OVERVIEWS

Conservation education in NINA V. NYGREN

zoos – a literature review University of Tampere

SANNA OJALAMMI
The Nordic Africa Institute /
Research Cooperative Tapaus

Introduction
Zoos have a very long history: keeping (Gusset & Dick 2011). Zoos organize
wild and/or exotic animals captive was al- themselves into networks for coopera-
ready known in ancient Greek and Roman tion, research, certification, monitoring
times (e.g. Barantay and Hardouin-Fugier and development purposes; these net-
2003; Kisling 2000; Miller 2013). Zoos and works include the Association of Zoos &
aquaria differ from place to place, but in Aquariums (AZA), the European Associa-
general zoos can be understood as areas tion of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) and the
designed for the public viewing of animals World Association of Zoos and Aquari-
(Anderson 1995; 1998). Viewing animals ums (WAZA). In Europe, the mission of
is usually the main reason for the zoo visit EAZA is to facilitate cooperation within
(Roe & McConney 2015, 879). Thus zoos the European zoo and aquarium com-
can be seen as choreographed and con- munity towards the goals of education,
structed places for controlled interaction research and conservation (www.eaza.
between human and non-human animals, net). In fact, zoos are better conceptu-
guiding the interaction between the vis- alized as a network that circulates and
itors and the captive animals in many governs animals and information about
concrete, subtle and practical ways (e.g. animals (Braverman 2013; 2015).
Braverman 2011). Zoos have undergone a tran-
In many of today’s cities, large sition over the past 40 years, moving
areas of land have been designated for the focus from entertainment to con-
zoos, and annually more than 700 million servation-based education (Roe et al
people visit zoos and aquaria worldwide 2014; Wijeratne ym. 2014; Bayma 2012;

TRACE ∴ FINNISH JOURNAL FOR HUMAN-ANIMAL STUDIES VOL 4. (2018)

­ allantyne­­ym. 2007; Patrick et al. 2007)
B Fernandez et al. 2009) to ask if seeing ani-
and this shift is still ongoing. The former mals in the flesh contributes to the visitors
legitimation of zoos as places for view- becoming more “conservation minded”.
ing exotic animals has been increasingly
challenged, and new legitimation claims,
Empirical Zoo visitor research and
those of education and the conservation
environmental education
of endangered animals, have been intro-
duced. (Bayma 2012; Beardsworth & Bry- In this review, we look at how the alleged
man 2001, 89; Fennell 2013). These two conservation education in zoos has been
are combined in the claim that zoos edu- studied in empirical zoo visitor studies.
cate their visitors on conservation by ex- We have undertaken a qualitative me-
hibiting live animals – zoos act not only as ta-analysis (Zimmer 2006; Evans 2008;
reservoirs of endangered animals but they Walsh & Downe 2004) of the empirical
also claim to make visitors more “conser- articles on zoo visitors and environmental
vation-minded” after their zoo experience education, with a focus on methodology
(Fennell 2015; Fernandez et al 2009). and the nature of “nature conservation”.
Thus, it is fundamental to the ethics of We searched for empirical visitor research
keeping animals in zoos (Wijeratne et. al. particularly on learning, education­­ and
2014; Moss & Esson 2013; Fennell 2012; conservation, and chose 31­­articles for

New signs from the WAZA campaign “Biodiversity is us”. Helsinki zoo, April 2016.

