-Visit
Percentage
of Sample
Post-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 61)
Post-Visit
Percentage of
Sample
Yes
14
25%
14
23%
No
43
75%
47
77%
Table 7i. Distribution of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Study Participants by Zip Code
Characteristic
– Zip Code
Location
Pre-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 56)*
Pre-Visit
Percentage of
Sample
Post-Visit
Total in
Sample
(n = 61)
Post-Visit
Percentage of
Sample
Pennsylvania
35
63%
41
67%

Philadelphia
7
13%
15
25%

Other PA
28
50%
26
43%
New Jersey
13
23%
11
18%
Delaware
0
0%
1
2%
Other States
8
14%
7
11%
0
0%
1
2%
Other Countries

Canada
*Note that zip code was not recorded for one additional participant.
2.5. Migration Theater Interview
The Migration Theater interview was designed to assess visitors’ enjoyment of the theater
experience, their perceptions of the length of the show, and their understanding of migration, the
plight of the red knot, and the Philadelphia area’s role as a major flyway for migratory birds. In
addition, Migration Theater interviewees were asked to identify ways in which people threaten
the survival of birds and to report on any way in which their visit to the Migration Theater
changed their feelings about birds. The Migration Theater interview protocol appears in
Appendix C.
- 10 -
A total of 67 visitors participated in the Migration Theater interview study. Thirty-two of these
visitors attended the theater’s “long show” and 35 attended the theater’s “short show.”
Continuous random sampling was used to select interview participants. Thirty-eight of the 105
visitors who were approached declined to participate, resulting in a refusal rate of 36%. The
distribution of Migration Theater interview participants by timeframe is presented below in
Table 8.
Table 8. Actual Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants within Specified
Timeframes
Time of Day (n = 67)
9:30 AM - Noon
Noon – 2:30 PM
2:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Long Show

Weekday
4
8
9

Weekend
5
0
6

Total (n = 32)
9
8
15
Short Show

Weekday
6
8
4

Weekend
6
7
4

Total (n = 35)
12
15
8
Overall

Weekday
10
16
13

Weekend
11
7
10

Total (n = 67)
21
23
23
Detailed demographics for the long- and short-show interview participants are presented in
Tables 9a through 9h below. (Note that percentages may sum to more than 100% due to
rounding.) The demographics for the Migration Theater interview participants are similar to
those for the pre- and post-visit interview samples. With the exceptions of the distributions for
age and group type, the demographics for both the long- and short-show interview participants
are consistent with typical Zoo audience demographics (based on Philadelphia Zoo data provided
in the 2003 front-end evaluation report titled, “The Bird Experience”). Both the long- and shortshow interview samples include more females (66% and 56%, respectively) than males (34% and
44%, respectively). The two groups reported similar rates of visitation to the Zoo with 31% of
the long-show interview sample and 26% of the short-show interview sample reporting that they
were visiting the Philadelphia Zoo for the first time. Forty-seven percent of the long-show
interview sample and 57% of the short-show interview sample were Zoo members. Similar
numbers of long- and short-show interviewees reported that they have a special interest in or
- 11 -
knowledge of birds (19% and 21%, respectively), and similar numbers of interviewees in the two
groups were from Pennsylvania, New Jersey or Delaware (84% of the long-show interview
participants and 85% of the short-show interview participants, respectively). Few Migration
Theater interview participants had previously visited the McNeil Avian Center (9% of the longshow interview participants and 14% of the short-show interview participants).
As with the pre- and post-visit interview samples, the long- and short-show interview samples
appear to differ from the typical Philadelphia Zoo audience in terms of age and group type.
Within both the long- and short-show interview groups, a larger proportion of the sample
consists of visitors ages 40 and up than would typically be expected; 69% of both samples were
comprised of visitors over age 40. Consistent with this skew in age is the fact that 45% of the
long-show interviewees visited the McNeil Avian Center without children; the comparable figure
for the short-show sample is 30%, a figure that may better represent the Zoo’s general audience.
As discussed in relation to the pre- and post-visit interviews, these sample characteristics may
indicate that the new birdhouse is a particular draw for older visitors and/or that younger adults,
who more often visit with children, may have been more likely to refuse to participate in the
study. As noted above, across the pre-, post-, and Migration Theater interviews, 72% of the 92
visitors who refused to be interviewed were visiting in a group that included children. Despite
the apparent differences between the Migration Theater sample and a typical Zoo sample, a
review of the data showed that theater interviewees’ responses did not appear to differ based on
the age of the respondent or their group type.
Table 9a. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Sex
Characteristic
– Sex
Long Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 29)*
Long Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 34)**
Short Show
Percentage
of Sample
Male
10
34%
15
44%
Female
19
66%
19
56%
*Note that sex was not recorded for three additional participants.
**Note that sex was not recorded for one additional participant.
- 12 -
Table 9b. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Age
Characteristic
– Age
Long Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 33)*
Short Show
Percentage of
Sample
Under 20
0
0%
2
6%
20s
4
13%
1
3%
30s
6
19%
7
21%
40s
10
31%
10
30%
50s
7
22%
7
21%
60s+
5
16%
6
18%
* Note that age was not recorded for two additional participants.
Table 9c. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Group Type
Characteristic –
Group Type
Long Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 31)*
Long Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 33)**
Short Show
Percentage of
Sample
Adults and Kids
17
55%
23
70%
Adults Only
9
29%
8
24%
Alone
5
16%
2
6%
* Note that group type was not recorded for one additional participant.
** Note that group type was not recorded for two additional participants.
Table 9d. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Frequency of Zoo
Visitation
Characteristic
– Frequency of
Zoo Visitation
Long Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short Show
Percentage of
Sample
First visit
10
31%
9
26%
1-2 times/year
7
22%
7
20%
More than 2
times/year
11
34%
15
43%
One time every
2-3 years
0
0%
3
9%
- 13 -
Less than once
every 3 years
4
13%
1
3%
Table 9e. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Zoo Membership
Characteristic
– Zoo Member
Long Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short Show
Percentage of
Sample
Yes
15
47%
20
57%
No
17
53%
15
43%
Table 9f. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Visitation to the
McNeil Avian Center
Characteristic
– First Visit to
McNeil Avian
Center
Long Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short Show
Percentage of
Sample
Yes
29
91%
30
86%
No
3
9%
5
14%
Table 9g. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Interest, Knowledge
or Training in Birds
Characteristic
– Special
Interest,
Knowledge or
Training in
Birds
Long Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 34)*
Short Show
Percentage of
Sample
Yes
6
19%
7
21%
No
26
81%
27
79%
* Note that interest, knowledge or training in birds was not recorded for one additional
participant.
- 14 -
Table 9h. Distribution of Migration Theater Interview Study Participants by Zip Code
Characteristic
– Zip Code
Location
Long Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long Show
Percentage of
Sample
Short Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 34)*
Short Show
Percentage of
Sample
Pennsylvania
15
47%
27
79%

Philadelphia
3
9%
7
21%

Other PA
12
38%
20
59%
New Jersey
9
28%
2
6%
Delaware
3
9%
0
0%
Other States
4
13%
4
12%
1
3%
1
3%
Other Countries

