Education of Zoo Visitors and Advocacy of Kea - Kea Conservation ...

Education of zoo visitors and Advocacy of Captive
Kea (Nestor notabilis): A controversial species
Louise Parker
1064953

Education of zoo visitors and Advocacy of Captive
Kea (Nestor notabilis): A controversial species
Written by: Louise Parker as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Applied Animal Technology, Unitec, New Zealand, 2006
Supervised by: Dr Lorne Roberts, Dr Nigel Adams and Professor Natalie Warran
November 2006
Journal Style: This report has been written in the style of the Zoo Biology Journal
2

Table of Contents
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Acknowledgements 7
Introduction 8
• The changing roles of zoological parks 8
• Education in zoological parks 9
• Advocacy 12
• Kea Nestor notabilis 13
• The need for Kea advocacy 15
Research aim 18
Methods 20
• Group 1: Keeper survey 20
• Group 2: Before entering survey 21
• Group 3: Zoo visitors as they left survey 22
Analysis of data 23
Results 24
Group 1: Keeper survey 24
• Enclosure types 24
• Educational signs 24
• Educational keeper talks 25
• Training and conditioning 26
• Training and conditioning use in keeper talks 27
3

Groups 2 and 3: Zoo visitors 28
Discussion
• Demographics 28
• Zoo visits 28
• Interest in New Zealand native species 30
• Zoo visitor Education/knowledge 31
• Visitor attitudes towards Kea 34
• Kea enclosure 36
• Enclosures
• Educational signs
• Educational zookeeper talks
• Training and conditioning
• Zoo visits
• Education/knowledge of zoo visitors
• Visitor attitudes
Conclusion 47
Criticisms and Recommendations 49
References 50
Appendices 53
• Appendix 1: Keeper survey 53
• Appendix 2: Information sheet zoo staff 57
• Appendix 3: Consent form 56
• Appendix 4: Information sheet zoo visitors 57
• Appendix 5: Group 2: Zoo visitors before they entered 58
• Appendix 6: Group 3: Zoo visitors as they left 61
39
39
40
42
43
43
44
45
4

List of Figures Page
Figure 1: Educational sign information
Figure 2: Information in educational talks 26
Figure 3: Reasons training /conditioning has greater impact
Figure 4: Zoo visits per year - Groups 2 & 3 29
Figure 5: Most popular reasons for zoo visits 29
Figure 6: Why are you not interested in NZ Native species 30
Figure 7: Number of correct answers before/after visiting zoo 33
Figure 8: Reasons for human-kea conflict 35
Figure 9: Reasons for liking/disliking Kea enclosure 37
Figure 10: Reasons for liking/disliking Kea enclosure - North Island 38
Figure 11: Reasons for liking/disliking Kea enclosure – South Island 38
Table 1: How often are educational talks given 25
Table 2: Reasons Kea are not trained/conditioned 27
Table 3: Age groups of respondents - Groups 2 & 3 28
Table 4: Significance of reading an information sign and correct answers 31
Table 5: Significance of listening to an educational talk and correct
answers
32
Table 6: Knowledge questions - Groups 2 & 3 32
Table 7: Intelligence and curiosity levels of Kea – Groups 2 & 3
25
27
33
5

Abstract
This paper reports on the information and techniques used as educational
opportunities available for zoo visitors concerning captive Kea (Nestor notabilis) in
New Zealand. Questionnaires were used to investigate the education techniques used
in New Zealand captive facilities. Zoo visitors were surveyed in order to assess the
level of knowledge concerning Kea before they entered the zoo an as they left. Areas,
which influence free choice learning in zoos, are enclosures, signs and zookeeper
talks, all of these areas have the need for improvement. The level of visitor learning
occurring in zoos regarding Kea was found not to be significant in this study. The
general knowledge of Kea by zoo visitors was found to be satisfactory, but with need
for improvement. Advocacy of this species was also addressed and attitudes zoo
visitors have regarding Kea. Visitor attitudes of Kea were satisfactory, however future
studies may highlight differing perceptions of those who live or work within Kea
range and habitat. Advocacy of this species could be promoted more effectively.
6

Acknowledgements
I would first like to acknowledge the support, guidance and specialist input into this
report from my supervisors Dr Lorne Roberts, Dr Nigel Adams and Professor Natalie
Waran (Unitec, New Zealand). I would like to thank Tamsin Orr-Walker (Kea
Conservation Trust) for her specialist help concerning Kea (Nestor notabilis), and
Melanie White for having the patience and time to survey visitors at Orana Park.
I would also like to thank the following zoos for allowing me to survey their visitors:
Auckland Zoo, Franklin Zoo, Hamilton Zoo, Naturelands Zoo, and Orana Park.
Thanks to Bruce Ireland and Michelle Whybrow (Senior Keepers, Auckland Zoo
Native Fauna) for piloting my keeper surveys and invaluable advice. Thanks to all
Kea holders who completed and returned their surveys as well as each zoo visitor who
completed the survey.
I would like to thank my family for all their support during this time.
Lastly, thanks to all the 2006 Year 3 BAAT students for a constant source of support
and advice.
7

Introduction
The changing roles of zoological parks
Animals are kept in captive environments for a variety of reasons including
entertainment, research, conservation and advocacy.
Historically most zoological parks were ‘postage stamp’ type collections with as
many different types of animals as possible on display in barren enclosures (Marvin &
Mullan 1987). This reflected the scientific interest of the time in taxonomy, and the
public wishing to see as many exotic animals as possible as a form of entertainment
(ibid). During the latter part of the twentieth century, there was more interest from the
scientific community in animal behaviour, ecology and conservation (ibid). Public
awareness of animal welfare standards, decreasing biodiversity and the potential zoos
had to contribute to conservation has lead to the development of displaying species
within enclosures, which reflect their normal behavioural repertoire, natural habitat
and ecosystem (Thomson 1996). The use of naturalistic exhibits allowed the animals
to be shown in relationship with its environment (Thomson 1996); (Tribe & Booth
2003). This enabled visitors to make a connection with the species and in-situ
conservation.
Modern progressive zoos and wildlife centres today have education listed as a priority
in order to promote conservation. The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation
Strategy (WAZACS) (2005), states education is a central role for all zoos and should
be integral to planning visitor services, designing exhibits and developing
conservation programmes.
8

Education in zoological parks
The role of education within zoos is to inspire and enable visitors to act positively for
conservation; this is achieved through informal (free choice) learning, additionally
education is a critical component of building awareness and support of field
conservation (WAZACS 2005). Education should lead to increased general
knowledge (awareness or understanding of: an act, a fact, or the truth) of a particular
animals biology, the natural range and the habitat the species lives in or the
ecosystem. Education opportunities, which occur in a zoo setting, stem from the
exhibits themselves and education signs about the exhibit, people learn, based on what
they see and read (Schnackenberg 1997). Previous studies (Hienrich & Birney 1992,
Kelling et al 2003, Tribe & Booth 2003, Povey 2005) have shown zookeeper talks to
be one of the most effective ways of educating zoo visitors.
Exhibits are zoological parks natural voice for communicating messages to visitors;
they are direct real-life experiences, which have great potential to teach people about
wildlife (Coe 1996). The type of enclosure used to display captive animals can
influence the messages a visitor takes away with them, enclosures can benefit
conservation education providing they promote positive values and attitudes towards
nature (Miller et al 2004).Therefore, enclosure furnishings, husbandry practices and
welfare of the animals affect the positive educational messages provided by exhibits.
Poor husbandry or poor conditions may confuse or compromise these messages
(WAZACS 2005). Coe (1996 pg 168) defines messages as “the actual communication
received and remembered by zoo visitors”, and goes on to state that these are affected
by what the visitor gleans from ideas, concepts and the actual interpretive information
(signs, live interpreters and zookeeper talks).
9

Schnackenberg (1997) found visitors did not read signs accompanying reptile
exhibits. One particular sign was found to be more informative for visitors; this sign
was developed by a school-group and carried a clear simple message accompanied by
a thought–provoking question (ibid). This study highlighted the design of signage
may influence the numbers of visitors reading those signs.
Live interpreters (zookeepers, education officers, volunteers) provide one of the most
effective means of education when interacting with visitors (WAZACS 2005).
A study by Jackson (1994) cited in Anderson et al (2003) found that the presence of
an informed guide at an exhibit increased the time visitors stayed at the exhibit.
Potentially the more time a visitor stays at an exhibits the more opportunity for
education of visitors.
Zookeeper talks using animals in presentations can be used as a strategy to blend
education and entertainment for delivering educational messages (Povey 2005).
Hienrich & Birney (1992) cited in Anderson et al (2003) found visitors which had
attended a live animal keeper talk retained a large amount of information weeks after
attending the keeper talks . Thus, these kinds of talks may be a more effective way of
educating zoo visitors. Swanagan (2000) found zoo visitors who had watched an
interactive zookeeper talk were more likely to support elephant conservation than
visitors who had passively viewed the elephants in their exhibit and read an
information sign.
Animal training provides important management tools for keepers and veterinarians,
as well as enrichment and reduction of problematic behaviours. Animal training can
be utilised to enhance keeper talks (Anderson et al 2003).
10

