-=-----:

The'Nationalt,ibrary supplies copi~ of this

... "
afticle under licence from the Copynght .
.
Agency Limited (CAL). Further reproductions of thiS
article can only be made under licence.

Abstract
This study examines the role
that tourist attractions can
play in educating visitors. In
particular, it compares the
learning opportunities at two
ver;)' different captive animal
exhibits: one within a
traditional %00 environment,
the other within a tourist
theme park. The research
critically assessed the
interpretive content and
techniques used at each site
in relation to three levels or
categories of learning:
cognitive, affective and
behavioural learning. The
findings revealed a
relationship between the type
of display and the
interpretive techniques used,
the visitors' experience at the
site, and the quantity and
quality of learning that took
place. These findings are
important for managers
attempting to use captive
animal exhibits as tourist
drawcards and as tools to
improve conservation.
Recommendations are also
offered for further research
linking interpretation, visitor
profiles, the visit experience
and visitor learning at tourist
attractions.

Sue Broad is a PhD candidate in

the Department of Leisure and
Tourism Studies, University of
Newcastle, Australia.
Or Betty Weiler is Associate
Professor of Tourism, RMIT,
Melbourne, Australia.

14

Captive Animals
and
Interpretation
A tale of two tiger
exhibits

Sue Broad
and
Betty Weiler

Introduction

In the end, we will conserve only what we love. We will

love only what we understand; we will understand only
what we are taught.
(Baba Dioum in Linton Craig, 1988.)
Animals have been kept in captivity for thousands of years.
Initially held for humankind's amusement and interest, in more recent
times these facilities have been called on to defend their actions. Zoos
attract hundreds of millions of visitors worldwide each year (lUDZG The World Zoo Organisation and The Captive Breeding Specialist
Group ofIUCN/SSC, 1993), and other attractions such as theme parks
are increasing their use of captive animals (Martin & Mason, 1993).
However, with the growth in the animal rights movement, the keeping
of animals in captivity has received much attention and criticism.
Zoos maintain that their activities in education, research and
conservation justify keeping animals in captivity (Serrell, 1981;
Chiszar, Murphy & Iliff, 1990). Their opponents, however, believe
that these roles are not sufficient reasons for depriving animals of
their freedom, and they argue that zoos are not effective at
undertaking these roles (Sommer, 1972; Jamieson, 1985, 1995). The
content of zoo education messages in particular is questioned (DeLapa,
1994), with many zoo professionals themselves acknowledging the
need for a change in focus regarding zoo education (Hancocks, 1995)
and for the education of zoo visitors to be both improved and

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 9, No. 1, MAY '98

automatically result from the

provision of facts about the
animal. To facilitate a change in
visitors' behaviour, elements in
addition to the cognitive domain
must be targeted, using
techniques such as positive or
negative reinforcement (e.g.,
financial rewards for recycling;
fines for littering) or an appeal to
the affective domain (e.g., the
feel-good
adopt-an-animal
programs offered at many zoos)
(Orams, 1994).

expanded, with more programs

aimed at the general zoo visitor,
instead of the traditional focus on
formal school educational visits
(Williamson, 1987; Hamilton,
1993; Ollason, 1993). With the
increasing use of captive animals
as a drawcard for tourist
attractions, there is an urgent
need to examine whether these
exhibits play a role in educating
visitors and thereby contribute to
the long-term conservation of the
species.

research published on the topic.

Environmental
education
literature which focused on
informal education at exhibits
was also reviewed. For a more
complete report on the findings
from this review of literature, the
reader is referred to the thesis
upon which this paper is based
(Broad, 1996).

This paper reports on a study

comparing the learning opportunities at two very different
captive animal exhibits: one
within a traditional zoo environment, the other within a tourist
theme park. The paper begins
with a review of the relevant
literature, followed by an outline
of the study's research objectives,
methods and limitations. The
paper concludes with a discussion
of the results and their relevance
to the management of animal
exhibits at tourist attractions,
including recommendations for
future research.

Learning styles relate to how

particular individuals respond to
1. an educational experience that the information that they
is recreational, enjoyable and encoun ter,
with
different
individuals having different
satisfying;
'preferences' for one or more
2. cognitive learning of facts learning styles (Christensen,
regarding the animals, and the 1994; Parker, 1996). Christensen
function and management of (1994) suggests information be
the zoo or exhibit;
provided in a variety of ways,
such as using auditory modality
3. attitude change towards a (e.g., talks, music), visual
concern and commitment for modality (e.g., pictures, videos,
wildlife and conservation; and
graphics) and kinaesthetic
modality (e.g., touch tables). By
4. behavioural change, including providing interpretive messages
appropriate on-site behaviour in a combination of styles, the
and long-term environmentally number of visitors having access
to information in their preferred
responsible behaviour.
learning style will be increased.
(Hunt, 1993; Serrell, 1981;
Wheater, 1984; Whitehead, 1984; Thus, there is a need to incorDonahoe, 1986; Wilson, 1987; porate a range of techniques into
Linton Craig, 1988; Chiszar, interpretive programs so as to
Murphy & Iliff, 1990; Nimon, access a range of learning styles.
1990; Roggenbuck, Loomis & Numerous books and articles
Dagostino, 1990; IUDZG - The have been written providing
World Zoo Organisation and The comprehensive recommendations
Captive Breeding Specialist regarding how to increase the
Group of IUCN/SSC, 1993; educational effectiveness of
animal exhibits. However, there
DeLapa, 1994).
is often a lack of empirical
To maximise the effectiveness of research cited as support for the
interpretation, the literature recommendations given. For
suggests that planners must have instance, Simpkin (1994) asserts
a know ledge of both learning that signs are the least effective
theories and styles of learning method of education in a zoo
(Orams, 1994; Christensen, 1994; setting, and that keeper talks and
Parker, 1996). Learning theories guided tours can provide
describe the process of how substantial educational benefits.
learning occurs and are linked to Likewise, Whitehead (1984)
the latter three objectives declares that personal contact is
mentioned above. For example, if the most effective way of reaching
a change in behaviour (objective visitors. While these suggestions
4. above) is the educational appear to be based on the
objective of an exhibit, planners authors' own experiences, neither
must be aware that this will not author cites evidence of empirical

