See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369031474

Assessing the effect of interpretation design traits on zoo visitor engagement

Article  in  Zoo Biology · March 2023

DOI: 10.1002/zoo.21759

CITATIONS READS

0 142

6 authors, including:

Andrew Moss
Chester Zoo
42 PUBLICATIONS   828 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Moss on 08 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 3 November 2022 | Revised: 17 February 2023 | Accepted: 20 February 2023

DOI: 10.1002/zoo.21759

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Assessing the effect of interpretation design traits on zoo

visitor engagement

Gemma Edney1,2 | Tom Smart1,3 | Frederick Howat1 | Zoe E. Batchelor1 |

Charlotte Hughes1 | Andrew Moss1

1
North of England Zoological Society, Chester
Zoo, Chester, UK Abstract
2
Department of Biology, University of York, In the past few decades, zoos have undergone a transformation from places of
York, UK
entertainment to centers for conservation, with education becoming a particular
3
Department of Biosciences, Durham
University, Durham, UK focus. Interpretation in zoos is a near‐universal method for delivering education in
zoos and has been shown to prompt learning and pro‐conservation behavior change.
Correspondence
However, there is limited understanding on how interpretation design itself can
Andrew Moss.
Email: a.moss@chesterzoo.org influence visitor engagement. Using unobtrusive visitor observations (n = 3890), this
study measures visitor engagement of multiple pieces of interpretation with various
design “traits,” to provide a comprehensive overview of the key traits related to
increased visitor engagement. The proportion of visitors who stopped at the
interpretation (attraction power), and how long they stopped for (holding power),
were our two outcome variables. From our models, we found that attraction and
holding power are most strongly influenced by the type of interpretation, with
interactive interpretation seeing nearly four times as many visitors stop, and for
more than six times longer, when compared to standard text and graphics
interpretation. We also found that location was significantly related to attraction
power, with visitors more likely to stop at interpretation in more immersive exhibits.
Lastly, interpretation containing images of humans were related to a higher holding
power. We hope our findings will be used as a guide for designing interpretation that
is both attractive and interesting to zoo visitors, maximizing the conservation
education value of zoo‐based interpretation.

KEYWORDS
design, education, informal, interpretation, zoos

1 | INTRODUCTION Centers dedicated to nature and its conservation, such as

If the biodiversity crisis continues, we are on track for a sixth mass
extinction (Barnosky et al., 2011; Ceballos et al., 2015; Cowie et al., 2022).
Human activities such as climate change, over‐harvesting and habitat‐loss
pose critical threats to global ecosystems (Nielsen et al., 2021). It is
therefore a priority that these activities are halted, mitigated against, and
reversed to avoid irreversible damage to biodiversity.
museums, national parks, zoological gardens, and aquariums are ideal
places to teach and prompt human behavior change, as they reach a
large range of the general population, and are places where visitors
can easily access biodiversity‐related education (Packer, 2006). These
education programs vary, and may include animal talks and
demonstrations, education programs for school groups, as well as
direct contact with education staff or volunteers. One method of

Zoo Biology. 2023;1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/zoo © 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC. | 1

