the influence of childhood zoo visitation rates on …

THE INFLUENCE OF CHILDHOOD ZOO VISITATION RATES ON ADULT

SUSTAINABILITY BEHAVIOR: A SELF-ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS

by

Josie A. Taylor

B.S., Southern Illinois University, 2019

A Thesis

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Master of Science Degree

Department of Geography and Environmental Resources in the Graduate School

Southern Illinois University Carbondale May 2021

THESIS APPROVAL

THE INFLUENCE OF CHILDHOOD ZOO VISITATION RATES ON ADULT


by

Josie A. Taylor

A Thesis Submitted in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science

in the field of Geography and Environmental Resources

Approved by:

Dr. Leslie A. Duram, Chair

Dr. Justin Schoof

Dr. Julie Weinert

Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale

March 5, 2021

i

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Josie A. Taylor, for the Master of Science degree in Geography and Environmental Resources,

presented on March 5, 2021, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

TITLE: THE INFLUENCE OF CHILDHOOD ZOO VISITATION ON ADULT


MAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr. Leslie A. Duram

Zoos engage individuals with species and education opportunities that they may have

never encounter on their own; specifically, education regarding visitor’s sustainability habits.

This thesis investigates the extent to which adult participants believe their sustainability

behaviors, such as recycling and water usage habits, have been impacted by their childhood zoo

visitation rates, and discusses the long-term impact zoos have on what has been termed “socially

acceptable sustainability behavior.” A survey of 136 Southern Illinois University Carbondale

students of various majors found that a majority of individuals does not remember learning

sustainability behaviors while visiting zoos; however, participants believe that visiting zoos has

impacted their overall level of environmental concern, primarily regarding animal welfare and

species conservation. The initial analysis of the findings suggest that zoos need to develop new

ways of engaging visitors regarding sustainability behavior and provide post-visit experiences

that reinforce and extend sustainability messages and action. Further research and analysis are

required to would help verify these findings.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, several wonderful individuals – friends, family and colleagues—

assisted during this process by offering words of encouragement when needed the most, and I

will be forever grateful for their support over the past two years.

I would also like to express sincere thanks to the Education Department staff of the

Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens, specifically Christy Hardwick and Melinda Voss. Their

dedication and support while helping with my original thesis project Assessing how

Environmental Education Techniques Influence Nature Awareness Among Elementary Students

Attending Zoo Summer Camp: A Case Study with the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens,

sadly cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic, was instrumental in orchestrating and later

evolving my research.

Finally, I am extremely grateful to my research advisor, Dr. Leslie A. Duram, as well as

my committee members, Dr. Justin Schoof and Dr. Julie Weinert, for giving me the opportunity

to do research and providing guidance throughout this process. Dr. Duram’s support, vision, and

motivation inspired me to strive for greatness. She has taught me the techniques necessary to

perform and present exemplary research, both during classes and meetings. I would also like to

thank Dr. Duram for her friendship and compassion. She puts her whole heart into connecting

with her students. She was always available to answer any questions or concerns I’ve had

throughout the process and offer guidance when unexpected bumps in the road occurred.

Without the love and support offered by all of those mentioned above, as well as countless

others, I would not have been able to complete a successful thesis.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTERS

CHAPTER 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background Information ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose of Study ...................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 2 – Literature Review ....................................................................................... 3

2.1 Environmental Education ......................................................................................... 3

2.2 Nature Deficit Disorder ............................................................................................ 5

2.3 Association of Zoos and Aquariums ........................................................................ 7

2.4 Zoo Education Programming .................................................................................. 7

2.5 Informal Education ................................................................................................. 10

2.6 Formal Education ................................................................................................... 12

2.7 Climate Change Education at Zoos ........................................................................ 13

2.8 Behavior and Attitude of Zoo Visitors ................................................................... 14

2.9 Future Endeavors .................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER 3 – Methodology ............................................................................................ 18

3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 18

3.2 Study Instrument .................................................................................................... 18

iv

3.3 Procedure ................................................................................................................ 22

CHAPTER 4 – Results ...................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants ......................................................... 25

4.2 Sustainability Learning and Zoos ........................................................................... 27

4.3 Research Question One Results .............................................................................. 31

4.4 Research Question Two Results ............................................................................. 35

4.5 Research Question Three Results ........................................................................... 36

4.6 Research Question Four Results ............................................................................. 37

CHAPTER 5 – Discussion ................................................................................................ 41

5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 41

5.2 Demographic Analysis of Participant Data ........................................................... 41

5.3 Participant Opinions on Climate Change ............................................................... 44

5.4 The Impacts of Sustainable Learning at Zoos ....................................................... 47

5.5 Research Question Three Analysis ......................................................................... 49

5.6 Analysis of Research Questions One, Two, and Four ........................................... 50

CHAPTER 6 – Conclusion ............................................................................................... 52

6.1 Limitations .............................................................................................................. 52

6.2 Key Points .............................................................................................................. 52

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 55

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – Human Subjects Committee Approval ................................................ 60

APPENDIX B – Human Subjects Committee Modification Approval ............................ 61

APPENDIX C – Survey Results Figures .......................................................................... 62

v

VITA ........................................................................................................................................... 65

vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

Table 1 - Survey Questionnaire ..................................................................................................... 19

Table 2 - Types of Zoo Programs .................................................................................................. 29

Table 3 - Sustainable Actions Taught at Zoos .............................................................................. 30

Table 4 - Participant Sustainable Actions ..................................................................................... 34

Table 5 - Research Question One .................................................................................................. 35

Table 6 - Research Question Two ................................................................................................. 36

Table 7 - Research Question Three ............................................................................................... 37

Table 8 - Research Question Four ................................................................................................. 40

Table 9 - Is There a Relationship Between How Many Times Participants Visited Zoos and

How Ecologically Involved They Were with Schooling Decisions: Major, Minor,

Both? ............................................................................................................................. 40

Table 10 - Participant Opinions on Climate Change .................................................................... 46

Table 11 - Do Zoos Impact Levels of Environmental Concern? .................................................. 49

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

Figure 1 - MyCourses Announcement .......................................................................................... 22

Figure 2 - Survey Consent Form ................................................................................................... 23

Figure 3 - Participant Academic Year ........................................................................................... 25

Figure 4 - Participant Birth Years ............................................................................................... 26

Figure 5 - Participant Gender ....................................................................................................... 26

Figure 6 - Participant Reasons for Visiting a Zoo ........................................................................ 28

Figure 7 - Do Participants Believe Visiting Zoos Impacts their Level of Environmental

Concern? ...................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 8 - Annual Visitation Rates to a Zoo ................................................................................. 33

Figure 9 - Do Participants Believe They Act Sustainable in their Daily Lives? .......................... 33

Figure 10 - Participant Residential Distance from a Zoo ............................................................. 36

Figure 11 - Percentage of Participants with STEM Academic Majors ......................................... 39

Figure 12 - Percentage of Participants with STEM Academic Minors ........................................ 39

Figure 13 - Do Participants Partake in Zoo Education Programs? ............................................... 48

Figure 14 - Participant Academic Majors ..................................................................................... 62

Figure 15 - Participant Academic Minors .................................................................................... 63

Figure 16 - Do Participants Believe They Learn Sustainable Practices at Zoos? ....................... 64

Figure 17 - On a Scale of 1-10, With1 Being Not Concerned and 10 Being Very Concerned,

how Concerned are Participants about Climate Change? ......................................... 64

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

With the dawn of the industrial revolution, the world began a period of rapid

urbanization, displacing and endangering many species in the process. Since then, technological

advancements are made on a regular basis, but this also leaves some people unaware of the

impact that the modern lifestyle has on the environment. Humans have lost significant contact

with nature, as noted in the theory of Nature Deficit Disorder was developed by Richard Louv in

2005. The theory states that human beings, especially children, are spending less time outdoors,

and this loss of natural connection results in a wide variety of behavioral issues (Louv 2005).

Biologist Edward O. Wilson (1984:51) once observed that “the role of science, like that of art, is

to blend exact imagery with more distant meaning, the parts we already understand with those

given as new into larger patterns that are coherent enough to be acceptable as truth,” which in the

case of connecting with nature, comes in the form of environmental education.

Currently, one of the most common ways to connect with nature, especially for those

living in urban areas, is by visiting zoos. Zoos engage individuals with species and educational

opportunities that they may have never meet on their own. According to the Association of Zoos

and Aquariums (AZA), accredited zoos and aquariums give the public access to the natural

world, with over fifty million children visiting accredited zoos each year. This makes zoos an

essential tool in environmental education (Association of Zoos and Aquariums 2019), especially

since zoo attendance had been increasing annually in the United States since the 1980s (Davey

2007). Environmental Education, the study of environmental issues and the techniques used to

solve them, allows students to learn how their decisions and actions effect the environment.

2

Zoo education, a form of Environmental Education, has been viewed as informal (self-

driven learning through interaction with onsite signage, zoo staff, volunteers, or other zoo guests)

and formal (learning through participation in an education program, either at school or with

another organization.) Particularly for people in urban areas, with few natural settings, zoos

provide the unique opportunity to interact with animals on a personal level. During

environmental education-based animal encounters participants learn about the specific species

they meet as well as conservation threats to them in the wild.

1.2 Purpose of Study

The goal of this study is to investigate whether visiting zoos as a child influences one’s later

adult stainability behavior by answering the following questions:

1. Do university students who visited zoos more frequently in their childhood self-assess as more sustainable in their current daily actions?

2. Is there a relationship between residential proximity to zoo grounds and how highly a guest self-assesses their present-day sustainability actions?

3. Do university students who self-assess with higher sustainability behaviors now tend to have visited zoos for personal reasons or educational purposes?

4. Do university students who state they visited zoos several times a year also state they have a more ecological major or minor?

This will provide an understanding of the role zoos can play in educating the public about

nature and sustainability practices. A self-rated assessment survey will be used to gather data

from participating students on the ‘MyCourses’ portion of the Desire to Learn learning

management system.