Education and learning are seen

to be important outcomes of
interpretation. These two terms
are used in this paper to refer to
the educational objectives,
programs and opportunities
intentionally provided to visitors
by the various forms of
interpretation of captive animal
displays, whether they are formal
or informal, written or unwritten.
In this paper, learning is not
limited to the cognitive
dimension, but is also seen as
having affective and behavioural
dimensions.
Literature review
In order to understand better the
relationships between interpretation, the visit experience
and visitor learning, a number of
bodies of literature were
reviewed, including the history of
captive animal displays, theories
of learning, techniques for
education in a captive animal
environment and empirical

The literature concerning the

history of zoos and the objectives
of zoo education uncovered four
ca tegories
of educational
objectives. These were:

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 9, No. 1, MAY '98

15

research as the basis for these

statements.
Critics of captive animal displays
suggest that there has been little
research undertaken to ascertain
the effectiveness of education and
interpretation within captive
animal environments (Sommer,
1972; Jamieson, 1985). Much of
the previous empirical research
relevant to captive animal displays has focused on the impact
of exhibit design on visitors.
These studies are largely concerned with visitor attitudes
toward and/or satisfaction with
the exhibits, their enjoyment
levels and their on-site behaviour,
rather than any examination of
visitor learning, either shortterm or long-term (Rhoads &
Goldsworthy, 1979; Bitgood,
Benefield, Patterson & Nabors,
1986; Bitgood, 1987; Bitgood &
Benefield, 1987; Maple &
Finlay, 1987; Finlay, James &
Maple, 1988; Shettel-Neuber,
1988; Kidd, Kidd & Zasloff,
1995). Research examining
learning within zoos has tended
to focus on assessing the effectiveness of formal education of school
groups, possibly because this
audience is easier to identify,
access and measure (Marshdoyle,
Bowman & Mullins, 1982; Adams,
Thomas, Lin & Weiser, 1989;
Gutierrez de White & Jacobson,
1994; Ford, 1995). Further,
research into informal learning
has tended to use post-test designs
only to measure immediate
impacts of viewing exhibits (Wolf
& Tymitz, 1979; Peart, 1984;
Derwin & Piper, 1988).
A further gap within the
literature relates to the lack of
discussion as to whether other
attractions that exhibit animals,
such as theme parks, are bound
by or are achieving the same
educational objectives.
Research objectives
This paper reports on a study
undertaken in Australia in 1996
comparing informal education at
a zoo exhibit (Western Plains
Zoo's tiger exhibit) and at a

16

theme park displaying captive

animals (Dreamworld's Tiger
Island). The location and a more
detailed description of each of
these two sites is presented in
the results section of the paper.
The study sought to answer the
following question; to what
extent are attractions that
display captive animals offering
visitors an opportunity to learn,
and how do visitors respond to
these opportunities?

interpretive techniques used.

with the information also
analysed to identify the styles of
learning catered for and the
range of techniques present.

1. to describe each exhibit in

relation to the interpretive
techniques used;

Systematic observations of
visitors at each exhibit were
undertaken
and
involved
recording visitor group characteristics, and a range of visitor
behaviours including length of
visits, and activities such as
reading interpretive material
and interactions with keepers.
Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with a sample of
visitors at each exhibit in order to
determine
visitor
group
characteristics and visitors'
perceptions oflearning.

2. to document the range of

visitors and 'visit experiences'

A systematic, stratified sampling

technique was used in selecting

The current paper will present

findings in relation to the
following objectives;

Critics of captive animal displays suggest that there

has been little research undertaken to ascertain the
effectiveness of education and interpretation within
captive animal environments.

at each exhibit; and

3. to determine visitors' perceptions of what they learned
at the exhibit.
Methods and limitations
Data were collected from April to
August 1996, using three methods;
content analysis of primary and
secondary data; systematic
observations of visitors; and
interviews
with
visitors.
Following is a description of each
of these methods as it relates to
the study objectives.
Tiger Island and Western Plains
Zoo were visited on several
occasions, during which time
written material available to
visitors was collected, verbal
messages were recorded and the
range of experiences open to
visitors was documented. This
information allowed each exhibit
to be described in relation to the

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIESVo!. 9, No. 1, MAY'98

visitors for both observation

and interviews, to ensure data
were collected at different times
of the day and week and in
holiday
and
non-holiday
periods, and to reduce any bias
from the researcher in the
selection of individual visitor
groups for observation or
interview. Thus a level of
representativeness was obtained, decreasing the probable
sampling error (Babbie, 1989)
and enabling some degree of
generalisations to be made to
the larger populations of
exhibit visitors. Altogether over
a period of fourteen days, ninetyfive groups were systematically
observed and seventy-four groups
were interviewed at Tiger Island,
while at Western Plains Zoo,
sixty-four groups were systematically observed and sixtytwo groups were interviewed.
Group size ranged from one to
twelve individuals at both sites.
The response rate for interviews

was 91% at Tiger Island and 98'70

at Western Plains Zoo.
In order to classify the content of
communications, a number of
categories were defined. As
mentioned earlier, the four main
education objectives identified
from the literature are an
enjoyable experience; cognitive
learning; attitude change; and
behavioural change. As the
latter three objectives are
consistent with the literature on
learning theory, these were used
to develop three categories aimed
at classifying whether communications related to the
cognitive domain, the affective
domain or the conservation /
behaviour domain.
These
categories formed the basis of the
content analysis of the following:
Tiger Island's and Western
Plains
Zoo's
interpretive
messages (written and verba\);
visitors' questions to handlers/
keepers and the handlers/
keepers' answers; and visitors'
responses to the semi-structured
interview survey regarding what
they perceived they had learned
at the exhibit.
In the results that follow, the
cognitive domain is represented
by the category Facts about
Tigers and includes interpretive
messages and visitor responses
dealing with tigers in general,
such as how big tigers grow, and
what tigers eat. The affective
domain is broadly represented by
the category Feelings about
Tigers and includes communications which are linked to
emotional responses in visitors
and how they 'connect' with the
sites' individual animals. It
includes information such at the
tigers' names, ages and
relationship to each other, and
each tiger's personality, favourite
games, toys and past-times. The
category Conservation represents
information on conservation
issues such as the number of
tigers left in the world, why tiger
numbers are declining, and
suggestions for behavioural
change such as what visitors
should do if they see tiger

products for sale or know anyone

using them. Key words and
themes were used to determine
the classification of data among
the three categories.
Clearly, the study design and
methods do not provide a true
measure of behaviour change.
Suggestions for how behaviour
change might be measured in
future research are provided at
the end of the paper. Also, due to
logistics and resource constraints, it was not possible to
undertake a true objective
measure of learning using preand post-tests. The interviews
therefore used visitors' self
reported perceptions of what they
learned as a surrogate measure
oflearning.
Results
This section firstly provides a
brief description of each exhibit,
and then outlines and discusses
the results with respect to each
objective, presented in the form
of a comparison of the two sites.