2 |
education that is found in almost all of these institutions is
interpretation. By interpretation, we mean the wide range of
educational signage, interactives and models that can be accessed
by visitors during their visits. Interpretation is freely available to
visitors of all backgrounds, providing all with an opportunity for
learning, even if visitors didn't visit with the intention to learn.
Interpretation has been shown to enable learning and behavior
change in a multitude of settings, such as museums (Cogswell, 2015),
national parks (Ismail, 2008; Mateer et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2021),
zoos (Bitgood, Carnes et al., 1988; Fogelberg, 2014; Parker
et al., 2018; Waller et al., 2012), wildlife tourism sites (Jacobs
& Harms, 2014; Marschall et al., 2017), and public parks (Platter
& Pokorny, 2018). Ouellette (2017) reported that 39.2% of zoo
visitors stated exhibit interpretation as their primary source of
knowledge throughout the visit; the second most frequent answer
following education staff encounters (45.3%). Furthermore, well‐
designed interpretation has shown to increase recall of the
communicated information in comparison to poorly‐designed inter-
pretation (Davis & Thompson, 2011; Derwin & Piper, 1988; Zhu
et al., 2021). Jensen (2006) found that 71.4% of visitors recalled the
main message from a manipulated sign created with the “best
practices of artistic design,” compared to 50.8% of visitors who had
seen the original design. This paper will focus on identifying design
traits of interpretation that are most attractive to visitors, in hopes of
maximizing potential for learning and behavior change.
In the past few decades, zoos have undergone a transformation
from places of entertainment to centers for conservation
(Conway 2003; Smith & Broad, 2007; Tribe & Booth, 2003). In
particular, education has increasingly become a focus for zoos
(Patrick et al., 2007; Roe et al., 2014). WAZA's 2015 Conservation
Strategy states that “zoos and aquariums […] are able to engage and
empower visitors, communities, and staff measurably to save wild-
life,” and that “long‐term conservation success will be linked to how
zoos and aquariums engage with their visitors and change behavior”
(Barongi et al., 2015). The more recent WAZA Conservation
Education Strategy reinforces and builds upon this, summarizing that
“zoos and aquariums play a critical role in building diverse and
sustainable futures for people and nature” (Thomas, 2020). Addition-
ally, the vast majority of zoos mention education in their mission
statements (Patrick & Caplow, 2018; Patrick et al., 2007), and
numerous studies have shown zoos and aquariums capable of
stimulating pro‐conservation behavior change or behavioral inten-
tion, though it is important to note that most behavior change is self‐
reported (E. MacDonald, 2015; Mann et al., 2018; Mellish, Pearson
et al., 2019; Pearson et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2008). This potential for
education combined with the 700 million visits made to zoos and
aquariums annually worldwide (Gusset & Dick, 2011) will prove vital
to human behavior change.
However, interpretation is only meaningful if visitors engage
with it. Interpretation in zoos is an example of free‐choice learning,
which is impacted by individual visitors' demographics, past experi-
ences, and world views (Ballantyne & Packer, 2005; J. H. Falk, 2005;
Tofield et al., 2003). The majority of visitors attend zoos for personal
EDNEY ET AL.
Research highlights
• Zoo interpretation design can increase engagement with
educational messaging.
• Interactive interpretation is more engaging than tradi-
tional signage.
• Design must consider interpretation traits that both
attract and retain visitor interest.
enjoyment or relaxation, rather than with an intention to learn (Carr
& Cohen, 2011; Jordaan & du Plessis, 2014; Knežević et al., 2016);
this means that interpretation must be attractive and capable of
holding visitors' attention. Prior studies indicate that less than 35% of
visitors stop to read signs at zoos and nature reserves (Clayton
et al., 2009; Davis & Thompson, 2011; Holland et al., 2015;
Johnston, 1998; Povey & Rios, 2002), suggesting research into the
attraction power of interpretation is necessary to maximize its
educational impact.
Various design aspects of zoo interpretation (referred to in this
paper as “traits”) have been previously investigated to understand
their attraction power and holding power. Attraction power refers to
the proportion of visitors stop at a piece of interpretation, and
holding power how long they stop for. Serrell (1988) and Fraser et al.
(2009) studied the content of interpretation, finding odd facts and
behaviors about a species were the most important to visitors.
Location, in particular proximity to live animals, has also been studied
multiple times, with findings agreeing that interpretation near live
animals are less successful at attracting and holding visitor attention,
as visitors are spending their time at an exhibit watching the animal
rather than reading the signs (Holland et al., 2015; Ross
& Gillespie, 2009; Ross & Lukas, 2005). Pictures and graphics on
signs were noted to draw visitor attention (Derwin & Piper, 1988;
Jensen, 2006), as well as interactive interpretation or signs with
physical aspects. Most studies agreed that features such as flip
panels, push‐buttons, and molds of animal hands/feet had both
higher attraction power and higher holding power than static signs
(Derwin & Piper, 1988; Jensen, 2006; Ross & Lukas, 2005). Holland
et al. (2015) found that interactive signs had a higher holding power
than static signs, but had the same low attraction power.
This study evaluated multiple traits of interpretation and
statistically evaluated their effectiveness in influencing visitor
engagement. A. Moss and Esson (2010) and Smart et al. (in prep)
have previously assessed multiple animal traits on visitor interest.
This study utilized a similar method, but substituting animal traits for
interpretation traits. We used unobtrusive observations of visitors to
measure attraction power and holding power, similar to other studies
(Jensen, 2006; A. Moss & Esson, 2010; A. G. Moss & Pavitt, 2019;
Smart et al., 2021). This study hopes to inform the design process of
zoo interpretation, with the intention to improve zoo visitor
knowledge, prompt conservation behavior change and, ultimately,
reduce the damage humans pose to global ecosystems.
EDNEY ET AL.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 | Study location
Chester Zoo is located in Northwest England, with 128 acres of
ground and around 20,000 animals (Chester Zoo, 2019). It is the most
visited zoo in the United Kingdom and labeled the third most‐visited
UK attraction in 2021 (ALVA). The interpretation studied is located
throughout the zoo grounds, and are present in a range of species
exhibit styles, from more traditional, functional exhibits, through to
modern immersive and walkthrough exhibits. Whilst some of the
interpretation was located in similar areas, none were directly
adjacent or sequential.
2.2 | Interpretation traits
Ninety‐seven pieces of interpretation around the grounds of Chester
Zoo were selected for study. This was informed by detailed
consultations with Chester Zoo's interpretation staff to include
interpretation with a full range of different design “traits.” “Traits” are
defined as details about a piece of interpretation's design, such as
size, style of images, and percentage of text. All pieces of
interpretation of interest were described by 13 different traits. The
13 traits chosen and their corresponding categories are listed in
Table 1.
2.3 | Procedure
Unobtrusive observations of visitors to the zoo were used to measure
the attraction power and holding power of each piece of interpreta-
tion. Observations began when a visitor entered the “study area”
around the piece of interpretation, an area defined as approximately
2 m either side of the target piece of interpretation (A. Moss and
Esson, 2010). Observations were taken continuously, meaning that
once an observation was complete, the next visitor to enter the study
area was then observed. Only one visitor from a group was observed.
Approximate age, perceived gender (hereafter “gender”), and group
type of the visitor was recorded as demographic data. The
approximate age groups were 18−30, 31−45, 46−60, and 60+
(visitors under 18 were not observed), and group types were adults,
adults with children, and solo visitors (Smart et al., 2021). No visibly
vulnerable adults were selected for observation. To measure
attraction and holding power, whether or not visitors selected for
observation stopped at the interpretation (attraction power) was
recorded, and if they did stop, how long they stopped for (holding
power). Visitors were counted as “stopped” and their time recorded
when they had stood still facing the piece of interpretation, and
looked at it for a minimum of 2 s. The major benefit of using this
approach is that it is a real‐time measure of use or disuse of a
stimulus, rather than a postexperience self‐report which can be
subject to biases. The major drawback, however, is that we can make
| 3
no substantive claim on any changes in cognition as a result of
engagement with interpretation.
Whether the piece of interpretation was located nearby an animal
exhibit was also recorded. If it was located nearby an animal exhibit, the
exhibit type, and whether or not it was a multispecies exhibit, was
recorded, as exhibit type has shown to impact visitor behavior and
learning (Bitgood, Patterson et al., 1988; Fernandez et al., 2009; Smart
et al., 2021). Exhibit type was categorized as functional, naturalistic,
immersive, or walkthrough (A. G. Moss & Pavitt, 2019; Smart et al., 2021;
Smart et al., in prep). An additional categorical variable of zoo area was
also recorded, which identified the zone of Chester Zoo (e.g.,
“Islands,” which houses primarily South‐East Asian species). Between 30
and 60 visitors were observed at each piece of interpretation. The total
number of observations was 3890. The observer wore plain clothing to
remain inconspicuous and avoid social desirability bias (Mellish, Ryan
et al., 2019), and recorded the data using a stopwatch, pencil, and paper.
Data were collected between February and May 2022.
2.4 | Data analysis
For each visitor selected for observation, we had information on the
date and time of their visit, basic demographic information, the
location of the observation, whether or not they stopped to engage
with interpretation (attraction power) and if so, how long they
stopped for (hold time). We then matched the 13 interpretation traits,
the proximity of interpretation to animal exhibits, and some key
exhibit characteristics to each observation.
The holding power of exhibit interpretation was assessed using linear
mixed effect models (LMMs), and the binary dependent variable of
attraction power was assessed using generalized LMMs. To meet the
normality assumptions of linear regression, holding power was log‐
transformed. To understand which variables were most important in
explaining differences in the attraction power and hold time of exhibit
interpretation, we (1) fitted models using all possible combinations of
explanatory variables, (2) selected the best‐performing models, and finally
(3) took a weighted average of these selected models with model weights
based on corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) values (following
E. A. Macdonald, Burnham et al., 2015). AICc is a modified version of the
AIC (Akaike, 1973), corrected for small sample sizes, and is a very widely
used criterion for comparing the fit of multiple competing models to a
given data set with penalties added for the inclusion of additional
variables to help prevent overfitting (Cavanaugh & Neath, 2019).
Following descriptive data analysis, including the plotting of raw
attraction power and hold time data against each of the potential
explanatory variables, cross‐tabulation of the data cross different
categorical variables, and the fitting of some very basic linear models
to identify potential relationships between our explanatory and
dependent variables, seven of the 13 interpretation traits (Table 1)
were deemed to be potentially predictive of the attraction power and
hold time of exhibit interpretation. These seven traits were:
Interpretation type, image type, exhibit type, image of human, text
percentage, presence of education staff and animals visible
4 | EDNEY ET AL.

