A Review of Zoo and Aquarium Evaluation Literature

Worldwide, zoos and aquariums reach an estimated 620 million people each year. In the United States alone, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA, the organization that accredits 223 North American zoos and aquariums) estimates that these institutions reach 175 million people a year. The authors of this paper reviewed the existing evaluation literature related to zoo and aquarium visits to paint a picture of zoo and aquarium visitors and the effectiveness of education they receive during their visits.

AZA research indicates that women and mothers between the ages of 25 and 35 are the most frequent zoo visitors, and the average household income of zoo visitors is similar to the average U.S. household income. Although these are the most common demographics, zoos nevertheless serve a wide diversity of people from a range of ages, races, and socioeconomic backgrounds. In fact, the authors note that “zoo and aquarium visitors are diverse compared with those served by other environmental education institutions.”

Research also reveals that two-thirds of adults who visit zoos come with a child, making educational programs for these intergenerational audiences a high priority at many zoos. And educating these audiences requires that program developers and evaluators keep this in mind: zoo and aquarium visitors are knowledgeable about wildlife and conservation and may have more positive attitudes toward conservation than the general public. Program developers should also consider that visitors' motivations for coming to the zoo range widely across a spectrum of “purely recreational to primarily educational.”

When visitors engage in learning at zoos and aquariums, they largely find what researchers call “free-choice” learning opportunities. That means that the visitors are free to choose when, where, and how they learn. Of course, the centerpiece of zoo and aquarium education is live animals. The authors' literature review discusses how having live animals on display can give visitors the chance to “make personal connections with wildlife, which may promote emotional growth as well as curiosity and learning.”

The researchers' literature review revealed a variety of motivations for conducting evaluations: improving programs, demonstrating successes for stakeholders, leveraging funds, and even peer pressure from other institutions. When evaluations are conducted, they most commonly focus on how education programs affect knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of visitors. The authors also point out that actual conservation outcomes are increasingly of interest to evaluators. That is, institutions are starting to look more closely at how their programs contribute to their ultimate mission of improving the conservation status of wildlife or their habitats.

“Despite many reasons to support evaluation,” the authors find that “many institutions are not conducting social research.” Personnel are most likely to name a shortage of time, money, and expertise as reasons to skip evaluations. Other researchers have found that the possibility of poor results, and the daunting nature of a comprehensive evaluation as further barriers. The authors conclude that zoos and aquariums can do more to evaluate their education programs: “Although evaluation efforts are growing in number, recent research suggests that they are still not common practice for many institutions.” Moving forward, the field should work toward removing the barriers of time, money, and expertise. Doing that, the authors contend, “will lead to programs that are more adept at affecting visitors in ways that render positive outcomes for wildlife, habitats, and people--for now and for generations to come.”