3

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Environmental Education

It is believed that British Sociologist/Geographer Sir Patrick Geddes (1854-1933) was the

first to publicly announce that there was a link between the quality of the environment and the

quality of education (Palmer 1998). It was not until outdoor education became a common

element in the school system following World War II that people began thinking more about the

environment. This education system combined elements of nature studies with conservation

action, which came to be known as “school camping” (Carter and Simmons 2010). By the mid-

1940s the term environmental studies were being used regularly to express the connection

between the teaching of geography, local nature studies, and history instead of using the term

school camping. In 1958 Paul DeHart Hurd introduced the term scientific literacy, defined as the

understanding of science and the ways to associate scientific methodology to the social

experience, and stressed the need for environmental education in schools (Schwan et. al. 2014).

It was not until the mid-1960s, however, that the words environment and education were used

together for the first time (Palmer 1998).

While schools were attempting to better understand how students learn about the

environment, changes in the government regarding environmental action were also being made.

For example, the Council for the Promotion of Field Studies, now known as the Field Studies

Council, was established in 1943 in the United Kingdom to educate the local communities about

the environment (Palmer 1998). Five years later the Conference for the Establishment of the

International Union for the Protection of Nature (IUCN) convened in Paris in 1948 (Carter and

4

Simmons 2010). The establishment of the IUCN would play a crucial role in the future of

environmental education.

By the 1960s people were beginning to pay more attention to the environment around

them, especially once Rachel Carson published her book ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962. The book

documents the environmental effects caused by the improper creation, use, and disposal of

pesticides. This was one of the first events to occur in what would later be known as the

environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s (Carter and Simmons 2010). The concern for

the environment continued to grow well into the 1970s, as did the push for an increase in general

environmental knowledge. In 1970, the IUCN defined Environmental Education as:

the process of recognizing values and clarifying concepts in order to develop skills and attitudes necessary to understand and appreciate the inter-relatedness among man, his culture, and his biophysical surroundings. Environmental Education also entails practice in decision-making and self-formulation of a code of behavior about issues concerning environmental quality (Palmer 1998). While environmental science has been viewed as a basis for data collection and

knowledge creation, environmental education is able to bridge the gap between scientific

practice and society by enabling the application of environmental knowledge to everyday life,

with the main goal being the creation of an environmentally literate society (Carter and Simmons

2010).

The need for environmental education continually increases, with the United Nations

Conference on the Human Environment stating in 1972 that “education in environmental matters

for the younger generation as well as adults” and it is necessary to give “due consideration for

the underprivileged is essential” (Palmer 1998). There have been several other important

conferences surrounding the influence and expansion of environmental education, and the

recommendations tend to be similar throughout each conference. For example, it is thought that

5

engaging youth in urban communities with skill development, community improvement, and

civic responsibility towards the environment will better their understanding of environmental

education (Fraser, et.al, 2015). One way to do this is through the creation of community

gardening, civic ecology programs, and including environmental education programming in

schools (Fraser, et al. 2015; Palmer 1998). Even with all these recommendations, there is always

a need for more environmental education opportunities, especially with the growing amount of

possible nature related health disorders.

2.2 Nature Deficit Disorder

Nature Deficit Disorder was first documented in Richard Louv’s novel ‘Last Child in the

Woods’ in 2005. It is the theory that human beings, especially children, are spending less time

outdoors, and this loss of natural connection results in a wide variety of behavioral issues (May

and Louv 2005). Louv’s book contains seven parts detailing the need to reintroduce children to

nature. Dickinson notes in her 2013 article “The Misdiagnosis: Rethinking Nature-Deficit

Disorder” that Nature Deficit Disorder is a theory, a metaphor really, not a medical diagnosis.

More than likely, it is being used in relation to ADD and ADHD (Dickinson 2013). Furthermore,

it should be noted that the term ‘Nature Deficit Disorder’ is generally only used in the global

North by high income societies, this is due to the varying social constructs regarding

conservation across the globe, with differences such as ecotourism, etc. occurring in the global

north or global south (Fletcher 2017). Nevertheless, several factors have been found to cause

child-nature alienation, including but not limited to lack of time, television, disappearing open

land, and feeling unsafe outdoors (May and Louv 2005).

Even though Nature Deficit Disorder is not a proven theory, it prompts activism and

reform within the environmental community. For instance, Louv advocates for trips to zoos,

6

gardens, and museums (Dickinson 2013). Berns and Simpson (2009) note that visiting and

participating in outdoor activities, as well as reading the signage provided outdoors, may

influence environmental choices because of greater awareness about their surroundings.

Furthermore, people are more likely to have a higher awareness and environmental concern for

the resources involved in the activities that they participate in (Berns and Simpson 2009). It was

found that camping and other nature-based activities correlated to social well-being, especially

when participating with friends (Warber et. al. 2015). These correlations indicate a greater

willingness to participate in activities in a nature setting because participants feel a sense of

safety in nature, unlike while at home in more urban areas. They are also found to be more

empathetic towards their surroundings. This addresses one of the main concerns brought up by

Nature Deficit Disorder: feeling unsafe in urban surroundings (Warber et. al. 2015).

Ultimately, nature is good for the body as well as the mind (Peters 2015) and studies

suggest that childhood exposure to nature has the potential to increase positive environmental

attitudes and behaviors later in life (Wells and Lekies 2006). However, there are barriers for

some socioeconomic groups to participate in nature activities (Dickinson 2013). Therefore, there

is a need for low-cost nature activities to help alleviate the human-nature alienation. Louv

advocates for free play in nature so that children can experience the positive effects of nature

activities (Berns and Simpson 2009). There are also some programs that offer need-based

scholarships so that students from varying backgrounds can come and participate, making

environmental education actions possible in many forms, such as through the Association of

Zoos and Aquariums.

7

2.3 The Association of Zoos and Aquariums

The Association of Zoos and Aquariums was created in 1924 as a non-profit organization

for the purpose of conserving wildlife and educating the public about nature-based issues.

Currently there are 238 accredited zoos and aquariums in the United States, each with a similar

mission statement based on conservation (Association of Zoos and Aquariums 2019), and the

overall attendance of zoos and aquariums in the United States has been increasing since the

1980’s. During 2018, AZA programs used to address conservation issues reached nearly 61

million people nationwide. These programs included onsite and offsite education programs that

targeted schools and families with the five hot topics of conversation: “connecting to nature,

habitat loss, human-wildlife conflict, sustainable living, and zoo careers” (Association of Zoos

and Aquariums 2018). The AZA has also developed a ‘motivation tool’ used to document

motivations behind why visitors come to zoos and aquariums as well as how they interact with

others during their visit. It is thought that the tool may later be used to expand education

practices at zoos and aquariums (Rowe et. al. 2011).

Education plays a large role in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). The AZA

employs over 2,700 education staff members and over 19,000 volunteers who contributed 1.7

million hours of service, helping to reach over 50 million children this past year (Association of

Zoos and Aquariums 2018) during various education opportunities at zoos and aquariums across

the United States.

2.4 Zoo Education Programming

Sustainable development is the idea the development meets the needs of the present

without harming the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Zoos and aquariums

have shifted their focus from species focused conservation to the broader sustainable

8

development-related endeavors, and they aim to teach their visitors environmentally friendly

daily habits (Dickie 2009).

Zoos have been around for more than 3,000 years as a type of museum that has recently

reorganized to become more sustainable and centered on animal welfare (Mason 2000). Zoos and

aquariums demonstrate leadership in sustainable action and are considered a learning tool since

science learning is a major outcome from visiting zoos and aquariums (Dickie 2009; Fraser and

Sickler 2009; Street, et al. 2012). Most zoos attempt to use conservation education in order to

promote emotional connections between people, animals, and the environment, but occasionally

financial instability inhibits zoos from educating the public as much as they wish (Luebke and

Grajal 2011). This lack of funding can lead to both a lack of education opportunities and unclear

educational messages. In fact, Patrick et al. (2007) studied the zoo mission statements of 136

accredited zoos and aquariums to evaluate the two predominate themes: conservation and

education, which are both aspects of science learning. They discovered that zoos want people to

understand conservation and education but that many mission statements do not make this clear.

Instead, it appears that zoo staff are the only ones learning what conservation is. Therefore,

conservation education needs to be evaluated more closely (Patrick et. al. 2007). This rift has

been changing over the years as a larger effort has been made to educate the general public, but it

must be noted that Zoos and Aquariums “attract visitors of all ages, from early childhood to late

adulthood…visitors greatly differ in prior knowledge” (Schwan et. al. 2014), and various styles

of learning opportunities must be provided. These various learning experiences have been

viewed as fun at the zoo, especially when families are able to expand their known relationships,

solve puzzles, and create empathetic bonds over seeing and learning about animals (Fraser and

Sickler 2009; Mkhize 2020). It should be noted that these empathetic bonds are incredibly

9

important because they may enhance visitor support for conservation initiatives (Clayton et. al.

2009).

Other research underscores the theme that “enjoyment is not incompatible with learning”

(Clayton et. al. 2009). It is important to make sure learning opportunities are presented in a fun

manner, as it leads to the creation of a more conservation minded society when families visit the

zoo. Learning opportunities promote family bonding, as well as identity and activism, especially

within families who have purchased zoo memberships multiple years in a row (Fraser and

Sickler 2009; Godinez and Fernandez 2019; Mkhize 2020). This type of bond with the zoo

promotes free choice learning, the idea that visitor motivation is important in their willingness to

process information. Similar to what Warber et. al. (2015) discovered about Nature Deficit

Disorder, other research found that visitors want to enjoy the social aspects of their trip, thus they

do not want to be alone during the experience, and they often want learning to be enjoyed and

valued for its own sake, not from the pressure to gain new knowledge (Packer and Ballantyne

2010; Yocco et. al. 2010).

