snakes, lizards, tortoises?

SNAKES, LIZARDS, TORTOISES? UNDERSTANDING VISTOR PERCEPTIONS AND BEHAVIORS TORWARD DESERT REPTILES

Backman,Cassandra April 30, 2018 Submitted to the Degree of Professional Science Masters in Zoo, Aquarium, Animal Shelter Management Department of Biology

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Professional Science Masters Degree Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 – 1005 Spring 2018

SNAKES, LIZARDS, TORTOISES? UNDERSTANDING VISTOR PERCEPTIONS AND BEHAVIORS TORWARD DESERT REPTILES Cassandra Lee Backman April 30, 2018 Submitted to the Degree of Professional Science Masters in Zoo, Aquarium, Animal Shelter Management Department of Biology

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Professional Science Masters Degree Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 – 1005 Spring 2018

Copyright Cassandra Backman 2018 All Rights Reserved

ABSTRACT Many institutions, like zoos, have conducted visitor perception studies, but time and funding constraints cause many institutions to focus their efforts to their charismatic species. In collaboration with The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (TLD), we sought to understand visitor perceptions of local desert reptiles and their conservation. The TLD’s mission is to promote desert conservation through appreciation, preservation and education. They strive to promote desert conservation through effective messaging. Our aim was to understand visitor perceptions of reptiles and the desert and their understanding of conservation-based behaviors (e.g. leave no trace principles, pesticide uses and concepts around reptiles as pets) that affect desert reptiles through the use of surveys. In addition, we assessed the attractiveness and the holding power of their reptile exhibit and individual animals through the use of observations. We predicted an increase in positive perceptions and behaviors post-exhibit and follow-up. We found that visitors entering the reptile exhibit had a significant increase in positive perceptions post-exhibit. However, the retention of these perceptions did not hold three months after. This indicates visitors of the reptile exhibit have a short-term increase in positive perceptions and behaviors toward reptiles and the desert. Our findings indicate reptiles can promote positive perceptions and conservation-based behavior surrounding species and their habitat. For long-term impact, further evaluations and improvements to the exhibit should be conducted. Institutions in the future should look to promote conservation around reptiles and other less charismatic species to further their mission and conservation efforts.

KEYWORDS Reptiles, Zoo, Visitor Perceptions, Desert, Conservation, Exhibit

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to recognize The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ Director of Animal Programs, RoxAnna Breitigan, Animal Care Manager, Misty Gray, Animal Keeper, Nicole Winters, Volunteer Manager, Justin Carmichael, and devoted special project volunteers: Teri Bratt, Sandra Banner, Lee Fiorina, Diann Heckenlaible, Jan Kubiak, Mary McKay, Diane Munsell David Seifert, Bonnie Smith and Bill Wolf. I would like to thank Jerry Vaske and Julia Sharps for assistance with data analysis. I also would like to recognize the Director of Professional Science Masters in Zoo, Aquariums, Animal Shelter Management, Dr. Jennie Willis, Colorado State University and Boyd Deep Canyon.

iii

DEDICATION I would like to thank my mother, Diane Backman, and my father, Jeff Backman, for their support and for driving my curiosity and exploration that made this project possible. I also would like to thank Mary Mckay and Frank Sterrett for their support in Palm Desert, CA.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................. iii DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iv 1.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Reptiles Perceptions and Conservation................................................................................. 1 1.2 History of Zoos and Conservation Education ...................................................................... 2 1.3 Less Charismatic Species Exhibits and Messaging .............................................................. 2 1.5 Visitor Observations ............................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Institution Background .......................................................................................................... 5 2.

MAIN OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS ............................................................................ 5

3.

METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 7

3.1 Location ................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Exhibit ...................................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Timeline of the Study .............................................................................................................. 7 3.5 Observations ............................................................................................................................ 9 3.6 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 9 4.

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................. 10

5.

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................... 13

6.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................................. 15

7.

