CROSSING THE BOG OF HABITS - U-M SEAS › eplab › research › brookfield › Master... · the...

Crossing the Bog of Habits:An evaluation of an exhibit’s effectiveness in

promoting environmentally responsible behaviors

Master’s Project TeamAlthea Dotzour

Capree HoustonGrace ManubayKathryn Schulz

Jennifer C. Smith

Advisors: Dr. Raymond De Young and Dr. Carol Saunders

[email protected]

Chapter: Acknowledgements Topic: Problem

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsii

Crossing the Bog of Habits:An evaluation of an exhibit’s effectiveness in promoting

environmentally responsible behaviors

Authors:Althea Dotzour

Capree HoustonGrace ManubayKathryn Schulz

Jennifer C. Smith

Advisor: Dr. Raymond De Young

Client: Dr. Carol Saunders, Brookfield Zoo

This document is presented as partial fulfillment of the requirements for therequirement of the master’s degree program at the School of Natural Resources and

Environment, the University of Michigan

All rights reserved. � 2002 by Althea Dotzour, Capree Houston,Grace Manubay, Kathryn Schulz, and Jennifer C. Smith

[email protected]


Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsiii


Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsiv

Acknowledgements

The Brookfield Zoo Masters Project Team would like to recognize a number of peoplewithout whom this project could not have been a success. We would first like to thank ouradvisors, Dr. Raymond De Young, Associate Professor at the School of Natural Resources andEnvironment (SNRE) and Dr. Carol Saunders, Director of Communications Research at theBrookfield Zoo. They have been involved at every stage of this project – from developing theinitial research questions to reading numerous drafts of the final report. Thanks for yourassistance, encouragement, commitment and guidance! Also at the Brookfield Zoo, ToddGieske, Paul Walerga and Cindy Aglinskas, who provided invaluable assistance with datacollection and all the logistical issues that arose.

We would also like to recognize numerous individuals at the SNRE: Kate Irvine, whogenerously provided us with her documents and advice stemming from the initial Bog of Habitsdevelopment; Dr. Michaela Zint and Dr. Rachael Kaplan and the members of theEnvironmental Education and Environmental Psychology groups, who provided feedback andasked great questions. The statistical analysis of the summer and phone survey data could nothave happened without the assistance of Beth Sparks-Jackson, Dr. Emily Silverman and KenGuire and other staff at the University of Michigan Center for Statistical Consultation andResearch (CSCAR). They graciously answered the many questions that popped up along theway. Lastly, from the School of Natural Resources and Environment we’d like to thank theguest evaluators who provided the input for the theoretical evaluation.

Every project requires a source of funds to make it happen. We would like to thankRackham Graduate School at the University of Michigan, the Prentice Foundation, the Societyfor the Psychological Study of Social Issues, the Communications Research Department at theBrookfield Zoo, and the School of Natural Resources and Environment.

Thank you also to our family and friends who supported us over this past year. Theyhave helped pilot surveys, read drafts, and accepted the time we’ve needed to devote to thisproject, while always providing precious moral support.

Lastly, each member of the team would like to extend her gratitude to the othermembers.

Chapter: Topic: Problem

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsv

Althea Dotzour Master of Science student concentrating in resource policyand behavior. She is interested in collaborative decision-making and environmental education. She dedicates this workto her husband Bryan who kept her heart full of joy these pasttwo years and to her whole family for their constant love andsupport.

Capree Houston Master of Science student concentrating in resource policyand behavior. She is interested in environmental justice. Shededicates this to her family and friends who have supportedher in more ways than one over the past two years.

Grace Manubay Master of Science student concentrating in environmentaleducation. She is interested in environmental education innon-formal settings, particularly museums and zoos, andscience writing. She dedicates this to her parents and Tim.

Kathy Schulz Master of Science student concentrating in resource policyand behavior. She is interested in community outreach andeducation and public lands management issues. She dedicatesthis to all her friends and family who have supported herreturn to graduate school and commitment to the health ofthe environment.

Jennifer C. Smith Master of Science student concentrating in environmentalpsychology and environmental education and Master of Artsstudent concentrating in Russian and East European studies.She is interested in residential environmental educationprogramming and the blossoming grassroots environmentalmovements in Russia. She dedicates this to the other fourmembers of the project team, who have graciously supportedher decision to spend the second half of the project period inSiberia, and were excellent about keeping her involved in theproject through email and conference calls.

Chapter: Abstract Topic: Problem

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsvi

AbstractThe Bog of Habits, a challenge within the Quest to Save the Earth exhibit at the

Brookfield Zoo, is an interactive game that focuses on the impacts of daily environmentalchoices. This three-part study evaluates whether the Bog of Habits is an effective tool forpromoting the adoption of environmentally responsible behaviors. A theoretical evaluationassessed the strengths of the exhibit based on environmental psychology and environmentaleducation criteria. Two visitor surveys were conducted to determine whether there is a higherinterest in increasing conservation behaviors immediately after playing the game and severalmonths later. In addition, a small experiment regarding brochure pick-up was conducted at theBrookfield Zoo to measure visitors’ actions regarding their environmental interest.

Results suggest that the Bog of Habits is an effective method of conveying messagesabout environmental behaviors to visitors. A content analysis of the theoretical evaluators’comments indicates that the exhibit provides visitors with pertinent information about dailychoices and fosters group discussions about the environment. Analysis of the surveys andbrochure pick-up study show that visitors who visit the Bog of Habits initially reported anddemonstrated higher levels of interest in environmentally responsible behaviors. However, thefollow-up survey indicated that the interest wanes in the absence of repeated interventions.Nevertheless, it is encouraging that the results also show that the overall message of the Questto Save the Earth – that daily choices can help the Earth – remains salient. These findings alsoinclude suggestions for those designing similar exhibits in non-formal education settings thatstrive to promote conservation behavior.

Chapter: Executive Summary Topic: Problem

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsvii

Chapter: Executive Summary Topic: Problem

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsviii

Executive Summary

ProblemIt has been stated that the most important goal of zoological facilities is effecting

changes in conservation-related behaviors (Stoinski, 1999). In striving to achieve this goal, the

Brookfield Zoo (Zoo) opened an innovative outdoor exhibit called the Quest to Save the Earth

(Quest) in 1998. The Quest is a permanent, three-season exhibit and exit experience for the

Zoo’s primate exhibit, Tropic World. As an exit experience, the Quest is intended to compliment

the messages within Tropic World by encouraging visitors to think about conservation choices

from new perspectives.

The Quest to Save the Earth was created with the goal of inspiring visitors to adopt

environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs) through a set of four challenges. The Bog of

Habits is the first challenge that visitors encounter as they begin their journey through the

Quest. Both the Bog of Habits and the entire Quest aim to encourage visitors to adopt

environmentally friendly behaviors, however, it was unknown if the Bog of Habits succeeded in

doing this. Although the Zoo conducted a summative evaluation of the Quest in 1997, the data

were never analyzed. Therefore, a study evaluating the ability of this exhibit to successfully

promote the adoption of ERBs was deemed necessary.

Purpose of Study and Research QuestionsThe potential for zoos to positively influence their visitors’ conservation knowledge,

attitudes, affect, and behaviors has been widely documented (AZA, in press). As such, the

Brookfield Zoo and other conservation centers throughout the country have developed exhibits

to motivate their visitors to lead more ecologically benign lifestyles. However, because the

potential for zoos to positively influence visitors has not been validated through empirical

research, there is a need to know 1) how to evaluate such exhibits and 2) if these exhibits are

effective.

To address the heightened interest in the efficacy of zoos in providing conservation

knowledge and encouraging the adoption of conservation behaviors, this study evaluated the

effectiveness of the Bog of Habits at increasing interest in adopting environmentally responsible

behaviors. It also provided a framework for evaluating or developing effective behavior change

exhibits in the future. The research questions guiding this study were:

A. Does the Bog of Habits contain the features of an effective behavior change exhibit?

Chapter: Executive Summary Topic: Research Methods

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsix

1. Based on environmental education and environmental psychology principles,what are the key criteria that should be considered when developing orevaluating behavior change exhibits?

2. What would people need to know if they wanted to replicate this exhibit atanother site?

B. What effects does playing the Bog of Habits have on visitors’ conservation behavior?

1. Does playing the Bog of Habits lead to increased interest in environmentallyresponsible behaviors? If so, does this interest persist over time?

2. Does the Bog of Habits have an effect on visitors’ immediate likelihood to takeaction?

3. Do people who play the Bog of Habits perceive the zoo as a place to learn aboutthe environment?

4. Will people who play the Bog of Habits retain the message of the Quest to Savethe Earth?

Research MethodsTo answer these questions, this study incorporated four complimentary research

methods: a theoretical evaluation, an on-site survey conducted during the summer, a direct

action measurement, and a follow-up phone survey. The theoretical evaluation drew from

environmental psychology and environmental education literature to develop a framework for

evaluating exhibits that promote environmentally responsible behaviors such as the Quest to

Save the Earth. Through the implementation of this framework, the strengths of the Bog of

Habits as a behavior change exhibit were determined. This evaluation also provided insight into

the factors necessary for successful replication of the Bog of Habits at other sites. The summer

survey measured the ability of the Bog of Habits to increase visitors’ interest in engaging in

ERBs by asking questions related to past behaviors, attitudes, and intended behaviors. As a

direct measure of visitors’ interest, a brochure pick-up study examined whether visitors would

seek additional environmental information after visiting the Bog of Habits. The final portion of

the study, the follow-up phone survey, attempted to establish if differences seen between the

Bog and Control groups in the summer survey were a result of playing the Bog of Habits. It

also tested the durability of the messages contained within the Bog of Habits, and sought to

ascertain if visitors who played the Bog of Habits reported a greater awareness of how their

choices affect the Earth than the Control group.

Chapter: Executive Summary Topic: Results

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsx

ResultsThe results of the theoretical evaluation highlighted numerous strengths of the Bog of

Habits as well as provided insightful recommendations for the exhibit. The results revealed that

the Bog of Habits is particularly strong in its utilization of familiar and unfamiliar behaviors,

positive framing of messages, and its ability to provide visitors with a unique and interactive

experience that can be different upon repeated visits. Further, the Bog of Habits motivates

those who are playing the game by congratulating and rewarding them whenever possible. The

theoretical evaluation also emphasized how the exhibit is designed with environmentally friendly

materials, such as recycled rubber, which makes it consistent with the messages found within the

game.

Evaluators also provided recommendations for improvement. One suggestion was to

increase the opportunities for reflection within the Bog of Habits so visitors can have time to

talk about new things they learn. Additionally, evaluators recommended that the instructions for

playing the game be more prominently placed.

The summer survey results indicated that although the Bog and Control groups had

remarkably similar visitor characteristics, some differences did exist. Those in the Bog group

were more likely to be members of the Brookfield Zoo (Zoo), and of the members, they had

been members longer than the Control group members. Visitors in the Bog group had also

visited the Zoo more often over the past 12 months. Additionally, groups who played the Bog

of Habits tended to have children who were on average two years older than the children in the

Control group.

In regards to past behaviors, attitudes, and intended behaviors, the Bog group scored

higher in all three. However, in only a few cases these scores were significantly higher. On the

past behavior scale, the Bog group had scores that were higher for each of the five categories

(recycling, purchase power, personal knowledge building, reduce car use, and political efforts).

For recycling, purchase power, and reduce car use, the difference between the two groups was

significant, indicating that although both groups have adopted ERBs into their lives, they have

done so to slightly differing degrees.

The results of the summer survey also indicated that Zoo visitors have positive attitudes

toward the environment and very high loci of control. Considering that the difference in

attitudes between the Bog and Control groups was not significant, it appears that most visitors

come to the Zoo already believing that ordinary individuals can make a difference toward

Chapter: Executive Summary Topic: Results

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxi

solving environmental problems. Furthermore, Zoo visitors reported relatively high scores for

the Crediting the Zoo scale, suggesting that many visitors felt that the Zoo gave them knowledge

about environmental issues. However, a significant difference existed between the groups in

terms of how much credit they give the Zoo for raising their awareness of conservation issues.

The Bog group reported a higher score for this. Zoo visitors in general believed that they have a

modest grasp on environmental issues. Yet, a significant difference was seen between the

groups with respect to the level of knowledge they possess and their comfort with sharing that

knowledge. The Bog group felt more strongly about their comprehension of environmental

issues as well as with their comfort in articulating their knowledge.

The Bog group also scored higher than the Control group on the intended behavior

scale. The three categories were savings in the home, energy conservation, and time

commitment. In each case, the Bog group scored higher than the Control group; however, a

statistically significant difference was only seen between the groups in terms of time

commitment. This suggests that all visitors were equally interested in increasing simple,

everyday behaviors leading to savings in the home and energy conservation. However, those in

the Bog group were more interested in increasing the frequency of environmentally responsible

behaviors that require a commitment of time.

The brochure pick-up study was designed to be a direct measure of visitors’ interest.

The results indicated that the higher degree of interest seen among Bog visitors translates into an

actual action. In this study, the action was picking up an informational brochure on

environmentallyfriendly behaviors. Bog visitors were over three times as likely to seek out this

brochure than those in the Control group. This is a strong piece of evidence that a short, game

experience in a zoo can lead to pro-environmental action.

The results of the final component of the study, the phone survey, showed that

participants in the phone survey tended to have visited the Zoo more often and were more likely

to be members than those who did not participate in the phone survey. Phone survey

participants from the Bog group had visited the Quest to Save the Earth more times than the

average summer survey respondents from the Bog group. The phone survey results did not

show a significant difference between the Bog and Control groups in regards to interest in

increasing ERBs that demand a large commitment of time or in personal knowledge building.

The Bog groups’ phone survey time commitment scores were significantly lower than scores on

the summer survey. While the Control group phone survey scores were statistically identical to

Chapter: Executive Summary Topic: Discussion

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxii

the summer survey. This suggests that interest in environmentally responsible behaviors does

increase after playing the Bog of Habits, however, that interest wanes within four to six months

to match the Control group.

In addition, visitors to the Bog of Habits indicated that they remembered learning about

choices and their relationship to the Earth at the Zoo. Without any prompts, the Bog group

overwhelmingly cited the Bog of Habits or the Quest to Save the Earth as the places where that

learning occurred. For the majority of those in the Bog group, the message of the Quest to Save

the Earth was salient. These visitors recalled talking about the exhibit and were able to articulate

the general message of the exhibit. Finally, one-third of the visitors indicated that they felt the

Zoo had encouraged them to change their behaviors to help the environment.

DiscussionFrom the data analysis, the following key findings emerged:

� The Bog of Habits contains features that foster behavior change.� Playing the Bog of Habits increases interest in environmentally responsible

behaviors.� The Bog of Habits raises people’s environmental awareness.� Messages from the Bog of Habits remain salient over time� The Bog of Habits should be transferable to other sites.

The Bog of Habits fosters behavior change as it incorporates familiar and unfamiliar

behaviors, provides both declarative and procedural knowledge, and positively frames messages.

Additionally, it provides a unique opportunity for visitors to interact with others, and provides

visitors with repeated exposure to environmental messages. By including familiar behaviors, a

sense of competence is created as visitors are presented with things they are likely already

comfortable doing. When people feel a sense of competence, they will be more inclined to try

new and unfamiliar behaviors. Presenting people with both declarative and procedural

knowledge is important as it provides them with an opportunity to not only learn about

environmental issues and why they should be addressed, but also how to address these issues.

This can motivate visitors to adopt environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs) as it reduces

their sense of helplessness about knowing why and how to help the Earth. Positively framing

messages is important as it could lead visitors to develop a positive attitude about helping the

Earth and environmental behaviors. This could then lead visitors to try new behaviors.

Allowing visitors to interact with others is key in a behavior change exhibit because exhibits that

allow visitors to actively participate physically and cognitively are more effective at increasing

Chapter: Executive Summary Topic: Discussion

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxiii

interest and remaining salient in visitors’ minds (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1982). Finally, repeat

exposure to messages helps to foster behavior change as it creates a sense of familiarity with the

new ideas and behaviors within the exhibit. Environmental education and environmental

psychology literature indicate that these features are needed to affect behavior change in

individuals.

Increased interest in environmentally responsible behaviors can be attributed to the Bog

of Habits as the Bog group expressed a higher interest in increasing ERBs. Specifically, the Bog

group scored significantly higher for ERBs that require a time commitment such as composting.

This may be a result of the Bog of Habits making visitors aware of the behaviors they already

perform, and providing them with information on new behaviors. Further, increased interest in

ERBs can be attributed to the Bog of Habits as the Bog group picked up an environmental

brochure at a higher rate than the Control group. This indicates that the Bog of Habits

successfully encourages visitors to seek additional information about how to help the Earth.

The Bog of Habits also raises people’s environmental awareness as many of those in the

Bog group indicated that they learned about how their choices affect the Earth at the Quest to

Save the Earth/Bog of Habits exhibit. The majority of those in the Bog group also reported

that the Quest to Save the Earth taught them about their relationship with the Earth. Not only

does the Bog of Habits raise visitor’s environmental awareness, the messages from the Bog of

Habits remain salient over time. Four to six months after visiting the Zoo, the majority of the

Bog group reported that they remembered the information presented in the Quest to Save the

Earth and were able to articulate the general theme of the exhibit. However, although the

exhibit messages remain salient, the increase in interest that was seen by the Bog group began to

wane over a four to six month period. This suggests that the Bog of Habits is effective as a

short-term intervention. But in the absence of a follow-up intervention, any effects of the

exhibit will likely be lost.

Finally, the theoretical evaluation indicated that the Bog of Habits should be replicated

and could stand alone as an independent exhibit in other settings. Because of the amount of

information within the Bog of Habits, its intended message can be effectively conveyed without

the aid of other supporting activities or exhibits. However, the Bog of Habits and the concepts

within it would need to be explained to individuals before playing it. This replication could be in

a school setting, a museum, or even at a fair.

Chapter: Executive Summary Topic: Conclusions

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxiv

ConclusionsAs this study evaluated the effectiveness of a zoo exhibit at promoting the adoption of

environmentally responsible behaviors, it has implications for both the zoo and aquarium

communities. The findings from this study support the conclusions that:

� Zoo exhibits can influence visitors’ interest in environmentally responsiblebehaviors.

� Behavior change cannot be expected without follow-up interventions.� The Bog of Habits could be replicated at other sites.This study of the Brookfield Zoo’s Bog of Habits exhibit shows that visitors are

amenable to learning about the environment in a zoo setting and that behavior change can be

affected. Visitors should have an experience that will leave them interested in helping the Earth.

If the Bog of Habits exhibit is replicated, care must be taken to ensure that the messages

contained within correlate not only to the exhibit itself, but also to the lives of visitors. Positive

framing of the messages is important as well as it helps to make visitors feel as if they can play a

part in caring for the planet.

This study has implications for the environmental psychology and environmental

education communities as it shows that a single visit to a zoo exhibit can positively influence

visitors’ interest in environmentally responsible behaviors. Furthermore, this study highlighted

the importance of follow-up interventions in creating durable behavior change, as the effects of

the exhibit are lost without additional reinforcement.

RecommendationsFour major recommendations have emerged from this study. They are:

� Develop and evaluate similar behavior change exhibits at other settings.Behavior change exhibits have the potential to work in other recreational settings such asfairs, as well as other more educational sites such as museums and schools.

� Provide immediate opportunities for visitors to engage in environment-orientedbehaviors. Capitalize on visitors’ increased interest in environmental behaviors byproviding them with additional information upon exiting the behavior change exhibit andby creating opportunities for visitors to talk to docents about any questions they mayhave.

� Research and develop follow-up interventions. Maintain interest in environmentalbehaviors by developing methods for continued exposure to the ideas presented withinbehavior change exhibits.

� Replicate the Bog of Habits at different sites. A replication of this exhibit would bemost effect if accompanied by other activities or exhibits that promote similar messages.

Table of Contents

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxv

Table of Contents

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxvi

Table of ContentsACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. II

ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................VIIIProblem.......................................................................................................................... viiiPurpose of Study and Research Questions .................................................................... viiiResearch Methods............................................................................................................ ixResults ................................................................................................................................xDiscussion ....................................................................................................................... xiiConclusions.....................................................................................................................xivRecommendations ...........................................................................................................xiv

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. XVI

LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS....................................................................................XX

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................XXIII

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................ 1Promoting Conservation Behavior at a Zoo..................................................................... 1Characteristics of Zoo Visitors ......................................................................................... 2

THE QUEST TO SAVE THE EARTH........................................................................................... 3CHANGING BEHAVIOR ........................................................................................................... 5

Behavior Change Models.................................................................................................. 5Traditional Precursors to Behavior Change .................................................................... 5Additional Precursors....................................................................................................... 7Other Enhancing Factors ................................................................................................. 8Behavior Change in Zoos.................................................................................................. 9

PROBLEM STATEMENT ......................................................................................................... 10

RESEARCH METHODS..................................................................................................... 11Introduction to the Research........................................................................................... 11Research Questions and Methods................................................................................... 11Hypothesis/Purpose ........................................................................................................ 12

THEORETICAL EVALUATION METHODS ................................................................. 13Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 13Evaluation Framework Components .............................................................................. 13Evaluators ....................................................................................................................... 14Training Session ............................................................................................................. 15Logistics of Evaluation Trip ........................................................................................... 16Pre-testing the Evaluation Matrix .................................................................................. 16Evaluating the Quest to Save the Earth .......................................................................... 16Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 17

Table of Contents

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxvii

THEORETICAL EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................... 19RATING SCORES................................................................................................................... 19BOG OF HABITS.................................................................................................................... 19

Information ..................................................................................................................... 19Presentation .................................................................................................................... 20Engagement..................................................................................................................... 21Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 22Participation ................................................................................................................... 23Physical Space ................................................................................................................ 24

OVERALL QUEST.................................................................................................................. 25Information ..................................................................................................................... 25Presentation .................................................................................................................... 26Engagement..................................................................................................................... 27Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 27Participation ................................................................................................................... 28Physical Space ................................................................................................................ 29

SUMMARY EVALUATION PARAGRAPHS................................................................................ 30Transferability to other settings...................................................................................... 30Replication of certain pieces of the exhibit..................................................................... 30Opinions regarding setting and scale ............................................................................. 31Audience most affected by message ................................................................................ 32Additional comments....................................................................................................... 32

THEORETICAL EVALUATION RESULTS SUMMARY................................................................ 34

SUMMER SURVEY METHODS ....................................................................................... 37Scale Development.......................................................................................................... 37Pre-testing the Survey Instrument................................................................................... 38Summer Survey Data Collection..................................................................................... 39Summer Survey Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 40

TRACKING STUDY................................................................................................................ 41BROCHURE PICK-UP STUDY ................................................................................................. 41

SUMMER SURVEY RESULTS.......................................................................................... 43SUMMER SURVEY AUDIENCE CHARACTERISTICS................................................................. 43

Similarities between the Bog and Control Groups ......................................................... 43Differences between the Bog and Control Groups ......................................................... 43Bog Group Descriptives.................................................................................................. 43

PAST BEHAVIOR CATEGORIES.............................................................................................. 45Results from Past Behavior Factor Analysis .................................................................. 45Paired Sample t-tests for Past Behavior Categories ...................................................... 47Independent Samples t-test for Past Behavior Categories ............................................. 47Past Behavior Results Summary ..................................................................................... 48

ATTITUDE CATEGORIES ....................................................................................................... 49Results from Attitude Factor Analysis ............................................................................ 49Independent Sample t-test for Attitude Categories ......................................................... 51Attitude Categories Summary ......................................................................................... 52

Table of Contents

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxviii

INTENDED BEHAVIOR CATEGORIES...................................................................................... 53Results from Intended Behavior Factor Analysis ........................................................... 53Paired Samples t-tests for Intended Behavior Categories.............................................. 54Independent Samples t-tests for Intended Behavior Categories ..................................... 54Intended Behavior Summary........................................................................................... 55

MOVING BEYOND THE INITIAL ANALYSIS............................................................................ 55The Effect of Repeat Visits to the Zoo and the Quest to Save the Earth ......................... 56The Effect of Ages of Children within the Group............................................................ 56The Effect of Brookfield Zoo Membership ...................................................................... 59

SUMMER SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY................................................................................ 60Past Behaviors Summary ................................................................................................ 60Attitude Summary............................................................................................................ 61Zoo Visit Summary.......................................................................................................... 62Interest in Increasing Behaviors Summary..................................................................... 62Effect of Age of Children in the Group and Zoo Membership........................................ 62

THE BROCHURE PICK-UP STUDY.......................................................................................... 63

PHONE SURVEY METHODS ........................................................................................... 65Scale Development.......................................................................................................... 65Pre-testing and Sample Population ................................................................................ 67Conducting the Survey .................................................................................................... 67Survey Analysis ............................................................................................................... 68