Visitors reported experiences that were more positive and viewed exhibits longer
during keeper talks where animal training was used when compared to passive
viewing and keeper talks only (Anderson et al 2003). The use of animal training can
enable a zookeeper to show their audience the range of behaviours a particular species
uses in the wild, as well as reinforcing what the keeper is trying to get across to the
visitors.
There are criticisms concerning zoos and wildlife parks in keeping animals for the
purpose of human entertainment, with such facilities labelled as being ineffective,
expensive to run, and superficial in their attempts to contribute to conservation (Tribe
& Booth 2003). Bartos & Kelly (1998) cited in Tribe & Booth (2003) state that in
order to overcome these criticisms “a summary of measurable contributions by zoos
in the areas of education, conservation, research and tourism is of critical importance
in demonstrating the contribution of these institutions to the whole community”
Smith (2006) questions whether zoos can influence the behaviour of their visitors, and
suggests zoos are not maximising the potential they have in this area.
Hutchins (1999) cited in Tribe & Booth (2003) suggests zoos should have specific
outcomes regarding education goals, and tools should be developed to measure the
impact of their educational programs on their visitors. Only then will zoos really be
able to measure the impact they are having.
Auckland Zoo strategic intent on education states, “To provide exemplary learning
opportunities that positively influence people’s understanding, values and impact on
the natural world.” (ibid)
11

Advocacy
Advocacy and education of public are techniques used in conservation in order to
raise awareness of the plight a species may be facing within its natural environment.
(Sutherland 2004 pg 5). Advocacy is defined as “support or argument for a cause”
(The Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus 1997).
The New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC) cited in Peat (1995) defines
advocacy as appropriate forms of education, publicity and promotion “where there is
misunderstanding, confusion or ignorance concerning native species”, in order to
provide accurate information concerning those species and change potential attitudes.
WAZACS (2005 summary) states that zoos can make a significant contribution to
conservation acting as mentors and leaders, thus influencing the “publics’ attitudes
and behaviours towards wildlife”.
Advocacy as a tool can produce a change in behaviour and compliance with
legislation (Sutherland 2004). The importance of the zoo role in advocacy of wild
species is highlighted by Hancocks (2001) who states, “In the very best zoos, wild
animals can be seen as ambassadors for the survival of their species in the wild. In the
worst zoos, they generate nothing but negative reactions”. Thus, the way an animal is
presented to zoo visitors can affect the message to public is leaving with.
Worldwide zoos and wildlife parks have 600 million visitors annually (Tribe & Booth
2003) therefore have the unique opportunity for education of visitors using exhibits,
information signs and zookeeper talks (ibid). As such, they have an important role to
play in education and advocacy of the wider public about the animals they hold, and
the conservation of those species.
12

The New Zealand Department of Conservation lists as one of it main functions “to
advocate conservation of natural and historic resources”.
Auckland Zoo Mission Statement (Auckland Zoo Annual Report 2004 -2005) reflects
the commitment of New Zealand captive establishments to conservation “To focus the
Zoo’s resources to benefit conservation and provide exciting visitor experiences
which inspire and empower people to take positive action for wildlife and the
environment.”
Kea Nestor notabilis
Kea are large olive green parrots, males average 1000g, females 800g. They are
unusual and unique as the world’s only alpine parrot. They are endemic to the South
Island of New Zealand, living within a large range from lowland beech forest through
the bushline into alpine tussock and herbfields (Higgins 1999). Kea are a highly
intelligent species, which have many attributes that support cognitive abilities
(Gajdon, 2005) (Werdenich & Huber 2006). They are gregarious, they lack neophobia
(a fear of new things or the unknown) and are highly social birds often congregating
in large groups to forage (Pullar 1996).
Their diet has been estimated to be 70% vegetarian (Peat 1995). Clarke (1970)
observed Kea to consume nearly 200 different food items, predominantly leaves,
seeds, fruits, roots, buds, and flowers of native plants, as well as larvae and insects.
Additionally they have been filmed predating on mutton-bird chicks (Puffinus huttoni)
and attacks on sheep have been reported for many years. The interest Kea show in
mutton-birds and sheep is thought to be due to their taste for foods containing fats or
lipids, which may be essential for survival in their harsh cold habitat (Peat 1995). Kea
have an important role to play in dispersal of seeds in native alpine plant species and
as the only significant berry eating species in alpine areas (Clarke 1970).
13

There are areas which impact on the on the holding of Kea in captivity. In order to
promote this species and provide positive advocacy opportunities, captive individuals
need to be maintained at high levels of health, physically and behaviourally.
Due to their exploratory nature, intelligence and highly variable harsh habitat, captive
Kea require a high level of environmental enrichment, i.e. enhancing the captive
environment by introducing unpredictability and complexity (Young 2003).
Environmental enrichment aims to allow natural behaviour expression, behavioural
choices and fulfilment of motivational requirements. The use of enrichment can
reduce stress and abnormal behaviours as such, having a positive impact on the
welfare of captive species (Young 2003). A basic motivation for all animals is to
breed; this species at present is prevented from fulfilling this, due to a moratorium on
breeding put in place by T. Pullar in 1996.
An unpublished study by Orr-Walker (2005) on the managements practices of captive
Kea in New Zealand found a large proportion of the population (78%) showing
stereotypies (abnormal behaviours, defined as: 1) performed repetitively, 2) have no
discernible function, 3) relatively invariable in form, (Montaudouina & Le Papea
2005)). Enrichment in this study was found to have a significant effect on lowering
the performance of stereotypies.
The threat classification of Kea was set by Department of Conservation in 2002; they
are currently classed as Nationally Endangered. The actual wild population size has
been estimated at between 1,000 and 5,000 birds, this figure was produced by
Anderson (1986) cited in Bond & Diamond (1992) as such, this is out dated as the last
census was taken twenty years ago. Anecdotes of high country users such as tourist
operators, farmers and recreational users, state that encounters with large flocks of kea
are now rare, support this (Elliott & Kemp 1999).
14

A proper census has not been carried out due to the Alpine terrain Kea inhabit, wide
distribution and nomadic behaviour (Pullar 1996).
Threats to Kea include habitat degradation, predation at nests from stoats, illegal
capture and trading, additionally illegal shooting and poisoning of birds that are
perceived threatening to human activities (Pullar 1996).
The need for Kea advocacy
Kea are iconic species, who are very popular with tourists. Kea are a controversial
species with the New Zealand public, attitudes towards these birds can vary
considerably. Commonly used characterisations include; fascinating, entertaining,
enchanting, ‘clown of the mountains’, cunning, pests, mischievous, destructive and
murderers (Peat 1995). There is also controversy surrounding the keeping of these
birds in captivity due to the high need for stimulation in their environment to maintain
healthy individuals, as well as the suppression of breeding.
Controversy surrounds Kea; historically they were branded as sheep killers and
persecuted by farmers since European settlement of the South Island High Country.
The New Zealand Government offered a bounty for Kea beaks until 1970. It is
estimated that at least 150,000 birds were killed between 1860 and 1970 (Pullar
1996). In order to carry out a cull of high numbers, Kea would have been considerably
higher in numbers than they are today (Elliott & Kemp 1999). Partial protection was
given for the species in 1970, but this did not prevent farmers shooting birds they
thought were causing problems on their properties and birds were still targeted by
farmers (Pullar 1996).
15

Due to their reputation as sheep killers, full protection for Kea was not awarded until
1986 under the Wildlife Act (1953) (ibid), under the condition that DOC agreed to
investigate any incidence of attacks on sheep. It is now known only a few rogue birds
attack live sheep but prejudices persist (Pullar 1996). Grant (1993) states some High
Country farmers believe Kea cause high stock loses, however the proportion of sheep
mortality in which these birds are often the scapegoats, may be due to other factors
such as accident, lack of vaccination, disease or starvation.
Kea are highly intelligent and curious nature, adaptations which have which have
allowed these birds to survive in the harshest of environments (Johnstone 2001),
(Temple 1996), (Diamond & Bond 2004), (Huber et al 2001), these traits have
brought them into conflict with humans within their natural range (Morris & Morris
2002), (Peat 1995). When investigating resources they use a stout and agile bill
together with feet, which can grasp and pull (Peat 1995). There are a number of areas
in which Kea are seen as a problem to humans, they can be regularly found around
rubbish dumps, ski lodges and car parks as well as back country huts where they have
been known to damage human property (ibid). Discarded food or intentional feeding
and their investigative nature have encouraged the birds to these areas (ibid). They are
particularly well known to attack anything soft on vehicles left unattended in their
habitat, birds have been known to remove the rubber window seals around
windscreens, and if they have gained access, the interior suffers widespread damage
(Peat 1995).
Published research is limited on advocacy of Kea, but the subject has produced two
documents (Grant 1993 & Peat 1995) by Department of Conservation.
16