Tiger Island Dreamworld,

The Gold Coast
Tiger Island is an interactive
tiger exhibit, promoted as a
unique attraction, one of only two
such exhibits in the world
(Dreamworld, 1995). It is located
within
the
theme
park
Dreamworld, which is situated on
the Gold Coast, Queensland,
Australia, a highly developed and
popular tourist destination for
both Australian and overseas
visitors.
Dreamworld is a
privately owned, profit making
tourist attraction and was opened
in December 1981, with Tiger
Island opening in June 1995.
Cost of admission to Dreamworld
is $35 for adults and $21 for
children. The park has an
attendance of approximately one
million visitors per year.
Tiger Island exhibits six Bengal
tigers, including both white and
gold tigers, in a 1600 square
metre enclosure featuring a

thirteen square metre pool.

Throughout the day, a team of

eight handlers interact with the
tigers, swimming, playing and
relaxing with them. Behind the
visitor viewing area is the Bengal
Teahouse which serves snacks
and refreshments and provides
seating that looks over Tiger
Island from where visitors can
hear and interact with handlers.

Western Plains Zoo . Dubbo

Western Plains Zoo is situated
approximately five kilometres
from the small inland city of
DUbbo, NSW, Australia. Dubbo
lies 400 kilometres northwest of
Sydney,
midway
between
Melbourne and Brisbane. The
Western Plains Zoo has a world
class reputation and is Dubbo's
most popular tourist attraction.
The zoo, opened in 1977, is
operated by the Zoological Board
of NSW, and receives partial
funding from the NSW Government with additional finance
raised through operations,
sponsorship and donations.
Admission in $14.95 for adults,
and
$7.50
for
children.
Attendance is approximately 250
000 visitors per year.
Western Plains Zoo is an open
range zoo, and displays more
than fifty species of animals.
Visitors may drive, walk or
bicycle around the zoo's six
kilometres of ringroad and ten
kilometres of walking paths. The
zoo currently exhibits one white
male Bengal tiger in a
naturalistic enclosure.

Objective 1 Findings: Describe

the Interpretive Techniques
Used at Each Exhibit
As mentioned above, Tiger Island
and Western Plains Zoo were
visited on a number of occasions
during which time, printed
material available to visitors was
collected and the range of
experiences open to visitors was
documented. An analysis of this
information was then undertaken
to identify the styles of learning
and type and range of interpretive techniques used by each

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!' 9, No. 1, MAY'98

17

exhibit, and to classify the

content of interpretive messages
according to whether it related to
Facts about Tigers (cognitive
domain); Feelings about Tigers
(affective domain); or Conservation (behavioural change).
Each exhibit has a different
emphasis regarding the interpretive techniques used and the
access visitors have to inter
pretation.
Tiger Island is
extremely resource intensive,
relying heavily on its interactive
nature. An analysis of the
interpretive techniques used at
Tiger Island indicates the
majority
of
interpretive
messages at Tiger Island are
presented through handler talks
which occur constantly throughout the day. During this time,
one of the handlers uses a
microphone to talk to visitors,
who are encouraged to ask
questions, while they view the
interactions between handlers
and tigers in the enclosure.
Support for such talks and interaction as 'an effective way of
educating visitors was evident in
the literature (Simpkin, 1994;
Andersen, 1992; Moscardo, 1996).
However,

several
other
techniques are also used. Visitors
may read a number of free
brochures, a number of interpretive displays located at the
main entrance to Tiger Island, or
a souvenir book available for
purchase. Visitors may touch
artefacts that are brought out by
handlers, and groups of up to four
visitors may pay $250 to have
their photo taken with a tiger,
spending fifteen minutes patting
the tiger and talking to its
handlers, as well as receiving an
information kit. Visitors may
also just watch the tigers, away
from the handler talk. The
availability of these different
opportunities suggests that
multiple styles of learning are
being provided at Tiger Island
(Christensen, 1994; Parker,
1996), with visitors having access
to all interpretive elements at
Tiger Island every day, and at
any time of the day.

18

In comparison, Western Plains

Zoo is less resource intensive.

The exhibit displays only one

tiger, and while only one or two
keepers may be on duty at the
tiger exhibit each day, these
keepers are also responsible for
several other exhibits and are
rarely seen. Apart from the tiger
enclosure, graphics and keeper
talks are the main techniques
used to present interpretive
messages. A permanent interpretive sign and a small
temporary sign with basic
biographical facts about the tiger
on display are located at the
enclosure. A ten minute keeper
talk is given once a day at the
exhibit during school holidays
and on weekends. Interactions
between the keepers and the tiger
occur only when keepers feed the
tiger during the talks, with
interactions between keepers and
visitors only occurring during
question time after the talks.

and touch table) or require

prearranging and additional
expense (guided zoo tours).
To classify the content of
interpretive messages, a content
analysis was undertaken at each
site. At Tiger Island, four written
interpretive elements were
analysed: the interpretive signs;
free pamphlets; the photo
information kit; and the souvenir
book. Figure 1 illustrates how
information contained in each
was distributed among the three
categories of Facts about Tigers
(cognitive), Feelings about Tigers
(affective) and Conservation
(behavioural).