PHONE SURVEY RESULTS.............................................................................................. 69A Representative Sample................................................................................................. 69Comparing the Bog and Control Groups after the Zoo Visit ......................................... 69

COMPARING THE SCORES OVER TIME ................................................................................... 70Comfort with Knowledge ................................................................................................ 70Personal Knowledge Building ........................................................................................ 70Time Commitment Behaviors.......................................................................................... 70

PHONE SURVEY RESPONSES................................................................................................. 72Frequency of Visits to the Brookfield Zoo ...................................................................... 72Discussing the Zoo Experience....................................................................................... 73Learning About How Your Choices Affect the Earth...................................................... 74Learning About Your Relationship to the Earth ............................................................. 75Zoo Encouraging You to Change Your Daily Behaviors................................................ 77Messages about the environment from external sources ................................................ 78Remembering Quest’s message (Bog Group only) ......................................................... 80Remembering discussions about the Quest to Save the Earth (Bog Group only)........... 82Other comments .............................................................................................................. 83

PHONE SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY................................................................................... 83

DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 86The Bog of Habits contains features that foster behavior change.................................. 86Playing the Bog of Habits increases interest in environmentally responsible behaviors89The Bog of Habits raises people’s environmental awareness ........................................ 92Messages from the Bog of Habits remain salient over time ........................................... 94

Table of Contents

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxix

The Bog of Habits should be transferable to other sites................................................. 95

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH................... 96CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................... 96RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 97

Recommendation 1.......................................................................................................... 97Recommendation 2.......................................................................................................... 97Recommendation 3.......................................................................................................... 98Recommendation 4.......................................................................................................... 98

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH................................................................................... 98

APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 100

LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................... 156

List of Tables and Charts

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxx

List of Tables and ChartsTable 1. Research Design For The Bog Of Habits Evaluation .............................................. 12

Table 2. Breakdown Of Course Experience Of The Evaluators ............................................ 15

Chart 1. Comparison Between Rating Scores From The Bog Of Habits And Overall QuestTheoretical Evaluations .......................................................................................................... 19

Table 3. Information Within The Bog Of Habits................................................................... 20

Table 4. Presentation Within The Bog Of Habits .................................................................. 21

Table 5. Engagement Within The Bog Of Habits.................................................................. 22

Table 6. Motivation Within The Bog Of Habits .................................................................... 23

Table 7. Participation Within The Bog Of Habits ................................................................. 24

Table 8. Physical Space Within The Bog Of Habits.............................................................. 25

Table 9. Information Within The Overall Quest.................................................................... 26

Table 10. Presentation Within The Overall Quest ................................................................. 27

Table 11. Engagement Within The Overall Quest................................................................. 27

Table 12. Motivation Within The Overall Quest ................................................................... 28

Table 13. Participation Within The Overall Quest ................................................................ 29

Table 14. Physical Space Within The Overall Quest............................................................. 29

Table 15. Summer Survey Questions, Hypotheses, Sources, And Analysis ......................... 38

Table 16. Roles Of The Bog Summer Survey Respondents.................................................. 40

Table 17. Background Variables For Bog And Control Respondents................................... 44

Table 18. Past Behavior Categories ....................................................................................... 46

Table 19. Pearson’s Correlations Between Past Behavior Categories................................... 47

Table 20. Independent T-Test Between Bog And Control Groups For Past BehaviorCategories ............................................................................................................................... 48

Table 21. Attitude Categories ................................................................................................ 50

List of Tables and Charts

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxxi

Table 22. Pearson’s Correlations Between Attitude Categories ............................................ 51

Table 23. Paired T-Tests For Attitude Categories ................................................................. 51

Table 24. Independent T-Tests Between Bog And Control Groups For Attitude Categories52

Table 25. Intended Behavior Categories................................................................................ 53

Table 26. Pearson’s Correlations Between Intended Behavior Categories ........................... 54

Table 27. Independent T-Test Between Bog And Control Groups For Intended BehaviorCategories ............................................................................................................................... 55

Table 28. Categories With A Significant Difference Between Groups Grouped By Ages OfChildren*................................................................................................................................. 58

Table 29. Category Scores Exhibiting A Significant Difference Between Zoo Members AndNon-Members ......................................................................................................................... 60

Table 30. Brochure Coupon Returns ..................................................................................... 63

Table 31. Phone Survey Variables For Bog And Control Respondents ................................. 72

Table 32. Which [Specific] Exhibits Did You Come Back To See? ..................................... 73

Table 34. Who Did You Talk About The Zoo With? ............................................................ 74

Table 35. Do You Remember Learning Anything At The Zoo About How Your ChoicesAffect The Earth?.................................................................................................................... 74

Table 36. Results Within The “Yes” Responses.................................................................... 75

Table 37: Results Within The “No” Responses...................................................................... 75

Table 38. Was Any Specific Exhibit Memorable For What You Learned About YourRelationship With The Earth?................................................................................................. 76

Table 39. Results Within The “Yes” Response ..................................................................... 77

Table 40. Anything At The Zoo Encourage You To Change Your Daily Behaviors?.......... 77

Table 41: Results Within The “Yes” Responses..................................................................... 78

Table 42: Results Within The “No” Responses...................................................................... 78


Table 45. Do You Remember What The Message (From Quest) Was?................................ 80

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxxii


Table 47. Do You Remember What [About The Quest] You Talked About? ...................... 82


List of Appendices

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxxiii

List of AppendicesAppendix A1: Maps Of The Brookfield Zoo........................................................................ 101

Appendix A2: Map Of The Quest To Save The Earth.......................................................... 102

Appendix A3: How To Play The Game................................................................................ 103

Appendix A4: Photos Of The Quest To Save The Earth And The Bog Of Habits............... 104

Appendix A4: Photos Of The Quest To Save The Earth And The Bog Of Habits............... 105

Appendix A5: Behavior Change Model Diagrams............................................................... 107

Appendix B1: Matrix Protocol ............................................................................................. 108

Appendix B1: Matrix Protocol ............................................................................................. 109

Appendix B2: Evaluation Matrix And Instrument................................................................ 110

Appendix B3: Criteria Guidelines ........................................................................................ 112

Appendix C1: Summer Surveys............................................................................................ 116

Appendix C2: Survey Procedures For The Bog Of Habits Survey ...................................... 124

Appendix C3: Survey Procedures For The Control Survey For The Bog Of Habits Study . 125

Appendix C4: Tracking Study Protocol................................................................................ 126

Appendix C5: Results Of The Tracking Study..................................................................... 127

Appendix C6: Short Brochure Pick-Up Survey.................................................................... 128

Appendix C7: Brochure For Pick-Up Study......................................................................... 129

Appendix C8: Follow-Up Phone Survey .............................................................................. 130

Appendix C9: Breakdown Of Phone Survey Attempts ........................................................ 133

Appendix C10: Phone Survey Participant Thank You Letter............................................... 134

Appendix D1: Anova For The Effect Of Repeat Visits To The Zoo And The Quest .......... 135

Appendix D2: Coding Categories For Qualitative Analysis Of The Theoretical Evaluation141

Appendix D3. Glossary Of Statistical Terms ....................................................................... 145

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habitsxxiv

Appendix D4: Phone Survey Coding Categories For Qualitative Analysis ......................... 149

Appendix E1: Bog Of Habits Theoretical Evaluation Results.............................................. 152

Brookfield Zoo Master’s Project Crossing the Bog of Habits1

Chapter: Introduction and Literature Review Topic: Promoting Conservation Behavior at a Zoo


Introduction and Literature ReviewThe past 30 years have witnessed an increased interest in finding how best to encourage

people to adopt environmentally responsible behaviors. The field of environmental education

developed around the end of the 1960s with the aim of producing “a citizenry knowledgeable

concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to solve

these problems, and motivated to work towards their solution” (Stapp, 1969). Thirty years later,

numerous institutions offer a variety of educational programs to students, visitors, and other

clients in the hopes that these people will leave convinced to adopt a more environmentally

friendly lifestyle. A literature review by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA, in

press) refers to numerous studies that have cited the potential for zoos and aquariums to

positively influence their visitors’ conservation knowledge, attitude, affect, and behavior.

However, according to the authors of that literature review, this potential lacks validation

through empirical research. The study reported in the following document attempts to

determine if zoos can influence their visitors, specifically, if visiting a single exhibit can impact

visitors’ conservation related behaviors.

Promoting Conservation Behavior at a Zoo According to Stoinski et al. (1999), the most important goal of zoological facilities is to

bring about changes in visitors’ conservation-related behaviors. In many ways, zoos are ideally

suited to accomplish this goal. Over the past 20 years, many zoos have redefined their missions

to reflect their growing desire to influence the public’s conservation knowledge, attitudes, and

behavior. Most zoos began as centers for recreation or entertainment, a reputation that persists

today among much of the public and among zoo critics (AZA, in press; Schultz, 2000).

However, modern zoos are no longer simply menageries that house exotic animals for public or

private viewing pleasure. All zoos accredited by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association

must provide for “conservation, education, research and recreation” (Benbow, 2000; AZA,

1997, cited in Swanagan, 2000). Although individual institutions prioritize the first three aims

differently, most zoos list recreation (entertainment) last, reflecting a shift in their priorities and

in overall thinking about how people interact with nature (Benbow, 2000).

As zoos embrace their educational missions, there has been an increased interest, and

also debate, about the efficacy of zoos in providing conservation knowledge and encouraging

the adoption of conservation behaviors. According to the AZA (in press), there is little

Chapter: Introduction and Literature Review Topic: Characteristics of Zoo Visitors


published research that has investigated zoo visitors and their experiences, particularly in the

months after their visit. Instead, recent studies have examined visitor demographics,

motivations, and attitudes. The findings of these studies indicate that zoo audiences are diverse

and defy all but the broadest of generalizations (Milan and Wourms, 1992). However, these

broad generalizations suggest that the millions of people who visit zoos each year should be

receptive to conservation messages (Stoinski et al., 1999; Swanagan, 2000).

Characteristics of Zoo VisitorsAlthough most zoos have worked to de-emphasize their recreation aspect, a majority of

the people who come to zoos are in family groups and are seeking a recreational experience

(Chicago Zoological Society and Lincoln Park Zoological Society, 1993; Wineman et al., 1996;

Morgan and Hodgkinson, 1996; Andereck and Caldwell, 1994; Benbow, 2000, Goodzoos, 2001).

While some people consider recreation and education to be conflicting aims, many visitor

studies indicate this is not necessarily true; education is in fact a highly desirable and satisfying

part of the recreational experience (Roggenbuck et al., 1990; Morgan and Hodgkinson, 1996).

Furthermore, multiple types of learning can occur during a leisure experience (Roggenbuck et al.,

1990). Knowledge acquisition has been repeatedly documented as taking place in what are

considered to be primarily recreational settings such as zoos and aquariums (AZA, in press).

A study by Andereck and Caldwell (1994) found that most visitors’ motivations fall

under a mixed education/recreation goal with different populations tending to emphasize

education more than others. In particular, parents of young children tended to focus more

strongly on education while childless couples, students, and retirees reported a stronger

recreational motivation (Andereck and Caldwell, 1994). A joint study conducted by the

Brookfield and Lincoln Park Zoos (1993), both in Chicago, Illinois, not only found that most

visitors tended to be accompanied by their families, but that families with small children (five

years or younger) tended to be the most frequent visitors. Because zoos are primarily

destinations for families with young children, a group receptive to an educational experience, a

tremendous opportunity exists for zoos to provide a learning experience.

Other visitors characteristics support the assertion that zoos and aquariums are

appropriate sites for teaching about conservation behaviors. In addition to the visitor study

conducted at the Brookfield and Lincoln Park Zoos in Chicago, a study at the National

Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland, found visitors to be generally more knowledgeable and more



concerned about conservation related issues than the general public (Adelman et al., 2000). Zoo

visitors were also found to have more years of formal education than non-zoo visitors (Chicago

Zoological Society and Lincoln Park Zoological Society, 1993). Dunlap and Van Liere’s New

Environmental Paradigm scale (2000) suggests that education correlates positively with higher

pro-environmental attitudes. The Brookfield Zoo and Lincoln Park Zoo study (1993) also

found that zoo visitors tend to be more optimistic about solving environmental problems than

non-zoo visitors. Additionally, an overwhelming majority of visitors to the Brookfield or

Lincoln Park Zoos (80%) consider themselves “somewhat” or “well” informed about

conservation issues and “somewhat” or “very” knowledgeable about how to lead

environmentally responsible lifestyles. These findings suggest that zoo visitors do not perceive

themselves as helpless when dealing with environmental issues, a critical characteristic seeing

that a sense of helplessness is considered one of the key obstacles to taking environmental action

(Kaplan, 2000).

Lastly, most zoo visitors cite environmental education as one of the primary roles of

zoos and aquariums (Mazur, 1993; Stoinski et al., 1999; AZA, in press). While most people do

not go to zoos with a specific educational goal, most are eager to learn while they are there

(Milan and Wourms, 1992; Chicago Zoological Society and Lincoln Park Zoological Society,

1993; Andereck and Caldwell, 1994; Morgan and Hodgkinson, 1996). A study at the Monterey

Bay Aquarium in Monterey, California, also found that most visitors want to learn about

conservation, particularly what the average person can do to help the Earth (AZA, in press).

While evidence suggests that people are open to, and interested in, learning about

conservation behaviors while visiting zoos and aquariums, there is a lack of research that

supports whether learning about conservation behaviors can be successful in such settings. To

begin to answer this question, as well as meet their visitors’ interests, zoos should develop

recreational experiences through which families can learn how to take part in environmental

conservation. The Brookfield Zoo, near Chicago, Illinois, has attempted to do just that with

their Quest to Save the Earth exhibit (see Appendix A1 for a map of the Zoo).

The Quest to Save the EarthTraditionally exhibits in zoos have provided knowledge-based information focusing on

animals, their behavior, habitat, etc. (AZA, in press). The Quest to Save the Earth is unusual,

and perhaps unique among zoo exhibits, in that it focuses solely on human behaviors and how



they can impact the Earth. As visitors exit Tropic World, a primate exhibit that focuses on the

choices that non-human primates make, they are invited to embark on the Quest to Save the

Earth (Quest). If they choose to participate, they have the opportunity to explore how their

choices can impact the environment.

Participants in the Quest follow a path and encounter four challenges along the way (see

Appendix A2 for a map of the Quest). The first of the four challenges, the Bog of Habits, is the

focus of this study. To complete this challenge, visitors must cross a metaphorical bog by

stepping on various stones. Each stone is labeled with a different behavior and a guide informs

the visitor about the different environmental impacts – both positive and negative – that each

behavior can have (for more information on how to play the Bog of Habits, see Appendices A3

and A4). However, the exhibit does not stop at simply making people aware of how their daily

actions affect the Earth; it also encourages them to try new behaviors. After playing the Bog of

Habits, visitors should leave 1) knowing that they are making choices in their lives and that these

choices have an impact on the environment, and 2) with a greater likelihood of doing new

conservation behaviors (Brookfield Zoo, 1997)

The development of the Quest involved a formative evaluation that tested the

assumptions underlying its outdoor game approach. As with the rest of the Quest, the Bog of

Habits was designed using theories from environmental psychology. Its design was based on

Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1982) notion of a “preferred environment” and addresses the human

needs of: feeling competent, being part of a group and exploring an environment that makes

sense, offers novelty, challenge, and uncertainty, and permits choice. Visitors should feel a sense

of competence as they come to understand the purpose and focus of the game through their

existing knowledge and previous experiences (Irvine et al., 1995). To play the Bog of Habits as

it was intended, visitors must interact with other people, either members of their own group, or

by joining another group. Novelty is incorporated into the Bog of Habits through the

incorporation of unfamiliar actions as well as familiar behaviors that are not generally thought of

in terms of how they impact the environment. These new choices and new ways of seeing

things enables visitors to explore new ideas and further their knowledge about how their choices

impact the environment. Exploration is further encouraged by not telling visitors which choices

are “right” or “wrong.” The Bog of Habits refrains from telling visitors what they should or

should not be doing; instead it creates a blend of comfort and uncertainty by presenting familiar

and unfamiliar concepts. After playing the Bog of Habits, visitors should leave feeling good

Chapter: Introduction and Literature Review Topic: Behavior Change Models


about the behaviors that they are already doing, and encouraged to try new ones (Irvine et al.,

1995).

Changing BehaviorMotivating people to adopt a more environmentally friendly lifestyle has been the focus

of two fields: environmental education (EE) and environmental psychology. The traditional

thinking within the field of EE was that by increasing an individual’s knowledge on a topic, an

educator could change the individual’s attitude, thus automatically creating the desired behavior

change (Hines et al., 1987). While knowledge and attitude are important when attempting to

change behavior, today’s practitioners of environmental education recognize that changing

behavior is far more complex (Hungerford and Volk, 1990). Environmental psychologists who

have also examined how to encourage people to adopt conservation behaviors have developed

several models that depict the factors that need to be addressed when seeking to change

behavior. While no single model has been embraced by the field, most practitioners recognize

that to change behavior, personal factors, as well as social and physical circumstances must be

addressed (Werner and Adams, 2001).

Behavior Change ModelsResearchers have proposed a variety of behavior change models (see Appendix A5 for

diagrams of some models used in this study). Empirical evidence suggests that environmentally

responsible behavior results from the interplay of multiple variables, all or some of which need

to be tweaked in order for the desired behavior to result (De Young, 2000). Variables found in

most of the behavior change models include knowledge, attitudes, perceived competence (also

known as efficacy perception), locus of control, and intention. Other variables that can affect

behavior change interventions are whether people are interested in the intervention, whether the

intervention takes place in a preferred environment, and situational factors.

Traditional Precursors to Behavior ChangeWhile there is not a linear relationship between knowledge and attitudes or between

attitudes and behaviors, people must generally possess the proper knowledge and attitudes

before they take pro-environmental action.

Chapter: Introduction and Literature Review Topic: Traditional Precursors to Behavior Change


Attitude

One tool for measuring environmental attitudes is Dunlap and Van Liere’s New

Environmental Paradigm scale (NEP)1, which measures the public’s endorsement of the new

environmental paradigm. Using this scale, Dunlap and Van Liere have helped confirm that a

measurable, albeit weak, link exists between attitudes and behavior (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978;

Dunlap and Van Liere, 2000). Hines et al. (1987) also found a relationship between attitudes

and behavior; people with more positive attitudes are more likely to report engaging in

environmentally responsible behaviors than those displaying less positive attitudes. Hines et al.

also identified two types of attitudes: attitudes toward ecology and the environment as a whole,

and attitudes toward taking environmental action (e.g. recycling, conserving energy, petitioning).

While Hines et al. found that both types of attitudes were related to environmental behavior, a

slightly stronger relationship was detected between “attitude toward action” and environmental

behavior than was observed between “attitude toward the environment in general” and

environmental behavior (Hines et al., 1987). Thus while this relationship between attitudes and

behavior has been found to exist, the power of attitudes to influence behavior declines when

other variables are considered (De Young, 2000).

Knowledge

One of the other variables that influences behavior is knowledge. The traditional

environmental education model postulated that providing a person with knowledge about the

environmental crisis would, in the end, result in that person adopting the appropriate behaviors.

However, as with attitudes, although knowledge is necessary, simply providing the facts will not

lead to great changes in behavior (Hines et al., 1987). Two types of knowledge have been

identified: declarative knowledge (knowledge of issues) and procedural knowledge (knowledge of

action strategies) (Hines et al., 1987). According to Hines et al., providing both types of

knowledge is necessary for changes in behavior to occur.

Declarative knowledge is the theoretical and factual knowledge that people possess

about an issue. Unfortunately, among Americans environmental knowledge is quite low, and is

often a “collection of myths, untruths, and superficial comprehension of complex issues”

(Pooley and O’Connor, 2000; AZA, in press). The importance of having a citizenry that

1 Proposed in 1978, the New Environmental Paradigm describes an ecologically benign culture which will replacethe dominant social paradigm in the West which focuses on resource extraction, growth, consumption, andmaterialism with little concern for nature (Milbrath, 1995 cited in La Trobe and Acott, 2000; Schultz and Zelezny,1999).

Chapter: Introduction and Literature Review Topic: Additional Precursors


possesses accurate information about and understands environmental issues is highlighted by the

aforementioned 1993 Brookfield and Lincoln Park Zoo study. This study found that

conservation knowledge positively correlates with environmentally responsible consumer and

voting behavior (Chicago Zoological Society and Lincoln Park Zoological Society, 1993).

Interventions should therefore provide accurate information on environmental issues in order to

assist people with making sound environmental choices. Yet for people to act on their concerns,

declarative knowledge is often not sufficient; people also need to understand how to proceed.

In addition to, and perhaps even more important than understanding the nature of

environmental problems, people need to know what behaviors will resolve the problems and

how to perform these behaviors (De Young, 1993). When teaching people about environmental

problems, information about skills and actions must also be conveyed (Monroe and De Young,

1993). A study by De Young (1988-89) found that the possession of procedural knowledge is a

significant factor in determining whether or not people adopt conservation behaviors. This is

logical, for if individuals are only presented with information detailing the facts about an

environmental issue, but lack knowledge concerning the behaviors that will resolve the problem,

how would they be able to take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation? Clearly, in order

for an exhibit about conservation behaviors to be effective, it must provide visitors with

information on how to do the desired behaviors.

Additional PrecursorsIt is not enough to simply provide people with declarative and procedural information.

In order for people to take action they must also believe that they possess sufficient knowledge

and skills to be competent in whatever action they take and that their actions will make a

difference. These two beliefs are referred to in this document as perceived competence and

locus of control.

Without a strong sense of one’s comprehension of an issue, or conversely by possessing

a strong sense of ignorance about what is going on, people will feel stymied and avoid taking

action (Kaplan, 2000). People tend to seek out situations where they can use their knowledge

and, by doing so, make a difference. Correspondingly, they avoid situations where they feel they

have insufficient information to guide their behavior and where there is a risk of looking foolish,

helpless, or ignorant (Kaplan, 2000). Perceived competence refers to an individual’s perception

of his or her ability to succeed at a given task.

Chapter: Introduction and Literature Review Topic: Other Enhancing Factors


Hines et al. (1987) consider this sense of one’s competence to be the same as locus of

control, however, here the term is used in a manner similar to Ajzen’s notion of perceived

behavioral control (1991). Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (1991) states that perceived

behavior control – “an individual’s perception of ease or difficulty of performing the behavior

under consideration” – is different from the concept of locus of control. Whereas locus of

control refers to the perception of whether or not an individual has the power to bring about

change, efficacy perception refers to an individual’s sense of his or her own competence. A

person with a weak individual locus of control would not attempt to bring about change because

they feel that changes can only be brought about by chance or through the actions of powerful

others (e.g. God, government, business leaders, etc.) (Hines et al., 1987). People with a strong

individual locus of control would be expected to take action more readily than those who feel

that the power to affect change is out of the hands of an individual. Yet, while one may believe

that in general, outcomes of events are under the control of individuals, that person may feel

that he or she lacks control in a specific situation (Ajzen, 1991). Thus it is possible to have a

high individual locus of control generally, yet feel personally incapable of responding to a

situation.

Intent is another of the many factors suggested to affect, or even predict, behavior

(Stern, 2000). Before an individual will deliberately take action, that individual must have the

intent to take action (Ajzen, 1991). Hungerford and Volk (1990) identify intention as a number

of variables acting in combination, including cognitive knowledge, cognitive skills and

personality factors. Ajzen (1991) defines intention as a function of two determinants, one

personal and one that reflects social influences, that indicate how much effort people are willing

to expend in order to perform a behavior. Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (1991) proposes

that behavioral intention, along with perceived behavioral control, can be used to predict

“behavioral achievement.” Assuming that the person in question possesses the required

resources and opportunities, intention should lead to the performance of the behavior – the

stronger the intent, the more likely the behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Other Enhancing FactorsBeyond the commonly recognized precursors to behavior change are a host of other

factors that can enhance or inhibit the ease with which people change their behavior. Among

Chapter: Introduction and Literature Review Topic: Behavior Change in Zoos


these are whether people are interested in the behavior and whether they are in a supportive

environment.

Interest is a relatively new concept in the behavior change discussion (Fredrickson, 1998)

and has not yet been incorporated into any behavior change models. However, the role of

interest, and other positive emotions, should be considered as behavior change interventions are

planned.