These addressed advocacy of this species, in order to change the attitudes held by
humans and to resolve conflict between farmers, ski field operators, vehicle owners,
Alpine villages, and Kea. An unpublished study by Orr-Walker (2005), acknowledged
advocacy and education of public an important topic of research. The Captive
Management Plan for Kea (1996) goal is to “manage a self-sustaining population of
kea in captivity of a minimum size needed to maintain adequate genetic diversity, to
support the conservation of the species in the wild”, and states the captive population
provides a resource for conservation education, advocacy and research.
At the time this plan was produced there was a large captive population of at least 213
individuals, and the moratorium on breeding captive Kea was in place, as such
currently the captive Kea population in New Zealand are held only for education,
advocacy and research.
The captive Kea population has been reduced to the goal target of 100 birds (Pullar
pers com). As such, the moratorium on breeding put in place by T. Pullar in 1996 may
be reviewed.
When the moratorium on captive breeding of Kea is lifted and if captive breeding for
release takes place, the potential attitudes of public regarding this species are
important in order to ensure the success of any active conservation measures and
increased population numbers in the natural habitat.
17

Research Aim
To identify what effect education and advocacy opportunities within a zoo
environment have on the general knowledge of zoo visitors regarding Kea (Nestor
notabilis) and visitor attitudes towards Kea and their views of human-Kea conflict.
The objectives of this research are:
1. To investigate the range of information and techniques used in zoological
parks and public holders of Kea (Nestor notabilis), in order to promote visitor
education and advocacy of the species.
2. To investigate the general knowledge that zoo visitors have regarding Kea
a) before they enter a facility, and
b) after they have left a facility
With the purpose of identifying possible correlations between the information
provided by the facility and education of zoo visitors.
3. To investigate what visitors attitudes are towards Kea and their views of
human-Kea conflict.
18

Questions identified within this study include:
• Are zoological parks and Kea holders providing good opportunities for
public learning and education?
• What techniques are used for education of visitors?
• Are zoological parks and Kea holders providing positive advocacy
opportunities for the species?
• Are visitors coming away from zoological parks with an increased
general knowledge regarding Kea?
• What attitudes do zoo visitors pre and post visit have regarding wild
Kea and any perceived views of human-Kea conflict
19

Methods
This research was divided into three sample groups:
1. Kea keepers (Group 1) - used for objective 1
2. Zoo visitors before they entered a facility (Group 2) – used for objectives 2
and 3
3. Zoo visitors after they left a facility (Group 3) – used for objectives 2 and 3
Group 1: Keeper Survey
A fifteen-question survey (qualitative and quantitative) was developed and piloted on
the Native Fauna Section zookeepers at Auckland Zoo. After improvements were
made, the survey (Appendix 1) and information sheet (Appendix 2) and consent forms
(Appendix 3) were posted out to twenty-four known public holders of Kea around
New Zealand.
Information was requested on the following:
• Enclosure type
• If educational signs were provided and what type of information was included
on the signs
• If educational talks were given to the public and what information was
included in the talk
• How often were educational talks given?
• Were educational talks advertised in any way?
• Were Kea trained or conditioned to interact with a keeper during a talk, and if
so, would this have more of an impact on their audience?
20

Group 2: Zoo visitors before they entered a facility
A twenty-three question survey (qualitative and quantitative) (Appendix 5) an
information sheet (Appendix 4) and consent forms (Appendix 3) were developed for
use before visitors entered a facility. The Group 2 surveys were carried out at the
entrances to Auckland Zoo, Franklin Zoo (Tuakau), Hamilton Zoo, Natureland Zoo
(Nelson) and Orana Park (Christchurch). These facilities were chosen to provide three
zoos from the North Island and two zoos from the South Island, in order to gain a
representative sample from across New Zealand.
Information was requested on the following:
• Demographics
• How often they visited the zoo
• The most popular reason why the public visit the zoo
• General knowledge of visitors regarding Kea
• Attitudes of visitors regarding wild Kea and human-kea conflict
21

Group 3: Zoo visitors as they left a facility
A twenty-seven question survey (Appendix 6) (qualitative and quantitative)
information sheet (Appendix 4) and consent forms (Appendix 3) were developed for
use as visitors left a facility. The participants in this group were screened to ensure
they were not participants in Group 2 to minimise the possibility that bias would
occur due to visitors looking for the information while at the zoo. The Group 3
surveys were carried out at the entrances to Auckland Zoo, Franklin Zoo (Tuakau),
Hamilton Zoo, Natureland Zoo (Nelson) and Orana Park (Christchurch).
Information was requested of these participants on the following:
• Demographics
• How often they visit the zoo
• The most popular reason why they visit the zoo
• Did they see Kea
• Opinions on the Kea enclosure
• If they read an information sign at the Kea enclosure
• If they listened to an educational talk from a zoo keeper regarding Kea
• General knowledge of visitors regarding Kea
• Attitudes of visitors regarding wild Kea and human-kea conflict
Participants of Group 2 and Group 3 surveys were chosen at random via ‘every
second person’ method. The tenth person method (Oppenheim 1992) was originally
planned for use in order to randomise participant selection, but became unrealistic due
to time constraints. Instead, this was adjusted to approaching every second person.
22

During the sampling, if the participant looked younger than 18 years they were asked
to state their age before continuing. Each survey was filled in by the participant and
took 5-10 minutes to complete.
Data collection for Group 2 and Group 3 was taken at each facility on the same day,
apart from Orana Park, which took place on consecutive days, with Group 2 and
Group 3 surveyed on separate days.
Group 2 and Group 3 surveys were piloted during August 2006. Each participant was
given the opportunity to take an information sheet explaining the study, and to
withdraw from the study within two weeks of completing the survey if they desired.
Analysis of data
Once data was collected it was allocated to the appropriate group (Group 1, 2 or 3)
using an identification number allowing group comparisons to be conducted.
Data was entered into Microsoft Excel 2002 and transferred to SPSS 15.0 for analysis.
Graphs were produced using SPSS 15.0.
Descriptive analysis of the questionnaires (Groups 1, 2 and 3) was conducted,
frequencies and percentages for relevant answers were calculated. Cross-tabulations
were conducted on selected variables. Chi-square tests (Zar 1984) were used to
determine differences with specifically associated variables, due to the low cell count
occurrences in contingency tables the Likelihood Ratio (G) (Zar 1984) was used to
determine significance.
Mann Whitney U test was used to test for differences between two independent
groups (Groups 2 and 3). This test was used to look at differences in knowledge of
visitors before they entered a zoo and after they had visited a zoo, and to test the
differences between Group 2 and 3 attitudes towards human-kea conflict.
23

Results
Group 1: Keeper survey
A total of sixteen keeper surveys were returned by Kea holders who have birds on
public display (66% return rate).
Enclosure types
19% (3/16) of the population were held in modified enclosures not originally designed
for birds, 19% (3/16) were held in a public walk-through aviary, 6% (1/16) were held
in a purpose built kea aviary, and the majority 56% (9/16) were held in a standard bird
aviary. The majority of birds 87.5% (14/16) were kept in single species exhibits and
12.5% (2/16) were kept in mixed species exhibits.
Educational signs
The majority of public Kea holders 87.5% (14/16) had educational signs at the
enclosure 12.5% (2/16) did not have educational signs.
Differing amounts of information was provided on educational signs (Figure 1), with
most facilities displaying Taxonomic information, and few facilities indicating the
estimated numbers of wild Kea.
24

Fig. 1: Educational sign information – frequencies
Information on sign
Threats
Kea cull
Damage pot.
Protection
Curiosity
Intelligence
Est Nos Wild
Threat Class
Habitat
Behaviour
Biology
Morphology
Taxonomy
0.0
2.5
Educational keeper talks
Information on sign
5.0
7.5
Frequency
The majority of public Kea holders 73.3% (11/16) gave educational talks to visitors
26.7% (5/16) did not give educational talks to visitors. Educational talks were given
between every day and less than once a week (Table 1)
Table 1: Frequency educational talks by facilities holding Kea
Every day
10.0
Frequency Percentage
4
36.3%
Twice a week 1 9.09%
Once a week 4 36.3%
Less than once a week 2 18.1%
Total 11 100%
12.5
25

