Conclusion
How knowledge of accreditation affects outlook on zoos
In our hypotheses, we predicted that individuals with knowledge of what zoo accreditation was would have a positive outlook on zoos, especially as compared to those with no understanding of accreditation. In our survey, we asked individuals whether or not they understood what accreditation was, as well as whether or not they would be motivated to visit an accredited zoo vs. a non-accredited zoo. Our results indicate that 74.3% of individuals that were aware of what the accreditation meant strongly agree with being more likely to visit an accredited zoo vs. a non-accredited zoo (Table 6), which was also seen in Warsaw and Sayers 2020. This supports our hypothesis in that those that understand what these accredited institutions stand for participate in attending these institutions.
Another facet of this hypothesis was that individuals that knew specifically of the conservation work the accredited facilities do would have a positive outlook on zoos. Zoos have made massive strides in shifting towards conservation and research efforts as opposed to entertainment, so we wanted to see if that change was reflected in our participant's responses (Villaroya et al. 2024). In table 4, it can be seen that all individuals that responded neither agree nor disagree to the statement regarding zoos and conservation work were not familiar with what accreditation meant. This statistical finding coincides with our hypothesis in that individuals that do not understand what accredited zoos do in terms of funding and research for conservation would not have a positive view of the institutions. Again, we did expect for this to be represented as a more negative perspective rather than neutral, but it still reinforces our hypothesis nonetheless. Table 5 shows another side of this hypothesis, with 45.7% of individuals that knew what accreditation was saying they would be motivated to visit a zoo because of the institution's involvement in conservation. Additionally, 44.2% of respondents that did not know about zoo accreditation were neutral in this instance (Table 5) These results suggest that individuals who are aware of zoo accreditation, and what it entails, are motivated to visit a zoo because of the zoo's work in conservation. Those that took neutral stances were uneducated in this sense and therefore do not feel strongly about zoo participation in conservation and preservation of biodiversity.
How previous exposure to zoos affects perceptions now
Another topic we covered in our hypotheses was how past experience with zoos affected the individual's perception of the institutions later on in life. To test this we asked our respondents to disclose the population size of where they grew up. In doing so we gave them three options: urban, suburban, and rural. Our thought process was the higher the population levels where you were raised, the more exposure you would have to zoos, and therefore the more educated on how zoos operated and were involved in conservation an individual would be. When we compared these results, unfortunately, we found no statistical significance between populations levels where you grew up and your perspective on zoos based on past experiences, as well as a lack of statistical connection between population levels where you grew up and whether you know about what zoo accreditation is. Unfortunately, the data did directly contradict our hypothesis, showing us that access to zoos based on where you were raised does not necessarily influence a person's opinion on zoos.
How typologies affect views on zoos
An individual that is strongly concerned with the treatment of nature and animals is identified as moralistic (Kellert 1980). We hypothesized that negative perspectives on zoos would mainly come from these individuals. Surprisingly, we only received one response indicating a negative past experience at a zoo, and this individual identified as ecologistic due to their selection of "I appreciate the way nature works as a system" when asked about their view of nature. Unfortunately, this portion of our hypothesis failed, but our survey unexpectedly provided several statistically significant connections between a respondent's typology and particular aspects of a zoo they visited that stood out to them and contributed to the experience as a whole being positive. Moralistic individuals were members of these connections. As seen in table 3, respondents that are concerned about the treatment of nature and wildlife indicated that the educational aspect of a visit to the zoo helped make their experience a positive one. This might suggest that members of the moralistic typology find comfort in knowing that the animals are being taken care of through learning about the zoo's initiatives, as well as interacting with knowledgeable zookeepers that are qualified to care for the animals. Moralistic individuals also took notice of animal enrichment activities, further enforcing the idea that they gravitated towards animal care aspects of the zoos (Table 2). Even though our initial hypothesis was disproven, we still were able to gain significant information about this typology.
Another portion of our hypothesis included the humanistic and naturalistic typologies. Humanistic respondents were individuals that indicated they were interested in specific aspects of nature, commonly charismatic megafauna, while naturalistic individuals are those that enjoy spending time in nature (Kellert 1980). Our hypothesis was that these two typologies would be the bulk of respondents that viewed zoos positively. While we were unable to measure a statistical correlation between humanistic and naturalistic respondents and a positive perspective on zoos, we were able to establish a connection between these individuals and aspects of a zoo that made a notable past experience positive. Naturalistic was our most common typology among respondents, while humanistic was one of the lowest. In terms of naturalistic individuals, 75% of them noticed animal enrichment activities occurring at the zoos, while over 66% of humanistic respondents did not (Table 2). These results may indicate that the naturalistic individuals are concerned about the animal's enjoyment, which to visitors of a zoo is most often viewed while animals are participating in enrichment activities such as playing with a toy. Furthermore, we could speculate that the humanistic results indicate that those that are fixated on certain aspects of nature are not as concerned with the animal's overall enjoyment.