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 16

8.1 APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................... 21 8.2 APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................... 22 8.3 APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................................... 25 8.4 APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................................... 28 8.5 APPENDIX E ......................................................................................................................... 29 8.6 APPENDIX F.......................................................................................................................... 30 8.7 APPENDIX G ......................................................................................................................... 34 8.8 APPENDIX H ......................................................................................................................... 35

v

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Reptiles Perceptions and Conservation Reptiles are viewed differently across cultures due to economic use, folklore and public knowledge. In western societies, reptiles phobias are common among individuals (Ali, Javid, Hussain, & Bukhari, 2017; Alves et al., 2014; Ceríaco, 2012). These negative perceptions have contributed to the endangered and threatened status of many reptile species and their habitats. According to IUCN Redlist (2017), about 25% of identified species of reptiles and amphibians are listed as endangered, vulnerable or threatened with another 20% data deficient. Unfortunately, many of these species are a low conservation priority. Ethnoherpetology, the study of reptiles and amphibians and their relation to human society and culture, is an important contributor to species protection and habitat conservation (Alves, Vieira, Gindomar, Vieira, & Montenegro, 2013; Ceríaco, 2012). Negative perceptions toward reptiles are highest toward species that are venomous, contain a unique pattern or are large in size. Women in comparison to men and those of a lower educational level compared to a higher education tended to report a higher fear (Ali, Javid, Hussain and Bukhari, 2017; Alves et al., 2014; Batt, 2009). A decrease in fear was observed among individuals’ with knowledge and the ability to identify local reptile species (Alves et al. , 2014; Ceríaco, 2012; Pandey, Subedi Pandey, Devkota, & Goode, 2016). However, applied educational programs were not found to benefit conservation for all reptiles. This is where ambassador and flagship species can be beneficial for reptiles and their habitat. In order to identify the right species of reptile to use as an ambassador, we need to understand human perceptions first (Alves et al., 2012; Ceríaco, 2012; Mormul, Mormul, Santos, & Santana, 2017). Domestication, aesthetic value, economic use, observed neoteny (‘cute-effect’), cultural significance (religion, folklore, myth, etc.) and perceived sentience (appeal to our emotions) are all characteristics that influence perceptions of species among cultures (Nates Jimenez & Lindemann-Matthies, 2015; Perry-Hill et al., 2014). One characteristics underexplored is the aesthetic value of reptiles and their habitat. For instances, turtles and tortoises (Testudines) are threatened by consumption, pet trade and habitat loss, globally, but tend to be aesthetically valued by humans. This characteristic can make them a useful ambassador and flagship species for education programs and conservation campaigns (Alves, Vieira, Gindomar, Vieira, & Montenegro, 2013; Alves et al., 2014; Batt, 2009). Human perceptions are important since they can influence conservation efforts on a species and ecosystem level (Ali, Javid, Hussain and Bukhari, 2017; Batt, 2009; Ceríaco, 2012). Perceptions about reptiles have shifted to being more positive, specifically among western cultures, in the recent years, but people are still predisposed to negative views (Batt, 2009; Smith, Curtis, & Van Dijk, 2010). Positive attitudes toward turtles have increased in the past 50 years, but other reptiles, like snakes, had little to no change in how they were viewed (George, Slagle, Wilson, Moeller, & Bruskotter, 2016). Conservation efforts for reptiles are difficult because of the complex relationships between reptiles and humans (Alves et al., 2012; Batt, 2009; Hartel, Carlton, & Prokopy, 2015). In order to increase positive perceptions for species and their habitats, more effective educational programs and conservation campaigns that

