The Dynamics of Kea Behaviour and Interpretive Signage on Visitor ...

<strong>Kea</strong> Exhibits: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Dynamics</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> <strong>Behaviour</strong>
<strong>and</strong> <strong>Interpretive</strong> <strong>Signage</strong> on Visitor Interest.
Joanna Crawford
Submitted in partial fulfilment <strong>of</strong> the Bachelor <strong>of</strong> Applied Animal Technology degree,
Unitec, New Zeal<strong>and</strong>, 2007.

<strong>Kea</strong> Exhibits: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Dynamics</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> <strong>Behaviour</strong>
<strong>and</strong> <strong>Interpretive</strong> <strong>Signage</strong> on Visitor Interest.
Joanna Crawford
Bachelor <strong>of</strong> Applied Animal Technology, Unitec Institute <strong>of</strong> Technology
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to evaluate the effect <strong>of</strong> two experimental sign treatments (one with a
kinaesthetic addition) on adult visitor interest at two <strong>Kea</strong> exhibits within the greater Auckl<strong>and</strong>
region <strong>of</strong> New Zeal<strong>and</strong>. Visitor interest in the accompanying signage was indirectly measured
by Attracting Power, Holding Time <strong>and</strong> Holding Power. <strong>The</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour on
visitors’ allocation <strong>of</strong> viewing events within the exhibit space was also assessed. <strong>The</strong> Attracting
Power <strong>of</strong> the original signs accompanying <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures at the two zoological parks studied
was 30% <strong>and</strong> 33%. <strong>The</strong> Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> signage at the <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures increased to 55%
under sign treatment 1 <strong>and</strong> increased again to 73% under the kinaesthetic sign treatment 2. <strong>The</strong>
difference in Attracting Power between the two experimental sign treatments was significant
(P=0.0001). <strong>The</strong> mean Holding Time <strong>of</strong> the two experimental sign treatments was 25.36seconds
(treatment 1) <strong>and</strong> 26.08seconds (treatment 2). This was not significant (P=0.887). <strong>The</strong> Holding
Power <strong>of</strong> the sign treatments differed by only 1% <strong>and</strong> was less than a quarter <strong>of</strong> the average time
necessary to read all the text on the sign. <strong>The</strong> study shows that the addition <strong>of</strong> multi modal <strong>and</strong>
specifically kinaesthetic signage at <strong>Kea</strong> exhibits can increase at least one measure <strong>of</strong> visitor
interest, namely Attracting Power at the two zoological parks involved in the study. Further
experimentation on the design <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> signs is necessary to hold visitors’ interest for longer, in
order to receive a message in its entirety. In addition, there was no significant relationship seen
between <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour <strong>and</strong> visitor interest in the enclosure <strong>and</strong> by association their interest in
the accompanying signage.
2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank the <strong>Kea</strong> Conservation Trust for providing funding for this project (allowing the
experimental sign to be pr<strong>of</strong>essionally produced), <strong>and</strong> for the loan <strong>of</strong> 3D casts to use as a more
interactive component. I would also like to acknowledge my supervisor Dr Lorne Roberts for
his valuable input <strong>and</strong> counsel throughout all stages <strong>of</strong> the project. Special recognition must also
go to Tamsin Orr-Walker for the suggestions <strong>and</strong> help she provided during the initial stages <strong>of</strong>
the study. I also wish to express my deepest gratitude to Raymond Legge for his generous
contribution, <strong>and</strong> to Bruce Hoult for volunteering his programming skills; your combined aid
made data collection for the second component <strong>of</strong> the study possible. I would also like to
thank Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo <strong>and</strong> Franklin Zoological Park <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Sanctuary for participating in
the study, particularly to Andrew Nelson, Team Leader, NZ native fauna (Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo) <strong>and</strong>
special thanks to Helen Sch<strong>of</strong>ield, Graham Strachan <strong>and</strong> James (Franklin Zoo) for their
continued enthusiasm <strong>and</strong> assistance throughout. Special recognition must also go to Penelope
Murphy <strong>and</strong> Dr Nigel Adams for their advice <strong>and</strong> help during the process <strong>of</strong> statistical analysis.
I am also indebted to the Crawford <strong>and</strong> Hobman family for their ongoing <strong>and</strong> continued support,
especially during times <strong>of</strong> technical difficulties, <strong>and</strong> to Val for making a special opportunity in
which to be enthused <strong>and</strong> re-motivated possible. Special mention must also go to Daniel
Weiderkehr for his continued support, underst<strong>and</strong>ing, <strong>and</strong> much needed distractions, <strong>and</strong> to the
delightful <strong>Kea</strong> whose intelligent <strong>and</strong> curious antics made the in-between stages <strong>of</strong> data collection
so enjoyable.
3

CONTENTS
Abstract 2
Acknowledgements 3
List <strong>of</strong> tables <strong>and</strong> figures 5
1.0 Introduction 7
1.1 Education <strong>and</strong> advocacy role <strong>of</strong> zoological parks 7
1.2 Nestor notabilis 7
1.3 Methods <strong>of</strong> interpretation 10
1.4 Effects <strong>of</strong> animal behaviour on visitor interest 14
1.5 Aims <strong>of</strong> the project 15
2.0 Methodology 15
2.1 Background information 16
2.1.1 Zoological park <strong>and</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> exhibit characteristics 16
2.1.2 <strong>Signage</strong> conditions <strong>and</strong> placement 17
2.1.3 Visitor characteristics 19
2.2 Measuring visitor interest in accompanying signage 20
2.2.1 Data collection procedure 21
2.3 Measuring the effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour on visitor interest 23
2.3.1 Data collection procedure 23
2.4 Statistical analysis 24
3.0 Results 25
3.1 Sign treatment effects on visitor interest 25
3.1.1 Attracting Power 25
3.1.2 Holding Time <strong>and</strong> Holding Power 28
3.2 Effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour on visitor interest 29
4.0 Discussion 32
4.1 Sign treatment effects on visitor interest 32
4.1.1 Attracting Power 32
4.1.2 Holding Time <strong>and</strong> Holding Power 34
4.2 Effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour on visitor interest 37
5.0 Conclusion 43
6.0 Criticisms <strong>and</strong> Recommendations 45
7.0 References 48
8.0 Appendices 52
8.1 Sampling schedule used to measure visitor interest in the experimental sign
treatments 52
8.2 Example <strong>of</strong> (scan time sampling) data sheet used to record <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour
concurrently with visitor viewing characteristics. 52
8.3 <strong>Kea</strong> ethogram used to differentiate between categories <strong>of</strong> behaviour. 53
4

TABLES
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. Definitions commonly used in the literature to measure visitor
interest in signage. 13
Table 2. Definitions <strong>of</strong> visitor viewing behaviour used to represent <strong>and</strong>
analyze visitor interest in signage accompanying <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures. 20
Table 3. Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> different signage treatments at Auckl<strong>and</strong>
Zoological Park <strong>and</strong> Franklin Zoo <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Sanctuary. 26
Table 4. Performance measures for the Holding Time <strong>and</strong> Holding Power
<strong>of</strong> the two experimental sign treatments. 28
FIGURES
Figure 1. Photo <strong>of</strong> the original sign at Franklin Zoo. 17
Figure 2. Photo <strong>of</strong> the original sign at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo. 17
Figure 3. Photo <strong>of</strong> Sign treatment 1. 18
Figure 4. Photo <strong>of</strong> sign treatment 2. 18
Figure 5. Photo <strong>of</strong> the kinaesthetic addition to Sign treatment 2. 18
Figure 6a. Bar graph showing the comparison <strong>of</strong> the Attracting Power <strong>of</strong>
different signage treatments based on visitor sex at Auckl<strong>and</strong>
Zoological Park. 27
Figure 6b. Bar graph showing the comparison <strong>of</strong> the Attracting Power <strong>of</strong>
different signage treatments based on visitor sex at Franklin
Zoological Park <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Sanctuary. 27
Figure 7. Box <strong>and</strong> whisker plot representing the Holding Time <strong>of</strong> the two
experimental sign treatments. 28
5

Figure 8a. Box <strong>and</strong> whisker plot representing the relationship between the
median proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to viewing the <strong>Kea</strong>
enclosure with the percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent displaying
Category 1 behaviours. 29
Figure 8b. Box <strong>and</strong> whisker plot representing the relationship between the
median proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to viewing the <strong>Kea</strong>
enclosure with the percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent displaying
Category 2 behaviours. 30
Figure 8c. Box <strong>and</strong> whisker plot representing the relationship between the
median proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to viewing the <strong>Kea</strong>
enclosure with the percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent displaying
Category 3 behaviours. 30
Figure 8d. Box <strong>and</strong> whisker plot representing the relationship between the
median proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to viewing the <strong>Kea</strong>
enclosure with the percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent displaying
Category 4 behaviours. 31
Figure 8e. Box <strong>and</strong> whisker plot representing the relationship between the
median proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to viewing the <strong>Kea</strong>
enclosure with the percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent vocalising. 31
6

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Education <strong>and</strong> advocacy role <strong>of</strong> zoological parks
With the ability to provide millions <strong>of</strong> visitors with safe, close encounters <strong>of</strong> living animals
zoological parks are increasingly expected, if not environmentally obligated, to interpret the
animals in their care <strong>and</strong> the threats to their survival, <strong>and</strong> provide positive, emotive experiences
that inspire <strong>and</strong> engender both behavioural <strong>and</strong> attitudinal changes in their visitors for the
ultimate benefit <strong>of</strong> conservation (World Association <strong>of</strong> Zoos <strong>and</strong> Aquariums (WAZA), 2005).
To achieve maximal educational potential institutions are expected to be involved in formal
educational programmes along with a variety <strong>of</strong> informal interpretive techniques using their staff
<strong>and</strong> volunteers, their animals, their enclosures <strong>and</strong> accompanying graphics (WAZA, 2005). In
the case <strong>of</strong> threatened species these expectations are <strong>of</strong>ten reinforced in Species Survival or
Captive Management Plans.
1.2 Nestor notabilis
An example <strong>of</strong> this expectation on captive facilities to provide interpretation <strong>and</strong> advocacy for
the species they hold in their care can be found in the case <strong>of</strong> the worlds sole living alpine
psittacine species, the <strong>Kea</strong> (Nestor notabilis). <strong>The</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> is endemic to New Zeal<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> found to
occur naturally only in the high altitude beech forest <strong>and</strong> alpine/montane areas <strong>of</strong> the South
Isl<strong>and</strong> (Peat, 1995). <strong>The</strong>y are a highly gregarious, curious <strong>and</strong> fearless species, with a large
repertoire <strong>of</strong> play <strong>and</strong> social behaviours. <strong>The</strong>y are also one <strong>of</strong> the most intelligent extant avian
species; with highly developed cognitive skills they show causal reasoning, associative learning,
7

<strong>and</strong> intensely manipulative exploratory behaviours (Diamond <strong>and</strong> Bond, 1999; Werdenich <strong>and</strong>
Huber, 2006; Huber et al. 2001; Huber & Gadjon, 2006).
<strong>The</strong>se very traits have <strong>of</strong>ten lead them into a range <strong>of</strong> conflict with humans, as their associated
lack <strong>of</strong> neophobia has them evidently ‘steal’, ‘ransack’ or ‘destroy’ the personal property <strong>and</strong>
equipment <strong>of</strong> tourists, ski operators, farmers <strong>and</strong> local residents alike, culminating in greatly
varying human perceptions <strong>of</strong> them (Peat, 1995. p7). One <strong>of</strong> the most devastating human-<strong>Kea</strong>
conflicts occurred in the 18 th century with the advent <strong>of</strong> European colonisation <strong>and</strong> associated
habitat destruction, <strong>and</strong> the introduction <strong>of</strong> sheep in high country stations. According to
Marriner (1908) historical investigation, sheep began developing wounds <strong>of</strong> unknown origin in
the early part <strong>of</strong> the 18 th century, <strong>of</strong>ten culminating in mortalities. In a short period these were
linked to <strong>Kea</strong>, <strong>and</strong> rampant allegations in the press that most sheep mortalities were due to <strong>Kea</strong>
predation. Marriner’s estimate put the mortalities caused by <strong>Kea</strong> closer to only 5% <strong>of</strong> the annual
loss, yet the allegations were enough to result in a legal bounty system instituted by the New
Zeal<strong>and</strong> government in 1868, <strong>and</strong> the eventual loss <strong>of</strong> over 150,000 <strong>Kea</strong> until their partial legal
protection in 1971 (Diamond & Bond, 1999). <strong>Kea</strong> did not gain full protection under the New
Zeal<strong>and</strong> Wildlife Act 1953 until 1986 when estimates put their population between 1000-5000 in
the wild (Andersen (1986) cited in Diamond <strong>and</strong> Bond, 1999). Difficulties in accurately
measuring the wild population <strong>and</strong> degree <strong>of</strong> introduced mammalian predation, due to the very
nature <strong>of</strong> their terrain <strong>and</strong> nesting habits (Elliot & Kemp, 2004), still leaves their true population
numbers, <strong>and</strong> thus their future survival in doubt. Currently classified under the New Zeal<strong>and</strong>
Threat Classifications Systems List as Nationally Endangered (Hitchmough, 2002), carrying the
stigma <strong>of</strong> sheep killers, <strong>and</strong> with ongoing human conflict due to their manipulative <strong>and</strong>
destructive exploratory nature, they are a species deserving <strong>and</strong> needing <strong>of</strong> advocacy. This
comes not just from the st<strong>and</strong> point <strong>of</strong> maintaining New Zeal<strong>and</strong>’s biodiversity, but also due to
their significance as an iconic native species whose neophobia <strong>and</strong> associated interaction with
humans attracts many tourists on a global scale. <strong>The</strong>ir lack <strong>of</strong> neophobia <strong>and</strong> cognitive abilities
8