NYGREN & OJALAMMI 63

the analysis (see Table 1 at the end). The standing and knowledge of actions to
list is not meant to be exhaustive but we help protect biodiversity had increased
have strived to choose the most relevant as a result of zoo and aquaria visits (Moss
articles regarding our research aim. Most et al. 2014a). But establishing the leap to
of the articles were published 2007-2016, conservation action (behaviour change)
but we have included two older articles is challenging (Moss et al. 2014a) and
since they were widely cited. the connection is not simple and linear
The overall evidence that the vis- (Spannring 2017, 68).
itors learn about conservation and biodi- Many have tried to measure the
versity, and even more importantly, that change that environmental education
this learning results in behavioural chang- in zoos attempts to make. Interestingly
es, remains quite weak. Irus Braverman most of these studies use different names
(2015) notes that the effectiveness of for the change they are trying to meas-
education in zoos has rarely been tested ure: e.g. “pro-environment sentiment”
through comprehensive studies. A large (Powell & Bullock 2014), “conservation
study conducted by the AZA (Falk et al. ethos” (Catibog-Sinha 2008), “conserva-
2007) was heavily criticized because it tion intentions” (Smith & Sutton 2008;
was based on self-reporting and did not Miller et al. 2013), “conservation minded-
directly measure knowledge or behav- ness” (Powell & Bullock 2014), “conserva-
iour changes, and also had other flaws tion caring” (Skibins & Powell 2013, 530),
connected to the difficulty of surveys “conservation attitudes and behaviour”
and self-reporting in general (Marino, Lil- (Ballantyne et al. 2007), “environmen-
ienfeld, Malamud, Nobis & Broglio 2010). tal intentions” (Jacobs & Harms 2014)
The authors later rejected the critique and “biodiversity literacy” (Moss, Jensen
(Falk, Heimlich, Vernon & Bronnenkant & Gusset 2014) were mentioned. These
2010). In 2012-2015 WAZA collaborated concepts do not necessarily mean the
with researchers and conducted a global same thing and there doesn’t seem to
survey of zoo and aquaria visitors where be a consensus on which concept to use.
biodiversity literacy – “biodiversity un- Jacobs and Harms (2014) provide a slight-
derstanding and knowledge of actions ly broader interpretation (as compared
to help protect biodiversity” – was eval- to many other authors) incorporating
uated. The results were published both in the different, related concepts, and not-
a report (Moss, Jensen & Gusset 2014a) ing that “values, attitudes, knowledge,
and in scientific articles (Moss, Jensen & norms, awareness of consequences,
Gusset 2014b; 2015; 2016). The report feelings of responsibility, and affect and
concludes that both biodiversity under- emotion” are “psychological antecedents

64 TRACE 2018
of environmental intentions, and by ex- but straightforward (Smith et al. 2008;
tension, wildlife conservation intentions.” Spannring 2017).
The studies also utilize different For this reason, much of the re-
methods of empirically operationalizing search has focused on which aspects of
the studied change in the analysis. Swan- the zoo visit might make a difference.
agan (2000) uses the evidence of visitors Studied variables include naturalness
signing a petition as a sign of commit- and interactiveness of the exhibits (e.g.
ment to conservation, but mostly self-re- Swanagan 2000; Ballantyne et al. 2007,
porting has been in use, as when Powell 372; Ross et al. 2012; Lukas & Ross 2014),
and Bullock (2014) ask about the visitors’ animal activity and eye contact with the
emotional responses and willingness to animals (Powell & Bullock 2014), animal
change their behaviour (e.g. change daily charisma (Smith & Sutton 2008), inter-
activities or donate to conservation or- pretation of conservation (by guides)
ganizations). (Jacobs & Harms 2014) or duration of
This wide variety of concepts and stay (Smith & Broad 2008). The post-visit
operationalizations probably reflects the material has also proved important (e.g.
fact that measuring learning and tracing MacDonald 2015; Wu et al., 2013).
behavioural changes is notoriously diffi- To summarize the empirical re-
cult. Learning is not a fast, simple, one- sults of the studies mentioned above,
way process, but complex, slow and inter- they seem to indicate that the visitor
active. Many writers admit that it is not learns best if
really possible to study the effects of zoo
visits per se since information and experi- 1) s/he is already a “conservation mind-
ence of the visit is processed differently ed” visitor,
from individual to individual, depending
2) the visit takes place in an interactive
on different background knowledge and
and naturalistic setting
attitudes (e.g. Ballantyne et al. 2007,
375). For example, Davidson et al. (2009) 3) the animals are active and/or char-
conclude that learning during a student ismatic
field trip depends strongly on the soci- 4) there is contact, such as eye contact
ocultural context of the classroom and with the animal
is less dependent on the zoo educator’s
5) the visit is comparatively longer
agendas. The most important thing for
the students is the social context – being 6) the social context (such as that of the
with friends. Even if the visitor learns, the classroom) and the post-visit material
step from learning to action is anything support the learning aims of the visit.