1

address this relationship are needed. (Alves et al., 2013; Alves et al., 2014; Ceríaco, 2012; Department, 1998; Mormul et al., 2017). 1.2 History of Zoos and Conservation Education Zoos began to shift their purpose from entertainment to being active contributors in conservation and education in the 1970s. Today all zoos’ accredited by American Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) have missions focused around conservation and education (Falk et al., 2007; Smith, Weiler, Smith, & Van Dijk, 2012). Zoos are different from other forms of wildlife tourism, because not all visitors are entering to learn about conservation; some people may be there for an afternoon stroll or see their favorite animal (Beaumont, 2001; Clayton, Fraser, & Saunders, 2009). The presence of the animal performing a natural behavior is found to impact these individuals more effectively then facts alone (Ballantyne et al., 2007; Ward et al, 2006) allowing for free choice learning to occur. Free choice learning happens when visitors come to satisfy an internal need and decide on when, where, what and how they want to learn. Zoo can impact visitors on an individual basis by providing an outlet for free choice learning through strategic exhibits, programs, and campaigns (Lindauer, 2005). Personal context suggests that each visitor falls under one of the five categories: explorer, spiritual pilgrim, facilitator, hobbyist or experience seeker. These categories are based off visitors’ preconceptions, personal agendas, and use of space when onsite. Explorers visit for personal interests. They get the most out of their visit through direct interactions with staff and animals and their use of interpretative elements. Zoos typically design their exhibits around this group. Spiritual pilgrims require a quiet spot to reflect and take in the surroundings, like a bench in a garden or quiet room. Facilitators visit for the social experience and require social interactions with staff and other zoo visitors, but also need that place to regroup and process. Hobbyist are the group more attuned with institutional goals and activities. Experience seekers are the tourists or the locals that value the zoo as a part of the community. They are also the visitors coming in with the least amount of background but the ones leaving with the highest change cognitively and emotionally (Falk et al., 2007). Visitors enter with varied preconceptions of the exhibits and their message (Bitgood, 2002; Falk et al., 2007). In order to inspire conservation conscious individuals, we need to understand the underlying attitudes, beliefs and motives of the visitors to perform desired conservation behaviors. Surveys and observations of visitors at an exhibits can be beneficial for zoos and other educational institutions when assessing their exhibits’ messages. They can assist the zoo in understanding their visitors from the time they enter, to the time they leave, to months after their visit (Ballantyne, Packer, & Hughes, 2009; Devine-Wright & Breakwell, 1997; Ross & Gillespie, 2009; Skibins & Powell, 2013). With this in mind, institutions have worked to understand visitors’ perceptions, but specifically for their charismatic megafauna. 1.3 Less Charismatic Species Exhibits and Messaging Institutions have focused on charismatic megafauna, like apes and elephants (Department, 1998; Hacker & Miller, 2016; Lukas & Ross, 2005; Moss & Esson, 2010). Different institutions have found visitor preference to mammals (Donaldson, 2016). Although reptiles also were highly ranked in institutions, but only if they were larger, more active or

2

labeled as endangered were they preferred among these visitors (Gunnthorsdottir, 2001; Knegtering, Van Der Windt, & Schoot Uiterkamp, 2011; Ward et al, 2006). These identified preferences look broadly at visitors and do not account for individuals and factors influencing their ability to take in a desired message (Carr, 2016; Moss & Esson, 2010; Ross & Gillespie, 2009; Reimer et al., 2014). A well-designed exhibit accounts the personal context of the individual visitor and can make any species charismatic to the general public (Falk et al., 2007). For instance, the brightness of an animal’s habitat can determine the visitor’s connection and reaction to the animal. An exhibit can provide an aesthetic value to the animal or habitat, which can help account for the low anthropomorphic and neoteny characteristics of the species present (Batt, 2009; Breuer, Schlegel, & Rupf, 2015; Fuhrman & Ladewig, 2008). Jellyfish at the Shedd Aquarium were positively viewed, because their enclosure was designed to promote a connection with the visitors by providing a tranquil area to recollect. In addition, it was highly publicized by the aquarium (Skibins and Powell, 2013). However, further research is needed on exhibits focused on less charismatic species to support this finding and the type of visitors to these exhibits (Fuhrman & Ladewig, 2008; Skibins & Powell, 2013; Skibins, Powell, & Hallo, 2013). Hoff and Maple (1982) found that gender affected the timespan a visitor spent in a reptile exhibit and whether they entered at all. Observation found that adult females were significantly less reluctant to enter the exhibit compared to the adult males. They also spent significantly less time in the exhibit. They also identified some differences in age showing that the younger generation were more willing to enter the reptile house. However, this study only focused on two demographics and used simplistic tracking methods (Hoff & Maple,1982). Marcellini & Jenssen (1988), who assessed the National Zoo’s reptile exhibit found significantly high attractiveness for less charismatic species, such as crocodiles and snake species. This study was solely based on observations and further information is needed. Marcellini and Murphy (1998) assessed the Reptile Discovery Center (RDC). They focused mainly on interpretive elements and the programs in the exhibit. They interviewed and tracked visitors and found that interactive exhibits and exhibits focused on social aspects were most affective in changing attitudes. However, this was not the focus of their study and was not described extensively in the published literature. In addition, it was only conducted after small changes were applied with no follow-up surveys or interviews conducted to assess the long-term affect. These exhibits catered to different visitors and were affective in increasing the attractiveness, relaying the desired message, and educating about reptiles (Hoff & Maple,1982; Marcellini & Jenssen, 1988; Marcellini & Murphy, 1998). 1.4 Conceptual Framework and Surveys One way to understand the visitors and the exhibit is by applying current social theories and models to methods and survey design (Bitgood, 2002; George et al., 2016; Hacker & Miller, 2016; Lukas & Ross, 2005). Currently, many institutions are trying to construct a universal manual for assessing the main constructs of knowledge, attitudes, norms, beliefs and behaviors (Falk et al., 2007; Ham & Weiler, 2006). Further assessment of these methods is needed before they can be universalized to all exhibits and programs. Further knowledge of theories that can be applied in a zoo setting is lacking, specifically looking at the effect of the conservation messages. Conservation messaging is an increasing concern for zoos as more and more species are globally threatened. Many are threatened from anthropogenic threats, like habitat loss (IUCN, 3