has also made this species increasingly useful as a model for studying the evolution <strong>of</strong>
‘sensorimotor intelligence in nonhuman animals’ <strong>and</strong> thus theories for cognitive development in
humans (Huber & Gadjdon, 2006 p.302).
A captive management programme for <strong>Kea</strong> was established by the Department <strong>of</strong> Conservation
in 1991 culminating in a published Captive Management Plan in 1996 (Pullar, 1996). At this
time a moratorium was placed on breeding <strong>Kea</strong> in captivity, making the goal <strong>of</strong> conservation
education <strong>and</strong> advocacy the sole reason for <strong>Kea</strong> being held in captive facilities (Pullar, 1996).
Despite this moratorium having since been relaxed for some facilities (A. Nelson, pers.comm.
October 2007), all display institutions are expected to have ecologically <strong>and</strong> ethno culturally
relevant displays supplemented by suitable advocacy material (such as signage) for the visiting
public (Pullar, 1996).
An un<strong>of</strong>ficial review <strong>of</strong> the Captive Management Plan in 2002 critiqued the current st<strong>and</strong>ards
<strong>and</strong> practices <strong>of</strong> captive facilities in advocating for this species, finding the current performance
<strong>of</strong> interpretation in vast need <strong>of</strong> improvement (McKinlay et al. 2003). From this review a goal
was developed for the period 2003-2013 in which to ‘maximise the conservation education <strong>and</strong>
advocacy opportunities <strong>of</strong> captive <strong>Kea</strong>, with the main objective being for all institutions to
alleviate some <strong>of</strong> the threats facing <strong>Kea</strong> in the wild, by having a positive effect on the attitudes <strong>of</strong>
their visitors (McKinlay et al. 2003). Although this review was never signed <strong>of</strong>f, display
institutions are expected not merely to provide information on <strong>Kea</strong>, but to help engender support
for this endangered endemic.
9

1.3 Methods <strong>of</strong> interpretation
<strong>The</strong>re has been an increasing trend in zoological parks to use the animals themselves as a method
<strong>of</strong> imparting these informal educational <strong>and</strong> advocacy based messages, namely through the use
<strong>of</strong> human-animal h<strong>and</strong>ling interaction or keeper presentations. Visitors to Auckl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>
Wellington Zoo for example can pay extra to have a close h<strong>and</strong>s-on encounter with cheetah
(www.wellingtonzoo.com/inform/visitor/encounters.html <strong>and</strong>
www.auckl<strong>and</strong>zoo.co.nz/information/default.asp?sectionID=29 respectively). Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo
also holds native fauna encounters that occur daily in the weekend <strong>and</strong> public holidays
(www.auckl<strong>and</strong>zoo.co.nz/information/default.asp?sectionID=28), whereas Wellington provides
daily keeper talks on kiwi (www.wellingtonzoo.com/inform/news/nr1181689021.html). Live
interpretation is seen as a priority within the World Zoo <strong>and</strong> Aquarium Conservation Strategy,
being considered the most ‘effective means <strong>of</strong> communication’ (WAZA, 2005). This is
supported by research comparing message delivery using traditional means (such as signage)
against that using animal encounters (Yerke & Burns, 1991; Heinrich & Birney, 1992; Broad &
Weiler 1998; Swanagan, 2000), particularly in regards to the effect on either visitor interest,
responses or learning. Results <strong>of</strong> a more recent study by Povey & Rios (2002) comparing an
exhibit display <strong>of</strong> a clouded leopard against a personal encounter with the animal (on a lead
within the zoological park grounds) showed a significant difference in viewing time between the
two modes <strong>of</strong> interpretation in favour <strong>of</strong> the personal encounter. A study by Anderson et al.
(2003) comparing the effects <strong>of</strong> public animal training <strong>of</strong> an otter (with or without an oral
interpretation) against passive exhibit viewing, showed longer visitor exhibit stay times for the
former rather than the later. This is supported by the findings in Reading <strong>and</strong> Miller (2007)
where over 2000 surveys <strong>of</strong> visitors to Denver Zoo demonstrated that visitors preferred receiving
information from talks held by keepers or volunteers (53%) than just watching the animal (48%),
or using accompanying graphics (39%).
10

Despite research showing live interpretation to be a more favourable method <strong>of</strong> communication
(see above), in many instances live interpretation involves a keeper encounter or impromptu
conversation lasting anywhere between 5 to 20 minutes. This may occur on a given day only
one or a few times a week, depending on the weather <strong>and</strong> visitor abundance. In a study on <strong>Kea</strong>
exhibits in New Zeal<strong>and</strong> by Parker (2007) for instance, only two-thirds <strong>of</strong> the facilities in the
study gave educational talks. <strong>The</strong>se were either once a day or once a week, a third <strong>of</strong> which
were given impromptu, <strong>and</strong> over half not advertised to the general public (Parker, 2007). It is
therefore likely that a majority <strong>of</strong> visitors to a zoological park throughout the week fall outside
these days <strong>and</strong> times. Aside from the apparent necessity for facilities to improve the
advertising <strong>of</strong> such presentations (in order to positively impact on the number <strong>of</strong> visitors that are
aware, <strong>and</strong> thus may attend them), it may be logistically difficult for the zoological park to
increase the opportunities <strong>of</strong> the general public to interact with volunteers or keepers. This
leaves the enclosure itself, the animal(s) within, <strong>and</strong> the accompanying interpretive signage as an
important part <strong>of</strong> the zoos informal educational service to the public, <strong>and</strong> its advocacy service to
the animals they hold in their care.
Findings in previous studies however have shown a heterogenous but consistently low incidence
<strong>of</strong> visitor interest in signage accompanying exhibits. Separate studies involving tiger exhibits
reported varied results. 14% <strong>of</strong> visitors at a tiger exhibit within a zoological park compared to
50% at an exhibit within a theme park read either a sign or free brochures (Broad & Weiler,
1998). 4% <strong>of</strong> visitors in Bashaw & Maple (2001) study reported using the accompanying
signage. This is consistent with findings in Arndt et al. (1993) study at a lion exhibit where 5%
<strong>of</strong> people read the original sign, <strong>and</strong> the same incidence was reported in Johnston (1998) study
involving a number <strong>of</strong> polar bear exhibits. In Povey & Rios (2002) the incidence <strong>of</strong> reading
graphics at a clouded leopard enclosure was reported as 25%, similar to results found in Parker
(2007) study <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> exhibits, whereby 27% <strong>of</strong> the respondents to an exit survey reported reading
11

the sign. Furthermore, 12.5% <strong>of</strong> the facilities in Parker (2007) study were not even accompanied
by educational signs, in direct opposition with the Captive Management Plan for <strong>Kea</strong> 1995 <strong>and</strong>
the 2002 Review. In addition, findings based on pre <strong>and</strong> post surveys <strong>of</strong> visitors viewing <strong>Kea</strong>
exhibits in Parkers study showed no significant improvement on the number <strong>of</strong> correct answers
visitors gave on leaving the exhibit (Parker, 2007). This implies that the type <strong>and</strong> use <strong>of</strong> the
current signs accompanying <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures may be inappropriate as an educational or advocacy
tool.
This low incidence <strong>of</strong> visitor interest in signage at animal exhibits suggests that signs are not
being portrayed in a manner that has appropriate or adequate Attracting Power. In the informal
learning environment <strong>of</strong> a zoological park where learning is voluntary <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong>ten determined by
the underlying interests, impulses, needs <strong>and</strong> motivations <strong>of</strong> the visitor (Falk, 2005), visitors
<strong>of</strong>ten need to be coaxed <strong>and</strong> motivated into choosing to seek information. This may be a
complex undertaking, particularly when studies suggest the primary motivation <strong>of</strong> these visitors
is more recreational than educational (eg: Morgan & Hodgkinson, 1999; T<strong>of</strong>ield et al., 2003;
Reading <strong>and</strong> Miller, 2007). Yet the two need not be in opposition, <strong>and</strong> capturing visitor attention
is considered to be the first step in the process <strong>of</strong> motivational interest, <strong>and</strong> thus in the eventual
communication <strong>of</strong> an educational or advocacy based message (Bitgood, 2000).
Several theoretical approaches to the idea <strong>of</strong> learner diversity have been used to suggest ways in
which visitor interest in signage can be improved. Gardner’s (1983) ‘<strong>The</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> Multiple
Intelligences’ categorizes individuals into seven different cognitive learning styles based on their
preferred or more dominant sensory mode (such as linguistic, interpersonal, logistic or
kinaesthetic). Furthermore, Falk & Dierkings (1992) ‘Interactive Experience Model’ suggests a
particular individual will respond to the information that they encounter depending on a complex
interaction between the personal, social <strong>and</strong> physical characteristics <strong>of</strong> both the individual
12

themselves <strong>and</strong> the exhibit. In addition, a number <strong>of</strong> museum-based research studies have
attempted to examine the numerous variables among different label designs that have an affect
on visitor interest (for a summary refer Bitgood, 2002). Visitor interest in these studies tend to
be measured in terms <strong>of</strong> Attracting Power, Holding Time, <strong>and</strong> Holding Power (refer table 1 for
definitions). In combination, they imply the need to provide signs that are multi modal;
combining a variety <strong>of</strong> visual stimuli with other sensory inputs in order to appeal to different
learning styles, <strong>and</strong> thus to a greater percentage <strong>of</strong> the audience as a whole. This has been
supported by research evaluating the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> signs on visitor interest <strong>and</strong> learning in a
number <strong>of</strong> non-museum based settings such as zoological <strong>and</strong> recreational parks.
Table 1. Definitions commonly used in the literature to measure visitor interest in signage.
TERM DEFINITION
ATTRACTING POWER <strong>The</strong> actual number <strong>of</strong> visitors who attend to a sign out <strong>of</strong> the
total number <strong>of</strong> visitors to the exhibit (Arndt et al. 1993)
HOLDING TIME <strong>The</strong> cumulative duration <strong>of</strong> time (generally measured in seconds) that
visitors spend attending to the sign (Bitgood, 1994).
HOLDING POWER <strong>The</strong> mean duration <strong>of</strong> time spent attending to the sign compared to
the average time required to read all the text in the sign (Bitgood,1994).
Within the context <strong>of</strong> a zoo environment Arndt et al. (1993) measured the effects <strong>of</strong> sign
placement <strong>and</strong> design on visitor behaviour <strong>and</strong> learning at a lion exhibit, with the use <strong>of</strong> an
interactive flip panel system. In this design visitors are presented with a question, <strong>and</strong> must lift
the flip panel in order to access the correct answer (Arndt et al. 1993). 75% more visitors were
attracted to the sign with the interactive component, <strong>and</strong> Holding Time <strong>and</strong> short term learning
were also seen to increase. Similarly, Jensen (2006) aimed to evaluate the effect <strong>of</strong> using a sign
13