Educational talks were given at a set time 63.6% (7/11) or impromptu 36.3% (4/11).
A total of five (45.5%) facilities advertised their talk in some way to the visitors,
55.5% (6/11) did not advertise the talk.
Most of the information given in educational talks varied in frequencies (Figure 2),
highlighted was the curiosity and intelligence of kea, few facilities detailed how to
minimise damage to human property while in Kea habitat.
Figure 2: Information included in educational talks
Information in Talk
Threats
Min. damage
Kea cull
Damage pot.
Protection
Curiosity
Intelligence
Feeding Kea
Est Nos Wild
Threat Class
Habitat
Behaviour
Biology
Morphology
Taxonomy
0
Training and conditioning
2
Information in Talk
4
6
Frequency
Information was requested on training/conditioning of Kea, 43.7% (7/16) used some
form of training/conditioning. The remaining nine facilities were asked why they did
not train or condition Kea, seven of those responded (Table 2.)
8
10
12
26

Table 2: Reasons Kea are not trained/conditioned
Frequency Percent
No time
Want birds as natural as
3 42.9
possible 1 14.3
Plan to train 1 14.3
Tame enough 1 14.3
Lack of skill for training 1 14.3
Total 7 100.0
Training and conditioning use in educational talks
A total of six (54.5%) respondents used some form of training/conditioning in their
talk. When asked if they thought this provided more of an impact to their audience
100% thought that training/conditioning did provide a higher impact.
The reasons stated for this are given in Figure3.
How the keepers judged the level of impact on the audience was not clear i.e. did they
ask visitors for feedback after the talk.
Figure3: Reasons training/conditioning has impact in keeper talks
40
30
Percent 50
20
10
Why does training/conditioning have more or less of an impact on your
audience
0
Positive enrichment
for kea
Greater impact for
visitors and backs
up what Keeper is
saying
Positive for other NZ
species
Important tool for
advocacy
Allows visitors to
observe morphology
and behaviour
Why does training/conditioning have more or less of an impact on your
audience
27

Group 2: Zoo visitors before they entered a facility and
Demographics
Group 3: Zoo visitors as they left a facility
A total of 233 public surveys were completed, 127 in Group 2 (before entering the
zoo), and 106 in Group 3 (as the visitors left a zoo).
Female respondents made up 65%, male respondents 35%. Tourists (overseas or New
Zealanders out of local area) made up 9.4% of the sample. Age groups are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3: Age groups of respondents across Groups 2 & 3
Age group Frequency Percentage
18-25 33 14.16%
25-35 62 26.6%
35-45 63 27.3%
45-55 41 17.5%
55-65 30 12.8%
>65 4 1.7%
Total 233 100%
Zoo visits
Respondents of Groups 2 and 3 were asked how many times a year they visited the
zoo (Figure 4) the highest majority was over a year between visits 30.9% (72/233),
the lowest was less than once per month 6.4% (15/233)
What was the most popular reason for their visit to the zoo (Figure 5) the majority
stated “fun” 36.1% (79/219), “education” 13.2% (29/219).
28

Figure 4: Zoo visits per year Groups 2 and 3
Percent
30
20
10
0
Less than once
per month
Once per month
Zoo visits per year
Once every 6
months
Once per year
Zoo visits per year
Figure 5: Popular reason for zoo visit Groups 2 and 3
30
20
Percent 40
10
0
Education
Fun
Keep the
children
occupied
Photography
More than a
year between
visits
Most popular reason for visiting zoo
Most popular reason for visiting zoo
Quality family
time
First time visit
other
29

Interest in New Zealand native species
When respondents from Groups 2 and 3 were asked if they were interested in New
Zealand Native species, 74.6% (173/232) answered yes. The respondents who
answered no when asked if they were interested in New Zealand Native species were
then asked to state why (Figure 6). The majority of respondents 55.2% (128/232)
stated they liked all animals. There was no significant difference (G= .942, d.f = 2, p
= .624) between gender and interest in New Zealand native species.
Figure 6: Reasons for not being interested in New Zealand Native species Groups 2
and 3
50
40
30
Percent 60
20
10
0
Boring
Why are you not interested in NZ native species
Prefer exotics Don't like birds
Like all
animals
Haven't learnt Like animals
about them which can't
be seen in the
wild in NZ
Why are you not interested in NZ native species
Too busy
30

Zoo visitor education /knowledge
The respondents in Group 3 were asked if they read an information sign at the Kea
enclosure, 51.1% (45/88) of visitors did not read a sign, 25% (22/88) did read a sign,
and 23.9% (21/88) stated they did not see a sign. There was no significant difference
in age groups reading an information sign (G = 10.963, d.f = 10, p = .360).
Selected correct knowledge questions were analysed to investigate if differences
between reading an information sign and not reading had any effect on increased
knowledge (Table 4).
Table 4: Significance of reading an information sign and correct answers
Question Significant
Protected species G= 8.868 d.f= 4 p= .064 No
Kea endangered G= 2.143 d.f= 4 p= .710 No
Feed wild Kea G= 3.179 d.f= 4 p= .528 No
Is there Human-Kea conflict G= 6.617 d.f= 4 p= .158 No
Are Kea intelligent G= 5.550 d.f= 4 p= .235 No
Are Kea curious G= 3.112 d.f= 6 p= .795 No
Can Kea damage human
property
G= 2.073 d.f= 4 p= .722 No
There was a significant difference in gender of those who read information signs (G =
7.796, d.f = 2, p= .020 ) females 81.8% (18/22) and males 18.2% (4/22).
When asked if they had listened to an educational talk from a zookeeper, 80.8%
(80/99) did not listen to a talk, 5.1% (5/99) did listen to a talk, and 14.1% (14/99)
stated they did not know there was a talk.
31

Selected correct knowledge questions were analysed to investigate if differences
between listening to a zookeeper talk and not listening to a talk had effect on
increased knowledge (Table4).
Table 5: Significance of listening to an educational talk and correct answers
Question Significant
Protected species G= 3.280 d.f= 4 p= .512 No
Kea endangered G= 18.589 d.f= 4 p= .001 Yes
Feed wild Kea G= 2.060 d.f= 4 p= .725 No
Is there Human-Kea conflict G= 8.538 d.f= 4 p= .074 No
Are Kea intelligent G= 4.111 d.f= 4 p= .391 No
Are Kea curious G= 5.532 d.f= 6 p= .478 No
Can Kea damage human
property
G= 1.287 d.f= 4 p= .864 No
A variety of knowledge questions were asked of respondents in Groups 2 and 3, these
were coded for correct, incorrect or not sure answers (Table 6).
Table 6: Knowledge questions Groups 2 and 3
Question Correct Incorrect Not sure
Are Kea New Zealand (NZ) native species? 89.2% (207/232) 2.2% (5/232) 8.6%(20/232)
What areas of NZ do Kea live in the wild? 51.7% (199/230) 22.2%(51/230) 25.1%(60/230)
What is normal Kea habitat? 48.5% (112/231) 36.4% (84/231) 15.2% (35/231)
Are Kea a protected species? 68.8% (159/231) 6.9% (16/231) 24.2% (56/231)
Are Kea endangered? 41.9% (96/229) 13.5% (31/229) 44.5% (102/229)
Do Kea have the potential to damage
human property?
81.3% (187/230) 2.2% (5/230) 16.5% (38/230)
32

When asked if respondents in Groups 2 and 3 would feed wild Kea 69.9% (160/229)
stated they would not, 14.8% (34/229) would feed and 15.3% (35/229) were not sure.
Two questions were asked of groups 2 and 3 on the level of intelligence and curiosity
in Kea (Table 7).
Table 7: Intelligence and curiosity levels of Kea, % of respondents in Groups 2 and 3
Intelligence Curiosity
High levels 60.5% (138/228) 70.2% (160/228)
Average levels 18.9% (43/228) 13.6% (31/228)
Low levels .4% (1/228) .9% (2/228)
Not sure 20.2% (46/228) 15.4% (35/228)
The knowledge questions shown in Table 4, the behaviour change question
concerning feeding wild Kea, and intelligence/curiosity questions were all coded as
correct, incorrect or not sure answers.
The number of correct answers in Groups 2 and 3 were analysed, there was no
significant difference between the groups (z = -.829, n =76, p = .407) (Figure 7).
Figure7: Number of correct answers before visiting zoo, and after visiting zoo.
Number of correct answers
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
�
�� �
1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Before/after visiting zoo
33

There was no significant difference between age groups and number of correct
answers (G = 60.170, d.f =50, p = .154)
Visitor attitudes towards Kea
Respondents in Groups 2 and 3 were asked if there is human-kea conflict, 54.6%
(125/229) stated there is conflict, 13.5% (31/229) stated there is no conflict, and
31.9% (73/229) were not sure.
When asked why there is conflict between humans and Kea, respondents gave a
variety of answers; these were then placed into fourteen categories.
The percentages of answers across the categories for Groups 2 and 3 are shown in
Figure 8.
The highest value 34.3% (58/317) was for vehicle damage, with humans invading Kea
habitat 11.8% (20/327) the next highest value sheep attacks was the third highest
value 10.1% (17/317).
34