TABLE 1 Summary of all categories that fall under each interpretation trait.
Traits Categories Definition

Indoors? Yes Interpretation is located inside

No Interpretation is located outside
Covered Interpretation is located outside, but is covered overhead

Size Small Smaller than or equal to A4

Medium A3 size, or size of standard A3 slot board
Large Larger than or equal to A2

Interpretation type ID Standard signs stating name of species, habitat, IUCN status, and basic facts
Interactive Interpretation involves interaction or an activity, instead of just looking/reading. Can be digital or
Illustration/map physical
Other factual Main aspect of the interpretation is a large illustration or map. May have some or no text
accompanying the illustration or map
Interpretation includes other facts about species that aren't included on the ID. Interpretation fits
into none of the other categories above

Subtype Conservation Interpretation mostly discusses conservation, either conservation methods or current conservation
Game projects
People focus Interpretation involves an interactive game
Behind‐the‐scenes Interpretation focuses on the people carrying out conservation in the field or native people of
Interactive the area
Interpretation provides behind‐the‐scenes info about keepers or projects
Interpretation that is another type first, most often illustration/map or other factual, but has a
secondary interactive element

Scheme SDP (strategic Colors and design are based on the SDP region of the zoo the interpretation is located in (Islands,
development plan Madagascar, Foothills, and Floodplains)
themed regions) Core zoo colors and design are used in interpretation, occurs on all pieces of interpretation not
core zoo located in SDP regions or the aquarium
basic Colors and design of interpretation are more basic, only found in the aquarium and on instructional signs

Image type Drawings Interpretation contains drawings

Photos Interpretation contains photos
Photos and drawings Interpretation contains both photos and drawings

Material Digital Interpretation is made up of a digital screen. Screen can be touch screen or non‐touch screen
Physical interactive Non‐digital interactive interpretation
Sign + model Interpretation is made up of a model, often in a cabinet, and accompanying sign
Hard/banner sign Interpretation is sign made of hard material, normally Dibond or aluminum composite, or a fabric banner

Install type Flat & vertical Interpretation is installed vertically flat, either on posts or on a wall
angled Interpretation is installed at an angle, roughly 45°, either on posts or a plinth
exhibition Much larger display that may involve a combination signage, illustrations, or models as one holistic
piece of interpretation

Species type Mammal Interpretation is about mammal species

Lower vertebrates & Interpretation is about lower vertebrate and invertebrate species
invertebrates Interpretation is about bird species
Bird Interpretation is about plant species
Plant Interpretation is about a species not listed above, or a combination of multiple different species
Other/mix Interpretation is not about any type of species
None

Image of human? Yes Interpretation contains a photo or drawing of a human

No Interpretation does not contain a photo or drawing of a human

Text percentage 0%−33% Between 0% and 33% of the piece of interpretation is made up of text
33%−66% Between 33% and 66% of the piece of interpretation is made up of text
66%−100% Between 66% and 100% of the piece of interpretation is made up of text

Image percentage 0%−33% Between 0% and 33% of the piece of interpretation is made up of images
33%−66% Between 33% and 66% of the piece of interpretation is made up of images
66%−100% Between 66% and 100% of the piece of interpretation is made up of images

Presence of Yes Zoo education staff are often present nearby the piece of interpretation
education staff? No Zoo education staff are not often present nearby the piece of interpretation