Visitor preference is important when creating a plan for effective environmental

education. Visitors want to interact with the staff and other programs as opposed to passive

learning opportunities (Godinez 2019) and also say that it is important that the zoos provide

education opportunities during and after their visit (Ballantyne and Packer 2016). Research has

found that visitors’ agreement with the zoo’s mission and the duration of each visit is correlated

with their willingness to learn (Roe and McConney 2015). Adding meaningful staff interaction to

these visitor experiences tends to increase visitor satisfaction, as evidenced in a focus group

study that sought to educate zoo staff about interacting with guests (Smith et al. 2012). They

found that zoo staff recognized several conservation behaviors such as buying wildlife-friendly

10

items and volunteering habits among the guests (Smith et. al. 2012). These behaviors are taught

by zoo staff to guests in both informal and formal education settings. Schwan, et. al. (2014)

found that visits to zoos are not isolated events, rather they assist with continuous science-related

experiences and activities, both informal and formal (Schwan et. al. 2014).

2.5 Informal Education Programming

There is more research on informal education at zoos than there is about formal

education, possibly because it is easier to observe. Informal education is self-driven learning

through interactions with signage and other individuals. Signage is generally the most common

way to spread key conservation messages, since signs target audiences in order to provide

information about local habitats, threats to habitats, places to visit and engage with nature, and

conservation behaviors associated with protecting habitats (Mony and Heimlich 2008; Oxarart et.

al. 2013). Exhibit labels are carefully crafted to catch the attention of zoo guests in order to share

nature knowledge and promote nature awareness. Several researchers have evaluated the

effectiveness of zoo education exhibit labels at conveying nature knowledge. Legibility is

important, as well as font size, color and length. If a sign has negative readability qualities then

zoo guests are less likely to stand and read, with the mean time spent at each sign being 23.3

seconds and less than 28% of guests read the signs, meaning that not all nature knowledge being

presented on the sign is absorbed (Dove 2016; Marshall 2016; Martin 2012). Therefore, there is a

need for repetitive layers and exposure of visual educational materials in order to effectively

transmit nature knowledge and nature awareness (Ogle 2016). Since most people do not read the

exhibit labels, they interpret the exhibits based on their own level of knowledge such as the

animals common name, past interaction experience, odd facts, and the animal’s natural habitat in

the wild (Tunnicliffe and Scheersoi 2012). The level of knowledge of guests can be further

11

improved through chance interaction with animal ambassadors and staff members. One way to

accomplish this is speaking with volunteers. It has noted that the longer a visitor interacts with a

docent, the greater the likelihood of environmental message communication (Mony and

Heimlich 2008). People want to participate in their learning and crave more hands-on learning

through animal encounters and biofacts carts – getting to see and touch animal related items

(Ogle 2016). These experiences further the gain of nature knowledge and awareness. For

example, Swanagan (2000) discovered positive responses among zoo guests who interacted with

elephant demonstrations and zoo visitors’ knowledge is enhanced by visiting proper

environmental education facilities (Swanagan 2000). Furthermore, research indicates that zoo

guests are more likely to learn when they feel confident. Confidence was found when there was a

clear safe distance between themselves and the reptiles on display at the zoo (Tunnicliffe and

Scheersoi 2012). These engagement techniques boost the confidence of not only zoo visitors but

also the community.

Informal education techniques can be used to engage the community through the connect-

understand-act (CUA) process. During this process the zoo, or other participant organization,

identifies a threatening process, a target audience, and a representative species to create engaging

programs with the community (Coleman 2012). Research on the CUA process investigated

people’s capacity to learn through informal education techniques (Dunstan and Johnson 2016).

Specifically, Rob the Frog was a group of plush stuffed animal endangered frog species that were

placed around Victoria, Australia in order to promote conservation initiatives and nature

knowledge. Each frog had a tag with a website that detailed these initiatives and a request to

promote the frog on social media. This informal learning model demonstrated how zoos can have

large-scale community reach (Dunstan and Johnson 2016).

12

2.6 Formal Education Programming

When visitors want a more hands-on opportunity within the zoo, they can participate in

formal education programs. Formal zoo education programs involve learning through

participation in an education program, either at school or with an organization. Schools,

especially elementary schools, may register to receive school discounts for educational

programming. Schoolkids are then able to visit zoos in order to create a nature connection with

the science that their teacher convey in the classrooms (Sanford 2010). After visiting the zoo and

participating in programs, elementary students tend to be more excited about science in the

classroom and discover science as a career option (Sanford 2010). These zoo-linked programs

engage students on an emotional level that they would not have experienced solely in a

classroom.

Stanford (2014) conducted a study to determine the impact of zoo education programs at

the Oregon zoo by evaluating kids’ reactions to more “undesirable” animals (rats and snakes)

and investigate whether zoo education programs can change perceptions of each animal. This

study focused on the impact that zoo education programs have on children, rather than changing

adult perceptions. This is because most of the US’s population lives in urban areas so going to a

zoo may be the only time today’s children can interact with nature. Indeed, there was an overall

more positive end response when the students interacted with that animal versus when they did

not (Stanford 2014).

While environmental education programs generally focus on young elementary students,

older elementary students and teenagers should also be given a chance to enhance their nature

knowledge and nature awareness (Randall 2012). Zoo education programs are considered “cool”

and can hold the attention of many different age groups. Formal education with physical

13

interaction through zoo programming is key to engaging visitors and enhancing their nature

awareness. Research indicates that the hands-on approach of formal education programs in zoos

can be adapted to the various learning styles of participants (Street, Jenkins, and Frasier 2012).

2.7 Climate Change Education in Zoos

The various education techniques used by zoos and aquariums to capture the interest of a

visitors imply that they have the capability to encourage engagement in specific conservation

behaviors and educational experiences. One such education experience is that of Climate Change

education. Zoos have the ability to be a positive influence in Climate Change education since

they allow easy access to nature and provide practical instruction for handling environmental

education challenges (Luebke et. al. 2012).

The American public has become increasingly divided on the topic of climate change,

especially as the topic has become increasingly politically polarized. This causes attitudes and

engagement to vary across America, since those on the right tend to receive very different

information regarding the subject, than those on the left (Luebke et. al. 2012). In fact, it has been

noted that communicating about climate change using only scientific evidence and terminology

does not have an impressive effect on the general public’s prioritization about the issue as a

whole (Luebke et. al. 2012). That is not to say that individuals do not trust scientists, in fact the

opposite is true (Luebke et. al. 2012). However, making the issue of Climate Change more

personal may have a greater impact on how individuals address the issue overall. Zoos have the

ability to help with this. Zoos provide visitors a personal connection with animals, and this

empathy promotes a greater concern about Climate Change (Luebke et. al. 2012; Clayton et. al.

2014). In fact, after polling various zoo visitors, researchers discovered in their respective studies

14

that visitors rank zoos second only to scientists in terms of trustworthiness regarding Climate

Change information (Luebke et. al. 2012; Clayton et. al. 2014).

Climate Change is causing a myriad of problems, including habitat loss and alteration for

various species of plants and animals. These complications result in a high risk of extinction for

many species (Junhold and Oberwemmer 2011). Zoos act to educate their visitors about these

issues and teach behaviors that are effective in battling Climate Change (Luebke et. al. 2012).

One of the main conservation efforts undertaken by many institutions is education. Zoo exhibits

are not only educational—through informal (signage, docent interaction) techniques, and formal

techniques (camps, field trips) – but also result in an empathetic connection between visitors and

respective species. When visitors recognize this empathy in others and see that they are

interested in doing more, a type of social comparison emerges that supports and nurtures

collective action towards Climate Change (Luebke et. al. 2012). At the end of the day, zoos only

reach a self-selected audience – those who choose to visit the zoo – but this audience is broad

and encompasses people from across the political, social, and cultural spectrums, including many

children who attend with school groups (Clayton et. al. 2014). These wide variety of visitors

have the potential to learn in informal and formal education settings at the zoo, which may later

impact their environmental attitudes and behaviors.

2.8 Behavior and Attitude Connections of Zoo Visitors

Do zoo visitors feel like they are connected to nature, and in turn feel as though they

make environmentally conscious decisions in their everyday lives? Researchers examined this

question and found that “connectedness with nature refers to an individual’s belief about the

extent to which he or she is part of the natural environment” (Bruni, Fraser, and Shultz 2008:

140). Yet, many people struggle with this sentiment due to their urban living situation. For many

15

people—mainly those in urban areas – parks, zoos, aquariums and museums are the only chance

they have to encounter nature on a semi-regular basis.

Zoos have the ability to place people in close proximity with nature and convey

information that can evoke interest in environmental issues (Oxarart et. al. 2013). This

information may later be used in the lives of visitors to evoke a personal environmental attitude

or behavior change. Studies have shown that zoos not only exert a positive social influence on

the lives of their visitors, but also assist with the creation of positive emotional connections

between human and alternative species (T. Olukole and S.G. Olukole 2008; Grajal et. al. 2016).

These positive connections can start at any age, with studies suggesting that childhood exposure

to nature increases potential for positive environmental attitudes and behaviors later in life

(Wells and Lekies 2006). Research investigated cross-sectional survey data from Kellert (1985)

and examined the results, which covered questions regarding participant frequency of nature-

related experiences during childhood, current attitudes and behaviors, and demographic

background (Wells and Lekies 2006). They found that adolescents who, as children, spent more

time playing in wilderness areas were more likely to prefer wildland activities than those who

grew up solely playing in their yards. Furthermore, childhood participation with nature had a

direct effect on environmental behavior and an indirect effect on environmental attitudes, with

one of the major contributing factors being participation in environmental education (Wells and

Lekies 2006). These behaviors and attitudes have the potential to play a critical role on the health

of the planet. Indeed, “Encouraging children to become engaged with the natural world,

preserving habitats where they can do so, and creating programs and opportunities for this to

occur may be critical to the future of healthy children, healthy adults, and a healthy planet”

(Wells and Lekies 2006: 18).

