2  

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS   2  

SUMMARY   3  

INTRODUCTION   5  

LITERATURE  REVIEW   9  

QUESTIONS  RAISED   15  

METHODS   17  

RESULTS  AND  DISCUSSION   21  

CONCLUSIONS  AND  IMPLICATIONS   41  

BIBLIOGRAPHY   44  

APPENDICES   47  

   

 

3  

SUMMARY  Zoos  are  popular  destinations  for  a  day  out.  However,  besides  providing  recreation,  many  zoos  

also   aim   to   stimulate   conservation   of   wildlife.   Providing   interpretative   material   such   as  

information  signs  can  help  zoos  achieve  this  goal.    However,  in  order  to  do  that  effectively,  such  

materials   must   be   well   tailored   to   the   zoo’s   visitors.   One   very   large   visitor   group   in   zoos   is  

families,  making  optimization  of  interpretative  material  for  this  audience  an  important  topic.  

ZSL  London  Zoo’s  Tiger  Territory,  which  opened  in  March  2013,  is  one  exhibit  in  which  special  

attention  was  given  to  developing  effective  interpretation  materials  for  families.  It  uses  a  story  

about   Hari   the   wild   tiger   together   with   life   size   tiger   sculptures.   This   is   a   novel   method   of  

interpretation   in   zoos,   and   no   research   has   taken   place   yet   to   see   if   it   effectively   engages   a  

family  audience  in  a  meaningful  way.  

There  is,  however,  some  literature  to  suggest  that  it  might  be  effective.  First  of  all,  both  the  story  

and   the   sculptures   have   the   potential   to   play   into   the   family   agenda   of   enjoyment   and   social  

interaction.   In   addition,   the   literature   regarding   sculptures   in   zoos   in   particular   appears  

adamant   that   sculptures   stimulate   love   for   nature,   are   educational   and   also   provide   a   lot   of  

family   enjoyment.   Furthermore,   specific   narrative   theory   suggests   that   stories   are   a   very  

natural  way  to  learn,  and  that  it  has  great  potential  for  engaging  people  emotionally.  However,  

other  sources  argue  that  using  narrative  doesn’t  always  work,  and  even  that  signs  do  not  hold  

great  potential  for  engaging  families  in  any  case.    

Altogether,  this  raises  a  number  of  specific  sub  questions  on  the  success  with  which  stories  and  

sculptures   can   engage   a   family   audience   in   a   meaningful   manner.   In   this   study,   visitor  

observations   combined  with   visitor   surveys  were   used   to   investigate   how  much   and   in  what  

ways  families  engage  with  the  stories  and  sculptures  in  Tiger  Territory,  how  families  enjoy  this,  

to  what  extent  it  is  meaningful  both  on  a  cognitive  and  an  affective  level,  and  how  suitable  and  

   

 

4  

enriching   families   think   these   interpretation   elements   are.   Furthermore,   it   was   investigated  

whether  visitors   actually  notice  how   the   signs   and   sculptures  work   together   as   a   story  about  

Hari  the  wild  tiger.  

In  total,  311  observations  were  made  and  53  surveys  were  taken,  though  the  resulting  database  

was  much   larger   for   the   sculptures   than   for   the   stories.   Together,   these   results   showed   that  

family  groups  engage  with  the  sculptures  to  a  great  extend  and  in  the  ways  that  were  predicted  

by  literature.  Furthermore,  it  suggested  that  families  very  much  enjoy  them,  feel  they  are  very  

suited   to   them  and   that   it   adds   a   lot   to   their   visit.   Though   somewhat   less   unequivocal,  many  

visitors   did   also   feel   that   the   sculptures  were   educational   and  made   them  more   enthusiastic  

about   tigers.  The   results   concerning   the   story-­‐based   signs  were  very   similar   in  most   regards,  

except   for   –   importantly   -­‐   on   the   degree   of   use.   Very   few   families   interacted   with   these  

interpretation  elements.  Lastly,   the  data   showed   that  very   few   families  noticed  how   the   signs  

and  sculptures  work  together  as  a  story  about  Hari  the  wild  tiger.  

In   conclusion,   this   study  provides   support   for   the   ideas   in   the   literature  about   the  benefits  of  

sculptures,  and  could  help  zoos  plan  future  animal  sculptures.  Practical  implications  regarding  

the   story-­‐based   signs   are   less   clear,   and   additional   research   into   the   specific   effect   of   the  

narrative  would  be  useful.  What   is  clear   is   that   it  might  be  beneficial   to  more  clearly  signpost  

the   story   idea,   as   to   increase   understanding   of   this   concept.   Other   further   studies   that   could  

follow   on   from   this   study   include  more   in-­‐depth   research   into   the   educational   and   empathic  

benefits  of  the  sculptures.  

However,  even  without  these  further  studies,  the  results  presented  here  represent  a  significant  

contribution  to  the  field  in  that  they  provide  the  first  solid  data  concerning  the  use  of  sculptures  

and  stories  in  zoo  interpretation.  

   

 

5  

INTRODUCTION  Zoos   and   aquariums   are   highly   popular   destinations   for   a   day   out.   In   fact,   over   650   million  

people  worldwide  visit  zoos  each  year.  Often,   the  main  motivation  for  these  visits   is   to  have  a  

good   time   (Falk  &  Dierking,   1992).   However,  many  modern   zoos   regard   themselves   as  more  

than  a  destination  for  a  ‘fun  day  out’.  Besides  providing  recreation,  most  zoos  aim  to  stimulate  

conservation  of  wildlife.  (Anon,  2007)  

In   a   relatively   straightforward  way,   zoos   can   do   this   by   donating  money   from   ticket   sales   to  

conservation  projects,  and  this   indeed   is  often  done.  Another  prominent  way   is   to   inspire  and  

educate   the   zoo   visitors   about   nature   and   conservation   by   providing   an   experience  with   the  

natural   world   that   is   not   easily   available   elsewhere.   Though   it   is   sometimes   questioned   if  

visiting  a  zoo  actually  makes  one  more  inclined  to  support  conservation  efforts,  evidence  is  now  

becoming  available   that   zoo  visits  do   in   fact   reinforce   such   conservation  values   and  attitudes  

(Falk,  Reinhard,  Vernon,  et  al.,  2007).  

Within  the  zoo  visit,   there  are  different  aspects   that  could  potentially  contribute  to  this  effect.  

First   of   all,   seeing   the   live   animals   and   the   environment   they   are   in   is   probably   important.  

However,   in   addition   to   that,   interpretative   material   including   signs,   talks   or   live  

demonstrations  can  increase  the  impact  of  a  visit  (Weiler  &  Smith,  2009).    

Therefore,   optimization   of   such   interpretative  material   for   the   visitors   is   an   important   topic.  

And   as  with   any   optimization,   this   probably   happens   best  with   the   visitor   in  mind   (Scanlon,  

Whitelegg   &   Yates,   1999).   Like   other   types   of   museums   or   science   learning   centres,   a   very  

important   visitor   group   to   consider   in   the   case   of   zoos   is   families,   as   they   make   up   a   large  

segment   of   the   audience,   potentially   constituting   over   half   of   the   visitors   (Borun,   1997;  

Ellenbogen,  Luke  &  Dierking,  2004;  Briseño-­‐Garzón,  Anderson  &  Anderson,  2007).  One  recent  

   

 

6  

and  significant  zoo  exhibit   in  which   this  group  was   indeed  given  specific   consideration   is  ZSL  

London  Zoo’s  new  flagship  exhibit  ‘Tiger  Territory’,  which  opened  in  March  2013.    

The  exhibit  consists  of  a  large  central  tiger  enclosure  and  has  a  five-­‐section  story  trail  winding  

around  it.  Though  there  are  also  a  number  of  other  interpretative  elements,  it  is  the  story  trail  

that  is  of  interest.  This  trail  was  possible  because  the  enclosure  was  designed  in  such  a  way  that  

the  visitor  journey  is  largely  linear  and  unidirectional  (see  figure  1).  

 

FIGURE  1  -­‐  MAP  OF  'TIGER  TERRITORY'  WITH  THE  LOCATIONS  OF  INTERPRETATION  SECTIONS  ONE  TO  FIVE  

Each  section  of  the  story  trail  contains  three  main  elements  (see  figure  2).  First  of  all,  there  is  a  

chapter   of   ‘A   Tiger’s   Tale’,  which   tells   the   story   of   Hari,   a  wild   Sumatran   tiger,   from   birth   to  

uncertain  present  (see  appendix  for  full  story).  Secondly,  there  is  a  life-­‐size  tiger  sculpture  that  

brings  the  scene  from  ‘A  Tiger’s  Tale’  alive.  For  example,  in  the  first  chapter  it  is  a  sculpture  of  a  

new-­‐born   tiger.   Lastly,   each   chapter   also   includes   an   ‘At   the   Zoo’   sign,   which   contains  

information   about   the   zoo   tigers   relevant   to   the   content   of   the   ‘A   Tiger’s   Tale’   chapter.   For  

example,   in   the   second   chapter   ‘Hari   Gets   Fierce’,   in   which   Hari   learns   to   hunt,   it   discusses  

feeding  at  the  zoo.  

   

 

7  

   

The   underlying   ideas   behind   the   use   of   a   story   was,   as   Tom   Sears,   head   developer   of   the  

interpretation  at  Tiger  Territory,  puts   it,     ‘to  try  to  tie  together  various  pieces  of  conservational  

information  and  to  make  them  as  palatable  as  possible  to  the  family  audience’  (Sears,  2013).  The  

sculpture   idea   complements   this   as   ‘a   good  way   to   bring   it   to   life,   and   to   draw   people   to   the  

interpretation  areas’.   Also,   the   sculptures  were   intended   to   ‘show  that  they  [the  real   tigers]  do  

move   in   incredibly   interesting   and   athletic  ways’  which  might   not   become   clear   from   the   real  

tigers,  as  the  they  are  likely  to  be  asleep  or  hidden  a  lot  of  the  time  (Ibid.).    

FIGURE  2,  THE  FIVE  CHAPTERS  OF  THE  INTERPRETATION  AT  TIGER  TERRITORY.    Chapter  1,  Meet  Hari  (and  his  mum)  Chapter  2,  Hari  Gets  Fierce  Chapter  3,  Hari  Has  a  Bad  Day  Chapter  4,  Hari  and  the  Humans  Chapter  5,  Hari  Shows  Them  Who’s  Boss  a  =  ‘A  Tiger’s  Tale’  signs  b  =  ‘At  the  Zoo’  signs  

 

   

 

8  

Altogether,  the  envisaged  family  visitor  journey  through  this  exhibit  consists  of  parents  reading  

the   story   together   with   their   children,   kids   climbing   on   the   sculptures   and   parents   taking  

pictures   of   the   kids   with   Hari.   This   was   then   hoped   to,   amongst   other   things,   result   in   an  

enjoyable  experience  and  an  increased  enthusiasm  about  tigers  (ZLS  London  Zoo,  2012).      

