Animals at the zoo make me emotional: Can animal behavior affect visitor conservation behaviors? by Morgan Laketa May 2024 Director of Thesis: Jeffrey Skibins, Ph.D. Major Department: Recreation Sciences Zoos are a popular form of entertainment where viewing animals is used to promote conservation. Research has explored the efficacy of zoos promoting pro-conservation behavior (PCB) as well as how zoos shape the viewing experience to promote conservation goals. Studies have found visitors’ viewing and interactions with animals create empathy-based reactions creating a sense of connection with the animal which can be linked to pro-conservation behavioral intentions (PCBI). In turn, PCBI has been found to link to PCB post-visit but is under-researched. Additionally, visitors’ emotions have been found to influence engagement in PCB; however, this relationship is still not fully understood. The purpose of this study is to explore visitors’ emotional responses to animal activity and how this influences PCBI. A total of 241 zoo visitors were surveyed regarding the animal they found to be most interesting during their visit, reactions to the viewing experience, PCBI, and PCB they performed prior and during their visit. Results revealed that animal behaviors have an effect on the zoo visitor’s connection to that animal. There was a positive relationship between visitor connection to animals and PCBI. Retail-related PCB is encouraged in zoos as part of promoting conservation as well with results revealing that most onsite PCB was retail-related. Animals at the zoo make me emotional: Can animal behavior affect visitor conservation behaviors? A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Recreation Sciences East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Recreation Sciences By Morgan Laketa May 2024 Committee Head Jeffrey Skibins, Ph.D. Committee Members Edwin Gómez, Ph.D. and Emily Yeager, Ph.D. Copyright 2024, Morgan Laketa Acknowledgements I would like to thank my thesis committee chair, Dr. Jeffrey Skibins, for making this research possible with his guidance and assistance. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the help of committee members, Dr. Emily Yeager and Dr. Edwin Gomez, for their patience and aid in the editorial process. I am also grateful to the North Carolina Zoo for their financial support of both this research and my entire M.S. degree. Without the opportunity they provided to pursue this degree, this research would not have come to fruition. Table of Contents List of Tables vii List of Figures viii Chapter 1- Introduction 1 Background 1 Problem Statement 4 Purpose Statement 4 Chapter 2- Manuscript 5 Abstract 5 Introduction 6 Literature Review 21 How Animals Affect Visitors 21 Animal Behavior 23 Animal Characteristics 24 Taxon 26 The Viewing Experience 26 Proximity and Visibility 26 Relationships between Emotions, Behavioral Intentions, and Behaviors 27 Theoretical Framework 29 Interaction Theory 29 Methods 31 Independent Variables 32 Animal Behavior 32 Animal Proximity 32 Animal Taxon 33 Animal Physical Characteristics 33 Dependent Variables 33 Connection 33 Pro-Conservation Behavioral Intention (PCBI) 34 Pro-Conservation Behavior (PCB) 35 Results 36 Visitor connection to animal 41 Pro-Conservation Behaviors 42 Discussion 43 Taxa and Characteristics 44 Animal Behavior and Proximity 45 Animal Activity Levels 45 Connection to Animal 46 Pro-Conservation Behavioral Intentions (PCBI) 47 Limitations 50 Conclusion 50 Chapter 3- Conclusion 53 Chapter 4- References 55 Appendices 67 Appendix A: North Carolina Zoo Map 67 Appendix B: On-Site Survey 67 Appendix C: Post-visit Survey 67 Appendix D 67 Appendix E: IRB Approval 67 List of Tables Table 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………….….26 Table 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………….….26 Table 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………….….27 Table 4 …………………………………………………………………………………….…….28 Table 5 …………………………………………………………………………………….…….28 Table 6 …………………………………………………………………………………….…….29 Table 7 …………………………………………………………………………………….…….29 Table 8 …………………………………………………………………………………….…….30 List of Figures Figure 1 …………………………………………………………………………………….…….9 Figure 2 …………………………………………………………………………………….……31 Figure 3 …………………………………………………………………………………….……32 Chapter 1- Introduction Background Keeping wild animals is as old as civilization. There is a proverbial saying mentioned by Kisling (2001): “If there were no zoos, someone would invent one.” Since the beginning of civilization, cultures from around the world have gone to great expenses to collect exotic animals. This is, in part, due to humans’ fascination with the natural world which has lasted to the present day. However, even though our interest in animals has remained steady over the centuries, the functions of zoos have evolved over time. Towards the beginning, zoos were not public institutions and instead were informal collections of animals by the wealthy. Starting in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, zoos as public cultural institutions were established and began involving educational approaches (Kisling, 2001). The goals of these institutions finally centered around conservation when the concepts of conservation and protecting our natural world became more publicly embraced in the latter of the 20th century (Hyson, 2004; Rees, 2011). There are many ways in which humans regard animals. They can be companions, symbols, aides, and even a means to heal (Amiot & Bastian, 2015). Outside of domestication practices, ultimately, wild animals are not regarded as belonging in human communities. Yeo and Neo (2010) describe the means that humans regard animals as a socio-cultural idea developed by much of the world stating that humans and animals are separate. However, our historical fascination with collecting animals facilitates their placement in our societies as exhibits in zoos. Due to continuing interest in zoos, these public institutions have developed their animal exhibits for not only the animals’ welfare but to best engage their visitors in the viewing experience. This includes bringing the animal as close as possible to the viewing platforms (Godinez & Fernandez, 2019; Howell et al., 2019; Learmonth et al., 2021; Luebke, 2018), facilitating exhibits to appear as natural as possible (Ballantyne et al., 2007), and enabling visitors to view a diversity of behaviors by the animal (Kirchgessner & Sewall, 2015; Luebke et al., 2016; Miller, 2012). Reactions of zoo visitors to animals at the zoo have been found to be significant. The viewing experience has been reported as creating feelings tied to spiritual notions (Luebke & Matiasek, 2013), intellectual reflection (Luebke, 2018), and feelings of peacefulness (Clayton et al., 2009). Additionally, many zoo visitors report feelings of connection and concern for animal welfare (Clayton et al., 2009; Howell et al., 2019). As such, the zoo has become a place for social gathering and leisure. Clayton et al. (2009) found that many perceive zoos as a positive outing and social experience. Many visitors’ positive emotional viewing experiences at the zoo can be tied to facilitating social interactions with other visitors, particularly family units. Additionally, much of the experience is involved in wanting to learn about animals, with feelings of connection instigating visitor interest in an animal. Support for conservation and conservation initiatives is also identified as a potential driver for visiting the zoo. Studies have found that educational messaging at zoos for conservation is an important part of visiting zoos for the public. Godinez and Fernandez (2019) found via their literature review that visitors are receptive to conservation messaging at zoos as part of the interpretive experience. Additionally, repeat visitors are more likely to seek out conservation behaviors than first-time visitors. Rabb and Saunders (2005) reported how the future of zoos hinges on the mentorship and guidance of future generations with regards to conservation and caring and that zoos contribute much to conservation efforts. As such the functioning of zoos as promoters of conservation is likely to grow. The functioning of zoos as conservation-based institutions is central to their modern identity. Promoting Pro-Conservation Behaviors (PCB) in visitors is one of the main goals of zoos and this is done so through the viewing experience of their animals (Archer & Wearing, 2003; Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Dunkley, 2016). Due to prevalent emotional reactions of visitors to animals at the zoo, studies have been conducted on how these feelings of empathy and connection can link to PCB (Clayton et al., 2009; Farber & Hall, 2007; Howell et al., 2019; Sickler & Fraser, 2009). However, literature exploring these relations is limited with most studies only able to confirm a link between emotional reactions from animal behaviors to Pro-Conservation Behavioral Intentions (PCBI). Further studies are needed to better explore the roles zoos play in promoting PCB in their visitors. This study will utilize the Animal Interaction Theory Model (see Figure 1) to show factors that influence visitors’ feelings of connection, PCBI, and PCB. These factors include: (a) animal behavior, (b) Animal Characteristics, (c) Animal Activity Levels, and (d) Animal Proximity to the visitor. This model is used to capture the complexity of the relationships between these factors, as well as those between the dependent variables, while recognizing the potential influence of the factors on the dependent variables. Data for this study were collected onsite at the North Carolina Zoo via surveys administered to zoo visitors. Study sites include public areas of the zoo: Junction Plaza (public gathering and eating area), as well as the zoo exit (North American exit) to minimize location bias. 241 total surveys were collected during March of 2024. Problem Statement A common goal of zoos is to promote visitor-based PCB (Archer & Wearing, 2003; Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Dunkley, 2016). Observed animal behaviors are known to influence visitor emotions which, in turn, are known to influence PCB (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Khalil & Ardoin, 2011; Luebke & Matiasek, 2013). However, despite studies having explored emotion and PCB (Khalil & Ardoin, 2011; Luebke & Matiasek, 2013; Smith et al., 2008) the relationship is still unclear. Additionally, the few studies exploring long-term PCBI have found that many are not performed (Ballantyne et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2008), signaling a gap between intention and performance. While much research has been conducted on the influence of animals and animal behaviors on visitors’ emotions (Altman, 1998; Luebke et al., 2016; Margulis et al., 2003), fewer have explored the effects of these variables in leading visitors to performing behaviors. Furthermore, little work has explored the influence of visitors’ empathic connections to animals on PCB (Clayton et al., 2009; Farber & Hall, 2007; Howell et al., 2019; Sickler & Fraser, 2009). Purpose Statement The purpose of this research was to investigate the influence of the visitor animal viewing experience, consisting of animal behavior, animal characteristics, animal activity levels, and animal proximity to the visitor, on feelings of connection, PCBI, and PCB. Additionally, the relationship of visitors’ feelings of connection with PCBI was investigated. 