16

2.9 Future Endeavors

Zoos play a crucial role in the environmental attitudes and behaviors of visitors. Many

visitors have noted that they were more likely to spend time in nature after visiting a zoo and felt

more confident in their ability to overcome human-environmental barriers, leading to a more

positive attitude (Ernst 2018). Zoo visitors are not a homogenous group, and their motives for

visiting vary greatly (Knezevic 2016), which means it is important for zoos to be both

entertaining and educational, as well stress the importance of conservation and environmental

activism as a way to increase visitor awareness and support of environmental issues (Knezevic

2016; Shultz and Joordens 2014). While zoos provide environmental education activities in both

informal and formal variants, they often lack in providing off-site reinforcement materials

regarding their on-site conservation messages (Ballantyne and Packer 2016). In order to increase

the long-term environmental behavior of visitors, zoos need to provide post visit action resources

like additional learning materials or behavior reminders (Shultz and Joordens 2014; Ballantyne

and Packer 2016). Research found that approximately 70% of zoo visitors thought it was

important for zoos to provide these post-visit materials in order to encourage continual

environmental learning, as well as attitude and behavior changes (Ballantyne and Packer 2016).

However, not all post visit materials will be viewed favorably by visitors. Which leads to the

question, what else can zoos do to encourage positive environmental attitudes and behaviors? A

similar, yet distinct, solution is that zoos could encourage further education within the zoo itself

by providing gift certificates or credits for future participation in educational programs

(Knezevic 2016). This would promote environmental learning to various groups of visitors who

may have not already been engaged with education opportunities at the zoo. However, other

research indicates that zoos need to be careful with how they present educational materials, post

17

visit or otherwise, in order to make sure that visitors do not feel pressured to fulfil requests or

make actions (Smith et. al. 2010). Zoos have the potential to be leaders in environmental

education. Examining how visitors react to education experiences, both formal and informal as

well as in person and post visit, will expand the ability of zoos to influence public environmental

sustainability behaviors.

18

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Overview

An online survey was administered to university students at Southern Illinois University

Carbondale using the online ‘MyCourses’ portion of the Desire to Learn (D2L) which is part of

the Brightspace Learning Management System (LMS). This survey aimed to identify how zoo

visitors self-assess their sustainability behaviors as adults based on their experiences visiting

various zoos as children. The results were later analyzed with the use of the descriptive statistical

software in Microsoft Excel through methods such as chi-squared analysis, a measurement

technique examining how the modeled results compare to the actual observed data.

3.2 Survey Instrument

The survey was developed based on literature from previous studies and the questions were

written specifically for the purposes of this project. The survey was designed to identify how

visitors self-assess their sustainability behaviors as adults by examining their childhood zoo

visitation experiences, specifically zoo-based education programs (formal and informal) and

current beliefs about climate change among participants. More specifically, the survey aimed to

answer the following questions:

1. Do university students who visited zoos more frequently in their childhood self-assess as more sustainable in their current daily actions?

2. Is there a relationship between residential proximity to zoo grounds and how highly a guest self-assesses their present-day sustainable actions?

3. Do university students who self-assess with higher sustainability behaviors now tend to have visited zoos for personal reasons or educational purposes?

4. Do university students who state they visited zoos several times a year also state they have a more ecological major or minor?

19

The survey was comprised of 14 questions. Questions one through seven covered

demographics, inquiring about personal details of the respondent such as education status,

gender, year of birth, residential proximity to zoo grounds, and annual number of zoo visitations

per year, while questions eight through 14 aimed to measure respondent reactions toward

sustainable actions at the zoo and at home, as well as feelings about climate change (Table 1).

Table 1: Survey Questionnaire released on the MyCourses portion of the Desire 2 Learn learning management system.

Number Question Response Options Description 1. Please indicate your

current year of study:

Undergraduate freshman Undergraduate sophomore Undergraduate junior Undergraduate senior 1st year graduate student 2nd year graduate student PhD student Other:_______

Multiple choice question used to gather data regarding participant academic year.

2. What is your major? ____________________________ Free response question used to gather data regarding participant academic status

3. If applicable, what is your minor?

____________________________ Free response question used to gather data regarding participant academic status

4. What year were you born?

____________________________ Drop down menu question used to gather data regarding participant age

5. Please check one:

Male Female Prefer not to answer

Multiple choice question used to gather data regarding participant sex.

20

6. On average, during your childhood, how far away did you live from a zoo?

Less than 5 miles 5-20 miles 21-40 miles 41-60 miles 61- 80 miles 81-100 miles Greater than 100 miles

Multiple choice question used to gather data regarding participant location compared to that of a zoo.

7. On average, during your childhood, how many times did you visit a zoo annually?

0-1 2-4 5-8 9+

Multiple choice question used to gather data regarding participant activities.

8. As a child, were you more likely to visit zoos for personal reasons or for educational school field trips/ camps?

Personal reasons Educational purposes


9. Did you participate in zoo education programs or camps as a child?

Yes No


9.1. If yes, what type(s) of program?

____________________________ Free response question used to gather qualitative data.

10.

Do you remember learning sustainable actions at the zoo?

Yes No


10.1 If yes, what type(s) of sustainable actions?

____________________________ Free response question used to gather data regarding

21

participant activities.

11. Do you believe you act sustainably in your daily life?

Yes No


11.1 If yes, what type(s) of sustainable activities or behaviors do you participate in?

____________________________ Free response question used to gather data regarding participant activities.

12. Do you believe visiting zoos has impacted your level of environmental concern?

Yes No


12.1 If yes, how? ____________________________ Free response question used to gather data regarding participant activities.

13. On a scale of 1-10, with one being not very concerned and ten being very concerned, how concerned are you about Climate Change?

____________________________ Likert Scale question used to gather data regarding participants thoughts on climate change.

14. What are your opinions on Climate Change?

____________________________ Free response question used to gather data regarding thoughts on climate change.

22

3.3 Procedure

An announcement was posted on MyCourses with a brief description of the project in

order to draw in participants (Figure 1). Participants were then informed of the goals of the study

in order to gain informed consent once the survey was launched on the ‘MyCourses’ portion of

the Desire to Learn learning management system. This was done by providing potential

participants with an information sheet before they were allowed access to the survey. The sheet

mentioned goals of the study, approximate time to complete the survey, age and university

requirements that the participant must meet in order to take the survey, and the understanding

that participants have the right to choose whether or not they participate in the survey as well as

noting their ability to skip questions or withdraw from the research study at any time.

Furthermore, to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of each respondent, personal identifiers

such as name, email, or phone number, were not required to participate (Figure 2).

Figure 1: MyCourses Announcement

23

Figure 2: Survey Consent Form

The research instrument was distributed twice over the course of Southern Illinois

University Carbondale’s Summer 2020 academic session through a self-assessment survey. The

summer session at Southern Illinois University Carbondale ran from June 8th, 2020 until July

31st, 2020, with a 4-week session 6/8/20-7/3/20 and an 8-week session 6/8/20-7/31/20) according

to the Office of the Registrar. The survey was posted in the Announcements section of

‘MyCourses’ by system Administrator JP Dunn, and each Announcement stayed active on

‘MyCourses’ for a research period of two weeks. It is important to note that there are frequent

updates with new announcements “pushing” older ones below the user’s view. Announcement

24

One went live on June 16th at 9:20 a.m. during the second full week of summer classes and

remained active until the morning of June 30th. The announcement was purposefully posted

during the second full week in order to avoid competing with other announcements with similar

date and time and to avoid the overall busy atmosphere that generally accompanies week one of

classes. Announcement One time was picked to appeal to the demographic of students whose

classes were scheduled during the morning and early afternoon hours of the day. Announcement

Two went live on June 25th at 4:00 p.m. and remained active until the morning of July 9th. The

second announcement time was picked to appeal to the demographic of students whose classes

were scheduled during the late afternoon and evening hours of the day and contained a reminder

to students asking them to not retake the survey if they had done so previously.

25

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants

There were 136 individuals who participated in the study, ranging from undergraduate

freshman through PhD students (Figure 3). There was a wide age range between the students due

to the presence of nontraditional students as well as the wide range of graduate and doctoral

students. The earliest birth year indicated was 1953, while the most recent was 2002 (Figure 4).

The birth years 1998 and 1999 alone comprise 41.91% of the total. This fits with fact that a

majority of survey participants were undergraduate seniors (41.91%) born in the year 1998

(22.06%). Furthermore, the survey sample indicated that more females (71.32%) participated in

the survey than males (26.47%) (Figure 5).

Figure 3: Participant Academic Year

26

Figure 4: Participant Birth Year

Figure 5: Participant Gender

27

4.2 Sustainability Learning and Zoos

Select survey questions aimed to evaluate if there was a relationship between how

participants related their sustainability learning to their childhood zoo visits. Students were asked

a variety of questions regarding their sustainability education. One survey question looked at if

participants believe they visit zoos for personal enjoyment or educational purposes (Figure 6). Of

those surveyed, 94 (69.12%) of the 136 participants revealed that they go to zoos for educational

purposes, such as school field trips, more than visiting the zoo for personal reasons, such as a

family trip. Branching off of this, participants were asked if they ever participated in zoo

education programs, and if so, to indicate the types of programs they participated in. Only 14

(10.29%) of participants indicated that they participated in zoo education programs such as

summer or day camp, “zookeeper for a day” programming, or volunteer activities (Table 2).

Furthermore, when asked if they remembered learning sustainability activities at zoos, 86

(63.24%) of the participants indicated that they could not recall learning any. The 48 (35.29%)

participants that did recall learning sustainability activities mentioned that they recalled learning

about renewable resources, ways to assist in the conservation of endangered species from home,

and in general, the importance of empathy towards nature (Table 3).

Despite these findings regarding participants recollection of learning sustainability

activities at zoos, when the participants were later asked if they believed zoos impacted their

overall levels of environmental concern, 87 (63.97%) of participants indicated yes (Figure 7).

Participants mentioned that zoos made them think more about how their actions impacted

various species, especially those on the endangered species list, through the zoos use of

educational signage and environmental education classes. Those that answered no, 46 (33.82%)

28

participants, voiced concern surrounding the cruelty of zoos because they keep animals in cages,

without fully addressing sustainability in any form.

Figure 6: Participant Reasons for Visiting a Zoo

29

Table 2: Types of Zoo Programs, as indicated in participant responses.