In  theory,  the  statues  and  sculptures  are  therefore  suggested  to  nicely  work  in  line  with  the  dual  

function   of   zoos:   providing   recreation  whilst   also   inspiring   the   visitors   to   care   about   nature.  

However,  with   this   being   a   novel   strategy,   it  was   not   clear   to  what   extent   this   theory  would  

actually   translate  to  practice,  especially  as  no  academic  data  exists  on  this   topic   in  zoos.  Since  

the   opening   of   Tiger   Territory,   an   initial   feedback   report   by   ZSL   London   Zoo   itself   has   been  

produced.   Besides   demonstrating   that   over   half   of   the   visitors   to   Tiger   Territory   do   indeed  

come   in   family   groups,   it   also   included   the  broad  observation   that   ‘the  sculptures  proved  very  

popular’  and  one  visitor  comment  stating  they  enjoyed  the  story  element  in  the  signs  (Murray,  

2013).  However,  no  structured  research  took  place  looking  into  these  elements.  

This  then,  raises  the  overarching  question  of  ‘To  what  extent  does  the  use  of  story-­‐based  signs  

and  sculptures  successfully  engage  a  family  audience  in  a  meaningful  manner?’  

   

 

9  

LITERATURE  REVIEW  To  start  answering  the  question  raised,  the  relevant  academic  literature  must  be  addressed,  and  

engaging  a  family  audience  with  museum  interpretation  is  a  well  developed  academic  discipline  

(Ellenbogen,  Luke  &  Dierking,  2004).  The  field  of  family  learning  in  museums  in  particular  has  a  

long   literature   (Borun,   2008).   This   section   will   cover   the   literature   relevant   to   the  

interpretation   in   Tiger   Territory,   thereby   putting   it   into   perspective.   First,   it   will   discuss   the  

family   agenda   and   its   consequences   for   engaging   families.   It   will   also   analyse   how   Tiger  

Territory  potentially  matches  up  with  this.  Next,  it  will  move  onto  a  more  specific  consideration  

of   the   use   of   stories   and   sculptures   in   zoo   interpretation,   linking   this   together   with   Tiger  

Territory   and   the   family   agenda.   Though   these   two   latter   specific   aspects   have   been   less  

thoroughly   covered   in   literature,   there   are   still   a   number   of   interesting   relevant   sources   to  

discuss.    

First  of  all,  it  is  important  to  define  what  exactly  constitutes  a  ‘family’.    McManus  has  described  

it  as  an  intergenerational  group  of  people  whose  members  share  close  relational  ties,  whether  

these  are  by  blood  or  not  (McManus,  1994).  This  definition  will  therefore  be  followed  here,  but  

with  the  addition  that  the  children  in  the  group  should  be  aged  between  four  and  12  as  this  was  

the  ‘family’  target  group  in  the  Tiger  Territory  interpretation  plan  which  was  deemed  likely  to  

interact  with  the  interpretation  material  as  described  earlier  (Sears,  2013).    

Secondly,   it   is   important   to   note   that   zoos   are   informal   learning   environments,   which  many  

visitors  including  families,  visit  voluntarily.  This  means  that  they  have  nearly  complete  freedom  

in   selecting   what   they   do   and   do   not   engage   with,   and   will   act   accordingly   (Allen,   2004).  

Therefore,   in  order  to  achieve  effective  engagement,  the  interpretation  needs  to  play  in  on  the  

family  agenda.  That  way,  the  families  are  likely  to  voluntarily  engage  with  the  material  on  offer.  

   

 

10  

This   so   called   ‘agenda’   is   a   combination   of   every   visitor’s   preconceptions   and   expectations.  

Studies   have   shown   that,   possibly   unsurprisingly,   enjoyment   is   highest   on   the   family   agenda  

(Falk  &  Dierking,  1992).    Furthermore,  as  often  emphasized  in  the  literature,  families  see  a  visit  

not   just  as  an  opportunity  to  enjoy  the  zoo,  but  also  to  enjoy  each  others  company  (McManus,  

1994;  Borun,  Cleghorn  &  Garfield,  1995;  Reade  &  Waran,  1996;  Rosenfeld,  1982)  Therefore,  the  

social  aspect  of  a  zoo-­‐visit  is  very  important.  

In   addition,   families   do   also   come   to   learn,   as   especially   parents   want   the   visit   to   be   a  

worthwhile  educational  experience,  rather  than  just  a  thrill  and  excitement  visit  as  would  be  the  

case  with,   for   example,   a   theme   park   trip   (McManus,   1994).   However,   they   do  want   to   learn  

effortlessly  and  in  an  enjoyable  manner  (Borun,  1997).    

Within   families,   parents   often   see   themselves   as   facilitators   for   the   learning   of   their   children  

(Heimlich  &   Falk,   2008).   Though   this   does   not   necessarily  mean   that   the   adults   do   not   learn  

themselves  (Briseño-­‐Garzón,  Anderson  &  Anderson,  2007),  it  does  mean  that  when  facilitated  in  

the  right  way,  learning  can  fit  nicely  within  the  family  agenda  of  enjoying  together.  Research  has  

also   shown   that   the   desire   to   learn   together   goes   beyond   a   theoretical   wish   of   the   parents.  

Actual  observations  of   families   in  museums  in  general  and  zoos   in  particular  have  shown  that  

such   social   interpretation   interaction   does   indeed   take   place   (McManus,   1994;   Parker   &  

Krockover,  2011;  Hensel,  1987).    

In   response   to   this,   it   has  been   suggested   that  paying   specific   attention   to   (social)   enjoyment  

could   enhance   meaningful   engagement   of   families   with   interpretation   material.   (Falk   &  

Dierking,  1992;  Borun,  1997).  A   specific   response  was  produced  by   the  Philadelphia/Camden  

informal   science   education   collaborative   (PISEC).   Based   on   a   study   of   family   learning   in   four  

Philadelphia   area  museums,   including   the   Philadelphia   zoo,   the   organisation   identified   seven  

characteristics  of  successful   family   learning  exhibits:  multi-­‐sided,  multi-­‐user,  accessible,  multi-­‐

outcome,   multi-­‐modal,   readable   and   relevant   (Borun,   Dirstas,   Johnson,   et   al.,   1998).   They  

   

 

11  

hypothesised,   and   demonstrated,   that   incorporating   these   seven   characteristics   into   displays  

increased  the  quality  and  amount  of  family  learning.  

Though   the   PISEC   principles   were   not   something   specifically   considered   during   the  

development  of  Tiger  Territory,  several  of  the  characteristics  are  reflected  in   it.  For  examples,  

the   sculptures   are   multi-­‐sided,   multi-­‐user   and   accessible.   The   story   signs   are   readable,   and  

relevant,  and  together,  they  are  multi-­‐modal.  However,  with  both  being  static  displays,  they  are  

not  multi-­‐outcome.    

Looking  more  generally,  one  can  naturally  envisage  stories,  when  written  well,  to  be  enjoyable,  

educational  and  allow  social   interaction.  Likewise,   the  sculptures  seem  intrinsically  enjoyable,  

allow  social   interaction   through  picture   taking,  and  are  also  potentially  educational.  However,  

these  are  all  just  broad  assumptions.  Therefore,  the  following  sections  will  discuss  the  literature  

on  the  use  of  stories  and  sculptures  more  specifically,  analysing  how  it  fits  in  with  the  previous  

ideas  as  well  as  looking  into  what  new  ideas  this  literature  has  to  offer.    

Unlike  the  general   topic  of   interpretation  for   families,   the  use  of  stories,  or  narratives,   in  zoos  

and  other  museums  does  not  have  a  vast  literature.  One  potential  reason  for  this  is  that  due  to  

their  often  non-­‐linear  structure,   it   can  be  difficult   to   incorporate  a  story   that   runs   through  an  

entire  exhibit.    

Yet   interestingly,   as   early   at   1968,   an   article   was   published   in   Curator:   the  museum   journal  

concerning  the  importance  of  telling  good  stories  in  zoos.  In  fact,  it  even  argued  that  telling  good  

stories  was  more   important   than   the  display  of   rare   animals   itself   (Conway,  1968).  However,  

this  ‘story’,  which  Conway  referred  to,  did  not  necessarily  have  to  be  a  narrative  in  the  strictest  

sense   of   ‘a   causally   connected   sequence   of   events   represented   in   space   and   time’.   Rather   it  

talked   more   generally   about   the   presentation   of   relevant   information.   Nonetheless,   it   is  

interesting  to  note  that  even  before  interpretation  in  zoos  had  taken  its  modern  forms,  stories  

were  already  being  discussed.  

   

 

12  

There  is  also  a  stream  of  thought  within  the  modern  interpretation  community  which  suggests  

that  material   can  be  offered  very   effectively   through  narrative   (Kelly,   2010).  One  of   the  most  

important  arguments   for   this   is  not   that   it   allows  enjoyable   social   interaction,  but   rather   that  

narratives  are  a  natural  way  for  people  to  learn  (Bedford,  2001).    This  argument  is  based  on  the  

work   of   Bruner,  which   describes   how  people   are   natural   storytellers   and   how  humans  make  

sense  of  the  world  through  narrative  (Bruner,  1990).  This  implies,  Bedford  argues,  that  with  a  

storytelling  strategy,  information  may  be  more  likely  to  be  remembered  by  the  visitor.  Besides  

being  informative,  storytelling  also  has  the  potential  to  access  not  just  the  cognitive,  but  also  the  

affective  level,  allowing  emotional  engagement  (Bedford,  2001;  Furse-­‐Roberts,  2009).    

Research  in  actual  museums  has  supported  the  idea  that  in  certain  cases,  especially  in  cultural  

and  historical  museums,  the  storytelling  strategy  can  indeed  be  very  effective.  However,  a  study  

looking  into  the  use  of  narrative  in  a  science  museum  suggests  that  offering  the  information  as  a  

narrative   can   also   be   challenging,   and   less   effective   at   engaging   the   visitor   than   other  

interpretation  methods  (Allen,  2004).  Furthermore,  a  study  by  Diamond  showed  that  families  in  

museums  are  not   likely   to  read  signs  at  all   (Diamond,  1986),  and  general  research  within  ZSL  

also   shows   that   often   few   visitors   read   any   signs   (Murray,   2012a,   2012b).   So   together,   this  

literature   does   not   provide   any   strong   conclusion   on   the   potential   benefits   of   the   use   of  

narrative  in  museums.    

Even  more  so  than   for   the  use  of  narrative,   the  use  of  statues  has  not  been  discussed   in  great  

detail   in   the   literature,   and  most   of   the   information   has   been   collated   in   the   relatively   short  

book  called  ‘Political  animals  –  Public  Art  in  American  Zoos  and  Aquariums’  (Donahue  &  Trump,  

2007).     In   a   certain  way,   this   is   surprising   as   touchable   statues   are   very   common   in  modern  

zoos,  and  have  been  for  over  thirty  years  now.    