It was not possible to undertake a

systematic analysis of the
handler talks. This is because
there is not a set 'script' for
handler presentations, with the
content varying significantly
according to which handler is on
the microphone, the level of
The zoo also offers several other visitor interaction and the
interpretive elements in relation activity of the tigers. However,
to tigers which visitors may from listening to and recording
access, such as a touch table some of the talks during the data
displaying various animal collection period, it is possible to
artefacts (operated by volunteers say that at various times during
on an infrequent basis) and a the day handlers provided
number of zoo tours (for an information in each category,
additional fee). A guidebook of with distribution between each
Western Plains Zoo is also category varying in relation to the
available for purchase which activity of the tigers. When the
includes approximately half a tigers are active, and especially
page related to tigers. While the when they are in the water, the
literature recommends presenting content of messages relates
information in a variety of styles mainly to interpretation of the
(Christensen, 1994; Parker, behaviour being observed by
1996), the vast majority of zoo visitors, which would therefore be
visitors have access to a very classified as Facts about Tigers.
limited range of learning styles, In comparison, when the tigers
with visual learning the are less active, information is
dominant style. Interpretive provided by handlers in each
signage and a single tiger usually category, with information fairly
sleeping or reclining in a evenly distributed between the
relatively large enclosure are the categories of Facts about Tigers
only interpretive elements to and Feelings about Tigers,
which all visitors have access. On however Conservation is still a
the days when there are no talks much smaller category.
given, the tiger exhibit is a static,
naturalistic display, relying on An analysis of the interactions
the use of graphics for inter- between visitors and handlers
pretation.
The additional (Table 1) illustrates that the
opportunities that enable visitors category Feelings about Tigers is
to interact with volunteers or the focus of most questions and
keepers are limited (keeper talks answers, although as can be seen

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY '98

60

50

;;

40

" 30
~

;;

."

20
10

Free Brochures

Interpretive Signs

Photo Info Kit

Souvenir Book

Interpretive Element
a Facts about Tigers

Feelings about Tigers

a Conservation

The analysis of the interpretive signs included both text and photos,
whereas only the text of the souvenir book was analysed.

Figure 1: Distribution of interpretive message content Tiger Island

(Source: Broad, 1996 Content Analysis Data.)

from the numbers of answers in
relation to the number of
questions, handlers may expand
their answers to include more
than one category.
At Western Plains Zoo a content
analysis was undertaken on the
signs and transcripts of two
taped keeper talks. While the
handler talks at Tiger Island
could not undergo a con ten t
analysis due to the variation in
their content, the keeper talks at
the zoo were able to be analysed
as the talks are a standard
length of ten minutes, and
keepers stated that they have
guidelines on what information to
cover. Figure 2 shows how the
information for each element was
distributed among the three
categories Facts about Tigers;
Feelings about Tigers; and
Conservation.
An accurate content analysis
could not be undertaken on the
opera tion of the touch table
because of the variation that
results from visitor interaction.
However, from witnessing the
operation of the touch table, the
focus appears to be on
Conservation and the use of
animal products, along with
Facts about Tigers.
The contrast between Figures 1
and 2 illustrates how the
message content varies between

the sites.
All interpretive
elements at Tiger Island provide
some information from each of
the three categories Facts about
Tigers (cognitive domain),
Feelings about Tigers (affective
domain), and Conservation
(behavioural change).
In
comparison, at Western Plains
Zoo the emphasis is on the
cognitive domain. The category
Feelings about Tigers receives the
least amount of coverage and is
only found on a small temporary
sign listing several biographical
facts relating to the tiger on
display.
It was not possible to determine

what perc"entage of overall

coverage each category receives,
due to vastly different amounts of
information being provided by
each interpretive element. For
example, at Tiger Island the free
brochures are only the equivalent
of a few pages in length, whereas
Table 1:

Content of Interactions Between Visitors and Handlers Tiger

Island.
Content of

No. of Questions

Questions/Answers

Facts about Tigers

Feelings about Tigers
Conservation

Total

No. of Answers

Asked l

Given 1

115
350'

24%
74%*

30t;C
649l:*

2%

169
363'
31

100%

565

100%

8
474

* - highest content
1 _

the souvenir book contains thirtytwo pages. However, it does

appear that at Tiger Island, there
is a great deal of emphasis on the
affective domain, with the
category Feelings about Tigers
receiving the greatest amount of
coverage. In comparison, at
Western Plains Zoo the emphasis
is on the cognitive domain, with
the category Feelings about
Tigers receiving the least amount
of coverage. This difference in
the extent of cognitive versus
affective message content may be
due to a number of factors.
Interpretive content at the zoo
may be mainly cognitive because
of the zoo's reliance on graphics
and static displays for interpretation. The tiger exhibit at
the zoo displays different tigers
at various times, therefore it is
difficult for permanent signage to
contain information specific to
individual animals and other
content of an affective nature. In

6~

while observing 95 visitor groups during the 2-week on-site data collection

period
(Source: Broad, 1996 Visitor Research Observation Data)

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY'98

19

lOO ......- - - - - - - - - - - - - 00

''C0"
t3
il:

80

70

60
50

40
30
20
10

o
Keeper Talks

Temporary Sign

Permanent Interpretive
Sign

Interpretive Element
'I

a Facts about Tigers

D Conservation

Feelings about Tigers

----_ ..__ . - . - - - - ~ _ . _ -

._._----

-_._-----

Figure 2: Distribution of interpretive message content - Western Plains Zoo

(Source: Broad, 1996 Content Analysis Data)

addition, the presence of six
tigers at Tiger Island means that
there is more opportunity to
appeal to the affective domain by
providing information on each
individual tiger.
While both sites include factual
information in the third category,
Conservation, they lack message
content specifically related to
behavioural change. At Tiger
Island there are suggestions for
behavioural change provided,
however they are very limited
and only given during handler
talks. At Western Plains Zoo
there is no evidence of attempts
to provide visitors with
suggestions on how they might
modify their behaviour to help
ensure the survival of tigers.
According to one staff member,
keepers are apparently supposed
to inform visitors that they may
sponsor zoo animals or become
involved as volunteers, however
this information "seems to get
left out ... because it sounds like
the big hit at the end". The lack
of
suggestions
regarding
behavioural change supports
Linton Craig's (1988) assertion
that this is one area where zoo
interpretation is lacking.