Category Description Number of Responses Zoo Camp Participation in zoo run

camps; can be daily, weekly, or monthly.

5

Zoo Programs: Junior Zookeeper

Participation in a youth career program; seeing what it would be like to be a zookeeper.

4

Volunteering Participation in a zoo volunteer program, consisting of various tasking including:

• Habitat Docent • Food Preparation • Enrichment Creation

1

School Field Trips Visiting the zoo as part of a school field trip, where transportation and admission were included.

2

Zoo Programs: Hobby classes Participation in programs relating to wildlife hobbies, such as photography.

1

Educational Classes Participation in educational classes offered at the zoo or other wildlife facilities such as raptor rehabilitation, and ecosystem maintenance.

3

30

Table 3: Sustainable Actions Taught at zoos, as indicated in participant responses.

Category Description Number of Responses Ecosystems Discussion over

• Deforestation • Palm Oil Industry • Native species • Invasive species

And how to assist with these conservation missions.

5

Endangered Species Discussion covering the rehabilitation of endangered species in zoos, and what actions can be taken to assist with this conservation mission.

4

Kindness Overall attitude towards the environment.

3

Renewable Resources Use of hydroelectric and wind power to conserve energy.

6

Sustainability at Home Discussion over • Reduce, Reuse,

Recycle • Sustainable products • Composting • Diet • Plastic use

12

31

Figure 7: Do Participants Believe Visiting Zoos Impacts Their Level of Environmental Concern? 4.3 Research Question One Results

Participants were asked to estimate approximately how many times they visited a zoo

annually throughout their childhood. According to the data, 61 participants (44.85%) listed that

they visited a zoo between 0-1 times per year while only 11 participants (8.09%) indicated that

they visited 9 or more times per year, the highest frequency option available (Figure 8). The

median participant visitation rate was found to be 2-4 annual zoo visits, with 36.76% of

participants falling into this category, while the mode was 0-1 annual zoo visits, with 44.85% of

participants falling into this category.

32

Furthermore, participants were asked to indicate and describe if they believed they acted

sustainably in their daily lives (Figure 9). Approximately 104 respondents (76.47%) indicated

that they believe they act sustainably in their daily lives. When asked to describe their

sustainability actions, most respondents only described one or two daily actions, and responses

were organized into 6 categories: Activism, Community Action, Food Sustainability, Personal

Action, Positive Thinking, and Transportation (Table 4).

When the two data points were compared it can be noted that the 76.47% of participants

who believe they act sustainably in their daily lives have an average visitation rate of 2-4 times

per year. While of those who claim they do not act sustainably in their daily lives, 22.79% of

participants, have an average visitation rate of 0-1 times per year. Furthermore, individuals who

believe they act sustainably in their daily lives had a higher frequency of visiting zoos 9+ times

per year (6.62%) than those who do not believe they act sustainably in their daily lives (1.47%).

The data collected was then placed into a contingency table (Table 5). Using chi-squared

analysis, a measurement technique examining how the modeled results compare to the actual

observed data, it was determined that there was no significant dependence between the variables

collected based on a p-value – the probability of obtaining results as extreme as those observed

– of .2177 compared with an alpha of .1, indicating that the variables have an inconclusive

relationship to one another.

33

Figure 8: Annual Visitation Rates to a Zoo

Figure 9: Do Participants Believe They Act Sustainable in Their Daily Lives?

34

Table 4: Participant Sustainable Actions, as indicated by participant responses.

Category Description Number of Responses Activism • Peaceful Protests

• Education Rights

6

Community Action • Supporting Local Business

• Public Litter Clean-Up

• Community Gardening

• Community Compost Centers

34

Food sustainability • Concerns regarding red meat consumption

• Veganism • Vegetarianism

10

Personal Action • Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

• Sustainable shopping (thrifting, reusable bags, etc. )

• Electricity consumption

• Water consumption • Plastic consumption

83

Positive Thinking • Kind attitude toward nature

• Not sure how to start being sustainable

• Concerned about the financial burden of being sustainable

6

Transportation • Walking more • Carpooling • Electric cars • Scooters and bikes

as alternate means of transportation

17

35

Table 5: Do university students who visited zoos more frequently in their childhood self-assess

as more sustainable in their current daily actions? Contingency Table Analysis.

0-1 annual visits

2-4 annual visits

5-8 annual visits

9+ annual visits

Total

Yes 42 Expected: 47.09

42 Expected: 38.60

12 Expected: .81

9 Expected: 8.49

105

No 19 Expected: 13.90

8 Expected: 11.39

2 Expected: 3.19

2 Expected: 2.51

31

Total 61 50 14 11 Grand Total: 136

4.4 Research Question Two Results

Participants were asked to indicate approximately how far (miles) they grew up from a

zoological park. A majority of participants (24.26%) indicated that they grew up within 5-20

miles of a zoo, with a median mileage of 41-60 miles, and a mode of 5-20 miles (Figure 10).

When the two data points were compared, it can be noted that the 76.47% of participants who

believe they act sustainably in their daily lives live an average of 21-40 miles away from the zoo,

while of those who claim they do not act sustainably in their daily lives, 22.79% of participants,

live an average of 5-20 miles away from a zoo.

Data regarding milage was then compared to the data surrounding participant

sustainability habits and was inputted into a contingency table in order to run a chi-squared

analysis comparing the relationship between residential proximity to self-assessed sustainability

actions (Table 6). It was determined that there was no significant relationship between the

variables collected based on a p-value of .9116 compared with an alpha of .1, indicating that the

variables have an inconclusive relationship to one another.

36

Figure 10: Participant Residential Distance from a Zoo

Table 6: Is there a relationship between residential proximity to zoo grounds and how highly a guest self-assesses their present-day sustainable actions? Contingency Table Analysis.

Less than

5 miles 5- 20 miles

21-40 miles

41-60 miles

61-80 miles

81-100 miles

Greater than 100 miles

Total

Yes 2 Expected 2.32

25 Expected 25.61

26 Expected 24.84

15 Expected 15.52

4 Expected 3.10

13 Expected 13.97

19 Expected 18.63

104

No 1 Expected .67

8 Expected 7.39

6 Expected 7.16

5 Expected 4.48

0 Expected .90

5 Expected 4.03

5 Expected 5.37

30

Total 3 33 32 20 4 18 24 134

4.5 Research Question Three Results

When looking at the data point on its own, 94 (69.12%) of the 136 participants revealed

that they go to zoos for personal purposes, such as family trips, more than visiting the zoo for

educational reasons, such as a school trip. Two individuals chose not to answer this question,

making the total responses collected 134.

When the two data points were compared, it can be noted that the 76.47% of participants

who believe they act sustainably in their daily lives on average visited zoos for personal reasons.

Similarly, those who claim they do not act sustainably in their daily lives, 22.79% of

37

participants, also visited the zoo for personal reasons at a higher frequency than educational

purposes.

This data, when inputted into a contingency table with the data regarding self-assessment

of sustainability habits (Figure 9) in order to run a chi-square analysis, indicated that there was a

significant relationship between the variables collected with a p-value of .0018 compared with an

alpha of .1, indicating that the variables do not act independently of one another (Table 7). In

other words, there is a relationship between participant reasoning for visiting the zoo and how

highly they assess their sustainable actions.

Table 7: Do university students who self-assess with higher sustainability behaviors now tend to have visited zoos for personal reasons or educational purposes? Contingency Table Analysis.

Educational

Purpose Personal Purpose

Total

Yes 27 Expected: 31.04

77 Expected: 72.96

104

No 13 Expected: 5.97

17 Expected: 14.03

20

Total 40 94 134

4.6 Research Question Four Results

Survey participants were asked to indicate their major and minor. The responses were

then categorized based on if the major and minor were ecological in nature. Ecological majors

and minors were defined as those in the S.T.E.M. field – Science, Technology, Engineering, and

Mathematics – which all play a part in sustainability education. All survey participants indicated

their major, with 73 (53.67%) of participants indicating that they have an ecological major

(Figure 11). Furthermore, 57 (41.92%) participants indicated that they have a minor, with 28

(20.59%) of these participants indicating that their minor is ecologically focused (Figure 12).

38

This data was then broken down further to examine major and minor results separately and to

include individuals with both an ecological major and minor.

When the data points were compared, on average individuals who indicated that they

have an ecological major or minor visited the zoo 2-4 times per year, while those who do not

have an ecologically based major or minor visited zoos an average of 0-1 times per year. When

this data was broken down further, it can be noted that individuals who only stated they have an

ecological major visited zoos an average of 0-1 times per year. Those who only indicated they

have an ecological minor visited zoos an average of 5-8 times per year, and finally, those who

indicated both an ecological major and minor visited zoos an average of 2-4 times per year.

When inputted into a contingency table with the data regarding annual zoo visitation

rates, the chi-square analysis indicated that there was not a significant relationship between the

variables collected, indicated by a p-value of .6633 compared with an alpha of .1 (Table 8). The

same can be said when examining if there is a relationship between how many times participants

visited the zoo and how ecologically involved, they were with their schooling decisions: do they

only have an ecological major, ecological minor, or both? When the data was displayed in the

contingency table, the chi-square analysis indicated that there was an inconclusive relationship

between the variables, with a p-value of .1123 compared with an alpha of .1 (Table 9).

39

Figure 11: Percentage of Participants with S.T.E.M. Academic Majors

Figure 12: Percentage of Participants with S.T.E.M. Academic Minors

40

Table 8: Do university students who state they visited zoos several times a year also state they have a more ecological major or minor? Contingency Table Analysis.

0-1 visits

annually 2-4 visits annually

5-8 visits annually

9+ visits annually

Total

Ecological Major and/ or Minor

17 Expected: 18.97

17 Expected: 15.81

4 Expected: 4.43

5 Expected: 3.48

43

Non-Ecological Major and/ or Minor

44 Expected: 41.03

33 Expected: 34.19

10 Expected: 9.57

6 Expected: 7.52

93

Total 60 50 14 11 136

Table 9: Is there a relationship between how many times participants visited zoos and how ecologically involved they were with their schooling decisions: major, minor, both? Contingency

Table Analysis.