NYGREN & OJALAMMI 65

Fundraising for snow leopard conservation. Helsinki zoo, January 2016

Snow leopard. Helsinki zoo, January 2016

66 TRACE 2018
The material and methods vary in the nections than others to in-situ conserva-
articles under analysis, but surveys and tion (see Gusset & Dick 2010) and many
self-reporting connected to quantitative have developed conservation campaigns
methods are common. The data from around select species, hoping to raise
surveys and structured interviews used public awareness and action for con-
for quantitative analysis, however, give servation among zoo visitors (Skibins &
only a narrow view of the different mean- Powell 2013, 529). The ongoing debate
ings and experiences of zoo visits, and do between “new conservation” and tradi-
not seem a good measure of conserva- tional conservation (see e.g. Braverman
tion education in zoos. We feel that qual- 2015a; Gusset & Dick 2010; Soulé 2013)
itative, interpretive analyses of visitor ex- makes defining conservation even more
periences are needed to understand this difficult: if there is no wilderness and
aspect better. pristine nature “out there”, what is nature
conservation all about?
Anderson (1995) and Braverman
What is “nature conservation” ?
(2012; 2014) have shown how zoos sepa-
Environmental and often more specifical- rate humans from other animals and from
ly conservation education and learning is non-human nature. Zoos place humans
the objective of zoo education, and many above and separate from non-human na-
articles strive essentially to measure the ture, as a threat or a saviour, a learner, a
effects of this education. But how does visitor, a tourist. Braverman concludes
this volume of research envision nature, that in zoos the public is educated about
nature conservation and the zoos’ role in the definition and identity of nature, as
conservation? well as the proper human relationship to
Nature conservation spans a this nature. A zoo’s nature is juxtaposed
broad field of practices big and small, with modern urban life and it is seen as
ranging from protected areas to inter- a pre-existing entity that “reinforces the
national conservation agreements, to notion of humans and nature as separate
zoos and the managing of biodiverse and remote”. (Braverman 2012, 837; also
gardens. Zoos have long advocated their Braverman 2014; 2015.) “Zoo nature” –
conservation role as genetic reservoirs “wild” animals – is portrayed as different
and captive breeding centres, and refu- from non-wild nature such as pets but also
gia for species of animals whose natural as inferior to the in situ nature of conserva-
habitats are severely threatened (Dickie tion projects. Zoos may separate the visi-
et al. 2007), in addition to conservation tors from non-human nature, rather than
education. Some zoos have stronger con- connect them to it. The articles ­analyzed

NYGREN & OJALAMMI 67

here do not take a critical stance on the Perkins 2016). The research cited by Bal-
portrayal of nature in the zoos. lantyne et al. (2007, 377) and Smith et
The “conservation” or “nature” of al. (2008, 547) suggests that in general
“nature conservation” is often not explic- zoo visitors are already convinced that
itly defined in the articles studied. Implic- conservation problems exist (the only
itly, however, they reflect the zoos’ own conservation related information often
narrow view of conservation: zoos are provided by zoos), and they would want
portrayed as reservoirs and as captive to learn about solutions and actions they
environments for nonhuman and often can undertake themselves.
exotic and charismatic animals, involved
in in situ and reintroduction projects. 2. As a consequence of the above, (in situ)
Examples of this separation in the conservation and endangerment is often
articles include the following: implicitly displayed in the articles as hap-
pening somewhere else, somewhere far
1. Conservation is often implicitly por- away from the city or country where the
trayed as something that is done by some- zoo is located.
one else, not by the visitors.
Zoos have a colonialist history, display-
This is evident in the way conservation ing exotic animals (sometimes even hu-
learning or behaviour changes are meas- man animals) from faraway countries,
ured: in the surveys, conservation often and this heritage is still alive today (An-
means donating money to a conservation derson 1995). Most of the articles do not
programme or signing a petition. Only oc- take this into consideration at all. As an
casionally does it mean something more exception among the articles studied,
personal and active, e.g. recycling (Smith Chalmin-Pui and Perkins (2016) note crit-
et al. 2008). This also seems to reflect the ically this same omission in the informa-
expectations of zoos – Roe & McConney tion provided at the London Zoo’s BUGS
(2014, 876, 881) found that the zoo rep- exhibit.
resentatives believed their visitors are
least interested in learning about what 3. If visitor post-visit actions were meas-
they can do themselves to help save the ured (i.e. asked to self-report), these ac-
animals. Some studies address the issue tions would appear rather modest (e.g. re-
of connecting visitors’ everyday lives and cycling paper for hawk conservation as in
the fates of endangered zoo animals (Bal- Smith et al. 2008) when compared to the
lantyne et al. 2007, 377; Roe et al. 2014, seriousness of the biodiversity crisis.
538; Smith et al. 2008; Chalmin-Pui &

