How Do Visitors from Different Cultural Backgrounds Perceive the Messages Conveyed to Them by Their Local Zoo?

Abstract

As educational institutions, zoos provide an informal, free-choice learning environment. To understand the complex processes of learning in the zoo we must therefore take into account the visiting family's culture. The study presented here, conducted in the Tisch Family Zoological Gardens in Jerusalem, investigates how visitors from different cultural backgrounds experience the zoo and interpret its intended messages. We found that, ultimately, the zoo is perceived similarly by the Arab and Jewish visitors as an educational institution, although what they come there to learn is different. Moreover, with regards to the message of conservation, neither population sees it as a major, prominent message. Despite the overall similarity in our participants' response to the zoo as an enjoyable, cultural educational institute, there were some differences in the experiences of Jewish vs. the Arab visitors, reflected primarily in their animal preferences, and also in the types of messages that they suggest the zoo is conveying to them.

How does perception of zoo animal welfare influence public attitudes, experiences, and behavioural intentions? A mixed-methods systematic review

“…In contrast, captivity was perceived to negatively impact zoo animal welfare more often than positively impact welfare in this theme [9–11, 16, 18, 29, 31–39, 41, 45, 46, 52–67]. Articles highlighted beliefs amongst visitors that zoo animals are wild animals imprisoned and denied the freedom of their natural habitats, which zoos can never replicate.…”

“…Study participants believed that zoo animals have a right to life [48], to appropriate end-of-life care [69], to choice and control over their environments; consequently, provision of these rights was integral to perceptions of animal welfare as good or bad. Beliefs involving animals’ freedom of choice included access to preferred food items [39], chosen activities such as swimming or playing [16, 41] (as animals should be able to “ do whatever they want” [41]), and ability to remain within private areas unseen by visitors [38, 46, 47, 54, 55, 70] and away from noise [50]. Furthermore, an animal’s right to choose to participate in direct interactions including training, performance activities, and receiving direct human contact was highlighted as important to welfare and thus linked to ethical acceptability of these practices [10, 11, 36, 71, 72].…”

“…Zoos’ perceived (in)ability to provide appropriate habitats impacted the acceptability of captivity and thus welfare perceptions toward several taxa, including cetaceans [9, 10, 36, 56, 67], polar bears [41], primates [57, 58, 60], elephants [46, 88, 89], birds [11, 66], sloths [30], and pythons [30]. Perceived intelligence [10, 46], sentience [60], and large size [90] were also contributing factors to perceived negative welfare. Explanations included, “ the more intelligent I think an animal is, the more I think they are prone to boredom and that is what puts me off zoos or other captive displays.…”

“…Consistent amongst the reviewed articles was that naturalistic exhibits (i.e. exhibits designed to be aesthetically appealing and mimic natural habitats [58]) were associated with more positive welfare perceptions [11, 16, 18, 19, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42–44, 46, 47, 51, 52, 62, 64, 65, 70, 88, 95–98, 105, 109, 119–129]. However, naturalistic enclosures may impinge on expression of natural behaviour as naturalistic aesthetics do not always equate to usable space [95, 130].…”

An International Investigation of the Prevalence of Negative Visitor Behaviour in the Zoo

“…Cultural differences in how visitors view animals may have a profound impact in the area of animal welfare and visitor effect studies [ 36 ]. For example, Tishler et al [ 37 ] investigated how different cultural groups in Jerusalem, Israel perceived the zoo. The authors reported that regardless of background, most visitors had positive feelings toward the zoo and regarded it as an educational institution; however, there were religious and cultural differences in areas such as favourite animal and interpretation of zoo messaging.…”