0-1 visits annually

2-4 visits annually

5-8 visits annually

9+ visits annually

Total

Ecological Major

12 Expected: 11.07

10 Expected: 11.07

2 Expected: 2.6

4 Expected: 3.25

28

Ecological Minor

1 Expected: 1.58

1 Expected: 1.58

2 Expected: .37

0 Expected: .47

4

Both 4 Expected: 4.35

6 Expected: 4.35

0 Expected: 1.02

1 Expected: 1.28

11

Total 17 17 4 5 43

41

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this study was to assess participant self-assessed sustainability behavior in

terms of their childhood zoo visitations. Preliminary findings suggest that as children, many

participants were not aware of absorbing sustainability messages from zoos. However, as adults,

survey participants believe in the sustainability message of the zoo, indicating that it impacts

their level of environmental concern.

5.2 Demographic Analysis of Participant Data

It should be noted that while only 136 students participated in the online survey during

the summer of 2020, 4,787 students were actively using the MyCourses system during that time

(Southern Illinois University 2021), and any student who was currently enrolled for the fall of

2020 had access to the MyCourses system, with the ability to participate in the survey.

Southern Illinois University experienced a slight drop in students over the past school year. In

Fall of 2019 the university reported a total of 11,695 students, while only 11,366 students

enrolled for fall of 2020 (Southern Illinois University Carbondale 2020). These enrollment

statistics can be further broken down based on region of origin, gender, program enrollment

statistics and ethnicity. For the purpose of this study gender and program enrollment statistics

will be further discussed. Based on the nature of this survey, topics such as ethnicity and income

were not explored. Income statistics would have the potential to be biased because the survey is

requesting participants assess situations from childhood, and the likelihood of retrieving accurate

data would be low. Ethnic data would also need to take into account situations of environmental

justice, which exceeded the expectations for this survey but may allow for future research.

42

A majority of survey participants were female undergraduate seniors (41.91%) born in

the year 1998 (22.06%). Gender analysis revealed that more females than males participated in

the survey, even though the percentage of females at Southern Illinois University is lower than

males. According to the Fall 2020 enrollment statistics, Southern Illinois University Carbondale

had 5,720 males enrolled (50.3%) and 5,597 females enrolled (49.2%) (Southern Illinois

University 2020). While the gap is not large, one would have expected more males than females

to participate in the survey. According to prior research, female children have been noted to be

more concerned about animals than males, as well as view them in a more humane mindset

(Birney and Heinrich 1991), which could lead to the assumption that females are more

environmentally oriented and more willing to participate in environmental surveys. Furthermore,

the Association of Zoos and Aquariums reported that out of the over 183 million annual zoo and

aquarium visitors, 54% of them are female (Association of Zoos and Aquariums 2021). Based on

prior research and current survey statistics, it seems that gender plays a role in environmental

mindsets, in other words, more women seem to be interested in environmental sustainability

concepts (Ballew et al 2018). This leads to the potential for further social research questions

regarding gender’s role in environmental sustainability habits and/ or concern for the

environment as a whole.

Furthermore, a majority of the participants were born in the years 1998 and 1999, making

them approximately 22-23 years of age. The age range varied from the year 1953 to the year

2002, meaning that several non-traditional students participated in the survey. Age plays a role in

the attitudes people have and behaviors people participate in. Cognitive development develops at

different rates based on a wide variety of factors, such as income and environment, and the

behaviors exhibited by children change gradually (Fischer et al 1984). By this logic, children

43

raised in environments that promote sustainability living and environmental concern may be

more likely to exhibit these characteristics as adults. The stereotypical assumption is that

younger individuals are more likely to be concerned with the state of the environment. This is

known as the age hypothesis (Fransson et al 1999). However, alternate evidence suggests that

more and more individuals of the consuming and voting public belong to an older age group who

are concerned with the impacts humans have on the environment. The idea is that older people

are more likely than younger individuals to change attitude in light of new information and is

primarily known as legacy thinking (Frumkin et al 2012). A social survey of 792 respondents

older than 55 explored the concept of attitudes and behaviors towards the environment and found

that 96% of individuals think the environment should be maintained for future generations

(legacy thinking), but only 15% are environmental volunteers and 12% are members of

environmental organizations (Frumkin et al 2012). While there is a sense of responsibility to

leave a positive legacy, there is also a disconnect between attitude and behavior.

According to the survey, individuals who were born before 1997; classifying them as a

nontraditional student because they are older than 24 years of age (Jinkens 2009), were just as

concerned with the impacts of their actions on the environment as those of traditional students.

When participants were asked if they believe they act sustainably in their daily lives, many

answered yes, regardless of age.

Participant 128, born 1964, stated: “I recycle what I can. I use reusable containers. I try to minimize my waste and water usage.” Participant 89, born 1976, stated: “I use reusable shopping bags, biodegradable trash bags, no single use plastic.”

Participant 95, born 1999, stated: “I’m vegetarian, I ride a bike (don't own a car), participate in community farming, carpool, purchasing home goods and clothing second-hand, buying local goods rather than online, re-using glass jars and plastic containers, composting when I can, etc.”

44

However, when examining how participants learned these sustainability behaviors, a

majority of individuals born between the years 1953 to 1989 recorded that they did not

remember participating in zoo education programming or remember learning sustainability

actions at zoos. This could be due to the fact that conservation and sustainability education at

zoos did not become a common thought process until 1971, when growing concerns from the

public arose regarding animal welfare. However, it was not until 1985 when the ideal of quality

over quantity in terms of animal husbandry and education became more common place

(Association of Zoos and Aquariums 2021). It would still take many years for zoos to reach the

level of excellence shown today, and several institutions still do not or cannot abide by the

guidelines set forth by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. These findings suggest research

could be done regarding what environments, other than zoos and aquariums, influenced

sustainability thinking among generations.

5.3 Participant Opinions on Climate Change

In order to better understand the sustainable mindset of participants and why they partake

in the sustainability activities listed, participants were asked to explain their thoughts on climate

change, in a open-ended response. Prior research has shown that as people age, they embody

political and social views that condition their attitude towards climate change (Frumkin et al

2012). Participants were asked to evaluate their own thoughts on climate change. Answers were

categorized into categories ranging from denial to extremist based on the nature on their answer

(Table 10). Categories were created based on tone of response and contents. For instance,

Participant 42 fell into the category “Not Concerned” due to their reasoning that climate change

is a natural phenomenon that humans should not overly concern themselves with.

45

“The climate has always changed. The current fantasy version being batted around is a political rather than scientific construct - and I have actually run the numbers from raw data to confirm this” (Participant 42).

While participant 11 falls into the extremist category due to the negative tone of their response

and the drastic measures they feel they need to take in order to response to the crisis.

“It is very real. It is here now. People will die. I want to move north, possibly to Canada.” (Participant 11)

This analysis allows for a better understanding of why participants choose to act sustainably in

their daily lives, and how zoos can influence climate change and sustainability education.

Table 10: Participant Opinions on Climate Change

Category Description Number of Responses Denial

The outright claim that climate change (in modern terms) is not real. Statements could include political banter, claim of hoax.

1

Not Concerned While participants address that climate change exists, they claim it is a natural process and that we should not be concerned.

7

Unsure Participants state that they do not have enough background knowledge to make an informed statement and/ or, cannot decide if they believe in climate change or not.

7

Concerned Participants realize that there is a problem and advocate for more discussion on the topic. Key words and phrases include “needs to be addressed”.

27

46

Very Concerned Participants realize there is a problem and advocate for finding a solution now through action and policy. Key words and phrases include “action plan, long term consequences, do something about it, assigning blame”.

51

Extremist Realize that there is a scary problem, which needs extreme solutions. These individuals advocate for extreme change with a pessimistic view. Key words or phrases include “moving and death”.

7

Outlier These individuals did not adequately answer the question in any way that would allow them to be sorted into categories.

2

No Response

34

5.4 The Impacts of Sustainable Learning at Zoos

Out of the participants who did remember learning sustainability behaviors at zoos, the

answers ranged from learning about endangered species, to renewable resources. Below are a

small number of participant responses to survey question 10.1 “Do you remember learning

sustainable actions at the zoo?”:

“Looking for the sustainability certifications on products, planting native species to fight biodiversity.” (Participant 17) “I remember having trash bins saying to recycle what trash we could, and they offered us cute reusable cups with animals on them. I would buy one because I loved the animal and would take it with me around the zoo to get refills or use at other places instead of a throw away cup.” (Participant 55)

47

Of the 136 participants, only 48 (35.29%) believed that they learned sustainability actions

at the zoo. A much higher number of participants (63.97%) believe that visiting zoos has

impacted their level of environmental concern, even though several indicated that they did not

remember learning sustainability actions at the zoo. Below are a small number of participant

responses to survey question 12.1 “Do you believe visiting zoos has impacted your level of

environmental concern?”:

“It has made me realize environmental topics that are occurring across the globe, such as unsustainable resource mining in Africa and other such topics. It has also opened my eyes to urban sustainability issues.” (Participant 17) “In more recent zoo visits, I have been exposed to more information about conservation efforts and environmental issues we are facing.” (Participant 30)

These findings demonstrate that zoos need to do more to engage younger audiences

besides employing informational signage that children are not as likely to read. Furthermore,

different marketing strategies should be employed to try and encourage participation in zoo

education programs, as only 10.29% of participants indicated that they participated in zoo

education programs (Figure 13).

Figure 13: Do Participants Partake in Zoo Education Programs?

48

As children, participants do not believe that their sustainability behaviors as adults were

influenced specifically by zoos because they do not remember learning sustainability actions at

the zoo during their childhood visits. However, as adults, participants recognize the sustainability

information value that zoos possess. While interesting, this also means that the results have the

potential to be biased, since they are attempting to remember aspects of their childhood that

could be skewed by their current feelings on the subject.