Objective 2 Findings:
Document the range of visitors
and 'visit experiences' at each
exhibit
A simple visitor profile developed

20

from interview and observation

data for each exhibit indicates a
visitor profile that is surprisingly
similar between the two sites.
The sample consisted of slightly
more females than males with the
most common group size being
three adults without children. A
partial explanation for part of
this profile is that females tend to
frequent tourist attractions and
generally have a higher rate of
participation than males (Veal,
1994). It should also be noted
that the deliberate exclusion of
school groups from the visitor
sample has skewed the results,
and that the typical visitor
description would look different if
this visitor segment was included,
especially for the zoo, which has a
large number of school groups
visiting.
The major difference between the
sites' visitors relates to where
they reside. At Tiger Island, most
visitors were classified as local,
whereas at Western Plains Zoo,
most visitors resided within
NSW, outside the local region. A
possible explanation for this
difference could be that Tiger
Island is located in a more
densely populated region than is
Western Plains Zoo.
The visit experiences at each
exhibit are vastly different, due to
the different opportunities
provided,
although
some
similarities can also be noted. At

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY '98

first glance, the reading patterns

of visitors at each exhibit appear
quite different. At Tiger Island, a
small percentage (14%) of visitor
groups read any graphics,
compared with half of the visitors
at Western Plains Zoo. However,
when zoo visitors attended a talk,
the percentage (11%) reading
graphics became similar to those
at Tiger Island. This suggests
that not only do exhibits
experience competition from other
exhibits or attractions (Bitgood et
aI., 1986; Bitgood, 1987; Bitgood
& Benefield, 1987) but exhibit
elements, such as graphics,
compete with other elements,
such as handler talks.
Differences were also identified in
regards to visitors' interactions
with handlers and keepers. At
Tiger Island 22% of observed and
interviewed groups interacted
with the keepers by asking
questions, with 22 questions
being the maximum number of
questions asked by anyone
group. Of observed visitors, 79%
listened to interactions between
other visitors and handlers. In
comparison, at Western Plains
Zoo, of the observed and interviewed groups who attended a
keeper talk, only 14% interacted
with keepers by asking questions,
with two questions the maximum
number asked by anyone group.
N one of the observed visitors
listened to interactions between
other visitors and keepers.

Visitors generally spend longer at

Tiger Island than visitors spend
at the zoo's tiger exhibit. The
average time observed visitors
spent at Tiger Island was 16
minutes, compared with only 6
minutes for the zoo. Similarly,
almost half (48%) of interviewed
visitors at Tiger Island reported
spending more than thirty
minutes at the exhibit, compared
with a very small minority (10%)
of zoo visitors, with all these
visitors having attended a keeper
talk.
The data collected in this study
supports the notion that Tiger
Island has a much greater
holding power than the Western
Plains Zoo's tiger exhibit. While
it is acknowledged that the tiger
exhibit is only one of many
animal exhibits at the zoo and
that this fact alone could
contribute to the results (i.e.
visitor fatigue), Tiger Island is of
course only one of many
attractions at Dreamworld, also
demanding the time, attention
and energy of the visitor. It
therefore seems reasonable to
conclude that the nature of the
Tiger Island exhibit, the
interpretation and the overall
experience together result in a
greater holding power over
visitors than the tiger exhibit,
interpretation and experience of
Western Plains Zoo.
This finding is consistent with the
literature that states that active
animals (Bitgood et al., 1986;
Bitgood, 1987; Bitgood &
Benefield, 1987) increase holding
power. Although the tigers at
Tiger Island have varying levels
of activity, they are consistently
more active than the tiger at
Western Plains Zoo. In addition,
the results support Andersen's
(1992) claim that both active
animals and keepers interacting
with animals attract and hold the
attention of visitors. This is
further supported by the results
of research at Tiger Island, where
the average length of time
visitors spent observing the
exhibit was calculated and
examined according to whether

the tigers were active or inactive.

When tigers were classified as

active, the average time observed
visitors spent observing the
exhibit was nineteen minutes, in
comparison to only ten minutes
when the tigers were inactive.
Interview data showed a similar
pattern.

Objective Findings 3:
Determine Visitors'
Perceptions of What They
Learned at Each Exhibit
Given the vast differences
between the exhibits and the
experiences offered at the two
sites, a surprising finding was
that the percentage of visitors
who claimed to have learned
something (76% at Tiger Island,
77% at the zoo), and the type of
information they learned as a
result of their visit (44% learned
Facts about Tigers at both sites)
were almost identical at each site.

The quantity of the responses at

the two sites also differed
substantially. At Tiger Island,
while most responses in relation
to learning about the plight of
tigers were short answers of only
words
such
as
a
few
"endangered", Itthreatened from
poaching", or "shortened lifespan
in the wild", there were also
many detailed answers such as:
"there are several subspecies that
are already extinct like the
Caspian and the Javan"; llmany

species are diminishing because

of man, some people still use tiger
products, for things like
aphrodisiacs and if you see tiger
products for sale in shops, you
should alert the authorities"; and
"there are no white tigers in the
wild today, now they only exist in
captivity".

In comparison, at

Western Plains Zoo all responses

were very brief, being of only a
few words, such as "they're
endangered".

However, upon closer exami-

nation of the findings, the quality

of the responses provided in
interviews with visitors regarding
overall learning were quite
different. In response to a
question asking visitors to give
examples of what they had
learned, half (51%) of the
responses from visitors at
Western Plains Zoo were
straightforward facts: "his name
is Bona"; "tigers are endangered";

Thus, the differences in learning

opportunities at the two sites
resulted in differences in the
quality and quantity of cognitive,
affective and behavioural
information that could be recalled
by the visitors. The higher
quality and quantity of learning
at Tiger Island is consistent with
the literature (Christensen, 1994;
Parker, 1996) and previous
research into informal exhibits
and "he's recovering from an (Wolf and Tymitz, 1979; Peart,
operation on his leg". However, 1984; Derwin and Piper, 1988)
at Tiger Island, only one fifth of which suggests that information
responses were facts: "they don't presented in a variety of styles,
have sweat glands"; "they're using a number of different
endangered"; and "these ones techniques, provides a more
were captive born". The majority effective interpretive experience.
of responses at Tiger Island were At Tiger Island, almost all
instead generalisations and visi tors aecessed more than one
explanations of the facts: "I interpretive element, with 95%
learned their weights, names"; spending some time listening to
"why they have ~tripes"; and handlers in addition to watching
"what the spots on the back of the enclosure. In comparison, at
their ears are for". This seems to Western Plains Zoo's tiger
suggest that as a result of the exhibit, only half of the visitors
differences in the two exhibits, attending the basic exhibit (i.e.
visitors to Tiger Island learned they did not attend a keeper talk)
more detailed and contextual supplemented viewing of the
information, and were more likely enclosure by reading the main
to process the facts acquired into interpretive sign.
their wider understanding of
At both sites, the majority of
tigers and wildlife in genera!.