Positive emotions broaden an individual’s thought-action repertoire and can prompt

individuals to discard their everyday behavioral script and pursue “novel, creative and often

unscripted paths of thought and action” (Fredrickson, 1998). This is critical in an exhibit like

the Bog of Habits where people are encouraged to see familiar behaviors in a new light and to

try new behaviors. Interest arises in contexts that are appraised as safe, while simultaneously

offering novelty, change and a sense of possibility (Fredrickson, 1998). One result of interest is

“a feeling of wanting to investigate, become involved, or extend or expand the self by

incorporating new information and having new experiences with the person or object that has

stimulated the interest” (Izzard, 1997, cited in Fredrickson, 1998). Interest also creates a broader

mindset that is more open to ideas, experiences, and actions and when sustained over time, can

increase an individual’s knowledge base (Fredrickson, 1998).

The environments that Fredrickson defines as suitable for creating interest are similar to

those preferred by what Kaplan (2000) refers to as a “reasonable person.” According to the

reasonable person model, people want to explore and participate. Exploration and participation

occur best in supportive or preferred environments; environments that both make sense and

permit involvement (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1982). Exploration occurs in an environment where

people feel they will be safe, or competent, yet that contains enough mystery or novelty to be

intriguing. A participatory environment is one that matches the skills and interests of the

individual and allows them to interact either cognitively or physically.

The Bog of Habits, through its formative evaluation (Irvine et al., 1995), incorporated

many of the Kaplans’ ideas about preferred environments and should also be “interesting”

according to Fredrickson’s criteria.

Behavior Change in ZoosTo date, little evidence exists for behavior change occurring in zoos. One reason for this

is the difficulty of measuring behavior changes that might result from a zoo visit. As visitors

Chapter: Introduction and Literature Review Topic: Behavior Change in Zoos


move through the zoo, undergoing numerous experiences, it is difficult for people to pinpoint a

precise exhibit or moment that caused them to change. Furthermore, few exhibits currently

exist which actively promote general conservation behaviors. In the past, the Brookfield Zoo

has made an effort to measure behavior change. For example, its 1998 study of the Swamp

exhibit found that visitors to the Swamp had an increased interest in wetland related behaviors,

however no increase in general conservation behaviors occurred.

Problem StatementThe Quest to Save the Earth exhibit (Quest) specifically addresses common, everyday

behaviors that have implications for the environment and aims to inspire visitors to adopt

environmentally friendly behaviors. A challenge in the Quest, the Bog of Habits helps achieve

the overall goal of the Brookfield Zoo as it encourages visitors to think more about the

relationship between people, their actions and the state of the environment. Designed using

principles from environmental psychology and environmental education, the Bog of Habits

focuses on raising visitors’ awareness of the impact of their daily actions and on encouraging

them to adopt environmentally responsible behaviors.

As the Brookfield Zoo and other conservation centers throughout the country attempt

to motivate their visitors to lead more ecologically benign lifestyles, there is a need to know 1) if

exhibits encouraging behavior change are effective and 2) how to develop and evaluate them.

Early analysis indicated that people responded positively to the Bog of Habits (unpublished

summative evaluation data), however the question of its effectiveness in encouraging them to

adopt more conservation behaviors is has not previously been measured.

Using principles from environmental psychology and environmental education, this

study evaluated the Bog of Habits to determine if it successfully promotes the adoption of

environmentally responsible behaviors. This was done by soliciting feedback from visitors after

they played the Bog of Habits and by conducting a theoretical evaluation to identify the

strengths and weaknesses present in the game.

Chapter: Research Methods Topic: Introduction to the Research


Research Methods

Introduction to the ResearchThe first step taken to define the research questions was to create a diagram of

constructs and measures. This diagram was used as a visual representation of the concepts

considered to be important precursors to interest in increasing the frequency of environmentally

responsible behaviors. The diagram also mapped the possible methods of measuring these

concepts. As it was clear that no single method would adequately measure all of the constructs,

the study was broken into three complimentary sections, each with a different focus and set of

research methods. Thus, the study consists of the Theoretical Evaluation, the Summer Survey

(which includes the Tracking and Brochure Pick-up studies), and the Follow-Up Phone Survey.

Table 1 below describes the how the different methods corresponded to the research questions

and details what the purpose of the method and the analysis used to process the data. The

following sections provide the methods and results for the Theoretical Evaluation, followed by

the methods and results for the Summer and Phone Surveys.

Research Questions and MethodsA. Does the Bog of Habits contain features of an effective behavior change exhibit?

1. Based on environmental education and environmental psychology principles,what are the key criteria that should be considered when developing orevaluating behavior change exhibits?

2. What would people need to know if they want to replicate this exhibit at anothersite?

B. What effects does playing the Bog of Habits have on visitors’ conservation behavior?1. Does playing the Bog of Habits lead to increased interest in environmentally

responsible behaviors? If so, does this interest persist over time?2. Does the Bog of Habits have an effect on visitors’ immediate likelihood to take

action?3. Do people who play the Bog of Habits perceive the zoo as a place to learn about

the environment?4. Will people who play the Bog of Habits retain the message of the Quest to Save

the Earth?

Chapter: Research Methods Topic: Hypothesis/Purpose


Table 1. Research Design for the Bog of Habits EvaluationResearch Question Method Hypothesis/Purpose Analysis

Does the Bog of Habitscontain features of aneffective behavior changeexhibit?

TheoreticalEvaluation

To determine the strengths ofthe Bog of Habits, based onenvironmental education andenvironmental psychologyliterature

Content analysis,means and standarddeviations

Does playing the Bog ofHabits lead to increasedinterest in environmentallyresponsible behaviors?

SummerSurvey

Those who visit the Bog ofHabits will have increasedinterest in conservationbehaviors than those who donot.

Factor analysis,correlation, reliability,independent andpaired t-tests, Chi-squared tests,ANOVA

Does the Bog of Habitshave an effect on visitors’immediate likelihood totake action?

BrochurePick-up Study

People who go through theBog of Habits will be morelikely to pick up theinformational brochure thanthose who do not.

Chi-squared testscomparing Bog andControl groups withpick-up rates

If the Bog of Habits leads toincreased interest inenvironmentally responsiblebehaviors, is this increasedinterested durable?

Follow-upPhone Survey

Bog group interest inincreasing environmentalbehaviors and comfort withenvironmental knowledge willdrop to Control group levelsover time.

Paired t-testscomparing categoryresults to summersurvey results.

Does going through the Bogof Habits affect theretention of zoo messages?

Follow-upPhone Survey

Bog group will retain Bogmessage.

Chi-squared tests andcontent analysiscomparing results ofopen-ended questions.

What would people need toknow if they want toreplicate this exhibit atanother site?

TheoreticalEvaluation

To determine what it wouldtake for the Bog of Habits tobe transferred to other settings.

Content analysis

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Methods Topic: Purpose


Theoretical Evaluation Methods

PurposeUsing criteria drawn from environmental education and environmental psychology

literature, a framework was developed for evaluating exhibits that intend to promote

environmentally responsible behavior. This framework was then applied to the Quest to Save

the Earth exhibit (Quest) at the Brookfield Zoo.

Evaluation Framework ComponentsGuidelines

The guidelines used in the evaluation were developed from environmental psychology

and environmental education literature, as well as the exhibit objectives defined in the Brookfield

Zoo’s Quest to Save the Earth Final Interpretive Plan (1997). The criteria were broken into six

categories:

1. Information – to introduce visitors to environmental issues and behaviors;

2. Presentation – to expose visitors to concepts in a manner sensitive to their needs;

3. Engagement – to help visitors feel excited about and interested in conservation

behaviors;

4. Motivation – to develop visitors’ senses of responsibility to take environmental

action;

5. Participation – to offer visitors opportunities to physically and cognitively explore

environmental behaviors; and

6. Physical space – to provide visitors with an environment conducive for family

interactions and learning.

The evaluation criteria were written in a format similar to the one used in the North

American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) Environmental Education Materials:

Guidelines for Excellence (1996). First, the overall guideline is presented, followed by individual

criterion. A series of questions (called “what to look for”) indicate ways for evaluators to gauge

how well each guideline is met (see Appendix B3 for the criteria guidelines).

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Methods Topic: Evaluators


Matrix

The evaluation matrix was based on the matrix used for curricula evaluations in

environmental education courses at the University of Michigan (Michaela Zint, personal

communication, 2000). Evaluators were asked to rate on a scale of 1– 5 (1= does not meet any

of the criteria to 5 = meets all the criteria) how well the exhibit met each guideline. Next,

evaluators were asked what the strengths of the exhibit were, and what recommendations they

had for improvement. The matrix also included a “new rating” column. This column was

intended for the evaluators to step back and imagine their recommendations were made – how

would they rate the exhibit then? The purpose of this was to normalize the original ratings by

seeing how high each guideline could score (see Appendices B1 and B2 for the matrix protocol

and instrument). Finally, the evaluators were asked to write a one-paragraph summary of their

findings. This summary was aimed at educators interested in developing their own versions of

Quest.

EvaluatorsAll participants in the evaluation were students at the University of Michigan who

volunteered their time in exchange for a trip to Chicago that included transportation, lodging,

and meals. As a pre-requisite to participation, the evaluators had completed or were enrolled in

conservation behavior or environmental education courses through the School of Natural

Resources and Environment (SNRE). This pre-requisite ensured that evaluators would have

familiarity with, and/or interest in, environmental education and environmental psychology.

The courses in environmental education and conservation behavior draw students from different

concentrations within the SNRE program, as well as the School of Education and the College of

Architecture and Urban Planning. The varying degrees of familiarity, plus the fact that not all

the students were from SNRE, were an advantage for the evaluation.

Recruitment was done through class announcements, email announcements, and

personal invitations. Of the thirteen evaluators, six were second-year master’s students in

SNRE2 and four were first-year master’s students in SNRE. The group also included a fourth-

year undergraduate in SNRE, a pre-candidate Ph.D. student in SNRE, and a master’s student in

the College of Architecture and Urban Planning (see Table 2 for evaluators’ course experience).

2 Five of the second-year master’s students are the research investigators for this project.

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Methods Topic: Training Session


Table 2. Breakdown of course experience of the evaluators

Enrollment StatusNumber ofevaluators

Currently enrolled in one course 6

Currently enrolled in two courses 1Currently enrolled in two courses andcompleted one course 1

Completed two courses 4

Completed all three courses 1

Training SessionPrior to the evaluation, all of the evaluators attended a one-and-a-half hour training

session. For the first half-hour, the evaluators were given an introduction to the entire project

and went on a “virtual” photographic slide-show tour of the Quest to Save the Earth exhibit.

The next forty-five minutes were devoted to introducing the evaluation guidelines and applying

them to different exhibits at the Brookfield Zoo through the use of photographic examples. For

the last fifteen minutes, the group was given a sample matrix to evaluate an exhibit sign. This

training session allowed evaluators to go over the criteria and mimic the evaluation they were to

conduct a few days later.

One downside of the training session was that it presented a great deal of information in

a short amount of time. The evaluators may have been overwhelmed when they left. Also,

although using photograph examples with the guidelines was visually beneficial, the photos were

taken out of context from their exhibit and it was difficult to apply each of the individual criteria

Courses Relevant toEvaluation

CurrentlyEnrolled Completed

Foundations ofEnvironmental EducationNRE 481/ EDCURINS 474

3 1

Behavior and EnvironmentNRE 360/560/UP 560 7 5Psychology ofEnvironmental StewardshipNRE 561 (winter course)

n/a 6

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Methods Topic: Logistics of Evaluation Trip


to just a small segment of an exhibit. Additionally, the training session may have created a slight

bias. Because the evaluators only saw one photograph for each guideline, they may have

thought that it best exemplified the guideline, when really it was the best example from a limited

number of photographs.

Logistics of Evaluation TripBecause the Quest is a three-season, outdoor exhibit, the group went to the Brookfield

Zoo (Zoo) on the last weekend in September 2001, while the weather was still cooperative. The

evaluators arrived at the Zoo on Friday evening. Saturday morning, the day of the evaluation,

the group reviewed the day’s schedule and the evaluation matrix. The evaluators then broke into

small groups, with one master’s project member per group of two, and reviewed the evaluation

criteria. The entire group then came together for a question and answer session. Most of the

questions revolved around the issue of what to do if the exhibit meets only some of the criteria.

Pre-testing the Evaluation MatrixThe evaluators pre-tested the evaluation matrix at the Swamp exhibit, another

conservation oriented exhibit at the Zoo. This exercise was to help everyone become more

familiar with using the evaluation guidelines and matrix in the context of an entire exhibit.

Evaluators again broke up into small groups, with one master’s project member per group, and

spent an hour evaluating the exhibit.

While it was good to get practice using the guidelines and matrix, the morning was very

rushed. Some evaluators had trouble practicing with the matrix, as it was designed to evaluate

the overall exhibit, which is difficult to completely experience in one hour. However, it was

beneficial to be able to discuss the criteria in a real context.

Finally, the group spent an hour at Tropic World: A Primate’s Journey, the exhibit for

which the Quest to Save the Earth is the exit experience. This was important because Tropic

World presents many ideas that are repeated in the Quest.

Evaluating the Quest to Save the EarthFor the evaluation, evaluators went through the exhibit in four pairs, each pair followed

by a master’s project group member. Each challenge of the Quest was evaluated separately

(such as the Bog of Habits), with an overall exhibit evaluation (Overall Quest) at the end. The

timing was staggered so there wouldn’t be too many people at any one section at a given time.

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Methods Topic: Data Analysis


The longest amount of time an evaluator spent in the exhibit was three hours, and the shortest

time was one-and-a-half hours. Evaluators then had four days to complete their evaluations and

return them.

Evaluators commented that they would have liked more time to spend at the exhibit, as

they felt rushed to complete their matrix. This was especially true for the evaluators who spent

one-and-a-half hours in the exhibit. Also, people mentioned that they spent a great deal of time

at the beginning of the exhibit, and by the end, they were not able to focus as well. This could

be the result of arriving late in the evening the night before, and subsequently having a long day,

or simple directed attention fatigue.

Data AnalysisWhile the data was predominately qualitative, it also included components that were

analyzed quantitatively.

Qualitative analysis:

A content analysis was used to reduce the written comments in the evaluation matrices.

The evaluation comments from the Bog of Habits challenge were used to generate a list of ideas

mentioned three or more times in the strengths and recommendations columns. Comments that

seemed out of place were moved to appropriate categories based on where that idea was

presented in the criteria guidelines3. Coding categories (Babbie, 2002), consisting of the

words/phrases associated with each concept, were determined for the six guidelines. These

coding categories were then used to analyze the evaluator’s comments of the Overall Quest

(these can be found in Appendix D2). The percentages of evaluator comments that contained

ideas representative of the different categories were subsequently calculated.

The final evaluation paragraphs were synthesized by sorting comments according to

corresponding topical questions. Characteristic comments were derived from these groupings.

Any comments that did not fit into a specific topic were recorded at the end (see Appendix D2

for questions asked).

Quantitative analysis:

The means and standard deviations were determined for the ratings given to the Bog of

Habits and Overall Quest matrices. The ratings and new ratings were calculated for each

3 Some evaluators mentioned after turning their evaluations that it was often difficult to determine under whichguideline they should have written their observations.

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Data Analysis


separate category within the guidelines. Paired t-tests were used to determine statistical

significance between the Bog of Habits ratings and Overall Quest ratings.

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Information


Theoretical Evaluation Results

Rating ScoresOn a scale of 1– 5 (1 = does not meet any of the criteria to 5 = meets all the criteria), the

Bog of Habits had higher mean rating scores for the categories of information, presentation,

engagement, and motivation, whereas the Overall Quest scored higher in the categories of

participation and physical space than the Bog (see Chart 1). Paired t-tests showed that the rating

scores for the physical space category were statistically significant (p = .032). The following

sections discuss these categories in detail.

Chart 1. Comparison Between Rating Scores from the Bog of Habits and OverallQuest Theoretical Evaluations

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Inform

ation

Presen

tation

Engag

emen

t

Motiva

tion

Particip

ation

Physic

al Spa

ce

Category

Mea

n R

atin

g Sc

ore

Bog of HabitsOverall Quest

Bog of Habits

InformationEvaluators rated the information category highest, with a mean score of 4.65 (s.d.

=0.47). Seventy-seven percent of the evaluators stated that the greatest strength of the Bog of

Habits is that it addresses new knowledge by providing examples of familiar and unfamiliar

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Presentation


behaviors (see Table 3). One evaluator commented, “[The Bog of Habits] includes both familiar

and new activities that have implications for general conservation and environmental health.”

Another said, “I especially like the fact that some behaviors are included that people may already

do but may never have thought of as being environmental (such as using cloth napkins or

lunchboxes or buying vegetables).” Over half of the evaluators stated that the exhibit provides

both declarative and procedural knowledge. For example, evaluators made comments such as

“[The exhibit] explains how and why behaviors are important” and “[it] doesn’t just tell you to

recycle, [it] shows you how reducing is important too. [It is] great at giving information about

what you should do.”

However, evaluators were divided about the amount of procedural knowledge within the

exhibit. Three out of the eight evaluators who provided recommendations commented that the

Zoo should increase the amount of procedural information provided in the game. One

evaluator recommended, “Knowing HOW to do a lot of the things like recycling juice boxes or

having native plants can make a big difference. Have a brochure for visitors to take away for

more procedural knowledge.” With recommendations implemented, the new rating mean was

5.00 (s.d. = 0), giving the Bog of Habits a perfect score in this category.

Table 3. Information within the Bog of HabitsRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:4.65

s.d.:0.47

� incorporates familiar/ unfamiliarbehaviors and new knowledge(77%)

� good declarative knowledge(69%)

� good procedural knowledge (54%)� builds on current knowledge

(31%)� incorporates “real life” behaviors

(31%)

� increase procedural knowledge(38%)

� make links to the animal world(25%)

(n=8)

Mean:5.00

s.d.:0.00

(n=10)n=13 unless otherwise noted

PresentationIn the presentation category, 77% of the evaluators reported positive framing of

information as the greatest strength (see Table 4). One evaluator noted, “For every choice we

make, it [the Bog of Habits] presents the good with the bad, i.e., if [you] take [a] plastic bag while

shopping, it’s not so bad if you reuse it,” while another said that the exhibit had a “good,

positive spin.” The evaluators commented that the game provides information through clear,

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Engagement


simple challenges (62%), in addition to examples of behaviors that relate to everyday life (46%).

The mean rating score for presentation was 4.38 (s.d. = 0.65).

Of the eight evaluators who provided recommendations for this section, 38%

recommended that the Zoo strengthen links between exhibits. One evaluator noted, “Concepts

from other exhibits and presentation of new behaviors as fun could be developed further.”

However, even though many evaluators reported the exhibit’s positive framing as a strength,

25% of the evaluators suggested that there be less negativity or guilt within the exhibit. With

recommendations integrated, the new rating mean equaled 4.63 (s.d. = 0.52).

Table 4. Presentation within the Bog of HabitsRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:4.38

s.d.:0.65

� positive framing (77%)� info in clear, simple challenges

(62%)� behaviors relate to daily life (46%)� choices theme continued (31%)� behaviors presented as simple,

easy, or fun (23%)*

� strengthen links between exhibits(38%)

� try to have less negativity, guilt(25%)

(n=8)

Mean:4.63

s.d.:0.52

(n=8)n=13 unless otherwise noted* Indicates that response was moved to appropriate category

EngagementNearly all of the evaluators (92%) judged the Bog of Habits to be good for repeat visits.

Comments included: “repeated visits would be great – many possibilities” and “experience can

be different each time because of the spinner.” Other strong factors the evaluators noted were

that there was an element of mystery (or more to know) (69%) and that there were varied

options and choices throughout the game (54%) (see Table 5). The mean rating score for

engagement was 3.92 (s.d. = 0.76).

Eight evaluators provided recommendations in this section. Thirty-eight percent of

these evaluators recommended that the exhibit be more cognitively engaging. One evaluator

commented, “Visitors are not asked to solve the problems, they are just given solutions…

involve people by asking them what decisions to make.” Another recommendation was that the

Brookfield Zoo improve the space so that the next challenge is out of direct sight to increase

mystery (25%). As one evaluator noted, “[You] can see the next challenge, so may not stay to

play the game.” With recommendations, the mean score for engagement increased to 4.40 (s.d.

= 0.52).

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Motivation


Table 5. Engagement within the Bog of HabitsRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:3.92

s.d.:0.76

� good for repeat visits (92%)� has mystery element (69%)� has many options/choices, variety

(54%)� postcards create storyline (31%)� presents challenges (23%)

� increase cognitive engagement(38%)

� increase distance between challenges(25%)

(n=8)

Mean:4.40

s.d.:0.52


MotivationThe mean rating score for the motivation category was 3.96 (s.d. = 0.78). Fifty-four

percent of the evaluators stated that the Bog of Habits was strong in providing examples of

everyday behaviors, in addition to congratulating or rewarding players (see Table 6). One

evaluator commented, “Presents simple ways/behaviors to help the planet which can be applied

to daily life. We are rewarded for our good choices. Feel good!” Another notable strength was

that the exhibit indicates the impact of choices (46%). Another evaluator noted, “This game

makes it very clear that there are many very small things that any individual can do to help the

environment, and that many of these things are easy and fun!”

Of the twelve evaluators who provided recommendations for this section, 42% noted

that most of the actions mentioned are at a personal level, and suggested that the exhibit extend

the level of connections beyond the individual. One evaluator commented, “Most of the

behaviors in this challenge are local, at-home behaviors, rather than national or global things.”

Thirty-three percent of the evaluators who provided recommendations also suggested that the

exhibits should encourage and congratulate the visitors more, in addition to discussing the

impact of actions in greater detail. Contrary to some of the comments found in the strengths

section, one evaluator stated, “Element of congratulations is not evident in completing task,”

while another recommended, “As things are presented at a very personal level, include

information that shows people how their choices and behaviors not only impact them, but

others as well.” Incorporating recommendations raised the mean score to 4.60 (s.d. = 0.52).

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Participation


Table 6. Motivation within the Bog of HabitsRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:3.96

s.d.:0.78

� congratulates/rewards players(54%)

� includes everyday behaviors(54%)

� indicates impact of choices (46%)� behaviors at a personal level

(38%)� stresses personal stake and

responsibility (23%)� addresses behaviors at personal

and national or global level (23%)

� extend the level of connectionsbeyond the individual (42%)

� encourage/congratulate more (33%)� discuss impacts of actions (33%)

(n=12)

Mean:4.60

s.d.:0.52


ParticipationThe degree to which the Bog of Habits encourages interaction with others was noted as

a strength by 92% of the evaluators (see Table 7). One evaluator stated, “[You] need at least two

people to play, which fosters group interaction and working together.” Another said, “People

do not actually need to play (walk on stones) to participate – observers can also contribute and

learn.” This is followed by 46% of the evaluators reporting that there are few age restrictions.

Another evaluator commented, “Children and adults can play. Many of the actions are adult

behaviors, but children enjoy the game anyway and may (hopefully) share information with

parents and teachers later.” Forty-six percent of the evaluators also indicated the amount of

positive feedback provided was a strength. One evaluator mentioned, “Feedback is provided

through [guide]book and applause at end.” The mean rating score was 3.77 (s.d. = 0.83) for the

participation category.

Sixty-seven percent of the twelve evaluators who provided recommendations for this

section suggested that there should be increased opportunities for reflection. One evaluator

recommended, “As people leave the Bog [of Habits], in addition to congratulating them, ask

them to reflect on the choices they made, the choices that they make everyday, and what new

actions they might take.” Fifty-eight percent of the evaluators also expressed concerns regarding

the amount of time needed to play near or to completion through comments such as “can

discourage visitors because it takes so long to play.” By implementing these recommendations,

evaluators raised the mean score to 4.25 (s.d. = 0.79).

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Physical Space


Table 7. Participation within the Bog of HabitsRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:3.77

s.d.:0.83

� encourages interaction (92%)� few age restrictions (46%)*� provides positive feedback (46%)� provides opportunities to explore

(38%)� includes physical and cognitive

activities (38%)� encourages reflection (23%)

� increase opportunities for reflection(67%)

� make less time consuming to playnear or to completion (58%)*

� decrease the potential limits toparticipation (58%)*

� increase cognitive engagement(42%)

(n=12)

Mean:4.25

s.d.:0.79


Physical SpacePhysical space was rated the lowest of the six categories, with a mean score of 3.50 (s.d.