Note: Traits were derived from detailed discussions with Chester Zoo's interpretation professionals.
EDNEY ET AL.
nearby, species type, zoo area, and date of sampling were included as
random intercepts to account for the potential confounding effects
of species taxonomy, exhibit location and possible date‐dependent
effects such as visitor numbers and weather. To assess the potential
impact of visitor demographics, we constructed initial (G)LMMs for
each dependent variable, including visitor gender, approximate age,
and group type as fixed effects, with the random effect structure as
described above. Marginal R2 for both models was <0.01, and
therefore these variables were omitted from further analysis.
This resulted in a final set of 128 candidate models, including all
127 possible combinations of the 7 fixed effects plus 1 model
including random effects only. These models were fitted using the
lme4 package in R (Bates et al., 2015), and those that produced a
singular fit or did not converge successfully were excluded. We then
ranked the models by AICc and selected the top‐performing models
that were with 4 ΔAICc of the best performing model. ΔAICc refers
to the difference in AICc score between a given model and the top‐
ranked “best” model. While a threshold of 2 ΔAICc is commonly used
and identifies models that are likely to perform as well as the best
model, the setting of AICc thresholds is a subjective choice and even
models with >4 ΔAICc can be informative, although this risks adding
unnecessary complexity for only very marginal gains in explanatory
power (Burnham & Anderson, 2002; Richards, 2005; Richards
et al., 2011). After selecting models below our 4 ΔAICc threshold,
we then used the model.avg function in the MuMIn package
(Barton, 2022) to produce a consensus model with coefficients
weighted by AICc. Akaike weights provide an estimate of the overall
support for a model between 0 and 1, with 1 being full support for a
single model, and 0 being no support for this model (Burnham
& Anderson, 2002).
Data analysis was conducted using Jamovi 2.2.5 (the Jamovi
Project, 2021) and R Studio 4.1.3 (R Core Team, 2022). All figures
were created in R Studio.
3 | RESULTS
Out of 3890 total visitors observed, only 403 (10.4%) visitors were
observed stopping at any piece of interpretation. The mean hold time
across all pieces of interpretation stopped at was 20.5 s (95% CI:
TABLE 2 Summary statistics for best performing models of interpretation attraction power included in model averaging.
Formula (fixed effects) df logLik
AP = Exhibit_type + interpretation_type + animals_visi- 15 −1223.85
ble + image_human + text_percent
AP = Exhibit_type + interpretation_type + image_type + 16 −1223.64
education_staff_present + text_percent
AP = Exhibit_type + interpretation_type + animals_visi- 15 −1225.32
ble + education_staff_present + text_percent
AP = Exhibit_type + interpretation_type + image_type + 14 −1226.84
education_staff_present
| 5
16.6−24.6), and the median hold time across all pieces of interpreta-
tion stopped at was 7 s (range = 2−499).
3.1 | Attraction power
Four candidate models for attraction power were within 4 ΔAICc of
the best performing model. The best performing model included the
predictors animals visible nearby, image of human, exhibit type,
interpretation type, and text percentage, and achieved an Akaike
weight of 0.55, indicating relatively strong support for this model
(Table 2). Education staff present and image type were also included
in at least one of the four selected models. Only exhibit type and
interpretation type were included in all four selected models. The
theoretical marginal R2 (the proportion of the variation in the data
described by fixed effects only) for these four models was low,
ranging from 0.066 to 0.072 (mean = 0.069), while the theoretical
conditional R2 (the proportion of the variation explained by fixed and
random effects together) ranged from 0.128 to 0.177 (mean = 0.153).
Figure 1 shows the for fixed effect coefficients (odds ratios ± 95% CI)
for all variables in the averaged model. Full model coefficients are
presented here, with the coefficients of variables that did not occur in one
of the four selected models set to zero for that particular model, resulting
in most confidence intervals around effect sizes overlapping zero. Based
on full model coefficients, two traits showed significant effects on
attraction power: interpretation type and exhibit type. Visitors were 3.74
(95% CI: 2.24−6.25, p < .001) times more likely to stop at interactive
interpretation when compared to standard species ID boards. Visitors
were 2.11 (95% CI: 1.46−3.03, p < .001) times more likely to stop at a
piece of interpretation in an immersive exhibit than in functional exhibits,
and were 2.13 (95% CI: 1.18−3.82, p = .012) times more likely to do so for
standalone interpretation outside exhibits than at functional exhibits.
Visitors were also 1.47 (95% CI: 0.96−2.27, p = .076) times more likely to
stop at interpretation in naturalistic exhibits compared to functional
exhibits, although this result was marginally nonsignificant at the α = .05
threshold (Figure 1).
Interpretation with a greater proportion of text tended to
achieve lower attraction power, with visitors 0.56 (95% CI:
0.29−1.06, p = .074) times as likely to stop at interpretation featuring
67%−100% text, and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.50−1.06, p = .100) as likely to
AICc ΔAICc AIC weight Marginal R2 Conditional R2
2477.83 0.000 0.549 0.072 0.153
2479.42 1.586 0.248 0.068 0.140
2480.77 2.935 0.127 0.066 0.128
2481.79 3.954 0.076 0.069 0.177
6 |
F I G U R E 1 Model averaged odds ratios for the effect of interpretation traits on attraction power. Point labels indicate the central estimate
for fixed effect odds ratios, and whiskers indicate 95% confidence intervals. *p < .05, ***p < .001.
stop at interpretation featuring 34%−66% text, when compared to
interpretation with 0%−33% text. While these results are marginally
nonsignificant there was an observed reduction in attraction power
as text percentage increased.
3.2 | Holding power
For holding power only one candidate model was selected, with no
other models achieving an AICc score within 4 ΔAICc of the best
performing model. This model included just three fixed effects:
Animals visible nearby, image of human, and interpretation type. The
2 2
model achieved a marginal R of 0.308 and a conditional R of 0.363.
Interpretation that was interactive had the strongest positive effect
on log hold time, with visitors stopping for 6.3 (95% CI: 4.5−9.3,
p < .001) times longer than at species ID boards. Visitors also stopped
at interpretation featuring illustrations or maps 75.6% (95% CI:
15.1−170.5, p = .012) and other factual interpretation 37.5% (95% CI:
9.9−81.7, p = .009) longer than at species ID boards. Interpretation
featuring images of humans increased hold time by 39.5% (95% CI:
4.2−90.8, p = .034) while the presence of animals nearby tended to
increase hold time by 23.5% (95% CI: −7.0 to 57.0, p = .091), although
this result was marginally nonsignificant. These results are
EDNEY ET AL.
summarized in Figure 2; note model coefficients have been
exponentiated to produce percentage change estimates.
4 | D IS CU SS IO N
It is clear that the results of this study point to a need for more
careful consideration regarding interpretation design. Only 10.4% of
all visitors observed stopped for any length of time at a piece of
interpretation. This concurs with other findings, that all suggest that
only 5%−35% of visitors stop at interpretation (Clayton et al., 2009;
Davis & Thompson, 2011; Holland et al., 2015; Johnston, 1998;
Povey & Rios, 2002). This indicates how crucial it is to design
interpretation to be attractive. Considering both attraction power
and holding power together, the results clearly illustrate that
different factors influence both of these variables. Interpretation
with a high attraction power but low holding power, and vice versa,
will likely be ineffective. Balance, therefore, will be incredibly
important in the design of interpretation to ensure attraction and
holding power are both optimized.
Our final models for attraction power reported two variables that
significantly influenced the proportion of visitors stopping at a piece
of interpretation: interpretation type and exhibit type. With
EDNEY ET AL.
F I G U R E 2 Standardized coefficients and 95% confidence intervals for the effect of interpretation traits holding power. Point labels indicate
the central estimate for model coefficients. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
interpretation type, zoo visitors were nearly four time more likely to
stop at interactive interpretation compared to standard species ID
interpretation. Interactive elements may encourage curiosity among
visitors, more so than a static ID sign might, prompting them to stop.
There is some debate in the literature about the attraction power of
interactives. Jensen (2006) agrees with this study's findings, that
interactive interpretation has a higher attraction power, whereas
Holland et al. (2015) suggests that interactives have a higher holding
power, but maintain a low attraction power, in line with other types
of interpretation. With exhibit type, interpretation that was located in
more immersive, modern exhibits had a significantly higher attraction
power than interpretation located in more functional, older‐type
exhibits. Immersive exhibits differ to functional exhibits as they often
contain natural elements that call back to the target species' native
habitat and often have a multisensory aspect to them (temperature,
humidity, sound, smell). Smart et al. (2021) found similar results,
interpretation located in an immersive exhibit having not only
increased attraction power, but increased holding power also.
Additionally, previous studies show that immersive exhibits on the
whole are more attractive for zoo visitors (A. Moss et al., 2008; Ross
& Gillespie, 2009; Yılmaz et al., 2017). This appears to carry over to
interpretation too, suggesting visitors are more inclined to seek out
information about a species if they feel more immersed in that
species' environment. Perhaps of more interest was that interpreta-
tion located away from species exhibits also achieved higher
attraction power, compared to interpretation found in functional
exhibits. This may suggest that the many competing stimuli found
within species exhibits maybe somewhat detrimental to the
attractiveness of interpretation. It does also, however, suggest that
interpretation need not be exclusively located in or around species
exhibits for visitors to engage with it.
It is also worth mentioning that, whilst model averaged
coefficients were not significant, a further four variables were
| 7
included in our final ensemble model for attraction power. These
were, animals visible nearby, education staff present, image of
human, and text percentage. The first two of these tend to positively
influence attraction power, while image of human tends toward a
negative effect, however the evidence here is inconclusive due to the
significant overlap of odds ratio confidence intervals with 1
(Figure 1). With text percentage, there seems to be a clear
relationship between decreasing proportion of text on interpretation
and increasing attraction power. While this variable was not found to
be significant at α = .05, it was only very marginally so, with odds ratio
confidence intervals only very slightly overlapping 1. This is despite
the text percentage variable occurring in only two of four selected
models (Table 2), implying that for those models that include text
percentage, its negative impact on attraction power was strong
(Supporting Information: Figure 1).
Our final model for holding power reported two variables that
significantly predicted visitor holding power: Interpretation type and
Image of a human. Regarding interpretation type, interactive interpreta-
tion had a significantly higher holding power compared to standard ID
interpretation. Similar to our finding with visitor attraction power,
interactives may be more likely to spark curiosity, and engage people
for longer. Additionally, other factual type interpretation (signs that
contain extra facts not included on the ID) had a significantly higher
holding power compared to standard ID interpretation. Visitors to zoos
have reported to be interested in species' odd facts or behaviors (Fraser
et al., 2009), so the content of other factual interpretation may be what
holds visitor attention. Interpretation containing images of humans also
significantly influenced holding power, with a small, positive effect seen in
our model (Figure 2). Again, this demonstrates the need to consider both
attraction power and holding power when designing exhibit interpreta-
tion, as images of humans tended to result in lower attraction power,
despite producing a significant increase in hold time once a visitor had
stopped to engage with the interpretation.
8 |
Looking at the predictors of attraction power and holding power
together, the theme of interactivity comes through strongly. Simply
put, if zoos want more people to stop and engage with their
interpretation for longer, efforts to improve interpretation inter-
activity should be made. We do realize, however, that this may not be
practical for all collections to implement. We must also consider that