5.5 Research Question Three Analysis

Research question three indicated that there is a relationship between how highly a

person assesses their sustainability actions with their motivations for visiting the zoo. Those who

indicated that they visited the zoo for personal reasons, meaning they were on the premise for a

learning experience, also indicated their sustainability actions on a higher level. This could

indicate that the personal environment plays a role in influencing future actions. The desire to

learn also has the potential to be affected by environment. Learning environment seems to play a

role in sustainability education, and cognitive perception. Some students seem to absorb the

information in a formal school setting, while others learn better in an environment of their

choosing. Open-mindedness towards sustainability education, and the influence of educational

materials, such as teachers and peers, or family members, leads to the perceived fulfillment of

sustainability actions.

Individuals who indicated that they went to the zoo for personal purposes also tended to

indicate that they believed visiting the zoo impacted their levels of environmental concern,

specifically due to the presence of educational signage at the zoo (Table 11).

49

Table 11: Do Zoos Impact Levels of Environmental Concern? Category Description Yes Information provided through education

materials (signage and classes) • Sight • Waste products • Keeper passion • Species extinction • Habitat destruction • RRR

No Negative view of zoos as a whole

• Cages are cruel • Common thought: Zoo habitats use a

lot of energy, are they really sustainable?

Environmental concern is generally referred to as an evaluation of a person’s beliefs,

attitudes, and behaviors based on facts regarding the environment (Fransson et al 1999) while

environmental sustainability is defined as a condition of interconnectedness which allows

humans to satisfy their needs without exceeding the capacity of the ecosystem (Morelli 2011).

Participants indicated their environmental concern was impacted through educational signage

aimed towards habitat loss, reduce, reuse, recycle, and the use waste products and may be further

impacted through the participation of zoo educational classes.

Even though the findings suggest that individuals who went to the zoo for educational

reasons tend to indicate their sustainability actions on a lower level but believe that zoos impact

their level of environmental concern, further research can be done regarding common zoo

outreach techniques and the ways sustainability information in being transmitted. While 88.97%

of survey participants indicated that they did not participate in zoo education programs as a way

to learn sustainability behaviors at zoos. This could be due to program cost, lack of interest,

availability or travel required to attend these programs, however further research will need to be

conducted to discover the exact reasoning why individuals choose whether or not to participate.

50

5.6 Analyses of Research Questions One, Two and Four

The chi-squared analyses of research questions one, two and four resulted in p- values

larger than that of the alpha .1. The statistical analysis concluded that there is no dependent

relationship between the variables in each research question, but this does not mean there is no

room for future research.

Research done on the cognitive perception capability of children indicates that by age

four, children develop the capability to construct simple representative relationships. This grows

further, and by the ages of six to seven children can comprehend complex problems. At the age

of ten children can construct categories based on concrete instances (Fischer and Bullock 1984).

Depending on the age of the child at the time of initial exposure to the zoo, whether it be distance

from the zoo or amount of time spent annually at the zoo, as indicated by research questions one

and two, cognition may vary among participants.

However, if a desire to learn does influence participant future action, future research

could be done on research question four, regarding how childhood participation in events (such

as going to the zoo) could impact their future career decision. Prior research has indicated that

major and minor decisions are influenced by childhood environment. Children from lower

socioeconomic households tend to favor more lucrative college majors compared to those from

higher socioeconomic households. Furthermore, parental involvement in education significantly

impacts college major choice (Yingyi Ma 2009), leading back to the previous conclusion that

children raised in environments that promote sustainable living and environmental concern may

be more likely to exhibit these characteristics as adults, and choose more sustainability minded

majors and minors that make them more desirable to employers. Further research could be

conducted regarding the various majors and minors that involve sustainability behavior, not just

51

S.T.E.M., and how lucrative they may be, in order to influence future major or minor decisions

among younger generations.

52

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

6.1 Limitations

This study helped gain a beneficial amount of data in regard to participant behavior

towards sustainability action, but it should be acknowledged that it has several limitations. The

2020 COVID-19 pandemic put a damper on human subject’s research, such as the use of

surveys. Originally, behavioral data was going to be collected in conjunction with the Cincinnati

Zoo and Botanical Gardens. The nationwide shut down affected this, and as a result a new survey

was quickly created. In the future, it would be wise to take more time for the creation of research

instruments because not all of the potential confounding variables were measured, such as

income, future occupation, average duration of visit to the zoo, and group composition.

Furthermore, a small sample size during the summer semester led to insufficient means for

statistical measure. A way to avoid this in the future is to submit a Freedom of Information Act

request to obtain email addresses for SIU students in order to directly send the survey rather than

rely on learning management systems that are not frequently used during the summer, this could

also help correct the gender imbalance that appeared in the response results. Finally, it should be

noted that there is an assumption of bias within the results due to the fact that individuals with

prior interest in the subject are more likely to participate in the survey. However, despite these

limitations, the study provides data that could be useful for future testing and studies.

6.2 Key Points

This study assessed participant self-assessed sustainability behavior in terms of their

childhood zoo visitations. Preliminary findings suggested that as children, many participants did

not recall learning sustainability messages from zoos. These findings suggest research could be

53

done regarding what environments, other than zoos and aquariums, influenced sustainability

thinking among multiple generations. However, as adults, survey participants believe in the

sustainability message of the zoo, indicating that it impacts their level of environmental concern.

Participant demographic data varied, indicating that sustainability mindsets are present among

multiple generations, and the levels of environmental concern were high. Females participated at

a higher rate than males in the survey, with prior research indicating that females are historically

more invested in the environment, whether that be in animal care, sustainable actions, or joining

environmental groups. This leads to the potential for further social research questions regarding

gender’s role in environmental sustainability habits and/ or concern for the environment as a

whole.

Furthermore, there is a relationship between the reasons individuals visit the zoo and how

highly they assess their sustainability actions. This could indicate that the desire to learn and the

type of learning environment plays a role in influencing future actions. Yet, there is a disconnect

between those who visit the zoos believing they have highly rated sustainability behaviors and

those who actively participate in zoo sustainability education. Many of the participants indicated

that they did not participate in the wide variety of education programs offered by zoos, this could

be due to program cost, lack of interest, availability or travel required to attend these programs.

Further research will need to be conducted to discover the exact reasoning why individuals

choose whether or not to participate, and if new engagement techniques can be employed to up

participation rates and discover if these programs are effective in increasing sustainability

behaviors among participants.

Finally, further analysis of the findings suggest that zoos should develop new ways of

engaging visitors in regard to sustainability behavior and provide post-visit experiences that

54

reinforce and extend sustainability messages and action, as many participants did not remember

learning sustainability behaviors at zoos. Options such as increased advertisement for affordable

education programs, more hands-on activities, or sending home educational materials such as

coloring pages could be used to increase retention of sustainability knowledge learned at zoos

from childhood to adulthood. Zoos have already begun to extend their educational reach due to

the restrictions set in place by the COVID19 pandemic. Many facilities, such as the Cincinnati

Zoo and Botanical Gardens, began facilitating “home safaris,” short informational video

segments uploaded to social media sights in order to increase awareness of the zoo and various

species during the pandemic, and also allow for a fun, informational break during various state

stay-at-home orders (Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens, 2020). Research could be done to

analyze the impacts of the role social media plays on sustainability education and how these at

home/post- visit activities impact retention of sustainability knowledge.

Overall, the survey indicates that zoos play a role in how highly people assess their

sustainability actions, and there is room for a wide variety of future research projects.

55

REFERENCES

Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 2021. About AZA Accreditaiton . February 2. Accessed February 2, 2021. https://www.aza.org/what-is-accreditation?locale=en.

Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 2018. Annual Report on Conservation and Science.

Accessed October 2019. https://www.aza.org/annual-report-on-conservation-and-science.

Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 2021. Visitor Demographics. February. Accessed February 23, 2021. https://www.aza.org/partnerships-visitor-demographics?locale=en.

Ballantyne, Roy, and Jan Packer. 2016. “Visitors’ Perceptions of the Conservation Education Role of Zoos and Aquariums: Implications for the Provision of Learning Experiences.” Visitor Studies 19 (2): 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2016.1220185.

Ballew, Matthew, Jennifer Marlon, Anthony Leiserowitz, and Edward Maibach. 2018. Gender Differences in Public Understanding of Climate Change. November 20. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/gender-differences-in-public-understanding-of-climate-change/.

Berns, Gretchen Newhouse, and Steven Simpson. 2009. “Outdoor Recreation Participation and

Environmental Concern: A Research Summary.” Journal of Experiential Education 32 (1): 79–91.

Birney, Barbara A., and Carolyn Heinrich . 1991. "Understanding Demographic Data on Zoo

Visitors." The Journal of Museum Education 19-22.

Bruni, Coral M., John Fraser, and P. Wesley Schultz. 2008. “The Value of Zoo Experiences for Connecting People with Nature.” Visitor Studies 11 (2): 139–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570802355489.

Carter, Robert L., and Bora Simmons. 2010. “The History and Philosophy of Environmental Education.” In The Inclusion of Environmental Education in Science Teacher Education, edited by Alec M. Bodzin, Beth Shiner Klein, and Starlin Weaver, 3–16. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9222-9_1.

Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens. 2020. Facebook "Home Safari." Cincinnati.

Clayton, Susan, John Fraser, and Carol D. Saunders. 2009. “Zoo Experiences: Conversations, Connections, and Concern for Animals.” Zoo Biology 28 (5): 377–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20186.

Clayton, Susan, Jerry Luebke, Carol Saunders, Jennifer Matiasek, and Alejandro Grajal. 2014. “Connecting to Nature at the Zoo: Implications for Responding to Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 20 (4): 460–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.816267.

Coleman, Sean. 2012. “Creating Early Connections” 20 (4): 32–33.

56

Davey, G. 2007. “An Analysis of Country, Socio-Economic and Time Factors on Worldwide Zoo Attendance during a 40 Year Period.” International Zoo Yearbook 41 (1): 217–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2007.00007.x.

Dickie, Lesley A. 2009. “The Sustainable Zoo: An Introduction.” International Zoo Yearbook 43 (1): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2008.00086.x.

Dickinson, Elizabeth. 2013. “The Misdiagnosis: Rethinking ‘Nature-Deficit Disorder.’” Environmental Communication 7 (3): 315–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.802704.