with an interactive flip panel system on visitor interest <strong>and</strong> memory recall at an ancient
Bristlecone Pine Forest in America. <strong>The</strong> Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> the more artistic <strong>and</strong> interactive
sign was 26.5% higher than the original. Holding Time also changed in favour <strong>of</strong> the more
interactive sign despite the text remaining the same, <strong>and</strong> short term learning was also seen to
increase. <strong>The</strong>se results support the theory that visitor interest can be enhanced with the
implementation <strong>of</strong> more multi modal formats.
1.4 Effects <strong>of</strong> animal behaviour on visitor interest
Research by Bitgood <strong>and</strong> colleagues (Bitgood et al., 1986; Bitgood & Benefield, 1987; Patterson
& Bitgood, 1987) suggest that visitor interest in an exhibit is correlated with the activity levels
<strong>and</strong> behaviours displayed by the animals within. A positive linear association was seen between
exhibit viewing times (Holding Time) <strong>and</strong> an increase in animal activity over a range <strong>of</strong> 24
species (excluding avian species) in a study undertaken by Bitgood et al. (1988). In contrast, a
study by Altman (1998) recording visitor conversations during observations <strong>of</strong> polar, sloth <strong>and</strong>
spectacled bears suggested it was more the type <strong>of</strong> behaviour displayed rather than the level <strong>of</strong>
activity that elicited more animal directed content, <strong>and</strong> by inference visitor interest in the animal
or the exhibit. Other research also suggests some link between animal behaviour <strong>and</strong> visitor
interest, <strong>and</strong> more specifically relationships between activity budgets <strong>and</strong> visitor numbers.
Again, most <strong>of</strong> these have focused on charismatic mega vertebrates or primates (eg: Mitchell et
al. 1992; Hosey, 2000; Todd et al. 2006; Margulis et al. 2003), including a study by Johnston
(1998) who scored polar bear activity on a 10 point scale where 10 represented the highest levels
<strong>of</strong> activity (as perceived by visitors). This study suggested that an increase in activity levels
from 0 to 10 would lead to an estimated 339.47second increase in visitor viewing time. In
Johnston’s study, the small percentage <strong>of</strong> people who read the signs (5%) spent an average <strong>of</strong>
46.65 additional seconds viewing the polar bear exhibits themselves. Although essentially it has
14

not been part <strong>of</strong> the previous studies, this may suggest that there is a potential correlation
between animal behaviours (<strong>and</strong> activity levels), <strong>and</strong> visitor interest in the signage
accompanying enclosures. However, the relationship between visitor interest <strong>and</strong> animal
behaviour <strong>of</strong> any captive avian species is somewhat lacking in the literature. What is available is
mostly restricted to that investigating a causal relationship between the effect <strong>of</strong> visitor presence
on the types <strong>and</strong> budgets <strong>of</strong> activities displayed by the birds (eg: Nimon & Dalziel, 1992; <strong>Kea</strong>ne
& Marples, 2004), as opposed to the effect that these activities may have on visitor interest.
1.5 Aims <strong>of</strong> the project
This paper will present findings in relation to the following aims:
1. Determine whether attention gain (Attracting Power), Holding Time <strong>and</strong> Holding Power
<strong>of</strong> signage accompanying <strong>Kea</strong> exhibits (measures <strong>of</strong> visitor interest) differs with the
addition <strong>of</strong> a h<strong>and</strong>s-on <strong>and</strong> thus multi modal interactive.
2. Assess whether certain types <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> behaviours have a role to play in visitor interest in
the enclosure, <strong>and</strong> by association their interest in the accompanying signage.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Essentially the research was divided into two parts. <strong>The</strong> first was solely an observational study <strong>of</strong>
visitors measuring Attracting Power, Holding Time <strong>and</strong> Holding Power <strong>of</strong> different sign
conditions at the <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures studied. <strong>The</strong> second part <strong>of</strong> the research involved an
observational study <strong>of</strong> visitor viewing characteristics occurring concurrently with <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour
while visitors were attending to the exhibit.
15

2.1 Background information
2.1.1 Zoological park <strong>and</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> exhibit characteristics
<strong>The</strong> study occurred at two zoological parks within the greater Auckl<strong>and</strong> region <strong>of</strong> the North
Isl<strong>and</strong>, New Zeal<strong>and</strong>. Franklin Zoo <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Sanctuary is a privately owned rural zoo
covering over 3.5 hectares <strong>and</strong> is home to approximately 50 species (G. Strachan, pers.comm.
October 2007). Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo is an urban-bound, city council owned zoo spanning 18 hectares
<strong>and</strong> home to 179 species (A. Nelson, pers.comm, October 2007). Both <strong>of</strong> the zoos hold two <strong>Kea</strong>
on public display in outdoor enclosures; one <strong>of</strong> each sex, or both males, at Franklin <strong>and</strong>
Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo respectively. All <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Kea</strong> in the study were adults.
<strong>The</strong> dimension <strong>of</strong> the public <strong>Kea</strong> enclosure at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo ranges between 3.9m to 5m wide
with a length <strong>of</strong> approximately 8m. In comparison, the enclosure at Franklin Zoo is
approximately 6.6m wide <strong>and</strong> between 4.7m to a further 2.25m long. Both <strong>of</strong> the enclosures
include the provision <strong>of</strong> natural exhibit features simulating parts <strong>of</strong> the lower altitude l<strong>and</strong>scape
<strong>of</strong> their natural environment such as rockwork, over hanging branches, logs, <strong>and</strong> a number <strong>of</strong>
native trees <strong>and</strong> shrubs. <strong>The</strong> Auckl<strong>and</strong> enclosure includes a water feature <strong>and</strong> both enclosures
were seen to include artificial food devices as a means <strong>of</strong> enrichment. <strong>The</strong> enclosure at
Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo is in visual competition with three other native exhibits, whereas the enclosure at
Franklin Zoo is in no direct visual competition with others. Both <strong>of</strong> the exhibits have obvious
chain link barriers between the visitor <strong>and</strong> the enclosure, preventing immersion into the exhibit
setting.
16

<strong>The</strong> original sign at Franklin Zoo is 240mm x 170mm, includes black text on white laminated
card with photos <strong>and</strong> borders in colour (refer Figure 1). This is attached directly to the front <strong>of</strong>
the enclosure toward the right h<strong>and</strong> side. <strong>The</strong> original sign at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo is 600mm wide by
between 820mm to 900mm long. It includes white text on a brown <strong>and</strong> green background with a
black transparent sketch <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Kea</strong> (refer Figure 2), <strong>and</strong> is fixed to a pole in-front <strong>of</strong> the left h<strong>and</strong>
side <strong>of</strong> the main viewing area.
Figure 1. Photo <strong>of</strong> the original sign at Franklin Zoo.
2.1.2 <strong>Signage</strong> conditions <strong>and</strong> placement
A sign was designed in such a way that it could provide two treatment conditions in an
experimental approach to the study. <strong>The</strong> first treatment condition involved the new sign without
further manipulation (refer Figure 3). <strong>The</strong> same sign was used for the second treatment
condition with the exception that a h<strong>and</strong>s on component was screwed onto the sign in place <strong>of</strong>
the photo bottom left (refer Figure 4). This consisted <strong>of</strong> a 3D cast from a female <strong>Kea</strong>s’ skull <strong>and</strong>
bill, <strong>and</strong> both the left <strong>and</strong> right talons (provided by the <strong>Kea</strong> Conservation Trust). It also included
an invitation for the visitor to touch them, along with a question asking the reader what the <strong>Kea</strong>
17
Figure 2. Photo <strong>of</strong> the original sign at
Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo.

can do with these ‘tools’ (refer Figure 5). This was added to test the primary aim <strong>of</strong> whether
visitor interest in <strong>Kea</strong> signage would differ with the addition <strong>of</strong> a more multi sensory
(specifically kinaesthetic) component.
Figure 3. Photo <strong>of</strong> Sign Treatment 1.
Figure 4. Photo <strong>of</strong> Sign treatment 2.
Figure 5. Photo <strong>of</strong> the kinaesthetic addition to Sign treatment 2.
18

<strong>The</strong> sign was placed on an easel on the right side <strong>of</strong> the main viewing area <strong>of</strong> each enclosure
facing toward the centre. In the case <strong>of</strong> Franklin Zoo the closest (left) edge <strong>of</strong> the sign to the
enclosure was 500mm in front <strong>of</strong> the enclosure barrier, with the furthest (right) edge st<strong>and</strong>ing
approximately 280mm further in front. Due to the nature <strong>of</strong> a ‘garden edge’ in front <strong>of</strong> the
enclosure at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo the sign was placed on the same angle on the right side <strong>of</strong> the main
viewing area <strong>of</strong> the enclosure, but the closest edge stood a further 660mm in front <strong>of</strong> the barrier.
When either sign was in place for data collection the original fixed signs were covered over
using black plastic. Once on the easel, the sign stood at approximately 1060mm tall with the
bottom edge at approximately 540mm from the ground.
<strong>The</strong> right h<strong>and</strong> side <strong>of</strong> the enclosure was chosen for the placement <strong>of</strong> the new signs after a
preliminary observation <strong>of</strong> visitors at Franklin Zoo revealed the main traffic flow was from left
to right, so that the majority <strong>of</strong> visitors would first view the enclosure. This same position was
selected at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo for the same reason. In addition, due to the layout <strong>of</strong> Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo
any visitors that came from the right would have already had to have passed the <strong>Kea</strong> enclosure
from the left. A sign for the enclosure to the left <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Kea</strong> exhibit (Tuatara) could have also
potentially acted as conflicting stimulus.
2.1.3 Visitor characteristics
Only visitors that appeared to be 18 years or older, excluding members that appeared to be from
an educational group, zoo employees, or zoo volunteers were selected for the study.
Visitors were observed as unobtrusively as possible while they were at the exhibit. A visitor to
the <strong>Kea</strong> exhibit was defined as one that entered a designated observation zone <strong>and</strong> at some point
during the time within the zone directed their eyes toward the enclosure, or the accompanying
signage (viewing event), regardless <strong>of</strong> whether they came to a st<strong>and</strong>still during that time. <strong>The</strong>
19

observation zone extended 2.5 meters in front <strong>of</strong> the main viewing access to the enclosure, from
one side to the other. A person that walked through the observation zone without directing their
eyes toward either the enclosure or the sign were not considered a visitor <strong>and</strong> thus were excluded
from the study.
2.2 Measuring visitor interest in accompanying signage
A visitor was considered to have been reading the signage if his or her attention remained
focused on it for a minimum <strong>of</strong> two seconds. This period was chosen because it was considered
to be longer than necessary to merely identify the animal on display. Visitor interest in the
signage <strong>of</strong> this study was considered to be represented by Attracting Power, Holding Time <strong>and</strong>
Holding Power (refer to Table 2 for definitions). Attracting power for treatment condition Sign
2 also recorded the number <strong>of</strong> visitors who touched the 3D casts.
Table 2. Definitions <strong>of</strong> visitor viewing behaviour used to represent <strong>and</strong> analyze visitor interest in
signage accompanying <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures.
CHARACTERISTIC DEFINITION
ATTRACTING POWER <strong>The</strong> actual number <strong>of</strong> visitors who attended to the sign for a
minimum <strong>of</strong> two seconds, out <strong>of</strong> the total number <strong>of</strong> visitors to the
enclosure. Taken as both a percentage, <strong>and</strong> a proportion
(successes (did attend) vs. failures (didn’t attend)).
HOLDING TIME <strong>The</strong> cumulative duration <strong>of</strong> time (in seconds) that visitors spent
attending to the sign.
HOLDING POWER <strong>The</strong> mean duration <strong>of</strong> time spent attending to the sign compared to
the average time required to read all the text in the sign (Bitgood,1994).
20

2.2.1 Data collection procedure
Data collection occurred between July <strong>and</strong> September 2007 <strong>and</strong> included a week <strong>of</strong> school
holidays <strong>and</strong> weekends. Sampling days were divided into four 70 minute time blocks <strong>of</strong>
observation; 10:00-11:10, 11:20–12:30, 12:40–13:50 <strong>and</strong> 14:00–15:10, <strong>and</strong> occurred over a
combined total <strong>of</strong> 22 days.
<strong>The</strong> collection <strong>of</strong> data for the Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> the original signs were taken over the course
<strong>of</strong> both a Saturday <strong>and</strong> Sunday at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo <strong>and</strong> extended into a second Saturday <strong>and</strong>
Sunday at Franklin Zoo.
To measure the Attracting Power <strong>and</strong> Holding Time <strong>of</strong> the experimental sign conditions, a
recording schedule was created to ensure each sign condition was sampled during each time
period on both a Saturday <strong>and</strong> Sunday, counterbalanced across days so that each sign had been
sampled in both morning <strong>and</strong> afternoon sessions on alternate days <strong>of</strong> the weekend, with the
opposite occurring on the second weekend. This was done to provide a balanced observation
<strong>and</strong> allow for possible confounding variables such as weather, temperature, activity levels <strong>of</strong> the
<strong>Kea</strong> <strong>and</strong> time <strong>of</strong> day effects (Crockett, 1996). (refer to the Table in Appendix 8.1). Due to
reduced visitor numbers at Franklin Zoo compared to Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo, observations also included
a third <strong>and</strong> fourth weekend, <strong>and</strong> a Monday <strong>and</strong> Tuesday <strong>of</strong> school holidays following the same
principle, in order to achieve a sample size closer to that <strong>of</strong> Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo.
Due to the wide variation in the design, style <strong>and</strong> content <strong>of</strong> the original signs these were not
included in observations for Holding Time. Holding Time for the experimental sign treatments
were recorded with the use <strong>of</strong> a stopwatch on lap time. Only one adult per social group was
selected. This alternated between the first <strong>and</strong> second adult in walking order to enter the
21

observation zone. <strong>The</strong> visitor was tracked until they left the zone, <strong>and</strong> the cumulative time spent
viewing the sign was added <strong>and</strong> recorded before tracking another visitor. If there was only one
adult in the next social group, that visitor was selected regardless <strong>of</strong> whether or not the first or
second adult was selected previously. Attempts were made to balance the male-female ratio;
hence if it appeared more females had been recorded, then the next adult male <strong>of</strong> a social group
to enter the observation zone was selected regardless <strong>of</strong> their walking order.
Due to temporal restraints a sample size was selected. To ensure the sampling incorporated all
the scheduled time blocks, approximately eight adults were first recorded per time schedule at
Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo for Attracting Power before then recording Holding Time for the same sign within
the same time block. Due to reduced visitor numbers at Franklin Zoo the recording <strong>of</strong>
Attracting Power <strong>and</strong> Holding Time occurred on different days according to the schedule. In
total, 120 individuals <strong>and</strong> 71 individuals per signage condition were recorded for Attracting
Power <strong>of</strong> all sign conditions at Auckl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Franklin Zoo respectively. Holding Time <strong>of</strong> the
experimental sign treatments (1 <strong>and</strong> 2) involved 50 individuals each at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo <strong>and</strong> 40
individuals each at Franklin Zoo.
Holding Power was calculated from the Holding Time <strong>of</strong> both sign treatments at each Zoological
Park. To do this 20 individuals not involved in the study were requested to read all the text in
each version <strong>of</strong> the sign. Each person was timed using a stopwatch to record the actual time
required to read all the text. This was then averaged across all individuals for use in the
calculation (refer Table 2).
22