= 0.71). Sixty-two percent of the evaluators appreciated that the Bog of Habits incorporates

environmentally friendly materials into the exhibit, which is consistent with Zoo messages (see

Table 8). One evaluator commented, “[The] recycled surface [of the Bog of Habits] is consistent

with the Zoo’s mission and theme of exhibit (plus it feels really cool!).” Forty-six percent of the

evaluators also reported a strength of the exhibit was that conservation messages are relevant to

all people, regardless of social or economic status. An evaluator noted, “Messages are relevant

to diverse audience.” Other strong points evaluators made were that the exhibit makes good use

of varied textures (31%) (one evaluator “liked the boggy texture v. stone”) and that it

incorporates a sense of novelty that is both vivid and relevant (31%). As one evaluator

commented, “[This is a] novel, new hands-on approach to teaching/instilling conservation

behaviors.”

Many of the recommendations for this section were intended to facilitate wayfinding.

Trimming shrubbery, making the directions more visible, and making the directions and role of

guidepost clearer were each recommended by 46% of the evaluators. One evaluator

recommended, “Directions can be positioned in a way that people can see them when

approaching exhibit. If [the] directions aren’t seen, visitors may not understand exhibit. Have

[a] docent explain directions.” Twenty-three percent of the evaluators also noted that crossing

the Bog of Habits without using the guidebook could lead to confusion as to which behaviors

on the stones are good or bad. An evaluator noted, “Visitors who do not play the game

correctly are often confused about which actions are good and bad. The directions are

confusing and hard to find!” With recommendations, the new rating was 4.67 (s.d. = 0.49).

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Information


Table 8. Physical Space within the Bog of HabitsRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:3.50

s.d.:0.71

� incorporates environmentallyfriendly materials, which isconsistent with Zoo messages(62%)

� conservation messages arerelevant to a diverse audience(46%)

� good use of varied textures (31%)� incorporates novel, vivid and

relevant elements (31%)

� maintain shrubbery (46%)� make directions more visible (46%)� make directions clearer (46%)*� make role of guidepost clearer (46%)� make clear which behaviors are good

or bad (23%)*

Mean:4.67

s.d.:0.49


Overall Quest

InformationOn a scale of 1– 5 (1 = does not meet any of the criteria to 5 = meets all the criteria),

evaluators rated the information category the highest, with a mean of 4.27 (s.d. = 0.78).

Seventy-seven percent of the evaluators stated that the exhibit addresses new knowledge by

discussing familiar behaviors along with other behaviors that might not be as familiar (see Table

9). One evaluator commented that the Quest places an old or familiar behavior within the

context of conservation, thereby allowing the behavior to be perceived as new or unfamiliar. As

in the Bog of Habits, the Quest scored moderately high in the areas of providing visitors with

procedural knowledge (46%) and declarative knowledge (38%). Additionally, 38% of the

evaluators indicated that the Quest provides examples of both simple and complicated

behaviors.

Despite the relatively high scores regarding both procedural and declarative knowledge,

78% of the nine evaluators providing recommendations suggested that declarative knowledge be

increased. One-third of these evaluators also recommended an increase in procedural

knowledge at some points within the exhibit as well. Recommendations increased the mean

rating to 4.55 (s.d. = 0.52).

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Presentation


Table 9. Information within the Overall QuestRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:4.27

s.d.:0.78

� incorporates familiar/ unfamiliarbehaviors and new knowledge (77%)

� provides procedural knowledge(46%)

� provides declarative knowledge(38%)

� incorporates “real life” behaviors(38%)

� increase declarative knowledge(78%)*

� increase procedural knowledge(33%)

(n=9)

Mean:4.55

s.d.:0.52


PresentationAn overwhelming majority of evaluators (85%) indicated that the Quest incorporates

positively framed messages when presenting conservation behaviors or environmental ideas (see

Table 10). Forty-six percent of the evaluators commented that the information is presented

clearly and easily relates to the everyday lives of the visitors. Thirty-eight percent of the

evaluators said that the exhibit provides multiple exposures by building on the “choices” idea

found in Tropic World. By allowing players to choose from various behaviors within each

challenge, the “choices” theme is further continued. The mean score was 4.14 (s.d.=0.71).

However, some of the evaluators that provided recommendations for this section voiced

differing opinions. Half of the eight evaluators providing recommendations stated that the

Quest’s ties to other exhibits are not strong. An evaluator recommended that ties to Tropic

World be strengthened with “More visible ape/monkey footprints and a reminder of the primate

connection.” Another evaluator indicated that the connections within the Quest itself are also

weak by stating, “The Bog, Doors, Reuse and Away, Tower, and Globe were a disjointed

journey.” With the recommendations, the mean new rating was 4.50 (s.d. = 0.55).

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Engagement


Table 10. Presentation within the Overall QuestRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:4.14

s.d.:0.71

(n=11)

� positive framing (85%)� info in clear, simple challenges

(46%)*� continues choices theme (38%)� contains multiple exposures (38%)*� behaviors relate to everyday life

(23%)

� strengthen links between exhibits(50%)*

(n=8)

Mean:4.50

s.d.:0.55


EngagementThe mean score for the engagement category was 3.83 (s.d. = 0.83). Evaluators

commented that both mystery and story are incorporated well into the Quest to Save the Earth.

Visitors cannot see what is going to happen next, yet they are able to follow an engaging

storyline and feel excited and interested (see Table 11). Fifty percent of the evaluators felt that

the Quest could be enjoyed on repeat visits since it has the capacity to be different each time a

visitor plays, and provides the visitor with a sense that there is always something more to know.

Although half of the evaluators stated that the Quest could be enjoyed on repeat visits,

42% of the evaluators recommended that the Zoo increase the incentive for repeat visitors by

changing the information contained within the exhibit periodically. With this recommendation,

the mean increased to 4.36 (s.d. = 0.85).

Table 11. Engagement within the Overall QuestRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:3.83

s.d.:0.83(n=12)

� has mystery element (67%)� postcards create storyline (67%)*� good for repeat visits (50%)

(n=12)

� lacks incentive for repeat visits;change info periodically (42%)

(n=12)

Mean:4.36

s.d.:0.85(n=7)

* Indicates that response was moved to appropriate category

MotivationFifty-four percent of the evaluators indicated that the Quest congratulates (rewards)

players for making good choices. In addition, it stresses personal stakes and responsibility, and

serves as inspiration for people to create their own success stories (see Table 12).

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Participation


Yet, 36% of the eleven evaluators providing recommendations suggested the

incorporation of more success stories, which might inspire visitors to adopt environmentally

responsible behaviors. Further, 36% of these evaluators recommended that the exhibit help

visitors become more aware of the impacts of their choices and actions better. Thirty-six

percent of the evaluators also indicated that while many of the actions within the Quest are

presented on a personal level, larger, more global connections should be made. Connections

such as those between people, their choices, and their impacts on others, as well as the

expansion of the idea of “group action” were suggested to provide these wider connections. By

instituting these recommendations, the mean increased to 4.44 (s.d. = 0.53).

Table 12. Motivation within the Overall QuestRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:3.79

s.d.:0.72

(n=12)

� congratulates/rewards players (54%)� includes success stories (46%)� stresses personal stake and responsibility

(46%)� indicates impact of choices (38%)� addresses behaviors at personal and

national or global level (38%)� stresses taking action is not difficult

(38%)

� extend the level ofconnections beyond theindividual (36%)

� discuss impacts of actions(36%)

� more success stories (36%)

(n=11)

Mean:4.44

s.d.:0.53


ParticipationAs seen in Table 13, the evaluators found the following strengths in the participation

category: fosters group interactions (75%), contains physical and cognitive activities (58%), and

presents few age restrictions not only for the Quest itself, but also for the behaviors within the

exhibit (50%). The mean score in the participation category was 3.92 (s.d. = 0.51).

However, although the few age restrictions is a strength of the Quest, 62% of the

evaluators noted other limits to participation. These limitations include that the Quest requires

visitors to have reading skills, to be able to physically interact with the challenges, and to a

certain extent, to be in groups of a certain size to fully interact with the exhibit. Additionally,

evaluators recommended that elements be incorporated into the exhibit to include visually and

physically impaired visitors. Evaluators also recommended that the Quest include more

cognitive engagement and also adjust it so that it takes less time to play near or to completion.

One evaluator suggested, “Encouraging group discussions about behaviors and consequences”

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Physical Space


as a way to increase cognitive engagement. With recommendations implemented, the evaluators

rated the category with a mean of 4.55 (s.d. = 0.69).

Table 13. Participation within the Overall QuestRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:3.92

s.d.:0.51

(n=12)

� encourages interaction (75%)� includes physical and cognitive

activities (58%)*� few age restrictions (50%)� provides opportunities to explore

(33%)� encourages reflection (25%)(n=12)

� decrease the potential limits toparticipation (62%)*

� increase cognitive engagement(54%)*

� make less time consuming to playnear or to completion (46%)*

� increase opportunities for reflection(31%)*

Mean:4.55

s.d.:0.69


Physical SpaceThe mean rating score for the physical space category was 4.18 (s.d. = 0.75). As shown

in Table 14, the majority of the evaluators stated that the Quest is novel and vivid enough to be

engaging and attract visitors to participate (67%). The Quest is also consistent with Zoo

messages as the exhibit is designed with environmentally friendly materials, such as recycled

rubber (54%). Twenty-three percent commented that one doesn’t feel trapped into playing the

Quest.

Recommendations to trim the shrubbery surrounding the Quest, to make the directions

clearer and less confusing, and to move or change the angle of the directions to make them

more visible, were made by 33% of the evaluators. With the recommendations, evaluators gave

this category a near perfect score of 4.94 (s.d. = 0.18).

Table 14. Physical Space within the Overall QuestRating Strengths Recommendations New

RatingMean:4.18

s.d.:0.75

(n=11)

� incorporates novelty,vivid/relevant (67%)

� incorporates environmentallyfriendly materials, which isconsistent with Zoo messages(54%)

� clear directions (31%)� well maintained (23%)� voluntary participation (23%)

� maintain shrubbery (33%)� make directions more visible (33%)� make directions clearer (33%)� decrease vividness (25%)*� increase vividness (25%)� include info about how Zoo adheres

to messages (25%)

(n=12)

Mean:4.94

s.d.:0.18


Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Transferability to other settings


Summary Evaluation Paragraphs

Transferability to other settingsAll of the evaluators indicated that at least certain parts of the Quest to Save the Earth

exhibit could be transferred to other settings, such as schools, fairs, or as a museum exhibit.

One evaluator noted, “Introducing it as a traveling exhibit or temporary exhibit may be helpful.

Implementing the exhibit in this way would also allow its message to be ‘broadcast’ over a larger

area.” Another evaluator suggested, “The Quest would also go well within a natural science

museum. While I think the Quest functions well as a large physical space that is in nature and as

a whole, the Bog of Habits and the Tower of Balance could be good interactive teaching tools

for an environmental awareness fair or school.”

Evaluators also considered replicating sections of the Quest in both museums and

schools. “The Bog [of Habits] and the Tower could easily be made into portable activities that

could be used in classroom settings,” one evaluator commented, “[but] if this exhibit were built

in a science museum (or as an outdoor activity at a museum), it would have a very different

impact. People at museums are usually less interested in recreation and entertainment than most

zoo visitors (as in what is their goal for the day). Museum visitors might be more likely to reflect

on the messages and take more time to interact with the different challenges.” Another

evaluator stated, “This exhibit would go very well in conjunction with an environmental

program or class where students already have exposure to the concepts presented and would

encourage discussion and participation within the group.” Another suggestion for where the

exhibit could be replicated was in a school setting, for “playing a game like the Bog [of Habits]

would be a good way to learn information in a novel way. Maybe a good place for this type of

activity would be at a residential camp (the kind you go to for a week in 6th grade).”

Replication of certain pieces of the exhibitNone of the evaluators expressed strong reservations about having pieces of the Quest

stand alone as independent activities. Four evaluators (33%) specifically said that while it would

be ideal to have all the pieces together, they could imagine various pieces standing alone. In

justification for keeping all the units connected, one evaluator noted, “Keeping all the ‘parts’ of

the game together in one unit supports the concept that multiple exposures to the basic idea of

‘I can make a choice that makes a difference’ will take hold in the visitor’s mind.” Another

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Opinions regarding setting and scale


evaluator pointed out that, “On the whole, the exhibit works well as a series in that different

units provide different resources to evaluators (motivation, information, engagements).”

The Bog of Habits and the Tower of Balance were most commonly cited as the elements

that could stand alone with the least amount of modification. In evaluating which different units

might stand alone, the evaluators placed a great deal of emphasis on the amount of information

contained in each challenge. For example, one wrote, “In terms of portions being able to stand

alone, it seems the Bog, Land of Away, and Globe would be most effective at conveying the

intended message. Although the Globe doesn’t really give much information, its interactive ‘I

can pledge to make a difference’ nature, in my opinion, should allow it to stand-alone. The

Tower on the other hand, seems to work well as a portion of an exhibit, but not alone because it

doesn’t provide any background information on conservation in general, information that is

needed if the exhibit is to be effective. It would need something to introduce it if it were alone.

The Doors don’t provide very much information, and therefore, would not work alone.”

Evaluators were also emphatic in stressing that if any one piece were to be developed into a

stand-alone “exhibit” or activity, more emphasis would need to be placed on explaining the

context of the concepts. In the words of one evaluator, “with the right preparatory information,

the Bog [of Habits] would work well as a stand-alone activity. It would need to be preceded

with discussions about choices and followed up with discussions on commitment and barriers to

behavior change.”

Opinions regarding setting and scaleEvaluators had varied opinions on whether the exhibit could be replicated in an indoor

setting. Four evaluators (33%) were indifferent to whether the activities needed to be indoors or

outdoors. One evaluator pointed out that “indoor exhibits are used more, and there isn’t really

anything about this one that requires it to be outdoors.” Three evaluators (25%) felt otherwise

and commented that as a whole, the Quest worked best outside, but if individual challenges were

to be reproduced, they could work well inside.” Lastly, three of the evaluators said that this

activity should definitely be built outdoors. One evaluator stated, “I definitely feel the setting

should be outdoors because it makes the game more engaging and the knowledge you are trying

to link with concerns about natural resources (I don't think it would be as effective inside a

building with no outside stimuli of trees/wind/birds/sky).” Another pointed out that locating

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Audience most affected by message


the activity outdoors, “IN nature,” would allow evaluators to “have time to reflect about what

[they] did and learned, and [they]’d be in the woods – a great place for reflection.”

Only 7 out of 12 evaluators (58%) responded as to whether they felt the activities needed

to be large enough to walk through or if they would still work if the were scaled down to a

portable size. Of those who did answer, five said they could imagine a portable version, but two

strongly stated that the “life-size” scale of the exhibit was crucial to engaging visitors.

Audience most affected by messageThe evaluators all agreed that the success of these activities is strongly linked to

discussion, and therefore family groups and/or school groups would likely absorb more of the

information than peer groups. Many evaluators mentioned the need for adult supervision. One

evaluator pointed out the pros and cons of this factor: “It was apparent that younger children

are in need of supervising to utilize the Quest properly. This might be seen as a limitation. On

the other hand it encourages interaction between older viewers and younger viewers—requires

the older viewer to act as a teacher and the challenges to act as a textbook.” Some evaluators

indicated that family groups would receive the most benefit from these challenges. One

evaluator stated, “Family groups might work best, since members can discuss how concepts fit

in their particular lifestyle and can adopt new behaviors accordingly.” Another evaluator

commented, “Generally on family trips, people have more time to spend reflecting on each

portion of the exhibit as well as the exhibit as a whole.” Other evaluators thought that school

groups would learn the most from the exhibit, giving the following reasons: This exhibit would

go very well in conjunction with an environmental program or class where students already have

exposure to the concepts presented and would encourage discussion and participation within the

group.

Additional commentsIn addition to answering the questions discussed above, many evaluators added some of

their own comments about the Quest. The majority of these comments were related to the

informational content of the exhibit. Three evaluators (25%) indicated that there was an

“overwhelming” amount of information. One stated, “[It is] easy to become overwhelmed by

the amount of information in this exhibit especially when combined with all the information

preceding this in Tropic World. The take-home messages can quickly become drowned in facts

and figures.” Another evaluator noted that the exhibit lacks a set of guiding target behaviors or

Chapter: Theoretical Evaluation Results Topic: Additional comments


themes for behavior, and suggested that the content could be improved by selecting three to five

behaviors to focus on repeatedly in each activity. If given the opportunity to recreate the exhibit,

one evaluator recommended to “bypass all of the visual metaphors4. I think these are lost to

most people, especially young children. I would refocus the goals of the exhibit to not be direct

conservation behavior, but a way of fostering/communicating with each other about behaviors –

between peers and between family members.”

One evaluator also indicated that the exhibit “is physically and visually engaging, but I

think it lacks cognitive engagement. Too often (especially in the Bog [of Habits]), people have

the illusion of making decisions that the activities then make for them – in other words, people

were rarely asked to make the decision and then hear the outcome of it.” Other evaluators

commended the content of the exhibit, writing comments such as “great activity for getting

people to think about conservation issues in general and more specifically,” and “it’s a great

extension of the ‘primates make choices all the time’ theme woven throughout Tropic World.”

Another recurring comment focused on cultural considerations. Several evaluators

pointed out that the themes in the game do not apply to all people in all living situations and

from all cultural backgrounds. One evaluator commented, “Other societies/cultures might not

make links to choices and conservation behavior that the Quest implies we all make.

Information can be presented in a different way depending on cultures.” Another evaluator

noted the following considerations: “The Quest game is hard to do alone. And, it is nearly

impossible to do the activities alone or in full if one is sight impaired or physically challenged.

Further, English reading skills are a must. Therefore, successful completion of the game

requires one be part of a group with at least one able bodied, sighted, English language literate

group member.”

Two evaluators (17%) commented on the physical structure and layout of the game in

their summaries. One of the major points made on this topic was the difficulty of reading/

following the directions for the Bog of Habits. As one evaluator indicated, “In the Bog [of

Habits], the ‘reader’ and [guidebook]book podium are placed too far from the entrance to the

game. As a result, most people don’t even play the game. They play hopscotch, or walk across it

without looking at the squares, or if they do have a reader, the reader only gives the ‘go

forward/go backward’ instructions instead of reading the reasons. The emphasis and success of

4 Examples are pushing past barriers to conservation in the Doors of Doubt, or balancing your environmentalchoices at the Tower of Balance.



the game needs to be placed on the ‘reading of the book.’” Another comment included in one

of the summaries was in regard to the general effectiveness of the exhibit. “Quest to Save the

Earth is a good effort at trying to promote conservation education,” noted an evaluator,

“knowing what we do about environmental education, this kind of experience can’t realistically

change behaviors. That would be a life-long process of learning, not a quick (half-hour at most)

journey through this exit exhibit. One of the major strengths of this exhibit is that it attempts to

place conservation behaviors in a fun and engaging context in which both children and adults

can participate.”

Theoretical Evaluation Results SummaryBy applying the evaluation framework to the Bog of Habits and Overall Quest to Save

the Earth, the mean rating scores indicate that the greatest strength for both the Bog of Habits

and the Overall Quest is information. Additionally, information was the only category that

received a perfect score (5=meets all of the criteria) if the recommendations were implemented

for the Bog of Habits. For both the Bog of Habits and Overall Quest, other categories that

scored high were presentation and engagement. However, the mean rating scores show that the

exhibit meets at least half of the criteria for the remaining categories of motivation, participation,

and physical space.

The evaluators also highlighted numerous strengths and provided insightful

recommendations for the exhibit. Analysis of the evaluator’s comments of the Bog of Habits

and Overall Quest reveal parallel strengths: utilization of familiar and unfamiliar behaviors,

positively framed messages, and a unique interactive opportunity for visitors that can be

different upon repeated visits. This is an important finding for members who visit the

Brookfield Zoo often. The Bog of Habits and Quest also motivate visitors who are playing the

game with congratulations and rewards in a manner that is engaging and vivid. Additionally,

evaluators emphasized how the exhibit is designed with environmentally friendly materials, such

as recycled rubber tires, which makes the exhibit consistent with messages contained in the

exhibit.

Despite these strengths, the Bog of Habits scored less well overall in the participation

and physical space categories. Evaluators commented that there were limited opportunities for

reflection and that directions were not clear or visible. Also, evaluators noted that playing the

game requires visitors to have reading skills and be at a certain age level and that playing it to



completion could be time consuming. Lastly, many of the evaluators commented that the

Overall Quest is not played as it is intended to be played and suggested that a docent could be

used to facilitate playing the Quest, engage those not participating, and help with directions. For

complete tables summarizing the results, see Appendices E1 and E2.

Analysis of the evaluation paragraphs indicates that evaluators agree that certain parts of

Quest can be transferred to other settings, and that replication of the Bog of Habits is feasible as

a stand-alone piece. Evaluators highlighted the importance of discussion for the success of

these activities, and that adult supervision would help facilitate dialogue between players. A few

evaluators made comments that addressed the amount of information presented in the exhibit,

the lack of cognitive engagement and cultural considerations, and the overall physical layout of

the game.

Chapter: Summer Survey Methods Topic: Additional comments


Chapter: Summer Survey Methods Topic: Scale Development


Summer Survey MethodsThe summer survey was designed to answer if the Bog of Habits game influences the

way Zoo visitors think about their relationship to environmental behaviors. For example, it was

speculated that upon completion of the game, visitors might think one of two things: that there

are a lot of things that they do regularly but never considered to be environmental behaviors, or

alternatively that there are many simple things that they could do (or not do) to help the

environment. The scale survey technique was selected to measure visitor interest in increasing

environmental behaviors because it would elicit the best data for statistical analysis within a

limited time frame. Observation and a direct measure of behavior (picking up an environmental

brochure) were also included in the study design.

Scale DevelopmentIn order to find out if the exhibit leads to increased interest in environmentally

responsible behaviors, the design of the survey instrument was based on several theories of

behavior change from the field of environmental psychology and environmental education.

These models included Hines et al.’s Model of Responsible Behavior (1987), Hungerford and

Volk’s Environmental Citizenship Behavior Model (1990), and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned

Behavior (1991) (see Appendix A5 for diagrams of these models). The constructs used from

these models were interest/intention, knowledge, attitudes, and predisposition to act. The first

step in the scale development process was gathering past scales (such as Smith-Sebasto, 1992)

that measured conservation behaviors and attitudes toward taking action (see Table 15 for a

description of the scales and sources of scales used in this survey). Summative evaluations of

other Brookfield Zoo exhibits, including The Swamp (1998), Tropic World (1999), and an

unpublished, less detailed summative evaluation of the entire Quest to Save the Earth (1999), all

conducted by the Communication Research Department of the Brookfield Zoo, were also

reviewed. A University of Michigan survey on environmental values (Covitt, 1998), which

included sections on worthwhileness and barriers to action connected to conservation behaviors,

was also used to develop this survey.

Chapter: Summer Survey Methods Topic: Pre-testing the Survey Instrument


Table 15. Summer Survey Questions, Hypotheses, Sources, and AnalysisSurvey Scale Hypothesis or Purpose Source AnalysisDemographics Purpose: To collect information on

visitor’s backgrounds andmotivations for visiting the Zoo.

The BrookfieldZoo’s Swamp study(1998). Motivationquestions not from aprevious source

ANOVA, Chi-Square,independent t-tests

Inde

pend

ent V

aria

bles

Past Behaviors Purpose: This scale allows forcontrolling of past behavioraldifferences between Bog and Controlvisitors.

Questions 41-56 ofthe EnvironmentalAction PerceivedControl Inventory(Smith-Sebasto’s1992)

Factor analysis,reliability,correlation,paired t-tests,independent t-tests

Attitude Hypothesis: Bog visitors will expressmore favorable attitudes towardtaking action to resolveenvironmental problems and expressa higher level of knowledge aboutwhat they can do aboutenvironmental issues.

Self-efficacy, locusof control, andcomfort withknowledgequestions from(Covitt, 1998)(knowledge sectiontaken fromMarcinkowski 1988)


Dep

ende

nt V

aria

bles

Interest inIncreasing

EnvironmentallyResponsibleBehaviors

Hypothesis: Zoo visitors who playthe Bog of Habits will show anincreased interest in environmentallyfriendly behaviors compared to thosewho do not play.

Stones at the Bog ofHabits and questionsfrom the BrookfieldZoo’s Swamp study(1998)


Pre-testing the Survey InstrumentAfter reviewing all of these existing scales, a first draft of the survey instrument was

compiled. It primarily used questions from past surveys but also included questions specific to

how the Bog of Habits might influence the way visitors related conservation behavior to their

own lives. A revised version of the survey was taken to the Zoo for a week in May 2001 for a

first round of pilot testing. More revisions and a second round of pilot testing followed. During

the pilot testing period, the survey was given to Zoo visitors and students (n=30) at the School

of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan. As part of the pilot

study, respondents answered open-ended questions about their impressions of the instrument

itself—was it too long, which parts were confusing, were they able to express themselves, were

the options too limiting? Through the process of revising and refining the survey, three distinct

scales were developed, in addition to a set of demographic questions.