our models, whilst providing key information about significant
predictors, only account for a proportion of the variation in attraction
and holding power. Namely, the four models of attraction power
selected for model averaging only accounted for a maximum of
17.7% (mean = 15.3%) of the variation in attraction power; for
holding power, we found 36.3% the variation was explained by our
model. We are not surprised by these figures, however, as any
quantification of human decision‐making and behavior in a complex
physical space such as a zoo is always going to be a research
challenge. Additionally, while an indication that increased inter-
activity within zoo interpretation could increase attraction and
holding power, consideration should be taken as to how much
interactivity is suitable for a site. Audience needs should be
considered at every stage throughout the creation of interpretation
material, and there will likely be both individuals and content matter
that would be better suited to interpretation that requires no
interactivity. We therefore present our findings as a robust guide to
aid interpretation design, rather than a fixed set of rules.
This study will have positive implications for conservation education,
and pro‐conservation behavior change. Pledges to educate and
encourage pro‐conservation behavior among visitors have been increas-
ingly included in the mission statements of zoological institutions (Patrick
et al., 2007), and interpretation designed to maximize attraction and
holding power will help ensure the delivery of these pledges in a free‐
choice learning environment. Reading signage results in successful recall
of the communicated information (Davis & Thompson, 2011; Derwin
& Piper, 1988; Zhu et al., 2021), and also results in learning
(Ouellette, 2017; Waller et al., 2012), demonstrating the importance of
interpretation in the education of zoo visitors, in terms of knowledge‐
gain. Nonetheless, it must be said that knowledge itself is usually only a
small contributor to human behavior change. For example, in the COM‐B
(Capability, Opportunity, Motivation‐Behavior) model of behavior change
(Michie et al., 2011) we find that knowledge is explicitly included as a
predictor, but only as a subcategory of the Capability component. That
said, we find the assertion that interpretation can only affect zoo visitor
knowledge somewhat simplistic. There is no obvious reason why
interpretation cannot also affect Opportunity and Motivation in those
same visitors, given the appropriate interpretation design. Understanding
and evidencing this should be a future research priority. For example,
interpretation that gives visitors the opportunity to donate to specific
conservation program.
There are, of course, limitations to this study. Perhaps of most
import is that while we observed 3890 zoo visitors, only 403
stopped at interpretation. Whilst this is an important finding in
itself, it did limit our data analysis options. For example, we weren't
able to explore any statistical interactions between our predictor
variables, due to the resulting small sample sizes when attempted.
EDNEY ET AL.
Also, in many predictor variables, we had to create categories that
were broader than optimal. For example, in our predictor variable,
interpretation type, we had to reduce an initial 11 categories down
to five. There is also the issue of generalizability; namely, how well
would our findings predict similar patterns in other zoos? Ideally,
multiple sites, across different countries/continents would have
been included in this study, but this wasn't possible due to
resourcing and time constraints. There is also the fact that only
adult visitors were observed in this study, due to ethical
considerations. We acknowledge that it would have been benefi-
cial to have included children. Finally, the use of unobstrusive
observations as a method itself. Whilst we strongly believe that
this is the only way to measure actual interpretation use and disuse
in real‐time, rather than rely on self‐reporting, it does limit what
we can infer from when a visitor has stopped and is engaging with
a piece of interpreation. We have made no claims on any cognitive
shift or gain as a result of these engagements. However, we do
believe that the inclusion of such measures would have been
beneficial. For example, prior knowledge has been suggested to
influence time spent in exhibits and knowledge acquired (J. H. Falk
& Adelman, 2003; J. Falk & Storksdieck, 2005; Johnston, 1998),
while Smart et al. (2021) found larger increases in knowledge at
exhibits where visitors engagement with interpretation was
stronger, although the magnitude of these differences was small.
In the same vein, differing beliefs and values held by visitors may
further influence attention to interpretation, with different signs
appearing more effective for visitors with different beliefs or
values (Ballantyne & Hughes, 2006). Future iterations of this
research might consider including measurements of these and
other related variables.
In conclusion, because of zoos' vast and global audience, this
study has important implications for zoo conservation. Attractive,
engaging interpretation can act as crucial stepping stone to increasing
zoo visitors' conservation knowledge, and to potentially increasing
the uptake of pro‐conservation behavior. Interpretation is able to
reach the wide range of visitors that zoos welcome every year.
Interactive interpretation reaches a large audience especially, as not
only has it been seen to encourage higher attraction power and
holding power, it appeals to all zoo visitors, including people with
special educational needs (Chambers, 1997; Gilde et al., 2008;
Hussein, 2010). Creating interpretation with a balance of traits that
maximize both attraction power and holding power will increase
visitor engagement, visitor learning, and ideally pro‐conservation
behavior. This, in turn, hopes to provide support to current and future
conservation efforts, and reduce the human contribution to the
biodiversity crisis.
CONFLIC T OF INTEREST STATEM ENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the
supplementary material of this article.
EDNEY ET AL.
ETHICS STATEME NT
This study was reviewed and approved by Chester Zoo's independent
ethical review committee (Reference number: CZ202201‐03).
ORCID
Gemma Edney http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4736-8801
REFERENCES
Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum
likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov, & F. Csáki (Eds.), 2nd
international symposium on information theory (pp. 267–281).
Akadémia Kiadó.