2017). One avenue to address these threats is through informal education at zoos, but we need to ensure visitors are understanding and implementing the desired conservation message beyond zoo grounds. This is where studies need to utilize different theoretical models (Ardoin, Wheaton, Bowers, Hunt, & Durham, 2015; Powell & Bullock, 2014; Tisdell & Wilson, 2005). A highly utilized model by zoos is The Cognitive Hierarchy Model which states that attitudes build off beliefs which in turn affect behavioral intentions (Vaske & Donnelly, 1999; Perry-Hill et al., 2014). Behavioral intentions are then predictors of behaviors that visitors actually perform (d'Agostino, Loomis, & Webb, 1992; Saunders, 2003; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999). Attitudes are defined as a favorable or unfavorable evaluation of an entity, like a species or group of species. Beliefs, also known as value orientations, is the pattern or intensity of thoughts about a specific subject or issue, like reptiles being important to the desert. Behaviors, in this case reported behaviors or behavioral intentions, are individual likelihood of performing a set action or action step, like leave no trace when hiking (Vaske, 2008). Past studies in zoos have found that an increase in knowledge about a species is correlated with positive attitudes and an increase in behavioral intentions (George et al., 2016; Hacker & Miller, 2016; Lukas & Ross, 2005; Smith, Broad, & Weiler, 2008). However, knowledge alone has not been found to have a cognitive influence on behaviors. In addition, these studies only assessed post-exhibit or post-program attitudes or behaviors (Ham & Weiler; Powell, 2014; Skibins & Powell, 2013; Skibins et al., 2013). Studies have identified the need for visitors to reflect upon new knowledge and an experience before a change in attitudes can be identified (Ardoin, Wheaton, Bowers, Hunt, & Durham, 2015; Ballantyne & J.F., 2011; Beaumont, 2001). However, many zoos still focus on that short-term impact (Bowler, Buchanan-Smith, & Whiten, 2012). The general ecotourism industry has assessed long-term and found that visitors, who had an initiative to learn more onsite tended to report more behaviors offsite. Therefore, it is supported that initial pre and post assessments alone will not tell us how the visitor may change their behavior and perceptions beyond the experience (Beaumont, 2001; Reimer et al., 2014). To assess the exhibit’s effect on visitors’ behavior, a follow-up months later with the visitor is needed (Ballatyne et al., 2009; Bruni, Fraser, & Schultz, 2008; Hackers & Miller, 2016). 1.5 Visitor Observations Understanding our visitors before and after their experience is important, but it is also beneficial to understand the visitors during their experience and how they interact with the exhibit (Devine-Wright & Breakwell, 1997). Studies are finding that onsite conservation behaviors and the features, like enrichment items, enclosure size, interactive elements and signage, in an exhibit can influence whether visitors’ perceptions change and whether they perform the desired behaviors offsite. Therefore, tracking and recording observations of visitors’ behaviors in an exhibit can inform an institution of needs to focus on in its exhibit (Lindauer, 2005; Marcellini & Jenssen, 1988). Observations can inform an institution about the design, the species and the learning tools in the exhibit. Attractiveness is the divided number of visitors at an element by number of visitors that entered the overall exhibit or the percentage of visitors that approached the element. Holding power is the total time a visitor is at an element divided by total time the visitor spent in the exhibit or the average amount of time visitors spent at a set element in the exhibit (Bowler et al. 2012; Lindauer, 2005; Moss & Esson, 2010). A factor that was found to increase the attractiveness and holding power of an exhibit at other institutions was the 4