Chapter: Summer Survey Methods Topic: Summer Survey Data Collection


The first scale in the final survey (see Appendix C1 for the Bog and Control Summer

Surveys) seeks information on respondents’ interest in performing certain conservation

behaviors. Most of these behaviors were taken directly from messages within the Bog of Habits

challenge, but others were added from the Zoo’s Swamp study (1998) to serve as controlling

variables. In the second scale, respondents are asked for a self-assessment of their attitudes

towards taking environmental action and their comfort with communicating environmental

knowledge. The third scale allows respondents to give estimates of how often they currently

practice conservation behaviors. This scale was included in order to create a “profile” of the

visitors who played in The Bog of Habits, compared to other visitors.

Summer Survey Data CollectionThe process of pilot testing the survey instrument also included defining the appropriate

sample group. Because this study focused on the Bog of Habits, a definition had to be created

to define who qualified as a Bog Participant (see the Bog Survey Protocol in Appendix C2). It

was determined that playing the Bog of Habits meant that the group of visitors would have to:

� Read at least four pieces from the guidebook aloud or read the guidebook silently for

at least 5 minutes

� Have an adult involved in the playing of the game (as guide, playing, or actively

watching)

The number of visitors who actually played the game according to these criteria was

fairly low (between 5 and 15 groups per day). Due to the low numbers, random selection was

not used, instead, every group that played during the sampling period was approached and asked

to fill out a survey. When visitors played the Bog of Habits but refused to complete the survey,

they were provided with a stamped envelope to return the survey at a later time; 12 were

returned. Surveys were administered at the Bog of Habits between 11 A.M. and 4 P.M. during

the following data collection periods: June 8-10, July 10-16, and July 27-August 5, 2001. In

total, 184 groups who played the Bog of Habits were approached. Eleven groups (6%) declined

taking the survey and nine of the 21 mailback surveys were not returned, 5% of the total surveys

given out. Eighty-nine percent of visitors approached completed a survey on-site. Visitors who

played the Bog of Habits either read from the guidebook to players, played the game by stepping

on the stones while someone else (often a child) read from the guidebook, observed while others

in their group played the game, or just silently read the messages in the guide book (most often

Chapter: Summer Survey Methods Topic: Summer Survey Data Analysis


when they did not have children). Table 16 provides details on the roles the 164 Bog survey

respondents took in the Bog of Habits game.

Table 16. Roles of the Bog Summer Survey RespondentsRole of Bog

Survey RespondentNumber of

Survey RespondentsPercent of

Survey RespondentGuide 107 65 %Player 24 15 %Observer 13 8 %Just Read Guide Book 8 5 %Mailed Survey back(role not recorded) 12 7 %

Total Bog Respondents 164 100 %

Brookfield Zoo Communications Research Department Research Assistants collected

the Control group surveys throughout the summer of 2001. Research Assistants were provided

with detailed instructions (see the Control Survey Protocol in Appendix C3) and all necessary

materials including surveys, clipboards, coupons, and thank you post cards. Surveys were

obtained from Zoo visitors in heavily populated areas of the Zoo, particularly the dining/play

areas and the dolphin viewing area. Visitors were not told that this was a survey about the Bog

of Habits. Instead, a question in the demographics portion of the survey asked if they had ever

visited the Quest to Save the Earth. Only individuals who responded “no” to this question were

included in analysis as the Control group. In total, 308 groups outside of the Bog of Habits

were approached. The 60 Control surveys where visitors indicated that they had previously

visited the Quest to Save the Earth were not included in the analysis (19%). Sixty-three groups

(20%) declined taking the survey, and 186 groups (60%) agreed to take the survey.

Summer Survey Data AnalysisAnalysis was conducted using the statistical software package SPSS v. 10.1. An alpha

value of 0.05 was used except in cases when the sample size was less than 30. In these cases the

alpha value was 0.1. See Appendix D3 for a glossary of statistical terms.

Factor analysis (principle axis factoring) was used on the scale portions of the summer

surveys. A Varimax rotation was used with an Eigenvalue of one or greater, except in the case

of the past behavior scale where the five factors were extracted.5 Reliability tests (Cronbach’s

5 In this case, the five factor solution better matched the hypothesis than the four factor solution using anEigenvalue of one or greater.



alpha) were used to assess the cohesiveness of the categories, and correlation tests were used to

determine the relationship between the categories that emerged from factor analysis. Paired t-

tests were used to determine the distinctness of the categories.

Independent t-tests were used to look for differences between the Bog and Control

groups for each of the category scores. Chi-square tests were used to help determine whether

there were differences between the Bog and Control groups for categorical data in the

demographic portion of the survey. One-way ANOVA tests were used to compare the means

between category scores of the Bog and Control groups (the dependent variable) and various

independent variables.

Tracking StudyBecause this study attempted to detect if visitors’ interest in engaging in conservation

behaviors increased after playing the Bog of Habits, the survey included questions directly

related to the messages contained in the activity to assess any changes (see page 1 of Appendix

C1). It was hypothesized that Bog visitors might come away with different information from

their experiences due to the stones they stepped on and the messages they heard as their group

played the game. In order to more finely decipher the Bog of Habit’s effectiveness, an attempt

was made to correlate the messages heard by a group to their responses about those issues. For

example, if a visitor stepped on the “use cloth napkins” stone and heard the description of that

item, would he/she report a higher interest in adopting that specific behavior on the survey? To

track visitors’ experiences in the activity, every group that began the game was observed; the

stones stepped on and the messages read aloud were recorded (see the Tracking Study Protocol

in Appendix C4). Analysis was completed through independent t-tests comparing the interest

scores of Bog visitors who heard a particular stone message with visitors who did not hear the

message. As no statistical difference was found based on the messages the visitors heard, this

survey method was not used in further analysis (see Appendix C5 for the results of these tests).

Brochure Pick-up StudyThe full survey measured attitudes and knowledge, and allowed survey respondents to

give a self-assessment of current behavior. To compliment the behavior self-assessment, an

observable measure of interest was designed for this study. Visitors participating in the study

were given a coupon and told that if they would like more information on how they and their



families could help the Earth, then they could pick up a brochure at the Zoo’s South Gate

information kiosk (near a food hut, the gift store, and a parking lot). These coupons were

numbered and color-coded, and return rates to the kiosk were recorded. The coupons were

collected each day and were matched with that visitor’s survey. To ensure that the original

survey itself was not acting as an intervention that would increase people’s interest, a shorter

survey was also administered to both Bog and Control visitors, and respondents were given

coupons (See Appendix C6 for the short survey and Appendix C7 for the brochure). As no

statistical difference was seen in response rates between the short and long surveys, the

responses were combined in analysis. Volunteers at the information kiosk were instructed to

disseminate the brochure only to visitors with a coupon. The brochure study began in July and

was carried out through August 2001. Chi-square tests were used to analyze the data.

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Similarities between the Bog and Control Groups


Summer Survey ResultsA total of 355 Zoo visitors completed the survey. The experimental group, those who

played the Bog of Habits (hereafter referred to as the Bog group), contained 169 people. The

Control group, those who had no previous experience playing the Bog of Habits or visiting the

Quest to Save the Earth, contained 186 people. See Table 17 for summer survey visitors’

characteristics.

Summer Survey Audience Characteristics

Similarities between the Bog and Control GroupsWomen most frequently completed the surveys in both the Bog and Control groups.

Other similarities between the Bog and Control groups included the motivations behind their

Zoo visit, whether or not children were in the group, and the respondents’ levels of schooling.

Differences between the Bog and Control GroupsThose who played the Bog of Habits were more likely to be members of the Brookfield

Zoo (p = .023). Among the members from both groups, those in the Bog group had been

members longer (p = .02).6 The Bog group had also visited the Zoo on more occasions in the

past 12 months (p =.009 ).7 Those in the Bog group were also more likely to have visited other

exhibits in the Zoo with conservation behavior messages such as Tropic World, The Living

Coast, and The Swamp.8 Lastly, groups who played the Bog of Habits had children on average

two years older than the average age of children of the Control group members (p = .000).

Bog Group DescriptivesMost people who played the Bog of Habits were visiting the Quest to Save the Earth for

the first or second time. Of the people who had played before, nearly 75% reported having

played only “a little” or “a moderate amount.”

6 A boxplot was run to determine the effect outliers might be having on the means as both the Bog and Controlgroups contained several outliers at their upper ends. The test was run again, removing the farthest of outliers (x =35 yrs), and this did not change the significance of the difference (p = .022).7 This is consistent with other studies (i.e., Chicago Zoological Society and Lincoln Park Zoological Society, 1993)that show that members visit the Zoo more often and tend to come for more educational reasons.8 This may be because the Bog group visited the Zoo more often than the Control group and therefore has hadmore opportunities to visit all the exhibits

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Bog Group Descriptives


Table 17. Background Variables for Bog and Control RespondentsBog

GroupControlGroup

Survey Respondents (n = 355) 169 186

GenderMale 27% 18%Female 73% 82%

Accompanied by Children (% yes) 92% 88%

Average Age of Children * n = 346 n = 340Mean 7.8 years 5.8 years

Percent ages 0-4 23% 42%Percent ages 5-7 25% 27%Percent ages 8-11 35% 23%Percent ages 12-18 18% 8%

Motivation for Visit (% yes)Family Time 75% 72%Outdoor Excursion 41% 37%Recreation 41% 35%Family Education 27% 20%Educational Experience 22% 19%

EducationHigh School Graduate or Less 16% 15%Post High School Education 32% 28%College Graduate 26% 29%Graduate Education 26% 28%

Brookfield Zoo Members (% yes) * 47% 38%

Length of Brookfield Zoo Membership *0-1 year 28% 40%2-3 years 27% 35%4 or more years 45% 25%

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Results from Past Behavior Factor Analysis


Visits to other Zoo exhibits (% yes) *Tropic World 95% 64%Living Coast 78% 58%The Swamp 79% 49%Fragile Kingdom 78% 49%

Zoo Visits in Last 12 Months (n = 348) *First or second visit 53% 67%3-5 visits 25% 22%6 or more visits 23% 12%

Visits to Quest in Last 12 Months (n = 163)First or second visit 58%3-5 visits 25%6 or more visits 18%

Previous Time Spent Playing Quest (n =136)A little – just walked through 39%A moderate amount– done a few activities onceor twice

35%

A fair amount– done all activities at least twice 18%Quite a bit– done each activity many times andam very familiar with all the information 8%

* Indicates a statistically significance difference between the Bog and Control groups (p � .05)

Past Behavior Categories

Results from Past Behavior Factor AnalysisFactor analysis of the past behavior section grouped the questions into the following five

categories: Recycling, Purchase Power, Personal Knowledge Building, Reduce Car Use, and

Political Efforts. These category names were based on the dominant shared characteristic of the

majority of the high loading items. The Recycling category contained questions about frequency

of recycling different products. The Purchase Power category reflected people’s power as

consumers to make environmentally responsible decisions. Personal Knowledge Building

contained questions that sought to establish whether people took the initiative to increase their

knowledge about environmental issues through such activities as reading and taking classes.

Reduce Car Use had the weakest reliably of the categories. This may be explained by the

presence of the item “avoiding restaurants that put food in Styrofoam containers” among other

items that clearly had to do with personal transportation choices. The final category, Political

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Results from Past Behavior Factor Analysis


Efforts, reflected whether people had sought to influence change through direct or indirect

pressure on their political representatives.

Table 18 presents the past behavior categories that were created through factor analysis

and the overall mean scores for each category (n = 355). With the exception of the Recycling

and Purchase Power categories, all categories report fairly low means. With Cronbach’s alpha

value of at least 0.6 these categories all have high internal coherence.

Table 18. Past Behavior CategoriesCategory Names and Items Included Mean* s.d. Alpha

Recycling 4.33 .94 .87Recycled glass bottles or jars or aluminum cansSorted trash to separate garbage from recyclablesRecycled old newspapersBought products made from recycled material

Purchase Power 3.13 .93 .71Switched brands due to a concern for the environmentStopped buying from companies showing a disregard for the

environmentPurchased products packaged in re-usable or recyclable packaging

Personal Knowledge Building 2.36a .88 .74Read publications on environmental issuesEnrolled in a course to learn about environmental issuesTried to learn what to do to help solve environmental problemsJoined in community clean-up efforts

Reduce Car Use 2.30a .96 .61Used public transportation rather than a personal carCut down on the use of your carAvoided restaurants that put take-out food in Styrofoam containers

Political Efforts 2.05 .98 .71Written to elected officials to express opinions on environmental

issuesInvestigated your elected officials voting record on environmentDonated money or paid membership dues to a conservation

organization*Categories shown with superscript do not have significantly different means (p � .05) for the full group, the Bog group, or Controlgroup.

The past behavior categories depicted in Table 18 are all weakly correlated. Most

correlations were low, but one combination (Personal Knowledge Building and Political Efforts)

was as high as 0.58, which indicates a 34% overlap in variance. This correlation is expected

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Paired Sample t-tests for Past Behavior Categories


because these two items grouped together when forced into two factors for factor analysis, and

both categories can be linked to educative activities. The correlations table is shown as Table 19.

Table 19. Pearson’s Correlations between Past Behavior Categories

Recycling PurchasePower

PersonalKnowledge

Building

PoliticalEfforts

Purchase Power .298Personal Knowledge Building .233 .414Political Efforts .192 .409 .583Reduce Car Use .220 .350 .296 .250

All Pearson’s Correlations are significant at the p � .05 level (two-tailed)

Paired Sample t-tests for Past Behavior CategoriesIn general, paired sample t-tests showed that the means for the five past behavior

categories were significantly different. The one exception involved the Personal Knowledge

Building and Reduce Car Use categories. Paired sample t-tests showed that the means for these

two categories were not significantly different for the whole study group or for either the Bog or

Control groups. These similar means are noted with a superscript in Table 18.

Independent Samples t-test for Past Behavior CategoriesAn independent samples t-test was used to analyze differences in means between the

Bog and Control groups (see Table 20). In all cases, the mean score for the Bog group was

higher than that of the Control group and in three of the categories - Recycling, Purchase Power,

and Reduce Car Use - this difference was significant. In the cases of Personal Knowledge

Building and Political Efforts, the differences barely missed being significant.

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Past Behavior Results Summary


Table 20. Independent t-test Between Bog and Control Groups for Past BehaviorCategories

Category Names Mean s.d. t df sig.Recycling#

Bog group 4.45 .80Control group 4.21 1.04 2.48 333.6 .014

Purchase PowerBog group 3.32 .94Control group 2.96 .89 3.60 344 .000

Personal Knowledge BuildingBog group 2.45 .86Control group 2.28 .89 1.88 343 .061

Reduce Car UseBog group 2.44 1.00Control group 2.18 .91 2.60 343 .010

Political EffortsBog group 2.15 1.00Control group 1.96 .95 1.82 342 .070

# equal variances not assumed

Past Behavior Results SummaryThe past behavior categories demonstrate that Zoo visitors have strongly adopted

recycling behaviors while only slightly performing other, more demanding environmentally

responsible behaviors.9 With average scores roughly between 2.0 and 3.0, visitors indicated that

they have done these behaviors in 30-50%10 of the opportunities when they could have. In

comparison, the Recycling mean score was 4.33, indicating that visitors reported that they had

recycled in 70% of the opportunities when they could have. The differences seen between the

Bog and Control groups indicate that either the two groups have adopted environmentally

responsible behaviors into their daily lives to slightly varying degrees, or that by playing the Bog

of Habits people have a heightened awareness of the actions they take.

9 The Recycling factor does not fall into a completely normal curve. Its skewness statistic is –1.68 and its kurtosisstatistic is 2.184. This indicates that the responses for Recycling were not highest in the middle of the scale butwere instead skewed slightly to the right (high end) of the scale.10 These numbers are very high considering that the national target for recycling is 25%

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Results from Attitude Factor Analysis


Attitude Categories

Results from Attitude Factor AnalysisThe questions in this section reflected what people think about environmental actions

and what they think of their role as environmentalists. Factor analysis grouped the attitude

questions into three categories: Locus of Control, Comfort with Knowledge, and Crediting the

Zoo. Each category was named by the characteristic of the highest loading questions in each

group. The first of the three categories in this section, Locus of Control, reflects if people

consider that the actions of an individual can make a difference in solving environmental

problems. This category also contains statements about if people perceive that they can make a

difference. Efficacy perception and locus of control are considered to be different yet related

variables, and the two did break apart in factor analysis when attitudes were forced into six

factors. However, as the reliability scores were weaker for this solution, these two similar

attitudes were kept as one category.

A second category, Comfort with Knowledge, included questions that reflect how people

perceive the extent of their knowledge about environmental issues and how comfortable they are

in sharing this knowledge.

A last category that emerged through factor analysis illustrated how strongly people

Credit the Zoo with raising their awareness of conservation behaviors. This category was

somewhat problematic because only one of the two questions in this category was asked to the

Control group, and it had a very large standard deviation.

Table 21 presents the Locus of Control, Comfort with Knowledge, and Crediting the

Zoo categories that were created through factor analysis. It also gives the overall mean score (n

= 355) and the reliability score for each category. Zoo visitors reported very high loci of control

(mean = 4.35). Slightly less high, but still on the positive side of the Likert scale, were visitors’

Comfort with Knowledge of environmental issues (mean = 3.28) and the credit they give the

Zoo for impacting their thinking about environmental problems (mean = 3.37). With

Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.6 or greater, the categories are coherent.

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Results from Attitude Factor Analysis


Table 21. Attitude CategoriesCategory Names and Items Included Mean* s.d. Alpha

Locus of Control 4.35 .62 .76Only governments can make the changes needed to

protect the environment (Reversed)There’s not much I can do to help the environment

(Reversed)Personal lifestyle changes can improve the environmentEnvironmental issues are so large I can’t make a

difference (Reversed)Only businesses can prevent environmental degradation

(Reversed)Small, simple behaviors can help the Earth

Comfort with Knowledge 3.28 .77 .62I am confident teaching others about environmental

issuesI feel comfortable telling a friend how to help the

environmentIt is easy for me to give examples of how my lifestyle

affects the environmentI am aware of causes of environmental problemsI think often about whether or not my actions harm the

environment

Crediting the Zoo 3.37 1.13 .75The Zoo made me think about how my choices affect the

EarthThe Bog of Habits showed me how to reduce my

environmental impact11

*Means between the Locus of Control and Comfort with Knowledge categories were significantly different for the overall group and for theBog and Control groups (p � .05).

The attitude categories depicted in Table 21 are all significantly correlated (see Table 22).

This indicated that visitors who scored high on one category were likely to score high on the

other categories. However, while they are significant, none of the correlations were particularly

strong. The strongest of the correlations was between Comfort with Knowledge and the

Crediting the Zoo categories. This is not surprising as both categories involve the processing of

information.

11 This question was only on the survey given to the Bog group.

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Independent Sample t-test for Attitude Categories


Table 22. Pearson’s Correlations between Attitude CategoriesComfort with

KnowledgeCrediting the Zoo

Crediting the Zoo .336Locus of Control .293 .135

All Pearson’s Correlations are significant at the p � .05 (two-tailed).

In testing the means between the categories, the means for the Crediting the Zoo and

Comfort with Knowledge categories were significantly different for the Bog group, but not for

the Control group or both groups together (see Table 23). The means between the Locus of

Control and Comfort with Knowledge pair and the Locus of Control and Crediting the Zoo pair

were significantly different for Bog and Control groups individually and both groups together.

Table 23. Paired t-tests for Attitude Categories

Significance (p � .05)Paired sample Both

GroupsBog

GroupControlGroup

Locus of ControlComfort with Knowledge

.000 .000 .000

Locus of ControlCrediting the Zoo

.000 .000 .000

Comfort with KnowledgeCrediting the Zoo

.146 .000 .370

Independent Sample t-test for Attitude CategoriesIn all cases, the mean score for the Bog group was higher than that of the Control group,

significantly so in two of the three categories (see Table 24). There is no significant difference

between the means for the Locus of Control category between the visitors who went through

the Bog of Habits and those who had not. A significant difference does exist between the

means of the two groups in regards to the Crediting the Zoo category. As mentioned earlier,

this category has a large standard deviation. When the two groups were broken apart, the

standard deviation continues to be very large among the Control group (s.d. = 1.28), while

approaching a more reasonable level with the Bog group (s.d. = 0.82), implying a difference in

the Zoo visit experience among the two groups. A significant difference also exists between the

Bog and Control groups with respect to the level of Comfort with Knowledge they possess and

how comfortable they are in sharing that environmental knowledge.

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Attitude Categories Summary


Table 24. Independent t-tests between Bog and Control groups for AttitudeCategories

Category Names Mean s.d sig.Locus of Control .324 Bog group 4.38 .65

Control group 4.32 .60Comfort with Knowledge # .019

Bog group 3.38 .70Control group 3.19 .82

Crediting the Zoo # .000Bog group 3.66 .82Control group 3.11 1.28

# equal variances not assumed

Attitude Categories SummaryOf the three categories (Locus of Control, Comfort with Knowledge, and Crediting the

Zoo), Zoo visitors scored highest on the Locus of Control category which measured the degree

to which people believe that the power to protect the environment rests with ordinary

individuals, not just governments and businesses. The high mean of the Control group for

Locus of Control indicates that most Zoo visitors arrive at the Zoo with the belief that

individual behaviors can make a difference. Because of this, it is expected that it would be

difficult to increase visitors’ senses of an individual locus of control and as such exhibits

designed to do so may not have a very large effect. Thus it is not surprising that there is no

significant difference between the two populations.

Zoo visitors also scored higher than the mid-point on the Likert scale for the Crediting

the Zoo category, indicating that they agree that the Zoo provides knowledge about and

promotes reflection on environmental issues. With an overall mean of 3.37 however, Zoo

visitors have only a modest agreement with the statement. It is worth noting not only the

significant difference between the Bog and Control groups, but also the large standard deviation

among the Control group. The Bog group had at least one exhibit in common whose goal is to

encourage reflection on behavior and the environment; this commonality may be the cause of

the lower degree of variability in their answers.

The final category, Comfort with Knowledge, addressed the perception that visitors have

knowledge of the state of their environmental and how comfortable they are articulating such

knowledge. With a mean of 3.28, Zoo visitors in general believed that they have a grasp on

environmental issues, albeit only a modest one.

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Results from Intended Behavior Factor Analysis


Intended Behavior Categories

Results from Intended Behavior Factor AnalysisFactor analysis was run on the intended behavior questions to determine types of

behaviors people were interested in performing more frequently. Three categories of behaviors

emerged from factor analysis: those that would lead to Savings in the Home, others that would

result in Energy Conservation and lastly behaviors that were considered to require an intensive

Time Commitment either to perform the action or to learn enough to perform it (see Table 25).

The Savings in the Home category contained questions about behaviors that could be motivated

by economic concerns. These behaviors also can result in waste reduction. The Energy

Conservation category included behaviors that either conserve energy or increase energy

efficiency. The final category, Time Commitment includes a variety of behaviors that require the

participant to devote significant time or attention to carrying out the behavior. Composting

food scraps or volunteering for a conservation organization require a degree of dedication and

intensity of attentions that many of the other intended behavior questions do not.

Table 25. Intended Behavior CategoriesCategory Names and Items Included Mean* s.d. Alpha

Savings in the Home 4.08 .91 .67Buy refills for cleaners or soapsPack lunch in a lunchboxTake shorter, cooler showersBuy locally grown vegetables

Energy Conservation 3.59 1.05 .51Reduce the number of car errands I go onClean refrigerator coilsLine dry laundry

Time Commitment 3.04 .86 .81Compost food scrapsWrite representatives in CongressVolunteer for a conservation organizationPlant native plants in gardenDiscuss Earth friendly behaviors with othersBuy sustainably harvested wood productsDonate money to help the environment

*Means between the three categories are significantly different for the overall group and for the Bog and Control groups (p � .05).

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Paired Samples t-tests for Intended Behavior Categories


Table 25 also gives the overall mean scores (n = 355) and Cronbach’s alpha scores for

each category. Zoo visitors were most interested in increasing how often they perform small,

simple behaviors (Savings in the Home and Energy Conservation with means of 4.08 and 3.59).