ALVA. (2022). 2021 Visitor Figures: Visits made in 2021 to visitor
attractions in membership with ALVA. Retrieved March 24, 2022,
from https://www.alva.org.uk/details.cfm?p=616
Ballantyne, R., & Hughes, K. (2006). Using front‐end and formative
evaluation to design and test persuasive bird feeding warning signs.
Tourism Management, 27(2), 235–246.
Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2005). Promoting environmentally sustainable
attitudes and behaviour through free‐choice learning experiences:
What is the state of the game? Environmental Education Research,
11(3), 281–295.
Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O. U., Swartz, B.,
Quental, T. B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L.,
Maguire, K. C., Mersey, B., & Ferrer, E. A. (2011). Has the Earth's
sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471(7336), 51–57.
Barongi, R., Fisken, A. F., Parker, M., & Gusset, M. (2015). Committing to
conservation (p. 69). WAZA Executive Office.
Barton, K. (2022). MuMIn: Multi‐model inference. R package version
1.46.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed‐
effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1),
1–48.
Bitgood, S., Carnes, J., Nabors, A., & Patterson, D. (1988). Controlling
public feeding of zoo animals. Visitor Behavior, 2(4), 6.
Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit design and visitor
behavior: Empirical relationships. Environment and Behavior, 20(4),
474–491.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel
inference: A practical information‐theoretic approach (2nd ed.).
Springer.
Carr, N., & Cohen, S. (2011). The public face of zoos: Images of
entertainment, education and conservation. Anthrozoös, 24(2),
175–189.
Cavanaugh, J. E., & Neath, A. A. (2019). The Akaike information criterion:
Background, derivation, properties, application, interpretation, and
refinements. WIREs Computational Statistics, 11(3), e1460.
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., &
Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human‐induced species
losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances, 1(5),
e1400253.
Chambers, P. (1997). IV and SEN: Using interactive video with special
educational needs pupils. British Journal of Educational Technology,
28(1), 31–39.
Chester Zoo. (2019). Our zoo. https://www.chesterzoo.org/our-zoo
Clayton, S., Fraser, J., & Saunders, C. D. (2009). Zoo experiences:
Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology,
28(5), 377–397.
Cogswell, A. (2015). Learning in the history museum [University of New
Brunswick].
Conway, W. (2003). The role of zoos in the 21st century. International Zoo
Yearbook, 38(1), 7–13.
| 9
Cowie, R. H., Bouchet, P., & Fontaine, B. (2022). The sixth mass extinction:
Fact, fiction or speculation? Biological Reviews of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society, 97, 640–663.
Davis, S. K., & Thompson, J. L. (2011). Investigating the impact of
interpretive signs at neighborhood natural areas. Journal of
Interpretation Research, 16(2), 55–66.
Derwin, C. W., & Piper, J. B. (1988). The African rock kopje exhibit:
Evaluation and interpretive elements. Environment and Behavior,
20(4), 435–451.
Falk, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2005). Using the contextual model of learning
to understand visitor learning from a science center exhibition.
Science Education, 89(5), 744–778.
Falk, J. H. (2005). Free‐choice environmental learning: Framing the
discussion. Environmental Education Research, 11(3), 265–280.
Falk, J. H., & Adelman, L. M. (2003). Investigating the impact of prior
knowledge and interest on aquarium visitor learning. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 163–176.
Fernandez, E. J., Tamborski, M. A., Pickens, S. R., & Timberlake, W. (2009).
Animal–visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and
interventions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 120(1), 1–8.
Fogelberg, K. (2014). Unsilencing voices: A study of zoo signs and their
language of authority. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(4),
787–799.
Fraser, J., Bicknell, J., Sickler, J., & Taylor, A. (2009). What information do
zoo & aquarium visitors want on animal identification labels? Journal
of Interpretation Research, 14(2), 7–18.
Gilde, B., Kosmaczewski, S., Maglione, N., & Ziobron, J. (2008). Adapting
zoos victoria educational programs for students with disabilities.
Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Gusset, M., & Dick, G. (2011). The global reach of zoos and aquariums in
visitor numbers and conservation expenditures. Zoo Biology, 30(5),
566–569.
Holland, M., Roberson, R., Teal, C., Bailey, K., Mallavarapu, S., &
Taglialatela, L. (2015). Visitor behavior in the living treehouse at
Zoo Atlanta. Kennesaw State University.
Hussein, H. (2010). Using the sensory garden as a tool to enhance the
educational development and social interaction of children with
special needs. Support for Learning, 25(1), 25–31.
Ismail, M. H. (2008). The role of interpretive signage in enhancing
conservation knowledge, awareness and behavior among visitors at
the Penang National Park. Universti Putra Malaysia.
Jacobs, M. H., & Harms, M. (2014). Influence of interpretation on conservation
intentions of whale tourists. Tourism Management, 42, 123–131.
Jensen, K. A. (2006). Effects of the artistic design of interpretive signage
on attracting power, holding time and memory recall. Humboldt
State University.
Johnston, R. J. (1998). Exogenous factors and visitor behavior: A
regression analysis of exhibit viewing time. Environment and
Behavior, 30(3), 322–347.
Jordaan, Y., & Du Plessis, G. M. (2014). Motivators to visit the National
Zoological Gardens of South Africa. African Journal of Hospitality,
Tourism and Leisure, 3(1), 1–15.
Knežević, M., Žučko, I., & Ljuština, M. (2016). Who is visiting the Zagreb
Zoo: Visitors' characteristics and motivation. Sociologija i prostor, 54
205(2), 169–184.
MacDonald, E. (2015). Quantifying the impact of Wellington Zoo's
persuasive communication campaign on post‐visit behavior: Post
visit conservation behavior. Zoo Biology, 34(2), 163–169.
Macdonald, E. A., Burnham, D., Hinks, A. E., Dickman, A. J., Malhi, Y., &
Macdonald, D. W. (2015). Conservation inequality and the charis-
matic cat: Felis felicis. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 851–866.
Mann, J. B., Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2018). Penguin promises:
Encouraging aquarium visitors to take conservation action.
Environmental Education Research, 24(6), 859–874.
10 | EDNEY
Marschall, S., Granquist, S. M., & Burns, G. L. (2017). Interpretation in
wildlife tourism: Assessing the effectiveness of signage on visitor