Figure 8: Reasons for human-kea conflict Groups 2 and 3
Why there is human-Kea conflict?
Curious
Cheeky
Annoy people
Damage to other human property
Target tourists
Encouraged by feeding
Like shiny objects
TV ads showing destructive behaviours
Stealing human belongings
Humans invading habitat
Historic cull
Vehicle damage
Sheep attacks
Destructive behaviours generally
Why there is human-Kea conflict?
0
Percent
The numbers of category answers between Groups 2 and 3 were analysed, there was
no significant difference between the two groups (z = 1.286, n = 14, p = 0.208).
Respondents in Groups 2 and 3 were asked if Kea should be a protected species,
80.2% (182/227) answered yes, 17.6 % (40/227) were not sure and 2.2 % (5/227)
stated they should not. One respondent from the North Island stated Kea should not be
protected due to nuisance issues with humans. Four respondents from the South Island
stated Kea should not be protected, one stated sheep attacks, one stated Kea are noisy,
and two stated nuisance issues with humans.
10
20
30
40
35

Groups 2 and 3 were asked two questions regarding Kea in the wild.
1) If they considered Kea to be important to conserve in the wild, 85.2%
(196/230) thought Kea are important to conserve, 14.3% (33/230) were not
sure and 0.4% (1/230) thought Kea were not important to conserve.
2) How would they consider an encounter with wild Kea, 67% (154/230) thought
it would be a privilege, 18.7% (43/230) thought it would be a novelty, 12.6%
(29/230) were not sure, 1.7% (4/230) thought Kea would be a nuisance to
encounter in the wild.
Kea enclosure
Group 3 was asked if they liked the kea enclosure (Figure 9), the highest value for
disliking the enclosure was 26.9% (14/52) who stated the enclosure was too small.
The highest value for liking the enclosure was 15.4% (8/52) who stated the enclosure
was naturalistic.
There was no significant difference between males and females (G = .127, d. f =2, p =
.939) when asked if they liked the kea enclosure.
36

Figure 9: Reasons for liking/disliking the Kea enclosure
Why you like/dislike enclosure
Close contact
Open spaces
Clean
Good enrichment
See birds easily
Spacious
Private for birds
Naturalistic
Damp
Didn't look for long
Cluttered
Min. enrichment
Bare
Don't like captive birds
Birds bored
Not natural enough
Too dark
Too small
0
Why you like/dislike enclosure
10
Percent
Visitors to North Island zoos (Figure 10) gave more comment regarding the enclosure
then visitor to South Island zoos (Figure 11).
20
30
37

Figure10: Reasons for liking/disliking enclosure – North Island
Why you like/dislike enclosure
Close contact
Clean
Open spaces
See birds easily
Good enrichment
Spacious
Private for birds
Naturalistic
Not natural enough
Min. enrichment
Bare
Birds bored
Damp
Don't like captive birds
Didn't look for long
Too dark
Too small
0
Why you like/dislike enclosure
Percent
Figure 11: Reasons for liking/disliking enclosure – South Island
Why you like/dislike enclosure
Naturalistic
Spacious
See birds easily
Birds looked bored
Not natural enough
Don't like captive birds
Cluttered
Too dark
Too small
0
10
Why you like/dislike enclosure
5
10
Percent
15
20
20
25
30
38

Enclosures
Discussion
The type of enclosures captive Kea are held, will affect the message conveyed and
education of the zoo visitor. The most popular enclosures with the visitor are
naturalistic, and these types have been shown to impact on the level of education, and
on the conservation message. The Kea Captive Management Plan (Pullar 1996 pg 7)
states, “Institutions must be required to display Kea in surrounding and with signs that
convey effective conservation messages to the public”.
The majority of public holders in New Zealand use standard bird aviaries to present
Kea to the public, standard bird aviaries are practical and cost effective, but it may be
more difficult to provide a naturalistic type exhibit that would reflect Kea habitat or a
stimulating environment for the birds. Naturalism is not the only way to produce good
education and advocacy opportunities, the introduction of enrichment can provide an
opportunity for the birds show normal behaviour patterns. Only one holder had an
exhibit specifically designed for Kea. One third of the holders held the birds in a
public walk-through aviary, this would allow the visitors to become immersed in the
exhibit and thus allow a connection for visitors as stated by Coe (1996) with the bird
and the habitat. One third of the population are held in enclosures not originally
designed for birds, while this is not ideal, the level of changes made to these
enclosures will influence the finished result.
The highest frequency for visitors disliking the enclosure was given as being too
small, this may reflect the types of enclosures visitors viewed.
39

When asked if visitors liked the enclosure the highest frequency of positive statements
was the enclosure was naturalistic. Visitors to South Island zoos differed; the highest
positive frequency for those visitors was being able to see birds easily. The reasons
for this are unclear, but may be due to both facilities included in this study in the
South Island housing the Kea in older style zoo enclosures, which may not reflect
naturalism. This aspect of the study has implications for New Zealand zoos, further
research would be warranted into what aspects of enclosures appeal to the visiting
public across the country and the reasons for differences.
Presenting animals in mixed species exhibits provides visitors with more interesting,
exciting and educational displays (Thomas & Maruska 1996). The majority of
holders did not place Kea in mixed species exhibits and as such, this may be reducing
the effectiveness of educational opportunities with visitors. A study conducted by Coll
et al (2003) at Hamilton Zoo found the mixed species free flight aviary to be one of
the most popular exhibits for visitors because, as the visitors stated, it “makes you feel
like you are in nature”. The parrot court at Hamilton Zoo was the least popular exhibit
apparently because the parrots “needed more room” and was “not as natural” as others
(ibid).
Educational signs
Two of the sixteen holders did not have information signs; this does not conform to
the Management Plan, and is a lost opportunity for education and advocacy.
The information provided on signs varied, the majority of information was knowledge
based – taxonomy, morphology, and habitat.
40

Lower on the scale was conservation information – protection status, threats to Kea,
threat classification and estimated numbers of wild birds (this scored the lowest of all
sign information). Advocacy information was included on signs, the highest
frequency was curiosity and intelligence levels, potential for Kea to cause damage to
human property was the next highest frequency, and the historic Kea cull was present
on a low number of signs. None of the signs had human behavioural change
information – feeding wild birds or ways to minimise damage to property while in
Kea territory.
Previous studies have shown low numbers of visitors reading educational signs (Coll
et al 2003, Schnackenberg 1997) this study supports this, with a low number of
visitors who read a sign at the enclosure. Despite this signs should also be available at
every enclosure to maximise education opportunities.
The design of information signs and the types of information available may impact
on the amount of visitors reading the signs (Schnackenberg 1997). More interactive
signs, fun facts and thought provoking questions may improve education possibilities
of signs (Schnackenberg 1997). Behavioural change information could possibly
improve readability of signs; this could allow the reader to relate more with the
information, as long as the reader did not feel they were being told what to do. The
use of technology would also make signage more attractive to visitors and the use of
questions in which the visitor could interact with, may provide more learning
opportunities.
41

Educational zookeeper talks
Educational zookeeper talks have shown in previous studies (Hienrich & Birney 1992,
Kelling et al 2003, Tribe & Booth 2003, Povey 2005) to be one of the most effective
ways of conveying conservation education to visitors. Two thirds of holders gave
educational talks, the majority of those occurring either every day or once a week.
A very low number of visitors listened to a zookeeper talk in this study; this could
have been due to random days selected for sampling and talks not occurring on
sample days. However, one third of all talks are given impromptu, and over half of
holders did not advertise the talk in any form, this must impact on the number of
visitors being aware of zookeeper talks, thus attending talks. Educational zookeeper
talks would be more effective if more of the visitors are aware through advertising
and a set time given for talks. While it may not be practical for talks to be given every
day, they should be given on days that have the highest visitor numbers in order to
have a greater impact.
The information provided in zookeeper talks varied and more emphasis was placed on
advocacy information than was on signs - curiosity and intelligence with highest
frequency over all, behaviour, damage potential and the historic cull were also in
higher frequencies. Knowledge based information such as biology, habitat and
morphology had high frequencies. Conservation information – protection status,
threats, estimated numbers in wild and threat classification had higher frequencies in
talks than on signs. Behavioural change information was given in some talks, feeding
of wild birds in half of all talks, but ways to minimise damage to property was the
lowest frequency observed.
42

