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

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