2.3 Measuring the effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour on visitor interest
An ethogram for <strong>Kea</strong> was derived from Diamond & Bond (1991), Diamond & Bond, (2004) <strong>and</strong>
Huber et al. (2001). For ease <strong>of</strong> data collection <strong>and</strong> for analytical purposes the behavioural state
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> was grouped into four independent categories with vocalization as a separate fifth
category. This was related in part to Johnston (1998) ranking <strong>of</strong> animal behaviour groups based
on visitor surveys highlighting certain types <strong>of</strong> behaviours as being perceived as more active or
interesting than others, but was substituted with potentially corresponding species-specific
behaviours <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong>, <strong>and</strong> a reduction in defined categories. Vocalization was included as a
mutually inclusive behaviour as this could occur with any <strong>of</strong> the other behavioural states <strong>and</strong> was
considered to increase the amount <strong>of</strong> sensory stimuli available to the visitor <strong>and</strong> thus may affect
visitor interest. For a definition <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> behaviours <strong>and</strong> categories in this study refer to the
ethogram in Appendix 8.3.
2.3.1 Data collection procedure
In order to correlate certain types <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour with visitor interest in signage, a scan time
sampling procedure was used to record <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour concurrently with visitor viewing
behaviour. This involved only the enclosure at Franklin Zoo with the use <strong>of</strong> the treatment
condition Sign 2, <strong>and</strong> occurred over all time blocks (10:00-11:10, 11:20–12:30, 12:40–13:50 <strong>and</strong>
14:00–15:10). This included a Saturday <strong>and</strong> a Sunday on separate weekends <strong>and</strong> one day <strong>of</strong>
school holidays. A programmed stopwatch with a discrete auditory signal fixed at six second
intervals was started when an adult entered the observation zone. An interval <strong>of</strong> 6 seconds was
chosen after taking an average <strong>of</strong> enclosure viewing time from Schnackenberg (1997); Bitgood
et al. (1988); Povey & Rios (2002); <strong>and</strong> Davey (2006). This was close to 50 seconds, giving a
potential <strong>of</strong> 10 (5 second interval) scan samples during an average viewing time. A preliminary
trial <strong>of</strong> the recording procedure proved this interval to be a fraction short in order to accurately
record all <strong>Kea</strong> simultaneously with the visitor, so this was increased to an interval <strong>of</strong> 6 seconds
23

for the main study. At the transition <strong>of</strong> each interval the <strong>Kea</strong> were first scanned from the left to
the right <strong>of</strong> the enclosure before then viewing the visitor. <strong>The</strong> first behaviour seen during each
signalled scan was recorded on a data sheet derived from Crockett (1996) (refer Appendix 8.2).
A measure <strong>of</strong> visitor interest was made based on the proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to
viewing either the enclosure or the sign. This originally included an option <strong>of</strong> viewing neither
the enclosure nor the sign but still being within the 2.5m observation zone. Due to a low
incidence <strong>of</strong> occurrence this was later combined with enclosure viewing for statistical analysis.
This category was combined with enclosure viewing because the ultimate aim was to assess
whether <strong>Kea</strong> behaviours affected visitor interest in the accompanying signage, rather than
interest in the enclosure itself.
<strong>The</strong> stopwatch was terminated when the adult left the observation zone. Once any notes for the
observation was completed, the next adult to enter the designated zone was tracked using the
same principle as for Holding Time (alternating between the first <strong>and</strong> second adult <strong>of</strong> a social
group, with attempts to balance the sex ratio). In total, 59 visitors to the <strong>Kea</strong> enclosure were
sampled for this part <strong>of</strong> the study, resulting in a combined scan total <strong>of</strong> 563 sample points.
2.4 Statistical analysis
All the data were analysed using the computer programme SPSS (version 14). <strong>The</strong> Attracting
Power <strong>of</strong> the two experimental sign treatments at the <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures were compared using Chi
square analysis. An independent samples t-test was used to determine any significant difference
in the mean Holding Time <strong>of</strong> the two experimental sign conditions. <strong>The</strong> corresponding Holding
Power <strong>of</strong> the two signs did not require a statistical test. <strong>The</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> <strong>Behaviour</strong> categories
on visitor interest in the enclosure, <strong>and</strong> by association their interest in Sign Treatment 2, was
analysed using the non parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. Results <strong>of</strong> all tests were analysed for
statistical significance at the P = 0.05 level.
24

3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Sign treatment effects on visitor interest
3.1.1 Attracting Power
<strong>The</strong> Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> the different signage conditions varied across the two Zoological Parks
in the study. Taken as a percentage, there was a consistent trend for Attracting Power to increase
from the Original Sign to Sign Treatment 1 <strong>and</strong> then increase again for Sign Treatment 2 at both
facilities. (Table 3, Figure 6). Overall there was a 20% increase in Attracting Power between
the Original Sign at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo <strong>and</strong> Sign Treatment 1, <strong>and</strong> a further 15% increase between
Sign Treatment 1 <strong>and</strong> 2. This varied between the sexes, with a greater increase between Sign
Treatment 1 <strong>and</strong> 2 seen with males (22%) to females (15%). Similarly, there was a 31%
increase in Attracting Power between the Original Sign at Franklin Zoo <strong>and</strong> Sign Treatment 1,
<strong>and</strong> a further 19% increase between Sign Treatment 1 <strong>and</strong> 2. As was the case with Auckl<strong>and</strong>
Zoo, this varied between the sexes, with a greater increase between Sign Treatment 1 <strong>and</strong> 2 seen
with males (28%) to females (15%). Of the visitors that attended to Sign Treatment 2 for two
seconds or longer, 50% <strong>of</strong> the males <strong>and</strong> 48% <strong>of</strong> the females touched the 3D casts at Auckl<strong>and</strong>
Zoo. <strong>The</strong>re was a lower incidence <strong>of</strong> males h<strong>and</strong>ling the casts at Franklin Zoo with 32%, but a
slightly higher incidence <strong>of</strong> females h<strong>and</strong>ling the 3D casts at 51%. Overall, 47% <strong>of</strong> the visitors
touched the 3D casts out <strong>of</strong> all recorded visitors that attended to the sign treatment for longer
than two seconds.
25

Table 3. Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> different signage treatments at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoological Park <strong>and</strong>
Franklin Zoo <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Sanctuary.
ATTRACTING POWER ORIGINAL SIGN 1 SIGN 2 3DCAST
AUCKLAND ZOO MALES 30% 49% 71% 50%
FEMALES 37% 56% 66% 48%
OVERALL 33% 53% 68% 49%
FRANKLIN ZOO MALES 25% 60% 88% 32%
FEMALES 33% 61% 76% 51%
OVERALL 30% 61% 80% 44%
ZOOS COMBINED (33)* 55% 73% 47%
* Note that the wide variability in the signage type <strong>and</strong> design <strong>of</strong> the original signs may arguably make
this combined percentage irrelevant.
When the raw data for the Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> the two experimental sign treatments at both
Zoological Parks were combined, expressed as proportions, <strong>and</strong> compared using Chi square,
there was a significant difference in the proportion <strong>of</strong> individuals that were attracted to the
different sign treatments (x²=12.394, df=1, P-value =0.0001).
26

a)
b)
PERCENTAGE OF VISITORS
PERCENTAGE OF VISITORS
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
MALES FEMALES
SEX OF VISITOR
MALES FEMALES
SEX OF VISITOR
27
ORIGINAL
SIGN 1
SIGN 2
ORIGINAL
SIGN 1
SIGN 2
Figure 6. Comparison <strong>of</strong> the Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> different signage treatments based on visitor
sex at (a) Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoological Park <strong>and</strong> (b) Franklin Zoological Park <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Sanctuary.
Taken as a percentage <strong>of</strong> the actual number <strong>of</strong> males <strong>and</strong> females that visited the <strong>Kea</strong> enclosure.

3.1.2 Holding Time <strong>and</strong> Holding Power
<strong>The</strong> mean Holding Time for individuals exposed to Sign Treatment 1 was 25.36 seconds
(SE=4.22) compared to 26.08 seconds (SE= 2.74) for Sign Treatment 2. Figure 7 is a
representation <strong>of</strong> the Holding Time <strong>of</strong> the two experimental sign treatments. On conducting an
independent samples t-test the difference between the two sign treatments was insignificant
(t= -0.143, df=182, P-value=0.887). <strong>The</strong> Holding Power for Sign Treatment 1 was 23%. <strong>The</strong>re
was a 1% increase in the Holding Power <strong>of</strong> the sign when the 3D casts were added (Sign 2).
Table 4 provides a summary <strong>of</strong> the performance measures <strong>of</strong> the two experimental sign
treatments.
Table 4. Performance measures for the Holding Time <strong>and</strong> Holding Power <strong>of</strong> the two
experimental sign treatments.
HOLDING TIME
Mean
Median
Range
HOLDING POWER
HOLDING TIME (SECONDS)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
SIGN 1 SIGN 2 P-Value
25.36sec.(SE=4.22)
14sec.
330sec.
23%
31
55
92
7
30
SIGN1
SIGN TREATMENT
28
26.08sec.(SE=2.74) (P=0.877)
20sec.
201sec.
Figure 7. Box <strong>and</strong> whisker plot representing the Holding Time <strong>of</strong> the two experimental sign
treatments.
24%
102
94
SIGN2

3.2 Effects <strong>of</strong> kea behaviour on visitor interest
<strong>The</strong> median proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors to the <strong>Kea</strong> exhibit allocated to viewing the enclosure did
not change significantly in relation to the percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent displaying any <strong>of</strong> the
categorised groups <strong>of</strong> behaviours. (Kruskal-Wallis, behaviours: type 1, x²=7.28, df=2, P-value =
0.695; type 2, x²=1.862, df=2, P-value = 0.394; type 3, x²=0.910, df=3, P-value = 0.823; type 4,
x²=4.155, df=2, P-value = 0.125; vocalising, x²=3.163, df=3, P-value = 0.367). Figure 8(a-e)
presents a summary <strong>of</strong> the median proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to viewing the enclosure
under each behaviour category.
8a)
Proportion <strong>of</strong> time spent viewing enclosure
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
28
5
0-24%
29
50-74%
<strong>Kea</strong> displaying category 1 behaviours
75-100%
Figure 8a. Relationship between the median proportions <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to viewing
the <strong>Kea</strong> enclosure with the percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent displaying Category 1 behaviours.

8b)
8c)
Proportion <strong>of</strong> time spent viewing enclosure
Proportion <strong>of</strong> time spent viewing enclosure
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0-24%
0-24%
30
25-49%
<strong>Kea</strong> displaying Category 2 <strong>Behaviour</strong>s
25-49%
50-74%
<strong>Kea</strong> displaying category 3 behaviours
50-74%
75-100%
Figure 8(b-c). Relationship between the median proportions <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to
viewing the <strong>Kea</strong> enclosure with the percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent displaying b) Category 2 <strong>and</strong> c)
Category 3 behaviours.