India
* Note that zip code was not recorded for one additional participant.
- 15 -
3. Findings
Findings related to each of the four primary evaluation goals are presented below.
3.1.
Identification of Traffic Flow Patterns and the Effects of Traffic Conditions on
Visitors’ Length of Stay
3.1.1. Number of Visitors in Attendance During Different Times of the Day and Week
The average number of visitors present in the McNeil Avian Center’s exhibit areas was
calculated based on the traffic flow counts recorded by both evaluation staff and Zoo education
staff/interns. Note that traffic flow counts within the Atrium were recorded for three distinct
areas: 1) the Atrium’s open area where visitors entered and exited from the McNeil Avian
Center and where visitors could spend time viewing Rhinoceros hornbills and reading
information about birds; 2) the theater line where visitors waited to enter the Migration Theater;
and 3) the shopping area where visitors could purchase a variety of exhibit-related items. Counts
were also conducted within the African Savanna, Pacific Islands, Tropical Rainforest, and Shade
Coffee Plantation exhibit areas.
Based on the data presented in Table 10, below, several visitation patterns were noted:
 The Tropical Rainforest had the highest average number of visitors across all timeframes.
During the busiest time of day for this area (Noon to 2:30), an average of 17 visitors were
present in the Tropical Rainforest. This finding is not surprising given the relatively
large size of this area.
 Among the five bird viewing areas (including the Atrium’s open area), the Shade Coffee
Plantation area had the lowest average number of visitors across all timeframes.
Typically, 4 or fewer visitors were present in this area.
 Among the remaining bird viewing areas, the Atrium’s open area was most popular with
an average of almost 7 visitors present, followed by the African Savanna with an average
of between 6 and 7 visitors present, and then the Pacific Islands area with an average of 5
visitors present. Note, however, that the number of visitors in the open area of the
Atrium includes visitors passing through this area to enter or leave other exhibit areas, as
well as visitors who were intently viewing the Rhinoceros hornbills or reading exhibit
signage.
 Mornings were the least busy time of day in the McNeil Avian Center. During the
mornings, the busiest area (the Tropical Rainforest) averaged between 7 and 8 visitors.
- 16 -
Table 10. Average Number of Visitors Present During Traffic Flow Counts by Exhibit Area and
Time of Day
Time of Day
Overall
(n = 159)
9:30 AM - Noon
Noon - 2:30 PM
2:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Atrium
(open area)
6.8
4.3
8.3
8.2
Atrium
(theater
line)
3.7
6.4
3.0
Atrium
(shopping)
4.9
2.5
6.9
5.6
African
Savanna
6.5
3.9
8.3
7.7
Pacific
Islands
5.0
2.5
6.9
6.1
Tropical
Rainforest
12.6
7.6
17.0
14.1
Shade
Coffee
Plantation
3.1
1.5
3.9
4.0
Area
2.2
Table 11 presents additional data on visitation patterns during weekdays versus weekends. The
following patterns were observed:
 Within all timeframes, more visitors were present, on average, on weekends than on
weekdays for all five bird viewing areas.
 Overall, the busiest time to visit the McNeil Avian Center was weekend afternoons. The
least busy time was weekday mornings.
 The theater line in the Atrium was, on average, considerably longer during the midafternoon on weekdays (average number of visitors was 7.8) than on weekends (average
number of visitors was 4.8).
- 17 -
Table 11. Average Number of Visitors Present During Traffic Flow Counts by Exhibit Area,
Time of Day, and Time of Week
Time of Day
Overall
9:30 AM - Noon
Noon - 2:30 PM
2:30 PM – 5:00 PM
All Days
(n = 159)
Weekday
(n = 33)
Weekend
(n = 24)
Weekday
(n = 26)
Weekend
(n = 20)
Weekday
(n = 30)
Weekend
(n = 26)
Atrium
(open area)
6.8
3.5
5.5
8.3
8.4
7.2
9.3
Atrium
(theater
line)
3.7
2.3
2.1
7.8
4.8
2.3
3.8
Atrium
(shopping)
4.9
1.5
3.9
7.2
6.6
5.4
5.8
African
Savanna
6.5
3.2
4.8
7.0
10.1
5.5
10.1
Pacific
Islands
5.0
2.2
3.0
6.2
7.9
4.2
8.2
Tropical
Rainforest
12.6
6.9
8.6
13.8
21.3
12.1
16.5
Shade
Coffee
Plantation
3.1
1.4
1.6
3.1
5.1
3.1
5.0
Area
3.1.2. Pathways and Patterns of Exhibit Visitation
Based on observations from the tracking and timing study, visitors to the McNeil Avian Center
followed one of five visitation patterns. A visitation pattern was identified for each of the
tracking and timing study participants. The most common pattern, followed by 55% of the
tracked visitors, was to enter the Atrium, proceed to the African Savanna, and then complete a
counter-clockwise tour of the building from there. The second most common pattern, followed
by 27% of the tracked visitors, was to enter the Atrium, proceed to the Shade Coffee Plantation
area, and then complete a clockwise tour of the building. An additional 5% of the tracked
visitors also proceeded from the Atrium to the Shade Coffee Plantation area and then to the
Tropical Rainforest, but these visitors backtracked after reaching the Tropical Rainforest and
never entered the Pacific Islands or African Savanna areas. Two of these visitors appear to have
noted the wait time until the next theater show, as they proceeded from the Tropical Rainforest
directly to theater. The third visitor who backtracked exited the building after being pooped on
by a bird in the Tropical Rainforest.
- 18 -
A small number of visitors (9%) entered the Atrium and proceeded directly into the Migration
Theater before touring the rest of the McNeil Avian Center; these visitors appeared to decide to
view the theater show first because the wait time for the show was very short (less than 2
minutes on average). Although not observed, they likely toured the rest of the facility after
viewing the show. A few tracked visitors (5%), however, were observed entering the building
and then exiting without proceeding into the theater or anywhere beyond the Atrium.
Almost a third of the tracking and timing study participants (29%) who began their visit to the
McNeil Avian Center with a tour of the exhibits chose to attend the Migration Theater show after
completing their tour. Thus, a total of 32% of the visitors observed in the tracking and timing
study visited the theater either upon entering the McNeil Avian Center or after a tour of the
Center. For those who entered the theater after completing a tour of the Center, the wait time for
the show ranged from zero to nine minutes when these visitors entered the theater line, with a
mean of 2.4 minutes. The wait time at the theater for those who chose not to enter after touring
the Center ranged from zero to fourteen minutes, with a mean of 5.3 minutes (note that the wait
time was not recorded for 9 of the 36 study participants who chose not to enter the theater).
These numbers suggest that at least some visitors may have chosen to pass on the show because
they did not want to wait. Clearly this was not the case for all of the study participants who did
not attend the show; some exited the building when the wait time was 1 minute or less. (Note
that six of the tracking and timing study participants are not included in these calculations
because the theater was closed when they exited the McNeil Avian Center.)
3.1.3. Visitors’ Stay-Time
The length of time that visitors’ stayed in the McNeil Avian Center was recorded for each
participant in the timing and tracking study and the mean and distribution of these times was
calculated. The “stay-times” for participants who headed directly into the theater and those who
entered and left the building without beginning to tour the exhibits were excluded from these
calculations. For those visitors who toured the exhibits and then attended the Migration Theater
Show, the length of time that visitors spent waiting in line for or viewing the show was also
excluded from the calculations. On average, visitors spent a total of just over 9 minutes (9.2
minutes) completing a circuit that included the Atrium, African Savanna, Pacific Islands,
Tropical Rainforest and Shade Coffee Plantation exhibit areas. Stay-time ranged from 2 minutes
to 33 minutes. Figure 1 presents the distribution of timing and tracking study participants based
on the amount of time spent touring the McNeil Avian Center. As shown in Figure 1, the staytime for most participants was between 4 and 9 minutes. The most common visit lengths were 6
minutes (stay-time for 10 participants) and 7 minutes (stay-time for 9 participants).
- 19 -
Figure 1. Number of Participants who Spent Each Amount of Time Visiting the McNeil Avian
Center (n = 57)
To assess whether timing and tracking participants’ stay-time may have been influenced by the
number of other visitors in the McNeil Avian Center at the time of their visit, the average staytime was calculated for morning particants versus afternoon participants. Participants who
visited during the less-busy morning hours spent an average of 9.0 minutes touring the building.
Those who visited during the busier afternoon hours spent an average of 9.3 minutes touring the
building. The small difference between the morning and afternoon visitors’ stay-time is not a
statistically significant difference. (Note that the “stay-time” for participants who headed
directly into the theater and those who entered and left the building without beginning to tour the
exhibits were excluded from these calculations. For those visitors who toured the exhibits and
then attended the Migration Theater Show, the length of time that visitors spent waiting in line
for or viewing the show was also excluded from the calculations.)
In addition to overall stay-time in the McNeil Avian Center, stay-time was calculated for each of
the areas that visitors passed through as they toured the building. Table 12 presents the mean
length of time that tracking and timing participants spent in each area, the range of stay-times,
and the median stay-time (half of the study participants stayed longer than this amount of time
and half stayed for a shorter time). Times for the open area of the Atrium were recorded twice,
once for when visitors entered the McNeil Avian Center and once for when they exited. Based
on the data in Table 12, visitors spent most of their time in the Tropical Rainforest (mean = 3
minutes, 22 seconds), the largest of the bird viewing areas. The longest stay is this area was 18
minutes, 30 seconds. The second longest average stay-time was observed for the African
Savanna (mean = 1 minute, 31 seconds), followed by the Pacific Islands area (mean = 1 minute,
6 seconds). On average, visitors spent more time in the Atrium, both when they entered (mean =
54 seconds) and exited (mean = 1 minute, 2 seconds) the building, than they spent in the Shade
- 20 -
Coffee Plantation area (mean = 46 seconds). An examination of the ranges of stay-times
indicates that some visitors stayed in each area for much longer than the mean stay-time. For
example, the visitor who spent the most time in the Shade Coffee Plantation area spent 7 minutes
in this area. Note, however, that the fact that the median stay-times are shorter than the mean
stay-times for each area indicates that visitors who spent a particularly long time in a given area
pulled the mean for that area upward.
Table 12. Length of Time Spent in Each Exhibit Area (n=57)
Mean Length of
Range of Stay-Times
Stay-Time
Atrium 5 seconds to
54 seconds
Entry
7 minutes, 18 seconds
African
13 seconds to
1 minute, 31 seconds
Savanna
5 minutes, 5 seconds
Island
5 seconds to
1 minute, 6 seconds
Birds
4 minutes, 50 seconds
Tropical
3 minutes, 22
27 seconds to
Rainforest
seconds
18 minutes, 30 seconds
Shade Coffee
1 second to
46 seconds
Plantation
7 minutes
Atrium 5 seconds to
1 minute, 2 seconds
Exit
6 minutes, 49 seconds
Median Stay-Time
34 seconds
1 minute, 16 seconds
56 seconds
2 minutes, 30seconds
20 seconds
30 seconds
To further assess whether timing and tracking participants’ stay-time may have been influenced
by the number of other visitors who were present in the exhibits, comparisons were made
between observations that data collectors identified as taking place under “crowded” versus
“non-crowded” conditions. Crowded conditions were defined as those during which the target
visitors’ movement within an exhibit area was impeded or the target visitor could not freely look
at any sign, bird or exhibit element that he or she may have been interested in. As shown in
Table 13, relatively few observations were identified as “crowded” and no consistent pattern of
impact was found on the amount of time spent in the exhibits based on whether or not the
exhibits were considered crowded.
- 21 -
Table 13. Comparison Between Stay-Times During Crowded versus Non-Crowded Exhibit
Conditions
Atrium Entry
African
Savanna
Pacific
Islands
Tropical
Rainforest
Shade
Coffee
Plantation
Atrium Exit
Percentage of
Observations
with Crowded
Conditions
Number of
Observations
with Crowd
Conditions
Recorded
12%
Average Time Spent
When Crowded
Average Time Spent
When Not Crowded
n = 42
43 seconds
1 minute, 2 seconds
14%
n = 42
2 minutes, 2 seconds
1 minute, 38 seconds
15%
n = 47
52 seconds
1 minute, 7 seconds
29%
n = 49
4 minutes, 33 seconds
3 minutes, 2 seconds
5%
n = 38
55 seconds
51 seconds
3%
n = 40
21 seconds
1 minute, 19 seconds
3.1.4. Number of Stops Within Exhibit Areas
Visitors’ length of stay within the exhibit areas in the McNeil Avian Center is also reflected in
the number of stops visitors made within each area. Table 14 presents the percentage of visitors
who stopped to view exhibits or read signs, the percentage who stopped for non-viewing reasons
(such as managing children or wayfinding), and the mean number of viewing/sign-reading and
non-viewing stops per visitor for those who made at least one stop in a given area. Study
participants who headed directly into the theater and those who entered and left the building
without beginning to tour the exhibits were excluded from these calculations. Also excluded
were study participants’ stops in the Atrium shopping area and the Migration Theater line.
The data in Table 14 show that most visitors stopped for bird viewing and/or sign reading in the
Tropical Rainforest (98%), African Savanna (86%) and Pacific Islands (70%) areas. Those who
stopped to view birds and/or read signs tended to make 3 to 4 stops in the Tropical Rainforest
and 1 to 2 stops in the African Savanna and Pacific Islands areas. In contrast, only 44% of
visitors stopped in the Shade Coffee Plantation area, typically making 1 stop. Within each of
these four bird viewing areas, 5% of visitors stopped once or twice for a reason other than
viewing birds or reading signs.
Although only 42% of study participants stopped in the Atrium for bird viewing or sign reading
as they entered the McNeil Avian Center and only 11% stopped for these reasons as they exited
the building, further analysis showed that overall, 49% of the study participants stopped for
viewing/sign reading when they entered and/or or exited the building. The precentage of study
participants who stopped for non-viewing reasons was higher for the Atrium than any other area
in the McNeil Avian Center. Twelve percent of the study participants stopped for non-viewing
- 22 -
reasons when they entered the building and 25% stopped for such reasons before exiting the
building; overall, 32% of study participants stopped in the Atrium for non-viewing reasons as
they entered and/or exited the building. Many of these stops were for purposes such as
wayfinding, gathering a group together, waiting for someone who had gone to the restroom or
deciding where to go next in the Zoo.
Table 14. Viewing and Non-Viewing Stops Made Within Each Exhibit Area
Percentage of
Mean Number
Percentage of
Sample who
of Viewing and
Sample who
Mean Number
Stopped for
Sign Reading
Stopped for
of Non-Viewing
Viewing or
Stops per Visitor
Non-Viewing
Stops per Visitor
Sign Reading
who Stopped
Reasons
who Stopped
(n = 57)
(n = 57)
Atrium 42%
1.67 (n = 24)
12%
1.00 (n = 7)
Entry
African
86%
1.53 (n = 49)
5%
1.67 (n = 3)
Savanna
Pacific
70%
1.50 (n = 40)
5%
1.00 (n = 3)
Islands
Tropical
98%
3.54 (n = 56)
5%
1.67 (n = 3)
Rainforest
Shade
Coffee
44%
1.16 (n = 25)
5%
1.00 (n = 3)
Plantation
Atrium 11%
1.50 (n = 6)
25%
1.14 (n = 14)
Exit
3.1.5. Walking Speed Through Exhibit Areas
The speed at which tracking and timing participants walked through the exhibit areas provides a
measure of their attention to and interest in their surroundings. Within each exhibit area, study