Such  statues  became  popular  as  a  response  to  the  gradual  abolishment  of  contact  with  real  zoo  

animals.  Though  this  abolishment  increased  safety  in  zoos,  it  also  took  away  a  tactile  experience  

   

 

13  

with   animals,  which  had  been   regarded   as   very   valuable.   So   in   order   to   create   a   new   type  of  

tactile,   up   close   experience  with   animals,   the   number   of   touchable   animal   sculptures   in   zoos  

was  greatly  increased  (Donahue  &  Trump,  2007).    

Though   no   structured   studies   have   taken   place   concerning   statues   in   zoos,   there   are   many  

claims  of  their  virtues.  First  of  all,  they  are  said  to  be  very  popular,  especially  amongst  children.  

As  Donahue  and  Trump  put   it,   the  sculptures  are   ‘inevitably  swarmed  by  children,  who  want  to  

touch  and  climb  on  them.  If  the  sculptures  are  bronze,  their  noses  and  backs  are  usually  worn  shiny  

by  tiny  hands;  children  pet  them  as  though  they  are  alive’  (Ibid.  p84).    

Besides   simply   being   popular   with   children,   zoo   professionals   also   praise   the   sculptures   for  

being   able   to   help   people   develop   empathy   for   animals,   and   thereby   inspire   them   to   protect  

nature.  For  example,  Hillary  Hatfield,  who  represents  animal  sculptor  Bart  Walter,  has  enthused  

that  sculpture  can   ‘give  visitors  a  tactile  experience’  with  the  animals   that   ‘moves  them  towards  

empathy’  (Hatfield,  2003).  Likewise,  the  former  US  National  Zoo’s  director  argued  that  through  

art   ‘we  hope  to  inspire  our  visitors  to  develop  stronger  bonds  with  animals  and  motivate  them  to  

help  protect  nature’  (Donahue  &  Trump,  2007)  (p87).    

Furthermore,  sculptures  are  regarded  as  educational  on  a  more  direct   level  too.  Tom  Tischler,  

who  has  made  animal  sculptures  for  zoos  all  over  the  world,  states  on  his  website  that  statues  

‘communicate   information   about   the   animal’s   size,   character,   anatomy,   behaviour   and   typical  

postures.’   and   that   ‘People   come   away   from   interacting   with   the   sculpture   intuitively   knowing  

more   about   the   animal’   (Tischler,   2005).   Though   this   is   not   based   on   any   published   data,  

Tischler  has   ‘spend  countless  hours  in  zoos,  observing  and  photographing  visitor  behaviour,  their  

interaction  with  and  response  to  both  sculpture  and  animal  exhibits.’  (Tischler,  2013).  

Lastly,   the   photo   opportunities   that   statues   provide   are   also   mentioned   as   an   important  

attraction  point.  Mark  Reed  of   the  Sedgwick  Country  Zoo  even  stated   that   their  sculpture  of  a  

Grizzly   bear  was   ‘the  most  popular   ‘photo  site’   in   the  zoo’   (Donahue  &  Trump,   2007).   Tischler  

   

 

14  

too,   speaks  about   the  how  his   sculptures   ‘provide  a  focal  point  for  photo  opportunities’   as   they  

‘are  always  willing  to  pose’.  (Tischler,  2005)  

Altogether   then,   the   touchable   sculptures   much   like   the   ones   in   Tiger   Territory   are   highly  

praised  by  zoo  professionals  for  helping  to  inspire  people  about  nature  both  on  the  emotional  

level  and  by  providing  more  ‘conventional’  education.  Furthermore,  they  are  thought  to  do  this  

very  successfully,  or  at  the   least,   to  reach  great  numbers  of  people,  of  which  families  form  the  

biggest  group.  

This  success  could  potentially  be  explained   in   terms  of   the  match  with   the   family  agenda  that  

was   discussed   earlier,   and   the   ideas   on   how   to   play   into   it.   Children   enjoy   climbing   and  

touching,  and  through  taking  pictures  and  potentially  through  helping  kids  climb,  the  sculptures  

can  also  facilitate  social  quality  time.  And  because  of   the   life-­‐like  qualities  of  many  sculptures,  

this  play  will  still   feel  relevant  to  the  educational  side  of   the  zoo   in  which  visitors   learn  about  

animals.  However,  as  with  the  stories,  these  are  mostly  assumptions  and  claims  that  need  to  be  

backed  up  with  real  data.    

   

 

15  

QUESTIONS  RAISED  Altogether,   the  academic   literature   sets  up  a   context   suggesting   that  narrative  and   sculptures  

could  stimulate  meaningful  engagement,  as  was  suggested  in  the  Tiger  Territory  interpretation  

plan.  However,  as  there   is  no  actual  data  yet  regarding  the  use  of  narrative   in  zoos,   the  use  of  

sculptures,  or  the  combination  of  the  two,  an  appealing  invitation  for  practical  research  into  the  

question  of  ‘To  what  extent  does  the  use  of  story  based  signs  and  sculptures  successfully  engage  

a  family  audience  in  a  meaningful  manner?’  arises.  

In  fact,  the  suggestions  from  the  literature  and  the  interpretation  plan  also  provoke  a  number  of  

specific  sub  questions.  First  of  all,  in  response  to  both  ideas  by  ZSL  and  claims  in  the  literature  

about   sculptures  and  statues  being   inviting   to  a   family  audience,   the  question   ‘How  much  are  

the  statues  and  stories  actually  used  by  families  in  practice?’  arises.  Or  more  specifically  ‘What  

fraction  of  the  groups  stop  and  how  long  do  they  interact  with  these  two  interpretation  types  in  

Tiger   Territory?’.   After   all,   whether   it’s   enjoyment,   interaction   or   conveying   messages,   the  

materials  need  to  be  used  in  order  to  achieve  this,  making  this  question  a  good  starting  point.  

Secondly,   the   question   ’How   do   families   actually   interact   with   the   stories   and   the   statues?’  

arises.  Are  stories  indeed  read  together,  do  the  children  actually  climb  on  the  statues  as  much  as  

claimed,  and  do  the  parents  really  take  pictures  of  this  as  often  as  suggested?.  

Moving  onto  a  point  high  on  the  family  agenda:  How  much  do  families  enjoy  engaging  with  the  

sculptures  and  statues?  And  what  is  it  that  they  enjoy  about  it?    

However,   as   said,   a   successful   visit,   at   least   in   the   eyes   of   zoos,   comprises   more   than   just  

enjoyment.   Besides   being   recreational,   zoos   would   also   like   to   see   the   engagement   being  

meaningful  and  stimulate  a  love  and  care  for  nature.  In  the  specific  case  of  Tiger  Territory,  the  

questions   of   ‘Do   people   learn   from   the   materials?’   and   ‘Do   the   visitors   grow   more   fond   of  

tigers?’  arise.  Also  related  to  the  idea  of  meaningfulness  is  the  question  of  whether  visitors  are  

   

 

16  

catching  onto  the  idea  of  a  running  story  about  a  specific  tiger,  with  sculptures  to  illustrate,  or  if  

this  idea  gets  lost.    

Then,  on  a  more  overarching  level,  it  is  also  interesting  to  see  how  suitable  the  family  audience  

perceives  the  story  based  signs  and  statues  to  be  overall.  

Lastly,  it  is  important  to  put  the  sculptures  and  stories  into  context,  as  they  are  only  one  part  of  

the  Tiger  Territory  exhibit.  Therefore,  an  important   last  question  that  arises  is  how  important  

having  these  elements   is   to   families.   In  other  words,   ‘How  much  do  the  stories  and  sculptures  

enrich  the  families’  visits  to  Tiger  Territory?’  

   

 

17  

METHODS  In  order  to  gain  insights  into  these  various  sub  questions,  visitor  research  was  conducted  at  ZSL  

London  Zoo’s  Tiger  Territory.  The  following  section  will  discuss  the  two  methods  used,  which  

were  visitor  tracking  and  visitor  surveys,  and  cover  both  the  details  of  the  procedures  and  the  

reasons  for  their  use.    

Unobtrusive   visitor   tracking   was   used   in   order   to   determine   the   use   of   the   sculptures   and  

stories  by  the  family  audience.  Within  half  an  hour  time  frames,  five-­‐minute  observations  were  

done   at   each   of   the   five   chapters   in   turn,   though   moving   in   reverse   direction   through   the  

stations.  During  each  five  minute  frame,  the  number  of  family  groups  passing  an  empty  station  

without   engaging,   passing   an   occupied   station   without   engaging,   and   those   stopping   were  

noted.   In  order  to  count  as  a  stop,  at   least  one  group  member  would  have  to  either  stand  still  

looking  at  a  sign  or  statue  for  five  seconds,  or  move  around  the  statue  for  five  seconds.  In  this,  

all  groups  with  at  least  one  adult  and  one  child  seeming  to  be  between  the  ages  of  four  and  12  

were   included,  unless   the  group  was  clearly  a  school  group  or   the   like,  as   those  are  known  to  

have  very  different  dynamics  to  family  groups.  In  the  cases  of  a  stop,  the  family  as  a  whole  was  

then  observed  using  a  coding  scheme.  Besides  the  ‘events  based  coding’  (Robson,  2011)  of  the  

individual  family  members’  action  such  as  reading,  climbing  or  picture  taking,  the  total  duration  

of  the  stops  at  the  statues  and  at  the  different  signs  were  noted,  as  well  as  the  composition  of  

the  family.  The  full  tracking  scheme  can  be  found  in  the  appendix.  

Using   this   direct   observation   of   the   family’s   behaviour,   rather   than   relying   on   visitors’   recall,  

means   that   the   data   is   very   reliable   in   its   representation   of   the   actual   visitor   behaviour.   The  

unobtrusive   nature   of   the   observation   further   enhances   this   reliability,   as,   assuming   that   the  

observations   do   go   unnoticed,   it   ensures   that   the   observer   is   not   affecting   the   visitors’  

behaviour.   In   order   to   ensure   that   the   observation   was   as   inconspicuous   as   possible,   the  

observations  were  made   from  a   reasonable  distance   from   the   station,  with   the   tracking   sheet  

   

 

18  

hidden  in  a  zoo  map.  Furthermore,  moving   in  the  reverse  direction  to  the  main  visitor  stream  

prevented  the  following  round  of  families,  which  could  have  made  them  grow  suspicious.  

The  other   choices   in   the  observation  strategies  were  also  made   to  maximize   the  utility  of   the  

data.  Firstly,  observing  the  family  as  a  whole,  rather  than  selecting  an  individual  to  track,  meant  

that  much  more   interesting   information   could   be   collected  within   a  much   shorter   timeframe.  

Also,   it   fits   in  with   the   idea   that   the   family   experiences   their   visit   together   as   a   group,   rather  

than  simply  being  individuals  that  happen  to  be  moving  past  an  interpretation  station  together.  

