Conservation Education Impacts of Animal Ambassadors in Zoos

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe the paper shows two very important things that could be highlighted: that since there´s no difference among the kind of visitor experience, zoos should favour the ones that are lesse damaging/stressful for the animals; and the importance of having personal conversations with visitors as to establish a dialogue on conservation. I did enjoy the paper and would like to offer these two topics for discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank-you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this is a well-designed and important study. The weaknesses (ie, small sample size for control group) are acknowledged. That being said, the results are pretty clear, and hugely important: this study suggests that animal encounters do not contribute significantly to visitor knowledge, attitude, or behavior any more than a "normal" visit does. I would emphasize even more that this suggests zoos need to evaluate why they are doing certain animal encounters. I note that such encounters are often revenue generating - this may be a valid reason for doing them, but zoos should acknowledge this. Any conservation link is probably over-stated (unless of course the funds generated go directly to conservation actions).

In the introduction (for example, around lines 64-68, I would add something indicating the importance of revenue-generation from special encounter programs. We can’t ignore the fact that this may be a driving motivation for the creation and implementation of such programs (and this too can have positive conservation impacts).

Lines 147ff – can you clarify that when recruiting people (other than those registered for animal encounters), you do not know ultimately which group they will fall into:  penguin parade, exhibit viewing, or control group, is that correct? Is the time of the penguin parade advertised at the zoo?

Data collection (lines 184ff) - can you include (here or in results) how long it took to complete the pre and post questionnaires?

Lines 206-207: While this might simply reflect my lack of familiarity with analysis of survey data, I don't know what Cronbach’s alpha and Keiser-Meyer-Olkin tests are. That is probably my lack of understanding, but it might be helpful to clarify, given the broad audience you aim to reach.

Lines 248: 180 is a good sample size. The control group is a little small, but it is what it is. I wonder if some additional control data may be collected on a day when maintenance of the penguin exhibit means visitors will not have a chance to see them, would help increase this group?

Results - I think the results could be presented more clearly. The graphs are a bit hard to read. You are including 3 variables on the graphs: pre/post, type of experience, and rating. There are several alternative ways this could be visually shown, and I encourage the authors to play around with these alternatives and find a clearer representation. Stacked bar graphs make it notoriously difficult to visualize patterns. I would recommend using grouped bar graphs rather than stacked. It is visually easier to see differences that way. I have a few suggestions for how to show this: can you show the average response with error bars for each - so, average pre for penguin parade, average post for penguin parade; average pre for encounter, average post for encounter, etc? Another way that may be visually effective is to show pre above the axis and post below the axis (just get rid of the - sign).  3D graphs are also a possibility, but these present their own challenges to viewing and interpretation. I would suggest playing around with these (or other) alternatives to see if you can present the results a bit more clearly.

Line 318: I think this should be overarching, not overreaching (spell check often makes that change)

Lines 385ff: were docents present at the exhibit? That is, did some people who only viewed the exhibit also have the opportunity to hear specifically about conservation actions? This could certainly impact the results.

Lines 430ff: the big challenge is that behavior change, if it occurs, will occur some time after the zoo visit (potentially a long time after). Follow up surveys, for example one week or one month later, could help in this regard, but responses are usually very low. There is also the potential bias based on participants providing the answer that is most desirable, even if not truthful.

Line 452: “changed” should be “change”

Line 472: insert “by including” between “questionnaire” and “alternative”

Line 487: do you mean “with caution” (rather than “without caution”)?

As I noted earlier, I would emphasize even more that these results clearly call into question the role that ambassador animals have in conservation and behavior change. This is not to say they do not serve a role, but it may not be the role that zoos have emphasized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank-you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript assesses the attitude and thoughts of visitors (and non-visitors, control group) after exhibition or contact with penguins in a Zoo. The justification is relevant and the methodology seems adequate. with the exception of statistical analysis. There are some gaps in the methodology for grouping and analyzing the data, which I noted in the text. It is necessary to redo some statistical analysis. Then, depending on the results, the discussion should be more coherent with the findings.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank-you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Abstract

13- 15 During this study, a quasi-experimental repeated measures questionnaire was used to determine how differing experiences with ambassador Humboldt penguins (Spheniscus humboldti) affected visitors to a UK zoo’s likelihood to perform PEB’s and knowledge of conservation actions

This is a challenging sentence, please consider simplifying.

24-25 than they previously participated in.

Doesn't really make sense. I know what you are trying to say but maybe just revise to say 'than they previously had".

Introduction

31-44 Great opening argument and support for this study!

64-65 …..animal ambassadors also often involves…

Too many words. Revise to 'often involves'

74-75 …..aggression, avoidance and stress behaviours have been observed in response to visitors [34,35].