While they were less interested in increasing the frequency of the more time intensive behaviors,

they did express a positive inclination towards doing so (Time Commitment with a mean of

3.04). With alpha values of 0.67 and 0.81 respectively, the Savings in the Home and Time

Commitment categories were considered quite reliable; with an alpha value of 0.51, the items in

the Energy Conservation category do not hold together as well, but are still deemed coherent

enough for further analysis. The intended behavior categories depicted in Table 25 are all

weakly but significantly correlated (see Table 26).

Table 26. Pearson’s Correlations between Intended Behavior CategoriesEnergy Conservation Time Commitment

Time Commitment .351Savings in the Home .382 .463

All Pearson’s Correlations are significant at the p � .05 level (two-tailed)

Paired Samples t-tests for Intended Behavior CategoriesPaired samples t-tests showed that the means for the three intended behavior categories

were significantly different. These data suggest that visitors indicated different levels of interest

in increasing the frequency of activity in each of the three categories.

Independent Samples t-tests for Intended Behavior CategoriesAn independent samples t-test (see Table 27) was used to analyze differences in means

between the Bog and Control groups. In all cases, the mean score for the Bog group was higher

than that of the Control group. However the only category that showed a statistically significant

difference was Time Commitment. It can be noted that Energy Conservation barely missed

being significant at the p � .05 level (p =.071). This suggests that people who went through the

Bog of Habits were more interested in engaging in energy-saving activities than the Control

group. The means for the Savings in the Home Category were statistically identical between

groups.

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Intended Behavior Summary


Table 27. Independent t-test Between Bog and Control Groups for IntendedBehavior Categories

Category Names Mean s.d. t df sig.Savings in the Home

Bog group 4.14 .87Control group 4.02 .94 1.29 344 .199

Energy ConservationBog group 3.69 1.02Control group 3.49 1.07 1.81 346 .071

Time CommitmentBog group 3.23 .80Control group 2.87 .88 4.05 352 .000

The mean of the Bog group is always higher than that of the Control groupUnless otherwise noted, equal variances are assumed

Intended Behavior SummaryZoo visitors indicated a significantly higher interest in increasing the frequency of small,

simple behaviors as opposed to those that require a commitment of time either through the

performance of the behavior or in acquiring the knowledge necessary for its implementation.

These small, simple behaviors can be performed on a regular basis and are fairly easy to

incorporate into one’s daily life. That the Time Commitment category is lower is not surprising

for many reasons, including the fact that people may first need to successfully engage in simpler

behaviors before making the investment in more complex and time intensive activities. Results

from the t-test indicated that the Bog and Control groups are identical in their interest in

increasing the frequency of the simple behaviors while the visitors who play the Bog of Habits

have a higher degree of interest in pursuing environmental behaviors that are more time

intensive. Whether this is a direct result of playing the Bog of Habits is worthy of further

analysis.

Moving Beyond the Initial AnalysisThere are a number of significant differences between the Bog and Control groups in

terms of reported past behaviors, comfort with environmental knowledge, and interest in

increasing the frequency with which they perform time intensive environmentally responsible

behaviors.

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: The Effect of Repeat Visits to the Zoo and the Quest to Save the Earth


A goal of the Bog of Habits is to make people more aware of how their daily actions can

help or hurt the environment. Having just played the game and being newly aware of the

behaviors they do could explain why visitors people who went through the Bog of Habits

reported higher levels of past behaviors. Hearing about these behaviors while playing the Bog of

Habits would have brought them to the forefront of peoples’ minds and could therefore

influence their perception of their own past behaviors. However, it is also possible that the Bog

group was a different population than the Control group, one that was predisposed to taking

environmental action. Numerous behavior change theories, such as Ajzen, 1991, postulate that

past behavior is a predictor of future behaviors; therefore it was possible that the higher level of

interest in behaviors that require a time commitment was explained by their past behaviors.

To more closely examine the question of whether the Bog and Control groups are

different populations, three major differences between the two groups were examined: frequency

of visits to the Zoo and Quest to Save the Earth, Zoo membership, and ages of children within

the group.

The Effect of Repeat Visits to the Zoo and the Quest to Save the EarthThe number of visits to the Zoo was found to have a significant effect on the category

scores for Crediting the Zoo, Past Recycling, Past Political Efforts, and interest in increasing

Time Commitment environmentally responsible behaviors. A Tukey test was used to pinpoint

where these differences occurred. In each of the categories a significant increase was found to

occur between the first or second and the third to fifth visit to the Brookfield Zoo, suggesting

that repeat exposures are important, but that an information threshold exists (See Appendix D1,

Table 3).

The number of visits to the Quest to Save the Earth was not found to have a significant

effect on any of the category scores (see Appendix D1, Table 1).

People who reported playing the Quest to Save the Earth a fair amount or more

reported significantly higher levels of recycling than those who had only played a little. In no

other categories did the amount of time spent playing the Quest to Save the Earth have a

relationship with the category scores (see Appendix D1, Table 2).

The Effect of Ages of Children within the GroupIn the initial t-tests run on the whole group, Bog scores were consistently higher than the

Control group scores for the past behavior, attitudes, and intended behaviors categories. Given

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: The Effect of Ages of Children within the Group


that the Bog group scored higher on a number of the past behavior categories (see Table 18),

there was concern that the Bog group could be pre-disposed to taking environmental action. It

was hypothesized that this might be the case because the Control group was more likely to have

very small children (see Table 17) and therefore new parents might be too overwhelmed with the

children to engage in recycling and other environmental behaviors. To ensure that similar

groups were being compared, families were selected that had at least one child in one of four age

groups (infant-4 years, 5-7 years, 8-11 years, and 12-18 years) as well as adults who were visiting

the Zoo without children.

Independent t-tests were conducted on between Bog and Control groups for each age

grouping. Most differences, especially past behavior differences, disappeared when family group

composition is based on similar children’s ages. In all cases except visitors with children age 12-

18, the Bog group scored significantly higher in the Crediting the Zoo category and in their

interest in increasing Time Commitment behaviors.

Table 28 shows the significant categories for each age grouping. The first column lists

significantly different scores between the Bog and Control groups when not controlling for ages

of children within the group, and each of the following columns list the scores for categories

that were significantly different between the Bog and Control groups for visitors which children

in that age range.

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: The Effect of Ages of Children within the Group


Table 28. Categories with a Significant Difference between Groups Grouped byAges of Children*

Category Names

Bog n =Control n =

FullSummerResults

164186

NoChildren

1321

ChildrenAge0-465

100

ChildrenAge5-77171

ChildrenAge8-11

9153

ChildrenAge

12-184820

Past RecyclingBog

Control4.54.1

Past PurchasePower

BogControl

3.33.0

3.53.0

3.22.9

Past Reduction ofCar Use

BogControl

2.42.2

Comfort withKnowledge

BogControl

3.43.2

3.43.2

Crediting theZoo

BogControl

3.73.1

3.43.0

3.73.0

3.73.1

3.73.3

TimeCommitment

BogControl

3.22.9

3.43.0

3.32.9

3.53.0

3.32.9

* Only categories and scores exhibiting a significant difference between the Bog and the Control groups are included. Blank spacesindicate no significant difference between groups.

As shown in Table 28, the Control group had a mean of about 3.0 (the mid-point) for

the Crediting the Zoo and the Time Commitment categories for each age grouping while the

Bog group had a mean score closer to 4.0 (indicating positive agreement). It appears that while

the differences in scores between the Bog and Control groups are not very big, the Bog group

gives consistently more positive answers than the Control group.

The differences between the Bog and Control groups exist mostly for visitors with

children less than 11 years of age. One could speculate that people with children over age 12

have a great amount of exposure to environmental behavior information coming from school,

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: The Effect of Brookfield Zoo Membership


repeat visits to zoo, etc., and have a better understanding of these environmental behaviors. The

Bog of Habits, then, would not have as big of an impact on these adults12.

The relationships seen in the analysis of age of children within the groups indicate that

children influence visitor’s interests and past behaviors. In Table 28, visitors were clustered into

whether the group had any children in that age range. Many visitors were therefore double-

counted as the group had children in multiple age ranges. This clustering also does not reflect

visitor’s informational background because a visitor with a baby and a teenager would have

different information and concerns than a parent with two children under four. To avoid these

problems, analysis was conducted using just visitors who only had children in a single age

category. Because most visitors had children in several age grouping, this analysis reduced the

number of visitors to less than a quarter of the original sample, leaving several categories with

too few visitors to analyze.

In order to examine the relationship between the age of children within the group and

interest in increasing environmental behaviors, future studies would need to be developed with

this question in mind. This survey did not ask for information on family dynamics that would

be necessary in order to analyze this topic in greater depth. In particular, it would be important

to know the total number and ages of children in the home of the person filling out the survey

(not just the number at the Zoo that day, as the present study requested).

The Effect of Brookfield Zoo MembershipPast studies at the Brookfield Zoo (Swamp study, 1998) have reported that Zoo

members report more pro-environmental behaviors and interests than non-members. When

looking only at membership (regardless of whether they played the Bog of Habits) members

differ from non-members in the following ways: members are more likely to have taken political

action (t = 2.995, df = 340, p = .003), report higher levels of recycling (t =3.23, df = 328, p =

.001) and report a higher level of Crediting the Zoo (t = 2.00, df = 321, p = .047).

The Bog of Habits appears to have a larger effect on non-members than on members.

As shown in Table 29, both members and non-members reported differences in Crediting the

Zoo, Past Purchase Power, and interest in increasing Time Commitment behaviors; non-

members who went through the Bog of Habits however also reported that they had Recycled

more in the past, Reduced Car Use in the past, and had more Comfort with Knowledge.

12 The Bog of Habits may have an impact on the children age 12-18, but that impact was not measured as this study

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Past Behaviors Summary


Table 29. Category Scores Exhibiting a Significant Difference Between ZooMembers and Non-members

Category Names#

Bog n =Control n =

FullSummerResults

164186

ZooMembers

7862

Non-Members

88120

Past RecyclingBog

Control4.54.1

4.44.1

Past Purchase PowerBog

Control3.33.0

3.33.0

3.33.0

Past Reduction of Car UseBog

Control2.42.2

2.52.1

Comfort with KnowledgeBog

Control3.43.2

3.23.0

3.4*3.2

Crediting the ZooBog

Control3.73.1

3.73.3

3.63.0

Time CommitmentBog

Control3.22.9

3.22.8

# Only categories and scores exhibiting a significant difference between the Bog and the Control groups are included. Blankspaces indicate no significant difference between groups.*Almost, but not quite significant (p = .055)

To see if there was an interaction between playing the Bog of Habits exhibit and being a

member, a Univariate Analysis of Variance was conducted. No significant interaction was found

between membership and group.

Summer Survey Results SummaryThe results from the summer survey show a number of differences between the visitors

who played the Bog of Habits and those who did not.

Past Behaviors SummaryRecycling and making smart purchases were the two most frequently reported ways that

people took environmental action in the past. Less common activities among the survey

only surveyed adults.

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Attitude Summary


respondents were taking action to increase their knowledge about environmental activities,

decreasing their reliance on automobiles and, least popular with the Brookfield Zoo visitors,

taking political action. From these actions it appears that the survey respondents participate in

environmentally responsible behaviors that they can do on their own and that have almost

become clichés in American culture for defining an environmentalist. However, the Bog and

Control groups differed in how often they reported performing these categories of behaviors

with the Bog group reporting higher frequencies for all categories. These results were

Significant for the Recycling, Purchase Power, and Reduce Car Use categories.

Attitude SummaryIn assessing their understanding of environmental issues, the Zoo visitors in both groups

gave high and statistically identical scores to the category designated as Locus of Control. These

questions reflect people’s opinions about who has the power and responsibility to protect the

environment. This high degree of individual Locus of Control that exists in both groups is

heartening because it indicates that the Brookfield Zoo visitors would be receptive to exhibits,

such as the Quest to Save the Earth, which encourage individuals to take action. Although the

Bog of Habits, and by extension the Quest, are designed to create a sense of personal locus of

control in the people who play them, when people enter already scoring so high it will be

difficult to 1) increase their scores and 2) discern any change that might occur through statistical

testing. Knowing that visitors arrive at the Brookfield Zoo with already high individual loci of

control can help develop future exhibits that build on this trait.

In addition to reporting high individual Locus of Control, the Bog and Control groups

reported a positive assessment of their comprehension of, and comfort in, articulating their

knowledge about environmental issues. However, unlike the similarities that exist between the

two groups in respect to their Locus of Control, the Bog and Control groups report different

means for their comfort with knowledge. While both groups report that it is true that they feel

they have an understanding of environmental issues, the overall Bog group feels more strongly

that this is true. As stated about the differences in past behaviors, the difference in attitudes

could either be attributable to differences between the two populations or to the fact that they

have just gone through the Bog of Habits, which may have given them a short-term increase in

the clarity of their own knowledge. Given that the Comfort with Knowledge differences

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Zoo Visit Summary


disappear when groups are standardized by the age of children in the group, this suggests the

Bog of Habits does not have a significant impact on their Comfort with Knowledge.

Zoo Visit SummaryZoo visitors credit the Zoo with informing them and causing them to think about how

their choices affect the Earth. Because the Control group only had one question that factored

into this category, comparisons are difficult to make. However in a general sense it can be said

that the Zoo as a whole encourages people to reflect on how their choices impact the Earth, and

that the Bog of Habits succeeds to a point in teaching people how to make choices that will

lessen their impact. This trend of the Bog group crediting the Zoo more than the Control group

with teaching them about choices held for all family groups with children under age 11 as well as

for members and non-members.

Interest in Increasing Behaviors SummaryOf the three categories of behaviors that visitors indicated an interest in increasing the

frequency of performing, the highest levels of interest were seen in increasing the simple

behaviors that can be performed on a daily basis in the home. Both the Bog and Control group

reported similar levels of interest in these behaviors as they did in behaviors that would save

energy. A significant difference in the scores between the two groups was only seen in the

category that reflected behaviors that required a time commitment.

Effect of Age of Children in the Group and Zoo MembershipFurther analysis was conducted to try to determine if the Bog and Control groups were

inherently different populations. The key differences between the two groups were found to be

in terms of membership, average age of children in the group, and how often they had visited

the zoo in the past 12 months.

The major conclusions that can be drawn from the examination of age of children within

the group is that Zoo visitors with children between five and 11 years of age are likely to visit the

Bog of Habits and are most influenced by its message. Although visitors with older children

(ages 12-18) are likely to play the Bog of Habits, those with small children (infant-four years) are

not.

When Zoo membership, age of children in the group, and number of Zoo visits were

accounted for, the two groups demonstrated nearly identical past behaviors, indicating that they

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Effect of Age of Children in the Group and Zoo Membership


were the same population. The differences in the Bog and Control groups’ Comfort with

Knowledge scores were significant only for groups with children ages 8-11. When controlling

for Zoo membership, the Bog group’s scores remained higher for members and non-members

indicating that Zoo membership does not affect the degree to which Bog of Habits visitors

develop a Comfort with Knowledge from playing the game.

These results suggest that the difference in interest between the two groups can be

attributed to playing the Bog of Habits. The brochure pick-up study and follow-up phone

survey, the results of which are presented in the next section, examine this possibility in more

detail.

The Brochure Pick-up StudyBecause the summer survey was a self-assessment, there was a possibility that the reports

of respondents were not completely accurate. As such, the brochure pick-up study was designed

as an observable measure of behavior change.

Visitors in both the Bog and Control groups were given a coupon after completing the

survey and were encouraged to redeem the coupon for a brochure detailing ways to help the

Earth. While most visitors did not redeem their coupon, Bog visitors were over three times as

likely to seek out a brochure on Earth friendly activities than people who had not played the Bog

of Habits (�2 = 9.29, df = 1, p = .002). Table 30 shows the results of the Chi-squared tests.

Table 30. Brochure coupon returnsReturned Coupon

Yes NoBog Group(n = 194) 11.3% 88.7%

Control Group(n = 205) 3.4% 96.6%

This action suggests that the Bog visitors’ interest in performing conservation behaviors

did increase, and that this interest was strong enough to motivate them to take action and seek

more knowledge. The fact that the Bog group was significantly more likely to seek out the

brochure (three times more likely than the Control group) is a strong piece of evidence that a

short, game experience in a zoo can lead to pro-environmental action. The low return rate is not

too surprising given the low score of the Personal Knowledge Building category. It does

Chapter: Summer Survey Results Topic: Effect of Age of Children in the Group and Zoo Membership


demonstrate that people will take action. Perhaps in the future actions could be more linked to

the behaviors people are most interested in or likely to perform.

In order to ensure that the four-page survey on environmental behaviors was not serving

as an intervention, a short, demographic survey was also administered to the two groups. Chi-

squared tests comparing pick-up rates between Bog and Control groups for those completing

the different survey types did not show significant differences.

Chapter: Phone Survey Methods Topic: Scale Development


Phone Survey MethodsAs the final of the three parts of the Bog of Habits evaluation, the phone survey was

designed to measure the durability of the increased interest in performing certain behaviors, and

to assess the salience of the concepts found within the Bog of Habits. Specifically, the phone

survey explored whether playing the Bog of Habits was memorable and if any changes in

behavior had occurred over time.

Scale DevelopmentThe phone survey methodology was based on the Brookfield Zoo’s Swamp Survey

callbacks (1998). Questions were drawn from the summer survey and represented categories

that had demonstrated significant differences between the Bog and Control groups. Using the

same five-point Likert scale (1 = stay the same to 5 = increase a lot in the future), the first set of

questions asked about behaviors on the summer survey that respondents had indicated an

interest in increasing their performance. Asking these questions was intended to determine if

this increased level of interest remained constant or if it changed over time. The questions in

this portion were taken directly from the summer survey Time Commitment category questions.

The second set of questions in the phone survey measured the respondents’ Comfort

with Knowledge as measured in the summer survey. The third section of the phone survey

measured past behaviors from the Personal Knowledge Building section of the summer survey

to help determine if the Bog and Control groups represented different populations. There was

no statistical difference between the Bog and Control groups with respect to this category in the

summer survey. It was repeated in the phone survey to determine whether the behaviors

respondents had reported performing in the past were stable or if they had increased as a result

of visiting the Bog of Habits or the Zoo.

The fourth and final section of the summer survey consisted of open-ended questions.

These questions permitted respondents to report in their own words what messages they felt

they had received at the Zoo and allowed the researchers to determine if the different messages

within the Quest to Save the Earth (Quest) were memorable. The use of open-ended questions

avoided prompting and required individuals to recall information from memory.

Each open-ended question served a different purpose. The initial question “Did you

visit the Zoo more than once this summer” was asked as an indicator of repeat exposure. The

Chapter: Phone Survey Methods Topic: Scale Development


purpose of inquiring about specific exhibits that individuals returned to see was to find out if

there was any difference in the exhibits the Bog group chose to visit on more than one occasion

as compared to the exhibits the Control group came back to see. Further, this provided insight

for the Brookfield Zoo as to which of the exhibits are their main attractions, and which seemed

to draw visitors back to the Zoo.

The question “Did you talk about your time at the Zoo after you left” checked for repeat

exposure and durability of the Zoo experience. The hypothesis was that if an individual talked

about his/her zoo visit after it was over, then something that was seen or heard during the visit

had to have been remembered and was reinforced. Furthermore, discussing the zoo visit served

as an additional exposure to the ideas and concepts presented at the Zoo. “Who did you talk

about your Zoo visit with” was asked to determine what groups, e.g., family, children, friends are

used to recall and reinforce the Zoo message.

To avoid prompting people as to which exhibit was being studied, the question “Do you

remember learning anything at the Zoo about how your choices affect the Earth,” was asked

before any reference to the Quest or Bog of Habits was made. This question was used to

ascertain if respondents detected the message of the importance of human choices presented

throughout the Zoo. In the Bog of Habits, the message that “humans make choices that affect

the Earth” was particularly strong and explicit, so this question was testing whether people who

played the Bog of Habits had an ability to recall the game’s main message.

Visitors were also asked whether “a specific exhibit was memorable for what they

learned about their relationship to the Earth.” This question was useful for two main reasons.

Not only was it helpful in indicating which exhibits at the Zoo are most salient in terms of

hitting home with their environmental messages, but it also assessed if the Bog group cited the

Quest as the exhibit that was instrumental in what they learned about their relationship to the

Earth.

“Did anything at the Zoo encourage you to change your daily behaviors to help the

environment” was an indicator of whether the visitors left the zoo motivated to change their

behaviors. Additionally, it was included to see if the Bog group would mention the Quest as

having encouraged them to change their behaviors to help the environment. The Control group

was asked “Did you visit the Quest to Save the Earth at the Zoo” to ensure that these

individuals had not at some subsequent time gone through the Quest and been exposed to the

messages contained within. Because it could not be determined if the Control respondents who

Chapter: Phone Survey Methods Topic: Pre-testing and Sample Population


went through the Quest at some other time in the summer had played the Bog of Habits

according to the participant criteria (see Appendix C2), they could not be counted as either Bog

group or pure Control group and were dropped from all phone analysis. This was to ensure that

the Bog visitors had played the Bog of Habits and the Control visitors had not.

The Bog group was asked “Do you remember playing the Quest to Save the Earth” to

determine if the Quest itself was memorable. To achieve this, respondents were asked if they

“remembered the message of the Quest” to see what, if anything, was taken away from the

experience of interacting with the Quest. “Did you talk about [the Quest]” was intended to

touch upon the ideas of repeat exposure and durability again. The follow-up question to that,

“Do you remember what you talked about,” provided insight into what was most salient from

the Quest experience for respondents.

The final open-ended question asked respondents, “Since your visit to the Zoo, has

anything made you consider how your actions affect the environment.” This question was

included to see if things other than the zoo visit in general, or the Quest specifically, had an

influence on their ideas and opinions about their actions and how those actions impact the

environment. Lastly, respondents were given the opportunity to ask questions of the

interviewers and voice any concerns they had.

Pre-testing and Sample PopulationThe initial draft of the survey was pre-tested over the telephone on nine friends and

family members, and on two individuals who had completed the summer survey. As a result of

the pre-testing, four questions were removed from the survey and the order of several questions

was changed in order to facilitate the flow of the survey (see Appendix C8 for the final phone

survey instrument).

Visitors who provided their phone numbers on the summer survey were randomly

selected for the phone survey. At the time of the summer survey, respondents were notified that

a small gift would be given if they were contacted to participate in a follow-up phone survey;

however, at the time of the follow-up call, interviewees were not reminded about the thank-you

gift until the survey was completed.

Conducting the SurveyFour of the research investigators of this study served as the interviewers and conducted

the phone surveys from December 1-22, 2001. Phone calls were mostly placed during evening

Chapter: Phone Survey Methods Topic: Survey Analysis


hours although some calls were made during daytime hours to accommodate the work schedules

of various individuals, as well as those who did not work. Calls were placed between 4:00-5:30

P.M. and 7:30-9:00 P.M., but not during the periods of 3:00-4:00 P.M. to avoid contacting

parents when they or their children were just arriving home, and 5:30-7:30 P.M. to avoid

interrupting families during dinner. No calls were made after 9:00 P.M. to avoid disturbing

those who may have been sleeping. Unless requested by the respondent, the interviews strictly

adhered to this time schedule.

Each phone number was tried a minimum of three times and a maximum of five. If

contact was not successfully made after the established number of calls was attempted, the

phone number and/or the individual were considered unreachable (see Appendix C9). Upon

completion of all phone surveys, respondents were sent a thank you letter and a magnet from

the Brookfield Zoo (see Appendix C10 for a copy of the thank you letter).

Survey AnalysisQuantitative analysis methods performed on the phone surveys were paired t-tests,

independent t-tests, and Chi-squared tests. Paired t-tests were used to compare the scale

portions of the phone survey to the summer survey. Independent t-tests were used to determine

if there was a difference in responses from the Bog and Control groups regarding the three

categories re-asked. The Chi-squared test was used to analyze the percentage of respondents

who replied “yes” to the open-ended questions.

In addition to the quantitative analysis, a qualitative analysis of the open-ended questions

was conducted. Content analysis was used to reduce the data. As some of the more complex

respondent comments included varying ideas and concepts, coding categories (Babbie, 2002)

were created to capture these differing ideas (see Appendix D4 for the phone survey coding

categories). Each time a certain concept or idea was mentioned, it was counted. In cases where

a single respondent mentioned two or more concepts or ideas, each of these concepts or ideas

was counted individually. For example, if a respondent indicated that he/she had talked about

his/her visit with family and friends, “talked with family” and “talked with friends” were both

counted. For each of the coding categories, the percentage of responses that contained ideas

representative of that particular category was then calculated. Comments that were included in

categories where they were not representative of the concepts or ideas were moved to more

representative and appropriate categories.