And  though  this  does  result   in  some  data  being   impossible  to  record,  such  as  the  durations  of  

individual   actions,   it   is   still   possible   to   note   how   long,   as   a   group,   a   family   spends   with   the  

different  elements.  Therefore  this  way,  the  amount  of  data  relevant  to  answering  the  research  

questions  is  maximised.    

Another   important  point   to  note   is   that  observations  were  only  made  during   those  periods   in  

which   the   families   had   the   opportunity   to   interact  with   the   chapters   undisturbed.   In  practice  

this  meant  that  out  of  every  hour,  only  30  minutes  could  be  spent  tracking,  as  the  other  half  of  

the   time,   visitor’s   attention   was   taken   away   by   ‘Tigers   Live’   interpretation   talks,   the  

announcements  for  these  or  the  outflow  of  people  who  had  been  listening  to  them.    

Having  taken  all  these  points  into  consideration,  the  visitor  tracking  method  has  the  potential  to  

give   good,   reliable   insight   into   the   amount   and   types   of   interaction   of   the   families   with   the  

interpretative   material.   However,   observation   alone   cannot   answer   any   of   the   other   sub  

questions  raised,  as  it  does  not  allow  looking  into  the  thoughts  of  the  visitors.  

In  order  to  get  an  insight  into  the  remaining  sub  questions,  which  regard  enjoyment,   learning,  

enthusiasm,   suitability   and   enrichment   value,   visitor   surveys   were   undertaken.   A   number   of  

these   subtopics,   especially   the   ones   concerning   learning   and   attitudes   towards   tigers,   are  

notoriously   difficult   to   get   to   the   bottom   of.   Both   learning   and   attitudes   are   very   complex  

matters.  They  can  be  difficult   to  define,   are  often   the   result  of  many   factors   together,   and  are  

   

 

19  

likely  to  occur  at  least  partially  on  a  subconscious  level.  Therefore,  in  order  to  really  get  at  it,  a  

combination  of  different  questions,  taken  over  a  longer  period  of  time  would  be  ideal.  However,  

given  the  number  of  points  to  be  investigated,  and  the  constraints  of  the  research,  this  was  not  

feasible.   Furthermore,   though   single  questions  might  not   get   to   the   core  of   it,   they   can  give   a  

good   initial   indication.   And   given   that   this   is   the   first   research   of   its   kind,   having   broad  

indications   on   a   number   of   different   aspects   should   in   fact   be   very   valuable.   Therefore,   to  

maximize   the   amount   of   interesting   information   gathered  within   a   reasonable   length   survey,  

the  different  sub  questions  were  investigated  using  single  direct  questions  in  the  survey.  

In   short,   the   surveys   were   taken   in   the   following   manner.   Positioned   just   past   chapter   five,  

every  first  passing  family  within  the  target  group  was  approached.  From  these,  only  those  who  

had   interacted   with   some   of   the   interpretation   material   were   selected   for   interview.   In   a  

structured   interview,   a   maximum   of   19   questions   was   covered.   The   questions   regarding  

enjoyment,   learning,   enthusiasm,   suitability   and   enrichment  were   asked   using   a   single   direct  

question   with   a   rating   scale   response,   followed   by   an   invitation   for   further   comments.  

Understanding   of   the   ‘story-­‐statues’   concept   was   investigated   using   a   set   of   semi-­‐closed  

questions.  Visitors  were  also  asked  which  interpretation  units  they  had  engaged  with.  The  full  

question  list,  as  well  as  the  visitor  aids  used,  can  be  found  in  the  appendix.    

Again,   the   research   strategy   was   optimized   to   maximise   the   value   of   the   results   given   the  

specific  research  questions  and  the  limitations  of  the  research.  First  of  all,   the  use  of  selective,  

rather   than   all-­‐inclusive   interviews   allowed   for   investigation   into   the   experiences   of   those  

people  that  had  actually  interacted  with  the  material.  Secondly,  by  aiming  the  interview  at  the  

group’s  overall  experience,  rather  than  that  of  individuals,  the  idea  of  families  experiencing  the  

visit   as   a   unit   is   maintained.   And   in   fact,   families   and   especially   parents   were   very   apt   a  

answering   the   questions   ‘for   the   family’,   taking   both   their   own   experiences   and   that   of   their  

children   into   account   nearly   automatically.   Lastly,   the   combination   of   a   rating   scale   with   an  

   

 

20  

open   invitation   to   comment   allowed   the   gathering   of   clearly   analysable   data   as  well   as  more  

personal,  insightful  ideas.    

Within  both  the  visitor  tracking  and  the  survey,  the  real  interest  lies  in  the  ‘A  Tiger’s  Tale’  signs  

and  the  sculptures,  as  the  novelty  lies  within  those  two  elements.  However,  as  within  the  Tiger  

Territory  interpretation  strategy  the  ‘At  The  Zoo’  signs  were  included  as  part  of  the  story  trail  

interpretation   idea,   and   connect   directly   too   it,   these   signs   were   also   included   in   both   the  

observations  and   the   surveys.   In   fact,   in   the   surveys   the   two   types  of   signs  were   investigated  

together,   as   the   pilot   study   showed   families   found   it   difficult   to   rate   them   separately,   and   as  

they  do  form  an  integrated  unit.  

A  final  note  to  be  made  regarding  both  the  visitor  tracking  and  the  visitor  surveys  is  that  neither  

attempts   to   collect   data   for   a   comparative   analysis   with   another   audience   group   or   another  

exhibit  type.  Instead,  this  is  an  absolute  study  of  the  families’  experiences  in  Tiger  Territory.  The  

main   reason   for   this   is   that   it   matches   the   focus   of   the   research   questions,   which   too,   are  

absolute  rather  than  comparative.  Though  asking  comparative  questions  might  be  interesting  in  

theory,  they  would  be  tricky,  if  not  impossible  to  answer  and  would  require  very  large  datasets  

to  be   reliable.   Therefore,   especially   seeing   that   this   is   a   first   study  on   this   topic,   the   absolute  

data  gathered  with  these  methods  were  deemed  to  have  the  most  interesting  results.    

   

 

21  

RESULTS  AND  DISCUSSION  In   total   311   observations   of   family   groups   were   made   and   53   surveys   were   taken.   The  

observations  were  made   throughout   the   day   on   Sunday   14th,  Wednesday   17th,   Thursday   18th  

and  Friday  19th  July  in  a  total  of  fifteen  30-­‐minute  observation  slots.  The  surveys  were  taken  on  

those  same  days,  in  alternation  with  the  observation  slots.  In  addition,  extra  surveys  were  taken  

on  Sunday  28th  July.  The  response  rate  for  the  different  survey  questions  varied  between  46  and  

6  as  questions  were  only  asked   if  people  could  give  a  meaningful  response,  and  as  sometimes  

families  indicated  they  wanted  to  move  on,  usually  because  of  the  children.    

Starting  with  the  degree  of  interaction  with  the  ‘A  Tiger’s  Tale’  signs,  the  tracking  data  makes  it  

clear  that  it  has  a  low  attracting  power,  with  only  4%  of  the  family  groups  looking  at  this  for  at  

least  five  seconds  (see  figure  3a).  Likewise,  the  attracting  power  for  ‘At  the  Zoo’  is  also  low,  with  

also  4%  stopping.    

 

 

FIGURE  3A,  ATTRACTING  POWER  OF  ‘A  TIGER’S  TALE’  AND  ‘AT  THE  ZOO’  SIGNS  

Furthermore,   both   have   relatively   low   holding   power   with   medians   of   11   and   9   second  

respectively.  However,   for  both   signs   there  was  one  grandmother-­‐grandson  pair   in  which   the  

grandmother  read  out   the   full  signs  to  her  grandson,   taking  about  a  minute   for  each  sign  (see  

figure   3b).   In   fact,   this   pair   was   then   seen   to   follow   the   story   round   all   the   way,   as   was  

   

 

22  

envisaged  in  the  Tiger  Territory  interpretation  plan.  Within  the  people  interviewed,  there  was  

also   one   other   group   that   had   followed   the   story   all   the   way   round.   However,   many   other  

groups   only   read   a   couple   of   the   signs,   or   just   one,   not   following   the   entire   story.   Together,  

therefore,  these  data  are  more  in  line  with  the  literature  that  suggested  that  family  groups  don’t  

read  signs  than  with  the  literature  on  the  effectiveness  of  narrative.  

 

 FIGURE  3B  -­‐  HISTOGRAM  OF  THE  DURATIONS  OF  THE  STOPS  AT  THE  TWO  TYPES  OF  SIGNS  

   

 

23  

Looking  at  the  data  for  the  sculptures  tells  that  the  overall  attracting  power  was  quite  high,  with  

about  one  third  of  all  passing  groups  stopping  at  any  one  sculpture  (see  figure  4).  There  were,  

however,  some  notable  differences  between  the  attracting  powers  of  individual  statues,  ranging  

from  49%  for  the  most  popular  sculpture  to  16%  for  the  least  popular  one.  

 

FIGURE  4  -­‐  THE  ATTRACTION  POWERS  OF  THE  SCULPTURES  

 

Furthermore,  the  overall  holding  power  was  fairly  high,  with  a  median  of  20  seconds,  and  some  

of  the  groups  spent  well  over  a  minute  at  the  sculptures.  However,  there  were  some  differences  

in   holding   power   between   the   chapters,   which   stood   at   15,   14,   23,   23   and   23   seconds  

respectively.  

   

 

24  

 FIGURE  5  -­‐  HISTOGRAM  OF  THE  DURATION  OF  THE  STOPS  AT  THE  STATUES  

 

What,  however,  does  not  become  clear  from  the  tracking  data  is  how  the  amount  of  stops  at  the  

different   statues   relate   to   each  other.  Within   these  data,   very  different   scenarios   are  possible  

with  different  implications  for  the  ‘success’  in  engaging  families.  In  one  extreme,  the  people  who  

stop  at  each  chapter  are  different  groups,  meaning  that  at  the  end  nearly  everyone  has  stopped  

at   some   point.   In   the   other   extreme,   it   is   the   same   group   of   people   that   stop   everywhere,  

meaning   that   about   half   of   people   stops   nowhere   at   all.   For   this,   the   stopping   data   gathered  

from  the  survey  does  give  some  clarity.  Though  the  data  from  this  is  not  directly  comparable  to  

the  observation  data,  as  people  might  report  a  stop  even  if  it  does  not  fulfil  the  ‘five  second  stop’  

criteria  for  interaction,  it  still  gives  some  insight.    

As  can  be  seen  in  figure  6,  the  majority  of  people  stopped  at  three  out  of  five  of  the  sculptures,  

and  stopping  at  only  one  or  all   five  was   least  common.  Furthermore,   figure  6  also  shows   that  

there  are  a  wide  variety  of  visitor  journeys.  This  indicates  that  though  some  chapters  are  overall  

more  ‘attractive’  than  others,  this  doesn’t  mean  that  ‘popular’  sculptures  always  get  visited  over  

the  less  popular  ones.  So  overall,  these  results  show  that  most  likely,  the  truths  lies  somewhere  

neatly   in   the  middle   between   all   visitors   attending   at   least   one   chapter,   and   a   subsection   of  

them  visiting  all.  