While the types of information available in talks were an improvement on the
information available on signs, the visitors have to be aware a talk is taking place in
order to take part.
Training and conditioning
Training/conditioning is valuable if combined with talks, Kea are an ideal species for
this to occur, with the need for little time to be invested in training. However, the use
of training and conditioning must be a positive experience for the birds in order to
ensure a high level of welfare. The utilisation of training/conditioning in zookeeper
talks has been shown to have a greater impact on the audience and increases the
amount of time a visitor stays at an enclosure (Anderson et al 2003, Swanagan 2000).
Under half of holders trained or conditioned Kea, despite this species high intelligence
levels (Huber et al 2001, Werdenich & Huber 2006), their wide behavioural
repertoire, and they readily adapt and learn (Whybrow Pers.Comm. 2005). The main
reason stated for this was lack of time, but according to Higdon (1998), each training
session should be no longer than 15 minutes to ensure the bird does not loose focus.
Zoo visits
The majority of zoo visitors either are first time visitors or come to the zoo less than
once per year. This must have implications on the level of education occurring as this
group will not have repeated exposure to educational opportunities. Any opportunity
for education of this group must be maximised, the use of advertising zookeeper talks
may provide this.
When asked the most popular reason for visiting the zoo the majority of visitors
answered either fun or quality family time (recreation).
43

Education was not seen as a popular reason for visiting in three quarters of the
sample. Zoos could improve this by promoting themselves more as centres for
learning and education.
Education/knowledge of zoo visitors
The level of general knowledge of this species by visitors varies. Most areas have the
need for improvement and include threat classification, habitat, range, and protection
status.
The majority of zoo visitors were aware Kea are New Zealand Native bird. Two thirds
of visitors knew Kea are protected, but just under one third were not sure of protection
status, this possibly could have been due to historic beliefs that this is a pest species.
Half of the sample knew that South Island is the area this species lives, but half were
either incorrect or were not sure, this is surprising considering the amount of press
Kea have due to their interactions with people and property at ski fields in the South
Island. Under half of the sample knew the normal habitat was either Alpine or beech
forest, again surprising that more people did not recognise Alpine area as habitat. The
lowest recognised frequency was given for the question “are Kea endangered?” this
question was the only one in which proved to be significant due to visitors listening to
a zookeeper talk, all of those who listened to a talk answered this correctly. As
mentioned in the introduction, there is currently no captive breeding taking place, as
such, this species are not specifically highlighted as endangered, when compared to
other species involved in active conservation measures.
The majority of visitors were aware that Kea are highly intelligent and curious. When
asked a behaviour change question “would you feed wild Kea” the majority answered
they would not.
44

This is a positive result as the availability of food scraps and people feeding
encourages these birds to congregate around areas of human activity (Grant 1993).
Whether the fact that the sample was taken in a zoo environment, which generally
does not allow feeding of animals, had implications on visitors answering this
question correctly is unclear. The temptation to coax a wild animal closer may also
influence people when face to face with wild Kea. This temptation could be taken
advantage of for the purposes of education and advocacy, as it currently used at some
zoos with behind the scenes tours and close up encounters with animals.
When the number of correct answers was compared between Groups 2 and 3 (before
entering and after exiting) there was no significant difference, this shows that in
regard to Kea the New Zealand zoo visitor is not learning while in the zoo.
This is not surprising due to the low numbers of visitors reading signs, and low
numbers of visitors listening to zookeeper talks. However, this study has shown
education in New Zealand zoos concerning Kea needs improvement, as visitors are
not learning more during their visit.
Visitor attitudes
Visitor attitudes of Kea appear to be satisfactory, with most people having respect for
the protection and conservation of the species. However, this study only looked at
attitudes of zoo visitors who may be more inclined to feel this way.
Over half of the sample was aware of some form of human-kea conflict. The highest
frequency when asked why was for vehicle damage, this is what Kea appear to be
most well known for. As the majority of visitors were concerned with vehicle damage,
more information concerning how to avoid damage to property could be made
available.
45

Interestingly the next highest frequency was “humans are invading Kea habitat”, this
may reflect the growing concern for conservation, and the impact humans have on the
natural world. The publics’ awareness of problems with farmers and sheep was also
highlighted. The potential for Kea to be destructive and cause damage to human
property besides cars was another area highlighted.
The majority of visitors thought that Kea should be a protected species. The majority
of visitors felt Kea are important to conserve and privilege to encounter in the wild.
These three answers may show visitors potential empathy towards awareness and
support for conservation of New Zealand Native species.
In the Kea Advocacy Strategy (Peat 1995 pg 22) there appears a discrepancy between
Kea advocacy and the following statement “captive Kea do not allow adornment of
their environment, they are inclined to destroy any attempt to green or decorate their
cage” this is statement does nothing to encourage a differing view of Kea.
46

Conclusion
The range of techniques used by public holders of Kea in New Zealand is not having
the effect the facilities are aiming for. The lack of purpose built exhibits for Kea may
be having an impact on the educational and advocacy messages the visitor gleans
from viewing captive Kea. The use of walk through aviaries containing Kea along
with other species could improve education and advocacy.
Education in New Zealand zoos is not occurring concerning Kea. Areas, which need
improvement, are threat classification, habitat, range and intelligence levels.
The education of visitors during their visit to a zoo is not having an impact on the
general knowledge of the species. More effective means of supplying the information
is needed, such as the use of signs and design of signs. Having talks at a set time as
well as advertising talks would also improve the numbers of visitors attending the
talks.
Advocacy in this species could be improved, with more emphasis put on them as a
unique and highly adaptable species as well as reminders that we are encroaching into
their habitat. Zoo visitors can be exposed to the normal behaviour of this species,
which has allowed it to survive in a very harsh environment, through zookeeper talks
and Kea training. They then may have a greater understanding of why these birds are
attracted to their cars, and other human property within the birds’ natural
environment.
When captive breeding takes place, there may be more emphasis on education and
advocacy concerning Kea, this would be positive not only for wild birds but for all
New Zealanders.
47

The Captive Management Plan for captive Kea is not adhered to in some cases and the
goals are not being met concerning education and advocacy. New Zealand zoos and
the Department of Conservation need to work together to improve this. One of The
Department of Conservation functions is to advocate for native species, both
documents, which have been produced regarding Kea, should be followed up and an
assessment of impact these documents may have had. Certain statements within these
documents need to be reviewed if the public is going to form a different opinion of
this species.
Kea are unique in the natural world, have survived and thrived in the harshest of
environments, despite all threats to them. This species are icons, are highly intelligent,
have the ability to fascinate and entertain tourists as well as New Zealanders therefore
should be promoted for these qualities.
48

Criticisms and Recommendations
A larger sample size for this study may have been beneficial, however due to time
constraints and a limited resources only one day at each facility was allocated.
This may have biased the results due to larger zoos having higher numbers of visitors,
than smaller counterparts. During sampling of visitors as they left a zoo, they should
have been asked if they had visited the Kea enclosure, a small proportion did not,
which reduced the sample size.
Information should have been sought on the internal furnishings of enclosures and the
size of enclosures, in order to properly evaluate the impact of enclosures.
The sampling would have more accurate concerning education in zoos, if it had
occurred on days where educational talks were known to be taking place. If this had
occurred, a more definite conclusion could have been reached.
Ideally, one or two additional zoos from the South Island would have also benefited
this study, as the natural range of Kea is in the South Island. This may have produced
differing results concerning perceptions of Kea, as well as improving sample size.
Further studies would be beneficial addressing advocacy of this species in their
natural range, surveys of ski field operators, Alpine villages and tourism operators
may produce a different result for perceptions of Kea. The issue of sheep attacks
could warrant further investigation and surveys of farmers living within Kea range,
this would allow for gaps in knowledge to be investigated, and thus recommendations
could be made for more effective measures of sheep husbandry to avoid sheep deaths
attributed to Kea.
49

References
Anderson U. S. Kelling, A. S., Pressley-Keough, R. Bloomsmith, M. A. & Maple T.
2003. Enhancing the Zoo Visitors Experience by Public Animal Training and
Oral Interpretation at an Otter Exhibit. Environment and Behaviour 35(6):826-
841.
Auckland Zoo. 2004-2005. Auckland Zoo Annual Report. Auckland.
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. 2005. Building a Future for Wildlife -
The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. Bern.
Bond A. & Diamond, J. 1992. Population estimates of Kea in Arthurs Pass National
Park. Notornis 39(3).
Clarke C. M. H. 1970. Observations on Population, Movements and Food of the Kea
(Nestor notabilis). Notornis 17:105-114.
Coe J. C. 1996. What's the Message? Education through Exhibit Design. In: Kleiman
D, Allen, M. E. , Thompson, K. V. , & Lumpkin, S., editor. Wild Mammals in
Captivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p 167-174.
Coll R. K., Vyle, B., Bolstad, R. & Tofield, S. 2003. Zoos as a Source of Free Choice
Learning. Research in Science & Technological Education 21(1):67-99.
Department of Conservation. N.d. Statutory Mandate. Accessed on 9/11/06 at
http://www.doc.govt.nz/About-DOC/001~Overview/001~Statutory-
Mandate.asp
Diamond J. & Bond, A. 2004. Social play in Kaka (Nestor meridionalis) with
comparisons to Kea (Nestor notabilis). Behaviour 141:777-798.
Elliott G. & Kemp J. 1999. Conservation Ecology of kea (Nestor notabilis). Dunedin:
University of Otago.
Gajdon G. K. 2005. Kea cognition. Biology of Cognition. University of Vienna
Grant A. 1993. Wild Kea Management Statement. Canterbury Miscellaneous Report
Series No 4. Christchurch: Department of Conservation.
Hancocks D. 2001. A Different Nature. The Paradoxical World of Zoos and Their
Uncertain Future. California: University of California Press.
Higdon P. L. 1998. Bird Care and Training. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Higgins P. J. 1999. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds.
Higgins P. J., editor. Parrots to Dollar Birds ed. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
50