2 Chapter 2- Manuscript Abstract Zoos are a popular form of entertainment where viewing animals is used to promote conservation. Research has explored the efficacy of zoos promoting pro-conservation behavior (PCB) as well as how zoos shape the viewing experience to promote conservation goals. Studies have found visitors’ viewing and interactions with animals create empathy-based reactions creating a sense of connection with the animal which can be linked to pro-conservation behavioral intentions (PCBI). In turn, PCBI has been found to link to PCB post-visit but is under-researched. Additionally, visitors’ emotions have been found to influence engagement in PCB; however, this relationship is still not fully understood. The purpose of this study is to explore visitors’ emotional responses to animal activity and how this influences PCBI. A total of 241 zoo visitors were surveyed regarding the animal they found to be most interesting during their visit, reactions to the viewing experience, PCBI, and PCB they performed prior and during their visit. Results revealed that animal behaviors have an effect on the zoo visitor’s connection to that animal. There was a positive relationship between visitor connection to animals and PCBI. Retail-related PCB is encouraged in zoos as part of promoting conservation as well with results revealing that most onsite PCB was retail-related. Keywords: pro-conservation behaviors, pro-conservation behavioral intentions, animal behaviors, connection, visitors Introduction Historically, humans have been drawn to animals (Arnould & Price, 1993; Farber & Hall, 2007; Nisbet & Zelenski, 2023; Sickler & Fraser, 2009; Vining & Merrick, 2012). For many modern visitors, the zoo experience can be a social one where they go to view exotic animals as a form of entertainment and leisure (Briseño-Garzón et al., 2007; Clayton et al., 2009; Falk et al., 2007; Morgan & Hodgkinson, 1999). But, from a conservation perspective, the zoo experience is an opportunity to explore the relationship between humans and wildlife to better employ pro-conservation programs and encourage pro-conservation behaviors (PCB) (Archer & Wearing, 2003; Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Dunkley, 2016). As a result, zoos are embracing more conservation versus leisure outcomes from their collections (Archer & Wearing, 2003; Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Dunkley, 2016). However, conservation outcomes can be difficult to evaluate as latent constructs have been shown to influence the zoo experience (Falk et al., 2007; Luebke et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2008). For example, zoo visitors have been found to exhibit emotional reactions to the animals they encounter at zoos. These emotional reactions can, in turn, influence PCB (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Erul et al., 2020; Powell & Bullock, 2014); however, how they are linked is still unclear. Compassionate Conservation, a framework focused on animals, is defined by Learmonth as “a pluralistic approach, focused on the wellbeing of individual wild animals as well as larger populations and ecosystems.” (2020, p. 4) This is tied to a definition of conservation as, “a broader interdisciplinary field that explicitly recognizes the tight coupling of social and natural systems” (Kareiva & Marvier, 2012, p. 962). Conservation’s influences come from more than a simple desire to protect the natural world from perceived harm. It is grounded in human values and ethics regarding individual animal welfare. The focus of this study will utilize both these definitions to address human-animal relations as a component of conservation efforts. This study explores the relationships between emotion, pro-conservation behavioral intentions (PCBI), and pro-conservation behaviors (PCB). Many zoo visitors report feeling a connection to zoo animals (Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Luebke, 2018). Moreover, current research has shown that emotional reactions in zoo visitors are influenced by exhibited animal behaviors (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Howell et al., 2019; Myers et al., 2004) as well as physical characteristics (Learmonth et al., 2021; Moss & Esson, 2010; Woods, 2000), taxonomy (Carr, 2016a; Learmonth et al., 2021; Moss & Esson, 2010), and proximity to the visitor . Several studies have explored how emotions are evoked during a zoo visit (Baumeister et al., 2007; Castillo-Huitrón et al., 2020; Skibins et al., 2013). Woods (2000) explored the effects of visitor preconceived perceptions and attitudes on visitor preferences of animals and noted that these perceptions and attitudes heavily influence their emotional reactions to them. Castillo-Huitrón et al. (2020) explored human emotional reactions to wildlife and found that certain taxa created fear, anger, and disgust in people. Additionally, research suggests that visitor emotions influence PCB (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Erul et al., 2020; Powell & Bullock, 2014) Baumeister et al. (2007) explored the bidirectional relationship between emotion and behavior and established that expectations for the effects of the subject triggering the emotional reaction were important in explaining the relationship. However, there is still much discussion needed regarding emotions and behavior in the PCB literature. In finding how different emotional reactions to different animal behaviors influence PCBI and PCB, the link between visitor experiences and PCB can be better understood. The purpose of this research is to investigate the variance in visitors’ connection to zoo animals, PCBI, and PCB resulting from observed zoo animal behaviors, physical characteristics, taxon, and proximity to the visitor. Animal behaviors that have been found to evoke emotional responses include increased activity and movement (Luebke et al., 2016; Margulis et al., 2003; Moss & Esson, 2010), interacting with enrichment (Perdue et al., 2012; Powell & Bullock, 2014; Salas et al., 2021), visibility (Bitgood et al., 1988; Kirchgessner & Sewall, 2015; Margulis et al., 2003) and interactions with the visitors, such as touch or making eye contact (Godinez & Fernandez, 2019; Howell et al., 2019; Learmonth et al., 2021; Luebke, 2018). Figure 1 displays the proposed model for this research as the Animal Interaction Theory Model to account for the multiple relationships amongst the various independent variables that may influence behavior and emotion. The first hypothesis for this research was that there will be variation in the viewing experience, as a result of variation in taxon, behaviors, and/or proximity to the visitor (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Howell et al., 2019; McIntosh & Wright, 2017) and that variation will cause variation in connection and PCBI (Luebke & Matiasek, 2013; Luebke, 2018; Myers et al., 2004). Figure 1 Animal Interaction Theory Model of animal behavior influencing emotion, PCBI, and potentially PCB. Literature Review Historically, zoos began as personal collections of the wealthy, acting as symbols of popularity (Kisling, 2001). As they became public institutions, animals from across the globe were studied and put on display, but many people have placed aesthetic value on the natural world (Kisling, 2001). As the notion of protecting our natural world became more publicly embraced by society, in the latter half of the 20th century, the goals of zoos focused on conservation (Hyson, 2004; Rees, 2011). Many zoos have promoted conservation, facilitated research, and encouraged conservation goals through the presentation of their collection (Rees, 2011). Increased visitor awareness of conservation issues has been shown to be a result of the zoo experience (Falk et al., 2007; Learmonth et al., 2021). How this occurs is being studied to improve and better understand zoo practices. How Animals Affect Visitors Animal behavior and perceptions of animals, based on individual characteristics, have been found to influence emotional reactions (e.g., empathy) in visitors (Bitgood et al., 1988; Carr, 2016b; Luebke & Matiasek, 2013). In addition, animal taxonomy and physical characteristics have been shown to influence animal preferences in visitors (Carr, 2016a; Learmonth et al., 2021; Moss & Esson, 2010). Proximity and interacting with the animal have also been shown to influence the visitor experience (Godinez & Fernandez, 2019; Howell et al., 2019; Learmonth et al., 2021; Luebke, 2018). Studies exploring visitor interests in the zoo experience have found that visitors gravitate towards animal exhibits for multiple reasons (Carr, 2016a; Falk et al., 2007; Lee, 2012; Moss & Esson, 2010). For example, Clayton, Fraser, and Saunders (2009) found that visitors held mostly positive responses to animals, which varied based on factors such as the nature and intensity of the interactions, the design of the enclosure, the species, and the individual characteristics of the animal (Bitgood et al., 1988; Carr, 2016b; Luebke & Matiasek, 2013). The most commonly reported reasons visitors show interest in animals include animal proximity (Bitgood et al., 1988; Kirchgessner & Sewall, 2015; Learmonth et al., 2021; Luebke & Matiasek, 2013), taxonomy (Carr, 2016a; Learmonth et al., 2021; Moss & Esson, 2010), size (Carr, 2016a; Moss & Esson, 2010; Woods, 2000), activity (Altman, 1998; Learmonth et al., 2021; Moss & Esson, 2010), and the popularity of the animal (Learmonth et al., 2021; Moss & Esson, 2010; Woods, 2000). These variables can influence the decisions zoo visitors make in constructing their experience as well as their emotional responses. These variables can be considered a part of larger groupings: animal behavior and animal characteristics respectively. In many studies animal activity is used to associate with animal behavior (Luebke et al., 2016; Margulis et al., 2003; Salas et al., 2021) and is often, therefore, linked to more than activity levels such as natural versus stress behaviors (Luebke et al., 2016; Miller, 2012; Powell & Bullock, 2014), interaction with the visitor (Godinez & Fernandez, 2019; Learmonth, 2020; Skibins et al., 2013; Whitehouse-Tedd et al., 2022). Enrichment is described by Salas et al. (2021) as the provision of environmental stimuli to enhance the well-being of the animal via a combination of techniques ideally facilitating the expression of species-specific behavior. Enrichment is not only meant for mental stimulation but to increase the animal’s level of activity and can be the animal’s environment or items introduced into the environment. Animals’ interaction with visitors can include making eye contact (Luebke, 2018; Powell & Bullock, 2014). Luebke (2018) showed reports of visitor empathetic responses heightening when eye-contact was reportedly made with the animal and therefore making an emotionally significant experience for the visitor. Powell and Bullock (2014) found that both the length of eye-contact and “up-close encounter” with the animal influenced the emotional response of the visitor as well. Animal Behavior Animal behavior has been studied in varying contexts in relation to zoo visitor experiences. Visitor reactions to animals interacting with enrichment (Luebke, 2018; Perdue et al., 2012; Salas et al., 2021), animals interacting with visitors (Godinez & Fernandez, 2019; Learmonth, 2020; Skibins et al., 2013; Whitehouse-Tedd et al., 2022), animal activity levels (Altman, 1998; Learmonth et al., 2021; Moss & Esson, 2010) and stereotypical animal play and stress behaviors (Kirchgessner & Sewall, 2015; Luebke et al., 2016; Miller, 2012) are most often observed. Salas et al. (2021) studied zoo visitor response to ring-tailed lemurs interacting with enrichment, finding that the behavior brought about by the interaction was of greatest interest to the visitors. Animal enrichment can be made from various materials and can be as basic as using recycled materials such as PVC pipes, boxes, and paper bags which are generally considered not as aesthetically pleasing as those that might appear more natural to the exhibit such as logs, sticks, or other natural items. Salas et al. sought to identify if the type of enrichment might negatively affect the experience for visitors but found that visitors did not care about the appearance of the enrichment. As purported by Powell and Bullock (2014), behaviors brought about by enrichment were more active and diverse, which lead to more positive emotional reactions in the visitors. Studies have begun to explore the influences of animal behavior on visitors’ PCB. Luebke et al. (2016) conducted an on-site survey observing visitor reactions to animal behavior. They found that up-close encounters with zoo animals, and active animal behaviors, predicted visitors’ positive responses which related to meaning-making. The authors supported the notion that the strength of emotions in the zoo experience for most visitors was impacted by the promotion of conservation messages. Visitor perceptions of zoo animals include the tendency to anthropomorphize animal behaviors (Amiot & Bastian, 2015; Clayton et al., 2009; Erul et al., 2020). This often leads the visitor to empathize with the animal (Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Luebke, 2018; Straka et al., 2021). However, Miller (2012) conducted a study in which zoo visitors’ affective reactions to animal pacing are explored