68 TRACE 2018
In general, however, there seems to be We believe that more qualitative methods
a move towards more effective actions should be used in visitor studies, and that
such as lifestyle changes as reported in it is urgent to widen the view of nature
the more recent literature. conservation, human-animal relations
and environmental education in zoos.
4. The role of human-animal relationships,
specifically the role of emotion and affect
between human and nonhuman animals
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
is mentioned in a number of articles, but
mostly these are studied quantitatively This review stems from a project be-
and from survey material. tween the Helsinki zoo and research
cooperative Tapaus. The authors would
Analysis of the role of non-human animals like to thank the director of Helsinki zoo,
in zoo encounters and the relationships Sanna Hellström for collaboration. In ad-
between animal and human individuals dition we would like to thank the editors
is largely missing. The so-called “animal for helpful comments and Michael Ow-
turn” is also slowly surfacing in environ- ston for checking the language. The pho-
mental education research (Spannring tos have been taken during the collection
2017) and clearly it would also require of empirical material at the Helsinki zoo
more attentive and qualitative research in spring and summer of 2016.
in zoos (see Ojalammi & Nygren, forth-
coming).

Conclusions
Our conclusions based on the literature
review are that the studied zoo visitor
literature doesn’t take a critical enough
stance on the zoos’ own conservation
views, which point to a rather narrow
set of practices and to a narrow view of
human-animal relationships. Research
based on surveys and quantitative meth-
ods also give little, if any, room for a di-
versity of meanings concerning zoo visits
and more-than-human practices in zoos.
Table 1: Articles analyzed in this literature review

Reference Object of study Material and methods

1 Moss, Jensen & Gusset Biodiversity-related Global survey of zoo visitors

2016 knowledge and self-reported
proconservation behaviour
2 Moss, Jensen & Gusset Contribution of zoos and Global survey of zoo visitors
2015 aquaria to Aichi Biodiversity
Target 1.

3 Chalmin-Pui & Perkins How visitors relate to Personal meaning

2015 biodiversity conservation at the mindmapping, cognitive
London Zoo’s “BUGS’ exhibit world maps. Descriptive and
statistical analysis
4 MacDonald 2015 Impact of Wellington Zoo’s Experimentation, survey,
persuasive communication quantitative analysis
campaign on post-visit
behaviour
5 Birenboim et al. 2015 Visitor experiences SMS reporting, geotagging
with GPS, quantitative
analysis
6 Roe & McConney 2015 Visitor learning Mixed methods:
questionnaire, staff
interviews, case studies.
Comparative, quantitative,
qualitative analysis
7 Moss, Jensen & Gusset Biodiversity literacy Global survey of zoo visitors
2014
8 Roe et al. 2014 Comparison of zoos’ reported Online questionnaire, mixed
priorities and what visitors methods in case zoos.
believe they should be Quantitative and qualitative
analysis
9 Wijeratne et al. 2014 Delivering conservation Semi-structured interviews,
interpretations qualitative analysis
10 Powell & Bullock 2014 Factors affecting emotional Survey, statistical analysis
responses in zoo visitors and
the impact of emotion