   

 

25  

 FIGURE  6  -­‐  FAMILY  GROUP  JOURNEYS  

So   from   all   these   data   together,   one   can   conclude   that   overall,   the   sculptures   are   indeed  

attractive  to  families,  whereas  the  signs,  despite  being  written  in  a  story  form,  still  have  some  

difficulty  attracting  the  attention  of  families.    

The   next   question   raised   regards   the   types   of   interactions   families   engaged   in  with   both   the  

sculptures   and   the   story   based   signs.   The   observations   results   show   that  with   regards   to   the  

type  of  behaviour  at  the  signs,  only  a  small  fraction  showed  the  social  reading  together.  For  the  

‘A  Tiger’s  Tale’  signs,  two  out  of  thirteen  groups  read  out  loud,  whereas  the  other  11  only  read  

silently.   In  the  case  of   ‘At  The  Zoo’   four  out  of  11  groups  read  out   loud.  This  shows  that  some  

reading  out   loud,  as  envisaged   in  the  Tiger  Territory   interpretation  plan,  does   indeed  happen.  

However,  because  of  the  small  dataset  one  cannot  really  make  any  strong  conclusions  about  the  

amount  of  time  this  happens.  Also,  though  this  data  does  seem  to  suggest   it,  one  cannot  really  

conclude  that  the  ‘A  Tiger’s  Tale’  sign  invites  less  reading  out  than  the  ‘At  the  Zoo’.  With  regards  

   

 

26  

to  who  does  the  reading,  both  adults  and  children  were  found  to  read  silently  and  aloud,  though  

for  reading  aloud,  this  was  only  observed  in  one  case  for  a  child.    

 

FIGURE  7  -­‐  TYPES  OF  INTERACTIONS  AT  BOTH  CATEGORIES  OF  SIGNS  

Moving   on   to   the   sculptures,   observations   showed   that   touching,   climbing   and   taking  

photographs  all  occurred  a   lot  when  people  stop  at   the  a  sculpture,   just  as  was   theorised  and  

suggested  from  more  anecdotal  observations.  In  fact,  overall,  nearly  a  third  of  those  groups  that  

stopped  engaged  in  all  three  behaviours  (see  figure  8).  Also,  only  7%  of  groups  that  stopped  did  

not  touch  the  sculpture  at  all,  showing  that  for  nearly  all  groups  the  sculpture  had  a  very  great  

tactile  appeal.  However,   it  should  be  noted  that  touch  did  show  a  wide  range  of  types.  On  one  

side   of   the   spectrum,   it   was   an   attentive,   gentle   stroke,  whereas   on   the   other   it   was   absent-­‐

minded  walking  on  the  sculpture.  Furthermore,  photographing  indeed  took  place  a  lot.  Overall  

in   nearly   half   of   the   cases   where   engagement   took   place   a   picture   was   taken.   Though   not  

apparent  from  figure  7,  in  all  but  one  of  the  cases,  it  was  a  picture  of  people  together  with  the  

sculpture,  rather  than  just  of  the  sculpture  itself.  As  far  as  climbing  appeal,  57%  of  family  groups  

did   some   climbing,  whereas   27%  only   touched   the   sculpture.   A   number   of   other   behaviours,  

such   as   pointing   or   helping   kids   climb,   were   also   observed,   but   these   occurred   much   less  

frequently.  

   

 

27  

However,   as   becomes   clear   from   the   Venn   diagrams   on   the   individual   sculptures,   these  

percentages   actually   reflect   a  mixing  of   somewhat   variable  data   for   the   individual   sculptures.  

For   example,   in   chapter   1   a   much   smaller   percentage   climbed   than   for   chapter   4,   where  

everybody  who  touched  the  sculpture  climbed  it.  However,  when  one  looks  at  the  designs  of  the  

two  sculptures,  it  becomes  immediately  clear  why  this  is.  Sculpture  1  is  of  a  small  tiger  cub,  and  

altogether  not  very  easily  climbable,  whereas  for  the  sculpture  of  the  swimming  tiger  in  chapter  

4,  one  would  have   to  make  a  nearly  conscious  effort  not   to  climb  on   it  whilst  still   touching   it.  

Likewise,  chapter  5,  with  the  rearing  tiger,  is  the  only  one  which  designed  in  such  a  way  that  it  

invites   for  a  picture  pose   that  does  not   include   touching.  And   indeed   that   is   that   chapter   that  

shows  the  greatest  percentage  of  photos  without  touching.  

However,   despite   these   individual   differences,  what   remains   fairly   constant   is   that   people   do  

engage   with   the   sculptures   in   a   very   active   manner,   hardly   ever   only   looking   at   it   from   a  

distance,   and   very   often   touching,   climbing   and   taking   pictures,   just   like   the   literature   had  

predicted.    

   

 

28  

 

FIGURE  8  -­‐  TYPES  OF  INTERACTIONS  AT  SCULPTURES  

With   regards   to   which   of   the   family  members   interact   with   the   sculpture,   it   is   normally   the  

children   that   interact   whilst   the   adult   looks   on,   just   as   was   predicted   by   the   literature   (see  

figure  9).  Only  in  a  small  number  of  cases  the  adults  touch  or  climb  on  the  sculpture.  However,  

the  one  action  that  has  the  opposite  division  is  picture  taking.  The  adults  nearly  always  take  the  

picture,  and  the  children  are  the  ones  in  it.   It   is  only  in  this  part  that  the  social  element  of  the  

sculptures  comes  into  play.  

   

 

29  

 FIGURE  9  -­‐  ADULT-­‐CHILD  PERCENTAGES  OF  INTERACTION  

So  altogether,  the  data  from  the  observations,  combined  with  some  additional  information  from  

the   surveys,   show   that   families   do   indeed   interact   with   the   sculptures   to   a   great   extent,  

engaging  in  many  of  the  activities  in  the  ways  suggested  by  the  literature.  Though  the  signs  are  

not  engaged  with  nearly  as  much  as  is  the  case  for  the  sculptures,  they  are  used  in  certain  cases.  

Also,  a  small  number  of  people  do  in  fact  read  them  out  loud  to  the  children.  

Now   this   intensive   usage   of   the   sculptures   combined  with   the   relatively   long   holding   power  

seems  to  suggest  that  families  do  in  fact  enjoy  engaging  with  the  statues.  And  indeed,  the  data  

from  the  surveys  supports   this   idea.  On  a  scale  of  1   to  5,  with  1  being   ‘not  at  all’,  and  5  being  

‘exceptionally’,   the  question   ‘How  much  did  you  enjoy  the  statues?’  got  given  a  score  of  4.2  on  

average.  Furthermore,  the  lowest  scores  given  was  3-­‐moderately  (see  figure  10).  

In  total,  23  groups  elaborated  on  what  it  was  they  enjoyed  about  the  sculptures  after  answering  

the   enjoyment   question.   Also,   throughout   the   interview,   a   number   of   people   made   further  

comments   on   what   they   enjoyed,   and   these   are   also   counted   here,   as   long   as   they   are   not  

repeats   of   earlier   remarks.   Altogether,   a  wide   variety   of   comments  were  made,   some   groups  

   

 

30  

offering  several  points.  Overall,  these  comments  cover  nearly  all  of  the  aspects  predicted  by  the  

literature,  plus  a  couple  more  (see  figure  10).    

FIGURE  10  -­‐  ENJOYMENT  OF  STATUES  

First   of   all,   many   groups   commented   on   the   climbing   and   playing   element   the   sculptures  

provide.   ‘[I]  enjoyed  the  climbing’  was   a   recurring   comment.   Secondly,   the   touch   element  was  

also  brought  up  several  times.  For  example,  one  visitor  stated  that  ‘it’s  a  great  tactile  component’  

and  another  that  ‘it’s  great  that  you  can  touch  them’.  Perhaps  unsurprisingly,  the  opportunity  for  

taking  photos  was  also  mentioned   ‘I  think  it’s  excellent,  especially  because  you  can  take  pictures’.  

Also,  many  visitor  groups  commented  on  how  the  sculptures  showed  you  what  tigers  look  like.  

For   example,   one   very   enthusiastic   group   of   girl   said   the   sculptures  were   ‘really  realistic  and  

colourful’   and   that   they   liked   ‘the   natural   positions   the   tiger  would   have   in   the  wild’   and   'the  

details   on   them’.   Other   groups   simply   liked   seeing   the   sculptures,   without   specifically  

mentioning   it   showed   them  what   tigers  are   like,   for  example   stating   that   the   sculptures  were  

‘good  decorations’.  One   last  specific  aspect   that  got  mentioned  a   few  times  was   that  you  could  

get  close  to  the  sculptures.  As  was  stated  by  the  parents  of  two  young  girls  ‘the  statues  get  you  to  

   

 

31  

the  tigers’.  Besides  all  these  points,  a  number  of  less  frequent  comments  and  some  more  general  

statements  were  made,  which  can  be  read  in  figure  10.    

The   same   questions   regarding   enjoyment   were   also   asked   about   the   signs.   However,   this  

question  was  only  asked  to  the  fourteen  groups  who  indicated  they  had  engaged  with  the  signs.  

Despite   this   low   engagement  with   the   signs,   those   people  who   had   interacted  with   them  did  

enjoy  them.  Overall,   the  signs  received  a  score  of  3.9   for  enjoyment,  and  a  good  proportion  of  

the  groups  even  ranked  their  enjoyment  as  exceptional  (see  figure  11).  In  total,  five  meaningful  

comments  were  made  with  regards  to  what  people  enjoyed  about  the  sign.  One  girl  commented  

that  it  was  engaging  and  that  she   ‘had  to  keep  reading’.  Three  commented  that  the  information  

was  interesting  and  a  last  one  commented  that  the  pictures  were  nice.  Though  the  small  number  

of  comments  means  that  this  is  not  a  very  thorough  overview,  it  is  still  interesting  to  note  that  

the  story  catching  one’s  attention  did  get  mentioned.  

 

FIGURE  11  -­‐  ENJOYMENT  OF  SIGNS  

 

   

 

32  

So  overall,  the  family  groups  do  appear  to  enjoy  interaction  with  the  interpretation  material  on  

offer.  However,  as  said,  successful  engagement  with  the  interpretation  material  is  not  just  about  

enjoyment.  In  order  for  it  to  be  fully  successful,  it  has  to  be  meaningful  as  well,  and  one  aspect  of  

this  is  whether  people  learn  something  from  the  materials.  Out  of  the  signs  and  the  sculptures,  

the  educational  value  of  the  signs  is  probably  the  least  controversial,  even  if  it  is  written  in  the  

form  of  a  story.  And  indeed,  on  average,  family  groups  scored  the  signs  to  have  a  learning  value  

of   3.7   on   a   scale   of   1   to   5,   and   the  majority   of   groups   scored   it   at   4,  meaning   they   felt   they  

learned  very  much  (see  figure  12).  Of  the  two  groups  that  said  they  hadn’t  learned  very  much,  

one   commented   that   this  was  because   they   ‘knew  already’,  whereas   the  other  group   said   that  

‘it’s   a   drip   feed   progress,   and   you’re   not   going   to   learn  a   lot   from  one   visit’.   Two   groups  made  

comments   about   what   they   learned,   one   about   deforestation   and   the   other   about   palm   oil.  

