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

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