70 TRACE 2018
11 Jensen 2014 Children’s conservation biology Questionnaires and
learning at the zoo drawings, qualitative
analysis
12 Luebke & Matiasek 2013 Zoo visitors experiences and Questionnaires, quantitative
reactions analysis
13 Wu et. al. 2013 Factors helping visitors Survey, quantitative analysis
convert their short-term pro-
environmental intentions to
long-term behaviours
14 Millet et. al. 2013 Conservation education at Survey, quantitative analysis
dolphin shows
15 Skibins & Powell 2013 Influence of zoo visitors’ Surveys, quantitative
connection to wildlife on pro- analysis
conservation behaviors
16 Packer & Ballantyne 2012 Comparing visitor attributes, Pre- and post-visit
experiences and outcomes questionnaires, quantitative
between captive and non- analysis
captive wildlife tourism sites
17 Marseille et al. 2012 Feelings and cognitions Interviews with Likert
in relation to a visitor’s scale answers. Quantitative
conservation attitude outcomes.
18 Ross et. al. 2012 The impact of exhibit design on Observation: Tracking
visitor behaviour and timing. Comparative
analysis.
19 Carr & Cohen 2011 Public face of zoos Content and semiotic
analysis of the websites of
54 zoos worldwide
20 Marino 2010 Attitude change in visitors. Theoretical and
A critical evaluation of the methodological critique
American zoo and aquarium
study (Falck et. al 2007)
21 Wagner et. al. 2009 Measuring conservation Pre- and post-visit surveys,
outcomes quantitative analysis
22 Davidson et. al. 2009 Interaction of the agendas and Observation, surveys,
practices of students, teachers interviews, students work.
and zoo educators Grounded theory approach.

NYGREN & OJALAMMI 71

23 Mony & Heimlich Message communication in Mixed methods: semi-struc-
2008 docent-visitor Interactions tured interviews, observa-
tion, quantitative analysis
24 Smith & Broad 2008 Attending to conservation Observations, quantitative
messages analysis
25 Smith et. al. 2008 Impact of zoo visits on visitor Structured interviews,
behaviour action research.
Quantitative analysis
26 Falck et. al. 2007 Impact of a visit to a zoo or Literature review, public
aquarium forums with zoo profes-
sionals, mixed methods:
quantitative and qualitative
methods, including written
questionnaires, interviews,
tracking studies, and Per-
sonal Meaning Mapping
(PMM).
27 Mason 2007 Role of zoos Survey, quantitative analysis
28 Ballantyne et al. 2007 Conservation learning Literature review
29 Lukas & Ross 2005 Zoo visitor knowledge and Survey, quantitative analysis
attitudes toward gorillas and
chimpanzees
30 Swanagan 2000 Zoo visitors’ conservation Survey, observation,
attitudes and behaviour solicitation cards (self
reporting)
31 Broad & Weiler 1998 Comparing two different Interviews, self-reported
captive animal exhibits perceptions of learning.
Interpretive, quantitative
analysis

72 TRACE 2018
REFERENCES

Anderson, K. 1995. “Culture and Nature at the Adelaide zoo: at the frontiers of human
geography”. Transactions of the British Geographers 20, 275–294.
Anderson, K. 1998. “Animals, science, and spectacle in the city.” In J. R. Wolch, & J. Emel
(eds.), Animal geographies. place, politics and identity in the nature-culture border-
lands. London: Verso. 25-50.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., Hughes, K., & Dierking, L. 2007. “Conservation learning in
wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums.”  Environ-
mental Education Research 13(3), 367-383.
Baratay, E., & Hardouin-Fugier, E. 2003.  Zoo: A history of zoological gardens in the
west. Reaktion Books.
Bayma, T. 2012. “Rational myth making and environment shaping: The transformation
of the zoo.” The Sociological Quarterly 53(1), 116-141.
Birenboim, A., Reinau, K. H., Shoval, N., & Harder, H. 2015. “High-resolution measure-
ment and analysis of visitor experiences in time and space: The case of Aalborg Zoo
in Denmark.”The Professional Geographer 67(4), 620-629.
Bostock, S., C. 1993. Zoos and Animal Rights. The ethics of keeping animals. New York:
Routledge.
Braverman, I. 2011. “Looking at Zoos.” Cultural Studies, 25(6), 809-842.
Braverman, I. 2012. Zooland: The Institution of Captivity. Stanford University Press.
SUNY Buffalo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-038.
Broad, S., & Weiler, B. 1998. “Captive animals and interpretation: A tale of two tiger
exhibits.” Journal of Tourism Studies 9(1), 14.
Catibog-Sinha, C. 2011. “Zoo tourism and Conservation of Threatened Species: a col-
laborative programme in the Philippines.” In Frost, Warwick (ed.), Zoos and tourism:
conservation, education, entertainment? Bristol: Channel view publication. 133–142.
Clements, J. M., McCright, A. M., Dietz, T., & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. 2015. “A behavioural
measure of environmental decision-making for social surveys.” Environmental Soci-
ology 1(1), 27-37.
Davidson, S. K., Passmore, C., & Anderson, D. 2010. “Learning on zoo field trips: The
interaction of the agendas and practices of students, teachers, and zoo educa-
tors.” Science Education 94(1), 122-141.
Evans, J., & Jones, P. 2011. “The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place.” Ap-
plied Geography 31(2), 849-858.