Are you able to provide specific examples please?

77 replace 4 with four.

88 Extra space between ’zoos ‘and ‘Likewise’. Please check for additional spacing throughout this manuscript.

88-90 Likewise focus on knowledge or attitude changes associated with 88 zoo CE delivery provides only potential for speculation as to the realised conservation 89 delivery (i.e., via behaviour change).

This is a very confusing sentence, please consider simplifying.

90 achieved

I suggest this word is replaced with ‘‘conducted’.

90-92 Where follow up studies have been achieved, findings for visitor reported behavioural intention and actual behavioural outcomes have been variable.

Can you add in what these variations were so it is clear to the reader what behavioural outcomes could be expected.

Footnote 2 to a target audience and are often therefore used as target

I would suggest deleting the ‘often therefore’ as it is too wordy.

Methods 

I would like to have seen odds ratios used in this study as they would provide clear and concise results that are easy for the reader to interpret quicky. The Methods are clear, however, the way the Results have to be written up as a result, can result in wordiness and loss of meaning for the reader. I am not suggesting these are changes, it is a just a note of interest.

109 prior to and immediately after

What do you mean by prior to? This could be before they come to the zoo, or do you mean on entry? Perhaps refer to the explanation further in this section, or state ‘on entry’. The same for ‘after their visit’, please state ‘on exit’.

118 extra space between ‘observed’ and ‘trained’

153 …did prescribe…

Change to prescribed – keep sentences short and punchy.

153 …that needed…

Delete

153 …and so messages related to…

I suggest this is deleted as it is wordy and replace with ‘including’ sustainable fishing…

157 …not available to participants in the ‘control’ group…

This group may have in fact seen the signage and walked by, therefore I suggest this wording is softened to reflect this.

158-159 …at their own choosing and may not have been observed by those in other groups but was available to them.

This would be more suited to the Discussion.

161 Figure legend – I feel you should add in the name of the zoo you worked with here and there is no logo on the signage. Also, do you have a clearer picture of this signage?

166-167 No question items were identified as problematic (i.e., based on pilot-participant understanding, ease of answering and time to answer).

Not necessary, I recommend deleting.

180 Responses to these non-penguin items were not analysed.  

I don’t feel this needs to be in here as you have said earlier in the text why these questions were added. I would suggest deleting.

192 – 193 Did the zoo provide you with a reference number? It would be worth adding this in here too ensure you have covered all bases.

208 …’unsatisfactory results…’

Could you find another term here please as it appears you didn’t like the results ?

217-219 Table 2.

Please check table for formatting and ensure capital letters are used at the start of each sentence.

224-225 For example, answers such as ‘breeding programmes’ were excluded from the personally achievable category as whilst a valid action, they are performed by other individuals/organisations.

Great justification!

Results

251-252 participants who did not complete a post-visit questionnaire were excluded but data were not available to determine reasons for non-completion.

Please capitalise the first word of the sentence and restructure for clarity. I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

266-270 …on the Likert scale by: 0.7 (SD ± 1.24) for buying sustainable fish/encouraging others to do so; 1.56 (SD ± 1.16) for volunteering for conservation; 1.04 (SD ± 1.03) for telling friends what they can do to help conserve wildlife; 0.16 (SD ± 0.48) for using re-usable shopping bags; and 0.37 (SD ± 1.02) for donating money to conservation.

Can you write this in a clearer way for the readers please. There is evidence here that there is positive behaviour change but it is lost in the numbers and the wording. The wording from …’the Likert scale…’ has detracted from the message.

Suggest: There was an average increase in likelihood to perform positive behavioural changes for buying sustainable fish/encouraging others to do so (0.7. SD ±1.24)….

270-271 Figure 2.

Fabulous choice of graphs – these are really clear and impactful!

271-276 Responses to pre-visit and post-visit rating scale items (where 1 = always and 5 = never in the pre-visit questionnaire, and 1 =very likely and 5 = highly unlikely in the post-visit questionnaire) by visit type, in response to how often they already/are likely to (a) buy sustainable fish, (b) Volunteer for conservation, (c) tell friends how they can help to conserve wildlife, (d) use re-usable shopping bags and (e) donate money to conservation, in the pre- and post-visit questionnaires respectively.

The charts are showing % of answers rather than rating scales? Consider rewording your legend to be very clear what you are reporting here.

291 chi-square

Check for capitalisation throughout this manuscript.

304-306 Of the 45 participants who gave an invalid or no response in the pre-visit, five were

able to give a valid response in the post-visit questionnaire, with the remaining 40 giving no valid response post-visit.

Delete - too wordy and you have information in the following sentence which repeats what is said here.