Though  these  answers  don’t  directly  give  any  support  to  the  idea  that  narrative  is  a  good  way  to  

learn,   it   does   at   least   show   that   these   signs   in   Tiger   Territory   succeed   in   teaching   people  

something.    

 

FIGURE  12  -­‐  LEARNING  FROM  THE  SCULPTURES  AND  SIGNS  

   

 

33  

Unlike   the   educational   benefit   of   the   signs,   the   learning   value   of   the   sculptures   is   somewhat  

controversial.  The  results  from  the  survey  seem  to  reflect  this,  as  there  is  a  rather  wide  range  of  

ratings  (see  figure  13).  Overall,  though,  the  sculptures  still  get  rated  2.9  out  of  five  for  learning.  

There   was   also   rather   wide   variety   in   the   comments   people   made.   On   the   one   hand,   people  

commented  they’d  learned  something  about  the  tiger’s  physique  or  movements.  For  example,  one  

grandmother   really   felt   they   had   a   lot   of   learning   potential   ‘they   are   quite   educational,   you   can  

compare  with  your  own  size,  you  can  see  how  big   the  paws  are  or  how   large   they  are  at  different  

ages.’,  and  others  commented  they’d  learned  about  pouncing,  swimming  and  rearing,  or  about  the  

jaws,  teeth,  and  the  claws.  On  the  other  hand,  there  were  those  people  who  ‘didn’t  think  about   it  

that   way’   or   feel   that   the   sculptures   are   ‘more   for   playing’.   Others   again,   had   not   realized   the  

potential,  but   recognized   it   in   response   to  being  asked   the  question   ‘didn't   think  of   it   initially,  but  

now  you  ask,  actually   yes,  we  do   learn’.  Overall,   this   suggests   that   though   the   sculptures  do  have  

educational  potential,   some  zoo  visitors  don’t  notice   this.  However,   that  doesn’t  necessarily  mean  

learning  really  didn’t  occur,  as   it  can  also  happen  subconsciously.  Also,   it  should  be  noted  that  the  

prompting   in   the   first   part   of   the   question   might   have   influenced   the   answers   to   the   second  

question.   However,   as   not   everybody   did   respond   to   this,   it   seems   that   this   effect   wasn’t   too  

significant.    

   

 

34  

 

FIGURE  13  -­‐  LEARNING  FROM  THE  SCULPTURES  

Together,  these  results  show  that  on  the  cognitive  side,  many  visiting  families  do  feel  they  learn  

something.  However,   as  discussed   in   earlier   chapters,   inspiring   to   care   for  nature  often   takes  

more  than  filling  people  with  knowledge.  Positively,  the  survey  results  seem  to  show  that  both  

the  signs  and  the  sculptures  make  the  visiting  families  more  enthusiastic  about  tigers.  Overall,  

in   response   to   the  questions   ‘How  much  did   the  statues/sculptures   increase  your  enthusiasm  

about  tigers’,  the  statues  and  story  based  signs  scored  2.9  (N=35)  and  3.1  (N=15)  respectively,  

placing  both  around  the  ‘moderately’  level.    

As   was   the   case   for   sculpture   learning,   the   ranges   of   scores   are   very   wide   for   increase   in  

enthusiasm  about  tigers  (see  figure  14).  Some  of  the   lower  scores  were  given  by  families  who  

already   liked   tigers   a   lot,   and   felt   they   couldn’t   be   more   enthusiastic.   For   example,   a   family  

group  that  gave  a  score  of  1  to  the  effect  of  the  signs  said  that  they  ‘love  them  [tigers]  already’.  

Many  of   those  groups  who  gave   low  scores   to   the   sculptures   also  made   similar   comments.   In  

fact,   three  out  of   four  commenters  who  gave  a  score  of  1  said   they  were  already  enthusiastic,  

and   in   one   case   ‘couldn’t  be  more  enthusiastic’.   On   the   other   side   of   the   spectrum,   one   group  

   

 

35  

commented   that   ‘for  the  kids  [the  sculptures]  reinforced  that  tigers  are  cool  and  interesting’.    So  

altogether,  the  results  on  increased  enthusiasm  are  very  variable,  and  it  seems  that  this  might  

be   the   result   of   people   having   different   starting   points,   and   responding   differently   to   the  

material.  That  said,  the  presence  of  a  number  of  higher  scores  is  a  positive  sign  for  the  use  of  the  

story  based  signs  and  sculptures,  especially  seeing  that  you  can’t  expect  a  single  visit  to  have  a  

very  large  effect.    

 

FIGURE  14  -­‐  INCREASE  IN  ENTHUSIASM  AFTER  SIGNS  AND  STATUES  

The  last  question  that  was  raised  within  the  idea  of  ‘meaningfulness’  is  whether  the  overarching  

idea  of  using  a  story   to   link  all   the  elements   together  worked,  or  whether  people  didn’t   catch  

onto   the   idea   of   the   story   of   Hari,   the   wild   tiger.   The   results   of   the   survey   show   that   many  

people  actually  don’t  realize  that  the  signs  and  the  sculptures  are  part  of  a  story.  Out  of   those  

who  hadn’t   read  any   signs,  only  one  of   the   thirteen  groups  asked  said   they   realized   this.   (see  

figure  15).  Perhaps  this  is  unsurprising,  but  it  does  show  that  the  sculptures  alone  do  not  seem  

to  be  enough  to  bring  across  the   idea  of  a  story.  This   is  potentially  problematic,  given  the   low  

number  of  people  who  do  read  the  signs.  Of  those  who  had  read  some  of  the  signs,  the  majority  -­‐  

   

 

36  

nine  out  of  15  -­‐  had  noticed  the  story  element.  Of  those  six  groups  who  hadn’t  noticed,  three  had  

only  read  ‘At  The  Zoo’  type  signs,  and  though  these  link  in  to  the  story,  they  are  not  a  story  by  

themselves,  meaning  it  is  not  surprising  they  hadn’t  realized.  So  overall,  the  results  on  whether  

groups  noticed  the  story  element  are  as  was  to  be  expected.  Really,  mostly  only  those  who  had  

read  some  of  the  ‘A  Tiger’s  Tale’  signs  had  noticed  that  the  sculptures  and  signs  were  part  of  a  

story.  

 

FIGURE  15  -­‐  DEGREE  TO  WHICH  STORY  ELEMENT  IS  NOTICED  

Following  on  from  this,  the  family  group  got  asked  who  they  thought  the  sculptures  were  of  in  

order   to   see   if   they   could   identify   it   as   Hari,   the   character   in   the   ‘A   Tiger’s   Tale’   story.  

Unsurprisingly,  nearly  all  those  who  had  not  read  the  sign  didn’t  identify  the  sculpture  as  Hari  

(see  figure  16).  Strangely,  three  people  in  this  group  did  identify  the  sculpture  as  Hari,  meaning  

they  must  have  read  some  of  the  signs  after  all.  Of  those  who  had  read  some  of  the  signs,  only  

just  over  a  quarter  identified  the  sculpture  as  Hari.  Of  all  those  who  didn’t  identify  the  sculpture  

as  Hari,   there  were   two   that   had   read   some  of   the   ‘A  Tiger’s  Tale’   signs,   three   that   definitely  

hadn’t,  and  eight   for  which  the  data  doesn’t  show  this.  This   indicates   that  even   if  people  have  

read   some   of   the   ‘A   Tiger’s   Tale’   story,   they   don’t   always   necessarily  make   the   link  with   the  

   

 

37  

sculptures.  Altogether,  these  data  suggest  that  for  the  majority  of  people,  it  wasn’t  apparent  that  

the  sculpture  had  something  to  do  with  the  story  signs.  

 

FIGURE  16  -­‐  RECOGNITION  OF  THE  SCULPTURE  BEING  HARI  

One  last  aspect  of  whether  the  story  idea  from  the  interpretation  plan  comes  across  to  people  is  

the  question  of   if   they  know  who  Hari   is,   and  especially   if   they  realize   this   is  a   (hypothetical)  

wild  tiger.  Out  of  those  groups  who  hadn’t  identified  the  sculpture  as  Hari,  over  three  quarters  

answered  that  they  didn’t  know  at  all.  One  family,  wrongly,  answered  that  it  was  a  Zoo  tiger,  and  

the   rest   said   they   had   seen   the   name   somewhere,   but   didn’t   know.   This   is   relatively  

unsurprising,  as  the   failure  of   identification  already  suggested  they  didn’t  really  know  of  Hari.  

Somewhat  more   surprising   is   that   of   the   group   that   had   identified   the   sculpture   as  Hari,   still  

only  a  third  correctly  identified  him  as  a  wild  tiger.  Somehow,  four  out  of  nine  thought  that  Hari  

was  in  fact  a  Zoo  tiger,  and  two  out  of  nine  didn’t  know  at  all.  Together,  this  clearly  shows  that  

only  a  very  small  minority  of   the  people,   three  out  of  a   total  of  46,  had  realized   that  Hari   is  a  

wild  tiger.  This  could  potentially  be  problematic,  as  at  worst  some  people  might  think  that  ‘Hari’  

was  taken  from  the  wild  and  put  in  the  zoo.    

   

 

38  

 

FIGURE  17  –  UNDERSTANDING  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  HARI  

Having  concluded  that  overall,  the  idea  of  everything  being  linked  together  by  the  story  of  Hari  

the  wild  tiger  is  not  usually  caught  on  by  the  family  visitors,  the  next  questions  asked  to  what  

extent  the  families  regard  the  components  of  the  interpretation  plan  suitable  for  their  families.    

Potentially,   the   low  scores  on  reading  and  understanding  could   indicate  that   the  signs  are  not  

suitable   for   a   family   audience.   Surprisingly,   the   signs   actually   score   a   3.8   for   suitability.  