NYGREN & OJALAMMI 73

Falk, J.H.; Reinhard, E.M.; Vernon, C.L.; Bronnenkant, K.; Deans, N.L.; Heimlich, J.E.,
2007. “Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit.” Silver Spring,
MD: Association of Zoos & Aquariums.
Fennell, D. A. 2012. “Tourism, animals and utilitarianism.”  Tourism Recreation Re-
search 37(3), 239-249.
Fennell, D. A. 2015. “The status of animal ethics research in tourism: A review of the-
ory.” In K. Markwell (ed.), Animals and tourism. understanding diverse relationships.
Channel View Publications. 27-43.
Fernandez, E., J.; Tamborski, M., A.; Pickens, S., R. and Timberlake, W. 2009. “Animal–
visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions.” Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 120, 1–8.
Fraser, D. 2009. “Assessing animal welfare: different philosophies, different scientific
approaches.” Zoo Biology 28 (6), 507-518.
Gusset, M., & Dick, G. 2011. “The global reach of zoos and aquariums in visitor numbers
and conservation expenditures.” Zoo Biology 30(5), 566-569.
Jacobs, M. H., & Harms, M. 2014. “Influence of interpretation on conservation inten-
tions of whale tourists.” Tourism Management 42, 123-131.
Jokinen, A., Asikainen, E., & Mäkinen, K. 2010. “Kävelyhaastattelu tapaustutkimuksen
menetelmänä.” Sosiologia 47(4), 255-269.
Kisling, V. N. 2000. Zoo and aquarium history: Ancient animal collections to zoological
gardens. CRC press.
Laatu, S. 2013. “The development of animal welfare in Finland and how people perceive ani-
mal welfare: Case study: Animals in tourism: Zoos.” Vaasa University of Applied Sciences.
Luebke, J. F., & Matiasek, J. 2013. “An exploratory study of zoo visitors’ exhibit experi-
ences and reactions.” Zoo Biology 32(4), 407-416.
Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. 2005. “Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes toward gorillas
and chimpanzees.” The Journal of Environmental Education 36(4), 33.
Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. 2014. “Naturalistic exhibits may be more effective than tra-
ditional exhibits at improving zoo-visitor attitudes toward african apes.”  Anthro-
zoös 27(3), 435-455.
Lummaa, K., & Rojola, L. (eds.). 2014. Posthumanismi. Turku: Eetos.
MacDonald, E. 2015. “Quantifying the impact of Wellington Zoo’s persuasive communi-
cation campaign on post-visit behaviour.” Zoo Biology 34(2), 163-169.
Marino,L., Lilienfeld, S., O., Malamud, R., Nathan N., Nathan and Brogliod, R. 2010. “Do
Zoos and Aquariums Promote Attitude Change in Visitors? A Critical Evaluation of
the American Zoo and Aquarium Study.” Society and Animals 18, 126-138.