Dove, Tracy. 2016. “Investigating Factors Which Affect Visitor Understanding Of,” 39–42.

Dunstan, Emily, and Genevieve Johnson. 2016. “What Will It Take to Make You Love Me? Sparking Love for Local Wildlife Needs a Fresh Approach,” 45–49.

Ernst, Julie. 2018. “Zoos’ and Aquariums’ Impact and Influence on Connecting Families to Nature: An Evaluation of the Nature Play Begins at Your Zoo & Aquarium Program.” Visitor Studies 21 (2): 232–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2018.1554094.

Fischer, Kurt W., and Daniel Bullock. 1984. "Cognitive Development In School-Age Children: Conclusions and New Directions." In Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve , 85-161. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy of Science .

Fletcher, Robert. 2017. “Connection with Nature Is an Oxymoron: A Political Ecology of

‘Nature-Deficit Disorder.’” The Journal of Environmental Education 48 (4): 226–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2016.1139534.

Fransson, Niklas, and Tommy Garling. 1999. "Environmental Concern: Conceptual Definitions, Measurement Methods, and Research Findings ." Journal of Environmental Psychology 369-382.

Fraser, J., and J. Sickler. 2009. “Measuring the Cultural Impact of Zoos and Aquariums.”

International Zoo Yearbook 43 (1): 103–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2008.00064.x.

Fraser, John, Rupanwita Gupta, and Marianne E. Krasny. 2015. “Practitioners’ Perspectives on the Purpose of Environmental Education.” Environmental Education Research 21 (5): 777–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.933777.

Frumkin, Howard, Linda Fried, and Rick Moody. 2012. "Aging, Climate Change, and Legacy Thinking ." American Journal of Public Health 1434-1438.

Godinez, Andrea M., and Eduardo J. Fernandez. 2019. “What Is the Zoo Experience? How Zoos

Impact a Visitor’s Behaviors, Perceptions, and Conservation Efforts.” Frontiers in Psychology 10 (July): 1746. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01746.

57

Grajal, Alejandro, Jerry F. Luebke, Lisa-Anne DeGregoria Kelly, Jennifer Matiasek, Susan Clayton, Bryan T. Karazsia, Carol D. Saunders, Susan R. Goldman, Michael E. Mann, and Ricardo Stanoss. 2017. “The Complex Relationship between Personal Sense of Connection to Animals and Self-Reported Proenvironmental Behaviors by Zoo Visitors: Sense of Connection to Animals.” Conservation Biology 31 (2): 322–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12780.

Grazian, David. 2012. “Where the Wild Things Aren’t.” The Sociological Quarterly, 21.

Jinkens, Robert C. 2009. "Nontraditional students: Who are they?" College Student Journal 979-987.

Junhold, J., and F. Overwemmer. 2011. “How Are Animal Keeping and Conservation Philosophy of Zoos Affected by Climate Change?” International Zoo Yearbook 45 (1): 99–107.

Knezevic, Martina. 2016. “Who Is Visiting the Zagreb Zoo: Visitors’ Characteristics and Motivation.” Sociologija i Prostor, June. https://doi.org/10.5673/sip.55.2.4.

Louv, Richard, Ted May. 2005. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. 1st ed. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

Luebke, Jerry F, Susan Clayton, Carol D Saunders, Jennifer Matiasek, Lisa-Anne D Kelly, and Alejandro Grajal. 2012. “Global Climate Change As Seen By Zoo And Aquarium Visitors,” 97.

Luebke, Jerry F., and Alejandro Grajal. 2011. “Assessing Mission-Related Learning Outcomes at Zoos and Aquaria: Prevalence, Barriers, and Needs.” Visitor Studies 14 (2): 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2011.608013.

Ma, Yingyi. 2009. "Family Socioeconmic Status, Parental Involvement and College Major Choices - Gender, Race/Ethnic, and Nativity Patterns." Sociological Perspectives 211-234.

Marshall, James. 2016. “Exploring Our Interpretive Practice: An Impact Evaluation,” 23–26.

Martin, Ruth. 2012. “A Study of Public Education in Zoos with Emphasis on Exhibit Labels,” 55–59.

Mason, Peter. 2000. “Zoo Tourism: The Need for More Research.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8 (4): 333–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580008667368.

Mkhize, Bianca N. 2020. “Who Visits a Nature Based Urban Attraction and Why? An Exploratory Study of the Motivations to Visit the Pretoria Zoo in South Africa.” Tourism and Leisure 9: 14.

58

Mony, Preethi R. S., and Joe E. Heimlich. 2008. “Talking to Visitors about Conservation: Exploring Message Communication through Docent–Visitor Interactions at Zoos.” Visitor Studies 11 (2): 151–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570802355513.

Morelli, John. 2011. "Environmental Sustainability: A Definition for Environmental Professionals ." Journal of Environmental Sustainability 1-10.

Ogle, Brian. 2016. “Can Exhibits Transform the Adult Visitor into the Adult Learner?” 36–38.

Olukole, Titilayo O., and Olukole Samuel Gbadebo. 2008. “Patterns of Visits and Impacts of Zoo Animals on Visitors.” Anatolia 19 (2): 237–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2008.9687071.

Oxarart, Annie L., Martha C. Monroe, and Richard R. Plate. 2013. “From Play Areas to Natural Areas: The Role of Zoos in Getting Families Outdoors.” Visitor Studies 16 (1): 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2013.768074.

Packer, Jan, and Roy Ballantyne. 2010. “The Role of Zoos and Aquariums in Education for a Sustainable Future.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2010 (127): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.378.

Palmer, Joy. 1998. “Environmental Education in the 21st Century,” 3–30.

Patrick, Patricia G., Catherine E. Matthews, David Franklin Ayers, and Sue Dale Tunnicliffe. 2007. “Conservation and Education: Prominent Themes in Zoo Mission Statements.” The Journal of Environmental Education 38 (3): 53–60. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.38.3.53-60.

Peters, David. 2015. “From Health Inequalities to ‘Nature Deficit Disorder.’” Journal of Holistic Health 12 (1): 7–10.

Randall, Dr Teresa. 2012. “Assessment of Change in Conservation Attitudes Through Zoo and Aquarium Education,” no. 48: 13–16.

Roe, Katie, and Andrew McConney. 2015. “Do Zoo Visitors Come to Learn? An Internationally Comparative, Mixed-Methods Study.” Environmental Education Research 21 (6): 865–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.940282.

Rowe, Shawn, and Abby Nickels. 2011. “Visitor Motivations Across Three Informal Education Institutions: An Application of the Identity-Related Visitor Motivation Model.” Visitor Studies 14 (2): 162–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2011.608006.

Sanford, Chance. 2010. "Informing Leadership Practices: Exploring Relationships between

Student Engagement in Science and Zoo Education Programs." IZE (IZE) 38-41.

Scheersoi, Dr Annette, Tunnicliffe, Sue Dale. 2012. “Voices in Zoos and Aquariums,” 5.

59

Schultz, James G.W., and Steve Joordens. 2014. “The Effect of Visitor Motivation on the Success of Environmental Education at the Toronto Zoo.” Environmental Education Research 20 (6): 753–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.843646.

Schwan, Stephan, Alejandro Grajal, and Doris Lewalter. 2014. “Understanding and Engagement in Places of Science Experience: Science Museums, Science Centers, Zoos, and Aquariums.” Educational Psychologist 49 (2): 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.917588.

Smith, Liam, Betty Weiler, Amy Smith, and Pieter van Dijk. 2012. “Applying Visitor Preference Criteria to Choose Pro-Wildlife Behaviors to Ask of Zoo Visitors: Applying Visitor Preference Criteria to Choose Pro-Wildlife Behaviors to Ask of Zoo Visitors.” Curator: The Museum Journal 55 (4): 453–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2012.00168.x.

Stanford, Amanda. 2014. "Can I touch it? Zoo Program Impacts." IZE Journal 50 64-67.

Southern Illinois University Carbondale. 2020. Institutional Research and Studies . February 14. Accessed January 26, 2021. https://irs.siu.edu/interactive-factbook/students/student-demographics.php.

Street, Bill, Judy Jenkins, SeaWorld Parks, and John Frasier. 2012. “Research on Visitor Receptiveness to Conservation Messaging and Its Impact on Exhibit Design” 48: 60–63.

Swanagan, Jeffery S. 2000. "Factors Influencing Zoo Visitors' Conservation Attitudes and

Behavior ." The Journal of Environmental Education 26-31.

Warber, Sara L., Ashley A. DeHudy, Matthew F. Bialko, Melissa R. Marselle, and Katherine N. Irvine. 2015. “Addressing ‘Nature-Deficit Disorder’: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study of Young Adults Attending a Wilderness Camp.” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2015: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/651827.

Wells, Nancy M., Kristi S. Lekies 2006. “Nature and the Life Course: Pathways from Childhood Nature Experiences to Adult Environmentalism,” 26.

Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Yocco, Victor S. 2010. “Visitors’ Social Expectations of a Trip to the Zoo,” 6.

60

APPENDIX A

HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL

61

APPENDIX B

HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE MODIFICATION APPROVAL

62

APPENDIX C

SURVEY RESULTS FIGURES

Figure 14: Participant Academic Majors

63

Figure 15: Participant Academic Minors

64

Figure 16: Do Participants Believe They Learn Sustainable Practices at Zoos?

Figure 17: On a scale of 1-10, with1 being not concerned and 1o being very concerned, how concerned are participants about Climate Change?

65

VITA

Graduate School Southern Illinois University

Josie A. Taylor [email protected] Southern Illinois University Carbondale Bachelor of Science, Zoology, May 2019 Special Honors and Awards: Dr. Benedykt Dziegielewski Outstanding Geography Graduate Scholarship, May 2020 Thesis Paper Title: The Influence of Childhood Zoo Visitation on Adult Sustainability Behavior: A Self-Assessment Analysis Major Professor: Dr. Leslie A. Duram

the influence of childhood zoo visitation rates on …

Documents