activity level of the animal(s) (Carr, 2016; Hacker &Miller, 2016; Moss & Esson, 2010; Ward et al, 2006). In addition, observation-based methods can be used to assess how the conservation message is being received and why. It was also found that by combining the observational data with the survey data it increases the institution’s knowledge about how the visitor perceptions and behavioral change throughout the experience (Devine-Wright & Breakwell,1997; Falk et al., 2007; Ham & Weiler, 2006). 1.6 Institution Background The Living Desert and Gardens (TLD) is unique among institutions, because they are located on 200 acres of protected desert ecosystem. It was established by trustees of the Palm Desert Museum as a protected area of Sonoran Desert where visitors could learn about the local ecosystem. Since then it has grown into a zoo and garden with extensive hiking trails. Their conservation efforts span from local to also international desert fauna and flora. Their mission focuses on promoting desert conservation through appreciation, preservation and education. They promote education and appreciation for the desert through onsite and offsite programs and immersive exhibits. They strive to promote a strong conservation message with these three goals: (1) They want all their visitors to walk away with positive attitudes about desert fauna and flora, (2) They want all their visitors to have positive beliefs about desert fauna and flora, and (3) They want all their visitors to gain knowledge about behaviors they can perform onsite and offsite to help protect the desert ecosystem. Based on the zoo’s past assessments, they found that many of their new exhibits relay this message (Misty Gray & RoxAnna Breitigan, personal communication, March 15, 2017). However, little was known about their older areas, like the reptile exhibit. Reptile Exhibit The reptile exhibit was designed when the zoo first opened and it is one of the first exhibits visitors see when they walk in (See Appendix A for Zoo Map). Additions were made over time, including a TV and new tanks. Otherwise, the design has stayed consistent since it was first constructed. This includes exhibit’s lighting, walls, artwork and signs (See Appendix B for Images of Exhibit). The zoo lacked knowledge about the strength of the desired message in the exhibit, how much it aligned with the zoo’s mission, and the overall effect the exhibit had on visitors. We assessed the effect of a reptile exhibit on visitors’ perceptions. Perceptions being positive attitudes about reptiles, like lizards, snakes and tortoises, and the beliefs that these reptiles benefit the desert ecosystem. In addition, we assessed visitors reported behaviors that they could be perform inside and outside the zoo grounds to help protect reptiles. These behaviors were (1) to practice the leave no trace (LNT) principles, (2) to reduce their pesticide use and, (3) to not support the pet trade. TLD’s purpose for the exhibit was to promote preservation, education and appreciation of desert reptiles among visitors and further its mission throughout the institution. 2. MAIN OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS There is little current literature on the evaluation of less charismatic species’ exhibits and programs, specifically with reptiles (Department, 1998; Moss & Esson, 2010; Lukas & Ross, 5