behaviour at a seal watching site in Iceland. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, 17, 11–19.
Mateer, T. J., Taff, B. D., Miller, Z. D., & Lawhon, B. (2020). Using visitor
observations to predict proper waste disposal: A case study from
three US national parks. Current Research in Environmental
Sustainability, 1, 16–22.
Mellish, S., Pearson, E. L., McLeod, E. M., Tuckey, M. R., & Ryan, J. C.
(2019). What goes up must come down: An evaluation of a zoo
conservation‐education program for balloon litter on visitor under-
standing, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
27(9), 1393–1415.
Mellish, S., Ryan, J. C., Pearson, E. L., & Tuckey, M. R. (2019). Research
methods and reporting practices in zoo and aquarium conservation‐
education evaluation. Conservation Biology: Journal of the Society for
Conservation Biology, 33(1), 40–52.
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behavior change
wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behavior
change interventions. Implementation Science: IS, 6, 42.
Moss, A., & Esson, M. (2010). Visitor interest in zoo animals and the
implications for collection planning and zoo education programmes.
Zoo Biology, 29(6), 715–731.
Moss, A., Francis, D., & Esson, M. (2008). The relationship between
viewing area size and visitor behavior in an immersive asian elephant
exhibit. Visitor Studies, 11(1), 26–40.
Moss, A. G., & Pavitt, B. (2019). Assessing the effect of zoo exhibit design
on visitor engagement and attitudes towards conservation. Journal
of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 7(4), 186–194.
Nielsen, K. S., Marteau, T. M., Bauer, J. M., Bradbury, R. B., Broad, S.,
Burgess, G., Burgman, M., Byerly, H., Clayton, S., Espelosin, D.,
Ferraro, P. J., Fisher, B., Garnett, E. E., Jones, J. P. G., Otieno, M.,
Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., Trevelyan, R., van der Linden, S., …
Balmford, A. (2021). Biodiversity conservation as a promising
frontier for behavioural science. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(5),
550–556.
Ouellette, B. (2017). How zoo signs can increase the quality of guest
education. IZE Journal, 53, 12–14.
Packer, J. (2006). Learning for fun: The unique contribution of educational
leisure experiences. Curator: The Museum Journal, 49(3), 329–344.
Parker, E. N., Bramley, L., Scott, L., Marshall, A. R., & Slocombe, K. E.
(2018). An exploration into the efficacy of public warning signs: A
zoo case study. PLoS One, 13(11), e0207246.
Patrick, P. G., & Caplow, S. (2018). Identifying the foci of mission
statements of the zoo and aquarium community. Museum
Management and Curatorship, 33(2), 120–135.
Patrick, P. G., Matthews, C. E., Ayers, D. F., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007).
Conservation and education: Prominent themes in zoo mission
statements. The Journal of environmental education, 38(3), 53–60.
Pearson, E., Dorrian, J., & Litchfield, C. (2011). Harnessing visual media in
environmental education: Increasing knowledge of orangutan conserva-
tion issues and facilitating sustainable behaviour through video
presentations. Environmental Education Research, 17(6), 751–767.
Platter, H. N., & Pokorny, S. B. (2018). Smoke‐free signage in public parks:
Impacts on smoking behaviour. Tobacco Control, 27(4), 470–473.
Povey, K. D., & Rios, J. (2002). Using interpretive animals to deliver
affective messages in zoos. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7(2),
19–28.
R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
https://www.R-project.org/
View publication stats
ET AL.
Richards, S. A. (2005). Testing ecological theory using the information‐
theoretic approach: Examples and cautionary results. Ecology, 86(10),
2805–2814.
Richards, S. A., Whittingham, M. J., & Stephens, P. A. (2011). Model
selection and model averaging in behavioural ecology: The utility of
the IT‐AIC framework. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65,
77–89.
Roe, K., McConney, A., & Mansfield, C. F. (2014). The role of zoos in
modern society—A comparison of zoos' reported priorities and what
visitors believe they should be. Anthrozoös, 27(4), 529–541.
Ross, S. R., & Gillespie, K. L. (2009). Influences on visitor behavior at a
modern immersive zoo exhibit. Zoo Biology, 28(5), 462–472.
Ross, S. R., & Lukas, K. E. (2005). Zoo visitor behavior at an African ape
exhibit. Visitor Studies Today, 8(1), 4–12.
Serrell, B. (1988). The evolution of educational graphics in zoos.
Environment and Behavior, 20(4), 396–415.
Smart, T. F., Moss, A., & Willis, S. G. (2023). Spatial and phylogenetic
patterns in terrestrial vertebrate attractiveness to humans.
Smart, T., Counsell, G., & Quinnell, R. J. (2021). The impact of immersive
exhibit design on visitor behavior and learning at Chester Zoo, UK.
Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 9(3), 139–149.
Smith, L., & Broad, S. (2007). Do zoo visitors attend to conservation
messages? A case study of an elephant exhibit. Tourism Review
International, 11(3), 225–235.
Smith, L., Broad, S., & Weiler, B. (2008). A closer examination of the
impact of zoo visits on visitor behaviour. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, Sep 8 16(5), 544–562.
The Jamovi Project (2021). Jamovi (Version 2.2.5) [Computer Software].
https://www.jamovi.org
Thomas, S. (2020). Social change for conservation: The world zoo and
aquarium conservation education strategy. WAZA Executive Office.
Tofield, S., Coll, R. K., Vyle, B., & Bolstad, R. (2003). Zoos as a source of
free choice learning. Research in Science & Technological Education,
21(1), 67–99.
Tribe, A., & Booth, R. (2003). Assessing the role of zoos in wildlife
conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 8(1), 65–74.
Waller, B. M., Peirce, K., Mitchell, H., & Micheletta, J. (2012). Evidence of
public engagement with science: Visitor learning at a zoo‐housed
primate research centre. PLoS One, 7(9), e44680.
Yılmaz, S., Düzenli, T., & Çiğdem, A. (2017). Visitors experiences in
different zoo exhibits. Current World Environment, 12(1), 17–27.
Zhu, L., Davis, L. S., & Carr, A. (2021). A picture is not always worth a
thousand words: The visual quality of photographs affects the
effectiveness of interpretive signage for science communication.
Public Understanding of Science, 30(3), 258–273.
SUPP ORTING INFO RM ATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the
Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Edney, G., Smart, T., Howat, F.,
Batchelor, Z. E., Hughes, C., & Moss, A. (2023). Assessing the
effect of interpretation design traits on zoo visitor
engagement. Zoo Biology, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21759