Human behaviors are at the heart of many of today's most pressing environmental problems. And although formal education can play an important role in helping motivate environmentally friendly behavior, the authors of this paper cite a surprising statistic: “over the course of a lifetime, the average citizen spends only only 3% of [his/her] time in school or formal education experiences.” Informal, or “free-choice,” learning experiences create the bulk of the opportunity for learning. Among free-choice learning opportunities, wildlife tourism is one that has not yet garnered much focus from the science education community, but that holds tremendous promise as it is a growing industry worldwide. And research suggests that consumers are looking not just for tourism experiences that give them opportunities to view wildlife, but also that promote a conservation ethic.
The authors conclude that wildlife tourism “has the opportunity to play a positive role in helping to solve global environmental problems by providing environmental education experiences that promote a fundamental change in people's everyday behavior and lifestyle.” But, they argue, it's an opportunity that's easily missed in many free-choice learning settings. In this paper, the authors don't report on recent research; instead, the paper reviews the potential of free-choice learning to change behavior, and suggests ways to achieve that potential.
First, the authors explain that while wildlife tourism (and, often, ecotourism in general) offers an exceptional opportunity to reach people with a strong conservation message, it's often a missed opportunity. They cite research from Australia in which researchers recorded tour operators' talks in protected areas for 60 hours, and found just one message encouraging conservation action. In another example from an American zoo, docents were observed sharing simple facts about animals, instead of tying those facts to the zoo's larger conservation messages.
Clearly, in many instances, message delivery needs to be refined if there's any hope of spurring behavioral change. But even when messages are more clear, it's not well known how long the impacts will last. The authors cite past research that has tied free-choice learning experiences to gains in knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. But, they explain, “Little is known . . . about the impact of such experiences on visitors' adoption of environmentally sustainable practices after they leave the site.”
Unfortunately, although many people leave a visit to a zoo or aquarium feeling committed to changing their behaviors for the better, the authors cite several studies that suggest that without reinforcement after the visit, those changes in commitment or planned action fade over time. The authors themselves conducted previous research in Australia that found that immediately following a wildlife tourism experience, visitors' intentions to “'do the right thing' for the environment” rose, but those intentions fell back to pre-visit levels within four months. And 93% of visitors failed to take the intended actions after four months.
The authors argue that theories of learning and behavior could help shape tourism experiences that are more likely to lead to lasting behavior changes. They suggest targeting three key areas: pre-visit learning predispositions, on-site experiences, and post-visit reinforcement. In terms of visitors' pre-visit dispositions for learning, the authors argue that every audience is different, and messages must be tailored to the audience. They suggest that “Tourism providers thus need to collect information about their visitors' entering attributes, including their existing knowledge and beliefs, and their motivations regarding their visit, in order to ensure that educational messages are relevant and effective.”
A variety of learning and behavior theories can inform on-site learning. The authors particularly emphasize the need to incorporate both cognitive and affective elements in visitors' experiences, fully engaging visitors and causing them to reflect on their experiences. It's also important, they note, to consider both the sociocultural context and the physical environment. For example, this might include ensuring that visitors have opportunities to see animals up close (addressing the physical environment) or that staff are available for questions (sociocultural context).
Finally, the authors explain that while visitors may leave with the best intentions to support the environment, they “need to be supported and encouraged . . . to translate their good intentions into real actions.” The authors call for specially designed educational materials, which they refer to as action resources, that reinforce conservation messages, provide examples of desired behaviors, and motivate visitors to take action. They suggest print and web-based learning materials, including social media, that offers a range of suggested actions so that visitors can select the actions appropriate for them. And, in fact, they cite current research that's in press that suggests that this kind of approach has been effective at motivating long-term behavior change.
The Bottom Line
Visitors often leave free-choice learning experiences, such as visits to zoos or aquariums or other wildlife tourism experiences, intending to improve their environmental behaviors. But those intentions tend to fade over time. If an institution's goal is to motivate environmental behavior among visitors, this goal needs to be approached explicitly. Messages and tactics must be targeted to the audience. Learning experiences must be designed with behavior change in mind. And visitors need to be supported with follow-up information or action resources after their visit. The resources must be clearly behavior-oriented and offer examples, models, and motivation.