2005; Marcellini & Jenssen, 1988; Phillpot, 1996). In this study, we used surveys to evaluate the visitors of The Living Desert Zoo and Garden’s reptile exhibit in relation to their perceptions and conservation–based behaviors. These were our four main questions and hypotheses: (1) What are visitors’ attitudes, beliefs and reported conservation-based behaviors entering, leaving and months after their visit? Did it positively change and was that positive gain retained? H1: It was hypothesized that attitudes, beliefs and reported behaviors would positively increase and be retained months after visiting the reptile exhibit at The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens. (2) Did the exhibit increase the number of positive descriptions of the desert post-exhibit and follow-up H2: It was hypothesized that there would be an increase in positive descriptions of the desert. (3) Are there any reptile species in the exhibit that have a stronger attraction and holding power? H3: It was hypothesized that the desert tortoise would have the strongest attraction and holding power based on the species being well-known in the area and it being endangered in California. (4) Does activity level of the animal affect time spent at the animal? H4: It was hypothesized that activity level of the animal, whether it was feeding, using enrichment or combination of the three would increase the time spent at the animal and the overall exhibit. Our overall objectives were to understand the short-term and long – term effects desert reptiles and a reptile focused exhibit can have on shifting visitors’ attitudes, beliefs and conservation – based behaviors toward reptiles and the desert.

6

3. METHODS Survey and observation methodologies were developed based on Ham and Weiler (2006) and Vaske (2008). Colorado State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved all surveys and observation methodologies. 3.1 Location The Living Desert and Botanical Gardens is 200 acres located between two prime desert habitats, Sonoran Desert and Mojave Desert. It is both a zoo and botanical gardens with multiple gardens, exhibits and hiking trails located across the site. All species are desert fauna and flora from North America and Africa. Their conservation efforts are in situ and ex situ. We will be focusing on ex situ efforts, specifically, in their reptile exhibit located in the McManus Building at 47900 Portola Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 (Appendix A). 3.2 Exhibit The reptile exhibit is located at the entrance of the zoo. There are two doors with one entrance and one exit. The reptile enclosures run along both sides of a hallway. There is signage that supplies common name, scientific name, and information about the species (diet, range, adaptations, etc.) (Appendix B) Reptilian Species in the Exhibit • • • • • • • • • • • •

Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii): Hatchling and Juvenile in separate habitats Southern Pacific Rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus helleri) Desert Iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis) California Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula californiae) Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer) Bull Snake (Pituophis catenifer sayi) Western Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) Speckled Rattlesnake (Crotalus mitchelli) Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum) Sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes) Panamint Rattlesnake (Crotalus stephensi) Red Diamond Rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber)

3.3 Timeline of the Study A two-day pilot study was conducted in March to test the validity and reliability of survey questions. The study spanned the months of May and June. This time span included both on season (October to May) and off season (June to September) for the zoo. Between the months of August and October, a follow-up surveys were sent out to the visitors that provided an e-mail. One reminder was submitted a week in advance and three post reminders were sent at 2-week intervals if no response was given.