participants were categorized as walking slowly, walking quickly or engaging in a combination
of slow and fast walking. The findings presented in Table 15 are similar to those based on the
number of stops made by visitors. Observations of study participants’ walking speed showed
that they were most likely to maintain a slow speed when proceeding through the Tropical
Rainforest and African Savanna exhibit areas, likely reflecting greater interest in these areas.
Nine out of ten of the tracked visitors (91%) walked slowly through these areas. In contrast,
only 56% of the tracked visitors walked slowly through the Shade Coffee Plantation area; in fact,
this was the area in which the greatest number of participants (40%) walked quickly.
Interestingly, tracking participants who began their tour of the McNeil Avian Center by walking
from the Atrium directly into the Shade Coffee Plantation area were even more likely to walk
quickly through this area (57% of these visitors walked quickly through the Shade Coffee
Plantation area) than those who entered the Shade Coffee Plantation area via the Tropical
Rainforest (33% of these visitors walked quickly through the Shade Coffee Plantation area).
Thus, the quicker walking speed as visitors walked through the Shade Coffee Plantation area
cannot be considered simply a result of visitors becoming tired of viewing birds after spending
an extended amount of time in the Tropical Rainforest.
- 23 -
Table 15. Walking Speed of Visitors as they Proceeded through the Exhibit Areas (Note that
percentages may sum to more than 100% due to rounding.)
Walked Slowly
Walked Fast
Combination of Slow
and Fast Walking
Atrium –
Entry
79%
20%
2%
(n = 56)
African
Savanna
91%
2%
7%
(n = 54)
Island
Birds
64%
19%
16%
(n = 53)
Tropical
Rainforest
91%
0%
9%
(n = 56)
Shade Coffee
Plantation
56%
40%
4%
(n = 57)
Atrium Exit
75%
20%
5%
(n = 56)
3.2.
Description of Visitors’ Engagement with Exhibit Elements and Reactions to the
Exhibits and the Migration Theater Experience
Further analyses were conducted to obtain more detailed information about how visitors spent
their time in the McNeil Avian Center and to assess their reactions to the exhibits.
3.2.1. Visitor Behaviors within the Exhibit Areas
Table 16 presents the percentage of tracked visitors who exhibited a variety of behaviors
demonstrating their engagement with the McNeil Avian Center exhibits. Not surprisingly, the
most commonly observed behavior was bird watching (recorded when a visitor spent at least 5
seconds watching a particular bird or birds), an activity that occurred most frequently in the
Tropical Rainforest (91%) and African Savanna (84%) exhibit areas. Only 44% of the study
participants watched birds in the Shade Coffee Plantation exhibit area and fewer watched birds in
the Atrium (39% upon entry and 12% on their way to the exit).
Almost half of the tracked visitors were observed looking at graphics/signage (again, visitors
needed to show attention for at least 5 seconds) displayed in the African Savanna (47%) and
Pacific Islands (46%) exhibit areas. About a quarter of the study participants reviewed signage
in the Shade Coffee Plantation (26%) and Tropical Rainforest (25%) areas and fewer looked at
signs in the Atrium (14% upon entry and 12% on their way to the exit). (Further details
regarding visitors’ attention to the signs in each exhibit area are presented after Table 16.)
- 24 -
Although fewer than a third of the visitors in the sample took photos of birds in any exhibit area,
this activity was most common in the Tropical Rainforest (32%) and African Savanna (19%)
exhibit areas. Other observed behaviors, specific to a given exhibit area, include: use of the
hammerkop bird’s nest in the African Savanna (explored by 28% of the tracked visitors, almost
always along with their accompanying children), use of the dive cards in the Tropical Rainforest
(used by 19% of tracked visitors), and purchasing items in the Atrium (5%). (Note that two of
the visitors to the hammerkop nest were heard calling the nest a “cave” and two others were
heard calling it a “tunnel.”)
Table 16. Percentage of Study Participants Showing Attention to Exhibit Features (n = 57)
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Sample who
Sample who
Sample who
Sample who Made
Watched Birds
Looked at
Took a Photo
Purchase, Used
(“Watched” means
Signage
Bird’s Nest or
focused for 5 or
(“Looked” means
Used Dive Card
more seconds)
focused for 5 or more
seconds)
Atrium Entry
African
Savanna
Pacific
Islands
Tropical
Rainforest
Shade
Coffee
Plantation
Atrium Exit
39%
14%
9%
0% made purchase
84%
47%
19%
28% used nest
63%
46%
5%
N/A
91%
23%
32%
19% used dive card
44%
26%
4%
N/A
12%
12%
4%
5% made purchase
As visitors’ activities were tracked in the exhibit areas, data collectors recorded which of the
signs in each area they attended to. Table 17 presents the number and percentage of study
participants who attended to each of the signs in the McNeil Avian Center for a period of five
seconds or longer. Signs that include bird IDs received the most attention from the study
participants, presumably because visitors were interested in identifying the birds they were
seeing. Sign 10, which provides bird IDs for Hawaiian birds was the most commonly read sign
(read by 30% of the sample). The least frequently read sign that includes bird IDs, sign 9 which
identifies birds in Guam, was still attended to by almost one out of five study participants. None
of the remaining signs were viewed by more than 16% of the sample. In fact, none of the study
participants was ever observed attending to the African Savanna sign that is located on a wall
away from the bird viewing area. Understandably, more centrally located signs appeared to
receive more attention.
Additional analyses of the samples’ attention to exhibit signage revealed that 37% of the tracked
visitors did not attend to any signs throughout the McNeil Avian Center. Thirty percent of the
tracked visitors attended to one or two signs and 33% attended to more than two signs.
- 25 -
Table 17. Number and Percentage of Study Participants who Attended to Exhibit Signs (n = 57)
Number of
Percentage of
Participants who
Sample
Attended to Sign
Atrium – Sign 1
Birds are amazing: birds/Welcome
3
5%
Atrium – Sign 2
Birds are amazing: local birds/ You can help
7
12%
Atrium – Sign 3
Extreme beaks/Rhinoceros hornbill/Zoo at work
8
14%
African Savanna – Sign 4
African savanna/Did you know?
0
0%
African Savanna – Sign 5
Master builders/You can help
5
9%
African Savanna – Sign 6
Bird IDs – wide panel
16
28%
African Savanna – Sign 7
Mega-nest/You can help
8
14%
Pacific Islands – Sign 8
Alien invasion!/You can help
3
5%
Pacific Islands – Sign 9
Guam/Bird IDs/Zoo at work
11
19%
Pacific Islands – Sign 10
Hawaii/Bird IDs/Did you know?
17
30%
Pacific Islands – Sign 11
Indonesia/Bird IDs/You can help
15
26%
Tropical Rainforest – Sign 12
Tropical forests/Amazingly diverse
4
7%
Tropical Rainforest – Sign 13
Feathers for flying and flirting
9
16%
Shade Coffee Plantation – Sign 14
Green farming/Shade-grown coffee/You can help
3
5%
Shade Coffee Plantation – Sign 15
Bird IDs – wide panel
13
23%
Shade Coffee Plantation – Sign 16
Birds and coffee/You can help
6
11%
- 26 -
The types of behaviors described above are ones that visitors may engage in independently.
Additional behaviors that involve interaction with others were also recorded and are presented in
Table 18. The most commonly observed behavior of this type was for a study participant to
point out a bird to another visitor or for another visitor to point out a bird to the study participant.
Over half of the sample demonstrated this type of behavior in the Tropical Rainforest (67%) and
African Savanna (51%) exhibit areas. Another interactive behavior, most commonly observed in
these same areas, was for a study participant to call another visitor over or to be called over by
another visitor to look at something in an exhibit (26% of the sample demonstrated this behavior
in the African Savanna and 23% demonstrated this behavior in the Tropical Rainforest). Also of
note were target visitors’ efforts to identify birds in collaboration with other visitors and to
discuss information about birds with others. Both of these behaviors were most commonly
observed in the Tropical Rainforest where 32% of the study participants exchanged information
about birds with others and 26% identified birds with others. Few of the tracked visitors were
observed reading signs aloud or being read to, however, this behavior was most commonly
observed in the Shade Coffee Plantation area (9%).
Table 18. Percentage of Study Participants Exhibiting Interactive Behaviors in Exhibit Areas (n
= 57)
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
Visitors who Visitors who Visitors who Visitors who Visitors who
Called
Pointed Out
Identified
Exchanged
Read a Sign
Another
a Bird to
Birds With
Information
Aloud to or
Visitor Over
Another
Others
about Birds Were Read to
to Look at
Visitor or
with Others
By Other
Something or
Had a Bird
Visitors
Were Called
Pointed Out
Over
to Them
Atrium 6%
18%
0%
4%
0%
Entry
African
26%
51%
18%
9%
5%
Savanna
Pacific
14%
37%
19%
9%
5%
Islands
Tropical
23%
67%
26%
32%
2%
Rainforest
Shade
Coffee
5%
25%
7%
9%
9%
Plantation
Atrium 4%
7%
0%
0%
5%
Exit
3.2.2. Visitor Encounters with Zoo Staff
Summer 2009 visitors to the McNeil Avian Center typically encountered several Zoo staff
members and/or interns as they toured the facility. Within the Atrium, one staff member or
intern usually stood near the doorway that leads into the African Savanna. He or she would
sometimes share a bird-related artifact with visitors before opening the door to the African
- 27 -
Savanna. Another staff member or intern often stood near the Migration Theater entrance to
facilitate visitors’ entry to the show. As they completed their circuit through the building,
visitors encountered one staff member or intern at each entry/exit to the Tropical Rainforest area.
These staff members/interns ensured that the birds in the Tropical Rainforest did not enter or exit
with the visitors. One additional staff member or intern was usually stationed along the Tropical
Rainforest pathway, offering to share a bird-related artifact with visitors and responding to
visitors’ questions. On occasion, visitors encountered zookeepers feeding the birds within the
exhibit areas. No formal keeper talks were observed apart from any presentation that may have
accompanied the feedings.
Table 19 presents the percentage of study participants who encountered opportunities and
engaged in interactions with Zoo staff or interns. The table details the percentage of study
participants who had the opportunity to observe a feeding in each exhibit area and the percentage
who took advantage of this opportunity. Overall, 25% of the study participants had at least one
opportunity to observe a feeding and 36% of those presented with the opportunity did watch the
feeding. In total, however, only 9% of the study participants watched a feeding.
Table 19 also presents the percentage of study participants who spoke with Zoo staff or interns in
each exhibit area for reasons related to and unrelated to wayfinding. Most of the study
participants’ discussions with Zoo staff/interns took place in the Tropical Rainforest area where
conversations focused on bird-related information. Twenty-five percent of the sample spoke
with Zoo staff/interns in the Tropical Rainforest area. Several study participants spoke with
staff/interns in the Atrium, however, most of these interactions focused on wayfinding; 7% of the
sample asked for directions upon entry to the McNeil Avian Center and 4% did so on their way
out of the building.
Table 19. Percentage of Study Participants who Encountered Opportunities and Engaged in
Interactions with Zoo Staff (n = 57)
Feeding
Observed
Talked
Asked Staff
Took Place
Feeding
with Staff for Directions
Atrium - Entry
2%
0%
0%
7%
African Savanna
9%
0%
2%
0%
Pacific Islands
0%
0%
0%
0%
Tropical Rainforest
16%
9%
25%
2%
Shade Coffee
2%
0%
2%
0%
Plantation
Atrium - Exit
4%
0%
4%
4%
3.2.3. A Consideration of the Potential Impact of “Crowding” on Visitor Behaviors and Staff
Encounters
To assess whether timing and tracking participants’ behavior in the exhibits and interactions with
Zoo staff/interns may have been influenced by the number of other visitors who were present in
the exhibits, comparisons were made between observations that data collectors identified as
taking place under “crowded” versus “non-crowded” conditions. This comparison was
conducted only for the Tropical Rainforest area, the area with highest number of observations
identified as crowded. Crowded conditions were defined as those during which the target
- 28 -
visitors’ movement within an exhibit area was impeded or the target visitor could not freely look
at any sign, bird or exhibit element that he or she may have been interested in. As shown in
Table 20, no evidence was found to indicate that study participants were less engaged with the
exhibits or staff when faced with crowded conditions than when faced with non-crowded
conditions.
Table 20. Comparison Between Study Participants’ Behavior and Staff Interactions During
Crowded versus Non-Crowded Exhibit Conditions
Tropical
Rainforest
Mean Number of
Viewing and Sign
Reading Stops per
Visitor*
Percentage of Visitors
who Pointed Out a
Bird to Another
Visitor or Had a Bird
Pointed Out to Them
Percentage of
Visitors who
Talked with Staff
“Crowded”
Conditions
4.50
93%
29%
(n = 14)
“NonCrowded”
3.29
57%
26%
Conditions
(n = 35)
*Note that all of the study participants included in this table stopped at least once to view birds
or read a sign.
3.2.4. Visitors’ Reactions to and Interest in Exhibit Elements
Post-visit interview respondents were asked several questions to assess their impressions of the
McNeil Avian Center after they completed their tour of the building.
To determine the extent to which they were aware of the distinct nature of the four primary
exhibit areas in the McNeil Avian Center, they were asked if they recalled the names or themes
of the areas they had walked through. As shown in Table 21, fewer than half of the respondents
identified any of the areas. The African Savanna was recalled by the highest number of
interview respondents (48%), followed by the Tropical Rainforest (30%).
Table 21. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Recalling the McNeil Avian Center’s
Four Primary Exhibit Areas
Exhibit Area
Total in
Percentage of
Recalled
Sample
Sample
(n = 61)
African Savanna
29
48%
Pacific Islands
14
23%
Tropical Rainforest
18
30%
Shade Coffee
Plantation
2
3%
- 29 -
Table 22 presents the number of exhibit areas that post-visit interview respondents were able to
recall. None of the respondents recalled all four exhibit areas, and only 7% recalled three of the
areas. Most respondents recalled either one (25%) or two (30%) exhibit areas.
Table 22. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Recalling Each Number of Exhibit
Areas (Note that the percentages sum to more than 100% due to rounding.)
Number of
Total in
Percentage of
Exhibit Areas
Sample
Sample
(n = 61)
Recalled
0
24
39%
1
15
25%
2
18
30%
3
4
7%
4
0
0%
When post-visit interviewees were asked to identify the most interesting story or fact that they
learned during their visit, their responses varied widely. As shown in Table 23, fewer than half
of the respondents (43%) actually offered a story or fact. The most common type of story or fact
offered by respondents was related to migration habits (10%); this type of response was offered
only by interviewees who had attended the Migration Theater show. The second and third most
common responses related to invasive species (10%) and shade-grown coffee (5%). All other
responses were offered by 3% or fewer of the interviewees. Instead of offering a story or fact,
11% of the sample offered an observation from their visit, such as that they had viewed a variety
of birds. In total, over half of the sample (57%) was unable to recall an interesting story or fact
to share. This finding likely reflects many visitors’ tendency to not read exhibit signs. In fact,
37% of participants in the timing and tracking study did not read any exhibit signs during their
visit to the McNeil Avian Center.
- 30 -
Table 23. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Identifying Interesting Stories or
Facts
Most Interesting Story or Fact
Offered Story or Fact
PostInterview
Total in
Sample
(n = 61)
PostInterview
Percentage of
Sample
26*
43%