and how they influence support for zoological institutions. Miller found that pacing behaviors lowered visitor perceptions of animal welfare and were linked to lower desires to support zoological institutions. Visitors are becoming more aware of stereotypical animal stress behaviors and can react emotionally when witnessing them (Kirchgessner & Sewall, 2015; Luebke et al., 2016; Miller, 2012). Miller (2012) found that pacing behaviors lowered visitor perceptions of positive animal welfare and were linked to lower desires to support zoological institutions. Animal Characteristics Woods (2002) found that visitor preferences for animals depended on preconceived notions. The more popular animals were found to be so mainly due to their described attractiveness, perceived intelligence, and size. Meanwhile, the least popular animals were described as such due to their perceived dangerousness, traits dissimilar to humans, and perceived lack of empathy and intelligence. Woods concluded that many of these perceptions were tied to the ease of relatedness of the animal to the visitor. The least favorite animals were determined to be the most unlike humans (e.g., unfamiliar behaviors, too many or too little legs, lack of discernible expressions) and therefore brought about emotions of disgust or distress which, in turn, led visitors to place less value on them. Understanding varying emotional responses to animals and how they relate to PCB may better explain the importance of human-animal connections for encouraging pro-environmental behaviors. When exploring animal preferences amongst visitors it is often reported that visitors are drawn to animals that are large (Carr, 2016a; Moss & Esson, 2010; Woods, 2000), perceived as intelligent (Carr, 2016a; Carr, 2016b; Woods, 2000), perceived as less aggressive towards humans (Miller, 2012; Woods, 2000), and have features that may be more easily anthropomorphized (Carr, 2016a; Carr, 2016b; Woods, 2000). Moss and Esson (2010) also determined that animal popularity and size are other significant predictors of visitor interest. In Wood’s (2000) survey of zoo visitors regarding describing their favorite animals, the visitors used characteristics of the animal such as size, perceived dangerousness, and perceived intelligence as influencing both their most and least favorite animals. Animal popularity is often used to summarize the multiple factors that go into the favoritism of an animal by visitors (Carr, 2016a; Carr, 2016b; Dowling et al., 2005; Moss & Esson, 2010; Woods, 2000). These factors include: the familiarity of the animal for humans to anthropomorphize, its perceived intelligence, and its “cuteness” (Carr, 2016a; Carr, 2016b; Woods, 2000) which can all be identified as its characteristics. As such, the popular terms “animal activity” and “animal popularity” in literature will be referred to as animal behavior and animal characteristics hereafter. Taxon Studies often find that some taxa are more favored than others (Carr, 2016a; Learmonth et al., 2021; Moss & Esson, 2010; Woods, 2000). Moss and Esson (2010) sought to investigate the relatedness of animal attractiveness to visitors. They determined that the taxonomic group of the species was the most important predictor of visitor interest, with mammals being the most favored and birds the least. Carr’s (2016a) analysis of zoo visitor favorite animals yielded similar results in which the favored animals could be grouped according to taxa with mammals being the most favored and birds and reptiles being the least favored. The Viewing Experience The ability to view animals is an important aspect for visitors to have a notable experience. Many zoo exhibits are designed around allowing the zoo visitors to optimally view animals as well as to provide a sense of closeness to the animal (Moss & Pavitt, 2019; Woods, 2002). Proximity and Visibility Research surrounding visitor engagement in the zoo setting has found that increased proximity to the animals correlated with greater emotional reactions and engagement by the visitor (Bitgood et al., 1988; Kirchgessner & Sewall, 2015; Learmonth et al., 2021; Luebke & Matiasek, 2013). Engaging the visitors in zoos includes the viewing of and interacting with animals (Godinez & Fernandez, 2019; Learmonth, 2020; Skibins et al., 2013; Whitehouse-Tedd et al., 2022). Ballantyne et al. (2007) conducted a review of common zoo practices that affect visitors’ emotional responses. They found that allowing up-close encounters, both for viewing and interacting with the animal, instigated more significant reactions for most visitors. Luebke (2018) found that up-close encounters with the animals were listed as significant experiences for the visitors, many of which reporting feelings of empathy afterwards. The way visitors encounter the animals also affects negative emotional responses. Studies have found that these include up-close encounters, sparking ethical debates about the potential harm and ethical issues for animal welfare (Altman, 1998; Bitgood et al., 1988; Learmonth, 2020; Myers et al., 2004). Such responses can lead to lacking support for zoos or actions to counter the problem via PCB (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Khalil & Ardoin, 2011; Luebke & Matiasek, 2013; Miller, 2012). Visibility of the animal has been reported by visitors as important in engaging the visitor regardless of the other aforementioned factors (Carr, 2016a; Learmonth et al., 2021; Salas et al., 2021). Salas et al. (2021) found that the type of enrichment did not matter to the visitors so much as the visibility of the lemurs and the behavior the enrichment elicited. Learmonth et al.’s (2021) review of animal-visitor reactions also found that animal visibility greatly influenced the significance of the interaction for visitors, noting that all other factors are pointless if the animal cannot be seen. Relationships between Emotions, Behavioral Intentions, and Behaviors Emotion is a frequently reported influence when visitors attempt to explain why they support conservation (Ballantyne et al., 2011; Erul et al., 2020; Powell & Bullock, 2014). Smith et al. (2008) explored whether zoo conservation messaging efforts can affect visitor behavior post-visit. Most visitors recalled hearing the messages and about half reported their intentions to follow through. However, six months post-visit, it was found that very few visitors actually followed through with intentions to perform new actions as opposed to those that were previously known to them. The authors stated the lack of new actions taken by visitors post-visit is primarily attributed to the lack of familiarity with the actions. Influencing potential visitor behaviors and zoos’ primary means for doing so is attributed to zoo visitors’ interest in animals (Carr, 2016a; Falk et al., 2007; Lee, 2012; Moss & Esson, 2010). The positive emotion often involved in animal viewing is empathy (Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Luebke, 2018; Straka et al., 2021). Where these emotions stem from include interest in the animals’ welfare (Altman, 1998; Bitgood et al., 1988; Learmonth, 2020; Myers et al., 2004), enjoyment (Clayton et al., 2009; Howell et al., 2019; Luebke & Matiasek, 2013; Sickler & Fraser, 2009), and satisfaction with the experience (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Minarchek et al., 2021). Empathy has been supported as a variable that plays a strong role in PCB (Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Luebke, 2018; Straka et al., 2021). PCB can include engaging in ecotourism and pro-conservation organizations (Dearden et al., 2007; Powell & Ham, 2008; Powell et al., 2008; Powell et al., 2009; Rattan et al., 2012), donating money to pro-conservation projects (Powell & Ham, 2008; Powell et al., 2008; Powell et al., 2009; Tisdell & Wilson, 2005), and engaging in conservation opportunities on-site in zoos (Godinez & Fernandez, 2019; Skibins et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2012). Predominantly, emotions influence intentions to perform behaviors which strongly indicate whether the behavior will be performed (Erul et al., 2020; Skibins et al., 2019). Experienced emotions, both negative and positive, can affect behaviors by influencing these factors (Erul et al., 2020; Han et al., 2017; Salas et al., 2021). Studies investigating the effects of emotional reactions to animals have found that they strongly connect with behavioral intents but do not necessarily imply PCB will be performed (Ballantyne et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2008). In addition, such reactions influencing PCB have been studied in many contexts but found that rarely do they transfer into actual behaviors post-visit to the nature-based experience (Dearden et al., 2007; Hughes et al., 2011; Powell & Ham, 2008; Tisdell & Wilson, 2005). Learmonth et al. (2021) found that, in some cases (e.g., when there is access to resources for performing a behavior), performing behaviors seem to be more likely to come to fruition. Their general analysis of zoo program influences on visitor behaviors found that ease of access to performing PCB was the primary barrier to many visitors. Additionally, Godinez and Fernandez (2019) found that PCBs are more likely to be performed during the zoo visit as opposed to post-visit. They suggested further studies exploring the influences of zoos and their animals are needed to better understand their potential for long-term effects. Theoretical Framework Interaction Theory Zoos are an ideal site to study the convergence of humans and nature. Links have been found between animal behavior and zoo visitor empathy (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Howell et al., 2019; Myers et al., 2004), between emotions and PCB’s (Khalil & Ardoin, 2011; Luebke & Matiasek, 2013; Smith et al., 2008), as well as between PCBI’s and PCB’s (Ajzen, 2020; Erul et al., 2020; Harland et al., 1999). Because previous literature has indicated that animal behavior has an emotional influence on zoo visitors grounded in empathy (Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Luebke, 2018), it is important to better understand what these feelings of connection mean for PCBI and performing PCB after the visit is done. Ultimately, the question being asked is: Does animal behavior have an effect on zoo visitor pro-conservation behaviors post-visit? Common frameworks explaining the influences of human behavior include the Value-Belief-Norm Theory (VBN), and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) . However, neither of these frameworks are suited to account for the relationships amongst the given variables of this research. The extent of which these frameworks are plausible in assessing and explaining behaviors have been inconclusive. For instance, Kaiser et al. (2005) found that TPB was much more reliable than VBN in explaining conservation behavior. Conversely, Stern et al. (1999) found that VBN was the most reliable overall for explaining social and supportive behaviors for social movements such as that for conservation. In addition, TPB and VBN do not account for the affect of emotions, within the zoo experience, on multiple PCB (Ajzen, 1991; Skibins et al., 2013; Stern et al., 1999). Due to the ambiguity of the relationships between the variables in this study, the theoretical framework selected was the Interaction Theory Model. This model approaches behavior similarly to TPB and VBN in its recognition of various related factors influencing behavior, however, it has been found to more likely capture “the complexity of phenomena by simultaneously considering psychological processes, environmental settings, and contextual factors” (Skibins et al., 2013, p.963). Interaction Theory is based more on the relation of the independent and dependent variables of the given study than the relations of variables to each other and leading to behavior, allowing for the multiple possible relationships to be proposed while displaying the relationships of focus by the given study. The Interaction Theory Model is also more suited for assessing suites of behaviors over single behaviors (Powell et al., 2009; Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001; Skibins et al., 2013), allowing more general concepts to be approached in human behavioral research. Skibins et al. (2013) utilized this model to address the effect of the viewing experience on visitors’ connections to charismatic megafauna