7

3.4 Surveys Prior to survey development, the desired constructs and questions were identified by zoo staff based on the desired message. Questions and constructs were adapted based on Hacker & Miller (2013) with guidance from Ham and Weiler (2006) and Vaske (2008). A pilot study was conducted to test validity and reliability. Finals surveys consist of three groups of constructs including attitudes (3 questions), beliefs (5 questions) and reported behaviors for surveys (9 questions). All questions used a Likert scale of 1-7. Visitors’ attitude about snakes, lizard and tortoises were measured as 1, Very Negative, to 7, Very Positive (Table 1). Beliefs about reptile diversity and importance to the desert were measured as 1, Strongly Disagree, to 7, Strongly Agree (Table 2). Reported Behaviors about Leave No Trace © (LNT) behaviors, pesticide use, handling and removal of reptiles from the wild were measured as 1, Not At All, to 7, All the Time (Table 3). Pre and Post-exhibit Survey Onsite surveys were conducted using a paper and pencil and were manually entered into a secured Excel file. Surveys were conducted between the hours of 8-12:30 during off-season and 8-12:00 and 13:00-16:00 during on-season. Times and days of the week were randomly generated for survey collection. Data collection happened for 4 hours a day for 6 days a week. Each of the surveys took on average 3-5 minutes. Adult visitors were counted via a manual counter upon entering exhibit whether they took the survey or not. The surveys were distributed by a team of 13 volunteers or myself at the entrance and at the exit. Every third visitors that was over 18 years old was approached with a set dialogue at the entrance to the exhibit. All dialogues were set using Colorado State University IRB approved language (See Appendix C for dialogue). Incentive was provided at the entrance of the exhibit. The incentive was a Guardians of the Desert © bracelet. If they chose not to participate the next visitor was picked. If they chose to participate, they were handed the pre-exhibit survey or were read the questions due to physical disabilities (See Appendix D for survey). If they were read the survey, this was noted by surveyor. Upon exiting they were asked to fill out a post-exhibit survey. The post-exhibit survey had the same questions but in future tense. It also included the questions of what reptiles they want to learn more about and general demographic information (age, education, gender, how often they visit the zoo and reason for visit) (See Appendix E for survey). The visitors supplied their e-mail for a follow-up survey on both pre- and post-surveys and this was also used to match surveys. If they chose not to supply an e-mail, we did not use them in the follow-up analysis, but did mark and staple their pre- and post-survey for short-term analysis. Time and date was entered on both surveys to document the time the visitor entered and exited the exhibit. The time spent in exhibit was used to assess attractiveness of the overall exhibit and to see if there was a relationship between survey responses and time spent in exhibit. Attractiveness was measured by the average total time in the exhibit in seconds and the average number of people per day. Follow-up Survey The follow-up survey was conducted using the visitors’ provided e-mails via survey software, Qualtrics ©. The follow-up survey was the same questions as the pre- and post-exhibit surveys, but in past tense. It also included two additional questions: Did they visit the zoo in the

8

past 3 months and If yes, did they visit the reptile house? The survey took on average 3-5 minutes to complete (See Appendix F for survey). 3.5 Observations Observations were adapted from Marcellini and Jenssen (1988), Ross and Gillespie (2009), and Serrell (1997). A trained volunteer or I conducted the observations. Interrelater reliability was conducted between myself and two trained volunteers. Interrater reliability was conducted via a demo video of personnel moving around at random in the exhibit (>.65, substantial reliability) (Lindauer, 2005). Every third visitor that appeared to be over the age of 18 years old was chosen to be observed in the exhibit. The visitor observed did not take the survey to reduce sample bias in the observation or in the surveyor. Focal continuous sampling was conducted. The observer recorded the time the visitor entered the exhibit and exited the exhibit. They also recorded the size of group with the visitor or if they are solitary. The observer assessed the time spent engaged at each enclosure using a data sheet and a digital stop watch (See Appendix G for observation sheet). Engagement was defined as being within a foot of the enclosure and staring directly at the enclosure. The visitor was considered not engaged if texting, talking on the phone or having both ear buds in. Taking pictures with their phone was still considered being engaged. If they turned greater than 90 degrees for any point in time, they would no longer be counted as engaged with that exhibit or element. Activity level of that species was recorded as High or Low. In addition, the use of enrichment and whether they were feeding was also noted with a Yes or No in the designated column for each species. The observer also recorded phrases that they heard visitors state in a comment column next to each species’ or elements’ row. 3.6 Data Analysis Analysis was conducted via SSPS 25 Mac OS Version. Questions validity was tested using Pearson’s Product Moment relation correlation (df = 15, r > 0.606) and reliability was tested using Cronbach's Alpha (α > 0.65) (Vaske, 2008) (Table 4). Response rate was calculated for both pre- and post-exhibit surveys (467, 82%) along with the follow-up survey (50, 16%). Attraction power of the exhibit in relation to the entire zoo was calculated by the estimated number of adult visitors to the exhibit divided by the entire zoos’ adult visitor numbers for that day. The number of adult visitors were separated by on and off season and a nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was run to identify any difference between visitors’ responses on- and offseason. Demographic ANCOVA was conducted to analyze significant differences between post-exhibit survey responses based on pre-exhibit survey responses among the five age classes (18-30, 40-42, 4254, 54-66, 66+), the two genders (female and male) and the four levels of education (elementary, high school, bachelors, graduate). In addition, an ANCOVA was run to test for differences between post-exhibit survey responses based on pre-exhibit survey responses against whether they wanted to learn more about reptiles, reason for visit (vacation, animals, events, other) and how often they been to the zoo (first time, 2-3 times, 4-5 times, 6+ times). Individual Wilcoxon signed ranked tests for age classes, education levels, gender identification, desire to learn more 9