Migration habits (noted by theater attendees only)
6
10%

Invasive species
5
8%

Shade-grown coffee
3
5%

Birds’ have a heating and cooling system
2
3%

Learned about Victoria crowned pigeons
2
3%

Learned about hornbills
1
2%

No Kingfishers in the wild (in Guam)
1
2%

What birds eat
1
2%

Birds can fly fast
1
2%

Learned about 6-foot wide nest
1
2%

Heard about laying eggs
1
2%

Saw one bird sitting on another’s nest
1
2%

You should leave dead trees in your backyard
1
2%

Pelican story
1
2%

Parrots didn’t fly away in outdoor show
1
2%
Offered Observation Instead of a Story or Fact
7
11%

Variety of birds
3
5%

Just watched birds
2
3%

Viewed hornbills
1
2%

“Birds are peaceful.”
1
2%
28
46%
No response
*Two participants each offered two stories/facts.
Visitors were more successful at identifying highlights of their visit to the McNeil Avian Center
than they were at recalling stories or facts. As shown in Table 24, almost all of the post-visit
interview respondents (96%) readily offered a highlight, and most did so with genuine
enthusiasm. The largest number of respondents (43%) described an aspect of the exhibit
- 31 -
experience, such as having birds fly around them or seeing birds up close. A quarter of the
respondents (25%) described seeing a specific bird, such as the Victoria crowned pigeon, as the
highlight of their visit and 23% described an exhibit area or element, such as the Tropical
Rainforest.
Table 24. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Describing Highlights of their
McNeil Avian Center Visit
Post-Interview
Post-Interview
Highlight of Visit to McNeil Avian Center*
Total in
Percentage of
Sample (n = 61)
Sample
Exhibit Experience
26
43%

Birds fly around you
10
16%

Seeing birds up close
9
15%

Appearance of birds (colors, variety, beauty)
7
11%

No cages, freedom of birds
4
7%

Watching birds eat
3
5%

Watching birds
3
5%

Sounds of birds
1
2%
Specific Bird
15
25%

Victoria crowned pigeon
6
10%

Hornbill
6
10%

Fairy blue bird
2
3%

Blue bird in path
1
2%
Exhibit Element
14
23%

Tropical Rainforest
8
13%

Savanna
2
3%

Theater
2
3%

Signage
2
3%
Other
8
13%

Everything, all great, impressive
3
5%

Sitting down
1
2%

Air conditioning
1
2%

Parrot show outside
1
2%

No highlight
1
2%
1
 Didn’t like it
*A small number of participants offered responses in multiple categories.
- 32 -
2%
When asked if they were disappointed by any aspect of their visit to the McNeil Avian Center,
only 13% of the post-visit interview respondents identified any areas of disappointment. Most of
the respondents who expressed disappointment complained that the McNeil Avian Center is not
large enough (8% of the total sample). The results are presented in Table 25.
Table 25. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Expressing Disappointment in their
Visit to the McNeil Avian Center
PostPostInterview
Interview
Disappointing Aspects of the McNeil Avian
Total in
Percentage of
Center*
Sample
Sample
(n = 61)
Expressed disappointment
8
13%

McNeil Avian Center is not large enough
5
8%

“Couldn’t get close enough to birds or feed them.”
1
2%

“Wanted to see a penguin.”
1
2%

“The show is cut down…no horseshoe crabs.”
1
2%

“The mosquito sound in the Pacific Islands was
irritating and distracting. It should have a button
to push to hear it.”
1
2%
Not disappointed
53
87%

“It’s beautiful. I’m very impressed.”
2
3%

“It’s beautiful.”
1
2%

“I enjoyed my day”
1
2%
1
2%
 “My son is very happy.”
*One participant expressed two types of disappointment.
3.2.5. Visitors’ Reactions to and Interest in the Migration Theater Experience
Migration Theater interview respondents were asked several questions to assess their
impressions of the show. Their interview began with a general question: What did you think of
your Migration Theater experience? Table 26 presents a comparison of the responses by
interviewees who viewed the longer version of the theater show with those who viewed the
shorter version of the show.
Almost 100% of both the long- and short-show interview participants offered at least one
positive comment about their experience. The one exception was a short-show viewer who
simply described the show as “All right.” The most common response by both the long- and
short-show interview groups was to offer general praise for the experience (offered by 97% of
- 33 -
those who viewed the long-show and 89% of those who viewed the short show). Several
specific aspects of the Migration Theater experience, such as the multi-media components, were
also praised. A quarter (25%) of the long-show interviewees and 17% of the short-show
interviewees offered comments of this type. A complete list of responses is included in Table
26.
- 34 -
Table 26. Migration Theater Interview Respondents’ General Reactions to the Show
Thoughts about Theater
Experience *
Long
Show
Total in
Sample
Long
Show
Percentage
of Sample
(n = 32)
Short
Show
Total in
Sample
Short
Show
Percentage
of Sample
(n = 35)
31
97%
31
89%
8
25%
6
17%
27
84%
27
77%
Offered complaints
1
3%
2
6%

Too loud
1
3%
0
0%

Otis is too yellow
0
0%
1
3%

Need bigger screen (IMAX)
0
0%
1
3%
Noted positive aspects of experience
8
25%
6
17%

Lights
2
6%
2
6%

Multi/different media
2
6%
1
3%

Animated
2
6%
0
0%

Disney-like
2
6%
0
0%

Graphics/color
2
6%
0
0%

Sound/music
1
3%
1
3%

New/different than expected
1
3%
1
3%

Sensory
1
3%
0
0%

Liked transition from South
America to Philadelphia
1
3%
0
0%

Liked that story is local
1
3%
0
0%

Realistic storm
0
0%
1
3%

Liked live footage of birds
0
0%
1
3%
Commented on target audience
4
13%
2
6%

4
13%
2
6%
0
0%
Offered general praise


Superlative praise (great,
excellent, loved it, wonderful,
beautiful, captivating)
Praise (fun, neat, cute, cool, nice,
good, enjoyable, liked it,
informative, entertaining,
interesting)
Good for kids
1
3%
 Good for adults
*Several participants offered responses in multiple categories.
- 35 -
When asked to describe the best part of the Migration Theater experience, both the long-show
and short-show interviewees most often described an aspect of the theater’s “look and feel” (59%
of the long-show respondents and 46% of the short-show respondents). Within this category, the
special effects, specifically aspects of the storm, were most frequently noted by both groups
(noted as the “best part” by 31% of the long-show respondents and 29% of the short-show
respondents). Interestingly, long-show interviewees were almost as likely to identify
informational aspects of the show (56%) as the “best part” as they were to identify “look and
feel” items (59%), whereas short-show interviewees less often made note of an informational
aspect of the show (29%). Instead, several short-show interview participants (26%) noted
general aspects of the experience such as that they liked “the whole thing” (14%) or appreciated
the air conditioning (11%). A complete list of responses is included in Table 27.
- 36 -
Table 27. “Best Part” of the Migration Theater Experience Identified by Interview Respondents
Long
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Look and feel of the theater
19
59%
16
46%
Special effects
10
31%
10
29%

Storm
5
16%
2
6%

Lightning
3
9%
1
3%

Wind
2
6%
2
6%

Thunder
1
3%
1
3%
Other aspects of the theater
7
22%
5
14%

Multi-media theater
2
6%
4
11%

Migration map
3
9%
0
0%

Lights
1
3%
1
3%

“Please migrate to the left” sign
1
3%
0
0%
Other aspects of the show
4
13%
2
6%

Animation
2
6%
1
3%

Graphics
1
3%
1
3%

Color
1
3%
0
0%

Oriole’s natural color change
1
3%
0
0%
Informational aspects of the show
17
53%
10
29%

Informative/educational
7
22%
6
17%

Edutainment mix
4
13%
0
0%

Learning about red knots
3
9%
0
0%

Good for kids
2
6%
5
14%

Good for all
1
3%
0
0%

Local interest
1
3%
1
3%

Conservation aspects
1
3%
0
0%
Other
1
3%
9
26%

Air conditioning/nice break
1
3%
4
11%

Liked “the whole thing”
0
0%
5
14%
1
3%
Best Part of the Theater
Experience*
1
3%
Not sure/unclear response
*Several participants offered responses in multiple categories.
- 37 -
Another difference between the responses of long-show interview participants and short-show
interview participants was found in the interviewees’ responses to the question: Were you
disappointed by any aspect of the Migration Theater experience? Twenty percent of the shortshow respondents expressed disappointment compared with only 3% of the long-show
respondents. The only complaint offered by more than one respondent was that the show was
too short. This comment was offered by only one long-show respondent (3%), but by 5 shortshow respondents (14%). The additional areas of disappointment that were noted are listed in
Table 28.
Table 28. Percentage of Interview Respondents Expressing Disappointment in their Migration
Theater Experience
Long
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Expressed disappointment
1
3%
7
20%

Too short
1
3%
5
14%

Sometimes the screen freezes
1
3%
0
0%

Not enough details/info
0
0%
1
3%

Lights were in our eyes
0
0%
1
3%

Too chilly
0
0%
1
3%

“3D would have been cool”
0
0%
1
3%

Liked long version better
0
0%
1
3%
31
97%
Not disappointed
*Four participants expressed two types of disappointment.
28
80%
Disappointing Aspects of the
Theater Experience*
As shown in Table 29, when directly asked if the Migration Theater show was too long, too
short, or just the right length, most respondents in both the long- and short-show groups
indicated that the show was just the right length (91% of the long-show respondents and 71% of
the short-show respondents). The remaining short-show interview participants (29%) felt that
the show was too short. One long-show interviewee (3%) also felt that the show was too short.
Four interview participants (6% of the 67 total interview participants) explained their response
by stating that they wanted more information. Only two respondents, both from the long-show
group (6% of the long-show interviewees), indicated that the show was too long. One of these
respondents explained that her 5-year-old could not sit still for the whole show. One other longshow respondent, who had indicated that the length of the show was just right, added that the
show would be too long for young children under the age of 2 or 3.
- 38 -
Table 29. Migration Theater Interview Respondents’ Perceptions of the Length of the Show
Long
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Too long
2
6%
0
0%
Too short
1
3%
10
29%
Just right
29
91%
25
71%
Thoughts about Theater
Experience
3.3.
Assessment of Visitors’ Understanding of Exhibit Messages
Through visitors’ activities and experiences in the McNeil Avian Center, the Philadelphia Zoo
hopes to deliver four main messages:
 Birds are amazing
 Birds are in trouble/threatened
 The Philadelphia Zoo is involved in helping birds
 You can help birds too
Questions from the pre-visit, post-visit and Migration Theater interviews assessed the extent to
which the McNeil Avian Center is succeeding in delivering these messages.
Visitors to the Migration Theater show were exposed to additional messages related to the main
messages, listed above. The Migration Theater interviews addressed visitors’ understanding of
migration, the plight of the red knot and Philadelphia’s role as a major flyway for birds.
The pre- and post-visit interviews addressed one more exhibit goal: to improve visitors’ ability to
identify local birds. Findings related to each exhibit message/goal are described below.
3.3.1. Birds are Amazing
Both the pre- and post-visit interview respondents were asked to describe something they find
amazing about birds. Almost all of the interview participants (96% of the pre-visit sample and
95% of the post-visit sample) identified as least one amazing feature of birds. Responses by the
pre-visit interview group focused primarily on aspects of birds’ behavior (60%), such as their
ability to fly, communicate and adapt to diverse habitats. Only 34% of the post-visit
interviewees described a type of bird behavior. Instead, most of the post-visit group’s responses
focused on aspects of birds’ appearance (61%), such as their colors, diversity and beauty. In
contrast, only 35% of pre-visit interview responses made note of such features. Another
difference identified between the two groups was that more of the pre-visit interview responses
(16%) than post-visit interview responses (7%) noted “Other” types of bird features such as
birds’ intelligence and their history and evolution. These findings suggest that a visit to the
McNeil Avian Center has the effect of drawing visitors’ attention to the visual appearance of
birds. Table 30 provides a complete list of the interviewees’ responses.
- 39 -
Table 30. Percentage of Pre- and Post-Visit Interview Respondents Noting Each “Amazing”
Feature of Birds
PrePrePostPostInterview
Interview
Interview
Interview
Total in
Percentage of
Total in
Percentage of
Amazing Bird
Sample
Sample
Sample
Sample
(n = 57)
(n = 61)
Feature*
Appearance
20
35%
37
61%