74 TRACE 2018
Marseille, M., Elands, B., H., M. and Brink, M. L. van den. 2012. “Experiencing Polar
Bears in the Zoo: Feelings and Cognitions in Relation to a Visitor’s Conservation At-
titude.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17(1), 29-43.
Mason, P. 2007. “Roles of the modern zoo: conflicting or complementary?” Tourism
Review International 11(3), 251-263.
Melfi, V., A. 2009. “There are big gaps in our knowledge, and thus approach, to zoo
animal welfare: a case for evidence-based zoo animal management.” Zoo Biology 28
(6), 574-588.
Miller, I. J. 2013. The nature of the beasts: Empire and exhibition at the Tokyo Imperial
Zoo. University of California Press.
Miller, L., Zeigler-Hill, V., Mellen, J., Koeppel, J., Greer, T., & Kuczaj, S. 2013. “Dolphin
shows and interaction programmes: Benefits for conservation education?” Zoo Biol-
ogy 32(1), 45-53.
Minteer, B. A., & Collins, J. P. 2013. “Ecological ethics in captivity: Balancing values and
responsibilities in zoo and aquarium research under rapid global change.” Ilar Jour-
nal 54(1), 41-51.
Mony, P. R., & Heimlich, J. E. 2008. “Talking to visitors about conservation: Exploring
message communication through docent–visitor interactions at zoos.” Visitor Stud-
ies 11(2), 151-162.
Moss, A., & Esson, M. 2013. “The educational claims of zoos: Where do we go from
here?” Zoo Biology 32(1), 13-18.
Nygren, N. V., & Jokinen, A. 2013. “Significance of affect and ethics in applying conser-
vation standards: The practices of flying squirrel surveyors.” Geoforum 46(0), 79-90.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.006
Ojalammi, S., & Nygren, N. V. (forthcoming). “Visitor Perceptions of Nature Conserva-
tion at Helsinki Zoo.” Anthrozoös, in print.
Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. 2012. “Comparing captive and non-captive wildlife tour-
ism.” Annals of Tourism Research 39(2), 1242-1245.
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 Environ-
mental Education 38(3), 53-60.
Powell, D. M., & Bullock, E. V. 2014. “Evaluation of factors affecting emotional respons-
es in zoo visitors and the impact of emotion on conservation mindedness.” Anthro-
zoös 27(3), 389-405.
Roe, K., & McConney, A. 2015. “Do zoo visitors come to learn? an internationally com-
parative, mixed-methods study.” Environmental Education Research, 21(6), 865-884.

NYGREN & OJALAMMI 75

Roe, K., McConney, A., & Mansfield, C. F. 2014. “The role of zoos in modern socie-
ty. A comparison of zoos’ reported priorities and what visitors believe they should
be.” Anthrozoös 27(4), 529-541.
Rothfels, N. 2002. Savages and beasts: The birth of the modern zoo. JHU Press.
Skibins J. C. and R. B. Powell. 2013. “Conservation caring: measuring the influence of
zoo visitors’ connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviours.” Zoo Biology 32,
528-40.
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 16(5), 544-562.
Stoinski, T. S., Ogden, J. J., Gold, K. C., & Maple, T. L. 2001. “Captive apes and zoo ed-
ucation.” In B. B. Beck et al. (eds.), Great apes & humans: The ethics of coexistence.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 113–132.
Swanagan, J. S. 2000. “Factors influencing zoo visitors’ conservation attitudes and be-
haviour.” The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 26-31.
Wijeratne, A. J., Van Dijk, P. A., Kirk-Brown, A., & Frost, L. 2014. “Rules of engagement:
The role of emotional display rules in delivering conservation interpretation in a zoo-
based tourism context.” Tourism Management 42, 149-156.
Wolfe, Cary. 2012. Before the law: Humans and other animals in a biopolitical frame.
University of Chigago Press.
Wu, J., Huang, D., Liu, J., & Law, R. 2013. “Which factors help visitors convert their
short-term pro-environmental intentions to long-term behaviours?”  International
Journal of Tourism Sciences, 13(2), 33-56.
Zelezny, L. C. 1999. “Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviours:
A meta-analysis.” The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 5-14.

ONLINE SOURCES:
http://www.eaza.net/about-us/ (accessed 2.12.2015)
http:// www.aza.org/AboutAZA/mission/index.html (accessed 2.12.2015)
https://www.aza.org/StrategicPlan/ (accessed 18.12.2015)

76 TRACE 2018