and PCB, allowing for the many aspects of the viewing experience to be considered when assessing influences on multiple PCB rather than specifically identified behaviors. Methods Participants of this study were English-speaking, North Carolina Zoo visitors, 18 years of age and older. Surveys were administered March 2 – 8, 2024. Sampling was conducted using a census technique and stratified by weekdays and weekends. Surveys were considered post-visit. Respondents needed to indicate that they had spent a minimum of two hours at the zoo. This is consistent with the found mean duration of zoo visits (Öztürk, 2017). The North Carolina Zoo is North Carolina’s largest and most visited zoo. At more than 2,600 habitat acres, it is considered the world’s largest natural habitat zoo and offers the ability to view more than 1,800 animals (North Carolina Zoo, n.d.). The survey collection sites were the Junction Plaza (a large food area at the center of the zoo) and the North American Exit (the only exit open at the time of surveying). Surveying took place at the Junction Plaza between 12:00 pm and 3:00 pm and surveying at the North American Exit took place between 3:00 pm and closing time (4:00 pm). See Appendix A for a map of the survey locations. Independent Variables Animal Behavior Animal behaviors were selected from those commonly reported in the literature. These included: greater activity and movement of the animal (Altman, 1998; Learmonth et al., 2021; Moss & Esson, 2010), the animal interacting with an enrichment (Luebke, 2018; Perdue et al., 2012; Salas et al., 2021), and interactions between the visitor and animal: eye contact, showing attention to visitor, and exhibiting responsive behavior to visitor actions (Godinez & Fernandez, 2019; Howell et al., 2019; Learmonth et al., 2021; Luebke, 2018). The animal behaviors were selected from the options: “The animal interacted with items in the exhibit,” “The animal paid attention to me and/or other visitors,” “The animal made eye-contact with me and/or other visitors,” “The animal was pacing and/or seemed stressed,” “The animal was playing with other animals in the exhibit,” and “The animal was resting or sleeping” in which all that applied could be selected. The animal activity level was selected from the options: “Not active at all,” “Moving around calmly,” and “Moving around energetically” in which only one could be selected. Animal Proximity Visitors were asked to report the distance between themselves and the animal as close to the viewing area, in the middle of the exhibit not near the viewing area, and towards the back of the exhibit or far away from the viewing area. Respondents were instructed to select only one response. The animal proximity was selected from the options: “Close to the viewing area,” “In the middle of the exhibit not near the viewing area,” and “towards the back of the exhibit” in which only one could be selected. The visitor perception of animal proximity was based on the phrase “I felt I got up close and personal to the animal,” and respondents selected from a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree.” Animal Taxon Visitors indicated which animal they found to be most interesting via open-ended response. Animal taxa were reported via open-ended response. Respondents were to write only one animal. Animal Physical Characteristics Animal characteristics were based upon commonly reported characteristics in the literature: (a) being large (Carr, 2016a; Moss & Esson, 2010; Woods, 2000), (b) appearing intelligent (Miller, 2012; Woods, 2000), (c) appearing as less aggressive towards humans (Miller, 2012; Woods, 2000) or friendly, and (b) having features that may be more easily anthropomorphized or are familiar (Carr, 2016a; Miller, 2012; Woods, 2000). Respondents could select all that applied. Dependent Variables Connection Connection is a dependent variable measured via a modified animal empathy scale based on the Visitor Predisposition Scale (VPS) (Minarchek et al., 2021). The visitor sense of connection to the animal was evaluated using a modified version the Visitor Predisposition Scale (VPS) for the topics of this study with the responses to the following statements from a Likert-type scale, 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 7 “Strongly Agree”: “I felt a sense of connection to the animal,” “I felt curiosity towards the animal,” “I felt awed by the animal,” “I felt respect for the animal,” “I enjoyed viewing the animal,” “I was moved by my experience of watching the animal,” “I want to know more about the animal” and “I became more concerned about the well-being of animals in the wild.” The means for the responses to each emotional reaction by the visitor were found and made into a composite score to consider the overall sense of connection to the animal of the visitor. Pro-Conservation Behavioral Intention (PCBI) PCBI is linked with performing behaviors as found in the literature (Ajzen, 2020; Erul et al., 2020; Harland et al., 1999). The provided PCBI are behaviors that were proposed to visitors by the zoo: (a) establishing a Monarch Waystation, (b) purchasing locally grown or growing one’s own food, (c) donating to zoo affiliated conservation programs, (d) participating in a community clean-up project, and (e) volunteering at the zoo. General statements of intending to help the observed animal’s species in the wild as well as intending to help the environment are also included to account for the possibility that visitors intend to perform behaviors that are not proposed by the zoo (Minarchek et al., 2021). These are reported by the visitor via a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 is “Strongly Disagree” and 7 is “Strongly Agree.” The PCBI was evaluated with the responses to the following statements from a 7 point scale (where 1 is “Strongly Disagree” and 7 is “Strongly Agree”): “I would like to do something to help care for this animal,” “I would like to do something to help care for this species in the wild,” “I believe I can do more for conservation,” “I will do more for conservation,” “I will donate to support the zoo affiliated programs,” “I will establish a Monarch Waystation,” “I will participate in a community cleanup project,” “I will volunteer at the zoo,” “I will grow my own food,” and “I will purchase locally produced food products.” The means for the responses to each PCBI statement were calculated and made converted to a composite score to consider the overall PCBI of the visitor. Pro-Conservation Behavior (PCB) Pro-Conservation Behavior is included due to its reported linkage to intentions and emotion in the literature was recorded but unable to be analyzed due to time constraints (Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Luebke, 2018; Straka et al., 2021). The provided PCB are behaviors that were proposed to visitors by the zoo: (a) establishing a Monarch Waystation, (b) purchasing locally grown or growing one’s own food, (c) donating to zoo affiliated conservation programs, (d) participating in a community clean-up project, and (e) volunteering at the zoo. Visitors could select from this list all behaviors they had performed prior to their visit. A follow up survey was sent to the participants two, four, and six weeks following their visit to determine if these intended behaviors had been performed. The mentioned behaviors include those suggested by the zoo: Establishing a Monarch Waystation, donating to the zoo or a pro-conservation organization, participating in a community cleanup project, volunteering at the zoo, and growing one’s own food or purchasing locally produced food products. Visitors indicated which behaviors they had performed since the visit and what barriers they encountered if they had not performed the behaviors. Barriers they may select from are based on the literature review: lack of resources to perform the behavior, lack of knowledge on how to perform the behavior, encountering social pressures not to perform the behavior, lack of money to perform the behavior, and lack of time to perform the behavior. The onsite PCB were selected from the options: “Supported an endangered species when purchasing a zoo membership,” “Donated to support a North Carolina Zoo affiliated program(s),” “Recycled your cell phone,” “Rounded up your food purchase to help protect endangered species,” and “Purchased buttons at the gift shop to contribute to conservation research” in which all that applied could be selected. PCB performed prior to the zoo visit were selected from the options: “Establish a Monarch Waystation,” “Donate to the zoo or a pro-conservation organization,” “Participate in a community cleanup project,” “Volunteer at the zoo,” “Grow your own food or purchase locally produced food products,” and “None of these” in which all that applied could be selected. See Appendix B for the on-site survey. Follow-up surveys were administered via email. The respondents included their email address on the on-site survey for this and a follow-up survey was sent 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 6 weeks following the date the on-site survey was taken. Follow-up surveys recorded whether any PCBs were performed following the zoo visit. They also recorded barriers to performing PCBs as well as whether the respondents have ever performed any of the behaviors proposed by the zoo prior to the zoo visit. See Appendix C for the post-visit survey. Results After meeting robust metrics (Babbie, 2020) the sample consisted of 241 surveys. The response rate was 83%. Twenty eight percent of the surveys included emails for the post-visit follow up survey. Data was analyzed using SPSS software v29. Data were checked for missingness, univariate (+ 3 SD), and multivariate outliers following DeVellis (2016). No cases were removed for missingness or univariate outliers. A total of 7 cases were removed as multivariate outliers (c2 = 1066121.00, df = 193, p < .001). Animal taxa were reported via open-ended response. (see Appendix D for complete listing of responses). Table 1 shows the connection to animal scale values. Table 2 illustrates values for the PCBI scale. Table 1 Animal Connection Scale Variable M (SD) N Connection to Animal Composite Score 5.74 (1.29) 213 I felt a sense of connection with the animal 4.81 (1.59) 229 I felt curiosity towards the animal” 5.91 (1.15) 231 I felt awed by the animal 5.96 (1.22) 227 I felt respect for the animal 6.41 (0.90) 229 I enjoyed viewing the animal 6.60 (0.82) 225 I was moved by my experience of watching the animal 5.42 (1.43) 231 I want to know more about the animal 5.72 (1.27) 228 I became more concerned about the well-being of animals in the wild 5.05 (1.93) 231 Note. Composite score was determined by finding the mean of all the means and standard deviations of the statements Table 2 PCBI Scale Variable M (SD) N PCBI Composite Score 3.68 (0.94) 200 I would like to do something to help care for this animal 4.91 (1.63) 219 I would like to do something to help care for this species in the wild 5.07 (1.53) 220 I believe I can do more for conservation 5.21 (1.53) 222 I will do more for conservation 4.92 (1.54) 214 I will donate to support the zoo affiliated programs 4.36 (1.67) 226 I will establish a Monarch Waystation 3.65 (1.85) 214 I will participate in a community cleanup project 4.12 (1.72) 220 I will volunteer at the zoo 3.19 (1.80) 217 I will grow my own food 4.81 (1.94) 220 I will purchase locally produced food products 5.64 (1.45) 222 Note. Composite score was determined by finding the mean of all the means and standard deviations of the statements. Sample demographics were as follows: 35% were zoo members, total sample mean age 36, 69% were female and 29% were male with mean ages of 35 and 37 years of age respectively and 4% selected N/A, 57% had a bachelor’s degree or higher, 75% were white, and 96% resided in the US. A total of 35 different taxa were identified as “most interesting”. Polar bear (29%), gorilla (8%), otter (6%), lion (6%), giraffe (6%), elephant (6%), sand cat (5%), chimp (5%), baboon (5%), and ocelot (4%) were the most common. All other taxa were less than 4% each (see Appendix D for complete list). Of the reported species, 96% were mammals, 2% were reptiles, and 2% were birds. Frequency analyses were conducted to determine the reporting of the animal characteristics, animal behaviors, animal activity levels, the animal proximity to the visitor, and animal proximity agreement across species. See Table 