about reptiles, reason for visit, and how often they visited the zoo were found to be robust and similar enough to account for normality violation with data upon comparison with ANCOVA results. All other assumptions were met for these tests (Vaske, 2008). Descriptives The percentage of visitors that have been to the zoo but not the exhibit or been to the exhibit before was calculated. The percentage of visitors of each age class (18-30, 40-42, 42-54, 54-66, 66+), genders (female and male) and education (elementary, high school, bachelors, graduate) were also calculated. Species or groups of species were ranked based on visitors’ desire to learn about them. For both pre, post and follow-up surveys the single word descriptions of the desert were categorized and ranked numerically. They were generally grouped as positive, negative and neutral. In addition, the words were categorized as positive aesthetic and negative aesthetic. Each category was compared pre, post and follow up using a one-way ANOVA. Pre, Post and Follow-up Survey Constructs of attitudes, beliefs and reported behaviors were compared between pre-, postexhibit and follow-up using a nonparametric Freidman’s test due to the assumption of normality being violated and transformation not possible. A post hoc analysis was conducted using a Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with a Bonferroni correction of 0.017. Spearman rho’s (rs) correlation was used to assess any relationship between the post-exhibit survey responses and time spent in the exhibit. Spearman rho’s correlation also was used to assess any relationship between the follow-up survey responses and time spent in the exhibit. Observations Attraction power was calculated as the number of people that observed an animal divided by the total number of visitors to the exhibit. Holding power was calculated as the average time visitor spent at an animal divided by the total time in the exhibit (Bowler et al., 2012; Lindauer, 2005). Animals and elements were ranked by their holding power and attraction power. Spearman rho’s (rs) correlation was used to assess any relationship between the holding and attraction power. One-way ANOVA was run for each independent animal to identify if activity level had any effect on the time spent at the animal. One-way ANOVA was run to see if the total time in exhibit was affected by group size (solitary, small (2-4), medium (5-7), large (8+)). Data was positively skewed but upon trimming for less than 1% of data outliers, skewness was within acceptable range (-1 to 1). Both assumption of normality and outliers were accounted for through normality and outlier analysis (Vaske, 2008). 4. RESULTS 4.1 Reptile Exhibit Peak hours were 11 am to 12 pm during both on- and off- season. Average time in the exhibit was 396 seconds (6.5 minutes). Attraction power of the entire exhibit was 33%. The percentage of visitors that had been to the exhibit before was 44% with 20% been there 2-3 times, 5.5% been there 4-5 times and 18% been there 6+ times. The percentage of first time

10

visitors to the exhibit was 56% and 58% of those visitors have been to the zoo but never the exhibit. 4.2 Demographic For age classes: 24% of visitors were 18-30, 37% of visitors were 31-42, 18% of visitors were 43-54, 14% of visitors were 54-66, and 6.7% of visitor were 66+ that completed the survey upon entrance of the reptile exhibit. There were no difference among post-exhibit responses based on pre-exhibit responses for attitudes, beliefs, and reported behaviors toward reptiles. The adults that entered the exhibit were 64% females and 36% males. There were no identified difference in attitudes or reported behaviors between genders, but females had weaker beliefs about desert reptiles (F = 3.439, p < 0.05). The percentage of adult visitors to the exhibit that had only an elementary education level were less than 1%, had only a high school education level were 20%, had a bachelor’s degree were 44% and had a graduate degree were 35%. There was no identified difference in attitudes or reported behaviors between education levels. Visitors with a high school education level had a stronger belief about reptiles’ importance to the desert and their behaviors effecting reptiles in the desert compared to graduate levels (F = 3.439, p