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY'98

21

visitors indicated that they did

not learn anything in relation to
the site's role in tiger
conservation. In addition, for
those reporting that they did
learn something, the majority of
responses were incorrect, with
captive breeding the most
common response. (Education is
the main role each site has in
regards to tiger conservation.) A
general perception that zoos
breed captive animals for
conservation may have led
visitors to infer this role to the
tiger exhibit, and also to Tiger
Island.
This perception is
subsequently supported by Tiger
Island handlers who frequently
discuss future plans for breeding
during their talks.

at that site. However, there were

inconsistencies between the two
sites, and between individual
keepers at Western Plains Zoo.
For instance, at Tiger Island all
handlers were heard informing
visitors
that
there
are
approximately four hundred
white tigers in the world today.
At Western Plains Zoo, one
keeper informed visitors there
were one hundred white tigers
remaining, while on another day,
a different keeper said there were
one thousand white tigers. While
few visitors are likely to attend
more than one keeper talk at the
zoo, several visitors at the zoo
were overheard discussing their
previous visit to Tiger Island, and
making comparisons with the zoo.
As identified in the literature, the
The majority of visitors at both obj ecti ves
of interpretive
sites indicated that what they techniques should include
had learned had come from developing accurate perceptions
handler/keeper talks. This is and
maximising
the
consistent with claims in the comprehension of interpretive
literature that keeper talks and messages.
The World Zoo
interaction
are
effective Conservation Strategy (lUDZG educational
techniques The World Zoo Organisation and
(Moscardo, 1996; Andersen, 1992; The Captive Breeding Specialist
Simpkin, 1994). However, at Group of IUCN/SSC, 1993:10)
Western Plains
Zoo the also recommends promoting a
permanent interpretive sign was global perspective. Therefore, if
also attributed as the source of visitors
hear
conflicting
one third of the stated learning. statements at each site, the
The literature (Whitehead, 1984; impact of interpretive messages
Nimon, 1990) suggests that may be reduced, as visitors
signage needs to be eye-catching become unsure of the truth.
to attract attention. Western
Plains Zoo appears to have Additional observations
achieved this goal at the tiger
exhibit. The main permanent Some interesting observations
interpretive display includes a were made during the data
graphical depiction of the decline collection period, which although
in tiger numbers, a map showing not directly related to the study
the range of tigers today as objectives, are worth discussing.
compared with 100 years ago,
some facts on tigers, and a life- At Western Plains Zoo, many
size painting of a tiger. The visitors to the tiger exhibit
display is looked at by almost half demonstrated a desire to talk
of all visitor groups (however see with a 'perceived knowledgeable
following section for discussion of person', in this case, the
On numerous
some problems), compared to researcher.
previous research that found only occasions during the data
one quarter of visitors read collection period, the researcher
signage (Greene, 1988).
was approached at the tiger
exhibit and asked questions.
None of the factual responses Visitors seemed to believe that
provided by visitors at either site the researcher, who was holding a
were inconsistent with the clipboard and probably appeared
interpretive messages presented to be staying at the exhibit for a

22

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 9, No. 1, MAY '98

longer time than most visitors,

was 'connected' to the zoo in some
manner, and could answer
questions. In a number of
instances, the researcher spoke
with the visitors and answered
questions without giving any
explanation as to her role; on
other occasions she explained
that she was not employed by the
zoo and was in fact studying
visitor behaviour.
In both
situations however, visitors
appeared pleased to discuss the
tiger and the exhibit, accepting
answers from the researcher
without hesitation. This seems to
support the findings of Wolf and
Tymitz (1979) that visitors have a
strong preference for interactions
with keepers or guides.
Many visitor comments were also
overheard at both exhibits that
demonstrate a number of
interesting points. Visitors'
expectations regarding the level
of tiger activity appeared to be
quite different at each site. At
Tiger Island, if the tigers were
not playing with the handlers,
swimming, or chasing each other,
visitors were often overheard
making comments suggesting
they were disappointed that the
tigers were not 'doing anything'.
This was despite the fact that
some of the tigers may have been
walking around or grooming
themselves. In comparison, at
the zoo's tiger exhibit, visitors
were often overheard making
comments indicating they were
satisfied when the tiger had only
lifted its head, yawned or swished
its tail.
In addition, informal observations
support Ford's (1995) assertion
that many visitors appeared
unable to perceive a natural
situation simply from watching
the exhibit. At the zoo, many
visitors were overheard commenting that the tiger was
probably lonely and needed a
'friend'. Visitors could not
perceive from viewing the exhibit
of a single tiger, that the species
is inclined to be solitary. When
one visitor was informed of this
fact by the researcher, the visitor

indicated that she understood

this, and then immediately
commented "but it would still be
nice for him if he had some
company". Other comments
overheard at the zoo when the
tiger was asleep included that the
tiger was "1 azy and "bored
At
Tiger Island, the presence of
handlers inside the exhibit with
the tigers generated many
comments relating to how this
situation was possible. These
included that "the tigers must
have just been fed, otherwise the
keepers wouldn't be safe" and
"the tigers are obviously overfed
to keep them lazy so that they
don't attack the men".

Visitor Variables

Interpretive Variables

- motivations, expectations,
attitudes, previous

- objectives, interpretive
techniques employed

knowledge or experience

ll

tl

At Western Plains Zoo, a number

of additional inaccurate perceptions were overheard relating
to the interpretive graphics. The
main interpretive sign includes a
life-size painting of a tiger, with a
life-size painting of a domestic
cat underneath it, presumably to
demonstrate the difference in
size. However there is no label
indicating that the smaller cat is
a domestic cat. As a result many
children, and also some adults,
perceived the cat to be a baby
tiger, with comments overheard
that "the baby tiger looks just
like a cat". In addition, many
visitors were heard to question
what sort of tiger was on exhibit.
The site map indicates that a
Bengal tiger is on exhibit. At the
exhibit, the main interpretive
sign says "Bengal Tiger" and
includes the life-size painting of a
gold and black tiger. The actual
tiger on exhibit is a white Bengal
tiger. A temporary sign indicates
that this is "Bona, the white tiger
from Ragunan Zoo, Indonesian.
Comments overheard included
that the tiger was not a Bengal
Tiger, but was instead "an
albino", "a white tiger"; ao
tl