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: A Representative Sample


Phone Survey ResultsA total of 55 phone surveys were completed; 29 from the Bog group and 26 from the

Control group. Six respondents in the Control group reported visiting the Quest to Save the

Earth either later during the day they were surveyed or on a subsequent visit to the Brookfield

Zoo. As it could not be ascertained if they had played the Bog of Habits according to the study

criteria, their responses were eliminated from this data analysis leaving 20 Control group

members in the phone survey sample. As the number of surveys in both groups is below 30, an

alpha level of 0.1 is used in the phone survey analysis.

A Representative SampleThe visitors who completed the phone survey were, for the most part, representative of

the summer survey group. Results from independent t-tests showed only a few differences

between the phone subset and the total summer group, and these were generally in terms of

their relationship to the Zoo. Participants in the phone survey tended to have visited the Zoo

and Quest to Save the Earth more often and were more likely to be members than those who

did not participate in the phone survey. These differences suggest that people more familiar

with the Zoo are more willing to give out their phone number. No significant differences were

found between the summer group and the phone survey group in their primary motivations for

visiting the Zoo, nor were there significant differences in the means of their scores on past

behaviors, interest in increasing environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs), or attitude

scores.

Comparing the Bog and Control Groups after the Zoo VisitIn the summer survey, independent t-tests showed that the Bog group reported

significantly higher scores in two of the three categories also tested by the phone survey,

Comfort with Knowledge and interest in increasing Time Commitment behaviors. Past levels of

Personal Knowledge Building were also higher for the Bog group, although this difference just

barely missed being significant (p = .061). Four to six months after filling out the first survey,

the Bog group continued to show significantly higher levels of Comfort with Knowledge.

However, the differences between the two groups had completely disappeared in the categories

of Personal Knowledge Building (p = .182) and interest in increasing Time Commitment

behaviors (p = .709).

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Comfort with Knowledge


Comparing the scores over timeAnalysis using paired t-tests was conducted to determine whether the scores within the

Bog and Control groups changed between the summer and the phone surveys.

Comfort with KnowledgeAs with the summer survey, the Bog group continued to demonstrate significantly higher

levels of Comfort with Knowledge on the phone survey. In fact, the scores of both Bog and

Control groups on the phone survey were statistically identical to their respective scores on the

summer survey (p = .723 and p = .760 respectively, see Table 31 for means). One possible

explanation for the unchanging scores is that visitors’ comfort with their knowledge was not

affected by playing the Bog of Habits. Another explanation is that playing the Bog of Habits did

result in an increase in comfort with their sense of knowledge, and this increase persisted

months after leaving the Zoo.

Personal Knowledge BuildingDuring the phone survey, it was interesting that visitors reported higher frequencies of

seeking to increase their knowledge about environmental issues in the past than they did on the

summer survey. Both the Bog and Control groups had significantly higher scores on the phone

surveys than on the summer surveys (p = .041 and p = .001 respectively, see Table 31 for

means).

Time Commitment BehaviorsAs previously mentioned, in the summer the Bog group reported a significantly higher

interest in performing behaviors requiring a commitment of time than did the Control group.

Yet when surveyed over the phone, the two groups were statistically identical. The paired t-tests

explains this further by showing that while the Bog group’s level of interest decreased

significantly between the summer and the phone survey (p = .000) the level of interest for the

Control group remained the same (p = .141). This decrease of interest over time – to levels

statistically identical to those reported by the group that did not play the Bog of Habits –

strongly suggests that the Bog was effective in creating a short – term increase in interest in

performing certain environmentally responsible behaviors, but that this interest does not persist

over time.

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Time Commitment Behaviors


Table 31. Independent and Paired t-tests for Phone Survey

SummerMean*

PhoneMean

Past Personal Knowledge BuildingBog 2.86 a, b 3.28 b

Control 2.19 a, b 2.91 b

Comfort with KnowledgeBog 3.74 a 3.78 a

Control 3.06 a 3.11 a

Time CommitmentBog 3.47a, b 2.70 b

Control 2.95 a 2.61*Mean summer category scores for visitors who also took the phone survey Bog n = 29, Control n = 20.a indicates that Independent t-test shows a significant difference between the Bog and Control groups mean for this category (p � .1)b indicates that Paired t-test shows a significant difference between the summer and phone category mean (p � .1)

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic:


Phone Survey Responses

Table 32. Phone Survey variables for Bog and Control respondentsBog

GroupControlGroup

Related Qualitative ResultsTable

Survey Respondents (n = 55) 29 20Six phone survey respondentsvisited the Bog of Habits afterbeing surveyed in the summer

Visited the Zoo more than once thissummer

79% 70%

Returned to the Zoo for a specificexhibit* (n = 38)

87% 43% Table 33

Talked about time at Zoo 100% 100% Table 34

Learned about how their choicesaffect the Earth*

72% 35% Tables 35, 36, and 37

Learned about relationship to Earth 69% 40% Tables 38 and 39

Said the Zoo encouraged them tochange their behaviors**

35% 15% Tables 40, 41, and 42

Since their Zoo trip have consideredhow their actions affect theenvironment

35% 30% Tables 43 and 44

Remembered Quest message(n = 29)

79% n/a Tables 45 and 46

Talked about Quest message (n=29) 76% n/a Tables 47 and 48

* Indicates significant difference between Bog and Control groups (p � .1)** Indicates a nearly significant difference between the Bog and Control groups (p = .119).

Frequency of Visits to the Brookfield ZooOf all the visitors surveyed, 75% visited the Zoo more than once this summer. A Chi-

squared test showed that the Bog and Control groups were equally likely to return to the Zoo to

visit a specific exhibit (�2 = .555, df = 1, p = .456).

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Discussing the Zoo Experience


When examining only visitors who had been to the Zoo more than once in the last year,

it was found that the Bog group returned more frequently to see a specific exhibit than the

Control group (�2 = 8.10, df = 1, p = .004). Bog of Habits visitors primarily returned to the

Zoo to visit the Hamill Family Play Zoo (52%) (see Table 33). Tropic World, Dragonfly

Marsh/Indian Lake, and the Butterflies! exhibit were the second most popular destinations for

Bog returnees (22% returned for each) followed by the Bears (17%), and the Living Coast

(17%). Members of the Control Group who returned (n = 14), had different exhibit

destinations; 21% returned to the Zoo to see the Dolphin Show, followed by Tropic World, the

Hamill Family Play Zoo, and the Bears (14% for each). 13

Table 33. Which [specific] exhibits did you come back to see?

ExhibitBog

Group(n=23)

ControlGroup(n=14)

Total

(n=37)Hamill Family Play Zoo 12 2 14Tropic World 5 2 7Bears (polar and other) 4 2 6Dolphin Show 3 3 6Living Coast 4 1 5Dragonfly Marsh/IndianLake

5 0 5

Butterflies!/Butterfly Garden 5 0 5Elephants 2 1 3Baby Animals 2 1 3Habitat Africa 2 0 2Fragile Kingdom 1 1 2Swamp 1 0 1Reptiles 1 0 1Safari train 0 1 1Petting Zoo 1 0 1Seals, walrus 1 0 1

None 3 8 11Not applicable 6 6 12

Discussing the Zoo ExperienceAll of the people surveyed reported talking about their visit to the Zoo; approximately

three-fourths of the Bog and Control group’s respondents reported discussing their Zoo visit

13 Two of these exhibits were new to the Zoo: the Hamill Family Play Zoo, a permanent exhibit, opened in June2001; and Butterflies!, a temporary summer exhibit, was open from June 20, 2001 through September 16, 2001.

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Learning About How Your Choices Affect the Earth


with members of their immediate family, especially children (see Table 34). One Bog group

respondent commented, “We talked about it with my fiancé’s family – sisters, brothers,

grandparents, everyone!” A respondent from the Control group reported discussing the visit

with “children and anyone who would listen.” While the Bog group respondents were more

likely to talk about their visit with friends (31%) than the Control group (10%), both groups

were less likely to discuss their trip with their neighbors and co-workers, or other adults and

children outside of their immediate family.

Table 34. Who did you talk about the Zoo with?

Person/groupBog

Group(n=29)

ControlGroup(n=20)

Total

(n=49)Family (immediate) 22 14 35Friends 9 2 15Family (extended) 5 4 9Neighbors/co-workers 5 1 6Other adults and/or children 5 1 5

Learning About How Your Choices Affect the Earth

A significant difference existed between the Bog and Control groups in whether they felt

they had learned about how their choices affect the Earth while at the Zoo (�2 = 4.055, df = 1, p

= .044). The Bog group was nearly twice as likely to answer affirmatively (69% compared to

40% of the Control group (see Table 35).

Table 35. Do you remember learning anything at the Zoo about how your choicesaffect the Earth?

PossibleResponses

Number ofBog GroupResponses

Number ofControl Group

Responses

Total Numberof Responses

Yes 20 8 28No 9 12 21

Many respondents gave specific examples of where they learned about the impact of

their choices or reasons why they felt that they didn’t learn anything new. Of the respondents in

the Bog group who answered “yes” to this question (n = 20), 30% indicated that they learned

about choices in the Quest, although they did not always mention the exhibit by name (see Table

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Learning About Your Relationship to the Earth


36). For example, one respondent recalled, “Yes, where I met you, where you read the

questions.” One respondent in the Control group (n = 8) mentioned learning about different

environmental choices, such as not using fertilizer and having native plants, at the Zoo.

Of the “no” responses from the Bog group (n = 9), 33% of the respondents claimed

that they either learned nothing new, or that the Zoo just reinforced current knowledge (see

Table 37). One respondent from the Bog group answered, “Not really. I remember the

approach. No new information.” Lastly, 22% of the Bog group respondents stated that while

they hadn’t learned anything new, they felt that their children probably had. One respondent

commented, “The kids probably [learned] more than [I] did – probably due to age and

experience.”

Table 36. Results within the “Yes” responses

Key words/phrases within the “yes” responsesBog

Group(n=20)

ControlGroup(n=8)

Total

(n=28)Quest 6 0 6Likes educational signage/components 1 0 1Kids did 1 0 1Environmental behaviors 0 1 1Already knew about environmental behaviors 1 0 1

Table 37: Results within the “No” responses

Key words/phrases within the “no” responsesBog

Group(n=8)

ControlGroup(n=13)

Total

(n=21)Nothing new/reinforced current knowledge 3 1 4Kids did 3 0 3Kids too small 0 1 1

Learning About Your Relationship to the EarthAs seen in Table 38, the majority of respondents in both groups reported that the Zoo

has exhibits that are memorable for teaching about our relationship to the Earth (�2 = 4.120, df

= 2, p =.127).

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Learning About Your Relationship to the Earth


Table 38. Was any specific exhibit memorable for what you learned about yourrelationship with the Earth?

PossibleResponses

Number ofBog GroupResponses


Responses


Yes 20 8 28No 4 6 10

No response 5 6 11

The Bog group overwhelmingly responded that the Zoo has at least one exhibit that was

memorable for learning about their relationship to the Earth (n = 24). The Quest to Save the

Earth was the most frequently cited example, with 71% of the respondents mentioning it or a

part of it (see Table 39). One Bog group respondent stated, “The Quest we liked and learned a

lot,” and another commented, “For the kids, the Bog [of Habits] was memorable.” The other

exhibits mentioned more than once were the Hamill Family Play Zoo (8%) and the Living Coast

(8%). Seventeen percent of the Bog group respondents commented that the whole Zoo

communicated this message, and did not indicate a specific exhibit. As one respondent noted,

“The message is carried through throughout. [It’s] more specific in certain places, but it’s a

recurring theme.”

For the Control group respondents (n = 8), 50% cited the Swamp as the exhibit where

they learned about their relationship to the Earth; as one respondent said, “It [the Swamp]

emphatically shows how the environment is related to people.” Other exhibits included the

Living Coast (25%), Tropic World (25%), and the Dolphin Show (25%). Another respondent

said, “All [of the] exhibits in the last few years [have been] geared toward the natural

environment… [the] Zoo has done an excellent job of trying to educate people with animals and

the natural world. The Zoo enhances awareness about what is natural and protects animals.”

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Zoo Encouraging You to Change Your Daily Behaviors


Table 39. Results within the “Yes” response

ExhibitBog

Group(n=20)

ControlGroup(n=8)

Total

(n=28)Quest to Save the Earth 17 0 17

Bog (included in Quest) 2 0 2Swamp 1 4 5Living Coast 2 2 4Hamill Family Play Zoo 2 1 3Tropic World 1 2 3Dragonfly Marsh 1 1 2Dolphin Show 0 2 2Habitat Africa 0 1 1Animals 1 0 1Fragile Kingdom 0 1 1Butterflies! 1 0 1

Zoo Encouraging You to Change Your Daily BehaviorsSeveral months after visiting the Zoo, nearly one quarter of visitors reported that

something at the Zoo had encouraged them to change their behaviors (see Table 40). Although

a higher percentage of the Bog group reported having received this message (34% versus 15% of

the Control group), the positive response rates from the two groups are statistically identical (�2

= 4.26, df = 2, p = .119)

Table 40. Anything at the Zoo encourage you to change your daily behaviors?Possible

ResponsesNumber ofBog GroupResponses


Responses


Yes 10 3 13No 17 17 34

Don’t remember 2 0 2

As with the question regarding whether they learned about how their choices affect the

Earth, some respondents also explained how or where they saw the Zoo encouraging them to

make changes.

As seen in Table 41, the Quest was the only exhibit specifically mentioned by the Bog

group (30%) to have encouraged daily behavior change. Other members of the Bog group (40%)

reported that the overall Zoo increased awareness regarding different environmental behaviors.

Thirty percent responded that the Zoo reinforced knowledge or reasons why they do

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Messages about the environment from external sources


environmental behaviors. One respondent stated, “[I’m] good about conserving and recycling

already, but [it’s] nice to have something back it up.” Other replies were “I already do most of

the things [I’m] able to do” and “[there] were reminders of things [I] already know.”

Within the “no” responses for this question, 24% of the Bog group (n=17) and 12% of

the Control Group (n = 17) claimed that they “already do a lot” to explain why they did not feel

that the Zoo encouraged them to change their behavior. Another respondent replied, “[It] made

me more aware – not a huge change, but affirmative.” Table 42 shows other reasons mentioned

by the respondents.

Table 41: Results within the “Yes” responsesKey words/phrases within the “Yes” responses Bog Group

(n=10)Control Group

(n=3)Total

(n=13)Increased awareness regarding different environmentalbehaviors

4 0 4

Quest 3 0 3Swamp 0 1 1Yes, but can’t think of anything specific 1 0 1Other 0 1 1

Table 42: Results within the “No” responsesKey words/phrases within the “No” responses Bog Group

(n=17)Control Group

(n=17)Total

(n=34)Already pretty environmentally conscious 4 2 6Already do a lot 2 0 0Not really 1 0 1Made me more aware – not huge change, but affirmative 1 0 1Son learns a lot without realizing it 1 0 1

Messages about the environment from external sourcesA majority of respondents (65%) said that since visiting the Zoo, nothing has caused

them to think about their actions or the environment (see Table 43). The Bog and Control

groups responses were statistically identical (�2 = .877, df = 2, p = .645) and among those that

answered “yes,” there was no dominant event or medium cited.

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Messages about the environment from external sources


Table 43. Since your visit to the Zoo, has anything recently made you consider how

your actions affect the environment?Possible

ResponsesNumber ofBog GroupResponses


Responses


Yes 10 6 16No 18 14 32

Don’t remember 1 0 1

Table 44 shows that Bog and Control group respondents reported receiving few (if any)

external messages to be more environmentally responsible.14 About 30% of both groups (n =

49) replied that something had recently reminded them about how their actions affect the

environment. Of these respondents (n = 16), both groups indicated that daily actions (25%) are

a reminder, followed by environmental organizations or related publications (19%), newspaper

or magazine articles (13%), and the tragedies of September 11, 2001 (13%). Of the Bog group

(n = 10), 30% cited television as a source of information about environmental actions. One

respondent noted that the “Crocodile Hunter TV Show [is about] respect[ing] all animals in the

environment,” while another cited gardening shows as a source of composting information.

Another response given was political issues, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


Key words/phrases within the “Yes” responsesBog

Group(n=10)

ControlGroup(n=6)

Total

(n=16)Daily actions 2 2 4Television 3 0 3Environmental organizations/

Related publications1 2 3

Newspaper/Magazine 1 1 2Tragedies of September 11, 2001 1 1 2Political issues 1 0 1Work 1 0 1Public events (fair) 1 0 1Our phone call 0 1 1

14 While this is understandable to a certain degree in light of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center andPentagon on September 11, 2001, it underscores the importance of the Zoo in bringing the issue of environmentalsustainability to the attention of its users.

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Remembering Quest’s message (Bog Group only)


Remembering Quest’s message (Bog Group only)An intended outcome for the Quest is that “visitors will leave knowing they are making

choices in their lives and that those choices have an impact on the health of the Earth”

(Brookfield Zoo, 1997). Table 45 shows that 79% of the total Bog group remembered and

could articulate the general message of the Quest.

Table 45. Do you remember what the message (from Quest) was?Possible Answers Bog Group Responses

Yes 23No 6

Of those who remembered a message (n = 23), Table 46 shows that 30% of the

respondents mentioned that Quest was about things you can do to help the environment,

followed by everyday choices can impact the Earth (26%), and do your part and be more

environmentally responsible (17%). Environmental awareness was the take home message for

17% of the respondents. Thirteen percent of the respondents mentioned specific environmental

behaviors or concepts, while 9% mentioned that individuals can make a difference.

Many responses had overlapping messages. For example, one respondent said that the

Quest was about how “one person can make a difference and what you as an individual can do

and get involved. Everyday choices make a difference.” Thus, an individual’s response could

have been counted more than once.


Key ideas within the “Yes” responses Number ofTimes Mentioned

Things you can do to help the environment 7Everyday choices can impact the Earth 6Do your part and be more environmentally

responsible4

About environmental awareness 4About environmental behaviors or concepts 3Individuals can make a difference 2

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic:


Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Remembering discussions about the Quest to Save the Earth (Bog Group only)


Remembering discussions about the Quest to Save the Earth (BogGroup only)

As shown in Table 47, over 69% of the Bog group reported that they had talked about

the Quest. Thirty-five percent of the respondents who replied “yes” to this question recalled

talking about the Quest (in general) with family and friends.

Table 47. Do you remember what [about the Quest] you talked about?Possible Responses Bog Group responses

Yes 20No 7

Don’t remember 1No response 1

Table 48 shows that visitors report discussing the exhibit with their families, but few

could recall any specifics. Some of the specific topics mentioned by other respondents were that

they discussed different environmental behaviors (30%), they discussed environmental choices

(20%), or that it was “neat” that the Zoo had this kind of exhibit (10%). One respondent said

that their discussion was about “relating the exhibit to things done at home – such as recycling.”

Other respondents said that they “didn’t talk about the game specifically, but how to treat the

environment and things you can do” or they discussed that “the Brookfield Zoo had an exhibit

to convey this message.”

Table 48. Results within the “Yes” responsesKey ideas within the “Yes” responses Number of

Times MentionedDiscussed different environmental behaviors 6Discussed environmental choices 4“Neat” that the Zoo has this kind of exhibit 2Mentioned something about the game 1Lose points every time you don’t save 1

Talked about it with family/friends 7Kids liked it 1

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Other comments


Other commentsMany respondents made relevant comments after the official phone survey was

complete. One Bog group respondent liked how the Zoo “could ‘plant learning seeds’ to help

people respect animals.” Another respondent commented that “when you’re there, it makes

sense, but when you go away, message could get lost (i.e., get distracted by the polar bears). It

would be good to make the experience last – such as having visitors mail postcards home.”

Another noted, “Even if consumers [visitors] don’t get the point [of Quest… it’s message], it

increases sensitivity and value. Having a variety of places that this comes up is important – Zoo

is a good place.” Two respondents also said that the kids really enjoy playing the Quest.

From the Control group, one respondent said that it was important to “get women to

think about these issues. They are the ones shopping and sorting the garbage.” Another said

that while their family “tr[ies] to do their part… [I] never thought to try to do more.” Another

respondent said that she “enjoys the Zoo and appreciates all they do – especially the plants and

trees and their biodiversity. [I] go to the Zoo to see the plants just as much as to see the

animals.”

Phone Survey Results SummaryResults from the phone survey indicate that playing the Bog of Habits can result in an

increased interest in performing certain environmental behaviors. Immediately after playing the

Bog of Habits, visitors reported that they were interested in increasing the frequency of

behaviors that required a commitment of time, such as composting or writing letters to their

representatives in Congress. Four to six months after playing the Bog of Habits however, their

level of interest had declined to match that of the Control group, and the summer and phone

scores were indistinguishable from each other. The result that only 30% of the respondents had

thought of how their behaviors affect the Earth since their visit to the Zoo suggests this decline

occurs in the absence of reinforcing messages.

Visitors cited learning about choices at the Bog of Habits and Quest to Save the Earth.

Despite the impression that the Zoo increased awareness of the relationship between humans

and the natural world, only a third of visitors thought that the Zoo had encouraged them to

change their behaviors to help the environment. However, some respondents mentioned that

Chapter: Phone Survey Results Topic: Other comments


after their Zoo visit, they began to perform behaviors such as recycling juice boxes and using

less water while brushing teeth; these behaviors can be directly linked to the Bog of Habits. This

anecdotal evidence that the Zoo can cause changes in behavior is heartening.

Even though interest in increasing behaviors declines, the message of the Quest

remained salient for a majority of the people who played the Bog of Habits. Bog participants

remembered talking about the exhibit after they left and were able to articulate the general

message of the Quest to Save the Earth. It is possible that the salience of the Quest to Save the

Earth message explains why Bog visitors reported significantly higher levels of comfort with

their environmental knowledge than the Control group. Additionally, after returning home, all

of the respondents discussed their trips to the Zoo, and many visited the Zoo more than once

that summer.

Lastly, only a small number of the respondents reported that external sources, such as

newspapers or television, had since their visit to the Zoo, made them aware of environmental

issues. This perceived lack of coverage in the media underscores both the importance of the

Zoo as a source of environmental information, as well as the necessity of the Zoo becoming

proactive and finding ways to continue to reach visitors and maintain their awareness of their

relationship to the Earth.

Chapter: Discussion Topic: Other comments


Chapter: Discussion Topic: The Bog of Habits contains features that foster behavior change


DiscussionThe desired result of any environmental behavior change intervention is that people will

be motivated to integrate environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs) into their lives. It may

be unrealistic to expect that a short experience at a zoo would cause people to radically alter

their behavior, but that does not mean that behavior change exhibits, such as the Bog of Habits,

cannot at least educate the public about ERBs and create interest in performing them and thus

play a role in developing a more environmentally oriented populace.

This study evaluated how effectively the Bog of Habits exhibit increases visitors’ interest

in adopting environmentally responsible behaviors. The study utilized a theoretical evaluation, a

written survey, a short experiment, and a follow-up phone survey. The findings from the data

analysis of the theoretical evaluation and surveys are discussed below.

The following key findings emerged from the data analysis:

� The Bog of Habits contains features that foster behavior change;

� Playing the Bog of Habits increases interest in environmentally responsible behaviors;

� The Bog of Habits raises people’s environmental awareness;

� Messages from the Bog of Habits remain salient over time; and

� The Bog of Habits should be transferable to other sites.

The Bog of Habits contains features that foster behavior changeThe guidelines used in the theoretical evaluation drew on principles from the fields of

environmental education and environmental psychology, as well as from the exhibit objectives

of the Quest to Save the Earth. The theoretical evaluation revealed that the greatest strengths of

the Bog of Habits were that it 1) incorporates both familiar and unfamiliar behaviors, 2)

provides a mix of declarative and procedural knowledge, 3) positively frames messages, 4)

provides opportunities for visitors to interact, and 5) provides visitors with repeated exposures

to environmental messages.

Incorporating familiar and unfamiliar behaviors

Creating a sustainable society requires not just that people perform environmental

behaviors that have become commonplace such as recycling, but that they also adopt new

behaviors. Behavior change exhibits should therefore include information on behaviors that

people may be less familiar with such as vermiculture or buying sustainably harvested wood

products, or information on familiar behaviors that are not usually thought of in an



environmental context. The theoretical evaluation found that the inclusion of unfamiliar

behaviors within the Bog of Habits provided visitors with the opportunity to investigate and

explore behaviors that they previously may not have perceived as related to the environment.

For example, visitors may use cloth napkins during dinner because it matches their placemats,

not considering that avoiding paper napkins reduces waste. This environmental realization

could encourage visitors to do other things to help the environment because they might not be

as hard as once thought. As a result, a certain level of comfort with the new behaviors could

develop, or even a sense of empowerment in making a difference, so that visitors may increase

their interest in adopting new ERBs.