However,   it  must  be  noted   that   as   for   the  other  questions  about   the   signs,   these  grades  were  

only  given  by  those  groups  who  had  read  the  signs.  And  it  might  be  that  rather  than  the  contents  

and  using  a  story  in  a  sign  not  being  suitable,  signs  themselves  are  not  a  very  attractive  medium  

for  most   families.   As   one   visitor,   a   grandmother  put   it   ‘They  would  be  suitable   if   the  kids  read  

them,  but  they  don't  stop.  It's  almost   impossible  to  get  kids  to  stop  and  read.’    And   indeed,   even  

without  being  prompted,  a  lot  of  the  groups  said  they  hadn’t  read  the  signs  because  they  had  the  

children  with  them.  As  one  group  said  ‘With  kids  it's  very  difficult  to  read  anything’.  Therefore,  it  

is  quite  likely  that  it  was  simply  just  still  suitable  for  those  children  of  the  groups  to  which  these  

questions   got   asked.   The   story   is   quite   a   different   one   for   the   sculptures.   Though   it   didn’t  

actually   score   that   much   higher   on   suitability,   a   4.1   on   average,   this   is   the   result   of   a   large  

fraction  of  the  people  stopped  for  interviewing.  

   

 

39  

 FIGURE  18  -­‐  PERCEIVED  SUITABILITY  OF  SIGNS  AND  STATUES  

The   last   point   to   cover   regards   the   importance   of   the   signs   and   sculptures  within   the   bigger  

picture  of  Tiger  Territory.  As  said,  it  is  important  to  investigate  this  separately.  Even  high  scores  

given  to  the  specific  component  don’t  necessarily  mean  that  families  regard  these  elements  as  

very   enriching   for   the   overall   experience.   Also,   simply   because   not   many   people   use   an  

interpretation  element  doesn’t  mean  it  is  not  very  important  for  those  who  do.  

And  indeed,  those  few  who  had  made  use  of  the  signs  rated  them  as  very  enriching.  Overall,   it  

got  a  score  of  4.3,  and  three  out  of  six  groups  scored  it  a  five  (see  figure  19).  The  comments  gave  

some  insight  into  why  they  thought  this.    Two  groups  noted  that  it  was  simply  very  important  to  

have  information  ‘this  way,  you  actually  know  what  it  is  about’.  One  group,  however,  commented  

specifically  on  the  story  element,  saying  it  was  ‘a  brilliant  idea’.    

Like  the  signs,  the  sculptures  also  got  a  good  rating  on  enrichment  value,  scoring  a  3.9  overall.  

Interestingly,   the   ‘exceptional’   score   was   proportionally   not   given   as   often   as   for   the   signs.  

Instead   ‘very’  was   the  most   common   score   (see   figure   19).  When   asked  why   people   found   it  

enriching,  many   of   those   aspects  mentioned   in   earlier   questions   propped   up   again,   including  

   

 

40  

photo   opportunities,   getting   close   and   them   being   a   nice   ‘replacement’   for   when   the   actual  

tigers  are  sleeping  or  hiding.  

Together,  these  results  show  that  the  statues  and  the  sculptures  are  regarded  as  very  enriching  

by  those  who  made  use  of  them.  However,  seeing  that  fewer  people  used  the  signs,  the  average  

visitor  might  find  the  statues  more  enriching  than  the  signs.    

 FIGURE  19  -­‐  ENRICHMENT  VALUE  OF  SIGNS  AND  STATUES  

 

   

 

41  

CONCLUSIONS  AND  IMPLICATIONS    All   in   all,   the   preceding   discussions   have   shown   that   both   sculptures   and   stories   can  

successfully  engage  families  in  a  meaningful  manner.  However,  it  has  also  become  clear  that  the  

degree   and   ways   in   which   they   are   successful   differs   between   the   sculptures   and   the   story  

based  signs.  

To  repeat,  the  conclusions  were  most  clear  for  the  sculptures.  Just  as  had  been  suggested  in  the  

literature,  the  results  showed  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  families  engaged  with  the  sculptures.  

However,  it  also  became  apparent  that  there  are  some  clear  differences  between  the  individual  

sculptures.  Together,  this  implies  that  though  zoos  can  expect  high  engagement  with  sculptures  

planned,  they  should  pay  attention  to  the  sculpture’s  design  in  order  to  maximize  engagement.    

The  ways  in  which  families  engage  with  the  sculptures  was  also  demonstrated  to  be  in  line  with  

the  claims  found  in  literature.  Children  touch,  climb  and  play  on  the  sculptures,  and  parents  take  

pictures  of  this.  In  addition,  the  survey  results  showed  these  are  major  aspects  of  what  families  

like  about   the  sculptures.  These  data-­‐supported   insights   into  what   families  do  with  and  enjoy  

about  the  sculptures  could  be  of  use  in  future  zoo  sculpture  planning.    

The   results   also   showed   that  overall,   people  much  enjoyed   the   sculptures,   and   felt   they  were  

suitable  and  enriched   their  experience.  Furthermore   the  data  collected  also  supports   the   idea  

that  engagement  with  sculptures  can  be  meaningful.  Though  the  results   turned  out  somewhat  

more  variable  than  for,  say  enjoyment,  they  did  show  that  many  of  the  families  felt  they  learned  

about   tigers   and   also   grew  more   enthusiastic   after   engaging  with   the   sculptures.   These   data  

further   strengthen   the   suggestions   made   by   the   literature   that   animal   sculptures   can   be  

valuable  additions  to  zoo  exhibits.  

Less   positive,   though   no   less   important,   were   the   results   on   the   understanding   of   the  

overarching  concept.  As  the  data  showed,  the  majority  of  people  did  not  notice  the  element,  nor  

   

 

42  

did  they  get  to  grips  with  the  idea  of  Hari  the  wild  tiger  being  the  character  around  which  the  

interpretation   is   centred.   This   could   have   important   implications,   as   in   order   for   an  

interpretation  strategy   to   reach   its  potential,   it  might  be   important   for   the  visitors   to  actually  

understand   it,   rather   than   just   get   confused   by   it.   Therefore,   this   data   suggest   it   might   be  

desirable   to  signpost   the  use  of  a  story,  and  any  elements  connected   to   it  very  clearly.  And   in  

fact,  at  the  moment  of  writing  ZSL  London  Zoo  is  already  working  on  creating  an  introduction  at  

the  start  of  Tiger  Territory  that  will  explicitly  point  out  the  story  of  Hari  the  wild  tiger.  

In  contrast  to  the  preceding  two  aspects,  it  is  somewhat  more  difficult  to  draw  solid  conclusions  

regarding  the  story-­‐based  signs.  Though  the  observation  results  showed  that  engagement  with  

these  story-­‐based  signs  was  low,  this  doesn’t  necessarily  mean  that  the  story-­‐based  signs  were  

not  at  all  successful.  First  of  all,  though  not  many  people  interacted,  the  degree  of  interaction  is  

not  necessarily  lower  than  for  other  static,  written  zoo  signs.  Furthermore,  the  survey  showed  

that   those   who   do   engage   with   the   signs   give   it   ratings   on   enjoyment,   learning,   increased  

enthusiasm,   suitability   and   enrichment   value   that   are   comparable   with   those   given   to   the  

sculptures.  However,   these   results   are  based  on   rather   small   data-­‐samples,   and   therefore  not  

very  solid.  Therefore,  at  best,  a  tentative  conclusion  can  be  drawn  that  in  some  regards,  but  not  

others,  the  story-­‐based  signs  were  somewhat  successful.    

However,   it   is   important  to  keep  in  mind  that  this  study  did  not  set  out  to  show  what  specific  

contribution   the   narrative   element   had   to   this   mixed   success.   Some   of   the   survey   questions  

discussed  did   touch  upon  this  subject  and   indicated  that   for  example   for  enjoyment,   the  story  

element  did  play  some  role.  Nonetheless,  other  specific  research  would  need  to  be  undertaken  

to  draw  any  strong  conclusions  on  the  contributions  of  the  narrative  element  to  the  success  of  

the  different  elements  researched.  

Besides  this   further  research,  a  number  of  other  questions  could  follow  on  from  the  results  of  

this   study.  What  would   potentially   be  most   interesting   is   to   look   further   into   the   sculptures’  

   

 

43  

potential   for   learning,   increasing   enthusiasm   for   tigers   and   empathy   in   general.   As   discussed  

before,  these  topics  are  complex.  Therefore,  research  looking  into  these  matters  in  more  depth  

could  be  very  valuable,  and  result  in  a  better  understanding  of  the  actual  benefits  of  sculptures  

in  achieving  learning  and  empathy,  and  ultimately,  stimulating  an  enthusiasm  for  conservation.  

However,  even  without  these  further  studies,  the  results  presented  here  represent  a  significant  

contribution  to  the  field  in  that  they  provide  the  first  solid  data  concerning  the  use  of  sculptures  

and  stories  in  zoo  interpretation.  

   

 

44  

BIBLIOGRAPHY  Allen,  S.  (2004)  Designs  for  learning:  Studying  science  museum  exhibits  that  do  more  than  

entertain.  Science  Education.  [Online]  88  (S1),  S17–S33.  Available  from:  doi:10.1002/sce.20016.  

Bedford,  L.  (2001)  Storytelling  -­‐  The  Real  Work  of  Museums.  Curator:  The  Museum  Journal.  44  (1),  27–34.  

Borun,  M.  (1997)  Developing  Family  Friendly  Exhibits.  Curator:  The  Museum  Journal.  40  (3),  178–196.  

Borun,  M.  (2008)  Why  Family  Learning  in  Museum.  exhibitionist.  26  (1),  6–9.  

Borun,  M.,  Cleghorn,  A.  &  Garfield,  C.  (1995)  Family  Learning  in  Museums :  A  Bibliographic  Review.  Curator:  The  Museum  Journal.  38  (4),  262–270.  

Borun,  M.,  Dirstas,  J.,  Johnson,  J.I.,  Peter,  N.E.,  et  al.  (1998)  Family  learning:  the  Pisec  Perspective.  Washington  D.C.,  Association  of  Science-­‐Technology  Centers.  

Briseño-­‐Garzón,  A.,  Anderson,  D.  &  Anderson,  A.  (2007)  Adult  Learning  Experiences  from  an  Aquarium  Visit:  The  role  of  Social  Interactions  in  Family  Groups.  Curator:  The  Museum  Journal.  [Online]  50  (3),  299–318.  Available  from:  doi:10.1111/j.2151-­‐6952.2007.tb00274.x.  

Bruner,  J.  (1990)  Acts  of  Meaning.  Cambridge,  MA,  Harvard  University  Press.  

Conway,  W.G.  (1968)  how  to  exhibit  a  bullfrog:  a  bed-­‐time  story  for  zoo  men.  Curator:  The  Museum  Journal.  2  (4),  310–318.  

Diamond,  J.  (1986)  The  behavior  of  family  groups  in  science  museums.  Curator:  The  Museum  Journal.  29  (2),  139–154.  

Donahue,  J.  &  Trump,  E.  (2007)  Political  Animals  -­‐  Public  Art  in  American  Zoos  and  Aquariums.  Lanham,  Lexington  Books.  

Ellenbogen,  K.M.,  Luke,  J.J.  &  Dierking,  L.D.  (2004)  Family  learning  research  in  museums:  An  emerging  disciplinary  matrix?  Science  Education.  [Online]  88  (S1),  S48–S58.  Available  from:  doi:10.1002/sce.20015.  