Indonesian tiger"; a snow tiger";

and "a Siberian tiger",

,r

"
c
Visit Experience

-length of stay, visitor's use

of interpretive elements

"
D

Learning Opportunity

Figure 3: Variables influencing the learning process

(Source: Broad, 1996)

nationality of observed visitors in
this study was recorded only as
Caucasian or non Caucasian.
However, of those visitors
categorised as non Caucasian
(14% of all observed visitors), all
were believed to be of Asian
origin. The length of time that
visitors of Asian origin spent
observing the exhibit was
calculated, with ten minutes the
average time. This compared
with an average of sixteen
minutes for Caucasian visitors.
Possible explanations for this
difference could be that visitors of
Asian origin have difficulty
understanding the talks due to
language barriers, or that they
are on an organised tour with
limited time at Dreamworld.

lI

Discussions at Tiger Island

during the research period
revealed that staff believed
visitors of Asian origin stayed for
shorter times at the exhibit than
the average visitor.
The

Recommendations and
conclusions

Recommendations for future

research
A review of the literature
identified four objectives of zoo

education. These suggest that

academics and professionals
within the field believe that
captive wildlife exhibits should
be providing opportunities for
enjoyable learning experiences,
cognitive
learning,
the
development of positive attitudes
towards
wildlife,
and a
subsequent commitment to longterm conservation behaviour.
The latter three were able to be
used as benchmarks to examine a
specific zoo and a theme park.
As Figure 3 illustrates, the
examination
of
learning
opportunities and visitors'
perceptions of what they learned
demonstrates that there is a
relationship
between
the
interpretive techniques used (Box
- A), the visit experience (Box C), and the extent of learning
achieved (Box - D), including the
quantity and quality of learning
that occurs. These results
support previous research claims
in the literature (Derwin & Piper,
1988; Peart, 1984; Nimon, 1990;

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY'98

23

Andersen, 1992; Moscardo, 1996;

Simpkin, 1994) which state that
interpretation programs that
offer variety and interaction (Box
- A) are more enjoyable, which
leads to increased visitor
attention (Box - C), and are more
effective, which leads to increased
visitor learning (Box - D). Of
course, there is still much to be
learned about these relationships.
For example, what are the effects
on learning of placement and size
of interpretive signage; the

Perhaps

attributes of the keeper, including

longitudinal research is needed in

conservation

keeper training; and the content

and style of keeper talks (Box -

order to employ a pre- and post

test study design to measure
actual learning, to compare shortterm versus long-term learning,
and to measure whether learning
translates in to behavioural
change, either short or long term.
An important element within
such a study would be to examine
the relative effects of cognitive
versus affective learning on
behavioural change. In other
words, are tourist attractions,
and specifically captive animal
exhibits, changing the behaviour
of visitors in ways that contribute
to long-term environmental
conservation?

communicated to visitors. This

includes the provision of all
interpretive messages in a variety
of languages, so as to overcome
any language barriers.

A)?

learning to occur? Further

research into visitor profiles may
confirm the visitor similarities
identified in this study, or may
identify differences between each
site's visitors that were not found
due to the interview and
observation methods employed in
this study, which did not attempt
to measure psychographic
information, relying instead on
basic demographic information.
most

importantly,

However, not all learning can be

explained by differences in
interpretation. Despite the
differences between the two
attractions examined in this
study, and the differences in the
overall experience and learning
opportunities offered by each site,
some aspects of visitor learning
were surprisingly similar at the
two sites. As illustrated in Figure
3, visitor variables (B) may have
an impact on the visit experience
(C) and subsequent learning
opportunities (D). This research
focused on the interpretation Management implications
variables (A) and not on the
differences between visitors that The results of this research have
may exist and that may have a
number
of
practical
influenced learning. Further management implications for
research is needed that examines tourist attractions. Staff need to
visitor characteristics (B) such as be made aware of the fact that
the size of the visitor group, and visitors who attend talks do not
the frequency of visits to this and necessarily read interpretive
similar attractions. Comparisons signage. If management want
between sub populations such as visi tors to be exposed to
old and young visitors; males and conservation messages, they must
females; and differences between therefore repeat any written
nationalities would also be conservation messages during
valuable.
talks. In addition, graphics need
to clearly state basic concepts and
Further research should also be ideas in order to avoid any
undertaken into visitor profiles possible errors in interpretation.
examining psychographic infor- Talks were found to result in all
mation such as motivations, visitors attending them stating
expectations, and conservation that they had learned something,
attitudes and behaviour, as well therefore consideration should
as visitors' previous experience also be given to increasing the
with wildlife tourism. Are both frequency
of
talks
or
tourist attractions preaching to alternatively, using volunteers as
the converted? Are visitors to rov ing interpreters', if visitor
zoos and/or theme parks in a numbers do not warrant the
state of mind that encourages scheduling
of
additional
l

24

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY '98

structured talks.
At both sites, the majority of
visitors indicated that they had
not learned anything about the
site's role in tiger conservation,
with the majority of those who
indicated that they did learn
something providing an incorrect
response. If tourist attractions
see this as an important public
relations or marketing tool, then
management needs to ensure that
clear messages relating to their
role

are

Conclusion

The purpose of this research was

to investigate how attractions
that display captive animals offer
visitors an opportunity to learn,
and to examine how visitors
respond to these opportunities.
The findings contribute to a
greater understanding of the
relationship between the use of
interpretive techniques, the visit
experience, and learning. They
also highlight the need for further
research on the role of tourist
attractions in educating visitors
and contributing to environmental conservation.