Huber L., Rechberger, S. & Taborsky, M. 2001. Social learning affects object
exploration and manipulation in keas, Nestor notabilis. Animal Behaviour
62:945-954.
Johnstone R. 2001 May. Cunning Kea, Cheeky, Conniving, Cognitive. Forest and
Bird:18-19.
Marvin G. & Mullan B. 1987. Zoo Culture. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Miller B., Conway W., Reading R., Wemmer C., Wildt D., Kleiman D., Monfort S.,
Rabinowitz A., Armstrong B., & Hutchins M. 2004. Evaluating the
Conservation Mission of Zoos, Aquariums, Botanical Gardens, and Natural
History Museums. Conservation Biology 18(1):86-93.
Montaudouina S. & Le. Papea, G. 2005. Comparison between 28 zoological parks:
stereotypic and social behaviours of captive brown bears (Ursus arctos).
Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92: 129–141.
Morris A & Morris P. 2002. Chester Zoo Life. International Zoo News 49(7).
Oppenheim, A. N. 1992. Questionnaire design. Interviewing and attitude
Measurement. London. Printer Publishers Ltd.
Orr-Walker T. 2005. Evaluation of captive Kea (Nestor notabilis) management
practices in New Zealand and the effect on behavioural repertoire. Unitec.
Peat N. 1995. Kea Advocacy Strategy. Miscellaneous Report Series No 28. Dunedin:
Department of Conservation.
Povey K. Message Design for Animal Presentations: A New Approach; 2005
Chicago.
Pullar T. 1996. Kea (Nestor notabilis) Captive Management Plan and Husbandry
Manual. Threatened Species Occasional Publication No 9.
Schnackenberg H. View the Zoo! Evaluation of visual communication in an outdoor
educational setting; 1997; Albuquerque.
Smith L.D.G. Zoos and behaviour change: lip service or genuinely possible; 2006;
Perth Zoo.
Sutherland W. 2004. The Conservation Handbook. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Swanagan J.S. 2000. Factors Influencing Zoo Visitors' Conservation attitudes and
Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Education 31(4):26-31.
Temple P. 1996. Book of the Kea. Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett Publishers Ltd.
Thomas W. D. M. & Maruska E. J. 1996. Mixed-Species Exhibits with Mammals. In:
Kleiman D, Allen, M. E. , Thompson, K. V. , & Lumpkin, S., editor. Wild
Mammals in Captivity. Chicago: Chicago University Press. p 204-211
51

Thompson K. V. 1996. Exhibitory Introduction. In: Kleiman D, Allen, M. E.,
Thompson, K. V., & Lumpkin, S., editor. Wild Mammals in Captivity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p 159-160.
Tribe A & Booth, R. 2003. Assessing the role of zoos in wildlife conservation.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:65-74.
Werdenich D. & Huber L. 2006. A case of quick problem solving in birds: string
pulling in keas, Nestor notabilis. Animal Behaviour (In Press).
Whybrow M. 2005. Senior Keeper, Auckland Zoo Native Fauna Section. Auckland.
Young RJ. 2003. Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. UFAW Animal
Welfare Series. U.K: Blackwell Science Ltd.
Zar J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
1997. The Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus. Elliott J, editor. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Appendix 1
52

Survey Questions Kea Holders
Please return this survey by 10 th September 2006 in envelope
enclosed
Glossary of terms used in survey
Educational signage – any signs which display information regarding kea
Biology – breeding seasons, diet, life span, average weight etc
Taxonomic information – genus and species, Latin names
Morphology – size, colour, differences between females and males, juvenile colouring
Threat classification – according to Department of Conservation
Educational talks/encounters – a talk to visitors regarding Kea and their habitat, diet, threats
to Kea etc
Train/ Condition – Behaviours Kea have been taught to perform, e.g. fly or hop onto keepers
hand, take food from hand, onto scales for weighing, showing wings out stretched, directed
flying from one area to another
1. What is your job title?
______________________________________
2. How many Kea do you currently hold?
__________________________________________
3. What type of enclosure are the Kea held in?
A) A standard aviary
B) A modified zoo cage type enclosure
C) A free flight aviary
D) A public walk through enclosure
E) A purpose built Kea enclosure
4. Are the kea held in a:
A) Multi species exhibit
B) Single species exhibit
5. Do you have educational signage concerning Kea?
A) Yes
B) No (go to question 7)
53

6. If you answered yes to the previous question please tick all the information which is
displayed on your sign
� Biology(Feeding, Breeding etc)
� Taxonomic information (Genus, species)
� Morphology (physical characteristics)
� Normal Behaviour
� Kea habitat and range
� Threat Classification
� Estimated numbers in the wild
� Feeding of wild Kea by humans
� Threats to Kea and/or habitat
� Intelligence of Kea
� Curiosity of kea
� Protection status
� Potential to damage cars and other property
� How to minimise damage to human property
� Kea culling due to scavenging on sheep
7. Do you give educational talks/encounters to public regarding your Kea?
A) Yes
B) No (go to question 12)
8. If you answered yes to the previous question please tick the topics covered in your
talk/encounter
� Biology (Feeding, Breeding etc)
� Taxonomic information (Genus, species)
� Morphology (physical characteristics)
� Normal Behaviour
� Kea habitat and range
� Threat Classification
� Estimated numbers in the wild
� Feeding of wild Kea by humans
� Threats to Kea and/or habitat
� Intelligence of Kea
� Curiosity of Kea
� Protection status
� Potential to damage cars and other property
54

� How to minimise damage to human property
� Kea culling due to scavenging on sheep
9. How often is an educational talk/encounter given regarding Kea?
A) Every day
B) Every second day
C) Twice a week
D) Once a week
10. When does the talk/encounter take place?
A) A set time
B) Impromptu
11. Is the talk/encounter advertised to public in some way (e.g. announcement or
pamphlet)
A) Yes
B) No
12. Do you train your Kea?
A) Yes (go to question 14)
B) No
13. If you answered no to the previous question is there any particular reason why you
don’t train Kea
14. If you answered yes to question 12, is this included in your educational talk?
A) Yes
B) No
15. Do you condition your Kea?
A) Yes (go to question 15)
B) No
16. If you answered no to the previous question is there any particular reason why you
don’t condition Kea
55

17. If you answered yes to question 15, is this included in your educational talk?
A) Yes
B) No
18. If you train and/or condition Kea and include these in your educational talk, do you
think this provides more of an impact to people listening to your talk/encounter?
A) Yes
B) No
Please state why you think it has more or less of an impact on your audience.
Thank you your input is greatly appreciated
Contact details:
Researcher: Supervisor:
Dr Lorne Roberts
Louise Parker Lecturer and Zoo Liaison
1546 State Highway 17 School of Natural Sciences
RD 4 Albany Unitec
Auckland Room 028-2013
021 114 0715 Tel (09) 815 4321 ext 7879
kea.nestor@gmail.com
Appendix 2
56

Information sheet – Zoo staff
Advocacy and public education regarding captive Kea Nestor notabilis in Zoological Parks
Hello,
and Wildlife Centres in New Zealand
My name is Louise Parker. I am a third year student of Bachelor of Applied Animal Technology,
Unitec, Auckland. Part of our degree programme involves a research paper on a subject of our choice.
What I am doing?
Looking at the amount of advocacy and public education regarding captive Kea in zoo’s and wildlife
parks around New Zealand, and trying to assess the message the public are going away with.
What it will mean for you
We want you to complete a survey on:
• Kea
You are free to withdraw from this project for whatever reason within two weeks of the interview.
Can you please return the survey by 10 th September 2006
What will we do with this
By taking part in this you will be helping us to understand the level of public education in zoos and
wildlife parks regarding Kea
Consent
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to sign a consent form. This does not stop you from
changing your mind if you wish to withdraw from the project. However, because of our schedule, any
withdrawals must be done within 2 weeks after you have returned the survey.
Please contact us if you need more information about the project:
At any time if you have any concerns about the research project you can contact our supervisor:
Dr Lorne Roberts
Lecturer and Zoo Liaison
School of Natural Sciences
Unitec
Room 028-2013
09 815 4321 ext 7879
Tel: (09) 815 4321 ext 7879
Or myself:
Louise Parker
021 1140715
kea.nestor@gmail.com
Confidentiality
Your name and information that may identify you will be kept completely confidential. All information
collected from you will be stored on a password protected file and the only access to your information
is yourself, the researcher and my supervisors.
Thank you!
This study has been approved by the Unitec Research Ethics Committee from ( ) to ( ). If you have any
complaints or reservations about the ethical conduct of this research, you may contact the Committee
through the UREC Secretariat (Ph: 09 815 4321 ext.7254). Any issues you raise will be treated in
confidence and investigated fully, and you will be informed of the outcome.
Appendix 3
57