Colors
14
25%
23
38%

Diversity/
variety
5
9%
15
25%

Beauty
3
5%
5
8%
Behavior
34
60%
21
34%

Flight
16
28%
8
13%

Communication/song
7
12%
3
5%

Adaptation
to diverse
habitats
6
11%
1
2%

Nesting
3
5%
0
0%

Migration
2
4%
9
15%

Mating
practice
1
2%
0
0%

Amount of
food eaten
1
2%
0
0%
Other
9
16%
4
7%

Intelligence
4
7%
2
3%

History/
3
5%
0
0%

evolution

Don’t see
everyday
1
2%
0
0%

Different
egg shells
0
0%
1
2%

“Neat”
0
0%
1
2%
2
4%
3
5%
 No response
*A small number of participants offered responses in multiple categories.
- 40 -
After noting what they find amazing about birds, post-visit interview respondents were asked, “Is
that something you learned today?” Of the 49 participants who described something amazing
about birds and were asked if it was something they learned that day, 13 (27%) indicated that
what they described was something they had learned that day. Most of these 13 respondents
(69%) indicated that they had learned something related to birds’ appearance (i.e., colors,
diversity, beauty). Again, these findings suggest that the exhibits drew visitors’ attention toward
the visual appearance of birds.
3.3.2. Birds are in Trouble/Threatened
Both the post-visit and Migration Theater interview participants were asked to describe
something that people do that threatens the survival of birds. This question was also asked of
interview participants in the front-end evaluation for the new birdhouse, conducted in 2003.
Table 31 presents the responses offered by the post-visit and front-end evaluation interview
participants. Table 32 presents the responses offered by the Migration Theater interview
participants. The highlighted categories in both tables map onto the response categories
identified in the 2003 front-end report.
Respondents across all interview groups described the same types of harmful human activities,
however the percentage of participants offering each type of response varied by group. Notably,
the front-end interviewees tended to offer multiple responses and thus, the percentage of
respondents noting each type of harmful activity is higher for the front-end interview
respondents than for the post-visit or theater interview respondents for all categories except
“Other” and “Don’t know.”This difference may be attributed to the inclusion of more probes in
the front-end interviews and to the different settings of the interviews. Most of the front-end
interviews were conducted with adults who were patiently passing the time while watching their
children play in the Zoo’s Treehouse. Post-visit and Migration Theater interviews were instead
conducted with visitors who were intercepted on their way out of the McNeil Avian Center, and
who often were eager to move on to another area of the Zoo.
As shown in Table 31, the most common threats to birds identified by both the front-end
evaluation interviewees and the post-visit interviewees related to pollution/trash (offered by 66%
of the front-end group and 34% of the post-visit group) and cutting down trees/destroying
habitat (offered by 47% of the front-end group and 44% of the post-visit group). Many front-end
interview participants also noted the threats of hunting (offered by 36% of the front-end group,
but only 5% of the post-visit group) and/or building/development (offered 30% of the front-end
group, but only 3% of the post-visit group). In contrast, 20% of the post-visit interviewees, but
only 4% of the front-end interviewees offered “Other” responses. The most common of the postvisit sample’s “Other” responses is “Let cats outside.” A message about this type of threat to
birds appears in the signage of the McNeil Avian Center, thus at least some of the respondents
who identified these threats may have been influenced by this signage. Overall, 98% of front- 41 -
end respondents and 92% of post-visit respondents were able to describe at least one way in
which people threaten the survival of birds. The findings from the front-end interviews suggest
that many of the post-visit respondents were aware of such issues before touring the McNeil
Avian Center.
Table 31. Percentage of Post-Visit and Front-End Evaluation Interview Respondents Identifying
Ways in Which People Threaten the Survival of Birds
PostPostFront-End
Interview
Interview
Evaluation
Threats to Birds*
Total in
Percentage
Report
Sample
of Sample
Percentages
(n = 61)
Pollution/trash
21
34%

Pesticides
8
13%

Pollution/air or water pollution
6
10%

Littering/plastic rings/plastic bags
6
10%

Chemicals/chemical runoff
5
8%
Cutting down trees/destroying habitat
27
44%

Cutting down trees
13
21%

Cutting down trees to grow coffee
1
2%

Habitat destruction
15
25%

Burning
1
2%
Hunting (“shoot them”)
3
5%
36%
Building/development
2
3%
30%
Feeding/overfeeding
3
5%
11%
Other
12
20%
4%

Let cats outside
7
11%

Put up windmills
2
3%

Tear down nests
1
2%

Take birds’ eggs
1
2%

Hit them
1
2%
5
8%
Don’t know
*A small number of participants offered responses in multiple categories.
66%
47%
2%
Responses by both the long- and short- show Migration Theater interview participants were
similar to those of the post-visit-interview group in terms of both the categories offered and the
frequency with which each category was noted. Over 30% of each group identified issues
- 42 -
related to pollution and trash (34% of the long-show interview group, 37% of the short-show
interview group, and 34% of the post-visit group), and approximately 40% identified the issues
of cutting down trees and habitat destruction (38% of the long-show interview group, 43% of the
short-show interview group and 44% of the post-visit group).
The only area in which there was a notable difference between the Migration Theater interview
participants and the post-visit interview participants was in the category of
building/development. Almost half of the long-show interview participants (47%) and a quarter
of the short-show participants (26%) noted this category compared with only 3% of the post-visit
interviewees. This difference between the groups suggests that the content of the Migration
Theater show influenced visitors’ responses regarding threats to birds and thus, that the Zoo
succeeded in delivering the message that building/development threatens birds to many of the
visitors who viewed the show. The fact that almost twice as many long-show interview
respondents than short-show interview respondents identified the issue of building/development
(47% versus 26% of respondents), and that all of the long-show respondents compared to 91% of
the short-show respondents were able to describe at least one issue that threatens the survival of
birds, suggests that the long show was more effective than the short show in delivering the
message regarding threats to bird survival to Migration Theater attendees. The effectiveness of
the longer version of the theater show in delivering the message that building/development
threatens birds is also apparent when the responses of the long-show interview sample are
compared to those of the front-end sample; 47% of the long-show interviewees identified the
issue of building/development compared with 30% of the front-end interviewees. Table 32
provides a complete list of the Migration Theater interviewees’ responses.
- 43 -
Table 32. Percentage of Migration Theater Interview Respondents Identifying ways in Which
People Threaten the Survival of Birds
Long
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Pollution/trash
11
34%
13
37%

Pesticides
1
3%
3
9%

Pollution/air or water pollution
7
22%
5
14%

Littering/plastic rings/plastic bags
6
19%
7
20%
Cutting down trees/destroying habitat
12
38%
15
43%

Cutting down trees
7
22%
11
31%

Habitat destruction
7
22%
9
26%
Hunting (“shoot them”)
0
0%
1
3%
Building/development
15
47%
9
26%
Feeding/overfeeding
1
3%
1
3%
Other
3
9%
4
11%

Destroy food supply
2
6%
2
6%

Eat them
1
3%
0
0%

City distractions
0
0%
1
3%

Chase them
0
0%
1
3%
0
0%
3
Don’t know
*A small number of participants offered responses in multiple categories.
9%
Threats to Birds*
3.3.3. The Philadelphia Zoo is Involved in Helping Birds
Both pre- and post-visit interviewees were asked to describe ways in which the Philadelphia Zoo
works to promote the welfare of birds and other animals. Differences found between the preand post-visit responses are presumed to be attributable to visitors’ experiences within the
McNeil Avian Center. Table 33 presents a complete list of pre- and post-visit interviewees’
responses.
The most notable difference between the pre- and post-visit interview groups was in the
percentage of respondents who were unable to offer a response. The pre-visit interviewees were
almost five times as likely to fail to respond to this question as the post-visit interviewees (23%
of pre-visit versus 5% of post-visit interviewees). This finding suggests that a visit to the
McNeil Avian Center helps visitors understand how the Zoo promotes the welfare of animals.
- 44 -
Respondents suggested a variety of ways in which the Philadelphia Zoo works to promote the
welfare of birds and other animals. The most common response offered by both the pre- and
post-visit groups is that the Zoo provides education and/or information. More post-visit
interviewees (67%) than pre-visit interviewees (49%) offered this response. Post-visit
interviewees were also more likely than pre-visit interviewees to note that: the Philadelphia Zoo
allows people to see and appreciate animals (15% of post- versus 7% of pre-visit interviewees),
that the Zoo engages in conservation efforts/preventing the extinction of animals (11% of postversus 5% of pre-visit interviewees), that the Zoo breeds animals (8% of post- versus 2%of previsit interviewees), and that the Zoo asks for donations to help animals (5% of post- versus 0% of
pre-visit interviewees). Pre-visit interview respondents were more likely than post-visit
respondents to indicate that the Philadelphia Zoo provides protective environments within the
Zoo or generally takes care of animals (25% of pre- versus 13% of post-visit interviewees) and
that the Zoo protects animal habitats outside of the Zoo (11% of pre- versus 7% of post-visit
interviewees).
Post-visit respondents’ recognition that the Zoo works to prevent the extinction of animals,
participates in breeding programs and works to protect animal habitats outside of the Zoo may be
attributable to reading “Zoo at Work” signs within the McNeil Avian Center. Note, however,
that fewer than 20% of the participants in the timing and tracking study were observed reading
these signs.
- 45 -
Table 33. Percentage of Pre- and Post- Visit Interview Respondents Identifying Ways in Which
the Philadelphia Zoo Works to Promote the Welfare of Birds and Other Animals
PreInterview
Total in
Sample
(n = 57)
PreInterview
Percentage of
Sample
PostInterview
Total in
Sample
(n = 61)
PostInterview
Percentage
of Sample
Provide education/
information
28
49%
41
67%
Provide protective
environment/ take
care of animals
14
25%
8
13%
Protect natural
habitats (outside of
Zoo)
6
11%
4
7%
Allow people to see
and appreciate
animals
4
7%
9
15%
Conservation efforts/
prevent extinction
3
5%
7
11%
Research
2
4%
3
5%
Breeding
1
2%
5
8%
Work with schools
1
2%
1
2%
Work with other
zoos/Audubon
1
2%
1
2%
Promote Zoo
activities with
monthly radio talks
1
2%
0
0%
Ask for donations
0
0%
3
5%
Use of Website
0
0%
1
2%
Diamondback
terrapin project
0
0%
1
2%
No response
13
23%
3
5%
Zoo’s Perceived
Roles
3.3.4. You Can Help Birds Too
The post-visit interviewees were the only participants in the summative evaluation who were
asked: Do you know of anything people can do to help overcome threats to bird survival?
Participants in the 2003 front-end study for the new birdhouse were also asked how people can
- 46 -
help overcome threats to birds, however, the data from the front-end and summative studies are
not directly comparable for several reasons including differences in how responses were
categorized, differences in the extent to which respondents were asked follow-up questions and
differences between the settings in which participants were interviewed (see the section titled
“Birds are in Trouble/Threatened” for further explanation about these differences). Despite these
differences, it was possible to assign many of the post-visit interviewees’ responses to the same
general response categories as those utilized in the 2003 front-end report. A complete listing of
the post-visit interviewees’ responses appears in Table 34. The highlighted categories in Table
34 map onto the response categories identified in the 2003 front-end report.
Almost all (92%) of the post-visit interviewees suggested a way that people can help birds. Of
the 56 respondents who identified a way for people to help overcome threats to birds, 36%
suggested that people not do something that they had previously identified as a threat to birds
(see Table 31). Examples include: “Reduce pesticide use” and “Stop habitat destruction.” Most
respondents, however, offered ideas that were not related to their own previous response(s).
Overall, the most commonly offered responses fit within the categories of creating/preserving
habitat (31%) and reducing pollution/trash (20%). Interestingly, the responses offered by almost
half of the post-visit interview participants were categorized as “Other” responses because they
did not fit within the categories that more frequently fit the responses of the 2003 front-end study
interviewees. Within the “Other” category, interviewees most often suggested feeding birds
(12%), increasing awareness of the plight of birds (10%) and not letting cats outside (8%).
Smaller percentages of the sample suggested building birdhouses/migratory posts (3%) and
buying shade-grown coffee (3%).
The responses of 38% of the interviewees are directly related to messages presented in the
McNeil Avian Center either through signage or the Migration Theater show. Respondents who
suggested feeding birds and increasing awareness of the plight of birds may have been
influenced by the content of the Migration Theater show. Those who indicated that cats should
not be let outside, as well as those who talked about planting trees, building birdhouses, and/or
buying shade-grown coffee may have been influenced by signage within the McNeil Avian
Center. Over a quarter of the participants (26%) in the timing and tracking study were observed
reading the sign entitled “Keep Kitty Indoors,” however, fewer than 10% of the participants were
observed reading signs about nest-friendly backyards (9%) or shade-grown coffee (5%).
- 47 -
Table 34. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Identifying Ways that People Can
Help Overcome Threats to Bird Survival
PostInterview
Total in
Sample
(n = 61)
PostInterview
Percentage
of Sample
Reduce pollution/trash
12
20%

