As we prepared our survey, we were intentional with trying to cover all of our hypotheses' bases. We tried to prevent as much work on the back end of the survey as possible. I do believe our questions were quality, for the most part, but I will admit some of the information we gathered was not as necessary as we expected, such as which zoo their most notable experience was at or who they grew up going to zoos with. Most of these questions resulted in dead ends in terms of statistical analysis. Looking back, I would have narrowed down some of our questions instead of trying to cover as broad of a topic as possible. ​

            The main issue I found with our project was lack of variety in responses. This mainly stems from the similarity in demographics, especially age and state the individual was raised in. I think if we had more variety in demographics of respondents we would have received more variable data and would have been able to look closer at some of our hypotheses that ended up not having any statistical connections. We also were expecting to receive many more negative views on zoos than just one, and I think this was partly because of the amount of students within our department that took the survey. These students would generally know about zoo accreditation and zoo participation in conservation, and therefore have a more positive view on the institutions. Due to this, our data was lacking in negative perspectives, which were crucial to multiple of our hypotheses.