3 for the characteristics across species; Table 4 for behaviors reported across species; Table 5 for the animal activity levels across species; and Table 6 for animal proximity to the visitor across species. See Table 7 for proximity agreement to the visitor across species. Table 3 Animal Characteristics Across Species Species Animal Characteristic Large Friendly Intelligent Familiar All Species 53% (n=125) 48% (n=113) 46% (n=108) 35% (n=81) Polar Bear 81% (n=55) 54% (n=37) 44% (n=30) 25% (n=17) Gorilla 90% (n=17) 53% (n=10) 74% (n=14) 53% (n=10) Otter 0% (n=0) 80% (n=12) 60% (n=9) 33% (n=5) Lion 92% (n=12) 15% (n=2) 15% (n=2) 46% (n=6) Giraffe 92% (n=12) 23% (n=3) 8% (n=1) 31% (n=4) Elephant 77% (n=10) 0% (n=0) 54% (n=7) 46% (n=6) Sand Cat 9% (n=1) 82% (n=9) 9% (n=1) 27% (n=3) Chimp 9% (n=1) 73% (n=8) 73% (n=8) 36% (n=4) Baboon 0% (n=0) 55% (n=6) 55% (n=6) 36% (n=4) Ocelot 10% (n=1) 30% (n=3) 40% (n=4) 50% (n=5) Note: frequencies may exceed 100% as respondents were able to select all that applied Table 4 Reported Animal Behavior Across Species Species Interacting with Items in the Exhibit Animal Paying Attention to the Visitor Made Eye Contact with Visitor Pacing or Seemed Stressed Playing with Other Animals Resting/ Sleeping All Species 53% (n=125) 42% (n=97) 36% (n=83) 16% (n=38) 18% (n=42) 30% (n=70) Polar Bear 69% (n=47) 54% (n=37) 40% (n=27) 13% (n=9) 2% (n=1) 15% (n=10) Gorilla 74% (n=14) 58% (n=11) 84% (n=16) 16% (n=3) 47% (n=9) 42% (n=8) Otter 80% (n=12) 73% (n=11) 27% (n=4) 7% (n=1) 20% (n=3) 20% (n=3) Lion 15% (n=2) 31% (n=4) 39% (n=5) 46% (n=6) 8% (n=1) 54% (n=7) Giraffe 54% (n=7) 31% (n=4) 15% (n=2) 8% (n=1) 31% (n=4) 31% (n=4) Elephant 62% (n=8) 15% (n=2) 15% (n=2) 8% (n=1) 15% (n=2) 15% (n=2) Sand Cat 18% (n=2) 9% (n=1) 18% (n=2) 18% (n=2) 18% (n=2) 64% (n=7) Chimp 36% (n=4) 64% (n=7) 73% (n=8) 0% (n=0) 36% (n=4) 18% (n=2) Baboon 55% (n=6) 27% (n=3) 36% (n=4) 9% (n=1) 82% (n=9) 46% (n=5) Ocelot 20% (n=2) 20% (n=2) 20% (n=2) 60% (n=6) 20% (n=2) 40% (n=4) Note: Frequencies not totaling 100% due to missing data; all that apply were able to be selected. Table 5 Reported Animal Activity Levels Across Species Species Animal Not Moving at All Animal Moving Around Calmly Animal Moving About Energetically All Species 12% (n=27) 55% (n=129) 74% (n=32) Polar Bear 8% (n=4) 40% (n=27) 52% (n=35) Gorilla 5% (n=1) 68% (n=13) 21% (n=4) Otter 0% (n=0) 20% (n=3) 80% (n=12) Lion 0% (n=0) 31% (n=4) 69% (n=9) Giraffe 0% (n=0) 92% (n=12) 8% (n=1) Elephant 8% (n=1) 92% (n=12) 0% (n=0) Sand Cat 55% (n=6) 18% (n=2) 27% (n=3) Chimp 18% (n=2) 73% (n=8) 9% (n=1) Baboon 0% (n=0) 45% (n=5) 55% (n=6) Ocelot 10% (n=1) 70% (n=7) 20% (n=2) Note: Frequencies not totaling 100% due to unselected data; visitors were to select only one. Table 6 Animal Proximity to Visitor Species Close to the Viewing Area In the middle of the exhibit not near the viewing area Towards the back of the exhibit All Species 79% (n=184) 10% (n=24) 6% (n=13) Polar Bear 85% (n=58) 10% (n=7) 3% (n=2) Gorilla 95% (n=18) 5% (n=1) 0% (n=0) Otter 100% (n=15) 0% (n=0) 0% (n=0) Lion 23% (n=3) 62% (n=8) 8% (n=1) Giraffe 77% (n=10) 15% (n=2) 0% (n=0) Elephant 39% (n=5) 23% (n=3) 15% (n=2) Sand Cat 91% (n=10) 0% (n=0) 0% (n=0) Chimp 100% (n=11) 0% (n=0) 0% (n=0) Baboon 90% (n=9) 10% (n=1) 0% (n=0) Ocelot 80% (n=8) 10% (n=1) 10% (n=1) Note. Sums of percentages not equaling 100% are due to cases with unselected data. Table 7 Reported Animal Proximity Agreement across Species Species M (SD) All Species 5.48 (1.54) Polar Bear 5.91 (1.18) Gorilla 5.79 (1.58) Otter 6.13 (1.06) Lion 5.00 (1.41) Giraffe 4.08 (1.93) Elephant 4.23 (1.30) Sand Cat 4.82 (1.94) Chimp 5.64 (1.86) Baboon 6.45 (0.93) Ocelot 4.60 (1.43) Note. Frequencies not totaling 100% due to missing data; visitors were to select only one. The animal proximity agreement (closeness) response: “I felt I got up close and personal to the animal” had a M of 5.38 (SD = 1.57). A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of closeness on animal activity levels (active level) in “not active at all” (inactive), “moving around calmly” (calm move), and “moving around energetically” (energetic move) conditions. There was a significant effect of closeness on active level at the p < .05 level for the three conditions [F(2,229) = 8.00, p = .001]. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test indicated that the mean score (on closeness) for the energetic move condition (M = 5.91, SD = 1.50) was significantly different from the inactive (M = 4.67, SD = 1.69) and the calm move (M = 5.22, SD = 1.51) conditions. However, animal proximity agreement did not significantly differ from the inactive and calm move conditions. Visitor connection to animal A One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of species on connection to animal (connection) (see Table 1). There was a significant effect of species on connection to animal at the p<.05 level [F(9,163) = 2.10, p=.032]. Table 8 illustrates the significant pairing using LSD post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Table 8 Post-Hoc Analysis (LSD) of Animal Connection across Species Emotion Species M (SD) N Sig Connection to Animal Composite Score Ocelot 6.14 (0.84) 8 0.004 Elephant 5.10 (1.00) 13 Lion 6.00 (1.00) 10 0.007 Elephant 5.10 (1.00) 13 Polar Bear 5.93 (0.80) 67 <.001 Elephant 5.10 (1.00) 13 Sand Cat 5.93 (0.83) 10 0.012 Elephant 5.10 (1.00) 13 Chimp 5.92 (0.80) 11 0.010 Elephant 5.10 (1.00) 13 Baboon 5.92 (0.70) 11 0.010 Elephant 5.10 (1.00) 13 Otter 5.80 (0.90) 14 0.027 Elephant 5.10 (1.00) 13 Note: Only significant pairings are shown. A One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of animal activity level to connection (see Table 1). There was a significant effect of activity levels on connection to animal at the p<.05 level [F(2,208), = 3.44, p= .034], with the mean of energetic move (M= 6.00, SD= .73) being higher than the mean of calm move (M= 5.70, SD= .90). A One-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of proximity to connection. The model was not significant [F(3,198), = 1.39, p=.248]. Pro-Conservation Behaviors Visitors were asked to report if they had done any of the given pro-conservation behaviors (PCB) during their visit. See Figure 2 for reports of onsite PCB reported by visitors. Visitors were asked to report if they had performed any of the given PCB prior to their visit. See Figure 3 for reported Pre-visit PCB. Figure 2 Figure 3 One-way ANOVAs were run to analyze differences on PCBI scores across (a) animal species, (b) animal activity levels, and (c) animal proximity to visitor. PCBI did not vary across species [F(9, 149) = 1.63, p = .111]; animal activity level [F(2, 196) = 1.63, p = .407]; or animal proximity to the visitor [F(3, 188) = 1.63, p = .593]. A linear regression was run to test if the connection to animal significantly predicted PCBI. The results of the regression indicated the predictor explained 38.8% of the variance (R2 =0.151, F(1,187)=, p<.001) . It was found that connection significantly predicted PCBI (β= .39, p<.001). Discussion While much research has investigated the influence of animals and animal behaviors on visitors’ emotions (Altman, 1998; Luebke et al., 2016; Margulis et al., 2003), less has explored the effects of these variables in leading visitors to performing behaviors. Furthermore, little work has explored the influence of visitors’ connections to animals on PCB (Clayton et al., 2009; Farber & Hall, 2007; Howell et al., 2019; Sickler & Fraser, 2009). The purpose of this research was to investigate the influence of the visitor animal viewing experience on visitor connection to the animal, PCBI, and PCB. Results support that aspects of animal behavior have an effect on the sense of connection the visitor had with the animal. Also, the sense of connection the visitor experienced had an effect on PCBI. The findings have supported the notion that differences do exist in the viewing experience, as a result of taxon types and activity levels due to differences in connection to animal being found when compared across taxon and activity levels. The viewing experience affected PCBI with a positive relationship between connection to animal and PCBI being reported but it is important to note that none of the animal taxon, characteristics, activity levels, proximities, or behaviors affected PCBI directly. Taxa and Characteristics The most common animal of interest was the polar bear, and the most popular taxon being mammal. A possible explanation for this is the higher activity levels of this animal which was moving about energetically compared to the other animals combined with its popular characteristic of being large. When exploring the most interesting characteristics of the reported animal, the characteristics varied across species with some animals predominantly being described as large or friendly, and others having more balanced reporting across the characteristics. Often size, intelligence, and/or friendliness were reported as interesting characteristics. This aligns with reports in the literature regarding common interest in larger seemingly more intelligent and friendly animals (Carr, 2016a; Carr, 2016b; Woods, 2000). Animal Behavior and Proximity The animal behaviors most often reported were the animal interacting with items in the exhibit, paying attention to the visitor, and making eye contact with the visitor. This is supported by the literature in which enrichment and interactions with visitors have the greatest impact on visitor viewing experiences and may be helpful in determining future ways to structure exhibits when working towards conservation goals (Luebke, 2018; Perdue et al., 2012; Salas et al., 2021). The most often reported animal proximity was being close to the viewing area (83%) and the mean reporting for the proximity agreement was 5.38 + 1.57, making the mean response “somewhat agreed.” When the visitor proximity agreement was compared across animal activity levels, there were significant differences between the other two animal activity levels, where the animal was moving about energetically having a greater mean compared to other activity levels, and the visitor proximity agreement. Between the animal not moving around at all and the animal moving about energetically as well as between the animal moving around calmly and the animal moving around energetically, there was a higher mean proximity agreement response for the animal moving around energetically. It could be considered that higher animal activity is more engaging to the visitor especially because it is the most commonly reported that the animal is up close to the viewing area (79%) where more of this behavior is able to be observed. Animal Activity Levels Observed significant differences between animal activity levels and visitors agreement with the statement: “I felt I got up close and personal with the animal,” supports animal activity having an influence on the visitor viewing experience, suggesting that it is not so much the type of behavior which significantly affects zoo visitor emotional responses as how much of it they get to see. Most of the responses also reported the animal moving with the most commonly reported being moving around calmly. Considering how more significant differences were found for proximity agreement against the animal moving about energetically, it can be suggested that at least some activity is better than no activity to the visitors but higher activity levels increase visitor engagement in the viewing experience. Connection to Animal Higher animal activity levels showed higher mean reports of the connection to animal score when the connection to animal was compared across activity levels. The significant difference was found between the animal moving around energetically and the animal moving around calmly with the animal moving about energetically having the higher mean. This suggests that, while visitors are aware of the nuances of animal behavior, the visitor felt more engaged in the viewing experience the more activity there was. However, there was no significant difference in connection to the animal between the animal moving around energetically and the animal not moving around at all. Further research into animal activity levels should be done to better understand these differences. Outside of this study, feelings of connection are prevalent as being significantly affected by animal species (Carr, 2016a; Learmonth et al., 2021; Moss & Esson, 2010) . As