Reduce pesticide use
6
10%

Reduce pollution
4
7%

Don’t litter
2
3%
Create/preserve habitat
19
31%

Respect/protect habitat
7
12%

Stop deforestation
5
8%

Conservation/recycling
4
7%

Expand habitat/plant trees
3
5%

Stop habitat destruction
2
3%
Don’t hunt
2
3%
Don’t build
4
7%
Don’t feed
1
2%
Other
29
48%

Feed birds
7
12%

Increase awareness
6
10%

Don’t let cats outside
5
8%

Donate money (2 said to Zoo)
3
5%

Take political action
3
5%

Don’t destroy nests
2
3%

Leave birds alone
2
3%

Build birdhouses/migratory posts
2
3%

Buy shade-grown coffee
2
3%

Keep birds in captivity
1
2%
Actions to Overcome Threats to
Birds*
5
8%
No response
*A small number of participants offered responses in multiple categories.
- 48 -
Post-visit interview respondents were asked an additional question related to their understanding
of their potential role in helping birds: “As a result of your visit today, is there anything you
think you will do to help birds?” Almost two-thirds (66%) of the post-visit interviewees noted a
way in which they plan to help birds. Most of these respondents indicated that they would either
feed or continue to feed birds (28%) or that they would donate money to help birds (13%). One
respondent planned to buy shade-grown coffee (2%) and one planned to keep a cat inside (2%).
As shown in Table 35, a variety of other responses were also offered by one, two or three
respondents. Taken together, these findings indicate that most visitors do understand that they
themselves can help birds, and many already take action to do so or plan to do so as a result of
their visit to the McNeil Avian Center.
Table 35. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Identifying Ways that They
Themselves Plan to Help Birds
PostPostInterview
Interview
Plans to Help Birds*
Total in
Percentage of
Sample
Sample
(n = 61)
Have a plan to help birds
40
66%

Feed/continue to feed birds
17
28%

Donate money (2 said support Zoo)
8
13%

Recycle/continue to recycle
3
5%

Don’t litter
2
3%

Continue to do what we already do
2
3%

Stay informed/educated
1
2%

Get backyard eco-habitat certified
1
2%

Plant more trees
1
2%

Buy shade-grown coffee
1
2%

Keep our cat inside
1
2%

Stop shooting birds
1
2%

Encourage son who is interested in animals
1
2%

Through work
1
2%
19
31%
Do not plan to help birds
2
No response
*A small number of participants offered responses in multiple categories.
- 49 -
3%
When post-visit interviewees were asked how their visit to the McNeil Avian Center changed
how they think or feel about birds, 36% of the respondents indicated that their visit made them
feel more positive toward, more interested in, or more concerned about birds. An additional 3%
noted that they had learned more about birds. Although 61% f the respondents indicated no
change in their feelings or thoughts about birds, almost a quarter of these respondents (24%)
noted that they continue to have a positive impression of birds; others likely felt this way too. In
total, 51% of the post-visit interviewees directly indicated that they have a positive impression of
or care about birds. Presumably, those with a positive or caring attitude toward birds are also
more likely to take action to help birds. A complete listing of the post-visit interviewees’
responses is presented in Table 36.
Table 36. Percentage of Post-Visit Interview Respondents Indicating Changes in their Thoughts
and Feelings about Birds
Post-Interview Post-Interview
Total in
Percentage of
Sample (n = 61)
Changes in Attitudes about Birds
Sample
Increased Positive Attitude Toward or Interest in Birds
19
31%

More interested in birds
5
8%

Love or enjoy birds more
4
7%

“I want one.”
2
3%

Should look at different kinds of birds
1
2%

More aware of birds in backyard
1
2%

Did not realize there are so many kinds
1
2%

Impressed by trained parrots
1
2%

Birds are not so annoying
1
2%

“The birds are happy in here.”
1
2%

“The birds here are tame.”
1
2%

Should come to the Zoo more
1
2%
Increased Concern about Birds
3
5%

Learned about invasive species in Guam
2
3%

Learned about birds’ habitat being cut down
1
2%
Learned Information about Birds
2
3%

Increased knowledge
1
2%

Learned where birds go in different seasons
1
2%
No Change
37
61%

9
15%
Stated that still have positive impression of birds
- 50 -
Like the post-visit interviewees, both the long- and short-show interviewees were asked how
their visit to the Migration Theater changed how they think or feel about birds. A complete
listing of the Migration Theater interviewees’ responses is presented in Table 37.
Interestingly, the responses of the long- and short-show interviewees differed. Over half of the
long-show respondents (56%), but only a third (34%) of the short-show respondents, indicated
that their Migration Theater experience made them feel more positive toward, more interested in,
or more concerned about birds. This difference between the groups can be attributed to the
percentage who indicated that the theater experience increased their concern about birds. Thirtyone percent of the long-show interviewees indicated that the show increased their concern about
birds compared to only 11% of the short-show interviewees. Most of the interviewees explained
that the show made them more aware of migration challenges (16% of the long-show
respondents and 6% of the short-show respondents) and more aware of how people harm birds
(9% of the long-show respondents and 3% of the short-show respondents). Short-show interview
respondents were more likely than long-show respondents to indicate that they had learned
information about birds from the show (9% of the short-show respondents versus 0% of the longshow respondents) and that they had experienced no change in their thoughts or feelings about
birds (57% of the short-show respondents versus 44% of the long-show respondents). Within
both groups, thirty percent of those who indicated that their thoughts and feelings about birds had
not changed indicated that they continue to have a positive impression of birds. Thus, a total of
69% of the long-show interviewees and 51% of the short-show interviewees directly indicated
that they have a positive impression of or care about birds. Those with a positive or caring
attitude toward birds are also expected to be more likely to take action to help birds.
A comparison of the findings from the Migration Theater interviews with those from the postvisit interviews shows that the responses from the group that viewed the short version of the
Migration Theater show are very similar to those from the post-visit interview group. In
contrast, interviewees who viewed the long version of the Migration Theater show were more
likely than the interviewees from the other two groups to indicate that their attitude toward birds
had become more positive (56% of the long-show interviewees compared with 34% of the shortshow interviewees and 36% of the post-visit interviewees). This difference suggests that the
portion of the Migration Theater show that portrays the plight of the red knot (a portion of the
program that is missing from the short version of the show) may be particularly effective in
increasing viewers’ positive feelings toward and concern about birds, and possibly in turn, their
likelihood of taking action to help birds.
- 51 -
Table 37. Percentage of Migration Theater Interview Respondents Indicating Changes in their
Thoughts and Feelings about Birds
Long
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Increased Positive Attitude Toward or
Interest in Birds
8
25%
8
23%

More interested in birds
2
6%
3
9%

Plan to get or add birdfeeders
3
9%
0
0%

Plan to leave oranges out
0
0%
1
3%

Plan to visit Cape May to see
migration
2
6%
1
3%

Plan to visit Edwin Forsythe Refuge
0
0%
1
3%

More appreciative/aware of birds
1
3%
2
6%

They’re beautiful
0
0%
1
3%
Increased Concern about Birds
10
31%
4
11%

More aware of migration challenges
5
16%
2
6%

More aware of how people harm
birds
3
9%
1
3%

More aware of importance of
preserving bird habitats
2
6%
0
0%

More supportive
1
3%
0
0%

Birds should be protected
0
0%
1
3%
Learned Information about Birds
0
0%
3
9%
No Change
14
44%
20
57%
4
13%
6
Stated that still have positive
impression of birds
*A small number of participants offered responses in multiple categories.
17%
Changes in Attitudes about Birds*

3.3.5. Visitors’ Understanding of Migration
3.3.5.1. Definitions of Migration
The Migration Theater interivew included several questions designed to assess visitors’
understanding of migration. When asked to define the word “migration,” almost every longshow (97%) and short-show (97%) interview participant indicated that migration involves
- 52 -
movement. Over 70% of each group also indicated that this movement is from place to place
(78% of the long-show group and 71% of the short-show group). Interestingly, short-show
interviewees were more likely than long-show interviewees to indicate that migration has
something to do with time or seasons (34% of the short-show group compared with 19% of the
long-show group). In contrast, more long-show participants than short-show participants
described reasons to migrate (25% of the long-show group compared with 17% of the short-show
group). Table 38 presents the percentage of repsondents who included each aspect of migration
in their definition.
Participants in the front-end evaluation for the new birdhouse ,conducted in 2003, offered similar
responses when asked to define migration. Almost every interviewee (96%) mentioned
movement and 84% indicated that this movement was from place to place. Participants in the
front-end study showed a somewhat greater tendency than those in the Migration Theater study
to mention time or seasons (44% of the front-end interviewees compared with 34% of the shortshow interviewees and 19% of the long-show interviewees), however, they were about equally
likely to describe reasons that birds migrate (25% of the front-end interviewees compared with
25% of the long-show interviewees and 17% of the short-show interviewees). These
comparative results suggest that viewing the Migration Theater show, whether the long or short
version, had little impact on the way that visitors define migration. The results also suggest that,
given the number of front-end respondents who could readily describe migration as involving
moverment from place to place, there was little room for improvement in interviewees’
definitions.
Table 38. Percentage of Migration Theater Interview Respondents Identifying Various Concepts
in their Definition of Migration
Long
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Moving
31
97%
34
97%
Place to place
25
78%
25
71%
Time or season
6
19%
12
34%
Reasons to migrate
8
25%
6
17%