Consent Form – Groups 1, 2 and 3
Advocacy and public education regarding captive Kea Nestor notabilis in Zoological
Parks and Wildlife Centres in New Zealand
This consent form will help us get information for a research project looking at the amount of advocacy
and public education regarding captive Kea in zoo’s and wildlife parks around New Zealand, and to
assess the message the public are going away with.
I have had the research project explained to me and I have read and understand the information sheet
given to me.
I understand that I don't have to be part of this if I don't want to and I may withdraw within two weeks
of completing the survey.
I understand that everything I say is confidential and none of the information I give will identify me
and that the only persons who will know what I have said will be the researchers and their supervisor. I
also understand that all the information that I give will be stored securely on a computer at Unitec for a
period of 5 years.
I understand that I can see the finished research document.
I am aware that I may contact the Research Co-ordinator/Supervisor:
Dr Lorne Roberts
Lecturer and Zoo Liaison
Tel: (09) 815 4321 ext 7879
if I have any queries about the project.
I have had time to consider everything and I give my consent to be a part of this.
Participant Signature: ………………………….. Date: ……………………………
Project Researcher: ……………………………. Date: ……………………………
This study has been approved by the Unitec Research Ethics Committee from ( ) to ( ). If you have any
complaints or reservations about the ethical conduct of this research, you may contact the Committee
through the UREC Secretariat (Ph: 09 815 4321 ext.7254). Any issues you raise will be treated in
confidence and investigated fully, and you will be informed of the outcome.
Appendix 4
58

Information sheet – Public Groups 2 and 3
Advocacy and public education regarding captive Kea Nestor notabilis in Zoological Parks
Hello,
and Wildlife Centres in New Zealand
My name is Louise Parker. I am a third year student of Bachelor of Applied Animal Technology,
Unitec, Auckland. Part of our degree programme involves a research paper on a subject of our choice.
What I am doing?
Looking at the amount of advocacy and public education regarding captive Kea in zoo’s and wildlife
parks around New Zealand, and trying to assess the message the public are going away with.
What it will mean for you
We want to interview you and complete a survey:
• Kea
You are free to withdraw from this project for whatever reason within two weeks of the interview.
What will we do with this
By taking part in this you will be helping us to understand the level of public education in zoos and
wildlife parks regarding Kea
Consent
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to sign a consent form. This does not stop you from
changing your mind if you wish to withdraw from the project. However, because of our schedule, any
withdrawals must be done within 2 weeks after we have interviewed you.
Please contact us if you need more information about the project:
At any time if you have any concerns about the research project you can contact our supervisor:
Dr Lorne Roberts
Lecturer and Zoo Liaison
School of Natural Sciences
Unitec
Room 028-2013
09 815 4321 ext 7879
Tel: (09) 815 4321 ext 7879
Or myself:
Louise Parker
021 1140715
kea.nestor@gmail.com
Confidentiality
Your name and information that may identify you will be kept completely confidential. All information
collected from you will be stored on a password protected file and the only access to your information
is yourself, the researcher and my supervisors.
Thank you!
This study has been approved by the Unitec Research Ethics Committee from ( ) to ( ). If you have any
complaints or reservations about the ethical conduct of this research, you may contact the Committee
through the UREC Secretariat (Ph: 09 815 4321 ext.7254). Any issues you raise will be treated in
confidence and investigated fully, and you will be informed of the outcome.
Appendix 5
Public Survey Questions Group 2 (Before entering)
59

1. Sex ( Please � one)
� Female � Male
2. If you wouldn’t mind indicating which age bracket you fall in to ( � one only)
� 18-25 � 45-55
� 25-35 � 55-65
� 35-45 � 65 or older � Decline to answer
3. Are you a tourist? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
4. How often do you visit the zoo? (Please � one)
� More than once per month
� Once a month
� Once every six months
� Once a year
� Over a year between visits
� First time visit
5. Do you visit the zoo for: (Please � one)
� Education
� Fun
� To keep the children occupied
� Photography
� Quality Family time
� Other ________________________________ (Please state reason)
6. Do you know what is Kea is?
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
7. Is the Kea a New Zealand native animal? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
8. Are you specifically interested in or like New Zealand native animals? (Please �
one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
9. If you answered no to the previous question, can you tell me why?
60

__________________________________________________________
10. Where in New Zealand do Kea live in the wild? (Please � one)
� All over New Zealand
� North Island
� South Island
� Stewart Island
� Not sure
11. What is normal habitat for kea? (can� more than one)
� Native forest
� Pine forest
� Beech forest
� Alpine
� Wetlands
� Estuary
� Seashore
� Not sure
12. Are Kea a protected species? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
13. Should Kea be a protected species? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
14. If you answered no to question 13, can you tell me why Kea should not be
protected
15. Are kea Endangered? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
16. If you saw kea in the wild, would you feed them? (Please � one)
� Yes
61

� No
� Not sure
17. Is there some conflict between Kea and humans? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No (go to question 18)
� Not sure (go to question 18)
18. If you answered yes to the previous question, can you tell me why?
19. Would you consider kea to be: (Please � one)
� Highly intelligent
� Average intelligence
� Low intelligence
� Not sure
20. Would you consider Kea to be (Please � one)
� Highly curious
� Curious
� Not curious
� Not sure
21. Do Kea have the potential to damage human property? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
22. Would you consider kea to be: (Please � one)
� Important to conserve in the wild
� Not important to conserve in the wild
� Not sure
23. Would you consider kea to be: (Please � one)
� A privilege to encounter in the wild
� A novelty to encounter in the wild
� A nuisance to encounter in the wild
� A pest to encounter in the wild
� Not sure
Appendix 6
62

1. Sex ( Please � one)
� Female � Male
Public Survey Questions Group3 (After exiting)
2. If you wouldn’t mind indicating which age bracket you fall in to ( � one only)
� 18-25 � 45-55
� 25-35 � 55-65
� 35-45 � 65 or older � Decline to answer
3. Are you a tourist? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
4. How often do you visit the zoo? (Please � one)
� More than once per month
� Once a month
� Once every six months
� Once a year
� Over a year between visits
� First time visit
5. Do you visit the zoo for: (Please � one)
� Education
� Fun
� To keep the children occupied
� Photography
� Quality Family time
� Other ________________________________ (Please state reason)
6. Do you know what is Kea is?
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
7. Did you see the Kea today? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
8. Did you like the kea enclosure? (Please � one)
63

� Yes
� No
� Not sure
Can you tell me why you like/dislike the kea enclosure?
9. Did you read an information sign about kea? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Didn’t see one
� Not sure
10. Did you listen to an educational talk from a zookeeper about Kea? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
� Didn’t know there was a talk
11. Is the Kea a New Zealand native animal? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
12. Are you specifically interested in or like New Zealand native animals? (Please �
one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
13. If you answered no to the previous question, can you tell me why?
__________________________________________________________
14. Where in New Zealand do Kea live in the wild? (Please � one)
64

� All over New Zealand
� North Island
� South Island
� Stewart Island
� Not sure
15. What is normal habitat for kea? (can� more than one)
� Native forest
� Pine forest
� Beech forest
� Alpine
� Wetlands
� Estuary
� Seashore
� Not sure
16. Are Kea a protected species? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
17. Should Kea be a protected species? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
18. If you answered no to question 15, can you tell me why Kea should not be
protected
19. Are kea Endangered? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
20. If you saw kea in the wild, would you feed them? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
21. Is there some conflict between Kea and humans? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No (go to question 22)
� Not sure (go to question 22)
22. If you answered yes to the previous question, can you tell me why?
65

23. Would you consider kea to be: (Please � one)
� Highly intelligent
� Average intelligence
� Low intelligence
� Not sure
24. Would you consider Kea to be (Please � one)
� Highly curious
� Curious
� Not curious
� Not sure
25. Do Kea have the potential to damage human property? (Please � one)
� Yes
� No
� Not sure
26. Would you consider kea to be: (Please � one)
� Important to conserve in the wild
� Not important to conserve in the wild
� Not sure
27. Would you consider kea to be: (Please � one)
� A privilege to encounter in the wild
� A novelty to encounter in the wild
� A nuisance to encounter in the wild
� A pest to encounter in the wild
� Not sure
Thank you your input is much appreciated
66