8d)
8e)
Proportion <strong>of</strong> time spent viewing enclosure
Proportion <strong>of</strong> time spent viewing enclosure
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0-24%
0-24%
25-49%
<strong>Kea</strong> displaying category 4 behaviours
25-49%
31
50-74%
Percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent vocalizing
50-74%
75-100%
Figure 8(d-e). Relationship between the median proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to
viewing the <strong>Kea</strong> enclosure with the percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent displaying d) Category 4
behaviours <strong>and</strong> e) spent vocalising.

4.0 DISCUSSION
4.1 Sign treatment effects on visitor interest
4.1.1 Attracting Power
<strong>The</strong> Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> the original signs at 30% (Auckl<strong>and</strong>) <strong>and</strong> 33% (Franklin) are generally
higher than the reportedly low incidence <strong>of</strong> visitors reading accompanying graphics in previous
studies. In this study attention toward the sign was defined as the actual number <strong>of</strong> visitors who
attended to the sign for a minimum <strong>of</strong> two seconds. <strong>The</strong> studies reported previously either do
not give a defined measurement <strong>of</strong> time in which a visitor was regarded as having viewed the
sign (eg: Arndt et al. (1993) at 5%; Broad <strong>and</strong> Weiler (1998) at 14% <strong>and</strong> 50%; Johnston (1998)
at 4%), or have used a different time frame as the definition. Jensen (2006) for instance, with an
incidence <strong>of</strong> sign reading at 56.8%, defined Attracting Power as the percentage <strong>of</strong> all visitors that
stopped at the sign for at least one second, whereas Povey & Rios (2002) with an incidence <strong>of</strong>
25% was based on 5 seconds or longer. <strong>The</strong> wide diversity <strong>of</strong> institutions, exhibits, signage
types <strong>and</strong> design, along with different definitions used for a visitor having used signs both within
<strong>and</strong> between these studies make generalizations difficult to make. Even so, the results <strong>of</strong> this
study do support Parker (2007) post-exit survey <strong>of</strong> individuals visiting <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures in New
Zeal<strong>and</strong>, with 27% <strong>of</strong> the respondents reporting that they used the sign. It also supports the low
incidence <strong>of</strong> sign reading found in studies generally. Furthermore, the results in this study, in
part, support the notion that this low incidence can be improved with the implementation <strong>of</strong>
artistic elements designed to attract a potential reader. <strong>The</strong>re was an obvious increase seen in the
Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> the original signs to the artistic Sign Treatment 1 at both zoological parks,
<strong>and</strong> a further increase seen in the tactile Sign Treatment 2. <strong>The</strong> overall percentage <strong>of</strong> visitors
attracted to Sign Treatment 1 was 55% compared to Sign Treatment 2 at 73%; in other words an
increase <strong>of</strong> 18%. Although generalizations are problematic (due to the diverse range <strong>of</strong> contexts
32

in which studies have occurred), this increase in Attracting Power is very similar to Arndt et al.
(1993) use <strong>of</strong> artistic designs <strong>and</strong> an interactive flip panel system as a tactile element. In that
study the difference between the two experimental sign conditions was 15%. In Jensen’s (2006)
study using a flip panel system, this difference is higher at 26.5%, but comparisons should be
made lightly as Jensen’s study occurred outside the context <strong>of</strong> a zoological park <strong>and</strong> the sign was
known to be the first visitors were presented with (<strong>and</strong> hence limited potential for the negative
affects <strong>of</strong> visitor fatigue/cognitive overload discussed in Allen (2004)).
Caution may be required in interpreting the positive increase seen in the Attracting Power for the
experimental sign treatments as it is possible that the higher results were due to a factor in visitor
demographics. Regular visitors to the Zoological Park in question would potentially recognise it
as a new sign <strong>and</strong> thus may interact with it because it is a novelty. <strong>The</strong> apparent similarity in
the Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> the original signs at Auckl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Franklin Zoo, despite the very broad
difference in the style <strong>and</strong> design <strong>of</strong> the signs may support this notion, as does the similarity with
Parker (2007) results. However, anecdotally it appeared that individuals reading the original
sign at Franklin Zoo were not able to actually read the sign from the distance the observer started
recording them. This is because the recording started when the visitor first appeared to direct
their eyes on the sign, <strong>and</strong> did not take into consideration the eligibility <strong>of</strong> the sign from that
distance. It was apparent by visitors voicing the name ‘<strong>Kea</strong>’ out loud to their social group that
many could not read the title for some time after first looking toward it. By the same anecdotal
observations at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo it was clear that the species could be identified by name
immediately upon observing the sign, regardless <strong>of</strong> the distance in which visitors were from the
sign. If this is true, Franklin Zoo may have a higher Attracting Power recorded for their original
sign than is actually the case. This in itself may explain the apparent similarity between the
Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> the original signs at Auckl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Franklin Zoo (despite the broad
difference in the style <strong>and</strong> design), rather than support the notion that any novelty factor
33

associated with them would have already worn <strong>of</strong>f. However, regardless <strong>of</strong> whether or not there
is an added association with the new experimental signs as novelty factors, the difference in the
Attracting Power between the two experimental sign treatments themselves, which only differed
by a tactile component, was significant (P=0.0001). This suggests that the kinaesthetic use <strong>of</strong> 3D
casts is a significant causal factor in the level <strong>of</strong> Attracting Power. Moreover, it indicates that
the addition <strong>of</strong> multi modal designs, <strong>and</strong> particularly adding a kinaesthetic component to any
accompanying interpretive at <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures, is effective in increasing the percentage <strong>of</strong> visitors
that are attracted to the interpretive within the free-choice learning environment <strong>of</strong> a zoological
park.
4.1.2 Holding Time <strong>and</strong> Holding Power
<strong>The</strong> results <strong>of</strong> this study do not support the hypothesis that adding a multi modal, tactile
interactive in the form <strong>of</strong> a 3D cast can increase the Holding Time <strong>of</strong> signs at <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures.
An insignificant difference (less than 1%) between the Holding Time <strong>of</strong> individuals exposed to
the two experimental sign treatments (t= -0.143, df=182, P=0.887) is in contrast to the two
studies mentioned in the introduction that used an artistic <strong>and</strong> interactive flip panel as the tactile
component. In Arndt et al. (1993) study there was a significant 24.1% increase in the Holding
Time <strong>of</strong> the signs. Additionally, the 6 second difference in the median holding time <strong>of</strong> the two
experimental versions in this study was doubled in Jensen’s (2006) study using an interactive flip
panel system, <strong>and</strong> moreover was found to be significantly different with a P-value <strong>of</strong> 0.045. This
may suggest that the use <strong>of</strong> a flip panel system for an added kinaesthetic component can have a
greater effect on the Holding Time <strong>of</strong> signs than using 3D casts. In addition, the Holding Power
for Sign Treatment 1 was 23%, indicating the average time spent reading the sign was less than a
quarter <strong>of</strong> what was required to read the whole sign. <strong>The</strong>re was a 1% increase in the Holding
Power <strong>of</strong> the sign when the 3D casts were added (Sign treatment 2). This result also differs
34

vastly from Arndt et al. (1993) <strong>and</strong> Jensen (2006) study. Holding Power in Arndt et al. (1993)
study was 98% for the artistic design <strong>and</strong> 113% for the flip panel version, indicating that visitors
to the artistic design spent nearly the whole required time necessary to read all the text, <strong>and</strong> those
to the flip panel spent longer than was actually required. This result varies again in Jensen’s
(2006) study in which the Holding Power <strong>of</strong> the first version without the interactive flip panel
was nearly 75% <strong>of</strong> the required time necessary to read the sign, <strong>and</strong> the interactive flip panel
version was only a second short <strong>of</strong> the required time. Even keeping in mind the diverse contexts
in which the studies have occurred, the poor results in this study in comparison may suggest that
the use <strong>of</strong> flip panels (as opposed to 3D casts) may be a greater method for holding visitor
interest. Alternatively, it is widely considered that the amount <strong>of</strong> text within signs plays a major
factor in attracting <strong>and</strong> holding visitors, with a negative association found between this <strong>and</strong> an
increase in text (Bitgood, 2002; Serrel, 1996). <strong>The</strong> much greater increase in the Holding Time <strong>of</strong>
the two previous studies involving flip panel systems may therefore be a component <strong>of</strong> panels
hiding the amount <strong>of</strong> text, <strong>and</strong> thus the perceived effort to read the label (Bitgood, 2002; Serrel,
1996), in which case two variables are acting in concert to produce this effect on Holding Time
rather than merely the one factor <strong>of</strong> an increase in tactile stimuli. <strong>The</strong> very nature <strong>of</strong> the flip
panel system which hides the correct answers to a question means visitors can test their
knowledge before physically interacting with the sign to receive the correct answer. This may
appeal to an added style <strong>of</strong> learning beyond kinaesthetic stimuli, confounding the comparison
between studies. <strong>The</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> words on the experimental signs (excluding the 3D
addition) was 430. <strong>The</strong> low Holding Time <strong>of</strong> Sign Treatment 1 may suggest that this amount is
negatively affecting visitor interest, <strong>and</strong> may therefore be an overpowering factor that it is
having a negative effect against the Holding Time <strong>of</strong> these signs. This may prevent the potential
benefit <strong>of</strong> the interactive, kinaesthetic component on the overall Holding Time <strong>of</strong> sign
treatment 2. It may be necessary to test the tactile component under different sign treatments
with a range <strong>of</strong> word counts to explore this possibility.
35

Anecdotally it also appeared that a large proportion <strong>of</strong> visitors who touched the 3D casts on Sign
Treatment 2 allocated a large proportion <strong>of</strong> their time in doing so <strong>and</strong> did not continue on to read
much <strong>of</strong> the accompanying text. Further research investigating the proportion <strong>of</strong> time allocated
to touching the casts compared to that actually spent reading the text would be required to
accurately assess this. If this was the case, the employment <strong>of</strong> tactile components in the context
<strong>of</strong> a 3D cast may increase the Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> the sign, but in doing so compromise the
education <strong>and</strong> advocacy opportunities <strong>of</strong> the sign if there are no further associations with it
beyond touching the casts. In Parker’s (2007) study there was no significant difference found on
the short term learning <strong>of</strong> visitors before <strong>and</strong> after visiting a <strong>Kea</strong> enclosure. <strong>The</strong> low Holding
Time <strong>and</strong> Power <strong>of</strong> these two experimental versions may similarly imply short term learning is
not occurring with this design either. A similar study involving visitor surveys to compare short
term recall against pre <strong>and</strong> post exhibit visitation with the two experimental sign versions could
provide insight as to whether or not either version <strong>of</strong> the sign impacts short term learning.
Unfortunately in combination, these results may support Balmford et al. (2007) non-encouraging
evaluation (<strong>and</strong> their review <strong>of</strong> literature that used similar measures to their own). In Balmford
et al. study there was no difference found in the knowledge <strong>of</strong> adult visitors between pre- <strong>and</strong>
post- zoo visitation. Under these findings they suggested that a single informal visit to the zoo
is not adequate for educating adults or advocating for conservation. This could suggest that
regardless <strong>of</strong> the signage design <strong>and</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong> visitors reading any or all <strong>of</strong> the text, a single
visit to an institution holding <strong>Kea</strong> in captivity is not enough to have a positive impact in
advocating for this species. On a more positive note however, although the Holding Power <strong>of</strong>
the experimental signs was shown to be only a small percentage <strong>of</strong> the actual required time
necessary to read all the text, a mean Holding Time <strong>of</strong> 25.36 seconds is certainly longer than it
takes to read only the name <strong>of</strong> the animal on display. <strong>The</strong>refore they still succeeded in a small
36

way in sufficiently attracting the interest <strong>of</strong> visitors beyond merely identifying the animal, into
the realms <strong>of</strong> potential learning <strong>and</strong> attitude change (Bitgood, 2000).
4.2 Effects <strong>of</strong> kea behaviour on visitor interest
<strong>The</strong>re was no significant difference found in the median proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors allocated to
viewing the enclosure, in relation to the percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> displayed any <strong>of</strong> the behaviour
categories (including vocalization). Since visitors to the enclosure were noted as either viewing
the enclosure or the accompanying signage, by association there is no evidence in this study to
suggest that the proportion <strong>of</strong> time visitors attend to the accompanying signage is influenced by
<strong>Kea</strong>s’ behavioural displays.
At first glance this may seem counter to previous literature reporting active animals as more
interesting than inactive ones (eg: Bitgood et al. 1988; Margulis et al. 2003, Todd et al. 2006).
However, common methods used to infer visitor interest in an exhibit in these studies is either
the number <strong>of</strong> visitors who stopped at the enclosure, or the duration <strong>of</strong> time in which they stayed.
In addition, behaviour categories are <strong>of</strong>ten addressed only in terms <strong>of</strong> the presence or absence <strong>of</strong>
activity intervals. In the first two studies for example, any observation <strong>of</strong> a visitor in which one
<strong>of</strong> the animals in the enclosure displayed any activity sometime during the observed period, was
counted as an active scan (or taken as a percentage <strong>of</strong> activity vs. inactivity during the
observation). <strong>The</strong> results showed either a positive trend or a significant impact on visitor
stopping or exhibit stay time for observations categorised as active over inactive. Although
Todd et al. (2006) study showed a similarly positive relationship between more active-type
behaviours <strong>and</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> visitors at the exhibit, the duration <strong>of</strong> time visitors spent observing
the exhibit was not significantly effected. In comparison, the insignificant results in this study
may be explained by the attempt to differentiate the types <strong>of</strong> behaviours displayed by the <strong>Kea</strong>
37