Food
5
16%
4
11%

Climate
4
13%
3
9%

Survival
1
3%
1
3%

Shelter
1
3%
0
0%
Instinct
0
0%
1
3%
No response
0
0%
1
3%
Concept Mentioned in Definition
of Migration
- 53 -
When interviewees were directly asked to describe reasons that birds migrate, most respondents
mentioned food and/or weather, temperature or climate. Long-show respondents (97%) were
more likely than short-show respondents (86%) to mention food, and short-show respondents
(63%) were more likely than long-show respondents (47%) to mention weather, temperature or
climate. Table 39 presents a complete listing of the Migration Theater interviewees’ responses.
Participants in the 2003 front-end study were less likely than either the long- or short-show
respondents to mention food (68% of the front-end interviewees compared with 97% of the longshow interviewees and 86% of the short-show interviewees), but more likely than either group to
note weather, temperature or climate (90% of the front-end interviewees compared with 47% of
the long-show interviewees and 63% of the short-show interviewees), and breeding or nesting
(47% of the front-end interviewees compared with 16% of the long-show interviewees and 23%
of the short-show interviewees).
Taken together, these results suggest that both the long- and short-versions of the Migration
Theater show focused viewers’ attention on birds’ need to find food. This tendency appears to
be somewhat stronger for the long show than the short show.
Table 39. Percentage of Migration Theater Interview Respondents Identifying Reasons that
Birds Migrate
Long
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Food
31
97%
30
86%
Weather, temperature, climate
15
47%
22
63%
Breeding, nesting
5
16%
8
23%
Shelter, habitat
3
9%
1
3%
Survival
3
9%
1
3%
Instinct
2
6%
1
3%
No response
1
3%
1
3%
Reasons that Birds Migrate
3.3.5.2. Understanding of Philadelphia’s Role as a Major Flyway for Birds
Migration Theater interview participants were also asked to describe the role of the Philadelphia
area in bird migration. Approximately three-quarters of the respondents in both the long- and
short-show interview groups were able to provide an interpretable explanation (78% of the longshow interviewees and 77% of the short-show interviewees). Similar percentages of
interviewees in the two groups identified the Philadelphia area as a stopover (41% of long-show
- 54 -
interviewees and 37% of short-show interviewees) and as a starting point for migration (28% of
long-show interviewees and 26% of short-show interviewees). Few respondents in either group
described the Philadelphia area as both a starting point and a resting point (3% of the long-show
interviewees and 6% of the short-show interviewees). The one area in which the two groups
differed is in the percentage who mentioned Cape May, “the Shore,” or the bay; more long-show
participants (34%) than short-show participants (20%) mentioned these areas in their responses.
This finding is not surprising given the extended focus on the shore-based feeding habits of the
red knot in the longer version of the Migration Theater show. Table 40 presents the percentage
of long- and short-show respondents who offered each type of description of the role of the
Philadelphia area in bird migration.
Table 40. Percentage of Migration Theater Interview Respondents Indentifying Roles of the
Philadelphia Area in Bird Migration
Long
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Short
Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 35)
Short
Show
Percentage
of Sample
Stopover (for food, rest)
13
41%
13
37%
Mention Cape May, shore, bay
11
34%
7
20%
Starting point for migration south
9
28%
9
26%
Starting point and resting point
1
3%
2
6%
No response/not clear
7
22%
8
23%
Role of Philadelphia Area in Bird
Migration
3.3.5.3. Understanding of the Plight of the Red Knot
Only the longer version of the Migration Theater show included a segment presenting the
difficulties faced by migrating red knots. Almost every long-show interviewee (97%) recalled
hearing about the plight of the red knot, and most of the interviewees (84%) described the red
knots’ diminishing food supply as the challenge they face. Three-quarters (75%) of the
respondents specifically noted that the supply of horseshoe crabs is diminishing. A few
respondents (6%) mistakenly thought that the horseshoe crabs are eating the red knots or their
eggs. Table 41 presents the responses offered by the long-show interviewees.
- 55 -
Table 41. Percentage of Long-Show Migration Theater Interviewees Identifying Challenges
Faced by the Red Knot
Challenges Faced by Red Knot
Recalled hearing about red knot
Long Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long
Show
Percentage
of Sample
31
97%
Challenges*:

Horseshoe crabs diminishing (less food)
24
75%

Lack of food (no mention of crab)
3
9%

Horseshoe crab is sole source of food
2
6%

Crabs are eating red knots or their eggs
2
6%
3
 Don’t know
*Note that two participants gave responses in more than one category.
9%
3.3.5.4. Most Interesting Facts Learned from the Migration Theater Show
Both the long- and short-show Migration Theater interviewees were asked to describe the most
interesting fact they learned from the show. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents in
each group described general facts about migration (69% of the long-show interviewees and 66%
of the short-show interviewees). The long-show interviewees were most likely to mention the
distance that birds migrate (34%) and the short-show interviewees were most likely to mention
the destination of birds’ migration (20%). A third of the long-show interviewees (34%) reported
information related to red knot migration as the most interesting fact learned from the show, and
the remaining long-show respondents tended to mention a fact related to either oriole migration
(9%) or hummingbird migration (3%). Short-show interview respondents also showed interest in
facts related to oriole (14%) and hummingbird (14%) migration. Table 42 presents a complete
listing of the Migration Theater interviewees’ responses.
- 56 -
Table 42. Percentage of Migration Theater Interviewees Identifying Interesting Facts Learned
Thoughts about Theater
Experience*
Long Show
Total in
Sample
(n = 32)
Long
Short Show
Short
Show
Total in
Show
Percentage
Sample
Percentage
of Sample
of Sample
(n = 35)
General facts about migration
22
69%
23
66%

Distance/time birds migrate
11
34%
3
9%

Destination of migration
4
13%
7
20%

“Learned about migration”
3
9%
3
9%

Birds migrate through Cape May
2
6%
5
14%

Not all birds migrate (and why)
2
6%
3
9%

Birds have an internal clock
1
3%
0
0%

Birds stop in many places
1
3%
0
0%

So many birds use Cape May
0
0%
1
3%

Birds have different patterns
0
0%
1
3%

Importance of shore line
0
0%
1
3%
Red knot migration
11
34%
N/A
N/A

General red knot migration
1
3%
N/A
N/A

Distance red knots migrate
5
16%
N/A
N/A

Red knot depends on crab
3
9%
N/A
N/A

Red knots’ migration path
2
6%
N/A
N/A

Red knot/crab as ecosystem
1
3%
N/A
N/A
Oriole migration
3
9%
5
14%

Learning that orioles migrate
1
3%
2
6%

Orioles’ migration path
2
6%
3
9%
Hummingbird migration
1
3%
5
14%

Fly 500 miles in a day
1
3%
1
3%

Fly to Mexico in a short time
0
0%
1
3%

Cross Gulf in less than a day
0
0%
3
9%
Other
4
13%
5
14%

The way the show was presented
1
3%
1
3%

Everything
0
0%
1
3%
3
9%
3
 No response/don’t know
*Note that several participants offered multiple responses to this question.
9%
- 57 -
3.3.6. Visitors’ Ability to Identify Local Birds
Both the pre- and post-visit interviews addressed an additional goal of the McNeil Avian Center:
visitors’ ability to identify local birds. Based on the fndings presented in Table 43, pre- and
post-visit interviewees were most likely to recognize the Northern cardinal (recognized by 90%
of the pre-visit interviewees and 89% of the post-visit interviewees) and the blue jay (recognized
by 86% of the pre-visit interviewees and 90% of the post-visit interviewees), and least likely to
recognize the Northern mockingbird (recognized by 30% of the pre-visit interviewees and 41%
of the post-visit interviewees). When asked to provide the names of the birds, both groups were
most likely to provide the full correct name for the blue jay (correctly named by 77% of the previsit interviewees and 72% of the post-visit interviewees) and least likely to correctly name the
Northern mockingbird (correctly named by 2% of the pre-visit interviewees and 3% of the postvisit interviewees). When partially correct names were considered, many more interviewees
showed some ability to name the (Northern) cardinal (partially named by 58% of the pre-visit
interviewees and 69% of the post-visit interviewees), the (American) robin (partially named by
47% of the pre-visit interviewees and 49% of the post-visit interviewees), and the (Downy)
woodpecker (partially named by 44% of the pre-visit interviewees and 41% of the post-visit
interviewees).
T-tests were conducted to assess the significance of the differences between the pre- and postvisit interviewees’ responses, however, none of the differences were found to be statistically
reliable. The lack of reliable differences between the pre- and post-visit interview groups’ ability
to recognize and identify local birds is not surprising given the finding from the timing and
tracking study that only 12% of tracked visitors stopped to look at the sign in the Atrium that
provides photographs, names of, and information about local birds. Notably, however, the
largest difference between the percentage of pre- and post-visit interviewees indicating that they
recognized a particular bird was found for the Baltimore oriole, the species of bird highlighted in
the Migration Theater show.
Table 43. Percentage of Pre- and Post-Visit Interviewees Recognizing and Naming Each of Six
Local Birds
Type of Bird
Have Seen Before
Full Name
Partial Name
Pre
(n = 57)
Post
(n = 61)
Pre
(n = 57)
Post
(n = 61)
Pre
(n = 57)
Post
(n = 61)
Downy
woodpecker
63%
72%
14%
18%
44%
41%
American robin
79%
72%
23%
15%
47%
49%
Blue jay
86%
90%
77%
72%
4%
8%
Northern
mockingbird
30%
41%
2%
3%
5%
16%
Northern cardinal
90%
89%
25%
15%
58%
69%
Baltimore oriole
54%
67%
18%
21%
23%
30%
- 58 -
3.4.
Examination of the Impact of a Visit to the McNeil Avian Center on Visitors’
Perceptions of the Philadelphia Zoo
The last of the four primary evaluation goals focuses on the impacts of a visit to the McNeil
Avian Center on visitors’ perceptions of the Philadelphia Zoo. In particular, it was of interest to
assess visitors’ perceptions of the Philadelphia Zoo as a conservation organization and to assess
visitors’ perceptions regarding animal welfare within the Zoo. The following question was
included in the post-visit interview to address these issues: Has your understanding of the Zoo’s
role in helping animals changed as a result of visiting the McNeil Avian Center? A complete list
of post-visit interviewees’ responses to this question is provided in Table 44.
As shown below in Table 44, only 25% of the post-visit interviewees felt that their understanding
of the Zoo’s role in helping animals had changed as a result of their visit to the McNeil Avian
Center. Respondents’ explanations of the ways in which their understanding had changed varied
and no more than 5% of the respondents offered the same explanation. The most commonly
offered explanation, given by 5% of the respondents, was that the Zoo helps the environment or
helps with preserving habitats. Another 5% of the respondents stated that they had increased
their understanding of the Zoo’s role in helping animals, but they did not offer any additional
explanation. Overall, respondents’ explanations were very general, suggesting that they, in fact,
have little understanding of how the Zoo helps animals or of the Zoo’s role as a conservation
organization.
Additional data related to the issues of visitors’ perceptions of the Zoo as a conservation
organization and their perceptions regarding animal welfare within the Zoo is drawn from
responses to the pre- and post-visit interview question that asked interviewees to describe ways
in which the Philadelphia Zoo works to promote the welfare of birds and other animals (see
Table 33, presented earlier in the report). In response to this question, 5% of pre-visit
interviewees and 11% of post-visit interviewees indicated that the Zoo engages in conservation
efforts/preventing the extinction of animals. Other respondents noted that the Zoo breeds
animals (2% of pre-visit and 8% of post-visit interviewees), that the Zoo asks for donations to
help animals (0% of pre-visit and 5% of post-visit interviewees), that the Philadelphia Zoo
provides protective environments within the Zoo or generally takes care of animals (25% of previsit and 13% of post-visit interviewees) and that the Zoo protects animal habitats outside of the
Zoo (11% of pre-visit and 7% of post-visit interviewees). Overall, the scarcity of these
responses and their lack of specificity suggest that few visitors to the McNeil Avian Center have
a strong understanding of the Zoo’s role as a conservation organization and, although some
visitors indicated that they have positive perceptions of the Zoo as an organization that cares for
and protects animals, few visitors appear to have given much thought to the issue of animal
welfare within the Zoo.
- 59 -
Table 44. Percentage of Post-Visit Interviewees Identifying Ways That their Visit to the McNeil
Avian Center Changed their Understanding of the Zoo’s Role in Helping Animals
PostPostInterview
Interview
Understanding of Zoo’s Role in Helping Animals
Total in
Percentage of
Sample
Sample
(n = 61)
Visit changed understanding of Zoo’s role
15
25%

Zoo helps the environment/preserves habitats
3
5%

Increased understanding of Zoo’s role (not
specified)
3
5%

Zoo provides information to visitors
2
3%

Zoo promotes education for children
1
2%

Zoo is active in the community
1
2%

Zoo helps visitors understand how they are “ part
of the cycle of nature”
1
2%

Zoo helps many creatures that need help
1
2%

Zoo preserves endangered species
1
2%

Zoo’s educated staff are on top of things
1
2%

Zoo helps visitors understand which animals are
going extinct
1
2%
No change in understanding
46
75%

“Good perception all around…enhanced
perception.”
1
2%

“I always thought the Zoo helped animals.”
1
2%

“I always thought the Zoo was a great place and
it’s getting better all the time.”
1
2%

