Zoo staff interviews
Education strategy
When asking the head of education or the person responsible for the education at each zoo, eight zoos reported that they had an education strategy. Two zoos reported that they did not have an education strategy and for one zoo neither of the interviewed staff knew whether the zoo had an education strategy. A total of 19 of 35 interviewees from eight different zoos reported that the zoo they worked at had an education strategy. While some were able to describe the content of this education strategy, others expressed that they were not sure what the education strategy described or that they had just briefly scanned it and not read it in detail.
“Yes. It describes why we have zoos and why we have an education department and also that we want to change behaviours and get people to feel with their heart, to connect with nature.” – Interviewee 26
“Oh, that is a good question. I don’t know it super well. I haven’t read it in super detail. It was a quick, a quick briefing with a colleague.” – Interviewee 23
A total of 13 of the 35 interviewees, from seven different zoos, did not know whether the zoo they worked at had an education strategy or not.
“Not one that I have seen. Maybe there is one, I can’t answer that.” – Interviewee 5
Evaluation of education activities
There was great variation in how education activities were evaluated and based on the responses from the interviewees methods used for evaluation and the extent to which education activities were evaluated not only varied between zoos but also between different education activities at a certain zoo. The most common evaluation method mentioned was informal internal evaluation, such as discussions with colleagues after an activity or during a lunch break. This type of informal internal evaluation was reported from eight zoos and by a total of 17 of 35 interviewees and was most commonly mentioned when talking about evaluation of informal education activities such as keeper talks and other educational activities aimed at zoo visitors. Those informal education activities were overall described as being evaluated to a lesser extent than more formal education activities such as lectures for school classes:
“We evaluate by always sending questionnaires to the teachers that come here with their classes, where we ask both about knowledge and experience and if it has created a continued engagement with the issue and such and then to some extent we also perform visitor surveys but, where we try to evaluate the experience of the general public, but there I feel like we need to, we need to put more resources into that, absolutely.” – Interviewee 32
“No. Upper secondary school courses are evaluated, and our collaboration with a preschool is evaluated, but not education activities for the visitors. So schools, yes. Visitors, no.” – Interviewee 2
As for formal education activities such as lectures for school classes, several zoos mentioned systematic evaluation of these, mainly with the use of questionnaires. Five zoos and a total of 12 of 35 interviewees reported that a questionnaire was sent to the teachers that had been to the zoo with their classes. Questionnaires for the students to fill in were reported from two zoos by a total of four interviewees and one zoo reported that they, in addition to the student questionnaire, sent a questionnaire to the parents of the students.
Important to note is that nine of 35 interviewees, from five different zoos, expressed uncertainty when asked about evaluation of the zoo’s education activities.
Though all zoos reported to evaluate at least some of their education activities to some extent, lack of evaluation for at least part of the zoo’s education activities was also mentioned by several interviewees:
“No, not ours at least. We never get any feedback on what we need to do more or less of. We can evaluate ourselves if we think something is bad. But it is also difficult to find something bad when you are the one standing there alone talking. Then everyone would evaluate themselves and change according to that.” – Interviewee 11
Staff development
When asked whether the staff members that worked with education at the zoo received any training or education in how to educate, a total of 22 of 35 interviewees, representing all the 11 zoos, expressed that the zoo they worked at did not provide training or education in how to educate. An interesting note here is that this included ten of 11 interviewees in the category zookeepers.
“It’s a bit faulty I think. There is a lot of potential for improvement. One year we tried to have a short course for the seasonal staff about how to talk in the mic and have a walkthrough together but that has been let go of completely. You just get thrown into this. There is not much time to read manuscripts and such during work time. Of course there is time if you really take that time but there is not much of it. It’s not: now you have this time to sit down and learn this. It happens, but very seldom. Would say we need more of that. We also have permanent staff that don’t do keeper talks because they do not want to talk in the mic. So such training would probably be needed, to feel comfortable and get the chance.” – Interviewee 5
Though interviewees initially expressed that the zoo they worked at did not provide training or education in how to educate, some interviewees went on to describe examples of how new staff were introduced to the education activities, such as shadowing a colleague for guided tours and keeper talks.
All interviewees were asked what they would like to learn more about or what skills they would like to develop to feel more comfortable or perform even better at their job as educators. Though there was a great variation in the interviewees’ responses to this question, the most common response was that they would like to learn more pedagogy, reported by a total of 13 of 35 interviewees, from seven different zoos. Another common theme was that interviewees mentioned that they would like to improve their skills in public speaking and visitor engagement, reported by eight interviewees from six different zoos. Other areas in which zoo staff wished to receive more training and improve their skills were species-specific information, English, psychology, evaluation, assessment and grading and more. Several zoo educators mentioned that they would like to spend more time with the zookeepers and learn more about the practical animal care:
“I always like to learn more about, especially with certain species, how to take care of that specific animal. Because that is such golden material to use in lectures, to sneak in every now and then so that the material that I give to the guests is not only the stuff that you can also read in a book” – Interviewee 29
Awareness of legal requirements for zoo education
When interviewees were asked the question “Do you know that zoos are obliged to educate according to Swedish law?” 32 out of 35 interviewees said that they knew that zoos were required to educate according to Swedish law. However, only five interviewees were able to name the correct legislation.