References
Adams, C.E., Thomas, J.K., Lin, P., & Weiser, B. (1989). Promoting
wildlife education through exhibits. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 26(2), 133-139.
Andersen, L.L. (1992). Informative animal shows. Journal of the
International Association of Zoo Educators, 25, 1-4.
Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Bitgood, S.C. (1987). Understanding the public's attitudes toward
and behaviour in museums, parks, and zoos. Technical Report
No 86-60. Psychology Institute, Jacksonville State University.
Bitgood, S., & Benefield, A. (1987). Visitor behaviour: A comparison
acrosS zoos. Technical Report No. 86-20. Psychology Institute,
Jacksonville State University.
Bitgood, S., Benefield, A., Patters on, D., & Nabors, A. (1986).
Understanding your visitors: Ten factors that influence their
behaviour. Technical Report No. 87-30. Psychology Institute,
Jacksonville State University.
Broad, S. (1996). Wildlife in captivity: A case study of the learning
opportunities of two tiger exhibits. Unpublished honours thesis.
University of Newcastle.
Chiszar, D., Murphy, J.B., & Iliff, W. (1990). For zoos. The
Psychological Record, 40, 3-13.
Christensen, J. (1994). Capture your entire audience. Legacy,
July/August, 17-19.
DeLapa, M.D. (1994). Interpreting hope, selling conservation: Zoos,
aquariums, and environmental education. Museum News, 73(2),
48-49.
Derwin, C.W., & Piper, J.B. (1988). The Mrican Rock Kopje Exhibit
evaluation and interpretive elements. Environment and
Behaviour, 20(4), 435-45l.
Donahoe, S. (1986). Developing the conservation ethic in zoo visitors.
International Association of Zoo Educators Journal, 15(43), 4345.
Dreamworld (1995). Dreamworld press release - Dreamworld's Tiger
Island: A wildly different experience. Coomera.
Finlay, T., James, L.R., & Maple, T.L. (1988). People's perceptions of
animals the influence of zoo environment. Environment and
Behaviour, 20(4), 508-528.
Ford, J.C. (1995). Informalleaming in zoos: How do visitors perceive
captive animals. Proceedings from the Interpretation Australia
Association Annual Conference, November 1995. Canberra.
Greene, M. (1988). Stalking the average American zoogoer. Museum
News, 67, 50-5l.
Gutierrez de White, T., & Jacobson, S.K. (1994). Evaluating
conservation education programs at a South American zoo.
Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4), 18-22.
Hamilton, G. (1993). Zoo and education - It's time. Journal of the
International Association of Zoo Educators. Proceedings of the
11th IZE Congress, Taronga Zoo, 1992,29, 13-14.
Hancocks, D. (1995). Lions and tigers and bears, Oh No! In B.G.
Norton, M Hutchins, E.F. Stevens, & T.L. Maple (Eds.), Ethics
of the Ark: Zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation (pp
31-37). Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Hunt, G. (1993). Environmental education and zoos. Journal of the
International Association of Zoo Educators. Proceedings of the
11th IZE Congress, Taronga Zoo, 1992. 29,74-77.
IUDZG - The World Zoo Organisation and The Captive Breeding
Specialist Group of IUCN/SSC, (1993). The World Zoo
conservation strategy: The role of the zoos and aquaria of the
world in global conservation. Brookfield, Ill.: Chicago
Zoological Society.
THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY'98

25

Jamieson, D. (1985). Against zoos. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defence of

animals (pp 108-117). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Jamieson, D. (1995). Zoos revisited. In B.G. Norton, M Hutchins, E.F.
Stevens, & T.L. Maple (Eds.), Ethics of the Ark: Zoos, animal
welfare, and wildlife conservation (pp 52-65). Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kidd, A.H., Kidd, RM., & Zasloff, RL. (1995). Developmental factors
in positive attitudes toward zoo animals. Psychological Reports,
76,71-81.
Linton Craig, T. (1988). Changing the way people think. Museum
News, 67, 52-54.
Maple, T. (1995). Towards a responsible zoo agenda. In B.G. Norton,
M. Hutchins, E.F. Stevens, & T.L. Maple (Eds.), Ethics of the
Ark: Zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation (pp 21-30).
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Maple, T.L., & Finlay, T.W. (1987). Post-occupancy evaluation in the
zoo. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 18,5-18.
Marshdoyle, E., Bowman, L., & Mullins, G.W. (1982). Evaluating
programmatic use of a community resource: The zoo. Journal of
Environmental Education, 13(4), 19-26.
Martin, B., & Mason, S. (1993). The future for attractions: Meeting
the needs of the new consumers. Tourism Management,
February, 34-40.
Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research, 23(2), 376-397.
Nimon, A.J. (1990). Making the zoo a positive educational
experience. Bulletin of Zoo Management, 28, 17-20.
Ollason, RJ. (1993). Getting the message across. Journal of the
International Association of Zoo Educators. Proceedings of the
11th IZE Congress, Taronga Zoo, 1992, 29, 186.
Orams, M.B. (1994). Creating effective interpretation for managing
interaction between tourists and wildlife. Australian Journal of
Environmental Education, 10,21-34.
Parker, M. (1996). Conservation through interaction: Can zoos
educate people more effectively? In Proceedings of the ARAZPA
Conference 1996. Healesville, Victoria (forthcoming).
Peart, B. (1984). Impact of exhibit type on knowledge gain, attitudes,
and behavior. Curator, 27(2), 220-235.
Rhoads, D.L., & Goldsworthy, R.J. (1979). The effects of zoo
environments on public attitudes toward endangered wildlife.
International Journal ofEnvironmental Studies, 13,283-287.
Roggenbuck, J.W., Loomis, RJ., & Dagostino, J. (1990). The learning
benefits ofleisure. Journal ofLeisure Research, 22(2), 112-124.
Serrell, B. (1981). The role of zoological parks and aquariums in
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education,
12(3), 41-42.
Shettel-Neuber, J. (1988). Second-and third-generation zoo exhibits
A comparison of visitor, staff and animal responses.
Environment and Behaviour, 20(4), 452-473.
Simpkin, L. (1994). Interpretation - Starting with the tourist.
Interpretation attached to heritage. Papers presented at the
Third Annual Conference of Interpretation Australia
Association Inc. 5th - 7th December 1994. Albury: Charles
Sturt University, 184-188.
Sommer, R (1972). What do we learn at the zoo. Natural History,
81(26/27),26-85.
Veal, A.J. (1994). Leisure policy and planning. Harlow: Longman.
Wheater, RJ. (1984). The zoo in the Community. Biologist, 31(2),
112-114.
Whitehead, M. (1984). Zoos are for learning too: Education and
interpretation. Biologist, 31(2), 115-117.

26

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY '98

WiIliamson, L. (1987). Towards an environmental education policy.

Bulletin of Zoo Management, 25, 62-65.
Wilson, B.R. (1987). The role of zoos in the development of a
conservation ethic. Bulletin ofZoo Management, 25, 77-79.
Wolf, R.L., & Tymitz, B.L. (1979). Do giraffes ever sit? A study of
visitor perceptions at the National Zoological Park, Smithsonian
Institution. Washington: Smithsonian Institute.

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vo!. 9, No. 1, MAY'98

27