during a given observation, as opposed to merely differentiating between the presence <strong>and</strong>
absence <strong>of</strong> active-type behaviours during a scan. Essentially, the only quantifiable attempt at
differentiating types <strong>of</strong> behaviours into levels <strong>of</strong> activity <strong>and</strong> their impact on exhibit viewing
time (as a measure <strong>of</strong> visitor interest) is Johnston’s (1998) study at ten polar bear exhibits.
Based on extensive visitor interviews, it was revealed that visitors ranked categories <strong>of</strong> activity
according to a number <strong>of</strong> factors including ‘the novelty <strong>of</strong> the behaviour displayed, the perceived
energy expended by the animal, <strong>and</strong> the entertainment generated by a given behaviour’ (p.324).
Combined with objective data, st<strong>and</strong>ardised indexes <strong>of</strong> animal activity were constructed to
correspond with the survey data, <strong>and</strong> the highest activity level for a given observation was scored
according to this rank. Using a score from this index against the total time an individuals
attention was drawn to the exhibit highlighted a positive relationship between the two (P

misleading or inaccurate assessment <strong>of</strong> visitor interest, <strong>and</strong> should be addressed in further
investigations.
Furthermore, Johnston’s study also showed that the mere presence or absence <strong>of</strong> an animal in the
enclosure, <strong>and</strong> the visibility <strong>of</strong> these animals, significantly influenced visitor interest (exhibit
stay time), <strong>and</strong> similar findings have occurred in Bitgood et al. (1988) <strong>and</strong> Davey (2006). <strong>The</strong>
visibility <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Kea</strong> could therefore be a confounding factor influencing the results <strong>of</strong> this study.
<strong>The</strong> very nature <strong>of</strong> the chain link barrier <strong>of</strong> the enclosure in this study, <strong>and</strong> the camouflage nature
<strong>of</strong> the birds in question (especially if they are toward the back <strong>of</strong> the enclosure <strong>and</strong> in a relatively
inactive-type behaviour), may have resulted in visitors not being able to identify the presence <strong>of</strong>
the animal, even when the observer may have noted a behaviour opposing to type 1 (which
included not visible). This could occur because the observers’ eye was more trained at locating
the bird(s), <strong>and</strong> had been tracking their position in the enclosure repeatedly before the visitor
arrived, potentially modifying the results. In addition, with the results <strong>of</strong> previous studies
finding visibility a strong factor affecting visitor interest, a separate category <strong>of</strong> not-visible may
be justified under these circumstances rather than including it within the more inactive-type
behaviour categories. Similarly, the proximity <strong>of</strong> the visitor to the animal in the enclosure has
been shown to work alone or in concert with visibility to affect both the percentage <strong>of</strong> people
who stop to view an exhibit, <strong>and</strong> the length <strong>of</strong> time an individual stays (Johnston, 1998; Bitgood
et al. 1988). Despite the non-significant findings, there were several observations that may
coincide with visibility <strong>and</strong>/or proximity factors affecting visitor interest in <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures, <strong>and</strong>
are thus worthy <strong>of</strong> mention. When the <strong>Kea</strong> were provided with a manipulative foraging device
towards the front <strong>of</strong> the enclosure at both zoological parks in the study, it appeared to increase
the density <strong>of</strong> visitors stopping at the enclosure, caused apparently longer exhibit stay times (in
comparison to visitors without the device present), <strong>and</strong> increased the level <strong>of</strong> behaviour-directed
discussion amongst social groups. Due to the initial presence <strong>of</strong> the keeper in the enclosure
39

putting up the device during the duration <strong>of</strong> the visitors stay time at Franklin Zoo, this was not
included in the data collection, as keeper presence added a whole auditory <strong>and</strong> social interaction
component to the visitors stay which could confound the results. However, these observations
could imply that either specific manipulative exploratory behaviours are more interesting to the
general visitor, that the visibility <strong>and</strong> proximity <strong>of</strong> the kea to the visitor (due to the placement <strong>of</strong>
the devices at the front <strong>of</strong> the enclosure) increased interest, or a combination <strong>of</strong> both factors.
Alternatively it could support the view that any keeper interaction during the visit is the main
factor affecting interest in this particular situation in line with Broad & Weiler (1998); Povey &
Rios (2002); <strong>and</strong> Anderson et al. (2003) findings. However, the effect remained apparent on
those visitors at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo that approached the enclosure after the keeper had finished
putting up the device <strong>and</strong> left the area, supporting the former rather than the later. In addition, a
fairly large number <strong>of</strong> individuals to both the enclosures were noted to call the <strong>Kea</strong> towards them
if the <strong>Kea</strong> were out <strong>of</strong> view or towards the back <strong>of</strong> the enclosure, with phrases such as ‘come up
here’, ‘let me see you properly, ‘come see what I’ve got’, or ‘come <strong>and</strong> say hello’. In many
instances individuals were seen to pull keys out <strong>of</strong> their pocket or h<strong>and</strong>bag <strong>and</strong> jangle them in
front <strong>of</strong> the barrier in combination with these verbal interactions. This suggests that either
visibility/proximity <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> to the visitor, human-animal interaction, or a combination <strong>of</strong> both
may play a large factor in visitor interest in the <strong>Kea</strong> exhibits as a whole, <strong>and</strong> warrants further
investigation.
In consideration <strong>of</strong> these observations, findings in Orr-Walker et al. (2005) study that evaluated
the incidence <strong>of</strong> stereotypies in relation to management practices <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> held in New Zeal<strong>and</strong>
institutions, warrant mention. As enclosure naturalism <strong>and</strong> complexity increased, there was a
significant decrease seen in the proportion <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent actually out <strong>of</strong> view. This finding
was most apparent in walk-through aviaries, <strong>and</strong> furthermore <strong>Kea</strong> were seen to actively interact
not only with the environment but also with the visiting public. <strong>The</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> a naturalistic
40

<strong>and</strong> complex environment, along with appropriate daily enrichment for the species, was seen to
significantly affect the extent to which the full, species-typical, behavioural repertoire <strong>of</strong> these
individuals was displayed (Orr-Walker et al. 2005).
Management that enhances such an occurrence through the means <strong>of</strong> complex, natural
environments <strong>and</strong> enrichment, (in place primarily to meet the animals’ behavioural <strong>and</strong>
psychological needs) may therefore have the added benefit <strong>of</strong> increasing visitor interest. <strong>The</strong>
strategic placement <strong>of</strong> enrichment for increased viewing opportunities <strong>of</strong> visitors
(proximity/visibility), especially devices that provide for, <strong>and</strong> demonstrate <strong>Kea</strong>s’ capacity for
intelligent <strong>and</strong> manipulative exploratory behaviours, could therefore increase visitor interest in
the exhibit. In doing so it may also encourage visitors to seek more information <strong>and</strong>
consequently look to accompanying graphics, <strong>and</strong> therefore provide learning opportunities <strong>and</strong>
advocacy in context with a full display <strong>of</strong> behaviours. In Wolf & Tymitz (1981) study for
instance, visitors requested more information <strong>and</strong> explanation on specific, unique
behaviours they were either witness to or which they should look for. In Altman (1998), certain
animated species-typical behaviours were <strong>of</strong> most interest to the public (based on the recorded
content in conversations).
Another observation worth mentioning occurred during a particularly vigorous bout <strong>of</strong> agonistic
display between the two male <strong>Kea</strong> at Auckl<strong>and</strong> Zoo. <strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> visitors who tried to take
photos or record snippets on their mobile phones appeared to be higher than the usual percentage
<strong>of</strong> visitors that were taking photos, suggesting that this behaviour may also have a higher
perceived interest to visitors than others. Taken together, despite no discernible effects <strong>of</strong> the
percentage <strong>of</strong> time <strong>Kea</strong> spent displaying certain behaviour categories on the proportion <strong>of</strong> time
visitors attended to accompanying signage at the Zoo in this study, the impact these behaviours
may have on visitor interest should not be discounted.
41

It must also be remembered that regardless <strong>of</strong> whether or not <strong>Kea</strong> behaviours, visibility or
proximity, do impact on visitor interest in the exhibit <strong>and</strong> accompanying signage, the education
<strong>and</strong> advocacy <strong>of</strong> this species is not restricted to visitors reading the accompanying graphics (or
attending keeper presentations), <strong>and</strong> can be affected by a myriad <strong>of</strong> other components within the
exhibit context. <strong>The</strong>se interpretive means should only be considered by captive institutions as a
few <strong>of</strong> several used to provide learning opportunities to visitors <strong>and</strong> engender positive attitude
change. Public perception <strong>of</strong> the enclosure type <strong>and</strong> thus the context in which the birds are
displayed can influence what knowledge, value, <strong>and</strong> attitude toward <strong>Kea</strong> a display institutions
visitors are leaving with. Relevant enclosure architecture <strong>and</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> species-appropriate
enrichment is also necessary for visitors to have an underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> <strong>and</strong> their interactions
with the environment, <strong>and</strong> to develop positive emotions <strong>and</strong> attitudes towards them (Sterling et
al. 2007). This is supported in research discussed by Reading & Miller (2007) that found captive
animals displayed in more naturalistic, authentic environments which included an educational
focus to have a more positive impact on a visitors’ interest <strong>and</strong> attitude toward wildlife <strong>and</strong>
conservation in general.
Similarly, if human presence in the environment can provide an increase in positive enrichment
for captive <strong>Kea</strong> as suggested in Orr-Walker et al. (2005) study, <strong>and</strong> visitors are actively seeking
interaction in their experience with captive <strong>Kea</strong> (as is possibly indicated by the anecdotal
observations <strong>and</strong> conversations heard in this study), a walk-through, free flight aviary which
promote natural behaviours, human interaction <strong>and</strong> immersion, seems most ideal <strong>and</strong> appropriate
for this species notoriously known for its lack <strong>of</strong> neophobia <strong>and</strong> bold interaction with humans in
the wild. This opportunity could promote positive, interactive <strong>and</strong> emotive experiences for
visitors, which have been shown to be not only favourably received by visitors in terms <strong>of</strong>
enjoyment, but to also increase learning <strong>and</strong> positive attitudes towards conservation (Sterling et
al. 2007).
42

5.0 CONCLUSION
<strong>The</strong> primary aim <strong>of</strong> this study was to investigate what effect the implementation <strong>of</strong> a multi modal
interpretive at <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures would have on visitor interest. <strong>The</strong>re was strong evidence that one
measure <strong>of</strong> visitor interest, namely Attracting Power, can be positively influenced by the type <strong>of</strong>
sign in use. <strong>The</strong>re was an increase seen in the Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> both experimental designs
when compared to the Attracting Power <strong>of</strong> the original signs in this study, <strong>and</strong> the low incidence
reported in Parker (2007) study. This tendency is most apparent when the interpretive includes a
kinaesthetic component. This indicates that the use <strong>of</strong> an artistic <strong>and</strong> kinaesthetic design with
interpretives at <strong>Kea</strong> enclosures can increase the percentage <strong>of</strong> people who are motivated into
directing their attention toward it. Bitgood (2000) considers attention gain to be the first action
necessary to deliver an educational or advocacy based message but cautions that this in itself will
not be adequate to effectively convey them. Once a sign has attracted a visitor it must then hold
their interest long enough for the message(s) to be communicated (Bitgood, 2000). It was hoped
that the new designs in this study would allow this to occur by motivating the visitors into
spending longer reading the sign(s). However, the data in this study did not indicate a significant
difference in the mean holding time <strong>of</strong> the two experimental versions. <strong>The</strong>re is therefore no
suggestion in this study that adding a kinaesthetic component can have a similarly positive effect
on the Holding Time <strong>of</strong> signage as it does on Attracting Power. A mean holding time <strong>of</strong> 25.36
seconds at its minimum (sign treatment 1) is however longer than it takes to merely identify the
animal on display. <strong>The</strong>refore it can be proposed that the experimental design did succeed in a
small way in holding the visiting publics interest beyond identifying the animal, into the realms
<strong>of</strong> receiving a message. With a Holding Power <strong>of</strong> less than a quarter <strong>of</strong> the average required
time necessary to read all the text (in either version <strong>of</strong> the sign) however, this design does not
appear to hold the visiting publics attention powerfully enough to receive the message in its
entirety.
43