Analysis of zoo signage
In total, across the 11 zoos that participated in the study, 404 species signs were analysed with respect to basic species facts, conservation, ecology, ethology and animal welfare.
Basic species facts
Eight-eight percent (n=354) of species signs included information about the size of the animal species, i.e. the expected weight, length, height or wingspan for individuals of the species. Eighty-six percent (n=349) of signage included information about the geographical distribution of the species, and 84% (n=341) included information about the diet of the species. Seventy-five percent (n=305) of species signs included information about reproduction (e.g., number of offspring or duration of gestation). Fifty-nine percent (n=237) of species signs included information about the lifespan of the species.
Conservation
Sixty-eight percent (n=273) of species signs included information about the threat status of the species according to the IUCN Redlist, the Swedish Redlist or equivalent measure for domesticated species. Forty-four percent (n=177) of the total number of species signs included information about the threats (e.g., poaching, logging, agriculture, climate change) risking the survival of the species, and 46% (n=184) included information about conservations efforts aimed at the species. Thirty-four percent of species signs (n=136) included information about how the specific zoo contributed to conservation of the species. Seventeen percent (n=67) of species signs included information about how zoo visitors could contribute to conservation of the species.
Animal welfare and animal care in the zoo
Four percent (n=17) of species signs included information about the enclosure that that species was kept in (e.g. size of enclosure). Three percent (n=12) of species signs included information about feeding of the species in the zoo, and 2% (n=9) included information about enrichment of the species in the zoo. One percent (n=5) of species signs included information about training of the species in the zoo.
Zoo visitor questionnaire
Attitudes towards zoos
Using a 7-item Likert scale where 1 indicated Completely disagree and 7 indicated Completely agree, questionnaire respondents were asked about their attitudes towards zoos. Thirty-seven percent of respondents (n=233) indicated that they liked to visit zoos (i.e., chose a 6 or a 7 on the Likert scale). Forty-eight percent (n=299) agreed that zoos were important to conservation of endangered species, and 36% (n=220) agreed that zoos in Sweden take good care of their animals.
Best zoo experience
Questionnaire respondents were asked to describe their best or most positive zoo experience, and these were categorized using thematic analysis. 513 respondents answered this question and there was great variation in features described in their responses. The top three most common responses were responses that included education/learning (n=83), animals in good condition/well cared for (n=72) and large animal enclosures (n=70).
Worst zoo experience
Questionnaire respondents were also asked to describe their worst or most negative zoo experience, and these were categorized using thematic analysis. 512 respondents answered the question. Here, there were two features that stood out as the paramount most common responses: seeing animals in bad condition/not well cared for (n=219) and seeing small animal enclosures (n=196).
Perceptions of animal welfare in Swedish zoos
Questionnaire respondents were asked about their perceptions regarding animal welfare and related factors; size and design of animal enclosures and the animals’ opportunities to express natural behaviour. A 7-item Likert scale, where 1 indicated completely disagree and 7 indicated completely agree, was used. Seventeen percent of respondents agreed (i.e., chose a 6 or 7 on the Likert scale) that animal enclosures in Swedish zoos were large enough for the animals, while slightly more respondents, 24%, agreed that zoos in Sweden design and furnish their animal enclosures in ways suitable for the species kept in the enclosure. Only 14% of respondents agreed that animals in Swedish zoos can express their natural behaviour, and similarly, 14% agreed that animals in zoos in Sweden are doing well.
Conservation learning at last zoo visit
Forty-six percent (n=289) of questionnaire respondents reported that they had learned something new during their last zoo visit. Twenty-four percent (n=154) of respondents had, during their last zoo visit, noticed suggestions about how they could contribute to conservation of endangered species. The most common suggestion respondents reported to have noticed was to donate money, followed by change consumption habits, become a species sponsor at the zoo, support organizations, buy products (e.g., souvenirs) at the zoo where part of the money was donated to conservation, plant flowers or build insect hotels for pollinators, pick up litter in nature and recycle bottles at the zoo where deposit money was donated to conservation.
Impact of zoo visits on conservation behaviour
Twenty-nine percent (n=184) of respondents reported that they had contributed to conservation of endangered species as a result of a zoo visit. The most frequent action respondents reported to have taken to support conservation was to donate money, followed by become a species sponsor at the zoo and buy products at the zoo where part of the money was donated to conservation.