discussed in the literature, experiencing a feeling of connection is an important aspect of the viewing experience as it promotes a means for the viewer to relate to the animal, thus making their experience more personally significant (Ardoin et al., 2015; Ballantyne et al., 2007; Luebke, 2018). Significant differences in connection to animals were found particularly with elephants when compared to all other species except for the gorilla and giraffe. In every significant case, the mean for elephants was lower than that of the other animal. This is a surprising find as Elephant characteristics, behavior, and activity levels were similar to the overall most frequently reported as well as what is often preferred by visitors in the literature (Carr, 2016a; Falk et al., 2007; Lee, 2012; Moss & Esson, 2010). Elephants were most often reported as large at 77%, intelligent at 54%, interacting with items in the exhibit at 62%, Moving around calmly at 92%, and close to the viewing area at 39%. There could be some explanations for this despite the reporting coinciding with the literature . While Elephants were most often reported as close to the viewing area compared to other proximities, it is still a relatively low frequency, meaning that many visitors might not have perceived the elephant as close despite the elephant being as close as possible to the viewing area. Proximity agreement responses to Elephants were most often “Neutral” (31%) with neither “Strongly Disagree” nor “Strongly Agree” reported at all. This lack of a strong reaction visitors had to Elephants may coincide with their lower levels of connection and explain why there are lower levels of connection despite elephants most frequently being reported as close to the viewing area. Considering that the elephant’s most often reported characteristics and behavior coincided with what visitors prefer in the literature (Bitgood et al., 1988; Carr, 2016b; Luebke & Matiasek, 2013), this contradictorily lower connection with the animal may be due to how important the perceived proximity of the visitor to the animal is to the viewing experience. Even if the animal is as close as they can get to the viewing platform, if the visitor still perceives this as not close, the visitor may perceive less of a connection with the animal regardless of its other characteristics and behaviors. Pro-Conservation Behavioral Intentions (PCBI) Regarding zoo visitor emotional responses, the connection to the animal was found to have a significant and positive relationship to PCBI. With regards to species, characteristics, behaviors, activity levels, and proximity to the visitor, no differences in PCBI were found. These results suggest the viewing experience is not a strong direct influence on PCBI. This indirectly supports the literature, which purports the more proximal role of emotion in influencing PCBI (Erul et al., 2020; Skibins et al., 2019). Nonetheless, the overall positive and moderate relationship found between the reported emotions in the viewing experience and PCBIs is important to note and supports the hypothesis that emotions do influence PCBIs in the zoo experience. The results of the onsite PCB showed the most commonly reported behaviors to be rounding up purchases, purchasing buttons, and purchasing zoo memberships as the highest, 38%, 18%, and 15% respectively. This is also notable for PCB reported to be performed prior to the visit in that growing one’s own food or purchasing local food products was the most reported (78%). These behaviors are retail-related and may suggest a preference by visitors to perform such actions over others. This may be due to certain barriers, such as lack of ease of access, to performing the other behaviors but more research needs to be performed to determine the reason for this. Nonetheless, it is an important note to make as it suggests what onsite PCB visitors are more likely to do. These results do align with findings of other studies such as Godinez and Fernandez (2019) who found that visitors are more likely to perform PCB on site than off site at the zoo. Of the survey responses 97% indicated performing at least one onsite PCB and 93% indicated having performed at least on PCB prior to their visit. The difference in these frequencies is narrow however still indicates a higher reporting of onsite behavior than offsite behavior. This indicates the importance of providing immediate opportunities for zoo visitors to perform PCB as opposed to leaving visitors to perform the behaviors later. Focusing on retail is likely to be most effective when considering these results as it is the easiest behavior to perform in the moment, takes minimal time to perform, and requires minimal commitment. This can be connected to the PCB discussed in the literature review such as engaging in pro-conservation organizations, donating money, and engaging in pro-conservation opportunities on-site of the zoo (Powell & Ham, 2008; Powell et al., 2008; Powell et al., 2009; Tisdell & Wilson, 2005)At least two of these behaviors, donating money and on-site opportunities, are typically easier for the visitor to perform, suggesting that behaviors that are both onsite and involving contributing money to a cause are more likely to be performed because they are easy compared to other behaviors that may require more resources. This is discussed in the literature review in that common barriers to performing PCB are ease of access to the behavior such as performing a behavior provided by the zoo versus searching for a behavior post-visit (Godinez & Fernandez, 2019; Learmonth et al., 2021). However, an important note to make is that the next most popular PCB performed prior to the visit was participating in a community cleanup project. Research suggests that community cleanup projects are widely used for various benefits in communities, including social programs, environmental health programs, and physical health programs (Jenkins et al., 2006; Lawson, 2010; Wernstedt et al., 2013). The selection of this option might be due to its popularity outside of the zoo and might not have been done with PCBI in mind. The low reporting of the other PCBI may be due to lack of familiarity with activity or perceiving the activity as too much work. However, such analyses were outside the scope of this study. Behaviors may have been perceived as too difficult or daunting to do (Smith et al., 2008). Additionally, the intended behavior with the highest mean score was also retail-related: purchasing locally produced food products. Growing one’s own food or purchasing locally produced food products was also the most selected option for PCB’s already practiced prior to the visit. This is likely an indication that supports the statement that ease of access is important when performing a PCB (Learmonth et al., 2021). This is also an important takeaway for the zoo to enable more retail-related conservation support to visitors that may also relate to involving local businesses becoming involved in zoo operations. Limitations Some limitations to the data include potential influences on the selection of favorite animals. Some of the favorite animals reported were located near the sampling site, suggesting that they were mentioned because they were fresher on the visitors’ minds compared to other animals in the zoo. Surveying at the North American Exit rendered less surveys and had higher rates of refusal to take the survey than those given at the Junction Plaza. This may be due to many guests being more intent on leaving the zoo and not wanting to be delayed. Additionally, fatigue from a day at a zoo which requires much walking may have reduced the desire for the surveyed to put effort into their answers. Additional limitations could have come from the provided options based on the literature for animal behavior, characteristics, and activity levels. Visitors could have noted other significant behaviors and characteristics which made them interested in the animal but were not provided on the survey, possibly limiting the true scope of the survey results. Additionally, the animal activity level could have varied throughout the viewing experience for the visitor, making the reason for the selection for this question less clear. Conclusion This study demonstrated the influence of zoo animal behaviors on variance in the viewing experience and its subsequent effect on visitors’ connection to animals and PCBI. The exhibition of animals is still a controversial topic. Many discussions have been had regarding the ethics of wild animal captivity which has been found to be a complex matter involving social, economic, and scientific (Mäekivi, 2018). As such, there is no simple answer regarding human-wildlife relations in zoos. However, this study provides support for the importance of zoological institutions as conservation organizations. Implications of these findings are possible management applications for zoos and their animal collections. The significance of proximity of the animal to the visitor in the viewing experience indicated that animal exhibits can be adjusted to bring the animal as close as possible to the visitor while maintaining safety standards. For animals, such as the elephants which had lower connection reported by visitors possibly as a result of the distance their exhibit places them from viewing platforms, opportunities for up-close interactions such as feedings might enable higher feelings of connection. Additionally, the findings implicate the importance of the use of enrichment for more than animal welfare but also for increased engagement of the visitor in the viewing experience. Further use of enrichment is encouraged and may even be adapted to facilitate interaction with visitors as animal acknowledgement of visitors was also found to be important to the viewing experience. Results also indicate potential avenues for encouraging conservation in zoos. Based on reported behaviors both onsite and prior to the visit, visitors showed favoritism towards retail-related behaviors. It is theorized that this is because these behaviors are both easier and quicker to perform. As such, zoos could focus more of their conservation efforts through retail which can entail many opportunities. Zoos can benefit from applying this practice towards their goals by recognizing the importance of retail and socio-cultural influences in encouraging conservation. While much research has been conducted on the influence of animals and animal behaviors on visitors’ emotions (Altman, 1998; Luebke et al., 2016; Margulis et al., 2003), less has been done exploring the effects of these variables in leading visitors to performing behaviors. (Clayton et al., 2009; Farber & Hall, 2007; Howell et al., 2019; Sickler & Fraser, 2009) Additionally, the few studies exploring long-term PCBI have found that many are not performed (Ballantyne et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2008), signaling a gap between intention and performance. The results of this study have shown that the viewing experience of animals has an influence on PCBI. Further research need only build off this to determine if PCB is then performed. 