However an effective exhibit does not simply present new or unfamiliar behaviors, but

instead contains a mix of familiar and unfamiliar behaviors. By including the familiar behaviors,

things that many people are already likely to feel comfortable doing, a sense of competence is

created. When people feel more competent, they may be more likely to take risks including

trying new behaviors (Kaplan 2000; De Young 2000).

Behaviors in the Bog of Habits are also presented at a personal level and therefore are

more likely to be perceived as tasks the average visitor can accomplish. Visitors to see how

personal choices impact the Earth, and in theory, provides him/her with a sense that an

individual, through personal choices, can help the Earth.

Providing declarative and procedural knowledge

If an exhibit provides information about why environmental issues are important, this is

referred to as declarative knowledge. If an exhibit provides information suggesting how to

perform behaviors that will help the environment, this is known as procedural knowledge.

Providing the two types of knowledge allows the visitor to develop an understanding about the

issues as well as learn about the skills necessary to solve problems. Both types of knowledge

should be included in exhibit designs, because knowing the steps of how to perform a particular

environmentally responsible behavior is just as important as knowing why the behavior should

be carried out in the first place (Hines et. al., 1997). Including procedural knowledge in addition

to, or even in lieu of declarative knowledge, can motivate visitors to adopt environmental

behaviors by reducing their sense of helplessness in knowing how to proceed.

If visitors are given information detailing why certain actions should be taken, yet fail to

receive explanations on how the actions are to be implemented, they may leave the exhibit

lacking the complete set of tools necessary to successfully take action. While the Bog of Habits



contains some declarative and procedural knowledge, the theoretical evaluation showed that it

might not be enough to make visitors adopt new behaviors; it may be just enough to spark

interest.

Framing messages positively

The theoretical evaluation indicated that the Bog of Habits frames environmental

choices in a positive way. This could lead to visitors developing a positive disposition toward

environmental behaviors and perhaps enthusiasm for trying new behaviors. While the Bog of

Habits contains both the good and the bad of many choices that humans make, it does not make

visitors feel guilty about their current choices and behaviors. While something such as asking

for plastic bags at the grocery store may not at first glance look like an Earth friendly behavior,

the Bog of Habits suggests that requesting plastic bags is not as harmful to the environment if

the bags are reused. Positive framing is essential for a behavior change exhibit, especially one

focusing on environmental behaviors, as presenting doom and gloom scenarios and making

visitors feel guilty about their current actions would probably prevent positive behavior change

(De Young, 2000).

Providing opportunities to interact

Another feature of successful behavior change instruments is the opportunity for people

to interact with each other and become cognitively engaged in the activity. Exhibits that allow

visitors to actively participate, physically and/or cognitively, are more effective at increasing

interest and remaining salient in visitors’ minds that simple informational panels. As the well-

known education maxim states, “Tell me and I’ll forget, Show me and I’ll remember, Involve me

and I’ll learn.” Involvement at the Bog of Habits can occur in several ways. Visitors have the

option of participating either as players crossing the stones, as the guide reading the messages in

the guide book, or as onlookers offering advice and encouragement. The theoretical evaluation

suggested that the level of cognitive engagement in the game is somewhat limited, since all the

“choices” are actually made by the spinner. Despite the limitations of this feature of the game, it

does cause visitors to step on stones with messages that they might not have considered

“environmental behaviors,” and to read messages in the guidebook that provide new ways for

visitors to conceive everyday behaviors.

Chapter: Discussion Topic: Playing the Bog of Habits increases interest in environmentally responsible behaviors


Conveying messages to visitors multiple times

One of the strongest features of the Bog of Habits is its incorporation of repeated

messages. The Tropic World exhibit introduces the message that individual choices can make a

difference; this message is repeatedly conveyed to visitors throughout the entire Quest

experience including the Bog of Habits. There is also repetition of messages within the Bog of

Habits. For example more than one stone mentions that it is better to walk when possible

rather than using a car. The effectiveness of this kind of repetition is increased when the

message is presented in different ways. Many of the messages within the guidebook reference

behaviors mentioned on other stones, presenting the concept in yet another light. Visitors

receive still further exposure to conservation messages, although not specifically about choices,

by visiting many of the other exhibits at the Brookfield Zoo.

Summary

Providing information in a manner that allows visitors to develop an understanding of

the issues and presenting the information in a way that engages a diverse group of visitors

appear to be the easier facets of a behavior change to incorporate in an exhibit. More difficult

are: engaging visitors through the incorporation of mystery and story, motivating them through

the development of a sense of personal stake and responsibility, and invoking both physical and

cognitive participation for groups as well as individuals of varying ages.

When behavior change is a goal, an exhibit should incorporate familiar and unfamiliar

behaviors and procedural and declarative knowledge. It should also repeat messages and frame

them positively while allowing opportunities for cognitive and physical interaction. It should

build upon existing visitor knowledge, present new knowledge, and include both procedural and

declarative knowledge. Further, the exhibit should make visitors feel good about the positive

actions they are already taking, encourage them to learn new ways of doing things that are more

Earth friendly, and present the information in a positive context. Elements allowing for

different experiences on repeat visits should also be incorporated into an exhibit, as should

providing rewards and congratulations when things are completed and/or done well.

Additionally, opportunities for interaction with others should be encouraged.

Playing the Bog of Habits increases interest in environmentallyresponsible behaviors

Increased interest in environmentally responsible behaviors (ERBs) can be attributed to

the Bog of Habits because 1) the Bog group had higher interest in increasing ERBs, 2) the Bog



group picked up brochures with environmental messages at a higher rate than the Control

group, and 3) over time the Bog group’s interest in increasing ERBs dropped to equal that of the

Control group indicating a return to baseline levels.

A higher level of interest in increasing the frequency of ERBs was seen in participants

who played the Bog of Habits than in those who did not. Both the Bog and Control groups

answered survey questions that asked them to indicate how interested they were in increasing the

performance of certain behaviors. The Bog group scored significantly higher for time intensive

ERBs such as composting, volunteering for a conservation organization, or writing

Congressional representatives. The time commitment behaviors were so named because they

require more background knowledge and a larger investment of time to perform. In the case of

some behaviors, they simply may never occur to most people. It is possible that playing the Bog

of Habits makes visitors aware that they are already doing simple behaviors that help the Earth

and also provides them with some new environmental ideas. This might create a sense of

competency in doing ERBs and a willingness to try new, more involved behaviors.

It is unclear why no difference was seen between the Bog and Control groups in regard

to their interest in the simpler behaviors. It is possible that the simpler behaviors, such as

buying refills for cleaners and soaps or packing a lunchbox, might be perceived by visitors as

economic savings, a concern for most families. Interest in the two categories of simpler

behaviors, Savings in the Home and Energy Conservation, also had higher mean scores than the

interest in Time Commitment Behaviors. It may be that the Bog of Habits was not sufficient to

promote an increase in interest in these already attractive behaviors. It is also possible that the

instruments used in this study were not sensitive enough to pick up the change that might have

occurred.

The brochure pick-up study strongly supports the notion that the Bog of Habits

increases interest in ERBs. After filling out the summer survey, participants in the Bog and

Control groups were given coupons that could be redeemed for a brochure containing

information on how they could help the Earth. A significant difference was found in the return

rates for the Bog and Control groups; the Bog group was over three times as likely to redeem

their coupon for a brochure. This indicates that the Bog of Habits successfully encourages

visitors to seek new information on how to help the Earth. This finding is consistent with past

studies including one at the National Aquarium in Baltimore (Adelman et al., 2000) that have

demonstrated that short-term interest in conservation behaviors can be increased through



visiting exhibits. Additionally, the difference in return rates for the coupons indicates that the

higher levels of interest translate into action, in this case picking up an informational brochure.

Finally, results from the phone survey support the inference that increased interest in

environmentally responsible behaviors can be attributed to playing the Bog of Habits. Four to

six months after visiting the Zoo, there was no statistical difference between the Bog and

Control groups’ interest in increasing time intensive ERBs. This drop in interest over time

shows that interest was elevated for the Bog group after playing the Bog of Habits. While it is

disappointing that the interest level of the Bog group waned over time, this finding is not

entirely unexpected. Few interventions are durable in the absence of further reinforcement of

messages. Previous studies (e.g. Geller et al., 1982) have shown that return to baseline levels

indicate a successful change that can be attributed to a single experience. Through the phone

survey interviews, it was apparent that visitors received little post-visit reinforcement of

environmental messages; only about one-third of the phone survey participants indicated that

something since their visit to the Zoo had caused them to consider how their actions affect the

Earth.

Controlling for Demographic differences

There was concern that the differences in interest were not necessarily attributable to

playing the Bog of Habits but were instead due to the Bog and Control groups representing

different populations. Differences between the two groups include 1) frequency of Zoo visits,

2) Brookfield Zoo membership status, and 3) age of the children in the visiting group.

These concerns were examined by comparing similar populations the Bog and Control

groups in terms of the aforementioned variables. In terms of the frequency of zoo visits, no

relationship was found between the number of zoo visits and interest in environmental

behaviors. The demographic variable of Zoo membership was another consideration. Past

studies (Saunders and Stewart-Perry, 1997; Chicago Zoological Society and Lincoln Park

Zoological Society, 1993) found differences between Zoo members and non-members which

indicated that Zoo members are more likely to perform environmental actions. Since the Bog

group contained more Zoo members, it could therefore be predisposed to engage in ERBs.

However, non-Zoo members exhibited the same differences between Bog and Control groups

in past behaviors, attitudes, and intended behaviors as the entire summer survey sample. This

indicates that Zoo membership did not impact the population differences.

Chapter: Discussion Topic: The Bog of Habits raises people’s environmental awareness


A different scenario seems to exist in relation to group composition, specifically in terms

of the ages of the children in the groups. Analysis of the summer survey data showed the

average age of children in the Bog group to be two years older than that of children in the

Control group. It was hypothesized that perhaps parents of younger children might be less

interested in time intensive behaviors and that this could be dragging down the score of the

Control group. However, analysis of groups with similarly aged children found that the Bog

group continued to report higher interest in Time Commitment behaviors. The one exception

to this was among groups containing at least one child ages 12-18. Therefore differences in

group composition do not account for the disparity between Bog and Control group scores,

rather playing the Bog of Habits appears to be the decisive factor. The fact that no difference

was seen among the Bog and Control groups that had older children indicates that the Bog of

Habits has the greatest effect for visitors with children under age 11 and people without

children. This focus on the age of children within a group has not been previously studied; it

would be interesting to further explore this relationship in future studies.

In conclusion, the data does not support the concerns that the demographic differences

caused the differences seen between the Bog and Control groups’ interest in increasing their

Time Commitment ERB scores. Instead it appears that playing the Bog of Habits can boost

interest in increasing the frequency of these ERBs in ones daily life.

The Bog of Habits raises people’s environmental awarenessThe theoretical evaluation indicated that one of the strengths of the Bog of Habits is that

it continues to present the choices theme that is present in other Zoo exhibits such as Tropic

World. Furthermore, almost half of the evaluators in the theoretical evaluation noted that the

Bog of Habits highlights the impact of ones’ choices on the environment. Accordingly, on both

the summer and phone surveys, visitors from the Bog group were significantly more likely than

visitors from the Control to report that they had learned about how their choices affect the

Earth at the Zoo. On the phone survey, members of the Bog group indicated that they had

learned about choices at the Quest to Save the Earth and Bog of Habits exhibits. As a goal of

Tropic World and the Quest to Save the Earth is for people to leave with a greater awareness of

the power of choice and how their choices can affect the Earth, the visitors’ responses indicate

that this goal is being met.

Chapter: Discussion Topic: The Bog of Habits raises people’s environmental awareness


The Bog of Habits not only provides information about choices, but is also memorable

as an exhibit that teaches people about their relationship to the Earth. When asked on the

phone survey if any Brookfield Zoo exhibit was memorable for learning about ones’ relationship

with the Earth, nearly three quarters of the participants in the Bog group responded

affirmatively. As with the choices question, an overwhelming majority of these respondents

cited the Quest to Save the Earth as the specific exhibit. Conversely less than half the Control

group, who had not gone through the Quest, reported any exhibit being memorable.

Despite higher levels of reporting from the Bog group that the Zoo had made them

aware of how their choices affect the Earth, the Bog and Control groups did not differ when

asked if the Zoo encouraged them to try a new behavior. It is interesting to consider the

apparent disconnect between people coming to the realization that their choices impact the

Earth, but failing to realize that the Zoo was trying to encourage them to try new behaviors and

change their current behaviors. The Quest to Save the Earth was designed to serve as a gentle

intervention, not to make visitors feel bad about their actions (Carol Saunders, personal

communication, 2001). While people do not resist changing their behavior, they do resist being

told to change (De Young, 1993). Too strong of a message might have provoked reactance in

people playing the game, causing them to disregard the message or even take anti-environmental

behavior. However, it may be that the message to change was too subtle and therefore did not

reach the people who played the game.

The traditional environmental education model postulated that behavior could be

changed by making people more knowledgeable about the environment and the associated issues

and that this would lead to behavior changes (Hungerford and Volk, 1990). As seen here,

simply being aware of the fact that their choices impact the Earth did not lead the Bog group to

make the connection to the importance of changing their behavior.

Zoos may have an opportunity to increase the strength of their environmental behavior

messages and be more explicit in encouraging visitors to change their behavior. Anecdotal

evidence from this study suggests that visitors are receptive to these environmental zoo exhibits

and would like to know more about what they can do. The usefulness of behavior change

exhibits is highlighted by the fact that the choices message remained salient among the Bog

visitors months after their Zoo experience.

Chapter: Discussion Topic: Messages from the Bog of Habits remain salient over time


Messages from the Bog of Habits remain salient over timeAs much as six months after visiting the Zoo, the majority of the Bog group reported

that they remembered the information presented at the Quest to Save the Earth and were able to

articulate the general theme of the exhibit.

The theoretical evaluation noted that the Bog of Habits emphasized choices and

incorporated everyday behaviors that can be performed on an individual level into the exhibit.

The inclusion of everyday behaviors indicated to visitors that helping the Earth is not an

arduous task. While the sample size is small, voluntary comments from phone survey

respondents illustrated that some people actually attributed changes in their lifestyles to playing

the Bog of Habits. Two respondents reported that they discontinued using juice boxes. Several

other people indicated that they and their children make an effort to remember to turn off the

water when brushing their teeth and that they learned about this in the Bog of Habits. It is

interesting to note that these two behaviors are simple behaviors that can be done on a daily

basis, not infrequent, complex behaviors. The summer survey results showed that both the Bog

and Control groups were most interested in these simple, daily behaviors. Both groups were

also equally interested in these categories of behavior. It is possible that while playing the Bog

of Habits sparked an increase in interest in adopting time intensive behaviors, the ones that

people actually did adopt were the simpler, every day behaviors. The fact that even a few

visitors reported changing their actions as a result of the Bog is a major accomplishment for

such a mild intervention.

While the messages remain salient, the higher interest of the Bog group in increasing the

frequency of Time Commitment ERBs wanes over time. The scores of the Bog group on the

phone survey are statistically identical to those of the Control group indicating a return to

baseline. This return to baseline signifies that the exhibit works as an intervention on a short-

term basis (Geller et al., 1982). In order for the Bog of Habits message to remain salient, visitors

need a follow-up intervention. Anecdotal evidence from the phone survey indicated that people

are receptive to receiving reminders about environmental behaviors. One phone survey

respondent recommended having visitors mail postcards to their homes as a way to make the

experience last, serving as a follow-up intervention to retain interest in performing ERBs once

the Zoo visit ends. Comments from the theoretical evaluation also suggested incorporating a

follow-up experience such as providing a brochure with additional information for visitors to

take home. In the absence of reinforcing experiences such as those suggested above, enthusiasm

Chapter: Discussion Topic: The Bog of Habits should be transferable to other sites


and commitment for taking conservation related action generally wanes back to the original

levels (AZA, in press). The need for follow-up reminders may be especially true with

environmental messages as the phone survey found that since their Zoo visit four to six months

earlier, nothing has prompted two-thirds of Zoo visitors to consider how their actions affect the

environment. However, despite the decrease in interest in time intensive ERBs, it is notable and

encouraging that even several months after visiting the Zoo, the message that the choices an

individual makes stuck with the people who played the Bog of Habits.

The Bog of Habits should be transferable to other sitesIn the theoretical evaluation, evaluators indicated that the Bog of Habits could

successfully be replicated and stand as an independent activity in other settings. Evaluators

commented that a replication of the exhibit could be located in a school or classroom setting,

museum environment, or even at a fair. However, evaluators varied on whether the exhibit

should be replicated in an indoor setting. Some evaluators felt a replication would actually work

best indoors because it could be used more often than if it were outside, and on a year-round

basis rather than basing usage on a seasonal calendar. Others expressed strong feelings that in

the fashion of the original exhibit, a replication should be outdoors as the outdoor setting of the

exhibit would make the connections and links to the natural world more real or clear. Yet still,

there were evaluators who remarked that it really did not matter if the exhibit was located

indoors or outdoors. As such, it can be assumed that the success of a replication would not

hinge upon it being located in an indoor versus an outdoor setting.

Evaluators cited the amount of information presented within the Bog of Habits as being

key to its success as a stand-alone exhibit at other sites. Because of the amount of information

within the Bog of Habits, its intended message can be effectively conveyed without the aid of

other supporting activities or exhibits. However, it was noted that if replicated elsewhere,

despite the amount of information contained within the activity, the Bog of Habits and the

concepts it discusses would need to be explained to those preparing to play the game. If those

playing the game are unaware of the choices theme of the activity, it is possible that the intended

purpose of the activity will go unnoticed and its message unheard.

Chapter: Conclusions, Recommendations, and Future Research Topic: The Bog of Habits should be transferable to other sites


Conclusions, Recommendations, and FutureResearch

ConclusionsIt is exciting to find that playing the Bog of Habits has the potential to increase interest

in environmental behaviors. The findings from this study lead to the following conclusions:

� Zoo exhibits can influence visitors’ interest in environmentally responsible

behaviors.

� Behavior change cannot be expected without follow-up interventions.

� The Bog of Habits could be replicated at other sites.

A current debate among zoo supporters and zoo critics is whether or not zoos can

positively influence their visitors’ conservation behavior (AZA, in press). Multiple aspects of

this study indicate that an exhibit in a zoo can help move people towards adopting more

environmentally friendly lifestyles and, that given the opportunity, visitors will even take action

while at the zoo. Additionally, visitors’ comments on both the summer and phone surveys

indicate that they appreciate the Quest to Save the Earth exhibit and the Brookfield Zoo’s

conservation messages, and would like to see more throughout the Zoo.

This research also highlights the importance of follow-up interventions for behavior

change. Environmental educators are constantly seeking support for the continuation and

expansion of their programs, arguing that “once isn't enough.” In order to be more effective,

environmental programs need to be fully integrated curricula or comprehensive programs, rather

than a few lessons about nature or a few signs sparsely dispersed throughout a zoo or museum.

The results of this study lead to the conclusion that without additional reinforcement, some

effects of the exhibit, such as the increase in interest in behaviors that require investment of time

or knowledge, are lost.

The Bog of Habits is an example of an exhibit that effectively promotes the adoption of

environmentally responsible behaviors in a zoo setting. One of its strongest features is that it

reinforces the general conservation messages found throughout the zoo, and on the choices

message found in Tropic World and the Quest to Save the Earth. If a museum or education

center attempts to replicate this exhibit at their site, care must be taken to ensure that the

messages correlate to other exhibits. Furthermore, other sites interested in this exhibit should

Chapter: Conclusions, Recommendations, and Future Research Topic: Recommendation 1


ensure that the behaviors contained within are relevant to their visitors’ lives. Lastly, positive

framing should be employed to help visitors feel as though they can take part and make a

difference in helping the Earth.

RecommendationsThe following recommendations are for the Communications Research Department at

the Brookfield Zoo, the wider zoo and aquarium community and other environmental educators

who are considering developing similar exhibits focused on promoting conservation behavior.

The recommendations are also pertinent to researchers within the fields of environmental

psychology and environmental education.

Recommendation 1Develop and evaluate behavior change exhibits at other settings.

� Behavior change exhibits have the potential to work in zoos and other recreational

settings such as fairs, as well as more educational sites such as museums and schools. As

other sites develop these exhibits, evaluation should continue to refine the methods and

make adjustments as needed for each site.

� The criteria guidelines developed for this evaluation can serve as a good starting point

for identifying key principles of environmental education and environmental psychology

pertinent to exhibit design.

Recommendation 2Provide immediate opportunities for visitors to engage in conservation behaviors.

� Capitalize on increased interest in environmental behaviors by providing additional

opportunities for visitors to take action upon exiting exhibits. This can involve

permanent dissemination of an informational brochure or having more in-depth fact

sheets available that provide suggestions of informative books to read. Involve other

areas of the Zoo, such as information kiosks and the bookstore, in disseminating these

resources. Since this study also found that visitors are most interest in making wise

purchases and recycling, collaborating with gift shops and food services to offer more

sustainably produced items would be beneficial.



� Provide the opportunity for dialogue between visitors who have questions and docents

who have answers. Have a training session for docents so that they can feel confident

answering questions related to environmentally responsible behaviors. Other suggestions

could be to have visitors send themselves a postcard reminder while at the Zoo or

having areas set aside for reflection and group discussion.

Recommendation 3Research and develop follow-up interventions.

� Encourage visitors to maintain interest in environmental behaviors by developing

methods for continuing to expose participants to the ideas presented in behavior change

exhibits.

� Since many Brookfield Zoo members visit the Bog of Habits, member newsletters would

be good opportunities for the Zoo to continue to provide information and promote the

ideas of conservation behavior to visitors. Additionally, providing workshops on

composting or planting native plants might help visitors gain familiarity with hands-on

experience that might be helpful when deciding to adopt new environmental behaviors.

Recommendation 4Replicate the Bog of Habits at different sites.

� Other venues seeking to replicate the Bog of Habits should keep in mind that this

exhibit alone is not enough to create lasting behavior change. In other settings, the Bog

of Habits would be most effective if accompanied by other similar activities or exhibits.

For example, if used in a school setting, the activity should be accompanied by class

discussions or projects, and if re-created in another zoo or science museum, other

exhibits, that promote similar messages should compliment the exhibit.

Directions for Future ResearchThis research has many implications for the fields of non-formal education,

environmental education, and environmental psychology, among others. It is good news to find

that exhibits like the Bog of Habits can be effective at promoting conservation messages.

However, many questions remain unanswered. A few suggestions for further research follow.



� How effective is the entire Quest to Save the Earth exhibit at promoting the

adoption of conservation behaviors? This study only closely examined the Bog of

Habits. Many questions remain as to the effectiveness of the other individual pieces of

the Quest, such as the Tower of Balance, and how well the exhibit as a whole promotes

the adoption of conservation behaviors.

� What other ways could visitors take action after visiting the Bog of Habits, while

the conservation message is fresh in their minds? This study found that visitors

who played the Bog of Habits were more likely to pick up a brochure related to the

information in the exhibit. It would be interesting to know if there are other types of

immediate behaviors that visitors might undertake after playing the Bog of Habits.

� What are the implications of the age of children within a family group in regards

to the effectiveness of exhibit messages? The data collected in this project provided

initial, somewhat speculative results on this question—further research should tackle this

issue in depth. Other considerations might be whether the age of children within a

family group dictates what exhibits they visit, what messages remain salient, and how

open the group is to learning about the environment. Any findings on this issue would

be valuable to the Brookfield Zoo and to the greater field of research, especially

considering the current interest in the role of family interaction in education.

� Would the Bog of Habits increase interest in environmentally responsible

behaviors if replicated at other settings? The Bog of Habits was designed to fit into

the context of the Brookfield Zoo and to compliment the Tropic World exhibit’s

message of choices. Although this study shows that the Bog of Habits could be

transferred to other settings, it did not test the effectiveness of the Bog of Habits

outside that context. Further research is needed to discover the feasibility and

effectiveness of replicating the Bog of Habits outside the Brookfield Zoo, as well as to

determine what impact this type of exhibit would have on other audiences, such as

school groups or science museum visitors.

These and other questions can be asked and answered as non-formal education

institutions integrate behavior change exhibits into their educational programs. These programs

will hopefully encourage people to integrate environmental behaviors into their daily lives.

CROSSING THE BOG OF HABITS - U-M SEAS › eplab › research › brookfield › Master... · the...

Documents

Transcript of CROSSING THE BOG OF HABITS - U-M SEAS › eplab › research › brookfield › Master... · the...