306-312 Of participants who gave a valid response in the pre-visit

questionnaire (n = 94), only seven gave an identical answer in the post-visit questionnaire. Overall, 87 (64.9%) participants changed their response to the question about CAs following their zoo visit. The key CA themes identified (i.e., with responses representing >9%) in the pre-visit questionnaire were: ‘No valid answer’, ‘Climate change’, ‘Sustainable fishing’ and ‘Habitat protection/Environmental Conservation’. These changed in the post-visit survey to include the additional key theme of ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ (Figure 3).

This is actually very confusing to read. Are you able to put this data into a table for clarity?

Discussion

323 (Spheniscus humboldti)

Scientific name can be removed after fist instance in the manuscript. Please delete.

326 spacing between ‘factors’ and ‘a’

358-360 This apparent decreased intention to perform these behaviours could be supported further by the theory of planned behaviour, whereby a perceived consequence of performing a behaviour influences the likelihood to perform it [45,46].

This is a heavy sentence and has to be read several times to be able to understand the content. Please consider revising.

368-370 Whilst this research highlights potential trends in types of PEB, it did not explore the reasoning behind potential differences in response for different PEB’s, and thus future research to explore participants motivations may enable zoos to capitalise on the most effective topics to target when developing new interpretive materials.

A very good recommendation. Could you please cut this into two smaller sentences please, as the reader is lost in the size of the sentence.

375 parade group

Please add inverted commas to these groups, throughout the paper, for clarity.

377-379 …8.75 times more likely to learn something new and 23.54 times more likely to recall specific conservation actions than those who visited a self-interpreted exhibit.

Odds ratios, like these above, would be a good way of simplifying your data and explaining it like this. I would not ask you to re-do the analyses, however, this paper would benefit from being presented in a simplified way such as this, as per my earlier comment.

393-395 This indicates 393 that the additional interaction available to ‘encounter’ visits was unsuccessful in stimulating additional change…

There is a very strong argument here for the welfare implications for the animals concerned. I would like to see this area explored in this paper, if only by adding in a couple of sentences.

395 …PEB, possible…

Please break this sentence into two at this point.

399-400 Furthermore, staff-led discussion with visitors at the parade could explain their higher PEB intention…

Did you measure if any of the participants of the parade had spoken to the education staff afterwards to gain more information on the penguins or the messages being delivered? Another consideration is that there is a demographic of zoo visitors which goes beyond age and sex, which I feel has not been discussed. I feel adding something more than just age and sex warrants further discussion, if only as a study limitation.

402-404 ….rather than relying on passive learning of the participants depending on the questions they ask or presentations they hear in the background, could be beneficial in improving such programmes.

Could you suggest a way of getting this vital message out to zoos?

428 …social desirability bias, where participants may not be truthful with their responses if they conflict with social norms and could be perceived as undesirable.

Good point!

442-443 …of signage and other interpretation material at the zoo and has been documented elsewhere previously [68].

It would be good to hear your thoughts on the signage your have presented in the Figures above. Is it effective? Can you make recommendations for interpretation and signage?

443-444 However, the finding that the more interactive experiences (‘penguin parade’ and ‘encounter’) were unable to elicit differences in CA 444 knowledge among participants is contradictory to some previous research..

Was this due to the person delivering the sessions? How many education staff were involved in the delivery of these sessions? Could you assess the difference in response elicited by the different people who delivered the sessions? I would like to see you discuss the impact that the presenters may have had on individuals - were you able to control for this?

You also need to add in that there may have been a seasonal effect on animal behaviour - it was late winter/early spring. Visitor numbers would be lower and more seasoned outdoor people may be more likely to visit an outdoor attraction during these colder months. These people might also be conservationists or supporters of sustainable lifestyles anyway.

452 …changed…

Should be ‘change’ – deleted the last letter (d).

461 …actions relating to the Humboldt Penguin.

This was measured on visitors leaving the zoo, however, their actual behaviour change after they leave the zoo is very important. I would like to see a recommendation for future studies to include a further follow up study to capture real behaviour change.

465 ..increases..

Is there a word missing here?

491-492 …than they previously participated in.

Confusing tail end to this sentence - see comment in abstract. This is also a direct repeat of what was said in the abstract. I suggest this is deleted.

References.

There was an incredible number of papers used to collect the information for this manuscript and the authors should be commended for their work.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank-you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments

I appreciate the opportunity to review the manuscript. “Conservation-Education Impacts of Animal Ambassadors in Zoos”.

The topic is relevant and the data collected is of scientific interest. In this latest version, the authors changed parts of the text that seemed to be better than before. I still think the authors did not choose well the statistical analysis. Choosing a question-by-question analysis was justifiable, but it can cause a biased interpretation of the answers. However, the authors conducted the discussion parsimoniously.