“I still think they do a good job.”
1
2%

“Conservation.”
1
2%

“We come down a lot…lots of educational things.”
1
2%

“The Zoo always had the guides.”
1
2%
- 60 -
4. Summary
Visitors to the McNeil Avian Center were found to spend an average of nine minutes completing
a tour through the Atrium, African Savanna, Pacific Islands, Tropical Rainforest, and Shade
Coffee Plantation exhibit areas. During their tour, they tended to spend most of their time in the
Tropical Rainforest and African Savanna exhibit areas, and very little time in the Shade Coffee
Plantation area. Visitors often stopped to watch birds, and many pointed out birds, talked about
birds, and identified birds with others in their group or with Zoo staff. Most visitors occasionally
stopped to read a sign, especially one that helped them to identify the birds they were viewing,
and almost a third of the visitors viewed the Migration Theater show, usually after completing a
tour of the exhibit areas.
During their tour of the exhibit areas, visitors’ attention was clearly focused on viewing the birds
rather than on learning facts about them. Fewer than half of the interviewees recalled the names
or themes of any of the exhibit areas they had walked through or were able to share a story or
fact learned during their visit. Almost all of the interviewees, however, enthusiastically offered a
highlight of their visit. Most often, they talked about how the birds were flying right around
them or expressed pleasure at seeing birds up close. Visitors to the Migration Theater also
enthusiastically offered praise, and most described an aspect of the theater’s “look and feel,”
such as the storm-related special effects, as the best part of the experience. While most
interviewees who viewed the long-show felt that the show was just the right length, almost a
third of those who viewed the short-show felt that the show was too short.
Interviewees provided some evidence that the McNeil Avian Center succeeded in delivering its
main messages:
Birds are Amazing. Visitors easily described something they find amazing about birds. Previsit interviewees tended to describe an aspect of bird behavior, but post-visit interviewees
tended to describe aspects of birds’ appearance, thus a visit to the McNeil Avian Center
appears to have the effect of drawing visitors’ attention to birds’ appearance.
Birds are in Trouble/Threatened. Although at least nine out of ten interviewees were able to
describe at least one way in which people threaten the survival of birds, a comparison with
findings from the 2003 front-end study for the birdhouse indicates that it is likely that most
visitors were aware of the threats they described before their tour of the McNeil Avian
Center. A visit to the Migration Theater show, however, appears to have a direct impact on
visitors’ perceptions of threats to birds. Migration Theater interviewees, especially those
who viewed the long show, were much more likely to describe threats related to building
and development than visitors who participated in a post-visit interview. (Note that the postvisit interview addressed visitors’ overall reactions to the McNeil Avian Center rather than
their theater experience). Also notable is the fact that 11% of the post-visit interviewees
indicated that letting cats outside is a threat to birds. A message about this type of threat to
birds appears in the signage of the McNeil Avian Center, thus at least some of the
respondents who identified these threats may have been influenced by this signage.
The Philadelphia Zoo is Involved in Helping Birds. Post-visit respondents were more likely
than pre-visit respondents to offer a way in which the Philadelphia Zoo works to promote
- 61 -
the welfare of birds. Most of their explanations, however, were very general (e.g., provide
education), thus their understanding of the ways in which the Zoo helps birds appears to be
limited.
You Can Help Birds Too. Almost every interviewee was able to identify a way in which
people can help overcome threats to bird survival, and 38% of the interviewees gave
responses that are directly related to messages presented in the McNeil Avian Center either
through signage or the Migration Theater show. The findings further indicate that a number
of visitors already take action to help birds and many others plan to do so as a result of their
visit to the McNeil Avian Center. Among the post-visit and long- and short-show Migration
Theater interviewees, those who viewed the longer version of the Migration Theater show
were most likely to indicate that their visit to the McNeil Avian Center made them feel more
positive toward, more interested in, or more concerned about birds. The higher percentage
for the long-show group suggests that the portion of the Migration Theater show that
portrays the plight of the red knot (a segment that is missing from the short version of the
show) may be particularly effective in increasing viewers’ positive feelings toward and
concern about birds, and possibly in turn, their likelihood of taking action to help birds.
Visitors’ Understanding of Migration. Almost all of the visitors who were interviewed
indicated that migration involves movement from place to place. Those who viewed the
Migration Theater show were more likely than those who had not viewed the show to
identify the need to find food as a reason for migration. About three-quarters of the
respondents expressed some understanding of the role of the Philadelphia area in bird
migration. In addition, almost every interviewee who viewed the long-show recalled hearing
about the plight of the red knot, and most described the red knots’ diminishing food source
as the challenge they face.
Visitors’ Ability to Identify Local Birds. Given the fact that only 12% of observed visitors
viewed the sign in the Atrium that focuses on the local birds included in the pre- and postvisit interviews, it was not surprising that the post-visit respondents were no more likely
than the pre-visit respondents to recognize and correctly identify pictures of local birds.
A final goal of the summative evaluation was to assess the impact of a visit to the McNeil Avian
Center on visitors’ perceptions of the Philadelphia Zoo. Interviewees gave little indication that
they have more than a surface-level understanding of how the Zoo helps animals or how the Zoo
serves as a conservation organization. Although several visitors indicated that they have positive
perceptions of the Zoo as an organization that cares for and protects animals, few visitors appear
to have given much thought to the issue of animal welfare within the Zoo.
5. Recommendations
The following recommendations are geared toward enhancing the potential of the McNeil Avian
Center to successfully deliver its intended messages.
1) Present the longer version of the Migration Theater show whenever feasible. In addition to
the fact that theater-goers expressed greater appreciation for the longer version of the show,
- 62 -
the longer version appears to have a stronger impact than the short version regarding delivery
of two of the McNeil Avian Center’s main messages: “Birds are in trouble/threatened,” and
“You can help birds too.” Furthermore, viewers of the longer version of the Migration
Theater show demonstrated a solid understanding of migration, a more thorough
understanding of the role of the Philadelphia area in bird migration (i.e., the role of “the
Shore”), and a sympathetic appreciation of the plight of the red knot.
2) Rely on Zoo staff/interns rather than signage to increase visitors’ understanding of how the
Zoo promotes the welfare of birds and other animals and the Zoo’s role as a conservation
organization. Visitors’ experiences within the McNeil Avian Center left them with only a
general, limited understanding of the ways in which the Zoo helps animals and works on
conservation issues. Although interviewees provided some indication that they were
applying what they learned from signage when discussing exhibit messages, few visitors read
each sign within the exhibits (particularly signs that did not include bird IDs) and few
responses reflected the content of the signs. In contrast, 25% of observed visitors talked with
Zoo staff/interns when presented with the opportunity within the Tropical Rainforest area.
This level of observed interaction, along with the potential for greater engagement and
responsiveness when a visitor takes part in a personal interaction with knowledgeable
staff/interns who exhibit their own emotional commitment, suggests that live interpretation
will be an effective approach for delivering messages regarding the Zoo’s core values.
3) Help visitors increase their ability to identify local birds by offering them an opportunity to
purchase a local bird ID card. Few visitors were observed attending to signage in the
Atrium regarding local birds. It may be possible to increase attention to this signage and to
increase visitors’ ability to identify local birds by offering an attractive opportunity to
purchase a local bird ID card within close vicinity of this sign. If priced reasonably, many
visitors may welcome the opportunity to extend their bird viewing activities beyond the
McNeil Avian Center. A child-friendly card would be particularly appealing to families. In
addition to increasing recognition of local birds, greater familiarity with these birds may lead
visitors to be more likely to act locally to “help birds too.” An example of a local bird ID
card is available at: http://otterside.com/htmfiles/idcards.htm.
4) Identify ways to increase the appeal of the Shade Coffee Plantation exhibit area. Most
observed visitors walked quickly through the Shade Coffee Plantation area with little more
than a glance at the exhibit. Some possible ways to increase the draw of this area are to: add
at least occasional live interpretation; add more color within the exhibit; add a threedimensional interpretive element within the visitor space; or, perhaps, find a way to capture
visitors’ curiosity by adding a coffee aroma within the exhibit area.
5) Offer visitors an opportunity to take action on behalf of birds somewhere within the McNeil
Avian Center. Two out of three interviewees indicated that they plan to help birds as a result
of their visit to the McNeil Avian Center, and over one in ten expressed a desire to donate
money to help birds. An onsite donation opportunity, particularly one with a local
connection, will likely appeal to a number of visitors.
- 63 -
6. Appendices
6.1.
Appendix A. Pre-Visit Interview Protocol
Sex: M
F
Age: -20s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s
Group type: Alone A+K A only
How often do you visit the Philadelphia Zoo? First visit 1-2 times/year > 2 times/year
One time every 2-3 years < once every 3 years
Member?
Y N
First visit to the new birdhouse?
Zip code: _____________
Y N If no, have you visited the theater ?
Do you have any special interest, knowledge or training in birds?
Y N
No___ Yes (what?)___
1. Tell me something you find amazing about birds.
2. Here are photos of some birds that live around here. Tell me which ones you’ve seen before,
and if you can, tell me their names. (check birds seen; circle name as stated, if named; write
in any alternate names offered)
__(1) Downy woodpecker
__(2) American robin
__(3) Blue jay
__(4) Northern mockingbird
__(5) Northern Cardinal
__(6) Baltimore oriole
3. In what ways do you think the Zoo works to promote the welfare of birds and other animals
BOTH within and outside of the Zoo? (NOTE: Probe to get both within and outside.)
- 64 -
6.2.
Appendix B. Post-Visit Interview Protocol
Sex: M
F
Age: -20s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s
Group type: Alone A+K A only
How often do you visit the Philadelphia Zoo? First visit 1-2 times/year > 2 times/year
One time every 2-3 years < once every 3 years
Member? Y N
Zip code: _____________
First visit to the new birdhouse?
Y N If no, have you visited the theater ?
Do you have any special interest, knowledge or training in birds?
Y N
No___ Yes (what?)___
1. The path through the McNeil Avian Center takes you through a few distinct bird
environments. Do you recall the names or themes of the areas you walked through? (check
areas noted; circle name as stated, if named)
___ African Savanna
___ Island Birds
___ Tropical Forest
___ Shade Grown Coffee
2. What was the highlight of your visit to the McNeil Avian Center?
3. What was the most interesting story or fact you learned, if any?
4. Tell me something you find amazing about birds. Is that something you learned today?
5. In what way, if any, did your visit today change how you think or feel about birds?
6. Here are photos of some birds that live around here. Tell me which ones you’ve seen before,
and if you can, tell me their names. (check birds seen; circle name as stated, if named; write
in any alternate names offered)
__(1) Downy woodpecker
__(2) American robin
__(3) Blue jay
__(4) Northern mockingbird
__(5) Northern Cardinal
__(6) Baltimore oriole
7. Can you tell me something people do that threatens the survival of birds?
8. Do you know of anything people can do to help overcome threats to bird survival?
9. As a result of your visit today, is there anything you think you will do to help birds?
If YES, what do you plan to do?
10. In what ways do you think the Zoo works to promote the welfare of birds and other animals
BOTH within and outside of the Zoo? (NOTE: Probe to get both within and outside.)
11. Has your understanding of the Zoo’s role in helping animals changed as a result of visiting
the Avian Center? YES NO
If YES, how has your understanding changed?
12. And finally, were you disappointed by any aspect of your visit to the McNeil Avian Center?
YES NO
If YES, what did you find disappointing?
- 65 -
6.3.
Appendix C. Migration Theater Interview Protocol
Sex: M
F
Age: -20s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s
Group type: Alone A+K A only
How often do you visit the Philadelphia Zoo? First visit 1-2 times/year > 2 times/year
One time every 2-3 years < once every 3 years
Member? Y N
Zip code: _____________
First visit to the new birdhouse?
Y N If no, have you visited the theater ?
Do you have any special interest, knowledge or training in birds?
Y N
No___ Yes (what?)___
1. What did you think of your Migration Theater experience?
2. What did you feel was the best part of the experience?
3. Were you disappointed by any aspect of the Migration Theater experience? YES NO
If YES, what did you find disappointing?
4. Do you feel the show was:
___ Too long
___ Too short
___ Just the right length
If too long or too short, why?
5. What was the most interesting fact that you learned from the show?
6. What does the word “migration” mean?
7. If not already mentioned: What are some reasons that birds migrate?
If mentioned some, say: You already mentioned that birds migrate because ________. Do
you know of any other reasons why birds migrate?
8. What role does the Philadelphia area play in bird migration? (If response indicates that birds
migrate from here, try to determine if they also think the area is a stopover for birds from
further north without providing this info. You might say: “So, birds start from Philadelphia
and fly to (fill in visitor’s reponse )?”)
9. Do you recall hearing about the red knot and the challenges this species is currently facing?
YES NO
If YES, what challenges is the red knot facing?
10. Can you tell me something people do that threatens the survival of birds?
11. In what way, if any, did your visit to the Migration Theater change how you think or feel
about birds?
- 66 -