10 Chapter 3- Conclusion This chapter provides a reflection of the cumulative thesis process and my final thoughts on the study’s outcome. While this began as a secondary project to what research I was initially hired to conduct by the North Carolina Zoo, I am grateful for the experience it provided me and hope that the findings of this study can be used by the zoo in the future. I am grateful to my committee chair, Dr. Skibins for all the guidance provided in planning and conducting this thesis. Additionally, I am thankful for the many helpful professors in the college of Health and Human Performance who provided much advice and resources for my education surrounding this research. Above all, the North Carolina Zoo made this experience for me possible with their funding of my education in addition to my research as well as by providing their location to conduct my research. I found the study to be eye-opening in regards to the depth of academic research surrounding aspects of conservation and the overall results to the study to be satisfying. While I wish more data could have been analyzed as well as to have more time to conduct the analyses, I am happy to see that the results of my study coincide with the literature. Additionally, the hypothesis was supported in that the results showed there are differences in the viewing experience which affect the visitors’ connection to the animals being viewed as well as that this connection correlates with PCBI. The understanding of how viewing animals can ultimately lead to PCB being performed by visitors after their visit is still largely unclear with limited studies available. It is my hope that this study contribute to the growing body of literature around PCB where more can come to light about the roles of zoos in promoting conservation efforts. Rewardingly, this study enabled me to explore the human dimension of conservation work, thereby expanding my understanding of the field. I have come to see how important it is to understand the relations of humans with nature for the sake of conservation and I found this research enabling me to take on new perspectives of global issues regarding the natural world. I am greatly interested in human-animal relations in particular and hope to pursue this avenue further in future studies. Unique hurdles presented themselves in the process of completing this thesis work but I feel that such challenges have enable me to come out better equipped for future research. While at times overwhelming, I am delighted to have gotten the opportunity to conduct this study. I cannot express my gratitude enough to the North Carolina Zoo as well as the Recreation Sciences department for all the help and amazing experiences. Chapter 4- References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195 Altman, J. D. (1998). Animal Activity and Visitor Learning at the Zoo. Anthrozoös, 11(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279398787000869 Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human-animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 6-47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038147 Archer, D., & Wearing, S. (2003). Self, space, and interpretive experience: The interactionism of environmental interpretation. Journal of Interpretation Research, 8(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/109258720300800102 Ardoin, N. M., Wheaton, M., Bowers, A. W., Hunt, C. A., & Durham, W. H. (2015). Nature-based tourism's impact on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: a review and analysis of the literature and potential future research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(6), 838-858. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1024258 Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24-45. https://doi.org/10.1086/209331 Babbie, E. R. (2020). The practice of social research (15th ed.). Cengage Learning. Ballantyne, Hughes, K., Lee, J., Packer, J., & Sneddon, J. (2018). Visitors' values and environmental learning outcomes at wildlife attractions: Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism Management, 64, 190-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.07.015 Ballantyne, Packer, J., Hughes, K., & Dierking, L. (2007). Conservation learning in wildlife tourism settings: Lessons from research in zoos and aquariums. Environmental Education Research, 13(3), 367-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701430604 Ballantyne, Packer, J., & Sutherland, L. A. (2011). Visitors’ memories of wildlife tourism: Implications for the design of powerful interpretive experiences. Tourism Management, 32(4), 770-779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.06.012 Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L.. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 167-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301033 Bitgood, S., Patterson, D., & Benefield, A. (1988). Exhibit design and visitor behavior: Empirical relationships. Environment and Behavior, 20(Jul 88), 474-491. https://search.proquest.com/docview/57381125 Briseño-Garzón, A., Anderson, D., & Anderson, A. (2007). Entry and emergent agendas of adults visiting an aquarium in family groups. Visitor Studies, 10(1), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645570701263461 Carr, N. (2016a). An analysis of zoo visitors' favourite and least favourite animals. Tourism Management Perspectives, 20, 70-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.07.006 Carr, N. (2016b). Ideal animals and animal traits for zoos: General public perspectives. Tourism Management (1982), 57, 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.05.013 Castillo-Huitrón, N. M., Naranjo, E. J., Santos-Fita, D., & Estrada-Lugo, E. (2020). The importance of human emotions for wildlife conservation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1277. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01277 Clayton, S., Fraser, J., & Saunders, C. D. (2009). Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology, 28(5), 377-397. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20186 Dearden, P., Bennett, M., & Rollins, R. (2007). Perceptions of diving impacts and implications for reef conservation. Coastal Management, 35(2-3), 305-317. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750601169584 Dowling, R. K., Newsome, D., & Moore, S. A. (2005). Viewing animals in the wild. In R. K. Dowling, D. Newsome & S. A. Moore (Eds.), Wildlife tourism (pp. 1-40). Channel View Publications. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ral_pGRWutsC&dq=wildlife+tourism+moore&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=xA4jTJb2H8arcf3B5LIF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false Dunkley, R. A. (2016). Learning at eco-attractions: Exploring the bifurcation of nature and culture through experiential environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 47(3), 213-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2016.1164113 Erul, E., Woosnam, K. M., & McIntosh, W. A. (2020). Considering emotional solidarity and the theory of planned behavior in explaining behavioral intentions to support tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(8), 1158-1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1726935 Falk, J. H., Reinhard, E. M., Vernon, C. L., Bronnenkant, K., Heimlich, J. E., & Deans, N. L. (2007). Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium. Association of Zoos and Aquariums. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/37616/noaa_37616_DS1.pdf Farber, M. E., & Hall, T. E. (2007). Emotion and environment: Visitors' extraordinary experiences along the Dalton Highway in Alaska. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(2), 248-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2007.11950107 Godinez, A. M., & Fernandez, E. J. (2019). What is the zoo experience? How zoos impact a visitor’s behaviors, perceptions, and conservation efforts. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1746. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01746 Han, H., Hwang, J., & Lee, M. J. (2017). The value-belief-emotion-norm model: Investigating customers' eco-friendly behavior. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34(5), 590-607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1208790 Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00123.x Howell, T. J., McLeod, E. M., & Coleman, G. J. (2019). When zoo visitors “connect” with a zoo animal, what does that mean? Zoo Biology, 38(6), 461-470. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21509 Hughes, K., Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2011). Using post-visit action resources to support family conservation learning following a wildlife tourism experience. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 307-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.540644 Hyson, J. N. (2004). Education, entertainment, and institutional identity at the zoo. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(3), 247-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00122.x Jenkins, R., Kopits, E., & Simpson, D. (2006). Measuring the social benefits of EPA land cleanup and reuse programs. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/280849/files/NCEE2006-03.pdf Kaiser, F. G., Hübner, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2005). Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value‐belief‐norm model in explaining conservation behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(10), 2150-2170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02213.x Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). What is conservation science? Bioscience, 62(11), 962-969. Khalil, K., & Ardoin, N. (2011). Programmatic evaluation in association of zoos and aquariums–accredited zoos and aquariums: A literature review. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 10(3), 168-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2011.614813 Kirchgessner, M. L., & Sewall, B. J. (2015). The impact of environmental, social, and animal factors on visitor stay times at big cat exhibits. Visitor Studies, 18(2), 150-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2015.1079091 Kisling, V. N. J. (2001). In Kisling V. N. J. (Ed.), Zoo and aquarium history: Ancient animal collections to zoological gardens. CRC Press. Lawson, H. (2010). Empowering people, facilitating community development, and contributing to sustainable development: The social work of sport, exercise, and physical education programs: Sport, Education and Society: Vol 10, No 1. Sport, Education, and Society, 10(1), 135-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357332052000308800 Learmonth, M. J. (2020). Human–animal interactions in zoos: What can compassionate conservation, conservation welfare and duty of care tell us about the ethics of interacting, and avoiding unintended consequences? Animals (Basel), 10(11), 2037. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10112037 Learmonth, M. J., Chiew, S. J., Godinez, A., & Fernandez, E. J. (2021b). Animal-visitor interactions and the visitor experience: Visitor behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, and learning in the modern zoo. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 8(4), 632-649. https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.08.04.13.2021 Lee, H. (2012). Perception and satisfaction among zoological park visitors. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture, 40(3), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2012.40.3.051 Luebke, J. F. (2018). Zoo exhibit experiences and visitors’ affective reactions: A preliminary study. Curator: The Museum Journal, 61(2), 345-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12253 Luebke, J. F., & Matiasek, J. (2013). An exploratory study of zoo visitors' exhibit experiences and reactions. Zoo Biology, 32(4), 407-416. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21071 Luebke, J. F., Watters, J. V., Packer, J., Miller, L. J., & Powell, D. M. (2016). Zoo visitors' affective responses to observing animal behaviors. Visitor Studies, 19(1), 60-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2016.1144028 Mäekivi, N. (2018). Freedom in captivity: Managing zoo animals according to the ‘five freedoms’. Biosemiotics, 11(1), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-018-9311-5 Margulis, S. W., Hoyos, C., & Anderson, M. (2003). Effect of felid activity on zoo visitor interest. Zoo Biology, 22(6), 587-599. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.10115 McIntosh, D., & Wright, P. A. (2017). Emotional processing as an important part of the wildlife viewing experience. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 18, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.01.004 Miller, L. J. (2012). Visitor reaction to pacing behavior: influence on the perception of animal care and interest in supporting zoological institutions. Zoo Biology, 31(2), 242-248. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20411 Minarchek, M. J., Skibins, J. C., & Luebke, J. F. (2021). The impact of interpretive messaging and animal handling on visitors’ perceptions of animal welfare and empathic reactions. Journal of Interpretation Research, 26(1), 24-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/10925872211042936 Morgan, J. M., & Hodgkinson, M. (1999). The motivation and social orientation of visitors attending a contemporary zoological park. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 227-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972074 Moss, & Esson, M. (2010). Visitor interest in zoo animals and the implications for collection planning and zoo education programmes. Zoo Biology, 29(6), 715-731. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20316 Moss, A. G., & Pavitt, B. (2019). Assessing the effect of zoo exhibit design on visitor engagement and attitudes towards conservation. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 7(4), 186-194. https://doi.org/10.19227/jzar.v7i4.422 Myers, O. E., Saunders, C. D., & Birjulin, A. A. (2004). Emotional dimensions of watching zoo animals: An experience sampling study building on insights from psychology. Curator (New York, N.Y.), 47(3), 299-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00127.x Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2023). Nature relatedness and subjective well-being. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 4269-4276). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_3909 North Carolina Zoo. (n.d.). About the zoo. Retrieved March 24, 2024, from https://www.nczoo.org/visit/about-zoo North Carolina Zoo. (n.d.). North Carolina Zoo Map. [Online Image]. Retrieved March 24, 2024, from https://www.nczoo.org/visit/map Öztürk, H. (2017). Determination of the people’s satisfaction who go to the zoo for recreational activity. The Online Journal of Recreation and Sports, 6(4), 44-59. http://doi.org/10.22282/ojrs.2017.20 Perdue, B. M., Clay, A. W., Gaalema, D. E., Maple, T. L., & Stoinski, T. S. (2012). Technology at the zoo: The influence of a touchscreen computer on orangutans and zoo visitors. Zoo Biology, 31(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20378 Powell, D. M., & Bullock, E. V. W. (2014). Evaluation of factors affecting emotional responses in zoo visitors and the impact of emotion on conservation mindedness. Anthrozoös, 27(3), 389-405. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303714X13903827488042 Powell, R. B., & Ham, S. H. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? Evidence from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), 467-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802154223 Powell, Kellert, S. R., & Ham, S. H. (2008). Antarctic tourists: Ambassadors or consumers? Polar Record, 44(3), 233-241. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247408007456 Powell, Kellert, S. R., & Ham, S. H. (2009). Interactional theory and the sustainable nature-based tourism experience. Society & Natural Resources, 22(8), 761-776. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802017560 Rabb, G. B., & Saunders, C. D. (2005). Future of zoos and aquariums: Conservation and caring. International Zoo Yearbook, 39(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1090.2005.tb00001.x Rattan, J. K., Eagles, P. F. J., & Mair, H. L. (2012). Volunteer tourism: Its role in creating conservation awareness. Journal of Ecotourism, 11(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2011.604129 Rees, P. A. (2011). An introduction to zoo biology and management. John Wiley & Sons. Reynolds, P. C., & Braithwaite, D. (2001). Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism. Tourism Management, 22(1), 31-42. Salas, M., Laméris, D. W., Depoortere, A., Plessers, L., & Verspeek, J. (2021). Zoo visitor attitudes are more influenced by animal behaviour than environmental enrichment appearance. Animals (Basel), 11(7), 1971. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071971 Sickler, J., & Fraser, J. (2009). Enjoyment in zoos. Leisure Studies, 28(3), 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360903046649 Skibins, J. C., Powell, R. B., & Hallo, J. C. (2013). Charisma and conservation: Charismatic megafauna’s influence on safari and zoo tourists’ pro-conservation behaviors. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(4), 959-982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0462-z Skibins, J. C., Weiler, B., Markwell, K., & Wilson, L. (2019). The devil made me do it: Influence of values on interpretation and behaviors for tasmanian devils. Journal of Interpretation Research, 24(1), 63-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/109258721902400105 Smith, L., Broad, S., & Weiler, B. (2008). A closer examination of the impact of zoo visits on visitor behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 544. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost817.0 Smith, L., Weiler, B., Smith, A., & van Dijk, P. (2012). Applying visitor preference criteria to choose pro‐wildlife behaviors to ask of zoo visitors. Curator: The Museum Journal, 55(4), 453-466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2012.00168.x Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97. https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=hcop_facpubs Straka, T. M., Greving, H., & Voigt, C. C. (2021). The effects of bat photographs on emotions, attitudes, intentions, and wildlife value orientations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 26(6), 596-603. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2020.1864068 Tisdell, C., & Wilson, C. (2005). Perceived impacts of ecotourism on environmental learning and conservation: Turtle watching as a case study. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(3), 291-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-004-7619-6 Vining, J., & Merrick, M. S. (2012). Environmental epiphanies: Theoretical foundations and practical applications. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology (pp. 485-508). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199733026.013.0026 Wernstedt, K., Blackman, A., Lyon, T. P., & Novak, K. (2013). Revitalizing underperforming and contaminated land through voluntary action: Perspectives from US voluntary cleanup programs. Land use Policy, 31, 545-556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.08.018 Whitehouse-Tedd, K. M., Lozano-Martinez, J., Reeves, J., Page, M., Martin, J. H., & Prozesky, H. (2022). Assessing the visitor and animal outcomes of a zoo encounter and guided your program with ambassador cheetahs. Anthrozoös, 35(2), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2021.1986263 Woods, B. (2000). Beauty and the beast: Preferences for animals in Australia. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 11(2), 25-35. https://search.informit.org/documentSummary;res=IELAPA;dn=200110918 Woods, B. (2002). Good zoo/bad zoo: Visitor experiences in captive settings. Anthrozoös, 15(4), 343-360. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279302786992478 Yeo, J., & Neo, H. (2010). Monkey business: Human-animal conflicts in urban Singapore. Social & Cultural Geography, 11(7), 681-699. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2010.508565 Appendices Appendix A: North Carolina Zoo Map Note: The full map of North Carolina Zoo is provided by the zoo’s website. Closer visuals of the survye sites are provided below the full map. Appendix B: On-Site Survey Recreation & Park Management North Carolina Zoo & East Carolina University are conducting a study of zoo visitors. Your responses are confidential and anonymous. Thank you very much for participating. During today’s visit, which animal interested you the most? ______________________________________ What characteristics interested you about the animal? (Please select all that apply) The animal was intelligent The animal was large The animal was friendly The animal was familiar Please select the animal behaviors you observed the animal doing. (Select all that apply) The animal interacted with items in the exhibit (e.g., toys, food, climbing structures, etc.) The animal paid attention to me and/or other visitors The animal made eye contact with me and/or other visitors The animal was pacing and/or seemed stressed The animal was playing with other animals in the exhibit The animal was resting or sleeping How active was the animal? (Please select only one) Not active at all Moving around calmly Moving around energetically How close was this animal to you? (Please select only one) Close to the viewing area In the middle of the exhibit not near the viewing area Towards back of the exhibit How much do you agree with this statement: “I felt I got up close and personal to the animal” Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Agree Strongly Agree Please give your opinion of the following statements about the animal you were most interested in today. A ‘4’ indicates you neither agree nor disagree. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree I felt a sense of connection with the animal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I felt curiosity towards the animal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I felt awed by the animal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I felt respect for the animal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I enjoyed viewing the animal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I was moved by my experience of watching the animal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I want to know more about the animal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I became more concerned about the well-being of animals in the wild. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Have you done any of the following during your visit today? (Please check all that apply) Supported an endangered species when purchasing a zoo membership Donated to support the North Carolina Zoo affiliated program(s) such as anti-poaching/SMART, UNITE, Red Wolf Reintroduction Programs, etc. Recycled your phone Rounded up your food purchases to help protect endangered species Purchased buttons at the gift shop to contribute to conservation research Please give your opinion of the following statements about the animal you were most interested in today and conservation efforts. A ‘4’ indicates you neither agree nor disagree. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree I would like to do something to help care for this animal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would like to do something to help care for this species in the wild. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe I can do more for conservation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will do more for conservation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will donate to support the zoo affiliated programs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will establish a Monarch Waystation (food for migrating or local pollinators) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will participate in a community cleanup project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will volunteer at the zoo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will grow my own food 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I will purchase locally produced food products 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Before your zoo visit, which of these have you ever done? (Select all that apply) Establish a Monarch Waystation (food for migrating or local pollinators) Donate to the zoo or a pro-conservation organization Participate in a community cleanup project Volunteer at the zoo Grow your own food or purchase locally produced food products None of these May we contact you for a follow-up survey after your visit? Email: _____________ Please tell us a bit about yourself. What is your country of residence? Are you a member of this zoo? No Yes What is your gender? Male Female do not wish to answer In what year were you born? What is the highest level of school you have completed? (please circle only one) Some high school High school graduate Trade School Some college Two-year college graduate Four-year college graduate Graduate/professional degree Do not wish to answer What is your race/ethnicity? (please check all that apply) Asian Black/African American Hispanic/Latino White Native American Pacific Islander Multiracial Do not wish to answer Thank you for your help! If you have questions regarding this survey, please contact: Jeffrey Skibins • East Carolina University • skibinsj18@ecu.edu Researcher use only Location: Date: Time: Number: Appendix C: Post-visit SurveyRecreation & Park Management North Carolina Zoo & East Carolina University are conducting a study of zoo visitors. Your responses are confidential and anonymous. Thank you very much for participating. Please reply “yes” or “no” to of all the behaviors you have performed since your visit. These are listed in the first column of the table. If “no,” indicate which of the barriers, if any, that prevented you from performing the behavior. Performed (Yes/No) Could not find resources