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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: Kea Exhibits: <str
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank th
Page 5 and 6: TABLES LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES T
Page 7 and 8: 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Education <str
Page 9 and 10: has also made this species increasi
Page 11 and 12: Despite research showing live inter
Page 13 and 14: themselves and the
Page 15 and 16: not been part of t
Page 17 and 18: The original sign
Page 19 and 20: The sign was place
Page 21 and 22: 2.2.1 Data collection procedure Dat
Page 23 and 24: 2.3 Measuring the effects o
Page 25 and 26: 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Sign treatment effe
Page 27 and 28: a) b) PERCENTAGE OF VISITORS PERCEN
Page 29 and 30: 3.2 Effects of kea
Page 31 and 32: 8d) 8e) Proportion of</stro
Page 33 and 34: in which studies have occurred), th
Page 35 and 36: vastly from Arndt et al. (1993) <st
Page 37: way in sufficiently attracting the
Page 41 and 42: and complex enviro
Page 43 and 44: 5.0 CONCLUSION The
Page 45 and 46: 6.0 CRITICISMS/RECOMMENDATIONS This
Page 47 and 48: ehavioural effects of</stro
Page 49 and 50: Broad, S., Weiler, B. (1998). Capti
Page 51 and 52: Schnackenberg, H. (1997). View <str
Page 53: 8.3 Kea ethogram u

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?