This study also investigated what effect certain categories <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour had on visitor
interest. Visitor interest was based on a measure <strong>of</strong> the proportion <strong>of</strong> time a visitor allocated to
viewing the enclosure over the accompanying signage. Contrary to expectations based on
previous literature (eg: Bitgood et al. 1988; Johnston, 1998; Margulis et al. 2003; Todd et al.
2006) there was no evidence to suggest that <strong>Kea</strong> behaviours had an influence on visitor interest.
However, measuring visitor interest based on the proportions <strong>of</strong> allocated time at the exhibit,
rather than the length <strong>of</strong> time spent there, may be an inaccurate assessment <strong>of</strong> visitor interest. A
number <strong>of</strong> anecdotal observations throughout the period <strong>of</strong> data collection (supplemented by
those found in other studies using different species (Johnston, 1998; Bitgood et al. 1988))
suggest visitor interest can be affected by a combination <strong>of</strong> factors at the <strong>Kea</strong> exhibit. <strong>The</strong>
proximity <strong>and</strong> visibility <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Kea</strong>, along with the implementation <strong>of</strong> enrichment devices that
demonstrate their manipulative exploratory nature <strong>and</strong> skills, appeared to hold a visitors attention
toward the whole exhibit for longer. This requires further investigation.
It is widely recognised that interpretation in zoological parks should take a holistic approach
using their staff <strong>and</strong> volunteers, their animals, their enclosures <strong>and</strong> accompanying graphics
(WAZA, 2005). <strong>The</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> Captive Management Plan 1996 <strong>and</strong> the un<strong>of</strong>ficial review in 2002
expect institutions to display <strong>Kea</strong> in an ecologically relevant context. This should be complex,
<strong>and</strong> implemented with enrichment that provides the birds with an opportunity to display their full
repertoire <strong>of</strong> behaviours (Orr-Walker, 2005). Supplemented by relevant signage designed to
attract the visitor <strong>and</strong> interpret the behaviours <strong>and</strong> interactions with the environment displayed
by the <strong>Kea</strong> therein, allows the <strong>Kea</strong> themselves to act as ambassadors for the conservation <strong>of</strong> their
species in the wild. If this holistic approach occurs sufficiently institutions holding <strong>Kea</strong> in
captivity will be better able to fulfil their role in engendering support for this endangered
endemic.
44

6.0 CRITICISMS/RECOMMENDATIONS
This project focused on three measures <strong>of</strong> visitor interest in signage <strong>and</strong> did not examine any
visitor characteristics that may interact to have an effect on interest or learning. Visitor
characteristics are complex <strong>and</strong> include (but are by no means restricted to) zoo membership
status, the frequency in which they visit the zoological park in question, how long they intend to
spend there, <strong>and</strong> how many exhibits they have visited prior to visiting the <strong>Kea</strong> enclosure. This
last characteristic in itself warrants further investigation as visitor fatigue is considered to be an
important factor influencing a visitor’s continued interest in exhibits (Allen, 2004). It would also
be <strong>of</strong> value to investigate the proportion <strong>of</strong> visitors that attend the <strong>Kea</strong> exhibit out <strong>of</strong> all visitors
attending the zoo on a given sampling day, <strong>and</strong> evaluate their pre-exhibit interest or attitude
toward bird species or native fauna in general, as these factors may influence the level <strong>of</strong> interest
seen in this study. Furthermore, the study did not evaluate the influence <strong>of</strong> group size or
composition, or any differences between nationalities which may impact on focused attention,
interest or learning. Comparisons between these may be valuable.
This study was also aimed solely at those subjects that appeared to be over eighteen years old. .
An evaluation <strong>of</strong> children <strong>and</strong> teenager responses to the signage types should be undertaken
before drawing conclusions about the entire population <strong>of</strong> visitors to the zoological parks
included in this study.
<strong>The</strong> study was also limited to testing the effect <strong>of</strong> only one artistic sign with only one tactile
manipulation. It was not feasible to test a variety <strong>of</strong> signage designs during this study, <strong>and</strong> there
are many variables to signage that have been shown to effect visitor interest including factors
such as colour, type face, shape, style <strong>and</strong> readability (Serrel, 1996). <strong>The</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> text on a
sign is also considered to play a major factor in both attracting <strong>and</strong> holding visitor interest
(Serrel, 1996) <strong>and</strong> this is a factor that proved challenging in the development <strong>of</strong> the sign. It
45

would be worthwhile to test the kinaesthetic addition with signs <strong>of</strong> varying word counts to
investigate whether this acted as a negative force on holding the interest <strong>of</strong> visitors in sign
treatment 2. Due to monetary constraints <strong>and</strong> the necessity to have consistent sign placement
across the zoological parks in this study the experimental versions were placed on an easel. This
meant that they were lower than the average eye level <strong>of</strong> an adult visitor <strong>and</strong> tilted on a slight
angle. <strong>The</strong>se two factors may similarly have a negative effect on visitor interest (Serrel, 1996)
so measures to address these in future research would be valuable.
<strong>The</strong> data collection was also limited to only two zoological parks during the winter/autumn
period, <strong>and</strong> was restricted to weekends <strong>and</strong> school holidays. This may also have an impact on
the results so research including a larger number <strong>of</strong> individuals at a greater range <strong>of</strong> Zoological
parks holding <strong>Kea</strong> would be required before drawing conclusions about the entire population.
A further limitation <strong>of</strong> this study is that it gives no indication <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> the signs on actual
learning or attitude change as is the expectation in the <strong>Kea</strong> Captive Management Plan (Pullar,
1996). An evaluation using pre <strong>and</strong> post visitation questionnaires on the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> these
signs (<strong>and</strong> different designs) in delivering messages are warranted.
<strong>The</strong>re was a definite problem encountered with the data collection procedure <strong>of</strong> the second part
<strong>of</strong> the study aimed at assessing the effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour on visitor interest. Due to the nature
<strong>of</strong> the chain link barrier, camouflaged birds within the enclosure, <strong>and</strong> the recording device used
for scan time sampling, the observer was not able to remain unobtrusive. Visitors were aware
that a study was occurring at the <strong>Kea</strong> exhibit during this time even if they did not know the exact
nature <strong>of</strong> the stud. This may invariably affect the outcome. Another problem identified with the
methodology <strong>of</strong> this section <strong>of</strong> the study was the categorization <strong>of</strong> behaviours based on previous
literature that did not include an avian species. To make confident conclusions about the
46

ehavioural effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>Kea</strong> on visitor interest necessitates a study that incorporates a number <strong>of</strong>
measures:
1. Use <strong>of</strong> a rank for <strong>Kea</strong> behaviours based on a pre study survey evaluating visitor perceptions <strong>of</strong>
what constitutes an interesting behaviour.
2. Measures <strong>of</strong> visitor interest that include the actual cumulative duration <strong>of</strong> time spent at the
exhibit <strong>and</strong> the cumulative duration <strong>of</strong> time visitors spent reading the accompanying graphics.
3. Separate variables that include the proximity <strong>and</strong> the visibility <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Kea</strong> in the enclosure.
4. Consider the use <strong>of</strong> video recording the enclosure <strong>and</strong> main viewing access to allow for more
specific measures <strong>of</strong> visitor interest without any potential impact caused by visitors knowing a
study is underway.
5. Methodological improvements may include the use <strong>of</strong> focal rather than scan time sampling
techniques.
Additionally, the second part <strong>of</strong> the study only occurred at one enclosure that had one male <strong>and</strong>
one female <strong>Kea</strong>. This does not allow for other aspects <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Kea</strong> themselves or the enclosures
that may have an impact on the behaviour or interest <strong>of</strong> the visitors. This would include the
potential effects <strong>of</strong> other <strong>Kea</strong> social groups <strong>and</strong> age compositions, <strong>and</strong> the size, design <strong>and</strong>
naturalism <strong>of</strong> the enclosures. Further investigation via questionnaires that evaluate <strong>and</strong> compare
aspects <strong>of</strong> different enclosure <strong>and</strong> enrichment features that impact on a visitor’s perception,
knowledge, attitude <strong>and</strong> enjoyment would also be beneficial. Studies that include an evaluation
<strong>of</strong> differences in perception, attitude <strong>and</strong> interest <strong>of</strong> visitors to immersive walk through aviaries
holding <strong>Kea</strong> to those separated by chain link barriers in relation to human-<strong>Kea</strong> interaction may
also be <strong>of</strong> interest.
47

7.0 REFERENCES
Allen, S. (2004). Designs for Learning: Studying Science Museum Exhibits That Do More Than
Entertain. Science Education, 88(1): S17-33.
Altman, J. D. (1998). Animal activity <strong>and</strong> visitor learning at the zoo. Anthrozoos, 11(1):12-21.
Anderson, U., Kelling, A., Pressley-Keough, R., Bloomsmith, M., Maple, T. (2003). Enhancing
the zoo visitors experience by public animal training <strong>and</strong> oral interpretation at an otter exhibit.
Environment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Behaviour</strong>, 35(6): 826-841.
Arndt, M.A., Screven, C., Benusa, D., Bishop, T. (1993). <strong>Behaviour</strong> <strong>and</strong> Learning in a Zoo
Environment under different <strong>Signage</strong> Conditions. Visitor studies: theory, research, <strong>and</strong>
practice. Jacksonville, A.L: Centre for Social Design, Jacksonville State University.
Balmford , A., Leader-Williams, N., Mace, G.M., Manica, A., Walter, O., West, C.,
Zimmerman, A. (2007) In A. Zimmerman, M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, C. West. (Eds.). Zoos in the
21 st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? (pp120-136). Cambridge: Zoological Society <strong>of</strong>
London, Cambridge University Press.
Bashaw, M.J., Maple, T.L. (2001). Signs Fail to Increase Zoo Visitors’ Ability to See Tigers.
Curator, 44(3): 297-304.
Bitgood, S. (1991). Suggested guidelines for designing interactive exhibits. Visitor <strong>Behaviour</strong>,
6(4): 4-11.
Bitgood, S. (1994). Designing Effective Exhibits: Criteria for Success, Exhibit Design
Approaches, <strong>and</strong> Research Strategies. Visitor <strong>Behaviour</strong>, 9(4):4-16.
Bitgood, S. (2000). <strong>The</strong> role <strong>of</strong> attention in designing effective interpretive labels. Journal <strong>of</strong>
Interpretation Research, 5(2):31-45.
Bitgood, S. (2002). Environmental Psychology in Museums, Zoos, <strong>and</strong> Other Exhibition
Centers. In R. Bechtel, A. Churchman (Eds.). H<strong>and</strong>book <strong>of</strong> Environmental Psychology. (pp461-
480). John Wiley & Sons.
Bitgood, S., Benefield, A. (1987). Visitor behaviour: A comparison across zoos. Technical
Report No 86-20. Jacksonville, A.L: Centre for Social Design, Jacksonville State University.
Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., Benefield, A., L<strong>and</strong>ers, A. (1986). “Underst<strong>and</strong>ing your visitors: ten
factors influencing visitor behaviour”. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the 1986 American Association <strong>of</strong>
Zoological Parks <strong>and</strong> Aquariums. Minneapolis, MN.
Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit Design <strong>and</strong> Visitor <strong>Behaviour</strong>:
Empirical Relationships. Environment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Behaviour</strong>, 20(4): 474-491.
Bitgood, S., Patterson, D. (1993). <strong>The</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> gallery changes on visitor reading <strong>and</strong> object
viewing. Environment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Behaviour</strong>, 25(6):761-781.
48