Falk,  J.H.  &  Dierking,  L.D.  (1992)  The  museum  experience.  Washington  D.C.,  Whalesback  Books.  

Falk,  J.H.,  Reinhard,  E.M.,  Vernon,  C.L.,  Bronnenkant,  K.,  et  al.  (2007)  Why  Zoos  &  Aquariums  Matter :  Assessing  the  Impact  of  a  Visit  to  a  Zoo  or  Aquarium.  Association  of  Zoos  and  Aquariums.  

   

 

45  

Furse-­‐Roberts,  J.  (2009)  Interpretation  master  planning:  creating  holistic  narrative  experiences.  Roots.  6  (1),  5–8.  

Hatfield,  H.  (2003)  Untitled  presentation.  [presentation]  Roundtable  25,  “Fine  Art  in  Zoos  and  Aquariums:  Creating  Successful  Connections  to  Wildlife”,  AZA  Annual  Conference,  9  September  2003  

Heimlich,  J.E.  &  Falk,  J.H.  (2008)  The  identity-­‐related  motivation  of  adult  zoo  and  aquarium  visitors.  Curator:  The  Museum  Journal.  51  (1),  55–79.  

Hensel,  K.A.  (1987)  Families  in  a  museum:  Interactions  and  conversations  at  displays.  Dissertation  Abstracts  International.  49  (09).  

Kelly,  L.  (2010)  The  role  of  narrative  in  museum  exhibitions.  Australian  Museum  Blog.  Weblog  [Online].  Available  from:  http://australianmuseum.net.au/blogpost/Museullaneous/The-­‐role-­‐of-­‐narrative-­‐in-­‐museum-­‐exhibitions  [Accessed:  22  May  2013].  

McManus,  P.M.  (1994)  Families  in  Museums.  In:  Roger  Miles  &  Lauro  Zavala  (eds.).  Towards  the  Museum  of  the  Future:  New  European  Perspectives.  London,  Routledge.  pp.  81–98.  

Murray,  C.  (2012a)  Penguin  Beach  ZSL  London  Zoo  Meta  Evaluation  2012  Revisited  summative  evaluation  2011.  [internal  publication]  ZSL  London  Zoo  

Murray,  C.  (2012b)  Tiger  exhibit  ZSL  London  Zoo  Front  end  Evaluation  Report  1.  [internal  publication]  ZSL  London  Zoo  

Murray,  C.  (2013)  Tiger  Territory  ZSL  London  Zoo  Initial  Feedback  Report.  [Internal  Publication.]  ZSL  London  Zoo  

Parker,  L.C.  &  Krockover,  G.H.  (2011)  Interaction  Patterns  among  Members  of  Family  Groups  during  Visits  to  a  Community  Zoo.  Visitor  Studies  Association  e-­‐Newsletter  January  2011.  Available  from    http://visitorstudies.org/january-­‐2011-­‐enewsletter/    [Accessed:  16  May  2013]  

Reade,  L.S.  &  Waran,  N.K.  (1996)  The  modern  zoo:  How  do  people  perceive  zoo  animals?  Applied  Animal  Behaviour  Science.  47,  109–118.  

Robson,  C.  (2011)  Real  World  Research.  3rd  edition.  New  York,  Wiley.  

Rosenfeld,  S.  (1982)  A  Naturalistic  Study  of  Visitors  at  an  Interactive  Mini-­‐Zoo.  Curator:  The  Museum  Journal.  25  (3),  187–212.  

Scanlon,  E.,  Whitelegg,  E.  &  Yates,  S.  (eds)  (1999)  Communicating  Science:  Contexts  and  Channels  Reader  2.  Eileen  Scanlon,  Elizabeth  Whitelegg,  &  Simeon  Yates  (eds.).  London,  Routledge.  

Sears,  T.  (2013)  Interviewed  by  Bornebroek,  E.  (16th  July  2013)  

   

 

46  

Tischler,  T.  (2013)  Email  to  Bornebroek,  E.  28  July  2013.  

Tischler,  T.  (2005)  Tom  Tischler  Bronze.  [Online].  2005.  Available  from:  http://www.tomtischler.com/  [Accessed:  27  July  2013].  

Weiler,  B.  &  Smith,  L.  (2009)  Does  more  interpretation  lead  to  greater  outcomes?  An  assessment  of  the  impacts  of  multiple  layers  of  interpretation  in  a  zoo  context.  Journal  of  Sustainable  Tourism.  [Online]  17  (1),  91–105.  Available  from:  doi:10.1080/09669580802359319.  

Alexandra  Zimmermann,  Matthew  Hatchwell,  Lesley  Dickie,  &  Chris  West  (eds.)  (2007)  Zoos  in  the  21st  Century:  Catalysts  for  Conservation?  

ZLS  London  Zoo  (2012)  Tiger  Territory  Interpretation  Plan.  [internal  publication]  ZSL  London  Zoo  

 

   

 

47  

 APPENDICES  

TRACKING  MATERIAL  

 FIGURE  20,  TRACKING  SHEET    

 FIGURE  21  -­‐  CODE  FOR  TRACKING  SHEET  

!"#$%% % % % &'($% % % % )$"#*$+% % % % &',$+%

%

%

-.%-/%%%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

-.%-/%%%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

-.%-/%%%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

-.%-/%%%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

-.%-/%%%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

0$(1$+2%34#'/52%%%%6/#$2%

!!

!

"!

#$!%!#&''!()*+!*,*-*+.!/'!$+011$#/*23!#0!%!#&''!()*+!*,*-*+.!/'!011$#/*2!!41./0+!102/+53!$'*!.)*!60,,0(/+5!60$78#&7.!102*!!

9&7.!"!%!#*7'0+!!:;<=<><?!%!;&+<=0-&+<>0@<?/7,A!9&7.!B!%!&1./0+!!:C<D<E<9<;<F<G!%!#0/+.!(/.)!C/+5*7<D0$1)<E,/-H<.&I*!&!9)0.0<;02*,!/+!9)0.0<F*&2!'/,*+.,@<7*&2!G$.!,0$2A!9&7.!J!%!1)&#.*7!*,*-*+.!:K<4<>!%!K1$,#.$7*<4!D/5*7L'!D&,*<4.!D)*!M00A!9&7.!N!%!./-*!/+!'*10+2'!!!!

OP&-#,*'!!>EK"QR!>0@!1,/-H'!'.&.$*!607!"Q!'*10+2'!=G4QSR!=0-&+!7*&2'!0$.!,0$2!4!D/5*7L'!D&,*!607!QS!'*10+2'!!!!

   

 

48  

SURVEY  MATERIAL  

 

FIGURE  22  -­‐  QUESTIONNAIRE    

 

!"#$%&'(%)&*$+% % % % % ,)+% % % % -$#.$/0+%%

12 3&4$%567%.$$'%*6%!"8$/%!$//"*6/5%.$96/$:% %%

%;2 <=">=%69%*=$%0>7?@*7/$0%("(%?66A%&*:%<=&*%("(%567%(6%*=$/$:%

%%%

B2 36C%("(%567%$'D65%*=$%0>7?@*7/$0:%<=&*%("(%567%$'D65%&.67*%"*:%E>&?$%69%1FG%%%

H2 36C%#7>=%("(%567%?$&/'%9/6#%*=$%0*&*7$0I%96/%$J&#@?$%&.67*%&%*"8$/K0%0"L$%6/%"*0%#64$#$'*:%E>&?$%'7#.$/%1FGMNJ&#@?$0% %%%

G2 36C%#7>=%("(%*=$%0>7?@*7/$0%"'>/$&0$%567/%$'*=70"&0#%&.67*%*"8$/0:%E>&?$%'7#.$/%1FG%%%

O2 P4$/&??I%=6C%C$??%("(%*=$%0*&*7$0%07"*%567/%8/67@:%E>&?$%1FG:%<=5:%%%

Q2 36C%#7>=%("(%*=$%0*&*7$0%$'/">=%567/%4"0"*%*6%*=$%*"8$/%$J="."*:%%%

R2 S'5%6*=$/%*=678=*0%6'%*=$%0>7?@*7/$0:%%%%

T2 <=">=%69%*=$%0"8'0%("(%567%?66A%&*%&'5I%$4$'%"9%6'?5%./"$9?5:%)"(%567%/$&(%*=$%*$J*:%%%

1U2 36C%#7>=%("(%567%$'D65%*=$%0"8'0:%<=&*:%E>&?$%1FG%%%

112 36C%#7>=%("(%567%?$&/'%9/6#%*=$%0"8'0:%E>&?$%1FG2%<=&*%&.67*%"*:%%%

1;2 36C%#7>=%("(%*=$%0"8'0%"'>/$&0$%567/%$'*=70"&0#%&.67*%*"8$/0:%E>&?$%'7#.$/%1FG%%%

1B2 P4$/&??I%=6C%C$??%("(%*=$%0"8'0%07"*%567/%8/67@:%E>&?$%1FG2%<=5:%%%

1H2 36C%#7>=%("(%*=$%0"8'0%$'/">=%567/%4"0"*%*6%*=$%*"8$/%$J="."*:%E>&?$%1FG%%%

1G2 S'5%6*=$/%*=678=*0%6'%*=$%0"8'0:%S'5*="'8%"'%@&/*">7?&/%567%$'D65$(:%S'5*="'8%567%?$&/'$(:%%

%1O2 )"(%567%'6*">$%*=$%0"8'0%&'(%*=$%0>7?@*7/$0%96/#$(%&%0*6/5%*68$*=$/:%<=&*%("(%567%*="'A%69%*="0:%

%%

1Q2 <=6%(6%567%*="'A%*=$%0*&*7$0%&/$%69:%% % %%

1R2 3&4$%567%=$&/(%69%3&/":%<=6%"0%=$:%<"?(%*"8$/%6/%L66%*"8$/:%%%

1T2 S'5*="'8%$?0$:%

   

 

49  

 

FIGURE  23  -­‐  VISITOR  AID  1  

!"

#"$"

%"

#"$"

&"

#" $"

'"

#" $"

("

#" $"

   

 

50  

 

FIGURE  24  -­‐  VISITOR  AID  2  

!"#"$%&"'&"'((""

)"#"'"(*+(,"

-"#".%/,0'&,(1"

2"#"3,01"

4"#",56,78%$'((1"

   

 

51  

TIGER  TERRITORY  STORY-­‐BASED  INTERPRETATION  MATERIAL  

 

FIGURE  25  -­‐  STATION  1  

   

 

52  

 

FIGURE  26  -­‐  STATION  2  

   

 

53  

 

FIGURE  27  -­‐  STATION  3  

   

 

54  

 

FIGURE  28  -­‐  STATION  4  

   

 

55  

 

FIGURE  29  -­‐  STATION  5  

   

 

56  

Stories  and  Sculptures  Engaging  family  groups  in  ZSL  London  Zoo’s  Tiger  Territory  

 

Emma  Bornebroek  13th  September  2013