Broad, S., Weiler, B. (1998). Captive Animals <strong>and</strong> Interpretation: A Case <strong>of</strong> Two Tiger
Exhibits. Journal <strong>of</strong> Tourism Studies, 9(1):14-27.
Crockett, C.M. (1996). Data Collection in the Zoo Setting, Emphasizing <strong>Behaviour</strong>. In D.
Klieman, M. Allen, K. Thompson, S. Lumpkin (Eds.). Wild Mammals in Captivity. (pp545-
564). Chicago: University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press.
Davey, G. (2006). Relationships between exhibit naturalism, animal visibility <strong>and</strong> visitor
interest in a Chinese Zoo. Applied Animal <strong>Behaviour</strong> Science, 96: 93–102
Diamond, J., Bond, A. B. (1991). Social behaviour <strong>and</strong> the ontogeny <strong>of</strong> foraging in the kea
(Nestor notabilis). Ethology, 88:128-144
Diamond J, Bond A. (1999). <strong>Kea</strong> Bird <strong>of</strong> Paradox. <strong>The</strong> Evolution <strong>and</strong> <strong>Behaviour</strong> <strong>of</strong> a New
Zeal<strong>and</strong> Parrot. California: University <strong>of</strong> California Press, Ltd.
Diamond, J., Bond, A. (2004). Social Play in Kaka (Nestor meridionalis) with Comparisons to
<strong>Kea</strong> (Nestor notabilis). <strong>Behaviour</strong>, 141: 777-798.
Elliott, G., Kemp, J. (2004). Effect <strong>of</strong> hunting <strong>and</strong> predation on kea, <strong>and</strong> a method <strong>of</strong> monitoring
kea populations. Results <strong>of</strong> kea research on the St Arnaud Range. Department <strong>of</strong> Conservation
Science Internal Series 181: New Zeal<strong>and</strong>.
Falk, J. H., Dierking, L.D. (1992). <strong>The</strong> Museum Experience. Washington: Whalesback Books,
Howells House.
Falk, J. H. (2005). Free-choice environmental learning: framing the discussion.
Environmental Education Research, 11(3): 265–280
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames <strong>of</strong> mind: <strong>The</strong> theory <strong>of</strong> multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Heinrich, C. J., Birney, B. A. (1992). Effects <strong>of</strong> live animal demonstrations on zoo visitors’
retention <strong>of</strong> information. Anthrozoos, 5(2): 113-121.
Hitchmough, R. (2002). New Zeal<strong>and</strong> Threat Classification System Lists. Threatened Species
Occasional Publication 23. Wellington: Department <strong>of</strong> Conservation.
Hosey, G. R. (2000). Zoo animals <strong>and</strong> their human audiences: what is the visitor effect? Animal
Welfare, 9: 343-357
Huber, L., Rechberger, S., Taborsky, M. (2001). Social learning affects object exploration <strong>and</strong>
manipulation in <strong>Kea</strong>s, Nestor notabilis. Animal <strong>Behaviour</strong>, 62: 945 – 954.
Huber, L., Gajdon, G. K. (2006). Technical intelligence in animals: the kea model. Animal
Cognition, 9:295–305.
Jensen, K. A. (2006). Effects <strong>of</strong> the artistic design <strong>of</strong> interpretive signage on
attracting power, holding time <strong>and</strong> memory recall. Unpublished master’s thesis, Humboldt State
University.
49

Johnston, R. (1998). Exogenous factors <strong>and</strong> visitor behaviour: a regression analysis <strong>of</strong> exhibit
viewing time. Environment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Behaviour</strong>, 30(3): pp322-348.
<strong>Kea</strong>ne, C., Marples, N. (2004, July). <strong>The</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> zoo visitors on the behaviour <strong>of</strong> Mollucan
<strong>and</strong> citron-crested cockatoos. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the Sixth Annual Symposium on Zoo Research.
Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Margulis, S. W., Hoyos, C., Anderson, M. (2003). Effect <strong>of</strong> Felid Activity on Zoo Visitor
Interest. Zoo Biology, 22(6): 587-599.
Marriner, G.R. (1908). <strong>The</strong> <strong>Kea</strong>: A New Zeal<strong>and</strong> Problem. Christchurch: Marriner Bros. & Co.,
Printers & Publishers.
McKinlay, B., Bush, A. S., Grant, A., Barlow, K., Pullar, T., Ellison, M. (2002, June). <strong>Kea</strong>
Captive Management Plan Review. Department <strong>of</strong> Conservation. Retrieved October 31, 2007,
from http://www.keaconservation.com/index.php/kea_captive_population/49
Mitchell, G., Tromborg, C.T., Kaufman, J., Bargabus, S., Simoni, R., Geissler, V. (1992). More
on the ‘influence’ <strong>of</strong> zoo visitors on the behaviour <strong>of</strong> captive primates. Applied Animal
<strong>Behaviour</strong> Science, 35: 189–198.
Morgan, J. M., Hodgkinson, M. (1999). <strong>The</strong> motivation <strong>and</strong> social orientation <strong>of</strong> visitors
attending a contemporary zoological park. Environment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Behaviour</strong>, 31(2): 227-239.
Nimon, A. J., Dalziel, F.R. (1992). Cross-species interaction <strong>and</strong> communication: a study
method applied to captive siamang (Hylobates syndactylus) <strong>and</strong> long-billed corella (Cacatua
tenuirostris) contacts with humans. Applied Animal <strong>Behaviour</strong> Science, 33(2-3): 261-272
Orr-Walker, T., Adams, N., Waran, N. (2005). Evaluation <strong>of</strong> captive kea (Nestor notabilis)
management practices in New Zeal<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> their effect on behavioural repertoire. Unitec, New
Zeal<strong>and</strong>.
Patterson, D., Bitgood, S. (1987). Exhibit Design with the Visitor in Mind. Technical Report
No 87-40a. Jacksonville, AL: Jacksonville State University, Psychology Institute.
Peat, N. (1995). <strong>Kea</strong> Advocacy Strategy. Miscellaneous Report Series No 28. Department <strong>of</strong>
Conservation. Dunedin: New Zeal<strong>and</strong>.
Parker, L (2007). Education <strong>of</strong> zoo visitors <strong>and</strong> Advocacy <strong>of</strong> Captive <strong>Kea</strong> (Nestor notabilis): A
controversial species. Poster <strong>and</strong> Proceedings presented at the Australasian Regional
Association <strong>of</strong> Zoological Parks <strong>and</strong> Aquaria conference, Wellington, New Zeal<strong>and</strong>.
Povey, K., Rios, J. (2002). Using <strong>Interpretive</strong> Animals to Deliver Affective Messages in Zoos.
Journal <strong>of</strong> Interpretation Research 7(2):19-28.
Pullar, T. (1996). <strong>Kea</strong> (Nestor notabilis) Captive Management Plan <strong>and</strong> Husb<strong>and</strong>ry Manual.
Threatened Species Occasional Publication No. 9. Wellington: Department <strong>of</strong> Conservation.
Reading, R.P., Miller, B.J. (2007). Attitudes <strong>and</strong> Attitude Change among Zoo Visitors. In A.
Zimmerman, M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, C. West. (eds.). Zoos in the 21 st Century: Catalysts for
Conservation? Zoological Society <strong>of</strong> London, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: U.K.
pp63-92.
50

Schnackenberg, H. (1997). View <strong>The</strong> Zoo! Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Visual Communication in an Outdoor
Educational Setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting <strong>of</strong> the Association for Education <strong>and</strong>
Technology. Albuquerque.
Screven, C. G. (1992). Motivating visitors to read labels. ILVS Review, 2(2):183-221.
Serrel, B. (1996). Exhibit Labels: An <strong>Interpretive</strong> Approach. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press,
Sage Publications Inc.
Sterling, E., Lee, J., Wood, T. (2007). Conservation education in zoos: an emphasis on
behavioural change. In A. Zimmerman, M. Hatchwell, L. Dickie, C. West. (Eds.). Zoos in the
21 st Century: Catalysts for Conservation? (pp37-50). Cambridge: Zoological Society <strong>of</strong>
London, Cambridge University Press.
Swanagan, J. (2000). Factors Influencing Zoo Visitors’ Conservation Attitudes <strong>and</strong> <strong>Behaviour</strong>.
Journal <strong>of</strong> Environmental Education, 31(4): 26-31.
Todd, P.A. Macdonald, C., Coleman, D. (2006). (in press). Visitor-associated variation in
captive Diana monkey (Cercopithecus diana diana) behaviour. Applied Animal <strong>Behaviour</strong>
Science.
T<strong>of</strong>ield, S., Coll, R.K., Vyle, B., Bolstad, R. (2003). Zoos as a Source <strong>of</strong> Free Choice
Learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(1):67-99.
Yerke, R., Burns, A. (1991). Measuring the impact <strong>of</strong> animal shows on visitor attitudes.
Proceedings <strong>of</strong> the American Association <strong>of</strong> Zoological Parks <strong>and</strong> Aquariums.
World Association <strong>of</strong> Zoos <strong>and</strong> Aquariums (2005). Building a Future for Wildlife: <strong>The</strong> World
Zoo <strong>and</strong> Aquarium Conservation Strategy. Switzerl<strong>and</strong>: WAZA Executive Office. Retrieved
March 28 th , 2007 from www.WAZA.org.
Werdenich, D., Huber, L. (2006). A case <strong>of</strong> quick problem solving in birds: string pulling in
keas, Nestor notabilis. Animal <strong>Behaviour</strong>, 71(4):855-863.
www.auckl<strong>and</strong>zoo.co.nz/information/default.asp?sectionID=28 Accessed 5 th November 2007.
www.auckl<strong>and</strong>zoo.co.nz/information/default.asp?sectionID=29 Accessed 5 th November 2007.
www.wellingtonzoo.com/inform/news/nr1181689021.html Accessed 5 th November 2007.
www.wellingtonzoo.com/inform/visitor/encounters.html Accessed 5 th November 2007.
51

8.0 APPENDICES
8.1 Sampling schedule used to measure visitor interest in the experimental sign
treatments.
SAMPLING SCHEDULE TO RECORD HOLDING TIME AND HOLDING POWER
AT BOTH AUCKLAND AND FRANKLIN ZOO
52
AT FRANKLIN ZOO
TIME SAT SUN SAT SUN MON TUES
10:00-
11:10
11:20-
12:30
12:40-
13:50
14:00-
15:10
Sign 1 Sign 2 Sign 2 Sign 1 Sign 1 Sign 2
Sign 1 Sign 2 Sign 2 Sign 1 Sign 1 Sign 2
Sign 2 Sign 1 Sign 1 Sign 2 Sign 2 Sign 1
Sign 2 Sign 1 Sign 1 Sign 2 Sign 2 Sign 1
8.2 Example <strong>of</strong> (scan time sampling) data sheet used to record <strong>Kea</strong> behaviour
concurrently with visitor viewing characteristics.
INTERVAL
(seconds.)
6
12
18
24
30
36
CATEGORY
1
CATEGORY
2
KEA BEHAVIOURS
CATEGORY
3
CATEGORY
4
VOCAL
VISITOR
BEHAV’S
COMMENTS

8.3 <strong>Kea</strong> ethogram used to differentiate between categories <strong>of</strong> behaviour
CATEGORY 1
Asleep Eyes closed st<strong>and</strong>ing immobile. Appears unaware <strong>of</strong> surroundings.
Resting Eyes open, appears aware <strong>of</strong> surroundings. Generally st<strong>and</strong>ing immobile but
may involve comfort movements such as wing <strong>and</strong> leg stretches or weight
shifting.
Self-preening Maintenance behaviour using bill to tidy or groom feathers, includes scratching or
nibbling at self with talons or bill.
Not Visible <strong>Kea</strong> cannot be seen <strong>and</strong> therefore behaviour type cannot be determined.
CATEGORY 2:
Non social Loco Locomotion/movement that includes walking, hopping, jumping, climbing around
exhibit, fanning or flapping wings or flying, but <strong>Kea</strong> does not appear to be
engaged in interaction with conspecifics or specifically searching/foraging.
Allo-preening Preening or recipient <strong>of</strong> preening by one <strong>Kea</strong> to another.
CATEGORY 3
Foraging Behav’s Slow searching locomotive behaviours interspersed with investigation using the
bill or talons. Unearthing, excavating, pulling apart or tearing edible objects.
Includes chewing/eating food or drinking water.
Object Manipulation Manipulating or exploring inedible objects with foot or bill. Carrying inedible
objects in bill while running, hopping, climbing etc. Can include object toss
whereby <strong>Kea</strong> holds object in bill <strong>and</strong> tosses head vertically or horizontally <strong>and</strong>
releases object into the air.
Human interaction i.e.: engaging in behaviour appearing directed toward human visitor. Any
form <strong>of</strong> locomotion (walking, hopping, <strong>and</strong> climbing) that gets <strong>Kea</strong> in closer
proximity to visitor, with corresponding eye contact. Touching with bill.
CATEGORY 4
Agonistic or play behaviours
Appears to be interacting with other <strong>Kea</strong> other than for allopreening.
Attack <strong>and</strong> escape behaviours or modifications there <strong>of</strong> for play. Eg:
*Approaching - fast walk or run toward other with head lowered.
*Chasing a fleeing <strong>Kea</strong>
*Attack behaviours -
* Bill locking/wrestling: locking bills with one another, may involve twisting/wrestling while locked
together.
* Biting/pecking: sharp thrust <strong>of</strong> head toward other, may involve grabbing other by tail,
feet or legs using bill.
* Clawing / talon holds: raising talon to strike, holding other with talons or pushing them with
foot. Can include jumping on them.
* Wing hitting/flapping: body held vertically, opening <strong>and</strong> flapping wings in quick succession.
Sudden flick <strong>of</strong> wings to strike another.
CATEGORY 5 – VOCALIZING
Derived from Diamond & Bond (1991), Diamond & Bond, (2004) <strong>and</strong> Huber et al. (2001).
53